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

Marko Japundzic
I. Introduction
On 11 May 1963, on the feast day of the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius (according to Eastern rite), Pope John XXIII solemnly signed, in the presence of the representatives of all Slavic nations, his apostolic letter Magnifici eventus. This commenced the celebration of the 1100th anniversary of the initial activities of the Holy Brothers.
Pope John XXIII’s pronouncement reminds us of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Grande munus. Leo XIII’s encyclical was published in 1880 and marked the beginning of a new epoch, not only in the promotion of unity among the Slavic peoples, but also in the promotion of Slavic studies in general.
Leo XIII’s encyclical was accepted quite poorly by the Romanic and Germanic nations, and even the disunified Slavs viewed it only as Roman propaganda. On the contrary, Pope John XXIII’s pronouncement received a great response from Germans, who organized an important Slavist congress in Salzburg from 12-16 May 1963. This congress not only dealt with the analysis of scientific questions, but was also at the same time a religious manifestation. This event appeared to be a sort of compensation for those religious manifestations that fell short in the very lands where the Holy Brothers lived and worked, and where they could only be spoken of as philosophers and enlighteners.
The Holy Brothers, Greek by origin, were born in Salonika (Thessalonika), Macedonia, where a large Slavic element was found along with the Greek population. At first they were high ranking state officials, then monks, missionaries among the Khazars at the Sea of Azov, and finally, in 863 they left for Moravia or Morava, where they were sent (as is taught) by Byzantine Emperor Michael III on the invitation of Duke Rastislav. In Moravia they introduced the Slavic liturgy and established a Slavic hierarchy. St. Cyril died in Rome, in 869 and St. Methodius in Moravia, in 885.
Based on the words “Moravian Duke Rastislav,” Czech slavists concluded, and others following their lead, that we are dealing with the Czech province of Moravia. However, there were authors who held, and there are authors who hold today, that this was not Czech Moravia, but the city of Morava in Sirmium, after which the principality of Moravia was named.
Thus, Serbian historian Sima Lukin Lazic asserted that: “In the 9th century St. Methodius founded a separate Serbian Archbishopric of Moravia, that was based in Sirmium, in the city of Morava, near today’s Moravic.”¹ According to Lazic, the Holy Brothers were Serbs and founders of the Serbian Church. Lazic does not cite any documents to support his thesis.
In his history of the parish and village of Morovic, Emerik Gasic states: “Tradition…holds that as the Pannonian archbishop, St. Methodius held court for a time in Morovic, and Morava or Moravia are in fact Moravic.”²
It is especially important to mention the extensive study of Hungarian historian Imre Boba, a professor at the University of Washington.³ On the basis of numerous historical documents and archeological finds, he asserts that this was not the Czech province of Moravia, but the Pannonian city of Moravi or Moravii and the principality of the same name, Moravi. Furthermore, based on a philological analysis of Old Church Slavic documents of that era, it becomes clear that these documents do not belong to Czech-Moravian territory. Based on these documents, Boba holds that the Moravian principality was located south of the Danube River, not north. The center of the principality was the city of Moravia or Morava, and that would be Sirmium (Mitrovica). According to other authors, Moravia was located near Moravic (Vele Moravie), where according to the chronicler from Fulda, “Rastislav’s indescribable castle” was located (“illam ineffabilem Rastizi munitionem omnibus antiquissimis dissimilem“).
Church prescriptions and laws also support the location of Moravie. Be it in the Eastern or Western Church, bishops are named to serve a certain bishopric or see and not a province. This is why we have the Eastern patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Pec, and the Western bishoprics of Rome, Zagreb and Krizevci (even if the bishop of this last one dwells in Zagreb). Only with the establishment of the national churches does the term Patriarch of Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia appear. However, even this last one carries the title of “Pec Archbishop”. In this way, “patriarch” gains a wider meaning, similar to the term “pope” in the Roman Church.
Pope Hadrian II ordained Methodius for the See of St. Andronicus and St. Andronicus was the bishop of Sirmium. For this reason, the Morava mentioned in the Vita Clementis must be identical to Sirmium, the one-time seat of St. Andronicus. The Vita Clementis stresses that the bishop of Morava is in Pannonia: “episkopos Morabos tes Panonias“.
During the last hundred years much has been written about the activities of the Apostles to the Slavs. On the basis of the so- called legend (biography) of the Holy Brothers, who truly were legendary in many ways, it was felt that among other things St. Cyril invented the Glagolitic script and that he introduced the Eastern liturgy to Moravia. Concerning the Glagolitic script, this question has been the main topic of discussion up until today. The most recent investigations, especially after the Second World War, have given us new views on the question of this script and liturgy.
According to Boba’s opinion, the majority of Croatian provinces were included in Methodius’ metropolitan. For that reason, we can easily understand how practically all Glagolitic missals and breviaries mention the feast of the Holy Brothers, while a large portion of them even had their own service.
The term Glagolitic (glagoljica) is today understood as three things: the Glagolitic alphabet, the Croatian Old Church Slavic religious service or liturgy, and finally, the Glagolitic bibliography, that is, all that was written in the Glagolitic script.
Originally the term Glagolitic (glagoljica) was only related to the script, which received its name from the fourth letter of the Slavic alphabet. This letter was called “glagolju” (older version “glagoljo“) and meant “I speak”. In this form, the name Glagolitic (glagoljica) originated from the 14th century. Later, especially in common use, Glagolitic (glagoljica) became the term signifying Glagolitic church services, and finally, as we already stated, encompassing all that was written in the Glagolitic script.
We wish to provide an overview of the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet, Glagolitic church service and a survey of the Glagolitic bibliography.
II. The Croatian Glagolitic Alphabet
Besides the Etruscan script, the Latin alphabet, the Greek alphabet and the Gothic rune, two other scripts were also found in Europe that were used by the Slavic peoples: Cyrillic, which is today in its modern form the national script of Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgars, Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins, that is, the Eastern and Southern Slavs who use the Byzantine rite in the church; and Glagolitic, which with few exceptions belonged and today exclusively belongs to the Croatian people.
From where did the Croats receive the Glagolitic alphabet? This question has interested and today still interests learned Slavists. Different theories on the origin of the Glagolitic script have existed and today new ones are being introduced. A number of the most important theories follow.
The Jerome theory, in the narrow sense of the word, attributes the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet to St. Jerome, the Church Doctor (died ca. 420), who was born in the Dalmatian city of Stridon, that is, on the territory that Croats settled from the 6th to 7th century. This theory is historically clearly expressed in the 1248 rescript of Pope Innocent IV to Filip, the Bishop of Senj. According to the opinion of professor Josip Hamm, this theory was not older than the 11th century and was devised by Glagolitic priests (Glagolites) in defense against the attacks of the Latin- Roman priests in Dalmatia, who were against the Glagolitic liturgy, especially during the period of Cluniac reforms.⁴
The well known Czech Slavist, Josef Dobrovsky, went even further and claimed that the Glagolitic script originated only in the 14th century, as a concession to Orthodox Cyrillic.⁵ Dobrovsky’s assertion was refuted by the noted Czech historian and Slavist Gelasius Dobner,⁶ who revealed that Glagolitic codices already existed long before the 14th century and today we know that some originated in the 10th century. The claim that St. Jerome constructed an unknown script was even found in Maurus Hrabanus in the 8th century.⁷ It is true that he did not claim it to be the Glagolitic alphabet. Nevertheless, the assertion directs us already to the 8th century. Therefore, this theory, whether true or false, had its basis in a thousand year old belief.
Michael Hocij associated the Jerome theory to Aethicus’ Cosmography. Aethicus wrote his Cosmography in Greek, which St. Jerome abbreviated in Latin. According to the investigations of Karl A.F. Pertz, Jerome’s Breviarum was written between 396 and 400.
This assertion was rejected by Hans Lowe,⁸ who placed the work after 768. According to Lowe, Aethicus was a pseudonym, while Aethicus’ Latin revealed signs of the Irish orthography. As a result, Lowe concluded that the author was in fact the Irishman Virgil, bishop of Salzburg from 743, who hid under the authority of St. Jerome. Some believe that this is related to the Jerome theory on the origin of the Glagolitic script, while Vittorio Peri, as we shall see, held a different view. In all likelihood, Virgil knew the Glagolitic script, and that means that the Glagolitic alphabet already existed, if not from the time of St. Jerome, than at least during Virgil’s time, that is, in the 8th century.
The Jerome theory, which holds that the origin of the Glagolitic script must be sought prior to the 9th century, that is, before the missionary work of the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius, has today been abandoned.⁹
When Slavic science began to develop at the close of the 18th century, a new theory arose, called the Cyrillo-Methodian theory. This theory has dominated until today and has gathered around itself the most followers. Slavists rejected the Jerome theory as impossible and declared St. Cyril the inventor of the Slavic alphabet, who allegedly used Greek minuscule as its base. For evidence they especially cite the following four monuments: a) the Life of Constantine (St. Cyril); b) the Croatian Chronicle (Hrvatski ljetopis), today known as the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea (Duklja); c) the tractate (short treatise) on the origin of the Slavic script written by monk Hrabr; and d) the letter of Pope John VIII from 880. The first three monuments have been preserved in transcriptions from the 14th and 15th centuries, and especially the first two, in a legendary fashion, speak how St. Cyril, after a long fast and many prayers, was enlightened and invented the Slavic alphabet. The fourth monument, the letter of Pope John VIII, undoubtedly acknowledges that: “Then Constantine, the former philosopher, invented the Slavic letters in which you righteously praise the Lord…” (“Litteras denique Sclavinicas a Constantino quondam philosopho reppertas, quibus Deo laudes debite resonent, iure laudanus…).”¹⁰
However, not one of the monuments mentions which Slavic alphabet it was, Glagolitic or Cyrillic. This problem was solved by the Croatian Slavist Vatroslav Jagic,¹¹ and this was more due to his reputation rather than actual proof. He observed that from the paleographic viewpoint, the Glagolitic script was older than the Cyrillic script and therefore concluded: the script invented by St. Cyril was the Glagolitic and not the Cyrillic, which carries his name, and which would, therefore, have to be, according to the opinion of some, Cyril’s script. This well known Slavist did not consider the possibility that the Glagolitic alphabet could be even older than St. Cyril himself.
As we have stated, this theory was considered the only correct hypothesis for many years. However, modern science has also shook its foundations.
Leaving aside the various other theories, which have not left deeper tracks, we mention the Gothic theory. Although this theory did not have much response, nevertheless, it was mentioned with some persistence. This theory was defended among Croats by professor Kerubin Segvic,¹² who formulated his opinion mostly on historical facts. According to him, Croats arrived in their present homeland already as Christians who followed Arianism and therefore, their Bible was translated from Ulfilas’ Bible,¹³ while the Glagolitic alphabet was based on Gothic rune.
The Gothic theory was also put forward by Klement Grubisic.¹⁴ Grubisic felt that St. Cyril modelled rune according to the Greek uncial script and added letters that were not found in the Gothic rune.
This theory was also followed by Hamm,¹⁵ although beginning from a different viewpoint. Hamm paleographically, or better, graphically revealed the similarities between the Glagolitic script and the Gothic rune. His theory was also based on philology. He attempted to show the similarity in morphology, syntax, and lexica between Ulfilas’ and the Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures. Later, professor Hamm named his theory “the migratory hypothesis,” associating it to the fact that the Goths once lived on present-day Croatian territory and have even left some monuments. This only left one to show that there existed ties between the Croats and Goths.
This theory has also been abandoned. Arian Christianity spread only sporadically and could have entered Croatian regions by other paths and not necessarily directly via the Goths. Philological similarities can be found in all old translations of the Holy Scriptures as they all had as their basis the Greek original (with the exception of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic).
The newest theories have returned to the oldest theory: that the Glagolitic script is older than St. Cyril. Even if this theory has never completely disappeared, today there are those who are returning to it, especially foreign specialists. Of the specialists who held that the Glagolitic script existed before St. Cyril, we must mention Ivan Ohienko, Emil Georgiev, and especially Michael Hocij, who already in 1940 wrote a detailed treatise on the origin of the Glagolitic script. This treatise remained unnoticed as a consequence of the war, but was brought to light by Wilhelm Lettenbauer in 1953.¹⁶
Hocij believed that the Glagolitic script developed from pre- Carolingian cursive of the 7th and 8th centuries and especially from Merovingian and Italo-Lombardian cursive. Only in a few cases were Glagolitic letters derived from another script, and not from cursive forms. The alphabet developed in such a way that the Glagolitic writers endeavored to simplify the traits (strokes) of the letters, always keeping the strokes to the right, and not returning left and then right, as was the case in Roman letters. By employing this technique the writer lessened his toil. According to the views of Hocij, the alphabet was not invented by one person, but developed little by little. He placed its origin in the 8th century on the Venetian-Istrian territory. The time, therefore, corresponds to the activities of the Gallic Benedictine monks who were missionaries on Croatian soil, and the place of origin is actually the territory of the Aquileian patriarchate.
On the basis of philological studies of Old Church Slavic terminology, Petar Skok arrived at a similar conclusion.¹⁷ Skok stated:
I believe that this analysis in its entirety justifies the conclusion of the provenance of the missionary activities from Aquileia to Croatian lands in the 8th and 9th centuries. The historical study of documents can only lead to strengthened linguistic conclusions. As a result, our Glagolitic script developed on the territory evangelized from Aquileia.¹⁸ According to the assertions of the Russian Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, who in the last century travelled to Mount Athos and to the Holy Land, Glagolitic documents on Mount Athos, as well as in the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, were stored in chests together with Latin and not with Eastern codices. As a result, it is evident that they considered them Western codices.
