Splitski statut iz 1312. godine: povijest i pravo. Povodom 700-obljetnice, ed. Željko Radić, Marko Trogrlić, Massimo Meccarelli i Ludwig Steidorff. Split: Književni krug Split i dr., 2015.
U radu se usporedno razmatraju odredbe Splitskog statuta o odlučivanju u Velikom vijeću i zapisni... more U radu se usporedno razmatraju odredbe Splitskog statuta o odlučivanju u Velikom vijeću i zapisnici tog tijela iz 1352-1354. i 1357-1359. Uzimajući u obzir komparativne izvore dalmatinskih i talijanskih gradova i rezultate literature, ispituje se model “parlamentarne godine”, baština na kojoj počivaju termini i koncepti iz spomenutih izvornika, jezik na kojemu se diskutiralo i postupak unosa tijeka sjednice u zapisnik. Rekonstruiraju se sve faze odlučivanja u Vijeću, od inicijative, preko načela kojima je regulirana rasprava, do metoda glasovanja. U cijelome radu, a završnom poglavlju napose, propituje se odnos između modela koji je postavljen propisima i njegove primjene u praksi te nastoji dokučiti zbilju iza slike koju pružaju zapisnici.
Uploads
Papers by Nella Lonza
The paper analyses two oaths and an instruction, legal documents on which the authority of Venetian rector ruling mediaeval Dubrovnik rested. The text of rector’s oath to the doge, so far not tackled in Croatian historiography, has been analysed in detail and published. The text is a rich source of information on Venetian rule in Dubrovnik in the 13th century and the first half of the 14th century. The paper tackles links among the subject documents, and their importance for the legal system in Dubrovnik. It further questions their connection to the then popular literature on good government.
in the first decades of the thirteenth century, drawing a parallel with the governmental models in other Venetian dominions after the Fourth Crusade. The predecessors of Count Giovanni Tiepolo (1237-1238) held their public office (comitatus) under some sort of lease. A wealth of documents regarding Count Giovanni Dandolo (1209?-1235) has helped trace the count’s social background
(including his kin relations with Doge Pietro Ziani), along with the
family business activities in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the twelfth century. Prior to the opportunity to lease the office of Ragusan count, Dandolo was engaged in trade in Syria, and together with his brother Marco leased the collection of revenue in the Venetian colonies in Acre and Tyre, but eventually faced insolvency. The reconstruction of the income from his Ragusan countship suggests that his profit gains may have approximated 20% where in low risk and negligible investment costs were the main benefits. It appear likely that Dandolo developed his private business activities while on duty in Dubrovnik, in the same manner as he had done on the former leased functions. The article is also reconsidering old and offering new interpretations of the Ragusan political situation of the time under the influence of international powers in the Adriatic, Mediterranean and Dubrovnik’s hinterland. There is good reason to assume that the term guerre mentioned in the documents does not refer to the supposed attack of Stefan, Grand Župan of Serbia, but to the pirates of Omiš, whose activity represented a biggest challenge to the maritime traffic. In the 1230s Dubrovnik defined its relations with a number of rulers and despots from its immediate hinterland and wider Balkan inland (Serbian kings Radoslav and Vladislav; Andrija, Count of Hum; Bulgarian emperor John II Asen; Manuel Angelos, Despot of Thessaly; and Michael II Angelos,
Despot of Epirus), yet its fate was largely determined by the power relations in the eastern Mediterranean, in which Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Emperor John III Vatatzes of Nicaea played an important role. A detailed textual and comparative analysis of the first two agreements (pacta) with Venice from 1232 and 1236 has shown that, contrary to the dominant historiographic paradigm, they were not drafted after crushed rebellions and that in many elements they proved less harmful to the Ragusan side than hitherto interpreted. The texts of these agreements are virtually the same, and were modelled
on the agreement signed between Venice and Zadar in 1204 or early 1205. Count Dandolo’s departure from Dubrovnik in 1234 marked the beginning of an interregnum which extended to 1237, while the unsettled property issues of his descendants with the Ragusan commune dragged on for years. Upon Dandolo’s death, Venetian authorities did not lease the office of Ragusan count to a new holder, as they were preparing a new administrative arrangement (regimen), in which the office of Ragusan count was to be filled by state officials elected to a two-year term.
