SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL ENDOGAMY
IN THE RAGUSAN REPUBLIC:
MATRIMONIAL DISPENSES DURING THE PONTIFICATES
OF PAUL II AND SIXTUS IV (1464-1484)
Ana Marinkovic
The very first Observations on the East Central European records in the
registers of the Apostolic Penitentiary during the pontificates of Paul II ( 1464-
1471) and Sixtus IV (1471-1484i have put to the foreground the remarkably
high percentage of de matrimonialibus cases in the towns of the eastem Adriatic
coast, notably the diocese of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). A more precise look at the
data has revealed that the striking majority of 3 1 % of the East Centrat European
matrimonial cases originate from this diocese. Moreover, within the total number
of cases coming from the Ragusan diocese to the Penitentiary, matrimonial
cases comprise as much as 63%.
Unfortunately, there is no schalarship yet on the matter of the recurrent
appearance of supplications for matrimonial dispenses coming from certain dioceses
or certain regions of Europe? In general, the majority of supplications
originated from today’s Italy, France, Germany, and Spain; however, those re-
1 Cases from these two pontificates are registered in volumes 12 to 33; the part ofvolume 13
betonging to the last year ofpontificate ofPius n was not included in the analysis.
2 The existing studies conceming the matrimonial cases from the Penitentiary registers deal
with other sets of questions; see Filippo Tamburini, „Le dispense matrimoniali come fonte
storica nei documenti della Penitenzieria Apostolica (sec. Xill-XVI)“, in Le modele familiar
europeen: Normes, deviances, contr6/e du pouvoir, Collection de l’Ecole franaise de
Rome 90 (Rome: Ecole franaise de Rome, 1986), 9-30; David d’Avray, „Marriage Symbolism
and the Papal Penitentiary“, Review ofthe British Academy, The National Academy
for the Humanities and Social Seiences 7 (2003), 43-44. The most recent schalarship on
Ragusan matrimonial policy in a socio-political context, including a bibliography, is to be
found in David B. Rheubottom, „Genealogical Skewing and Political Support: Patrician
Politics in Fifteenth-century Ragusa (Dubrovnik)“, Continuity and Change 9 (1994), 369-
390 (hereafter Rheubottom, „Genealogical Skewing“); idem, Age, Marriage, and Politics in
Fifteenth-Century Ragusa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) (hereafter Rheubottom,
Age, Marriage, and Politics); Zdenka Janekovic-Roemer, Okvir slobode: Dubrovaeka
vlaste/a izmedu srednjovjekovlja i humanizma (The framewerk offreedom: Ragusan nobility
between the Middle Ages and humanism] (Zagreb: Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske
akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (hereafter HAZU), 1999), 69-73 andpassim (hereafter
Janekovic-Roemer, Okvir slobode).
126
gions are best represented in general, since they formed the core of the W estem
Christianity world at the time. Nevertheless, the nurober ofmatrimonial cases in
their overall statistics is not excessive. Dalmatia, however, and also, for example,
Irieland show the predominance of supplications related to obstacles in
contracting a marriage.
Without an attempt to address the question of the geographical distribution
of de matrimonialibus cases in general, I will try to find an explanation for
the phenomenon of the abundant matrimonial supplications from Dubrovnik, as
far as the local history context will allow. At this point already, I have to express
my doubts that the results will be applicable to other regions, which show a
similar quantitative predominance of matrimonial cases.
The answer valid for the Ragusan case should, in my opinion, be sought
in the particularities of a rigid matrimonial policy and practice, as well as in the
complex Ievels of endogamy existing in the Ragusan city-state. Therefore, it is
necessary to compare the matrimonial cases from the Penitentiary records with
the secular regulations existing in the Dalmatian cities and in Dubrovnik, and,
furthermore, to put them into their socio-political context? However, the direction
of the research should not lead to further k:nowledge on the relations between
the Church ofDubrovnik and the Holy Penitentiary. Rather, it should lead
to conclusions drawn from the data recorded in the Penitentiary registers as far
as they reflect the social processes in the late medieval and early modern city.
Before analysing the social structures, the foreign policy, and the marital practices
in Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian cities, I will briefly point out the main
quantitative tendencies related to the matrimonial issues in the region concemed.
4
Among all the dioceses ofthe Eastem Centrat Europe, Dubrovnik appears
to be the best represented, with 175 out of altogether 2010 East Centrat European
cases, which amounts to 9%. The case of the second-ranked Church of Zagreb
needs a special note: the archdiocese of Zagreh had jurisdiction over the
Croatian territory politically subject to the Hungarian king, and, therefore, was
in many aspects more similar to the other Hungarian dioceses. As the secondmost
represented diocese of all of Eastem Centrat Europe, with 148 cases or 7%,
it features only four matrimonial cases, while the great majority of 60% were
cases betonging to the de declaratoriis and de diversis formis categories. The
3 After the agreement of 1420 between Ladislaus of Naples, pretender to the Hungarian
throne, and the Republic of Venice, the eastern Adriatic coast was divided into two political
entities. Istria and the Dalmatian cities (including the towns in Boka Kotorska Bay and subsequently
the north Albanian coastal cities) were subject to the Republic of Venice,
whereas Dubrovnik was finally and officially recognized as an independent city-state. In
this context, under ‚Dalmatian cities‘ I mean the cities subject to Venetian rule, Dubrovnik
obviously excluded.
4 The following calculations are only approximate, since the database is still under construction.
For a more detailed statistical overview concerning East Central Europe, see the article
by Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen in this volurne.
127
best represented Dalmatian dioceses are: Kotor with 43 cases, Korcula and Bar
with 36 eacb, Hvar 29, and Zadar 25 cases.
The percentage of dioceses witbin the total of the matrimonial cases is
sbown in Table 1 .5 Ofthe 365 total matrimonial cases in East Central Europe, as
many as 1 1 2 cases originated from the Ragusan diocese, whicb amounts to 31%.
As mentioned, the diocese of Zagreb, in general the second-ranked diocese, bad
only four matrimonial cases ( 1 %). The Dalmatian dioceses generally led in the
number of matrimonial cases: Korcula with 3 1 (8%) and Kotor with 21 (6%),
Hvar with 1 8 (5%), Bar with 1 4 (4%); Split, Trogir, Zadar, Rab with 6 to 8 cases
(2% eacb). Porec, located in the Venetian part oflstria, bad 3%.
Table 1 . Percentage of dioceses within the total
ofEastem Central European matrimonial cases
5% 4% 3% 3%
• Dubrovnik 0 Korcula
!!1 Bar 0 Porec
40%
BKotor • Hvar
• Wroclaw 0 Others
Table 2 sbows the percentage of different types of cases within the diocese
of Dubrovnik: out of the 1 7 5 Ragusan cases, 1 12 ( 63%) concerned matrimonial
issues; 29 (16%) belonged to the group de diverssi fonnis, and 10 (6%)
to the related de declaratoriis group, which amounts to 22% of the cases dealing
with violent acts; 16 cases (8%) concem ecclesiastical promotions, 3 (2%) illegitimacy,
and 6 (4%) the granting of confession letters (de perpetuis); and only
one case was about giving a special licence for absolving a sentence of excommunication.