In the oldest Glagolitic texts one can find many passages from the Vulgate as well as many Germanic elements that only could have entered from Western and not Eastern texts.
During the 1985 congress held in Rome on the 1100th anniversary of the death of St. Methodius, professor Frantisek Mares shared his one-sided belief that all Old Church Slavic texts (documents) were of Byzantine origin and were later spread to other peoples from Czech Moravia. However, renowned Slavic specialist, professor Tambora, from the University of Bologna, stressed that the so-called Opus Methodianum contained forty-three prayers of Latin origin. These forty-three prayers do not have corresponding texts in the Greek-Byzantine rite and are manifestly translations of Western missionaries, not Eastern.
The well known Bulgarian Slavist, professor Ivan Dujcev, from Sofia (died in the spring of 1986), asserted that the words krst (cross), oltar (alter), kum (godfather), etc. found in the Byzantine-Slavic rite, were of Latin origin, that is, they originated from the Latin words crux, altare, cumpater, etc. and not from the Greek stavros, mension, etc. This is the best evidence that Latin missionaries from Frankish lands operated in Bulgaria before Greek missionaries, and consequently before the Holy Brothers and their disciples. It also reveals that Latin terminology sprouted deep roots in Bulgaria and Macedonia, that neither the Holy Brothers, their followers, nor later Greek missionaries, could uproot.
Both university professor M. Capaldo of Palermo and professor W.E. Veder of the Catholic University of Nijmegen, critically examined the vocabulary and terminology of the Holy Brothers. They concluded that a significant portion of the terminology was of Western origin.
Furthermore, professor J.M. Vesely of the Pontifical Angelicum University in Rome concluded: “Cyril was not the creator (creatore), but rather only the coordinator (coordiatore) of things that already existed.”
That which professor Ivan Dujcev stated for the Bulgars and Macedonians also applies to the Croats. Professor Stjepan Ivsic often stressed during his lectures that church terminology such as for instance kriz (cross), kalez (chalice), korizma (Lent), etc. were of Friulian origin. Professor Petar Skok went even farther. On the basis of an analysis of the names of persons and places, and other words, he came to the conclusion that missionaries from Aquileia came to Croatian lands in the 8th and 9th centuries.
The above mentioned monk Hrabr also stated in his treatise that the Slavs, prior to their baptism, wrote in the Greek and Roman scripts, but without “a system of writing.”
Proof that the Slavs already had an alphabet before the Holy Brothers is found in the Life of Constantine, where it is stated that he found a script in the Kherson region. The expression “rousokymi pismeny” found in the Life of Constantine has been interpreted by different authors in different ways. F. Liewehr felt that one should instead read Syriac (“sourskymi pismeny“) because at that time the Syriac language was already a major language. Emil Georgiev held that the Slavic alphabet existed before St. Cyril. This was the Cyrillic alphabet that was derived from the Greek uncial script and that Cyril only later invented the Glagolitic script. Georgiev’s views have generally not been accepted. This was primarily due to the fact that the awkward Glagolitic script would have had to replace the much more practical Cyrillic, which was in fact the attractive Greek uncial script.
The newest discoveries reveal that a Slavic alphabet did indeed exist before the Holy Brothers. The existence of the so- called Iznebek Boards or the Vles Book, named after the god Veles or Jasna, were documents of this script.¹⁹
Was this alphabet known to monk Hrabr? Were these the “strokes and notches” that he spoke of? We do know that his assertion that the Slavs “do not have books” does not hold. They may not have had parchment or paper, but they did use material that was close at hand. This material was wood. As we are informed by a report of Archbishop of Zadar, Matej Karaman (1700-1771), our novice Glagolites used the bark of wood or stone tablets in the same manner.²⁰
In this way, even the newest investigations reveal the truth of the oldest theory. This is, that according to its origin, the Glagolitic script was a Croatian script. It sprouted on Croatian soil and through more than a thousand years remained a Croatian script in public use, church use and in private life. Not even a hundred years ago the Glagolitic script was used: in parish registries of churches; by Croatian Franciscan Tertiaries for their monastery registries, homilies and meditations; while public “notaries” employed it for trade agreements and wills throughout the townships. Today, due to practical considerations, the Glagolitic script has disappeared from public and private use.
III. The Croatian Glagolitic Liturgy
It was precisely the first session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that reminded many, who did not know this before, about the Croatian Glagolitic liturgy. The Croats were the only nation in the Western Church, who for more than a millennium, had their liturgy in their old language.
From where did they receive this privilege? Here again the same theories as those on the origin of the alphabet were more or less repeated. Neither the Roman nor Greek alphabet, which had barely twenty-two signs, could fulfil the phonetic requirements of Old Church Slavic, which had a much larger number of sounds.
With the appearance of the Cyrillo-Methodian theory on the origin of the alphabet, there also came the theory of the origin of the Slavic liturgy. This theory was very simple. In 863 the Holy Brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent to Morava or Moravia by Emperor Michael III on the invitation of Moravian Duke Rastislav. Here they began to work among the Slavs, where they introduced the Slavic liturgy and founded their own hierarchy. After the death of St. Methodius (885), and following the death of Duke Rastislav and his successor Svatopluk, the German bishops expelled Methodius’ followers, as they claimed the church jurisdiction for themselves. These exiled followers went to other Slavic territories where they introduced the Slavic liturgy.
What liturgy did the Holy Brothers introduce? Today this is difficult to say. If we go by that which was stated in the Life of Constantine, it would seem that it was the Byzantine liturgy. In the biography it is stated that Cyril began the translation of the Holy Scriptures with the Gospel according to St. John: “Iskoni be slovo i slovo be u Boga“/”In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum.” This Gospel is read in the Byzantine liturgy on Easter, which in the Byzantine rite begins the yearly liturgical cycle, and not with Advent, as in the Roman liturgy. The majority of Slavists of the Byzantine rite hold that the Slavic Apostles introduced the Byzantine rite, as they themselves were of that rite.
With regard to the Lives of the Holy Brothers, it is important to mention that they were preserved in transcriptions made several centuries after the death of the Holy Brothers. They were primarily recopied on territories of the Eastern Church. A critical examination of the texts reveals that some things were added and explained according to the understanding of the transcribers.²¹
If we accept the falsified letter of Pope Hadrian II (867-872) and the letter of Pope John VIII (872-882), then it could only have been the Roman liturgy, as it is expressly discussed in these letters. Indeed, it is very difficult to believe that the Byzantine rite would be allowed to be introduced so easily on an entire territory at the time of Photios’ schism (born ca. 810, died ca. 893). To do so at that time would have meant to place this territory under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Josef Vasica introduced a new possibility, namely, that the liturgy established by the Holy Brothers was the so-called Liturgy of St. Peter.²² On the basis of philological investigations of the Kiev Fragments²³ and the oldest preserved Croatian Glagolitic missal,²⁴ Vasica noticed that many expressions had similar or the same meanings as the Greek text of the Liturgy of St. Peter. From this he concluded that the first liturgy introduced by the Holy Brothers, was in fact, the Liturgy of St. Peter.²⁵
The Liturgy of St. Peter originated in Macedonia, which from the 8th to 9th century was situated on the border between the Western and Eastern Roman Empire. The Macedonian administrative- political organization belonged to the Eastern Empire and, as a result, its Church also belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine rite (at least during the period in question). However, as usually occurs in border regions, there was also a mixture of peoples, languages, cultures and religions. Just as the Western rite sporadically reached right up to Constantinople, so too on the other hand, the Byzantine rite, here and there, reached deep into Pannonia. In such a land, where both rites had a major influence, a new liturgy, called the Liturgy of St. Peter, was formed. The supporters of this liturgy claimed that it originated with St. Peter, who it is alleged, initially introduced it in Rome and therefore would have to be in fact the first Roman liturgy. In its first part (text of rites), this liturgy had all the eucharistic features of the Byzantine liturgy, while the second part (eucharistic rite), was more formally rather than textually, similar to the Roman liturgy.
The introduction of this type of liturgy truly could have been very favourable for the Holy Brothers, at least temporarily, on the territory that already belonged to the Roman rite. However, it is completely certain that it could not have remained long on that territory, as is revealed by the attacks on the Slavic rite by the Latin speaking German bishops.
Be that as it may, here we are concerned with the rite that was introduced in Croatia. For this reason, we must raise the question whether the followers of the Slavic Apostles did, in fact, introduce the Slavic liturgy in Croatia? Did it already exist before, as was generally held by Croatian clergy? Adherents of the Cyrillo-Methodian theory do not have primary sources to back their theory, but only hypotheses and legendary statements in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. However, historical facts and liturgical texts speak against this view.
As a people, the Croats were the first among all the Slavs to accept Christianity. This occurred during the 7th century, insofar as they were not already previously baptized, at least in part. The belonging to a permanent rite and hierarchy is also tied to the acceptance of Christianity. Since the Croats resided on the territory of the Western patriarchate, it is completely logical that they must have belonged to the Western rite and that they fell under the jurisdiction of the Western hierarchy. This however, does not exclude the activities of Greek missionaries, especially in the southern regions, and the partial belonging to the Eastern rite in those regions. One must therefore ask, would it have been possible for the Western hierarchy to stand by calmly, after two to three centuries of use of the Latin language, and possibly the Roman rite, and allow the introduction of something new and Byzantine? If we take into account that we are speaking about an era that was highlighted by the Photian Schism, at a time of political tensions between Rome and Byzantium due to the political realities in Italy and the relations of the Byzantine emperors toward the reform spirit of the Pope, which was already felt in Rome and which would later give the greatest momentum to the Benedictine monastery at Cluny, then the answer can only be one: the introduction of a new rite or at least a new language was practically impossible.
Therefore, taking the question from the historical side, the Slavic liturgy could have originated in Croatia much earlier than the activities of the Apostles to the Slavs, and that being at the time of their baptism, that is, at the turn of the 7th to the 8th century. The missionary monks from Gaul (today’s France) were active on Croatian territory of that time. They brought with themselves, as we shall see, their own peculiar Gallic rite. The territory of their missionary endeavours fell under the Aquileian patriarchate, the archbishoprics of Zadar and Split, and their suffragan bishoprics. Some cities and the majority of islands of Dalmatia formed the so-called Byzantine Theme in which the Byzantine rite was used. We find ourselves, therefore, in a situation similar to that of Macedonia, in a mixture of rites, but this time with the penetration of the Byzantine rite into Roman Church territory. It is precisely under these circumstances that we must look for the origin of the Slavic liturgy in Croatia. This viewpoint was already long ago expressed by the bishop of Krk, Anton Mahnic, in an official report to the Roman Curia. This report was written when the question of the Glagolitic liturgy was quite actual.
Mahnic wrote this in his official report (in Italian) to the Holy See:
…I find it necessary to add this to the opinions of those who think that the Old Church Slavic language was introduced in place of Latin… From the historical standpoint, this view has no credibility whatsoever. The Croats were baptized in the period from the 7th to the 9th century, at a time, therefore, when the Latin language still was not officially declared the liturgical language of the Western Church. …Besides that, we must mention that when the Croats arrived from the northeast, they settled, be it by force, be it with consent of the Emperor, provinces that previously belonged to the Eastern Greek Empire, where the Greek language and other national languages were used, even in the liturgy. It is absolutely certain that the Greek missionaries who came from Constantinople to preach Christianity to the Croats, did not introduce the Latin language; just as missionaries who came from Rome to Eastern provinces, did not dare introduce the Latin language. …Indeed, in the Dalmatian cities consisting of a Latin speaking population, such as Split, Rab, Osor, etc., the Greek language was used there, at least partially, right to the 12th century, as was asserted by [Mariano] Armellini (Prelezioni di Archeologia cristiana, p. 140). This also applied to churches, which belonged to the Aquileian patriarchate, especially those in Istria. As a result, we could conclude without further investigation (even if not proven), that the Old Church Slavic language replaced the Greek, but not the Latin language.²⁶
In Germany, a fragment of a Croatian Glagolitic missal in transcription from the 15th century was discovered. The fragment contained three different masses: Palm Sunday, and Easter Monday and Tuesday. As the masses do not belong to the Roman, or to any other known liturgy, we were asked for our personal judgement. After the required study, we ascertained that the masses belonged to the Gallic Liturgy of St. Martin of Tours which are found only in that liturgy. Here we should mention two things. First, St. Martin was born in the Pannonian city of Sabaria ca. 315 and worked as a missionary and bishop in Gaul, in the city of Tours, where he founded his own monastery and monastic order. He died while travelling in 397 and was buried in Tours. Secondly, the Gallic monks were active missionaries in Pannonia and Croatia from the 7th to 9th century. Insofar as the Liturgy of St. Martin reached Croatia, it only could have done so via the monks from the region of Tours, and that at a time when it was still in use there. This was, at the latest, from the turn of the 7th to the 8th century, as during this time his very own bishopric disappeared from Tours.
In the 1960s, we entered on the trail of a new and previously unknown missal or at least part of a missal. This was actually a palimpsest. Following an examination of the two pages that we received, we can conclude that the missal, or at least the original source from which it was copied, could be a century older than the Vatican Borgiano Illirico 4, today known as the oldest Glagolitic missal. Judging from the gradual of the third Christmas mass, which we have before us, even this missal was a Gallic missal. Contemporary discoveries of new texts and the investigation of older and newer ones, will certainly bring us to results that no one in the recent past thought possible.
