| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Republic of Ragusa - An Episode of the Turkish Conquest
Author: Villary, Luigi
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Republic of Ragusa - An Episode of the Turkish Conquest" ***
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
THE REPUBLIC OF RAGUSA
_All rights reserved_
[Illustration: _Marino Caboga._]
THE REPUBLIC
OF
RAGUSA
AN EPISODE OF THE
TURKISH CONQUEST
BY LUIGI VILLARI
[Illustration: BYZANTINE DOOR-KNOCKER, RECTOR’S PALACE]
WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS
BY WILLIAM HULTON
LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.
29 & 30 BEDFORD STREET, W.C.
MCMIV
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
At the Ballantyne Press
PREFATORY NOTE
Various accounts of Dalmatia have been written in English, many of
which include a historical survey of Ragusa; but the only special
histories of the town itself are in German or Italian, and even those
are not by any means complete. The best is undoubtedly Professor
Gelcich’s little book, _Dello Sviluppo Civile di Ragusa_, a perfect
mine of valuable information, of which I have availed myself largely
in the present volume. But it deals principally with the internal
development, the archeology, and the architecture of the town, and does
not dwell on its international position, which for foreign readers is
its most important aspect. Engel’s _Geschichte des Freystaates Ragusa_
is useful and fairly accurate, but it is somewhat dry, and more in the
nature of a chronicle of events than a real history. The works of the
local historians and chroniclers, such as Resti, Ragnina, Luccari,
Gondola, and others, although they contain some interesting details and
picturesque descriptions, traditions, &c., are written without a notion
of historical accuracy, and are inspired by a strong bias which admits
no facts unfavourable to Ragusa. That of the Tuscan, Razzi, is more
reliable, but by no means wholly to be depended on, and it only brings
us down to the end of the sixteenth century. The safest guide to the
subject is to be found in the original records of the town, a large
portion of which have been published by the South-Slavonic Academy
of Agram, by the Hungarian Academy, and various other collections of
documents on the history of the Southern Slaves, such as Miklosich’s
_Monumenta Serbica_, Marin Sanudo, the works of Theiner, Počić,
Farlati, &c. The modern works on the history of Ragusa of which I
have made the most use, besides the above-mentioned work of Professor
Gelcich, are the same author’s pamphlets, _La Zedda_ and _I Conti di
Tuhelj_; T. Graham Jackson’s _Dalmatia_ for the chapters on Ragusan
architecture; Paul Pisani’s _Num Ragusini_, &c., for the Venetian
period, and his large work _La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815_ for the end
of the Republic; Klaić’s _Geschichte Bosniens_ for the relations
between Ragusa and Bosnia; Heyd’s _Histoire du Commerce du Lévant_
and Professor Jireček’s _Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke_ for Ragusa’s
commercial development; Horatio Brown’s _Venice_ for Venetian history;
and Puipin and Spasowicz’ history of Slavonic literature. A fuller list
of authorities consulted is appended.
I must express my especial indebtedness to Professor Gelcich for the
assistance and encouragement which he afforded me in preparing this
volume. I also received valuable aid from Signor V. Adamović, who
kindly placed his library at my service during my stay at Ragusa; to
Signor A. de Serragli, who gave much information on the topography and
archeology of the town; to the Padre Bibliotecario of the Franciscan
Monastery, who assisted me in my researches; and to Signor Giovanni
Saraca. I may say that during my visits to Dalmatia I always found the
natives courteous and kindly, and willing to assist me in every way,
especially at Ragusa. Of the many features which Dalmatia has in common
with Italy, the one which I must call attention to is the fact that
in every Dalmatian town there is always at least one local antiquary
who has made a life-study of the history and archeology, working with
no other thought than the love of the subject, and always willing to
assist other students.
I am also indebted to Mr. Herbert P. Horne, who kindly assisted me in
the chapters dealing with architecture and painting.
In the spelling of the Slavonic names I have adopted the Croatian
orthography, as being the most convenient and the most accurate. The
following letters have a peculiar pronunciation:—
C = _ts_ in _bits_. Thus Cavtat is pronounced Tsavtat.
Č = _ch_ in _which_. Thus Miljačka is pronounced
Miljachka.
Ć is almost identical to the above, but is used only at
the end of a word when preceded by an _i_. Thus Gundulić
is pronounced Gundulich.
G is always pronounced hard, as in _gig_.
H is like the German _ch_ in _Buch_.
J = _y_ in _yet_. Thus Jajce is pronounced Yaytse. When
at the end of a word and preceded by the letters _l_ or
_n_ it softens them into something like the French _l_ in
_mouillé_ and the French _gne_ in _signe_. Thus Sandalj
and Sinj.
The letter _r_ is sometimes a semi-vowel, and is
pronounced like _eurre_ in French, but less definitely.
Many syllables have no other vowel. Thus the name
_Hrvoje_.
S = _s_ in _since_ (never like _s_ in _nose_).
Š = _sh_ in _shave_. Thus Dušan is pronounced Dushan.
U = _oo_ in _boot_.
Z = _z_ in _blaze_.
Ž is like the French _j_ in _jour_.
In the case of well-known names and words which are usually spelt
in another way, I have adhered to the common orthography. Thus I
have written Miklosich instead of Miklosić, and Tsar instead of Car.
Dalmatians of Italian sympathies, but having Slavonic names, invariably
use the _ch_ in the place of _č_ or _ć_.
For the spelling “Slave,” instead of the more common “Slav,” my
authority is Professor Freeman, who in a note on p. 386 of the Third
Series of his Essays gives the following reasons for it: “First, no
English word ends in _v_. Secondly, we form the names of other nations
in another way; we say a _Swede_, a _Dane_, and a _Pole_, not a _Swed_,
a _Dan_, or a _Pol_. Thirdly, it is important to bear in mind the
history of the word—the fact that _slave_ in the sense of δοῦλος is
simply the same word with the national name.”
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE FOUNDATION AND EARLY HISTORY OF
THE CITY (656-1204) 15
III. VENETIAN SUPREMACY: I.—THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE LAWS (1204-1276) 58
IV. VENETIAN SUPREMACY: II.—SERVIAN AND
BOSNIAN WARS (1276-1358) 90
V. THE TRADE OF RAGUSA 115
VI. ART IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH
CENTURIES 149
VII. RAGUSA UNDER HUNGARIAN SUPREMACY—THE
TURKISH INVASION (1358-1420) 163
VIII. THE TURKISH CONQUEST (1420-1526) 219
IX. TRADE AND INTERNAL CONDITIONS DURING
THE HUNGARIAN PERIOD 263
X. RAGUSA INDEPENDENT OF HUNGARY (1526-1667) 278
XI. RAGUSAN SHIPS AND SEAMEN IN THE SERVICE
OF SPAIN 306
XII. FROM THE EARTHQUAKE TO THE NAPOLEONIC
WARS (1667-1797) 317
XIII. ART SINCE THE YEAR 1358 339
XIV. LITERATURE 370
XV. THE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC 382
LIST OF BOOKS ON THE HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY
OF RAGUSA 417
INDEX 421
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PORTRAIT OF MARINO CABOGA (_Photogravure_)
(_From the Galleria di Ragusei Illustri_) _Frontispiece_
BYZANTINE DOOR-KNOCKER, RECTOR’S PALACE _Title-page_
PAGE
ENTRANCE TO THE HARBOUR OF RAGUSA 1
VIEW OF RAGUSA
(_From P. G. Coronelli’s “Views of Dalmatia,”_ 1680) _facing_ 15
ONOFRIO’S FOUNTAIN IN THE PIAZZA 41
THE QUAY AND HARBOUR GATE _facing_ 54
RAGUSA FROM THE EAST _facing_ 58
TORRE MENZE 66
GENERAL VIEW OF RAGUSA, FROM THE WEST 83
BAS-RELIEF OF ST. BLAIZE, NEAR THE PORTA PLOCE 95
PLAN OF RAGUSA _facing_ 97
FORTIFICATIONS OF STAGNO GRANDE 99
CLOISTER OF THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY _facing_ 108
COURTYARD OF THE SPONZA (CUSTOM HOUSE) 121
FAÇADE OF THE SPONZA (CUSTOM HOUSE), AND CLOCK
TOWER 131
CAPITAL IN THE FRANCISCAN CLOISTER 152
CAPITAL IN THE FRANCISCAN CLOISTER 153
FAÇADE OF THE RECTOR’S PALACE _facing_ 168
APOTHECARY’S GARDEN, FRANCISCAN MONASTERY 189
ENTRANCE TO THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY _facing_ 196
TERRACE OF THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY, WITH THE
TORRE MENZE IN THE BACKGROUND 207
CLOISTER OF THE DOMINICAN MONASTERY 231
SKETCH MAP OF THE TERRITORIES OF THE RAGUSAN
REPUBLIC _facing_ 240
THE ORLANDO COLUMN 249
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF RAGUSA AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
(_From an Old Map_, 1670) _facing_ 263
SKETCH MAP OF THE ENVIRONS OF RAGUSA _facing_ 272
FORTE SAN LORENZO 289
GARDEN NEAR RAGUSA 299
ISOLA DI MEZZO 313
COURTYARD OF THE RECTOR’S PALACE 325
MOSTAR, IN THE HERZEGOVINA 334
“ÆSCULAPIUS” CAPITAL, RECTOR’S PALACE 340
SCULPTURED IMPOST, RECTOR’S PALACE 345
SCULPTURED BRACKET, RECTOR’S PALACE 349
CHURCH OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF THE ROSARY 355
TRIPTYCH BY NICCOLÒ RAGUSEI IN THE DOMINICAN
MONASTERY _facing_ 363
GIOVANNI GONDOLA
(_From the Galleria di Ragusei Illustri_) _facing_ 375
TORRE MENZE AND THE WALLS 389
TERRACE OF THE VILLE BRAVAČIĆ, NEAR RAGUSA 405
MAP OF DALMATIA, BOSNIA, AND THE HERZEGOVINA _facing_ 417
MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA _facing_ 418
[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO THE HARBOUR OF RAGUSA]
THE REPUBLIC OF RAGUSA
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The eastern shore of the Adriatic from the Quarnero to the Bocche di
Cattaro is a series of deep inlets and bays, with rocky mountains
rising up behind, while countless islands, forming a veritable
archipelago, follow the coastline. The country is for the most part
bare and stony. The cypress, the olive, the vine grow on it, but never
in great quantities. Patches of juniper and other bushes are often the
only relief to the long stretches of sterile coast. Here and there more
favoured spots appear. At Spalato and in the Canale dei Sette Castelli,
on the island of Curzola, in the environs of Ragusa, the vegetation
is luxuriant, almost tropical. But Dalmatia is always a narrow strip,
and as one proceeds southwards it becomes ever narrower, the mountain
ranges at various points coming right down to the water’s edge. The
land is subject to intense heat in summer, and is free from great
cold, even in the middle of winter. But it suffers from fierce winds,
from the _bora_, which, whirling down from the treeless wastes of the
Karst mountains in the north-east, sweeps along the coastline with
terrific force. Another curse from which it suffers is the frequency
and severity of the earthquakes, which from time to time have wrought
fearful havoc among the Dalmatian towns.
But in spite of these disadvantages, along this shore a Latin
civilisation arose and flourished which, if inferior to that of
Italy, nevertheless played an important and valuable part in
European development. Many wars were fought for the possession of
Dalmatia. Roman, Byzantine Greek, Norman, Venetian, Hungarian, Slave,
and Austrian struggled for it, and each left his impress on its
civilisation, although the influence of two among these peoples far
surpassed that of all the others—the Roman and the Venetian.
Dalmatia has at all times been essentially a borderland. Geographically
it belongs to the eastern peninsula of the Mediterranean, to the
Balkan lands. But this narrow strip of coast, as Professor Freeman
said,[1] “has not a little the air of a thread, a finger, a branch
cast forth from the western peninsula.” In its history its character
as a march land is still more noticeable, and this feature has always
been manifested in a series of civilised communities in the towns,
with a hinterland of barbarous or semi-civilised races. Here were the
farthest Greek settlements in the Adriatic, settlements placed in the
midst of a native uncivilised Illyrian population. Here the Romans came
and conquered, but did not wholly absorb, the native races. Then the
land was disputed between the Eastern and the Western Empires, later
between Christianity and Paganism, later still between the Eastern and
Western Churches. The Slavonic invasion, while almost obliterating
the native Illyrian race, could not sweep away the Roman-Greek
civilisation of the coast. Again Dalmatia became the debating ground
between Venetian and Hungarian, the former triumphing in the end. When
Christianity found itself menaced by the Muhamedan invasion, Dalmatia
was the borderland between the two faiths. A hundred years ago it
was involved in one phase of the great struggle between England and
France. To-day, under the rule of a Power which may be said to be all
borderland, it is the scene of another nationalist conflict between two
races. As before we still have a civilised fringe, a series of towns,
with a vast hinterland inhabited by Slaves, by a race less civilised,
yet wishing to become civilised on lines different from those of
the Latin race. It is still the borderland between the Catholic and
the Orthodox religions, and also between the two branches of the
South-Slavonic people—the Croatians and the Serbs.
The Dalmatian townships had many features in their development similar
to those of the towns of Italy, especially of the maritime republics.
But, unlike their Italian sisters, they were always on the threshold
of barbarism, and this fact imparts to their history its peculiar
character. They were essentially border fortresses, keeping watch and
ward to save their civilisation from being swept into the sea by the
advancing tide of Slave and Turk.
Of all these towns, that in which this feature is most marked
is Ragusa. Ragusa’s development shows in every way a stronger
individuality than that of any other. For three characteristics above
all is this city remarkable, characteristics which enabled it to
attain and preserve such a peculiar position in the Adriatic. The
first is its geographical situation. Ragusa was, as it were, the gate
of the East, the meeting point of Latin and Slave, of the Eastern
and Western Churches, of Christian and Muhamedan. One of the chief
commercial highways from the coast to the interior had its terminus
at Ragusa, while the sheltered position of its harbour, and of that
of the neighbouring Gravosa, indicated it as meant by nature for a
great commercial centre. Here the Slaves from the interior found their
nearest market, and the nearest spot where civilisation and culture
flourished. Ragusa was the means of spreading the beginnings of
progress among the benighted Servian lands, for with the caravans of
Western goods which made their way into the Herzegovina, Bosnia, and
Servia, Western ideas penetrated as well, and to Ragusa came the sons
of Slavonic princelings and nobles to be educated. Here there were
schools where learned professors and famous men of letters from Italy
taught. Italy came to impart Italian culture to the Ragusans and the
Slaves.
Even to-day, when trade follows other routes, and Ragusa, no longer a
great commercial centre, is reduced to a humble position, it is still
the meeting point of many races. Italians, Bosnians, Herzegovinians,
Montenegrins, Albanians, Turks, and Greeks throng its streets and
piazzas on market days, filling them with brilliant costumes. Now that
the railway from Mostar and Sarajevo has reached Gravosa, there is
reason to hope that the ancient city of St. Blaize may once more become
a trading centre of some importance. The prosperity of the hinterland
which Austria-Hungary has reclaimed to civilisation cannot fail to have
a favourable effect on Ragusa. Had not the Turkish invasion swept over
the Balkans in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries,
Ragusa’s position as a civilising influence would have been still
more considerable. Later its rôle changed to that of intermediary
between the Christian Powers and the Sultan, and in its history we see
reflected on a small scale the vast struggle which convulsed Europe for
four hundred years.
The second characteristic of Ragusa is its natural position. It is one
of nature’s fortresses, being surrounded by the sea on three sides, and
the rocks on which it is built drop sheer down to the water’s edge. It
seemed indeed a suitable spot on which to erect a city, in days when
security was the first, almost the only, consideration. As we approach
Ragusa from the south, it stands out a mass of rocks rising up from the
sea, crowned with towers, bastions, and walls, which have defied ages
of storm and stress, still imposing, still beautiful.
A third feature intimately connected with the last is Ragusa’s
character as a haven of refuge. While all around there was chaos and
strife, at Ragusa there was peace. The original inhabitants had fled
from the ruins of Epidaurum and Salona, and fortified themselves here;
subsequently other refugees from all parts of the country helped to
increase the population, for the hospitality of its walls was denied
to none. The Ragusans were ever ready, as they proved many a time, to
undergo any risk rather than give up those who had placed themselves
under the protection of the rock-built city. Even in recent times
Ragusa remained true to its past; when in 1876-77 there was revolution
in the Herzegovina, and the savage Turkish soldiery were at their
accustomed work of massacre and torture, the luckless Christian rayahs
found shelter and protection at Ragusa, as their ancestors had done
before them.
Ragusa was a small city, and its history is all on a small scale. At
best she can only be regarded as a second-class city of the first rank.
In size, wealth, and intellectual and artistic development she was far
inferior to the city republics of Italy; but her close proximity to a
world of barbarism, and the vastly important events in which she played
a part, however small, make it loom large. Moreover, while the other
republics of Dalmatia, with the exception of the tiny Poljica, were all
absorbed by Venice, while those of Italy were a constant prey to civil
wars, and lost their freedom and even their independence after a few
centuries of chequered existence, Ragusa, after two hundred and fifty
years of Venetian tutelage with internal autonomy, remained free, now
under the nominal protection of this Power, now of that, for 450 years,
actually surviving her mighty rival of the Lagoons.
The beginnings of Dalmatian history are purely legendary, and very
little is known of the ethnographical character of its original
inhabitants. Wanderers from pre-Homeric Greece are said to have settled
along its shores, followed later by the Liburnii, who had been driven
from Asia, whence part of the country was called Liburnia by the
Romans. In the seventh century B.C. a Celtic invasion took place.[2]
In the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. a number of Greek colonies were
planted among the islands at Issa (Lissa), Pharos (Lesina), and Kerkyra
Melaina (Curzola), and others along the coast at Epidamnos (Durazzo),
Epidauron (Ragusavecchia), and Tragyrion (Traù). In the third century
Illyria[3] was welded by a native ruler into a powerful kingdom,
which ere long came into contact with the Romans. The latter made
several attempts to conquer the country, but met with a most stubborn
resistance before they finally subdued it. In the year 180 B.C. the
Dalmatians, a people inhabiting the middle part of modern Dalmatia,[4]
revolted from the Illyrian kingdom and became independent. Their
territory was comprised between the rivers Naro (Narenta) and Titius
(Kerka); beyond the latter Liburnia began. During the second and first
centuries B.C. the Romans waged no less than ten wars in Illyria,
which was not completely reduced until the year A.D. 9.
In the meanwhile a number of Latin colonies had been settled along the
coast, supplanting those of the Greeks. Their splendour and importance
may be gauged from the magnificent Roman remains, especially those of
the great palace built by Diocletian, himself an Illyrian, at Spalato,
and of Salona,[5] the ancient capital of the province.
Roman Dalmatia included besides the modern region of that name the
whole of Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Montenegro, and parts of Croatia and
Albania. Diocletian divided it into two provinces, Dalmatia proper to
the north, and Prævalis or Prævalitana to the south. At the time of the
partition of the Roman Empire Dalmatia was apportioned to the Western
division, the neighbouring provinces of Dardania, Mœsia Superior, and
Prævalis to the Eastern. When the barbarian hordes began to pour down
into Southern Europe the latter province remained under Roman rule
until early in the sixth century, but Dalmatia was conquered in 481 by
Odovakar, and added to the Gothic kingdom of Italy. Both these facts
emphasise Dalmatia’s character as an outpost of the West in the Eastern
world. But the Slaves, the last of the barbarians to march westwards
and southwards, soon began to press ever more closely against the
Roman settlements, and the colonists were driven from the interior
to the coast towns. From the letters of Pope Gregory I. we see that
at his time (590-603) Epidaurum, Salona, Doclea, and a few other
Roman cities still survived. But in 600, in a letter to the Bishop
of Salona, he expressed great sorrow that Dalmatia was hard pressed
by the barbarians. “De Sclavorum gente, quae vobis imminet, affligor
vehementer et conturbor.”[6] The whole province was becoming desolate.
In 535 the Byzantine Greeks reconquered it from the Goths together
with Pannonia. In 539 it was overrun by Huns, Bulgarians, and Slaves,
liberated by Narses in 552, and added to the Exarchate of Ravenna.
Later it was made into a separate Exarchate; but after the death of the
Emperor Maurice the Slaves became masters of the greater part of the
country.
When the Eastern Empire was divided into themes, the remaining
fragments of the Roman colonies on the Illyrian shore were erected
into the Themes of Dalmatia and Dyrrhachium. The former is described
at length by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his _De Administrando
Imperio_,[7] written in 949; it consisted of little more than a
few cities and islands, all the rest of the land being peopled by
barbarians.
The capital of the Dalmatian theme was no longer Salona, which together
with Epidaurum had been destroyed by the Avars in the seventh century,
but Jadera or Zara. The other towns of the theme were: Veglia, Arbe,
and Opsara (comprising Cherso and Lussino) in the Quarnero; Tragurium,
Spalatum or Aspalathum, and Rhagusium, founded by refugees from Salona
and Epidaurum; Decatera (Cattaro), Rosa (Porto Rose), and Butova
(Budua). The theme was governed by a Greek Strategos residing at Zara
(Jadertinus Prior), and by inferior officials (dukes) in the smaller
centres. But their authority hardly extended beyond the town walls.
The inhabitants of these cities in the themes of Dalmatia and
Dyrrhachium were the remains of the Roman provincials from all parts
of Illyria. Porphyrogenitus calls them Romans, as distinguished from
the Ῥωμαῖοι or Byzantine Greeks. In spite of all subsequent Slavonic
incursions Latin, and later Italian, always remained the official
language; it was also the common language of the people all down the
coast, save at Ragusa, where Slavonic was also spoken at an early
date.[8] Other fragments of the Roman population were to be found
perhaps among the shepherds of the mountains, who were either Latins
or Latinised descendants of the native Illyrians. The Slaves speak of
them as together with the town-dwellers as Vlachs, which word signifies
Italians or Rumanians to this day. The townsmen described these
shepherds as Maurovlachs, _i.e._ “Sea Vlachs” or “Black Vlachs.”[9]
The other Dalmatian towns and all the country outside the towns were
occupied, as we have said, by the Southern Slaves. Of these the two
principal tribes were the Serblii or Serbs and the Chrobatians or
Croatians. The latter settled in the northern part of the country;
their frontiers were the Save, the Kulpa, the Arsia, and the Četina.
Their settlement seems to have preceded that of the Serbs. They came
from the land beyond the Carpathians, with the name of which theirs
may have been connected. Croatia was divided into fourteen _Župe_
or counties, each governed by a _Župan_. The various _Župans_ owed
a somewhat shadowy allegiance to a Grand Župan, whose title was
afterwards changed to that of king. The Serbs, who issued forth from
what is now Galicia, settled in the land to the south and east of that
of the Croatians, _i.e._ the modern kingdom of Servia, Old Servia,
Montenegro, Northern Albania, and Dalmatia south of the Četina. For
many centuries they recognised no central authority, but were divided
into tribes, of which the most important were the Diocletiani or
Docletiani, who occupied what is now Montenegro and part of Albania;
the Terbuniotae, whose country, called Terbunia or Tribunia or
Travunia, centres round the modern Trebinje, with the semi-independent
southern district of Canale or Canali;[10] the coast north of Ragusa
up to the Narenta was occupied by the Zachloumoi of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, and was called Zachlumje, Zachulmia, Hlum, or Chelmo.
It corresponds to the Herzegovina.[11] About the Narenta was the
land of the Narentani (the Ἀρεντάνοι or Παγάνοι of Porphyrogenitus),
notorious for their piratical exploits. This tribe was converted to
Christianity much later than the other Serbs, whence their name of
Pagani. Inland was Bosnia, inhabited by various tribes. Still deeper in
the interior was the territory of the Serbs proper.[12]
Thus by the eighth century we have a series of coast towns and a few
islands peopled by Latins still under the rule of the Eastern Roman
Empire set in the midst of a country whose inhabitants, if we except
the Latin or Latinised shepherds, were all Slaves. Imperial influence
over these townships gradually declined, and at an early date they
constituted themselves into city-states of the Italian type.[13] As
they grew rich and powerful they acquired territory, developed their
trade, both sea-borne and with the interior, until they were finally
absorbed by the Venetian Republic. Their conditions are, therefore, in
many respects similar to those prevailing in the maritime republics
of Italy during this period. In Italy there was a Latin civilisation,
overwhelmed by hordes of pagan or partly pagan barbarians. Italy, like
Dalmatia, is reclaimed to Latin culture by Greek arms, and the Greeks
rule over it, although constantly fighting the armies of the invaders
with varying success. There, too, city-communities arise on or near
the sites of Roman cities, modelling their institutions and their
laws on those of Rome, with certain modifications due to barbarian
influences. But here the parallel ends. In Italy the barbarian hordes
never settled in such large numbers as wholly to absorb the Latins,
whereas the Slaves in Dalmatia far outnumbered the colonists, and, save
for the Latin fringe, the land soon became a Slavonic land. Whereas
in Italy, Latins and barbarians soon amalgamated—in fact, one may say
that the former absorbed the latter—in Dalmatia, Latins and Slaves have
remained distinct and separate to this day, in language, character,
and ideals. The Latin cities were like islands in a Slavonic sea. The
relations between the Latins and the barbarians in Italy, even before
they amalgamated, were different from what they were in Dalmatia. In
Italy the feudal system arose among the Germanic peoples, and Germanic
lords had Latin subjects and serfs, whereas the Slavonic chieftains
of Dalmatia had no Latin dependents to speak of. The causes of this
division of race and language, which exercised so deep an influence on
the history and development of the Dalmatian _municipia_, are not very
apparent. They are probably to be sought in the different proportions
of barbarians to Latins in the two countries. In Italy the number of
invaders who settled permanently in the country was never very great
compared with that of the Latin inhabitants. The conquered were,
therefore, soon able to absorb the conquerors, having civilisation as
well as numbers on their side. But in Dalmatia the Slaves were, as we
have said, far more numerous than the Latin burghers; and while the
former could not absorb the communities of the coast, because they
were more civilised, the latter, being so few in numbers, failed to
absorb the Slaves. It should, moreover, be remembered that even the
Latins were originally colonists from another land, and that the native
Illyrians, of whom no trace now remains in Dalmatia, may perhaps have
been merged in the Slaves, and helped to swell their numbers.
[Illustration: VIEW OF RAGUSA
(_From P. G. Coronelli’s “Views of Dalmatia”_, 1680)]
CHAPTER II
THE FOUNDATION AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE CITY (656-1204)
We have alluded to the destruction by the Avars of Salona and
Epidaurum,[14] and the flight of their inhabitants to the new
settlements. Of Salona extensive ruins remain, but with regard to the
site of Epidaurum there is a division of opinion among archæologists.
It is generally held that the remains at or near the village of
Ragusavecchia, a few miles to the south-east of Ragusa, are those
of the ancient Epidaurum. In the neighbouring valley of Canali
(Slavonic, _Konavli_) there are the ruins of a Roman aqueduct. The name
Ragusavecchia corroborates the tradition that it was the original home
of the Ragusans; while its Slavonic name, _Cavtat_, is undoubtedly
derived from the Latin _civitas_. Some archæologists, however, have
doubts as to this point, and Professor Giuseppe Gelcich, than whom
no greater authority on Dalmatian history exists, is of opinion that
Epidaurum must be sought for somewhere on the Sutorina promontory in
the Bocche di Cattaro. Fragments of Roman brickwork and mosaic pavement
have been found there too; and according to Professor Gelcich, the
Canali aqueduct is so built that it must have served a city farther
south than Ragusavecchia. On the other hand, the statements of the
classical writers, especially of Pliny, seem to bear out the general
opinion, which is, in fact, based on them.
The exact date of the incursion of the Avars and of the destruction
of Epidaurum has also been the subject of controversy. According to
some writers, among whom are the native historians of Ragusa, the city
was destroyed by the Goths in the third century A.D. But documents
written between the third and the seventh centuries mention it as
still existing. Constantine Porphyrogenitus speaks of Ragusa as having
been founded by refugees from Salona five hundred years before his own
time, _i.e._ about 449.[15] But Pope Gregory I. is the last writer who
alludes to Epidaurum, so that it was evidently not destroyed before
603. The geographer of Ravenna, who flourished in the eighth century,
is the first to mention Ragusa. The Avars made their first appearance
in Dalmatia in the year 597-598.[16] They belonged to the same Tartar
group as the Huns, and their path was marked with the same ruin and
destruction. At one time they were in the service of Justinian, but
under his successors they became so powerful and insolent that the
Greek emperors might almost be regarded as the vassals to the Chagan of
the Avars. In 597 they raided Dalmatia and destroyed over forty towns;
and during the next thirty years they conquered the whole country,
with the exception of some of the coast settlements, unimpeded by
the Greeks, who were then occupied with the Saracens. In 619 they
destroyed Salona, whose inhabitants, or at least such of them as
escaped from the fury of the barbarians, for the most part took refuge
in the walls of Diocletian’s palace at Spalato. But a few wandered
southwards and established themselves on an island rock, where Ragusa
now stands. About the year 656 the Avars swept down on Epidaurum and
razed it to the ground, the surviving inhabitants flying to Ragusa.
This year is generally accepted as the date of the city’s, birth. In
all probability, however, it was not founded at any definite period,
but arose gradually through the influx of refugees from all parts of
Southern Dalmatia, from a fishing village into a town. The original
settlers were nearly all Latins, and it was not until later that a
certain number of Slaves were admitted.[17]
The traditional origin of the name Ragusa is connected with
the situation of the town on a precipitous ridge. According to
Porphyrogenitus, it is derived from λαῦ, a precipice, and was
originally _Lausa_. The L changed to R, and it became Rausa or
Rhausion. According to Professor Jireček,[18] this derivation is
quite inaccurate. The rocky seaward ridge, even in the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, were called _Labe_ or _Laue_, from
the Latin word _labes_, a downfall or precipice. The form _Ragusa_ is
found in William of Tyre, and in the Arabic writer Edrisi (1153). Later
we find the form _Rausa_, and in the fifteenth century _Raugia_, and
occasionally _Ragusium_. The Slavonic name _Dubrovnik_ is said to be
derived from _dubrava_, a wood. This etymology does not sound unlikely,
as there is a wood in close proximity to the town, a rarity in this
part of the world. But Professor Jireček says that from _Dubrava_ the
original form should have been _Dubravnik_, and this appears nowhere.
The Presbyter Diocleas writes: “Dubrounich, id est silvester sive
silvestris, quoniam quando eam aedificaverunt, de silva venerunt.”
Whatever may be the philological value of these traditions, they
indicate the double character (_i.e._ Latin and Slavonic) of Ragusa in
the early, if not in the earliest times.
Ragusa is situated on the coast of Southern Dalmatia, about forty
kilometres to the north-west of the Bocche di Cattaro.[19] It is built
partly on a precipitous rocky ridge jutting out into the Adriatic,
and partly on the mainland, ascending the steep slopes of the Monte
Sergio. The original town was limited to the seaward ridge, which
was formerly an island divided from the mainland by a marshy channel
where the Stradone now runs. There was also a settlement of Bosnians
or Vlachs on the Monte Sergio opposite. The ridge slopes gradually up
from the channel, but drops sheer down on the side towards the sea. In
an old drawing preserved in the library of the Franciscan monastery at
Ragusa we see the town as it was when it only occupied the ridge. It
is surrounded by a wall, and divided into two parts by another wall.
Three extensions of the walls are recorded previous to the beginning of
the twelfth century, rendered necessary by the number of fugitives who
took refuge within its walls in ever-increasing numbers. “The original
city,” writes Professor Gelcich, “was limited to the centre of the
northern slope of the ridge now called Santa Maria, which, separating
from the Monte Sergio, stretches forth in an opposite direction to
that of the neighbouring peninsula of Lapad; it comprised the quarter
of the town between the diocesan seminary and the street leading from
the Chiesa del Domino to the summit of the ridge.”[20] The earliest
extensions were the suburbs of Garište and Pustijerna, the former
on the western side, the latter to the east, reaching as far as the
harbour. Thus the whole rock was occupied and surrounded by a wall. The
channel which divided it from the mainland soon became a marshy field,
and finally dried up. As a protection against the Slavonic settlement
on the Monte Sergio a castle was built by the sea, on the site of the
present rector’s palace, guarding the bridge to the mainland.[21] Later
the Bosnian colony was also absorbed, and the town walls were extended
to the circuit which they now occupy.
Of the various groups of refugees who settled within the hospitable
walls of Ragusa we have fairly reliable accounts. Porphyrogenitus
mentions the earliest of these immigrations, and also gives us the
names of the most prominent among the newcomers: Arsaphios, Gregorios,
Victorinos, Vitalios, Valentinos the archdeacon, and Valentinos the
father of the Protospathar Stephen. All these have unquestionably
a Latin sound; they were probably Roman provincials from the minor
Dalmatian townships destroyed by the barbarians. Besides the Latin
refugees, at an early date a certain number of Slaves, who preferred
the quiet life and safety of Ragusa to the constant turmoils and
disorders among their own people, added to the population. The
Anonymous Chronicle of Ragusa[22] describes several of these
immigrations:—
“690. Many people came to Ragusa with all their goods from Albania
and the parts of Bosna, because many in Bosna were partisans of
Duchagini,[23] and wished to save themselves from being accused
(punished).”
This evidently refers to a civil war, but the date given is much
too early: it is not likely that the Ragusans would have admitted
barbarians within their walls so soon after the destruction of
Epidaurum:—
“691. There came to Ragusa the men of two castles on the mainland,
from Chastel Spilan and Chastel Gradaz,[24] and they all made their
dwellings on the coast, for they were of the race of Epidaurum
destroyed by the Saracens.”[25]
This obviously refers to the Latin colonists mentioned by the Imperial
historian:—
“743. Many people came from Bosna with much wealth, for the king,
Radosav, was a tyrant, and lived according to his pleasure: Murlacchi
from the Narenta also came, and Catunari,[26] among whom there was
a chief above all the others; they came with a great multitude of
cattle of all sorts: to them was assigned the mountain of Saint Serge
as a pasture, for it was so covered with trees that one could not see
the sky, and so much timber was there that they made beams for their
houses.”
Of the first two centuries of Ragusan history little is known. The
town, like the other Latin communities of Dalmatia, at first formed
part of the Eastern Empire. Heraclius had abandoned all the rest of the
country to the Slaves, and even in the coast towns Imperial authority
was becoming ever more shadowy. Under Michael II Balbus they were
granted what practically amounted to autonomy, and they constituted
themselves, as we have said, into _municipia_ of the Italian type,
while inland Dalmatia became part of Charlemagne’s Empire (803), to
whom also some of the coast towns, including Zara, owed allegiance.[27]
Ragusa, although still small, was increasing. At that time, with a
world of barbarism all round, with everlasting wars between the various
Slavonic tribes of the interior, there was indeed an opening for such a
haven of refuge as this city offered.
We can picture it to ourselves as a small settlement where all that
was civilised in Southern Dalmatia congregated—the scattered Latins
from ruined townships and the more progressive Slaves. It was a beacon
in the darkness, a spot where the peaceful and the industrious might
pursue their avocations in safety. Of the internal constitution of the
community in these early days, of its laws and customs, we have the
meagrest information. The only account of them which we possess is
that given in the Anonymous Chronicle, a not very reliable document of
a much later date than the events recorded. The chief passage on the
subject is as follows:—
“In Ragusa a division of all the people was made.... Those who were
the richest were (appointed) chiefs and governors.... Each family had
its own saint, some San Sergio, some this saint, some that.... And
when men had come from Lower Vulasi (Wallachia),[28] a division of the
citizens was made, each class for itself. Many Wallachians were rich
in possessions—gold, silver, cattle, and other things: among them were
many _Chatunari_, each of whom considered himself a count, and had his
own _Naredbenizi_ (stewards). One was master of the horse, another
looked after the cattle, another after the sheep and goats, another
managed the household, another commanded the servants. But there was
one chief above all the others, called the Grand Chatunar.... These
Chatunari formed the _Sboro_ (Council or Parliament), and for their
convenience divided the population into three parts: the first was of
gentlemen, the second of burghers, the third of serfs. Many serfs had
come from Wallachia with cattle, and it seemed to them a mean thing to
be called even as the shepherds.[29] Some attended to the house, some
to the horses, some to the person of their master, but the latter were
few in number. The third part was of gentlemen; for at the beginning
there were many who had fled from Bosna and Albania, and who were not
men of low condition, but of much account, having been captains or
counts or _Naredbenizi_, and these were of noble origin.... Those who
were gentlemen were made governors of the land or were given other
offices, and they alone entered the _Sboro_ or General Council. The
other part was of the people, _populani_, from _pol vilani_, or half
villeins,[30] for although those villeins were of low condition, some
were in the houses of gentlemen as guardians, and therefore enjoyed
benefits.”
This account is somewhat confused and difficult to understand. As far
as we can make out, the people were divided into three classes; _i.e._
the nobles, who alone formed the Grand Council, and were either the
descendants of the original Latin refugees from Epidaurum and Salona,
or those among the newcomers who were of noble birth; the middle class,
consisting of non-noble burghers, the stewards, and chief retainers
of the nobles, and the men of small property; the third class, which
was composed of serfs and of the poorest citizens. Over the general
assembly presided the head of the State, the Byzantine Duke, Prior,
or Præses. After Ragusa had made submission to Venice in 998 we find
Venetian counts instead.[31] During the intervals when the city was
independent, and no foreign rulers were appointed, the head of the
Government was chosen by the Council, as it was in after times. But
even when sent from Venice or Constantinople he does not seem to have
exercised much direct influence on the internal affairs of the Republic.
Besides the Count and the General Council, there was the assembly of
the people, or _laudo populi_, to whom the decisions of the Council
in all the more important cases had to be submitted. Lampredius,
præses of Ragusa in 1023, sanctioned a decree “una cum omnibus ejusdem
civitatis nobilibus,” “temporibus Sanctorum Imperatorum Basilii et
Constantini.” Petrus Slabba, prior in 1044, issued another decree,
“temporibus piissimi Augusti Constantini scilicet Monomacho ... cum
parited nobiles atque ignobiles.”[32] Thus we have the aristocratic
principle represented by the council of nobles, and the democratic
principle by the assembly of the people, who were summoned “cum
sonitu campane.”[33] As the constitution evolved, the _laudo populi_
gradually dropped into disuse, and Ragusa finally developed into a
purely aristocratic community on Venetian lines.
Next in authority to the head of the State was the bishop,[34] by whom
the acts of the Government had to be countersigned. The question as to
who should appoint this dignitary was frequently a subject of dispute
between the Ragusans and the Venetians, on account of his political
influence.
The Ragusans provided for the defence of their city by surrounding
it with walls, “un muro di masiera e travi,”[35] as Ragnina says,
and these fortifications stood them in good stead by enabling them
to hold out against the Saracens, who in 847-848 besieged Ragusa for
fifteen months. The citizens implored help from the Emperor Basil
the Macedonian, and he at once sent a fleet, under Nicephorus, which
relieved the beleaguered city from the raiders.[36]
The Greek Emperors wished to pursue the Saracens into Apulia, where
they had established themselves, and the rendezvous for one part of the
expedition was Ragusa. A large force of Serbs and Croatians in the pay
of the Empire congregated there, and were transported to the Italian
shore on Ragusan ships. The expedition was successful, Bari being
recaptured, and the Saracen power in Southern Italy broken.[37] This is
the first mention we have of Ragusan shipping, which was afterwards to
play so large a part in the history of the Levant trade.
Of all the Slavonic tribes settled in Dalmatia, the most lawless and
uncivilised were the Narentans, the Arentani or Porphyrogenitus.
This hardy race of mariners occupied the land about the mouth of the
Narenta[38] and the coast,[39] between that river and the Četina,
besides the islands of Brazza, Lesina, Curzola, Lissa, Meleda, and
Lagosta. Connected by racial ties with the Serbs and the Croatians,
they obeyed the laws of neither. The ancient Illyrians were famous
for their piracy, which first called the attention of the Romans
to the country, and the Narentans proved worthy successors of the
aborigines. The conformation of the coast with its numerous inlets,
well-sheltered harbours, safe refuges, and countless islands lends
itself to this species of occupation. The Narentans ravaged the
coast towns of Dalmatia with their swift galleys, plundered peaceful
merchantmen, and so harried Venetian trade that the Republic was
forced to pay them blackmail for a hundred and fifty years. On more
than one occasion it sent its fleets to attempt their subjugation, at
first with but little success. At the beginning of these wars Ragusa
was a friendly harbour for the Venetian galleys, their most southern
port of call in the Adriatic, where they could revictual and their
crews rest from the fatigues of the voyage.[40] But the Ragusans very
soon began to look askance at the Venetians as a possible danger to
their own independence, and adopted the practice of secretly, or even
openly, supporting the pirates against the Venetians. This naturally
caused trouble later when the Venetians were strong enough to act
energetically against the Narentans: it affords a curious insight into
the policy of the Ragusans, who, while anxious to preserve their own
civilisation and culture, were never averse to siding with barbarians,
whether they were Narentans or Turks, against Christian Powers,
especially against Venice.
As early as the reign of the Doge Giovanni Particiaco I. (829-836) the
pirates of the Narenta had begun to seize Venetian galleys, and his
successor, Pietro Tradonico (836-864), sent two punitive expeditions
against them without definite result. After the Venetian fleet had
been defeated by the Saracens, the Dalmatian corsairs were audacious
enough to make a raid on the Lagoons. In 887 the Doge Pietro Candiano
I. sent a first unsuccessful expedition against them, and a few months
later led a second himself. This too was defeated, and the Doge killed.
Probably there was another in 948 under Pietro Candiano III., and
this time operations were directed against Ragusa itself, if we are
to believe the native historians, the town being saved only through
the special intercession of San Biagio,[41] who henceforth became the
patron of Ragusa in the place of San Bacco.[42]
In the course of the tenth century Ragusa was again besieged by
barbarians—they were Bulgarians this time, under the Tsar Simeon (not
Samuel, as had been stated), who invaded the western provinces of the
Eastern Empire. According to Cedren, his attack on Ragusa failed,[43]
whereas the Presbyter of Doclea writes that the town was burnt.
It was during this same century that Ragusa first began to acquire
territorial possessions. The account of the manner of these
acquisitions is in part legendary; but, according to Prof. Gelcich,
it has some substratum of fact. Paulimir Belo or Belus, King of
Rascia,[44] having been deposed and exiled, took refuge in Rome, and
married a Roman lady. In 950 he returned to Illyria, and landed at
Gravosa, near Ragusa, with a large suite of Roman nobles. The Ragusans
received him with great honours, and he in return helped them to
enlarge their city, and sent a number of his followers, including some
Romans, to increase the population. After this he returned to Rascia
and regained his throne. As Prof. Gelcich observes, Rome is evidently
a mistake for Rama, a country which forms part of the Herzegovina, and
takes its name from a small river tributary to the Narenta. A few years
later Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, and his wife, Margaret, came to Ragusa
in order to fulfil a vow which the former had made to St. Stephen when
his wife was ill, that he would visit the saint’s church in the city
if she recovered. As a reward for the welcome accorded to him by the
citizens he gave them the districts of Breno, Bergato (Brgat), Ombla,
Gravosa, Malfi, and part of Gionchetto.
Nearly fifty years had passed since the last Venetian expedition to
Dalmatia; but when the great Doge Pietro Orseolo came to the throne in
991, he determined to put an end to the depredations of the Narentans
once for all. The annual tribute which the Venetians had been forced to
pay to the freebooters only secured a very imperfect immunity, and the
Adriatic trade was never really safe. Orseolo suspended the tribute,
and as the Narentans at once recommenced their molestations, an
expedition under Badoer was sent out which destroyed the town of Lissa.
The Venetian admiral took a great many prisoners, but failed to attack
the pirates’ chief stronghold at Lagosta and the Narenta’s mouth. They
retaliated on the Latin towns of the coast, and the latter, unable to
obtain help from their natural protector, the Greek Emperor, placed
themselves under the suzerainty of the Venetians, whom they implored to
intervene once more. The Croatians, to whom the towns in the northern
and central parts of the country had paid tribute, now declared war
on all who obeyed the Venetians, ravaged the territory of Zara, and
attacked the islands of the Quarnero. The Ragusans were then tributary
to the Serbs, by whom they were surrounded, and fearing the Narentans,
who were so close at hand, separated their cause from that of the
rest of Latin Dalmatia, and maintained an ambiguous attitude.[45] The
Croatians, not content with terrorising the towns, sent ambassadors to
Venice to demand the tribute; but the Doge replied: “Non per quemlibet
nuntiorum tributum remittere curo; sed ad hanc persolvendam dationem
venire ipso non denegabo.” He at once fitted out another expedition on
a large scale, which set forth under his command on May 9, 1000.[46]
It reached Ossero on June 5, and the Doge claimed the homage of the
Dalmatians as their protector; this was paid both by the Latins and by
a number of the Slaves. He then proceeded to Zara, which recognised
his authority, and the bishops of Arbe and Veglia came to swear fealty
to him, promising that his praises should be sung in the churches
after those of the Emperor. Negotiations with the Narentans were now
opened; the pirates agreed to forego all tributes, and swore to infest
the Adriatic no longer; but the moment the Doge’s back was turned they
recommenced their depredations. Orseolo then sailed with the fleet for
Beograd[47] (Zaravecchia), the residence of the Croatian king. The
terrified inhabitants paid him homage, and he prepared to strike a
decisive blow at the Narentans. He sailed down the coast and received
the submission of Traù and Spalato, and on hearing that forty Narentan
“nobles” (pirate captains) were returning from Apulia, some of his
galleys lay in wait for them, and captured them off the island of
Cazza. The Narentans then sued for peace, which was granted them on a
promise of future good behaviour, and all the prisoners were liberated
save six, who were retained as hostages. The pirates on the islands of
Curzola, Lesina, and Lagosta still held out. The first two were easily
captured, but the Lagostans, hearing that the Doge meant to raze their
stronghold to the ground, made a desperate resistance. The Venetians
and their Dalmatian allies attacked the town, poured in through a
breach in the walls, and put all the inhabitants to the sword. After
the capture of this important fortress the power of the Narentans was
broken, and the whole of Dalmatia lay at Orseolo’s feet.
With regard to the subsequent proceedings and the dedition of Ragusa
there is considerable divergence of opinion between Venetian and
Ragusan writers. The latter wish to prove that their city remained
independent, at all events until the beginning of the thirteenth
century, whereas the Venetians affirm that in 998 (1000) Ragusa made
full submission to Venice.
The first account of this dedition is that of Johannes Diaconus, who
writes: “This (the capture of Lesina, Curzola, and Lagosta) having
been accomplished, the victorious prince repaired to the church of
St. Maximus; there the Archbishop of Ragusa and his suite came and
did great homage to the said prince, all partaking of the sacrament.”
Dandolo uses almost identical language, and Sabellico adds that the
Archbishop and the Ragusan envoys made formal submission to the Doge
and the Venetians,[48] and that counts were appointed to govern the
Dalmatian towns, Ottone Orseolo being chosen for Ragusa. To this a
Ragusan writer, calling himself “Albinus Esadastes de Vargas” (whom
Pisani declares to be Sebastiano Dolci,[49] a Ragusan monk of the
seventeenth century), in a work entitled _Libertas perpetua reip.
Ragusine ab omni jure Venete reipub_,[50] replies that the church
of St. Maximus must mean that of Masline at Lesina, and that this
island is so far that the Ragusan envoys would hardly have come there
to tender their submission. Jadesta, which is also alluded to, does
not exist. The Ragusans, who had resisted other attacks, both by the
Venetians and the Saracens, so valiantly, would not have surrendered
now without striking a blow; and, moreover, the Greek Emperors, Basil
and Constantine, would not have authorised the submission. With
regard to the first and third objections, it is most probable that
when the fate of Lagosta had become known to the Ragusans they would
have gone to tender their submission to Orseolo wherever he happened
to be. Jadesta is simply an old name for Lagosta. As for the Greek
Emperors, they were far too much occupied in holding their own against
the Bulgarians to be able to make any objections. The former attacks
on Ragusa had all been on a small scale, whereas this expedition was
a large and well-equipped force, against which it would have been
madness for the tiny Ragusa to resist. Then “Esadastes” shifts his
ground, and asserts that the envoys went to the Doge merely to reclaim
a ship captured by the Venetians, and that they actually threatened
reprisals on the part of the Emperors if satisfaction were refused.
But it is most unlikely that for so trifling a cause the Archbishop
and chief citizens would have been sent to the Doge. This version,
however, is accepted by Mauro Orbini.[51] Ragnina does not even mention
the expedition. Resti[52] says that Ottone Orseolo was sent to Ragusa
merely to make a commercial treaty; but as Pisani observes, if the
magistrates appointed to the other Dalmatian towns were sent to govern
them, there is no reason to suppose that an exception was made for
Ragusa. There is, on the whole, the strongest evidence that Ragusa did
actually submit to Venetian supremacy, together with the other coast
towns, in 1000, and received a Venetian governor. Local usages and
laws, however, were respected, according to the Venetian practice of
the time; nor was Imperial authority wholly disregarded, and prayers
for the Emperor continued to be sung in the churches of Ragusa.
Venetian rule was not of long duration. On the death of Pietro Orseolo
in 1008, his son Ottone became Doge; and during this reign a strong
opposition to the house of Orseolo was aroused, which ended with
Ottone’s expulsion in 1026. During the reign of his successor, Pietro
Centranico, faction feuds broke out, greatly weakening the Republic,
and the Dalmatian towns revolted, as Venetian suzerainty was of use
to them only so long as Venice was powerful. Some of them went over
to Dobroslav, prince of the Tribunian Serbs, and elsewhere Byzantine
authority revived. Thus in 1036, instead of a Venetian count at Zara,
we find Gregory, Jadertinus Prior, Pro-consul and Imperial Strategos
for all Dalmatia.[53] But his authority was disputed by the Croatians,
whose sovereign now proclaimed himself King of Dalmatia.[54] Against
this act the Venetians issued a protest, and the Doge Domenico
Contarini (1043-1071) reasserted the authority of the Republic.
In the year 1071 the Normans from Apulia made their first appearance
in Dalmatia; they crossed the Adriatic, and threatened the Eastern
Empire. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus having implored the help of the
Venetians, the Doge Selvo set sail for Dyrrhachium in command of a
fleet. Alexius had also asked help of the Ragusans, who were now
practically independent; but they feared the Normans more, and cast in
their lot with them. The Græco-Venetian fleet encountered the Normans
off Dyrrhachium; but in spite of the valour displayed by the allies
they were defeated, and the town fell into the enemies’ hands. It
is said that the Ragusan contingent distinguished itself by hurling
clouds of arrows, which wrought much havoc among the Venetians.[55]
As a reward they obtained important commercial privileges in Southern
Italy. In 1085 the Venetians again attacked the Normans, and partially
defeated them at Corfu, for which action Alexius granted the Doge
Vitale Falier the Golden Bull, conferring upon him the title of
Protosebastus, and created him Duke of Dalmatia and Croatia. Thus the
Republic regained all its lost influence on the eastern shore of the
Adriatic.
Yet another Power now begins to interfere in the affairs of Dalmatia,
a Power which was to play a most important part in its subsequent
history. In 1091 Ladislas, King of Hungary, was summoned by the Slaves
of inland Croatia, who as usual when quarrelling among themselves
called in foreign aid, and they willingly recognised him as their
king. He did not wait to be asked a second time, but at once entered
the province and appointed his nephew, Almus, Count of Cismontane
Croatia. On his death in 1094 he was succeeded by another nephew,
Koloman, who in the following year crossed the Velebit mountains and
invaded Maritime Croatia. He defeated and killed the Croatian king,
Krešimir, at Petrovogora, became master of the littoral from Istria
to the Narenta, and prepared to conquer the Serb states of Rascia and
Tribunia. By marrying Busita, daughter of King Roger, he allied himself
with the Normans, and enlisted their help for his schemes. At Beograd
he crowned himself King of Dalmatia and Croatia. These conquests were
not at all to the taste of the Ragusans, who had every interest in the
maintenance of a number of weak but independent Slavonic buffer States
at their back, whereas they dreaded the advance of a powerful military
monarchy like Hungary. At first they tried to conciliate Koloman with
gifts,[56] but as this availed them little they applied to their old
enemies, the Venetians; the latter made a treaty with the Hungarian
king, by which the Latin municipalities of Dalmatia were recognised
as outside the Hungarian sphere. But it was not respected for long.
The Emperor Alexius, annoyed with the Venetians for their action in
the First Crusade and in the Levant generally, intrigued with Koloman,
and induced him to violate his pledges. The Magyar king needed but
little pressure, as the conquest of the Dalmatian seaboard was one of
his chief ambitions. When the Venetians sent their fleet to Palestine
in 1105 he occupied Zara, Traù, and Spalato, and forced the citizens
to swear fealty to him. The Ragusans were not disturbed, but they
sent him another deputation. The Venetians, exhausted with their last
efforts in the Holy Land, were unable to do anything for the moment.[57]
In 1116 hostilities recommenced, and ended in 1118 with the defeat of
the Venetians, who agreed to a five years’ truce with Hungary. War
broke out again in 1124, and lasted for several years, with varying
success. Bela II., who succeeded to Koloman, while the Venetians
were occupied elsewhere, crossed the Narenta and conquered the Serb
principalities of Tribunia, Zachulmia, and Rama, and tried to induce
the coast towns to rebel against Venice. The Ragusans once more applied
for Venetian help, and even requested that Venetian counts should be
sent to govern them. Both requests were granted.
Of the next twenty-eight years of Ragusan history there is little to
tell. “Esadastes” mentions the names of four Venetian counts—Marco
Dandolo, Cristiano Pontestorto, Jacopo Doseduro or Dorsoduro, and
Pietro Molina. Resti mentions a plague in 1145, which, he says, carried
off three-quarters of the inhabitants, evidently an exaggeration. In
1148, according to the same writer, the Servian Prince Dessa, ancestor
of the Nemanjas, granted the island of Meleda to three Benedictine
monks, with the provision that its civil government should be entrusted
to Ragusa. This is the most distant possession which the Republic had
as yet acquired.
In 1152 the series of Venetian counts came to an end,[58] the last
of them having apparently received notice to quit from the Ragusans
themselves, who sent him home in one of their own galleys, with many
gifts, as a reward, “Esasdastes” says ironically, for having ruled the
city so well for thirty years; but he adds the following extract from
an early chronicle:—
“These counts had begun to tyrannise, and, moreover, Ragusa being at
war with the Bosnians, five hundred soldiers who had come from Venice
to aid us outraged our women and committed countless robberies. To free
the city from them the Council ordered them to be so placed in the
van of the army that they should all be killed. This stratagem having
succeeded, they sent the Venetian rector back to Venice.”
Whether this story be true or not, it is characteristic both of the
customs of the time and of the feelings with which the Ragusans ever
regarded the Venetians. For the latter and their government no native
historian ever has a good word to say.
The reason why the Venetians submitted so tamely to being turned out of
Ragusa lies in the general situation of affairs in Dalmatia. In 1148
Venice had formed an alliance with the Emperor Manuel Comnenus against
the Normans, whose incursions in the Adriatic constituted a menace for
both Powers; but Venetians and Greeks were on the worst of terms, and
at the siege of Corfu the Emperor’s name had been grossly insulted.
Manuel vowed vengeance on his allies, and sent emissaries to stir up
the Dalmatians against Venice. The latter was at war on the mainland
with Hungary and in Syria, and therefore found it expedient to ignore
the Dalmatian question for the time being. Venetian authority, however,
did not cease altogether even at Ragusa, where Venetians continued
to be appointed as archbishops. Thus in 1150 or 1151 the dignity was
conferred on a certain Domenico of Venice, and in 1153 on another
Venetian named Tribuno; the latter in 1155 made formal submission to
the Patriarch of Grado, with the consent of the clergy and people of
Ragusa.[59] The town continued, in fact, to be regarded as one of those
under Venetian protection, or, at least, as friendly to the Republic of
the lagoons.
In 1169 Manuel Comnenus determined to conquer Dalmatia, and even
Italy. He sent a squadron up the Adriatic to molest Venetian shipping,
and encouraged corsairs to do the same. The Imperial fleet occupied
the towns protected by Venice, treating them as conquered territory.
Ragusa too was occupied, and was doubtless not unwilling to get rid of
all Venetian authority; the Imperial standard was raised on a tower
expressly built for the purpose. On March 7, 1171, the Emperor had all
the Venetians at Constantinople arrested and their property seized.
Venice immediately declared war, and, in spite of the scarcity of
men and money, a fleet of one hundred and twenty ships, to which ten
Dalmatian galleys were added, was fitted out in a hundred days.[60] It
set sail in September under the command of the Doge Vitale Michiel,
and most of the Dalmatian towns willingly returned to Venetian
suzerainty.[61] Ragusa too surrendered, though not without resistance,
and the event is thus described in the _Cronaca Altinate_:[62]—
“The Ragusans, who, like the others (Dalmatians), were under oath of
fealty to the lord Doge, would not go forth to do him homage, but they
came out in arms as though to insult the host. Wherefore the Venetians,
in high dudgeon, marched against them, and pursued them even to the
gates of the city. The same day, at the ninth hour, they began the
attack with so much vigour that many of the citizens were killed, and,
having stormed the battlements, they captured some of the towers, on
which they raised the ducal standards. The assault was kept up with
great energy until evening. At dawn on the following morning, while
men and machines were being prepared for the battle, Tribuno Michiel,
the Archbishop of Ragusa, issued forth from the city with the clergy
and the nobles bearing crosses, and they cast themselves at the feet
of the Doge, imploring mercy for themselves and all the citizens, and
declaring that they and their city made full submission. The Doge, calm
and prudent, was moved by pity, and on the advice of his followers
received them. And all the citizens sang the praises of the Doge, and
all who were above twelve years of age swore the oath of fealty to him
and his successors. In addition, they provided money and wine for each
galley, and in obedience to the Doge’s orders demolished part of their
walls, that tower which had been expressly built for the Emperor.
They consented that their archbishopric should be subject to the
Patriarchate of Grado, provided that the Pope permitted it.[63] When
these things had been accomplished the Doge appointed the noble youth
Raynerius Joannes (Renier Zane or Zen) as Viscount, and set sail with
his fleet for Romania.”[64]
[Illustration: ONOFRIO’S FOUNTAIN IN THE PIAZZA]
Dandolo’s account is almost identical, and so is that of Sabellico,
save that the latter does not mention the actual storming of the
town. He merely says that the Ragusans sued for peace through their
archbishop, and that they themselves demolished the tower on which the
Imperial standard had been raised. Whichever version we accept, it is
clear that Ragusa again made full submission to the ducal authority,
and came once more under Venetian supremacy. We must not forget that
Tribuno Michiel, the archbishop, was a Venetian, and probably there
was a Venetian party in the city as well as a Byzantine party. When
it became evident that the Venetians were in earnest, the faction
which favoured them at once prevailed. “Esadastes,” as usual, casts
doubts on the whole story, because Dandolo and Sabellico do not agree
as to the attack, but he does not even mention the account of the
_Cronaca Altinate_. Resti denies the submission altogether. It should
be remembered that whereas Dandolo and the author of the Altinate
Chronicle wrote barely a century after the events related, the Ragusan
historians flourished in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries, and wrote with the express purpose of combating all Venice’s
claims over Ragusa.
But, as before, the surrender did not greatly affect the internal
affairs of the city, which continued to be managed by the citizens
themselves. Nor did Venetian suzerainty last long. The campaign
against the Eastern Empire ended most disastrously; the fleet was
decimated by disease, and returned to Venice in 1172 a complete wreck.
Venetian influence in Dalmatia was greatly reduced in consequence,
while that of the Empire revived proportionately, and lasted until
Manuel’s death in 1180. The country was, however, regarded as still in
a measure connected with Venice, and in the treaty of peace which the
latter made with William of Sicily in 1175 he promised not to invade
“the lands which are under the rule of the Doge of Venice and of the
Venetians,”[65] and Dalmatia was included among these.
In the meanwhile Ragusa was developing international relations of a
different character, _i.e._ with the Slavonic principalities of the
interior. In the earliest times Ragusan territory was limited to a
small part of the actual city, and for a long time did not extend
beyond the walls. Constantine Porphyrogenitus informs us that it
bordered on the two states of Zachulmia and Tribunia. The vineyards of
the Ragusans were on the territory of these tribes, and the citizens
paid a yearly tribute of thirty-six _numismata_ (gold pieces) to the
Prince of Zachulmia, and as much to the Prince of Tribunia.[66] As
the population increased they gradually extended their cultivation
to the whole of these districts. The Tribunian vineyards were in the
Župa of Žrnovica (Breno); those of Zachulmia in the Župa of Rijeka
(Ombla), as far as Malfi, and in that of Poljice.[67] The tribute
which the Ragusans paid for this privilege was called _margarisium_
or _magarisium_;[68] its value varied considerably. In 1363 that
due to the Zachulmians was of sixty _ipperperi_, paid by the owners
of the vineyards in proportion to the extent of their holdings.
The Zachulmians, on their side, sent a cow, called the _vacca di
margarisio_, which was divided between the Count of Ragusa and some
of the _boni homines_ (_optimates_) of the city. Later, instead of
one animal, several were sent.[69] Besides the tribute, the Ragusans
paid a tithe in kind to the Slave princelings. From time to time they
made special treaties with their neighbours, usually of a commercial
character. By one of these, which Resti dates 831,[70] Svetimir,
King of Bosnia, agreed to send 50 oxen, 500 sheep and goats, and 200
loads of oats to Ragusa, and to treat the Ragusans in his territory
as though they were his own subjects, while they were to send him
fourteen _braccia_[71] of red cloth. This indicates the city’s economic
position, which enabled it to send manufactured articles from the west
into the Balkan lands, while it bought from the latter the cattle and
foodstuffs which its own limited territory could not provide. Even in
later times most of the grain consumed by the Ragusans was imported
from abroad.
Relations with the Slaves, however, were not always of so peaceable
a character, and the Ragusans were often engaged in little wars with
their turbulent neighbours. The gradual extension of the Ragusan
vineyards was a fertile source of dispute (_lis de vineis_),[72] as
the Republic claimed and finally obtained by prescription the right
to govern the territory in question. Another cause of dispute was
the arrest and ill-treatment to which Ragusan merchants were often
subjected when travelling in the interior. At other times the Ragusans
aroused the ire of the neighbouring princes by giving shelter to their
rebellious subjects. The story of Bodino, in spite of its legendary
character, illustrates this very clearly. This Slavonic prince, having
deposed his uncle, Radoslav,[73] and made himself King of Dalmatia
and Croatia, conquered Bosnia and Servia. But he wished to get rid of
Radoslav’s sons, who still ruled over a small territory on the river
Drina. In this he succeeded by treachery, but their children managed
to escape to Ragusa, and placed themselves under the protection of the
Republic. Bodino demanded that they should be given up to him, and on
the refusal of the Ragusans he besieged their city for seven years.
At the end of this time, finding that his efforts were useless, he
put his cousins to death, and retired with the bulk of his army. But
in order to molest Ragusa he built a castle at the head of the bridge
connecting the town with the mainland, and left a small containing
force behind. The Ragusans obtained possession of this stronghold by
the following stratagem. After having bribed the commanders of the
garrison by promising them land and honours in the city, they allowed
a large consignment of wine to fall into the hands of the enemy; while
the latter were making merry on it the burghers issued forth and put
them all to the sword. The castle was destroyed, and the church of San
Niccolò in Prijeki[74] erected on its site. These events are recorded
as having occurred some time during the eleventh or twelfth century,
but the accounts are by writers who lived several hundreds of years
later. Probably there were wars with the Slaves in which incidents of a
similar character occurred, but the seven years’ siege is pure fiction,
and the name of Bodino is not found in any history of the Serbs or
Croatians.
Another Servian war, on which we possess somewhat more reliable
information, is that which broke out in 1184 between the Ragusans and
Stephen Nemanja, King of the Serbs. An army commanded by the King
himself attacked the city from the land side,[75] while a fleet under
his brother, Miroslav, attacked it by sea. The citizens, under Michele
Bobali, completely defeated the besiegers, who were ignorant of siege
operations and quite unprovided with necessaries. On the Feast of
the Three Martyrs,[76] September 27, 1186, peace was concluded.[77]
Both sides agreed to forget past injuries, and Nemanja granted the
Ragusans permission to trade in all parts of his dominions, while his
own subjects were to be protected at Ragusa; but it was also stipulated
that rebels should be prevented from using the city as a place in which
to conspire against their sovereign. There was another stipulation,
that should the King or his brother ever need a safe refuge, Ragusa
should be open to them—a clause found in many subsequent treaties.
Venice in all that concerned Ragusa’s relations with the Slave states
allowed the citizens to do as they pleased, even during the period when
Venetian counts presided over its government. It was only in questions
concerning maritime affairs that the Queen of the Adriatic asserted her
authority over Ragusa from time to time.
This same year the Normans made another raid into Dalmatia, and
occupied Ragusa and several other coast towns. Norman rule lasted until
1190, and does not seem to have left any traces beyond a few documents.
The treaty of peace, dated September 27, 1186,[78] was drawn up “at
the court of the most glorious King William and of the lord archbishop
Tribunus, in the presence of Tasilgard, the Royal Chamberlain, of all
the nobles, of Gervase the count (of Ragusa), and of all the people.”
This shows that Ragusa was under a Norman count. Document xxii. of the
_Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium_ is a treaty of
peace between Ragusa and the Cazichi (another name for the Narentan,
pirates): “And on the side of the Ragusans, Gervase the count swore
to preserve this peace, without prejudice to his sovereign lord....
In the year of our Lord (1190), in the month of February, on the day
of St. Blaize (the 3rd), the Assembly having been summoned by Gervase
the count to the sound of the bell, we decided,” &c. Document xxiii.,
dated June 13, 1190, is a treaty between this same count of Ragusa
and Miroslav, Prince of the Serbs, in which Gervase promises that the
latter should receive hospitality at Ragusa if he ever required it,
_salvo sacramento domini nostri regi Tancredi_.
The occupation of Ragusa by the Normans is evidently an episode in the
wars which they waged against the Eastern Empire, and the town was
probably seized merely as a basis for further operations. Gervase, who
ruled the whole time, does not seem to have been an absolute despot,
as the consent of the Assembly was required for all the acts of the
Government. Norman rule in Dalmatia did not survive the death of
Tancred and the consequent collapse of the Sicilian kingdom in 1190.
In documents of a date posterior to this, such as the treaty with Fano
in 1199,[79] with Ancona[80] of the same year, with Bari of 1201,[81]
and with Termoli of 1203,[82] no mention either of Venetian or Norman
counts is made, so that we may conclude that for the time being Ragusa
enjoyed freedom from foreign rulers.
But Venice was preparing to re-occupy the whole of Dalmatia, and the
Fourth Crusade of 1202 provided her with the desired opportunity.
The Crusaders began their expedition to the Holy Land by storming
and sacking Zara, where they wintered. In 1204 they captured
Constantinople, subverted the Greek Empire, and set up the ephemeral
Latin Empire of the East in its place, with Baldwin of Flanders as
Emperor. The Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, the prime mover and
leader of the expedition, became “lord of a quarter and a half of
Romania.” In 1205 the Venetians, at the height of their power, demanded
the submission of Ragusa, which was at once tendered. Dandolo (the
historian) thus describes this fourth surrender:—
“Tommaso Morosini, who had been nominated Patriarch (of Constantinople)
by Innocent III., returned to Venice, carrying the Pope’s letters; he
set sail with a fleet of four triremes and made war against the city
of Ragusa, who, at the suggestion of the Greeks, had rebelled against
Venice. The citizens, no longer trusting in the strength of the Greeks,
surrendered their city to the Venetians.”
Two other chronicles[83] give similar accounts of the event. The
indefatigable “Esadastes” of course tries to prove that Ragusa did
not surrender, because the people who had held out so bravely and
successfully against the Saracens 340 years previously would not have
tamely submitted to a squadron of four ships commanded by a priest.
The Ragusan apologist, however, forgets the enormous prestige acquired
by the Venetians as a consequence of their exploits in subverting the
Eastern Empire, after which event Ragusa could not hope to oppose the
greatest Power in the Adriatic with any chance of success.[84]
With this act of submission ends the first period of Ragusan history,
during which the possession, or rather suzerainty over the city was a
matter of dispute between the Venetians and the Greeks, with intervals
of absolute independence, and four years of Norman rule. As, however,
Byzantine influence, not necessarily political, predominates even in
Venice itself, we may call this the Byzantine period. For the next
hundred and fifty years, save for one short interruption, Ragusa
remains under Venetian supremacy.
An important question in connection with the growth of Ragusa is its
ecclesiastical history. Native historians have attempted to prove that
the city was an archiepiscopal see from the earliest times, and that
it succeeded to Salona, whence some of its first settlers had come,
as the metropolis of all Dalmatia. This latter contention proving
quite untenable (the Archbishop of Salona, together with the majority
of the surviving inhabitants, took refuge at Spalato, which became
an archiepiscopal see in consequence), they declare that the Ragusan
archbishops had succeeded to those of Doclea. That city, they assert,
had been destroyed by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, and its archbishop
fled to Ragusa, which became _ipso facto_ an archiepiscopal see. A
more accurate account is that contained in the _Illyricum Sacrum_ of
Farlati. Doclea was destroyed, not by Samuel, who became Tsar of the
Bulgarians in 976, but by Simeon. In fact Porphyrogenitus, who wrote
in 949, mentions the event as having occurred during his own lifetime.
According to the _Illyricum Sacrum_ the exact date was 926. John (the
archbishop) actually did take refuge at Ragusa, where, on the death
of the local bishop, he succeeded to the see, retaining his superior
title by courtesy. His successors wished to continue in the dignity,
and even began to assume metropolitan authority, refusing to obey the
archbishop of Spalato. The dispute lasted many years, and the bishops
of the newly-created see of Antivari[85] claimed that they were the
true successors to the archbishops of Doclea. Pope Gregory VII.
apparently refers to these contentions in his Epistle to Michael, King
of the Slaves.[86] The Roman Pontiff hereby summons “Peter, bishop of
Antivari, the bishop of Ragusa, and other suitable witnesses, by means
of whom the contention between the archbishop of Spalato and Ragusa[87]
may be judicially examined and canonically defined,” to repair to the
Holy See. What Gregory’s decision was we are not informed, but in the
end the see of Ragusa was separated from that of Spalato and erected
into an archbishopric with metropolitan authority. The same thing was
done in the case of Antivari. Thus by the thirteenth century we find
that Dalmatia was divided into three ecclesiastical provinces. The
reasons why the Ragusans were so anxious to have an archbishopric of
their own were political not less than religious. We have seen how
important a personage the Ragusan bishop was in the constitution, and
if he were to owe obedience to a prelate in a foreign and possibly
hostile State, he might be induced to act in a manner prejudicial to
the interests of the Republic. The existence of a separate province,
which lasted down to our own times, also constituted a further
assertion of Ragusan independence.
The importance of the Ragusan Church was further enhanced by the
conversion of the neighbouring Slaves, to whom Ragusa was the nearest
religious centre. Ragusan missionaries went among them to preach the
Gospel, and ecclesiastics from Constantinople made the city their
headquarters and starting-point. The part which Ragusa played in these
conversions explains the gifts which the Servian princes and nobles
made to its churches.[88] In later times religious controversies arose
between the citizens and their neighbours, in consequence of the
heretical and schismatic sects which were spreading throughout the
Balkan lands. Ragusa was nothing if not orthodox, and used all her
influence to second the Papacy in trying to suppress these movements,
which were often countenanced by the kings and princes of Servia
and Bosnia. Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa at the end of the twelfth
century, wished to bring the bishops of Bosnia under his authority,
and the Banus Čulin, who at that time professed himself a Catholic,
consented. But while Bernard was in Rome, Čulin abjured Catholicism
for Bogomilism,[89] and set up Bogomil bishops in opposition to those
consecrated by Bernard. Vulkan, Grand Župan of Chelmo (Zachulmia), did
likewise, and convoked a synod at Antivari.[90]
In 1023 the Benedictine Order came to Ragusa from the Tremiti Islands
under one Peter, and established itself on the island of Lacroma.
Various Serb princes and Ragusan citizens made gifts of land to the
monastery.
The Ragusans were essentially a commercial people, and trade, both
inland and sea-borne, formed the chief source of their wealth. In the
Byzantine period, however, we only find the germs of their future
commercial development. We have already alluded to the part played by
Ragusan shipping, first in the Greek expedition to Apulia in 848, and
then at the battle of Durazzo. But the vessels were small, and the
sea-borne trade of a very limited character. Navigation was of three
kinds—coastwise traffic, navigation _intra Culfum_, and navigation
_extra Culfum_.[91] Coastwise traffic was comprised between the
peninsula of Molonta (a little to the north-west of the Bay of Cattaro)
and the Canale di Stagno, a distance of about 70 kilometres in all,
with ten harbours. Navigation _intra Culfum_, which extended from the
Capo Cumano to Apulia and Durazzo, was of considerable importance even
during the Byzantine epoch. Fine Milan cloths, skins, tan, and canvas
for sails were brought on Ragusan ships from the ports of the Marche
and Apulia, and forwarded to all parts of the Eastern Empire and the
Slavonic lands. All trade to places situated beyond these limits came
under the heading of navigation _extra Culfum_, but we shall defer a
detailed account of its conditions to a later chapter, as it did not
grow to important proportions until the thirteenth century. There
was, however, apparently a Ragusan colony at Constantinople.