5 Only those dioceses that have more than ten matrimonial cases are included in the table.
128
Table 2. Percentage of different types of cases within the
diocese ofDubrovnik
• De matrimonialibus
0 De diversis formis
• De promotis et promovendis
• De declaratoriis
0 De perpetuis
• De defectu nataliwn
0 De sententiis
As regards the percentage of matrimonial cases among all entries for each
ofthe East Central European dioceses (Table 3), one has to observe the discrepancy
between the Eastem Adriatic dioceses and the contiDental ones (Hungarian
and Polish); whereas in the former group the matrimonial cases are represented
by 40-80%, in the latter they remain around 10%. The territory under jurisdiction
of the Ragusan Church is the second best represented: out of the total of 1 7 5
cases originating from Dubrovnik, 1 12 or 63% are matrimonial cases. Korcula is
leading with 84% and Hvar occupies the third place with 62%.6
6 The table includes all the dioceses that have more than six matrimonial cases.
129
Table 3. Percentage of matrimonial cases
among the total of cases
within Bastern Central European dioceses
• Korcula • Dubrovnik
0 Porec il Kotor
O Zadar •wroclaw
0 Transylvania • Cracow
•Hvar
• Trogir
DPoznan
DID Split
EBBar
• Eger
Similar results resulted from Jadranka Neralic’s analysis of supplications
for matrimonial dispensation from sources other than the Penitentiary registers
(Vatican, Lateran, and Avignon registers) for the period 1320-1480.7 33.5 petitions
or 45% came from the Ragusan diocese. 8 As far as the social status of petitioners
is concemed, among the 26 documents involving noblemen, 1 9 or 73%
were Ragusan cases.9
Matrimonial issues: canon law and secular authorities
in Dalmalian cities
The differences that appear between the Dalmatian cities and the rest of
the Bastern Central European dioceses, such as Zagreb, Eger, Alba Iulia, Wroc-
7 Jadranka Neralic, ‚“Ut matrimonium libere et licite contrahere possint:‘ Papal 14th- and 15thcentury
Matrimonial Dispensations“, in Hereditas rerum croaticarum, ed. Alexander Buczynski
(Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2003), 38-43.
8 Ibidem, 39. There are 32 cases involving spouses who were both Ragusan, and three cases
involving a combination of spouses from Dubrovnik and Kotor.
9 Ibidem, 41. The supplicants to the Holy Penitentiary, even though they rarely stressed their
belonging to a noble family by using the title nobili.s, were, at least in the majority, members
of the nobility who can be identified in tbe genealogical tables compiled by Inngard
Mahnken, DubrovaC!d patricijat u XIV veku [Ragusan nobility in the fourteenth century],
lzdanja Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti (hereafter SANU), Odelenje �tvenih nauka,
36 (Belgrade: SANU, 1960) (hereafter Mahnken, DubrovaC!d patricijat).
130
law, Pomail, or Cracow, can perbaps be explained by tbe distinctive bistorical
development of tbe Dalmatian towns as city communes. This type of social and
political structure implied a strict demarcation between maiores and minores,
that is, patricians and commoners. In Dalmatia, this separation was underlined
by tbe origin of tbe members of these social groups: tbe patricians were mostly
of Roman origin, wbile the majority of commoners constituted tbe Slavic population.
It is a commonplace in tbe social bistory of tbe communes tbat tbe upper
strata were not officially allowed to mix with tbe commoners, but tbe Churcb
did not recognize any similar regulation.
Among tbe impediments to marriage as set by canon law, tbe most often
violated was tbe farnilial relationship ( consanguinity and affinity), wbicb was
considered an impediment to tbe fourtb grade after tbe reforms of tbe Fourtb
Lateran Council in 1215.10 However, as tbe Penitentiary records witness, it was
difficult to respect tbese regulations because tbey limited tbe possibilities in tbe
choice of a partner whicb were further limited by other, secular, regulations.
canon law allowed marriages among members of different social groups but
from tbe lay point of view, marriage was primarily an economic and political
contract, and tberefore another set of rules was establisbed for tbe preservation
of tbe existing social structures. Thus, despite tbe differences between tbe lay
and tbe ecclesiastical concept of marriage caused by different priorities, a compromise
of tbose two concepts was necessary. From tbe fourteenth century onwards,
tbe laity accepted the ceremony of ecclesiastical marriage and its rules,
while the cburch in certain cases allowed divorce and endogamy.
11
Since all the issues concerning marriage were under tbe jurisdiction of
canon law, one usually does not find regulations on marriage in tbe city statutes
or any otber form of secular law except tbose concerning dowry and inberitance,
tbat is, the most direct economic aspects of marriage. Nevertheless, in addition
to tbe impediments for marriage according to canon law, the secular autborities
also set certain regulations for marriages of noblemen, in otber words, to promote
class endogamy. However, those were usually neitber very clear nor strict,
and tbey appear in Dalmatian and Venetian statutes as late as in tbe sixteenth
century.
From tbe end ofthe thirteentb century, all questions related to contracting
a marriage in Dalmatia were, in general, solved by tbe ecclesiastical court. This
1°
For a more detailed analysis of marriage impediments as set by canon law, and their remedy
through the institution of the Holy Penitentiary, see Ludwig Schmugge, Patrick Hersperger
and Beatrice Wiggenhauser, Die Supplikenregister der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie aus
der Zeit Pius ‚ JJ. (1458-1464), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 84
(Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 68-74; Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Weil
of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448-1527,
Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia- Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 3 1 3
11 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 103-119.
Zdenka Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad: DubrovaCka obitelj od XIII do XV stoljeca [Family
and the City: Ragusan family from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century] (Dubrovnik:
HAZU u Zagrebu, 1994), 60 (hereafter JanekoviC-Roemer, Rod i grad).
131
is evident in the statute regulations; for instance, the Statute of Split (codified in
13 12), although the regulation itself might imply the existence of such secular
interventions:
ltem statuito et ordinato ehe se nela corte del comune de spalato
movera alguna questione principalmente di alguno matrimonio
perehe questa questione e mere spirituale. in quella fiada Ia corte
di spalato secolare di questa questione per niguno modo si intrometta
ma rimetasi ala corte di Messer arcivescovo spalatino. del
qua/e e Ia iurisdictione et cognitione principalmente del matrimonio.
12
However, in the case of Dubrovnik there was a somewhat different distribution
of authority on matrimonial issues, which demands a more thorough analysis of
the context and the roots of Ragusan social endogamy. As early as the thirteenth
century, matrimonial relations within the Ragusan nobility were concentrated
within the circle of the most powerftll families, which led to the separation of
the upper social class and its homogenisation. The serrata or closing of the Ragusan
city councils in 1332 did not represent the ultimate act of class ideology,
because even after the closing of the councils the concept of nobilitas developed
in a more and more exclusive direction. Secular law still did not explicitly forbid
marriages between patricians and commoners, but took all possible measures to
make such marriages as few as possible. As early as the end of the fourteenth
century there were measures of prevention, which are discernible in the case of
Niebolas Ser Mathei de Gradi, a Ragusan patrician who married the commoner
Caterina Radesaglieh in the 1420s: the marriage was approved by the Church,
but the children were not allowed to enter the city councils.13
This tendency culminated with a regulation on the marriages of noblemen,
written down as chapter eighteen of Liber croceus, the book of amendments to
the Ragusan Statute. The regulation passed the Great Council on March 19,
1462, by a majority of 103 to 23 votes, and represented the conclusion and codification
of a custom mentioned as early as the 1440 as ancient. The regulation
forbade members of the nobility to marry commoners, und er the threat of loss of
all patrician offices and benefices, not only conceming the person committing
the offence but also all his descendants without the possibility of rehabilitation.14
12 Giuseppe AI!Wevic, ed., Statuti di Spa/ato (Split: Zannoni, 1878), lib. Ill, cap. VI, 91.
13 Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70. However, RhP.ubuttom and Mahnken believe that
Niebolas was a commoner himself.
14 Statuimus et ordinamus quod si quis ex nobilibus nostris de cetero in contrahendo matrimonium
acciperet uxorem filiam alicuius Ragusei qui non esset nobi/si Ragusii, excepto si
talis esset filia alicuius nobilis alterius civitatis maritime auf alicuius ex descententibus ex
dictis nobilibus a/terius civitatis maritime talis accipi ens huiusmodi uxorem, ipso facto,
amota omni exceptione cum suis heredibus et successoribus descendentibus ex dicto matrimonio
sit perpetuo privatus omnibus consiliis, officiis et beneficiis communis Ragusii,
nec ad ipsa consilia, officia et beneficia, ullo (modo) unquam tempore admitti possit ipse
contrahens, nec aliquis ex dictis heredibus et successoribus suis ex dicto matrimonio descendentibus.
