SACRED SPACE, VIOLENCE AND PUBLIC LAW IN THE CLOISTERS OF THE
FRANCISCAN AND DOMINICAN HOUSES OF DUBROVNIK
Gordan Rßvanfic
Relations among different social groups and structures in any community are
complex since they rely on a paradigm of institutional relationships as weil as on
personal links. By the same token, one also has to bear in mind the political will of the
institutions involved in this relationship.1 Consequently, one has to recall that the relationship
between public and private in the Midclle Ages was rather different than we
think today.2 Namely, during medieval times public space was much wider, and civil
authorities repeateclly invaded private space for the sake of public interest.3 In this
regard, the authorities of medieval Dubrovnik were no exception. Quite the contrary,
because of a political interest in preserving their „nobility,“ Dubrovnik authorities and
officials often peeked inro the bedrooms of common and noble citizens, not permitring
vicious rumors to distract public officials from their work 4 An example of such
imerference is the case of a Dubrovnik nobleman, Stephan de Zamagna, which
Rcgarding this, sec, tagether with the cited literature, e. g., Tomislav Popic, „Oblikovanjc srcdnjov,ekovne
stvarnosti – sociologijn znanja i povijest“ (f’hc shaping of medieval reahty – soc•ology of knowlcdgc anti
history), Pmijesni prilozi 33 (2007): 239-48; Mladen AnCic, „Kako ‚popravio‘ proslost Konstrukcija
memorije na nadgrobnim spomenicima 15. stoljeca“ (How to rectify the past. Thc construction of
mcmory on fifteenth-century tombstones), Povijesni pnlozi 34 (2007.): 83-102; Zdenka Janekov•c Römer,
Okz<r slobode – D11browiko z•lastela iif11 edu sredtyoz‘}ekovlja i humaniif11 a (f’he framewerk of frcedom – the
nobility of Oubrovnik bctwcen the Middle Ages and Humanism) (Zagreb and Oubrovnik: Zavod za
povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniln1, 1999), 251 -324.
Regardmg this see, tagether with the cited literature, e. g., Dvid I Ierlihy, „Societa e spazio nella citta
!taliana del Med,ocvo,“ in idem, Cities and Soczety in Mediw•l lta!J (London: Variorum, 1980), 1 74-90;
Gordan Ravanc1c, „Javni prostor i dokolica kasnosrednjovjckovnog 1 renesansnog Dubrovnika“ (Public
spacc and lc1sure m latc med.eval and Renaissance Dubrovruk), Anali Zaz’Olh zu pmifesne \!’anosti HAZL‘ 11
D11broz•niku 38 (2000): 53-64.
Zdcnka Janekov•c Römer, „Nas,lje zakona: Gradska vlast ‚ pnvatm ZlVOt u kasnosrednjovjckovnom i
ranonovovteko,•nom Dubrovniku“ (Violence of law: City authorities and pnvate Lve in late medieval and
early modern Dubrovruk), Anali Zal’llda poz’fiesne i!’anasli 1-IAZU 11 Dubromiku 41 (2003): 9-44;
RavanCiC, (:Javni prostor/‘ passim.
Regarding the interferencc of the civil law in marriage relationships, probably the best cxamined example
is the case of Marusa Bratosaljic from the end of thc fiftcenth century. See Zdenka Janekovic Römer,
Marl!a ili JJitlenfe f/ubavi: braino.f,iubavna ptiaf iz .rndnfoytkovnog Dubrovnika (Marusa, or thc trial of Iove: a
story on marriage and Iove from medieval Dubrovnik) (Zagrcb: Algoritam, 2007).
