VENETIAN SUPREMACY
I.—THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, 1204-1276.
During the next hundred and fifty years, save for two or three short
interruptions between 1221 and 1233, Ragusa is admittedly a vassal
state of the Venetian Republic, ruled by Venetian counts appointed
by the Doge. Venice was, however, the protectress rather than the
absolute mistress of the Dalmatian townships, which continued to enjoy
a considerable measure of self-government. Venetian influence was
useful to them as a protection both against the pirates which infested
the Adriatic and the turbulence of the Slavonic princes, although as
regards her relations with the latter, Ragusa, at all events, was free
to manage even her foreign policy to a great extent. It will be well to
examine the conditions of the Slavonic hinterland at this period.
[Illustration: RAGUSA FROM THE EAST]
During the twelfth century the Slave lands were beginning to assume a
semblance of order, and early in the thirteenth century, out of the
chaos of barbarous and more or less independent tribes, four principal
states had taken shape. They were Servia or Rascia, Bosnia, Hlum or
Hum, and Doclea. The most important of these was Servia, welded into
a kingdom by the Nemanja dynasty, who had extended their frontiers
southwards and eastwards at the expense of the Eastern Roman Empire.
It included, besides modern Servia, as far as the Ibar and the Servian
Morava, a part of Bosnia to the east of the watershed between the
rivers Bosna and Drina, the district of Novibazar and Old Servia,
and a part of Albania.[97] It had no regular capital in the modern
sense, but the Kings resided usually at Prizren, at Scutari,[98] or
at Skopje (Üsküb). It touched the sea-coast at the Bocche di Cattaro
and in Albania; and the town of Cattaro was sometimes under Servian
protection. The importance of the country does not begin until the
reign of Stephen Nemanja (1143 or 1159). He extended his territory so
as to include Bosnia in 1169, and reduced all the semi-independent
župans (feudal lords) to subjection. He was still under Byzantine
suzerainty, but after the death of Manuel Comnenus in 1180 he refused
to pay tribute to his successor, conquered Niš, and made Priština[99]
his capital. In 1185 he shook off all allegiance to the Greeks, and
assumed the title of King of Servia, but was not crowned. In 1195
he abdicated in favour of his son, Stephen Uroš, who was crowned
by his younger brother, St. Sava, the first archbishop of Servia.
Stephen Uroš’s reign was peaceful, and Servia flourished under him.
His brother, Vukan, had inherited the Zeta and part of Hlum from his
father, but owed allegiance to Stephen Uroš. When the Latin Empire
of Constantinople was established in 1205, Baldwin recognised him
as independent King of Servia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Uroš died in
1224. His son, Stephen III., captured the town of Vidin or Bdin from
the Bulgarians, and the district of Syrmia between the Save and the
Danube. His brother, Ladislas, who succeeded him, abandoned Vidin on
marrying the Bulgarian Tsar’s daughter. A third brother, Stephen IV.
the Great, succeeded in 1237. With Stephen Uroš II. Milutin (succeeded
1275) Servia is almost at the height of her power. He conquered a large
part of Macedonia, capturing the town of Serres, besieged Salonica
in 1285, and invaded Albania. He added Bosnia, which had been under
Hungarian vassalage, once more to Servia, by divorcing his first wife
and marrying Elizabeth, the daughter of the King of Hungary, who gave
him Bosnia as a dowry. His grandson, Stephen, who was called Dušan or
the Strangler, because he had strangled his own father,[100] succeeded
in 1331, and extended his power over the greater part of the Balkan
peninsula. He conquered the rest of Macedonia and Albania, and reduced
Bulgaria to a state of vassalage. In 1346 he had himself crowned “Tsar
of the Serbs and Greeks.”[101]
Bosnia, which corresponded to the modern region of that name, minus the
eastern districts under Servia and the north-west corner, was ruled by
a Banus who owed allegiance to Hungary. The first Banus, whose name
is recorded in authentic documents, is Borić, who reigned from 1154
to 1163. During the next twenty years the country was under Byzantine
suzerainty, represented at times by Greek governors, at others by
native princes with Imperial diplomas. In 1180 the great Banus Kulin or
Čulin came to the throne, shook off Byzantine authority, and ruled the
country wisely and well for twenty-four years. He cultivated friendly
relations with his neighbours, including Ragusa.[102] “The days of
Čulin” became proverbial in later and less happy times to indicate a
golden age. After Čulin’s death the country’s prosperity declined,
but revived to some extent under Matthew Ninoslav (1232). After the
death of his successor in 1254 Bosnia fell once more under Hungarian
vassalage, and was divided into Bosnia proper (afterwards Bosnia-Mačva)
under native vassal Bani, and the district of Usora and Soli ruled
by Hungarian magnates. After a short period under the Croatian house
of Šubić the native prince, Stephen Kotromanić, became Banus under
Hungarian suzerainty, and reigned until 1353, when his nephew, Stephen
Trvartko or Tvrtko,[103] succeeded him and crowned himself king.