Et alicui qui huiusmodi matrimonium contraheret gratia fieri non possit, nisi
132
Contemporary opinion on such marriages is discernible from the description
ofDubrovnik and its customs written by Philippus de Diversi de Quartigiani
from Lucca in 1440, who at the time held the office of teacher in Dubrovnik.
Part IV, chapter 1 6 of the description is dedicated to the “praiseworthy custom
of Ragusan nobility that does not accept plebeian wives, neither give noblewarnen
to plebeian husbands“.15 Diversi directed praise to “the custom that bad
been and still was obeyed, and would be obeyed as long as the state of Dubrovnik
existed“ (consuetudo antiquissima Ragusinorum pertinaciter cum summa
virtute observata, atque nunc servatur, et dum Ragusium regnaverit, observanda
), that is, to take care for the provenance of the ancestors of the spouse
(inter genus proavorum a quo mores p/erunque trahi videmus, maxime considerare
oportet). According to Diversi, Ragusans considered it shameful to accept a
spouse from a lower social position (Indignum prorsus iudicant Ragusini nobi/es
se foeminis ignobi/ibus matrimonio copulare, aut nobiles dominas viris non
claris coniungi.). Such an attitude culminated in the (probably somewhat exaggerated)
Statement that “until today it was not discovered that a Ragusan nobleman
or woman accepted a cornmoner for wife or husband“ (Nec inventum est
usque in hoc tempus, quempiam nobilem Ragusinum sponte plebeiam in uxorem,
aut matronam proavis claram plebeium hominem in mariturn … delegisse. ).16
Considering the early date and the radical measures, one is inclined to
agree with scholars who consider Ragusan marital practice the most severe social
endogamy in Europe.17 Such rigorous regulations on social endogamy resulted
in the fact that mixed marriages were less represented in Dubrovnik than
elsewhere.18 In Dalmatian cities, marriages between different social groups reper
omnes consiliarios omnium consiliarum nostrorum, Liber croceus (1460-1803), Historical
Archives in Dubrovnik, ser. 21.1, vol. 12a-1, cap. 18, fol. 13r; Branislav Nedeljkovic,
ed., Liber croceus, Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjiZevnost srpskog naroda, 24
(Belgrade: SANU, 1997), 21-22 (hereafter Nedeljkovic, Liber croceus). Shortly afterwards,
in 1464, the Great Council made the punishment less extreme by the decision that violators
could be rebabilitated if members of the council voted for it. However, although those persons
would keep their position and offices, the children of patricians who married a commoner
would lose the social status and become commoners, as shown in the case of
Laurentius de Mence in 1505 (Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70).
15 Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis Lucensis, artium doctoris eximii et oratoris situs aedificiorum,
politiae et laudobilium conusuetudinum inclytae civitatis Ragusii ad ipsius senatum
descriptio, Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (no shelfmark), 156-160 (hereafter Philippi
de Diversis descriptio); Vitaliano Brunelli, ed., „Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis
. . . descriptio“, Programma de/1‘ LR. Ginnasio superiore in Zara, 25 (1882), 26-28 (here16
after Brunelli, „Descriptio“).
Philippi de Diversis descriptio, 157; Brunelli, „Descriptio“, 26-27.
17 Susan Mosher Stuard, „Dowry increase and increments in wealth in medieval Ragusa (Dubrovnik)“,
Journal of Economic History 41 (1981), 798; eadem, A State of Deference: Ragusa!D
ubrovnik in the Medieval Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1992), 63 (hereafter Mosher Stuard, State of deference); Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70;
eadem, Okvir slobode, 69-73.
18 Janekovic-Roemer, Okvir slobode, 70.
133
presented the legitimate means for the rise offamilies of commoners, and it was
usual for descendants of a commoner to acquire patrician status. The city of
Trogir only codified the regulations on not accepting the sons from mixed marriages
into the city councils in 1553. However, the regulation was not obeyed,
since twenty years later, in 1573, concerning aleuni de nobi/i di questo spetabi/
conseglio, Ii quali con puoco rispetto de/la condizion /oro contrazeno matrimonii
con donne vilissime et di basssi sima conditione et puoco honorevo/e, it was
added to the regulation that de caetero alcuno nobile di questo conseg/io non
ardisca contrazer matrimonio, ne tuor per moglie alcuna donna, ehe non fosse
gentildonna, o ‚ saltem cittadina honorata!9 It should be pointed out that it was
still not necessary that a wife was a noblewoman; the council was satisfied with
an honourable commoner. Rougbly at the same time, in 1551, the regulation on
not acceptin$ illegal patricians‘ sons in the councils was codified in the Dalmatian
city of Sibenik. Such marital practice in Dalmatian cities should be seen as
following the example of their Venetian ruler; the Republic of Venice passed a
similar regulation, precisely the obligation ofwriting down the mother’s name in
the Libro d’Oro, the list ofnobility, only in the sixteenth century.20
Ragusan dispensations for marriage in third and fourth degree
offamilial relation: Evidence ofsocial endogamy
The earliest preserved papal dispensation for the territory of the Ragusan
archbishopric dates to 1321, the fiftb year of the pontificate of John XXII, and
involves the Ragusan patricians Nicolaus Mathie de Mentio and Rosa Martü
19 Chapter „Quod legitimati per subsequens non possint essere nobiles“ of 1553: … E ancorche
esso ta/ fiol fosse nato de donna di qualsivog/ia stato, grado et condition esser, si sia
avanti il matrimonio /egitimamente contratto, non ostante, ehe dappoi Ia sua nativitiz fra il
padre et Ia modre fosse contratto es so /egilimo matrimonio, non possa ne debbia in modo
alcuno esser ricevuto ne accettato in detto conseg/io: ma ‚ di quello totalmenie sia et esser
s‘ intenda es pu/so, privato e abdicato, si come mai fosse nato de genti/huomo di questo
conseglio, lvan Strobal, ed., Statutum et reformationes civitatis Tragurii, Monuments bistorico-
juridica Slavonun meridionalium, 10 (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija manosti i
umjetnosti (bereafter JAZU), 1915), Reformationum Liber II, cap. 85, 274; and tbe chapter
„De matrimoniis nobilium“ of 1573: … sono aleuni de nobili di questo spetabil conseglio, Ii
quali eon puoco rispetto del/a eondizion loro contrazeno matrimonii con donne vi/issime et
di bassissima conditione et puoco honorevo/e …. Che de caetero alcuno nobile di questo
conseg/io non ardisca contrazer matrimonio, ne tuor per moglie alcuna danna, ehe non
fosse gentildonna, o ‚ saltem eittadina honorata. Et se contrafara‘ in tuor per moglie qualehe
donna di bassissima conditione over infame, ehe Ii figlio/i suoi non possano ne debbano
in moda alcuno esser ricevuti ne ‚ accettati in questo eonsegloi , ma‘ totalmenie siano
et esser debbano esc/usi et privati, si eome mai fossero nali de gentilhuomo di questo eonseglio,
Statutum et reformationes civitatis Tragurii, Reformalionum Liber li, cap. 86, 275.
2or tbe Venetian matrimonial policy see Stanley Chojnacki, „Marriage legislation and patrician
society in fifteentb-century Venice“, in Law, custom and the soeial fabrie in medieval
Europe, ed. Bemard S. Bachrach and David Nicholas, Studies in Medieval Culture 28
(Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, 1990), 163-184.
