BACK TO THE ROOTS
A Catholic lay person is not a dead stone of which the living Catholic Church is being built. He is not, nor must he be, a stone that is supposed neither to think nor act. A Catholic man and a Catholic woman has an honorable duty to collaborate in a sacred calling to spread and strengthen the Kingdom of God on earth.¹
Introduction
History is not written for the sake of those who were once its active constituents and are already gone (and/or perhaps forgotten), but because of those who are partaking in history today and shaping the future of the generations to come. Thus, this short survey of the history of the Croatian Catholic Union (CCU) of the United States and Canada is written not to commemorate the past by simply enumerating the most important names and dates in the life of the organization, but primarily to elicit and recapture the times and sense of mission that was present among the founders of the CCU. Furthermore, the results of CCU’s eighty-year history are known and today’s members are living witnesses to its praiseworthy accomplishments. Nonetheless it is the roots, the beginnings and underlying purpose that are too often forgotten. This anniversary celebration is, therefore, a fitting occasion to go back to the founders and see why the Croatian Catholic Union was established and how the present life and work of CCU’s leadership and its members reflect the vision of those who turned their Croatian and Catholic ideals into the reality that we celebrate today.
The Croatian Catholic Union was not founded by a quirk of history or by the whims of a few self-promoting individuals. Its creation resulted from a confluence of social, economic, political, ideological, and other factors on both sides of the Atlantic ocean, the United States and Croatia, that surfaced by the end of the first World War. CCU was born as a response to those factors and out of religious and national needs deeply felt by the Croatian immigrants in America at the time.
The “Steel City”
CCU’s beginnings are closely connected to the history of the newly founded city on the southern shores of Lake Michigan that was named after the Chairman of the Board of the United States Steel Corporation, Judge Elbert Gary. The man and “his city” became symbols of American industrialization, progress, and economic growth.
U.S. Steel, the first billion dollar corporation, decided to build a great factory on the site of swamps and barren sand dunes of northern Indiana. The company also built roads, houses, stores, hotels, parks, schools, and cultural institutions. It helped build churches, lent money, sold lots, and made numerous other efforts to secure a stable work force. Thousands of job-seekers throughout the United States and Europe, especially from then Austria-Hungary and Southern Europe, rushed to the “Magic City” looking for work.
Gary’s population grew rapidly; from 334 in 1906 to 16,802 in 1910, 55,378 in 1920, and 100,426 in 1930.² Among the newly arriving laborers were many Croatians. According to a 1908 “rough” census, of 10,246 people living in Gary at the time, 950 identified themselves as Croatians. ³ Just two years later, according to one report, “the largest group of foreign born [in Gary, Indiana]…was the Croatians, which numbered about four thousand.”⁴
The growth of the city, however, was also accompanied with a multiplication of vices and various social problems, especially among the unskilled and often illiterate immigrant workers living in slums, sleeping in shifts at boarding houses, working twelve hours a day and a seven-day week for seventeen cents an hour.
Ethnic communities in America were unstable. Immigrants were mostly single men, or men whose wives and children were left behind in the old country until the husbands earned enough money to bring them over or themselves to return home. Such men moved from job to job and from place to place, and endured hard work and long hours because most hoped to eventually return to the “old country” with their meager savings.
One “cure” to the drastic shift from a poor but idyllic village life to harsh and long-hours of factory work was too often found in the saloons that were frequently owned by cunning immigrant entrepreneurs. Saloons were often the “communal life” of those who found themselves in a foreign land at the mercy of a fast growing and unrestricted capitalism.⁵ Furthermore, the newly found independence and freedom from family and communal village life led many to question the old beliefs and traditional morality.
The lives of various immigrant groups in the industrial cities began to stabilize only with the strengthening of family life and founding of self-help societies, cultural organizations, and ethnic churches. Croatian immigrants first formed fraternal benevolent societies. The largest and best known such organization in the country was the Croatian Union, founded in 1894, which changed its name to the National Croatian Union in 1897, and finally, after merging with some other similar organization, it became the Croatian Fraternal Union in 1925.⁶ Such organizations were very helpful not only in times of need but, perhaps even more importantly, in providing a sense of belonging and community to the newly arrived immigrants.
After establishing their fraternal lodges, parishes, and cultural associations, it seemed that life began to stabilize in the newly founded city of Gary and in other industrial towns of the Chicago area.⁷ But World War I, although fought far away in Europe, brought changes and new challenges not only to America at large, but even more intensely to the immigrant communities as well.
The Great War
American involvement in the Great War intensified government intervention in the economy and in labor policies. A resurgence of patriotism, conformity, and Americanism occurred; workers, especially steel workers, became industrial heroes; immigration from Europe was practically halted. Even the foreign-born in America were now more eager to accommodate to the American way of life and to reach the “American dream,” than to return to the old and troubled continent. The war became a common cause that brought about a sense of social purpose and national unity. But that was an illusive picture. Social tensions and national divisions were lingering beneath a peaceful surface and erupted soon after the guns were stilled.
Once the war was over, the industrialists, on the one hand, wanted to take back some of the benefits they had been forced to concede to the workers during the war. On the other hand, the labor movement saw a golden opportunity to strengthen its position on the bases of war-time precedents when the government sanctioned unionism and pressured the industrialists to yield to some of the workers’ demands. Issues like wages, work hours, job security, working conditions, and the return of hundreds of thousands of veterans to the labor market were crucial to working class America. Growing tensions erupted in numerous strikes throughout the country.
Attempts by the American Federation of Labor (AFL) to organize the steelworkers led to the great steel strike of 1919. Although this and other strikes at the time were rank-and-file undertakings, for the American radical Left these events became an opportunity to spread their revolutionary socialist ideology and to attract new following. That year of the strike also marks the founding of the Communist Party of the United States. The steel workers strike climaxed in Gary, Indiana, when martial law was declared in the city and the government forces killed several strikers. By January of 1920 the strike collapsed but the effects of the events of 1919 had a lasting effect on decade to come.
The Bolshevik revolution of November 1917 in Russia not only disturbed America but it led to direct American involvement on the side of the anti-Bolsheviks. Furthermore, the formation of the Third Communist International/Comintern (1919), which main purpose was to export revolution around the world, was perceived by many as a direct threat to the American way of life. On the other hand, American Left radicals, inspired by the Communist revolution in Russia and encouraged by social tensions and labor activism in this country, acted as if the socialist revolution in America was imminent. Thus, the post-war years were charged with social, racial, political, and economic tensions. One of the effects of such strains led to the so-called Red Scare that embarked on a crusade against the radicals, real or imaginary, striking workers, immigrants, and anyone else that was perceived us un-American.
Croatians in the US at the End of the War
The Croatian immigrant communities throughout the United States were in a very uncomfortable, confused, and divisive situation during and especially after the first World War. This was precipitated by a mixture of social, political, and ideological conflicts both in the US and Croatia, that surfaced at the beginning of the 20^th century. This uneasy situation was particularly true in Gary and other new Croatian communities in the developing industrial cities of the time.
As former citizens of the Austria-Hungarian empire, the loyalty of the Habsburg Slavs to America was often under scrutiny after the U.S. entered the war. A number of such immigrants, including the Croatians, were interned to special camps for enemy aliens.⁸ After the war, there was heightened activity on the part of “true” Americans to “100 percent Americanize” the foreign-born, including the “Americanization” of their religion. The Catholic Church in America, instead of cherishing various Catholic traditions, was also an active promoter of the melting pot principle, and (in general) not much concerned about Catholic immigrants. Furthermore, the Red Scare became an opportunity for “true” Americans and numerous “patriotic” organizations in this country, especially in immigrant industrial cities like Gary, Indiana, to assault their foreign- born neighbors (the hunkies), their ethnicity, and their religion, by accusing them of being red sympathizers, disloyal, and a threat to the American way of life. Moreover, being of Catholic heritage, Croatians endured their share of anti-Catholic bias, coming from the “true” Americans, the liberals, and the radical Left. Besides open and vocal attacks by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Loyal American League, the Croatians (and other immigrants) in Gary were also under more subtle pressures from the Presbyterian sponsored Gary Neighborhood House, the Methodist organized Campbell Friendship House, and even the public school system to abandon their ethnic and religious traditions as soon as possible and become “real” Americans.⁹
The internal confusion and divisiveness among the Croatian immigrants in America, however, were caused mainly by the happenings in Croatia. Although living far away, immigrants are affected by the lives of those left behind. Not only that, quite often, immigrants take the homeland events more seriously and passionately than those in the “old country.” Suffice to mention just a few such factors that had a profound effect on the lives of Croatian immigrants in America, including the founding of the Croatian Catholic Union.
First, although living in a single empire, Austria-Hungary, Croatian lands at the time were divided by imperial designs into several provinces that were isolated from each other administratively and by the lack of roads and railroads. Although the desire for national and territorial unification had been alive for a number of decades, such processes were prevented by the imperial power. Additionally, a large Orthodox minority in the land became increasingly Serbianized and instrumentalized by the foreign rulers in the effort to prevent Croatian unification and the revival of their national state. Such divisions at home were one of the main reasons why regionalism flourished among the Croatian immigrants. For many, their true national awakening took place in the diaspora and not in the homeland.
Second, major ideological shifts and conflicts were taking place in Croatia at the end of the 19^th and especially at the beginning of the 20^th century. The traditional Church and village social structures and beliefs were being challenged by new and “progressive” forces, especially among the younger generations. Western liberalism, an ideology founded on beliefs in human freedom, dignity, pursuit of happiness, equality under the law, supremacy of science, rationalism, and unlimited progress, was present among the Croatian intellectual elites during the 19^th century. Even a number of the Catholic clergymen in Croatia had liberal leanings regarding the people’s sovereignty, equality, and basic human freedoms. Many Croatian intellectuals of the early 20^th century, especially the younger ones, however, went much further in their interpretation of liberalism than more moderate older followers of that European philosophy. For them this was a struggle, an intellectual war, against traditional values, authorities, structures, morals, and especially against the strong presence of the Catholic Church in Croatian social, cultural, and even political life at the time. They demanded for the Church to get out of public life and, if it were to exist, it had to become a Croatian national church.
Thirdly, the avantguard forces of liberalism , on the other hand, energized the more traditional Catholic circles in Croatia. This led to the organizing of the Croatian Catholic movement at the beginning of the 20^th century, similar to other Catholic movements in Europe at the time.¹⁰ Growing religious indifference among the educated, negation of the traditional Catholic teachings, and, most of all, open attacks on the Church, was a call to action. The prime mover of the movement and its guiding spirit was the bishop of Krk, Antun Mahnic. For him, “there can be no peace with the liberals, we can only fight them.”¹¹ This was a movement for Catholic lay people but under the watchful eye of bishop Mahnic and the younger clergy who responded to his call. By its various religious and cultural activities, and through its publications, the movement, was able to attract a large following among Croatian youth and to animate a Catholic revival that, in turn, had a substantial impact on Croatian social, cultural, and even political life.
Fourthly, the political situation in Croatia was also in a state of transition and confusion. The Croatian political elite of various persuasions agreed that Croatian lands should be unified and become a self-ruling nation, but how to achieve that lofty goal was a puzzling and, often, divisive issue. The main questions were who might be a suitable political ally on the road to unification and self-rule and, not less important, what was the role of the Serbianized Orthodox population in Croatian politics.
Generally, some political leaders leaned toward Vienna as the hopeful partner, others toward Hungary, and at the beginning of the last century more and more of them began to look toward Belgrade as a potential ally. The last alternative was the only one acceptable to the Serbs in Croatia, because that meant not only they were to become co-equals to Croatians in Croatia but that it was the first step toward their unification with Serbia. Furthermore, a number of Croatian students studying in Prague came under the influence of Thomas Masaryk, a former Catholic liberal intellectual, and accepted not only his vehement anti-Catholicism but also his position that Slavic solidarity was the only means for their defense against the German onslaught to the East.
Because of political shifts and intellectual fashions which disregarded the traditional Croatian national and religious values, and because of Serbian victories in the two Balkan wars (1912-1913), Yugoslavism became more and more appealing to the Croatian political and intellectual elite. The voices of those who foresaw the dangers of such political adventures were drowned by the noise of pro-Yugoslav enthusiasts by the end of the First Word War. Soon after the unification, however, many of those who rushed to Belgrade realized their mistake, but it was too late. Moreover, the end of World War I brought to the Croatians not only a new and tyrannic Serbian regime, but also major economic hardships, social discontent, political mobilization of the peasants, and a wave of new socialist and communist influences.
These and other happenings in Croatia had a strong echo among the Croatian immigrants in the United States and around the world. As a result, among them there were regional, ideological, and political divisions, as well as some social and economic differences. The most vocal was a relatively small group of Croatian “progressives,” a mixture ranging from a few educated liberals and socialists, self-taught or more often self- proclaimed workers’ “intelligentsia” to self-promoting radical adventurers who exploited their hard working compatriots in the name of the working class.
It was the Left revolutionary activities among the Croatian immigrants, the liberal anti-Catholic propaganda in general, the emergence of the Croatian Catholic movement as a response to those attacks, the Red Scare, Americanization pressures, and various social and political upheavals in America at the end of World War I that led a few Croatian and Catholic enthusiasts in Gary, Indiana, to make a bold step and establish the Croatian Catholic Union of the United States as a means of safeguarding the national and religious treasure that they brought with them to the New World.
Foundations Laid
The Croatian Catholic Union was founded on October 12^th, 1921 in Gary, Indiana, at a meeting of several priests serving at Croatian parishes in the US at the time. They were: Rev. Stjepan Hofman, Rev. Milan Hranilovic, Rev. Dragutin Jesih, Rev. Ivan Judnic, Rev. Mirko Kajic, Rev. Davorin Krmpotic, Rev. Leon Medic, Rev. Irinej Petricek, Rev. Josip Soric, Rev. Ivan Stipanovic, Rev. Josip Stukelj, Rev. Juraj Violic, and Rev. Venceslav Vukonic. The prime mover and the ideologue of the Union, however, was Fr. Jesih, pastor of the Holy Trinity Croatian parish in Gary, Indiana, at the time.
Fr. Jesih, was born on May 8, 1895 in Stenjavac, near Zagreb. In 1913, as a young cleric, he was sent by the Archbishop of Zagreb to study theology in the US. He was ordained to the priesthood in St. Francis, Wisconsin in 1918, and, about a year later, he came to serve the Croatian parish in Gary. In the hindsight, one could say that the right man came to the right place, at the right time.
All available historical sources indicate strongly that Fr. Jesih was a very energetic, intelligent, and hard- working priest. He was loved by the people. His house was always open to the parishioners who felt his enthusiasm and love for God and for them. After attracting and energizing the more stable and active members in the parish, he often met with them in the rectory to discuss problems in the community and among the Croatian immigrants in general, and also the ideas of how to remedy such issues, especially how to combat the wave of bolshevik and anti-religious propaganda among the hard working Croatian newcomers.¹²
It was clear that the existing lodges of the Croatian National Union and similar organizations of the day were getting more and more under the sway of socialist propaganda. The leading Croatian left-wing newspaper, Radnicka straza/Workers’ Sentinel of Chicago was relentless in attacks against capitalism, religion, all traditional moral values, and especially the Catholic Church. Small but active groups of radicals were also pushing the idea of procuring community halls instead of helping or establishing parishes churches or schools. Such halls were secular “temples” for the “progressives,” where they gathered for various occasions; from celebrating the births of their children to having funeral services for their dead comrades. But more importantly, social activities in a lodge hall provided an alterative to going to church or attending church events, and also gave an opportunity to the anti-religious activists to spread their liberal and/or Marxist ideology. Moreover, the Left radicals were often helped financially in their propaganda activities and even some were trained as professional agitators by the Communist Party of the United States and the Comintern.¹³
An organized resistance against the aggressive radical activities and ideas did not exist among the Croatian immigrants. The majority of the members in the existing fraternal organizations did not want to “get involved;” they did not want to “offend anyone.” Many among these were merely nominal Catholics. Furthermore, some of the younger immigrants were exposed to liberalism and/or socialism before they came to the US, especially craftsmen who thought of themselves as the “intelligentsia” of the working class. Various tailors, barbers, carpenters, blacksmiths, and bartenders thought it was their mission to lead the ignorant and primitive laborers from religious darkness to enlightenment or even to the promised land of socialism. On the other hand, those who wished to defend the old and stable lodges from the intrusions of the Left ideology, had no organizing skills, no intellectual background, no guidance or support from anyone who was capable to take on the combative and often trained radicals.
By 1921 it became clear to patriotic and religiously oriented members in the National Croatian Union and other similar organizations that their feelings, interests, and spiritual needs were not only ignored by their leaders but, even worse, they were being insulted by the “progressive” and radical elements. True, as members of fraternal organizations they did have insurance and other benefits, but their voices were silenced by the shouts of the Left fanatics. The young pastor in Gary, Indiana, ambitiously and boldly decided to fill the needs of the disillusioned. However, he desired not only to give courage and spiritual guidance to those who wanted to remain faithful to the Church and Croatian national traditions, but also to organize them into a force that would fight back the atheistic and radical ideologies and to fight for the very souls of the Croatian immigrants that were lulled into indifference and apathy or even beguiled into following ideas that were contrary to the teaching of the Church and Croatian heritage
These concerns led Fr. Jesih, assisted with a group of enthusiasts in his parish, to organize the “Croatian Catholic Benevolent and Educational society, ‘Sacred Heart of Jesus’.” It was founded on Sunday, February 20, 1921. The purpose of the organization was to “help its members in sickness and distress, to bury them in accordance with the Catholic rites, after their death, and to help their dear and near ones with the payment of a certain amount in death benefits.” The educational side of the society “consisted mostly of instructing our [Croatian] people how to fight …atheistic menace and of admonishing them to remain steadfast and firm in their religion, which they inherited from their forefathers; to adhere to the national ideas and ideals and not to be swayed by this new Godless philosophy….”¹⁴ Although, at the time of its founding, this was to be a local organization, it became the cornerstone for the Croatian Catholic Union that was established only a few months later.
Soon after the Sacred Heart of Jesus Society was set up, it became apparent to its architects that the problems and issues they were facing could not be challenged only on the local level. The “progressive” ideology was penetrating into the Croatian immigrant communities throughout the country, and, therefore, a wider effort was necessary if they wanted to make a difference. Thus, the decision was made to test the waters and see if a national organization, that would adhere to the principles as defined by the newly founded society in Gary, could be formed. In May 1921, Fr. Jesih sent a letter in the name of the Gary activists to all Croatian Catholic priests in America suggesting the formation of a nationwide Croatian fraternal and Catholic organization. The response from the priests was overwhelmingly positive. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Society contacted the already existing Slovak Catholic Union to see what they could learn from the Slovaks in organizing and running a similar union among the Croatians.
An extraordinary meeting of the “Croatian Catholic Benevolent and Educational society, Sacred Heart of Jesus”was called for the evening of October 12, 1921, Columbus Day. A number of priests from Croatian parishes throughout the US were meeting during the same day at Fr. Jesih’s rectory in Gary. The sole purpose of both meetings was the founding of the Croatian Catholic Union. The questions whether the CCU should be organized and, if so, can it succeed were debated by the gathered priest throughout the day.¹⁵ On one hand, they knew that the founding of a new fraternal organization would be perceived by many as divisive, but, on the other, they felt that an action must be taken in order to combat the anti-religious propaganda that was causing a major spiritual crisis among the faithful. By the end of the day, it was agreed that the CCU will be established.
The reports of that day’s activities state that the priests founded the CCU at their meeting and then conveyed the results to the waiting leaders and members of the local Sacred Heart of Jesus Society. But probably it is more accurate to say that the priestly role, although crucial, was secondary to the event. It was young Fr. Jesih and his circle of lay activists who were the actual architects of the CCU. The priests, those gathered in Gary and those who could not come to the meeting, were there to analyze the situation, give their approval, and pledge their support to the idea, but the Gary activists were the initiators of the project and it fell upon their shoulders to put the CCU on its feet.
The following laymen were present at the founding meeting at the Holy Trinity Croatian Church Hall in Gary on October 12, 1921: Barbara Bacic, Mijo Brasic, Nikola Fadjevic, Juraj Gacina, Ivan Galic, Blaz Gjuras, Stjepan Kovacic, Franjo Kovacic, Ivan Kupres, Fanika Matlek, Juraj Matlek, Lovro Mikan, Tomo Milatovic, Mate Mocinic, Juraj Nastav, Nikola Prahovic, Grga Rakic, Jerko Rakic, Barbara Ramuscak, Juraj Ramuscak, Manda Ruzic, Mihael Stojakovic, Marion Susilovic, and Ivan Zapcic.
That October evening, therefore, the Croatian Catholic Union was born. The Sacred Heart of Jesus Society became its founding and first lodge. The first supreme board was also elected at the same meeting. The following were the first CCU elected officers: Rev. Charles Jesih, Spiritual Director, or Chaplain; Mr. George Ramuscak, Supreme President; Mr. Gaspar Puralich, Supreme Vice President; Mr. Marion Susilovic, Recording Secretary; Mr. John Galich, Financial Secretary; Mr. George Rakich, Supreme Treasurer; Mr. John Kupres, Mr. Blaz Gjuras, Mr. Lovro Mikan, Mr. Nikola Prahovich, and Mr. George Garcina were elected as Members of the Board of Trustees.
The CCU was not to be under the Church authority, but an independent Catholic lay organization. The only position reserved for a clergyman was the office of Spiritual Director, who was to watch over the organization so that it does not stray away from orthodox Catholic teaching, and to be a spiritual advisor to the membership. Priests were, however, among the first organizers of the early lodges and, in turn, the CCU officers urged their members to be the religious pillars in their parishes. “[The CCU] members should be the first, when steps are taken in their respective parishes for improvement of the church or for the good of the faith; for the parish advancement in both material or spiritual aspects. It is their DUTY to promote and advance religious life in their midst.”¹⁶ It was expected that they become true Christian witnesses to others and the most active members of their parish community.
Vision
The Croatian Catholic Union followed the same model of organization as so many other fraternal societies in America at the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th century. It was to be a mutual help society, where the members pay monthly dues, and, in time of sickness or death, the society pays back the prescribed amount of money. For Fr. Jesih and other founders, however, the CCU was to be much more than that. From the few available writings, it is clear that Fr. Jesih envisioned the CCU as dual in nature: body and soul. The administrative, financial, and benevolent side of the CCU was its “body.” Its “soul,” its true mission, however, was to unite Croatian immigrants in America around their Catholic and national heritage and, once revitalized in their own faith, become a movement of religious revival and a force that would stand up to the anti-religious, anti-Catholic, and anti-patriotic forces among them. Its members were to be the shining examples of what it means to be a good Catholic, American, and Croatian. Even twenty-five years after its inception, the CCU first president stressed that “…there is still a too large number of our good Croatian people who do not understand the dual purpose of [the CCU], but they look upon it as if it were just one more among many fraternal benevolent societies. There are some of those even among our ranks who don’t understand this…”¹⁷
There are strong indications that Fr. Jesih, as a young cleric in Croatia, was either directly involved in the aforementioned Croatian Catholic movement or under its strong influence. His words and deeds reflect clearly the philosophy and activism of Bishop Antun Mahnic, the prime mover of the movement, for whom he had great admiration.¹⁸ For Fr. Jesih, as for bishop Mahnic, evil forces had declared war on the people of God and his Church. Thus, he repeatedly called upon the CCU members to be at the forefront in the ongoing battle for God. As the editor of Nasa Nada, he wrote: “Today, a huge Christian army has been amassed, a Christian movement was formed in defense of faith and morality. The trumpets of war have sounded, the battle cry has roared: To battle! To battle, brothers! To battle against atheist propaganda, atheist schools, atheist culture. The enemy must be defeated and his towers of lies and terror destroyed; people must be delivered from the power of darkness and led to the light of truth, to the brightness of Christian liberty!”¹⁹ In their struggle against evil, according to him, Christian idealists must unite under the banner of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and under that symbol the victory is guaranteed.
Making the Sacred Heart of Jesus patron of the CCU is also a reflection of the influences of the Catholic movement in Croatia on Fr. Jesih and his followers, because the veneration of the Sacred Heart, under the influence of the Jesuits, was actively nurtured by the movement.
Fr. Jesih was a man of principle, a man of God, a patriot, full of energy and action, and he was constantly challenging all Croatians, especially the members of the CCU, to live up to high Christian expectations. “[The CCU members] must be the most truthful, the most sober, the most friendly and pleasant in contact with others; spotless and the most efficient on their jobs; steadfast in their words and deeds; enduring and consistent; strict in justice but the most sensitive [to the rights of others]. In a word, in order to share the true [Christian] spirit with the others, one has to possess it, one needs to renew himself, because we can not share with others what we ourselves do not have.”²⁰ As individuals, therefore, they must be impeccable and united they would become an invincible movement of Christian idealism.
To the CCU founders, to be a good Croatian Catholic implied being a patriot, and vice versa. Croatia was a Catholic nation, deeply entrenched in the Catholic tradition, which struggled for centuries to preserve its national and religious character. Therefore, Croatianism and Catholicism were very close, even identical to them. This closeness is clearly articulated by Fr. Jesih in one of his editorials. “‘Croat is my name, and Catholic is my last name.’ How nicely this sentence illustrates the harmony of the two…. We are Catholics, and therefore, we are members of a huge family, the largest family in the world, which includes all the nations. Don’t we here in America see precisely that better than anywhere else?! Catholicism unites us with all the world, with all the nations. But we are also Croatians, something unique in that large family, we are our own. Yes, something particular! We are a people with our own language, with our proud and over a thousand-years-long history, with our own national nobility and heroes, with our writers, and with our beautiful homeland…. We are Croatians and we will remain so! Our children are Croatians and they too should raise Croatians [in their families]. We will honor our homeland here in the foreign country and work on her behalf as her true children. Blood is not water!”²¹ The CCU official motto “Sve za Boga i narod”/ All for God and the people/ clearly expressed both its religious and patriotic side. It summarizes the entire ideology of the CCU and expresses the enthusiasm of its founders in their work for God and the people, both Croatian and American.
CCU was born at the time when many native Americans doubted if the immigrants, especially Catholics from Central and Southern Europe, could become loyal Americans. The CCU, however, never wavered in its dedication to American ideals and values as defined by the founding fathers of this country. Not only that her members were patriotic Americans, but many of them served and even died for American ideals during World War II, the Korean war, and in Vietnam. Furthermore, being patriotic Americans did not exclude the CCU leaders and members from being at the forefront in raising their voice in defense of freedom of the Croatian nation, especially during the existence of communist Yugoslavia. Their Americanism, Croatianism, and Catholicism were expressed through a unified love and dedication to all three equally.
Growth
It was relatively easy to declare that the CCU had been established but to lay down its foundations and make it operational was another matter. This was, as we are witnesses, successfully accomplished by a few dedicated individuals who, together with Fr. Jesih, worked selflessly and tirelessly on this truly challenging project. In their endeavors, however, numerous growing pains had to be endured.
Drafting the Articles of Incorporation, obtaining charter and license from the state of Indiana, writing the bylaws, organizing new lodges, answering letters, publicity, and many other challenges had to be faced by a small group of pioneers. Furthermore, no one among the elected officials had any administrative experience in running an organization of this nature and, moreover, all of them held full time jobs. Only after a hard and long day of factory work could they take care of CCU affairs. Only through the genuine love, dedication, and long hours of uncompensated hard work of a few were the solid foundation of the Union laid.
One of the biggest and, one might say, unnecessary challenges the founders had to face was the merciless attacks on the newly founded organization coming from the Left radicals and the existing Croatian fraternal organizations. The “Young Croatian Union” even sent a complaint to the state of Indiana trying to prevent the CCU from getting state charter, claiming that too many Croatian unions already existed. Only one American- Croatian paper (Narodni List) published the CCU’s founding proclamation. Instead, all others condemned the Union and prophesied its early death. “[B]ut the louder their screams and clamor, the better progress the Union was making. Perhaps these very screams and condemnations helped the Union’s growth, from the beginning, since, in the very first few months after her organization, some twelve new lodges were established, in different parts of the country.”²² The CCU founders and pioneers bore the onslaughts of their opponents with great courage and the more they were attacked the more determined they were to succeed.
One of the hindrances to CCU’s growth was the requirement that every member of age must obtain a written testimony from the local pastor that he or she had fulfilled the annual Easter obligation; had gone to confession and received Holy Communion. The Spiritual Director’s duty was to see that this law was fulfilled. Furthermore, one needed a recommendation from the pastor in order to join the Union. The Union was, therefore, a society of “practical Catholics” and not open just to anyone. These self-limiting practice were often problematic, till they were slowly phased out in recent decades.
Internal problems and disagreements also erupted once in a while. The end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s seemed especially turbulent. Within a few years, three men served as Supreme Presidents and four as editors of Nasa Nada.²³ Occasional disagreements among the Croatian priests in America also reflected themselves on the work of the CCU. Interestingly, lay delegates to the 1929 Convention held in Youngstown appealed to the priests in their midst to make peace among themselves so that the Convention and work of the CCU could move on.²⁴ Also, attempts were made to move the CCU headquarters from Gary; but all the problems were resolved, people and groups reconciled, and the CCU was able to increase its membership and activities
Regardless of the difficulties, the CCU grew unexpectedly fast. By June 1922, fifteen lodges were already organized, and in June 1931, the CCU consisted of 51 lodges with a total of 5,346 members. Financially, the union was always on solid grounds, event through the hard times of the depression. After a relative slowdown in the 1930s, the Union reached its membership peak in the 1970s (16,500) due to the enrollment of the American Croatian baby boomers, the CCU’s expansion into Canada, and a new inflow of Croatian immigrants to America. At the present time, the Union has 7,934 members and its assets are worth over seven million dollars.²⁵ Clearly, the CCU has been declining in numbers, as have all other fraternal organization in the USA, but it is still one of the most viable and active Croatian institutions in America.
Accomplishments
Although the purpose of this survey is not to enumerate CCU’s achievements but to recall its founding spirit, a few of its main activities will be mentioned in order to remind the present members that they can be proud of the history of the organization they belong to.
The CCU founders believed that the Union should pay special attention to the education of its members, and the Croatian immigrants in general, because “a knowledgeable person will not be easily misled, as the one who is half-educated or not educated at all.”²⁶ Consequently, they focused on publishing activities as much as their financial circumstances allowed.
The first issue of the Union’s official organ, Vjesnik Hrvatske Katolicke Zajednice/Messenger of the CCU, was published only a couple of weeks after the Union was founded. Its first editor was Rev. Charles Jesih and, after Fr. Jesih went to serve the Croatian community in Milwaukee, the paper was edited by the first President, George Ramuscak. The name of the paper was changed in 1922 to Nasa Nada/Our Hope Since then, its editors were: Msgr. Mijo Domladovac, Rev. Dragutin Jesih, Rev. Ilija Severovic, Franjo Kolander, Helen M. Boric, Stanko Boric, Rev. Ivo Sivric, and, at the present, Melchior Masina.
The CCU also published a number of Almanacs. The first such publication came out in 1923 (for the year 1924) and CCU Almanacs were published through the consequent years till 1932. Because of the great depression, its publishing ceased. It was published again in 1939, but it ceased again. From 1946 until 1958 it was published on a regular basis. The Almanacs contain a valuable history not only of the Union but of Croatian Americans in general.
In the last several years, thanks to the generosity of its late members, Paul and Helen Rukavina, the Union is able to help its young members to achieve higher education by granting them annual scholarships.
Other CCU activities have a wide range: bowling and golf tournaments, sponsoring folklore festivals and soccer tournaments, sending letters and memoranda to the US political leaders on behalf of Croatia, rasing funds for various charitable causes, building the chapels of Our Lady of Bistrica and Our Lady of Peace at the National Catholic Shrine in Washington D.C., and sponsoring various cultural activities among American Croatians. These and many other accomplishments, listed elsewhere in this souvenir book are a lasting memorial to CCU’s pioneers and to their love for God and the Croatian people.
The Present and the Future
These few pages of CCU’s history are written, as stated at the beginning, to evoke the circumstances in which the CCU was founded and the vision of its pioneers so that its present membership may reflect on the current state of the Union.
Eighty years have passed. The pioneers have been gone for a long time. We are in a different century and even in a different millennium. The city of Gary and other industrial cities in America have changed. We live in the post-industrial age. Bolshevism with its radical followers, its empty promises, the Red Scare, and even the Red Empire are merely the trash of history. Open attacks on religion and the Catholic Church have lost their appeal. No significant issues, political or ideological, divide the Croatian diaspora. Croatia is finally free and independent. The world has changed, hopefully for the better. Does our generation today, therefore, need the Croatian Catholic Union, and will future generations need it?
Both the Croatian Catholic Union and the Croatian Fraternal Union (and other fraternal organizations in America) are declining in numbers. The older members are dying and newer generations are not inclined to join one or both of the Croatian unions. No one today (or in the recent past) joined such organizations because of the insurance, but rather because they offer something that money cannot buy, they are custodians of our Croatian national and, in case of the CCU, also religious traditions. They are conduits to our ethnic roots and history. Also, through them we can help Croatia and the Croatian people in their search for a better tomorrow.
Furthermore, one could ask whether Fr. Jesih’s vision for the Catholic and Croatian lay people is relevant for us today. We, as Catholics, and our beliefs are not confronted with radical attacks such as those of eighty years ago. The Catholic Church itself has undergone major changes since the CCU was founded. Catholic movements like those of a century ago are outdated. But this does not mean that the Church, the people of God, should be complacent and idle. “A Catholic lay person is not a dead stone,” Fr. Jesih wrote long time ago. The needs and challenges of our times are different than those of the CCU pioneers and our responses must measure up to them if we are to be true to our Christian calling.
We live in a world which does not appreciate or believe in lasting values. Individualism, relativism, secularism, materialism, globalism, post-modernism, and similar isms are catch words of the modern world. Everything is relative, there are no lasting truths or moral values. Every opinion and every life style is equally valid and tolerated in the name of personal or group rights. Furthermore, for too many people in Croatia, as well as among the Croatians in diaspora, Catholicism is only a cultural identity and not a matter of faith. God, religion, patriotism are only occasional necessities and they are too often (ab)used for selfish gains. If the CCU is to remain faithful to its original vision of being a Croatian American and a Catholic organization, it should respond to these and other problems that are besetting Croatia, America, and the world. The love of God and people of the CCU founders can never become irrelevant.
The choice is clear, either the CCU will linger on for a few more years or it will rededicate itself and rekindle the spirit of its founders and by burning brightly attract new generations in order to remain a viable Croatian institution in America for many decades to come. Hopefully, the second option will be chosen. The CCU pioneers at their most difficult moments were guided by love for God and people, and by the well-known saying: “If there is a will, there is a way.” What we need today is the will! God and the shining examples of CCU’s pioneers will provide the way to a better future.
Dr. Ante Cuvalo
Notes
¹ “Zadaca katolickog svjetovnjaka,” Nasa Nada, 24 November, 1927.
² Raymond A. Mohl and Neil Betten, Steel City – Urban and Ethnic Patterns in Gary, Indiana, 1906- 1950. New York and London: Holmes & Meier, 1986, p. 29.
³ Isaac James Quilen, “Industrial City – A History of Gary, Indiana to 1929” (Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 1942), p.162.
⁴ Phyllis Bate, “The Development of the Iron And Steel Industry of the Chicago Area, 1900-1920” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1948), p.130.
⁵ In 1909, there were 217 saloons in Gary, Indiana; approximately one for every 60 people living in the city. Richard Julius Meister, “A History of Gary, Indiana: 1930-1940” (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1967), p.14.
⁶ See George J. Prpic, The Croatian Immigrants in America (New York: Philosophical Library, 1971), pp. 133 & 264.
⁷ Croatian Catholic parishes in Northwest Indiana and the Chicago land were founded in the following chronological order: Assumption of Mary (Chicago)1900; Sts. Peter and Paul (Chicago) 1905; St. Mary Nativity in Joliet 1906; Sts. Peter and Paul (Whiting, IN) 1910; Holy Trinity (Gary, IN) 1912; St. Jerome (Chicago)1912; Sacred Heart (So. Chicago)1913; Holy Trinity (Chicago)1914; Holy Trinity (East Chicago, IN) 1916.
⁸ See Dr. H. Hinkovic, Iz velikog doba. (Zagreb: Cirilo-Metodska nakladna knjiznica, 1927), pp. 112-113.
⁹ See Mohl and Betten, Steel City, pp. 108-128.
¹⁰ For more on liberalism and the Catholic movement in Croatia, see Jure Kristo, Presucena povijest. Katolicka crkva u hrvatskoj politici 1850.-1918. (Zagreb: Hrvatska sveucilisna naklada, 1994).
¹¹ Nasa Nada – Kalendar za Americke Katolicke Hrvate 1928, p. 84.
¹² George Ramuscak, Souvenir Book of the 30^th Anniversary of the Croatian Catholic Union 1921-1951, p. 5.
¹³ Two of the best known Croatian professional Communist agitators in the US were Stjepan Lojen and Stjepan Mesaros, better known as Steve Nelson.
¹⁴ Ramuscak, Souvenir Book of the 30^th Anniversary, p. 8.
¹⁵ Rev. M.S. Hranilovic, “Dvadest i pet godina”. Nasa Nada – Hrvatski Katolicki Pucki Kalendar 1946, pp. 25- 29.
¹⁶ “Pre dsjednikova psolanica,” Nasa Nada, April 28, 1927.
¹⁷ George Ramuscak, Nasa Nada – Hrvatski Katolicki Pucki Kalendar 1946, p. 33.
¹⁸ In the article “Biskup Mahnic,” Nasa Nada, February 20, 1927, it is stated that “There is no doubt that bishop Dr. Antun Mahnic is the most meritorious man for the Croatian people in our century.” The article is not signed, but it can be presumed that it was written by the editor, Fr. Jesih.
¹⁹ Editorial “Sloga i ustrajnost u katol. pokretu,” Nasa Nada, August 4, 1927.
²⁰ Editorial “Nasi ljudi,” Nasa Nada, September 15, 1927.
²¹ Editorial “Rodna gruda,” Nasa Nada, September 1, 1927.
²² For more on the early challenges see Nasa Nada-Kalendar za g. 1932 za Americke Katolicke Hrvate, pp. 34-51. Quotation is taken from, Ramuscak, Souvenir Book of the 30^th Anniversary, p. 16.
²³ Presidents from 1929 to 1931: Juraj Ramuscak, Mato Fabin, and Grgur Rakic. “Nasa Nada” editors from 1927 to 1932: Rev. Dragutin Jesih, Rev. Ilija Severovic, Rev. Mijo Domladovac, and Franjo X. Kolendar.
²⁴ See the Convention Minutes as published in Nasa Nada January and February issues 1930.
²⁵ Nasa Nada, 15-31 March, 2001.
²⁶ George Ramuscak, “Povijesni osvrt HKZajednice i prosvjetne smjernice u nasim redovima,” Nasa

