Dubrovnik, Italy, and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages

Dubrovnik,Italy and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages Barisa Krekic Dubrovnik,Italy and the Balkans in the Late Mid...

Author: Bariša Krekić

232 downloads 1812 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Dubrovnik,Italy and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages

Barisa Krekic

Dubrovnik,Italy and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1980

British Library CIP data

Krekic, Barisa Dubrovnik, Italy and the Balkans in the late Middle Ages. — (Collected studies series; CS125). 1. Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia — Foreign relations I. Title II. Series 301.29'497'2 DB879.R2 ISBN 0-86078-070-8

Copyright © 1980 by

Variorum Reprints

Published in Great Britain by

Variorum Reprints 20 Pembridge Mews London W11 3EQ

Printed in Great Britain by

Galliard (Printers) Ltd Great Yarmouth Norfolk VARIORUM REPRINT CS125

CONTENTS

Foreword

i—ii

DUBROVNIK AND ITALY

I

Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century

25-41

The Medieval City, ed.H.A.Miskimin, D.Herlihy and A. L. Udovitch. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1977 II

Trois fragments concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik (Raguse) et l'Italie au XlVe siècle

19-35

Godilnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu IX. Novi Sad, 1966 III

La Puglia tra Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e il Levante nell'epoca angioina

63—69

Quaderni dell'Archivio storico pugliese, no. 7 (= Archivio storico pugliese XIV, f . III-IV, 1961, pp. 173-179). Bari, 1962 IV

Le relazioni fra Venezia, Ragusa e le popolazioni serbo-croate Venezia e il Levante fino al sec. XV, vol. 1. Olschki, Florence, 1973

389—401

V

VI

Un mercante e diplomatico da Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a Venezia nel Trecento Studi veneziani, IX. Florence, 1967 Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the War of Tenedos/Chioggia (1378-1381)

71 — 101

1-34

Variorum Reprints, London, 2950 o/ Zbornik rado va Vizantoloìkog instituta V(pp. 21-47). Belgrade, 1958 VII

Contributo allo studio degli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398)

379-394

Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis, vol.II. Giannini, Naples, 1978 VIII

Italian Creditors in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Balkan Trade, Thirteenth through Fifteenth Centuries

241-254

The Dawn of Modern Banking: Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1979 IX

I mercanti e produttori toscani di panni di lana a Dubrovnik (Ragusa) nella prima metà del Quattrocento

707-714

Produzione, commercio e consumo dei panni di lana, Atti della "Seconda Settimana di Studio Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica "F. Datini, " Prato. Florence, 19 76 X

Ragusa e gli Aragonesi verso la metà del XV secolo Rivista Storica del Mezzogiorno, a.I, f.I-II. Lecce, 1966

205-219

DUBROVNIK, THE BALKANS AND THE LEVANT

XI

XII

Courier Traffic between Dubrovnik, Constantinople and Thessalonika in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century Variorum Reprints, London, 1980. Trans. ofZbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta I (pp. 113-120). Belgrade, 1952 La Serbie entre Byzance et l'Occident au XlVe siècle

1-8

62-65

The Proceedings of the XlIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, ed. J.M.Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman. Oxford University Pressf Oxford, 1967 XIII

Crime and Violence in the Venetian Levant: A Few XlVth Century Cases

123-129

Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta XVI. Belgrade, 1975 XIV

Venetian Merchants in the Balkan Hinterland in the Fourteenth Century

413—429

Wirtschaftskrafte und Wirtschaftswege, vol.1: Mittelmeer und Kontinent; Festschrift fur Hermann Kellenbenz. Beitrage zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte 4. Nuremberg7 1978 XV

A Note on the Economic Activities of Some Greeks in the Latin Levant towards the End of the XlVth Century Studi veneziani IX. Florence, 1967

187-191

XVI

Contribution à l'étude des Asanès à Byzance

347-355

Travaux et Mémoires 5. Paris, 1973 XVII

Dubrovnik's Participation in the War against the Ottomans in 1443 and 1444

1-17

Variorum Reprints, London, 1980 Trans, of Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta II (pp. 145-158). Belgrade, 1953 XVIII

Contribution to the Study of the Pronoia in Medieval Serbia

1 —9

Variorum Reprints, London, 1980 Trans, of Zbornik radova Vizantololkog instituta VIII(pp. 227-234). Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky II. Belgrade, 1964

DUBROVNIK - INTERNAL HISTORY

XIX

Contributions of Foreigners to Dubrovnik's Economic Growth in the Late Middle Ages

375-394

Viator 9. Berkeley /Los Angeles, 1976 XX

Quelques remarques sur la politique et l'économie de Dubrovnik (Raguse) au XVe siècle Mélanges en l'honneur de Fernand Braudel, vol. I, Histoire économique du monde méditerranéen 1450-1650. Privât, Toulouse, 1973

311-316

XXI

The Role of the Jews in Dubrovnik (Thirteenth-Sixteenth Centuries) Viator 4. Berkeley /Los Angeles, 1973

257-271

1-14

Index

This volume contains a total of 332 pages

FOREWORD The city-republic of Dubrovnik,1 with its unique setting on the eastern coast of the Adriatic sea, at the junction of important naval routes and continental roads, played a major role in the economic and political history of the area in the late Middle Ages. Fortunately, the record of this lively activity has survived from 1278 on in the rich Historical Archives of Dubrovnik, which provide a treasure of information on the life of the city itself and on its relations with other parts of the contemporary world. In this volume, I have collected three groups of articles, dealing with various aspects of Dubrovnik's relations with Italy, the Balkans and the Levant and with its internal development. In addition to the articles published originally in Western languages, I have translated into English four articles published a long time ago in Serbo-Croatian and I have, in part, updated thèir bibliography (nos. VI, XI, XVII, XVIII). I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the periodicals, publishers and editors who graciously granted permission to reproduce the following articles: Vizantoloski institut Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, Belgrade, Yugoslavia (articles VI, XI, XIII, XVII, XVIII); Leo S. Olschki, Florence, Italy (articles IV, V, IX, XV); University of California Press, Berkeley, California (articles XIX, XXI); Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut (articles I, VIII); Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia (article II); Archivio storico pugliese, Bari, Italy (article III); Giannini Editore, Naples, Italy (article VII); Rivista storica del Mezzogiorno, Lecce, Italy (article X); Oxford University Press, Oxford, England (article XII); Beitrâge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Klett-Cotta, Niirnberg, Germany (article XIV); Travaux et Mémoires, Paris, France (article XVI); Edouard Privât Editeur, Toulouse, France (article XX).

ii My warm thanks go to my friend and colleague, Professor Speros Vryonis, Jr., of the University of California at Los Angeles for suggesting the publication of this volume, to Mrs Eileen Turner for accepting the idea and including the book in the prestigious Variorum Reprints series, and to Mr John Smedley, of the Variorum publishing house for his patience and help with the preparation of this volume. I also wish to express my special gratitude to Dr Betty Messenger, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, who edited my English translation of the four articles with greatest skill and care, and to Dr Zdravko àundrica, of the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik, who gave generously of his time and energy to check archival documents for me. Finally, I cannot help mentioning here the names of four of my teachers, the late Professors George Ostrogorsky and Jorjo Tadié, of the University of Belgrade, and Professors Paul Lemerle and Fernand Braudel, of the Collège de France. Without their great wisdom, generous help and warm kindness these articles would never have been written. BARISA KREKIC

Los Angeles, April 1980

1

It might be useful to note here that the Slavic name of the city, Dubrovnik, appeared for the first time in the late twelfth century. However, the Latin form of the name, Ragusium, and the Italian one, Ragusa, survived in official use until the nineteenth century. In this volume the name "Ragusans" for citizens of Dubrovnik and the adjective "Ragusan" will be used for reasons of convenience.

DUBROVNIK AND ITALY

I

Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century

T h e history of the four great Florentine commercial companies—Bardi, Peruzzi, Acciaiuoli, and Buonaccorsi—is fairly well known and their activities in various parts of Italy and Europe have been rather thoroughly examined. 1 Still, one area close to Italy herself has been neglected. T h a t is the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and, more particularly, the most active and important commercial center on that shore—Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik's role as intermediary between the Balkans and the West in the late Middle Ages was bound to attract the Florentines. Nevertheless, their presence in that city has been hardly touched upon in scholarly research and publications. 2 This article obviously is not designed to trace a complete picture of the Florentine presence in Dubrovnik or of Florentino-Ragusan relations. Instead, it attempts to outline the role of the Bardis, Peruzzis, Acciaiuolis, and Buonaccorsis in Dubrovnik on the basis of available Ragusan archival materials. Dubrovnik in the first half of the fourteenth century was under Venetian protection, but it possessed internal autonomy and a large degree of freedom to maneuver in international affairs. It was in a stage of rapid economic growth and social and political consolidation. T h e economic 1. See, for e x a m p l e , R. Davidsohn.S/oriai/i Firenze (Florence: Sansoni, 1965), I V / 2 , 3 4 7 - 4 0 7 . A. Sapori, La crisi delle compagnie mercantili dei Bardi e dei Peruzzi (Florence : Olschki, 1926) ; A. Sapori, Studi di storia economica (secoli XIII,

XIV, XV),

vol. II (Florence: Sansoni, 1955). Y. *lenouard, " F l o r e n c e a u temps d e

L a u r e n t le M a g n i f i q u e " , "Affaires et culture à Florence au X I V e et au XV* siècle", " L e c o m p a g n i e commerciali fiorentine del T r e c e n t o " , Etudes d'histoire médiévale (Paris: S . E . V . P . E . N . , 1968), pp. 4 5 2 - 5 3 , 483-96,511-45. 2. Yugoslav historians have m a d e only passing references to the Florentines a n d their c o m p a n i e s in their works dealing with thirteenth to fifteenth century R a g u s a n history. See B. Krekic, " T r o i s f r a g m e n t s c o n c e r n a n t les relations e n t r e D u b r o v n i k (Raguse) et l'Italie au X I V * siècle", GodiSnjak Filozo/skog Jakulteta u Movom Sa du 9 (1966), pp. 2 7 - 3 1 , 3 4 - 3 5 . Davidsoho, Storia di Firenze, IV/2, 7 7 4 - 7 8 , has touched upon the Adriatic area, but only briefly and incompletely.

I 26 expansion was the result of maritime trade and, more importantly, of the Ragusan role in the exploitation of mines in Serbia, beginning in midthirteenth century, and in Bosnia somewhat later. (Both areas yielded silver, copper, iron, lead, and so forth). T h e Ragusans managed from the outset to make themselves indispensable as entrepreneurs and intermediaries in the transport and marketing of the Balkan minerals in the West, chiefly through Venice. 3 T h e booming economic activity in Dubrovnik and the multiple opportunities it offered attracted numerous foreigners. Apart from the Slavs from the Balkan hinterland and from Dalmatia, m a n y Italians also came to Dubrovnik, principally from Venice. T h e Florentines and their commercial companies began showing interest in Dubrovnik in the second decade of the fourteenth century. T h e activities of the Florentine companies were largely connected with the imports of cereals from southern Italy into Dubrovnik. Built in an arid and agriculturally poor area, the city constantly needed to import grains. Southern Italy, along with the Levant, was a vital source of these provisions. 4 T h e earliest mention of Florentine companies in Dubrovnik is connected with those imports: in May of 1318, "Feus Leonis, procurator Butini Benciuenni de societate Bardorum, Philippi Bagnesis de societate de Peruççis et Bertini Andree de societate Aççaraliorum" sold to Dubrovnik a quantity of southern Italian barley. 5 As a representative of the Peruzzis, Feus also had to defend in the Ragusan court his right to dispose of a house in the city. T h e Ragusan patrician Petrus de Pabora alleged 3. O n m i n i n g in the Balkans see M . Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbijiji Borni, 2 vols. (Belgrade: Srpska a k a d e m i j a n a u k a i umetnosti, 1955, 1962). D. Kovacevic, " D a n s la Serbie et la Bosnie médiévales: les mines d ' o r et d ' a r g e n t " , Annales, Economies-Sociétés-Civilisations ( M à r c h - A p r i l 1960), pp. 2 4 8 - 5 8 . O n D u b r o v n i k ' s general development a n d position at this time see B. Krekic, Dubrovnik in the 14th and J 5th Centuries: A City between East and West ( N o r m a n : University of O k l a h o m a Press, 1972). 4. O n R a g u s a n n o u r i s h m e n t a n d cereal t r a d e see R. J e r e m i c and J . T a d i c , Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika (Belgrade: Biblioteka Centralnog higijenskog zavoda, 1938), I, 2 7 - 3 5 . D. DinicKnezevic, " T r g o v i n a zitom u D u b r o v n i k u u X I V v e k u " , Godiinjak Filozofskog fakulteta u JSfovom Sadu 10 (1967), 7 9 - 1 3 1 ; Dinic-Knezevic, " P r o m e t zitarica i z m e d j u D u b r o v n i k a i zaledja u srednjem v e k u " , Godiinjak Filozofskog fakulteta

12j\ (1969), 7 3 - 8 7 . O n the i m p o r t a n c e of southern Italy a n d its grain for

the Florentine c o m p a n i e s see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 , 5 1 5 - 2 1 , 7 9 7 - 9 8 ; also G. Yver, Le commerce et les marchands dans Vltalie méridionale au XIIIe

et XIVe siècle, (Paris: A. Fontemoing, 1903), pp. 107-26,

137-39. 5. Historijski arhiv u D u b r o v n i k u [Historical Archives in D u b r o v n i k ] (hereafter cited as H A D ) , Diversa notariae (hereafter cited as Div. not.), vol. I l l , ff. 2V, 5 7 - 5 7 v . Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " , p. 83. O n Philippus Bagnesi in southern Italy see R . Davidsohn, Forschungen zur Geschichte von Florenz (Berlin : E. S. Mittler u. S o h n , 1901) ( T u r i n : Bottega d ' E r a s m o , 1964), I I I , 155, 156, 174. O n the Bagnesi family see G. A. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society 1343-1378

(Princeton, N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 43. O n

Bertinus A n d r e e in southern Italy see Davidsohn, Forschungen, p. 151. O n Butinus Bencivenni see Davidsohn, Forschungen, I I I , 181; also Sapori, Crisi, p. 260; Sapori, Studi, I I , 736: " t e n n e la 'ragion' di Barletta dal 1318 al 1319." O n the family, see L. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 68.

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

27

that the house "et omnia bona dicte societatis" (i.e., Peruzzi) were bound to him 4 'pro certo naulo unius navis quod recipere debet a Donato, filio Giocti de Peruççis de Florentia." Nevertheless, the court decided in favor of Feus, and he sold the house for 1,200 Ragusan hyperpers. 6 Later on, however, he had to give this money to the representative of two Venetians who "vigore j u r i u m et actionum quas . . . habent a sociis de societate de Peruççis" had a prior right to the Pabora estate. T h e Pabora family was at the time in deep financial trouble, not only in Dubrovnik but also in Venice, and with the Peruzzi company. 7 As for Feus, he remained for a while in Dubrovnik and transacted business, sometimes as a Peruzzi representative, 8 sometimes as an agent of the Bardis, 9 and at times on his own. 10 Sometime between J u n e and October of 1319 Andreas del Seno took over as the new representative of the Peruzzis in Dubrovnik. 1 1 His work was again related to the tribulations of the unlucky Pabora family. Indeed, Del Seno protested still another sale of the Pabora possessions by their Venetian creditors. 12 T h e Paboras owed at this time a total of 305 "librarum venetarum grossarum" to the Peruzzis, and in November of 1319 all the documents pertaining to these debts, previously deposited in the Ragusan chancellery, were given "ex iure eis cesso a sociis societatis de Peruççis de Florentia" to the representatives of Paboras' Venetian creditors "qui habent j u r a et actiones a sociis dictarum societatum (i.e., Peruzzi) pro dictis debitis." T h e Venetian creditors collected the debts from the Paboras by selling their properties in Dubrovnik in 1319 and 1320. 13 Andreas del Seno meantime had developed businesses of his own, 1 4 but failure to pay his debts forced him to leave Dubrovnik in 1322. 15

6. Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 5. 7. Ibid., ff. 2 9 9 v - 3 0 0 . Feus is called " p r o c u r a t o r sociorum m e r c a t o r u m

florentinorum

de societate

P e r u ç ç o r u m de Florentia cui dicitur societas T o m a x i i de Peruççis." A n o t h e r d o c u m e n t p e r t a i n i n g to the same g r o u p is Div. not, vol. I l l , f. 26. An a t t e m p t by the P a b o r a s in 1318 to pay off their debts to the Peruzzis by selling a house in D u b r o v n i k : Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 7 V . O n the P a b o r a family see I. M a h n k e n , Dubrovackipatricijat

u XIV veku (Belgrade: Srpska a k a d e m i j a n a u k a i umetnosti, 1960), I, 3 5 2 - 5 3 .

8. Div. not., vol. I l l , ff. 26 v , 315 b i s . 9. Ibid., ff. 49 v , 75. 10. I b i d , ff. 4 1 \ 149 v . 11. Del Seno b o u g h t himself a vineyard a n d a lot near D u b r o v n i k in J u n e 1319. I n O c t o b e r of the s a m e year he is listed a m o n g the witnesses for the p a y m e n t of the a n n u a l R a g u s a n tribute to the S e r b i a n King. I b i d , ff. 314 b i s , 157 v , 207 v . 12. I b i d , f. 326. 13. I b i d , ff. 218, 230, 231 v , 255, 336. H A D , Diversa cancellariae (hereafter cited as Div. canc.) vol. V I , ff. 61 v - 6 2 v . 14. Div. not., vol. I l l , ff. 234 v , 247 v , 248 v , 253. Div. canc., vol. V I , ff. 33 v , 92, 100 v , 108 v , 114 v . Del Seno had money invested in credits to R a g u s a n s a n d m a i n t a i n e d contacts with southern Italy. Div. canc., vol. V I , ff. 88 v , 89, 90, 126, 130, 131. Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 78. 15. Div. canc., vol. V I , ff. 193 v , 194.

I 28 I n addition to the Peruzzis, members of the Acciaiuoli company from southern Italy, Bertinus Andree and Phylippus Ridolfi, had their agents in Dubrovnik. In 1318 it was "Heliseus Johannis de Florentia" who arranged a sale of wheat, 1 6 and next year a new agent, Tadeus Ricci, took over, acting for "Bertinus Andree et Bencius Johannis . . . socii, mercatores de societate Açaralorum de Florentia Baroli commorantes" in another sale of wheat. 1 7 In the spring of 1320 Ricci sold to the Ragusan government part of the wheat and barley bought by the Venetian representative from the Acciaiuoli associates in Barletta. 18 T h e failure of Andreas del Seno prompted the Peruzzi associates from southern Italy to send to Dubrovnik "Gregorius Johannis de Florentia" in April 1322, and he immediately engaged in the sale of cereals to the city. 19 T h e Bardis, however, had a much stronger representative in Dubrovnik in 1323-24 in the person of "Duccius Puccii de Florentia." 2 0 He dealt in financial transactions between Barletta, Dubrovnik, and Venice 21 and in the sale of cereals from southern Italy to Dubrovnik. 2 2 T h e transfer of money from Dubrovnik to the Bardi associates in Venice became a more frequent occurrence at this time and was not always connected with the company's south Italian members. Thus in 1324, in addition to Pucci, the 16. Div. not., vol. I l l , ff. 40, 40 v . Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " , p. 84. Heliseus r e m a i n e d in D u b r o v n i k as a representative of the Acciaiuolis at least until M a y 1319. Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 41. O n Phylippus Ridolfi in southern Italy see Davidsohn, Forschungen, I I I , 133, 135. O n the Ridolfi family see also Brucker, Florentine Politics, p p . 125, 203. L. Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists (Princeton, N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 60, 63, 113. 17. Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 200. O n Bencius J o h a n n i s in Southern Italy in 1318 see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 151, 156. O n the Ricci family see Brucker, Florentine Politics, pp. 26, 33, 68, 124-27. Martines, Social World, p p . 41, 78; Martines, Lawyers, p. 187. 18. Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 253 v . In M a r c h 1320 Ricci was a g u a r a n t o r for a Tuscan " q u i i n c u l p a b a t u r q u o d d e b u e r a t retinere filiam cuiusdam sciavi." Div. not., vol. I l l , f. 2 5 5 \ 19. Div. canc., vol. V I , f. 203 v . 20. Interestingly, Duccius is not mentioned a m o n g the Bardi " f a t t o r i " in Sapori, Crisi, p. 261, or in his Studi, I I , 7 3 0 - 5 4 . O n the Pucci family see Martines, Social World, pp. 7 3 - 5 ; Martines, Lawyers, p. 403, n. 33. 21. In J u l y 1323, Duccius sent 216 hyperpers belonging to Cione de Lanfranchis from Barletta to L u n a r d o de Molino in Venice, t h r o u g h the good services of a R a g u s a n patrician. In M a r c h 1324, the same R a g u s a n received f r o m Duccius 42 "libras h o n o r u m d e n a r i o r u m venetorum grossorum de a r g e n t o , " property of the Bardi associates in Barletta, to be transfered to Giovanni Maffei, a m e m b e r of the same c o m p a n y in Venice. Div. canc., vol. V I I , f. 11 ; Div. not., vol. I V , f. 2V. O n Giovanni Maffei see Sapori, Crisi, p. 267; R e n o u a r d , " L e c o m p a g n i e " , p. 529. 22. Div. canc., vol. V I I , f. 4 3 v ; Div. not., vol. I V , f. 9. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " , p. 87, n. 73. T h e Bardi m e r c h a n t s mentioned in Barletta were " A n d r e a P o r t u n a r i " a n d "Francischus Bonçii." O n A n d r e a Portinari in southern Italy see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 , pp. 156, 174. Sapori, Crisi, p. 255 ; Sapori, " I l personale delle c o m p a g n i e mercantili del medioevo", Studi, I I , 718, 731 ; R e n o u a r d , " L e c o m p a g n i e " , p. 5 2 8 — d o not m e n t i o n southern Italy. Davidsohn, Storia, I V / 2 , 775, maintains t h a t the Bardis had a " f o n d a c o per il g r a n o " in D u b r o v n i k , b u t there is no proof for such an assertion either in his book or in archival materials of D u b r o v n i k .

I FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

29

Count of Dubrovnik himself three times sent money through the good services of some Ragusan patricians in the total amount of sixty-eight "libras . . . venetorum grossorum." It was to be given in Venice to "domino J o h a n n i Buldu . . . et Dato, socio societatis Bardorum de Florentia Venetiis commoranti." 2 3 These were most probably payments for grains sold to Dubrovnik by the Bardis. Duccius Puccii was relatively quickly replaced in Dubrovnik by another representative of the Bardis, Bonsignore Phylippi. In the latter part of 1324 he sold grains to the Ragusan island of Lastovo (Lagosta) and to Dubrovnik itself on behalf of the Bardi associates from Barletta. 24 Soon he became the representative of the Peruzzis from southern Italy as well 25 and simultaneously engaged in various business deals of his own. 26 Bonsignore is especially noteworthy as one of several Florentines who, in 1325, hired servants in Dubrovnik for long terms. 27 These servants were mostly from poor hinterland areas near, but outside of, the territory of the Ragusan state. 28 T h e Bardi and Acciaiuoli companies remained active in Dubrovnik in 1325 and in subsequent years, always primarily in connection with their southern Italian trade. 2 9 There was, nevertheless, from time to time friction between the Florentines and the Ragusans, especially because of 23. Div. not, vol. I V , ff. 2 \ 4 5 \ 52 v , 62. 24. I b i d , ff. 4 6 v - 4 7 , 53 v , 65 v . This "Buonsignore P h y l i p p i " is probably the same m a n as the " B u o n o Filippi" mentioned by Sapori, Crisi, p. 260, as being between 1318 a n d 1345 in E n g l a n d a n d elsewhere, but not in D u b r o v n i k or in southern Italy. See also Sapori, Studi, I I , 7 3 5 - 3 6 ; R e n o u a r d , " L e c o m p a g n i e " , p. 529. In D e c e m b e r 1324 Buonsignore sold " m a g i s t r o M a f f e o Pellianico v e t r a r i o " a q u a n t i t y " d e çenere g a t i n a , " t h a t had been shipped f r o m Apulia. Div. not, vol. I V , f. 73 v . O n glass p r o d u c t i o n a n d trade in D u b r o v n i k see Krekic, " T r o i s f r a g m e n t s " , pp. 19-23, 3 2 - 3 3 ; V. H a n , " F i f t e e n t h a n d Sixteenth C e n t u r y T r a d e in Glass between Dubrovnik a n d T u r k e y " , GodiSnjak BalkanoloSkog instituta SANU

4 (1973), pp.

1 6 3 - 7 8 ; V. H a n , " P r o b l è m e s relatifs à l'identification de l'ancienne verrerie r a g u s a i n e " , GodiSnjak BalkanoloSkog Instituta 5 (1974), 2 1 5 - 3 3 ; V. H a n , "Les relations verrières entre D u b r o v n i k et Venise d u X I V e au X V I e siècle", Annales du 6e Congrès de VAssociation Internationale pour Vtiistoire du Verre (Liège 1975), p p . 159-67. 25. Div. not., vol. V, f. 81. 26. I b i d , vol. I V , ff. 9 9 \ 101 ; Div. canc., vol. V I I I , f. 2. 27. In F e b r u a r y and M a r c h of 1325 Buonsignore engaged a young m a n from T r e b i n j e , not far f r o m Dubrovnik, for six years, another m a n for twenty years, a n d a girl for twelve years. Div. not., vol. V, ff. 35 v , 3 9 \ 43. 28. A p a r t from Buonsignore, other Florentines hired servants in Dubrovnik for their companions in Italy as well as for themselves. I b i d , ff. 32, 39. O n servants in D u b r o v n i k , see R . S a m a r d z i c , " P o d m l a d a k d u b r o v a c k i h trgovaca i zanatlija u X V i X V I v e k u , " JÇbornik studentskih struinih tadova (Belgrade, 1948), pp. 6 4 - 7 8 . 29. Div. canc., vol. V I I I , ff. 3, 19. In 1325 the most p r o m i n e n t Florentine in D u b r o v n i k , Bencius del Buono, a p p e a r e d on behalf of the Acciaiuolis in a sale of barley. Div. canc., vol. V I I I , f. 14. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " p. 88 n. 76.

3° financial problems. In 1326, for example, Phylippus Bagnesis, the Peruzzi associate in Barletta, had taken by force a Ragusan ship in that harbor as payment of a debt of 400 hyperpers that two Ragusan patricians owed him. T h e Ragusan government responded to this act of violence by sequestering the debt. 3 0 Such occurrences, however, did not discourage business between the Ragusans and the Florentine companies, both in Dubrovnik and in southern Italy. A significant indication of Dubrovnik's new importance emerged in 1327 and concerned that city's role in the Florentine contacts with the Levant. Representatives of the Peruzzis and the Acciaiuolis, as well as a merchant from Pisa, had hired, in 1323, the ship of a Ragusan patrician for a trip to "Tuniço de Barbaria." In 1327, the Ragusan shipowner was going to Venice to claim the money that the Florentines still owed him. 3 1 Although our information on this aspect of Florentine use of Dubrovnik is still rather scarce, there is, as we shall see, enough to conclude that the document of 1327 indicates the beginning of a trend, rather than an isolated case. T h e reappearance in Dubrovnik, in 1329, of the former Bardi representative Duccius Puccii, this time as a factor of the Acciaiuolis, was connected with considerable transfers of Acciaiuoli monies from Dubrovnik to Venice. In the first half of that year, using four Ragusan patricians as intermediaries, Duccius sent over 130 "libras venetorum grossorum" and 712 hyperpers to Johannes Petri, an Acciaiuoli associate in Venice. 32 T h e next year, Duccius sent to Venice, this time through Bencius del Buono, the prominent Florentine merchant in Dubrovnik, and through a Ragusan patrician, over 90 "libras venetorum grossorum." This Acciaiuoli money was to be delivered to "Bonacorso Giani, socio diete societatis Veneciis commoranti." 3 3 Simultaneously, Duccius engaged in sales of Acciaiuoli barley and wheat from southern Italy 3 4 and, having also become a representative of the Peruzzis in Dubrovnik, he sold their wheat to the city. 35 Toward the end of 1330, however, Duccius must have left Dubrovnik, for 30. Div. canc., vol. V I I I , ff. 106, 107 v . 31. Ibid., ff. 157—157v. In the same year a Florentine, mentioned as " h a b i t a t o r J a d r e " and " h a b i t a t o r Ragusii," together with a n o t h e r man from Z a d a r , received 79 bags of flax from Clarentia. Div. canc., vol. V I I I , ff. 144-144 v . O n Glarentia's importance for the Florentine trade, see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 , 7 7 2 - 7 3 . O n a conflict between Z a d a r and the Peruzzis in 1313, see Davidsohn, Forschungen, I I I , 126. 32. Div. canc., vol. I X , ff. 23, 24, 26, 35, 41, 48. 33. Ibid., f. 207 v . See Davidsohn, Storia, IV/2, 865. 34. Div. canc., vol. I X , f. 208. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " p. 90. 35. Div. canc, vol. I X , f. 212 v .

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

31

the Acciaiuolis were represented there by "Pone cancellarius Ragusii." 3 6 T h e Peruzzis, incidentally, had another man in Dubrovnik at this time, who also was taking care of their affairs, particularly those concerning continued sales of wheat and related financial matters. 37 Much more interesting and important, however, were the events in 1330 involving the Bardi company and its presence in Dubrovnik. T h e troubles started in April of that year, when a letter from the Venetian Doge arrived in Dubrovnik, ordering that "debeamus habere, tenere et capere omnes de societate Bardorum et eorum b o n a . " This resulted in a conflict between the Ragusan patricians, constituted in their three councils, and the Venetian Count of the city and, through him, the Doge. A unanimous decision of the Major Council stated that the Count, "nobis ignorantibus, fecit capi et detineri J o h a n n e m Fei uti factorem societatis Bardorum de Florentia," in accordance with Doge's orders. This decision ran against one of the same Major Council of February 1, 1330, according to which "quilibet possit tute et secure in avere et persona venire, stare et reddere Ragusii cum biavo, frumento et grascia qualibet, non obstantibus aliquibus represaliis, contradictionibus, preceptis, factis vel faciendis per aliquam dominationem, rectorem, universitatem vel locum." For Ragusans, the matter obviously involved much more than just the arrest of a Florentine merchant. It concerned the jurisdiction of the Venetian Count; it endangered the reputation of Dubrovnik as a safe commercial center, and it menaced its source of essential foodstuffs. Ultimately, the whole relationship between Dubrovnik as a protégé and Venice as a protector was at stake. 38 T h e Ragusan Major Council, therefore, by unanimous vote decided "pro bono civitatis, non obstantibus dictis licteris" (i.e., from the Doge) to set Fei and his property free and to send an explanatory letter to Venice. The protests of the Count's companion—also a Venetian—were of no avail, although the Ragusans must have been aware of the basic truth of his warning that "ipsi debebant obedire preceptis domini Ducis et quod non faciant contra sibi precepta." They therefore decided to send an embassy to Venice. 39 In spite of, or perhaps because of, the delicate nature

36. Ibid., r. 209. 37. H A D , Apthay, vol. II, f. 16. 38. H A D , Reformaliones (hereafter cited as Réf.), vol. I X , f. 51. For the causes of the V e n e t i a n action against the Bardis see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, IV/2, 863; Yver, Le commerce, pp. 2 6 8 - 6 9 . O n VenetoRagusan relations at this time see B. Krckic, " L e relazioni fra Venezia, Ragusa e le popolazioni serbocroate," Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV (Florence: Olschki, 1973), p p . 3 9 6 - 9 7 . 39. Réf., ibid. vol. I X , f. 51.

I 32 of their business, the two elected ambassadors took a long time leaving Dubrovnik. Their instructions were approved in the Major Council only at the beginning ofJ u n e and they left the city on J u n e 15, 1330, returning there on J u l y 23. They were supposed to make excuses " d e relaxatione q u a m fecimus fieri de mercatore qui fuerat detentus per dominum Comitem contra Deum et justitiam et contra fidem."40 In a letter sent to them during their stay in Venice, the Ragusans explicitly forbade the ambassadors from asking any "misericordia de eo quod non sumus cupabiles [«V!]" and specified that an earlier letter to the Doge should not be interpreted as asking forgiveness, " c u m que fecimus, cum quo fecimus, non credimus nec credimus aliquid fecisse quod sit contra dominum Ducem et formam pactorum et quod non petent aliquam misericordiam." 4 1 T h e Doge, of course, rejected such Ragusan contentions and ordered them—through the returning ambassadors in J u l y — t o send to Venice within three months 115 "libras grossorum et extimationem seu utilitatem" of 800 staria of wheat and 500 staria of barley. He considered these to be Fei's property, which should have been confiscated in Dubrovnik. T h e Major Council sent another embassy to Venice to explain that there were no goods belonging to Fei in the city at the time the Doge's orders arrived, except for the 115 "libre grosse." It was, also, to be stressed that "the wheat and barley did not belong to Johannes nor to the Bardis," but that it belonged to an Anchonitan on whose ship these grains had been transported. T h a t being so, they could not be confiscated, because "res que non erant dicti Johannis vel societatis Bardorum non reperitur [«V!] interdictum." 4 2 T h e new embassy left for Venice on August 29 and returned on November 13, 1330. From its instruction it is evident that the Venetians were very irritated by the Ragusan attitude in this affair. Not only was the Doge "agravatus" because Fei had been freed from jail, but "multo magis agravari poterat de verbis explicatis coram Ducali Excellentia per ambaxatores Ragusii." This was especially true considering the contents of several letters sent in the meantime to Venice by the Count and "communi tas" of Dubrovnik. T h e Venetians were insisting that Dubrovnik deposit the above mentioned money and cereals, or their value, in Venice. T h e Ragusan Major Council, for its part, maintained its original position, 40. I b i d , ff. 5 2 v - 5 3 . 41. I b i d , f. 56 v . 42. I b i d , ff. 58 v , 75. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a , " p. 90, n. 100, has a brief a n d erroneous note on this case. T h e Fei case is also mentioned briefly a n d with errors by Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 , 7 7 5 - 7 6 .

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

33

b u t used a milder tone: the new ambassadors were to tell the Doge that Fei h a d been jailed by the C o u n t "sine aliqua examinatione si erat de Bardis vel n o n . " W h e n the M a j o r Council decided to free Fei, it was stressed t h a t they acted " c u m reverentia Ducali, non credendo facere contra eius p r e c e p t a . " At that time Fei had only 115 "libras grossas," which were deposited with the Ragusan "massarii b l a d o r u m , " a n d no w h e a t or barley. T h e Count had confiscated that money a n d it was set free, together with Fei, by the M a j o r Council "semper credendo salvare D u c a l e m p r e c e p t u m et rationes." T h e two reasons for such action had been already explained to the Doge: " p r i m a q u i a pro Bardo cognitus non f u i t " a n d second " p r o p t e r securitate [«V!] et fidem que . . . dedimus cuilibet venienti R a g u s i u m c u m biado d u m civitas Ragusii erat in ultima necessitate b l a d e . " 4 3 T h e seriousness with which this whole situation was treated by the Ragusans is illustrated by the following events: the same day that the two ambassadors were elected to go to Venice, August 14, 1330, a n o t h e r embassy was elected to go and congratulate the Serbian K i n g " p r o triupfo [JM;!] et gloria q u a m ad presens . . . recepit per victoriam q u a m h a b u i t de d o m i n o I m p e r a t o r e Bulgarie." This was the famous battle of Velbuzd, in which the Serbian a r m y of K i n g Stevan Decanski crushed the Bulgarian a r m y of T s a r Michael Sisman. This victory changed the balance of power in the Balkans, a n d the Serbs were p r e d o m i n a n t in the area for the next four decades, especially during the rule of their greatest Tsar, Stevan D u s a n (1331-55). For the Ragusans, who h a d very strong economic links with Serbia a n d whose interests in Serbian mines were already very substantial, this victory called for an especially high-level congratulatory embassy, which might be able to assess the new situation a n d to take a d v a n t a g e of it t h r o u g h negotiations a n d other means. Nevertheless, the chancellor of the city was not sent to Serbia. Since it was obviously unusual for this key figure not to be included, the M a j o r Council felt it necessary to explain that he was being kept in Dubrovnik " u n t i l the r e t u r n of the ambassadors f r o m V e n i c e " — a n additional indication of the i m p o r t a n c e attributed to the conflict with the Doge. 4 4

43. Refy vol. I X , ff. 5 9 - 5 9 \ 44. I b i d . O n the b a t t l e of V e l b u z d a n d its i m p o r t a n c e see K . Jirecek, Istorija Srba (Belgrade: N a u c n a knjiga, 1952), I, 2 0 6 - 0 7 ; Historija naroda Jugoslavie

( Z a g r e b : Skolska knjiga, 1953), I , p . 380; G . Ostrogor-

sky, History of the Byzantine State ( O x f o r d : Blackwell, 1968), p. 5 0 5 ; W . T e m p e r l e y , History of Serbia (New Y o r k : H o w a r d Fertig, 1969), p p . 6 0 - 6 2 . V . Dedijer, I. Bozic, S. Òirkovic, M . Ekmeòic, History of Yugoslavia (New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1974), p. 85.

I 34 In early October 1330, letters arrived from the ambassadors in Venice. Their contents are unknown, but they must have been important, because once again "septem sapientes" were appointed to draft an answer and a few days later the ambassadors were authorized "ad obligandum comune et homines Ragusii et omnia eorum bona." 4 5 It is not stated that this authorization was directly connected with the case of Johannes Fei, and the accompanying detailed note has been lost. Still, in view of the fact that the ambassadors had been sent to Venice to plead the Ragusan case in the conflict over Fei and the Bardi property in Dubrovnik, and in view of their previous activities and the general tone of the authorization, it seems safe to assume that the ambassadors had not been able to convince the Doge and the Venetians to change their minds. T h e result probably was that Dubrovnik had to make the payments demanded by Venice. Since no further information on this case exists in the archival documents, such a conclusion seems even more justified. Besides, in other similar cases, before and after this one, the Venetian government usually had its way. 46 T h e existence of Bardi and Peruzzi activity in the small but important Serbian coastal city of Kotor, south from Dubrovnik, is recorded in local documents in 1331. T h e Florentine representative there, Gerius Soderini, received from the "communitas Catharensis" 2,500 Serbian "perperorum de cruce" on behalf of the Peruzzis and the Bardis. 47 In 1335 Soderini was again in Kotor, but this time was no longer mentioned as an agent of Florentine companies. 48 Although there is no direct indication that the operations of Soderini in Kotor were linked to those of the Florentine representatives in Dubrovnik, it is reasonable to assume that the Florentines in the two cities had close contacts. In view of the geographic setting, the importance of the two centers, and their very intense mutual relations, it is plausible to presume that the activities of the Florentine agents in Kotor were channeled through, or at least closely connected with, those of their counterparts in Dubrovnik. Meanwhile, the Florentine companies continued their work in Dubrovnik. T h e Acciaiuolis remained active through their southern Italian 45. Réf., vol. I X , ff. 68 v , 76 v . 46. For example, only two months later, in December 1330, the Ragusans complied with "precibus et rogaminibus" of the Doge that " d r a p p a r i a cuiuscumque conditionis laborata in civitate Florentie, comitatu et districtu, et similiter quelibet merçaria in civitate eidem [ ,

districtu etiam commitatu laborarata

[JIV]" should not be imported into Dubrovnik by anyone. Ref.y vol. X , f. 1. 47. A. Mayer, e d , Kotorski spomenici (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1951), p. 259. For Geri di Stefano Soderini, see Sapori, "Storia interna della compagnia mercantile dei Peruzzi", Studi, I I , 669, 693. 48. Mayer, Kotorski spomenici, pp. 415, 4 3 7 - 3 8 .

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

35

members and continued supplying wheat to Dubrovnik in the early 1330s.49 Duccius Puccii reappeared in Dubrovnik in mid-1333, engaging in wheat sales and sending company money to the Acciaiuoli representative in Venice. 50 A new company came upon the scene at this time—the Buonaccorsi. In M a y 1333, "Fortebraccius Charmontesis, actor et negotiorum gestor" for Nerius Balducii, the Buonaccorsi associate from Barletta, came to Dubrovnik and sold various quantities of southern Italian wheat to the government. 5 1 Chiarmontesi quickly established himself as a respected businessman in Dubrovnik 5 2 and continued to sell Buonaccorsi grains to the city in 1334. 53 At the same time, he acted on behalf of other merchants from Barletta. 54 Toward the end of 1334, Chiarmontesi, like agents of other companies, engaged in sending Buonaccorsi money—part of it originating with associates in southern Italy—through Dubrovnik to Venice. 55 H e continued these operations in 1335, ordinarily using Ragusan patricians as intermediaries. 56 Simultaneously, Chiarmontesi continued selling Buonaccorsi cereals from southern Italy 5 7 and engaged in business of his own. 58 He stayed on in Dubrovnik in 1336, but apparently switched his allegiance. H e joined with "Pone cancellarius Ragusii," and they became agents "Phylippi Rugerii, socii societatis Bardorum . . . Barulo

49. Div. canc, vol. X , f. 28. T h e r e were, however, conflicts. I n D e c e m b e r 1332, the R a g u s a n government asked the Acciaiuoli associates in Barletta to r e t u r n within one m o n t h " u n ç i a m u n a m de K a r l i n i s " that they h a d taken forcibly f r o m a R a g u s a n patrician when he visited Apulia as R a g u s a n "sindicus." Should the Acciaiuolis refuse to r e t u r n the money, the R a g u s a n government will reimburse its m a n , but then " h a b e t regressum super ipsos socios et societatem p r e d i c t a m . " 50. I b i d , f. 104 v . Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a , " p. 91, n. 108. In N o v e m b e r 1333, Duccius sent 505 ducats, the p r o p e r t y of the Acciaiuoli associates in Barletta to " J o h a n n e s P e t r i , " m e m b e r of the same c o m p a n y in Venice, t h r o u g h the good services of a R a g u s a n patrician. Div. canc, vol. X , f. 106. 51. Div. canc., vol. X , ff. 20, 28, 89, 105. O n the Chiarmontesi family see Martines, Social World, p. 222. 52. For C h i a r m o n t e s t as arbiter a m o n g Florentines in D u b r o v n i k , see Div. canc., vol. X , ff. 115, 115 v ; as a witness at the p a y m e n t of the R a g u s a n tribute to the Serbian K i n g in 1334: Div. canc., vol. X I I , f. 11 v ; Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, I V / 2 , p. 776. For other cases, see Div. canc., vol. X , ff. 153, 207, 211 ; vol. X I I , f. 18. 53. Div. canc, vol. X , f. 204; vol. X I I , f. 3. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " , p. 92. 54. Div. canc., vol. X , f. 226 v . 55. I b i d , vol. X I I , f. 17 v . This shipment consisted of 176 ducats a n d was to be given in Venice to Nerius Balducii, w h o h a d obviously been transfered there f r o m southern Italy. 56. I b i d , ff. 51, 65, 69, 72, 82 v , 96, 118 v , 124, 138, 138 v . T h e total a m o u n t for 1335 was 306 R a g u s a n hyperpers, 10 " l i b r e d e n a r i o r u m v e n e t o r u m grossorum," a n d 2,010 V e n e t i a n ducats. O n e of these transfers was effected t h r o u g h Bencius del Buono. 57. I b i d , f. 82. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a " , p. 91, n. 108. I n this activity Chiarmontesi was assisted by " P o n e cancellarius." 58. H e dealt in w h e a t a n d a r m s sales. Div. canc, vol. X I I , ff. 56, 57 v . Dinic-Kriezevic, " T r g o v i n a , " p. 118, n. 325.

36 commorantis et ipsius societatis," selling wheat from southern Italy to Dubrovnik. 5 9 The Bardis, incidentally, had another representative in the City in 1337, Gregorius Johannis de Florentia who was also involved in the wheat trade. 6 0 The last mention of the activity of the Peruzzis in Dubrovnik occurs in 1334. Their representative, Vicentius Fiorini de Florentia, sent at the time some company money "caporalibus societatis Peruççiorum comorantium Baruli" and sold Peruzzi wheat to Dubrovnik. 6 1 T h e Bardis reemerged for the last time in 1339-40 in a rather peculiar way: the distinguished Florentine merchant in Dubrovnik, Bencius del Buono who had previously had brief contacts with the Acciaiuolis and the Buonaccorsis, in 1339 and 1340 sent several couriers to Constantinople with letters for the Venetian Marino Michel and others " d e societate Bardorum de Florentia" in the Byzantine capital. 62 Although Bencius himself is not mentioned as a Bardi agent, it is clear that the Bardi company was happy to take advantage of his prestigious position in Dubrovnik in order to enhance its contacts with Constantinople, since Dubrovnik was already a well-established link in communications with the Levant. 6 3 Thus the agents of the Florentine companies ceased their activities in Dubrovnik by 1340, only a short time before the companies met their downfall. Several observations are called for in reviewing the work of the four Florentine companies in Dubrovnik. In the first place, it is clear that they did not all remain in the city for an identical length of time. T h e Bardis had the longest tenure, from 1318 to 1339-40. T h e Peruzzis are mentioned from 1318 to 1334; the Acciaiuolis, from 1318 to 1333. T h e Buonaccorsis were active in Dubrovnik only from 1333 to 1335. Over the years, the Peruzzis had the largest number of agents in Dubrovnik, nine altogether, but only five remained loyal exclusively to them, while the others shifted their allegiances to other companies. T h e Bardis had five representatives, four of whom also worked for other companies. T h e Acciaiuolis had four men, two of whom divided their loyalties, while the Buonaccorsis were represented by one man, who eventually switched 59. Div. canc., vol. X I I , f. 261 v . O n Phylippus Rogerii see Davidsohn, Forschungen, I I I , 174, 181. Saporì, Studi, I I , 738, lists h i m as a Bardi " f a t t o r e " in southern I t a l y in 1336. See also R e n o u a r d , " L e c o m p a g n i e , " p. 529. 60. Div. canc., vol. X I I , f. 2 6 0 \ 61. Ibid., vol. X , ff. 160, 194*. 62. Div. not., vol. V , ff. 58 v , 139 v ; vol. V I , ff. 91, 139 v , 189. 63. B. Krekic, " K u r i r s k i s a o b r a c a j D u b r o v n i k a sa C a r i g r a d o m i Solunom u p r v o j polovini X I V v e k a , " Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta SANU 1 (1952), 113-20.

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

37

to the Bardis. It seems that the longer an agent stayed in Dubrovnik, the greater the chances were that he would switch loyalties. Thus, for example, Duccius Puccii, a representative of the Bardis in 1323 and 1324, switched to the Acciaiuolis in 1330 and then joined the Peruzzis in the same year, only to reappear as an Acciaiuoli agent in 1333. Sharing of loyalties, however, was not always a matter of successive allegiances. In some cases a man worked for more than one company at the same time. Feus Leonis, for example, was the representative of the Bardis, Peruzzis, and Acciaiuolis in Dubrovnik in 1318, and Duccius Puccii in 1330 worked for both the Acciaiuolis and the Peruzzis. Almost all the representatives of Florentine companies in Dubrovnik were Florentines. There are only two minor exceptions: Bencius del Buono lived for a prolonged period in Dubrovnik, was prominent in local life, became a resident and then a citizen of Dubrovnik and, as we have seen, did some favors for the Acciaiuolis, Buonaccorsis, and Bardis. But he too was a Florentine by origin. 64 T h e other case is "Pone cancellarius Ragusii," who did minor work for the Acciaiuolis, Buonaccorsis, and Bardis. However, although he was not from Florence itself, he was from Pistoia, a neighboring city whose turbulent history was intimately linked with that of Florence. 65 As for the Ragusans with whom the Florentines principally dealt, governmental functionaries aside (e.g., the "massarii b l a d o r u m , " who were always patricians), it is clear that the preference went to local patricians. This is especially true in the case of the delicate operations of money transfers. O u t of twenty-nine such cases that I was able to establish, twenty-six were handled by Ragusan patricians, two by Bencius del Buono, and only one by a local merchant. It is interesting that, out of the twenty-nine cases, eleven involved two members of the Bodaça (Budacic) patrician family, one of w h o m — T h o d e r u s de Bodaça—was responsible for eight transfers of Bardi and Acciaiuoli money to Venice over a period of nine years. 66 All of this indicates that the Florentine companies relied mainly on their own men to control their affairs in an important commercial 64. Bencius del Buono, k n o w n also as Bencius del Buono Sacchetti, was the f a t h e r of t h e f a m o u s novelist F r a n c o Sacchetti, w h o p r o b a b l y was b o r n in D u b r o v n i k between 1330 a n d 1335. D a v i d s o h n , Storia di Firenze I V / 2 , 7 7 6 - 7 8 , a n d n . 3, has a n incomplete a n d partly erroneous discussion of Bencius's stay in D u b r o v n i k . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , neither E. Ligotti, Franco Sacchetti, uomo discolo e grosso (Florence: Sansoni, 1940) ; nor L. C a r e t t i , Saggio sul Sacchetti (Bari : L a t e r z a , 1951 ), has a n y t h i n g interesting to say on his origins. Most recently, I. Voje, " B e n d o del B u o n o , " Istorijski lasopis, 18 (1971), 1 8 9 - 9 9 , considers Bencius to b e Franco's father. 65. O n Pistoia see D a v i d s o h n , Storia di Firenze, vol. I l l , passim. D . H e r l i h y , Medieval and Renaissance Pistoia. The Social History of an Italian Town, 1200-1430

(New H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale University Press, 1967).

66. O n the Bodaça family see M a h n k e n , Dubrovalki patricijat, I , 140-44, esp. 143.

38 center such as Dubrovnik. At the same time, however, they did not systematically exclude local elements from their business dealings and were willing to entrust them even with some of the more sensitive operations. As mentioned earlier, the most important single trade activity of the Florentine companies in Dubrovnik was the sale of grains from southern Italy. According to my calculations, the four companies contracted to import into Dubrovnik close to 13,000 salmas of cereals between 1318 and 1336. Of this, wheat constituted more than 89 percent, and the remainder was barley. The most active were the Acciaiuolis, with more than 4,100 salmas, followed by the Bardis with almost 4,000 salmas, the Buonaccorsis with 2,500 salmas, and finally the Peruzzis with over 2,300 salmas. T h e single most active year as far as contracts for the sale of these grains are concerned was 1330, with a total of 3,550 salmas. There were several years when Florentine companies contracted to import 1,500 salmas (for example, in 1334 and 1336) or 1,000 salmas into Dubrovnik (for example, in 1323, 1333; in 1318 the contracts totaled 1,360 salmas). It should be pointed out, however, that these numbers reflect the contracts made with Florentine representatives in Dubrovnik by the Ragusan massarii bladorum, or contracts between the Ragusan "sindici" in southern Italy and members of various companies. They do not necessarily show the exact amount of cereals actually brought to Dubrovnik. There were instances when the quantities imported into the city fell short of quantities specified in the contracts and in such cases the Florentines were penalized. O n the other hand, there were instances when they brought into Dubrovnik larger amounts than the ones they contracted for, in which case the Ragusans usually accepted them and sometimes allowed them to be reexported. W h a t was the importance of the Florentine companies' imports of grains in the overall Ragusan provisioning in that essential foodstuff? W h a t was the Florentine share in the Ragusan imports of cereals ? T o find the answers, one should first determine the Ragusan need for grain and the size of Dubrovnik's imports in the first half of the fourteenth century. Dusanka Dinic-Knezevic, the only scholar who has studied.in detail the Ragusan grain trade, thinks that Dubrovnik's annual consumption of cereals at the time amounted to about 10,000 staria, that is, about 3,800 salmas. 67 She assumes that, out of this amount, 5,000 to 7,000 staria were imported through governmental intervention, the rest by private

67. M y calculation is based on n u m e r o u s d a t a from documents, giving a n average of 2.62 staria for one salma.

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

39

enterprise. For the second half of the fourteenth century the same author sees a rise of grain consumption to over 20,000 staria (about 7,600 salmas) annually, and ascribes this increase to the growth in population. 6 8 DinicKnezevic cautiously remarks that "we cannot be sure the consumption was exactly of that size" and adds that her calculation is only "approximate." Indeed, it seems appropriate to revise upward her figures for the fourteenth century. Philippus de Diversis de Quartigianis, the headmaster of the Ragusan secondary school, in his description of Dubrovnik in 1439-40 stated, "there is such a multitude of consumers [in Dubrovnik] that the city and its district need 70,000 staria of grains and even more than that." 6 9 Even taking into account Dubrovnik's very fast growth at the time, it is hardly credible that the consumption—and, by implication, the population— rose three and a half times between the second half of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century. O n e must, therefore, assume that the consumption was higher than 20,000 staria annually in the second half of the fourteenth century. This inevitably leads one to reject as too low the 10,000 staria estimated by Dinic-Knezevic for the first half of that century. Indeed, it seems strange that there would be a doubling (or more) of consumption—and population—between the first and second half of the fourteenth century, especially in view of the fact that Dubrovnik had suffered severely from the Black Death of 1348-49. 7 0 Furthermore, a comparison between the quantities imported by the Florentine companies and Dinic-Knezevic's calculations will, in my opinion, strengthen the case for an upward revision. If the average annual consumption amounted to about 3,800 salmas, and the average government-regulated imports were between 1,900 and 2,670 salmas, then according to Dinic-Knezevic's estimates at least in one instance (1330) over 93 percent of the consumption needs of Dubrovnik were satisfied by the Florentine companies' imports—a very doubtful circumstance, to

68. Dinic-Knezevic, " T r g o v i n a , " p p . 128-29. T h e other work dealing, a m o n g o t h e r subjects, with R a g u s a n eating habits, J e r e m i c a n d T a d i c , Prilozi za istoriju, gives no information on quantities. 69. Philippus d e Diversis de Quartigianis, " O p i s polozaja, z g r a d a , d r z a v n o g u r e d j e n j a i pohvalnih obicaja slavnoga g r a d a D u b r o v n i k a , " translated from Latin into Serbo-Croatian by I. Bozic, Dubrovnik, vol. I l l , 1973, p. 42. 70. O n the Black D e a t h in general see Y. R e n o u a r d , " L ' é v é n e m e n t modial le plus i m p o r t a n t d u X I V e siècle, la Peste Noire de 1 3 4 8 - 1 3 5 0 " ; R e n o u a r d , "Conséquences et intérêt d é m o g r a p h i q u e s de la Peste Noire de 1348", b o t h in Etudes d'histoire médiévale, pp. 143-64. For D u b r o v n i k see J e r e m i c a n d T a d i c , Prilozi za istoriju, I, 6 6 - 6 8 . M . D. G r m e k , " Q u a r a n t i n e in D u b r o v n i k , " Ciba Symposium, voi. 7, pt. 1, (1959), p p . 3 0 - 3 1 . V . Bazala, Pregledpovijesti zdravstvene kulture Dubrovaike Republike ( Z a g r e b : D u b r o v a c k i horizonti, 1972), p p . 3 0 - 3 2 . Krekic, Dubrovnik, p p . 9 7 - 9 8 .

I 40

say the least. O n the other hand, the average amount of Florentine imports contracted for in the twelve years between 1318 and 1336 for which we have information is 1,080 salmas annually. This amount would cover about 28.5 percent of Dubrovnik's needs in those years. Considering the fact that the Ragusan government imported grain from other sources and areas and that there were considerable private imports, it seems rather unlikely that the city would depend to such a degree on one source of supply. It seems especially questionable that in a few particular years the Florentine companies could play such preponderant role in satisfying Ragusan needs in cereals. 71 For these reasons I believe that the overall consumption in Dubrovnik was higher than 10,000 or 20,000 staria a year in the fourteenth century. Consequently, the Florentine imports, while very important, were not as substantial as Dinic-Knezevic's calculations imply. T h e assumption of higher consumption leads naturally to the conclusion that there was a larger population in the city. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to offer any precise or even approximate estimate of the population at this time. Because I am unable to offer any revised estimate for cereals consumption in Dubrovnik in the fourteenth century, I do not feel it is possible to venture into population estimates until further study of that very important and complex problem is undertaken. 7 2 T h e role and importance of Dubrovnik in the overall activities of the Florentine commercial companies can only be tentatively approached. It is obvious from the number of their representatives, from the quantities of money, and, especially, from the amounts of grain involved that Dubrovnik was not a major operation for the Florentines. If one compares our numbers with some of those estimated for example, by Sapori, 73 it becomes evident that Dubrovnik represented a relatively minor investment of the companies' money and manpower. Nevertheless, the quality of some of the Florentine agents, the consistency and sensitivity of some of their operations indicate that Dubrovnik was not regarded lightly by the Florentines. Its main appeal for them certainly was as a link between their activities in southern Italy and their interests on the eastern shore of the Adriatic and in Venice. If one keeps in mind the great importance of Dubrovnik as an intermediary between the mineral-rich Balkans and 71. T h e F l o r e n t i n e c o m p a n i e s would have supplied D u b r o v n i k with 39 percent of its cereals in 1334 a n d 1336; with 35 p e r c e n t of t h e m in 1318; with 26 percent of them in 1323 a n d 1333, a n d so o n . 72. T h e r e is n o study of D u b r o v n i k ' s population a t this time. I t is generally assumed that the city h a d 5,000 to 6,000 i n h a b i t a n t s t o w a r d the e n d of the fifteenth century. See Krekic, Dubrovnik, p p . 33, 5 4 - 5 5 . 73. Sapori, Crisi, p p . 2 1 5 - 2 1 , 228, n. 2 ; Sapori, Studi, I I , 6 7 2 - 8 0 .

FOUR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES IN DUBROVNIK

41

Italy at this time, it is easier to understand the Florentines' interest. Further research, both in Dubrovnik and in Florence, might very well show that the companies, as well as individual Florentines, had considerable vested interests in that aspect of Dubrovnik's economy, but for the time being that must remain only a hypothesis.

II

TROIS FRAGMENTS CONCERNANT LES RELATIONS ENTRE DUBROVNIK (RAGUSE) E T L'ITALIE AU XIV e SIECLE

1. LES VERRIERS DE MURANO A DUBROVNIK ET EN SERBIE DANS LA PREMIERE MOITIE D U XlVe SIECLE.

Le métier du verre, «l'industrie la plus jolie" de Venise, est apparu dans cette ville au X l I I e siècle. Il est étroitement lié à l'élaboration des mosaïques, qui y existait auparavant. 1 Dès 1271 les „fiolari, fioleri", les verriers, eurent à Venise leur propre capitulaire 3 et en 1291 une loi f u t promulguée, décrétant la concentration des fours de verrerie sur l'ile de Murano, sur laquelle la fabrication du verre avait déjà atteint un dégré de développement considérable 3 . Bientôt commença l'émigration des verriers de Murano. Le gouvernement vénitien, conscient des dommages que ce phénomène pourrait entraîner, interdit en 1295 l'exportation de Venise, sans permis spécial, de tout matériel employé dans la fabrication du verre. En outre, il accrut les amendes auxquelles étaient condamnés les verriers qui rentraient à Venise après avoir séjourné dans un pays étranger. Mais à cette époque les fours pour la production du verre existaient déjà dans plusieures villes de l'Italie Septentrionale 4 . Le gouvernement vénitien comprit vite que ses mesures de represailles causaient plus de dommage que de profit. Les verriers émigrés ne rentraient plus à Venise pour éviter de payer l'amende accrue. C'est pourquoi en 1306 d'abord, puis de nouveau en 1315, le gouvernement invita les verriers émigrés à rentrer librement à Venise, à la seule condition qu'ils s'inscrivent dans F „Arte dei fiolai" 5 . Depuis ce temps on observe plus de liberté dans les mouvements des verriers de Murano dans les autres villes et aussi une association plus fré1 Monografia della vetraria veneziana e muranese (autori: B. Cecchetti, V. Zanetti, E. Sanfermo), Venezia, 1874, pp. 7, 260. H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedigy t. II, Gotha, 1920, pp. 144—145, 285—286. Cependant, C. A. Levi, L'arte del vetro in Murano nel Rinascimento e i Berroviero, Venezia, 1895, pp. 8—9 pense— quoique il ne le dit pas explicitement — que les commencements de la fabrication du verre et Italie datent seulement du XlVe siècle, ce qui n'est pas exact. a Kretschmayr, o. c., p. 144. « Monografia, pp. 7, 9—10, 260, 261. Kretschmayr, o. c., pp. 145, 286. * Monografia, p. 10. 5 Id., p. 11.

II 20 quente des verriers avec les étrangers à Murano même. On trouve les verriers de Murano et leurs oeuvres dans différentes villes italiennes, surtout, bien sûr, à Venise, puis à Assisi, Florence, Padoue, Milan, etc 6 . Cependant, nous n'avons trouvé nulle part, dans les travaux concernant Murano, la mention de la présence des verriers de Murano et de leurs produits dans les pays slaves balcaniques. Le peu de travaux, d'autre part, dans lesquels on . trouve mentionné des verreries faites dans ces pays, contiennent des affirmations inexactes et incomplètes. Ainsi le grand historien K. Jirecek dit, dans un de ses livres, qu'en 1423 on trouve mentionné à Dubrovnik le verre ragusain, tandis que dans un autre livre il affirme que la première allusion au verre fabriqué à Dubrovnik est de 13877. Se basant sur les données de Jirecek, le Professeur Boèic, lui aussi, affirme que les verres „sont mentionnés à Dubrovnik au XIVe siècle (1387), mais la production du verre sur une échelle plus large est du XVe siècle quand, vers 1422 l'art du verre („vitrei ars") se développa dans les ateliers à Pile 8 " (faubourg de Dubrovnik). D. Roller, qui s'est occupé d'une façon très détaillée de la fabrication du verre à Dubrovnik, pense que cette activité existait en ville au XVe et XVIe siècles et „selon les données dont on dispose jusqu'à maintenant, la première fabrication du verre à Dubrovnik est signalée en février 1424", avec le maître Donato de Murano 9 . On trouvera des affirmations semblables, également, dans la plus récente publication yougoslave sur le verre 10 . Or, dans les Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik on trouve des documents inédits et jusqu'à maintenant inconnus, qui permettent d'arriver à tirer des conclusions nouvelles au sujet des débuts de la verrerie dans les pays yougoslaves. Il s'agit, tout d'abord, de trois documents de 1312. Le 12 septembre de cette année „Mafeus fiolarius de Murano" nomma un „Petrus balesterius" son procureur à Dubrovnik, puis nomma le même Pierre procureur de „Lucas et Anssuinus de massaria fiolariorum de Murano", dont Mathieu, lui-même, était procureur. Le devoir principal de Pierre était de recouvrer les crédits que Mathieu, Lucas et Anssuinus avaient ouvert à certains Ragusains 11 . Le nouveau procureur se montra très actif et déjà dix jours plus tard le gouvernement ragusain, par une lettre, ordonna à „Milgosto filio Obrade" de venir personnellement ou bien d'envoyer un représentant pour rendre 6

Levi, o. c., pp. 9—11. Monografia, pp. 11, 262. Kretschmayr, o. c., p. 286. K. Jirecek, Istorija Srba, t. II, Beograd, 1952, p. 424. Le même, Vaznost Dubrovnika u trgovackoj povijesti srednjega vijeka, Dubrovnik, 1915, pp. 41, 87. 8 I. Bo2ic, Ekonomski i drustveni razvitak Dubrovnika u XIV i XV veku> Istor. glasnik, No 1, Beograd, 1949, p. 32. 9 D. Roller, Dubrovacki zanati u XV i XVI stoljecu, Zagreb, 1951, p. 137. Notons que l'acte, sur lequel Roller appuie cette affirmation est un contrat entre Donato de Murano et un Georges de Florence et l'on peut se demander est-ce que Donato resta à Dubrovnik et y exerça son métier, ou bien Georges alla-t-il à Florence avec Donato, puisqu'à Florence, comme Roller le dit lui-même, la fabrication du verre était déjà à un stade avancé dès le XlVe siècle. 10 R. Gajic-Lon£ar, Staklo — proizvodnja i umetnicka obrada kroz vekove, Beograd, 1964, p. 34, affirme que les premiers ateliers pour la fabrication du verre sur le territoire yougoslave furent organisés à Dubrovnik aux XVe et XVIe siècles et que la fabrication du verre à Dubrovnik était effectuée sous la direction des maîtres vénitiens. 11 Voir document n° 1 dans 1'Appendix. 7

Trois fragments

coticertiant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et l'Italie

21

compte d'une dette qu'il avait contracté en 1302 auprès de Lucas et Anssuinus à Venise12. Evidemment, ce premier groupe de documents n'est pas de nature à permettre d'ariiver à des conclusions sérieuses sur les débuts de la verrerie à Dubrovnik, puisque le verrier de Murano, protagoniste de ces actes, est justement sur le point de quitter Dubrovnik et nous n'avons ni preuves ni raisons suffisantes pour supposer que son séjour précédent dans la ville eut une importance quelconque pour le développement de la verrerie dans la cité ragusaine. Ainsi, donc, tout en disposant d'un témoignage qui prouve que dès 1312 un verrier de Murano était à Dubrovnik, nous ne pouvons pas en tirer des conclusions définitives. La situation est tout à fait différente avec le second groupe de documents qui englobe les années 1325—1327. Dans ce groupe, en première place chronologiquement, figure un acte de mars 1325, par lequel Milosav et Radusa Jubkovic du village de Topola, près de Dubrovnik, engagent leur fille Tolislava à servir, sa vie durant, „Matheo Piacinico verario de Veneciis" 13 Or, il n'y a pas de doute que ce „Matheus" est identique avec „Maffeus" Pilbanico de Morano, vetrer" qui, en août 1325, déclare avoir reçu „a Donato Pipono de Venetiis" 74 hyperpères de „grossi" vénitiens. Mathieu devait porter cet argent à Venise et l'y donner à ,,Çannino Pipono", frère de Donato, huit jours après l'arrivée à Venise du navire ragusain de Negoslav Pezanjic 14 . Un document de janvier 1326 est d'un intérêt tout particulier. Une controverse s'était manifestée „inter Palmam Passileri... et Matheum vetrarium de Murano" à propos d'une société qu'ils avaient constituée „pour une quantité du verre fabriqué qu'ils avaient emporté en Slavonie". Les deux arbitres, choisis par les partis en conflit, décidèrent que Palma devait payer à Mathieu 15 hyperpères et que tous les crédits de leur société „et tout leur travail en verre (laborerium vetri)" qu'ils avaient en Slavonie devaient, également, appartenir à Mathieu 15 . Les expréssions employées dans ce document: „societas vetri", l a borerium vetri" pourraient être interprétées comme signifiant que Mathieu et Palma avaient une société pour la production du verre en Serbie (Slavonie) même, société dans laquelle, évidemment, Mathieu jouait le rôle principal. Cependant, il nous semble qu'une interprétation de ce genre, sans autres appuis dans les sources, serait trop osée. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit ici d'une société pour le commerce en verre élaboré en Serbie et non pour sa produc12

Monumenta ragusina—Reformations, t. I, Zagreb, 1879, p. 46. Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik (Drzavni arhiv u Dubrovniku — DAD), Diversa notariae V, 56. 14 V. doc. n° 2 dans 1'Appendix. Les membres de la famille Pezanjic fréquentaient souvent Venise avec leurs navires. Ainsi, par exemple, en novembre 1324 on envoie par le navire de Bogoje Pezanjic à Venise „viginti libras grossorum venetorum" qui devaient être payés „domino Johanni Buldu de Veneciis et Dato, socio de societate Bardorum de Florentia Veneciis commoranti". DAD, Diversa notariae IV, 62. — „Donatus Pipono", dont le nom est souvent noté dans les actes comme „Donatus Popono", ou „Pepono", était actif à Dubrovnik en 1326, aussi. DAD. Diversa cancellarne, V i l i , 88' 99', 129. Aptay, II, 13* 24, 96. 15 V. doc. n° 3 dans l'Appendix. 13

II 22 tion. Néanmoins, même cette interprétation plus modeste et plus réaliste, apporte un fait assez important et révélateur: en 1325 déjà (puisque le document est de janvier 1326) il y avait, en Serbie, du verre qui provenait ou bien directement de Murano, ou bien était fabriqué selon les modèles de Murano 16 . Vers la fin de janvier 1326 on trouve à Dubrovnik „Donatus Pyanigo de Murano" qui y prend un jeune homme qui lui servira pendant 12 ans et auquel il apprendra „artem suam" 17 . Enfin, en mars 1327, „Antonius fillius Dominici Fança" de Padoue s'engage à servir pendant un an et demi „Matheo Pyanigo de Murano de Veneciis". Il sera payé seulement pour les jours de travail et s'oblige à travailler partout où Mathieu lui ordonnera 18 . Quelles conclusions peut-on tirer de ce groupe des documents pour une meilleure connaissance de la verrerie de Dubrovnik? On notera tout de suite que dans quatre documents, qui s'étayent sur une période de deux ans exactement (mars 1325 — mars 1327) il est fait mention d'un verrier Mathieu. Bien sûr, il est appelé une fois (1325) „Maffeus Piacinico" et „Pilbanico", une autre fois (1326) tout simplement „Matheus", et une troisième fois (1327) „Mapheu.s Pyanigo", mais il nous semble hors de doute que „Maffeus Piacinico, Pilbanico" et „Mapheus Pyanigo" sont un même personnage et alors il est tout à fait naturel de supposer que „Matheus" mentionné chronologiquement entre les deux, soit identique avec Mathieu Pilbanico or Pyanigo. Le fait que ce verrier de Murano se trouvait à Dubrovnik pendant deux ans entiers fait naître la question: quelle était son activité dans la ville? Nous sommes d'avis qu'il faut voir dans Mathieu plus qu'un simple importateur des verres de Murano à Dubrovnik et, à travers Dubrovnik, en Serbie. Il nous semble possible d'avancer l'hypothèse que Mathieu fabriquait à Dubrovnik même le verre sur le modèle de Murano. Les documents offrent quelques points d'appui pour une telle hypothèse: tout d'abord le séjour si long de Mathieu à Dubrovnik; puis le fait qu'il engage à Dubrovnik un homme de Padoue en son service et que cet homme s'oblige à travailler n'importe où pour Mathieu. Ceci nous semble indiquer que Mathieu désirait avoir sur place, à Dubrovnik, des personnes qui travailleraient pour lui et qui, éventuellement, iraient travailler en d'autres lieux. Autrement, pourquoi aurait-il engagé un homme de Padoue à Dubrovnik? 19 Naturellement, si 16 A ce qu'on peut savoir, on a pensé généralement jusqu'à maintenant, qu'au XlVe siècle la vaisselle et les autres objets dans les intérieurs balcaniques étaient plutôt simples et que c'est seulement au XVe siècle qu'il y eut des objets luxueux. Cf. Jirecek, Istorija Srba, t. II, p. 235. D. Kovacevic, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo, 1961, p. 184. S. Cirkovic, Istorija srednjevekovne bosanske drzave, Beograd, 1964, p. 237. 17 DAD, Diversa notariae V, 106'. Quelques jours auparavant, le 26 janvier 1326, „Çaninus, filius Jacobi Pasqualis de Veneciis de Morano" avait reçu „a Matheo Tragurino et Designa de Nicola Greco" 36 hyperpères avec certaines modalités et obligations. DAD, Diversa cancellariae, VIII, 42'. 18 V. doc. n° 4 dans PAppendix. 19 En outre, Mathieu avait engagé à Dubrovnik un servant à vie. Si, d'autre parti Donato Pyanigo est le frère de Mathieu — ce qu'on peut seulement supposer, — ceci auss, pourrait confirmer l'existence d'une activité plus importante et stable de Mathieu à Dûbrovnik.

Trois fragments

coticertiant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et l'Italie

23

l'on pouvait supposer que cet homme possédait des connaissances concernant la fabrication du verre, notre hypothèse gagnerait beaucoup, mais nous ne pouvons pas avancer une telle supposition sur la base des documents dont nous disposons. Néanmoins, les données des documents que nous avons cité nous portent à formuler l'hypothèse — bien sûr avec beaucoup de reserve — que Mathieu avait organisé à Dubrovnik la production du verre, mais que cette production était de dimensions modestes et n'a pas duré longtemps. Enfin, on pourrait se demander est-ce que Mathieu, mentionné dans les documents de 1312, est identique à celui de 1325—1327. Si l'on pouvait prouver une telle identification, notre hypothèse se trouverait de beaucoup renforcée, puisque le séjour, ou du moins, les contacts de Mathieu avec Dubrovnik s'échelloneraient non plus sur deux ans, mais sur quinze ans. Il serait, en effet, séduisant d'accepter cette identification, mais, dans l'état actuel de nos sources, nous ne pouvons l'étayer sur aucune preuve et c'est pourquoi une telle combinaison ne peut pas être prise sérieusement en considération. Néanmoins, en dépi de toutes ces réserves, le fait nouveau et significatif reste: à Dubrovnik et en Serbie il y avait dans la première moitié du XlVe siècle (donc cent ans avant les dates proposées jusqu'à maintenant) des verreries et des verriers de Murano — ce qui est un phénomène important pour l'étude de la civilisation des pays balcaniques de l'époque 20 . 2. LE ROLE DE DUBROVNIK DANS LES OPERATIONS VENITIENNES CONTRE LES REBELLES DE CRETE EN 1363—1364.

L'insurrection contre Venise des pheudataires vénitiens et d'une partie des archontes grecs dans l'île de Crète en 1363 n'était pas le premier mouvement de cette espèce, mais il était, sans doute, le plus fort et le plus dangereux qui se soit manifesté sur l'ile. Par son intensité et son envergure, cette insurrection ébranla jusqu'au fond le pouvoir vénitien sur cette île de grande importance. Le gouvernement vénitien en Crète était, presque, inexistant. Mais les Vénitiens de la métropole, conscients du rôle-clé que la Crète jouait dans leur empire colonial et dans leur commerce levantin en général, prirent des mesures énergiques et déployèrent de grands efforts pour restaurer leur autorité sur la Crète. Et finalement ils y parvinrent, mais non sans peines considérables. Tous ces événements sont déjà connus et ont été étudiés dans l'historiographie 21 , surtout sur la base des matériaux abondants conservés aux Archives d'Etat de Venise*"2. Nous n'avons pas l'intention de revenir sur 20 Sur les verriers, surtout ceux de Murano, à Dubrovnik au XVe siècle v. Bozic, o. c., p. 32. Roller, o. c., pp. 137—138. 21 V. surtout: J. Jegerlehner, Der Aufstand der Kandiotischen Ritterschaft gegen das Mutterland Venedig 1363—65, Byzant. Zeitschrift, vol. XII, 1903, pp. 78—125. F. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge, Paris, 1959, pp. 173—174. 22 Déjà Jegerlehner, o. c., pp. 101—125, a utilisé et publié une partie des documents des „Quaterni bannorum" et des „Secreta Collegii" des Archives d'Etat de Venise. F. Thiriet, Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, vol. I, Paris — La Haye, 1957, a publié des actes des Misti concernant Crète à cette époque. Autres documents concernant Crète, mais seulement jusqu'à la fin de 1363 : F. Thiriet, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie, t. I, Paris—La Haye, 1966.

II 24 les choses déjà connues et élucidées, mais nous désirons nous arrêter sur un aspect particulier de la manière dont Venise essayait de résoudre le problème crétois, c'est à dire nous voulons parler du rôle de Dubrovnik dans ces événements. Dubrovnik avait cessé de reconnaître la suprématie vénitienne (qu'il reconnaissait depuis 1205) peu de temps avant la rebellion crétoise (en 1358). Ses relations avec Venise ne souffrirent pas beaucoup de cette rupture, mais elles n'étaient pas très cordiales, non plus 23 . Une des mesures que Venise avait entreprise pour mater l'insurrection crétoise était un appel, adressé à toute une série de puissances européennes, les priant de s'abstenir de tout contact avec les rebelles de Crète. De cette façon Venise comptait isoler et affaiblir les insurgés. A part les lettres envoyées à l'empereur byzantin, au pape, à Gênes, à la reine de Naples, au roi de Chypre, au grand-maître de Rhodes etc.21, le gouvernement vénitien adressa son appel aussi au roi de Hongrie, Louis le Grand qui était depuis 1358 le protecteur de Dubrovnik**Ces lettres ont été envoyées en octobre 1363 et sont déjà connues. Mais jusqu'à maintenant on pouvait seulement indirectement supposer qu'un appel semblable avait été adressé à Dubrovnik, également. En effet, il y a longtemps désormais, on a publié une lettre que le gouvernement ragusain avait envoyé à celui de Venise le 23 novembre 1363. Dans cette lettre les Ragusains accusent réception de la lettre vénitienne par laquelle Venise avait demandé „quod durante rebellione pheudatorum vestre insuie Cretensis contra statum vestrum ... omnibus subditis nostris (se. Ragusains) inponere deberemus efficaciter in mandatis u t . . . ab eundo, mietendo vel conversando cum ipsis abstineant". Le gouvernement de Dubrovnik se déclare prêt non seulement à satisfaire aux demandes vénitiennes, mais aussi „paratos nos offerimus... non solum in premissis set in singulis alis nobis possibilibus vobis quomodolibet placituris, reservato honore nostri domini, vestrum beneplacitum viriliter adimplere" 23. Or, nous avons maintenant la possibilité non seulement de constater avec une certitude absolue que l'appel vénitien fut adressé à Dubrovnik, aussi, le 11 octobre 1363, mais même de publier le texte intégral de cet appel. Le contenu de la lettre vénitienne envoyée à Dubrovnik était tout à fait identique au contenu des lettres adressées en même temps aux autres états européens. Après avoir expliqué que les pheudataires vénitiens s'étaient insurgés contre la métropole en dépit du fait que le gouvernement vénitien les traitait toujours comme des fils et des frères, les Vénitiens déclarent 23 Sur ces événements v. S. Ljubic, O odnosajih megju Dubrovcani i Mletcani za ugar.— hrv. vladanja u Dubrovniku, Rad JAZU, vol. XVII, Zagreb, 1871, pp. 1—69, quoique ce travail est largement dépassé. 24 Jegerlehner, o. c., pp. 87—88, 111. 25 Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV), Secreta Collegii, voi. 1363—1366. S. Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih izmedu Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike, voL IV, p. 58. La réponse du roi hongrois est du 6 novembre 1363. Ljubic, ibid. 26 DAD, Litterae Levantis, II, 52. Monumenta ragusina — Reformations, vol. III, p. 291, 296—297. T. Smiciklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae3 Dalmatiae et Slavomae, vol, XIII, pp. 314—315. J. Tadié, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republike, Beograd, 1935, pp. 117—118. B. Krekic, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au moyen âge, Paris-La Have, 1961, rég. n° 248.

Trois fragments

coticertiant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et

l'Italie

25

qu'ils espéraient que les rebelles reconnaîtraient leur faute et rentreraient dans la grâce de Venise. Mais, si celà ne se fait pas, le gouvernement vénitien sera obligé de bloquer les insurgés par une flotte. C'est pourquoi les Vénitiens demandent aux Ragusains de s'abstenir de tout contact avec la Crète 27 . Il est intéressant de constater que des lettres semblables ont été adressées aussi „regiminibus et comuni Chatari" et aux gouvernants de Chio et de Mytilène^ 3 . Nous venons de voir que les Ragusains ont répondu à cet appel vénitien de la façon la plus favorable. Les Vénitiens, cependant, prirent les déclarations ragusaines non comme une vaine phrase de courtoisie, mais comme une offre réelle qu'ils entendaient exploiter bientôt. Etant donné que les insurgés crétois n'avaient aucunement l'intention de capituler, le gouvernement vénitien décida d'intervenir d'une manière énergique. Il commença à rassembler des soldats de toutes parts et à organiser une flotte pour combattre les rebelles. Les soldats provenaient en partie des pays slaves29 et il y avait aussi des Slaves à Venise même qui s'engageaient dans l'armada vénitienne 30 . Cette armée et cette flotte, pour aller de Venise en Crète, devaient longer la côte dalmate et, étant donné le nombre considérable des chevaliers dans l'armée, le long voyage jusqu'à la Crète posait un problème très difficile de ravitaillement aux autorités vénitiennes. Et c'est justement à propos de ce problème que le rôle spécial de Dubrovnik et son importance dans cette grande opération vénitienne se manifesta. Une fois encore, comme aux temps d'avant 1358, Dubrovnik devenait un important point d'appui pour la réalisation des plans politico-militaires se Venise. En janvier 1364, tandis que les préparatifs pour l'envoi de la flotte et de l'armée étaient en cours à Venise 31 , le gouvernement vénitien fit con27

V. doc. n° 5 dans 1'Appendix. ASV, Secreta Collegii, vol. 1363—1366, f. 33. 29 En novembre 1363 les Vénitiens envoyèrent leur notaire Bartolomeo Ursi chez le roi hongrois pour demander 200 archers et en décembre de la même année ils acceptèrent l'offre des fils „condam comitis Partholi de Segnia" de s'engager au service des Vénitiens avec cent chevaliers pour combattre les rebelles crétois. Le notaire vénitien Zanbernardo, qui se rendit à Senj pour conclure le contrat, était autorisé à chercher les fils de Bartholus jusqu'à Zagreb. En janvier de 1364 les Vénitiens reçurent en leur service à Senj un „Gothomcher" avec 50 «barbuti". Il y avait d'autres cas pareils, aussi. V. Ljubic, Listine., vol. IV, pp. 58—64. Sur le rassemblement des soldats en d'autres pays v. Jegerlehner, o. c., p. 115. 30 Le 20 octobre 1363 à Venise „Marinçius de Pago Sclauus" fut accusé „eo quod dum ipse et quatuor alii sui socii Sclaui consueti forent ducere ad domum suam aliquas meretrices ad dormiendum cum eis, tandem dum ipse Marinçius et alii sui socii essent ituri ad galeas Culphi, ipsi inter se appensate ordinaverunt. . . ducere quadam nocte, ante quam recederent, quatuor meretrices et expoliare eas et omnes suos pannos et res vendere". Le plan était que les quatre amis de Marinçius seront dans sa maison „cum ipsis peccatricibus et quod ipse Marinçius dormiret extra domum et circa mediam noctem rediret domum cum una maçia in manibus faciendo clamorem et hoc modo expoliarent illas et expellerent eas de domo". Le plan fut mis à l'exécution, mais les femmes portèrent plainte et Marinçius et ses amis, «Johannes de Modrusia, Sclauus, . . . Georgius de Ysagabria, Sclauus, . . . Paulus de Segna, Sclauus, . . . et Lucas de Tragurio" furent condamnés à un an „in uno carcere inferiori". Cependant, ils furent tous relâchés le 8 juin 1364. ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, vol. 3, ff. 52'—53. 31 Sur ces préparatifs v. Jegerlehner, o. c.,_pp. 116—125. 28

II 26 naître à celui de Dubrovnik son intention d'envoyer à Dubrovnik les provisions et l'équippement nécessaires aux chevalliers allant en Crète, pour leur permettre de se ravitailler à Dubrovnik, durant leur route vers l'île grecque. Les provisions et l'équippement devaient être envoyés à Dubrovnik auprès du gentilhomme et marchand Marco Guoro, citoyen vénitien séjournant à Dubrovnik. Les Vénitiens prièrent, par une lettre, le gouvernement ragù sain d'aider Guoro dans l'accomplissement de sa tâche 32 et en même temps informaient Guoro lui-même, par une autre lettre, de la tâche qui lui était confiée. Dans cette lettre à Guoro, le gouvernement vénitien mentionne, aussi, l'envoi d'autres provisions et d'équippements à Kotor. Les provisions destinées à Dubrovnik devaient être apportées de Venise sur un navire ragusain et le gouvernement vénitien se déclarait prêt à rembourser Guoro de tous les frais encourus dans l'accomplissement de son devoir 33 . Marco Guoro est un personnage bien connu. Il était un des marchands vénitiens les plus en vue à Dubrovnik à l'époque. Son nom est mentionné dans les documents des Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik depuis 1355 jusqu'en 1372. Il avait un frère, Georges, qui séjourna à Dubrovnik de 1350 à 1371 ou 1372, quand il mourut 34 . Mais, tandis qu'il n'y a pas de doute que Georges Guoro vivait et travaillait à Dubrovnik dès 135035, la situation de Marco paraît plus ambigue. Le seul document de l'époque antérieure à 1363, celui de 1355, le mentionne, en effet, comme étant à Venise et c'est seulement à partir de 1366 qu'on trouve des données sûres qui le montrent vivant à Dubrovnik 36 . Ainsi, les lettres vénitiennes de janvier 1364 sont la première confirmation indiscutable que Marco Guoro séjournait à Dubrovnik au moins pendant un certain temps avant 1364, puisqu'il est évident que le gouvernement vénitien n'aurait jamais confié une tâche aussi délicate à un homme qui n'aurait pas joui non seulement de sa propre confiance, mais aussi de l'expérience et du prestige auprès des autorités ragusaines. D'ailleurs, les documents concernant Marco Guoro de 1366 à 1372 le montrent comme un marchand actif et respecté, dont la renommée à Dubrovnik était élevée37. Nous ne savons pas si, et dans quelle mesure, les Vénitiens ont profité réellement de Marco Guoro et de Dubrovnik comme base de ravitaillement pour leur „armada". Nous savons, cependant, que la flotte vénitienne, por32

V. doc. n° 6 dans 1'Appendix. V. doc. n° 7 dans l'Appendix. 34 En novembre 1371 encore Georges Guoro figure comme témoin dans un acte concernant certaines affaires entre Dubrovnik et Gênes, tandis qu'en mai 1372 on mentionne „ser Marcus Guoro et quondam ser Georgius, eius frater". DAD, Diversa notariae, IX, 22—23, 49. 35 DAD, Distributiones testamentorum I, 58. Diversa cancellariae XVIII. 28, 29', 102. 36 DAD, Sententiae cancellariae, I, 112. Diversa cancellariae XX, 115. 37 DAD, Diversa cancellariae XX, 115; XXI, 3, 134', 138', 167'; XXII, 15, 15', 34', 74, 74', 76', 88', 98. I. Mitic, Predstavnici stranili drzava u DubrQvniku za vrijeme Republike, Pomorski zbomik, t. IV, Zadar, 1966, p. 381, affirme que Marco Guoro était consul vénitien à Dubrovnik en 1368, mais sans citer les sources de cette information. 33

II Trois fragments concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et

l'Italie

27

tant les soldats, était partie en avril 1364 de Venise vers la Crète 38 . Les navires vénitiens firent le voyage le long de la côte orientale de l'Adriatique et causèrent beaucoup de dégâts aux personnes et aux biens. Ceci provoqua des protestations très vives de la part des villes dalmates et des autorités hongroises auprès du gouvernement vénitien, et les Vénitiens furent obligés de leur présenter des excuses39. On peut supposer, donc, que très probablement les Vénitiens se sont servis de Dubrovnik comme base de ravitaillement dans leur grande opération militaire contre la Crète, opération qui, finalement, força l'île rebelle à se soumettre à l'autorité de la Serenissime dès mai 136440. 3. L'EXIL ET LA MORT DU POLITICIEN FLORENTIN PHILIPPE BASTAR] ET L'ACTIVITE DE SON FILS GIOVENCO A DUBROVNIK VERS LA FIN DU XIV e SIECLE.41

Il n'est pas exagéré de dire que presque toute l'histoire médiévale de Florence fut tissée de conflits intérieurs et de changements, plus ou moins violents, au sommet de l'état florentin. Ces changements étaient régulièrement accompagnés de persécutions du parti vaincu par le parti victorieux et de l'exil d'un grand nombre de politiciens et d'autres personnes ayant appartenu au parti perdant. La victime la plus illustre, l'émigrant le plus connu fut, sans doute, le grand poëte Dante Allighieri, au commencement du XIVe siècle. Mais la situation n'était guère changée dans la seconde moitié du siècle. Florence, à cette époque, restait toujours le champ de batailles des factions politiques et des grupes familiaux, accompagnées de contrastes sociaux aigus, qui atteignent leur point culminant dans la fameuse insurrection des «Ciompi" en 13784<î. Des conflits particulièrement violents se développèrent en ce temp s entre les familles des Alberti et des Albizzi. Finalement, en 1393, Maso degî 38 V. Jegerlehner, o. c., p. 93. A part l'armée et la flotte qui partirent de Venise, les Vénitiens avaient mobilisé les forces dans leurs colonies en Grèce contre la Crète, également. Ainsi, le 10 mars 1364 ils écrivent „baiulo et consiliariis Nigroponti" d'envoyer en Crète 1000 chevaliers et 2000 „pedites electorum", dont les Vénitiens prépareront le transport. AS^V, Secreta Collegii, vol. 1363—1366, f. 76'. 39 Ainsi, dès 11 avril 1364 les Ragusains prirent des mesures „pro custodia civitatis pro navigiis transituris". Mon. rag. — Reform., vol. IV, p. 16. Vers la fin de mars et de nouveau le 23 avril 1364 les Ragusains se plaignent des pillages faits sur leurs territoires* et le 4 avril les habitants de Zadar font le même. La plainte de Zadar fut appuyée par le „ban" de Croatie auprès du gouvernement vénitien lequel fut obligé de présenter ses excuses, le 29 avril, au roi d'Hongrie, au „ban" de la Croatie et à Zadar. ASV, Secreta collegii, vol. 1363—1366, f. 91'. Ljubic, Listine, vol. IV, pp. 65—69, 71—72. Mon. rag. — Reform. vol. IV,40 pp. 20—21. Tadic, Pisma, pp. 125—126. Dans les «Secreta Collegii", vol. 1363—1366, aux ASV, on trouve sur f. 9T l'inscription suivante: ,,1364. Nota quod die IIII 0 mensis junii hora sexta habite fueruni littere et nova de recuperatione insuie Crete, que fuit die X mensis may preteriti in ortu solis". Cette note se trouve toute seule sur la page, tandis que le f. 98 a, en haut, l'inscription suivante: „Receptis no vis de felici victoria habita de insula Crete". 41 Je tiens à exprimer ici mes remerciements très sincères à Madame Florence Edler de Roover, qui a bien voulu me donner des renseignements très précieux concernant la bibliographie sur la vie et l'activité de Philippe Bastari à Florence. 42 A. Panella, Histoire de Florence, Paris, 1959, pp. 129 sq.

II 28 Albizzi sortit victorieux de tous ces conflits et, avec le titre de «gonfaloniere di giustizia" prit le pouvoir effectif dans la ville entre ses mains. Naturellement, la victoire des Albizzi signifiait que les Alberti et leurs amis étaient exposés à de violentes représailles et, aussi, exilés. Parmis les victimes de Maso degli Albizzi se trouvait Philippe Bastari. Les Bastari n'étaient pas une grande famille. A ce qu'on sait, Philippe est le seul membre des Bastari à avoir joué un rôle dans le vie politique de Florence, mais ce rôle dura très longtemps, depuis les années quarante du XlVe siècle jusqu'en 1394. Il était souvent envoyé en mission comme ambassadeur de Florence (par exemple en 1349 et 1350) et en 1356, avec Donato Velluti, fut chargé — sans succès — d'une mission à Pise, pour faire abolir les entraves que les Pisans avaient imposé au commerce florentin 43 . Philippe Bastari avait la réputation d'un homme politique modéré et intelligent qui, dans ses discours et autres actes, prenait des positions indépendantes, conformément à ses propres concéptions des intérêts de Florence44. C'est pourquoi on pourrait être surpris de voir cet homme, déjà très âgé, devenir victime des Albizzi. Mais il ne faut jamais oublier qu'à Florence il suffisait d'avoir pris une part quelconque à la vie politique du précédent régime pour qu'on soit exposé aux représailles du régime suivant. Philippe Bastari, donc, avait été accusé, avec plusieurs membres des familles Alberti, Medici, Strozzi etc., d'avoir fomenté une rebellion pour renverser le pouvoir de Maso degli Albizzi. On ne peut pas savoir aujourd'hui combien de vérité il y a dans cette accusation, et si même elle n'est complètement fausse. Néanmoins, Philippe Bastari et les autres accusés furent condamnés à l'exil. On sait déjà qu'un membre de la famille Alberti fut relégué en Flandres pour dix ans, un autre à Rhodes pour vingt ans et que tous les autres membres de cette famille, sauf un, furent expulsés de Florence. On savait, aussi, que Philippe Bastari avait été expulsé, mais on ne savait pas où et pour combien de temps 45 . Cependant, aux Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik nous avons trouvé des documents concernant le sort de Philippe Bastari et de son fils Giovenco. Ces documents montrent que Philippe Bastari avait été expulsé de Florence par une décision de „Franciscus de Gabrielibus de Eugubio, capitaneus custodie et baylie civitatis Florentie", datant de 18 avril 1394, et relégué à Dubrovnik pour dix ans, avec l'obligation de se présenter personnellement chaque semaine au recteur de Dubrovnik. Bastari, après avoir quitté Florence, se rendit d'abord à Venise et de là, sur un navire ragusain, arriva à Dubrovnik le 24 mai 1394. Le jour même, quoique âgé et malade, Philippe, accompagné de son fils Giovenco — qui était venu à Dubrovnik avec son père — se pré43 G. A. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, 1343—1378, Princeton, New Jersey, 1962, pp. 151—152. Sur les missions diplomatiques de Bastari: D. Marzi, La cancelleria della Repubblica Fiorentina, Rocca San Casciano, 1910, pp. 663 sq. (selon Brucker, o. c., p. 152, n. 14). Sur la mission de 1356 v. La cronica domestica di Messer Donato Velluti scritta fra il 1367 e il 1370, ed. I. del Lungo e G. Volpi, Firenze, 1914, p. 218. Cf. aussi Panella, o. c., p. 137. 44 Selon Brucker, o. c., pp. 250—252, les discours de Bastari ont été conservés aux Archives d'Etat de Florence. 45 G. Morelli, Cronica, Firenze, 1718, pp. 293—294. Cf. Panella, o. c., pp. 165—166*

Trois fragments

coticertiant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et

l'Italie

29

senta devant le recteur et les juges de la ville. Après cela Philippe seul, ou avec Giovenco, se présentait au recteur et aux juges — toujours en présence de plusierus témoins — les 1, 8, 15, 22 et 29 juin et le 6 juillet 1394. Mais le 13 juillet Philippe Bastari n'était plus en état de venir personnellement devant les autorités, pusqu'il était alité, gravement malade. Le chancellier de Dubrovnik, d'autres fonctionnaires et plusieurs citoyens se rendirent alors dans sa maison et le recteur, lui-même, y vint «gratia visitation is". 46 Le jour suivant, le 14 juillet 1394, Philippe Bastari mourut. Ainsi se termina, loin de sa patrie et en exil, la vie d'un Florentin qui avait certainement eu des mérites qui lui donnaient droit à un traitement tout à fait différent de la part de ses concitoyens. Bastari fut enseveli avec solemnité le 15 juillet dans l'église franciscaine de Dubrovnik, en présence du recteur, des juges, d'un grand nombre de gentilshommes, citoyens, marchands et artisans ragusains et étrangers. Sur demande de Giovenco Bastari le notaire ragusain dressa un acte des funerailles, dont les témoins furent, entr'autres, le recteur de Dubrovnik, les juges, plusieurs éminents marchands florentins à Dubrovnik et autres. On a noté, aussi, dans les livres officiels ragusains que le 20 juillet Giovenco donna une messe pour l'âme de son père, à laquelle assistèrent de nombreux Ragusains, Florentins etc47. Le même jour que Philippe Bastari, son fils Giovenco fut expulsé de Florence. Giovenco, il est vrai, n'avait pas reçu l'ordre d'aller à Dubrovnik, mais seulement de s'éloigner de Florence d'une distance d'au moins 100 milles. Cependant — nous l'avons vu — il se rendit à Dubrovnik et y arriva avec son père le 24 mai 1394. Il ammena avec lui son fils Philippocius, aussi. Giovenco Bastari, lui-aussi, se présentait aux autorités ragusaines, à ce qu'on peut savoir, jusqu'au commencement de septembre 139448. Mais Giovenco Bastari et son fils restèrent à Dubrovnik après la mort de Philippe. Giovenco entra avec succès dans l'activité commerciale de Dubrovnik qui, à l'époque, était en plein essort. Nous citerons seulement quelques exemples à l'appui de cette constatation. Dès novembre 1394 ^Jouencho quondam domini Phylippi de Bastariis de Florentia" était un des témoins à l'occasion d'un contrat stipulé à Dubrovnik entre Florentins et habitants de Bari pour un voyage à Constantinople et Péra 49 . En 1395 Giovenco était engagé dans de multiples opérations commerciales. En mars de cette année il envoya de Dubrovnik à Zadar une cargaison de 1969 livres de poivre, valant 366 ducats- 0 . En automne de la même année, il avait été convenu que Dore Boksic, prothovistiaire du roi bosnien, au nom du gentilhomme ragusain Paul Gundulic (Paulus de Gondola), enverra 500—600 ducats de plomb à Giovenco Bastari à Brstanik, port sur le fleuve Neretva. Giovenco, après avoir reçu la „poliça carichi dicti plumbi" 46

V. doc. n° 8 dans 1'Appendix. V. doc. n° 9 dans 1'Appendix. Giovenco Bastari avait envoyé, le 10 août 1394, un document sur les présentations de son père aux autorités ragusaines à Florence via Venise, mais cet envoi rencontra des difficultés à cause des pirateries de gens d* Omis et de Bari. DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXI, 107—108. 48 V. doc. n° 10 dans 1'Appendix. 49 DAD, Diversa cancellariae, XXXI, 130*—131'. Cf. Krekic, o. c., rég. n° 454. 50 DAD, Diversa cancellariae, XXXI, 152. 47

II 30 devait envoyer à Gundulic à Venise une lettre de change pour le montant de la valeur du plomb. Ce contrat a été réalisé sans difficultés 51 . Giovenco avait, de toute évidence, de bons contacts financiers avec Venise puisque, aussi bien avant qu'après ce cas, il joua le rôle d'intermédiaire dans l'envoi d'argent de Dubrovnik à Venise52. De même, outre le cas déjà mentionné, Giovenco joua le rôle de lien pour d'autres transactions concernant l'envoi du plomb bosnien à Venise 53 . Quoique explusé de Florence, Giovenco Bastari était à Dubrovnik représentant de plusieurs marchands florentins. Ainsi, par exemple, en octobre 1395 il entra en conflit avec le Vénitien „Bartholameus de Grassi". Grassi s'était engagé à transporter à Cività Vecchia sur son navire 2018 pièces de plomb d'un poids total de 266 549 livres ragusaines. Giovenco devait lui présenter le plomb à Dubrovnik, puisque ce plomb était propriété des Florentins, dont Giovenco était le représentant à Dubrovnik. Mais Grassi, ne pouvant pas prendere tout ce plomb sur son navire, rendit à Bastari 341 pièces d'un poids de 44 176 livres. Giovenco protesta très fermement contre cet acte du Vénitien, en particulier à cause du fait que Grassi avait pris sur son navire de la marchandise d'autres personnes et avait décidé de nè pas aller à Cività Vecchia mais à Gaetta. Cependant, Grassi, non plus, ne ménagea pas ses acusations contre Giovenco, qui répondit par de nouvelles accusations et l'affaire traîna, sans que nous sachions encore comment elle se termina 54 . Le plomb bosnien continua de jouer un rôle important dans les activités dé Giovenco Bastari. En 1398 nous le trouvons de nouveau engagé à recevoir à Dubrovnik 30 000 livres de plomb du gentilhomme ragusain Martol Zamanjic (Martolus de Zamagno), auquel il fera payer à Venise 240 ducats55. Entremps il était entré dans l'important commerce du sel. En mai 1396 „prudens vir ser Jouenchus de Bastariis de Florencia, nunc habitator Ragusii" avait fait un contrat avec le patron d'un navire de Coron, en Grèce, pour le transport d'une quantité du sel de Corfou à Neretva. A Neretva ce sel devait être remis aux représentants „domini Zore, prothouestiarii domine regine Bosne" 56 . C'est justement à propos du commerce du sel que le fils de Giovenco, „Philippoçius" est mentionné. En effet, il avait été engagé, en juin 1396, 61

DAD, id., 166% 166*—167. En juillet 1395, par exemple, Giovenco Bastari s'engagea à faire payer 448 ducats au gentilhomme ragusain Miho Bunié (Michael de Bona) à Venise au nom d'Aloïse Guëetic (de Goziis). DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXI, 162'. 63 Marcus de Baraba prit Giovenco comme intermédiaire pour une quantité de 545 ducats de plomb, allant à Venise. DAD, id., 167. Sur le commerce du plomb bosnien et les relations avec Venise v. Kovacevic, o. c., pp. 27—31. Aussi B. Krekic, Prilog istoriji mletacko-balkanske trgovine druge polovine XIV veka, Godisnjak Filoz. fakulteta, vol. II, Novi Sad, 1957, pp. 11—19. 64 DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXI, 172, 173—174, 177, 177'—179. En 1397 Giovenco était en relations d'affaires soit avec des Florentins de Florence même, soit avec des Florentins habitant à Bari. DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXII, 20. " DAD, id. XXXII, 249. DAD, id. XXXIII, 4'—5. V. Krekió, Dubrovnik et le Levant, rég. n° 465. 52

II Trois fragments

concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et l'Italie

31

par le très distingué marchand ragusain d'origine vénitienne, Johanninus Salimbene, comme son représentant particulier dans l'ile de Corfou pour la vente du sel57. Ceci signifie, certainement, que Philippocius était à l'époque déjà un homme, probablement jeune encore, mais suffisamment adulte pour s'engager dans les affaires. Néanmoins, leur collaboration ne dura pas longtemps. Dès juillet 1396 Salimbene le révoqua^8. D'ailleurs, avec le temps, les relations entre les Bastari et Salimbene s'envenimèrent à un tel point qu'en été 1399 un conflit existait entr'eux et devait être débattu devant le recteur et la cour ragusaine 69 . Ce document du 30 juillet 1399 est le dernier dont nous disposons maintenant sur l'activité de Giovenco Bastari et de son fils à Dubrovnik. Il serait intéressant de pouvoir déterminer avec précision jusqu'à quand, exactement, Giovenco et Philippocius sont restés à Dubrovnik. Dans une liste, contenant les noms des personnes qui, en 1403, furent obligés par Florence à verser un prêt forcé («prestanza"), on trouve, parmis autres, „rede di Giovenco Bastari" 60 . Les données ragusaines, dont nous disposons, ne nous empêchent pas de penser qu'il peut s'agir là de Philippocius, fils de Giovenco. Les documents ragusains sur les Bastari — nous venons de le voir — se terminent en 1399 et, puisque l'exil des Bastari de Florence avait été prononcé en 1394 pour une durée de dix ans, on peut supposer que Philippocius soit rentré à Florence avant 1403, soit avec son père, soit seul, après sa mort 61 . Des trois membres de la famille Bastari qui, forcés par les événements, étaient venus à Dubrovnik en 1394, le personnage le plus préstigieux était, sans doute, le vieux politicien et diplomate florentin Philippe Bastari. Mais à Dubrovnik même ce f u t son fils Giovenco qui se distingua le plus. Par son travail et par son comportement, Giovenco avait su être entouré d'un grand respect par les Ragusains. Celà semble évident non seulement par les litres qu'on émploie dans les documents pour le qualifier („ser Jouenchus, „circumspectus vir", „prudens vir", etc.), mais surtout par le fait qu'il était devenu „habitator Ragusii". C'est pourquoi on peut compter Giovenco Bastari parmis ces marchands pleins de vitalité, d'esprit d'adaptation et de perséverance, dont l'histoire médiévale des villes dalmates, italiennes et autres nous offre de nombreux exemples.