[Illustration: THE QUAY AND HARBOUR GATE]
The earliest recorded commercial treaty made by the Republic is the one
of 1169 with Pisa. In 1168 the Republic of Pisa sent three envoys to
Constantinople to settle a contention with Manuel Comnenus. On the way
they stopped at Ragusa, and on May 13, 1169, signed a commercial treaty
with the city, guaranteeing mutual immunities and other privileges. The
Pisan envoys then proceeded on their journey, accompanied by the newly
appointed chief of the Ragusan colony in the Imperial capital.[92]
There were political as well as commercial reasons for this
agreement, in the hostility of both Republics to Venetian supremacy
in the Adriatic. About this time the Ragusans obtained the right of
citizenship at Constantinople, granted to them by Manuel, and confirmed
by his son, Alexius II. The original documents have not been preserved,
but the privilege is frequently alluded to by later writers.
Many treaties with the other towns of Dalmatia, Istria, and Italy
are published in the _Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum
Meridionalium_. Thus in 1188 a perpetual peace was concluded with
Rovigno;[93] in 1190 an agreement with the Cazichi or Narentans[94]
(also called Dalmisiani, from the town of Almissa); in 1191 a treaty
with Fano, and others to which we have already alluded. These
agreements were all similar in character, and their object being to
insure mutual and commercial privileges. Some contained special
clauses exempting the citizens of the contracting cities from certain
taxes and customs dues.
Traffic with the Slavonic states also began early, but the great trade
highways from the coast to the interior were not fully developed until
the next century.
Artistic and intellectual development, in which Byzantine influence
is conspicuous, was still in its infancy, and of the few buildings
of this period with any architectural pretensions only the smallest
traces remain. The town was built chiefly of wood, save for the walls
and a couple of small churches. The oldest edifice of which anything
remains is the Church of San Stefano, mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus as the most important in the town. Four ruined walls
in a court near the diocesan seminary are believed to have belonged
to this very ancient building. The tradition is that it was erected
by Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, or by his widow. Gelcich suggestively
describes what the building must have been like: “In the church of
St. Stephen at Ragusa we must picture to ourselves not a work of art,
but a chapel capable of containing few beyond the ministers at the
altar; low-vaulted, decorated internally, and perhaps externally, with
frescoes; an apse just large enough for the altar, lit by such few rays
of sunlight as could penetrate by an irregular number of holes piercing
the stone slab which closed the single-arched window placed over the
altar.”[95] On the outside wall there is a fragment of bas-relief of
two arches, each containing a cross on a design of foliage. Close by is
the area of a larger church, also in ruins, of a later date, to which
Santo Stefano afterwards served as a sacristy.
Another church of the Byzantine period is that of San Giacomo in
Peline,[96] on the slopes of the Monte Sergio, mentioned by documents
of the thirteenth century as already very ancient. Seen from outside,
there is nothing to tell one that it is a church at all, but internally
it is in good repair, and it is still occasionally used for services.
It is quite plain, and has round arches and vaultings. It consists
of a nave, three bays, and an apse. The single window, which is a
later addition, is to the left of the altar. A small painting of the
fourteenth century is the only ornament. Two other churches—San Niccolò
in Prijeki, and Santa Maria in Castello—although both of this epoch,
were entirely rebuilt in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The
best—one is tempted to say the only—piece of Byzantine sculpture in
the town is a handsomely carved doorway in a chapel near the Duomo.
The design, though simple, is elegant and graceful. On the island of
Lacroma an inscription marks the burial-place of Vitalis, archbishop of
Ragusa from 1023 to 1047.
This, then, is the sum of Byzantine remnants at Ragusa. The name of
Monte Sergio, as Prof. Eitelberger says, is the only relic of the
Oriental Church; while the name of the west gate, Porta Pile or Pille,
is apparently derived from the Greek Πύλαι.
Of literary production it is as yet too early to speak, for Ragusan
literature only begins with the Renaissance.
CHAPTER III
VENETIAN SUPREMACY
I.—THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS, 1204-1276.
During the next hundred and fifty years, save for two or three short
interruptions between 1221 and 1233, Ragusa is admittedly a vassal
state of the Venetian Republic, ruled by Venetian counts appointed
by the Doge. Venice was, however, the protectress rather than the
absolute mistress of the Dalmatian townships, which continued to enjoy
a considerable measure of self-government. Venetian influence was
useful to them as a protection both against the pirates which infested
the Adriatic and the turbulence of the Slavonic princes, although as
regards her relations with the latter, Ragusa, at all events, was free
to manage even her foreign policy to a great extent. It will be well to
examine the conditions of the Slavonic hinterland at this period.
[Illustration: RAGUSA FROM THE EAST]
During the twelfth century the Slave lands were beginning to assume a
semblance of order, and early in the thirteenth century, out of the
chaos of barbarous and more or less independent tribes, four principal
states had taken shape. They were Servia or Rascia, Bosnia, Hlum or
Hum, and Doclea. The most important of these was Servia, welded into
a kingdom by the Nemanja dynasty, who had extended their frontiers
southwards and eastwards at the expense of the Eastern Roman Empire.
It included, besides modern Servia, as far as the Ibar and the Servian
Morava, a part of Bosnia to the east of the watershed between the
rivers Bosna and Drina, the district of Novibazar and Old Servia,
and a part of Albania.[97] It had no regular capital in the modern
sense, but the Kings resided usually at Prizren, at Scutari,[98] or
at Skopje (Üsküb). It touched the sea-coast at the Bocche di Cattaro
and in Albania; and the town of Cattaro was sometimes under Servian
protection. The importance of the country does not begin until the
reign of Stephen Nemanja (1143 or 1159). He extended his territory so
as to include Bosnia in 1169, and reduced all the semi-independent
župans (feudal lords) to subjection. He was still under Byzantine
suzerainty, but after the death of Manuel Comnenus in 1180 he refused
to pay tribute to his successor, conquered Niš, and made Priština[99]
his capital. In 1185 he shook off all allegiance to the Greeks, and
assumed the title of King of Servia, but was not crowned. In 1195
he abdicated in favour of his son, Stephen Uroš, who was crowned
by his younger brother, St. Sava, the first archbishop of Servia.
Stephen Uroš’s reign was peaceful, and Servia flourished under him.
His brother, Vukan, had inherited the Zeta and part of Hlum from his
father, but owed allegiance to Stephen Uroš. When the Latin Empire
of Constantinople was established in 1205, Baldwin recognised him
as independent King of Servia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Uroš died in
1224. His son, Stephen III., captured the town of Vidin or Bdin from
the Bulgarians, and the district of Syrmia between the Save and the
Danube. His brother, Ladislas, who succeeded him, abandoned Vidin on
marrying the Bulgarian Tsar’s daughter. A third brother, Stephen IV.
the Great, succeeded in 1237. With Stephen Uroš II. Milutin (succeeded
1275) Servia is almost at the height of her power. He conquered a large
part of Macedonia, capturing the town of Serres, besieged Salonica
in 1285, and invaded Albania. He added Bosnia, which had been under
Hungarian vassalage, once more to Servia, by divorcing his first wife
and marrying Elizabeth, the daughter of the King of Hungary, who gave
him Bosnia as a dowry. His grandson, Stephen, who was called Dušan or
the Strangler, because he had strangled his own father,[100] succeeded
in 1331, and extended his power over the greater part of the Balkan
peninsula. He conquered the rest of Macedonia and Albania, and reduced
Bulgaria to a state of vassalage. In 1346 he had himself crowned “Tsar
of the Serbs and Greeks.”[101]
Bosnia, which corresponded to the modern region of that name, minus the
eastern districts under Servia and the north-west corner, was ruled by
a Banus who owed allegiance to Hungary. The first Banus, whose name
is recorded in authentic documents, is Borić, who reigned from 1154
to 1163. During the next twenty years the country was under Byzantine
suzerainty, represented at times by Greek governors, at others by
native princes with Imperial diplomas. In 1180 the great Banus Kulin or
Čulin came to the throne, shook off Byzantine authority, and ruled the
country wisely and well for twenty-four years. He cultivated friendly
relations with his neighbours, including Ragusa.[102] “The days of
Čulin” became proverbial in later and less happy times to indicate a
golden age. After Čulin’s death the country’s prosperity declined,
but revived to some extent under Matthew Ninoslav (1232). After the
death of his successor in 1254 Bosnia fell once more under Hungarian
vassalage, and was divided into Bosnia proper (afterwards Bosnia-Mačva)
under native vassal Bani, and the district of Usora and Soli ruled
by Hungarian magnates. After a short period under the Croatian house
of Šubić the native prince, Stephen Kotromanić, became Banus under
Hungarian suzerainty, and reigned until 1353, when his nephew, Stephen
Trvartko or Tvrtko,[103] succeeded him and crowned himself king.
The land of Hlum or Hum had in early times formed part of the kingdom
of Doclea, and included, besides the modern Herzegovina, Tribunia (or
Travunia), the peninsula of Sabbioncello, a long stretch of Dalmatian
coast, and part of Montenegro. In 1015 it was conquered by the
Bulgarian Tsars, whose empire had spread to the Adriatic. The Greek
Emperor, Basil II. (_Bulgaroktonos_), reconquered it in 1019, and in
1050 the native prince Radoslav drove out the Greeks, and made himself
ruler of the country. Among his successors was Bodino, who is said to
have besieged Ragusa. During the twelfth century the Servians attacked
Doclea, and in 1143 King Radoslav II. asked the Greek Emperor for help
against them; but in 1150 Hlum was conquered by Dessa (or Stephen
Nemanja), brother of the King of Servia, reoccupied by the Greeks a
few years later, and in 1168 added once more to the kingdom of Servia.
From 1198 to the beginning of the thirteenth century it was connected
with Croatia, after which it returned once more to the Servians. The
latter were extremely anxious to possess Hlum, because it afforded them
their best opening to the sea (to the north they were cut off by Bosnia
and Croatia). In all probability it continued to form part of Servia
until added to the Bosnian Banate by Stephen Kotromanić about 1320
or 1330, shorn, however, of Stagno by the Ragusans, as we shall see
subsequently.[104]
Ragusa was thus surrounded on all her land frontiers by powerful
Slavonic states, who at times were friendly, but envied her wealth,
and above all her splendid port; of this they tried on more than one
occasion to gain possession. Ragusa relied for safety on their own
dissensions and on Venetian protection. In the meantime she made the
most of her position by exploiting their territory for commercial
purposes.
Of the first twenty years of Venetian rule there is little to
record. Of the counts, only one name is mentioned between 1204 and
1222—Giovanni Dandolo,[105] who may have ruled during the whole
period. But about this time there occurred a curious event in the
history of the town, which is described as a Ragusan version of
the story of Marin Faliero. It is variously represented as having
occurred about 1221-1223 or 1230-1232. The earlier date appears to
be more probable, for reasons which we shall explain. Apparently for
a few years previously Ragusa had been enjoying what was practically
absolute freedom, as no Venetian count had been appointed. In 1221
or thereabouts a certain Damiano Giuda or Juda was elected count by
popular assembly. But instead of resigning the dignity after six
months, which had been the usual period during the intervals of
independence, he continued in office illegally for two years; he
tyrannised over the people, subjected his enemies to arbitrary arrest,
exile, and confiscation, and kept a bodyguard of mercenaries.[106]
The citizens tired of this misgovernment, and were willing to call in
the Venetians once more. A conspiracy was set on foot to bring about
the tyrant’s downfall, under the leadership of his own son-in-law,
Pirro Benessa. What increased the discontent among the Ragusans was
the fact that since the rupture with Venice that Republic had ceased
to protect them against piracy, and their maritime trade suffered in
consequence. Giuda’s arbitrary proceedings had also caused trouble with
the other Dalmatian towns. A group of nobles met to discuss the matter,
and although some, including Vito and Michele Bobali, opposed any
suggestion that Venetian aid should be resorted to, their objections
were overruled, and it was decided to send a deputation to Venice,
headed by Pirro Benessa himself. On its arrival it was well received,
and the Government sent a squadron of six galleys down the Adriatic,
ostensibly to escort the Patriarch of Constantinople. It weighed anchor
at Ragusa, where Benessa landed and visited the tyrant, advising him to
come and pay his respects to the Patriarch and the Venetian admiral.
Not suspecting treachery Giuda agreed, and went on board the principal
galley. He was instantly seized and loaded with chains, and the fleet
sailed away. When he found himself thus outwitted, in a fit of rage
and despair he committed suicide by beating his head against the sides
of the vessel. In exchange for this deliverance the Ragusans agreed to
readmit the Venetian counts.
How far this story is authentic we cannot decide, but in its main
features it is probably true. It may be that Damiano Giuda was a
patriot, whose object was to consolidate Ragusa as a free city,
independent of all Venetian tutelage, but that he felt that the
community was still too weak to stand alone unless ruled by a strong
personal government. Or he may have been, as most historians make
him out, merely an ambitious citizen, like those who made themselves
masters of the various Italian city-republics. Be that as it may, the
important point is the subsequent connection between Ragusa and Venice.
There is a letter addressed to one Velcinno,[107] Podestà of Spalato,
which alludes to “Zellovellus ragusiensis comes,” and to the story of
Damiano Giuda. This Velcinno is probably the same as Buysinus, who was
podestà from 1221 to 1223. This would indicate that the episode was
over not later than 1223, and that Zellovellus had come as Venetian
count. We know that Damiano tyrannised for two years, so he must have
entered office at least as early as 1221. But as he had been elected by
the people and not appointed by the Doge, Ragusa must at that time have
been independent of Venice. Now there are documents of 1224 and 1226 in
which the Ragusans are reprimanded for having failed to send hostages
to Venice and otherwise fulfil their promises. The final treaty of
submission regulating Venetian suzerainty over Ragusa is dated 1232.
Pisani concludes from this that the Zellovello letter is a forgery;
that Ragusa shook off Venetian supremacy between 1224 and 1226,
remained free and independent until 1230, when Giuda became tyrant;
and that the submission of 1232 was the price which the Ragusans paid
for being freed from him.[108] Professor Gelcich, however, holds to
the authenticity of the Zellovello letter,[109] but does not allude
to the documents of 1224 and 1226 regarding the hostages and the
prohibition to the Ragusans against trading with Alexandria.[110] It
is, I think, probable that these documents refer to a later rebellion
against Venetian authority. Venice had helped the Ragusans to shake
off domestic tyranny, say, about 1223, exacting in exchange certain
promises of allegiance and a number of hostages. These stipulations
were not fulfilled; hence the protests referred to in the documents of
1224 and 1226. Venice, however, did not press her claims, and Ragusa
remained more or less independent.[111] Finally, on finding that the
city could not yet stand alone, or fearing that Venice was preparing
to re-establish her authority by force of arms, the citizens made a
voluntary submission in 1232. This view is corroborated by the fact
that in the treaty of 1232 no mention is made either of Damiano Giuda
or of Pirro Benessa, who headed the conspiracy against him and the
deputation to Venice. The negotiations were carried on between the
Venetian Government and two Ragusan nobles, Binzola Bodazza[112] and
Gervasio Naimerio.
[Illustration: TORRE MENZE]
The treaty of 1232 fixes the terms of Ragusa’s dependence. “We, the
envoys of Ragusa,” it begins, “seeing that it appears to us of great
advantage that our country should be subject to Venetian domination,
beg that you should grant us a Venetian count according to our
desires.” Ragusa was always to have Venetian counts in future, who
were to be chosen by the Doge with the majority of his councillors.
“The count shall swear fealty to the Doge and to his successors, and
thus will all future counts to all future Doges for ever. Also all the
men of the county (of Ragusa) above thirteen years of age shall swear
fealty to the lord Doge and his successors, and they shall renew their
oath every ten years. They shall also swear fealty to the count and
all his successors for ever, ‘salva fidelitate domini ducis ad honorem
Venecie et salutem Ragusii.’” Should the Doge ever visit Ragusa he was
to be honourably lodged in the Archbishop’s palace.
It was further agreed that the Ragusans should always choose a Venetian
for their archbishop, namely, a man born at any place between Grado
and Cavarzere, and that he should be subject to the authority of the
Patriarch of Grado, if the Pope permitted it.[113] He, too, must swear
allegiance to the Doge and his successors, whose praises the clergy
must solemnly sing in the cathedral at Christmas, at Easter, and on the
feast of San Biagio.
The treaty specifies the mutual obligations of the two cities in naval
matters. When the Venetian fleet puts to sea for war beyond Brindisi
and Durazzo, for every thirty Venetian galleys Ragusa must provide one,
and the Ragusan ships are to remain in commission as long as those of
Venice. Ragusa may levy the same tolls on all foreign ships as are
levied at Venice, and the proceeds are to be divided in equal parts
between the Count, the Archbishop, and the Commune. The friends of
the Venetians are to be the friends of the Ragusans, and the enemies
of the Venetians their enemies. They must not have any dealings with
the Almissans, the Narentans, and other pirates. Whenever Venice sends
a fleet against the pirates, Ragusa must provide at least one good
ship with fifty men. As regards tribute, “the Ragusans must give 12
_ipperperi_ to the Doge and 100 gold _ipperperi_ of the right weight to
the Venetian commonwealth on the feast of San Biagio. At the same time
the Commune must give 400 _ipperperi_ to the Count, as well as all the
other usual revenues and honours, save the salt revenue. The Ragusans
must send twelve hostages, belonging to as many noble families, to
Venice; of these, half are to be changed every six months.” The
Ragusans must pay 5 per cent. on all goods which they bring to Venice
from the Eastern Empire, 20 per cent. on those from Egypt, Tunis,
and Barbary; 2½ per cent. on those from Sicily. Merchandise from
Slavonia was free of duty. Ragusa could only send four ships of seventy
_miliari_[114] to Venice each year on these terms; all further traffic
was subject to higher duties; the Ragusans could not trade with
foreigners in Venice, nor with countries where the Venetians could not
trade.
The document ends with renewed oaths of allegiance to Venice on behalf
of the Ragusans.[115] “Esadastes” admits that Ragusa really did submit
to Venice in 1232, but declares this treaty to be a forgery, having
only seen it in Nani’s _De Duobus Imperatoris Rasciæ Nummis_, where
it is incomplete. He bases his contention, first, on the fact that
the provision as to the archbishops being Venetians was not always
complied with. This, however, proves nothing, as there is no reason
why Venice should not sometimes have allowed the Ragusans to choose
some foreigner if no suitable Venetian were forthcoming. He adds that
the Ragusan envoys had no authority to surrender the city without
consulting the Grand Council, and as Damiano Giuda was then ruling, it
could not be summoned. This is merely an ingenious quibble, and, if we
admit that nine years had elapsed since the expulsion of the tyrant,
the argument has no value at all. Then he changes his line, and insists
that Ragusa merely contracted a _fœdus_ or _fidelitas_, _i.e._ a treaty
of friendship, with Venice, and not a _deditio_ or true submission, and
that in agreeing to have Venetian counts Ragusa did nothing more than
what Florence and other Italian cities did when they chose foreigners
for the position of _podestà_, without thereby prejudicing their
liberty. It is easy to see that there is a considerable difference
between the action of the Italian Republics, who chose their rulers
now from one town and now from another, and that of Ragusa, who was
obliged to accept Venetian counts appointed by the Doge.[116]
Venetian rule was now heavier than it had been previously; the Count
made his influence felt more strongly, no important State business
being transacted without his authority, and Ragusa was obliged to pay
a tribute both in money and ships to the _Dominante_. The ceremonial
observed on the arrival of the new Count was very elaborate; it is
described in all its details in the statute-book of Marco Giustiniani
(1272):—
“We decide that the lord Count who will come to Ragusa for a period,
shall swear in the public assembly summoned by the sound of the bell to
govern the city well, to maintain and guard its ancient constitutions
and statutes, and to give judgment according to their provisions.
After swearing this oath the standard of San Biagio, Pontiff and
Martyr, shall be delivered into the hand of the said lord Count by the
Commune of Ragusa, and thus will he be invested in the piazza with
the countship and governorship. Afterwards he will immediately repair
with the standard to the principal church, where he will receive holy
water, incense, and a Bible, on which he shall renew his oath, from the
cathedral chapter. Then one of the canons preaches a sermon praising
the Doge and the Count. The latter returns to the piazza with the
standard, to receive the homage of the people, who, after the standard
of St. Mark has been raised, swear to maintain the pact made with
the Venetian Republic. One citizen shouts, another shouts, all shout
together: ‘Long live our Lord N.N., the magnificent Doge of Venice!’
and all and sundry in Ragusa and its territory vow to be loyal to the
said Doge and the Commune of Venice for ever, gladly accepting the
standard of the blessed St. Mark the Evangelist presented unto them by
the lord Doge himself.”[117]
This account gives us a vivid picture of mediæval municipal life with
all its picturesque splendour and its characteristic admixture of
religion and politics. The piazza of Ragusa, with what was then the
castle, the imposing church, the frowning walls, and the small wooden
houses—for it was still mostly of timber—formed a suitable setting for
the ceremony.
The Count was assisted by two lieutenants or viscounts, usually, but
not invariably, Venetians, each of whom received a salary of fifty
Venetian pounds, paid by the Ragusans, and two new suits of State robes
every year. The Count remained in office on an average two years, and
during his tenure he might not leave the city even for a single day. He
could, however, obtain special permission from Venice to leave Ragusa
for not more than eight days, but only on public business, such as
arranging treaties with neighbouring princes.
Apparently there was another break in Venetian rule about 1235, as
in a treaty of that year with Koloman, Count of Almissa,[118] and in
another with Rimini,[119] no mention is made of the Venetian count. In
January 1236 Ragusan envoys went to Venice to renew the treaty of 1232,
but with modified conditions in favour of greater independence. The
Signory, however, would not give way, and the treaty was reconfirmed
in June on almost identical terms.[120] From this date Venetian
overlordship continued without interruption and without modification
until 1358.
As soon as the internal affairs of the Republic were settled the
citizens proceeded to regulate their relations with their Slavonic
neighbours. At this time the Banus of Bosnia, Ninoslav, was animated by
friendly feelings towards Ragusa. In 1234 he had signed a treaty with
the count confirming the privileges granted by Čulin in 1189. On March
22, 1240, he paid a solemn visit to the city with a splendid retinue of
nobles, and renewed the old treaties with the following proclamation:
“It was the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I, Matthew Ninoslav,
the Grand Banus of Bosnia, had the good thought of coming to Ragusa to
my old friends the nobles and commons; I came with my magnates, and
we found Niccolò Tonisto, the Count of Ragusa. I, with my magnates,
made oath to him of eternal peace and friendship.” He adds: “My
subjects and my people and my officers shall love you, and with true
faith protect you from the wicked.” He granted them full commercial
freedom throughout his Banate. He alludes to a dispute between Stephen
Vladislav, King of Servia, and promises not to abandon them should they
actually have to make war. This treaty was renewed in 1249.[121]
The next few years were peaceful, save for a small religious dispute,
and Ragusa continued to develop her resources quietly. The new Count,
Niccolò Tonisto, however, complained to the Pope that the Archbishop
Arrengerius was a Roman and not a Venetian,[122] and even accused him
of heresy because he had consecrated a priest of Patarene tendencies
as Bishop of Bosnia. Arrengerius was thereupon translated elsewhere,
and succeeded by a Venetian named John, to whom the diocese of Antivari
was assigned as well,[123] much to the gratification of the Ragusans.
The clergy and congregation of this second diocese, however, were not
so pleased, and refused to recognise his authority. John’s attempts to
compel obedience only resulted in inducing Stephen Uroš, surnamed the
Great, King of Servia, to take up the quarrel of Antivari and make a
raid on Ragusan territory (1252). Uroš complained that the Ragusans
were strengthening their fortifications—a very natural precaution—and
on this pretext attacked the city. The new count Marsilio (or Marino)
Giorgi[124] was sent as Venetian ambassador to expostulate with
him, but on reaching Ragusa he refused to proceed further, and two
citizens were sent in his stead.[125] The latter proceeded to stir up
and doubtless bribe Uroš’s vassals, so that he thought it best for
the present to renew their privileges, but hostilities soon broke out
again. The Ragusans made an alliance with Michael, the Bulgarian Tsar,
and with Radoslav, Count of Hlum, against the Serbs which brought Uroš
to reason, and in 1254 the differences were settled by _stanico_.[126]
Radoslav had visited Ragusa in person that same year, and the treaty of
friendship which was thus concluded is embodied in two documents. In
the first the Ragusan commonwealth swears to the Župan Radoslav and his
magnates that the city will be at peace with them according to ancient
custom, and that they shall always have free access to its market. “And
all this we wish to do and maintain to you and your people, without
prejudice to our oaths to the Lord Doge and the commonwealth of Venice,
and to the Lord Michael, Tsar of the Bulgarians.”[127] In the second
document Radoslav promises to make war with all his strength against
King Uroš, and to defend Ragusa by sea and land; he also added that he
would remain at peace with Michael for so long as the latter’s treaty
with Ragusa lasted.[128]
The archbishop, who had been the original cause of all the trouble, had
naturally become extremely unpopular, and when in his zeal for Venetian
supremacy he proposed to carry out the provision of the treaty of 1232
by placing himself under the authority of the Patriarch of Grado, his
position became untenable, and he was forced to abdicate (1257). The
Ragusans obtained from the Pope that his successor should not be a
Venetian. Another Venetian, however, was appointed in 1276.
In 1266 the quarrel with Servia broke out afresh. The King was angry,
according to Resti, because a number of his nobles quitted the country
and settled at Ragusa. This statement, if true, is interesting, as it
is the first immigration of Slaves on a large scale into the city after
the early settlements between the seventh and the tenth centuries. But
again the quarrel was settled by _stanico_, and the Ragusans agreed
to pay Uroš the tribute of 2000 _ipperperi_ in exchange for increased
privileges and the confirmation of their rights over the disputed
territories at Breno, Gionchetto, &c.[129]
The year 1272 is a very important one in Ragusan annals, as it is
the date of the promulgation of the statute-book by the Count Marco
Giustiniani. Hitherto the constitution and laws of Ragusa had been
based on custom, altered and modified by statutes. Giustiniani codified
all the existing sources of Ragusan jurisprudence into a corpus called
the _Liber Statutorum_. Dalmatian law is based on a Roman substratum,
with additions from local statutes, Slavonic customs, and certain
commercial and maritime statutes. The contents of the new code are
summed up in the following mnemonic distich:—
“Elligit officia comes civitatis in _primo_,
Officiis fides datur sacrata _secundo_,
Causa litis sequitur _terno_ sub ordine libri,
Conjugis inscripsit _quarto_ dotalia bona,
Ordo datur domibus _quinto_ plateasque divisit,
Judicis officium crimen exposit in _sexto_,
_Septimo_ navigii additur, et mercium ordo,
_Octavo_ in codice diversa colligit auctor.”
The introduction, which is full of generalities and abstract ideas,
after the manner of the time, states that the object of the code was
to collect the statutes of the Ragusan Republic, “to harmonise the
discrepancies, suppress superfluities, supply omissions, explain
obscurities, so that nothing superfluous, obscure, or captious should
remain in them.” The first book defines the position, rights, and
duties of the count and of the other chief functionaries of the
Republic, and deals with sundry financial matters. The second book
contains the _formulæ_ and oaths of each officer of State; and in cap.
xxiv. the salaries of the Ragusan envoys[130] to foreign countries were
fixed. The third embodies the law of procedure and the judicial system,
and sets forth the rules for the _stanico_, or international court
of arbitration, to which we have already alluded. This institution
was a peculiarly Serbo-Dalmatian one, and deserves examination. The
statute of 1272 describes it as an _antica consuetudo_. It was of two
kinds, the _plenarium stanicum_, or full court, and the _parvum_, or
minor court. The full _stanicum_ was agreed upon by the Government
of Ragusa and that of some other State with whom the former had a
dispute. Each side elected an equal number of judges, who met at some
place easily accessible to both capitals, and, if possible, on neutral
ground, _i.e._ in the territory of some State not concerned in the
dispute. Thus in disputes between Ragusa and Zara the spot chosen was
Santa Maria di Lesina, on the island of that name; for those between
Ragusa and Sebenico, Traù, Spalato, Almissa, or Lesina, the _stanicum_
met at or near Prevlaka (near Stagno); if the quarrel was with Hlum,
at Malfi; if with the Serbs, at Gionchetto or Cresta; if with the
Bosnians, at Trebinje, Popovo, or Canali. The dispute was settled by
compromise rather than by arbitration, and each party was represented
by State officials. The _parvum stanicum_ was convened to settle
private disputes between Ragusans and citizens of one of the Slave
states (it was not resorted to in the case of disputes with the other
Dalmatian towns). The presence of representatives of the two States was
not necessary. But often when such disputes arose the parties would
agree to defer settling them until the full _stanicum_ met, provided
that such a one was to take place shortly. It was not necessary that
all private international disputes should be settled in this manner,
and the plaintiff was free to summon his adversary before the latter’s
own tribunal. He only resorted to it when he feared that he could not
obtain justice from the foreign court. In proceedings by _stanicum_,
the old Teutonic and Slavonic system of the _conjuratio_ was applied,
by which each party produced a number of relations and friends, who
swore to the veracity of their kinsman; if any one was convicted of
perjury, the curse fell on the whole clan alike. The institution exists
to this day in Montenegro, Albania, and in certain districts of South
Dalmatia and the Herzegovina.[131]
The fourth book deals with marriage, wills, and family affairs. The
fifth deals with municipal regulations, building laws and contracts,
land tenure, &c. The sixth is the criminal code, and also contains
fiscal enactments and smuggling laws. The seventh regulates shipping,
the relations between officers and crew, agreements for voyages,
marine insurance, responsibilities and risks. The last book contains
enactments on divers matters. It became law on May 9, 1272.
This code, although it is imperfect and not altogether well
constructed, marks a great improvement on previous legislation, and
compares favourably with the statutes of many of the more famous
Italian Republics. The shipping and commercial enactments are often
excellent, and parts of the code, especially those relating to land
tenure and certain forms of contract, are still valid at Ragusa.
The _Liber Statutorum_ was afterwards added to and enlarged, and
numbers of new laws were enacted. Until 1357 these were incorporated in
the Statute-book, but after the last Venetian count had left in that
year a new code was begun, called the _Liber Viridis_ or Green Book,
which contains all the new laws down to 1460. Then the _Liber Croceus_
or Yellow Book was begun, and continued down to 1791. The last laws
of the Republic, from 1791 to its fall in 1808, are preserved in the
_Parti dei Pregadi_. The deliberations and enactments of the various
assemblies are contained in the _Liber Reformationum_, which was begun
in 1306. Of all these collections of enactments, only the last has been
published, but not in a complete form (see Bibliography). In addition,
there are various minor collections containing the edicts of certain
special bodies.
We shall now make a brief examination of the Ragusan constitution,
which by this time had assumed the form which, with certain
alterations, it preserved down to the fall of the Republic. Even
the fact that in 1358 the Venetian counts were superseded by native
Rectors did not change the internal constitution of the State to any
considerable extent. The constitution since the early days of the
city’s existence had undergone much the same transformation as that
of Venice, and tended to become even more aristocratic. The _laudo
populi_ was still maintained,[132] but it was resorted to less and less
frequently as years went by; and after having been an empty formality
for some time, at the end of the period of Venetian suzerainty it had
ceased to exist. The _Liber Statutorum_ was confirmed “per populum
Rhacusinum more solito (_i.e._ to the sound of a bell) congregatum,”
but by that time all power was invested in the aristocracy. Only nobles
might aspire to any but the humblest offices of the State, and every
noble had a voice at least in the Grand Council. As at Venice there was
the Golden Book, at Ragusa there was the _Specchio_, containing the
names of all the noble families. These were as a rule the descendants
of the original Latin colonists from Epidaurus and Salona, or, in a
few cases, of those early Slave refugees who were nobles in their own
country. The names themselves have an Italian sound, although most
of them are unlike any real Italian names.[133] There was a fairly
large part of the population of Slavonic origin, but the official,
and to a great extent the popular, language was Italian. The laws and
deliberations and official documents[134] are all either in Latin or
Italian, and the general character of the community was prevalently
Italian, modified to some extent by Slavonic influences. The latter
tended to increase, especially after the end of Venetian suzerainty,
and by the middle of the sixteenth century the bulk of the lower
classes spoke the Servian language.
The head of the State, as we have seen, was the Count, who represented
Venetian authority, summoned the councils, and signed all public acts.
No act was valid without his approval, but, on the other hand, he could
not make decrees without the assistance and consent of the councils. Of
these there were three—namely, the _Consilium Minus_, the _Consilium
Majus_, and the _Rogati_ or _Pregadi_.
The Minor Council, which had in all probability existed in a
rudimentary form from the earliest times, had now developed into an
important body. It acted as the Count’s privy council, it arranged
all official ceremonies, and gave audience to foreign ambassadors
and envoys to Ragusa. It also acted as a sort of Court of Chancery,
protected widows and orphans from injury, and watched over the morals
of the citizens. It examined the deliberations of the other bodies on
taxes, dues, and the rents, income, and real property of the State.
On simpler matters it gave decisions, and others it referred to the
Senate. It was an intermediary between private individuals and the
State, and heard all complaints against the magistrates and other
officials. It consisted of the Count and eleven members, of whom
five formed the _Corte Maggiore_, or High Court of Justice, for all
important cases.[135] The members were all men of mature age, and
remained in office for a year only. Six made a quorum.
The Senate (_Rogati_) was the most influential of the three Councils,
and transacted a great part of the business of the State. It imposed
all taxes, tributes, and customs duties, decided how the money of
the State should be spent or invested, and dealt with many other
financial matters. It conducted the foreign affairs of the Republic,
and nominated ambassadors and consuls. It was the Supreme Court of
Appeal for criminal cases, and after 1440 for civil cases as well.
It appointed a number of State officials, such as the Provveditori
of the Arsenal, the financial secretaries, and the functionaries
who attended to the supply of provisions. The number of Senators
varied considerably. At the date of the Statute Book they were
thirty-five;[136] later they rose to sixty-one. The body included
the Count or Rector, the eleven Minor Councillors, various high
functionaries, and a number of unofficial members. They met four times
a week, and remained in office for a year, but might be re-elected,
“for the Republic desires that her sons should exercise themselves in
this kind of council, so that they may become Senators of judgment,
and learn by long and continual experience the method and practice of
governing excellently.”[137] By a decree of 1331[138] it was decided
that thirty Senators made a quorum.
[Illustration: GENERAL VIEW, FROM THE WEST]
The Grand Council was the ultimate basis of the State, and was
composed of all nobles above twenty years of age,[139] including the
Minor Councillors, the Senators, and all the officials. Its numbers
usually ranged from 200 to 300. It met in September, and the list of
vacant offices were read out by the Count. The Secretary called up the
Councillors one by one, drawing the numbers of all the seats from a
bag. Each Councillor then drew a ball from an urn, which contained a
number of gold balls equal to that of the offices to be filled; those
who drew the gold balls took their seats beside the Count and Minor
Council, and ordered the Secretary to nominate three Councillors for
each office. As each name was called out the Councillor in question
and his nearest relatives left the hall and waited outside. Then all
the remaining Councillors were given linen balls, which they were to
drop into another urn divided into two sections, one for the ayes and
one for the noes. If none of the three candidates received more than
half the votes recorded, the election was repeated. No one might refuse
the office thus conferred upon him, save a small number of persons who
could obtain a dispensation by paying a small fine.[140]
The Grand Council ratified all the laws of the Republic; it gave the
final decision for peace or war, although the diplomatic function was
reserved to the Senate; it could recall exiles, it received petitions,
and it managed many of the daily affairs of the city. Sixty members
(including the Count and the Minor Council) formed a quorum.
Besides the three Councils, there were a number of special bodies
appointed for different purposes. Thus there was the _Corte Maggiores_
or _Major Curia_, already alluded to, whose sentences in civil matters
were without appeal until 1440; the _Minor Curia_ or Lower Court,
with special advocates attached to each; the _Advocatores Comunis_
or Public Prosecutors, and many other functionaries. The three
_Camarlenghi_ kept the public accounts, and the _Doanerii_ supervised
the customs. The four Treasurers of Santa Maria had important fiscal
duties in guarding the State treasury and paying out the public
money according to the decrees of the Senate. They also had certain
charitable duties, and spent the income of invested surpluses in
providing poor girls with dowries, and later in ransoming Christian
slaves from the Turks or the Barbary pirates. Private citizens, and
even foreigners from Slave lands, often appointed them executors of
their wills. Originally they had been the guardians of the relics and
treasury of the Cathedral, but as they gradually came to have so large
a share of the financial business of the Republic on their hands,
in 1306 another board, called the _Procurators Sanctæ Mariæ_, was
instituted to manage the affairs of the Church, and act with powers
of attorney for various religious confraternities. A similar body was
formed when the church of St. Blaize was erected in 1349. The notary of
the Republic, who drafted all public acts, patents, diplomas, &c., was
usually an expert Italian lawyer.
There were numbers of other officers for different departments of
the administration and for the purposes of defence, such as those
_super sale_, _super blado comunis_, _super turribus_, the _capitani
di custodia_, who were elected every month, and the captains of the
_sestieri_ or six wards, into which Ragusa was divided. All the
citizens in turn had to bear arms for the defence of the town, and
certain nobles, who were changed very frequently, commanded the guard,
and saw that the gates were securely fastened at night. The rest
of the Republic’s territory was ruled by officers appointed by the
Grand Council, called counts, viscounts, or captains. They governed
despotically, and no native of the territory had any voice in the
administration. In many cases the Government was very tyrannical and
arbitrary. Ragusan ideas of liberty were not only restricted to a
limited class, but did not extend a yard beyond the walls. Only the
island of Lagosta, purchased in 1216 from Stephen Uroš, King of Servia,
was permitted to retain its own customs and laws.
It will thus be seen that the Constitution was essentially copied from
that of Venice, and was designed above all to make personal government
impossible. None of the officials, save the Venetian Count, remained in
office for more than a year, and the great majority of them could not
be re-elected for two years afterwards. Everything was done to prevent
individuals from acquiring undue influence, and to make the Government
as collective as possible. All business was executed by boards and
committees, and hardly anything by single individuals. Every detail
was carefully regulated, so as to leave no loophole for tampering with
the institutions or suspending the continuity of the Government. The
result was from some points of view satisfactory. In the whole history
of Ragusa only three or four revolutions are recorded—almost a unique
distinction among the city-republics of Italy and other European lands,
whose history is one long tale of civil wars and seditions. Venice
alone enjoyed a similar though less complete immunity. On the other
hand, it gave the Executive very little power of acting energetically
and pursuing a bold, broad-minded policy, and prevented Ragusa from
expanding into a first-class maritime State, as it had more than one
opportunity of doing. At the same time, had it become really powerful,
and acquired a hegemony over a large part of the Adriatic littoral and
of the Slave lands, it would have run greater risks at the hands of
the Turks. Venice, who felt the need of a swift and silent executive,
instituted the Council of Ten, to which the Ragusan constitution offers
no parallel. The Ragusan Senate was too numerous a body to act in the
same way, and in it those who hesitated and doubted usually carried the
day.
We realise the character of the Ragusan constitution from the fact that
so few individuals have left their mark on the town’s history. We read
of the various noble families whose names appear again and again in the
public records, but hardly any single citizen emerges high above the
others. The few names which are remembered are those of scholars, men
of letters, or scientists. Even the ambassadors were always sent in
pairs, although in the Middle Ages this was not peculiar to Ragusa.
Another aspect was that the three Councils who had to transact all
the weightiest matters of the Republic were also overwhelmed with the
petty details of municipal administration. This of course was difficult
to avoid in the case of a small city-republic, but it constituted
the radical failing of that type of state, for its Government was a
parliament, a court of justice, and a town council all in one. The same
body might be called upon to decide on an alliance with Hungary and on
the seaworthiness of a carrack in the same sitting.
In diplomatic affairs, however, the Ragusans were past-masters.
The Republic was in constant danger from the powerful enemies which
surrounded it on all sides. The Venetians, who claimed the monopoly
of the Adriatic, were ever anxious to increase their influence and
to become absolute masters of the city, as they were of the other
Dalmatian towns, and after their retirement from Ragusa in 1358 they
made many attempts to reinstate their authority. On the mainland
there was the King of Servia, the Banus of Bosnia, the Lord of Hlum,
watching for an opportunity to occupy Ragusa, whose splendid harbour
they envied. But the city fathers, by a policy which was often
tortuous and not always straightforward, certainly achieved their
object of preserving the Republic’s autonomy. Although Ragusa was
never absolutely independent—for she either had a Venetian Count or
paid a tribute to this or that Power—she was always free from foreign
control in her internal affairs, and to a great extent in her external
relations. The Government always knew when to give way and when to hold
out; this feature became particularly conspicuous in the Republic’s
dealings with the Turks.
Of the non-noble citizens we hear very little. They played no part in
the Government, and were ineligible save for the very lowest offices.
On the whole, they seem to have acquiesced in the oligarchical
constitution, and apparently had little desire to take part in public
affairs. They were ruled with wisdom and without oppression, free from
faction fights, and their commercial interests, being identical with
those of the aristocracy, were well cared for and protected by the
Government. Both classes derived their wealth from trade.
CHAPTER IV
VENETIAN SUPREMACY
II.—SERVIAN AND BOSNIAN WARS, 1276-1358
To return to our story; in 1276 Ragusa was once more threatened from
outside. The King of Servia[141] determined to make another attempt
to convert Ragusa into a Servian seaport; he crossed the mountains
with a large army and raided the territory of the Republic. A Ragusan
force sent against him was defeated, and its leader, Benedetto Gondola,
captured and hanged. Elated by this success, the King marched forward
and tried to capture Ragusa itself by a _coup de main_. But the
citizens were prepared, and the city put in a state of defence. The
massive walls and well-armed battlements baffled the Servian king, and
the Count Pietro Tiepolo, who had called in a Venetian contingent to
stiffen the Ragusan levies, defeated the enemy. The Venetian Government
sent a deputation to the King threatening him with severe reprisals if
he dared to attack the cities under Venetian protection, whereupon the
Servians retired and peace was made.[142] Ten years later the King of
Servia, being offended with the Republic, harried and plundered its
merchants, raided Ragusan territory, and tried to capture the city, but
was again defeated.
Ragusa’s relations with Venice were on the whole satisfactory. There
were occasional complaints on the part of the Venetian Government that
the Ragusans did not fulfil their treaty obligations and failed to
send the promised galleys to take part in the expeditions against the
Almissan pirates and other enemies.[143] On other occasions they were
blamed for delaying goods (chiefly grain) which passed through the city
on the way to Venice. However, when in 1296 Ragusa was almost entirely
destroyed by fire, the Venetians showed generosity in providing money
and building materials,[144] and the Count Marino Morosini (1296-1298)
issued a decree for rebuilding the city on a handsomer scale.[145]
During the Genoese war Ragusa lent four galleys to the Venetians, which
took part in the battle of Curzola, and after that disastrous defeat
the Ragusan ships lent aid to the scattered remnants of the Venetian
fleet (1298).
Ragusa had considerable intercourse with the neighbouring Dalmatian
townships, especially with Cattaro, which was one of the oldest
city-republics on the coast. But there were frequent quarrels
between the two communities, partly through the intrigues of the
Slavonic princes, and partly on account of commercial rivalries, both
towns being competitors for the salt trade from the coast to the
interior.[146] Cattaro had sometimes been under the protection of the
Servian kings, who used it as their seaport, and sometimes under
that of Venice. But in 1257 a treaty was made by which the Cattarini
promised in the event of a war between the Serbs and Ragusa to do
their best to harass the former without openly espousing the latter’s
cause, and each Republic was to try and promote arbitration if the
other was at war. We are not told how this curious compact was carried
out, but it was not by any means an unusual arrangement among these
semi-independent Dalmatian townships.
In 1301 or 1302 there was another Servian war, in which Venice and
Ragusa co-operated, caused by a quarrel with Cattaro. This town was now
under Venetian protection, but continued to hold underhand intercourse
with the Slaves. The Venetians protested, and Stephen Uroš, who called
himself “King of Servia, Melinia, Albania, Chelmo, Doclea, and the
maritime region,”[147] made another raid on Ragusan territory, burning
the houses, destroying the crops, and murdering many of the inhabitants
and making prisoners of others.[148] The Venetians, however, came to
the rescue, and ordered their _Capitano in Golfo_, or Admiral of the
Adriatic, to remain with the fleet at Ragusa for so long as the city
should be in any danger. The Serbs were defeated on several occasions,
and finally induced to listen to the remonstrances of the Venetian
ambassadors.[149] In 1302[150] peace was made, and as the Ragusans had
suffered much during the war, and the devastating raids had caused a
famine, they were allowed to retain the grain destined for Venice, and
received loans and other favours.
For the next fourteen years there was peace, and Ragusa remained
undisturbed save for one or two small disputes with Venice about
certain _prava statuta_, which denied all value to the evidence of
Venetian witnesses at Ragusa.[151] But in 1316 another quarrel broke
out with Uroš, who arrested and plundered a number of Ragusan traders.
Venetian attempts at conciliation proved fruitless,[152] and in 1317
war broke out. The Count Paolo Morosini wrote that “much serious
damage has been done to the commune and people of Ragusa in their
persons and property by Uroš and his people, who have again raided our
territory.” Among other damage, the Franciscan monastery outside the
Porta Pile was burnt.[153] The Venetians sold arms to the Ragusans,
and deferred claiming payment until the following year. These arms
were “many breast-plates, 100 cross-bows, 10,000 arrows, and 5000
_falsatores_.[154]
[Illustration: BAS RELIEF OF ST. BLAIZE, NEAR THE PORTA PLOCE]
We are not informed as to the outcome of this war; but apparently
Ragusa was reconciled with Servia in 1322, as in that year Stephen
Uroš IV.,[155] who succeeded his father in 1321, granted the city
an accession of territory, _i.e._ the districts of Bosanka and
Osoinik.[156] A far more important acquisition obtained during the
next few years was that of Stagno and the peninsula of Punta, or
Sabbioncello, as it is now called, which converted Ragusa from a
city-republic, with only a few miles of territory beyond the walls and
some small islands, into a fairly respectable territorial State. The
Punta di Stagno is a long mountainous peninsula jutting out from the
Dalmatian coast in a north-westerly direction, with a sort of spur or
branch promontory stretching towards the south-east and forming a deep
bay. Its length is 71.2 km., in breadth it varies from 3.1 km. to 7.1
km. Parts of the peninsula are very fertile, especially in vineyards.
Its population is to-day over 10,000, and in the Middle Ages it was
probably more considerable. It is joined to the mainland by a narrow
isthmus 1½ km. across, with two small towns, Stagno Grande (Slav.
_Veliki Ston_), looking towards Ragusa, and Stagno Piccolo (_Mali
Ston_), on the north towards the Mare di Narenta, each with a good
port. On both shores of the peninsula are other small harbours. On the
southern coast, opposite the island of Curzola, rises the imposing
mass of the Monte Vipera, with the town of Orebić at its foot. The
importance of this territory for the Ragusans was partly strategical,
as it formed a bulwark against invaders, from the north, whether by
sea or by land, and partly commercial, on account of the valuable
salt-pans of Stagno, which afterwards formed one of the chief sources
of revenue for the Republic, and are still in use to this day. The
Punta and the island of Curzola are the only spots in Europe where
jackals are still to be found. This territory had formed part of the
principality of Hlum, which, as we have seen, was originally joined to
Doclea, and recognised Servian overlordship from about 1222 until some
time between 1320 and 1330, when it was added to the Banat of Bosnia
under Hungarian suzerainty. Hlum was divided into a number of _župe_,
like the other Serb lands, under different feudal families. Stagno and
the Punta was ruled by that of the Branivoj, with whom the Ragusans
had hitherto lived on terms of friendship and commercial intercourse.
The Republic sent them an annual gift of 100 _ipperperi_,[157] which
may, however, have been blackmail to secure immunity from piracy, to
which so many of the Slave tribes were addicted. It is probable that
the Ragusans had had their eyes on this district for some time, and in
1320-21 they gladly obeyed the injunctions of the Venetian Senate to
act against the pirates of Stagno and Cattaro.[158] About 1323, for
some unrecorded reason,[159] a quarrel broke out between Ragusa and the
Branivoj; and on April 8, 1325, instead of sending the usual gift, the
Republic decreed warlike preparations against the lord Branivoj and
his sons “qui fecerunt offensionis multas, depredationes, et rubarias
contra comune et speciales personas civitatis Ragusii.” A few months
later Ragusa sent envoys to Venice to request the Doge’s intervention
on account of the King of Servia’s attitude, which appeared to be
insincere.[160] Hostilities were commenced, and carried on with a
barbarity unusual even for those times. The following year Braico,
one of Branivoj’s sons, was captured at Sant’ Andrea in Pelago, and
condemned to be exposed in a cage and starved to death. Some time
afterwards his brother Grubaza or Grubeza was captured, and their
mother, who had asked for Ragusan hospitality on her way to Bosnia,
was detained as a hostage. The third brother, Branoe, was arrested
by the King of Servia, who was now friendly towards the Ragusans.
The latter requested him to hand the prisoner over to the commune of
Cattaro, where he would have less chance of escaping. Uroš agreed,
but the Republic was still unsatisfied, and private citizens offered
rewards out of their own pockets for the heads of the surviving members
of the Branivoj family. A certain Pasqua promised 500 _ipperperi_,
and the Croce family 2000, to any one of the King’s barons who would
kill Branoe on the way from Svezana (where he had been detained)
to Cattaro![161] The Servian king apparently had another slight
disagreement with the Ragusans about 1327; but when war broke out
between him and the Bulgarian Tsar Michael, he required their help to
obtain Italian mercenaries, and in return he favoured their projects on
Stagno.[162] His successor, Stephen Dušan (1330-1355), was still more
favourable, and through the two citizens of Cattaro, Trifone and
Niccolò Bucchia, who held high positions at his court as Protospathar
and Protovestiar, the Republic obtained his full support. Trifone was
sent to arbitrate, but his sympathies were so thoroughly Ragusan that
he actually contributed to the price on Branoe’s head. Niccolò finally
induced the King formally to cede the coveted territory to Ragusa, and
accompanied him on a state visit to that city. The Servian king was
received by the citizens with their usual magnificence (1332), and
Niccolò Bucchia was presented with wide lands and houses on the Punta,
and a house in Ragusa itself. He was afterwards granted citizenship and
a seat in the Grand Council, and became the founder of a famous family.
The document ceding Stagno in exchange for a tribute is published in
the _Monumenta specantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium_.[163]
[Illustration: PLAN OF RAGUSA.]
“We, Stephen Nemanja Dušan, by the grace of God, King of Servia,
Dalmatia, Dioclia, Albania, Zeuta,[164] Chelmo, and the Maritime
Region, ... concede and grant to the community of Ragusa by hereditary
right to them and to their successors the whole Punta and coast of
Stagno, beginning from Prevlaca to the confines of Ragusan territory,
with all the towns and villages and houses therein contained, and also
Posrednica[165] ... in exchange for which they must pay to us and to
our successors annually on the day of the Resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ 500 _soldi_ in Venetian _grossi_, on pain of paying double
in case of delay.” In addition he was to receive a sum down of 2000
_ipperperi_, and Stephen Kotromanić, Banus of Bosnia, who had certain
rights over the Punta, was to receive 600 _ipperperi_ a year. According
to Resti,[166] it was necessary for the Republic to bribe several of
the King’s nobles and councillors so that they should influence him in
favour of the grant, and they influenced the Banus of Bosnia through
his secretary, Domagna Bobali, who was a native of Ragusa. The compact
was carried out, save for the island of Posrednica, which the Ragusans
were not allowed to occupy until 1345. What became of the Branivoj
family, whether it was entirely wiped out or whether the surviving
members were merely expelled, we are not informed.
The Republic at once set to work to partition the land in the new
territory among its citizens. Three-quarters of it were granted to
the nobles, and the rest to the burghers; the grantees were forbidden
to sell any land to the Slaves. A colour of piety was lent to this
conquest by the determination of the Ragusans to stamp out Bogomilism
and schism from the peninsula, and the caloyers[167] and heretical
priests were exiled, and their places occupied by Roman Catholics.
At the end of the century the Franciscans were established as an
additional bulwark of the Church. In order to protect Stagno from more
earthly dangers an elaborate system of fortifications was begun, which
were to serve the Republic in good stead on more than one occasion.
Both Stagno Grande and Stagno Piccolo were surrounded with massive
walls, and a castle was built in each. A third was erected at the top
of the hill, between the two seas; a long wall with towers at intervals
was carried right across the isthmus, and other walls from both towns
to the castle on the hill. These defences may be seen to this day, and
although in a woeful state of neglect and disrepair, still form a most
conspicuous feature in the landscape.
[Illustration: FORTIFICATIONS OF STAGNO GRANDE]
The following year King Stephen rather repented his generosity, and
demanded back the gift on the pretext that the Ragusans were incapable
of defending it securely. But his envoys, who visited Stagno, being
convinced by the sight of the Ragusan fortifications, and perhaps by
that of Ragusan gold, that it was being rapidly made quite secure,
induced him to confirm the grant. This he did, and forbade his subjects
to attempt to enter the ceded territory. Another dispute with the
fickle Servian king broke out in 1330, because the Ragusans had given
shelter to the widow of the Bulgarian Tsar, who had been forced to fly
after the defeat and death of her husband by the Serbs at the battle of
Velbužd.[168] Stephen wished to secure the fugitive, and demanded her
of the Republic. The latter refused the demand, in spite of promise of
still further territories and privileges, and sent the Empress safely
to Constantinople. Stephen then demanded back Stagno once more, and
tried to take it by storm. But as it was too strongly fortified he
limited himself to a raid on Ragusan territory on the mainland, until
called away to defend his northern frontier against the Hungarians.
Peace was made in 1335, and in 1336[169] a solemn Ragusan embassy was
sent to honour him at Scutari.
The maritime trade of the Republic had brought great riches to the
citizens, but contact with the East also brought the plague in its
train, and in 1348 Ragusa, like the rest of Europe, was visited by the
terrible scourge. It was probably introduced into the western world
by the Tartars besieging Caffa in 1344, and although the town was
saved, the relieving force caught the disease, which spread through
Europe with lightning-like rapidity. The following document preserved
in the book of wills in the Cathedral treasury at Ragusa, written by
eye-witnesses, gives a vivid picture of the terror inspired by the fell
scourge:—
“Our Lord God sent a terrible judgment, unheard of in the whole world,
both on Christians and on pagans, a mortality of men and still more
of women, through an awful and incurable disease, which caused the
spitting of blood and swellings on various parts of the body, so
contagious that sons fled from their fathers and still more often
fathers from their sons; all the art of Apocrates, Galen, and Avizena
proved useless, for no art or science availeth against Divine judgment.
This disease commenced at Ragusa on the 15th day of December, in the
year of our Lord 1348, and lasted for six months, during which 120
persons or more died each day; of the (Grand) Council there died 110
nobles.”[170] According to Gelcich, the total number of deaths in the
town ranged from 7000 to 10,000, including 160 nobles and 300 burghers;
it is impossible to conjecture how many died in the territory. It
made its appearance at the same time at Spalato, preceded, according
to the legend, by an eclipse of the sun, so complete that the stars
were visible by day, and by a drought so great that the dust remained
suspended in huge clouds in mid air.[171] Ragnina, who wrote more than
a century after the event, declares that the belief that the Jews had
poisoned the wells was very prevalent, while others believed that the
cause of the disease was a conjunction of three planets under Jupiter
and Mars.[172] At this time no sanitary precautions were taken against
further visitations, but large sums were collected to build the votive
church of San Biagio.
This same year there was another disagreement with King Stephen, as we
find the Venetian Government authorising the Ragusans to purchase a
further supply of arms;[173] in 1349 and 1350 Venetian embassies were
sent to Servia to protest against his raids on Ragusan territory, a
Venetian galley stationed in the harbour as a protection,[174] and two
_mangani_ or catapults were forwarded to the citizens.[175] Some of the
Venetian documents on the subject allude to Bosnian as well as Servian
raids. Klaić says that the Banus Stephen Kotromanić actually did make
raids before 1345, but in that year made peace and never molested the
Ragusans again. His nephews, however, the Nikolići counts of Hlum
and Popovo, had many quarrels with Ragusa and raided her territory,
and it is to them that the documents allude.[176] War now broke out
between Servia and Bosnia, because the Banus would not consent to his
daughter’s marriage with the King’s son, Uroš. The King invaded Bosnia
on two occasions with a large army, and besieged the Banus in the royal
castle of Bobovac, but could not capture him. These quarrels between
Bosnia and Servia, like those between Servia and Bulgaria, were paving
the way for the Turkish conquest, and the obscure battles in the Bosna
and Drina valleys formed the prelude to the fatal day of Kossovo and
the bondage of the South-Slavonic race. The Banus Kotroman died in
1353, and was succeed by his nephew, Stephen Tvrtko, who was the first
King of Bosnia. He too was friendly to the Ragusans, and granted them
important privileges.
The conditions of Venice in the middle of the fourteenth century were
far from prosperous. The plague of 1348 had carried off three-fifths
of the population, in spite of the most stringent precautions.[177] In
1350 the fratricidal war with Genoa was again renewed in consequence of
disputes about the Black Sea trade. The battle of the Bosporus (1353)
was indecisive; in that of Cagliari the Venetians were successful, but
dared not attack Genoa, because the city had placed itself under the
protection of the Visconti. But in the same year they were totally
defeated at Sapienza in the Greek Archipelago and their whole fleet
captured. In 1354 the conspiracy of Marin Faliero broke out, and kept
the whole State in a turmoil for many months, until the execution of
the Doge and his accomplices.[178] His successor, Giovanni Gradenigo,
made peace with Genoa, and the Venetians set to work to rebuild their
fleet and restore their exhausted treasury by means of new commercial
enterprises in the Levant. But their possession of Dalmatia and the
land frontier north of Treviso were now threatened by Lewis of Hungary.
The latter allied himself with the Count of Gorizia and the Carraresi
of Padua against Venice, and invaded the Trevisan march, defeating
all the forces sent against him and capturing city after city. A five
months’ truce was concluded in 1356, but when it expired hostilities
broke out once more, and the treasury was soon empty. Merchandise
might arrive by sea, but with the mainland in the hands of the enemy
there was no outlet for its distribution.[179] New taxes were raised,
causing much discontent, and the Republic was at last forced to sue
for peace. Lewis made the cession of Dalmatia an express condition
of his retirement from the Trevisan march. After much discussion and
expostulation the Senate was forced to agree to these humiliating
terms, and Dalmatia, which had been acquired and maintained at such
great sacrifices, was now given up (Feb. 1358). The Republic had hoped
to create a diversion by an alliance with the King of Servia, who had
been fighting with the Banus of Bosnia, then a Hungarian vassal. But
Stephen Dušan got more and more involved in the Greek war, and when the
Hungarians invaded the Venetian _terraferma_ he was marching towards
Constantinople, but died on the way thither (1355).
The Ragusans were delighted at the successes of Lewis; they had
received him with great honour when he touched at their city in 1349 on
his return from the Neapolitan expedition,[180] and from that moment
they began to contemplate the advisability of placing themselves
under his protection. They had been afraid of the Hungarians when
they threatened to conquer Bosnia and Hlum, but now there was little
fear of that, and Hungary not being a great naval Power, could not
threaten their liberties by means of the fleet as Venice could always
do. When in 1356 the Venetians sent commissioners to claim the
Ragusan contingent for the war, the Grand Council made professions
of friendship, and agreed to send it. At the same time they were
negotiating with the Hungarian king for the surrender of their city
to him. On July 7, 1357, Lewis confirmed their possession of Stagno,
which, having formed part of Bosnia, was in a measure under his
authority, and it is probable that a preliminary treaty of dedition was
signed at the same time. When, by the peace of February 1358, Venice
gave up the whole eastern shore of the Adriatic, from the Quarnero to
Durazzo, she attempted to retain her hold over Ragusa on account of
that very claim to separation from the rest of Dalmatia which she had
hitherto always combated. Blandishments were tried, and by a rescript
of the Doge Giovanni Dolfin (Jan. 2, 1358) the Ragusans were granted
Venetian citizenship and commercial equality with the Venetians.[181]
But Ragusa had no wish to retain even a vestige of Venetian authority,
and a few weeks later Marco Soranzo, the last Venetian Count, left the
city by order of the Doge. The Ragusans treated him with courtesy and
evinced no ill-feeling against him, whereas the Venetian officials in
the other Dalmatian towns had departed amidst the jeers and curses of
the inhabitants. A triumvirate of Ragusan nobles was elected by the
Grand Council to carry on the government while arrangements with King
Lewis were being completed. By a curious irony they sent commissioners
to Venice in March to order “unum gonfalonem et aliquas banderias
cum armis D. N. D. Regis Hungariæ pro galleis et lignis nostris,”
and later “unum gonfalonerium ad modum penoni de sindone torto cum
arma (_sic_) Regis Hungariæ cum argento albo et cum argentum (_sic_)
deauratum pro duc. auri xxx.”[182]
On June 27 the final treaty was signed by Lewis of Hungary and Giovanni
Saraca, Archbishop of Ragusa, at Višegrad. The Ragusans placed
themselves under Hungarian protection, but were allowed to retain
their own internal liberties more fully than under Venice. The King’s
praises, instead of those of the Doge, were to be sung in the churches
of Ragusa three times a year. The Hungarian standard was to be adopted
as well as the banner of San Biagio, and 500 _ipperperi_ a year were to
be paid to the King. Should Hungary be engaged in naval warfare Ragusa
must provide one galley for every ten Hungarian galleys whenever the
Dalmatian fleet put to sea; if the Royal fleet alone were employed,
Ragusa need only provide one for every thirty. The supreme government
of the State was no longer to be vested in a foreign count, but in
three native Ragusans (afterwards reduced to one) to be chosen by the
Council. The only representative of the King was the captain of the
Hungarian and Bosnian guard, but he too was really in the service of
the Republic, and had no political authority. From this moment Ragusa
may be considered an independent State, as Hungarian authority, save
for the tribute, was little more than a formality.
During the Venetian epoch the territory of the Republic had expanded
considerably, and when the last count departed it consisted of the
following districts:—In the immediate neighbourhood of the city it
possessed the valleys of Gionchetto (Šumet), Bergato (Brgat), and Ombla
(Rijeka), with the bay of Gravosa and the Lapad peninsula, but the
frontiers were very near, and on the crest of Monte Sergio, immediately
behind the city, watchmen were posted day and night. Part of this
territory had been acquired in the earliest times, but small additions
had been made at intervals. Beyond the Ombla the citizens owned the
stretch of coast known as Starea or Astarea.[183] Of the islands, they
possessed in the thirteenth century Mercana—a small rock opposite the
promontory of Ragusavecchia, with a monastery of St. Michael[184]—and
Isola di Mezzo, Calamotta, Daksa, and S. Andrea of the group known
to the ancients as the Elaphites Insulæ were added in 1080.[185] In
1218 the more distant island of Lagosta had been acquired, and at an
early date that of Meleda had been granted by the Servian king to
the Benedictine monks, with the condition that the civil government
should be entrusted to the Republic. Stephen the First-Crowned gave
them Giuppana in 1216. Between 1220 and 1224 Stephen, Nemanja’s son,
granted the same monks a stretch of land about Žrnovica and Ombla. As
a consequence of the Ragusan alliance with Michael Asen, the Bulgarian
Tsar, against Stephen Uroš I., King of Servia, in 1254, the Republic’s
southern frontiers were extended so as to include the vineyards of
Breno and the peninsula on which the ruins of Epidaurus are said to
lie.[186] Here a new town arose, which by a strange inversion of names
was called Ragusavecchia. We have seen how in 1333-1334 Stagno and
the peninsula of Sabbioncello and the coast as far as the Narenta’s
mouth were acquired. In 1357 small additions were made about Breno and
Gionchetto between the Ljuta stream and the village of Kurilo[187]
(north of the Ombla). The districts of Carina and Drieno, although
on the Ragusan side of the mountain above Breno, remained beyond the
frontier: eventually they became Turkish territory, and such they
remained until 1878.[188]
[Illustration: CLOISTER OF THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY]
The Ragusan Church had also been increasing in wealth and dignity with
the growth of the Republic, and a number of handsome ecclesiastical
buildings were begun during the fourteenth century. In the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth centuries the Slavonic princes gave the
churches many valuable gifts of land, gold and silver ornaments, and
relics. But in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Bosnia, Hlum,
and Servia were torn by religious wars owing to the spread of that
strange and little known heresy called Bogomilism, on which it will
be useful to say a few words. Of the origin of this heresy as of its
tenets there is very little reliable evidence. In all probability it
was an offshoot of Armenian Paulicianism, itself derived from the
earlier Adoptionist creed.[189] Paulician colonies have been settled
in Europe as early as the ninth century by the Emperor Constantine
Copronymus, and the heresy spread to Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, and
Macedonia. In his History of the Bulgarians, Prof. C. J. Jireček gives
an account of the beliefs of the Bogomils according to the researches
of various Slavonic scholars. They believed in the existence of two
principles, equal in age and power, one good personified in God, and
one evil personified in Satan. They recognised the New Testament, but
not the Old. All matter and all the visible world were essentially
evil; the body of Christ was only an apparent, not a real, body. The
sacraments were corporeal, therefore evil. They had no hierarchy, but
an executive consisting of a bishop and two grades of Apostles. Besides
the ordinary Bogomils there was a special order of the Perfect, who
renounced all worldly possessions, marriage, animal food, and lived
like hermits. They had no churches or images. They had a deathbed
ceremony, without which one went to hell. They did not believe in
purgatory.[190] But, as Prof. Bury remarks, it is doubtful if this is
a true presentation of the Bogomil creed. Hardly any of their books of
ritual survive, and all the accounts of them which have been preserved
are written by their prosecutors. It is more probable that they were
a monotheistic sect, believing in one God only, and rejecting the
Trinity. This view is supported by the fact that at the time of the
Turkish conquest such numbers of Bogomils became Muhamedans. It was
not merely that they went over to the conqueror’s creed from motives
of mere self-interest; there was really more similarity between that
religion and Bogomilism than between the latter and either the Eastern
or the Western Church.
In the tenth century there was a bishopric of Bosnia, which until
the eleventh century was in the ecclesiastical province of Spalato.
In 1067 it was transferred to that of Antivari. Later in the same
century it was added to the archbishopric of Ragusa. But the dioceses
of Antivari and Spalato continued to dispute Ragusa’s supremacy, and
in the conflict of authorities Bogomilism found scope to increase its
adherents. The Bosnians were mostly Roman Catholics, although there
were Orthodox Christians among them. Ban Čulin was himself a Catholic,
but when in 1189 the Pope, at the instigation of the King of Hungary,
Bela III., transferred the Bosnian bishopric once more from the Ragusan
province to that of Spalato, he went over to Bogomilism, so as not to
be in any way under Hungarian authority. His conversion gave the heresy
a fresh impetus, and it spread all over Bosnia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and
Croatia, even to the coast towns. Pope Innocent III. had to induce the
King of Hungary to make a crusade against the Bogomils in Bosnia, but
Čulin declared that they were good Catholics, induced the Archbishop
of Ragusa to go to Rome with several of the heretics to be examined by
the Pope, and asked for a Papal envoy to be sent to Bosnia to study
the question. The Pope agreed, and sent his chaplain, Johannes de
Casamaris, to Bosnia in 1203. The heads of the Bogomil community, who
were also heads of monasteries, met at Bjelopolje on the Bosna, and
met the Banus, Casamaris, and Marinus, the Archdeacon of Ragusa, and
presented an address in which they affirmed their orthodoxy and their
attachment to the Roman Church,[191] and declared themselves ready to
obey the Pope in everything. Čulin himself abjured all heresy. They
renewed these declarations before the King of Hungary and the Banus at
Pest. The Papal legate was quite content, and advised the Pope to erect
some new bishoprics in Bosnia.
But in 1218 the heresy was again rampant, and Honorius III. sent
a legate to Hungary and Dalmatia to preach a crusade against the
Bogomils. But no crusade was organised, and the legate went alone
to Bosnia, where he died in 1222. The quarrels between the Pope and
Hungary gave the Bogomils a respite, and they became even more numerous
in consequence. In 1222 Andrew II., King of Hungary, placed Bosnia
under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Ugolin, Bishop of Kalocsa, on
condition that he stamped out the heresy, and Pope Honorius confirmed
the donation. But the crusade never came off, and the Bogomils became
so powerful that they deposed the Banus Stephen and succeeded in
placing their co-religionary Matthew Ninoslav on the throne (1232).
James, the Papal legate, went to Bosnia and found that the greater
part of the inhabitants were tainted with the heresy, including the
Catholic bishop; the Archbishop of Ragusa knew of this and did not
trouble about it, so that the legate reconfirmed the union of the
bishopric to that of Kalocsa. He succeeded, however, in inducing
Ninoslav to become a Catholic, and endow a new cathedral, which was to
be in the hands of the Dominicans. Many magnates followed his example.
But the Bogomils soon raised their heads once more, and the Banus was
either unable or unwilling to extirpate them. A crusade was therefore
proclaimed against them, which lasted from 1234 to 1239. Bosnia was
ravaged with fire and sword, and finally conquered by the crusaders
under Koloman, the King of Hungary’s son. In 1238 the Dominican Ponsa
was made bishop of Bosnia, and by 1239 Bogomilism seemed to have been
suppressed. But the moment the crusaders retired the heretics, who were
supported by the nation, rose in arms once more and became independent
of Hungary. In 1246 Innocent IV. ordered a second crusade, but this
time without success. After Ninoslav’s death Bosnia again fell under
Hungary, but no very severe measures were taken against the Bogomils.
The Bogomil Church of Bosnia became an established institution, and the
Catholic bishops themselves no longer resided in the country, but at
Djakovar, in Slavonia. Various attempts to organise crusades against
them failed. The Bani were afraid of persecuting them lest they should
rise in arms and put themselves under the protection of the King of
Servia, who as a Greek Christian was also an enemy to the Catholics.
Moreover, the missionary efforts of the Catholic Church were hindered
by the quarrels between the Franciscans and the Dominicans. Bogomilism
spread to Croatia and Dalmatia, and found adherents even at Traù and
Spalato. Pope Benedict XII. ordered the Croatian barons to make war on
the heretics (1337), but they were too busy fighting among themselves
to achieve much result. But the Banus Stephen declared himself a good
Catholic in 1340, and protected the Roman Church in Bosnia once more,
agreeing to the establishment of two more bishoprics. We hear little
more of the heresy after this date until the crusade of 1360.[192]
The Ragusan Church suffered in consequence of the heterodoxy of so
many of the Slave princes, and no longer received rich gifts from
them. On the other hand, both on account of its convenient situation
and because it was a stronghold of Catholicism, the town became the
centre of all this missionary activity. In 1225 the Dominican Order
was established at Ragusa, and occupied a small house attached to the
church of S. Giacomo in Peline. When the Order became more numerous
it removed to the Ploce quarter, where a large new church was erected
for it in 1306, and a monastery about 1345. The Franciscans first
came to Ragusa in 1235, twenty-eight years after the foundation of
the Order by St. Francis of Assisi, who is said to have visited the
city himself on his return from the Holy Land, although there is no
foundation for the legend. In 1250 a monastery was built for them
outside the Porta Pile; it was destroyed by the Serbs during the raid
of 1319.[193] A concession of land was granted to them within the walls
in the Menze quarter, and by the middle of the fourteenth century they
were established in the large, handsome monastery which still exists,
built partly at Government expense and partly by the munificence of
private citizens, including the guild of Ghent merchants established
there.[194] The two Orders gave battle to the heretics, and helped to
organise crusades against them, which are among the most barbarous
examples of religious persecution which history records. On the other
hand, if we are to believe the Ragusan legend, the Bogomils themselves
persecuted the Catholics in the Cattaro districts, and the bodies of
three martyrs who were murdered by them were brought to Ragusa, where
a church was built in their honour.[195] It is somewhat difficult
to unravel the tangle of contradictory accounts on this subject,
especially as Ragusan writers often confuse the Bogomils with the
followers of the Oriental Church.
CHAPTER V
THE TRADE OF RAGUSA
The whole basis of Ragusa’s prosperity, as we have seen in the first
chapter, was trade. The Republic’s territory was too small, and in
part too arid, to provide sufficient foodstuffs for the population and
three-quarters of the grain which it consumed annually were imported
from abroad. Consequently it was upon trade and industry that the
citizens had to depend for their means of livelihood. Manufactures,
however, save shipbuilding, never assumed great importance at Ragusa,
and it was not until the following century that any industries at
all were established. Trade, on the other hand, both sea-borne and
overland, received a great additional impetus from the extension of
Venetian traffic and from the increasing civilisation of the Slave
states. At Ragusa, as at Venice, Florence, Siena, and elsewhere
in Italy, the aristocracy as well as the middle classes were all
interested in trade. We find members of all the noble families in the
Ragusan settlements in Servia and Bosnia and Albania, and no nobleman
disdained to travel overseas with his own goods.
We have seen the division of Ragusan maritime trade into coastwise
traffic, navigation _intra Culfum_, and navigation _extra Culfum_. This
last now became of considerable importance, and Ragusan vessels were
found in every port of the Eastern Mediterranean. A special form of
trade which had now arisen is that described in the Statute-book as
_ultra marinis partibus_, _i.e._ up the courses of navigable rivers
like the Narenta and the Bojana.