BC REVIEW No. 14 May 1978

EDITOR’S FOREWORD

The Statute of Vinodol from 1288 and the Poljica Statute from 1440 (published in the BC Review No. 11/12, March / June 1977) are two oldest surviving statutes written in the Croatian language. They provide a rare contemporary picture of the life and political conditions in this turbulent and much fought_over frontier land of medieval Europe. The Statute of Poljica, especially, abounds with interesting social detail. This Statute was at once the political constitution and legal code_book of a small self_governing principality and was continuously added to over the centuries. The Statute of Vinodol represented an agreement, a social contract of sorts, between the people of Vinodol and their new liege lords, the Princes of Krk, and contains important information about the feudal law in this area which had replaced the tribal customs of an earlier period.

In the famous 12th century chronicle Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina Vinodol is referred to as a border region of Croatia. There is a considerable disagreement among historians as to whether or not Vinodol was constituted as a separate county ( zupanija ) before A. D. 1102, i.e. before Croatia, having suffered a series of disastrous military defeats, was united with Hungary under the Hungarian monarch. Be this as it may, the Hungarian King claimed Vinodol as his possession, while the neighbouring island of Krk was occupied by Venice who installed there in A. D. 1117, or shortly thereafter, a certain Domnius as their vassal _ the founder of what was to become the powerful family of the Princes of Krk, later to become known under the name of Frankopani. The Krk Princes acquired Vinodol in 1225 and as their power grew, so their ties with Venice weakened, and they increasingly identified themselves with local interests and aspirations.

Vinodol, despite its limited natural resources and its relative poverty, or perhaps because of it, has always excelled in the vitality and intelligence of its people. A number of prominent personalities in Croatia’s history came from there, among them the celebrated miniature painter Juraj Julije Klovic ( 1498-1578), better known outside Croatia as Clovio, who was born at Grizane and was educated by the Pauline monks of Crikvenica and Ivan Mazuranic ( 1814-1890 ), author of the famous epic Smrt Smail_age Cengica ( Death of Smail_aga Cengic) and the politician chiefly responsible for the Freedom of the Press Act of 1875, granting the freedom of the press and the right of public assembly in Croatia, who was a native of Novi. In fact, several Mazuranices of the Vinodol stock made their name in literature, notably Ivana Brlic_Mazuranic ( 1874-1938), a granddaughter of Ivan, who gained an international reputation as a writer of stories for children. Two of her books have appeared in English translation. _ Croatian Tales of Long Ago
( London, 1924) and The Brave Adventures of a Shoemaker’s Boy (London, 1971).

The authors and copyists of both the Vinodol Statute ( Cf. articles 1 & 72 ) and the Statute of Poljica (Cf. Supplement No.4) call their language ‘Croatian’. There would be no need to specially mention this fact if it were not for the absurdities of modern Yugoslav politics in which linguistic problems are deliberately treated as political problems to be solved by political means, disregarding expert opinion and linguistic tradition. As recently as 1971_ nearly seven hundred years after the Statute of Vinodol and over five centuries after the Statute of Poljica _ in an act of unparalleled barbarism little noted by world public opinion, forty thousand copies of a new textbook of Croatian Orthography were seized and destroyed because it was thought politically undesirable that the Croats should preserve and develop the distinctive features of their own language. Books had been burned before, but this must have been the first time that a completely non_political work of linguistic scholarship was destroyed in this fashion.

When in 1976 I invited the young historian Alan Ferguson to translate the statute of Poljica for the BC Review, I knew that it would not be an easy task. The medieval text contains a number of obscurities which are not entirely cleared up in the available modern versions of the Statute. Nevertheless Ferguson has succeeded in producing a very good and very readable translation. A short stay in Poljica in the summer of 1976 as a guest of a well known Poljican family gave him an opportunity to find out of first hand about the loca1 history and traditions.
This stood him in good stead when, at my repeated urgings, he tackled the Statute of Vinodol. Although here too there were the inevitable difficulties owing to the obscurities in the text, he has completed his translation in a remarkably short time as well as producing a short historical introduction for it, and I am very grateful to him for thus making it possible to bring both these important medieval documents to the attention of English_speaking scholars and historians.

My thanks are also due to Christine E. Hill of the University College London who drew a mop of Vinodol specially for this issue, and to Christopher Cromarty for his help in processing some of the photographs.

Edo Pivcevic

Vinodol and Medieval Croatia

Alan Ferguson

Essentially, the compilation of the statute of Vinodol in 1288 represented an attempt formally to regulate rights and duties of the men of Vinodol, on the one hand, and their ‘Great Lords’, the princes of the nearby island of Krk, on the other. The association of mainland Vinodol and its insular lords had been established sixty_three years previously, in 1225, when King Andrija I of Croatia ( II of Hungary) issued a deed of covenant to Prince Vid II of Krk, granting him and his descendants ‘totam terram …. Wynodol et Modros’. The hinterland region of Modrus, to which reference is also made in the opening section of the Statute of Vinodol, had in fact already been granted to the princes of Krk in 1193. Their tenure of it was thereby confirmed.
The reason for King Andrija’s gratitude, expressed in the gift of land in 1225, was the readiness with which Prince Vid had sent a flotilla to assist the Croatians and Magyars in their crusade against the ‘heretical’ men of the Neretva, its estuary and the adjacent coastline earlier in that year. That the prince had done so no less to protect the interests of Venice, to which he had sworn loyalty and remained subject, than to counter heresy, was well appreciated by the king. It was not coincidental that apart from having embraced Bogomilism, which had roused Pope Honorius III to call for the crusade against them, the men of the Neretva were also a thorn in the side of Venice. Their piratical activities like those of the Kacic clan of Omis to the north, had proved a constant threat to Venetian merchantmen. In any event, the princes of Krk were seen by the king to be a strong potential ally who might be eased from allegiance to Venice by the grant of feudal lands.
The desired effect was achieved. In 1244 the Venetian Republic responded to the shift in gravitation of the princes’ loyalties towards the king of Croatia and Hungary by seizing the island of Krk. By then, however, the princes already had a firm foothold on the littoral. The determination of Andrija’s successor and son King Bela III (IV of Hungary) not to lose the favour of the princes in this strategically and economically important border region of his realm, led to his requesting the supply of no more than twenty armed soldiers and the provision of but two vessels (one sajka, one barka) in time of war. What makes the modesty of such a demand the more remarkable is that just two years earlier Bela had been forced to retreat to Dalmatia in the face of the near fatal Mongol invasion.
The turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was of especial significance for the history of medieval Croatia in that it witnessed the first formal association between mainland Croatia and the princes of Krk, who were subsequently to become the mighty noble family of the Frankopani.
A general survey of the period following 1102, in which year Croatia and Hungary were first linked in the person of a joint king of the Arpad dynasty, has already been given in this periodical (No 11/12, Vol. IV, 1977. pp. 4-6). To place against a more particular background the years in which the Vinodol_Frankopan connection was established and the Statute of Vinodol came into being, reference to the contemporary Croatian context is necessary.
In the thirteenth century, the division of Croatian territory which had been effected after the ‘Pacta conventa’ of 1102, remained valid. The lands between Mount Gvozd and the Adriatic, including Vinodol, and commonly referred to as ‘medieval Croatia’, enjoyed a degree of self_government; those between Gvozd and the River Drava, or ‘Slavonia’, the Magyar rulers had linked more directly to the Kingdom of Hungary. This distinction was maintained throughout
the life of the first Croato_Hungarian state, until the sixteenth century. The pace of feudalization in both regions was perceptibly increased in the thirteenth century with the implementation of new agricultural techniques, notably the rotation system, the development of mining, crafts, trade and the appearance of new urban settlements. This economic advance in its own turn accelerated social changes in the decline of the remnants of the patriarchal-tribal order. The formation of large feudal estates under both temporal and spiritual lords proceeded apace.
The creation of the dual Croato_Hungarian state had, moreover, fundamentally altered the political complexion of the Danubian and Dinaric lands. Its burgeoning economic life made the possession of Dalmatian towns, as trade outlets, a question of the first order. This was appreciated even during the reign of King Koloman (1095 [from 1102 King of Croatia and Hungary] _ 1116), who succeeded in obtaining the consent of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Komnen to his taking possession of them. The resultant competition with Venice was, as has been mentioned, still keen in the thirteenth century. It was in the conflict so engendered between Croato-Hungarian and Venetian interests, that noble families such as the princes of Krk first distinguished themselves. Later in the century, Miroslav Subic, zupan (Lord Lieutenant of the County) of Bribir, acquired that zupa as an exclusive feudal holding. Similarly, but inland, zupan Stjepan Babonic and his descendants won a hereditary right over the region between the Sava and Una, together with the title ‘princes of Blagaj’. Thus there developed in Croatia, including much of the littoral, a strong domestic feudal nobility with vassal duties towards the Crown and feudal rights over their villeins.
The dual kingdom suffered a setback and was seriously weakened in the early thirteenth century by internal disturbances and dynastic disputes. These reached a peak in 1217, while Andrija I (II), a king as ambitious and adventurous as he was myopic, was away leading crusading armies in the Holy Land. Disorder and disloyalty awaited him upon his return from a disastrous campaign. In his absence, the lot of lesser nobility, free peasantry and town dwellers alike had been made miserable by conflict between larger fief_holders. When his return brought no amelioration of their condition, in concert they imposed on the king the ‘Golden Bull’ (Bulla aurea) of 1222. Though not as rich a source of sociopolitical data as the Statute of Vinodol, the Bull represents a clear indication of political relations and the respective strengths of particular social classes in the kingdom at that time. Both lesser nobility and the military were to be represented, alongside the magnates, at annual assemblies. Their holdings could not be arbitrarily seized by the monarch and granted to the magnates.
The two decades following the proclamation of the Bull saw but slight reduction in social disorder. Bela III (IV) was still seeking to re_establish the royal prerogative at the expense of the magnates, when Central Europe succumbed to the Tartar invasion. Led by Batu_Khan, the Mongol hordes surged westward from the region of what are nowadays the Russian steppes around the river Volga. A section of them, under Khan Kadan, crossed the Carpathians, swamped Hungary, and routed Bela’s Magyar army in the battle of Mohi on the River Saj in 1241. In the following year the Pannonian Plain was ravaged and Bela was forced back as far as the Adriatic coastal towns. Rural settlements and unfortified places were especially hard hit by the onslaught. Croatia was spared further depredation only by the death in Asia of the supreme Khan Ogotai, after which the Mongols withdrew eastward.
The Mongol invasion put a halt to King Bela’s plans to quash the magnates’ resistance to the re_establishment of regal authority. More by necessity than by choice, his first priority was to revive the realm and fortify it against any renewed Mongol incursions. As citadels and fortresses had provided the best defense against the Tartars, King Bela instigated the erection of new ones and assisted the reconstruction of those damaged during hostilities. lt was at this time that such towns as Budim and Visegrad in Hungary, and Kalnik and Medvjedgrad in Croatia were fortified.
To revitalise the economy, Bela III (IV) took pains to develop urban life and encourage the establishment of new settlements. Towns were granted a number of considerable privilege, in order to attract foreign craftsmen and merchants. Freed of all obligations to feudal lords or monasteries on whose lands they might technically be situated, the ‘royal free towns’ enjoyed the right to elect their own town vijece or council and appoint magistrates to administer justice on their territory. Varazdin, Zagreb, Bihac, Samobor and other Croatian towns thus came to resemble free German imperial towns. Their populations were augmented, apart from foreigners, by minor nobility, free peasants and even serfs, displaced or for any reason in flight from their lord.
Outside the towns, however, the condition of the lesser nobility was in constant decline. The increasing influence of magnates was reflected in the tendency for lesser nobles to be forced to become their pseudo-vassals. Fortified places which did not enjoy the status of ‘royal free town’ but were in the hold of magnates, soon became the bases of a species of despotate. When dynastic disputes arose in the final decades of the century, the attitude of the magnates towards claimants was of axial importance. The attempts of presumptive or aspirant rulers to win the magnates’ favor by the grant of larger estates, together with serfs, led to a further accumulation of their wealth and influence, with a parallel waning of the king’s authority. The most striking example of this was during the reign of King Bela’s son, Andrija ‘The Venetian’ ( 1290-1301 ), when Pavle Subic and his descendants became hereditary bani or governors of Croatia. The influence of the Subici was so great that when the Arpad dynasty was extinguished and replaced in Croatia and Hungary by that of Anjou in 1301, Juraj Subic was not only prince of Bribir and banus of Croatia but practically independent ruler of the kingdom also.
In the light of these developments, the Statute of Vinodol acquires an extra dimension. While its primary and most obvious significance in a period not otherwise rich in documentation is as a source of socioeconomic data, it records the inception of a process which was central to and characteristic of medieval and early modern Croatian history: the ascendancy of princely families and their transformation into political factors on the national plane. The celebrated Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy of 1671, intended to free Croatia from Austrian domination, represented at once the culmination and collapse of this process.

The Geography of the Vinodol Region
Frank Carter

The contemporary term for the Vinodol region refers to the Commune of Crikvenica. This is much smaller than the Vinodol area referred to in the past which covered a large part of the Rijeka hinterland and stretched as far south as Senj. It is necessary in this short article to set the scene as a backcloth to the Vinodol Statute of 1288 and to make a sequential and retrospective appraisal of changes in this area throughout time up to the nineteenth century. Such a task will involve the reconstruction of past environments in the Vinodol region from the first half of the thirteenth century, when it came into the possession of the Krk Princes ( 1225 ),¹ until those mementous changes during the last century inflicted by the new railway age.

Physically, the coasts of the Velebit mainland may be divided into two parts: from Rijeka to Novi a narrow, cliff_bordered limestone ridge rises sharply alongside the coast to altitudes of over 1,000 feet. Behind this, and parallel with it, a restricted zone of Tertiary Flysch beds forms a continuous depression of quite low relief, and beyond this inland, the main karst ranges rise above the depression on its eastern margins. Because of the greater fertility it is along this inner valley, rather than along the coast, that early settlement was concentrated; the gentle slopes of the depression were wooded or terraced, and widely cultivated. It is in the southern part that the depression is known as the Vinodol which runs out to the coast at Novi. In th~ north the depression is submerged below sea level, where it forms the conspicuous inlet of Bakar Bay. South of Novi, the coast becomes very barren and precipitous, with the Velebit Mountains towering to over 5,000 feet immediately above the sea. From Novi to Senj only one small inlet ( Zrnovnica ) breaks the continuity of the shore line, which has a peculiarly uninhabited and desolate appearance.
The Bora, that extremely cold, violent wind blowing from the north and north_east, is particularly intense below the Velebit Mountains during the winter months. Much of the coast affords only limited protection from the Bora, as around Bakar, where it blows with great severity and suddenness, or at Senj beneath Vratnik Pass which coincides with the same direction as the same direction as the wind, immediately inland the wind force usually affects vegetation, prohibiting tree growth, although vegetation is more abundant along the coastline, where the Bora is likely to be weaker. The Sirocco, a warm wind from the south east, like the Bora is essentially a winter wind in the northern Adriatic, although it blows with great fury through the Kraljevica Channel, penetration into the Vinodol Depression is limited by the littoral ridge, and even the inlet of Bakar Bay and Senj are protected from these southerly winds.
With a background so hostile to human settlement, one questions the suitability of the Vinodol region as a place of habitation, yet people have lived here since prehistoric times.² The area provides an answer to man’s adaptability to his environment, to settle, to husband and to build towns, already in evidence during Roman times. By the thirteenth century the coastal area between Trsat and Novi was settled by people who had taken advantage of the favorable agricultural conditions found in the more sheltered parts. The most cultivatable and populated area was the Vinodol Depression, some 15 miles long, and running parallel to the coast. (See map on p. 5 ). Here small villages succeeded each other at close intervals, especially along the route which traversed the depression. The valley and its bordering slopes were intensively cultivated, the vine predominating – as the name Vinodol implies. A high, steep and sparsely populated ridge separated the Vinodol Depression from the less populated coastal strip, where fishing supplemented agricultural pursuits. The next stretch of coast from Novi to Senj, some 13 miles long, was one of the most scantily peopled sections of the littoral region, lacking most of the conditions conducive for habitation.
Survival in the Vinodol region was dependent on adequate agricultural production and close contact with the immediate hinterland. Two factors contributed to its success; favorable conditions in the Vinodol valley for growing agricultural crops, and a well organized exploitation of livestock rearing through periodic exchange with the hinterland. Evidence of agricultural production may be gleaned from the Vinodol Statute in which mention is made of wheat, hay, honey, vineyards, garden plots and ploughed land. Supporting documentary material from other sources confirm this agricultural activity ³ throughout the period under review to which other crops like flax may be added, together with fishing.⁴ Apart from the areas of fertile flysch arable land surrounding higher slopes contained much forest for timber exploitation, always in demand for building construction, shipbuilding and firewood by other settlements around the Adriatic shores. Finally, close contact was maintained between the backward shepherds or the hinterland (Gorski Kotar)and the settled coastal communities, as in other parts of the East Adriatic. Movement of livestock from the winter pastures along the coastal mountain slopes to the dolomitic and high alpine meadows in summer meant not only adequate supply of meat, wool, skins and other livestock products, for the local population, but availability of horses, oxen and other draught animals for transport and ploughing the arable land. Some idea of the agricultural situation in the Vinodol region during the French occupation ( 1809_1813 ) may be seen from Table 1.

Analysis of these figures⁵ has suggested that income from agriculture and stock rearing was already becoming too low to support the local population, and alternative sources of finance had to be obtained from transporting salt inland in exchange for goods needed on the coast, and possibly greater seasonal employment in other regions.
Handicrafts and industrial development appear to have played a very subservient role in the Vinodol economy. No evidence is forthcoming from the Vinodol Statute, but by the fifteenth century there was some trade in iron and metal goods, both on an import and export basis. The Frankopan rulers also obtained coal, iron and lye for bleaching through their harbour at Bakar, ⁶ and imported cloth, silk and other manufactured goods through Senj. Open hearth iron smelting was introduced into the high karstic hinterland by the Zrinski rulers in the seventeenth century ( Lic, 1638; Cabar, 1651 ), which led to a lively export of metal through Bakar harbor, in successful competition to Rijeka. In the eighteenth century, under Habsburg rule, Charles III encouraged the Temisvar trading company to establish a textile mill in Bakar, to offset loss of trade as a result of the new harbour at Kraljevica, built at the entrance to Bakar Bay in 1720. Finally, proximity to the sea had inevitably led to a shipbuilding industry, albeit mainly for local use and occasionally selling boats to Venetian merchants.
The evolution of urban settlements in the Vinodol region may be divided into two periods, the Later Middle Ages and the Early Modem era, with a watershed circa 1500 when the real impact of the Ottoman conquest was beginning to be felt throughout the Balkan peninsula. ⁷ During the Middle Ages the region found difficulty in maintaining permanent settlements except in the most favorable geographical areas, due to poor trade development and insufficient arable land. At the time of the Vinodol Statute the urban hierarchy was dominated by the coastal towns of Bakar, Novi and Senj, with the inland sites of Grobnik, Trsat, Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane, Bribir and Ledenice of secondary importance. Each settlement was the centre of a commune, often defended by a castle, and responsible for a certain area of agreed territory. The urban society was clearly divided into the commoners (pucani) and the landed proprietors ( vlastela ), but as the Middle Ages progressed and trade connections grew, a merchant class also appeared within the urban complex.
The real key to the development of these towns was the number of privileges accorded them by the local rulers. For example, Bakar received important tax concessions and privileges in 1479 and 1489, ⁸ the town being the seat of the local feudal governor for Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane, Bribir and Grobnik. In the fifteenth century, Bakar became an important commercial city, trading with Greece, Turkey and the Levant, and a centre of tunny fishing. This was the period when the town overtook Novi, formerly the main centre of Vinodol, in the urban hierarchy. Similarly, Senj, a popular residence of the Frankopan rulers (up to 1469), received privileges, like its town status in 1388, with a blossoming of trade as commercial mediator between the karstic hinterland and overseas areas.

The invasion and subsequent conquest of Bosnia_Hercegovina by the Turks had its repercussions on Vinodol’s urbanization. The year 1527 saw the first Ottoman raids into the Vinodol region, especially around Bakar. The urban landscape changed with the construction of fortifications and castles (Bakar, 1530; Senj, 1558) not only against invasions from the land but also Venetian attacks by sea (Bakar, 1557, 1581, 1592, 1599, 1611, 1615 and 1616)⁹. Furthermore, local populations were swelled by refugees from inland (Uskoks ), especially in Bakar and Senj, and their piratical activities were a menace to Venetian and Turkish merchants alike for over seventy years.
The conclusion of the Uskok War (1617) and increasing Austrian control brought more stability to the Vinodol region and a resurgence of trade. A revival or livestock rearing in the immediate hinterland and arrival of cattle breeding colonists from northern Dalmatia, was accompanied by the founding of important ‘new’ towns like Kraljevica, and to a lesser extent Crikvenica. Visible progress was experienced in the Vinodol region from the beginning of the eighteenth century, thanks to the demand for wood and cattle products. In spite of trade wars between Vinodol and Rijeka over hinterland trade, commerce thrived attracting merchants from Venice and Italy (Benedetti , Michieli, Terzi, Carina) to construct warehouses in ports like Bakar and Senj, the latter having an estimated population of 2,500 inhabitants together with a further 4-5,000 in the surrounding area by 1700. The construction of new roads into the interior (e.g. the famous Karolina route from Karlovac to Rijeka and Bakar, 1726; and Josefina route from Karlovac to Senj, in 1832) led to the export of iron and livestock products through the Vinodol ports to the Italian harbours in exchange for cargoes or wine, olive oil, spices, cloth, salt and other manufactured goods.
In spite of a very profuse amount of information on settlement continuity in the Vinodol region throughout time, data on actual population only exist from the end of the eighteenth century. Relatively reliable sources about settlement date from 1770 followed by 1796, 1812-1813, and finally from the Senjsko-Modruska bishopric for 1847.¹⁰ Although the Vinodol region was subject to immigration over the centuries, the population appears to have varied little from the late Middle Ages until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Mirkovic has calculated the population for the whole of Vinodol at the time of the Statute to have been 5-6,000 inhabitants (compared with 3-4,000 in the contemporary region).¹¹ Whatever the validity of such estimates, population growth in the Vinodol region during the nineteenth century entirely disturbed the ecological balance between crop husbandry and stock farming potential. As the century progressed this growth (1890: 21,911 inhab.) even began to endanger the maintenance of the region’s traditionally low standard of living; nor did Vinodol benefit from the advent or the steamship and railway transport, for they by-passed the Vinodol region in preference to the development of Rijeka and Trieste.
Thus, Vinodol was a victim of external influence. Throughout much of its history it had withstood interference from outsiders, be they Venetians or Turks, yet by the end of the nineteenth century the region found itself isolated from trade, for the new ports, like Trieste and Rijeka, were nearer to the newly developed Pannonian Plain and the West European capitals. Its success as an entrepot region lay in an earlier period when a certain combination of factors had contributed to the region’s development. Once this combination of factors was radically altered, then its position lost its impetus and ability to compete successfully declined. The Vinodol, like other areas along the Croatian coast, succeeded to a destiny shaped by factors far beyond her own control.
NOTES
1. Vinodol was first mentioned in the Chronicle of the Priest from Dioclea in the twelfth century as a border area of the Croatian Kingdom, and also as a parish of the Split Synod in 1185. It is also mentioned in the deed of covenant of Andrija II to the Princes of Krk in 1225, but it is also possible that as part of the Modruska zupa, it was already under their control in 1193. See V. Koscak, ‘Polozaj Vinodola u hrvatskoj feudalnoj drzavi’ Historijski zbornik. Vol.XVI, Zagreb 1963, pp. 131-146.
2. S. Ljubic ‘Arheolosko iskopavanje u Bakru’ Vjesnik Hrvatskog Arheoloskog Drustva u Zagrebu, 1900, pp.159-165; J. Klemenc, ‘Senj u predhistorijsko i rimsko doba’, Zagreb 1940, pp. 10-21. I. Degmedzic, ‘Arheoloska istrazivanja u Senju’ Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, Vol, LIII, Zagreb 1952, pp. 25-37.
3. State Archives, Zadar, 27 / V/ 1354, Split’s government ( Veliko Vijece ) decided to send a merchant to Senj to buy wheat for the commune, Liber Consiliorum, 1354, folder 36; State Archives Dubrovnik, 17 / V / 1382, wheat sent from Senj and region around Trieste to Ragusa, Consilium Minus, 7, folder 18; I. Marochino, ‘Iz pomorsko trgovacke historije Bakra. Rijecka Revija, No. 3-4, Rijeka 1953, pp.10-24; 8 / 111 / 1687, wheat sent from Senj to Novi (Hercegnovi ) via Ragusa, S. Ljubic: ‘O odnosajih medu republikom mletackom i dubrovackom od pocetka XVI stoljeca do njihove propasti’, Rad J. Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Knjiga 54, Zagreb, 1880, p. 68.
4. M. Mirkovic, Ekonomska historija Jugoslavije, Zagreb 1958. p. 127.
5. V. Rogic, ‘Vinodol: suvremena uslovljenost novih odnosa regionalne zonalnosti’, Geografski Glasnik, Vol. 30, Zagreb 1968, p. 116.
6. E. Laszowki, ‘lzbor isprava velikih feuda Zrinskih i Frankopana’ . Grada za gospodarsku povijest Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1951, p. 155; M. Barada, ‘Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam’, Zagreb, 1952, p. 27.
7. F .W . Carter; Urban Development in the Western Balkans 1200-1800′ in An Historical Geography of the Balkans, ed. F.W. Carter, New York, London, San Francisco, 1977, pp.147-195.
8. Prince Martin Frankopan gave Bakar various privileges which were confirmed by King Matija Korwin in 1479, and increased in number in 1489, Narodna Enciklopedija S.H.S., Vol. I, p.20.
9. Pomorska enciklopedija, Vol.I, Zagreb, 1961, p. 352.
10. State Archives, Zagreb, Acta Buccarana za XVIII i XIX stoljece, fasc. 60A; comparison may be made with I. Erceg, ‘Kmetsko feudalni odnosi na Komorskim imanjima u Vinodolu i Gorskom Kotaru neposredno prije Marijaterezijanske regulacije’, Zbornik radova Historijskog Instituta J, A., Zagreb, Vol. IV, 1961, pp. 289-348. – V. Batthiany, Uber das Ungarische Kustenland Pesth, 1805. in which a description of Vinodol is given for the year 1796. – State Archives, Zagreb, Acta Gallica op cit. – Shematismus Segniensis pro anno 1847, Zagreb.
11. M. Mirkovic, Ekonomska Historija Jugoslavije, op cit., p. 127; for Senj see G. Szabo, Srednjovjekovni gradovi u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji, ( Matica Hrvatska ) Zagreb 1920. p. 196

The Social Structure of Vinodol

Miho Barada

In the year 1225 Vinodol gained a new ruler, the Princes of the island of Krk, later called Frankopani. What was formerly a royal principality (comitatus) became thereby a feudal fief. However the social structure of Vinodol changed only in the main owner of the means of production and powers and in the apparatus necessary for the maintenance of social relations and order in Vinodol. All the rights of the ruler and of his steward, until the 12th century the zupan (Lord Lieutenant of the County), and later the prince ( comes) passed to the new feudal ruler, the Frankopani. In all other respects the social life of Vinodol remained the same dominated by, and subjected to the changes of social development of the contemporary feudal period.