57

DAD, id. 46'. DAD, ibid. 59 DAD, Reformationes, XXXI, 64. 60 L. Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists, 1390—1460, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963, p. 354. 61 Notons qu'aux Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik il n'y a pas de testament de Giovenco, ce qui signifie qu'il n'est pas mort à Dubrovnik. Mais, bien sûr si l'on trouvait soit à Dubrovnik, soit ailleurs, des données qui montreraient que Giovenco vivait encore an 1403 ou même après cette date, notre identification du „rede di Giovenco Bastari" avec Philippocius perdrait sa valeur et il faudrait voir dans ce „rede" un membre d'ime autre branche de la famille Bastari. 58

II 32 APPENDIX 62 N° 1 le 12 septembre 1312. Mafeus de Murano dimittit suum procuratorem Petrum balesterium ad petendum et recipiendum pro eo quicquid eidem Mafeo qualibet de causa dare debet Petrus de Grede et ad jurandum in animam eius et faciendum in predictis omnia que facere posset dictus Mafeus si esset presens. Eodem die. Mafeus fiolarius de Murano, procurator Luce et Anssuini de Massariis fiolariorum de Murano, ut patet per publicum instrumentum scriptum manu Filippi Prandi Igiçi sub anno domini MCCCXII, indictione decima, die lune vigesimo octavo augusti, a me cancellano viso et lecto, ex virtute diete procurations et instrumenti substituit loco sui suum et dictorum principalium actorem et procuratorem ad ipsius Mafei voluntatem Petrum balestarium presentem et consencientem, ad petendum, exigendum et recipiendum pro dictis principalibus et dicto procuratore a qualibet persóna et personis que cum cartis vel sine cartis, vel qualibet ratione vel causa dictis Luce et Ansuino vel alteri eorum, et faciendum in predictis omnia que posset facere dictus procurator ex virtute diete procurationis. DAD, Diversa cancellariae V, 114. N° 2 le 24 août 1325. Maffeus Pilbanico de Morano, vetrer, contentus, et confessus fuit se habuisse et recepisse gratis et amore a Donato Pipono de Venetiis yperperos septuaginta quatuor venetorum grossorum, quos dare et numerare promisit aut dari et numerari facere Çanino Pipono, fratri dicti Donati, in Venetiis infra VIII dies postquam barcusium Negoslavi de Pesangna applicuerit Venetias sub pena XX solidorum grossorum venetorum in penam apthagi de misericordia. DAD, Diversa cancellariae VIII, 14\ N° 3 e 16 janvier 1326. Nos presbiter Petrus de Volcasello, Dobre de Sorco, judices, arbitri, arbitratores, deffinitores, compositores, sentenciatores et amici comunes litium et diferenciarum que vertebantur et erant inter Palmam Passilieri ex parte una, et Matheum vetrarium de Morano ex parte altera, occaxione cuiusdam societatis habite inter eos de quadam quantitate vetri l aborati, deferti per eos in Sclauoniam, unde auditis et intellectis dictis allegationibus et juribus utriusque partis, pro bono pacis et concordie ambarum partium dicimus, arbitramus et per sententiam judicamus, presentibus, volentibus et consentientibus dictis partibus, quod dictus Palma Passilieri teneatur et debeat dare et solvere eidem Matheo, omni occaxione et defensione remota, yperperos quindecim, videlicet X in Pasca resurectionis domini proxima et yperperos quinque in Pasca Rosaliarum proxima, in penam apthagi de misericordia ; et quod omnia eredita que habent recipere in Sclauonia ratione diete societatis vetri et omne eorum laborerium vetri, quod similiter habent in Sclauonia, sint dicti Mathei et ad eum deveniant, et ipse Palma nil habeat fecere in dictis creditis et vetro; de quo debito idem Maffeus recepit ab ipso Palma yperperos IIII 1/2. DAD, Diversa cancellariae V i l i ,

41'—42.

N° 4 le 2 mars 1327. Ego quidem Antonius, filius Dominici Fança (?) de Padua, de bona voluntate mea confiteor quod me dedi et locavi et opera mea ad standum cum Mapheo Pyanigo de Mu62 Je désire remercier vivement mon ami M. Zdravko Sundrica, archiviste aux Archives d'Etat de Dubrovnik, pour l'aide qu'il m'a fournie concernant les actes de ce» Archives que je publie ici.

II Trois fragments concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik et l'Italie

33

rano de Venetiis usque ad unum annum et dimidium, tali vero pacto quod annus incipere debet in festo sancti Petri de junio proxime venturo, cui me obligo et servire promito tali pacto, quod omni die operaria qua laboravero dictus Mapheus tenetur michi dare super se et super omnia sua bona grossos II, de quibus debeo michi facere victum, vestitum et calciamentum, non computando sibi in dicto termino aliquas festivitates ; si vero omni die non laborarem operam, obligo me dare et solvere dicto Mapheo nomine pene grossos XII et tenear laborare in quocumque loco dictus Mapheus preceperit michi, sub pena predieta tociens persolvenda quociens contrafacerem. DAD, Diversa notariae, V, 156. N° 5 le 11 octobre 1363. Regentibus et universitati Ragusii. Scire potuistis quod pheudati nostre insule Crete, quos semper tamquam filios et fratres tractavimus, ex quadam insolentia, rebellionem contra statum nostrum in eadem insula excitarunt. Et quamvis speremus quod ipsi, sua culpa recognita, ad nostre gratie gremium revertentur, nichilominus propositum nobis est, ubi forte perseverarent, ad recuperationem nostri honoris intendere et contra ipsos habere continue potens stollum galearum, quod prohibeat atque turbet ne quid ad eos defferri possit vel inde extrahi, seu alias quodlibet exhiberi eisdem auxilium seu favor. Sinceritatem vestram, cui scimus excessum predictum plurimum displicere, affectuose rogamus quatenus vellitis subditis vestris efficaciter imponere et mandare, quod durante novitate premissa ab eundo, mittendo vel conversando cum eis abstineant et ab omni eorum favore ac auxilio prorsus désistant, sicut decet inter amicos servari, et sic de vestra dilectione piene speramus. ASV, Secreta Collegii, voi. 1363—1366, f. 33. N° 6 le 27 janvier 1364. Regentibus Ragusii. Pro gentibus nostris equestribus, quas in brevi missuri sumus contra rebelles nostros Crete, providimus mittere Ragusium ad manus nobilis viri Marci Guoro, fidelis nostri ibidem personaliter commorantis, fenum et alias res pro dicto nostro exercitu opportunas, donec illas accipi faciemus et levari super nostris useriis versus partes illas Venturis. Et propterea sinceritatem vestram rogamus instanter quatenus vobis placeat eidem Marco, civi nostro, ad reperiendum locum habilem pro dicto feno et rebus colocandis, exhiberi facere auxilium et favorem, sicut speramus de vobis, quod habebimus valde gratum. . . ASV, Secreta Collegii, voi. 1363—1366, f. 63. N° 7 le 27 janvier 1364. Ser Marco Guoro in Raguxio. Pro gentibus nostris equestribus quas in brevi missuri sumus contra Cretam, providimus mittere Raguxium et alia loca circavicina fenum et alias res, quas postea levari faciemus super nostris useriis ad partes illas ituris. Et quia assignari fecimus Bobdano (sic!) de Raguxio, patrono presentis navigii, staria XXXIIII feni, fidelitati vestre scribimus et mandamus quatenus dictum fenum et illud quod in posterum mittemus illue, recipere debeatis et colocari facere in aliquo loco sive magazeno, nam id quod propterea solvetis, scribatis nobis quia dari faciemus de hinc, sicut duxeritis ordinandum. Et super hoc etiam scribimus universitati Raguxii per litteras présentes alligatas, quod circa hanc nostram intentionem sint vobis propicui et favorabiles. Predicto autem Bogodano de eius nabulo fecimus dehinc satisfieri. . . ASV, Secreta Collegii, voi. 1363—1366, f. 63'

II 34 N° 8 le 1er juin jusqu'à 13 juillet 1394. In Christi nomine. Amen. Anno nativitatis eiusdem millesimo trecentesimo nonagesimo quarto, indictione secunda, die primo mensis junii, Ragusii, ante domum seu atrium residencie cuiuscumque rectoris Ragusii qui singulis mensibus innovatur, tempore santissimi in Christo patris et domini, domini Bonifatii divina providentia pape noni. Noverint universi présentes litteras inspecturi, quod Phylippus Cioneti de Bastariis, populi sancti Proculi de Florentia, relegatus die XVIII mensis aprilis millesimi trecentesimi nonagesimi quarti, indictione secunda, per magnificium et potentem militem, dominum Franciscum de Gabrielibus de Eugubio, capitaneum custodie et baylie civitatis Florentie et eius fortie et districtus, in civitatem Ragusii per decenium continuum, et condempnatus quod ipse Phylippus teneatur et debeat singula ebdomada seu singulis octo diebus tocius temporis dicti decenii se personaliter representare coram domino rectore Ragusii in dieta civitate Ragusii, idem Phylippus, occaxione diete relegationis et sententie late per prefatum dominum Franciscum, discedens de Venetiis et veniens cum quodam navigio ragusino, cuius patronus et conductor est Blasius Perufchi de Ragusio, applicuit Ragusium die vigesima quarta mensis maii proxime preteriti; qua die ipse Phylippus sociatus a Juvencho eius filio se personaliter presentavi, licet cum dificultate, corporis gravitate, coram nobili et sapienti viro domino Clemente de Gociis, tunc honorabili rectore civitatis Ragusii, reperto simul cum quatuor suis judicibus, ut de huiusmodi presentatione patet publico instrumento scripto manu mei Andree notarii infrascripti, anno, indictione prescripts, die XXIIII dicti maii proxime preteriti, pluries iterato: die primo mensis junii, secundum formam predicte sententie late per prelibatimi dominum Franciscum capitaneum ut supra, coram nobili et sapienti viro domino Nicolao de Mençe, honorabili rectore civitatis Ragusii, anno et indictione prescripts se personaliter representavit in civitate Ragusii comité Juvencho prescripto, presentibus nobilibus viris et prudentibus ser Jacobo de Gondula, annuali judice diete civitatis, ser Nicolao de Gondula, ser Francho Mathey de Basilio, Johannino Salimbenis de Venetiis, habitatore Ragusii, et aliis pluribus ad hunc actum vocatis et rogatis, rogans me notarium infrascriptum ut ad dicti Phylippi cautelam de dieta representatione die primo junii, ut supra, facta, publicum conficerem instrumentum ac etiam de sequentibus factis seu faciendis per eundem diebus et mensibus infrascriptis. — In margine: extracta. Item die V i l i dicti mensis junii dictus Phylippus se presentavi in civitate Ragusii suprascripto domino rectori Ragusii, presentibus ser Volço de Babalio, judice, ser Alberto Bono olim Thome, de civitate Bellinensi (?), notario et cancellano comunis Ragusii, magistro Karulo de Bononia, rectore scolarum in dieta civitate pro comuni, et aliis testibus vocatis et rogatis. Rogans etc. Item die XV dicti mensis dictus Phylippus, sociatus a Juvencho filio, suo, se personaliter representavit suprascripto domino rectori in dieta civitate Ragusii, presentibus ser Volço de Balio (sic!), judice, et venerabilibus viris dompno Marino de Glavato, dompno Petro Andreas, rectore ecclesie sanctorum Petri, Laurentii et Andree de Platea, Helya quondam Predoe, ser Matheo de Saracha et aliis testibus vocatis et rogatis. Rogans etc. — In margine: nil scribatur. Item dictus Phylippus, sociatus a Juvencho filio suo, se presentavi die XXII junii coram transscriptò domino rectore ser Nicolao de Mençe, presentibus providis viris, dompno Johanne Blasii de Calamota, ser Matheo de Saracha de Ragusio et ser Mondino Johannis de Mediolano et aliis testibus in civitate Ragusii. Item similiter die XXVIIII dicti junii se presentavi coram prefato domino rectore, presentibus magistro Christoforo physico, salariato comunis Ragusii, magistro Karulo Jacobi de Stanellis, rectore scolarum, et Colino Georgii de Florentia ac aliis testibus rogatis. Item dictus Phylippus, sociatus a Juvencho, die VI julii anni predicti se presentavi coram nobili et sapienti viro domino Biasio de Sorgo, honorabili rectore comunis Ragusii, presentibus nobilibus viris ser Michaele de Babalio et ser Natali de Proculo, Compagno Johannis de Florentia et aliis in civitate Ragusii. Item dictus Phylippus die XIII julii coram prescripto domino rectore se personaliter presentavi, presentibus prudenti viro ser Alberto Bono, notario et cancellarlo Ragusii et Marino scribano, precone curie Ragusii et aliis in civitate Ragusii, in domo habitationis

II Trois fragments

concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik

et

l'Italie

35

dicti Phylippi in lecto graviter languentis quo dictus dominus rector ser Blasius de Sorgo gratia visitationis accesserat. — In margine : nil scribatur per totum latus. DAD, Diversa cancellariae, XXXI, 107—107\ N° 9 le 15 juillet 1394. Sepedictus Phylippus viam universe carnis ingressus, delatus a nobilibus juvenibus Ragusii a domo sue habitationis ad locum Fratrum minorum de Ragusio in feretro cum cetu copioso nobilium, popularium, merchatorum et artificum, cum solemnibus exequiis intus in dicta ecclesia Fratrum minorum in fovea de novo fossa, eius cadavere in quadam capsa posito, fuit honorifice traditus sepulture, presente me notario qui fui rogatus a Juvencho, filio dicti Phylippi ut de dictis exequiis et sepultura predicti patris sui publicum conficerem instrumentum suprascriptis representationibus annexum. lestes vero présentes et rogati fuerunt hii: dominus Blasius de Sorgo, honorabilis rector civitatis Ragusii, ser Jacobus de Gondula, annualis judex et Raphael de Gotiis, annualis etiam judex, ser Clemens de Gotiis, ser Stephanus de Lucaris, Compagnus Johannis et Colinus Georgii et Petrus Coradi, hiis tribus de Florentia, et alii quam plurimi utriusque sexus. In quibus exequiis cantavit missam defunctorum in pontificalibus reverendus in Christo pater, frater Jacobus de Yporegia, Dei et apostolice sedis gratia episcopus Tribuniensis et Mercanensis, in dicta ecclesia Minorum, cum multis religiosis et sacerdotibus ad dictas exequias invitatis. Ad hec noverint et pro infrascripto suppliciter Dei misericordiam implorent universi infrascriptorum seriem inspecturi. Quod etc. Item die XX julii prescripti, Juvenchus suprascriptus fecit celebrari exequias septimo die a die obitus dicti quondam Phylippi patris eius in dicta ecclesia Fratrum minorum cum solempni missa et aliis officiis defunctorum, ipso astante, qui obitus fuit die XIIII dicti mensis, licet die XV eiusdem foret tumulatus ut supra; presentibus sapienti viro magistro Albertino da Chamurata, physico et magistro Johanne de Papia cirugico, salariatis comunis Ragusii, dompno Petro Caputapis, rectore ecclesie Sancte Trinitatis de Ragusio, Compagno Johannis et Colino Georgii, hiis ambobus de Florentia, et aliis multis testibus vocatis et rogatis et me notario, qui ab eodem Juvencho fui rogatus ut de hiis septimU publicum conficerem instrumentum. DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXI, 107\ N° 10 le 1er juin jusqu'au 1er septembre 1394. Ragusii, ante atrium residencie cuiuscumque rectoris Ragusii qui mensibus singulis innovator, tempore sanctissimi in Christo patris et domini, domini Bonifatii pape noni, universis et singulis ad quos presencium series contigerit presentari, pateat evidenter quod Juvenchus filius Phylippi de Bastariis, populi Sancti Proculi de Florentia, die XVIII mensis aprilis anni MCCCXCIIIIti per magnificum et potentem militem, dominum Franciscum de Gabrielibus de Eugubio, capitaneum custodie et baylie civitatis et districtus Florentie, relegatus et per sententiam condempnatus quod debeat se abscentare a civitate et districtu Florentie eminus ab ipsa civitate et districtu spatio centum miliarium ad minus, cum uno navigio ragusino, cuius patronus et conductor est Blasius filius quondam Perufchi Raguseus, veniens de Venetiis, applicuit ad portum Ragusii die XXIIIIto mensis maii proxime preteriti, anno et indictione prescripts, simul cum Philippo eius patre, Phylipocio eius filio et aliis secum conductis, et die prescripto, silicet primo junii, coram me, Andrea notario infrascripto tamquam publica persona ac notario et cancellano comunis Ragusii ad sui certam cautelam in loco suprascripto se personaliter presentavi, presentibus nobili viro ser Volço de Babalio, annuali judice civitatis Ragusii et Marino de Besanti, Tripe filio Georgii de Ragusio et aliis testibus vocatis et rogatis. Rogans me, infrascriptum notàrium ut de predictis publicum conficerem instrumentum. Suivent les présentations de Giovenco des 15 et 22 juin, 6 juillet et 1er septembre 1394. DAD, Diversa cancellariae XXXI, 108.

Ill

LA PUGLIA TRA DUBROVNIK (RAGUSA) E IL LEVANTE NELL'EPOCA

ANGIOINA

Mirjana Popovic-Radenkovic, la rimpianta studiosa delle relazioni tra la costa orientale ed occidentale dell'Adriatico nell'epoca angioina, nei suoi due articoli sulle relazioni commerciali fra Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e la Puglia nel periodo angioino, ha trattato qua e là dei contatti commerciali ragusei con il Levante, connessi con le loro operazioni commerciali nella Puglia (i). D'altra parte, nel mio libro recente su Ragusa ed il Levante nel Medio Evo, ho spesso menzionato la Puglia e la sua gente nelle relazioni raguseo-levantine (2). Ma, nè Marj ana Popovic-Radenkovic, nè io, abbiamo considerato il problema della posizione della Puglia nei contatti raguseolevantini da un punto di vista, direi, pugliese, cioè del ruolo della Puglia in questo commercio. Ed è proprio quel che io mi propongo di fare ora, basandomi sempre sul materiale dell'Archivio di Stato di Ragusa (3). Per apprezzare meglio il posto che la Puglia occupava nelle relazioni raguseo-levantine, questo problema si deve considerare sotto tre aspetti distinti, ma interdipendenti: 1) la partecipazione dei Pugliesi nel commercio con il Levante; 2) i prodotti pugliesi come articoli di esportazione verso il Levante; (1) Miriana POPOVIC'-RADENKOVIC', Le relazioni commerciali fra> Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e la Puglia nel periodo angioino (1266-1442), in « Archivio storico per le Province Napoletane », vol. XXXVII (1957), pp. 5-36; vol. XXXVIII (1958), PP. 153-206. (2) B. KREKIC', Dubrovni\ (Ragusa) et le Levant au moyen âge, Paris 1961. (3) I documenti sui quali è basato questo lavoro, provenienti dalFArchivio di Stato di Ragusa (Drzavni archiv - Dubrovnik), sono stati pubblicati in regesti, in francese, con le indicazioni sui fondi dell'archivio e sulle pubblicazioni precedenti: B. KREKIC', c.c., Régestes, numeri 9, 11, 12, 37, 42, 43, 71, 106, 126, 156, 294, 315, 406, 410, 454, 471, 476, 484, 556, 573, 576, 609, 677, 698, 706, 714, 725, 791, 876, 1040, 1124, 1129, 1220, 1232, 1248, 1251, 1364.

64

3) uomini e prodotti levantini nella Puglia. Oltre a ciò si dovrà parlare anche di alcuni fenomeni particolari, connessi al nostro tèma. I 11 commercio raguseo con il Levante costituiva una parte importante dell'attività economica generale della città adriatica. Le sue origini risalgono ai tempi remoti della protezione bizantina sulla città, ma lo sviluppo di questo commercio si può studiare particolarmente bene dopo il 1250. Ed è proprio in quest'epoca che si trovano nei documenti ragusei i primi pugliesi, di Trani e di Brindisi, che si occupano del commercio nel Levante. Nel Trecento, tra i pugliesi che s'incontrano nelle acque levantine, ve ne sono di Trani, Molfetta, Manfredonia, San Severino e Bari. Qualche volta si tratta anche di compagnie commerciali costituite da pugliesi. La situazione è molto simile pure nel Quattrocento: Trani, Taranto, Manfredonia e Bari sono i luoghi di provenienza dei mercanti pugliesi che trafficano nel Levante. La presenza e l'attività dei pugliesi nel Levante — le cui tracce si trovano nei documenti ragusei, e che avevano relazioni daffari anche con Ragusa — non può essere considerata come importante. Il loro numero è ridotto (una dozzina di casi per quasi duecento anni), e gli articoli del loro commercio, quando lo si può constatare, erano per la più gran parte articoli di massa e di minor valore (cereali, legna, ecc.). II Più interessanti sono i dati sull'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante. Se nel Duecento troviamo una volta l'oro come articolo di esportazione da Trani per Alessandria e Costantinopoli, gli articoli di un'importanza maggiore in questo traffico sono prima il vino e l'olio, e poi i cereali. Nel Trecento il vino e l'olio — meglio, il vino o l'olio — rappresentano gli articoli principali d'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante, secondo i dati dei documenti ragusei. Anche nei pochi casi in cui l'articolo non è indicato direttamente, si può presumere da altre indicazioni che si tratta di uno dei due articoli suddetti.

Ill La Puglia tra Ragusa e il Levante ecc.

65

Normalmente si andava prima a Venezia a caricare i vasi, poi si discendeva nella Puglia, dove i porti principali per il carico del vino o dell'olio erano Bari, Manfredonia, Trani, Monopoli, Brindisi e S. Cataldo presso Lecce. La merce — da 300 a 400 vasi — era poi trasportata a Costantinopoli, Pera, Chio, Rodi o Focea. Ma il punto più importante dove si sbarcava il vino e l'olio pugliese sembra essere stata Alessandria. Un caso particolare fu quello del 1303, quando una nave ragusea, carica d'olio e di cereali, diretta a Creta, fu sequestrata a Napoli,, senza dubbio per sospetto d'un viaggio nelle <( partes infidelium ». Carlo II dovette per tre volte rinnovare l'ordine di liberare la nave (4). E' interessante notare, che nel 1397 i Ragusei decisero di esentare dal dazio doganale l'olio che da Ragusa veniva trasportato dai Ragusei nella Puglia, per essere poi condotto ad Alessandria. Ciò significa, a mio avviso, due cose: primo, che l'esportazione dell'olio pugliese faceva concorrenza all'esportazione dell'olio raguseo, la quale doveva essere stimolata in questo modo; secondo, che gli stranieri occupavano una posizione troppo forte a confronto dei Ragusei in questo traffico, e perciò si davano facilitazioni ai Ragusei. Infatti, con una sola eccezione, si tratta sempre di stranieri che, nel Trecento, fanno dei contratti a Ragusa per l'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante. Mercanti di Bari, Trani, Genova e Firenze sono i principali interessati in questo commercio. Ma nel Quattrocento la situazione è completamente cambiata. I documenti ragusei, concernenti l'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante, parlano quasi esclusivamente di Ragusei come protagonisti di questo traffico. Un altro cambiamento è la completa sparizione del vino e la quasi completa dell'olio dalla lista degli articoli d'esportazione, e la preponderanza dei cereali. I cereali provenivano da Manfredonia, Bari, Barletta, o semplicemente « dalla Puglia ». Essi erano diretti a Rodi, Chio, Focea, Famagosta, ed anche in Siria e ad Alessandria. L'esportazione dei generi alimentari nelle « partes infidelium » essendo proibita, questo traffico aveva bisogno di autorizzazioni speciali, che si ottenevano sia dal governo raguseo, sia dal pontefice. Vi sono parecchi casi di esportazione di merci senza precisazio-

(4) T . SMICIKLAS, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, t. VIII, Zagreb 1910, p. 47; M. POPOVIC-RADENKOVIC', op. cit., vol. XXXVII, p. 13; KREKIC', op. cit., Régestes, n. 71.

Ill 66

ne d'articolo, sia nel Trecento che nel Quattrocento. Queste merci si prendevano a Fortore, San Severino o « Santa Maria de Trinitade », per essere trasportate a Corfu, Modone, Candia, Chio, Rodi e, forse, in Siria. Gl'imprenditori, qui pure, erano sempre Ragusei. Lo zucchero è menzionato una volta, nel 1394, con il vino e l'olio, per essere portato da Bari a Costantinopoli o Pera. Per i tessuti non abbiamo dati concreti sull'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante, ma troviamo in una lettera, diretta da Ragusa a Venezia nel 1452, l'affermazione che gli Anconitani e la gente delle Marche e della Puglia recassero tessuti ed altre merci nel Levante. I Ragusei se ne servono come argomento per combattere l'azione veneta diretta contro l'esportazione de itessuti ragusei verso il Levante. Vi sono due fatti essenziali da ritenere da questi atti ragusei sull'esportazione dalla Puglia verso il Levante: primo, il fatto che il vino, l'olio ed i cereali — articoli più importanti — non vengono esportati nello stesso periodo, ma i primi due nel Trecento, ed i cereali nel Quattrocento; la spiegazione di questo fenomeno, credo, si deve cercare nello sviluppo della congiuntura economica nella Puglia, ma anche nelle fluttuazioni del consumo sul mercato levantino. Il secondo è il fatto che, mentre nel Trecento sono quasi esclusivamente gli stranieri ad occuparsi dell'esportazione degli articoli pugliesi verso il Levante, nel Quattrocento questa attività è completamente nelle man idei Ragusei. L'importante sviluppo economico di Ragusa in quest'epoca spiega in parte questo cambiamento, ma si deve anche sempre tenere presente che il non trovarsi più stranieri menzionati nei documenti ragusei, non significa che essi erano totalmente eliminati da queste imprese.

Ili

Su gli uomini e prodotti levantini nella Puglia, vi sono pochissimi dati: una greca d'Acaia, serva, venuta a Trani nel Duecento, e poi passata a Ragusa; un Raguseo, doganiere ad Arta, nel Quattrocento, fuggito nella Puglia con 50.000 aspri appartenenti alla dogana; poi, pure nel Quattrocento, un « Johannes Grechus de Taranto», che aveva portato cereali a Ragusa. In quanto ad articoli d'importazione dal Levante nella Puglia, la situazione è simile: nel 1280 si vendevano a Trani due pezzi di tessuti « de operibus de Romania » e una coperta di Romania, com-

Ill La Puglia tra Ragusa e il Levante ecc.

67

perati a Durazzo. Nel Trecento si prevedeva, qualche volta, la possibilità che le merci levantine, dirette a Ragusa, fossero portate nella Puglia o nell'Abruzzo. Evidentemente, il movimento delle persone, come pure delle merci, dal Levante verso la Puglia — il punto dell'Europa Occidentale più vicino al Levante — doveva essere molto più intenso, ma queste sono le sole tracce che ne esistono a Ragusa. IV La pirateria, sia nel Levante, sia nelle vicinanze delle coste pugliesi, è spesso menzionata nei documenti ragusei. Già nel 1293 certi Ragusei, che trasportavano dalla Romania seta, cera, cereali ed altre cose, per un valore complessivo di 777 once d'oro, furono saccheggiati da un soggetto del re Carlo II, e dovettero chiedere — tramite l'ambasciatore veneto — l'intervento personale del re per recuperare le loro cose (5). Una ventina d'anni più tardi, un capitano di Trani, viaggiando su una nave di Molfetta, s'impossessò di una nave di Cotrone in un porto greco, e poi finì a Ragusa, dove fu posto sotto sequestro. Nel Quattrocento, sull'Adriatico svolgevano la loro attività piratesca i Catalani di Sicilia, le cui tracce si trovano molto spesso a Ragusa, ed anche altri corsari. Un Corfiota fu, per esempio, catturato nei pressi di Otranto, nel 1431, da un corsaro di Bayonne, il quale aveva già fatto bottino di ben ventotto navi ! Per combattere i corsari, i Ragusei cercavano aiuti da altre nazioni: prima, fino al 1358, dai loro protettori veneti, poi dai re di Ungheria, ma la città prendeva essa stessa le misure che le sembravano utili: mandava navi contro i corsari e per avvisare i commercianti, puniva i corsari catturati, ecc. In queste imprese cercava di associarsi anche le altre città nel cui interesse era la sicurezza dei mari. Un esempio dell'epoca post-angioina è istruttivo: i Ragusei mandarono nel 1452 una galea contro i corsari. Essa doveva andare prima a Valona, poi a Brindisi, San Cataldo e Otranto. Se le autorità di queste città gli avessero dato una fusta di aiuto, il capitano della galea avrebbe dovuto condurre le due navi fino a Corfù e Arta, e poi lungo la costa orientale tornare a Ragusa. (5) SMICIKLAS, op. cit., t. VII, Zagreb 1909, pp. 144-175.

Ill 68

La pirateria, dunque, rappresentava un pericolo reale, non solo nelle relazioni raguseo-levantine, ma anche nelle relazioni tra la Puglia e il Levante. D'altra parte, i Pugliesi stessi non erano sempre estranei ad atti pirateschi, ma è particolarmente interessante vedere che si cercava, qualche volta almeno, di stabilire una collaborazione tra Ragusa e le città pugliesi per combattere il comune nemico. V Merita attenzione un interessante caso di cambio. « Ser Antonius Tarole », originario di Gaeta, ma abitante a Otranto, aveva dato nel 1451, ad Alessandria, 90 ducati al gentiluomo raguseo Benedetto Bunic (de Bona), il quale rilasciò una lettera di cambio per il proprio fratello, Matteo, a Ragusa. Matteo pagò infatti questa somma al procuratore del Tarole a Ragusa. E' vero che qui si tratta di una piccola somma di denaro e di un'epoca posteriore all'angioina; ma il caso mostra chiaramente un importante uomo daffari, abitante a Otranto, che si occupa di commercio e di credito in Egitto, ed ha rappresentanti a Ragusa, e forse altrove. E' un esempio istruttivo per lo studio dell'estensione e della tecnica del commercio pugliese in generale, particolarmente con il Levante. VI Sul piano delle relazioni politiche nel triangolo Ragusa-PugliaLevante, c e un caso del 1331 che deve attirare la nostra attenzione. E' ben noto che Gualtieri VI di Brienne, dopo la sconfitta di Cefisso e la morte di suo padre, duca d'Atene, trovò rifugio ed appoggi presso il Pontefice e nel Regno di Napoli per far valere i suoi diritti sullo Stato catalano, formatosi in Grecia (6). Ma, per poter realizzare i suoi piani, Gualtieri aveva, più di ogni altra cosa, bisogno di navi. Svanita la speranza che i Veneziani lo aiutassero con la loro flotta per passare in Grecia (7), il Brienne mandò a Ragusa, nel (6) K. M. SETTON, Catalan Domination of Athens 1311-1388, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1948. (7) A. RUBIO i LLUCH, Diplomatari de l'Orient Català (1301-1409), Barcelona 1947, pp. 189-196, 212-215. P- LEMERLE, L'Emirat d'Aydin, Byzance et l'Occident, Paris 1957, p. 79; F. THIRIET, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge, Paris 1959, pp. 161-62, 165-66.

Ill La Puglia tra Ragusa e il Levante ecc.

69

1331, un suo rappresentante, il conte Angelo da Cotrone. Dietro preghiera dell'ambasciatore, il Maggior Consiglio raguseo permise ai suoi cittadini di andare con le loro navi nella Puglia ed altrove a servizio del duca (« dux Athenarum et Breni et Lucii comes »). Non è possibile verificare se e in quale misura i Ragusei presero realmente parte alla spedizione del Brienne, la quale, per altro, non ebbe alcun risultato notevole. La decisione ragusea prende, però un certo interesse, se si tiene conto di due fatti: primo, che già da tre giorni i Ragusei avevano ordinato a tutti i loro sudditi di ritirarsi dal Regno di Napoli fino alla metà di luglio; e secondo, che la decisione ragusea era in contraddizione con l'atteggiamento assunto al proposito da Venezia, allora protettrice di Ragusa. Credo che l'atteggiamento favorevole assunto dai Ragusei verso il Brienne possa spiegarsi con il loro desiderio di non irritare il Pontefice, suo protettore, ma anche più con il loro desiderio di non aggravare i rapporti con il re Roberto, il cui regno era per Ragusa il principale fornitore di cereali.

Riassumendo, i documenti ragusei permettono di giungere alle seguenti constatazioni: La partecipazione dei Pugliesi nei contatti raguseo-levantini non era grande, ma l'attività economica d'alcuni tra loro assumeva proporzioni più vaste. Nel campo della pirateria, i Pugliesi erano vittime, ma anche protagonisti. Se l'importazione dal Levante nella Puglia — di cui si trovano tracce a Ragusa — era insignificante, la esportazione di articoli diversi dalla Puglia verso il Levante era il più importante aspetto della partecipazione pugliese all'attività, sia dei Ragusei, sia degli stranieri, sulla linea RagusarPuglia-Levante. E' proprio tenendo presente questa esportazione che mi permetto di esprimere, concludendo, la mia convinzione, che ulteriori ricerche negli archivi jugoslavi, come in quelli italiani, potranno dimostrare che la Puglia aveva un posto di grande importanza non solo negli sviluppi politici, ma anche nelle relazioni economiche dell'Occidente con il Levante, nell'epoca angioina, ed anche post angioina.

IV

LE RELAZIONI FRA VENEZIA, RAGUSA E LE POPOLAZIONI SERBO-CROATE

Vorrei, prima di tutto, ringraziare gli organizzatori di questo importante Convegno per l'onore che mi hanno fatto invitandomi a presentare questa relazione. Mi sia permesso di aggiungere che mi rincresce moltissimo di dover essere assente — a causa degli obblighi che ho negli Stati Uniti — da quest'interessantissima riunione e di non poter offrire, eventualmente, ulteriori chiarimenti sul soggetto qui trattato. Infatti, io non ho l'intenzione di delineare qui la storia delle relazioni tra Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e Venezia — d'altronde già ben nota — ma mi propongo, invece, di presentare alcune osservazioni su queste relazioni e su quelle che, tramite Ragusa, Venezia intratteneva con il retroterra balcanico nel Duecento e Trecento. I crociati della Quarta crociata conquistando Costantinopoli e creando l'Impero Latino nel 1204 misero fine ad un equilibrio precario che fino a quell'epoca si era mantenuto nel Mediterraneo Orientale. Da questa perturbazione furono i Veneziani, com'è ben noto, a trarre maggior profitto. Ora, nel momento in cui Venezia s'imponeva definitivamente come una delle maggiori potenze del Mediterraneo, Ragusa era ancora una piccola città sulla costa orientale dell'Adriatico, nella quale processi formativi, politici, economici e sociali, erano già in corso e la cui indipen-

IV 390 denza, sebbene limitata dal riconoscimento del dominio bizantino — e per brevi periodi normanno e veneziano — stava lentamente rafforzandosi. Io non posso qui entrare nei particolari dello sviluppo interno di Ragusa, ma devo sottolineare la differenza non solo nel grado d'evoluzione delle due città adriatiche, ma anche nella loro posizione geografica e nella loro forza effettiva 1 • In vista di tutto ciò, non può sorprendere il fatto che Ragusa, messa di fronte alla potenza veneziana enormemente cresciuta dopo il 1204, si conformò alla realtà e — come tante altre città e regioni — riconobbe nel 1205 la protezione veneziana. Se le modalità di questo riconoscimento non sono molto chiare, le sue conseguenze si possono misurare abbastanza bene. Nella storiografia jugoslava c'è la tendenza di presentare la protezione veneziana su Ragusa come un fenomeno quasi esclusivamente nocivo allo sviluppo di Ragusa e particolarmente allo sviluppo della sua navigazione. Non c'è dubbio, infatti, che il dominio veneziano aveva un certo numero di conseguenze negative importanti per la vita economica di Ragusa e prima di tutto proprio per lo sviluppo della sua navigazione, a causa delle limitazioni imposte dai Veneziani (per esempio, i Ragusei potevano andare a Venezia « tantummodo cum quatuor navigiolis a septuaginta miliariis infra » per anno) 2 . Ma non si può, d'altra parte, ignorare il lato positivo della protezione veneziana. Non solo questa protezione si mostrò — come vedremo — di grande importanza per Ragusa nelle sue relazioni con le vicine popolazioni balcaniche, ma era molto preziosa anche sul mare. Ragusa riceveva l'aiuto veneziano contro 1 H. KRETSCHMAYR, Geschichte von Venedig, II, Gotha 1920. J. TADIC, in Historija naroda Jugoslavia, I, Zagreb 1953, 629-667. Per le relazioni tra Ragusa e Venezia: S. LJUBIÓ, Ob odnosajh dubrovalke sa mletalkom republikom tja do g. 1358, Rad J A Z U V, 1868; S. LJUBIC, O odnosajh medju Dubrovcani i Mletcani za ugar.hrv. vladanja u Dubrovniku, Rad JAZU, XVII, 1871. 2 Trattati veneto-ragusei del 1232, 1236 e 1252: S. LJUBIC, Listine o odnosajih izmedju Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike, I, Zagreb 1868,46-49, 53-55,82-85.

IV VENEZIA,

RAGUSA

E

LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

391

i corsari sull' Adriatico ed il commercio dei Ragusei, « fedeli » del Doge di Venezia, usufruiva della protezione veneziana in varie parti del Mediterraneo (per esempio, nell'elenco dei danni causati ai Veneziani e sudditi di Venezia dai Bizantini, nel 1278, si trova in gran numero di Ragusei per i quali bisogna ottenere il risarcimento dei danni; nel 1323 il governo veneziano intervenne presso Carlo di Calabria in favore dei Ragusei ed altri sudditi veneziani derubati delle loro navi; un po' più tardi, nel 1326, i Ragusei chiesero al Doge d'includere i danni causati dalla « gente de Savona et extrinsecorum de Janua » ai Ragusei nelle negoziazioni in corso tra Venezia e Savona 1 . Un'altra tendenza, presente piuttosto nella storiografia italiana, è quella che attribuisce ai Ragusei quasi tutto il profitto dalle relazioni stabilite tra Ragusa e Venezia nel 1205. È vero che Ragusa, come abbiamo or ora detto, traeva da Venezia molto utile, non solo dal punto di vista della protezione politico-diplomatica, ma ancora di più dal punto di vista economico. Il commercio di Ragusa con Venezia nel Trecento rappresentava, senza dubbio, una delle basi più importanti della vita economica ragusea. Inoltre, molti affari dei Ragusei con altre città italiane si facevano tramite Venezia. Basti citare in questo senso solo l'esempio delle grandi case bancarie fiorentine dei Bardi, Peruzzi ed Acciaiuoli i cui affari con Ragusa, dove avevano propri rappresentanti, comprendevano spesso anche l'Italia Meridionale e si svolgevano regolarmente via Venezia 2 . Inoltre, Venezia era per i Ragusei un importante centro d'informazioni e di reclutamento di mano d'opera altamente specializzata, il che era d'un interesse vitale per Ragusa nel periodo di rapido sviluppo (da Venezia o tramite Venezia, venivano a Ragusa, per esempio, moltissimi notai, dottori, architetti, costruttori di navi, orefici, artefici vari, ecc.)3. LJUBIC, Listine I, 113-114, 345-346, 362-363. Documenti nell'Archivio storico di Ragusa (Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku - HAD), per esempio: Diversa notariae III, 57-57', 299 , -300; IV 2 \ 45\ 52, 52\ 62. Diversa cancellariae IX, 23, 24, 26, 35, 41, 48, 207, 207\ 3 Alcuni casi: J. TADIC, Litterae et commissiones ragusinae, Beograd 1935, 4, 35, 46-47, 117. 1

2

IV 392 N o n ostante tutto ciò, sarebbe difficile accettare la nozione del profitto unilaterale che Ragusa avrebbe tratto da Venezia. Bisogna vedere anche l'altro aspetto di questo rapporto che finora è rimasto, mi sembra, meno noto: se e quanto Venezia profittò dalla sua protezione su Ragusa? Credo che la risposta debba essere largamente affermativa. Numerosi documenti ragusei e veneziani confermano, infatti, che Ragusa aveva una grande importanza per Venezia e che era considerata dai Veneziani in modo differente dagli altri loro possedimenti in Dalmazia. N o n potendo citare qui molti esempi, mi sia permesso di sottolineare la posizione particolare che Ragusa aveva assunto nella navigazione veneziana nell'Adriatico e nel Mediterraneo. Essendo Ragusa una base importante della flotta veneziana del Golfo, i Veneziani vi fecero costruire nel 1329 l'arsenale allo scopo di poter tenere e riparare le loro navi in quella città 1 . Il fatto è che a Ragusa ci furono sempre navi veneziane della flotta del Golfo e che nel porto raguseo si rifornivano di viveri sia le flotte veneziane del Golfo, sia quelle che navigavano fuori dell'Adriatico. A Ragusa si facevano, pure, gli ultimi reclutamenti di uomini per le galere veneziane prima che esse uscissero dall'Adriatico per andare verso il Levante e, al loro ritorno, molto spesso a Ragusa s'effettuavano gli scambi delle ciurme delle navi stesse. Finalmente, la flotta del Golfo reclutava, essa pure, uomini per le proprie galere a Ragusa2 Tutto ciò indica abbastanza chiaramente l'importanza di Ragusa per Venezia dal punto di vista navale. Ma c'era dell'altro. Ragusa serviva ai Veneziani come centro di comunicazioni con Costantinopoli ed altre città orientali attraverso i Balcani e con l'Italia Meridionale attraverso l'Adriatico 3 . Comunque, non c'è dubbio che i Veneziani tenevano molto di LJUBIC, Listine I, 163. LJUBIC, Listine I, 156-157, 162, 163, 342-343. HAD, Div. canc. VI, 107, 113, 116, 177; VII, 25', 76, 107\ 110; VILI, 21, 40, 54, 57', 59, 59\ 61\ 68', , 86, 87'; IX, 112, 132', 133, 133\ 135, 167. Div. not. IV, 19', 25', 26, 27', 36, 36', 37, 76, 92, 94, 95, 98', 107'. 3 B. KREKIC, Kurirski saobracaj Dubrovnika sa Carigradom i Solunom u prvoj polovini XIV veka, in«Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta», 1(1952), 113-120. 1 2

VENEZIA,

RAGUSA

E LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

393

più al ruolo di Ragusa come centro commerciale. Venezia mandava a Ragusa prodotti propri (per esempio vetro) e stranieri (per esempio tessuti). Solo parte di queste mercanzie restava a Ragusa, mentre larghe quantità procedevano oltre Ragusa, per mare verso il Levante o l'Italia Meridionale, o per terra all'interno dei Balcani. D'altra parte, tramite Ragusa i Veneziani importavano molti prodotti balcanici: minerali (argentò, rame), cera, pelle ecc. Ragusa era, anche, la chiave di volta per numerose operazioni bancarie veneziane. Queste operazioni finanziarie, che coinvolgevano uomini di Venezia e di Ragusa non di rado s'estendevano anche alla Serbia (via Cattaro o direttamente VeneziaRagusa-Serbia) e all'Italia Meridionale. L'importanza di Ragusa dal punto di vista del commercio veneziano è attestata anche dalla presenza di centinaia di mercanti, artigiani, capitani e marinai veneziani a Ragusa nel Trecento. Alcuni di questi vivevano nella città di San Biagio o la frequentavano per vent'anni e più. Tra loro si trovano nomi delle più grandi famiglie patrizie veneziane. C'erano, naturalmente, d'altra parte Ragusei che intrattenevano intensi rapporti con Venezia ed alcuni vi stabilivano la loro residenza per prolungati periodi di tempo. Comunque, nell'insieme, i mercanti veneziani a Ragusa erano più numerosi e disponevano di facoltà finanziarie ed organizzative molto superiori a quelle dei Ragusei a Venezia, il che è perfettamente normale e riflette la differenza tra il potenziale generale delle due città adriatiche. •

•

•

Bisogna, ora, gettare imo sguardo su un altro aspetto della presenza dei mercanti veneziani a Ragusa e di quelli ragusei nella città di San Marco. Infatti, esiste una differenza fondamentale nella situazione dei due gruppi nelle rispettive città: i Ragusei a Venezia sono sottomessi alle restrizioni imposte loro dai Veneziani nei trattati fatti tra le due città nel 1232, 1236 e 1252: navigazione limitata — come già abbiamo detto — a quattro piccole navi per anno; proibizione del traffico tra mercanti ragusei e stranieri a Venezia; imposizione di dazi doganali; proibizione

IV 394 d'importazione d'alcune merci a Venezia, ecc. 1 . I mercanti veneziani a Ragusa non soffrono alcuna di queste limitazioni. Al contrario, essi sono privilegiati e si potrebbe dire che occupano una posizione speciale, non essendo cittadini ragusei, ma neanche essendo considerati come stranieri. N o n è, pertanto, sorprendente di trovare molti documenti ragusei, contenenti varie ordinanze, nei quali si dice che tale ordinanza concerne Ragusei, stranieri e Veneziani. E con questo tocchiamo, forse, il maggior problema delle relazioni raguseo-veneziane: quello della posizione giuridica e pratica dei Veneziani a Ragusa. Questo problema, infatti, esiste più o meno costantemente, prima e dopo il 1358. Communque, dopo quell'anno, il problema della posizione dei Ragusei a Venezia si aggiunge all'elenco delle numerose difficoltà che le due città dovevano affrontare nella nuova situazione politica in cui si trovarono. Ma vediamo prima che cosa si può dire sulla posizione dei Veneziani a Ragusa? È da notare, prima di tutto, che non esisteva alcun trattato o legge che regolasse in modo preciso la loro situazione. Erano i diversi aspetti della vita quotidiana e delle attività abituali dei Veneti a Ragusa ad imporre, a poco a poco, le soluzioni dei vari problemi pertinenti alla loro posizione nella città. Questo non veniva fatto in modo sistematico o prestabilito, ma secondo i bisogni che col tempo si profilavano. Alcuni elementi costanti nell'atteggiamento del governo veneziano possono, nondimeno, essere facilmente delineati: la Serenissima faceva sempre tutto il possibile per sottolineare la distinzione tra Veneziani ed altri forestieri a Ragusa; essa non permetteva mai che i Veneziani fossero trattati — via legis vel facti — come gli altri stranieri. Il governo veneto faceva sforzi costanti per ottenere dai Ragusei concessioni che assimilassero, nel maggior grado possibile, i Veneziani ai Ragusei stessi dal punto di vista dei loro diritti e statuto giuridico. I Ragusei, rispettosi della situazione particolare dei Veneziani a Ragusa, nondimeno si rifiutavano di dare loro piena uguaglianza di diritto e di statuto giuridico nella loro città. L'importanza di 1

V. p. 390 nota 2.

IV VENEZIA,

RAGUSA

E LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

395

questo problema per i Veneziani si può vedere nel miglior modo possibile dal fatto, che il governo veneziano non esitava qualche volta a servirsi del più brutale ricatto per ottenere concessioni dai Ragusei. Per esempio, nel 1326, quando Ragusa si trovava in stato di grande tensione con la Serbia, i Veneziani promisero il loro pieno appoggio diplomatico ai Ragusei, ma a patto che questi facessero importantissime concessioni nello statuto dei cittadini veneziani a Ragusa 1 . È vero che i Veneziani non coronarono mai il loro desiderio di arrivare a piena uguaglianza con i Ragusei a Ragusa stessa, ma essi seppero, prima del 1358, mantenere sempre per i propri cittadini una situazione speciale in quella città. Anche dopo il 1358, non ostante il cambiamento delle relazioni politiche tra i due stati adriatici, non ostante il fatto che i Veneziani divenissero a Ragusa dei forestieri, come tutti gli altri, i Ragusei continuarono a trattarli spesso con speciale riguardo. Nell'agire così, i Ragusei, naturalmente, non erano ispirati da considerazioni sentimentali o nostalgiche. Da quei buoni mercanti che erano — ed in ciò non erano diversi dai Veneti — i Ragusei avevano sempre in vista i propri interessi politici ed economici. Così, nell'assumere atteggiamenti moderati verso i Veneziani a Ragusa dopo il 1358, i Ragusei avevano prima di tutto in vista la posizione dei propri mercanti a Venezia. Prima del 1358, come abbiamo già detto, la posizione dei Ragusei a Venezia, definita dai trattati del Duecento tra le due città e da regolamenti ulteriori stabiliti gradualmente nella prima metà del Trecento, non era né buona né favorevole all'attività dei Ragusei nella città lagunare. Fu, però, solo dopo il 1358 che sorsero i più gravi problemi e conflitti tra le due città a proposito della situazione dei Ragusei a Venezia. I Veneziani, in guerra contro gli Ungheresi, tentarono poco prima della pace di Zara di salvare le proprie posizioni a Ragusa e di convincere i Ragusei a restare fedeli al Doge facendo loro concessioni importanti sul problema dello statuto dei cittadini ragusei a Venezia ed il loro diritto di navigazione sulle navi 1

HAD, Reformationes VILI, 36-37.

IV 396 venete « ita quod omnes Ragusini, nati in Ragusio et ex eis de cetero nascituri, sint cives Veneciarum et possint mercari tanquam cives in Veneciis et navigando cum navigiis Veneciarum» 1 . I Ragusei, pur accettando quest'importantissimo privilegio, cambiarono protettore, passando sotto l'alto dominio del re d'Ungheria. Questo era il risultato del cambiamento della situazione politica su tutta la costa orientale dell'Adriatico. Cionondimeno, i Ragusei intendevano usufruire del privilegio veneto loro concesso. Sembra, però, che i Veneziani non fossero dello stesso parere e già nel 1359 cominciarono i primi malintesi. Questo, però, era solo il principio di lunghi conflitti, discussioni e negoziazioni tra i due Stati che si protrarranno per molti anni. Il traffico tra Ragusa e Venezia rimase, è vero, sempre attivo ed importante, ma ci furono periodi di particolare tensione: negli anni 1372-1374, per esempio, il conflitto tra i due stati degenerò in mutue rappresaglie contro i mercanti, che furono espulsi dalle rispettive città 2 . Se Ragusa aveva, certamente, altre ragioni per unirsi alla coalizione antiveneta del 1378 e per prendere parte attiva alle operazioni contro i Veneziani nella guerra di Chioggia, uno dei motivi era, senza dubbio, proprio il grave problema dello statuto dei cittadini ragusei a Venezia. 3 Dopo il 1381 la situazione migliorò, non tanto a causa di qualche patto tra Venezia e Ragusa, quanto grazie alla situazione politica nella quale le due repubbliche si trovarono (per Venezia nuove preoccupazioni in Italia, per Ragusa l'apparizione degli Ottomanni nei Balcani) e grazie, anche, all'incremento generale del movimento economico nell'Adriatico e nel Mediterraneo nel quale ambedue le repubbliche furono coinvolte. • •

•

U n altro aspetto delle relazioni raguseo-veneziane prima del 1358, importante e nello stesso tempo abbastanza difficile, deve TADIC, op. cit. 19. TADI<5, op. cit. 259-260, 261-263, 269. B. KREKIC, Un mercante e diplomatico da Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a Venezia nel Trecento, in « Studi veneziani », 9 (1967), 76-77, 85-90. 3 B. KREKIC, Dubrovnik i rat oko Tenedosa (1378-1381), in « Zbor. rad. Viz. inst. », 5 (1958), 21-47. 1

2

IV VENEZIA,

RAGUSA

E

LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

397

per lo meno brevemente ritenere la nostra attenzione. Si tratta della posizione e delle prerogative del conte veneto a Ragusa. Com'è ben noto, i Veneziani non ebbero mai esercito d'occupazione a Ragusa né funzionari civili o militari all'infuori del conte. Tutte le altre funzioni erano nelle mani del patriziato locale, organizzato nei consigli. La situazione ed i diritti del conte, però, erano abbastanza male definiti, sia nei trattati del Duecento tra le due città, sia nello Statuto di Ragusa del 1272. Questi documenti trattavano piuttosto degli aspetti cerimoniali e simbolici delle funzioni del conte che non delle sue competenze reali 1 . È vero che ogni conte, prima di recarsi da Venezia a Ragusa, riceveva le sue istruzioni dal Doge, ma ciò non facilitava le cose. Al contrario, qualche volta le complicava. Infatti, il contenuto dell'istruzione data dal Doge al conte poteva essere modificato esclusivamente dal Doge stesso, il che più d'una volta creava frizioni tra i consigli di Ragusa, il conte ed il governo veneziano 2 . La vita stessa, però, spingeva i Ragusei a cercare di definire nel modo più preciso la posizione del conte veneto nella loro città. Questo non era facile: conflitti d'opinioni ed anche scontri fra il conte da una parte ed i corpi costituiti ragusei dall'altra erano più frequenti di quello che si potrebbe pensare. Questi conflitti concernevano sia questioni ed atteggiamenti di politica estera ragusea, sia problemi della vita interna della città. Nell'insieme, i Ragusei facevano fronte con fermezza alle pretese del conte di attribuirsi competenze che non erano prestabilite da alcun atto giuridico esistente tra i due stati, ma la mancanza d'ogni meccanismo d'arbitrato nel caso di conflitto tra il conte ed il patriziato raguseo metteva più volte sia i Ragusei, che il conte in situazioni delicate. •

•

•

Vediamo ora, molto rapidamente, cosa si può dire sulle relazioni tra Venezia, Ragusa e il retroterra balcanico. Io non parlerò 1 Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii, ed. V. BOGISIC et C. JIREÒEK, Zagreb 1904, Liber primus, pp. 3-12. 2 Per esempio: HAD, Reform. VIII, 468, 51, 58; Div. canc. VIII, 79 (1326); Reform. IX, 51, 56', 57, 58, 59-59* (1330).

IV 398 qui delle popolazioni della costa orientale dell'Adriatico, perché quella regione è stata riservata all'alta competenza del rimpianto Professor Tadic. Mi limiterò, pertanto, solo a qualche osservazione sulle relazioni con la Serbia e la Bosnia. Nei rapporti tra questi stati, Ragusa e Venezia si possono distinguere due aspetti, strettamente interdipendenti: quello politico e quello economico 1 . Dal punto di vista politico quello che è particolarmente notevole è la costanza con la quale Venezia sosteneva ed aiutava i Ragusei di fronte alle minacce serbe. I Serbi fecero più volte gran pressione su Ragusa nella seconda metà del Duecento e nella prima metà del Trecento. Più d'una di queste tensioni scoppiò in guerra aperta tra Serbia e Ragusa. Venezia in tutte queste occasioni venne in soccorso di Ragusa, non solo con interventi diplomatici (lettere ed ambasciate ai governanti serbi), ma anche con mezzi più energici e con misure concrete (proibizione del traffico con la Serbia, ritiro dei mercanti veneti da quello Stato, ecc.) 2 . Anche se i Veneziani, come abbiamo visto, profittavano da queste situazioni per ottenere concessioni per i propri interessi dai Ragusei, non c'è dubbio che l'aiuto veneziano fosse molto prezioso per Ragusa e che contribuisse non poco alla preservazione dell'indipendenza ragusea di fronte alle pressioni dall'interno. Naturalmente, Venezia agiva così nel proprio interesse. Essendo Ragusa sotto la sua protezione, Venezia evidentemente non poteva lasciare la sua protetta senza aiuto nelle situazioni critiche nelle quali Ragusa veniva a trovarsi a causa delle minacce serbe. Se Venezia avesse permesso che una città di tale importanza, posta sotto la sua protezione, fosse conquistata da una potenza straniera, senza fare tutto il possibile per proteggerla,

1 Sui rapporti tra Ragusa e l'interno balcanico in generale: M. DINIC, DMbrovalka srednjevekovna karavanska trgovina, in «Jugosl. ist. casopis», 3 (1937); K. JIRECEK, Istorija Srba, I, II, Beograd 1952; I. Bozic, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku, Beograd 1952; D. KOVACEVIC, Trgovina u srednjevjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo 1961; S. ÓIRKOVIC, Politichi ugovori Dubrovnika sa Srbijom i Bosnorn, I, in « Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu », VIII-l (Spomenica Mihailu D ini cu I), 1964. 2 Numerosi documenti in LJUBIC, Listine I, II.

VENEZIA,

RAGUSA E

LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

399

questo sarebbe stato un precedente che avrebbe avuto gravissime conseguenze per tutta la politica veneziana. Le altre città e territori, protetti da Venezia, avrebbero perso confidenza nella Serenissima e le potenze straniere sarebbero state incoraggiate nelle loro mire aggressive contro territori veneti. Venezia, dunque, aveva buonissime ragioni politiche per aiutare Ragusa. Ma c'erano di mezzo anche altre ragioni ed altri interessi, quelli, cioè, d'ordine economico. I Veneziani, infatti, portavano molto interesse al mercato bosniaco e serbo. U n documento veneziano del 1300, per esempio, fa menzione di Veneziani fatti prigionieri in Bosnia, i quali « dicuntur esse circa quinquaginta » 1 , il che è, senza dubbio, un numero esagerato, ma significativo. U n altro esempio che può essere citato è il fatto che nei documenti veneti, pubblicati dal Ljubic, si trova ima decina di nomi di mercanti veneziani che si recarono in Serbia tra il 1321 e 1330. Naturalmente, questo numero era certo molto più grande, ma non tutti i mercanti hanno lasciato tracce nei materiali d'archivio. L'interesse dei Veneziani per l'interno balcanico era, dunque, sempre vivo. Questo è confermato anche dagli sforzi costanti che il governo veneto faceva per restare in buoni rapporti con i governanti degli stati balcanici, non ostante le difficoltà che sorgevano da quando in quando. La presenza veneta nell'interno della Penisola Balcanica, però, non deve essere sopravvalutata. Questa presenza era limitata e non coinvolgeva un gran numero di persone. Certamente, il numero dei Veneziani nel retroterra balcanico non può essere paragonato neppure da lontano al numero dei Ragusei ed all'importanza dei loro affari. Con lo sviluppo delle miniere in Serbia ed in Bosnia, le quali furono l'attrazione maggiore sia per i Ragusei, che per i Veneziani, il numero dei Ragusei in questi stati crebbe in modo tale, che essi presero praticamente nelle loro mani la vita economica di quelle regioni. Il commercio e la presenza veneta non potevano essere paragonati a questo, sebbene il valore delle merci, importate dai Veneziani nel retroterra balcanico poteva essere abbastanza alto. 1

LJUBIC, Listine I, 193.

IV 400 Per i Veneziani la regione dove s'effettuava il maggior scambio tra le merci del retroterra balcanico ed i mercati occidentali era sempre la costa orientale dell'Adriatico e su questa costa il punto principale d'incontro tra il traffico terrestre dei Balcani e quello marittimo dell'Adriatico era Ragusa. Questa città, pertanto, aveva per i Veneziani un valore economico di grandissima portata, essendo il centro d'operazioni commerciali e finanziarie tra l'Occidente ed i Balcani. Ed è questa, senza dubbio, una delle più importanti ragioni per le quali Venezia teneva tanto alla protezione di Ragusa. Se Ragusa fosse passata nelle mani dei Serbi, Venezia si sarebbe trovata di fronte ad uno stato serbo con un lungo litorale, il quale avrebbe potuto sviluppare e, forse, monopolizzare la navigazione in quella parte dell'Adriatico, imponendo le proprie condizioni al commercio tra i Balcani e l'Occidente. L'indipendenza ragusea, garantita da Venezia, era la maggior protezione contro un tale sviluppo. •

•

•

L'anno 1358 rappresenta un'importante data nella storia sia ragusea che veneta. Venezia perse in quell'anno il dominio sulla costa orientale dell'Adriatico, mentre Ragusa — proprio grazie a ciò — ottenne nello stesso tempo la sua piena indipendenza. È vero che dopo il 1358 Ragusa riconobbe la protezione del re di Ungheria e Croazia, ma questo non diminuì la libertà del suo sviluppo interno e della sua politica internazionale. Bisogna, però, sottolineare — contrariamente ad alcune opinioni — che l'anno 1358 non può essere considerato come principio dell'indipendenza politica ragusea, perché quest'indipendenza si era sviluppata con un lento processo durante i tre secoli precedenti. Nel 1358, comunque, le ultime limitazioni imposte alla libertà di Ragusa svanirono ed il patriziato raguseo prese il destino della città nelle proprie mani 1 . Ma non si deve dimenticare che questo patriziato — fattore essenziale dell'indipendenza ragusea nei secoli a venire — si era costituito come gruppo sociale in forma definitiva proprio nel 1

V. FORETIC, Godina 1358. u povijesti Dubrovnika, Starine JAZU, 50, 1960.

IV VENEZIA,

RAGUSA

E

LE

POPOLAZIONI

SERBO-CROATE

401

periodo della protezione veneta su Ragusa. Fu in quell'epoca che il patriziato creò le basi economiche, politiche e sociali del proprio dominio sulla città. La società ragusea tutt'intera aveva subito durante il periodo veneziano un'evoluzione che finalmente permise ai Ragusei di dirigere liberamente i propri affari dopo il 1358. Il merito di quest'evoluzione di Ragusa non può essere attribuito tanto alla politica veneta verso Ragusa, quanto a tutto il complesso sviluppo del retroterra balcanico e delle relazioni tra quelle regioni, Ragusa e l'Occidente. Ma proprio in questo senso la protezione veneta su Ragusa rappresentava un contributo notevole al progresso di quella città. Se l'interesse di Venezia esigeva — come già l'abbiamo detto — che Ragusa fosse indipendente e separata dagli stati del retroterra balcanico confinanti con essa, l'interesse di Ragusa stessa, certamente, esigeva ancor più che fosse preservata questa distinzione e separazione politica della città adriatica dal retroterra. Fu, infatti, proprio quest'indipendenza che permise a Ragusa di ottenere la sua posizione speciale tra i Balcani e l'Occidente e di arrogarsi il ruolo d'intermediario tra queste regioni, il che costituì la base della futura prosperità ragusea. Ma torniamo ai rapporti raguseo-veneziani e mi sia permesso di chiudere queste brevi note con la seguente osservazione: nel periodo dopo il 1358, non ostante tutte le difficoltà già menzionate, le relazioni economiche, umane ed anche politiche tra Ragusa e Venezia restarono vive e sopravvissero perfino alla guerra di Chioggia. Quest'è, credo, la miglior prova della stabilità e dell'importanza che ambedue gli stati adriatici attribuivano alle loro mutue relazioni. Gli sforzi dei mercanti e diplomatici ragusei a Venezia e veneziani a Ragusa contribuirono molto, senza dubbio, al mantenimento e all'intensità di questi rapporti nei tempi difficili. Ma più d'ogni altra cosa fu la vita stessa, con i suoi bisogni quotidiani e con lo sviluppo rapido sia di Venezia che di Ragusa, ad imporre la necessità di continuare e sviluppare relazioni normali ed amichevoli tra le due repubbliche adriatiche verso la fine del Trecento e — anche se con difficoltà temporanee — nei decenni successivi.

V UN MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK (RAGUSA) A VENEZIA NEL TRECENTO

La metà del XIV secolo fu un periodo di grande importanza nella storia di Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e un momento decisivo per l'ulteriore sviluppo di quella città adriatica. Già da un secolo e mezzo Dubrovnik si trovava sottomessa al dominio supremo veneto. Il dominio veneto, è vero, non aveva tolto a Dubrovnik né la sua autonomia nella gestione interna della città, né una considerevole libertà d'azione nel campo internazionale e — cosa molto importante — a Dubrovnik non vi furono mai truppe venete. Solo il « comes », veneto, nominato dal governo di Venezia, trovandosi a capo del governo di Dubrovnik rappresentava la potenza protettrice. Comunque, Dubrovnik doveva conformarsi alle grandi linee della politica veneta; e, nel campo del commercio marittimo, in particolare, i Veneti non esitavano ad imporre limitazioni al traffico raguseo. Non è sorprendente, perciò, vedere Dubrovnik sviluppare, nel Duecento e nella prima metà del Trecento, un crescente commercio con il retroterra balcanico. Il che veniva a coincidere con 10 sviluppo economico di quelle regioni, dove, proprio allora, stava iniziando lo sfruttamento d'importanti miniere d'argento, rame, piombo, ferro ecc. Verso la metà del Trecento, però, la situazione nei Balcani subì un rapido decadimento. Ne erano cause principali la morte dell'imperatore serbo Stefan Dusan, nel 1355, e l'iniziare delle incursioni ottomane. Ma proprio in questi momenti critici per il suo traffico nei Balcani, Dubrovnik potè liberarsi dal dominio veneto e rivolgersi verso il mare molto più efficacemente, grazie ai complicati e non pacifici sviluppi delle relazioni veneto-ungariche sull'Adriatico. Infatti, già dal 1345, da quando, cioè, il re ungherese Lodovico 11 Grande d'Angiò arrivò in Dalmazia, un conflitto scoppiò tra

V

questi e Venezia. I veneti avevano molte ragioni per essere diffidenti verso le ambizioni del re, il quale tentava di sottomettere la costa orientale dell'Adriatico, mentre accampava pretese sulla corona di Napoli. Il primo conflitto di Venezia con Lodovico terminò con l'armistizio del 1348, ma una nuova, grande guerra scoppiò nel 1356 e durò fino al 1358. Lodovico, con l'aiuto dei Genovesi, batté i veneti. Con la pace di Zadar (Zara), del 18 febbraio 1358, Venezia fu obbligata a ritirarsi da tutti i suoi possedimenti in Dalmazia e il Doge perdette il suo titolo di « Dux Dalmatiae et Croatiae ». Le città e le isole della costa orientale dell'Adriatico passarono sotto il dominio ungherese.1 Dubrovnik solo fu un'eccezione. È vero che anche quella città riconobbe il dominio supremo del re ungherese, ma quel dominio, per Dubrovnik, fu soltanto una protezione, la quale permise alla città lo sviluppo di una vera e piena indipendenza. Le forze interne di Dubrovnik, durante il periodo veneto, erano talmente cresciute, che potevano ora assumere la piena e diretta responsabilità del destino ulteriore della loro città. Il patriziato raguseo, completamente formato e chiuso come gruppo sociale nella prima metà del Trecento, s'afferma ora come l'unico fattore decisivo sulla scena politica di Dubrovnik. Da quest'epoca in poi il patriziato guiderà i destini di Dubrovnik e dello stato indipendente raguseo — formalmente sotto la protezione ungherese fino al 1526, poi sotto quella turca — dimostrando una grande maturità politica e abilità diplomatica, il che assicurerà per più secoli la prosperità della città adriatica.2 1. S. LJUBIÓ, 0 odnosajih megju Dubrovcani i Mletcani za ugar. - hrv. vladanja u Dubrovniku, in RAD JAZU, XVII, Zagreb 1871, pp. 2-5. S. MITIS, La Dalmazia ai tempi di Lodovico il Grande, in « A D » , IV (1887), pp. 1-141. D. GRUBER, Borba Ludovika I sa Mletcanima za Dalmaciju (1348-1358), in RAD JAZU, CLII, Zagreb 1903, pp. 32-161; D. GRUBER, Dalmacija za Ludovika I (1358-1382), in RAD JAZU, GLXVI, Zagreb 1906, pp. 164-215; CLXVIII, pp. 163-240; GLXX, pp. 1-75, H. KRETSCHMAYR, Geschichte von Venedig, II, Gotha 1920, pp. 217-218. B. HOMAN, Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria (1290-1403), Roma 1938. Istorija naroda Jugoslavie, I, Beograd-Zagreb 1953, pp. 715-718. R. GESSI, La Repubblica di Venezia e il problema adriatico, Napoli 1953, pp. 98-111. G. PRAGA, Storia di Dalmazia, Padova 1954, pp. 114-116. G. NOVAK, Povijest Splita, I, Split 1957, pp. 155-165. F. âi§ié, Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda, Zagreb 1962, pp. 210-211. 2. Istorija naroda Jugoslavie, cit., I, pp. 645-651.

72

UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

Dopo il 1358 Dubrovnik infatti, aveva bisogno d'un governo stabile e saggio. Non era cosa facile rompere con la potente Venezia che già da un secolo e mezzo dominava non solo nell'Adriatico, ma anche su tutto il Mediterraneo orientale. L'interruzione del dominio veneto a Dubrovnik poteva avere conseguenze molto nefaste per la città e perciò la situazione esigeva un corso politico cauto ed elastico. Tanto più che, per Dubrovnik, la continuazione delle relazioni con Venezia rappresentava, ora come prima, una delle condizioni essenziali della vita e del lavoro normale della città. Naturalmente, ora le relazioni non erano, come antecedentemente, in primo luogo politiche: ma quelle economiche erano altrettanto importanti e anche più delle politiche. Venezia era per Dubrovnik, già da lungo tempo, il principale centro di rifornimento per articoli di produzione italiana, i quali venivano assorbiti a Dubrovnik oppure esportati verso il retroterra. Inoltre, Venezia era il centro ove i ragusei potevano facilmente reperire la manodopera specializzata e i notai, medici ecc. di cui abbisognavano. Infine, Venezia era un eccellente punto d'osservazione non solo per gli avvenimenti politici d'Italia, ma di tutta l'Europa, come pure dell'Oriente. Per queste ragioni l'interesse di Dubrovnik per Venezia non è diminuito dopo il 1358 e Dubrovnik si sforza sempre di mantenere con quell'importante potenza relazioni amichevoli, o per lo meno corrette.3 Non c'è dubbio che un considerevole contributo al mantenimento di queste relazioni è stato dato sia da veneti che hanno vissuto e lavorato a Dubrovnik, sia da ragusei che, contemporaneamente, hanno vissuto e lavorato a Venezia. Tra i ragusei che si trattenevano a Venezia per un periodo di tempo più o meno lungo, c'erano semplici cittadini, ma anche patrizi i quali si occupavano dei propri affari o venivano a Venezia come rappresentanti ufficiali del governo raguseo. Tra gli affari il primo posto, naturalmente, era occupato dal commercio. Ma tutti dovevano 3. GESSI, op. cit., p. 111.

73

V

sempre essere pronti ad ubbidire agli ordini del governo di Dubrovnik ed ad eseguire i compiti da questo loro affidati.

Uno di quei ragusei che hanno vissuto a Venezia nel delicato periodo posteriore al 1358 fu «Martolus Petri de Tudisio », Martol Tudizic. Discendente d'una famiglia aristocratica ragusea, non molto numerosa, ma antica e ragguardevole, la quale proprio verso la metà del Trecento entrò a fare parte del gruppo delle famiglie patrizie più autorevoli a Dubrovnik,4 Martolus de Tudisio è menzionato per la prima volta nei documenti dell'Archivio storico di Dubrovnik nel 1333, quando ancora era, senza dubbio, bambino,5 poi nel 1342. Suo padre, Pietro, morì, probabilmente, subito dopo il 1330 e fu lo zio di Martolo, « Ziuo » (Djivo, Giovanni) ad assumere la direzione della famiglia.6 Il giovane Martolus, con il fratello Vito, fu liberato dai tutori con una decisione del Consiglio minore di Dubrovnik nel 1348, che lo autorizzava pertanto a lavorare e trafficare liberamente.7 Nella famiglia di Tudisio esistevano già da tempo relazioni con Venezia. Il nonno del nostro Martolus, egli pure Martolus, le 4. I. MAHNKEN, Dubrovacki patricijat u XIV veku, I, Beograd 1960, p. 432. 5. Il 3 luglio 1333 « Çiue de Tuduysio », zio di Martolus, si obbliga a dare « Martello et Vite nepotibus meis » 550 perperi come parte loro appartenente della distribuzione delle proprietà dei parenti di « Çiue ». Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku (Archivio storico di Dubrovnik, HAD), Aptay II, 223. 6. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, pp. 434-435; II, tab. L X X I . A parte il nostro «Martolus Petri », nella stessa epoca c'era a Dubrovnik un altro « Martolus de Tudisio », figlio di « Ziue », (Giovanni), fratello di Pietro. Quest'altro Martolus finora era conosciuto grazie ad un solo documento del 1372 (v. MAHNKEN, op. cit., II, tab. LXXI). Naturalmente, si pone il problema, pei casi dove abbiamo soltanto la menzione di Martolus, senza nome paterno, di stabilire quale dei due sia. Noi pensiamo che nel maggior numero di tali casi si tratti del nostro « Martolus Petri », essendo egli ben conosciuto e stimato a Dubrovnik e non necessitando, pertanto, d'ulteriori precisazioni sulla propria persona. Ci sono, però, casi dove si può presumere che si tratta del « Martolus Çiue » (v. nota 30). 7. Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, Monumenta ragusina (MR), II, Zagreb 1882, p. 52. Nel MR è riscontrabile una confusione derivata, in gran parte, da errata lettura dei documenti d'archivio. Nei MR, infatti, vengono fatti i nomi di « Mates, Martolus, Marcolus », ecc. ma è evidente che si tratta sempre e solo del nostro Martolus.

74

V UN

MERCANTE

E DIPLOMATICO

DA DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

aveva sviluppate, ed il padre di Martolus, Pietro, con il fratello « Ziuo », aveva continuato questi affari con successo.8 Il nostro Martolus, così, prendendo la decisione di lanciarsi, egli pure, negli affari con Venezia, non faceva altro che seguire la tradizione di famiglia, ma lo distingue la particolare abilità e il grande successo. Non si può stabilire con precisione quando, per la prima volta, Martolus si recò personalmente a Venezia. La prima notizia che abbiamo, concernente i suoi contatti d'affari con i veneti, è del 1354. Si tratta di « Çaninus quondam ser Dardi Contareno de Veneziis, habitator Duracii », il quale doveva a Martolus 189 ducati e 6 grossi e gli aveva dato, a Dubrovnik, come pegno, 216,5 stai di grano.9 Evidentemente, questa notizia mette Martolus in contatto con Durazzo più che con Venezia, ed è logico supporre da ciò che Martolus allora era ancora a Dubrovnik. Quest'impressione viene rafforzata dal fatto che, negli anni seguenti, Martolus certamente si trovava a Dubrovnik. Dal 1356 al 1358 rivestiva un ruolo d'importanza minore nell'amministrazione della città,10 ma già nel 1356 entrò nel più importante consiglio di governo, il « Consilium Rogatorum », il senato.11 Anche nei primi anni dopo la cessazione del dominio veneto a Dubrovnik, Martolus si trovava ancora a Dubrovnik. Nel 1359 fu proposto al Minor Consiglio per essere assegnato alla dogana poi per senatore, ma fallì in ambedue le elezioni.12 Naturalmente, tutto questo non significa che durante tutti questi anni Martolus non si recasse mai a Venezia, o non avesse confi. Per esempio già nel 1328: HAD, Diversa cancellariae, IX, 4, 19v; nel 1329: id. 102; n e l 1 3 3 3 : i d . X , 2 v . C f r . MAHNKEN, op. cit.,

I, p. 434.

9. HAD, Diversa cancellariae, X V I I I , 22. 10. « Camerlengus, capitaneus, sqaraguayta », funzionario della zecca, sul grano, ecc. MR, II, pp. 181, 195, 201-202, 209, 226, 241, 255. 11. MRy II, pp. 161, 196. MAHNKEN, op. citI, 435. Nello stesso anno si proibisce di danneggiare una vigna di Martolus « q u e est ad molina ». MR, II, p. 151. Nel 1356, inoltre, Martolus fu procuratore di Marino de Bona ed intervenne nelle vendite di parecchie vigne sull'isola di Sipan (Giuppana). Inoltre, due anni più tardi, Martolus figura tra quattro creditori dello stato, che loro doveva una certa quantità « de denariis doane maioris ». Egli ricevette 728 perperi e 4 grossi ragusei. HAD, Venditae cancellariae, I, 148, 148v, 188. MR, II, p. 218. 12. MR, III, Zagreb 1895, pp. 12, 13.

75

V

tatti d'affari con veneti. Solamente, noi non ne abbiamo dirette informazioni. D'altra parte, nel 1360 troviamo un documento dal quale si vede che Martolus fu uno dei patrizi ragusei ai quali venne presa nel Levante una quantità d'oro, argento, cera ed altra merce, che si trovava su di una nave ragusea. Queste merci erano state rubate da una galera degli Ospitalieri di Rodi. Perciò i patrizi ragusei mandarono un inviato presso il Gran Maestro degli Ospitalieri per cercare di salvare la loro merce.13 Martolus de Tudisio, dunque, nel 1360 era un mercante il quale trafficava non soltanto a Dubrovnik e con Venezia, ma era impegnato in affari a più vasto raggio. Poco tempo dopo, Martolus era a Venezia. Lo testimonia una lettera che il governo di Dubrovnik gli inviò a Venezia il 17 febbraio 1361, ordinandogli d'andare dai consoli veneti e d'informarsi del debito che un veneto, fuggito da Venezia, doveva pagare a due ragusei.14 Il fatto che il governo di Dubrovnik affidasse un compito del genere a Martolus significa, che Martolus aveva la confidenza del suo governo e che a Venezia godeva, già, d'un prestigio che gli permetteva di eseguire quest'incarico delicato. Non bisogna, infatti, dimenticare che era in ballo l'istruzione di un processo contro un cittadino veneziano a Dubrovnik in un momento tutt'altro che sereno nelle relazioni raguseo-venete. *

*

*

Già dal 1359, subito dopo la cessazione del dominio veneto su Dubrovnik, si manifestarono alcune difficoltà nelle relazioni tra le due città adriatiche, nonostante i ragusei cercassero di mantenere la benevolenza e la collaborazione veneziana.15 Le difficoltà 13. HAD, Distributiones testamentorum, I, 5v a tergo. B. KREKIÓ, Dubrovnik (.Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen âge, Paris - La Haye 1961, pp. 203-204. 14. J. TADIC, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republike (Litterae et commissiones ragusinae) I, Beograd 1935, p. 33. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436. 15. Lo si vede dal comportamento dei ragusei nell'agosto del 1359 quando catturarono una nave con la quale uomini da Budva (Budua) esercitavano la pirateria nell'Adriatico. I prigionieri ebbero gli occhi strappati « ad aliorum suorum documentum ». I ragusei, però, erano pronti a restituire la nave al proprietario, se questo

76

V UN

MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA

apparse avevano posto, in primo luogo, il problema dello statuto di cittadini veneti per i ragusei, sia quando questi avevano affari a Venezia sia quando trasportavano merci su navi venete.16 È evidente che dopo il 1358 la posizione privilegiata dei ragusei a Venezia ed il loro trattamento sulle navi venete furono messi in dubbio da parte dei veneti. Era un problema che non poteva essere risolto né presto, né facilmente e del quale, qui, noi non ci occupiamo direttamente. Diremo, soltanto, che per un periodo di tempo le cose, invece di risolversi, si complicarono. Il governo veneto prese nuove misure contro il traffico raguseo e nel 1360 sul Rialto fu proclamata la decisione che nessuna nave veneta doveva caricare alcuna merce in Dalmazia per l'esportazione fuori dell'Adriatico. Il governo di Dubrovnik considerava questa misura come diretta proprio contro gl'interessi dei ragusei e chiese al governo veneto d'informarlo se i cittadini ragusei potevano o no caricare sopra le navi venete a Dubrovnik stessa e, in generale, navigare su queste navi.17 L'atmosfera nelle relazioni tra i due stati non era, dunque, molto propizia nel momento in cui Martolus de Tudisio cominciò fosse risultato Veneto e se avesse esibita a Dubrovnik una testimonianza scritta del governo veneziano. Nello stesso tempo il governo raguseo informò quello veneto che dodici marinai veneti, scesi da una nave veneta a Budva, erano stati fatti prigionieri dalla gente di Budva, ma più tardi furono liberati contro una somma di denaro. I ragusei informarono dell'accaduto anche il comandante delle galere venete « euntium ad mercatum », perché egli avvisasse a sua volta il comandante della flotta veneta del Golfo. Nella; sua lettera al governo veneto sull'argomento, il governo di Dubrovnik aggiungeva che, a suo avviso, gli attacchi da Budva sarebbero cessati «si castrum diete civitatis Budue ruynaretur »; ma che i ragusei non osavano distruggerlo « timore regis Raxie » (se. serbo), il quale aveva sempre nelle sue mani mercanti ragusei. Pertanto, il governo raguseo chiedeva a quello veneto di provvedere perché le navi venete e ragusee potessero navigare senza timore nei pressi di Budva. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 17-18. Questo certamente mette in dubbio le affermazioni di LJUBIÓ, op. cit., p. 7, sui « crimini » dei ragusei contro i veneti subito dopo il 1358. Cfr. pure il parere di CESSI, op. cit., pp. I l l e sgg. 16. Nelle loro lettere i ragusei affermavano che già da lungo tempo era stato loro riconosciuto lo statuto di cittadini veneziani sì che potevano trafficare a Venezia come i veneti stessi e navigare su navi venete. Questo statuto dei ragusei - sostenevano - fu confermato anche dopo il 1358; ma si citavano casi in cui veneti non lo avevano rispett a t o c o n g r a v e d a n n o d e i r a g u s e i . TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 2 0 3 . 17. TADIÓ, op. cit., p p . 2 9 , 2 9 - 3 0 .

77

p p . 16-17, 1 8 - 2 0 . KREKIC, op.

cit.,

V

la sua attività a Venezia. Le decisioni venete erano, infatti, senza dubbio dirette principalmente contro Dubrovnik, ed il governo raguseo non aveva sbagliato nel considerarle tali. Dubrovnik era, sulla costa orientale dell'Adriatico, la città maggiormente in grado di porsi in concorrenza col commercio veneto. La nuova posizione politica di Dubrovnik facilitava ancora, sia dal punto di vista economico, sia politico, tali tentativi. I veneti avevano buone ragioni per essere preoccupati e cauti in vista di tali tentativi. Non ostante la grande sperequazione di mezzi e potenza tra i due stati, Venezia attraversava un periodo di indebolimento dopo la pace di Zadar. Si potrebbe dire che la pace di Zadar, per gl'interessi veneti nello scacchiere adriatico, può essere comparata con la pace di Ninfeo — un centinaio d'anni prima — per i più vasti interessi veneti nel Levante. Naturalmente, la pace di Ninfeo ebbe effetti su una regione molto più grande, ma la pace di Zadar concerneva una regione d'interesse vitale per Venezia. Un colpo così duro, subito su un terreno così importante e vicino, poteva avere conseguenze fatali per il destino e l'esistenza di Venezia stessa. La validità di questa valutazione trova conferma vent'anni più tardi nella famosa « Guerra di Chioggia », quando Venezia fu molto vicina alla rovina definitiva. È vero che i veneti, finalmente, grazie alla loro perseveranza, disciplina e abilità, trionfarono su tutte queste difficoltà e, al principio del X V secolo, tornarono perfino in Dalmazia, eccetuata Dubrovnik. Ma verso il 1360 nessuno poteva prevedere un tale sviluppo e si può comprendere molto bene l'apprensione veneta davanti ai tentativi di concorrenza delle città dalmate, ed in modo particolare di Dubrovnik. Le difficoltà sorte tra Venezia e Dubrovnik dopo il 1358 non significano, si capisce, che le relazioni tra le due città fossero interrotte. La presenza di Martolus de Tudisio a quest'epoca a Venezia lo attesta; ancora, numerosi altri ragusei nello stesso periodo di tempo lavoravano a Venezia, vi avevano le loro merci e dei creditori,18 come, d'altra parte, c'erano numerosi veneti a Dubrov18. Per esempio: HAD, Testamenta notariae, IV, 47-48, 58-59; V , 264 V , 268 ecc.

78

V UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

19

nik. Certamente, tra molti altri fattori, la loro presenza e la loro attività nei due centri contribuì ad un miglioramento delle relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia, evidente già verso la fine del 1361. I veneti, probabilmente, finirono con rendersi conto che Dubrovnik, dopo tutto, non poteva costituire una vera minaccia per i loro interessi; e per i ragusei il miglioramento delle relazioni con Venezia era molto conveniente, in particolar modo a causa della guerra nella quale Dubrovnik si trovava allora contro il principe Vojislav Vojinovic di Zahumlje, nelle vicinanze immediate della città.20 Il miglioramento delle relazioni raguseo-venete, non ostante la persistenza di alcune difficoltà minori, traspare molto bene dall'atteggiamento di ambedue le potenze durante il conflitto di Dubrovnik con Vojinovic e con Kotor (Cattaro), alla fine del 1361 e nel 1362,21 ma ancora più chiaramente durante la ribellione di Creta contro il dominio veneto nel 1363. Il governo veneto aveva indirizzato a quello raguseo — come a tanti altri principi e governi d'Europa — la richiesta d'interrompere ogni contatto con i ribelli di Creta. Il governo raguseo promise non soltanto d'eseguire il desiderio del doge, ma si proclamò pronto ad accogliere ogni altro desiderio veneto « reservato honore nostri domini ». Infatti, i veneziani avevano deciso di servirsi di Dubrovnik

Diversa notariae, V i l i , 40V. Nel maggio del 1361 i ragusei cercavano un medico da Ravenna o da Venezia. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 46-47. 19. In questo periodo un eminente veneziano, Lodovico Cornaro, si sposò a Dubrovnik con Margherita, figlia di Martinusso e Filippa de Menze (MartinuS e Filipa Mencetic). HAD, Debita VI, 35. Gfr. MAHNKEN, op. cit., II, tab. XLVIÏ/1. Quattro veneti erano creditori di ragusei, fiorentini e veneziani a Dubrovnik. HAD, id. IV, 67 v , 68, 72 v ecc. ; id. V, 38, 77 v . Diversa not. VIII, 5. Testam. not. V, 294-295. Bisogna, anche, notare che il « protomagister » dell'arsenale raguseo era il veneto « Marinus de Mariano » e in aprile del 1361 il governo di Dubrovnik chiese a quello veneto il beneplacito per il prolungamento del suo soggiorno a Dubrovnik fino al settembre del 1362. TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 35. 20. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., pp. 9-10, come pure GESSI, op. cit., pp. 112-114, attribuiscono tutta la colpa alle difficoltà sorte dopo il 1358 esclusivamente ai ragusei il che, naturalmente, non può essere accettato, perché le cause di malintesi esistevano da ambedue le parti. Cfr. M. MEDINI, Dubrovnik GuZetiéa, Beograd 1953, pp. 90-93. 21. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., p. 11. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 72-73, 76, 79, 80, 95, 96-97. MEDINI, op. cit., pp. 92-94.

79

V

come punto di rifornimento per la loro armata diretta in Creta nei primi mesi del 1364.22 Tutto questo, senza dubbio, dimostra un miglioramento importante nelle relazioni tra le due repubbliche adriatiche. *

*

*

Martolus de Tudisio, durante il 1361 e 1362 sembra aver vissuto costantemente a Venezia. Il suo lavoro in quella città si sviluppava in modo favorevole. Faceva affari non solo con proprio capitale, ma anche con capitali d'altri ragusei.23 Imprestava, pure, denaro ad alcuni ragusei per loro affari.24 Durante l'estate o al principio dell'autunno del 1363 Martolus fece un breve soggiorno a Dubrovnik, ma dopo il 7 d'ottobre partì di nuovo per Venezia. Il governo raguseo approfittò della sua visita alla città natale e del suo ritorno a Venezia per affidargli il compito di trovare a Venezia un buon medico-chirurgo, — e in modo particolare il chirurgo Michele di Mantova — e di farlo venire a lavorare a Dubrovnik per due anni.25 In questo periodo, però, il soggiorno di Martolus a Venezia fu disturbato da problemi di famiglia. Nell'estate del 1363 morì 22. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., p. 13. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 117-118. F. THIRIET, La Romanie Vénitienne au Moyen Age, Paris 1959, pp. 173-174. KREKIÓ, op. cit., pp. 40, 204. Gfr. anche B. KREKIÓ, Trois fragments concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik (Raguse) et VItalie au XIVe siècle, in GodUnjak Filozofskog fakulteta, IX, Novi Sad 1966, pp. 19-37. 23. Michele de Dersa (Miho Drzié) dichiarò nel suo testamento d'aver 4255,5 perperi ragusei in compagnia con il suo nipote NikSa. Parte di questo denaro era « in Vinesia, in man de Martolo de Tiduisso ». HAD, Testam. not. V, 287v. Demetrio de Menze (Dimitrije Mencetic), poi, nel suo testamento (senza data, ma probabilmente dalla stessa epoca) dice: « i o manday alcuna quantitade de auro in man de Martolo de Todiso in Venezia ». HAD, Testamenti Blagog djela, III, 391-392v. 24. Nel testamento di Nicola de Cherpa è detto ch'egli ha a Venezia presso Tripce Utolcié 654 « perperi a ducati », presi da Martolus de Tudisio. U n membro della famiglia de Tudisio, « Thadey » nel suo testamento menziona due quaderni dei quali uno è « dele rason che aço cum Martolo a Venesia ». Martolus era, pure, uno dei epitropi di questo testamento. HAD, Testam. not. V, 276 v -277, 291-291 v . 25. TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 117. MAHNKEN, op. cit., vol. I, p. 436. Ai primi d'ottobre sono stati sistemati vari affari di Martolus a Dubrovnik, probabilmente prima della sua partenza per Venezia. HAD, Distrib. testam., II, 8, l l v , 12v (quaderno con numerazione delle pagine invertita). 80

UN

MERCANTE

E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA

— probabilmente a causa della grande peste che colpì Dubrovnik quell'anno — il nonno materno di Martolus, Vito de Sorgo (Vito Sorkocevic) e Martolus fu uno degli epitropi del suo testamento.26 La figlia di Vito, Franusa, accusò gli epitropi dicendo che la dote di sua madre era più grande di quello che essi avevano dichiarato e il governo raguseo chiamò Martolus da Venezia per poter istruire il processo. Martolus, però, avendo ricevuto la lettera del governo I'll dicembre 1363 rispose subito, m i non venne a Dubrovnik, dove autorizzò il nipote e collaboratore, Luca de Bona (Luko Bunic) a rappresentarlo.27 Questa lettera di Martolus al governo raguseo contiene, però, informazioni di carattere più importante. Risulta da essa, infatti, che il governo di Dubrovnik aveva già prima incaricato Martolus di trasmettere una lettera al doge ed ai suoi consiglieri a Venezia. Martolus aveva eseguito l'incarico ed ora informava il suo governo che il governo veneto aveva dato l'ordine al suo cancelliere di scrivere una risposta ai ragusei. Poi Martolus aggiunge — come un uomo dei nostri giorni — nella sua lettera : « ma per troppo afar non son posudo andar a palaço a tuorla. Per li primi ve la manderò ».28 Inoltre, egli informa il governo d'aver impegnato un medico « de plage » per Dubrovnik e di mandar sei « tagle per le vostre galie ».29 È chiaro da questa lettera che alla fine del 1363 Martolus godeva d'un gran prestigio sia a Dubrovnik, sia a Venezia. Questo risulta dal fatto che è stato proprio lui ad essere intermediario nella correspondenza tra i due governi e lo si vede, anche, dal tono con il quale scrive a Dubrovnik. La sua lettera, pur restando sempre rispettosa per il suo governo, pur terminando con le parole « se chosa poso far mande chomandando », dimostra un uomo 26. Cfr. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436; II, tab. LXVII/2. Nella stessa peste morì il fratello di Martolus « Ziuo », Giovanni, il quale era, pure, in contatti d'affari con Martolus a Venezia. HAD, Testam. not., V, 284. 27. La lettera di Martolus arrivò a Dubrovnik il 5 gennaio del 1364. TADIÓ, op. cit., p p . 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 . MAHNKEN, op. cit., I , p . 4 3 6 . 2 8 . TADIÓ, op. cit., p . 120.

29. Ibid., pp. 119-120. 81

V

sicuro di se stesso, che offre i suoi servizi non come suddito umile ed obbediente, ma come cittadino consapevole di poter essere assai utile al proprio paese. Dopo questo, Martolus rimase a Venezia30 e l'8 maggio del 1364 diede in prestito al patrizio raguseo e suo lontano cugino, Stefano de Sorgo (Stijepo Sorkoëevic) la somma di 1000 ducati. L'atto concernente questo prestito fu rogato da un notaio veneto a Rialto 31 e quest'è l'unica informazione sull'attività di Martolus a Venezia nel 1364. Nell'anno seguente, però, si vede Martolus coinvolto in molteplici operazioni finanziarie dei ragusei a Venezia. Egli funge da intermediario per il pagamento d'una lettera di cambio di 190 ducati a Venezia,32 rappresenta gl'interessi di vari ragusei in quella città,33 riceve denaro da ragusei34 e partecipa ad operazioni di cambio.35 Nell'estate del 1366 Martolus fu uno dei tre patrizi ragusei ai quali il governo affidò l'incarico di comprare per suo conto una considerevole quantità di sale, — articolo 30. MAHNKEN, op. cit. pensa che Martolus nel dicembre del 1363 fosse tornato a Dubrovnik e fatto « cameriarius ». Infatti, un « Martolus de Theodisio » è menzionato, già il 1 dicembre come « camerarius », con un altro patrizio raguseo (MR, vol. I l l , p. 299), ma il nostro Martolus a quell'epoca era ancora certamente a Venezia (la lettera suddetta con la quale rispose al governo di Dubrovnik è datata Venezia 11 dicembre). Inoltre, egli termina quella lettera con le parole: « S e chosa poso far, mande chomandando », il che mostra ch'egli intendeva restare ancora a Venezia. Per queste ragioni pensiamo che il Martolus, «camerarius » nel dicembre del 1363, fosse il figlio di « Ziuo », cugino di Martolus. Del resto, si deve coreggere la tab. L X X I nel vol. II della MAHNKEN, dove «Martolus Ziue» è menzionato solo una volta, nel 1372. È evidente, ora, che lo si trova anche nel 1363, e ci sono atti che lo nominano anche negli anni 1370, 1371 e 1374. HAD, Venditae cancellariae, II, 25, 34v; III, 3v, 47. 3 1 . TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 169-170.

32. HAD, Diversa canc., X X , 34. MAHNKEN, op. cit., v. I, p. 436. nell'agosto del 1365 Martolus è menzionato come procuratore del convento dei francescani a Dubrovnik, il che non vuol dire che a quell'epoca vi si trova, perché abbiamo informazioni sicure che era a Venezia. HAD, Distrib. testam., II, 122. V. nota 33. 33. Pale e Luk§a de Vitagna (Vitanjic) nominarono il 6 agosto 1365 Martolus de Tudisio, assente, loro procuratore a Venezia, specialmente per raccogliere il loro denaro in quella città e regione. La procura fu «recommendata» il 19 agosto 1365 « Curie petitionum » e deposta a Venezia, dove si trova tuttora. Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cancelleria inferiore, busta 144, fase. 4, Goffredo de Pistorio. 34. Per esempio, il 12 luglio 1365, Martolus riceve 200 ducati dal patrizio raguseo Marco de Georgio (Djurdjevic). HAD, Diversa canc. X X , 35. 35. Il 21 febbraio 1366 un patrizio raguseo manda a Venezia 155 ducati che il portatore « dari facere promisit per cambium in Veneciis Martolo de Tudisio ». HAD, ibid. 101 v. 82

UN MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA

importantissimo per il commercio raguseo con il retroterra balcanico —, proveniente dall'isola di Pag, e di mandarla a Dubrovnik.36 Nell'autunno dello stesso anno Martolus fece una visita a Dubrovnik,37 ma ai primi del 1367 era certamente già di ritorno a Venezia. 38 Un soggiorno più lungo di Martolus nella sua città natale cominciò nell'agosto del 1367. Infatti, risale a quest'epoca la sua inclusione tra procuratori del monastero di San Andrea a Dubrovnik, e in ottobre egli fu uno degli epitropi del testamento dello zio « Ziuo ».39 Comunque, nel 1368 Martolus tornò a Venezia e ivi fu impegnato di nuovo in affari molteplici, sempre restando in contatto con i ragusei. In quest'epoca Martolus era già diventato un grande uomo d'affari, mercante e finanziere. Lo illustrano molti esempi delle sue attività: avendo prestato ad un patrizio raguseo 400 ducati, questi gli manda a Venezia merci per pagare il debito. Un altro patrizio raguseo recapitò a Martolo in Venezia 150 ducati con una lettera di cambio, mentre un terzo patrizio gl'invio 31 libbre e 3 once d'argento e 4 saggi d'oro perché Martolus li vendesse e del ricavato trattenesse la somma di 479 perperi e 7 grossi ragusei della quale questo patrizio gli era debitore. Finalmente, come rappresentante a Venezia d'un altro patrizio raguseo, Martolus ricevette 300 ducati.40 In tutto, da quanto si può vedere dai documenti ragusei, Martolus aveva ricevuto nel 1368, in contanti ed in merci, un valore di 850 ducati, 479 perperi e 7 grossi. Ma, naturalmente, questo è certamente lontano dal rappresentare l'insieme delle attività di Martolus, perché non tutte hanno lasciato tracce nei libri d'archivio a Dubrovnik, e specialmente quegli affari — senza dubbio importan-

36. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 154-155. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436. 37. MR IV, Zagreb 1896, p. 56. 38. II 13 febbraio 1367 il Minor consiglio di Dubrovnik aveva autorizzato Martolus de Tudisio ad impegnare per il comune « magistrum Johannem de S. Sofia » ed un « bonum speciarium, qui sit bonus erbarius et sciens conficere omnes medicinas necessarias ». MR, IV, p. 83. 39. MR, vol. IV, p. 101. HAD, Testant. Blagog djela, III, 416-420. 40. HAD, Diversa canc. X X I , 82V, 196, 197. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436.

83

V

tissimi — che Martolus svolgeva a Venezia e che non avevano legami diretti con Dubrovnik. Durante l'anno seguente, 1369, le attività commerciali e finanziarie di Martolus a Venezia proseguirono41 e nel 1370 si svilupparono ulteriormente. Già nel principio del 1370 l'arcivescovo di Dubrovnik inviò a Martolus a Venezia prima 613 ducati, tramite il veneto « Aloysius Cornarius », poi ancora 230 ducati tramite il rappresentante di Martolus a Dubrovnik, Luca de Bona.42 D'altra parte, il Bona pagò, su ordine di Martolus, 500 ducati a Michele de Bodazza (Miho Budaéic) a Dubrovnik « pro uno cambio » che Martolus aveva fatto con il veneziano « Johannes Bono Rinbaldo ».43 Pure da Venezia, Martolus mandò nel marzo del 1370 la somma di 627 ducati e 17,y3 grossi a Dubrovnik, la quale somma doveva essere pagata ai figli d'un raguseo dal quale Martolus aveva, tempo prima, ricevuta una quantità di cera dello stesso valore.44 Nello stesso tempo, Martolus era a Venezia rappresentante d'alcuni ragusei,45 manteneva vivi rapporti d'affari con veneti e gente di Kotor46 e, tramite il Bona a Dubrovnik, entrava in operazioni commerciali che lo mettevano in rapporto anche con la Puglia.47 La somma totale d'affari di Martolus nel 1370 può essere valutata (secondo documenti disponibili) a 3820 41. Da un documento risulta, che Martolus a quest'epoca tramite il suo rappresentante a Dubrovnik, Luca de Bona, era in relazioni d'affari anche col retroterra balcanico. HAD, Diversa canc. X X , 94. Venditae canc., II, 21v. 42. HAD, Diversa canc. X X I I , 28V, 45. 43. HAD, ibid., 1 0 K 44. HAD, ibid., 42^, 43. 45. A Venezia Martolus in quel tempo rappresentava un raguseo, mentre da un altro aveva ricevuto a Venezia 250 ducati. HAD, Diversa not., IX, 11. Diversa canc., XXII,

86.

46. Martolus aveva ricevuto, così, « in Veneciis ad tabulam ser Jacomeli Çanchani » 300 ducati da « ser Çanebon de Veneciis ». Il denaro doveva essere pagato a « Çanebon » a Dubrovnik « per cambium », il che fu fatto dal rappresentante di Martolus a Dubrovnik, Luca de Bona. D'altra parte « Buchus de Buchia » di Kotor era debitore a Martolus già da tempo d'una somma di denaro, ed essendo « Buchus » morto nel frattempo, i suoi eredi mandarono al de Bona, a Dubrovnik, 20 libbre d'argento « pro parte solutionis debiti ». HAD, Diversa canc., X X I I , 59. 47. Nell'ottobre del 1370 Luca de Bona ricevette 1300 ducati da un patrizio raguseo. Questo denaro doveva essere mandato in Puglia, mentre Martolus doveva pagare la stessa somma al rappresentante del patrizio a Venezia. HAD, Distrib. testant., ILL,

81v.

84

UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA

DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

ducati e 17,% di grossi, al che bisogna aggiungere — come abbiamo già detto — una somma imprecisata d'affari sui quali non abbiamo informazioni. L'attività di Martolus a Venezia continuò, pure, nel 1371.48 *

*

*

Quest'intero periodo fu di tranquillità nelle relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia. C'erano perfino momenti particolarmente amichevoli, non ostante dissensi minori che si profilavano qua e là. 49 Lo si vede da molte notizie che ci mostrano numerosi veneti presenti ed attivi a Dubrovnik, alcuni dei quali — assai ragguardevoli — comperavano anche case a Dubrovnik.50 Un'altra prova delle buone relazioni tra i due stati può essere trovata nel fatto che il governo veneto, dopo la ribellione cretese del 1363, mandò proprio a Dubrovnik in esilio « Antonius de Montello de Candia ». 51 Finalmente, altra testimonianza significativa della collaborazione tra Dubrovnik e Venezia, nel 1371, il governo raguseo si rivolse al console veneto ed ad altri veneti a Tessalonicca per ottenere la liberazione del patrizio raguseo Giugno de Sorgo (Junije Sorkoòevic), incarceratovi dalle autorità bizantine.52 Dal 1372, però, le relazioni tra le due repubbliche adriatiche cominciarono ad offuscarsi seriamente. Infatti, già da prima, affiorava il vecchio problema dello statuto dei cittadini ragusei a Venezia e dei veneti a Dubrovnik. Era questa la difficoltà fondamen48. Il patrizio Pietro de Zrieva (Petar Crijevic) nel suo testamento menziona un quaderno particolare « de rationibus de Veneciis quas habeo cum Martolo ». HAD, Testam. not., VI, 73V. Sull'attività di Martolus a Venezia nel 1371: HAD, Diversa canc., X X I I I , 37; Lamenta de foris, I, 11' a tergo. 49. Per esempio nel 1364 dei marinai, scesi da una nave veneta, presero sei buoi ai sudditi ragusei sulla penisola di PeljeSac (Sabbioncello) e fecero altre violenze. TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 125. S. LjuBié, Listine o odnosajih izmedju Juznoga Slavenstva i Mietache Republike, IV, Zagreb 1874, pp. 65, 68. 50. TADIG, op. cit., pp. 140-141. HAD, Diversa canc., X I X , lOOv; X X , 41V. 51. KREKIÓ, op. cit., p. 205. M.I. Mocvouaaxa ' H 7RPAM) ÊFA7TOPIX9J 7rapoix(A TCOV LcmavLx BEVETÛV orà IlaXaTia (MIXTJTO) TTJÇ (JL. 'Aaïaç in «AeXxiov TTJÇ xP ^Ç àpxat~ oXoyixyjç sTaipetaç', III (1962), pp. 231-240. 52. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 238-239. KREKIG, op. cit., p. 211.

85

V

tale nelle relazioni tra le due città. I veneti negavano ai ragusei il diritto di trafficare con stranieri a Venezia e nello stesso tempo accusavano i ragusei di ostacolare l'attività dei mercanti veneti a Dubrovnik.53 I ragusei negavano nel modo più categorico queste accuse, dichiarando che i mercanti veneti a Dubrovnik godevano dello stesso trattamento loro riserbato quando il conte veneto si trovava nella città.54 Sembra molto probabile, che le accuse da ambedue le parti avessero giustificazioni reali, ma per un certo tempo non si volle entrare in conflitto. Così le contrarietà si accumulavano. Finalmente, nel 1372, la controversia scoppiò palesemente. Nel settembre di quell'anno i veneti proibirono alle loro navi armate d'esportare fuori dell'Adriatico metalli, eccezion fatta per l'oro e l'argento. Il governo veneto non fece segreto che questa decisione era stata presa « propter metalla de Ragusio », i quali venivano trasportati sulle navi venete fino a Corfù o Romania Bassa, e quindi caricati sulle « galee a mercato ». D'ora in poi — dice l'ordine veneto — tutti i metalli, ad eccezione dell'oro e dell'argento, caricati sulle galere venete fuori dell'Adriatico avrebbero pagato il dazio come se fossero stati caricati a Venezia stessa.55 Approssimativamente nello stesso tempo i ragusei, finita la guerra con il signore d'un gran territorio nel retroterra balcanico, Nikola Altomanovic,56 decisero di proibire agli stranieri di trafficare tra loro a Dubrovnik, come era già stato fatto a Venezia. I veneziani protestarono, ma senza risultati,57 poi decisero di prendere contromisure. Il 23 dicembre del 1372 la città ed il porto di Venezia 53. LJUBIÓ, Listine, cit., IV, p. 93, e 0 odnosajih, cit., pp. 13-14. 54. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 152-154.J. MIJUSKOVIÓ, Dodeljivanje dubrovackog gradjanstva u srednjem veku, in GLAS SANU GGXLVI, Od. druStv. nauka, n. s., voi 9, 1961, pp. 126-127. 55. Anche prima del 1372, nel 1367, furono prese misure a Venezia contro il traffico d'argento « Theotonicum, Raguseum » ecc. LJUBIÓ, Listine, cit., IV, pp. 91, 102-103. Gfr. B. KREKIC, Prilog istoriji mletacko-balkanske trgovine druge polovine XIV veka, in Godiinjak Filozofskog fakulteta, II, Novi Sad 1957, p. 14. D. KOVACEVIÓ, Trgovina u sredjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo 1961, pp. 25,31. 56. LJUBIÓ, 0 odnosajìh, cit., p. 15. K. JIREÓEK, Istorija Srba, I, Beograd 1952, pp. 249250. Istorija naroda Jugoslavie, cit., vol. I, p. 636. M. DINIÓ, O Nikoli Altomanoviéu, Beograd 1932. 57. TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 255.