68 GORDAN RAVANCIC
happened in 1438. Dming this civil process, the Dubrovnik authorities tried to force
this patrician into a marriage with a noble girl from the Caboga family, and they
persisted until it was publicly proclaimed before the comt that the marriage had been
consummated per copulam carnalem prout es/ publica vox et Jama.;
I assume that one should review the relationship between Dubrovnik
authorities, ecclesiastical institutions, and the clergy in exactly the same way.G Namely,
regarding this relationship in the fttst place there was the problern of jurisdiction in the
process of entering into a marriage.7 To be precise – even though all the questions
regarding marriage were generally subject to canon law and ecclesiastical institutions, in
real life Dubrovnik authorities frequently intervened and imposed their imerests.S
Moreover, it is a fact that Dubrovnik authorities interfered in various ecclesiastical
issues, probably considering them as a part of state policy.9 Fmthermore, it is quite clear
that during the late Middle Ages the civil authorities of Dubrovnik adjusted all the
Church ceremonies according to their needs and „public interest.“10
However, one has to keep in mind that Dubrovnik’s conununity, and therefore
civil authorities, too, were deeply steeped in Christianity and the Christian faith. By the
same token, Dubrovnik authorities frequently vigorously supported and defended the
papacy’s policy in the region during the dangerous times of the Ottoman threat. Thus,
by the end of the fifteenth century, one notes that some extam sources refer to
Dubrovnik as to respub/ica christiana.11 So, bearing in mind such an intense impregnation
Acta ronsilii rfJJ!i:Jinntm, 3, vol. 22, fol. 1 58′-160 (Dubro,·nlk, State ArclU\•es) I would hke to thank Zrinka
Nikohc Jal.-u. s, who showed mc tlu cac. Sec also Gordan Ravancic, „lzvanbracna IJubav 1 zenska posluga
u vlasteosklm obitel,ima kasnosrednjovjckovnog Dubrovruka“ (Extramantal Iove and femalc crnnt in
noble famihes of Dubrovmk in the late M1ddle Ages), in 1-lmditas nmm croalicamm, cd. Alexander
Buczynski, Milan Kruhek and Stjepan Matkovic (Zagrcb: HrvaLki institut za povijcst, 2003), 63-8.
Surprisingly. in the rustoriography about Dubrovn1k there are not many smdics about the rclationsrup
bctween c1vil authonties and Church. The only comprehensive sn1d1es about trus topiC arc: Kosta
Vojnovic, „Crkva 1 drzava u dubrovackoj repub)jci“ (Church and statc 10 the Republic of Dubrovruk), 10
Rßd }AZU, vol. 1 1 9 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1894), 32-142; 1dem, „Crkva i drhva u dubrovackoj rpubhc1 – drugi
dio“ (Church and state 1n the Repubhc of Dubrovmk- pan two), in &d }Al.U, vol. 121 (Zagrcb: JAZU,
1895), 1-91, which are presently q1ute obsolet but stdl uable; lvica Prlcnder, „Crkva 1 tlrzava u sretlnjovjekovnom
Dubrovniku“ (Church and state in medicval Dubrovnik), (PhD tlissertation, SveuciliSte u
Zagrebu, 1998), wruch is still unpubhshed.
A good example 1s the aforcmenuoned case of Marusa Bratosaljic from thc end of thc fiftccnth cenrury;
sec: janekov1c Römer, Man�Ja., passim. About thc 1nterference of the JUndical JUrisdicuon sec cspec1ally
the chapter: „Nadldno pravo, sutl 1 sudskl sluzbenici“ (Compctent law, court and judJCial off1cials), 29-34.
Janekovic Römer, „Nasilje zakona,“ 10-1. The s1n1ation was not much different in other parts of Europc,
since the restoration of central royal power enforced the jurisdiction of civil law and thc coum in all
segments of Jjfe. See, e.g., Denys Hay, A gemral histnry of Europe: E11rope in the Fnurleenlh and Fifteenlh
Centunes (London: Longman, •1980), 161-2.
The fact that dunng the late Middle Agcs many of Dubrovruk’s electetl archbishops actually never came
to the city ond.rectly w1tnesscs that CIVII Iaw and public authoriucs overwhelmcd the Church’s authonty.
„‚ Janckovic Römer, Oktir slobndt, 291-324.
11 Eadem, „Nailje zakona,“ 35; Liber Crnceur, ed. Bramslav Ncdeltkovic, Zbornile ‚-“ i.rtoriju,Je\!k i kll)itnl’nfJ.fl
.1rp.rkog naroda I I I, 24 (Belgrade: SANU, 1 997), 4.