The Means of Production

The means of production in Vinodol depended on its geographical, littoral position and the morphology of its soil. In general Vinodol divides morphologically into three areas: the coastal, well-developed but rocky and infertile, fit for fishing and marine industry; the central area, which consists of karst-ringed fields of varying size, suitable for intensive Mediterranean agriculture; the third area, mountainous, with large forests and pastures in the hinterland, suitable for cattle-raising and timber. Since the main means of production in Vinodo1 were concentrated in the central area, this was also where the main centres of productive forces were to be found. This area was the most densely populated, containing the majority of settlements in Vinodol. Due to a well-developed coast-line with good harbours and havens and facilities for fishing, there had existed settlements, though more scattered, upon the coast from time immemorial, like the very ancient Trsat and Bakar , and later Novi, Crikvenica and others. Save for shepherds and woodcutters, a seasonal population, the mountainous area was uninhabited.
In the Vinodol Statute the details relating to the means of production are to be found under the general heading ‘blago’ and the more specific terms’ plough-land’, ‘vineyard,’, ‘gardens’ etc- The meaning of the term blago is clearly indicated in articles 34 and 51. Article 34 defines blago as ‘any property’, plough-land, vineyard, plot or garden’ and article 51 defines the term still more comprehensively as ‘all that is movable and immovable’, in other words all property – entirely in keeping with other old Croatian documents which, as is well known, call blago all that a person has or owns, all his movable and immovable possessions, or what the same Vinodol Statute (in an addendum) calls iminje (estate). Concerning specific means of production the Statute mentions firstly ‘land’ in the sense of arable land sown with corn or other crops. There were threshing floors for threshing the corn. Most certainly there were corn mills too, since there was plenty of suitable water to work them, and they are in fact often mentioned in other documents from Vinodol. That the Statute itself does not mention them suggests that they were not included in the relations between the Prince and his subjects, since by medieval law all water has the property of the King (regalia) or feudal lord. In addition to arable land, vineyards are also mentioned. These flourished upon terraced plots situated to catch the sun. There were also vegetable gardens and orchards. Other types of property which the Statute defines as posision included houses, hram, which designated a larger house and possibly also a shop, osik or cattle-stalls, and mosuna, a half-roofed shelter for cattle. The Statute makes no mention of either meadows or hay-fields, but since article 10 speaks of hay and hay-stacks, these certainly existed. Nor is there any mention of forests in which a large part of Vinodol, especially the mountainous areas, was covered. Nor does the Statute mention saw-mills, although according to other sources, these existed. Cattle-raising was a valuable branch of economy in Vinodol and large and small stock are regularly mentioned in the Statute. The coastal area of Vinodol was suitable for various types of fishing and for shipping generally. Thus the sea-faring part of the population certainly engaged in both, although the Statute says nothing of either. That there was shipping may be concluded from the fact that article 11 speaks of theft in pristanisce, that is in a constructed harbour containing transit goods, in addition to timber, timber structures and other timber products, Vinodol exported, generally by sea, large and small stock, wine, salted meat and fish, hides oil, (olives had grown there from earliest days ), wax
(article 8 mentions bees ), wool, rough cloth etc. It imported iron weapons, spices. luxury goods and all types of trade goods .

2.

Clearly the means of production of Vinodol were both varied and considerable, but who owned these means of production? Whereas in the period of the zupans they belonged mainly to the crown, now their owner was the feudal lord. Every feud was linked to the possession of land with its natural products and rents. According to feudal law, the feudal lord was the owner of almost all the means of production. If some of them belonged to other people, then because they owned them from the days of the old zupanijas, arising from some ancient tribal rights, or through a gift by the King while the land was still in his possession, or from the time after the feud was created, for feudal lords often rewarded individuals for their services with gifts of land etc. The Frankopans, having received Vinodol as a feudal holding in 1225, became the sole owners of its means of production, all of which, till that time, had been the property of the King. Andrew II gave Gvido of Krk ‘ totam terram…Wynodol…cum pertinenciis et totis redditibus‘. The Frankopans became thereby the supreme lords and masters of the whole of Vinodol, of all the political and property rights, all incomes and everything which, by any right whatsoever, had belonged to that feudal unit. The new feudal prince was first and foremost the owner of all the blago (wealth ), that is of all the property, movable and immovable, from which he took a part (uceste) as his income. Thus article 34 prescribes severe punishment for anyone who should withhold anything from which the prince was entitled to receive a part ‘any property, or plough_land or some vineyard or some plot or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right and if the other will not surrender it…’ According to article 34 the Prince received the natural rent from plough_lands, vineyards, gardens etc. That he was the ultimate owner of everything is shown by article 33. ‘If a man should be in possession of anything improperly acquired which is nobody’s and should accrue to the Court, irrespective of whether an official order or demand in respect of it had been made, and the Lord or his officer discover this … that is to say, if anyone in Vinodol retained anything whatsoever that remained without a legal inheritor, and which by this very fact belonged to the Prince, it would revert to the Prince without any further legal or other proceedings’. Article 5 gives the Prince the right of requisition of property from any member of the population, ‘… the stock albeit of villeins, plemeniti, priests or of any other men’. These articles provide the best illustration of the power that the feudal Prince Frankopan had in relation to the means of production in Vinodol. He was not only the main, but the supreme lord and master of everything. Of course, as is clear from what has been said, the feudal Lord of Vinodol was the entire family of the Princes of Krk, not any single member of it. Individual members ruled only temporarily and then only as representatives of the family as a whole.
Nevertheless since article 34 emphasises ‘… if over these possessions the Prince should have a right to a part …’ this would indicate that there were possessions and properties from which the Prince took no part and received no due or income as of right. These were in the main the properties of the various ecclesiastical establishments. Thus the second largest owner of the means of production in Vinodol was the Church with its many institutions. The Statute itself says nothing of the Church’s ownership of the means of production. This is understandable, since this topic was outside its frame of reference; its purpose being only to regulate the relations between the feudal Prince and his subjects in a narrow sense, while the Church and its subjects generally did not concern it. But the Church of course possessed its own means of production. An ancient and well-known canonical provision states that no church, chapel or altar may be built if beforehand not endowed with a beneficium or bequeathal, which in the Middle Ages regularly consisted of landed property known as nadarbina by which the institution and its appointed clerics were maintained. The Statute makes regular mention of churches, abbeys monasteries and confraternities. Also there is regular mention of the various kinds of clergy, of which we shall speak later. Since there existed such institutions and their clergy, clearly there also existed their beneficia of land and other property which are otherwise regularly mentioned in other documents from Vinodol.
There were also other owners of the means of production, such as plemeniti, merchants and others, but of this later.

The Subject Population

Apart from the Lord’s immediate family, his administrative personnel, court officers and servants, the population of Vinodol consisted of villeins, plemeniti, the clergy and others as may be seen in articles 5 and 75 of the Statute. According to article 5 the Prince or the Bishop may requisition ‘… the stock albeit of villeins, plemeniti , priests or any other man’. According to article 75 the Prince has full legal and executive power’ … as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and all other men’ . In these two articles all the classes of the population of Vinodol are mentioned.

a. The Villeins

Numerically the strongest and socially the lowest category were the villeins. Feudal organisations saw the feud as consisting of two main components: the feudal Lord the main owner of the means of production encompassed in the feud, and his labour force the villeins, From 1225 Vinodol was a feud and consequently its main work force were the villeins. They are specifically mentioned in articles 5, 17, 25, 31, 36, 50, 54, 73 and 75, and obliquely referred to in many others.
But villeins did not only work the Lord’s lands; they also worked on the church estates in Vinodol. The Statute makes no direct mention of this since this was outside its province. According to the canon law, priests did not usually undertake the more arduous labours, and this refers in particular to the times and area in which villeins constituted the main work force; so the conclusion must be that villeins also worked ecclesiastical estates, especially since in a majority of cases such estates were gifts from kings and feudal lords and by the law of the day the villeins passed with the land to the new owner. That villeins laboured on church estates is confirmed by various other documents from Vinodol. On December 10, 1450 the Prince Martin Frankopan in reply to the complaint of the Pauline monks of Crikvenica alleging that the Markovici ‘… refused to serve the said church _ St Mary’s _ as do other villeins with transport and tithes and that they do not work in church vineyards as they ought to according to law’, ordered the Markovici ‘to give full and complete service as do other villeins of the church’. On 26 July 1460 Martin Frankopan presented these same Pauline monks of Crikvenica with a vineyard planted by a man called Bezicic together ‘with the service that he rendered to us’. On 7 January 1470 Martin Frankopan took from the church of St Mary at Novi the villein Jakov Cikulic ‘whom we had given them, and gave them another villein’ _ a man called Dminko, from St Vid _ ‘with all the service due from him’; in addition he gave them a Vlah ‘ … as their villein and as a shepherd with all and full service thereto appertaining’ . The final passage is important in that it shows that the ‘shepherds and ploughmen’ mentioned in article 66 belonged to the class of villeins.
Evidently the villeins were the most numerous class of the population in Vinodol. I have already shown that from the 8th to the 11th century the labour force on the estates of the Croatian rulers consisted of slaves and, after the 11th century, villeins. However, in the course of five centuries the economic and social status of the labour force on the royal estates in Croatia had changed considerably and since Vinodol until the year 1225 was a crown property inevitably its labour force participated in the general process of social improvement. In the Statute there is no trace of slaves, because in the 12th century they were already transformed into villeins. It is villeins _ these direct descendants of slaves _ that formed the basis of the labour force and the bulk of the non_noble population of Vinodol.
The economic and social position of the Vinodol villeins can be gleaned from a number of different articles of the Statute. Thus article 34 states ‘If a man holds any property, some plough_land or some vineyard or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right … This refers to various branches of agriculture, but the point is that the products from the land are not enjoyed only by him that holds the land cares for it and works it, but others also, in this case the Prince. From all branch’s of the economy the Prince has a uceste, a share, an income, a rent. Since Vinodol was a feudal holding and the Prince the feudal lord, article 34 clearly relates only to villeins and not to some other class of population. At the time of the formulation of the Vinodol Statute villeins held and worked the Prince’s estates, sowed the fields set the vineyards and gardens and cared for them, as they also performed all other labour in the agriculture of Vinodol, rendering the Prince a defined tribute in kind. In addition, the serfs of Vinodol tended the cattle and rendered a share of these too. That they tended cattle is clear from article 5 of the Statute, which states that when the Prince or the Bishop travelled in Vinodol ‘… and either of them comes to a town, he may through the captain of that town have food taken and brought for himself and his retinue, cattle or smaller creatures which are to hand, the stock albeit of villeins …’ According to article 25 in the case of an affray between villeins the guilty party pays the Prince 40 soldin, ‘… but the one who is assaulted shall receive two wethers and the price of his treatment’. According to article 54, if a serf represented a plemeniti before the court and ‘without the permission of the court’ , he must pay a fine of bullock or 8 lira. It is clear that the villeins of Vinodol raised cattle and smaller creatures and were at least partly their owners.
Apart from land and cattle, which are explicitly mentioned in the Statute, villeins in Vinodol also had dwelling houses and farm buildings with the necessary appendages for both which are all characterised in article 34 generally as blago and posision. But none of these were genuine personal property of the Vinodol villeins, since the true owner of everything was the Prince who took his share from much of it. That the Statute does not expressly state what part of which products was due to the Prince does not alter this fact. The ancient custom in respect of the dues was unquestioned at the time of the writing of the statute and was thus not noted. This question , in fact, did not arise until much later, when feudalism was in decline, and was settled by the so_called ‘urbars’ in the 17th century. But even without the evidence of these later documents the feudal system as such and the term ‘villein’ that is linked with it imply a definite type of relations between the feudal lord and his subjects; the economic dependence of the latter upon the one whose land they worked and whose cattle they tended. Thus the Vinodol villein was not the complete owner of what he lived by Mainly he was a share_cropper. .
What the payments of the Vinodol villeins to the Prince were, the Statute does not say. But since Vinodol was in Croatia, the dues payed by the Vinodol villeins are likely to have been the same as those paid by the villeins in the other parts of the country. According to the evidence given in the case of the Vladika and others versus Jakov Subic from the year 1361, when Subic forced the Vladika and other landowners of Banjevac and Kacic to become his serfs, he demanded from them a quarter of the crops as well as other dues and services. Recently Dr. S. Antoljak has published a list of feudal holdings which Venice took over with the purchase of Zadar and the suzerainty rights to the rest of Dalmatia in 1409. This refers to the ancient Croatian feudal holdings which _ like Vrane, for example _ King Zvonimir set up in 1075 and which in the 12th century passed to the knights Templars, and later in 1312 to the knights of St John. The serfs on the holding of Vrane gave quartam et decimam partem omnium fructuum, that is to say a quarter plus a tenth which is equal to seven twentieths, nearly a half of all the crops, which included cattle. The serfs of Vinodol probably gave some similar amount. The feudal dues for the fief of Ljuba are described in rather more detail. The serfs gave a quarter plus a tenth of wine, corn and flax; of sheep and goats’ one tenth of the lambs and kids and, in addition, as honorantias each year three loaves of bread and a sausage or a shoulder of mutton at Christmas, three loaves and seven eggs at Easter and three loaves, one chicken and three quarts of wine on the feast of St Michael. In addition, the dwellers had to plough and sow four ‘gonjaj’ of land for the Lord, at his expense, that is they merely provided the labour force, to dig up two ‘gonjaj’ of vineyard, also at his expense, and to transport his corn and wine to and from the sea. Whoever owned a donkey had to deliver a load of fire_wood at Christmas. All fines were payable to the lord. For meat sold one soldin was paid for small cattle, two for larger, while a foreigner paid double. Since the feudal holdings of Vrane and Ljuba, like Vinodol, were both in Croatia, it is reasonable to assume that in all of them the internal system was much the same.

2.

A good illustration of the position of the serfs in Vinodol is provided by article 32 according to which – entirely in the spirit of the feudal system _ the serf even on his deathbed could not dispose freely of his property.
Article 32 states: ‘ And daughters who survive their father and mother or sons, unless those daughters’ brethren be still alive, must be equipped or left their father’s or mother’s estate in order to perform such service as their father or mother would have had to fulfill to the court. Likewise if sons should have survived and died heirless.’ The main purpose here is to clarify the rights of inheritance of those descendants of serfs who could carry out ‘all services which their father and mother would have had to fulfill to the court (of the Lord)’. The term ‘service’ here, as in innumerable other Croatian documents, refers to the serfs’ dues which included labour as well as dues in kind. ‘Service’ is the equivalent of the Latin servitus, officium, ministerium etc. In other words, article 32 is concerned with the right of inheritance only in so far as it affects the serf’s ability to perform all the duties of serfdom. The Statute does not speak directly of the inheritance of male descendants since it is taken for granted that male descendants are capable in any case of carrying out their feudal duties as laid down by the general feudal law, that is the law concerning serfdom. Article 32 refers only to female descendants in cases where there is no direct male offspring. Thus the words ‘If these daughters have no brothers’ refer indirectly to the general law of inheritance of male descendants and indicate that daughters were merely facultative inheritors.
The regular inheritors were generally male and if these did not exist and there were females, then article 32 was applicable. This article envisages two different kinds of situation. First, if daughters are left without brothers after the death of their parents, they are to be given only their trousseau, while the rest of the estate reverts to the prince. The other possibility is that, after the death of their parents, the daughters inherit the entire estate. Th e first possibility is indicated by the words ‘… must be equipped’. Antun Mazuranic, the first publisher of the Statute, assumed that the term areditati came from the Italian ereditare _ to inherit. Other editors and translators have accepted this. Only Vladimir Mazuranic saw the difficulty presented by the reflexive form of the verb. Since ereditare is intransitive like the Croatian naslijediti, and areditati in the text is transitive, he considers that the reflexive particle se (imaju se areditati ) is really vse (all). But such interpretations are dubious not only because of the particle se but because if one accepts that areditati means to inherit, then the entire article is contradictory. For whereas the first part states ‘they must inherit everything’ (if we accept this interpretation), that is to say the daughters must be the inheritors of their father’s entire estate, the second part affirms that they have the right of inheritance only if they are able to fulfill all obligations due to the Prince, which means that they were only facultative inheritors. For this reason I would interpret this areditati differently. This word does not come from the Italian ereditare but from arredo_arredare, which means fernery Di arredo, to furnish with a trousseau. In Italian arredo, corredo means the trousseau which a bride takes as a dowry. If this be correct, the daughters of serfs in Vinodol were not necessarily the inheritors after their parents’ death, in the absence of direct male descendants; their inheritance depended rather on the will of their feudal lord. He could either give them a dowry and deprive them of the inheritance of their parents’ serf holding, or leave them on the holding if he considered that they, naturally together with the husband they would bring, could fully and regularly fulfill the duties owed to him. Lastly, article 32 taken as a whole clearly shows that serf estates in Vinodol were merely ‘household estates’, as was in the period of the old zupanijas.

Having thus clarified the basic principles governing inheritance of property among Vinodol serfs we are now in the position to deduce the relevant rules. Since a villein’s estate was merely a ‘household estate’ and was as a rule in the hands of male members of the family, it follows that after the death of the male who might be either father or grandfather, his serf property went first to the surviving widow, and after her death the property was passed on to the surviving sons or, if the sons were already dead, the grandsons. Thus the property of serfs, as far as was possible, remained in the hands of the male line. Only if there were no male descendants did the inheritance become facultative, that is to say, if the Prince should so wish, the property passed to the direct female line, i.e. to daughters or granddaughters. In the absence of such direct descendants the property passed to the Prince and never to the serf’s relatives, that is, never to a side issue of the serf’s family be it male or female; which confirms the fact the serf’s property pertained to the household and was not a family property in the strict sense. Such a law of inheritance in Vinodol was in direct contrast to the tribal laws of inheritance which, as showed earlier, were at the time still very much in force among the feudals and descendants of the former family clans. …
All this suggests that the Vinodol serf was not able freely to dispose with even the smallest amount of his property, movable or immovable. He was testandi incapax. And if he could not do with it as he wished on his deathbed, he was equally unable to do with it what he liked during his life_time, at least in regard to that part which might cause the loss of dues to the Prince; but of this the Vinodol Statute is silent. The Vinodol serf only partly owned the fruits from the land he worked. His economic freedom was severely restricted by a harsh system of feudal laws and customs.

3.

Inevitably the low social position of the serf reflected his low economic situation. Not only that the serfs were the feudal lord’s labour force, subject to him and dependant upon him in every way, so that they were exposed to an ever increasing exploitation .in a variety of ways, but in other respects too they were completely subjected to the Prince and limited in their rights and freedoms. So, although the Vinodol villeins had long left the state of slavery, the Statute contains many signs of their class subjection and dependence on their lord which are reminiscent of their social position from the times of slavery. According to article 17 the serfs of Vinodol did not have the right of movement (liberae migrationes ), not even within the frontiers of Vinodol itself. ‘No villein or any commoner may lodge io a church or serve in an abbey or monastery or become a sacristan there without the consent of the Prince and the district.’ If a villein was not even allowed to settle on church property or take up service with the Church without the Prince’s permission, then clearly he was even less free to settle elsewhere. Article 16 points to the erstwhile position of slavery of Vinodol serfs: ‘No cleric of the principality may take holy orders without the permission of the Prince and the town in which he resides.’ This article reflects the ancient ecclesiastical-canonical practice according to which no slave may become a priest if beforehand his master had not liberated him. True, at the time of the Statute, there were no more slaves in Vinodol. The state of slavery had long since ceased to exist. Nevertheless the Prince, anxious to ensure that his labour force stays on his estates, kept some of his ancient rights: the serfs of Vinodol could not freely move without his permission, not even within Vinodol itself let alone outside its frontiers; nor could they become priests without his consent. That the term’ serf’ ( kmet ) in the Statute does not merely designate a subject or labourer of the feudal master, be the latter the Prince, the Church or any other, but a member of a lower social order, is shown, in addition to the evidence hitherto quoted, by article 31 which determines the punishment for the slaying of ‘a serf or one of serf descent’. Here the Statute makes no distinction with respect to class between the serfs in the narrow sense, i.e. those who worked the lord’s lands, and those who were ‘serfs by extraction’, that is those who no longer worked the lord’s lands, but did other work, such as craftsmen, traders and other such workers, yet still being descendants of serfs. In short, the term ‘kmet’ (serf or villein) in the Statute was a class term referring to people of low social status. Even priests who were the sons of serfs were regarded as members of the serf class.

4.

Yet in a number of respects the serfs of Vinodol did enjoy equal rights with the non_serfs. Thus according to article 5 they are treated equally with all others as regards requisitioning of food by the Bishop or the Prince. Although not all serfs belonged to the Prince, nonetheless according to articles 73 and 75, the Prince alone had the right to judge them. This deviates from the general feudal practice, according to which serfs, juridically, were subject to those to whom they belonged. Article 73 states: ‘Summoners must be sworn and villeins must also be summoned before the Court’s bench, before the magistrate.’ Article 75: ‘In all penalties, guarantees and contracts the Lord Prince has the complete authority and power to judge as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and over all other men, as above established’; that is to say, as laid down in the previous articles of the Statute. That the Prince retained in his hands every right of justice and punishment over all serfs, be they his or another’s, was characteristic of our feudal law. By the customary feudal law, the serfs were judged by their own feudal lord. However, according to a document dated 26 October 1450, when the Markovici, serfs of the Pauline monks, refused their services to the latter, the monks summoned them before the Prince who pronounced that the Markovici had to go on serving the monks as they had done in the past. In addition, the Prince ordered ‘all our officers that if at any time these said friars should complain to you that these serfs are refusing to serve them or have not rendered their dues, the said friars should be given the necessary aid so that they may punish them in accordance with this order with penalties and imprisonment’. In this case the Prince expressly permits that, if the Markovici should rebel again, the friars themselves may punish them. Although all the inhabitants of Vinodol, including the serfs, were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prince, that is to say under the jurisdiction of his court of law, according to article 25 there was a special legal and punitive code for the serfs: ‘For striking, injuring and for an affray involving villeins the penalty is 40 soldin which the culprit must pay to the Prince and to the one who is assaulted two wethers and the cost of his treatment. And the same for the captain, constable and district crier, who are not herein subject to officials’ but to villein law and its penalties; and they are to be Judged according to villein law, so that enough is done for their injuries.’ According to this ,article there existed, though not in written form a special law for serfs, of which many traces can be found in articles 17, 31, 32, 34, 36, 50 and 54. Thus according to article 31: ‘If a man should kill a villein or one of that estate and be caught, he is to pay a fine or 100 lira to the victim’s kinsmen and to the victim’s town_district 2 lira. Of those 100 lira: if the victim had children, they must receive one half and his kinsmen the other half. The culprit pays that fine. If he flees, his kinsmen must pay one half of the fine and his heirs, should he have any, one half. But if he can be taken before the penalty is paid, or if or if an agreement has been reached, vengeance may be carried out on him, and his kinsmen are thereby freed.’ This article describes the legal action in the case of a serf being killed. Traces of the old legal customs relating to serfs are also clearly detectable in articles dealing with theft. According to articles 35 and 50 for the theft of anything which belongs to the Prince or his servants, and according to article 36 for stealing anything that belongs to the church, the payment is sevenfold. If anything be stolen from a serf, then, according to article 50, the indemnity they receive is only twice the value of the goods stolen. According to article 54 a serf could not represent a plemeniti nor a plemeniti a serf without the permission or the Prince’s court. According to article 34 a serf who has failed to pay a year’s dues to the Prince must pay a sevenfold indemnity. All this is a clear proof that in Vinodol too there was a special legal code for serfs.
This code which reflected their low and subordinate social position defined their rights and duties and their relations with their master, but of all this the Statute is silent; the code, although unwritten, remained in force as an age_old well_tried custom.

b. The Clergy

Closest to the serfs in class terms were the priests. According to the Statute the most senior ecclesiastical personage was the Archpriest (Arhiprvad), who was the representative of the Bishop for the whole of Vinodol and whose residence was in Bribir. Since the title of Arhiprvad (which comes from the Venetian archiprevede ) was in use when the Statute was written and points to a linguistic usage which goes much further back in history, clearly this office must have existed in Vinodol long before that time. And since there was such an office, i.e. since there was a head of the local Church, it follows that Vinodol was already in earlier times a separate ecclesiastical _ and hence also distinct political _ unit. Furthermore since the Archpriest’s official residence, according to the Statute, was in Bribir, it is clear that Bribir was the original ecclesiastical and hence also the economic, political and military centre of the whole of Vinodol. For what applied to the main representative of the Church, applied also to the lord lieutenant of the County, the so_called zupan, who also lived there. The town or Novi (Novigrad), as its name indicates, belonged to a more recent generation of settlements. It was probably built by the Princes of Krk who transferred the administration from Bribir to Novi. Novi thus became the new centre of the whole or Vinodol. later Novi was to become also the seat of the Archpriest, for according to a document dated 15 December 1445, Juraj, the parish priest of Novi ‘was the Archpriest of Vinodol’. According to the Statute there were parish priests in Novi, Hreljin, Bakar, Trsat and (Grobnik, while in Ledenice there was a prvad (presbyter ), certainly a parish priest and possibly also a deputy of the Archpriest. The Statute makes no mention of a parish priest for Grizane and Drvnik. Apart from the parish priests, there were ordinary clergymen which the Statute (in articles 3, 5, 15, 36 and 57) calls pop, popi. In addition, there were clerics and deacons who (in articles 1, 3 and 16) are called zakan / zakani. Articles 2, 17 and 36 mention monasteries (molstiri and opatije), but since at the time of the writing of the Statute there were no monasteries in Vinodol, these are probably later insertions, dating from a period after the arrival or the Pauline monks who founded a monastery in Crikvenica circa 1412, and another near Ospa by Novi in 1462, and the Franciscans Who founded a monastery at Trsat in 1431.
The social position of the Vinodol clergy as described in the Statute was typical or the general situation in that region. At a time when clergy, that privileged class of medieval society, dominated every aspect of social life, in Vinodol its position was subordinated rather than privileged. I have already drawn attention to the importance of articles 16 and 17 by which ‘no serf or commoner’ could become a priest without the permission of the Prince and the communal authorities indicating that the freedom to become a priest was limited. At a time when throughout the rest of Europe the so_called privilegium fori was in force, whereby a member of the Church not only enjoyed the legal protection of the Church but was entirely subject to its jurisdiction, in Vinodol none of this was applicable. Not the Canon Law but the articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Statute laid down what the priests of Vinodol were obliged to give to the Bishop. Moreover for those priests who committed some transgression _ ‘ if they should commit some misdeed or offence’ _ it was not left to the Bishop to freely decide the punishment in accordance with Canon Law, but the maximum fine was determined by article 3 of the Statute and ‘he ( the Bishop) may not collect a greater fine from those priests and deacons’. According to article 5, the priests were bound by the ius descensus not merely in relation to the Bishop, but also in relation to the Prince, just as were all other inhabitants of Vinodol. The low, subordinate status of the priests is illustrated most clearly by article 15 according to which ‘every priest is to keep watch in the town at night like any other man’. According to article 58 if an urban priest missed a day or service without good reason, he was not punished by the Bishop but by the Prince, and with a heavy fine at that: he paid a bullock of which the Prince received one half and the other the town district ‘in which the offence was committed’. According to article 36, theft of property belonging to a priest was punishable in the same way as theft of property belonging to a serf, and not like thefts of property belonging to the Prince or his servants or to Church establishments. This is yet another proof of the low social status of the clergy as individuals. Finally article 75 makes it quite clear that the clergy were entirely under the jurisdiction of the Prince and not of the Bishop.
All these decrees of the Statute, unusual though they were for the Middle Ages, were characteristic of the social position of the clergy in Vinodol. Clearly there must exist historical reasons for this. The idea that such anti_canonical decrees might have been imposed by force sometime during the twelfth or the thirteenth century is of course quite out of the question. They can be explained only as a surviving feature of the local tradition. Since according to the canons of the Church, everyone was free to become a priest except for slaves , who required the permission of their master, it may be assumed that the decrees mentioned above go back to the period when slavery still existed in Vinodol. … In my opinion, the reason for this ( survival of the earlier attitudes) may be sought in the relatively low level of education of the Vinodol clergy. It is well known that Krk, Cres, Senj and Vinodol, in other words the erstwhile Krajina, from the tenth century onwards were not only strongholds but also one of the breeding grounds of the Croatian ‘Glagolitic’ movement, whereas the establishment culture of the time was linked with the Latin writing and language which, despite the decrees of the Synod of Split in 1060, forbidding ordination of ‘Glagolitic’ priests unless they knew Latin, these priests neither knew nor learned. ^l As a rule, the education of ‘Glagolitic’ priests consisted in their being able to read the liturgical books written in Croatian Glagolitic Alphabet and very little else. This was the only difference between them and their native brethren, especially since they usually lived together with them, sharing households with their closest relatives. It is here that one must seek the causes for the unusual decrees in the Statute concerning priests, the decrees which contain very important clues as to the state of social development of Vinodol.