86

V UN MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA

furono chiusi ai ragusei ed ai cittadini veneti fu proibito d'avere relazioni con Dubrovnik; quelli che vi si trovavano, dovevano partire dalla città.58 In questa situazione, il governo raguseo si rivolse al re ungherese, suo protettore, per aiuto e per un suo intervento a Venezia, al fine di permettere il ritorno alla normalità. 59 Martolus de Tudisio — il quale ebbe un ruolo di primo piano negli sviluppi ulteriori di questa crisi — si era allontanato da Venezia prima dello scoppio del conflitto. Era tornato a Dubrovnik senza dubbio nella seconda metà o alla fine del 1371, perché già nel gennaio del 1372 egli occupò la più alta funzione dello stato raguseo, quella di rettore, « rector ».60 Dal mese di aprile fino a settembre del 1372 Martolus era giudice a Dubrovnik e più volte, nello stesso periodo, lo s'incontra tra gli epitropi di testamenti d'eminenti membri del patriziato raguseo.61 Tutto questo dimostra che Martolus, nonostante la sua lunga assenza dalla sua città natale, e forse proprio grazie a quell'assenza — godeva d'un gran prestigio a Dubrovnik. Il fatto che Martolus occupasse ora importanti posizioni nella amministrazione ragusea non significa ch'egli avesse interrotto i suoi legami d'affari con Venezia. Lo vediamo, nel 1372, a Dubrovnik, come rappresentante degli interessi d'un veneziano ed egli stesso comperava vino da Venezia. 62 Probabilmente in novembre del 1372, nonostante il peggioramento già in corso delle relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia, Martolus partì verso la città lagunare. Singoli ed enti di Dubrovnik lo nominarono loro rappresentante a Venezia. 63 Evidentemente, sapevano che Martolus intendeva 58. LJUBIÓ, Listine, cit., IV, pp. 103-104. 59. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 259-260, 261-263, 269, 273, 274, 291-293, 295-296. 60. HAD, Diversa canc., X X I I I , 80 v e seg. Cfr. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435. 61. HAD, Vendita* canc. II, 30V, 90V, 91V, 92, 92V, 93. Distrib. testam. ILI, 29V-30, 68 69V. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 243, 247-252. 62. HAD, Diversa canc., X X I I I , 105, 118. Nell'ottobre del 1372 Martolus aveva venduto una sua vigna. HAD, Venditae canc., ILI, 12v. 63. Il 21 ottobre 1372 il patrizio raguseo Michele de Babalio (MiSe Bobaljevic) nominò Martolus suo procuratore a Venezia « ad exigendum omne id et totum quod mihi dare tenetur a Facio, meseta de Riuoalto ». U n altro Raguseo, Vlaho Radova-

87

V

trattenersi per un periodo prolungato a Venezia e contavano su di lui per le proprie necessità. Non c'è dubbio che egli stesso aveva l'intenzione di restare a Venezia per un certo tempo, ma la situazione politica e le relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia non erano propizie alle sue intenzioni. Infatti, noi non sappiamo fino a quando esattamente Martolus restò a Venezia, ma possiamo supporre che anch'egli, come gli altri Ragusei, dovette partire da Venezia ai primi di giugno del 1373, dopo l'ordine del governo veneto del 31 maggio 1373, secondo il quale tutti i ragusei dovevano lasciare Venezia entro otto giorni.64 Nel settembre del 1373 e nella prima metà del 1374 Martolus si trovava a Dubrovnik, ma non vi occupava posizione alcuna nel governo della città.65 Però, ai primi di settembre del 1374, quando il governo raguseo s'impegnò in una vasta azione diplomatica, con Tintervento del re ungherese, per migliorare le relazioni con Venezia, si rivolse a Martolus, la cui esperienza con i veneti lo qualificava altamente per tale nuovo incarico. Il governo di Dubrovnik, infatti, affidò a Martolus la missione, delicata ed importante, d'accompagnare l'ambasciatore ungherese Simon de Aurea (Doria), il quale si recava a Venezia per affari ragusei.66 L'istruzione, molto dettagliata, fu mandata a Martolus, che novic creò Martolus suo rappresentante « in Veneciis et in quolibet alio loco ». Il 28 ottobre i tesorieri di Santa Maria di Dubrovnik e gli epitropi di Marino de Bona (Marin Bunic) nominarono Martolus loro procuratore a Venezia, specialmente « a d exigendum omne et totum id, quod diete nostre commissioni debetur in Veneciis a quacumque persona, collegio et universitate, et specialiter a dominis provisoribus comunis Veneciarum ». Finalmente, anche il tutore dell'erede di Nicolo de Lucari (Nikola Lukarevic) nominò Martolus suo rappresentante «specialiter ad locandum et affictandum domos et stationes dicti heredis, que sunt in civitate Venetiarum », mentre la vedova d'un patrizio raguseo gli confidò l'incarico di « locandum et affictandum domos et stationes dicti sui mariti in Veneciis ». HAD, Diversa not., IX, 57V, 58, 58V, 59. Il diacono Giacomo de Dersa (Jakov Drzic), nel suo testamento del 24 ottobre 1372, nomina « ducatos X X in auro » ricevuti dal testamento di suo fratello Michele, « quos dedit Martolus de Tudisio archiepiscopo Ugutione in Veneciis ». HAD, Testam. not., VI, 102v-103v. 6 4 . TADIÓ, op. cit., p. 292.

65. Il 29 settembre del 1373 Martolus vendeva a Dubrovnik parte d'una « naveta » per 550 ducati e notizie sul suo soggiorno nella città si trovano fino a marzo del 1374. HAD, Venditae canc., II, 33-33v; III, 36. Distrib. testam., IV, 12a v , 13v. 66. Sulla missione del De Aurea a Venezia v. LJUBIC, 0 odnosajih, cit., p. 16, il quale, però, non sa nulla della partecipazione di Martolus in questa azione diplomatica.

88

V UN MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA

si trovava in quel momento a Zadar. Martolus doveva accompagnare « misser Simon, armirallo et ambasador del nostro signor, misser lo re de Hungaria per li nostri servicii in Vinesia », a condizione che De Aurea accettasse. In caso contrario, Martolus doveva informarlo sulla situazione di Dubrovnik ed insistere in modo particolare sulla proibizione del traffico tra stranieri a Dubrovnik e sul dovere dei veneti di pagare a Dubrovnik gli stessi dazii doganali corrisposti dai ragusei a Venezia. Se i veneti si fossero lamentati contro le misure prese a Dubrovnik contro di essi, Martolus doveva ricordare l'introduzione di simili misure. La Repubblica — egli dirà — chiusa la città per i ragusei il 23 dicembre 1372 e proibito ai sudditi d'andare a Dubrovnik, aveva ordinato, il 31 maggio 1373, a tutti i ragusei di lasciare Venezia entro l'otto giugno.67 Nell'esposizione di tutti questi fatti e in tutte le sue azioni, Martolus doveva collaborare nel modo più efficace col De Aurea e fornirgli tutte le informazioni sulle relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia che egli richiedesse. Tornato a Zadar, Martolus doveva informare il governo raguseo sul corso delle trattative di Venezia e poi andare, con lo stesso De Aurea, presso il re ungherese, dove le trattative dovevano continuare. In nessun modo Martolus doveva assentarsi dal palazzo del re ungherese senza il permesso del governo raguseo.68 Notizie ulteriori ci permettono di vedere, che Martolus, con De Aurea, si trovava a Venezia al più tardi alla fine di settembre del 1374.69 La loro missione ebbe un successo abbastanza rapido. Non è possibile conoscere oggi i particolari delle discussioni né la parte che Martolus vi ebbe ma, data la sua grande esperienza, date le sue molteplici relazioni a Venezia, è lecito supporre che il suo contributo alla composizione delle controversie raguseo67. LJUBIÓ, O odnosajih, cit., p. 15, dice che, con la decisione presa il 23 dicembre 1372, i veneziani espulsero i mercanti ragusei da Venezia. Ciò non risulta dal testo della decisione (LJUBIC, Listine, cit., vol. IV, pp. 103-104). Vi è detto che i ragusei non potranno importare né esportare merci da Venezia, ma anche da questa proibizione sono esenti le merci già in viaggio. Solo il 2 aprile 1373 i veneziani proibirono ai propri sudditi di trafficare con i ragusei. LJUBIÓ, Listine, cit., IV, pp. 104-105. 68. TADIC, op. cit., pp. 291-293. 69. LJUBIÓ, Listine, cit., IV, p. 107.

89

V

venete non sia stato di lieve entità. Egli e De Aurea ebbero la soddisfazione di poter annunciare a Dubrovnik l'abolizione delle misure contro i Ragusei. In risposta, il governo raguseo abolì, nell'ottobre del 1374, le misure contro i veneti, e ne informò Martolus. Per lui, però, la missione non era terminata. Secondo l'ordine del governo raguseo, subito dopo il ritorno a Zadar, Martolus si recò con De Aurea in Ungheria. Lì, con un altro ambasciatore raguseo, Nicolaus de Gondola (Nikola Gundulic), doveva difendere gl'interessi ragusei davanti al re Lodovico. I veneti, infatti, pur avendo abolito le misure eccezionali contro i ragusei e pur sapendo che i ragusei avevano abolito misure analoghe, avevano chiesto l'intervento del re d'Ungheria per ottenere che fosse abolita la proibizione del traffico tra stranieri a Dubrovnik. Il governo raguseo ne era, evidentemente, molto disturbato e ordinò al Tudisio ed al Gondola di fare il possibile per impedire che il re accettasse le richieste venete. Dovevano dire a Lodovico « che la sua citade de Ragusa non V a l e r i a niente se questo ordine fusse casso overo se Veneciani podesse mercatantegiar in Ragusa cum forestieri ». Se il re, nonostante tutto questo, si mostrasse disposto ad accettare le richieste venete, gli ambasciatori dovevano immediatamente informare il governo raguseo ed aspettare ulteriori sue direttive. D'altra parte, se il re fosse stato bene disposto verso Dubrovnik, gli ambasciatori dovevano procurarsi l'originale o la copia della lettera che il governo veneto gli aveva diretto informandolo della restaurazione delle libertà dei mercanti ragusei a Venezia. 70 Gli ambasciatori dovevano, pure, ringraziare Lodovico per il suo intervento a Venezia in favore 70. LJUBIÓ, 0 odnosajih, cit., pp. 16-17, parlando di questi eventi, pensa che i veneziani abbiano abrogate le decisioni del 23 dicembre 1372, « poiché anche i ragusei abolirono la loro decisione contro i veneziani e questi ultimi rimasero liberi di trafficare a Dubrovnik non solo con ragusei, ma pure con stranieri, mentre a Venezia i ragusei, come gl'altri sudditi veneti di fuori, non potevano ne d'allora in poi, trafficare con stranieri » (traduzione dal serbocroato). Quest'affermazione del Ljubic non può, essere ammessa in quanto concerne il commercio dei veneti con gli stranieri a Dubrovnik. Infatti, i ragusei dicono esplicitamente: « N o i fessimo gridar in Ragusa, che ciascuno veneciano cum soe cose et mercantie possa usare et mercatanteçar in Ragusa et al suo destretto cum ragusei ». D'altra parte, per i ragusei a Venezia si dice solo che sono « affranchati che possono usar et mercatantegiar a Venesia », dal che si può

90

UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA

DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

di Dubrovnik. De Aurea, poi, ebbe diritto ad una speciale lettera di ringraziamento del governo raguseo e ad una promessa di 500 ducati.71 Non è possibile sapere ora come finirono le trattative alla corte ungherese, ma da sviluppi posteriori si può dedurre che la richiesta veneta di libero traffico per mercanti stranieri a Dubrovnik non ebbe successo. *

*

*

Poco tempo dopo questi avvenimenti Martolus de Tudisio era di ritorno a Dubrovnik. Il successo delle sue due missioni, a Venezia ed in Ungheria, ambedue d'importanza vitale per Dubrovnik, la prudenza e l'abilità che vi aveva dimostrato, le sue già affermate capacità commerciali e finanziarie contribuivano ad accrescere il prestigio già grande che Martolus godeva a Dubrovnik. Negli anni che seguiranno, questo prestigio sarà più evidente che mai e porterà Martolus, per un lungo periodo, alle cariche più alte della città. Già nel gennaio del 1375 fu eletto rettore di Dubrovnik,72 e - nonostante le leggi che proibivano l'elezione d'una stessa persona a rettore prima del trascorrere di un anno dal suo ultimo rettorato - Martolus fu di nuovo fatto rettore per il mese d'agosto del 1375, il che è una prova irrefutabile della sua autorità eccezionale in questo periodo.73 Dopo di che, dall'ottobre del 1375 fino al settembre del 1376 Martolus occupò l'alta posizione di giudice; durante questo tempo non cessava tuttavia d'occuparsi anche d'affari.74 In gennaio del dedurre che Ljubic ha ragione quando sostiene che i ragusei non ottennero la libertà di traffico con stranieri a Venezia. 71. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 295-296. 72. HAD, Venditae canc., ILL, 68, 68 v . MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435. 73. HAD, ibid., 66, 66V, 75V. MAHNKEN, ibid., 74. HAD, Venditae canc., II, 38^, 39, 40v, 41, 41 v , 42, 106v, 108; III, 6, 61, 61 v , 77 118, 118 v , 119. Distrib. testam. ILL, 80v. Diversa canc. XXIV, 70v. Cfr. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 316-324, 330, 332, 334-338. Nel settembre del 1375 un raguseo si obbligava a pagare a Martolus un debito di 600 ducati, mentre nell'estate del 1376 Martolus partecipava ad una compagnia commerciale che importava il piombo dalla Neretva (Narenta) a Dubrovnik. HAD, Diversa canc., X X I V , 157 v . MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436. Nel settembre del 1377 Martolus prese in appalto la « dohana maior» di Dubrovnik per un anno per 8600 perperi. HAD, Réf. X X I I , 52.

91

V

1376 Martolus è menzionato per la prima volta come procuratore del monastero dei Francescani, posizione che occuperà fino a tutto luglio del 1383,75 mentre dal mese di maggio del 1376 fino al 1383 fu anche procuratore del monastero delle monache di Sant'Andrea.76 Da ora in poi le attività politiche ed economiche di Martolus si concentrano sempre più a Dubrovnik. La situazione generale, infatti, non favoriva affari con Venezia o a Venezia stessa. Una nuova guerra non tardò a scoppiare e, nonostante il fatto che iniziasse con il pretesto d'una piccola isola levantina, Tenedos, lontana da Dubrovnik, la città adriatica si trovò presto coinvolta nel conflitto, quando Genova e l'Ungheria spostarono le operazioni più importanti nell'Adriatico e nelle vicinanze immediate di Venezia. Dubrovnik si unì alla coalizione anti-veneziana, alla quale partecipava anche il suo protettore, non solo per questa ragione, ma anche per interessi suoi propri. Naturalmente, le relazioni tra le due repubbliche adriatiche furono completamente sconvolte da questa guerra e fu soltanto dopo la pace di Torino, del 1381, e grazie ad una relativa stabilizzazione della situazione internazionale in genere, che queste relazioni cominciarono di nuovo a ricostituirsi.77 Durante tutto questo tempo Martolus visse a Dubrovnik e vi occupò le più alte posizioni: nel gennaio del 1376 e nel luglio del 1377 fu rettore della città.78 Poi, dal gennaio all'ottobre del 1377 75. HAD, Venditae canc., ILI, 80V, 137V, 181. Distrib. testam., ILL, 45-45 V ; IV, passim. 76. HAD, Venditae canc., ILL, 80V, 137M81. Distrib. testam., IV, 122. 77. Cfr. i seguenti scritti di V. LAZZARINI: La morte e il monumento di Vettor Pisani ; Due documenti della guerra di Chioggia; Il diario della guerra di Chioggia e la cronaca di Galeazzo Gatari; Frammento di registro del tempo della guerra di Chioggia-, Lettere genovesi e friulane della guerra di Chioggia; La presa di Chioggia (16 agosto 1379), rispettivamente in « N u o v o Archivio Veneto », 11 (1896), pp. 395-401; 12 (1896), pp. 137-147; 12 (1896), pp. 295300; «Archivio Veneto », V s., 21 (1937), pp. 124-132; V s., 34-35 (1944), pp. 11-32; V s., 48-49 (1951), pp. 53-74. KRETSCHMAYR, op. cit., II, pp. 229-242. B. KREKIC, Dubrovnik i rat oko Tenedosa (1378-1381), in %bornik radova Vizantololkog instituta, V, Beograd 1958, pp. 21-47. 78. HAD, Div. canc., X X I V , 193V. Venditae canc., III, 92V, 101, 1 0 R TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 352-353. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435. Il 29 luglio 1377 Martolus dichiara aver ricevuto venti anni prima, nel luglio del 1357, come dote della moglie Rade «filie quondam ser Marini de Zilippa » 700 perperi, 100 saggi d'oro, un terreno nelle vici-

92

UN

MERCANTE

E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

gli fu affidata la carica di giudice, come pure nel settembre del 1378.79 Quando Dubrovnik si trovò coinvolta nella guerra contro Venezia, Martolus fu uno dei due « capitanei generates guerre », nell'agósto del 1378,80 ma dovettero presto cambiarlo perché in ottobre fu nuovamente fatto rettore,81 per ridivenire « capitaneus generalis » in dicembre, almeno, fino ad aprile del 1379.82 Durante il 1379 Martolus era membro di numerose commissioni che dovevano occuparsi di vari problemi connessi con la guerra.83 Ma i Ragusei non dimenticavano che Martolus de Tudisio era sempre uno dei loro più abili diplomatici e l'impegnarono in nuove missioni importanti. Nel luglio del 1379 egli fu eletto all'unanimità nel Gran Consiglio come uno dei due ambasciatori che dovevano recarsi presso il re ungherese, ma sembra che questa missione non abbia avuto seguito.84 Ai primi di settembre dello nanze di Dubrovnik « e t unam partem et dimidiam... in Stagno et Punta». HAD Venditae canc., II, 112. 79. HAD, Venditae canc.y II e III, passim. Dal mese di giugno del 1377 fino ad aprile del 1379 Martolus è menzionato come uno dei procuratori della chiesa di San Biagio, protettore di Dubrovnik. HAD, Venditae canc., II, lOOv. Distrib. testam., IV, 11.5, 122. 80. È interessante notare che in quest'occasione Martolus ottenne 25 dei 51 voti nel Maggior Consiglio, mentre l'altro capitano, il patrizio Marinus de Menze (Marin Mencetic) ne ebbe 41. 81. MR, IV, pp. 174, 185, 186. Fu eletto con 39 voti su 53. Nel mese di settembre del 1378 Martolus divenne uno dei quattro « advocati curie maioris ». MR, ibid., p. 168. 82. MR, IV, pp. 188, 200. 83. Così, nel marzo del 1379, doveva trovare, con due altri patrizi, un modo per mandare mercanti ragusei a Brindisi, mentre nel giugno dello stesso anno era membro d'una commissione preposta al reperimento dei mezzi per l'invio d'una ambasciata ragusea presso il « dominus rex Rassie et Bossine ». Nell'agosto successivo, con due altri patrizi, doveva esaminare chi, a Dubrovnik, avesse « possessiones ecclesiarum in perpetuum » e se tali persone sarebbero state disposte a corrispondere denaro al commune « ut affrancarentur eorum possessiones ». MR, IV, pp. 200, 228, 238. Naturalmente, Martolus si occupava anche dei suoi affari privati. HAD, Venditae canc., II, 116 v ; I I I , 133v. 84. Sembra probabile che questa missione non si recò dal re d'Ungheria, perché negli atti e nella correspondenza del governo raguseo non si trovano altre notizie. D'altra parte, ai primi d'agosto del 1379, il governo di Dubrovnik mandò un uomo a Zadar, il cui compito era di tenere Dubrovnik informato sul corso delle operazioni e sulle disposizioni delle parti nel conflitto, comprese tutte le notizie «delo nostro sygnor misser lo re ». TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 389-390. Martolus fu anche, nel giugno di quest'anno membro della delegazione che, a nome del governo raguseo, doveva trat-

93

V

stesso anno, Martolus, con un altro patrizio, fu fatto ambasciatore « ad dominum Karolum de pace et alios dominos de liga domini nostri regis ». Si trattava, certamente, di Carolo Tobbia, signore allora d'una parte dell'Albania. La partenza di questa missione fu ritardata, e se ne ignora l'esito, ma si sa che essa ebbe luogo e che gli ambasciatori tornarono a Dubrovnik probabilmente al principio d'aprile del 1380.85 Subito dopo Martolus fu eletto a varie funzioni nella città per poi accedere, in maggio, al rettorato.86 Durante tutto l'anno 1380 Martolus continuò ad occupare le più alte posizioni nell'amministrazione ragusea: fu di nuovo « capitaneus generalis », giudice,87 « avocatus curie maioris »88 e senatore.89 Fu, anche — e di nuovo contro le prescrizioni legali — eletto rettore per il mese di dicembre del 1380 con 60 voti su 64 votanti, il che è ancora una significativa prova della sua grande popolarità e prestigio in quel periodo difficile per la sua città.90 Nel 1381 la viva partecipazione di Martolus de Tudisio alla vita politica di Dubrovnik non conobbe soste. Fu di nuovo « capitaneus » due volte,91 giudice, avvocato e senatore.92 e fu eletto rettore in agosto.93 Inoltre, già nel principio del 1381 Martolus

tare con il comandante delle galere genovesi, giunte a Dubrovnik. MR, IV, pp. 221258. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435. 85. MR, IV, pp. 239, 240. II 9 d'aprile furono regolati alcuni conti di questa missione. M. DINIÓ, Odluke veéa DubrovaZke Republike, I, Beograd 1951, p. 29. Già il 14 ed il 18 aprile Martolus funge da epitropo. In tutto questo periodo, dal 1376 al 1382, Martolus era molto spesso epitropo di testamenti, particolarmente di quelli dei più eminenti patrizi ragusei. HAD, Venditae canc., III, 141v, 145v. Distrib. testam., ILI, 8 a tergo; IV, 82, 140, 158, 164. 86. TADIÓ, op. cit., pp. 403, 410-421. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 30, 32, 36, 99. 87. TADIÓ, op. cit.,, pp. 428-430, 431. DINIÓ, op. cit., 100, 101. 88. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 71, 104, 106. 89. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 72,74. Nell'ottobre del 1380 Martolus era membro d'una commissione che doveva mandare un dono a Bal§aBal§ic, come pure d'altre commissioni. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 77, 79. 90. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 91, 92, 107. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435. 91. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 187, 189. MAHNKEN, op. cit., ibid. 92. HAD, Venditae canc., III, 101V. DINIÓ, op. cit.,, pp. 164, 166, 192. Rimase giudice per lo meno fino alla metà del 1382. HAD, Intentiones canc., I, passim e Liber dotium, II, passim. 93. Martolus era stato proposto per la funzione di rettore già per il mese di luglio,

94

V UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA

DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

divenne uno dei « thesaurarii Sanctae Mariae », cioè tesorieri dello stato, grande onore per di più vitalizio, ma anche, comporrante molti obblighi e responsabilità.94 Nonostante tutte queste cariche, Martolus era frequentemente eletto a membro di varie commissioni che dovevano occuparsi di problemi di vita interna e di relazioni internazionali.95 Nell'aprile del 1382 egli sembra aver fatto un breve viaggio a Trogir (Traù),96 al ritorno dal quale proseguì le sue attività pubbliche97 e private98 a Dubrovnik. Fu di nuovo avvocato e senatore e, nel dicembre del 1382, ancora una volta — a quanto sembra l'ultima — rettore della città.99 Negli ultimi mesi del 1382 e nei primi del 1383 troviamo Martolus, pure, direttamente impegnato in alcune attività diplomatiche di Dubrovnik. Nel novembre del 1382 a Dubrovnik si era sparsa la voce che stava per arrivare in città il doge di Venezia, il quale — si diceva — viaggiava su una galera veneta che si avvicinava alla città. Il Consiglio Minore di Dubrovnik incaricò subito quattro patrizi, tra i quali Martolus de Tudisio, di andare ma non fu eletto. La sua elezione per agosto avvenne con 35 voti su 53 votanti. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 155, 157, 159-161, 189, 190. MAHNKEN, ibid. 94. DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 185. MAHNKEN, ibid. 95. HAD, Venditae canc., ILL, 158V, 161, 162. Nel marzo del 1381 era uno dei due « judices ad eundum ad stanchum cum Gradoe », mentre in ottobre dello stesso anno fu eletto membro d'una commissione di tre patrizi che doveva trattare con il vescovo di Korcula (Gurzola) «super facto Stagni». DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 123, 124, 169, 179. 96. Il governo raguseo lo autorizzò ad impegnare per due anni « magistrum Jacobum physicum qui moratur Tragurii ». DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 213. Pare, però, certo che questo medico non venne a Dubrovnik. Cfr. R. JEREMIÓ - J. TADIÓ, Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika, I, II, III, Beograd 1938, 1939, 1940, in particolare II, pp. 15-20 e III, pp. 133-135. 97. DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 223. Nel giugno, Martolus, con altri due patrizi, fudesignato nel Minor Consiglio « a d ordinandum comissionem nostris ambassiatoribus ituris ad dominum regem Karolum ». DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 232-233. Nel marzo 1382 Martolus era menzionato come procuratore del monastero di Santa Clara, nel luglio divenne procuratore dei francescani di Ston (Stagno) e in settembre, su ordine del governo, si recò personalmente a Ston. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 239, 246, 256. HAD, Distrib. testam., IV, 164, 164V. 98. Forse stava costruendo una casa. Nel febbraio del 1382 comprò un altro terreno ed una vigna nei pressi di Dubrovnik (2upa Dubrovacka). HAD, Venditae canc., ILI, 179, DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 217, 235, 266. 99. HAD, Litterae Levantis, III, 47, 49, 49 v , 52, 57, 62. Venditae canc., IV, 12. DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 273. A quanto abbiamo potuto stabilire, Martolus occupò dieci volte la posizione di rettore di Dubrovnik dal 1372 al 1382.

95

V

sulla galera e salutarlo.100 Però, si trattava d'un falso allarme. Il doge venne con le galere venete a Dubrovnik, ma solo ai primi di gennaio del 1383 e la delegazione ragusea già nominata, andò a salutarlo e « pro contratulando de eius erectione ». 101 Si trattava, evidentemente, del primo contatto di Dubrovnik con Antonio Venier, divenuto doge il 21 ottobre del 1382, che stava ora recandosi a Venezia da Gandia dove era stato fino allora capitano.102 Non certo a caso Martolus era stato eletto a far parte della delegazione la quale aveva il compito di stabilire i primi contatti con il nuovo doge in un periodo di considerevole miglioramento delle relazioni raguseo-venete. La grande'esperienza diplomatica e la profonda conoscenza dei veneti del Tudisio lo qualificavano meglio d'ogni altro per questa delicata ed importante missione. Per le stesse ragioni, non è sorprendente di trovare Martolus impegnato in un altro compito delicato. Infatti, le regine ungheresi, « domine nostre naturales, domine regine Hungarie » avevano consultato i ragusei circa « faciende lige Januensium » e nel febbraio del 1383 fu eletta una commissione di tre patrizi, col compito di preparare una risposta alle regine. Martolus fece parte della commissione.103 I ragusei ricorsero ancor'una volta alla sua prudenza ed esperienza, trattandosi d'un problema molto complicato ed anche pericoloso nella situazione instabile, creatasi in Ungheria dopo la morte del re Lodovico il Grande, date le nuove combinazioni politiche dello scacchiere adriatico, particolarmente contro Venezia; combinazioni nelle quali Dubrovnik non aveva alcun interesse ad entrare ma d'altra parte, non poteva offendere le « domine naturales ». Martolus, dunque, fu — con altri due patrizi — incaricato di trovare una via d'uscita, e fu questo l'ultimo suo incarico diplomatico. 100. DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 273. 101. Id., p. 305. 102. KRETSCHMAYR, op. cit., II, p. 243. V . GRUMEL, La chronologie, Paris 1958, p. 428. R . MOROZZO DELLA ROCCA, Cronologia veneziana del '300, in La Civiltà Veneziana del Trecento, Firenze, 1956, p. 259. 103. DINIÓ, op. cit., p. 313. LJUBIÓ, O odnolajih, cit., p. 20.

96

V UN MERCANTE E DIPLOMATICO DA DUBROVNIK A VENEZIA *

*

*

A queste notizie attestanti l'intensa attività di Martolus de Tudisio, seguono altre che invece ci informano del suo progressivo sottrarsi alle cariche pubbliche e agli impegni privati. La ragione era, forse, l'età, e, certo, la salute.Già nel giugno del 1383 abbiamo notizia che Martolus era ammalato e sicuramente non è senza ragione che dopo il mese di luglio dello stesso anno Martolus non venga più menzionato né come procuratore dei francescani, né di Sant'Andrea di Dubrovnik, ufficii che egli esercitava da lunghi anni. Nel settembre del 1383 Martolus fu eletto, è vero, nel Minor Consiglio, ma solo nella terza votazione e con soli 30 voti su 57 membri votanti. Nello stesso tempo fallì nelle elezioni al senato.104 Deve essere stato lo stato della salute ad incitare Martolus a fare il suo testamento, nel giugno del 1384.105 Un anno più tardi, però, nel giugno del 1385, Martolus era ancora in grado d'attendere a certi affari e così pagò ai tesorieri di Santa Maria 320 perperi ragusei per soddisfare alle disposizioni del testamento del suo nonno Martolus, morto nel 1347.106 Comunque, un documento d'agosto del 1386 getta una luce nuova sulla situazione di Martolus. Si tratta d'una dichiarazione del guardiano e dei procuratori del convento dei francescani di Dubrovnik, i quali dicono aver ricevuto dalla moglie di Martolus e dal suo nipote Luca de Bona tutte le somme di denaro che Martolus aveva con sé come uno dei procuratori degli stessi francescani, e che aveva menzionato nel suo testamento.107 Si tratta dunque, della cessazione ufficiale della relazione di Martolus con i francescani, ma è molto significativo il fatto che Martolus stesso non si occupò personalmente dell'affare. L'operazione è effettuata interamente dalla moglie e dal Bona. Cosa poteva impedire Mar104. DINIÓ, op. cit., pp. 350, 351, 375, 384, 385. Con tutto ciò, Martolus continuava ad occuparsi d'affari minori. HAD, Venditae canc., III, 179V. DINIÓ, ibid., pp. 344, 345. 105. HAD, Testam. notariae, VII, 177-179. 106. HAD, Testam. Blagog djela, III, 430-432 V . 107. HAD, Diversa canc., X X V I , 107V. Venditae canc., IV, 14V (doppia numerazione).

97

V

tolus, se non una malattia grave, di procedere di persona in un affare che poneva fine ad una delle sue più prolungate attività? Ed, infatti, le notizie del marzo del 1387 dimostrano che Martolus era ridotto in misere condizioni. È di quell'epoca un documento che c'informa che « ser Stephanus de Lucari (Stijepo Lukarevic), thesaurarius Sanctae Marie », aveva ricevuto una somma di denaro essendo « solus ad hunc actum », perché il tesoriere Biaggio di Sorgo (Vlaho Sorkoòevic) era parte nell'operazione, e « ser Martolus de Tudisio, thesaurario, existente non sane mentis, in qua diu extitit ». 108 La grave malattia di Martolus ci è confermata anche dalle decisioni del Minor Consiglio del 30 aprile 1388. Il Consiglio prima decise di nominare un « tutorem generalem » per Martolus, poi nominò tre patrizi — tra i quali Luca de Bona — a tutori del Tudisio.109 Nel settembre dello stesso anno, contrariamente alla consuetudine che la carica di tesoriere fosse a vita, il Gran Consiglio (con 47 su 68 voti) fu costretto ad eleggere un nuovo tesoriere di Santa Maria al posto di Martolus « qui propter infirmitatem validam qua insensatus est, non potest vacare officio ». 110 Dato che nel giugno del 1384, al momento della stesura del testamento, è detto che Martolus era « sano de memoria e delà mente » e che nel giugno del 1385 era tuttora capace di disbrigare certi affari, dato, d'altra parte, che nell'agosto del 1386 non prende parte al trasferimento del denaro ai francescani e che nel marzo del 1387 si dice che è già da lungo tempo « non sane mentis », ci sembra di poter concludere che la sua malattia ebbe inizio tra il giugno del 1385 e l'agosto del 1386. Martolus visse per un periodo abbastanza lungo in tale misero stato, e la malattia causò considerevoli spese alla famiglia. Dopo la sua morte i suoi tutori ebbero 142 ducati a compenso del denaro 108. HAD, Venditae canc., ILI, 71*. 109. HAD, Reformationes, X X V I I , 54. Nel giugno del 1389 un cugino di Martolus gli mosse un processo, ma dovette farlo contro i tutori del Tudisio. HAD, Reform., X X V I I I , 21v. 110. HAD, Reform., X X V I I , 135.

98

UN

MERCANTE

E DIPLOMATICO

DA DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

speso « pluribus vicibus tempore infirmitatis dicti quodam Martoli in oportunitatibus ipsius » . m Finalmente, Martolus morì il 7 o P8 luglio del 1390. Doveva avere circa 60-62 anni.112 Dal suo testamento, steso come abbiamo detto prima, il 26 luglio 1384, si ha l'impressione che Martolus disponesse di somme considerevoli e di numerosi immobili. 113 Tra le altre cose, Martolus menziona nel testamento una società commerciale che aveva con i suoi nipoti de Bona e le sue relazioni con altri ragusei e gente di Kotor. Parlando dei suoi affari a Venezia, Martolus, come tanti mercanti medievali, lascia ai poveri 500 perperi ragusei « imperço che io o abudo a fare cum molte persone in la citade de Venexia grossamente in li fatti de merchadantia, me reprende la consciencia ». È interessante notare che ancora nel 1384 Martolus non aveva sistemato tutti i conti dei suoi affari di Venezia. Quattro gentiluomini ragusei gli erano debitori di 188 ducati, loro dovuti in seguito ad affari fatti a Venezia, e d'altra parte, Martolus stesso era debitore di 200 ducati a « Marco Ronçan, cum lo quale avi molto a fare de marchadantie in Venexia, pro resto de ogni raxon ». 114 111. HAD, Distrib. testam., V, 134M36. 112. Il testamento di Martolus è senza data di registrazione. Però, nel codice notarile si trova registrato tra due altri testamenti, dei quali il precedente porta la data deir8 luglio, mentre il seguente è del 7 luglio, dal che si può desumere che Martolus morì il 7 o P8 luglio. Bisogna, pertanto, correggere la cronologia di MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 435 e II, tab. L X X I . Il « 1342-1396 » va corretto in: 1333-1390. L'età di Martolus al momento della sua morte si può calcolare sui 60-62 anni, perché egli fu, come abbiamo detto, liberato dai tutori nel 1348, probabilmente tra i 18 e i 20 anni. 113. Martolus lasciò alla madre - in varie forme - 2600 perperi ragusei ed alla moglie 600 perperi e 100 saggi d'oro come sua dote, ai quali aggiunse 300 perperi come dono. Alle chiese e monasteri a Dubrovnik, Ston ed in altre località della Repubblica di Dubrovnik, ai preti poveri, malati, per dote alle povere giovani ed al commune raguseo lasciò complessivamente 496 perperi e 8 grossi. A questa somma bisogna aggiungere « ali pari delà vicaria de Bosna perperi L ». Nel suo testamento Martolus menziona le sue proprietà e vigne nella 2upa Dubrovacka, a Ston e sulla penisola di PeljeSac, come pure sulle isole di Sip an (Giuppana) Koloèep (Galamota), ecc. HAD, Testam. notariae, VII, 177-179. MAHNKEN, op. cit., I, p. 436. 114. È interessante notare, che questo debito di Martolus al Ronçan ebbe una storia piuttosto movimentata: Marco Ronçan era fuggito da Venezia una volta a causa dei debiti che vi aveva. II governo veneto convocò tutti i debitori del Ronçan perché si presentassero al doge, ma il nostro Martolus, nonostante il fatto che a quell'epoca fosse già debitore del Ronçan, non si presentò alle autorità venete « per non aver le

99

V

Gli epitropi di Martolus, tra gli altri, furono i suoi nipoti de Bona e la moglie sua Rade de Celipa. Da Rade Martolus non aveva avuto figli. Donna abile ed energica, Rade già durante la vita di Martolus era spesso epitropo di vari testamenti e si occupava d'affari minori. La sua attività continuò dopo la morte del marito115 ed il suo ruolo fu particolarmente importante nella « distribuzione » delle sostanze lasciate in testamento da Martolus• Questa «distribuzione» cominciò il 3 gennaio 1394 e durò fino a tutto il 3 marzo 1401. Complessivamente furono distribuiti 721 ducati, 1976 perperi e 20 grossi ragusei.116

Martolus de Tudisio fu uno dei più autentici rappresentanti del patriziato raguseo che, prendendo completamente in mano il poraxon a posto ». Perciò lasciò ai propri epitropi il dovere di regolare questo debito, il che fu fatto « capitibus creditòrum quondam Marci Ronzano ». HAD, Testam. not., VII, 177-179. Distrib. testam., V, pp. 134M36. Alla fine del proprio testamento Martolus dice che altri suoi conti si trovano « in lo quaderno mio lungo sença paleto » e su certe altre « cedule scritte de mia man », ma, sfortunatamente, nulla di questo si è conservato. 115. HAD, Venditae canc., I l l , 71 v . Reformations, X X V I I I , 51. Praecepta rectoris, IV, 89 v , 90 v , 93, 95 v , 100, 102 v , 109. Gfr. MAHNKEN op cit., II, tab. L X X I . Sembra che Rade avesse l'intenzione di recarsi in pellegrinaggio in Palestina dopo la morte del marito; nella distribuzione del testamento di Martolus, infatti, viene fatta menzione di 50 perperi ch'essa aveva ricevuto «prò viaggio quod faciet ad Sanctum Sepulcrum ». HAD, Distrib. testam., V, 134M36. 116. Da questa distribuzione risultano alcuni legati. 80 perperi furono lasciati « ecclesie fratrum minorum de Stagno et fratribus vicarie Bossine » e li ricevette « fra Bartholameus vicarius vicarie Bossine ». A parte ciò, egli ebbe anche 37 perperi per la vicaria stessa e 25 perperi « in subsidium viagii Terre Sancte ». I francescani di Dubrovnik ricevettero vino d'un valore di 60 perperi per le messe e 38 ducati « pro redimendo crucem argenti dicti loci que erat in pignore pro necessitatibus fratrum ». Inoltre, i francescani ebbero 144 ducati e 2 perperi per il vino, grano ed altri cibi e, finalmente, ancora 80 ducati « pro resto cedullarum et omnium rationum quas habuit dictus Martolus cum dictis fratribus ». Un altro monastero, che prima non sembrava giocare un ruolo di rilievo nella vita e attività di Martolus, figura con molta evidenza nella distribuzione del suo testamento. È il monastero di Paklina sull'isola di Sipan. Martolus era « administrator honorum » di quel monastero e Paklina ebbe ora diritto a 80 ducati d'oro « pro ratione cedullarum et pro omni eo quod dictus quondam Martolus fuisset debitor dicto monasterio ». Inoltre, la moglie di Martolus diede a Paklina 34 perperi « ex consciencia ». Finalmente, 11 perperi e 2 grossi furono pagati all'apotecario Zanino Sallimbene per le medicine che aveva dato all'abate di Paklina. Anche l'arcivescovo di Dubrovnik ricevette 50 perperi della distribuzione del testamento di Martolus. HAD, Distrib. testam., V, 134v-136. 100

V UN

MERCANTE

E

DIPLOMATICO

DA

DUBROVNIK

A

VENEZIA

tere a Dubrovnik dopo il 1358, ebbe possibilità di pieno sviluppo. Per quasi una trentina d'anni Martolus fu in relazioni d'affari con Venezia e vi stabilì una vivissima attività commerciale e finanziaria. Gran parte di quel tempo egli visse a Venezia stessa. Tutto ciò gli permise d'acquisire una grande esperienza sui veneziani e sulle cose venete e questa sua esperienza egli la mise pienamente a disposizione della sua patria per portare a termine molte missioni diplomatiche, alcune delle quali concernevano nel modo più diretto, delicato e vitale le relazioni tra le due repubbliche adriatiche. Non c'è dubbio che Martolus impiegò le sue qualità diplomatiche nel modo più positivo per quanto riguarda la soluzione dei vari problemi che sorgevano tra Dubrovnik e Venezia e perciò si può dire ch'egli fu tra quei ragusei che diedero il più grande contributo al mantenimento e alla continuazione delle relazioni normali tra Dubrovnik e Venezia dopo il 1358, nonostante le difficoltà che le ostacolavano. Non solo, ma Martolus fu uno di quei diplomatici ragusei che, proprio nel delicato periodo dopo il 1358, costruì le basi per l'ulteriore sviluppo delle relazioni tra Venezia e Dubrovnik, particolarmente dopo la pace di Torino. Se, in quel periodo, Dubrovnik potè, restando in buone relazioni con Venezia, sviluppare il suo commercio marittimo in un modo che non aveva precedenti nella sua storia, se nei tempi difficili sull'Adriatico durante la lotta per il trono ungherese tra Sigismondo di Lussemburgo e Ladislao di Napoli, le relazioni tra Dubrovnik e Venezia si mantennero amichevoli, ma — soprattutto — se Venezia e Dubrovnik restarono in buone relazioni anche dopo il ritorno dei veneziani in Dalmazia, nel 1409, il merito è, in gran parte, dell'elasticità e della solidità delle basi diplomatiche di queste relazioni, alla cui costruzione Martolus de Tudisio diede un contributo di primo piano.

101

VI

DUBROVNIK (RAGUSA) AND THE WAR OF TENEDOS/CHIOGGIA (1378-1381)

The Venetian-Genoese war over Tenedos started when the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologos promised that small, but extremely important Byzantine island to the Venetians for unpaid debts. The plan was opposed by the Genoese, who had had vast interests in the Black Sea area ever since the middle of the thirteenth century and who could not accept the idea that routes of vital importance to them might be threatened, or even cut off, should Tenedos, the key to the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, fall into the hands of their arch-rivals, the Venetians. The VenetoGenoese conflict merged with troubles already existing inside the Byzantine Empire. To prevent the surrender of Tenedos to the Venetians, the Genoese had helped bring about a coup d'état in Constantinople. John V lost the throne in 1376 to his son, Andronicus IV, who, because he did not want to be excluded from succession, had earlier tried to usurp his father's position with the help of the Ottoman sultan. Once on the Byzantine throne, Andronicus, of course, promised Tenedos to Genoa, but Venetian diplomacy operated against him. Eventually, primarily through the intervention of the Ottoman sultan, John V was returned to the throne in Constantinople, in 1379, and Andronicus IV was removed. However, a prolonged war between Venice and Genoa around the Tenedos problem had already broken out and, having outgrown the limits of a local conflict in the Levant, became a general clash between the two old rivals. Tenedos was only an excuse for the two commercial republics to extend the conflict. In the further course of the war, Byzantium played almost no role at all; operations spread to other regions and seas (the Tyrrhenian and, especially, the Adriatic); and other powers (Hungary) were drawn into the fighting.1

VI 2 The principal aspects of the Adriatic phase of the conflict have already been examined. The importance of that phase is clear from the fact that, at one point, the course of the war menaced the existence of Venice herself as a state. Much less is known, however, about events in, specifically, the eastern Adriatic coastal area at the time of the Venetian and Genoese operations in the Adriatic, although those events were rather important. I intend here to elucidate the participation of Dubrovnik in them. After the cessation of the Venetian overlordship in Dubrovnik (1358) and the recognition of Hungarian protection, relations between Dubrovnik and Venice remained very lively, particularly in the commercial field. True, there were frequent, and sometimes rather serious, controversies and conflicts between the two states and their citizens, but in the end satisfactory solutions were usually found. In general, contacts between Dubrovnik and Venice were never interrupted between 1358 and 1378. 2 It may seem strange, therefore, that the Ragusans entered the war against Venice. The explanation that they did it because their protector, the king of Hungary, had done so is an oversimplification. Reliance on Hungary no doubt did play a certain part in the Ragusan decision, but a more fundamental motive was the awareness of the Ragusans that they now had a rare opportunity to contribute to the weakening of their longtime rival. For, in spite of frequent exchanges of friendly words, the Ragusans knew what constant Venetian competition in naval trade meant for them and were well aware of the danger posed by a possible return of the Venetians into Dalmatia. Dubrovnik at the time had gained considerable economic strength, which was constantly growing, and its trade was becoming increasingly oriented toward the sea. Its improved economic position was, in part, a consequence of instability in the Balkan Peninsula after the death of the Serbian Emperor Stephen Dusan (1355) and, later, after the Serbian defeat at the hands of the Ottomans in the battle on the Maritsa River (1371 ). But it also resulted from Dubrovnik having obtained, in 1373, a papal privilege for navigation to Egypt and from having made several favorable commercial treaties with Italian cities. Venetian power was a constant threat to further growth of Ragusan trade. The union of the Hungarian land force with the Genoese naval one gave the

VI 3 Ragusans well-founded hope that the situation could be changed.3 Another question is, of course, why did Hungary enter the war against Venice? Venetian action against the lord of Padoa, friend of Hungary, was certainly of secondary importance. The main reason was Venetian violence in Dalmatia recently acquired by Hungary and, above all, their interference with the salt trade there. Indeed, the Venetians had prohibited in all their harbors trade in salt produced on the Hungarian-held island of Pag, a move which adversely affected Hungarian finances. At any rate, the entry of Hungary into the anti-Venetian coalition created the conditions which made possible the transfer of the operations of the Genoese fleet into the Adriatic, because the fleet, thus, had bases on that sea in the immediate vicinity of the enemy center.4 *

*

*

After a prolonged controversy between Dubrovnik and Venice over the right of Ragusan merchants in Venice to trade with foreigners, which was settled with the mediation of the Hungarian king in 1376, 5 relations between the two cities in 1377 were again cordial. The Ragusans did business with Venetians in Dubrovnik; they travelled to Venice and traded there; they took care of their houses and other possessions in Venice; and, as usual, they recruited in that city various artisans and professionals whom they needed. 6 Until mid-1378, the Venetians continued coming to Dubrovnik, and trade between the two cities followed its normal course, although in Dubrovnik itself there was some anxiety about the turn events were taking. Gradually, the situation became worse, and, by mid-1378, the conflict between Dubrovnik and Venice grew increasingly evident. Trade died away; the movement of persons ceased.7 It is not certain whether there was a formal declaration of war, but, by early August, 1378, Dubrovnik started enacting defence measures.8 Particular care was paid to the defence of the town of Ston, 9 northwest of Dubrovnik, the second most important settlement in the Republic and a valuable salt-producing place. Concurrently, the Ragusan government sent letters to Genoa, to the king of Hungary, and to the ban of Croatia.10 The unusual magnitude

VI 4 of defence measures undertaken in Dubrovnik itself was an indication of a very tense situation. Obviously, an immediate attack against the city was expected, and, because Venetian galleys were approaching, there was good reason to believe that such would occur. However, the galleys went by in mid-August and there is no indication of any attack.11 By that time, Dubrovnik was overtly engaged in the war against Venice. 12 A Ragusan ambassador was sent to discuss important matters with the Hungarian king, but he was specifically warned to take care to act "as our ambassador, and not as a courtier of our lord [i.e. the k i n g ] T h e wording of the instructions meant that the Ragusans, while accepting the supreme authority of the king and while asking for his protection in a very difficult moment, still were eager to preserve thendistinction from the rest of Hungarian territory and did not wish to be dealt with as if they were simply a part of that territory. To countenance that would set a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, rumors, very upsetting to Dubrovnik, that Venice was trying to establish an alliance with the king of Bosnia, started spreading. At the same time, the Venetian fleet arrived in Kotor, south of Dubrovnik, and, on August 13, 1378, conquered that important city after a brief battle. The Venetians had, indeed, very good relations with Bosnia, and the possibility of a VenetoBosnian alliance was extremely threatening to Dubrovnik, which immediately informed the Hungarian king about the matter.13 The fall of Kotor into Venetian hands meant additional trouble. 14 Dubrovnik quickly took measures to fortify its harbor. In addition, it prohibited all contacts with Kotor, although some people from that city, probably refugees, were admitted into Dubrovnik. 15 The situation soon improved somewhat, probably because the Venetian fleet departed and the rumors of the Veneto-Bosnian alliance proved to be unfounded. 16 At the beginning of September, 1378, the Ragusans even tried to establish contacts with Kotor. Not only did they send letters there, but they sent, secretly, of course, a friar, native of Kotor, to try to persuade the people of that city to get rid of the Venetians or to escape to Dubrovnik. 17 Such efforts on the part of Dubrovnik brought no results at that time, but they indicated the direction later Ragusan endeavors would take.

VI

Early in September, 1378, Dubrovnik was expecting the arrival of the Genoese fleet, and that confronted the city with additional problems. The presence of a large foreign fleet, even an allied one, was never desirable, but there was also the delicate question of Ragusan participation in the fleet. The ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, as representative of the Hungarian king, had demanded that the Ragusans combine their galleys with those of the Genoese for common operations against the Venetians. The Ragusans, naturally, rejected that demand, but they did agree to contribute to the fleet a single galley of their own, plus one, the property of the Hungarian king, which, unequipped, was in the city at the time. In addition, they consented to send a minor vessel without crew.18 It soon became clear that the Ragusans had done the right thing in refusing to send their entire fleet, which action would have left their own territory defenceless. In mid-September, news arrived of the approach of a Venetian fleet, and emergency precautionary measures were taken. 19 Indeed, on September 24, six Venetian galleys passed by, very close to Dubrovnik, and there was understandable excitement in the city. The Senate met and made decisions about measures to be taken in the event of similar emergencies in the future. 20 Also, the Genoese were informed of the passage of the Venetians. Interestingly enough, the letters to the Genoese were sent to Apulia, for, although the Ragusans knew that the Genoese fleet had sailed out of Genoa and toward the Adriatic, they did not know where it was at that moment. 21 In fact, the Ragusans expected the main battle between the two hostile fleets to take place at the entrance into the Adriatic Sea, one day's and one night's sailing distance from their own city, and they again requested manpower from the nearby noblemen of Hum and from the king of Bosnia 22 However, the expected naval engagement did not take place. Nor did the Genoese fleet come immediately to Dubrovnik. Thus, tension in the city diminished somewhat. *

*

*

VI 6 The Venetians were also experiencing difficulties. Hostilities in the Levant, where the war had started, threatened the security of numerous Venetian merchants active in the area and that of their valuable merchandise and ships; they also menaced Venetian colonies, the mainstay of Venetian power in the East.23 There were repercussions in Venice itself, on which city the war imposed heavy burdens.24 In 1377, the Venetian fleet was active in the Levant, causing devastation in the vicinity of the Byzantine capital of Constantinople and other Byzantine areas, and, at the same time, bringing necessary equipment to Venetian garrisons in Romania. At the end of August, a portion of the fleet returned home, while another part, under Vettor Pisani, went to Syria to pick up the goods of Venetian merchants, whose own ships, because of troubles caused by the war, could not go there. 25 The Venetians in May 1378 had defeated the Genoese at Anzio, in the Tyrrhenian Sea, but, although they were able at that point to sail more or less where they wished in the Adriatic, the situation was soon to change.26 As for Dubrovnik, in late September and early October 1378, things appeared to be calming down there, although work on fortification and increasing provisions of the city was still proceeding on a minor scale.27 The perennial problem, a shortage of wheat — this time caused by poor harvests in the nearby areas from which the Ragusans obtained the grain — again presented itself. Ships were sent to Apulia, therefore, and permission was sought from the ban of Croatia to buy wheat in Croatia, Dalmatia, and Hum. 28 In mid-October, 1378, the Genoese fleet finally arrived in Dubrovnik or in its vicinity. The Ragusans received their allies cordially and decided immediately to speed up the equipping of their galley, destined to join the Genoese fleet. On October 25, the captain of the galley was given strict orders to sail that evening toward Zadar.29 However, the following day, the vessel not only was still in Dubrovnik, but the decision was made to disarm her, the crew was almost completely dismissed, and even salaries were withdrawn from the sailors.30 The sudden and complete change in plans can be explained only by the arrival of unexpected news. Indeed, a messenger from the Hungarian king had arrived in

VI 7 Dubrovnik at that point. We do not know what news he had brought, but it had to be good, because he was richly rewarded by the Ragusans.31 In any event, it probably caused the reversal in the decisions concerning the galley. After that, the Ragusans turned their attention once again toward Kotor, which was in Venetian hands. Their attempts to start a rebellion against the Venetians did not work, even though the Ragusans did not hesitate to promise citizenship to people from Kotor who would engage in such activity.32 Having failed in those efforts, Dubrovnik next tried a diplomatic maneuver to force the Venetians out of Kotor. It sent word to the Hungarian king that he should try to convince the king of Bosnia to prevent all contacts between his subjects and Kotor. It was especially important, the Ragusans stressed, that the Bosnians cease carrying food to Kotor, in that way making the position of the Venetians there untenable and forcing them to withdraw.33 Ragusan efforts in that direction failed as well, and they had no better luck in trying to convince the commander of four Genoese galleys, which had arrived in Dubrovnik in mid-November, that, in the best interests of both Genoa and the war effort, the vessels should remain in Dubrovnik and guard the city. Dubrovnik made the same suggestion in a letter sent to the commander of the Genoese fleet, Luciano Doria, but again to no avail.34 *

*

*

Activity of the two hostile fleets in the Adriatic reached its peak in 1379. It was in that year that the Adriatic phase of the conflict culminated in the events which later on received the name of "Guerra di Chioggia." Dubrovnik took part in those important events, and, in addition, acted on its own against the enemy. At the beginning of January, 1379, Dubrovnik sent three ships all the way to Ulcinj to capture enemy vessels from Kotor and Budva. 35 Later that month new hopes rose concerning Kotor. During the second half of January, a delegation from that city arrived in Cavtat, a town south of Dubrovnik, with a new offer. Kotor promised to return under the supreme authority of the Hungarian

VI 8

king and to surrender to Dubrovnik its Venetian count. This change in attitude was certainly the result, at least in part, of the presence of a squadron of the Genoese fleet which had just arrived in Dubrovnik. The Ragusans immediately informed the Genoese commander of the negotiations with Kotor and suggested that his representatives take part in them. To the Kotor delegates, the Ragusans gave six days in which to fulfill their promises, and, during that period of time, ceased hostilities with them. 36 In the end, the negotiations came to naught. The final answer from Kotor, sent on to the ban of Croatia and the commander of the Genoese fleet, arrived at the beginning of February, but it was, obviously, negative, because preparations for further struggle continued. 37 The winter months, naturally, were not favorable for any major operations, and during them, relative calm prevailed in Dubrovnik. In mid-February, three Genoese galleys arrived, probably bringing letters being sent from Genoa to Constantinople. A Ragusan courier carried them to the Byzantine capital.38 At that time, the Byzantine throne was occupied by the usurper, Andronicus IV, the representative of Genoese interests, and it is possible to surmise that the letters were being sent to him, or to his collaborators, by the Genoese government. The galleys remained in Dubrovnik for about ten days and took on provisions there. In the meantime, the Ragusans sent a number of their own ships to capture vessels carrying wheat and other merchandise to Kotor. With the advent of better weather in March and April, they intensified that type of activity, employing entire small naval squadrons.39 In mid-April, 1379, a decision was made in Dubrovnik to launch the galley of the Hungarian king, which was being kept in the city, and, also, to equip the Ragusan galley promised to. the allied fleet. However, the Ragusans, clearly, still harbored doubts about the final outcome of the struggle between the two big rivals. Evidence of their misgivings is their procrastination in sending their galley to the Genoese fleet. It had been decided that the vessel would sail on April 27, together with six Genoese galleys which had arrived in Dubrovnik, but the Ragusans offered instead

VI 9 only the unequipped galley of the Hungarian king, which ship the Genoese refused. The Ragusans said that their own galley would be ready shortly and that they would send her to Luciano Doria in Zadar. In fact, the galley was ready to sail at that moment, but on the eve of the explanation given to the Genoese, the Ragusans had decided "de faciendo dissarmare nostram galeam."41 That decision was not carried out, but the maneuvering indicates that the Ragusans were trying up until the last minute to find a way to evade their obligation. However, Genoese pressure must have been very strong, because, finally, on April 30 or May 1, 1379, the Ragusan galley sailed for Zadar, there to join the fleet of the allies.42 *

*

*

Great events were to follow. The Venetian fleet under Vettor Pisani which, after its victory at Anzio, had continued its operations in the Levant and the Adriatic, had, finally, to take shelter somewhere for rest and repairs. For that reason, it withdrew to Pula in the northern Adriatic at the end of April or the beginning of May, 1379. Feeling secure in the sheltered harbor, the Venetians relaxed their battle readiness to a considerable degree. Thus, when an advanced detachment of the Genoese fleet — twenty-two galleys, one of which was from Zadar, another from Dubrovnik — appeared before Pula on May 5, it found the Venetians completely unprepared to fight.43 Initially, despite the difficult position of the Venetians, the battle went in their favor, but their luck soon changed. Pisani and a few other Venetian captains, seeing misfortune come to their ships, escaped. The Genoese victory was complete and Venetian naval power was crushed for a time. 44 Vettor Pisani, on his return to Venice, was arrested and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for neglect and for fleeing the scene of the battle.45 Following the great victory at Pula, discipline in the Genoese fleet was relaxed. Meanwhile, the situation in Zadar worsened. The garrison that the Genoese had left there — their main base in Dalmatia — was weakened by disease. There was also a great shortage of bread and wine, aggravated by the presence of large numbers of captured Venetians, who had been sent to Zadar jails

VI 10 after their defeat at Pula or who were simply kept on captured vessels in the Zadar harbor.46 Nevertheless, the Genoese fleet, after its victory and after receiving reinforcements, became the master of the Adriatic. It won several battles in Istria and soon arrived in the vicinity of Venice itself. There, the Genoese found new allies. Francesco Carrara, the lord of Padoa, was willing to furnish provisions for the Genoese and to join them in an attack on Chioggia, a city which at Pula had fought on the Venetian side. 47 The Genoese were joined also by people from Friuli, who brought foodstuffs to them at Marano, where the Genoese had established their base. The Friuli people traded wheat for salt, brought by the Genoese from the island of Pag.48 Strengthened, thus, the Genoese laid siege to Chioggia. On August 16, 1379, the city surrendered to them and to their allies, among whom was the crew on the Ragusan galley. The allies also attacked Lido but failed to conquer it. 49 The fall of Chioggia into the hands of the Genoese was a heavy blow to Venice, because the city lay close to Venice itself. Even before that happened and after the battle at Pula, the Venetians had established certain contacts in an effort to obtain peace. In particular, they had sent ambassadors to Hungary. The Hungarian king demanded as preconditions for peace reimbursement of losses that he had suffered because of the interruption in sales of his salt from Pag in Venetian harbors and reimbursement for damages that the Venetians had inflicted upon his subjects in Dalmatia.50 The Venetian ambassadors in Hungary wrote to the Doge about those damages: "Habuimus a persona fidedignissima . . . informata de condicionibus Dalmacie . . . quod ex crudelitatibus perpetratis per gentes vestras in dictis partibus, et specialiter in Chataro et Sibinico, provocate sunt omnes gentes dictarum partium contra dominationem vestram . . . quia ubi primo ante novitates sibi factas . . . difficiliter moti essent ad damnum vestrum, nunc indignati et provocati . . . disposti sunt ad omnem damnum vestrum." The ambassadors added that the Dalmatians intend "armare septem ex corporis galearum vestrarum (obviously from among those captured at Pula) de gentibus ipsarum partium."51 Such an exceptionally clear and direct Venetian appraisal of the situation in Dalmatia, testifies beyond any doubt to the gravity and volume of Venetian

VI 11 abuses perpetrated on the Dalmatian coast and to the suffering that the war brought to that area. Negotiations between Venice and Hungary, in which Hungarian allies (probably Ragusan representatives among them) participated in a minor way, brought no accord.52 The Hungarian king might have agreed to a peace treaty, but he was prevented from doing so by the Genoese and Padoans, who were promising a quick and total surrender of Venice. 53 In mid-August, 1379, the Venetian ambassadors in the negotiations lost faith to such a point that they advised their government to try to make peace with Genoa and Padua rather than with Hungary.54 Still, talks with Hungary continued, and the Venetians, a little later, agreed to recognize the supreme authority of the Hungarian king and to pay him an annual tribute. But Hungarian demands were much greater, as shall soon be made clear.55 Disagreements and mistrust began appearing inside the antiVenetian coalition. There were controversies between the Genoese and the Padoans, Genoa and Hungary, and Hungary and Padoa. 56 The Venetians saw in all of them good fortune for themselves, and they worked to widen the splits between their enemies. They knew that the great Hungarian noblemen, who played a major part in those events, disliked intensely the lord of Padoa, and they tried to depict Carrara in as dark colors as possible. They also emphasized the lack of sincerity on the part of the Genoese, claiming that the Genoese were preventing peace between Venice and Hungary because they hated the Venetians and profited very much from the war, and that they did not want the Hungarian king to be recognized as supreme master of Venice. 57 The Venetians expressed a willingness to make peace with Hungary, Padoa, and the Patriarch of Aquileia alone, if the Genoese did not want peace. In that case, with Padoa and Friuli no longer giving them food, and with Hungary withdrawing its ships and closing its harbors in Dalmatia, the Genoese would lose their bases in the Adriatic and have to retreat. That was even more true since from Genoa had arrived "pessima nova . . . contra statum eorum." In principle, however, the Venetians always insisted on a comprehensive peace agreement.58 In contrast with the flexible position of the Venetians, Hun-

VI 12 garian proposals for peace, put forward during the negotiations, were very hard on Venice. The Hungarians proposed, among other things, the following: should Hungary and Venice make peace, the Adriatic would be open to Venetian ships and the Genoese fleet would withdraw, but the Genoese garrison and its allies would remain in Chioggia until peace was made between them and Venice. Hungarian attempts to convince their allies to reach a reasonable peace agreement had failed, but Hungary was willing — should a Veneto-Hungarian peace be concluded - to help the Venetians make a general peace. The Venetian ambassadors rejected all the Hungarian suggestions, arguing that, as long as Chioggia and other areas were in enemy hands, the income of the Venetian customs "nichil valebunt." The Venetians viewed the Hungarian proposals as a maneuver to pressure Venice into surrendering to the Hungarians out of fear of the Genoese, thereby allowing the allies to do with the city what they pleased.59 As for problems in the Levant, which were the underlying cause of the war, the Hungarians proposed that the island of Tenedos be given to them to administer and that the Venetians navigate only to Genoese ports in the Black Sea area. Naturally, the Venetians answered very categorically that that would mean "destructio Venetiarum" and that they would never agree to that "imo fuimus in maxima guerra cum ipsis Januensibus solum occasione predicta,"60 providing by their words clear indication of what to them were the real causes of the war. It is worth mentioning the threat made by the Hungarian representatives at the negotiations, as reported in the letter of the Venetian ambassadors to the doge: "Quod nisi faceremus concordium cum eis, quod usque ad paucos dies ipsi aliud facerent cum pelipariis et popularibus Venetiarum, et quod bene sciebat quid dicebat."61 That menace of a social upheaval in Venice had no consequences whatsoever, as far as is known. The Genoese, for their part, made known through Hungary, their conditions for peace. They demanded that Tenedos be surrendered to the Hungarian king, that Venice pay one million florens in damages, and that Crete be given to Genoa. The Venetians would obtain freedom of navigation but in the Black Sea could visit only Genoese harbors. The Venetians, in their reply,

VI 13 agreed to pay 200,000 florens, and they accepted the idea that Byzantine Tenedos be taken over by the Hungarians, but they rejected all other conditions. 62 Refusing them, however, was not an easy thing for Venice. The situation in that city was very grave. At the end of September, 1379, the Venetian government urged its ambassadors to make peace with the enemy at any price, but the ambassadors resisted such policies with a series of reasons, well-thought through. They continued energetically their discussions with the Hungarians and insisted on a simultaneous peace with all members of the anti-Venetian league. It seemed at one point that the Hungarian noblemen might act as mediators in the dispute, first between Venice and the Hungarian king, and then with the other allies. However, the Hungarian aristocracy asked for their services more money than Venice could afford to pay. 63 It became clear that negotiations were going nowhere, although they had been long and frequently very painful. It is interesting to note that parts of those negotiations took place in secrecy, that is to say, the allies acted furtively, each hiding from the others its attempt to extract the greatest possible profits for itself from peace with Venice. Eventually, at the beginning of October, the Venetians decided to start arming a new fleet for the continuation of the war.64 The Genoese navy remained nearby, obtaining its main provisions in Marano.65 *

*

*

What was taking place in Dubrovnik during those events? After the departure of the Ragusan galley for the Genoese fleet, at the beginning of May, 1379, tensions in the city eased somewhat, because the main battles were taking place in the north. Dubrovnik continued sending ships southward all the way to Ulcinj to capture Venetians and people from Kotor.66 Nevertheless, the Venetian defeat at Pula had changed the attitude of the Ragusans toward Kotor. On May 13, Dubrovnik decided to send to that city an embassy, consisting of two Ragusan citizens, natives of Kotor.67 Keeping in mind that the next day a courier "qui aduxit bona nova domini bani Dalmacie"68 was richly rewarded in Dubrovnik, it seems quite clear that sending the embassy to Kotor

VI 14 was, in fact, an attempt by the Ragusans to capitalize on the Venetian defeat at Pula by taking action against the enemy in Kotor. The Ragusans engaged now in a variety of activities in connection with that city. On orders from the ban of Croatia, they sent to Kotor an additional courier with a letter "ad sciendum de eorum intentione," but he was arrested.69 At the same time, the Ragusans negotiated with the Bosnian king "super facto Cathari." King Tvrtko had been a longtime friend of Dubrovnik and had helped the city; Dubrovnik had tried always to preserve his friendship. However, the Venetians in Kotor had offered to surrender the city to Tvrtko if he agreed to prohibit the Bosnians from carrying food to Dubrovnik. The situation was the opposite of that in 1378, when the Ragusans had tried to get the Bosnian king to do the same thing to Kotor. It seems that the king reacted favorably to the offer from Kotor and that he took measures which created a shortage of food in Dubrovnik. While all that was going on, the representative of Kotor in Bosnia worked incessantly against Dubrovnik.70 Kotor was also the subject of discussions between the Ragusans and the commander of four Genoese galleys which were in Dubrovnik in mid-May.71 Finally, in the city itself, measures were taken to control the possessions of people from Kotor. 72 At the end of May, 1379, negotiations concerning Kotor entered a new phase when an embassy from that city arrived in Cavtat. The Ragusans refused to let the mission enter Dubrovnik, but they did send immediately to the ban of Croatia and to the commander of the Genoese fleet a letter, probably brought by the embassy.73 Ragusan men, prepared to go and attack salt fields in Kotor, were retained in Dubrovnik.74 However, the letter from Kotor obviously was not satisfying, because at the beginning of June the Ragusans resumed hostilities toward that city. 75 The problem of Kotor threatened to create further complications for Dubrovnik. Relations with Bosnia worsened, probably because negotiations over Kotor with the Bosnian king had yielded no positive results and because the king did not want Kotor, should it surrender to the Hungarians, to come under Ragusan influence. By mid-June, in response to the Bosnian king having

VI

u

15

prohibited his subjects to carry/food to Dubrovnik, the Ragusans issued orders forbidding any exports from their city to Bosnia. 76 The king of Hungary, eager to win over Kotor, wanted to learn the reasons for the bitter hostility of Dubrovnik toward that city. The Ragusans explained, in a long letter sent to the ban of Croatia on June 20, 1379, why they had had to wage war against Kotor. When the Venetians took Kotor, Dubrovnik was deeply upset: first, because it was a city belonging to the Hungarian king; second, because the Ragusans had many family relations there; and, third, because of the danger of Venetian proximity. All attempts to incite a rebellion against the Venetians in Kotor had failed and the people of Kotor had not kept their promise, given in January and February, to return under Hungarian domination. They had stolen from Dubrovnik the friendship of the Bosnian king, thus putting the Ragusans in a difficult position as far as food was concerned. Finally, said the Ragusans, the people from Kotor were capturing Ragusan ships, especially the ones returning with wheat from Romania.77 All of those were, indeed, sound and valid reasons for their hostility toward Kotor, but the Ragusans had not touched upon the most important one — the question of salt. Dubrovnik could not permit Kotor to supply the hinterland with salt, because the Ragusans considered that a breach of their monopoly. Venetiandominated Kotor, with the assent of the Bosnian king, was breaking that monopoly, not only by exporting foreign salt into the hinterland, but also by organizing its own salt production. Things would get even worse if Kotor fell under Bosnian rule. That was what the Ragusans feared most, and that was the most compelling reason for their intense efforts to expel the Venetians from Kotor and to have the city revert to Hungarian rule. It was also the main reason for Ragusan antagonism toward King Tvrtko. In mid-June, 1379, to give just one example, the Ragusans sent an "armada" with the explicitly stated assignment to destroy the salt fields of Kotor and to make them unusable for the whole summer.78 Precisely at that moment, however, a change took place in the attitude of Kotor. The city in the end recognized Hungarian supreme authority — no doubt after hearing the news from Pula and because of Ragusan efforts, but also because of the presence

VI 16 of Genoese galleys in Kotor — and the Venetian garrison withdrew into the local fortress. On June 19, the Ragusans released from jail all the people from Kotor that they had held and admitted others from there into the city, 79 but they stubbornly insisted on the prohibition of imports of salt into Kotor, 80 a fact which demonstrates the basic nature of the salt problem in the minds of the Ragusans and confirms what was said above about the role of that problem in shaping Ragusan attitudes toward Kotor. Dubrovnik did not trust Kotor even after the city came under Hungarian domination, 81 and the Ragusans again sent an armed boat to control ships in the area from the Bay of Kotor to Budva, and even as far as Bar in the south, continuing to do so until March, 1380. 82 Nevertheless, the renewal of Hungarian domination in Kotor certainly brought a measure of relief to Dubrovnik. Work on fortifications was slowed down; the number of guards was reduced; 83 and lively diplomatic activity developed in the city. 84 The end of July, August, and September, 1379 was for Dubrovnik a relatively peaceful period of time, because the great battles were taking place far away. 85 The Ragusan ambassadors, who as we have mentioned, had probably taken part in the Veneto-Hungarian peace negotiations, had left Dubrovnik in mid-September, 1379, when the negotiations were coming to an end. There is no information on the attitude the ambassadors were supposed to take in the talks,86 but part of their mission had been to speak, en route, with the Croatian ban about Kotor. That was the problem about which the Ragusans were also corresponding with the king of Hungary.87 The issue was how to conquer the fortress, "castrum Cathari," which was still held by the Venetians. On October 4, the Ragusans issued instructions "pro occupacione castri de Catharo" and decided to send one of their patricians there, a move about which they informed Zadar.88 In mid-October, they decided to persist in their policy toward Kotor, 89 but the big unknown factor was the attitude of the Bosnian king toward the Ragusan efforts. Dubrovnik was trying to maintain good relations with Tvrtko and the nearby Bosnian noblemen 90 when it was learned, on October 20, 1379, that a large Bosnian army was moving against Dubrovnik. Immediately, evacuation was ordered of the Ragusan

VI 17 territory of Zupa, and security measures in the city were increased. The movement of the Bosnian troops was, no doubt, connected with Ragusan policies toward Kotor. I have mentioned already that King Tvrtko did not want Kotor to fall eventually under Ragusan influence and that he had supported the efforts of Kotor to break down the Ragusan monopoly of salt exports to the hinterland. A logical consequence of his attitudes was the substantial support that he had given to the Venetian garrison in the Kotor fortress.91 Indeed, although the Bosnian army continued to advance on Dubrovnik, when the Ragusans withdrew the patrician they had sent to Kotor — thus clearly indicating that they had given up their initial intentions concerning that city 92 — relations with Bosnia improved and became normal, to the point where, at the beginning of November, embassies were exchanged. 93 *

*

*

The failure of the Genoese and their allies to achieve ultimate victory by conquering Venice herself and, also, the decision of the Venetian government, at the beginning of October, 1379, to start building a new fleet, mark a new phase of the war on the Adriatic. The Venetians put all their efforts into equipping this fleet and once again entrusted Vettor Pisani with its command. Somewhat later, the fleet was joined by a number of Venetian ships which had arrived from the Levant, 94 and the Venetians lay siege to Chioggia. The action forced the Genoese to seek food in Dalmatia,95 where they also tried to equip additional galleys for the fighting around Chioggia.96 The activity of the Ragusans, at the end of 1379 and the beginning of 1380, was limited. 97 In February, 1380, two of their ships were sent along the Italian coast of the Adriatic with instructions to capture Venetian ships and either destroy them or send them to Dubrovnik or Dalmatia.98 The small squadron was successful in its mission, and it captured four enemy vessels.99 In mid-March, a Ragusan galley left for Zadar to join the Genoese fleet. 100 It is interesting to note that the Ragusans, in spite of their active and constant participation in the war, and in spite of the participation of their galley in the fighting at Pula and

VI 18 Chioggia, did not receive from the Genoese any booty which rightfully belonged to them. In April, 1380, they complained to the Genoese Doge and demanded "partem nostram butini, contingentem nostre galee," but to no avail.101 Only much later, after the Peace of Turin, were they rewarded for their efforts. 102 The renewal of Venetian naval might meant that it was no longer possible to expect that operations would be limited to the northern Adriatic, as had been the case ever since Pula. That is why new measures were taken in Dubrovnik to strengthen its defences. 103 When suspicious things happened inside the city itself, the government appointed a special commission to examine "unde procedunt supradicta que possent reverti in detrimentum et contra honorem et bonum statum Ragusii."104 There is no mention of what specifically prompted the investigation, but it might be that the information was linked to the rather frequent cases of desertion of crewmen from galleys sent to fight the Venetians, 105 all of which would indicate the existence of a wide state of discontent in Dubrovnik. Such dissatisfaction would not be surprising, of course, in view of the longlasting war and the prolonged absences of men who had to take a direct part in it. At the beginning of May, 1380, there was again lively diplomatic activity in Dubrovnik, 106 and the following month a Ragusan embassy, given two assignments, left for Zadar to visit the ban of Croatia and the admiral of Hungary.107 First of all, having been ordered to do so by the Hungarian king, the ambassadors had to explain how it happened that merchandise from an Anconitan galley had been confiscated by the Ragusans near the island of Lokrum, off Dubrovnik itself. 108 Second, and much more important, the ambassadors were to discuss a conflict — one in which a detachment of the Genoese fleet had also been involved — that had taken place between a Ragusan and a Zadar ship in Trani, in Apulia. The commander and a crewman from the Ragusan ship had been killed and many sailors wounded. 109 The Ragusans attributed the principal blame for the mishap to the commander of the Genoese ships and were demanding that he be punished. 110 The incident was taken very seriously in Dubrovnik, spoiling relations between the city and the Genoese and provoking tension between the Ragusans and Zadar. Although the Ragusan galley

VI 19 remained in the allied fleet, 111 the Ragusans a little later wrote directly to Genoa about the killing of their men. 112 Zadar, for its part, accused the Ragusans of having stolen arms and 700 ducats from a Zadar ship during the conflict in Trani and, also, of having plundered cattle from an island near Zadar. The Ragusans, of course, denied all the accusations and complained to the ban of Croatia that people from Zadar and the Genoese had taken food and arms from all Ragusan ships that they had met on the sea. In addition, according to the Ragusans, they had robbed all Ragusan and other ships carrying food and other merchandise from the Levant to Dubrovnik, thereby putting the city in a precarious position. Because of rather tense relations with Apulia, created by frequent operations of Ragusan ships near Apulean shores, and because of shortages of wheat in that area, the Ragusans had been unable to obtain sufficient wheat from their traditional granary and had had to acquire larger quantities of that grain from the coast of Epirus.113 Consequently, attacks on ships carrying the wheat to Dubrovnik posed a threat to the very existence of the city. To make matters worse, according to the Ragusans, the Genoese and people from Zadar were also attacking the subjects of Balsa Balsic who were coming to Dubrovnik. Balsa, aware that both Zadar and Dubrovnik were under the domination of the king of Hungary, considered them equally guilty and was enforcing reprisals against the numerous Ragusans in his country. Finally, the Zadar people had recently plundered goods, belonging to some Sicilians and Jews from Malta, from Sicilian ships, and they had brought the merchandise of the Jews to Dubrovnik to be sold. The Ragusans had been forced to prohibit the sale, fearing trouble for their own merchants in Sicily. 114 The government of Dubrovnik asked the ban of Croatia to intervene and try to get Zadar and the Genoese to desist from such behavior; it also expressed its concerns to Zadar directly. 115 While Dubrovnik and members of the anti-Venetian league were having their disagreements, the military fortune on the main battlefield at Chioggia was turning in favor of the Venetians. After a prolonged siege of Chioggia, one that the Genoese were unable to break down in spite of all their efforts, 116 that city finally surrendered to the Venetians on June 21, 1380. 117 After the

VI 20 victory, Vettor Pisani led the Venetian fleet to the south, but, in mid-August, he died in Manfredonia.118 In the meantime, relations between Dubrovnik and the Genoese improved, a fact confirmed by Ragusan intervention in the liberation of a Genoese ship, captured in Ulcinj. The ship was, incidentally, one that the commander of the Genoese fleet had sent to Pera, but its captain, en route, having learned that there were many Venetians in Ulcinj, had been plundering around that city until the vessel was captured.119 Life in Dubrovnik was more or less normal, despite an increasingly menacing Venetian presence after their victory at Chioggia. The Venetians, in their southward movement, had sent at least one of their squadrons sailing along the Dalmatian coast ("in Sclavaniam") to seek out the Genoese fleet. In mid-August, they, apparently, defeated a group of ten Genoese ships near Zadar.120 Concerns in Dubrovnik grew. In early August, the Ragusans sent a boat to Zadar or the island of Rab, where they thought the Genoese fleet would be, to recall the Ragusan galley.121 It seems, however, that the galley returned even before receiving notice of the recall.122 The recall order reflected the degree of anxiety that the southward movement of the Venetian fleet had provoked in Dubrovnik. Further evidence of that anxiety is provided by the strict measures taken in the city itself. All supplies of food, wheat, and wine from the islands were brought into the city and rationing of wheat was introduced. Ragusan merchants in foreign lands were ordered to come home as soon as possible; debtors were granted a moratorium. 123 Fortifications were strengthened with additional arms, nobody was allowed to leave the city, security was tightened, and the vigilance of the guards was increased.124 Despite its fears, Dubrovnik escaped a Venetian attack. The city learned, probably about August 19, of the death of Vettor Pisani. Security measures were immediately relaxed, and ships were sent to Apulia for wheat. 125 After Pisani's death, tension decreased in Dubrovnik, and the activity of both fleets stagnated.126 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Ragusans — who a short time before had sent their galley back to the Genoese fleet — were, by mid-September, asking the Genoese commander to return her to Dubrovnik. What is more, the Ragusans proposed at that early date that two

VI

21 Genoese galleys come to Dubrovnik for the winter. 127 *

*

*

Peace explorations started anew in September, 1380. The primary problem was a Veneto-Genoese peace, but one of the main obstacles on the road to resolving their differences was now the question of the liberation of captured Venetians. After the battle at Pula, the Genoese had sent most Venetian prisoners to Zadar "et aliis partibus Sclauonie"; only a small number had been transported to Genoa itself. When the commander of the Genoese fleet attempted to pick up the Venetian prisoners held in Zadar, with the aim of exchanging them for Genoese prisoners held by the Venetians, the people of Zadar refused to hand them over. Cornaro, the Venetian envoy in Milano, who played a key role in the negotiations, informed the Genoese that Venice would not agree to peace without return of the prisoners. At the same time, Cornaro told the Doge that, in his opinion, the Genoese were not going to make a separate peace without Hungary, and that prediction proved to be correct. 128 Hungary and Genoa had been closely linked in the war, not only through the presence of the Genoese fleet in the Adriatic and that of the Hungarian army in Italy, but also through direct contacts between the two governments, maintained mostly by the almost permanent presence of Genoese representatives at the Hungarian court. 129 In the fall of 1380, contacts between Dubrovnik and Hungary became more frequent 130 and communication with the Genoese was strengthened. 131 In mid-November, the commander of the Genoese fleet arrived in the city with six galleys. The squadron was on its way to Romania, where the situation for the Genoese had deteriorated considerably after the downfall of Andronicus IV, whom they had supported, and the return of the legitimate Emperor John V to the Byzantine throne. 132 A special Ragusan delegation talked with the Genoese commander and asked him not to attack Ulcinj and the subjects of Balsa Balsic. Nevertheless, the threat of Venetian attacks on Ragusan ships, especially those going to Sicily to obtain wheat, remained, causing great hardship to Dubrovnik. 133

VI 22 Meanwhile, the war was ever harder on both sides. Traffic with the Levant, of great importance for both Venice and Genoa, had been disrupted for years. Venice was in grave financial difficulties. Its public debt was large. The Venetian government expressed cognizance of that fact when it decided, in February, 1381, to introduce measures designed to speed up the payment of debts to the state, thus enabling the state to rid itself more easily of its own obligations. 134 How precarious the situation for Venice was can be seen from the severe measures that the Venetians took later on, in November, 1381, when peace had already been made, but which relate to the earlier period. Among other things, it was then decided to confiscate the property of all persons who had failed to meet monetary obligations levied on them by the government to enable it to wage the war.135 The other side was not faring much better. There was internal discord and a feeling of exhaustion in the camp of the enemies of Venice. 136 Nevertheless, the coalition prepared for further struggle, and Dubrovnik was asked to provide a galley for the fleet. The Ragusans agreed to the request in April, 1381 ; 137 they also increased the degree of war preparedness in the city. 138 The galley departed in mid-May, together with some Genoese ships which had brought to Dubrovnik letters from the commander of the Genoese fleet. 139 By mid-June, the galley had returned, and its crew had been dismissed.140 Those were the first signs that peace was near at hand. Dubrovnik eagerly awaited news. 141 When it came, it was undoubtedly good, for, on July 23, 1381, what we call in modern terms, "the state of emergency" was abolished in Dubrovnik and its territory. The state was "affrancato," that is to say, full freedom of movement was granted to all citizens and merchants of Dubrovnik. 142 Still, it was not forgotten that the war had not yet formally ended. In early August, two galleys were sent forth to capture a Venetian ship, and a little later the Genoese fleet made a stopover in Dubrovnik. Although the visit was a short one, and although guards were increased during the stay of the Genoese in Dubrovnik, Ragusan vineyards in the vicinity of the city were damaged by the allies.143 The Genoese galleys seem to have been sailing northward, and they were joined by a Ragusan galley. In mid-September, 1381, on the return trip, they again sailed near

VI 23 Dubrovnik. 144 By that time, peace among the warring parties had already been concluded. Exhausted by a long struggle which was bringing no decisive results, the opponents finally accepted the mediation of Count Amadeus of Savoy. In August, 1381, the Peace of Turin was made. Tenedos, the original cause of the war, was granted neither to Venice nor to Genoa; yet, it was not to remain Byzantine. It was to be surrendered to Amadeus of Savoy. Byzantium was not even consulted about the settlement. The Byzantines did not have their representatives in Turin. Nor did they participate in the resolution of the conflict, although it concerned their territory and although Byzantium, because of the war, had suffered grave internal troubles. It has not been emphasized enough that the war led to further weakening of Byzantium at a time when the Ottoman danger was increasing. In view of future developments in southeastern Europe, and in view of the consequences of those developments for the rest of Europe, that fact should not be overlooked. Dubrovnik, also, had no say in the peacemaking process. It was not represented in Turin, and its supreme protector, the king of Hungary, and the other allies did not find it necessary even to mention Dubrovnik in any way in the text of the treaty. 145 The city received news of the peace early in September, 1381, although there is no explicit mention of its arrival.146 On the 23rd of September, the last remaining war measures were abolished, 147 and, toward the end of the month, business with Venice began to revive.148 There is no proof, as has been asserted, that the Ragusans, although probably disappointed and unhappy with the Peace of Turin, started immediately to work among the Dalmatian cities to create a new anti-Venetian league. 149 Only considerably later, in the fall of 1382, was there talk in Dubrovnik of such a league. But, in the period right after the Peace of Turin, relations between Dubrovnik and Venice quickly became normal. Traffic with Venice increased, Venetian merchants resumed trips to Dubrovnik and Ragusan merchants went to Venice. 150 By the beginning of October, 1381, a squadron of the Venetian fleet arrived in Dubrovnik, was well received, and was allowed to take on provisions there, a sign that relations between the two states had, by then,

VI 24 improved considerably.151 The conflict in the Levant was not completely resolved by the Peace of Turin, however, because the Venetian garrison refused to surrender the island of Tenedos to the representatives of Amadeus of Savoy. 152 In May, 1382, wanting to have more information about the situation as regards Tenedos, the Ragusan government examined a Venetian merchant, who had just arrived from Venice, and four Venetian patricians who had sailed into Dubrovnik from Crete. The man who came from Venice declared that ships were being loaded normally and sent from Venice to the Levant, but that he himself thought it would be safer not to go there for the time being inasmuch as no one knew "quod erit in fine." He added that an Anconitan ship had been seized by the people from Tenedos and redeemed by the Anconitans for from 1300 to 1500 ducats, but that Genoese goods from the ship had been returned to the Genoese in Pera by people from Tenedos. 153 , The four patricians, who had arrived from Crete, stated that the commander of the Venetian garrison, Mudazzo, was holding Tenedos against the will of Venice and that his men were pirates who robbed everybody, including a Venetian galley, which was why Venice considered them her enemies. They added that there were three or four galleys or "galeotas" in the possession of the men in the Tenedos garrison.154 Extremely interesting are the statements of the four men and of the captain of the ships on which they arrived concerning possible collaboration of Tenedos with the Ottomans. The noblemen said that the garrison in Tenedos could have more ships if it wanted them and that it was trying to come to an agreement with the Turks. The captain also stated that Turks from Phocaea were giving to Tenedos as much food as its garrison wanted. He added that he would rather tie his ship to a pillar than go there. 155 Although Mudazzo subsequently was exonerated from charges of collaboration with the Ottomans and became a sort of hero in Venice for championing the Venetian cause in the Levant, the statements made by the Venetian merchants and by patricians coming from the Levant itself, contained in Ragusan documents, strongly indicate such a collusion. Besides, the Ottomans themselves would certainly have agreed to the collaboration, because

VI 25 the activity of Mudazzo was weakening the position of the Christians in the Levant. From all that I have just recounted, it should be obvious that Dubrovnik did not enter the war of Tenedos/Chioggia as an obedient subject of the Hungarian king but, rather, as a commercial state, interested in the weakening of its competitor. In addition to the galley it sent to the Genoese fleet, Dubrovnik contributed to the war effort by acting as, in some ways, a base for the fleet. In that respect, and generally, Dubrovnik's importance was magnified when the war operations were spread over the whole of the Adriatic area and diminished when, as at the time of the fighting around Chioggia, the operations were limited mostly to the northern section of that sea. One can follow the shifting of the operations back and forth from the vicinity of Dubrovnik by noting the reactions of the Ragusan government to those shifts. Equally important to the war effort were independent actions of Dubrovnik against the enemy. These included naval engagements, during the course of which the Ragusans captured some Venetian ships along the eastern and western shores of the Adriatic but also incurred casualties. Far more important were Dubrovnik's attitude and its policies toward the city of Kotor. There is no doubt that Dubrovnik, for its own interests and reasons, substantially contributed, through the use of naval blockades and internal subversion, to the switch of Kotor to the Hungarian side. The change in allegiance was a significant blow both to the Venetians, who lost an important base, and to King Tvrtko of Bosnia. Finally, as usual in similar situations, Dubrovnik was in the war a valuable mediator and a source of information for its allies. However, instead of being rewarded for its efforts, Dubrovnik suffered losses from the war. Although the city had not experienced economic difficulties comparable to those felt in Venice, its economy had been adversely affected to a considerable degree. In particular, Dubrovnik had lost a number of small ships, Ragusan property had been confiscated, Ragusan merchants had been arrested in Venice, and the city had had difficulty in finding necessary provisions. More important, the war had important consequences for Ragusan naval trade, becoming ever more prevalent at the time, and had a decided impact on the entire economic life of

VI 26 the city. One cannot say that Dubrovnik suffered a serious setback in its economic development because of the war, but it is possible to argue that the conflict brought about a prolonged stagnation in growth, which can be interpreted as a kind of loss. The rapid and great expansion of Ragusan naval trade after the Peace of Turin is, by itself, the best confirmation of the way in which the normal economic growth of Dubrovnik had been disrupted in the preceding years. Finally, one cannot avoid another significant conclusion: the strong impact that a fullscale war, started in the Byzantine area, had on the Dalmatian coast and on Dubrovnik itself, shows that the Mediterranean, even in those times, served to unify, not only for the better but also for the worse, those who lived along its shore.

NOTES 1. On the war in general see H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, vol. II, Gotha 1920, pp. 229-42. F. Thiriet, Venise et l'occupation de Ténédos

au XlVe siècle, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, 1953, pp. 219-45. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1968, pp. 524-44. 2. S. Ljubic, O odnosajih medju Dubrovòani i Mletcani za ugar.-hrv.

vladanja u Dubrovniku, Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, vol. 17, Zagreb 1871, pp. 17-20. 3. Ljubic, o.c., p. 17. P. Matkovic, Prilozi k trgovacko-politickoj historiji republike dubrovacke, Rad JAZU, vol. 7, 1869, p. 204. On Dubrovnik's participation in the war see also Kretschmayr, o.c., p. 296 and A. Cronia, Relazioni culturali tra Ragusa e l'Italia negli anni 1358-1526, Atti e memorie

della Società dalmata di storia patria, vol. 1, Zara 1926, pp. 1-39. 4. Periods of tense relations between Venice and Hungary had existed before. In 1372 Ragusan merchants decided not to carry goods from Venice to Dubrovnik u si guerra esset inter dominum regem Hungarie et comune Veneciarum." Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku (Historical Archives in Dubrov-

nik, hereafter HAD), Diversa cancellariae, vol. XXIII, f. 157. 5. Ljubic, o.c., pp. 13-17. 6. Numerous data on these transactions in HAD, especially Debita no-

tarne, vol. VIII. Also J. Tadic, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republike, Belgrade 1935, pp. 350-51.

VI

27 7. The Venetians resented the fact that merchants from Rimini, Firmo and other places were visiting "loca Sclauonie" and trading there and they demanded that local authorities prohibit this practice. Magyar Tôrténelmi

emlékek, Diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból, vol. Ill, Budapest 1876, p. 155 ( h e r e a f t e r M T E ) . 8. Three hundred men from nearby areas were called into the city and all foodstuffs from those areas were stored inside the city walls. Ragusan citizens were forbidden to leave the city, all merchants were invited to return to Dubrovnik and foreigners were put under surveillance. One can surmise that embassies dispatched at this time to Bosnia and Hungary were also linked to the newly created situation. Monumenta ragusina, vol. IV, Zagreb 1896, pp. 155-56,157-58, 185 (hereafter MR). 9. Assistance was sought also from noblemen of nearby Hum .MR, ibid., p. 155.

10. MR, ibid. 11. That Dubrovnik had been expecting an attack on the city can be best seen from the decision to destroy all buildings — houses, churches and towers — outside the city walls and to further fortify the walls. MR, ibid., pp. 157, 158. See also L. Beritic, Utvrdjenja grada Dubrovnika, Zagreb 1955, pp. 29-31. 12. On August 21, the Ragusan Senate decided not to expel the inhabitants of the islands from their houses and not to permit rent increases "donee durabit guerra ista quam habemus cum Veneciis."MR, ibid., p. 159.

13. MRJbid.,

160.

14. F. Sisic, Kako se Kotor predao Veneciji 1378, Glasnik dubrovackog ucenog drustva "Sveti Vlaho," vol. I, Dubrovnik 1929, pp. 44-47. 15. MR, ibid., pp. 161-62. 16. Part of the "exercitus Sclavorum" which had arrived to help Dubrovnik and Ston gradually returned home and the Ragusan ambassador in Bosnia was instructed not to send 300 men to Dubrovnik and "de Moroblachis" in Ston, because "pro nunc non sunt necessarii." However, he was to watch carefully over the Bosnian king's behavior, and in Dubrovnik itself defensive measures continued to be enacted, although at a slower p a c e . M R ,

ibid., p. 162. 17. MR, ibid., p. 163. Ljubic, o.c., p. 17. Tadic, o.c., pp. 381-82. 18. MR, ibid., pp. 164-65. Matkovi6, o.c., p. 204.

19. MR, ibid., p. 165. 20. It was decided that, should enemy vessels try again to sail between Dubrovnik and the nearby island of Lokrum, guns from seven different positions would open fire against them. The rest of the guns would not participate in the action, unless the enemies start shooting first. MR, ibid., p. 166.

VI 28 21. MR, ibid. 22. In particular from Prince Emerich of Imotski. Some of the Ragusan merchants in the Neretva river area were also mobilized and city walls were reinforced. MR, ibid., pp. 166-67. Tadic, o.c., pp. 369-70. Matkovic, o.c., p. 205. 23. On May 4, 1374, Bertuccio Loredano was writing to his brother in Famagusta: "Perche veço Zenoesi prese signor del ysola e del tuto e tuto si e desfato et nuy non avere non bon star de la, t'avixo salvo mio conseio che faci alpostuto de levarte a vegnir in Chandia." Archivio di Stato di Venezia (hereafter ASV), Sentenze a giustizia - Petizion, vol. III, ff. 27-27v. 24. Bilanci generali della Repubblica di Venezia, vol. I, t. 1, Venice 1912, pp. 68-78. Also G. Mayer, L'officina monetaria della Repubblica di Venezia, Archivio veneto, ser. V, voi. 52-53, Venice 1954, p. 31. 25. V. Lazzarini, Due documenti della guerra di Chioggia,Nuovo archivio veneto, vol. XII, Venice 1896, pp. 13747. 26. In September 1378 the Venetians instructed their merchants to withdraw their goods from Ulcinj, because of dangers from Genoese and Ragusan ships. S. Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih izmedju Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletaóke Republike, vol. IV, Zagreb 1874, p. 115. Kretschmayr, o.c., p. 231. 27. MR, ibid., pp. 170-72. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., pp. 172-74. 30. Ibid., p. 174. 31. Nevertheless, at the end of October the Ragusans asked for soldiers from the ban of Croatia and from the king of Bosnia to defend Ston. Also, they continued their efforts to obtain grain from Sicily. Ibid., pp. 174-75. 32. Ibid., pp. 176,178. B. Krekic, Contributions of Foreigners to Dubrovnik's Economic Growth in the Late Middle Ages, Viator, vol. 9, Los Angeles 1978,p.388. 33. MR, ibid., pp. 177-78. Matkovic, o.c., p. 205. V. Corovic, Krai] Tvrtko I Kotromanic, Belgrade 1925, pp. 4 3 4 4 . The s2Lme,Historija Bosne, Belgrade 1940, p. 306. S. Cirkovic, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske drzave, Belgrade 1964, pp. 145 4 6 . 34. MR, ibid., pp. 1 7 9 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 4 . 35. MR, ibid., pp. 188-90. Corovic, Tvrtko, p. 44;Historija, p. 306. In mid-January the Ragusans sent another ship against enemy vessels and a ship from Kotor, loaded with grain, was captured.MR, ibid., p. 190. However, the Ragusans feared for their own ships as well. In January 1379 even boats carrying salt from Ston to Dubrovnik had to be insured against Venetian attacks. HAD,Debita, vol. VIII, f. 143. 36. The Genoese galleys were given food and oars. MR, ibid., p. 191. Cirkovic, o.c., p. 146.

VI 29 37. Corovic, Tvrtko, p. 44; Historija, p. 306. - Toward the end of January the Ragusans were again seeking help from Bosnia, Hum and Hungary. Nevertheless, the situation in February was still predominantly peaceful. MR, ibid., pp. 192-95.

38. MR, ibid., p. 195. B. Krekic, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age, Paris-The Hague 1961, p. 218. 39. MR, ibid., pp. 196-98, 199-201, 206, 208-209. Tadic,o.c., p. 373-74. Matkovic, o.c., p. 205. Corovic, Tvrtko, p. 44.

40. MR, ibid., p. 204, 206. 41. Ibid., p. 209. Tadic, o.c., p. 376. 42. MR, ibid., pp. 210-12. Tadic, o.c., pp. 375-76. 43. V. Lazzarini, La battaglia di Pola e il processo di Vettor Pisani, Nuovo

archivio veneto, n.s., vol. XXV, 1913, p. 181. 44. The Genoese and their allies captured about 24,000 men at Pula. Most of those were taken first to Zadar, and then some of them were transported to Genoa. It has been calculated that about 9,000 men lost their lives during the battle, almost all of them on the Venetian side. The Genoese, also, captured fifteen Venetian galleys. Lazzarini, La battaglia, pp. 182-84. Ljubic,

O odnosajih, p. 18.

45. Lazzarini, o.c., pp. 185-86. Kretschmayr, o.c., p. 232. 46. V. Lazzàrini, Lettere genovesi e friulane della guerra di Chioggia, Archivio veneto\ ser. V, voi. 34-35, 1944-45, pp. 12-13, 17. During talks between Venice èînd Hungary letters were sent to the Venetian government, asking for assistance for the Venetians captive in Zadar. MTE, p. 313. 47. I. Tiozzo, Una pagina sulla battaglia di Pola, Archivio veneto, ser. V, voi. 2 1 , 1 9 3 7 , pp. 1 3 3 4 4 . 48. P. L. Rambaldi, Appunti friulani per la storia della guerra di Chioggia,

Nuovo archivio veneto, n.s., vol. XV, 1908, pp. 192, 195, 204. 49. V. Lazzarini, La presa di Chioggia (16 agosto 1379), Archivio veneto, ser. V, voi. 4 8 4 9 , 1 9 5 2 , pp. 53-74. Kretschmayr, o.c., pp. 232-33. 50. The Venetian ambassadors in Buda informed their government in June, 1379, that the Hungarians were complaining "quod dominus rex (sc. Hungarie) in magna damna incurrit ex eo quod sal suum Pagi Veneti non permiserunt port ari et transire per portus suos. Item petit damna illata suis subditis de Catharo et Sibinico in partibus Sclauonie." Biblioteca nazionale Marciana (hereafter BM) in Venice, Manuscripts, Lat. X, 229 ff. 8-8v. MTE, p. 179. 51. BM, ibid., ff. 9v-10.MTE, pp. 181-82.

52. MR, ibid., p. 239. 53. BM, Lat. X, 299, f. 1 0 . M T E , pp. 176-78, 180, 182. The Venetians attributed Hungary's participation in the war to the initiative of the Hungarian aristocracy, not of the king .MTE, p. 172.

VI 30 54. MTE, pp. 200-201, 220. 55. BM, ibid., ff. 34v, 35v-36.MTE, pp. 205, 208, 217-18, 246, 247. The Hungarian king was demanding from the Venetians 100,000 ducats a year, among other things. MTE, pp. 200-203,210, 225. 56. Lazzarini, La presa di Chioggia, p. 64. The Hungarians did not participate in the conquest of Chioggia. Lazzarini, Lettere, p. 16. MTE, p. 207. 57. BM, ibid., f. 40. The Hungarian aristocracy was suspicious of the Genoese and Padoans even before this time. MTE, pp. 196, 221-222. 58. MTE, pp. 222-23 and ff., 263. 59. BM, ibid., f. 46.MTE, p. 273. 60. MTE, pp. 2 4 3 4 4 . 61. BM, ibid., f. 46. 62. BM, ibid., f. 49v. MTE, pp. 277-79, 282-83. 63. MTE, pp. 284-86, 294 ff. Kretschmayr, o.c., pp. 233-34. 64. V. Lazzarini, Frammento di registro del tempo della guerra di Chioggia, Archivio veneto, ser. V, voi. 21, 1937, p. 126. 65. At the end of October thirteen Genoese galleys arrived in Marano to pick up food. Rambaldi, Appunti, p. 195. 66. MR, ibid., pp. 212-13. Tadic,o.c., p. 377. 67. MR, ibid., pp. 213-14. 68. Ibid., p. 214. 69. Ibid., p. 215. Tadic, o.c., p. 383. Corovic, Tvrtko, p. 145\Historija, p. 307. 70. Tadic, o.c., pp. 382-83. Corovic, Tvrtko, pp. 4445,Historija, p. 306. Cirkovic, o.c.y pp. 14647. 71. MR, ibid., p. 215. HAD, Debita, vol. VIII, f. 176v. 72. Also, citizens of Kotor, arrested in Dubrovnik were allowed to try to arrange an exchange for Ragusans arrested in Kotor. MR, ibid., p. 216. 73. Ibid., pp. 216-17. 74. Ibid., p. 216. 75. At the same time six Genoese galleys arrived in Dubrovnik, coming from Romania. They were given pilots and provisions and their captain held talks with Ragusan representatives. These were, no doubt, the galleys which joined the Genoese fleet after the battle at Pula. MR, pp. 218-19. Krekic, Dubrovnik, p. 218. 76. MR, ibid., p. 219. Tadic, o.c., p. 383. Corovic, Tvrtko, pp. 4 5 4 6 ; Historija, pp. 307-08. Cirkovic, o.c., p. 146. 77. MR, ibid., pp. 222-23. Tadic, o.c., pp. 381-84. Krekic, o.c., p. 219. 78. MR, ibid., pp. 220-21. Tadic, o.c., p. 380. Ljubic, O odnosajih, p. 18. Matkovic, o.c., p. 206 is incorrect when he states that four Genoese galleys participated in those operations and that an army attacked Kotor on land.

VI

31 79. MR, ibid., pp. 221-224, 225. 80. Ibid., pp. 225-26. Tadic, o.c., pp. 385-87. 81. At the beginning of July the Ragusans were attributing to people from Kotor "maliciam" and "fraudolenciam." MR, ibid., p. 257. Cirkovic, o.c., p. 147. 82. Ibid., pp. 226-27. Tadic, o.c., pp. 387-89.

83. MR, ibid., p. 226. 84. Negotiations were initiated with Kotor tb regulate mutual relations, ambassadors were sent to the ban of Croatia ana to the new commander of the Genoese fleet in Zadar and in mid-July an embassy was dispatched to the king of Bosnia, while another one, a little later, left for Hungary. At the same time an envoy of the Aragonese king arrived in Dubrovnik. MR, ibid., pp. 228-31. In this same period the Ragusans returned to Dyrrachium certain things that some of their fellow-citizens had seized from a Venetian merchant in the territory of Carlo Tobbia, including flax, tablecloths, knives, carpets, objects made of gold and silver, precious stones, money, etc. HAD, Debita, vol. VIII, f. 189. 85. As usual in this season, the Ragusans were busy buying and transporting grain into their city. MR, ibid., pp. 234-36, 238. Lazzarini, Lettere genovesi, pp. 22-23. 86. MR, ibid., pp. 2 3 9 4 0 , 259. There was hope in Dubrovnik that peace might be reached. A document of October 7, 1379, mentions the possibility "quod libere homines Ragusii possint ire ad civitatem Veneciarum." HAD,

Diversa notariae, vol. IX, f. 218. 87. MR, ibid., p p . 2 4 0 , 241. 88. Ibid., pp. 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 .

89. Ibid:, p. 245. 90. Ibid., pp. 2 4 4 4 5 . 91. Ljubic, 0 odnosajih, p. 18. Later on, in April, 1382, the Venetians thanked the Bosnian king for his "magnam et notabilem subventionem . . . tam de gentibus, quam victualibus et aliis rebus," all of which allowed the Venetians to keep Kotor. MTE, p. 479. Corovic, Tvrtko, p. 49; Historija, p. 311. Cirkovic, o.c., p. 147. 92. MR, ibid., pp. 2 4 6 4 8 . 93. MR, ibid., pp. 2 4 8 4 9 . Corovic, Tvrtko, pp. 4 7 4 8 ; Historija, pp. 308-09; Cirkovic, ibid. 94. Ljubic, O odnosajih, p. 18. The Venetian galleys coming from the Levant sailed by Dubrovnik toward the end of December, 1379. MR, ibid., p. 254.

95. Dispacci di Pietro Cornaro, ambasciatore a Milano durante la guerra di Chioggia, ed. V. Lazzarini, Venice 1939, p. 16.

VI 32 96. It was generally thought that Dalmatia might provide six galleys, but the Genoese hoped to obtain ten .Ibid., pp. 16, 28. 97. MR, ibid., pp. 252-53. M. Dinic, Odluke veca Dubrovacke Republike, vol. I, Belgrade 1951, pp. 12, 22 (hereafter OV). 98. OV, p. 17. Tadic, o.c., pp. 4 0 1 4 0 2 . There were instances when Ragusan ships suffered at the hands of the Venetians off Apulia. HAD,

Sententiae cancellariae, vol. II, f. 67v. 99. OV, pp. 21, 24. Ljubic, 0 odnosajih, p. 19. It was probably on this occasion that new rules concerning Venetian captives in Dubrovnik were enacted. OV, pp. 20, 22. Among the captives there was a Catalan and an Englishman. They were both set free, on condition "quod non ibunt ad stipendium nostrorum inimicorum." OV, p. 21. It seems that the captives were allowed to move around the city in order to beg. However, when enemies approached the city, the captives were kept in jail. OV, pp. 117, 120. 100. OV, pp. 22, 25, 95-96.