The Levant trade became extremely active, and was no longer limited to
the tract of sea between the Capo Cumano on one side, and Apulia and
Durazzo on the other. From the commercial provisions contained in the
various treaties between Ragusa and Venice, we learn that the former
traded with all parts of the Eastern Empire. Syria, Tunis, Barbary,
Italy, Sicily, and probably Egypt. At Constantinople the privilege
granted by the Comneni were renewed by the Latin Emperors Baldwin
I. and Henry. The Ragusans traded especially with the Morea and the
feudal duchy of Chiarenza or Clarence,[196] whence they brought silk to
Ancona and other parts of Italy. At the same time they kept up their
connection with the Greek princes who held sway over the fragments of
the Greek Empire, namely, the Emperors of Nicæa and Trebizond[197]
and the despots of Epirus. After the capture of Constantinople by the
Latins, Epirus continued to hold out against their arms, and was ruled
by the despots Michael I. (who died in 1214), Manuel (1214-1241), and
Michael II. (1241-1271), all of whom granted valuable privileges to
the Ragusans.[198] When the Greek Empire was re-established in 1261
all the exemptions and privileges were reconfirmed, first by Michael
Palæologus, and later, in 1322, by Andronicus II.[199]
With regard to Egypt, if for the word _Rakuphia_ in Benjamin of Tudela
we should read Ragusa, the citizens of St. Blaize also frequented the
market of Alexandria. In 1224 Egypt was placed under interdict, and the
Venetians forbade the Ragusans to trade there; Ragusan merchants before
starting on a journey had to swear that they would not visit Egypt,
but in all probability the prohibition was often disregarded.[200]
Subsequent attempts to enforce the interdict were equally unsuccessful.
The object of the prohibition was above all to prevent the Egyptian
Sultans from obtaining timber and iron, which were rare in their own
country, for military purposes. Traders were attracted, however, by
the enormous profits of the venture, for which they were willing to
brave ecclesiastical thunders. In 1304 three Ragusans were captured
whilst engaged in illicit traffic with Alexandria; they were granted
absolution by the Pope on condition that they devoted part of their
profits to building the Dominican monastery in their native town.[201]
Another country with which Ragusa had commercial intercourse was
Bulgaria. In the early days of the second Bulgarian Empire (established
in 1186) the Venetians could not trade with it, as they were the
supporters of the Latin Empire at Constantinople in withstanding
Bulgarian inroads; the Genoese were equally cut off because the
Venetians excluded them from the Bosporus. The field therefore lay open
to the Ragusans alone, and they were very favourably received by the
Tsar John Asēn II. (1218-1241),[202] who called them “his well-beloved
and trusted guests.” The Bulgarian trade was partly carried on by sea
and partly overland through the Balkans.
From Italy and Sicily the Ragusans obtained most of their breadstuffs,
and in exchange they brought Eastern and Slavonian goods to those
countries. Among the new treaties with Italian towns we may mention
those with Rimini (1235),[203] with Taddeo, Lord of Ravenna and Cervia
(1218-1238),[204] with Ancona in 1256 and 1292,[205] with Fermo in
1288;[206] with Trani, Bari, Molfetta, and Barletta the old treaties
were renewed at various times, and in the _Reformationes_ we find
numerous allusions to the special envoys sent to Apulia to collect
grain. A large storehouse was built in the city with fifteen large dry
wells to contain an adequate provision of grain in time of war.[207]
Constantinople, Smyrna, Durazzo, Antivari, the Bojana valley, and to
a lesser extent the Slavonic principalities, were resorted to for the
same purpose. With Florence, too, Ragusa traded, and although there was
no regular commercial treaty between the two cities, the Bardis and
other Florentine merchant princes sent agents to Ragusa from time to
time.
Shipping was regulated by a number of minute enactments to ensure
safety, to fix the relations between captain and crew, and to define
the obligations and risks of the owner. The amount of cargo which each
ship was to carry was established by statute and varied according
to the seasons of the year, and the vessels were examined before
starting on a voyage by special officers to see that these and other
regulations, such as those concerning the necessary coatings of pitch
and the proper amount of arms to be carried, were complied with. Piracy
being very prevalent in the Adriatic, it was decreed in 1336 that each
vessel employed for other than coastwise traffic should carry five
cuirasses, four spears, four bows, a suitable number of arrows, and a
sword, shield, and helmet for every person on board. The _personnel_
of these merchant ships consisted of the _nauclerius_ (captain or
master), the _scribanus_ (accountant), the _mercator_ (the owner of the
goods carried, or his representative), the _custodia_ (supercargo),
the _marinarius_ (mate), the _conductus_ (ship’s boy), and a crew
varying from eight to fourteen men for vessels up to a tonnage of
eighty _miara_; for larger ships the necessary number was fixed in each
particular case by the authorities. Members of noble families engaged
in trade were constantly making voyages on their own ships, and later
we find them even employed as _scribani_, and in fact a decree of 1462
in the _Liber Croceus_ established that no one could be a _scribanus_
unless he belonged to the Ragusan nobility.[208] At this time the
ships were still small as compared with the great argosies[209] of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but they were swift and suitable
for the purposes for which they were required. The war fleet and the
mercantile marine, as at Venice, were interchangeable, and ships which
in peace time served for commercial purposes were converted into
warships simply by increasing the number of armed men, strengthening
the bulwarks, and providing them with engines of war.
Shipbuilding from the earliest days of the Republic formed an important
industry. The timber was obtained from the forests of Monte Sergio,
now, alas, disappeared, and from those of Lagosta and Meleda, of
which traces still remain, as well as from Bosnia. The iron came from
the interior, and was manufactured at Venice or locally, the canvas
from Ancona and the Marche, pitch from Dalmatia, cordage from Ragusa
itself. So jealous was the Republic of the shipbuilding industry, that
no native builder (_calafato_ or _marangone_) might lend his services
to foreigners, under which heading the Slaves were included. In later
times an exception was made in favour of the Turks. The harbour of
Ragusa, which is too small for large modern steamers—these always
land passengers and goods at Gravosa—in the Middle Ages was ever busy
with arriving and departing ships, and the arsenal hands were always
engaged in building or repairing craft of all kinds. Other shipping
yards existed at the Isola di Mezzo, at Malfi, on Giuppana, and later
at Stagno, Slano, and Ragusavecchia. The Ragusan vessels were famed
throughout Illyria, and the Republic was frequently requested to lend
some to this or that Slave potentate, to the Hungarians, and sometimes
to the Venetians themselves.
[Illustration: COURTYARD OF THE SPONZA (CUSTOM-HOUSE)]
The dangers of navigation, even in the Adriatic, were by no means
trifling. The storms of that narrow sea, the sudden gusts of _bora_ or
scirocco which sweep down among the countless islands, channels, and
promontories of the east coast with terrific violence, are considered
dangerous for small ships even to-day. In the Middle Ages the light
sailing-craft ran much greater risks. But piracy was then the chief
source of anxiety. We have already spoken of the Narentan corsairs
in a previous chapter, but even after Venice had broken their power,
piratical communities still survived. Almissa, between Stagno and
the Narenta, was their chief centre, and its inhabitants were almost
exclusively devoted to piracy. The Ragusan statutes contain numerous
provisions forbidding all intercourse with them. A Ragusan who sold a
ship to the Almissans was fined 100 _ipperperi_ besides the price of
the vessel itself; nor could he buy one from them, as it was presumed
to be stolen property.[210] Occasionally some arrangement was made with
this community of freebooters, and in 1235 a treaty of perpetual peace
was signed with Koloman, Count of Almissa.[211] But it proved to be of
little avail, and the Ragusan annals are full of entries concerning the
depredations of the pirates. The Almissans were not finally subdued
by the Venetians until after they regained Dalmatia in 1409. Other
piratical communities were found in Northern Dalmatia and Croatia—the
district formerly known as the Kraina[212]—and from the ports of
Apulia,[213] Sicily, and even from Cattaro pirate vessels often issued
forth to ravage the Dalmatian coast or prey upon the Adriatic trade.
With Cattaro in particular Ragusa was very often at war on account of
the rivalry for the salt trade, and all intercourse with the Serbs
on the shores of the Bocche was forbidden. On various occasions the
Government issued decrees forbidding Ragusan merchantmen from setting
sail without an armed convoy, and whenever news was brought to the
city that corsairs had been sighted the armed galleys of the Republic
were instantly got ready and sent in pursuit of the freebooters. The
Venetians had undertaken the policing of the Adriatic, and the Ragusans
were bound by treaty to contribute one or more ships for the purpose.
Thus in 1326 they were thanked by the Venetian Senate for their past
services in this direction, and requested to send two of their best
galleys to the head of the Gulf.[214]
Another risk which Ragusan traders ran was that their ships and
goods might be seized and confiscated in foreign ports by the local
authorities. Antivari, Dulcigno, Durazzo, and Trani were the worst
offenders in this respect, but even at Venice and Alexandria the
citizens of St. Blaize were not always safe.
The sailor’s calling was consequently fraught with considerable
danger and responsibility, and the return of a merchant ship from a
long voyage was hailed as a great event, especially if it occurred at
Christmastide or Easter. Then, as Prof. Gelcich says, “more than an
occasion for domestic rejoicing, it was a national festival.... We can
see with our mind’s eye the large crowd lining the quays watching the
ships entering the harbour, each vessel trying to be the first to drop
anchor, so as to receive the small gift of one _ipperpero_ awarded by
the State for the achievement.”[215] On Christmas Eve all the sailors
of the ships which happened to be in port that night carried a block
of wood (_ceppum_)[216] to the castle, singing songs (_kolende_), and
placed it on the Count’s hearth. The Count in return gave them each a
cup of wine and two _ipperperi pro kolendis_. They also received two
_ipperperi_ from the Salt Commission, and two more from the Cathedral
treasury.[217] All ships, whether Ragusan or from cities with whom
the Republic had a commercial treaty, “qui navigant more Raguseorum,”
coming into port were exempt from the _stata_ or harbour dues, and
only paid a small tax to the Count, the Archbishop, and the Cathedral
treasury. With the proceeds of the latter the new Cathedral was built,
declared by De Diversis and other writers to have been the finest
church in all Illyria. Ships from countries with whom there were no
treaties paid the _arboraticum_ and the _stata_.
The weakening of Venice in consequence of the Hungarian wars, although
acceptable to the Ragusans for political reasons, produced a very
deleterious effect on their commerce, as piracy revived; Ragusan
unfriendliness was also punished on occasion by exclusion from the
Venetian ports. Shipbuilding had declined to such an extent that in
1329 the Venetian Senate ordered the Ragusans to construct an arsenal
where ships could be built or repaired.[218] A resolution added to the
Statute-book in 1358 declares that “marineriza Racusii erat amissa.”
Ragusan ships were now very few, and seaborne commerce was carried
chiefly on foreign bottoms and in partnership with foreigners. With
the separation from Venice, Ragusan trade came to be almost wholly in
foreign hands. A series of statutes were enacted forbidding Ragusans
from associating with foreigners, and various other measures were taken
to revive national shipping; the results were very successful, and by
the end of the fifteenth century the city had more than regained its
old position.
The overland trade of the Balkans attained a remarkable development
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and regular trade routes
were established from the Adriatic coast through the interior to
Constantinople and the Black Sea. Of these routes which, together with
that from Hungary, formed the connecting link between Western and
Eastern Europe, there were several. One was from Spalato, one from
the Narenta mouth, one from Ragusa, one from Cattaro, and one from
the mouth of the Bojana. They all joined the Belgrad-Constantinople
route at different points, and all had branch routes to the various
mining and commercial centres of Servia, Bosnia, Hlum, Albania, and
Bulgaria. Ragusa, owing to her geographical position, was always the
chief market on the Adriatic for the hinterland, and Ragusan caravans
were constantly travelling along the various routes. The chief exports
from the Slavonic lands were cattle, cheese, dried fish from the lake
of Scutari, skins, wool, honey, wax, timber, silver, and iron. Ragusa
imported salt, manufactured cloths, clothes, brocades, arms, axes,
horse-trappings, glass-ware, perfumes, sweetmeats, southern fruits,
fish, oil, wine, and gold- and silversmiths’ wares.[219] The salt trade
formed one of the Republic’s chief sources of income, as the interior,
although rich in other minerals, was absolutely wanting in this
necessary commodity. Salt-pans were established at four points along
the Illyrian coast—the Narenta, Ragusa, the Bocche di Cattaro, and
San Sergio on the Bojana. The Ragusans, by means of old treaties with
the Slaves, had almost acquired a monopoly of the traffic, and they
were often able to punish the depredations to which their territory
was subjected by cutting off the supply. The largest salt-pans were
in the neighbourhood of Ragusa itself, but after 1333 they were
removed to Stagno, where the industry is carried on to this day, and
continues to supply the saltless interior.[220] The Narenta salt-pans
were monopolised by the Ragusans, who established a customs station
at the river’s mouth, and those of the Bojana, although outside their
territory, were also in their hands; their only rival was Cattaro,
whence the innumerable quarrels with that city. Cloth was imported from
Venice, Florence, Mantua, and later from the looms of Ragusa herself.
The presents which the Ragusans gave to the Slave princes and nobles
out of friendship or as blackmail and bribery often took the form of
rich gold brocades, silks, and satins, which greatly delighted the
splendour-loving barbarians. We can well imagine the semi-civilised
and proud vojvods and župans gloating over a consignment of the
choicest products of Florentine industry, and being thereby induced to
concede almost any commercial or political privilege to the patient
and cunning envoys from the Republic of St. Blaize. To this day the
Slaves of Servia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia, even the very poorest, love to
deck themselves out in the most gorgeous costumes and the brightest
ornaments, which adds not a little to the picturesqueness of that
country.
A large part of Ragusan territory, both on the mainland and on the
islands, was covered with vineyards; wine was, in fact, the chief
agricultural product of the country. No wine could be imported from
abroad save by a special licence, occasionally granted to the Count,
foreign ambassadors, or eminent ecclesiastics.
The land trade was carried on entirely by means of caravans. There
were no carriage roads since the decay of those built by the Romans,
and all goods travelled by caravan and were carried on the backs of
pack-animals, chiefly horses. Each caravan, which was formerly called
a _turma_, a word still used in Montenegro, consisted of 200 to 300
pack-animals under the charge of Vlach drovers. These Vlachs or Rumans
of Dalmatia were nearly all shepherds or horse- and cattle-drovers, and
had markedly nomadic habits. At an early date they became identified
with the Slaves, but, as I have said, they were probably of Latin
origin.[221] In the Middle Ages they were usually the subjects of the
feudal chiefs and monasteries. The leader of the caravan, also a Vlach,
provided an adequate armed escort, and undertook to protect his charge
against the brigands. Most of the traders were Ragusans or natives of
the other coast towns, but Slavonic merchants also took part in this
trade, especially those who were settled at Ragusa, where some of them
became naturalised so as to enjoy the same exemptions and privileges
as the citizens. Even noble feudatories and kings did not disdain this
kind of traffic, and employed their own Vlachs for the purpose. The
journey was by slow stages, as the paths were steep and rocky, and many
precautions were necessary. In Bosnia and the Herzegovina, in spite
of the roads and railways, much of the traffic is still carried on on
pony-back, the more valuable goods in gaily painted green boxes, the
rest packed up in canvas, secured to clumsy wooden saddles. Save for
the proportions of the caravans, which are now much smaller than in the
heyday of the Ragusan Republic, and for the fact that armed escorts,
so far as Bosnia and Dalmatia are concerned, are no longer necessary,
but little has changed. The importance of this traffic was very
considerable, as it was then, as I have said, the chief link between
the Western world and the Slavonic lands; Ragusa probably did far more
to civilise the latter than was attempted by the Greeks, with whom the
Slaves have always been in eternal conflict.
[Illustration: FAÇADE OF THE SPONZA (CUSTOM HOUSE), AND CLOCK TOWER]
The principal route from the coast was that from Ragusa to Niš, in
Servia, where it joined the great road from Hungary to Constantinople
_via_ Belgrad. The caravan left Ragusa by the Porta Ploce to the
east, and ascended the slopes of the Monte Sergio to Bergato, the
Ragusan frontier, situated on a ridge between the valleys of Breno
and Gionchetto. A few minutes farther on the Slave customs station of
Ledenici[222] was reached. Thence the path descends into the broad
and fertile valley of Trebinjčica to the town of Trebinje in the
land of Hlum, which was usually the first halting-place (five or six
hours from Ragusa). The caravan encamped outside the town, and the
merchants and part of the escort lodged in the inns. From Trebinje
the march was resumed up the course of the Trebinjčica past Ljubomir
to Bilek or Bileće; then along what is now the Montenegrin frontier
through dense forests to Crnica, where in 1380 a Ragusan commercial
colony was established; thence past the castle of Kljuć (= key), which
was afterwards the stronghold of the Vojvod Sandalj Hranić into the
basin of Gacko,[223] close to the watershed between the Adriatic and
the Black Sea. The country about here is fertile, and offers good
pasturage. The Sutieska or Sutiska gorge was next entered, one of the
finest tracts of scenery in the Balkans, guarded by the two castles of
Vratar; there was an important customs station here in the fifteenth
century, at the time of Duke Stephen Kosača, who levied a toll on all
caravans. The route is so narrow at this point that a small body of
men could hold a whole army at bay. The French traveller Des Hayes de
Courmenin, who wrote in 1621, mentions an iron chain by which the path
could be closed in war time. On emerging from the gorge the swirling
waters of the Drina are reached, on the banks of which were a number
of castles and several trading stations; the most important of these
was Chotča (now Foča), on the right bank, with a wooden bridge; under
the Turks it was for a long time the residence of the Sandžakbeg of the
Herzegovina, and is still a town of some consequence. Another station
was Ustikolina, where there was a Ragusan colony, first mentioned in
1399. A day’s march farther on is the town of Goražda, guarded by the
castle of Samobor, after which the route proceeds in a south-easterly
direction over the finely wooded Metalka saddle, whence an extensive
view of the mountains of Montenegro, Servia, Bosnia, and Albania is
obtained, to Breznica.[224] This was an important centre in Roman
times, and the remains of a large Roman settlement (name unknown) have
been unearthed close by. In the Middle Ages it was the meeting point
of three trade routes—one to Ragusa, one to Niš and Constantinople,
and a third to Cattaro _via_ the Tara gorge, the source of the Piva,
the castle of Onogošt, Nikšić, and Grahovo. From Plevlje the route
travelled through what is now the Sandžak of Novibazar to Priepolje
on the Lim, a favourite halting-place of the Ragusan merchants in the
fourteenth century. On the opposite side of the river are the ruins
of a fine large castle guarding the road, a stronghold of King Stephen
Vladislav, who also built the adjoining monastery of Mileševa.[225] A
few miles farther on was the point which was afterwards the eastern
frontier of Stephen Kosača’s duchy. Another day’s march brings us to
Senica or Senice, which was often the residence of the Nemanjid rulers
of Servia. Here the route from Ragusa joined the one from Northern
and Eastern Bosnia;[226] at Raška the two routes again separate, one
going southwards to Salonica, the other eastwards to Niš. Just beyond
Raška, in the latter direction, was Trgovište (market-place), often
mentioned between 1345 and 1459 where a Ragusan colony was established.
Two-thirds of the way from Ragusa to Niš were now accomplished.
Trgovište was the centre of the great Servian Empire, and the
surroundings abound in ruins and memories of the Nemanjid Tsars. At the
end of the fifteenth century the town is alluded to as Novibazar (New
Bazar, Yeni Bazar in Turkish). Not far off, in the valley of the Raška,
are the remains of some Roman baths, and here was probably the site
of the ancient Ras (mentioned in the tenth and eleventh centuries),
which gave its name to the whole country (Rascia). From Trgovište the
route proceeded by the Ibar valley through the mining district of
the Monte Argentaro to Toplica, Prokoplje, and Niš. The whole journey
took fifteen days in favourable weather. From Niš onwards the Ragusan
caravans followed the great road to Constantinople or went to Bulgaria,
where they had considerable trade and at least one colony at Vidin, in
consequence of the privileges obtained from the Bulgarian Tsars.[227]
Another much frequented caravan route was that which started at the
mouth of the Narenta and passed through Bosnia and Servia. Ragusan
goods were transported either wholly by sea round Sabbioncello or
_via_ Stagno to the little island of Osinj in the river delta, where
a trading depôt was opened. Close by were several other depôts, the
most important of which was the _Forum Narenti_ (called Driva by the
Slaves), with a large customs station, salt stores, and a Ragusan
colony. Later it was supplanted by the Venetian castle of Gabela or
Gabella.[228] The caravans travelled from the mouth of the Narenta
through the land of Hlum, following the course of the river to Blagaj,
the residence of the lords of Hlum (afterwards Dukes of St. Saba or the
Herzegovina), above the spot where the river Buna springs full-grown
from the rocks.[229] The route continued up the Narenta valley, as the
railway does to-day, past Konjica, which was to play an important part
in later times, over the Ivan Pass to Visoko in the centre of Bosnia,
the castle of the Bani. Below was the town of Podvisoko (Sotto-Visochi
in Ragusan documents), on the banks of the river Bosna. Between 1348
and 1430 this was the commercial capital of the country and the seat
of important trading communities. From Visoko the route proceeded
to Olovo and Borač, near Vlasenica,[230] where it branched off into
three. One led eastward to Srebrnica, the centre of the silver-mining
district,[231] and Rudnik; another went northwards to Soli; the main
route went to Kučlat, well known as a trading station in the fourteenth
century, with a large Ragusan colony, to Zvornik and across the Drina
to Sirmia and Belgrad. At Sirmia,[232] which was on the ruins of the
Roman Syrmium, the Ragusans had a flourishing settlement protected by
the Kings of Hungary, until the town was burnt by the Turks in 1396.
Its importance was due to its position as a starting point for the
Ragusan traders going to all parts of Hungary.[233]
These various routes were called collectively the _Via de Bossina_
in the Ragusan documents. The routes which started from the coast
at points south of Ragusa were denominated the _Via de Zenta_.[234]
Ragusan vessels sailed down the coast, and either discharged their
goods at the towns of Antivari and Dulcigno, or sailed for some
distance up the various rivers—the Bojana, the Drim, the Mat, the Išmi,
the Vrego, the Devol, and the Vojussa. This stretch of coast, which had
formed part of the Byzantine theme of Dyrrhachium, was under Servian
rule from 1180 to 1440.
“In Servian times,” writes Prof. Jireček,[235] “this region, now so
desolate, was in the most flourishing condition, and had a large
population and numerous beautifully situated towns. Even in the
sixteenth century Italian travellers who ascended the course of the
Bojana compared this green land with its many villages to their own
fair country. Large Latin and Oriental monasteries stood peacefully
side by side. Servian, Albanian, and Italian were the principal
languages spoken. The cities enjoyed important privileges, granted
by the Servian Kings, Tsars, and Despots (later by the Balšići), and
their citizens occupied important positions in the Government service;
the ruling princes themselves often visited these districts. The ports
plied a busy trade, for from hence goods were transported to the
Byzantine districts of Macedonia and Thrace, as far as Bulgaria and the
Mare Majus (_Mar Maggiore_) as the Italians in the Middle Ages called
the Black Sea.”
The chief city off the coast of Zedda was Antivari, situated about four
miles from the sea, where the open bay of Volovica served as a harbour.
Its government, like that of Ragusa and Cattaro, was an oligarchical
constitution, in the hands of a numerous and active aristocracy, under
privileges granted by the Servian Tsars. The citizens were of Latin
origin, and Latin and Italian were the official languages, but the
inhabitants of the surrounding country were Serbs. It was the centre of
the archiepiscopal see of Northern Albania. After the Turkish conquest
its importance was reduced to _nil_, and nearly all the noble families
either died out or emigrated to Ragusa. It is not easy to realise that
the actual Montenegrin village was once a busy commercial city. Nothing
but a few escutcheons on some of the houses bear witness to its past
magnificence.
A few miles farther south is Dulcigno,[236] which was also an
autonomous oligarchical Republic, albeit less important than Antivari.
Here the Roman element was always mixed with the Albanian. After the
Turkish conquest it became a nest of pirates. Close by was the Golfo
dello Drino, into which the two rivers Bojana and Drim (Drino) flowed.
Eighteen miles up the course of the former was the great Benedictine
monastery of San Serge and St. Bacchus, round which stood warehouses,
customs offices, salt stores, shops, and booths, forming a centre
called San Sergio by the Italians, Sveti Srgj by the Serbs; it retained
its importance until the sixteenth century.[237] At the time of Queen
Helena, the widow of Stephen Uroš I., the settlement was under a
“Bajulus Regine at Portum Sancti Sergii.”[238] Here the ships unloaded
their cargoes, which were forwarded to all parts of the interior
by caravan; goods designed for Scutari, however, were sometimes
transhipped into smaller boats and thus carried up to the lake and
town. The caravan route went past Scutari to the castle of Danj (now
Daino) on the Drim, where the Servian kings sometimes resided, and
where the route joined that from Alessio (Lissos, Alexium, Slav- and
Alb-Lješ[239]) at the mouth of the Drim. Thence the caravans proceeded
to Prizren, which they reached in thirty-three hours by a road reputed
to be one of the most difficult in the Albanian mountains.[240] The
chief halting-places were Pilot and Spas, where there was a custom
house. Prizren, which is on the Bistrica, some distance east of the
junction of that river with the White Drim, is still a large town, on
the site of the Roman Therenda.[241] Nemanja conquered it from the
Eastern Empire; in 1204 it was in Bulgarian hands; in the course of the
century it came once more into Servian possession, and was one of the
chief cities of the kingdom. King Milutin and the Tsars Dušan and Uroš
frequently made it their residence, and many ruined castles are found
in the vicinity. Here was the chief commercial factory of the Ragusans
for Albania, and they erected two Latin churches. From Prizren the
routes crossed a fertile and well-populated plain, over the watershed
between the Adriatic and the Black Sea, and into the plain of Kossovo.
At Lipljan (Ulpiana and Justiniana Secunda in Roman times) it crossed
the route from Bosnia to Salonica, reached Novobrdo, and finally Sofia,
one of the Bulgarian capitals. The first mention of a Ragusan merchant
in this city is in 1376; the Ragusan colony became very important at
the end of the century in Turkish times, when Sofia was the residence
of the Beglerbeg of Rumelia.[242]
The second _Via de Zenta_ started from the three harbours of Antivari
_via_ the Sutorman Pass, Budua by the bridle path to Cetinje (still in
use), and Cattaro by the road to Cetinje. A little further east the
three branches met, and the route proceeded over well-wooded mountains,
now, alas, bare and desolate, past the ruins of Doclea to Podgorica
(a day and a half from Cattaro); then to the Plava lake, one of the
fairest spots in Albania, but now also one of the most dangerous, on
the shores of which, according to Professor Stojan Novaković, stood
the well-known Servian trading centre of Brskovo. Professor Jireček,
however, who has had access to further materials, places it in the
upper Lim valley. Brskovo (Brescoa or Brescoua in Venetian and Ragusan
documents) was the chief commercial city of Servia, and is mentioned
as early as the days of King Stephen the First-Crowned (1196-1228). It
was principally frequented by the people of Ragusa and Cattaro, and to
a lesser extent by the Venetians. The various products of the districts
were collected here for export to the coast, while the caravans from
the coast brought foreign goods for distribution throughout Servia.
The customs, which were usually farmed out to Ragusans, were a source
of considerable revenue to the Servian kings. Here, as in some
other mining towns, was also a mint, where the _grossi di Brescova_
were coined.[243] The Ragusan colony was numerous and influential,
containing members of some of the noblest families.[244] Beyond Brskovo
came Peč (Ipek in Turkish), an archiepiscopal, and later patriarchal,
see (until 1766). Peč, too, enjoyed considerable traffic, and had a
Ragusan colony in the fourteenth century.
The post from Venice to Constantinople went by this route in the
sixteenth century. As soon as the ship arrived the despatches were
handed to the messengers (they were always natives from two Montenegrin
villages), who rode off with them _via_ Plava, Peč, Novoselo, Priština,
Samokov, and Philippopolis, reaching the Bosporus in eighteen days.[245]
Throughout Servia, Bosnia, Hlum, the Zeta, and Bulgaria there were thus
numerous Ragusan colonies. As a rule mining was the chief industry, and
it was in the mining districts that the commercial settlements were to
be found. In Roman times the mines of Illyria were well known; they
were abandoned at the time of the barbarian inroads, and it was not
until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, at the time of the rise of
the Serb States, that the industry revived. Wonderful tales were told
by mediæval travellers of the richness of the Balkan mines. As late as
1453 the Greek Critobulus asserted that gold and silver sprang from the
earth like water, and that wherever you dug you found large deposits
of the precious metals, in greater quantities than in the Indies.[246]
King Stephen Uroš II. Milutin (1282-1320) was the first to summon in
German miners, called Sasi (_i.e._ Saxons), so as to benefit by their
superior skill, but the Ragusans were also numerous. Many of the
technical terms relating to mining still used in Bosnia are of German
origin: _orat_ = _Ort_; _hutman_ = _Hüttenmann_; _karan_ = _Karren_.
The ore was extracted from galleries and shafts, many of which are
still in existence. The refining of the metal was executed at Ragusa or
Venice.
Gold, silver, lead, and iron were the chief products of the Bosnian
and Servian mines. Gold, of which the earliest mention is in 1253, was
found chiefly in the neighbourhood of Novobrdo (Novus Mons, Nouomonte,
Νοβοπύργον), which was for a long time the largest city in the interior
of the Balkan peninsula between the plain of Kossovo and the Bulgarian
Morava, three miles east of Priština. Silver, however, was found in
much larger quantities. Of this metal two kinds are mentioned in the
Ragusan annals, _i.e._ _argento bianco_ (white silver) and _argento de
glama_ (_glamsko srebro_ in Slavonic), which had a slight gold alloy.
Srebrnica was the chief centre for the silver-mining industry. Lead was
another important product, and was in much request for the roofing of
houses and churches. Sometimes a whole caravan of 300 horses journeyed
from the mining districts to Ragusa laden with nothing but lead. The
iron output gave rise to various active industries, both locally and at
Ragusa, where Bosnian iron-workers were often employed by the Republic.
A certain amount of copper was also found, and there were tin and
quicksilver mines in the Kreševo district. The principal mining centres
thus were: Kreševo and Fojnica;[247] Srebrenica, near the Drina,
chiefly for silver;[248] Zvornik on the Drina, for lead;[249] Rudnik,
where there are traces of Roman mines mentioned by Ragusan documents of
the thirteenth century; Kopaonik, for silver and iron;[250] Novobrdo,
for gold and other metals;[251] Kučevo and Brskovo, which flourished at
the end of the thirteenth century.[252]
Each mining centre usually consisted of a castle on a hill, wherein
dwelt the Vojvod, or feudal lord, representing the King or Tsar, and
a town below with a market, where the miners and merchants dwelt.
In times of danger the whole community could take shelter in the
castle.[253] The Saxons, as we have seen, were the most numerous of
the foreign settlers, and the Ragusans came immediately after them.
At Novobrdo early in the fifteenth century we find members of nearly
all the noblest Ragusan families—Bobali, Benessa, Menze, Ragnina,
Resti, Gozze, Caboga, &c. The Ragusans were the principal merchants
and carriers, and the provision trade was almost wholly in their
hands. They sold supplies in exchange for raw metal. There were also
merchants from the other Dalmatian towns, from Italy, especially from
Venice, and a few natives. The mining towns on the whole had a marked
Latin character, and they were all provided with at least one Latin
church,[254] under the authority of the Bishop of Cattaro. There were
also several Franciscan monasteries, which afterwards ministered to the
religious needs of the native Catholics in Turkish times; some of them
still exist. The chief authority in the town was, as I have said, the
Servian Vojvod, but the head of the mining and mercantile community
was the Conte dei Purgari Vaoturchi.[255] The taxes and customs were
farmed to Ragusan or Cattarine speculators, and in fact most of the
higher financial officials in the South-Slavonic States, including
the Protovestiars (Finance Ministers), were usually natives of those
cities. The Ragusans who owned houses were bound to bear arms in
defence of the castle and market-town, but the others were exempt. If
a dispute arose between them and the Saxons or the Serbs the question
was decided by an arbitration commission composed of six Ragusans and
six Saxons or Serbs. Ragusan creditors enjoyed the privilege of being
able to imprison their debtors, provided they too were Ragusans, in
their own houses. The heads of the Ragusan community were the consul
and two judges, usually noblemen appointed by the Republic. In 1332
a consul was appointed to reside at the Royal Court, which was at
Prizren or Skopje (Üsküb).[256] This consul was to travel about the
country, visiting all the market-towns, mining centres, and fairs,
with a view to learning what openings there were for Ragusan trade, as
well as all the towns where Ragusan colonies were already established.
The different mints were under the superintendence of the Vojvods
and of the _gabellotti_ (tax-farmers) or _aurifices_ (goldsmiths),
usually Ragusans or Dalmatians. In the tenth century Constantine
Porphyrogenitus alludes to the use of coinage by the Ragusans, but
for a long time afterwards trade continued to be carried on by means
of barter. Thus in 1280 we find a Ragusan selling a horse to a
fellow-citizen for sixteen ells of cloth, and even as late as 1322,
although mints were established in various places, a commercial treaty
between Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, and Ragusa alludes to the fact that
cattle were used for payments of indemnities.[257]
Communications between Ragusa and the settlements in the interior
were carried on by means of couriers (_cursores_, _corrieri_, Slav.
_knižnici_), who were instituted early in the fourteenth century,
and lasted until the fall of the Republic. They carried official
correspondence from the Republic to the ambassadors and consuls,
and legal notices, writs, reports of judicial proceedings, &c.,
to the Ragusan traders. They were not allowed to convey private
correspondence, which was usually sent by caravan, or in the case of
the chief merchants by their own special messengers, save on the return
journey. The time employed by these official messengers was usually
two days from Ragusa to Blagaj (Mostar), four or five to Visoko or
Sutieska, five or six to Prača, seven or eight to Srebrnica, ten to
Zvornik, twelve to Syrmium, seven to Rudnik or Novobrdo, fifteen to
Constantinople. In bad weather, when the passes were blocked with snow,
double the time was often necessary to traverse the same distance,
which was the time required by the caravans in favourable weather. The
envoys sent to Constantinople with the tribute to the Sultan took as
much as two months.[258] The official correspondence to the various
Ragusan representatives in the East is preserved in the archives of
Ragusa in 138 volumes, under the heading of _Lettere e Commissioni di
Levante_.
This traffic proved to be a source of great wealth for the citizens,
who in time came almost to enjoy a monopoly of the inland trade in this
part of the Balkan peninsula. But great as were the privileges which
they enjoyed, merchants and miners were subject to depredations and
arbitrary confiscations at the hands of the Servian kings, the Bosnian
Bani, or the various minor feudatories. Most of the quarrels between
Ragusa and the Slavonic States were caused by these depredations, which
after all were natural enough. The Ragusan merchants succeeded in
accumulating large fortunes by intelligent management and indefatigable
industry, which the less hard-working Slaves, devoted to the arts of
war, were incapable of acquiring. Whenever the King or vassal lord
was in need of money, what could be simpler than to pounce down upon
a richly-laden caravan on its way to or from the coast and plunder
it or take heavy toll of it, or to impose fresh taxes on the wealthy
colonies of “Uitlanders” at Rudnik, Srebrnica, or Brskovo? Ragusa
was often forced to pay tribute to this or that sovereign to ensure
safety from depredation, and in those days the line of division
between feudalism and brigandage was very vague. But the mercantile
communities were quite willing to undergo the risks for the sake of
the large profits which they made. There can be no doubt that in
this way a certain amount of civilisation was introduced into these
lands which would otherwise have remained quite without the pale. The
currents of western thought and culture found their way into Bosnia and
Servia by way of Ragusa and the other Dalmatian towns rather than by
Constantinople.[259] These civilising influences increased and spread
until the curse of the Turkish conquest fell on the land like a blight,
from which it is only now beginning slowly and painfully to recover.
This mercantile development naturally led to the formation of numerous
guilds or confraternities. Like other Ragusan institutions, they were
based on Venetian models, and were really the beginnings of the modern
mutual aid societies on a religious groundwork. Among the earliest of
these are that of the joiners, founded in 1266; that of St. Michael,
founded in 1290; that of the goldsmiths (1306), that of Rosgiato
(1321), and that of St. Anthony the Abbot (1348). During the Venetian
period they were under strict Government supervision, but after 1358
they were invested with political privileges and exemptions.[260]
CHAPTER VI
ART IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
During the Venetian period, with the increasing wealth and consequence
of Ragusa, the city itself was beautified by the erection of numerous
handsome buildings, both lay and ecclesiastical, and by 1358 it was
almost entirely reconstructed. In its early days the walls, the castle,
and one or two churches were the only stone edifices; all the rest
of the town was of timber. Throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries the defences were increased, new bastions erected, and the
older walls strengthened. The city now occupied both the seaward ridge
and the slopes of Monte Sergio. The walls by which it was surrounded
climbed painfully over the rocky eminences on each side, and dropped
down almost to the sea-level in between. The fortifications did not
acquire their present aspect until the sixteenth century, but parts of
them were begun much earlier. Four towers were erected at the entrance
of the harbour on the south-east side of the town, of which two—San
Luca and San Giovanni—still survive. The latter, which is now called
the Forte Molo, a huge round bastion, has been considerably altered in
later times; San Luca has preserved more of its original character.
Of the tower called the _Campana Morta_ (the dead bell),[261] few
traces beyond the name survives. The sea-tower which occupies its site
is evidently of a much later date. These towers were garrisoned by
the town guard of 127 men, who were chosen by lot from the citizens
every month, and increased in times of danger.[262] Other towers were
built at intervals along the walls, and their defence was entrusted
to the private families whose houses they adjoined. Of these the most
important was the Torre Menze or Minćeta, one of the most beautiful
features of the city. Its erection was decreed on July 3, 1319, but it
was entirely rebuilt in the fifteenth century, and considerably altered
in the sixteenth. It stands on one of the highest points of the town on
the Monte Sergio.
Of the other buildings of this time there are some important remains,
from which we may resume a fair idea of Ragusan architecture under the
Venetians. Its characteristic note at all times is the fact that early
forms were preserved here, as in other parts of Dalmatia, down to a
much later date than in the rest of Europe. The style is a mixture
of Italian with an Oriental touch, and occasionally, according to
Mr. Jackson, even a German element. During the Venetian age traces
of Byzantine art still survive, and in buildings of the fourteenth
century, a time when Italian Gothic was most flourishing, we find
the round arch of Romanesque art. But Ragusan builders did not follow
any very distinct system. The various styles were no more than tapped
by them. None were fully developed; and in every building, from
whichever point of view we regard it, we find many deviations from
strict orthodoxy. Some of the Ragusan architects and master-masons
had been educated in Italy, others perhaps at Constantinople, but no
part of their work shows an absolute grasp over any definite style.
Nevertheless it is extremely interesting, and proves them by no means
deficient in artistic sense. Many of the buildings of this little
Republic are of great beauty, and the whole _ensemble_ of edifices
compares favourably with many a more famous Italian town.
The principal buildings erected or completed between 1200 and 1350
are the following: The cathedral church of Santa Maria (1206-1250),
San Biagio (1348), the church and monastery of the Franciscans (begun
1319), the Dominican church and monastery (1254-1306), the _Castello_
(1350, on the site of an earlier building), and the _Sponza_ or custom
house, begun early in the fourteenth century. The cathedral was
destroyed by the earthquake of 1667, San Biagio by fire in 1706, the
_Castello_ supplanted by another building in 1388. The Franciscan and
Dominican churches were almost entirely rebuilt in later times, but of
their monasteries much remains, and the cloisters are in their original
state. The Sponza, too, survives, although the top story, the façade,
and the portico were added subsequently.
[Illustration: CAPITAL IN THE FRANCISCAN CLOISTER]
What the Duomo was like we can only discover from the somewhat confused
account of De Diversis, and from the model of the town in the hands
of the silver statuette of San Biagio. According to local tradition,
it was erected through the munificence of Richard Cœur-de-Lion, King
of England, who on returning from the Holy Land encountered a terrible
storm off Corfu, and made a vow that he would build a church to the
Virgin on the spot where he should first touch land in safety. After
being tossed about for several days he was able to land on the island
of Lacroma, near Ragusa. In fulfilment of his vow he built the church,
at the request of the citizens, in Ragusa itself, as well as a small
chapel on the island. There is, however, no evidence of the truth
of this story, and none of the contemporary accounts of Richard’s
peregrinations even mention Ragusa, while the entries in the Ragusan
archives state that the church was built with the contributions of
the nobles. According to De Diversis, it was the most beautiful
church in Dalmatia. It consisted of a nave and side aisles separated
by great columns; and from the above-mentioned model of the city we
see that it had a cupola mounted on a drum pierced with windows and a
clerestory. De Diversis also speaks of a curious ambulatory formed by
small columns outside the church, the walls of which were ornamented
with figures of animals. In the choir was the high altar, with a pala
of silver under a beautiful ciborium supported on four pillars. The
floors were of mosaic, and the windows all filled with stained glass.
On the walls were depicted scenes from the Old Testament and the New.
All this bespeaks a Romanesque building with traces of Byzantine art.
But alas! nothing remains of this exquisite piece of architecture; the
present church (1671-1713) is a large classical edifice with barocco
ornamentation.
[Illustration: CAPITAL IN THE FRANCISCAN CLOISTER]
The original church of San Biagio was begun in 1348 as a votive
offering after the plague of that year. From De Diversis’s description
it was very similar to the Duomo, but on a smaller scale. It suffered
little damage from the earthquake, but was burnt down in 1706. Both
this church and the Duomo are fairly good examples of an unattractive
style, and the stone of which they are built is of a rich mellow tone.
The two stately piles at each end of the town—the Franciscan and
Dominican monasteries—have fortunately preserved much of their original
character. The latter was begun after the destruction of the first
Franciscan house outside the Porta Pile by the Slaves in 1319, and
the new building was erected just within the gate, which its inmates
were to guard in times of danger. The church and a large part of the
monastery have been rebuilt since the earthquake, although here and
there a few interesting details remain. Thus on the south side, opening
on to the Stradone, there is a handsome doorway in the Venetian Gothic
style, surmounted by a _Pietà_, a very fair piece of sculpture; the
date is probably the end of the fifteenth century. In the sacristy we
find a Renaissance lavabo of carved stone. The campanile marks the
transition from the Romanesque to the Gothic. The east window of the
lower story and those on the second story are Venetian Gothic, while
the south window of the lower story is round-arched. The top story
with the cupola was rebuilt after the earthquake. But it is in the
cloister that the chief interest of the building lies, a cloister
which Mr. T. G. Jackson calls “one of the most singular pieces of
architecture I have ever seen.”[263] Here we observe the most notable
feature of Dalmatian architecture in all its force, for although its
date is later than 1319 it is thoroughly Romanesque in character, and
all the arches are round. It consists of a courtyard with three bays
opening out into it on each side; the openings are divided into six
round-headed lights, each head being pierced by a large circular light.
A series of coupled octagonal shafts standing one behind the other,
with a common base and common abacus, but separate capitals, serve as
mullions to the arches. The capitals are extremely quaint and curious.
Each one is different from its fellows, and the architect seems to
have let his fancy run riot in designing them, “recalling the wildest
and most grotesque fancies of early Romanesque work.”[264] Some are
adorned with simple foliage, spiral volutes, and block leaves, but
on others we find hideous grinning faces, dragons, strange uncouth
monsters, masks, dogs, and all manner of fanciful ornaments. Judged by
ordinary standards, we should take them to be work of the twelfth or
thirteenth century, but as a matter of fact they are of a much later
date. According to Eitelberger, these early forms were preserved in
most of the monasteries of the East when they had given place to Gothic
in Western Europe.[265] The workmanship of these capitals, like much
Ragusan carving, is somewhat rough and unfinished, but for this the
material, which is not sufficiently hard, may be partly responsible.
Of the open circles in the heads of the opening, the centre one on
each side of the cloister is larger, and ornamented with a rich border
of acanthus leaves; the others are cusped. Possibly it was intended
that they should all contain some ornamentation, and indeed the large
round openings look somewhat bare. Above the cloister is an elegant
balustrade, of which only one side survived the earthquake, but a few
years ago it was restored according to the original design. The name
of the architect has been preserved in an inscription in the cloister
itself:
☩ S · DE · MAGIST
ER MYCHA PETRAR
DANTIVAR QVIPPE
CITCLAVSTRVM
CVM OMNIBVS SVIS.
He was one Mycha of Antivari, a town where Byzantine influence was
stronger than at Ragusa. The inscription has no date, but it is
close to two others of 1363 and 1428, and the style of the lettering,
according to Jackson, is even earlier than 1363. The building was
not begun until after 1319, when the former Franciscan monastery was
destroyed, so that the date is somewhere between 1319 and 1363. Within
the enclosure are orange trees and evergreen shrubs, and a graceful
little fountain is placed in the centre; the whole scene forms a most
charming picture of mediæval monastic life. A second cloister higher
up the hillside served as a garden where the simples for the monks’
pharmacy were grown. This, too, is a delightful old-world nook.
At the opposite end of the town, just inside the Porta Ploce, stands
the massive group of the Dominican church and monastery. These
buildings originally formed the southern bulwark of the town, the monks
themselves, like the Franciscans, being entrusted with the defence of
the gate; but later a second wall was built outside it. The church,
which was begun in 1245 and completed in 1360, consists of a vast
nave separated from a polygonal choir by a high arch. The building is
extremely bare; the traces of Gothic arches and clustered pillars form
a sort of skeleton, around which the existing church was constructed
in the seventeenth century. In the sacristy there are a few more
fragments of early work, and the south doorway, with a round arch of
many receding orders under an ogee crocketed hood mould, also belongs
to the original church. Jackson notices a strong flavour of German
Gothic in it. There are several pointed windows of extreme simplicity,
and a large round one decorated with an outside frill of small
Venetian arches. The campanile was begun in 1424[266] by Fra Stefano,
a Dominican, but it was not completed in 1440, for De Diversis says of
it, “nondum perfectum, in dies crescit.” It has round arches and shafts
set back to the centre of the wall.
But as in the Franciscan monastery, the cloister is almost untouched.
It is an irregular square, with five bays on each side, each bay being
divided by three lights, the head pierced by two irregular lights
above. The style is a curious medley “of Gothic and Renaissance,
of forms understood and otherwise, as indeed could only occur in a
land which, being on the borders of Eastern and Western culture,
did not possess the power to create and execute the various styles
correctly.”[267] The arches of the bays are round, but the inside work
has more the character of Venetian Gothic, especially in the foliage.
The shield of the semicircular head is pierced by quatrefoil lights
encircled alternately with an ornament of interlacing circles almost
Byzantine in character. The Dalmatian architect had doubtless seen
Gothic work in Italy, but “had failed to grasp the idea of receding
orders in the arch, or consistent mouldings in his tracery.”[268] The
columns with their caps and bases are of a severely antique character.
But in spite of all deviations from architectural orthodoxy this
cloister, set off by cherry and orange trees and evergreen shrubs, is,
after the Franciscan cloister, one of the loveliest monastic buildings
in Dalmatia.
The secular buildings, with one notable exception, belong to a later
period. The exception is the Sponza[269] or custom house, a large
part of which was built in the early fourteenth century. It stands at
the end of the Stradone, opposite the Piazza and the church of San
Biagio, and consists of three stories built round a courtyard. The
ground floor and first floor were probably built in the first years
of the thirteenth century.[270] The top story, the façade, and the
portico belong to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The oblong
courtyard is surrounded on the lower story by vaulted arcades of round
arches with square soffits supported on short plain solid octagonal
columns, without bases (like those of the Ducal Palace at Venice), and
short capitals opening out into square abaci. The second story is also
arcaded, and has twice as many window openings as the lower story has
arches, round at the two ends and pointed on the sides, with square
piers over the columns below and round columns over the centres of the
arches; their capitals are adorned with foliage, some _à crochet_,
and some with deflected leaves at the angles. According to Jackson,
all this part is of the same period, in spite of the fact that some
of the openings are round and some pointed. The general effect is one
of extreme simplicity and sobriety; it is, as Jackson says truly, “an
admirable piece of plain, useful, and not ungraceful architecture, not
too showy for the commonplace purposes of the building, and yet well
proportioned and carefully built.”[271] Round the courtyard are the
various warehouses, over the doors of which are the names of different
saints. Above the end arch is the inscription:—
___
FALLERE NRA VETANT ET FALLI PONDERA MEQ.
PONDERO CVM MERCES PONDERAT IPSE DEVS.
The early work ends with the moulded stringcourse above the second
story; the third story, which has plain square windows, bears the
date 1520 and the monogram IHS, found on so many houses in Ragusa, to
commemorate the earthquake of that year. The façade has a portico of
five handsome round arches in the Renaissance style, the columns of
which are adorned with elaborate capitals; many of these have been
renewed. Above is a row of windows in the purest Venetian style of the
fifteenth century. The central window is a three-light aperture, the
two side ones are of a single light. The windows of the third story are
square like those looking on the courtyard. In the centre is a niche
with a statue of St. Blaize, while the row of pinnacles on the roof
call to mind many a Venetian palazzo. In spite of all incongruities the
Sponza is a very attractive building, full of quaint grace and good
work.
It has many interesting associations with Ragusan history. It was here
that the caravans about to start on their perilous journeys through the
wild Balkan lands formed up, and those which arrived at Ragusa first
stopped. Every bale of goods arriving at or departing from the city, by
sea or land, had to be first examined at the Sponza, where the proper
amount of duty was assessed and paid. All business was transacted at
or around this building. To this day it serves as a custom-house,
and still forms a picturesque background for the crowds of peasants
and traders from all parts of Dalmatia, the Herzegovina, Montenegro,
and Albania who congregate here on market days, although the traffic
has declined both in bulk and in value since the palmy days of the
Republic. The first floor was used in later years for literary and
learned societies and entertainments. The second floor was the mint.
Of the _Castello_ no traces now remain, its place having been taken by
the Rector’s Palace, with which we shall deal later on. The buildings
we have described were almost the only stone edifices in the town.
All the rest, including the convent of the Clarisse, founded in 1290,
were of timber.[272] Ragusa was in great part destroyed by fire in
1292, and rebuilt shortly afterwards, mostly of wood, as before. In
a _Reformatio_ of 1320 the Government published a decree against the
excessive use of timber in construction. But the city was improving in
various ways. The streets were wider and more regular, and stone steps
were built on either side of the _Stradone_ to make the higher quarters
more accessible. Elaborate rules were issued to ensure the solidity of
the roofs and chimneys, and by 1355 the town was paved with brick.[273]
The steep streets on the seaward ridge and on the eight slopes of Monte
Sergio began to assume their present aspect, although but few details
of fourteenth-century domestic architecture have remained. There are
several houses in the Venetian Gothic style, but these were built
during the Hungarian occupation, the artistic influence of Venice
outlasting her political suzerainty.
Of the plastic arts we find as yet only slight beginnings, but we may
mention a few early paintings in the Dominican church. A large crucifix
in the Byzantine style, which hangs over the choir arch, was vowed
during the black death of 1348. In the sacristy there is a polyptych
in ten sections, with the Baptism of Christ in the centre of the lower
row, and St. Michael, St. Nicholas, St. Blaize, and St. Stephen; the
Virgin, with St. Peter, St. Dominic, St. Peter Martyr, and St. Francis
above. The work is very primitive; but if it be by a local master, it
is probably of a later date than the style suggests. The robes are
very rich and profusely gilt, but the effect is garish rather than
brilliant, although restoration may perhaps be responsible for this. A
Byzantine Madonna and Child in red is in the same church between the
nave and the transept.
In the city records there are occasional entries alluding to the
engagement of painters, and in 1344 a certain Magister Bernardus was
commissioned to paint the new hall of the communal palace, which he
was to decorate “pomis et stellis auratis.” No trace of this work has
survived.
An interesting piece of sculpture is the bas-relief of St. Blaize on a
wall near the Porta Ploce. The figure is seen in profile, and carries
a crozier with a Lamb in the crook. It is somewhat stiff and Oriental
in pose, but full of character. Curiously enough, it is the only really
good statue of the city’s patron saint at Ragusa. Other images may be
seen over the gates, on the fortifications, and on various buildings,
but they are all colourless and of very rough workmanship. A plaque of
marble, with figures in high relief, in the sacristy of the Franciscan
church, deserves notice. It is said to be thirteenth-century work of
the Isola di Mezzo.
During the next two hundred years architecture attains to its full
development, and at least one painter arises whose work is of
considerable value, while the goldsmith’s and silversmith’s art come to
occupy an important place.
CHAPTER VII
RAGUSA UNDER HUNGARIAN SUPREMACY—THE TURKISH INVASION, 1358-1420
By the treaty of 1358 the whole eastern shore of the Adriatic as far as
Durazzo was ceded to Hungary, but as a matter of fact that Power only
extended its occupation as far as Ragusa. Not having a strong fleet,
King Louis feared that the more southern cities would be difficult to
hold, and he therefore never exercised his treaty rights over them.
Venice, having lost with Dalmatia her chief naval base, turned her
attention towards Albania and the adjoining Slavonic countries. She
had at one time occupied Durazzo (1205-1208), and through her colonies
in Dalmatia had come into contact with the Albanians. Now that her
influence in the former country was destroyed, and that she had lost
a large part of her mainland possessions, the population devoted
itself to “the bee-like task of accumulating wealth and extending its
commerce.”[274] Relations were once more established with Albania,
trade with that country was encouraged, and the foundations were laid
for the revival of Venetian influence in the Adriatic.[275]
The conditions of the Slavonic states behind Dalmatia were at this
time extremely disturbed. During the brilliant reign of Stephen Dušan,
the Servian people were at the height of their greatness and power.
Macedonia, Albania, and other parts of the Greek Empire, and a part of
Bosnia, as well as Servia proper, acknowledged the rule of the Servian
Tsar, and even Bulgaria paid him tribute. The great position of Servia
under this ruler is not usually appreciated by historians of the
Eastern Empire. Dušan, as Professor Bury observes,[276] was not only
a great warrior, but a great legislator, and drew up the _Zakonik_ or
code of laws, comparable with that of Jaroslav for Russia. Had he lived
a few years longer, and been able to crush the turbulence of his feudal
vassals and consolidate his possessions, Kossovo might never have
taken place, and the Balkans never have been subjected to the horrors
of the Turkish conquest. But on his death in 1355 the whole fabric of
his Empire split up into a number of separate principalities. He was
succeeded by his son, Uroš IV. (1355-1367), who was not strong enough
to carry on his father’s work, and the Magnates and governors soon
began to show signs of insubordination. Not only had he to deal with
internal discontent, but he was also attacked by foreign neighbours.
In 1358 Louis of Hungary made war upon him with such success that he
conquered the erstwhile Hungarian district of Mačva,[277] south of the
Save, and placed Nicholas of Gara to rule over it.[278]
The most powerful Servian Magnates were the brothers Vukašin and
Ulješa Mrnjavčić, Knez[279] Lazar Grebljanović, who was afterwards
to achieve immortal fame on the field of Kossovo, Vuk Branković, the
brothers Balša, and Knez Vojslav Voinović. This last and the Balšas
obtained their independence during the lifetime of Uroš. In 1367 the
last of the Nemanjas died, murdered, it is said, by Vukašin’s followers
while out hunting. Vukašin himself, who had been greatly favoured by
Dušan and appointed, by the terms of the Tsar’s will, chief State
Councillor to Uroš, succeeded to the throne. But this only hastened the
disruption of the Empire, for Knez Lazar, Vuk Branković, and Nicholas
Altomanovic (the Governor of the Danubian provinces) rose against him,
and not only proclaimed their own independence, but occupied part of
his immediate possessions.[280]
Of the various states into which the Servian Empire split up the first
to be formed was the Zedda, ruled by the Balša family. These were,
according to some authorities, of French origin, and according to
others were descended from the Nemanjas.[281] A Balša had served in
Dušan’s armies, and was afterwards made governor of the Zedda. In a
privilege of 1360, in which Stephen Uroš IV. grants trading rights in
his states to the Ragusans, the “Zedda of Balša” is mentioned, showing
that the province was still under Servian suzerainty. It consisted of
the region round the lake of Scutari, _i.e._ of part of Montenegro
and Northern Albania; it is, in fact, another name for the ancient
Doclea.[282] It was always regarded with especial affection by the
Nemanjas as their original home, and in 1195 they made it into a Grand
County. The first Balša died in 1361, leaving three sons, Stračimir,
George, and Balša II., and a daughter. The sons reigned jointly, the
eldest being merely “primus inter pares.”[283] They at once began to
aspire to become independent of Servian authority and to expand their
own territories. Their first move was an alliance with Ragusa, who made
them honorary citizens of the Republic. Between 1362 and 1370 they
conquered Scutari and threw off all allegiance to Dušan’s successor.
South of the Zedda lies Albania proper. Formerly a province of the
Eastern Empire, it had first been conquered by Charles of Anjou (1266),
then by Stephen Uroš II. Milutin, and then again by Philip of Taranto
for the Angevins. Finally, after many vicissitudes, it came under the
rule of the native prince Charles Topia, who, after he had captured
Durazzo from the Neapolitans in 1364, made himself master of the whole
of Middle Albania and independent of Servia. In Southern Albania and
Macedonia other vassal nobles, such as the Gropa of Ochrida, Radoslav
Hlapa in the Verria district, and Alexander at Avlona, rose to power.
In the immediate hinterland of Ragusa was the land of Hlum, ruled by
Knez Vojslav Voinović, who owed allegiance both to the Servian Tsar
and to the Banus of Bosnia. He too after Dušan’s death made himself
independent of his successor, and with Hungarian help also of the
Banus. His territory extended from the Servian Morava by Senice and
Gacko to Cattaro and Ragusa, and included the coast between those two
towns. He was the bitterest enemy of the Ragusans, and never ceased
from molesting them. He is described in their chronicles and documents
as a “homo perfidus,” who “tamquam infidelis male servat fidem.”[284]
On his death in 1363 he was succeeded by his nephew Nicholas
Altomanović, who fixed his headquarters at the important commercial
town of Rudnik.
Stephen Tvrtko, Banus of Bosnia, profited by the break-up of Servia to
consolidate his own possessions. He had come to the throne in 1353, and
sided with Hungary in the war against Venice and the Serbs. Apparently
some of his Magnates were inclined to rebellion and encouraged in their
disloyalty by the Tsar Dušan, who thus hoped to annex the whole Banate;
in this he might have succeeded had he not been cut off by death while
on the march to Constantinople (Dec. 20, 1355). But as soon as the
power of Servia was broken, Louis of Hungary changed his policy towards
Bosnia, and obliged Tvrtko to agree to very onerous conditions. His
possession of the Banate was recognised, but he had to give up his
rights over Hlum to Elizabeth, Louis’s wife.[285] At the same time he
was reduced to the position of a vassal of Hungary, and various feudal
lords on the frontier were encouraged to shake off their allegiance
to him. A general rising of the Bosnian barons ensued, and the sect
of the Bogomils, taking advantage of this state of anarchy, became so
influential that Pope Innocent VI. proclaimed a crusade against them
early in 1360. This was more than Louis had bargained for, and he sent
an army into Bosnia (June 1360) which put down the revolt and restored
Tvrtko’s authority. Another rebellion broke out in 1365, and Tvrtko was
driven from the country and forced to apply once more for Hungarian
help; a small contingent was granted to him, and after severe fighting
he managed to regain the throne in 1366; his brother Vuk, a Bogomil,
who had been among the rebels, fled to Ragusa. Shortly after Tvrtko
visited that city in full state, accompanied by a train of nobles,
confirmed all the privileges granted to it by his uncle Stephen, and
contracted a treaty of perpetual alliance with the Republic, “save
for what shall do injury to the honour of the King of Hungary.”[286]
But he failed to achieve the main object of his visit, viz. the
surrender of Vuk. The Ragusans refused to give him up, and on becoming
a Catholic he enlisted the sympathy of the Pope (Urban V.) for his
claims to the Bosnian throne. But Louis of Hungary would not support
him, having turned his attention to Poland, of which country he hoped
to become king. Tvrtko was thus able to enjoy a period of peace, and to
consolidate his somewhat disturbed Banate.
[Illustration: FAÇADE OF THE RECTOR’S PALACE
(_From a photograph by Messrs. Stengel & Co., Dresden_)]
The Republic of Cattaro continued to remain in a state of
semi-independence. It was usually on good terms with Venice, and the
town contained a flourishing commercial colony of Venetians. Ensconced
in the deep and well-sheltered inlet known as the Bocche di Cattaro,
its trade was active and its mercantile fleet large. Its relations
with Ragusa were characterised by mutual jealousy, owing partly
to commercial rivalry (especially on account of the disputed salt
monopoly), and partly to the intrigues of Venice, who wished to prevent
all possible coalitions of the Dalmatian townships against her own
supremacy.[287]
A new Power now makes its appearance as a factor in the history of
Europe, the Ottoman Turks, who were destined in the space of two
centuries to conquer the whole of the Balkan peninsula, a large part of
Dalmatia, and nearly the whole of Hungary, humbling that kingdom to the
dust. The Serbs and other South Slavonic peoples by their civil wars
and mutual jealousies prepared the way for their greatest enemy and
that of all Christendom. In these events the part played by Ragusa was
a curious one. At one moment the Republic actually tried to arbitrate
in the quarrels of the Servian princes and to induce them to unite
against the invader. But from the point of view of general European
history its chief interest lies in the action of its Government in
obtaining information as to the movements of the Turkish armies. The
Ragusans were subsequently on good terms with the Turks, and permitted
to visit all parts of the Empire, even when other Europeans were
excluded. Ragusan merchants and agents sent home despatches which are
preserved in the city records, and in them we can follow the Turkish
conquest step by step, as city after city, province after province,
was first raided, then rendered tributary, and finally absorbed into
the Sultan’s dominions. This is not the place to tell the story of the
conquest, but it will be well to remind the reader of a few of its more
important events and dates.
The first Turkish invasion of Europe occurred in 1341, when Orhan
crossed the Bosporos to intervene in the civil wars of the Eastern
Empire. Several minor raids followed, while the Emir Orchan
(1326-1360), who may be regarded as the founder of the Ottoman power,
established his capital at Brusa. In 1358 his son Suleiman again
invaded Europe, and the Chersonnese was soon filled with colonies of
Ottomans.[288] In 1359 Gallipoli, “the key of Europe,” was occupied and
rebuilt as a Turkish town. In 1360 both Orchan and his son Suleiman
died, and his second son Murad succeeded to the throne. The latter
in the following year captured Adrianople, which henceforward was to
be the seat of the Turkish Government, and the headquarters for the
attacks on the Greek Empire, the Serbs, and the Bulgarians. In 1370 a
Turkish army of 70,000 men under Murad spread into Macedonia, but was
driven back by the Serbs under King Vukašin and his brother Ulješa.
He advanced again the following year, and encountered the Serbs at
Černomen,[289] on the right bank of the Marica, a day’s march from
Adrianople. The Serbs won in the first instance, but during the night
the Turks rallied, and inflicted a terrible defeat on them. Vukašin
and his brother fell with the flower of the Servian chivalry.[290] The
Turks now overran Macedonia and Servia, and forced Marko Kraljević,
Vukašin’s eldest son, and other Slave princes to pay tribute to them.
The vassals who had hitherto obeyed Vukašin now rebelled against his
son, and the Servian Empire was definitely broken up, while the Turks
became ever more powerful.
The exchange of Hungarian supremacy in the place of that of Venice
brought about less change in the internal situation of Ragusa than
might have been expected, but the dignity of the Republic was enhanced
by the further extension of its autonomy, for it now becomes to all
intents and purposes an independent State. When the last Venetian Count
departed a commission of three Rectors, elected by the citizens, was
appointed to carry on the affairs of the Government, and they were to
be changed every two months. But a few months later the number was
reduced to one,[291] and his tenure of office limited to one month.
Formerly, in the periods during which Ragusa had been independent, the
ruler of the State had held office for six months, and had enjoyed
considerable authority. But the example of Damiano Juda had made
the citizens chary of entrusting their destinies to a too powerful
magistrate, and they now curtailed his initiative till he became a mere
figure-head. His chief duties were the safe-keeping of the keys of the
castles and of the State seals, the summoning of the Grand Council,
the Senate, and the Minor Council, and the proposal of the affairs
to be discussed in these assemblies, in which, however, he himself
had only one vote. During his brief tenure of office he might never
leave his official residence save in full state, _i.e._ accompanied by
twenty-four retainers attired in scarlet, two musicians, and all the
chief secretaries and palace functionaries. His own robe was like that
of a Venetian senator. Under these circumstances we can hardly imagine
him taking much pleasure in a quiet walk for a breath of fresh air. If
he was ill or excluded from the Council “in his own interest or in that
of his relations,”[292] his place was taken by the senior member of the
Minor Council. If he died while in office he was borne to the grave on
the shoulders of the nobles, the bell of the Palace tolled, and the
city gates were closed. In 1441 Ladislas, King of Hungary, conferred
upon the chief magistrate of Ragusa the title of Arch-Rector, which
was confirmed by King Matthew Corvinus in 1463, but the Senate refused
to allow him to use it, lest it should inspire him with dangerous
ambitions! He was, however, permitted to accept the knighthood of the
Golden Spur with which he had been invested by the same monarch. No
other important changes were made in the constitution from this date
until the fall of the Republic.
Ragusa’s international position, however, was now considerably
altered. The King of Hungary allowed the citizens the most absolute
liberty to manage their own affairs, and not only had he no Hungarian
representative in the town, but he did not even attempt to interfere
indirectly with the Government. Ragusa was merely bound to pay him a
tribute and to provide a naval contingent in time of war on the terms
set forth in the treaty of Višegrad. She always remained the faithful
friend and ally of Hungary, and was quite content to render this not
very onerous allegiance; in her relations with that Power there was no
trace of the constant recriminations and bickerings that there were
with Venice. The reason of this difference of feeling towards the two
Powers lies in the character of Venetian as compared with Hungarian
policy. Venice was ever extending her influence down the Adriatic
coast, consolidating her dominion, and destroying local autonomies.
Above all, Venice was a great maritime Power and could swoop down on
Ragusa or any other Adriatic town with her swift galleys at any moment;
commercial rivalry, too, had its effect, for Venice aspired to the
monopoly of the same trades as those in which Ragusa dealt. Hungary,
on the other hand, was purely a military State. Its aims were internal
consolidation and the security of its own immediate frontiers. It
did not aspire to distant dominions, as it had no powerful navy, and
it merely desired to possess Dalmatia so as to secure a wider outlet
to the sea than the Croatian coast; and it had no sea-borne trade to
interfere with that of Ragusa. On the land side it wished to secure the
allegiance of the Bosnian Banus, but there was little danger of its
establishing an absolute sway over the Slave lands immediately behind
Ragusa.
The Ragusans now set to work to consolidate their independence and
develop their trade, but they were not destined to enjoy a long period
of absolute peace. Their first quarrel was with Vojslav Voinović, Count
of Hlum (“Comes Chelmi Magnus Procer Imperatoris Sclavoniæ”).[293]
Early in 1359 the Republic sent an envoy to him, offering to pay a
sum of 4000 _ipperperi_ as tribute due to the Emperor of Slavonia;
but shortly after he raided the Ragusan districts of Astarea and
Gionchetto, burned the houses and churches, cut down the vineyards,
took a number of prisoners, and arrested the Ragusan traders in his
territories. Vojslav was known to be meditating an expedition against
Stagno and even Ragusa, so that defensive measures were taken.
All the city gates except two were walled up, a special guard of
night watchmen was formed, troops and sailors levied throughout the
Republic’s dominions, and a band of mercenaries was raised at Curzola
with the permission of the Venetian Count for the defence of Stagno.
A master-mechanic was sent for from Messina to superintend the war
engines, and a master-crossbowman from Italy. In the meanwhile the
Senate sent envoys to the King of Hungary and to his lieutenant the
Banus of Croatia and Dalmatia, complaining of Vojslav’s conduct, and
asking for assistance against him.[294] He was described as being “like
a wolf who wishes to devour us lambs,”[295] and a price of 10,000
_ipperperi_ was put on his head the following year.[296] Ragusa also
tried to resort to another measure against Vojslav. The latter’s
territory reached as far as the neighbourhood of Cattaro, which
town served him as a port. Ragusa now proposed an alliance with the
Cattarini, and suggested that they should break off all relations with
the lord of Hlum and cease to provide him with provisions and salt.
But Cattaro was unable to accede to this plan from fear of Vojslav’s
power. Ragusa then determined to punish that town, and made an alliance
to this end with the Balšas, lords of Zedda. Negotiations were opened
with the Servian Tsar Uroš and with his most powerful vassals, and
envoys were sent to the King of Bosnia and to Sanko to arrange a plan
of campaign against Hlum. Operations began by sea, and on July 6, 1361,
Ragusa itself appears to have been attacked by Vojslav’s ships.[297]
The Republic confiscated the money which that prince had deposited in
the town,[298] and a naval expedition was fitted out to operate against
Cattaro and raid the Bocche. Raids were also made into Vojslav’s
territories on the land side, and doubtless the Ragusans were able to
pay their enemy back in his own coin. The quarrel with Cattaro and
Vojslav lasted nearly two years, and only ended through Venetian and
Servian mediation.
According to some authorities[299] Vojslav died in 1363, and was
succeeded by his cousin Nicholas Altomanović; according to others[300]
in 1371. The latter date is probably the correct one, the confusion
having arisen from the fact that Nicholas came to reign jointly with
his brother in 1363 or 1364, and after that date we find them both
mentioned in the Ragusan documents. This system of dual or plural
sovereignty, prevalent in Servian lands, caused much trouble, and also
weakened the resistance against the Turkish invaders, as the rival
princes were always quarrelling among themselves and intriguing with
outside foes against each other. At this time a coalition of a number
of Servian princelings and nobles against others was formed, and
produced the most fatal consequences by breaking up the organisation
of the country. During this war the Balšas, in order to consolidate
their power, began to make political and commercial alliances with
their neighbours. For this purpose they applied to Ragusa, requesting
the honour of Ragusan citizenship for themselves. The Senate was well
pleased to accede to this desire, as the Republic was feeling by no
means safe from Vojslav, and Hungarian help delayed in coming. A treaty
of offensive and defensive alliance was concluded, by which it was
agreed that the Balšas should attack Cattaro, Vojslav’s ally, by land
and the Ragusans by sea. The Ragusan envoy, Clemente Dersa, informed
the Balšas that Vojslav was meditating a _coup de main_ on Budua, and
that this would be a serious menace to their territory. Budua is a
small town on the Adriatic, just south of the entrance to the Bocche di
Cattaro. It is of ancient origin, and has one of the earliest municipal
statutes in existence.[301] It was under the direct protection of the
Servian Tsars, who were represented by a _castellano_, and independent
of the vassal feudatories. Ragusa had had a quarrel with the town in
1359 owing to the alleged acts of piracy committed by its inhabitants,
but afterwards peace was made when Budua became in a manner subject to
the Balšas and helped them in their revolt against Servia. During the
hostilities the Cattarini besieged Budua and nearly captured it, taking
a number of prisoners in the sorties, until a Ragusan flotilla came
to the rescue and drove them back.[302] In April 1362 Ragusan ships
blockaded Cattaro by sea, while the Balšas attacked it by land.[303]
During these hostilities the Ragusans captured the property of some
Venetian merchants as contraband of war, and this caused further
unpleasantness with Venice. Cattaro then requested Venetian mediation,
and in January 1362 Paolo Quirini and a Hungarian representative were
sent to Dalmatia to arbitrate, but without success. At last, in August,
the Servian Tsar intervened, and on August 22 peace was signed at
Onogost.[304] All parties regained their former privileges, prisoners
were liberated, and compensation paid for injuries. The chief result
for Ragusa was the introduction of the plague from the lands beyond
the mountains.[305] The Balšas, however, were able to extend their
territory along the coast as far as Dulcigno, and in 1367 the dignity
of warden of Budua passed to George Balša, and he and his brothers
thenceforward styled themselves “magnificent barons of Maritime
Slavonia.” They were now able to negotiate with Venice, and became an
important Power in the Adriatic. This ultimately proved advantageous
for the Ragusans, to whom they granted many privileges and opened the
trade routes up the rivers of Northern Albania. They also obtained for
the Republic from the Servian Tsar the full possession of the island of
Meleda.[306]
But the peace failed to prevent the molestations of the lawless Count
of Hlum, Nicholas Altomanović. In April 1371[307] the Ragusans wrote
to the King of Hungary complaining of his raids, and describing him
as “the worst of all the Rascian barons, although they are all false
and infamous.” Not content with the gifts they had made to him, he had
demanded the tribute due to the Servian Tsar, and on their refusal he
invaded their territory and tortured the prisoners he made by pouring
boiling lard over them. The Ragusans added that the Banus of Mačva,
who was the King of Hungary’s vassal, had done nothing to restrain
Altomanović, but was secretly his friend. The whole of the interior
being in a state of anarchy, inland trade was almost at a standstill,
and the Republic requested the King to intercede with the Pope for the
renewal of the licence to send two ships every year to the lands of the
Infidel.