The Plemeniti

In articles 5, 54 and 75 the Vinodol Statute mentions the plemeniti (‘nobles’ ) as a separate class of the population. According to article 5 the Prince and the Bishop had the right to requisition cattle for food from all classes, including the ‘people of noble standing’.² According to article 54 ‘a villein may not act as representative for a plemeniti, nor a plemeniti for a villein without the permission of the Prince’s court’. It is clear from this article that there was indeed a considerable difference in status between villeins and plemeniti in Vinodol, that the plemeniti constituted a separate social class. But of their rights and duties by which it would be possible to determine the true position of the plemeniti, the Statute says nothing. This is understandable since the Statute was concerned principally with the rights of the Prince in regard to the villeins and his relations with the villeins and not with the other classes. Consequently it is not surprising that the plemeniti of the Statute are differently interpreted by different commentators. According to Leontovic, they constituted an upper class in society but without special privileges. According to Jagic the difference between the serfs and the plemeniti was that the serfs worked the land of the Prince, while the plemeniti worked their own land, did not pay the Prince any dues and had the status of gentry. According to M. Kostrencic the plemeniti of Vinodol were the officials of the Prince. Grekov considers that they were an upper economic and political class, with their own land and serfs, and that the officials of the Prince’s court were included among them.
In Croatian medieval documents the term ‘plemenit’ is clear and well_defined. Until very late the term ‘plemenit’, in its widest sense, meant only those who were free. Originally ‘plemenit’ was anyone who belonged to a village community or tribe( ‘pleme’ ). And since such people were free from all fiscal burdens and legal dependence on any power outside their community, ‘free’ and ‘plemenit’ became synonymous, but not the terms ‘free’ and ‘noble’. Of the many examples I shall take only that of a document dated 26 September 1423, even though this document does not come from this part of Croatia. In the Croatian version of this document the words ‘of the plemeniti oppidum of Jastrebarsko’, and in the Latin version ‘liberi regii oppidi Jazterbarszka‘ occur twice; which shows that in our old documents the word ‘plemenit’ does not always denote a noble, as in later times, but rather a descendant of the original village community and generally a free man. Thus every man was ‘plemenit’ who owned the land he worked and paid for it no dues or rent. Such ‘plemeniti’ estates in Croatia either go back to the tribal period or are feudal in origin. All hereditary lands were ‘plemenit’, since they regularly remained in the family or tribe, and those who owned them were ‘plemeniti’ or ‘dedici’. But even the royal estates worked by serfs (terrae regales) could become ‘plemenit’. Often the King, as later also the feudals, made a gift of land to individuals for various services. If the King gave the land to the one who had hitherto worked that land for him, by this very gift the recepient who until that time had been in an inferior position now rose socially. Whereas before he was economically subordinate, now he became independent, from a serf he became a free man, a ‘plemenit’ and even a noble (plemic), It was no rare occurrence for one who was free or a ‘plemenit’ to forsake his land for a variety of reasons and seek service on the royal estates or those of other nobles. If the newcomer was given other land as his property, he would continue as a free man and a ‘plemenit’. If, on the other hand, he had to render dues from his newly acquired land to its owner, the land having remained the property of the king or feudal lord, he would suffer a social demotion and with time both he and certainly his descendants would become by virtue of their dependence socially as well as economically subordinate serfs.
1. In Croatia at that time there was a strong opposition to Latin liturgy, especially among the lower clergy. The Latin language was seen as a symbol of foreign domination and foreign influence and as a threat to the indigenous culture and traditions. Editor.
2. Since it is not quite clear whether these people did enjoy the full status of nobility ( Barada thinks they did not) we have retained here the Croatian term ‘plemeniti’. Editor.
All this was valid for the plemeniti of Vinodol. They were no more than the owners of their lands, for which they gave no dues to the Prince, and in this sense they were ‘nobles’. The one question is whether their ownership of land went back to an earlier tribal period or whether it was due to gifts by the king or feudal lord. On the whole, I am inclined to think that tribal origins may be discounted here. Although initially there were ‘dedici’ [tribal gentry] in Vinodol, like in the ‘rest of Croatia, the fact that Vinodol was a frontier region with an integrated system of defence, including a compulsory military service, caused a rapid desintegration of the tribal order in this area. Therefore the plemeniti of Vinodol were probably of feudal origin. From the twelfth century onwards it is generally possible to detect considerable differentiations in status among the serfs, due to the differing obligations and services to their lords. Of all obligations, the most important were military. In Hungary, in Croatian Panonia of that time, and in Croatia proper there emerged the class of the jobbagiones castri, that is urban serfs ( gradokmeti ). For the lands which they worked they gave no dues but were merely obliged to give military service to the king or their feudal lord, in addition to coming under their lord’s jurisdiction in legal matters. It is impossible to say with certainty when precisely the gradokmeti in Croatia first came into being, for there are no documents available, but it is possible that the oppidans of Trsat who slew Erich the Markgraf of Furlania ( Friuli ) in 799 ha d already this status. No doubt also it was the fear of the gradokmeti that was responsible for the surrender of Biograd on Sea to the Doge Peter Orseolo in A.D. 1000. It was gradokmeti who served as the milites of the zupan of Bribir Strezinja and who together with their zupan acted as witnesses to a land transaction in the second half of the eleventh century. More details relating to gradokmeti are to be found in the recently published documents from the land registry in Zadar. Among the subjects of the feudal lord of Vrane are the jobaggiones castri whom the document calls feudatarii. In return for quite sizeable portions of land they were obliged to serve as soldiers, with one or two horses. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the urban villeins rose steadily on the social scale, so that in Slavonia in the second half of the thirteenth century they acquired the full status of nobles. The lands which hitherto they were allowed to keep in return for military service, now became their own estates. Their military service
which earlier was simply a matter of their relations with their feudal lord, now became a public duty. Henceforth they served in the army not because of their obligations to their feudal lord, but because, as nobles it was incumbent upon them to do so.
That the plemeniti mentioned in the Statute were something similar to the private urban villeins of Slavonia is shown by later historical evidence from Vinodol. Thus Prince Stjepan Frankopan in a document dated 16th November 1457 gives and confirms to Zigmund, his chief official, in return for the latter’s faithful service from an early age, the gift of a house and garden in Grobnik ‘to be freely enjoyed by him and his descendants in perpetuity’ so that he might ‘be free from all service, great or small, and that he and his progeny need not enter any service, nor be liable to call for service or any other duty, great or small, by eternal law’. In the registry books relating to the Vinodol towns of Grobnik, Bakar, Hreljin, Divenik, Grizane and Bribir and originating from between 1610 and 1612, almost exactly the same definition of ‘plemeniti’ is given for each individual town: ‘Freemen, noble people’. In the case of Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane and Bribir the term plemenitasi is used instead of plemeniti _ ‘those who have always been free and enjoy now the same freedom by the grace of the most gracious lord’, while for Bakar, Hreljin, Grizane and Bribir the latter description ends simply ‘by the lord’s grace’. These quotations, even though they come from a later period, confirm what was stressed earlier, viz. that the term ‘plemenit’ in Croatian old documents does not always designate the status or nobility, but often refers simply to the class of free_men. In Vinodol these free men were few in number. Lapasic, writing of Grobnik, says that there were only two ‘plemenit’ families dating from ancient times, and that Count Petar Zrinski created another three. The latter families included that of Francisko Frankulin who by an edict of 12 January 1653 was freed ‘from all dues, tribute and taxes, including grazing dues for cattle large and small and was made noble’. A list of the ancient free_men of Novigrad is appended to the Novljan charter and it is there stated of one Nikola Mudrovcic ‘… that he is a freeman from ancient times. His documents were burned when the town was burned. He is confirmed as a freeman now, since the relevant facts have been verified in the old register of nobles; therefore he is obliged to give the lord military service and to accompany the lord on horse_back or on foot whenever the lord leaves town’. Along with Mudrovcic another six names arc mentioned. In regard to the eighth person on the list the document declares: ‘He has always been a freeman who bears the standard before the lord or the army, when ordered to do so by the lord’ . Although all these sources stem from a later period, nevertheless since they all refer to ancient customs they bear out the information derived from the Zadar registry and confirm what I said earlier about the plemeniti of the Vinodol Statute, viz. that they were of feudal_military origin and in no sense nobility by birth. The plemeniti of the Vinodol Statute did not constitute a noble order but rather a social economic class and were somewhat similar to the first urban villeins of Slavonia, that is to say free_men, in the sense that they owed no serf_duties to the lord.
The gradokmeti (urban villeins) in Slavonia, as shown by the decisions of the Slavonian assembly recorded in a surviving document from 19 April 1273, succeeded not only to free themselves from all obligations, but also to extricate themselves from the jurisdiction of the feudal lords or royal zupans within whose boundaries their lands lay. They thus succeeded not only in gaining a better economic position, but in raising their own social status and, in effect, achieving full equality with the old noble families. Whereas formerly the gradokmeti went to war with their respective feudal lords, now, as nobles, they could accompany any of the great lords they wished (cum baronibus quibus voluerint). And, as the main symbol of their new freedom, they no longer came under the jurisdiction of their respective zupans and were judged only by the bonus who was soon to be replaced by the iudices nobiliurn. Such a status of nobility was never achieved by the plemeniti of Vinodol, Vrane, Novigrad or Ljuba. By article 5 of the Statute the Bishop and the Prince could freely requisition from the Vinodol plemeniti both large and small stock, as a rule against payment, but when on official business without payment. According to article 75 the Prince had power to try them and punish them. The plemeniti of Vinodol remained on the level on which the gradokmeti of Slavonia were before, or during the twelfth and the first half of the thirteenth century, at the latest; that is, they constituted a separate social class but not a noble order .

D. Incomers

Article 5 mentions ‘all other kinds of people’ and article 75 ‘all other people’ as distinct from villeins, plemeniti and priests. There were publicans and traders in Vinodol as shown by the articles 43 and 44, and, in addition, most certainly there were seamen, craftsmen and others but they did not constitute a separate class. Those among them who belonged to the native population were either ‘villeins by birth’ or plemeniti, and were treated accordingly. Quite clearly among them there were foreigners (hospites ) too, but the Vinodol statute gives no details about these. They are referred to simply as ‘all other kinds of people’ in article 5 and ‘all other people’ in article 75.
From: Miho Barada, Hrvotski vlasteoski feudalizam

Zagreb 1952.
( It should be pointed out that the question of the social and political conditions in medieval Vinodol has aroused a great deal of controversy in recent Croatian historiography and Barada’s views should be seen as an important contribution to the discussion rather than as a final word on the matter. Editor. )

Vinodol Statute – A Legal

Footnote

John Farrar

The relationship of law to society is always complex. This is true of modem mass societies. It is no less true of earlier societies and the difficulties are exaggerated by our lack of knowledge and our attempt to reconstruct the ancient world from fragments of old laws and legal documents. The motives for recording laws in such societies are not always explicable in terms of an increasing legal rationality and this is perhaps the case with the Vinodol Statute. The motivations behind its enactment were doubtless political.

The Method of Codification

The method of codification was a regular assembly in the presence of the Prince, of elders from each town who were knowledgeable in these customs. In their laws they were required to recall what had been handed down to them by oral tradition and this was recorded in writing. The assembly in fact included a number of clergy and the code covers a number of matters relating to ecclesiastical law.

The Structure and Content of the Statute

The structure of the code seems rather haphazard and at times, although this is by no means unusual, arbitrary. We are not pursuing a document of the comprehensiveness and elegance of Justinian’s work, nor a hybrid code of the later Byzantine period, but a simple working document of a small community facing change, but wishing to preserve the knowledge and customs of its past.
The first part of the code deals with ecclesiastical matters and seems to be mainly concerned to limit the powers of the church and particularly the bishop to exact excessive tribute .
Then follow various articles dealing with crime, which show a pronounced Slav character and differ from the severer penalties of Byzantine Roman Law. Thus theft is punishable by fine payable to the Prince. This is typical of Slavonic communities of the time when such fines were a valuable source of revenue.
Homicide of any of the Prince’s household is punishable by the death fine but not death itself. Homicide of a villein is punishable by a fine of less amount. A person accused of murder must produce 50 witnesses _ a rather absurd requirement.
The patterns of feudalism are already quite pronounced. The Prince is given a number of rights over the person and property of his villeins, including art. 16 which even prevents a man from entering the Church without his permission.
The essentially inferior position of women in such a society is clearly reflected in the Statute, although we see perhaps the glimmering of an early liberalisation in art. 18 which provides that a woman of good repute can be called as a witness if there are no other witnesses in matters among women, in cases of malediction or beating or injury. The wording is a little ambiguous since it is not entirely clear whether she can only be a witness in disputes between women. It is likely though that this was in fact the case. Art. 27 contains the amusing crime of maliciously removing a woman’s head scarf which almost suggests a Moslem attitude to the covering of women.
Rape is punishable by fine and there is an elaborate procedure in art. 56 to deal with an alleged rape or other sexual assault. The victim must try to produce 24 character witnesses which seems quite excessive. The question of litigants producing a large number of witnesses to order was one which the British Raj in India attempted to stamp out. One good witness is better than a legion of indifferent or mendacious ones.
Another pitfall in medieval society which particularly affects women and demonstrates their vulnerability is set out in art. 59. Older women ran the risk of being regarded as witches if they lived by themselves and became at all eccentric. This was punishable by fine, but an unfortunate woman who had not the wherewithal to pay the fine was to be burnt. Art. 59, however, provided for sexual equality in a sense. Men could also be charged and punished for the same offence, but warlocks generally were quite rare.
The political power of the Prince is seen in art. 57 which bans assemblies unless there is a man of the Prince’s present. In art. 70 the Prince has complete power over a traitor.

The Social and Historical Context

So much by way of summary of the main provisions of the code. Like all feudal documents it may be regarded as a primitive kind of social contract. The nature of the Vinodol society like that of medieval England is pyramidal or conical. At its base are the cultivators of the soil, the shepherds and the fishermen. At its apex is the Prince, and beyond him the Hungarian King. The cone is a low one, The number of landowners is small; the number of land_users large.
One of the most complete statements of the nature of the feudal relationship is contained in a letter of
1020 A.D. written by Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres. The duties of fealty, he says, are characterised by six things: what is harmless, safe, honourable, useful, easy and practicable. Harmless means that the vassal must not injure the law; safe means that he should keep the secrets of his lord’s defences; honourable means that he must not injure his lord’s justice; useful means that he should not injure his lord’s property; easy means that he should not put difficulties in the way of his lord; and practicable means that he should not make things impossible for his lord.
For his part, the lord should also act’ in the same manner in all these things and if he fails, he will be rightly regarded as guilty of bad faith’. Fulbert is often regarded as one of the first representatives of the intellectual renaissance of the West and his description aptly expresses the spirit of the Vinodol code and the society it represented.
Feudalism was not however an unchanging institution. The major changes came from within and consisted mainly of a gradual relaxation of the Prince’s rights. The Vinodol Statute is much earlier than most of the Poljica Statute and consequently bears less evidence of this change. The world of the Vinodol Statute is very much a Gemeinschaft_world, a close_knit organic society. The major economic and political challenge to the power of the feudal lord came in most societies from a middle class. This class appears to be small in the Vinodol community and this probably accounts for its relatively static character.

A Comparison with the Poljica Statute

Brief reference has been made so far to the Poljica Statute. Let us now attempt a more specific comparison. The Vinodol Statute represents a relatively clear feudal order. The Poljica Statute is more complex. At the time of the drafting of the original Poljica Statute, Poljica was not a standard kind of Slavonic society, nor was it a purely feudal one either. It was a primitive feudal system with two species of nobles arising from an earlier tribal organisation consisting of three tribes. There was, however, overall recognition of the suzerainty of the Doge of Venice. There was an elected prince chosen by an assembly. Indeed Poljica seems in this and certain other respects to have practiced a primitive kind of democracy. The structure of the code is rather like an archeological discovery of an ancient city revealing different strata representing different periods of historical development.
There were three significant features of the Poljica Statute which Paul Bowden and I identified in our earlier article (‘A Legal Commentary on the Poljica Statute’, BC Review, No. 11/12, Vol. IV, p.9, June 1977 ). These were the recognition of basic human rights, the rule of law and an early development of a concept of community personality and responsibility. The Vinodol Statute seems to lack all these features. It was possible to discover traces of earlier systems in the Poljica Statute. It is arguable that later Roman Law, Byzantine Law, Venetian Law and Slavonic custom all had some influence on drafting and content of the Poljica Statute. On the other hand, the Vinodol Statute probably represents the feudal modifications on an earlier variant of Slavonic custom and localised ecclesiastical law.
In our article on the Poljica Statute Paul Bowden and I concluded that it was the product of a traditional society taking its first tentative step towards legal rationality. The Vinodol Statute, on the other hand, is still at the traditional stage of legal development. The Statute is a record ( if what is said in the opening paragraph can be taken at its face value) not a code in the legal rational sense. It is a record of old custom modified by a feudal order.
It is difficult for modern minds to understand fully feudal society. As Eugen Ehrlich wrote in ‘Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law’ p. 32, we seek for a constitution of the feudal state ‘whereas the chief characteristic of the feudal state is the fact that it has no constitution but only agreements’; in other words, piece-meal social contracts. He added (p. 34) that in trying to understand the law of medieval society one must not confine oneself to the study of legal propositions. ‘Even at this period, the centre of gravity of the law lies in the inner order of the human associations.’ This proposition arguably applies to all law. It certainly is true of the Vinodol Statute. The inner order of human associations of medieval Vinodol eludes us. The Statute is probably only truly intelligible when it is taken as part of the whole of its contemporary social culture. Even our modern law is found puzzling for this reason not only by foreigners but also by lay people who do not perceive the whole. In the case of the Vinodol Statute clearly a great deal of historical spadework still has to be done before we can fully understand the significance of all its provisions.

THE STATUTE OF VINODOL

from 1288

translated by ALAN FERGUSON

Translator’s note. The oldest known manuscript of the Vinodol Statute dates from the sixteenth century and is written, as the original was, in the Glagolitic orthography, When transliterated into modern latinica, however, its language is for the most part comprehensible to the Croatian speaker. Precise enumeration of the Statute’s 77 articles has been made possible by the presence in the manuscript of the letter ‘C’ indicating the opening of new articles, which have no other numerical designation.
The first edition of the Statute in modern script was prepared by Antun Mazuranic and published by him in the periodical Kolo (Zagreb, 1843, Vol. 3). Fifty years later Franjo Racki published essentially the same version in Monumenta historico-iuridica Slavorum meridionalium ( Vol. IV. Zagreb, 1890 ). A rendition in contemporary Croatian, together with the original transliterated text, is contained in Dr. Miho Barada’s Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam ( Zagreb, 1952) pp. 96_133. The present translation is based essentially on Barada’s modern version of the original text, and it relies largely on his explanatory footnotes and comments.
I am indebted to Edo Pivcevic who has made a number of corrections in the translation.

In the Name of God, Amen. In the year of Our Lord 1288, first year of the indiction, the sixth day of the month of January.
In the reign of King Ladislav, the most illustrious Hungarian King, in the sixteenth year of his rule, and during the time of the Great Lords Friedrich, Ivan, Leonard, Domnius, Bartul and Vid, Princes of Krk, Vinodol and Modrus.
Since men have oft deemed it meet for their old and tested laws to be safeguarded, each individual and every man of Vinadol, church and laymen alike, did gather all together in a desire to preserve intact those good laws of old which their elders did maintain inviolate. At the conclusion of the regularly held assembly in Novi Grad, in the presence of the Prince Leonard, the same as was above mentioned, there were chosen from each town of Vinodol elders, not all of them, but those who were known to be able the better to recall the laws of their fathers and what they had heard from their grandfathers. And they were solemnly ordered and commanded to record all the good and old tested laws of Vinodol which they could recollect or might have heard from their aforementioned fathers and grandfathers, so that errors might henceforth be avoided in those matters and that their offspring in time to come might be constant in those laws.
And those chosen to that end by those same men of Vinodol were: from Novi Grad, Crna, Lord Steward of all Vinodol and of the aforementioned Princes; Petar, the parish priest, and Vukonja Pribohna, the captain; Ranac Sarazin; Bogdan Vucinic; from Ledenic, Ratko, the presbyter, and Radoslav, priests; Dobrosa, the captain; from Bribir, Dragoslav, the archpresbyter, and Bogdan, the priest; Zlonomer, the captain; Jurislav Gradenic; From Grizan, Ljuban and Petar, priests; Domjan, the captain; Dunat and Dragoljub and Vidomir Vucic; from Drivenik, Dragoljub, the captain, and Mikula Dragoljub and Pribinig; from Hreljin, Raden, the parish priest and Ivanac, the captain; Zivina, the magistrate and Kliman Nedal; from Bakor, Krstiha, the parish priest and Grubina, the priest; Ivan, the captain; Derga Vucina and Nedrag; from Trsat, Vazmina, the parish priest and Nedrag, the captain; Dominik, the magistrate and Vieka; from Grobnik, Kirin, the parish priest and Slavan, the captain; and Domjan Kinovic, Paval and Slavina Vukodruzic. And all those here written did gather by the will of all and by the unanimous assent and decree of the assembly of the entire district of Vinodol … .⁽¹⁾ which are to be written below and which they heard from their elders.
1. First, that if any of the public churches in Vinodol is to be consecrated or any have been consecrated by the Lord Bishop in whose diocese the said church is, not more than 40 soldin in small Venetian coins, one dinner and one supper may be given for the said consecration, and that specifically by those who give that church to be consecrated. And the deacon, called malik ⁽²⁾ in Croatian or mazzarol in Italian, who attends the Bishop in that same church, is to receive for that same consecration not more than 15 balanza in small Venetian coins.
2. And: concerning the churches of abbeys, monasteries or the said public churches, the Lord Bishop may not request or take or demand more than the wardens of those same churches would of their own volition be prepared to give him.
3. And: concerning priests of the said district, that same Bishop may not order or take anything, but when he sends another or goes himself about the Principality, in each town of Vinodol to which he goes, the priests of that town must give him one dinner and one supper; they are not however in any way bound to take that dinner and that supper to him outside the boundaries of that town. And the said priests and deacons are not bound to do him any other service, unless one of them should have committed a misdeed or some offence for which he would have to pay a fine, when the Bishop may raise a fine of 40 Venetian soldin from the offenders; a greater fine he may not collect from those priests and deacons.
4. And: when the Lord Bishop is making a visitation, with the seven horses of his suite must go on eighth pack_horse.
5. And: if the Lord Prince of Vinodol or the said Bishop is making a circuit of the Principality of Vinodol and either of them comes to some town, he may through the captain of that town have food taken and brought for himself and his retinue, cattle or smaller creatures which are to hand, the stock albeit of villeins, of plemeniti ⁽³⁾, of priests or of any other men. Nonetheless, wherever he may be, the Lord Prince must pay for them, and may have his attendants take the nearest cattle to hand from the same town district or from any of the above mentioned men for himself and his family and for his entire court.
6. And: if anyone should commit robbery on the highway or anywhere else, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira.

7. And: if a man should break into o dwelling by night or steal something from it and if ‘Help’ be shouted, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira and twice the damage, Those who cry ‘Help’ are to be believed if they solemnly swear that they recognised that malefactor. Nonetheless, if no shout was raised, he has to pay but 40 soldin and restitution as abovesaid. And if he commits the misdeed by day, he is not bound to pay more than 40 soldin if his guilt can be established by a trustworthy witness.
8. And: if by night anyone should steal some animal from its stall or corn from the threshing floor or honey from a hive _ at a place where bees are kept _ he too is to pay the Prince 50 lira, if there was a cry of ‘Help’; and by day 40 soldin and as much by night if there was no cry, and twice the damage, as is written, and a cry is to be believed.
9. If there is litigation before the court involving assault or the theft of some thing and the plaintiff has no testimony against the accused and he is allowed to swear an oath, 25 character witnesses must swear for the defendant charged with robbery and 12 on account of the aforementioned theft, if in that theft damage was done and there was a cry of ‘Help’.
10. And: in cases of theft from a pen or the burning of wheat in the field or the taking of hay from a stack by night, only 6 must swear that he did not do it, And the defendant may not have a legal spokesman without the court’s assent, In any case it is for the one who is to toke the oath to find character witnesses as best he may. And if he may not have them, let him swear himself or as many times as they must swear.
11. And: if a man commits an act of violence in Vinodol harbour, he must pay the Prince fifty lira. If he commits theft there too, he pays 24 lira. If there are no eye_witnesses, he who denies the charge must swear together with 11 character witnesses, whether the deed was done by day or night.
12. And: if a man receives a person exiled from that Principality or gives him food, drink or any other aid or counsel, he must pay the Prince 50 lira.
13. And: if any brotherhood divides among its members what it has acquired, it is bound to pay the full tithe.
14. And: no zavez may be agreed on or exacted by men of the Principality among themselves nor may any public or private zagovor be concluded: half of the value of such a fine accrues to the town district in which it was done, and half to the lords.⁽⁴⁾

15. And: every priest is to keep night_watch in the town like any other man.
16. And: no cleric of the Principality may take holy orders without the permission of the Prince and the town in which he resides.
17. And: no villein or any commoner may lodge in a church or serve in an abbey or monastery or become a sacristan there without the consent of the Prince and the district.
18. And: a good woman of good repute called to bear witness is trustworthy, if there are no other witnesses, in matters among women, in cases of malediction or beating or injury .
19. And: no witness called as such may bear testimony unless he has first been questioned by the court officer; whoever does so is to pay 40 soldin to the Prince, and to him who would have suffered loss by his testimony let him pay as much in damages as the other would hove lost.
20. And: no one may call his wife to testify in his defence; in no matter relating to him may she be a credible witness.
21. And: if before the court in the palace one litigant says to the other: ‘Is it so or not?’ or makes a charge against him, the other is free to admit or deny it.
22. And: if a man appears before the court to bring a charge, he must appoint witnesses and prove it to be so.
23. And: for the guarding or protection of vineyards and ploughlands and threshing floors and other things, trustworthy guards are to be appointed. When damage is done before a guard, he is then to cry ‘Help’; except in the event of his taking some token from the miscreant, pointing him out to trustworthy witnesses or taking that token to the court before the offender is charged, or personally taking that same offender to the court.
24. And: any man may cry ‘Help’ if he sees another committing some misdeed, and in no way may he be punished for doing so.
25. And: for striking, injuring and for an affray involving villeins the penalty is 40 soldin, which the culprit must pay to the Prince, and to the one who is assaulted 2 wethers and the cost of his treatment. And the some for a captain, constable and district crier, who are not herein subject to officials’ but to villein law and its penalties; and they are to be judged according to villein law, so that enough is done for their injuries.
26. And: a captain and constable and district crier are not trustworthy in any matter arising during the term and relating to the competence of their office, but only one year after their term of office expires.
27. And: if a man should maliciously remove a woman’s headscarf or headcover, and this should be confirmed by three good men or women, if a complaint should be made on that account, he is to pay 50 lira; of this the Lord Prince is to receive 40 soldin and she who was so disgraced 48 lira. But if a woman should remove another woman’s headcover, as aforesaid, she is to pay 2 lira to the court and 2 sheep to the other woman. But if there should have been no good witnesses where the offence was committed, and the one against whom the accusation was made takes an oath denying the charge, he or she is to be acquitted.
28. And: if a man or woman speaks profanely or insults some other man or woman, and this can be confirmed by a worthy witness, either man or woman, if there were no other witnesses there, he is to pay the court 2 lira and the party to whom he spoke 2 lira.
29. And: if a man should kill one of the underprinces ⁽⁵⁾ or one of the Lord Prince’s household servants, or one of his attendants and then flee, and so not be taken, the Prince is to levy the death fine, that is, a monetary penalty, whichever and as much as he will, from the culprit’s tribe one half, for the tribe is bound to pay but one half, and from the culprit the other half. But if that culprit should be taken, that same Prince, or some other in his stead may avenge the misdeed as he pleases, without his tribe being in any way punished.
30. And: if a man should ambush and rob one of the said underprinces or an official or attendant, and this can be confirmed by worthy witnesses, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira. In like manner, if the other should be beaten or injured, for the hurt he must pay half. And if a part of the body of one of them should be severed or so mutilated that it could not be restored to its original state of health, he is to pay the penalty which the Prince will impose on him.
31. And: if a man should kill a villein or one of that estate and be caught, he is to pay a fine of 100 lira to the victim’s kinsmen and to the victim’s town-district 2 lira. Of those 100 lira: if the victim had children, they must receive one half, and his kinsmen the other half. The culprit pays that fine. If he flees, his kinsmen must pay one half of the fine and his heirs, should he have any, one half. But if he can be taken, before the penalty is paid, or if an agreement has been reached, vengeance may be carried out on him, and his kinsmen are thereby freed.
32. And daughters who survive their father and mother or sons. unless those daughters’ brethren be still alive, must be equipped or left their father’s or mother’s estate in order to perform such service as their father or mother would have had to fulfil to the court. Likewise if sons should hove survived and died heirless.
33. And: if a man should be in possession of anything improperly acquired which is nobody’s and hence should accrue to the court irrespective of whether an official order or demand in respect of it had been made, and the Lord
(Prince) or his officer discover this, that man must pay the Prince seven times his annual income from it, for as many years as he has been in possession of it, and a fine of 40 soldin for each year. And that property must still accrue to the Prince’s court.
34. And: if a man holds any property, some ploughland or some vineyard or plot or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right, and if the other will not surrender it, he is to pay the abovesaid penalty or that part, if it can be proved that he was guilty.
35. And: if a man has stolen something from the Prince or his court or an under-prince or official of any of the aforementioned, he is to pay the fine to the Prince as above written concerning theft; and to the person from whom he stole, sevenfold.
36. And: villeins and priests are to have the same law for thefts among themselves. But if a man steals something from any church or monastery or abbey, he is to pay the fine which is paid for the theft of the Prince’s or the abovewritten officials’ things.
37. And: for no single theft committed by day or by night is the fine to be more than 40 soldin, unless there should have been the cry of ‘Help’ and it should have been in a town, and apart from the theft defined above. And also for any theft by day or night, the culprit must pay 40 soldin, which are to accrue to the town district in which the theft was committed.
38. And: where there is no charge there can be no penalty either. No one can be forced to bring a charge on any matter before the court or elsewhere, unless it is of his own volition. Whoever brings a charge must pursue it to its conclusion.
39. And: a charge brought outside the court can not carry a penalty of more than 6 lira, except for the aforesaid instances of assault.
40. And: no_one may be acquitted and no fine, great or small, imposed without the Prince’s assent, or unless a man of the Prince’s should do so at his command.
41. And: of those serving as magistrates. The judgements are invalid of those magistrates who, whenever an offence is committed, do not send a sealed summons to the culprit to appear before the court with that summons within three days and display it.
42. And: no keeper of the keys is to be considered trustworthy or to be believed concerning any goods worth more than 20 soldin which he claims to have given, presented or lent or in any other manner rendered to another from his vault, unless he should have trustworthy witnesses. Also, for that which is worth over 20 soldin he must swear on the Holy Gospel.
43. And: no publican is to be considered trustworthy or to be believed, without witnesses, for any credit he may have given of his own wine, except for less than 10 soldin; and a partner, that is one who sells another’s wine, up to 50 soldin. They must, moreover, swear an oath.
44. And: no merchant’s records are to be considered reliable without worthy witnesses but for individual debts of up to 50 lira. And for these also he must swear on the (holy) scriptures to confirm his merchant’s records.
45. And: no reward privately given for the discovery of some object, misdeed or other thing such as lands, vineyards or any other items for which a reward is usually given, or for finding large cattle, may exceed 40 soldin, and if a man gives more, he may not recover it; except when it seems to the Lord Prince that more should have been given to discover some misdeed or for some other thing which would clearly have accrued to that same Prince. Concerning those 40 soldin, he who claims to have given that reward and that it was demanded and received, must swear that he gave and promised to give it. He is bound to give the court but 5 soldin as a penalty for the other 40, and for each small animal, 2 soldin.

46. And: if a man declares that something has been improperly acquired in whole or in part as aforesaid, and can not prove this, he is to pay the same penalty as the accused party would have had to pay.
47. And: if a man should make a charge before the court or appoint witnesses, saying: ‘So_and_so knows this is so’ and the opposing party says: ‘But so_and_so knows it is not’, the witnesses of the former are accepted and those of the latter are rejected.
48. And: no court officer may accept more than 10 soldin for a major case; and a major case is for any matter worth more than 40 soldin; for a minor case, for 40 soldin or less, he may receive 5 soldin. Whoever acts contrary to this, pays one ox or 8 lira of which the Prince is to receive one half and the town in which it occurs the other half.
49. And: if, in the presence of a court officer, a stolen calf is found, he is to receive a pair of soles, and the creature is to belong to him whose it had previously been, and the right to litigation is as has been defined. Should it be taken dead but still whole, the officer must then have one quarter of it; if what is found is not complete, it is to belong to that same officer, and the man whose meat it was may have recourse to law.
50. And: if full_grown cattle are stolen, then discovered, the officer is to receive 5 soldin for each head, dead or alive. And for property worth 40 soldin or less he receives 2 soldin, and for more, 5 soldin. That same officer must certainly be taken from the court and with its consent. And it should be known that for stolen property a villein receives twice its value and the Prince’s court or its officials as abovewritten, sevenfold.
51. And: if a court officer is found guilty of an offence, all that is his, movable and immovable, accrues to the Prince. But if someone charges him before the court or elsewhere with being false, and can not substantiate this, he is to pay the Prince 40 soldin, and to that officer one ox or 10 lira. But if he is found guilty, he is to pay the aforesaid penalty and may no more be an officer of the court without the Prince’s consent, and the party against whom he spoke falsely, if he should have been sentenced, is to be acquitted or may have recourse to a counteraction concerning the initial case. It must certainly be established by three worthy witnesses that he acted falsely.
52. And: if a man be found a false witness, he pays the Prince one ox or 8 lira; and the party against whom he testified is to be acquitted of all culpability in any offence for which he might have been punished. Thereafter, the other may not bear witness without the court’s consent. But if he is accused of having been false and this can not be shown, the man who accused him but was unable to substantiate the charge, pays the Prince 2 lira, and to that witness an ox or 8 lira. And he must be shown to have been a false witness by three worthy men.

53. And: if a man proves a court officer or witnesses to have been false, neither of the latter has thereafter any further case on that account against hi s accuser or the witness, nor has any other in his stead. But if a man maintains that the officer or witness acted falsely and undertakes to prove this with witnesses, but those witnesses will not testify, or disagree with his accusation, he may not thereafter bring any case against them. Or, if a witness is brought before the court concerning some matter, and the other party would gainsay his testimony, this may be done if there are witnesses. If witnesses are brought against him or against his testimony and confirm what the complainant undertook to shew, against none of those witnesses may the other thereafter bring witnesses in a counteraction; nor may he or any other on account of that accusation or the testimony or in any other matter bring an action against him, he may not have recourse to law against any of them on any account.
54. And: no representative acting on behalf of a litigant may take more than 10 soldin for a major case, or 5 soldin for a minor one. A villein cannot represent a plemeniti or a plemeniti a villein without the permission of the Court. Those who break this rule are liable to pay a fine to the Prince of one ox, and the same to the person on whose behalf they acted, or 8 lira.
55. And: all stipulated penalties which the Prince himself may have agreed to or previously decreed, whether under public or private law, are to be his and must be paid to him.