The land of Hlum or Hum had in early times formed part of the kingdom
of Doclea, and included, besides the modern Herzegovina, Tribunia (or
Travunia), the peninsula of Sabbioncello, a long stretch of Dalmatian
coast, and part of Montenegro. In 1015 it was conquered by the
Bulgarian Tsars, whose empire had spread to the Adriatic. The Greek
Emperor, Basil II. (_Bulgaroktonos_), reconquered it in 1019, and in
1050 the native prince Radoslav drove out the Greeks, and made himself
ruler of the country. Among his successors was Bodino, who is said to
have besieged Ragusa. During the twelfth century the Servians attacked
Doclea, and in 1143 King Radoslav II. asked the Greek Emperor for help
against them; but in 1150 Hlum was conquered by Dessa (or Stephen
Nemanja), brother of the King of Servia, reoccupied by the Greeks a
few years later, and in 1168 added once more to the kingdom of Servia.
From 1198 to the beginning of the thirteenth century it was connected
with Croatia, after which it returned once more to the Servians. The
latter were extremely anxious to possess Hlum, because it afforded them
their best opening to the sea (to the north they were cut off by Bosnia
and Croatia). In all probability it continued to form part of Servia
until added to the Bosnian Banate by Stephen Kotromanić about 1320
or 1330, shorn, however, of Stagno by the Ragusans, as we shall see
subsequently.[104]
Ragusa was thus surrounded on all her land frontiers by powerful
Slavonic states, who at times were friendly, but envied her wealth,
and above all her splendid port; of this they tried on more than one
occasion to gain possession. Ragusa relied for safety on their own
dissensions and on Venetian protection. In the meantime she made the
most of her position by exploiting their territory for commercial
purposes.
Of the first twenty years of Venetian rule there is little to
record. Of the counts, only one name is mentioned between 1204 and
1222—Giovanni Dandolo,[105] who may have ruled during the whole
period. But about this time there occurred a curious event in the
history of the town, which is described as a Ragusan version of
the story of Marin Faliero. It is variously represented as having
occurred about 1221-1223 or 1230-1232. The earlier date appears to
be more probable, for reasons which we shall explain. Apparently for
a few years previously Ragusa had been enjoying what was practically
absolute freedom, as no Venetian count had been appointed. In 1221
or thereabouts a certain Damiano Giuda or Juda was elected count by
popular assembly. But instead of resigning the dignity after six
months, which had been the usual period during the intervals of
independence, he continued in office illegally for two years; he
tyrannised over the people, subjected his enemies to arbitrary arrest,
exile, and confiscation, and kept a bodyguard of mercenaries.[106]
The citizens tired of this misgovernment, and were willing to call in
the Venetians once more. A conspiracy was set on foot to bring about
the tyrant’s downfall, under the leadership of his own son-in-law,
Pirro Benessa. What increased the discontent among the Ragusans was
the fact that since the rupture with Venice that Republic had ceased
to protect them against piracy, and their maritime trade suffered in
consequence. Giuda’s arbitrary proceedings had also caused trouble with
the other Dalmatian towns. A group of nobles met to discuss the matter,
and although some, including Vito and Michele Bobali, opposed any
suggestion that Venetian aid should be resorted to, their objections
were overruled, and it was decided to send a deputation to Venice,
headed by Pirro Benessa himself. On its arrival it was well received,
and the Government sent a squadron of six galleys down the Adriatic,
ostensibly to escort the Patriarch of Constantinople. It weighed anchor
at Ragusa, where Benessa landed and visited the tyrant, advising him to
come and pay his respects to the Patriarch and the Venetian admiral.
Not suspecting treachery Giuda agreed, and went on board the principal
galley. He was instantly seized and loaded with chains, and the fleet
sailed away. When he found himself thus outwitted, in a fit of rage
and despair he committed suicide by beating his head against the sides
of the vessel. In exchange for this deliverance the Ragusans agreed to
readmit the Venetian counts.
How far this story is authentic we cannot decide, but in its main
features it is probably true. It may be that Damiano Giuda was a
patriot, whose object was to consolidate Ragusa as a free city,
independent of all Venetian tutelage, but that he felt that the
community was still too weak to stand alone unless ruled by a strong
personal government. Or he may have been, as most historians make
him out, merely an ambitious citizen, like those who made themselves
masters of the various Italian city-republics. Be that as it may, the
important point is the subsequent connection between Ragusa and Venice.
