7

THE STATUTE OF DUBROVNIK OF 1272: BETWEEN LEGAL CODE AND POLITICAL SYMBOL

Nella Lonza

To a modern reader, accustomed to the dizzy dynamics of present-day legislative, the medieval statutes, valid for centuries, may seem a peculiar genre. In the case of Dubrovnik, actually, in a half millennium between its compilation in 1272 and the fall of the Ragusan Republic in 1808, only few of its chapters have ever been abrogated. Certainly, the Statute acquired some scars in decisive historical moments, such as at the end of the Venetian rule in 1358, but its original thirteenth-century physiognomy has been preserved, and the text continued to be copied times after times for public and private purposes, as long as the Ragusan state lasted.

However, the static image of the Ragusan legal system based on the Statute turns out to be a sort of trompe l’oeil. Behind its monolithic appearance is hidden a slow genesis and a series of changes, hardly discernible on the surface, yet profound. Something about that topic should be said, not only because it is a convention for an edition of a medieval text to have an introductory note, but above all because it is an intriguing story about the forming of a myth of immutable legal tradition, the inventive power of legal practice and a gradual transformation of the Statute from a strictly legal text to more of a symbol of collective identity.

Pre-Statutory Regulation

The early period of local legislation is vague mainly because of the lack of documents. The oldest preserved Ragusan ‘law’ dates from 1190 and regulates the safe-conduct of debtors (salvus conductus) around the feast day of the City’s patron, St Blaise (3 February).1 The parchment is damaged, but the part of the document which is readable clearly shows that it originates from a proclamation (bandum), which on the occasion was made perpetual and written down in the form (capitulare). It is a very interesting piece of evidence to a certain level of articulation of legal concepts—probably to be attributed to the skills of the notary of the commune, deacon Marin Camas, a member of the local elite. It was certainly not the first Ragusan law ever written, but one among others which did not survive. However, we should bear in mind that the legal area was still regulated by customs transmitted by oral tradition, and that the transition to the ‘written standard’ was a very slow process which elsewhere in Europe stretched to several centuries.2

The charter from 1190, as well as the following charters from the first half of the thirteenth century, witness to an early stage of the development of the communal institutions, when the participation of lay and Church authorities at the gathering of the City citizens were gradually replaced by the bodies of permanent character and defined authority.3 It is not surprising that the legal provisions of the time often

1 Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. II, ed. T. Smičiklas. Zagreb: JAZU, 1904: doc. 227, p. 242; Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii compositus anno 1272, ed. V. Bogišić and C. Jireček. [Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. IX]. Zagreb: JAZU, 1904: p. LXII.

2 See Hagan Keller, »Gli statuti dell’Italia settentrionale come testimonianza e fonte per il processo di aff ermazione della scrittura nei secoli XII e XIII«, in: Le scritture del comune: Amministrazione e memoria nelle città dei secoli XII e XIII, ed. Giuliana Albini. Torino: Scriptorium, 1998 (on-line: http://centri.univr.it/rm/biblioteca/volumi/albini/Keller.zip, accessed on 13 March 2012).

3 Zdenka Janeković Römer, Okvir slobode: dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja i humanizma. Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 1999: pp. 56-61; Nenad Vekarić, Vlastela grada Dubrovnika, I - Korijeni, struktura i razvoj dubrovačkog plemstva. Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU, 2011: pp. 205-224. For an overview of the history of Dubrovnik in English, see Robin Harris, Dubrovnik: A History. London: Saqi, 2003.

Nella Lonza

8

originated from a concrete case which had to be solved. Such a hybrid administrative-legislative nature of the early legal documents may be witnessed by a charter from 1235, in which the authorities react towards two Ragusans who bought a ship from the corsairs of Omiš and order them to give it back under threat of extremely harsh penalties, at the same time formulating a general legal rule prohibiting such a deal.4

Bearing the name of ban/proclamation (bandum)5 or order (preceptum), legal provisions issued in the pre-statutory period were concerned with different matters of communal policy, such as certain defence measures issued in 1228,6 and a short provision on theft from the vineyard of 1235.7 Their concrete nature made their importance vanish with time, or even made them obsolete, so that only a small number of them survived, and even smaller found their way to the Statute of 1272.8 The oath of the new Count, who was sent to Dubrovnik to rule the City in the name of Venice, was written down in a form of a charter, too,9 its formula being integrated into the Statute later on.10

All these legal acts were in a form of a notary document. Most of them were very short, consisting of a small piece of parchment.11 The only longer law that survived from the pre-statutory period is the so-called Regulation on dowry and wedding festivities (Ordo de dotibus et nuptiis),12 passed in 1235 as an attempt of the Ragusan commune to frustrate dilapidation of the fortunes on the occasion of marriage. It is interesting to note that the validity of the law was restricted to twenty-nine years, cautiously avoiding the term of thirty years, which in Roman law tradition transformed a temporary legal situation into a permanent one. In fact, merely a small part of the provision concerning the novice’s garment was incorporated into the Statute, moreover referred to not as a law but as a “Ragusan custom” (consuetudo civitatis Ragusii).13

Indirectly we know of a more consistent regulation on criminal matters that may be considered as a proto-Statute of Dubrovnik, or—more precisely—one of the nuclei of the future Statute. Namely, the Statute of Korčula of 1265 and the Statute of Dubrovnik of 1272 have very similar opening series of chapters on criminal law. They are both affiliated with the Venetian Promissio de maleficiis of 1232, but in terms of their arrangement and content, they are much closer to each other than to the Venetian text.14 According to the general principle that a less developed centre would ‘adopt’ the law of a better developed one, it may be expected that statutory provisions on penal law of tiny Korčula, constituted as a town shortly before, were borrowed from Dubrovnik, and not the other way round. In fact, a link between the two Statutes

4 Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, III, ed. T. Smičiklas. Zagreb: JAZU, 1905: doc. 382, p. 439-440.5 Th e “protostatute” from Rab of 1234 has a similar form (Lujo Margetić, »Rapski protostatut iz 1234. godine«. Vjesnik Povijesnog

arhiva u Rijeci 38 (1996): p. 106). For the meaning of bandum see also Lujo Margetić, »O nekim osnovnim značajkama pokretanja kaznenog postupka u srednjovjekovnim dalmatinskim gradskim općinama«. Rad HAZU 475 (1997): pp. 46 and 52, and, more generally, Ennio Cortese, Il diritto nella storia medievale, vol. II. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 1995: p. 280.

6 Codex diplomaticus III: doc. 261, p. 292.7 Codex diplomaticus III: doc. 381, p. 439.8 E. g., Bannum vini (Statute II, 18).9 Th e oath charters from 1237, 1238, 1240, 1242, 1244, 1245, 1247 and 1254 have been preserved. Th e text is almost identical,

only the last one having been expanded (Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. IV, ed. T. Smičiklas, Zagreb: JAZU, 1906: doc. 28, p. 32; doc. 53, p. 60; doc. 108, p. 119; doc. 143, p. 159; doc. 210, p. 241; doc. 248, p. 283; doc. 291, pp. 327-328; for the oath from 1254 see Liber statutorum: pp. LXVII-LXIX, because the edition in the Codex is incomplete). For the Italian cities see Enrico Besta, Fonti: Legislazione e scienza giuridica dalla caduta dell’Impero Romano al secolo decimosesto, I.2, in: Storia del diritto italiano, ed. Pasquale Del Giudice. Milano: Hoepli, 1925 (reprint Frankfurt am Main-Firenze, 1969): p. 520.

10 Statute II, 1.11 Cf. H. Keller, »Gli statuti dell’Italia settentrionale«: passim.12 Th e title originates from the Bogišić-Jireček edition in: Liber statutorum: pp. LXIV-LXVI.13 Statute IV, 3.14 Bogišić-Jireček in: Liber statutorum: pp. XXI-XXII; Antun Cvitanić, »Uvod u dubrovačko statutarno kasnije zakonsko pravo«, in:

Statut grada Dubrovnika 1272., trans. Mate Križman and Josip Kolanović. Dubrovnik: Historijski arhiv Dubrovnik, 1990: p. 17.

Nella Lonza

9

15 Codex diplomaticus IV: doc. 431, pp. 495-496; doc. 437, pp. 501-502; doc. 485, pp. 555-556.16 Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i mletačke republike, III, ed. S. Ljubić. [Monumenta spectantia historiam

Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. III]. Zagreb: JAZU, 1872: Appendix, doc. 38, pp. 406-407.17 A. Cvitanić, »Uvod«: p. 17; Joško Belamarić, Osnutak grada Korčule. Zagreb: Ex libris, 2005: pp. 30-31.18 See the oath of Count Andrea Dauro of 1254 (Liber statutorum: p. LXIX), and the regulation on the penalty for homicide of

1307-1308 (Statute VIII, 58).19 During the dogeship of Jacopo Tiepolo, the following were issued: a new exemplar of Doge’s promissio (1229), the Sea

Law Book (1229-1236), the Criminal Law Book (Promissio malefi ciorum, 1232) and the Statute containing mainly civil law (Statutum novum, 1242). See Giorgio Zordan, L’ordinamento giuridico veneziano. Padova: Cleup, 21984: pp. 188-189, 193, 197-198, 201.

20 Knjiga odredaba dubrovačke carinarnice 1277, ed. J. Lučić. Dubrovnik, 1989: pp. 10-11. Similarity was already observed by Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: XIX.