SACRED SPACE, VlOLENCE AND PUBLIC LAW 69
with the Clu:istian spirit, one cannot avoid noticing that in Dubrovni.k a kind of rigidity
of civil institutions existed simultaneously towards the Church and dergy.12 It seems
that in medieval Dubrovnik the principle of the state, at least on the surface, had
overwhelmed all the other principles; as is written above the gates of the council
chamber „Ob/iti privatorum pub/ica curate. “
Besides this, one has to admit that medieval legal structures were not strictly
deftned and separated, so the jurisdictions of the various courts coincided, interlaced,
and sometimes even interfered .t3 Similarly, generally speaking, ecdesiasrical courts had
jurisdicrion over the dergy and ecdesiastical institutions. However, during the late
Middle Ages, because of a strengthening of the state and civil/ royal power, civil courts
gradually usurped the right to judge dergy.
Such a development can be witnessed in a case from Amiens from 1 408.
Namely, during this year the royal court processed many allegarions against royal
soldiers and offleials who put dergymen into royal prisons. Consequently, this situation
led to almost open conflict between the archbishop and the royal authorities, behind
which was an ongoing process of struggle for domination. This can be „read“ in the
correspondence between the archbishop and the royal court. In his letters, the
archbishop repeatedly complains that civil authorities did not want to hand over
imprisoned derics to the arbitration of ecdesiastical institutions and canon law.
Moreover, the archbishop states that the civil authorities tortured these derics and he
strictly disapproves of such actions. On the other hand, the royal offleials tried to avoid
these handovers in numerous ways, since they stated that ecdesiastical courts were too
mild and forgiving towards the accused. Furthermore, they maintained that absence of
corporal punislunent and even the death penalty could aggravate a situation in the city,
which was „swallowed“ by crime, predominantly perpetrated by clcrgyrnen H
Such a relationship of mutual conflict and the real supremacy of the civil
authorities can also be traced in medieval Dubrovnik, and several cases from the
beginning and the fust half of the ftfteenth century illustrate it nicely. A more thorough
invesrigarion of the extant archival materials could reveal even more cases, but I believe
that the following will serve weil enough.15 Some of these cases illustrate a kind of
feeble interference into the private space of ecclesiasrical institutions, while others
clearly reveal the „omnipotence“ of Dubrovnik’s patricians, who had all the power in
the city in their hands. By the same token, I believe that it is quite signiftcant to
12 This question is open in Croatian historiography, but viewed fwm a different perspective in Janekovic
Römer, „Nasilje zakona,“ 9-44, especially 35-9.
“ Robert N. Swanson, &ligoi n and Devotion in Europe c. 1215- c. 1515 (Cambndgc: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), 39-40; Trevor Dcan, Crime in Mediew.l Europe (London: Longman, 2001), 108-14.
“ Ib tdcm, 1 10 -1 .
15 Some examples of violence against ecclesiastical institut!Ons can be found in Janekovic Römer, „Nasiljc
zakona,“ 35-9.
70 GORDAN RAVANCJC
emphasize that all these examples come from the records of Dubrovnik’s Minor Council,
which indirectly indicates the importance of these cases, since thcy were not handed
over to lower ranks of the juridical hierarchy.
The fust case witnesses how Dubrovnik authorities saw the difference between
the public and sacred (i.e., private) space of the Dominicans and their monastery in
Dubrovnik. Namely, during the paving of this part of the city the civil authorities
concluded that the ground-plan of the Dominican monastery, which abutted the east
wall of the city’s fortifications, did not correspond with the planned plot of the streets.
Therefore, on 26 February 141 5, the Minor Council did not hesitate to order the
Dominicans to remove their Iavatory and to wall up some of the windows and doors of
the monastery because of the new Iayout of the street.16 In the next year, something
similar happened at the monastery of St. Mark.11 It is interesting to note that all the
expenses of these renovations were supposed to be financed by the Dubrovnik
commune. Therefore, one can assume that the Dubrovnik auth01-ities saw this
monastery as a public area of the city, not as an ecclesiastical private space. Moreover,
the formulation of this decree clearly states that these orders did not take into account
just the Dominican monastery, but the entire quarter of the city where the monastery
was situated, which corroborates the above assumption. Other cases of sinUlar conflicts
between civil structures and ecclesiastical institutions also reveal that Dubrovnik’s
patricians, probably because of their pragmatic approach, considered that these
ecclesiastical institutions belonged to the city and not to the Church.18
Moreover, it seems that the Dubrovnik authorities not only considered the
Church’s property as public space, but they also uncompromisingly usurped the right to
judge clergy if it was in the political interest of the Republic. This should not surprise
us much, since Dubrovnik authorities tried to monitor and control almost all segments
of public (and often also private) life and space.19 Such an attitude can also be perceived
in regulations and prohibitions from the beginning of the fifteenth century, according to
which male Franciscans were forbidden to enter the convent of St. Clara and conduct
holy mass.2° The situation became even worse in 1 434 when, besides these restrictions, a
Iove affair took place bet:ween young Clarissa Pervula de Tudisio and the Franciscan
Antun Vukcic. Dubrovnik authorities reacted quickly and strictly, not hesitating to