There is a letter addressed to one Velcinno,[107] Podestà of Spalato,
which alludes to “Zellovellus ragusiensis comes,” and to the story of
Damiano Giuda. This Velcinno is probably the same as Buysinus, who was
podestà from 1221 to 1223. This would indicate that the episode was
over not later than 1223, and that Zellovellus had come as Venetian
count. We know that Damiano tyrannised for two years, so he must have
entered office at least as early as 1221. But as he had been elected by
the people and not appointed by the Doge, Ragusa must at that time have
been independent of Venice. Now there are documents of 1224 and 1226 in
which the Ragusans are reprimanded for having failed to send hostages
to Venice and otherwise fulfil their promises. The final treaty of
submission regulating Venetian suzerainty over Ragusa is dated 1232.
Pisani concludes from this that the Zellovello letter is a forgery;
that Ragusa shook off Venetian supremacy between 1224 and 1226,
remained free and independent until 1230, when Giuda became tyrant;
and that the submission of 1232 was the price which the Ragusans paid
for being freed from him.[108] Professor Gelcich, however, holds to
the authenticity of the Zellovello letter,[109] but does not allude
to the documents of 1224 and 1226 regarding the hostages and the
prohibition to the Ragusans against trading with Alexandria.[110] It
is, I think, probable that these documents refer to a later rebellion
against Venetian authority. Venice had helped the Ragusans to shake
off domestic tyranny, say, about 1223, exacting in exchange certain
promises of allegiance and a number of hostages. These stipulations
were not fulfilled; hence the protests referred to in the documents of
1224 and 1226. Venice, however, did not press her claims, and Ragusa
remained more or less independent.[111] Finally, on finding that the
city could not yet stand alone, or fearing that Venice was preparing
to re-establish her authority by force of arms, the citizens made a
voluntary submission in 1232. This view is corroborated by the fact
that in the treaty of 1232 no mention is made either of Damiano Giuda
or of Pirro Benessa, who headed the conspiracy against him and the
deputation to Venice. The negotiations were carried on between the
Venetian Government and two Ragusan nobles, Binzola Bodazza[112] and
Gervasio Naimerio.
[Illustration: TORRE MENZE]
The treaty of 1232 fixes the terms of Ragusa’s dependence. “We, the
envoys of Ragusa,” it begins, “seeing that it appears to us of great
advantage that our country should be subject to Venetian domination,
beg that you should grant us a Venetian count according to our
desires.” Ragusa was always to have Venetian counts in future, who
were to be chosen by the Doge with the majority of his councillors.
“The count shall swear fealty to the Doge and to his successors, and
thus will all future counts to all future Doges for ever. Also all the
men of the county (of Ragusa) above thirteen years of age shall swear
fealty to the lord Doge and his successors, and they shall renew their
oath every ten years. They shall also swear fealty to the count and
all his successors for ever, ‘salva fidelitate domini ducis ad honorem
Venecie et salutem Ragusii.’” Should the Doge ever visit Ragusa he was
to be honourably lodged in the Archbishop’s palace.
It was further agreed that the Ragusans should always choose a Venetian
for their archbishop, namely, a man born at any place between Grado
and Cavarzere, and that he should be subject to the authority of the
Patriarch of Grado, if the Pope permitted it.[113] He, too, must swear
allegiance to the Doge and his successors, whose praises the clergy
must solemnly sing in the cathedral at Christmas, at Easter, and on the
feast of San Biagio.
The treaty specifies the mutual obligations of the two cities in naval
matters. When the Venetian fleet puts to sea for war beyond Brindisi
and Durazzo, for every thirty Venetian galleys Ragusa must provide one,
and the Ragusan ships are to remain in commission as long as those of
Venice. Ragusa may levy the same tolls on all foreign ships as are
levied at Venice, and the proceeds are to be divided in equal parts
between the Count, the Archbishop, and the Commune. The friends of
the Venetians are to be the friends of the Ragusans, and the enemies
of the Venetians their enemies. They must not have any dealings with
the Almissans, the Narentans, and other pirates. Whenever Venice sends
a fleet against the pirates, Ragusa must provide at least one good
ship with fifty men. As regards tribute, “the Ragusans must give 12
_ipperperi_ to the Doge and 100 gold _ipperperi_ of the right weight to
the Venetian commonwealth on the feast of San Biagio. At the same time
the Commune must give 400 _ipperperi_ to the Count, as well as all the
other usual revenues and honours, save the salt revenue. The Ragusans
must send twelve hostages, belonging to as many noble families, to
Venice; of these, half are to be changed every six months.” The
Ragusans must pay 5 per cent. on all goods which they bring to Venice
from the Eastern Empire, 20 per cent. on those from Egypt, Tunis,
and Barbary; 2½ per cent. on those from Sicily. Merchandise from
Slavonia was free of duty. Ragusa could only send four ships of seventy
_miliari_[114] to Venice each year on these terms; all further traffic
was subject to higher duties; the Ragusans could not trade with
foreigners in Venice, nor with countries where the Venetians could not
trade.