21 A. Cvitanić, »Uvod«: p. 17, note 39. Quite similar wording can be found in the Statute of Bologna from 1288 (Statuti di Bologna dell’anno 1288, ed. Gina Fasoli and Pietro Sella. Città dl Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1937: p. 5).

22 Sane diversas consitutiones et decretales epistolas praedecessorum nostrorum, in diversa dispersas volumina... [quae] confusionem inducere videbantur, aliquae vero vagabantur extra volumina supradicta, quae tanquam incertae frequenter in iudiciis vacillabant, ... illas in unum volumen resecatis superfl uis providiumus redigendas... (Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, II - Decretalium collectiones. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879, reprint Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1950: pp. 1-4).

may be the person of Marsilio Zorzi, a Ragusan Count in 1252-1254,15 who in 1256 succeeded to obtain the countship of Korčula and Mljet as a perpetual tenure (comes perpetuus Curzole et Melete),16 set in motion the construction of the city of Korčula and gave it a new legal setting with the promulgation of the Statute in 1265.17 There is no direct evidence in the sources, but I assume that Zorzi commissioned someone (possibly the notary Antun Galiopa, with whom we know he stayed in contact) a copy of the Ragusan Criminal Statute, for the purpose of introducing it on Korčula. This early Ragusan Criminal Statute can be gathered from a couple of sources. The Ragusan Count’s oath from 1254 mentions the Statute made at the time of the countship of Giovanni Tiepolo (statutum factum tempore regiminis Johannis Teupoli), who was on duty from 1237 to 1238,18 and who was actually the one who introduced a new form of Venetian administration upon Dubrovnik (regimen), which substituted the former, half-feudal system. Probably it is not insignificant to the case that Count Tiepolo was a son of Jacopo Tiepolo, a Doge credited for the compilation of various parts of Venetian statutory regulation, among which is the one on criminal law (Promissio de maleficiis).19 It means that the opening series of the chapters of Book VI of the Statute of Dubrovnik are, in fact, half a century older than the statutory compilation itself. It is probably not the only entity of older laws surviving in the Statute of 1272, but the older textual layers are extremely difficult to detect.

The Compilation of the Statute of 1272

The preamble of the Statute states that at one point the compilation was much needed, since the laws promulgated under different Counts were dispersed in different fascicles, contradictory, incomplete and obscure, which led to dissent and problems in practice. As we saw, the laws were, in fact, written on pieces of parchment, and the criticism on the lack of system and practical problems was certainly grounded. However, the way to put it was the true commonplace of the medieval law books. Almost the same words can be found not only in the opening text of the Ragusan Custom Law Book (Liber statutorum doane) of 1277,20 but also in several preambles of fourteenth-century Statutes from the Eastern Adriatic—from northern Izola (today Slovenia), to the central islands of Brač and Hvar.21 They all borrowed from the papal bull Rex pacificus, which in 1234 accompanied the Decretals of Gregory IX (Liber Extra), a canon law collection of major importance, on its way to Bologna and Paris.22 If we consider it as a piece of medieval rhetoric, it is clear that it was all about the legitimation of very substantive changes in the legal system, changes that no medieval society wanted, unless they were presented as necessary.

Nella Lonza

10

23 See Z. Janeković Römer, Okvir slobode: pp. 58-61.24 Gregor Čremošnik, »Dubrovačka kancelarija do godine 1300. i najstarije knjige dubrovačke arhive«. Glasnik Zemaljskog

muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 39 (1927): pp. 231-233.25 Quentin Skinner, Th e Foundations of Modern Political Th ought, vol. I. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1978:

especially pp. 46-60.26 Nella Lonza, »OBLITI PRIVATORUM PUBLICA CURATE: A Ragusan Political Epigraph and its Historical Background«.

Dubrovnik Annals 11 (2007): pp. 33-35.27 See below.28 In general, not much is known about the compilers of the statutory texts. See E. Besta, Fonti: pp. 513-514; Mario Sbriccoli,

L’interpretazione dello statuto: contributo allo studio della funzione dei giuristi nell’età comunale. Milano: Giuff rè, 1969: p. 56, note 11.

29 From a document of 1274 we know that the Count who went to Dubrovnik took a notary with him (Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i mletačke republike, vol. I, ed. S. Ljubić. [Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. IX]. Zagreb: JAZU, 1868: doc. 149, p. 107). However, all the notary documents preserved in the Dubrovnik Archives are written by communal notaries, and none by the Count’s notary. Nor respective documents seem to be conserved in the State Archives of Venice.

30 Compare Statute IV, 17 and D. 1,1,4.31 It is contested by Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. XVI, but I still think that some similarities can be discerned. It does

not follow strictly the libri legales (Codex, Digesta), but one can notice that the provisions on the institutions are placed at the beginning, followed by the laws on procedure, and with the criminal law section towards the end.

The deep transformation of the legal system was indeed needed in Dubrovnik at the time, but for quite other reasons. The commune reached the stage of development when clear and ordinate legal provisions were important in the public sphere, where the bodies dominated by the growing local aristocracy had to be held in balance with the Venetian institutions and their representatives in the City.23 At the same time dynamic economic activities of the merchants in Dubrovnik and abroad asked for effective legal instruments to protect their interests and rights. It is not by chance that in the same period the office of notary was definitely professionalised (1278).24 Finally, in the thirteenth century emerged the idea of a Good Government, an ideal of a well-ruled community, which wakes over the common good, fair trial and needs of the weaker members.25 The way to its clear articulation in Dubrovnik lasted well over a century,26 but some basic ideas may be glimpsed in the Statute of 1272, too.

Nothing is known about the person who is to be credited for the compilation of the Statute, and very little can be said about how he proceeded with the work. In any case, the task was quite demanding, impossible to perform for someone who had no legal education. When we see the very disappointing results of the local commission of experienced patricians who after 1358 had a much easier task of purging the text from the mention of Venetian domination,27 it is certain that the compiler should be sought in the circle of professional lawyers. In my opinion, the work on the Statute also exceeded the expertise of the local notaries of the day (clerics with some training in notary skills). We know that important Italian cities used to engage specialists (statutarii) to compile their Statutes.28 However, we have no confirmation that the same happened in the cities subjected to Venice, and I doubt that the dominant would allow such a trajectory. Unfortunately, completely obscure is the function of the notaries who associated the Count,29 and nothing can be said about their possible role in the compilation of the Statute. So far this question cannot be responded.

The modus operandi of the anonymous compiler can be discerned in general lines. As we have seen, some of the older Ragusan laws found their way into the Statute, and some did not. It implies that the person in any case looked to the previous written laws and made his selection. On the other hand, it is clear that he had some notion of the ius commune—European legal heritage based on the Roman and canon law—not much, and not deep, but still some. For example, for the liberation of an unfree servant he uses the Roman term manumittere, although explaining it subsequently with the medieval francare.30 A certain, if vague, Roman law frame can be found in the disposition of the content of the Statute.31

Nella Lonza

11

However, the fact that the compiler quotes some Roman law maxims, such as the one attributed to Ulpianus,32 should not necessarily mean that he was familiar with the subtleties of the learned law, since these quotations, together with those from the Old Testament, Lucanus, Virgil, etc.,33 possibly came through the knowledge on rhetoric and ars dictaminis.

A high conformity between many chapters of the Statutes of Kotor, Budva and Shköder has already been noted.34 Moreover, there is a significant correspondence of some of them with the Statute of Dubrovnik, which would be the oldest one of the series.35 A thorough analysis of all the four Statutes would, I expect, bring to light the role of a common model which circulated in the Southern Adriatic cities. Already mentioned similarities between the Ragusan Statute and the Statutes from the very distant towns (Izola, Brač, Hvar) suggest that some text samples were also used in the broader area under Venetian domination. Possibly they were sent to the cities of the Venetian commonwealth in order to facilitate—and influence as well—the process of compiling the city Statutes. However, small textual differences show that the model was never accepted ad litteram, but there was always room for local customs and peculiarities.

The Statute and Its General Structure

If we carefully decompose the Statute, we clearly see a number of units on particular issues—corresponding to books or not—which sometimes also differ in style. The general structure of the Statute is as follows. The first book defines the privileges and responsibilities of the Count and his Deputy, the benefices of the Archbishop and the Cathedral, etc. The second book contains the formulae or the solemn inauguration oaths taken by the Count, judges, council members, and other public officials; probably a part of its content is copied from an older register of oath formulae (capitulare).36 In fact, the whole institutional framework is constructed on two pillars: the first consisting of bodies and officials reflecting the social reality of the commune, and the second of the Count with his entourage, elected in the Venetian Major Council and representative of Venetian supreme rule. The third book deals with civil procedure and jurisdiction of the courts. The fourth book, which details family law, as well as provisions on inheritance, is one of the most systematic parts of the Statute. The fifth book deals with the regulation of certain rights related to real estate: ownership, servitudes, and legal features of agrarian relationships. The sixth book opens with the criminal law, probably based on the Criminal Statute of the 1230s (ch. 1-34), and continues with miscellaneous provisions on contraband of wine (ch. 35-41), on unfree servants (ch. 42-53), a couple of chapters on communal life, which would better fit into the fifth book (ch. 55-57), and other matters. By contrast, the seventh book, which deals with sea law, is quite consistent and uniform in style. Most likely the original Statute of 1272 ended there. But, in the very first years after its compilation, a series of

32 D. 1,1,10, pr. See Antun Cvitanić, »Proemiji statuta naših primorskih komuna - specifi čan koncentriran izraz srednjovjekovnog shvaćanja političke vlasti i prava”. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 17/3-4 (1967): p 279; Marko Petrak, »Recepcija Ulpijanove defi nicije pravednosti u hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim izvorima«. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 57/6 (2007): pp. 955-970.