101. Ibid., p. 28. 102. On July 20, 1383, the former "patronus" of the Ragusan galley received "a . . . patrono galearum januensium et massario diete armate januensium in Clogya tempore guerre cum Venetis ducatos ducentos et zenoinos sesaginta auri." He surrendered four fifths of the reward to the state. HAD,

Diversa cancellariae, vol. XXV, f. 231. 103. OV, pp. 28, 30, ff. 104. Ibid., p. 32. 105. Ibid., p. 20 J f . 106. Ibid., pp. 34-39. 107. Ibid., pp. 4 0 , 4 2 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 . Tadic, o . c , pp. 412-13. 108. OV, p. 43. Tadic, o.c., pp. 415, 421-26, 437-38. J. Radonic, Dubrovacka akta ipovelje, vol. I, Belgrade 1934, pp. 113-14. 109. OV, p. 43. 110. Tadic, o.c., pp. 432-33. 111. Tadic, ibid., OV, p. 45. 112. OV, p. 46. 113. Krekic, Dubrovnik, p. 219. 114. Tadic, o.c., pp. 4 3 7 4 0 . OV, pp. 4 7 , 4 8 . 115. Tadic,o.c., p p . 4 4 0 4 1 . 116. Dispacci di P. Cornaro, p. 34. Rambaldi, o.c., p. 194. 117. Ljubic, O odnosajih, p. 18. There is no confirmation in the sources of his allegation that the two Ragusan galleys at Chioggia "shrewdly escaped on time." 118. Ljubic, ibid., p. 19. His assertion that Pisani's fleet destroyed Ragusan ships and ravaged the area of Dubrovnik finds no support in the sources. In Venice people suspected that Pisani had been poisoned by the patricians, who feared his popularity. V. Lazzarini, La morte, il monumento di Vettor Pisani,

Nuovo archivio veneto, vol. XI, 1896, pp. 395, 401.

VI 33 119. Tadic, o.c., pp. 4 4 5 4 6 . OV, p. 56. 120. Dispacci di P. Cornaro, pp. 115, 184. 121. OV, pp. 52-53. On August 1, ships were sent to Dyrrachium and to Apulia to bring salt to Dubrovnik. It was explicitly stated that they were going "ad risicum . . . nostri comunis huius presentis guerre Venetorum et illorum qui pro Venetis se appellant."Ibid., p. 57. 122. Ibid., pp. 58-60,102-03. 123. Ibid., pp. 60-62, 64, 66. 124. Ibid., pp. 62-64. 125. Ibid., pp. 64, 65, 67. However, the danger to those ships had not disappeared. HAD, Debita, vol. IX, ff. 57v-58. 126. The Venetian fleet conquered at this time "civitatem Signensem in partibus Dalmatie/'A/TE', pp. 35£-57. 127. OV, pp. 60, 65, 66, 69, 85. 128. Dispacci di P. Cornaro, pp. 129-30. The Florentines wanted to act as intermediaries for peace negotiations. MTE, pp. 413-14,416-20. 129. Rambaldi, Appunti, p. 194. 130. Dubrovnik sent an embassy to Zadar and a letter to the Hungarian king. OV, pp. 78-82,117. 131. OV, pp. 78, 81, 82, 90. 132. OV, pp. 87, 88, 117, 120. Krekic, Dubrovnik, p. 219. 133. OV, p. 93. Krekic, ibid., p. 220. 134. Bilanci generali, pp. 80-81. 135. Ibid., pp. 78-80. ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, b. 38. 136. Zadar was hoping for peace already in February, 1380. Historijski arhiv u Zadru (Historical Archives in Zadar), Arhiv zadarskih bilfeznika, P. Perençanus, b. II, f. XIV, l l v . On discord among the allies see MTE, pp. 426-28. 137. OV, pp. 126, 128, 131, 133, 188. 138. Ibid., pp. 128-30, 133, 135. 139. Ibid., p. 137. 140. Ibid., pp. 14345. 141. Nevertheless, the Venetians decided to send a fleet of seven galleys "ad partes Sclauonie ad faciendum omnia maiora damna que poterit nostris inimicis" MTE, p. 428. 142. OV, p. 153. 143. OV, pp. 157-60. When the former commander of the Ragusan galley which had fought on the Genoese side in this war died in 1387, he left in his will, among other bequests, the amount of 500 ducats "per maltoletto per quelle citade arobade per Genoexi la dove io fui cum la nostra galia." HAD, Testamenta notariae, vol. VII, ff. 160-160v.

VI 34 144. OV, p. 162. 145. Ljubic,Listine, vol. IV, pp. 119-63. Kretschmayr, o.c., p. 237. 146. OV, p. 162. 147. Ibid., pp. 163,167. 148. ,HAD,DzV. canc., vol. XXV, f. 2v. 149. Ljubic, 0 odnosajih, pp. 19, 20. 150. HAD, Div. canc., vol. XXV, ff. 16v, 24v, 26, etc. OV, pp. 175-77, 182-83. 151. OV, p. 169. 152. Krekic,Dubrovnik, p. 42. 153. Ibid., pp. 42-43, 222. 154. Ibid., pp. 222-23. 155. Ibid., pp. 43, 223.

VII

Contributo allo studio degli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398)

L a t r a t t a degli schiavi a V e n e z i a è già s t a t a o g g e t t o di a l c u n i s t u d i 1 e la p r e s e n z a degli s c h i a v i p r o v e n i e n t i d a l l e r e g i o n i del M e d i t e r r a n e o o r i e n t a l e e d a i B a l c a n i n e l l a c i t t à l a g u n a r e è già c o n o s c i u t a 2 . N o n v'è d u b b i o c h e l a m a g g i o r p a r t e degli schiavi l e v a n t i n i d i r e t t i v e r s o Venezia p a s s a v a p e r D u b r o v n i k ( R a g u s a ) o a l t r i p o r t i d a l m a t i 3 . D ' a l t r a p a r t e , l ' e s p o r t a z i o n e degli schiavi b a l c a n i c i , p a r t i c o l a r m e n t e b o s n i a c i , v e r s o Venezia e d a l t r i p a e s i o c c i d e n t a l i , si svolgeva s o p r a t t u t t o a t t r a v e r s o D u b r o v n i k , m a a n c h e t r a m i t e a l t r i p o r t i d a l m a t i 4 . U n n u m e r o e l e v a t o di schiavi l e v a n t i n i e b a l c a n i c i , g i u n t i a Venezia, n o n vi r e s t a v a n o , m a ve-

1 V. LAZARI, Del traffico e della condizione degli schiavi a Venezia nei tempi di mezzo, Miscellanee di storia italiana, t. I, Torino 1862, pp. 463501. CH. VERLINDEN, L'esclavage dans l'Europe médiévale, t. I, Brugge 1955, pp. 399400. CH. VERLINDEN, Le recrutement des esclaves à Venise aux XIVe et XVe siècles, Bulletin de l'Institut Historique Belge de Rome, vol. XXXIX, 1968, pp. 83-202. CH. VERLINDEN, La législation vénitienne du bas moyen âge en matière d'esclavage (XIIIc-XVe siècles), Ricerche storiche ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo, Napoli 1969, pp. 147-172. 2 CH. VERLINDEN, La colonie vénitienne de Tana, centre de la traite des esclaves au XIVe et au début du XVe siècle, Studi in onore di Gino Luzzatto, vol. II, Milano 1950, pp. 1-25. CH. VERLINDEN, La Crète, débouché et plaque tournante de la traite des esclaves aux XIVe et XVe siècles, Studi in onore di Amintore Fanfani, vol. Ili, Milano 1962, pp. 593-669. CH. VERLINDEN, La traite des esclaves et traitants italiens à Constantinople (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Le Moyen Age, t. LXIX, 1963, pp. 791-804. CH. VERLINDEN, Venezia e il commercio degli schiavi provenienti dalle coste orientali del Mediterraneo, Venezia e il Levante -fino al secolo XV, ed. A. Pertusi, vol. I, Firenze 1973, pp. 911-929. 3 B. KREKIC, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen âge, Paris-

La Haye 1961, pp. 109-111. B. KREKIÓ, Dubrovnik

in the 14 th and 15 th Cen-

turies: A City between East and West, Norman 1972, pp. 37-38. 4 Vedi A. TEJA, Aspetti della vita economica di Zara dal 1289 al 1409, Rivista dalmatica, t. XXI, fase. IV, 194142. A. SOLOVJEV, Trgovina bosanskim robljem do godine 1661, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu,

VII 380 n i v a n o rivenduti e t r a d o t t i i n a l t r e p a r t i d ' I t a l i a e d e l m o n d o occidentale5. Noi desideriamo utilizzare qui alcuni documenti sconosciuti c h e a b b i a m o r i n t r a c c i a t o nell'Archivio d i S t a t o d i Venezia, c o n l ' a u s p i c i o d i c o n t r i b u i r e a d i m a p i ù a m p i a e d a p p r o f o n d i t a con o s c e n z a d e l c o m m e r c i o degli schiavi n e l l a c i t t à d i S a n M a r c o . S i t r a t t a d i u n c e r t o n u m e r o di a t t i c h e a b b i a m o i d e n t i f i c a t o n e i r e g i s t r i d e l n o t a i o v e n e t o M a r c o R a f f a n e l l i , e c h e si r i f e r i s c o n o agli a n n i 1388-1398. G r a z i e agli a t t i i n q u e s t i o n e e c o n l'agg i u n t a d i a l c u n i a l t r i t r a t t i dall'Archivio s t o r i c o di D u b r o v n i k , a b b i a m o p o t u t o d e f i n i r e la T a b e l l a I. Si v e d e , così, c h e t r a il 1388 e il 1398, s e c o n d o i d o c u m e n t i d i R a f f a n e l l i e d e l l ' a r c h i v i o r a g u s e o , f u r o n o i m p o r t a t e a Venezia 304 t e s t e d i s c h i a v i l e v a n t i n i e b a l c a n i c i . D i v i d e n d o l i p e r p r o v e n i e n z a , e d e s c l u d e n d o gli a n n i 1390 e 1398, s u i q u a l i dispon i a m o d i d a t i r e l a t i v i solo a d u e m é s i c i a s c u n o , si a r r i v a a l l a Tabella II. Q u e s t a t a b e l l a p r e s e n t a s i m u l t a n e a m e n t e il m o v i m e n t o n u m e r i c o a n n u a l e e l a r i p a r t i z i o n e degli schiavi s e c o n d o il sesso. S e si t i e n e c o n t o d e l sesso, a p p a r e ovvio c h e p r e d o m i n a n o le d o n n e : sul t o t a l e d i 292 t e s t e , i n f a t t i , 233 (79,80 % ) e r a n o f e m m i n e e solo 59 (20,20 % ) m a s c h i . È d a n o t a r e c h e le d o n n e t a r t a r e r a p p r e s e n t a n o il g r u p p o di g r a n l u n g a p i ù n u m e r o s o . E s s e c o s t i t u i v a n o il 62,67 % del n u m e r o t o t a l e degli s c h i a v i e d il

n.s., t. I, 1946, pp. 139-62. G. CREMOSNIK, Pravni polozaj naseg roblja u srednjem veku, ibid., n.s., t. II, 1947, pp. 69-74. V. VINAVER, Trgovina b o sanskim robljem tokom XIV veka u Dubrovniku, Anali Historijskog instituta JAZU u Dubrovniku, vol. II, 1953, pp. 125-149. I bosniaci, essendo considerati patareni ed eretici erano facile preda dei mercanti di schiavi. V. CH. VERLINDEN, Patarins ou Bogomiles réduits en esclavage, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, 1967, pp. 683-700. CH. VERLINDEN, L'esclavage sur la côte dalmate au bas moyen âge, Bulletin de l'Inst. Hist. Belge de Rome, vol. XLI, 1970, pp. 57-140. CH. VERLINDEN, Le relazioni economiche fra le due sponde adriatiche nel basso Medio Evo alla luce della tratta degli schiavi, Momenti e problemi della storia delle due sponde adriatiche, ed. P. F. Palumbo, Roma 1973, pp. 103-139. D. DINIÓ-KNEZEVIO, Migraci je stanovniStva iz blizeg zaledja u Dubrovnik u XIV veku, Jugoslovenski istorijski casopis, voi. 1-2, 1974, pp. 1940. Per le fonti concernenti la schiavitù e la tratta degli schiavi a Dubrovnik vedi: G. CREMOSNIK, Kancelariski i notariski spisi, vol. I, Srp.kr.akad., Beograd 1932. G. CREMOSNIK, Izvori za istoriju roblja i servicijalnih odnosa u na§im zemljama srednjeg vijeka, Istorijskchpravni zbornik, vol. I, 1948. G. CREMO§NIK, Spisi dubrovaèke kancelarije, vol. I, JAZU, Zagreb 1951. M. DiNIÉ, Iz dubrovackog arhiva, vol. Ill, SANU, Beograd 1967. 5 CH. VERLINDEN, L'esclavage, pp. 322, 372, 794-5. CH. VERLINDEN, L'esclavage dans le Centre et le Nord de l'Italie continentale au bas moyen âge, Bull, de l'Inst. Hist. Belge de Rome, vol. XL, 1969, pp. 93-155.

Tabella I 6 Anno

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

Prezzo (in ducati)

1388

»

Tartara Tartara Zarchassus Bulgara Tartara con due figli

»

Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartarus Zarchassus de Rossia Zarchassa Zarchassa due sclave de Rossia de Rossia Tartara Zarchassa Zarchassus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartarus Zarchassa Tartara Tartarus de Rossia

F F M F F M M F M F F M M M F F F F F F F M F F F F F F M M F F M M

55 45 31 25

»

16 16 36 10 45 36 15 13 14 14 14 16 16 25 14 14 32 12 24 14 20 12 12 19 18 18 20 35 12 12 36 32 20 15 16 17 20 11 17

» »

» » » » » » » » » » » »

1389 » »

» » » »

) j

) V

90 42 40 53 37 40 50 45 32 45

|

90 48 34 45 39 40 30 30 60 47 46 40 30 48 45

1

100

* Tutti i dati nella tabella sono tratti da: Archivio di Stato a Venezia (ASV), Cancelleria inferiore - Notaia, Marcus de Raffanellis, buste 168 e 169, se non è altrimenti indicato. La provenienza è conservata nella forma originale dei documenti.

VII 382 Segue : Tabella I Anno

1389 » » » » » » » » » » » » »

13907 »

1392 » »

Provenienza

Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara de genere Albano Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Zarchassa Zarchassus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartarus Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Tartara Tartara de Rossia de genere Turchorum Tartarus Tartara

Età

Sesso

18

M F F F F F F F F F F F F F F M F F M F F F F M M F F F F F F M M F

—

12 24 11 32 22 12 20 18 30 24 17 44 24 12 24 25 8 12 19 19 16 11 13 14 17 12 14 15 24 22 24 16

(iiT ducati)

—

36 45 35 31 30 43 30 50 41 37 45 43 25 4 30 50 50 20 32 50 50 45 44 44 52 52 53 42 40 45 41 28 50

7 Le imbreviature del Raff anelli per il 1390 comprendono solo i mesi di gennaio e di febbraio (busta 168). Non esistono atti per il 1391. La busta 169 comincia con il mese di marzo del 1392.

VII Gli schiavi levantini

e balcanici a Venezia

(1388-1398)

383

Segue: Tabella I

Anno

1392 » » » » » » » » » »

1393 » » » » » »

» » » » » » » » » » » »

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

Prezzo (in ducati)

Tartara de Rossia Tartarus de Rossia Tartarus Tartara Tartara Sarracenus Bulgara Tartara de genere Bossinensium Tartarus Tartara de Bassina Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Bulgara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara

14 20 12 18 15 24 22 20 25 30

F F M F M F F M F F

32 50 41 40 60 51 52 51

12 18 24 18 16 18 14 16 22 10 14 22 10 20 15 18 16 12 25 18

F M F F F F F M F F F M F F F F F F F F F

IO8 43 50 36

—

50

— —

25 46 54 45 39 40 49 35 42 48 55 50 45 46 56

8 Si tratta di vendita fatta a Ragusa ad un Veneziano, Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku (HAD), Liber dotium, vol. II, f. 57. DINIÒ, o.c., p. 61. Un'altra schiava bosniaca fu venduta ad un Veneziano a Ragusa per 13 ducati nel 1385. HAD, ibid., f. 22; DiNït, o.c., p. 46. Nel 1386, però, un'altra schiava venne venduta ad un Fiorentino, abitante a Pàdova, per 49 ducati. HAD, ibid., f. 26; DÌNIÓ, o.c., p. 46.

VII 384 Segue : Tabella I Anno

1393 » » » » »•

»

»

Provenienza

Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara

Età

Sesso

14

F F F F

44 45 53,5 45

F F

55 60

;}

70

14 16 20 16 20 30 8 30 23 14

(inducati)

Tartara Tartara Tartara

18 25 20 20 24

»

Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara

11 14 18 24 16 16 18 14

»

Tartarus

7

F F M F F F F F F F F F F F F F M

»

de genere Bossine

9

M

33

»

Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartarus Turchus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara

16 13 16 24 10 14 22 20 28 22 20

F F M F F M M F F F F

62 50

»

» » » » »

1394 »

» »

» » » » » » » » » »

Tartarus Tartara Tartara

60 53 46 50 52 44 50 45 40 30 55 50 35 45 50 50 —

25 40 22 42 38 55 26 50 55

Gli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398) 385 Segue : Tabella I Anno

1394 » » » » » » » »

» » » » » » » » » » » » »

1395 » » » » » » » »

» » » » » »

r zz f ° (m ducati)

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

Tartara de Rossia

35 13

F

26

Tartara Tartara de Rossia

—

M F F F F F F F F F

45 45 36 32 38 40 50 42 56 40

M F F M F M F F M F F F F F F

27 53 55 30 52 40 52 40

F F F F F

45 70 36 46 48

M F F F M F

32 50

Zarchassa Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Tartara Tartara de Bossina Greca Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara de Rossia Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Zirchassa de Rossia Tàrtara Tartara de Bossina Zarchassus Zarchassa

25 8 28 14 20 12 15 20 13 28 26 22 17 11 15 15 13 26 18 12 18 36 18 14 32 16 20 18 12 15 45 30 16 15

r

36 44 50 40 50 49 56

— — —

48

VII 386 Segue : Tabella I Anno

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

1395

Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara de Bossina de Bossina Tartara Tartara Tartara de Bossina Tartara de genere Bulgarorum Zarchassa Tartara Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Zarchassa Zarchassus Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Bulgarus de Bossina Tartara

12 18 18 22 22 20 18 18 13 18 36 14 34 7 11 20 11 29 17 24 2 10 16 16 9 17 13 24 12 13 20 16 17 18 9 20 20

F F F F F F F F F F F F

36 35 47,5 50 70 31,5 33 40 33 46 30 50

: !

41

» » »

» »

» » » » » » »

» » » » » » » »

» » »

1396 » » » » » » » » » »

ì j

Prezzo (in ducati)

F F F F F

F M F F F M F F F F F F F F F M F F

Ì j

29 41 34 44 40 55 21 48 50 26 20 40 53 40 40 58 54 50 58 30 32 50

Gli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398) 387 Segue : Tabella I Anno

1396 » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »

»

» » » »

» » » »

» » » » » » » » » »

Provenienza

Tartarus Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Tartara niger de genere Sarracinorum Tartarus niger de genere Saracenorum de Rossia Zarchassa Tartara Saracena Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Sarracenus Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartara de Bossina Tartara Zarchassa

.

Età

Sesso

16 20 16 14 12 12 16 30 18 28 16 19 20 30 26

M F M F F M M F F F F F F F F

45 50 50 54

10 8

M M

31,5 20

10 22 35 22 22 15 24 32 20 24 13 18 20 12 14 11 5 24 18

M F F F F M F F F F M M F F F F F F F

40 40 45 27 44 61 45 45 60 50 34 36 60 35

—

47 28 42 50 25 43 19,5 50 58 45

^I } JI

85 12 40 40

VII 388 Segue : Tabella I Anno

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

1396

Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Zarchassa Tartara Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Zarchassa Tartarus Tartara Zarchassa Zarchassa Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartarus Tartara Tartara Tartara Bulgarus Tartara Tartara Bulgara de Bossina Tartara Bulgara Tartara Tartarus

13 16 10 20 30 15 13 20 13 28

F F M F F F F F M F

18

F F F M F F F F F M F F M F M F F F M F

» » » » » » » »

» » »

1397 » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »

» »

» » » » » » »

18 18 16 36 14 26 18 22 13 25 15 16 18 16 28 24 28 15 14 24 18 13 18 14 29 12

F F F F F F M

p rezzo (in ducati)

36,5 54 38 53 35 45 50,5 38 42 55 50 50 50 40 51 48 45 —

50 31 55 55 40 48 31 48 31 64 32 36 55,5 46 38 50 46 65 35

VII Gli schiavi levantini Segue: Anno

e balcanici a Venezia

(1388-1398) 389

Tabella I ^ezzo „

Provenienza

Età

Sesso

Bulgara

22

F

48

Tartara

18

F

40

Tartara

32

F

32

Tartara

20

F

45

r

Tartara

15

F

32

Tartara

24

F

32

»

Tartara

16

F

44

»

Tartara

12

F

32

»

1398

»

»

Tartara

18

F

45

Tartara

24

F

33

de Bossina

12

F

259

Tartarus

10

M

25

Tartara

12

F

28

Tartarus

12

M

36

Tartara

22

F

44

Tartara

26

F

60

Tartara

18

F

48

Tartara

20

F

Tartarus

22

M

de Durachio

26

F

de Bossina

20

F

»

44 ] l Jf

10010 1511

9 Vendita fatta a Ragusa ad un Veneziano: HAD, ibid., f. 12v a tergo; DINIE, o.c., pp. 69-70. 10 Qui terminano le imbreviature di Marco Raffanelli. Per l'anno 1398 esse comprendono solo i mesi di gennaio e febbraio. 11 Vendita fatta a Dubrovnik: HAD, Liber dotium, vol. I l l , f. 18 a tergo; DINIÓ, O.C., pp. 73-74. Nel 1399 uno schiavo « de genere... Turchorum, captum in conflictu in partibus Bòsne », di circa 20 anni, fu venduto ad un veneziano per 13 ducati. Nello stesso anno due schiave « de Bossina », una di anni 13, comperata da un raguseo in Bosnia per 20 ducati « nomine Thadei Petri de Florentia, habitatoris Venetiarum », e un'altra di 11 anni, comperata per 19 ducati e 13 grossi «nomine dicti Tadei », vengono presentate all'agente di Taddeo a Dubrovnik. HAD, Diversa notariae, vol. X, f. 59 (1389); Div. canc., vol. XXXIII, f. 123; DINIÓ, o.c., pp. 72-73 (1398).

Tabella II Tartari f

Circassi

m

f

m

Russi f

Bosniaci

m

f

m

Bulgari f

m

Saraceni f

Turchi

m

f

m

1388

7

4

3

2

3

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

21

1389

19

4

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2612

1392

13

6

2

1

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

29

1393

29

4

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

35

1394

30

5

2

0

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

43 13

1395

25

1

6

2

0

1

4

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

41

1396

38

9

4

0

1

0

2

0

0

1

1

3

0

0

59

1397

22

5

3

0

0

0

2

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

36

183

38

21

6

9

4

10

2

8

2

1

4

0

2

292

12 13

221

27

13

12

10

5

2

75,68 %

9,24 %

4,45 %

4,10 %

3,42 %

1,71 %

0,68 %

Nel 1389 è da aggiungere uno schiavo maschio « de genere albano Nel 1394 è da aggiungere una schiava « Greca ».

U

Gli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398) 391 78,54 % d e l n u m e r o delle d o n n e t r a il 1388 e d il 1397. P u r e t r a gli u o m i n i , i T a r t a r i p r e d o m i n a v a n o c o n il 64,40 % 14. Q u a n t o a l l ' e t à degli schiavi, la m e d i a p e r le f e m m i n e sup e r a v a d i p o c o i 20 a n n i , m e n t r e p e r i m a s c h i oscillava u n p o c o a l d i s o t t o dei 14. Se, poi, si d i s p o n g o n o d o n n e e u o m i n i p e r g r u p p i d i dieci a n n i , si o t t i e n e la u l t e r i o r e t a b e l l a : Tabella III F

Fino a 10 anni Da 11 a 20 anni Da 21 a 30 anni Da 31 a 40 anni Oltre 40 anni

M

No.

o/o di F

% del tot.

No.

9 145 61 15 3

3,8 62,2 26,1 6,4

3,1 50,1 21,1 5,1 1,0

10 41 5 0 0

U

%

Totale

di M

% del tot.

No.

17,8 73,2 8,9 0 0

3,4 14,1 1,7 0 0

19 186 66 15 3

%

6,5 64,3 22,8 5,1 1,0

L a s t r a g r a n d e m a g g i o r a n z a degli schiavi e s c h i a v e era, d u n q u e , d ' e t à c o m p r e s a t r a gli 11 e i 30 a n n i (87,1 % ) . L e rag i o n i s o n o ovvie: sia c o m e m a n o d ' o p e r a , sia ai f i n i del servizio d o m e s t i c o e, n e l c a s o delle d o n n e , a n c h e nelle c o n d i z i o n i d i conc u b i n e , e r a n o i g i o v a n i c h e c o s t i t u i v a n o il p i ù s i c u r o investim e n t o , c h e d a v a n o il m i g l i o r r e n d i m e n t o , p o t e v a n o e s s e r e s f r u t t a t i al m a s s i m o e p e r p i ù l u n g o t e m p o e, i n f i n e , n e l c a s o di r i v e n d i t a p o t e v a n o o t t e n e r e il m i g l i o r prezzo. I n effetti, la s t r u t t u r a d e i prezzi degli s c h i a v i è d ' u n i n t e r e s s e c o n s i d e r e v o l e e m e r i t a u n ' a n a l i s i p i ù p a r t i c o l a r e g g i a t a . T r a il 1388 e d i p r i m i m e s i del 1398 u n t o t a l e d i c i r c a 12.250 d u c a t i f u i n v e s t i t o n e l l a t r a t t a . E s c l u d e n d o i d a t i i n c o m p l e t i r i g u a r d a n t i il 14 Bisognerà, dunque, correggere l'opinione di Verlinden, Le recrutement des esclaves à Venise, p. 126, sulla «forte diminution de l'importation des esclaves tartares à Venise à la fin du XIVe siècle». La sua costatazione che « entre 1389 et 1395 nous n'avons rencontré aucune vente à Venise » dovrà essere modificata, come pure lo dovrà essere l'asserzione, p. 177, che i Russi erano il gruppo più numeroso tra gli schiavi a Venezia. Verlinden ha trovato, p. 159, tra il 1406 ed il 1455 un totale di 177 schiavi Russi a Venezia, mentre noi abbiamo potuto stabilire la presenza di 221 schiavi Tartari tra il solo 1388 e 1397. D'altronde, ad un solo caso di vendita d'una schiava Russa nel Trecento (Verlinden, p. 148) bisognerà ora aggiungere altri 13 casi, come pure bisognerà aggiungere 27 Circassi ai 6 casi noti al Verlinden, p. 139, e 10 Bulgari a quello menzionato dallo stesso autore, p. 164. Finalmente, oltre i 6 schiavi bosniaci noti al Verlinden nel Trecento (p. 175), ora ne troviamo altri 12.

VII 392 1390 e d il 1398, r e s t a la s o m m a di c i r c a 11.800 d u c a t i . Di q u e s t i , c i r c a il 77 % r i s u l t a i n v e s t i t o in s c h i a v e e schiavi t a r t a r i e la s o m m a i m p i e g a t a n e l l ' a c q u i s t o delle sole d o n n e t a r t a r e r a p p r e s e n t a v a q u a s i il 66 % del t o t a l e i n v e s t i t o n e l c o m m e r c i o . S e p o i si s t u d i a n o i prezzi delle s c h i a v e e degli s c h i a v i sec o n d o la r i s p e t t i v a p r o v e n i e n z a , si a r r i v a ai r i s u l t a t i s e g u e n t i :

Tabella IV (prezzi in ducati) Tartari

Circassi

Bulgari

F

F

F

M

44,3 38,6

M

45,0 35,0

M

42,5 31,0

Russi F

Bosniaci

Saraceni

Turchi

F

F

F M

M

43,8 39,5

M

27,4 30,0

M

44,0 39,5

0 39,5

Il p r e z z o m a s s i m o p e r le d o n n e e r a i n m e d i a di 45 d u c a t i , p a g a t o p e r le f e m m i n e circasse, m e n t r e q u e l l o m i n i m o e r a d i 27,4 d u c a t i , p a g a t o p e r le d o n n e b o s n i a c h e , c o n la n o t e v o l e differ e n z a , d u n q u e , di 17,6 d u c a t i (39,1 % ) . Q u a n t o agli u o m i n i , r u s s i e s a r a c e n i , c o n d u e T u r c h i , r i s u l t a n o i p i ù c a r i (39,5 d u c a t i ) , m e n t r e i b o s n i a c i e r a n o a p i ù b u o n p r e z z o (30 d u c a t i ) , la diff e r e n z a e s s e n d o q u i d i soli 9,5 d u c a t i (24 % ) . Un a l t r o a s p e t t o i n t e r e s s a n t e della t r a t t a c u i ci r i f e r i a m o è il r a p p o r t o t r a l'età, il s e s s o ed il p r e z z o degli schiavi. La seg u e n t e t a b e l l a giova a c h i a r i r e c o d e s t a r e l a z i o n e :

Tabella V (prezzi in ducati) F

M

Fino a 10 anni

25,8

30,1

Da 11 a 20 anni

44,3

40,0

Da 21 a 30 anni

45,6

35,4

Da 31 a 40 anni

41,4

—

Oltre 40 anni

25,0

—

C o m e si vede, il p r e z z o delle d o n n e t o c c a v a i suoi v e r t i c i t r a i 21 e i 30 a n n i , m e n t r e q u e l l o degli u o m i n i t r a gli 11 e i 20 a n n i . E f f e t t u a n d o , p e r ò , il c o m p u t o in m o d o diverso, cioè p r e n -

VII Gli schiavi levantini e balcanici a Venezia (1388-1398) 393 d e n d o c o m e l i m i t i di e t à gli a n n i 16 e 25, e c o n s i d e r a n d o solo le f e m m i n e , è d a t o c o n s t a t a r e c h e il p r e z z o m e d i o di u n a s c h i a v a d i q u e l l ' e t à g i u n g e v a a 47,8 d u c a t i . S e c o n d o la p r o v e n i e n z a si h a il s e g u e n t e o r d i n e :

Circassa

48,7 d u c a t i

Tartara

48,6 d u c a t i

Bulgara

47,6 d u c a t i

Russa

45,4 d u c a t i

Bosniaca

33,0 d u c a t i

Le p i ù c o s t o s e t r a t u t t i gli schiavi in g e n e r a l e , e r a n o , d u n q u e , le C i r c a s s e t r a i 16 e 25 a n n i , seguite s u b i t o dalle giovani t a r t a r e . E p o i c h é le s c h i a v e t a r t a r e e r a n o di g r a n l u n g a le p i ù n u m e r o s e , q u e i p r e z z i s o n o u n c h i a r o indizio della l o r o a l t a v a l u t a z i o n e sul m e r c a t o v e n e z i a n o . È d a n o t a r e , p e r ò , c h e il p r e z z o p i ù a l t o p a g a t o p e r u n a s c h i a v a in q u e s t o g r u p p o , q u e l l o di 70 d u c a t i c i a s c u n a , f u p a g a t o p e r d u e t a r t a r e , u n a di 32 e u n ' a l t r a d i 22 a n n i n e l 1395. R e s t a d a v e d e r e se si s o n o v e r i f i c a t i n o t e v o l i c a m b i a m e n t i di p r e z z i sul m e r c a t o di schiavi d u r a n t e gli a n n i q u i s t u d i a t i . A t a l e f i n e s o c c o r r e la t a b e l l a s e g u e n t e :

"Tabella VI (prezzi in ducati)

Anno

Tartari

Circassi

Bulgari

F

F

F M

M

M

Russi

Bosniaci Saraceni

F M

F

1388

42,2 35,0

40,6 40,5

25,0

0

46,0 45,0

1389

39,3 40,0

48,0 39,0

0

0

50,0

1392

47,4 41,5

51,0 20,0

0

0

45,0

1393

47,0 43,7

0

0

49,0

0

0

1394

44,2 34,2

44,0

0

0

0

1395

43,9 26,0

45,3

0

0

0

0

1396

45,1 40,5

42,5

0

0

30,0

40,0

1397

43,9 35,4

47,6

0

0

46,6 32,0

M

Turchi

F

M

F

M

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10,0

0

0 51,0

0 41,0

0

36,0

0

0

0

0

0

30,0

0

0

0 38,0

32,0

31,3

0

0

0

0

0

0

22,0

0

0 35,6

0

0

0

31,5

0

0

0

0

32,0 40,5

0

0

VII 394 I t a r t a r i e le t a r t a r e , r a p p r e s e n t a n d o il g r u p p o n o t e v o l m e n t e p i ù n u m e r o s o e d il solo c o n s i s t e n t e in t u t t a l ' e p o c a s t u d i a t a , dev o n o e s s e r e p r e s i c o m e indizio delle v a r i a z i o n i dei prezzi: Tabella VII (prezzi in ducati) Anno

Prezzo

Anno

Prezzo

1388 1389 1392 1393

38,6 39,6 44,4 45,3

1394 1395 1396 1397

39,2 34,9 42,8 39,6

È c h i a r o , p e r t a n t o , c h e e s i s t e v a n o delle oscillazioni. T r a il p r e z z o m i n i m o e q u e l l o m a s s i m o v i è u n a d i f f e r e n z a d e l 22,9 % . M e n t r e all'inizio del n o s t r o p e r i o d o i prezzi e r a n o m o d e r a t i , si v e r i f i c a u n r i a l z o v e r s o il 1392-3, seguito d a u n r i b a s s o c h e t e n d e a r i p o r t a r e i prezzi a l livello iniziale. T u t t o s o m m a t o , si p u ò aff e r m a r e che, a l m e n o p e r il g r u p p o q u i analizzato, la s t a b i l i t à d e i prezzi era considerevole. ** *

Quali conclusioni possono essere tratte dai dati che a b b i a m o u t i l i z z a t o e d e s a m i n a t o ? P r i m a di t u t t o , il f a t t o s t e s s o dell'imp o r t a z i o n e di o l t r e 300 schiavi l e v a n t i n i e b a l c a n i c i a Venezia, t r a il 1388 e d il 1398, c o n u n i n v e s t i m e n t o d i o l t r e 12.000 d u c a t i , è d i c o s p i c u a i m p o r t a n z a . E s s o deve c e r t a m e n t e e s s e r e p o s t o i n r e l a z i o n e c o n il r u o l o delle colonie v e n e z i a n e i n L e v a n t e e d e i m e r c a n t i p r o v e n i e n t i d a q u e l l e regioni n e l l a t r a t t a degli schiavi 1 S . I n s e c o n d o luogo, la s t r a g r a n d e p r e v a l e n z a delle g i o v a n i d o n n e i n d i c a l ' i m p i e g o p r e d o m i n a n t e degli schiavi n e l l a s e r v i t ù d o m e stica ed anche nel concubinato, piuttosto che nella m a n o d o p e r a , nell'agricoltura o nei mestieri. Inoltre, l'investimento sostanziale d i c a p i t a l i n e l l a t r a t t a significa che, v e r s o la f i n e del T r e c e n t o , si t r a t t a v a di u n c o m m e r c i o r e d d i t i z i o e d i r i l e v a n t e i n t e r e s s e p e r i Veneti. I n f i n e , la r e l a t i v a s t a b i l i t à dei prezzi degli s c h i a v i a Venezia, c h e a b b i a m o p o t u t o c o n s t a t a r e , s e n z a d u b b i o p e r m e t t e v a u n p i ù a l t o p r o f i t t o s u l l a r i v e n d i t a di p a r t e di q u e s t i schiavi, sia in a l t r e r e g i o n i d ' I t a l i a , sia n e l l ' O c c i d e n t e M e d i t e r r a n e o e d E u r o p e o 16. 15 16

V. nota 2. V. nota 5.

Vili

Italian Creditors in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Balkan Trade, Thirteenth through Fifteenth Centuries

T H E EASTERN SHORE OF THE ADRIATIC SEA a t t r a c t e d

the

atten-

t i o n of m e r c h a n t s f r o m t h e A p e n n i n e p e n i n s u l a l o n g b e f o r e t h e V e n e t i a n s c o n q u e r e d D a l m a t i a f o r t h e first t i m e i n t h e y e a r 1000. H o w e v e r , it was o n l y a f t e r 1204 a n d t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e V e n e t i a n c o l o n i a l e m p i r e i n t h e E a s t t h a t this a r e a b e c a m e p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t f o r V e n i c e , as its m a i n r o u t e f o r t r a d e a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e L e v a n t . O t h e r I t a l i a n s too, especially f r o m s o u t h e r n I t a l y , m a i n t a i n e d c o n s t a n t a n d int e n s e c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e e a s t e r n A d r i a t i c coast. E x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s i n t h e a r e a ' s h i n t e r land soon followed. M i n i n g started in Serbia in the midt h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , i n B o s n i a e a r l y i n t h e f o u r t e e n t h . Silver, copper, iron, a n d lead now b e g a n flowing in large quantities f r o m t h e B a l k a n h i n t e r l a n d t o w a r d t h e W e s t . T h i s flow w e n t primarily through Dubrovnik, whose merchants captured the l i o n ' s s h a r e of B a l k a n m i n i n g p r o f i t s f r o m t h e very b e g i n n i n g ,

Vili

242 thanks to links they h a d established earlier.1 T h e

predomi-

n a n c e of p e o p l e f r o m D u b r o v n i k , R a g u s a n s , i n t h e

Balkan

m i n e r a l t r a d e w a s o n e s o u r c e of t h e city's p r o s p e r i t y i n

the

later M i d d l e Ages. T h e o t h e r was n a v a l trade, for D u b r o v n i k w a s a b l e t o p r o f i t f r o m its e x c e l l e n t p o s i t i o n o n

the

naval r o u t e f r o m Venice toward the Levant a n d the

main Medi-

t e r r a n e a n world at large.

A n d so D u b r o v n i k , a t t h e p o i n t of c o n f l u e n c e b e t w e e n m a r i t i m e a n d c o n t i n e n t a l c o m m e r c e , b e c a m e t h e f o c u s of v a r i e d economic

operations,

in

which,

apart

from

the

Ragusans

themselves, the m a i n participants were Italians, mostly Venetians. As political overlord in D u b r o v n i k a n d D a l m a t i a f r o m 1205 t o 1358, V e n i c e h a d a d i r e c t e c o n o m i c i n t e r e s t i n

the

area. F r o m the mid-thirteenth century on, the rapidly e x p a n d i n g R a g u s a n e c o n o m y n e e d e d ever larger capital for i n v e s t m e n t . N o t surprisingly, credit operations became an i m p o r t a n t part of e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t y i n t h e city. W e c a n f o l l o w t h e d e v e l o p ment

of

earliest notariae

this activity preserved

beginning

volumes

(1282) a n d Diversa

of

with

the

the

1280s, f r o m

important

cancellariae

torical Archives in D u b r o v n i k . F r o m

series

Debita

(1282) i n t h e t h e b e g i n n i n g of

f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y o n , w e c a n a d d t h e Diversa

notariae

the Histhe and

Aptagi. B e t w e e n 1280 a n d 1400 a t o t a l of s l i g h t l y o v e r t w o m i l l i o n V e n e t i a n d u c a t s was l o a n e d in D u b r o v n i k . Of t h e creditors, the R a g u s a n patricians constituted a b o u t two thirds, foreigners c l o s e t o a fifth; t h e r e s t w e r e o t h e r l o c a l p e o p l e . Of t h e t o t a l , f o r e i g n e r s l o a n e d a b o u t 220,000 d u c a t s , a n d of t h e s e 198,000 1. Mihailo J. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni (2 vols. Belgrade 1955-62); Desanka Kovacevic, "Dans la Serbie et la Bosnie médiévales: Les mines d'or et d'argent," Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 15 (1960) 248-58. On Dubrovnik at this time, see Barisa Krekic, Dubrovnik in the 14th and 15th Centuries: A City between East and West (Norman, Okla. 1972).

Vili Italian

Creditors

in Dubrovnik

(Ragusa)

243

\ were loaned by Italians.

2

O n the other hand, a m o n g borrowers

in the same period only about debts a m o u n t e d

to almost

11% were foreigners:

their

137,000 d u c a t s . T h i s m e a n s

foreigners' loans were m o r e t h a n a third larger

that

than

debts. A m o n g the foreign borrowers, the Italians

their

accounted

f o r less t h a n 1 1 % . W i t h l o a n s a m o u n t i n g t o 198,000 d u c a t s a n d d e b t s t o less t h a n 15,000 d u c a t s i n t h i s p e r i o d , t h e I t a l i a n s were primarily lenders, not borrowers, in D u b r o v n i k ' s

financial

transactions. T h e i r credit w e n t p r i m a r i l y to local people, m a i n l y c i a n s , w h o c o n s t i t u t e d a b o u t 9 0 % of t h e b o r r o w e r s .

patriAmong

the foreigners, the largest percentage w e n t to m e r c h a n t s f r o m t h e M o n t e n e g r i a n , D a l m a t i a n , a n d A l b a n i a n coast, f o l l o w e d b y t h o s e f r o m B o s n i a a n d S e r b i a . 3 T h e r e is n o d o u b t

that

m u c h of t h e m o n e y l o a n e d t o l o c a l p e o p l e a n d t o t h e f o r eigners, by b o t h R a g u s a n patricians a n d foreigners, was used This

con-

c l u s i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y n u m e r o u s a r c h i v a l d o c u m e n t s ,

to carry o n

trade with

the

Balkan

hinterland.

from

w h i c h I shall give just a few examples. O n 18 M a y 1335, t h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d V e n e t i a n m e r c h a n t a n d financier

i n D u b r o v n i k , Ç a n i n u s G i o r g i o , r e c e i v e d 200 g o l d e n

ducats f r o m another prominent Venetian, Nicoletto

Quirino.

Ç a n i n u s p r o m i s e d to p a y N i c o l e t t o by m i d - J u n e a n

amount

of S e r b i a n grossi

de cruce

e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e 200 d u c a t s , o r t o

g i v e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g v a l u e i n s i l v e r . 4 I n N o v e m b e r of s a m e y e a r , t h e R a g u s a n M a r i n u s quondam contracted

a debt

of

160 d u c a t s

with

Nicole de Çanino

the

Stillo

Quirino

in

D u b r o v n i k . Stillo was at the time very actively e n g a g e d

in

2. These and subsequent calculations are based on data found in Ignacij Voje, Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku (Sarajevo 1976) and on my own data from research in the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (hereafter HAD). 3. For example, in 1331 the Venetians loaned to Ragusan patricians close to 10,000 ducats; almost 1,500 ducats to merchants from the Montenegrian coast; 600 ducats to non-noble persons from Dubrovnik; and 450 ducats to people from the Balkan hinterland. 4. HAD, Diversa cancellariae, vol. 12, fol. 96v.

Vili 244 trade with Serbia; for example, only two m o n t h s earlier

he

h a d t a k e n m e a s u r e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e g u l a t i o n of a d e b t of 2 7 6 ducats that the Serbian king, Stefan Dusan, owed h i m a n d his c o m p a n i o n J a c h e d e Crossi.5 In

April

1336,

the

Venetian

Stephanus

Çiurano,

pro-

c u r a t o r of a g r o u p of V e n e t i a n m e r c h a n t s , r e c e i v e d f r o m a Ragusan

patrician

"libras X X V I I I ,

oncias V I I I

et

exsagia

I I I I d e a r g e n t o fino c u m a u r o . . . d e N o u a b e r d a . " T h i s s i l v e r m i x e d with gold, b r o u g h t f r o m the most i m p o r t a n t

Balkan

s i l v e r m i n e , w a s w o r t h 240 d u c a t s i n D u b r o v n i k . I t w a s t o b e sent to Venice a n d sold there by a n o t h e r R a g u s a n a l l of t h i s i n p a y m e n t of a d e b t of

1,218 d u c a t s

patricianthat

the

R a g u s a n patrician h a d contracted with Ç i u r a n o in February 1336. 6 I n t h e s a m e m o n t h of A p r i l , a V e n e t i a n m e r c h a n t resident

in Dubrovnik,

long

Franciscus Scarpaçius, received

"ab

i l l u s t r i et serenissimo d o m i n o , d o m i n o rege Rascie et

toto

regnamine

ipsius" a n d f r o m several S e r b i a n n o b l e m e n

the

c o m p l e t e s e t t l e m e n t of d e b t s t h a t t h e y o w e d h i m a n d o n e of h i s a s s o c i a t e s f o r p u r c h a s e s " p a n n o r u m d e l a n a " a n d of o t h e r goods.7

A

similar

statement

of

acquittal

was

issued

in

D e c e m b e r 1338 b y t w o V e n e t i a n m e r c h a n t s i n D u b r o v n i k "excellentissimo

domino

principi,

domino

Stephano,

to Dei

g r a t i a regi Rassie" a n d several n o b l e m e n f r o m Kotor, Ulcinj, and

Dubrovnik

in

the

Serbian

service,

and

to

"omnibus

b a r o n i b u s et h o m i n i b u s dicti r e g n i / ' for all debts i n c u r r e d u p to that time w i t h the two Venetians.8 V e n e t i a n s o b v i o u s l y p l a y e d a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e as c r e d i t o r s in fourteenth century Dubrovnik.

Between

1331 a n d

1339

a l o n e t h e V e n e t i a n s t h e r e e x t e n d e d c r e d i t f o r 118,000 d u c a t s , t h a t is t o say 5 0 % of t h e t o t a l e x t e n d e d f o r t h a t p e r i o d , o r 7 0 % of t h a t a d v a n c e d b y f o r e i g n e r s . T a b l e 1 gives a n a n n u a l 5. HAD, Debita notariae, vol. 2, fols. 60, 62. 6. Ibid., fol. 93. 7. Ibid., fol. 91; Div. canc., vol. 12, fol. 218. Similar declaration in September 1337: Debita, vol. 2, fol. 183. 8. Debita, ibid., fol. 232.

Vili Italian breakdown

of

the

Creditors in Dubrovnik total.

The

(Ragusa)

participation

of

245

some

d i v i d u a l V e n e t i a n m e r c h a n t s in credit o p e r a t i o n s was o u t s t a n d i n g . T h u s F r a n c i s c u s speciarius,

a leading

intruly

Venetian

i n D u b r o v n i k b e t w e e n 1331 a n d 1339, l o a n e d close t o 15,000 d u c a t s , o r 1 2 . 5 % of t h e t o t a l c r e d i t g i v e n b y V e n e t i a n s

in

Dubrovnik during the period.

TABLE

1331

1

1336

11,629 d u c a t s

10,664 d u c a t s

1332

13,065 d u c a t s

1337

2,647 d u c a t s

1333

33,608 d u c a t s

1338

2,937 d u c a t s

1334

15,397 d u c a t s

1339

492 ducats

1335

27,566 d u c a t s

T h e s h a r p d r o p b e t w e e n t h e first a n d s e c o n d h a l f of

the

d e c a d e is i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i c e a b l e . W h i l e t h e c r e d i t a d v a n c e d b y t h e V e n e t i a n s b e t w e e n 1331 a n d 1335 a m o u n t e d t o o v e r 101,000 d u c a t s , t h a t a d v a n c e d b e t w e e n 1336 a n d 1339 h a r d l y r e a c h e d 17,000 d u c a t s . T h e a v e r a g e a n n u a l a m o u n t of c r e d i t i n t h e first five y e a r s w a s o v e r 2 0 , 0 0 0 d u c a t s , w h i l e it f e l l t o less t h a n 4,200 d u c a t s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r y e a r s . T h i s t r e n d corresponds

to a general

decline

in

the

amount

of

credit

transactions in D u b r o v n i k at this time. I t has been suggested t h a t t h e c h a n g e w a s c a u s e d b y t h e crisis i n t h e

Florentine

b a n k i n g companies.9 B u t the F l o r e n t i n e companies—of

which

m o r e shortly—did n o t play a m a j o r role i n t h e R a g u s a n econo m y a n d t h e i r c o l l a p s e c o u l d n o t a f f e c t D u b r o v n i k so d r a m a t ically.10 T h e r e a s o n f o r the decline in credit o p e r a t i o n s s h o u l d be sought elsewhere. T h e Venetians—very m u c h

preoccupied

w i t h developing their trade w i t h faraway Asian regions—may

9. Voje (n. 2 above) 200-01. 10. Barisa Krekic, "Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century," The Medieval City, ed. Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and Abraham L. Udovitch (New Haven and London 1977) 25-41.

Vili

246 simply have been temporarily losing interest in the

nearby

Ragusan and Balkan market. A n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g g r o u p of I t a l i a n s i n D u b r o v n i k i n t h e first h a l f of t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y w e r e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e F l o r e n t i n e b a n k i n g c o m p a n i e s of B a r d i , P e r u z z i , A c c i a i u o l i , a n d B u o n a c c o r s i . T h e B a r d i a r e m e n t i o n e d b e t w e e n 1318 a n d 1 3 3 9 / 4 0 , t h e P e r u z z i f r o m 1318 t o 1334, t h e A c c i a i u o l i f r o m 1318 t o 1333, a n d t h e B u o n a c c o r s i f r o m 1333 t o 1335.

The

P e r u z z i h a d t h e l a r g e s t n u m b e r of a g e n t s , n i n e ; t h e B a r d i h a d five,

the Acciaiuoli four, a n d the Buonaccorsi only one;

t h e l o y a l t i e s of a l l t h e s e m e n

shifted and

d i v i d e d a m o n g several companies. W i t h

were

but

sometimes

one exception,

all

the agents were Florentines, b u t the Florentine companies did u s e R a g u s a n s i n t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t r a n s f e r s of m o n e y f r o m D u b r o v n i k t o V e n i c e . O f t w e n t y - n i n e s u c h cases, twenty-six w e r e h a n d l e d by R a g u s a n patricians, o n e by a local merchant,

and

two by a F l o r e n t i n e

who

was a citizen

D u b r o v n i k . S o m e of t h e s e t r a n s f e r s w e r e m a d e b y a cambii,

of

littera

w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n D u b r o v n i k i n t h e 1320s b u t a t t h a t

t i m e was always used by foreigners or i n transactions b e t w e e n foreigners a n d Ragusans. T h e littera c a m b i i was a m o n g R a g u s a n s themselves in 1368. M o s t of

the money

sent by

first

used

companies

from

11

Florentine

D u b r o v n i k to Venice was a c q u i r e d n o t f r o m credit investments in Dubrovnik but f r o m the companies' commercial operations i n s o u t h e r n I t a l y : D u b r o v n i k s e r v e d m e r e l y as a t r a n s i t p o i n t f o r its t r a n s f e r t o V e n i c e a n d F l o r e n c e . S o m e of it, h o w e v e r , d i d o r i g i n a t e i n F l o r e n t i n e o p e r a t i o n s i n D u b r o v n i k itself, as w e l l as i n K o t o r . B e t w e e n

1323 a n d

1335 t h e

Florentines

t r a n s f e r r e d a t o t a l of 6,200 d u c a t s f r o m o r t h r o u g h D u b r o v n i k to Venice. T h e m a i n r o l e of t h e F l o r e n t i n e c o m p a n i e s i n was

to

provide

cereals

from

southern

Italy,

Dubrovnik

not

credit.12

11. Voje (n. 2 above) 156-59. 12. Krekic (n. 10 above). See also Mirjana Popovic, "Prilog ekonomskoj istoriji Dubrovnika," Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu 5 (1960) 211-15.

Vili Italian

Creditors in Dubrovnik

(Ragusa)

247

N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n d i v i d u a l F l o r e n t i n e s d i d p l a y a m a j o r r o l e as creditors. T h e most i m p o r t a n t a m o n g t h e m was Bencius del B u o n o , f a t h e r of t h e f a m o u s I t a l i a n n o v e l i s t F r a n c o S a c c h e t t i . Bencius

lived

numerous

and

in

Dubrovnik

from

1341. 1 3

1318 u n t i l

far-flung affairs involved

trade

and

His credit

transactions n o t only in D u b r o v n i k b u t also i n s o u t h e r n Italy, Serbia,

Bosnia,

the

Montenegrian

and

Dalmatian

coasts,

Florence, Venice, a n d even C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a n d

Thessalonica.

Credit

of

operations

were

an

important

part

Bencius's

b u s i n e s s : b e t w e e n 1331 a n d 1339 h e g a v e o v e r 16,000 d u c a t s in credit,14 mostly to R a g u s a n

patricians, and

in some

in-

s t a n c e s t o t h e R a g u s a n g o v e r n m e n t itself. B e n c i u s d e l B u o n o w a s u n d o u b t e d l y o n e of t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t

and

respected

m e r c h a n t s in f o u r t e e n t h century D u b r o v n i k , b u t the Florentines

as

a group

cannot

compare

with

the

Venetians

in

R a g u s a n trade a n d credit activity. I n t h e first h a l f of t h e

fifteenth

c e n t u r y a n e w g r o u p of I t a l i a n s

b e c a m e p r o m i n e n t i n t h e city's c r e d i t t r a n s a c t i o n s . T h e s e w e r e Tuscan

merchants

Florence. T h e i r large-scale

artisans

mainly

a p p e a r a n c e is r e l a t e d

textile

d e c a d e of t h e

and

production

fifteenth

in

from

Prato

and

t o t h e b e g i n n i n g s of

Dubrovnik

in

the

second

c e n t u r y . 1 5 T h i s n e w i n d u s t r y a l s o at-

t r a c t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r of S p a n i s h m e r c h a n t s , i m p o r t e r s of w o o l , w h o c e r t a i n l y p l a y e d a r o l e i n c r e d i t o p e r a t i o n s as w e l l — b u t t h a t a s p e c t of t h e i r a c t i v i t y h a s y e t t o b e s t u d i e d in detail.16 T e x t i l e p r o d u c t i o n b e c a m e o n e of t h e m o s t s u c c e s s f u l ent e r p r i s e s i n t h e R a g u s a n e c o n o m y , b e c a u s e it h a d a r e a d y 13. Ignacij Vojc, "Bendo del Buono," Istorijski casopis 18 (1971) 189-99; Krekic (n. 10 above) 37. 14. Voje (n. 2 above) 206. 15. Dragan Roller, Dubrovacki zanati u XV i XVI stoljecu (Zagreb 1951) 5-83. Dusanka Dinic-Knczcvic, "Pctar Palitela, trgovac i suknar u Dubrovniku," Godisnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu 13 (1970) 87-144. 16. Momcilo Spremic, Dubrovnik i Aragonci (1442-1495) (Belgrade 1971) 119-25.

Vili 248 m a d e m a r k e t i n t h e B a l k a n h i n t e r l a n d , a n d its g r o w t h siderably influenced the credit market. ysis of

fifteenth

17

F r o m a partial anal-

century data, I concluded some time ago that

the average loan declined in D u b r o v n i k between 1479

con-

1418

and

(see t a b l e 2). I n m y o p i n i o n , t h i s p a t t e r n r e f l e c t s t h e

paramount

need

for money

in

the initial development

of

t e x t i l e m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d its s u b s e q u e n t d e c l i n e o n c e p r o d u c tion got u n d e r way.18

TABLE

2

1418

192 d u c a t s

1458

1419

198 d u c a t s

1459

89 d u c a t s

1438

180 d u c a t s

1478

65 d u c a t s

1439

120 d u c a t s

1479

63 ducats

112 d u c a t s

A n i n c o m p l e t e s u r v e y of t h e a m o u n t s of c r e d i t g i v e n Dubrovnik

between

1401 a n d

1440 gives a t o t a l of

1,373,000 d u c a t s . If o n e r e c a l l s

that during

in

about

the prior

one

h u n d r e d a n d twenty years the a m o u n t given in credit totaled a l i t t l e o v e r t w o m i l l i o n d u c a t s , it b e c o m e s c l e a r v o l u m e of c r e d i t f o r t h e p e r i o d the data here are only for

fifteen

that

1401-40 h a d d o u b l e d

the (and

y e a r s o u t of f o r t y ! ) . T h i s

m i r r o r s the general increase in e c o n o m i c activity, d u e p r i m a r i l y t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e t e x t i l e p r o d u c t i o n a n d t o t h e c o n t i n u e d g r o w t h of B a l k a n m i n i n g . T u s c a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in this activity was substantial: in only n i n e s e l e c t e d y e a r s b e t w e e n 1418 a n d 1459, t h e T u s c a n s g a v e a t o t a l of 73,900 d u c a t s i n l o a n s . 1 9 T h i s a m o u n t e d t o a b o u t 7 . 5 % of t h e t o t a l c r e d i t a d v a n c e d i n D u b r o v n i k i n t h o s e y e a r s . C l e a r l y , t h e T u s c a n s h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t s h a r e of t h e

Ragusan

17. See Voje (n. 2 above) 259-332. 18. Barila Krekic, "Quelques remarques sur la politique et l'économie de Dubrovnik (Raguse) au XVe siècle," Mélanges en l'honneur de Fernand Braudel (2 vols. Paris 1973) 1: Histoire économique du monde méditerranéen 1450-1650, 314. 19. The total is based on my own research in HAD.

Vili Italian credit

market,

Creditors in Dubrovnik

the

result

of

their

(Ragusa)

prominent

role

249 in

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y . 2 0 Certain Tuscans, like individual Venetians, played an outstanding

role

quondam

as m e r c h a n t s

and

creditors.

Thus,

Georgius

Georgii d o m i n i Guçii de Florentia, w h o lived

in

D u b r o v n i k a t l e a s t f r o m 1418 t o 1428, g a v e a t o t a l of 14,000 ducats

in

credit

in

the

four

years

1418-21

alone,

which

a m o u n t e d t o m o r e t h a n a t h i r d of t h e T u s c a n c r e d i t s i n t h e city. U p o n

his d e a t h

1,350 d u c a t s i n v e s t e d

in D u b r o v n i k in credit

with

in

1428, G e o r g i u s

various

Ragusan

I t a l i a n m e r c h a n t s . 2 1 M a n y of t h e s e t r a n s a c t i o n s w e r e t o prominent

Tuscan

creditor

and finance

trade.22

textile p r o d u c t i o n a n d Balkan h i n t e r l a n d Another

left

in

Dubrovnik

was

Martinus Chierini de Florentia, whose credit operations 1458 a n d

1459 a l o n e a m o u n t e d

17,000 d u c a t s time).

23

(75%

of T u s c a n

t o a t o t a l of s l i g h t l y credits

Chierini must have been

in

a man

t h e city

at

of v a s t

m e a n s ; his activity c o n t i n u e d in D u b r o v n i k a f t e r this

in

over the

financial time,

b u t n o t e n o u g h is k n o w n a b o u t h i m y e t t o h a v e a c o m p l e t e picture. It should be pointed out that m a n y credit transactions

in-

v o l v e d m e r c h a n d i s e , n o t c a s h ; t h a t is, m e r c h a n d i s e w a s o f t e n l o a n e d d i r e c t l y o r a c c e p t e d as p a y m e n t . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y 20. Mirjana Popovic, "La penetrazione dei mercanti Pratesi a Dubrovnik (Ragusa) nella prima metà del XV secolo," Archivio storico italiano 117 (1959) 503-21; BariSa Krekic, "I mercanti e produttori Toscani di panni di lana a Dubrovnik (Ragusa) nella prima metà del Quattrocento," Produzione, commercio e consumo dei panni di lana (Prato and Florence 1976) 707-14. 21. HAD, Testamenta notariae, vol. 11, fols. 178v-180. 22. To give just one example of the contact with the hinterland trade: in 1420 two men, Vlachusa Blasii and Matchus Stiepanouich, borrowed 420 ducats from one Georgius for three months. It was agreed "ut possimus pro die to debito conveniri tam in Ragusio, quam in Bosna et specialiter in Nouaberda et per totam Sclauoniam et Rassiam," after which it was added more briefly, "et per totam Dalmatiam, in Apulea, in Marchia, Venetiis et ubique locorum. . . ." Debita, vol. 13, fol. 199. 23. These calculations are based on archival documents in my possession.

Vili 250 t r u e of B a l k a n m i n e r a l s , a b o v e a l l silver. I t c a n n o t b e stressed e n o u g h h o w i m p o r t a n t B a l k a n m i n i n g , especially silver m i n ing, h a d b e c o m e for D u b r o v n i k ' s life a n d prosperity. mining

had

attained

unprecedented

h i n t e r l a n d d u r i n g t h e first h a l f of t h e

levels

in

fifteenth

the

Silver Balkan

century. Data

c o n c e r n i n g quantities are very limited a n d calculations vary w i d e l y . T h e g r e a t h i s t o r i a n of D u b r o v n i k , J o r j o T a d i c ,

on

t h e b a s i s of t h e b o o k s of a R a g u s a n c o m m e r c i a l c o m p a n y

in

e x i s t e n c e b e t w e e n 1427 a n d 1432, h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h a t 25 t o n s of S e r b i a n a n d B o s n i a n s i l v e r w e r e e x p o r t e d a n n u a l l y t h r o u g h D u b r o v n i k toward the West.24 T h i s very high estimate

has

r e c e n t l y b e e n r e v i s e d b y S i m a C i r k o v i c , of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B e l g r a d e . U s i n g r e c o r d s of t h e R a g u s a n 1422, h e e s t a b l i s h e d

that

m i n t for the

the production

of

silver

year

in

the

B a l k a n s f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r y e a r c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n less t h a n 5.67 t o n s . H o w e v e r , i n v i e w of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a n n u a l p r o d u c t i o n of t h e f a m o u s S e r b i a n m i n e of N o v o B r d o r e a c h e d , its p e a k , a b o u t

9 tons, a n d

the production

of

the

at

biggest

B o s n i a n m i n e , Srebrenica, a t t a i n e d a b o u t 5 - 6 tons, Cirkovic p u t s t h e m i n i m u m o u t p u t of s i l v e r i n S e r b i a a n d B o s n i a i n t h e first h a l f of t h e year.

fifteenth

c e n t u r y a t a n a v e r a g e of 12 t o n s a

25

T o get the proper proportions, one should keep in that

the total E u r o p e a n

production

at

the

time was

mind very

limited. Soetbeer calculated almost a century ago that a total of 4 7 t o n s of s i l v e r w a s p r o d u c e d a n n u a l l y i n C e n t r a l E u r o p e in the late

fifteenth

a n d e a r l y s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s . 2 6 H i s cal-

24. Jorjo Tadic, "Privreda Dubrovnika i srpske zemlje u prvoj polovini XV veka," Zbornik Filosofskog fakulteta u Beogradu 10/1 (1968) 531. 25. Sima Cirkovic, "DubrovaÒka kovnica i proizvodnja srebra u Srbiji 1 Bosni," Is torijski glasnik 1-2 (1976) 91-98. See also Mihailo J. Dinic, Iz dubrovackog arhiva 2 (Belgrade 1963), and idem, "Dubrovacka kovnica u 1422 godini," Istorijski glasnik 1-2 (1976) 81-90. On Novo Brdo, see Vojislav Jovanovié, "Novo Brdo—grad zaista srebrni i zlatni," Obelezja 2 (Pristina 1971) 75-111. 26. Adolf Soetbeer, "Edelmetall-Produktion und Werthverhâltniss zwischen Gold und Silber seit der Entdeckung Amerika's bis zur Gegenwart," in Dr. A. Petermann's Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt Erg. 13 no. 57 (Gotha 1879) 107.

Vili Italian

Creditors in Dubrovnik

culations were later revised u p w a r d

(Ragusa)

by J o h n

251

U. Nef,

who

c o n c l u d e d t h a t silver p r o d u c t i o n " i n B o h e m i a , S a x o n y

and

m o s t of t h e m o u n t a i n o u s d i s t r i c t s p e o p l e d b y t h e

Germans,

Slavs a n d H u n g a r i a n s p r o b a b l y r e a c h e d a l o w p o i n t

during

t h e H u s s i t e w a r s " b u t g r e w i m p r e s s i v e l y a f t e r 1450. 2 7 scheme certainly cannot be applied comparative mention

purposes,

that,

in

however,

Net's

opinion,

This

to B a l k a n m i n i n g .

it m i g h t

be

"around

For

interesting

1450

to

there

was

p r o b a b l y n o t a s i n g l e m i n i n g c e n t e r y i e l d i n g 10,000 m a r k s of s i l v e r a y e a r , " 2 8 t h a t is t o say, a t t h e m o s t 2.80 t o n s . 2 9 O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e p r o d u c t i o n of S r e b r e n i c a i n t h e first h a l f of the

fifteenth

century has been estimated at 5 - 6 tons a n d

that

of N o v o B r d o a t t h e e v e n h i g h e r l e v e l of a b o u t 9 t o n s . T h u s , it is c l e a r t h a t B a l k a n m i n i n g w a s of g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e ,

even

m o r e so if w e a c c e p t N e t ' s a s s u m p t i o n of a d e c l i n e of m i n i n g in C e n t r a l E u r o p e at the time. S u c h a n e v a l u a t i o n c a n b e m a d e n o t only f r o m a local p o i n t of

view—Ragusan,

Serbian,

or

Bosnian—but

also

from

a

b r o a d e r E u r o p e a n , a n d especially Italian, viewpoint. It s h o u l d n o t b e f o r g o t t e n t h a t t h i s w a s a t i m e of crisis i n t h e V e n e t i a n silver t r a d e . A V e n e t i a n d o c u m e n t f r o m

1407 e x p l a i n s

the

situation: C u m a b u n o tempore citra argentum, q u o d t o t u m solebat conduci Venetias, ceperit aliam viam, nec conducatur u t c o n d u c e b a t u r p e r e l a p s u m , e t h o c est q u i a a r g e n t u m n o n n a v i g a t u r ad presens ad partes levantis, p r o u t navigari solebat, q u u m tota Syria v u l t d u c a t o s a u r i et n o n

argentum,

et p r o p t e r hoc deficiunt e m p t o r e s argenti in tali m a n e r i a , quod n o n habet precium aliquod rationabile. 27. John U. Nef, "Silver Production in Central Europe, 1450-1618," Journal of Political Economy 49 (1941) 583-85. 28. Ibid. 586. 29. Calculated in Viennese marks (280.668 grams) and not in Cologne marks (233.855 grams), which would yield only 2.33 tons. On outputs of English and Flemish-Burgundian mints, see John H. Munro, "Bullion Movements and Monetary Contraction in Late-Medieval England and the Low Countries, 1235-1500," to be published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Pre-Modem Monetary History 1200-1750, University of Wisconsin.

Vili 252 A n d so t h e V e n e t i a n g o v e r n m e n t i n t r o d u c e d s p e c i a l m e a s u r e s " u t m e r c a n t i a a r g e n t i r e v e r t a t et fiat V e n e t i i s , u t fieri s o l e b a t per elapsum."30 C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t B a l k a n s i l v e r s h o u l d play a m a j o r role in the Ragusan economy,

including

the

c r e d i t m a r k e t i n D u b r o v n i k . A l t h o u g h — a s s t a t e d b e f o r e — i t is i m p o s s i b l e i n m a n y cases t o d i s c e r n f r o m t h e a r c h i v a l d o c u m e n t s w h e t h e r a l o a n is m a d e i n cash, s i l v e r , o r o t h e r g o o d s , t h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g is t h a t t h e v a l u e of t h e l o a n r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e a n d its r o l e u n a l t e r e d . A s a s i d e - n o t e l e t m e a d u m b r a t e t h e r a t e of d e v a l u a t i o n of t h e R a g u s a n m o n e y b e t w e e n t h e e n d of t h e t h i r t e e n t h a n d t h e e n d of t h e

fifteenth

century. Calculations in credit

t i o n s w e r e m a d e m o s t l y i n R a g u s a n hyperperi ducats

transac-

or in Venetian

(I h a v e , f o r r e a s o n s of c o n v e n i e n c e , c o n v e r t e d a l l cal-

culations into ducats). T h e R a g u s a n h y p e r p e r u s was a n ideal m o n e y of a c c o u n t , h a v i n g

the p e r m a n e n t

value

of

twelve

g r o s s i . 3 1 B y o b s e r v i n g v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e r a t e of e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n d u c a t s a n d g r o s s i i t is p o s s i b l e t o c a l c u l a t e t h e d e v a l u a t i o n r a t e of t h e R a g u s a n h y p e r p e r u s . T a b l e 3 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s devaluation.32 O v e r a p e r i o d of r o u g h l y 220 y e a r s , t h e R a g u s a n m o n e y lost about 70%

of its v a l u e , o r 0 . 3 1 %

annually—a

remarkable

r e c o r d u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e r a t e of d e v a l u a t i o n w a s h i g h e s t b e t w e e n 1350 a n d

1450.

T h i s can, in all p r o b a b i l i t y , b e a t t r i b u t e d to t h e consequences 30. §ime Ljubic, Listine o odnoSajih izmedju Juinoga Slavenstva i Uletalke Republike 5 (Zagreb 1875) 95-96. 31. On Ragusan coins and monetary system in general, see the unsurpassed work by Milan Resetar, Dubrovatka numizmatika (2 vols. Sremski Karlovci 1924-25), especially 1.29-70. 32. This table is based on several sources: ReSetar (n. 31 above) 1.472-73; Vuk Vinaver, "Der venezianische Goldzechin in der Republik Ragusa," Bollettino dell'Istituto di Storia della società e dello stato 4 (1962) 119; Voje (n. 2 above) 224, 230, 237, 247, and table 9; and on numerous data from unpublished archival documents in my possession.

Vili Italian TABLE

Creditors in Dubrovnik

(Ragusa)

253

3

O n e V e n e t i a n d u c a t i n grossi: late 13th-mid-14th cent. = 1351-1360 =

24 gr.

24-26 gr.

1421-1430 =

32-36 gr.

1361-1370 — 27-28 gr.

1431-1440 =

36-42 gr.

1371-1380 =

29-30 gr.

1441-1450 =

35-45 gr.

1381-1390 =

30-32 gr.

1451-1460 =

36-42 gr.

1391-1400 =

30 g r .

1461-1470 =

39-41 gr.

1401-1410 =

30-33 gr.

1471-1480 =

37 g r .

1411-1420 =

30-36 gr.

1481-1490 =

39-40 gr.

1491-1500 =

40 gr.

of t h e B l a c k D e a t h , w h i c h s t r u c k D u b r o v n i k v e r y h a r d , 3 3 a n d later to the d i s r u p t i o n caused in the B a l k a n trade a n d economy by i n t e r n a l p r o b l e m s in the B a l k a n states a n d by the O t t o m a n invasion

and

conquest.34

On

the other

hand,

the

relative

s t a b i l i t y of R a g u s a n m o n e y i n t h e s e c o n d h a l f of t h e f i f t e e n t h to the recovery

and

s t a b i l i z a t i o n of t h e B a l k a n m a r k e t a f t e r t h e O t t o m a n s

century should probably be attributed

con-

s o l i d a t e d t h e i r c o n q u e s t a n d t h e s i t u a t i o n w a s m o r e o r less normalized

as

the

frontier

moved

northward.

Also,

the

d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e t e x t i l e i n d u s t r y i n D u b r o v n i k w a s cert a i n l y a n asset i n s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e l o c a l c u r r e n c y . D u b r o v n i k was a n i m p o r t a n t m a r k e t

for credit

operations,

b o t h for local p e o p l e a n d for foreigners, in the late

Middle

Ages. A m o n g

the foreigners, the Italians held

leading

position, and

among

the Italians

the

the Venetians were

most

33. See Risto Jeremic and Jorjo Tadié, Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika (3 vols. Belgrade 1938-40) 1.66-68; M. D. Grmek, "Quarantâne in Dubrovnik," Ciba Symposium 7 (1959) 30-31; Dusanka Dinic, "Uticaj kuge od 1348. na privrcdu Dubrovnika," Godisnjak Filozofskog fakidteta u Novo m Sadu 5 (1960) 11-33; Vladimir Bazala, Pregled povijesti zdravstvene kulture Dubrovatke Republike (Zagreb 1972) 30-32. 34. Ivan Bozic, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku (Belgrade 1952).

Vili 254 i m p o r t a n t , f o l l o w e d b y t h e F l o r e n t i n e s a n d T u s c a n s i n gene r a l . M o n e y (or goods) i n v e s t e d i n c r e d i t t r a n s a c t i o n s w e r e u s e d chiefly f o r t r a d e i n t h e B a l k a n h i n t e r l a n d or, i n t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y , f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t e x t i l e p r o d u c t i o n in D u b r o v n i k . T h e Italians themselves rarely v e n t u r e d i n t o t h e B a l k a n h i n t e r l a n d ; b u t b e c a u s e of t h e g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e of B a l k a n m i n i n g , especially silver o u t p u t , t h e i r e x t e n s i o n of c r e d i t to R a g u s a n s , w h o d i d go t h e r e , was p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e . W e c a n n o t say precisely w h a t p e r c e n t a g e of I t a l i a n c r e d i t s was i n v e s t e d i n w h i c h activity, n o r w h a t p a r t of t h e B a l k a n t r a d e was financed b y I t a l i a n c r e d i t o r s ; b u t w e c a n say t h a t t h e r o l e of I t a l i a n c a p i t a l i n D u b r o v n i k ' s B a l k a n t r a d e was s u b s t a n t i a l . D u b r o v n i k served as a n essential l i n k i n this case as i n m a n y o t h e r s — b e t w e e n E a s t a n d W e s t f o r t h e i r b e n e f i t a n d its o w n p r o f i t a n d p r o s p e r i t y .

IX

I MERCANTI E PRODUTTORI TOSCANI DI PANNI DI LANA A DUBROVNIK (RAGUSA) NELLA PRIMA METÀ DEL QUATTROCENTO

Nell'iniziare questa mia relazione devo, prima di tutto, ricordare due persone scomparse, il cui contributo in questa sede sarebbe stato di gran lunga superiore al mio. La prima è il mio venerato Maestro, Professor Jorjo Tadic, del quale non c'è bisogno che io faccia l'elogio qui, perchè egli era a voi tutti ben noto. Fu egli, l'anno scorso qui, a darvi un largo quadro del mercato della lana nei Balcani e sarebbe stato lui a parlarvi qui oggi, con la sua grandissima competenza, della produzione e del commercio dei panni di lana a Ragusa e nei Balcani, se il destino crudele non l'avesse tolto a tutti noi nel momento in cui, pieno di vigore e d'entusiasmo, si accingeva - liberato da impegni didattici - a dare nuovi, importanti lavori sulla storia ragusea, balcanica e mediterranea in generale. La sua scomparsa ha lasciato un vuoto incolmabile e - anche se il tema di cui oggi ho l'onore di parlare qui è stato concordato con lui l'anno scorso - io sono lontano dal pensare di poterlo sostituire in qualunque modo. L'altra persona che desidero rammentare è la giovane professoressa dell'Università di Belgrado, Mirjana Popovic-Radenkovic, morta in un tragico incidente a Ragusa nel 1959. Essa aveva iniziato importanti ricerche negli archivi italiani, da Napoli, attraverso la costa orientale italiana, fino a Firenze e proprio a Prato. Il risultato di queste ricerche è stato in gran parte pubblicato in Italia1 ed il suo articolo « La penetrazione dei mercanti pratesi a Dubrovnik nella prima metà del xv sec. »2 è di particolare interesse per il mio rapporto. Sfortunatamente, la prematura morte dell'Autrice le ha impedito di completare le ricerche e di realizzare i suoi vasti piani. Sull'arte della lana in generale a Ragusa poco è stato scritto, nonostante il fatto che molti studiosi, trattando di altri soggetti, abbiano parlato anche di lana e di panni di lana a Ragusa. Ma sono sempre state menzioni di secondaria importanza, inserite in un più vasto quadro di vita economica ragusea. Farò qui, a proposito, i nomi di Kosta Vojnovic, Grga Novak, Ivan Bozic e Dragan Roller.3 Tutti questi lavori, con quelli del Tadié e della Popovic-Radenkovic, contengono molti dati utili per il mio tema d'oggi. D'altra parte, nel preparare questa relazione, ho utilizzato un certo numero di documenti inediti dell'Archivio storico di Ragusa. Malgrado ciò, questa relazione non costituisce uno studio sull'arte della lana a Ragusa e nemmeno un'esposizione completa e definitiva sul ruolo svolto 1 M. POPOVIC-RADENKOVIÓ, Le relazioni commerciali fra Dubrovnik (Ragusa) e la Puglia nel periodo angioino 66-(12 Î442), in «Archivio storico per le province napoletane», N.s., x x x v n , 1957, xxxvm, 1958. 2 «Archivio Storico Italiano», anno 117, 1959, disp. iv, pp. 503-521. 3 K. VOJNOVIC, BratovMne i obrtne korporacije u Republici Dubrovatkoj, i-n, Zagabria, 1900; G. NOVAK, Vunena industria u Dubrovniku do sredine XVI stoljeta, in «Reìetarov zbornik», Dubrovnik, 1931, pp. 99-107; I. Boiió, Ekonomski i druìtveni razvitak Dubrovnika u XIV-XV veku, in «Istoriski glasnik», i, 1949, particolarmente pp. 33-39; D. ROLLER, Dubrovalki zanati u XV i XVI stoljetu, Zagabria, 1951.

IX

dai mercanti e produttori toscani dei panni di lana a Ragusa nella prima metà del Quattrocento. Quello che io cercherò di presentare qui è piuttosto un insieme di cenni, indicazioni e frammenti, sui quali occorrerà continuare l'indagine. Nuove e lunghe ricerche saranno, inoltre, necessarie negli archivi di Ragusa, di Prato e di Firenze per potere, poi, dare un contributo, sia pure modesto, al complesso problema dello sviluppo della produzione e del traffico dei panni di lana a Ragusa. • •

•

A Ragusa esisteva una produzione di panni di lana già nel Trecento, ma di proporzioni modeste, mentre il rifornimento del mercato raguseo, e attraverso esso quello balcanico, dipendeva dall'importazione dei panni, principalmente dall'Italia (Firenze, Mantova, Verona, Piacenza ecc.) e dalla Fiandra (« Ypres»). Però, in seguito allo sviluppo di Ragusa e del suo traffico con le regioni balcaniche - grazie sopratutto alla produzione delle miniere d'argento, rame, ferro e piombo nella Bosnia e nella Serbia - il fabbisogno di panni d'ogni genere, e specialmente di quelli di lana, crebbe moltissimo. Si può dire che a Ragusa, in generale, fu il commercio a stimolare la produzione e questo è vero per la produzione di panni più di ogni altra. Infatti, si sentì la necessità di impiantare una produzione su larga scala in quella città e fu questa la ragione per cui, a partire dal 1416, il governo raguseo cominciò ad invitare in città, concedendo crediti e privilegi vari, alcuni italiani, il cui compito consisteva nell'organizzare la produzione dei panni a Ragusa. Il più importante tra questi fu Pietro Pantella da Piacenza, il quale iniziò la sua attività a Ragusa nel 1418, avendo precedentemente acquisito una considerevole esperienza in materia a Piacenza, dove suo zio aveva introdotto e sviluppato la produzione dei panni.4 Accanto agli operatori economici italiani, tra i quali particolarmente quelli provenienti dall'Italia Settentrionale e Centrale occuparono il primo posto nella produzione e nel commercio dei panni di lana a Ragusa, anche altri stranieri - Tedeschi, Francesi, Ungheresi - si dedicarono a questa attività. Bisogna rilevare, però, che uomini del luogo ed altri provenienti dal retroterra balcanico, si inserirono molto presto ed in gran numero nella nuova e redditizia attività. Questo è vero, innanzi tutto, per il patriziato raguseo, già da lungo tempo organizzato in gruppo chiuso detentore del potere politico nella città. I patrizi ragusei svilupparono spesso le loro imprese in collaborazione con i mercanti e con i produttori italiani della loro città. Su questa strada furono seguiti a poca distanza da altri Ragusei e da gente dei Balcani. Tra gli Italiani, mercanti e produttori di panni di lana a Ragusa nella prima metà del Quattrocento, i Toscani - Fiorentini e Pratesi - occuparono una posizione di particolare preminenza. Naturalmente, mercanti toscani vennero ed operarono a Ragusa molto prima di quest'epoca. Come ha sottolineato la Popovic-Radenkovic: « Il patto di amicizia nel 1169 tra Pisa e Ragusa dimostra chiaramente che questo comune sulla costa adriatica già nei primissimi tempi entrava nella sfera d'interessi dei commercianti toscani ».5 L'afflusso dei Toscani a Ragusa diventò particolarmente intenso dalla fine del Duecento in poi, quando essi arrivarono in quella città, sia direttamente dalla Toscana, via Ancona o Pesaro, sia attraverso le Puglie. Nella prima metà del Trecento esistevano a Ragusa rappresentanti delle grandi case fiorentine dei Bardi, Peruzzi, Acciaiuoli, Buonaccorsi ed altri, i quali, da quella città, disimpegnavano i loro affari con l'Italia Meridionale, con le coste dalmate e montenegrine, con il retroterra balcanico, con Venezia e, attraverso Venezia, con Firenze stessa. La presenza e l'attività dei mercanti toscani a Ragusa nella prima metà 4 I. B o i i é , Ekonomski i druìtveni, etc:, cit., pp. 34-36; D. ROLLER, Dubrovatki zanati, etc., cit., pp. 44-49; M . PoPOVI6-RADBNKOVI<5, Penetrazione, pp. 507, 511-513. 6 Ibidem, p. 503 s.

708

IX MERCANTI E PRODUTTORI TOSCANI DI PANNI DI LANA A DUBROVNIK

del Quattrocento s'inseriva, dunque, in una tradizione, già bene affermata, d'intensi contatti tra il comune adriatico e la Toscana. I Toscani interessati nella produzione e nel commercio dei panni di lana a Ragusa nel periodo in esame erano abbastanza numerosi e le loro attività erano varie e molteplici.6 Bisogna dire qualche parola, prima di tutto, di quelli direttamente interessati nella produzione dei panni a Ragusa. A questo proposito penso che la migliore illustrazione della loro posizione sia fornita da un patto, proposto da Niccolò di Matteo da Prato a nome di Agostino di Biagio da Prato al governo raguseo. Mi sia permesso di citare qui alcuni passi di quel documento : supplica Nicolo de Mathio da Prato humilmente pregando la vostra Signoria che per multiplicare et accrescere l'arte della lana in questa vostra citade, cossi come la vostra Signoria è stata graciosa agli altri che lavoran in la deta arte, cossi ve piazza d'essere ad Augustino de Biasio da Prato in li capitoli infrascripti, li quali capitoli adimanda per anni zinque proximi: Et prima ch'el dicto Augustino sia tractato corno vostro citadino in tuto nell'arte della lana, excepto ch'el non possa mettere in la terra fustagni ni panni forestieri. Et più che il suo quaderno sia creduto contra di quelli com chui luy haverà a fare per la dieta arte fino alla summa de yperperi zinque, zoe yperperi v cum suo sacramento. Et più che a la vostra Signoria piaqua de aiutarlo de yperperi XL-ta l'anno per l'afficto de la chasa, perchè l'arte non se può fare in chasa picola de poco presio. Et più dimande uno terzo de ducato per zaschuno panno el quale luy farà, chomo agli altri è stado facto, siando tenuto il dicto Augustino, a fare il primo anno panni xxxv o più, il segondo XL, il terzo zinquanta, il quarto e lo quinto LX per anno. Et non mancherà dele dicte some in pena de ducato uno per peza ch'el non fazesse, segondo di sopra promette. Reservato sempre iusto impedimento di guerra o mortalitade, le qual cosse Idio guardi. Questo patto fu accettato dal Maggior Consiglio di Ragusa il 18 luglio 1420 con 54 voti favorevoli e soli 7 contrari e furono lasciati tre mesi a Niccolò di Matteo per far venire Agostino a Ragusa. Ma già il 25 agosto, Agostino « regressus de Tuscia », si presentò al notaio raguseo per incominciare il suo lavoro.7 È da notare che la promessa di Agostino di produrre da 35 a 60 pezze all'anno indica un tasso di produttività abbastanza alto, se si tiene conto dei calcoli del Professor Federigo Melis, concernenti i tessitori del Datini. L'attrazione che Ragusa esercitava su mercanti toscani era molto forte ed è facile immaginare perché. I profitti che si potevano trarre dalla produzione e dal traffico dei panni di lana a Ragusa erano alti e rapidi. Il ruolo di Ragusa come intermediaria di primo piano tra i Balcani e l'Occidente - ruolo che Ragusa si era oramai fermamente appropriata - aumentava ancora le possibilità di guadagno. Il Professor Tadic ha calcolato che nella prima metà del xv secolo l'esportazione d'argento balcanico attraverso Ragusa verso l'Occidente raggiungeva la quantità di circa 25 tonnellate, per un valore di oltre 500000 ducati all'anno, mentre l'esportazione di panni di Ragusa verso il retroterra raggiungeva il valore di 250000 ducati all'anno e forse di più.8 Tutto questo era, senza dubbio, ben noto ai -mercanti toscani e doveva agire come uno stimolo per loro a venire e a lavorare in quella città. D'altra parte è interessante citare qui una considerazione di Mirjana Popovic-Radenkovic, concernente i Pratesi a Ragusa: «Esaminando lo stato di fortuna di questi mercanti nei libri del Catasto di Firenze - dice essa - ho potuto constatare che si trattava di persone che possedevano pochissimo terreno e ancor minore capitale circolante. Fra quelli che si stabilirono per un periodo più lungo a Ragusa, quasi nessuno

• Io ho potuto fìn'ora raccogliere oltre ottanta nomi di Toscani presenti a Ragusa: nella prima metà del Quattrocento. È vero che tutti coloro non erano coinvolti nella produzione e nel commercio di panni di lana, ma è altrettanto vero che la maggior parte lo era e che ce ne sono stati certamente altri i cui nomi mancano ancora al mio elenco. 7

HISTORIJSKI ARHIV, DUBROVNIK, Consilium

maius,

n,

35'.

709

IX

possedeva una propria bottega di lanaiuolo a Prato ».e Io non ho avuto la possibilità di verificare queste conclusioni, ma se le accettiamo - e non vedo ragioni per dubitarne - dobbiamo constatare che un gruppo di lanaiuoli e mercanti pratesi di condizioni piuttosto modeste nella loro patria, si trasferì a Ragusa negli anni venti del xv secolo, con la speranza di trovarvi una migliore vita e contribuendo, nello stesso tempo, allo sviluppo della produzione e del commercio dei panni di lana in quella città. Sembra che non si possa dire altrettanto dei Fiorentini che venivano a Ragusa nella stessa epoca. Molti tra questi sembra essere stata gente di considerevoli mezzi finanziari ed alcuni di loro si occupavano del traffico e della produzione dei panni di lana come di una secondaria attività, accanto a molte altre più importanti. Questo problema della varietà e della molteplicità delle attività nelle quali i Toscani, a Ragusa, si trovavano generalmente coinvolti è fra quelli che non facilitano le cose. Per esempio, «Johannes Antonii (Rico) », fiorentino, farmacista a Ragusa per quasi quaranta anni (ca. 1406-1443), si occupava di molte cose, compreso il traffico dei panni di lana.10 Un altro eminente farmacista fiorentino a Ragusa, « Stoldus Ghori ser Michaelis de Rabata» (1419-1438), diventato cittadino raguseo nel 1425, aveva egli pure interessi nel commercio dei panni, ma solo come parte minore dei suoi molteplici affari.11 D'altra parte, quasi tutti i Toscani attivi nella produzione e nel traffico dei panni di lana, erano coinvolti in altri affari, mentre alcuni tra loro occupavano a Ragusa anche posizioni nell'amministrazione del Comune.12 Questo, poi, rientra nel quadro generale dell'epoca, nel quale si vedono Pratesi occupare molte cariche importanti, quali cancellieri e notai, a Ragusa.13 Le relazioni dei mercanti e produttori dei panni di lana toscana con gente locale a Ragusa erano vivissime già dai primi loro passi in quella città. I contatti si stabilivano con ricchi patrizi, mercanti ed imprenditori ragusei e queste relazioni si estendevano poi molto rapidamente anche a gente del retroterra balcanico, sempre numerosissima a Ragusa. La collaborazione tra Toscani e gente del luogo assumeva varie forme: ricchi Ragusei, particolarmente i nobili, agivano da creditori verso i lanaiuoli toscani;14 questi assumevano principianti e lavoratori tra gente del posto e balcanica;15 agivano da creditori verso i Ragusei e gente del retroterra,16 ecc. 8 J. TADIC, Privreda Dubrovnika i srpske zemlje u prvoj polovini XV veka, in « Zbornik Filosofsikog Fakulteta »yx, 1, Belgrado, 1968, p. 527. 9

M . POPOVIÓ-RADENKOVIC, Penetrazione,

cit., p .

506.

10

R . JEREMIÓ-J. TADIÓ, Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika, II, Belgrado, 1939, p. 151. Nel 1440, per esempio, due uomini dovevano consegnare a Richi ed a «Paulus Thomaxii de Camerino ... pannos lane cinquantinos duodecim, bene tinctos de coloribus balle ac bene conductos et laboratos » : HA, DUBROVNIK, Debita notariae, x x , 190-191. 11 R . JEREMIC-J. TADIC, Prilozi za istoriju, etc., cit., n, p. 152; anche HA, DUBROVNIK, Debita notariae, xvi, 7. Nel suo testamento, 1447, Stoldo parla, tra molte altre cose, di « pezias quatuor cum dimidia pannorum de garbo de Florentia ... item pezias xvm pannorum de Flandria, vocatos medii panni ... item duas pezias zetanini avelutati, unam videlicet alessandrinam et alteram viridem ». Queste ultime gli erano state « deprehense et ablate ... super territorio Aquile », ma furono recuperate tramite Giuliano di Giacomo da Firenze: ibidem, Diversa notariae, xxxin, 111-112'. 12

Ibidem, Consilium maius, ni, 33', 147, 196, 223; iv, 50, 54', 155', 213, 302'; v, 54'; ibidem, Diversa notariae,

x x , 52'. 13

Così « Ser Thoma Bartholomei Jacobi de Ringhiadoribus »,Pratese,ifu cancelliere a Ragusa dal 1421 al 1426, mentre « ser Benédictus quondam Mathei de Schieris » lo fu dal 1414 al 1430. Ambedue erano anche importanti mercanti. « Ser Benedictus », tra l'altro, ebbe a Ragusa una compagnia « in arte lane », nella quale aveva investito oltre 1000 ducati. Un terzo notaio pratese, « Hieronymus de Prato », lavorò a Ragusa dal 1438 al 1440. 14

HA, DUBROVNIK, Debita notariae, xx, 194. « Tripchus Andree de Catharo », entrò, nel 1420, per un anno al servizio d'una compagnia formata da Giorgio di Giorgio Guzzi e « Brunoro domini Beneinsignie », Fiorentini, e da « Blasius Thome Talizii », da Lucca, « ad artem tinctorie», etc.; ibidem, xm, 113'; cfr. ibidem, Diversa notariae, xxi, 14; ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, ix, 98-100,145-147. 19 Ibidem, Diversa notariae, xm, 193, 228-229; xiv, 4', 9', 11', 48'-49; ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 9-10, 17, 170, 171'; xv, 91', 93, 94, 102, 247, 297'; xvi, 7, 113'; ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, ix, 97; x, 151-152, 174-175. 16

710

IX MERCANTI E PRODUTTORI TOSCANI DI PANNI DI LANA A DUBROVNIK

Comunque, le forme più importanti della loro collaborazione erano, senza dubbio, le società per la produzione ed il commercio dei panni di lana, nelle quali si trovavano uniti Toscani e Ragusei o altri Slavi.17 Erano queste, sopratutto, associazioni per tingere panni ed i colori più spesso menzionati erano - a parte i panni albi - « panni blaui, rubei, turchini, celestini, azurri ». Al presente stato delle ricerche, non è possibile fare alcuna valutazione del valore dei loro affari, ma sembra che erano imprese di proporzioni piuttosto modeste. Un'altra forma di collaborazione tra lanaiuoli toscani e gente locale era rappresentata da procure ed arbitraggi, che essi esercitavano insieme o reciprocamente.18 Tutto questo contribuiva - nonostante conflitti temporanei - alla stabilizzazione della presenza e delle posizioni dei Toscani a Ragusa e, dall'altra parte, aumentava il ruolo di questa città quale centro di produzione e di traffico dei panni di lana e la sua importanza, anche in questo campo, quale intermediaria tra Est ed Ovest. Bisogna, però, aggiungere che gli affari dei Toscani, lungi dal limitarsi ai contatti con i soli Ragusei e con gente del retroterra balcanico, erano vivissimi anche tra Toscani stessi ed altri Italiani a Ragusa. Tra loro, pure, si ritrovano operazioni di credito,19 compagnie commerciali, anche per affari in Serbia,20 procure,21 arbitraggi,22 ecc. Inoltre, i lanaiuoli ed i mercanti di panni di lana toscani erano a Ragusa in costanti relazioni d'affari con l'altro importante gruppo di stranieri - i Catalani, i quali erano, nell'epoca, i principali fornitori di lana per la produzione ragusea.23 Questi rapporti erano, essi pure, vari: crediti,24 collaborazione nel traffico dei panni;25 ma c'erano, naturalmente, anche qui conflitti d'interessi.2® Mi sia permesso di citare un breve documento del febbraio del 1430 il quale - nonostante che non riguardi direttamente mercanti toscani - dimostra molto bene l'ampiezza di operazioni e di interessi dei mercanti di lana e di panni di lana a Ragusa:

17 Ibidem, Diversa notariae, x n , 261', 316'; x m , 169', 209; xiv, 20-20', 43'', 97; xvi, 43'; x v m , 119. Nel 1448 due patrizi ragusei fecero una società con « Ristoro de Zanobi », Fiorentino, al quale essi dovevano dare « in contanti ducati duxento cinquanta, in ferro ducati cento, metendo a raxon de ducati sexdexe el miaro grosso de Vinexia, e panni quatro de cinquanta a ducati dodexi la peza, et panni tre, zoe 3, de sesanta a ducati disiotto la peza ». Ristoro doveva portare tutto ciò a Taranto, ivi vendere e riportare frumento a Ragusa su due navi: ibidem, x x x m , 61-61*. 18 Ibidem, xvi, 33'; x v m , 119; xrx, 37', 129; x x v n , 30'; x x r x , 184-185; ibidem, Diversa cancellariae, XLVI, 129', 182'; ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, x , 65-65'.

" Il 6 giugno 1418 Giorgio di Giorgio Guzzi mostrò in cancelleria di Ragusa « unam litteram cambii Gasparis de Lechacorno » di 618 ducati. Gasparo aveva ricevuto a Venezia « a d o m i n o Pala de Strozis et sotiis » 60 libre di grossi. Guzzi doveva pagare la s o m m a dal ritratto di panni che Gasparo gli aveva mandato a vendere a Ragusa, ma non avendo venduto questi panni, il Guzzi protestò la lettera : ibidem, Diversa notariae, x n , 234'-235 ; ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 24-24', 313'; x v , 330'; x x , 63. Nel 1433 «Jeronomus Johannis de Florentia» era debitore di 30 ducati ad Amele Cecapesse, uno dei più interessanti mercanti italiani a Ragusa nel Quattrocento. Napoletano, egli lavorò a Ragusa per lo meno dal 1430 al 1454. Tra moltissimi altri affari, egli rappresentava a Ragusa anche Gaspare Bonciani, Fiorentino, il maggior creditore della regina Giovanna II: ibidem, x v , 296; xvi, 40'; C f r . M. PopOvié-RADHNKOVIÉ, Le Relazioni commerciali, etc., cit., n, p. 174; Penetrazione, cit., p. 512. 80

H A , DUBROVNIK, Diversa notariae, x m , 113', 124', 129', 134'; xiv, 54', 148-149; ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 17'.

21

Ibidem, Diversa notariae, xra, 74, 193, 228-229, 244-244'; xiv, 11', 48'-49, 97, 175-175'; xvi, 43', 44, 179'-180; ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 3', 8'; ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, ix, 95-96'. Nel 1426 Francesco di R i d o l f o Lanfranchini de Vinacesis da Prato ricevette da Luca Zecchi, lanaiuolo a Ragusa, Pratese d'origine, tutto ciò che questi aveva raccolto a n o m e di Francesco e soci a Ragusa «et in partibus Sclauonie» per affari avuti insieme «in his partibus Sclauonie»: ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 9, 205-206; ibidem, Consilium maius, iv, 121'. 22

Ibidem, Diversa notariae, x v m , 119, 127', 140-141; x x v n , 3 1 - 3 2 .

23

C f r . D . ROLLER, op. cit., pp. 24-25; CL. CARRÈRE, Barcelone, centre économique à Vépoque des difficultés, 1380-Î462, Parigi-L'Aia, 1967, ha alcuni cenni interessanti su relazioni con Ragusa (i, p. 237; n, pp. 600-607), anche se non ha utilizzato documenti da Ragusa; v. anche J. TADIÓ, Spanija i Dubrovnik, Belgrado, 1932, pp. 10-12. 24

H A , DUBROVNIK, Diversa notariae, x m , 275'; ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 100; x v , 233-247, 297'; xvi, 113'.

26

Ibidem, Diversa cancellariae, XLVI, 253'; ibidem, Diversa notariae, x i x , 253'; ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, ix, 98-100, 145-147. 26

Ibidem, Diversa cancellariae, XLVI, 142, 245'.

711

IX

Ad instantiam Petri Pantelle, ut procuratoris Georgii de Mediolano, lanificis, Venctiis habitantis... (furono sequestrate) ... omnes res et bona, denarii et mercantie quas habcret ser Bernardus Catelanus penes se de bonis Donati Alegreti de Otronto et Sansoni de Lacu de Otranto in manibus dicti ser Bernardi...27 Tra i mercanti ed i produttori di panni di lana a Ragusa, c'erano molti Toscani che in questa città vissero ed operarono per anni e decenni, come pure molte famiglie vi mandarono più d'un membro a lavorare. Per dare qualche esempio: tre fratelli - Francesco, Bartolomeo e Giovanni, figli « Ridolfi (Rodulfi) Lanfranchi de Vinacesis » da Prato ; Luca, Giovanni e Francesco di Giovanni Zecchi, pure da Prato; i fratelli Bernardo e Gabriele, figli di Niccolò di Bernardo della stessa città; i tre fratelli, Michele, Giovanni e Francesco, figli « ser Johannis lanificis », pratesi; Giuliano e Bernardo di Stefano da Prato; i fratelli Niccolò, Francesco, Giacomo, « Bosius » e Tommaso (cancelliere raguseo), figli « Bartholomei Jacobi de Ringhiadoribus », da Prato; Niccolò, Pietro e « Gherius » figli di Stefano « Gherri », pratesi; Bernardo, Antonio e Angelo « de Belfredellis » da Firenze; Giorgio, Matteo ed Antonio, figli di Giorgio Guzzi, da Firenze, ecc.28 Tra le persone, poi, che divennero particolarmente note a Ragusa per la continuità ed il successo del loro lavoro, Mirjana Popovic-Radenkovic ha dato informazioni abbastanza dettagliate sui pratesi Giuliano di Marco e Michele di Giovannino, i cui libri di conti si trovano ora a Prato.29 Io vorrei dire qualche parola su Giorgio di Giorgio Guzzi e Gabriele di Niccolò di Bernardo. Il fiorentino Giorgio Guzzi ha lavorato a Ragusa una decina d'anni, dal 1418 al 1428. Da Ragusa egli manteneva contatti con grossi mercanti fiorentini nella città stessa, a Firenze ed a Venezia. Nella stessa Ragusa era associato con altri Italiani e Slavi per la produzione ed il commercio dei panni di lana. Il Guzzi si occupava, naturalmente, di moltissimi affari, ma in paricolar modo di operazioni di credito é, nella cerchia dei suoi compagni, figuravano anche importanti patrizi e mercanti ragusei e catalani, operanti a Ragusa.30 L'altro Toscano che desidero menzionare visse a Ragusa per lo meno dal 1421 al 1445.31 Infatti, Gabriele di Niccolò di Bernardo, lanaiuolo, originario da Prato, fu procuratore32 e socio in compagnie commerciali « pro arte lane »,33 occupandosi di affari vari,34 ma anch'egli fu particolarmente portato ad attività creditizie verso numerosi lanaiuoli ragusei ed italiani e molta altra gente di Ragusa, di Antibaro e da località del retroterra.36 Se anche, dopo il 1441, Gabriele « Ibidem, 139. Questi nomi sono tratti dai documenti dell'Archivio storico di DUBROVNIK e da M. POPOVIÓ-RADENKOVIC, Penetrazione, cit., pp. 519-520. 29 Ibidem, pp. 508-517, 520. 30 Nel 1420 Guzzi prese per un anno in servizio della compagnia che aveva con Brunoro di Boninsegna da Firenze e Biagio Tagluzzi da Lucca, un Francese, «Johannes Planes alias (?) Beltrame de Nerbona ... ad artem tinctorie»: HA, DUBROVNIK, Debita notariae, xiv, 24-24'; ibidem, Diversa notariae, xm, 113', 116', 124', 129', 134. Del Guzzi e di altri Toscani come creditori a Ragusa mi occuperò in un altro lavoro. Basti dire che qui al momento della sua morte, nel 1428, il Guzzi aveva 1660 ducati dati in credito a vari Ragusei ed Italiani in quella città: ibidem, Testam. notariae, xi, 178-180. 28

31

È morto prima del maggio 1447: ibidem, Diversa notariae, xxvn, 136. Nel 1441 Francesco di Giovanni Zecchi, da Prato, nominò Gabriele suo procuratore. La procura fu fatta « in civitate Ledi ... per Adam de Argenteriys de dieta civitate Lictii, notarium publicum » e confermata dal capitano generale reale e vicario di Lecce: ibidem, Sententiae cancellariae, x, 186'. 33 Ibidem, Debita notariae, xiv, 9 - 1 0 ; ibidem, Diversa notariae, xvm, 127', 140-141. 84 « Ser Baptista quondam Cici Rizi de Gaieta », arrivato a Ragusa su una nave d'Antonio Farone da Gaeta, aveva venduto, nel 1435, a Gabriele « unam dicti Baptiste sclavam empticiam de progenie Russie, etatis annorum circa undecim, nomine Marizam, aliquantulum camusatam, cum naso curto, maxilis latis et oculis nigris, parvis et sufFornatis, sanam oculis, corpore et ceteris suis membris», per 34 ducati: ibidem, xx, 69-70; xxvn, 136. 86 Nel mese di luglio del 1431 egli diede in prestito circa 510 ducati, e nel solo giorno del 30 maggio 1432 imprestò a varie persone circa 345 ducati. Quasi tutti questi crediti erano a breve scadenza, da tre a sei mesi: ibidem, Diversa can32

712

IX MERCANTI E PRODUTTORI TOSCANI DI PANNI DI LANA A DUBROVNIK

ebbe serie difficoltà finanziarie, questo non sembra avere diminuito le sue attività nè il suo prestigio a Ragusa.36 Infatti, già nel 1429 Gabriele era diventato « rationator ad officium salinarie et massarie bladorum »; poi, più tardi, « rationator camere communis », rimanendo in questo ufficio almeno fino al 1445.37 Nel frattempo, nel 1434, Gabriele aveva ottenuto la cittadinanza ragusea,38 segno inequivocabile del suo successo e del suo prestigio nella città di San Biagio. •

•

•

Mirjana Popovic-Radenkovic pensava che si potesse parlare di una colonia di mercanti pratesi a Ragusa, che si sarebbe costituita tra il 1420 e 1422, e la quale avrebbe « cominciato a disperdersi dopo il 1430 ».39 Non avendo studiato sufficientemente il problema, non sono in grado nè di confermare, nè di negare questa opinione, ma dirò che ho riserve a proposito. Il fatto che molti Pratesi venissero a Ragusa, che alcuni di loro occupassero uffici minori nell'amministrazione ragusea, mentre un numero considerevole ebbe un ruolo molto importante nell'economia ragusea, non mi sembra essere, questa, la prova sufficiente dell'esistenza di una vera e propria colonia e - fin'ora almeno - nè la Popovic-Radenkovic, nè altri hanno prodotto prove dell'esistenza d'una tale colonia. Quale era, dunque, l'influenza complessiva della presenza e del ruolo dei Toscani come produttori e mercanti di panni di lana a Ragusa nella prima metà del Quattrocento ? Sfortunatamente, allo stato attuale delle ricerche, non è possibile dare una risposta precisa a questa domanda, nè si possono fare valutazioni comparative con cifre in mano. E vero che alcune cifre sono state avanzate già nel secolo scorso (4000 pezze all'anno), ma esse non sono basate sulle ricerche su materiali del richissimo Archivio storico di Ragusa e, perciò, non si può accettarle, per ora almeno, fino a che ricerche approfondite non le confermino. Quanto ai prezzi, nel periodo tra il 1424 ed il 1449 i panni ragusei « de cinquanta » avevano un valore tra i 12 e 17 ducati la pezza, mentre i panni « de 60 » si agiravano sui 17-18 ducati ciascuno. Altri panni venivano stimati dai 14 ai 16 ducati la pezza. Tornando al problema dei Toscani, si può dire con certezza e senza esagerare, che la loro attività era di grandissima importanza per Ragusa. Tra gli stranieri che parteciparono al primo periodo di sviluppo dell'arte della lana in quella città, i Toscani, come gruppo, occuparono il posto più preminente (come i Catalani lo fecero per il traffico della materia prima - lana). Ma il merito dei Toscani va molto oltre l'organizzazione della loro produzione e del commercio dei panni: essi trasmisero le loro conoscenze tecniche ai Ragusei ed a gente del retroterra balcanico. Questo, come abbiamo già sottolineato, permise una rapidissima penetrazione di gente locale nella nuova industria, il che portò - come una delle conseguenze - ad un aumento d'interesse da parte dei Toscani per altre attività economiche, allargando così il loro ruolo a Ragusa. Lo sviluppo della produzione e del traffico dei panni di lana, però, ebbe per Ragusa, altre conseguenze più vaste.40 Parte dei panni ragusei era consumata per vestimenti ed altri bisogni della cellariae, XLVI, 248'; ibidem, Debita notariae, xv, 24, 40, 97', 98', 100, 102', 215', 216', 216, 219, 238, 296; xvi, 110; x x , 9, 52', 56, 59, 59', 104, 113, 191-191', 192. 38 Gabriele non ebbe difficoltà per trovare eccellenti « plegii », sia tra patrizi ragusei, sia tra eminenti mercanti italiani in città: ibidem, Debita notariae, x x , 179, 189, 191'. 37 Ibidem, Consilium maius, iv, 15, 72,122', 238; v, 17', 49', 51, 116', 150, 162'; ibidem, Diversa notariae, XXVII, 136. 38

Ibidem, Consilium maius, v, 13; M. POPOVIÓ-RADENKOVIC, Penetrazione, cit., p. 520.

