THE FOUNDATION AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE CITY (656-1204)
We have alluded to the destruction by the Avars of Salona and
Epidaurum,[14] and the flight of their inhabitants to the new
settlements. Of Salona extensive ruins remain, but with regard to the
site of Epidaurum there is a division of opinion among archæologists.
It is generally held that the remains at or near the village of
Ragusavecchia, a few miles to the south-east of Ragusa, are those
of the ancient Epidaurum. In the neighbouring valley of Canali
(Slavonic, _Konavli_) there are the ruins of a Roman aqueduct. The name
Ragusavecchia corroborates the tradition that it was the original home
of the Ragusans; while its Slavonic name, _Cavtat_, is undoubtedly
derived from the Latin _civitas_. Some archæologists, however, have
doubts as to this point, and Professor Giuseppe Gelcich, than whom
no greater authority on Dalmatian history exists, is of opinion that
Epidaurum must be sought for somewhere on the Sutorina promontory in
the Bocche di Cattaro. Fragments of Roman brickwork and mosaic pavement
have been found there too; and according to Professor Gelcich, the
Canali aqueduct is so built that it must have served a city farther
south than Ragusavecchia. On the other hand, the statements of the
classical writers, especially of Pliny, seem to bear out the general
opinion, which is, in fact, based on them.
The exact date of the incursion of the Avars and of the destruction
of Epidaurum has also been the subject of controversy. According to
some writers, among whom are the native historians of Ragusa, the city
was destroyed by the Goths in the third century A.D. But documents
written between the third and the seventh centuries mention it as
still existing. Constantine Porphyrogenitus speaks of Ragusa as having
been founded by refugees from Salona five hundred years before his own
time, _i.e._ about 449.[15] But Pope Gregory I. is the last writer who
alludes to Epidaurum, so that it was evidently not destroyed before
603. The geographer of Ravenna, who flourished in the eighth century,
is the first to mention Ragusa. The Avars made their first appearance
in Dalmatia in the year 597-598.[16] They belonged to the same Tartar
group as the Huns, and their path was marked with the same ruin and
destruction. At one time they were in the service of Justinian, but
under his successors they became so powerful and insolent that the
Greek emperors might almost be regarded as the vassals to the Chagan of
the Avars. In 597 they raided Dalmatia and destroyed over forty towns;
and during the next thirty years they conquered the whole country,
with the exception of some of the coast settlements, unimpeded by
the Greeks, who were then occupied with the Saracens. In 619 they
destroyed Salona, whose inhabitants, or at least such of them as
escaped from the fury of the barbarians, for the most part took refuge
in the walls of Diocletian’s palace at Spalato. But a few wandered
southwards and established themselves on an island rock, where Ragusa
now stands. About the year 656 the Avars swept down on Epidaurum and
razed it to the ground, the surviving inhabitants flying to Ragusa.
This year is generally accepted as the date of the city’s, birth. In
all probability, however, it was not founded at any definite period,
but arose gradually through the influx of refugees from all parts of
Southern Dalmatia, from a fishing village into a town. The original
settlers were nearly all Latins, and it was not until later that a
certain number of Slaves were admitted.[17]
The traditional origin of the name Ragusa is connected with
the situation of the town on a precipitous ridge. According to
Porphyrogenitus, it is derived from λαῦ, a precipice, and was
originally _Lausa_. The L changed to R, and it became Rausa or
Rhausion. According to Professor Jireček,[18] this derivation is
quite inaccurate. The rocky seaward ridge, even in the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, were called _Labe_ or _Laue_, from
the Latin word _labes_, a downfall or precipice. The form _Ragusa_ is
found in William of Tyre, and in the Arabic writer Edrisi (1153). Later
we find the form _Rausa_, and in the fifteenth century _Raugia_, and
occasionally _Ragusium_. The Slavonic name _Dubrovnik_ is said to be
derived from _dubrava_, a wood. This etymology does not sound unlikely,
as there is a wood in close proximity to the town, a rarity in this
part of the world. But Professor Jireček says that from _Dubrava_ the
original form should have been _Dubravnik_, and this appears nowhere.
The Presbyter Diocleas writes: “Dubrounich, id est silvester sive
silvestris, quoniam quando eam aedificaverunt, de silva venerunt.”
Whatever may be the philological value of these traditions, they
indicate the double character (_i.e._ Latin and Slavonic) of Ragusa in
the early, if not in the earliest times.
Ragusa is situated on the coast of Southern Dalmatia, about forty
kilometres to the north-west of the Bocche di Cattaro.[19] It is built
partly on a precipitous rocky ridge jutting out into the Adriatic,
and partly on the mainland, ascending the steep slopes of the Monte
Sergio. The original town was limited to the seaward ridge, which
was formerly an island divided from the mainland by a marshy channel
where the Stradone now runs. There was also a settlement of Bosnians
or Vlachs on the Monte Sergio opposite. The ridge slopes gradually up
from the channel, but drops sheer down on the side towards the sea. In
an old drawing preserved in the library of the Franciscan monastery at
Ragusa we see the town as it was when it only occupied the ridge. It
is surrounded by a wall, and divided into two parts by another wall.
Three extensions of the walls are recorded previous to the beginning of
the twelfth century, rendered necessary by the number of fugitives who
took refuge within its walls in ever-increasing numbers. “The original
city,” writes Professor Gelcich, “was limited to the centre of the
northern slope of the ridge now called Santa Maria, which, separating
from the Monte Sergio, stretches forth in an opposite direction to
that of the neighbouring peninsula of Lapad; it comprised the quarter
of the town between the diocesan seminary and the street leading from
the Chiesa del Domino to the summit of the ridge.”[20] The earliest
extensions were the suburbs of Garište and Pustijerna, the former
on the western side, the latter to the east, reaching as far as the
harbour. Thus the whole rock was occupied and surrounded by a wall. The
channel which divided it from the mainland soon became a marshy field,
and finally dried up. As a protection against the Slavonic settlement
on the Monte Sergio a castle was built by the sea, on the site of the
present rector’s palace, guarding the bridge to the mainland.[21] Later
the Bosnian colony was also absorbed, and the town walls were extended
to the circuit which they now occupy.