Na temelju raznovrsnih vrela ispituje se karakter mletačke vlasti u Dubrovniku u prvim desetljećima 13. stoljeća i uspoređuje s upravnim modelima na drugim mletačkim posjedima. Zahvaljujući obilju dokumenata vezanih uz kneževanje Giovannija Dandola (1209?-1235) utvrđuje se knežev socijalni background, rekonstruiraju njegovi prihodi od dubrovačke funkcije i razmatraju mogući poslovni interesi. Ujedno se preispituju stari i nude neki novi pogledi na dubrovačku političku situaciju toga doba pod utjecajem međunarodnih silnica na Jadranu, Sredozemlju i u kopnenom zaleđu. Analiziraju se i interpretiraju prva dva sporazuma s Venecijom (1232, 1236) i razlozi za njihovo zaključenje, uz osvrt na historiografsku tezu o dubrovačkim pobunama protiv mletačke vlasti.
il comune di Pago – che all’inizio del Quattrocento erano
contraddistinte da diversi stadi di strutturazione, si tiene di stabilire quanto il quadro statale veneziano influì sulla dinamica della loro articolazione istituzionale.
U spisima i registrima koji su se čuvali u Dvoru bila je pohranjena memorija Republike: odluke vijeća i drugih državnih tijela, privilegiji i ugovori sa stranim vladarima, diplomatska prepiska itd. Budući da je u Dvoru također djelovao notarijat i čuvali se notarski spisi, u zgradu su ulazili građani da bi registrirali ugovor, sporazumjeli se o arbitraži i poduzeli razne druge korake vezane uz njihova prava i obveze. Neki od originalnih ormara za čuvanje tih spisa iz 18. stoljeća stoje na svome mjestu i danas. Osim “službene memorije”, na nizu mjesta u zgradi sačuvani su grafiti kojima su pojedinci ostavili neformalni trag o sebi (natpisi, crteži brodova, zmaja itd.).
U Kneževom dvoru i Vijećnici odvijale su se važne državne ceremonije, kao što je prijem stranih izaslanika i obredni prijenos vlasti na novog kneza početkom svakog mjeseca. Najuglednije strane goste pozivalo se i da odsjednu u Dvoru. No, ti isti prostori koristili su se također za slavlja i razbibrigu: u dvorani Velikoga vijeća do sredine 16. stoljeća održavali su se i plesovi, kazališne predstave i zabave mlade vlastele.
Pod trijemom Kneževa dvora obavljala se smjena državnih dužnosnika na prvi dan u godini, a ondje su se okupljala i najviša državna tijela kada su odlazila u svečane procesije. Trijem je služio i kao gledalište otkuda su državni dužnosnici promatrali svečanosti i javne obrede, na pr. proslavu gradskog zaštitnika Sv. Vlaha, karneval i odlazak poslanika koji su nosili tribut u Carigrad.
Za vrijeme mjesec dana trajanja mandata knez je morao stanovati u Dvoru, da bude na raspolaganju u slučaju potrebe, ali i zato da se ne bi prečesto pojavljivao u javnosti. S njime se u Dvor selila i njegova obitelj. Osim njih, u Dvoru je živio ključar s obitelji u potpuno opremljenom stanu na polukatu. Ključar je ujedno brinuo o održavanju zgrade (čišćenju, tamanjenju miševa i sličnome).
U nizu prostorija, uglavnom u prizemlju, živjeli su zatvorenici, a s majkama zatvorenicama privremeno su ostajala i njihova novorođenčad. Zatvorenici su se načelno uzdržavali uz pomoć obitelji i milodara, no država je po potrebi skrbila za njihovu egzistenciju, pogotovo ako bi se razboljeli. Komunikacija s posjetiteljima preko vratašca je bila slobodna, a u tamnicama je uglavnom bilo više zatvorenika, tako da se vrijeme kratilo i kartanjem.