134
Lucari, related in the fourth degree of consanguinity?1 This early dispensation
provides in so many words one of the reasons for contracting such a marriage:
solving the conflicts between noble families, or their different branches:
ad sedandum graves guerras et inimicicias periculosas et odia, que ab
antiquo inter parentes, consanguineos et amicos utriusque vestrum fuisse
noscuntur, ac periculis animarum et corporum, que ex eis verisimiliter
provenire poterant, obviandum, parentum, consanguineorum et amicorum
ipsorum interveniente consensu, affectatis ad invicem matrimonialiter
copulari.
Related to this, the direct cause of endogamous marriages, according to Mosher
Stuard, is the Ragusan strategy of creating stable network among families by
multiple remarrying, which increased the probability ofviolation of canon law?2
Rheubottom stresses another aspect that Iead to the same result: requirement of
patrician parentage on both sides, which differentiated Dubrovnik from cities
like Florence and V enice. 23
However, both interpretations are related to the same general reasons for
marriages between cousins: continuation of the family line, preservation of family
possessions, acquisition of the stability of the state offices, and, on a wider
scale, securing the homogeneity of the social group. Therefore, if one presumes
that the reason for marrying between members of the family was to preserve
their positions in the secular authority and their possessions within this family,
then one should expect that the most powerful families followed this custom
more strictly.
Before I start analysing the data concerning some of the most powerftd
families among the Ragusan nobility, I will explain the criteria for calculating
the influence that the Ragusan noble families exercised on the city government.
For this I used the results offered by Bari§a K.rekic/4 who argued that it was not
only economic power, but also the number of grown-up male family members
that contributed to the impact of a certain farnily on the political life of the city.
According to hirn, that impact was proportional to the number of state offices
held by the members of a certain family. Therefore, economic power was not
21
ASV, Reg. Vat., 71, par. 1, fol. 264v, ep. 587; publisbed in Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae,
Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 9, ed. Tadija Smil!iklas (Zagreb: JAZU, 1911), 9-10; a
sketch ofthe Ietter in ASV, Reg. Aven., 15, fol. 77r.
22 Mosher Stuard, State of deference, 63.
23 Rheubottom, Age, Marriage, and Politics, 80-81.
24 Bari§a Krekit, „0 problemu koncentracije vlasti u Dubrovniku u XIV. i XV. veku“ (On the
problern of the concentration of power in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Dubrovnik],
Zbomik radova Vizantolo§Jwg instituta 24-25 (1986), 397-406 (hereafter Krekit, „0 probJemu“);
idem, „Intluence politique et pouvoir economique dans Dubrovnik (Raguse) du
XIIIe au XIVe siecle“, in Gerarchie economiche e gerarchie sociali nei secoli XII-XVI, ed.
Annalisa Guarducci (Fiorence: Le Monnier, 1990), 241-258.
135
equated with political power, and as the main criterium for the latter, Krek:ic
took the number of offices within each family.25
According to the early lists of noble families commissioned on the occasion
of distributing newly acquired lands in the mid-fifteenth century, there were
approximately 34 noble families in Dubrovnik. lt should be stressed, which is
important for the issue of the class endogamy that the tendency was for a decrease
in the number of families and growth of the number of family members.
For example, in fourteenth century there were 71 families, whereas in the fifteenth
less than half of them survived. In the Iist of noblerneo of 1442 there were
553 males, and the calculations show that there were approximately 800 noblewomen.
26 Ifwe consider that at the time as much as 20% ofthe Ragusan population
were members of the nobility (in sixteenth-century Venice they made up
only 4.5%), then the high number of matrimonial cases coming from Dubrovnik
is not surprising. lt may be added that among the Ragusan Penitentiary cases of
matrimonial type 90% involved noblemen, whereas only 10% concemed commoners,
who were almost exclusively of Slavic origin, and more than half of
whom were inhabitants ofthe islands subject to the Ragusan Republic.
Another important issue should also be addressed, the concentration of
power within a few leading families, a process that reached its peak during the
fifteenth century. In the fourteenth century, 3,428 state positions were distributed
among 71 families, whereas in the following century there were 5,084 positions
distributed among 34 families. Five leading families held 33% and 42%
of the positions in the respective centuries.27 In addition, not all the offices were
equally important, and the distinction between upper and lower nobility was created
according to the offices held continuously by a family, especially those of
rector, judge, senator or member of the Minor council. Only by accepting certain
commoners‘ families into the patrician class in the seventeenth century did the
criteria for the distinction within the group change. Prestige was no Ionger
gained through state offices but through consanguine relation to the old nobility.
The families were grouped into so-called ‚old‘, ‚middle‘, and ’new‘ nobility,
which practised class endogamy among themselves?8
Tuming back to the data from the Penitentiary registers, it is important to
see what conclusions may be drawn from the comparison of the Penitentiary
data with the data gathered from local notary sources. If one compares the Iist of
the fifteenth century’s most numerous families with that of the families holding
the highest number of positions and the families with the highest number of mat-
2s Rheubottom calculated that even ifthe proportion of family members and offices held were
reciprocal, the power exercised by each of the patrician families was the same, since none
of the most powerful families used the nurober of its members in the Great Council to disproportionally
enlarge its share ofthe state offices; Rheubottom, „Genealogical Skewing“,
26 374-376. However, this fact did not influence the issue ofmatrimonial dispensations.
27 Krekic, „0 problemu“, 399.
28 Ibidem, 401.
Ibidem, 405.
136
rimonial dispensations (Table 4), it turns out that the top-positioned families in
all the three lists coincide, primarily the first four: Gozze, Bona, Gondola and
Sorgo. The Gozze family was by far the best represented, with almost 12% of
the offices – the second-ranked Gondola had only 8.5%; there were 76 members
of the Gozze family, whereas the second-ranked Bona had 45; and, finally, the
Gozzes acquired 25 marriage dispensations (22% of all Ragusan matrimonial
dispensations), which is three more than the second-ranked Bona.
Table 4. Comparative lists ofRagusan families conceming their political power and
involvement in marriages of familial relationship (fifteenth century).
State offices (%) Family members Matrimonial dispenses
1 . Gozze 1 1.88 I. Gozze 76 1 . Gozze
2. Gondola 8.63 2. Bona 45 2. Bona
3. Bona 8.55 3. Zrieva 39 3. Sorgo
4. Giorgio 7.02 4. Resti 37 4. Gondola
5. Resti 6.51 5. Sorgo 36 5. Zrieva I Zarnagno
25
22
20
1 5
9
6. Sorgo 6.23 6. Gondola 35 6. Caboga I Giorgio I Gradi 8
7. Pozza 5.40 7. Georgio 31 7. Mence I Pozza 6
Although it is expectable that families with more family members would
have asked for more matrimonial dispenses, still a certain tendency can be observed
for the leading families to make supplications for dispenses more often.
Among 224 partners from 1 1 2 matrimonial cases registered in the Penitentiary
records in the period examined here, 105 (47%) are members ofthe seven most
powerful fifteenth-century Ragusan families (Gozze, Gondola, Bona, Sorgo,
Giorgio, Mence, and Zrieva)_29
Moreover, there are nine cases that involve isonomic partners; again they
concem the four leading families: Gozze, Bona, Gondola, and Sorgo, and only
one case involves the Pozza family, who ranked seventh according to the state
offices they held. The local sources show that throughout the fifteenth century
there were at least seven marriages between members ofthe Sorgo family,30 and
eight between the Gozze in the period 1 400-1520.31 Further on, the same
sources reveal that the non-patrician branches of the Ragusan noble families as
well as wealthy commoners took over certain customs of the nobility. Thus, by
marrying among themselves they formed another endogamous social groug, an
upper commoners‘ stratum, but this issue is beyond the scope ofthis paper.3
29 1t should be noted that the seven most powerful families are not the sarne as in the Iist of the
families who held the bighest positions, because Krekic did not calculate the sudden decline
of certain fami1ies (such as Mence and Sorgo ).