Of the various groups of refugees who settled within the hospitable
walls of Ragusa we have fairly reliable accounts. Porphyrogenitus
mentions the earliest of these immigrations, and also gives us the
names of the most prominent among the newcomers: Arsaphios, Gregorios,
Victorinos, Vitalios, Valentinos the archdeacon, and Valentinos the
father of the Protospathar Stephen. All these have unquestionably
a Latin sound; they were probably Roman provincials from the minor
Dalmatian townships destroyed by the barbarians. Besides the Latin
refugees, at an early date a certain number of Slaves, who preferred
the quiet life and safety of Ragusa to the constant turmoils and
disorders among their own people, added to the population. The
Anonymous Chronicle of Ragusa[22] describes several of these
immigrations:—
“690. Many people came to Ragusa with all their goods from Albania
and the parts of Bosna, because many in Bosna were partisans of
Duchagini,[23] and wished to save themselves from being accused
(punished).”
This evidently refers to a civil war, but the date given is much
too early: it is not likely that the Ragusans would have admitted
barbarians within their walls so soon after the destruction of
Epidaurum:—
“691. There came to Ragusa the men of two castles on the mainland,
from Chastel Spilan and Chastel Gradaz,[24] and they all made their
dwellings on the coast, for they were of the race of Epidaurum
destroyed by the Saracens.”[25]
This obviously refers to the Latin colonists mentioned by the Imperial
historian:—
“743. Many people came from Bosna with much wealth, for the king,
Radosav, was a tyrant, and lived according to his pleasure: Murlacchi
from the Narenta also came, and Catunari,[26] among whom there was
a chief above all the others; they came with a great multitude of
cattle of all sorts: to them was assigned the mountain of Saint Serge
as a pasture, for it was so covered with trees that one could not see
the sky, and so much timber was there that they made beams for their
houses.”
Of the first two centuries of Ragusan history little is known. The
town, like the other Latin communities of Dalmatia, at first formed
part of the Eastern Empire. Heraclius had abandoned all the rest of the
country to the Slaves, and even in the coast towns Imperial authority
was becoming ever more shadowy. Under Michael II Balbus they were
granted what practically amounted to autonomy, and they constituted
themselves, as we have said, into _municipia_ of the Italian type,
while inland Dalmatia became part of Charlemagne’s Empire (803), to
whom also some of the coast towns, including Zara, owed allegiance.[27]
Ragusa, although still small, was increasing. At that time, with a
world of barbarism all round, with everlasting wars between the various
Slavonic tribes of the interior, there was indeed an opening for such a
haven of refuge as this city offered.
We can picture it to ourselves as a small settlement where all that
was civilised in Southern Dalmatia congregated—the scattered Latins
from ruined townships and the more progressive Slaves. It was a beacon
in the darkness, a spot where the peaceful and the industrious might
pursue their avocations in safety. Of the internal constitution of the
community in these early days, of its laws and customs, we have the
meagrest information. The only account of them which we possess is
that given in the Anonymous Chronicle, a not very reliable document of
a much later date than the events recorded. The chief passage on the
subject is as follows:—
“In Ragusa a division of all the people was made.... Those who were
the richest were (appointed) chiefs and governors.... Each family had
its own saint, some San Sergio, some this saint, some that.... And
when men had come from Lower Vulasi (Wallachia),[28] a division of the
citizens was made, each class for itself. Many Wallachians were rich
in possessions—gold, silver, cattle, and other things: among them were
many _Chatunari_, each of whom considered himself a count, and had his
own _Naredbenizi_ (stewards). One was master of the horse, another
looked after the cattle, another after the sheep and goats, another
managed the household, another commanded the servants. But there was
one chief above all the others, called the Grand Chatunar.... These
Chatunari formed the _Sboro_ (Council or Parliament), and for their
convenience divided the population into three parts: the first was of
gentlemen, the second of burghers, the third of serfs. Many serfs had
come from Wallachia with cattle, and it seemed to them a mean thing to
be called even as the shepherds.[29] Some attended to the house, some
to the horses, some to the person of their master, but the latter were
few in number. The third part was of gentlemen; for at the beginning
there were many who had fled from Bosna and Albania, and who were not
men of low condition, but of much account, having been captains or
counts or _Naredbenizi_, and these were of noble origin.... Those who
were gentlemen were made governors of the land or were given other
offices, and they alone entered the _Sboro_ or General Council. The
other part was of the people, _populani_, from _pol vilani_, or half
villeins,[30] for although those villeins were of low condition, some
were in the houses of gentlemen as guardians, and therefore enjoyed
benefits.”
This account is somewhat confused and difficult to understand. As far
as we can make out, the people were divided into three classes; _i.e._
the nobles, who alone formed the Grand Council, and were either the
descendants of the original Latin refugees from Epidaurum and Salona,
or those among the newcomers who were of noble birth; the middle class,
consisting of non-noble burghers, the stewards, and chief retainers
of the nobles, and the men of small property; the third class, which
was composed of serfs and of the poorest citizens. Over the general
assembly presided the head of the State, the Byzantine Duke, Prior,
or Præses. After Ragusa had made submission to Venice in 998 we find
Venetian counts instead.[31] During the intervals when the city was
independent, and no foreign rulers were appointed, the head of the
Government was chosen by the Council, as it was in after times. But
even when sent from Venice or Constantinople he does not seem to have
exercised much direct influence on the internal affairs of the Republic.
Besides the Count and the General Council, there was the assembly of
the people, or _laudo populi_, to whom the decisions of the Council
in all the more important cases had to be submitted. Lampredius,
præses of Ragusa in 1023, sanctioned a decree “una cum omnibus ejusdem
civitatis nobilibus,” “temporibus Sanctorum Imperatorum Basilii et
Constantini.” Petrus Slabba, prior in 1044, issued another decree,
“temporibus piissimi Augusti Constantini scilicet Monomacho ... cum
parited nobiles atque ignobiles.”[32] Thus we have the aristocratic
principle represented by the council of nobles, and the democratic
principle by the assembly of the people, who were summoned “cum
sonitu campane.”[33] As the constitution evolved, the _laudo populi_
gradually dropped into disuse, and Ragusa finally developed into a
purely aristocratic community on Venetian lines.
Next in authority to the head of the State was the bishop,[34] by whom
the acts of the Government had to be countersigned. The question as to
who should appoint this dignitary was frequently a subject of dispute
between the Ragusans and the Venetians, on account of his political
influence.
The Ragusans provided for the defence of their city by surrounding
it with walls, “un muro di masiera e travi,”[35] as Ragnina says,
and these fortifications stood them in good stead by enabling them
to hold out against the Saracens, who in 847-848 besieged Ragusa for
fifteen months. The citizens implored help from the Emperor Basil
the Macedonian, and he at once sent a fleet, under Nicephorus, which
relieved the beleaguered city from the raiders.[36]
The Greek Emperors wished to pursue the Saracens into Apulia, where
they had established themselves, and the rendezvous for one part of the
expedition was Ragusa. A large force of Serbs and Croatians in the pay
of the Empire congregated there, and were transported to the Italian
shore on Ragusan ships. The expedition was successful, Bari being
recaptured, and the Saracen power in Southern Italy broken.[37] This is
the first mention we have of Ragusan shipping, which was afterwards to
play so large a part in the history of the Levant trade.