The Ragusan forces, however, managed on several occasions to defeat
the bands of Altomanović, and later in the year the Republic joined
the alliance of Knez Lazar and Tvrtko, Banus of Bosnia, against that
prince. The latter now had won the Balšas to his side by the gift
of Canali, Trebinje, and Dračevica, but the coalition succeeded in
conquering a large part of his possessions. Knez Lazar occupied Rudnik,
and Tvrtko the upper valley of the Drina, and drove George Balša from
Trebinje. The King of Bosnia’s possessions were thus extended by 1376
over the greater part of the Servian lands as far as Trebinje, Cattaro,
and Nikšić in the south, to Senice in the east, and included the
important monastery of Mileševo, where St. Sava, the Apostle of the
Serbs, was buried.[308] He was now the most powerful ruler in this part
of the Balkans, and had himself crowned at Mileševo with two crowns,
styling himself “Stephen Tvrtko in the name of Our Lord Christ King of
Servia and Bosnia and the Primorije (coast land).”[309] Ragusa was the
first State to recognise him, and proved quite willing to pay the 2000
_ipperperi_ a year due to him as lord of Servia.
The Ragusan Senate had the foresight to understand the growing
importance of the Ottoman Turks, and having obtained from Urban V.
an exemption to trade with the Infidel, it contracted commercial
agreements with the Sultans of Egypt, Syria, and Konia in 1359, and
in 1365 obtained from the Sultan Murad a firman granting the citizens
of Ragusa freedom to trade in all parts of the Ottoman dominions and
protection for their commercial factories, in exchange for a yearly
tribute of 500 ducats. Ragusa was thus the first Christian State to
make a treaty with the Ottoman Turks, and its citizens were enabled
to penetrate into the remotest parts of the Turkish Empire and form
permanent settlements there at a time when other Christians were either
excluded altogether or limited to a few coast towns. The tribute which
they paid for these advantages, although often raised subsequently,
proved a most profitable investment.
In 1378, in consequence of the intrigues of Venice and Genoa to obtain
a predominant position at Constantinople, war broke out between the two
Republics—the famous Chioggia war—in which Ragusa too was involved. The
Genoese induced Francesco Carrara, lord of Padua, who had been humbled
but not subdued by Venice, to join them, and further help was obtained
from Louis of Hungary. Ragusa, as vassal of that potentate, joined the
coalition. But Venice, undismayed, made all preparations for war, and
invested Vettor Pisani with the supreme command at sea. A Venetian
victory off Cape Antium was won on May 30, and Pisani took Sebenico
and Cattaro by storm; these and other towns on the Adriatic coast
which his garrisons occupied were harried and blockaded by Ragusan
vessels, who also seized this opportunity to destroy the salt-pans of
Cattaro, thus ridding the Republic of a dangerous competitor.[310] The
Ragusans were in great fear of an attack by the Venetian fleet, and
made desperate efforts to strengthen the defences of the town and of
Stagno. They also asked for assistance from Tvrtko, King of Bosnia, who
offered them a contingent; but on hearing that he was treating with the
Venetians, possibly with a view to a move against Ragusa, they refused
it. On October 14, 1378, the Genoese fleet under Fieschi put in at
Ragusa,[311] where a Ragusan galley joined it, and the admiral received
two bombards and a present of money from the Republic. Armed barques
issued forth from the town to scour the Adriatic and obtain news of the
movements of the Venetian fleet, which were at once transmitted to the
Banus of Dalmatia and Croatia at Zara, while privateers cruised about
to plunder the enemy’s merchantmen. Ragusan ships were, in fact, the
eyes of the allied fleet.
The Senate sent a squadron out under Stefano Sorgo to capture all
Venetian or Cattarine ships found in South Dalmatian waters,[312] while
envoys went to Cattaro to stir up the people to rebel against Venice
and return to Hungarian allegiance. But the Cattarini, still fearing
the Venetians, at first refused. Then a joint Genoese and Ragusan fleet
made a demonstration against the town, and the authorities promised
to raise the Hungarian standard on a certain date. But they failed to
do so, and intrigued instead with the King of Bosnia against Ragusa,
plundered Ragusan grain ships, and captured the sentinels guarding the
approaches to the city on the Monte Sergio. After the total defeat
of the Venetian fleet off Pola in May the Ragusans pursued their
operations against Cattaro by land and sea with renewed vigour, and by
June 26 the town had once more returned to Hungarian allegiance.[313]
Meanwhile the Genoese had carried the war almost to the very gates of
Venice, and were besieging Chioggia. A Ragusan contingent under Matteo
Giorgi was of great assistance to them in the siege, owing to Giorgi’s
knowledge of the use of artillery,[314] and, according to Razzi, he
would have prevented the blockade of the Genoese fleet, which was
executed, by closing the harbour with sunken boats, if only his advice
had been followed.[315] On the defeat of the Genoese the Ragusan
galleys managed to escape, and saved a number of the fugitives whose
vessels had been sunk (June 24, 1380). Desultory fighting continued
for a few months longer, in which the Ragusan galleys took part, and
in 1381 peace was signed at Turin. Although in the end the Genoese had
been defeated, Venice was by no means victorious, and had to confirm
her renunciation of Dalmatia, much to the satisfaction of Ragusa.
But it seemed as though the little Republic of St. Blaize were destined
never to be at peace with her neighbours for long. Hardly was the
Chioggia war over when a storm-cloud appeared on the side of Bosnia.
Now that the Bosnian king had humbled his neighbours and become the
most powerful sovereign of the Southern Slaves he began to assume an
unfriendly attitude towards Ragusa. His kingdom possessed a stretch
of coast from the Bocche di Cattaro to the mouth of the Četina, but
the two best ports of that region—Ragusa and Cattaro—were independent
Republics owing allegiance to the King of Hungary, who was by no means
likely to be always friendly to a powerful and independent Bosnia.
If Tvrtko wished to establish a really strong Servian state he would
have to occupy those towns. While still Banus he had granted the
freedom of his territories to the Ragusans in a charter dated from
Bobovac, February 5, 1375.[316] On April 10, 1379, he came to Žrnovica,
very near Ragusa, accompanied by his magnates. The Republic sent
out a commission of nobles to greet him, and a new and advantageous
commercial treaty was concluded, Ragusa agreeing to pay Tvrtko and his
successors 500 _ipperperi_ a year for freedom to trade in Bosnia, and
2000 a year as lord of the Servian lands.[317] But this friendship did
not last long, for on July 26, 1379, we find the Republic complaining
to Louis of Hungary that the people of Cattaro having offered their
city to the King of Bosnia, the latter refused to allow foodstuffs
to be imported into Ragusa. Louis defended his faithful vassals, and
Tvrtko was forced to desist from his annoyances. When, in 1382, Louis
died, he left a widow, Elizabeth, who was Tvrtko’s cousin, and two
daughters, Mary and Hedwig. He had declared Mary his successor, and
betrothed her to Prince Sigismund, son of the Emperor Charles IV.,
King of Bohemia; but on his death the Poles, who were united to the
Hungarians under the same dynasty, refused to be ruled by Mary, and
elected her younger sister Hedwig as their queen instead, and even in
Hungary and Croatia a considerable party was opposed to Elizabeth and
Mary. Civil war broke out and devastated Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia,
and Slavonia for the next twenty-five years. Of these disturbances
Tvrtko determined to take advantage, now favouring Elizabeth and Mary,
now Charles of Durazzo, who as an Angevin claimed the throne of Hungary
also, and his son Ladislas, always with an eye to his own profit.[318]
His first thought was for Ragusa. He knew that he could not capture
the town without a large fleet, for Ragusan shipping had revived
since 1358, and was now very formidable. But he also knew that its
inhabitants lived entirely by trade, and he determined to injure them
by establishing a rival trading centre at the entrance of the Bocche,
making it the chief port and the commercial capital of Bosnia. He
called it Sveti Stjepan (San Stefano), but the name was soon changed to
Novi, and then to Erzegnovi (Castelnuovo). In violation of his treaties
with Ragusa he opened salt-pans at Castelnuovo, which soon became an
important trading station not only for the neighbourhood, but for the
whole of Dalmatia and Croatia. The Ragusans complained bitterly, and
as they obtained Hungarian support, Tvrtko deemed it prudent to give
way for the moment, and he promised to close the salt market.[319] But
again in 1383 he re-opened it, and the Republic sent Pietro Gondola
and Stefano Luccari to Budapest to complain of this breach of the
treaty to Queen Mary. The latter at once issued a decree forbidding the
inhabitants of Dalmatia and Croatia to trade at Novi.[320]
Tvrtko, not feeling yet strong enough to attack Ragusa openly, allied
himself with the Venetians. The latter sold him a large galley fully
armed and equipped, and allowed him to have two others built in Venice,
sent Niccolò Baseio to him as admiral, and made him honorary citizen of
the Republic.[321] These movements disturbed not only Ragusa, but also
the two Hungarian queens, who feared that Tvrtko might avail himself of
the discontent in Croatia and Dalmatia to raise further trouble. They
therefore sent Nicholas of Gara to his court at Sutieska to try to come
to some arrangement. Finally Tvrtko was induced to agree not to disturb
Ragusa nor the Hungarian dominions, for which promise he was rewarded
with the town of Cattaro.[322] This occupation brought him into
conflict with the Balšas of Zedda, but after some fighting peace was
restored through Venetian mediation. On April 9, 1387, Tvrtko concluded
a treaty with Ragusa, in which he promised to protect the city from all
enemies, and the Ragusans granted him the right of asylum should he
ever be in need of it. It was added that if he should come to the town
for any reason, and Queen Mary, who was then a prisoner in the hands of
the rebels, should escape, he should be warned in good time and allowed
to leave.
By the following year the King of Bosnia’s power in Croatia and
Dalmatia had greatly increased, and he became possessed of such
important castles as Clissa, Vrana, Ostrovica, and probably Knin, the
key of Croatia.[323] He now tried to get hold of the Dalmatian coast
towns, as the whole country was in a turmoil of war and revolution,
Ragusa alone remaining quiet and loyal to Queen Mary and her husband
Sigismund. Various Dalmatian towns promised to pay allegiance to
Tvrtko, including Spalato, which was to raise the Bosnian standard on
June 15, 1389. But on that very date the death-knell of the Southern
Slaves sounded on the fatal “Field of Crows.”[324]
While Tvrtko was thus consolidating his kingdom at the expense of his
neighbours, while Hungary was a prey to civil war, while the various
princelings of Servia were eternally fighting among themselves, the
Turks were ever marching onward. As early as 1375 Marko Kraljević, the
hero of Servian popular poetry, had initiated the disastrous policy of
calling in Turkish assistance in a quarrel against another Christian
prince. Wishing to reconquer Kastoria and other towns in Southern
Macedonia and Albania held by the Musacchi family and their ally George
I. Balša, he obtained a Turkish contingent for the enterprise, but was
defeated by Balša. In 1376 Tvrtko had allied himself with Knez Lazar,
who ruled over the Danubian provinces of Servia (the last remnant of
the Servian Empire) against Nicholas Altomanović, and continued to
remain on good terms with him after Nicholas’s death. He regarded Knez
Lazar’s principality as a buffer State between his own dominions and
those of the Turks. After the fall of Niš in 1375, and of Sofia in
1382, he gave Lazar assistance, and in 1387 he sent him a contingent
which enabled him to cut to pieces a Turkish army of 20,000 men at
Pločnik on the Toplica (Old Servia). But the Sultan Murad I. determined
to avenge the defeat, and prepared an expedition against Lazar. The
latter, seeing himself in great danger, appealed for help from all his
neighbours, but the King of Bosnia alone sent him a force, commanded by
Vlatko Hranić. The Servian-Bosnian army, under the leadership of Knez
Lazar, with Marko Kraljević as chief lieutenant, had its headquarters
at Priština, in the plain of Kossovo—a long plateau surrounded by
mountains extending from Verisović to Mitrovica. The Turkish army was
commanded by the Sultan Murad in person; the right wing was led by
his son Bayazet, and the left by his son Yakub. The fight began early
on Wednesday, June 15, 1389, and raged all day. For a long time the
fortunes of the battle seemed doubtful, and both sides fought with
heroic courage. But at last Bayazet succeeded by a sudden attack in
throwing the Servian left wing into confusion. At the same time Vuk
Branković, whose name has been handed down to the execration of the
whole Servian race as a traitor, abandoned the field of battle with all
his division. Then Vlatko Hranić and the Bosnian contingent began to
give way, and the main body of the Serbs was driven slowly back. Knez
Lazar, after fighting like a lion, was killed in the _mêlée_; Murad was
mortally wounded in his own tent by the Servian chief Miloš Obilić, who
pretended to be a traitor and to have information to give him. He was
himself cut down instantly, and then Lazar’s head was brought in by
attendants to cheer the dying Sultan, who expired soon after.
The Turks did not follow up their victory, and from the first news of
the fight which he received Tvrtko thought that the Christians had
triumphed, and sent messages to that effect to the foreign Powers.
In the churches of Florence _Te Deums_ of victory were sung, and the
Republic congratulated the Bosnian king. Even when the true result
was known no one realised at the time what a crushing blow had fallen
on the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans. The native princes continued
to fight among themselves regardless of their impending doom, and
Tvrtko, who was the most powerful of them, thought more of occupying
Dalmatia and Croatia than of strengthening his southern frontier.
His enterprises were fairly prosperous; he succeeded in conquering
the whole country from the Velebit mountains to Cattaro, Zara and
Ragusa alone remaining true to Sigismund, while the three islands of
Brazza, Curzola, and Lesina recognised the suzerainty of the Bosnian
king (1390). He died in 1391, leaving Bosnia in such a position as
she had never enjoyed before. But her power was not based on a solid
foundation, and therefore short-lived. His brother, Stephen Dabiša, who
succeeded him, soon lost the greater part of Dalmatia and Croatia.
George II. Stračimirov Balša, who now styled himself “absolute lord of
all the Zedda and of the coast,” and had established a brilliant court
at Scutari,[325] was equally unconscious of the danger, and thought
only of capturing Cattaro. He began by occupying the Krivošije,[326]
and blocked all the roads leading into the town. Ragusa at the request
of Cattaro acted as mediator, and peace was made, probably on an
understanding on the part of the Cattarini that they would pay a
tribute to George.[327] Ragusa was beginning to be really alarmed at
the progress of the Turks in Albania, and saw the necessity of allying
herself with the other Dalmatian townships, “propter oppressionem
Turcorum.” In 1390 the Senate had tried in vain to mediate between
the King of Bosnia and Hungary, so as to end the war which was
desolating the country,[328] and now it made a proposal of this kind to
Hungary and Venice. At the same time it granted a subsidy of arms and
ammunition to George Balša. But mutual jealousies prevented the idea
from being realised,[329] and in 1392 George himself was a prisoner in
the hands of the Turks.[330] He was soon ransomed, but he lost Scutari,
and his power was seriously shaken.
[Illustration: APOTHECARY’S GARDEN, FRANCISCAN MONASTERY]
The year 1395 proved an unfortunate one for Ragusa. In the first
place, one Constantine Balša, a relative of George II., who had
obtained a trade monopoly in the Zedda and inland as far as Prizren and
Novobrdo, laid heavy impositions on Ragusan trade so as to exclude it
from the country.[331] At the same time heavy rains flooded the city
and its immediate neighbourhood, destroying all the crops, and on May
19 a severe earthquake—the first great shock felt in Dalmatia for many
centuries—wrought great havoc.[332] During this period the Adriatic was
infested by the pirate barques of Gabriele da Parma. There was another
quarrel with George Balša on account of a certain monk named Marino of
Dulcigno, who intrigued with the Slaves near Ragusa. However, this was
soon settled to the satisfaction of all parties, the Albanian markets
were re-opened, Constantine Balša recovered Scutari from the Turks for
his kinsman, and declared himself despot of the town. In 1395 George
visited Ragusa, where he was splendidly received as Prince of Albania.
Although the Ragusans were usually on bad terms with their immediate
neighbours, they had been for some time good friends with the Bosnian
magnate Vlatko Vuković. On his death in 1392 his estates descended to
his nephew Sandalj Hranić, to whom Ragusa sent an embassy of homage in
1395. He was a true type of South Slavonic lordling of that time. His
one object was to consolidate and enlarge his territories, so as to
carve out a principality for himself and be independent of the King of
Bosnia or the Despot of Servia. Like all his colleagues, he completely
failed to appreciate the terrible significance of the Turkish danger,
and while he began by “proclaiming his misfortunes from the mountain
tops, he ended by descending into the plain to declare himself the
vassal of the powerful invader.”[333] He was certainly less cruel than
most of his neighbours, and, unlike them, was guilty of no particularly
heinous murders. The result of his ambitious schemes was the formation
of the Duchy afterwards called of St. Sava or the Herzegovina.[334]
In 1396 he meditated a descent on Cattaro in order to round off his
dominions. This town was also coveted by Radić Crnoević, lord of what
is now Montenegro. Radić got into trouble with Balša, by whom he was
defeated and killed, while Sandalj, although he could not take Cattaro,
took Budua, probably at the secret instigation of Venice, who did not
wish Balša to advance further north. Sandalj was granted the honorary
citizenship of Venice.
In the meanwhile, in spite of several set-backs, Turkish raids into
Bosnia continued. Small bands were sent forward as feelers to ravage
and plunder and prepare the way for their grand advance. We find the
Ragusan Senate asking the King of Hungary to recommend them to Venice
for protection against the Turks,[335] while they gave asylum in Stagno
and Sabbioncello to many Slaves and Vlachs who were flying from the
terrible enemy. On September 28, 1396, Sigismund, King of Hungary, at
the head of a confederate force of 100,000 Christians, was totally
defeated by the Sultan Bayazet at Nikopolis on the Danube. The King
himself managed to escape down the river on a Venetian galley to the
Black Sea to Constantinople, across the Ægean, and up the Adriatic
to Ragusa, which he reached on December 21. He was honourably and
hospitably received by the Rector and Councillors, who offered him the
keys of the town. He spent nine days there, being entertained, together
with his suite at the expense of the Republic, and he received in
addition a present of 2000 ducats and two years’ tribute in advance.
As a reward he granted the Republic the right to strike silver
coinage.[336] On December 30 he departed on board a Ragusan galley for
Spalato. He took the four sons of the ship’s chief officer into his
service, and subsequently through his favour many Ragusans rose to high
positions in Hungary.
Every day fresh batches of refugees fled into Ragusan territory
before the advancing Ottoman hordes, who even threatened the Bocche
di Cattaro. George Balša himself began to fear for his own safety,
and requested that Ragusa should give shelter to his wife and family.
The Republic placed a palace at his disposal, and also allowed him
to purchase arms and ammunition in the town and have his old weapons
repaired there. But even this had to be done secretly, lest Sandalj,
who was an enemy of the Balšas and a friend of the Turks, should
retaliate on the Ragusans. We find an interesting entry in this
connection by Andrea da Bologna, the Chancellor of the Republic, in
the _Reformationes_ for 1398: “Die ... (blank space) Januarii (1398)
Filius Pasayt (Bayazet) cum magna quantitate Turchorum _et Sclavorum_
intravit Bossinam, et fuit depredatus ipsam. In reversione major pars
ipsorum propter immensum frigus decesserunt.”[337] This shows that
even at that early date the Turks found allies in the renegade Slaves.
The Ragusan Senate tried to mediate between Sandalj and George so as
to strengthen Hungary, and arranged a meeting between the former and
his rival’s wife, but the attempted conciliation failed. Apparently,
too, some of the Slavonic lordlings tried to draw Ragusa into their
intrigues with the Turks, and in 1399 Feris (?Ferid), Governor of
Svečanj, visited the town as Turkish envoy, but nothing came of the
negotiations.[338]
The kingdom of Bosnia was, as we have seen, subject to constant
incursions on the part of the Turks, whom it was incapable of
resisting, for under the reign of King Dabiša and Queen Helena Gruba
the Vojvods had risen to power once more, and had become almost
independent. Of these the most important were Sandalj Hranić, lord of
Hlum, of whom we have already spoken; Hrvoje, Duke of Spalato; and Paul
Radinović. Sandalj ruled over a great part of Hlum as far as the Drina.
Hrvoje, who has been described as the “Bosnian Warwick,” owing to the
number of princes he deposed and set up, ruled over middle Dalmatia, a
large part of Bosnia, including the town of Jajce, and some districts
of Hlum, including Livno. Paul Radinović was lord of Trebinje, part of
Canali, and other lands as far as Prača. His sons, Peter and Radosav,
took the name of Paulović. Queen Helena lost her throne owing to
a rebellion in 1398 or 1399, and was succeeded by Stephen Ostoja,
probably a natural son of Stephen Tvrtko.[339] Ostoja had to depend
for his authority on the goodwill of his magnates, but his reign was
at first successful. He defeated Sigismund of Hungary, who tried to
enforce his claims on Bosnia, and had invaded it at two points. Also
on the Turkish frontier things were more peaceful, and, according to
Klaić, after the raid of 1398 Ostoja concluded a treaty with Bayazet
to support the claims of Ladislas of Naples to the Hungarian throne
against Sigismund.[340] Later, Bayazet became still less formidable, as
he had to hurry off to Asia to defend his Empire against Timur.
For a few years after his accession Ostoja had been friendly to
Ragusa, and in 1399 he granted them a further stretch of coast from
Stagno to Klek, near the mouth of the Narenta. For this the citizens
had given him a palace in the town and made him an honorary citizen;
they granted the same favours to Hrvoje for his intercession.[341] But
Ostoja, finding himself with no coastline save the bit between the
rivers Četina and the Narenta, repented of his generosity, and tried to
induce Ragusa to recognise Bosnian supremacy. When in 1400 the envoys
brought him the tribute he suggested that the city should throw off
the Hungarian yoke and come under his protection. But the Republic
would not hear of the proposal, preferring to obey the distant and
complaisant King of Hungary rather than the near and untrustworthy King
of Bosnia. The latter did not yet feel strong enough to attack the
city openly with any chance of success where Tvrtko had failed, so he
resorted, if we are to believe the local historians, to intrigue, and
secretly fomented a conspiracy of ambitious nobles. The circumstances
of the plot are not very clear, and Ragnina’s account, detailed
though it is, leaves much unexplained. In the early part of 1400 four
nobles, Niccolò and Giacomo Zamagna, and Lorenzo and Simeone Bodazza,
determined to become masters of the city with the help of the Count
of Popovo (in the Herzegovina), the Vojvod of Trebinje, and other
Bosnian barons. According to Ragnina the conspiracy was engineered by
Ostoja, or by Stephen the Despot of Servia. It is more likely that
the former was privy to it, as the Despot of Servia was now a person
of no importance, and his territory did not even border with that of
the Republic. The Bosnian king probably saw in this plot a means of
possessing himself of the town and its valuable port; but he did not
appear in the actual intrigue, which was carried on by the neighbouring
vojvods. Ragusa at this time was almost deserted, a large part of its
inhabitants having taken refuge in the neighbouring country on account
of the plague. On the Feast of the Forty Martyrs (March 9) a number
of the conspirators were to dine in the house of a certain artisan at
Ragusa to mature their plans. The man not having enough table utensils
for the company sent his wife to the house of a noble named Niccolò
Gozze, in whose service she had been, to ask for a loan of the required
articles. Gozze promised to lend them, but wanted to know for whom they
were required. The woman told him the names of the nobles in question,
and as they were men of somewhat shady antecedents Gozze became
suspicious. He bribed the woman to take note of all that she should
hear at supper, and to report it to him the following morning. This she
did, and informed Gozze that a Morlach named Miloš and four companions
had come with the nobles, and that it was agreed that Miloš should
wait at the town gate for a Slave messenger who was expected with
letters from the Bosnian magnates. They also discussed how to raise a
band of followers from among the dregs of the people, and secretly to
admit some Slaves from outside, with the object of overpowering the
town guard, seizing the gates, and opening them to a large force of
Bosnians. Gozze, although suffering from the gout, rose from his bed,
had himself carried to the Government Palace, and summoned the Minor
Council. The woman was secured and summoned to give evidence, and the
chief conspirators were arrested. They confessed everything under
torture. At the same time a trusty man was sent to await the arrival
of the letters in the place of the Morlach; he gave all the requisite
signs when the messenger arrived, and received the papers. The contents
were as follows: “In the first place remember your promise and take
care of yourself and yours, and we shall do what we have decided.” The
conspirators were beheaded on March 10, and their property confiscated.
A few who managed to escape were condemned in contumacy. This episode
is interesting as being one of the only instances of an internal
revolution in law-abiding Ragusa. There is not enough evidence to
enable us to understand its character nor the actual complicity of
Ostoja. It may also have been an early symptom of the disagreement
between the Latin and Slavonic elements of the population.
[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY]
Ostoja, after having received the homage of Sebenico and Traù, renewed
his request that Ragusa should recognise his supremacy; but again
the citizens refused, and renewed their oath of fealty to Sigismund,
merely promising to take no part in the hostilities between Bosnia
and Hungary, and to refuse to admit Bosnian rebels into the town. The
following year a number of Sigismund’s opponents in Hungary, Croatia,
and Dalmatia collected at Zara, and Ladislas crossed over from Italy
and was crowned by the Hungarian Primate King of Hungary, Croatia, and
Dalmatia. Ostoja himself, however, was not altogether satisfied, for
although he had favoured Ladislas’s cause as long as the pretender
was in Italy, the moment he landed in Dalmatia, the Bosnian king felt
that his own interests along the seaboard were menaced. Hrvoje, Duke
of Spalato, maintained an ambiguous attitude, and Ostoja determined to
make use of this confusion to declare war on Ragusa. He found a pretext
in the fact that two Bosnian rebels had been given hospitality in the
town; he began by demanding back the Primorije which he himself had
ceded, as well as other territory given by his predecessors, and he
also insisted that the Ragusans should recognise his full suzerainty.
His demands being rejected he sent a force of 8000 men under the
Vojvods Radić Sanković, Sandalj Hranić, and Paul Radinović into Ragusan
territory. Hostilities lasted from August 1403 to the spring of
1404.[342] We have but meagre details of this campaign besides those
given in the untrustworthy chronicle of Resti, and some information
in the _Diplomatarium_. According to Resti, the Ragusans at first
drove back the Bosnians, but the latter were soon reinforced and again
invaded the Republic’s territory. Encounters took place at Bergato and
Gionchetto, and 4000 well-armed Ragusans commanded by Giacomo Gondola
tried to induce the enemy to give battle, but without success, as the
latter retired to Trebinje. Probably the Ragusans were defeated, as we
find the Senate asking for the mediation of the Hungarian king shortly
after. But the difficulty was, which king, as Ladislas was now in
Dalmatia. The tortuous nature of Ragusan diplomacy is well illustrated
by the contemporaneous embassies to Ladislas, Sigismund, and Hrvoje.
They did not wish to commit themselves by sending regular ambassadors
to Ladislas, as Sigismund might still gain the upper hand, so they
merely sent a monk, Marino Bodazza, ostensibly to obtain compensation
for the property taken by the pretender’s followers. But a request for
mediation in the Bosnian quarrel was also hinted at. Ladislas replied
that he would consider the matter if a proper embassy were sent to him.
This the Senate refused to do, upon which Ladislas declared Ragusa to
be his enemy. But, fortunately for the Republic, Sigismund regained
his freedom, and collected a large army in northern Hungary, while
Ladislas returned to Italy. An embassy was then sent to Sigismund, the
envoys being instructed to go first to Hrvoje, the Duke of Spalato,
to complain of Ostoja’s conduct, and suggest that he himself might
become King of Bosnia; but if he did not care to go so far, he might
help some other member of the Kotromanić family, or Paul Radissić,
who had been living at Ragusa for the past two years, to acquire the
crown. Ragusa had always been friendly to the old Bosnian dynasty, and
had given refuge to many of its exiled princes. At the same time they
were to inform him that Ostoja, on seeing the retreat of Ladislas,
had sent envoys to Sigismund to intrigue against him (Hrvoje). If the
latter broached the subject of Ragusa’s relations with Ladislas they
were to say: “We are the subjects of the Crown of Hungary, and whoever
is actually King of Hungary is our suzerain.” They were to proceed to
Sigismund’s court only if Hrvoje advised them to do so. If they did
go on to Hungary they were instructed to try to obtain for Ragusa the
suzerainty over the three large islands of Lesina, Curzola, and Brazza,
to discover what were the provisions of the treaty which was being
negotiated between Ostoja and Sigismund, and to warn the latter against
the Bosnian king’s fickleness, and induce him to insist that that
potentate should give up the territory he had filched from the Republic
in the last war, and pay compensation for the damages, calculated at
200,000 ducats, for which he was responsible. They were also to suggest
that he should come to terms with Hrvoje, who might help him to reduce
Bosnia to obedience, and to advise him to sow dissension among the
Bosnian magnates, who were always ready to rebel.[343]
The embassy departed for Spalato, and thence, at Hrvoje’s advice,
proceeded to Hungary, but there they found that, Ostoja having shown
himself willing to make peace, Sigismund had concluded a treaty with
him already. By its terms Ostoja recognised Hungarian supremacy over
Bosnia, and agreed to renew all the privileges of the Ragusans, and
restore all the territory taken save the Primorije or coast-land. This
did not satisfy the Republic, and Hrvoje was still more annoyed as
it upset all his ambitious schemes. So he concluded an alliance with
Ragusa against Ostoja, with the object of deposing him and placing
Paul Radissić on the Bosnian throne. Hrvoje was to lead an army of
Dalmatians and Bosnian malcontents up the Narenta valley, while Ragusa
was to cut off Ostoja’s supplies and intrigue against him at the
Hungarian court. Sigismund, however, supported Ostoja, and when the
latter was besieged in his castle of Bobovac by Hrvoje he sent a force
to his assistance under the Banus of Mačva[344] (Sigismund’s lieutenant
in northern Bosnia), and gained back all his territory for him. But he
did not forget his faithful Ragusans, and not only induced Ostoja to
renew their privileges, but requested him to restore them the coast
between the Ombla and Stagno.[345] After long negotiations the Diet
or “Congregation” of Bosnian magnates met at Visoki in April,[346]
and Ostoja brought Ragusa’s claim before it, but no decision was
arrived at. After further useless negotiations the Ragusans again
allied themselves with Hrvoje and the Bosnian rebels, including this
time Sandalj Hranić and Paul Radinović. A second conference of nobles
was summoned, and Ostoja was deposed. Stephen Tvrtko II., son of
Stephen Tvrtko I., was elected king, and Ostoja retired to Bobovac,
now occupied by a Hungarian garrison. The new king owed his position
to Hrvoje and Sandalj, who were the real masters of the country, and
Ragusa applied to them to obtain a lasting peace with Bosnia. “For
what you desire,” wrote the Rector to Sandalj, “that also the lord
King Tvrtko and the Duke (Hrvoje) and all Bosnia desire too, for God
has granted you the favour that this should be so.”[347] Eventually
Tvrtko gave them back all the territory that had been theirs and some
more lands besides. The Republic made him and his brothers, as well as
Sandalj, citizens of Ragusa, and gave them palaces in the town.
The loyalty of the Ragusans to Hungary was sorely tried this same
year, for Sigismund prepared to make war on Tvrtko as a usurper and
reinstate Ostoja as the rightful king. They would not side openly
with Tvrtko against this suzerain, but they did not wish to lose the
valuable and hardly won favours of Bosnia; they therefore placed their
arsenals at the disposal of Tvrtko’s agents, who bought large supplies
of arms for the war.[348] Sigismund sent three armies into Bosnia—one
under the Banus of Mačva by way of Usora, a second under Paul, Banus
of Croatia, up the Una valley towards Bihać, and a third to guard the
Bosnian-Slavonian frontier under Peter of Perén. Ladislas lent his
fleet to Hrvoje to keep watch at Arbe and attack Sigismund’s forces if
they should invade the littoral. But after a few ephemeral successes
the Hungarians were defeated at all points, and Tvrtko’s position was
thereby considerably strengthened. Ostoja, fearing for his life, asked
for a safe conduct to Ragusa in April 1407, and the Senate, much to his
surprise, granted it, forgiving him all his former hostility, “for any
man who from Bosnia or from the land of any other lord takes refuge
in our city, according to the law, may enter freely and live here
undisturbed.” But after all he did not avail himself of the permit,
either because he mistrusted the Ragusans, or because he still hoped
to regain his throne. While Tvrtko was trying to win Cattaro and Budua
from the Balšas, Sigismund was preparing his revenge, and in 1408
invaded Bosnia with a large army, defeated the usurper and captured
him, together with a large number of magnates, of whom 126 were
beheaded at Dobor. Ostoja was replaced on the throne, and Sigismund
retired to Buda with Tvrtko in his train.
We must now return to Ragusa’s relations with the Balšas. When George
II. died in 1403 he was succeeded by his son, who styled himself Balša
III. The Zedda was now surrounded by jealous rivals; the Turks claimed
tribute, Venice wished to establish posts in the country against them,
and various native princelings aspired to enlarge their estates. Ragusa
being at war with Bosnia, allied herself with the lords of Njegoš
(the nucleus of modern Montenegro) and with Cattaro, and tried to
conciliate Venice. Balša determined to oust the Venetians from Albania,
and invited the Turks to help him to capture Drivasto and Scutari.
Thus Ragusa and he were in opposite camps. Drivasto fell, and so did
the town of Scutari, but the castle held out (1404). With the help
of Sandalj Hranič and the Albanian magnates Venice soon recovered all
that she had lost, and by June, 1407, Balša and his ambitious mother
Helena had to sue for peace and give way on all points. Balša, however,
did not carry out his engagements, and Venice resorted to the threat
of calling in the help of Bayazet to force him to do so (January,
1409); in June of the same year the Venetian fleet sailed down the
Adriatic and put in at Ragusa, where the Capitano in Golfo met the
envoy of Sandalj.[349] Balša, being now thoroughly frightened, went
to Venice with his mother and signed a further agreement. But in 1410
he again raided the Venetian possessions and attacked Scutari with a
large force. Benedetto Contarini defended the town with great skill,
and received much assistance from a Ragusan flotilla operating on the
lake.[350] Balša having also threatened Cattaro, that town offered
itself to the Venetians, who were ready to occupy it; but now Sandalj
came forward with his claims on it, which caused further complications.
Ragusa, although allied to Venice, tried to better her relations with
Balša on account of her Albanian trade. But this ambiguous attitude
was not quite successful, and Ragusan merchants ended by suffering
molestations both from the Venetians and from Balša’s subjects. In 1412
peace was concluded, and Balša restored everything.
Once the danger from Balša was passed Ragusan hostility against Venice
revived again, and the Senate wrote to protest against Venetian
depredations in Albanian and Sicilian waters. The Republic still
desired the supremacy of Hungary in the Adriatic, and although that
cause was lost, it tried to bolster it up by inducing Cattaro to return
to Hungarian allegiance. This attempt was made, however, more with the
object of injuring Venice than with any hope of benefiting Hungary.
Ragusa also contracted an alliance with Balša and with Sandalj, who
had married Balša’s mother, and was meditating a _coup_ on Cattaro.
But the Cattarini succeeded in inducing Ragusa to mediate between them
and Sandalj, and even to provide them with a large loan with which
to arm the whole population of the Bocche. The maze of intrigue and
counter-intrigue between Venice, Hungary, Ragusa, Bosnia, and the
various Slave and Albanian princes now becomes hopelessly involved,
and no man trusted any other. Ragusa’s policy is well explained in a
despatch,[351] in which it is stated that the Republic “had to be on
good terms with these lords of Slavonia, for every day our merchants
and our goods pass through their hands and their territory, and we
fear lest they (the merchants) should suffer injury.” But when Balša
demanded a number of Ragusan shipbuilders to repair his vessels for
operations against Venice the Senate refused, fearing to incur the
latter’s displeasure.
The protection and promotion of trade was the keynote of Ragusan
policy, and everything was done with that end in view. In the meanwhile
the Senate acquired much knowledge concerning the affairs of Italy and
of the East from the Ragusan traders, and communicated the information
to Sigismund. Thus the latter learned about the advance of the Turks in
Bosnia at the instigation of Vuk, the son of Knez Lazar, who wished
to get possession of his brother’s principality. Ladislas continued to
send piratical fleets to Dalmatia, which did much damage to Ragusan
commerce. But the Ragusans revenged themselves by relieving Curzola,
which was attacked by the Apulian fleet. “With the favour of St. Blaize
we shot so many arrows and javelins against the enemy, and did their
ships so much damage with our bombards, that many of their men were
killed or wounded. They abandoned much property and arms, and not only
desisted from the siege, but abandoned these parts altogether.”[352]
This same year (1409) the Venetians began to re-establish their rule
over Dalmatia, and obtained Zara from Ladislas. This caused an outbreak
of hostilities between them and Sigismund, who regarded Dalmatia as an
integral part of his dominions. While the two Powers were fighting the
common enemy was advancing, and in 1411 a Ragusan despatch announces
that the Turks had taken and burnt Srebrnica. In 1413 negotiations were
opened between Hungary and Venice, in which Ragusa took part, and while
Sigismund agreed to give up the greater part of Dalmatia, Ragusa asked
for and obtained the lease of the three coveted islands of Lesina,
Curzola, and Brazza, which had been withdrawn from Hrvoje’s rule.[353]
The Ragusans had hoped to obtain full ownership, but even the lease was
a great point gained, and the Republic thought that it would eventually
become vested into absolute possession. The islanders, however, were
not well disposed towards their new masters, and were only cowed into
submission by a naval demonstration. A count was appointed for each
island, to remain in office for six months, with a salary of which
Ragusa was to pay one-third and the islanders the remainder.[354] This
acquisition might have been the beginning of great things for the
Republic had its policy been a little less narrowly provincial and
nervous. Its territory was now fairly large, its commerce and finances
flourishing, and with its intimate connection with the dying kingdom of
Bosnia it might have extended its influence far into the hinterland,
establishing a strong Latin-Slavonic State as a bulwark against the
advancing Turks. Ragusa was also trying to get possession of another
part of Canali and Dračevica from Sandlaj Hranić, but the latter would
not give it up, because “if he were hard pressed by the Turks he would
have no other means of escaping to the sea,” and also because Dračevica
was the best position for dominating Cattaro,[355] which he had now
forced to pay him tribute. The Venetians, Sandalj, and Balša were now
all suffering from the Turkish _obsession_. The enemy’s headquarters
were at Üsküb, whence many raids into Bosnia and Albania were made. In
1415 the Turks invaded Bosnia for the third time, and raiding parties
came as far as Sebenico and Almissa, so that the Ragusan Senate ordered
the islanders to arm light galleys to co-operate with those of Ragusa
and Stagno. The ridges dividing the hinterland from the sea were
anxiously watched, and every moment it was feared that the dreaded
turbans might appear over the crest. In 1416 Sigismund announced to
Ragusa his intention of making war on a grand scale against the Turks,
and declared that the property of all those who helped them should be
confiscated. As the Despot of Servia, Sandalj Hranić, and almost every
other Slavonic prince were more or less tributaries to the Sultan, this
seems rather a sweeping order. In the same letter he declared that the
three islands were withdrawn from Ragusan suzerainty and were to be
given over to one Ladislas Jakez, a favourite of the Empress Barbara
(September 21-23, 1416). No reason is assigned for the withdrawal of
the concession, but it was probably due to the somewhat high-handed
manner with which the Republic had governed its new possessions.
Curiously enough, the Senate did not seem very unwilling to lose them.
[Illustration: TERRACE OF THE FRANCISCAN MONASTERY WITH THE TORRE MENZE
IN THE BACKGROUND]
There were now fresh disturbances in Bosnia, and Tvrtko, who had been
deposed in favour of Ostoja, was causing trouble. He raised a band of
rebels, with which he defeated his adversaries and obliged some of them
to take refuge in Ragusan territory. Of this hospitality Tvrtko, as an
old friend of the Republic, complained, but the citizens replied that
it was better for malcontents to fly to Ragusa, where they usually
ended by making peace with their king, than to other lands. For a few
months Tvrtko was quite powerful, but soon after he was again defeated.
Hrvoje, who had been deprived of his duchy, now called in the Turks
to aid him against Hungary and Bosnia, and the Sultan Mohammed I.
thereupon sent a force into the latter country, which defeated the
Hungarians near Usora, and obtained much booty. As soon as it had
retired civil strife broke out again, in consequence of the murder
by Ostoja of Paul Radinović, a powerful Bosnian noble. Hrvoje died in
March 1416, and in October a Ragusan despatch declared that “the whole
of Bosnia is laid waste, and the barons are preparing to exterminate
each other.” The rebel magnates met in a Diet, and forced Ostoja to
fly to Hlum, where he succeeded in establishing a precarious rule, but
after the year 1418 nothing more is heard of him. The magnates elected
his son, Stephen Ostojić, as King, and Ragusa at once sent an embassy
to try to obtain from him the rest of Canali, of which a part had been
given by Sandalj and a part by Paul Paulović. This request Ostojić
granted, and in exchange for a yearly tribute of 500 _ipperperi_
promised to protect the city. Sandalj and Paulović still retained a
part of that territory, but on Paulović’s death in 1419 Sandalj sold
all his remaining share to the Republic for 18,000 ducats, and included
that of Paulović. The latter’s son, Radosav, protested, and induced the
Canalesi to revolt. He too asked for Turkish help, for, as Resti says,
“he had begun after the example of the other Slave princes to nourish
in his breast the viper that was to devour them all.” He continued to
disturb Ragusa for years to come.
Between 1417 and 1421 Balša had been at war with most of his
neighbours, including Venice and Ragusa, but in this last year his
stormy life came to an end, and with him the house of Balša died out,
for he left no sons. Stephen, the Despot of Servia, Sandalj Hranić, and
a native prince named Stephen Maramonte, laid claim to his estates, but
Venice obtained the lion’s share, as Drivasto, Dulcigno, and Antivari
surrendered spontaneously to the Republic. Thus disappeared the
principality of the Zedda.
With the year 1420 opens a new epoch in the history of Dalmatia, for it
marks the final reconquest of the country by Venice and the withdrawal
of Hungary from the Adriatic. In 1409 the great Republic had, as we
have seen, reoccupied Zara, and in 1412 Sebenico. She seized the
opportunity of Sigismund’s being engaged in the Hussite war in 1420
to seize Lesina, Brazza, Curzola, and Almissa. Traù, defended by a
strong Hungarian garrison, held out for a little while, but ended by
surrendering too. Spalato fell next, and Cattaro, after having for some
time owed allegiance to Sandalj Hranić, now spontaneously surrendered
to the Venetians, who took possession on March 8. Thus they regained
the whole of Dalmatia, including the Croatian towns of Novigrad, Nona,
and Vrana. Ragusa alone remained outside their sphere, but according
to Resti they meditated a _coup de main_ even on the town, and had
actually prepared an expedition for the purpose; the plot, however, was
disclosed by a Venetian Senator to a Ragusan who had lived twenty-seven
years in Venice and was regarded as almost a Venetian. But he had not
forgotten his duty towards his native city, and hastened to inform the
Ragusan Government. The town was immediately put in a state of defence,
so that when the Venetian squadron arrived it saw that a surprise was
out of the question, and gave up the idea. This story, like every
other statement of Resti’s, is doubtful; but according to Lucio there
actually were hostilities between the two Republics at the time, nor
is it unlikely that Venice may have meditated uniting her Dalmatian
possessions by occupying Ragusa.
The situation of Ragusa towards Hungary was thus considerably altered,
as the Hungarians were no longer on her borders. The Republic from this
date assumes a still greater degree of independence than before, but
from the despatches to the King of Hungary it appears that it still
recognised his suzerainty to a certain extent. Hungary was, however, no
longer able to afford it valid protection, and the Venetians it did not
trust; this explains its subsequent attitude towards the Turks, whom
it was now obliged to conciliate, lest it should suffer the fate that
was soon to befall its neighbours. But its dependence on the Sultan
amounted to little more than the payment of a tribute.
As we have seen, the one important alteration brought about by the
exchange of Hungarian in the place of Venetian overlordship was the
establishment of the Rector, elected by the city council. This form
of government lasted unchanged until the fall of the Republic. Its
character tended to become more and more oligarchic, and although the
“Specchio,” or Golden Book, was not compiled until 1440, all save the
nobles were practically excluded from any share in the government. A
new high court of justice was formed, consisting of five judges, who
remained in office for one year. Beyond this there is no important
constitutional or administrative change to record.
Various measures were taken to improve the general conditions of the
city. Lepers were confined to a spot outside Ragusa called San Michele
alla Cresta, which they were not allowed to leave. As elsewhere, they
were regarded with feelings of horror mixed with superstitious awe. The
earliest mention of them is in a small legacy in their favour dated
1295.[356] They probably made their first appearance at Ragusa at the
time of the Crusades. We have already alluded to the great plague
of 1348, and after that there were several outbreaks of the dread
malady in Ragusa; they are recorded in Gradi’s history of the plagues
at Ragusa, written “ad memoriam et terrorem cunctorum gentium.” In
1363 a second outbreak took place, a third in 1371, and a fourth in
1374. According to Gradi, the total number of victims in these four
visitations amounted to 250 nobles and 25,000 commoners. Quarantine
stations for persons coming from infected spots were established at
Ragusavecchia and on the island rock of Mercana, but in spite of these
precautions there was a fifth outbreak in 1391, which lasted six
months, nearly all the nobles taking refuge at Gravosa. In 1397 a still
more rigorous quarantine was established, but in 1400 the plague broke
out afresh and carried off 2500 victims, and in 1401 it returned. The
city then remained free from the scourge until 1416, when two months of
plague caused the death of 3800 persons. It was imported from the East,
it is said, by Paolo Gondola. In 1410 one Giacomo Godoaldo of Ferrara
had been appointed official physician to the Republic, and seeing that
his remedies were of little avail, he suggested in 1416 that plague
patients should be isolated. The Senate agreed, and two houses in
the suburb of Danče were set apart for them. When another outbreak
occurred in 1422, the number of victims was very small, owing to these
precautions.
Ragusan trade continued to increase considerably, and followed much
the same lines as in the preceding period; but, owing to the Turkish
invasion and the constant wars in the Slave lands, it tended more and
more towards the sea. Italy, the Greek Empire, Asia Minor, and Egypt
were always the chief markets for Ragusan merchants, and special
exemptions were granted to them to trade with the Infidel,[357]
although they were forbidden to sell timber, iron, or arms in those
countries. Their relations with the Turks were satisfactory, and they
often sent envoys to the Emirs and Sultans. At the same time, this
did not interfere with their good understanding with the Christian
Powers, and they did much business with Constantinople and the rest
of the Greek Empire, both by sea and by land. The land trade with the
Slavonic hinterland, although subject to frequent interruptions, was
still very active, and new and flourishing commercial colonies arose in
Bosnia, Hlum, Servia, Albania, and Bulgaria. With Hungary there was a
very active trade, both by way of Bosnia, Servia, and the Danube, and
by sea _via_ Croatia. Embassies were frequently sent to the Hungarian
court and to the Banus of Croatia and Dalmatia, who resided at Zara
as the King of Hungary’s viceroy. The envoys in question frequently
acted as commercial travellers for Ragusan goods, of which they brought
samples to sell. An enactment, which is greatly to the credit of the
little Republic is the prohibition of the slave trade, “perchè turpe
scellerato ed abominevole” (1417).[358] In this the Ragusans were ahead
of most of the other Christian States at the time, and later, as we
shall see, the city became an important ransoming agency for liberating
slaves captured by the Turks.
The citizens were now extremely wealthy, and addicted to luxury and
splendour. They took much pleasure in picturesque popular festivals, of
which that of San Biagio (February 3), and the anniversary of bringing
of the Saint’s arm to Ragusa (July 5) were the most important. On both
days races were run for a banner (_palio_), which attracted large
crowds of peasants from the neighbourhood.[359] A third feast was that
of the Forty Martyrs (March 9), established in 1400 to commemorate the
city’s escape from tyranny.[360] The procession is thus described in
the Ceremonial of the Rector:—
“On the 8th day of March his Excellency the Rector issues forth under
the arcades (of the Palace), whence he is invited by the parish
priest of St. Blaize to enter the church. The following morning he
again comes forth and seats himself on the upper seat, opposite the
magistrates, as is customary in such festivals, with the rest of the
Senators; the bells of the Senate and of the Council are then rung.
After the third tucket of the pipers the Secretary begins, with his
Excellency’s permission, to read out in order the names of all the
magistrates and of the remaining members of the Senate and of the
Council; all must be present, save in case of illness or other
legitimate impediment—absentees are fined 25 _ipperperi_. This done,
his Excellency proceeds along the street of the Palace, with all the
aforesaid nobles, marching two and two, carrying lighted torches
given them by the people. They enter the church of San Biagio, our
Standard-bearer, and then come out again in procession, carrying the
three relics which are wont to be thus carried, viz. the Head, the Arm,
and the Foot of the Saint, and they march across the Piazza, round the
Loggia, and return by the Palace street. They again repair to the said
church, and High Mass begins. When it is finished the Archbishop leads
the way, followed by his Excellency, to the Loggia, where the guard
is. Then the Preaching Father of the Cathedral delivers a political
discourse. This ended, the procession returns to the church in the same
order. There the Archbishop and the Rector make obeisance to each other
before the choir; the former enters the choir, the latter returns to
the Palace; the torches remain in the church.”[361]
Another more secular festival was that of the Tree on May 3. There
existed a society of patrician youths, from ten to eighteen years of
age, and therefore too young to take part in the affairs of the State.
The society elected some of its members managers of the festival, and
“on the last day of April they plant a maypole, artificially covered
with fir branches, to be burnt on May 3. They choose a page, and three
or four attendants for him, from among the patrician boys under ten,
to read out the prayers suitable for the occasion On May 1 and on
each of the following days the members of the society repair daily to
do homage to the Rector and the chief authorities, who encourage them,
and give them sweetmeats as a reward for the trouble they are taking.
The ceremonies round the maypole are accompanied by fireworks and
discharges of small cannon, and on the evening of the third day the
maypole is set on fire. While it is burning splendid fireworks are set
going. The whole company then repair to the house of the page, whose
father receives formal thanks.”[362]
A symbol of Hungarian suzerainty, possibly connected with the May
festival, is the so-called statue of Orlando. In many mediæval towns a
pillar was erected in the chief square, from the summit of which the
public crier proclaimed the enactments of the Government. Here, too,
the people were wont to gather when their consent was required, and
near this spot capital sentences were sometimes executed. The pillar
also served as a support for the city standard. It was usually adorned
with a statue of a warrior, whence it was called in German towns the
_Rolandssäule_ or _Rolandsbild_, Roland being the symbol of Imperial
authority. Such a monument did not exist at Ragusa until the fifteenth
century, when Sigismund, King of Hungary, the city’s protector, was
elected Emperor of Germany. The Roland column at Ragusa is a square
pier in the piazza opposite the church of the Patron Saint, with a
statue of a knight in full armour on one side and a flagstaff on top,
from which the banner of the Republic floated on grand occasions.
The right arm of the figure, from the elbow downwards, served as a
standard of measurement for the cloth merchants.[363] From the platform
on the summit political orations and funeral discourses were held
and public announcements proclaimed. In 1825 the monument was upset
by a terrific hurricane, and among its foundations a brass plate was
discovered with the following inscription:—
MCCC....III . DE . MAGGIO . FATTO . NEL . TEMPO . DI . PAPA . MAR
TINO . V . E . NEL . TEMPO . DEL . SIGNOR . NOSTRO . SIGISMONDO . IMPERA
TOR . ROMANORVM . ET. SEM(per Augustus) . ET . RE . D’ONGARIA .
E . DALMATIA . E . CROATIA . ET . CETERA . FO . MESSA . QVESTA . PIE
TRA . ET . STENDARDO . QVI . IN . HONOR . DI . DIO . ET . DI . SANTO . BLA
SIO . NOSTRO . GONFALON . LI . OFFICIALI....
Part of the figures of the date are erased, but as Martin V. was Pope
from 1417 to 1431, and Sigismund Emperor from 1411 to 1437, the full
date should be MCCCC_XV_III, or MCCCC_XX_III, or MCCCC_XX_ with the
III as the day of the month. There is no mention of Sigismund’s title
of King of Bohemia, which he assumed in 1419, so that the earlier date
seems more probable, according to Professor Gelcich. On the other
hand, in this case the day of the month would not be mentioned, and
as the year 1420 was that of the end of Hungarian rule in Dalmatia
(the Convention of Cattaro was signed on March 8, 1420), it is likely
that this column was erected to reconfirm Ragusa’s allegiance to the
Hungarian crown, as well as to proclaim its independence from Venice.
The date, May 3, may have some connection with the aforementioned
festival.
CHAPTER VIII
THE TURKISH CONQUEST (1420-1526)
For the next hundred years Ragusa remains under Hungarian protection,
but bound by ties so shadowy that for all practical purposes she may
be regarded as an independent State. During this period, however, she
feels the weight of Turkish power more and more, and her tribute to the
Porte goes on increasing, until it reaches the maximum limit of 12,500
ducats. But in spite of this ever-present danger she continues to grow
in wealth, splendour, and importance, and to carry out her mission
as a haven of refuge and a bulwark of Christianity and civilisation.
She flourishes as a centre of learning and the arts no less than as
an emporium of trade, and all the while she remains singularly free
from internal troubles and constitutional changes—a unique distinction
in that part of the world. She pursues the even tenour of her way
undisturbed, conservative, aristocratic, narrow-minded, but on the
whole successful and prosperous, and her population contented.
Very different was the condition of the neighbouring Balkan lands.
Bosnia was for the present fairly quiet; the Turks had been driven out
of the country, and their leader, Isak Beg, defeated in a raid into
Hungary, so that King Tvrtko was able to reoccupy Vrhbosna, and Sandalj
Hranić recognised his supremacy for the time being. The long civil war
in Croatia and Dalmatia between the partisans of Sigismund and those
of Ladislas had resulted in the acquisition of the littoral by Venice,
and the only prince who remained independent of the Republic was Ivan
Nelipić, Count of Četin, Klissa, and Rama. His estates comprised
Western Bosnia and some districts of Hlum and Dalmatia. He could not,
of course, face the Venetians on the sea, but he managed to hold his
own on the mountain ridges.[364] The Venetians and Tvrtko were ready to
come to an understanding on this matter, and a war against Nelipić was
under discussion when the Turks again invaded Bosnia. There were 4000
Ottomans in the country all through the summer of 1426, and they seized
a number of towns and raided Croatia, Usora, and Srebrnica, while King
Tvrtko did not dare to do anything against them.[365] The Ragusan
colonies in Novobrdo and Priesrinac were besieged by the Turks and in
great danger. The Venetians conducted further operations against them
in Albania, the Morea, Achaia, and round Salonica. The routes through
Albania, Bosnia, and Slavonia were interrupted,[366] and the inland
trade at a standstill.
Sandalj Hranić for a moment seemed to appreciate the danger, and after
a visit to Ragusa in 1424, made peace with Radosav Paulović, who now
seemed ready to sell his share of Canali to Ragusa for 13,000 ducats
down and 600 a year. The Republic created him and his son Ragusan
nobles, and gave them a palace in the town.[367] But he soon repented
of his bargain, and demanded back the territory, with the excuse that
the Ragusans were fortifying it contrary to the treaty. The Ragusans
refused to evacuate it, and Radosav collected a large force to make
war on them. The Republic raised local levies and mercenaries in
Italy, Albania, the Narenta Valley, the Kraina, and Hlum. A band of
Italian mercenaries was attacked by Radosav at the Pass of Ljuta and
forced to retire, and the enemy raided Breno. An Albanian force went
to lay waste Radosav’s lands, while a mixed detachment of Ragusans and
Albanians, 1800 strong, under Marino Gozze, made for Trebinje; but the
Albanians mutinied, Radosav fell on the divided force, and Gozze had
great difficulty in retiring to Breno in good order.[368] More troops
were levied in Ragusa and 2000 more mercenaries obtained from Albania
and Italy, while envoys were sent at the same time to the Hungarian
court to protest against Radosav’s conduct, and to request that troops
should be sent against him from Usora. The argument was strengthened by
the assertion that Radosav was a Bogomil.[369] A little later another
request was made to Sigismund that he should instruct the ambassador he
was sending to Sultan Murad II. to ask the latter to punish Radosav,
who, although an Ottoman vassal, had violated the truce with Hungary
by attacking a town under Hungarian protection.[370] This proves that
Radosav was already a tributary to the Turks, and also explains why
Sandalj and the King of Bosnia feared to help Ragusa against him,
although they were on good terms with the Republic. The Hungarian
ambassador, however, was not given the instructions suggested, and a
Ragusan envoy had to be sent as well. Finally, Sigismund did intervene
directly, and formed an alliance with Bosnia, Ragusa, and Sandalj
against Radosav, and 70,000 ducats, of which Bosnia was to pay 40,000,
Sandalj 20,000, and Ragusa 10,000, were offered to the Sultan for
permission to divide up all his territories between them. The Sultan
sent a Pasha to make inquiries on the spot, and he confirmed the
Republic’s possession of the land it had bought and Radosav raided,
and demanded compensation for the damage inflicted.[371] Finally,
after endless negotiations at the Sultan’s court at Adrianople[372] an
agreement was concluded by which the Republic retained the territory
it had purchased, and was to keep the interest of the money invested
by Radosav at Ragusa for twelve years as compensation; prisoners were
to be released on both sides without ransom; certain special enemies
of the Republic were to be exiled from Radosav’s court, and all damage
done to Ragusan territory in future by his vojvods was to be paid for
by him (1432).
In 1431 the Council of Basel had met, and one of its most active
members was Johannes Stoicus of Ragusa, who made every effort to
promote the union of the Eastern and the Western Churches, and end the
religious strife in the Balkans with a view to common action against
the Turks. He requested the Ragusan Senate to try to induce the chief
princes of Servia and Bosnia, whether schismatics or Bogomils, to send
envoys to Basel. The attempt was actually made, but the whole country
was in such a state of anarchy and rebellion that none of them were
able to pay any attention to the matter.[373]
A war had broken out between the King of Bosnia and Stephen Lazarević,
Despot of Servia, which was destined to last for thirty years. All the
Slave princes were fighting amongst themselves, and Ragusa had another
opportunity of extending her dominions far into the interior had she
been so minded. But according to Resti, the reason why she abstained
was that she realised that the Turks had earmarked all that country,
and that for her to occupy it would be to court annihilation, and
Trebinje, which was now offered to her, was refused. It seemed more
prudent to content herself with a small compact territory and with
acting the part of intermediary between East and West, civilisation
and barbarism, Christianity and Islam, than to aspire to dangerous
conquests. The Ragusan despatches for the next few years are full of
the Turkish advance. In 1432 Isak Beg invaded Croatia, passing through
Bosnia with 3000 men, and raided the territory of Zara, while another
army entered Wallachia and Transsilvania, forcing the lord of Wallachia
to recognise the Sultan’s supremacy. Two years later, however, the
Turks met with a serious check in Albania, where a native force under
Arneth Spata defeated the invaders several times; in 1435 Isak Beg
himself sustained a reverse, and most of Albania was cleared of the
Turks.[374] But the wars amongst the Slaves made organised resistance
impossible, and Sandalj Hranić, whose power now extended throughout
Hlum to the borders of Croatia in the north, far into the Zedda in the
south, and as far as Podrinje in the east, took the opportunity of the
war between the King of Bosnia and the Despot of Servia to join the
latter in buying of the Sultan the right to despoil the former of his
kingdom. The Despot received Usora and Zvornik, while Sandalj was to
take the rest.[375] Tvrtko, whose power had been slipping from him,
was now forced to fly, and took refuge with Sigismund of Hungary;[376]
but the civil war continued. On March 15, 1435, Sandalj died, leaving
his broad lands to his nephew, Stephen Vukčić, generally known as
Stephen Kosača,[377] who afterwards assumed the title of Duke[378] of
St. Sava, because the shrine of that saint was in his dominions. The
same year Ivan Nelipić, the last of the independent Croatian counts,
died, and his estates were annexed by the Hungarian king and divided
among the Ragusan citizens Matthew, Francis, Peter, and John of Talovac
(or Thallovez) as a reward for their services to Hungary. Kosača,
regardless of the Turkish danger, continued his petty intrigues; he at
once began to quarrel with Radosav Paulović, who was in a sense his
vassal, and each made a bid for Turkish help. Ragusa attempted to
mediate between them and to dissuade them from calling in the enemy,
but Kosača asked for and obtained 1500 Turks to reduce Radosav to
obedience.[379] In 1438 he invaded the plain of Trebinje, which was
under the latter’s jurisdiction, and forced the inhabitants to fly into
Ragusan territory. Later he proposed to Peter and Matthew of Talovac
to attack Ragusa itself, but they refused, and the Republic on being
informed intrigued against the Duke, and told the King of Hungary that
he was merely an instrument of the Turks.
In 1436 the Sultan Murad again invaded Bosnia, and captured Vrhbosna,
which henceforth became the Turkish headquarters in the country.[380]
King Tvrtko now returned with Hungarian help, but he found his whole
kingdom devastated, Usora, Srebrnica, and Zvornick held by the Despot
of Servia, and the rest by the Turks, or by vojvods who were Turkish
vassals. He was therefore forced to agree to pay the Sultan a yearly
tribute of 25,000 ducats. The real ruler of Bosnia was now Murad, who
alludes to it as part of his own dominions in a privilege granted to
the Ragusans in 1442, allowing them to trade “in Romania, Bulgaria,
Wallachia, Servia, Albania, Bosnia, and all other lands, places, and
cities under my rule.”[381] In 1440 he conquered the whole of Servia
with the exception of Belgrad, which was gallantly defended by the
Hungarian garrison commanded by the Ragusan Giovanni Luccari. The
Sultan retired baffled, but the Despot George was forced to fly,
and took refuge at Ragusa with his treasure. The following year the
Sultan, Isak Beg, and the Pasha of Romania all sent to demand the
surrender of the Despot, offering the Republic his treasure and an
increase of territory between Cattaro and the Drina as a bribe. The
citizens refused to violate the laws of hospitality,[382] but at the
same time, as George was an inconvenient guest, it was hinted to him
that he had better leave the city. He agreed, and suggested going to
Constantinople; but the Senate dissuaded him from doing so owing to the
parlous condition of the Eastern Empire. So he went to Hungary instead
on a Ragusan galley.[383] Murad determined to punish the Republic for
this refusal, and arrested all the Ragusans in his dominions, the
ambassadors themselves escaping with difficulty to Constantinople. He
then prepared to attack the city by land and sea, and the citizens
strengthened their defences, increased their military forces, enlisted
foreign mercenaries, and secured the services of an Italian engineer.
The Turkish menace was notified to the Pope and to the King of Bosnia,
while at the same time the Senate tried to bribe the Sultan by offering
to raise the tribute to 1400 ducats. According to local historians,
Murad desisted from his proposals out of admiration for the magnanimity
of the citizens in respecting the laws of hospitality; but the
real reason is probably to be found in his alarm at the attitude of
Hungary, and in the fact that the city’s defences promised a long and
difficult siege. In any case Murad was pacified, and in 1443 Ali Beg
arrived at Ragusa, and a treaty of peace was signed which returned to
the _status quo_.[384] King Sigismund had been operating against the
Turks in various directions, and obtained the loan of some Ragusan
ships to transport the Sultan’s rebellious son (or brother) from Segna
to Albania.[385] But he was not very successful in any direction, and
it seemed as though the end of the Bosnian kingdom were at hand. On
his death he was succeeded by Albert, who died soon after, and then
the Polish King Ladislas came to the throne, and to the rescue. It
is interesting to note that in the embassy sent to him by Tvrtko to
ask for help allusion was made to the common origin of the Bosnians
and the Poles—an early expression of pan-Slavism.[386] Ladislas was
assisted by the famous leader John Hunyadi, who in 1442 defeated the
Turks again and again in the Carpathians. In June 1443 Ladislas and
Hunyadi, with an army of Hungarians, Serbs, Bosnians, and Bulgarians,
invaded the enemy’s country and defeated Murad at the Kunovica Pass
near Philippopolis. Peace was signed between Hungary and the Turks soon
after, by the terms of which Servia was given back to the Despot George
Branković, and Bosnia freed from the invaders, but Stephen Tvrtko died
before this was accomplished. He was succeeded by Stephen Thomas, who
in September 1444 held a Diet of the Magnates at Kreševo, where the
Ragusan envoys came to greet him on his accession. He confirmed the
Republic in possession of the Primorije and of Canali, for which he was
to receive the Servian tribute of 2000 _ipperperi_ on St. Demetrius’s
day, and the Bosnian tribute of 500 on that of San Biagio. This shows
that Bosnia was once more the chief South-Slavonic State and had
annexed all the western part of the former dominions of the Servian
Tsars. Servia itself was little more than a vassal State of the Turks.
During the war Ragusa had made gifts and paid tribute to the Sultan
to secure immunity for the Ragusan merchants in Turkish territory and
obtain the renewal of the privileges. To this the King of Hungary does
not seem to have taken much exception.[387]
In the meanwhile Pope Eugene was preparing an international crusade
against the Turks, and he also sent a brief to Ragusa, requesting that
a contingent of two galleys should be provided by the Republic, as well
as the loan of three more, to be paid for by himself, to escort his
legate, the Bishop of Corona, which request was granted.[388] Shortly
afterwards the Senate informed the King of Hungary that nineteen
galleys had touched at Ragusa, viz. eight Papal ships, two Ragusans,
five Venetians, and four Burgundians, and that they were now collected
at Corfu, while some more Burgundian vessels, and seven from Aragon,
were expected at Modone. The land war in the Balkans began badly for
the Christians. On November 11 the Hungarians were utterly routed at
Varna, in Bulgaria, and King Ladislas was killed. The young Ladislas
Posthumus was then elected King of Hungary. One of the Sultan’s first
acts after this fight was to raise the Ragusan tribute as a punishment
for sending galleys to join the Christian fleet.[389] George, Despot
of Servia, with characteristic treachery, had arrested and imprisoned
Hunyadi after the Hungarian defeat. The Ragusan envoy, Damiano Giorgi,
who had come to Belgrad to return the Despot’s treasure, made every
effort to obtain Hunyadi’s release, but as George would not hear
reason, he induced the Serbs to liberate him without the Despot’s
consent. Giorgi and his family were afterwards taken into the Hungarian
service by the new king, Matthew Corvinus, as a reward, and given
high emoluments. But they never ceased to work in the interests of
their native city by means of their influence at Court. The efforts
of Ragusan citizens in foreign countries were among the chief causes
by which the Republic attained to and maintained its international
position.
In 1447 war between Hungary and the Turks broke out anew, and Hunyadi
led an expedition across the Danube, but the following year he was
defeated on the ill-omened field of Kossovo. On this, as on other
occasions, Ragusa sent a number of boats to Albania to pick up the
fugitives who had escaped across country from the fury of the invaders,
and sent them back to Hungary or gave them asylum in the town. Peace
was concluded, but fighting continued in Albania, and we now find the
name of Skanderbeg, the great Albanian hero, mentioned for the first
time in the Ragusan annals.
The Senate informed the Hungarian king that the Turks were besieging
Kroia, Skanderbeg’s stronghold, with two large guns, one of which could
throw balls weighing 400 lbs.; the town, however, was well defended
by 1500 men, and Skanderbeg was not far off, ever ready to fall upon
the Turks and cut off small detachments and convoys.[390] Ragusa had
furnished him both with money and provisions, and he frequently came to
the city to refit. He was now successful, raised the siege of Kroia,
and expelled the Turks from a large part of the country.
[Illustration: CLOISTER OF THE DOMINICAN MONASTERY]
We must now return to Stephen Kosača, Duke of St. Sava, and his
relations with Ragusa. Like so many other Servian princes he was a
Bogomil by religion, and when Stephen Thomas, King of Bosnia, abjured
that heresy and became a Catholic, many of his Bogomil subjects
fled into the Duchy to escape persecution, and others into Turkish
territory, while his Orthodox subjects took refuge in Servia. This
caused further discords between Bosnia and Servia, and John Hunyadi
cannot be exempted from the blame of having induced Stephen Thomas to
ill-treat the heretics;[391] in fact he actually quarrelled with the
King because the latter relented from his persecutions. The King’s
daughter had married Stephen Kosača, who nominally was a vassal of
Bosnia, but he hardly recognised his allegiance at all, and styled
himself “by the Grace of God Duke of St. Sava, Lord of Hlum and the
Littoral, Grand Vojvod of the Bosnian kingdom, Count of the Drina,”
&c.[392] Like his predecessor Sandalj Hranić, he was one of the fatal
men of the Balkans; although he tried to resist them later, his
attitude contributed not a little to the Turkish conquest of the South
Slavonic lands. His aim was simply to consolidate and extend his own
dominions at the expense of his neighbours, and he availed himself
for this purpose of the assistance which the Turks were always only
too ready to give. He also proved Ragusa’s most inveterate enemy. In
July 1450 he was still on good terms with the Republic,[393] but in
1451 the first dispute arose. The cause, according to Chalcocondylas,
and repeated by Razzi, Gondola, and others, was that he had taken to
himself a Florentine mistress brought into the country by some Italian
merchants, and drove his wife Helen from the Court. She repaired with
her son to Ragusa, and the Duke demanded that they should be given
up. The Republic refused, and Kosača, out of revenge, raised duties
on Ragusan trade, opened salt-markets in the Narenta, reoccupied part
of Canali, and laid waste the Republic’s territory. A more likely
reason is probably to be found in Kosača’s overmastering ambition. The
Republic at once demanded help of the Christian Powers, especially
of Hungary, against the heretical Duke, and an envoy was sent to the
Pope to complain that many Italians were in his service. His Holiness
replied by forbidding all good Catholics from having anything to do
with him. Fortunately for Ragusa the King of Bosnia was hostile to
Kosača on account of the indignities to which the latter had subjected
his wife (the King’s daughter). For the same reason his son Vladislav
left Ragusa and raised a rebellion against his father, allying himself
with the Republic, to whom he promised to give back Canali as soon as
he was master of the Duchy.[394] In December 1451 Ragusa contracted an
alliance with Stephen Thomas, who undertook “to declare war without
delay and carry it on without interruption against the Duke Stephen
Vukčić (Kosača), his government, his cities, and his servants, with
all the glorious strength of Our kingdom, with Our servants, and
Our friends in open warfare, as is suitable to Our lordship and Our
kingdom, provided that no obstacle impede us and no Turkish army attack
us.”[395] The Despot of Servia and other minor potentates joined the
league against “this perfidious heretic and Patarene.”[396] Ragusa
also sent an envoy to Hungary to urge the King to intervene, stating
that Kosača was intriguing with the Venetians, the Turks, and the King
of Aragon. It was suggested that this was a good moment for Hungarian
action, as the Turks were in a state of anarchy in consequence of
the death of the Sultan, and that a Hungarian army might now occupy
Kodiviet and thus prevent them from ever entering Bosnia again.[397]
Hostilities commenced in 1452, and at first Kosača was unlucky, for
a number of his barons rose against him and joined Ragusa, and the
commander of the league’s forces was his own son. But soon after a
civil war broke out in Bosnia. The Herzegovinian nobles fought against
the Duke while Kosača was devastating Ragusan territory. At Ragusa’s
instance a legate was sent by Pope Nicholas V. to Kosača, who received
him amiably, promising to make peace with the Republic and become a
Catholic. But this was only to gain time, and as soon as the Turks once
more appeared on the frontier and assisted him he again made war on
Ragusa, and a Turkish force approached the city, which was now in grave
danger. In July 1453 Vladislav expressed a wish to make peace with his
father, and the Duke, thus strengthened, again invaded Canali, took
Ragusavecchia, and captured a body of Ragusans under Marino Cerva near
Bergato. Further details of these operations are wanting, but peace
was made at last through the intervention of the Papal legate and of
a Turkish Vizir, and signed at Novi, April 10, 1454, confirming the
_status quo_. Kosača promised the Ragusans that he would never attack
them again “save by order of the Grand Signior, the Sultan of Turkey,
Mehmet Beg” (Mohammed II.).[398] It is thus clear that already the
Sultan’s influence in this part of the world was predominant. In 1453
the whole of Europe was shaken to its foundations by the capture of
Constantinople by the Turks. This event, however, did not have much
direct effect on Bosnia and Hlum, as the Turkish conquest there had
already begun. Every month some fresh raid was made, dealing death and
destruction, and yet everywhere the invaders found Slavonic princes
ready to help them against others who still held out.[399] The first
consequence which the fall of Constantinople had on Ragusa was the
raising of her tribute to the Sultan to 5000 ducats. The city again
became a haven of refuge for fugitives from the territories invaded by
the Turks, and many Greeks from Constantinople, including members of
the most distinguished families, fled to Ragusa, and remained there
for a while. Thus we find some of the Palæologi, Comneni, Lascaris,
and Cantaconzeni, and learned men like John Lascaris, Chalcocondylas,
Emmanuel Marulus, Theodore Spandukinos, author of a history of the
Turks, Paul Tarchaniotes, father of the historian John, and many
others. No doubt these men contributed to the revival of learning in
Dalmatia, as they did in the Italian towns. The refugees were provided
with food, shelter, and money, and were afterwards sent on board
Ragusan galleys free of charge to Ancona.[400] The citizens would have
been willing that they should settle permanently at Ragusa, but the
Senate feared that as many of them were such distinguished men the
Sultan might use this as a pretext for aggression. A certain number,
however, did remain.
After the capture of Constantinople it was hoped that Mohammed would
content himself with being overlord of the remaining Balkan lands not
under his direct sway. But he soon evinced more dangerous intentions,
and proceeded to establish his complete ascendency, destroying all
the independent or semi-independent States. Of these the first to be
attacked was Servia, which the Sultan claimed through his stepmother,
a Servian princess. The miserable remnant of the great Tsar Dušan’s
Empire was reduced to a small part of the present kingdom of Servia.