33 Cf. also Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. XVII.34 See Gherardo Ortalli, »Gli statuti, tra Scutari e Venezia«, in: Statuti di Scutari della prima metà del secolo XIV con le addizioni

fi no al 1469, ed. Lucia Nadin. [Corpus statutario delle Venezie, vol. 15]. Roma: Viella, 2002: pp. 11-13; Oliver Jens Schmitt, »Un monumento dell’Albania medievale: gli Statuti di Scutari«, ibidem: pp 27-35.

35 For a sample of provisions on the designation of a witness, see Nella Lonza, »Pulling the Witness by the Ear: A Riddle from the Medieval Ragusan Sources«. Dubrovnik Annals 13 (2009): p. 30, note 18. A couple of similarities between the Statutes of Dubrovnik and Kotor are listed by Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. XXI.

36 Cf. Antonio Teja, »Statuti di Dalmazia «. La Rivista Dalmatica 20/4 (1939): pp. 29-31. In Italian cities such formulae of the oaths were the fi rst articulated unities which formed the nucleus of the Statutes (E. Besta, Fonti: pp. 519-524).

Nella Lonza

12

chapters regulating the activities of the Minor Court (Parva curia) were added, forming the nucleus of the last statutory book.37 The eighth book continued to be filled with new provisions, although some of additions were incorporated in the other books, where they better fitted in terms of their content.

The Original Manuscript and Its Fourteenth-Century Copy

The original version of 1272 (by the first editors, Bogišić and Jireček, called A) did not survive in any manuscript,38 and the oldest codex preserved is from the mid-fourteenth century. Thus it is virtually impossible to be certain which chapters have preserved their genuine content, and which not.39 An analysis of the composition of the Statute may help to detect a couple of provisions which were clearly interpolated at a later date, but there were other changes which are impossible to identify. For example, from the archive documents we know that some changes were made in 1325,40 and that in 1328 a chapter which restricted marriage to the people of Kotor was abolished,41 but the Statute does not preserve any trace of it. In 1343 the Ragusan councils elected a five-member commission with an aim of re-examining the Statute and proposing the needed changes (ad providendum super corepcione statutorum).42 However, there is no evidence that in the period which followed any alteration was passed in the Major Council or found its way into the Statute, and the whole campaign may have ended in a number of smaller adjustments and refinements of the text invisible to us.

An increasing number of notes on alterations and additions that flanked the original text made the old codex of 1272 confused and difficult to handle. At some point, a new, reliable copy of the Statute was much needed, and it led to the drawing up of an official exemplar which is still filed at the State Archives of Dubrovnik (series 21.1 Manuali pratici del Cancelliere: Leggi e Istruzioni, vol. 9b; HR-DADU-14.1.9b),43 by Bogišić and Jireček called “version B”.44 The manuscript bears no date, but on the basis of the handwriting it can be dated around 1349 or slightly earlier, but not before 1345.45 Possibly only on that occasion were the chapters numerated.46

37 Th e provisions were certainly added before 1275, since the book continues with dated provisions from that year on. Th e chapters on the Minor Court bore a distinct title, and with them ended the old numeration of the chapters, as well as the original index of contents (Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. XVI and 243, note 12).

38 Th e manuscript A (codex vetustus) was still preserved in the sixteenth century, as proved by a quote from it in the work of Frano Gondula (Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. XLIII).

39 L. Margetić warned of a similar problem concerning the Statute of Split of 1312, which underwent considerable alterations in 1382-1385 ( L. Margetić, »O nekim osnovnim značajkama«: pp. 21-22). Th e historical layers of the Statutes of the Dalmatian cities remain to be researched.

40 Th e “correction of some corrupted statutes” is registered in the index of the deliberations of the Venetian Senate (Misti del Senato) of 1325 (Listine I: p. 162).

41 Its title was De parentelis non contrahendis cum hominibus de Cataro; as a reason for its cancellation it was stated that it was in contradiction with the justice of God and the Church, and with the interests of Dubrovnik (Libri reformationum, V, ed. J. Gelcich. Zagreb: JAZU, 1897: p. 255).

42 Libri reformationum, I, ed. J. Gelcich. Zagreb: JAZU, 1879: p. 146.43 A full description of the manuscript by Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. XLIV-XLIX.44 Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. XLIV-XLIX. In my opinion, the authors tended to label too easily any variant as a

separate version (A-E). In fact, I think that there exist only two versions which can be seen as substantially diff erent: A (as preserved in the manuscript B) and C.

45 I believe that the fi rst scribe copied the text up to VIII, 97 of 1349 on folio 91, but it is likely that the last few chapters with the lengthened handwriting he added at a somewhat later date. Bogišić and Jireček proposed 1342 as a year of the confection of the manuscript (Liber statutorum: pp. XLV-XLVI), but their assumption does not fi t with the data on the 1343 campaign, mentioned above. Anyhow, the manuscript could not be dated prior to 1345, because of the oath of the offi cers who collect the rent of the communal houses, inserted as II, 20 (Knjige nekretnina Dubrovačke općine (13-18.st.), vol. I, ed. Irena Benyovsky Latin and Danko Zelić. Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2007: pp. 27-28).

46 In any case, they were numerated not prior to 1292 (Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. XVI).

Nella Lonza

13

47 For example, he mentioned the old statutory provision (anticum statutum), but copied the new one, issued between 1292 and 1305 (Statute III, 33).

48 For example, III, 3-5 and VIII, 25 of 1278; I, 22, 31, 33 and VIII, 52 of 1296; III, 38 and VIII, 87 of 1338.49 Th e Table of Book VI reads ch. 2 De fi lio fi lias homicidium committere, but the text is missing.50 On the f. 29 the copyist had written down the title De forma testamentorum (III, 41), but then noticed that he failed to copy

the addition to III, 40 of 1332, correcting his mistake by erasing the title.51 For example, at the end of ch. I, 23 an addition was copied, which actually concerns ch. 24, and was certainly noted by it,

since it refers to ch. 23 as the “previous”.52 For example, added at the end of Book III are ch. 59-61.53 For marks of adaptation of the manuscript, cf. Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. 249-250.54 On details about the committees and their work see Nella Lonza, »Dubrovački patriciji pred izazovom prava (druga polovica

14. i 15. stoljeće)«. Acta Histriae 16/1-2 (2008): pp. 119-120.55 Statute IV, 80; VI, 1, 65-67.56 For example, Statute II, 1 and 3 (version C).57 Statute II, 7, 9, 10-15, 19, 20-21, 25, 33.58 Liber reformationum I: pp. 247-248; III: pp. 32, 201.

Being attuned to the needs of the practitioners, the copyist tended to integrate the prior alterations and additions into the text,47 but did not do it consequently, probably when he was not sure about the proper place of a provision.48 His method can be gleaned from his errors. For example, he omitted one abolished chapter, but failed to do the same in the Table of Contents (tabula rubricarum).49 Many problems were caused by the additions written in the margins or in the blank space between the chapters of the original, and the copyist sometimes missed one50 or wrote it in the wrong place.51

As the statute law continued to grow, the new manuscript soon started to be filled with new additions, which again were noted by the chapter they were related to, 52 or were copied at the end of Book VIII. When in the mid-fifteenth century the codex was substituted with a new official copy, the old one was adapted and given to the use of the Count’s Deputy, who held jurisdiction in minor civil cases.53

The Purge of the Text in 1358 and the New Official Manuscript of the Statute

The end of Venetian domination in 1358 and the new suzerainty of the Hungaro-Croatian king, who granted autonomous status to Dubrovnik, prompted the purging of the Statute from all provisions related to the Venetian rule. With that objective, first a commission of five was nominated, and as they in three-month time showed hardly any progress, they were replaced by a new committee of three very experienced patricians.54 As a result of the endeavours of the latter, several chapters were added to the Statute,55 while their main task of ‘purging’ the Statute was carried out with incredible sloppiness: not only did they omit parts of the text without considering the whole of the chapter,56 but they simply missed several references to the Venetian rule, too.57 However, the fruit of their labour became the final version (C), and Ragusan authorities never attempted to correct the text. That fact confirms the view that it is the practice and not the words of the law that really mattered in the past, especially in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Moreover, the Statute acquired the status of a ‘sacred text’ of enormous symbolic value, and as such was not to be subject to revision ever again. After all, the wish to cancel any mention of the once Venetian domination soon faded away in the light of a new autonomous position of Dubrovnik.

After the committee of 1358 had fulfilled its assignment, the Ragusan authorities were to make sure that the changes were transferred also to the manuscripts of the Statute in private hands. With that objective, they organised a campaign of collecting private exemplars and correcting them at state expense.58

Nella Lonza

14

The New Collections of Laws and the Final Redaction of the Statutory Text in 1409/10

The old technique of pressing new laws between the chapters of the Statute was no longer adequate because of the augmented number of laws passed from the mid-fourteenth century. Although the old style of adapting the Statute to the changes in the legislative was not immediately abandoned,59 in 1335 the introduction of a new law collection called the Book of All Provisions (Liber omnium reformationum) brought some relief. The volume was filled with the laws passed from 1305 and continued to be used up to 1409-1410, when it was substituted by the Green Book (Liber viridis), and finally in 1460 by the Yellow Book (Liber croceus).60 The true reason to start a new register was not always the lack of space in the old one, but also concerns about negligent registration, which periodically arose.