39

Ibidem, pp. 517-518, 520. Una di queste fu la costruzione del nuovo acquedotto, lungo 16 chilometri, che portò l'acqua a Ragusa e che - entrato in funzione nel 1438 - fornisce tuttora l'acqua alla città. Un'altra conseguenza f u l'arrivo a Ragusa di sarti stranieri, perfino dalla Savoia, dal Brabante, dalla Bretagna, etc. (per esempio, nel 1421 ; HA, DUBROVNIK, Diversa notariae, xni, 201). 40

713

IX

popolazione nella città stessa. Comunque, data la loro qualità inferiore o mediocre, in un'epoca quando la prosperità generale di Ragusa permetteva ai cittadini di offrirsi vestimenti sempre più lussuosi (come lo dimostrano anche le leggi suntuarie che il governo promulgava senza troppo successo), non c'è dubbio che la consumazione locale non rappresentava nè il principale mercato per i panni ragusei, nè lo stimolo principale per la loro produzione. C'erano altri fattori di mezzo. Infatti, si tratta di un'epoca in cui il sempre più intenso traffico raguseo con i paesi balcanici esigeva ingenti quantità di panni, proprio della qualità prodotta a Ragusa. Questi panni - con altri importati dall'Occidente e con il sale - servivano come principale bene di scambio per le enormi quantità - già menzionate - d'argento e di altri metalli, che i Ragusei esportavano dai Balcani verso l'Occidente. Così, la produzione ed il traffico dei panni di lana divenne un nuovo e fortissimo stimolo per tutta l'economia ragusea del Quattrocento. Ed in questa importantissima attività, i mercanti e produttori toscani occuparono un posto d'onore.

714

X

RAGUSA E GLI ARAGONESI V E R S O L A META' D E L XV S E C O L O

Bisogna, p r i m a di tutto, sottolineare che questa relazione non p r e t e n d e di esaurire l'argomento. P e r farlo, sarebbero occorse ric e r c h e m o l t o p i ù a p p r o f o n d i t e , n o n solo n e i r A r c h i v i o d i S t a t o d i Ragusa, m a anche nei diversi archivi italiani : quel che n o n intend a v a m o f a r e , p e r c h è v ' è g i à u n g i o v a n e s t u d i o s o a B e l g r a d o , il quale prepara u n lavoro su Ragusa ed i Catalani e Aragonesi nel Q u a t t r o c e n t o . 1 II s u o l a v o r o s a r à , s e n z a d u b b i o , u n i m p o r t a n t e c o m p l e m e n t o al l i b r o d e l p r o f . J o r j o T a d i c s u l a S p a g n a e R a g u s a n e l C i n q u e c e n t o , finora l ' u n i c o l a v o r o c h e c o n c e r n e , a l m e n o i n p a r te, il t è m a c h e q u i c ' i n t e r e s s a . 2 L a s c i a m o , d u n q u e , a d a l t r i d i t r a t t a r e n e i l o r o p a r t i c o l a r i i r a p p o r t i t r a R a g u s a e gli A r a g o n e s i . Q u e l lo c h e n o i d e s i d e r i a m o f a r q u i è s o l o d a r e b r e v e m e n t e u n ' i d e a d e l l e relazioni t r a R a g u s a e la s p o n d a o p p o s t a dell'Adriatico al t e m p o del trionfo definitivo degli Aragonesi a Napoli e nell'Italia meridionale. Dopo la cessazione dell'alto dominio veneziano su R a g u s a ed il p a s s a g g i o d e l l a c i t t à s o t t o l a p r o t e z i o n e u n g h e r e s e , n e l 1358, l o sviluppo di R a g u s a f u n o t e v o l m e n t e accelerato. Il p e r i o d o v e n e t o era u n periodo di f o r m a z i o n e ed o r a questi processi f o r m a t i v i term i n a t i c o m i n c i a v a n o a d a r e i l o r o r i s u l t a t i . L a c i t t à a v e v a u n gov e r n o s t a b i l e , e s e r c i t a t o d a l p a t r i z i a t o locale, c h e a v e v a g i à p r i m a p r e s o il m o n o p o l i o d e l p o t e r e p o l i t i c o t r a l e p r o p r i e m a n i . D a l p u n t o di vista economico, la liberazione d a l d o m i n i o v e n e t o perm i s e a R a g u s a d i v o l g e r s i p i ù a t t i v a m e n t e v e r s o il c o m m e r c i o m a r i t t i m o nel quale, ora, i Ragusei p o t e v a n o investire l a r g h e

1 E' Moncilo Spremic', assistente del prof. Ivan Bozic', nella Facoltà di Lettere dell'Università di Belgrado. 2 J . TADIC', Spanija i Dubrovnik u XVI veku (La Spagna e Ragusa nel XVI secolo), Beograd 1932.

X 206 s o m m e d i denaro, g u a d a g n a t e nei loro traffici con i Balcani. R a g u s a e n t r ò , così, n e l Q u a t t r o c e n t o c o m e u n a c i t t à e c o n o m i c a m e n t e prospera e politicamente stabile, e nel Q u a t t r o e Cinquecento la sua prosperità crebbe ancora. F u quella la sua epoca d'oro. Il c o m m e r c i o d i t r a n s i t o t r a i B a l c a n i e l ' O c c i d e n t e a t r a v e r so d i e s s a — n o n o s t a n t e l a c r e s c e n t e m i n a c c i a t u r c a — c o n t i n u ò vivissimo. L e g r a n d i m i n i e r e d ' a r g e n t o di N o v o B r d o in Serbia e di S r e b r e n i c a in Bosnia, e m o l t e m i n i e r e minori, p r o d u c e v a n o f o r t i s s i m e q u a n t i t à d ' a r g e n t o e d i R a g u s e i e r a n o i p r i n c i p a l i imp r e n d i t o r i e i n t e r m e d i a r i in queste attività, n a t u r a l m e n t e , profittandone moltissimo. D ' a l t r a p a r t e , a R a g u s a stessa u n nuovo, i m p o r t a n t i s s i m o mes t i e r e r i c e v e t t e u n o s l a n c i o e c c e z i o n a l e n e l s u o s v i l u p p o t r a il 1420 e il 1430: e f u l a p r o d u z i o n e d e i t e s s u t i . E s s i e r a n o il p r i n cipale articolo d'esportazione verso i Balcani, ed u n italiano, Piet r o Pantella, sviluppò q u e s t a produzione i n u n modo n u o v o e mod e r n o , c o n o t t i m i r i s u l t a t i p e r la città. F i n a l m e n t e , sul m a r e il t r a f fico v e r s o i d i v e r s i p o r t i d e l M e d i t e r r a n e o , d a C o s t a n t i n o p o l i e A l e s s a n d r i a fino a M a r s i g l i a e B a r c e l l o n a , d i v e n i v a s e m p r e p i ù v i v o . Ma, n a t u r a l m e n t e , i porti italiani e r a n o quelli con i quali i Ragusei c o m u n i c a v a n o d i p i ù e n e i q u a l i e f f e t t u a v a n o la p i ù g r a n p a r t e d e i loro affari. Q u a l e e r a , o r a , l a p o s i z i o n e d e l l ' I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a l e in t u t t a questa attività? L a parte più interessante e più frequentata dai R a g u s e i e r a , c e r t a m e n t e , la P u g l i a , m a le r e l a z i o n i c o n le a l t r e p a r t i d e l l ' I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a l e e con l a Sicilia e r a n o , p u r e , v i v e . Q u e sta f u la situazione nell'epoca angioina e continuò ad essere nell'ep o c a a r a g o n e s e . B i s o g n a p e r ò d i r e c h e l e r e l a z i o n i c o n gli A r a g o n e s i e r a n o p e r i R a g u s e i s p e s s o a b b a s t a n z a difficili. L a r a g i o n e n e f u il f a t t o , c h e gli A r a g o n e s i (e C a t a l a n i ) n o n e r a n o s o l t a n t o m e r canti e guerrieri, m a m o l t e volte anche pirati, e m o l t e navi rag u s e e n e l l a p r i m a m e t à del Q u a t t r o c e n t o ebbero a soffrirne. Ci s i a p e r m e s s o d i a d d u r r e q u a l c h e e s e m p i o : n e l 1426 la g a l e r a c a t a l a n a d i ' P e t r u s I m p a s t o i , di V a l e n z a , si e r a i m p a d r o n i t a della g r a n d e n a v e r a g u s e a del capitano Kisilicic e di altre navi rag u s e e m i n o r i c h e t r a s p o r t a v a n o il g r a n o d a l l a R o m a n i a ( G r e c i a ) a R a g u s a . 3 N e l l o s t e s s o a n n o ' J o h a n n e s F i l i n g e r i u s ' di S i r a c u s a ,

3 1961,

B . KREKIC',

reg. nn.

Dubrovnik (Ragusei et le Levant au Moyen Age, Paris

733, 739.

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

207

p a d r o n e di u n a galera a r m a t a del R e d'Aragona, attaccò u n nave r a g u s e a a C o r f ù , n e a s p o r t ò b e n i p e r 900 d u c a t i e c o n d u s s e con sè q u a t t r o m a r i n a i , c i t t a d i n i ragusei. A n u l l a v a l s e l ' i n t e r v e n t o d e l R e d ' U n g h e r i a e a n c o r a n e l 1429, in u n a l e t t e r a del governo- r a g u seo ai p r o p r i a m b a s c i a t o r i i n Sicilia e C a t a l o g n a , si c o n s t a t a c h e n o n si è f a t t o n i e n t e n e l caso ' F i l i n g e r i u s ' . 4 A l t r i simili a t t a c c h i di c o r s a r i d a S i r a c u s a (1431), 5 B a r c e l l o n a (1436), 6 ecc. s o n o f r e q u e n t e m e n t e r e g i s t r a t i negli a t t i d e l l ' A r c h i v i o di S t a t o di R a g u s a . Il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o t e n t a v a in d i v e r s i m o d i di c o n t r o b a t t e r e l ' a t t i v i t à d e i c o r s a r i siciliani e c a t a l a n i : o t t e n e n d o s a l v a c o n d o t t i d a l R e a r a g o n e s e , dei q u a l i poi m u n i v a le n a v i r a g u s e e c h e n a v i g a v a n o i n I t a l i a Meridionale, in Sicilia e g e n e r a l m e n t e n e l Med i t e r r a n e o ; 7 v i e t a n d o alle n a v i di p a r t i r e , p e r t i m o r e d e i pirati, 8 ed a n c h e m i n a c c i a n d o d i r a p p r e s a g l i a i m e r c a n t i siciliani e c a t a l a n i a R a g u s a . U n caso del 1435 è p a r t i c o l a r m e n t e significativo dell'atteggiamento raguseo. I Catalani avevano saccheggiato a C o r f ù u n a n a v e r a g u s e a e f u p r o p o s t o al S e n a t o d i R a g u s a di u s a r e r a p p r e saglie c o n t r o i m e r c a n t i siciliani e c a t a l a n i n e l l a città. Il S e n a t o , p e r ò , a u t o r i z z ò il R e t t o r e ed il M i n o r Consiglio s o l t a n t o a c o n v o c a r e i C a t a l a n i d i R a g u s a e quelli c h e si t r o v a v a n o s u l l e loro n a v i n e l p o r t o e a d e s p o r r e l o r o la situazione, l a g n a n d o s i d e l l ' a c c a d u t o . 9 V e d r e m o p i ù t a r d i c h e R a g u s a a v e v a b u o n e r a g i o n i p e r n o n all o n t a n a r e q u e s t i m e r c a n t i dalla c i t t à e f f e t t u a n d o r a p p r e s a g l i e cont r o di loro. E f f e t t i v a m e n t e , n o n o s t a n t e t u t t e q u e s t e difficoltà, le relazion i t r a R a g u s a ed il R e g n o A r a g o n e s e p r i m a d e l 1440 e r a n o v i v a c i e i m p o r t a n t i . I c o n t a t t i c o n il R e si m a n t e n e v a n o p e r m e z z o d i a m b a s c i a t e r a g u s e e c h e si r e c a v a n o d a lui, 1 0 m a nello stesso t e m p o R a g u s a m a n t e n e v a r a p p o r t i con d i v e r s e città, s o p r a t u t t o siciliane, p r i n c i p a l m e n t e p e r m e z z o di c o n t a t t i d i r e t t i t r a m e r c a n t i . I R a g u s e i si r e c a v a n o i n Sicilia, a Messina, S i r a c u s a ed in a l t r e località, m e n t r e g e n t e d a q u e l l e p a r t i e d a l l ' I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a l e v e n i v a a

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Id., Id., Id., Id., Id., Id., Id.,

reg. nn. 738, 739, 168. reg. n. 791. reg. n. 882. reg. nn. 764. 861. reg. n. 765. reg. n. 849. reg. n. 768.

208 R a g u s a e v i l a v o r a v a . 1 1 T r a q u e s t i si d i s t i n s e i n m o d o p a r t i c o l a r e O n o f r i o d i G i o r d a n o d e l a C a v a , v i c i n o N a p o l i , il q u a l e , t r a il 1436 e d il 1443, c o n c o l l a b o r a t o r i i t a l i a n i e locali, c o s t r u ì il g r a n d e a c q u e d o t t o di Ragusa, con d u e belle f o n t a n e che f u n z i o n a n o anc o r o g g i . I n o l t r e , egli c o l l a b o r ò ai l a v o r i di c o s t r u z i o n e d e l p a l a z z o dei rettori e di altri edifìci.12 Uno tra i più importanti mercanti che v e n n e dall'Italia meridionale a R a g u s a in questo periodo f u senz a d u b b i o A n i e l C e c a p e s s e , di N a p o l i , il q u a l e l a v o r ò a R a g u s a d a l 1435 ( e f o r s e p r i m a ) fino al 1454, e m o r ì , p r o b a b i l m e n t e , p u r e a Ragusa. Fondatore d e p o r t a n t i compagnie commerciali, partecip a n t e in m o l t e altre, Cecapesse f u spesso incaricato d a l governo r a g u s e o d i m i s s i o n i d i p l o m a t i c h e m o l t o i m p o r t a n t i sia i n I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a l e , sia n e l L e v a n t e . 13 Q u e s t i e d a l t r i u o m i n i , c h e v e n i v a n o a R a g u s a e spesso vi trascorrevano anni e decenni, p r i m a e d o p o il t r i o n f o a r a g o n e s e a N a p o l i , c o n t r i b u i r o n o m o l t o a l r a f f o r z a m e n t o delle relazioni tra Ragusa e l'opposta sponda. D a l 1440 i n p o i la s i t u a z i o n e n o n s u b ì c a m b i a m e n t i n o t e v o l i . G i à n e l 1441 l a « c o m u n i t a s S i r a c u s a r u m » o f f r ì « p r i v i l e g i o s f r a n c h i c i a r u m » ai m e r c a n t i r a g u s e i . I c a u t i R a g u s e i d e c i s e r o , p e r ò , d ' a s p e t t a r e a p r e n d e r e u n a d e c i s i o n e e di e s a m i n a r e « c u m d i l i g e n t i a » l ' o f f e r t a . 14 S e n o n c h è , d u e a n n i p i ù tardi, v e d i a m o che i R a gusei avevano ottenuto u n a «sententia franchationis d o h a n a r u m i l l a r u m » a S i r a c u s a . 1 5 D ' a l t r a p a r t e , n e l m a g g i o d e l 1441 i R a g u -

11

Id., reg. n. 890, 893, 895, 905 ecc. Tadic, o.c., 13.

12

R. JEREMIC'-J. TADIC', Prilozi za istoriju

zdravstvene

kulture

sta•

rog Dubrovnika (Contributi per la storia della sanità nella vecchia Ragusa), t. I, Beograd 1938, 38-42; t. Ili, Beograd 1940, 11-22. V. pure J. TADIC', Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku (Il traffico dei viaggiatori nella vecchia Ragusa), Dubrovnik 1939, 81. Un'altra interessante personalità della stessa epoca fu «magister Jacobus de Prothonotariis, miles et medicine doctor de Messina», il quale lavorò a Ragusa qualche mese nel 1437, poi andò in Serbia dove morì nel 1439. Il suo procuratore, « f rater Nicolaus de Latina, ordinis carmilitarum de Mesana », ricevette a Ragusa i beni di Giacomo, tra i quali tredici libri, «unum quatternum cum aliquibus panellis auri», diversi «ferri medicorum» ed altre cose. JEREMIC'-TADIC', op. cit., t. II, Beograd 1939, 32; t. Ill, 211-12. 13

KREKIC',

op.

cit.,

reg.

n.

949,

852,

886,

921,

928,

954,

982,

994,

1047, 1148-1150, 1155, 1160, 1164, 1168, 1178;; 1189a, 1292, 1300. 14 Archivio di Stato di Ragusa (Drzavni arhiv u Dubrovniku: DAD), Consilium rogatorum Vili, 7'. 15 Id., 157.

Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

209

sei i n v i a r o n o P i e t r o P a n t e l l a in P u g l i a con l ' o r d i n e di t r o v a r e e di m a n d a r e a R a g u s a c e n t o soldati che d o v e v a n o r i n f o r z a r e l a difes a di R a g u s a c o n t r o i T u r c h i . 1 6 P a n t e l l a d o v e v a r e c a r s i a B a r l e t t a , T r a n i e n e l l ' i n t e r n o ed e r a m u n i t o di l e t t e r e del g o v e r n o R a g u s e o « alla M a i e s t à d e R e d ' A r a g o n , allo P r i n c i p o d e T a r a n t o , a m i s s e r P i c i o P e l a c h a n e t a d a l t r e c o m m u n i t a d e ». Il g e n e r e di relazioni t r a R a g u s a e le v a r i e a u t o r i t à a r a g o nesi n e l l e c i t t à d e l l a P u g l i a si r i l e v a m o l t o b e n e d a u n a l e t t e r a dir e t t a il 12 l u g l i o 1441 dal g o v e r n o r a g u s e o allo « s t r e n u o e t gener o s o militi, d o m i n o L a n d u l f o M a r a m a l d o de Neapoli, r e g i o v i c e r e g e n t i e t m a g i s t r o p o r t u l a n o tocius A p u l e e ». I R a g u s e i dicono d i a v e r r i c e v u t o la s u a l e t t e r a , n e l l a q u a l e a v e v a m e n z i o n a t o « la i n t e n t a n e d e li b o n i t r a c t a m e n t i e f a v o r i c h e diceti la M a i e s t à d e R e d e Ragone vele che faiati verso i nostri mercadanti ragusei in quelle soe p r o v i n c i e ». Q u e s t e b u o n e disposizioni d e l R e v e r s o R a g u s a n o n s o n o u n a n o v i t à , d i c o n o i Ragusei, « conzosia c h e s e m p r e p e r soa b e n i g n i t a d e e g r a t i a s o p r a a l t r e n a t i o n e con b o n i e f f e c t i e b e nefìci d ' a m o r e n e a b b i a g e n e r o s a m e n t e a m a d i e f a v o r i z a d i , n o y e li n o s t r i m e r c a d a n t i ». R a g u s a n e è felicissima e r i s p e t t a il R e d ' A r a g o n a s u b i t o d o p o il s u o signore, il R e d ' U n g h e r i a . R a g u s a n o n m a n c h e r à d i m o s t r a r e lo stesso zelo p e r il R e d ' A r a g o n a , c h e q u e s t i m o s t r a p e r R a g u s a . M a poi v i e n e la c o n c l u s i o n e : « Apresso, p e r c h è n e la u l t i m a p a r t e e c o n c l u x i o n e c h e fate... c h e n o n d e b i a n o (cioè i R a g u s e i ) c a r i c a r e g r a n i , orzi n e l e g u m i d a P o g l i g l a n o a B a r l e t t a s e n z a v o s t r o special c o m a n d a m e n t o c o m e m a i s t r o p o r t o l a n o », il g o v e r n o di R a g u s a si m e r a v i g l i a m o l t o di questo, p e r c h è — d i c e — il p o r t o l a n o d e v e s a p e r e « di q u a n t e f r a n c h i c i e , g r a t i e e i m m u n i t a d e s i a m o e x e m p t i e p r i v i l e g i a t i d a la p r e f a t a ( M a i e s t à ) d e R e d e R a gon ». 18 L a p r e o c c u p a z i o n e d e i R a g u s e i p e r il l i b e r o t r a f f i c o del g r a n o , c h e si m a n i f e s t a in q u e s t a l e t t e r a , si c o m p r e n d e m o l t o b e n e se si t i e n e c o n t o d e l f a t t o che la P u g l i a e r a la p i ù r i c c a r e g i o n e r e l a t i v a m e n t e vicina, d o v e i R a g u s e i p o t e v a n o t r o v a r e q u e l l ' a r t i c o l o essenziale, c h e la l o r o p r o p r i a , p o v e r i s s i m a , t e r r a , n o n p r o d u c e v a . D a

16 DAD, Litterae Levantis XIII, 26-27. I. Bozic', Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku (Dubrovnik e la Turchia nei secoli XIV e XV), Beograd 1952, 88. 17 DAD, Litt. Lev., ibid. 18 Id., 30'-31.

X 210 q u i a n c h e l ' i n t e r e s s e di R a g u s a a m a n t e n e r e b u o n i r a p p o r t i con i v a r i p o r t i pugliesi. N e l s e t t e m b r e d e l 1441 i R a g u s e i n o m i n a r o n o l'« e g r e g i u s e t nobilis v i r T h o m a s i u s T a d e i d e B a r u l e t o » loro console a B a r l e t t a . 19 U n c e r t o « J o h a n n e s d e F l o r i o » f u d a l 1442 al 1447 (e f o r s e a n c h e p i ù a l u n g o ) console r a g u s e o a M a n f r e d o n i a 2 0 e d il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o f e c e il possibile p e r a v e r e i f a v o r i d e l « d o m i n u s V i c t o r d e R a u g o n i b u s , m i l e s e t l o c u m t e n e n s illustris comitis F r a n c i s c i i n M a n f r e d o n i a » . 21 A S i r a c u s a n e l 1442 e n e l 1443 il c o n s o l e r a g u s e o e r a « d o m i n u s A n t o n i u s B e l l o m o », al q u a l e i Ragusei, n e l g e n n a i o del 1442, d i e d e r o n o t i z i a d e l n a u f r a g i o « in loco v o c a t o L o s c h o g l i o » di u n a l o r o n a v e c h e p o r t a v a il d e n a r o d e l c o m u n e di R a g u s a in Sicilia ( p r o b a b i l m e n t e p e r l ' a c q u i s t o di g r a no), e s u l l a q u a l e c ' e r a n o , p u r e , b e n i « S t a x i i A l e x a n d r i n i de Mess a n a ». Il d e n a r o e d i b e n i sono stati salvati « m i r a p r o b i t a t e » dei m a r i n a i . 2 2 S u l l o stesso a r g o m e n t o i « c o n s u l e s c a u s a r u m c i v i l i u m Ragusii» scrissero a «ser G a b r i e l i de S a n t a C h a t e r i n a in O t r a n t o » . 23 M e n t r e così v e d i a m o i consoli r a g u s e i o p e r a r e a B a r l e t t a , M a n f r e d o n i a , S i r a c u s a e, forse, O t r a n t o , bisogna n o t a r e che, d a l l ' a l t r a p a r t e , u n g e n t i l u o m o r a g u s e o , m o l t o d i s t i n t o p e r le s u e q u a l i t à int e l e t t u a l i , p e r la s u a e s p e r i e n z a politica e p e r la s u a a b i l i t à m i l i t a r e , s e r Z u p a n u s d e B o n a ( Z u p a n B u n i c ) e r a console d e i C a t a l a ni a Ragusa. 24 Questo f a t t o non è sorprendente d a t a l'importanza della p r e s e n z a dei C a t a l a n i a R a g u s a n e l q u i n t o d e c e n n i o d e l Q u a t t r o c e n t o e d e l l a l o r o a t t i v i t à c o m m e r c i a l e nella v i t a d e l l a c i t t à . T r a questi, a p a r t e i già m e n z i o n a t i O n o f r i o della C a v a e A n i e l Cecapesse, b i s o g n a c i t a r e « J o h a n n e s E x p a r t i e r i , S p a r t i e r i , S p a r t i e r , m e r c a t o r c a t e l l a n u s d e c i v i t a t e S y r a c u s a r u m de A r a g o n i a », le cui a t t i v i t à c o m m e r c i a l i f u r o n o v a s t e e d i m p o r t a n t i p e r d e c e n n i ed il q u a l e f u a n c h e console c a t a l a n o a R a g u s a . M a c'erano, p u r e , a l t r i m e r c a n t i di B a r c e l l o n a , V a l e n z a , S a r a g o z a , d e l l a Sicilia, ecc. 25

19

Id.,

42'-43.

Id., 6 9 . 21 Id., 62. 22 Id., 63. 23 Id., 285. 24 DAD, Cons. rog. VIII, 131. Anche prima del Bona c'erano altri consoli aragonesi e catalani a Ragusa. Si dovrà ora correggere, però l'affermazione del TADIC', Spanija, 11, che dopo il 1 4 2 2 soltanto mercanti catalani furono consoli a Ragusa. 20

25

KREKIC', o p . c i t . , r e g . n n . 1087, 1115, 1133, 1243, 1245, 1258, 1329 e c c .

Lo Spartier morì nel 1470, probabilmente, e nell'inventario dei suoi beni

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

211

L a m i g l i o r e spiegazione d e l l ' i m p o r t a n z a d e i m e r c a n t i aragonesi e catalani a Ragusa è fornita da u n a commissione che i Ragusei s c r i s s e r o ad u n l o r o a m b a s c i a t o r e a G e n o v a il 21 m a g g i o 1442, d o v ' è d e t t o , t r a l ' a l t r o : « Z a s c h a d u n a n a v e e l e g n o di C a t e l l a n i a v e v a s a l v o c o n d u t o d e l l a S i g n o r i a de R a g u s a d e p o s s e r a r i v a r e e s p e d o n a r e p e r t u t t i li p o r t i d e l a S i g n o r i a d e R a g u s a , l o q u a l salvoc o n d u t o a l l o r f o d a t o et c o n c e d u t o p e r lo p o r t a r e t c o n d u r e delle l a n e c h e f a n o alla z i t a d e n o s t r a , la q u a l e n e r e z e v e g r a n c o m o d o e t u t i l e p e r lo e x e r c i t i o e t a r t e g r a n d e della l a n a c h e s e f a n e l l a z i t a d e n o s t r a . L o q u a l s a l v o c o n d u t o se n o n fosse... alguna... n a v e delli C a t e l l a n i n o n o l s e r a v e d e s p e d o n a r n e a r i v a r i n a l g u n delli p o r t i nostri, p e r h o c h e s e r i a n o s o s t e g n u t e e t f a t e r e p r e s a l i e p e r cason delli g r a n d i d a n n i c h e n e a n n o f a t t o et c h e alla z o r n a t a n e f a n o le g a l e e e f u s t e lor ». 26 E, i n v e r i t à , gli a t t i di p i r a t e r i a delle n a v i a r a g o n e s i e c a t a l a n e c o n t r o i R a g u s e i c o n t i n u a v a n o . N e l g e n n a i o del 1443 i R a g u s e i f u r o n o c o s t r e t t i p e r u n b r e v e p e r i o d o a s o s p e n d e r e i v i a g g i d e l l e loro n a v i v e r s o V e n e z i a a c a u s a d e l p e r i c o l o di c o r s a r i n e l l ' A d r i a t i c o . V o l e v a n o m a n d a r e u n ' a m b a s c i a t a p r e s s o il R e d ' A r a g o n a , m a n o n lo f e c e r o . 27 P e r ò , n e l l ' a p r i l e dello stesso a n n o , q u a n d o u n a n a v e r a gusea, p r o v e n i e n t e d a V e n e z i a , f u s a c c h e g g i a t a d a u n b r i g a n t i n o d i V i e s t e , il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o decise, p r i m a , di m a n d a r e u n prop r i o r a p p r e s e n t a n t e a Vieste, e poi d i a r m a r e u n a « g a l e o t a » di 35 b a n c h i . L ' e s e c u z i o n e d i q u e s t a decisione f u , c o m u n q u e , r i m a n d a t a « u s q u e a d p r i m a n o v a q u e h a b e b u n t u r ex A p u l l e a ». 2 8 S e n o n c h è le n u o v e d a l l a P u g l i a n o n e r a n o b u o n e . U n p ò p i ù t a r d i i b e n i d i u n g e n t i l u o m o r a g u s e o f u r o n o p r e s i a M a n f r e d o n i a e d all o r a f u p r o p o s t o al S e n a t o r a g u s e o d i u s a r e r a p p r e s a g l i e c o n t r o i m e r c a n t i d i M a n f r e d o n i a a R a g u s a . F i n a l m e n t e , t u t t o finì c o n l a

si trovarono, fra le altre cose, tre quadri («anchone»). J . TADIC', Gradia o slikarskoj skoli u Dubrovniku XIII-XVI veha (Materiali sula scuola di pittura a Ragusa dal XIII al XVI secolo), t. I, Beograd 1952, n° 709. — Nel 1442 «magister Simon de Neapoli, medicus» venne a Ragusa, ma probabilmente non fu preso a servizio da quella città, mentre dal 1444 al 1450 lavorò a Ragusa <magister Nicholaus de Ansalo ne de Cathania, artium et medicine doctor et miles». JEREMIC', op. cit., t. II, 3 3 , 3 4 . 26 DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, 77-81. Cf. D. ROLLER, Dubrovacki zanati u XV i XVI stoljeóu (Le arti a Ragusa nel XV e XVI secolo), Zagreb 1951, 23-24. 27 DAD, Cons. rog. Vili, 190-190', 191', 195. 28 Id., 211'-212', 214'.

212 d e c i s i o n e di c o n v o c a r e q u e i m e r c a n t i e di e s p o r r e l o r o le d o g l i a n z e c o n t r o M a n f r e d o n i a , m a a n c h e q u e s t o f u r i m a n d a t o . 29 L a p r o v e r biale cautela dei Ragusei impedì l'attuazione di u n a politica più energica. U n a v o l t a a n c ó r a i R a g u s e i si v o l s e r o alla d i p l o m a z i a p e r t r o v a r e soluzioni al p r o b l e m a d e i p i r a t i aragonesi. E r a q u e s t o u n m o m e n t o i n cui la d i p l o m a z i a r a g u s e a e r a m o l t o a t t i v a sul v a s t o p i a n o b a l c a n i c o ed e u r o p e o . L ' u l t i m a g r a n d e c r o c i a t a a n t i t u r c a m u o v e v a c o n t r o il n e m i c o n e i B a l c a n i ed i Ragusei, già d a l 1441, e r a n o attivissimi nei preparativi per questa grande impresa. Grazie a l l a l o r o posizione geografica ed alla loro e s p e r i e n z a politica, i R a g u s e i f u r o n o t r a i p r i m i a c a p i r e t u t t a l a p o r t a t a della m i n a c c i a t u r c a c o n t r o l a C r i s t i a n i t à . P e r questo, essi f u r o n o a n c h e m o l t o a t t i v i n e l l o s p r o n a r e le d i v e r s e p o t e n z e o c c i d e n t a l i a d a g i r e c o n t r o il c o m u n e n e m i c o . M a i r i s u l t a t i f u r o n o p i u t t o s t o m e s c h i n i . A. p a r t e l ' U n g h e r i a , c h e si s e n t i v a essa stessa d i r e t t a m e n t e m i n a c c i a t a ed e r a p e r c i ò d i s p o s t a a m u o v e r s i , gli a l t r i S t a t i d e l l ' E u r o p a o c c i d e n t a l e e c e n t r a l e n o n c o m p r e n d e v a n o la g r a v i t à d e l pericolo ed e r a n o p i ù p r e o c c u p a t i p e r i loro dissidi i n t e r n i e le g u e r r e sui p r o p r i confini, c h e a t t i r a t i d a u n a s p e d i z i o n e n e i l o n t a n i e difficili paesi b a l c a n i c i e l e v a n t i n i . Venezia, p u r e con l a sua g r a n d i s s i m a e s p e r i e n z a n e l L e v a n t e , e s i t a v a a c o m p r o m e t t e r e l e sue posizioni i n q u e l l a regione, i m p e g n a n d o s i in u n ' a v v e n t u r a il cui esito e r a incerto. N o n o s t a n t e t u t t e q u e s t e difficoltà, n e l 1443 i p r e p a r a t i v i p e r la g u e r r a c o n t r o i T u r c h i d i v e n t a r o n o m o l t o i n t e n s i e R a g u s a v i p r e s e p a r t e notevole. T r a i g o v e r n a n t i con i q u a l i R a g u s a c o m u n i c a v a i n v i s t a d e l l a c r o c i a t a e r a n o : il P a p a , il D o g e di V e n e z i a , il R e d ' U n g h e r i a , l ' I m p e r a t o r e bizantino, i d e s p o t i s e r b i e greci, g r a n d i s i g n o r i u n g h e r e s i , italiani, serbi, bosniaci, g r e c i ecc., e c ' e r a a n c h e il R e d ' A r a g o n a . 3 0 N e l l ' e s t a t e del 1443 vi f u u n a v i v a a t t i v i t à d i p l o m a t i c a t r a R a g u s a ed il R e Alfonso. Nel l u g l i o di q u e l l ' a n n o u n a m b a s c i a t o r e f u m a n d a t o al R e e n e l m e s e successi-

29 DAD, ivi, 156\ 157'. Dall'altra parte, nel giugno del 1443 un « Antonius de Porcello» ed il suo nipote «Cola de Porzello» di Trani furono fatti cittadini di Ragusa. DAD, Litt. Lev XIII, 114. 3 0 B . KREKIC', Ucesce Dubrovnika u ratovima protiv Turaka 1443 i 1444 g. (La partecipazione di Ragusa nelle guerre contro i Turchi nel 1 4 4 3 e 1 4 4 4 ) , «Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta», t, II, Beograd 1953,

145-158,

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

213

v o i R a g u s e i e r a n o in c o r r i s p o n d e n z a con lui. 31 N o n c'è d u b b i o , però, c h e n o n si t r a t t a v a q u i s o l t a n t o di azioni i n v i s t a della sped i z i o n e c o n t r o i T u r c h i , m a a n c h e di c o n t a t t i d i p l o m a t i c i p e r ris o l v e r e il p r o b l e m a dei p i r a t i aragonesi. I n f a t t i , q u e s t o r i s u l t a e v i d e n t e d a u n a l e t t e r a i n v i a t a d a l gov e r n o r a g u s e o al D o g e il 2 agosto 1443, n e l l a q u a l e i R a g u s e i dicono, a p r o p o s i t o del saccheggio della n a v e r a g u s e a p r e s s o Vieste, a v e r s c r i t t o « s e r e n i s s i m o d o m i n o R e g i A r a g o n u m , c u m q u o a n t i q u a t a m amiciciam et privilegia i m m u n i t a t u m et f r a n c h i c i a r u m h a b e m u s , licet i n t e r d u m nobis i n p o t e n t i b u s p a r u m o b s e r v e n t u r , u t a t t e n t i s amicicia et privilegiis... a b l a t a r e s t i t u i f a c e r e M a i e s t a s s u a d i g n a r e t u r » . 32 n , c aso di Vieste, però, n o n e r a l ' u n i c o d e l g e n e r e . I n u n a l e t t e r a d i r e t t a al R e A l f o n s o I ' l l agosto 1443 i R a g u s e i si l a g n a v a n o p e r a l t r e , simili, violazioni. 33 A n c h e n e l l ' a u t u n n o del 1443, n o n o s t a n t e l a p r e o c c u p a z i o n e dei R a g u s e i p e r il successo d e l l a c r o c i a t a i n corso, g l ' i n t e r v e n t i p r e s so R e A l f o n s o c o n t i n u a r o n o , p e r c h è le i n c u r s i o n i d e l l e n a v i aragonesi c o n t r o q u e l l e r a g u s e e n o n cessavano. I n o t t o b r e il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o d i e d e a i u t i in d e n a r o ad u n g r u p p o d i m e r c a n t i r a gusei « d a m n i f i c a t i », p e r m a n d a r e u n n u n z i o al R e a r a g o n e s e « p r o r e c u p e r a t i o n e r e r u m a b l a t a r u m ». 34 L o stesso giorno, il gov e r n o r a g u s e o , i n u n a l e t t e r a ai p r o p r i a m b a s c i a t o r i i n U n g h e r i a , d a v a u n a p p r e z z a m e n t o m o l t o i n t e r e s s a n t e ed i s t r u t t i v o d e l l ' i m p o r t a n z a della P u g l i a p e r R a g u s a e d o m a n d a v a di n u o v o l ' i n t e r v e n t o del R e u n g h e r e s e p r e s s o il R e A l f o n s o : « Conzosia c h e la cita v o s t r a (cioè del R e u n g h e r e s e ) d e R a g u s a , p e r lo s i t o d o v e è pos t a a b i a v i c i n i t à con la P u y a d a p a r t e d e m a r , e con l a B o s i n a d a p a r t e d e t e r r a , s e n z a la q u a l P u y a f a r n o n p o d e m o p e r le v i c t u a l i e d e l e q u a l in g r a n p a r t e se f o r n i m o d e là, p e r t a n t o corno q u e l l i c h e d e s i d e r e m o d e b e n v i v e r e v i c i n a r con c a d a u n o c o n a m o r e b e n i v o l e n t i a , s u p p l i c h e m o d e v o t a m e n t e c h e l a V o s t r a M a i e s t a d e si v o l g i a d e g n a r d e special g r a z i a s c r i v e r al R e d e A r a g o n , i n t i m o e b e n i v o l o d e la V o s t r a S e r e n i t à , c h e li v o s t r i dilectissimi s u b d i t i

31 DAD, Cons. rog. VIII, 32 DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, sero sullo stesso argomento a rog. Vili, 233\ 33 DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, 34 DAD, Consf rog. V i n ,

231, 232, 232\ 118-118*. Qualche giorno più tardi scris«Landulfus de Maramaldis». DAD, Cons, 121-121'. 242',

214 R a g u s e i volgia a v e r r i c o m a n d a t i i n t u t t e cose o c c o r r e n t e p e r lo a v e g n i r » . 35 U n a l t r o f a t t o r e p r e o c c u p a n t e n e l l e relazioni t r a R a g u s a e gli A r a g o n e s i dell'epoca e r a il p o t e n t e signore bosniaco, p r i m o vic i n o di R a g u s a , il d u c a S t e f a n V u k c i c Kosaca. I r r e q u i e t o ed ambizioso, il K o s a c a c e r c a v a appoggi u n pò d a p e r t u t t o , e n o n e s i t a v a , perfino, a c e r c a r e l ' a l l e a n z a dei T u r c h i . M a p r o b a b i l m e n t e già dal 1440 K o s a c a stabilì r a p p o r t i con il R e Alfonso. T r a gli a m b a s c i a t o r i c h e e r a n o al servizio di K o s a c a n e l l a c o r t e d e l r e c ' e r a n o a n c h e R a g u s e i ed il g o v e r n o di R a g u s a n o n e r a d ' a c c o r d o c o n q u e s t a l o r o a t t i v i t à . R a g u s a a v e v a , perfino, p r o i b i t o ai p r o p r i s u d d i t i d ' i n c a r i c a r s i di a m b a s c i a t e p r e s s o il R e d ' A r a g o n a p e r c o n t o d e l K o s a c a . L a r a g i o n e si d e d u c e da u n a l e t t e r a d i r e t t a d a i g o v e r n o r a g u s e o agli a m b a s c i a t o r i presso il duca, nella q u a l e , t r a l'altro, si d i c e c h e i R a g u s e i « v e d e n d o la zelosia esser n a t a f r a la D u g a l S i g n o r i a d e V i n e x i a et la M a g n i f i z e n t i a V o s t r a (cioè Kosaca), allor n o n li p a r s e d e c o n s e n t i r e a t a l d i m a n d a v e s t r a ( p e r a m b a s c i a t o r i ) ». D ' a l t r o n d e i R a g u s e i a c c u s a n o K o s a c a d i c e n d o i suoi a m b a s c i a t o r i « t a n t o in l o a n d a r e , q u a n t o v e g n i r e d a l l a M a i e s t a d e d e l l o R e d e R a g o n a a v e r t r a s p a r l a t o et d e t o m o l t e p a r o l e c o n t r a d e l l ' o n o r n o s t r o ». 3 6 Bisogna, poi, a g g i u n g e r e — a p a r t e l ' a t t e g g i a m e n t o v e n e z i a n o — che i R a g u s e i , e v i d e n t e m e n t e , n o n p o t e v a n o v e d e r e di b u o n occhio u n « r a v v i c i n a m e n t o » t r a il loro p o t e n t e e m i n a c c i o s o v i c i n o n e i B a l c a n i , ed il r e d ' o l t r e A d r i a t i c o , il cui a t t e g g i a m e n t o v e l s o R a g u s a e r a p i u t t o s t o equivoco. P e r ò , n o n o s t a n t e la r e s i s t e n z a r a g u sea, il K o s a c a , al p r i n c i p i o del 1444, s t r i n s e u n t r a t t a t o con il R e Alf o n s o e d i v e n n e « suo v e r o e t bono r e c o m m e n d a t o s e r v i t o r e », m a l'effetto reale di questo trattato fu minimo. & L e r e l a z i o n i t r a R a g u s a e A l f o n s o n e l 1444 si m a n t e n e v a n o s u l l e stesse posizioni degli a n n i p r e c e d e n t i : c o l l a b o r a z i o n e e gesti di amicizia, m a n e l l o stesso t e m p o d i f f i d e n z a e m u t u e accuse. Il R e si l a g n a v a , n e l d i c e m b r e d e l 1443, p e r esempio, del t r a t t a m e n t o r i s e r v a t o a R a g u s a ad u n s u o suddito, 38 m e n t r e i R a g u s e i ,

35 DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, 129\ 36 Id., 135, 136'. 37 S. CIRKOVIC', Herceg Stefan Vukcic Kosaca i njegovodoba (Lo Herzeg Stefan Vukcic Kosaca ed il suo tempo), Beograd 1964, 74-77, 212-213. 38 DAD, Cons. rog. VIII, 261'.

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

215

nel f e b b r a i o d e l 1444, s c r i v e n d o al P a p a sui p r e p a r a t i v i p e r l a cont i n u a z i o n e d e l l a c r o c i a t a c o n t r o i T u r c h i , p r e g a v a n o il S o m m o P o n t e f i c e « u t s c r i b e r e d i g n e t u r d e v o t i s s i m o filio s u o d o m i n o Alfonso, A r a g o n u m regi, q u a t e n u s t a l e m p r o v i s i o n e m f o r m i d i n e m q u e s u i s s u b d i t i s p i r a t h i s i m p o n e r e velit, u t se a b h u i u s m o d i inc u r s i o n i b u s e t d e p r e d a t i o n i b u s e r g a n o s t r o s q u o t i d i e m a r i a sulcantes, t o t a l i t e r a b s t i n e a n t ». 39 L ' a t t i v i t à dei p i r a t i a r a g o n e s i dav a s e m p r e g r a v i f a s t i d i alla n a v i g a z i o n e r a g u s e a , m a ciò n o n imp e d i v a a l g o v e r n o di R a g u s a di m a n d a r e , p r o p r i o n e g l i stessi giorni, u n r a p p r e s e n t a n t e a c o m p e r a r e il sale a B a r i . 40 L ' a n n o 1445, a p r i m a vista, s e m b r a s e g n a r e u n a s v o l t a decisiva v e r s o u n m i g l i o r a m e n t o ed u n a s t a b i l i z z a z i o n e n e i r a p p o r t i t r a R a g u s a ed il R e g n o A r a g o n e s e . Ma, g u a r d a n d o d a presso, si v e d e c h e la s i t u a z i o n e n o n e r a s o s t a n z i a l m e n t e c a m b i a t a . Il 15 giug n o d e l 1445 il R e A l f o n s o d i e d e ai R a g u s e i u n privilegio, s e c o n d o il q u a l e i m e r c a n t i ragusei, c o n le l o r o n a v i e d i l o r o b e n i p o t e v a n o venire ed avevano « tutum, f r a n c h u m , l i b e r u m et indubitatum s a l v u m c o n d u c t u m » p e r t r a f f i c a r e in t u t t e l e s u e t e r r e . 4 1 I n u n a l e t t e r a del 1446 i R a g u s e i p a r l a n o di u n a l t r o p r i v i l e g i o c o n c e s s o l o r o dal R e A l f o n s o « a p o t e r s c o n t a r d u c a t i m i l l e sule t r a t t e d e g r a n i e d e r e c e v e r in p a g a m e n t o d u c a t i 500 d e la sai de la p r e f a t a M a i e s t à al p r e x i o u s a t o , p e r p a r t e e t in r a x o n d e p a g a m e n t o e s a t i s f a t i o n d e li d u c a t i 17.976 i q u a l i a l t r e v o l t e f o r n o tolti ali soy R a g u s e i p e r c o r s a r i C a t e l a n i , s u b d i t i d e essa M a i e stà ». I R a g u s e i c h i e d e v a n o c h e « m i s s e r B e r n a b ò d e L a m a r a , m a i s t r o p o r t o l a n o secreto, o v e r lo s u o l o g o t e n e n t e » r i s p e t t i q u e s t o p r i v i l e g i o n e l l ' o c c a s i o n e di u n a c q u i s t o di s a l e p e r R a g u s a . 4 2 M a n o n c o n f i d a v a n o m o l t o n e l l ' e f f e t t o del p r i v i l e g i o r e g i o s u l p o r t o -

39 DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, 145. 40 Id., 143. Negli ultimi mesi del 1444, un ambasciatore del re Alfonso si recò a Ragusa e presso lo Herzeg Stefan per invitarli a mandare propri rappresentanti all'occasione dello sposalizio del figlio di Alfonso. Cfr. CIRCOVIC', op. cit., 80 e n. 46.

41 DAD, Acta Sanctae Mariae. J. RADONIC', Dubrovaèka akta i povelje (Atti e carte ragusee), lib. I, vol. I, Beograd 1934, 483-485. In novembre del 1445 i Ragusei rifiutarono la richiesta di «Antonio Maramoldo, milite in Trano» di mandargli «certe apodixie della sai» che Ragusa aveva acquistato dal suo padre, il quale ora deve «arender la ragione delle cose amministrate per la regia Maiestade». DAD, Litt. Lev. XIII, 185'. 42 DAD, Litt. Lev, XIII, 201-202'.

X 216 lano, p e r c h è p r e v e d e v a n o la possibilità c h e q u e s t i r i f i u t a s s e d i ese g u i r e l ' o r d i n e del R e e c h e si dovesse a q u e s t o f a r ricorso. D a l l ' a l t r a p a r t e è significativo il f a t t o c h e n e l l a stessa l e t t e ra, d i r e t t a al s i n d a c o r a g u s e o nella P u g l i a , il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o a g g i u n g a : « E t p o t e n d o l i b e r a r p e r intercesso a l g u n i d e n o s t r i R a g u s e i c h e f o s s e r o prisoneri... n o n v e s p a r e g n a t i de f a r l o ». 4 3 E v i d e n t e m e n t e , n o n o s t a n t e t u t t i i p r i v i l e g i e gli sforzi p e r s t a b i l i r e u n clima migliore, tra Ragusei e Re Alfonso persistevano dubbi e r a g i o n i di l a g n a n z e . Il Re, d a p a r t e sua, n o n e s i t a v a a p r e s e n t a r e le s u e accuse ai R a g u s e i , i q u a l i , p u r e , s a p e v a n o q u a l c h e v o l t a m o s t r a r s i m o l t o ostinati. N e l Ì446 A l f o n s o inviò u n suo n u n z i o e scrisse t u t t a u n a ser i e d i l e t t e r e ai R a g u s e i p e r o t t e n e r e la l i b e r a z i o n e della « gal e o t a g a i e t a n a » , p r o p r i e t à del suo « m i l e s et fidelis, d o m i n u s J a c o b u s M o s t a t e » , c h e e r a s t a t a confiscata dai R a g u s e i n e l 1436. G i à n e l 1443 i R a g u s e i a v e v a n o r i c e v u t o u n a l e t t e r a del R e « p r ò r e s t i t u t i o n e g a l e o t e i a m d i u et a n n i s elapsis p e r n o s t r a s g a l e a s j u s t i s s i m e d e p r e h e n s e », m a a v e v a n o r i f i u t a t o di r e s t i t u i r l a scriv e n d o : « N o n illam, i u s t i s s i m e rex, u t g a l e o t a m s e r e n i t a t i s v e s t r e g a l e e n o s t r e c e p e r u n t , sed t a m q u a m p r e d o n u m q u i spretis m a n d a t i s r e g a l i b u s v e s t r i s ac s a l v i s c o n d u c t i b u s et f r a n c h i c i i s n o b i s p e r c o r o n a m M a i e s t a t i s v e s t r e gratiose concessis, obliti vigorose i u s t i t i e (vestre)... ausi f u e r a n t n a v e t a m u n a m e x n o s t r i s o n u s t a m p l u m b o , l i g n a m i n e e t aliis m e r c a n t i i s , ac d e n a r i i s , c u m n o v e m marinariis... in a q u i s C o t r o n i p i r a t i c o m o r e i n t e r c i p e r e e t c a p t i v a t a m m i t t e r e ad p o r t u m A u g u s t e v e r s u s Siracusas». Agg i u n g e v a n o che a g i v a n o p e r r a p p r e s a g l i a « i n s p e c t a a u c t o r i t a t e e t l i c e n t i a nobis a M a i e s t a t e v e s t r a concessis h u i u s m o d i scelestos p i r a t h a s e t p r e c o n e s p o s s e n d i i n s e q u i et c a p e r e e t o m n e m vindict a m e t s u p p l i c i u m d e eis s u m e r e ». L e g a l e r e r a g u s e e i n quell'occas i o n e a v e v a n o i n s e g u i t o i p i r a t i « u s q u e a d C o l u m n a s » ed al loro r i t o r n o « i n a q u i s T a r e n t i » a v e v a n o a v v i s t a t o e c a t t u r a t o la sudd e t t a « f u s t a » . Il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o a g g i u n g e che i saccheggi delle n a v i r a g u s e e d a p a r t e dei corsari c a t a l a n i a v v e n g o n o n o n o s t a n t e il f a t t o c h e «vestros... C a t h e l a n o s , Siculos et r e g n i c o l a s M a i e statis Vestre hac in nostra civitate conversantes et continue degentes, b e n i g n e u t n o s t r o s p r o p r i o s cives originarios c o l l i g e m u s et p e r t r a c t e m u s ». C o n s i d e r a t o t u t t o ciò, c o n c l u d e v a n o i R a g u s e i n e l

43 DAD, ivi, 1-c.

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

217

1443 ; l i b e r a r e la n a v e d i J a c o b o M e s t a t e , « q u i m a n d a t o r u m r e g a l i u m t r a n s g r e s s o r et fidei v i o l a t o r e x t i t i t », a v r e b b e significato invit a r e a l t r i p i r a t i a d a t t a c c a r e l e n a v i r a g u s e e . 4 4 L a posizione d e i R a g u s e i su q u e s t o p r o b l e m a n e l 1446 n o n e r a s o s t a n z i a l m e n t e c a m b i a t a , m a o r a f e c e r o ricorso ad u n a l t r o a r g o m e n t o : e s s e n d o la n a v e già d a dieci a n n i i n a t t i v a , è d i v e n t a t a « f r a g i d a e t q u a s i n a v i g a r i i n h a b i l i s » , c o m e è s t a t o c o n s t a t a t o p u r e d a l i n v i a t o d e l Re. S u ciò è s t a t a a n c h e f a t t a u n a d i c h i a r a z i o n e « i n p r e s e n t i a p l u r i u m h o n o r a b i l i u m m e r c a t o r u m C a t h a l l a n o r u m s u b d i t o r u m Maies t a t i s v e s t r e ». 4 5 Il c a s o d i M o s t a t e n o n e r a l'unico in cui il R e d ' A r a g o n a c o n s i d e r a v a i R a g u s e i r e i di v i o l a z i o n e dei d i r i t t i d e i suoi s u d diti. N e l 1447, r i s p o n d e n d o ad u n a l e t t e r a del R e Alfonso, c h e aver v a p r o t e s t a t o in proposito, il g o v e r n o di R a g u s a d i c h i a r a v a c h e il s u d d i t o del Re, « J o h a n n e s Zuzollo d e B a r u l o » , e r a p i e n a m e n t e s o d i s f a t t o p e r q u a n t o c o n c e r n e v a u n c o n t r a t t o f a t t o t r a lui e l a r e p u b b l i c a p e r l ' i m p o r t a z i o n e di g r a n i d a l l a P u g l i a a R a g u s a . 46 « D o mino Bartolameo de Sorento, regali capitaneo Baroli» i Ragusei s p i e g a v a n o l a s i t u a z i o n e di c e r t i d e b i t i c h e a l c u n i R a g u s e i dov e v a n o p a g a r e « m a g n i f i c o d o m i n o J a c o b o d e M a r r a » ed allo stesso Zuzollo. 4 ? N e l l o stesso t e m p o il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o a v e v a ricev u t o — t r a m i t e Dario, figlio di G i o v a n n i d e Florio, console r a g u seo a M a n f r e d o n i a — u n a l e t t e r a d e l « d o m i n u s A l f o n s u s d e V a r gas, c a p i t a n e u s c i v i t a t i s M a n f r e d o n i e », il q u a l e , a n c h e a n o m e del « c o m e s T r o y e » , a c c u s a v a le a u t o r i t à r a g u s e e di n o n a v e r agito c o n t r o c e r t i ragusei, d e b i t o r i di a l c u n e p e r s o n e di T r o i a . Il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o d i e d e le spiegazioni n e c e s s a r i e n e l caso. E ' e v i d e n t e , d u n q u e , c h e le r e l a z i o n i t r a R a g u s a e gli A r a gonesi e r a n o c a r a t t e r i z z a t e i n t u t t o q u e s t o p e r i o d o d a u n ' a m b i -

44 DAD. ivi, 121-121'. 45 Id., 213', 214. 46 Id. 227. 47 Id., 246'-247. 48 Id., 237. Sulle attività di Giovanni e Dario de Florio a Ragusa al principio del 1444 v. CIRKOVIC', op. cit., 113. E interessante notare che molto più tardi, nel 1479, «ser Darius de Manfredonia» fece un contratto con il pittore raguseo Bozidar Vlatkovic per fare dipingere certi oggetti, mentre uno dei più famosi pittori ragusei, Petar Ognjanovié, doveva «facere ser Dario de Manfredonia... duos conffinos... a sponsa et unum coffenetum bene pictos et ferratos». TADIC', Gradja, t. I . nn. 6 0 4 , 6 0 5 .

X 218 g u i t à : d ' u n a p a r t e b i s o g n o d i amicizia e cooperazione, m a d a l l ' a l t r a p a r t e p e r s i s t e n z a d i d i f f i d e n z a e a t t r i t i . L e difficoltà e r a n o d a a m b e d u e l e p a r t i . Il c h e n o n s o r p r e n d e , nella g r a n d e i n t e n s i t à dei c o n t a t t i q u o t i d i a n i t r a le o p p o s t e sponde. P e r c h è — b i s o g n a p a r ticolarmente sottolineare — i contatti durante tutti questi anni e r a n o vivissimi. L o si vede, perfino, d a l c a r a t t e r e d e l l e difficoltà di cui a b b i a m o p a r l a t o , m a lo si v e d r e b b e p i ù c h i a r a m e n t e d a d e c i n e e d e c i n e di d o c u m e n t i c h e n o n p o s s i a m o q u i citare. 49 L ' i n t e r e s s e di R a g u s a p e r il R e g n o A r a g o n e s e n o n era, n a t u r a l m e n t e , l i m i t a t o s o l t a n t o ai c o n t a t t i p u r a m e n t e economici e a q u e l li c o n n e s s i con la p i r a t e r i a degli A r a g o n e s i e C a t a l a n i . R a g u s a seg u i v a s e m p r e a t t e n t a m e n t e la politica a r a g o n e s e , p e r c h è la vicin a n z a del R e g n o l e i m p o n e v a u n a t a l e vigilanza. Q u e s t a vic i n a n z a , n e l l o stesso t e m p o , le p e r m e t t e v a di essere b e n e inf o r m a t a s u q u e l l o c h e s u c c e d e v a n e l l ' I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a l e e sulla p o l i t i c a d e l R e Alfonso. Così, p e r esempio, q u a n d o si s t a v a p r e p a r a n d o la s e c o n d a spedizione dei crociati c o n t r o i T u r c h i n e l 1444, i R a g u s e i n o t a v a n o , i n u n a l e t t e r a d i r e t t a al P a p a , che il R e e r a p r o n t o ad a i u t a r e q u e s t ' i m p r e s a . 50 N e l 1447, poi, i n u n a l e t t e r a a J a n o s H u n y a d y , il g o v e r n o r a g u s e o gli d a v a n o t i z i a che « r e x v e r o A r a g o n u m ad Teoli c i v i t a t e m i n finibus R o m e c u m o m n i b u s suis copiis e t a r m i g e r i i s m o r a m t r a h i t , sed q u o fine inccit u m (!) e s t » . 5 1 Q u e s t o e m o l t i altri d o c u m e n t i t e s t i m o n i a n o l ' i n t e r e s s e d i R a g u s a p e r la politica del R e g n o A r a g o n e s e . N e g l i a n n i s e g u e n t i , fino alla m o r t e del R e A l f o n s o nel 1458, l e c a r a t t e r i s t i c h e essenziali dei r a p p o r t i t r a R a g u s a e gli A r a g o n e s i r e s t a r o n o , p i ù o m e n o , i n v a r i a t e . M a noi n o n a b b i a m o l'int e n z i o n e d ' i n o l t r a r c i p i ù a v a n t i in q u e l periodo. 5 2 Q u e l l o c h e vo-

49 Lo mostrerà, senza dubbio, il lavoro in corso dello Spremic. — Il 13 luglio 1448 il governo raguseo prega tutti i governi e funzionari interessati a prestare ogni aiuto e protezione al gentiluomo raguseo «Marinus Thome de Bona», il quale manda nella Puglia «eius fastorem... cum equis XXXII, ballis sex tellarum et collis tribus cere». DAD, Litt Lev. XIÏÏ, 264. 5 0 KREKIC', Dubrovnik, reg. n° 1 0 2 7 . 51 DAD, l i t t . Lev. XIII, 241. 52 Vogliamo citare, comunque, un solo documento, d'altronde già pubblicato: il 21 ottobre 1450 il pittore raguseo Paskoje Radicevic si obbligò, «ad pingendum scuta quadragintaqulnque que sunt principis Tarenti cum armis dicti principis secundum quod mihi ostendetur, et

X Ragusa e gli Aragonesi

verso la metà del XV sec.

219

l e v a m o m o s t r a r e con q u e s t o b r e v e ed i n c o m p l e t o l a v o r o è il f a t t o che, n o n o s t a n t e le difficoltà c o n s i d e r e v o l i e costanti, le relazioni t r a le d u e s p o n d e d e l l ' A d r i a t i c o n e l l ' e p o c a di t r a n s i z i o n e d a l g o v e r n o a n g i o i n o al g o v e r n o a r a g o n e s e n e l l ' I t a l i a m e r i d i o n a le, sono r i m a s t e s e m p r e v i v i s s i m e e i n t e n s e .

dare ipsa completa et invernicata usque ad octo ros». TADIC', Gradja, t. I, nn 3 7 8 .

dies proxime futu-

DUBROVNIK, THE BALKANS AND THE LEVANT

XI

COURIER TRAFFIC BETWEEN DUBROVNIK, CONSTANTINOPLE AND THESSALONIKA IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

A topic that is somewhat neglected by Balkan historians and, indeed, by most historians is the organization, maintenance, functioning and efficiency of mail services and mail communications. A thorough study of the mail system in the Balkans, as elsewhere, could lead to a better understanding of other aspects of life in the past. As a contribution to such an understanding, I am presenting here information about the mail — that is to say, courier — service between Dubrovnik and Byzantium (Constantinople and Thessalonika) in the first half of the fourteenth century. Dubrovnik (Ragusa) was at the time under Venetian supreme domination, but Venetian supremacy, which lasted from 1205 to 1358, never fully transformed the city into a simple Venetian colony. Although a Venetian count served as its head of state, Dubrovnik retained considerable autonomy, and its own councils and administration were able to shape city policies largely independently of Venice. While Venetian dominance produced negative consequences in certain areas, such as in that of maritime trade,1 there is no doubt that the people of Dubrovnik knew how to take advantage of that supremacy; they knew how to avail themselves of Venetian protection for their trade in the Levant, for example.2 It should be noted here that, whatever they lost on the sea because of restraints imposed upon them by the Venetians, the Ragusans made up in their trade with the Balkan hinterland, especially that with Serbia and Bosnia. That is, they acted as intermediaries between East and West and, by so doing, brought large profits to Dubrovnik, thus strengthening the city. 3 Furthermore, its particular political situation and its convenient geographic location along the route connecting the mineral-rich Balkan hinterland with the Western and Levantine worlds made Dubrovnik very early into an important commercial center.

XI

2 It is not surprising, therefore, that men from almost all parts of the Mediterranean world, as well as men from the Balkan hinterland, were in the city from the earliest times for which we have records. Most of these foreigners were merchants or seamen, some of them settled in Dubrovnik for good, others visited there only temporarily to take care of their affairs. Of course, the lion's share of business enterprises and profits remained in the hands of the Ragusans themselves, because in Dubrovnik there was no takeover of economic activity by the foreigners at the expense of the domestic population. In addition not all of those activities were limited to the city but, rather, connected by multiple and strong business and political links with many other areas of the Balkan hinterland, the Mediterranean and beyond, they were extended to those parts. There is no doubt that the courier service emerged and developed in response to the expansion of all those commercial activities and, also, to satisfy a variety of growing needs. As mentioned before, however, I shall deal here only with one aspect of that system, the traffic between Dubrovnik and Byzantium. In the first half of the fourteenth century, as documents from the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik show, contacts between Dubrovnik and Byzantine lands were rather infrequent. After the restoration of 1261, Byzantium had achieved a considerable number of military and diplomatic successes under Michael VIII Palaeologus, but it had never recovered its former territorial expanse and power. Under Michael's successor, Andronicus II, decay set in. Byzantium became a second-rate power, while the great expansion of the Ottomans in Asia Minor and of the Serbs in the Balkans had started. The exhausted Byzantium was unable to withstand the double pressure from the East and the West.4 The limited extent of Dubrovnik's relations with it was at least in part a consequence of the weakness of Byzantium. In fact, Dubrovnik's contacts with Byzantine areas at this time constituted only a small portion of Dubrovnik's relations with the Levant as a whole. And, even when visiting Byzantium, the Ragusans traded there mostly with Western, Latin merchants. Courier traffic between the two areas reflected the situation. Indeed, in every case in which we know to whom in Constantinople or Thessalonika letters were destined, we find that the addressees were Westerners, Venetians, Florentines

XI 3 and the like. The fact that, according to information I have uncovered, there were at least twenty-eight courier trips between Dubrovnik and Byzantine cities between 1323 and 1348 does not mean that there was any kind of regular service on that line, just as there was none anywhere else. The couriers, travelling usually in groups of two but many times alone, were engaged only from time to time, according to need. Unfortunately, the letters that they carried have been lost, and we do not have copies of them in the archives. Therefore, the only source of information we have about their activities are the contracts between the couriers and those who utilized their services. In Dubrovnik, three groups of people engaged couriers for trips to Constantinople and Thessalonika : the city counts, domestic merchants and Venetian and Florentine merchants doing business in Dubrovnik. As for the first group, the counts of Dubrovnik, some of the contracts indicate that they sent letters to the Venetian "baili" of Constantinople;5 others do not indicate the addressee.6 The contracts show that the average salary of those the counts employed was 24 hyperpers. The second group, comprised of individual Ragusans, dispatched couriers to Thessalonika or Constantinople, paying those sent to the former place 10 hyperpers7 and those sent to Constantinople about 20 hyperpers.8 A member of the third group, the Venetian merchant Franciscus Scarpaçço, sent off the greatest number of couriers. I have found eleven contracts, between this Venetian and various merchants, for trips to Constantinople and Thessalonika between 1333 and 1340. They reveal that he paid his couriers going to Constantinople 22,5 hyperpers and those going to Thessalonika an average of 9,5 hyperpers. Scarpaçço, who was one of the most active and prominent merchants in Dubrovnik at the time, corresponded, no doubt, not only with his commercial partners9 but also with representatives of Venetian authorities in the Byzantine area.10 But, again in his case as in the others, we have no letters which would allow us to obtain an insight into his business deals there. Also among foreign merchants doing business in Dubrovnik was the distinguished Florentine merchant, Bencius del Buono, father

XI 4 of the famous Italian writer Franco Sacchetti. Bencius, who resided in Dubrovnik for a long time (1318-41), 11 engaged several couriers for trips to Constantinople and Thessalonika between 1330 and 1340. 12 Of particular interest here is an instance in which, in November, 1339, he engaged two couriers to carry his letters to a Venetian and a Florentine in Constantinople and requested that the messengers carry back to him responses to those letters. The Florentine was a "bancherius . . . de societate Bardorum de Florentia." 13 The Bardi company had been active in Dubrovnik between 1318 and 1339/40, and it is known that members of it were present in Constantinople as well. 14 Since Bencius del Buono had been engaged in Bardi affairs before 1339, it is quite probable that the letters he sent to Constantinople concerned the affairs of that Florentine company and not his own affairs. The salaries of the couriers Bencius sent off to Constantinople amounted to about 20 hyperpers and those for messengers he dispatched to Thessalonika to about 12 hyperpers.15 A comparison of salaries of couriers makes clear several things. First, the best-paid couriers traveling to Constantinople were those whom the counts engaged, while the best-compensated couriers dispatched to Thessalonika were those sent by Bencius del Buono. Secondly, the average salary of messengers sent to Constantinople was 26 hyperpers; that for those dispatched to Thessalonika was about 12 hyperpers. Finally, differences in payments were not very significant, with three exceptions in 1340 and 1347. In one of those instances, Bencius del Buono paid 15 ducats, or about 45 hyperpers, to a courier bound for Constantinople in 1340; 16 in another in the same year, Franciscus Speciarius paid a Florentine courier, who was carrying his letters to the Venetian "vice-bailo" of Constantinople, 17 15 ducats. Lastly in 1347, the count of Dubrovnik paid the same amount to a courier carrying letters from the Doge of Venice to the Venetian "bailo" in Constantinople. 18 It seems unlikely that these higher prices were paid because some especially important messages necessitated particularly speedy dispatch, inasmuch as only one of the three relevant contracts mentions that the courier must reach Constantinople within 20 days. Nor was it a matter of paying a particularly experienced, reliable courier more than others; in each of the three

XI 5 cases, t h e couriers were d i f f e r e n t , and, in addition, a courier, Miltin, w h o had travelled f o u r t i m e s t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e and t w i c e t o Thessalonika, was paid t h e usual prices f o r trips t o t h o s e cities. A l s o , since d i f f e r e n t persons engaged t h e higher paid couriers in all three instances, o n e c a n n o t a s s u m e that a single person or institut i o n was p a y i n g t h e couriers b e t t e r than others. Finally, o n e m u s t e x c l u d e t h e t i m e o f year as a possible reason f o r higher salaries; o f t h e three trips, o n e t o o k place in January, o n e in S e p t e m b e r and t h e third in O c t o b e r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e o n l y f a c t o r w h i c h w o u l d s e e m t o e x p l a i n t h e higher r e m u n e r a t i o n o f t h e couriers is t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e letters t h e y carried. In this respect, it is indicative t h a t , o f t h e three letters, o n e was directed t o t h e V e n e t i a n " b a i l o " and a n o t h e r t o t h e "vice-bailo" in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , and o n e o f t h e m originated w i t h t h e D o g e . Several rules can b e f o u n d in every contract m a d e w i t h t h e messengers: t h e y were s u p p o s e d t o travel as rapidly as possible, using t h e shortest w a y (and n o t going astray f r o m it), and t h e y w e r e n o t t o s t o p a n y w h e r e ; if necessary, t h e y were t o wait for an answer i n C o n s t a n t i n o p l e or Thessalonika, usually eight days b u t s o m e t i m e s as short a t i m e as f o u r days or as long a o n e as o n e m o n t h ; if t h e courier had t o remain longer than t h e established t e r m , h e was t o be paid daily o n e t o six grossi; and, stated specifically, t h e couriers were a l l o w e d t o carry o n l y letters, and replies t o t h e m , o f t h e person w h o engaged t h e m . A n y infringem e n t o f t h o s e rules was punishable b y f i n e s . 1 9 T w o q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d b e answered: w h o were t h e couriers and h o w l o n g did their trips take? If o n e lists all o f t h e m , o n e q u i c k l y discovers that t h e vast majority w e r e Slavs f r o m t h e Balkan hinterland; o u t o f 2 4 k n o w n couriers, o n l y o n e was an Italian. 2 0 Most o f t h e messengers appear o n l y o n c e in d o c u m e n t s , a l t h o u g h in a f e w cases t h e s a m e p e r s o n is m e n t i o n e d as m a k i n g several trips t o t h e B y z a n t i n e cities. A s f o r t h e duration o f trips b e t w e e n D u b r o v n i k and Constant i n o p l e and Thessalonika, t i m e s are clearly indicated for s o m e o f t h e m . T h e r e f o r e , w e can c o n c l u d e that t h e usual duration o f a trip t o Thessalonika, o n e - w a y , w a s 16 t o 2 0 d a y s . 2 1 H o w e v e r , in at least o n e instance, t h e r o u n d trip was m a d e in 2 8 d a y s , 2 2 w h i c h m e a n s that t h e j o u r n e y c o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d in 1 4 days, or even

XI 6 less if o n e bears in m i n d that t h e courier had t o remain in Thessalonika f o r a m i n i m u m o f o n e day. Trips t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e lasted longer, naturally. S o m e o n e - w a y j o u r n e y s b e t w e e n Dubrovnik and t h e B y z a n t i n e capital were s u p p o s e d t o b e c o m p l e t e d in 3 0 days, others in 2 2 or even 2 0 d a y s . 2 3 Data w e have suggests that t h e average o n e - w a y trip t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e f r o m Dubrovnik was 2 4 days in duration and that t o Thessalonika t o o k 17 days. T r a f f i c and facilities along t h e r o u t e s travelled b y couriers f r o m Dubrovnik seem t o have b e e n well organized. This is indicated b y figures s h o w i n g t h e relatively short average lengths o f t i m e it t o o k messengers to c o m p l e t e trips f r o m Dubrovnik t o several o t h e r Balkan l o c a t i o n s : Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik

to to to to to

Srebrenica — 8 t o 9 days Sremska Mitrovica — 13 days N o v o Brdo — 13 days Skoplje - 13 days Prizren — 9 d a y s 2 4

Suggesting g o o d organization even m o r e are o t h e r figures revealing t h e shortest durations o f trips f r o m Dubrovnik t o a n u m b e r o f t h o s e places: Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik Dubrovnik

to to to to to

Srebrenica — 7 days Prizren — 7 days Sremska Mitrovica — 10 days Thessalonika — 14 days Constantinople — 2 0 days25

It is interesting t o n o t e that, according t o t h e data I was able t o c o l l e c t , t h e j o u r n e y f r o m Dubrovnik t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e d o e s n o t s e e m t o have t a k e n any longer in t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y than it did in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y , at t h e a p o g e e o f a u n i t e d and m i g h t y O t t o m a n E m p i r e . 2 6 That is, it t o o k , o n t h e average, 2 0 days t o get f r o m Dubrovnik to C o n s t a n t i n o p l e in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y and, as w e have seen, 2 4 days in t h e f o u r t e e n t h century. O n e m u s t bear in m i n d that carrying letters t h r o u g h t h e Balkan hinterland was n o t at all an easy j o b . In fact t h e life o f t h e couriers was a very d i f f i c u l t o n e . There were n o regulations concerning their salaries or o t h e r rights; t h e y were c o m p l e t e l y d e p e n d e n t o n

7 t h o s e w h o hired t h e m ; and their trips t o o k t h e m t h r o u g h very r o u g h c o u n t r y in t h e Balkan hinterland, w h e r e m a n y dangers a w a i t e d t h e m . T h e fact that t h e y c o u l d c o m p l e t e t h o s e long, distant and dangerous j o u r n e y s in such short periods o f t i m e is certainly a tribute t o t h e courage and e f f i c i e n c y o f t h o s e ignored men.

NOTES 1. I. Bozic, Ekonomski i drustveni razvitak Dubrovnika u XIV-XV veku, Istoriski glasnik, vol. 1, Belgrade 1949, p. 72. 2. S. Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih izmedju Juznoga Slavenstva iMletacke Republike, vol. I, Zagreb 1868, pp. 113-14; vol. II, Zagreb 1870, p. 60. 3. K. Jirecek, Vaznost Dubrovnika u trgovackoj povijesti srednjega vijeka, Dubrovnik 1915, p. 26. Bozic, o.c., p. 21. B. Krekic, Dubrovnik in the 14th and 15th Centuries, A City between East and West, Norman 1972, pp. 17-27. 4. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1968, p. 479. 5. Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (hereafter HAD), Diversa cancellariae, vol. IX, ff. 109v, 185; vol. XV, f. 40. 6. HAD,Ibid., vol. XIV, f. 98v; vol. XV, f. 162. 7. Ibid., vol. VII, ff. 25,47. 8. Ibid., vol. XIII, f. 55v. Diversa notariae, vol. VI, f. 53v. 9. He corresponded, among others, with Marco Geçço, from 1333 to 1335, and with Çaninus delà Fonta, both Venetians residing in Constantinople, and with Nicola Barigiano, in Thessalonika, in 1340. Div. canc., vol. X, f. 113v; vol. XII, f. 122v. Div. not., vol. VI, ff. 24, 173. 10. In 1340 Scarpaçço sent letters to Marino Trevisano, the Venetian "vice-bailo" in Constantinople and in 1339 and 1440 he corresponded with Francesco Suriano, the Venetian consul in Thessalonika. Div. not., vol. VI, ff. 25v, 26, 112v, 118v, 157v. 11. I. Voje, Bencio del Buono, Istorijski casopis, vol. 18, Belgrade 1971, pp. 189-99. B. Krekic, Contributions of Foreigners to Dubrovnik's Economic Growth in the Late Middle Ages, Viator, vol. 9, Los Angeles 1978, p. 380; the same, Italian Creditors in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Balkan Trade, Thirteenth through Fifteenth Centuries, The Dawn of Modern Banking, Yale Univ. Press, 1979, p. 247. 12. Div. canc., vol. IX, f. 124. Div. not., vol. VI, ff. 58v, 78v, 91, 139v. 13. Div. not., vol. VI, f. 78v.

XI 8

14. B. Krekic, Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century, The Medieval City, Yale University Press, 1977, pp. 25-41. 15. Div. can., vol. XII, f. 192. 16. Div. not.,vol.VI,f.91. 17. Ibid.J. 157v. 18. Div. canc., vol. XV, f. 40. 19. In 1323 two couriers promised a Ragusan patrician who had engaged them for a trip to Thessalonika to pay a fine of 7 hyperpers if one of them infringed the clauses of their agreement or even if one of them died en route. The patrician also could jail them. Div. can., vol. VII, f. 25. In 1344, on the other hand, the count of Dubrovnik paid the widow of a courier who had died on a trip to Constantinople the rest of his salary. Ibid., vol. XIV, f. 98v. 20. Div. not., vol. VI, f. 157v. 21. Div. canc., vol. VII, f. 47. 22. Ibid., f. 25. 23. Ibid., vol. IX, f. 124. Div. not., vol. VI, ff. 24,157v. 24. On roads across the Balkans see K. Jirecek, Trgovacki putevi i rudnici Srbije i Bosne u Srednjem veku, Zbornik Konstantina Jireceka, vol. I, Belgrade 1959, pp. 275-303. Data taken from J. Tadic, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republike, Belgrade 1935, passim. 25. Tadic, ibid., pp. 38, 272, 339-40,405-406. 26. See information contained in J. Radonic, Dubrovacka akta ipovelje, vol. I I / 1 , Belgrade 1935, pp. 190, 194; vol. II/2, Belgrade 1938, pp. 524, 533, 556 and others.

XII

La Serbie entre Byzance et l'Occident au XIV e Siècle

C'EST avec profonde émotion que je prends aujourd'hui la parole devant vous, car, comme vous le savez, c'est un autre, George Soulis, qui devait le faire en présentant son rapport complémentaire. Mais notre cher collègue et ami George Soulis — que M. Ostrogorsky et M. Sevcenko viennent de commémorer — est mort soudainement et prématurément. Sans avoir aucune prétention de le remplacer, je voudrais essayer tout simplement, en partant du rapport de M. le Professeur Ostrogorsky, d'exposer ici quelques idées qui pourraient peut-être contribuer au développement ultérieur de la discussion. M. Ostrogorsky, avec la haute compétence qui lui est bien connue, a saisi d'une façon magistrale les traits saillants et les points les plus caractéristiques des rapports byzantino-serbes au XIV e siècle et nous les a exposés d'une façon précise, claire et logique. Dans ce but il s'est servi comme modèle surtout de la Principauté de Serrés, mais y a inclu l'époque de l'Empereur DuSan, c'est-à-dire la période antérieure. Les institutions de l'Etat et de l'Eglise dans la Principauté de Serrés, le rôle des fonctionnaires serbes et grecs dans cet état, la position du Mont Athos dans le Despotat d'UgljeSa Mrnjavcevic — tout est passé en revue par le Professeur Ostrogorsky, brièvement, il est vrai, mais dans des perspectives nouvelles, aboutissant à des conclusions qui, très souvent, bouleversent complètement les idées reçues jusqu'ici, en particulier en ce qui concerne l'époque qui suivit la mort d'Etienne Dusan en 1355. M. Ostrogorsky, par exemple, prouve d'une façon péremptoire que la Serbie après Dusan ne s'est pas écroulée subitement, comme on a coutume de le croire, car dans certaines régions la vie se poursuivit très intense et très variée. Je dois dire, d'ailleurs, que son livre Serska oblast posïe Duianove smrti (La région de Serres après la mort de Du§an) apporte sur ce sujet — comme sur beaucoup d'autres — des aperçus nouveaux d'une grande richesse que l'auteur du rapport, bien sûr, ne pouvait pas nous présenter en quinze pages. On peut relever, tout d'abord, dans ce rapport que le Professeur Ostrogorsky souligne que 'ce n'est pas le cours extérieur des événements qui nous intéresse ici, mais les conséquences qu'ils ont eues pour les relations entre Byzance et la Serbie'. Et un peu plus loin, parlant de la politique du despote Jean UgljeSa, il réaffirme qu'il ne veut pas s'attacher aux 'grands événements' de l'époque. Le rapporteur était, par conséquent, autorisé de plein droit à exclure de son exposé la partie qu'on pourrait appeler 'politique générale'. Néanmoins, c'est précisément cette 'politique générale' de la Serbie au XIV e siècle

XII La Serbie entre Byzance et l'Occident

63

sur laquelle je voudrais m'étendre quelque peu. M. Ostrogorsky insiste à maintes reprises — et avec raison — sur Y influence déterminante de Byzance en Serbie au XIV e siècle et, tout particulièrement, dans la Principauté de Serrés. Sans nier l'influence dominante byzantine dans la vie et les institutions serbes, on peut, nous semble-t-il, se demander si d'autres influences n'ont pas également agi dans l'état et la politique serbes. La Serbie était-elle ouverte à d'autres pays, avait-elle des contacts avec d'autres régions du monde, et plus précisément avec l'Occident? En d'autres termes, quelle était la position de la Serbie entre l'Orient et l'Occident? Permettez-moi de faire à ce propos quelques observations qui me semblent significatives. Tout d'abord, il est intéressant de noter que les deux étapes les plus importantes de l'ascension de l'état serbe dans ses institutions suprêmes ont été franchies au moment où l'Empire Byzantin était en position de faiblesse. C'est ainsi que l'autocéphalie de l'église serbe fut conquise et octroyée par le patriarche de Nicée à l'archevêque serbe en 1219, tandis que la proclamation du royaume eut lieu en 1217, mais la couronne ne vint ni de Nicée ni de Constantinople, mais de Rome. Les deux événements se sont produits après la chute catastrophique de Byzance en 1204, a u moment où l'Empire de Nicée était encore branlant et en concurrence avec celui de Thessalonique, voisin immédiat de l'état serbe. La seconde étape de l'ascension serbe fut la proclamation de l'empire et du patriarcat, en 1345, laquelle eut lieu non seulement sans l'accord de Byzance mais — comme M. Ostrogorsky nous dit dans son rapport — contre la volonté de celle-ci. Ici encore les Serbes ont profité de la profonde déchéance byzantine due à la guerre civile entre Jean V Paléologue et Jean VI Cantacuzène. La politique d'expansion territoriale et d'ascension institutionnelle de la Serbie se firent, par conséquent, aux dépens de Byzance. Dans cette situation on peut légitimement inférer que, quoique la Serbie ait emprunté bu assimilé maintes institutions, titres, mœurs etc. byzantines, elle a aussi senti la nécessité de trouver des appuis politiques ailleurs et de nouer des contacts avec d'autres pays. Ce ne pouvait être qu'avec l'Occident. La croissante menace ottomane à partir de la moitié du XIV e siècle devait y contribuer. Le Professeur Ostrogorsky a très bien souligné l'impact de l'invasion ottomane. Il semble bien que l'Empereur Etienne DuSan fut un des premiers princes européens — en dehors de Byzance — qui ait compris l'énormité du péril turc. Car, comme le dit M. Ostrogorsky, Duèan n'était pas seulement 'un conquérant victorieux'. La tentative de DuSan d'organiser une coalition contre les Turcs en s'appuyant sur les puissances occidentales et d'obtenir du pape le titre de 'capitaine' des armées chrétiennes pour la guerre contre les Turcs n'était pas seulement le résultat de son appréciation réaliste de la situation — car Duèan savait pertinemment que Byzance ne pouvait plus offrir d'aide effective contre l'invasion ottomane — mais aussi du fait qu'il était naturel pour la Serbie dans une pareille conjoncture de se tourner vers les puissances avec lesquelles elle entretenait depuis longtemps des relations suivies et considérables. Si DuSan n'a pas réussi, la faute en est à sa mort prématurée, mais on a vu par la suite et pendant plus d'un siècle l'incompréhension de l'Occident face au danger turc. S'il était permis en histoire de changer le cours des événements, on pourrait se demander: que se serait-il passé si DuSan avait pris Constantinople? Est-ce que la présence sur le Bosphore d'une grande puissance, qu'était la Serbie à cette époque, au lieu de la faible Byzance, au moment où les Turcs s'apprêtaient à passer d'Asie Mineure en Europe, n'aurait pas obligé ceux-ci à se tourner vers d'autres régions?

XII 64 Mais revenons à notre sujet. Nous venons de dire que la Serbie à l'époque de Dusan entretenait depuis longtemps des relations suivies avec l'Occident. Ici nous touchons à un point sur lequel M. Ostrogorsky n'a pas pu s'arrêter dans son rapport : l'économie et les relations commerciales de la Serbie à cette époque. La Serbie était entrée dan9 le X I I I e siècle avec une économie peu développée et, sans doute, tributaire de la sphère byzantine. Mais, avec la chute de Byzance en 1204 et avec le commencement de l'exploitation des mines (en particulier celles d'argent, de plomb, de cuivre et de fer) en Serbie vers le milieu du X I I I e siècle, l'économie serbe se développe rapidement et entre dans le circuit économique européen. Cette entrée, faite par l'exportation des produits miniers serbes, se réalise par la Méditerranée. La Serbie s'ouvre vers l'Occident dès la seconde moitié du X I I I e siècle par l'intermédiaire de la côte adriatique, principalement de Dubrovnik, de Kotor et de quelques autres villes. Une preuve un peu particulière de la fréquence des relations entre la Serbie et l'Italie à cette époque se trouve dans la Divina commedia de Dante (Paradis, chant XIX, vers 140). D'autres preuves, mieux fondées, se trouvent dans les actes du gouvernement vénitien. N'oublions pas, non plus, la magnifique icone donnée par le roi Milutin — dont le rôle a été si bien souligné par M. Ostrogorsky — à l'église de Saint Nicolas de Bari (où elle se trouve encore). D'ailleurs, le luxe de la cour de Milutin, dont Théodore Métochite nous parle, tout en étant le résultat de l'influence des mœurs byzantines — comme le dit M. Ostrogorsky — était aussi le résultat de la richesse provenant de l'activité minière et commerciale. Les relations commerciales de la Serbie, inaugurées au X I I I e siècle avec l'Occident, se transforment et se confirment au cours du XIV e siècle en un courant constant d'échanges très importants entre la Serbie, Dubrovnik, Kotor, Durazzo etc. et, par leur intermédiaire, avec l'Italie et d'autres pays. Rien de pareil n'existe entre la Serbie et Byzance. On pourrait objecter, certes, que c'est tout simplement le manque de sources du côté oriental qui nous fait attribuer au commerce serbe avec l'Occident (pour lequel nous disposons d'innombrables documents dans les archives de Dubrovnik, Kotor, Venise etc.) une importance exagérée. Cependant, il faut tenir compte des faits suivants : 1. Dans les sources orientales qui nous sont conservées presque aucune mention n'est faite du commerce entre Byzance et la Serbie. 2. Dans les sources occidentales on trouve quelques mentions de ce trafic, mais elles sont très rares. 3. Cette situation n'est pas surprenante, puisque l'état de guerre entre les deux états était plus ou moins permanent. 4. Enfin — last but not least — on peut se demander qui, des Serbes et des Byzantins, aurait pu s'occuper de ce trafic? Nous savons que la classe marchande serbe était peu développée et que les marchands serbes occupaient une place très réduite même dans le commerce avec l'Occident, dont la plus grande partie était aux mains des gens de Dubrovnik. Il est peu probable par conséquent que les marchands serbes aient pu s'occuper davantage du commerce oriental. D'autre part, on ne voit pas comment les marchands byzantins de Constantinople, de Thessalonique et d'autres villes auraient pu trafiquer de manière importante avec l'intérieur et — qui plus est — avec un état avec lequel Byzance était la plupart du temps en guerre. Il est d'ailleurs significatif que, quand on mentionne les relations commerciales entre la Serbie et Byzance dans les sources occidentales, il s'agit toujours de marchands occidentaux. Tout ceci ne signifie pas, bien sûr, qu'aucun commerce n'existait entre la Serbie et Byzance, surtout entre Thessalonique et l'intérieur, par l'ancienne route de la

XII La Serbie entre Byzance et VOccident

65

vallée du Vardar. Mais on peut penser qu'il y avait un déséquilibre très marqué entre les relations commerciales de la Serbie avec l'Occident d'une part et d'autre part celles de la Serbie avec Byzance. Or peut-on imaginer que ce fait de la vie économique ait pu rester sans conséquences sur d'autres plans: humain, politique, culturel etc.? La chose est peu croyable. Les preuves du contraire sont nombreuses. C'est ainsi qu'on sait qu'un très grand nombre d'Occidentaux, en premier lieu des gens de Dubrovnik et de Kotor, mais aussi des Italiens et même des Espagnols, occupaient des rangs très élevés dans l'état serbe et même à la cour royale et impériale, et cela dès le XIII e siècle et jusqu'à la chute de la Serbie en 1459. Le rôle de ces personnages était sans doute très important dans la vie de la Serbie, surtout dans sa vie politique et économique. On trouve ensuite toute une série d'influences occidentales dans la vie culturelle de la Serbie (l'architecture, la littérature, les arts mineurs etc.) et dans la vie quoti* dienne aussi — mais sur ce point d'autres, plus compétents que moi, pourraient apporter davantage de preuves et d'exemples. Enfin, on ne peut pas oublier une évolution très caractéristique dans la vie politique serbe après DuSan. En effet, tandis que la région de Serrés — comme l'a montré d'une façon excellente M. Ostrogorsky — conserve et même renforce les manifestations de l'influence byzantine sur son territoire et dans ses institutions, on note que certaines autres régions serbes et leurs maîtres se tournent après 1355 presque complètement vers l'Occident et se débarrassent plus ou moins vite des influences byzantines. C'est le cas, par exemple, des Batëié dans la Zeta, de Nikola Altomanovié, de Vojislav Vojinovie et d'autres. Cette attitude serait incompréhensible si l'on ne tenait pas compte des liens très forts et anciens qui existaient entre ces régions et l'Occident. Sans prétendre, par conséquent, évaluer le rapport des deux influences — orientale et occidentale — en Serbie au XIV e siècle, et tout en soulignant que je suis d'accord avec le Professeur Ostrogorsky sur la prédominance byzantiïie, je voudrais conclure en disant que les jugements définitifs en ce qui concerne la place de la Serbie entre l'Orient et l'Occident doivent être très nuancés, car il faut tenir compte et de la situation politique et encore plus des réalités économiques de la Serbie à cette époque. Il n'est pas exagéré de croire qu'un très grand nombre de manifestations de l'influence byzantine en Serbie n'ont pu exister et subsister que grâce à la richesse de la Serbie, provenant de son commerce avec l'Occident. Si, en définitive, nous pouvons réitérer la formule de M. Ostrogorsky que 'l'imitation du modèle byzantin devient un programme en Serbie', on peut aussi ajouter que ce programme portait les traces d'un autre modèle, le modèle occidental.

XIII

C R I M E A N D V I O L E N C E I N T H E V E N E T I A N L E V A N T : A FEW XlVth C E N T U R Y CASES T h e functioning of the Venetian political system and of its institutions has recently attracted the attention of a considerable number of scholars. 1 Special interest has been given to social unrest, violence, crime and the mechanism of social and political control. 2 One basic conclusion of this research is that the Venetian state and society, although strong and stable, were more troubled by inner contradictions and conflicts than had previously been thought. T h e existence of internal unrest brought about the creation of repressive institutions, which became one of the mainstays of the Venetian power. At the same time it can not be denied that a large portion of the success and durability of Venice was due to the ability and pragmatism of its patriciate. T h e question that will be posed here is somewhat different: did the unrest, crimes and violence, which can be found in Venice, have their equivalent in the Venetian colonies in the Levant and among people connected with that area? And if so, what was the response of the Venetian government to such phenomena? 1 See for example J. C. Davis, The Decline of the Venetian Nobility as a Ruling Class, The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series LXXX, No. 2, Baltimore 1962; A. Ventura, Nobiltà e popolo nella società veneta del *400 e '500, Laterza, Bari 1964; G. Gracco, Società e stato nel medioevo veneziano, Olschki, Florence 1967; J. Bowsma, Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1968 (especially Chapter II); L. Martines,„Political Conflict in the Italian City States", in Government and Opposition, vol. 111(1968), pp. 69—91 (especially pp. 82—84) ; F. C. Lane. „The Enlargement of the Great Council of Venice" in Florilegium Historiale : Essays Presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, ed. by J. P. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1971, pp. 236—274; F. C. Lane, Venice, A Maritime Republic, The Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore and London 1973 (especially Chapters 8 and 9). 2 See D. Queller, „The Civic Irresponsibility of the Venetian Nobility" in Economy, Society and Government in Medieval Italy, ed. by D. Herlihy, R. S. Lopez and V.Slessarev, The Kent State University Press, Kent 1969, pp. 223—235; S. Chojnacki, „Crime Punishment and the Trecento Venetian State" in Violence and Civil Disorder in Italian Cities, 1290—1500, ed. by L. Martines, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1972, pp. 184—228. Also the unpublished doctoral dissertation òf G. Ruggiero Jr., The Ten: Control of Violence and Social Disorder in Trecento Venice.

XIII

124 T h e Venetian presence in the medieval Levant, especially after 1204, has been well studied. 8 Yet, the research has mostly concentrated on the political and economic history and m u c h less on the attitudes and daily behavior, or misbehavior, of the people in thos6 far-away regions.While the most important and most dangerous political upheaval in the X l V t h century Venetian Levant, the Cretan rebellion of 1363, is well known 4 , other problems of this nature have been generally neglected. I t is nevertheless clear that such a vast area with its numerous and ethnically varied population was bound to produce, in everyday life, many situations which did not correspond to the usual image of Venetians as highly efficient businessmen and selflessly dedicated politicians and functionaries. T h i s holds true whether one deals with persons in high office, with average people living in the colonies or with persons who had only marginal contacts with that region. A few examples should suffice to prove this point. T h e Venetian baili of Constantinople, the most important and powerful Venetian functionaries in the Levant, were chosen with particular care. Nevertheless, there were cases when even these men committed errors which could have very m u c h embarassed their government. For example T o m a Soranzo had been bailo first in Armenia and then in the Byzantine capital, f r o m 1323 to 1325.6 During his stay in Constantinople this prominent functionary went secretly by night to the church of Saint Mary where he was digging „quandam cavam pro inveniendo thesaurum qui dicebatur esse absconsus in dicta ecclesia". Such behavior from the highest Venetian representative in Byzantium would certainly not enhance Venetian prestige there. O n e wonders what would have been the Byzantine reaction to the mysterious doings of the bailo if they had been aware of them. It is not surprising that the Venetian government punished Soranzo by a fine of 50 lire di grossi upon his return to the city in 1326.6 Another bailo in Constantinople, Bertuccio Michiel, was accused in 1329 of not having followed governmental orders „super facto recuperandi f r u m e n t u m pro comuni", b u t he was exhonerated from that charge. 7 8 To quote only the most recent works : F. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au Moyen âge, Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome. vol. 193, Paris 1959; S. Borsari, Il dominio veneziano a Creta nel XIII secolo, Napoli 1963; S. Borsari, Studi sulle co-

lonie veneziane in Romania nel XIII 4

6

secolo, Napoli 1966.

See, for example, Thiriet, o. c.; Borsari, Il dominio. F. Thiriet, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie, vol. I r

Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes — Sorbonne, Vie Section, Mouton & Co., Paris and The Hague 61966; p. 282; Borsari,Studi, pp. 85—99. State Archives in Venice (Archivio di Stato di Venezia — hereafter ASV), Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 25v. See also B. Krekié, „0 neprilikama dvojice mletafkih potestata Hvara u prvoj polovini XIV veka", in Zbornik Filosofskog fakulteta, vol. XI/1, Spomemca Jorju Tadióu, Belgrade 1970, pp. 307—308. Soranzo seems, nevertheless, to have recovered his good standing in Venice later on, if he is the same person who, from 1329 to 1331, was bailo in Cyprus. See F. Thiriet, Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, vol. I, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes — Sorbonne, Vie Section, Mouton & Co., Paris and The Hague 1958, p. 244. 7 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 178. Thiriet, Régestes, vol. I, p. 239, asserts that Bertuccio was bailo of Constantinople from 1328 to 1331 ; he has, also, two summaries of documents from July 1329 and in one of these he calls Michiel „baile de Constantinople". Our document, however, on October 29, 1329 speaks of „Bercucius Michiel.,. olim baiulus in Constantinopoli", which would indicate that his career in the Byzantine capital had ended sometimes between July and October of 1329.

XIII 125 Other Venetian functionaries of a lower rank, but frequently of not lesser responsibilities in the Levant, caused troubles to the Venetian administration by their behavior. In 1341 „processum est per inquisitionem" against Filippo Contarini. H e had substituted for Toma Gradenigo as commander of a fleet, consisting of three Venetian galleys, bound for Trebisond. Abusing by his position, he disobeyed the orders that had been given him by Gradenigo and took the ships „alo Vati et hoc bis", which was „contra honorem et ordinem comunis Veneciarum". Contarini was punished by a fine of 100 lire di grossi.8 Problems related to the navigation of Venetian ships in the Levant were numerous and varied. Insubordination, disregard of orders and even desertion, not only among sailors, but also among ship's officers, were frequent occurrences on Venetian ships. A drastic example of this was the fate of Toma Viadro, who had been the commander of the Venetian Adriatic fleet. In 1337 he was accused in the Major Council „quod discessit a bello habito ab ipso cum... galeis novem Januensium". His desertion had resulted in the defeat of his fleet. Viadro was sentenced to one year's réclusion „in carcere inferiori", to banishment from Venice and all its lands and was prohibited from navigating on any Venetian ship. Should he be caught in defiance of any of these decisions, he would spend the rest of his life in jail. T h e former commander of the Adriatic fleet did, indeed, die in jail at an undetermined date. 9 There were, of course, numerous cases of desertion from Venetian ships. 10 Life on those ships was extremely difficult. An illustration of these conditions is found in a 1329 document from Dubrovnik (Ragusa), which was at the time under Venetian supreme domination. A Venetian sailor who had entered service on the ship of another Venetian in Dubrovnik had to promise „non dormire modo aliquo vel ingenio absque sui expressa licencia in aliqua terra et loco ubi secum fuero". 1 1 Long and often dangerous journeys to the Levant were conducive to violence and various sorts of crime. In August of 1334 Zanin Soriano was condemned in Venice „quod suspendatur per gulam taliter quod... moriatur". He had killed near Trogir, in Dalmatia a fellow-sailor on a ship coming from Crete. 12 Another kind of crime occurred in 1346 when the Florentine Jacopino „comisit peccatum sodomiticum" with the servant of a Venetian merchant on a ship returning from Candia to Venice. Jacopino was sentenced „quod... comburatur ad locum solitum taliter quod moriatur". T h e servant, 8 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 221 v. The captains of the three ships were exhonerated from the charge that they had gone along with Contarini's decision. 9 ASV, ibid.9 I, f. 176. Viadro's sentence was passed by 395 votes in favor, 50 opposed and 47 abstained in the Major Council. It is interesting to note that Viadro's deputy commander, who also left the battle with his ship, was exhonerated because he was following the example of his superior „et propterea non apparet quod sit in culpa conscilio". ASV, ibid., f. 177. 10 In 1312 not less than thirteen sailors deserted from a Ragusan galley which was in Venetian service. Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku — hereafter HAD), Diversa cancellariae, VI, f. 34. 11 HAD, Diversa notariae, V, f. 215. 18 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 145.

XIII

126 being only eleven years old or less, was condemned to a whipping s e cundum usum". 1 3 One can gain the impression that sometimes the patrons of the ships themselves favored the lawbreakers. For example in 1339 a ship patron was fined for having permitted the escape of five men who had been entrusted to him by the castellan of Coron and Modon to be handed over to the authorities in Venice. 14 This lack of discipline of the crews or the purposeful wrongdoing of Venetian ships on their way to or from the Levant were frequently felt by populations which lived on their way. In Dubrovnik there is more than one proof of this. In 1373 men from Venetian galleys disembarked on the small island of Kolocep, near Dubrovnik, beat to death a serf of a Ragusan patrician, picked his grape from the vineyard and took it away. 15 Other damages to Ragusan property, committed „per galeas Romanie Venetorum" are mentioned in 1389.16 Another aspect of the problem of crime and violence related to the Venetian Levant was the unlawful activities of Levantines or Venetians connected to the Levant that occurred in Venice itself. Even Venetian functionaries in the Levant — who were constantly subjected to the scrutiny and control of the Venetian government — were sometimes exposed to peculiar kinds of annoyances. In 1338 Pancrazio Giustinian, „olim capitaneus galearum armate Cipri" was confronted in Venice by a man who „occasione dicti officii capitanei" insulted him using „ verba iniuriosa" and threatened s q u a s sando capud cum turpibus actis". The accused was sentenced in absentia to one year in jail.17 Abuses were committed also on ships arriving in Venice from the Levant. Thus Leonardo Pedoro, formerly from Dubrovnik, was accused in 1337 of having stolen a year ago „garofolos et alias species" from a Venetian galley which had arrived from Trebisond. He was condemned „quod... cridetur eras eius culpa a Sancto Marco usque Riuoaltum et in scala., et postea ducatur ad punctam... et ibi suspendatur per gulam cum una catena 18 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, II, f. 136. For similar cases see Chojnacki, o. c., p. 211 and n. 66. 14 ASV, ibid., II, f. 195v. 16 HAD, Lamenta de forts, I, f. 134v. 16 HAD, Reformations, XXVIII, f. 25v. M. Dinié, Odluke veta DubrcvaZke Republike, vol II, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Belgrade 1964, p. 563. 17 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 186. Thiriet thinks that Pancrazio Giustinian, who had been castellan of Coron and Modon in 1310, is the same one that later, in 1351, became procuratore di San Marco. Thiriet, Délibérations, vol. I, pp. 131, 135, 136, 225, 276. However, Thiriet lists, also, another Pancrazio Giustinian, who had been bailo in Armenia in 1289—90. It seems possible to conjecture, that this one might have been identical with the person who in 1310, was the castellan of Coron and Modon, while our Pancrazio could have been the same one that became procuratore in 1351. Other casees of crimes committed by Levantines in Venice: „Anna que fuit de Costantinopoli" killed in 1329 in Venice her infant son „paucorum dierum". She was sentenced „quod ducatur per Canale in alto usque ad Sanctam Crucem et inde reducatur ad Sanctum Marcum, clamando continue de culpa sua et postea inter duas columnas comburatur taliter quod moriatur." ASV, ibid, f. 78. In 1335 „Nicoletus de Nigroponte" was condemned for an assassination attempt „quod... bulletur et frustetur et stet una die in berlina et tribus annis in uno carcerum inferiorum", after which he was to be banished from Venice. ASV, ibid., L 166 v.