While writing a survey of a Glagolitic breviary from 1465, we noticed through a comparison of the biblical text with the Vulgate and the Greek text, that in some places the text differed in content from the Vulgate and the Greek text.²⁷ One such difference was also found in Ulfilas’ Gothic Scriptures. At first we believed that the Croatian Glagolitic text really was based on the Gothic original, as was held by many others before. We then decided to investigate more fully Croatian Glagolitic texts. After many years of study, we compared the Croatian Glagolitic Gospels with the Cyrillo-Methodian translation, the Vulgate, the Itala Vetus or Vetus Latina (an older pre-Jerome translation) and old Greek texts. To date we have found more than six thousand larger and smaller differences.²⁸ We can say that a great portion of the differences can be found in the Vetus Latina and these mostly in texts that were written on the territory of Reims- Tours. It is obvious that these differences, which are found only in the Vetus Latina, could not have entered Croatian texts from Greek texts, but only from old Latin translations (texts). This again confirms that Croatian Glagolitic biblical texts were translated before St. Cyril’s translation. Since the Vetus Latina was used in Gaul, right up to the time of Charlemagne, we must conclude that the translation of biblical texts was associated with the activities of the Gallic missionaries and this was at the latest at the turn of the 8th to the 9th century.
* * *
Based on the preceding, this conclusion follows: just as there existed two Slavic alphabets, Cyrillic and Glagolitic, there also existed two Slavic liturgies. The younger one was linked to the missionary endeavours of the Holy Brothers. The origin of the Cyrillic alphabet is tied directly or indirectly to this liturgy. With time, this liturgy spread over the entire territory of Methodius’ expansive metropolitan. It encompassed the eastern Croatian regions of Srijem and Slavonija, a portion of Civil Croatia, a part of Bosnia, and then across Serbia, finishing south, in Bulgaria and Macedonia. In the East it stretched all the way to Little Poland and Rus’ lands (today’s Ukraine). With the death of Methodius, this large metropolitan disintegrated. This was primarily due to political causes, precisely in the manner in which the entire work of the Holy Brothers began: due to political and national concerns. With the disappearance of the metropolitan, the whole Slavic liturgy on that territory disappeared gradually and was only preserved in the south in Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia, and that in the Byzantine rite, as these regions were directly under Byzantine influence and the church jurisdiction of Constantinople.
The second Slavic liturgy, which was older by at least one century, developed on the territory that encompassed the following western Croatian regions: Istria, the littoral region, the major parts of Civil Croatia all the way to Samobor (near Zagreb), a section of western Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, and more or less today’s Montenegro. With few exceptions, these are in fact all those regions that preserved the Slavic liturgy to this very day. Associated to this liturgy is the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet. This liturgy developed naturally and became so closely tied to the people, that all misfortunes, especially those of a political nature, that accompanied it through more than a thousand years, and there were not a few of them, were never able to destroy it.
Although the two liturgies went their own ways, nevertheless, we cannot think that they did not have common features. The Apostles to the Slavs were quite certainly acquainted with the Glagolitic script. Besides that, as we have already indicated, St. Methodius’ metropolitan covered eastern Croatian regions. Therefore, conditions existed for lasting influences from both sides. If we just take these conditions into account, we will understand how the Glagolitic alphabet, at least for a brief period, could have penetrated all the way to Macedonia. We will also understand how, on the other side, Byzantine-Greek elements could have penetrated into the Western Slavic liturgy, along with the already mentioned Byzantine influence in the Greek Theme of Dalmatia.
Of course, the Croatian Glagolitic liturgy did not remain as something petrified throughout the centuries. It had its mission both in the past and in the present.
In 1347, Czech King Charles IV founded a monastery for Croatian Benedictines near Prague, known by the name Emmaus. This monastery was a focal point of Slavic liturgy and later, the center for a movement to unite the divided Slavs with the Catholic Church. From here the Glagolites later spread to Poland.
In his many reports to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the well known Croatian missionary to Russia and later Archbishop of Zadar, Matej Karaman (1700-1771), pushed for the founding of at least one monastery for Croatian Benedictine Glagolites and monastic Glagolitic Tertiaries in Russia. These Glagolites were to be of spiritual help to the local Catholics of the Western rite and would at the same time serve as proof to the Orthodox faithful, that the Catholic Church accepts and preserves all rites and all languages that were already established in the Church.
In recent times some Slavic states have received permission, through special agreements with the Holy See, to introduce either fully or partially, the Slavic liturgy on their territories. Thus, in 1886 it arrived to the Principality of Montenegro, followed by the Kingdom of Serbia in 1914, and the Republic of Czechoslovakia in 1920, but only for feast days of the main patron saints. The 1935 concordat with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia anticipated the introduction of the Slavic liturgy for all Croatian regions and throughout the entire state, but the whole matter was thwarted due to the political stance of the Serbian clergy.
Today the Glagolitic liturgy is found in seven dioceses and on the entire territory of the Province of the Tertiaries of St. Francis.
IV. The Language of Liturgical Books
We would also like to address the language of liturgical books. The language of liturgical books is ordinarily called the Old Church Slavic language. Very often among the Croats we hear the expression “Old Croatian language,” “mother of the Croatian language,” and so on. It would truly be about time that this question also be thoroughly investigated.
We Croats do not have written monuments older than the 11th century. According to the opinion of experts, the Tablet of Baska, the Grskovic Acts of the Apostles and the Vienna Fragments, all belong to that century. If we compare these monuments with other liturgical monuments of that time, which were written in Pannonia or Macedonia, the differences in grammar and lexica would be very small. The only major differences would be found in the phonetic development where the nasals disappeared, the semi-vowels were substituted with full phonemes, while the pre- Slavic group “tj“, “dj” and “sk” were replaced with “c“, “j” and “sc“. This phonetic development will advance somewhat right up to the 14th and 15th century, while the grammar and lexica will hardly experience any changes.
In contrast, if we compare the language of secular monuments, as for instance the Statute of Vinodol (1288), we would already find major differences in the language of these monuments and liturgical monuments. From this we can freely conclude the following: a) the languages of the Slavic peoples, at least up until the 10th century, differed little amongst themselves; and b) the same thing happened to the language of liturgical books as occurred to the Arabic, Greek and Latin languages.
Today’s Arabic literary language is the language of the Koran and not the spoken or common language. The common language of one region, or if you like, of one Arabic nation, is quite often so different that the Arabs of another region are barely able to understand it. That which today unifies Arabs is the language of the Koran and not the common language.
The same occurred with the Greek literary language, which is in fact, the language of the Byzantine court, and therefore differs also from the old classical language that is taught in our classical high schools, and which is still more different from the common language used in everyday life.
Even the Latin language used in the church differs considerably from the old classical language of the Roman writers. This language was introduced into the church by Pope Gregory I (590-604) to replace the common Latin language of the 6th century. As the Pope stated, this common Latin was so corrupt, that it was neither suitable, nor worthy of liturgical use. From the common Latin language of that time, there later developed the various Italian languages.
The same phenomenon occurred with the language of Slavic liturgical books. In the beginning it was indeed a common language. Later, it stabilized and became a “hieratic” (holy) language of church books. Some writers, such as Wenzel (Vaclav) Vondrak and August Leskien, and Josip Hamm among the Croats, called it-and we accept it as completely accurate-the “Old Church Slavic” language.
The language of church books printed on the territory of the Senj bishopric in the 16th and 17th centuries, were no longer Old Church Slavic, nor Croatian, even if some called the language of the missals Croatian, as for instance Simun Kozicic’s Croatian Missal (Hrvacki misal) from 1531. This language was a mixture, that would more fittingly be called Slavo-Croatian (slavo-hervatski), based on a similar name used by our neighbors, who designated their language of the 18th century Slavo-Serbian (slavo-serbski).
From all that we have stated thus far, the language of Croatian church books could only be called the mother of the Croatian language in a broader sense. It would be more appropriate to call it the older sister of the Croatian language.
V. The Croatian Glagolitic Bibliography
To date, detailed books have been written on everything that the Glagolites have left us in writing throughout the centuries. For this reason, it is obvious that this overview cannot focus on particulars, but will rather highlight some of the more important points.²⁹
Even if “bibliography” in the strict sense of the word deals with books or manuscripts on parchment, here we cannot skip the three oldest Glagolitic monuments written on stone. These are: the Valun and Plomin inscriptions (11th century) from Istria, and the so-called Tablet of Baska, which was recently determined by J. Hamm to have consisted of three inscriptions. The first and second parts were written in 1077, while the third part was written in 1089. This tablet was written in St. Lucy Abbey near Baska on the Island of Krk and contains the donation of the Croatian King Zvonimir.³⁰ All three monuments are important from the paleographic and philologic viewpoints, as they clearly reveal the development of the Glagolitic alphabet and the Croatian language. They are also important from the national and political viewpoints, as they show how far the Croatian language and Croatian national territory spread from the oldest times. Besides this, the Baska Tablet provides us with the name of the great Croatian King Zvonimir in its national form, while the names of the remaining dukes and kings from that era are known mainly from Latin documents, as the Latin language was the official language of cultured Europe at that time.
Since we are already discussing written monuments on stone, we should also mention one more. That is the 1541 baptismal font with the Glagolitic inscription in Sterna, which is today found in Slovenia. The inscription itself, as the names of the population, reveals that Croatian national territory of the 16th century was spread deep into today’s Slovenia. The situation is also well known to us from other historical sources.
With regard to other monuments of Glagolitic literacy, as we have already mentioned, their number is quite large, beginning from the oldest times up until today and they encompassed all areas of public life. As the Glagolitic script originated precisely due to church-liturgical requirements, the largest number of monuments are related to liturgical and church needs. This includes items such as: missals, breviaries, psalters, lectionaries, rituals, miscellanies, sacerdotal hand-books, homilies, etc.
Let us mention a few of the most important monuments. The oldest preserved missal is the Borgiano-illirico 4, found in the Vatican Library. The missal was written around the mid-14th century in a large format, in two columns. The script is very beautiful and it is decorated with picturesque initial letters in the Croatian interlace motif. The missal is especially important today because it contains traces of the oldest Slavic liturgy and still more importantly due to its biblical texts, which we have already discussed.
V. Jagic dated this missal at ca. 1350, while Vajs placed it at the beginning of the 14th century, that is, between 1317 and 1323. On the basis of liturgical facts we have shown that Jagic’s opinion is more correct.³¹
When discussing antiquities, we should also mention that the Oxford Bodleian Library houses another missal (Cod. sign. M.S. Canon Liturg. 172), which carries the year 1310 on its last page. However, according to Vajs’ opinion this is very suspicious, since the script does not correspond to such an old date. On the basis of its liturgical contents, it appears that Vajs’ opinion is correct.
Along with these oldest fully complete missals are a number of fragments that are still older than the mentioned missals. These are the already discussed Kiev Fragments from the 11th to 12th century, which were written in part on Croatian soil, the Premuda Baska Fragments from the 12th century, and the Kukuljevic Missal Fragment and the Bribinje Missal from the 13th century.
The Missal of Duke Novak of 1368 is today held in the Vienna National Library (Cod. slav. 8). Duke Novak wrote the missal in his own hand for the salvation of his soul. The book is decorated with numerous illuminated initials in gold and in color. It also contains many miniatures and two large full page illustrations.
The Roc Missal, from the same century, originated in Roc, Istria. The script is very beautiful and is decorated with many initials and several miniatures. It includes a complete missal and a portion of a ritual-book, containing the rite of trimming a child’s hair, marriage and various benedictions. This type of contents is found, more or less, in all Glagolitic missals and from the ritual side of things, it is evident that they were all contingent upon the same original.
The University Library in Ljubljana (Sign. c. 162 a/2) houses a missal that Dragutin Antun Parcic and Ivan Bercic placed in the 14th century. We mention it because of its importance to art history (due to its pictures) and its paleography, since it contains rounded forms of some letters. It was written by “the priest Juri of Beram” (“pop Juri namestnik u Berme“).
The Vrbnik parish office stores the missal known as the Second Vrbnik Missal. Its letters are of the beautiful angular type. From the beginning to folio fifty-four it contains Glagolitic initials, while the remaining folios (up to 286) contain Latin initials. This phenomenon occurred very often in other Glagolitic missals and breviaries. It is obvious that the copyists used Latin originals. It is precisely this missal that provides us with a remarkable example. While other transcribers made an effort to give individual Glagolitic texts the corresponding initial letter, this copier simply substituted Latin initials without any regard to the Glagolitic texts. For instance, in the third Christmas Mass, which in the Glagolitic missal begins with the words “Otroce rodi se nam,” we would expect that the Glagolitic missal would contain the initial “O“. Instead, the transcriber merely copied the Latin initial “P” corresponding to the Latin missal which begins with “Peur natus est nobis.”
One more missal from the 15th century should also be singled out, the so-called Missal of Duke Hrvoje of Split. This missal was written by the writer Butko. The Turks took this missal from Buda to Istanbul as war booty. From Istanbul the missal was sent to be examined at the Vienna University, where Jagic worked. On its return to Istanbul the missal was lost. It was recently located in the Topkapy Saray Library in Istanbul. The missal was decorated with beautiful initials and pictures. The pictures are allegorical (at the beginning of months), symbolic (the four Evangelists) and historical (various saints). According to the views of experts, the artist belonged to the Tuscan school.