56. And: if a man should commit rape on any woman, abusing her sexually or attempting to do so, he must pay 50 lira to the Prince, and to that woman also if no arrangement can be made with her in any way. Or if she has no witnesses to the said assault, she is to be believed; 24 character witnesses and the woman herself must certainly swear to the assault, placing their hand on the scriptures and touching them against him she has accused; that woman is to find her character witnesses as best , she can. If there are no character witnesses or she is unable to find so many, that woman is bound to swear in the place of those who are lacking. Those who do swear with her, or she herself after the first time, must touch the Bible with their hand and declare: on this I swear. And all her character witnesses must be women. And she who swears, and not her spokesman, must say: ‘Verily do I swear with this oath’, and she must swear as abovesaid. And if that some woman or any of her character witnesses should omit any of the abovesaid, he against whom she speaks is to be acquitted of the abovesaid sin.
57. And: there may be no assembly, public or private, in a town or elsewhere, on any business which comes under the district’s competence, unless there is a man of the Prince’s there; and if they should act contrary to this, they lose all their property, and it is to accrue to the abovesaid Prince.
58. And: every priest having a town church must celebrate mass and other holy offices daily, unless he should be prevented by a just impediment. If he does contrary to this, he forfeits one ox; and half passes to the Prince, the other half to the town district in which it was done.
59, And: if any woman is found to be a witch, and this can be proved by trustworthy testimony, for the first offence 100 lira are paid to the Prince, or if she has not the wherewithal to pay, she is to be burned. If a woman is found a witch a second time, the Lord Prince is to punish her as is his will. An d if a man is taken in that sin, he too is to suffer that some penalty.
60. And: if a man should wish to accuse another of some malfeasance before the court, or of some other punishable act or some other deed, he must address the court thus: ‘I accuse that man before thee with such a deed’, or ‘I say to thee that that man did do such a deed’. No other method of accusation or denunciation is valid. But if a man should make an accusation against another before the court and not be able to prove it, he is to pay to the court the penalty which he who was accused would have had to pay, and the accused is to be acquitted.
61. And: a charge brought outside the court is valid and may be made before the Lord Prince and before any of his officials and before a captain and also before his wife if the captain should not be there.
62. And: if any man should plant fire in a building or dwelling or another’s stall, for committing arson a first time he is to pay a fine of 100 lira to the court and to the man against whom he acted, restitution, or he is to undergo corporal punishment if he has not the wherewithal to pay; if he commits arson a second time, he pays with his life. If one or several persons are burned to death in the fire and the malefactor can not be taken, the death fine as abovesaid is to be paid for each victim.
63. And: henceforth no one may seek settlement of a debt incurred for the court’s needs from those in charge of the court or from any of its officials unless it is sought during the last year before retirement from office.
64. And: if a man exhibits own blood maliciously spilt by another, that blood is credible evidence. Nonetheless, he must swear, together with character witnesses, if there were no eyewitnesses there.

65. And: court officers and summoners are to be trustworthy unless they are found false.
66. And: outside a town, shepherds and ploughmen and other men of good repute, each of them, that is, are trustworthy as witnesses whether in cases of robbery, of assault or of any other malfeasance.
67. And: father may stand witness for son, son and daughter for father; and brother and sister for sister, provided each abides separately and their estate is not jointly held.
68. And: if there are no eyewitnesses to a murder, the accused must clear himself by finding but fifty character witnesses as best he can. If there are no character witnesses, he must himself swear that many times, or just for those that are lacking.
69. And: if a man should be called to swear on oath concerning another’s character, he may be properly exempted, if he so wishes, if it is in a minor case, when they are assembled at the customary place where oaths are taken. And there the defendant may, if he is prepared, swear as many times as he needs. Nonetheless, a man of the court must be present. But all the others, the character witnesses, he may discharge without any reward.
70. And: if any man be found a traitor to a rightful Lord Prince, that same Lord Prince has complete authority over him and over his estate, and may have vengeance on him as he will.
71,. And: if I find a robber doing damage by night, damaging my property, that is, and I am unable to take him alive or recognise him, if I would know what punishable offence he has committed and kill him, I may not be punished in any way and no one may institute or conduct proceedings against me.
72. And: the testimony of an emissary is not acceptable in any litigation if he is not under oath, unless he has been sent by the court, which emissary so charged is in Croatian coiled ‘arsal’.
73. And: summoners must be sworn. And villeins also must be summoned before the court of justice, before the magistrate.
74. And: if those sentenced to pay a fine have not the means to pay the abovesaid fines and penalties, the Lord Prince is free to order corporal punishment should he will it.
75. And: in all penalties, guarantees and contracts the Lord Prince has the complete authority and power to judge as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and over all other men, as above established.
76. And: thus have these laws been above written, and all the abovesaid elders, chosen from the said districts of Vinodol, have declared and confirmed, establishing and citing the old and tested laws of Vinodol have they confirmed, that their grandfathers and their fathers and all their forbears did ever live according to them.
77. And: to commemorate this in the future, and for public testimony, that same district of Vinodol has commanded that the text now be recorded and that one such copy of it be kept in every town.
Done in Novi Grad, in the hall of the aforenamed Princes, in the year, month, day, indiction as said.

—————————

(1) Words have been omitted from the original here; probably their sense is: ‘and recorded’ or ‘and compiled laws’ .
(2) Crosier
(3) For the meaning of ‘plemeniti’ see Barada’s comments on page 22 ff. Editor
(4) zavez or zagovor (Lat. poena condicionata): a predetermined fine covering a contract and payable by either contracting party not fulfilling its obligations.
(5) Lat. vicecomes, appointed representative of the Prince.

* * * * *

And: if it happens that in or before the court. any man should bring a case against another concerning some estate, that is, a vineyard or land or building plot or any property, and he declares that he purchased that property from a certain man, whom he must there name; or declares that the property was given to him or endowed or pledged or bequeathed to commemorate a departed soul, and there are present living witnesses to it, as the law requires, those witnesses of his are trustworthy. But if there are no living witnesses and he cites deceased witnesses who had said to those now living that it was so done before them, the surviving witnesses are trustworthy; nevertheless, an oath must be taken according to the law of the town to the effect that it did so happen before those original witnesses, as above said. And he must not be molested in future, but is to be left to freely and peaceably enjoy and hold that property.

THE GLAGOLITIC SCRIPT

( What follows below is a translated extract from a French article entitled ‘Le Glagolisme Croate’ by the Croatian medievalist Vjekoslav Stefanic. Ed. )

It was mainly Dalmatia, north Croatian littoral and Istria that were the homeground of Croatian Glagolism. In these areas the Glagolitic culture for centuries successfully resisted the attacks by its Latin enemies who consisted mainly of the remaining Roman population in the coastal towns and the senior clergy, whereas in other Croatian regions it disappeared very quickly _ as early as the 12th century. The setting up of the bishopric at Zagreb in 1095 seems to have dealt it a mortal blow in those regions, for the Latin liturgy was soon introduced everywhere. The political rulers of Croatian nationality for a variety of political reasons did not wish to publicly support the Croatian ‘Glagolitic’ priests. By contrast the various foreign powers who succeeded each other in the Glagolitic regions of Istria and Dalmatia, including Venice, were not interested in such matters. All that was important to them was that the local population fulfilled their obligations as their subjects. The Roman Catholic Church who through the Popes Adrian II and John VIII initially gave official approval for the use of the Slavonic liturgy of St Cyril and St Methodius, did not always take the same view on the subject. In fact, it often tried to suppress the Glagolitic liturgy in Croatia, or at least to put difficulties in its way. However the priests of Dalmatia and Istria supported by the local population who remained loyal to them steadfastly defended their rights and the Church hierarchy was forced to tolerate them, to legalise their work, and, eventually ( from the 17th century onwards ), to accept the responsibility for helping them with liturgical books.
Throughout history the area in which Glagolitic liturgy was practiced remained fairly limited in size. In addition, because of its position close to the frontier, it found itself parcelled out among several different powers: Venice, Germany, Croatia_Hungary, Turkey. Nevertheless in this area there evolved a distinct type of civilisation which stood out like an island in the uniform sea of European Latin Christianity and remained untouched by either Humanism or Renaissance. It even resisted for a long time the influence of Croatia’s own Renaissance literature which flourished in Dalmatian towns and which used Latin script.
When in the first decades of the 19th century the movement for Croatian national and cultural re_awakening got under way there began a new era for Croatian Glagolism as well. Interest in the Glagolitic tradition increased considerably, stimulated by the romantic and popular enthusiasm for the nation’s history and also by the growing scientific interest in Slavic philology. However it was clear that as far as ordinary usage was concerned the Glagolitic script suffered a total defeat. This was due above all to the increasing secularisation of public life and to the fact that the Latin alphabet and the stokavic dialect eventually prevailed in literature. Glagolism was brought to a standstill, that is it remained confined to the Church; and from 1927 onwards the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Latin alphabet even in ecclesiastical use. [Since Vatican II the old language of the Glagolitic liturgical books has been abandoned along with Latin in favour of modern vernacular – Translator .]
On the ‘Glagolitic territory’ the Church services were conducted in the Slav language but in accordance with the Roman rite, since the Glagolitic priests were invariably Roman Catholics ( the Protestant movement of the 16th century was merely a passing phenomenon ). Originally the liturgical books were written ( and later printed) in Old Church Slavonic, but this language drew progressively closer to the spoken Croatian of everyday life ( the cakavic version) and this is why it is sometimes referred to as ‘Old Croatian’.
The Glagolitic ecclesiastical books ( missals, breviaries etc. ) have in part survived until the present day in parchment manuscripts that are now kept in various libraries throughout Europe ( Rome, Paris, Vienna, London, Zagreb etc. ). When the printing press was invented the Croatian Glagolitic priests made extensive use of the new technique to produce the books they needed until the Council of Trent gave the Church authorities the exclusive right to publish liturgical books. The very first Glagolitic _ and at the same time Croatian _ printed book was a Roman Missal printed in Venice [ or, according to some, in Kosinj, Croatia] in 1483. It was followed by a Breviary printed also in Venice in 1493. Very soon however, the Croatian Glagolitic priests decided to set up a printing press in their own country despite the difficult conditions in Croatia at that time due to the Turkish invasion. This was how in 1493 the first Croatian printing works came into being in Senj. The first book _ a Roman Missal _ was produced there in 1494; this was followed by a whole series of Glagolitic books, until the press closed down in 1508. In 1530 Bishop Simun B. Kozicic, a native of Zadar, founded a second printing works in Rijeka where he produced several Glagolitic books. In later times Glagolitic books were often published in Venice and in Rome where the office of the Propaganda Fide looked after the needs of the Glagolitic priests. Another Glagolitic press was in operation between 1560-1564 in Tubingen in Germany and several books were produced there, including the first Croatian Bible, with the aim of propagating Protestantism in Croatia. In more recent times there was a Glagolitic press on the island of Krk, the heart of the palaeo_slavic liturgical tradition, which was still in use in 1901.
However the Croatian Glagolitic script was not merely a liturgical script. Moreover Glagolitic was not used only by priests for their own purposes, but was used in daily transactions in both public and private life; indeed the Glagolitic priests knew no other form of writing. It was in Glagolitic that the authorities, the princes, above all the Frankopans of Krk, published their charters and laws; for example, the Statute of Vinodol from 1288, the Statute of Krk from the 16th and 17th centuries. the Statute of Kastav, the Statute of Veprinac and an Istrian document called ‘razvod’ relating to the demarcation between the local communities, dating from the 14th century. The Glagolitic script was used by lawyers from the earliest times right up to the 19th century for drafting legal documents, of which a number of volumes have been preserved. These documents originate mainly from the Kvarner islands, the northern Croatian coast and Istria. Parish priests wrote their entries in the parish registers of births and marriages in the Glagolitic script, and it was not until after the fall of Venice that registers began to be kept in Latin or Italian. Glagolitic priests corresponded with their Bishops, who were usually Italian, in , Glagolitic, and there is even evidence to prove that they used Glagolitic when addressing themselves to the Holy See.
Numerous inscriptions on churches, tombs and monuments along the north Croatian coast, in Istria and Dalmatia were written in Glagolitic. One of the most important surviving inscriptions is that of Baska, on the island of Krk, which dates from 1100 AD. This is the oldest surviving document in which the Croatian ( as distinct from the Latin) word for ‘Croatian’ ( hrvatski) is explicitly used in the text. In it the Benedictine Abbot Drziha reports that the ‘Croatian King Zvonimir’ _ who probably visited the island _ made a gift of land to his order for the construction of a church near Baska.
Since the Glagolitic movement remained confined to a relatively small area it was”hardly capable of producing an extensive literature or establishing Glagolitic schools of larger significance. The Bishops, who were usually foreigners, regarded the Glagolitic priests as uneducated because they knew no Latin, and they exerted pressure on them to attend Latin schools, never seriously considering the idea of opening special schools in which these priests could be trained for their vocation in their own language and liturgy. It was not until the 18th century that a Glagolitic seminary was established in Zadar, followed by others at Kopar, Krk and Omis. All this, however, came too late to yield any appreciable results. Surrounded by the pressures of modern progress Glagolitic was destined to disappear.
Nevertheless the Glagolitic priests over the centuries succeeded in accumulating a corpus of literature, consisting mainly of translations, which was necessary to meet their requirements. Modest as these results may appear, it is difficult not to look at them with admiration if one bears in mind the unfavourable circumstances in which the Glagolitic priests worked. In addition to the liturgical literature already mentioned, these priests, in the period up to the 16th century, managed to add to their stock of books a series of other translations from the theological literature of the Christian West. These were little compendia, lucidarii, pastoral and moral manuals, collections of sermons, almanacs that were both moralising and entertaining in content and included apocryphal, legendary and poetic material. Until the 18th century all this was disseminated through handwritten copies. After the 16th century this inventory of books was enriched by catechisms, new and longer volumes of religious meditations, school manuals etc. Spiritual poetry and religious drama which flourished particularly during the 15th and 16th centuries played the central role in the Glagolitic areas, spreading gradually to other Croatian regions, especially southern Dalmatia. In fact it is argued by some that not only the religious drama but nearly all the Croatian religious literature in Latin characters during the Middle Ages and the subsequent period either directly or indirectly originated in the Glagolitic areas and hence that it was in these areas, long before Dubrovnik, that Croatian literature first came into being.

The Autonomous Principality of Poljica
March / June 1977
Edo Pivcevic
The Statute of the Principality of Poljica ( pronounced Pol’yeetsa) from 1440 published here for the first time in English translation is one of the most interesting documents in the European legal history. It codifies the ancient customs, rules, practices of a small self-governing community inhabiting the 100 odd square miles of mountainous land bordering the sea just south of Split between the rivers Zrnovnica and Cetina (see map on page 3 ). It provides a rare picture of what life was like in a region of medieval Europe which for centuries had been the main meeting ground between East and West, and for this reason alone it is of immense value to social historians.
Administratively Poljica first came into being as a separate county (zupanija) within the medieval Croatian kingdom, probably in – or around -AD 1015. It turned out to be a remarkably durable political structure; for owing to a number of different circumstances, but chiefly to the unfaltering spirit of resistance among the local population who had developed an unusually strong sense of communal identity, Poljica was able to retain a measure of political freedom and continue in existence as a self-governing principality long after the medieval Croatian state collapsed and was united by treaty with the kingdom of Hungary in 1102.
The population of Poljica was never very large. According to a census taken in 1781 in Poljica’s twelve katuni or clusters of tiny hamlets there lived 6813 people. In 1806 the French-appointed civilian governor of Dalmatia Vicenzo Dandolo, in a report on Poljica, recorded an even smaller figure – 6566. Nor has there been a very large increase in population since then, except perhaps in the coastal area. Yet despite its small population Poljica, by virtue of its geographical position, played an important role in the political history of the region. The principality survived with its internal organisation virtually intact until 1807 when it was abolished by the French in a peak of fury following a local rebellion against their rule. Its centuries old autonomy was thus brought abruptly and violently to an end, never to be regained.
In addition to losing its autonomy Poljica was divided among the neighbouring counties and it remained administratively dismembered for over a century. In fact it was not until 1912, and even then only after a long and dedicated campaign by some leading Poljicans, that Poljica was restored as an administrative unit within its historical boundaries. Thus only two years before the outbreak of the First World War and almost exactly nine hundred years after it was first founded Poljica began a second period of its life as a county borough – this time under Austrian rule. The new administrative arrangement remained in force under a succession of different governments -Austrian, Yugoslav and Croatian -until 1945 when it was abolished by the new Yugoslav government who re-drew the administrative boundaries yet again, with the result that Poljica disappeared from the administrative map for a second time, its territory being annexed to the surrounding districts.
By comparison with other small medieval and post-medieval European principalities Poljica was in many ways unique. Throughout its long existence it never developed any urban centres on its territory. Its economy was exclusively rural, based on animal farming and agriculture. What is more, despite the closeness of the sea and the obvious advantages of a reasonably well developed coast-line the Poljica people never seemed to take a great interest in shipping. Nor did fishing play a great part in their economy. This was partly due, no doubt, to the geography of the area, for the mountain ranges run parallel with the coast and the access to the coast from the interior, where the majority of the population lived, was made that much more difficult. But basically there was no great interest in the sea.
But Poljica was also unique in its social structure. For although Poljica’s society had many unmistakably feudal features, its sheer complexity, the disproportionately large number of ‘noble’ families (there were no less than 80 such families in 1799) not a single one of which ever gained the position of complete dominance, the two species of nobility, and especially the intricate relations of ownership, made Poljica unlike any other community in feudal Europe. In Poljica, it seems, there were no serfs in the more extreme sense of this term. There were, instead, bonded tenants who were increasingly allowed to own property of their own and could, under certain conditions, leave their masters. Moreover it seems, it was accepted that they could leave their masters even without the latter’s consent if they were maltreated in any way. (‘A man is free to flee from evil if he can.’ Art. 89c of the Statute. ) There were also independent peasant farmers and free labourers and herdsmen. What is of special interest is that in a number of cases important decisions demanded a consensus of the whole community. The phrase ‘All the men of Poljica are unanimously agreed…’ occurs in several Articles of the Statute. The Prince had to be a nobleman, but his office was not hereditary and both the Prince and the main officers of government were elected on an annual basis in open air assemblies in which all noble families took part.
*
All this can be better understood in the context of Poljica’s early medieval history which began with the arrival of Croats in this area. In Roman times, it seems, no large settlements existed on the territory of Poljica, although the coastal region did attract a number of Roman war veterans who built their villas there. In addition , the emperor Diocletian, himself a Dalmatian by origin, who after his abdication in 305 lived in retirement nearby, in the palace he built for himself in what later became the town of Split, is alleged to have owned estates in Poljica, including a game reserve near the present day village of Dubrava.
Croats did not arrive in Dalmatia until the third decade of the 7th century. They came from what is in subsequent sources referred to as ‘White’ Croatia’ (‘white’ being the colour symbol for ‘west’ ), a region comprising parts of modern southern Poland and eastern Czechoslovakia. ¹ In De Administrando Imperio, the famous political-historical manual which the 10th century Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (AD 905-959) wrote for his son and prospective successor Romanus, the following account is given of the migration:
…the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. ….From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of llyricum and Pannonia.²
Of those Croats who stayed in Dalmatia a large number, perhaps the majority , settled close to the old Roman towns between Zadar and Split, which at the time of their arrival were under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperor. It was this region that subsequently became the nucleus of the Croatian medieval state. The territory of Poljica, or at any rate its most attractive parts, seem to have been claimed by Croat leaders themselves, for large chunks of the best land in Poljica were in later documents regularly referred to as terra regalis, the crown property. Much of this land, it seems, was made over to the Split Church by various Croat princes and kings in order to facilitate their dealings with the Split Archbishop. This later became a constant source of friction and hostility between the Poljicans and the Split Chapter, especially after repeated attempts by the Church to extend its possessions in Poljica on the basis of forged title deeds. In one tragic incident the Archbishop Rainerius who in August of 1180 came to Poljica to reassert his claim to some disputed land was attacked and killed by the local peasants near the village of Srinjine.
This conflict over land was exacerbated by the fact that the Split Church represented the Latin, and hence to Croats an alien culture which many of them feared as a possible threat to their own identity. They stubbornly resisted the attempts by the Church to replace the Croat vernacular by Latin in church liturgy and rather than use the Latin alphabet they clung to their Glagolitic and Cyrillic script. In Poljica, especially, the resistance to Latin was strong and unyielding, although it was not until 1750 that the Church finally decided to come to terms with the situation and establish a ‘Glagolitic’ Seminary for training of young priests in the Poljica village of Priko at the mouth of the river Cetina, famous for its 8th century church of St. Peter . It should be mentioned at this point that the Poljica Statute itself was written in the Croatian version of the Cyrillic script. This script which is also occasionally referred to as Bosancica was in a fairly wide use in southern Croatia at that time and, in fact, it was not until well into the 19th century that the Cyrillic finally gave way to the Latin alphabet.
The term Bosancica indicates a connection with Bosnia and indeed the ties with Bosnia, especially in Poljica, are deeply rooted in history. The local tradition in Poljica links the origins of the county with the arrival there from Bosnia, probably in AD 949, of the three sons of the Croatian prince Miroslav – Tjesimir, Kresimir and Elem (the last name being probably a corruption of ‘Velimir’ ) – after their father was killed by the Bosnian bonus
(governor) Pribina in the civil war that flared up following the death of king Kresimir 1. It was their descendants -the three ‘tribes’ mentioned in Art. 3 of the Statute -that effectively ruled the county. They were Poljica’s old nobility – the didici as they are called in the Statute ( did grandfather ).
Much later we find in Poljica a second species of nobility, the so-called vlaste/a. Their arrival is connected with the ascendancy of the Hungarian power in the middle of the 14th century. As mentioned earlier, Croatia was formally united with Hungary in 1102. However, owing to the continuing opposition to the union in many Croatian provinces the Hungarian kings were never able to exercise an effective control throughout the country. The opposition was strong in Poljica too and at least on one occasion the Poljicans swallowed their pride and gave active support to their archenemy, Split, when the Split leaders refused to help king Bela IV who fled to Dalmatia during the Mongol invasion of 1242.³ But there were other powers too who competed with the Hungarians for the control of Dalmatia and chief among them was Venice. Whereas in northern Croatia the Hungarians eventually managed to solidify their rule, southern Croatia what with continuing local resistance, the constant incursions by Venice and devious political manouvres by Byzantium ( later to be replaced by the Turks), remained very much a disputed territory.
However in 1358 Ludovic I by an agreement with Venice signed that year managed to gain control over Dalmatia for a short lime and it was then, it seems, that the rirst vlastela arrived in Poljica. They consisted, first, of a single family, later joined by a second; both of them, it would appear, ethnically Croat, but clearly sufficiently trusted by the king to represent his interests in this unruly little principality.
In the event, their arrival made no difference as far as the political situation was concerned, although the vlaste/a and their descendants did succeed in gaining for themselves a leading position in the community, even to the extent of socially outranking the didici-nobles in some respects. During the following 450 years, between 1358-1807, the principality was forced to accept suzerainty of a number of different powers – Hungary, Bosnia, Venice, Turkey -but it always managed to preserve internal autonomy. Several long periods were spent under Venetian overlordship and it seems that of all Poljica’s suzerains the Venetians, who were busy trying to maintain their hold on the Dalmatian towns, interfered least with Poljica’s internal affairs. In January of 1444 the Poljica leaders signed their first formal agreement with Venice, voluntarily placing themselves under Venetian protection, and it is likely that the oldest preserved version of the Statute which is here reproduced in translation was prepared for this occasion. (The date on the original manuscript is now generally taken to be 1440, but the manuscript is slightly damaged in this place and the numerical symbols used are not easy to read.) Be this as it may, the preserved version of the Statute contains a clear reference to an unknown earlier version and there seems little doubt that the origins of the Statute go further back in history, perhaps as far back as the first half of the 13th century.⁴
There are other Croatian statutes from this period, the best known being the Statute of Vinodol from 1288. Moreover, unlike the pre-1440 versions of the Poljica Statute none of which has survived, the original text of the Statute of Vinodol has been preserved (albeit only in a 16th century copy of the original document) and has been extensively studied by scholars. But the Vinodol statute had a somewhat different function. It was drafted with the explicit purpose of regulating the relations between several small formerly self-governing municipalities and their new liege lords, the princes of Krk. The Poljica Statute, on the other hand, as well as incorporating a civil code set out the constitutional structure of a semi-independent mini-state.
In fact, of all the counties of the medieval Croatia Poljica was the only one to survive as a semi- independant mini-state and preserve its territorial and political integrity for nearly eight hundred years. For the most part, it was a precarious balancing act on the edge of the precipice. The Turks, especially, from the middle of the fifteenth century onward presented a constant threat and the sheer severity of the penalties which according to the Statute awaited all those who might be foolish enough to collaborate with the Turks is a striking reminder of the precariousness of Poljica’s position in this dangerous frontier region.
Yet the constant threat of extinction undoubtedly helped to keep the principality united and to strengthen its sense of identity. It also helped, in a curious sort of way, to keep the harsher aspects of feudalism at bay, for if the principality was to be successfully defended from external enemies it was imperative that, within the community, there should exist a large measure of consensus and willing co-operation from all sides in essential matters.
All this, however, came under severe strain when French troups arrived in Poljica in February of 1806, following Napoleon’s defeat of the Austrians the previous year. For a great many Poljicans, but especially for the ruling nobility the arrival of the French was a traumatic experience. Suddenly they found themselves at the mercy of a new invader who was much more powerful than any of the others they had to contend with in the past. But more worrying still was the fact that the French had brought with them the new revolutionary ideas which the spectacular victories of their armies gave such a powerful impetus throughout Europe. A confrontation at the social as well as the political level seemed inevitable. The French, at first, looked at Poljica with some amusement and then increasingly with disfavour. Their administration set about introducing new rules, showing marked impatience with the local interests and ancient privileges. This caused a great deal of alarm and resentment among the local population. Before long the whole Poljica was astir.
Changes were very necessary, but the habits were centuries old. Unhappily the manner in which the new administration went about implementing the new rules was such that it upset more people than it otherwise might have done. To make things worse Russian warships unexpectedly turned up off the coast of Poljica and the Russian admiral Sinyavin lost no time in trying to induce the local leaders to resist the French, promising help in men and equipment. Eventually, after a stormy meeting in the Glagolitic Seminary in Priko at which most of the leading men of Poljica were present, the decision was taken to attack the French troups. It was a fatal decision and a grave error of judgement.
There were a few dissenters. Marko Kruzicevic, a priest and a teacher at the Seminary, who had travelled through Europe and was able to judge the situation more clearly, w’arned against the foolishness of such an action, but his voice was quickly drowned in the angry shouts of those who thought otherwise. The plan went ahead and, predictably, ended in disaster. The French suppressed rebellion with extreme savagery. The Russians did not fire a single shot to help the rebels and when the inevitable end came they speedily sailed off for home taking with them the last Prince of Poljica, ostensibly to save him from the French. He never came back.
*
Being myself a native of Poljica I might perhaps be forgiven for closing this introduction with one or two personal reminiscences. Many years ago as a young boy I often used to play near the building of the old Seminary and the medieval church of St. Peter close-by. They both were conveniently tacked away in a secluded corner at the foot of the mountain some short distance from the main village and there were many trees there to climb and plenty of things to explore. The building of the old Seminary was then known as opcina because it housed the offices of the county borough. The Glagolitic Seminary was in fact closed down by the Austrians as long ago as 1820, although some decades later a new theological college was opened there for a short period. In fact, a whole succession of Church and state schools found a home in the building at one time or another and even after the arrival of the county officies the teaching in the building still continued for a few years and it was there that my mother received her first reading lessons.
But then the opcina was never just another office building. It was also a social centre and a place to which the people of Poljica naturally gravitated whenever important issues had to be discussed and decisions taken, as they had done in the past.
There were very good reasons for this. The building of the opcina which first began its life as a monastery several centurries ago had an important place in Poljica’s history. But the Church of St. Peter was more important still. The history of this small church goes back over twelve hundred years and is connected in many ways with the history of medieval Croatia. It was to this church that we were taken as children on all important occasions and I remember seeing a great mass of people, many of them in national costume, crowding the church and the space in front of it, milling around on the common or sitting under the trees.
Then the war came and with it came refugees. There was quite a large number of them in the last stages of the war. They too tended to gather around the opcina and the church. It was a very different crowd from those noisy multitudes that used to come here with their brass bands and flags and banners only a few years earlier. They squatted outside the buildings, clutching their few possessions and staring vacantly into space, waiting for the single daily meal of boiled maize flower that was being cooked in a large cauldron on an open fire a few paces away. But the place where I spent most of my time in those days was an old garage, just behind the opcina where an elderly bookseller called Jakov Tomasovic, himself a refugee from across the river, installed himself with a few dozens of books and some stationary that he was able to salvage after his shop was destroyed by bombs during an air raid, He was a soft-spoken kindly man with a thin face and a pair of pale blue eyes peering a little absent-mindedly through silver-rimmed spectacles. He was not only a book-seller – the only one, in fact, for miles around – but also an expert book-binder and an amateur writer. In the early thirties he earned himself a reputaton for eccentricity by starting a literary periodical in a town of less than two thousand people whose only place of learning was the local elementary school. He sold text-books and pencils to generations of school children. He kept a good supply of story-books too and I often used to stop outside his shop to look at the glossy covers of the hard-back editions displayed in the tiny showcase next to the entrance. One afternoon I walked into the shop and bought myself a copy of the beautifully illustrated Voyage around the World in Eighty Days, the very first book that I decided I could afford to buy with my own pocket money. I can still feel the smell of this book in my nostrils.
Not many customers came to the garage, but he did not seem to mind. Usually he would sit behind a trestle table which was piled up with books, making notes. The garage was damp but pleasantly cool in the summer heat. He would let me browse through the shelves and read from new books for hours, pretending not to notice me. We hardly ever exchanged a word. I knew that years ago he had published a little book called S puta i raspuca in which he described his country walks, for we had a copy at home, and I was itching to know what he was scribbling in his notebook, but all my carefully devised schemes to address him on the subject came to nothing, for each time my courage failed me.
He was gunned down in the mountains for no apparent reason a year before the war ended while walking back to his village. As I write these lines it is the picture of him sitting behind the trestle table in the old garage that comes to my mind most clearly. He was a shy and solitary man, yet immensely resilient in the face of failure and neglect. He had done more good than he ever knew. But for his quiet perseverance many of my generation would have grown up the poorer. I would like to dedicate this English edition of the Poljica Statute to his memory.
NOTES
¹ The memory of this migration though enveloped in legends was still alive centuries after it had happened. It seems that the term ‘White Croats’ was still in occasional use in the 14th century. An unknown historical writer from this period recounts an incident which allegedly took place about three hundred years earlier when in the chaotic situation following the death of the Croatian king Zvonimir a delegation consisting of two Croats came to the Hungarian king to ask for his help in restoring the law and order in their country. They introduced themselves to the king as ‘White Croats’ ( Croates Albi sumus ). See N. Klaic, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku. Zagreb 1971, p. 35. The unknown writer who recorded this story clearly did not think it necessary to explain the term ‘White Croats’ to his readers.
² See: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio. Greek and English. Edited by G. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins. Budapest 1949. P. 143.
³ See: Ivan Pivcevic, Povijest Poljica, Split 1921, p. 9f.
⁴ Cf. Stipe Kastelan, Povijesni ulomci iz bivse slobodne opcine-republike Poljica, Split 1940. pp. 38-44.
A Legal Commentary on the Poljica Statute
J.H. Farrar and Paul Bowden
In this paper we shall briefly refer to the history of the Poljica Statute and discuss its structure and suggest possible influences on it. In doing so we shall make comparisons where appropriate with early English Law. We are English lawyers with some knowledge of Roman Law but do not claim any expertise in the history of Slavonic legal systems. Our knowledge of the Statute and the literature through the medium of English translation.
The History ond Structure of the Statute