The document ends with renewed oaths of allegiance to Venice on behalf
of the Ragusans.[115] “Esadastes” admits that Ragusa really did submit
to Venice in 1232, but declares this treaty to be a forgery, having
only seen it in Nani’s _De Duobus Imperatoris Rasciæ Nummis_, where
it is incomplete. He bases his contention, first, on the fact that
the provision as to the archbishops being Venetians was not always
complied with. This, however, proves nothing, as there is no reason
why Venice should not sometimes have allowed the Ragusans to choose
some foreigner if no suitable Venetian were forthcoming. He adds that
the Ragusan envoys had no authority to surrender the city without
consulting the Grand Council, and as Damiano Giuda was then ruling, it
could not be summoned. This is merely an ingenious quibble, and, if we
admit that nine years had elapsed since the expulsion of the tyrant,
the argument has no value at all. Then he changes his line, and insists
that Ragusa merely contracted a _fœdus_ or _fidelitas_, _i.e._ a treaty
of friendship, with Venice, and not a _deditio_ or true submission, and
that in agreeing to have Venetian counts Ragusa did nothing more than
what Florence and other Italian cities did when they chose foreigners
for the position of _podestà_, without thereby prejudicing their
liberty. It is easy to see that there is a considerable difference
between the action of the Italian Republics, who chose their rulers
now from one town and now from another, and that of Ragusa, who was
obliged to accept Venetian counts appointed by the Doge.[116]
Venetian rule was now heavier than it had been previously; the Count
made his influence felt more strongly, no important State business
being transacted without his authority, and Ragusa was obliged to pay
a tribute both in money and ships to the _Dominante_. The ceremonial
observed on the arrival of the new Count was very elaborate; it is
described in all its details in the statute-book of Marco Giustiniani
(1272):—
“We decide that the lord Count who will come to Ragusa for a period,
shall swear in the public assembly summoned by the sound of the bell to
govern the city well, to maintain and guard its ancient constitutions
and statutes, and to give judgment according to their provisions.
After swearing this oath the standard of San Biagio, Pontiff and
Martyr, shall be delivered into the hand of the said lord Count by the
Commune of Ragusa, and thus will he be invested in the piazza with
the countship and governorship. Afterwards he will immediately repair
with the standard to the principal church, where he will receive holy
water, incense, and a Bible, on which he shall renew his oath, from the
cathedral chapter. Then one of the canons preaches a sermon praising
the Doge and the Count. The latter returns to the piazza with the
standard, to receive the homage of the people, who, after the standard
of St. Mark has been raised, swear to maintain the pact made with
the Venetian Republic. One citizen shouts, another shouts, all shout
together: ‘Long live our Lord N.N., the magnificent Doge of Venice!’
and all and sundry in Ragusa and its territory vow to be loyal to the
said Doge and the Commune of Venice for ever, gladly accepting the
standard of the blessed St. Mark the Evangelist presented unto them by
the lord Doge himself.”[117]
This account gives us a vivid picture of mediæval municipal life with
all its picturesque splendour and its characteristic admixture of
religion and politics. The piazza of Ragusa, with what was then the
castle, the imposing church, the frowning walls, and the small wooden
houses—for it was still mostly of timber—formed a suitable setting for
the ceremony.
The Count was assisted by two lieutenants or viscounts, usually, but
not invariably, Venetians, each of whom received a salary of fifty
Venetian pounds, paid by the Ragusans, and two new suits of State robes
every year. The Count remained in office on an average two years, and
during his tenure he might not leave the city even for a single day. He
could, however, obtain special permission from Venice to leave Ragusa
for not more than eight days, but only on public business, such as
arranging treaties with neighbouring princes.
Apparently there was another break in Venetian rule about 1235, as
in a treaty of that year with Koloman, Count of Almissa,[118] and in
another with Rimini,[119] no mention is made of the Venetian count. In
January 1236 Ragusan envoys went to Venice to renew the treaty of 1232,
but with modified conditions in favour of greater independence. The
Signory, however, would not give way, and the treaty was reconfirmed
in June on almost identical terms.[120] From this date Venetian
overlordship continued without interruption and without modification
until 1358.
As soon as the internal affairs of the Republic were settled the
citizens proceeded to regulate their relations with their Slavonic
neighbours. At this time the Banus of Bosnia, Ninoslav, was animated by
friendly feelings towards Ragusa. In 1234 he had signed a treaty with
the count confirming the privileges granted by Čulin in 1189. On March
22, 1240, he paid a solemn visit to the city with a splendid retinue of
nobles, and renewed the old treaties with the following proclamation:
“It was the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I, Matthew Ninoslav,
the Grand Banus of Bosnia, had the good thought of coming to Ragusa to
my old friends the nobles and commons; I came with my magnates, and
we found Niccolò Tonisto, the Count of Ragusa. I, with my magnates,
made oath to him of eternal peace and friendship.” He adds: “My
subjects and my people and my officers shall love you, and with true
faith protect you from the wicked.” He granted them full commercial
freedom throughout his Banate. He alludes to a dispute between Stephen
Vladislav, King of Servia, and promises not to abandon them should they
actually have to make war. This treaty was renewed in 1249.[121]
The next few years were peaceful, save for a small religious dispute,
and Ragusa continued to develop her resources quietly. The new Count,
Niccolò Tonisto, however, complained to the Pope that the Archbishop
Arrengerius was a Roman and not a Venetian,[122] and even accused him
of heresy because he had consecrated a priest of Patarene tendencies
as Bishop of Bosnia. Arrengerius was thereupon translated elsewhere,
and succeeded by a Venetian named John, to whom the diocese of Antivari
was assigned as well,[123] much to the gratification of the Ragusans.
