- no title specified

From Lonza, Nella and Šundrica, Zdravko (eds). Odluke dubrovačkih vijeća 1390-1392 [Deliberations of the Councils of Dubrovnik 1390-1392]. Dubrovnik: HAZU, Zavod za povijesne znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2005. Pp. 7-26.

The deliberations (reformationes) of the governing Ragusan councils -- Major, Minor and Rogatorum -- are among the essential sources for the study of the history of Dubrovnik. They were at first recorded on parchment sheets along with other public documents. By the end of the thirteenth century, registers in book form were introduced1 and those beginning with 1301 have been preserved, though with considerable gaps for the first half of the fourteenth century. In the beginning, a single register for all the three councils was kept, the deliberations being entered in chronological order. Practical reasons of easier handling and consultation necessitated the separation of records within the same register which first started with the minutes of the Major Council in 1378, and in 1387 the same was done with those of the Minor Council and the Consilium Rogatorum.2 The practice of keeping a separate register for each council in the Ragusan chancery dates from 1415.3

The ‘mixed’ registers covering the period prior to 1415 are particularly appreciated by those who study Ragusan medieval history, since they contain all the decisions of the three central governmental institutions which passed laws, conducted elections, presided in delicate judicial matters, and decided on an array of day-to-day issues. A historian in search of data on Ragusan trade with the Balkan hinterland or with Sicily, for example, or information on arms, construction works, diplomatic relations or urban everyday life will certainly consult these books first. Whether dealing with items of a general or particular nature, either noteworthy or common, sophisticated or trivial, the Reformationes not only afford a vast political landscape with distinctive outlines of the governmental structure, Ragusan institutions and the practice of decision-making, but also a colourful setting of the City and its neighbourhood.

The oldest books of the Reformationes (1301-1306, 1311-1314, 1318-1320, 1322-1333, 1336, 1343-1352, 1356-1367, 1378-1379) were published by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts at the time) in the late nineteenth century within the Monumenta Ragusina Series, the transcripts being carried out by a number of collaborators whose

It seemed worthwhile to prepare the sources for print and make them accessible to those who cannot afford time-consuming research at the State Archives in Dubrovnik, but also to those who need a quick check of certain bits of information and thus spare them an exhaustive enquiry of the original volumes, as well as to novices in basic palaeographic skills.

In the early stages of my work on the Reformationes, Stjepan Ćosić, a colleague, called my attention to the papers of Zdravko Šundrica, bequeathed to the Institute for Historical Sciences in Dubrovnik by his wife Pavica Šundrica, which contained a number of typescripts from the Reformationes series. Actually, Šundrica’s transcriptions included what I myself had considered the first logical step: the unpublished parts of volume 28 from 1390 and volume 29. Once all of Šundrica’s transcriptions had been entered into the computer, special thanks being due to Snježana Kapetanić and Ljiljana Račić, I went through the second reading of the original, that is, I collated the transcription with the original from the State Archives in Dubrovnik, after which I gave the text its final shape and prepared it for print. I have also prepared an author, place-name, and subject index. Thus, this edition is the fruit of the combined efforts of two authors whose work on the same project is several decades apart and who have never met.