16 Aaa Con.i/iMinoris, s. 5, vol. 1, fol. 13 (Dubrovnik, State Archives).
17 Acta Con.ili MinntiJ‘, s. 5, vol. I, fol. 73 (Dubrovnik, State Archives).
“ Janckovic Römer, „Nasilje akona,“ 38. The same could be concludeu from some decrees of Dubrovnik’s
Minor Council from the 1380s, since in these regulacions the council decided withom any consem of
ccclesiascical instirutions about the usage and distribut•on of somc garuens between the monasterics of
St. Bartholomew and St. Clara. See. Odbilu •�ia D11browilre p11blilee (Decrees of the counc•ls of the
Republic of Dubrovnik), vol. I, cd. Mihajlo J. DINI( Zbornik za istonju, jez•k • kn)lievnost srpskog
naroda, III odelenje, knJ. 15 (Belgrade: SANU i Naucna kn)iga, 1951), 39-40.
19 Ravancic, ‚:Javno i privatno,“ 54.
20 Janckovic Römer, „Nasilje zakona,“ 3 7.
SACRED SPACE, VIOLENCE AND PUBLIC LAW 7 1
intrude on the privacy of the Iovers, nor to interfere in the jurisdiction of the
ecclesiastical .institutions. Namely, Clarissa was secretly taken to a convent ni another
Dalmatian city and the male „perpetrator“ was put in jail. Moreover, all their abettors
were also punished by expulsion from the city. Even a vigorous attempt by the
archbishop was not enough to prevent a rigid punishment that was „acceptable to God
and compatible with the crime so that this would be dignified before God and praised
before the people.“21
Although this reaction of the Dubrovnik authorities was rigid, one could
interpret it as an attempt to protect the moral life and virginity of the sisters in the
convent of St. Clara. However, another case reveals that behi.nd such reactions was just
the simple need of the civil authorities to control all the segme.nts of life wirhin the
city.22 Namely, semetime areund the end of February or the beginrung of March 1415, a
brawl occurred in the cloister of the Franciscan monastery, which would not have been
anythi.ng special if it had not provoked the legal action of Dubrovnik civil authorities,
followed – as in the previous case – by the archbishop’s reaction. It seems that during
the Middle Ages this cloister was a kind of half-public half-private space, where
frequently one could find lay persons having a rest or just loitering.23 Such rningling did
not usually bother the peacc of the monks, but sometimes it could disturb tl1e
Franciscans‘ quiet life, as happened when Vlaho Stankov, called Kotica, started a fight
with some of the brothers.24 The reaction of the authorities was quick: Vlaho was
forbidden to enter monastery and its cloister until the end of that year.2s Morcover, the
civil authorities indiscreetly interfered in the Franciscans‘ attempt to solve this case
withi.n the ecclesiastical instirutions – they simply asked the Franciscan inquisitor,
Nicolas from Split, to stop h.is activity and band over the case to the civil authorities.26
As in the previous case, the archbishop’s intervention had no result. Quite the contrary,
the Mi.t1or CotUlcil only requested advice from the Senate, after which the procedure led
to separate legal processes against each of the unfortunates involved.27 After a long
21
ll
2l
· 2S
20
27
More about tlus case see in Janekovic Römer, „Nasilje zakona,“ 37-9.
Regardmg this I would hkc to pomt out additional examples tn Rav:mCic, „Javm proctor,“ passtm; z.
Janekovtc Römer, „Nasilje zakona,“ passim; Ravanctc, „ProstltuCtJa u bsnosrednJOVJekovnom i
renesansnom Dubrovniku“ (Prostitution in mcdieval and Renat<sancc Dubrovnik), in Gradrke mar/l,inalnc
skupint 11 Hrmlrkqj kroz Jrtdnji tijtk i ranomoderno doba (Urban mrginal groups in Croatia in the medieval
and early modern period), Zbornik radova sa znart.,tvcnog kolokvija odrbnog 10. prosinca 2003 u
Zagrebu, ed. Tomislav Popic (Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji, 2004.), passim.