Of all the Slavonic tribes settled in Dalmatia, the most lawless and
uncivilised were the Narentans, the Arentani or Porphyrogenitus.
This hardy race of mariners occupied the land about the mouth of the
Narenta[38] and the coast,[39] between that river and the Četina,
besides the islands of Brazza, Lesina, Curzola, Lissa, Meleda, and
Lagosta. Connected by racial ties with the Serbs and the Croatians,
they obeyed the laws of neither. The ancient Illyrians were famous
for their piracy, which first called the attention of the Romans
to the country, and the Narentans proved worthy successors of the
aborigines. The conformation of the coast with its numerous inlets,
well-sheltered harbours, safe refuges, and countless islands lends
itself to this species of occupation. The Narentans ravaged the
coast towns of Dalmatia with their swift galleys, plundered peaceful
merchantmen, and so harried Venetian trade that the Republic was
forced to pay them blackmail for a hundred and fifty years. On more
than one occasion it sent its fleets to attempt their subjugation, at
first with but little success. At the beginning of these wars Ragusa
was a friendly harbour for the Venetian galleys, their most southern
port of call in the Adriatic, where they could revictual and their
crews rest from the fatigues of the voyage.[40] But the Ragusans very
soon began to look askance at the Venetians as a possible danger to
their own independence, and adopted the practice of secretly, or even
openly, supporting the pirates against the Venetians. This naturally
caused trouble later when the Venetians were strong enough to act
energetically against the Narentans: it affords a curious insight into
the policy of the Ragusans, who, while anxious to preserve their own
civilisation and culture, were never averse to siding with barbarians,
whether they were Narentans or Turks, against Christian Powers,
especially against Venice.
As early as the reign of the Doge Giovanni Particiaco I. (829-836) the
pirates of the Narenta had begun to seize Venetian galleys, and his
successor, Pietro Tradonico (836-864), sent two punitive expeditions
against them without definite result. After the Venetian fleet had
been defeated by the Saracens, the Dalmatian corsairs were audacious
enough to make a raid on the Lagoons. In 887 the Doge Pietro Candiano
I. sent a first unsuccessful expedition against them, and a few months
later led a second himself. This too was defeated, and the Doge killed.
Probably there was another in 948 under Pietro Candiano III., and
this time operations were directed against Ragusa itself, if we are
to believe the native historians, the town being saved only through
the special intercession of San Biagio,[41] who henceforth became the
patron of Ragusa in the place of San Bacco.[42]
In the course of the tenth century Ragusa was again besieged by
barbarians—they were Bulgarians this time, under the Tsar Simeon (not
Samuel, as had been stated), who invaded the western provinces of the
Eastern Empire. According to Cedren, his attack on Ragusa failed,[43]
whereas the Presbyter of Doclea writes that the town was burnt.
It was during this same century that Ragusa first began to acquire
territorial possessions. The account of the manner of these
acquisitions is in part legendary; but, according to Prof. Gelcich,
it has some substratum of fact. Paulimir Belo or Belus, King of
Rascia,[44] having been deposed and exiled, took refuge in Rome, and
married a Roman lady. In 950 he returned to Illyria, and landed at
Gravosa, near Ragusa, with a large suite of Roman nobles. The Ragusans
received him with great honours, and he in return helped them to
enlarge their city, and sent a number of his followers, including some
Romans, to increase the population. After this he returned to Rascia
and regained his throne. As Prof. Gelcich observes, Rome is evidently
a mistake for Rama, a country which forms part of the Herzegovina, and
takes its name from a small river tributary to the Narenta. A few years
later Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, and his wife, Margaret, came to Ragusa
in order to fulfil a vow which the former had made to St. Stephen when
his wife was ill, that he would visit the saint’s church in the city
if she recovered. As a reward for the welcome accorded to him by the
citizens he gave them the districts of Breno, Bergato (Brgat), Ombla,
Gravosa, Malfi, and part of Gionchetto.
Nearly fifty years had passed since the last Venetian expedition to
Dalmatia; but when the great Doge Pietro Orseolo came to the throne in
991, he determined to put an end to the depredations of the Narentans
once for all. The annual tribute which the Venetians had been forced to
pay to the freebooters only secured a very imperfect immunity, and the
Adriatic trade was never really safe. Orseolo suspended the tribute,
and as the Narentans at once recommenced their molestations, an
expedition under Badoer was sent out which destroyed the town of Lissa.
The Venetian admiral took a great many prisoners, but failed to attack
the pirates’ chief stronghold at Lagosta and the Narenta’s mouth. They
retaliated on the Latin towns of the coast, and the latter, unable to
obtain help from their natural protector, the Greek Emperor, placed
themselves under the suzerainty of the Venetians, whom they implored to
intervene once more. The Croatians, to whom the towns in the northern
and central parts of the country had paid tribute, now declared war
on all who obeyed the Venetians, ravaged the territory of Zara, and
attacked the islands of the Quarnero. The Ragusans were then tributary
to the Serbs, by whom they were surrounded, and fearing the Narentans,
who were so close at hand, separated their cause from that of the
rest of Latin Dalmatia, and maintained an ambiguous attitude.[45] The
Croatians, not content with terrorising the towns, sent ambassadors to
Venice to demand the tribute; but the Doge replied: “Non per quemlibet
nuntiorum tributum remittere curo; sed ad hanc persolvendam dationem
venire ipso non denegabo.” He at once fitted out another expedition on
a large scale, which set forth under his command on May 9, 1000.[46]
It reached Ossero on June 5, and the Doge claimed the homage of the
Dalmatians as their protector; this was paid both by the Latins and by
a number of the Slaves. He then proceeded to Zara, which recognised
his authority, and the bishops of Arbe and Veglia came to swear fealty
to him, promising that his praises should be sung in the churches
after those of the Emperor. Negotiations with the Narentans were now
opened; the pirates agreed to forego all tributes, and swore to infest
the Adriatic no longer; but the moment the Doge’s back was turned they
recommenced their depredations. Orseolo then sailed with the fleet for
Beograd[47] (Zaravecchia), the residence of the Croatian king. The
terrified inhabitants paid him homage, and he prepared to strike a
decisive blow at the Narentans. He sailed down the coast and received
the submission of Traù and Spalato, and on hearing that forty Narentan
“nobles” (pirate captains) were returning from Apulia, some of his
galleys lay in wait for them, and captured them off the island of
Cazza. The Narentans then sued for peace, which was granted them on a
promise of future good behaviour, and all the prisoners were liberated
save six, who were retained as hostages. The pirates on the islands of
Curzola, Lesina, and Lagosta still held out. The first two were easily
captured, but the Lagostans, hearing that the Doge meant to raze their
stronghold to the ground, made a desperate resistance. The Venetians
and their Dalmatian allies attacked the town, poured in through a
breach in the walls, and put all the inhabitants to the sword. After
the capture of this important fortress the power of the Narentans was
broken, and the whole of Dalmatia lay at Orseolo’s feet.