Volumes 28 and 29 are written on paper measuring 22 by 30 cm, subsequently bound in hard covers of 24 by 31cm. Volume 28 comprises four quires. The first, consisting of 7 unnumbered leaves, contains miscellaneous entries. The second quire, which actually marks the beginning of the register, includes ff. 1r-49v, the third ff. 50r-99v, and the fourth 100r-149v; they all bear the original foliation. It opens with the list of office-holders (ff. 1r-2v), followed by the decisions of the Minor Council between 1 October 1388 and 24 September 1390, which continue into the third volume (ff. 3r-53r). After a number of blank leaves (ff. 53v-74v), the deliberations of the Consilium Rogatorum dated 12 October 1388 to 24 September 1390 have been entered (ff. 75r-89r). They again are followed by blank leaves (ff. 89v-107v). The deliberations of the Major Council are preceded by a rudimentary index (ff. 108r-109r), and a blank page 109v. The entries for a two-year period beginning 7 October 1388 until 24 September 1390 are on ff. 110r-143r. The register also contains a number of minor records and notes on the final pages. The volume contains six documents on separate leaves, pertaining to its entries. The register thus covers two administrative years, from Michaelmas (29 September) of 1388 to the same day two years later. Folios 3r-33r, 75r-85r, and 110r-130r have been published by Dinić.7 Volume 29 is also arranged in three quires of some fifty leaves each. However, an additional quire has been inserted after the second part to allow for a continuity of the entries of the Consilium Rogatorum. Originally, this supplementary quire did not bear foliation; the one done in pencil is of more recent date (ff. 100r-119v). That is why the original foliation of the last quire has been replaced by modern numeration (ff. 120r-161v), while the final ten blank pages have remained unnumbered. The leaf which may be said to be the first, though not foliated, bears the original title of the register – Liber reformationum consiliorum civitatis Ragusii mayoris, minoris, et rogatorum. Inchoatus in MCCCLXXXX in festo Beati Michaelis mensis septembris. Following the invocation, on ff.1r-2v is the list of office-holders elected on St Michael’s Day of 1390. But in 1391 the administrative year was adjusted to the calendar year,8 and the entries in this register end with December 1392. The order of entries follows the pattern from the previous volume. First come the minutes of the Minor Council entered between 30 September 1390 and 31 December 1392 (ff. 3r-61r, with blank ff. 23rv, 25v, 28v). A series of blank pages (ff. 61v- 74v and ff. 105r-119r) separate on both sides the transactions of the Consilium Rogatorum from the period 6 October 1390 to the end of 1392 (ff. 75r-104v). Following a succinct ‘subject index’ (119v-120v) are the deliberations of the Major Council passed from 3 October 1390 until 19 December 1392 (ff. 121r- 161v). The rest of the codex is unfilled and carries no foliation. Both registers have been arranged to suit the purpose. They open with a list of office-holders elected for the same period covered by the register itself. The deliberations of the Minor Council follow, then from the latter half of the second quire come the deliberations of the Consilium Rogatorum, and from the beginning of the third quire are the decisions of the Major Council, supplemented by an index; additional folios were interpolated respectively when needed.

Registers of the Ragusan councils were written by skilled chancellors, mostly employed from Italy.9 Three hands may be distinguished in the register under edition. The most characteristic handwriting in a somewhat larger and drawn- out style belongs to Andreas of Bologna (Andreas q. Dominici de Bononia). This chancellor spent over twenty years in the service of the Ragusan government, having also made entries in some of the former books of the Reformationes.10 From March 1388 on, Andreas kept the registers together with Albertus Bonus of Belluno (Albertus Bonus olim Thome, Albertusbono, Albertinus). Alberto also wrote in a neat hand but with smaller letters and a slightly styled macron marking of the letter ‘i’.11 September 1390 saw the arrival of another chancellor, Antonio de la Maldura of Bergamo (Antonius de Lamaldura, Antoninus),12 whose small yet equally neat hand may be distinguished by frequent ligatures and accentuated ductus.13

In accordance with the practice maintained until the eighteenth century, the council registers were written in Latin. There are a few exceptions, such as two lengthy decisions14 written in Venetian.15 Weightier decisions of general importance were copied from the registers into the collections of laws,16 and later into secondary collections compiled to be used in a certain local community or by a particular office. In addition to single deliberations incorporated into the Statute,17 a series of laws from the Reformationes was thus integrated into the Liber viridis, the Green Book, or the general register of new legislations at the time.18 Some norms were translated into local legal collections, such as the decisions on the coverage of crop damage caused by livestock, which were appended to the Statute of Lastovo.19

The registers under edition are but traces of a lively process of political decision-making which we know fairly little about. From the election outcome we may glean the councillors’ attitude towards the submitted nominations, but not a single word is to be found on the events preceding it, on the bending of the agenda, on the avoidance of thorny issues, on the moulding of propositions as a subtle device of circumvention and influence in decision-making, on kinship, business, generational and like ties which were activated during every council session. Even the available records -- the voting results on the proposed motions -- require an expert reader. Firstly, each of the councils tended to develop its own practice in record-keeping. With each item on the legislative agenda of the Major Council and the Consilium Rogatorum, two opposing motions were entered, formulated in such a manner that a vote for or against could be made. An antithetic pair of motions and their gradual submission for voting from the more general down to the particular represented a well-established element of the procedure which eventually became a formal prerequisite of valid decisionmaking.20 The number of received votes was written beside the adopted motion, while the rejected alternative was usually crossed out. The registers of the Minor Council, however, made an entry only of the adopted motions, along with the number of affirmative votes. A simple majority vote was usually required, provided that a quorum had been established;21 but in the case of legislative changes or matters involving public accounts, a two-thirds majority was necessary.22 In the election of office-holders, three candidates were nominated for each vacancy, their names being entered into the register respectively. Councilmen, however, did not just vote for one of the nominees they considered most fit for the post, but voted for or against each candidate. A zero instead of the actual number was written by the name of the candidate who received more negative than affirmative votes.23 Those winning a majority of affirmative votes had the number of pros written by their name, and the candidate with the best result was elected. If two nominees received an equal number of affirmative votes, they were submitted to a second ballot to determine the winner. A marginal notation beside the victor’s name referred to his acceptance of office and the taking of the official oath, or his evasion of office with payment of a fine, etc.