Of the many breviaries, we will mention only the two-part breviary that is kept in the Vatican Library: the Borgiano- illirco 5-6 from 1364 and 1387. The breviary is decorated with striking picturesque initials in the Croatian interlace style. It is especially important for the study of Croatian sanctorale. Along with the Book of Psalms and remaining prescribed sections of the breviary, there is also found the ritual part. The liturgy of the Holy Brothers is located at the end of the codex. Since this liturgy is not found in the so-called main text, but at the end of the book, it is clear that it was added later. Another important aspect of the codex is that it contains its own liturgy of St. Francis and his life, which was written by St. Bonaventure, the so- called Legenda Maior. Therefore, it is clearly a Franciscan breviary. We must also mention that the majority of Glagolitic missals and breviaries had the Franciscan’s special devotion to the saints, be this due to the fact that they were originally Franciscan missals and breviaries, or be it due to the fact that they were copied from them. This is quite clear in itself. The majority of village Glagolites were not capable of translating liturgical texts directly from Latin. This is why for their purposes they copied from texts that had already been translated, which for the most part originated in monasteries.
When the printing press appeared in Europe, the first Glagolitic print shop opened in Croatia very early. This was in 1482 at Kosinj, Lika. This printing house was founded by Duke Anz VIII Frankopan of Brinje. He most probably had the letters cut in Venice and used as his source the missal of his wife’s great- grandfather, Duke Novak of Krbava. As we have already stated, Duke Novak wrote the missal in his own hand in 1368. This was the first printing press on South and East Slavic soil (the first Russian book was only printed in 1611). This first Croatian printing press also made available the first printed Glagolitic missal in 1483, whose original source was again the mentioned Missal of Duke Novak.³²
This printing shop most likely printed the oldest breviary from which only one copy has been preserved in Venice, in the library of S. Marco. After the battle of the Plain of Krbava (1493) the region was layed waste to by the Turks and the printing shop, it appears, was relocated to the coast. After this move, the next succession of printed missals and breviaries began, of which only some are mentioned below.
In 1494 the second edition of a missal was published in Senj “by Master Blaz Baromic, Master Salvestar Bedricic and Deacon Gaspar Turcic, with the approbation and by the Grace of our Lord God” (“s dopuscen’nem i volju G(ospodi)na B(og)a od’ domina Blaza Baromica i domina Salvestra Bedricica i zakna Gaspara Turc’ca“). Canon Baromic was also the corrector of a Glagolitic breviary from 1493, while Silvestar Bedricic, the Archdeacon of Senj, wrote the book Manual for Spiritual Guidance (Narucnik plebanusev) of 1507.
In 1528 there appeared in Venice a new Glagolitic missal, issued “by friar Paval of Modrus, of the seraphic Order of Conventuals of St. Francis” (“po fratru Pavlu Modrusaninu ot’ reda serafika svetago Franciska konventovali“). The printers were Francesco Bidoni and Mafeo Pasyni.
In Rijeka the “…Croatian Missal… corrected by… Father Simun Kozicic, Bishop of Zadar, and printed at his residence in Rijeka” (“…Misal hrvack’… popravlen’…otcem’ gospodinom” Simunom’ Kozicic’, Zadraninom’, biskupom’ Modruskim’ stampan’v Rici v hizah’ ego prebivane…“) appeared in 1531.
The last liturgical book printed before the Council of Trent was the so-called Brozic Codex, which contained a breviary, missal and ritual. The codex was printed in Venice by the sons of G. Francesco Turesani. The Glagolitic colophon stated: “The completion of this Croatian breviary printed in Venice…and reprinted anew by the parish priest Nikola Brozic in Omisalj in the month of March 1531” (“Svrsenie privieli hirvackih’ stampani va Bnecih’…znova ucineni po pre Mikuli Brozici plovani omiselskom’ miseca marca 1531“).
The year 1631 marked the beginning of a new period for Croatian Glagolitic books. After the Tridentine Council, the printing of Glagolitic liturgical books was taken over by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. The first Croatian Glagolitic missal printed by the Propagation was in 1631, while the first Glagolitic breviary appeared in 1648. Both books were published by the Franciscan Father Rafael Levakovic, who later became Archbishop of Ohrid in Macedonia. The sign indicating that it was the Propogation’s publication is that its language fell under the influence of Ukrainian liturgical books. The reason for this change was the Propogation’s consultants and censors who were all Ukrainian and who considered the language of their liturgical books more correct and refined. The breviary from 1688 could be added to these first two editions, and its language was still further Russified. A new edition of Levakovic’s missal appeared in 1706 without any changes. In Matija Karaman’s (later Archbishop of Zadar) edition of 1741, a completely new missal was printed which was completely Russified. With this missal and the 1791 printing of a Glagolitic breviary under the editorship of Gocinic, the period of Russified Croatian Glagolitic liturgical books came to an end.³³
On the order of Pope Leo XIII, the Canon of St. Jerome’s in Rome, Antun Dragutin Parcic, prepared the Acts and Guides to the Mass (Cin’ i Pravilo Misi) in 1881 and the complete missal in 1893. In his modifications Parcic used the oldest Croatian Glagolitic books and thereby returned to the oldest language forms. In 1905 a second edition of this missal was published, while in 1927 Josef Vajs published the same missal in the Roman script. In his editon Vajs introduced many Czechisms and used an incorrect and foreign method of transcription. In that way Vajs spoiled Parcic’s edition.
Along with church and liturgical monuments, a large number of monuments with secular content also existed. These included historical and juridical monuments (both civil and ecclesiastic), verse, lexicons and grammars, public-legal agreements, and so on. It is noteworthy to mention the Statute of Vinodol from 1288, which was followed by many other statutes and rules (regula) that regulated public or ecclesiastic life. Today these documents serve as historical sources of juridicial life among the Croats from eras long ago. Since there are a large number of these types of monuments, and our space is limited, we cannot discuss them individually.
Croatian poets, called Initiators (Zacinjaoci),³⁴ also added their secular poetry to existing church verse. Even in the epic Judita (Judith) of the father of modern Croatian literature, Marko Marulic of Split, which commenced the period of modern Croatian literature, we can find sources, directly or indirectly, in Glagolitic texts.³⁵
In this way Croats, who already from the oldest times quite happily departed for various foreign universities (especially in Italy and Paris) and enriched themselves in Western culture, did not abandon their very own culture, which sprang and blossomed on their soil. According to evidence from many monuments, their endeavours could not be stopped either by centuries-long wars against the Turks, as they remained the bulwark of Europe, or by their more numerous and stronger neighbors who very often attempted to politically and culturally subjugate them.
VI. Conclusion
In closing we can ask: what is the final conclusion of the more recent investigations of the Glagolitic question? Do we Croats owe the Holy Brothers, and if we do, what do we owe them?
To the first question we can reply in short that with regard to the Glagolitic alphabet, today we can say with complete certainty that it is the Croatian national alphabet and that it originated through a natural process on Croatian territory. Paleography (the science of the origin of alphabets) shows that the Glagolitic alphabet is of Western origin, that is, precisely one of the Roman scripts, and not Greek, and still less Eastern. Historical monuments testify that the Glagolitic script was known to Latin authors at least in the 8th century, that is, before the missionary activities of the Holy Brothers. Liturgical monuments reveal that their source was Latin liturgical monuments of the 7th and 8th centuries. There can be only one logical conclusion: the Glagolitic alphabet is older than St. Cyril, and therefore, he could not have “invented” it (just as, after all, not a single alphabet was invented, but rather originated through a natural development). Since this alphabet is Slavic, and since liturgical monuments were written in an alphabet of Latin origin, it could only have originated on the territory of Slavic Christians of the Western rite, and these could only have been the Croats. Therefore, there is again only one conclusion: the Glagolitic alphabet originated among the Croats, and therefore it is accordingly, a true Croatian alphabet.
Inasmuch as we wish to accept literally his legendary life, St. Cyril could only have invented the Cyrillic alphabet, which, in reality, is nothing other than the Greek uncial script of the 9th century. It was only necessary to combine and adjust some letters to Old Church Slavic sounds and the Cyrillic alphabet was invented.
With respect to the Glagolitic liturgy, things are much simpler. The Croats were baptized (or as some wish, converted into the Catholic Church, since they were allegedly already Arians) in the 7th century. They most certainly belonged to the Western rite, as they lived on the territory of the Western patriarchate. From the beginning this rite must have been either in the Latin or Slavic language. Had it been in Latin, no one in the 9th or 10th century could have changed it as that was the period of the Photian Schism, the conflict between the Eastern and Western churches, and the era of Western church reforms. To have introduced at that time something that belonged to the Eastern church, would have meant to acknowledge the East. This could never have been accepted by Rome or the Croats. In addition, who could have introduced the vernacular language? The exiled disciples of the Holy Brothers, as is normally believed? Insofar as the followers of the Apostles to the Slavs were Moravian, they remained in their homeland. Insofar as they truly were expelled, these could have only been the Macedonians and under the best of circumstances they could have numbered several dozen. That these few dozen followers spread the Slavic liturgy, under the conditions we have previously described, is difficult to conceive. Therefore, even from this angle only one conclusion remains: the Slavic liturgy originated in Croatia and therefore was to remained only in Croatia.
When the Holy Brothers decided on the difficult mission in Moravia, they needed to decide in advance on the rite, language and script they would use. As Byzantines, their most natural choice was the Byzantine rite and as a result, the national language of the region to which they were going, as no one would be able to understand Greek anyway. And the script? As important high-ranking state officials, the Holy Brothers must have been familiar with Croatian territories, at least those that formed the Byzantine Theme of Dalmatia (the Islands, some cities, and a portion of the western Istrian coast), as the Emperor’s court kept itself informed, as is seen in the document De administrando imperio of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. For a person of that era, Porphyrogenitus had a fairly good grasp of Croatian history: he knew of the names of Croatian regions, rivers and islands. He even preserved some old Croatian names of islands that were later lost through Roman and Italian influences. As a result, the Holy Brothers must have known the condition of the Croatian Church, liturgy and script. It is not even excluded that they may have already been introduced to the Glagolitic script in Salonika, where there were many Slavs and where they also learned the Slavic language. Presupposing that these Slavs had some kind of a permanent culture while living in a cultural milieu, the Glagolitic alphabet could have quite easily penetrated Macedonia directly or indirectly, as Macedonia, like the Dalmatian Theme, was under Byzantium.
For this reason, the decision to use the Glagolitic alphabet imposed itself. If we also take into account the continuous attacks of the Latin priests on the Byzantine rite, St. Cyril must have very quickly decided on the Western rite. Where would he find the source for his liturgical books? Again in Croatia. This is shown by the previously mentioned Kiev Fragments. The Kiev Fragments were written in the Glagolitic alphabet and the liturgical contents are masses of the Western rite, translated from an original that was used, more or less, on the territory of the Aquileian patriarchate. It is manifestly evident, therefore, that the first original translation could only have arisen in Croatia. This is best seen in the Kiev Fragments, which are in fact only copies from another source. The Czech W. Vondrak stated that the homeland of the Kiev Fragments was the same as that of the so-called Freising Fragments and that was approximately Istria-Koruska (Carinthia). St. M. Kuljbakin who, to be sure, did not decide on the area in which these leaflets were written, nevertheless stood firmly against the view that they could have come from Moravia or some other northern Slavic nation.³⁶
In her study of the Kiev Fragments, Marija Pantelic accepts the thesis that they were written on Czech-Moravian territory at the end of the 10th century, except the first page which was written later. She concludes that: “Based on the contents, language and script of the Kiev Fragments, they represent the oldest Glagolitic monuments of Slavic literacy and culture.” However, “the younger copies of the Kiev Fragments and the Sinai Liturgy from the 11th or beginning of the 12th century testify to the use of Kiev Fragments and the Sinai Liturgy in a border region, a mixed territory of that time, as was the case in Dubrovnik and the Peljesac peninsula with its hinterland.”³⁷ Consequently, the fragments should have been written on Czech territory and were used on Croatian territory!?
As a result, in their missionary work among the Pannonian Slavs, the Holy Brothers employed our national alphabet and our national liturgy. This, in fact, was not the first time that our national script and our national liturgy spread toward the north. It would repeat itself a second time, as we have already seen, during the reign of the Czech King Charles IV and a third time after the First World War.
We therefore, have reasons to be proud of our antiquities and we have sufficient reason to be thankful to the Holy Brothers, who for the first time revealed to the Slavs and to other peoples, what we had and what we were.
Today, when not only Slavic nations, but also non-Slavic nations celebrate the works of the Slavic Apostles, we Croats must not fall short and forget to give them full honor and recognition.
Translated by Stan Granic
NOTES
^* An earlier version of this article appeared under the title “Hrvatska glagoljica. Povodom 1100. godisnjice djelovanja svete brase Cirila i Metoda (863.-1963.),” Hrvatska revija, 13, no. 4 (1963), 469-491. It was later revised under the title “Hrvatska glagoljica” in a collection of the author’s essays under the same title: Hrvatska glagoljica (Zagreb: Hrvatska uzdanica, 1998), pp. 9-34. This revised version is translated here. A Spanish translation of the 1963 article appeared under the title “La glagolitza croata. Con motivo del 1100 aniversario de la actuacion de los Ss. Cirilo y Metodio (863-1963),” Studia Croatica, 5, nos. 1-2 (1964), 55-75. The translator is grateful to Dr. Vinko Grubisic of the University of Waterloo for his assistance during the translation process-trans.