The Ragusan Republic entered the fifteenth century strengthened after a half a century of de facto independence under the nominal protection of the Hungaro-Croatian king. This élan and growing self-consciousness also reflected on the state institutions. The authority of some of them was redefined, new instruments of control on the central and local level were introduced, and important novelties in proceeding raised the quality of the judiciary.61 It is not surprising that the same period witnessed an attempt to put the legal sector in order. The leading principle was, however, that the extant collections were not be touched, which brought an end to the whole action in 1409-1410 with the ‘closing’ of their text and with the commission of the new official manuscripts soon after.62

Official Manuscript of 1432

It was in 1432 that the Minor Council commissioned a new copy of the Statute that was to suit the official purposes.63 The parchment codex was written with much care, though already finished by the beginning of 1433.64 The copyist was probably one of the foreign notaries employed as chancellors, because he had difficulties with the reading of the Slavic words such as stanicum (copied as stinicum) and meia (copied as vinea and mea).65 The opening initial with St Blaise, the City’s patron, was painted by a renowned Ragusan artist, Ivan Ugrinović.66 It is noteworthy that in 1443 the well-known Humanist Ciriaco Pizzicolli from Ancona wrote down into the manuscript the text he composed to be carved in stone for two public spaces, and some other notes.67 Later on, in the volume were also copied some official letters to the Republic

59 For example, the copyist of the fi fteenth-century exemplar of the Statute omitted ch. II, 4 and VIII, 12, which were abrogated by the decision of the Major Council of 1365 (cf. Mihajlo Dinić, Iz Dubrovačkog arhiva, I. [Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda /hereafter: ZIJKSN/, vol. III.17]. Beograd: SANU, 1957: p. 18). Also, he did not copy the last paragraph of ch. VIII, 99, which was abolished in 1370 (cf. Liber viridis, ed. Branislav Nedeljković. [ZIJKSN, vol. III.23]. Beograd: SANU, 1984: ch. 35). See also Bogišić-Jireček, Liber statutorum: pp. 462-463.

60 Th e editions are: »Liber Omnium Reformationum«, ed. A. Solovjev, in: Istorisko-pravni spomenici, I. Dubrovački zakoni i uredbe. [ZIJKSN, vol. II.6]. Beograd: SANU, 1936; Liber croceus, ed. B. Nedeljković. [ZIJKSN, vol. III.24]. Beograd: SANU, 1997; for Liber viridis see the previous note.

61 Bernard Stulli, »Prilozi pitanju o redakcijama Knjige statuta grada Dubrovnika«. Anali Historijskog instituta JAZU u Du-brov niku 3 (1954): pp. 100-102; N. Lonza, »Dubrovački patriciji pred izazovom prava«: p. 118.

62 Th e youngest provision registered in the Statute is from 1408 (VI, 17, 8), while the youngest chapter in Liber omnium reformationum is from 1410 (XXXIII, 9).

63 Acta Minoris Consilii, ser. 5, vol. 5, f. 182r (State Archives of Dubrovnik, hereafter: SAD).64 Ibidem, f. 21r (SAD). Th e Minor Council engaged priest Nikola to collate the transcription and the original.65 Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: p. L.66 Kruno Prijatelj, »Doprinos Ugrinoviću«. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 15 (1963): pp. 56-60.67 Ante Šoljić, »O ranoj renesansi u Dubrovniku«. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 40 (2002): pp. 137-141.

Nella Lonza

15

68 A short description of all the appendices is published in: Baltazar Bogišić, Pisani zakoni na slovenskom jugu, I - Bibliografi čki nacrt. Zagreb: JAZU, 1872: pp. 100-104.

69 For its full description, see Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. XLIX-LIII.70 It was still recorded there in an inventory from the early nineteenth century (Bernard Stulli, »Dva pokušaja inventarizacije

Dubrovačkog arhiva poč. XIX stoljeća«. Arhivski vjesnik 11-12 (1968-69): pp. 232 and 252.71 In an interesting case from 1418 the Count of the Islands (Elaphites) wrote to the Ragusan Rector and his Court asking to

send him a copy of the Statute provision on theft, so that he could see how to proceed if the culprit refused to pay the fi ne. But, it is clear that he had some idea about the legal status of the case, possibly acquired in the course of his previous duties. See Lamenta politica, ser. 11, vol. 2, f. 152r (SAD).

72 »Ordines Stagni«, ed. Aleksandar Solovjev, in: Istorisko-pravni spomenici, I. Dubrovački zakoni i uredbe. [ZIJKSN, vol. III. 6]. Beograd: SANU, 1936: pp. 349-383.

73 Liber viridis, ch. 96. One copy of the book was to be sent to the Count of Konavle, but the provisions which were not applicable were to be omitted (Liber viridis, ch. 179 and 214).

74 Ordines Stagni II, 1, 4 and III, 5-6.75 Recent edition: Lastovski statut, ed. Antun Cvitanić. Split: Književni krug, 1994 (contains the reprint of the 1901 edition by

Frano Radić).

of Dubrovnik, issued by the Venetian doges, kings of different states and popes from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century.68

The manuscript includes the statutory version of 1358 (called C), with additions to 1408.69 As official codex with the authentic text it was kept in the office of the Republic Secretary,70 and today is filed at the State Archives of Dubrovnik (series 21.1 Manuali pratici del Cancelliere: Leggi e Istruzioni, vol. 9a; HR-DADU-14.1.9a). Many centuries of use left deep traces on its pages.

The Statute and the Relationship Between Centre and Periphery

Although its territory stretched over some 90 kilometres of costal line, one extended peninsula and a number of islands, among which one quite large, the Republic of Dubrovnik never became a territorial state in the modern meaning of the term. True, in the local units basic state functions were performed by a Count, sent from the centre to fulfil administrative and minor judicial tasks, but still much space was left to the self-regulation of the local community. Not all the local units had the same status and autonomy, and some had also special legal codes, which did not completely correspond to the Statute of Dubrovnik.

The Statute was to be fully applied only on the old territory close to the City (Astarea), and on the nearest islands (Elaphiti), although the latter were a separate administrative unit. However, we might question the actual effect of this rule, since the local Counts did not dispose of the text of the Statute to consult on the place.71

After Dubrovnik in 1333 expanded its territory to Ston and the Peninsula of Pelješac, a special book with provisions useful for the administration of the local Count was started in 1335.72 It conserved the name “Regulations on Ston” (Ordines Stagni) even after it was introduced on other Ragusan territories: Primorje acquired it in 1399 and Konavle in 1427.73 It is interesting to note that Ragusan authorities made some concessions and adapted their laws to the local situation, allowing the application of the local customary law in civil matters, and cutting down the fines for crimes.74

The most sensitive was the case of distant, but strategically very important islands of Lastovo and Mljet, which enjoyed the largest autonomy of all the local communities. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Lastovo got its own law book called Regulations and Customs (Libro delli ordinamenti e delle usançe della universitade et dello commun della isola de Lagusta; sometimes referred to as the Statute of Lastovo).75 It was based on the Statute of Dubrovnik, but adapted to the needs of the remote island and

Nella Lonza

16

its ancient customs.76 In 1365 the same law book of Lastovo was, with minor changes, introduced on the island of Mljet, becoming the core of the Mljet law book (Liber de ordinamenti et dele usançe dela universitade del commun de Melida).77

The Statute, One Among Several Legal Sources

Before looking to what happened to the Statute in the centuries that followed, we should consider its value for the institutional system and legal practice.

From our brief survey of the content of the Statute, it is clear that it entered many areas of social life, yet failed to give equal consideration to all branches of law. For example, the law of obligations was barely touched, and many important contracts were hardly mentioned.78 The same is true of the whole medieval Europe, and the idea that all law had to find its place in law books would sound extremely strange to a medieval lawyer. The glorification of written law and the ambition to regulate numerous details of juridical life only slowly gained territory through the ‘legislative projects’ of the enlightened monarchs, and finally exploded in the great era of codification in the nineteenth century. In the thirteenth century there was still a long way to go.

For ages, written law coexisted with the large area of unwritten, customary law. Customary law existed before the Statute,79 it was partially adopted by it,80 but continued to live its own life, too. The state courts found it perfectly natural to combine Statute and customary law rules in the very same case.81 Moreover, the judiciary itself can be seen as a creator of the customary rules on procedure, never fully written down.82 Or, the maritime insurance was already long present in practice before it was regulated by the written law.83 Complex business transactions, recorded in documents, followed the customs current among the merchants (lex mercatoria). And so on. Especially, the legal principles which were well known and matters which were not controversial did not ask to be put down in written form. Our knowledge of the Ragusan legal system leans on written sources of normative nature, but we should be aware of the immense submerged heritage of customary law.