Budući da je Knežev dvor nije bio samo sjedište državnih institucija i ureda, nego i zgrada u kojoj se danonoćno živjelo, u njemu je postojala odgovarajuća infrastruktura. Nažalost, od nje je malo sačuvano, pa većinu informacija crpimo iz arhivskih dokumenata. U potkrovlju Dvora nalazila se kuhinja, a uz nju kokošinjac. Do danas su djelomično sačuvani zahodi u prizemlju u kojima su bile daske s rupom, a uz njih umivaonik. Također su se rabili prijenosni zahodi u obliku klupice u koju se uglavljivala posuda s poklopcem, a tamnice su imale vlastite zahode (septičke jame). Na više mjesta u Dvoru stajale su staklene ili keremičke posude za mokrenje (orinali). Dvor je već od 1445. bio priključen na novoizgrađeni vodovod, iz kojega je voda tekla u umivaonike i fontanu u atriju. Hladnoća se suzbijala loženjem drva u kaminima, od kojega su u jednoj prostoriji išle šuplje cijevi za zagrijavanje zida, a oko kneževa kreveta se u zimskim mjesecima postavljala “krletka” od drva. Ljetnu žegu blažili su otvoreni prostori trijema i terasa, a također se koristila posuda s ledom i naručivali su se sorbeti u kavani preko puta Dvora.
Protok Dubrovčana kroz Dvor običnim “radnim danom” bio je visok ne samo zato što su morali obaviti neki posao u uredima Dvora, nego i zato što su dolazili posjetiti zatvorenike, uzeti vodu s fontane i zadržavali se u atriju radi druženja i iz dokolice.
bratovštine Sv. Lazara u razdoblju od 1531. do 1808. godine. Razmatraju se okolnosti u kojima je bratovština osnovana, značajke članstva, ustroj bratovštine i djelovanje njenih institucija. Ukazuje se na odnos užeg članstva koje je ulazilo u kapitul, i šireg članstva, sastavljenog od pučana i plemića, koje je sudjelovalo samo u pobožnim i milosrdnim aktivnostima. Prati se transformacija članstva kroz stoljeća i rast državnog utjecaja na bratovštinu. U prilogu se donose tri
popisa članova prema matrikuli bratovštine.
Summary
Since its discovery in the 1920s, a ninth-century fragment, written in the Caroline script and filed in the Miscellanea of the State Archives of Zadar (HR-DAZD-377, vol. 182, position 2), has not attracted much attention, probably because it was erroneously identified as a part of a monastic Regula. In fact, the fragment pertains to the legal text in which the quotes from the Old Testament were combined with Roman law to provide rules for certain criminal law matters. The collection was known under the name Lex Dei quam praecepit Dominus ad Moysen, as well as under the title Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum given by a sixteenth-century editor; the identification is supported by a recently published Bernhard Bishoff’s catalogue of the ninth-century manuscripts. According to the expertise of David Ganz, the fragment was written in the second half of the ninth century and its probable provenance is North Italy.
The text of Lex Dei is more or less integrally preserved in three codices kept in Berlin (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, MS. Lat. fol. 269, early ninth c.), Vienna (ÖNB, MS. 2160, late ninth c.), and Vercelli (Biblioteca Capitolare Eusebiana, MS. 122, first half of the eleventh c.). On the ground of the language peculiarities and transcription errors, it seems that the Zadar fragment is not directly related to any of them, but stems independently from the archetype.
All the three codices with Lex Dei include also the Epitome Iuliani, a summarized translation of Justinian’s Novellae, and the numeration of the tituli demonstrates that the same was true of a manuscript the Zadar fragment was a part of. As already argued by different scholars, between the ninth and the eleventh century Lex Dei was copied because it could serve as a guideline to bishop’s jurisdiction, which expanded from the area of civil litigation towards penal matters.