¹ S.L. Lazic, Kratka povjesnica Srba od postanja srpstva do danas (Zagreb, 1894), p. 102.
² E. Gasic, Povijest zupe i mjesta Moravic (Dakovo, 1936), p. 176.
³ I. Boba, Moravia’s History Reconsidered: A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971). Croatian translation: I. Boba, Novi pregled na povijest Moravije (Split: Crkva u svijetu, 1986).
⁴ J. Hamm, Gramatika starocrkvenoslavenskog jezika (Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Hrvatske, 1947), p. 15.
⁵ J. Dobrovsky (1753-1829) wrote many works in the field of Slavic studies. He marks the birth of scholarly research into Slavic philology, literature and history. His stand with respect to the Croatian Glagolitic heritage was quite negative. Cf.: Masarikov slovnik naucny, 2, 307.
⁶ G. Dobner (1719-1790) the Czech priest, piarist and historian wrote many historical works. He taught many things that science only later established. One of his teachings was that the Glagolitic script pre-dated Cyrillic. Cf.: Masarikov slovnik, 2, 304.
⁷ Magnetius Hrabanus Maurus was born in 784 in Mainz (Magonza).
He was a very prolific Church author whose works are collected in Jacques Paul Migne’s Patrologia Latina. Initially Maurus was a deacon, then an abbot in Fulda, and finally an archbishop in Mainz, where he died in 856. His treatise on the origin of scripts is found in his work De inventione linguarum ab Hebraea usque ad Theodiscam, et notis antiques, in Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1855), CXII, 1579-1584.
⁸ H. Lowe [Loewe], Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifatius. Virgil von Salzburg und die Kosmographie des Aeticus Ister, Abhandlungen der Geistes-und Sozialwissenschaftishen Klasse, Jahrgang 1951, no. 11 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1952).
⁹ In 1985 a symposium on Croatian church and social history was held in Split. At this symposium, Vatican Library copyist, Dr. Vittorio Peri, was to have held a lecture on the Jerome theory. Unfortunately, because a congress was held [in Rome] on the 1100th anniversary of the death of St. Methodius, he could not attend. Dr. Peri asserts that we are in fact dealing with a copyist named Jerome, who copied much and over time he has been credited with the invention of an alphabet. With time this mere mortal became identified as St. Jerome.
¹⁰ A. Theiner, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1927), VII, 223. For this and other documents dealing with the Slavic liturgy see: I. Prodan, Borba za glagolicu (Zadar, 1900), Part I: Poviest glagolice i njeni izvori, supplement B, pp. 1-127.
¹¹ Vatroslav Jagic was born in Varazdin, Croatia, on 6 July 1838 and died in Vienna on 5 April 1923. He was a university professor in Odessa, Russia, then later in Berlin, Germany (from 1874), where he founded his celebrated Archiv fur slavische Philologie. In 1880 he became a professor in St. Petersburg, Russia, and finally in Vienna in 1886. He was the central figure of Slavic studies during the last fifty years of his life. He published the following old texts: Quattuor Evangeliorum codex Glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus (1879), Quattuor Evangeliorum versionis palaeoslavenicae codex Marianus (1883), Psalterium Bononiense (1907), and many others. He has written many studies on the origin of the Glagolitic script and the Old Church Slavic language and literature; he has also dealt with the archeology, history and literature of Croatia and Russia, and other Slavic languages. Here we are primarily interested in his work on the Glagolitic script that was written in the Russian language: V. Jagic, “Glagoliceskoje pismo,” Enciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii (St. Petersburg: Akademii nauk, 1911), III (Grafika u slavjan), 51-262 + 36 pages of plates.
¹² K. Segvic, Hrvatski jezik u katolickom bogostovlju. Prigodom 1300-godisnjice pokatolicenja Hrvata (Zagreb: St. Kugli, 1941).
¹³ Ulfilas (Gothic, Wulfila) was born ca. 311 in Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and died ca. 383. At the age of thirty he was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia. He served as the Apostle to the Visigoths, even for a time in the Danube River basin. He translated the New Testament into the Gothic language. This translation is known under the name Codex Argenteus and is preserved at the University of Uppsala, Sweden (Enciclopedia Italiana, XXXIV, 629).
¹⁴ C. Grubissich, In originem et Historiam Alphabeti Sclavonici Glagolitici vulgo Hieronymiani, Disquistio Antiquitatis Populorum Septemtrinalium Reique Litteratiae Sclavonicae et Ruinicae Studiosis (Venice, 1766).
¹⁵ J. Hamm, “Postanak glagoljskog pisma u svijetlu paleografije,” Nastavni vjesnik, 46 (Zagreb, 1939) 39-61.
¹⁶ W. Lettenbauer, “Zur Entstehung des glagolitischen Alphabets,” Slovo, 3 (Zagreb, 1953), 35-50. Other works dealing with this are: K. A. F. Pertz, De cosmographia Ethici, libri tres (Berlin, 1853); M. Hocij, “Die westlichen Grundlagen des glagolitischen Alphabets,” Sudostdeutsche Forschungen, 4 (Munich, 1940), 509-600.
¹⁷ P. Skok, “Uslovi zivota glagoljice,” Slovo, 3 (1953), 60.
¹⁸ Skok, “Uslovi,” p. 60.
¹⁹ For more on this see: “Kriticki pogled na Zice Cirilovo i Hrabrovu raspravu O pismeneh,” in Hrvatska glagoljica, pp. 35-50.
²⁰ R. Pesic, “Jedna nepoznata istorija Slovena. ‘Izenbekove dascice’ – ‘Vles knjiga’ ili ‘Jasna’,” Pravoslavlje, no. 554 (1990), 9; G. Krasnov, “‘Izenbekove dascice’ – najstariji nepoznati dokument slavenske pismenosti i proslosti,” Marulic, no. 1 (1991), 84-85.
²¹ Japundzic, “Kriticki pogled,” pp. 35-50.
²² J. Vasica, “Slovanska liturgie sv. Petra,” Byzantinoslavica, 8 (1946), 1-54.
²³ The Kiev Leaflets (or Folia) are fragments of a missal from the 10th century that were copied (transcribed) from an earlier original dated in the 9th century. The following studies have dealt with it: C. Mohlberg, Il messale Glagolitico di Kiew (sec. IX) ed il suo prototipo Romano del sec. VI-VII, in the series Memorie della Pontificia accademia Romana di Archeologia, (Rome, 1928), II; J. Vajs, “Kanon charvatsko-hlaholskego vatikanskeho misali III. 4. Prostejsek hlaholskych listu Kievskych,” Casopis pro moderni filologie, 25 (1939), 113-134; id., “Mesni rad charvatsko- hlaholskeho misalu III. 4 a jeho pomer k moravsko-pannonskemu sakramentari stol. IX,” Acta Academiae Velehradensis, 15, no. 2 (1939), 89-141; J. Vasica, “Slovanska liturgie nove osvetlena Kijevskymi listy,” Slovo a slovesnost, 6 (Prague, 1940), 65- 77.
²⁴ Today this missal is kept in the Vatican library: Fondo Borgiano-illirico 4. The missal was written in the mid-14th century.
²⁵ Regarding the origin of this liturgy cf.: J. M. Hanssens, “La liturgie romano-byzantine de Saint Pierre,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 4, (Rome, 1938), 243-258 and 5 (1939), 103-150; D. Cizevskij, “K voprosu o liturgiji Sv. Petra,” Slovo, 2 (1953), 36-40.
²⁶ Cf.: M. Polonijo, “Prvi uzmak glagoljice u krckog biskupiji,” Radovi Staroslavenskog instituta, 2 (Zagreb, 1955), 199.
²⁷ M. Japundzic, “Glagoljski brevijar iz g. 1465 (Vaticano-slavo 19),” Radovi Staroslavenskog instituta, 2 (Zagreb, 1955), 155-191; id., “O predlosku evandelistara najstarijega hrvatskoglagoljskog misala,” in Tragom hrvatskoga glagolizma, eds. Petar Basic and Stjepan Damjanovic (Zagreb: Provincijalat franjevaca trecoredaca and Krscanska sadasnjost, 1995), pp. 119-148.
²⁸ Japundzic, “O predlosku,” pp. 119-148.
²⁹ Listed are some surveys of the Glagolitic bibliography: R. Strohal, Hrvatska glagolska knjiga (Zagreb: Rudolf Strohal, 1915); I. Kukuljevic-Sakcinski, Bibliografia hrvatska. Dio prvi, Tiskane knjige (Zagreb: Brzotisak D. Albrechta, 1860); I. Milcetic, “Hrvatska glagolska bibliografija,” Starine, 33 (Zagreb, 1911), XV + 505; Vj. Stefanic, Glagolski rukopisi otoka Krka (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti-JAZU, 1960); B. Fucic, Glagoljski natpisi (Zagreb: JAZU, 1982)-supplement in Slovo, 38 (Zagreb, 1988), 63-73; A. Dzurova, K. Stancev and M. Japundzic, Opis na slavjanskite rukopisi vav Vatikanskata biblioteka/Catalogo dei Manoscritti Slavi della Biblioteca Vaticana (Sofia: Svjat, 1985). The subject of Glagolitic missals was treated in detail by J. Vajs in his book Najstariji hrvatskoglagoljski misal, s bibliografskim opisima svih hrvatskoglagoljskih misala (Zagreb: JAZU, 1948) while Glagolitic breviaries were covered in his book Nejstarsi breviar chrvatsko-hlaholsky (Prague: Nakladem Kral. Ceske spolecnosti nauk, 1910).
³⁰ For details on the Tablet of Baska cf.: Vj. Stefanic, “Opatija sv. Lucije u Baski i drugi benediktinski samostani na Krku,” Croatia sacra, 6 (Zagreb, 1936), 11-86; J. Hamm, “Datiranje glagoljskih tekstova,” Radovi Staroslavenskog instituta, 1 (1952), 22-37; B. Fucic, “Bascanska ploca kao arheoloski predmet,” Slovo, 6 (1957), 247-262.
³¹ Japundzic, “Glagoljski brevijar,” p. 190.
³² Z. Kulundzic, “Problem najstarije stamparije na slavenskom jugu (Kosinj 1482.-1493.),” Narodna Knjiznica, 1 (Zagreb, 1959), 21-28.
³³ For an examination of the Russification of Glagolitic books and especially the missal from 1741, see: M. Japundzic, “Matteo Karaman, (1700.-1771.),” Arivescovo di Zara (Rome, 1961).
³⁴ Zacinjavac is the oldest name for a poet, who was a canto-versificator. Cf.: F. Fancev, “Gradja za pjesnicki leksikon hrvatskoga jezika,” Gradja za povijest knjizevnosti hrvatske, 15 (Zagreb, 1940), 182-200; P. Skok, “Sitni prilozi proucavanju pjesnickoga jezika nase srednje knjizevnosti i najstariji izraz pjesnika,” Prilozi za knjizevnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, book 18, vol. 1-2 (Belgrade, 1938), 292- 301.
³⁵ Marko Marulic (1450-1526) of Split studied languages and classical literature, philosophy, poetics, and rhetoric in Padua. He was also a painter and sculptor. After returning to his homeland, he led a strict aesthetic and contemplative life. Among his many literary works, his best known one in the Croatian language is called Judita or in full: Istorija sv. udovice Judit u versih hrvacki slozena (The history of the holy widow Judith, composed in Croatian verses) of 1501. His best known work in Latin is: De institutione bene beateque vivendi juxta exempla sanctorum. Shortly after it was first published, this work (De institutione) was translated into Italian, French, Portugese, Czech, German and Croatian, and during the same century underwent nineteen editions. It is known that during his long journey across the East St. Francis Xavier carried along with his breviary only Marulic’s work De institutione. With regard to Judita, it was considered a great success among older and later poets. In only two years after its appearance, the epic Judita underwent three editions. Although Marulic was not the first Croatian poet, based upon his success, he was certainly the first major poet. Cf.: F. Trograncic, Storia della letteratura croata (Rome, 1953), p. 44 and following; M. Kombol, Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti do narodnoga preporoda, 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1961), p. 81 and afterwards.
³⁶ Cf.:F. Zagiba, “Der historische Umkreis der Kiever Sakramentar-fragmente,” Slovo, 14 (1964), 59-77; W. Vondrak, Altkirchenslavishe Grammatik (Berlin, 1912), p. 30; id., O puvodu Kijevskych listu a Prazskych zlomku (Prague: Spisuv poctenych jubilejni cenou Kral. Ceske spolecnosti Nauk., 1904); St. M. Kuljbakin, “Izvestija otdelenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti,” 10 (1905), 320-338; id., “Du classement des textes vieux slaves,” Revue de etudes slaves, 2 (1922), 106-201.
³⁷ Marija Pantelic, “O Kijevskim i Sinajskim listicima,”

In November of 1463 Bosnian King Tvrtko II (1420-1443) died. Because he did not have a son to inherit his throne, by the end of his life he expresses he wanted his successor to be Stjepan Tomas, the son of Stjepan Ostoja, and not Tomas’s older brother Radivoj who, alreade in 1432 proclaimed himself Bosnian king with the help of the Turks, and thus was a rival to Tvrtko II. In truth, several days after the death of Tvrtko II, Bosnian nobles proclaimed Stjepan Tomas as the Bosnian king; thus he succeeded Tvrtko II on the Bosnian throne.