Here it should be noted that the term “custom” (consuetudo) had a very broad semantics, being used in the sense of someone’s right, old or new particular regulation, or even a legal system on the whole (in the sense of ius proprium).84 It stands not as opposite to the written and statutory law, allowing thus an expression such as “custom of the statutes of the City of Dubrovnik” (consuetudo statutorum civitatis Ragusii).85 It might

76 For example, it contains provisions on the theft of animals (ch. 7-11), not included in the Statute of Dubrovnik.77 Recent edition: Mljetski statut, ed. Ante Marinović and Ivo Veselić. Split: Književni krug, 2000. G. Ortalli proposed to

distinguish reception of a Statute by ‘adoption’ and by ‘colonization’ (Gherardo Ortalli, »L’outil normatif et sa durée: Le droit statutaire dans l’Italie de tradition communale«, in: Cahiers de recherches médiévales (XIIIe-XVe s.) 4 (1997): p. 172). Th e Mljet example could be treated as a special case of the latter.

78 Jelena Danilović, »Dubrovački statut i ‘consuetudo’«. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 23/1-2 (1975): pp. 3-13.79 For example, an early charter of 1184 mentions a Ragusan usage (mores), according to which the relatives act as warrants for

a person who enters into service, that he/she will not steal anything or run away (Codex diplomaticus II: p. 365).80 For example, Statute III, 49-57.81 Th e phenomenon can be illustrated by the 1423 case, when the courts applied the custom (usus) that animals found on

someone’s property were to belong to the off ended (Lamenta de foris, ser. 52, vol. 5, f. 133v; SAD), which supplemented the State provisions on the fi eld damage (Statute VIII, 23).

82 Nella Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde: Kaznenopravni sustav Dubrovačke Republike u XVIII. stoljeću. Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU, 1997: pp. 35-36.

83 Bernard Stulli, »Ordines artis nauticae secundum consuetudinem civitatis Ragusii«. Anali Historijskog instituta u Dubrovniku 1 (1952): pp. 106-108.

84 Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. XXII-XXIV; B. Stulli, »Ordines artis nauticae«: pp. 114-116; Ante Marinović, »Običajno pravo i samouprave u bivšoj Dubrovačkoj Republici i njihovo izučavanje«, in: Običajno pravo i samouprave na Balkanu i susednim zemljama. Beograd: Balkanološki institut, 1974: pp. 94-97; J. Danilović, »Dubrovački statut i ‘consuetudo’«: pp. 3-13.

85 Libri reformationum II, ed. J. Gelcich. [Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. XIII]. Zagreb: JAZU, 1882: p. 311.

Nella Lonza

17

86 Statute I, 4 and 5. On the subject matter of medieval customary law see also the seminal pages by Alan Watson, Th e evolution of law. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985: pp. 43-62.

87 Statute VIII, 91; Jelena Danilović, »O pravnoj prirodi i razvoju ustanove ‘aptagi’ dubrovačkog prava«. Istorijski časopis 12-13 (1961-1962): pp. 59-60; Ignacij Voje, »Il credito nella Ragusa medievale«, in: Ragusa e il Mediterraneo: Ruolo e funzioni di una Repubblica marinara tra Medioevo ed Età moderna, ed. Antonio Di Vittorio. Bari: Cacucci, 1990: pp. 49-50. Th e same formula was used in the Italian cities in the thirteenth century to express the renouncement to the exceptions of the Roman law (see John Gilissen, La Coutume. [Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental, vol. 41]. Turnhout: Brepols, 1982: p. 53).

88 Spisi dubrovačke kancelarije. Zapisi notara Tomazina de Savere 1278-1282., ed. Gregor Čremošnik. [Monumenta historica Ragusina, vol. I]. Zagreb: JAZU, 1951: doc. 321, pp. 85-86.

89 Th e controversy is registered in the Statute VIII, 58-59. On the case see also Bariša Krekić, »An International Controversy Over the Death Penalty in the Balkans in the Early Fourteenth Century«. Byzantine Studies 5/1-2 (1978): pp. 171-176.

90 Statute, Preamble and II, 4.91 Lamberto Pansolli, La gerarchia delle fonti di diritto nella legislazione medievale veneziana. Milano: Giuff rè, 1970: passim;

Gaetano Cozzi, »La politica del diritto nella Repubblica di Venezia«, in: Stato, società e giustizia nella Repubblica Veneta (sec. XV-XVIII), ed. Gaetano Cozzi. Roma: Jouvence, 1980: pp. 22-27; Giorgio Zordan, L’ordinamento giuridico veneziano. Padova: Cleup, 21984: pp. 205-213.

92 Antonio Liva, La gerarchia delle fonti di diritto nelle città dell’Italia settentrionale. Milano: Giuff rè, 1976: passim.93 Manlio Bellomo, L’Europa del diritto comune. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei, 41989: pp. 85-117.

sound odd to a modern reader not familiar with the medieval legal history that the Statute describes the process of legislation in terms of the “invention of new custom”.86 In fact, to a medieval Ragusan it did not matter whether something was regulated in a certain way by an unwritten custom or the written laws (which were hardly accessible to him), and that might explain also the indifference towards the use of terms.

Moreover, individuals were given considerable freedom to regulate mutual relations according to their own will. The frame for many private acts, as established in the Statute and other laws, was very broad, and the parties could still exclude its application by the clause “renunciando”, by which the debtor renounced the exceptions given to him by the statutes, laws or customs.87 Trade relations in particular, which were in the basis of the Ragusan economy, were often shaped by the will of the parties (dispositive law).

The priority of Statute over the customary law was accepted as a principle and respected in practice (omnes consuetudines cessant, ubi est statutum expressum).88 However, occasionally that principle was suspended if the circumstances so required. When in 1308 a disagreement arose on the penalty for homicide between the Ragusans and the subjects of the Serbian ruler, the Ragusan Count insisted on death penalty, prescribed by the Statute, while the wish of the community was to apply the “ancient custom” of blood money (vražda). The Venetian authorities finally agreed to the customary law solution, contrary to the Statute.89

On matters which were not regulated by law (written or customary), the court should come to a decision according to its own free judgment and general law policy.90 This principle, adopted in Dubrovnik, was typical of the Venetian legal area, because Venice for political reasons strongly rejected the idea of any influence on its legal system from the outside,91 while other Italian communes remained explicitly open to the common European legal heritage based on Roman and canon law (ius commune).92

Research of the law history of medieval Europe did show that the ius commune was largely present as a sort of stratum which floated—although not everywhere equally dense—above the ius proprium of specific communities. Its greatest benefit was that it provided legal terms, concepts, principles and ideas which were needed for the construction and functioning of the legal system of a particular city.93 The instruments of the ius commune were simply the most sophisticated legal tools of the period. Whether explicitly or tacitly, they spread across Europe and were adopted in the centres of urban character, where economy was founded on private property and freedom of trade. The notary culture, being of such great importance to the medieval cities, is deeply rooted in the ius commune, too.

Nella Lonza

18

94 Formal negation, though acceptance of many principles of Roman and canon law in practice, was already noted by Francesco Maria Appendini, Notizie istorico-critiche sulle antichità, storia e letteratura de’ Ragusei, vol. I. Ragusa: Antonio Martecchini, 1802: p. 184.

95 Statute VIII, 94.96 Statute IV, 23. Th e solution from the Justinian’s Novellae is only partially repeated in the Statute; see Bogišić-Jireček in Liber

statutorum: p. XX.97 Spisi dubrovačke kancelarije. Zapisi notara Tomazina de Savere 1278-1282.: pp. XIII-XIV.98 For details see N. Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde: p. 27.99 See Nella Lonza, »Studenti giuristi Ragusei del tardo medioevo: un’analisi prosopografi ca«. Quaderni per la storia dell’Università

di Padova 44 (2011): pp. 3-43.100 On Đončić and his study see N. Lonza, »Studenti giuristi Ragusei del tardo medioevo: un’analisi prosopografi ca«: pp. 13-15.101 Due to the error in transcription of Jireček and Bogišić (who read ‘in statutis’ instead of ‘Instituta’; in Liber statutorum: p.

XI, note 1), all the historians (me included) assumed that Đončić taught Statute law, which is not correct. He gave lessons in canon law (ius canonicum) and in Roman law, using the text of Justinian’s Institutiones. See N. Lonza, »Studenti giuristi Ragusei del tardo medioevo: un’analisi prosopografi ca«: pp. 14-15, note 91.

102 N. Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde: pp. 29, 298-300.103 For the main biographical data see Constantin Jireček, »Die mittelalterliche Kanzlei der Ragusaner«. Archiv für slavische

Philologie 26 (1904): pp. 186-201; G. Čremošnik, »Dubrovačka kancelarija do godine 1300. i najstarije knjige dubrovačke arhive«: pp. 231-240.