The Statute is said to be one of the most important socio-legal documents of early Croatian history, the other being the Vinodol Law of 1288 which was basically feudal law. The Poljica Statute is really a twofold code, being a collection of old customs and new decrees reached by agreement between the various representatives of Poljica society. The Statute has been studied by various Russian scholars, some of whom derive from the Statute an idealised picture of life in Poljica and it was even claimed on the slenderest evidence that the reports reaching England of the little Principality influenced Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’.¹ The structure of the present text of the Statute is somewhat disorganised with a number of additions made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There is no apparent logical cohesion but simply an attempt to record items as they arose. At the time of the drafting of the original statute Poljica was not a standard kind of Slavonic society nor was it a purely feudal one either. It appears to be a primitive feudal system with two species of nobles – the Didici and the Vlastela – arising from an earlier tribal organisation consisting of three tribes. There is, however, a recognition in article 1 of the suzerainty of Venice in that the prince who holds office for a year must at least be loyal to the Doge. At the same time Poljica seems to be moving towards a truly democratic organisation. The entire Poljica male population seems at times to have discussed important matters such as treason, captivity and assault at meetings which represent a pure form of democracy only really feasible in a small community generally free from gross inequalities or at least a sufficiently socially cohesive that certain inequalities of wealth are accepted by those least privileged. Nevertheless all the important offices seem to have usually been in the hands of the nobles. There are two species of ownership of property – common and private. Originally communal property seems to have been widespread and extended to the whole tribe or all relatives; later it is limited to some relatives. It is, however, notoriously difficult to establish the nature of ancient systems of ownership and the concept of family ownership may only be an impression created by various interrelated rules of individual inheritance.²
There are a number of provisions of the statute which are worthy of comment. These reflect three key ideas – a) the recognition of basic human rights, b) the Rule of Law and c) an early development of a concept of community personality and responsibility.
Article 59b deals with the case of inheritance of property with a possibly defective title. The article stipulates that in such a case ‘the fact that each man must live must in some way be taken into consideration. As there is nothing which has existed for all time.’ This is a clear recognition of a basic human right. Similarly in article 89c which deals with a tenant leaving his lord. In .this article although there are traces of feudalism the article states that ‘differing cases must be treated on their merits. A man is free to flee from evil if he can.’
Article 19 contains a recognition of a right of appeal against a decision of the Prince and of Poljica. In other words the state is subject to the Law. This resembles Magna Carta and the famous passages In Bracton and Coke. Thus Bracton, writing in the thirteenth century, stated “lpse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et sub rege, quia lex tacit regem‘.³ While this was common theory in the Middle Ages it was unusual to find a right of appeal under the Law.
Articles 23b, 26, 29, 37d and 41b recognise some notion of the community as a legal person. It should be noted however that the purpose of recognition of such personality in these articles is to impose duties upon it as opposed to conferring rights . This is an unusual state of affairs in early law. It is more usual to find recognition of legal personality as the subject of legal rights in the first instance. Article 23b does in fact confer rights on Poljica. It refers to property of a traitor going to ‘the district’ which may refer to the community as a legal person or alternatively to an aggregate of individuals or individual families. It is interesting to contrast with these articles F.W. Maitland’s striking description of legal development in Western Europe – ‘…the line of advance is no longer from status to contract, but through contract to something that contract cannot explain, and for which our best, if inade- quate, name is the personality of the organised group.’⁴ In Poljica the movement seems to be from status to some kind of social ( rather than individualised) contract situation which is leading to the recognition of the community as a legal person with rights and duties under the law. In F. Tonnies’ language Poljica is changing from one form of gemeinschaft – or organic form of society – to another. The process of transition to a gesellschaft type of society, i.e. to a more atomised form of society, was perhaps to come later.⁵
There are some unusual procedures laid down by the Statute. Thus under article 5a a person who has a case against another must summon him thrice. This is uncommon. It is more usual to give the defendant a period of notice. The formal responses laid down by article 73a are quaint but resemble the formulae of Roman Law and English pleadings in certain respects.
Attempts to codify ancient customary laws were made in many European countries in the Middle Ages probably as a result of Papal influence or at least the availability of a clerical class.
There are in fact a number of points of resemblance with the social and legal organisation of England in the twelfth century. Articles 22 and 66 give a right of appeal to the magistrate and the assembly if the lord refuses to do justice. This resembles some of the earliest Royal writs whereby the King at the petitioner’s request commanded the lord to do justice. However whereas an English lord was entitled to service and the incidents of tenure the rights of a Poljican lord not only to the tenant’s personal service but also his chattels go further and suggest almost a lord / serf relationship (see article 89 but see also article 89c discussed above ). It is difficult to reconcile this with the apparen- tly advanced form of franchise on important legal matters. Perhaps the answer is that the Statute is a ‘patchwork quilt’ containing provisions from different periods. The form of pleading in a real property dispute (article 73a is reminiscent of the English writ of mort d’ancestor and the use of character witnesses upon sworn oath (article 73d is identical to the English procedure of wager of law.
Lastly, despite the claims which have been made by some historians about Poljica’s communal system one wonders whether it was really any more communal than a twelfth century English village with its common land, plough team and uniform peasantry.⁶
Possible Legal Influences an Poljica Statute
There are four possible influences which will be considered. These are:
(1) Classical Roman Law
(2) Byzantine Law
(3) Venetian Law
(4) Slavonic Law
Any comment hereunder is necessarily tentative and our knowledge of the Slavonic literature is derivative and limited.
(1) a Classical Roman Law
Poljica was part of Dalmatia which was a Roman province and Split was the seat of Diocletian in the fourth century A.D. However any traces of classical Roman Law would be swept away except in the coastal towns in the numerous Slavic and Magyar invasions and there is no clear evidence that we can see in the Statute. The principal system of provincial land holding was latifundia – large private estates worked by servile labour – which does not fit the Poljica pattern as it is emerging in the Statute.
(1) b Later Roman Law
By the fourteenth century there was renewed activity in the Balkan countries producing legislation on the Roman model. The history of Roman Law in this period is complex but it is possible that even isolated Poljica may have been spurred on to codify its customs as a result of this development percolating through Venetian, Byzantine or Papal influences.
(2) Byzantine Law
Croatia was for several centuries within the orbit of the Byzantine Commonwealth. The main later legislation was the Ecloga of Leo III (717-741 ), the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata and the Hermanopoulos Hex- abiblos.⁷ The second was based inter alia on legislation of Basil I, the Ecloga of Leo III and the Farmer’s Law and was composed in Greek and applied to the Greek speaking subjects of the Norman Kings of Sicily although its influence spread further afield. It is titled in the Freshfield edition ‘A Selection of Laws arranged in a brief and compendious form by Leo and Constantine the wise emperors taken from the Institutes, the Digests, the Code and the Novels of the Great Justinian, and from the Martial, Penal and Rhodian Laws, improved in the direction of humanity’. The Farmer’s Law represents the closest parallel to the Poljica Statute although the Statute has more
un-Roman features which are probably attributable to Slavonic influences . The Farmer’s Law provides for many similar contingencies as the Statute, e.g. murder, defamation and straying animals, but the penalties are much harsher than those of the Statute which tends to follow the Slavic practice of fining. The Statute contains a constitution, administrative law and procedure unlike the Farmer’s Law. In scope it almost approximates to the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata themselves^.8 The first part of the latter (Chapters I – XIX) dealt with Private Law, the second (Chapters XX to XXX) with Criminal Law, the third ( Chapters XXXI to XXXIII ) with Ecclesiastical Law, the fourth (Chapters XXXIV to XXXVI) with Agricultural Law and the last part ( Chapter XXXVII ) dealt with Maritime Law. Compared with this the Statute has more Public Law provisions, a less comprehensive Private and Criminal Law and no Ecclesiastical and Maritime Law.
(3) Venetian Law
The renaissance of Roman Law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had its impact in Venice and probably this extended to Split and possibly from thence to Poljica. The Charter of Split c. 1300 may have influenced the Statute, at least as regards the desirability of codifying the law.⁹ Also by the time of the Statute the Italians were becoming increasingly familiar with the Byzantine texts and in fact it was a Venetian nobleman, Antonio, who presented a copy of Basil I’s Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata to Francis I of France in the sixteenth century. Thus, slightly paradoxically, Venice may have acted as a source of dissemination of Byzantine ideas.
(4) Slavonic Law and Custom
We have already noted some specific Slavonic features. The full scope of Slavonic influence on law and administration in Medieval Eastern Europe is difficult to ascertain and the origin of some institutions, traditionally regarded as Slavonic, is not beyond dispute. It has been suggested for example, that the zadruga family group which prevailed in Poljica owes less to Slavonic custom than to Byzantine fiscal policy.¹⁰
Conclusion

The Statute depicts a Poljica in a period or social change. Indeed the very production or the Statute itself is evidence of that. Some Roman, Byzantine, Slavonic and Venetian influences may have been at work but the Statute at the end or the day probably represents a codification of local laws in which there are ‘remains or the past, which live only in memory, which are manifestly dying, which sometimes are already dead, and new rules with perspectives for the future’. ¹¹ In Weberan terms, the Statute is the product of a traditional system taking its first tentative step towards legal rationality. ¹² In terms of substance as opposed to form the Statute as we have seen has a number of striking features. These are the recognition of basic human rights, the Rule of Law and a sense of community identity which is beginning to assume separate legal personality with rights and duties. The curious patchwork character of the Statute reminds one of the aptness of Mr Justice Holmes’ remark that ‘The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious…,’ have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which man should be govern ed.’ (The Common Law p.l ) The content of the Poljica Statute reflects all of these influences at work in a small community which maintained effective autonomy until the nineteenth century.
NOTES
¹ This idea was put forward by the Russian academician M.P. Alekseev hi book of essays on English Literature, published in 1960.
² See: Theodore F.T. Plucknett. A Concise History of the Common Law, p.522.
³ De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, f. 5b.
⁴ F. W. Maitland, Select Essays, ed. by H. D. Hazeltine, G. Lapsley and P.H. Winfield, p. 233.
5 See: F. Tonnies, Community and Association
⁶ See E. H. Freshfield, A Manual of Later Roman Law -the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata, p. 216-7.
⁷ See Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 404 ff.
⁸ Cf. Chapters I to XXXVI of the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata in Freshfield, op. cit. pp. 70 et seq.
⁹ See: J .H. Wigmore, A Panorama of the World’s Legal Systems, pp. 758.
¹⁰ See Norman H. Baynes, The Byzantine Empire, p. 230.
¹¹ Boris Gekov, Politsa, p 87, cited in A. Kadic, The Democratic Spirit of the Poljica Commune in: Communal Families in the Balkans, ed. by R. Bymes, p. 203.
¹² See: Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. by Max Rheinstein
THE STATUTE OF POLJICA
translated by ALAN FERGUSON
Translator’s Foreword. The orthography of the Statute of Poljica poses considerable problems for the editor and translator. The ‘Bosancica’ in which it is written was a cursive form of the Cyrillic script, a variation widely used in Bosnia and Dalmatia from the 12th century. Although the language of the statute is not altogether dissimilar to the dialect of Croatian spoken in Poljica until modern times, the orthography of the original manuscripts differs from both Serbian Cyrillic and Old Church Slavonic. The statute was first published in 1859 by M. Mesic but appeared in an authoritative edition only in 1890. V. Jagic, who realised the statute’s historical importance and hence devoted much time and energy to preparing this edition, compiled it using the oldest preserved manuscripts, all in ‘Bosancica’, which he calculated to date from between 1567 and 1605. As the basic text was still incomplete he supplemented and, where necessary ,corrected it according to the texts of four later transcripts. Jagic’s edition contains 116 articles, or 206 when these are broken down into their individual paragraphs. To these he appended extracts from eighteenth-century redactions. Its most ancient section he considered to have dated from about 1440. Regrettably the exact year referred to in the statute’s heading was damaged in the oldest manuscript. He based this estimation on the assumption that on the eve of Poljica’s attachment to Venice in January 1444, its inhabitants would have wished to have their laws recorded, so that the county’s ancient rights and autonomy could be confirmed. As can be seen from this translation, various additions were made to the original text during later centuries. The statute remained valid as a whole until Poljica’s autonomy ceased in the early 19th century. A few years ago the statute was rendered into modern Croatian by Zvonimir Junkovic (Poljicki zbornik, Vol I.,.Zagreb 1968) and I have on occasion – though by no means always – found his rendition a useful guide. My impression on the whole was that Junkovic might have done much more to clarify the obscurities in the original text.
Finally 1 wish to express my thanks to Edo Pivcevic with whom I have discussed some of the more opaque terms and passages in the statute and who has suggested a number of minor alterations and improvements all of which have been incorporated in the final version of the translation.

IN THE NAME OF THE LORD GOD, AMEN. THE STATUTE OF POLJICA. THIS NEW STATUTE WE DO FORM FROM THE OLD, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 1440.