The Internal Situation in Bosnia

Stjepan Tomas, after becoming the Bosnian king, found a Bosnian kingdom in disarray: inside the state there were major disagreements among the nobles, the populace was religiously divided¹, and on its borders there was a large Turkish army which would attack the Bosnian state from time to time and interfere in Bosnia’s state of affairs. Tvrtko II had already paid tribute to the Turks so they would leave him alone. Nevertheless, the Turks convinced Radivoj, the son of Stjepan Ostoja to proclaim himself Bosnian king, and thus they had a permanent influence on the Bosnian kingdom. King Tomas believed that the Bosnian state would not survive if the nobles did not stop fighting either amongst themselves or with the king. His first order of business was to placate his older brother Radivoj and live with him in peace. After a while he succeeded in this effort. After 1446, Radivoj was on the best terms with King Tomas and assisted him with everything.
Another noble without whom there could be no peace in Bosnia, was Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca. He was by nature, hard-working, and industrious but also shrewd and quarrelsome. At that time he was the most respected Bosnian nobleman. It was clear from the beginning to King Tomas that he would not have peace and safety in the Bosnian kingdom if he could not find a peaceful co-existence with this nobleman. So King Tomas searched for a means to smooth all differences with Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca and establish a peaceful relationship.
It helped Stjepan Tomas in this matter that he wanted to put his religious life into order. Stjepan Tomas was raised as a Bogumil or a Patarin. King Tvrtko II had already cautioned him to become a Catholic if he had wanted to amount to anything as king. Maybe Stjepan Tomas had already embraced the Catholic faith during Tvrtko II’s lifetime, but was certainly a Catholic at the start of his reign. Pope Eugene IV in1455 spoke of Stjepan Tomas as a proper Catholic.
When Tomas became a Catholic, he was already married to the commoner Vojaca, and had a son Stjepan with her, who was later called Stjepan Tomasevic. The Catholics considered Tomas’s marriage as not valid. Even Pope Eugene IV proclaimed Stjepan Tomas’s marriage as null because it was carried out according to the Bogumil faith. King Stjepan Tomas did not want to marry his former wife Vojaca according to Catholic custom, but rather found another wife. He found her actually in the person of twenty-two year old Katarina daughter of Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca. . Everything was prepared for the marriage, and the Bosnian king married Katarina in a solemn ceremony in Milodraz in May of 1446. With this marriage peace was made, at least for several years, between Stjepan Kosaca and the Bosnian king Stjepan Tomas.
The Turkish Threat

The main danger to the Christian world at this time came from the Turks who would attack western regions from time to time and would take over piece by piece the lands that were in their way. Bosnia was, during the reign of King Stjepan Tomas, on the forefront of Turkish attacks. Two routes were open to Stjepan Tomas: either submit to Turkish power, or to defend against it with the help of Christian states, who saw the Turkish threat and looked for methods to stop the Turkish expansion towards the West. For some time, the Pope was the main defender of the Christian people against the Turks.
Just prior to Stjepan Tomas coming to power in Bosnia, Pope Eugene IV called all Christians in the world on a military crusade against the Turks, either enlisting as soldiers or securing aid for the expenses of the crusader army. The Pope sent preachers to the then Christian regions to explain to the people the need for one Christian army and to collect various donations on that behalf.
Those endeavors continued during the papacy of Nicholas V (1447-1455), during which in 1453 Constantinople fell into Turkish hands. It looked as though during the papacy of Callistus III (1455-1458) those endeavors might achieve at least some resultswhen in 1456 the crusaders defended Belgrade.
In the meanwhile, Stjepan Tomas did not see any use from these endeavors. It seemed to him that everybody had abandoned him, and that he would not be able to defend himself if the Turks attacked. For that reason in March or April of 1458 he requested of the Sultan conditions for peace among them. The Sultan promised that he would not bother him or attack him, if he were paid a set yearly tribute. Stjepan Tomas believed he had to accept that.
The Marriage of Stjepan Tomasevic
The son of Stjepan Tomas, who is commonly called Stjepan Tomasevic, was ready for marriage. Stjepan Tomas wanted that the marriage be beneficial for the Bosnian kingdom, especially in its defense against the Turks.
In July of 1456, Stjepan Tomas sent a delegation to Rome to see what the possibilities were of a marriage in Rome. This delegation had to ask the Pope in the name of the Bosnian king that his son Stjepan could get as wife the daughter of a prince or someone of royal blood.
Somehow, at the same time, the possibility arose that Stjepan Tomasevic could take the oldest daughter of Lazar Djordjevic, Despot of Serbia, as his wife². Stjepan Tomas quickly made an agreement.
However, before the marriage of Stjepan Tomasevic and Lazar’s daughter Mara, also called Jelena, Jelaca or Margarita, Lazar Djordjevic died on January 20, 1458. Even though the vice-regency took over the administration of the despotate, an uncertain situation arose. Stjepan Tomas believed that nothing would come from the planned marriage. So he went elsewhere to find a wife for his son.
Stjepan Tomas heard that the doge of Milan, Francis I Sforza had a daugher for marriage. He sent his representative Nikola TestaTrogiranin to ask the doge’s daughter to marry Stjepan. Testa successfully began negotiations which needed to be concluded later.
After the uncertainty in the Serbian Despotate began, following the death of Lazar Djordjevic, in time the situation became clearer and safer. The vice-regency came to the decision that in these times it would be best for the despotate to invite Stjepan Tomasevic to rule and renew negotiations for his marriage to the daughter of Prince Lazar. The negotiations ended with the decision to unite Bosnia and the Serbian Despotate with the marriage of the successor to the despotate to the successor of the Bosnian kingdom. Hungary believed this was an acceptable decision. In January of 1459 the Hungarian parliament welcomed the unification of the Kingdom of Bosnia to the Serbian Despotate, because they believed it would be easier to resist the Turks. Stjepan Tomas who was present at the parliament, recognized the Hungarian king as his sovereign, and King Matthias³ promised to defend Bosnia from the Turks.
When the Turks heard the decision of the Hungarian parliament, they ordered their army to take Bobovac, where Stjepan Tomasevic resided, and Vranduk, where Tomas’s brother Radivoj lived. These two found out the Turk’s intentions and fled into the despotate. Stjepan Tomasevic took power there on March 21, 1459 and on April 1st of the same year married Lazar’s daugher Mara.
The arrival of Stjepan Tomasevic to rule the despotate was viewed as a provocation by the Turks. The Turks believed that their rights were infringed upon, because they saw the despotate as their vassal state. Stjepan Tomasevic was aware of that and asked for real and serious help from the Hungarians when he heard that the Turks were heading towards his state in the direction of Smederevo, where his throne was located. Because he did not receive any help, when the Turks came to Smederevo, Stjepan Tomasevic, together with his family abandoned the city. The Turks entered Smederevo on June 20, 1459.
The fall of Smederevo caused surprise and fear especially in Hungary. The doors to Hungary were open for the Turks. The Hungarians personally found it suspicious that Smederevo fell without a fight. King Matthias openly stated that the city fell because of betrayal.
Meeting in Mantua
Just prior to the fall of Smederevo, Pope Pius II convened a congress of Christian rulers in Mantua on June 1, 1449, which he called so they could discuss how to resist Turkish destruction.
As soon as Stjepan Tomas heard about the meeting in Mantua, he sent his representative Nikola Testa to secretly inform the gathered rulers and their representatives of the situation in Bosnia and to request aid against the Turks.
The Bosnian representative left Mantua before the news of Smederevo’s fall arrived there. When it arrived, news spread that StjepanTomasevic sold out Smederevo.
Stjepan Tomas was disheartened with the fall of Smederevo, because he found himself in a hopeless situation: he couldn’t resist by himself, and he didn’t believe he would get help from the Christian leaders ever since they heard that his son sold out Smederevo.
In this situation, he could either surrender to the Turks or try to convince the Christian peoples that he honestly and with all his power wanted to resist the Turks.
Because Bosnia had a strong group of heretics, the Bogumils or Patarins, Bosnia was considered an unstable country for a long time. Stjepan Tomas came to the belief that he had to destroy religious division in his country and model it on other Christian countries. At this opportunity he chose a decisive step. He stated that all Bogumils become Catholics. Who didn’t follow the king’s decree would have to leave the kingdom and leave all their possessions.
Tomas’s decree was given during the second half of 1459, after a letter from King Matthias which on July 12, 1459 accused King Tomas for treason and before June 7 1460, when Pope Pius II stated to King Matthias that Stjepan Tomas wanted to be a proper Catholic, and the proof was that he had expelled the dangerous Patarins.
Stjepan Tomas wanted to inform the meeting at Mantua and especially the Pope of his decision to expel heretics from his country. Tomas could not ask Tomo the Bishop of Hvar, who had done him many favors in the past because he was old and it was difficult for him to travel to Mantua, but rather he went to Natal to the Bishop of Nin, who in December of 1459 went to Mantua to inform the Pope and the meeting of the new situation in the Bosnian kingdom.
A large number of Bogumils had accepted Stjepan Tomas’s decree. But acceptance did not mean a change in lifestyle. They had to learn what it meant to live as a Catholic. Which is why Stjepan Tomas, without suspicion in an agreement with Bishop Natal, sent three well-known Bogumils to Rome so that the Pope could teach them in the Catholic faith and living. In this trio were Jure Kucinic, Stojsav Tvrtkovic, and Radmil Vecinic. They went to Rome in October of 1460. Arriving in Rome, Natal took this trio to the Pope. They came to the Pope bound. Maybe Natal had wanted to give an illustrated meaning to this arrival. Pope Pius II put the three Bogumils in monasteries in Rome where they had the opportunity to study the Christian truth.
These three Bogumils stayed in Rome for half a year to study Christian doctrine. They were helped by priests that spoke Croatian and who lived in Rome. . At the end, the Pope had requested that the well known Cardinal Juan de Torquemada gather all manichaean sinners, at least the major ones, because the Bosnian Bogumils were introduced in Rome as manichaeans, and show the reasons for which hey were wrong and because of which should be rejected. On the basis of that list, the three Bogumils could later, to be sure of their faith and if they had forgotten something, they could renew themselves by looking at the list.
Cardinal de Torquemada studied the manichaean doctrine, tested the Bogumils and found 50 errors. He had Croatian priests with him, especially Luka de Talentis the Archdeacon of Korcula who was in the service of the Papal Curate. He finally translated the listof Cardinal de Torquemada to the trio and on the basis of that list, on May 14, 1461 they renounced all manichaean errors and promised that they would persuade all of their former like minded believers so they could renounce manichaean errors.
After a ceremonial rejection of errors, the trio returned to Bosnia. Two of them held to their promise, while the third returned to his old faith and went into the regions which were ruled by Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca.
Bishop Natal – The Pope’s Representative to Bosnia

When Bishop Natal handed over the three Bogumils in Rome, he returned to Zadar to prepare for his journey into Bosnia, because the Pope had verbally named him as his representative to King Tomas. He found friar Marijan from Siena, a Franciscan from the Tuscany province in Zadar whose last name was Cecchi Sozini. Since 1456 he preached a military crusade against the Turks on the Eastern coast of the Adriatic sea, collected help in money and promises and trained people who would join the army as crusaders.
Friar Marijan accepted without hesitation the invitation of the Bishop of Nin, Natal to accompany him on his journey to Bosnia. They left Zadar in January of 1461. They bought the necessary horses and on them and went towards the Bosnian kingdom. The bishop’s nephew Petar who permanently resided with the bishop went with them. They came to Livno, which was then called Bistrica. Unaccustomed to riding, the bishop fell from his horse here and was fatally injured. Because of his major wounds, the bishop quickly died.
Friar Marijan nursed the bishop’s wounds. At the time of his death, friar Marijan performed last rites and listened to his final wishes. He buried his mortal remains on January 28, 1461 near Livno’s Bistrica castle. Afterwards he returned to Zadar together with the bishop’s nephew Petar. They arrived in Zadar on February 7th of the same year.
The Death of King Stjepan Tomas
Stjepan Tomas waited the Pope’s aid to strengthen his kingdom in those difficult times. He did not live much longer after the death of Bishop Natal. According to the chronicler Ivan Tomasic, he died on July 10, 1461. According to his statements, Stjepan Tomas was killed by his brother Radivoj and son Stjepan⁴, when they moved their army against the Princes of Krbava, the Kurjakovics. Even though we do not have contemporary news of Tomas’s death, it is certain that he died before August of that year, and led his army against the Kurjakovics prior to that, in July.
Notes:
¹ This statement is somewhat misleading. Catholicism was the main religion of Bosnia, but most of the nobles were Bogumils. With only one exception, all of the Bosnian Kings were or became Catholic. Noel Malcom postulates in his book Bosnia A ShortHistory that the Bogumil or Bosnian Church never had a huge membership (page 42). There was a minority of people that belonged to the Orthodox Church as well.
² The Despotate of Serbia was a Turkish vassal that existed for some 70 years after the Battle of Kosova. With the fall of Smederevo in 1459, the medieval Serbian state ceases to exist. The Hungarians would hold on to Belgrade for another 60 years after that.
³ Matthias Corvinus (1443?-1490) was king of Hungary from 1458-90. He gained a reputation as a crusader against the Ottomans.