The clergy and congregation of this second diocese, however, were not
so pleased, and refused to recognise his authority. John’s attempts to
compel obedience only resulted in inducing Stephen Uroš, surnamed the
Great, King of Servia, to take up the quarrel of Antivari and make a
raid on Ragusan territory (1252). Uroš complained that the Ragusans
were strengthening their fortifications—a very natural precaution—and
on this pretext attacked the city. The new count Marsilio (or Marino)
Giorgi[124] was sent as Venetian ambassador to expostulate with
him, but on reaching Ragusa he refused to proceed further, and two
citizens were sent in his stead.[125] The latter proceeded to stir up
and doubtless bribe Uroš’s vassals, so that he thought it best for
the present to renew their privileges, but hostilities soon broke out
again. The Ragusans made an alliance with Michael, the Bulgarian Tsar,
and with Radoslav, Count of Hlum, against the Serbs which brought Uroš
to reason, and in 1254 the differences were settled by _stanico_.[126]
Radoslav had visited Ragusa in person that same year, and the treaty of
friendship which was thus concluded is embodied in two documents. In
the first the Ragusan commonwealth swears to the Župan Radoslav and his
magnates that the city will be at peace with them according to ancient
custom, and that they shall always have free access to its market. “And
all this we wish to do and maintain to you and your people, without
prejudice to our oaths to the Lord Doge and the commonwealth of Venice,
and to the Lord Michael, Tsar of the Bulgarians.”[127] In the second
document Radoslav promises to make war with all his strength against
King Uroš, and to defend Ragusa by sea and land; he also added that he
would remain at peace with Michael for so long as the latter’s treaty
with Ragusa lasted.[128]
The archbishop, who had been the original cause of all the trouble, had
naturally become extremely unpopular, and when in his zeal for Venetian
supremacy he proposed to carry out the provision of the treaty of 1232
by placing himself under the authority of the Patriarch of Grado, his
position became untenable, and he was forced to abdicate (1257). The
Ragusans obtained from the Pope that his successor should not be a
Venetian. Another Venetian, however, was appointed in 1276.
In 1266 the quarrel with Servia broke out afresh. The King was angry,
according to Resti, because a number of his nobles quitted the country
and settled at Ragusa. This statement, if true, is interesting, as it
is the first immigration of Slaves on a large scale into the city after
the early settlements between the seventh and the tenth centuries. But
again the quarrel was settled by _stanico_, and the Ragusans agreed
to pay Uroš the tribute of 2000 _ipperperi_ in exchange for increased
privileges and the confirmation of their rights over the disputed
territories at Breno, Gionchetto, &c.[129]
The year 1272 is a very important one in Ragusan annals, as it is
the date of the promulgation of the statute-book by the Count Marco
Giustiniani. Hitherto the constitution and laws of Ragusa had been
based on custom, altered and modified by statutes. Giustiniani codified
all the existing sources of Ragusan jurisprudence into a corpus called
the _Liber Statutorum_. Dalmatian law is based on a Roman substratum,
with additions from local statutes, Slavonic customs, and certain
commercial and maritime statutes. The contents of the new code are
summed up in the following mnemonic distich:—
“Elligit officia comes civitatis in _primo_,
Officiis fides datur sacrata _secundo_,
Causa litis sequitur _terno_ sub ordine libri,
Conjugis inscripsit _quarto_ dotalia bona,
Ordo datur domibus _quinto_ plateasque divisit,
Judicis officium crimen exposit in _sexto_,
_Septimo_ navigii additur, et mercium ordo,
_Octavo_ in codice diversa colligit auctor.”