XIII 127 ferri taliter quod moriatur et non possit inde moveri usque ad unum mensem". 10 A somewhat similar case occurred in 1341. Five men, two of them Greek servants on a ship which had arrived from Cyprus carrying cotton in 1337, were accused „per inquisitionem" of having illegaly boarded that ship in Venice, of having broken the seals on the doors and of having stolen a number of sacks with cotton. Having done that they then resealed the doors. T h e key role in this operation was played by one Guidoto from Padua, who was at the time «famulus ad Tabulam ternarie". H e also sold the cotton and divided the money among the accomplices. Under torture he admitted his crime and was sentenced to death by hanging. Another accused, the goldsmith „Jacobellus Cunçapere", a former «famulus ad Camaram Levantis" shared Guidoto's fate, as did Marco Pisani who, however, was absent. T h e two Greeks, also absent, were sentenced to five years in jail and perpetual banishment from Venice. 19 One of the more interesting aspects of the violence and lawlesness in the Venetian Levant is the study of the participation of the average Venetians in this kind of behavior. There is no doubt that they contributed their share to the problems with which their administration was confronted in the area. Apart from numerous minor infractions, thefts, abuses etc., grave crimes were committed from time to time by the Venetians living and working in the East. T o make things worse, even members of prominent Venetian patrician families were involved in criminal acts. In July of 1338 Marco Valaresso was accused of having killed, with an axe, his brother-in-law Nicolo Malipiero when they both were in Constantinople. Valaresso was absent from Venice and did not appear in court. T h e proceedings against him took place nevertheless and it was decided that «istud malefitium" — perpetrated by Valaresso «mattando et occidendo eum (sc. Malipiero) cum una securi et proiciendo eum in una latrina" — was «orribile et crudelissimum". T h e court offered a reward of 200 lire di grossi to anyone surrendering him alive to Venetian authorities or providing information leading to his capture. One hundred lire di grossi were promised to persons bringing proof of having killed him. All Venetian functionaries were alerted to do their best to capture him and send him in chains to Venice. There was, however, no decision on punishment at this time and since Valaresso probably was never captured, there was no such decision at a later date either. 20 One can still assume that the sentence would have been drastic, similar to the one in the second such case that we shall touch upon now. 18

ASV, ibid., I, f. 173 v. ASV, ibid., I, f. 216—218. 20 ASV, ibid., I, f. 183v. — 184. The persecution of criminal and political opponents was usually very thorough in the Levant and in Dalmatia. In 1310, for example, after the Querini-Tiepolo plot, letters ordering the capture and sending to Venice of one of the conspirators, Marco Zeno, were directed to Venetian functionaries in Coron, Modon, Crete, Negropont, Dubrovnik etc. See Thiriet, Délibérations, vol. 11,(1971) p. 136. S. Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike, vol. I, Jjgoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb 1868, p. 254. Another interesting example comes from Dubrovnik. In 1333 the Doge's letter was publicly read in Dubrovnik „in latino et in slauonessco", ordering the Count of Dubrovnik, all the authorities and the whole population to do their best to capture Budislav Ugrinic, „derubatorem et homicidam, inimicum 19

XIII 128 Late in 1340 or early in 1341 a cruel murder occurred in Corfou. Pietro Pisani, a member of a distinguished family, was accused of having lured a Venetian, Micaletto Rubeo, to leave the city of Corfou „doloxe...et spiritu diabolico instigatus, sub modo et specie volendi vendere valaniam". Micaletto was the representative on the island of a „ser Lipi" and Pisani promised to show him „certam valaniam quam habet extra Corfou ad quoddam casale", which Pisani held together with Pietro de Monopoli. Once the three of them left the city of Corfou and arrived at a place called San Marco, Pisani „evaginavit quendam ensem et a parte de retro percuterat ipsum Michaletum". Pietro de Monopoli then hit him with a knife, after which Rubeo was hit „de una maça super capud", knocked down and killed. T o conceal the identity of the victim, the criminals „decapitarunt ipsum Micaletum, tondendo postea ipsum capud et scorticando sibi vultum et incidendo sibi nasum et aures". They then threw the head in one place and the body in another. All of this was done for the purpose of robbing Micaletto. Pisani took 300 „f!orenos vel ducatos" from the body and gave Pietro de Monopoli the keys to Rubeo's house in Corfou, so that it too might be robbed. At the time of the trial, Pisani was not in Venice. It was decided to banish him perpetually from Venice and its territories. Should he ever be captured, „ducatur per Canale preconiçando ante eum culpam et postea ducatur ad furcas et suspendatur per gulam taliter quod moriatur". All Venetian authorities everywhere were to try to capture him and a reward of 500 ducats was promised to whoever surrenders him alive. As for the other criminal, Pietro de Monopoli, no mention was made of him and it is clear that he also was not in Venetian hands. 21 These two are certainly among the more dramatic cases of Venetian violence in the Levant. Doubtless, similar cases occurred and, of course, minor crimes were a much more frequent phenomenon, not only in the Levant, but on the Venetian route to it and back. Dubrovnik is again a good example of this. In 1312 Donatello from Venice and two other men were accused of participation in the murder of a Ragusan. However, he was found guilty only of carrying arms and baring a sword „post terciam campanam" and was condemned to a fine. 22 Other Venetians illegaly carried arms in Dubrovnik „post tertium sonum campane" 23 , participated in fistfights 24 etc. All of this was, however, only normal, everyday occurrences which took place in each port of the Mediterranean world. nostri comunis, vivum vel mortum". This was done on the part of the Doge «vigilantes sollicite circa statum pacificum ipsarum partium Slauonie et intendentes in facto inimicorum nostrorum de inde taliter providere, quod in posterum ad eorum terrorem transeat et exemplum". Whoever surrenders Ugrinic alive or dead will receive an award of 1000 florens. HAD, Reformationes, X, f. 171 v. 81 ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, I, f. 220v—221. 22 HAD, Lamenti politici, I, f. 21.—23. Next year Donatello was accused of having damaged the garden of a nunnery, but was, again, exhonerated. HAD, ibid., f. 29v. " HAD, Diversa notariae, IV, f. 3v. 24 In 1393 sailors from a Venetian ship in the Ragusan harbor got into a „rixa et rumore" with men from a Greek ship from Corfou. Several men were injured „cum ferris et fustibus cum sanguinis effuxione". HAD, Diversa cancellariae, XXXI, f. 86v.

XIII 129 Looking back at various aspects of crime and violence in the Venetian Levant or in connection with it, one cannot help noticing that all of this was part of the price which the Venetians were paying for their success there. No such headaches would have appeared had there been no Venetian expansion in the Byzantine and Levantine waters. It was the success of that expansion which brought so much glory, wealth and power to Venice, that also caused some of the less brilliant phenomena upon which we touched here. I n conclusion, there is no doubt that crime and violence existed in the Venetian colonies in the Levant and on the seas between them and Venice no less than they existed in Venice itself. It is equally evident that the Venetian governement did its best to control and to punish those crimes as severely as if they had occurred in Venice itself. Obviously in the far removed vast spaces of the Levant, it was much easier for the criminals to escape punishment and to find refuge in places, where even the highly efficient Venetian state and its police could not reach them. It would be interesting to assess the possible increase of the role of the Venetian repressive machinery in the Levant as a result of violence and crimes committed there, but we do not as yet have enough data to make any significant evaluation. One thing does seem certain and that is that in Venice itself the development of such bodies as the Ten and the increase in their power never led to their takeover of the ultimate decisionmaking and the same holds true for the colonies. T h e basic balance of power in Venice and in its colonies was not upset by the appearance and growth of the repressive apparatus which, although very influential, worked with and not against the established institutions of government. Finally, how dangerous were the crimes and other unlawful acts for the stability of the Venetian domination in their Levantine colonies or along their lines of communication? More research is needed before this question can be answered with certainty. Nevertheless, it does not seem exaggerated to say that violence and crime in the Venetian Levant was an element of additional and considerable worry and exerted much pressure on Venetian judiciary and political bodies. T h e Levantine area, while being of vital interest to Venice, was in the XlVth century entering a period of increasing chaos. Even local violence could — in such a delicate situation — result in instability or even explosions which, in turn, could expose Venetian men and property to deep trouble and to ominous dangers. This is why for Venice crime and violence in the Levant was a serious political and economic, as well as a grave judiciary problem.

XIV Venetian Merchants in the Balkan Hinterland in the Fourteenth Century Barisa Krekió, Los Angeles Venetian interest in the Balkan hinterland in the late middle ages had two main sources: Venetian possessions on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and developments in the Balkan hinterland itself. It was primarily because of the Venetian presence on the eastern shore of the Adriatic after 1204, and of the importance of this shore for Venetian navigation that Venice came into contact with the Balkan hinterland states of Serbia and Bosnia between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the territories of these states were in many instances immediately adjacent to Venetian possessions. Another reason for the Venetian interest in the hinterland was development taking place there. Serbia established itself as a rising Balkan power in the thirteenth century and toward the end of that century and in the first half of the fourteenth century embarked on a vast expansionist course, which culminated in the mid-fourteenth century, in the days of the king and then emperor Stefan Du?an. At that point, Serbia became by far the largest and the most powerful Balkan state. It was able to achieve those successes because, from the mid-thirteenth century, mining had started in Serbia. Very soon large quantities of copper, iron, lead and, above all, silver started flowing westward, primarily through Dubrovnik. While part of those minerals remained in that coastal city, most were exported from there to Italy, especially to Venice, from where they found their way into other European countries. ^

A similar, if somewhat later, development took place in Bosnia. Plagued by the so-called "Bogomil heresy" and by the attempts of the kings of Hungary and Croatia to take advantage of that heresy and subordinate the region to their rule, Bosnia struggled throughout the thirteenth century to survive, gradually asserting its independence. By the 1330' s Bosnia had become another important mineral producer and exporter in the Balkans. Its main product was silver, but Bosnia, like Serbia, mined copper, lead and iron, exporting these minerals mostly through Dubrovnik to the West. Once again, Venice was the major gateway through which these minerals entered the Western European market.

2)

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Venetians were interested in the Balkan hinterland, although they never topk full advantage of the Balkan market and its

XIV -414-

possibilities and thus never established a massive presence there. The lion's share of the Balkan mineral trade went to merchants from Dubrovnik, who jumped into this market from the very beginning and profited by It enormously. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that there was, from an early date, a substantial participation of Venetian capital in the trade with the hinterland by means of investments of that capital through

o\

Dubrovnik. '

The fact that the Venetians were making their investments mostly through Dubrovnik and that they were generally reluctant to go personally into the Balkan hinterland should not be construed to mean that no Venetians were present and active there. There are a number of documents proving their presence in the Balkans already in the thirteenth century and continuing into the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. We shall review a few such cases, mainly from the fourteenth century. The earliest probable mention of Venetian merchants in the Balkan hinterland I was able to find comes from September, 1271, when the Venetian Major Council discussed the sending of an ambassador to the Serbian king, Stefan Uro? I, "pro Jacobo Calbo et 4) Cauce et aliis deraubatis, " obviously Venetian merchants who had suffered at the hands of the Serbs, probably in the interior of that country. In 1284 there is mention of a "Marinus Veneti anus" and of'magister Marcus 5) pilipariue" who were both in the important Serbian mining center of Brskovo.

An additional, though indirect, indication

of the presence of Venetian merchants in Serbia at this time comes from a decision of the Venetian Major Council in June, 1286, authorizing the Venetian count of Dubrovnik, when he prohibits the local merchants from going into Serbia, to extend this prohibition to Venetians in Dubrovnik as well. g\ At the turn of the fourteenth century interesting information points to the Venetian presence in both Bosnia and Serbia. In November, 1300, the Venetian Major Council decided to write to Dubrovnik and to spend a certain amount of money "pro liberatione quorumdam nostrorum fidelium, qui dicuntur esse capti in partibus Boxine et dicuntur 7) esse circa quinquaginta. "

From the wording of this decision ("nostrorum fidelium,"

not "Venetorum") it would seem probable that the majority of these people were Venetian subjects,possibly from Dalmatian cities. It is, however, quite likely that some from among them were Venetians from Venice. The Venetian interest in Bosnia certainly existed at this time, spurred on especially by the slave trade,8^ but it is hard to believe that the number of Venetians in Bosnia in the year 1300 could have reached fifty. 9)

XIV -415-

On the other hand, Dubrovnik's chronicler, Junius Resti (Restió), speaking of the conflict between Serbia and Dubrovnik in the 1320' s, wrote that Dubrovnik had asked the Venetians Mche dovessero rimoversi dal traffico di Slavonia e levar le case di negozio da tutti quelli luoghi. " Resti added that Dubrovnik had two goals in mind: to inconvenience the Serbs by creating a scarcity of goods imported into Serbia by the Venetians and thus to show to the Serbs the sincerity of the Venetian cooperation with Dubrovnik. The second aim was, however, "che li mercanti veneziani non s'impadronissero totalmente del commercio della Rassia in assenza de'Ragusei. " The Venetians refused to remove their merchants from Serbia "per non privar li cittadini di Venezia dell'esito delle sue manifatture, come dicevano, ma in effetto acciò si potessero prevaler li loro mercanti tanto più nell'assenza de'Ragusei.

From Resti' s

words it would seem that the number of Venetian merchants in Serbia at the time was quite substanial and that there were even Venetian commercial enterprises ("case di negozio") there. That, in my opinion, would be an erroneous assumption. Resti wrote about four centuries after the events and, although he was, beyond doubt, the best historian of old Dubrovnik until recent times, all the first rate archival sources indicate a very small Venetian presence in the Balkan hinterland.

There were good reasons for the Venetian reluctance to go there. Some of the difficulties with which they were confronted will be clearly seen from the following cases. In July of 1318 the doge presented a "memoriale" to the ambassador in Venice of the Serbian king, Stefan Uro£ n Milutin, listing the damages suffered by Venetian merchants in Serbia and asking for compensation. Among the damages, one finds "damnum Blasii aurificis Sancti Cantiani, qui existens in Berschoa iam sunt anni sexdecim et fatiendo ibi artem suam et utendo mercationibus" had been robbed by a Serb, had suffered 1500 hyperpers damage and was thrown for ten months "in duro et aspro carcere in quodam castro vocato S c o p i a . T w o other Venetians, "fatiens transitimi per territorium domini regis" in 1309 had been robbed and they had spent three months in jail.

12)

Nine years later their grievances were still unresolved.

Somewhat later, in 1321, two Venetians were held captive by the rebellious Serbian 13) noblemen of the Branivojevió family, not far from Dubrovnik. Additional cases of Venetians in trouble in the Balkans can be found throughout the fourteenth century. Thus, in 1343 the Venetian ambassador in Serbia was ordered to intervene with king Dusan on behalf of "plures nostri fideles" who had presented petitions to the doge and''qui facere habent in curia regis Raxie. " The ambassador was 14) instructed to help them because they seem to need his support. Similarily in

XIV -416-

1349, when Venice sent another envoy to Dusan to complain about the Serbian treatment of merchants from Dubrovnik, he was also supposed to listen to "querelas nostrorum civium dampnificatorum, de quibus petat satisfactionem et emendam" from the emperor. 15) Other Venetians, back in 1343y had suffered losses "per gentem imperatoria Bulgarorum" and the Venetian "baiulus" of Constantinople had been ordered to i n v e s t i g a t e . I t might be that these Venetians had arrived In Bulgaria via the Black Sea, but it is equally possible that they had travelled through Serbia - a journey that seems to have been taken by Venetians at the time, as we shall see. Early in 1354 Venice once again sent an envoy to Serbia to demand compensation for robberies perpetrated "a i nostri mercadanti de Venezia, li quai usava in le parte de Sclavonla. " He met the emperor and DuSan ordered his nobleman Petar Buóa to pay all the damages. Buóa promised to pay, but the envoy informed the Venetian government "che dener algun io non avi ni no e posude aver, salvo queste parole (se. Buóa's 17) promises). " The same thing happened in the case of Polo Quirino, who had been robbed by a Serb. Seeing "che le spexe iera grande e che niente poteva aver, " the 18) ambassador informed the doge of the situation. All of this forced Venice to send a second envoy to Serbia in mid-1354 "pro magna quantltate pecunie quam debent recipere nostri tam a rege,quamab aliis. " The ambassador was going in the service "nostrorum nobilium et aliorum mercantorum conversantium in partibus Raxie et debentlum recipere a rege vel de dictis partibus magnam summam pecunie" which had been frequently requested, but no satisfaction had been obtained. 19) Much later, when Serbia had fallen into decay, there were still Venetians in trouble in that country, which remained attractive because of its continued booming silver mining. In 1401, for example, the Venetian patrician Benedetto Contarini had suffered grave damage "illatum sibi per comltem Stephanum sive comitissam in Nouaberda, defectu cuiusdam Ragusini. " Marin Gradi (Gradió), a patrician and merchant from Dubrovnik, angered at the Venetians in Skadar, had induced count Stefan Lazarevió to act against the Venetian. Contarini's agent in Novo Brdo - the biggest Balkan silver mine - was arrested and thrown into the castle and the count "fecerat . . . intromitti etiam domos et omnes alias res'1 belonging to Contarini. All the silver due to him by his debtors was sequestered. The Venetian government sent a special envoy to Dubrovnik to protest. The envoy's mission failed, however, and the next year, 1402, the Contarini brothers, Stefano and Benedetto, complained that, due to Gradi's efforts,"qui stat in curia comitis

XIV -417-

Stefani, domini Rascie, et multum potest apud eum", they suffered the loss of a large quantity of money at the hands of Stefan.

' They said they spent over 600 ducats just

trying to recover the loss. The Venetian government decided to send a second envoy, this time to the Serbian count and the "comitissa, " as well as to Dubrovnik, but at Contarinis expense.

22)

In spite of such troubles and difficulties, the Venetians went into the Balkan hinterland throughout the fourteenth century,but always in small numbers. In addition to the already mentioned "Blasius aurifex de Venetiis" who died in Serbia in 1313, another goldsmith, ''Petrus aurifex de Venetiis" made, in June of the same year, an agreement with the representative of the Serbian king in Dubrovnik, Tripe Buéa, to go to Serbia "et laborare fideliter de arte sua dicto domino regi, si laborerium eius placuerit dicto domino regi" for one year. He was supposed to receive "librae Vin venetorum grossorum" for the year. Should the king dislike Peter's products, Buéa promised to give him enough 23) silver for a year's work and to split the profits from the sale of Peter' s artifacts. In the mid-twenties of the fourteenth century a Venetian glassmaker "Matheus vetrarius de Morano, " had organized a company with a merchant from Dubrovnik for the sale of a quantity "vetri laborati deferti per eos in Sclauoniam. " A quarrel broke out among the partners and arbiters in Dubrovnik decided in January, 1326, that Matthew should receive an amount of money from his partner and that "omnia crédita que habent recipere in Sclauonia ratione dicte societatis vetri et omne eorum laborerium 24) vetri quod similiter habent in Sclauonia" belonged to Matthew.

Other Venetian

artisans, merchants and professionals worked or visited the Balkan hinterland at this time, many of them using Dubrovnik as a transit point. Thus, it is quite possible that at least some of the Venetian doctors and pharmacists in fourteenth century Dubrovnik visited prominent personalities of the hinterland when the need arose25) - as did their colleagues - although we do not have explicit mention of such cases. In 1341, "Nicoletus intalliator de Veneciis" who worked in Dubrovnik, promised to go to the 26)

ban of Bosnia and "serviet fideliter et bene sibi" for four years.

The considerable Vene-

tian export of arms to Bosnia and Serbia through Dubrovnik no doubt was carried out, at least in part, by Venetian merchants 27) who travelled into those hinterland states, but again there is no clear proof of this. Two prominent Venetian patrician-merchants who had business in the Balkan hinterland deserve a brief mention. One was "Çaninus Georgio" a very important merchant,

XIV -418-

who lived in Dubrovnik from 1333 to 1352 and from there carried on extensive trade with Italy, the Levant and Balkan areas. Serbia was one of those. In March, 1340, Zanino was in the big mining center of Trepca, where he ran into trouble with local authorities. Zanino had sold a quantity of lead to Michael Buéa, another member of the prominent family from the Serbian coastal city of Kotor. He was ready to deliver the merchandise, when orders came from the king Dusan to the local count, prohibiting the delivery of lead to anyone "salvo al . . . igumeno per covrir la soa chiesa d Arcangelo" under death penalty. Zanino protested saying: "Io non son debitor ni a re, ni a Imperador, ni a persona di Sclauonia, non mi tuor lo mio per força." This did not help, however, and, after protracted negotiations with the count and the buyer, he was unable to deliver the lead. The only thing he could do was to attribute in a written statement the responsibility for any damages he might incur to the king and his men.

28)

Zanino remained in Serbia 29)

for a while longer and in spring, 1341, was settling some accounts due there.

The other Venetian worth mentioning was Giacomo Grimani, well-known for his activities in the Levant and elsewhere. In 1390 Grimani went from Dubrovnik into Bosnia and visited king Tvrtko I. He presented to the king a diamond that he wanted to sell him. In October of that year Tvrtko ' s representative in Dubrovnik declared that Grimani had first asked 16. 000 ducats for the diamond, then lowered the price to 3500 ducats, then to 3000 ducats and finally that he sold the diamond to Tvrtko for 400 ducats. The king had ordered that Grimani be given enough lead to cover that price and Grimani had already received a quantitiy of lead worth 100 ducats at current prices in Dubrovnik. However, Grimani was complaining in Dubrovnik and to the doge that he had given the diamond to the king for 400 ducats "plus per fore lam quam per precium, cum ipsum non vellet dare pro dicto precio. " Tvrtko' s representative protested saying that the king in his dealings with merchants and others never used violence, that he always observed agreements and that no one can complain of violence as far as he was concerned. Consequently, not wishing to hear Grimani complaining, Tvrtko sent the diamond to Dubrovnik and ordered it to be returned to the Venetian, provided Grimani first returned the lead he had received. Grimani answered by accusing Tvrtko "quod ipse non ut rex non dicit ve rum nec veritatem. " He added that he had shpwn the diamond to the king and had told him "quod marchio Ferrarensis semel voluit dare . . . pro dicto adyamante ducatos XII milia. " Grimani said that he did not ask for 16. 000 ducats, but did ask for 3500 and then 3000 ducats, and finally, from his own free will, had given the diamond for 400 ducats, with the understanding that he would be immediately paid in cash; there was never any mention

XIV -419-

of lead for payment. However, when Grimani returned to Tvrtko for payment, "Ipse vituperose me fecit expelll ab eius presentia. " Grimani stated that he had not complained about the price, but about the fact that he had not been paid in cash, adding that he was ready to take back the diamond, "salvis iuribus meis contra . . . regem pro solutlone mei adyamantls"andforthe reimbursement of damages, that he estimated at 200 ducats. Tvrtko's representative rejected this offer and stuck to his original proposal of OA\

exchange of goods.

We do not know the issue of this controversy, but the case illustrates

in exceptional detail the kind of problems the Venetians ran into in their dealings with the hinterland rulers. Additional information on the Venetian presence in the hinterland comes from official governmental acts. Thus, in 1316, during a period of tension between Dubrovnik and Serbia, Venice decided, at Dubrovnik's request, to send an ambassador to king Milutin of Serbia "et sub manu dicatur nostris quod non vadant illuc. "

Similarily,

in 1324 when the government of Dubrovnik had prohibited its citizens from going into Serbia, the Venetian government extended that prohibition to its own citizens.

32

^

In 1327-28, during the war between Serbia and Dubrovnik , Dubrovnik asked the doge "quod non permictat suos ire in . . . regnum Slauonie vel mietere... aliquas mercantiones" and 33) to punish Venetians going there.

Indeed, in August, 1327, the Venetian Senate

prohibited the Venetians from going to Serbia and ordered those already there to leave. 34 ^ However, some exceptions were granted. Thus, in early 35) 1328 two Venetians were allowed to "mittere acceptum de regno Rassie suas ballas. "

Others were permitted "portandi

ad regem Rascie equos VI et alia "and"deferre. .. ad partes Rascie Qg\ . . . pannos, " while one merchant was allowed to go there "solum cum persona. " Nevertheless, by mid-1328 it was well-known that the doge "iam diu revocavit suos cives et fideles de terris et regno regis predict! (sc. Rassie), inhibens eis sub magnis et asperis penis ne ad partes dicti regni acedant cum personis vel rebus aliquibus" because of the war between Serbia and Dubrovnik. 37) All of these orders and prohibitions, although giving few individual cases, undoubtedly indicate that there were Venetian merchants in the Balkan hinterland at the time and that they were interested in going there. Another group of official documents confirms this conclusion. Those are the privileges granted by the Balkan rulers to the Venetians and the correspondence related to such privileges. As early as 1310 the Bosnian ban, Stjepan I Kotromanió, in a letter to the doge promised that, if Venetian merchants were allowed to go into Bosnia, they would not be molested by anybody and the ban would 38)

protect and defend them and offer them "omnem securitatem. "

XIV -42o-

Twenty years later, in 1330, the Serbian king Stefan Uros III De^anski issued a charter granting the Venetian merchants Msi ad partes Romanie vel lent . . . pergere vel alio . . . et placeret eis transitum facere per regnum seu partes nostras . . . excepto ad partes Bulgarie, quod ipsls transitum liberalem et conductum securum damus." He added that they would be free "mercimonia exerce re" in Serbia, if they so 39) y Similarely , king Dusan, in 1340, in a letter to the doge mentioned that he

•

wished.

had learned that for Venetian merchants "transitus potest esse fructuosus et utilis per nostrum regnum, dirigendo gressus suos cum suis mercimoniis versus Constantinopolim et imperium Romanie." Therefore, he offered them freedom of transit and reimbursement 40) for any damages that they might incur at the hands of the Serbs. The Venetians thanked him and exhorted him to see to it that their merchants "cum suis rebus eundo 41) et redeundo per regnum tute, libere et favorabiliter tractentur. " The Venetians transiting through Serbia, although certainly not numerous, were not directed exclusively toward Byzantium and Constantinople, where they could go easily by sea anyway. They were, probably, transiting through Serbia also to go to Bulgaria. One finds in 1352 a privilege issued by the Bulgarian tsar John Alexander, granting secure trade to the Venetian merchants in his country upon payment of a 3 % tax, and regulating various problems which might arise from their presence and activity in Bulgaria. 42) Much later, when Serbia had decayed considerably after the terrible defeats it had suffered at the hands of the Ottomans at Maritsa, in 1371, and at Kosovo, in 1389, the Venetians remained interested in frequenting the area. I n a letter to the powerful Serbian nobleman Vuk Brankovié, in 1393, they asked that in his lands the roads be open and that Venetian merchants "tractentur in locis et terris suis dulciter et benigne, et quod eis confirmentur solite libertates et franchisie. " The Venetians desired to obtain from 43) Brankovié a written document to that effect.

Six years later, in a letter to Vuk's sons

and successors, Venice promised to treat them as friends when assured that "omnes mercatores, cives et fideles nostros in terris et locis suis mercantes et conversantes tractabunt . . . amicabiliter, dulciter et benigne" and that they will allow no violence to be made to the Venetians. 44) After the battle of Angora, in 1402, and the ensuing internal troubles in the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan states recovered somewhat. This included Serbia, whose mines, especially silver ones, were still producing full blast. The Venetians were well-aware of the importance of the Serbian market. In March, 1403, they sent an embassy to the

XIV -421-

Serblan despot Stefan Lazarevlé, whose territories were in part adjacent to Venetian possessions in Albania. The Venetians pointed out that Msicut notum est omnibus, in locis et partibus dicti domini comitis (sc. Stefan) multum sit de mercantia et magna lucra et specialiter per Raguseos et alios. " It was good and necessary that "mercatores nostri possint ire et traficare in dictis partibus" and therefore the ambassador was 45) sent to the despot.

His goal was to obtain "salvum conductum pro mercatoribus cum

mercationibus suis conversantibus in illis partibus. M The ambassador was to tell Stefan that the Venetians desired their merchants "plus solito frequentent et conversentur in partibus et locis suis, quia ex tali conversatione utraque pars recipiet comodum et emolumentum. " They asked the despot to issue "patentes litteras suo sigillo bullatas" by which it would appear that Venetians and their goods could "ire secure ad terras suas et in illis sine molestia morari et facere mercationes et facta sua et recedere" with the payment of the usual and ancient taxes and customs fees. At the same time the Venetians had engaged in extensive negotiations with the 47) Bosnian king, Ostoja, and his noblemen.

It is interesting to note that king Ostoja,

eager to attract the Venetians into his country, had offered them a place "pro statio (sic !) et habitatione mercatorum nostrorum. " He proposed for that purpose the coastal city and famous pirates ' nest of Omis. He even went so far as to promise "quod mercatores et subditi sui per totum suum dominium et districtum non ement . . . nec vendent de suis mercationibus . . . nisi Venetis et mercatoribus nostris, nec ab aliis 48) aliquid ement nisi a nostris. "

Later on, however, Ostoja retreated from this

extreme position, explaining to the Venetian ambassador in Bosnia, Marco Dandolo, "quod nimis magnum damnum ceder et regno suo si alii quam Veneti non mercarentur in regno suo et quod non posset aliquem expellere de suo regno. " As for Omis, the Venetians themselves declined the offer "tam propter expensam magnam quam incurreremus49) pro custodia et reparatione ipsius loci, tam eciam quia dicitur quod est de Dalmatia. "

7

The negotiations eventually resulted in the issuance, in April 1404, of a charter by the Bosnian ruler granting - among other things - the liberty to Venetians and their subjects to trade in all parts of Bosnia in freedom and security, without any charges for themselves and their goods. The king promised to make arrangements so that all of his "rectores, castellani, zuppani, iudices et alii officiales" would help the Venetians. He also was to provide that Venetians "in qualibet parte nostri regni . . . habebunt domos pro eorum habitatione, solvendo quantum erit conveniens.

XIV -422-

Ostoja' s privilege certainly had little immediate effect, because he lost the throne in a coup d'état only the next month, in May 1404. Nevertheless, all of this indicates that, as late as the beginning of the fifteenth century, in spite of all the troubles through which both Bosnia and Serbia were going at the time, the Venetians were present in the Balkan hinterland and interested in obtaining commercial privileges there. This interest lasted as long as the Balkan states represented more or less viable political entities and as long as their economies were strong. Although the Venetian presence in the hinterland can be established In a relatively continuous way through the data that we have briefly reviewed here and through others, it is clear that this presence was a very limited one. The Venetians never penetrated the Balkan mainland in a major way and one might wonder why the shrewd Venetian merchants largely neglected this close and important market. I think there are several explanations for this phenomenon: one is that the Venetians were, overall, much more interested in the long-distance, Levantine trade, than in the Balkan trade at the time the Balkan mines started production. Trade with the Levant was an old, well-established and well-known activity, bringing high and relatively safe profits. Trade with the Balkans, at least initially, seemed to be a small, risky and inconvenient business, which simply was not worth the distraction from other, big operations. One should also keep in mind that those operations were pushing ever farther into Asiatic and Near Eastern areas and that, in the Levant itself, apart from trade, the Venetians were very much occupied with empire-building precisely at the time the Balkan mines became active. Then, there was the fact that the Balkan hinterland was a very rough and inhospitable country. Thus, the Venetians let the merchants from Dubrovnik jump into the Balkan mineral market from the very beginning. People from Dubrovnik spoke the same language as the hinterland population and this made them more easily accepted. Besides, Dubrovnik had had direct contact with those areas for centuries and had formal treaties with Serbia since 1186 and with Bosnia since 1 1 8 9 . T h u s , the merchants from Dubrovnik, having more experience and with considerable Venetian support, were able to take over the Balkan mineral market, one of the most important in Europe at the time. The Venetians, on the other hand, missed establishing their hold on a major nearby trade area.

XIV -423-

By missing that, the Venetians - more ominously - failed to create a precedent for any substantial presence there after the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans. One can wonder what the impact of the Venetian neglect of the Balkan market in the late Middle Ages was on their trade and general position later on, when their commerce and economy started retreating from other, distant regions. "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the city's unique political-economic structure was strong enough to act as a Great Power 52)

on a European and Mediterraneanwide basis"

but things changed later on and it was

then that the Balkans might have played a major role. Venice seems to have realized that when she tried to organize a "scala" for the Bosnian trade in Split, in the late sixteenth century, but it was a short-lived and unsuccessful attempt. cq\ Venice had missed the oportunity, in the crucial period between the thirteenth and fifteenth century, to make the Balkans into a fall-back area for her economy in case of trouble in her far-away markets. When those troubles arose, the Balkans could no longer play that role. The paucity of the Venetian presence in the area in the fourteenth century, that we have briefly examined here, can then be seen as a presage of future problems for the Republic of Saint Mark.

XIV -424-

NOTES:

1)

M. Dinió, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, 2 vols., Belgrade 1955, 1962. K. Jirecek, Trgovacki putevi i rudnici Srbije i Bosne u srednjem vijeku, Zbornik Konstantina Jireceka,

vol. I, Belgrade 1959, 205-303.

F. C. Lane, Venice, A Maritime Republic, Baltimore 1973, 63. B. Krekió, Dubrovnik in the 14th and 15th Centuries: A City between East and West, Norman 1972, 20-22. 2)

Dinió, o.c.

D. Kovacevió, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo 1961,

139-157. S. Cirkovió, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske drSave, Belgrade 1964, 96-98. J.V.A. Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation, Boulder 1975. 3)

I. Voje, Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom

Dubrovniku, Sarajevo 1976.

See also B. Krekió, Italian Creditors in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the Balkan Trade, in The Dawn of Banking, University of California Press, forthcoming. 4)

S. Ljubió, Listine o odnosajih izmedju Juznoga Slavenstva i Mleta&ke Republike, vol. I, Zagreb 1868, 105. There is a peculiar indication of a link of some sort between a Venetian patrician and Serbia at this time. Among the members of the Major Council "de Sexterio S. Marci" in 1269-70, there were five Marco Dandolo, one of whom was nicknamed "Rex de Raxa!" R. Cessi, Deliberazioni del Maggior Consilio di Venezia, vol. I, Bologna 1950, 289.

5)

G. Cremo£nik, Kancelariski i notariski spisi, 1278-1301, Belgrade 1932, 131-132. Marcus , however, might not have been a Venetian.

6)

Ljubió, ibid., 143-144. K. JireSek, Istorija Srba, vol. II, Belgrade 1952, 185.

7)

Ljubió, ibid., 193.

8)

On slave trade in Dubrovnik and Bosnia see A. Solovjev, Trgovina bosanskim robljem do godine 1661, Glasnik Zemaljskogmuzeja u Sarajevu, n.s. , vol. 1, 1946, 139-162. G. CremoSnik, Pravni poloSaj naSeg roblja u srednjem veku, ibid. , vol. 2, 1947, 69-74. G. CremoSnik, Izvori za istoriju roblja i servicijalnih

XIV -425-

odnosa u nasim zemljama srednjeg vijeka, Istorijskopravni zbornik, vol. 1, 1948. V. Vinaver, Trgovina bosanskim robljem tokom XIV veka u Dubrovniku, Anali Historijskog instituta JAZU u Dubrovniku,

vol. 2, 1953, 125-149. M. Dinié,

Iz dubrovaEkog arhiva, vol. Ill, Belgrade 1967. Ch. Verlinden, Patarins ou Bogomiles réduits en esclavage, Studi e materiali sulla storia delle religioni, 1967, 683-700. Ch. Verlinden, L'esclavage sur la cote dalmate au bas moyen age, Bulletin de l'Institut Belge de Rome, voi. 41, 1970, 57-140. Ch. Verlinden, Le relazioni economiche fra le due sponde adriatiche nel basso Medio Evo alla luce della tratta degli schiavi, Momenti e problemi della storia delle due sponde adriatiche, Roma 1973, 103-139.

9)

D. KovaìTevié, Trgovina, 25, 93-97, says that the Venetians "rarely and exceptionally" frequented the Balkan hinterland in the fourteenth century and that "there is no information on their activity in Bosnia," but that things changed somewhat in the fifteenth century.

10)

Chronica ragusina Junii Restii, Zagreb 1893, 117-118. B. Krekié, O ratu Dubrovnika i Srbije 1327-1328. Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta SANU, vol. 11, 1968, 196 n. 16.

11)

Ljubié, Listine, vol. I, 299. J. Valentini, Acta Albaniae Veneta saeculorum XIV et XV, pars I, 1.1, Palermo 1967, no. 40. This "Blasius aurifex" is very probably identical with a "Blasius aurifex de Venetiis qui decessit in Sclauonia" and whose belongings were brought to Dubrovnik in September, 1313. All of Blasius' things were sent to Venice "Judicibus de proprio" during the same month. Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku (hereafter HAD), Diversa cancellariae, vol. 5, f. 74v. JireSek, Istorija, vol. n, 184 n. 38.

12)

Ljubfé, ibid., ; Valentini,ibid.. See also JireEek, ibid. , 184-185.

13)

Diversa, canc. , vol. 6, f. 154v. See also V. Trpkovié, Branivojeviéi, Istorijski glasnik, vol. 3-4, 1960, 55-84.

14)

Ljubié, Listine,

vol. II, Zagreb 1870, 175.

XIV -426-

15)

Ljubié, Listine, vol. Ill, Zagreb 1872, 115-117. The ambassador, "tacto primo et principaliter . . . negocio Raguseorum et nostrorum Venetorum pro quibus specialiter destinaturM was then supposed to discuss the peace prospects between Serbia and Byzantium. L jubié, ibid., 119-120. InSeptember 1349, however, the ambassador had not yet obtained satisfaction "super facto Ragusii... et similiter super facto Venetorum nostrorum. " Ibid., 160-161.

16)

Ljubió, o.c. , vol. II, 208.

17)

Ibid. , vol. m , 263.

18)

Ljubió, ibid. JireEek, Istorija, vol. II, 184.

19)

Ljubió, o.c., vol. m, 264. Valentin!, o.c. 1/1, no. 155. Jire&ek, o . c . , vol, 11.185.

20)

Ljubió, o . c . , vol. IV, Zagreb 1874, 428-430. Valentini, o . c . , 1/3, nos. 880,881.

21)

I. Mahnken, DubrovaSki patricijat u XIV veku, vol. I, Belgrade 1960, 284. Gradi was the tax collector in Pristina in 1402 and 1406 and died in Serbia in 1422.

22)

Ljubió, ibid. , 467. Valentini, 1/3, no. 971. JireSek, Trgova&ci put e vi, 269, mentions the presence of "Italians, especially Venetians" in Novo Brdo as merchants, but does not elaborate.

23)

Diversa canc., vol. 5, f. 59 v. Jirecek, Istorija, vol. II, 309. C. Fiskovió, Dubrovacki zlatari od Xin do XVII stoljeóa, Starohrvatska pro s vj eta, ser. 3, vol. 1, 1949, 206. Fiskovió states that goldsmiths were to be found in the mining centers of the hinterland, where they minted coins. Among those, he lists men from Dubrovnik and Kotor, Serbians, Bosnians and Venetians, but gives no details. Similarity Jirecek, Trgova&i putevi, 260.

24)

Diversa canc. , vol. 8, ff. 41v-42. B. Krekió, Trois fragments concernant les relations entre Dubrovnik (Raguse) et l'Italie au XlVe siècle, Godisnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, voi. 9, 1966, 21-22. See also V. Han, Problèmes relatifs à

l'identification de l'ancienne verrerie ragusaine, Balcanica, vol. 5,

XIV -427-

1974, 226. V. Han, Les relations verrières entre Dubrovnik et Venise du g

XlVe au XVIe siècle, Annales du 6 Congrès de l'Association Internationale pour l'Histoire du Verre, Liège 1975, 159-167. 25)

R. Jeremié - J. Tadié ,

Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika,

vol. 2, Belgrade 1939. Jiretfek, Istorija, vol. II, 315-316.

26)

Diversa canc. , vol. 13, f. 59. Jiretfék, TrgovaSki putevi, 258,says that "there were also merchants and artisans from Venice and other Italian cities" in Balkan mines but does not explain this vague statement.

27)

Dj. Petrovié, Uloga Dubrovnika u snabdevanju srednjovekovne Bosne oruzjem, XIV-XV vek, Radovi HI, Muzej grada Zenice, Zenica 1973, 71. Dj. Petrovié, Dubrovacko oruzje, Belgrade 1976, 135-138. See also Jirecek, Istorija, vol. n, 184.

28)

HAD, Distributiones testamentorum, vol. 1, ff. 2-2v. Jirecek, Istorija, vol. II, 191.

29)

Diversa canc., vol. 13, ff. 13v, 22. Zanino and his brother Franceschino had also considerable business in the area of "Joanes dispoto Chomnin, despoto della Vallona, " with whom Franceschino settled the accounts in 1350. Distrib. test., vol. 1, ff. 55v, 68v-69, 72v.

30)

31)

Diversa canc., vol. 29, ff. 140-141 v. Kova&evié, Trgovina, 36.

Ljubié, Listine, vol. I, 162. Valentini, Acta, 1/1, no. 27. Jirecek, Istorija, vol. H, 185, erroneously dates this decision in 1314. An embassy going to Milutin in 1317 had to discuss "de aliquibus petitionibus nostrorum fidelium. " Ljubié, ibid., 167. Valentini, ibid. , no. 32.

32)

Ljubié, ibid., Valentini, ibid., no. 62. Jirecek, ibid.

33)

HAD, Reformationes, vol. 8, ff. 88-88v. On this conflict see B. Krekié, O ratu Dubrovnika i Srbije 1327-1328.

XIV -428-

34)

Ljubió, o . c . , vol. I, 167. Valentini, o.c. I / l , no. 79. Jire£ek, Istorija, vol. H, 185.

35)

Ljubió, ibid.,

163. Valentini, ibid., no. 92. Dubrovnik made difficulties for some

Venetians who had been allowed by the Venetian Senate "quod portarent ad partes Hassle" their goods. Ljubió, ibid., Valentini, ibid., no. 90. 36)

Ljubió, ibid., 167. Valentini, ibid. , nos. 86, 87, 88.

37)

HAD, Diversa notariae, vol. 5, ff. 268-268v. Krekió, o . c . , 201.

38)

Ljubió, ibid. , 255-256.

39)

Ljubió, ibid. , 377.

40)

Ljubió, o . c . , vol. II, 75-76. Valentini, o.c. I/l, no. 128. Jireifek, Istorija, vol. I, 217.

41)

Ljubió, ibid., 76-77. Valentini, ibid., no. 129.

42)

Ljubió, o . c . , vol. IH, 246-247. Marco Leonardo is mentioned as Venetian consul in Varna in October 1352. Ibid.

At the same time, Marino Falier carried a

letter from the doge to the Bulgarian tsar. Ibid., 249-250. 43)

Ljubió, o.c., vol. IV, 319. Valentini, o.c. 1/2,nos. 521, 526.

44)

Ljubió, ibid., 418-419. Valentini, o.c. 1/3 , no. 741.

45)

Ljubió, ibid., 474-475. Valentini, ibid., no. 1004.

46)

Ljubió, o . c . , vol. V, Zagreb 1875, 11-12. Valentini, ibid, no. 1041.

47)

Ljubió, ibid., 14, 17. Valentini, ibid., nos. 1050, 1051, 1052.

48)

Ljubió, ibid. , 20-22. Valentini, ibid. , nos. 1054, 1055. tfirkovió, Istorija, 201.

XIV -429-

49)

Ljubié, ibid., 36-38. Valentini,ibid., nos. 1070, 1071. Kovacevié, Trgovina, 93-94.

^

50)

Ljubié, ibid. ,

39-41.

51)

Krekié, Dubrovnik, 13-14.

52)

W.H. McNeill, Venice, the Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797, Chicago 1974, 65.

53)n

The idea for the "scala" was suggested by the prominent Levantine Jew Daniel Rodriguez (Rodriga) in 1577. J. Tadié, Jevreji u Dubrovniku do polovine XVII stoljeéa, Sarajevo 1937, 93. J. Tadié, Iz istorije Jevreja u Jugoistotfnoj Evropi, Jevrejski almanah, 1959-60, 29-54. J. Tadié, Doprinos Jevreja trgovini s dalmatinskim primorjem u XVI i XVH veku, Spomenica 400 godina od dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu, 1566-1966, Sarajevo 1966, 33-47. R. Samardzié, Dubrovaîki Jevreji u trgovini XVI i XVII veka, Zbornik of the Jewish Historical Museum in Belgrade, vol. 1, 1971, 36-37. Lane, Venice, 303.

XV A NOTE ON THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF SOME GREEKS IN THE LATIN LEVANT TOWARDS THE END OF THE XlVth CENTURY 1

I shall be saying nothing new or surprising if I state that Western European, particularly Mediterranean, archives still contain a considerable amount of material which has not as yet been discovered and studied and is of great interest to the Byzantine and Levantine medieval historian. That is particularly true of documents concerning economic life and activities in the Eastern Mediterranean regions, about which we have very little information in situ. Among the Mediterranean archives of greatest importance for this subject, there is no doubt that the Venetian State Archive occupies the first place, but some other archives are very important, too. Professor Freddy Thiriet in his books2 has shown - more conclusively than previous scholars - the importance of the Venetian materials for the student of Byzantine and Levantine history. However, Professor Thiriet was not able to exploit all the materials, concerning this subject, which exist in . the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, and especially he did not study in detail the Cancelleria inferiore. The reasons he gives for not doing so are quite acceptable : « Vu l'ampleur de la tâche du dépouillement des fonds des Conseils et des archives candiotes, nous n'avons pas pu examiner systématiquement les dépôts des notaires. Ce que nous avons étudié nous conduit d'ailleurs à penser que la consultation de ces fonds, pour utile qu'elle soit, ne donne pas tout ce qu'on est en

--i

1. Communication read at the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Oxford, 5-10 Sept. 1966. 2. F. THIRIET, Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, t. I, II, III, Paris - La Haye 1958, 1959, 1961; F. THIRIET, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge, Paris 1959; F. THIRIET, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie, Paris Haye 1966.

XV

droit d'attendre: il subsiste, en effet, de larges lacunes chronologiques entre les actes sauvés, dont beaucoup sont endommagés. L'examen de ces actes apporte cependant, des indications sur les occupations et la fortune des divers groupes ethniques ou sociaux ». 3 The characterization given here by Professor Thiriet is very accurate. One must add to it that the resources of the Cancelleria inferiore are enormous and rather difficult to handle, which makes the task more complicated. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a more detailed study of the documents of the Venetian Cancelleria inferiore would be worth while, and I shall try to demonstrate this with one example. Among the numerous notaries of the XlVth century, whose acts are conserved in the Cancelleria inferiore, I was able to consult at some length the papers of only a few, including those of one Marco Raffanelli (Marcus de Raffanellis), who left a considerable amount of material (testaments, protocols, detached acts, etc.), ranging from 1364 to 1409. Owing to the short time I had at my disposal, I confined myself to a search in Raffanelli's materials from 1384-1398. In spite of all the déficiences of my research, I was able to determine that in Raffanelli's acts from 1384 to 1398 there are at least 160 (and possibly many more) mentions of Levantine places and people, including over 80 references to Crete, over 20 to Coron and Modon each, more than 15 to Negropont, etc. The documents concern mainly economic activities, but sometimes they mention interesting personalities of the Byzantine and Levantine political scene.4 In addition, Raffanelli's documents - like any others - can be combined with documents from other sources and can give valuable results. Allow me to present an example of this kind. 3. F. THIRIET, La Romanie vénitienne, cit. pp. 13-14. 4. For example, in 1396, we find in two long acts the names of «dominus Marcus Asan, domina Herina dicta Axania, filia quondam ser Alexandri Asani... in partibus Ghynigo, in territorio quondam potentis domini chyr Dimitri magni dispotis », etc. Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV), Cancelleria inferiore, M. Raffanelli, b. 169, prot. 1396-1397.

188

THE

ECONOMIC

ACTIVITIES

OF

SOME

GREEKS

IN T H E

LATIN

LEVANT

« Ser Johannes Crimolissi » from Coron was a rich and important merchant, whose activities left considerable traces in the Venetian Archives. We shall, however, take here into account only Raffanelli's documents concerning Crimolissi in 1397 and combine them with some documents from the Historical Archives of Dubrovnik and some published Venetian materials. On April 27, 1397 « ser Johannes Crimolissi de Corono », who was a creditor to the late « dominus Raynerius de Azaiolis, olim dominus Corinthii », named two inhabitants of « Neapoli de Romania » as his commissaries to collect « in Argo de Neapoli » all the debts and possessions of the late Acciaiuoli, and this on the strength of a sentence of the Venetian « Curia petitionis » in favor of Crimolissi and against Acciaiuoli. A few days later, the same Crimolissi named another man from « Neapoli de Romania », living in Negropont, to collect for him Acciaiuoli's goods « in Nigroponte et Sithone ».5 These Raffanelli's notes portray John Crimolissi as a man of wealth and importance. We shall take now into consideration other documents from the archives of Dubrovnik and Venice, dealing with the same Crimolissi. The documents range from 1385 to 1391 and are, thus, considerably earlier than Raffanelli's. In 1385 Crimolissi had come personally to Dubrovnik, where he had sold a ship to a big Venetian merchant and had been engaged in oil trade with Kotor. Incidentally, we learn from one of those documents that Crimolissi was able to read and write either Latin or Italian6 and we must assume, of course, that he was equally able to read and write Greek, since he was himself a Greek. Five years later, Crimolissi did not come personally to Dubrovnik, but had a representa^tiv^n that town. This representative was « ser Jacobus Grimani », a very picturesque personality, with multiple connections and activities in the Latin Levant and in Dubrovnik itself. From April until October 1390, Grimani, as 5. ASV, ibid. 6. Historijski archiv u Dubrovniku (HAD), Liber dotium 11,22'; Diversa cancellariae XXVI, 14, 18'.

189

XV

Crimolissi's representative, was very active in Dubrovnik, where he took care of Crimolissi's affairs. It is evident from Grimani's interventions that Crimolissi, in this period, had extensive relations with Dubrovnik. He engaged Dubrovnik's ships for his enterprises in Dalmatia, Greece and Southern Italy, lent considerable sums of money to people from Dubrovnik, etc. And the documents from Dubrovnik, also, confirm Crimolissi's relations with Nerio Acciaiuoli in 1390 or earlier.7 There are, as well, some published Venetian documents which demonstrate very clearly Crimolissi's importance as a merchant in the Venetian colonies. In 1380, Don Lluis d'Aragon, count of Salona, had taken an Anconitan ship on which, among other items, there was merchandise belonging to Crimolissi. The Venetian government, in 1388, wrote to Hellen Cantacuzene, Lluis' widow, and asked her either to give back to Crimolissi his goods or to pay the idemnity. The merchandise was considered to be worth over 2500 ducats. Hellen did not do anything about this and in the summer of 1389 the Venetian government ordered all the silk belonging to her in Negropont to be seized and given to Crimolissi, but the execution of this order was postponed. Two years later, matters were still pending and in May, 1391, the Venetian government gave three months' notice to Hellen to pay to Crimolissi 1521 ducats, ordering at the same time the Venetian merchants to be ready to leave her territory if she persisted in refusing to pay.8 Venetian documents and those from Dubrovnik quoted here might also be useful for a better knowledge of Nerio Acciaiuoli and his economic position and activities and of the relations between Venice and the Frankish rulers in Greece. But that is not my preoccupation now. I'll just note, as an interesting fact, the mention of Nerio as « olim dominus Corinthii » twice in Raffanelli's acts of 1397, although Nerio had become the master of 7. H A D , Praecepta rectoris III, 356; IV, 27, 27' ; Diversa cancellariae XXVIII, 42; 92', 128, 130', 131. 8. F. THIRIET, Régestes, cit. t. I, nos. 743, 758, 788.

190

XXIX,

T H E ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

OF SOME GREEKS

IN T H E

LATIN

LEVANT

Athens in 1388, and had been given the title of Duke of Athens in 1394, shortly before he died.9 The point I should like to make here is the following: on the basis of information obtained from the combined documents found in two big Mediterranean archives, Venice and Dubrovnik, it was possible to appreciate the importance and the personality of a Greek merchant, whose activities were vast and significant in the Latin Levant and beyond its limits, even if a considerable amout of documents on the same man, existing in the Venetian Archives, was not taken into consideration. This seems to me to be sufficient proof of the value and need of doing research in the Cancelleria inferiore of Venice and in other, still unexplored, archives of the Central and Western Mediterranean to those interested in acquiring a better knowledge of the eastern regions of that sea, particularly of its economic life. Finally, allow me to close this brief paper with mention of a document which concerns directly England, the coùntry which is offering its hospitality to this Congress. Marco Raffanelli tells us that on March 20, 1396, a «Johannes Grecus Nicolai de Candia » was sending a quantity of wine from « Romania » to London on the Venetian « galee de Flandria ». 10 Venice, once more, played its role of intermediary between East and West and - more importantly for us - once again preserved proof of the vast economic activities of Greeks in the Latin Levant, matched, no doubt, by those in the still remaining Byzantine areas.

9. F. GREGOROVIUS, Geschichte des Stadi Athen im Mittelalter, t. II, Stuttgart 1889, pp. 244-245; W. MILLER, The Latins in the Levant, New York 1964, pp. 322-325. 10. ASV, ibid.

191

XVI

CONTRIBUTION A L'ÉTUDE DES ASANÈS A BYZANCE

Il y a plus de soixante ans, d a n s son article sur « Les Asénides bulgares au service de B y z a n c e a u x x i n e - x v e siècles »1, F . I. Uspenskij écrivait q u ' o n t r o u v e la famille Asanès, vers la fin d u x v e e t m ê m e au xvi® siècle, d a n s les d o c u m e n t s b y z a n t i n s et, p a r t i c u l i è r e m e n t , vénitiens 2 . Il f o r m a i t le v œ u q u e les s a v a n t s serbes a p p o r t e n t de nouvelles i n f o r m a t i o n s sur certains m e m b r e s de c e t t e famille. Malheureusement, très peu a p u être fait j u s q u ' à présent, soit du côté serbe, soit a u x archives de Venise ou ailleurs, p o u r o b t e n i r u n e meilleure connaissance de cette très i m p o r t a n t e famille b u l g a r o - b y z a n t i n e . L'article d ' U s p e n s k i j reste la seule é t u d e consacrée à ce s u j e t . L ' a u t e u r y a rassemblé u n n o m b r e limité de données sur les Asanès à Byzance, de J e a n Asanès I I I — d o n t l'arrivée à Constantinople e t le m a r i a g e avec Irène, fille de Michel V I I I 3 , i n a u g u r e le rôle politique de la famille à B y z a n c e — j u s q u ' à la seconde moitié du x v e siècle. Uspenskij a t r o u v é des traces d ' u n e douzaine d ' A s a n è s d a n s les sources b y z a n t i n e s de ces d e u x cents ans. On r e n c o n t r e ensuite u n certain n o m b r e d ' i n f o r m a t i o n s intéressantes sur les Asanès de la seconde moitié du x i v e siècle d a n s les recueils de lettres de D é m é t r i u s Gydonès e t Manuel Galécas publiés p a r R . - J . Loenertz 4 . Les données a b o n d e n t s u r t o u t p o u r les années 1373-1407. La p l u p a r t de ces t e x t e s se r a p p o r t e n t soit à C o n s t a n t i n Asanès, soit à u n Asanès t o u t c o u r t , q u e l'éditeur identifie f r é q u e m m e n t , e t sans d o u t e avec raison, avec 1. F. I. USPENSKIJ, Bolgarskie Aseneviòi na vizantijskoj sluSbe v XIII-XV w . , IRAIKy 13, 1908, p. 1-16. 2. Ibid., p. 13. 3. Par suite d'un lapsus, Uspenskij écrit, à deux reprises, « Manuel » au lieu de Michel VIII, ibid., p. 2 et 3. 4. R.-J. LOENERTZ, Les recueils de lettres de Démétrius Cydonès (Studi e Testi, 131), Città del Vaticano, 1947 ; ID., Correspondance de Manuel Calécas (Studi e Testi, 152), Città del Vaticano, 1950 ; et Démétrius CYDONÈS. Correspondance, I-II (Studi e Testi, 186, 208), Città del Vaticano, 1956, 1960.

TABLEAU

GÉNÉALOGIQUE

JEAN III ASANÈS ép. Irène, fille de MICHEL VIII Paléologue

MICHEL

ANDRONIC

ISAAC

? ép. Irène Comnene8 Cantacuzène Paléologue

képhalè, protovestiaire sébastokratôr, despote ép. inconnue

panhypersébaste ép. Théodora Palaiologina Arachantloun ép. inconnue

CONSTANTIN

MARIE

THÉODORA

?

AVRAM

IAROSLAV

JEAN

sébastokratôr ép. fille d'Alexis Apokaukos

MANUEL

RAOUL

HÉLÈNE

sébastokratôr, despote ép. Anne, fille de Théodore Synadènos

IRÈNE

ANNS

ép. Roger ép. Manuel de Fior Tagaris

?

?

IRÈNE

ANDRONIC

CONSTANTIN

Asanina ép. Philanthropène

Asanina ffrand primicier ép. Jean VI Cantacuzène

(Cantacuzènes) un fils ? JEAN

THÉODORA

ANDRONIC

ép. Bartolomeo panhypersébaste Ghisi (sébastokratôr) JEAN

ép. ? Laskaris Paléologue Asanina Palaiologina ép. Manuel Rhaoul Mélikes

HÉLÈNE

MATHIEU

MANUEL

ANDRONIC

MARIE

THÉODORE

HÉLÈNE

ép. J e a n V Paléologue

XVI LES ASANÈS À BYZANCE

349

C o n s t a n t i n . Mais la relation de C o n s t a n t i n lui-même avec le reste de la famille Asanès est assez incertaine 6 . Ni U s p e n s k i j ni Loenertz n ' o n t dressé de t a b l e a u généalogique des Asanès b y z a n t i n s . On t r o u v e c e p e n d a n t u n t a b l e a u partiel d a n s le livre r é c e n t de D. Nicol sur la famille Cantacuzène 6 . Le t a b l e a u que nous proposons 7 , loin d ' ê t r e complet e t exact, suscitera p e u t - ê t r e des corrections ou s u p p l é m e n t s , c o n t r i b u a n t ainsi à éclairer u n peu m i e u x le destin des Asanès b y z a n t i n s . Ce t a b l e a u laisse sans réponse n o m b r e de questions sur les Asanès ici présentés, et sur quelques autres d o n t on t r o u v e les n o m s d a n s les docum e n t s publiés p a r Loenertz 9 , d a n s l'article d'Uspenskij 1 0 , et finalement chez Z a k y t h i n o s 1 1 . Or nous n o u s proposons d ' a j o u t e r d ' a u t r e s inconnues à t o u s ces problèmes en suspens. N o u s avons eu la chance de t r o u v e r , a u x Archives d ' É t a t de Venise, u n d o c u m e n t , d a t é du 16 février 1396, d a n s u n « protocollo », sans pagin a t i o n , du n o t a i r e Marco Raffanelli. Nous en ferons précéder le t e x t e d ' u n e brève analyse. Le d o c u m e n t se compose, en réalité, de d e u x actes : 1° Une reconnaissance d ' e m p r u n t de Marc Asanès ; 2° Une lettre de p r o c u r a t i o n de sa mère, Irène. 1° La reconnaissance de d e t t e . Marc de B e r n a r d o d i t Asanès, fils de feu P a u l de B e r n a r d o , citoyen de Venise, a reçu en p r ê t , de Francesco de B e r n a r d o , fils de feu Nicolas, du confìnio de S a i n t - P a u l , la s o m m e de 5. LOENERTZ, Calécas, p. 74, n. 4 ; CYDONÈS, Correspondance, II, p. 25, n. 2. Cf. aussi J. W . BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, 1391-1425, A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, Rutgers Univ. Press, 1969, p. 12, n. 28, et p. 94. 6. D. M. NICOL, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), ca. 1100-1460, Washington, 1968, tabi. II. Notons, en passant, que V. NIKOLAEV, Potekloto na Asenevci...f Sofia, 1940, n'a pas dressé, lui non plus, de tableau généalogique. 7. Ce tableau a été dressé d'après les données fournies par USPENSKIJ et par LOENERTZ dans les travaux cités ci-dessus ; par V. LAURENT, Une famille turque au service de Byzance, les Mélikès, BZ, 49, 1956, p. 364-365 ; D. A. ZAKYTHINOS, Le Despotat grec de Morêe, II, Athènes, 1953 ; A. Th. PAPADOPULOS, Versuch einer Genealogie der Palaiologen, Amsterdam, 1962 ; NICOL, op. cit. ; R. GUILLAND, Études de titulature byzantine : les titres auliques réservés aux eunuques, REB, 14, 1956, p. 154-155. 8. (tableau) PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., p. 13, mentionne Irène comme femme de Michel, mais il ne dit pas que Michel ait été marié. 9. LOENERTZ, Les recueils, p. 134 ; CYDONÈS, Correspondance, II, pages 4, 86-87. BARKER, op. cit., pages 431, 434. 10. USPENSKIJ, op. cit., p. 13-14. PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., p. 64-65, 94-95. Ce dernier mentionne aussi (p. 95-96) une « Simonis Palaiologina Asanina » vers le milieu du x v e siècle. 11. ZAKYTHINOS, op. cit., pages 96, 108, 110, 111, 114, 115, 213, 361. Cf. aussi BARKER, op. cit., p. 351, où un Isaac Asanès est mentionné en 1421, et B. KREKIC, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au moyen âge, Paris-La Haye, 1961, pages 46, 274-275, qui fait mention d'un ambassadeur « Asan » envoyé par Manuel II en Bosnie en 1423.

XVI 350 720 ducats. Il s'engage à la lui rembourser ainsi que les intérêts dans un délai de deux années. Passé ce délai, le prêteur aura droit entier, sans que puissent y faire opposition Marc ou sa mère Irène, de se rembourser sur les revenus des biens que l'emprunteur possède à Venise. P o u r établir sa capacité, Marc invoque la procuration universelle que lui a délivrée sa mère. 2° L'acte de procuration. F a i t à Constantinople le 19 avril 1395, dans la maison d'Irène, dite Axania, fille de feu Alexandre Asanès et veuve de P a u l de Bernardo, citoyen de Venise, dans le quartier de Ghynigo, sur le domaine de feu le grand despote Démétrius, par-devant Gonstantio de Coron intèrprète de Venise et Michel Musali, fils de feu Sinadino Musali, h a b i t a n t tous deux Constantinople. Irène institue Marc son procureur universel. Signature du notaire qui a rédigé l'acte, Bartholomée de Strasoldo. — L'acte a été enregistré à l'Officium de nocte de Venise, le 11 février 1396 (on a v u que la reconnaissance d ' e m p r u n t est du 16 février). L E TEXTE

Riuoalti. Manifestum facio ego Marcus de Bernardo dictus Asani, q u o n d a m domini Pauli de Bernardo, ci vis Veneciarum, | 2 quia recepi cum meis heredibus a vobis, nobile viro ser Francisco de Bernardo, q u o n d a m domini Nicolai, de confmio Sancti Pauli et vestris heredibus | 3 ducatos secentos viginti de imprestitis qui ad presens valent de bonis denariis ducatos trecentos septuaginta auri de bonis denariis, ad tenendum, | 4 u t e n d u m et gaudendum sicut mihi pro meis utilitatibus et commodis videbitur et placuerit. Pro quibus quidem ducatis secentis viginti | 5 de imprestitis promitto et debeo per me a u t m e u m missum dare et rendere vobis a u t vestro misso omni anno usque ad duos annos proxime futuros | 6 illud prode quod ex eis perciperetis a Camera imprestitorum comunis Veneciarum, si illos ducatos secentos viginti de impre(stitis) | 7 ibidem haberetis, sicut j u s t u m est, existentibus usque ad ipsum t e r m i n u m d u o r u m a n n o r u m dictis vestris ducatis secentis viginti de imprestitis | 8 in tali vestri risico et periculo in quali erunt alii denarii scripti ad Gameram imprestitor u m predictam. Elapsis vero dictis duobus annis | 9 proximis, vos debetis habere dictos ducatos trecentos septuaginta auri et eorum prode predictum in hunc modum, videlicet quia contentor et | 10 volo ex pacto vobiscum habito quod vos absque contradictione mei et domine Herini matris mee, a u t alterius cuiuscumque persone, pos | 11 sitis omni modo exigere et recipere omnes affictus omnium m e a r u m possessionum quas habeo Veneciis et denarios ipsorum affictuum | 12in vos conducere et defalcare primo prode eorum et reliquum computare in dicta vestra sorte d u c a t o r u m CCGLXX auri | 13 pro valore dictorum ducatorum V I C X X de imprestitis, donec totaliter vos habueritis restitutionem omnium dictorum CCGLXX auri (sic) et eorum prode. | 1 4 Verum si diete domus a u t aliqua earum indigeret per tempora reparatione aliqua, debeatis de dictis affictibus facere reparari

XVI LES ASANÈS À BYZANCE

351

15

eas e t | q u a m l i b e t e a r u m et e t i a m facere factiones e t onera terre, sicut occurrerint, et r e l i q u u m d i c t o r u m affictuum in vos retinere | 1 6 et defalcare u t est d i c t u m . V e r u m si casu aliquo seu causa incendii a u t ruine, seu aliter vos n o n feceretis dictos afïictus | 1 7 totaliter et integre, salvis conzeriis oport u n i s d i c t a r u m d o m o r u m et factionibus et oneribus terre, u t est d i c t u m , t e n e a r e t sic p r o m i t t o | 1 8 vobis per me vel m e u m m i s s u m dare e t reddere vobis a u t v e s t r o misso omnes dictos vestros denarios e t e o r u m prode hic in | 1 9 Riuoalto, a u t illam p a r t e m e o r u m q u a m restaretis habere, defalcatis denariis a f f i c t u u m quos recepissetis usque t u n c , existentibus dictis vestris denariis in vestri risico e t periculo, u t alii denarii scripti ad G a m e r a m supradictam. P r e t e r e a , | 2 0 per v i r t ù t e m e t p o t e s t a t e m unius imperialis p r o c u r a t o r i e carte, scripte m a n u B a r t h o l o m e i de Strasoldo, diocesis acquilegiensis publici imperiali | 2 1 auctoritate notarii et curie V e n e t o r u m in C o s t a n t i n o poli cancelarii, in M C C G L X X X X V , indictione tercia, die X V I I I I mensis aprilis, in Constantinopoli, | 22 per q u a m d o m i n a Herini, dicta Asania, filia q u o n d a m domini Alexandri Asani, relieta dicti domini P a u l i de B e r n a r d o m a t e r m e a , con | 2 3 stituit me s u u m p r o c u r a t o r e m et in ipsa c a r t a p r o c u r a toria ipsa v u l t m e M a r c u m s u p r a s c r i p t u m , filium s u u m , fore in o m n i b u s suis bonis I M v e r u m possessorem e t d o m i n u m , videlicet q u o d possim v e n d e r e , d o n a r e , alienare et in pignem destruere et quicquid voluero | " f a cere de o m n i b u s u t verus d o m i n u s et possessor, et dedit mihi p l e n u m , liberum e t generalem m a n d a t u m , u t vero d o m i n o et possessori, | 2 6 cum piena, libera et generali a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e etc. sicut in dicto i n s t r u m e n t o procure, a n o t a r i o infrascripto viso, lecto(?) et r e c o m e n d a t o et a p p r o b a t o | 27 de m a n d a t o dominationis ad officium d o m i n o r u m de nocte p e r L u c a m L o m b a r d o , n o t a r i u m Curie maioris, die X I mensis presentis februarii, | 2 8 plenius c o n t i n e t u r , cuius i n s t r u m e n t i t e n o r i n f r a describitur ad c a u t e lanti, a d h u c m a n i f e s t u m facio ego Marcus de B e r n a r d o s u p r a s c r i p t u s c u m meis h e r e d i b u s | 2 9 et diete mee m a t r i s sponte vobis p r e f a t o ser Francisco de B e r n a r d o et vestris heredibus, quia p r o m i t t o vobis ex pacto, obligando ad hoc | 3 0 me effectualiter et solemniter et d i c t a m m a t r e m m e a m , vigore s u p r a s c r i p t o r u m v e r b o r u m c o n t e n t o r u m in dicto procuratorio, facere e f f e c t u a l i t e r q u o d dicta | 3 1 m a t e r mea n o n t u r b a b i t a u t m o l e s t a b i t p e r se a u t alios v o s a u t vestros heredes in judicio a u t e x t r a , quin possitis | 3 2 omni a n n o petere, exigere e t recipere afïictus d i c t a r u m d o m o r u m usque ad i n t e g r a m solutionem o m n i u m d i c t o r u m v e s t r o r u m d e n a r i o r u m et p a r t i s e o r u m , | 3 3 nec e t i a m i n t r o m i t t e t vel acquiret dictas possessiones nec p a r t e m e a r u m , nec faciet a l i q u a m p e t i t i o n e m a u t a c t u m in | M preiudicium v e s t r u m de aliquo. E t si aliter faceret a u t fieret vobis, conservabo vos e t v e s t r o s heredes e t bona p e r p e t u o , s e c u n d u m d i c t u m ( ? ) et r e s t i t u a m | 3 5 vobis q u i c q u i d ex dieta q u a n t i t a t e d i c t o r u m d e n a r i o r u m et prodis restaretis h a b e r e . V e r u m q u a n d ò c u m q u e ego Marcus s u p r a s c r i p t u s r e s t i t u e r e m e t | 3 6 d a r e m vobis dictos vestros denarios e t e o r u m prode, suprascripte mee possessiones sint libere et absolute a predictis e t in mei libertate re | 3 7 mane-

XVI 352 ant. Que omnia et singula suprascripta promitto cum meis heredibus r a t a et firma habere et tenere, attendere, observare et adim | 38 plere et in nullo contrafacere a u t venire per me a u t alium, de jure a u t de facto, nec predictis a u t alicui eorum contradicere | 39 vel opponere ullo de tempore, in judicio a u t extra, sub pena d u c a t o r u m ducentorum auri, que pena in vos perveniat. E t ipsa pena | 40 soluta vel non, presens carta et omnia et singula in e a contenta in sua p e r m a n e a n t fìrmitate. Insuper a u t e m pro predictis servandis obligo vobis | 41 me et meos heredes et bona et personam ad carcere m detineri. Testes : ser Franciscus de Garçonibus Sancti Gassiani, B e r n a r d u s Panza, notarius | ^ i n Riuoalto et Bartholomeus de Antonio, draparius de Riuoalto. Tenor a u t e m suprascripte carte procuratorie per omnia talis est In Ghristi nomine, | 4 3 amen. Anno nativitatis eiusdem millesimo trecentesimo nonagesimo quinto, indictione tercia, die decima nona mensis aprilis, a c t u m Constantinopoli, | u m domo habitationis nobilis domine Herini, diete Axanie, fìlie q u o n d a m ser Alexandri Asani et reliete q u o n d a m nobilis | 45 viri ser Pauli de Bernardo, civis Veneciarum, situata in partibus Ghynigo, in territorio q u o n d a m potentis domini chyr Dimitri, || 4 6 magni dispotis, presentibus ser Gonstantio de Corono, interpretatore curie dominorum Venet o r u m in Constantinopoli ac Michaele | 47 Musali q u o n d a m Sinadino Musali, habitatore Gonstantinopolis, ad infrascripta habitis, vocatis et rogatis testibus. Supradicta nobilis domina Heri | 48 ni, u t dictum est relieta q u o n d a m se Pauli de Bernardo, civis Veneciarum, omni modo, via, iure et forma quibus melius potest et potuit, fecit, | 4 9 constituit et ordinavit nobilem virum ser Marcum, dictum Asani, eius filium et filium quondam supradicti ser Pauli, eius mariti, absentem t a m q u a m presentem, | 50 suum certum nuncium, actorem, factorem et legittimum procuratorem, generaliter, ubicumque locorum totius orbis, et precipue Veneciis, ad p e t e n d u m | 51 et exigendum et recipiendum a quibuscumque personis, corpore et collegio et universitate omne id et t o t u m quicquid et q u a n t u m habere potest et | 52 debet et in f u t u r u m debebit cum cartis, scripturis et sine (?), et precipue ipsius dotem et jura, actiones et debita supradicti ser Pauli, | 5 3 quondam eius mariti et patris dicti ser Marci, et quecumque, quomodocumque et qualitercumque tangentia seu spectantia quoquo modo dicto ser Paulo ubicumque | ^locor u m . et de receptis quietationem et absolutionem faciendum de amplius non petendo, sub obligatione omnium honorum eius presentium et fu | 6 5 turorum. Finaliter, ipsa domina Herini v u l t dictum fìlium eius ser Marcum fore in omnibus supradictis et in omnibus bonis ipsius domine Herini | 56 verum possessorem et dominum, videlicet quod possit vendere, donare, alienare, in pignem destruere et quicquid voluerit facere de omnibus, u t supra, | 57 ut verus dominus et possessor, et ad exercendum omnia quecumque in judiciis et extra requiruntur, coram quocumque regimine et magistrato, t a m | 58 ecclesiastico, q u a m seculari, et ad r e s p o n d e n d u m similiter, et quod possit jurare in animam et super animam ipsius constit u e n t s semel et pluries si ne | 59 cesse fuerit. Dans ipsa constituens ut dicto

XVI LES ASANÈS À BYZANCE

353

eius filio c o n s t i t u t o p l e n u m , liberum et generalem m a n d a t u m u t v e r o d o m i n o e t possessori | 60 in o m n i b u s supradictis, c u m plena, libera e t generali a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e ; p r o m i t t e n s ipse (!) constituens mihi n o t a r i o i n f r a s c r i p t o , t a m q u a m publice persone officio presenti, | " s t i p u l a n t i n o m i n e e t vice cuius et q u o r u m i n t e r e s t et interesse poterit, h a b e r e r a t u m , g r a t u m e t f i r m u m quicquid in o m n i b u s s u p r a d i c t i s per d i c t u m ser M a r c u m I 62 eius filium a c t u m , g e s t u m e t f a c t u m fuerit, s u b obligatione o m n i u m b o n o r u m eius p r e s e n t i u m et f u t u r o r u m , h a b i t o r u m et h a b e n d o r u m . E t ego B a r t h o l o m e u s | 63 de Strasoldo, diocesis acquilegiensis publicus imperiali a u c t o r i t a t e n o t a r i u s e t curie d o m i n o r u m V e n e t o r u m in Constantinopoli cancellarius r o g a t u s scripsi, | 6 4 meum a p p o n e n s s i g n u m c o n s u e t u m . M G G G L X X X X V I , indictione I I I , die X I mensis februarii de ducali m a n d a t o r e c o m e n d a t u m f u i t hoc in | 6 6 s t r u m e n t u m ad officium de n o c t e per L u c a m L o m b a r d o , n o t a r i u m Curie maioris 1 2 . N o u s n ' e n t r e r o n s pas ici d a n s le détail des affaires de « Marcus de B e r n a r d o dictus Asani ». Ce qui n o u s intéresse, c'est ce q u ' o n p e u t tirer de ce d o c u m e n t p o u r l'histoire de la famille Asanès. La première question q u i se pose est la s u i v a n t e : qui est ce « q u o n d a m ser A l e x a n d e r Asan », d o n t la fille « Herini dicta Asania » ou « A x a n i a » é t a i t mariée au Vénitien « d o m i n u s P a u l u s de B e r n a r d o »? On r e n c o n t r e le p r é n o m A l e x a n d r e d a n s la famille Asanès dès la première moitié du x i n e siècle, mais il ne r e p a r a î t p l u s d a n s les données postérieures sur la famille 1 3 . Il n ' y a non plus a u c u n e I r è n e A s a n i n e qui ne soit déjà identifiée avec précision 14 . Bref, n o t r e p r e m i è r e question reste sans réponse. Quel p o u r r a i t être, dès lors, le r a p p o r t de cet A l e x a n d r e Asanès e t de sa fille avec les Asanès déjà c o n n u s ? A lire le d o c u m e n t vénitien, il ne f a i t p a s de d o u t e qu'il s'agissait de gens riches et distingués. Irène est appelée « nobilis d o m i n a Herini dicta Asania » ; le n o m « Asani » est a t t r i b u é aussi 12. Venezia. Archivio di Stato, Cancelleria inferiore-Notaia, b. 169, prot. 13921395, M. Ravanelli. Ce document est suivi de trois autres de même date, relatifs aux affaires de Marcus et Franciscus de Bernardo, mais ils sont sans intérêt pour notre propos. Sur Franciscus de Bernardo, voir ci-dessous, n. 15. 13. Un des fils d'Asen I er , tzar bulgare (1186-1196), s'appelait Alexandre : Istorija na BlgarijaSofia, 1961, I, pages 179, 181, 184. Ivan Alexandre, tzar de Bulgarie dans la première moitié du xiv e siècle : PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., p. 48. K. JIREÒEK, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Prague, 1876, p. 334, et Istorija Srba, I, Beograd, 1952, pages 245 et 252, pensait que les frères Alexios et Jean, dont l'activité se place dans les régions de Chrysopolis, Anactaropolis, l'île de Thasos, etc., au cours de la seconde moitié du xiv e siècle, étaient eux aussi des Asanès. P. LEMERLE, Philippes et la Macédoine orientale à Vépoque chrétienne et byzantine, Paris, 1945, p. 206-213, a montré que l'hypothèse de Jireôek était intenable. P. LEMERLE, p. 211, avait formulé, avec réserve, l'hypothèse que ces frères pourraient être des Kontostéfanoi ; G. OSTROGORSKI , Serska oblast posle Dusanove smrti, Beograd, 1964, p. 147-154, pense que Jean et Àlexios étaient des Paléologues. 14. Voir la note sur la famille Asanès chez LOENERTZ, Calécas, p. 73-74. Pour deux Irène Asanès, voir PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., p. 13-14.

XVI 354 à son fils, quoiqu'il f û t u n Vénitien ; le mari d ' I r è n e a p p a r t e n a i t à u n e famille patricienne en vue de Venise 1 5 : t o u t cela porte à croire q u e ces Asanès se r a t t a c h a i e n t eux-mêmes à la grande famille b y z a n t i n e , mais à laquelle de ses b r a n c h e s ? Il est difficile, sinon impossible, de donner une solution à ce problème. Nous formulerons néanmoins, avec la circonspection qui s'impose, quelques hypothèses. P . Lemerle a m o n t r é q u ' u n des frères Paléologues, le g r a n d primicier J e a n , é t a i t marié à A n n e Asanina K o n t o s t é f a n i n a qui, dans u n d o c u m e n t de 1374, est dite IÇa$éX97) d'Hélène Gantacuzène, f e m m e de l ' e m p e r e u r J e a n V Paléologue 1 6 . D ' a u t r e p a r t , A. Th. P a p a d o p u l o s m e n t i o n n e une A n n e Asanina Palaiologina, d o n t on t r o u v e les traces d a n s u n acte de 1400, qui é t a i t une t a n t e (6e£oc) de l'empereur Manuel I I et a v a i t u n frère d o n t le n o m est inconnu 1 7 . G. Ostrogorsky, p o u r sa p a r t , a m o n t r é q u ' u n Alexios Asanès, è£à&eX<poç et oixeïoq d'Hélène, v e u v e de l ' e m p e r e u r Dusan, é t a i t au service des Serbes, à Serrés, en 1365, et qu'il changea de c a m p p o u r passer au service de Byzance après 1371 18 . On est donc fondé à se d e m a n d e r si les deux Anne ne seraient pas une seule personne. Le frère, non identifié p a r P a p a d o p u l o s , ne serait-il pas l'Alexis d ' O s t r o g o r s k y ? Enfin, cet Alexios ne pourrait-il pas être n o t r e Alexandre, père d ' I r è n e ? A u t a n t de « q u e s t i o n s - h y p o t h è s e s » qui doivent rester sans réponse, en a t t e n d a n t que des découvertes ultérieures nous c o n d u i s e n t à des conclusions m i e u x assurées. O u t r e les i n f o r m a t i o n s fournies sur d e u x n o u v e a u x m e m b r e s de la famille Asanès, A l e x a n d r e et Irène, sur le mariage d ' I r è n e avec le patrice vénitien P a u l u s de B e r n a r d o et sur leur fils Marcus, le d o c u m e n t édité ci-dessus nous donne les noms de quelques personnages intéressants, o c c i d e n t a u x et grecs, de Constantinople, à la fin du x i v e siècle. Mais s u r t o u t , le d o c u m e n t nous a p p o r t e une précieuse indication sur l ' e m p l a c e m e n t de 15. A titre d'exemple, notons qu'Andréa de Bernardo fut vice-baile vénitien à Constantinople de 1362 à 1364 : P. THIRIET, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes, I, Paris-La Haye, 1966, n° 402 et index, p. 231. C'est probablement le même homme qui, en 1385, fut chargé d'une mission diplomatique auprès du « rex Raxie » et Balsa de Zeta. S. LJUBIÓ, Listine o odnosajih JùSnoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike, IV, Zagreb, 1874, p. 224-225. En 1351, puis de nouveau en 1356 et en 1358, on trouve « Paulus de Bernardo, condam domini Johannis... notarius curie » à Venise dans les relations avec la cour royale hongroise. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., III, Zagreb, 1872, pages 215, 311, 374, 375; V, Zagreb, 1875, p. 324-326. D'autre part, «Petrus de Bernardo» est mentionné comme « sapiens ordinum » en 1369. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., IV, p. 95. Un autre de Bernardo joue un rôle prépondérant dans les relations entre Venise et la Hongrie entre 1383 et 1397 : c'est « Franciscus de Bernardo », peut-être le même qui est mentionné dans notre document. Enfin « ser Franciscus de Bernardo », qui est « consiliarius » à Venise en 1404, est très probablement le même personnage. LJUBIÓ, op. cit., 350.

IV, pages 201, 207, 210-213, 262, 373, 401, 405, 406, 410 ; V, 38,

16. Voir note 13, ci-dessus. LEMERLE, op. cit., p. 211.

17. PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., p . 8 5 . 18. OSTROGORSKI, op. cit., p a g e s 17, 8 8 , 9 2 , 125, 1 4 8 .

XVI LES ASANÈS À BYZANCE

355

la maison d ' I r è n e . La maison se t r o u v a i t « in p a r t i b u s Ghynigo, in t e r r i t o r i o q u o n d a m p o t e n t i s domini k y r Dimitri, m a g n i dispotis ». Or, l'on sait q u e «Ghynigo », Kynègoi, Kynègos, se t r o u v a i t « s u r la Gorne d ' O r , à l'est de N o t r e - D a m e des Blachernes »19. N o t r e t e x t e n o u s p e r m e t donc de situer n o n s e u l e m e n t la résidence d ' I r è n e Asanès B e r n a r d o , mais encore de préciser le site du domaine — et donc, de la maison — du despote D é m é t r i u s Paléologue, fils d ' A n d r o n i c I I et beau-père de Mathieu Gantacuzène, q u i n o u s é t a i t jusqu'ici inconnu 2 0 .

19. R. JANIN, Constantinople byzantinea, Paris, 1964, p. 377. 20. JANIN, op. cit., p. 335-336 : « site (de l'oïxoç AYjjxyjTplou SeorcÓTou) inconnu, mais en ville ». Dans le texte de Janin, p. 335, « Andronic III » est à lire : « Andronic II », comme dans l'index, p. 531. Cf. PAPADOPULOS, op. cit., pages 36, 40, 43.

XVII

DUBROVNIK'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR AGAINST THE OTTOMANS IN 1443 AND 1444

After the Union of Florence, in 1438, and the first fall of Smederevo, the new capital of Serbia, to the Ottomans in 1439, the prevailing mood in Europe, especially in Hungary, was in favor of the organization of a larger expedition against the Turks in the Balkan Peninsula. The Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) displayed a lively interest in such an enterprise from the beginning. The sojourn in Dubrovnik of the refugee Serbian ruler, Despot George (Djuradj) Brankovic, during the summer of 1441, had increased the controversy already existing between the Republic and the Ottomans.1 Clearly understanding the danger that the Ottomans presented, not only for the Balkan countries and for Dubrovnik itself but for the whole of Central Europe, the Ragusans were the first, as early as 1441, to put forward a plan for a comprehensive land and sea campaign of the Christians against the Ottomans. In a letter directed to the Hungarian king on September 17, 1441, the Ragusans informed him that the Ottoman sultan, who had been ill, had recovered and was raising an army to attack Hungary the following spring. The letter added that a large fleet of the sultan of Egypt was preparing to invade Rhodes, but that the Knights of Rhodes had appealed for help to the pope and to the Christian leaders and that through their efforts a large number of warships had been assembled and were rumored to be already near Rhodes. The fleet was scheduled to spend the winter there or in the Dardanelles Straits and, then, in the spring, to begin operations against the Infidels. In a letter to Matko Talovac on the same day, the Ragusans urged him to persuade the king — who would be acting as had the Rhodians when they asked Western powers for help — to send Hungarian representatives to the fleet near Rhodes and to request the commanders of the ships there to attack the Ottomans with all their might from their side just as the king was going to do from the other side.2

XVII 2 In October and November 1441, the Ragusans repeatedly appealed to Hungary3 and to the pope. 4 However, because of the complicated internal situation in Hungary and because of the unsettled relations between that country and its neighbors and, furthermore, because of conflicts in Italy which involved almost all the important Italian states, the two mainstays of any antiOttoman campaign, Hungary and the pope, were as yet unable to contribute much toward the big enterprise against the Infidels. During 1442, conditions gradually changed so as to allow the organization of an expedition to restore Christian domination in the Balkans. The brilliant Hungarian military leader, Janos Hunyadi, achieved considerable success in his fighting against the Ottomans during that year, and Cardinal Cesarini, the papal envoy in Hungary, managed in December to make peace between Queen Hellen and King Vladislav.5 News of the "pax Hungarie" was received in Dubrovnik about January 10, 1443, from the Ban Pjerko Talovac.6 Earlier, in the summer of 1442, Cardinal Cesarini had begun intensive work to organize both land and sea forces for the Ottoman campaign. With that goal in mind, he particularly pressured Pope Eugen IV, to whom the Byzantine Emperor John VIII was also appealing.7 The pope subsequently issued an invitation to the Western powers, including Dubrovnik, to contribute to a naval expedition against the Ottomans. The Ragusans were loath to take any risks, but they informed the pope on September 15, 1442, that they would be willing to contribute one galley at their o>vn expense, provided the land army from Hungary really advanced and provided the fleet consisted of at least twenty-five galleys and three transport ships.8 Preparations for the anti-Ottoman campaign increased in 1443. In the spring, a compromise was struck between Hungary and Austria which enabled the Hungarian king to move against the Ottomans without fear of an attack from the rear.9 That autumn, the situation in Hungary itself stabilized.10 Elsewhere, by the beginning of 1443, Pope Eugen IV had already addressed a solemn appeal to all the Christian powers for the creation of a fleet for the anti-Ottoman war and had promised to help in that endeavor himself.11 A letter from the Serbian despot to the Byzantine

emperor in Constantinople probably falls within the framework of those preparations. The letter had arrived in Dubrovnik in midMarch 1443, and the Ragusan Senate decided to send it by an ambassador "domini de la Morea" to the emperor.12 Furthermore, in July of the same year, Dubrovnik sent to King Vladislav in Hungary fifty ducats' worth of sulphur.13 Contributions for equipping the fleet were collected in Dubrovnik as well as in other Western European cities. On October 8, 1443, the Ragusan Senate issued an ordinance stating the .way to collect those contributions. A committee, consisting of three patrician procurators, was to sit with papal representatives for one hour every morning and afternoon in the proximity of the Rector's Palace. They were to receive the contributions there and to make note of their amount and the names of the contributors, but they were allowed to communicate these data only to the papal representatives. The cash box was to be opened and accounts could be made only at the request of the Minor Council. The box was to be kept in the State Chancellery and to have two keys, one of which would be held by the papal representatives, the other by the procurators. Persons buying indulgences, sold by the papal representatives as a means of obtaining money with which to equip the fleet, were to give that money to the committee. All the money thus collected was to be used exclusively "nel armada la qual per lo sancto padre papa Eugenio se fara contra li Turchi."14 Clearly, the Ragusans, like the Venetians, had no great faith in the papal representatives and their intentions. At the same time, the Ragusans sent their ambassadors to Hungary to congratulate Despot George Brankovic on his successes and to praise him for sparing nothing to make the upcoming anti-Ottoman expedition successful. Since the despot had been "principal mezo et lo tuto" in urging the Hungarian king and nobility to act, he was now to continue his efforts until the expedition was successfully concluded. The Ragusans sounded prophetic when they said that, if the Ottoman state is not "destroyed and confounded" this time, never again "in our days" will another expedition against them take place. Now the Ottomans are "dispersi, fuziti, intemoridi e gran parte de lor trucidati" because of the defeat they have suffered, but they will recover and

XVII 4 gain such strength that nobody will be able to oppose them. The Ragusans added that all the inhabitants of the area conquered by the Ottomans were eagerly awaiting the despot's return to show him their loyalty. 15 There are differing opinions as to whether the Hungarian army started the operations against the Ottomans in late September or early October 1443. 16 On October 20, the Ragusans informed the pope about the first battle and the first Hungarian victory, which took place a few days after the Hungarian army had crossed the Danube to the south. Assuming that it had taken about ten days for the news to travel to Dubrovnik, one obtains early October as the most likely date for the crossing. 17 Besides, an instruction given by the Ragusan government to its ambassadors going to Hungary, on October 7, 1443, says: "E se per caso retrovaresti la Maestà d'esso nostro signor esser in camin per andar a cavalcar in oste . . ," 18 This clearly shows that as late as October 7 it was not known in Dubrovnik that the Hungarian king had moved against the Ottomans, and it also indicates that it was considered likely that the ambassadors, after travelling from Dubrovnik for at least fifteen days, would find him still in Hungary. On October 30, 1443, the Ragusan government decided to give alms to the poor so that they would pray to God and to the saints "pro toto exercitu christianorum ituro contra Teucros infedeles." 19 The previous day a man was freed from jail "pro bonis novis habitis contra Teucros." 20 Those pieces of good news refer certainly to Janos Hunyadi's successful campaign and victories against the Ottomans near Nis, which should, accordingly, be dated in mid-October 1443. 21 In mid-November, alms in the amount of 50 hyperpers were given to Ragusan monasteries, "pro bonis novis nuperime habitis contra Teucros." 22 "Good news" is, no doubt, a reference to Hunyadi's second victory near Nis on November 3. 23 Finally, on December 23, 1443, alms in the amount of 50 hyperpers were distributed, and for three days after Christmas processions took place in the city, all of those actions being a token of gratitude "pro bonis novis nuper acceptis contra infideles." At the same time, Dubrovnik answered letters received from the Hungarian king and others "ab exercitu christianorum militante contra Teucros." 24 Those manifestations of great joy

XVII 5 should be connected with the biggest reason for such behavior: the conquest of Sofia by the Christians. That would, then, indicate that Sofia was conquered most probably in the first third of December 1443. 25 On December 17, 1443, Pope Eugene IV issued a new appeal to the Ragusans to contribute to the equipping of a fleet against the Ottomans. The pope quoted, among others, the Aragonese King Alphons, the English King Henry, the Burgundian and Milanese dukes, and the city of Genoa as being favorable to the enterprise and willing to assist with it. As for Venice, he had only hopes she would help. The pope himself would give as much as he could. He asked the Ragusans to contribute three galleys, inasmuch as they had five. He was going to equip the ships at his expense. Should it become necessary, he would ask for two more galleys from the city and he would equip them at his own expense. 26 The Ragusan Senate discussed that papal request on February 8, 1444, and decided to give the pope two Ragusan galleys, at the expense of the Ragusan Republic, but on the condition that at least another twelve galleys move against the Ottomans and that that move take place no later than the end of September 1444. 2 7 The Ragusans informed the pope of their decision in a letter of February 10, in which letter they also asked him to try to make the fleet move "ad strictum Caliepoli" by the spring, before the Christian land army clashed with the Ottomans. That way, the straits of "Romania" would be closed and Ottoman communications would be cut, thereby enabling the Christian army to defeat the enemy. The pope should inform the Hungarian king about that so as to coordinate the operations. 28 The arming of the galleys in the West, primarily in Venice, which bore the brunt of the effort, advanced slowly because of mutual distrust between the papal representatives and Venetian authorities. One of the main reasons for that mistrust was the attempt of the pope to use the money, collected for the fleet, for purely his own ends in Italy. The Ragusans, no doubt, knew what was going on. It is not clear, therefore, what galleys they, in February 1444, expected would be sailing toward Dubrovnik. One passenger on those galleys was supposed to have been the "cardinalis constantinopolitanus," and five Ragusan patricians were

XVII 6 elected to meet the galleys and to invite the cardinal to visit Dubrovnik.29 It seems, however, that nothing came of the expected visit, because there is no further mention of it. Several messengers travelled through Dubrovnik in the spring of 1444 and their missions were, undoubtedly, linked to the antiOttoman expedition. First, early in March, a monk "nuntius filie domini despoti et uxoris imperatoris Turchorum" went through the city. The Ragusans provided him with a ship for transport to Split and a letter for the despot. 30 Jovan Radonic and Francis Pall assume that this mission was the Sultan's attempt to attract the despot to his side and, thus, through Serbian mediation, to make peace with the Hungarian king.31 At the beginning of April 1444, an envoy of the Morean Despot Constantine Dragases visited Dubrovnik on his way to Hungary and to King Vladislav, and the Ragusans provided him with "paregium" to Split. The ambassador requested from the Ragusan government two galleys on behalf of his lord but was refused. 32 At the same time, ambassadors of the Byzantine Emperor John VIII travelled through Dubrovnik on their way to Venice and to the king of Hungary.33 At the end of May, letters were sent from Hungary through Dubrovnik to the Despot Constantine in the Peloponnesus. 34 The Byzantine diplomatic activity had, no doubt, a twofold significance; on the one hand it had an informative character, but on the other hand its main purpose certainly was support and stimulation of a new anti-Ottoman campaign.35 Such a campaign was badly needed by the Byzantines. However, the influence of Byzantine representatives in Hungary and in Venice should not be overestimated, because the real contribution that Byzantium could make was minimal. In the meantime, the Ragusans started work on equipping the galleys that they had promised the pope, but the work progressed very slowly. The distrust between the pope, Venice, and Hungary that hampered the preparations of the fleet in Venice 36 was echoed in the tempo of the preparations in Dubrovnik. The cautious Ragusans did not wish to commit themselves fully until they were sure about the intentions and deeds of others. Three patricians were elected in the Senate on March 26, 1444, to take care of, as "proveditores," all things needed to outfit the galleys

XVII 7 promised to the pope. 37 But only on May 4 was the government allowed to use money from various deposits to arm those galleys, 38 and on May 9, the "proveditores" submitted a report on the progress of that activity. It was decided that 430 men would be embarked on the galleys and, of these, 420 were to be recruited in the territories of the Republic. Salaries and the way of distributing them were fixed. Should someone who was not selected want to serve on the ships, he was to ask for separate permission to do so from the Senate. 39 In a few cases, men designated for the trip did not want to go and found replacements. 40 On May 22, it was decided that no reprisals because of their previous debts should be enacted against persons boarding the galleys.41 Finally, a few days later, decisions were made concerning a separate ship which would carry food and which would sail as close to the galleys as possible. 42 At the end of May, Dubrovnik was expecting the Venetian fleet and the papal legate, but neither the fleet nor the legate arrived then or in early June, when provisions had been made for their reception. 43 On June 22, 1444, the Ragusan government hired one of the biggest ships in the city, property of Simko Kisilicic, to carry the food for the galleys moving against the Ottomans. The ship was to be at the disposal of the commander of the galleys, and the shipping charge was to be 300 hyperpers a month. 44 At the beginning of June, 1444, the Ragusan Senate had discussed briefly the possibility of obtaining Valona and Kanina, in Albania, for Dubrovnik, 45 but it was only in a letter sent on June 27 to the Ragusan ambassador in Hungary that they stated this desire explicitly. The Ragusans, through the ambassador, wished King Vladislav victory in the war against the Ottomans and reminded him of their loyalty and of their share in this war "più che le nostre forze erano." They asked the king to give them Valona and Kanina, if God permitting the king ousted the Ottomans from Greece, as they firmly believed he would. The possession of those towns would ensure the safety of wheat imports to Dubrovnik. 46 Naturally, the Venetians also had their eyes set on Valona, Kanina, and a number of other places in case of Christian victory. 47 However, nothing came of any of those plans because, as is well known, Vladimir's expedition not only failed to expel

XVII 8

the Ottomans from Europe but itself ended tragically. The first of the Venetian galleys designated for the "santo passaggio" passed by Dubrovnik at the end of June 1444 on its way to Corfu, and she brought news that the other galleys would surely come to Dubrovnik. The Ragusans were expecting them and with their two galleys were ready to join them. 48 On July 5, the Venetian fleet and the papal legate finally arrived in Dubrovnik and were scheduled to depart the next day. However, the fleet was still in the city on July 7. During the interval the Ragusans handed over to the legate the money for the expedition, collected through contributions in the city, and asked him to inform the pope about that 4 9 The fleet, along with the two Ragusan galleys, departed probably in the evening of July 7, 5 0 and by July 10 was in Corfu, where it found another five Venetian ships. All together the vessels continued their trip on July 13 and expected to join, in Modon, a number of galleys that the duke of Burgundy had equipped in Nice. An additional four galleys of the duke of Burgundy were in Dubrovnik on July 22 and 23 on their way from Venice to the Levant. The Ragusans noted that those galleys were "veramente benissimo et triumphevolmente armate com molti chavalieri et zentilhomini." 51 It was generally assumed in Dubrovnik that, by the end of July, over twenty-five galleys were assembled in the Gallipoli Straits.52 That was not true; the fleet probably arrived in the Dardanelles only sometime in the first half of August. 53 The ship of Kisilicic, which carried the food for the galleys, did not leave Dubrovnik with the warships as had been originally decided. On July 31, the Senate gave the ship until August 20 to depart from the city. 54 The reason for the delay is not known, but presumably the ship might have been somewhere away from Dubrovnik on a trip since Kisilicic was one of the most prominent Ragusan mariners at the time. By August 15, the ship was armed, and four days later Kisilicic received 430 hyperpers for the journey. 55 On the latter day, also, a letter for the commander of the galleys, to be carried by Kisilicic, was approved. In that letter, the Ragusan government made it clear that the galleys were supposed to spend six months on the trip. The captains were allowed to sell at a good price wine, oil, and vinegar which were being sent to them. It was necessary that the ship of Kisilicic return as quickly

XVII 9 as possible, because the state was spending over 300 hyperpers a month for her. Furthermore, a list of things carried by the vessel was given and some news was added. 56 At the same time, instructions were given to the "fattore" on the ship. He was authorized to take aboard at Corfu more food for the fleet, should he have a chance to do so without endangering the safety of the ship, of course. He was also given 500 ducats with which he was supposed to buy and bring back to Dubrovnik wheat, millet, or barley. 57 There is nothing in the Historical Archives of Dubrovnik that can shed more light on the controversial question of the Peace of Adrianople and the Peace of Szeged. As is known, the Hungarian King Vladislav sent, on April 24, 1444, an envoy to the Sultan Murad. He was accompanied by a representative of Janos Hunyadi and by two representatives of Despot George Brankovic. After extended negotiations those representatives made peace with the sultan at Adrianople on June 12, 1444. 58 After that, an Ottoman embassy went to Hungary to obtain from King Vladislav the corroboration of the peace, already confirmed by the sultan. There is information in Dubrovnik about rewards having been given, on September 10 and 11, 1444, to messengers "qui portaverunt litteras d. despoti nova pads continentes" and "qui venerunt a d. despoto cum novis pacis," 59 but it would be rather risky to conclude from that information, as O. Halecki does, that the Hungarian king did not make or confirm peace with the Ottomans. 60 One can, certainly, accept the idea that "peace" there refers specifically to the agreement between the Ottomans and the Serbian despot, 61 without denying that the king made a similar agreement. However, no news of the king's action was sent, because confirmation of the Peace of Andrianople by King Vladislav was annulled in a few days by the manifesto of August 4. In Dubrovnik, by the end of July, there was already some awareness of the possibility that peace might be concluded, as is shown by the instructions sent to Ragusan ambassadors in Hungary. 62 The question remains: when was the earliest the Hungarian king could have confirmed in Szeged the Peace of Adrianople? On July 31, 1444, a letter, sent by Pasko Sorkocevic (de Sorgo), a Ragusan patrician who at the time was a high dignitary in the court of the Serbian despot, arrived in Dubrovnik. In that letter,

XVII 10

written in Hungary, Sorkocevic informed the Ragusans that the king was about "per partirse de Buda per andar a Seghedino." 63 The letter could have been written between July 10 and 15, 6 4 which would mean that at that time the departure of the king for Szeged was considered imminent. Nevertheless, the departure did not take place so quickly. Jovan Radonic thinks that the king arrived in Szeged on July 25 or 26, 6 5 and Francis Pall is of the opinion that the king was probably still in Buda on July 24, and that he could not have reached Szeged before July 27. 66 We do know for sure that the king was in Buda on July 22, 6 7 so that the assumption that he arrived in Szeged on July 25 or 26 seems the most plausible one. In mid-August 1444, ambassadors of the Morean Despots Constantine and Thomas Palaeologos, travelled through Dubrovnik and brought to the Ragusan government letters from their lords, which letters the government answered. The Ragusans also gave to the ambassadors ships to transport them to Split. 68 The trip was, probably, another one connected with the anti-Ottoman campaign in the Balkans. Later, on September 23, the Ragusans sent news from Hungary to Venice and replied to letters from Hungary which had brought that news. Also, they called to arms "dominos Albanie et Moree." 69 It seems, however, that there was no significant anti-Ottoman activity in Albania at the time. In October, the Ragusans sent to Venice news received from the fleet at Gallipoli and rewarded a friar "pro bonis novis que apportavit de Galipoli." 70 It is not clear to what "good news" they are referring; perhaps it is to the failure of the sultan's first attempt to cross over into Europe from Asia Minor, where he had been putting down a rebellion in Caramania.71 Still, a little later the sultan did cross the straits and, on November 10, 1444, in the Battle of Varna, in which both King Vladislav and Cardinal Cesarini were killed, he completely defeated the Hungarian army. The causes of the inability of the Christian fleet to prevent the crossing of the Ottoman troops from Asia Minor into Europe have been discussed many times. 72 Various explanations have been offered, but the most plausible ones seem to be those of O. Halecki, who concludes that there were three main reasons for the failure: insufficient equipment, the probable help granted the

XVII 11

Ottomans by the Genoese, and an unfavorable wind at the decisive moment. 73 In this connection, it is not without interest to note the prevailing opinion in Dubrovnik, soon after the events themselves, about the Christian failure in the straits. In November 1445, in a letter directed to the Genoese Senate, concerning the legal action brought in May against Simko Kisilicic, the "patrone," and Jaksa Primoevic, "fattore," on the ship that carried the food for the galleys, 74 the Ragusans stated that the Christian ships in the Hellespont had lacked food, and that the commander of the Ragusan galleys had informed them that a Ragusan ship (that of Kisilicic) would arrive with foodstuffs. One galley had then left the fleet and sailed to the island of "Segocum" (or "Segaeum") to find out whether the ship with food had arrived. In the meantime, the ship of Kisilicic had been delayed when she stopped to save a shipwrecked Genoese vessel. During that time the wind had changed and Kisilicic could not continue his journey to the fleet. The galley which had gone to seek the whereabouts of the ship of Kisilicic had returned to the fleet and reported that nobody had come. At that point "christianorum triremes fame coacte" had left the guard in the straits "cuius rei causa multitudo paganorum hostium ultra ipsum strictum in Romaniam transacta fuit, que minime transire potuisset si galee ipse non fuissent coacte ipsam custodiam fame derelinquere." The foodstuffs that the ship of Kisilicic was carrying had rotted, and he had to pay their value. 75 In the opinion of the Ragusans, therefore, the main reason for the failure of the fleet was famine, that is to say insufficient provisions. For a long time nothing certain was known in Dubrovnik of the battle of Varna and its outcome. On December 21, 1444, the Ragusan government wrote to Venice "de novis habitis et emergentibus felicis exercitus christianorum," 76 which, naturally, could refer only to the time before Varna. Not even in February 1445 were they sure whether King Vladislav was alive or dead. 77 The Ragusan galleys, on their return from the expedition to the straits, arrived before the city probably about January 20, 1445. Four days later their captains were invited to the Senate to give an accounting. 78 On the same day the crews were dissolved and the captains were allowed to go home. 79 On January 27, the captains

XVII 12 were fully released from their duties and thanked "pro eorum bonis deportamentis." 80 During February and March, the Senate disposed of remaining business concerning the end of the expedition. 81 The bulk of the Christian fleet, returning with Cardinal Condolmieri from their inglorious Levantine campaign, arrived in Dubrovnik on January 1, 1446. 82 The Cardinal had with the Ragusans some inconclusive discussions which probably concerned the possibility of sending a new fleet against the Ottomans.83 On January 3, 1446, the Ragusans decided to hand over to the cardinal the money remaining from contributions made for the equipping of the fleet, and two days later the committee for the collection of the contributions ceased its work. 84 The fleet, with the cardinal, moved on to Venice sometime after January 8. 85 However, the money was not given to the cardinal, because the pope had ordered the Ragusans to deliver it "bancho societatis Cosme de Medicis" in Venice through the intermediary of some Ragusans in Venice. In fact, as far back as August 8, 1445, the pope had issued orders that all the money collected through contributions be delivered to the bank of Cosimo de Medici, because he and his companions "certam pecuniarum summam camere apostolice mutuaverunt" and the pope had no other means to repay that money. 86 Thus, the last European crusade against the Ottomans ended miserably in all respects. The failure of that action accelerated the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and, then, the conquest of South Slavic lands by the Ottomans in the second half of the fifteenth century. The role of the Ragusan Republic in the antiOttoman activities of 1443-1444 was not a large one, but it corresponded with the strength and international position of the small Republic. By participating in the campaign the Ragusans showed a considerable amount of courage in view of their situation and their relationships with the Ottomans and with the neighboring Bosnian lords. It is quite probable that Dubrovnik was most valuable to the Christian powers as a center for their diplomatic and intelligence activities, but, from the scarce and meager information that one can glimpse and that we have mentioned above, one can only guess at that role.