Andelko ßadurina, UlotJijra‘!)em!kih JamoJtana u Hrbanizadji d11brm<J!kog prostora (fhe role of thc Franciscan
monasteries in the urbanization of Dubrovnik) (Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 1990.), 15-1;
Ravancic, „Javni prostor,“ 55-6.
Jt ts important to note that in the sources Kotica was addressed as dompn11J·, which could indtcate that he
was also a clergyman. However, even if it wcre so, this would additionally prove Dubrovnik authorities‘
usurpation of ecclesiastical jurisdictional rights.
Acta Connli MinoriJ, s. 5, vol. I , fol. 15′ (Statc Archives Dubrovnik).
Acta Comili MinoriJ, s. 5, vol. I, fol. 15 (State Archives Dubrovnik).
Acta Connli Minon!, s. 5, vol. 1, fol. 15′-16 (Statc Archives Dubrovnik).
72 GORDAN RAVANCIC
discussion, about which unfortunately there is no extant record, all the Fraueiseans
involved were banned from the city. Most of them could not return unril November
1416, while two were banned from the ciry only unril the end of 1415. The sentence of
the Franciscan Laurentius clid not allow him to return to the ciry and its district for
three years.
From the extant sources, unfortunately, it is not possiblc to determine the
cause of this brawl and who started it. However, there is no doubt that this sentence of
the 1vfinor Council could not have been stricter and more rigid, especially because this
was not a crime that caused death, but only a brawl without any serious consequences.
Still, something can be assumed and concluded from the extant records. Thus, the
Franciscan Law:entius was probably considered the chief culprit since he „earned“ the
Iongest expulsion from the city. Similarly, Vlaho Stankov and his actions were probably
thc cause of the brawl that provoked „rage“ of the Dubrovnik authorities. Other
i.nvolved Fraueiseans probably just joined the fight that started between Laurentius and
‚1aho; perhaps they were trying to defend their brother.
In contrast, cases of clerics‘ conviction in other parts of Europe usually clid
not involve such rigid sentences, except in the case of murder or another grave crime 2
Still, Dubrovnik patricians decided to punish these misbehaving friars gravely, so one
can ask oneself what the grounds were for such a decision. Maybe the reason was
deeper than can be seen at first glance and one should Iook into other circumstances in
this period. Since there is no written explanation of these sentences in the extant
records, one can only guess. The fact that Dubrovnik’s Fraueiseans were part of the
Dalmatian Province, which was under the strong influence of Venice, may have played a
certain role in this sentence, since the Dubrovnik authorities did not like Venetian
interference in their jurisdiction.29 On the other hand, one should not forget that all this
happened at the beginning of the fifteenth ccntury – in the period when Dubrovnik was
going through one of its economic and cultural peaks. This quick development led to
some changes in the standards of living and behaving, so it is possible that Dubrovnik
authorities starred to fear that such changes might cause other, graver, changes. The fact
that it is stated in the records that this sentence was given as an „example“ and „against
scandal“ may perhaps be a guide in revealing why the punislunent was so strict. The
Franciscan mendicant order was rather popular among the commoners and Fraueiseans
served as models of moral living. Thus, if a scandal such as a brawl were tolerated, who
knew where it could Iead? Therefore, it is possible that the Dubrovnik civil authorities
acted stricdy to try to prevent and avoid any other possible „deviations“ of commoner
behavior. The „poor“ friars ended up banned from the ciry in order to „rectify“
themselves and avoid „scandalizing“ citizens.
U See, e.g., Dean, Crime, 108-12.