With regard to the subsequent proceedings and the dedition of Ragusa
there is considerable divergence of opinion between Venetian and
Ragusan writers. The latter wish to prove that their city remained
independent, at all events until the beginning of the thirteenth
century, whereas the Venetians affirm that in 998 (1000) Ragusa made
full submission to Venice.
The first account of this dedition is that of Johannes Diaconus, who
writes: “This (the capture of Lesina, Curzola, and Lagosta) having
been accomplished, the victorious prince repaired to the church of
St. Maximus; there the Archbishop of Ragusa and his suite came and
did great homage to the said prince, all partaking of the sacrament.”
Dandolo uses almost identical language, and Sabellico adds that the
Archbishop and the Ragusan envoys made formal submission to the Doge
and the Venetians,[48] and that counts were appointed to govern the
Dalmatian towns, Ottone Orseolo being chosen for Ragusa. To this a
Ragusan writer, calling himself “Albinus Esadastes de Vargas” (whom
Pisani declares to be Sebastiano Dolci,[49] a Ragusan monk of the
seventeenth century), in a work entitled _Libertas perpetua reip.
Ragusine ab omni jure Venete reipub_,[50] replies that the church
of St. Maximus must mean that of Masline at Lesina, and that this
island is so far that the Ragusan envoys would hardly have come there
to tender their submission. Jadesta, which is also alluded to, does
not exist. The Ragusans, who had resisted other attacks, both by the
Venetians and the Saracens, so valiantly, would not have surrendered
now without striking a blow; and, moreover, the Greek Emperors, Basil
and Constantine, would not have authorised the submission. With
regard to the first and third objections, it is most probable that
when the fate of Lagosta had become known to the Ragusans they would
have gone to tender their submission to Orseolo wherever he happened
to be. Jadesta is simply an old name for Lagosta. As for the Greek
Emperors, they were far too much occupied in holding their own against
the Bulgarians to be able to make any objections. The former attacks
on Ragusa had all been on a small scale, whereas this expedition was
a large and well-equipped force, against which it would have been
madness for the tiny Ragusa to resist. Then “Esadastes” shifts his
ground, and asserts that the envoys went to the Doge merely to reclaim
a ship captured by the Venetians, and that they actually threatened
reprisals on the part of the Emperors if satisfaction were refused.
But it is most unlikely that for so trifling a cause the Archbishop
and chief citizens would have been sent to the Doge. This version,
however, is accepted by Mauro Orbini.[51] Ragnina does not even mention
the expedition. Resti[52] says that Ottone Orseolo was sent to Ragusa
merely to make a commercial treaty; but as Pisani observes, if the
magistrates appointed to the other Dalmatian towns were sent to govern
them, there is no reason to suppose that an exception was made for
Ragusa. There is, on the whole, the strongest evidence that Ragusa did
actually submit to Venetian supremacy, together with the other coast
towns, in 1000, and received a Venetian governor. Local usages and
laws, however, were respected, according to the Venetian practice of
the time; nor was Imperial authority wholly disregarded, and prayers
for the Emperor continued to be sung in the churches of Ragusa.
Venetian rule was not of long duration. On the death of Pietro Orseolo
in 1008, his son Ottone became Doge; and during this reign a strong
opposition to the house of Orseolo was aroused, which ended with
Ottone’s expulsion in 1026. During the reign of his successor, Pietro
Centranico, faction feuds broke out, greatly weakening the Republic,
and the Dalmatian towns revolted, as Venetian suzerainty was of use
to them only so long as Venice was powerful. Some of them went over
to Dobroslav, prince of the Tribunian Serbs, and elsewhere Byzantine
authority revived. Thus in 1036, instead of a Venetian count at Zara,
we find Gregory, Jadertinus Prior, Pro-consul and Imperial Strategos
for all Dalmatia.[53] But his authority was disputed by the Croatians,
whose sovereign now proclaimed himself King of Dalmatia.[54] Against
this act the Venetians issued a protest, and the Doge Domenico
Contarini (1043-1071) reasserted the authority of the Republic.
In the year 1071 the Normans from Apulia made their first appearance
in Dalmatia; they crossed the Adriatic, and threatened the Eastern
Empire. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus having implored the help of the
Venetians, the Doge Selvo set sail for Dyrrhachium in command of a
fleet. Alexius had also asked help of the Ragusans, who were now
practically independent; but they feared the Normans more, and cast in
their lot with them. The Græco-Venetian fleet encountered the Normans
off Dyrrhachium; but in spite of the valour displayed by the allies
they were defeated, and the town fell into the enemies’ hands. It
is said that the Ragusan contingent distinguished itself by hurling
clouds of arrows, which wrought much havoc among the Venetians.[55]
As a reward they obtained important commercial privileges in Southern
Italy. In 1085 the Venetians again attacked the Normans, and partially
defeated them at Corfu, for which action Alexius granted the Doge
Vitale Falier the Golden Bull, conferring upon him the title of
Protosebastus, and created him Duke of Dalmatia and Croatia. Thus the
Republic regained all its lost influence on the eastern shore of the
Adriatic.
Yet another Power now begins to interfere in the affairs of Dalmatia,
a Power which was to play a most important part in its subsequent
history. In 1091 Ladislas, King of Hungary, was summoned by the Slaves
of inland Croatia, who as usual when quarrelling among themselves
called in foreign aid, and they willingly recognised him as their
king. He did not wait to be asked a second time, but at once entered
the province and appointed his nephew, Almus, Count of Cismontane
Croatia. On his death in 1094 he was succeeded by another nephew,
Koloman, who in the following year crossed the Velebit mountains and
invaded Maritime Croatia. He defeated and killed the Croatian king,
Krešimir, at Petrovogora, became master of the littoral from Istria
to the Narenta, and prepared to conquer the Serb states of Rascia and
Tribunia. By marrying Busita, daughter of King Roger, he allied himself
with the Normans, and enlisted their help for his schemes. At Beograd
he crowned himself King of Dalmatia and Croatia. These conquests were
not at all to the taste of the Ragusans, who had every interest in the
maintenance of a number of weak but independent Slavonic buffer States
at their back, whereas they dreaded the advance of a powerful military
monarchy like Hungary. At first they tried to conciliate Koloman with
gifts,[56] but as this availed them little they applied to their old
enemies, the Venetians; the latter made a treaty with the Hungarian
king, by which the Latin municipalities of Dalmatia were recognised
as outside the Hungarian sphere. But it was not respected for long.