30 JanekoviC-Roemer, Rod i grad, 69.
31 Rheubottom, Age, Marriage, and Politics, 102. Rheubottom also provides pattems of
intermarrying farnilies during the same period, I 03-107.
32 Mahnken, DubrovaClci patricijat, 41 1-415; Sepan Krivo§ic, StanovniStvo Dubrovnilra i
demograftke promjene u prollosti [The population ofDubrovnik and demographic changes
137
Approximately 40% of the cases deal with the impediment of farnilial affiliation
in the third degree, and there are three cases of second degree and three
cases of first degree relation, but those latter concem the affinal relation between
a first and second wife/husband. The rest of the cases involve affiliation in the
fourth degree.
In 41 Ragusan cases (37%,), there is a supplication for a declaratory Ietter
which bear witness to the social importance of legitimate marriage. This tendency
is not surprising if one considers the rigid statute regulations on marriages
of the nobility and the danger one was exposed to for breaking this law. The
letters almost exclusively concem third degree impediment, except for five cases
of the fourth degree, which involved at least one member from each of the four
leading families. A peculiar piece of information is that the narnes of the members
of those families were often not only written with the father’s but also with
the grandfather’s; in one case a member of the Gozze family also added the
name ofhis great-grandfather.33
Indications of territorial endogamy in the matrimonial policy
of the Ragusan Republic
The extremely high percentage of de matrimonia/ibus cases from the Ragusan
diocese within the total of matrimonial cases, but also within the total of
Ragusan cases, indicates a certain distinction between Dubrovnik and the other
Dalmatian cities. I have prcsented the argument that this is due to the stricter social
endogarny. However, this tendency may also be explained by the fact that,
unlike the rest of Dalmatia, Dubrovnik was not subject to Venetian rule after the
events of 1409-1420, when Dalmatia was sold by the Angevins to the Republic
ofVenice. On the contrary, from 1420 onwards, Dubrovnik was established as
an independent city-state. This independence dated back to the Treaty of Visegrad
of 1358, after which Dubrovnik unofficially gained complete independence
and began to be referred to as a republic. However, even before 1358, Dubrovnik
had enjoyed quite a long tradition of political independence and rivalry with
Venice that resulted in a sense of deliberate isolation from Venetian Dalmatia.
The Ragusan attitude towards the citizens of the other Dalmatian cities
was far from being the same as that towards the inhabitants of the neighbouring
Slavic regions. According to the statute regulations, the Dalmatian cities were
nevertheless considered to be ‚the others‘. This sense of ‚independence‘ is already
obvious in the 1272 Statute regulations on the consuetudines between Ragusans
and the inhabitants of the Dalmatian cities of Zadar, ibenik, Trogir,
Omi, and Split; the Slavic areas Hum, Bosna, Rka, and Zeta; the civitates
Dalmacie superioris (that is, Kotor, Bar, U1cinj, Duros, etc.); and the other Selain
the past) (Dubrovnik: Jugoslavenska akademija manosti i umjetnosti u Zagrebu, 1990),
lOS; Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70.
33 Jelusa Nicolai Marini Raphaelis de Goze, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div.,
vol. 17, fol. 28r.
138
voniae.34 This kind of self-definition of the commune in relation to the neighbouring
political entities, notably other Dalmatian communes, does not appear in
other Dalmatian statutes; in those the neighbours were mentioned by their ethnonyms
only when it concerned the Slavic regions ofthe inlands.35
In the records of the Ragusan city councils, much more often than in other
cities, we find cases of the secular authorities forbidding marriages with citizens
of other communes. The most striking example is the regulation by which the
Ragusan authorities forbade marriages between Ragusans and inhabitants of
Kotor, a regulation that stayed valid from the end of the thirteenth century until
1328, and sporadically after that period. The reasons behind this decision were
of an economic nature: Ragusans considered that there were too many cases of
possessions being transferred to the citizens ofKotor through marriay,e. lt should
be noted that Kotor did not set regulations with reciprocal strictness. 6
David Rheubottom examined all registered Ragusan marriages involving
at least one patrician spouse during the period between 1400 and 1 520. One of
the quantitative outputs important for this issue is that only 2% of males and 3%
of females married foreigners, that is, patricians from Kotor, Zadar, and other
Dalmatian cities.37
However, the Ragusan authorities officially supported marriages with
‚amicable‘ maritime cities, which is mentioned by Diversi: „Ragusan patricians,
however, do marry the noblewomen from other cities, such as Duros, Kotor,
Split, Zadar, Trogir, and others“.38 But the regulation on contracting the marriage
with members of the nobility of the maritime cities, passed in 1499 in the
Great Council, shows the double game played by the Ragusans. Under the cover
of protecting the dowry of wives coming from abroad, the Great Council banned
such marriages unless the busband held stable properties of at least 800 golden
ducats. 39 Therefore, although the Great Council principally supported marriages
34 Ba1tazar Bogi§ic and Konstantin Jirel!ek, ed., Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii, Monumenta
historico-juridica S1avorum meridionalium 9 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904), lib. m, c.
XLIX-L VII, 75-80.
35 For examp1e, in the Tragurian Statutes only one regulation from 1 347 mentions foreigners
by ethnonyms: „De non mutuando Sclavis, Bossinentibus seu Croatis supra pignus“, but it
does not invo1ve citizens of Dalmatian cities; Statutum et refonnationes civitatis Tragurii,
Refonnationum Liber I, cap. 43, 163-164. Moreover, there is an addition to the chapter
which includes an agreement between the cities of Split, Trogir and Sibenik from 1327 not
to pay any tribute to Slavic barones, ibidem, 164.
36 Janekovic-Roemer, Rod i grad, 73-74. In 1362 Hungary requested that Ragusans, when
marrying patricians from other cities, choose among those under Hungarian rule; Mosher
Stuard, State ofDeference, 90, n. 15.
37 Rheubottom, „Genealogical Skewing“, 381-382; idem,Age, Marriage, and Politics, 81.
38 Philippi de Diversis descriptio, 159; Brunelli, „Descriptio“, 28.
39 Ordo super matrimoniis contrahendis. Captw sub die xi martii 1499. Quoniam Inter alias
bonas et laudabiles observantias et consuetudines quas nostri predecessores tenebant hec
etiam fuit: Quod delectabantur contrahere matrimonia et affinitates cum Nobilibus civitatum
marilimorum et dictam consuetudinem hac potissimum causa ut per huiusmodi affinitates
conservarentur amicitie quae erant inter civitatem nostram et nobiles dictarum civi-
139
between members of the nobility of Ragusa and of other maritime cities, that is,
Dalmatia and Venice, the limitations set by this regulation significantly diminshed
the chances of marrying a foreign person, and tbus sbow evidence of a
somewhat different matrimonial policy with elements ofterritorial endogamy.
If one examines the level of social endogamy in other Dalmatian cities (as
shown by the matrimonial cases in the penitentiary registers ), it becomes evident
that Korula with 3 1 and Kotor with 21 cases, the southem and the northem
neighbouring dioceses to Dubrovnik, are the best represented among the cities of
Venetian Dalmatia. The high percentage of cases from Kotor and Korcula
among de matrimonialibus could possibly be explained by their proximity and
economic orientation to Dubrovnik with whose inhabitants they had difficulty in
agreeing on marriages. The Hvar and Bar dioceses bad 1 8 and 1 4 matrimonial
cases, respectively. These four cities might have been influenced by the Ragusan
marital practice and, in the case of Korula and Kotor, even restricted in the
choice of partners because of the difficulties of marrying persons from the diocese
ofDubrovnik.