The introduction, which is full of generalities and abstract ideas,
after the manner of the time, states that the object of the code was
to collect the statutes of the Ragusan Republic, “to harmonise the
discrepancies, suppress superfluities, supply omissions, explain
obscurities, so that nothing superfluous, obscure, or captious should
remain in them.” The first book defines the position, rights, and
duties of the count and of the other chief functionaries of the
Republic, and deals with sundry financial matters. The second book
contains the _formulæ_ and oaths of each officer of State; and in cap.
xxiv. the salaries of the Ragusan envoys[130] to foreign countries were
fixed. The third embodies the law of procedure and the judicial system,
and sets forth the rules for the _stanico_, or international court
of arbitration, to which we have already alluded. This institution
was a peculiarly Serbo-Dalmatian one, and deserves examination. The
statute of 1272 describes it as an _antica consuetudo_. It was of two
kinds, the _plenarium stanicum_, or full court, and the _parvum_, or
minor court. The full _stanicum_ was agreed upon by the Government
of Ragusa and that of some other State with whom the former had a
dispute. Each side elected an equal number of judges, who met at some
place easily accessible to both capitals, and, if possible, on neutral
ground, _i.e._ in the territory of some State not concerned in the
dispute. Thus in disputes between Ragusa and Zara the spot chosen was
Santa Maria di Lesina, on the island of that name; for those between
Ragusa and Sebenico, Traù, Spalato, Almissa, or Lesina, the _stanicum_
met at or near Prevlaka (near Stagno); if the quarrel was with Hlum,
at Malfi; if with the Serbs, at Gionchetto or Cresta; if with the
Bosnians, at Trebinje, Popovo, or Canali. The dispute was settled by
compromise rather than by arbitration, and each party was represented
by State officials. The _parvum stanicum_ was convened to settle
private disputes between Ragusans and citizens of one of the Slave
states (it was not resorted to in the case of disputes with the other
Dalmatian towns). The presence of representatives of the two States was
not necessary. But often when such disputes arose the parties would
agree to defer settling them until the full _stanicum_ met, provided
that such a one was to take place shortly. It was not necessary that
all private international disputes should be settled in this manner,
and the plaintiff was free to summon his adversary before the latter’s
own tribunal. He only resorted to it when he feared that he could not
obtain justice from the foreign court. In proceedings by _stanicum_,
the old Teutonic and Slavonic system of the _conjuratio_ was applied,
by which each party produced a number of relations and friends, who
swore to the veracity of their kinsman; if any one was convicted of
perjury, the curse fell on the whole clan alike. The institution exists
to this day in Montenegro, Albania, and in certain districts of South
Dalmatia and the Herzegovina.[131]
The fourth book deals with marriage, wills, and family affairs. The
fifth deals with municipal regulations, building laws and contracts,
land tenure, &c. The sixth is the criminal code, and also contains
fiscal enactments and smuggling laws. The seventh regulates shipping,
the relations between officers and crew, agreements for voyages,
marine insurance, responsibilities and risks. The last book contains
enactments on divers matters. It became law on May 9, 1272.
This code, although it is imperfect and not altogether well
constructed, marks a great improvement on previous legislation, and
compares favourably with the statutes of many of the more famous
Italian Republics. The shipping and commercial enactments are often
excellent, and parts of the code, especially those relating to land
tenure and certain forms of contract, are still valid at Ragusa.
The _Liber Statutorum_ was afterwards added to and enlarged, and
numbers of new laws were enacted. Until 1357 these were incorporated in
the Statute-book, but after the last Venetian count had left in that
year a new code was begun, called the _Liber Viridis_ or Green Book,
which contains all the new laws down to 1460. Then the _Liber Croceus_
or Yellow Book was begun, and continued down to 1791. The last laws
of the Republic, from 1791 to its fall in 1808, are preserved in the
_Parti dei Pregadi_. The deliberations and enactments of the various
assemblies are contained in the _Liber Reformationum_, which was begun
in 1306. Of all these collections of enactments, only the last has been
published, but not in a complete form (see Bibliography). In addition,
there are various minor collections containing the edicts of certain
special bodies.
We shall now make a brief examination of the Ragusan constitution,
which by this time had assumed the form which, with certain
alterations, it preserved down to the fall of the Republic. Even
the fact that in 1358 the Venetian counts were superseded by native
Rectors did not change the internal constitution of the State to any
considerable extent. The constitution since the early days of the
city’s existence had undergone much the same transformation as that
of Venice, and tended to become even more aristocratic. The _laudo
populi_ was still maintained,[132] but it was resorted to less and less
frequently as years went by; and after having been an empty formality
for some time, at the end of the period of Venetian suzerainty it had
ceased to exist. The _Liber Statutorum_ was confirmed “per populum
Rhacusinum more solito (_i.e._ to the sound of a bell) congregatum,”
but by that time all power was invested in the aristocracy. Only nobles
might aspire to any but the humblest offices of the State, and every
noble had a voice at least in the Grand Council. As at Venice there was
the Golden Book, at Ragusa there was the _Specchio_, containing the
names of all the noble families. These were as a rule the descendants
of the original Latin colonists from Epidaurus and Salona, or, in a
few cases, of those early Slave refugees who were nobles in their own
country. The names themselves have an Italian sound, although most
of them are unlike any real Italian names.[133] There was a fairly
large part of the population of Slavonic origin, but the official,
and to a great extent the popular, language was Italian. The laws and
deliberations and official documents[134] are all either in Latin or
Italian, and the general character of the community was prevalently
Italian, modified to some extent by Slavonic influences. The latter
tended to increase, especially after the end of Venetian suzerainty,
and by the middle of the sixteenth century the bulk of the lower
classes spoke the Servian language.