The Emperor Alexius, annoyed with the Venetians for their action in
the First Crusade and in the Levant generally, intrigued with Koloman,
and induced him to violate his pledges. The Magyar king needed but
little pressure, as the conquest of the Dalmatian seaboard was one of
his chief ambitions. When the Venetians sent their fleet to Palestine
in 1105 he occupied Zara, Traù, and Spalato, and forced the citizens
to swear fealty to him. The Ragusans were not disturbed, but they
sent him another deputation. The Venetians, exhausted with their last
efforts in the Holy Land, were unable to do anything for the moment.[57]
In 1116 hostilities recommenced, and ended in 1118 with the defeat of
the Venetians, who agreed to a five years’ truce with Hungary. War
broke out again in 1124, and lasted for several years, with varying
success. Bela II., who succeeded to Koloman, while the Venetians
were occupied elsewhere, crossed the Narenta and conquered the Serb
principalities of Tribunia, Zachulmia, and Rama, and tried to induce
the coast towns to rebel against Venice. The Ragusans once more applied
for Venetian help, and even requested that Venetian counts should be
sent to govern them. Both requests were granted.
Of the next twenty-eight years of Ragusan history there is little to
tell. “Esadastes” mentions the names of four Venetian counts—Marco
Dandolo, Cristiano Pontestorto, Jacopo Doseduro or Dorsoduro, and
Pietro Molina. Resti mentions a plague in 1145, which, he says, carried
off three-quarters of the inhabitants, evidently an exaggeration. In
1148, according to the same writer, the Servian Prince Dessa, ancestor
of the Nemanjas, granted the island of Meleda to three Benedictine
monks, with the provision that its civil government should be entrusted
to Ragusa. This is the most distant possession which the Republic had
as yet acquired.
In 1152 the series of Venetian counts came to an end,[58] the last
of them having apparently received notice to quit from the Ragusans
themselves, who sent him home in one of their own galleys, with many
gifts, as a reward, “Esasdastes” says ironically, for having ruled the
city so well for thirty years; but he adds the following extract from
an early chronicle:—
“These counts had begun to tyrannise, and, moreover, Ragusa being at
war with the Bosnians, five hundred soldiers who had come from Venice
to aid us outraged our women and committed countless robberies. To free
the city from them the Council ordered them to be so placed in the
van of the army that they should all be killed. This stratagem having
succeeded, they sent the Venetian rector back to Venice.”
Whether this story be true or not, it is characteristic both of the
customs of the time and of the feelings with which the Ragusans ever
regarded the Venetians. For the latter and their government no native
historian ever has a good word to say.
The reason why the Venetians submitted so tamely to being turned out of
Ragusa lies in the general situation of affairs in Dalmatia. In 1148
Venice had formed an alliance with the Emperor Manuel Comnenus against
the Normans, whose incursions in the Adriatic constituted a menace for
both Powers; but Venetians and Greeks were on the worst of terms, and
at the siege of Corfu the Emperor’s name had been grossly insulted.
Manuel vowed vengeance on his allies, and sent emissaries to stir up
the Dalmatians against Venice. The latter was at war on the mainland
with Hungary and in Syria, and therefore found it expedient to ignore
the Dalmatian question for the time being. Venetian authority, however,
did not cease altogether even at Ragusa, where Venetians continued
to be appointed as archbishops. Thus in 1150 or 1151 the dignity was
conferred on a certain Domenico of Venice, and in 1153 on another
Venetian named Tribuno; the latter in 1155 made formal submission to
the Patriarch of Grado, with the consent of the clergy and people of
Ragusa.[59] The town continued, in fact, to be regarded as one of those
under Venetian protection, or, at least, as friendly to the Republic of
the lagoons.
In 1169 Manuel Comnenus determined to conquer Dalmatia, and even
Italy. He sent a squadron up the Adriatic to molest Venetian shipping,
and encouraged corsairs to do the same. The Imperial fleet occupied
the towns protected by Venice, treating them as conquered territory.
Ragusa too was occupied, and was doubtless not unwilling to get rid of
all Venetian authority; the Imperial standard was raised on a tower
expressly built for the purpose. On March 7, 1171, the Emperor had all
the Venetians at Constantinople arrested and their property seized.
Venice immediately declared war, and, in spite of the scarcity of
men and money, a fleet of one hundred and twenty ships, to which ten
Dalmatian galleys were added, was fitted out in a hundred days.[60] It
set sail in September under the command of the Doge Vitale Michiel,
and most of the Dalmatian towns willingly returned to Venetian
suzerainty.[61] Ragusa too surrendered, though not without resistance,
and the event is thus described in the _Cronaca Altinate_:[62]—
“The Ragusans, who, like the others (Dalmatians), were under oath of
fealty to the lord Doge, would not go forth to do him homage, but they
came out in arms as though to insult the host. Wherefore the Venetians,
in high dudgeon, marched against them, and pursued them even to the
gates of the city. The same day, at the ninth hour, they began the
attack with so much vigour that many of the citizens were killed, and,
having stormed the battlements, they captured some of the towers, on
which they raised the ducal standards. The assault was kept up with
great energy until evening. At dawn on the following morning, while
men and machines were being prepared for the battle, Tribuno Michiel,
the Archbishop of Ragusa, issued forth from the city with the clergy
and the nobles bearing crosses, and they cast themselves at the feet
of the Doge, imploring mercy for themselves and all the citizens, and
declaring that they and their city made full submission. The Doge, calm
and prudent, was moved by pity, and on the advice of his followers
received them. And all the citizens sang the praises of the Doge, and
all who were above twelve years of age swore the oath of fealty to him
and his successors. In addition, they provided money and wine for each
galley, and in obedience to the Doge’s orders demolished part of their
walls, that tower which had been expressly built for the Emperor.