Mohammed’s object was to prepare for the struggle with Hungary, the
only Power which he seriously feared, for Genoa was now weak, and
Venice’s first thought was “not to recover the bulwark of Christendom
from the hands of the Muslim, but to preserve her own commercial
privileges under the Infidel ruler.”[401] In 1454 the Turks invaded
Servia, captured Ostrovica, and besieged Smederevo (Semendria); but
John Hunyadi led an army against them, relieved that stronghold,
defeated them at Kruševac, and burnt the fortress of Vidin on the
Danube. But the following year Mohammed advanced in person and captured
Novobrdo,[402] with its valuable mines, “Totam religionem Christianam
libidinoso ambiciosoque animo dicioni suæ ascripsit, flagratque
cupidine mundi,” as the Ragusan reports informed the Hungarian king.
The Republic suffered ill-effects from this capture, because the
Ragusan merchants who had a flourishing trade there were driven out. In
July 1456 Mohammed besieged Belgrad, but was defeated by the courage of
the defenders aided by the brilliant strategy of Hunyadi. Unfortunately
this great leader died soon afterwards, and Hungary was crippled by
internal troubles. In 1457 Fra Marino da Siena travelled through
Dalmatia to preach a crusade against the Turks and collect money for
that purpose. He raised 4000 ducats at Ragusa alone,[403] and the King
of Hungary requested the Senate to use its influence to induce him to
devote the money to a land crusade, as the danger on that side was
more pressing, rather than to a naval expedition. By the end of the
year the whole of Servia was subjugated except Belgrad and the Danubian
provinces. On the death of Ladislas, Matthew Corvinus, Hunyadi’s son,
was elected by the Diet to succeed him (January 1458).
Ragusa, which had been described by King Ladislas as the “scutum
confiniorum regni nostri Dalmatiæ,” had been threatened by the Turks
in 1455, but not seriously, as they were occupied elsewhere. In 1458
Mohammed again menaced the Republic, and sent Isak Beg into Bosnia to
order the vassal princes to capture the city if she did not immediately
make submission to him and increase her tribute.[404] Hungarian aid
was solicited, and the citizens prepared to defend themselves; but
once more the danger was averted, as the Turks had other more pressing
matters to attend to.
In 1459 the final conquest of Bosnia was begun. King Stephen Thomas
had paid tribute to the Sultan since 1449, and after the fall of
Constantinople he had sent envoys to do homage to the victor,[405] but
at the same time he was imploring the help of the Pope; this caused
much discontent among his Bogomil subjects, who had already shown
themselves not unfriendly to the Turks. But after Hunyadi’s victory at
Belgrad Stephen was encouraged to further resistance; he refused to pay
the tribute, and actually intended to lead a crusade in person.[406]
The Pope ordered his legate in Dalmatia to raise funds for him, and
enjoined Kosača to help him.[407] Stephen began to attack the Turkish
garrisons in Servia, but after taking a few towns he came to terms with
the Sultan early in 1458, and paid him a tribute of 9000 ducats. On the
death of Lazar, the Despot of Servia, the King of Hungary conferred
the despotate on Stephen the Younger, or Tomašević, the Bosnian king’s
son, who had married Lazar’s daughter, Helena. Thus Bosnia acquired the
Danubian region of Servia, including Semendria. But Mohammed determined
to conquer even these districts once for all, and to punish Stephen
Thomas for his audacity. The Servians themselves were dissatisfied
with their new ruler, because he was a devout Catholic, and they
regarded him simply as a Hungarian viceroy. When in June 1459 Mohammed
approached Semendria the inhabitants opened their gates to him. Owing
to its position at the confluence of the Morava and the Danube it
was the key to the whole country, and its fall, which spelt the end
of Bosnian rule in Servia, caused consternation throughout Europe.
It was attributed by Matthew Corvinus to Stephen Thomas and his son.
While this quarrel was going on and the Hungarian king was at war with
Germany, the Turkish general, Hassan Pasha, had obliged the King of
Bosnia to let him pass through the country with a large army. The next
year hostilities broke out between Paul Sperančić, Banus of Croatia,
and Stephen Thomas, in the course of which the latter was killed. His
son, Stephen Tomašević, succeeded to him, and was the last King of
Bosnia (1461).
The country was indeed in a most terrible condition—the Turks
threatened it from the south, the Banus of Croatia from the west,
and internally the Bogomils were in open revolt and protected by the
Duke of St. Sava. The Papal legate managed, however, to bring about
a reconciliation between the latter and Stephen Tomašević, who now
retired to Jajce. There he collected his magnates around him, and was
solemnly crowned, being the first and last Bosnian king who was crowned
with the favour of the Catholic Church,[408] styling himself “King
of Servia, Hlum, the Littoral, Dalmatia, Croatia, Dolnji-Kralj, the
Western Land, Usora, Soli, Prodrinje,” &c. He granted many privileges
to the Ragusans, confirmed the Republic in possession of all its
territories, and promised to pay his father’s debts towards it.[409]
By the end of 1461 he managed to make peace with the Banus of Croatia
and his own rebels, and obtained help against the Turks from Venice,
Ragusa, and elsewhere. Kosača himself was in danger from the Turks, who
only supported him as long as he was of any use to them; he too applied
to Ragusa for money and ammunition. Pius II. succeeded after long
negotiations in reconciling the King of Hungary and Stephen Tomašević,
the latter paying the former a sum of money and giving up a fortress.
But in spite of this slightly improved outlook the final ruin was fast
approaching. The Bosnian king’s Catholicism had alienated his Bogomil
subjects, many of whom had taken refuge among the Turks, while several
of the magnates were holding treasonable intercourse with the enemy.
[Illustration: MAP OF THE RAGUSAN REPUBLIC AND NEIGHBOURING STATES.
_After the Peace of Carlovitz (1699.)_]
The Sultan on hearing of Stephen’s alliance with Hungary sent to
demand the tribute, and this being refused he vowed vengeance, but
stayed his hand for a short while to attend to other affairs. The
despairing King implored help of all his neighbours, and prepared for
a last stand. More troops were levied in Bosnia, and envoys were sent
to Italy and Croatia to enlist mercenaries.[410] But the support of
his people was lacking, and resistance hopeless. Ragusa could not give
men, being herself hard pressed, but gave arms and ammunition.[411]
Finding himself in desperate straits he sent envoys to Constantinople
to offer to pay the tribute once more and ask for a fifteen years’
truce. Mohammed granted this request, fully intending to attack Bosnia
at once. The Servian Michael of Ostrovica, who heard the Sultan
discussing this treachery, warned the Bosnian ambassadors, but they
laughed at him and returned home with the good news. Mohammed then
began his northward march with 15,000 horse and countless foot, and
let out that he intended to attack Hungary itself, so that Matthew
Corvinus should not send help to Bosnia. The army marched through
Üsküb to Senice, and an advanced guard under Mohammed Pasha captured
Podrinje in Bosnia. The great fortress of Bobovac, which had hitherto
resisted all Turkish sieges, was next attacked. It might easily have
held out for many months, but the Governor, Knez Radak, a Bogomil who
had been converted to Catholicism by force, surrendered it without a
struggle. The traitor, however, was beheaded by the Turks, and a large
part of the inhabitants made prisoners, including the very envoys who
had brought the charter of the truce from Constantinople. The news of
the fall of Bobovac caused the most widespread dismay throughout the
land, and the Turkish advance was almost unopposed, many of the Bogomil
nobles going over to the enemy. In eight days about eighty towns had
surrendered. The King fled from Jajce to Kljuć, where he was pursued by
Mohammed Pasha and besieged. On a promise that his life would be spared
if he surrendered, he gave himself up, and was brought as a prisoner
before the Sultan at Jajce, which had also opened its gates to him on
the understanding that its inhabitants should be unmolested. The craven
King helped to make the conquest all the easier by authorising his
governors and officers to surrender (June 1463). The Sultan now wished
to complete his conquests by annexing the Herzegovina. Stephen Kosača
at first meditated flight to Ragusa, but then determined to hold out
for a time, and sent his son, Vladislav, to levy troops on the coast.
The Turkish advance through the bare and rocky Karst mountains of the
Duchy proved more difficult than was anticipated. Mohammed besieged
Blagaj, the Duke’s residence, in vain, captured Kljuć (not the Bosnian
town of that name) and Ljubuski, but soon lost them again.[412] A few
weeks later he abandoned the scheme and returned to Constantinople.
The Bosnian kingdom had collapsed entirely; 100,000 prisoners had
been taken, and 30,000 youths enrolled in the corps of Janissaries.
The Sultan was in doubt as to what to do with Stephen Tomašević. It
was his invariable practice to put the rulers of the lands which he
conquered to death, but in this case his lieutenant had pledged the
Imperial word that the King should be spared. A learned Persian mufti
helped him out of the difficulty by declaring that a safe-conduct
given without the Sultan’s direct assent to be invalid, and he
himself cut off Stephen’s head. The King’s widow, Mary Helena, fled
to Croatia and afterwards to Spalato, accompanied by many magnates,
including the Vojvod Ivaniš Vlatković, and eventually died in Hungary.
The Queen-mother, Catherine, lingered for a while in the convent of
Sutjeska (Herzegovina), until the advance of the Turks forced her to
escape by way of Stagno to Ragusa, where she received hospitality and
was given a pension of 500 ducats a year. She remained there until
1475, when she retired to a convent in Rome; she died in the Eternal
City three years later, and was buried in the church of Ara Cœli.
Countless fugitives from Bosnia now fled to the Dalmatian towns,
especially to the ever-hospitable Ragusa, until at last Mohammed’s
attention was called by a Franciscan monk to the depopulation of the
country, and he was induced to modify his policy of persecution and
grant privileges to that Order, which thenceforth ministered to the
spiritual needs of the Bosnian Catholics.[413] Religious differences
had thus brought about the final ruin of the land, and subjected
it to the awful blight of Turkish misrule for over four centuries;
but they survived the conquest. The Bogomils gradually dropped into
Muhamedanism, which from its purely monotheistic character was less
repugnant to them than Catholicism; but a few adhered to their old
tenets for a long time, and there were Bogomils in Bosnia and the
Herzegovina until sixty or seventy years ago; indeed it is asserted
that Bogomil rites are still practised by the Muhamedans of certain
villages near Konjica and elsewhere. The Orthodox Church, however,
gained large numbers of adherents, and is to-day the most numerous of
the three communities in Bosnia and the Herzegovina.
Meanwhile the Ragusans were cowering behind their walls, expecting
every moment to hear the tramp of the Turkish legions advancing to
overwhelm them. The outworks on the Monte Sergio were strengthened,
the churches outside the city and the houses in the suburbs of Pille
and Ploće were pulled down, the wells at Ombla, Gravosa, and the
neighbourhood poisoned, and the Government was authorised to destroy
the aqueduct if necessary. The fortifications of Stagno were improved,
and the Count entrusted with the defence of the frontier. All the
Ragusan galleys in Dalmatia and elsewhere were recalled to defend the
home waters, crossbowmen and rowers were levied in all the islands,
a corps of infantry and lances raised in Apulia and placed under the
command of Spirito d’Altamura, and a Herzegovinian contingent under
Ivaniš Vlatković was formed. A loan of 15,000 ducats was raised to
provide for war expenses.[414] During his raid through the Duchy the
Sultan came very near to Ragusa, which he had determined to attack in
person and occupy, as it would be a most useful port on the Adriatic
and a basis for operations against Venice and Italy. While processions
and prayers of intercession were being held in the town, a messenger
arrived from the Beglerbeg of Rumelia ordering the Republic to do
homage to Mohammed. This was done; but the Sultan demanded that the
citizens should give up all their territory to him, and that the
ambassadors should follow him to Thrace as hostages. The Senate was
filled with consternation, as the surrender of the territory would be
but a preliminary to the capture of the city itself. But one of the
Senators, Serafino Bona, proposed that a reply should be drafted to the
effect that while the Republic was ready to give up its territory to
the Turks, it would place the city itself under the direct protection
of Hungary and admit a Hungarian garrison. This diplomatic answer
saved the situation, for the Sultan, who had heard of the great
preparations which were being made in Hungary, had no mind to be
attacked by the enemy from the south-west as well as from the north.
Moreover, his troops were being severely handled in the rocky gorges
of the Herzegovina by Kosača and his mountaineers; so he abandoned the
enterprise for the time being.[415]
In the south a vigorous resistance was maintained by Skanderbeg,[416]
the only Christian leader worthy of the name since the death of
Hunyadi. Captured by the Turks when a child and brought up as a
Muhamedan in the corps of Janissaries, he distinguished himself by his
prowess in the Turkish service. But during the Servian campaign of 1442
he was suddenly inspired with a feeling of duty towards his native
country and the faith of his ancestors. He abandoned the Turkish host
with 300 followers, obtained possession of the fortress of Kroia by
stratagem, and from that day forth maintained in the wild fastnesses
of Albania a desperate and successful struggle against the Turks. Only
once was he defeated (in 1456); but on countless other occasions he
inflicted overwhelming defeats on the enemy, and he came to be regarded
as the chief bulwark of Christianity in the Balkans, assuming the title
of “Athleta Christianitatis.” In 1444 he summoned a council of Albanian
leaders at the Venetian town of Alessio to concert defensive measures.
Army after army was hurled against him, only to be repulsed and cut to
pieces. After the capture of Constantinople Mohammed sent Hamsa Pasha
with 50,000 men into Albania, but he was defeated by Skanderbeg with
only 11,000. A few months later the Albanian hero passed through Ragusa
on his way to Apulia to obtain help from Alfonso V., King of Naples,
and having received promises of a contingent of Neapolitan troops,
he returned in disguise to Ragusa, when he was given a ship to go to
Redoni in Albania. According to Razzi,[417] the Sultan heard of this
visit and raised the Ragusan tribute in consequence. The Neapolitan
historian Summonte, on the other hand, states that Skanderbeg himself
did not come to Naples on this occasion, but sent three ambassadors.
He adds that Albania was then placed under Neapolitan protection.
What is certain, however, is that 1000 men and 18 guns were sent from
Naples to the Athlete of Christendom. In 1458 Alfonso died, and his
son Ferdinand found his succession disputed by John of Anjou, who had
the support of most of the barons. He then appealed to Skanderbeg
for help, and the chivalrous Albanian, who was not forgetful of past
services, being at the time undisturbed by the Turks, crossed over to
Apulia in 1459, defeated Ferdinand’s enemies, established the King
securely on the throne, and returned to Albania the following year.
Ragusa again furnished him with money and arms, recommended his cause
to the Pope, and gave him ships for service along the coast and between
Albania and Italy. It is probable that all his sea journeys as well
as those of his ambassadors were performed on Ragusan ships. He also
deposited sums of money in the treasury of the Republic. Between 1460
and 1461 he defeated four Turkish armies of 300,000 or 400,000 men
each, and obliged Mohammed to make peace with him. Early in 1462 he
again visited Ragusa, where he was greatly honoured by the citizens,
and furnished with further supplies of grain, wine, sheep, &c. When,
in 1463, Pope Pius II. proclaimed a crusade, Skanderbeg was induced
to violate the truce—as indeed Mohammed would have done had it suited
him—and joined the expedition. On August 4, 1464, he gained a splendid
victory at Ochrida, but twelve days later Pius II. died, and the
crusade collapsed, and Skanderbeg found himself alone, exposed to the
full fury of the Turks. But he again routed them, and sent envoys to
Italy to ask for assistance. Mohammed in person led a large army into
Albania and laid siege to Kroia. Skanderbeg remained outside the town,
as he had done in the previous siege, with a few thousand warriors,
and repeatedly fell upon the enemy, inflicting heavy losses on them.
Mohammed, hearing that his northern frontiers were threatened by the
King of Hungary, and his Asiatic provinces by the Prince of Caramania,
departed from Albania, leaving Balaban Pasha to continue the siege
with 19,000 men (he had lost 30,000 already). Skanderbeg himself went
to Rome to obtain further help from the Powers. But although he was
received with great splendour, he obtained no material assistance save
a little money. Venice, however, sent him some troops, and on the death
of Balaban Pasha the siege of Kroia was raised. In 1466 the Sultan
returned in person with 130,000 men to attack Durazzo and Kroia, but
failed in both attempts, and returned discomfited to Constantinople.
Further contingents arrived from Venice and Naples, and Skanderbeg
summoned another conference of chiefs at Alessio to discuss defensive
measures. But on January 17, 1467, the Athlete of Christendom died of
fever. The Persian war continued to give the Albanians a short respite,
but the end of their independence was not far off. Skanderbeg had not
had time to consolidate his country so that it would remain united
after his death, and his disappearance was followed by complete anarchy.
[Illustration: THE ORLANDO COLUMN]
In the north the King of Hungary was making desperate efforts to
recover Bosnia, and in his operations he received help from Ragusa.
A few months after the murder of Stephen Tomašević, Matthew Corvinus
invaded Bosnia, and with the help of several of the magnates, including
Kosača’s son, Vladislav Vukčić, reconquered Dolnji-Kralj and Usora,
with about thirty towns and fortresses, including Jajce, Zvečaj,
Banjaluka, Tešanji, and Srebrenik, only Upper Bosnia and Podrinje
remaining under the Turks. The King rewarded Vladislav for his services
by giving him the counties of Uskoplje and Rama. In the spring of 1464
Mohammed again invaded Bosnia with 30,000 men and besieged Jajce, but
was forced to retire. The part of Bosnia now under Hungary was formed
into two Banats—Jajce and Srebrenik—and the Governor, Nicholas of
Ilok, Vojvod of Transsilvania, was entitled “King of Bosnia,” so as
to uphold the Hungarian claims over the whole country. In the south
another Hungarian expedition was made in 1465 from the Narenta. The
Ragusan Senate ordered a bridge to be built across that river, at the
Republic’s expense, near the castle of Počitelj, so as to facilitate
the passage of the Hungarian army, and all the necessary materials and
workmen were sent there for the purpose. Two Hungarian envoys came
to Ragusa to arrange the plan of campaign. The Herzegovina was still
ruled by Kosača, but Turkish raids from southern Bosnia were frequent,
and it was important to keep the enemy from the Narenta’s mouth.[418]
Počitelj, a quaint and picturesque hill town, came to be the centre
of a series of operations against the Turks, which lasted until 1470.
In 1466 we find the Ragusans giving “4 schopetos parvos, 4 tarassios
de minoribus,” 200 lbs. of powder, 1000 beams, and 1000 “clavos” for
the defence of Počitelj, and two carpenters, two _marangoni_, and some
boats. Three bombards, building materials, ropes, bullets, provisions,
and more firelocks and boats were added later, together with a staff of
boat-builders and engineers.[419]
In 1466 Kosača died, having deposited his will at Ragusa. By its terms
his estates were divided between his three sons, Stephen, Vladislav,
and Vlatko. To the first he also left his crown, some plate and
jewels, and 30,000 ducats, to the third 30,000 ducats, to his widow
Cecilia 1000 ducats, some plate, brocades, and robes; the rest of his
personalty was to be divided equally among his three sons, save 10,000
ducats for his soul.[420] But their possessions were constantly menaced
by the Turks, and the youngest brother became a renegade and took the
name of Achmed Beg. The other two soon quarrelled among themselves, and
each asked for Turkish assistance. In 1469 Hamsa Beg raided Ragusan
territory, and an attack on the town was momentarily expected. A second
raid was made in 1470, and Postranja and Canali were laid waste, the
castle of Soko alone holding out. The Ragusan merchants in Trebinje
were also plundered. As Hamsa refused to hear reason, the garrison
was increased, the galleys armed, and the moat before the Porta Pile
dug.[421] At this time Počitelj was being besieged.
The Ragusans had been trying to induce the Sultan to reduce the
tribute from 5000 to 3000 ducats, stating that the constant troubles in
Slavonia and Servia had made them very poor. As Mohammed was engaged
in the Persian war, his vizirs agreed to the reduction, but when he
returned he not only insisted on the remaining 2000 being paid, but
raised the sum to 8000.[422] There was nothing for it but to pay, as
Turkish karaulas (block-houses) were only two miles from the gates, and
an attack was feared at any moment. But it was not paid for nothing,
for the Ragusans obtained many new privileges; moreover, the increase
was in part due to the fact that the Turks were the successors to
various native princes whom they had dispossessed, and to whom the
Republic had formerly paid tribute. The Pope renewed the exemption
to trade with the Infidel. The one danger was that the Turks should
suddenly desire to capture the city, as on more than one occasion they
had been on the point of doing. It required all the skilful diplomacy
of the Senate to avoid this contingency.
In January 1474 the Turks renewed their incursions into Albania.
Skanderbeg on his deathbed had entrusted the task of defending his
country to the Venetians, which they, with the help of the Montenegrins
and some Albanian tribes, attempted to do. They themselves held various
towns on or near the coast, including Scutari, which was now besieged
by an immense Turkish army. Among the defenders were several Ragusans,
and the Republic was throughout the siege well supplied with news of
all the operations. The Turkish leader was Suleiman Beg, a Bosnian
renegade, while the Venetians were led by Andrea Loredano, and their
allies by Ivan Crnojevnić, a Montenegrin. Hostilities began with the
defeat of the Turkish fleet at the mouth of the Boiana by Gritti, but
by May the enemy had invested the town. The garrison consisted of
only 1300 men, while it contained 700 non-combatants, but it was well
provided with arms, ammunition, and food. The besiegers brought up much
heavy artillery drawn by camels. The Ragusan Senate was convinced that
if Scutari fell it was all up with Albania and Dalmatia, and that even
Italy would be in danger. The Turks delivered an attack and effected a
breach in the walls; the garrison not wishing to exhaust themselves,
waited until the enemy had entered, and then fell upon them with such
fury that they drove them back, killing 2000 and wounding an immense
number. Suleiman Beg announced this disaster to the Sultan, and then
abandoned the siege, having lost 7000 men killed and 14,000 wounded in
all. As some Ragusans had taken part in the defence, the Sultan again
raised the Republic’s tribute to 10,000 ducats.[423] In 1477 the Turks
attacked Kroia, Skanderbeg’s old stronghold, and as the Venetians could
not relieve it, it fell, while numerous bodies of Turkish cavalry made
inroads into Friuli from Bosnia. The Venetians finally made peace,
giving up Scutari and Kroia, and agreeing to pay 10,000 ducats a
year for trading rights in the Turkish dominions. They now held only
Durazzo, Antivari, and Butrinto, all the rest of Albania being occupied
by the enemy.
During these operations Ragusa was more than once in serious danger,
and Pope Sixtus V. granted full indulgence to all those who contributed
to the defence of the city, whether natives or foreigners. He said of
it: “In oculis Turchorum quasi propugnaculum sita existit, maribus
satis munita, florenti populo decorata ac armis et aliis instrumentis
bellicis abundans, et hominum suorum virilitate parata adversus
prædictorum incursus semper existit.” The Sultan, he adds, was planning
to attack it with an immense army, and it could not hold out unless
other Christians came to its assistance.[424] The city, however, was
saved once more by the crushing defeat of the Turkish army by the
Hungarians in Transsilvania.
In 1481 Mohammed II. died, and was succeeded by his son Bayazet.
Iskender Pasha, Beglerbeg of Servia, then ravaged Dalmatia, with the
excuse that on the death of the Sultan all the treaties made by him
were invalid unless renewed by his successor. Venice at once sent
ambassadors to obtain their renewal, but the negotiations proved
difficult, and lasted over a year. Ragusa was more fortunate; all her
privileges were confirmed, and the tribute reduced to 3000 ducats.[424]
In 1483 Bayazet determined to complete the conquest of the Herzegovina,
and sent a large force to invade it under one Gjursević Beg, a Bosnian
renegade. This time the task proved easier, as the succession of raids
had broken the back of the Herzegovinians’ resistance. Vlatko fled from
Castelnuovo to Ragusa, and thence to Hungary. This so incensed the
Turks that they again threatened to seize the city, but the Republic
appeased them by a gift of 12,500 ducats to the Sultan and 500 to his
Ministers as a bribe, while it agreed to pay an additional 100 a year
to Aliza, the newly-appointed Sandjakbeg of the Herzegovina. It is said
that Aliza had already come to an understanding with the commander
of the Hungarian guard in Ragusa to enter the town, but the Senate
discovered the plot in time, and had the traitor strangled, together
with two accomplices.[425] A Ragusan citizen named G. Niccolò Palmotta
was put to death for intriguing with the Turks at Castelnuovo.
With the conquest of the Herzegovina Ragusa’s relations with the
Turks became more intimate. The whole of Bosnia, save Jajce and the
surrounding district, the Herzegovina, all Albania excepting a few
Venetian towns, parts of Croatia, Slavonia, and Hungary were in Turkish
hands. Dalmatia as far as the Narenta’s mouth was still Venetian, and
so was Cattaro, although a strip of the coast of the Bocche, including
Castelnuovo, was held by the Turks. Ragusa’s land frontier was thus
encompassed on all sides by the Infidel save in the north, where the
marshy delta of the Narenta divided it from Venetian territory. Hungary
was weak on her southern border, and much occupied with the German wars
in the north; but although Ragusa could hope for little help in that
quarter, she kept on good terms with the King, and continued to furnish
him with information as to the movements of the enemy, and to pay him
the tribute of 500 ducats at irregular intervals. This she did partly
for commercial reasons, the Hungarian trade being still important, and
partly because she hoped that the cause of Christendom in the Western
Balkans might yet triumph under Hungarian auspices.
On the other hand, the old jealousy of Venice was by no means dead,
and the Ragusans were suspicious of her every movement, fearing that
by a _coup de main_ she might capture the city, and thus unite her
Dalmatian possessions with Cattaro and gain an unbroken line of posts
all down the Adriatic. That Ragusa’s fears of Venetian hostility were
not groundless became manifest the following year. Venice was then at
war with Alfonso of Ferrara; the causes of that war offer a curious
parallel with those of Venetian hostility towards Ragusa. Like Ragusa,
Ferrara was an independent State placed between the main Venetian
possessions and an outpost—in this case Ravenna. In addition there
were disagreements on account of the salt monopoly and the navigation
dues, as in the case of Ragusa. A Venetian flotilla was blockading
the entrance to the Po and besieging the city. Some Ragusan galleys
happened to be up the river, and were detained by Ippolito d’Este,
who utilised them and their crews for the defence. When the Venetian
fleet under Angelo Trevisan attempted to sail in it was repulsed by the
shore batteries, with the help, it is said, of the Ragusan gunners.
The Venetian Government out of revenge issued a decree which greatly
hampered Ragusan trade with Venice and her possessions (September 21,
1484). Ragusan residents and merchants were expelled from Venice, and
all Ragusan ships forced to pay 100 ducats as anchorage dues, while
some of them were seized as compensation for the damage suffered at
Ferrara.[426] Other impositions were also levied, and although the
dispute was settled soon after, mutual distrust continued as before.
In 1490 Matthew Corvinus died, and the disappearance of that able and
warlike monarch caused a recrudescence of Turkish activity in all
directions. In 1492 the Republic suffered from the raids of Kosača’s
renegade son Achmet. Kosača had left large sums of money at Ragusa in
trust for his sons, and Achmet, who had already received his share,
now demanded that it should be paid over again, and accused the
Republic before the Sultan of having robbed him. Although the Ragusan
ambassadors showed Bayazet Achmet’s receipt, the Sultan ordered the
Republic to pay 100,000 ducats at once. The new King of Hungary,
Ladislas II., promised help, but as it was not forthcoming the Republic
had to pay.
In 1499 the city was again in danger of a Turkish attack, and envoys
were sent to Hungary to raise a force of mercenaries. The reasons for
this hostility, besides the usual desire on the part of the Turks
to occupy so excellent a port, were due to the fact that many of
the Bosnian and Herzegovinian nobles who had taken refuge at Ragusa
frequently made raids into the conquered territory, doing much damage
to its new occupants. The Turks also believed that the Ragusans
sometimes helped even the Venetians. In fact, the reports of the
Ragusan “exploratores” (spies) and traders in all parts of the Ottoman
dominions were often transmitted to other Christian potentates besides
the King of Hungary. On this occasion the Venetians were informed that
the Turkish fleet was to be ready in May, and that bridges were being
built across all the rivers in Albania.[427] But apparently the Sultan
put off his expedition, and decided to send only four ships to Apulia
to fetch the body of Djem.[428] He altered his plans again in June, got
ready a large fleet, and concentrated the army at Üsküb. In July the
land force had advanced northward to Pirot; by August it had crossed
into Albania, and was encamped on the coast opposite Corfu. The fleet
left Gallipoli, and artillery was sent to Albania and the Morea.[429]
The last years of the fifteenth century and the first of the sixteenth
were marked by plagues and earthquakes at Ragusa. Razzi mentions
epidemics of various kinds in 1500, 1503, and 1505, when 1600 persons
died; and earthquakes in 1496 and 1504. The Republic’s trade was also
harried by the numerous corsairs which infested the Adriatic and the
Mediterranean. In 1510 seven Candiot pirate barques captured two
Ragusan galleys laden with Ragusan goods worth 30,000 ducats, as well
as valuable property belonging to some Florentines; but the stolen
goods were recovered through the action of the Venetian Senate. The
Sultan of Egypt, who, like other Muhamedan potentates, did not always
distinguish between one Christian race and another, detained five
Ragusan vessels at Alexandria as a reprisal for the capture of some
Moorish ships by the Knights of Rhodes. But the Sultan was pacified,
and he returned the ships and granted the Ragusans permission to trade
with the East Indies through Egypt and Syria. In 1509 the Republic had
availed itself of Venice’s difficulties consequent on the League of
Cambrai to obtain the removal of trade restrictions, and it provided
Venice with grain and war stores in return.[430] The following year it
informed the Venetian Government that the Sultan had made a truce with
Hungary in order to wrest Dalmatia from them. In 1512 the Sultan once
more raised the tribute from 3000 to 5000 ducats, and threatened the
city with an expedition of 500 sail, probably in consequence of the
assistance given to Venice; but again the danger passed off.
In 1520 an earthquake, far more severe than any shock hitherto
experienced, occurred, and did damage valued at 100,000 ducats in
the town, and 50,000 in the neighbourhood. The Monte Bergato seemed
about to fall and overwhelm Ragusa, “but the city was saved through
the intervention of the San Biagio and of the Blessed Virgin.”[431]
Twenty persons were killed and many injured. The little chapel of San
Salvatore was erected as a votive offering to express the gratitude of
the citizens at the salvation of the town. Six years later a terrible
pestilence broke out, and wrought fearful havoc in spite of the
precautions taken to isolate the sick. The death-rate was about 100 a
day,[432] and in all 164 nobles, 184 monks and nuns, and 20,000 other
citizens died. The city was abandoned by all save a guard of soldiers
and the crews of two galleys remaining in the port. The Senate held
its sittings at Gravosa, and the population only returned after twenty
months.[433] Shortly after a pirate fleet of twenty-four sail appeared
off Molonta threatening the town. But in spite of the disorganisation
caused by the plague the Government was able to fit out a fleet of ten
large ships, two galleys, one barque, and eighteen brigantines, under
the command of Marino Zamagna, who, with the help of two Venetian
ships, drove the pirates out of the Adriatic.
The year 1526 was a momentous one for Christendom. The Turkish wars
with Hungary had been going on intermittently for many years, now one
side gaining the advantage now the other, but no decisive operations
had taken place recently. In Bosnia, the fortress of Jajce became the
centre of the fighting, and was again and again besieged by the Turks,
who were again and again repulsed with heavy loss. Besides Jajce, the
Hungarians held a strip of territory south of the Save, including
the fortresses of Zvornik, Szabács, and Belgrad. When Suleiman the
Magnificent ascended the throne of Othman in 1520, he determined
to seize these strongholds so as to open the way into Hungary. He
collected a powerful army, and led it in person into the Banate.
Szabács was the first to fall, in 1521; Semlin, Slankamen, Mitrović,
Zvornik, Tešanj, and Sokol were next captured, and after a long siege
Belgrad was taken by treachery. But the attack on Jajce, which was
defended by the gallant Peter Keglević, failed completely. A second
attack on Jajce was equally unsuccessful, owing to the arrival of
a Croatian force under Frangipani. In 1526 Suleiman again invaded
Hungary, and on August 29 the great battle of Mohács was fought,
in which the Hungarians were totally defeated and 20,000 of them,
including their King, killed. This disaster marks the end of Hungary
for the time being. The Sultan conquered all that remained of Bosnia,
including Jajce, in 1528, as well as a large part of Croatia and
southern Hungary.
Ragusan dependence on Hungary now ceased, and the Republic refused to
recognise any claim to allegiance on the part of either John Zapolya,
who succeeded to what remained of the kingdom, or of Ferdinand of
Austria, the German Emperor. In 1527 Ferdinand wrote to the Senate,
requesting them to remain faithful to him as overlord of Hungary, as
they had been to his predecessors. But no attention was paid to this
demand, and the Republic remained more or less under Turkish protection
until its fall.[434] But it obtained from the Turks all the commercial
privileges granted by the King of Hungary, and its trade in the latter
country flourished under the Crescent as well as under the Cross. After
the capture of Buda some Ragusans actually farmed the taxes of the
city.[435]
[Illustration: BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF RAGUSA AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
(_From an Old Map_, 1670)]
CHAPTER IX
TRADE AND INTERNAL CONDITIONS DURING THE HUNGARIAN PERIOD
In spite of Ottoman raids, piracy, plagues, and earthquakes, the
Republic prospered exceedingly in every direction. According to
Palladius Fuscus, there were three hundred Ragusan merchantmen on the
sea, visiting every port. Ragusa was the starting-point for journeys
into Turkey, and the ambassadors of foreign Powers passed through the
city on their way to Constantinople. Its traders were to be found in
every part of the Mediterranean. At the end of the period of Venetian
domination, in 1358, we have seen that “marineritia Rhacusii erat
amissa.” But after the proclamation of independence it revived and
increased to a far greater degree than ever before, and to this the
permission granted by the Popes to trade with the Infidel contributed
not a little. In 1434 the Bull _Cœna Domini_, based on the decrees of
the Council of Bâle, was issued as follows:—
“To the city of Ragusa, situated on a hard rock, on the coast of
the sea and therefore exposed to its ire, and in a most sterile
land, wholly devoted to the Church of Rome and ever obedient to her,
constantly faithful to the King of Hungary ... is granted permission
to navigate with its ships even unto the Holy Land and to the ports
of the Infidel, for the purpose of conveying pilgrims thither, and
of trading; to maintain consuls, erect churches, and establish
cemeteries in those countries.” That Ragusan trade extended as far as
England is proved by the letter of Barbarigo, the Venetian ambassador
to the Porte, who in 1513 passed through the city on his way to
Constantinople. He wrote that in the harbour was a ship which “had
come from England laden with 9000 pieces of cloth worth 85,000 ducats,
besides tin and various kinds of stuff valued at 13,000 ducats, all
belonging to Ragusans; and to-day, the third day, another ship of 5000
_botti_ has departed laden with silks and _Zambeloti_ worth 100,000
ducats, besides 12,000 ducats’ worth of _gropi_, all belonging to
Ragusans and Florentines.” He adds that the wealth of Ragusa was very
great and incredible.[436] In 1526 Clement VII. addressed a Brief to
the Chancellor and Councillors of the Duchy of Brittany, who had seized
a Ragusan ship coming from England laden with English goods, believing
it to be English property.[437] Part of the cargo was recovered,
but the loss amounted to 70,000 ducats, which caused a number of
bankruptcies at Ragusa.[438]
Ragusan trade with the Greeks continued down to the fall of the last
Greek despotates in the Morea. In June 1451, only two months before
the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Republic received a
Golden Bull from the Emperor Constantine Palæologus, decreeing that the
Ragusans in the capital might build themselves a church and an official
residence for the consul whom they elected; if a Greek claimed a debt
of a Ragusan he was to appeal to the latter’s consul, while in the
inverse case the Ragusan would appeal to the local authorities; Ragusan
merchants might import and export goods free of duty save for a 2½
per cent. tax on the sale of imports; there was to be no limit to the
number of Ragusans residing at Constantinople; if a Ragusan left the
city owing money to natives, none of his compatriots might be arrested
in his place. The same year two Silver Bulls of a similar character
were issued to the Ragusans by Thomas Palæologus, Despot of Achaia, at
Misithia, and by his brother Demetrius, Despot of the Peloponnesus,
at Chiarenza. The treaties were negotiated by Volzo Bobali, who in
1451 made a journey through the remnants of the Greek Empire to
improve commercial relations with his own city; but they were merely
the renewal of old-established connections, for since the fourteenth
century Ragusan traders had brought the famed silks of Chiarenza to
Ancona[439] and Italy. In the treaty with Ancona of 1372 allusion is
made to the Ragusan trade in spices, sugar, and silks from Tartary and
“Gazaria,” which shows the wide extent of the city’s sea-borne trade.
At the same time, as we have seen, the Republic’s relations with
the Turks and the Egyptians were by no means unfriendly, and every
opportunity was seized to ensure a good understanding with the Court
of Brusa and afterwards of Adrianople. The Turkish trade was chiefly
carried overland, especially after the establishment of the Ottomans
in Europe, and Ragusa’s friendly relations with the Slave princes gave
her easy access to the Balkan trade-routes, and therefore an advantage
over her Italian rivals. After the conquest of the Slave States by
the Turks the Ragusans were granted the fullest privileges, although
they were liable as before to attacks from brigands and arbitrary
impositions on the part of the Pashas and Sandjakbegs. Some of their
old settlements in the Balkans were destroyed, but others arose in
their place. Of the older towns, only Belgrad maintained its former
importance under the new rulers. But now Vrnbosna (Sarajevo, _Bosna
Serai_ in Turkish) arose, founded, it is said, before the invasion by
Ragusan merchants. Instead of Novobrdo we find Novibazar and Prokopje
(Prokuplje), Skoplje (Üsküb), Sofia, Travnik, and Mostar. In all these
towns there were wealthy Ragusan colonies, each with its church and
its consul. Some were found even at the mouths of the Danube.[440] The
inland trade in Turkish times was carried on by caravan as before,
and along the same routes. Turkish guard-houses were only two miles
from the town, but the traffic became more active in the sixteenth
century than it had ever been previously. Benedetto Ramberti, Venetian
ambassador to the Porte, gives an interesting account of the journey
from Venice to Constantinople _via_ Ragusa in his _Libri Tre delle
Cose dei Turchi_.[441] He took exactly one month to go from Venice to
Ragusa, owing to the _bora_ and the _scirocco_, which drove the ship
back continually and forced her to remain in various ports for several
days at a time. From Ragusa it took him thirty-four days to reach the
Turkish capital, by the following stages:—
_February 8th._—From Ragusa to Trebinje, 16 miles, by “a very bad and
dangerous road, over steep and precipitous mountains, which we had to
ascend more on foot than on horseback.... All this country formerly
belonged to the Duke Stephen Herzeg, father of the young Herzeg who is
now in Venice; it has become quite Turkish, and is under the Sandjak of
the Duchy.”
_February 10th._—Reached Rudine, 20 miles, passing by the castle of
Cluaz (or Klobuk), then partly in ruins. On the 11th Curita (Korito)
was reached, 28 miles, and on the 12th he passed Cervice (Cernica) and
then on to Verba, 25 miles.
_February 13th._—Priedio, 24 miles. “We passed through a mountainous
gorge, on each side of which is a small castle, one of them in ruins,
the other still in good repair, called Vratar.[442] Here Duke Stephen
kept a guard-house, where all travellers had to pay a toll. The castles
are built into the living rock; they are reached by a road by which
only one person at a time can pass, and could easily be defended by
twenty men against a whole army.”
_February 14th._—Orach, 28 miles, passing through Cozza (Foča), “a
large settlement with good houses in the Turkish style, many shops and
merchants. Here resides the Sandjak of the Duchy, who has all Servia
under his authority. By this spot all goods going from Ragusa to
Constantinople must pass, as also those from Constantinople to Ragusa.
No horse worth over 1000 _aspers_ (20 ducats) is allowed to cross the
river, but if any traveller brings one he must either spend more in
bribes than the horse itself is worth, or sell it for what it will
fetch.”
_February 15th._—The first guard-house on the Kovaz Mountain, 25 miles.
_February 16th._—Plevlje, 34 miles, “which is not an unattractive place
for this country. Here five years ago a caravan of Venetian merchants
of about one hundred horses was attacked by evil persons, who killed
and wounded many, two Venetian nobles, Nani and Cappello, being among
the dead. Watch against the brigands is kept in the following manner:
one man from the village goes through the woods beating a drum and
looking out to see if any person is lurking about, and this sound
informs travellers that the passage is secure. The villages which
provide these watchmen are free of taxes.”
_February 17th._—Priepolje, 24 miles. “Here and at Plevlje, which are
both very large and pleasant towns for this country, the people are
all Christians;[443] but in the house where we lodged we found a woman
with seven children, the eldest of whom had turned Turk (Muhamedan),
and this because the Sultan Selim, wishing to increase the number
of Turks, imposed a heavy poll-tax, called the Talotz, on all the
Christians, but he exempted those families who made one of their sons
a Turk. This induced many to free themselves thus from the tax; but the
Sultan did not carry out the whole of his promise, and maintained the
Talotz on all save those who actually turned Turks themselves.”
_February 18th._—“Reached Vuatz, 32 miles, passing by St. Sava, where
there is a very large monastery of Servian caloyers, who dress and live
in the Greek fashion, but speak Slavonic. They show to travellers the
body of St. Sava, which is still in a perfect state of preservation.
They receive more alms from the Turks and the Jews than from the
Christians.[444] At the mount of the Morlak (Molatschidi) ends the
Sandjak of Servia and that of Bosnia begins, in which is Senice.”
_February 19th._—Novibazar, 40 miles, “a very large and celebrated
market-place, full of merchants and shops, both Turkish and Christian,
some of them Ragusans. Close by flows a beautiful clear stream, which
enters the Morava shortly after.”
_February 20th._—Ibar, 16 miles, near the “Mountain of Silver, which
should be the Mons Rhodopus.”
_February 21st._—Statoria, 25 miles, which was reached by passing over
the Mountain of Silver, “very high and difficult to climb, especially
in winter, when it is covered with snow. On the summit is a road, a
_braccio_ and a half wide, by which one passes not without danger from
the precipice.”
_February 22nd._—Suatza, 25 miles. “We crossed the broad Toplitza,
which is a plateau covered with little hillocks and surrounded by
high mountains; but the country is agreeable, and produces delicious
wines and much grain. The village of Toplitza is not only pleasant and
beautiful, but fertile and well provided with all the necessaries of
life. Here we begin to breathe again after the long travail and danger
of the past journey.”
_February 23rd._— Buovaga reached after passing through Nissa (Niš),
“which was once a city, but is now reduced to a fair-sized village in
the Turkish style.”
_February 24th._—Clissariza, in Bulgaria, 28 miles, which is here
separated from Servia by Mount Cunovizza.
_February 25th._—Zaribrod, 28 miles (the present Servo-Bulgarian
frontier), passing through Pirot, “formerly a walled castle built in
the ancient style of very large blocks of stone.”
_February 26th._—Bellizza, 25 miles, in the fertile plain of Sofia.
_February 27th._—Sofia,[445] 15 miles. Here there are many Ragusan
merchants and Jews, but the inhabitants are mostly Turks.
_March 1st, 1534._—Vacarevo, 28 miles, reached after riding all day
across a treeless plain.
_March 2nd._—Vieterno, 28 miles.
_March 3rd._—Celopinci, 32 miles, after passing Bazarcich (Tatar
Bazarjik).
_March 4th._—Cognuzza, after passing Philippopolis. “We still see the
remains of the walls, which are in part entire and fine. There is
a very long wooden bridge across the Maritza, which flows close by,
consisting of over thirty arches. Under these many branches of the
river pass.”
_March 6th._—Chiudegegnibustraman (?).
_March 7th._—Adrianople, 22 miles. “We crossed the bridge of Mostaffa
Bassa (Mustafa Pasha) over the Maritza. It is very fine and wide, and
has twenty arches, all of marble, with a gilded slab in the middle, on
which are inscribed in blue Turkish letters the date, the names of the
architect and the builder, and the cost.”
_March 8th._—Sugutli, 20 miles.
_March 10th._—Bergas.
_March 11th._—Chiorlich.
_March 12th._—Chiumbergasti.
_March 13th._—Cocchiucchemeghi, 20 miles.
_March 14th._—Constantinople, 12 miles. “On arriving here we felt as
though we had issued out of Hell, for the whole country from Ragusa
until within a few miles of Constantinople is for the most part
uncultivated and horrible, not by nature, but by the negligence of the
inhabitants, full of terrible forests and dangerous precipices, very
unsafe on account of the brigands, very wretched as to accommodation,
so that it is a fine thing to have been through it, but very strange
and difficult while actually on the journey.” These words are
applicable to this day to a large part of the country traversed, and
will continue to be a true description so long as the Turks hold sway
over it.
Caterino Zen, another Venetian ambassador to Constantinople, travelled
through the Balkans by the Spalato route in 1550, employing fifty-two
days between Spalato and the Turkish capital, of which three were spent
at Novibazar and six at Sofia. He adds that without baggage the journey
may be accomplished in one month, and from Ragusa in twenty-five days,
while the Vlach runners do it in fifteen. An anonymous traveller
describes the route from Ragusa to Constantinople _via_ Dulcigno, San
Sergio on the Boiana, Prizren, the plain of Kossovo, Üsküb, Tatarbaric,
Philippopolis, and Adrianople, which he accomplished in forty-five days.
Trade with Italy continued to develop and expand on the same lines as
before, and late in the fourteenth century direct intercourse with
Florence was established. In 1406 the Florentine Government declared
that the Ragusans had brought so much silver to Florence (from the
Balkan mines) “that we have almost purchased Pisa with it.”[446] In
1429 a five years’ treaty between the two Republics was concluded, the
Ragusans agreeing to bring gold, silver, skins, wax, and other Balkan
produce to Florence in exchange for Italian wares.[447] Relations were
maintained owing to the frequent visits of the Florentine ambassadors
on their way to Constantinople, and many Florentine merchants resided
in the town. Apparently the Pazzi family had property there, and
after the famous conspiracy the Florentine Government desired to
confiscate it. In 1479 an envoy was sent to Constantinople to obtain
the extradition of one of Giuliano dei Medici’s murderers; he was
instructed to stop at Ragusa on the way to get a guide who knew Turkey
“persona pratica in Turchia.”[448] In 1495 mention is made of the
appointment of a Florentine consul and magistrate at Ragusa, while in
1514 the Ragusan Lorenzo Ragni (Ragnina?) held office as magistrate and
Councillor of Justice in Florence.[449] Various other Christian Powers
made use of Ragusa for their relations with the Turks, and even Francis
I. of France is said to have had recourse to a member of the Gozze
family in his negotiations with the Sultan.[450]
[Illustration: ENVIRONS OF RAGUSA.]
Until the fifteenth century the vessels built on the territory of the
Republic were small and chiefly used for the coastwise traffic, all
foreign trade being carried on ships purchased from other Dalmatian
towns or from Italy. Now, however, these sources of supply were found
to be inadequate, and in 1525 the Senate decided to build a new
shipping yard at Gravosa. This was completed the following year, and
was a very admirable and elaborate establishment for the age. At the
same time the docks at Slano, Isola di Mezzo, and elsewhere, which
belonged to private persons, were enlarged and improved. But even these
measures were insufficient for the ever-increasing business, and more
ships were purchased at Curzola and at Messina.[451]
The harbour and wharfing accommodation were enlarged. Work of this kind
had been partially accomplished in 1468 under the direction of the
Florentine architect Niccolò di Pasquale;[452] further improvements
were executed by Mastro Stazio in 1473, and in the following year
dredging operations in the port were commenced. In 1475 the quays were
enlarged, and warehouses for grain erected. The whole port was rebuilt
on a larger scale between 1484 and 1500 by another Florentine, Pasquale
di Michele. This same architect also planned the warehouses for goods
coming from the interior. When the Republic received formal permission
to trade with the Infidel the existing _fondico_ was enlarged in 1432
and 1442. The discovery of the Cape route and the intrigues of the
Venetians caused a temporary stagnation of Ragusan trade, but it soon
revived, and on June 28, 1515, the Senate decreed “de providendo pro
uno fontico spacioso in quo omnia mercimonia possint fonticari.”
Although internal industry never attained to the importance of the
Republic’s foreign commerce, it was at this time fairly active.
Manufacturers and traders together constituted (in 1514) no less
than twenty-one guilds.[453] In 1348 the merchants formed themselves
into the Guild of St. Anthony, which in the sixteenth century became
so large that those of its members who dealt exclusively with the
Eastern trade seceded from it and formed the Guild of St. Lazarus,
or “Scuola dei Mercanti di Levante.” These two guilds comprised all
the richest persons in the city, and came in time to constitute a
separate privileged caste, whose members alone had the right to call
themselves citizens, and were the inferiors of the nobles alone. The
other lay guilds were: the _Pentori_, painters, with 19 members; the
_Callegari_, or makers of leather slippers for the neighbouring
Turkish provinces, with 146 members; the _Pellizzai_, or furriers, with
60 members; the _Tessatori_, or weavers of cloth, founded in 1491,
after one Andrea Pantella of Florence had introduced the industry from
Italy in 1416, and in 1514 it had 137 members. There were in addition
many other guilds in other parts of the Republic’s territory, while a
number of other industries, such as the goldsmiths, the tanners, the
shipbuilders, the dyers, &c., were not represented by guilds at all.
Professor Gelcich quotes the opinions of a number of foreign writers
on Ragusan trade in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Abate
Denina wrote: “The Ragusans were ever a nation of merchants and
traffickers, and are well satisfied to do what the Neapolitans have
failed to do, monopolising the export trade of the Kingdom (of Naples),
and visiting with their ships all parts of the Mediterranean.” Luca
de Linda wrote: “The Ragusans have put on the sea a number of large
vessels both for war and for traffic, and on them have travelled as far
as the New World. Among other enterprises they served the Catholic King
with many ships but a short time since in the expedition against the
Gerbi, and with forty vessels in the conquest of Portugal.” Amalthæus
in a letter to a friend advises him to settle at Ragusa, as there
were in that city many opportunities of becoming rich by trade, for
there was much active traffic with the West, and the most industrious
nations of Europe, such as the French, the Spaniards, the English, the
Flemings, and even the Germans had established colonies there.
The above-mentioned writer, Benedetto Ramberti, gives a curious
description of Ragusa as it appeared to him in 1533. Being a Venetian
his account is somewhat contemptuous and not altogether flattering.
“It is well populated,” he writes, “and in a beautiful situation by
the sea, on the Dalmatian mainland. It possesses a small harbour and
a very small mole.... It is exposed to winds and earthquakes, and is
exceedingly cold in winter. The women are not very handsome, and dress
very badly, or rather they wear clothes which suit them ill. They have
on their heads a long linen covering, which in the case of noblewomen
is of white silk and shaped like a pyramid, and thin stockings turned
down to their shins. They rarely leave the house, but are much at the
window. The young girls are never seen. The women nearly all use the
Slavonic language, but the men speak Italian as well.[454] In the city
are many fountains of excellent water brought from the hills. About a
mile from the gates is a spot called Gravosa, which is a row of houses
a mile in length, well built and attractive, with gardens full of
oranges, lemons, citrons, and fruit-trees of various kinds, beautifully
adorned with fountains fed by aqueducts.... The sea here forms a
pleasant harbour large enough to contain a hundred galleys with ease.
The Ragusans are usually rich and avaricious, like most merchant folk.
They all buy wine in retail, and timber according to certain ordinances
of their own. Friends and relations seldom if ever dine together. They
think only of making money, and they are so proud that they think
there is no other nobility than their own,[455] but I do not say that
of all, for I have known some who were very urbane and courteous. And
they deserve, indeed, much praise, for being placed in a most narrow
and rocky situation they have obtained access to every commodity by
means of their own virtue and industry alone, in despite of nature....
They pay tribute to the Sultan, to whom they send orators (ambassadors)
every year with 12,000 ducats. The city is not very strong, especially
on the land side towards the mountains, and as it is not well provided
with walls and fosses it could be defeated.”[456]
CHAPTER X
RAGUSA INDEPENDENT OF HUNGARY (1526-1667)
The period between the establishment of the Turks in Bosnia and the
fall of the Venetian Republic is one of great interest for the whole
of Dalmatia. “In these events,” writes an anonymous author in the
_Annuario Dalmatico_,[457] “every village has its part, almost every
family its glorious record. And if on the one hand we still find the
traces, I may almost say the smoking ruins, of the desolation wrought
upon us by the Turkish armies; on the other we find many memories of
the valour of the Dalmatians in the trophies of the families, in the
rank of nobility obtained as a reward for incredible sacrifices, in the
letters of commendation, even in certain religious festivals, and in a
large part of those customs which time has rendered sacred to the heart
of our people, and most of us observe scrupulously, without perhaps
understanding their meaning.”
At the same time Turks and Christians through familiarity became
less hostile, and did much business together. “Once the massacre was
over the Turks spent much money, and thus after Castelnuovo had been
captured, plundered, and 4000 Christians murdered, it became a source
of great wealth to the Ragusans and to the people of Perasto. That is
the reason why so many Jews from Spain settled on the Turkish shores
of the Adriatic, especially at Castelnuovo.... Turkish customs spread
among the Dalmatians, even as regards their clothes and their jewels
and their harems. Stolivo and the Catena (Bocche di Cattaro) were
regular slave marts; women led a retired life like those of the East.”
Ragusa was especially affected by Turkish influence, owing to her
semi-dependent position and her close intercourse with her powerful
neighbour, and this led to many complications with Venice and other
Christian States.
The first years after the cessation of the Hungarian protectorate
were again disturbed by a quarrel with the Venetians. Some of the
grain ships bringing foodstuffs to Ragusa were captured by Venetian
cruisers in the Adriatic, as the Government of the great Republic
accused its small but enterprising rival of playing a double game. The
Ragusans, wishing to retaliate, thought that they could not do better
than by tampering with the Venetian despatches. The Senate did not
exactly authorise these proceedings, but the Archbishop Trivulzio, a
Milanese,[458] who was very friendly to France and therefore hostile to
Venice and Spain, had the messenger carrying letters to the Venetian
Provveditore at Cattaro seized. The papers, which contained the
announcement of an alliance against the Sultan, were at once forwarded
to the French ambassador at Constantinople.[459] The Venetians were
furious, and threatened vengeance on the Ragusans, in spite of the
Senate’s protestations that the Archbishop had acted entirely on his
own responsibility. They were partially appeased by the arrest and
punishment of one Pozza, who had actually executed the Archbishop’s
orders, but Venetian ships continued to harry the Ragusan coast for
some time, inflicting much damage.[460] This same year (1538) the
Pope Paul III., as head of the Christian League against the Turks,
issued a decree, probably inspired by the Venetians, hostile to the
Ragusans, forbidding all Christians to sell them arms, gunpowder,
cables, ship-timber, iron, &c., because they were supposed to sell
these articles to the Turks. He also ordered the Republic to shake off
all allegiance to the Sultan, to cease to pay him tribute, and to join
the League against the Infidel at once, contributing five galleys and
10,000 ducats to the common war chest. The citizens were filled with
consternation at these peremptory commands, but the Senate sent one of
its cleverest diplomatists, Clemente Ragnina, to Rome, and he proved
equal to the emergency. Ragusa, he informed His Holiness, was situated
between the Turks and the sea, and would, if she joined the League,
be the first to fall a victim to the wrath of the Infidel. Owing,
moreover, to the small extent of her territory, she was dependent
for three-quarters of the year on foreign grain, which came mostly
from the Turkish provinces; she could not, therefore, exist without
intercourse with her neighbours. The only result of Ragusa’s joining
the alliance would be the destruction of the city, with her churches,
her convents and monasteries, and all her precious sacred relics would
fall into the hands of the Infidel, without any advantage accruing
to Christendom thereby. The astute Ragnina hinted that the Venetians
were merely urging the Pope to take measures against Ragusa out of
jealousy. These arguments had the desired effect, the Pope relenting
towards the Republic and exempting it from joining the League, to the
great satisfaction both of the Government and the citizens. There is no
doubt that their position was always a very risky one, and it required
all their diplomatic tact to save them from ruin. They were literally
between the devil and the deep sea, but they always managed to steer a
clear course between the many dangers which beset them.
But although they were on good terms with the Sultan, there was also
danger to be apprehended from the turbulent Pashas and Sandjakbegs of
Bosnia and the Herzegovina. Many of these men were the descendants of
the lawless native princelings who had gone over to Islam, and still
maintained their old ambition to win their way to the seaboard. The
whole country of Dalmatia was now threatened. Clissa, Poljica, and
even Montenegro had to pay tribute to the Turks after 1515. In 1522
Knin, the chief Croat fortress in the country, surrendered to the
Pasha of Bosnia, and Scardona was also occupied. Sinj, Vrlika, Nučak,
and Clissa fell in 1536, and the castles of Vrana and Nadin in 1538.
The Turkish fortress of Castelnuovo was captured by the Venetians and
Spaniards in that year, but in 1539 it was attacked by the pirate
Haireddin Barbarossa and recaptured, the Spanish garrison being put
to the sword. It is said that some Ragusan vessels took part in the
siege, thus contributing to the success of the Turks, and that the
Republic sent presents to Barbarossa so as to induce him to respect
their territory. There now remained no part of Dalmatia under a
Christian Government except the Venetian coast towns and the Ragusan
State. On the whole, the Republic found the Turks in some ways less
objectionable neighbours than the Christian Powers, especially the
Venetians. In 1538 the allied fleet under the command of Grimani, the
Venetian Patriarch, sailed down the Adriatic and touched at the Isola
di Mezzo; a part of the squadron proceeded to Ragusavecchia, where
it was received with great honour by the citizens, but some vessels
remained at the island and sacked it, took 170 prisoners, including the
Count, and did much damage to property. The Ragusan Senate protested
to the Patriarch, who had all the prisoners liberated, the stolen
property restored, and compensation paid. A certain number of Ragusans
were detained as rowers, but at good salaries, and thirteen Ragusan
ships were pressed into the Spanish service. The fleet then sailed
southwards, and encountered the Turks off Prevesa; the engagement
proved undecisive, but the honours of the day remained with the
Turks. It was then proposed to attack Castelnuovo. The Venetian and
Pontifical admirals objected, and suggested that Ragusa should be
attacked instead, as she had shown herself so friendly to the enemy.
But Doria, the Genoese admiral, and Don Ferrante Gonzaga refused to
make war on a Christian city, and the Castelnuovo plan was adhered to.
Thirteen thousand troops and 22 guns were disembarked, and an assault
delivered by land and sea. The walls were soon battered down, and the
town captured, the Sandjakbeg escaping with 200 horse. One hundred
Ragusans fell in the attack. The Republic sent envoys to the Christian
force with provisions, and requested the leaders not to invade Ragusan
territory. This was promised, but nevertheless a Spanish column which
was raiding the country round Castelnuovo also sacked Canali, carrying
off 17,000 head of cattle, outraging many women, “and generally
behaving worse than the Turks.” The Republic protested against these
proceedings, and Doria, with whom it was on friendly terms, sent the
engineer Mastro Antonio Ferramolino of Bergamo to Ragusa to strengthen
the fortifications of the town. Under his supervision the Torre Menze
or Minćeta, the bastion outside the walls under the Monte Bergato to
guard the harbour, and the town gate close by were built. On the latter
the following inscription was placed:
“Este procul sævi: nullum hæc per sæcula Martem
Castra timent sancti, quæ fovet aura senis.”
Ferramolino remained four months at Ragusa, and refused all payment
for his services; but the Senate presented him on his departure with a
gift of plate and a fine horse, and conveyed him to Sicily on a Ragusan
galley.[461]
The following year Barbarossa determined to recapture Castelnuovo,
which was defended by 4000 picked Spanish troops and 54 guns. A first
attempt from the land side in January failed; but in July Barbarossa
entered the Bocche with 200 galleys, and after a series of engagements
succeeded in landing an army and 84 guns. The Ragusans sent envoys
to him with presents, and, it is said, ships and ammunition, in
recognition of which he strictly respected the Republic’s territory.
On August 7 an assault was delivered, and the first line of defence
broken; on the 10th a second took place, and the Governor, Don
Francisco Sarmiento, surrendered with his few survivors. According to
Razzi[462] they were all put to the sword; but Professor Stanley Lane
Poole says that the capitulation was honourably respected.[463] Three
thousand Spaniards fell in the siege and 8000 Turks (50,000, according
to Razzi).
Ragusan trade was now in a somewhat depressed condition owing to these
various disturbances. Many Ragusan ships in the Spanish service had
been lost in the expedition to Algiers,[464] and the pirates under
Dragut Reis wrought much havoc among their ships elsewhere. While
the Emperor Ferdinand was invading the Hungarian provinces occupied
by the Turks, the Ragusan factories there suffered considerably; and
the land trade was disturbed by the depredations of the Sandjakbeg
of the Herzegovina. In 1544 the bankruptcies at Ragusa amounted to
80,000 ducats.[465] In 1545 peace was made between the Sultan and the
Christian Powers, and the former issued severe injunctions to the
Algerine corsairs not to molest ships flying the Ragusan flag. In the
somewhat quieter period which followed, there was a partial revival of
the city’s trade, which now extended to America by means of the favour
of Spain. But in 1566 Suleiman the Magnificent died, and his successor,
Selim the Drunkard, at once began to cast covetous eyes on Cyprus,
instigated, it is said, by a Jew named Nassi, who had given him a
glowing description of the Cyprian vintages.[466] War between the Turks
and the Christian Powers was again imminent, and Ragusa began to fear
that she might get into difficulties with either of the belligerents.
She therefore applied to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, with whom she was
then on excellent terms,[467] and he recommended them to the King of
Spain on the plea that if their trade failed so would the greater part
of their income cease, and they would be unable to pay the tribute to
the Sultan. The latter would seize on this as a pretext for occupying
the city, to the great detriment of Christendom.[468] The plea was
successful, and, moreover, the same year Pius V. renewed the exemption
to trade with the Infidel, because the city “in faucis infidelium
et loco admodum periculoso sita est.” Ragusa now acted once more as
intermediary between Christian and Turk, and obtained the liberation of
many Venetians and Dalmatian prisoners captured by the Turkish pirate
Ali-el-Uluj, or Occhiali as the Christians called him.[469] In spite of
the citizens’ not altogether undeserved reputation for double-dealing,
they were also true to their better reputation for hospitality.
Their hospitality towards the Papal admiral Marc’ Antonio Colonna
and the Venetian general Sforza Pallavicini, who were shipwrecked on
the Ragusan coast in 1570, won them the gratitude of the Pope and of
Venice.[470] Francesco Tron, who was pursued by Turkish corsairs,
took refuge in the harbour of Gravosa, and in spite of the threats of
the pirate commander the Senate refused to give him up. Finally they
bought off the cousin with a sum of money, but he sacked the monastery
of Lacroma. Complaints were sent to Constantinople, and the Sultan
delivered up the pirate Karakosia to the Ragusan Government to do what
it pleased with him; but it was deemed best to set him at liberty with
a warning. It was justified in its clemency, for in future none of
his ships ever harmed a Ragusan. Venetian intrigues again threatened
the Republic’s independence, and during the negotiations for a new
Christian League it required all the diplomatic skill and eloquence of
Francesco Gondola, the Ragusan ambassador in Rome, to save the city
from destruction. In a despatch to the Senate, dated April 1, 1570, he
wrote as follows:—
“This war gives food for reflection to the thoughtful, especially with
regard to the State of Ragusa, considering the capital malignity of
the Venetians against us; it is recorded and confirmed that at the
war of Castelnuovo in 1539 they tried to induce Andrea Doria, general
of the Emperor (Charles V.), to capture Ragusa before aught else; and
they were so keen on this proposal, that they only gave way when Doria
opposed an absolute refusal. He informed them that the Emperor had
expressly recommended the said Republic to him, and enjoined him to
protect it and guard it in the same manner as the cities of his own
kingdom of Naples.... Upon these words the Venetians abandoned their
project; but it is believed that our country may suffer much, and that
this war will not end without many tribulations.” On April 8 he added:
“The Emperor’s ambassador in Rome has been informed from Venice that
the Senate has determined to place a garrison in Ragusa, so that the
Turks may not occupy the city; and that if the Republic refuses to
admit it, they have decided to seize it by force, which means that they
wish to capture the town with the excuse of preventing the Turks from
doing so, in order that Christendom may not be shocked (‘perchè la
Christianità non strilli’).” The Spanish and Imperial ambassadors took
the side of the Ragusans, and the Pope also favoured them, the Venetian
representative alone declaring that “it was right that the League
should not only burn the city of Ragusa, but raze it to the ground and
destroy its people, so that their seed should not be found anywhere.”
On June 27 he wrote as follows:—
“I have been to His Holiness, who had requested that your Lordships
should provide him not with one ship, as Cardinal Rusticucci had said,
but with many, so that he may transport his troops on them. I replied
that on the previous evening Cardinal Rusticucci had spoken to me in
his name, and added that I had written to your Lordships ... and that
you hoped that as His Holiness had liberated you from so many troubles
in the past, he would take care that you are preserved, nor will he
permit that his many benefits to you be turned to your ruin. I informed
him how, after the Maltese war, Piali had come with his fleet to Ragusa
and threatened your Lordships because some of your vessels had been
with the Spanish fleet, and swore that if a similar offence were again
committed he would come to your destruction.” The Pope was convinced
by these arguments and withdrew his demand for a Ragusan contingent,
and made the other allied Powers realise the Republic’s danger. Venice
alone remained obdurate, and continued to repeat “ceterum censeo
Carthaginem esse delendam.” She believed that the only way of saving
Ragusa from all danger on the part of the Turks was to occupy the town
herself.
On June 28 Gondola suggested that the Senate should send an ambassador
to the King of Spain requesting him, in memory of their ancient
fidelity to his predecessors, to place the Republic officially under
his own protection, because although the Pope was friendly, he was old
and in bad health, and if he were to die the Venetians might seize the
opportunity to molest the city. This advice was followed, and in the
treaty of alliance the little Republic received the joint protection of
Christendom, a clause being inserted in it to the effect that “no acts
of hostility are to be committed against Ragusa and its territory, the
Pope for weighty reasons having so decreed.” Thus by her successful
diplomacy Ragusa was under the ægis of seven different Powers—Spain,
the Papacy, the Empire, Venice, Hungary, the Turks, and the Barbary
Deys—whence its citizens earned the sobriquet of “Le Sette Bandiere”
(the Seven Standards); and although subsequently they often were in
difficulties with some of their protectors, they could always play the
one off against the other. This was the secret of their long-continued
independence.
[Illustration: FORTE SAN LORENZO]
Although the Republic remained officially neutral in the war of
Lepanto, numbers of Ragusan merchants and adventurers took advantage
of it to make their own fortunes, many of them obtaining contracts for
transporting troops, or hiring out their ships and crews. During the
early part of the war Ragusan shipping suffered some damage, being
plundered now by the Turks and now by the Christians, in spite of the
treaty of protection; and as it was even feared that the city itself
might be in danger, it was decided to strengthen the fortifications. An
addition had been made to them in 1550-1558, when the large Forte San
Giovanni was built; while the port was enlarged and improved with a new
pier called the Diga delle Casse, constructed under the superintendence
of Pasquale da Nola. In 1570 the Tower of Santa Margherita was begun
by Sigismondo Hier;[471] and soon after Saporoso Matteucci, one of
Piero Strozzi’s ablest pupils, was appointed commander of the garrison
and director of fortifications. Santa Margherita was the last building
erected from the foundations; subsequent additions were merely
restorations, and the defences of the city have remained practically
unaltered since that time.[472]
The following year the battle of Lepanto was fought, in which the
Turkish fleet was completely defeated. From this moment the decline
of the Ottoman power may be said to begin. It is asserted that Ragusan
galleys were found on both sides in this fight. Afterwards the city
became the meeting-place for the Christian and Turkish commanders
to arrange for the exchange of prisoners and the preliminaries of
peace. Numbers of illustrious foreigners from all countries filled the
town, and according to Appendini, sixty noble Christian captives were
exchanged for an equal number of Turkish officers. But the Republic’s
equivocal attitude during the war caused trouble with the Sandjakbeg
of the Herzegovina, who in 1572 made various raids into the territory,
laying waste some districts and carrying off many captives. Turkish
pirates landed at Meleda and massacred all the monks, save those who
took refuge in the caves.[473] At last, in 1573, a general peace was
concluded, much to the disgust of the Venetians, who saw that in spite
of the victory over the Turks it was not properly followed up, and the
enemy was allowed to recuperate. Ragusa, however, was delighted, for
the peace removed her dangers from both quarters. But even this spell
of quiet was destined to be short-lived, and now began a series of
calamities culminating in the great earthquake of 1667, which brought
about the gradual decline of the Republic.
The Reformation had some slight effect at Ragusa about this time, and
during the archbishopric of Crisostomo Calvino (the name is a curious
coincidence) some preachers were permitted to censure the loose
morals of the clergy and even advocate changes in the statutes of the
Church. But the movement was short-lived, and the Senate had the books
of the Ragusan Matteo Flacco (born in 1520), who was suspected of
heresy, burnt by the public executioner. After the death of Crisostomo
in 1575 the Jesuits, who had made their first appearance in 1559 as
missionaries, established themselves permanently and set up a college
and a church. Thus all traces of Protestantism were stamped out.
A new disturbance was now caused by the Uskoks, a gang of Christian
pirates. Originally these men were refugees from the lands occupied
by the Turks. Many, as we have seen, settled at Ragusa and in other
Dalmatian towns; but wherever they were they revenged themselves on the
usurpers by raiding their territory, plundering their caravans, and
keeping up a constant guerilla warfare on the frontiers. Clissa became
their chief stronghold, whence they conducted operations against the
Infidel; but when, in 1537, the Turks besieged and captured it, the
Uskoks were forced to fly once more. The Emperor Ferdinand gave them a
refuge at Segna (Zengg) in the Quarnero, a town protected on the land
side by impassable mountains and forests. From Segna they continued
their raids into Turkish territory, and also began operations by sea.
The place soon became a refuge for outlaws of all nations, and the
Uskoks ended by becoming as notorious pirates as the Narentans had been
of old. They were always a trouble to the Ragusans, sometimes because
they captured their galleys, and sometimes because by attacking the
Turks they involved the Republic in difficulties with the Porte, who
accused it of protecting the freebooters because they were Christians.
In 1577 numbers of them were still hanging about in the Dalmatian
mountains, and made raids as far as Trebinje, while others from Segna
harried Turkish merchantmen. They professed to regard the Ragusans
as vassals of the Sultan, and plundered their ships too; but the
latter were able to give as hard knocks as they received, and in one
encounter killed one of the Uskok leaders. Peace was restored through
the mediation of Austria under whose protection the Uskoks were. But
the Turks persisted in regarding the Ragusans as the accomplices of
the pirates, and again the Sandjakbeg threatened to lay waste their
territory. On the land side the Republic was vulnerable, while on the
sea her shipping had suffered heavily in the Spanish wars. The incident
ended in the Ragusans bribing the enemy into a more reasonable attitude.
In 1602 the inhabitants of the island of Lagosta revolted against
Ragusan authority, because they complained that their ancient liberties
guaranteed to them in the act of submission had been violated. The
Ragusan count was driven out, and the islanders raised the banner
of St. Mark and asked to be placed under Venetian protection. This
was accorded, and a Venetian garrison landed on the island. Long
negotiations ensued, and at last Lagosta was given back to Ragusa, but
on very onerous conditions.[474]
In 1617-18 Ragusa was involved in the quarrels between Venice and
Spain, which culminated in the famous Spanish conspiracy. The
Venetians had been carrying on operations against the Uskoks since
the end of the sixteenth century. The Provveditore Tiepolo took and
destroyed Scrissa (on the site of the modern Carlopago) and hanged all
the garrison. On his death he was succeeded in the command by Bembo,
who, with a fleet of fifteen galleys and thirty long barques, manned
by 800 soldiers, blockaded Trieste and Fiume, so as to bring pressure
to bear on the Archduke of Austria. He also shut up 700 Uskoks in the
harbour of Rogoznica. But on a stormy night they managed to escape, and
Bembo, weary and disgusted, resigned his commission. His successor,
Giustiniani, did some damage to the freebooters, and negotiations
between Venice and Austria were commenced with a view to putting an end
to their depredations. But nothing came of the discussions, and the
Uskoks’ sack of Trebinje nearly involved Venice as well as Ragusa in
a new Turkish war. In 1614 the Uskoks waylaid the Venetian Cristoforo
Venier on his ship at Pago, murdered the officers and crew, and carried
Venier himself to Segna, where they cut off his head and banqueted with
it on the table, dipping their bread in his blood. Austria did nothing,
and the pirates made fresh raids into Istria and the Venetian islands.