104 Spisi dubrovačke kancelarije, II, ed. Josip Lučić. Zagreb: JAZU, 1984: doc. 1291, pp. 326-327.

The same is true of Dubrovnik.94 As I have already mentioned, at some point Roman and canon law were to influence the text of the Statute, for example, when the old Ragusan principle of the restraint testamentary freedom is abandoned as contrary to the ius commune (called leges),95 or when the reasons for disinheriting are listed.96 More important than that is the truly massive evidence from the documents preserved in the Dubrovnik archives, bearing a clear mark of the ius commune tradition. Let me give just two examples. The formulae enumerating the rights of a proxy do not have ground in the Statute, but correspond to the instruments of civil procedure as known in ius commune.97 Or, Ragusan courts applied torture precisely according to its feature in the common law, although the domestic laws paid no attention to that matter.98

The paths, direct or indirect, through which ius commune entered Ragusan practice cannot be stated with certainty. One might expect that the Ragusans who studied law in Italy brought knowledge to their hometown, but my analysis showed that their number was low, and their impact even lower, since most of them had no objective of practicing law, but hunted the doctor’s title in order to promote their ecclesiastical career.99 It should be emphasised that Ragusan judges were not professionals, nor did Dubrovnik ever import trained lawyers for the judicial duties. The members of the patriciate were supposed to gain basic knowledge of law and judicial and administrative practices through cumulating experience on public duties (cursus honorum). Only very sporadically did the authorities take measures to teach patricians the basic principles of Roman and canon law. Namely, when priest Nikola Đončić, whose study of canon law in Padua was sponsored by the state, returned home in 1462 and got a post of the senior teacher of the grammar school (rector),100 he was asked to teach Roman and canon law on free basis, for the purpose of “illuminating the mind of the ones who govern the state” and improving the interpretation of the laws.101 Something similar was attempted with his successor, and then again at the end of the seventeenth century.102 Indeed, the most important way for the penetration of the ius commune was the activity of the notaries and chancellors, whom Dubrovnik from the late 1270s to the sixteenth century engaged from the Italian centres. Not many of them had finished legal studies, but they all had some legal knowledge acquired during the notary education.103 Let me illustrate it by a detail that the first of those foreign notaries, Tomasino de Saverre, in his last will written in 1291, uses terms such as lucrum castrense et quasicastrense, indicating that he was familiar with the Roman law terminology.104

Nella Lonza

19

The Turbulent Life of the Statute After 1272

The Statute of 1272 remained formally valid until the fall of the Republic of Dubrovnik in 1808. Such longevity asks for an answer to the question whether legal practice really followed the provisions formulated centuries before. Of course, the principle of strict legality was introduced only in the nineteenth century, while a judge in the previous times had much more freedom in declining the application of the written laws and in turning to other legal sources (custom, judicature, etc.). However, the Statute still preserved a privileged place within the legal system, and its text was copied and kept in the state offices, by the court and by many individuals and families. Was it able to shape the practice in the eighteenth century as it did in the thirteenth? Or its validity changed sub rosa with time?

Let me start with some examples in which the Statute provisions were indeed quoted as the law applied to a concrete case. In a case from 1282 upon a window which the defendant built over his neighbour’s sewage, the plaintiff quoted Statute V, 4, which prohibited it, and won the case.105 That same year it was the defendant who won a suit upon the position of the founding of the house he was constructing, because the court stated that the Statute V, 18 gave him a right to do so.106 In a penal case from 1416 the judges came to the absolution of Milša Kovačić, accused of having wounded someone by sword, quoting the Statute III, 33 that a single witness is not sufficient for a condemnatory sentence.107 From some archive documents we know that the chancellors took the volume of the Statute with them when going on duty outside the government building. For example, it was brought to the City harbour in 1461 when a ship was the subject of sequestration.108 More notable than the early examples is the one from 1763, when deciding in a quarrel between the neighbours, the court referred to the provisions of the five centuries old Statute.109

The Statute itself already mentioned the possibility to change its content by a simple means of new legislation.110 By a certain number of provisions, the revision was hindered by a clause on a special majority of vote,111 and some others were secured by a clause that the one who would propose a revision would have to pay a fine.112 But, the majority of the chapters did not know such restrictions and the way of amending them was free. A series of examples witnesses that statutory provisions were modified from the early days, some of them even before 1358, so that they found their way to Book VIII of the Statute.113 A myriad of examples could be given, but two should suffice: a change in the oath of councillors in 1451,114 and a modification of the chapter on theft in 1465.115 In some cases the revision was explicit, with or without quoting the Statute chapter in question,116 but mostly it was tacit, and can be established only through the analyses of content.117 Another, more flexible method of adapting the law to the needs of practice was by passing a new law which claimed to be an “official interpretation” of the old one, and ended copied in the law books, too.118 Finally, the Major

105 Spisi dubrovačke kancelarije II: doc. 1310, p. 348.106 Spisi dubrovačke kancelarije II: doc. 1316, p. 352.107 Lamenta de criminali sive libri malefi corum, ser. 50.1, vol. 4, f. 181 (SAD).108 Diversa cancellariae, ser. 25, vol. 70, f. 132 (SAD).109 Diversi del criminale, ser. 37, vol. 42, ff . 72v-75v (SAD).110 Statute VIII, 20.111 In the chapter VI, 68 from the second half of the fourteenth century, the positive vote of the three quarters of the Minor and

Major Council is demanded.112 For example, Statute VIII, 61 from 1309 on the state loan.113 See Statute VIII, 25 amending III, 3-5; VIII, 52 revising parts of chapters I, 22, 31, 33; VIII, 87 amending III, 38.114 Liber viridis: ch. 419 which partially abolishes Statute I, 4 and 5.115 Liber croceus: ch. 43 changing Statute VI, 4.116 For example, Libri reformationum V: p. 255; »Liber omnium reformationum«: f. X, ch. 3 [recte: 4] regarding Statute II, 24,

14; Liber croceus, ch. 214 of 1511, concerning Statute VII, 11, 21, 22, 16; Liber croceus, ch. 43.117 Many examples are reported by Frano Gondula in his Apostillae, written in the sixteenth century (Liber statutorum: pp. 409-416).

Nella Lonza

20

Council developed a practice to skirt the Statute in a particular case by an act of grace (gratia), because it estimated that political or other social goals had to be followed, and not the legality. For example, in 1330 the wife of Pankracije Golebo was permitted to pledge her dowry, although it was prohibited by the Statute.119 Or, the envoys who in 1345 were to be send to Durrës and to the Serbian king were faced with much higher fines than the ones in the Statute, a measure being voted in the Minor and Major Council.120 Such a particular law (lex specialis) played an important role in giving the legal system a needed flexibility.121

However, if one followed only the legislative acts, he would misunderstand the volume and the profundity of the transformation of Ragusan legal system through the centuries. Some chapters of the Statute were never abrogated, but became so alien to the actual practice that in the authoritative commentary of Frano Gondula from the sixteenth century they were labelled as “ridiculous”.122 The most important changes happened tacitly and over a longer period of time. For example, the penal system of the Statute, which was based on fines, was so substantially transformed that as early as the fourteenth century the prison was awarded a central position in it.123

Gradual changes were probably triggered by sensitive cases where the statutory rule was felt as inadequate to the demands of the reality. Sometimes we can follow how the judiciary formally observed the statutory rules, but actually declined from their spirit. For example, in 1401 Pribislav Bokšić was caught, who was not only a notorious thief but also involved in an attempted conspiracy of 1400. When Ragusan authorities started the procedure, it turned out that it would be much easier to prove his thefts than the ‘political’ crime, but the problem was that the penalty for stealing prescribed by the Statute was pecuniary. The court then resorted to another rule, which stated that the convicted for a theft of great value who was not able to pay his fine, was to have his eyes pulled out. A very convenient detail was that the rule did not mention any term for the payment of a fine, which allowed the court to apply it creatively. Namely, they sentenced Bokšić to a considerable amount of 177 hyperpers to be paid within the time the chancellor said the Lord’s Prayer. When he failed to succeed, no obstacle laid in the way of blinding him.124 In another case two pirates were imposed a high fine within the time a small candle burnt out, so that the court, ‘pursuant to the Statute’, could proceed to hanging.125 By inventive application of the Statute rules, the state authorities actually biased their original meaning, but achieved their penal policy goals.

On the other hand, legal practice also applied advantageous statutory rules to the realities that were not the original target of the regulation. For example, the rules of jettison, prescribed by the Statute for damages upon a ship,126 proved to respond to the needs of the caravan trade, and the courts did not hesitate to apply them to that area as well.127

118 For example, Liber viridis, ch. 121; Liber croceus, ch. 253 (regarding Statute VII, 14).119 Libri reformationum V: p. 288; cf. Statute VIII, 32.120 Libri reformationum I: p. 168.121 On this topic in the context of the Venetian penal policy see Dennis Romano, »‘Quod sibi fi at gratia’: Adjustment of Penalties

and the Exercise of Infl uence in Early Renaissance Venice«. Th e Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 13/2 (1983): pp. 251-268.

122 Liber statutorum: pp. 384, 388.123 N. Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde: pp. 165-166. On similar transformation in Venice see Elisabeth Crouzet-Pavan, »Violence,

société et pouvoir à Venise (XIVe-XVe siècles): Forme et évolution de rituels urbains«. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome 96/2 (1984): pp. 905-907; Guido Ruggiero, »Politica e giustizia«, in: Storia di Venezia dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, III - La formazione dello stato patrizio, ed. G. Arnaldi, G. Cracco and A. Tenenti. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1997: pp. 391 and 403.

124 Libri de malefi ciis, ser. 50.1, vol. 1, ff . 13r-14v (SAD).125 Libri de malefi ciis, vol. 4, ff . 161v-162r.126 Statute VII, 7.127 As noted by Frano Gondula (Liber statutorum: pp. 413-414).

Nella Lonza

21

128 Th e oldest one preserved is the index of the Statute, Liber omnium reformationum and Liber viridis, compiled by the chancellor Giovanni from Muggia around 1410, and continued by Giovanni de Uguçonibus from Rimini. See B. Nedeljković in Liber viridis: pp. XXIX-XXX.