29 Janekovic Römer , „Nasilje zakona,“ 38.
SACRiöD SPACE, VIOLENCE AND PUßL!C LAW
Appendix
.\cta Consili lVlinoris, s. 5, vol. 1 (State Archives Dubrovnik)
Acts of the Minor Council
N!! l
26•h February 1415
73
Order of the Minor Council that the Dominican friars had to make some constructional
modiftcations on the monastery because of the new street regulations
fol. 1 3
[die XXVI febmani 141 5]
Lpro monasterio fratmm predicalorumJ
Captum fuit quod omnes porte que funt circa monasterium fratmm predicatorum quocumque modo
muren/ur exceptis solummodo tribus videlizet duabus ecclesie et te1tia claustri versus ponentem. Et
quod dictum monastnum pro diligenti custodia ciuitatzs et conseruatione honestatis fra/rum dicti
monasterii reducatur in scoleum siue insulam sie quod remaneat ocpedita via comunsi eundi circa muros
ciuitatis. Et quod latn.ne siue conductum que sunt iuxta muros destruantur et Jiant a redificentur aut
in diclo monasterio in domo eius existente a parle ponentis auf in via versus ponentem subtus teram in
illo loco et in ea parte dictorum locorum prout et sicut placuerint ipsü fratribus simile mm
procuratroribus dictomm fratmm pro commoditate ipsorum fratmm. Et quod due sui e tres fenestrie que
sunt in vna ce/Ja ex parte (cass: murorum) muromm civitatis murentur uel iliferrentur si et in quant11m
per exportationem terreni e:xistentis retro ipsam cellam non vidtalur domino reston· et minori consilio
quod remaneant adeo alte quod nu/Ja mspictio haberi rationabiliter debeat. Que omnia debeant
expensis comrmis.
N2 2
9′“ March 1 4 1 5
Decision and other records o f the Minor Council about the case o f brawl i n the cloister
of the Franciscan monastery
fol. 1 5
die VIII! <mmtii 1415>
Captum Juit de mittendo info rtia fra/rum Marinum de Antibaro capellanum monacorum etf rah·em
Nicolaum de Cataro ad dominum viceuicarium (cass: qui) el quod ipse fatiat de eis iusticiam et de
offerendo sibi brachium et carceris el omnia que emnt ad hoc oportuam.
Captum Juit de oflerendo domino vicetario brachium sca/are (?) pro querendo Jratrum l…Aurentium et
74 GORDAN RAVANCJC
(cass: esse) omnes alios et etiam carceres et alia opportuam in premissis.
Lpro Jratribus minoribusJ
Captum fuit de procedendo contra jratres minom propter excessum comissum inter eos de vulnerabus et
percussionibus inter se ipsos perpetratis (?) vigore habile primo licentie a venerabili fratre Nicola de
Spaleto inquisitore ac viceuican·o in prouincia Dalmatina.
Lpro eisdemJ
Captum fuit de induciantbJ super processu predictorum fratrum vsque ad diem liuis de mane proxime
juturi que erit etiam (?) presentis.
fol. 15′
Lcontra dompinum Blasit11n StanchiJ
Captum fuit de precipiantbJ (?) dompino Blasio Stanchi dicto Cotiza quod nullo motbJ audeat nichil
persumat intrare monaJterium fratrum minorum de RPgusio vsque per totum menmm decembris
proximo sub pma voluntatis rectori Ragusiis.
Lpro AlbanenJeJ
Captum fuit de dando in illis rebus que videbuntur domino rectori et minori consilio illo Albanensi qui
venit huc pro faciendo jieri vestes pro suo tbJmino (?) valorem yperperos quinqua de denariis (?) nostri
comunsi .
Lpro fratribus minoribusJ
Captum juit de non portando ad consilium rogatorum processum jiendum contra fratres minores propter
delictum et excessum eorum.
Lpro esi demJ
Captum juit de procedentbJ contra dietos fratres minores singulatum (?) ad vnum ad vnum quem ad
modum videbitur presenti consilio.
fol. 1 6
die XIII!“ marcii 1415
Captum fuit in supra!crpi to minori consilio in quo inteifuerunt consiliarii decem de excludendo per
summam (?) infrasmptes fratres ordü minomm (?) prtopter uulneta rixas questinas et procussinas
habitas inter dietos fratres, vt (eass: de) monasterium decetero remaneat in quiete et nullum scandalum
in hac civitate per eos oriri possit viro Jtt eeteris etiam transeaf in exemplum quo vercantur (?) similia
decetero perpetiare (?) a civitate Ragusii et eius distrietu in quam civitatem et dsi tricutm uenire non
SACRED SI‘ ACE, VIOLENCE AND I’UBJ.JC LAW 75
presumant infra tempora infrascripta et si uenerint totiens excludantur per illa eadem tempra quotiens
per ipsos uel aliquem ipsorum fuerit contrafactum si legitime probarz potm·t.