1. The first law of Poljica is to elect from among the nobles a prince who is both loyal to the doge and acceptable to Poljica.^l The law demands that he be chosen for one year and administer justice thrice and that on each such occasion he be given 30 rams, so that there be ninety of them in a year. Of these, three rams are to go to the officer of the district court as it is he who is to gather them.
2. Of the fines imposed by the prince and magistrates, one half accrues to the prince, one half to the district and to the officer of the district court one tenth of that.
3. Besides the prince there must be three sworn magistrates, from three tribes: one from the Tisemirs, a second from the Limices and a third from the Kremenicanins. Their term of office ends and they are replaced together with the prince.
4a. Poljica law determines that a man of Poljica may prosecute another initially only before the bench of Poljica -whatever the matter might be. And no other man may prosecute a man of Poljica save before the bench of Poljica when the matter relates to land within the region of Poljica.
4b. If he is dissatisfied with the decision in Poljica, he may go on to appeal, and that until the third term. The appeal of the man who fails to appeal until then is invalid in the term in which sentence is passed.
5a. He who has a case against another must summon him thrice, having taken a court officer from the prince or magistrates. At each session to which the other is summoned, the complainant must also appear. If he fails to appear, then his summons for that appearance is invalid.
5b. If the man summoned fails to respond in the first instance, he must pay 10 balanza. If he fails to respond in the second instance, he must pay one lira. If he is absent from the third session, and the summons was delivered to him at home, he loses the suit, unless it relates to joint estate.
6. When the time of the third summons is complete and the defendant appears, the plaintiff must present the grounds for his complaint. If the respondent’s case is to be put by an advocate and he says ‘He is not present’ , or says: ‘ Let me find an advocate! I can not speak on my own behalf’ – then, he shall be granted a period to find an advocate even after the third summons. If he finds an advocate in that time, he may speak on his behalf. If he does not find one, let him speak in his own defence; the law does not permit a further period being granted for this purpose.
7. If the defendant avers as part of his case ‘God forbid’ and, while in possession, says ‘It is mine, by God!’ -and if the complainant has no creditable evidence against him, he may take an oath to retain his property. If the complainant disputes that ‘God forbid’ and takes the officers of court to the place in question and he who says ‘God forbid’ is in possession – if the litigation concerns land, and if the disputed land is worth more than fifty lira….. (in the original manuscript a page is missing here )
On treason, pledges and assault
8. If a man is found a traitor to our land, that is, when a man surrenders himself and our land to another lord against the will of the other noble men of Poljica, then he is to be pronounced a traitor to our lords and our land, he is to be banished, the district of Poljica is to appropriate his estate and he is no longer to be considered a man of Poljica.
9. If a man binds himself before the prince and magistrates when charged with assault and if he designates anything as a pledge – if his pledge before the prince and magistrates is surrendered, half of the pledge accrues to the prince and the other half to the district of Poljica, having set aside the portion of the district court officer.
10. If during litigation before the prince and magistrates, a man should mention assault, that assault may not remain unpunished. Either he who is said to have committed it or he who mentions it must be punished.
Procurators may lay charges against a criminal and collect the tithe
11. The law demands that the district of Poljica appoint for a year three procurators from three tribes, one from each tribe, similarly magistrates to oversee district affairs.
12. Primarily to take responsibility for the tithe: to collect it in due time and deliver it within the stipulated period. Whoever fails to deliver it in time is to pay a fine of five lira and must still render the tithe.
13. They must seek out and prosecute anyone who commits an offence, namely: whoever sheds blood or plants a new grove without the permission of the prince of Poljica, whoever encloses an old road and creates a new one without the permission of the assembled princes; whoever assaults another and the assaulted person complains of this to a procurator or they see the affray with their own eyes; or if anyone in any way commits an act of violence and a complaint reaches the procurator, they have the right to lay charges and issue a summons on account of those things.
14. If a man is caught thieving in his own village, a noble man or a tenant, they may summon and prosecute him before the prince or the magistrates or the assembly. Of the fine imposed, the three procurators are to receive a quarter of that part which accrues to the district.
15. When a man commits theft in his own village, if he is of noble birth and found guilty by the assembly, three parts of the fine go to the district and the fourth to the procurators. If the thief in his own village is a tenant, three parts go to his lord the fourth to the district and to the procurators their portion.
16. If the thief calls character witnesses, by law no one connected with the theft may call the other party to take the oath. In any other case, anyone who does not call the other party to take the oath at the place of trial, may not by law subsequently do so.
17a. When anything is stolen from a dwelling and character witnesses are called because of that, the accused must swear twelfth. If the theft is out of doors and character witnesses are called, then sixth. If the matter is one of property, then he must also swear sixth.
17b. However if the oath is returned, the plaintiff who is called to take the oath must swear third. If a man summoned on account of property should not appear at the appointed time, then he must swear sixth, after witnesses, on his own property.
18. If anyone acquires movable property through litigation, an equal part accrues to the prince and the district of Poljica.
19. The prince of Poljica resolves with all other men of Poljica as follows: if a man appeals against a decision of the prince and of Poljica, and if the appellant fails to summon the man in whose favour sentence was passed within a month, his appeal is invalid.
Written in the year of Our Lord 1475, the 5th day of August.
20. Whoever is duke of Poljica need pay no tax save the tithe, any fines and head-tax when due to the Turks, He may not be exempt from this, but from all else each duke is exempt.
21. Poljica has resolved that four vlastela-nobles and nine didici-nobles ² – whatever complaint comes before the magistrates, whether made to the procurators or themselves – that they should investigate everything concerning property. But regarding joint estate (plemenscina) if anyone should make to commit an unlawful act, those magistrates should forestall and consider it. The fine for anyone committing assault is 25 lira.
22. If anyone brings a complaint against a tenant, he must initially complain before the other’s lord during the first session. If that man’s lord should not pass judgement in keeping with the law, he may be summoned before these magistrates and jurors. If that man’s lord should not wish to pronounce sentence, the aggrieved party should appear before the jurors and summon the accused.
On captivity
23a. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed and command all vlastela-nobles and didici- nobles and tenants and herdsmen ³ : Whoever is found engaging in hostilities with the Turks or their frontiersmen, if he be of the didici or the vlastela, must be caught and hanged, all his movables accrue to the district, but his joint estate to his next-of-kin; a tenant or herdsman found fighting with the Turks or their frontiersmen must be caught and hanged, half of his
property goes to the district and the other half to his lord. By this it is intended that whosoever personally participates in such activity must lose his head, but the rest of his household need not lose theirs.
Vlastela-nobles, didici-nobles and tenants have agreed on the aforesaid: that for everyone committing that offence the penalty should be the same – as written above.
23b. In fine, whichever man of Poljica, no matter what his birth, takes prisoners with the Turks or their frontiersman or surrenders to the Turks or of his own volition joins the Turks, he must needs lose his head, as written above, and his property accrues to the district. If he possesses joint estate, it accrues to his next-of-kin. If he is a tenant, then a half of his property accrues to his lord and the rest to the district.
24. The following was resolved by the men of Poljica at an assembly of all the vlastela-nobles and the entire district of Poljica, thus and in this manner: Four of the vlastela-nobles and four of the didici-nobles are to be appointed for three months, to be replaced after three months by others, so that there should constantly be eight of the above-mentioned. Should an injustice be done against anyone, three days every month he may summon the accused before them. If he does not come at the first summons, he is to pay 10 balanza. If he does not come at the second summons, he is to pay another 10 balanza. If he does not come at the third summons, he loses the suit.
25. This likewise was jointly resolved by the assembled men of Poljica: no man of Poljica may keep a Wallachian in Poljica if he can not keep him on his (property) and at his own (expense) and if they have not made a voluntary agreement to that effect.
26. All men of Poljica have agreed together: Should a man of Poljica kill a man approaching Poljica with the apparent intention of committing a misdeed in Poljica, all Poljica is bound to pay for him. Or, if a man should find a thief on his own property or on the property of some other man of Poljica and kill the thief as he is stealing or removing the stolen goods, all Poljica is bound to pay for him. Or, if a man should kill a brigand who is about to rob him and should kill him in self-defence – Poljica pays for him too. But if a man of Poljica should quarrel, argue with and murder another man of Poljica, Poljica does not pay for him.
27. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed that no man of Poljica is permitted or able to sustain an alien against another man of Poljica if there is litigation for joint estate. Whoever, notwithstanding, does sustain an alien, is to pay a fine of 50 lira.
If a man is assaulted
28. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed: any man of Poljica who assaults another man of Poljica, – if the victim of the assault in defending himself should injure the assailant, then the injured man must still be paid for his injury, but the original assailant must pay the district of Poljica as much as is paid to him for the injury.
29. The men of Poljica have agreed among themselves: Should any man of Poljica commit abduction, as written above, and be caught or killed by another man of Poljica, then all Poljica takes this upon itself. Should any other threaten the latter because of this, he is to receive the same punishment as the criminal and is to be treated in like manner to the first.
* In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. In the 1482nd year after His birth, on the fourteenth of February. The noble Duje Papalic arose and made a tour of Poljica for the first time with his magistrates and the entire court, administered justice according to the law and encompassed all Poljica and its borders which are from of old.
Beginning in the West, where the river Zrnovnica flows into the sea, the frontier goes up the first hill Stojni Kamen, beneath Kamin straight towards the sea, up the river Vrelo Zrnovnice towards Pecine, the frontier goes from Oslji ridge. the frontier is the water Srdenik, Pec on Krivice, the frontier is in Kucisca, the frontier is in Konjevod, the frontier is Trnova Kamenica, Hanging Oak, by which is the frontier Vladavic’s Grove, the hill Samolek. Little Konacnik, Cetina by Gardun. The frontier then goes down the Cetina, immediately beneath the village of Caporice, by the village of Ugljani, down the Cetina or midstream to Blato of Radobilja, down the river by Kresevo, by the village of Katuni, continuing downstream to Perucica, to the fortress of Zadvarje, downstream by Slimen to Kucici, downstream by Miric, Visec, Medvija, downstream to before the walls of Omis. The frontier then joins the sea and continues down the coast to Stobrec or into the river Zrnovnica.
30. In the year of Our Lord 1485, the 30th day of the month of December. In God’s name, amen. By joint agreement Poljica has created and enacted its statute and its laws, having first approved and confirmed the laws and customs contained in the charters and instruments of previous lords and the privileges endorsed by our present illustrious Venetian government.
Table of Contents
First, church matters.
Benefactions, endowments. Anathema. Murders. Killing. Brigandage. Robbery. Assault. Slaughter. Penalties for injuries or bruises. Burglary. Wife-beating. The abuse of woman. Obduracy concerning joint estate and other matters. The penalty for assault. The penalty for brigandage. The penalty for insult or suchlike or for securities. On joint estates and those owning them on the purchase and sale of joint estates; on the pledging of joint estates. On movable property. He who betrays or is untrue to his country. He who is unjustly accused of treason, but found to be innocent. The law on groves and pasture. or on groves already grazed. Old laws deriving from other lords and confirmed in the charters of our lords. The laws on grazing-fees and unharvested vineyards; then on those harvested, but in winter. On fields, kitchen-gardens, mown fields or woods cultivated for acorns.
Church matters
31. Church benefactions and endowments must be safeguarded and should be given priority over all other. No one may take or acquire that which is the church’s or retain it. Tithes must be paid as the holy father has confirmed and as it is written.
On anathema
32. In like manner whoever in his misfortune is publicly anathematized and excommunicated may not communicate or live with other people, save the household where he has his dwelling. Should death overtake him thus anathematized, he may not be interred with other Christians but elsewhere. To whomsoever should be confirmed a public usurer or should not make confession at least once a year, and be thus overtaken by death, and to whomsoever – God forbid! – should take his own life, the same applies.
On severance
33. When there is severance between brothers or cousins, the sons of one father or kinsfolk among whom severance is rightly to be made, it is easy to divide justly if the property is movable. However, if there be payment or reward from the lords, it belongs to the person to whom it is allotted.
If the matter is one of joint estate, it must be divided equally, but the home hearth must pass to the younger. When severance has been made justly, each is bound to retain his own. Should they make subsequent division or allotment, each may divide and re-measure freely whenever he pleases. However, each is free to remain on land drawn his by lot.
For as long as brothers or other fellow estate-holders do not separate, all is common to them, good and evil, gain and loss, debts which are owed by or to them; all is common to them until they separate. But when they separate, then to each belongs his own portion.
Chapter on litigation
34. Before all other, when a man has a dispute with, or case against another, and one party has already summoned the other according to the law – whether the matter concerns joint estate or anything else – then he who is charged first may not lay a complaint against the other or summon him until the first suit is completed. That is, it is forbidden for litigations to run concurrently or for one to interfere with another. This applies when the second party does not wish to respond. If he should begin to respond and enter litigation, that is if the first case is so old as to have passed into oblivion, then it is permitted. Regardless of this right, should the original complainant in the meantime commit some violent, unlawful or self-willed act against the defendant, the latter may then lay charges and speak against him -irrespective of the first case. He may lay charges and institute proceedings against him on account of that violent or unlawful action but he may not answer force with force.
On quarrels and affrays
35a. If a man quarrels with another and they pluck each other’s hair and fight, but this causes no injury or bruising, then he who started the fight pays a fine of 25 lira.
If a man provokes another to fight, then the original provoker must pay a fine of 25 lira.
All else relating to affrays or injuries is dealt with under ‘Hand’.
If bruising is caused, the fine totals 5 lira.
When a wound is caused by a weapon or in some other way and the wound is covered by clothing, 25 lira are paid for each such wound.
If the wound is to the face or arm and not covered by clothing, 50 lira are paid for such a wound.
If it is neither the one nor the other and clothing covers part but not all of it, the case is to be considered on its merits.
If a man maims another’s arm, and one of the latter’s arms, legs or even eyes should be injured, each separate injury totals one half of the fine for murder, which is 120 lira.
On injuries
35b. When two such limbs are lost, then twice as much is to be paid. If three, thrice. If four, four times. If five, five times. If as many as all six and the man does not so die. then the same calculation applies. And it is confirmed by law that there be fines greater than that for murder, as a crippled life is worse and more difficult for a man than immediate death.
Otherwise, when such events occur as are extremely complex, they must be examined by appraisers – in part according to the law, in part according to their own mind and conscience, considering in this why the deed was done and to what purpose.
On injuries to the hand
35c. When a finger is lost, as much is to be paid for a thumb as for half a hand, which is 60 lira. The value of the one must be set so much higher than the other as it is so much more valuable. If a limb is partially lost, the case must be treated on its merits: it must be examined.
Half as much is to be paid for toes as for fingers; for the big toe similarly half, and for all the rest half.
It should be considered where and in what place the event occurred. in what circumstances and for what reason, as by no means all events can be cited, but to an extent one must judge according to one’s conscience.
When a tooth is knocked out in a fight, the fine is 50 lira.
When a nose is severed, the law demands that 50 lira first be paid for the wound, then the same amount for disfigurement of the face, which is 100 lira.
This applies to each limb when there is disfigurement and a wound. When an ear is severed, 50 lira are to be paid.
If an ear be rendered deaf by a blow, 50 lira are to be paid. If it is severed and rendered deaf, then 100 lira are to be paid.
On blood
36a. If a man kills his brother – which God forbid! – he may no longer be considered a man of Poljica, and his share of the inheritance, if there be any, is inherited by his next-of-kin, to whom it accrues as patrimony, as though the other had died. if the man is still to be found in Poljica, all Poljica must pursue and slay him.
36 b. If a man kills his brother or cousin and is subsequently found in Poljica, he must be pursued with a vigour proportionate to the closeness of their kinship.
36 c. If a man kills a relative or other kinsman ⁴ In order to acquire joint estate accruing to him as patrimony, that part of it may not accrue to the murderer but to whomsoever the tribe may determine.
If the murdered man has one or several daughters, the joint estate passes to them.
36d. If a man of Poljica should by misadventure kill another in Poljica or elsewhere, the same applies.
36e. If a man of Poljica kills an alien in vengeance, Poljica must stand behind him.
36f. If the matter is not one of revenge, it is the affair of the man who spills the blood.
36g. If an alien kills a man of Poljica, he must be pursued by Poljica. unless it was in vengeance. If it is because of previous hostility Poljica need not pursue him.
36h. If an alien kills or injures another alien in Poljica. Poljica is not to. interfere in the matter.
On blood
37a. When mortal blood falls, the old law demands that the penalty for it be 240 lira. This presumes two men quarreling and one of them killing the other.
37b. When a man kills another in a criminal manner or by artifice or from an ambush, or kills him for property or other profit, or robs him once having killed him – the law demands that the penalty in such a case be twice as great. If such a criminal or robber can be caught, whether a man of Poljica or an alien, he must be hanged or quartered.
On blood
37c. If a man kills another in hand-to-hand combat ^5, while grappling, and the cause is not previously unavenged blood or suchlike, then for such blood as the victim sheds, fatal or not, Poljica is to pay.
37d. That apart, if a man sheds blood, mortal or not, on his own land or in his own dwelling while another robs him, the same law applies to him. Whether by cattle or elsewhere, the law is the same. If over wheat or in a vineyard or over other fruit, the law also applies that Poljica is to pay for it. If the thief is caught in the act, he must certainly be hanged, as is written below concerning robbery.
37e. Likewise, when a man kills another having broken into his dwelling, he must pay for the blood shed and the burglary.
37f. If he assaults members of the household or commits some other act of violence in the dwelling, this is spoken of below.
On convalescence after an affray
38. When, following an affray, a man convalesces and loses several days, there is no law for that save what might be awarded him by arbiters.
39a. If a man of Poljica seizes a noble man by the hair and casts him to the ground, and that is not an act of vengeance, namely, for no just reason, – if he disgraces him in such a way, he must pay him the injury fine of 120 lira. This applies if the latter does not pluck his hair also; if he does pluck his hair, this is considered retaliation. But the instigator is the culpable party. This applies to noble men.
39b. If a tenant so disgraces a noble man, the penalty is greater.
39c. If a tenant raises his hand against his lord. he loses his right hand.
40. In fine, whatever the injury, one or several. and in whatever place, by law Poljica has determined thus: Inasmuch as there be no other agreement or settlement between those concerned, then, those who estimate damages must see, examine and, after consideration, make their estimation – in part according to the law and custom, in part according to their own mind and conscience. As all cases can not be fully and entirely legislated for, evaluated and foreseen neither can all eventualities be included in the statute, but which injury is more serious or severe or dangerous to life must be established and appraised, namely, which injuries cause more serious illness or hardship, or expense in medicines and damage. Then, when it happens that bones or lungs or brains or any other parts of the body be rendered visible – all this must be investigated and assessed, as not everything can be cited individually as we have already written.
41a. If a man molests or robs another on the highway or elsewhere or sets an ambush for him, and the latter has done him no wrong, then a fine of 100 lira is to be paid; half goes to the other party and the other half to the district of Poljica. The stolen property must first be returned. However, if he strikes or injures him, the law cited above speaks of this. If he kills him on the spot, he pays two death fines, as above-written in connection with crime.
41b. If the victim does anything in self-defence while on the ground, Poljica pays for it, as was said previously.
On beating women
42. If a man beats the wife or sister or daughter of any man without real provocation on their part, he is to pay twice the fine for assault, which is 50 lira.
If he breaks into a dwelling and commits this act in the dwelling or the courtyard, he is to pay twice as much again, which is 100 lira.
On the malediction of men by women
43. If a woman rains curses on another, he is not permitted to strike her, but to make reply. However, if a woman comes upon another to strike or assault, to pluck or fight him, and he has given no real provocation and is innocent – if he drives her to her dwelling with a stick, nothing is to be paid.
Fines
44. The fine for assault is 25 lira. The fine for insults 10 lira.
The fine for brlgandage 100 lira.
The pledge-fine -for as much as a man has rightly bound himself by law.
The fine for cursing. Whoever curses his fellow without just cause is to pay 5 lira. If a tenant curses a noble man, twice as much. When a tenant curses his lord, his tongue should be severed or redeemed in the sum of 100 lira.
45. When in litigation a man mentions assault or makes a charge on account of assault, the fine for assault, which totals 25 lira, may not go unpaid by the litigants. If the guilt of the accused is shewn, then he pays. If it is not shewn but confirmed that the accused is innocent, then the fine again falls on the man who mentioned assault and complained without justification.
On burglary
46. In the old times the fine and law for burglary was so very great and serious that no one could pay it with facility. Now Poljica has formulated and enacted a milder law, that is 100 lira. Irrespective of all else that happens during the offence, that fine is to be paid for the burglary alone.
47. In the year of Our Lord 1476, on the 20th day of November, at Vraci when Poljica was
assembled, it determined, enacted and thus recorded in its statute as follows: When any land is pledged, part of the income from it must be given to the lord who pledged it, so that a half of the income from the part to which he has a right be given to him. Which means: when the land is divided in twain, he must be given a quarter of it, when in three, a sixth of it must be given; and when in four, an eighth is given: and when in five, a tenth part of it is given, and so on after the same fashion.
On the notary
48. This year, 1485 since the birth of Christ, on the 18th day of July, Poljica determined that it should maintain a sworn district notary, who should receive annually 20 rams or 39 balanza for each ram, so that three- year rams are reckoned four thirds. For an instrument from the notary’ s ledger he receives 5 balanza, for a judgement sealed on cotton parchment 10 balanza, and for a sentence revised by the bench one lira. He is moreover exempt from all taxes save the head tax.
Chapter on patrimony
49a. The law on patrimony declares thus: He who possesses ancient patrimony which comes down to him from his forbears, must cultivate, enjoy or otherwise draw his livelihood from it. It is not honourable for it to be squandered and wasted without great need, but – as the old law and custom prescribe – let him leave it as he found it.
But whatever a man finds and acquires, or assembles or earns separately or in any other way gains himself and obtains through his own endeavours, – the old law determines that he be allowed freely to do with it whatever he wishes – at the moment of death or during his life, for his body or soul. Which means that what a man finds or wins or acquires for himself – apart from his share of patrimony, be there one or several such parts – he may dispose of freely: just as he acquired, so may he freely arrange it as he sees fit.
49b. Let this be stated moreover: When a man is on his deathbed and has several children or heirs to whom he is bequeathing his property, he is allowed to do with it whatever he wishes. But, even at the point of death, he should not at the expense of one leave all to another, and deprive the first of everything, but should act justly and honourably. That applies to the death-bed. However, while a man is alive and well he may freely dispose of all that he has.
The law on sons and fathers
49c. There are only thirteen reasons for which a father may in conscience deprive his sons of patrimony: 1. when a son raises his hand against his parents; 2. when he personally brings disgrace upon them; 3. when he accuses them of an unworthy deed not directed against the faith or the temporal ruler; 4. when he is a criminal or associates with criminals; 5. when he attempts to take his parents’ lives, either with poison or by some other means; 6. when he profanes his father’s bed; 7. when, by going to law, he causes his parents great expense; 8. when he will not vouch his father in captivity; 9. when he obstructs his parents in taking their last decision; 10. when he engages in a dishonourable or humiliating profession which his parent did not engage in, if for instance he be on the stage, that is an actor, or suchlike; 11. when a daughter or grand-daughter who is not yet 25 and may marry chooses a dishonest life: 12. when he does not nurse a parent who has lost his reason 13. when he does not attempt to redeem him if he is in captivity.
These are the reasons for which parents may deprive children of their patrimony or dowry .
What are immovables and what movables
50a. Whatever can be easily moved is called movables. What can not be moved from its position is stable or immovables, that is: land or a dwelling, a stone building or two-storey building, or a village hut which is sturdy, or a church, tower or cave.
50b. These are immovable or stable things, and all else is called movables: a loosely-built thatched hut could not be called other than a movable object. But a mill or watercourse is an immovable object.
All else in the world is called movable, as it can easily be moved from its position.
50c. A spring which never runs dry is said to be stable and immovable.
But a well dug by hand is a movable object.
And all else in the world is movable, as it is moved easily: that is why it is called movable.
On the sale of joint estate
51a. Before all other, the old law prescribes that joint estate may not be sold or pledged secretly, that is covertly, especially without the knowledge cf one’s kinsmen, but must be sold openly, in the light of day, and be first offered to one’s kinsmen. The old law of Poljica prescribes that he who would sell must first declare this at three assemblies or in the prince’s presence for three terms, saying: ‘I intend to sell this; if one of my kinsmen wishes to purchase it, let him approach me; if he will not, I shall sell to whom I can:
51b. He who sells joint estate may not again redeem it, Poljica, however, has now established that a kinsman may redeem it within one year.
51c. If there is a member of one’s tribe more closely related than the man who redeemed the joint estate, he may redeem it from him.
51d. If both are equally related to the original vendor or there are several who are equally related to him, they must redeem it in such proportion and in the same way as they divide their own joint estate.
51e. In fine, if it is desired that the sale be valid and lawful, just appraisers must make an evaluation and, according to their conscience, assess and determine the value of that joint estate.
On exchange
52a. When two men exchange an animal, for instance a horse or an ox or some other animal, for either clothing or some other movable object, when they exchange, with or without supplement, and both are satisfied and each of them goes home and sleeps one night thereafter, – they may not revoke the exchange or re-exchange unless it is the wish of them both or unless some fraud is involved. The exception is when there is some contract or agreement concerning a trial period, or some other understanding or fixed term.
52b. If a man should exchange with another one or several parts of his joint estate, reciprocally, without supplement, the exchange must be made publicly, in the light of day, and he is permitted to exchange with whomsoever he pleases. However, if before the exchange is made and confirmed, one of any of the parties’ kinsmen should appear and declare: ‘Brother, I shall give thee in exchange the same amount of such land, do though exchange with me!’ – he may not then be refused.
52c. However, once they have exchanged and measured each other’s land and confirmed it in writing or through court officers, if both are satisfied with the exchange and if there has been no artifice or concealment or deception, and if supplementary payment in money or in kind has been made, then according to Poljica law a kinsman may redeem it at the price for which it was sold, for one year.
Law on chickens
53. A chicken in a vineyard must lose its head; it should be slaughtered and eaten. And if it scratches around a dwelling, it may be slaughtered.
Law on kitchen-gardens
54a. The same law applies for a garden as for a vineyard. If any animal does damage in it at a time when vegetables are being cultivated, then a small animal may be slaughtered. But a garden should first be well and completely enclosed, and then the owner of the garden is to declare the damage being caused to it. Thereafter he may slaughter a small animal and catch a greater one.
54b. A pig may be slaughtered, as may also a goat or sheep. If the damage done to the garden be great, a goat, sheep and pig may be slaughtered and eaten, as also they may be in a vineyard.
54c. When chickens do damage in a garden or vineyard, then the owner, having made it known, may slaughter and eat one, even if there be several of them, If there is a cockerel in their number, then he may slaughter another hen, but not the cockerel.
54d. If this happens in wheat which chickens may otherwise peck, the owner of the wheat must make it known and then slaughter. If the owner of the wheat is willing to give one quarter of his bran to the owner of the chickens, he may whenever he happens upon a chicken slaughter and eat it.
When a man betrays his lords
55a. In the name of God, amen. Let this be known. At an assembly of Poljica at Ma(j)cin ⁶, there did all of one mind and unanimously, both vlastela-nobles and didici-nobles, all as one determine and enact thus: If it be established of any man – be he of the vlastela or didici, or a friar or any other man no matter what his estate – that he personally or through some other in writing or in speech did slander or revoke obedience to our most illustrious Venetian lords or their governors and against our land, of whom this be established, he may in no way – with no mercy and irrespective of the appeals of any other man on this earth – receive any other punishment but must be burned with fire; thus and in no other way.
55b. All unanimously determined and enacted and cleaved with faith and soul that no one may be pardoned this, once it has been established. That apart, if another should assist him in this or sustain his cause because of kinship or any other attachment, he is to share his fate.
55c. If a man betrays the council of Poljica. he is a treacherous person and a traitor to Poljica.
55d. If a man refutes or opposes what the assembly of Poljica does and determines, he must be sentenced to pay 25 lira to the district of Poljica, and, notwithstanding, it is to be as the assembly resolves.
On groves and pastures
56a. Villages which have their own particular pastures, separated from other villages by boundaries, and which have their own ancient and lawful groves which are customarily tended for a given period and protected from both neighbouring villages and among themselves by fellow-peasants for a given period, according to the arrangement and law which applies in that village, the neighbouring and any other village – every such village must tend its groves and impound cattle as the law which applies everywhere determines: that each village may tend its groves and protect them from each other until they be grazed by oxen and until barren cattle be driven in; and once the grass has been grazed and other cattle let in, it is then to be considered pasture where there is no grove.
On such grazed land and where there is pasture and no grove, no one may deny a neighbouring village the right to graze it – unless it be more than three villages removed – but it must be free, as the law prescribes everywhere.
On groves and land given over to grazing
56b. When a man from the other side of another pasture wishes to graze his cattle, it can be forbidden and his cattle impounded, as is customary. This refers to groves which are ancient and lawful, and applies to peasants of both the one village and the other. Or, when a man possesses a particular part of a grove, either set apart or separated from the other village, or when an entire grove is divided into greater or lesser parts, then clearly no peasant of the one village or the other may commit a mischief or an unlawful act.
56c. No individual person or village may create a new grove or plant what has not been a grove since ancient times, save if the prince, magistrates and whole court have consented to it in the proper manner.
On pastures
57. Neighbour may not deny neighbour pasturage, as has been said. Notwithstanding, neither should dwellings be constructed deliberately near another boundary so as to be able the more easily to exploit the other pasture. There should be no acts of lawlessness or mischief in this connection.
58. No one may found a new village; except when the entire village belongs to one man, in which case he may settle more people on his own estate.
Or unless all the members of a village assemble and are jointly and unanimously agreed, when they may erect in their village whatever they please – except a fortress, or new customs house, or store, or some other new object directed against the district.
The law on the partition of groves and pastures among villagers
59a. When it happens that some village wishes to partition a grove or pasture among its inhabitants, that is when they are unable or unwilling to graze or hold them communally, that is where one or several of them from that village seek the part which may belong to them, or even should the entire village decide to be partitioned and see what is whose:
First, that which is pasture, where there is no grove, may not be partitioned among the fellow – villagers, as a peasant may not in this way be denied the right to graze, and not only a peasant of the same village moreover, but a neighbouring village may not be denied the right to graze the pasture if it is not more than three pastures removed, as was said earlier.
That which is grove must be partitioned thus and in this way: If tribal relationships and the proportions of joint estate which belong to the peasants according to tribal relationships and their individual portion of the patrimony be known, then, no other method of partitioning the groves need be sought save according to correct tribal relationships, how many individuals, and how much land around the dwellings and joint estate there are: as much of the patrimony as belongs to each according to tribal relationships, a corresponding portion of the grove must belong to him. However, if the tribal relationship among the partakers of the joint estate is not known and can not be ascertained, which happens when in a village there are several partakers, then, the grove must be partitioned as follows: the first and basic principle from time immemorial has been that they should receive a portion of the grove corresponding to the amount of plantations and land around dwellings belonging to them according to old and lawful partitions.
On pasture
59b. Notwithstanding, if it is established in the correct and proper manner that some land on which a dwelling or courtyard stands was properly inherited, correctly and honourably, even if this does not go back a long time, in such a case the fact that each man must live must in some way be taken into consideration. As there is nothing that has existed for all time.
On plough-lands
59c. If a man has plough-land or several strips of it in some village or on the territory of that village, but has no plantations or land around his dwelling, then, while he ploughs and cultivates those lands, he may graze oxen in the grove, until the peasant is re-shod ⁷, and that in the grove of the village, where the nearest village grove is.
59d. Following all that is written above: the law and custom are to be employed but, to an extent. good reason also, which depends on those who are appointed for that purpose.
Chapter on stray cattle
60a. The law determines thus: animals may not be let onto the tilled fields of another where they might do damage. If an animal is found doing damage to tilled ground, the law determines thus: especially large cattle, that is oxen, horses and donkeys, when found in a vineyard in winter or while there are no grapes, then for each head one dinar is to be paid; for lesser cattle, one balanza is to be paid for each head.
60b. That apart, Poljica has decreed that a man who deliberately drives heavy cattle into a vineyard by night is to pay double. If he will not be corrected, then let a piece be cut from the tail of one of his animals. If even then he does not refrain, let it be slaughtered.
When grapes appear – from as soon as the shoots appear until the grape harvest goats and sheep are to lose their head. That apart, If a goat eats of fruit trees, even in winter it is to lose its head. Heavy cattle must be driven off and the damage assessed. If this happens to wheat, the law demands that heavy cattle be caught and the damage assessed, but small cattle are to be kept until the damage is assessed.
The law on swine
60c. The law determines that swine may be killed. When a pig is found in wheat which has not yet sprouted, then the wheat farmer may kill it and take it to the place where it has dug and leave it there. If the wheat is in the ear, he may kill and eat it. The pig, thus, has a double weapon: scythe and mattock. If it is found in a vineyard during the grape-season, then as has been said, he may kill and eat it.
60d. If it is a sow with young or a herd of swine, a man is not permitted to kill the best pig or sow, but another leaner or smaller one, and that, each time he finds them, one only. If it is a fattened pig, and there are other smaller ones, he may not kill it, but another one, If he finds only a fattened pig and no others, he must first make it known before witnesses, and then if he catches it again, he may kill and eat it – whether in a wheat-field or a vineyard. If he whose the pig is has a lord to whom he must show the head of that pig, then its head must be left for him, but the other may use the rest of the pig for himself. But it must first be proved that traces of grapes or of wheat, if it has been in wheat, have actually been found in its stomach.
60e. This applies until the wheat has begun to be carted along the highway, or until the unthreshed wheat is carried in sheaves by some other method. Once the wheat has begun to be carted along the highway, such a trace means nothing until the wheat has been treated.
On guarantees
61. A man may vouch for another in matters of joint estate, movables, blood or any other thing – there may be guarantee. But the old law stipulates that a guarantee may not be revoked.
Which means: a guarantee may be of such a kind and in such a place that the other party may justly press the guarantor. This is why it is said that a guarantee may not be revoked. As no one is bound to do the impossible.
On joint estates
62. He who holds joint estate may not be deprived of possession without litigation. If he has held the property peaceably without complaint for 30 years, he may not be disquieted and charged concerning it. But if brethren, closely related or not, or kinsmen are involved, it can never be honourable. But among fellow tribesmen, tribal kinship may always be established, and – should anyone consider himself aggrieved – assessment based on tribal kinship can be made and in any case litigation instituted, when it relates to joint estate belonging to fellow tribesmen.
63a. When a man lawfully charges another concerning joint estate, great or small, he must first summon him according to the law and custom of Poljica when the prince is making his circuit of the district. For, unless both parties so wish, none other than the prince and magistrates may be involved in matters of joint estate. Then, as the prince is making his circuit, the accused must be summoned at his abode in the presence of a court officer, as has been said, with the words: ‘I do summon thee to the session (then mentioned), to respond to what I shall speak against thee.’ If the other responds to the summons, then it is in order. But if he says. ‘Summon me according to the law!’ -then he must be summoned in three sessions.
63b. If, when all three summonses have been issued, he seeks time to find an advocate, this must be allowed him according to the law until the third session. Once he has begun to make reply, he who is in possession, or the advocate in his stead, freely says: ‘What and where is the matter with which thou dost charge me?’ Then they must go according to the law with the court officer to the place in question, make a tour of the boundaries and explain to him what he is charged with. When they come before the court again and either party testifies saying: ‘I have proofs’, -according to the law a period apart from the session must be determined for the evidence. According to the law such periods may be requested and no one may be denied the right to them. However, apart from the law, there may appear and arise such reasons as would justify a period rightly being sought, – in which case it stands to the reason and conscience of those who decide, to assess whether such a period is being sought with just cause or whether he who is requesting it is merely procrastinating to prevent justice, which must be meted out equally to all, being done.
On appeals
64. If a man disagrees with a decision taken by the Poljica communal assembly, he may take the matter further and appeal before the prince of Poljica when he is making his circuit. It depends on his will whether he wishes to grant appeal before the next assembly.
If this happens during the prince’s tour, while the prince is making his circuit, he may appeal before the lord prince of Split. Until the third session it depends on his will whether appeal is to be granted.
65. When the district procurator is bringing charges, no one may appeal in matters concerning violence or depravity, but according to the law he must take the oath sixth; only if the matter is one of fraud or deceit must it be investigated. Appeal is not allowed concerning theft, and when character witnesses have for any reason been accepted, appeal may not then be permitted either.
66. What has been said of appeals applies to the noble men of Poljica; that is, if a man conducts a law-suit against a noble man of Poljica, what has been said is still valid. But if anyone has a case against a tenant who has his own lords and whose competent judge is his lord, he must be charged before his lord, and if the latter passes sentence on him, it is good. But if he will not pass sentence on him, he must then charge the lord who will not pass sentence, before the assembly. If even then he will not, he may take the matter further to have his right honoured. If the lord to whom the man belongs does pass sentence in the dispute between them, that is between his own man and the complainant – if then the man who belongs to that lord is not satisfied with it, he may not appeal against it anywhere for as long as he remains his man and subject to him, but the lord’s judgement must be completely executed and fulfilled. However, if he ever leaves him, he may take legal action inasfar as anything incorrect and unjust has been done against him. But, if the original complainant is dissatisfied. he who is taking action against the man who has a lord and is displeased at the decision and judgement passed by that man’s lord, may take the matter further and appeal before the magistrates and other nobles and the Poljica communal assembly, if the matter relates to movables. If it relates to joint estate, then before the prince of Poljica, and after that, if it should be necessary, before the lord
prince of Split. Which means: if he appeals in this way, he must make a complaint against that mans lord who did not pass judgement to the other’s complete satisfaction against his own man, However, if the complainant again wins his case, the lord does not pay of his own, but of the means of his own man who has been found guilty.
On court officers
67a. Court officers are those through whom according to the law summonses are issued and justice sought and who conduct all other matters and business between people concerning character witnesses, sales, contracts and witnesses. The word of court officers who are just and trustworthy, particularly sworn officers, is as valid as a written deed, they are dependable when there are several of them and they agree in their testimony. If there is a sworn court
officer among them, so much the better, and if they fulfil their officers’ duty in harmony and concord, then it is dependable, unless any deceit or fraud is discovered.
67b. When a court officer performs his duty when called to do so by one party and the other party is present, says nothing and does not rebut his testimony, it means that he accepts it, whether it concerns joint estate or any other matter. If the other party wishes to find fault with and rebut it, he may do so only while the other is performing his duty and still on his feet. But, if the court officer, once having fulfilled his duty, retakes his seat in court, he may not be called to rise again and be rebutted.
67c. If a man rebuts a court officer, particularly a sworn officer, and proves that he has given false testimony, the old law decrees that three of his ribs be cut out and that he be no longer trustworthy in anything. If the man who rebutted him does not substantiate it and it is found that the officer was in the right, the penalty then falls on the man who accused him falsely.
However, Poljica has now carried and enacted a milder law. If the officer is rebutted and proved guilty, he is to pay the death tax; one half goes to the other party and the second half to the district of Poljica. If it is not proved but he is confirmed to have been in the right, then it falls on the man who rebutted him unjustly; one half goes to the other party and the second half to the district of Poljica.
On court officers
68a. For a court officer the law is: of everything on account of which a charge is brought through a court officer, whichever type of officer he may be, of that which is judged upon by the court and proved, whether joint estate or any other thing, one tenth accrues to the court officer. If several court officers participate in a case, then one tenth accrues to all of them jointly. If the court officer is a sworn one, and there are several other court officers beside him, then the sworn officer receives one half of the tenth, and all the rest the other half.
68b. Still concerning penalties. One tenth of every penalty, as of other property involved, accrues to the court officer. If there are several of them, then as has been said.
In like manner, the court officer is to receive one tenth of the investigation fee, of any penalty for obstructing him, of the penalty when anyone is banished for such a reason. And of any levy-fee if a man does not pay a fine willingly , one tenth goes to the court officer. And of betrothals which are made and acknowledged through the court officer, one tenth accrues to him. And of all other matters and affairs in which he participates one tenth belongs to him, unless there is another contract for the execution of his duties.
In like manner, when the matter is one of joint estate, from the party which wins the suit and part of such estate, the court officer is to receive a tenth part. The court officer must be re-imbursed by the successful party. If the matter concerns other, movable property, then he who complains and wins the suit – whether it concerns a debt or some other matter – then the successful party must obtain everything intact, and he who was unwilling to pay without litigation, must re-imburse the court officer from his own means.
68c. What has been said of the court officer and the execution of his duties applies as much during the prince’s circuit as otherwise, both for the prince’s officer and for any other court officer.
68d. What has been entered here concerning the officer’s duties and the tenth part which accrues to the court officer, applies primarily to suits among men of Poljica. But if the suit is one between an alien and a man of Poljica, in any event an alien who wins a suit is to pay the officer of court one tenth. If the suit is between two aliens in Poljica, the duties of the officer of court are executed the same as in one between men of Poljica.
68. The foregoing relates to an officer of court’s duties when justice is sought by way of law; one tenth then accrues to the officer of court. However, if the case is one of arbitration and is conducted before arbitrating magistrates, the officer of court’s duties must also be arbitrary, which means that a half of one tenth is to be given, and paid by the party which gains more and is awarded more than it formerly had or possessed.
On debts and summonses
69a. If a man owes another property, great or small, no one may of his own will force another to pay if the matter does not concern his man. As no one may administer justice himself. However, if he finds his debtor at an assembly or during the prince’s circuit, he may then bring charges against him, and the other must there reply. If the other’s guilt is then proved, he may request the court officer to collect his debt if the debtor does not himself pay willingly.