They consented that their archbishopric should be subject to the
Patriarchate of Grado, provided that the Pope permitted it.[63] When
these things had been accomplished the Doge appointed the noble youth
Raynerius Joannes (Renier Zane or Zen) as Viscount, and set sail with
his fleet for Romania.”[64]
[Illustration: ONOFRIO’S FOUNTAIN IN THE PIAZZA]
Dandolo’s account is almost identical, and so is that of Sabellico,
save that the latter does not mention the actual storming of the
town. He merely says that the Ragusans sued for peace through their
archbishop, and that they themselves demolished the tower on which the
Imperial standard had been raised. Whichever version we accept, it is
clear that Ragusa again made full submission to the ducal authority,
and came once more under Venetian supremacy. We must not forget that
Tribuno Michiel, the archbishop, was a Venetian, and probably there
was a Venetian party in the city as well as a Byzantine party. When
it became evident that the Venetians were in earnest, the faction
which favoured them at once prevailed. “Esadastes,” as usual, casts
doubts on the whole story, because Dandolo and Sabellico do not agree
as to the attack, but he does not even mention the account of the
_Cronaca Altinate_. Resti denies the submission altogether. It should
be remembered that whereas Dandolo and the author of the Altinate
Chronicle wrote barely a century after the events related, the Ragusan
historians flourished in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries, and wrote with the express purpose of combating all Venice’s
claims over Ragusa.
But, as before, the surrender did not greatly affect the internal
affairs of the city, which continued to be managed by the citizens
themselves. Nor did Venetian suzerainty last long. The campaign
against the Eastern Empire ended most disastrously; the fleet was
decimated by disease, and returned to Venice in 1172 a complete wreck.
Venetian influence in Dalmatia was greatly reduced in consequence,
while that of the Empire revived proportionately, and lasted until
Manuel’s death in 1180. The country was, however, regarded as still in
a measure connected with Venice, and in the treaty of peace which the
latter made with William of Sicily in 1175 he promised not to invade
“the lands which are under the rule of the Doge of Venice and of the
Venetians,”[65] and Dalmatia was included among these.
In the meanwhile Ragusa was developing international relations of a
different character, _i.e._ with the Slavonic principalities of the
interior. In the earliest times Ragusan territory was limited to a
small part of the actual city, and for a long time did not extend
beyond the walls. Constantine Porphyrogenitus informs us that it
bordered on the two states of Zachulmia and Tribunia. The vineyards of
the Ragusans were on the territory of these tribes, and the citizens
paid a yearly tribute of thirty-six _numismata_ (gold pieces) to the
Prince of Zachulmia, and as much to the Prince of Tribunia.[66] As
the population increased they gradually extended their cultivation
to the whole of these districts. The Tribunian vineyards were in the
Župa of Žrnovica (Breno); those of Zachulmia in the Župa of Rijeka
(Ombla), as far as Malfi, and in that of Poljice.[67] The tribute
which the Ragusans paid for this privilege was called _margarisium_
or _magarisium_;[68] its value varied considerably. In 1363 that
due to the Zachulmians was of sixty _ipperperi_, paid by the owners
of the vineyards in proportion to the extent of their holdings.
The Zachulmians, on their side, sent a cow, called the _vacca di
margarisio_, which was divided between the Count of Ragusa and some
of the _boni homines_ (_optimates_) of the city. Later, instead of
one animal, several were sent.[69] Besides the tribute, the Ragusans
paid a tithe in kind to the Slave princelings. From time to time they
made special treaties with their neighbours, usually of a commercial
character. By one of these, which Resti dates 831,[70] Svetimir,
King of Bosnia, agreed to send 50 oxen, 500 sheep and goats, and 200
loads of oats to Ragusa, and to treat the Ragusans in his territory
as though they were his own subjects, while they were to send him
fourteen _braccia_[71] of red cloth. This indicates the city’s economic
position, which enabled it to send manufactured articles from the west
into the Balkan lands, while it bought from the latter the cattle and
foodstuffs which its own limited territory could not provide. Even in
later times most of the grain consumed by the Ragusans was imported
from abroad.
Relations with the Slaves, however, were not always of so peaceable
a character, and the Ragusans were often engaged in little wars with
their turbulent neighbours. The gradual extension of the Ragusan
vineyards was a fertile source of dispute (_lis de vineis_),[72] as
the Republic claimed and finally obtained by prescription the right
to govern the territory in question. Another cause of dispute was
the arrest and ill-treatment to which Ragusan merchants were often
subjected when travelling in the interior. At other times the Ragusans
aroused the ire of the neighbouring princes by giving shelter to their
rebellious subjects. The story of Bodino, in spite of its legendary
character, illustrates this very clearly. This Slavonic prince, having
deposed his uncle, Radoslav,[73] and made himself King of Dalmatia
and Croatia, conquered Bosnia and Servia. But he wished to get rid of
Radoslav’s sons, who still ruled over a small territory on the river
Drina. In this he succeeded by treachery, but their children managed
to escape to Ragusa, and placed themselves under the protection of the
Republic. Bodino demanded that they should be given up to him, and on
the refusal of the Ragusans he besieged their city for seven years.
At the end of this time, finding that his efforts were useless, he
put his cousins to death, and retired with the bulk of his army. But
in order to molest Ragusa he built a castle at the head of the bridge
connecting the town with the mainland, and left a small containing
force behind. The Ragusans obtained possession of this stronghold by
the following stratagem. After having bribed the commanders of the
garrison by promising them land and honours in the city, they allowed
a large consignment of wine to fall into the hands of the enemy; while
the latter were making merry on it the burghers issued forth and put
them all to the sword. The castle was destroyed, and the church of San
Niccolò in Prijeki[74] erected on its site. These events are recorded
as having occurred some time during the eleventh or twelfth century,
but the accounts are by writers who lived several hundreds of years
later. Probably there were wars with the Slaves in which incidents of a
similar character occurred, but the seven years’ siege is pure fiction,
and the name of Bodino is not found in any history of the Serbs or
Croatians.
Another Servian war, on which we possess somewhat more reliable
information, is that which broke out in 1184 between the Ragusans and
Stephen Nemanja, King of the Serbs. An army commanded by the King
himself attacked the city from the land side,[75] while a fleet under
his brother, Miroslav, attacked it by sea. The citizens, under Michele
Bobali, completely defeated the besiegers, who were ignorant of siege
operations and quite unprovided with necessaries. On the Feast of
the Three Martyrs,[76] September 27, 1186, peace was concluded.[77]
Both sides agreed to forget past injuries, and Nemanja granted the
Ragusans permission to trade in all parts of his dominions, while his
own subjects were to be protected at Ragusa; but it was also stipulated
that rebels should be prevented from using the city as a place in which
to conspire against their sovereign. There was another stipulation,
that should the King or his brother ever need a safe refuge, Ragusa
should be open to them—a clause found in many subsequent treaties.