⁴ According to Vjekoslav Klaic, a noted Croatian historian, Tomasic’s account is suspect. Had Radivoj and Stjepan Tomasevic killed Stjepan Tomas there certainly would have been a contemporary account of the incident. Klaic points out that on August 20 that Venice had heard that Stjepan Tomas died one day, and that Stjepan Tomasevic ascended onto the Bosnian throne. Povijest Hrvata. Knjiga 4 pp 46-46.
Source: Bazilije Pandzic, “Teska Vladavina Stjepana Tomasa (1443.-1461.)” Hrvatski Kalendar 1995 pp. 128-133
Bosnian Queen Katarina

On Capitoline Hill in Rome there is a church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is customarily called Aracoeli church¹. According to legend it was built above a pagan altar, which had Haec ara fili Dei est written on it. Greek monks were in it from the beginning, after them the Benedictines, and in 1250 it was given to the Franciscans, who had their general residence next to it. Since the Middle Ages, Aracoeli church has been considered to be the official church of the municipality of Rome.
Throughout the past Croatians had close ties to this church. While the general residence for the Franciscans was next to it, many Croatian Franciscans because of their own work in academia while in Rome, were put up near this church. But it was also a gathering point because Katarina Vukcic Kosaca, the wife of Bosnian king Stjepan Tomas (1441-1461), is buried here; she who and who hoped and yearned for her homeland died on October 25, 1478 in Rome.
Katarina was the daughter of the Bosnian nobleman Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca. She was born around 1424. Her childhood and life coincided with a difficult period for the Bosnian kingdom. Turks attacked periodically, looting and burning and giving a clear sign that they intended to conquer it all together.
Bosnian nobles in these times of general insecurity were not able to successfully take a united stand against the destruction, which threatened them every day. In fact they were suspicious of one another, often they individually attempted to step into contact with the Turks, in the hope that they could lessen the force of Turkish attacks in their areas and save themselves if the Turks decided to conquer the Bosnian kingdom.
Tvrtko II, the last king of the Kotromanic line, died in 1443. By Tvrtko II’s will, Stjepan Tomas succeeded him onto the throne, even though his illegitimate older son Stjepan Ostoja Radivoj had the right of succession.
Stjepan Tomas was the illegitimate son of Bosnian King Stjepan Ostoja, who died in 1418. Up until his election as king, StjepanTomas kept his origins secret because of security. Moreover, he took a commoner, named Vojaca, and promised her according to patrician ways that he would marry her if she was good and faithful and served him well. When he became king, the nobles advised him to leave his wife because she was of a lower class and was unsuited to be queen. Tomas who became a Catholic didn’t think he could do this without the personal permission of the Holy See. That’s why he went to Pope Eugene IV to get permission to take another wife, even though he promised to marry the commoner and already had a son with her. On May 29, 1445 the Pope released him from his promise and allowed him to marry as he planned.
At the same time, Stjepan Tomas who was also illegitimate, asked the Pope to recognize all legal rights to his son. The Pope granted that request on the same day.
Now Stjepan Tomas could freely contemplate marriage. In all likelihood under the influence of his advisors he chose Katarina, the daughter of Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca, who was then 21 years old. It was believed that she could strengthen the Bosnian kingdom, because with their marriage, the Bosnian king Stjepan Tomas would be tied together with his nobleman Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca.
Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca was then the most respected nobleman in Bosnia. Clever and enterprising, he was able to spread his holdings to all of today’s Herzegovina, southern portions of Bosnia, some portions of Serbia and Montenegro, central Dalmatia, and places from Dubrovnik to Kotor.
Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca believed early on that Bosnia could not win the struggle against Turkish superiority and that they should get in contact with the Turks, so that the difficult future of the Bosnian kingdom would be less sad. Because of his stance with the Turks, Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca was against Stjepan Tomas’s arrival on the throne of the Bosnian kingdom. He was for Radivoj, also an illegitimate son of Stjepan Ostoja, who had already served the Turks and for 10 years called himself the Bosnian king under Turkish patronage.
But the stronger side was the one that was against an agreement with the Turks and which sided with the Christian west, particularly with the Pope. This side grew stronger when Pope Eugene IV on January 1, 1443 called the entire Christian world to battle against Turkey. That also helped bring Stjepan Tomas onto the Bosnian throne.
As soon as he arrived onto the throne, Stjepan Tomas worked to tie himself closer to Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca and to bring about unity in the kingdom. It was believed that Stjepan Tomas could best achieve that if he married Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca’s daughter Katarina.
Katarina was raised as a patrician. Prior to her marriage, she converted to Catholicism and wed Stjepan Tomas according to the Catholic rite. In all likelihood the marriage was held on Assumption on May 26, 1446.
After the death of Stjepan Tomas in 1461, Katarina was left with two weak children, Sigismund and Katarina. Stjepan Tomasevic, the son Stjepan Tomas had with Vojaca, became the Bosnian king. He was the first Bosnian king to be crowned with a crown from Rome. His main concern was also to be on good terms with Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca. Because of that, even before he was crowned as king, he recognized Queen Katarina all rights as the Queen Mother.
Katarina stayed at the royal court until the fatal year of 1463, when Mehmed II the Turkish sultan attacked and conquered Bosnia with a large army. Stjepan Tomasevic was captured and killed, and the two weak children of Queen Katarina were taken into Turkish captivity, however she was able to escape, because she was with her brother Vladislav in the southern regions.
At the beginning of July 1463, she moved to the Republic of Dubrovnik where she acted as the legal representative of the Bosnian kingdom.
During her time in Dubrovnik, Katarina followed the situation in Bosnia, and hoped that her kingdom would quickly be liberated. But as days passed, liberation did not happen, and she moved to Rome in 1466.
In Rome Katarina found refuge with Pope Paul II who decreed that she receive permanent help from the papal treasury. From 1467 to 1478 she received at least 6541 gold ducats for support. She had a small court of Bosnian nobles with her, and in her last ten years, she lived near the church of St. Mark, where the Croatian brotherhood of St. Jerome had their houses, and it isn’t impossible that she may have lived and died in one of them.
During the entire time that she lived in Rome, she thought about the liberation of her kingdom, and in particular the liberation of her two weak children who were taken to Istanbul, to the sultan’s court and educated in the Islamic faith. It happened that on occasion the Turks would return captured children for a good price, so she believed that she could also free her children from captivity. With that aim, she asked various Italian rulers for financial help. That is how in 1470, for example, she sent two members of her court, Nikola Zubranic and Abraham Radic to Mantova and Milan, to ask for help in her name. At the time she wrote to the Mantuan prince among others:
“Facit mea adversa fortuna, quae viro rege ac liberis et regno opibusque spoliavit, ut non solum ad pontificem maximum patrem clementissimum, sed etiam ad alios principes christianos me confugere oproteat pro implorado subsidio.” (I am forced by my unfortunate destiny, which took away from me my husband the king, my children and property, to ask for help not only from you, Pontiff and good father, but also to other christian princes.)
In 1474 she had decided to go to the Turkish border because she had heard that the sultan had promised to free her children. All of her efforts were in vain. She never saw her children again, and she took the hope of their liberation to her grave.
When she was 54, she became sicker. So that death didn’t catch her unexpectedly she immediately called the imperial notary Ante, a priest from Split, who was in the post at St. Peter’s church in Rome and, according to the law at the time she was ready to make her last will. She called as witnesses Jure de Marinellis the Archdeacon of Rab on duty in Rome, and six Franciscans from the Aracoeli monastery.
In her testament, Katarina asked that she be buried in the Aracoeli church. She left 200 ducats for that. She also left the church her royal robe and a silk altar cloth.
To the Croatian church of St. Jerome, she left her royal chapel: books, dishes, and church clothing.
She even remembered the church of St. Catherine in Jajce, which she ordered to be built, and bequeathed to it all of her relics.
But the main will of Queen Katarina as legal representative of the Bosnian kingdom, related to the Kingdom of Bosnia: she left it to the Holy See, if her children could not be returned to the Catholic faith.
Katarina died five days after she gave her last will. According to her wishes, she was buried in the Aracoeli church in front of the main altar where they made her a beautiful tombstone, which depicted her in her actual size and with the royal crown on her head. An inscription in bosancica² was also put on the tombstone.
Of course Bosnian refugees in Rome came to pay respects at the grave of their Queen, who was considered a holy woman and the ideal of all virtue. But with time, even her grave was somewhat forgotten. In 1590, when the Franciscans had decided to move the great altar forward, they had no difficulties in covering the grave of the Bosnian Queen. They moved her tombstone onto the right pillar in front of the main altar, where it is remains today.
In all likelihood that is when the Croatian inscription on the tombstone was changed to a new Latin inscription which, as we see today, had several modifications added to the translation:
D.O.M.
Catherine Reginae Bosnensi
Stephani Ducis San (c) ti Sabbae Sorori,
Et genere Helene et Domo Principis
Stephani natae, Tomae Regis Bosnae
Uxori. Quantum vixit annorum LIIII
Et odbormivit Romae Anno Domini
Et odbormivit Romae Anno Domini MCCCCLXXVIII
DIE XXV Octobris
Monumentum ipsius scriptis positum.
Croatian pilgrims through the long centuries after the death of Queen Katarina have come to her grave and stopped in front of her tombstone. Her painful life and her conscience of royal responsibility, even though covered with the veil of oblivion, still today leave an indelible mark in the spirits of Croatian visitors.
¹ The church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli
² Bosancica is the medieval alphabet of Bosnia. It is also called Croatian cyrillic.

Croatian Catholic Priests, Theology Students and Religious Brothers Killed by Communists and Serbian Chetniks in the Former Yugoslavia During and After World War II
Ante Cuvalo
Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac’s mock trial, imprisonment, and death came to symbolize the sufferings of both the Catholic Church and the Croatian people in the former Yugoslav state. The following list, although incomplete, of murdered Catholic clergymen bears a horrid witness to the persecutions of the clergy and of the Croatian people.
1. Adamcik, Bruno (1908-1945)
2. Adzamic, Ante (killed 1945)
3. Adzija, Antun (1880-1944)
4. Andacic, Bono (Brother, killed 1945)
5. Astalos, Josip (1897-1945) – Assistant pastor in the town of Brod. Tortured and hang in the village of Dalj
6. Babic, Franjo (r. 1901-1942)- His sister and 200 parishioners killed together with him.
7. Bacic, Ante – Tortured, received multiple knife stabs, and then thrown into the “Vranine” cave 1944
8. Badurina, Gabrijel (killed 1942)
9. Bajic, Leonard (killed 1947)
10. Bakula, Ante (1884-1942) – Pastor in the village of Gornje Hrasno. Tortured for five days. Among other tortures, his tongue was cut off, as his torturers said so they can give him the “last communion.”
11. Baldo, Beato (Student of theology, killed in 1943)
12. Baltic, Viktor (1903-1943)
13. Bandic, Drago (killed 1945)
14. Barac, Dominik (killed 1945)
15. Barbaric, Marko (1865-1945)
16. Barbir, Gerard (1911-1944)
17. Baricevic, Josip (killed 1946)
18. Barisic, Stjepan (killed 1945)
19. Barisic, Stjepan (1882-1945)
20. Barisic, Kresimir (1907-1941) – While he was still alive his ears, nose and hands were cut off, and his eyes were dug out. Still alive and bound, thrown into his burning church.
21. Barisic, Jakov (1890-1941) – Pastor in the town of Gradacac. Skinned alive.
22. Basic, Miroslav (1895-1942)
23. Beato, Baltazar (killed in 1943)
24. Bebek, Kazimir (1901-1945)
25. Becker, Ivan (killed 1945)
26. Bedenik, Pavao (killed 1945)
27. Bencun, Jozo (1869-1945)
28. Benutic, Ante (1887-1944)
29. Berkovic, Petar (killed 1945)
30. Bezina, Ivan (killed 1948)
31. Bilic, Pasko (1914-1944)
32. Biljeskovic, Anton – Theology student. Had tuberculosis. A few days before Christmas 1941, forced to walk from the town of Prijedor to Kozara where he was crucified on May 17, 1942.
33. Bilogrivic, Nikola (killed 1943)
34. Binicki, Fran (1875 – 1945)- Pastor in the town of Licki Osik. Killed while in jail.
35. Biskupovic, Ante – Taken by the communist Partisans in May 1943 and disappeared.
36. Blazevic, Srecko (poisoned while in a hospital 1946)
37. Blazic, Marijan (1897-1944) – Killed on the island of Daksa near Dubrovnik with 6 more priests and 32 laymen. All of them had to strip naked while facing the firing squad. They were shot, while singing “Te Deum.”
38. Bocak, Valentin (1913-1945)
39. Bockmann, Josip (1910-1945)
40. Bogurovac, Stjepan (killed 1943)
41. Borac, Dominik (1912-1945) – Killed because communists did not like his Ph.D. dissertation.
42. Boric, Franjo (1889-1944)
43. Borkovic, Josip (killed 1942)
44. Borkovic, Anton (killed 1942)
45. Bortas, Franjo (1903 -1946) – Killed in Stara Gradiska prison.
46. Bosnjak, Nikola (1909-1945)
47. Bozic, Bono (1903-1945)
48. Bozina, Ivan (killed in the city of Triest 1948)
49. Bradaric, Stanko (killed 1943)
50. Bradic, Mirko (1885-1947) – Killed while in prison.
51. Brajkovic, Slavko (killed 1945)
52. Brajnovic, Josip (1902-1942) – Skinned alive. Killed together with 80 of his parishioners.
53. Brajnovic, Ivan (1914-1944) – Pastor in the village of Skaljari. When he entered into the church to say Mass, a Partisan attacked him and stabbed him many times. After he recovered, he was taken to the island of Daksa, near Dubrovnik, and killed with other priests and laymen.