129 Cf. Gaetano Cozzi, »La giustizia e la politica agli albori dell’età moderna«, in: idem, Repubblica di Venezia e Stati italiani: Politica e giustizia dal secolo XVI al secolo XVIII. Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1982: pp. 3-8.

130 B. Stulli, »Ordines artis nauticae«: p. 110-112.131 Gondula’s index, summaries and notes on the Statute are edited in Liber statutorum: pp. 251-421. For basic biographical

information on their author, see Nella Lonza, »Gundulić, Frano«. Hrvatski biografski leksikon 5 (2002): pp. 312-313.132 See Bogišić-Jireček in Liber statutorum: pp. LIV-LVII.133 For example, in 1676 a commission was elected with the task of proposing the chapters of the Statute and of the Liber omnium

reformationum to be abolished (Acta Consilii Rogatorum, ser. 3, vol. 122, f. 81; SAD), but no traces of revision have been found.134 Brief information about the old editions of the Dalmatian Statutes is to be found in: Ivan Strohal, Statuti primorskih gradova

i općina: bibliografi čki nacrt. Zagreb: JAZU, 1911: passim.

The Problems of Scarce Systematics of the Law Books and the Discussion about the Reform (Sixteenth Century)

The gap between the principles written in the Statute and the new social reality was not the only problem present in practice. With the growth of the legislation and the use of new Law Books, legal rules ended up scattered in different collections which—unlike the Statute—did not have any system at all, so that the practitioners faced a considerable difficulty to find the relevant rule.

As early as the fifteenth century the chancellors started to make cumulative indexes and other tools which were to help the problem.128 However, in the sixteenth century the situation was again unsustainable, bringing to agenda a radical revision of the legislation. Besides practical reasons, it is possible that the Ragusan authorities were inspired by a similar trend prevailing in the other European states of the time.129

The original plan was to re-model civil and penal law, harmonising them also with the rules of the ius commune. Being aware of the complexity of their aims and lacking Ragusans able for such a task, the authorities planned to engage the best foreign lawyers. The experts named during the discussion in the council were really among the best Italian (and European) law professors: Mariano Socino, Pier Paolo Parisio, Filippo Decio and others, headed by the famous Humanist Andrea Alciato. Unfortunately, the initiative was frustrated by an outbreak of plague in 1534, and a new attempt to engage Socino and Alciato in 1543 proved equally unsuccessful, the whole idea being soon abandoned. Pity: had the reform been designed by Andrea Alciato, Ragusan legal history would have witnessed its finest hours. Instead, in 1558-1560 a commission of domestic patricians, flanked by the notary Gianbattista Amalteo, proposed a series of laws regarding the civil procedure. Other branches of law remained untouched, possibly because in the councils a conservative faction prevailed, which banned the idea of radical changes in the law system.130 A palliative solution to the problem was offered by a reliable new index and summaries, composed by a patrician Frano Gondula in the 1580s.131 His work enjoyed such popularity that ever since it has been copied together with the Statute (manuscripts of the version E).132 Some later attempts to re-examine and revise old legal collections were very restricted,133 and the spirit of traditionalism eventually triumphed.

Public and Private Manuscripts

While most of the Statutes of the Dalmatian cities under Venetian rule were printed in the sixteenth and the seventeenth century,134 Ragusan authorities never cared to do the same. A need for an exemplar of the Statute was met by a new manuscript copy, as it was done in 1704, since the old codex was “difficult

Nella Lonza

22

135 Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. 138, f. 241 (SAD).136 Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. 158, f. 26.137 Detta, ser. 6, vol. 25, f. 18v; vol. 39, f. 14v; vol. 49, f. 26v (SAD).138 Žarko Muljačić, »O prvoj dubrovačkoj tiskari«. Anali Historijskog instituta JAZU u Dubrovniku 4-5 (1958): p. 603; Josip

Luetić, O pomorstvu Dubrovačke Republike u XVIII. stoljeću. [Građa za pomorsku povijest Dubrovnika, vol. II]. Dubrovnik, 1959: pp. 44-45.

139 See Gherardo Ortalli, »Il ruolo degli statuti tra autonomie e dipendenze: Curzola e il dominio veneziano«. Rivista storica italiana 98/1 (1986): pp. 195-220.

140 Libri reformationum I: pp. 247-248.141 Libri reformationum I: p. 250.142 Vuk Vinaver, »Prilozi istoriji plemenitih metala, cena i nadnica (srednjovekovni Dubrovnik)«. Istorijski glasnik 1-2 (1960): pp.

68-70.143 Diversa cancellariae, vol. 77, f. 185v (SAD).144 Debita notariae, ser. 36.1, vol. 25, f. 181 (SAD).145 Diversa notariae, ser. 26, vol. 18, f. 34 (SAD). I am grateful to Zdenka Janeković Römer for the explanation of the family

relationship.146 Th e manuscript is written in gothic characters with very scarce elements of humanistic script, and the datation is based on

the fact that the last chapter copied out of the Green Book is from 1419. Th e codex is still fi led in the Vatican Library, and the photographs are kept in the personal deposit of Bernard Stulli in the Croatian State Archives (4.1.191).

to read”, probably due to palaeographic problems,135 and in 1737 again.136 In the eighteenth century several offices housed in the Rector’s Palace and Government Palace had their own manuscript exemplars of the Law Books.137

Of all the Ragusan law collections only the Ordinance on Navigation (Regolamenti per la navigazione nazionale) was printed, because every domestic ship was to have an exemplar of it, making it a lucrative enterprise.138 The same was not true of the Statute, as the state institutions were supplied with a modest number of manuscript copies, while the Ragusan patrician families often had their own copies which were passed from one generation to another. Nevertheless, the printing of the Dalmatian Statutes, serially done in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had no market justification, but it responded to the need for an authoritative version, which neither the local community nor the Venetian authorities would be able to change.139 Dubrovnik, however, from 1358 had no external centre to control its legal system, and thus lacked the motive to seal the text by its printing.

During the centuries many exemplars of the Statutes were copied for private commissioners. A document of 1358 suggests that some copies were owned also by the commoners,140 but the majority of the manuscripts of the Statute were in the hands of Ragusan patriciate, who in that period transformed from the local elite into a political class with the monopoly on political power. In 1358 at least twelve patricians owned their own codex of the Statute.141 Because of the costs of copying, even modest exemplars were expensive. For example, in 1342 the commissioner Pale Pabora was supposed to pay the copyist, notary and chancellor Francesco Bartholomei de Archo, six hyperpers, which corresponded to a three-month mariner’s pay, or an annual rent of a modest house.142 When given as a pledge in 1476, the Statute volume of Gauče Resti was estimated to a considerable sum of five and a half ducats.143 Some of the patricians were not interested merely in having a reliable copy of the text, but they commissioned precious manuscripts as an item of prestige and symbol of their class identity. For example, in 1450 Klement Gozze commanded his exemplar to be illuminated with gilt miniatures.144

Given both their practical and symbolic value, the Statute manuscripts were often handed down from generation to generation, or left by testament to a male relative. Thus by his last will of 1462, Jakov Georgio bequeathed his Statute to Mato Georgio, probably grandson of his brother.145 The volume which consisted of the Statute and other Ragusan law books, written around 1420 for a member of the Gradi family, stayed in the family for two and a half centuries, until its last owner, Stjepan Gradi, the librarian of the Vatican Library, left it to his institution.146 In the eighteenth century there circulated at least twenty

Nella Lonza

23

manuscripts of the Statute,147 which means that many of the 23 family clans (casate) of the time had their own exemplar.148 A number of them were provided with an ex libris and the family coat of arms, as is the case of the law books of the Saraca family.149 For some among them we know that it was not a professional scribe but a young patrician to write a copy, probably preparing for his career in public duties.150

The Political and Symbolic Value of the Statute

From the early times, the Statute was not only a fundamental legal collection, but also a political symbol, representing the identity of the Ragusan community. While in the pre-statutory times the Ragusan Count, during the ritual of installation to his duty, took an oath on the Holy Scriptures,151 later on he took it on the volume of the Statute. Th e trace of that practice is still visible on the oldest offi cial copy, in which the chapter of the oath, where he used to place his hand, is eff aced.152 In the centuries to follow, this custom extended to all the patricians, members of the Major Council, and to all who were elected to public duties, as documented in the Book of the Ceremonies (Cerimoniale) of the Dubrovnik Republic, and as visible on the respective folios in the Statute codex.153 Th e Statute here stood as a powerful symbol of the Ragusan state.

As we have earlier seen, the Statute, as well as the other Ragusan Law Books, preserved their validity from the Middle Ages until the fall of the Republic. Very same was the case with Venice, Spain, and many other European states, which conserved the textual basis of their legal system virtually unchanged for centuries.154 Th e reason behind was that a long legal tradition was seen as crucial for legitimizing their state identity. Because of that, the original text was preserved even when some provisions became inapplicable.155 Maybe the most salient Ragusan example is that every December the members of the Major Council had to take an oath from the Statute, which was actually put into words for the members of the Minor Council,156 and in no element at all corresponded to the authority of the body they were members of. Although inadequate, the text continued to be repeated year after year.157

Many areas of Ragusan social life, from ideology and law to art and clothing, were imbued with strict traditionalism.158 This inclination was especially visible in the periods of crises, as the one after the

147 At the beginning of the twentieth century Ivan Strohal inventorized 24 copies of the Statute, leaving aside the offi cial exemplars (see his Statuti). Most of them are today housed in the State Archives of Dubrovnik and Zadar, Baltazar Bogišić Collection in Cavtat, and Achive of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb.