XVII 13 T h e Ragusans s h o u l d certainly b e credited for b e i n g t h e first t o s u b m i t a c o n c r e t e plan for an all-European a c t i o n against t h e O t t o m a n s in t h e Balkans. Later, this plan was a c c e p t e d b y t h e Western w o r l d , a l t h o u g h w i t h s o m e changes for t h e worse. Also, during preparations f o r and during t h e war operations, t h e Ragusans — w h o k n e w t h e O t t o m a n s very well b y n o w a n d had a realistic o u t l o o k — advised c a u t i o n , b u t their a d m o n i t i o n s were n o t h e e d e d . Regardless, t h e failure o f t h e last great crusading e x p e d i t i o n clearly d e m o n s t r a t e d that campaigns inspired b y crusading ideas and interests had b y t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y outlived their t i m e . It also s h o w e d that neither t h e E u r o p e a n rulers nor t h e p o p e u n d e r s t o o d t h e e n o r m o u s danger that w a s a p p r o a c h i n g f r o m t h e East, and that t h e y were n o t truly interested in e x p e l l i n g t h e O t t o m a n s f r o m E u r o p e . T h e Ragusans, as did t h e V e n e t i a n s , u n d e r s t o o d this very q u i c k l y and drew t h e inevitable c o n c l u s i o n s for their further p o l i c i e s and a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e n e w situation, that is t o say, t o t h e O t t o m a n overlordship o f t h e Balkan Peninsula.

NOTES

1. I. Bozic, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku, Belgrade 1952, pp. 77. 2. Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (hereafter HAD), Lettere e commissioni di Levante (hereafter Lett. Lev.), vol. XIII, ff. 43-44v. Geleich-Thaloczy, Diplomatarium ragusanum, Budapest 1887, pp. 437-38. N. Jorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à Vhistoire des croisades au XVe siècle, vol. II, Paris 1899, p. 385. J. Radonic, Zapadna Evropa i balkanski narodi prema Turcima u prvoj poloviniXV veka, Novi Sad 1905, pp. 108-09. Bozic, o.c., p. 99. 3. In a letter to Matko Talovac, of September 17, 1441, the Ragusans stated that if the Hungarians, the pope, the Serbian despot and the western rulers can collaborate against the Ottomans, "et regnum Hungarie restauretur et status nostre rei tutiori robore preservare tur. Lett. Lev., ibid., f. 52v. Radonic, o.c., p. 109. 4. Diplomatarium, p. 439. Jorga, o.c., p. 385.

XVII 14 5. Radonic, o.c., pp. 114-15. F. Pall, Un moment décisif de l'histoire du Sud-Est européen: la croisade de Varna (1444), BaIkania, vol. VII/1, 1944, pp. 103-04. Bozic, o.c., p. 99. 6. HAD, Consilium rogatorum, vol. VIII, f. 193v.; Consilium maius, vol. VII, f. 78v. 7. Radonic, o.c., p. 117. 8. Jorga, ibid., p. 390; Radonic, ibid.; Bozic, o.c., p. 99. 9. Radonic, o.c., pp. 133-35. 10. Ibid., pp. 13845. D. Sinor, History of Hungary, New York 1959, pp. 110-12. 11. Radonic, ibid., p. 149. 12. Cons, rog., vol. VIII, f. 203. 13. Ibid., ff. 225v, 226v. Cons, maius, vol. VII, ff. 114v, 116v. 14. Cons, rog., vol. VIII, ff. 243v-244. Radonic, a c . , pp. 154-55. 15. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 129v-130v; Diplomatarium, p. 445. J. Radonic, Dubrovacka akta i povelje, vol. 1/1, Belgrade 1934, p. 464; F. Pali, Ciriaco d'Ancona e la crociata contro i Turchi, Bulletin de la Section historique de VAcadémie Roumaine, Bucarest 1938, p. 23. 16. Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 160; Pall, Ciriaco, p. 23. 17. Diplomatarium, pp. 448-49; Radonic, Akta, pp. 467-68. 18. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 129v-130Diplomatarium, p. 444; Radonic, ibid., pp. 463-64. 19. Cons, rog., vol. VIII, f. 250v. 20. Cons, minus, vol. IX, f. 212v. 21. Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, pp. 161-62. 22. Cons, rog., vol. VIII, f. 254v. 23. Radonic, ibid., pp. 161-62. F. Babinger, Von Amurath zu Amurath, Vor- und N a c j i s p i e l der Sehlacht bei Varna (1444), Oriens, vol. III/2, 1950, p. 229. 24. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 262v. 25. There is no indication of how long it took for letters from Sofia to travel to Dubrovnik, but we know that letters from Plovdiv took 29 days to reach Dubrovnik, those from Adrianople an average of 28 days and letters from Constantinople 30-31 days. It took a letter from Nis an average of 10-15 days to arrive in Dubrovnik (all calculations based on data from Lett. lev. vols, XI-XV). Consequently, one can surmise that it took about 15 days for a letter from Sofia to reach Dubrovnik. 26. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, f. 144; Diplomatarium, pp. 448-50; Radonic, Akta, pp. 467-68. Contrary to the opinion of F. Pall, Un moment, p. 107, n. 1 , 0 ; Halecki, La croisade de Varna, Bulletin of the International Committee of Historical Sciences, vol. IX, Paris 1939, p. 495, was right in assuming that the Duke of Milan had promised help.

15 27. Cons, rog., vol. IX, ff. 16-16v; Jorga, o.c., p. 401, n. 4; Bozic, o.c., p. 100. 28. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, f. 145; Diplomatarium, pp. 451-54; Radonic, o.c., pp. 469-71 ; Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 196, n. 2. 29. Cons, minus, vol. X, f. 19. 30. Cons, rog., vol. IX, f. 26; Cons, maius, vol. VII, f. 161 ; Jorga, o.c., p. 401; Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 201; Pall, Ciriaco, p. 27; Bozic, o.c., p. 101. 31. Radonic, ibid., pp. 201-02; Pall, ibid:, Babinger, o.c., p. 232. 32. Cons, rog., vol. IX, ff. 36-36v; Jorga, o.c., p. 401, n. 4. Radonic, o.c., p. 177. 33. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 37; Jorga, ibid.,; Radonic, ibid. 34. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 56v. 35. Radonic, o.c., p. 178. 36. Radonic, ox., pp. 175-76; Pall, Ciriaco, p. 31. O. Halecki, The Crusade of Varna, A Discussion of Controversial Problems, New York 1943, pp. 4 2 4 3 . 37. Cons, rog., ibid., ff. 33-33v. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid., ff. 47v-49. 40. HAD, Diversa notariae, vol. XXVIII, ff. 19, 25v, 26v; Bozic, o.c., p. 101. 41. Cons, rog., ibid., ff. 52v-53. 42. Ibid., f. 55; Bozic,o.c., p. 100. 43. Cons, rog., vol. IX, ff. 52, 58-58v; Jorga, o.c., p. 401, n. 4; Radonic, o.c., p. 196; Bozic, o.c., p. 101. 44. Diversa not., ibid., f. 24v; Bozic, o.c., p. 100. 45. Cons, rog., vol. IX, f. 59. 46. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 152-152v; Jorga, o.c., p. 403; Radonic, o.c., pp. 196-98; Bozic, o.c., p. 101. 47. Jorga,Notes, vol. Ill, Paris 1902, p. 179; Radonic,_o.c., pp. 195-96. 48. Lett. Lev., ibid.; Jorga,Notes, vol. II, p. 403; Radonic, ibid. 49. Cons, rog., vol. IX, ff. 66v-67; Radonic, ibid. 50. Radonic, o.c., p. 196, n. 2; Bozic, ibid. 51. Lett, lev., ibid., ff. 154-154v; Diplomatarium, pp. 457-49; Radonic, Akta, vol. 1/1, pp. 480-82; Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 197. 52. Ragusan letter to their ambassadors in the court of the Bosnian king, Lett. Lev., ibid., f. 159; Jorga, o.c., vol. II, p. 406. On August 17, the ships were still in Modon and stayed there at least until August 25. Lett. Lev., ibid., f. 156; Jorga, ibid., p. 407; Vol. Ill, p. 181. 53. That is also the opinion of Halecki, The Crusade, p. 26. Pall, Ciriaco, p. 31, says "verso il principio d'agosto" and in Un moment, p. 113, "au début

XVII 16 du mois d'août." Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 197, thought that the galleys had reached the straits only in mid-August or even later.

54. Cons, rog., vol. IX, f. 73. 55. Ibid., f. 77. Div. not., vol. XXVIII, f. 159. 56. "Prima bote XX de vino le quai sono quinghi octozento vinti sinza lo schago; item bote tre de axedo, quinghi cento undexe; item botta una de oglio, stara settantaocto; item de biscoto miara XLVII et libre (? ) 358 . . . " In addition, they sent "remi cento vinti da galea perche ne scrivesti esser manchamento d'essi." Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 156-156v; Jorga, o.c., vol. II, p. 407. 57. Lett. Lev., ibid., f. 157; Jorga, ibid. 58. See Pall, Ciriaco, where several letters written by Ciriaco Pizzicolli, and dealing with the negotiations were published. Incidentally, Ciriaco was in Dubrovnik not only "late in the fall of 1443" — as Halecki, The Crusade, p. 14, asserts — but also in January 1444. On January 13, the Ragusan government gave him a reward of ten ducats "pro eius bono deportamento erga nostram rem." Cons, maius, vol. VII, f. 151. This means that Pall, Ciriaco, p. 23, was wrong when he thought that Ciriaco had been in Dubrovnik only until December 7, 1443. Furthermore, that indicates that Ciriaco could not have reached Patras before the last third of January, 1444, a timetable which fits very well with other information we have on his travel in the Levant. See also E. Jacobs, Cyriacus von Ancona und Mehemmed II, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 30, 1929-30, pp. 197-211. On the problems of peace see Pall, Un Moment, p. 109-10. The same, Autour de la croisade de Varna: la question de la Paix de Szeged et de sa rupture (1444), Bulletin de la Section historique de VAcadémie Roumaine, Bucarest 1941. Sinor, o.c., p. 112. 59. Cons, rog., ibid., ff. 80, 81; Jorga, o.c., p. 403, n. 2. 60. Halecki, The Crusade, pp. 41, 55; Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 210. 61. This is, also, the opinion of Bozic, o.c., p. 102. See Babinger, o.c., pp. 2 4 0 4 1 . G. Skrivanic, Zasto despot Djuradj nije ucestvovao u bici na Varni 1444, Vesnik Vojnog muzeja, vol. 16, Belgrade 1970, pp. 227-30. 62. Radonic, Akta, vol. I / l , p. 482, and Diplomatarium, p. 459: "Et similmente vedendo alguna paxe esser per concludersi, attendete con ogni diligentia a voi possibile che la nostra cittade con lo suo territorio et merchadanti sian incluxi in essa paxe." 63. Lett. Lev., ibid., ff. 154-154v\ Diplomatarium, ibid.; Radonic, ibid. 64. See Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, p. 205; Pali, Ciriaco, p. 38. 65. Radonic, ibid., p. 207, thought that peace had been made at the end of July. 66. Pall, Ciriaco, p. 39, puts the peace agreement "non prima del 29-30 luglio." In his other article, Un moment, p. 112, Pall thought that the king

XVII 17 had left Buda on July 25, and that peace was made "au cours des derniers jours de juillet." 67. On that day the king, in Buda, entrusted Nicolaus de Zakrzow with the government of the area of Krakow. The day before, also in Buda, the king gave certain privileges to Johannes de Olesnica. Monumenta medii aevi res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, t. XVII, Codex diplomaticus Poloniae minoris, pars IV, Krakow 1905, pp. 434-35. Halecki, o.c., pp. 29, 38. 68. Cons, rog., vol. IX, f. 76v.; Jorga, o.c., p. 403, n. 2. 69. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 83; Jorga, ibid. 70. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 84v; Cons, minus, vol. X, f. 70v. 71. Radonic, o.c., p. 222; Halecki, o.c., p. 63; Bozic, o.c., pp. 102-03. 72. On those events see the detailed discussion in Radonic, Zapadna Evropa, pp. 223-27, and recently in Sbornik ot izsledvanija i dokumenti v cest na 525-ta godisnina ot bitkata krajgr. Varna, Sofia 1969; also Sinor, o.c., pp. 112-13. 73. Halecki, o.c., p. 63. See also Pall, Un moment, pp. 116-17, and Babinger, o.c., pp. 251-53. 74. Cons, rog., vol. IX, ff. 156v-157. 75. Lett Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 187-187v. 76. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 103v; Jorga, o.c., p. 403, n. 2; Radonic, o.c., p. 230. 77. Jorga, o.c., p. 408; Radonic, o.c., p. 231. Similar situation in Florence: Pall, Un moment, p. 117. 78. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 11 lv; Jorga, o.c., p. 409, n. 2. 79. Cons, rog., ibid. 80. Ibid., f. 113; Jorga, o.c., p . 4 0 2 , n . 2. 81. Among other things, it was established that the value of goods stolen by the crew in various christian harbors did not surpass 200 ducats. Consequently, this amount was not deducted from their salaries. Minor expenses concerning the care of the wounded and payments for musicians who came aboard the ships during their trip were taken care of. Cons, rog., ibid., ff. 113v, 115, 128. 82. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 204; Jorga, o.c., pp. 4 1 7 , 4 2 0 , n. 1 ; Radonic, o.c., p. 241. 83. Cons, rog., ibid., f. 204v; Jorga, ibid.; Radonic, ibid. 84. Cons, rog., ibid., ff. 205-205v; Jorga, ibid.; Radonic, ibid. 85. Jorga, ibid. 86. Lett. Lev., ibid., ff. 190-91; Jorga, o.c., s,p. 417.

XVIII

CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE PRONOIA IN MEDIEVAL SERBIA

The debate over Byzantine feudalism, which has been taking place for years among the most prominent Byzantinologists, has produced many stimulating works on the subject. One of the most important of these is the notable study by George Ostrogorsky, Pronoia, A Contribution to the History of Feudalism in Byzantium and the South Slavic Lands.1 The eminent Yugoslav scholar discussed in his book many important topics, including ways in which the Byzantine pronoia penetrated into the medieval Serbian state. He also pointed out the importance of the pronoia in the structure of Serbian feudalism, from at least 1299 when pronoia was first mentioned as existing in Serbia, until the downfall of the Serbian state in 1459. 2 Ostrogorsky discovered, however, that data on the pronoia in Serbia after 1370 were very rare. He was able to locate only five references to the institution, and one of them is indirect, coming as it does from Bosnia. Nevertheless, Ostrogorsky analyzed very carefully this meager information, paying special attention to a document from 1447, located in the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik. The document is, in fact, a letter sent by the government of Dubrovnik to its ambassadors at the court of the Serbian Despot Djuradj Brankovic. Among other things, the Ragusan government instructed the ambassadors to thank the despot for having allowed Ragusan merchants in Serbia to claim repayment of outstanding debts from Serbian debtors on their real estate "laidando la reservation che vol sia, sopra quello fosse dato in pronia, perche iusta cosa e condecente. E che la soa Signoria possa far de tal caxe e possession date in pronia ogni so voler." The ambassadors also were supposed to ask the despot to issue a charter ordering all his fonctionaries, designated to administer justice to Ragusans, to abide by his decisions and to satisfy claims "sule dette possession e caxe . . . salvo et reservando quello fosse dato per lo Signor in pronia."3

XVIII 2 It is evident from the above that, in 1447 in Serbia, pronoia was clearly distinguished from freehold property, bastina. Ostrogorsky correctly stressed that "pronoia in Serbia, as in Byzantium, represented a distinct kind of conditional landholding, which imposed upon the beneficiary military duty for the state and constituted state property." Furthermore, he emphasized that the pronoiarios was distinguished from the bastinik precisely because the pronoia was not unlimited property, but rather conditional landholding. 4 Another, as yet unpublished document from the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik throws new light on the development of the pronoia in Serbia in the closing years of that state's independent existence. This is a document from 1453 which mentions pronoia in connection with the activities of Nicolinus Martoli de Çrieua (Nikolin Crijevic), a member of an old and distinguished Ragusan patrician family which had longstanding commercial links with Serbia.5 The document mentions Nikolin Crijevic as being in Dubrovnik in 1440 and 1442 as "garçon delà dohana granda," which means that he was very young at the time. 6 He went to Serbia for the first time in 1445 and worked there, at intervals, until 1453; later on he went there again. His father, Martol, had twelve or thirteen children, eight or nine of them sons, 7 and several of the brothers, along with Nikolin, participated in business ventures in the borderland area between Serbia and Bosnia. However, of all the Crijevic family members active in Serbia, Jacobus (Jakov) and Nikolin were the most important ones. They engaged in business, started commercial companies, obtained the right to collect customs, and so on. 8 In addition, they were frequently entrusted by the Ragusan government with political and judiciary duties. 9 The table on the following page will illustrate the presence and movements of the Crijevic brothers in Serbia and Bosnia in the middle of the fifteenth century. 10 The information about the Crijevices which merits our attention here dates from 1452. On 25 September of that year the Crijevic brothers divided the properties of their late father Martol, which were situated in or near Dubrovnik. On that occasion, Nikolin received plots of land and portions of vineyards in Ombla

XVIII 3

Jacobus

Nicolinus

Stephanus

1444

Fojnica, Bosnia

1445

Fojnica, Bohorina, Zajaòa

Bohorina, Srebrenica, Cmca, Zajaca

1446

Bohorina, Zajaca, Srebrenica

Zajaca, Bohorina, Crnca

1447

Zajaca, Srebrenica, Crnca

Zajaca, Crnca, Srebrenica, Foca

Zajaca

1448

Srebrenica

Zajaòa, Srebrenica

Srebrenica

1449

Smederevo, Srebrenica, Crnca

Valjevo

1450

Smederevo or Rudnik

1451

Smederevo

1452

Smederevo

Smederevo, Srebrenica

Smederevo

Srebrenica, Zajaca, Fojnica

1453

Srebrenica

1454

Andreas

Blasius

Zajaca, Sasi, Smederevo, Krupanj "Sclauonia Krupanj Smederevo

Zajaca, Smederevo Smederevo

1455

Srebrenica

1456

Srebrenica, Crnca

Smederevo Srebrenica

XVIII 4 and a garden on Dance close to the city. Jakov received the large family house in Dubrovnik and land in Kupari and Konavle, somewhat removed from the city itself. Shares were also allotted to the remaining brothers. 11 At the time of the division, Nikolin was not in Dubrovnik but in Smederevo; however, he agreed to the division when he visited Dubrovnik in the summer of 1453. 1 2 During that visit to the city, Nikolin made an agreement with Jakov to consolidate their vineyards, lands, houses and other possessions in and near Dubrovnik and to consider them as common property until they decided differently. It was established that, at the time of the creation of their association, they had 1100 ducats cash, which they invested in the company. They were to share profits and losses equally. The brothers, in addition, made some immediate decisions about measures they would take in case their business partnership was dissolved. Thus, they agreed that the family house would not be divided but would, rather, be assigned by lot, as a single unit, to one of them. Furthermore, lands in Kupari which Jakov had put into the company were to revert to him in case of dissolution of the company. Nikolin, on his part, made the following statement: "Et jo Nicolin o certi caxali in Schiauonia, li quai o avuto in pronia del signor despot, tanto queste quanto che altre che per lo avignir avero del signor despot, vogliemo che le dicte possession usufrutemo tra nui," but in case of division "quelli caxali in Schiauonia sopradetti resteno et siano de mi Nicolin." 13 The company formed by Jakov and Nikolin Crijevic lasted until the summer of 1457. 1 4 During the four years of its existence, the Crijevices, together with Damjan Djurdjevic (Damianus de Georgio), a Ragusan patrician who occupied high positions in the Serbian despot's court, bought in Srebrenica some bastine for 300 ducats. Also with Djurdjevic, the Crijevices came to own several mining pits on the Cer mountain. The association with Djurdjevic came to an end in mid-August, 1457, 15 and, on 7 September of that year, Jakov and Nikolin Crijevic liquidated their own company, most likely prompted to do so by the unstable situation which existed in Serbia after the death of Djuradj Brankovic. When ending their association, the Crijevices first divided their possessions in Dubrovnik and then their property in Serbia, includ-

XVIII 5 ing "certi fossi a Zer e in Saeza" and bastine in Srebrenica. Then they settled their debts to various persons in Serbia and in Dubrovnik. Finally, they mentioned their dealings in letters of exchange, textile trade with Apulia, and some houses in Zajaca.16 It is interesting to note that nowhere in the document on the dissolution is there any reference to properties held in pronoia, mentioned in 1453 when the company was formed. At that earlier date, one recalls, it was stated that Nikolin had "certi caxali (to be understood, no doubt, as villages)17 in Schiauonia" as pronoia, which he had received from the Serbian despot, and was expecting to receive others. One can assume reasonably that Nikolin had acquired the pronoia in an area where his position was a strong one. Because he, as well as his brothers Jakov and Stijepo (Stephanus) frequently visited Zajaca, spent protracted periods of time there and, therefore, probably played a certain role in that locality, it seems likely that the pronoia of Nikolin was located there. This supposition seems to gain strength from documents dating from as early as 1446. At that time Jakov Crijevic was the customs officer in Zajaca, and many Ragusans complained about innovations he was making and about violence he was committing. For example, he was demanding that all silver produced in Zajaca go through his hands. Furthermore, he was confiscating silver from merchants who had obtained it without his intervention, was beating and insulting them, and so on. He had even.dared to insult and to chase with a stick all the way to the man's house Djivo Gucetic (Gozze), a member of one of the greatest and most powerful Ragusan patrician families. In a letter to the Ragusan government, the merchants wrote that there had been Ottoman, Greek and Serbian customs officers in Zajaca, but that none of those men had insulted them or made innovations, which could not be described, such as Jakov had done since his arrival. The merchants added that the Crijevic brothers had said that it was quite all right with them for the merchants to make the complaint, because they, the Crijevices, could not care less about it. 18 The fact that Jakov Crijevic and his brother seem to have felt quite safe in Zajaca and probably had powerful protection there should perhaps be linked to the supposed granting of the pronoia to

XVIII 6 Nikolin in that locality. After 1457 there is no information on Nikolin Crijevic in Serbia. For the next twenty years he occupied only low-ranking administrative positions in Dubrovnik, possibly because, having left there as a youth to go to Serbia in 1445, he had had no opportunity to demonstrate his ability to handle more important political duties. It was only in 1478 that Nikolin entered the Ragusan Senate, although from that time until his death he occupied many prominent positions in the city : he was senator several times and rector of Dubrovnik five times. 19 He died at the beginning of 1494. His will mentions that he had worked in Serbia in 1445, and in Srebrenica with another patrician, but it is clear that he had also developed active commercial relations with Southern Italy. 20 The case of Nikolin seems, indeed, to be another of those instances where capital, accumulated through trade with the Balkan hinterland, was diverted toward the sea and invested in naval trade at a time when business in the Balkans had become uncertain. Jakov Crijevic had died earlier, in 1482, of plague, on the island of Kolocep, near Dubrovnik, without leaving a will. The third brother, Stijepo, died in 1485 and stipulated in his will that the bones of his son, Jakov, who had died in the silver-mining center of Novo Brdo, in Serbia, be transported to Dubrovnik.21 What does the information on the pronoia, contained in the Ragusan document of 1453, contribute to our knowledge of the development of that institution in fifteenth-century Serbia? George Ostrogorsky has recounted a number of instances in which the pronoiarii were foreigners, but he has done so only for Byzantium. 22 He has not mentioned a single case of this sort for Serbia. We know that in Zeta, during the Venetian domination, ^ronoias could not be granted to persons who were not originally from that area or were not Venetian subjects.23 Mihailo Dinic has hypothesized that a Ragusan may have held some villages in Serbia as a pronoia. 24 Now, however, we have clear and unquestionable proof that foreigners did have pronoias in Serbia in the midfifteenth century. Nikolin Crijevic not only held some villages as pronoia, but expected to receive additional ones. Ostrogorsky stressed on several occasions that in Serbia "from

XVIII 7 its first mention . . . to the end of the Serbian state, the pronoia retained its military and warlike character." The pronoiarii were men of various social status, but "by their nature they belonged to the military class." Depending on how much property they held, they "united now with small, now with large feudal lords who, of course, in a feudal state, performed primarily military duties." Ostrogorsky pointed out, in addition, that the pronoiarii were expected not only to fight but also to work, and he interpreted this work, quite correctly, not as labour (corvée) but as "some civil duty." Thus, according to him, military duty remained the main obligation of the pronoiarios in Serbia, as it was in Byzantium but, as a secondary duty, there was "work," a civil duty. 25 It is quite certain that in the case of Nikolin Crijevic military duty should be completely ruled out. He was a merchant and a mining entrepreneur, and it is difficult to imagine that he would join the despot's army. Also, to have done so would have been contrary to Dubrovnik's general attitude toward armed participation in foreign wars. Besides, Nikolin Crijevic did not even reside permanently in Serbia but, rather, from time to time returned to Dubrovnik, which made it even less likely that he performed military duties in return for pronoia granted him. It also suggests that the civil duties he performed for the despot were only temporary courtesies and not precisely defined and continuous services. It appears, therefore, that toward the end of the Serbian medieval state, the military aspect of the pronoia had considerably declined if not completely disappeared. From what has been said above, it is clear that Nikolin Crijevic was able to do with his pronoia almost as he pleased. He was even able to include it as part of a commercial company. Still, even though there is no mention of what would happen in case the company went bankrupt, it was arranged that, at the time of division of property, the pronoia would revert to him. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a foreigner could include a pronoia as part of a commercial relationship with another foreigner tells a lot about the decay of the institution in Serbia at that time. It will be recalled that, in the division of properties between Nikolin and Jakòv Crijevic^ in 1457, pronoia is not mentioned. If that means that the Crijevices disposed of the pronoia in the same

XVIII 8

way as they did of their bastina or of any other part of their properties, then their actions might be an additional indication of the degeneration of the pronoia in Serbia, because they would signify that the differences between the pronoia and the other forms of property, still clearly evident from the document of 1453, had disappeared by 1457. In conclusion, it appears obvious that the document on the pronoia from the Historical Archives of Dubrovnik throws additional light on the fate of that institution in Serbia. One can agree with Ostrogorsky when he stated that pronoia seems to have had "a particularly vast expansion" just before the downfall of Serbia, especially at the expense of the bastina,26 but one must add that, along with the expansion, there was a decline in the military dimensions of the pronoia and, even more importantly, a marked change in the basic concept of that institution. Paraphrasing a thought of Paul Lemerle, 27 one might say that the existing situation in Serbia, like the one in Byzantium, was not formally abolished nor systematically modified, but that innovations were introduced, which made the institutions more complex, and the complexity of the institutions ultimately was a reflection of the complexity of life itself. NOTES

1. G. Ostrogorski, Pronija, prilog istoriji feudalizma u Vizantiji i u juznoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade 1951 (now also in G. Ostrogorski, Sabrana delà, vol. I, O vizantijskom feudalizmu, Belgrade 1969, pp. 119-342). French translation: G. Ostrogorskij, Pour l'histoire de la féodalité byzantine, Brussels 1954. See also P. Lemerle, Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance, Revue historique, Janv.-Mars 1958, pp. 32-74; Avr.-Juin 1958, pp. 254-84; Juill.-Sept. 1958, pp. 43-94. 2. Ostrogorskij,Féodalité, pp. 187-221.

3. Ibid., p. 216 n. 1. 4. Ibid., pp. 197,217. 5. I. Mahnken, Dubrovacki patricijat u XIV veku, vol. I, Belgrade 1960, pp. 459-65. 6. Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (HAD), Speculum, f. 348. 7. Mahnken, o.c., vol. II, table no. 86 (Zrieua, LXXVIII/1).

XVIII 9 8. HAD, Lettere di Levante, vol. XII, f. 188\Debita notariae, vol. XXII, ff. 96v, 112, 177v; vol. XXV, f. 110. M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjevekovnojSrbiji iBosni, vol. I, Belgrade 1955, pp. 71-72. 9. Numerous data on this in HAD, Consilium minus, vols. X-XIV. 10. This table is based on information on Crijevices' activities in Serbia and Bosnia contained in HAD, Lett. Lev., vols. XIII and XIV; Lamenta de foris, vols. XX and XXI; and especially Consilium minus, vols. X-XIV. On mines and mining in the Drina area see D. Kovacevic, Dans la Serbie et la Bosnie médiévales: les mines d'or et d'argent, AnnalesESC, Mars-Avril 1960, pp. 248-58. On the Crijevices in Bosnia see also D. Kovacevic, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo 1961, pp. 53, 69, 72, 139. D. KovaceviéKojic, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Sarajevo 1978, pp. 152,181,183. 11. HAD, Diversa notariae, vol. XXXVI, f. 171v. 12. Ibid.,ii. 171-172. 13. Ibid., vol. XXXVII, ff. 97-97v. 14. In the fall of 1454 Serbian functionaries confiscated goods belonging to the sons of Martol Crijevic and to other Ragusan merchants when they were travelling "sotto Boraz" and the Ragusan government demanded their return to the owners. Lett, lev., vol. XIV, ff. 157-157v. 15. Div. not., vol. XLI, ff. 178-178v. Dinic, o.c., p. 72. 16. Div. not., ibid., ff. 182-183. Dinic, ibid. 17. P. Topping, Le régime agraire dans le Péloponnèse Latin au XlVe siècle, L'Hellénisme Contemporain, Juillet-Octobre 1956, 2e sér., t. X, fase. 4-5, p. 259 and n. 2. See also D. Jacoby, Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée, Les "casaux de parçon," Mélanges dArchéologie et d'Histoire, Ecole française de Rome, a. 1963,1, p. 111 f. 18. Lett. Lev., vol. XIII, ff. 209-209v, 210-210v. Lam. de foris, vol. XX, ff. 163, 164; vol. XXI, f. 280. M. Dinic, Dubrovcani kao feudalci u Srbiji i Bosni,Istorijski casopis, vol. IX-X, Belgrade 1959, pp. 139-49. 19. Speculum, passim. 20. HAD, Testamenta notariae, vol. XXVII, ff. 37-38v. 21. Speculum, f. 384. Testam. not., vol. XXV, ff. 85v-86. 22. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité, pp. 30-31, 53, 9 9 , 1 2 6 , 128-30. 23. Ibid., p. 225, I. Bozic, Proniarii et capita, Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, vol. VIII/1, Mélanges Georges Ostrogorsky, t. I, Belgrade 1963, pp. 91-96. 24. Dinic, Dubrovcani kao feudalci. 25. Ostrogorskij, o.c., pp. 197,217-18. 26. Ibid., p. 219. 27. Lemerle, Esquisse, pt. III, p. 89.

DUBROVNIK - INTERNAL HISTORY

XIX

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS TO DUBROVNIK'S ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES I

Geographical position and circumstances of historical development made Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a city extremely attractive to foreigners in the late Middle Ages. Geographically, Dubrovnik is situated in a most convenient place, from the point of view of both sea routes in the Adriatic and overland roads towards the Balkan hinterland. The eastern or Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic with its numerous bays and islands (which were used as shelters), mountains (which served as orientation points), favorable winds and currents, was the customary navigational route, in preference to the western or Italian coast, which is flat and offers none of these advantages. This became especially important during the time of the growing Venetian trade with Byzantium and the Levant, which resulted in large numbers of Venetian ships moving along the Dalmatian coast, going to and from the East. Dubrovnik was particularly favored, situated as it is at the end of the chain of islands. Ships plying down the coast from Venice before sailing into the open seas, put in to her harbor to refit and complement their crews. On the return journeys Dubrovnik was the first major Adriatic city that the ships visited. Thus it played a major role in the navigational patterns in the Adriatic area.1 At the same time, Dubrovnik was connected by several land routes to the central regions of Bosnia and Serbia in the Balkan hinterland. These connections became especially important after mining was started in those areas. In Serbia, in the middle of the thirteenth century, mining operations were begun by Saxon miners. Serbian mining progressed with great rapidity in the second half of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth century. Then, in the first half of the fourteenth century mining began in Bosnia. Dubrovnik's merchants grasped immediately the magnitude of the opportunity offering itself to them. In the late twelfth century they had already established commercial links with both Balkan states and were now able to move quickly into the mining areas. There, they became the leading entrepreneurs and intermediaries for the export of Serbian and Bosnian minerals to the West. Thus This paper was presented in the symposium on "Urban Societies in the Mediterranean World" at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington, D. C., in May 1976. 1 J. Tadic, "Venezia e la costa orientale dell' Adriatico fino al secolo XV," in Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV 1 (Florence 1973) 690-691.

XIX 376 copper, iron, lead — but above all silver, sometimes mixed with gold - began to flow in large quantities from the Balkan hinterland to Dubrovnik and from there to the West, mainly through Venice. This trade reached enormous proportions, especially in the first half of the fifteenth century, with silver as the main commodity, and it brought to Dubrovnik immense wealth and prosperity.2 Aside from these geographical and economic factors, two other elements in Dubrovnik's historical development must be taken into consideration. One is its political stability and the other is its social peace in the city. Dubrovnik was a patrician city-state, with a constitution similar in many ways to that of Venice, under whose domination Dubrovnik was from 1205 to 1358. The city was governed by three councils, Major, Minor and the Senate (Rogati), consisting exclusively of men belonging to a limited group of families. Although this group closed its ranks only after 1330, for all practical purposes it was well defined and in charge of the affairs of the city already by the mid-thirteenth century. The system proved to be extremely stable and worked very smoothly not only during and after the Venetian domination, but for centuries thereafter. It should be noted, however, that the Ragusan patricians, like the Venetian ones, were not a landed aristocracy drawing their income from large estates. They were merchants drawing tHeir substance from commerce.3 Thus, their policies and interests coincided with those of the only other group in the city which could have challenged the patrician power, that is to say, the non-noble merchants, shipowners and craftsmen. This convergence of interests contributed greatly to social peace in Dubrovnik. What unrest there was, as for example in 1400, was very minor and easily stemmed. 4 The Ragusan government, like those of the Italian communes, saw its state — as Robert Lopez put it so aptly - as "l'État comme une bonne affaire" - a government "of the merchants, by the merchants, for the merchants."5 Thus, geographical position, economic opportunity, political stability, and social peace attracted foreigners to Dubrovnik from the thirteenth century onward.

II Who were these foreigners coming to Dubrovnik? It is easier to divide them into three groups: Slavs, Italians and others. The bulk of foreigners coming to Dubrovnik was made up of the Balkan Slavs. The greatest influx of these Slavs was from an area not far from Dubrovnik which was very poor and barren, and whose population traditionally looked to the city to provide better 2

J. Tadic, "Privreda Dubrovnika i srpske zemlje u prvoj polovini XV veka," Zbornik Filosofskog fakulteta u Beogradu 10.1 (1968) 527-528. B. Krekic, Dubrovnik in the 14th and 15th3 Centuries: A City between East and West(Norman, Okla. 1972) 20-22, 50-52. See I. Mahnken, Dubrovacki patricijat u XIV veku, 2 vols. (Belgrade 1960), esp. 1.27. 4 B. Krekic, "Prilozi unutrasnjoj istoriji Dubrovnika pocetkom XV veka " Istoriski glasnik 1-2 (1953) 63-70. s R. Lopez, Su e giù per la storia di Genova (Genoa 1975) 28, 36.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

377

opportunities. Some of these people came as merchants and craftsmen, many were engaged on ships, but most were quite simply a source of manpower for Dubrovnik. 6 Slavs also came from much more distant areas of the Balkan hinterland, from Serbia and Bosnia, especially when trade with those regions, due to the mining, became very lively in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Finally, a number of Croatians from Dalmatia came to Dubrovnik by sea, mostly as seamen, captains, merchants and the like. It is obvious that the Slavs were not an economically powerful element, or people who, because of their skills and expertise, could do much to contribute to or to influence Dubrovnik's development. However, their sheer numbers were of decisive importance for the whole future of the city, and it was because of their massive presence that they exerted such a strong impact on Dubrovnik's destiny. It is, of course, impossible to gauge the number of Slavs who either visited or settled down in Dubrovnik in the late Middle Ages. There is no doubt, however, that their number was overwhelming. By the mid-thirteenth century Dubrovnik had become a predominantly Slavic city. Statistics are, as we well know, a dangerous game to play when data is partial, but I would still like to use some numbers here, even if just to give an idea of the "ordre de grandeur." In the fourteenth century there were in Dubrovnik 583 servants recruited from among the hinterland Slavs. Of these, over 82 percent spent from between one and ten years in the city. Also, between 1321 and 1399, we find 205 apprentices from the nearby hinterland coming to Dubrovnik to learn various crafts. Many of these remained in the city permanently and others for long periods of time.7 More important are some further sets of numbers that we may use. It has been calculated (although these calculations are not quite satisfactory) that 225 persons were granted Ragusan citizenship in the course of the fourteenth century.8 Of these, 174 (77.33 percent) were Slavs. Of these Slavs, eighty-three (47.7 percent) were from the hinterland and from the Serbian coastal areas south of Dubrovnik; fourteen (8.04 percent) were from Dalmatia; and seventy-seven (44.25 percent) were of unknown provenance. It should be pointed out that we are talking here only of those Slavs who had obtained citizenship; and — while constituting 77.33 percent of new citizens — they represented just a small percentage of the total number of Slavs in Dubrovnik (as we shall see later, to obtain citizenship was not an easy matter). The second most numerous group of foreigners in Dubrovnik were the Italians, mostly from Venice and Apulia.9 Again, we do not have an exact and full count of this group, but there are some numbers and some comparisons which can be used to 6 D. Dinic-Knezevic, "Prilog proucavanju migracija naseg stanovnistva u Italiju tokom XIII i XIV veka," Godisnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu 16.1 (1973) 39-62. 7 D. Dinic-Knezevic, "Migracije stanovnistva iz blizeg zaledja u Dubrovnik u XIV veku," Jugoslovenski istorijski casopis 1-2 (1974) 19-40. •Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.91-96. See also J. Mijuskovic, "Dodeljivanje dubrovackog gradjanstva u srednjem veku," Glas Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti 246 (1961) 103 n. 69a. 9 J. Lucic, "Gli stranieri a Ragusa nel Medio evo," Bollettino dell'Atlante linguistico mediterraneo 13-15 (1971-1973) 345-348.

XIX 378 show the importance of the Italian presence in Dubrovnik. Among the newly-made citizens of Dubrovnik in the fourteenth century, there were only sixteen Italians. 10 This is only 7.11 percent of the total number of naturalized Ragusans, but it constitutes 47.05 percent of all non-Slavic new citizens. The Venetians, because of their particular political position, maritime and economic power, were especially well represented in Dubrovnik, not only among the Italians, but among the foreigners in general. I have been able to establish the presence of close to six hundred Venetians in Dubrovnik between 1278 and 1400. 11 There is no doubt that the real numbers were far greater, but we can deal only with those who, for one reason or another, have left traces of their presence in the vast Ragusan archives. But, even if we take into account only the Venetians who are mentioned in documents, interesting conclusions can be drawn, always bearing in mind that we are dealing with a city which, in the fourteenth century, probably had a population of about four thousand, and at its peak, towards the end of the fifteenth century, something like five to six thousand.12 The Venetian presence in Dubrovnik was at its strongest between 1311 and 1350. The average annual record of Venetians in Dubrovnik in the decades between 1311 and 1350 varied from eleven to twenty-one persons, while it fell to between six and nine persons in the period from 1351 to 1400. This diminution should probably be ascribed, above all, to the change in the political climate unfavorable to Venice (the loss of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik in 1358, the war of 1378-1381 in the Adriatic, and so on), but, again, one should never forget that we are dealing with only a part of the whole. The vast majority of Venetians appear in Ragusan documents only once. This is the case of 431 out of 597 persons (72.19 percent); but a number of Venetians returned to Dubrovnik several times through the years, and some lived in the city for quite protracted periods of time (Franciscus speciarius, 1311-1341; magister Fele Aldigheri, 1319-1345; Franciscus Scarpaçius, merchant, 1331-1348; Çaninus Salimbene, speciarius, 1373-1414, and so on). Sometimes whole families moved from Venice to Dubrovnik, or several generations of the same family were active there for long periods of time. In addition, members of many leading Venetian families lived in Dubrovnik, owned property, traded, and engaged in financial operations there. For example: 13 Contarmi (1298-1398) 11 Quirino (1285-1382) 10

7 Condolmer (1313-1356) 6 Nigro (1319-1398)

Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.91-96. All calculations are based on extensive research in the Historical Archives of Dubrovnik. 12 Krekic (n. 2 above) 54-55. Venice in the fourteenth century had about 120,000 inhabitants: F. C. Lane, Venice, a Maritime Republic (Baltimore 1973) 18-19; and Lopez (n. 5 above) puts the population of Genoa in the fifteenth century at about 100,000 inhabitants, D. Herlihy, Pisa in the Early Renaissance: A Study of Urban Growth (New Haven 1958) 36, estimates the population of Pisa toward the end of the thirteenth century at about 38,000, the population of Lucca at the same time at 40,000 (p. 43) and that of Florence at about 96,000 (pp, 43-44). See also D. Herlihy, Pisa nel Duecento (Pisa 1973) 74-75, where he thinks that Pisa and Lucca had populations of about-40,000 each and Florence 120,000 in the fourteenth century. 11

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

9 9 8 8 7

Bono (1283-1397) Trivisano (1283-1388) Bollani (1282-1320) Vener (1281-1370) Baldella (1291-1389)

379 6 5 5 5 5

Soranzo (1336-1378) Aldighero (1319-1343) Delfino (1282-1329) Giorgio (1332-1367) Giustinian (1319-1347)

Furthermore, individuals from other prominent Venetian families were present in Dubrovnik from time to time (four each: Barozzo, Loredan, Leon, Quintavalle; three each: Badoer, Gradonico, Morosini, Memmo, Sirano, Signolo, Zeno; two each: Bonvisino, Corner, Dandolo, Falier, Pollani, Valaresso; and so on). By far the majority of Venetians coming to Dubrovnik were merchants, captains and shipowners, but one also finds craftsmen. There were, for example, eleven goldsmiths, eight shoemakers, five glassmakers from Murano, five carpenters and thirty-eight other craftsmen of various kinds among the Venetians in Dubrovnik between 1278 and 1400. In addition, highly skilled professionals came to Dubrovnik from Venice and its area; among them were nine doctors, eight pharmacists, three "protomagistri," three painters and others. Finally, the presence of a number of Venetian diplomats and officials was registered in Dubrovnik at this time (thirteen ambassadors), but these officers usually stayed very briefly in the city. I have dwelt in more detail on the Venetians for two reasons: one, because we have much data on them and, two, because their presence was in many ways exceptionally important to Dubrovnik. One comparison will suffice to prove this point: during the fourteenth century we find 80 Greeks and Levantines in Dubrovnik, while the number of Venetians is 515 (1:6.4). Another group of Italians which should be at least briefly mentioned were the Tuscans, especially representatives of the Florentine bankers from the great companies of Bardi, Peruzzi, Acciaiuoli and Buonaccorsi, in the first half of the fourteenth century;13 and the merchants and craftsmen from Prato, who played a leading role in financing and organizing the local production of textiles in Dubrovnik in the first half of the fifteenth century. 14 Apart from Italians, the Greeks and Levantines were certainly an important group of non-Slavic foreigners in Dubrovnik in the late Middle Ages, with more than two hundred and seventy of them there between 1268 and 1460. 15 Closer to the city itself, the Albanians made their presence felt in Dubrovnik; and a few Germans, most probably Saxon miners or their descendants from Serbia and Bosnia, are mentioned in the documents. The Jewish presence was small in numbers until the end of the fifteenth century, but some of the Jews in Dubrovnik were quite important because 13 B. Krekic, "Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century," in The Medieval City, ed. H. A\ Miskimin et al. (New Haven 1977) 25-41. 14 M. Popovic, "La penetrazione dei mercanti Pratesi a Dubrovnik (Ragusa) nella prima metà del XV secolo," Archivio storico italiano 117.4 (1959) 503-521. 1S B. Krekic, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age (Paris 1961) 135-144.

XIX 380 of their professional skills (six doctors). 16 Finally, one more group deserves mention: the Catalan merchants, who were the main importers of raw materials, such as wool needed by the textile manufacturers in fifteenth-century Dubrovnik.17 There are many interesting and even picturesque individuals who should not be forgotten when we speak of the foreigners in Dubrovnik, because of their importance and their contribution to the development and well-being of the city. I shall mention briefly just four. The Florentine Bencius del Buono, father of the famous Italian novelist Franco Sachetti, lived in Dubrovnik for at least twenty-four years from 1318 to 1341. (His son was most probably born in Dubrovnik between 1330 and 1335). During that period he became one of the leading merchants and financiers in the city. From Dubrovnik his activities embraced Venice, Florence, southern Italy, the Balkan hinterland, Dalmatia and the Serbian coastal areas. In Dubrovnik itself Bencius dealt very actively with the local people as well as with all kinds of foreigners, including representatives from the above-mentioned great Florentine bankers, prominent Venetians, and others. Bencius was granted Ragusan citizenship in 1329, but lost it later when he moved to Venice. Owing to his great wealth, Bencius was of great financial assistance to the Ragusan government on more than one occasion by granting huge loans to enable the city to meet its obligations, especially to the Serbian kings.18 Another notable foreigner is Francesco Baldella, an outstanding Venetian merchant and member of a Venetian family that had sent seven of its members to Dubrovnik during one hundred years, from 1291 to 1393. Francesco himself lived and worked in Dubrovnik for almost forty years, from 1350 to his death in 1389. He was a great businessman, active in many and varied business deals, credit operations, and so on, which englobed Dalmatia, Italy (especially Venice), and the Balkan hinterland. In spite of his long stay there and the great respect he enjoyed in Dubrovnik (as is witnessed by his being called "ser" in the documents), Baldella never became a Ragusan citizen, but remained a "habitator." It is for this reason that he was not spared being sent to jail, at the time when every Venetian in Dubrovnik was arrested during the "Guerra di Chioggia," which took place from 1378 to 1381, after Dubrovnik had joined the anti-Venetian coalition. 19 Baldella spent from September 1378 to March 1380 in jail, and was them temporarily released into the custody of his wife, who was a Florentine, because of poor health. Even his family was not allowed to live "in aliqua domo ad maritimam prope muros civitatis." However, after this sad episode, Francesco remained in Dubrovnik, and continued to work and prosper there until his death in 1389. The third prominent foreigner I would like to mention here is Pietro Pantella, 16

J. Tadic, Jevreji u Dubrovniku do polovine XVII stoljeâa (Sarajevo 1937) 243-254. See also B. Krekic, "The Role of the Jews in Dubrovnik (Thirteenth-Sixteenth Centuries)," Viator 4 (1973) 260-261. 17 M. Spremic, Dubrovnik iAragonci, 1442-1495 (Belgrade 1971). 18 1. Voje, "Bencio del Buono," Istorijski casopis 18 (1971) 189-199. Krekic (n. 13 above) 37. 19 B. Krekic, "Dubrovnik i rat oko Tenedosa (1378-1381)," Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti 5 (1958) 21-47.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

381

from Piacenza, who lived in Dubrovnik from 1416 to his death in 1464. Pantella initiated and organized the textile production in Dubrovnik and became teacher to generations of local artisans. He branched out as a shipowner owning almost ten percent of the Ragusan merchant fleet between 1416 and 1440; he was involved in financial operations, and owned houses, land and property. Pantella was granted Ragusan citizenship in 1430 and was one of the richest and most influential men in mid-fifteenth-century Dubrovnik, with connections in Italy, Spain, Albania, the Balkans and the Levant.20 Finally, Johannes Sparterius (Exparter), from Saragossa in Spain, lived in Dubrovnik from 1439 until his death in 1469. He was the most important Catalan merchant in Dubrovnik and played a leading role in supplying wool to Dubrovnik's developing textile manufacture. Closely connected with Catalan merchants in the Levant, in Venice, southern Italy, Sicily, Spain and elsewhere, Sparterius invested large amounts of money in trade, in credit operations, and so on. From 1458 to 1469, he was the Catalan vice-consul in Dubrovnik ("vice-consul vassalorum et subditorum serenissimi domini Ferdinandi, regis Sicilie")- He was never granted Ragusan citizenship, because in 1449, Dubrovnik forbade its citizens to be consuls of foreign nations in Dubrovnik.21

Ill The question we must now try to answer is this: what was the standing of all these foreigners in Dubrovnik? Their position was regulated by local law and international treaties. The earliest local rules dealing with foreigners in Dubrovnik are to be found in the Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii of 1272, 22 and in the Liber statutorum doane of 1277. 23 Later on, other regulations were issued as required by circumstances. In many instances, Ragusan law treated foreigners and Ragusans in the same way, but, of course, there were situations in which foreigners were singled out for special treatment. The Liber statutorum, for example, carefully explained which foreigners were supposed to pay the "arboraticum" for their ships and how high it should be. 2 4 Those who paid the "arboraticum" had also to pay the "sostaticum."25 Foreigners holding goods belonging to Ragusans, if challenged in court, could not leave the city before clearing up the matter.26 But Ragusans holding foreign property, while 20 D. Dinic-Knezevic, "Petar Pantela, trgovac i suknar u Dubrovniku," God.Filfak. u Novom Sadu 13.1 (1970) 87-144. 21 Spremic (n. 17 above) 71-73. 22 Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii, ed. V. Bogisic and C. Jirecek, Monumenta historicojuridica Slavorum Meridionalium (Zagreb 1904). 23 Dubrovacki zakoni i uredbe, ed. A. Solovjev and M. Peterkovic, Istorisko-pravni spomenici (Belgrade 1936) 385-447. 24 Liber statutorum 11. 2s Ibid. 23. 26 Ibid. 65.

XIX 382 coming under similar rules, were allowed to leave provided they left a representative.27 A foreigner visiting but not residing in Dubrovnik was forbidden to bear arms while in the city. 28 In the customs laws of 1277, the selling of various goods (textiles, hides, and so on) to foreigners in Dubrovnik, who would then carry them away, was considered as the exporting of goods; and the Ragusan seller, not the foreign buyer, was liable for the customs fees. 29 If, however, a foreigner bought those goods from other than Ragusans, he was then exempt from customs. 30 On the other hand, when Ragusans exported from Dubrovnik foreign-owned goods, the customs taxes were supposed to be paid again by Ragusans.31 No merchandise could be sold to foreigners for export without a previous report to the "doanerii" and payment of the customs fees. 32 The well-being of Dubrovnik depended largely on the strength of its merchant fleet, Venetian limitations before 1358 notwithstanding (four ships up to 70 miliarii annually to Venice). Thus it is not surprising that the Ragusan government kept constant watch over its fleet and tried to restrict the role of foreigners. Already in the Liber statutorum of 1272 it was forbidden for Ragusans to hire (nauliçare) foreign ships, with the exception of Venetian ones33 (we shall return to this point later on). Also, Ragusans were not allowed to sell, donate or lease their ships to Slavs, who would then come to the Ragusan harbor with their merchandise, thus hurting the local merchants and seamen.34 In 1313, it was decided that the Ragusans could not "vendere, donare, obligare, ad naulum aliquo modo vel ingenio dare lignum aliquod, quod possit poni ad remos alicui persone foresterie" without permission from the government.35 In 1358, two more important provisions affecting the position and role of foreigners in the Ragusan merchant marine were made and written into the statutes: "ut marinareça Ragusii, que est amissa, possit reffìci et recuperari," it was decided that no Ragusan could thereafter "habere partem nec dare partem de navigio alicui foresterio."36 It was also legislated that a Ragusan who already shared the ownership of a ship with a foreigner, "teneatur . . . ponere super dicto navigio tot marinarios de habitatoribus Ragusii et tocius districtus ejus, quot partes habebit in ipso." 37 This protectionism of the Ragusan merchant fleet at a time when the breach with Venice had just taken place, was well justified in view of the events that followed, especially in the realm of Veneto-Ragusan competition. 21

Ibid. 64. For Split see G. Novak,Povijest Splita 1 (Split 1957) 263-264. Liber statutorum (n. 22 above) 133. 29 Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 402-403, 409. 30 Ibid. 409. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 414. 33 Liber statutorum (n. 22 above) 163. For Venetian restrictions on their own citizens as far as foreign ships are concerned see Lane (n. 12 above) 378, 380. 34 Liber statutorum 193. 35 Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 36-37. 36 Historijski arhiv u Dubrovniku (HAD), Reformationes XVII, fols. 81v-82. Liber statutorum 148-149. 37 Reformationes loc. cit.; Liber statutorum 148. 28

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

383

The treatment of foreigners, however, was also a matter of international agreements and mutual arrangements. Thus it was decided in 1326 that all foreigners importing goods into Dubrovnik should pay "illam doanam que accipitur hominibus de Ragusio in eorum civitatibus et locis." Simultaneously, every Ragusan selling or buying goods to or from foreigners in Dubrovnik, was bound to give a list of these goods to the customs officials c-n the same day that the transaction was concluded. The same rule applied to foreigners buying or selling merchandise among themselves, should the value surpass ten hyperpers. 38 The scribes on board Ragusan ships bringing foreign-owned goods were supposed to hand a list of those goods to the customs officials before the merchandise was unloaded. Similarly, when taking on board foreign-owned goods the scribes were supposed to give a list to the "doanerif* before loading. 39 In 1372 the position of foreigners in Dubrovnik deteriorated drastically as a result of the decision of the Ragusan Major Council prohibiting trade among foreigners in Dubrovnik and its territories, and forbidding trade between Ragusans and foreigners.40 Such grave measures should most probably be linked to the antagonism existing between Dubrovnik and Venice, which had been simmering ever since 1358, and which sometime later exploded during the Chioggia war. Dubrovnik, which had trouble in persuading the Venetians to recognize the rights of the Ragusans — rights that Venice herself had granted them in 1358, as we shall see — probably tried by means of the general restrictions imposed in 1372 to obtain Venetian assent to its demands, or else to deprive the Venetian merchants in Dubrovnik of the special privileges that they still enjoyed. However, these Ragusan restrictions certainly did not last long, for they would have gravely damaged the local economy. There is no information as to when the restrictions were lifted or modified, but there is a new decree dating from 1385 as to the payment of customs by foreigners in Dubrovnik, which indicates that matters were back to normal. Once again, in this decree, the reciprocity of treatment was emphasized. Indeed, the decision notes "quod . . . pro solutionibus doanarum forinsecorum persepe soient oriri litigia inter doanerios nostros et forinsecos mercatores." To avoid this it was decided that foreigners unloading and selling their merchandise in Dubrovnik, should pay three percent or more, depending on that which Ragusans were required to pay "in civitatibus et locis talium forinsecorum." Venetians, Dalmatians, Anconitans, Slavs and others with whom Dubrovnik had treaties and conventions were excluded from these rules. Foreigners unloading their goods in Dubrovnik, but re-expediting them without selling them in the city, were supposed to pay only one percent. However, should their goods be destined "a Corfino citra scilicet in Bulgariam, Sclauoniam, Gentam, Bosnam et regnum Hungarie et ad alia loca inter ista nominata posita" where Ragusans pay customs, then the foreigners would have to pay three M 'Reformationes VIII, fols. 30-30v. Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 421. For reciprocity of treatment in Split see Novak (n. 27 above) 263. 39 Reformations VIII, fol. 46. 40

Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 93.

XIX 384 percent in Dubrovnik, even if only for unloading.41 Finally, in 1392, another regulation was made, according to which foreigners importing "panos vel frustaneos" in Dubrovnik would have to pay six percent customs fees and the buyer another six percent tax; but Venetians and others with whom Dubrovnik had treaties were exempted from this rule and would pay according to mutual conventions. 42 The privileged position of the Venetians in Dubrovnik — which we have mentioned several times already — was a source of constant friction between the two cities. It was established most probably already at the time Dubrovnik recognized Venetian supremacy in 1205, but it is not referred to in the surviving VenetoRagusan treaties from the thirteenth century (1232, 1236, 1252). 43 The explicit statements concerning the special position of the Venetians are to be found first in the city statutes of 1272, and then in the customs laws of 1277. In the city statutes, the Venetians are never listed among strangers because they were to be treated as if they were Ragusans, or even superior to them. Therefore in the article listing the numerous foreigners bound to pay the "arboraticum," there is no mention of Venetians. More clearly, in the article prohibiting Ragusans from hiring foreign ships is added, "excepto quod navem Venetorum bene possit nauliçare."44 This privileged treatment accorded the Venetians can be understood even better in the Liber statutorum doane. In an article dealing with the slave trade in Dubrovnik, it was stated — among other things — that a Ragusan, or a foreigner, buying a slave in Dubrovnik from a Slav must pay a customs fee of four grossi "exceptis Venetis qui non solvunt."45 A similar statement is to be found concerning the bird trade. Both Ragusans and foreigners exporting from Dubrovnik "austures, terciolos, falcones et sparauarios" were required to pay one grosso per bird, "exceptis hominibus de Veneciis qui nichil solvere teneantur."46 Furthermore, every Ragusan exporting foreign-owned merchandise to a wide area on the Dalmatian and Albanian shores was supposed to pay the same fees that were charged to Ragusan-owned goods, but again, "exceptis hominibus de Veneciis pro quibus non solvat."47 Ragusans importing their own or foreign-owned merchandise into the above-mentioned area were required to pay customs fees, the same exception being accorded Venetian-owned merchandise.48 More exceptions were granted to Venetian merchants trading with Kotor in articles added between 1280 and 1282, and in 1305. 49 It is clear that not only were the Venetians not considered foreigners in Dubrovnik, but their position was oftentimes more favorable than that of the 41

Reformationes XXVI, fols. 123v-l24 ; Dubrovacki zakoni 423-424.

42

Reformationes XXIX, foL 133. 43 S. Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih izmedfu Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike 1 (Zagreb

1868) 46-49,53-55,82-85. 44

Liber statutorum (n. 22 above) 11,163. Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 403. 46 Ibid. 405. Ibid. 409. 48 Ibid. 410. 45

49

Ibid. 416,419.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

385

Ragusans themselves. There can be no doubt that Venetian privileges in Dubrovnik contrasted very sharply with the controls and limitations imposed on the Ragusans in Venice. Such a situation could only provoke resentment and dissatisfaction on the part of the Ragusans and create friction in the relations between the two city-states. However, Dubrovnik could not do much else but conform to Venetian wishes and orders in this matter, as long as the Venetians were its overlords. There is, nevertheless, one instance in which the Ragusans insisted on treating Venetians as foreigners in their city, and they persisted in this attitude despite Venetian protests. In 1305 the Ragusans decided that foreigners should not be admitted as witnesses against Ragusans, nor should their depositions be accepted. The Venetian government reacted quickly and sharply to this decree. The Quarantia demanded that it be modified within fifteen days of the receipt of the Venetian letter in Dubrovnik, "in tantum . . . quod Veneti non intelligantur in ipso statuto nec sunt ad illam conditionem . . . sed sint ad conditionem Raguseorum." In the meantime, Ragusans were to be refused as witnesses against Venetians and their depositions were to be rejected in Venice herself, and in all her possessions.50 In spite of Venetian pressure, Dubrovnik did not change her mind. It was only in 1325, when they were hard pressed for Venetian assistance against the Serbian menace, that the Ragusans expressed readiness to accept Venetian testimony in Ragusan courts. The Venetians actually used the Serbian danger to blackmail the Ragusans, in 1326, into accepting Venetian terms, under which the Venetians in Dubrovnik not only were readmitted as witnesses in local courts, but their privileged position in the city in general was reinforced.51 Sometimes, before permitting privileged treatment, the Ragusan authorities would demand written proof from Venice ("litteras dominationis ducalis") that a man was, indeed, a Venetian citizen. 52 But the Venetian impact on the Ragusan treatment of foreigners before 1358 went even beyond their own privileged position in the city. At the end of January 1340, the Venetian government expelled every Florentine from Venice and forbade trade with them. Similar orders were sent to Dubrovnik; and the local authorities conformed completely to the Venetian position, also prohibiting trade with the Florentines. 53 At the same time, the Venetians never tired 50 51

Ljubic (n. 43 above) 1.211. B. Krekic, "O ratu Dubrovnika i Srbije 1327-1328," Zbornik (n. 19 above) 11 (1968) 195,

198. "For example, HAD, Diversa cancellariae XII, fol. 307v, of 5 February 1351.. Sometimes the Ragusans singled out the Venetians as a particular category of local residents. Thus, in September 1330 it was decided "quod nulla persona, tam civis, quam foresterius, vel de Veneciis, audeat. . . ire per civitatem post tercium sonum campane cum armis vel sine armis." Reformationes IX (n. 36 above) fol. 117. 53 HAD, Diversa notariae VI, fol. 122. The Venetians had made an alliance with Florence against the Scaligers of Verona in 1336, but in 1339 a separate peace was arranged between Venice and Verona, which angered the Florentines. This might have led to frictions between Venice and Florence and to anti-Florentine measures in Venice, in 1340. See Andree Danduli Venetorum Ducis Chronicon Venetum aPontificatu Sancti Marci ad annum usque MCCCXXXIX, in Rerum italicarum scriptores, 12, ed. L. A. Muratori (Milan 1728) 413-414. Also Marino Sanuto,

XIX 386 of reminding Dubrovnik of their privileged status, and never ceased to demand its observance, as they did once again in 1351. 54 There are many indications that the Venetians retained their advantageous position in Dubrovnik even after 1358, when they no longer held dominion over the city. Continued demands for proof of Venetian citizenship in matters relating to customs is one such indication. 55 Another is the near panic state of the Ragusans on hearing in Dubrovnik in 1360 that the Venetians had forbidden every non-Venetian from loading their goods on Venetian ships lying in Dalmatian ports, for export beyond the Adriatic area. This automatically placed the Venetians in Dubrovnik in a far superior position, as they were now free to ship the highly valuable Balkan materials from Dubrovnik on Venetian ships, the Ragusans being forbidden to do so. In a complaint made on this subject the Ragusan government explicitly mentioned that lead was shipped by Venetian merchants from Dubrovnik.56 In 1372 we find the first mention of a Venetian consul in Dubrovnik. He was Nicoletto Miorato (Milloratus), a merchant active in Dubrovnik from 1364 to 1378. 57 Even at a time when Veneto-Ragusan relations were rapidly deteriorating, as in 1377 when foreigners were prohibited from selling textiles in Dubrovnik and its territories, an exception was made for the Venetians.58 Soon after this, however, every Venetian in Dubrovnik was arrested — as we have already said — during the war of Chioggia, when Dubrovnik was an ally of Genoa and Hungary against Venice. Nevertheless, when that was over, a great many Venetians remained in Dubrovnik and the best proof of their strength in the city was the election in 1389 of a new Venetian consul in Dubrovnik. A group of twelve prominent Venetians convened in the Ragusan cathedral and "post maturam deliberationem" elected the goldsmith Bartholomeus de la Donna "in consulem civium venetorum." He remained consul until 1392. 59 We have dwelt long enough on Venetians in Dubrovnik. It is time to revert to broader themes. Foreigners, although enjoying a large degree of equality with Ragusans, and considerable freedom of action in Dubrovnik, were nevertheless subjected to certain limitations and there was some discrimination in their treatment. There were no organized colonies of foreigners in Dubrovnik, nor did foreigners have Vitae Ducum Venetorum italice scriptae ab origine urbis sive ab anno CCCCXXI usque ad annum MCCCCXCIII, ibid. 22 (Milan 1733) 601-605. H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig 2 (Gotha 1920) 186-189. A. Battistella, La Repubblica di Venezia ne'suoi undici secoli di storia (Venice 1921) 214-216. R. Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia 1 (Milan 1944) 294-295. 54 Reformationes (n. 36 above) XVI, fol. 15v. Reformationes XVIII, fol. 19v. S6 Ibid. fols. 40v, 68. J. Tadic, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republike (Belgrade 1935) 29-30. 57 Diversa canc. (n. 52 above) XXIII, fol. 109. I. Mitic, "Predstavnici stranih drzava u Dubrovniku za vrijeme Republike," Pomorski zbornik 4 (1966) 381, thinks that the Venetian merchant Marco Guoro, present in Dubrovnik between 1366 and 1370, had been the Venetian consul in the city in 1368, but I have not been able to find proof for this assumption. 58 Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 103. 59 Diversa not. (n. 53 above) X, fol. 78.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

387

particular buildings in the city for their use. The vast majority of the foreigners, anyway, were highly mobile merchants and seafarers, who spent but a short time in Dubrovnik minding their affairs, and then continued their journeys to other regions and other places. There were, however, also foreigners whose stay in the city was prolonged, or even permanent. Such was the case with most craftsmen and professional men, as well as with many Slavs engaged in lowlier occupations. To all of these people it was certainly desirable to obtain Ragusan citizenship, or, at least, the status of resident - "habitator." "Habitatores" were those foreigners who had usually spent a prolonged period in Dubrovnik and had acquired standing in the city. Among them one finds prominent Italian and Dalmatian merchants, Slavs from the hinterland, Albanians, Levantines and Greeks, Catalans, and others. Not all the "habitatores" were rich or prominent people. There were among them many small merchants, craftsmen, shipowners, fishermen, priests and others. For many, being a resident was the first step towards obtaining citizenship. To become a citizen was the highest achievement for a foreigner in Dubrovnik, but the granting of citizenship was a matter that the government handled with considerable caution because of Dubrovnik's delicate political and geographical position, lying always between two different worlds. Already in the thirteenth century the Ragusans had admitted to the ranks of their nobility a number of foreign noble families, especially from Kotor, who immediately became part of the local patriciate, participating fully in the Major Council and in the government of the city. Furthermore, Ragusan nobility was granted sometimes to the Bosnian rulers and their most prominent noblemen. In such cases it was explicitly stated "quod recipiatur in nostrum civem de Consilio." Thus, in 1397 nobility was given to the neighboring Bosnian prince Pavle Radenovic. In 1399 Dubrovnik granted the rank of hereditary Ragusan noblemen to the king of Bosnia, Stjepan Ostoja, and to the most powerful Bosnian nobleman of the period, Duke Hrvoje Vukcic. Along with the status of Ragusan noblemen, each was also given a palace in the city worth fifteen hundred ducats. All of this was done for good reason: the king and the duke had just given to Dubrovnik a piece of Bosnian land, which, although poor, was essential to the rounding out of the Ragusan territories north of the city itself. To keep in the good graces of the former lord of that land, the duke Radie Sankovic, he, too, was granted nobility by Dubrovnik.60 Another Bosnian king, Tvrtko II, and the very powerful Bosnian duke Sandalj Hranic, were granted Ragusan nobility in 1405 (Sandalj visited Dubrovnik in 1426), while still another important Bosnian nobleman and Ragusan neighbor, the duke Radosav Pavlovic, obtained it in 1423.61 In essence, however, these grants of nobility were much more a political gesture than a political reality. Although these noblemen were given palaces in Dubrovnik and were legally members of the Ragusan Major Council, they did not move into or 60 S. Cirkovic, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske drzave (Belgrade 1964) 186. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 93-94, 99. 61 HAD, Consilium Rogatorum III, fol. 139v; Consilium Maius II, fol. 116. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 101.

XIX 388 reside in the city, nor did they take an active part in its life, or in the legislation of the local patriciate. For the most part, granting Ragusan nobility to Balkan potentates was an insurance for them should they need to leave their countries because of internal upheavals or, as later on, because of the external Ottoman threat (the same is true of similar grants by Venice). On the other hand, in granting nobility to foreign dignitaries, Dubrovnik was always guided by political considerations. This is why these grants were made only to those who had contributed beneficially to Dubrovnik, or who could be useful to Ragusan interests, for example, the protection of roads, of merchants, of mining privileges, and so on. In refusing initially to grant nobility to Duke Radosav Pavlovic, in 1423, the Ragusans explained that his predecessors and himself "non aiutarono allo crescimento di Ragusa."62 One consequence of such a policy was that most grants were made to the nearby powerful Bosnian lords, whose attitude could affect Ragusan interests very directly. The only two non-Bosnian personalities granted nobility by the Ragusans — as far as is now known — were the famous Albanian hero, George Kastriotes-Scanderbegh in 1439 (he visited Dubrovnik and in 1450 and 1462), 63 and the Croatian prince Grgur Blagajski in 1464. 64 It is noteworthy in this connection to observe that there were no Serbian rulers or noblemen among those granted Ragusan nobility, although Dubrovnik's links with them were very close and friendly. Several from among them visited Dubrovnik and were most warmly and magnificently received (Emperor Stefan Dusan in 1350; Despot George Brankovic in 1426,1440 and 1441 ).65 Certain Serbian personalities, however, were granted Ragusan citizenship (Prince Lazar Hrebeljanovic, the tragic hero of Kosovo who visited Dubrovnik in 1362; 66 his son Despot Stevan Lazarevic; the Balsic family;67 and so on). Like similar grants of nobility to Bosnian personalities, these grants of citizenship to Serbs were more honorary than tangible. It should be mentioned that Dubrovnik did not hesitate to use its grants of nobility and citizenship as a very effective tool against its enemies. In 1378, during the Chioggia war, Dubrovnik sent an envoy to lure the citizens of Kotor - then under Venetian rule — with the promise of Ragusan citizenship.68 This attempt does not seem to have been particularly successful, but a later attempt did succeed. In 1451, the very powerful, nearby Bosnian regional lord Herzeg Stjepan Vukcic-Kosaca (of Herzegovina) attacked Dubrovnik and laid siege to the city. Stjepan had earlier been made a Ragusan nobleman and, consequently, the Ragusan government now proclaimed him a traitor and offered a reward to anyone who would kill him. This "Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 101. 63 K. Jirecek, Geschichte der Serben 2 (Gotha 1918) 184, 193. J. Tadic, "Johannes Gazulus, dubrovacki humanista XV veka," Zbor. Filos. fak. u Beogradu 8.1 (1964) 442, 443. 64 Consilium Maius (n. 61 above) XII, fol. 175v. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 102. 65 J. Tadic, Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku (Dubrovnik 1939) 49, 72-88. M. Medini, Dubrovnik Gucetica (Belgrade 1953) 95-96. 66 Monumenta ragusina, ed. G. Gelcich, 3 (Zagreb 1895) 212. 67 K. Jirecek, Istorija Srba 1 (Belgrade 1952) 243. Tadic (n. 65 above) 53. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 104-105. 68 Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.80.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

389

reward, in addition to 15,000 ducats, a palace in Dubrovnik worth 2000 ducats, and an annual income of 300 ducats, also held the promise of hereditary Ragusan nobility for whoever did the deed. In fact, Stjepan was so scared by the threat that he raised the siege,69 and this was the last time until 1806 that foreign troops stood outside the walls of Dubrovnik. Most of the new citizens were, naturally, of a much lower rank than those just mentioned: merchants, craftsmen and professional men of various sorts. Even though patricians from other Dalmatian cities were sometimes granted Ragusan citizenship, they did not join the ranks of the local patriciate, but became plain, ordinary citizens. For all these people, becoming a Ragusan citizen was a very real occurrence, and they took full advantage of their new situation. For Dubrovnik, granting citizenship to them was a means of strengthening the city by attracting new men and new families, especially those whose skills it needed. The Ragusan government did not make any secret of this aspect of its citizenship grants. In many instances, it was stated explicitly that citizenship was given "pro bono et augmento civitatis et districtus Ragusii," or "pro comodo et utilitate comunis Ragusii." There is nothing to indicate, for example, that foreign craftsmen were restricted from becoming members of Ragusan fraternities.70 Although vertical mobility was very limited in Dubrovnik, some of the naturalized citizens founded families that later became very rich and prominent in the city and joined the ranks of the Fraternity of Saint Anthony (Antunini), 71 which constituted the richest and, after the patricians, the most politically influential group in the city, whose importance in Dubrovnik's life persisted for centuries. To become a citizen, a foreigner was required to submit a "supplicatio," usually to the Minor Council. When approved, the foreigner had to swear, personally or through a representative, an oath of allegiance, which until 1358 contained the words: "Semper ero fidelis et obediens excellentissimi domini Ducis et comunis Veneciarum et comitis et comunis Ragusii ero fidelis et obediens civis et terrigena, sicut ceteri cives de Ragusio sunt."72 In the register it was usually briefly stated: so-and-so "factus fuit civis Ragusii, qui juravit fidelitatem domini Ducis Veneciarum, domini Comitis Ragusii et comunis Ragusii."73 After 1358 the formula was: so-andso "factus fuit civis Ragusii, qui juravit esse fidelis comunis Ragusii et facere omnes angaridias reaies et personales, sicut quilibet alius Raguseus,"74 or, simply, "juravit 69 Jirecek (n. 63 above) 2,200. Cirkovic (n. 60 above) 300. S. Cirkovic, Here eg Stefan Vukcic-Kosaca i njegovo doba (Belgrade 1964) 165-166, points out that the Herceg had yet another reason to lift the siege of Dubrovnik hurriedly: he was called to Kotor, which had been attacked by the Albanians. 70 Bratovstine i obrtne korporacije u Republici Dubrovackoj, ed. K. Vojnovic (Zagreb 1899). On restrictions in Venice see Lane (n. 12 above) 319. On Genoa's liberalism see Lopez (n. 5 above) 45-46. 71 Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 103. 72 HAD, Acta Sanctae Mariae Maioris, Prep. 14.5. Diplomaticki zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, ed. T. Smiciklas, 10 (Zagreb 1912) 419-420. 13 Reformationes (n. 36 above) XV, fol. 12. 74 Reformationes XVII, fol. 99v.

XIX 390 fìdelitatem et obedientiam dominationi Ragusii."75 The fact that after 1358 there is no mention of allegiance to the king of Hungary and Croatia, the new protector of Dubrovnik, is in itself an indication of Dubrovnik's new independence and of its different relationship towards the king, compared with its previous dependence upon Venice. True, there were special cases, when a naturalized citizen wished to keep his previous allegiance, too. Thus, in 1350, "Comes Dionisius, baronus domini Regis Ungarie," was made a Ragusan citizen. He swore the usual oath to the Doge, Venice, Count and Dubrovnik, but with the addition, "semper salva fidelità te domini Regis Ungarie."76 After making the oath, the new citizen was issued a "littera (carta) civilitatis," bearing the seal of the city as proof of his new status.77 We know with certainty that many of those who became citizens had been earlier "habitatores" of Dubrovnik, but that was not a necessary precondition, nor do we see a fixed length of residence in Dubrovnik as a precondition for citizenship. 78 There are cases where it is said that the new citizen "diu Ragusii stetit" or "pluribus ac pluribus annis habitavit in civitate nostra,"79 but only as a statement of fact, not as a condition of citizenship. There is one text, however, from which one might infer that twenty-five years of residence were required to permit integration into the community and enjoyment of its advantages, but this is a very peculiar text. On 25 January 1358, a short time before Dubrovnik ceased to recognize Venetian supremacy, Venice, in a desperate effort to keep the fidelity of the Ragusans, granted them - at this late hour — the extraordinary privilege "quod omnes Ragusei nati in Ragusio et ex eis de cetero nascituri sint cives nostri Veneciarum et possint mercari tamquam cives Veneti, navigando cum navigiis nostris." As for foreigners, they would be included in this privilege, provided they had resided in Dubrovnik for twenty-five years and had shared all the burdens of the citizens. 80 What we have here is, in fact, the Venetian view of residence as a precondition for enjoying the advantages of citizenship, not the Ragusan position on the matter. To be born in Dubrovnik, or to have a Ragusan father was of use, as was being married and having children in the city, and paying taxes and other dues. Personal merit and powerful intervention were also helpful. In 1464 a man from Cremona was granted Ragusan citizenship, "ad requisitionem et instantiam illustrissimi principis et serenissimi domini, domini Francisci Sforce, vicecomitis Ducis Mediolani."81 However, citizenship could be lost, especially if a naturalized Ragusan moved 7S

Reformationes XXX, fol. 42. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 122. Reformationes XV, fol. 76. Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.92. Consilium Maius (n- 61 above) II, fol. 13v. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 123. 78 Venice required twenty-five years of residence before granting citizenship. See Ljubic (n. 43 above) 4.87. Genoa, on the other hand, was very liberal until 1404, when it began requiring three years' residence. Lopez (n. 5 above) 31, 41, 45-46. In Split foreigners who spent there less than six months were exempt from local duties, but those who spent three years in the city were not considered as foreigners in criminal cases. See Novak (n. 27 above) 1.262, 263. 79 Consilium Maius (n. 61 above) VII, fol. 1 lOv; IX, fol. 7. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 116. 80 Liber statutorum (n. 22 above) 227-228. 81 Consilium Maius XII, fol. 176. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 117-118. 76

77

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

391

away from Dubrovnik for a protracted period of time, if he refused to obey governmental orders, or if he took part in hostile activities against Dubrovnik.82 But prominent individuals who had lost Ragusan nobility or citizenship could regain it (King Ostoja, Duke Radosav Pavlovic; and Herzeg Stjepan Vukcic, who has a price on his head in 1451, not only reestablished good relations with Dubrovnik, but even visited the city in 1466). 83 Interestingly enough, there is nothing in the city statutes on the subject of granting nobility or citizenship, and only three general decrees have been found in the records of the governmental councils (1364, 1395 and 1449). Parallels with other cities, on the other hand, are difficult. Either there is no sufficient evidence (for example, for Kotor, Split and other Dalmatian cities), or the similarities which exist are only partial.84 The obvious parallel would be with Venice. While Venice had the "cives de in tus" and "cives de intus et de foris, de extra," 85 in Dubrovnik one finds, apart from "cives," also those called "cives de foris"; but there are only two such cases concerning six persons. There is, also, in Dubrovnik the mention of "cives albi," "blanchi," but again only twice; and to compare them with the Genoese "cives albi" would be certainly too risky. Thus, the only thing one can venture to say about these two groups of naturalized Ragusans is that they do not seem to have been required to live in the city, but could live elsewhere, provided they paid their taxes and took care to "manutenere honorem et bonum statum civitatis et civium Ragusii." The other, ordinary new citizens were required to live in Dubrovnik, to bring their families there and to own property. Frequently, strict time limitations were imposed for the fulfillment of these requirements.86 We have just mentioned three decrees concerning citizenship preserved in Ragusan documents. The first was from 1364. It stated that noblemen from Kotor, Ulcinj and Bar (cities on the Serbian coast, south of Dubrovnik), could not be granted Ragusan citizenship, unless they moved their families to Dubrovnik. As for others, the Minor Council could act "secundum antiquam consuetudinem." 87 This meant that nobility from other cities, even when not moving their families to Dubrovnik, could be granted citizenship by a decision of the Major Council, or of the Senate. The obstacles thus created for the acceptance of noblemen from Serbian maritime cities 82 Native Ragusans could renounce their citizenship. On 30 December 1326, the Major Council allowed one of the five (or more) daughters of Margaritus Krusic (de Crosio) "ilia .. . que placuerit dicto Margarita" to renounce her Ragusan citizenship. One of them did so on 8 January 1327\ Reformationes (n. 36 above) VIII, fol. 75v. Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.228 thinks that this might have been because she wanted to marry outside of Dubrovnik. However, in 1333 the same girl married a Ragusan patrician. 83 Tadic (n. 65 above) 132. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 96-97. Cirkovic (n. 69 above) 266. 84 For Kotor see I. Sindik, Komunalno uredjenje Kotora (Belgrade 1950) 38, 40. For Split: Novak (n. 27 above) 1.263-264. 85 Lane (n. 12 above) 62, 140. Lopez (n. 5 above) 38-39, 86 Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 118-119. For Byzantine regulations see R. Lopez, "Foreigners in Byzantium," Bulletin de l'Institut historique belge de Rome 44, Miscellanea Charles Verlinden (1974) 341-352. 87 Dubrovacki zakoni (n. 23 above) 79. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 109-110.

XIX 392 were, no doubt, the result of Dubrovnik's fear of competition and, also, the reaction to the attitude of many of these men during a recent war between Dubrovnik and a nearby Serbian lord (Vojislav Vojinovic). 88 In 1395 new rules were drawn up concerning the granting of citizenship. Persons from Dalmatia and from the maritime areas of Serbia could become citizens from that time on only with the approval of the Ragusan Major Council. For the Slavs from the hinterland it was enough to have the approval of the Minor Council, but "quaecumque alie libertates quas hactenus habuisset Minus consilium volendi facere et creare cives Ragusii per aliquos ordines vel consuetudines sint irrite et nullius vigoris."89 Obviously, the Major Council was taking on itself a growing role in the granting of citizenship. In addition, the decision of 1395 clearly oriented Dubrovnik's immigration policy towards acceptance in the first place of people from the hinterland. This contributed considerably to the slavicization and population growth of the city. Such an attitude probably reflected the Ragusan preference for people whose minor skills, insufficient experience in business and limited available capital prevented them from becoming dangerous competitors, as could happen with large numbers of Italians. Still, the city did not hesitate to grant citizenship to a man of great skills and experience whom Dubrovnik needed, such as Pietro Pantella in 1430. In 1449, the conditions governing the acceptance of hinterland Slavs were drastically stiffened (two-thirds of the Minor Council and then two-thirds of the Major Council must approve). The reason given for this change was the introduction of new customs laws, according to which foreigners, including Balkan Slavs, were levied double the fees paid by Ragusans. To prevent Slavic attempts to evade the law by obtaining citizenship, new citizenship regulations were enacted. 90 Their effect was a dramatic decrease in new grants of Ragusan citizenship to people from the hinterland. I am inclined to believe that in all of this the Ragusans had an ulterior motive: they wanted, I suspect, to reduce the chances of irritating the Ottomans, the new masters of the hinterland. By preventing a massive drainage of the population from areas newly conquered by the Ottomans they hoped that such irritation could be avoided. Indeed, large movements of the hinterland population to the west, the Adriatic coast and even to Italy, were already under way, and Dubrovnik, while helping the refugees, certainly did not wish to offer a pretext to the all-powerful Ottomans to take a hostile attitude towards the city. IV The last question we must attempt to answer is the most important one: just what was the contribution of foreigners to Dubrovnik's life and development in the late 88

Jirecek (n. 63 above) 1.422. M. Zecevic, Ratovanje Vojislava Vojinoviéa sa Dubrovnikom

(Belgrade 1908). 89 HAD, Liber viridis fols. 96v-97. Mahnken (n. 3 above) 1.80-81. Mijuskovic (n. 8 above) 111. 90

Consilium Maius (n. 61 above) IX, fol. 83v. Liber viridis fols. 264-265. Mijuskovic (n. 8

above) 112, 115.

XIX CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGNERS

393

Middle Ages? The answer to this question touches upon many things, but I shall concentrate on, in my opinion, the essential aspect of the foreigners' role in Dubrovnik — the economic one. The importance of foreigners in Dubrovnik's economic growth is obvious. At one time, in the thirteenth century, when Dubrovnik captured the lion's share of the Serbian mining market (and a little later the Bosnian one also), Ragusan merchants certainly did not yet have enough capital to invest in such vast and risky ventures. Although we do not have any documents for the earliest period, it is safe to assume that foreigners played a big role as early investors in the mining trade. They probably also played a major role in the transportation of minerals by sea from Dubrovnik to the West. This situation continued into the fourteenth century, as can be seen from many documents. It should be pointed out, however, that foreigners (Italians in the first place) rarely went personally into the rough and inhospitable Balkan hinterland. They organized companies with the Ragusans, invested their money, and provided the ships, but stayed mostly in Dubrovnik themselves or traveled elsewhere by sea, while letting the Ragusans go to the hinterland and transact the business. For the Ragusans this was considerably easier, not only because they had ancient contacts with those areas, but, above all, because they spoke the same language as the Balkan population. As it turned out, this kind of arrangement proved to be more advantageous to the Ragusans in the long run. In taking these journeys they came to learn a great deal about mining, about Serbia and Bosnia, about the people and their habits, about the political structure and the functioning of those states. All of this was a great asset to the Ragusan state and its merchants, once their economic strength increased and allowed them to develop their own investments and enterprises in the hinterland. This process has not yet been sufficiently studied, but it seems possible to conjecture that the change from predominantly foreign-financed to predominantly domesticfinanced enterprises took place in the mid-fourteenth century. Somewhat later a similar process began in the Ragusan naval trade. This trade was vital for Dubrovnik, especially because through it the city obtained — among many other things — all the grain it needed to feed its population. 91 The cessation of the Venetian domination, and of the Venetian-imposed limitations on Ragusan shipping, in 1358; the unstable conditions in Serbia after Emperor Stefan Dusan's death, in 1355; and the growing interest of the Ragusans in naval trade, together with the new availability of funds to invest into it — all of this led to an upsurge in Ragusan shipbuilding and maritime commerce in the seventies of the fourteenth century. The maritime and shipbuilding tradition, at least a hundred years old already,92 now got a big boost. This, of course, does not mean that, by this time, the foreigners had lost their 91 D. Dinic-Knezevic, "Trgovina zitom u Dubrovniku u XIV veku," Godisnjak Fil fak. u Novom Sadu 10 (1967) 79-131. The same', "Promet zitarica izmedju Dubrovnika i zaledja u srednjem veku," ibid. 12.1 (1969) 73-87. 92 As witnessed by the seventh book of the Liber statutorum (n. 22 above) 151-172. See also J. Jucic, "Pomorsko-trgovacki dometi Dubrovnika u XIII stoljecu," Spomenica Josipa Matasovica (Zagreb 1972) 151-161.

XIX 394 importance. It is enough to look at the participation of the Pratesi and other Italians in the organization and development of the Ragusan textile production; it is enough to see the contribution the Catalan merchants made in providing raw materials for that production, to realize how important the role of the foreigners in Dubrovnik continued to be in the fifteenth century. Indeed, the textile production - which was started in response to the growing needs of the Ragusan textile exports towards the Balkan hinterland — became one of the most vigorous branches of the Ragusan economy in the fifteenth century. In short, there is no doubt that foreigners continued to play a vital role in Dubrovnik's economy. It could not be otherwise. Dubrovnik was a city whose prosperity did not depend on some narrow, local production or natural resources of any kind. Its whole existence and success was built on its position as intermediary between East and West, North and South. To keep that role and to safeguard its own importance, Dubrovnik had to be open to foreigners and to offer them continuously new opportunities and chances of success. Through their success, Dubrovnik achieved a large portion of its own progress and prosperity. Department of History University of California Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A.

XX

Quelques remarques sur la politique et l'économie de Dubrovnik (Raguse) au XVe siècle Le XVE siècle f u t u n e époque de c h a n g e m e n t s p r o f o n d s e t d r a m a tiques d a n s la Péninsule b a l k a n i q u e , l'Adriatique et la M é d i t e r r a n é e Orientale t o u t e n t i è r e — zones principales d u c o m m e r c e ragusain. L'arrivée des O t t o m a n s , d o n t les p r e m i è r e s invasions d a n s les Balk a n s d a t a i e n t de la seconde moitié d u XIV E siècle, m a i s d o n t l'occup a t i o n définitive des E t a t s b a l k a n i q u e s i n d é p e n d a n t s s'étendit jusq u ' a u milieu d u XVE siècle, m a r q u a le c o m m e n c e m e n t d ' u n e nouvelle é p o q u e d a n s la vie politique de Dubrovnik. Depuis 1465, pratiquem e n t s u r toute sa f r o n t i è r e t e r r e s t r e , c e t t e p e t i t e r é p u b l i q u e patricienne située s u r la côte orientale de la m e r Adriatique, était conf r o n t é e a u x O t t o m a n s 1 . Les régions b a l k a n i q u e s riches en m i n é r a u x (Serbie, Bosnie), s u r lesquelles Dubrovnik f o n d a i t sa p r o s p é r i t é — grâce à son rôle d ' i n t e r m é d i a i r e e n t r e les B a l k a n s et l'Occident — depuis le milieu d u XIII E siècle, t o m b a i e n t les u n e s a p r è s les a u t r e s sous l'occupation o t t o m a n e (la Serbie e n 1459 ; la Bosnie e n 1463). Dans le m ê m e t e m p s , a p r è s la c h u t e de Constantinople (1453) et des d e r n i è r e s possessions byzantines en Morée (1460) et à la suite des p e r t e s subies p a r les Vénitiens p e n d a n t la p r e m i è r e g u e r r e de Morée (1463-1479), la M é d i t e r r a n é e o r i e n t a l e était devenue, à d e r a r e s exceptions près, u n e m e r e n t o u r é e de rivages d o m i n é s p a r les O t t o m a n s . Enfin, e n Italie, l'arrivée au pouvoir des Aragonais à Naples, en 1442, avait créé u n e situation nouvelle d a n s c e t t e zone si i m p o r t a n t e p o u r le c o m m e r c e et la politique de D u b r o v n i k 2 . Quelles f u r e n t les réactions des g o u v e r n a n t s de Dubrovnik à t o u s ces c h a n g e m e n t s dangereux d a n s des régions aussi vitales p o u r eux et aussi p r o c h e s de leur ville ? Avec la prévoyance, n é e de l e u r longue expérience des affaires b a l k a n i q u e s et orientales, les Ragusains avaient établi dès la fin d u XIV E siècle des r a p p o r t s directs avec les s u l t a n s o t t o m a n s 3 . Néanmoins, j u s q u ' à V a r n a (1444), ils espér a i e n t q u e le c o u r s des événements p o u r r a i t ê t r e r e n v e r s é et tentaient d'en convaincre le p a p e et les p u i s s a n c e s occidentales 4 . Après l ' é c r a s e m e n t de l'expédition c h r é t i e n n e à V a r n a , Dubrovnik c o m p r i t c l a i r e m e n t q u e les O t t o m a n s étaient d a n s les B a l k a n s p o u r y demeu-

XX 312 r e r et qu'il n'y avait plus d'espoir de les en chasser, du m o i n s p a s à brève échéance. P a r conséquent, avec leur réalisme c o u t u m i e r , les gens de Dubrovnik p r i r e n t des m e s u r e s afin d ' a s s u r e r u n « m o d u s vivendi » avec les nouveaux m a î t r e s des Balkans, ce qui était essentiel p o u r leur vie é c o n o m i q u e et p o u r leur survie politique. Ainsi, en 1458, commencèrent-ils à p a y e r u n t r i b u t a n n u e l au s u l t a n 5 et l'établissement de ces r a p p o r t s avec les O t t o m a n s p e r m i t aux Ragusains n o n s e u l e m e n t de p o u r s u i v r e leurs affaires d a n s les Balkans, m a i s aussi de c o n t i n u e r et m ê m e d ' é t e n d r e leur activité commerciale d a n s la M é d i t e r r a n é e orientale, où ils avaient établi leur présence depuis trois siècles d é j à 6 . E n Italie, le c h a n g e m e n t d u gouvernement à Naples, e n 1442, ne p r i t p a s n o n plus Dubrovnik à l'improviste. Dès 1427, les Ragusains avaient p r i s des contacts avec le roi Alphonse V et, a p r è s qu'il eut conquis Naples, ils p o u r s u i v i r e n t ces relations avec assiduité. De m ê m e , Dubrovnik m a i n t i n t des r a p p o r t s c o r r e c t s avec les successeurs d'Alphonse, en dépit de quelques difficultés, causées principalem e n t p a r les actes de p i r a t e r i e de leurs s u j e t s . Cette politique perm i t aux Ragusains d ' o b t e n i r des privilèges c o m m e r c i a u x et de dével o p p e r u n trafic t r è s a n i m é et t r è s i m p o r t a n t p o u r leur é c o n o m i e 7 . De m ê m e q u e les b o n n e s relations avec la p a p a u t é , celle-ci c o n t r i b u a à c o n t e n i r les a p p é t i t s vénitiens, qui n'avaient j a m a i s d i s p a r u depuis le r e t o u r de Venise e n Dalmatie au c o m m e n c e m e n t d u xv* siècle 8 . Ainsi l'on p e u t dire q u e le g o u v e r n e m e n t de Dubrovnik avait n o n seulement réagi d ' u n e f a ç o n p r a g m a t i q u e et efficace aux événem e n t s , m a i s qu'il avait su prévoir et p r e n d r e à t e m p s des c o n t a c t s et des m e s u r e s q u i p e r m i r e n t à la p e t i t e r é p u b l i q u e de sauvegarder et d ' a c c r o î t r e sa p r o s p é r i t é économique, f o n d e m e n t de sa survie politique. Il est vrai q u e les O t t o m a n s a u r a i e n t p u facilement p r e n d r e Dubrovnik à t o u t m o m e n t et, s'ils n e l'ont p a s fait, il est évident qu'ils avaient p o u r cela de b o n n e s raisons, i n d é p e n d a n t e s de la puissance é c o n o m i q u e de Dubrovnik. Il est vrai, aussi, q u e le rôle de cette ville c o m m e c e n t r e d ' i n f o r m a t i o n s et d'espionnage était d ' u n e g r a n d e i m p o r t a n c e , p o u r les O t t o m a n s aussi bien q u e p o u r les Occidentaux. Mais il n o u s semble qu'il n'est p a s exagéré de dire q u e c'est son rôle d a n s la vie économique de la région balkano-adriatique qui était l ' a t o u t principal de Dubrovnik p o u r conserver son indép e n d a n c e , t a n t à l'égard des O t t o m a n s q u e des Occidentaux. Que peut-on donc dire d u c o m p o r t e m e n t de cette économie ragusaine face aux g r a n d s c h a n g e m e n t s d u XVe siècle ? Dans l'impossibilité d ' e n t r e r ici d a n s le détail de son développement, il f a u t s'en t e n i r à q u e l q u e s indices généraux, q u i peuvent p e r m e t t r e d'arriver à des conclusions intéressantes. Sans doute, les o p é r a t i o n s de crédit, leur volume et leur r y t h m e , sont-elles u n des indices essentiels de l'évolution é c o n o m i q u e et c'est sur cet aspect de la vie é c o n o m i q u e de D u b r o v n i k q u e n o u s désirons n o u s a r r ê t e r b r i è v e m e n t ici. P a r chance, de n o m b r e u x volumes de la série «Debita n o t a r i a e » o n t été conservés aux Archives historiques d e Dubrovnik et, s'ils n e sont

XX POLITIQUE ET ÉCONOMIE DE DUBROVNIK

313

p a s c o m p l e t s e t t o u t à f a i t c o n t i n u s p o u r t o u t le XVe siècle, ils o f f r e n t u n g r a n d n o m b r e d e d o n n é e s suivies p o u r les d i f f é r e n t e s p é r i o d e s d e ce s i è c l e 9 . T o u t e n t e n a n t c o m p t e d e ces d é f a u t s , n o u s p e n s o n s d o n c q u ' i l n ' e s t p a s t r o p h a r d i d ' e s s a y e r de t i r e r q u e l q u e s conclus i o n s s u r le c o m p o r t e m e n t d e l ' é c o n o m i e r a g u s a i n e a u XVe siècle à p a r t i r d u m a t é r i e l d e s « D e b i t a n o t a r i a e ». Afin d e p o u v o i r f a i r e d e s c o m p a r a i s o n s utiles, n o u s a v o n s p r i s e n c o n s i d é r a t i o n les d o n n é e s d e q u a t r e g r o u p e s d ' a n n é e s , s é p a r é s c h a c u n d e vingt a n s : 1418 et. 1419 ; 1438 e t 1439 ; 1458 e t 1459 ; 1478 et 1479. Les r é s u l t a t s a u x q u e l s n o u s s o m m e s p a r v e n u s q u a n t a u v o l u m e d e s o p é r a t i o n s a p p a r a i s s e n t d a n s le t a b l e a u ci-dessous. TABLEAU

I10

Année

Volume total des opérations de crédit en ducats vénitiens

Moyenne mensuelle en ducats vénitiens

1418 1419 1438 1439 1458 1459 1478 1479

105 811 123 790 88 494 89 365 99 058 97 217 74 808 53 954

8 817 10315 7 374 7 447 8 255 8 101 6 234 4 496

D ' a u t r e p a r t , le r y t h m e d e s o p é r a t i o n s d e c r é d i t p e u t ê t r e saisi d u tableau suivant : TABLEAU

II

Année

Nombre d'opérations par an

Moyenne mensuelle du nombre d'opérations

1418 1419 1438 1439 1458 1459 1478 1479

557 630 498 744 893 1092 1 122 855

46 52 41 62 74 91 93 71

XX 314 E v i d e m m e n t , le n o m b r e des o p é r a t i o n s de crédit a u g m e n t a i t m a i s — c o m p t e t e n u d u tableau I — on s'aperçoit que cette croissance c o r r e s p o n d a i t à u n e d i m i n u t i o n c o n s t a n t e d u volume des opér a t i o n s individuelles. E n c o m p a r a n t la moyenne mensuelle du nomb r e d ' o p é r a t i o n s (tableau I I ) avec le volume moyen m e n s u e l (tableau I), on arrive aux conclusions p r é s e n t é e s ci-dessous : TABLEAU III

Année

Valeur moyenne d'une opération de crédit en ducats vénitiens

1418

192

1419

198

1438

180

1439

120

1458

112

1459

89

1478

65

1479

63

Bien sûr, il f a u t tenir c o m p t e des i m p e r f e c t i o n s des sources é n u m é r é e s ci-dessus ; d u fait q u e n o u s n'avons pris en considération q u e q u e l q u e s années c o m m e points de c o m p a r a i s o n et, finalement, d u fait q u e quelques o p é r a t i o n s de crédit o n t sans d o u t e été enregistrées d a n s d ' a u t r e s séries des archives, en d e h o r s des « Debita n o t a r i a e » (en particulier d a n s les « Diversa n o t a r i a e » et les « Diversa cancellariae »). Néanmoins, les chiffres q u e n o u s avons utilisés ici, p r i s c o m m e indication d ' u n o r d r e de g r a n d e u r , ont — à n o t r e avis — u n e valeur i n c o n t e s t a b l e 1 1 . Il y a eu au cours d u XVe siècle u n e d i m i n u t i o n de volume des opérations de crédit. Tandis q u e d a n s la p r e m i è r e moitié d u siècle on trouve des s o m m e s substantielles, d a n s la seconde moitié elles ont d é c r u j u s q u ' à a t t e i n d r e en 1478-1479 u n tiers seulement des chiffres enregistrés en 1418-1419. A quoi peut-on a t t r i b u e r ce fléchissement ? On a d é j à m o n t r é que, d a n s la p r e m i è r e moitié d u XVe siècle, le c o m m e r c e avec les B a l k a n s était l'activité principale des Ragusains et qu'elle attirait la plus g r a n d e p a r t i e de leurs c a p i t a u x 1 2 . L'arrivée des O t t o m a n s d a n s cette région, c o m m e n o u s l'avons dit, n'avait p a s p r o f o n d é m e n t modifié la situation des Ragusains et leur trafic d a n s les Balkans continua, n o n seulement au XVe, m a i s aussi au xvi e siècle. D ' a u t r e

XX POLITIQUE ET ÉCONOMIE DE DUBROVNIK

315

p a r t le c o m m e r c e m a r i t i m e , lui aussi, se d é v e l o p p a i t à u n r y t h m e a c c é l é r é e t a t t e i g n a i t s o n apogée a u x v r siècle 13 . Il s e r a i t d o n c difficile d ' a t t r i b u e r a u c o m m e r c e e x t é r i e u r r a g u s a i n le r é t r é c i s s e m e n t des opérations de crédit que nous avons constaté. R e s t e à c h e r c h e r , alors, u n e e x p l i c a t i o n d ' o r d r e i n t é r i e u r , d a n s la vie é c o n o m i q u e d e D u b r o v n i k m ê m e . N o u s p e n s o n s q u ' o n p e u t e f f e c t i v e m e n t t r o u v e r c e t t e explication — a u m o i n s e n p a r t i e — d a n s le d é v e l o p p e m e n t d ' u n e t r è s i m p o r t a n t e a c t i v i t é d a n s la ville : la p r o d u c t i o n d e s d r a p s d e laine. C e t t e p r o d u c t i o n , c o m m e n c é e s u r u n e v a s t e échelle d a n s la s e c o n d e d é c e n n i e d u XVe siècle a v e c u n e f o r t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t a l i e n n e — p a r t i c u l i è r e m e n t t o s c a n e — se dével o p p a t r è s r a p i d e m e n t , les d r a p s é t a n t u n a r t i c l e e s s e n t i e l p o u r l ' e x p o r t a t i o n r a g u s a i n e d a n s les B a l k a n s 14 . Les gens d e D u b r o v n i k e t m ê m e d e s e n v i r o n s e n t r è r e n t t r è s vite d a n s c e t t e activité et les m a r c h a n d s c a t a l a n s d e v i n r e n t les p r i n c i p a u x f o u r n i s s e u r s d e laine à D u b r o v n i k 1 5 . C e t t e nouvelle p r o d u c t i o n r e q u é r a i t l ' i n v e s t i s s e m e n t d e f o r t e s s o m m e s d ' a r g e n t p o u r s o n o r g a n i s a t i o n et p o u r s a b o n n e m a r c h e , s p é c i a l e m e n t à ses d é b u t s . E t c'est, p e n s o n s - n o u s , ce q u i p o u r r a i t e x p l i q u e r la vivacité e t l ' i m p o r t a n c e d e s o p é r a t i o n s d e créd i t d a n s la p r e m i è r e p a r t i e d u XVe siècle et s o n déclin u l t é r i e u r . N a t u r e l l e m e n t , il f a u d r a f a i r e d e s r e c h e r c h e s détaillées e t a p p r o f o n d i e s p o u r a r r i v e r à des c o n c l u s i o n s p l u s e x a c t e s et p l u s comp l è t e s . S u r t o u t , il f a u d r a é t u d i e r avec u n e a t t e n t i o n p a r t i c u l i è r e le r a p p o r t e n t r e le v o l u m e global de l ' é c o n o m i e r a g u s a i n e et s o n comm e r c e e x t é r i e u r . E n effet, il e s t i m p o r t a n t d e n o t e r ici q u ' e n d é p i t d u rétrécissement du crédit, l'économie ragusaine tout entière n e s u b i t p a s d e r a l e n t i s s e m e n t . La d i m i n u t i o n p r o b a b l e d e la d e m a n d e i n t é r i e u r e d e c a p i t a u x é t a i t c o m p e n s é e p a r l'activité d u c o m m e r c e e x t é r i e u r , et c'est lui q u i r é t a b l i t la b a l a n c e f a v o r a b l e d e l ' é c o n o m i e r a g u s a i n e et p e r m i t s o n e x p a n s i o n u l t é r i e u r e . Ceci f u t r e n d u p o s s i b l e g r â c e à la s o u p l e s s e e t a u savoir-faire p o l i t i q u e d u g o u v e r n e m e n t r a g u s a i n e t g r â c e à la p o s i t i o n d e D u b r o v n i k c o m m e i n t e r m é d i a i r e e n t r e les B a l k a n s e t l'Occident. Car cet i n t e r m é d i a i r e d i s c r e t , efficace e t s û r , s e r v a i t a u s s i b i e n les i n t é r ê t s d e s O t t o m a n s q u e c e u x d e s O c c i d e n t a u x , t o u t en se p r o t é g e a n t et e n s ' e n r i c h i s s a n t elle-même.

NOTES 1. S. Cirkovic, Herceg Stefan Vukôié-Kosaèa i njegovo doba, Beograd 1964, pp. 262r2)63i. 2. M. Spremié, Dubrovnik i Aragonci (1442-1495), Beograd 1971. 3. I. Bozié, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku, Beograd 1952, pp. 14-16. 4. B. Krekic, Uéesée Dubrovnika u ratovima protiv Turaka 1443 i 1444 g., Zbor. rad. Vizant. instvol. II, Beograd 1953, pp. 145-158. 5. Bozic, o.c., pp. 151-157. 6. B. Krekic, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age, Paris-La Haye 1961, pp. 20-22.

XX 316 7. Spremié, o.c., pp. 8-17, 2948, 172-177. 8. M. Sunjic, Dalmacija u XV stoljeèu, Sarajevo 1967, pp. 67-74. J. Tadié, Venecija i Dalmacija u srednjem veku, Jugosl. istor. èasopis, n° 34, Beograd 1968, pp. 14-15. Spremic, o.c., pp. 177-181. 9. I. Voje, Knjige zadolznic, posebna notarska serij a Dubrovniskega arhiva, Zgodov. casopis, a. XXII, vol. 34, Ljubljana 1968, pp. 207-223. 10. Tous les tableaux ont été dressés à partir des données tirées des Archives historiques de Dubrovnik, série « Debita notariae », vol. 13, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 46, 47. 11. Nous avons aussi, par exemple, des calculs incomplets pour les années 1420, 1421, 1440 et 1460. Ils confirment la tendance générale évidente dans les tableaux. 12. J. Tadié, Privreda Dubrovnika i srpske zemlje u prvoj polovini XV veka, Zbor. Filoz. fak. u Beogradu, vol. X / l , Beograd 1968, pp. 519-536. 13. J. Tadic, Organizacija dubrovackog pomorstva u XIV veku, Istor. èasopis, a. I, n° 1-2, Beograd 1949, pp. 3-53. 14. Le professeur Tadié a calculé que la valeur des exportations de draps vers la Serbie et la Bosnie atteignait, dans la première moitié du xv e siècle, 250.000 ducats par an, « et probablement beaucoup plus ». Il a estimé, aussi, que la quantité d'argent exporté Vers l'Occident par Dubrovnik à la même époque se montait à 25 tonnes par an, pour une valeur de plus de 500.000 ducats. Cf. Tadié, Privreda, pp. 531, 535. V. aussi I. Bozic, Ekonomski i drustveni razvitak Dubrovnika u XIV i XV veku, Istor. glasnik, vol. I, Beograd 1949, pp. 21-61. 15. Spremic, o.c., pp. 147-152.