Venice in all that concerned Ragusa’s relations with the Slave states
allowed the citizens to do as they pleased, even during the period when
Venetian counts presided over its government. It was only in questions
concerning maritime affairs that the Queen of the Adriatic asserted her
authority over Ragusa from time to time.
This same year the Normans made another raid into Dalmatia, and
occupied Ragusa and several other coast towns. Norman rule lasted until
1190, and does not seem to have left any traces beyond a few documents.
The treaty of peace, dated September 27, 1186,[78] was drawn up “at
the court of the most glorious King William and of the lord archbishop
Tribunus, in the presence of Tasilgard, the Royal Chamberlain, of all
the nobles, of Gervase the count (of Ragusa), and of all the people.”
This shows that Ragusa was under a Norman count. Document xxii. of the
_Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium_ is a treaty of
peace between Ragusa and the Cazichi (another name for the Narentan,
pirates): “And on the side of the Ragusans, Gervase the count swore
to preserve this peace, without prejudice to his sovereign lord....
In the year of our Lord (1190), in the month of February, on the day
of St. Blaize (the 3rd), the Assembly having been summoned by Gervase
the count to the sound of the bell, we decided,” &c. Document xxiii.,
dated June 13, 1190, is a treaty between this same count of Ragusa
and Miroslav, Prince of the Serbs, in which Gervase promises that the
latter should receive hospitality at Ragusa if he ever required it,
_salvo sacramento domini nostri regi Tancredi_.
The occupation of Ragusa by the Normans is evidently an episode in the
wars which they waged against the Eastern Empire, and the town was
probably seized merely as a basis for further operations. Gervase, who
ruled the whole time, does not seem to have been an absolute despot,
as the consent of the Assembly was required for all the acts of the
Government. Norman rule in Dalmatia did not survive the death of
Tancred and the consequent collapse of the Sicilian kingdom in 1190.
In documents of a date posterior to this, such as the treaty with Fano
in 1199,[79] with Ancona[80] of the same year, with Bari of 1201,[81]
and with Termoli of 1203,[82] no mention either of Venetian or Norman
counts is made, so that we may conclude that for the time being Ragusa
enjoyed freedom from foreign rulers.
But Venice was preparing to re-occupy the whole of Dalmatia, and the
Fourth Crusade of 1202 provided her with the desired opportunity.
The Crusaders began their expedition to the Holy Land by storming
and sacking Zara, where they wintered. In 1204 they captured
Constantinople, subverted the Greek Empire, and set up the ephemeral
Latin Empire of the East in its place, with Baldwin of Flanders as
Emperor. The Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, the prime mover and
leader of the expedition, became “lord of a quarter and a half of
Romania.” In 1205 the Venetians, at the height of their power, demanded
the submission of Ragusa, which was at once tendered. Dandolo (the
historian) thus describes this fourth surrender:—
“Tommaso Morosini, who had been nominated Patriarch (of Constantinople)
by Innocent III., returned to Venice, carrying the Pope’s letters; he
set sail with a fleet of four triremes and made war against the city
of Ragusa, who, at the suggestion of the Greeks, had rebelled against
Venice. The citizens, no longer trusting in the strength of the Greeks,
surrendered their city to the Venetians.”
Two other chronicles[83] give similar accounts of the event. The
indefatigable “Esadastes” of course tries to prove that Ragusa did
not surrender, because the people who had held out so bravely and
successfully against the Saracens 340 years previously would not have
tamely submitted to a squadron of four ships commanded by a priest.
The Ragusan apologist, however, forgets the enormous prestige acquired
by the Venetians as a consequence of their exploits in subverting the
Eastern Empire, after which event Ragusa could not hope to oppose the
greatest Power in the Adriatic with any chance of success.[84]
With this act of submission ends the first period of Ragusan history,
during which the possession, or rather suzerainty over the city was a
matter of dispute between the Venetians and the Greeks, with intervals
of absolute independence, and four years of Norman rule. As, however,
Byzantine influence, not necessarily political, predominates even in
Venice itself, we may call this the Byzantine period. For the next
hundred and fifty years, save for one short interruption, Ragusa
remains under Venetian supremacy.
An important question in connection with the growth of Ragusa is its
ecclesiastical history. Native historians have attempted to prove that
the city was an archiepiscopal see from the earliest times, and that
it succeeded to Salona, whence some of its first settlers had come,
as the metropolis of all Dalmatia. This latter contention proving
quite untenable (the Archbishop of Salona, together with the majority
of the surviving inhabitants, took refuge at Spalato, which became
an archiepiscopal see in consequence), they declare that the Ragusan
archbishops had succeeded to those of Doclea. That city, they assert,
had been destroyed by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, and its archbishop
fled to Ragusa, which became _ipso facto_ an archiepiscopal see. A
more accurate account is that contained in the _Illyricum Sacrum_ of
Farlati. Doclea was destroyed, not by Samuel, who became Tsar of the
Bulgarians in 976, but by Simeon. In fact Porphyrogenitus, who wrote
in 949, mentions the event as having occurred during his own lifetime.
According to the _Illyricum Sacrum_ the exact date was 926. John (the
archbishop) actually did take refuge at Ragusa, where, on the death
of the local bishop, he succeeded to the see, retaining his superior
title by courtesy. His successors wished to continue in the dignity,
and even began to assume metropolitan authority, refusing to obey the
archbishop of Spalato. The dispute lasted many years, and the bishops
of the newly-created see of Antivari[85] claimed that they were the
true successors to the archbishops of Doclea. Pope Gregory VII.
apparently refers to these contentions in his Epistle to Michael, King
of the Slaves.[86] The Roman Pontiff hereby summons “Peter, bishop of
Antivari, the bishop of Ragusa, and other suitable witnesses, by means
of whom the contention between the archbishop of Spalato and Ragusa[87]
may be judicially examined and canonically defined,” to repair to the
Holy See. What Gregory’s decision was we are not informed, but in the
end the see of Ragusa was separated from that of Spalato and erected
into an archbishopric with metropolitan authority. The same thing was
done in the case of Antivari. Thus by the thirteenth century we find
that Dalmatia was divided into three ecclesiastical provinces. The
reasons why the Ragusans were so anxious to have an archbishopric of
their own were political not less than religious. We have seen how
important a personage the Ragusan bishop was in the constitution, and
if he were to owe obedience to a prelate in a foreign and possibly
hostile State, he might be induced to act in a manner prejudicial to
the interests of the Republic. The existence of a separate province,
which lasted down to our own times, also constituted a further
assertion of Ragusan independence.