148 I did not count a couple of families who were ennobled after 1667.149 Baltazar Bogišić Collection (Zbirka Baltazara Bogišića) in Cavtat, Ms. 154-157. Th ey are bound in the same style, and

originally on the front page stood an ex libris and a drawing of the coat of arms. At that time member of the Major Council was Božo (Natalis) Saraca with his fi ve sons.

150 It was the case of Mato Ghetaldi in 1725, then in his twenties (Arhiv HAZU, I.c.57.b).151 See the formula of the Count’s oath from the fi rst half of the thirteenth century in Liber statutorum: pp. LVII-LVIII).152 Statute II, 1 on f. 11.153 Cerimoniale II, ser. 21.1, vol. 8.2, ff . 25v, 39v-40r, 45v (SAD). See also the photograph in Nella Lonza, »Election procedure in

the Republic of Dubrovnik«. Dubrovnik Annals 8 (2004): p. 15.154 For a short overview see Armin Wolf, »Die Gesetzgebung der Entstehenden Territorialstaaten«, in: Handbuch der Quellen un

Literatur der Neueren Europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, vol. I, ed. Helmut Coing. München: C.H.Becksche Verlagsbuch-handlung, 1973: p. 519; for Venice see G. Zordan, L’ordinamento giuridico veneziano: passim; G. Ortalli, »L’outil normatif et sa durée«: pp. 163-164 and ssq.

155 Mario Ascheri, I diritti del Medioevo italiano. Secoli XI-XV. Roma: Carocci editore, 2000: pp. 315-316. In his very interesting article on Portogruaro, Ortalli speaks of the Statute as a sort of “fetish” (Gherardo Ortalli, »La Comunità e la sua norma. Portogruaro e la tradizione statutaria medievale«. Archivio Veneto, ser. V, 115 (2000): pp. 198-200).

156 Statute II, 5.157 For an analysis of anachronisms and errors in the Statutes of the Italian cities, see G. Ortalli, »L’outil normatif et sa durée«:

pp. 164-165.158 Z. Janeković-Römer, Okvir slobode: pp. 11, 38, 131-132, 352, 390-391 et passim. On traditionalism in the Ragusan public

life I have written in: Kazalište vlasti: Ceremonijal i državni blagdani Dubrovačke Republike u 17. i 18. stoljeću. Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2009.

Nella Lonza

24

159 Stjepan Gradi pleaded for the modernisation of the urban setting of Dubrovnik, including the shaping of broader streets suitable for carriages. However—as emphasized by the art historian Milan Prelog—”Ragusans stayed faithful to the reconstruction of as much of the medieval town as it was possible, because in their minds it corresponded to the idea of the city in general” (Milan Prelog, »Dubrovnik: prostor i vijeme«, in: Zlatno doba Dubrovnika XV. i XVI. stoljeće: Zagreb: Muzej MTM, 1987: p. 30).

160 See N. Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde: pp. 295-315; for the demographic and political background, see Stjepan Ćosić and Nenad Vekarić, »Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i države«. Zagreb-Dubrovnik, Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2005: especially pp. 86-98.

161 Th e best example, as far as I know, is the rhetoric introducing the provision on the new election system of 1783 in: Liber Croceus, ch. [425]. For the context, see Nella Lonza, »Izborni postupak Dubrovačke Republike«. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti u Dubrovniku 38 (2000): pp. 46-47.

162 For the quotations, see Vicko Kisić, »Praxis judiciaria juxta stylum curiae Rhagusinae«. Odvjetnik 47/11-12 (1974): p. 420; Z. Janeković-Römer, Okvir slobode: p. 27; for Venice cf. Margaret L. King, Venetian humanism in an age of patrician dominance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986: pp. XVIII-XIX.

163 Quoted in: Frano Glavina, Dubrovački gospari i pelješki kmetovi. Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv u Dubrovniku, 2010: p. 45.164 As noted in the Custom Law Book ( »Statuta doane civitatis Ragusii«, ed. M. Peterković, in: Istorisko-pravni spomenici I: p.

393).165 Guido Ruggiero, »Law and punishment in Early Renaissance Venice«. Th e Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 69/2

(1978): p. 24); on the topic see also L. Margetić, »O nekim osnovnim značajkama«: p. 10.166 Cf. Ortalli, »L’outil normatif et sa durée«: pp. 170, 172-173.

earthquake of 1667, when radical urbanistic options were on the political agenda.159 In the eighteenth century propositions to revise the basically medieval books of law, wanted by the minority who was not only reading the works of the Enlightenment thinkers but was also clearly influenced by them in their own writings and in the debates held in the learned academies, were successfully frustrated by a majority of the still stable conservative faction in the state institutions.160 The aristocratic mainstream seriously believed that the long continuity and formal immutability were warrants of the political stability, and they expected the laws to contribute to it. The conservative ideal was pushed so far that even an obvious novelty was presented as an “old custom” or “return to the old system”.161

On several reprises Ragusan writers used a topos of the laws, being equally important to the defence of the city as the city walls, which was borrowed from the authors from Antiquity and present in the Venetian political rhetoric, too.162 Th e myth of Ragusa as a state which, ruled by ancient and respectable laws, succeeds to achieve the ideal of Justice was not only a commonplace of patrician ideology, but also rooted in the perception of the common people. Coming to a quarrel with his captain, a sailor from Pelješac would emphasise it with the words “here we have Justice... we are not in Vrgorac [a village in the Dalmatian hinterland] to put upon our mettle” (jes ovdi Pravda... erbo nijesmo u Vrgorcu da činimo junaštvo). 163

Like Venice and other states of the Ancien Régime, Ragusa was not a domain of the rule of law, but open to the arbitrary and political will. Th e maxims such as “the one who makes the law ought to obey it” (Qui legem facit legem debet observare),164 sometimes quoted in the Ragusan texts, were only rhetorical topoi and should not be taken literally. Many documents show that the limit between the permitted and the prohibited was often defi ned on the ground of the political aims, and not according to the strict rules of written law. In that sense, the Statute was more of indicative rather than fully normative nature, and was—as Guido Ruggiero wittily put it for Venice—“a window-dressing for current practice”.165 During the long centuries of its validity, the Statute of Dubrovnik, as it was crystallised in 1272, gradually lost its direct eff ectiveness in regulating the real life problems, but acquired importance instead as a symbol of the Republic and its patrician government.166

Nella Lonza

25

Post Scriptum

The story about the Statute of Dubrovnik proved to be full of contradictions: the Statute remained valid as the principal Law Book of the Ragusan community, but the practice searched for its own solutions and did not hesitate to abandon many of its rules; it was compiled in the period of Venetian domination over the City, nevertheless became one of the powerful symbols of Dubrovnik’s autonomous identity; it denied legal influences from the outside, though borrowed from the common European heritage of the ius commune; the Statute was still used in the most important public rituals, although no longer applicable, and it was divinised as the basis of the legal tradition, though its text was never purged from stupid errors. This makes of the Statute, I believe, one of the most fascinating documents about the Ragusan past.

Dubrovnik today still preserves its medieval urban setting, but the face it shows to a visitor is dominantly Renaissance and Baroque. We have no chronicles or descriptions of the City which could guide us through Dubrovnik as it was before the fifteenth century. Fortunately, the magnificent State Archives houses many documents with an array of details that help the historians in reconstructing the life of the City in the earlier period. However, there is no other written evidence from the thirteenth century that tells so much about the institutions, society, family relationships, trade, urban development, and many aspects of the everyday life as the Statute does. Its style is heavy, burdened with many juridical terms and obscure places, and—even in a modern translation—it is not an easy lecture. Nevertheless, I still believe that an interested reader will find many elements to meet his curiosity, from the chapter on the wet-nurse and on the duties of an envoy, to provisions on salt and wine, or the oaths sworn by the judges. The Statute not only allows a better understanding of the early pages of the Ragusan history, but also reflects a vivid picture of daily life in a Mediterranean city more than seven centuries ago.

THE STATUTE OF DUBROVNIK OF 1272

LIBER STATUTORUM CIVITATIS RAGUSII COMPOSITUS ANNO MCCLXXII

Translated by VESNA RIMAC

English language edited by VESNA BAĆE

Edited by NELLA LONZA

Dubrovnik 2012

CONTENTS

THE STATUTE OF DUBROVNIK OF 1272: BETWEEN LEGAL CODE AND POLITICAL SYMBOLNella Lonza ........................................................................................................................................................................................................7

THE LANGUAGE IN THE MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE STATUTE OF DUBROVNIKVesna Rimac ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

ILLUSTRATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

LIBER STATUTORUM CIVITATIS RAGUSIITHE BOOK OF STATUTES OF THE CITY OF DUBROVNIK .................................................................................. 39

EDITOR’S NOTE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

TABULA RUBRICARUM / TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ 42

LIBER STATUTORUM CIVITATIS RAGUSII THE BOOK OF STATUTES OF THE CITY OF DUBROVNIK .................................................................................. 70

INDEX LIBRI STATUTORUM ...................................................................................................................................................... 361

INDEX OF THE STATUTE.............................................................................................................................................................. 383