XXI

THE ROLE OF THE JEWS IN DUBROVNIK ( T H I R T E E N T H - S I X T E E N T H CENTURIES)

The city of Dubrovnik in the late Middle Ages and early modern times was the main trade link between the Balkan area and Italy and the leading center of intellectual activity on the eastern Adriatic coast. Centuries-long efforts by its citizens, a favorable geographic position and certain historical circumstances, had secured for Dubrovnik this special position. The geographic location of the city enabled it at a very early date to establish links with Italian cities, the Balkan hinterland and the Levant, while its political fate, by a series of happy coincidences, contributed to its growth and development. In 1205, after the Fourth Crusade, Dubrovnik was forced to accept Venetian overlordship, after centuries of more-or-less ephemeral Byzantine domination. It was during this Venetian period, which lasted until 1358, t h a t the mining of copper, lead, iron, and especially silver, began in Serbia and in Bosnia. Thus, at a time when the Venetian limitations on Dubrovnik's navigation were hindering Ragusan trade on the sea, the city assumed a new role as chief middleman in the flow of Balkan minerals to the West. This was to become and to remain for centuries Dubrovnik's true vocation and the main source of its wealth and prosperity. In 1358, Dubrovnik and Dalmatia were ceded by Venice to Hungary. Dubrovnik, however, obtained from the king of Hungary and Croatia, Louis I, a legal status that practically guaranteed its complete independence. Thus, while the appearance of the Ottoman Turks, the death of Serbia's Emperor Stephen Dusan (1355) and the death of Bosnia's King Tvrtko I (1391) brought chaos to the Balkans at this time, Dubrovnik was able to turn to the sea, having been liberated from Venetian-imposed limitations. Moreover, it did not neglect its contacts with the hinterland: the mines, especially Novo Brdo in Serbia and Srebrenica in Bosnia, continued to operate very successfully and

This article is the revised version of a paper presented at the International Conference, "Jews and Slavs: Contacts and Conflicts in Russia and Eastern Europe," held at UCLA in March 1972.

XXI 258 in the fifteenth century produced unprecedented levels of silver and other minerals. 1 The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and the disappearance of the Christian states there by 1463, though a heavy blow to the Balkan peoples, further favored the development of Ragusan trade. The Ottomans created a vast, unified and orderly trade area, free from customs fees and arbitrary interference from the many troublesome feudal lords who had plagued the Balkans in the fifteenth century. The Ragusans knew the Ottomans quite well by the time they became the masters of the peninsula. The official links between Dubrovnik and the Sultans had been established as far back as the end of the fourteenth century and by 1458 Dubrovnik was paying th^ Ottomans a yearly tribute. This made it possible for the Ragusan caravans to move freely and safely across the vast Ottoman-held territories, and Ragusan colonies thus continued to flourish in many Balkan towns and mining centers under the Sultans' protection. 2 Simultaneously, Dubrovnik's links with the West remained as lively as ever. In addition to Hungary and the papacy, Dubrovnik had excellent relations with the Aragonese rulers of southern Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century, and in the following century Spain became its chief protector in the Christian world. 3 Ragusan ships were among the best and most numerous 1 There aTe several excellent monographs in Serbo-Croatian on various aspects of Ragusan history, economy, culture etc., but we still lack a comprehensive work on that city's past. The best outline of Dubrovnik's h i s t o r y ^ the series of articles published by J. Tadic in Historija naroda Jugoslavije, 1, 2 (Belgrade 1953, 1959). In English, the old work by L. Villari, The Republic of Ragusa: An Episode of the Turkish Conquest (London 1904) is totally outdated. More recently N. Biegman dealt with an important, if limited, aspect of Dubrovnik's past in his book The Turko-Ragusan Relationship according to the Firmans of Murad III (1575-1595) extant in the State Archives of Dubrovnik (The Hague 1967). F. W. Carter has published a series of articles on Dubrovnik: "The Decline of the Dubrovnik City-State," Balkan Studies 9.1 (1968) 127-138; idem, "The Trading Organization of the Dubrovnik Republic," Historicka Geografie 3 (1969) 33-50; idem, "Dubrovnik: the Early Development of a Pre-Industrial City," The Slavonic and East European Review 47 (1969) 355-368; idem, "Balkan Exports through Dubrovnik 1358-1500: A Geographical Analysis," Journal of Croatian Studies 7 (1969) 133-159; idem, "The Commerce of the Dubrovnik Republic 1500-1700," Economic History Review 24 (August 1971) 370-394. Although he has sometimes interesting ideas, Carter, unfortunately, lacks knowledge of the archival sources and, consequently, his articles cannot be considered satisfactory. Cf. also B. Krekic, Dubrovnik in the 14th and 15th centuries: A City between East and West, The Centers of Civilization Series 30 (Norman 1972). 2 K. Jireëek, Geschichte der Serben, 2 vols. (Gotha 1911, 1918). I. Bozié, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV veku, Srpska akademija nauka (hereafter SAN), Posebna izdanja 200, Istoriski institut 3 (Belgrade 1952). D. Kovacevic, Trgovina u srednfovjekovnoj Bosni, Naucno druâtvo Bosne i Hercegovine, Djela 18, Odjeljenje istorijsko-filoloSkih nauka 13 (Sarajevo 1961). 3 J . Tadic, È partij a i Dubrovnik u XVI v., SAN, Posebna izdanja 93, DruStveni i istoriski spisi 41 (Belgrade 1932). M. Spremié, Dubrovnik i Aragonci, 1442-1495 (Belgrade 1971.)

XXI ROLE OF JEWS IN DUBROVNIK

259

in the Mediterranean and frequently made trips to England, and less often to the American continent, in the first half of the sixteenth century. 4 This favorable and prosperous period in Ragusan history lasted as long as the situation in the Ottoman Empire remained stable; new trends in the economic life of western Europe did not affect Dubrovnik too directly early in the century. When, however, in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Ottoman state began changing for the worse, and new currents of trade and economic change took shape in the Western world, Dubrovnik quickly and sharply felt the consequences. Ragusan merchants, as a result, began withdrawing from the Balkan area and investing their capital in Italian banking operations—a maneuver that could not compensate for the loss they had suffered. On 6 April 1667 Dubrovnik was shaken by a tremendous earthquake, wherein about two thirds of the city was destroyed and approximately 4000 people killed. This blow, coupled with the previously mentioned difficulties, accelerated the decay of Dubrovnik, although—with incredible perseverance and great sacrifices—the city managed to survive as a free and independent republic for another 140 years, until 1808.5 Thus, as a city between East and West, receptive to people and ideas from both spheres, Dubrovnik reached the peak in its development and prosperity from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. Its intellectual life—literary production, arts, architecture, and so on—are a testimony to this. They represent, indeed, a symbiosis among the Slavic, Italian, and—to a minor degree—Eastern influences, creating in many ways a unique phenomenon on the verge of two worlds.6 ** *

It is not surprising that a city as dynamic and prosperous as Dubrovnik would attract Jews among its many visitors at this time. Contacts between Ragusans and Jews were, no doubt, established before there is any mention of the latter in Dubrovnik itself: such contacts certainly took place in southern Italy, Sicily, Albania, and Greece, where the Jews were rather numerous and active and where Ragusan merchants were very frequent visitors. Also, numerous Jews from Venetian colonies in the Levant, traveling to or from Venice on business, very probably made stopovers in Dubrovnik as early 4 J. Tadié, "Organizacija dubrovackog pomorstva u XVI veku," Istoriski casopis 1.1-2 (1948) 3-53. 5 R. Samardzic, Veliki vek Dubrovnika (Belgrade 1962). H. Bjelovucié, The Ragusan Republic, Victim of Napoleon and its own Conservatism (Leiden 1970). 6 J. Torbarina, Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic (London 1931). V. Novak, "The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia during the Middle Ages," The Slavonic and East European Review 31.78 (Dec. 1953) 1-28.

XXI 260 as the thirteenth century. Because Ragusan archival materials are preserved only from 1278, however, it is possible only to speculate about this earlier period. The first mention of a Jew found in the archival documents of Dubrovnik is from 1281 and concerns a debt that "Leo Judeus de Dyrachio" in Albania— who was not in the city at the time—owed a Venetian. 7 The first sure case of a Jew in Dubrovnik itself dates from 1324, when the Ragusan government decided to hire for six months an anonymous "magistrum Judeum physicum," who was in the city, but there is no way of knowing whether or not he accepted the job and stayed there. 8 Jewish physicians, however, played a very important role in Dubrovnik, a city that had long been aware of its hygienic and sanitation needs.9 A doctor of Jewish origin, "magister Benedictus physicus olim Judeus," in Dubrovnik's service from 1354 until 1357, was the predecessor of several prominent Jewish physicians in the city.10 In 1367-1368 the first Jewish merchants appeared in Dubrovnik. These were "Dauid, magister Iudayce de Durachio, Moyses filius notarii Mathei Iudeo et Moyses filius Salomoni Iudei de Duracino." They did business with a Venetian in the city. 11 Besides other -relations with Jews from Albania,12 in the second half of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century, there were also contacts between Ragusan merchants and Jews from Malta and Candia. 13 Particularly interesting are some Jews who were engaged in the marketing of corals from the sea around Dubrovnik. Among them was one "Symon Maglier de Prouençia, Judeus, habitator Taruixii" and another "Astrucho quondam Jacobi dictus Bonauentura, Judeus de Chatholonia, habi7 G. CremoSnik, Spisi dubrovaëke kancelarije, Historijski institut Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (hereafter JAZU) u Dubrovniku 1 (Zagreb 1951) 139 no. 471. 8 J. Tadié, Jevreji u Dubrovniku do polovine XVII stoljeca (hereafter Jevreji) (Sarajevo 1937) 12. R. Jeremic and J. Tadié, Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture starog Dubrovnika (hereafter: Prilozi), Biblioteka Centralnog higijenskog zavoda nos. 37, 45, Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture Jugoslavie i Balkanskog Poluostrva 10, 15; 2 (Belgrade 1939) l ì ; 3 (Belgrade 1940) 130. 9 See Krekié (n. 1 above) 90-111. 10 Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 413. Jeremié and Tadié, Prilozi (n. 8 above) 2.12; 3.132. 11 Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (herafter: HAD), Diversa Cancellariae 21 fols. 71v., 72. Debita Notariae 7 fol. 155. 12 In June, 1368, the Ragusan government complained to the authorities in Dyrrachium about a confiscation of goods from two Ragusan ships. One confiscation was the result of a debt of 300 ducats that "Bogdassa" from Dubrovnik had with "Laçarus Iudeus" from Dyrrachium for some salt he had bought. J. Tadié, Pisma i uputstva Dubrovacke Republikef SAN, Izvori za istoriju Ju2nih Slovena ser. 2, Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjiZevnost srpskog naroda, Treée odeljenje 4 (Belgrade 1935) 182-185. 13 Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 14, 15, 17. Tadié (n. 12 above) 440. B. Krekié, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age, École pratique des hautes études (Sorbonne), Documents et recherches sur l'économie des pays byzantins, islamiques et slaves et leurs relations commerciales au Moyen Age 5 (Paris 1961) 223 no. 361; 246 no. 503.

XXI ROLE OF JEWS IN DUBROVNIK

261

tator Padue" who, incidentally, came to Dubrovnik in search of his son-in-law, the Jew "Josephus Farer," who had left his wife and found haven there. 14 Before leaving the fourteenth century it should be noted that there is mention in documents from that epoch of a part of Dubrovnik called "Giudecca," which seems to have been located close to, but outside the eastern city walls. Since there were no Jews permanently settled in Dubrovnik at this time, it is improbable that "Giudecca" can be considered a Jewish ghetto; it should rather be viewed as the area where foreign Jews stayed when temporarily in the city.

Early in the fifteenth century considerable numbers of Jews from Provence begun settling in Apulia, a region with which Dubrovnik had everyday contacts. It was from here, especially from the city of Lecce, that many Jews came to Dubrovnik. Others came from Sicily and Albania. One of the Jews from Lecce is of particular interest. He was Rabbi Aron, who came to Dubrovnik in 1404 on business and remained for about four years. Thus, he is the first Jew whom we know to have lived in Dubrovnik for a protracted period of time. Some historians believe that he was the reason for the Ragusan government's allegedly extending general permission in 1407 for Jews to settle freely in Dubrovnik. Actually, what the government did in 1407 was to allow one Jew, "Symeon Isaach" from Marseilles, to live in the city, provided he did no business with Apulia. It has been conclusively proved that no general permission was issued at this time. 15 There were, however, Jews who came and lived in Dubrovnik for short periods of time and Jewish physicians continued to play their role in the city. Thus in 1414, for example, "magister Samuel Ebreus, medicus chirurgicus" served for a while as an eye surgeon in Dubrovnik 16 and in 1427 another Jewish doctor, "magister Elia Sabati, Ebreus, medicus" was there, though it is not certain that he was practicing. 17 Jews engaged in vast trade operations that embraced areas in the Balkan hinterland, in Dalmatia, Italy, Albania, and the Levant. Interestingly enough, the first Jew whose name in documents is accompanied by the highly coveted designation "habitator Ragusii" (although with the limitation: "ad presens") was a Catalan Jew from Trani in south Italy, in 1421. 18 The denominations "habitator Ragusii" or "Ebreus de Ragusio" are found after this time for a number of Jews in Dubrovnik. The Turkish name for the Jews, "Cifut," appeared in documents for the first time 14 15 16 17

HAD, Liber dotium 3 fol. 25 a tergo. Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 16-18. Ibid. 23-24. Jeremic and Tadié, Prilozi (n. 8 above) 2.28; 3.138. Ibid. 2.30; 3.139.

XXI 262 in 1443, while the denomination "Zudio" made its first appearance in Dubrovnik at the end of the century, in the family name "Giudiovich." 19 In the second half of the fifteenth century the number of Jews in Dubrovnik sharply diminished. The reasons for this are not clear. Dubrovnik remained as stable and as prosperous as ever. Also, the Jews in the areas from which they mostly came (southern Italy in particular) were rather well off at the time. The only exception could be the Jews from Albania, where the Ottoman conquest seems to have curtailed economic activity somewhat. But this would not be enough to explain the sharp decline in the general number of Jews in Dubrovnik. 20 Could it be that the Jews feared that Dubrovnik, too, would be conquered by the irresistibly advancing soldiers of Muhammad the Conqueror and, consequently, avoided the city until the storm blew over? Whatever the reason, the end of the fifteenth century brought about a deep change in the fate of European Jewry, a change that affected very much the fate of the Jews in Dubrovnik and in the Balkans. *

*

*

The new period in the history of these Jews began with their expulsion from Spain (1492) and Portugal (1498). Many Jews and Marranos found their way eastward, toward the Ottoman lands where religious tolerance prevailed. It has been calculated that about 100,000 Jews and Marranos entered the Ottoman Empire at this time and their presence affected very positively its economic life.21 Dubrovnik played a twofold role in the big Jewish and Marrano migration. First of all, some of these people made their escape on Ragusan ships, which at the time were frequent visitors to Spanish ports. In the second place, many of the Jews who eventually reached Ottoman lands went first to Italy, mainly Tuscany or the south. The highly developed trading, banking, and crafts in Italy, however, made it very difficult for the newcomers to compete with the natives. So, they moved on, toward the East, where conditions seemed to be more favorable. This movement, then, went largely through Dubrovnik. The Jews from northern and central Italy usually traveled from Venice or Ancona to Split or to Dubrovnik and then further east. The Jews from southern Italy for their part crossed the Adriatic to Dubrovnik or to

18

Tadic, Jevreji 28. Ibid. 35. 20 There were, however, Jews in the city, some of them engaged in the very delicate business of obtaining freedom for Ragusans captured by the Ottomans. See Bo2ié (n. 2 above) 333-334. 21 Tadic, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 38-39. 19

XXI ROLE OF JEWS IN DUBROVNIK

263

Albanian ports and then continued their journey eastward, either on ship^, or in caravans moving through the Balkan hinterland. The role of Ragusan ships in transporting the Jews and Marranos from Italian ports to Dubrovnik, Split, and the Levant was a major one, but the Ragusan shipowners, like all other contemporary seamen, took advantage of the plight of the refugees and from time to time brutally robbed them. The Ragusan government reacted vigorously, although not always successfully, against such crimes.22 Some Jews and Marranos were also exposed to attacks and robberies after they left Dubrovnik to take inland routes toward the Ottoman-held territories. These, attacks usually were not perpetrated by Ragusan subjects, but by persons from nearby areas, and the Ragusan government did its best to protect the Jews, as did the Ottomans. The vast majority of refugees, however,-traveled to and through Dubrovnik in safety and were able to do business there. 23 An event in 1502 disturbed this peaceful atmosphere. On 6 August, an old woman was found dead in the eastern Ragusan suburb of Ploôe and a group of Jews—who had been seen passing by her house—were accused of ritual murder. They were arrested, tortured, and, although culpability could not be established, four or five of them were burned to death and two others died in jail under torture. The most prominent victim was "magister Moises, filius Marsilii de Barulo, medicus Iudeus," who had come to Dubrovnik in 1495 and become a successful physician and merchant. He was strangled in a dark cell of the jail in the Rector's Palace. 24 This, incidentally, did not prevent other Jewish physicians from coming to Dubrovnik later on. Thus, for example, "magister Isac Hebreus, physicus" practiced there for ten years beginning in 1543,25 "magister Abraham Hebreus, chirurgus" lived and worked very successfully from 1558 to 1590,26 and others followed. It seems probable that after the proceedings against the group of Jews in 1502, there was a brief flare-up of anti-Jewish feelings in Dubrovnik, but it is significant that there is no trace of any anti-Jewish legislation at this time. There is, however, ample evidence showing Jews engaged in business transactions with Ragusans in Dubrovnik and with merchants from other areas. Jorjo Tadic has shown that in 1502 four caravans of Jews left Dubrovnik for Thessalonika and one for Skoplje, consisting in all of at least 170 horses and 200 persons. In 1503 there was only one Jewish caravan for Thessalonika (50 horses), but it is very probable that many Jews, who went from Dubrovnik

22

Ibid. 42-44. Ibid. 43-51. 24 Ibid. 51-52, 247. Jeremié and Tadic, Prilozi (n. 8 above) 2.43; 3.144. Spremic (n. 3 above) 183-184. 25 Tadié, Jevreji 248-249. Jeremié and Tadié, Prilozi 2.51; 3.150. 26 Tadié, Jevreji 249-253. Jeremié and Tadié, Prilozi 2.53-54; 3.152. 23

XXI 264 to nearer places in Bosnia and Serbia joined regular Ragusan caravans going there and thus did not leave separate traces in archival documents. 27 The first official proposal to prevent further arrivals of Jews and Marranos in Dubrovnik was put forth in the Senate in 1510 and was defeated by a vote of seventeen to twenty-four. This was probably due in part to Ottoman intervention in favor of the Jews. Four years later another proposal was made to expel the Jews and Marranos from Dubrovnik, but this, too, failed by a vote of sixteen to twenty-four. Nevertheless, in May of 1515 the Senate carried— with one single vote opposed—a decision "de expellendo dictos Maranos et Judeos cum eorum familiis a civitate et locis districtus nostri." It was added that "amodo inantea aliquis Maranus aut Judeus non possit divertere ad loca nostra neque in dictis locis nostris in toto districtu aut in civitate habitare cum familia exceptis illis qui venient cum mercantiis et grassis sine familiis, qui possint hie morari donee vendiderint ipsas mercantias et grassas quas conduxerint et non ultra." The decision was carried out quickly and efficiently; the Jews and Marranos left Dubrovnik and went mostly to the nearby Ottoman lands of Hercegovina and Bosnia.28 The sudden reversal of Ragusan policy toward the Jews and Marranos is not as surprising as it may seem: the rapid increase in their numbers in the city and their growing share in Ragusan economic activities certainly provoked considerable reaction from the local population. In addition, similar antiJewish resentment simultaneously flared up in Venice and in much of Italy, with which Dubrovnik had always been in close contact. On the other hand, contemporary Ottoman preoccupation with affairs in Palestine and in Egypt eased Dubrovnik's fears of possible Ottoman intervention in favor of the Jews at this particular moment. Thus an abrupt end was made to the influx of Jews and Marranos into Dubrovnik, and their movement toward the Balkans through that city was certainly disrupted. The Balkan area, however, was already being deeply affected by the Jewish and Marrano migration. *

*

*

A brief look at the presence and the position of the Jews in the Balkan Slavic lands seems appropriate at this point. In the southern part of Croatia, in Dalmatia, which was dominated by the Venetians and Hungarians in the late Middle Ages, there is an ambiguous mention of a synagogue in the centrally located city of Split at the end of the fourteenth century. There is, however, no mention of Jews in Split during this or the following century. It was only after the arrival of the Spanish refugees 27 J. Tadié, "Iz istorije Jevreja u Jugoistocnoj Evropi," Jevrejski Almanah (hereafter JA) (1959-1960) 34-35. 28 Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 54-55, 422.

XXI ROLE OF JEWS IN DUBROVNIK

265

early in the sixteenth century that Split obtained a sizable Jewish colony.29 The same is true of Sibenik, a city more to the north along the coast. 30 In the northern region of Croatia, especially in Zagreb, there were Ashkenazim Jews before the sixteenth century, but in that century many Jews fleeing the Hapsburg persecutions left Croatia and returned there only in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. 31 The Hapsburg persecutions were also responsible for the Jews' leaving Slovenia in the year 1500, although they had lived in Slovenian cities for a long time before that and had been economically very active and prosperous there. 32 In the medieval Serbian state the Jews lived in numerous cities, especially in the southern, former Byzantine regions, conquered by the Emperor Stephen Dusan (1331-1355). The charters issued by the kings of the Nemanjic dynasty, rulers of Serbia from the end of the twelfth century, contain no trace of Jews before Dusan, 33 but in some of those issued by Dusan himself and by his son, Emperor Uro s (1355-1371), the Jews were mentioned. 34 Yet the famous "Dusan's Code" has nothing on Jews in the Serbian state, although the very absence of any anti-Jewish legislature might in itself be considered a positive thing. 35 In the northern part of Serbia, in Belgrade, in the fourteenth century 29

On the Jews in Split see: G. Novak, Zidovi u Splilu (Split 1920; trans.: Storia degli Ebrei a Spalato 1925). V. Morpurgo, "Jevreji u Splitu pri padu Mletacke Republike," Narodna iidovska svijest 1 (1924) 5-6. D. Bo2ié, "Ëidovska Skola u Splitu," Skolski vjesnik 8.7 (1959) 11-12. N. Bezic, Jewish Historical Monuments in Split (Belgrade 1962). The best work now is D. Keckemet, Zidovi u povijesti Splita (Split 1971). 30 There is, however, a decision made in Sibenik in 1431 to bring into that city a Jew with 10,000 ducats of capital for lending to citizens at 10 percent rate of interest. M. Sunjié, Dalmacija u XV stoljecu (Sarajevo 1967) 242. On Jews in Sibenik see also: K. StoSic, "O Jevrejima u Sibeniku" JA (1961-1962) 27-31. For the Jews in Zadar and elsewhere in Dalmatia see: G. Sabalich, Gli Ebrei a Zara sotto San Marco (Zara 1901). U. Inchiostri, "Accenni agli Ebrei nei documenti e statuti dalmati del Medio evo," Archivio storico per la Dalmazia, a.V, 8.46 (1930) 475-480. V. Morpurgo, "Dva Marana lijecnika u Zadru godine 1480," Jevrejski narodni kalendar 5698 (1937-1938) 57-64. B. Franchi, Gli Ebrei in Dalmazia (Zara 1939). 31 For the Jews in northern parts of Croatia see: L. Gleisinger, "Iz povijesti Jevreja u Hrvatskoj," JA (1954) 60-67. 32 A. Rosenberg, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Jiiden in Steiermark (1914). H. SchlusingerDjakova, "O religioznom i kulturnom iivotu Jevreja u Stajerskoj, KoruSkoj i Kranjskoj god. 1371-1496, s osobitim obzirom na podruéje danaSnje Slovenije," JA (1925-26) 108-118 and ibid. (1928-1929) 128-137. M. Kos, Istorija Slovenaca (Belgrade 1960) 250-251. 33 See Jirecek (n. 2 above). T. R. Djordjevic, "Jevreji Balkanskog Poluostrva," Spomènica o 30~godi$njici sarajevskog kulturnopotpornog druStva La Benevolencia (1924) 9-12. M. Mirò, "Jevreji na Balkanskom Poluostrvu i u staroj srpskoj drSavi do dolaska Turaka," JA (1957-1958) 49-58. 34 A. Solovjev-V. MoSin, Grëke povelje srpskih vladara, SAN Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjiievnost srpskog naroda, Treée odelenje 7; Izvori za istoriju Juinih Slovena, serija 6; Izvori na grôkom jeziku 1 (Belgrade 1936) 12, 158, 204, 427. 36 For the edition of DuSan's Code with translation into modern Serbo-Croatian see N. Radojcié, DuSanov Zakonik, SAN (Belgrade 1960).

XXI 2GC there apparently lived a number of Jews from Hungary, but only with the arrival of the Sephardim, sometime between 1521 and 1560, did this colony become important. 36 After the expulsion of the Jews from Hungary in 1360 many of them moved as far south as Thessalonika, but the real penetration and settlement of the Jews in the Balkans—as we already have indicated—came only with the appearance of the Spanish Jews and Marranos in the sixteenth century. In this connection the most important area certainly became Bosnia.37 The Sephardim arrived in Bosnia from the west—through Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian ports—and from Istanbul, Thessalonika, and other cities in the east through Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian lands. The first mention of a Jewish community in Sarajevo is from 1565 and-in 1580-1581 a "Cifuthana," Jewish inn (not a ghetto), was erected and the building of a synagogue started. 38 In the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Sarajevo and other Bosnian Jews became closely connected with Split, where commercial facilities in the harbor were organized largely through the efforts of a very interesting and dynamic Jew, Daniel Rodriguez. 39 In Bulgaria the Jews were rather numerous in the cities in the later Middle Ages. Czar John Alexander (1331-1371) was even married to a recently baptized Jewish woman. The influence of the Jews in Bulgaria became so conspicuous that in 1360 an ecclesiastical council limited their rights and had three of their leaders executed. Of course, as elsewhere, the numbers and importance of the Jews in Bulgaria increased greatly after the arrival of the Sephardim Jews and Marranos in the area. The latter were to predominate in an eventual 36 Jews were mentioned among the defenders of Belgrade under John Capistrano in 1456. J. Miju§kovic-Kalic, Beograd u srednjem veku (Belgrade 1967) 140. On the Jews in Belgrade see also: I. Slang, Jevreji u Beogradu (Belgrade 1926). D. Djuric-Zamolo, "Stara jevrejska cetvrt i Jevrejska ulica u Beogradu," JA (1967) 41-76. 37 For the history of Bosnia in the Middle Ages—a period that, particularly from the point of view of religion, influenced very much the future developments in the area—the best existing work is by S. Cirkovic, Istorija srednjevekovne bosanske driave (Belgrade 1967). 38 On the Jews in Bosnia see M. Levi, Die Sephardim in Bosnien (Sarajevo 1911). S. Pinto, "PoloZaj bosanskih Jevreja pod turskom vladavinom," JA (1954) 48-59. H. Kamhi," 400ta godiSnjica Jevrejske opStine u Sarajevu," JA (1961-1962) 15-23. H. Kamhi, "Jevreji u privredi Bosne i Hercegovine," Spomenica 400 godina od dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu (1966) 55-72. A. Suéeska, "Poloiaj Jevreja u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Turaka," ibid. 47-54. J. Tadié, "Doprinos Jevreja trgovini s dalmatinskim primorjem u XVI i XVII veku," ibid. 33-46. Various aspects of the cultural life of the Bosnian Jews have been studied, too: B. Kalmi, "Spanske romanse bosanskih Jevreja," GodiSnjak La Benevolencia (1933) 272-288. E. Levi, "Jevreji u jugoslavenskoj literaturi," ibid. 231-258. C. M. Crews, Recherches sur le judéo-espagnol dans les pays balkaniques (Paris 1935). S. Pinto, "Spanjolske izreke i poslovice bosanskih Sefarada," JA (1957-1958) 29-48. E. Stankiewicz, "Balkànski i slovenski elementi u judeo-Spanskom jeziku Jugoslavie," JA (1965-1967) 27-31. 39 V. Morpurgo, "Daniel Rodriguez i osnivanje splitske skale u XVI stoljeéu," Starine 52, 53 (1962) 185-248, 363-415. Keèkemet (n. 29 above) 31-53.

XXI ROLE OF JEWS IN DUBROVNIK

267

merger with the existing Jewish communities. In Sofia the Jews became the most powerful commercial element and were one of the factors that influenced the withdrawal of the Ragusan merchants from the region in the seventeenth century. 40 ** *

The international situation involving the Ottomans was an important element in bringing the Jews back to Dubrovnik in 1532. When the Turko-Spanish war and, somewhat later, the First Holy League (1538-1540) disturbed the peace throughout the Mediterranean, the Adriatic area remained relatively troublefree; this induced many Jewish and other merchants from Thessalonika and other Balkan cities, who had hitherto been sending their merchandise by sea to, the West, to switch to the land roads across the Balkan Peninsula. These roads ended in Dubrovnik, whence the goods could be safely sent on to Italy ; Thus, increasing numbers of Jews, some obtaining temporary and others permanent reductions of Ragusan customs fees, began to reappear in Dubrovnik from 1532. The Ragusans had, evidently, concluded that it was to their advantage to attract Jewish, as well as other merchants, in an international situation that could result in big economic gains for Dubrovnik. The 1515 decision on the expulsion of the Jews and Marranos was dead and forgotten. 41 The Jews who came to Dubrovnik from 1532 on lived initially in the Ploòe suburb, but in August 1538, because of certain dangers, the government allowed a group of them to settle inside the city walls. This seems to be the first Jewish settlement in the city. In April 1540 the governmend decided "quod pro congregando Hebreos in unum ad habitandum" the Rector and the Minor Council "possint eligere quinque aut sex domos pro sua habitatione et eo plus sicuti fuerit necessarium . . . et quod precipi faciant dictis Hebreis ut ferrant signa quibus destinguantur a Christianis." In this way a real Jewish ghetto was started in Dubrovnik, although there were as yet no strict regulations as to its organization. 42 Having found in Dubrovnik security and prosperity, the Jews rapidly increased in numbers, as did the volume and the value of their affairs. All of this led to the adoption of new regulations concerning the Jewish settlement in the city. In October 1546 the special "domini Provisores supra habitatione Hebreorum" proposed, and the Senate unanimously agreed on the following: 40

On the Jews in Bulgaria see Djordjevic (n. 33 above) 10. S. Mézan, Les Juifs espagnols en Bulgarie (Sofia 1925). Lj. S. Rosier, Jevreji u Jugoslaviji i Bugarskoj (Zagreb 1930). Evreiski izvori za obshtestveno-ikonomicheskoto razvitie na balkanskite zemi, Bulgarska akademia na naukite, Institut za bulgarska istoria (Sofia 1958). M. Spinka, A History of Christianity in the Balkans (Hamden, Conn. 1968) 120-121. 41 Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 65-67. 42 Ibid. 69-71, 423.

XXI 268 lest the "Giudei quali giornalmente vengono nella citta . . . havessero causa di andar ad habitar in elletione loro, in quale si voglia luogho et ire vagando nel tempo della notte, ma tutti in uno separato luogho ad essi specialmente deputato habitare," a street called "Loiarska uliza" should be set apart for them. The street and the four "case del comune" in it are carefully described and their inhabitants listed; the existence of six warehouses in those buildings is especially stressed. The "Provisores" then state that "besognera serrare el capo della ditta via . . . con uno muro buono e di competente altezza, tal che di notte non si possi schalare. Dal altro capo . . . bisogna elevare uno altro muro della medema altezza et ivi fare nel mezzo la porta per intrare ed uscire . . . e cossi serrandose la ditta via . . . li SS. Proveditori se persuadeno che li Hebrei quali venirano, serano molto accomodati per la loro habitazione nelle dette quattro case e harano similmente sei magazeni per reservare loro balle e mercantie." Naturally, that was not enough: "E perche glie necessario, per conseguire l'intento nostro che ditti Hebrei non vadino fuora di notte, pro vedere di una persona qual habbi avere la cura della porta se fara in detto muro," the "Proveditori" proposed that one person be appointed to keep the keys to the gate and "che ogni sera al sonare del Ave Maria ditto guardiano habbi serrare la porta e la matina medemamente al sonare del Ave Maria la debbia aprire, e quando alcuno Hebreo o Hebrea di notte fusse trovato fuora del ditto seraglio, caschi in quella pena sera dichiarita dal Conseglio di Pregadi." The Jews had to pay a personal and property tax to reimburse the government for the facilities it was providing them: "Che qualunque Hebreo o sera maschio o femena, putto o putta che ivi venira, per ogni mese habbi pagare mezzo ducato per capo, e stando manco di uno mese sia tenuto al ditto pagamento. Item che qualunque balla debbia per stallagio pagare grossi dua el mese," regardless of how long it stays there. The guardian of the ghetto was supposed to collect the taxes and to keep books on all the Jews and the taxes they paid. 43 Thus a fully organized Jewish ghetto took shape in Dubrovnik by 1546 and the Jews lived there peacefully and unharmed after this time. This does not mean, however, that no Jews after 1546 lived outside the ghetto. In the seventies of the sixteenth century, due to the largely maritime war waged by the Second Holy League against Turkey, Dubrovnik once again became the city to which numerous Balkan merchants sent their goods for shipment further west across the relatively peaceful Adriatic Sea. Numerous Jews from Istanbul, Thessalonika, and other places were among the merchants who came to Dubrovnik at this time. Simultaneously, a temporary expulsion of the Jews from the Papal State (1569-1572) and from Venice (1570-1573) increased their influx into Dubrovnik. 44 43 44

HAD, Consilium Rogatorum 47 fols. 249-249v. Tadic, Jevreji .73-74, 368-376. Ibid. 81.

XXI R O L E O F J E W S IN DUBROVNIK

269

This induced the Ragusans in June 1571 to limit the number of Jews allowed to enter or stay in the city to merchants and a few others, in addition to those already present. The size of the Jewish colony in Dubrovnik at this time can be best seen from two facts alone: first, in 1571 an additional area had to be provided for the expansion of the ghetto. But even after that, there were Jews, especially rich ones, who lived scattered in homes throughout Dubrovnik. Second, out of about fifty brokers active in Dubrovnik in 1572, there were thirty Jews, twelve foreigners and only seven Ragusans. The Jewish colony was headed at this time by a consul, whose exact authority is not very clear.45 It should be also noted, that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ragusans elected a number of Jews as their consuls in the important Albanian port of Valona. 46 Two prominent Jews present in Dubrovnik in the second half of the sixteenth century desérve particular attention. One is the Portuguese-born (1511) physician Don Joao Rodriguez, better known under the name "Amatus Lusitanus," who came to Dubrovnik toward the end of 1557 or early in 1558. He began practicing as a doctor, but was unable to obtain the Ragusan archbishop's authorization—necessary for any Jewish physician's work in Dubrovnik—and consequently lost the right to work. Nevertheless, he continued to take patients; but for some reason his presence was also strongly opposed by some influential noblemen in the Ragusan government. So, Amatus was induced to leave Dubrovnik between May and July 1558 and to go south, to Herzegovina. He never returned to Dubrovnik but in his famous "Centuriae" he mentions his stay in that city and some cases that he cured there. 47 The other interesting Jew in Dubrovnik at this time was the great poet "Didacus Pyrrhus" (whose name in documents is registered also as "Jacobus Flavius" and "Dr. Isaiah Cohen"). Born in Portugal in 1517, Didacus had traveled extensively through Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy and had arrived in Dubrovnik at the beginning of 1558. There he probably was active as an educator, but only privately, for he never became a teacher at the Ragusan high school. He also tried his luck at trade and finances, but does not seenl to have been very successful and his life was apparently spent in rather penurious circumstances. He remained in Dubrovnik from 1558 until 1599 and during this period published two volumes of poetry in Venice (1592 and 1595). His poems mention his life in Dubrovnik. Other poems were published elsewhere and several of them have been preserved in manuscript. Didacus was a talented poet, a man of excellent education. His knowledge of Latin and 45

Ibid. 81-83. I-bid. 361-364. 47 M. ReSetar, "Amat Luzitanac, dubrovacki ljekar XVI vijeka," Brankovo kolo 6 (1900) 39-41. L. Sik, Jevrejski lijecnici u Jugoslaviji (Karlovac 1931; German trans., Die jiidische Arzte in Jugoslawien Zagreb 1931). Tadié, Jevreji (n. 8 above) 276-297. 46

XXI 270 Greek languages and of western European literary production was certainly far superior to that of most educated Ragusans. There is no doubt, therefore, that this man influenced considerably the younger Ragusan intellectuals of his day, although it is not possible to evaluate the exact degree of that influence.48 ** *

What was the importance and the role of the Jews in Dubrovnik from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century? In answering this question, one must distinguish two periods: the one before 1500, and the one after that year. If a comparison is attempted between the role of the Jews and that of other foreigners in Dubrovnik before 1500, there can be no doubt that the Jewish role was not a conspicuous one. The Italians from various cities, people from the Balkan hinterland, Greeks and Levantines, Catalans and Aragonese—all of them certainly were more important for Dubrovnik's economic life and development in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than just a few Jewish physicians and merchants. If, however, we move into the sixteenth century, the situation changes considerably and the role of the Jews increases very much. They and the Marranos do become one of the major assets of Dubrovnik's economic activity and, with the exception of Italians and Balkan peoples, few other groups of foreigners in Dubrovnik could be compared with them. The thing to note, nevertheless, is that the role of the Jews in sixteenth-century Dubrovnik would diminish in time of peace around the city and in the Balkan and Mediterranean area, and would increase in time of war. This can be seen in the weakening of the Jewish presence and activity in Dubrovnik in the relatively peaceful situation in the fifties and sixties of the century, and in the strong increase in their numbers in the thirties and seventies, during the wars of the First and Second Holy Leagues. The reasons for this have been already mentioned. In addition to their economic role, some Jews were active in the cultural life of Dubrovnik. These were, certainly, people like Didacus Pyrrhus and Amatus Lusitanus, but also many Jewish doctors and others. Just how important their contribution to Dubrovnik's cultural development was, it is hardly possible to say anything definitive. It is important to note that the relations between the population of Dubrovnik and the Jews were, on the whole, good. The fact that the Jews and Marranos took relatively little part in the small local trade and that their commercial interests most of the time coincided with those of the Ragusans themselves, explains the absence of major hostility between the two communi48

Dj. Kôrbler, "Èivot i rad humanista Didaka Portugalca, napose u Dubrovniku," Rad JAZU 216 (1917) 1-169. Tadié, Jevreji 298-314.

XXI ROLE O F J E W S IN DUBROVNIK

271

ties. Only in t i m e s of economic difficulties, w h e n t h e competition b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s b e c a m e t o o h a r d , or w h e n o u t s i d e elements influenced t h e course of events, do w e f i n d conflicts b e t w e e n t h e m . 4 9 B u t e v e n t h e n , t h e cont i n u i t y of J e w i s h presence a n d a c t i v i t y in D u b r o v n i k w a s never l a s t i n g l y destroyed. T o w a r d t h e end of t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e R a g u s a n g o v e r n m e n t w a s exposed t o s t r o n g a n t i - J e w i s h pressures f r o m t h e p a p a c y a n d t h e local a r c h bishop, w h o w a n t e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e spirit of t h e C o u n t e r - R e f o r m a t i o n a n d t o c r e a t e a n a n t i - J e w i s h climate in D u b r o v n i k . T h e R a g u s a n g o v e r n m e n t — which n e v e r allowed t h e c h u r c h t o t a k e over political affairs of t h e s t a t e — skillfully a n d s t u b b o r n l y resisted t h e s e pressures f o r a long time, being a w a r e of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e J e w s for t h e city. T h u s , in spite of some blunders, it is possible t o say t h a t t h e b e h a v i o r of D u b r o v n i k t o w a r d t h e J e w s was, on t h e whole, m u c h b e t t e r t h a n t h a t of m a n y o t h e r w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n cities. T h a t was, certainly, a n a d d i t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n for t h e J e w s t o come a n d live t h e r e . T h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o D u b r o v n i k ^ d e v e l o p m e n t w a s s u b s t a n t i a l a n d in m a n y w a y s lasting. 5 0 D e p a r t m e n t of H i s t o r y U n i v e r s i t y of California Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A.

49 The most tragic of these cases was the trial and conviction of the prominent Jewish merchant Isaak Yeshurun, in 1622. See I. A. Kaznaèic, Processo di Isach Jesurun, israelita di Ragusa, nel 1622 (Dubrovnik 1882). T. Mortidjija, "Antisemitizam u Dubrovniku god. 1622," Vienac 15.1 (1883) 9-12. E. Levi, "Procès Jichaka JeSuruna u Dubrovniku," Jevrejski glas 5 (1931) 41-45. Tadic, Jevreji 119-134. 50 It might prove useful to add a few bibliographical items on the Jews in Dubrovnik, unlisted in previous notes: M. Levi, "Iz proSlosti jevrejske opStine u Dubrovniku," JA (1928-1929) 59-70; T. Mortidjija, "Ëidovi u starom Dubrovniku," Hrvatska straza, 6 (1934) 221-225; H. Kamhi, "Novopronadjeni dokumenti dubrovackog arhiva," JA (1954) 68-76; V. Vinaver, "O Jevrejima u Dubrovniku u XVIII veku," JA (1959-1960) 65-78. Most recently the Jewish Historical Museum in Belgrade has published its Zbornik 1 consecrated entirely to "Studije i gradja o Jevrejima Dubrovnika" (Studies and Documents about the Jews in Dubrovnik). This very interesting volume (Belgrade 1971) contains important articles on the Jews in that city for the period we dealt with here: R. Samardiic, "Dubrovacki Jevreji u trgovini XVI i XVII veka" (21-39); T. Popovié, "Dubrovnik i Ankona u jevrejskoj trgovini XVI veka" (41-53); B. Hrabak, "Jevreji u Albaniji od kraja XIII do kraja XVII veka i njihove veze sa Dubrovnikom" (55-97); L. Miinster, "Procès zbog 'ritualnog ubistva' u Dubrovniku 1502 godine i tragicna smrt lekara Mo§e Maralija" (99-112); M. Pantié, "Jevreji u dubrovackoj knjiZevnosti" (211-238); D. Nevenié-Grabovac, "Iz poezije Didaka Pira" (253-290); L. Gleisinger, "Dubrovaèki lijecnik Amatus Lusitanus" (291-312); M. GuSic, "Neki primjerci tekstila u zbirci sinagoge jevrejske opcine u Dubrovniku" (325-336); Z. Efron, Jevrejski nadgrobni spomenici u Dubrovniku" (337-340). In addition, this volume contains the reprints of three fragments from the valuable and very rare book by J. Tadié, Jevreji.

INDEX Abraham,Jewish surgeon: XXI 263 Abruzzi: I I I 67 A c c i a i u o l i , F l o r e n t i n e family: I 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 8 - 3 1 , 3 4 - 3 8 ; I V 391; VIII 246;IX 708;XIX 379 -Raynerius ,Neriç>: XV 189,190 Achaea: I I I 66 Adrianople,Peace o f : XVII 9 , 1 4 A d r i a t i c Sea (Culphus,Golfo): I 2 5 , 4 0 ; I I 25,27; I I I 63,67; IV 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 6 , 3 9 8 , 4 0 0 ; V 71-73,76-78,80,85,86,92,96, 101;V 1 - 3 , 5 - 7 , 9 - 1 2 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 2 1 , 25;VIII 241;IX 708,709;X 205, 211,214,219;XII 64;XIII 125; XIV 413;XIX 3 7 5 , 3 7 8 , 3 8 6 , 3 9 2 ; XX 311,312;XXI 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 7 , 268 Agostino di Biagio,from Prato: IX 709 Albania,Albanian: V 94;VII 382, 390;VIII 243;XIV 421;XVII 7,10; XIX 379,381,384,387-89;XXI 259, 260-63,269 A l b e r t i , F l o r e n t i n e f a m i l y : II 27, 28 A l b i z z i , F l o r e n t i n e family: II 27, 28 -Maso d e g l i : II 27,28 A l d i g h e r i , A l d i g h e r o : XIX 379 - F e l e : XIX 378 Alexandria: I I I 65,68;X 206 A l e x a n d r i n u s , S t a s i u s , f r o m Messina: X 210 Alfonso V,king of Aragon (1416-58) and Naples ( 1 4 4 2 - 5 8 ) : X 212-18; XVII 5;XX 312 A l i g h i e r i , D a n t e : I I 27 Altomanovié,Nikola,Serbian nobleman: V 86;XII 65 Amatus Lusitanus: s e e Rodriguez, Joao American Continent: XXI 259 A n a c t a r o p o l i s : XVI 353 Ancona,Anconitan: I 3 2 ; I I I 66; VI 18,24;IX 708;XV 190;XIX 383; XXI 262 Angelo,from Cotrone: I I I 69 Angora: XIV 420 Anna,from Constantinople: XIII 126 Ansalone,Nicholaus,physician

from Catania: X 211 Anssuinus,from Murano: I I 20,21 Antibaro: s e e Bar Anzio: VI 6 , 9 Apennine Peninsula: VIII 241 Apulia ( P u g l i a ) : I 2 9 , 3 5 ; I I I 6369;V 84;VI 5 , 6 , 1 8 - 2 0 , 3 2 , 3 3 ; VIII 249;IX 708;X 206,209-211, 213,216,217;XVIII 5;XIX 377; XXI 261 Aquila: IX 710 A q u i l e i a , P a t r i a r c h o f : VI 11 Aragon,Aragonese: VI 31;X 205-15, 217-219;XVII 5;XX 311;XXI 258, 270 d'Aragon,don Louis: XV 190 Argenteriys,Adam de,notary in Lecce: IX 712 Argos: XV 189 Aron,Rabbi,Jew from Lecce: XXI 261 Arta: I I I 66,67 Asan (Asanes),Byzantine family: XVI 347,349,353 -Alexander: XV 188;XVI 350-54 - A l e x i o s : XVI 354 -Anna Asanina Kontostefanina: XVI 354 -Anna Asanina P a l a i o l o g i n a : XVI 354 -Constantine: XVI 347,349 - I s a a c : XVI 349 -John (Jean) I I I : XVI 347 - I r e n e , h i s w i f e : XVI 347 -Marcus de Bernardo: XV 188; XVI 349-54 - I r e n e (Herina d i c t a Axania), h i s mother: XV 188;XVI 350-55 -Simonis P a l a i o l o g i n a Asanina: XVI 349 Asen I , B u l g a r i a n t s a r ( 1 1 8 6 - 9 6 ) : XVI 353 -Alexander.,his son: XVI 353 A s i a , A s i a n , A s i a t i c : VIII 245; XIV 422 -Minor: XI 1;XII 63;XVII 10 A s s i s i : I I 20 Astrucho quondam Jacobi d i c t u s Bonaventura,Jew from C a t a l o n i a : XXI 260 Athens: I I I 68,69;XV 191 Athos: see Mount Athos

Augusta: X 216 A u s t r i a î XVII 2 Badoer,Venetian family: XIX 379 Bagnesis,Philippus,Peruzzi a s s o c i a t e : I 26,30 Baldella,Venetian family: XIX 379 -Francesco: XIX 380 Balkans: I 2 5 , 2 6 , 3 3 , 4 0 ; I I 20; IV 3 8 9 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 , 3 9 6 - 4 0 1 ; V 71,83;VI 2;VII 379,394; VIII 2 4 1 - 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 2 4 8 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 1 , 253,254;IX 707-11,713,714; X 206,212,214;XI 1 , 2 , 5 - 8 ; XIV 4 1 3 - 2 0 , 4 2 2 , 4 2 3 , 4 2 5 , 4 2 7 ; XVII 1 , 2 , 1 0 , 1 3 ; X V I I I 6;XIX 375-77,380,381,386,388,39294;XX 311,312,314,315;XXI 257-59,261-64,266-68,270 B a l S i é , S e r b i a n noble f a m i l y : XII 65;XIX 388 -BalSa: V 94;VI 19,21;XVI 354 Bar (Antibaro): VI 16;IX 712; XIX 391 Barcelona: X 206,207,210 B a r d i , F l o r e n t i n e f a m i l y : I 25-38; I I 21;IV 391;VIII 246;IX 708; XI 4;XIX 379 Bari: I I 2 9 ; I I I 64-66;X 215,217; XII 64 B a r i g i a n o , N i c o l a , V e n e t i a n in Thessalonika: XI 7 B a r l e t t a : I 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 5 , 3 6 ; I I I 65; X 209,210;XXI 263 barley: I 26,28,29,30,32,33,38; XVII 9 Barozzo,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 B a r t h o l a m e u s , f r a , v i c a r i u s Bossine: V 100 Bartholameus,from Sorento: X 217 Bartholomeus de Antonio, Venetian: XVI 352 Bartholus,Count of Senj: I I 25 Bastari,Florentine family, -Giovenco: I I 27-31 - P h i l i p p o c i u s : I I 29-31 - P h i l i p p u s : I I 27-29,31 Bayonne: I I I 67 B e l f r e d e l l i , F l o r e n t ine f a m i l y , -Angelus: IX 712 -Antonius: IX 712 -Bernardus: IX 712 Belgrade: IX 707;X 205;XXI 265, 266,271 Bellomo,Antonius,from Syracuse: X 210

Bencius J o h a n n i s , A c c i a i u o l i a s s o c i a t e : I 28 Bencivenni,But inus,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 26 Benedictus,former Jew, p h y s i c i a n : XXI 260 Bernardo,Venetian f a m i l y , -Andrea: XVI 354 -Francesco: XVI 3 4 9 , 3 5 0 , 3 5 3 , 354 - I r e n e : s e e Asan,Irene (Herina) -Marcus: s e e Asan,Marcus - N i c o l a s : XVI 349,350 -Paulus: XVI 349-54 -Paulus Johannis,Venetian notary: XVI 35 4 - P e t r u s : XVI 354 Bernardo,family from Prato, -Bernardus N i c o l e : IX 712 -Gabriel N i c o l e : IX 712,713 - N i c o l a : IX 712 Bernardus Catelanus: IX 712 Bertinus A n d r e e , A c c i a i u o l i a s s o c i a t e : I 26,28 Biegman,N.: XXI 258 Blachernae church: XVI 355 Black Sea: VI 1,2;XIV 416 Blagajski,Grgur,Croatian nobleman: XIX 388 B l a s i u s , g o l d s m i t h from Venice: XIV 415,417,425 Bobaljevié (Babalio),Michael, p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: V 87 Bogdassa: XXI 260 Bogomil h e r e s y : XIV 413 Bohemia: VIII 251 Boksic,Djore,Zore,Bosnian nobleman: I I 29,30 Bollani,Venetian family: XIX 379 Bonciani,Gasparus,from Florence IX 711 Boncii,Franciscus,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I I 28 Bono,Venetian family: XIX 379 Bonsignore P h y l i p p i , B a r d i a s s o c i a t e : I I 29 Bonvisino,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 Borac: XVIII 9 Bosnia,Bosnian: I 2 6 ; I I 29,30; IV 398,399;V 93,99,100;VI 4,5 7 , 1 4 - 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 7 - 2 9 , 3 1 ; V I I 379, 383-93;VIII 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 51;IX 708;X 206,212-14;XI 1; XIV 4 1 3 , 4 1 4 , 4 1 7 - 1 9 , 4 2 1 - 2 6 ;

INDEX XVI 349;XVII 12,15;XVIII 1 , 2 , 9 ; XIX 3 7 5 , 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 , 3 8 8 , 393;XX 311;XXI 257,264,266 Bosphorus: VI 1;XII 63 B o z i c , I . ! I I 20;IX 707;XVII 16 Brabant: IX 713 B r a n i v o j e v i e , S e r b i a n noble f a m i l y : XIV 415 Brankovie,Serbian noble family - D j u r a d i j (George),Serbian despot ( 1 4 2 7 - 5 6 ) : XVII 1 , 3 , 6 , 9 ; XVIII 1,4;XIX 388 -Vuk: XIV 420 Brienne,Walter VI: I I I 68,69 B r i n d i s i : I I I 64,65,67;V 93 B r i t t a n y : IX 713 Brskovo: XIV 414,415 B r s t a n i k : I I 29 Brunorus domini B e n e i n s i g n i e (Boninsegna) from Florence: IX 710,712 Buca ( B u c h i a ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Kotor and Dubrovnik -Michael: XIV 418 -P et. ar : XIV 416 - T r i p e : XIV 417 Buda: VI 29;XVII 10,17 Budacic ( B o d a z a ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik -Michael: V 84 -Thoderus: I 37 Budva: V 76;VI 7 , 1 6 Buldu,Johannes,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 2 9 ; I I 21 B u l g a r i a , B u l g a r i a n : I 33;VII 381, 383,386,388-93;XIV 416,420,428; XVI 347;XIX 383;XXI 266,267 Bunic ( B o n a ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik: V 99,100 - B e n e d i c t u s : I I I 68 -Luca: V 8 1 , 8 4 , 9 7 , 9 8 -Marinus: V 75,88 -Marinus Thome: X 218 -Matheus: I I I 68 -Zupanus: X 210 Buonaccorsi,Bonacorso,Florent ine f a m i l y : I 2 5 , 3 5 - 3 8 ; V I I I 246; IX 708;XIX 379 - G i a n i : I 30 Buono ( s e e S a c c h e t t i ) , B e n c i u s d e l : I 2 9 , 3 0 , 3 5 - 3 7 ; V I I I 247;XI 3 , 4 ; XIX 380 Burgundy: XVII 5 , 8 Byzantium,Byzantine ( s e e a l s o Romania): I 3 6 ; I I 24;IV 390, 391;V 85;VI 1 , 6 , 8 , 1 3 , 2 3 , 2 6 ; X 212;XI 1 - 3 , 5 , 6 ; X I I 62-65; XIII 124,129;XIV 420,426;XV 187,

188,191;XVI 347,349,354;XVII 2,6;XVIII 1,2,6-8;XIX 375;XXI 257,265 Galbus,Jacobus,Venetian i n the Balkans: XIV 414 Calecas,Manuel: XVI 347 Çanchanus,Jacomellus,from Venice: V 84 Gandia: I I I 66;V 85,96;VI 28; XIII 125;XV 187;XXI 260 Çanebon,from Venice: V 84 Çaninus Jacobi P a s q u a l i s , f r o m Venice: I I 22 Gantacuzenus,Byzantine noble f a m i l y : XVI 349 -Helen,widow of Louis of Aragon: XV 190 - H e l e n , w i f e of the Emperor John V: XVI 35 4 -John VI,Byzantine emperor ( 1 3 4 7 - 5 4 ) : XII 63 -Matthew,his son: XVI 355 Capistrano,John: XXI 266 Garamania: XVII 10 Carrara,Francesco,lord of Padua: VI 10,11 Carrère,C.: IX 711 Carter,F.W.: XXI 258 Catalans,Catalonia,Catalan: I I I 67,68;VI 32;IX 711-13; X 205-207,210,211,215-18; XIX 380,381,387 ,394;XX 315; XXI 260,261,270 Catania: X 211 Cauce,Venetian in the Balkans: XIV 414 Cavtat: VI 7 , 1 4 Cecapesse,Aniel (Amel).from Naples: IX 711;X 208,210 Cephisus: I I I 68 Cer,mountain in Serbia: XVIII 4,5 cereals ( s e e also grains,wheat, barley): I 26,28,32,35,38,40; I I I 6 4 - 6 7 , 6 9 ; V I I I 246 Cesarini,Cardinal Giuliano: XVII 2,10 C e s s i , R . : V 79 Charles I I , k i n g of Naples ( 1 2 8 5 - 1 3 0 9 ) : I I I 65,67 Charles I I I , k i n g of Naples ( 1 3 8 1 - 8 5 ) : V 95 Charles of Calabria: IV 391 C h e r p a , N i c o l a , p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: V 80 Chiarmontesi (Charmontesis), Fortebraccius,Buonaccorsi

-4-

a s s o c i a t e : I 35 Chierini,Martinus,from Florence: VIII 249 Chioggia: IV 396,401;V 78;VI 1, 7,10,12,17-20,25,30,32;XIX 380,383,386,388 Chios: I I 2 5 ; I I I 65,66 Chrysopolis: XVI 353 Çilippa,Çelipa,Zilippa, p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik, -Marinus: V 92 -Rade: 92,100 Ciompi: I I 27 C i r c a s s i a n s : VII 3 8 1 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 5 88,390-93 Ó i r k o v i c , S . : V i l i 250;XIX 389; XXI 266 Çiurano,Stephanus,from Venice: VIII 244 C i v i t a v e c c h i a : I I 30 C l a r e n t i a : I 30,31 Cohen,Dr.Isaiah: s e e Pyrrhus, Didacus Comnenus,Joanes,despot of VaIona: XIV 427 Condo lmer ,Condo l i n i e r i , Venetian f a m i l y : IX 378 -Cardinal: XVII 12 Constantinople ( s e e a l s o I s t a n b u l ) : I 3 6 ; I I 2 9 ; I I I 65, 66;IV 389,392;VI 1 , 6 , 8 ; V I I I 247;X 206;XI 1-8;XII 63,64; XIII 124,126,127;XIV 416,420; XVI 347,350-54;XVII 3 , 5 , 1 2 , 1 4 ; XX 311 Constantio,from Coron: XVI 350,352 Contarini,Contareno,Venet ian f a m i l y : XIX 378 -Benedetto: XIV 416,417 -Çaninus quondam ser Dardi: V 75 - F i l i p p o : XIII 125 - S t e f a n o : XIV 416,417 copper: I 26;IV 393;V 71;VIII 241; IX 708;XII 64;XIV 413; XIX 376;XXI 257 Corfu: I I 3 0 , 3 1 ; I I I 66,67;V 86; X 207;XIII 128;XVII 8 , 9 ; XIX 383 Corinth: XV 189,190 Cornaro,Corner,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 - A l o i s i u s : V 84 -Lodovico: V 79 - P i e t r o : VI 21 Coron: I I 30;XIII 126,127;XV 188,

189;XVI 350,352 Cotrone: I I I 67,69;X 216 Cremona: XIX 390 Crete,Cretan: I I 2 3 - 2 7 ; I I I 65; V 79,80,85;VI 12,24;XIIÏ 124, 125,127;XV 188 Crijevic (Zrieva),patrician family from Dubrovnik -Jacobus Martoli (Jakov): XVIII 2 , 4 - 7 -Martolus: XVIII 2 , 9 - N i c o l i n u s Martoli ( N i k o l i n ) : XVIII 2 , 4 - 7 - P e t r u s : V 85 -Stephanus ( S t i j e p o ) : XVIII 5 , 6 -Jacobus ( J a k o v ) , h i s son: XVIII 6 C r i m o l i s s i , J o h a n n e s , f r o m Coron: XV 189,190 Crna Gora: s e e Montenegro Croatia,Croatian: II 27;IV 400; V 72;VI 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 1 4 - 1 6 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 28,31;XIV 413;XIX 377,388,390; XXI 257,264,265 Crossi,Croce: s e e Krusic Culphus,Golfo: s e e A d r i a t i c Sea Cunçapere,Jacobellus,from Venice: XIII 127 Cyprus: I I 24;XIII 124,126,127 Cydones,Demetrius: XVI 347 Dalmatia,DaImatian: I 2 6 ; I I 25, 27;IV 392;V 7 1 , 7 2 , 7 7 , 7 8 , 1 0 1 ; VI 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 - 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 3 , 2 6 , 3 2 , 3 3 ; V I I 379;VIII 241-43, 247,249;IX 708;XIII 125,127; XIV 414,421;XV 190;XIX 375, 377,378,380,383,384,386,387, 389,391,392;XX 312;XXI 257, 261,264-66 Dandolo,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Marco: XIV 421,424 Danube: XVII 4 Dardanelles: VI 15XVII 1 , 8 Darius,from Manfredonia: X 217 D a t i n i , F . M . , f r o m Prato: IX 709 Datus,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 29; I I 21 David,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Davidsohn,R.: I 2 8 , 3 2 , 3 7 Delfino,Venetian family: XIX 379 De Roover,Fiorenee Edler: I I 27

-5-

Designa N i c o l e Greci: I I 22 D i n i c , M . : XVIII 6 Dinic-Knezevic,D.: I 32,38-40 Dionisius,Hungarian nobleman: XIX 390 Diversis,Philippus de,de Q u a r t i g i a n i s , f r o m Lucca: I 39 Djurdjevic (Georgio), p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik, -Damianus (Damjan): XVIII 4 -Marcus: V 82 doctors: see physicians Doge of Venice: IV 391,395; V 7 2 , 7 9 , 8 1 , 9 5 , 9 6 ; V I 10,21; X 212,213;XI 4 , 5 ; X I I I 127,128; XIV 4 1 5 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 8 - 2 0 , 4 2 8 ; XIX 389,390 D o n a t e l l o , f r o m Venice: XIII 128 Donato,glassmaker from Murano: I I 20 Donatus A l e g r e t i , f r o m Otranto: IX 712 Donna,Bartholomeus de l a , goldsmith and Venetian consul in Dubrovnik: XIX 386 Doria (De Aurea),Genoese family -Luciano: VI 7 , 9 -Simon: V 88-91 Drina: XVIII 9 Drzic ( D e r s a ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik -Jacobus: V 88 -Michael: V 80,88 -Nichsa: V 80 Durazzo (Dyrrachium): I I I 67; V 75;VI 31,33;VII 389;XII 64; XXI 260 Dusan: s e e S t e f a n Dusan Egypt: I I I 68;VI 2;XVII 1; XXI 264 Emerich,Prince of Imotski: VI 28 England,Englishman: I 29;VI 32; XV 191;XVII 5;XXI 259 Epirus: VI 19 Eugenius IV,pope ( 1 4 3 1 - 4 7 ) : XVII 2 , 3 , 5 Eugubio,Franciscus de G a b r i e l i b u s , f r o m Florence: I I 28 F a c i u s , f r o m Venice: V 87 Falier,Venetian family: XIX 379 -Marino: XIV 428

Famagusta: I I I 65;VI 28 Fança,Antonius Dominici,from Padua: I I 22 Farer,Josephus,Catalan Jew: XXI 261 Farone,Antonius,from Gaeta: IX 712 Fei,Johannes,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 31-34 Ferdinand I (Don F e r r a n t e ) , king of Naples ( 1 4 5 8 - 9 4 ) : XIX 381 Ferrara,Marquis o f : XIV 418 Feus Leonis,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 26,27,37 Filingerius,Johannes,from Syracuse: X 206,207 Fiorini,Vicentius,Peruzzi a s s o c i a t e : I 36 Firmo: VI 27 F i s k o v i c , C . : XIV 426 Flanders: I I 28;IX 708,710; XV 191 Florence,Florentine: I 25,26, 28-31,34-41;II 20,21,27-31; I I I 65;IV 391;V 79;VI 33; VII 383,389;VIII 245-47, 249,254;IX 707-12;XI 2-4; XIII 125;XVIII 1,17;XIX 37880,385 F l o r i o , f a m i l y from Manfredonia, -Darius: X 217 -Johannes: X 210,217 Fonta,Çaninus d e l à , V e n e t i a n in Constantinople: XI 7 Fortore: I I I 66 France,French: IX 708,712; XXI 269 F r a n c i s c u s , c o u n t i n Manfredonia: X 210 Franciscus,speciarius,pharmacist i n Dubrovnik: VIII 245;XI 4; XIX 378 F r a t e r n i t i e s in Dubrovnik: XIX 389 -St.Anthony 1 s ( A n t u n i n i ) : XIX 389 F r i u l i : VI 10,11 Gaeta: I I 3 0 ; I I I 68;IX 712; X 216 Gaj i c - L o n c a r , R . : I I 20 G a l l i p o l i : XVII 5 , 8 , 1 0 Garçonibus,Franciscus de,from Venice: XVI 252 Geçço,Marco,Venetian in Constantinople: XI 7

-6-

Genoa,Genoese (Januenses): I I 2 4 , 2 6 ; I I I 65;IV 391;V 72, 92,94,96;VI 1-3,5-14,16-25, 28-33;X 211;XIII 125;XVII 5; XIX 378,386,387,389-91;XXI 266 George,Georgius: VIII 249 George,from Florence! I I 20 George,from Milan: IX 712 George,from Zagreb: I I 25 Georgio: s e e Djurdjevic Germans: VIII 25;IX 708;XIX 379 G h e r r i , f a m i l y from Prato, - S t e f a n u s : IX 712 -Gherius S t e f a n i : IX 712 - N i c o l a u s S t e f a n i : IX 712 -Petrus S t e f a n i : IX 712 Giorgio,Venetian family: XIX 379 -Çaninus: VIII 243;XIV 417, 418,427 -Franceschino: XIV 427 Giudecca,in Dubrovnik: XXI 261 G i u d i o v i c h , f a m i l y from Dubrovnik: XXI 262 Giuliano d i Giacomo,from Florence: IX 710 Giuliano di Marco,from Prato: IX 712 Giustinian,Venetian family: XIX 379 -Pancrazio: XIII 126 g l a s s , g l a s s w o r k : I 2 9 ; I I 19-23; IV 393;XIV 417;XIX 379 g o l d : I I I 64;V 7 6 , 8 3 , 8 6 , 9 9 ; VI 31;VIII 244;XIX 376 Golden Horn: XVI 355 g o l d s m i t h s : IV 3 9 l ; X I I I 127; XIV 415,417,425,426;XIX 379, 386 G o l f o : s e e A d r i a t i c Sea Gradenigo,Gradonico,Venet ian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Toma: XIII 125 Gradic ( G r a d i ) , M a r t i n , p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: XIV 416,426 grains (see also cereals,wheat): I 2 6 , 2 9 , 3 2 , 3 8 - 4 0 ; V 75,100; VI 6 , 2 8 , 3 1 ; X 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 , 217;XIII 124;XIX 393 GrassijBartholameus,from Venice: I I 30 Greece,Greek: I I 2 3 , 2 7 , 3 0 ; I I I 66-68;VI 385,390;X 206,212; XII 625X111 127,128;XV 187, 189-91;XVI 354;XVII 7 , 1 1 ; XVIII 5;XIX 379;XXI 259,270

Gregorius Johannis,Peruzzi a s s o c i a t e : I 28,36 Grimani,Giacomo,Jacobus, Venetian p a t r i c i a n : XIV 418,4l9;XV 189,190 Gucetic ( G o z z e ) , D j i v o , p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: XVIII 5 Guidoto,from Padua: XIII 127 Gundulic ( G o n d o l a ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik - N i c o l a u s : V 90 -Paulus: I I 29,30 Guoro,Venetian family -Georgius: I I 26 -Marcus,Marco : I I 26;XIX 386 G u z z i , f a m i l y from Florence -Antonio di Giorgio: IX 712 - G i o r g i o : IX 710-12 -Giorgio di Giorgio: VIII 249;IX 710-12 -Matteo di Giorgio: IX 712 H a l e c k i , 0 . : XVII 9 , 1 0 , 1 4 - 1 6 Hapsburgs: XXI 265 Heliseus Johannis,Acciaiuoli a s s o c i a t e : I 28 Helen,Hungarian Queen: XVII 2 H e l e n , w i f e of S t e f a n Dusan: XVI 354 H e l l e s p o n t : XVII 11 Henry VI,king of England ( 1 4 2 2 - 6 1 , 1 4 7 0 - 7 1 ) : XVII 5 H e r l i h y , D . : XIX 378 Herzegovina: XIX 388; XXI 264,269 Hieronymus,Johannis,from Florence: IX 711 Hieronymus,from Prato: IX 710 H o s p i t a l l e r s of Rhodes: V 76 Hranic,Sandalj,Bosnian nobleman: XIX 387 Hrebeljanovic,Lazar,Serbian p r i n c e ( 1 3 7 1 - 8 9 ) : XIX 388 Hum ( s e e a l s o Zahumlje): VI 5 , 6 , 2 7 , 2 9 Hungary,Hungarian: I I 24,27; I I I 67; IV 395,396,400;V 71, 72,87-93,96,101;VI 1-16,18, 19,21,23,25-27,29,30,33; VIII 251;IX 708;X 205,207, 209,212,213;XIV 413;XVI 354;XVII 1 - 7 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 3 ; XIX 383,386,390;XXI 257, 258,266 Hunyadi,Janos,Hungarian general

-7-

and s t a t e s m a n ( c . 1 3 8 7 - 1 4 5 6 ) : X 218;XVII 2 , 4 , 9 H u s s i t e wars: VIII 251 I m o t s k i : VI 28 Impastor,Petrus,from Valencia: X 206 i r o n : I 26;V 7 1 ; V I I I 241;IX 708, 711;XII 64;XIV 413;XIX 376; XXI 257 I s a c , J e w i s h p h y s i c i a n : XXI 263 Istanbul ( s e e also Constantinople): XXI 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 I s t r i a : VI 10 Italy,Italian:!25,26,28-30,34-36, 3 8 , 4 0 , 4 1 ; I I 19;IV 3 9 1 - 9 3 , 3 9 6 ; V 73;VI 2 , 1 7 , 2 1 ; V I I 3 8 0 , 3 9 4 ; VIII 241-43,246,247,249,251, 253,254;IX 707,708,711,712; X 205-208,212,218;XI 4,5;XII 64,65;XIV 4 1 3 , 4 1 8 , 4 2 6 , 4 2 7 ; XV 190;XVII 2 , 5 ; X V I I I 6;XIX 375-81,387,392-94;XX 311,312, 315;XXI 2 5 7 - 5 9 , 2 6 1 - 6 4 , 2 6 7 , 269,270 Jacobus,physician from Trogir: V 95 Jacobus,Jew from Catalonia: XXI 260 J a c o p i n o , f r o m F l o r e n c e : XIII 125 J e r e m i c , R . : I 39 Jeronimus: s e e Hieronymus J e w s , J e w i s h : VI 19;XIV 429; XIX 379;XXI 259-71 J i r e c e k , K . : I I 20;XIV 426,427; XVI 353 Joan (Giovanna) II,Queen of Naples ( 1 4 1 4 - 3 5 ) : IX 711 J o h a n n e s , f r o m Modrusa: I I 25 J o h a n n e s , G r e e k , f r o m Taranto: I I I 66 Johannes N i c o l a i , G r e e k from Candia: XV 191 Johannes P e t r i : I 3 0 , 3 5 Johannes de S . S o f i a : V 83 Johannes l a n i f i c u s , f r o m P r a t o : IX 712 -Michael J o h a n n i s : IX 712 -Johannes J o h a n n i s : IX 712 - F r a n c i s c u s J o h a n n i s : IX 712 John ( I v a n ) A l e x a n d e r , B u l g a r i a n Tsar ( 1 3 3 1 - 7 1 ) : XIV 420; XVI 353;XXI 266 Jovan U g l j e s a , S e r b i a n nobleman: XII 62 Jubkovic,Milosav: I I 21 -Radula: I I 21

-Tolislava:

II

21

Kanina: XVII 7 K i s i l i c i c , s h i p o w n e r s from Dubrovnik: X 206 -Simko: XVII 7 , 8 , 1 1 Kolocep: V 99;XIII 126; XVIII 6 Konavle: XVIII 4 Kontostefanos,Anna Asanina: XVI 354 - A l e x i o s : XVI 353 -John ( J e a n ) : XVI 353 K o r c u l a : V 95 Kosovo: XIV 420;XIX 388 Kotor ( C a t t a r o ) : I 34; I I 2 5 , 26;IV 393;V 7 9 , 8 4 , 9 9 ; V I 4 , 7,8,10,13-17,25,28-31;VIII 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 ; I X 710;XII 6 4 , 6 5 ; XIV 418,426;XV 189;XIX 3 8 4 , 387-89,391 K o t r o m a n i c , S t j e p a n I , b a n of Bosnia ( 1 2 8 7 / 9 0 - 1 3 1 4 ) : XIV 419 K o v a c e v i c - K o j i c , D . : XIV 425 Krakow: XVII 17 Krusic ( C r o s s i , C r o s i o , C r o c e ) , p a t r i c i a n f a m i l y from Dubrovnik - J a c h e : V I I I 244 - M a r g a r i t u s : XIX 391 Kupari: XVIII 4 Kynegos ( C h y n i g o ) : XV 188; XVI 3 5 0 , 3 5 2 , 3 5 5 Laçarus,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 LacUjSansonus d e , f r o m O t r a n t o : IX 712 L a d i s l a s , k i n g of Naples ( 1 3 8 6 - 1 4 1 4 ) : V 101 Lamara,Bernabò de: X 215 L a n e , F . C . : XIX 378 Lanfranchi,Lanfranchini,de Vinacesis,from Prato, -Bartolomeus R i d o l f i ( R o d u l f i ) : IX 712 - C i o n e : I 28 - F r a n c i s c u s R i d o l f i : IX 711,712 -Johannes R i d o l f i : IX 712 - R i d o l f u s ( R o d u l f u s ) : IX 711, 712 Lastovo ( L a g o s t a ) : I 29 L a t i n Empire: IV 389 L a t i n a j N i c o l a u s d e , f r o m Messina: X 208 Lazarevic,Stefan,Serbian prince and despot ( 1 3 9 2 - 1 4 2 7 ) :

-8-

XIV 416,417,421;XIX 388 lead: I 2 6 ; I I 29,30;V 7 1 , 9 1 ; V I I I 241; IX 708;X 216;XII 64;XIV 413,418,419;XIX 376,386;XXI 257 Lecce: I I I 65,69;IX 712;XXI 261 Lechacorno,Gasparus de: IX 711 Lemerle,P.: XVI 353,354;XVIII 8 Leo,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Leon,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 Leonardo,Marco,Venetian consul in Varna: XIV 428 Levant,Levantine: I 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 6 ; I I 2 3 ; I I I 63-69;IV 392,393; V 76,78,92;VI 1 , 6 , 9 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 3 1 ; V I I 379,394;VIII 241,242,251;X 208,212;XI 1 , 2 ; XII 123-29;XIV 4 1 3 , 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 , 429;XV 187-89,191;XVII 8 , 1 2 , 16;XIX 375,379,381,387;XXI 257,259,261,263,270 L e v i , C . A . : I I 19 Lido ( V e n i c e ) : VI 10 L j u b i c , S . : IV 399;V 7 7 , 7 9 , 8 9 , 9 0 ; VI 32 L o e n e r t z , R « - J . : XVI 347,349 Lokrum: VI 18,27 Lombardo,Lucas,Venetian notary: XVI 351,353 London: XV 191 L o p e z , R . S . : XIX 376,378 Loredan,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 - B e r t u c c i o : VI 28 Louis (Lajos) I the Great,king of Hungary ( 1 3 4 2 - 8 2 ) : I I 24,27; V 71,72,90,96;XXI 257 Lucas,from Murano: I I 20,21 Lucas,from Trogir: I I 25 Lucca: IX 710,712;XIX 378 Lukarevic ( L u c c a r i ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik - N i c o l a : V 88 -Stephanus: V 98 Maffei,Giovanni,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 28 Maffeus,from Murano: I I 20,23 Maglier,Symon,Jew from Provence: XXI 260 Mahnken,I.: V 82,99;XIX 391 M a l i p i e r o , N i c o l o , V e n e t i a n in Constantinople: XIII 127 Malta: VI 19;XXI 260 Manfredonia: I I I 64,65;VI 20; X 210-12 Mantua (Mantova): V 80;IX 708 Maramaldus,de Maramaldis, Landulfus,from Naples: X 209,

213

Maramoldo,Antonio,from Trani: X 215 Marano: VI 10,13,30 Marche: I I I 66;VIII 249 Marcus p i l i ç a r i u s : XIV 414 Mariano,Marinus de,from Venice: V 79 Marinçius,de Pago: II 25 Marinus,from Venice: XIV 414 Maritsa: VI 2 M a r i t z a , s l a v e from Russia: IX 712 Marra,Jacobus de,from Bari ( ? ) : X 217 Marranos: XXI 2 6 2 - 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 7 , 270 M a r s e i l l e s : X 206;XXI 261 M a r s i l i u s , J e w from B a r l e t t a : XXI 263 Matheus,from Trogir: I I 22 Matheus,notary,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Matkovic,P.: VI 30 M e d i c i , F l o r e n t i n e family: I I 28 -Cosimo: XVII 12 Mediterranean: IV 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 2 , 396;V 73;VI 26;VII 379,394; VIII 242;X 206,207;XI 2; XII 64;XIII 128;XIV 423;XV 187, 191;XX 311,312;XXI 259,267,270 M e l i s , F e d e r i g o : IX 709 Memmo,Venetian family: XIX 379 Mencetic ( M e n z e ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik -Demetrius: V 80 - F i l i p p a : V 79 -Margherita: V 79 -Marinus: V 93 -Martinussius: V 79 Messina: X 207 Metochites,Theodore: XII 64 Michel,Marino,Venetian: I 36 Michel,surgeon,from Mantua: V 80 Michele di Giovannino,from Prato: IX 712 Michiel,Bertuccio,Venetian "bailo" in Constantinople: XIII 124 Milan: I I 20;VI 21;IX 712;XVII 5, 14;XIX 390 M i l g o s t , s o n of Obrad: I I 20 Milt i n , c o u r i e r : XI 5 M i l u t i n , k i n g of Serbia: s e e Stefan mines,mining,minerals : I 2 6 , 3 3 , 40;IV 393,399;V 71;VIII 241,242, 248,250,251,254;IX 708,714;X 206;XI 1;XII 64;XIV 413,414,

-9-

416,420,422,427;XVIII 4 , 5 ; XIX 375,377,388,393;XX 311; XXI 257,258 Miorato,Milloratus,Nicoletto, Venetian consul i n Dubrovnik: XIX 386 M i t i c , ! . : I I 26;XIX 386 Modon: I I I 66;XIII 126,127;XV 188;XVII 8,15 Modrusa (Modrusia): II 25 M o l f e t t a : I I I 64,67 Molino,Lunardo de,from Venice: I 28 Monasteries : -San Andrea,Dubrovnik: V 83, 92,97 -Franciscans,Dubrovnik: V 92, 97,100 - F r a n c i s c a n s , S t o n : V 95,100 - P a k l i n a , S i p a n : V 100 -Santa Clara,Dubrovnik: V 95 Monopoli: I I I 65;XIII 128 Montello,Antonius de,from Candia: V 85 Montenegro (Crna Gora): VIII 243,247; IX 708 Morea: XVII 3,6,10;XX 311 Moro s i n i , V e n e t i a n f a m i l y : XIX 379 Mostate,Jacobus,from Gaeta: X 216,217 Mount Athos: XII 62 M o i s e s , s o n of M a r s i l i u s from B a r i e t t a , J e w , p h y s i c i a n in Dubrovnik: XXI 263 Moyses,son of notary Matheus, Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Moyses,son of Salomon,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Mrnjavcevic,Uglj e s a , S e r b i a n nobleman: XII 92 Mudazzo,Venetian commander in Tenedos: VI 24,25 Muhammad the Conqueror, Ottoman s u l t a n ( 1 4 5 1 - 8 1 ) : XXI 262 Murad II,Ottoman s u l t a n ( 1 4 2 1 - 5 1 ) : XVII 9 Murano: I I 19-23;XIV 417; XIX 379 M u s a l i , f a m i l y from Constantinople, - S i n a d i n : XVI 350,352 -Michael: XVI 350,352 Mytilene (Lesbos): II 25 N a p l e s , N e a p o l i t a n : II 2 4 ; I I I 65, 68,69;V 72;IX 707,711;X 205, 208,209,211;XX 311,312

Narbonne: IX 712 Naupliâ,Neapoli de Romania: XV 189 N e f , J . U . : VIII 251 Negroponte,Nigroponte (Euboea): I I 27;XIII 126,127;XV 188-90 Nemanjic,Serbian dynasty ( s e e a l s o S t e f a n ) : XXI 265 Neretva: I I 29,30;V 91;VI 28 Nerius Balduccii,Buonaccorsi a s s o c i a t e : I 35 Nicaea: XII 63 N i c e : XVII 8 N i c o l , D . : XVI 349 N i c o l e t u s , f r o m Negroponte: XIII 126 Nicoletus,woodcarver from Venice XIV 417 N i c o l o di Matteo,from Prato: IX 709 Nigro,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 378 N i k o l a e v , V . : XVI 349 N i s : XVII 4 , 1 4 Normans: IV 390 n o t a r i e s : IV 391;V 73;IX 710,712 XV 188;XVI 349-54;XXI 260 Novak,G.: IX 707 Novo Brdo: VIII 244,249-51;X 206 XI 6;XIV 416,426;XVIII 6;XXI 257 Nymphaeum: V 78 Ognjanovic,Petar,painter in Dubrovnik: X 217 Olesnica,Johannes de: XVII 17 Ombla: XVIII 2 Omis: I I 29;XIV 421 Onofrio di Giordano,from Cava: X 208,210 O s t o j a , k i n g of Bosnia (1398-1404 1 4 0 9 - 1 8 ) : XIV 421,422;XIX 387, 391 Ostrogorsky,G.: XII 62-65;XVI 354;XVIII 1 , 2 , 6 - 8 Otranto: I I I 67,68;IX 712;X 210 Ottomans,0ttoman,Turks,Turkish: IV 396;V 71,72;VI 1 , 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 ; VII 3 8 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 9 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 ; VIII 253;X 206,209,212-18;XI 2 6;XII 63;XIV 420,423;XVII 1-13 XVIII 5;XIX 388,392;XX 311,312 314,315.;XXI 2 5 7 - 5 9 , 2 6 1 - 6 4 , 2 6 7 , 268 P a b o r a , P e t r u s , p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: I 26 Padua,Padova: I I 20,22;VI 3 , 1 0 , 11,30;VII 383;XIII 127;XXI 261

-10-

Pag: I I 25;V 83;VI 3 , 1 0 , 2 9 p a i n t e r s i n Dubrovnik: X 217, 218;XIX 379 P a l a e o l o g u s , B y z a n t i n e dynasty, -Andronicus I I , B y z a n t i n e emperor ( 1 2 8 2 - 1 3 2 8 ) : XI 2; XVI 355 -Andronicus IV,Byzantine emperor ( 1 3 7 6 - 7 9 ) : VI 1 , 8 , 2 1 -Anna Asanina P a l a i o l o g i n a : XVI 354 -Constantine IX ( D r a g a s e s ) , despot of Morea,Byzantine emperor ( 1 4 4 8 - 5 3 ) : XVII 6,10 -Demetrius,despot : XV 188; XVI 350,352,355 - I r e n e , d a u g h t e r of Michael V I I I , w i f e of John Asan I l l s XVI 347 -John V,Byzantine emperor ( 1 3 4 1 - 9 1 ) : VI 1,21;XII 63; XVI 354 -John VIII,Byzantine emperor ( 1 4 2 5 - 4 8 ) : XVII 2 , 6 -John,Great P r i m i k e r i o s : XVI 354 -Manuel I I , B y z a n t i n e emperor ( 1 3 9 1 - 1 4 2 5 ) : XVI 349,354 -Michael V I I I , B y z a n t i n e emperor ( 1 2 5 9 - 8 2 ) : XI 2 -Simonis P a l a i o l o g i n a Asanina: XVI 3 4 9 ; s e e a l s o Asan -Thomas,despot of Morea: XVII 10 P a l e s t i n e : V 100;XXI 264 P a l l , F . : XVII 6 , 1 0 , 1 4 - 1 6 P a n t e l l a , P i e t r o , f r o m Piacenza: IX 708,712;X 206,209;XIX 380, 381,392 Panza,Bernardus,Venetian notary: XVI 352 Papadopulos,A.Th.: XVI 349,354 P a s s i l e r i , P a l m a : I I 21 P a t r a s : XVII 16 Paulus,from Senj: II 25 Paulus Thomaxiijfrom Camerino: IX 710 Pavlovic,Radosav,Bosnian nobleman: XIX 387,388,391 Pedoro,Leonardo,from Venice: XIII 126 P e l a c h a n , P i c i o : X 209 P e l j esac ( S a b b i o n c e l l o ) : V 85, 93,99 Pellianicus,Maffeus,glassmaker from Murano: I 29 Peloponnesus: XVII 6 Pera: I I 2 9 ; I I I 65,66;VI 2 0 , 2 4 P e r u z z i , F l o r e n t ine family: I 253 1 , 3 4 , 3 6 - 3 8 ; I V 391;VIII 246;

IX 708;XIX 379 -Donatus G i o c t i : I 27 -Thomasus: I 27 Pesaro: IX 708 P e t r u s , b a l e s t e r i u s : I I 20 P e t r u s , g o l d s m i t h from Venice: XIV 417 P i e t r o , f r o m Monopoli: XIII 128 Pezanjic -Negoslav: I I 21 -Bogoje: I I 21 p h a r m a c i s t s , s p e c i a r i i : IX 710; XIV 417;XIX 378,379 -Franciscus s p e c i a r i u s : s e e Franciscus Phocaea: I I I 65;VI 24 Phylippus Rugerii,Bardi a s s o c i a t e : I 35,36 p h y s i c i a n s , d o c t o r s : IV 391; V 73,95;X 208,211;XIV 417; XIX 379,380;XXI 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 , 269,270 Piacenza: IX 708;XIX 381 Piacinico,Pilbanico,Pyanigo, -Donatus: II 22 -Matheus,glassmaker from Murano: II 21-23;XIV 417 Piponus,Pepono,Popono,Çaninus, from Venice: I I 21 -Donatus,his brother: I I 21 p i r a c y , p i r a t e s : I I 2 9 ; I I I 67-69; IV 391;VI 24;X 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 , 2 1 1 - 1 3 , 215-18;XIV 421;XX 312 P i s a : I 3 0 ; I I 28;IX 708;XIX 378 Pisani,Venetian family, -Marco: XIII 127 - P i e t r o : XIII 128 - V e t t o r : VI 6 , 9 , 1 7 , 2 0 , 3 2 P i s t o i a : I 37 P i z z i c o l l i , C i r i a c o , f r o m Ancona: XVII 16 plagues: I 39;V 81;VII 253 P l a n e s , J o h a n n e s , a l i a s Beltrame, from Narbonne: IX 712 Plovdiv: XVII 14 Polignano: X 209 P o l l a n i , V e n e t i a n family: XIX 379 Pone,chancellor in Dubrovnik: I 31,35,37 Pope,papacy,papal : I I 2 4 ; I I I 65, 68,69;X 212,215,218;XVII 1 - 4 , 6-8,12,13;XX 311;XXI 258,268 Popovic-Radenkovic,M.: I I I 63; IX 707-709,712,713 P o r c e l l o , f a m i l y from Trani, -Antonius: X 212 -Cola: X 212 Portinari,Portunari,Andrea,

-liBardi a s s o c i a t e : I 28 P o r t u g a l : XXI 262,269 P r a t o , P r a t e s e : V i l i 247;IX 707-13; XIX 3 7 9 , 3 9 4 Primoevic,Jaksa: XVII 11 P r i s t i n a : XIV 426. P r i z r e n : XI 6 P r o n o i a , p r o n o i a r i u s : XVIII 1 , 2 , 4-8 Prothonotariis,magister,Jacobus d e , p h y s i c i a n from Messina: X 208 Provence: XXI 260,261 Pucci,Duccius,Bardi associate: I 28-30,35,37 P u g l i a : s e e Apulia Pula ( P o l a ) : VI 9 , 1 0 , 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 7 , 18,21,29,30 Punta: s e e P e l j e s a c Pyrrhus,Didacus (Jacobus F l a v i u s , D r . I s a i a h Cohen),poet: XXI 269,270 Quintava11 e,Venetian family: XIX 379 Quirino,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 378 -Çanino: V i l i 243 - N i c o l e t t o : V i l i 243 - P o l o : XIV 416 Rab: VI 20 Rabata,Stoldus Ghori ser Michaelis,pharmacist from F l o r e n c e : IX 710 Radenovic,Pavle,Bosnian nobleman: XIX 387 Radicevic,Paskoje,painter in Dubrovnik: X 218 R a d o n i c , J . : XVII 6 , 1 0 , 1 5 , 1 6 RadovanoviCjVlaho: V 87 R a f f a n e l l i , M a r c o , n o t a r y in Venice: VII 380,389;XV 188-191; XVI 349 R a s s i a , R a s c i a : s e e Serbia Raugonibus,Victor de,from Manfredonia: X 210 Restie (Resti),Junius,patrician from Dubrovnik,historian: XIV 415 Rhodés: I I 2 4 , 2 8 ; I I I 65,66;V 76; XVII 1 R i a l t o : V 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 7 ; X I I I 126; XVI 351,352 Ricci,Tadeus,Acciaiuoli a s s o c i a t e : I 28 Rico,Johannes Antonius, pharmacist from Florence:

IX 710 Ridolfi,Phylippus,Acciaiuoli a s s o c i a t e : I 28 Rimini: VI 27 Rinbaldo,Johannes Bono,from Venice: V 84 R i n g h i a d o r i b u s , d e , f a m i l y from Prato, -Bartholomeus J a c o b i : IX 712 - B o s i u s Bartholomei: IX 712 - F r a n c i s c u s Bartholomei: IX 712 -Jacobus (Giacomo) Bartholomei: IX 712 - N i c o l a u s Bartholomei: IX 712 -Thoma Bartholomei,chancellor in Dubrovnik: IX 712 R i s t o r o de Zanobi,from Florence: IX 711 R i z i , s e r B a p t i s t a quondam C i z i , from Gaeta: IX 712 Robert,king of Naples ( 1 3 0 9 - 4 3 ) : I I I 69 Rodriguez (Rodriga),Daniel : XIV 429;XXI 266,270 Rodriguez,Joao (Amatus L u s i t a n u s ) , p h y s i c i a n : XXI 269 R o l l e r , D . : I I 20;IX 707 Romania ( s e e a l s o Byzantium): I I I 66,67;VI 6 , 2 1 , 3 0 ; X 206; XIII 126;XIV 420;XV 189,191; XVII 5 , 1 1 -Bassa: V 86 Rome: X 218;XI 63 Ronçan,Marco,from Venice: V 99,100 Rubeo,Micaletto,from Venice: XIII 128 Russia,Russian: VII 3 8 1 - 8 3 , 3 8 5 , 387,390-93;IX 712 Sabati,Elia,Jewish physician: XXI 261 S a c c h e t t i , F r a n c o ( s e e Buono): I 37;VIII 247; XI 4;XIX 380 Saint Archangel,Trepëa: XIV 418 Saint Mary,church i n Constantinople: XIII 124 Salimbene,Johanninus,Zaninus, pharmacist in Dubrovnik: I I 31;V 100;IX 378 Salomon,Jew from Durazzo: XXI 260 Salona (Greece): XV 190 s a l t : I I 30,31;V 82;VI 3 , 1 0 , 1 4 - 1 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 3 ; I X 714;X 215; XXI 260

-12

Samuel,Jewish eye surgeon in Dubrovnik: XXI 261 San Biagio ( S v e t i Vlaho), church in Dubrovnik: V 93 San Cataldo : I I I 65,66 San Marco,in Corfu: XIII 128 - i n Venice: XIII 126 San Severino: I I I 64,66 Sankovic,Radie,Bosnian nobleman: XIX 387 Santa Chaterina,Gabriel de, from Otranto: X 210 Santa Croce,church in Venice: XIII 126 Santa Maria de T r i n i t a d e : I I I 66 S a p o r i , A . : I 40 Saracens: VII 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 , 393 Saragossa,Zaragoza: X 210; XIX 381 Sarajevo: XXI 266 Savona: IV 391 Savoy: IX 713 -Amadeus,Count o f : VI 2 3 , 2 4 Saxony,Saxons: VIII 251;XIX 375,379 S c a l i g e r s , o f Verona: XIX 385 Scanderbegh (George K a s t r i o t a ) , Albanian l e a d e r : XIX 388 Scarpacco,Scarpaçius, F r a n c i s c u s : VIII 244;XI 3 , 7 ; XIX 378 S c h i e r i s , B e n e d i c t u s quondam Mathei,from P r a t o , c h a n c e l l o r i n Dubrovnik: IX 710 S c l a v o n i a : s e e Serbia - f o r Dalmatia: VI 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 7 , 29,33 Scutari (Skadar): XIV 416 Senj (Segna): II 25;VI 33 Seno,Andreas d e l , P e r u z z i a s s o c i a t e : I 27,28 Serbia ( S c l a v o n i a ) , S e r b i a n , Serbs: I 2 6 , 3 3 - 3 5 ; I I 19,21-23; IV 393,395,398-400;V 77,93; VI 2;VIII 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 - 5 1 ; IX 708,711;X 208,212;XI 1,2; XII 62-65;XIII 128;XIV 413-22, 424-26,428;XVI 347,354;XVII 1, 2 , 6 , 9 , 1 3 ; X V I I I 1,2,4-9;XIX 375,377,379,380,382,385,388, 391-93;XX 311;XXI 257,264-66 S e r r e s : XII 62,63,65;XVI 354 s e r v a n t s : I 2 9 ; I I 22;XIII 125, 127; XIX 377 à e v e e n k o , ! • : XII 62

S f o r z a , F r a n c i s c u s : XIX 390 Sibenik ( S e b e n i c o ) : VI 10,29; XXI 265 S i c i l y , S i c i l i a n : I I I 67;VI 1 9 , 2 1 , 28;X 206,207- T 210,216;XIX 381; XXI 259,261 Sigismund of Luxembourg,king of Hungary (1387-1437): V 101 Signolo,Venetian family: XIX 379 s i l k : I I I 67;XV 190 s i l v e r : I 26;IV 393;V 7 1 , 7 6 , 8 3 , 84,86,100;VI 31;VIII 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 244,250-52,254;IX 708,709, 714;X 206;XII 64;XIV 413,416, 417,420;XVIII 5,6;XIX 376;XXI 257,258 Simon,physician from Naples: X 211 Sipan (Giuppana): V 75,99,100 S i r a n o , f a m i l y from Venice: XIX 379 Sisman,Michael,Tsar of Bulgaria ( 1 3 2 3 - 3 0 ) : I 33 Skadar: s e e Scutari Skoplje: XI 6;XIV 415;XXI 263 s l a v e s : I 2 8 ; I I I 66;VII 379-94; IX 712;XIV 414,424;XIX 384 S l a v s , S l a v i c : I 2 6 ; I I 25;Vi 27; VIII 25;IX 711,712;XI 5;XVII 12;XIX 3 7 6 - 7 9 , 3 8 2 - 8 4 , 3 8 7 , 3 9 2 ; XXI 259 S l o v e n i a : XXI 265 Smederevo: XVII I5XVIII 4 Soderini,Gerius,Geri di Stefano, Bardi and Peruzzi a s s o c i a t e : I 34 S o e t b e e r , A . : VIII 250 S o f i a : XVII 5,14;XXI 267 Soranzo,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Toma,Venetian "bailo" in Armenia and Constantinople: XIII 124 SorkOcevic ( S o r g o ) , p a t r i c i a n family from Dubrovnik, - B i a s i u s : V 98 -Franusa: V 81 -Junius: V 85 -Pasko: XVII 9,10 - S t e f a n u s : V 82 - V i t o : V 81 Sorrento: X 217 S o u l i s , G . : XII 62 Spain,Spanish: VIII 247;X 205; XII 65;XIX 381;XXI 258,262, 264,266,267,269 Spartier,Spartieri,Sparterius,

-13-

Expartieri,Exparter, J o h a n n e s , C a t a l a n merchant i n Dubrovnik: X 210;XIX 381 S p l i t ( S p a l a t o ) : XIV 423; XVII 6,10;XIX 390,391;XXI 262-66 Sprernie,M,: X 205 Srebrenica: VIII 250,251; X 206;XI 6;XVIII 4-6;XXI 257 Sremska M i t r o v i c a (Sirmium): XI 6 S t e f a n Uros I , S e r b i a n king ( 1 2 4 2 - 7 6 ) : XIV 414 S t e f a n Uros I I M i l u t i n , S e r b i a n k i n g ( 1 2 8 2 - 1 3 2 1 ) : XII 64; XIV 4 1 5 , 4 1 9 , 4 2 7 S t e f a n Uros I I I D e c a n s k i , S e r b i a n k i n g ( 1 3 2 1 - 3 1 ) : I 33; XIV 420 S t e f a n Dusan,Serbian k i n g and Tsar ( 1 3 3 1 - 5 5 ) : I 3 3 , 3 5 ; V 71; VI 2 ; V I I I 244;XII 62-65;XIV 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 , 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 , 4 2 0 ; X V I 354; XIX 388,393;XXI 2 5 7 , 2 6 5 S t e f a n Uros V , S e r b i a n t s a r ( 1 3 5 5 - 7 1 ) : XXI 265 Stefanus,comes: see Lazarevic, Stefan S t e f a n u s , f r o m P r a t o : IX 712 -Bernardus S t e f a n i : IX 712 - G i u l i a n u s S t e f a n i : IX 712 S t i e p a n o v i c h , M a t c h u s : V I I I 249 S t i l l o , M a r i n u s N i c o l e : V I I I 243 Stjepan Ostoja: s e e Ostoja Ston ( S t a g n o ) : V 9 3 , 9 5 , 9 9 ; V I 3,27,28 StrasoldOjBartholomeus d e , Venetian notary in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e : XVI 3 5 0 , 351,353 Strozzi f i o r e n t i n e family: I I 28 - P a l a de: IX 711 surgeons: see physicians S o r i a n o , Z a n i n o : X I I I 125 Suriano,Francesco,Venetian consul in Thessalonika: XI 7 Symeon I s a a c h , J e w from M a r s e i l l e s : XXI 261 Syracuse: X 206-208,210,216 S y r i a : I I I 6 5 , 6 6 ; V I 6 ; V I I I 251 S z e g e d : XVII 9 , 1 0 T a d i c , J . : I 39;IV 3 9 8 ; V I I I 250; IX 709;X 205,210;XX 316; XXI 2 5 8 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 1 T a g l u z z i , T a l i z z i , B l a s i u s Thome,

from Lucca: IX 7 1 0 , 7 1 2 Talovac,Matko: XVII 1 , 1 3 T a l o v a c , P j e r k o : XVII 2 Taranto: I I I 6 4 , 6 6 ; I X 711; X 209,216,218 Tarole,Antonius,from Otranto: I I I 68 T a r t a r s : VII 3 8 0 - 9 4 T a r v i s i o : XXI 260 Tenedos: V 92;VI 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 2 3 - 2 5 t e x t i l e s : I I I 66;IV 3 9 3 ; V I I I 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 ; I X 707-14; X 206;XIV 419;XIX 3 7 9 - 8 2 , 384,386,394;XX 315 Thadeus P e t r i , f r o m F l o r e n c e : VII 389 T h a s o s : XVI 353 T h e s s a l o n i k a : V 8 5 ; V I I I 247; XI 1 - 8 ; X I I 63,64;XXI 2 6 3 , 266-68 T h i r i e t , F . : X I I I 124,126;XV 187, 188 Thomasius T a d e i , f r o m B a r l e t t a : X 210 T i v o l i : X 218 T o b b i a , C a r o l o : V 94;VI 31 Topola: I l 21 T r a n i : I I I 64-67;VI 1 8 , 1 9 ; X 209,212;XXI 261 T r e b i n j e : I 29 Trebizond: XIII 125,126 Trepca: XIV 418 Trevisano,Trivisan,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Marino,Venetian v i c e - b a i l o i n C o n s t a n t i n o p l e : XI 7 Tripchus Andree,from Kotor: IX 710 Trogir,Tragurium ( T r a u ) : I I 25; V 9 5 ; X I I I 125 T r o i a : X 217 Tudizic (Tudisio),patrician f a m i l y from Dubrovnik, -Martolus: V 74,97 -Martolus P e t r i : V 7 4 - 7 8 , 80-85,87-101 -Martolus Z i v e : V 82 -Petrus: V 74,75 -Thadey: V 80 - V i t o : V 74 - Z i v e : V 81 -Zive: V 74,75,83 T u n i s : I 30 T u r i n , P e a c e o f : V 9 2 , 1 0 1 ; V I 18, 23,24,26 Turks: s e e Ottomans Tuscany,Tuscans: I 2 8 ; V I I I 2474 9 , 2 5 4 ; I X 707-13;XIX 379;

-14-

XX 315;XXI 262 Tvrtko I , b a n and king of Bosnia ( 1 3 5 3 - 9 1 ) : VI 1 4 - 1 7 , 2 5 ; XIV 418,419;XXI 257 Tvrtko I I , k i n g of Bosnia ( 1 4 0 4 - 0 9 , 1 4 2 0 - 4 3 ) : XIX 387 Tyrrhenian s e a : VI 1,6 U g r i n i c . B u d i s l a v : XIII 127 U g u t i o , a r c h b i s h o p : V 88 U l c i n j : VI 7 , 1 3 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 8 ; VIII 244;XIX 391 Ursi,Bartolomeo,Venetian notary: I I 25 Uspenskij , F . I . : XVI 347 , 3 49 U t o l c i c . T r i p c e : V 80 Valaresso,Venetian family: XIX 379 -Marco: XIII 127 V a l e n c i a : X 210 Valona: I I I 67;XIV 427;XVII 7; XXI 269 Vardar: XII 65 Vargas,Alfonsus de,from Manfredonia: X 217 Varna: XIV 428;XVII 10,11; XX 311 V a t i : XIII 125 Velbuzd: I 33 V e l l u t i , D o n a t o : I I 28 Venice,Venetian: I 2 5 - 3 6 , 4 0 ; I I 1 9 - 3 1 ; I I I 65-69;IV 389-401; V 71-93,95,96,99;VI 1-7,9-33; VII 3 7 9 , 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 , 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 4 ; VIII 2 4 1 - 4 7 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 1 - 5 3 ; I X 708, 711,712;X 2 0 5 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 4 ; XI 1 - 5 , 7 ; X I I 64;XIII 123-29; XIV 413-28;XV 187-91;XVI 347, 349-54;XVII 3 , 5 - 8 , 1 0 - 1 3 ; X V I I I 6;XIX 375-86,388-91,393;XX 311, 312;XXI 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 4 , 268,269 Venier,Vener,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Antonio,doge of Venice: V 96 V e r l i n d e n , C h . : VII 391 Verona: IX 708;XIX 385 Viadro,Toma: XIII 125 V i e s t e : X 211,213 V i l l a r i , L . : XXI 258 Vitanjic (Vitagna),patrician family from Dubrovnik -Luksa: V 82 - P a l e : V 82 Vlachusa B l a s i i : VIII 249 V l a d i s l a v , k i n g of Hungary and Poland ( 1 4 4 0 - 4 4 ) : XVII 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 ,

9-11 V l a t k o v i c , B o z i d a r , p a i n t e r in Dubrovnik: X 217 V o j e , I . : I 37 Vojinovic,Vojis lav,Serbian nobleman: V 79;XII 65;XIX 392 Vojnovic,K.: IX 707 Vukcic.Hrvoje,Bosnian nobleman: XIX 387 Vukcic-Kosaca,Stefan,Bosnian nobleman: X 214,215;XIX 388, 389,391 wax: IV 393;V 76,84;X 218 wheat ( s e e c e r e a l s , g r a i n ) : I 28,30,32,33,35,36,38;VI 6, 8,10,15,19-21;XVII 7 , 9 wine: I I I 64-66;V 87,100;VI 9 , 20;XVII 8 wool: VIII 244,247;IX 707-14; X 211;XIX 380,381;XX 315 Yeshurun,Isaak, Jewish merchant in Dubrovnik: XXI 271 Ypres: IX 708 Yugoslavia,Yugoslav: I I 20; IV 390;XVIII 1 Zadar (Zara): I 3 0 ; I I 27,29; IV 395;V 7 2 , 7 8 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 3 ; VI 6 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 6 - 2 1 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 ; XXI 265 Zagreb: I I 25;XXI 265 Zahumlje ( s e e a l s o Hum): V 79 Zajaca: XVIII 5 Zakrzow,Nicolaus de: XVII 17 Zakythinos,D.A.: XVI 349 Zamanjic (Zamagno),Martolus, p a t r i c i a n from Dubrovnik: I I 30 Zanbernardc.Venetian notary: I I 25 Z e c c h i , f a m i l y from Prato -Johannes: IX 712 -Franciscus Johannis: IX 712 -Johannes Johannis: IX 712 -Luca Johannis: IX 712 Zeno,Venetian f a m i l y : XIX 379 -Marco: XIII 127 Zeta: XII 65;XVIII 6;XIX 383 Zupa Dubrovacka: V 95,99;VI 17 Zuzollo.Johannes,from Bari: X 217