The separation process of jurisdictional areas between the councils may also be gleaned from the registers. The Major Council conducted the elections of office-holders, enacted the laws, and had the final word in decisions regarding the most important matters of state. Because the Minor Council dealt with an array of daily administrative issues which were not of strategic importance but required immediate action, it surpassed the other two councils in the number of its sessions and deliberations.24 The Consilium Rogatorum concentrated on delicate governmental and political matters although, by this time, its jurisdiction had not yet overshadowed that of the Major Council. One should know that the functional relations and the council competencies were seldom regulated by law,25 but rather by the gradually developing ‘constitutional practice’. The volumes of the Reformationes from the end of the fourteenth century contain a number of formal examples of the transfer of jurisdiction from the Major Council to the Consilium Rogatorum and the Minor Council,26 sometimes at the request of the latter,27 but other cases indicate that dealings were more often passed over in silence from one council to another according to a rather fluid sense of government duties.28 The decisions published in this edition, which number almost two thousand, are highly diverse. The task of singling out the most important points or pinpointing new evidence should not rest upon the editors but on the ability of those who sift the pages of this treasure trove in the future. Some pieces of information will fit neatly into the gaps29 and cast new light on the already available facts.30 Others will contribute to the study of certain domains of public service for which sources are fairly scarce.31 It can be hoped that this edition will also prompt future investigators to raise new questions and set the scene for a more complex study of late-trecento Ragusan society.

In the preparation of the transcriptions for print and their typographical representation, I consulted four different sources. The starting point of my editorial approach was the published editions of the previous volumes of the Reformationes and the critical comments of those who referred to them. I also consulted the affiliated editions published in Croatia and in Italy,32 in which I witnessed a variety of editorial solutions, even with volumes published within the same series. Although none of these could serve as a ready model, some of the methods did seem inspiring. In the presentation of the text, I greatly relied on the manuals and guides on documentary publication, of both a general and affiliated nature.33 While preparing the drafts, I very much appreciated the criticism and advice of my colleagues Danko Zelić and Zdenka Janeković Römer. Their comments, along with my own experience in researching sources of the kind, guided me through the process of redaction and selection of editorial solutions.

Since I have no intention of elaborating the editorial procedure and the documentary standards in editions of the kind, I wish to draw attention to certain elements which tend to depart from current editorial practice, as well as to specific moments in which I had to choose between two opposing principles. In Dinić’s edition of the council registers from the 1380s, the original structure of the source was ignored and the decisions were rearranged in chronological order. In present edition, however, I took no such practice, as I consider the dates and indexes alone to be a sufficient device for cross-referencing among the same or similar items on the councils’ agenda. The decisions are thus ordered as in the original.

Contrary to the editorial practice witnessed in earlier printed volumes of the Reformationes, I decided not to leave out the text of the rejected counter- proposition, even if it were a mere negative variant of the accepted motion. I believe that its omission cannot be justified for reasons of saving space, since the omission would hinder the reader in following the decision-making procedure.

For the reader’s convenience, the letters ‘u’ and ‘v’ have been transcribed according to pronunciation, though the standards of documentary publication are not consistent on this subject matter. I longa is consistently transcribed as i; y is retained in the basic word forms, whereas in the suffixes it is replaced by i or ii. Variant spelling suspected to be drawn from the notary’s native idiom has been conveyed as such. Errors and infelicities in grammar and syntax (e.g. case error, lack of agreement of verb with subject but also preposition and case) will easily be spotted, so that only seldom are they flagged with an exclamation mark. Minor lapsus calami, corrected by the notary himself, have been omitted. Aberrations in the transcription of patrician surnames, which can by no means be attributed to the name variant but exclusively to the scribe’s error or his lack of familiarity with the local name pool, have been transliterated in a most similar form, accompanied by a note on the correction; this particularly concerns the Caboga family which one of the chancellors, probably led astray by an accent, keeps rendering as ‘Dacha Boga’. I tried to use as few redaction marks as possible so as to avoid an eventual clogging of the final draft. Short marginal notes in the original which concern the subject matter of each deliberation have been conveyed on the left to assist the modern reader in finding an entry of his interest. The presentation of the crossed-out parts was a particularly intriguing task. There may have been many reasons for crossing out a word or words: the clerk’s error, rejection of a motion (this information is redundant since the voting outcome itself testifies to the adopted motion), a candidate who had not received the necessary number of votes (also redundant), but also the name of a nominee who withdrew during the electoral procedure or was elected to some other office. Having put several different models to the test, I decided to place the crossed-out part in parentheses, differentiated by an editor’s mark.