Frater Laurentius fuit exclusus a ciutate et districtu in parte .mprascripta continetur per annos tres
proxime futuros.
Frater Marinus de Antibaro capellanus incarcarum usque ad diem XV““‚ nouembris 1416.
Frater Nixa de Cathero fuit exclusus utsupra usque ad dictam diem XV“• nouembris 14 16.
Frater Petrus de S cardona suit exclusus utsupra usque ad dictam diem XV““‚ nouembris 1416.
Frater Ziuchus de Ragusio Ieetor fuit exclusus utsupra usque ad dictam diem X nouembris 1416.
Frater jacobus de Spaleto Juit exclusus utsupra usque ad dictam diem XV““‚ nouembris 14 16.
Frater Antonius de Caffia et Jrater Michael de Durachio Ieetor Cathari usque per totum mensis
decembris 14 15.
Captum Juit in suprascripto mino1i consi/io quod il/i Jratres ex suprascriptis qui ad presens no11 sunt in
carceribus habeant terminum recedendi in Ragusio per totam dei m dominicam proxime Juturam .
.N‘!! 3
lQth March 1 4 1 6
Order of the Minor Council regarding the problem of the windows on the monastery
of Saint Mark
fol. 73′
[die X martü 14 16]
Lpro Jenes/ra Sancti MamJ
Captum Juit de murando Jenestram Sancti Marci que aspicit versus plateam et de Jaciendo vnam aliam
Jenestram in Jacie que est ex opposito domus thesaurariorum que sit fortis et bene Jerrata.
VIOLENCE AND THE MEDIEVAL CLERGY
CEU MEDIEVALIA 16
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
Sonderband 26 (201 0)
Series Editor: J6zsef Laszlovszky
Series Teclmical Editor: Annabella Pal
Violence and the Medieval Clergy
Edited by
Gerhard J aritz
and
Ana Marinkovic
Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Krems/Donau
&
Centtal European University
Department of Medieval Studies
&
Centtal European University Press
Budapest · New York
Budapest, 2011
© Editors and Contributors 2011
Ist edition
Technical Editor: Gerlurd Ja ritz
Copy Editor: Judith Rasson
Cover design for the series by Peter T6th
Cover Illustration:
Trec of Vices (detail), th.ird quartcr 13″‚ cenrury, Austria.
Vicnna, Austrian National Library, cod. 12538, fol. 13r
Joint publication by:
Medium Aevum Quotidian um
Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Austria
Telephone (+43-2732) 84793, Fax (+43-2732) 64793-1
Centrat European University
Department of Medieval Studies
Nador u. 9, H-1051 Budapcst, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3051, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055
E-mail: medsrud@ceu.hu, Website: htr;:p://mcdsrud.ceu.hu
Central European University Press
An imprint of the Ccntral European University Share Company
Nador u. 11, H-105 I Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3138, Fa.“ (+36-1) 327-3183
E-mail: ccupress@ccu.hu, Website: http-//www.ceupress.com
400 West 59″‚ Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Telephone (+1-212) 547-6932, Fax: (+1-646) 557-2416
E-mail: mgreenwald@sorosny.org
All rights reserved. No part of th.is publication may be reproduced, storcd in rerrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published with the support of niederosterreich kultur
!SSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
ISBN 978-615-5053-26-9
Libraty of Congrcss Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Violence and thc Mcdieval Clergy / edited by Gcrhard Jaritz, Ana Marinkovic- Ist ed.
p. cm. — (CEU medievalia; 16)
Papers from the workshop „Coping with violencc, and the mcdicval clcrgy (from thc local settlement of
dispure to approach.ing the Papal Penitentiary),“ held at Dubrovnik in 2008.
I ncludes bibliographical refcrcnces and index.
ISBN 978-6155053269 (pbk.)
1. Violencee–Religious aspects–Catholic Church–History–To 1500–Congresscs. 2. Catholic ChurchEuropc–
Cicrgy–History–To 1500–Congresses. 3. Church history–Middle Ages, 600-1500–Congresses.
!. Jaritz, Gerhard, 1949- 1!. Marinkovic, Ana.