The Venetians bombarded and captured Novi, and war broke out with
Austria, which lasted until the Peace of Madrid in 1617. By this treaty
Venice, Austria, and Spain bound themselves to remove the Uskoks to
the interior of Croatia. A Venetian squadron sailed down the Adriatic,
and with the pretext of capturing the Uskok galleys, anchored in the
harbour of Gravosa, and blockaded Ragusa itself, which was defended
by Marino Vodopić with a small body of Hungarian mercenaries. The Duke
of Ossuna, the Spanish Viceroy of Naples, undertook the protection of
Spain’s old ally, and sent a squadron up the Adriatic with the object
of attacking Venice and co-operating in the Bedmar conspiracy. The
plot was discovered and the fleet failed in its main object, but it
succeeded in forcing the Venetians to abandon Gravosa. This, however,
caused the Turks to accuse the Ragusans of having allied themselves
with Spain to the detriment of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time
certain persons whispered accusations of double-dealing against the
Ragusans in the Spanish court itself. Venice nursed a resentment
against the Ragusans for having been on good terms with Spain at the
time of the conspiracy, and indulged in a “policy of pin-pricks”
towards the little Republic. The latter also suffered annoyances from
the Pashas of Bosnia, who were always imposing extortionate duties on
Ragusan goods, and arresting Ragusan merchants as they passed through
the country. These turbulent viceroys had to be pacified with presents
and heavy bribes. When in 1647 the war of Candia broke out between the
Venetians and the Turks, Ragusa feared that she too would be involved
in the conflict, and appealed to the Pope for protection. But this
time she succeeded in maintaining a neutral attitude without being
molested, the Sultan’s plan for concentrating his troops at Ragusa for
an invasion of Dalmatia having been luckily abandoned.
During the quieter period after 1631 the Ragusans turned their
attention once more to the development of their commerce, but they
discovered that the conditions were entirely changed from what they
were a hundred, or even fifty, years previously. The whole of the
Atlantic and East Indian trade was divided between the English and the
Dutch, and such of the Mediterranean trade as was not also in their
hands was in those of the Venetians. The Ragusan merchant navy had been
for the most part lost in the service of Spain or captured by pirates,
and a large proportion of their seamen killed in battle or drowned.
Their shipping was therefore reduced to little more than a few coasting
vessels, and the Republic’s only resource was now the land trade with
Bosnia and the Herzegovina. But that too was less brisk than it used
to be, as the general trade of the Balkans was tending more and more
to follow the Budapest, Belgrad, and Sofia highway to Constantinople
instead of the Adriatic routes. Decadence was setting in throughout
Dalmatia, and the halcyon days of the Republic of Ragusa had passed
away. The Italian trade now consisted of little more than the transport
of grain necessary for the feeding of the inhabitants, and the Italian
colony was very small. Few families from Italy, or even from other
parts of Dalmatia and the Herzegovina, came to settle at Ragusa as
heretofore. The old families were declining in wealth and activity,
while a few newer ones from the neighbourhood monopolised the little
trade that survived. On the other hand, luxury increased, public and
private festivities became more frequent and more magnificent, so as
to hide the symptoms of decadence, and the old accumulations of wealth
were gradually squandered away. The old social distinctions, however,
were kept up with even greater strictness, and the hereditary nobility
continued to remain absolutely separate from all meaner mortals. The
arts, too, languished, and no more fine buildings arose. The decline of
Ragusa bears a striking similarity to that of Venice.
In 1667 a calamity befell the city which for a brief space made the
name of Ragusa ring throughout the civilised world. As I have said,
the citizens had had a foretaste of it in the small earthquake shocks
which from time to time occurred; the most formidable of them had been
that of 1520. But the worst was now to come. On Wednesday, April 6,
1667, in the early morning, when most of the inhabitants had either
just risen or were attending early Mass in the churches, “there came
from below ground a horrible and dreadful earthquake, which in a few
moments destroyed the Rector’s Palace, the Rector himself (Ghetaldi)
being killed, and all the other palaces, churches, monasteries, and
houses in the city, everything being subverted, and there was much
loss of life; the havoc was increased by the huge rocks which fell
from the mountains; thus the city became a heap of stones. At the same
time, a wind having arisen, misfortune was heaped upon misfortune, and
flames burst forth naturally from the timber fallen from the ruins
into the kitchen fires; the fire lasted several days, causing much
suffering to the few survivors of this horrible disaster. These are
not more than 600, besides 25 nobles, and it was a sad sight to see
these people, most of them injured, wandering about almost beside
themselves with despair in the ruined streets, imploring pity and
pardon from the Lord God for their sins. Moreover, the Castle rock was
seen to burst open and close again twice, and the waters of the sea
sank back four times. Even the wells dried up completely. The land
fort remained untouched, the sea fort, the _dogana_ (custom house),
and the lazaret were partially damaged, but can be repaired in a short
time. Many, moved by compassion at hearing the lamentable cries of
those buried among the ruins, struggled to remove the rubbish of stones
and timber with which they were covered, and found some still alive,
although they had been three, four, and even five days in that terrible
condition.”[475]
[Illustration: GARDEN NEAR RAGUSA]
Another misfortune was added to these by the depredations of the
neighbouring peasants and Morlachs who came pouring into the town, and
it is said that even some of the citizens took part in the plunder,
profiting by the wild confusion. According to Professor Gelcich, the
fire was caused by incendiaries with the same purpose.[476] A large
part of the Cathedral treasury was looted, and many of the sacred
relics disappeared, although some of them were subsequently recovered.
That the plundering was not more general was due to the efforts of two
patriotic nobles, Biagio Caboga and Michele Bosdari, who armed bodies
of their own peasantry and retainers, and kept watch over the ruined
churches and public buildings. There was a regular battle between a few
nobles and their suites and a horde of freebooters for the possession
of the treasury. The latter were finally beaten off, and the State
coffers and archives saved. The relics and the remains of the Cathedral
treasure were removed to a chapel in the Dominican monastery, which was
bricked up, only a barred window being left open so that the people
might assure themselves of their existence and worship them.[477] The
State treasure was removed to the Leverone fort, where the surviving
nobles gathered together and constituted a provisional Government of
twelve Senators. The situation appeared hopeless. “The city,” wrote
the Abate Bosdari, “was so completely buried in the stones and rubbish
of the ruined houses that every one gave up all idea of ever making
it habitable again. The stench from the burnt or decaying corpses was
so overpowering that it caused many people to suffer from nausea;
and no one dared venture to the spot where he had lost his property,
his relatives, and almost his own life, especially as other slight
earthquake shocks were felt from time to time. Wherefore many of the
most influential personages declared it to be necessary to change the
site of the town, and they proposed that of Lapad as being the most
convenient. This opinion was supported by the attractiveness of the
position, its proximity to a harbour capable of sheltering many fleets,
and the pure and more open air, and it would obviate the necessity of
spending large sums in removing the rubbish.”[478]
Ragusa was not alone in her calamity; many places in the immediate
neighbourhood had suffered considerably. The houses and churches of
the Isola di Mezzo were all in ruins, as may be seen to this day,
and many of the inhabitants were killed.[479] Stagno too was much
damaged, and in the rest of Dalmatia the earthquake was equally severe.
At Cattaro, according to Professor Gelcich, the ruin was even more
widespread than at Ragusa itself.
In the meanwhile the news of this disaster had spread all over Europe,
and help began to arrive from various quarters. The Empire, France,
Spain, and several of the Italian States sent contributions in money,
building materials, and men to help clear away the ruins. The Pope
was the first in the field, and sent a body of troops to maintain
order, and Giulio Cerruti, the engineer of Castel Sant’ Angelo.[480]
The latter was sent to report on the advisability of transferring the
population and the seat of the Government to Gravosa, but although
he declared that that spot was very suitable, the majority of the
survivors were still too much attached to their old home, ruined as
it was, to desire to settle elsewhere. The proposal was dropped, and
in fact, when the citizens came to take stock of the situation, they
found that things were not quite so hopeless as they had at first
appeared. Some five thousand people had been killed, but there must
have been more survivors than the 625 mentioned by the anonymous author
of the _Relatione_, if we accept Razzi’s estimate of the population
at 30,000 in 1578. It may have decreased to some extent during the
ensuing ninety years, but even in 1667 it must have been much more
than 5600.[481] The damage done to the buildings was less than might
have been expected. It is true that the Venetian Provveditore of
Cattaro, who happened to be at Gravosa at the time, wrote that “with
the exception of the public granary, the dogana, the fortifications,
and the lazarets, all the buildings, both public and private, including
the Palace, the churches, and the monasteries, were ruined and
destroyed”; while Vitale Andriasci stated that “nothing of the city
remained standing but the fortresses and the circuit of the walls,
which were injured in many places, and a few dismantled houses.”
But these writers were probably excited by the awful spectacle and
fell into exaggeration. The Duomo was so greatly damaged that it was
necessary to rebuild it from the foundations. The upper story of the
Rector’s Palace was severely, but not hopelessly, injured. The church
of San Biagio suffered considerably, but survived until destroyed by
fire forty years later. The Dominican and Franciscan monasteries,
including their towers, remained almost intact; while the Sponza, the
clock-tower, the churches of St. Nicholas, the Ascension, St. Luke, the
Saviour, the Annunciation, the granaries, the lazarets, &c., were in no
worse condition. Of the private dwellings, those in the Stradone all
fell down, and were rebuilt later; but many of those on the slopes of
the Monte Sergio survived, as is proved by the numbers of fragments of
Venetian Gothic which may be seen to this day. The general aspect of
Ragusa is thus fortunately still what it was before the calamity.
The work of rebuilding the city on its ancient site was at once
commenced, and the damages repaired. The Republic survived the
earthquake for nearly 150 years more, and although it was not the
Ragusa of the sixteenth century, it enjoyed intervals of revived
prosperity, and even of political importance, from time to time. But
the days for city-republics were gone for ever, and the existence of
Ragusa during the eighteenth century can only be regarded as a relic of
the past.
CHAPTER XI
RAGUSAN SHIPS AND SEAMEN IN THE SERVICE OF SPAIN
The great Spanish Empire of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
offered a wide field of maritime activity to the more enterprising
spirits of Ragusa, of which they were not slow to avail themselves.
The Dalmatians of other towns were under Venetian rule, and therefore
precluded to a great extent from these expeditions; but the Ragusans,
although their Government from time to time issued decrees forbidding
them to serve under foreign flags, so as to avoid international
complications, continued to do so, the prohibition being more honoured
in the breach than in the observance. Throughout the seventeenth
century we find Ragusan ships, manned by Ragusan officers and crews,
taking part in all the Spanish naval expeditions. These active
adventurers, whether serving in the war fleets of Spain or on board its
merchant ships, usually succeeded in accumulating large fortunes; some
of them came back to Ragusa to enjoy them, while others remained in
Spain and rose to high positions at the court of His Catholic Majesty.
But even these did not forget the land of their fathers, and utilised
their influence in the Spanish king’s councils for its advantage, by
obtaining favourable commercial treaties and valuable protection,
which stood it in good stead in times of danger. On the other hand, the
heavy losses endured in the many unsuccessful enterprises of Spain were
a severe drain on Ragusa’s resources, and ended by ruining her commerce.
There were a whole series of merchant-adventurers, whose wandering,
seafaring lives form a picturesque chapter in the history of Ragusa.
One of the most remarkable of them was Michele Prazzatto, a native
of the Isola di Mezzo. Like most of his fellow-islanders, he devoted
himself at an early age to commerce; but his first two ventures failed,
and his ships foundered. He was thinking of giving up trade in despair,
“but a lizard that he saw trying to climb up a wall taught him the
lesson of Robert Bruce’s spider. Like the lizard, having failed twice,
he succeeded in a third venture, and rose rapidly to wealth.”[482] He
served Charles V. with his galleys, and brought large cargoes of grain
to Spain in a time of famine. The Emperor appreciated his services, and
treated him with friendly familiarity. According to a local tradition,
on one occasion Prazzatto was assisting at Charles’s toilet, and on
being asked what reward he wanted for his services, replied: “I am
rich enough not to desire wealth; I am king on board my own carracks,
and have no need for honours; I am a citizen of Ragusa, and desire no
titles; but, as a memento of your favour, you may give me this shaving
towel.” The request was granted, and the towel is religiously preserved
to this day in the parish priest’s house at Isola di Mezzo. At his
death Prazzatto left his whole fortune, amounting to 200,000 ducats,
to the Republic, which rewarded his munificence by placing his statue
in the courtyard of the Rector’s Palace—the only public monument ever
erected to a citizen of Ragusa. The fame of Charles V. and of his
exploits, owing to the part which Ragusa took in them, are a living
memory to this day.
Another distinguished family of Ragusan mariners was that of Ivelja
Ohmučević, Count of Tuhelj. The Ohmučevići were among the earliest
exiles from the Herzegovina, who took refuge at Ragusa at the time of
the Turkish conquest, and were granted lands at Slano. They at once
began to devote themselves to maritime affairs, and in 1540 and 1541
the Republic hired their ships to transport grain from Italy. Their
house at Slano was a miniature court, and fitted up with every luxury
and elegance. It was a haven of refuge, where hospitality was dispensed
to all sailors or voyagers who entered Slano harbour to escape from the
tempest or from the pirates. Thus the Greek prince Alexius Comnenus,
after having been defeated by the corsair Karakosha, put in at Slano
and repaired his ships in Ivelja’s docks in 1569. He eventually settled
there, and married into the Count’s family. Ivelja’s sons all entered
the Spanish service, in which they greatly distinguished themselves.
The most famous of them was Don Pietro d’Ivelja Ohmučević-Grgurić, who
took part in the expedition to Portugal in 1580, where it is said that
forty Ragusan vessels were lost, and in 1582 he commanded some Ragusan
ships in the expedition to the Azores, under the Marquis de Santa
Cruz. Later he raised a force against the pirate Passareto, who was
eventually killed. He fitted out a fleet of twelve ships, known as the
“Twelve Apostles,” for the service of Spain, manned by 3200 Ragusans
and other Dalmatians, at a cost of 190,000 ducats.[483] This squadron
took part in an expedition to the Indies and in the Invincible Armada.
One of the ships, the _Annunciation_, was commanded by Count Peter’s
brother-in-law, the Almirante Don Estevan de Olisti-Tasovčić, “a very
brave youth, of high spirits and beautiful manners,”[484] who behaved
with conspicuous gallantry in the Armada. “Finding himself separated
from the body of the Spanish fleet, he was bombarded by the enemies’
batteries, and escaped out of the range of their fire with difficulty,
and in such a terrible plight that he was in danger of foundering, and
unable to repair the damages. The Duke of Medina-Sidonia, grasping
the situation, at once sent two _pataches_[485] to the rescue, so
as to save at least the crew. Don Estevan made for the Irish coast
near Limerick, and succeeded in transferring his men from the doomed
galleon to the _pataches_ under a heavy fire. He then burnt his ship,
to prevent her falling into the hands of the English, and sailed away
to Santander, which he reached without the loss of a single man.[486]
Afterwards he joined Count Peter at Cape Finisterre with a new galleon,
which he had fitted out at his own expense, so as to complete the
“Twelve Apostles.” When Count Peter died he left the fleet as an
inheritance to the King of Spain. But the vessels foundered soon after,
and Don Estevan was sent to Terceira with another squadron. This, too,
came to a similar end, and sank with all hands in a sudden Atlantic
storm.
Count Peter’s other son, Don Jorge d’Olisti-Tasovčić, served under
Francisco de Mendoza in various expeditions to Tunis and elsewhere.
With his brother Estevan he provisioned Naples during the famine of
1592-94—a risky operation owing to the perpetual raids of the pirates.
After various encounters with the latter he fell in with a fleet of
them of a hundred sail, commanded by one Cicola, in the Straits of
Messina during a calm. After a very severe engagement, overwhelmed
by numbers, he was forced to surrender, and sent as a prisoner to
Constantinople, losing his three galleons, valued at 80,000 ducats, and
their cargo valued at 20,000. He remained in captivity for three years,
until he managed to raise the 3000 _scudi_ required as his ransom, and
returned to Spain a ruined man. But the King gave him a new command,
and a pension of 40 _scudi_ a month. He served with distinction with
the Levant fleet on the coasts of Anatolia and of Albania in 1605-6,
and later with the Western fleet. He died, loaded with honours, in 1625.
Another member of this family, Don Juan d’Olisti-Diničić-Tasovčić, was
equally conspicuous, and fought under Stephen and George, and then
under Don Luiz Faxardo in the attack on the coast of the Sea of Marmara
(1614). He subsequently commanded twenty-six galleys in Catalonia,
fought with the corsairs, and was appointed Captain-General of the
Neapolitan Vice-regal fleet in 1639.
With the death of Count Peter in 1599 the male line of the Counts
of Tuhelj became extinct, but some years previously he had arranged
a match between his daughter Aurelia and Andrea Ohmučević-Grgurić,
of the cadet branch of the family, also a captain in the Spanish
service. The marriage did not take place until 1617. Andrea’s brothers
were all sea-dogs in the Spanish service. One of them, Don Pedro,
led a successful expedition to Brazil, and was afterwards appointed
Spanish consul at Ragusa (1623-1631). Don Pablo, after knocking about
in various parts of the world, ended his life in retirement at the
family place at Slano. Don Andrea himself served Spain for fifty-seven
years, commanding various fleets, and was created Spanish Admiral of
the Neapolitan fleet, which position he held during the Masaniello
rebellion. In 1614 the Tuhelj estates in the Herzegovina, which after
the Turkish conquest had been confiscated and then restored to the
family on payment of a tribute, were once more confiscated on account
of the part which its members had played in the Spanish wars against
the Turks. Don Andrea tried in vain to obtain redress from the Pasha of
the Herzegovina, and then appealed to the King of Hungary, who in two
rescripts of 1650 and 1654 recognised Don Andrea’s rights and those of
his heirs, but there was no hope of enforcing them until the country
should again be under the rule of a Christian Power; 224 more years
were to elapse before this consummation came to pass!
[Illustration: ISOLA DI MEZZO]
Owing to the annoyances and prohibitions imposed by the Venetians,
all the more enterprising Ragusan captains gradually abandoned the
Adriatic, and extended their operations to the Mediterranean and the
Atlantic. Another of the great seafaring families was that of the
Mašibradi. Girolamo Mašibradi was the founder of its fortunes, but
his first ventures, like those of Prazzatto, proved unsuccessful, and
he was surprised and captured by a fleet of twenty-two pirate galleys
from Rhodes, and sent as a slave to Scio. But he was soon ransomed,
and with his brothers ended by accumulating great wealth. He was
eventually appointed Captain-General of Spain, and granted a salary of
2400 _scudi_ a year. His brother Nicholas was in the Spanish service
for many years, and was created Marquis and Knight of St. James of
Compostella, and granted a large pension. Other Ragusan families
attained to eminence, such as the Martolossi, the Bune (Bona), &c. All
this brought riches to the citizens, but, on the other hand, it denuded
the city of both ships and men. Gradually all the Ragusans who were
not in the Spanish service sold their vessels, notwithstanding the
laws forbidding these sales. The number of new ships built at Ragusa
decreased to an alarming extent, and soon even the Spanish merchant
navy began to decline owing to English and Dutch competition. Don
Andrea, Count of Tuhelj, Admiral of Naples, made a series of proposals
with the object of reviving the shipping and the trade of Spain and
its vassal States, especially Ragusa. In a letter to the Senate of
that city, dated March 4, 1634,[487] he mentions the fact that there
had been at one time from 70 to 80 large ships of 1000 to 5000 _salme_
flying the banner of St. Blaise, manned by 5000 sailors, “employed
in traffic throughout the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, voyaging
even unto Lisbon, Flanders, and England. These vessels were well armed
with artillery and ammunition, and manned by excellent officers and
crews who were ever ready to withstand any enemy attempting to molest
them. The assurance that the ships were so good and so well armed, and
that the seamen were so brave and trustworthy, induced all European
merchants to employ them for the transport of their goods. They were
consequently almost always making voyages, and the profits were so
large that not only were they kept in good repair, but new vessels
were constantly built, and the full number was thus maintained. Ragusa
increased in wealth, in honour, and in population, for the Republic was
greatly esteemed by the princes and potentates of the world. But in
consequence of the recent truce concluded by His Catholic Majesty with
the Netherlands, Michael Waez, Count of Mola, was able to introduce
Dutch ships into the Mediterranean and the Adriatic for the purposes of
commerce, and these vessels, not being exposed to the attacks of the
Turks, the Moors, the English, and the other enemies of Spain, were
under no necessity of defending themselves. They were therefore able
to sail with small crews at small expense, and charge lower freights.
Wherefore most of Ragusan ships began to fall into disrepair and were
not renovated.... The only remedy for this woeful decline is that His
Catholic Majesty, in the interests and for the maintenance of this most
excellent Republic and of his own vassals, should grant to all those
who build large ships special exemptions and privileges throughout his
kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, and that preference
should be given to those designed for the transport of grain, salt,
wool, and other similar goods.”
The Dutch now almost monopolised the carrying trade of the
Mediterranean, and it became cheaper not only to obtain northern
products, but even the spices of the East from Amsterdam, where they
arrived by the Cape route, than directly overland and distributed by
Italian or Dalmatian ships. Neither Spain nor Ragusa paid attention
to his proposals, and both allowed the fatal decay to continue. But
still the Ragusans continued to distinguish themselves in the Spanish
service, especially the members of the Tuhelj family. One of them, Don
Antonio, when he heard of the terrible earthquake at Ragusa, gave up
his brilliant career in Spain and came to the help of his distressed
fatherland. He was subsequently sent as Ragusan envoy on a number
of diplomatic missions. His branch of the family finally entered
the Austrian service, and received high emoluments from the Emperor
Leopold. The reason of these favours lies in the fact that the Tuhelj
still claimed their ancestral estates at Castelnuovo, Risano in the
Herzegovina, and at Kastoria in Macedonia, and were therefore likely to
prove useful in the Austrian campaigns against the Turks. Don Antonio
Damiano, in fact, served for five years in the frontier wars, and ended
his military career after a severe wound at the battle of Dervent in
Bosnia (September 5, 1688). He was then appointed Imperial Resident
at Ragusa, and devoted himself to the cause of the emancipation of
Bosnia and the Herzegovina from the Turkish yoke. He visited those
provinces repeatedly, and when he himself could no longer travel he
arranged an elaborate system of secret information. In 1701 he was
created Knight of Justice and Commissary-General of the Order of St.
George, the object of which was to redeem Christian lands from the
Infidel, and he took up his residence in Vienna to prepare his plan.
But in his old age he retired to Ragusa once more, and spent his last
days in studying the city archives, reconstructing the history of
his own family. He too tried to revive the practice of inducing his
countrymen to enter the Spanish service, and wished to enrol numbers of
experienced Ragusan officers and sailors to man the navies of Spain,
saying that they were far better fighters than the Neapolitans. “Ten
Ragusans,” he wrote, “are worth more than a hundred Lazzaroni.”[488]
But it was now too late, and decadence had gone too far. The large
number of Ragusan vessels lost in the service of Spain discouraged
the citizens, while the population and wealth of Ragusa was greatly
reduced by the earthquake. The Republic was now suffering from the
vexatious attitude of the Venetians and the Turks, who were conspiring
together for the destruction of the last “Antemurale Christianitatis”
in the Balkan peninsula, and the citizens actually proposed to ask for
a Spanish-Neapolitan “Governatore delle Armi.” Don Antonio’s scheme
having fallen through, he returned to his historical studies, and
collected a mass of more or less unreliable information, chiefly culled
from local traditions and native historians.
CHAPTER XII
FROM THE EARTHQUAKE TO THE NAPOLEONIC WARS (1667-1797)
Of all the Ragusan aristocracy, in whom the whole power of the Republic
was vested, only twenty-five adult males survived this terrible
calamity, and not all of these were eligible for the highest offices.
They organised themselves into a provisional Government, and after some
demur decided to ennoble eleven burgher families and receive them into
their order. They did not, however, grant them full privileges nor
admit them to all the offices, and this exclusion subsequently led to
internal difficulties. The question of depopulation was now a serious
one. According to Coleti, 600 Orthodox Christian families from the
neighbouring districts applied to the Senate for permission to settle
in Ragusa to fill up the gaps, and offered to pay 2500 ducats each to
the State treasury. But even the earthquake had failed to make the
Republic more tolerant of schismatics, and permission was refused.[489]
Very slowly Ragusa rose from her ruins, and the work of rebuilding
began. Help came to the stricken city from all parts of Christendom.
The church of the patron saint was the first edifice to be repaired,
and then the Sponza, the chief source of the Republic’s revenues.
But it was a very different Ragusa to that which existed before the
earthquake. The merchant navy, save for a few coasting vessels, had now
disappeared, and with it the sea-borne trade, while the land trade was
also reduced.
On September 29, 1669, after one of the most memorable and heroic
sieges in history, lasting twenty-five years, the Venetian garrison
at Candia surrendered to the Turks. For this irreparable loss Venice
obtained some poor compensation in Dalmatia, viz. Clissa, Novigrad,
and a few other towns. The Venetians tried to improve their Dalmatian
trade at the expense of Ragusa by inducing the Porte to direct the
Bosnian caravans towards Spalato and Castelnuovo instead of to Ragusa
and Stagno. The Turks, although their power was on the wane, had
become more arrogant than ever after the conquest of Candia. Kara
Mustafa, who was Grand Vizier, a fanatical hater of Christians, took
it into his head to make an end of Ragusa, and as a pretext blamed the
citizens for having resisted the bands of armed marauders from the
Herzegovina who had come into the town to plunder after the earthquake,
and accused them of having sold goods to the Turks during the late war
at famine prices. As a punishment he raised the tribute and demanded
in addition 146,000 ducats, threatening to annex the Republic in case
of non-compliance. The Ragusans in vain declared themselves too poor
to pay owing to the earthquake; but Kara Mustafa remained firm, and
even supported the extortionate demands of the Pashas of Bosnia and
the Herzegovina. The Senate assembled hurriedly and decided to send
two ambassadors to Constantinople and two envoys to Bosnia to try to
appease the brutal Turks. But the difficulty was to find the men, for
no one relished the idea of this very dangerous mission—the Ragusans
well knew the way in which recalcitrant diplomats were treated by
the Ottoman when he lost his temper. At last four courageous nobles
offered to go for their country’s sake, namely, Marino Caboga and
Giorgio Bucchia for the mission to Constantinople, and Niccolò Bona
and Marino Gozze for Bosnia. The life of Caboga is so romantic that
it deserves some mention. He was born in 1630, and after a youth of
riot and dissipation, at the age of twenty-five he was engaged in a
law-suit with a relative, whom he accused of having defrauded him. The
trial took place before the Senate, and the accused reproached Caboga
with his disorderly life and cast doubts on his honour. Stung to the
quick, the young man drew his sword and murdered the slanderer. Flight
to a sanctuary saved him from capital punishment, but he was condemned
to perpetual imprisonment. During his confinement his only book was
a Latin Bible, and he covered the walls of his prison with verses
expressive of the deepest contrition. When the earthquake occurred
he escaped from prison with difficulty; but instead of trying to get
away he devoted himself to the work of rescue, and displayed great
energy in repelling the attacks of the Morlachs, whom he drove from
the city. When some sort of order was re-established and the Council
met, he presented himself before the Conscript Fathers. One of them
at once declared him disgraced and incapable of sitting, but the
majority decided that as a reward for his great services in this time
of danger he should be forgiven; he was thereupon readmitted to all
his privileges. It was this same man who now offered to risk his life
for his city once more. On their departure he and his companions bade
farewell to their friends as though they were going to certain death.
Caboga and Bucchia reached Constantinople on August 8, 1667. The
former showed so much diplomatic skill in the negotiations that Kara
Mustafa had him and his colleague cast into prison on December 13, in
a building that served as a lazaret for plague patients. But even then
they refused to advise the Republic to consent to the Turkish demands.
When asked if he would advise the Senate to agree to annexation by
the Porte, Caboga replied that “he was sent to serve, not to betray
his country”; and he succeeded in sending a message to the Senate
encouraging them to hold out to the last regardless of his own fate,
and only showing anxiety that his children should receive a sound
religious education. The ambassadors were transferred from one dungeon
to another, and threatened with all manner of punishments, but in vain.
Worse befell the envoys to Bosnia. When the Pasha heard that they had
not brought the money demanded he threw them into an unhealthy dungeon,
and after a few months transferred them to Silistria at the mouth of
the Danube, where the Sultan Mohammed IV. was residing, and here they
were kept in still severer detention. But they too held firm, and
advised the Senate not to give way. In 1678 Bona fell ill, and, being
utterly untended, died.
The Republic meanwhile applied to the King of Naples for arms and
troops, expecting a Turkish attack, raised a loan for defensive
purposes at Genoa,[490] and negotiated with the Emperor Leopold. Kara
Mustafa, on being informed of this action, vowed vengeance, determined
to capture the city, and only delayed the operation until he should
return from the siege of Vienna. But fortunately his armies were
defeated by John Sobieski, King of Poland, and this Christian victory
saved Europe, shaking the Ottoman power to its very foundations. The
ferocious vizir was disgraced and beheaded in consequence, and the
projects against Ragusa abandoned. Caboga, Bucchia, and Gozze were then
liberated and allowed to return home. “As he (Caboga) approached the
city every knoll, villa, and house-top was covered with an admiring,
almost adoring, people; every bell in Ragusa rang a merry peal, and
the Rector and Senate, in full robes, went out of the city to give a
cordial welcome to the wonderful Marino Caboga.”[491] He had indeed
deserved well of his country, for never had the Republic been in more
imminent danger, from which she was saved by this respite.
In March 1684 a new Holy League was formed between the Emperor Leopold
I., the King of Poland, the Pope, and the Venetians, in which Ragusa
was forced to join. But the danger from such a proceeding was now
less great, for the Turkish power was now broken. As the Austrians
had reconquered a large part of Hungary, Ragusa was considered to be
under the protection of the Emperor as ruler of that country, and on
August 20, 1684, a treaty to that effect was signed at Vienna by Baron
von Strattmann, representing Austria, and Raphael Gozze, the Ragusan
envoy, under the auspices of the Marquis of Borgamenero, the Spanish
ambassador, for Spain still had certain rights over the Republic. The
agreement was ratified by the Senate on December 1. It declared that
this protection was merely a renewal of the old Hungarian protectorate
over Ragusa, “hactenus per vim Turcicam aliquantisper interpolata,”
which the citizens requested that they “quasi postliminio gaudere et
fieri possint.” The Emperor promised to protect and defend Ragusa, to
confirm all the privileges and commercial immunities which the kings
of Hungary, his predecessors, had granted her, in exchange for which
she was to pay him a sum of 5000 ducats per annum. This payment,
however, was only to be made if and when the Austrian armies conquered
the Herzegovina. The Empire was successful in the war, and the Turks
were steadily driven back out of Hungary, where they now only held
a few isolated posts. Venice too displayed an energy and achieved a
success remarkable for a decaying State. She conquered the greater part
of the Morea, captured Athens and a number of islands, and occupied
Castelnuovo and the whole of the shores of the Bocche di Cattaro, as
well as several positions in the Herzegovina. The Morlachs in the
Venetian service made raids into Turkish territory, and did not spare
that of Ragusa. Venetian privateers threatened to destroy what remained
of the Republic’s sea-borne trade, while the closing of the land
routes practically stopped all intercourse with Turkey. The citizens
applied now to their new protector, the Emperor of Austria, who at once
sent Herberstein to Ragusa as Imperial Commissary, and he induced the
Venetians to desist from their molestations.
As, however, the Austrian armies did not conquer the Herzegovina,
Ragusa never paid the tribute to the Emperor, and as soon as there
was a prospect of peace on lines contemplating the maintenance of
the _status quo_ as regards the hinterland, the Republic hastened
to come to an agreement with the Porte, and sent an ambassador to
Constantinople with the arrears of tribute since 1684. After some
years’ fighting the Tsar Peter’s capture of Azov, the Austrian victory
of Zenta, and the Venetian successes in the Adriatic induced the Sultan
to sue for peace, and in October 1698 the delegates of the Powers,
including England and Holland, met at Carlovitz in southern Hungary.
On June 26, 1699, the treaty was signed. The Porte ceded all Hungary
save the Banat of Temesvar, Transsilvania, Slavonia, and Croatia as far
as the Una, to the Emperor; Poland obtained Podolia, the Ukraine, and
Kameniek; to Venice were assigned the Morea, some islands, and several
fortresses in Dalmatia. An important article from the Ragusan point of
view, which was obtained by bribing the Turkish negotiators, was that
two strips of Turkish territory should intervene between the dominions
of the Republic of St. Blaize and those of the Republic of St. Mark,
viz. the enclaves of Klek, near the Narenta’s mouth, and of Sutorina in
the Bocche di Cattaro.[492] Ragusa thus became tributary to the Porte
once more, and deliberately preferred to be surrounded by the Turkish
dominions rather than by those of the Venetians. This result brought
about a partial revival of the land trade.
In 1714 war between Venice and the Turks broke out once more, the
Sultan desiring above all to reconquer the Morea; he succeeded
in his purpose very quickly, for the Venetians, relying on the
peace of Carlovitz, which was to last twenty-five years (the Turks
never concluded treaties of perpetual peace), had made no adequate
preparations for defence. They allied themselves with the Emperor
(April 13, 1716), and Prince Eugene led an army into southern Hungary.
The Imperialists defeated the Turks first at Peterwardein, and then
at Belgrad, which they captured. In 1718 the representatives of the
various Powers met at Passarovitz (Požarovac) in Servia, and on 18th
July signed a treaty of peace, by which the Emperor retained all his
conquests, but the capture of the Morea by the Turks was confirmed, the
Venetians thus losing their last possessions in the Levant save the
Ionian Islands. With regard to Ragusa the arrangements of the peace
of Carlovitz were reconfirmed, Venice giving up the posts of Popovo,
Zarina, and Subzi on the Ragusan border.
[Illustration: COURTYARD OF THE RECTOR’S PALACE]
For the next few years the Republic was undisturbed by wars and rumours
of wars, but its general conditions showed little improvement. The
tribute to the Sultan was 12,500 ducats a year, and with gifts and
bribes amounted to 16,000; but since the earthquake it had been paid
every three years instead of annually. The Ragusans also paid blackmail
to the Barbary States, and a tribute at irregular intervals to
Austria. Every year a present was sent to the Pope, and twelve
_astori_ (falcons) to the King of Naples.[493] The population was now
no more than 20,000, and the value of property had so decreased that
the incomes of the archbishops and clergy were utterly inadequate.
Education was in the hands of the Jesuits, who had established a
college. But in the rest of the territory there were no means of
instruction or religion. Archbishop Galliani, in a report to the
_Propaganda Fide_,[494] complains that the upper classes were beginning
to read French books and talk mockingly about fasting, flagellation,
and other practices of the Church. When he remonstrated with them
he was told that the Index had not been proclaimed at Ragusa, and
had therefore no authority. He afterwards had it proclaimed from the
pulpits, but the only effect was that the Senate in a fit of zeal
ordered the burning of the Jewish Thalmud, a work which can hardly have
had many readers, nor shaken the piety of the people. But in spite of
their scepticism the Ragusans were as intolerant as ever towards the
members of the Orthodox Church. In 1724 a rich Servian, named Sava
Vladislavić, who had a house and garden at Ragusa and many friends
among the aristocracy, asked permission to build a Greek chapel in
his own grounds. But even this modest request, although backed by a
letter from the Tsar Peter the Great, was refused.[495] The incident
is not without significance; the Catholic Slaves have always been
particularly bitter against the Orthodox Christians, while the letter
from the Tsar is an early symptom of the interest taken by Russia in
the welfare of Orthodox communities outside her own territory, an
interest, then as now, essentially political rather than religious. In
1743 Pope Benedict XIV. wrote to the Senate encouraging them in their
religious refusal to permit the building of Greek churches and to admit
Greek priests into the town.
But another revival in the city’s prosperity seemed to be at hand.
Trade, which had been apparently in a hopeless condition, began to show
signs of improving. In 1727 Ragusan ships once more extended their
voyages beyond the limits of the Adriatic; in that year a vessel went
to Smyrna for the first time for many years. The wars between England,
France, and Spain in 1739-1750, and in 1755-1763, proved advantageous
to Ragusan shipping, and much of the commerce of the Mediterranean
passed into their hands as neutrals.
Ragusa had her last dispute with Venice in 1754, when she complained to
the Porte that the Venetians had illegally cut down forests on Ragusan
territory, and levied exorbitant tolls on Ragusan vessels. The Pasha
of Bosnia acted as mediator, and Venice agreed to renounce the dues,
but Ragusa was to pay homage to the Most Serene Republic by presenting
a silver ewer and twenty sequins every third year to the Capitano in
Golfo, or Admiral of the Adriatic, as compensation for the rights
of transit paid to Venice by Ragusa “da tempi immemorabili fino al
presente anno.”
During the Seven Years’ War Ragusa had a diplomatic incident with
Great Britain. The Republic was suspected by the British Government of
allowing French ships to be fitted out in her own harbours. The Jesuit
scientist Ruggiero Bosković was sent to England as Ragusan agent to
convince the authorities of the groundlessness of the accusation; he
succeeded in his mission, and was well received.
In 1763 a revolution broke out at Ragusa, the first since 1400,
albeit a bloodless one, and the fourth in the whole course of her
history. It arose through the antagonism between the old and the new
nobility, the latter created after the earthquake. The two orders did
not intermarry, and had always lived on terms of mutual jealousy. The
older nobles were called Salamanchesi, and the newer Sorbonnesi.[496]
The immediate cause of the outbreak was a romantic incident. A young
Caboga, a member of the old aristocracy, fell in love with, and became
betrothed to, a daughter of a Sorbonnese family. The affair caused
great scandal, and was discussed in the Grand and Minor Councils. The
Salamanchesi wished to forbid the marriage and to expel Caboga from the
assemblies, while the newer order and many young members of the old
wished to see these absurd barriers removed. As the former would not
give way, the latter made overtures to the people, who were beginning
to be somewhat dissatisfied with the existing Government. An _émeute_
broke out; the Rector’s Palace was stormed by an armed band, the old
nobles were turned out, and the officials forced to relinquish their
functions. But the new nobles had not the courage to take possession
in violation of the established rules of centuries, and for a time
complete anarchy reigned. There were no law courts, no provincial
governors, no commanders of the forts. The people, however, who had
always been accustomed to absolute submission to the oligarchy, made
no attempt to disturb the peace. They pursued their usual occupations,
and awaited the result of the quarrel with equanimity, hoping that
the outcome would be a reduction of their taxes. Negotiations between
the two parties were opened, but the Salamanchesi proved intractable;
and when the Sorbonnesi suggested Papal intervention they threatened
to bring the affair before the Sultan and to apply for assistance to
the Pasha of Bosnia, saying that they would rather give the city over
to the Turks than resign their privileges! At last the new nobles
declared that if their opponents did not give way in three days they
would appoint their own Rector and the other officials. This decision
ended the dispute, and a number of the Salamanchesi went over to the
new party, which thus formed two-thirds of the Grand Council, so that
the elections could be validly held. A compromise was arrived at:
the Rector was chosen from the old nobility, the taxes were somewhat
reduced, and the restrictions abolished.[497]
In 1768 war broke out between Russia and Turkey, in consequence of
the interference of the former in the affairs of Poland and various
incursions of Russian troops across the Turkish frontier. A Russian
fleet, under Admiral Orloff and the Englishman Elphinstone, entered
the Mediterranean and sailed up the Adriatic. Finding that a number
of Ragusan ships were carrying foodstuffs from Alexandria and other
Levantine ports to Constantinople, Orloff treated these and all other
Ragusan vessels as enemies, although their captains protested that
they had been forced to ship the cargoes by the Pasha of Alexandria.
He summoned the Republic to renounce Turkish suzerainty, and to place
itself under the protection of a Christian Power. He demanded that all
the larger Ragusan ships should be sold to Russia, to whom the State
must also make a loan, and permission was to be given for the erection
of a Greek church in the town. The admiral threatened bombardment in
case of non-compliance. The Government first thought of resisting, and
tried to place Ragusa in a state of defence. But on examination it was
discovered that of the 400 cannon in the forts only 40 were mounted,
while the ammunition consisted of less than 2000 lbs. of powder and
about 5000 cannon balls. A force of 5000 men might have been raised,
but there was no means of arming or feeding them. The Republic then
resorted to bribery, and offered Orloff 120,000 sequins, by which the
storm was for a moment averted,[498] but the Russian fleet continued
to harry Ragusan trade. The citizens, fearing further trouble, applied
to France for assistance, and this not being forthcoming, to Austria.
The Ragusan envoy at Vienna, Francesco Giuseppe Gondola, a descendant
of the poet and the last of that name, did all in his power to induce
the Empress Maria Theresa to intervene on behalf of Ragusa. But she
was at that time on bad terms with Catherine II. of Russia, and the
negotiations failed to have the desired effect. The Senate then sent
Francesco Ragnina to St. Petersburg as envoy, but Catherine refused
to receive him. At last, after long negotiations, when peace was made
between Russia and Turkey in 1774, a special agreement was concluded
at Leghorn between Orloff, who was there with his fleet, and Ragnina,
settling the differences. A clause was inserted that a Greek church
should be built, but it was not executed.
A quarrel arose between the Republic and the Kingdom of Naples in 1782.
The Neapolitan Government, for some unknown reason, suddenly claimed
to revive its old rights over Ragusa, and demanded the privilege of
appointing a _Governatore delle Armi_ in the town and a Neapolitan
official as Resident. These requests being refused, it tried to enforce
them by placing an embargo on the Ragusan ships in the ports of the
Two Sicilies, and seizing all Ragusan property in the kingdom. The
Ragusan Minister at Vienna, Count d’Ajala, induced Count Kaunitz,
Austrian Minister at Naples, to intercede in the Republic’s favour,
“as energetically as was consistent with the good relations between
the two Courts.” But the Neapolitan Government held firm for the time.
Eventually a compromise was arrived at, the embargo was removed, the
confiscated property restored, and a _Governatore delle Armi_ appointed
on condition that he refrained from interfering with the affairs of the
Republic. The salary paid to him was 30 soldi a day and an old turret
to live in.[499]
The peace was again disturbed in 1787 by a new war between Russia and
Turkey, Austria siding with the former. This time the Republic was
more circumspect, and through the ability of d’Ajala suffered no harm
beyond a little plundering. More serious trouble arose in 1792, when
war having been declared by the European Coalition against the French
Republic, the Court of Vienna complained that Ragusan ships were
carrying grain to French ports. The Senate protested that such acts
had been done against its orders, and that it had no objection to the
punishment of Ragusan captains caught in the act. It is the same old
story—Ragusan seamen profiting by foreign wars, while the Government
casts off all responsibility.
[Illustration: MOSTAR IN THE HERZEGOVINA]
Before coming to the concluding chapter of the Republic’s history, I
shall quote a few descriptions of Ragusa in the eighteenth century by
different travellers. Prévot, who was French consul in 1750, gives
a curious picture of the town, showing the character of its narrow
oligarchy. “The Republic,” he writes, “_i.e._ those who govern it, do
not care that foreigners of distinction, whether consuls or traders,
should come to Ragusa, because they are obliged to use a certain
measure of respect and justice towards them which they do not show to
any of their own subjects. The pride of the nobles, who make everything
give way before their authority, is hurt at being obliged to show the
least consideration to those who are not of their own order, lest they
should lose caste in the eyes of their slaves, by whom they wish to
be regarded as the lords of creation. Trade carried on by foreigners
seems to them a trespass on their own ventures, even when it does not
actually compete with them; for they dread even potential rivalry.
Hence their system of exclusion, for they prefer to be absolute masters
of very little rather than share a few benefits with people who are not
their slaves. Above all, they imagine that the French, being sharper
than other people, see the viciousness of their rule, the injustice
of their administration, and the absurdity of their pretensions; they
blush for very shame, and wish to be isolated so as to avoid being
exposed to criticism. It is their sensitive spot. One may well be
circumspect, but they have too much intelligence not to know their own
defects, but too much obstinacy and pride to wish to correct them, and
to suffer other witnesses of their conduct than those who are forced
to applaud it. One may say that Ragusa is less a State than a private
house, of which both masters and servants prefer to shut the doors to
strangers so as to remain unknown.”[500]
Pouqueville, who was at Ragusa in 1805, also describes the social
conditions of the people. “The nobles had places of honour in church,
at the café, at the theatre, and the noblewomen had sedan chairs
adorned with their armorial bearings, and took precedence at all
meeting places. The days on which the Rector went to church were marked
in red letters in the Ragusan calendar with the words, ‘Oggi Sua
Serenità si porta al Duomo.’ He went there in a much patched red toga,
preceded by a valet carrying a red silk umbrella ... followed by the
Senators in black threadbare gowns. Before him marched two musicians,
one with a hunting-horn and the other with a fiddle.
“The citizens form three corporations: the _cittadinanza_, recruited
from the commoners having a capital of 20,000 francs, who were like the
Roman _liberti_. Their women-folk were admitted to the theatre in a
row of boxes parallel to that of the noblewomen, whom they eclipsed by
their beauty and their attire. They had to pay visits to the noblewomen
on certain days.
“The second class was the bourgeoisie, the industrious part of the
population, for it included the sea captains, men of great honesty,
sailors, and agents in foreign countries. Their wives were not received
by the nobility, and might only go to the parterre of the theatre; but
at the promenade they shone by the elegance of their figures and their
wealth. The men spent most of their lives at sea, and when they had
accumulated a fortune they often retired to foreign lands, as they had
no consideration at home.
“The peasants were serfs, and attached to the land and sold with it.
But their master could not kill them, and if he ill-treated them they
could go to another.
“In 1805 the nobles were usually estimable men, and among them were
many _littérateurs_ of great merit. The religious Orders, who had
produced Banduri, Bosković, Zamagna, and other men of letters and
science, kept alive the sacred fire.... The _cittadinanza_ contained
many rich families, and the merchants owned over 3000 ships, which
carried nearly all the trade of the Mediterranean. The peasants did not
complain of their lot, and, the men being much better than the laws,
the State was flourishing.... The peasants were splendid fellows, but
absolutely obedient to their masters. It was the ancient respect for
a caste which, being unmilitary, was peaceful and debonair. There was
no secret police, no gendarmes. In 1805 the first capital sentence in
twenty-five years was pronounced; the city went into mourning, and an
executioner had to be sent for from Turkey.... The Ragusan serfs are
extremely brave. They are in perpetual war with the Montenegrins, who
are savage and without honour. There was a constant blood-feud, and
the book of blood was preserved by the Senate to remind the Ragusans
of their duty. When a feud had gone on for a long time, and too many
murders had been committed on both sides, a composition was agreed to
for a small sum.”
In spite of its defects, which French writers, imbued with the ideas
of the eighteenth-century philosophers and of the Revolution, would
naturally tend to exaggerate,[501] the Republic of Ragusa very
favourably impressed an Englishman, Thomas Watkins, who visited
the town in 1879. “Of the Ragusans I cannot write too favourably,
especially of the nobles and superior order of citizens, who, generally
speaking, possess all the good qualities that virtuous example and
refined education can bestow, without those vices which prevail in
countries more open to foreign intercourse, and consequently more
practised in deception. They have more learning and less ostentation
than any people I know, more politeness to each other, and less envy.
Their hospitality to strangers cannot possibly be exceeded; in short,
their general character has in it so few defects that I do not hesitate
to pronounce them (as far as my experience of other people will permit
me) the wisest, best, and happiest of States.”[502] Later the author
compares the condition of the Ragusans to those of the Dalmatian
subjects of Venice, very unfavourably to the latter. “I discovered that
the wretched Government of Venice had, by sending out their Barnabotti
or famished nobility to prey upon the inhabitants, rendered ineffectual
the benefits of nature. What a contrast between them and the citizens
of Ragusa, who live protected and exempt from all taxes, while they can
scarcely _subsist_ upon the rich lands they inhabit, being harassed
by every species of extortion that avarice can devise and power
execute.”[503] The picture is somewhat idealised, and, as we have
seen, even the Ragusans had taxes to complain of; but there is no doubt
that they were far better off than the Dalmatian Venetians, or, indeed,
than the citizens of most other States at that time.
During the protracted wars between England and France, and between
England and America, Ragusan trade revived to an unexpected extent,
and the prosperity of the inhabitants increased a hundredfold. In 1779
there were 162 ships flying St. Blaize’s banner, of 10 to 40 guns each,
and 27 more lay at the wharves. The land trade also flourished, and the
old routes became alive with caravans once more. By the year 1797 the
fleet had increased to 363 ships of over 15 tons, valued at 16,000,000
piastres, bringing in an Income of 2,400,000 piastres to the owners,
and a revenue of 152,000 piastres to the State. The coastwise trade
employed 80 boats, worth 400,000 piastres. The tax on oil brought in
27,000 piastres; the exports by sea were valued at 420,000 piastres,
the imports at 1,800,000 piastres; the exports by land at 1,500,000
piastres, the imports at 900,000 piastres. Agriculture was very
flourishing. The population had again risen to 35,000, and their income
increased every year by 700,000 florins.
The Republic maintained an ambassador at Vienna (Count d’Ajala),
a Minister in Rome, political agents in Paris, Naples, and
Constantinople, and consuls at Venice, Alexandria, and various other
towns. At Ragusa there was a French and an Austrian consul; Naples and
Russia were represented by Ragusan merchants.
CHAPTER XIII
ART SINCE THE YEAR 1358
After the departure of the last Venetian Count from Ragusa in 1358,
although Hungarian political supremacy succeeded to that of Venice,
the artistic and civilising influence of the Most Serene Republic
survived, and its impress in the town is unmistakable to this day. The
pointed arches in the Venetian Gothic style, the carved balconies,
the two-light and three-light windows, the general character of the
stonework and sculpture, in spite of certain distinctive features, bear
witness to the strength of Venetian example. Venice was the nearest
centre of civilisation to Ragusa, and the fountain-head of art. In
spite of the jealousy and suspicion which the little Republic always
felt towards its powerful neighbour, many Ragusan artists received
their training in Venice, while many Venetians came to execute work on
the public and private buildings of Ragusa. Venice was not, however,
the only city which thus influenced Ragusa; other Italian towns,
such as Ancona, Florence, Padua, and Naples, contributed towards her
artistic development, in which even Hungary had some small share.
[Illustration: “ÆSCULAPIUS” CAPITAL, RECTOR’S PALACE]
The most important and interesting building in the town is undoubtedly
the Rector’s Palace, which is to Ragusa what the Ducal Palace is to
Venice. It was commenced by architects inspired by Venetian ideas,
and completed by others devoted to Renaissance art. The site of the
existing edifice was originally occupied—in the days when the whole
town was confined to the seaward ridge, and separated from the mainland
by a marshy channel where the Stradone now runs—by a castle as a
defence against the Vlach settlement on the opposite side. When this
was absorbed, and the marshy channel filled in, the castle was enlarged
and strengthened, and later became the seat of the Government and the
residence of the Count. Beyond the fact that it was protected by four
towers,[504] we know nothing about this early building. Already, in
1272, it was spoken of as a very ancient edifice,[505] and in 1349 the
Council decided “quod sala veteris palatii ubi dominus Comes habitat
reaptetur et altius elevetur,”[506] which seems to show that it had
been allowed to fall into disrepair. In 1388 it was demolished, and
on its site the foundations of a larger and more commodious building
were laid. The new palace was not completed until 1420, and of this
also little is known, as fifteen years later a fire destroyed “the
spacious palace of Ragusa, which was in ancient times the castle,
together with certain towers, and nearly all the ammunition and arms
which were kept for the defence of the city and the armament of the
galleys.”[507] “Then the Ragusan Government decided that the Palace
should be rebuilt with more magnificent construction, sparing no
expense, and that the greater part of the former castle which the
fiery flame had not consumed should be levelled with the ground, the
architect being a certain Mastro Onofrio Giordani of La Cava, in the
kingdom of Naples. The walls are made of ashlar stone (De Diversis was
a witness both of the fire and of the reconstruction), finely wrought
and very ornamentally carved, with great vaults resting on tall and
stout columns, which were brought from Curzola.[508] The capitals, or
upper parts of these columns, are carved with great pains. There are
five large entire columns, but two other half-columns, one attached to
one tower, the other to the other; on the first was carved Æsculapius,
the restorer of medical art, at the instigation of that remarkable poet
and most learned man of letters, Niccolò de Lazina (Larina or Laziri),
a noble of Cremona.... For since he knew, and had learned in his
literary studies, that Æsculapius had his origin at Epidaurus, which
is now called Ragusa,[509] he took the greatest pains and trouble that
his image should be carved on the building, and he composed a metrical
epitaph to him, which was fixed in the wall. On a central column of
the entrance to the Palace is seen sculptured the first righteous
judgment of Solomon. In an angle of the principal door is the likeness
of the Rector hearing offences. At the entrance of the Lesser Council,
of which I shall have to speak by-and-by, is a certain sculpture of
Justice holding a scroll, on which is read as follows: “Jussi summa mei
sua vos cuicumque tueri’.”[510]
But even this second palace was destined to suffer a similar fate.
On August 8, 1462, it was destroyed by fire and the explosion of
the powder magazine. Other buildings were also consumed or greatly
damaged, including the Palace of the Grand Council; of the Rector’s
Palace the ground floor alone remained. Steps were at once taken
to repair the damage, for which purpose the celebrated architects
Michelozzo Michelozzi of Florence and Giorgio Orsini of Sebenico were
commissioned. Of Michelozzo, who had been a sculptor and a pupil of
Donatello, Vasari says: “In one thing he surpassed many, and himself
also, namely, that, after Brunelleschi, he was acknowledged the most
able architect of his time, the one who most conveniently ordered
and disposed the accommodation of palaces, convents, and houses, and
the one who showed most judgment in introducing improvements.” He
was at Ragusa in 1463 engaged on the town walls, and in 1464 the
Senate ordered the palace to be rebuilt according to his designs (11th
February). He left Ragusa in June, and was succeeded by Giorgio Orsini
of Sebenico. The latter, a scion of a branch of the great Roman family
of that name, which had settled in Dalmatia before coming to Ragusa,
had helped to rebuild the cathedral of Sebenico. The style of his early
work had been Gothic, but even while at Sebenico he was half converted
to Renaissance ideas.[511] When he came to Ragusa he had adopted them
completely, and his work on the Palace shows no traces of Gothic. Thus
we have parts of the building in the Gothic style by Onofrio, and parts
in that of the Renaissance by Orsini and Michelozzo. The earthquake of
1667 did some damage to the upper story, but it was soon repaired, and
the general character of the structure remains practically unaltered.
The façade consists of two stories, the lower consisting of a loggia
of six round arches between two solid structures, while the upper is
pierced by eight two-light Venetian Gothic windows. The two solid
structures contain windows, and originally supported square towers,
of which only the lower parts remain. The capitals of the columns in
the loggia are partly Gothic and partly Renaissance work, while the
arches which they support are all in the latter style. Examining the
capitals in detail, we find that the elaborate half column adorned with
the figure of Æsculapius is obviously the work of Onofrio, and so are
the other three outer capitals. They are far bolder in design and more
perfect in execution than the three classical ones in the centre.
The Æsculapius is a very interesting piece of work. It represents an
old man seated with an open book in his hand, a number of alembics,
retorts, and other scientific instruments by his side, and two men
standing beyond, one with a fowl in his hand. It is evidently intended
to represent an alchemist or physician giving advice. The capital next
to this one is considered by Jackson to be the finest of all: “The
tender rigidity of the foliage, the delicate pencilling of the fibres,
and the just proportioning of light and shade in this lovely piece of
sculpture can hardly be surpassed.”[512] The columns themselves are all
by Onofrio, and the wall belongs to the same period, as is proved by an
inscription recording the erection of the Palace in 1435.
The three middle capitals, all the heavy abaci, and the round arches
which they support are the work of Orsini. It is extremely probable
that the original arches of Onofrio were pointed, but that they and
the middle capitals were so injured by fire that new ones had to
be provided, and Orsini, wishing to give the building as much of a
Renaissance character as possible, built round arches in the place
of pointed ones. But to do this he had to supply the heavy abaci
which we now see in the place of Onofrio’s shallow ones, so as to
make the arches high enough to support the vaultings. It is curious
that the upper story, above the restored Renaissance arches of the
loggia, should belong to the earlier period. According to Mr. Graham
Jackson, the explanation lies in the fact that in the restoration the
old materials—columns and other adornments—which had fallen without
being hopelessly damaged were used. The capitals of the upper windows
are small, but excellent in design. Their chief _motif_ is foliage
intertwined with faces of human beings and lions. Some of them remind
us distantly of the capitals in the Franciscan cloister, although the
latter are of course of a much earlier date.
[Illustration: SCULPTURED IMPOST, RECTOR’S PALACE]
Within the loggia are various sculptured ornaments. The doorway leading
into the courtyard is decorated with a little scroll of foliage round
the arch, and small half-length human figures. The capitals and
imposts are admirably carved with groups of figures full of movement.
The impost to the right bears on the front face a group of putti or
angels playing various musical instruments, quite in the style of
Michelozzo, while on the return face is a group of armed men. Of the
left-hand impost the front face is adorned with the figures of a man
and woman embracing each other, a boy standing at their side; and the
return face, with a group of dancing figures, one of whom is blowing
a horn—a curious specimen of perspective. The small brackets whence
the vaulting springs are also beautifully carved with groups of men
and animals. The best of these is the one with a shepherd boy and a
dragon, both full of movement and grace, and likewise interesting in
perspective.
All this sculpture is Onofrio’s work, and so is the Porta della Carità
to the right, otherwise called the “Porta è l’Officio del Fondico.”
Here in times of famine the poor received their doles of bread, sold
below cost price or on easy credit. Adjoining is the small door leading
to the hall of the Minor Council on the mezzanine floor. To the right
and left of the main entrance are rows of carved marble benches. The
ones to the right are in double tiers, and here on grand occasions the
Rector would sit with the Minor Council, the Archbishop, and, in later
times, the Imperial Resident. The lower single-tier seats were for the
Grand Council. The whole loggia was known as “sotto i volti.”
The courtyard beyond is a square space surrounded by two tiers of round
arches. The whole effect is graceful, attractive, and airy. Both the
loggie are vaulted, but the arches of the upper story are twice as
numerous as those of the lower. The columns of the latter are of plain
classical design, with carved capitals and shallow abaci, of which
the foliage is so simple as to recall Romanesque work. The arches are
plain and without mouldings. The upper arcade is formed by square piers
of masonry, alternating with twin columns, one behind the other. This
part of the building is the work of Orsini, but on the wall behind
the arcades there are doors and windows in the pointed style of the
earlier edifice. Two open-air staircases lead from the courtyard to the
upper stories. The principal one, to the left of the entrance, is poor
in design, but the general effect is large and stately. The smaller
flight to the right leads to the little terrace on the mezzanine
floor. The latter has low round arches, but the balustrade is adorned
with a Gothic frieze, like that of the seats, “sotto i volti.” At the
head of the stairs is a sculptured capital representing the Rector
administering justice (the officer here is wearing the traditional
_opankas_ or sandals still common in Dalmatia); and opposite is a
symbolical female figure of Justice, the “quædam justitiæ sculptura” of
De Diversis, holding a scroll with the words, “Jussi summa mei,” and
two lions. The draperies are flowing, and not, I venture to think, at
all Düreresque, as Mr. Graham Jackson considers. The two lions’ heads
and part of the scroll-work has been very clumsily restored. This,
again, is Onofrio’s work. In this same loggia is a sculptured group
in a niche representing Samson breaking a column, which is probably
early quattrocento work, or perhaps even of the end of the fourteenth
century. Here and there are other good fragments of carving.
The interior calls for little mention, having been completely restored
and modernised. There is, however, one small room on the ground floor,
with a wooden ceiling charmingly painted with arabesque designs
and gilding, dating, I should imagine, from the sixteenth or early
seventeenth century. Below the small loggia is the entrance to the
state prisons, very gloomy dungeons indeed, in some of which prisoners
were walled up alive. But the worst cells are those under the theatre—a
strange contrast; they are below the level of the sea, and flooded at
high tide.
On the whole, the Rector’s Palace is the most interesting and beautiful
building in Dalmatia, with the exception perhaps of the Romanesque
cathedral of Traù. Its graceful design, its perfect proportions, and
its many charming details of stone work make of it a worthy rival of
many of the famous _palazzi pubblici_ of the Italian towns. It bears
a strong analogy to the Loggia dei Mercanti at Ancona, on which some
of the same artists were employed. The sculptures, however, labour
under one disadvantage, viz. they are carved out of poor material. The
Curzola stone, which is admirable for building purposes, for columns,
and plain adornments, is not quite hard enough for elaborate sculpture,
so that although the designs of the artists may be admirable, the
result has sometimes a rough and unfinished appearance. It would form
an interesting speculation to study what effect the nature of the
material had on the artist. At Ragusa one certainly longs for the
accurate and finished work of the Florentines. But nevertheless the
Palace of Ragusa is in its way a little masterpiece.
[Illustration: SCULPTURED BRACKET, RECTOR’S PALACE]
During the Renaissance period a number of new churches and chapels were
built at Ragusa, the majority of them quite small. The most beautiful
of these is the votive church of San Salvatore, built to commemorate
the earthquake of 1520. “This shock caused much spiritual benefit, for
many people confessed their sins, and said prayers, and gave alms. Each
Sunday the Government with all the people went in procession to implore
the Divine mercy, and vowed to build a church in honour of the Saviour,
on which it was decided to spend 1500 ducats.... For the building of
it Messer Daniele di Resti, Messer Damiano di Menze, and Messer Giunio
di Sorgo were appointed Provveditori. These nobles raised the cost to
more than 2500 ducats, and the building proceeded so slowly that it
was not finished for ten years.”[513] It is said that noble matrons
went barefoot carrying materials for the building, but the three noble
Provveditori employed the masons for their own private houses as well,
and this caused the delay. The façade is a simple but very beautiful
specimen of Renaissance architecture, recalling that of the Lombardis’
church of the Madonna dei Miracoli in Venice. Both the façade and
the roof are built in the same manner as those of the cathedral of
Sebenico. The interior consists of a nave and rounded apse, divided
into three bays by classic pilasters. There are some traces of Gothic
in the vaulting and narrow side windows adorned with plain tracery. The
cornice is arcaded, but each arch contains a Renaissance shell.[514]
With regard to the authorship of the building, the acts of the Grand
Council mention architects summoned from Italy in 1520, whose names,
however, are not given, and one Paduan working at Sebenico. The latter
seems to have been Bartolommeo da Mestre, described in the deeds of a
Sebenico notary as “protomagister fabricæ Sancti Jacobi,” who was in
that town between 1517 and 1525, but absent at Ragusa in 1520. This
would explain the similar roof construction in the two churches.[515]
Among the other chapels, that of the Santissima Annunziata deserves
mention. The front is unadorned, but in the tympanum of the Gothic
doorway is a group of three figures in high relief, representing St.
John the Baptist and two other saints. There is much dignity about the
figures, but the execution as usual is somewhat rough. This chapel and
the one next to it, from which it is separated by a wall space with a
rectangular sixteenth-century doorway, are almost under the lee of the
town walls, which at this point make an abrupt outward curve, so as to
include the Dominican monastery.
Close by is the church of St. Luke, with some good Renaissance
decorations and an elaborate tympanum. More important is the church of
the Confraternità del Rosario, now desecrated and used as a military
storehouse. The interior consists of two naves with a colonnade of
three arches, and a low, dark story above. The capitals are of a
handsome classical design with good mouldings, but the proportions are
bad, the church being much too high for its length.
In the upper part of the town is the interesting little chapel of
the Sicurata or Transfigurata, its façade on a tiny piazza, almost
a courtyard. To reach it one passes under an old archway with a
fig-tree growing out of it. It contains one or two curious paintings.
San Niccolò in Prijeki, at the end of the street of that name, has
a Renaissance doorway with Ionic columns and a classical pediment,
the adornments being very pure and sober; the rosette window is of a
wheel pattern common at Ragusa. The belfry is adorned with excellent
mouldings and a twisted stringcourse. The date 1607 over the door
refers to the restoration, the building being at least eighty or a
hundred years older, while the little figure over the door is still
more ancient.
Outside the walls, a few minutes from the Porta Pile, is the tiny
Chiesa alle Dance, on a rocky beach by the sea, commenced in 1457 as a
chapel for the cemetery of the poor, as is attested by the following
inscription:—
DIVÆ MARIÆ VIRGINI
S.C. DECRETO AD PAUPERIEM SEPUL.
EX ÆR. PUB. DOTIBUS
VIII IDUS. DECEMRIS. M.CCCCLVII
D.
The west door is a handsome piece of Venetian Gothic with mouldings
and a sculptured group of the Virgin and Child in the tympanum. To the
right is another group on a font. In the front of the church a platform
spreads out, where a portico must formerly have been, as there are the
bases of six large piers.
Of the lay buildings in Ragusa besides the Rector’s Palace we may
mention the clock-tower in the Piazza, and the fountain at the Porta
Pile. The latter was built by Onofrio of La Cava on the completion of
his great aqueduct, and bears the following inscription:—
P. ONOFRIO I. F. ONOSIPHORO
PARTHENOPEO EGREGIO N. I.
ARCHTITECTO
MUNICIPES.
The story of this aqueduct is rather curious. In previous times
the city was supplied with water from cisterns, but in 1437 the
Government decided to seek for springs in the Gionchetto hills, and
invited Onofrio, who was as excellent a hydraulic engineer as he was
an architect, to construct it. The sum of 8000 ducats was devoted to
the purpose, but before its completion 12,000 were spent. The people
began to say that the enterprise such as Onofrio had designed it was
impossible, and he was summoned before the magistrates as an impostor.
But the evidence of the experts proved favourable to him, and he
succeeded in completing the work in the prescribed time. Nothing
remained now to be done but to erect a fountain, and the funds were
provided by public subscription. Of this monument only the polygonal
basin and a few columns and heads remain. The twelve bas-reliefs of
the constellations were destroyed by the earthquake, and so with one
exception were the figures of animals round the cornice. Another
fountain, also by Onofrio, is the very handsome one in the Piazza,
decorated with putti and shells.
There are a few private houses at Ragusa of architectural pretensions.
Those of the Stradone were, as I have said, destroyed by the
earthquake; but in the Prijeki, a street parallel to the Stradone,
on the slope of the Monte Sergio, there are several picturesque old
palaces. This thoroughfare is very narrow, and the houses are of great
height; many of them are adorned with charming Venetian balconies and
fragments of sculpture. The general prospect of this dark, narrow
street, lit up here and there by patches of brilliant sunlight, showing
some vine pergola clinging on to a broad balcony, or a many-light
window in the purest Venetian style, is most striking. One might
imagine oneself in Venice, until a side street leading up a steep
hillside tells us that we are not in the city of the lagoons. The most
remarkable of these houses is the one numbered 170, which has a fine
doorway, with a rectangular entablature enclosing a pointed arch. In
the corners thus formed are two centaurs, very spirited and full of
movement, though not quite perfect in drawing. The balcony above,
which is exceptionally wide in proportion to its length, is supported
by three carved brackets. The beautiful little balcony with marble
colonnade on the palace numbered 316 is a veritable gem of Venetian
work. On several other houses there are similar fragments, and others
are to be found elsewhere in the town, especially in the streets near
the Duomo. The Stradone itself is an attractive thoroughfare, broad,
airy, and full of sun. The houses are plain and unadorned, but the
rich yellow hue of the Curzola stone of which they are built give them
a harmonious appearance. The shops to this day are mostly of a very
Eastern appearance, the door and window being formed of a single round
arch partly divided by a stone counter which cuts half-way across the
opening.
A conspicuous architectural feature of the city is its defences. The
town walls form a most perfect circuit, of a beauty and completeness
rarely surpassed, even in Italy. From whichever side we approach
Ragusa, whether from the sea or by the land gates, we are confronted
by an imposing mass of battlemented towers, solid bastions, thick
walls and escarpments, which conceal the whole town save the steeples
and one or two churches. Few cities present such a perfect picture of
a mediæval fortress, and few form so fair a picture—this cluster of
fine buildings on steep precipitous rocks rising sheer up out of the
azure sea, with the exquisite purple hues of the Dalmatian mountains in
the background, and the bright patches of rich vegetation all around.
Rarely does one see so admirable a combination of strength and beauty.
The walls are pierced by three gates—the Porta Pile, the Porta Ploce,
and the sea gate. At the Porta Pile there is a double circuit of walls;
the outer gate is a round arch in a semicircular outwork, with gun
embrasures on either side. To the right the walls extend seawards to
a massive round bastion, and then up the rocky ridge; to the left
they ascend the steep hillside to the graceful Torre Menze or Minćeta.
On entering this gate the road descends, making a sharp curve, passes
under a second arch, and opens out into the Stradone. This leads
straight to the Piazza, where the chief public buildings stand. We pass
under another arch below the clock tower, and reach the Porta Ploce.
This too is approached by a winding road passing over two bridges, one
of which was formerly a drawbridge, and under several more arches. The
solid mass of the Dominican church and monastery formed part of the
defence works. From the road between the Piazza and the Porta Ploce the
gate opens out on to the quays of the harbour. The latter is small,
and incapable of sheltering large modern steamers, which now always
put in at the ample port of Gravosa; but it was quite sufficient for
the famous “argosies” which visited every known sea during the heyday
of the Republic. It is protected by the huge mass of the Forte Molo
and other towers, while the pier built by Pasquale di Michele juts
out into the sea. Large walled-up arches led to the shelters for the
galleys—“arsenatus galearum domus, in qua triremes pulchræ et biremes
resident, quibus armatis, cum opus fuerit, utuntur Ragusini.”[516]
[Illustration: CHURCH OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF THE ROSARY]
In other parts of the Republic’s territory some few buildings of
architectural interest survive. At Gravosa there are no churches of
importance, but some fine villas, of which the most remarkable is that
of Count Caboga; in the general style of its architecture it recalls
the loggia of the Rector’s Palace. It was at Gravosa that the nobles
of Ragusa had their _villeggiatura_, and all about among the pleasant
groves of the Lapad promontory or on the banks of the Ombla rose many
a stately pleasure-house, filled with works of art and books, and
surrounded by lovely gardens. Most of them, alas! were plundered and
burnt during the French wars and the Montenegrin invasion, and only a
few now remain. Other more modern ones have sprung up, some inhabited
by the descendants of these same noble families, others by wealthy
merchants who have acquired fortunes in America. The villas among the
hills at Giochetto and Bergato have nearly all been destroyed.
On the Isola di Mezzo there are two castles, several churches and
monasteries, and ruins of other edifices. The principal church is
that of Santa Maria del Biscione, on the south side of the island; it
is a fifteenth-century building, in the Venetian Gothic style, and
contains, among other objects, an altar-piece of quaint design—a group
of wooden, painted figures; according to the local tradition they were
brought by a native of Mezzo from England, where he had bought them
from Henry VIII.’s private chapel, as that monarch, having become a
Protestant, was selling its effects by auction. But Professor Gelcich
gives extracts from local records, proving it to be seventeenth-century
work by one “Magister Urbanus Georgii de Tenum Derfort Banakus
fabrolignarius.”[517] The chancel has a good waggon ceiling of blue
panels, and some handsome stonework. The Dominican church, also in the
Italian Pointed style, is dismantled; its campanile of the fifteenth
century has the “midwall shafts” of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth
centuries.[518] In the Franciscan monastery, of the same period (1484),
there are some beautiful Gothic choir-stalls, of which Mr. Graham
Jackson remarks that it is interesting to find that even in this late
work the leaves retain “the crisp Byzantine raffling, and are packed
within one another and fluted quite in the ancient manner, while the
little capitals of the elbow posts have still more thoroughly the
look of Byzantine work.”[519] The two castles are little more than
picturesque ruins, and scattered about the islands are the remains of
some eighteen or twenty chapels; in the village several houses that
once belonged to families of position bear traces of carving, Venetian
balconies and windows, and coats-of-arms.
At Stagno there are some interesting fortifications of the fourteenth,
fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. This position was of great
strategic value, as it is a narrow isthmus connecting the long
peninsula of Sabbioncello with the mainland. A large square castle was
erected at Stagno Grande, looking southwards towards Ragusa, another
with a round tower at Stagno Piccolo, on the north side of the isthmus,
and a third at the top of the hill between the two. Both towns were
surrounded by walls;[520] a long wall goes right across the neck of
land, and another clambers up the hill to the highest of the three
castles and down the other side to Stagno Piccolo. The appearance of
these battlemented walls, with towers at frequent intervals, is most
impressive, and they were a most remarkable piece of work for their
time. They secured Ragusa from attack, whether from the Venetians
at the mouths of the Narenta, or from the Slavonic princelings of
the hinterland, and later from the Turks. Both in Stagno Grande and
in Stagno Piccolo there are some churches and private houses with
architectural decorations. The Franciscan monastery at the former place
has a cloister in the best Dalmatian style, and in a field near the
salt-pans is a small church, which may be of the Romanesque period.
It is obvious that Ragusan architecture was strongly, indeed
prevalently, inspired by Venetian example, both in the work which we
have called Venetian Gothic and in that of the Renaissance period.
Although, as a rule, the earlier artistic forms survived much longer
in Dalmatia than in Italy, the Dalmatians showed what Graham Jackson
calls “a natural and almost precocious liking for the Renaissance
style.” Giorgi Orsini’s work at Sebenico actually preceded that of
Leon Battista Alberti at Rimini by nine years. Another peculiarity
of Ragusan architecture is that the names of so few of the artists
themselves are preserved, and most of those who are remembered were
foreigners. There were doubtless many native artists, but Ragusan
talent seems to have been of a collective rather than an individual
character, and much of the work was probably done by master-masons,
stone-cutters, and similar craftsmen, and may have been the outcome of
the general artistic feeling of the people rather than the conception
of great masters.