69b. If a man is summoned from his home, he must be summoned through a sworn court officer or through another court officer when this has been sought from the prince or magistrates, or in the same way from a magistrate during the prince’s circuit. And then any man may at any time take an officer of court from the magistrate, or, if there are several magistrates, so much the better may a man be summoned concerning a debt.
70a. That apart, when anyone takes an officer of court, he may say: ‘Allow the court officer to collect my debt from the man who has acknowledged that he is in my debt.’ If the other does not acknowledge the debt, the officer of court must then go also. If the other has admitted his debt to him, he collects the debt. If he does not admit to being in his debt, he must be summoned to be judged.
70b. If he is not to be found at home, the court officer may, having gone to his dwelling, summon him if there is anyone at his home who can explain it to the lord when he comes, But he must be summoned in advance to enable him to appear at the hearing, If he is somewhere distant on a journey and could not appear on time, he may not be held responsible for that, If the debtor is truly sick but not close to death, he must send and advocate in his stead, However, if the debtor is not sick or on a journey but does not care to respond to the summons, then for the first such absence he must pay 10 balanza. If he does not come to the second session he must be fined one lira. If neither he nor his advocate comes when summoned a third time, he loses the suit, unless it concerns joint estate, that is, unless there exists some good reason.
71a. When a man proves another to be in his debt, he is to bring charges against the debtor and the court officer is authorized to retrieve the debt. He must go and collect it in movables if there are sufficient. If there is insufficient or no movable property, then in joint estate if there is any.
71b. The creditor may not refuse any article of equivalent value, save a man’s weapons or a woman’s clothing. As it is unbecoming for a warrior to have to ungirdle his weapons and to take clothes off a woman. But if there are weapons or clothing remaining which the debtor is willing to give, then, that may not be rejected either. A period must then be allotted for its redemption.
72a. If the debtor turns the court officer away and is proved to have done so, he is then to be fined for his refusal. The duke and the guard should then be sent.
72b. If a noble man has his own tenants, the court officer may not then disturb his house, but the tenant’s.
72c. If the court officer does not find the tenant at home, there can not then be a fine for refusal.
72d. If a tenant is indebted to another, his lord must then pass judgement on him and levy the debt. If he does not do so, the creditor must then go before Poljica against that lord so that he can be ordered to satisfy justice. If even then he will not, then against Poljica.
On law-suits
73a. When all these things have been done and the parties enter litigation and begin to reply one to the other, and each defends and supports his evidence, the complainant says: ‘Thou hast mine own or mine ancestors’ property. I would by way of justice that mine estate belong to me’ – and he who is in possession replies: ‘On the contrary, I possess mine own and mine ancestors’ estate, which I have always had and possessed’ – or says: I ,have purchased or earned it for all time, and what I hold and possess is not thine nor thine ancestors’, God forbid!’ – the court, that is witnesses under oath, may take a decision concerning the property. He who has been in possession, particularly if since long previous, has great evidence, the more so if he has held it peaceably and no one has disturbed him.
If there are bench or capital deeds or deeds from any lords, or any other trustworthy deeds, that is even greater proof and against them no one may lightly institute proceedings inasmuch as the other party has no sort of deeds or trustworthy court officer or other valid proofs.
73b. When a man holds possession and good and correct deeds moreover, no one is permitted to swear against them, unless it has previously been shewn that the deeds are incorrect and worthless. However, there may be testimony apart from the deeds but not against correct deeds. If, however, the other party also has good deeds, it should then be considered and established which deeds are better and more valid, older and written in better order and whether the owner took possession on their basis.
73c. If both parties have valid deeds, the oath must then nevertheless resolve the question of possession, unless both parties offer the oath and one of the parties says to the other during the hearing: ‘Take the oath to thyself or leave it to me, choose whatever thou wilt!’ – which is a great proof and can not easily be reproached, unless the other party produces such evidence as would be sufficient without the oath of both parties.
73d. If one party has been allowed to bring 9 character witnesses according to the law concerning joint estate and the witnesses have been chosen, he may while he stands there return the oath to the other party with a half of those same witnesses. If the latter party again returns the oath to the first, then he must also swear with a half, which is third. If he again returns it, then second. However, if returned to him again, he then swears alone. If returned again, then he gives his word of honour. If again, he gives his common word.
73e. If either party is allowed to bring character witnesses and they consent to judgement being passed, no matter how many character witnesses are called, both parties must meet at the stipulated place. One party takes his witnesses, and the other with the court officers bears the authorities and a sworn formula. If either side does not appear in correct numbers with his proofs, he may thus lose the suit, unless there is a good reason which, inasfar as there has been no deceit or dishonesty, serves as justification, The parties may postpone the appointed times, and the character witnesses may also postpone it once.
73f. If the final time arrives, and one party appears in correct numbers with his proofs, and the other party does not, the first party must wait until nightfall, light a fire and call the other party. If the other does not come, he may thus lose the suit, unless there are good reasons for his not coming. If a party comes, but not in correct numbers, he may also then lose the suit.
73g. If both parties appear in correct numbers at the stated time, then he who bears the authorities must deliver them to the court officer who reads the sworn formula. If it comes to the oath being taken – if they have not otherwise agreed, but it comes to the oath being taken – then, if one of them buys himself off or begs leave and the other party relieves him in the correct manner, it is as though he had sworn, If all swear, both the litigant and his witnesses, and by swearing confirm the right, the suit is then won. If any witness does not swear, it is as though no one had sworn, unless there has been some other agreement.
73h. This applies both to a suit concerning joint estate and to one concerning movables, blood, debt or any other matter, that is when character witnesses are called – this law applies to all, There must be no deliberate dishonesty, artifice or deceit in such proceedings.
On penalties
74a. A half of every fine accrues to the other party, the second half to the district, and one tenth, according to the law, accrues to the court officer. If the matter concerns a tenant who has a lord, then the first half accrues to the lord and the second to the other party.
74b. As has been said in the law on pledges, as much as a man vouches honourably and lawfully according to the law, so much is he bound to pay who breaks his obligation.
74c. So of that penalty and of any other penalty, a half accrues to the other party and the second half to the magistrates participating in the case: if it is during the prince’s circuit, then to the prince and the magistrates: if they are sworn magistrates, then to them; if the hearing is before an assembly, then to the district. In any case to that magistrate and authority before which the obligation was made and ratified,
Penalties
75a. That apart, Poljica has determined and enacted this also: when a man curses another at an assembly or a fair, or during a hearing before the prince, he is fined 10 lira.
75b, When a man assaults another – with hand, stick or club – whether at a fair, an assembly or during the prince’s circuit, he is fined 50 lira.
75c. When a man strikes another, he is fined 100 lira.
75d. When a man unsheaths his weapon at an assembly or fair or during the prince’s circuit, he loses his hand.
75e. Any man who begs remission of these penalties is to receive the same penalty.
On theft
76. When a man is accused of theft and enters litigation to prove his innocence, he must be allowed to bring character witnesses. If the theft has been from a dwelling, only 12 testify, If anywhere else, then only 6. If he does not justify himself and is found guilty, he is then to suffer the aforesaid penalty, The sworn formula must be that he neither participated in the theft nor knew of it, If he refutes the allegation and is found innocent, then he who slandered him in his innocence and accused him of the crime, is to receive the same sentence and fine as would have been paid by the other had he been found guilty. However, if the guilt is so great that he would have to lose his head, and he refutes the charge and is found innocent, the other must then redeem himself by paying the full death-fine.
The oath may not be returned concerning theft.
When stolen property is recovered
77. Whoever recovers stolen property , if it be some animal, must mark it by severing a piece of its ear and go to the court. If it is other property, he must then mark and distinguish it in some other way and go to the court. If it concerns a man who has a lord, litigation is for the latter. A man may not, however, collect payment or recover property himself; only if he personally catches and apprehends the thief may he take what is his own.
On thieves
78a. When a man of Poljica is confirmed a thief and is shewn to have stolen in Poljica: If he steals a chicken, he must pay a goat; If he steals a goat or other small creature, he pays an ox, or the equivalent value. If a man steals property worth more than 100 lira he must be hanged.
78b. If a man of Poljica steals elsewhere, and it is not a matter of enmity, he must pay double. When an alien is caught stealing in Poljica, he must certainly be hanged.
78c. However, if a man is found to be a thief in his own village, he pays not only by being hanged but with everything he has. If he holds joint estate, it passes to his next-of-kin and his remaining property to the district. If it concerns a tenant. then a half of his property accrues to his lord, and the other half to the district. Whoever steals from his lord pays with both his head and his property. Whoever steals from a lord who has hired him pays double.
The law on mills and presses
80a. Mills and presses, when they are ancient and belong to someone, may not be taken from him without litigation. If they are worn out from long usage or have remained long since unrepaired, it must be seen whose they were and who owned them: so must it remain to his descendants. If a man wishes to build a new mill where there was none previous, if it is on his own separate land, then he may build on it, However, if he lives with his brothers or other kinsfolk. and wishes to build a mill, and his co-inheritors obstruct it or declare that the portion of land belongs to others, he may not then do it himself without the other to whom the land there belongs.
80b. If a man thus builds on jointly held property and no one opposes him, obstructs him or makes objection, but he builds in peace without objection and completes the mill, and the mill or other press is already working, such a man may not have it taken from him, but it may be granted him as his share in the inheritance. It is thus determined as a mill may not be built in secret, nor may it be easily and quickly built.
80c. According to the old law a mill consists of five parts: the first part pertains to the land on which it is built; the second pertains to the water which leads to the place where the mill will be; the third part to the buildings, the structure and walls and wood and whatever in the mill is of wood; the fourth part to millstones and iron, and the fifth part to the craftsman who builds, owns, repairs and attends to it. Whoever owns the land on the bank or besides the river or stream, for as far as his property stretches upstream, one half of the river belongs to him, That is the old law.
81a. The mill must be used in strict sequence. Whoever arrived at the mill first and brought his corn, must have first use of it. No one may use it out of sequence, no one, unless the other is willing. Only the lord of the mill may grind the mill-fee of those who are in the mill. Only when the lord brings or sends a sack to the mill, thereafter he must take his turn.
81b. That apart, if an occasion requiring funeral meal or flour for a war should arise, or some other similar event, the mill may be used out of sequence, as necessity knows no law.
81c. That apart, the old law is: a blacksmith may have the use of the mill before his turn, as in the smithy also, iron from the mill is attended to upon its arrival.
The law on prisoners
82. Among the other laws of Poljica is that which speaks of prisoners: when it happens that a prisoner flees from the lord by whom he was taken captive, and, having fled, is recaptured by another, – when one night has passed, the prisoner belongs to the master who last took him captive, should that be his will. If the prisoner has taken goods from the man who previously took him captive, he must return those things to him. This applies to men of Poljica: if an alien is involved, It is much more severe,
83…. otherwise he must certainly pay, as has been written above: but if it is a case of prostitution, and the woman is raped, he is to pay the fine for assault – 25 lira.⁸
On sodomy
84a. Whoever is found to have committed sodomy, whether a man or a woman is found in that heinous sin, must be burned mercilessly. Concerning their property, none other may take it save the person to whom it accrues.
84b. If a woman is found in her misfortune to have strangled her child in any manner or way by any method, she must certainly be burned with fire if she is found. If such a woman is found, any person, man or woman alike, must seize her when she is found, under threat of a fine of 25 lira.
84c. And in each village there should be two officers who will act publicly if someone is unwilling to seize and bind such women and bring them before the district.
84d. If anyone on their behalf resists such intervention, he is considered an accessary of the culprit.
84e. If those officers do not charge them, they are to pay 50 lira to the district of Poljica.
On damage
85. In fine, if a man in any way or manner, knowingly or inadvertently causes damage to another – to property or estate, an animal, movables or immovables, wheat or anything whatsoever, every law demands that he pay and re-imburse him in full.
Notwithstanding, if a man causes damage inadvertently, it must be taken into consideration. If he does so knowingly or boasts of it, he must suffer a heavier penalty.
The law on dogs
86a. If a man has a dog, large or small, in summer when St. James’ day is passed, he must tie a large dog to prevent it eating the grapes – or must shackle a large dog to a fetterlock, the hook of which must be as long as a man’s forearm. If the dog is smaller, then to a proportionately smaller hook, as is appropriate.
If he does not do this and a dog is found loose, then the village in question may kill a two year old sheep or goat of the dog’s owner or collect the same value in money and use it for the village, each time one is found, but not more than once in a day.
That apart, if a man happens upon it in his vineyard, he may kill it. If he happens upon it in his vineyard and it is shackled, he may beat but not kill it, This is to continue until the must is ready.
86b. If a dog frees itself, chews through its shackles or escapes in some other way, and the lord pursues it or orders it to be caught – be it the lord himself or the man whom he sent – he need not then pay the aforementioned penalty.
The law on fish
87. In a place which is a man’s hunting or fishing ground or cove, according to the law no one may hunt or fish freely without his permission: to do so is as to steal from his house.
Jesus. 1476, the 6th day of August
88. Besides its other laws, Poljica has determined and enacted thus and in this way, as certain and various disagreements and disputes have arisen among the men of Poljica – partly because of certain matters, partly because of feuds, disputed questions and scandals, and because certain leagues and parties have appeared among many folk -therefore, on the above – mentioned day at an assembly, Poljica has unanimously determined and enacted thus and in this way: they have firmly and steadfastly accepted and agreed that there should be concord, peace, fraternity and unity, as has always been, and this means – when a general matter is in question, everyone’s right should be respected, let each person seek his own according to the law, as is the custom and the law; if some scandal or any other disturbance is in question, let each resolve his own affairs with peace and in peace according to justice and the law: no one may commit unlawful acts and cause discord in Poljica, or found any leagues or parties which might provoke any scandal, lawlessness or quarrels, nor may anyone spread any indecent slanders or commit acts of violence or lawlessness under threat of the penalty for betraying his lord or Poljica and under threat of losing all his goods – his movables being divided among the district his joint estate passing to his next-of-kin, his dwelling being razed and the man himself being banished under threat of death.
When a tenant leaves his lord
89a. When a tenant intends to leaves his lord, he must first assemble in his yard and dwelling all his belongings and livestock, or all his other movables, and also all the patrimony, if there be any, which he has acquired under him – then he must summon his lord and say to him: ‘My lord, this is all God’s and thine, things both subject to thy will and not subject to thy will.’ Having so done, if his lord takes any of it from him, he may do so freely – either all or part of it. However, if he makes him a gift of anything there, he may then no more thereafter take back anything once given.
89b. If he steals secretly from his lord, his lord may, should he ever catch him, take everything from him and bind him as a traitor .
89c. In fine, it must be seen and ascertained whether the lord is expelling the tenant, whether he is fleeing from the lord without cause: differing cases must be treated on their merits. A man is free to flee from evil if he can.
On the measure of grain
90. In Poljica there must always be the old measure which is a fifth greater than the Venetian measure, so that five Venetian quarters equal for of Poljica’s, unless Poljlca determines otherwise and does unanimously what might seem better.
17 June 1623
91. This year all Poljica. the vlastela-nobles and the didici-nobles did meet together at an assembly at Blessed Saint Cyprian’s and all did resolve thus and decree unanimously and of one mind:
In Poljica, in all twelve Katuni ⁹, wheat is to be given and taken using the Split quarter,
and such quarters are to be marked with the regional stamp. The Omis quarter may be worth one half of the Spilt quarter, the new one which the region now employs.
It was agreed moreover to retain the correct Split or stone quarters.
On the sale of wine
92a. When the time comes for the sale of wine, in all twelve pastures of Poljlca, no one may go from his own village to merchants in another or in his own village engage the merchants of another, but it must be as has been previously agreed. Any person who breaks this law, any man who engages merchants or goes from his own village to merchants in another, any man who does so, may have his wine seized or consumed by anyone who pleases, from within Poljica or without. Without fear of the lord’s fine, each person may freely indicate our responsibility.
92b. Wine may not be sold dearer than its price in Split and other than according to the Spilt measure, except at a fair, and there as the prince and duke with the other headmen shall order. Whoever violates this law or fears not justice, his wine is first to be seized and he is then to suffer financial or corporal punishment, as the powers of justice shall decide.
On hired labourers
93. Whoever takes a hired labourer of any kind, for any payment or for any job of work, for a year or less, or more, the old law demands that the lord pays the hired labourer nothing if he leaves the lord without fulfilling his time and without some good reason. However, if the lord dismisses him without good reason before the period is complete, he must pay him his full hire.
That was the old law. But Poljica has now enacted a milder law: if a hired labourer remains for some time, but does no damage or misdeed, he may request of the lord a part of his hire corresponding to the time he has stayed, and part with the lord amicably. But if, in the same way, a lord should wish at any time to settle accounts with the hired labourer, he may dismiss him, having paid him for the time he stayed. This is so that each man may be free.
However, the time of year must be taken into account: as winter is more difficult for food than summer, but in summer work is more valuable than in winter.
On borders and boundaries
94. Poljica enacts as follows: whoever is shewn to have secretly broken another’s border or to have secretly erased another’s border without the court’s permission, or even, in the same way, if a man secretly cuts or makes new boundaries of his own will, without the court’s permission, – whoever commits such a misdeed, pays by losing his hand and as much joint estate as he seized of another’s.
The law on wolves
95a. Whoever rescues an animal, be it living or dead, from a wolf, if he retrieves it whole, to the man who retrieves it go the fur and head. If it is decapitated, its roast meat goes to him; if it is alive and not bitten, drink is to be given him.
95b. Whoever rescues prey from a bird, the law applies as for a wolf. Whoever retrieves anything borne by water – if borne by water, one half goes to the man retrieving it, and the other half to the lord. If it lies on the bottom and can not be reached on loot, it belongs to the man who, diving, pulls it out.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen
96. In the 1482nd year since His birth, on the fourteenth day of February, when Dujam Papalic was prince of Poljica and making his first circuit of Poljica with his magistrates and the entire court, administering justice according to the laws of Poljica, when he was in Donje Polje by St. Martin’s, then did the noble men of Poljica called Limic accept into their ranks and neighbourhood all those among them who paid the tithe but had so far had no part in the judiciary and any other honour in Poljica; although some of them rejected it, a majority did communally accept it. And the prince and magistrates and the rest of the district of Poljica did allow and confirm it and resolve to record In the statute that the judiciary of Trvizi is theirs. And their names are recorded below: first don David Krickovic, Jurko Budacic and brethren, the Bogavcices, Slidinices, Tolenovices, Radinovices, Elovcic, Borovina, Zecices, Dabizivovices and the children of Pavle Tomasovic.
He who seizes from a robber
97. If it is a matter of robberies by night, it is treated the same as theft in a village. But if they are in public, as for example the army, in such a case the law applies as concerning the army. It is right that pursuers be subject to their law, if they seize anything.
Whoever seizes anything from an army
98. If a man seized anything from an army, me old law required that, if it was taken by an army, the plunder then belonged to me man who took it, except when it was a matter of captives. But if it was anything else, it was the property of those who took it. If it was taken before he came to the camp, then a reward had to be given to him, but not the goods themselves.
However, Poljica has now carried a milder law. As the aforesaid can not be applied to what transpires between the brethren of Poljica. But it is still good that there should exist a thine such as credit to those who have shewn endeavour. It is right that all endeavour be rewarded. Therefore, what should be considered is what sort of endeavour has been shewn and how great or small the risk.
What we have said applies among men of Poljica. And for what a man of Poljica takes for an alien – for his endeavour and the risk he takes for another and not for a fellow man of Poljica, more may be paid, and especially if he is not subject to the lord.
On orphans
99. When it happens that a male child is left an orphan after his parents, be there one or several of them, no one may then lay charges against the child or institute a new lawsuit against the orphaned child, even in matters of joint estate. If he does not wish to respond, he is free not to do so until he completes his 18th year. But neither is he allowed to commit, himself or through others, violent or unlawful acts against another joint estate, pleading he is a minor.
100a. That apart, our law of Poljica wills that there be no quarrel among us men of Poljica and that everyone know the law, hence have we written in this statute: a widow surviving with her children and living honestly with her children on her husband’s holding, must maintain her children until her death.
100b. If she re-marries, we will that nothing of her first husband’s accrue to her, but that she should take only the dowry which she brought to him and is not yet spent, even if her husband might himself have bequeathed her some trinket.
100c. If a widow’s son dies, nothing of his accrues to the mother, but to the brothers; if there are no brothers, then to the sisters; if there are no sisters, then to their kinsfolk, but not to the mother. This applies to a woman who marries. To the woman who lives honestly with her children, the aforesaid applies.
101. District roads must be free for everyone, as the law demands, but the great district road through the parish must be one rozga¹⁰ wide. And a village cattle – track must be wide enough to allow a pair of yoked oxen to pass along it.
No one may narrow or re-route a road or track without the permission of the district or the court.
When a man seizes anything from a thief
102. When a man seizes anything from a thief, it is right that he be given a suitable reward, according to what was stolen and how. For, what is stolen by night is one thing, and what is stolen by day another. What is taken when a man has been summoned from his home deserves a greater reward than when it happens to him by chance. Or, if a man pursues a thief further, or to his home, then even more, or, if a struggle ensues, more still. Thus have said: according to how it was seized; as it is right that everyone should be repaid for their endeavour.
On a vineyard on another’s land
103. When a man has a vineyard on the land of another, to whom he must give the revenue, and he goes to harvest the vineyard secretly, like a thief, without informing the landlord, and if the owner catches him committing the offence, he may take both his summer crop and h is vineyard from him, as he would from a thief.
On waters
104. Spring water must be communal, wherever it is found and on whoever’s land. Well-water is the property of the man who dug on his own land.
Rainwater. Whoever channels it onto his own land when it is slight, to utilise and derive benefit from it, must also then take heavy rainfall when it comes; he may not flee from it or divert it to another, unless he can protect himself without damaging another. If he will not take heavy rainfall, he may not then take slight either.
When an animal kills
105. When is happens that someone’s dog bites a man who dies in his misfortune as a result, or loses any limb of his body, if then the man whose dog it is, takes it and delivers it to the victim or his descendants if he should have died, saying: ‘This is thy culprit’ – he may thus acquit and save himself. If he does not do this, the other may then charge the dog’s owner with bloodshed, saying: ‘the creature thou feedest hath done me this harm’ .
The same applies to both a horse and any other creature which is guilty of bloodshed in this way, unless there are other circumstances.
On animals between themselves
106. When it happens that one animal kills another, or mutilates it, the reckoning then may be head for head, unless the one is much more valuable than the other.
The law on meat sold in a butcher’s shop
107a. Whoever sells meat in a butcher’s shop, wherever he will in the district of Poljica, in the absence of any other agreement such as a contract or any other compact, but sells it by weight, must sell it thus and for no greater price.
First:
The meat of a young gelded ram may be sold for one soldin per pound.
The meat of a young gelded kid may be sold for ten pence.
Similarly, veal of less than two years may be sold for ten pence,
And the meat of a sheep of less than one year which has not yet lambed may be sold at the ram’s price.
Similarly, kid of less than one year may be sold at the price of young gelded goat.
And no other meat may be sold at more than eight pence.
This is the law of Poljica. If anyone is found attempting to sell meat for more than the law of Poljica permits, whenever caught, he must be fined 5 lira and lose the meat he is selling.
Of this – first, one half of the impounded meat accrues to the person reporting the offence and the other half to the officials who impound it; of the fine, one half to the district and the other half to the magistrates and officials who collect the fine.
If the man is a tenant, then a half to his lord and the rest to the district, magistrates and officials.
There is no different law for pork, but according to the circumstances of the offence and the quality of the meat.
That apart, those who sell meat, for three days at Christmans and three days at Shrove-tide, may sell meat by its approximate weight, without scales, but not otherwise. Likewise, no one may sell tainted meat or carrion or in any way suspiciously at a market, under threat of the aforementioned fine of five lira.
The trader
107b. A trader in any village must first supply his own village with the merchandise which is for sale, and having supplied his own village, those without; if he does otherwise, his merchandise may then be taken communally.
On the sale of meat
107c. The meat of oxen or goats if fatty may not be sold for more than one eagle. Those who work as butchers may not cut out the kidneys. Whoever sells the said meat for a greater price or removes the kidneys, against him may any man who finds him so doing raise his hand and take his meat freely, indicating our authority.
Kid must be sold for five bezzo, and not otherwise. For three days at Christmas and Shrove- tide, at whatever price can be obtained.
107d. The summer price of wheat, rye and barley must be maintained in sale and purchase until Christmas. If the price of grain rises after Christmas, then other agreements should be made.
107e. Bread baked in Poljica must be of the same weight as in Omis. If two men testify before the grand prince that the measure is short, the bread may be freely taken on our authority.
108. A village or parish which will not try a common criminal, may free itself of him without granting pardon by delivering him to the lords. If the lords do nought, we leave it to the district to raise its hand against him, as against a thief.
On a thief in a village
109. If a thief is found stealing from kitchen-gardens in a village, or cattle from their pens, vineyards or corn in the field, the village may impose and collect a penalty with which it will be satisfied: according to what damage he is found to have done, so may damages be collected and so may the lords collect what fine they will.
Whoever speaks for a thief is considered an accessary, and he who assists a thief in word or deed must pay the lord’s fine.
On traders
A trader in any village should first supply that village with the merchandise which is for sale, that each village may be satisfied. If he does otherwise, his merchandise may be freely taken by the community.
On the abuse of women
110. If a man abuses and rapes a woman, the law demands that he is by all means to pay the death due. But it must nevertheless be considered how and in what manner and for what reason and who the man is and what his position; and the woman’s situation also, what, reputation she enjoys and what her business. This should all be considered and assessed, how it is and why, as not all cases can be enumerated.
First, if it concerns any woman in general, the man who rapes and abuses her without her consent, is to pay her the mortal blood due.
If the woman is married or a bethrothed maiden, the rapist then pays the mortal blood due to her, and the same to her husband.
If the girl is single, and he also is unmarried, and it is fit that they be married, then, according to church law, he must take her for his wife, or so equip and endow her that she may find such a home as befits her situation, so that no disgrace or reproach is attached to her.
The law on the hunting of game
111. The old law wills that all game belongs to the beater who flushed it out, unless the beater called for assistance from another, when he must be given a part.
As has been said, all game belongs to the person who flushes it out; however, only for a bear and fox is it the law that they belong to those who kill them. But to those who respond to a call for assistance, a reward, which is called the pursuer’s fee, must in some way be given.
When game is killed on another’s land, then by law a quarter must be given to the owner of the land.
The pursuer’s fee must vary according to the effort; if a hunter has expended great effort or risked more, as for example in water or similar circumstances, he must receive a proportionately better part; if a beater, greater compensation.
On witches and sorceresses
112. If a witch or sorceress or fortune-teller is truly found, she has, when first discovered, to be whipped; if she is found again. she must be burned.
On the abduction of maidens
113. In Jesus’ name, amen. In the 1605th year after His birth, the 4th day of September, let it be known that the entire district of Poljica in unison and concord, during the princehood of Stipan Nikulic and dukedom of Ivan Sicic, did resolve that no man of Poljica may abduct a maiden. If any man does so, in spite of the honourable district, that is, if any man abducts a maiden, the honourable district may fail upon his home and raze his dwelling, and everything that is his is to be taken by the district of Poljica, everything of the abductor and of any man who aids him. This has been resolved, as Stipan Kacunic abducted for his son a maiden who was promised to another, engaged and betrothed according to the law of this world. Hence the honourable district fined Kacunic fifty thalers, don Ivan’s nephew twenty thalers and every guest at the wedding ten thalers. If they do not bring this sum to the assembly of the honourable district, the district should fall upon their dwellings and take from them double, all of which accrues to the district of Poljica.
I, Dom Ivanisevic, notary of the honourable district of Poljica, did write this as commanded.
15 August 1637
114. Under threat of a fine of 10 thalers, Frane Kovacic undertook to deliver to the honourable parish court any thief from his tribe who is ever discovered.
Likewise Tadija Matijev, as above.
Petar Sirotkovic, as above.
The Dragisic tribe did not so undertake: they did not wish to guarantee that there would be no thieves in their tribe. They would so undertake for others, but nobody would for Ivan Lipopivovic and Jivan Miscic.
Matij Ugrinovic for his tribe, but would not for Matij Kordic.
Under threat of a fine of 40 thalers, the 2 Pericices undertook not to resist arbiters sent by the parish, namely prince Frane Sucic and prince Matij Vidatovic, with those arbiters who had previously made agreements concerning them.
In the year 1655
115. When I, Jura Sinovcic, was prince of the hon. parish of Poljica and Pava Braticevic the hon. duke, on the 1st of October I did receive 70 pages less one from Dom Marko.
Later, in 1660, when the same Dom Marko relinquished this hon. statute, 2 pages were missing – witnesses to this are all the young members of the brotherhood of Our Lady of Tugare at Zastinje.
In 1668, on St. George’s day, I, Jura Sinovcic, with duke Ivan Behojvic did, according to the law, deliver all intact to the hon. parish.
116. Each village together with its headmen is to bind two good and trustworthy sons under oath to see that this ordinance is maintained and executed, and two court officers are at the end of every two months throughout the year, to call upon these sworn persons throughout the parish; if they have not ensured that these ordinances are executed, they are to be reported to the parish.
All that we have done in unison, we do jointly dispatch for each chaplain on the given holyday to read to the people and inquire whether each village agrees with this ordinance. And let them sign on this book how they receive it. The book having been read and signed, it is to be returned to us again, and we, having received those ordinances, will place them in the statute of Poljica.
I, Dom Barisa Kunjacic did declare these hon. ordinances before the people on St. James’ day, and it was acceptable to all, and they did say that it is good and to be executed.
I, Dom Matij, did declare this epistle before the men of Sitno and they were satisfied each of them with this ordinance.
I, Dom Matij Vukicevic, did declare this hon. epistle before the people, and they did all accept it willingly and all did say that it is good and right if it be executed.
I, Dom Tadija Zuljevic, did declare this epistle before the people, and all did accept and willingly say that it be executed.
SUPPLEMENT 1. Assembly leaf
In God’s name, amen. In the year of Our Lord 1662, the 20th of March.
Let this be known at every place of judgement and court, that all we men of Poljica, gathered at a general assembly at Gajine, and all the hon. vlastela and hon. didici having agreed together with all the people, did, according to the law and our privileges, confirm faithfully and unanimously our statute, as of old.
If it be established of any man of Poljica that he has in any way betrayed his brethren, or that he is a thief or criminal, or joined the Turks or brigands, or if he is discovered helping to sell and buy slaves, or doing any such thing as might harm the people or the lords, who resists the hon. justice of Poljica which has been since olden times -whoever so offends, shall suffer the death penalty, the district is to raze his dwelling, his movables accrue to the district and his joint estate to his next-of-kin, hence let each man be forewarned of disobedience to the brethren and the poor, exactly as has already been said. And what has been hitherto, the illustrious lords and honourable parish of Poljica do pardon each man everything.
This is signed by all the below-mentioned, who pledge and answer for their villages:
From Donji Dolac prince Ivan Susic. Matija Radicic, Mikula Braojevic, prince Pava Stazic, these pledge and answer for all men of Donji Dolac.
From Gornji Dolac prince Miovijo Marcelja, Ivan Cule.
For the Trimbusanins Ivan Juric, for the Srijanins prince Marko Pavic and Mikula Atmaca, for the Putisicanins Matij Roguljic; these pledge for all the people above.
From Kostanje prince Frane Gojsalic, Jura Mandalinic, Stipan Mandalinic, Petar Marasovic. From Smolonje Ivan Milavic; these pledge for the Katun of Kostanje.
From Zvecanje the hon. prince Pava Sicic, Ivan Bozic, Luka Stanic, Andrija Alfirevic, Mihovijo Banjakusic; these pledge as the others.
Cicla: prince Ivan Dragicevic and Jura Dragicevic, Ivan Lelanovic, Luka Domljancic, Ivan Kragujevic; these pledge for their village of Cicla.
From Gata the hon. duke Ivan Beojevic. prince Pava Barticevic, Matija Kuhacevic, Marko Jakovicic from Naklice: these pledge for Gata and Naklice as the others.
Dubrova: the hon. prince Jura Sinovcic, duke Stipan Basic, Tadija Cotic; these pledge for their village of Dubrova as the others.
The hon. prince Jura Mijanovic from Sitno promised with all the peasants that if anyone be found disobedient, they will seize the offender with their own hands and deliver him to the hon. parish.
From Srinjine the hon. Prince Ivanis Novakovic and headman Ivanis Delisina, Pava Haljinovic, Petar Muzinic, Mikula Bulic, Ivan Radilovic; these pledge for the Katun of Srinjine.
Duce and Truse: Stipan Katicic, Pava Vojinovic, prince Simun Franicevic Baricic: the last named signed that he would give all his property to the district, and all the other pledge for the katun of Duce.
From Jesenice I, Grgur Tomin, surrender all my goods to the parish district if I should become a brigand. I too, Grgur Hercegovic, as also the two Stipisices and Matija Aljinovic, Mikula Jercic and Pava Matijasev, Stipan Remetic and Stipan Zoljevic; all the aforementioned, as Grgur Tomin, sign themselves thus for all their property should they become brigands.
Tadija jercic pledged for his nephew and Petar Stipisic for his brother-in-law Matija Haljinovic. And all we peasants of the katun of jesenice shall, if a man commits an offence, call for the assistance of all the parish against the miscreants.
For Postrana prince Pava Milunovic, Jure Banjic, Matij Bagatinovic, smith Reljic; these pledge and answer for the viilage of Postrana, as the others.
This was witnessed by grand prince the hon. lord Jura Sinovcic, the hon. duke Ivan Beojevic, the procurators hon. prince Ivanis Novakovic and hon. Stipan Basic; the headmen: from Donji Dolac prince Ivan Susic, from Gornji ( Dolac ) prince Mihovija Marcelic, from Kostanje prince Frane Gojsalic, from Zvecanje prince Pava Sicic, from Cicla prince jura Dragicevic, from Gata prince Pava Barticevic, from Dubrova hon. prince Jura Sinovcic, from Sitno prince Jura Mijanovic, from Srinjine prince Ivanis Delisina, from Duce prince Stipan Katicic, from jesenice prince Frane Sucic, from Postrana Pava Milunovic.
I, Marko Zuljevic, sworn notary, did write this as commanded.
2. 15 January 1664
At a communal general assembly at Gata with the chieftains and chaplains, we did all unanimously conclude and agree: since the lords have confirmed all the laws and resolutions in our statute, we too do undertake to uphold them in all places and at all times, as has been sinceolden times.
We reiterate: whichever headman fails to come to an assembly, having been summoned, is to pay two thalers each time; whoever is not content, is to pay double.
That apart, we have accepted and written into our statute: if a man possesses anything in peace and without suit for 30 years, then it is firm and good for all time – unless any good reason be found.
3. The fronti er with Hercegovina 1 February 1665
Let it here be known how far the frontiers of Hercegovina reach according to the memory and testimony of the aged. And they are Matij Ugrinovic, who has ninety years and five. and likewise prince Jura Mijanovic who has ninety. They have declared on their faith and soul that the old frontier are truly as here set forth.
The old frontiers
Stojni Kamen by Kamen straight toward the sea, up the river Vrelo Zrnovnice toward Pecice, the frontier goes to Oslji Ridge, the frontier is the water Sedrenik, Pec in Krivice, Kucisca is on the frontier, the frontier is in Konjevod, the frontier is Trnova kamenica, the frontier is Tartarica kamenica, the frontier is Hanging Oak, by it is the frontier Vladavic Grove, toward Barakovic Tower, eastward through Samoleci to Little Konacnik, into the Cetina by Nucak, down the Cetina the frontier is Takala, Mostine, Perucica, Gubavica, then down the Cetina which flows below Omis into the sea,
4.
Let this be known, that we have faithfully and precisely transcribed this hon. statute from the old one, neither adding to, nor taking from it, but in order that it may be more comprehensible – in Croatian and Latin, all the hon. vlastela and hon. didici in agreement with all the people. And this was done during the princehood of the hon. lord prince Juraj Sinovcic, the grand prince and hon. duke Ivan Behovic, with the other chieftains and the people, as aforesaid.
On the 20th day of February 1665 in the province of Poljica. I, Marko Zuljevic, sworn notary of the honourable district of the parish of Poljlca, did write and transcribe all from the beginning faithfully and precisely, neither adding nor taking away.
21 December 1670
When the hon. lord Juraj Sinovcic was grand prince and the hon. Matij Kuhacic duke, they did convene an assembly of households at the customary place by Gradac with the monks, according to the old law. At the same time the hon. lord emperor and doge concluded peace, when Crete was surrendered for Klis and for other places. At that time the Turks wished us to be under their government, and the Latins wished us to be under theirs, but we had always been under the government of Klis. Thus did they all, monks and chieftains, unanimously and in accord resolve on their faith and soul that we should remain under our own houses and our own law; they did all together resolve that no one – no matter what his estate – may – in any way or manner – give, receive or allow any thing, either money or other goods, to be given to Turk or infidel, until it be seen under whose authority the said parish will remain and until ts borders be established. And no one may be charged with any misdeed before any of those lords, as everything that the chieftains of the said parish have hitherto done, has been with the agreement and approval of the people. Whoever does otherwise shall be punished to the full, as is foreseen in the old law on page 41 of this statute, and that penalty will be imposed on the criminal, as has already been said, without any mercy. And may God forbid that any of the lords of Upper or Lower Poljica be angry with us, but may they go to each other’s aid when necessary.
I, Marko Zuljevic, sworn notary of the hon. district of the parish of Poliica, as commanded.
6. 12 October 1676
Let it be known that there has been an assembly of all the hon. vlastele and hon. didici at Oblik by St. Andrew’s. hon. lord grand prince, hon. prince Pava Sucic, hon. duke Mihovijo Petrovic, hon. procurators, hon. prince Ivanis Vicicevic, hon. prince Luka Brnicevic, hon. prince Frane Gojsalic, hon. prince Jura Basic. and all hon. headmen, hon. prince Stipan Stazic, hon. prince Tadija Zuljevic, hon. prince Frane Gojsalic, hon. prince Pave Stanic, hon. prince Jura Dragicevic, hon. prince Matij Vukovic, hon. prince Tadija Cotic, hon. prince Jura Mijanovic, hon. prince Marko Baric, hon. prince Vicko Novakovic, hon. prince Pava Sucic and hon, prince Mikule Vlaho.
All the aforementioned did say and pledge on their faith and soul that they would always be in concord with the poor. If anyone is found to have been expelled from the brethren or anyone’s treachery is discovered, he shall be a traitor to his brethren and it shall be written in the statute that he is a traitor and must lose his head; no one from his house may be accepted into the assembly or into any other council of the brethren and the poor.
I, Dom Ivan Lozic, did write thus as ordered and commanded, when I was notary of the hon. parish of Poljica at this time.
7.
As an unworthy rumor has sprung up concerning the hon. duke Stipan Stazic and his hon. house, to the effect that he is not of the didici-nobles, we have thus convened an assembly of the didici-nobles at Kozjak, we have opened the statute, and it has been found that, according to the statute and the law of the entire assembly, Stazic is truly an hon. brother gentleman and that previous hon. magistrates have come from their tribe. And that rumour stemmed from prince Ivan Sinovcic:, but has not been found true.
8. In the year 1685
Let it be known in the law of Poljica that on St. Arnir’s day, without justification Sucic did sever the nose of Marko Kuhacic, who is an alien; the parish of Poljica loses much property because of that nose. The parish decrees and resolves unanimously and in agreement that neither he nor anyone from his house, nor any of their generation may ever more be councillor or magistrate in the parish of Poljica.
The hon. parish resolves thus: if any man sustains him or commends his pardon, that man is to be stoned to death and written into the statute of Poljica as has Sucic.
9. 19 August 1725
Since it has at this time been revealed that Frane Sucic is a traitor to the hon. province of Poljica, the entire assembly of the hon. province of Poljica has resolved that it be recorded mat he may no more be a councillor, neither he nor any of his after him in the province of Poljica, and that the first leaf which is written above be confirmed.
Thus wrote I, Marko Baric, procurator and notary of the hon. province of Poljlca, as commanded on its faith by the entire illustrious assembly of Pollica, as aforesaid.
10. 9 August 1725
A certain Perme Markicevic recently removed from the province of Poljica, from the village of Cazin Dolac, to a dwelling on Brac. Since it has been discovered that the said Perme with his sons is betraying this province in matters of interest to this province, the entire hon. parish and a joint assembly of the hon. province of Poljica has resolved that neither the said Perme nor any of hls descendants may be a councillor in the province of Poljica, as our law commands.
NOTES
¹ The Croatian text of the opening sentence ( ” Prvi zakon poljicki jest vazimati kneza od gospodina – ‘od’ is missing in some manuscripts – ko je gospodinu viran a Poljicem ugodan” ) is slightly unclear. Although the word gospodin occurs twice, it is only in its second occurence that it can be said with certainty to refer to the doge. As for the rendering of vazimati with ‘’elect’ , it was a long established custom in Poljica for the nobles to elect a prince from their own number. The word ‘vazimati’ is replaced by the less ambiguous ‘obirati’ ( elect) already in the following sentence.
² In Poljica there were two species of nobility: vlastela and didici. These were respectively the descendants of members of the Hungarian and Bosnian nobility who settled in the region of Poljica and continued to enjoy noble status there.
³ Cr. vlasici, literally Vlachs or Wallachians, descendants of the nomadic tribes who grazed their flocks on Mt. Mosor in Poljica. The term came to imply ‘hired shepherds’ .
⁴ Vrv ( f. ) or vrvni ( adj. ), a community broader than that based on blood kinship, no longer possessing joint estate but only the remnants of it in the form of groves and pastures. (see also article 62 )
⁵ Cr. oba se i na sebi, local dialect meaning literally ‘chest to chest’ ( prsa o prsa) or ‘in hand-to-hand combat’.
⁶ Macin in the original.
⁷ Cr. dokle se tezak priobuje, local dialect meaning ‘until the ploughman changes his shoes’ , which is, ‘upon the completion of his work’ .
⁸ From ita content, this paragraph apparently belongs with article 110, with which it forms a logical whole. It is left here in order not to disturb the sequence of subsequent paragraphs.
⁹ Katuni are clusters of small hamlets. The term is also occasionally applied to common pastures. Each katun had its own katunar or ‘headman’.
¹⁰ One rozga = 2,13m.
COINAGE REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT
Lira ( Cr. libra ) Venetian coin. worth 20 soldin
Balanza ( Cr. bolanca) Venetian coin of little value; less than one dinar
Soldin ( Cr. sold) One twentieth of a lira.
Dinar In Dalmatia one twelfth of a soldin
Pinez ( Cr. pinez ) Venetian coin, probably worth the same as one dinar; one penny
Bezzo ( Cr. bec) Venetian coin of little value; one half-soldin
Eagle ( Cr. orljak ) Austrian coin worth rather more than 5 bezzo
Thaler ( Cr. tolor) Austrian silver coin, the precise value of which it is difficult to estimate
GLOSSARY OF NOTEWORTHY TERMS
The English equivalents have been used throughout the translation
alien / izvanj ski. any other than a man of poljica
character witness / porotnik. Could be called a plaintiff or defendant, not as a witness of the offence, but as a person who would vouch for the litigant’s character ( Lat. coniurator)
communal assembly / skupni zbor
court officer / pristav
death fine, due or tax / mrtva vraida
district of poljica / poljicka opcina
duke / vojvoda
frontiersman ( of the Turks) / martolog
head tax / harac
herdsman / see note 3.
injury, or wound ( according to the context) / rana
injury fine, due or tax / ziva vrazda
joint estate / plemenscina. Inherited land, based on principle of collective ownership
man of poljica / poljicanin
next.of.kin / bliznji
notary / kancilir
parish / zupa Also translatable as ‘county’. Used on occasions for the whole district of Poljica.
patrimony / bascina, Estate inherited by individuals
penalty or fine ( according to context) / kazna
pledge-fine / osud zastavni
prince / knez
severance / o-dilen’je
tenant / kmet or kmetic
tribe / pleme, Also translatable as ‘clan’
BOOKS RECEIVED
Nenad Gattin and Zvonimir Berkovic: Dubrovnik, Liber University Press, Zagreb 1977, (A pictorial monograph of the city. Beautiful photographs, introduction in English.)
Mate Suic: Anticki grad na istocnom Jadranu, Liber University Press, Zagreb 1976, Pp. 328. (Greek and Roman town-planning and development in the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea. )
lvo Vinski: Drustveni proizvod svijeta, Liber University Press, Zagreb 1976, Pp. 197. (A comparative study of the gross domestic products of individual countries and the major economic regions of the world.)
Pavao Vuk-Pavlovic: Dusevnost i umjetnost, Liber University Press, Zagreb 1976, Pp. 257. (A treatise on aesthetics by a prominent Croatian Philosopher.)
Benedikta Zelic-Bucan: Bosancrca u srednjoj Dalmaciji, Izdanje Historijskog arhiva, Split, 1961.
Benedikta Zelic-Bucan: Popis pucanstva Splitske nadbiskupije 1725. Godine, lzdanje Historijskog ararhiva