The importance of the Ragusan Church was further enhanced by the
conversion of the neighbouring Slaves, to whom Ragusa was the nearest
religious centre. Ragusan missionaries went among them to preach the
Gospel, and ecclesiastics from Constantinople made the city their
headquarters and starting-point. The part which Ragusa played in these
conversions explains the gifts which the Servian princes and nobles
made to its churches.[88] In later times religious controversies arose
between the citizens and their neighbours, in consequence of the
heretical and schismatic sects which were spreading throughout the
Balkan lands. Ragusa was nothing if not orthodox, and used all her
influence to second the Papacy in trying to suppress these movements,
which were often countenanced by the kings and princes of Servia
and Bosnia. Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa at the end of the twelfth
century, wished to bring the bishops of Bosnia under his authority,
and the Banus Čulin, who at that time professed himself a Catholic,
consented. But while Bernard was in Rome, Čulin abjured Catholicism
for Bogomilism,[89] and set up Bogomil bishops in opposition to those
consecrated by Bernard. Vulkan, Grand Župan of Chelmo (Zachulmia), did
likewise, and convoked a synod at Antivari.[90]
In 1023 the Benedictine Order came to Ragusa from the Tremiti Islands
under one Peter, and established itself on the island of Lacroma.
Various Serb princes and Ragusan citizens made gifts of land to the
monastery.
The Ragusans were essentially a commercial people, and trade, both
inland and sea-borne, formed the chief source of their wealth. In the
Byzantine period, however, we only find the germs of their future
commercial development. We have already alluded to the part played by
Ragusan shipping, first in the Greek expedition to Apulia in 848, and
then at the battle of Durazzo. But the vessels were small, and the
sea-borne trade of a very limited character. Navigation was of three
kinds—coastwise traffic, navigation _intra Culfum_, and navigation
_extra Culfum_.[91] Coastwise traffic was comprised between the
peninsula of Molonta (a little to the north-west of the Bay of Cattaro)
and the Canale di Stagno, a distance of about 70 kilometres in all,
with ten harbours. Navigation _intra Culfum_, which extended from the
Capo Cumano to Apulia and Durazzo, was of considerable importance even
during the Byzantine epoch. Fine Milan cloths, skins, tan, and canvas
for sails were brought on Ragusan ships from the ports of the Marche
and Apulia, and forwarded to all parts of the Eastern Empire and the
Slavonic lands. All trade to places situated beyond these limits came
under the heading of navigation _extra Culfum_, but we shall defer a
detailed account of its conditions to a later chapter, as it did not
grow to important proportions until the thirteenth century. There
was, however, apparently a Ragusan colony at Constantinople.
[Illustration: THE QUAY AND HARBOUR GATE]
The earliest recorded commercial treaty made by the Republic is the one
of 1169 with Pisa. In 1168 the Republic of Pisa sent three envoys to
Constantinople to settle a contention with Manuel Comnenus. On the way
they stopped at Ragusa, and on May 13, 1169, signed a commercial treaty
with the city, guaranteeing mutual immunities and other privileges. The
Pisan envoys then proceeded on their journey, accompanied by the newly
appointed chief of the Ragusan colony in the Imperial capital.[92]
There were political as well as commercial reasons for this
agreement, in the hostility of both Republics to Venetian supremacy
in the Adriatic. About this time the Ragusans obtained the right of
citizenship at Constantinople, granted to them by Manuel, and confirmed
by his son, Alexius II. The original documents have not been preserved,
but the privilege is frequently alluded to by later writers.
Many treaties with the other towns of Dalmatia, Istria, and Italy
are published in the _Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum
Meridionalium_. Thus in 1188 a perpetual peace was concluded with
Rovigno;[93] in 1190 an agreement with the Cazichi or Narentans[94]
(also called Dalmisiani, from the town of Almissa); in 1191 a treaty
with Fano, and others to which we have already alluded. These
agreements were all similar in character, and their object being to
insure mutual and commercial privileges. Some contained special
clauses exempting the citizens of the contracting cities from certain
taxes and customs dues.
Traffic with the Slavonic states also began early, but the great trade
highways from the coast to the interior were not fully developed until
the next century.
Artistic and intellectual development, in which Byzantine influence
is conspicuous, was still in its infancy, and of the few buildings
of this period with any architectural pretensions only the smallest
traces remain. The town was built chiefly of wood, save for the walls
and a couple of small churches. The oldest edifice of which anything
remains is the Church of San Stefano, mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus as the most important in the town. Four ruined walls
in a court near the diocesan seminary are believed to have belonged
to this very ancient building. The tradition is that it was erected
by Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, or by his widow. Gelcich suggestively
describes what the building must have been like: “In the church of
St. Stephen at Ragusa we must picture to ourselves not a work of art,
but a chapel capable of containing few beyond the ministers at the
altar; low-vaulted, decorated internally, and perhaps externally, with
frescoes; an apse just large enough for the altar, lit by such few rays
of sunlight as could penetrate by an irregular number of holes piercing
the stone slab which closed the single-arched window placed over the
altar.”[95] On the outside wall there is a fragment of bas-relief of
two arches, each containing a cross on a design of foliage. Close by is
the area of a larger church, also in ruins, of a later date, to which
Santo Stefano afterwards served as a sacristy.
Another church of the Byzantine period is that of San Giacomo in
Peline,[96] on the slopes of the Monte Sergio, mentioned by documents
of the thirteenth century as already very ancient. Seen from outside,
there is nothing to tell one that it is a church at all, but internally
it is in good repair, and it is still occasionally used for services.
It is quite plain, and has round arches and vaultings. It consists
of a nave, three bays, and an apse. The single window, which is a
later addition, is to the left of the altar. A small painting of the
fourteenth century is the only ornament. Two other churches—San Niccolò
in Prijeki, and Santa Maria in Castello—although both of this epoch,
were entirely rebuilt in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The
best—one is tempted to say the only—piece of Byzantine sculpture in
the town is a handsomely carved doorway in a chapel near the Duomo.
The design, though simple, is elegant and graceful. On the island of
Lacroma an inscription marks the burial-place of Vitalis, archbishop of
Ragusa from 1023 to 1047.
This, then, is the sum of Byzantine remnants at Ragusa. The name of
Monte Sergio, as Prof. Eitelberger says, is the only relic of the
Oriental Church; while the name of the west gate, Porta Pile or Pille,
is apparently derived from the Greek Πύλαι.
Of literary production it is as yet too early to speak, for Ragusan
literature only begins with the Renaissance.