The head of the State, as we have seen, was the Count, who represented
Venetian authority, summoned the councils, and signed all public acts.
No act was valid without his approval, but, on the other hand, he could
not make decrees without the assistance and consent of the councils. Of
these there were three—namely, the _Consilium Minus_, the _Consilium
Majus_, and the _Rogati_ or _Pregadi_.
The Minor Council, which had in all probability existed in a
rudimentary form from the earliest times, had now developed into an
important body. It acted as the Count’s privy council, it arranged
all official ceremonies, and gave audience to foreign ambassadors
and envoys to Ragusa. It also acted as a sort of Court of Chancery,
protected widows and orphans from injury, and watched over the morals
of the citizens. It examined the deliberations of the other bodies on
taxes, dues, and the rents, income, and real property of the State.
On simpler matters it gave decisions, and others it referred to the
Senate. It was an intermediary between private individuals and the
State, and heard all complaints against the magistrates and other
officials. It consisted of the Count and eleven members, of whom
five formed the _Corte Maggiore_, or High Court of Justice, for all
important cases.[135] The members were all men of mature age, and
remained in office for a year only. Six made a quorum.
The Senate (_Rogati_) was the most influential of the three Councils,
and transacted a great part of the business of the State. It imposed
all taxes, tributes, and customs duties, decided how the money of
the State should be spent or invested, and dealt with many other
financial matters. It conducted the foreign affairs of the Republic,
and nominated ambassadors and consuls. It was the Supreme Court of
Appeal for criminal cases, and after 1440 for civil cases as well.
It appointed a number of State officials, such as the Provveditori
of the Arsenal, the financial secretaries, and the functionaries
who attended to the supply of provisions. The number of Senators
varied considerably. At the date of the Statute Book they were
thirty-five;[136] later they rose to sixty-one. The body included
the Count or Rector, the eleven Minor Councillors, various high
functionaries, and a number of unofficial members. They met four times
a week, and remained in office for a year, but might be re-elected,
“for the Republic desires that her sons should exercise themselves in
this kind of council, so that they may become Senators of judgment,
and learn by long and continual experience the method and practice of
governing excellently.”[137] By a decree of 1331[138] it was decided
that thirty Senators made a quorum.
[Illustration: GENERAL VIEW, FROM THE WEST]
The Grand Council was the ultimate basis of the State, and was
composed of all nobles above twenty years of age,[139] including the
Minor Councillors, the Senators, and all the officials. Its numbers
usually ranged from 200 to 300. It met in September, and the list of
vacant offices were read out by the Count. The Secretary called up the
Councillors one by one, drawing the numbers of all the seats from a
bag. Each Councillor then drew a ball from an urn, which contained a
number of gold balls equal to that of the offices to be filled; those
who drew the gold balls took their seats beside the Count and Minor
Council, and ordered the Secretary to nominate three Councillors for
each office. As each name was called out the Councillor in question
and his nearest relatives left the hall and waited outside. Then all
the remaining Councillors were given linen balls, which they were to
drop into another urn divided into two sections, one for the ayes and
one for the noes. If none of the three candidates received more than
half the votes recorded, the election was repeated. No one might refuse
the office thus conferred upon him, save a small number of persons who
could obtain a dispensation by paying a small fine.[140]
The Grand Council ratified all the laws of the Republic; it gave the
final decision for peace or war, although the diplomatic function was
reserved to the Senate; it could recall exiles, it received petitions,
and it managed many of the daily affairs of the city. Sixty members
(including the Count and the Minor Council) formed a quorum.
Besides the three Councils, there were a number of special bodies
appointed for different purposes. Thus there was the _Corte Maggiores_
or _Major Curia_, already alluded to, whose sentences in civil matters
were without appeal until 1440; the _Minor Curia_ or Lower Court,
with special advocates attached to each; the _Advocatores Comunis_
or Public Prosecutors, and many other functionaries. The three
_Camarlenghi_ kept the public accounts, and the _Doanerii_ supervised
the customs. The four Treasurers of Santa Maria had important fiscal
duties in guarding the State treasury and paying out the public
money according to the decrees of the Senate. They also had certain
charitable duties, and spent the income of invested surpluses in
providing poor girls with dowries, and later in ransoming Christian
slaves from the Turks or the Barbary pirates. Private citizens, and
even foreigners from Slave lands, often appointed them executors of
their wills. Originally they had been the guardians of the relics and
treasury of the Cathedral, but as they gradually came to have so large
a share of the financial business of the Republic on their hands,
in 1306 another board, called the _Procurators Sanctæ Mariæ_, was
instituted to manage the affairs of the Church, and act with powers
of attorney for various religious confraternities. A similar body was
formed when the church of St. Blaize was erected in 1349. The notary of
the Republic, who drafted all public acts, patents, diplomas, &c., was
usually an expert Italian lawyer.