To determine whether the Lex Dei should be counted among the legal sources of the early medieval Dalmatian towns, the fragment’s history has been examined. Archive research showed that the bifolium with the text was recycled in 1403 by the Zadar notary Articutius de Rivignano to serve as a cover of one of his registers. It was the custom of the same notary to re-use dispensable parchments he found in the city offices or in his own production, but upon this particular one he might have stumbled in the chapter premises, where he also provided notary services in 1389-1396. By then, the manuscript had certainly been dismembered for quite some time.
In all likelihood, the codex with Lex Dei and Epitome Iuliani was brought to Zadar prior to the twelfth century, i.e. before the new flourishing legal culture offered text-books of superior quality, and made such old manuals obsolete. Therefore, the Zadar fragment is the only material survival of any legal text which may have been used in early medieval Dalmatian practice.
The paper analyses two oaths and an instruction, legal documents on which the authority of Venetian rector ruling mediaeval Dubrovnik rested. The text of rector’s oath to the doge, so far not tackled in Croatian historiography, has been analysed in detail and published. The text is a rich source of information on Venetian rule in Dubrovnik in the 13th century and the first half of the 14th century. The paper tackles links among the subject documents, and their importance for the legal system in Dubrovnik. It further questions their connection to the then popular literature on good government.
in the first decades of the thirteenth century, drawing a parallel with the governmental models in other Venetian dominions after the Fourth Crusade. The predecessors of Count Giovanni Tiepolo (1237-1238) held their public office (comitatus) under some sort of lease. A wealth of documents regarding Count Giovanni Dandolo (1209?-1235) has helped trace the count’s social background
(including his kin relations with Doge Pietro Ziani), along with the
family business activities in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the twelfth century. Prior to the opportunity to lease the office of Ragusan count, Dandolo was engaged in trade in Syria, and together with his brother Marco leased the collection of revenue in the Venetian colonies in Acre and Tyre, but eventually faced insolvency. The reconstruction of the income from his Ragusan countship suggests that his profit gains may have approximated 20% where in low risk and negligible investment costs were the main benefits. It appear likely that Dandolo developed his private business activities while on duty in Dubrovnik, in the same manner as he had done on the former leased functions. The article is also reconsidering old and offering new interpretations of the Ragusan political situation of the time under the influence of international powers in the Adriatic, Mediterranean and Dubrovnik’s hinterland. There is good reason to assume that the term guerre mentioned in the documents does not refer to the supposed attack of Stefan, Grand Župan of Serbia, but to the pirates of Omiš, whose activity represented a biggest challenge to the maritime traffic. In the 1230s Dubrovnik defined its relations with a number of rulers and despots from its immediate hinterland and wider Balkan inland (Serbian kings Radoslav and Vladislav; Andrija, Count of Hum; Bulgarian emperor John II Asen; Manuel Angelos, Despot of Thessaly; and Michael II Angelos,
Despot of Epirus), yet its fate was largely determined by the power relations in the eastern Mediterranean, in which Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Emperor John III Vatatzes of Nicaea played an important role. A detailed textual and comparative analysis of the first two agreements (pacta) with Venice from 1232 and 1236 has shown that, contrary to the dominant historiographic paradigm, they were not drafted after crushed rebellions and that in many elements they proved less harmful to the Ragusan side than hitherto interpreted. The texts of these agreements are virtually the same, and were modelled
on the agreement signed between Venice and Zadar in 1204 or early 1205. Count Dandolo’s departure from Dubrovnik in 1234 marked the beginning of an interregnum which extended to 1237, while the unsettled property issues of his descendants with the Ragusan commune dragged on for years. Upon Dandolo’s death, Venetian authorities did not lease the office of Ragusan count to a new holder, as they were preparing a new administrative arrangement (regimen), in which the office of Ragusan count was to be filled by state officials elected to a two-year term.