The edition is furnished with three indexes: author index (index personarum), place-name index (index locorum), and subject index (index rerum). Whenever possible, the place names are accompanied by a modern form.

p., pp., ip., ipp., yp., ypp. perperus, iperperus, yperperus (all case endings included)

1The Ragusan chancery practice of keeping records in register form dates from the 1260s (notarial books, judicial acts). See Nella Lonza, “Srednjovjekovni zapisnici dubrovačkog kaznenog suda: izvorne cjeline i arhivsko stanje.” Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 41 (2003): pp. 48-49; on similar yet somewhat earlier practice in the Italian towns, see Attilio Bartoli Langeli, “La documentazione degli stati italiani nei secoli XIII-XV: forme, organizzazione, personale”, in: Culture et idéologie dans la genèse de l’État moderne. Roma: École française, 1985: pp. 46-47. Viewed from the perspective of the Dubrovnik Statute of 1272 and its framing procedure, one may assume that the council decisions tended to be recorded after this year (for more detail on the drawing up of the Statute, see Nella Lonza, “Dubrovački statut, temeljna sastavnica pravnog poretka i biljeg političkog identiteta”, in: Statut grada Dubrovnika sastavljen godine 1272. Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv u Dubrovniku, 2002: pp. 16-19). It is certain that at least one register had existed prior to the oldest preserved from 1301-1303 (Odluke veća Dubrovačke Republike I, ed. Mihajlo Dinić. Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjiæevnost srpskog naroda, III.15. Beograd: SANU, 1951: p. 3).

2Odluke veća Dubrovačke Republike II, ed. M. Dinić. ZIJKSN, III.21. Beograd: SANU, 1964: p. 1.

3They are: Acta Consilii Rogatorum, ser. III (with a separate series IV, Secreta Rogatorum, which has not survived in full); Acta Minoris Consilii, ser. V; Acta Consilii Maioris, ser. VIII.

4Libri reformationum I-V. Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, X, XIII, XXVII-XXIX. Zagreb: JAZU, 1879-1897. Ivan Krstitelj Tkalčić had copied most of the first volume, later completed by the Ragusan colleagues (P. Budmani and others). They produced the transcriptions of the second and the third volume. Josip Gelcich is known to be the editor of the fourth and fifth volume, having also collated the third volume.

5See the reviews of Konstantin Jireček in Časopis českého musea 59 (1885): 572-589 and Archiv für Slavische Philologie 19 (1887): pp. 585-598; Odluke veća Dubrovačke Republike I : p. 4. Irmgard Mahnken observes that “the distortion of the names is such that identification is hardly possible” (Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku, I. Posebna izdanja, book 340. Beograd: SANU, 1960: p. XII).

6Odluke veća Dubrovačke Republike I; Odluke veća Dubrovačke Republike II; Reformationes for 1365, omitted from Monumenta Ragusina by mistake, were published by Dinić in: Iz dubrovačkog arhiva, I. ZIJKSN, III.17. Beograd: SANU, 1957: pp. 3-24.

8The Statute of Dubrovnik, I, 3 [16] (Statut grada Dubrovnika sastavljen godine 1272. Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv, 2002). See Nella Lonza, “Izborni postupak Dubrovačke Republike”. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti u Dubrovniku 38 (2000): pp. 12-13.

9On this point, see the provision from 1381 in Liber omnium reformationum, VIII, 2 (“Liber omnium reformationum”, ed. Aleksandar Solovjev, in: Istorisko-pravni spomenici, I. Dubrovački zakoni i uredbe. ZIJKSN, III. 6. Beograd: SANU, 1936).