In painting the Dalmatians were less conspicuous than in architecture,
and if we except the tradition that Carpaccio was a native of Cattaro,
we know of no great painter of that country. With regard to Ragusa
there are a few specimens of native art, but hardly a record of the
life of any painter. Appendini (ii. p. 170) does not know of any
Ragusan painter earlier than the fifteenth century, but it is probable
that some of the pictures in the Dominican monastery, which are of an
earlier date, are by a native brush. Professor Gelcich mentions a guild
of painters in the sixteenth century with nineteen members, all so poor
that they had to be subsidised by the State. But there is one Ragusan
artist whose works are preserved, and whose name at least is recorded.
This is Niccolò Raguseo, or Nicolaus Ragusinus as he signs himself.
Several of his paintings may be seen in the Dominican monastery and in
the Chiesa alle Dance. In the latter he is represented by a triptych
of very considerable merit, with a predella and a lunette. The middle
panel is a group of the Virgin and Child surrounded by cherubs. The
Madonna wears a red robe with a cloak of rich cloth-of-gold, on which
an elaborate pattern is picked out in dark blue. This design is not
adapted to the folds, but drawn as though on a flat surface. The
Child is holding some fruit; the cherubs have scarlet wings, and in
the background is a gilt nimbus. At the feet of the Virgin kneels the
infant St. John, in whose hands is a scroll with the words:
__
VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO DIRIGITE VIAM DNI.
On the plinth of the throne is another inscription:
M. CCCCC.XVII—MENSIS FEBRVARII——
NICOLVAS—RHAGVSINVS—PINGEBAT.
In the right-hand panel is a St. Martin on horseback cutting off half
his cloak to give to a beggar. He is attired in a green tunic, over
which is a golden coat with a design picked out in red lines; the
cloak which is being cut is of a bright scarlet. In the left-hand
panel we see St. Gregory holding a crucifix in his hand, with a
dove on his shoulder; he is attired in pontifical robes—a richly
embroidered cope of cloth-of-gold adorned with a red pattern, and
figures of saints in niches along the border. Above is a lunette
representing the Crucifixion, with the Virgin, St. Mary Magdalen, St.
John, and other figures at the foot of the Cross, and some cherubs.
The robe of the Virgin is of a rich deep blue, those of the others
red or green. In the background is of gold. The predella is divided
into three panels; in the centre one is a St. George and the Dragon,
very spirited in composition, and quite in Carpaccio’s manner, with a
charming pale blue landscape in the background and a glimpse of the
sea. In the right-hand division we see a saint receiving a mitre from
two bishops, and surrounded by other bishops, monks, choir-boys, &c.
To the left a pope in a golden robe is being crowned by two cardinals;
all round is a host of cardinals, bishops, Dominicans and Franciscans,
and behind a landscape with smaller figures. The faces are all very
pale, and somewhat northern in character, but those of the Virgin and
Child in the principal panel are of great tenderness and feeling.
In the colouring lies the chief merit of the picture; it is indeed
exceptionally rich and brilliant, especially in the robes, which are
characteristic of the painter’s work. The whole is enclosed in a
handsome carved frame, divided by pillars into compartments. The
groundwork of this frame is dark blue, with designs picked out in gold,
and adorned with arabesques of a good Renaissance pattern.
[Illustration: TRIPTYCH BY NICCOLÒ RAGUSEI IN THE DOMINICAN MONASTERY
(_St. John the Baptist, St. Nicholas, St. Stephen, St. Mary Magdalen,
and St. James_)]
On the high altar of this same church is another picture, also
attributed to Raguseo. It contains figures of the Virgin and Child, St.
Nicholas, St. George, St. Blaize, and St. Francis. It is altogether
inferior to the one on the north wall, in a much worse state of
preservation, and almost hidden under silver ornaments, plaques,
ex-votos, and artificial flowers.
In the Dominican church there are quite a number of early pictures,
some of them evidently the work of Raguseo. To the right of the high
altar is a large triptych, with St. Stephen the Protomartyr in the
centre, St. James and St. Mary Magdalen to the right, St. Nicholas and
St. John the Baptist to the left. The St. Stephen is seen absolutely
full face, looking straight out of the picture, with an expression of
calmness and benevolence. The Magdalen has also a very sweet look, and
is beautifully painted. The robes, as in the Dance pictures, are all
very rich and splendid, especially that of St. Stephen, which is of
gold, with the pattern diapered in dark lines and adorned with figures
of saints along the border.
To the left of the high altar is another triptych in the same style:
the Virgin and Child, the former with a lily in her hand and the moon
lying at her feet, surrounded by cherubs, in the centre; St. Paul
and St. Blaize to the right; St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine to
the left. The St. Blaize bears in his hands an interesting model of
Ragusa, in which one can make out three large towers and several small
ones. The gold background has been restored, and is rather too garish.
In a side chapel is yet another Raguseo—a Madonna and Child, supported
by St. Julian, St. James, St. Dominic, and St. Matthew. The drawing
is bold and strong, perhaps more so than in any of the artist’s
other works, and some of the faces, especially that of the Child,
very fascinating: the robes, as usual, are magnificent. That of the
Virgin forms a curiously stiff platform, on which the infant Christ
is standing. Below are two little angels, one holding a lily and the
other roses. In the background is a faint suggestion of landscape.
Unfortunately, the lower part of the picture has been barbarously
mutilated to make room for a window.
These, with the possible exception of one or two more paintings in the
Isola di Mezzo, are the only known works of this artist. Who he was,
what was his story, where he worked, remain a mystery. From the date
on the Dance triptych we learn that he flourished at the beginning
of the sixteenth century, and it is fairly certain that he must have
studied in Italy. His style distinctly shows traces of the influence
of Crivelli’s school, and in this, as in other arts, the Dalmatians
continued to work in the older manner long after it had been abandoned
in Italy. Professor Gelcich doubts if this painter were really a native
of Ragusa at all, arguing that if he had been he would not have called
himself Rhagusinus in his own city. It is of course unusual (though
not unheard of) that an artist should call himself by the name of his
own town while actually living in it; but in this case he may have
done so because the Ragusans were so used to having their pictures
painted by foreigners, that when a native of the town actually painted
them the fact was worthy of being especially recorded. But it is mere
conjecture, as there is no mention of him or of his work in any known
document. Perhaps some day a record of his life may be found in some
forgotten MS., or obscure municipal entry, or in the list of the pupils
of some Venetian master. Professor Eitelberger says that these pictures
“bear some resemblance to certain paintings in the Marca of Ancona; it
is not impossible, however, that even from Apulia some influence may
have reached the Ragusan painters, but we have too little information
to enable us to express an opinion as to the connection between the
Ragusan school and that of Italy.”[521]
Appendini says nothing about Raguseo, although he speaks of some
other native artists whose works are nearly all lost. It will be
sufficient to recall the names of Pietro Grgurić-Ohmučević, who
painted some pictures at Sutjeska[522] and flourished about 1482;
Vincenzo di Lorenzo, who in 1510 decorated a church and monastery at
Trebinje; Biagio Darsa, author of a pictorial globe and some studies of
perspective; and Francesco da Ragusa, one of whose works is said to be
in Rome, and another at Brescia (1600-1620). We may also mention the
handsome altar in the Franciscan sacristy, the work of a painter and
a sculptor, both unknown; it is constructed in the form of a press or
cabinet, and is adorned with some excellent gilt carving and a number
of paintings, of which the most important is a Resurrection of Christ.
Internally it is also painted, but by a later hand.
There are at Ragusa several pictures by foreign painters, but with
few exceptions they are of little merit. The most interesting is
undoubtedly the small triptych in the cathedral by a Flemish artist,
which was carried by the Ragusan ambassadors when they went to
Constantinople with the tribute to the Sultan as a portable altar. The
subject is the Adoration of the Magi. In the centre panel the Virgin
is seated with the Child on her lap: He is kneeling and extending His
right hand to the oldest of the kings, who has placed his sceptre
and gifts at the feet of the Saviour; behind Him is another king
also offering gifts, and through the arches at the back one sees a
landscape. On the left-hand wing stands the third king, a Moor, and
behind him is a group of figures and a landscape. On the right is a
bald-headed man in a rich robe, probably the donor, with a castle
in the background. This work is undoubtedly of the Flemish school,
and, according to Eitelberger,[523] is reminiscent of Memling. “The
technique,” he says, “is extraordinarily careful, and the picture, in
spite of having been damaged by wax candles, is yet so well preserved
that it needs only the hand of a good restorer for it to make a great
impression even on the uninitiated. The head of the Virgin has an
expression of lovingness and purity such as is peculiar to the Flemish
school alone.” As to how it found its way to Ragusa we know nothing.
Eitelberger conjectures that it must have come from Naples, as the
Republic was in constant intercourse with that city, which in its turn
had connections with Flanders, and the Neapolitan painters were greatly
under the influence of Flemish art. But it is quite possible that it
came direct from the Low Countries to Ragusa, where, as we have seen,
there was a colony of Flemish merchants.
Of the other foreign paintings at Ragusa the following deserve
notice: a head of Christ by Pordenone; a head of St. Catherine by
Palma Vecchio; four pictures by Padovanino of second-rate interest;
an Assumption of the Virgin attributed to Titian, but certainly not
genuine, though possibly by a pupil; a spurious Andrea del Sarto,
and an equally spurious Raphael. All these are in the Duomo. In the
Dominican church is a St. Mary Magdalen, attributed to Titian, and
probably that master’s genuine work. One or two more Titians of very
questionable authenticity may be seen at the Isola di Mezzo and at
Cannosa.
A form of art which flourished exceedingly at Ragusa was goldsmith’s
work. The goldsmiths and silversmiths of Dalmatia were famous, and many
of the church treasuries in the country are very rich and splendid.
That of the cathedral of Ragusa is one of the finest, in spite of the
earthquake and the depredations of the freebooters after that calamity.
Its two most interesting pieces, however, are not by natives of Ragusa.
One is an enamelled casket enclosing the skull of St. Blaize. The
groundwork of copper is concealed by twenty-four plaques of metal, on
which enamel and filigree are laid; each of them, save four triangular
plaques on the top, contains a medallion with the head of a saint in
the centre, the name written in Lombardic letters. The surface not
covered by the plaques is filled in with the most delicate enamels
of flowers, fruit, leaves, pearls, insects, and scroll work. This
reliquary is said by Resti to have been brought to Ragusa in 1026, but
Graham Jackson proves it to belong to two widely different periods.
The medallions are Byzantine work of the eleventh or twelfth century,
whereas the intervening scrolls of flowers, &c., are of a much later
date, and, in fact, Jackson discovered the inscription in a corner of
the lower edge: “Fran^{co}. Ferro Venet^o. F. A. 1694.”[524]
Another treasure is the curious silver-gilt basin and ewer attributed
to Giovanni Progonović, a jeweller of the fifteenth century, but more
probably foreign work, as the plate mark—an N within a circle—is not
that of Ragusa.[525] The ewer contains imitations of bunches of dried
leaves and grasses in silver, and the basin is strewn with ferns and
leaves, in the midst of which creep lizards, eels, snakes, and other
animals, all wrought in silver, and enamelled and tinted so as to
deceive one into believing them real. It is an extraordinary piece of
work, but more strange than beautiful. It is probably not older than
the early seventeenth century. There are many other specimens of the
jeweller’s art in this collection, reliquaries, chalices, cups, &c.,
mostly by natives, and some of them very handsome.
The little silver statuette of St. Blaize in the church of that saint
is interesting historically as well as artistically, because the
figure bears a model of the town before the great earthquake. The head
is excellent both in expression and workmanship, and the exquisitely
chased chasuble reminds one of the robes in Raguseo’s paintings. The
original figure is, according to Graham Jackson, as old as the church,
_i.e._ about 1360, but it has been restored at various times. The
mitre, the crook of the pastoral staff, and the dalmatic have been
renewed, while the lower part of the statuette has evidently been cut
away. The model shows us the Ragusa of the fourteenth or fifteenth
century, not very different from that of to-day, save for the Duomo
and the church of San Biagio, which have been rebuilt, and the little
church of the Three Martyrs of Cattaro in the Stradone, which has
disappeared. Many of the houses in that street have gabled fronts and
some have projecting pents to shelter the shops. The Orlando column
supports a huge standard.
At Mezzo is preserved some church plate, of which the most beautiful
piece is a large silver-gilt chalice. On the foot is a figure of St.
Blaize in relief, and on the lower part of the cup are the emblems of
the four Evangelists. The handles are formed by two graceful little
angels poised with one foot on the top and the other hanging in the
air, their hands clinging on to the edge of the cup. The hall-mark—a
bishop’s head—is that of Ragusa, and the chalice is probably Mezzo
work, the island having been famous for its goldsmiths. Many other
specimens of this art exist in the various churches of Ragusa and the
neighbourhood, and some perhaps may be found in those of other parts
of Dalmatia, and in the monasteries of Bosnia, the Herzegovina, and
Albania.
CHAPTER XIV
LITERATURE
Owing to her position between the Italian and Slavonic elements,
and her connections with Venice and with the Serb States, Ragusan
literature was of a twofold, or indeed of a threefold, nature. There
were Ragusans who wrote in Latin, others in Italian, and others in
Slavonic. But so mixed was the character of the people that in many
instances the same author composed works in all the three languages.
“Dalmatia, and especially Ragusa, which represents the highest degree
of Slavonic culture, shows at the end of the Middle Ages a peculiar
and characteristic blend of Italian and Slavonic elements, which even
to-day is a remarkable trait of this people.”[526] Venetian influence
strengthened the original Latin element of the population, and most
of the nobles had Italian names, although later these were given a
Slavonic form as well. Thus Gondola is sometimes written Gundulić,
Palmota, Palmotić, Bona Bunić, &c. The collapse of Venetian power in
Dalmatia in 1358 opened the way to Slavonic influences, for Hungary
was too alien to the Dalmatians to impress more than her political
sovereignty on them. But Latin and Italian culture was maintained by
the side of that of the Slaves, and indeed the Slavonic literature at
Ragusa was wholly inspired by that of Italy.
“Under the influence of peculiar historical conditions there arose on
the Serbo-Croatian littoral an important poetical literature, of which
Ragusa was the centre, and the pure vernacular the organ.”[527] It had,
however, no connection with the old Slavonic tradition or the Servian
popular songs, but was based almost exclusively on Italian influences,
for Ragusan culture was purely of Italian origin, and the conditions
utterly unlike those of the people of the neighbouring Slavonic States.
The literary movements and forms of Italy were all reflected at Ragusa,
and thus we find specimens of Latin ecclesiastical literature, of
the Provençal troubadours, of Renaissance culture and the revival
of learning. In the Ragusan epic Italian influence is conspicuous,
and also in the native lyric poetry, which is chiefly inspired from
Petrarch’s _Canzoni_; while the Ragusan dramas are imitated from the
mediæval mystery plays, the pastoral plays of Tasso, and Italian
popular comedies. Even the so-called “macaronic” verses were adopted at
Ragusa, _i.e._ a medley of dog-Latin and Slavonic. The outward forms
of Italian literary life were copied no less than literary styles,
and learned literary academies were established at Ragusa, where men
of culture met to discuss their favourite topics. The city came to
be known as the “Slavonic Athens.” Learned Italians were invited to
lecture at Ragusa, for the Senate maintained chairs of Italian and
Latin literature since the early fifteenth century. The study of Greek
had been to some extent kept up owing to the old Byzantine tradition,
and it was now promoted by the influx of learned Greeks who took refuge
at Ragusa after the fall of Constantinople. On the other hand, many
Ragusans went abroad, especially to Italy, for purposes of study, and
some of them achieved considerable fame in various spheres of life,
such as Stoicus or Stoiković one of the most celebrated theologians of
the fifteenth century, and Anselmo Banduri, the archæologist.
The Ragusan poets who wrote in Latin may be dismissed in a few words.
The most celebrated of them was Elio Cerva, who went to Rome in 1476
at the age of sixteen, where he studied the humanities, and joined the
Quirinal academy. He Latinised his name according to the fashion of the
time into Ælius Lampridius Cervinus, and two years later he was crowned
Poet-laureate. He soon returned to Ragusa, married, and determined to
devote his life to the public service, but on the death of his wife
he took Holy Orders, and spent most of his time at Ombla. He died in
1520. He was much appreciated by his contemporaries, especially by
Sabellicus and Palladius Fuscus. His chief compositions are an elegy on
his retreat at Ombla, another on the tomb of Cicero’s daughter, and a
number of odes, epigrams, and hymns.
Another Latin poet of some reputation was Giovanni Gozze. He was
employed by the Republic on various embassies, in the course of which
he made the acquaintance of a number of statesmen and men of letters,
among others that of the celebrated Agnolo Poliziano. To the latter
he afterwards sent some of his own works, and Poliziano’s letter of
thanks, in which he expresses admiration for the poems, is published,
together with his other epistles. Giovanni Bona, who died in 1534, was
the author of several poems of a religious character. Niccolò Bratutti
(1564-1632) of Mezzo was made Bishop of Sarsina in Italy, but was
afterwards imprisoned, during which period he began to write religious
poems. These were published in 1630 under the title of _Martyrologium
Poeticum Sanctorum Totius Italiæ_. The name of Stefano Gradi may also
be mentioned as the author of sundry works in Latin on philosophy,
epistles, poems, &c. He did much for the relief of his fellow-citizens
at the time of the earthquake, and was instrumental in obtaining help
from the Pope and other foreign potentates. He died in 1683.
Far more important is the Slavonic literature of Ragusa, Slavonic,
as I have said, only in language, but Italian in character. The
first Ragusan to write verse in the vernacular was Šiško Menčetić or
Sigismondo Menze (1457-1501), who may be called the father of Ragusan
poetry. His compositions were chiefly love lyrics of the Provençal
troubadour character, a form introduced into Ragusa through the
Republic’s connection with the Spanish court of Naples. His canzoniere
is entitled _Pjesni Ljuvesne_.[528] Of a similar character are the
poems of Gjore Držić (died 1510), and those of Hannibal Lučić or Lucio
(1480-1540), author of a play called _Robinja_, or the Slave girl, of
which the subject is an episode of the Turkish wars.[529] He also wrote
an ode in praise of Ragusa, of which the following is an extract: “My
songs cannot in any way tell of all the lands with which the famous
Ragusa trades. Over mountains and through forests, all the world over,
does she send her merchants without let or hindrance, through lands
where the sun shines from afar, where it burns moderately, and where
it blazes overmuch. All receive the wares which they peacefully bring,
and what is given in exchange they peacefully carry away. Worthy is the
city that she should everywhere be praised, that God and men should
bless her!”
Nikola Vetranić-Čavčić (1482-1576) was much admired as a poet. He
belonged to a noble Ragusan family, and was abbot of a monastery, but
later in life he retired to a hermitage on a small island off the
coast, where he continued to write poetry and keep up his intercourse
with literary friends. His _Sacrifice of Abraham_ is considered one of
the best of the Slavonic mystery plays, for it contains really artistic
presentations of character and situations, while some of the episodes
begin to resemble Servian popular poetry. In a poem called _Remeta_, or
the Hermit, he describes his island retreat, and in the _Putnik_ (the
Wanderer) Ragusan scenery. His _Italija_ is an ode to Italy, in which
he shows that the Ragusans considered themselves almost Italians, for
he hopes that her ancient glory may return to Italy, and that she
will remain independent of the heathen (the Turks), and that neither
the Eagle nor the Cock (the Empire and France) will do her any harm,
and he wishes her freedom and unity. Vetranić is also the author of a
translation of the Hecuba of Euripides. Andrija Čubranović (died about
1550), unlike the other poets mentioned, was a man of the people.
His best known poem is the _Jegjupka_, or the Gipsy.[530] It seems
to have been a carnival song, and recalls some of the Italian _Canti
Carnascialeschi_. It is said to have been publicly recited at Ragusa in
1527, and is considered remarkable for the purity of the language.
[Illustration: GIOVANNI GONDOLA
(_From the Galleria di Ragusei Illustri_)]
A form of literature much in vogue at Ragusa was the pastoral play
or idyll, based on Italian models. The Slavonic pastoral play is
of two types, that of Ragusa, which is comic, and that of Lesina,
which is more purely idyllic. The mathematician and astronomer
Nikola Nalješković (1510-1587) achieved some poetic fame as a writer
of these plays, in which the shepherd falls in love not with the
classical nymph, but with the _vila_ of South-Slavonic popular legend.
Another writer of plays was Marino Držić, praised by his Italian
contemporaries for “il puro vago e dolce canto.” His principal works
are _Tirena_,[531] _Dundo Maroje_,[532] and _Novela od Stanca_ (the
tale from Stanac). He also wrote sacred poems.
Dinko Ranjina or Domenico Ragnina (1536-1607) was the most famous
Ragusan poet of the sixteenth century. Born of one of the noblest
families in the town, he spent some years in Italy attending to his
father’s business. Subsequently he returned home and entered the
service of the Republic, and was elected Rector several times. His
poems are chiefly love lyrics; but he also wrote epistles, didactic
poems, and idylls in the classical Renaissance manner, as well as
translations from Tibullus, Propertius, and Martial.
Dinko Zlatarić (1556-1510), also a noble, studied at Padua, and at the
age of twenty-three was appointed Rector of the University gymnasium.
Thence he went to Agram, and then home to Ragusa. He translated Tasso’s
_Aminta_ under the title of _Ljubomir_, the _Electra_ of Sophocles,
and the episode of Pyramus and Thisbe from Ovid, and is the author of
a number of love idylls and didactic poems. With his name is coupled
that of Floria Zuzzeri, a Ragusan lady renowned for her beauty and her
virtue, also a poetess of distinction, whom he adored. She had been the
centre of a little circle of literary ladies at Ragusa until her father
took her to Ancona on business. There she married Bartolommeo Pescioni,
a wealthy Florentine, in 1577. She settled in Florence, where she kept
a _salon_ frequented by many famous Italian authors and dilettanti, and
also by Ragusans, such as the aforesaid Zlatarić, Ragnina, and Giovanni
Gondola. She wrote sonnets both in Italian and Slavonic, some of which
became famous throughout Italy. She died in 1600.
The most celebrated of all the Ragusan poets is Ivan Gundulić or
Giovanni Gondola (1588-1638). Very little is known of his life beyond
the fact that he studied the classics, philosophy, and law, and that he
was a great admirer of Italian literature. He desired to introduce the
harmony of Italian verse into Illyrian, and to purify that language.
He preferred the style of Tasso, which he closely imitated, to that
of Petrarch, till then the favourite model of Ragusan poets. Instead
of a line of ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen syllables, he adopted
that of eight, in rhymed strophes, which he deemed more fluid and
vigorous, capable of expressing feelings with greater power, and more
in accordance with the genius of the language. His first essay was a
translation of Tasso’s _Gerusalemme_, after which he devoted himself to
the drama, composing or translating from the Italian a number of plays,
which he and a circle of literary friends produced on the stage. The
chief of these are _Dubravka_, _Arijadna_, _Armida_, and _Galatea_.
But the work on which his fame chiefly rests, and is regarded as the
most important composition in the Servian language, is the _Osman_,
an epic in twenty cantos. The subject is the war between Turkey and
Poland, and the fall of the Sultan Osman after his defeat. The Polish
victory of Koczim in 1621 forces the Turks to make peace, and the
action of the poem begins at this moment. After the defeat of the Turks
Osman deplores the disaster and attributes it to the decadence of the
Ottomans, and proposes a number of reforms. He orders the arrest of his
uncle Mustafa, who had already usurped the throne once, sends Ali to
Warsaw to sue for peace, and Cislar to the provinces to find a number
of fair damsels, from among whom he will choose the Sultana, and orders
that the Polish prisoner, Prince Koreski, immured in the Castle of the
Seven Towers, shall be carefully watched. Ali goes through Moldavia,
where he finds Kronoslava, Koreski’s wife, attired as a warrior, and
tells her of the imprisonment of her husband. She resolves to go to
Constantinople in disguise to obtain his ransom. The Poles celebrate
the anniversary of the victory of Koczim, when Prince Ladislas of
Poland has an encounter with Sokolica, the daughter of the Grand Mogul,
and her amazons; he captures them, but out of admiration for their
courage sets them free, and they return to Constantinople. Ali reaches
Warsaw and enters the Royal Palace, where he notes the splendour of
the court and sees the tapestries representing the battle of Koczim,
here described in detail. He concludes the treaty of peace and returns
home. Cislar has collected a number of maidens from Greece, Macedonia,
and the Archipelago, and goes to the borders of Moldavia to capture
Danica, the daughter of Prince Ljubidrag, who, having lost his estates,
is living in a rural retreat. While he and his friends are performing
rustic games, Cislar and his companions arrive and carry off Danica.
Satan, enraged at the victories of the Christians, summons his demons,
and flies with them to Constantinople to raise trouble. There, too,
Kronoslava has arrived in search of her husband; she is told that he is
in love with the daughter of the governor of the prison, and although
not quite convinced, she begins to feel jealous. By bribery she manages
to see Prince Koreski, is convinced of his fidelity, and falls into his
arms. The Sultan soon afterwards sets him free, and he returns home
with his wife. Cislar appears with his fair captives, but Osman, seeing
Danica’s despair and hearing her story, sends her back to her father.
Sokolica, too, comes to Constantinople, and Osman chooses her as first
Sultana, and marries two Greek maidens as well. He then prepares for an
expedition to Asia against the rebels, but the Janissaries revolt, and
demand the heads of Dilaver Pasha the Grand Vizir, of the Hodja, and of
the chief eunuch. The rebellion spreads, the Grand Vizir is murdered,
and Osman’s uncle Mustafa freed and proclaimed Sultan. While Osman is
deploring his misfortunes and recalling the glories of his ancestors,
he, too, is assassinated by Mustafa’s orders.
This poem, although not of first-rate quality, has some originality,
and is interesting from its subject. It is only at Ragusa that a
Christian writer would have made a Turkish Sultan his hero, and it
is only here and there that a few passages are introduced reflecting
unfavourably on the Turks. A great deal of it is simply an adaptation
of Tasso, and whole passages are translated from that work. It is full
of repetitions and exaggerations and useless accessories, but it also
contains many passages of real beauty and feeling, such as the address
to Ragusa: “O mayest thou ever live peaceful and free as thou art now,
O white city of Ragusa, famous throughout the world, pleasing to the
heavens.... Bondmen are thy neighbours, oppressive violence grinds
them all down, thy power alone sits on the throne of freedom” (Canto
viii.). Gondola also apostrophises Stephen Dušan, the Nemanjas, Marko
Kraljević, and other Servian heroes. Cantos xiv. and xv. were lost,
and have been rewritten by Petar Sorkočević, Marino Zlatarić, and Ivan
Mažuranić. The interest is divided between the two heroes, Osman and
Ladislas, and a great deal of the work is lyrical rather than epic in
character.[533]
Of the prose writers of this time, the one most deserving of notice
is Mauro Orbini, who died in 1601. His chief work, which is written
in Italian, is entitled _Storia del Regno degli Slavi_. It is of no
great historic value, but it is important as being the first attempt
to deal with the history of all the Slaves as a comprehensive whole.
Other historians are Niccolò Ragnina, author of the _Annali di Ragusa_,
Giacomo Luccari, whose _Copioso Ristretto degli Annali di Ragusa_
contains much interesting information about the constitution of the
Republic, and Giunio Resti, author of the very detailed _Cronaca
Ragusina_, in thirteen books, a most unreliable work. None of these
writers have shown any conspicuous qualities as historians of their
native city, being inspired by a strong political bias, and are only to
be consulted with caution.
Ragusa gave birth to several men of science, of whom two deserve to
be remembered—Marino Ghetaldi and Ruggiero Bosković.[534] Ghetaldi
was born in 1566, and studied in Rome and Paris. After travelling
about Europe he obtained the professorship of mathematics at Louvain.
He subsequently returned to Ragusa, and served in the Government
offices. In summer he would retire to his villa by the sea to meditate
and make experiments in a cave on his estates. He was regarded by
the people as a magician, and his experiments in setting fire to
boats out at sea by means of mirrors and burning-glasses were
considered quite diabolical. He wrote _Promotus Archimedes, seu de
variis corporum generibus gravitate et magnitudine comparatis_ (Rome,
1603), and many other mathematical works. He is said to have applied
geometry to algebra before Des Cartes, and to have been the first to
discover equations of the fourth degree. He died in 1627. Bosković
was born in 1711, and became a Jesuit at an early age. He obtained
the professorship of mathematics in Rome, and measured the meridian
between Rome and Rimini with the Englishman Maire. He made a map of
the Papal States, and wrote a work on the molecular theory of matter,
_Theoria Philosophiæ Naturalis redacta ad unicam Legem Virium in Natura
existentium_. In 1759 he was sent to England on a diplomatic mission,
where he made the acquaintance of Dr. Johnson, and was elected Fellow
of the Royal Society, to whom he dedicated his Latin poem _De Solis
et Lunæ Defectus_. He afterwards travelled in Turkey for scientific
purposes, and was then appointed Professor of Mathematics at Pavia
(1764) and Director of the Brera Observatory. His vanity and egoism
made him many enemies, and in 1770 he left Italy for Paris, where he
was made Director of Optics to the Ministry of Marine, an office which
he held for ten years. In 1783 he returned to Italy and published all
his works. His health was failing, his reputation on the wane, and he
soon fell into melancholy and madness, and died in 1787. Besides other
works, he wrote the _Elementa Universæ Mathesos_, published in 1754.
CHAPTER XV
THE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC
Ragusa now enters into the vortex of the Napoleonic wars, in which she,
like her great rival Venice and many another still more powerful State,
was to disappear. The story of her end is but an incident in that
wonderful drama, but it affords some curious side-lights on the history
of Europe at that period, and exhibits for the last time the peculiar
character of the Ragusan Government and people.
In 1797 the French armies occupied Venice, put an end to the Republic,
and annexed its possessions, while a French fleet seized the Ionian
Islands. In the meanwhile Austrian troops were advancing into Dalmatia,
which, as part of Venetian territory, in theory belonged to France,
and ships of war of all nations began to appear in the Adriatic.
The aristocratic Government of Venice was for a time succeeded by a
democratic one modelled on French lines, and the new _régime_ was
to have been applied to Dalmatia as well. But by the preliminaries
of Leoben that province and Istria were given over to Austria. The
Dalmatians did not want a democratic constitution, and for some time
Austrian agents had been preparing them for an Austrian occupation.
They succeeded in inducing the people to acclaim the Emperor Francis
II. as their King, and in July 1797 General Rukavina landed at Zara
with an army; in a few weeks he had occupied the whole of Dalmatia
and part of Albania. But trouble arose at Cattaro among the turbulent
Bocchesi; some of them favoured the Austrian _régime_ as the heir to
that of Venice, others, chiefly Orthodox Christians, desired a union
then, as now, with the Vladika of Montenegro, while a third party was
imbued with French ideas and clamoured for a democratic constitution.
The Vladika himself was hostile to Austria, and encouraged a rising in
Albania. But General Rukavina conciliated the Cattarini and entered the
town without opposition. By the Peace of Campoformio, Istria, Dalmatia,
and Cattaro, as well as Venice and her mainland possessions, were ceded
to Austria (October 18, 1797).[535]
The fall of Venice was on the whole satisfactory to the Ragusans, but
the close proximity of the Austrians, who were useful protectors so
long as they remained at a safe distance, was regarded as a danger.
They sent protestations of fealty to Vienna and to the local Austrian
authorities; their fears were not groundless, for Rukavina did actually
intend to violate their neutrality, as appears from a despatch from
the Austrian Minister Count Thugut to Count Thurn, who had been
appointed Governor of Dalmatia. Thugut disapproved of this project, as
he feared that it might cause trouble with the Turks as protectors of
the Republic. But he complained to d’Ajala, the Ragusan Minister, that
Ragusa was a hotbed of revolutionary ideas.[536] The Emperor, however,
expressed his intention of protecting the Republic in every way.
At the end of October a French squadron under Brueys appeared at
Gravosa, and the Admiral offered the Republic the “good offices”
of France, which were politely declined on the ground that Ragusa
was under Turkish suzerainty. In August 1798 the French military
authorities demanded the loan of some ships for the expedition to
Egypt, and the request was granted. This caused General Brady, in
command of the Austrians at Cattaro, to reprimand the Senate severely
for its breach of neutrality, and he had to be appeased by a loan of
12,000 florins for his war chest. A short time afterwards a French
agent named Briche came to Ragusa to raise a loan of 1,000,000 francs
for France, and by means of threats induced the Senate to pay 400,000
down and issue two bills for 100,000 each. Austrian spies discovered
this transaction, and informed their Government that the young men of
Ragusa were imbued with French ideas. But the Senate cleverly protested
against this forced contribution both in Vienna and in Constantinople,
and suggested that the most adequate protection against similar
extortions would be the presence of a few British frigates in the
Adriatic. Caracciolo, their agent at Naples, opened negotiations with
the British Minister for the purpose. At the same time their agent in
Paris tried to obtain the remission of the bills, but without success,
and the 200,000 francs had to be paid to Dubois, the French Commissary
in the Adriatic. Another misfortune befell the Republic, which had a
large sum of money invested in the Bank of Vienna. As the Emperor was
again going to war the Bank made a call on the shareholders of 30 per
cent. of their capital. Ragusa tried to shirk this payment, but in
vain, and somehow the sum was procured. To meet these liabilities new
taxes had to be raised, which fell chiefly on the peasants, hitherto
almost exempt; the price of salt was increased, and every one was
forced to buy a large amount of that commodity. This caused serious
discontent, especially among the peasants of Canali, who had never
been too loyal to the Republic; they now refused to pay the taxes,
and rose in revolt. Eight Senators, who owned land in that district,
went to try to induce them to hear reason, and this mission having
failed, the Pasha of Trebinje was asked to place a corps of observation
along the frontier to prevent the rebels from crossing over into
Turkish territory, while General Brady was asked to send an Austrian
detachment to help to quell the revolt, expressly requesting that
they should be Germans, and not ex-Venetian soldiers. Brady, however,
had too few troops to dispose of, and no authority to enter Ragusan
territory. At the same time a deputation of Canalesi called on him
and explained their grievances and the persecutions inflicted by the
Ragusans, which they attributed to the fact “that they (the Canalesi)
had refused to follow the nobles in their Jacobin ideas.” This was
enough for Brady, to whom the very name of Jacobin was anathema; he at
once took the Canalesi under his protection, and wrote to the Senate
demanding that their grievances should be redressed. The Canalesi
also sent a memorandum to the Emperor of Austria, complaining of the
increase of the taxes since 1750, of the kidnapping of boys to serve
on board Ragusan ships, and of girls to be used by the nobles for
illicit purposes, and imploring him to free them from Ragusa’s yoke
and take them under his protection. At the same time the Republic sent
two envoys to Vienna to explain the situation from the Ragusan point
of view, and to represent Brady as an accomplice of the Turks and the
schismatics and a protector of rebels; and also an envoy to the Divan,
to say that Austria was meditating an invasion of the Herzegovina.[537]
The Emperor ordered Brady to pacify the insurgents, but without using
force. When the Austrian Foreign Office heard of the mission to
Constantinople it was much incensed, but d’Ajala managed to hush the
matter up. The Senate then redressed the grievances of the Canalesi,
and succeeded in restoring order. But the leaders of the movement were
subsequently punished on various pretexts, and this led to further
trouble in future. The deficit was met by the suppression of the rich
monastery of Lacroma, and the seizure of its property.
These immediate troubles and dangers having been warded off, there
follows a period of five years (1800-1805) which is perhaps the most
prosperous in the whole history of the Republic. All the other States
of the Mediterranean, large or small, were involved in war; Ragusa
alone remained neutral, and therefore enjoyed almost a monopoly of the
carrying trade. Her ships were more numerous than they had ever been
before, and her income enormous. English privateers harried French
commerce, and French ones that of England; Venice was no longer of
any mercantile importance; the Turks plundered all Christian ships
except those of Ragusa. The Senate, with its traditional diplomacy,
kept on good terms with everybody, especially with the Turks. A few
frontier incidents with Austria occurred, but they were settled
amicably. In 1804 Timoni was appointed Austrian consul at Ragusa. His
instructions were to protect Austrian commercial interests, and to
assure the Senate that the Emperor intended to protect the Republic
and guarantee the integrity of its territory. When war broke out
between France and Austria in 1805 Ragusa refused to commit herself,
but Timoni informed his Government that the sympathies of the citizens
were with the French, and when the “bad news” (of Austerlitz) arrived
they did not conceal their satisfaction. Even in the Senate more than
half the members were Francophil. “It appears,” wrote Timoni, “that
this Government, of which the apathy, indolence, and venality are at
their height, will undergo the fate for which it is destined.... I
am convinced that if peace be not concluded, the French will try to
get possession of this Republic, and form a body of troops here with
whom to attack Cattaro. The only means by which this could be avoided,
and which I venture to submit to the superior intelligence of your
Excellency, is that in case hostilities should recommence you should
place a garrison in the town until peace is declared, without, however,
interfering in the affairs of the Government.”[538]
Bruère was at this time French consul at Ragusa. He was a cultivated,
brilliant man, and had charming manners. He was also a _littérateur_,
and composed sonnets and epigrams in French, Italian, and even in
Slavonic. He thus soon acquired considerable influence over the young
men of the town, and aroused French sympathies among them, for which,
indeed, the reading of French books had prepared the way. But these
sentiments did not prevent the Senate from politely refusing to make
a further loan of ammunition and provisions to France, which Murat
demanded in 1801, for they remembered what bad paymasters the French
were. On the contrary, they tried once more to get their previous loan
of 600,000 francs refunded. While the negotiations were going on the
Senate wrote most respectfully to the First Consul, and when he was
proclaimed Emperor they congratulated him enthusiastically in the best
Ragusan style, and he replied with a letter in which he called them his
“dear and good friends.”
The Russians had long desired to establish a footing in the
Mediterranean, so as to attack Constantinople from both sides, and
after various fruitless attempts they determined to seize Ragusa.
In 1802 they appointed Charles Fonton their consul in the town.
During the siege of Malta the French had received some provisions
from Ragusan ships, and the Tsar Paul, deeming this a good excuse
for aggressive action, instructed Fonton to assume the most brutal
manner towards the authorities. He neglected no opportunity of making
a quarrel. First, he demanded that a house should be provided for him
at the Republic’s expense, and when this was complied with, he said
it was not good enough. This ridiculous dispute lasted two years,
and in his correspondence with the Government he was as insolent and
arrogant as only a Russian consul knows how to be. He also insisted
on the execution of the clause of the treaty of 1775, that Orthodox
services should be held at Ragusa, and, although a Catholic himself,
he converted an abandoned chapel into an Orthodox church, where a
Montenegrin pope conducted the services. The Senate made remonstrances
to Vienna, Constantinople, and St. Petersburg about Fonton’s outrageous
behaviour, and tried to obtain his removal. But when these manœuvres
were discovered, and the anger of Russia was feared, the Senate very
ungratefully made d’Ajala their scapegoat, disowned him, and forced
him to resign after thirty years of faithful service to the Republic.
[Illustration: TORRE MENZE AND THE WALLS]
The Russians, naturally, were anything but popular at Ragusa, and this
strengthened the French sentiments of the people. César Berthier, the
nephew of the Marshal, flaunted about in the public places and private
houses surrounded by the young men of the best families, discoursing
loudly of the glories of Napoleon, to the extreme disgust of Fonton.
By the Peace of Pressburg France regained Venetia, and consequently
Istria and Dalmatia. To this last possession Napoleon attached
great importance, as it formed an excellent base for operations in
the Balkans and in the East. In February 1806 the French troops
under General Molitor occupied the country as far as Makarska, and
preparations were made for an attack on Cattaro, where resistance was
expected on the part of the Montenegrins and Albanians, supported by
the Russians.
During the war of 1805 Russia had sent a fleet of forty-two ships and
transports, under Admiral Siniavin, into the Adriatic. After the battle
of Austerlitz it concentrated at Corfu, and the Admiral was invited by
the Montenegrins to occupy Cattaro. This he did, obliging the Austrian
garrison to retire. Ghislieri, the Austrian Commissary, who had
arranged the evacuation, was accused of cowardice, for although Austria
had given up Dalmatia to France, he had not yet received orders to quit
his post. The French were furious, and declared Austria responsible
for the Russian occupation of Cattaro, which they would now have to
attack in force. These events disturbed the Ragusans, who feared lest
the passage of French troops through their territory should end in a
permanent occupation. The Senate sent conciliatory letters to Napoleon,
congratulating “the most glorious of Emperors” on his victories, and
to Talleyrand, “the most virtuous of Ministers.” They offered to
transport the French army by sea from Stagno to Ragusavecchia or Porto
Rose, thus avoiding the passage through the town of Ragusa, and voted
30,000 piastres for the purpose. Unfortunately, Sankovski, the Russian
Commissary, heard of the offer, and threatened that if these were the
Republic’s intentions he would order the occupation of Ragusavecchia,
adding that the garrison would be a Montenegrin one, well knowing how
the Ragusans hated and feared those lawless mountaineers. Another
Russian agent came to Ragusa on board a frigate, insisted that all
arrangements with the French should be cancelled, and ordered the
Senate to inform the Russians as to the movements of the French troops.
The Senate instructed Bassegli and Zlatarić, their agents in the French
camp, to do everything to hinder Molitor’s advance, by describing the
strength of the Russians and the risks of the march. This they did, and
Molitor was so impressed by their statements that he gave up the plan
for the moment. His demand for a further loan of 300,000 francs was
refused on the plea that the treasury was empty, although as a matter
of fact it was not. Siniavin now proposed to attack Ragusa and occupy
it, but the Senate’s protestations of loyalty to the Tsar, and possibly
its bribes, induced him to desist from a move which would have secured
him from all fear of a French attack.[539]
But now the French General Lauriston came on the scene, and prepared
to advance; he concentrated a force at Makarska, and then moved on to
Slano in Ragusan territory. The Senators were at their wits’ end; the
old diplomacy had broken down in the clash of the Napoleonic wars; they
could no longer temporise, and were under the necessity of calling
in either the French or the Russians. The latter seemed the more
dangerous, especially on account of their allies, the Montenegrins.
Moreover, the French consul had made many friends, while his Russian
colleague was deservedly hated. Count Caboga’s proposal that the
population should emigrate _en masse_ to Corfu or Turkish territory
was rejected, and the majority decided in favour of the French. On
the evening of May 27 Lauriston, with 800 men, reached Ragusa after
a forced march of twenty hours. He found the gates closed and the
drawbridge up; two Senators met him and requested him not to enter
the town, but this was a mere formality. He repaired to the Palace,
where the Minor Council was assembled, and declared that his orders
were to occupy the fortified points of the State of Ragusa, but to
respect the liberty of the Republic and the persons and property of the
inhabitants. He offered them the protection of Napoleon, and said that
as the Austrian Emperor had closed all his ports to the Anglo-Russian
fleets, it was important that Ragusa should not remain the only harbour
in the Adriatic open to the enemies of France. Meanwhile Colonel Teste
with the troops had entered the town and seized the forts: Ragusa was
thus occupied for the first time in her history by uninvited foreign
troops. Great consternation ensued, and the Russians at once seized
all the Ragusan ships in the harbour of Gravosa. On May 29 Lauriston
issued the following proclamation:—
“Repeated concessions to the enemies of France had placed the Republic
of Ragusa in a state of hostility, all the more dangerous inasmuch as
it was disguised under the appearance of neutrality and friendship. The
entry of the French troops into Dalmatia, far from putting an end to
such conduct, has only given occasion to our enemies to exercise their
influence on the State of Ragusa still further, and whatever may have
been the motives of the condescension shown by the magistrates of this
State, the Emperor could not fail to be aware of them; he desired to
put an end to intrigues so contrary to the laws of neutrality.
“Consequently, in the name and by the authority of His Majesty the
Emperor and King of Italy, I take possession of the town and territory
of Ragusa.
“I declare, however, that it is the intention of His Imperial and Royal
Majesty to recognise the independence and neutrality of this State as
soon as the Russians evacuate Albania, Corfu, and the other former
Venetian possessions, and the Russian fleet ceases to disturb the
coasts of Dalmatia.
“I promise succour and protection to all Ragusans; I shall see that
the existing laws and customs and the rights of property be respected;
in a word, I shall so act that, according to the behaviour of the
inhabitants, they will be satisfied with the residence of the French
troops in the country.
“The existing Government is maintained; it will fulfil the same
functions and have the same attributions as before; its relations with
States friendly to France or neutral will remain on the same footing.
“M. Bruère, commissioner of commercial relations (consul), will act as
Imperial Commissary to the Senate.
“ALEX. LAURISTON.
“RAGUSA, _May 28, 1806_.”
This _coup de main_ was most successful, but Lauriston did not execute
the rest of his programme by attacking Cattaro, for he was himself
besieged in Ragusa instead.
His forces amounted, as I have said, to about 800 men, but he sent to
Molitor at Zara for reinforcements and supplies, which arrived from
Spalato soon after; the garrison was thus raised to 2000. Ragusa was
put in a state of defence, the guns in the arsenal were mounted, a
cargo of powder for the Turks seized, and the Ragusavecchia-Obod line
held by 200 Frenchmen. A few days later the Montenegrins and Orthodox
Bocchesi, instigated by the Russians, advanced into Canali, which
they proceeded to pillage, while 500 more landed from Russian ships
near Ragusavecchia. The French drove them back, but fearing to be cut
off if the Russians landed at Breno, they withdrew to that point,
and then to Bergato, where they were joined by reinforcements under
General Delgorgue. The Russian squadron sailed up and landed a force
at Breno, which encouraged the Montenegrins to attack Delgorgue. He
was hard pressed by the enemy, who availed themselves of every inch of
cover. On June 17 he attempted a bayonet charge, which failed, and he
himself was killed in the _mêlée_; the retreat became a rout, Bergato
was abandoned, and the Russians seized Monte Sergio and Gravosa.
Ragusa was filled with refugees flying before the Montenegrins, and
from that day was closely invested. A Russian attack on Lacroma was
repulsed, but on the 19th the bombardment commenced. The battery
on Monte Sergio discharged 3374 shells in seventeen days, but only
twenty-three people were killed. All the houses round the town were
razed to the ground; the villas of the rich nobles were plundered, the
more valuable contents being seized by the Russian officers, and the
rest left to the Montenegrins, Bocchesi, Canalesi, Bosnians, and even
Turks, who had swarmed down in the hope of loot. The inhabitants who
did not get away in time were murdered and even tortured. On June 22
there was a suspension of hostilities, and the nobles tried to induce
Lauriston to surrender, which he refused to do. On the 28th Admiral
Siniavin summoned him to capitulate without success; the bombardment
recommenced, but without much vigour, and the siege became a blockade.
Suddenly on July 6 a body of French troops appeared before the Porta
Ploce, and soon after Molitor himself arrived, drove off the Russians,
and entered the town. When the news of the defeat at Bergato reached
Zara he had quickly collected 2000 men and advanced on Ragusa. He sent
a message to Lauriston which was designed to fall into the hands of the
Russians, announcing his arrival at the head of 10,000 men; he also
made a small body of troops march several times past a spot near Ombla
whence they could be seen by the enemy. The Russians, thus deceived
as to the strength of the French, abandoned Monte Sergio, and together
with the Montenegrins fled to the coast and embarked on board ship.
The French were received at Ragusa with much show of enthusiasm, for
although a large part of the population had no sympathy with them, they
rejoiced that the siege was at an end, and the fear of a sack of the
town by the Montenegrins removed.
Molitor returned to Zara, Lauriston remaining behind to organise the
French protectorate at Ragusa. He discovered that the Senate had sent
an agent to Constantinople with a report bitterly reviling the French,
another to Vienna and St. Petersburg asking for intervention in favour
of Ragusa, and a third to Paris with a humble letter to Napoleon, and
instructions to ask the Turkish ambassador to protest against the
occupation of a State tributary to the Porte. He also learned that the
Republic had deposited 700,000 florins in Schuller’s bank at Vienna,
of which a part had been withdrawn in March and June. The French
Commissary thereupon declared that henceforth all affairs dealt with by
the Senate and the Minor Council should be first communicated to him,
and that no payments were to be made without his authority.
Although Lauriston in his proclamation of May 29, 1806, had promised
that Ragusa would be evacuated when peace was declared, the French
had no intention of doing so, and on July 21 Napoleon wrote to Eugène
Beauharnais: “You will make General Lauriston observe that if I have
said in the treaty (the peace of Oubril, which the Tsar afterwards
refused to ratify) that I recognise the independence of Ragusa, that
does not mean that I shall evacuate it; on the contrary, when the
Montenegrins have gone home, I intend to organise the country, and
then abandon it if necessary, retaining only Stagno.” The Ragusans did
not know of this, and believed that they would soon be free, but their
hopes were dashed to the ground when, on August 24, war broke out again.
The French paid the indemnities for the siege very liberally—13,000,000
francs—as the money was to be provided for by Austria, whom they
held responsible for all the consequences of the Russian occupation
of Cattaro. On the strength of this generosity the Senate tried once
more through Count Sorgo, a Ragusan resident in Paris, to get the
other loan of 600,000 francs refunded, but without success. At last,
on July 8, 1807, the Peace of Tilsit was signed, by which Russia gave
up Cattaro to the French. Berthier, in a letter to General Marmont,
who was now in command in Dalmatia, wrote: “Ragusa must certainly be
united to Dalmatia; you must therefore continue to fortify it.” On
August 13 Marmont stopped at Ragusa on his way to Cattaro, and received
the Senators very affably; but in the course of conversation he said
to one of them: “Vous allez être des nôtres.” On being asked for an
explanation of these ominous words, he added “that in the present
circumstances they could not remain free: the delegates having said
that without merchant shipping the State could not exist, Marmont
replied that by belonging to the great Emperor His Majesty would find
means of compensating them. The next day the General told the delegates
who had called on him that he was instructed to inform them of their
future destiny, and that pending the arrival of those to whom the
organisation of the new Government was entrusted, that of Ragusa might
continue in its functions.”[540]
The declaration seemed the death-knell of Ragusan independence, and
Timoni describes the condition of the State in consequence of the
French occupation: “Agriculture ruined, the merchant navy reduced to
inaction, public finances dilapidated, private citizens crushed down by
requisitions, the monasteries converted into barracks, the invasion of
the Jews as army contractors, the establishment of a masonic lodge and
a club, and on the top of all this the blindness of the people and the
bourgeoisie who receive the French with open arms.” As Timoni observes,
the French party was still strong among the middle and lower classes,
who were tired of the oligarchic rule of the nobles.
As soon as Marmont had departed a secret meeting of the Senate was
held, and it was decided to send a disguised messenger to Vienna with
a petition to the Emperor of Austria. As usual insufficient secrecy
was observed, and Marmont heard of their action, but did nothing for
the moment. On November 4 a demand was made for 300 sailors for the
Franco-Venetian fleet, to which the Senate replied that in Ragusa
there was always an insufficiency of seamen, that a third of the crews
were foreigners, and that many of their ships had been captured by the
Russians or were abroad. Instructions were sent to Kiriko, the Ragusan
consul at Constantinople, to try to obtain Turkish intervention. But
the French ambassador, General Sebastiani, had so much influence with
the Porte that Kiriko had been obliged to remove the Ragusan arms from
his house, and to request the Ragusan ship-captains to substitute
the tricolor for the banner of St. Blaize. For this the Republic
dismissed him from his office, and sent Antonio Natali to inform the
Sultan of the dangers which menaced “the oldest and most faithful
tributary of the Porte.” On December 21 Lauriston informed the Minor
Council that Ragusan ships must take out Italian patents within three
days on pain of being seized on leaving the port. The Senate replied
that it could not take such a step without consulting the Ottoman
Government. Two days later Lauriston left Ragusa, and on the 26th
Colonel Godart put up a notice declaring that any captain who did not
hoist the Italian colours at once would be imprisoned. On January
2, 1808, General Clauzel took command of Ragusa, and on the 6th the
tricolor was hoisted on the flagstaff in the Piazza. The Senate tried
to send Count Caboga to the Emperor of Austria, but Clauzel prevented
his departure. Urgent messages were despatched to Constantinople, and
overtures were even made to Timoni. “Consul,” they said significantly,
“Ragusans or Austrians.” The Pasha of Bosnia was also approached, but
he was friendly to the French, and informed them of all the Ragusans’
communications. On the 30th Marmont returned to Ragusa, and summoned
the Senate, saying that he had a declaration to make. “The Council,”
writes Timoni, “gathered together in less than an hour, and Colonel
Delort repaired to the Palace, followed by the Consul Bruère, the war
commissary, the commander of the garrison, the interpreter Vernazza,
and two other officers. The Colonel sat down beside the Rector, and
read out to the Senate a document in which the Government of Ragusa
was accused of disloyalty, of having set the Pasha of Bosnia against
the French, of having tried to raise an agitation among the people;
the intimation made by Marmont the preceding August not having had any
effect, it was now necessary to take further measures. He then drew
another paper from his pocket, and read as follows:—
“‘The General Commander-in-Chief in Dalmatia orders: The Republic of
Ragusa has ceased to exist; the Government and the Senate, as well
as the law-courts, are dissolved. M. Bruère is appointed provisional
administrator of the State of Ragusa.’
“The Senators were silent for a while; then Count Biagio Bernardo
Caboga arose, and informed the Colonel that neither the moment nor the
circumstances permitted him to enter into a long justification; that,
as far as concerned himself, his conscience was pure and clear, and
that he could answer for the loyalty of his colleagues. The Senate was
ready to submit to the Divine Will as manifested through the organ of
His Majesty Napoleon the Great.”
Meanwhile troops seized the Palace, the Segreteria, and the custom
house, on which seals were affixed. That night the burghers of
Ragusa gave a ball to celebrate the end of the oligarchy! But though
resistance might now seem indeed hopeless, the Senate continued to
intrigue for a little while longer. Napoleon then ordered Marmont to
arrest ten of the chief agitators and send them to Venice as hostages,
and to threaten to shoot all who were found to be in correspondence
with foreign Governments. The nobles ceased to agitate openly, but they
did not yet renounce all hope of regaining their independence.
In March, 1808, Marmont was created Duke of Ragusa, a title of which,
according to Pisani, he was not very proud, for in his memoirs he
mentions it as having been conferred on him in 1807, perhaps because he
did not like to be reminded of the fact that it was a reward for his
services in the suppression of a free Republic.
Napoleon had appointed the Venetian Dandolo Provveditore of Dalmatia,
while General Marmont retained the supreme military command. But Ragusa
and Cattaro were given a separate administration under G. D. Garagnin,
who was independent of Dandolo, and responsible only to Marmont. The
territory of the Republic was divided into three districts: Ragusa,
Stagno, and the Islands. Ragusa was given a council of eighteen members
(six nobles, six burghers, and six plebeians), with Count Sorgo as
mayor, and four _adjoints_. The State’s finances proved to be still in
good condition in spite of all the troubles and the requisitions, and
large sums were invested in foreign banks.
After the departure of the Russian fleet the British squadron appeared
in the Adriatic and began to prey upon French and Dalmatian shipping.
During the next three years fighting continued in Croatia between the
Austrians and the French, and trouble was threatened in the Bocche
by the native Orthodox Christians supported by the Montenegrins. The
French General Pacthod visited Cattaro, made some arrests, shot three
of the agitators, and calmed the rest of the population. But the
British fleet ceaselessly cruised up and down, and prevented the French
from maintaining secure communications between Italy and Dalmatia.
The British crews had one great advantage over the French—they were
all Englishmen, and veterans; whereas the French ships were manned
by scratch crews, consisting of Italians and Slaves, as well as of
Frenchmen. In 1810 Lissa was made the port of call for British ships,
but not fortified. In October a Franco-Italian squadron under Captain
Dubordieu, in the absence of British men-of-war, seized the island and
captured a few merchantmen; but he abandoned it again on the return
of the fleet, and the British now decided to occupy it permanently.
Dubordieu received orders to try to recapture it, and on March 11,
1811, he set sail from Ancona with nine warships, 271 guns, and 2655
men. On the 13th he encountered a British squadron under Captain
Hoste, consisting of four ships with 188 guns and 985 men. In spite of
this great disparity of forces Hoste gave battle, and was completely
victorious; most of the enemies’ ships were sunk or captured. The
British were equally successful in subsequent engagements, and Lissa
was strongly fortified and formally taken possession of in 1812. The
island prospered enormously under British rule, and the population
rose from 4000 to 11,000. In January Sir Duncan Robertson, commanding
at Lissa, occupied Curzola, which was given a government like that of
Lissa under Lowen, and became equally prosperous. The Ragusan island of
Lagosta was occupied at the same time.
In the following May the British determined to occupy the other
Ragusan islands. On February 18 an attack was made on Mezzo, but
repulsed. The island was then blockaded; part of the garrison deserted,
and the rest under Lieutenant Tock retired to the Forte della Montagna.
A British force landed, seized the Forte Santa Maria, and placed a
battery on a hill commanding Tock’s position. Unable to hold out any
longer, he surrendered to Blake with the honours of war. Giuppana was
also captured, and then Calamotta, and the Ragusan Count Natali was
appointed Governor of the Archipelago under British protection. An
attack on Ragusavecchia was repulsed by a Croatian battalion on October
11; but two days later that same battalion deserted from the French
to the English side, and Count Biagio Bernardo Caboga was appointed
Governor of the town. The same day another Croatian detachment
abandoned the island of Daksa at the entrance of the harbour of
Gravosa, and a British force occupied Stagno. Thus Ragusa was blockaded
from the sea on all sides. On November 11, 1813, Hoste attacked the
island of Lesina, and captured it without difficulty.
In this same year an Austrian army invaded Dalmatia and co-operated
with the British fleet; the population being tired of French exaction
rose in arms in favour of the Austrians. The French, attacked on all
sides, were forced to abandon many towns and fortresses. For a time
the British under Cadogan, the Austrians under General Tomasić, and
the Dalmatian insurgents under Danese all worked together for the
expulsion of the invaders. But in the operations round Ragusa and
Cattaro a certain amount of friction arose between the British and the
Austrians. The French forces too, however, were not homogeneous, and
the number of desertions from the Italian and Croatian regiments, whose
hearts were not in the fight, was very large. The Allies were assisted
by an anti-French movement in Ragusa itself; but while the nobles and
the peasantry desired the restoration of the Republic, the bourgeoisie
still evinced French tendencies. The other Dalmatians wished to be
under Austrian dominion.
The British fleet, as I have said, had occupied the Ragusan islands,
where a provisional Government was set up under Ragusan nobles, and
the old Ragusan laws were revived. With the capture of Stagno the
whole country west of the Ombla rose in favour of the Anglo-Austrians,
and Captain Lowen issued a proclamation to the Ragusans from Mezzo,
declaring that “the English and Austrian forces were advancing towards
this country to give it back its liberty.... Remember that you bear a
glorious name, and fight as the Spaniards and the Russians have fought
to restore your independence.” The Austrian proclamation issued by
General Hiller contained no mention of the word independence.
[Illustration: TERRACE OF THE VILLA BRAVAČIĆ, NEAR RAGUSA]
In the meanwhile the Ragusans Count Caboga and Marchese Bona raised
a force of 3000 Canalesi; as this was not sufficient to recapture
Ragusa, it became necessary to apply for British assistance. But no
one wished to be the first to ask for it, as it was feared that if
the British did seize Ragusa they might end by retaining it; while if
they failed, the French would show no mercy on the rebels. At last it
was agreed to send a popular deputation of twenty-five peasants to
Captain Hoste, who was in command of the squadron at Cattaro, asking
for help from the Allies to re-establish the Republic. According to
Bona, Hoste and Lowen gave them a safe-conduct, declaring that the
Canalesi, under the protection of the Allies, were to act for the
common cause, and promised to send an English force to Canali. The
Canalesi rose in revolt, and drove the French gendarmes and patrols
out of the country. As no English force arrived, a second deputation
went to Hoste, who sent Lowen to Ragusavecchia, but no men to Canali.
Caboga then proclaimed the general revolution, but was forced to fly
from the French police. On October 28 a small British detachment under
Lieutenant Macdonald landed at Ragusavecchia, raised the British flag,
and declared that the ancient laws of Ragusa were revived in the place
of the French ones, and Count Caboga was made commandant of the town
_pro tempore_. The raising of the British flag and the appointment
of Caboga displeased the Ragusan nobles, who regarded these acts as
infringements of their own rights. They met in council, and proposed
to send an agent to Constantinople to notify the restoration of the
Republic to the Sultan and place it once more under his suzerainty.
Caboga spoke against the proposal as constituting a slight to the
English, whereupon he was at once accused of having sold himself
to them. Lowen was then asked for permission to raise the Ragusan
standard, but he said that he had no authority, and that application
must be made to Admiral Fremantle, who held the chief command in the
Adriatic. But when Hoste arrived at Ragusavecchia on November 15,
he at once had the standard of St. Blaize hoisted, saluted it with
twenty-one guns from his frigate, and proclaimed the independence of
the Republic.
Caboga then determined to begin the attack on Ragusa with his
insurgents. The town was at that time a first-class fortress. The Porta
Ploce was defended by the Revellino, and the Porta Pile by the Forte
San Lorenzo; while on Monte Sergio the Forte Imperiale had been erected
the previous year. An assault on the latter having failed, the blockade
was commenced. At first the operations were not very successful, for
although Bona raised some of the people of the Primorije, the chiefs
of the villages beyond Slano told him that they had been ordered by
General Tomasić to swear fealty to Austria alone—a proof of that
Power’s intentions with regard to Ragusa. Captain Hoste also refused to
provide a landing party or a siege train. Lowen was next applied to,
and he landed fifty men, appointing Caboga “Commander-in-Chief of the
Insurgent Forces besieging Ragusa.” But the besiegers had no artillery,
and at their headquarters at Gravosa there were only 300 or 400 men,
while a party of the French-Ragusan National Guard, under Colonel
Giorgi, had succeeded in arresting some of the nobles at Gravosa
on November 25. Montrichard, who commanded the Ragusan garrison,
determined on a sortie on the night of December 8. Native spies
informed the besiegers of the plan, and an ambuscade was prepared to
meet the attacking party as they issued from Porta Pile. But midnight,
the hour fixed for the sortie, having passed, and no one appearing,
the insurgents thought that the idea must have been given up, and
returned to Gravosa. Then a Croatian detachment under Grgurić, and an
Italian one under Paccioni, issued forth from Ragusa and attacked the
insurgents’ headquarters at 2 A.M. But the advance was revealed by two
deserters who fired off their rifles, and Paccioni failed to co-operate
with Grgurić. The sortie was therefore repulsed, but with small losses
on either side.
On January 3, 1814, the Austrian General Milutinović arrived before
Ragusa at the head of two battalions, bringing letters from Baron
Tomasić, who thanked Caboga and Bona for their services. His first
act, however, was to attempt to disband the local volunteers, to which
Caboga refused to agree, demanding the recognition of the insurgents
as independent belligerents. This Milutinović granted, as he was not
strong enough to refuse, and he left Caboga in command of the besiegers
during his own absence at Cattaro. Having failed to take that town he
returned to Gravosa on the 13th. The nobles were dissatisfied with
Caboga, whom they regarded as being in the pay of foreigners, and
on the night from the 17th to the 18th of January they met at Count
Giorgi’s house at Gravosa, and proclaimed the re-establishment of the
Republic. D’Ajala and Bosgiović notified the event to the Emperor
of Austria and the Sultan respectively, and a deputation waited on
Milutinović for the same purpose. The General pretended to acquiesce,
as he was not in a position to do otherwise. Hoste, although he had
little sympathy for the rebels, was not sorry to see Milutinović in
difficulties. When the latter, however, asked him for artillery, after
refusing, he agreed to supply two guns and four mortars, which were
landed on the 20th. On the 21st the bombardment was commenced, but did
little damage at first. An attack on Forte Imperiale failed, but a few
days later another battery was raised at San Giacomo, and armed with
ten British guns, brought into position by a difficult and circuitous
route; it opened fire at once on Forte Imperiale and Lacroma.
On the 25th Montrichard, who was certainly no hero, communicated with
the besiegers with a view to capitulation, and on the 26th explained
their proposals to his council of defence. Grgurić, Paccioni, and Major
Sèbe, who were the most energetic of his officers, replied that as the
walls were intact, the population quiet, provisions ample, and there
were 152 guns, the garrison was not in any of the cases justifying a
capitulation according to the regulations. Montrichard pretended to
give way, but the next day he arranged for a popular demonstration of
some 200 people, who hooted the Italian troops, while a member of the
crowd raised the Ragusan standard on one of the towers. This gave him
the required excuse, and some hours later a capitulation was agreed
upon, by which the Anglo-Austrians were to enter the town at midday on
the 28th, but the insurgents were not to be admitted until disarmed.
The French and Italian troops were to be shipped to Ancona without the
honours of war. When Caboga heard the terms of the capitulation he was
most indignant, because a few days previously Milutinović had promised
that on the surrender of the town 200 armed insurgents should enter
it together with the troops, that the Ragusan flag should be raised
on the forts with that of Austria and Great Britain, and that the
civil government should be carried on by Caboga and the commission of
nobles. Finding himself thus betrayed, he ordered Count Natali to be
ready with an armed body of insurgents at the Porta Ploce, to enter as
soon as it was opened and proclaim the restoration of the Republic. The
citizens got wind of this plan, and fearing that the insurgents might
think more of plunder than of the Republic they informed Milutinović.
The General worked all night to get the Porta Pile, which had been
blocked up during the siege, open by dawn. In this he succeeded, and
at an early hour his Croatians entered the town with two guns. In the
meanwhile the insurgents were waiting outside the other gate, and when,
at twelve o’clock, it was opened and they rushed towards the bridge,
they found themselves faced by the Austrian troops with fixed bayonets
and the two guns. They saw that the game was up, and dispersed to their
homes. They returned later unarmed, carrying instead of rifles fruit
and vegetables to sell in the market.
Milutinović dissolved the National Guard organised by the French, and
the Austrian troops seized all the posts. On the 29th the Austrian
standard was raised on the Orlando column, and Austrian and English
detachments occupied the forts. The French garrison left, and a few
days later the British fleet set sail. Its share of the booty consisted
of a few guns, some powder, and tobacco.
The party of the nobles, although it was obvious that the Republic
was no more, especially after the departure of the English, did not
yet abandon all hope. On February 15 the civil officials swore fealty
to the Emperor of Austria as King of Dalmatia, Ragusa, and Cattaro,
and on March 2 the clergy did the same. The latter had sworn fealty a
short time before to Napoleon, but Milutinović had won them over by
his respect for Catholic ceremonies, although he himself was a member
of the Orthodox Church. The Austrians now wished to round off their
Dalmatian possessions by occupying the Ragusan islands; but Count
Natali declared that the government of them had been entrusted to
him by the British before Austria had joined the coalition, and that
he would not surrender them until he received an authorisation from
Admiral Fremantle. Count Caboga was appointed by Austria provisional
Intendant of Ragusa, with instructions to follow the ordinances
established by the French. The bourgeoisie accepted Austrian rule as
a _pis aller_ rather than return under the oligarchy. The peasants
were overawed by the troops, and gave no further trouble. The nobles,
however, were profoundly dissatisfied, and still continued to agitate
in secret for a return to the _status quo_. General Tomasić instructed
Milutinović to spare their feelings as much as possible. “In dealing
with them,” he wrote, “you must not use the words _müssen_ and
_sollen_, but instead _bitten_, _ersuchen_.”[541]
In January Marchese Bona had gone to Vienna to plead the cause of
Ragusan independence. He was at first received at the Imperial Chancery
with great courtesy, but obtained no promises. When, however, the
Ragusan intrigues at Constantinople and the double game played by the
nobles were disclosed, he received orders from the police to quit the
town within a fortnight. He then departed, leaving a dignified protest
against the insults offered to him, and against the denial of justice
to the claims of his fellow-citizens.
At Ragusa the nobles continued in their opposition, and assailed all
the magistrates who did not belong to their own order. General Tomasić,
to please them, dismissed three officials who were of the bourgeoisie
and put nobles in their places. Emboldened by this concession, they
went about declaring that the Congress of Vienna was going to proclaim
the independence of Ragusa, like that of the Republic of Cracow. “The
Ragusans,” as Pisani writes, “had but too much reason to compare
their own fate to that of Poland, and in seeking the causes of their
misfortunes one may find more than one feature of resemblance between
them and the Poles.”[542]
At last General Milutinović lost patience, and when a deputation of
nobles came to propose a series of administrative reforms which would
have prepared the way for the restoration of the Constitution, he
threatened to imprison all who took part in secret conclaves, and in
his report of April 4 he denounced the nobles for their correspondence
with the Turks. But when he departed to attack Cattaro for the second
time, he left a Hungarian officer named Wittman, a weak and incapable
person, in charge, and under his feeble rule the plots began again.
The nobles succeeded in winning back Caboga to their side, by showing
him (according to Pisani) some forged documents, in which it was
stated that the Congress really intended to re-establish Ragusan
independence; fearing, therefore, that if the nobles came into
power once more they would exile him and confiscate his property,
he communicated some valuable documents to them, such as Lowen’s
proclamation at Ragusavecchia of Ragusan independence, which they sent
to England to be submitted to the Congress by the British Ministers.
But when Caboga saw that he had been hoodwinked, he returned to
Austrian allegiance. A deputation of nobles went to Zara to wait on
General Tomasić, but without result. On July 13 Milutinović returned
in triumph from Cattaro, which he had reduced to order, and made the
following proclamation:—
“The Imperial and Royal Chancery has been pleased to inform me by a
Note of January 3 that, in consequence of an agreement between the
allied Powers, the territory included under the name of Illyria during
the rule of Napoleon, and consequently the State of Ragusa, the islands
depending from it, and the Bocche di Cattaro are definitely made over
to the Imperial and Royal Court of Austria.
“I notify this decision so that the inhabitants of the said provinces
may learn their fate, and try to deserve, by a prompt and loyal
submission, the effects of the benevolence of Our august Sovereign the
Emperor and King Francis I.
“By the Civil and Military Government of Dalmatia, Ragusa, and Cattaro.
“Baron TOMASIĆ, _Feldmarschall-Lieutenant_.
“By authentic copy.
“MILUTINOVIĆ, _General-Major_.
“ZARA, _July 7_.”
This proclamation was received respectfully and in silence. Only one
noble, Marchese Francesco Bona, tried to raise a rebellion among the
peasants, and was at once arrested and imprisoned in the Forte San
Lorenzo. On August 29 the Municipal Council was summoned to elect a
deputation to the Emperor-King. Milutinović had returned to Cattaro,
and although Wittmann, who was in charge, was present at the sitting,
it proved a stormy one. Count Pozza-Sorgo declared that if a deputation
were sent to the Emperor of Austria, another should also be sent to the
King of England, whose forces had contributed at least as effectively
as those of Austria in driving out the French. But as Marchese Michele
Bona was already on a mission to the Allies it was useless to send
another; the choice of the delegates was therefore adjourned, and the
motion accepted by ten votes to eight. Caboga summoned the Council
again on September 1, when the delegation was chosen; the Council was
about to break up when the Mayor, Bosdari, received a sealed packet.
On opening it he found that it contained the solemn protest of forty
of the nobles who had signed the act of January 18. “It is we,” they
declared, “who have been constituted from that day the sovereign
Council, and have the sole authority to speak in the name of our
country.” Wittmann took the protest and forwarded it to Zara, and he
also informed Milutinović of the occurrence. The next day all the
signatories of the document were arrested save eighteen, who fled to
the islands under British protection. At 11 A.M. Milutinović arrived,
and issued a proclamation describing the protest as an “act of frenzy,”
and inviting the people to sign a counter-protest. This was done,
and Bosdari requested the General to liberate all the nobles who were
willing to sign a declaration of submission to the Emperor. Milutinović
agreed, and included the fugitives in the amnesty, on condition that
they returned within eight days. The nobles signed the oath, and on
September 15 an assembly of the people elected a deputation to go to
Zara and swear fealty in the name of all. Milutinović then addressed
a very severe admonition to the nobles, and all of that order who
occupied judicial positions were dismissed.[543]
The Ragusan archipelago remained under British protection until July
16, 1815. On August 3, 1816, Dalmatia and Ragusa received a definite
organisation by Imperial rescript, and Baron Tomasić was appointed
Statthalter or Military and Civil Governor, and Milutinović departed
from Ragusa. The Emperor assumed the title of Duke of Ragusa, which his
successors still bear.
Thus ends, after more than twelve hundred years, the history of the
Republic of Ragusa. Its Government and citizens may have had their
defects, but they were full of a real, if somewhat narrow, patriotism.
The State conferred a prosperity and happiness on its inhabitants which
have fallen to the lot of few peoples during that long and troubled
period, while the peculiar, and almost unique, position occupied in
European history and polity by the tiny Commonwealth may perhaps
justify the appearance of this volume.
[Illustration: DALMATIA, BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA]
LIST OF BOOKS ON THE HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY OF RAGUSA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
G. Valentinelli, _Bibliografia della Dalmazia e del
Montenegro_, Zagabria (Agram), 1855-56.
COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
_Monumenta Ragusina_, edit. Rački and Gelcich, in the
“Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium,”
published by the South-Slavonic Academy of Agram, vol. x.
&c., 1879 &c.
_Diplomatarium relationum Reipublicæ Ragusinæ cum Regno
Hungariæ_, edit. Gelcich and Thálloczy, published by the
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest, 1887.
F. Miklosich, _Monumenta Serbica_, Wien, 1858.
Orsat Medo-Počič (Count Pozza), _Spomenici Srpski_, u
Beogradu (Belgrad), 1858.