Na temelju raznovrsnih vrela ispituje se karakter mletačke vlasti u Dubrovniku u prvim desetljećima 13. stoljeća i uspoređuje s upravnim modelima na drugim mletačkim posjedima. Zahvaljujući obilju dokumenata vezanih uz kneževanje Giovannija Dandola (1209?-1235) utvrđuje se knežev socijalni background, rekonstruiraju njegovi prihodi od dubrovačke funkcije i razmatraju mogući poslovni interesi. Ujedno se preispituju stari i nude neki novi pogledi na dubrovačku političku situaciju toga doba pod utjecajem međunarodnih silnica na Jadranu, Sredozemlju i u kopnenom zaleđu. Analiziraju se i interpretiraju prva dva sporazuma s Venecijom (1232, 1236) i razlozi za njihovo zaključenje, uz osvrt na historiografsku tezu o dubrovačkim pobunama protiv mletačke vlasti.
il comune di Pago – che all’inizio del Quattrocento erano
contraddistinte da diversi stadi di strutturazione, si tiene di stabilire quanto il quadro statale veneziano influì sulla dinamica della loro articolazione istituzionale.
U spisima i registrima koji su se čuvali u Dvoru bila je pohranjena memorija Republike: odluke vijeća i drugih državnih tijela, privilegiji i ugovori sa stranim vladarima, diplomatska prepiska itd. Budući da je u Dvoru također djelovao notarijat i čuvali se notarski spisi, u zgradu su ulazili građani da bi registrirali ugovor, sporazumjeli se o arbitraži i poduzeli razne druge korake vezane uz njihova prava i obveze. Neki od originalnih ormara za čuvanje tih spisa iz 18. stoljeća stoje na svome mjestu i danas. Osim “službene memorije”, na nizu mjesta u zgradi sačuvani su grafiti kojima su pojedinci ostavili neformalni trag o sebi (natpisi, crteži brodova, zmaja itd.).
U Kneževom dvoru i Vijećnici odvijale su se važne državne ceremonije, kao što je prijem stranih izaslanika i obredni prijenos vlasti na novog kneza početkom svakog mjeseca. Najuglednije strane goste pozivalo se i da odsjednu u Dvoru. No, ti isti prostori koristili su se također za slavlja i razbibrigu: u dvorani Velikoga vijeća do sredine 16. stoljeća održavali su se i plesovi, kazališne predstave i zabave mlade vlastele.
Pod trijemom Kneževa dvora obavljala se smjena državnih dužnosnika na prvi dan u godini, a ondje su se okupljala i najviša državna tijela kada su odlazila u svečane procesije. Trijem je služio i kao gledalište otkuda su državni dužnosnici promatrali svečanosti i javne obrede, na pr. proslavu gradskog zaštitnika Sv. Vlaha, karneval i odlazak poslanika koji su nosili tribut u Carigrad.
Za vrijeme mjesec dana trajanja mandata knez je morao stanovati u Dvoru, da bude na raspolaganju u slučaju potrebe, ali i zato da se ne bi prečesto pojavljivao u javnosti. S njime se u Dvor selila i njegova obitelj. Osim njih, u Dvoru je živio ključar s obitelji u potpuno opremljenom stanu na polukatu. Ključar je ujedno brinuo o održavanju zgrade (čišćenju, tamanjenju miševa i sličnome).
U nizu prostorija, uglavnom u prizemlju, živjeli su zatvorenici, a s majkama zatvorenicama privremeno su ostajala i njihova novorođenčad. Zatvorenici su se načelno uzdržavali uz pomoć obitelji i milodara, no država je po potrebi skrbila za njihovu egzistenciju, pogotovo ako bi se razboljeli. Komunikacija s posjetiteljima preko vratašca je bila slobodna, a u tamnicama je uglavnom bilo više zatvorenika, tako da se vrijeme kratilo i kartanjem.