10Compare Odluke veća I: 6. His hand may be identified with certainty on the basis of his handwriting in Reformationes, vol. 28, f. 115r, and by comparing it with act no. 36 in the Diplomata et acta saec. XIV (ser. LXXVI). On Andreas’s career at the Ragusan chancery, see a brief depiction by Constantin Jireček, “Die mittelalterliche Kanzlei der Ragusaner”. Archiv für Slavische Philologie 26 (1904): pp. 190-191.

11For comparison, see act no. 51 in Diplomata et acta saec. XIV. On the basic biographical data, see C. Jireček, “Die mittelalterliche Kanzlei der Ragusaner”: pp. 191-192.

12The decision on his appointment to the post is to be found in Reformationes, vol. 28, f. 52v. C. Jireček quotes the wrong year of his appointment as chancellor, “Die mittelalterliche Kanzlei der Ragusaner”: p. 192.

13His hand may be identified by means of his own handwriting in Reformationes, vol. 29, f. 131r.

15For a succinct introduction to patrician language practice, see Zdenka Janeković Römer, Okvir slobode: dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja i humanizma. Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 1999: pp. 343-344, and the literature cited herein. I am grateful to Professor Furio Brugnolo (University of Padova) for his revision of the transcription of two fragments in Venetian.

16The chancellors tended to designate each decision copied from Reformationes into other legal collections by the letter ‘S’ (scriptum).

18Liber viridis, ed. Branislav Nedeljković. ZIJKSN, III.23. Beograd: SANU, 1984: cc. 71-79.

20Compare Reformationes, vol. 29, ff. 1138r, 140v, 146v. The quorum was regulated as in Liber omnium reformationum, VIII, 2 from 1331.

22A two-thirds majority was required, for example when deciding on raising the salary of the government officials (Reformationes, vol. 28, ff. 135rv, 140r). Cp. Philippus de Diversis, “Situs aedicificiorum, politiae et laudabilium consuetudinum inclytae civitatis Ragusii”, ed. V. Brunelli. Programma dell’I. R. Ginnasio superiore in Zara 1880-81. Zara: Tipografia Woditzka, 1881: p. 7.

24Although distinguished by shorter entries with no reference to the rejected counter-motions, the decisions of the Minor Council take up almost a half of the entire contents of the Reformationes published here.

28The minor Council, for example, decides to shift some issues to the Major Council but insists on retaining others (Reformationes 29, ff. 16v, 52r).

29For example, a series of entries on the enfranchisement will complete the list compiled by Irmgard Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku, I: pp. 91-96.

30For example, there is an entry concerning a commission which, in 1392, was authorized to regulate landed estates and to draw up the cadastral register of the Pelješac Peninsula (Reformationes, vol. 29, f. 102rv). For further insights on the cadastral register, see Nenad Vekarić, Pelješka naselja u 14. stoljeću. Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti JAZU u Dubrovniku, 1989: pp. 18-19.

31This will most likely be the case with diplomatic relations, as the registers Lettere et commissiones for this time period are missing.

32“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća grada Splita. Libri Maioris consilii civitatis Spalati, 1352-1354, 1357-1359.”, ed. Jakov Stipišić and Miljen Šamšalović. Zbornik Zavoda za povijesne znanosti JAZU u Zagrebu 12 (1982): pp. 63-266; Consigli della Repubblica Fiorentina 1301-1315, I-II, ed. Bernardino Barbadoro. Atti delle assamblee costituzionali italiane dal Medio Evo al 1831, serie III, sezione 4. Bologna: Nicolo Zanichelli, 1921-1930; Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio di Venezia, I-III, ed. Roberto Cessi. Atti III, 1. Bologna, 1931-1950; Consigli del Comune di Prato 1252-1285, ed. Renato Piattoli. Atti III, 3. Bologna, 1940; Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca 1369-1400, I-II, ed. Antonio Romiti i Giorgio Tori. Atti, III, 2. Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1980-1985.

33Jakov Stipišić, Pomoćne povijesne znanosti u teoriji i praksi. Zagreb, 21985: 175-180; Giampaolo Tognetti, Criteri per la trascrizione di testi medievali latini e italiani. Quaderni della Rassegna degli Archivi di Stato, 51. Roma, 1982; Conseils pour l’édition des textes médiévaux, I. Paris: Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, École Nationale des Chartes, 2001. I am grateful to Danko Zelić for bringing these sources to my attention.

THE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS (REFORMATIONES) AS SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE LATE FOURTEENTH-CENTURY DUBROVNIK