BX1069.5.V56 2011
261.8’3–dc22
2010052375
Printed in Hungary by Akaprint Kft., Budapcst
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Peter Clarke, The Meclieval Clergy and Violence: An Historiographical Introduction . . . . 3
Kirsi Salonen, The Apostolic Penitentiary and Violence in the Roman Curia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Torstein jorgemen, „Killings, Unfortunately, Take Place More Often Here than
Anywhere Else:“ Civil and Clerical Homicide in Late Meclieval Norway . . . . . . . 29
Etleva Lo/a, Violence and the Clergy in Late Meclieval Albania:
with and without the Penitenriary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Gerhard Jmitt The Bread-Knife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Gordan Ravanfif, Sacred Space, Violence and Public Law 111 the Cloisters
of the Franciscan and Dominican Hauses ofDubrovnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Ne/la Lonza, The Priest Barbius and His Crime before the State and Church
Authorities of Meclieval Dubrovnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
PREFACE
Studies of the Apostolic Penitentiary and its role and function for all strata of
late medieval society have become an important field of research at tbe international
Ievel. The requests of Christians for grace to be granred by the papal curia offer information
about a variety of problems and needs that confronred both clerics and laypeople
and made petitions to rhe pope necessary or, at least, advisable.
Since 2001, the Department of Medieval Studies of Central European University
has been concentrating on comparative researcb in the East Central European dara
of the Penitentiary Registers. This has led to intensive cooperation with other scholars
in the field, to a number of international meetings and the publication of their results.1
The most recent of these workshops was held in Dubrovnik in 2008 and dealt with a
research question for which rhe Penitentiary registers contain rich material: „Coping
wirb Violence, and the Medieval Clergy (from the Local Settlement of Dispute to Approaching
the 1\postolic Penitentiary).“
In recent decades research into violence in the Middle Ages has seen a particular
boom. In a !arge number of studies historians discovered that violence was omnipresent
in medieval society and affected all areas of life and the members of all social
strata. Although one has to be careful with such generalizations, it can be stated that the
survivi.ng sources deal regularly with issues of violent actions, signs and results of violence,
violent people and coping with violence. Members of the clergy played an important
role in recordi.ng such evidence – as weiters about violence and critics of violence,
but also as perpetrators, victims, and witnesses. However, systematic analyses of
the patterns of behaviour and the different functions and actions of clerics on these
issues have not yet been realized often in a context-bound and comparative way. The
Dubrovnik workshop aimed to contribute towards changing this situation and offer a
forum to discuss questions about the various roles of medieval clerics in the attempts
The results of meetings at Bergen (2003) and Budapest (2004) were published in Gerhard Jaritz,
Torstern J0rgensen and Kirsi Salonen (ed.), The Lang Arm of Papal Authority. Late Medieva/
Chnsllan Peripheriesand Their Commumcation wllh the Holy See, CEU Medievalia 8 (Budapest and
New York: Central European University Press, 2005); selected papers of a workshop at Rome (2005)
may be found in iidem (ed.), … et usque ad ultimum terrac The Apostolic Penitentiary in Local
Contexts, CEU Medievalia 10 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2007).
2 PREFACE
and processes designed to cope with violence. Particular emphasis was put on the function
of the Apostolic Penitentiary and its decisions in th.is context. This volume contains
selected contributions from the meeting.
In his introductory paper, Peter Clarke offers an overview of the state of the
art of research into the connection of the clergy and violence in the :Middle J\ges. Kirsi
Salonen concentrates on violence at the Roman curia and its reflection in the Perutentiary
records. Torstein ]0rgensen and Etleva Lala deal with violence and the clergy in
two peripheral areas of medieval Western Christianity, namely, Norway and Albania,
and also include Penitentiary evidence in their analysis. Gerhard Ja ritz sn1dies the role of
one important object in the violence-bound argumentation of the supplicants to rhe
Penitentiary: the short bread-knife that was allowed to be carried by everyone and did
not count as a weapon, but seems to have been used regularly as such. Gordan Ravancic
and Nella Lonza offer analyses of problems of violence occurring in the clerical space of
medieval Dubrovnik.
November, 2011 Gerhard Jaritz (Budapest and Kl:ems)
Ana Marinkovic (Budapest and Zagreb)