There were numbers of other officers for different departments of
the administration and for the purposes of defence, such as those
_super sale_, _super blado comunis_, _super turribus_, the _capitani
di custodia_, who were elected every month, and the captains of the
_sestieri_ or six wards, into which Ragusa was divided. All the
citizens in turn had to bear arms for the defence of the town, and
certain nobles, who were changed very frequently, commanded the guard,
and saw that the gates were securely fastened at night. The rest
of the Republic’s territory was ruled by officers appointed by the
Grand Council, called counts, viscounts, or captains. They governed
despotically, and no native of the territory had any voice in the
administration. In many cases the Government was very tyrannical and
arbitrary. Ragusan ideas of liberty were not only restricted to a
limited class, but did not extend a yard beyond the walls. Only the
island of Lagosta, purchased in 1216 from Stephen Uroš, King of Servia,
was permitted to retain its own customs and laws.
It will thus be seen that the Constitution was essentially copied from
that of Venice, and was designed above all to make personal government
impossible. None of the officials, save the Venetian Count, remained in
office for more than a year, and the great majority of them could not
be re-elected for two years afterwards. Everything was done to prevent
individuals from acquiring undue influence, and to make the Government
as collective as possible. All business was executed by boards and
committees, and hardly anything by single individuals. Every detail
was carefully regulated, so as to leave no loophole for tampering with
the institutions or suspending the continuity of the Government. The
result was from some points of view satisfactory. In the whole history
of Ragusa only three or four revolutions are recorded—almost a unique
distinction among the city-republics of Italy and other European lands,
whose history is one long tale of civil wars and seditions. Venice
alone enjoyed a similar though less complete immunity. On the other
hand, it gave the Executive very little power of acting energetically
and pursuing a bold, broad-minded policy, and prevented Ragusa from
expanding into a first-class maritime State, as it had more than one
opportunity of doing. At the same time, had it become really powerful,
and acquired a hegemony over a large part of the Adriatic littoral and
of the Slave lands, it would have run greater risks at the hands of
the Turks. Venice, who felt the need of a swift and silent executive,
instituted the Council of Ten, to which the Ragusan constitution offers
no parallel. The Ragusan Senate was too numerous a body to act in the
same way, and in it those who hesitated and doubted usually carried the
day.
We realise the character of the Ragusan constitution from the fact that
so few individuals have left their mark on the town’s history. We read
of the various noble families whose names appear again and again in the
public records, but hardly any single citizen emerges high above the
others. The few names which are remembered are those of scholars, men
of letters, or scientists. Even the ambassadors were always sent in
pairs, although in the Middle Ages this was not peculiar to Ragusa.
Another aspect was that the three Councils who had to transact all
the weightiest matters of the Republic were also overwhelmed with the
petty details of municipal administration. This of course was difficult
to avoid in the case of a small city-republic, but it constituted
the radical failing of that type of state, for its Government was a
parliament, a court of justice, and a town council all in one. The same
body might be called upon to decide on an alliance with Hungary and on
the seaworthiness of a carrack in the same sitting.
In diplomatic affairs, however, the Ragusans were past-masters.
The Republic was in constant danger from the powerful enemies which
surrounded it on all sides. The Venetians, who claimed the monopoly
of the Adriatic, were ever anxious to increase their influence and
to become absolute masters of the city, as they were of the other
Dalmatian towns, and after their retirement from Ragusa in 1358 they
made many attempts to reinstate their authority. On the mainland
there was the King of Servia, the Banus of Bosnia, the Lord of Hlum,
watching for an opportunity to occupy Ragusa, whose splendid harbour
they envied. But the city fathers, by a policy which was often
tortuous and not always straightforward, certainly achieved their
object of preserving the Republic’s autonomy. Although Ragusa was
never absolutely independent—for she either had a Venetian Count or
paid a tribute to this or that Power—she was always free from foreign
control in her internal affairs, and to a great extent in her external
relations. The Government always knew when to give way and when to hold
out; this feature became particularly conspicuous in the Republic’s
dealings with the Turks.
Of the non-noble citizens we hear very little. They played no part in
the Government, and were ineligible save for the very lowest offices.
On the whole, they seem to have acquiesced in the oligarchical
constitution, and apparently had little desire to take part in public
affairs. They were ruled with wisdom and without oppression, free from
faction fights, and their commercial interests, being identical with
those of the aristocracy, were well cared for and protected by the
Government. Both classes derived their wealth from trade.