Sixteenth-century evidence: variations
Considering all the regulations as weil as the rigour of following the customs,
the patricians of Dubrovnik had an extremely limited choice of partners,
which resulted in an excessive number of marriages between blood relatives and
relatives through marriage. It seems that, in addition to the social endogamy
typical of Dalmatian communes, Ragusans practised another kind of endogamy
limited to the confines ofthe city-state. Thus, we find a remarkably high number
tatium mariffmarum. Jdcirco ne sub pretestu dictarum affinitatum que contrahebantur ad
conservationem antique amicitie aliquando sequi possit contrarium videlicet dsi sensio et
inimiciffa Dominis provisoribus videtur quod provideri debeat hoc modo, vdei /icet. Quod
a/iquis ex- nobilibus nostris de caetero non possit cantrohere matrimonium cum aliqua ex
nobilibus mulieribus Civitatum marilimorum si talis nobilis noster contrahens non habebit
de stabili in Civitate nostra: aut in eius districtu de bonsi suis propriis ad minus valorem
dotis que dari solet comuniter inter Nobiles nostros in Ragusio videlicet ducararum 800 vel
circa. Et si quis ex- nobilibus nostris non habens in bonis suis dictum valorem dictarum ducatorum
octingentorum ad minus vel circa contraxerit matrimonium cum aliqua ex nobilibus
dictarum Civitatum maritimarum ipse contrahens, et pro/es tam masculina, quam faemenina
ex dicto matrimonio nascitura ac ipsius prolis descendentes sint perpetuo privati
omnibus officiis et beneficiis communis nostri. Et hoc quia intentio nostra est quod nobiles
mulieres dictarum civitatum marilimorum cantrahenies cum nobilibus nostris pro conservatione
amicitei er pro honore civitatis nostre in omnem casum et eventum sint caute, tute
et securepro datibus quas dabunt dictis nobilibus nostris . … , Liber croceus, pars 1, cap.
178, fol. 123v-124r; Nedeljkovic, Liber croceus, 194-195. The regulation was passed by
153 to 20 votes. As evidence that the regulation was not pro forma, I quote here the case of
Ciprianus Petri de Lucari, who was expelled from the councils in 1502 for marrying a
woman from Koreula without having the prescribed property; Janekovic-Roemer, 0/cvir
slobode, 72.
140
of supplications for dispensation to marry in the third and fourth degree of familial
affiliation originating from the Ragusan diocese in the fifteenth century.
In that sense, it is not altogether surprising, although it was quite bold for
the secular authorities, that the Ragusan GTeat Council in 1535 passed a regulation
which forbade marriages in the third grade of consanguinity and affinity
under the threat of deprivation of all patrician privileges, without leaving the
possibility ofremedy through papal dispensation:40
Vedendo ehe Je pene delle eensure et exeommunieationi inposte
dalli saeri eanoni alli eontrahenti matrimonio in gradi prohibiti,
non suono soffieienti ad obviare ehe non si eontrahi, ma molti non
curando /e eensure. Sotto pretexto da poi esser ‚ absoluti et dispensati
dalla sede apostoliea, vengono ad eontrahere in detrimento
del/e anime loro, e seandalo di tutta Ia eitta nostra. Pero par‘ al/i
signori proveditori della terra, ehe rimanendo /e pene ecclesiastieae
in suo robore di piu si habbia di provedere inquesto modo: Che
qua/umehe persona, quale di qua in avante, havesse ardimento di
eontrahere matrimonio in terzo grado di eonsanguinita et affinita, e
piu stretti gradi, cio e primo e seeundo, essendo delli nobi/i, Lui
eon tutti suoi deseendenti, se intenda essere /f’ivato in perpetuo da
tutti gli uffieii e benefieii del eomune nostra.
The possibility of papal dispensation was restricted to the fourth degree of consanguinity:
Lassando Ia solita Iiberia a quelli quali per‘ impedimento di quarto
grado di eonsanguinita, non potessero eontrahere, ehe secondo lo
eonsueto, et senza alcuna altra pena, possino dalla sede apostoliea
impetrare Ja dispensa supra tal impedimento. „42
Penitentiary records confirm the statement that many marriages had been contracted
under the pretext of later acquisition of papal dispense. Out of one third
of Ragusan cases transcribed so far, only eight concern couples asking for dispensation
in advance, whereas thirty couples requested it a posteriori. Moreover,
confirmation can even be found in contemporary papal bulls; in 1555, Paul
IV issued a bull regarding this very matter.43
Let us examine another sixteenth-century source reflecting the development
of Ragusan endogamy over the centuries, and also the ambivalent policies
of the city‘ s GTeat Council, which are probably due to different priorities of individual
families, the nobility as a social group, and the State as representative
of all its inhabitants.
«<> Liber croceus, pars 1, cap. 252, fol. 186v-187r; Nede1jkovic, Liber croceus, 278. The regulation
was passed by 130 to 22 votes.
41 Liber croceus, pars 1 , fol. 186v; Nedeljkovic, Liber croceus, 278.
42 Liber croceus, pars 1 , fol. 187r; Nedeljkovic, Liber croceus, 278.
43 Franciscus Gaude, ed., Bullarium diplamaturn et privilegiorum sanetarum rarnanorum
pontificum, vol. 6 (Turin: Franeo et Dalmazzo, 1860), 507.
141
On March 5, 1566, the Great Council commissioned the bishop of Ston,
who was travelling to Rome on other business, to request a general dispensation
for marrying in third and fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity from Pope
Pius V. Here is part of the Ietter which is the most indicative of the Ragusan
matrimonial policy:
Da piu di cinquecento anni in qua, per evitare malte confusioni, et
per giusti, et convenienti rispetti, e ‚ stato in usanza nel/a citta nostra,
et per /egge statuito ehe alcuno nobile nostro non possa contrahere
matrimonio, se non con nobiles, Ia qua/ cosa, fino a ‚ poco
tempo ja, agevolmente si e ‚ osservata, senza incorrere in terzi, o ‚
quarti gradi di consanguinita, et afinita, siando si qui ritrovete
circa 100. casate di nobi/i, /e quali col tempo, et per Ia morta/ita i
poco a ‚ poco si sono consumate, et del tutto estirpate in modo tale,
ehe hora sono ridotte a ‚ 28 casate solamente di nobili, fra le quali,
stretti ad aparentarsi, giomalmente siamo venuti a ‚ tale, ehe quasi
tutti, siamo congionti in terzo, et in quarto grado di consanguinita,
et afinita, et per ehe hora i Canoni del sacro concilio Tridentino,
sub vinculo anathematis prohibiscono il contrahere matrimonio in
tali gradi, noi desideriamo sopra modo per nostra conservatione, di
ottenere da sua Beatitudine una dsi pensa ehe si asso/ui da i Canoni
del detto concilio, contrahendo matrimonio in tali gradi, et ehe de/
tutto ci concedi poter/o fare. 44
It is interesting that the strategy of obtaining authorisation for matrimonial dispensations
was based on the quest for preservation of the Ragusan patriciate,
which came to be identified with the state itself, referring to the quest as giustissima
domanda a ‚ conservatione della Patria nostra.45
Another interesting (but false, however) excuse for such marriages appears
in the Ietter, namely, the obstacle of marrying members of the nobility of
neighbouring regions which were under Ottoman occupation. Such an interpretation
was obviously misleading, since Ragusans were never inclined to relate to
the nobility of those areas but limited their choice of foreign spouses to the
Dalmatian cities.46
The apostolic visitation of the Ragusan diocese by lohannes Franciscus
Sormano, bishop of Montefeltro, in 1573, provides an intereresting insight into
44 Littere et Commissiones Levantis, Historical Archives in Dubrovnik, sec. 27.1, vol. 30
(1565-69), fol. 100r-101r.