Budući da je Knežev dvor nije bio samo sjedište državnih institucija i ureda, nego i zgrada u kojoj se danonoćno živjelo, u njemu je postojala odgovarajuća infrastruktura. Nažalost, od nje je malo sačuvano, pa većinu informacija crpimo iz arhivskih dokumenata. U potkrovlju Dvora nalazila se kuhinja, a uz nju kokošinjac. Do danas su djelomično sačuvani zahodi u prizemlju u kojima su bile daske s rupom, a uz njih umivaonik. Također su se rabili prijenosni zahodi u obliku klupice u koju se uglavljivala posuda s poklopcem, a tamnice su imale vlastite zahode (septičke jame). Na više mjesta u Dvoru stajale su staklene ili keremičke posude za mokrenje (orinali). Dvor je već od 1445. bio priključen na novoizgrađeni vodovod, iz kojega je voda tekla u umivaonike i fontanu u atriju. Hladnoća se suzbijala loženjem drva u kaminima, od kojega su u jednoj prostoriji išle šuplje cijevi za zagrijavanje zida, a oko kneževa kreveta se u zimskim mjesecima postavljala “krletka” od drva. Ljetnu žegu blažili su otvoreni prostori trijema i terasa, a također se koristila posuda s ledom i naručivali su se sorbeti u kavani preko puta Dvora.
Protok Dubrovčana kroz Dvor običnim “radnim danom” bio je visok ne samo zato što su morali obaviti neki posao u uredima Dvora, nego i zato što su dolazili posjetiti zatvorenike, uzeti vodu s fontane i zadržavali se u atriju radi druženja i iz dokolice.
bratovštine Sv. Lazara u razdoblju od 1531. do 1808. godine. Razmatraju se okolnosti u kojima je bratovština osnovana, značajke članstva, ustroj bratovštine i djelovanje njenih institucija. Ukazuje se na odnos užeg članstva koje je ulazilo u kapitul, i šireg članstva, sastavljenog od pučana i plemića, koje je sudjelovalo samo u pobožnim i milosrdnim aktivnostima. Prati se transformacija članstva kroz stoljeća i rast državnog utjecaja na bratovštinu. U prilogu se donose tri
popisa članova prema matrikuli bratovštine.
Summary
Since its discovery in the 1920s, a ninth-century fragment, written in the Caroline script and filed in the Miscellanea of the State Archives of Zadar (HR-DAZD-377, vol. 182, position 2), has not attracted much attention, probably because it was erroneously identified as a part of a monastic Regula. In fact, the fragment pertains to the legal text in which the quotes from the Old Testament were combined with Roman law to provide rules for certain criminal law matters. The collection was known under the name Lex Dei quam praecepit Dominus ad Moysen, as well as under the title Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum given by a sixteenth-century editor; the identification is supported by a recently published Bernhard Bishoff’s catalogue of the ninth-century manuscripts. According to the expertise of David Ganz, the fragment was written in the second half of the ninth century and its probable provenance is North Italy.
The text of Lex Dei is more or less integrally preserved in three codices kept in Berlin (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, MS. Lat. fol. 269, early ninth c.), Vienna (ÖNB, MS. 2160, late ninth c.), and Vercelli (Biblioteca Capitolare Eusebiana, MS. 122, first half of the eleventh c.). On the ground of the language peculiarities and transcription errors, it seems that the Zadar fragment is not directly related to any of them, but stems independently from the archetype.
All the three codices with Lex Dei include also the Epitome Iuliani, a summarized translation of Justinian’s Novellae, and the numeration of the tituli demonstrates that the same was true of a manuscript the Zadar fragment was a part of. As already argued by different scholars, between the ninth and the eleventh century Lex Dei was copied because it could serve as a guideline to bishop’s jurisdiction, which expanded from the area of civil litigation towards penal matters.
To determine whether the Lex Dei should be counted among the legal sources of the early medieval Dalmatian towns, the fragment’s history has been examined. Archive research showed that the bifolium with the text was recycled in 1403 by the Zadar notary Articutius de Rivignano to serve as a cover of one of his registers. It was the custom of the same notary to re-use dispensable parchments he found in the city offices or in his own production, but upon this particular one he might have stumbled in the chapter premises, where he also provided notary services in 1389-1396. By then, the manuscript had certainly been dismembered for quite some time.
In all likelihood, the codex with Lex Dei and Epitome Iuliani was brought to Zadar prior to the twelfth century, i.e. before the new flourishing legal culture offered text-books of superior quality, and made such old manuals obsolete. Therefore, the Zadar fragment is the only material survival of any legal text which may have been used in early medieval Dalmatian practice.