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.
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.
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.
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.