45 Littere et eommissiones, fol. lOOv.
46 “ • • • vivendo noi in questa Patria eosi angusta et per /e cause ehe vi habbiamo detto, controhendo
so/amente matrimonii Ii nobili, con nobi/i, et siando ridotti a ‚ tanta stretezz a di
casate, et queste quasi tutte congionte in 3.o et in 4.o grado di consanguinita, et affinita, et
non potendo p i u aparentarei eon nobili di terre qui vicine, per ehe sono in potere di Turehi,
noi supp/iehiamo sua Beatitudine ehe si degni coneederci di poter contrahere matrimonio
in 3.o et in 4.o grado . . .“ , Littere et eommissiones, fol. lOOv.
142
the actual marital practice of the Ragusan nobility.47 On October 2 1 , the visitor/
visitator? interrogated the Ragusan Archbishop Chrisostomus Calvinus (1 564-
1 575), on, among other issues, the contracting of marriages. From the archbishop’s
answers it is clear that the patricians were still neglecting certain
church regulations, notably, they refused to make the announcements for marriage
in the church, a custom which served precisely to discover possible impediments
for marriage:
Interrogatus an debile denuntiationes in eeclesia fiant pro matrimoniis
eontrahendis iusta formam saeri Tridentini eoneilii, et alia
qua in dieto eoneilio mandantur,
Respandit non si osserva questo eapo perehe i signori non permetano
ehe i Preti faecino queste denonciationi nel/a eitta ma fuori le
faeio fare eome ho ‚ ordinato e ‚ non vogliano i signori ehe si faecino
per certi loro rispetri quali e bene a tacerli, ma si dirano cosi
senza metterli in scritto …4 8
The Arcbbishop mentioned the faculty of dispensation in the fourth degree
granted by Pius IV, finally admitting the number of such marriages:
Interragalus an sciat aliqua matrimonia contracta in gradibus a ‚
iure eanonieo prohibitis, Respandit io non so ‚ ehe si siano contratti
matrimonii tali eecetto per ho aleuni in quarto grado, i qua/i mi
furno [sie!] eoneessi dalla bona memoria di Pio quarto di dispensar/
i in detti gradi per diece anni, eome appari [in] un breve apostolici
ch’e presso me, e ‚ /o mostraro a Vostra santita Reverendissima
e ‚ in essecutione del qua/ /comme ho ‚ detto/ ho ‚ fatto malte
dispense in detto grado. 49
The Ragusan concept of social groups as hermetically closed and self-sufficient
bodies changed radically during the first half of the seventeenth century, when
Dubrovnik faced a drastic reduction in the number of noble farnilies. As if foreshadowing
the great earthquake of 1667 that erased a large part of the Ragusan
nobility, in 1666 the Great Council passed (though with only a slight majority)
the regulation Super Iibero matrimonio nostrorum nobilium. This removed three
intolerable hindrances to the matrimonial agreement of a nobleman: marriage
with a commoner (e xcept with daughters of physical workers ), margryin in the
third degree of consanguinity provided papal dispensation was acquired, and
ming members of the nobility from all neighbouring cities, not only Dalmatian.
0 lt is indicative of the new liberal policy of openness towards lower social
47 ASV, Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Vi sita Ap., 28.
48 Visita, fol. 47v-48r.
49 Visita, fol. 48r-v.
50 • . . Che si debba /evare Ia prohibitione della /egge di pol er aparentare nel terzo grado tanlo
per affinita, quanto per consanguinita in modo ehe in avenire non osti alli Nobi/i nostri Ia
detta prohibitione, ma ogn ‚uno de/la nostra Nobilta possi aparentare nel detto grado. Che
dove fin‘ hora Ii nostri Nobi/i potevano aparentar con Je Genti/donne delle citta maritime
solamente, possino in avenire aparentar ancora con Je Genti/donne di qualumque altra
143
groups that in the same year the first two families de populo were introduced to
the Great Council, that is, were accepted to the patriciate.51
Although as early as 1682 the article on marriage with commoners was
withdrawn by decision of the Great Council,52 a century later the most radical
regulation followed: in 1791 the Great Council decided to allow all marriages
between relatives ( except for those in the frrst degree of consanguinity and affinity),
provided there was a corresponding papal dispensation.53 For the time
being, any interpretation of tbese later regulations, would certainly be farfetched
because the contemporary Penitentiary sources bave not been gathered
nor the papal policy on marriage compared. However, a wider perspective on
research lies exactly in the comparison of ecclesiastical and secular sources over
a Ionger period of time.
Citta. Che similmente Ii detti Nobi/i nostri sinche altrimente sara terminato con altro
pravedimento possino contrattar matrimonii con le figliole di persone honorate e civili di
questa Citta, Ii cui Padri non hanno essercitato a/cun ‚arte mechanica. Liber croceus, pars
1, cap. 328, fol. 263v-264r; Nede1jkovic, Liber croceus, 384. However, the regulations
were passed by slight majority: the first 54 vs. 36, the second by 60 vs. 30, and the third
conceming marriage with commoners by tight 48 vs. 42.
51 Oragoljub Pavlovic, 0 krizi vlasteoskog staleZa u Dubrovnilru xvn vek.a [On the crisis of
the patrician class in 17th-century Dubrovnik], Zbomik radova Jnstituta za proucavanje
knjiievnosti SAN, 17 (1952), 27-38.
52 … Che si debba rivocar il terzo Capitolo del Provedimento preso nell‘ Ecce/entissimo
Maggior Conseglio sotto Ii 3 Novembre 1666 in cui si concedeva alli Nobi/i nostri di poter
contrahere Matrimonii con le figliole di persone honorate, e Civili di questa Citta, Ii cui
Padri non hanno essereifoto arte mecanica … , Liber croceus, pars I, cap. 350, fol. 275v-
276r; Nede1jkovic , Liber croceus, 403. The regulation was accepted by 41 vs. 28 votes.
53 .. . Che da oggi a/1 ‚awenire non ostante qualunque proibizione faciente in contrario sia, e
s ‚intenda permesso ad ogniuno di qualunque stato, grado, e condizione il contrarre gli
sponsali, e Ii matrimonii fra‘ i primi cugini tanto per affinitil, quanto per consanguinita
previa Ia necessaria pontificia dispensa … , Liber croceus, pars 2, cap. 441, fol. 70v-71r;
Nede1jkovic, Liber croceus, 532-533. The regulation was passed by 24 vs. 18 votes.
144
The Long Arm ofPapal Authority
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J.ergensen. Kirsi Salonen
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XIV
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung
des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung
nlederösterreicll kuHur
CEU MEDIEV ALIA 8
TheLongArm
of Papal Authority
Late Medieval Christian Peripheries
and Their Communication
with the Holy See
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J0rgensen, K.irsi Salonen
Bergen · Budapest · Krems
2004
Copy Editor: Judith Rasson
Cover lliustration: Pope Pius II, Hartmann Scbedel, World Cbronicle (Nuremberg, 1493), fol. 250
Joint Publlcation by:
Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS)
University of Bergen, P.O.Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
Telephone: (+47-55) 58 80 85, Fax: (+47-55) 58 80 90
E-mail: post@cms.uib.no, Website: http://www.uib.no/cms/
ISBN 82-997026-0-7
Department of Medleval Studies
Central European University
Nädor u. 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3024, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055
E-mail: medstud@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/
ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDlEY ALIA
‚ CE U PRESS …
Central European University Press
An imprint of the Central European University Share Company
Nädor u. 11, H-1 051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1)327-3138, 327-3000, Fax: (+36-1)327-3183
E-mail: ceupress@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceupress.com
and
400 West 591b Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Telephone: (+l-212)547-6932, Fax: (+1-212) 548-4607
E-mail:mgreenwald@sorosny.org
ISBN 9-63 86569 5 6
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
A CIP catalog record for this book is available upon request.
Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters
Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems an der Donau, Austria
Telephone: (+43-2732) 847 93-20, Fax: (+43-2732) 847 93-1
E-mail: imareal@oeaw.ac.at , Website: http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/maq/
ISBN 3-90 1094 17 2
© Editors and Contributors 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systerns, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher.
Printed in Hungary by Printself(Budapest).
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations related to the collections of the Vatican Secret Archives . . ….. … 7
Preface . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . . . 8
Piroska Nagy, Peripheries in Question in Late Medieval Christendom . . ….. .. . 11
Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary under Pope Pius TI. The Supplications
and Their Provenance . . . . . . … . . . . . . . .. … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Torstein Jergensen, At the Edge ofthe World: The Supplications
from the Norwegian Province of Nidaros . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . … . … 29
K.irsi Salonen, The Supplications from the Province of Uppsala.
Main Trends and Developments . . . .. . .. . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . . . . 42
Irene Fumeaux, Pre-Reformation Scottish Marriage Cases
in the Archives of the Papal Penitentiary . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Jadranka Neralic, Central Europe and the Late Medieval Papal Chancery . . … 71
Etleva Lala, The Papal Curia and Albania in the Later Middle Ages . …. . . . . . . . 89
Piroska N agy and Kirsi Salonen, East-Central Europe
and the Penitentiary (1458-1484) ……………………………………. 102
Lucie Dolezalova, „But if you marry me“: Reflections
on the Hussite Movement in the Penitentiary (1438-1483) ………….. 113
Ana Marinkovic, Socia1 and Territorial Endogamy
in the R.agusan Republic: Matrimonial Dispenses
during the Pontificates ofPaul li and Sixtus IV (1464-1484) ……….. 126
Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller, Rodolfo Gonzaga (1452-1495):
News on a Celebrity Murder Case . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 145
5
Blanka Szegbyovä, Church and Secular Courts in Upper Hungary
(Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 151
Ludwig Schmugge, Penitentiary Documents
from Outside the Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. : …………… 161
Gerhard Jaritz, Patternsand Levels ofPeriphery? ………………………….. 170
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 173
6
ABBREVIATIONS RELATED TO TBE COLLECTIONS OF THE
V ATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES
ASV = Archivio Segreto Vaticano
Arm. = Armadio
Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Ap. = Congrega zione dei Vescovi e Regolari,
Visita Apostolica
Instr. Mise. = Instrumenta Miscellanea
Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div. = Penitenzieria Apostolica, Registra
Matrimonialium et Diversorum
Reg. Vat. = Registra Vaticana
Reg. Lat. = Registra Lateranensia
Reg. Suppl. = Registra Supplicationum
Reg. Aven. = Registra Avenionensia
RPG = Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum
7
PREFACE
The present publication contains selected papers from two international
conferences: the first was held at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of
Bergen (Norway), in October, 20031 and the second at the Department of Medieval
Studies, Centrat European University, Budapest (Hungary), in January,
2004.2 The purpose of these meetings was to gather researchers interested in the
history and significance of the papal curia and, in particular, the Apostolic Penitentiary,
in the later Middle Ages. The main emphasis was placed on a comparative
approach and on the role of peripheral areas of Western Christendom in
their communication with the Holy See.
There are various kinds of centre-and-periphery hierarchies.3 There are
geographic, social, economic, and cultural peripheries and centres.“ The generat
textbooks … address materials from the geographical and social peripheries of
privileged cultures only as adjuncts to their central narrative …. The history of
Scandinavia and Eastern Europe become excursus to a central narrative.'“‚
However, conceming the communication of the Holy See with various areas
of Christendom in the Middle Ag es, the irnpact of ‚peripheries‘ has attracted
a new interest in recent years. Since the opening of the archives of the Apostolic
Penitentiary to researchers in 1983 relatively few scholars have exploited the
sources, but recently their number has increased. Most of them have studied the
supplications to the Penitentiary of petitioners from their own home countries
and edited material on a national basis. The German Historical Institute, under
the leadership of Ludwig Schmugge, has already published several volumes of
entries concerning German-speaking territories. Also, the Norwegian and Icelandic
material has recently been released by Torstein Jßi’gensen and Gastone
Saletnich. Sirnilar enterprises are in process in several other countries: Poland,
Denmark, Sweden and Finland, England and Wales. The examination of territo-
1 „The Lote Middle Ages and the Penitentiary Texts: Centre and Periphery in Europe in the
Pre-Refonnation Era.“
2 „Ad Confines. The Papal Curia and the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Christendom
in the Later Middle Ages(l41h
– 151h c.).“
3 For this and the following, see Teofilo F. Ruiz, „Center and Periphery in the Teaching of
Medieval History,“ in Medieval Cultures in Contact, ed. Richard F. Gyug (New York:
Fordham University Press, 2003), 252.
4 Ibidem, 248.
8
ries on the geographic peripheries in their relation to Rome has been a main focus
in these studies.
The archival material of the Penitentiary and the communication of the
papal curia with the various regions of late medieval Europe should, however,
not be studied only on national Ievels. There is an increasing need for such
studies to be supplemented by comparative searcbes for differences and analogies
in how Christians from different corners of Europc used the papal offices
and were treated by them. It is well known that even though the regulations of
canon law were in theory the same for everyone, regional differences in interpreting
and applying them emerged in the Late Middle Ages. The need to turn to
the papal authority in matters of canon law varied depending on the role of local
bishops and the presence or absence of papal Iegates or collectors, who often
bad the power to deal with similar matters in partibus. Also, people in the
centml territories of Christendom bad different opportunities for turning to the
papal curia with their requests than those living on the peripheries of the
Christian world.
Questions like these played the central role in the discussions of the two
conferences noted above. In this book we will render an overview of the present
status of this new field of research. As an introduction, Piroska Nagy deals with
the question of how to apply centre-periphery models to a comparative analysis
of the sources. Kirsi Salonen uses the Penitentiary registers from the period of
Pope Pius II to analyse the supplications, their provenance, and the role of peripheries.
Two peripheral parts of late medieval Europe and their significance concerning
the communication with the Holy See represent the main part of the
publication: Northem Europe and East Central Europe. Comparative analyses of
Scandinavian and Scottish source material from the Penitentiary Registers are
made by Torstein Jsrgensen, Kirsi Salonen, and lrene Fumeaux. The studies on
East Central Europe are introduced by an inquiry concerning the general importance
of the area for the papal curia (Jadranka Neralic), and an overview of the
communication of the Holy See with Albania (Etleva Lala). Piroska Nagy and
Kirsi Salonen offer a quantitative analysis of East Central Europe and the Penitentiary
(1458-1484), followed by contributions on individual territories, such
as the Czech Iands (Lucie Dolezalova) and Dalmatia (Ana Marinkovic). The
contribution by Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller indicates that in any
studies of the roJe of peripheries one must not neglect the more central areas.
Blanca Szeghyova and Ludwig Schrnugge show that local archives and their
contents are an indispensable additional source for comparative analyses.
Many friends and colleagues have helped in preparing this book for print.
We are pleased to thank the personnet of the Penitenzieria Apostolica, especially
Padre Ubaldo Todeschini, for reading the manuscript and suggesting useful corrections.
We are also much obliged to the skilled staff of the Sala di Studio in
the Vatican Archives, who patiently brought us volume after volume of the reg-
9
isters and helped with other problems. Judith Rasson from Central European
University deserves our gratitude for copyediting our text.
Finally, we wish to thank the academic institutions which in a more direct
way have promoted this project: the Centre for Medieval Studies at the
University of Bergen, the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central
European University in Budapest, the Institut filr Realienkunde of the Austrian
Academy of Seiences and the Academy of Finland, and the Department of History
at the University ofTampere.
Bergen, Budapest, and Tampere, November 2004
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein Jergensen, Kirsi Salonen
10
MEMO - Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture Online
Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture Online