Tafel und Thomas, _Griechische Urkunden_, in the
Sitzungsberichte der kaiserliche Wiener Akademie der
Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischer Klasse, Wien,
1851.
G. Valentinelli, _Esposizione dei Rapporti fra la
Repubblica Veneta e gli Slavi Meridionali. Brani tratti
dai Diarj di Marin Sanudo_, 1863.
A. Theiner, _Vetera Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium
Historiam spectantia_, Romæ, 1863.
Rački, _Dubrovački Spomenici_, published by the
South-Slavonic Academy in the “Starine” for 1879.
CHRONICLES AND GENERAL HISTORIES OF RAGUSA
Niccolò Ragnina, _Annali di Ragusa_, and _Annali Anonimi
di Ragusa_, published by the South-Slavonic Academy among
the Scriptores.
Giunio Resti, _Chronica Ragusina_, continued by G.
Gondola, published by the South-Slavonic Academy.
Serafino Razzi, _La Storia di Raugia_, Lucca, 1588.
G. Luccari, _Copioso Ristretto degli Annali di Ragusa_,
1790.
J. C. von Engel, _Geschichte des Freystaates Ragusa_,
Wien, 1807.
F. M. Appendini, _Notizie Istorico-Critiche ... de’
Ragusei_, Ragusa, 1803.
Giuseppe Gelcich, _Dello Sviluppo Civile di Ragusa_,
Ragusa, 1884.
HISTORIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES
_Cronache Veneziane Antichissime_, edit. Monticolo, Roma,
1890.
Andrea Dandolo, _Chronicon Venetum_, in Muratori’s _Rer.
Ital. Script._, tom. xii.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, _De Administrando Imperio_.
E. Gibbon, _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire_, edit. J. B. Bury, London, 1901.
J. B. Bury, _History of the Later Roman Empire_, London,
1887.
Romanin, _Storia Documentata di Venezia_, Venezia, 1853.
Horatio Brown, _Venice_, London, 1893.
F. C. Hodgson, _The Early History of Venice_, London,
1901.
Mauro Orbini, _Regno degli Slavi_, Pesaro, 1601.
G. Lucio, _De Regno Dalmatiæ et Croatiæ_, Amstelodami,
1666.
Presbyter Diocleas, _Regnum Slavorum_, published in
Lucio’s _De Regno Dalmatiæ et Croatiæ_, 1666.
_Alter und Neuer Staat des Konigreichs Dalmatien_, 1718.
P. J. Schafarik (Šafařik), _Slawische Alterthümer_,
Leipzig, 1843-44.
A. Gil’ferding (Hilferding), _Geschichte der Serben und
Bulgaren_, 1856, 1864.
B. Kállay, _Geschichte der Serben_, Leipzig, 1878.
V. Klaić, _Geschichte Bosniens_, Leipzig, 1885.
William Miller, _The Balkan States_, London, 1896.
Sagredo, _Memorie Istoriche dei Monarchi Ottomanni_, 1697.
Hammer-Purgstall, _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_, traduit
par J. F. Hellert, Paris, 1835-42.
Stanley Lane-Poole, _The Barbary Corsairs_, London, 1890.
[Illustration: DALMATIA]
COMMERCIAL HISTORIES
Heyd, _Histoire du Commerce du Lévant au Moyen Âge_,
Leipzig, 1885.
Carlo Antonio Marin, _Storia Civile e Politica del
Commercio dei Veneziani_, Venezia, 1798.
C. J. Jireček, _Die Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke von
Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters_, Prag, 1879.
SPECIAL HISTORIES
_Liber Statutorum Civitatis Rhacusii_ (MS. in the
Franciscan Library at Ragusa).
D. Farlati and J. Coleti, _Illyricum Sacrum_, Venetiis,
1751-1819.
G. Lucio, _Memorie Istoriche di Tragurio_, published in
his _De Regno Dalmatiæ_, 1666.
P. Pisani, _Num Ragusini ob omni jure Veneto a sæc. x
usque ad sæc. xiv immunes fuerint_, Paris, 1893.
Gelcich, _La Zedda e la Dinastia dei Balšidi_, Spalato,
1899.
Gelcich, _I Conti di Tuhelj_, 1889.
“G. G.,” _Turchi e Cristiani_, in the “Annuario
Dalmatico” for 1884.
“G. G.,” _In Tenebris Lux_, in the “Annuario Dalmatico”
for 1885.
_Relatione dell’ Orribile Terremoto seguito nella Città
di Ragusa_, Venetia, 1667.
Ludovicus Cervarius Tubero, _Commentariolus de Temporibus
Suis_, 1603.
V. Bogišič, article on the Stanico in the “Archiv für
Slawische Philologie,” Berlin, vol. ii., 1877.
J. Pisko, _Skanderbeg_, Wien, 1894.
T. Chersa, _Degli Illustri Toscani in Ragusa_.
Antonio degl’ Ivellio, _Saggio sulla Colonia e il
Contadinaggio di Ragusa_.
Paolo, Cavaliere de Rešetar, _La Zecca della Repubblica
di Ragusa_, Spalato, 1891.
P. Pisani, _La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815_, Paris, 1893.
Tullio Erber, _Storia della Dalmazia dal 1797 al 1814_,
Zara, 1886, &c.
Sir William Hoste, _Memoirs and Letters_, London, 1833.
_Ein Gedenkbuch der Erhebung Ragusas in den Jahren
1813-14_, edit. G. Gelcich, in the “Archiv für
österreichische Geschichte,” Wien, vol. lxiv., 1882.
Comte Duc de Sorgo, _Fragments sur l’Histoire ... de
Raguse_, Paris, 1839.
ART AND LITERATURE
Philippus de Diversis de Quartigianis, _Situs Aedficiorum
Ragusii_, edit. Brunelli, Zara, 1882.
T. Graham Jackson, _Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria_,
Oxford, 1887.
R. von Eitelberger von Edelberg, _Kunstdenkmale
Dalmatiens_, vol. iv. of his _Gesammelte kunsthistorische
Schriften_, Wien, 1884.
E. Freeman, _Sketches from the Subject and Neighbour
Lands of Venice_, London, 1881.
Gliubich (Ljubić), _Dizionario Biografico della Dalmazia_.
_Galleria di Ragusei Illustri_, Ragusa, 1841.
A. N. Puipin und W. Spasowicz, _Geschichte der Slavischen
Literatur_, Leipzig, 1880.
Appendini, _Versione Libera dell’ Osmanide_.
TOPOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL
B. Ramberti, _Libri Tre delle Cose dei Turchi_, 1539.
Caterino Zen’s journey to Constantinople, published in
_Starine_ x. of the South-Slavonic Academy, 1878.
Nicholas de Nicolay, _Les Navigations et Pérégrinations
et Voyages faiets en la Turquie_, Anvers, 1576.
Des Hayes de Courmenin, _Voyage de Lévant_, Paris, 1649.
Thomas Watkins, _Travels through Swisserland, Italy ...
to Constantinnople_, London, 1794.
F. C. H. L. Pouqueville, _Voyage dans la Grèce_, Paris,
1826.
J. D. F. Neigebauer, _Die Süd-Slaven und deren Länder_,
Leipzig, 1851.
F. Petter, _Dalmatien_.
A. A. Paton, _Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic_,
London, 1849.
Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, _Dalmatia and Montenegro_,
London, 1848.
W. F. Wingfield, _A Tour in Dalmatia, Albania, and
Montenegro, with a Historical Sketch of the Republic of
Ragusa_, London, 1859.
Arthur J. Evans, _Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on
Foot, ... with an Historical Review of Bosnia_, London,
1876.
This list does not claim to be a complete bibliography by any means,
nor does it even include all the books, pamphlets, and articles which I
have consulted in compiling this volume; but it should be sufficient as
a guide for those who wish to go deeper into the subject.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Historical Essays, Third Series_, pp. 22, 23.
[2] For traces of the Celtic strain see T. Graham Jackson’s _Dalmatia,
the Quarnero, and Istria_, vol. i. p. 2.
[3] The term Illyria or Illyricum comprises far more than the modern or
even Roman Dalmatia, and corresponds roughly to the whole eastern shore
of the Adriatic as far as Dyrrhachium, with a hinterland extending to
Hungary.
[4] Their name is connected with the town of Dalmium or Deminium, said
by some to have been in the interior, by others on the site of the
modern Almissa (formerly called Dalmisia).
[5] Called the “Dalmatian Pompeii.”
[6] Quoted in _Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien
während des Mittelalters_, by Dr. C. J. Jireček, Prag, 1879, p. 3.
[7] Cap. xxix. to xxxvi.
[8] Jireček, _op. cit._, p. 4, note.
[9] Jireček, _Wlachen und Maurowlachen_. They are now called Morlacchi
in Northern Dalmatia.
[10] Jireček, _Handelsstrassen_, pp. 22-25.
[11] _Ibid._, pp. 25-27.
[12] Jireček, _Handelsstrassen_, pp. 27-35.
[13] Their municipal statutes, some of which have been published,
present many analogies with those of Italy.
[14] This form is preferred by Professor Jireček to Epidaurus.
[15] Ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ ἀπὸ Σαλῶνα μετῴκησαν εἰς Ῥαούσιον, εἰσὶν ἔτη φʹ (500)
μέχρι τῆςσήμερον, ἥτις ἰνδικτιῶνος ἑβδόμης ἔτους ͵ϛυνζʹ. (6457 A.M. =
949 A.D.). _De Adm. Imp._, cap. xxix.
[16] Šafařik, _Slawische Alterthümer_, ii. 238; J. B. Bury, “History of
the Later Roman Empire,” vol. ii. Book IV. Part II. chap. iv.
[17] Constantine Porphyrogenitus says that the Slaves (whom he mixed up
with the Avars) had destroyed τὸ κάστρον Πίταυρα, the inhabitants being
mostly killed or captured. The survivors fled, and on an inaccessible
rock founded the new city of Ῥαούσιον. In a Slavonic document quoted by
Jireček (_op. cit._, p. 9, note 20) there is a native account of the
foundation of Ragusa. The ancient Ragusa, it says, stood _na Captate_
(at Cavtat), and possessed the whole _župa_ of Canali; when the city
fell and was destroyed, “the lords of Chum and Rascia” occupied this
_župa_, and the inhabitants of the city took refuge on a strong place,
where they founded the modern Ragusa. These are other more or less
legendary accounts.
[18] _Op. cit._, p. 10.
[19] A deep inlet surrounded by high mountains at the extreme south of
modern Dalmatia.
[20] Gelcich, _Dello Sviluppo Civile di Ragusa_, p. 6.
[21] The castle and bridge are both indicated in the drawing.
[22] Published by the South-Slavonic Academy of Agram in the same
volume as Ragnina’s chronicle. A small part of it is quoted by Gelcich,
_op. cit._
[23] There is an Albanian tribe of the name of Dukadjin, south of
Scutari.
[24] They have not been identified.
[25] In several early accounts it is said that the Saracens helped the
Avars to destroy the city by attacking from the sea, but there is no
satisfactory evidence on the subject.
[26] Head of a farm; _katun_ in modern Croatian signifies dairy; it is
a neo-Latin word.
[27] Venice, whose connection with the Eastern Empire was somewhat
similar to that of the Dalmatian cities, now recognised Charlemagne’s
supremacy. There was a Byzantine and a Frankish faction. See T.
Hodgkin’s “Italy and her Invaders,” viii. p. 231; also H. Brown’s
“Venice.”
[28] The passage reads “de ogni Vulasi,” from every Vulasi, but the
emendation “de _donji_ Vulasi,” from Lower Vulasi or Wallachia (_donji_
is Slavonic for lower), is suggested.
[29] In Southern Dalmatia the word _Morlacco_ is still a term of
contempt.
[30] This etymology is obviously impossible.
[31] The first of these was Otho Ursus or Ottone Orseolo.
[32] Quoted by Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 9.
[33] In the Italian city-republics, besides the head of the State, the
Council of nobles, and the assembly of the people, there was also a
minor or privy council of special advisers. It is very probable that
there was something of the kind at Ragusa even at this time, as there
was later.
[34] Afterwards the archbishop.
[35] “A wall of rubble and beams.”
[36] Const. Porgh., cap. xxx. According to tradition, Ragusa had been
delivered from the Saracens in 783 by Orlando, or Roland the Paladin.
The legend probably has its origin in a confusion between Charlemagne’s
suzerainty over Dalmatia and the Saracen siege of Ragusa in 847. The
so-called statue of Orlando at Ragusa is of the fifteenth century.
[37] Const. Porgh., cap. xxx.
[38] The Naro of the ancients.
[39] Primorije in Slavonic, Παραθαλάσσια.
[40] Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 2.
[41] Serafino Razzi, in his _Storia di Raugia_, gives a long account of
this miracle (cap. x.). The Venetian fleet designed to capture Ragusa
by treachery, but the plot was revealed to a priest, who thus relates
his vision: “I was in the church of St. Stephen about midnight, at
prayer, when methinks I saw the whole fane filled with armed men. And
in the midst I saw an old man with a long white beard holding a staff
in his hand. Having called me aside, he told me that he was San Biagio,
and had been sent by Heaven to defend this city. He told me further
that the Venetians had come up to the walls to scale them, using the
masts of their ships as ladders, but he, with a company of heavenly
soldiers, had driven back the enemy; but he desired that in future the
Ragusans should defend themselves, and never trust armed neighbours.”
Ragnina dates the event 971.
[42] San Bacco had been patron of the Latin settlement on the rocky
ridge, while the Slavonic colony had been under the protection of the
Eastern Saint Serge. When the two settlements amalgamated, as neither
would accept the saint of the other, they compromised by adopting San
Biagio.
[43] Cedrenus, vol. i., § 1019, in Migne, vol. 121.
[44] The name Rascia is generally used by old historians as synonymous
for Servia, and is derived from the river Raška in Old Servia.
[45] _Num Ragusini ab omni jure Veneto a saec. X usque ad saec. XIV
immunes fuerunt_, thesis by the Abbé Paul Pisani, Paris, 1893, cap. ii.
[46] According to Johannes Diaconus, the expedition started in the
seventh year of Orseolo’s reign, which would be the year 998; but
Monticolo, who edits that writer in his _Cronache Antichissime_ (p.
156, note 1), observes that Diaconus says that he only heard the news
of the victory when the Emperor Otho III. came to Pavia in his third
descent into Italy, _i.e._ July 1000.
[47] The name Beograd or Belgrad, _i.e._ white city, is a very common
one in Slavonic lands.
[48] “Seque suosque Orseolo Venetoque nomini dedunt.” Sabellico,
_Historia rerum Venetarum_, Dec. I. lib. iv. cap. 3.
[49] This pseudonym is an anagram for Sebastianus Slade de Ragusa;
_Slade_ is Slavonic for sweets = _dolci_.
[50] MS. in the Museo Correr at Venice, quoted by Pisani, _op. cit._,
introd. There is a copy at Zara and one at Ragusa.
[51] _Regno degli Slavi._
[52] _Chronica Ragusina_, edit. South-Slav. Acad., p. 272.
[53] _Prospetto Cronologico della Dalmazia_, p. 112.
[54] This title is now borne by the Emperor of Austria.
[55] Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 3.
[56] J. C. von Engel, _Geschichte des Freystaates Ragusa_, § 6.
[57] Between 1096 and 1105 they had put three hundred ships on the sea
(Horatio Brown, _Venice_, p. 87).
[58] Serafino Razzi, _Storia di Raugia_.
[59] Romanin, _Storia Documentata di Venezia_, tom. viii. p. 455,
_seq._; Farlati-Coleti, _Illyricum Sacrum_, vi. 60-80.
[60] H. Brown, _op. cit._, p. 101.
[61] Spalato, however, remained subject to the empire until Manuel’s
death in 1180.
[62] In the _Archivio Storico Italiano_, viii. 154, lib. v.
[63] This stipulation appears in nearly all the subsequent treaties of
dedition by which Ragusa surrendered to Venice. By this act the Ragusan
Church came under the authority of a Venetian prelate.
[64] By Romania, mediæval historians mean the Eastern Empire.
[65] _Liber Pactorum_, ii. p. 117, v.
[66] _Op. cit._, cap. 30.
[67] Jireček, _op. cit._, p. 12.
[68] According to Miklosich, the word is of Arabic origin.
[69] Jireček, _op. cit._
[70] Probably this is too early.
[71] A _braccio_ is about an ell.
[72] Jireček, _ibid._
[73] The name is sometimes spelt Radosav.
[74] _Prijeki_ means “beyond” in Serb, and the church was so called
because it was beyond the channel.
[75] The figures given by Engel (§ 19)—20,000 horse and 30,000 foot—are
probably exaggerated.
[76] The Three Martyrs of Cattaro were saints murdered by the heathen,
or, as some assert, by heretics.
[77] The treaty is published in the _Monum. spect. Historiam Slav.
Merid._, Agram, vol. i. Document xvii.
[78] See _ante_.
[79] _Ibid._, xxvi.
[80] _Ibid._, xxvii.
[81] _Ibid._, xxviii.
[82] _Ibid._, xxix.
[83] Quoted by Romanin, _op. cit._, _loc. cit._
[84] A further corroboration, if any were needed, of the surrender
is found in the treaty of friendship between Stephen, Grand Župan,
and Giovanni Dandolo, Count of Ragusa (_Mon. Sl. Mer._, vol. i. doc.
xxxix.). No date is given, but it must be previous to 1222, as in that
year Stephen received the title of King from Pope Honorius III., whence
his designation of _Prvovencani_, or First Crowned.
[85] On the sea coast of Montenegro, near the Lake of Scutari.
[86] Dated “Ides of January, Indict. I.” (1078).
[87] It will be noticed that Ragusa is alluded to first as a bishopric
and then as an archbishopric in the same document.
[88] Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 10.
[89] A heresy described in a later chapter.
[90] Engel, § 20.
[91] Gelcich, _Delle Istituzioni Marittime e Secritarie delle Republica
di Ragusa_, Trieste, 1892, p. 3.
[92] Marcius noster Constantinopolitanus, Vicecomes, _Mon. Sl. Mer._
I., doc. xiv.
[93] _Ibid._, xxi.
[94] _Ibid._, xxii.
[95] Gelcich, _op. cit._, pp. 13, 14.
[96] _Peline_ is Slavonic for sage.
[97] Now included in the Turkish vilayets of Kossovo and Scutari.
[98] William of Tyre speaks of the “Rex Sclavorum” residing at Scutari
at the time when the Crusaders were in Dalmatia. This is the Župan
Vlkan (1089-1105).
[99] In the plain of Kossovo, near Mitrovica (Mitrovitza).
[100] This etymology is somewhat doubtful. Duša also means the soul.
[101] B. Kállay, _Geschichte der Serben_; William Miller, _The
Balkans_; F. Kanitz, _Serbien_.
[102] See _ante_.
[103] Klaić, _Geschichte Bosniens_.
[104] Klaić, _op. cit._, cap. vi.
[105] A treaty between Ragusa and Taddeo, Count of Montefeltro and
Podestà of Ravenna and Cervia, 1216-1238 (_Mon. spect. Hist. Slav.
Mer._, vol. i. doc. 49, pp. 35, 36; also in other documents of that
collection between 1204 and 1226).
[106] Resti, who erroneously records the date as 1202.
[107] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, vol. i. p. 40.
[108] Pisani, _op. cit._, vii.
[109] _Op. cit._, p. 29.
[110] Venice had received the same prohibition from the Pope.
[111] That it was not absolutely free is proved by the Doge Jacopo
Ziepolo’s _Promissiom_, dated March 6, 1229, which says: “And we are to
receive the tributes of Cherso and Ossero, as well as of the country
of Arbe and Ragusa” (Cod. Marc. DLI., class viii. Ital., quoted by
Romanin).
[112] Binzola Bodazza is always alluded to in this connection as one
person, but in other documents, especially in the _Reformationes_,
we find the names Binzola and Bodazza as those of two separate noble
families.
[113] This stipulation is repeated in various subsequent documents, but
it was not always observed.
[114] Sometimes written _miari_.
[115] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 75.
[116] We have often quoted this chronicle of “Esadastes,” not because
of the value of its arguments, but as characteristic of Ragusan
individuality, and of the way in which the Ragusans made every effort
to prove and to secure their own independence. They regarded themselves
not only as independent of Venice, but as distinct from the rest of
Dalmatia, and they were always afraid that the great Republic might
one day claim their alligiance. Hence their efforts to prove that that
allegiance had never really existed, or at least that it had had no
practical effect.
[117] _Liber Reform_, ii. 322; _Liber Statutorum_, i. 1, 2; Gelcich,
_op. cit._, pp. 30, 31.
[118] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 78. This Koloman was evidently the son of
Andrew, King of Hungary, by whom he had been appointed Duke (or Count)
of Croatia and Dalmatia (1226-1241), Klaić, p. 92.
[119] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 79.
[120] _Ibid._, i. 80.
[121] Klaić, p. 101.
[122] Doubtless he had been appointed during the last secession of 1235.
[123] Engel, § 25.
[124] Mentioned by Caroldus and in the _Liber Pactorum_. The name
sounds Ragusan.
[125] Resti, _ad ann._ 1252. Ragusan writers frequently complain that
the Venetians did not protect the city effectually against the Slaves,
but it is difficult to see what they could have done against an almost
inland state.
[126] This institution is described on pp. 76-78.
[127] In the various histories of Servia (_e.g._ B. Kállay’s
_Geschichte der Serben_, p. 51) no mention is made of this coalition,
and in fact the reign of Stephen Uroš, save for the Mongolian inroads,
is described as peaceful. On the other hand, the treaty between
Radoslav and Ragusa expressly mentions the alliance with Bulgaria
against Servia. Probably the Mongol invasion of 1255 induced him to
make peace with his neighbours.
[128] Miklosich, _Monumenta Serbica_, pp. 60 and 69; translated in
Klaić, _op. cit._, pp. 137, 138.
[129] Uroš was deposed by his son in 1272.
[130] For the position and importance of these envoys see Chap. III.
[131] The chapters relating to the _stanicum_ (_stanak_ in Slavonic)
are 19, 20, 49-57. The matter is ably dealt with in an article by
Professor V. Bogišić in the _Archiv für Slawische Philologie_, Berlin,
vol ii., 1877, pp. 570-593.
[132] In the _Liber Reformationum_ it is mentioned at rare intervals.
[133] The commonest are: Bassegli, Bobali, Bodazza, Bona, Bonda,
Bubagna, Caboga, Ghetaldi, Gondola, Gozze, Luccari, Raguina, Resti,
Saraca, Sorgo, &c. Only a few, such as Zlatarich, are purely Slavonic.
The whole question of the relative proportions of Italians and Slaves
in Dalmatia is very obscure. Even to this day, owing to the bitterness
of party feeling, it is impossible to obtain reliable statistics.
[134] Save the treaties with the Slavonic states, which are mostly
published in the original Servian in Miklosich’s _Monumenta Serbica_.
[135] The number of members varied at different times.
[136] Gelcich, p. 32.
[137] Luccari.
[138] _Lib. Ref._, v. p. 307.
[139] The age was afterwards lowered to eighteen years.
[140] This account is based on that given in Luccari, save for
such changes as occurred between the Venetian period and the early
seventeenth century, when Luccari’s book was published.
[141] Stephen Uroš II. Milutin (1275-1321).
[142] Lebret, _Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig_, i. 598. Engel,
who gives a similar account, attributes the raid to Stephen Kotromanić,
Banus of Bosnia, which is clearly a mistake, as Ragusa was at that time
on excellent terms with him.
[143] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 204 (1293-1331) and 261 (1294).
[144] _Ibid._, 237.
[145] _Reform._, 57.
[146] Salt was a commodity lacking in the interior.
[147] _Liber Pactorum_, 79.
[148] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 294, 295, 296, 297.
[149] _Ibid._, 303, 304, 306.
[150] We find a _Reformatio_ of May 1303 which alludes to the Servian
war as still continuing, but it was probably only a case of isolated
raids and acts of brigandage.
[151] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 327.
[152] _Ibid._, 254, Misti, 1313-1316.
[153] Ragnina, _ad ann._ 1316, also _Ref._
[154] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 469.
[155] Reigned until 1330.
[156] Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 34.
[157] Gelcich, _ibid._
[158] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 204, Misti, _ad ann._ 1320-21.
[159] It may have been the acts of piracy alluded to.
[160] _Ex Libr. Consilior_, 1325, Aug. 15, and 1326, March 15, _Cons.
Roy._ xl., Gelcich, pp. 34, 35.
[161] Gelcich, _Reform._
[162] Engel, § 28.
[163] Vol. i. 589.
[164] Part of Montenegro.
[165] A small island at the Narenta’s mouth.
[166] _Ad ann._ 1322.
[167] A name usually given to Greek priests in the Middle Ages.
[168] This story is somewhat confused. Ragusan writers declare that
the princess in question was deposed, together with her son, by a
rebellious noble, Alexander, who made himself Tsar and offered to place
Bulgaria under Servian suzerainty if Stephen secured the fugitives
for him. But after Velbužd Michael’s widow fled, and his first wife,
Anna, Milutin’s daughter, was placed on the throne jointly with her
son Šišman II. by the victorious Serbs. Stephen Uroš died immediately
after, strangled by his son Stephen Dušan, who held Bulgaria as a
vassal state. Then came the rebellion of Alexander, who forced Šišman
and his mother to fly from Bulgaria, and induced Dušan to marry his
sister. Anna fled to Ragusa, and perhaps this may be the princess to
whom the local historians allude. On the other hand, it does not seem
likely that Dušan would wish to capture her, his own kinswoman. See
Jireček’s _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, 290-298.
[169] _Lib. Ref._, iii. 365.
[170] Quoted in Gelcich, _Istituzioni Marittime e Sanitarie della
Republica di Ragusa_, Trieste, p. 37.
[171] _Ibid._, p. 38.
[172] Annali, _ad ann._ 1348.
[173] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, iii. 16.
[174] _Ibid._, 182, 256, 272.
[175] _Ibid._, 274.
[176] See also _Lib. Reform._, 155-157, 162, 163, 169, 248, 249; and
Resti, _ad ann._ 1349-1350.
[177] Horatio Brown, _Venice_, p. 196.
[178] _Ibid._, pp. 198-205.
[179] Horatio Brown, _Venice_, p. 211.
[180] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 44.
[181] Engel, Appendix viii.
[182] _Lib. Ref._; Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 44.
[183] From _Astaria_, a mediæval Latin word meaning a flat tract of
seacoast. In Du Cange “maritima, campus planus mari adjacens.”
[184] Mentioned in 1254.
[185] Gelcich, _I Conti di Tuhelj_, p. 22.
[186] In 1331 a request was made to the King of Servia “de implorando
ab eo castrum de Prisren in custodia, pro securitate mercatorum
nostrorum conversantium in Prisren,” but it was refused (Gelcich, _I
Conti di Tuhelj_, p. 23).
[187] Near Petrovoselo.
[188] Jireček, _op. cit._, pp. 13, 14.
[189] For the Paulicians, see Conybeare’s _Key of Truth_, and Bury’s
edition of Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, vol. vi., Appendix 6, p. 540.
[190] Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, pp. 176 _sqq._
[191] Theiner, _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. p. 20.
[192] Klaić, _op. cit._, iii, iv, v, vii, and viii.
[193] _Lib. Ref._, v., April 14, 1319, p. 139.
[194] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 21.
[195] _Ibid._, 17, 18, 23, 25.
[196] Whence the title of the English Duke of Clarence is derived.
[197] The documents on this subject are lost, but the privileges are
frequently mentioned by later writers.
[198] Tafel und Thomas, _Griechische Urkunde_ in the Sitzungsberichte
der Kais. Wiener Akad. der Wissenschaften, Philos.-histor. Classe, vi.
508-529; Miklosich u. Müller, _Acta Græca_, iii., 58 _sqq._, 66-67;
Heyd, _Histoire du Commerce du Lévant_, i. 308 _sqq._
[199] Heyd, _op. cit._, i. 475.
[200] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 40, Heyd, _op. cit._, i. 308.
[201] Theiner, _Mon. Hist. Slav. Mer. illustr._, i. 121; Heyd, _op.
cit._, ii. 50.
[202] Caloian or Kalioannes.
[203] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 79.
[204] _Ibid._, 83.
[205] _Ibid._, 111, 248, 251.
[206] _Ibid._, 236.
[207] It still exists in the upper part of the town, but is now used as
a depot for military stores.
[208] Gelcich, _Istituzioni Marittime e Sanitarie_, p. 14.
[209] The word is said to be derived from “a Ragusa,” but it is
doubtful.
[210] _Lib. Stat._, vi. cap. 21 and 22.
[211] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 78.
[212] _Lib. Ref._, i. 1325, July 18, p. 176.
[213] A complaint was made to King Robert of Naples because of the acts
of piracy committed by the people of Manfredonia, _Lib. Ref._, i.,
1325, Oct. 17, p. 184.
[214] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 204, Misti, 1326-27.
[215] _Istituzioni Marittime e Sanitarie_, p. 16.
[216] The custom was an Italian one, and the word _ceppo_ is still used
for Christmas box, or even for Christmas itself.
[217] Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 17.
[218] _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 204, _Misti_, 1329.
[219] Mjatović, _Studies in the History of Servian Trade in the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries_, Glasnik, vol. 33, 37, 38;
Jireček, _op. cit._
[220] Jireček, _op. cit._
[221] There are hardly any distinctive traces now of the Vlachs in
Dalmatia, save in the name Morlacchi, given to the Slaves generally
by the Italians of the coast towns. In Macedonia, however, the
Kutzo-Vlachs are numerous, and preserve both their language, which
belongs to the Neo-Latin group, and their nomadic habits. There they
still ply the trade of cattle-drovers or that of wandering merchants.
See Jireček, _op. cit._, p. 60; also his _Wlachen und Maurowlachen_,
_passim_; and _Turkey in Europe_, by “Odysseus.”
[222] Afterwards called Carina = custom house.
[223] Geçcha or Geçecha in the Ragusan documents, mentioned as early as
1275.
[224] Now called Plevlje (Turkish, _Tašlydža_) in the Sandžak of
Novibazar. This stream, which flows through the town, is still called
the Breznica, and a neighbouring monastery Vrhobreznica = high Breznica.
[225] In the sixteenth century castle and monastery were still in good
repair, and the latter was inhabited by fifty monks, and contained the
body of St. Saba, the patron saint of the Southern Slaves (see Zen’s
Diary in _Starine_ x. of South-Slav. Acad.). The body was removed and
burnt by the Turks in 1595, and the building fell into ruins by the
end of the eighteenth century. Priepolje is now the southernmost point
garrisoned by Austria in the Sandžak of Novibazar.
[226] Mentioned by the _Lib. Ref._ in 1322.
[227] For this route see Benedetto Ramberti, _Libri. Tre delle cosi dei
Turchi_, lib. i.
[228] There is still a village of that name.
[229] Mostar did not exist in the Middle Ages. The ruins of Blagaj
still form an imposing mass.
[230] The seat of feudal family of the Pavlovići in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries.
[231] _Srebro_ = silver in Servian.
[232] Slav. S. Dimitri, Dimitrovica, or Mitrovica.
[233] Jireček, _op. cit._, pp. 75-82.
[234] Zenta or Zedda was the name of a district comprising Montenegro
and that part of Albania between the lake of Scutari and the Adriatic
coast as for as Durazzo. The anonymous writer in Matković (_Starine_
x., 1878, of the South-Slavonic Academy) describes the _Via de Zenta_.
[235] _Op. cit._, p. 63.
[236] Ulcinium, Dulcinium; in Slavonic, Olgun; in Albanian, Ulkin.
[237] On the site of San Sergio is the village of Obotti, which has of
late acquired some prominence since an Italian steamship company has
established a service up the Bojana for developing Italian trade. An
Austrian company has imitated its example, and it seems as if there
was a chance of reviving the old trade routes once more although of
course they can never regain their old importance so long as the Turks
continue to misgovern the land.
[238] 1290. Jireček, _op. cit._, p. 65.
[239] Lissos, Alexium, in Slavonic and Albanian Lješ.
[240] Jireček, pp. 66-7; this is now the Mirdit country.
[241] The name Πριξδριάνα is first mentioned as a Bulgarian bishopric
in 1026.
[242] Jireček, p. 68. The Beglerbeg of Rumelia was the
commander-in-chief of the Turkish armies in Europe.
[243] The Servian king imitated the Venetian ducats, but with a
considerable amount of base metal, whence Dante’s allusion to the
punishment awaiting “quel di Rascia, che mal aggiustò il conio di
Vinegia,” _Paradiso_, xix. 140-141.
[244] Ragusan consul at Brskovo mentioned in 1280. Its importance
ceased with the Turkish conquest.
[245] Jireček, p. 71, Bolizza.
[246] Critobulus, ii. 7, 8, in _Fragm. Hist. Græca_, v. 109.
[247] First mentioned in 1349.
[248] First mentioned in 1376.
[249] Mentioned in 1412.
[250] Mentioned in 1346.
[251] Mentioned in 1350.
[252] Jireček, _op. cit._, 41-58. A very elaborate and interesting
account of the Bosnian and Servian mines is given in this work.
[253] This division is reflected in the prefixes Gornji and Donji
(upper and lower), which are frequently found attached to the names of
Bosnian and Servian towns.
[254] According to Farlati, it is owing to the Ragusans that some
traces of Latin Christianity survived in these lands of schism and
heresy.
[255] _Purgari_ is evidently derived from the German word _Bürger_, but
the etymology of _Vaoturchi_ is unknown (Jireček).
[256] _Lib. Ref._, March 8, 1332, p. 341.
[257] Miklosich, _Monumenta Serbica_, Codice Geno (Ragusa); Jireček,
_op. cit._, p. 60.
[258] Jireček, _op. cit._, 60; Nicolas de Nicolay, _Navigations et
peregrinations orientales_, Lyon, 1568.
[259] In Servia, Byzantine influence was stronger and Italian-Dalmatian
influence weaker than in Bosnia, as is attested by the few surviving
churches of the pre-Turkish period. But in both countries contact with
the Adriatic towns was closer than with the Eastern Empire.
[260] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 32.
[261] So called because its bell was tolled to announce an execution of
a criminal, a proclamation of exile, or the approach of a hostile fleet
(Gelcich, _op. cit._, p. 278).
[262] In 1346 forty additional sentries were added and distributed
among the posts, and an extra body of archers was enrolled (_Lib.
Ref._, i., March 24, p. 229). Of course when military expeditions were
organised a much larger levy was made both in the city and in the
territory.
[263] T. G. Jackson, _Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria_, ii. p. 372.
[264] Jackson, _ibid._
[265] R. Eitelberger von Edelberg, _Die Mittelalterlichen Kunstdenkmale
Dalmatiens_, in his _Gesammelte Kunsthistorische Werke_, iv. pp. 343,
344.
[266] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, 17, 23.
[267] Eitelberger, _op. cit._, p. 334.
[268] Jackson, _ibid._
[269] The word _sponza_ was also applied to open loggie, built on the
borders of the Republic as resting-places for the caravans. One of
these existed at S. Michele della Cresta (1356), and another by the
Canale di Narenta (Gelcich, p. 73).
[270] De Diversis says it was enlarged in 1312.
[271] _Op. cit._, ii. 360.
[272] Gelcich, p. 19.
[273] _Ibid._, p. 20.
[274] Horatio Brown’s _Venice_, p. 212.
[275] Gelcich, _La Zedda_, Preface.
[276] Note to Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, vol. vi. p. 500.
[277] The “Machova” of the Ragusan documents.
[278] Klaić, p. 197.
[279] Knez means lord or count.
[280] The decadence of Servia can be traced in the titles of its
rulers. Uroš IV. was the last Tsar, Vukašin was only Kral or king, and
his son was Marko Kraljević, “the King’s son.”
[281] Du Cange, Farlati, Lenormant, and Rovinski take the first view,
Gelcich (_La Zedda_, p. 28) and Šafažik the second.
[282] It is sometimes called Zenta or Zeta.
[283] This form of succession was a very usual one in the Serb lands.
[284] Gelcich, _La Zedda_, p. 13; Jireček, _Handelsstrassen_, p. 36
_sqq._
[285] These were allowed to lapse in favour of Vojslav Voinović.
[286] Miklosich, _Monumenta Serbica_, p. 176.
[287] Gelcich, _La Zedda_, p. 14; also his _Memoire storiche sulle
Bocche di Cattaro_.
[288] Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, Bury’s edition, vol. vii. pp. 29-31.
[289] The ancient Tainaros, now called Cirmen.
[290] Klaić, p. 199; Gelcich, _La Zedda_, p. 80.
[291] After the year 1358 the _Reformationes_ allude to the _Rector_,
and no longer to the _Rectores_.
[292] _I.e._ when his own acts or the election of one of his relatives
was under discussion.
[293] _Ref._, ii., January 1359.
[294] _Diplom. Ragus._, 1359, 4, 5, 8; 1360, 12; 1361, 20.
[295] _Ref._, 1360, Feb.
[296] _Ref Cons. Maj._, 1361, July 1.
[297] _Ref._, 1361, July.
[298] The Slaves used Ragusa as their banking centre.
[299] Jireček, p. 36.
[300] Gelcich, _Balša_, genealog. table.
[301] _Monumenta Histor.-Jurid. Slav. Mer._, i., Agram, 1882.
[302] _Mon. Rag._, iii.
[303] _Ref._, ii. pp. 276-280; _Lett. e Comm. di Lev._ 1350-80, Aug.
31, 1359; Gelcich, _Balša_, pp. 33-37; _Ref._, iii. 91, 98, 99; iv. 24,
117, 133-4, 139, 140.
[304] Now Mičsić, in Montenegro. See Miklosich, _Mon. Serb._, p. 169.
[305] Gelcich, _Balša_, p. 38.
[306] Gelcich, _Balša_, p. 53.
[307] _Diplom. Rag._, 42.
[308] Klaić, p. 200; Jireček, pp. 36-37.
[309] Klaić, p. 200.
[310] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 44.
[311] _Ref._, iv., Oct 14, 1378.
[312] _Diplom. Rag._, March 13, 1379, No. 62.
[313] _Ref._, 1379, June 20 and June 26.
[314] Engel, § 32.
[315] Razzi, lib. i. cap. xxi.
[316] Miklosich, _Mon. Serb._, 184-5.
[317] Miklosich, _Mon. Serb._, 188.
[318] Klaić, p. 206.
[319] Charter dated December 2, 1382, in Miklosich, 201-202.
[320] Kukuljevic-Sakcinski, _Jura Regni Croatin_, i. 150-151; Klaić,
209.
[321] _Mon. Slav._, iv. 187-8, 194-5, 200-203.
[322] July 20, 1385, Klaić, 211.
[323] Klaić, 226.
[324] Kossovo or Kosovo Polje.
[325] Gelcich, _Balša_, 140.
[326] The mountainous region behind Cattaro.
[327] _Lettere di Levante_, 1403-1410, fol. 78; Gelcich, _Balša_, 162.
[328] _Ref._, in _Dipl. Rag._, Sept. 17, 1390, and Jan. 26, 1391.
[329] Gelcich, _Balša_, 161-3.
[330] _Mon. Slav._, iv. 295, Oct 7, 1392.
[331] _Ref._, 1395-7, fol. 75, 78; Gelcich, _Balša_, 174.
[332] Gelcich, _Balša_, p. 175.
[333] Gelcich, _Balša_, 183.
[334] _I.e._ “the Duchy,” from Herzeg or Herzog.
[335] _Ref._, in _Dipl. Rag._, March 20, 1392.
[336] Hitherto it had only struck copper coins, using foreign silver
and gold. Gold coins were never struck at Ragusa.
[337] Gelcich, _Balša_, 200-201.
[338] Gelcich, _Balša_, 205-306.
[339] Klaić, 274.
[340] Klaić, 278-9; he deduces this from the letter of the Ragusans to
Hrvoje, April 8, 1400, in which they state that Ostoja had protested
against their detention of the Turkish envoy. See also Pučić,
_Spomenici_, i. 28, and Lucio, _De Regno Dalm. et Croat._, p. 258.
[341] A few years before, in 1391, they had received part of Canali,
with Dolnja Gora and Soko, from the Paulovići, so that now the
territory of the Republic extended from the Narenta to the Bocche di
Cattaro.
[342] _Diplom. Ragus._, 91-102.
[343] _Diplom. Rag._, 95, Nov. 16, 1403.
[344] Fejér, _Cod. Dipl._, x. 4, p. 388.
[345] Pučić, _Spom._, i. xv; Klaić, 280-290.
[346] The Djed or chief priest of the Bogomil community was also
present at this Parliament.
[347] Pučić, i. 56 and 61.
[348] Rački, _Pokret_, Rad. iv., Jugosl. Akad., 85; Klaić, 297.
[349] _Ref._ 1407-1411, fol. 245.
[350] Gelcich, _Balša_, 271.
[351] Gelcich, _Balša_, 294.
[352] _Dipl. Ragus._, July 21, 1409.
[353] Hrvoje’s shiftiness had at last made him fall into disgrace.
[354] Resti, _ad ann._, 1413.
[355] Gelcich, _Balša_, 302; _Dipl. Rag._, v. 21, 1414.
[356] Gelcich, _Istituzioni Sanitarie et Marittime_, p. 36.
[357] See the Bull of 1373, in Theiner _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 398.
[358] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, p. 52.
[359] De Diversis.
[360] See _ante_, pp. 195-7.
[361] Gelcich, 46-47.
[362] Matteo Saverio Zamagna, quoted in Gelcich, p. 51.
[363] The Ragusan small _braccio_ or _lakat mali_ = 51 centimetres,
Gelcich, 49-50.
[364] Klaić 337-40.
[365] _Dipl. Rag._, 202, June 8, 1426.
[366] _Ibid._, 206, July 31, 1427.
[367] Dec 31, 1427, in Miklosich, 336-50.
[368] Resti; _Dipl. Rag._, 215.
[369] _Dipl. Rag._, 212, April 30, 1430.
[370] _Ibid._, 216, June 18, 1430.
[371] _Dipl. Rag._, 220.
[372] An account of them occupies the whole of the tenth book of Resti.
[373] Matković, _Rad._, 235-36; Klaić, 351-52.
[374] _Dipl. Rag._, 228, 230, 236-38, 240.
[375] Jireček, _Handelstrassen_, 39 and 40.
[376] Klaić, 352-53.
[377] “Omnes de progenie ipsius domini Sandali appellata Cosaze,”
Glasnik, xiii. 159.
[378] Herzeg or Herzog, because he received Imperial investiture, hence
the name Herzegovina.
[379] Resti, 1435.
[380] Jireček, 85.
[381] Miklosich, _Mon. Serb._, 409-11; Klaić, 335-36.
[382] It is reported by the author of the Anonymous Chronicle that when
the Sultan tried to induce the Ragusans by threats and bribes to give
up George, they replied: “We should rather give up our city, our wives,
and our children than George or his family, for we have nothing but our
good faith; and we should do the same with you if you came here under
our safe-conduct.”
[383] Resti, 1440 and 1441.
[384] Resti, _ad ann._, 1441-1443.
[385] _Dipl. Rag._, 244, 245.
[386] Philippi Callimachi, _De Rebus Vladislai_, lib, i., in
Schwandtner’s _Scriptores Rer. Hung._, i. 457; Klaić, 357.
[387] _Dipl. Rag._, 266.
[388] _Ibid._, 268, 270.
[389] Hammer-Purgstall, 453.
[390] _Dipl. Rag._, 284, Aug. 13, 1450.
[391] Klaić, 380-81.
[392] _Ibid._, 382.
[393] Miklosich, _Mon. Serb._, 441; according to Resti he had had a
quarrel with the city in 1449 concerning the castle of Soko, which he
had tried to capture by treachery.
[394] Miklosich, 444-47; Klaić, 385.
[395] Klaić, 386.
[396] _Dipl. Rag._, 274.
[397] _Ibid._, 292.
[398] Miklosich, 457-60; Klaić, 390.
[399] In 1456 Mohammed II. addressed a letter to “the Sandjak Beg of
the Duchy and to the Kadi of Novi and Hotač” (Miklosich, 465-69).
[400] Appudini, i. 204; Engel, § 639; Luccari, 170.
[401] Prof. Bury in the _Cambridge Modern History_, i. p. 68.
[402] “Caput illius patriæ et ob mineras belli nervus.”
[403] _Dipl. Rag._, 347.
[404] _Dipl. Rag._, 353.
[405] John Sabota’s letter, quoted by Klaić, 398.
[406] Theiner, _Mon. Hung._, ii. 291-92, 297.
[407] Klaić, 401.
[408] Klaić, 419.
[409] Miklosich, 485-91.
[410] May 6, 1463, Rački in _Starine_ vi. of the South Slav. Acad., 1
_sqq._
[411] _Ibid._
[412] Rački, _ibid._
[413] Klaić, 433 _sqq._
[414] Rački, _ibid._; _Dipl. Rag._, April 30, 1463.
[415] Engel, § 40. According to the legend, while Mohammed was riding
towards Ragusa with hostile intentions he was stopped by the appearance
of a venerable old man, and his horse refused to go forward; the Sultan
was frightened by the omen and abandoned the enterprise. The city’s
saviour was, of course, San Biagio.
[416] The name is a Turkish form of Alexander, with the designation
_beg_ added.
[417] Razzi, lib. ii. cap. v.
[418] _Dipl. Rag._, _Ref._, Dec 2, 7, and 28, 1465; Jan. 3, 1466.
[419] _Dipl. Rag._, Ref., Feb. 5, 1466, to Sept. 16, 1470.
[420] Počić, _Spomenici Srpski_, ii. 130, Dec. 9, 1466.
[421] Resti, 1470-1471.
[422] Engel, § 40.
[423] Hammer-Purgstall, iii. 191.
[424] Hammer-Purgstall, iv. 4.
[425] Engel, § 40.
[426] Engel, _ibid._
[427] _Dipl. Rag._, 412.
[428] An exiled prince of the Imperial family, and a pretender to the
throne. He was a notable figure at the court of Pope Alexander VI.
[429] Valentinelli, extracts from Marin Sanudo, p. 31, April 10, 1499.
[430] Engel, § 41.
[431] Razzi.
[432] Engel, § 42.
[433] Razzi, _ad ann._, 1526.
[434] _Dipl. Rag._, 441.
[435] Engel, § 43.
[436] Valentinelli’s extracts from Sanudo, i. 297.
[437] Theiner, _Mon. Slav. Mer._, i. 805.
[438] Ragnina.
[439] Tafel und Thomas, Kais. Wiener Akad. der Wissensch.; Heyd,
_Histoire du Commerce du Lévant_, ii. 292 _sqq._; Makushev, _Mon. Hist.
Slav. Mer._, p. 111.
[440] I have spelt the names as they are in that book, inserting the
modern spelling in brackets.
[441] Jireček, _op. cit._, p. 61.
[442] This is the celebrated Sutjeska gorge.
[443] At present they are nearly all Muhamedans, having abjured
Christianity, together with most of the inhabitants of Albania and many
of those of Bosnia and other Balkan lands, during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
[444] In the Balkans there are many shrines worshipped by Christians
and Turks alike, especially in Albania.
[445] The present capital of Bulgaria.
[446] Makushev, _op. cit._, 345.
[447] _Ibid._, 440.
[448] G. Müller, _Documenti sulle Relazioni delle Città Toscane coll’
Oriente_, p. 227.
[449] Makushev, p. 477.
[450] I. von Düringsfeld, _Aus Dalmatien_.
[451] Gelcich, _I Conti di Tuhelj_, 68-70.
[452] _Ref., Cons. Rog._, Oct. 23, Nov. 22, and Dec. 2, 1468.
[453] Gelcich, _Ragusa_, 70.
[454] This is the case at Ragusa to this day. In other Dalmatian towns,
where the men are bilingual, the women often speak only Italian.
[455] This characteristic is alluded to by Pouqueville (_Voyage de la
Grèce_), who wrote 250 years later (see _infra_, chap. xii.).
[456] This last statement is probably an instance of the wish being
father to the thought, for there is no doubt that in the sixteenth
century Ragusa was a first-class fortress, almost impregnable for those
times. But Rambuti, being a Venetian, hoped to see the city one day
fall under the power of the Lion of St. Mark.
[457] I., 1884, pp. 131 _sqq._
[458] The Archbishopric of Ragusa was usually conferred on an Italian
by the Pope, while the canons of the Cathedral were Ragusan nobles.
[459] France was at this time (1538) allied to the Turks.
[460] Razzi, Engel.
[461] Razzi, lib. ii. cap. xiv.
[462] Razzi, lib. ii. cap. xv.
[463] _The Barbary Corsairs_, p. 105.
[464] According to Engel (§ 45), out of 13 Ragusan vessels 7 were lost,
and at Isola di Mezzo alone there were 300 widows.
[465] Razzi, ii. xvii.
[466] Horatio Brown, _Venice_, p. 364.
[467] Lorenzo Miniati was then Tuscan consul at Ragusa, and was
entrusted with the duty of informing his Government of all the rumours
as to the movements of the Turks which he might hear; Makushev, _op.
cit._, p. 495.
[468] _Ibid._, 501, 1566.
[469] Engel, § 45.
[470] Razzi, iii. xx.
[471] Min. Cons., June 5, 1570; Polizze Off. 5 Ragioni, Feb. 30, 1570.
[472] Gelcich, pp. 84 and 87.
[473] The Benedictine monastery, which still exists, is built on an
island in a salt lake, or rather inlet, communicating with the open sea
by a narrow channel.
[474] Romanin, _Storia Documentata di Venezia_, vol. viii., Appendix.
[475] _Relatione dell’ Orribile Terremoto seguito nella Città di
Ragusa, & altre della Dalmatia & Albania_, Venice, 1667.
[476] Gelcich, 97.
[477] _Rog._, 1667, June 23, and _Div._ 1711, f. 58, dd. Feb. 3.
[478] Quoted by Gelcich, 98.
[479] The population of the island before the earthquake is said to
have been 14,000, but this is probably an exaggerated estimate. It now
barely supports 500.
[480] Gelcich, 98.
[481] Among the killed was George Crook, the Dutch ambassador to the
Porte, and his family and four servants, who had arrived at Ragusa four
days before the earthquake on their way to Constantinople; the rest of
his suite, including Jakob Vandam, Dutch consul at Smyrna, were saved.
Vandam wrote an account of this calamity in his _Old and New State of
Dalmatia_.
[482] T. G. Jackson, _Dalmatia_, vol. ii. pp. 387-88.
[483] It consisted of five galleons and seven carracks, with a total
burden of 7200 _carra_.
[484] Fra Benedetto Orsini (Miniati), quoted in Gelcich’s _I Conti de
Tuhelj_, p. 87.
[485] Small barques.
[486] Gelcich, _ibid._
[487] Ragusan Archives, 1600—lxix. 2119, in Gelcich, _Tuhelj_, 104.
[488] Gelcich, _Tuhelj_, 128.
[489] Farlati-Coleti, _Illyricum Sacrum_, iv.; Engel, § 49.
[490] Engel, § 59.
[491] A. A. Paton, _Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic_, vol. ii. p.
130 _sqq._
[492] Article ix. and xi. of the Turco-Venetian Treaty; see Rycaut’s
continuation of Knolles’s _Turkish History_.
[493] Paul Pisani, _La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815_, Paris, 1893.
[494] Oct. 20, 1724, in Farlati, p. 272.
[495] Engel, § 53.
[496] Why they should have called themselves by the names of those two
famous universities is not clear.
[497] Engel, § 55.
[498] Pouqueville, _Voyage de la Grèce_, vol. i.; Engel, § 56.
[499] Pouqueville, _ibid._
[500] Quoted by Pouqueville.
[501] Also the fact that France had destroyed the liberties of the
Republic would tend to make Frenchmen of the time dwell on its defects,
just as they did in the case of the Venetian Republic.
[502] T. Watkins, _Travels through Swisserland ... to Constantinople_,
vol. ii. Letter xlii. p. 331 _sqq._
[503] T. Watkins, _Travels through Swisserland ... to Constantinople_
Letter xliii. p. 344.
[504] Gelcich, p. 42.
[505] _Ibid._
[506] _Reform._, ii., Oct. 3, 1349.
[507] De Diversis, ed. Brunelli, p. 39.
[508] Curzola has always been famous for its building stone, which is
almost a marble, and acquires a rich yellow patina with age.
[509] Ragusavecchia.
[510] De Diversis, as quoted by Graham Jackson, who had seen the MS. in
the Franciscan library at Ragusa, containing passages not in Brunelli.
[511] Jackson, ii. 332, note.
[512] Jackson, ii. 336.
[513] Anonymous account of Ragusa, quoted by Gelcich, p. 76.
[514] T. G. Jackson, ii. p. 380.
[515] _Ibid._
[516] De Diversis, ed. Brunelli, p. 42.
[517] Gelcich, p. 80.
[518] T. G. Jackson, ii. 394.
[519] _Ibid._, ii. 295.
[520] Those of Stagno Grande have for the most part been pulled down.
[521] Eitelberger von Edelberg, _op. cit._, iv. 357.
[522] In the Herzegovina.
[523] _Op. cit._, iv. 317.
[524] For a more detailed description, see Graham Jackson, vol ii. p.
354.
[525] _Ibid._, ii. p. 356.
[526] Puipin und Spasowicz, _Geschichte der Slawischen Literatur_, vol.
ii. p. 224.
[527] Puipin und Spasowicz, _ibid._
[528] This, as well as the Slavonic works of other Ragusans, is
published at Agram in the collection called _Stari Pisci Hrvatski_ (Old
Croatian writers).
[529] In this, as in other works by Ragusans, no animus against the
Turk is displayed. He was regarded by the Ragusans as a law of nature
rather than as an enemy, and a wholesome fear made them careful to
avoid doing or even saying anything to offend him.
[530] Published at Venice in 1599.
[531] Venice, 1547, 1550.
[532] _Ibid._, 1550.
[533] Several editions of the _Osman_ have been published, and
Appendini translated it into Italian.
[534] Also spelt Boscovich.
[535] Pisani, _La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815_, pp. 33 _sqq._
[536] _Ibid._, pp. 125-126.
[537] R. P. Pregadi, July; Pisani, _ibid._
[538] Pisani, _ibid._, pp. 135-136.
[539] Pisani, _passim_.
[540] Timoni’s despatches to the Austrian Chancery, quoted by Pisani,
_ibid._, pp. 299-300.
[541] _I.e_. “beg” and “request,” rather than “must” and “shall.”
[542] Pisani, pp. 457-58.
[543] Pisani, _passim_.
INDEX
Adrianople, 170, 271
Adriatic, navigation in, 54;
pirates in, 190
Advocatus Comunis, 85
Æsculapius capital, 341-4
Albania, 59-60, 166;
under Servian rule, 137;
Venetians in, 163;
Turks in, 259
Alexius Comnenus, Emperor of the East, 35-6
Altomanović, Nicholas, 165, 167, 175-6
Antium, Cape, battle of, 180
Antivari, 136-8, 140;
church of, 73;
trade with, 73
Apulia, 118, 246-7;
pirates of, 123
Archbishops of Ragusa, Venetian, 39
Aristocracy, 298, 317, 333-7, 411-16
Arrengerius, Archbishop of Ragusa, 73
Art at Ragusa, 149 _sq._, 339 _sq._
Austria, Ragusan tribute to, 327
Austrian wars with Turkey, 321-4;
schemes on Ragusa, 383
Austrians in Dalmatia, 382 _sq._, 403 _sq._;
occupy Ragusa, 411
Avars destroy Salona and Epidaurum, 16
Balša, George, 177, 179;
Balša III., 202-4, 210;
Constantine Balša, 190
Barbarossa, Haireddin, 8, 281-4
Barbary corsairs, 281, 283;
States, 324
Basil II., Emperor of the East, 61
Bayazet I., 187, 191;
II., 255, 258
Bela II., King of Hungary, 37;
IV., 110
Belgrad, 136, 225, 237, 261, 266, 324
Benedict XII., Pope, 113
Benessa, Piro, 63-4
Bergato, 107, 130;
battle of, 394-5
Bobali, Michele, 47, 63;
Vito, 63
Bobovac, 102, 200, 201, 241
Bodazza, Lorenzo and Simone, 195
Bodino, legend of, 46-7, 61
Bogomilism, 53, 108, 111, 168, 223, 230
Bojana, river, 116, 118, 137
Bona, Giovanni, 373;
Marquis, 404, 407;
Niccolò, 319, 320;
Serafino, 245
Bosdari, Mayor of Ragusa, 415;
Michele, 301
Boskovic, Ruggiero, 329, 381
Bosnia, 59, 60, 102-3, 167-8, 193, 219-223, 227-8, 238-43, 248, 251-2,
261-2
Bosnia, bishopric of, 110;
envoys to, 320;
Pashas of, 281, 296
Bosnian colony near Ragusa, 18, 19
Branivoj, 95-8
Bratutti, Niccolò, 373
Brazza, 199, 205-9
British fleet, operations of, 401 _sq._
Brskovo, 141, 143
Bruère, French Consul, 387-8, 399
Bucchia brothers, 97;
Giorgio, 319-21
Budua, 176-7
Caboga, Biagio, 301;
Count Biagio Bernard, 392, 399, 400, 404;
Marino, 319-21
Calvino, Crisostomo, Archbishop of Ragusa, 292-3
Canalesi, 404, 407
Canali, 12, 15, 206;
revolt in, 385-6
Candia, war of, 296, 318
Candiano, Pietro I., Doge of Venice, 27;
III., Doge of Venice, 27
Castelnuovo, 184, 281-3, 322
Castello of Ragusa, 151, 160, 340-41
Cathedral of Ragusa, 151-3;
Treasury, 301-2, 367-8
Cattaro, 59, 91-2, 99, 124, 140, 168, 175, 177, 180, 181, 204, 211;
Bocche di, 59, 322;
Three Martyrs of, 114
Cernomen, battle of, 170-1
Charles V., 286-8, 307-8
Chioggia war, 180-82
Christian fleet, 228;
Leagues, 280, 286;
prisoners, 285, 292
Church, Eastern and Western, 222
Citizens, classes of, 335-6
Clissa, 185, 281, 293
Coinage of Ragusa, 145, 192
Constantine Palæologus, Emperor, 264
Constantinople captured by Crusaders, 50;
captured by Turks, 235;
Ragusans at, 116, 118, 151;
routes to, 266 _sq._
Constitution of Ragusa, 79, 87-8, 330
Counts of Ragusa, Venetian, 24, 70, 71
Crnoević, Radić, 191
Croatia, 262, 401
Cubranović, Andrija, 375
Čulin, Banus of Bosnia, 53, 61, 110, 111
Curzola, 7, 199, 205-9, 402;
battle of, 91
Dabiša, King of Bosnia, 193
D’Ajala, 333, 383, 386, 389-90, 409
Dalmatia, geographical position, 1;
conquered by the Romans, 8;
by Odovakar, 9;
theme of, 9, 10;
conquered by Venice, 32-4;
Imperial authority revives in, 34;
conquered by Hungary, 163 _sq._;
reconquered by Venice, 211-12;
invaded by the Turks, 281-2;
the French in, 390 _sq._
Dance, church of, 351;
paintings in, 361
Dandolo, Enrico, Doge of Venice, 50;
Giovanni, Count of Ragusa, 62;
Provveditore of Dalmatia, 401
Delgorgue, General, 394-5
Delort, Colonel, 399, 400
Demetrius Palæologus, Despot of the Morea, 265
Dessa, Prince of the Serbs, 37
Diplomacy, Ragusan, 88-9, 288, 291
Dobroslav, Prince of the Serbs, 34
Doclea, 62, 166;
archbishopric of, 51
Dominican monastery at Ragusa, 156-7, 304;
paintings in, 363-4;
at Mezzo, 358
Dominicans at Ragusa, 113;
in Bosnia, 112
Držić, Gjore, 373;
Marino, 375
Dubrovnik, 18;
_See also_ Ragusa
Dulcigno, 136, 138
Durazzo, 7, 10, 118, 163, 166, 248
Dušan, Stephen, Tsar of the Serbs, 60, 96-8
Dutch in the Mediterranean, 314-15
Earthquakes at Ragusa, 260, 298-305
Elizabeth, widow of Louis of Hungary, 167, 183
England, trade with, 264;
incident with, 329
English colony at Ragusa, 275
Epidaurum, 7, 15
Eugene IV., Pope, 228;
of Savoy, 324
Fano, treaty with, 55
Ferdinand, Emperor of Germany, 293
Ferrara war, 257-8
Florence, connection with, 118, 272-3
Foča, 133, 267
Fonton, Russian consul, 388-93
Forte Molo, 357;
San Giovanni, 291;
Imperiale, 408, 410
Fortifications of Ragusa, 291
Forty Martyrs, feast of, 215-16
Franciscan monastery at Ragusa, 153-6, 304;
at Mezzo, 359;
at Stagno, 360
Franciscans at Ragusa, 113
French occupy Ragusa, 392;
their rule in Ragusa, 396, 401
French party at Ragusa, 387-8, 398
French Revolutionary wars, 333 _sq._
Galliani, Archbishop of Ragusa, 327
Garagnin, G. D., 401
George Branković, Despot of Servia, 226-7
Gervase, Count of Ragusa, 47-8
Ghetaldi, Marino, 380;
Rector of Ragusa, 298
Giordani, Onofrio, 341-8, 352-3
Giorgi, Colonel, 408;
Damiano, 229;
Marsilio, Count of Ragusa, 73;
Matteo, 181
Giuda, Damiano, 63-4
Giuppana, 107, 120
Giustiniani, Marco, Count of Ragusa, 70
Gondola, Francesco, 286-8;
Francesco Giuseppe, 331;
Giacomo, 198;
Giovanni, _see_ Gundulić
Gozze, Giovanni, 372-3;
Marino, 221, 319-21;
Niccolò, 195-6;
Raphael, 322
Grado, Patriarchate of, 39, 67
Grand Council, 82, 85
Gravosa, 107, 120, 273, 303, 357-8, 408
Gregory VII., Pope, on Dalmatian Church, 51
Grgurić, 409, 410
Grimani, Patriarch of Venice, 282
Gropa, Lord of Ochrida, 166
Gundulić, Ivan, 376-80
Heraclius, Emperor, 21
Herzegovina, 191, 234-5, 242, 255-6;
Sandjakbegs of, 281, 284
Hlum, 12, 61-2, 94-5, 135, 166-7, 174-5
Hoste, Sir William, 402-4, 407-8
Hrvoje, Duke of Spalato, 193, 197-201
Hungary, connection of Dalmatia and Ragusa with, 35, 105, 163, 173,
251-2, 256, 261-2;
civil wars in, 183;
conquered by Austria, 321-4
Hunyadi, John, 227, 229, 230
Isak Beg, 219, 223-4, 226, 238
Jajce, 240, 242, 261-2
John, Archbishop of Ragusa, 73
John Zapolya, King of Hungary, 262
Kara Mustafa, 318-21
Kiriko, 398, 399
Kljuć, 130, 242
Kosača, Stephen, Duke of St. Sava, 224-5
Kossovo, 139;
first battle of, 186;
second battle of, 229
Kotromanic, Stephen, Banus of Bosnia, 61
Kreševo, 143;
Diet of, 228
Kroia, 230, 246, 248, 254
Lacroma, 54, 286
Ladislas, King of Hungary, 35, 227-9;
Posthumus, King of Hungary, 229;
Ladislas II., King of Hungary, 258;
of Naples, 198
Lagosta, island of, 30, 31, 87, 107, 294
Latin Empire of the East, 50;
colonials at Ragusa, 80;
poets at Ragusa, 372-3
Laudo Populi, 24-5, 79
Lazar, Knez, 165, 186
Leopold I., Emperor of Austria, 321-3
Lesina, island of, 7, 199, 205-9, 403
Levant, Spanish expedition to, 308-11
Louis, King of Hungary, 103-4, 163, 168
Lowen, Captain, 402, 404, 407
Luccari, Giacomo, 380;
Giovanni, 235
Lučić, Hannibal, 373-4
Macedonia, 164, 166, 170
Manuel Comnenus, Emperor, 38-9, 44
Marko Kraljević, 171, 186
Marmont, General, 397 _sq._
Mary, daughter of Louis of Hungary, 183
Mary Helena, wife of Step. Tomašević, 243
Matthew Corvinus, King of Hungary, 229, 238, 251, 258
Matthew Ninoslav, Banus of Bosnia, 61
Meleda, island of, 37, 107, 178, 292
Menčetić, Šiško, 373
Mezzo, Isola di, 107, 282, 303, 307, 358-9
Michael Balbus, Emperor, 21;
Palæologus, 117;
Tsar of the Bulgarians, 73-4, 96, 107;
I., Despot of Epirus, 116;
II., Despot of Epirus, 116
Michelozzi, Michelozzo, 342-4
Michiel, Tribuno, Arch. of Ragusa, 40, 48
Michiel, Vitale, Doge of Venice, 39, 40
Milutinović, General, 409-16
Mohammed I., Sultan, 209;
II., 235-7, 240-43, 248, 255, 289;
IV., 320
Molitor, General, 390, 395-6
Montrichard, 408, 410, 411
Morea, 264-5, 322-4
Morlachs, 301, 322
Morosini, Marino, Count of Ragusa, 91;
Tommaso, Patriarch of Venice, 50
Murad I., Sultan, 170, 186;
II., Sultan, 221, 225-7
Nalješković, Nikola, 375
Naples, relations with, 327, 332
Napoleon Bonaparte, 390 _sq._
Narenta, river, 116, 135, 251-2;
pirates of, 26-32, 55;
Mare di, 94
Nemanja, Stephen, King of the Serbs, 46-7, 59;
dynasty, 58
Nikolići, Counts of Hlum, 103
Normans in Dalmatia, 35, 489
Novibazar, 59, 133, 134, 266
Novobrdo, 140, 143, 220, 237
Ochrida, battle of, 247
Ohmučević, Count Ivelja, 308
Ohmučević-Grgurić, Don Pedro d’Ivelja, 307-10;
Don Antonio Damiano, 315-316;
Don Andrea, 311, 312
Olisti-Diničić-Tasovčić, Don Juan, 310
Olisti-Tasovčić, Don Estevan, 309-10;
Don George, 310
Orchan, Emir of the Turks, 170
Orloff, Admiral, 330-31
Orseolo, Pietro, Doge of Venice, 29
Orthodox Christians, 110, 244, 317, 327-8
Ottone, Orseolo, Count of Ragusa, 32, 34
Paccioni, 409-10
Pactbod, General, 401-2
Particiaco I., Giovanni, Doge of Venice, 27
Paul III., Pope, 280-1
Paul Radinović, Lord of Trebinje, 193
Paulimir Belo, King of Rascia, 29
Paulovići, 193;
Paul, 210;
Radosav, 210
Piracy, 94, 123, 259, 261
Podvisoko, 135
Porta Pile, 57, 354, 408, 411
Porta Ploce, 357, 411
Portugal, expedition to, 308
Pouqueville, 335-6
Pozza-Sorgo, Count, 415
Prazzatto, Michele, 307-8
Prévot, French Consul, 333-5
Priepolje, 133, 134 _note_, 268
Primorije, 194, 197
Prizren, 108 _note_, 139, 145
Radoslav, Count of Hlum, 61;
Radoslav II., 62, 74
Radinović, Paul, 210
Ragnina, Clemente, 280-1;
Francesco, 332;
Niccolò, 380
Ragusa, situation, 4, 5;
foundation, 16, 17;
name, 17-18;
early constitution, 22-3;
first submission to Venice, 32-4;
second submission, 40-44;
third submission, 50, 66, 67;
church of, 51-3, 108;
independent of Venice, 106;
territory of, 107;
harbour of, 119, 273-4;
submission to Hungary, 171 _sq._;
international position, 172-3;
relations with the Turks, 169-70;
with Hungary, 212;
wealth of, 215, 219, 263, _sq._;
decline of, 297-8;
end of Republic, 414
Ragusan shipping, 2, 53, 68, 306, _sq._;
colonies, 142-6
Ragusavecchia, 15, 107, 120, 407-8
Rambuti, Benedetto, 266 _sq._, 276-7
Rector of Ragusa, 82, 170-2
Rector’s Palace, 298, 304, 339-48
Romanesque art, 151 _sq._
Rosario, church of, 351-2
Rudnik, 131, 167
Rukavina, General, 383
Russia, 327-8, 330-3, 388-93
Sabbioncello, 93-6, 135
St. Sava, 59, 134-5;
Duchy of, 224
Salamanchesi, faction of, 329-30
San Biagio, bas-relief of, 161;
church of, 153, 304;
feast of, 215;
legend of, 28 and _note_;
statuette of, 368-9
S. Giacomo in Peline, church of, 57, 113
S. Luca, church of, 350
S. Niccolò in Prijeki, church of, 57
S. Salvatore, church of, 260, 349
Sant’ Andrea, 107
Sandalj Hranić, Lord of Hlum, 190-93, 203, 209, 210, 219-24
Santa Maria del Biscione, church of, 358
Santa Maria in Casielto, church of, 57
Santissima Annunziata, church of, 350
Sapienza, battle of, 103
Saxons in Bosnia, 142, 144
Scutari, 100, 139, 188, 203, 253-4
Selim the Drunkard, Sultan, 285
Senate, 81-2, 88
Serbs, origin of, 11;
civilisation among 147
Sergio, Monte, 18, 19, 57, &c.
Servia, 58, 90-93, 164, 171, 236-8
Servian spoken at Ragusa, 10, 80
Sette Bandiere, 288-9
Shipping, Ragusan, 78, 119-20, 126
Sigismund, King of Hungary, 191-2, 194
Siniavin, Admiral, 390-1, 395
Skanderbeg, 220, 245-8
Slavery at Ragusa abolished, 313-14
Slaves, invasions of, 9;
conversion of, 53;
renegade, 193
Slavonic States, relations with, 44, 46, 56
Sofia, 140, 266, 270
Sorbonnesi, faction of, 320-30
Sorgo, Count, 397;
Stefano, 181
Spain, relations with, 285, 288, 296
Spalato, Archbishopric of, 51, 52
_Specchio_ of nobility, 80, 212
Speranćić, Paul, Banus of Croatia, 239
Srebrnica, 136, 143, 205
Stagno, 93-6, 98-9, 120, 135, 303, 359-60
_Stanico_, 74, 76-78
Stephen, Despot of Servia, 195, 210;
son of Kosača, 352;
III., King of Servia, 60;
IV., King of Servia, 60;
Dušan, _see_ Dušan;
Lazarević, Despot of Servia, 223-4;
Uroš, _see_ Uroš;
Ostoja, King of Bosnia, 193-4, 197-9, 202, 210;
Ostogić, 210;
Thomas, King of Bosnia, 228, 230, 238-9;
Tomašević, King of Bosnia, 239-40;
Tvrtko, Banus of Bosnia, 167-8;
crowned king, 179, 183-5, 187-8, 209, 219-20
Stoicus, Johannes, 223-3
Suleiman Beg, 254;
Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan, 261-2
Sutorina, 323
Svetimir, King of Bosnia, 45
Thomas Palæologus, Despot of Achaia, 265
Tiepolo, Pietro, Count of Ragusa, 90
Timoni, Austrian Consul, 387, 398
Tomasić, General, 403
Tonisto, Niccolò, Count of Ragusa, 72-3
Topia, Charles, Lord of Albania, 166
Trade of Ragusa, 100, 115 _sq._, 118, 126, 170, 214, 253, 263, 265-6,
284-5, 207, 328, 338, 386-7;
routes, 130 _sq._
Trebinjćica, 130
Trebinje, 130, 267, 295
Trgovište, 134
Tribulzio, Archbishop of Ragusa, 279
Tribunia, 36-7, 44
Tribute to the Turks, 219, 236, 253-4, 260, 323-4
Turks, advance of, 169, 170, 191, 205-6, 219, 220, 223, 244-5;
Ragusa’s dealings with, 89, 179, 214, 235, 238, 258-9, 265-6, 278-9,
282-3, 398-9, 409, 412
Uljiša, King of Servia, 165, 170
Uroš, Stephen, 59;
the Great, 73;
II., 92;
IV., 93, 96, 164
Uskoks, 293-6
Usküb, 59, 266
Varna, battle of, 228, 229
Venetians, supreme in the Adriatic, 49;
reconquer Dalmatia, 211, 212;
in Albania, 253-4;
relations with Ragusa, 62 _sq._, 90, 91, 93, 105, 173, 257, 279-280,
282, 286-8, 318, 322-3, 328, 339 _sq._;
war with Austria, 295-6;
fall of the Republic, 382
Vetranić-Cavčić, Nikola, 374-5
Viridis, Liber, 79
Višegrad, Treaty of, 106
Vladislav, son of Kosača, 234, 252
Vlascnica, 136 and _note_
Vlatko, son of Kosača, 252, 255;
Hranić, 186
Vojnović, Vojslav, 165-7, 174-5
Vrhbosna, 225, 266
Vuk Branković, 165, 187
Vukčić, Stephen. _See_ Kosača
William of Sicily, 44, 47
Zamagna, Giacomo, 195;
Marino, 261;
Niccolò, 195
Zara, 10, 30, 31, 205, 383
Zedda, 136, 165-6, 202, 211
Zellovello, Count of Ragusa, 64-5
Zen, Caterino, 271-2
Zlatarić, Dinko, 376
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
Edinburgh & London
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Republic of Ragusa - An Episode of the Turkish Conquest" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.