54. Bralo, Bozidar (1907-1945)
55. Brandic, Mirko (killed 1947)
56. Braskic, Ante (1891-1946)(died under torture)
57. Brisevac, Dane (1890-1944)
58. Brkovic, Augustin (killed 1945)
59. Bubanj, Martin (1898-1945) – Pastor in the town of Susak (Rijeka). Thrown into a cave in Gornja Kostrena.
60. Bucko, Nikola (killed in 1948)
61. Buconjic, Ante (1909-1945)
62. Buerger, Julije (1885-1944)
63. Bujlovic, Anton (killed in 1943)
64. Bukinac, Beato (1912-1945)
65. Bulesic, Miroslav (killed in 1947)
66. Buljan, Nikola (1895-1946) (Poisoned in the Sarajevo jail)
67. Burger, Julije (killed in 1944)
68. Buric, Mato (killed in 1945)
69. Butorac, Ivan (1899-1944)
70. Buzuk, Mirko (killed in 1945)
71. Canjuga, Anselmo (1894 – 1944) – Killed in Stara Gradiska jail.
72. Carev, Zarko (1889-19440)
73. Carevic, Josip (Bishop) (1883-1945)
74. Casic, Emerik (killed in 1947)
75. Cecina, Martin (1902-1944)
76. Ciga, Benedikt (1915-1945)
77. Clujic, Jozo (1888-1944)
78. Colak, Dane (1916-1945)
79. Condic, Ivan (1886-1942)
80. Condic, Alojz (killed 1945)
81. Condic, I. (killed 1947)
82. Condric, Petar (killed 1945)
83. Condric, Ivan (1918-1946)
84. Cosic, Ivo (killed in 1945)
85. Cosic, Efrem (killed 1946)
86. Crnkovic, Matija (1890-1945)
87. Cubelic, Domogoj (theology student – killed 1945)
88. Cubranic, Jerko (1908-1942)
89. Culin, Josip (1916-1942) – Visiting his native parish in Vojnici. The local pastor bagged the Partisans not to kill Culin, but him instead. Culin was executed on the spot. The pastor, however, was executed six months later also by the Partisans.
90. Culum, Karlo (killed 1943)
91. Curic, Andjelko (1914-1945)
92. Cvitanovic, Ante (1889-1944)
93. Delic, Nikola (1889-1944)
94. Delija, Drago (killed 1945)
95. Devcic, Marko (1887-1944)
96. Didovic, Mirko (killed 1945 – together with 14 Croatian families)
97. Djanic, Ivan (1910-1944)
98. Djukovic, August (killed 1948)
99. Djulovic, Ante (killed 1943)
100. Djuric, Anton (killed 1945)
101. Dobud, Mato (1882-1944)
102. Dragicevic, Marko (1902-1945)
103. Dragicevic, Ivo (Tito’s Partisans took him away in 1945 and he disappeared).
104. Dragosevic, Ante (1870-1944)
105. Drzaic, Antun (1890-1943)
106. Dujlovic, Anton (killed 1943)
107. Dujmusic, Drago (1899-1944)
108. Dukovic, August (killed 1948)
109. Dumandzic, Nikola (killed 1945)
110. Dunaj, Antun (1911-1944)
111. Duvancic, Nikola (killed 1945-theology student)
112. Dzamic, Ante (killed 1945)
113. Elez, Ante (killed 1945)
114. Erceg, Jozo (killed 1945)
115. Erceg, Ivan (killed 1945)
116. Fantela, Nikola (1880-1944) – Tortured and drowned in the Adriatic sea.
117. Fanzoni, Ivan (1909-1945)
118. Ficic, Ivan (1908-1943)
119. Fifka, Karlo (1890-1944)
120. Flajs, Adalbert (killed 1944 – theology student)
121. Fustos, Adam (1884-1945)
122. Gabric, Ilija (killed 1945)
123. Galic, Tomo (killed 1944)
124. Galic, Krizan (1870-1944)
125. Gasic, Emerik (killed 1947)
126. Gaspar, Filip (1893-1945)
127. Gassmann, Ferdinand-Vendelin (1914-1946) – Franciscan guardian in Bjelovar. While in jail, publically hang as a criminal.
128. Gavrilovic, Nenad (killed 1944)
129. Gecina, Martin (killed 1944)
130. Gelic, Tomo (killed 1944)
131. Gimlesa, Bozo (1892-1945)
132. Gjuric, Anton (1912-1945)
133. Glavadanovic, Berislav (1912-1945)
134. Glavas, Petar (killed 1945)
135. Glavas, Radoslav (1909-1945)
136. Glavas, Petar (1885-1945)
137. Glavas, Ivan (killed 1945)
138. Gospodnetic, Juraj(1910-1941) – Pastor in Bosansko Grahovo. Impaled and roasted alive on the mountain plateau Jelic-polje. Partisans also killed his mother.
139. Grabovickic, Karlo (killed 1945)
140. Grdjan, Miroslav (1915-1945)
141. Grebenarevic, Bono (1884-1943)
142. Grkovic, Nikola (killed 1944)
143. Grubisic, Zvonko (killed 1945)
144. Gruicic, Karlo (1882-1945)
145. Grzanic, Vjekoslav (1902-1943) – His father and mother were killed with him.
146. Gubernia, Ivo (killed 1945)
147. Gugic, Milivoj (killed 1945-theology student)
148. Gujic, Tvrtko (1907-1945)
149. Guncevic, Josip (killed 1945)
150. Gvozdanovic, Pero (1889-1944)
151. Gvozdanovic, Pavao (killed 1943) – Pastor in village of Berkasovo near the town of Sid. Impaled and roasted alive by the Partisans.
152. Habjanovic, Boris Stjepan (killed 1945)
153. Hitrec, Bozidar (1906-1945)
154. Hlobnik, Franjo (killed 1945)
155. Horzic, Stjepan (1917-1945)
156. Hrenic, Hadrian (1913-1945)
157. Idzotic, Ignacije (1903-1945)
158. Igolic, Antun (killed 1943)
159. Ilijic, Nikola (1913-1945)
160. Irgolic, Antun (1877-1943)
161. Ivakic, Pavao (1909-1943)
162. Ivancevic, Karlo (killed 1945)
163. Ivandic, Marijan (1902-1945)
164. Ivandic, Mato (killed 1945)
165. Ivankovic, Milan (killed 1945-theology student)
166. Ivankovic, Ladislav (killed 1942)
167. Ivankovic, Nikola (killed 1946)
168. Ivankovic, Ciril (1878-1945)
169. Ivankovic, Ladislav (1897-1942)
170. Ivankovic, Jure (killed 1945)
171. Ivanovic, Jure (killed 1945)
172. Ivanovic, Ivan (killed 1945)
173. Janes, Ivan (1913-1945)
174. Jelavic, Bono (1898-1945)
175. Jelcic, Andrija (1904-1945)
176. Jelinovic, Ivan (killed 1944)
177. Jerkovic, Radoslav (1901-1950) – Killed while in jail in Split.
178. Jerkovic, Jozo (1911-1944) – Killed while in jail . 179. Josic, Ljudevit (killed 1946)
180. Jurajic, Ivan (1884-1942)
181. Jurcev, Ivan (1912-1944) – He was terribly tortured by the Chetniks. His yes were plucked out before he died.
182. Jurcev, Antun (killed 1944) – Stabbed many times. Tied in a bag and thrown into the sea.
183. Jurcev, Dionizije (killed 1943)
184. Jurcic, Makso (1913-1945)
185. Juric, Rudo (killed 1945-theology student)
186. Juric, Drago (killed 1945 – thrown into a deep cavern)
187. Jurkovic, Julijan(1899-1942) – Guardian in Franciscan monastery in Rama. He was butchered, the church burned down, and the monastery plundered and raised.
188. Jus, Petar (killed 1944)
189. Kalafatovic-Milic, Mato (1911-1945)
190. Kalajdzic, Josip (1909-1945)
191. Kalinic, Rafo (killed 1943)
192. Kamber, Anzelmo (killed 1945)
193. Karaman, Sime (1896-1942) – Executed after the Good Friday church ceremonies.
194. Karamarko, Albert (killed 1945)
195. Kargacin, Vladimir (1906-1945)
196. Kargacin, Vladimir (killed 1945)
197. Karlovic, Velimir (1904-1945)
198. Karlovic, Velimir (killed 1945)
199. Katavic, Anto (1902-1945) – Executed along with 23 other people.
200. Katavic, Mato (killed (“disappeared”) 1945)
201. Katavic, Alfons (killed 1945-theology student)
202. Kaurinovic, Josip (killed 1943)
203. Kaurinovic, Josip (1873-1942)
204. Kis, Karlo (1906-1943)
205. Klaric, Antun (killed 1945)
206. Klasic, Antun (1914-1945)
207. Kljucevic, Vlado (killed 1945)
208. Knezevic, Marijan (1908-1943)
209. Kolaric, Mihovil (1880-1945) – killed in the Stara Gradiska jail.
210. Kolaric, Ladislav (killed 1943)
211. Konjevod, Lovro (killed 1945)
212. Kontij, Mihajlo (killed 1945)
213. Kordic, Fabijan (killed 1945 – religious brother)
214. Kosir, Viktor (killed 1945 – theology student)
215. Kovac, Petar (1908-1945) Taken by the Partisans and disappeared.
216. Kovacic, Stjepan (1870-1945) Killed in the prison camp of Stara Gradiska.
217. Kovacic, Petar (killed 1945)
218. Kozul, Tadija (1910-1945)
219. Kozul, Julije (1906-1945)
220. Kraljevic, Stanko (1871-1945)
221. Kraljevic, Krato (1895-1945)
222. Kramar, Stjepan (1883-1945)
223. Kranjc, Ivan (killed 1944)
224. Kranjcic, Mato (1902-1945)
225. Kranjcic, dr. Andrija (killed 1945)
226. Kranje, Ivan ?
227. Kranjic, Ivan (killed 1942)
228. Krecak, Gjuro (1893-1944)
229. Kresic, Martin (killed 1945)
230. Kresic, Ivan (1870-1945)
231. Kristan, Zvonko (killed 1946)
232. Krizic, Jakov (1895-1945)
233. Kroder, Henrik (1877-1945)
234. Krusic, Bogomil (1910-1945)
235. Krusilic, Vlado (killed 1945)
236. Kucmanic, Stjepan (1886-1945)
237. Kuhar, Ivan-Julije (killed 1944)
238. Kukalj, Dragutin (1899-1945)
239. Kukina, Eugen (killed 1945)
240. Kulisic, Stjepan (1886-1945)
241. Kuljevic, Dragutin (1877-1945)
242. Kulundzic, Mato (1912-1945)
243. Kupek, Oton (killed 1945 in the city of Triest – theology student)
244. Ladic, Jakov (killed 1945)
245. Lakajner, Ivan (1873-1945)
246. Lapic, Milan (killed 1943)
247. Lazicki, Ivan (1913-1945)
248. Lesjak, Josip (1889-1944)
249. Letinic, Ante (1899-1945)
250. Leventic, Zarko (1919-1945)
251. Lezatovic, Ante (1913-1943)
252. Liko, Zelimir (1914-1948)
253. Lipovac, Zvonko (1914-1945)
254. Lizatovic, Ante (killed 1943)
255. Ljubas, Eugen (killed 1945 – theology student)
256. Ljubicic, Tihomir (killed 1945)
257. Ljubicic, Mirko (killed 1945)
258. Loncar, Slobodan (1914-1945)
259. Lousin, Andrija (killed by communist party members 1940)
260. Lovretic, Srecko (1911-1945) – Pastor in Luka (Dugi otok). Tied up and thrown alive into the sea.
261. Magas, Ljubomir (1915-1945)
262. Majic, Bonifacije (1883-1945)
263. Majic, Stjepan (killed 1945-theology student)
264. Majic, Ante (killed 1945 in Lepoglava prison – student of theology)
265. Majic, Andrija (1910-1945)
266. Malic, Eugen (killed 1945)
267. Mandaric, Filip (1911-1944)
268. Mandic, Nevinko (1908-1945) – Taken from the altar while celebrating Sunday Mass. Killed together with 2 more Franciscans in the village of Izbicno and thrown into a cave.
269. Manzoni, Ivan (killed 1944)
270. Maretic, Ivan Ferdo (1875-1945)
271. Marjanovic, Jakov (1913-1945)
272. Markotic, Svetislav (killed 1945)
273. Maroevic, Bernard (1884-1944)
274. Martinac, Pasko (1882-1945)
275. Martinac, Josip (1905-1943)
276. Marvinac, Andrija (tortured and killed 1943)
277. Matijevic, Juraj (1900-1943)
278. Matijevic, Josip (1879-1945)
279. Mihic, Juraj (killed 1945)
280. Mikec, Rudolf (1912-1943)
281. Mikulic, Darko (killed 1945)
282. Milanovic, Stanko (1911-1944) Died under torture.
283. Miletic, Ivan (1913-1943)
284. Milicevic, Lujo (killed 1945)
285. Milinovic, Zvonko (1914-1943)
286. Mimica, Filip (1912-1945)
287. Mioc, Borivoj (1907-1944) – Among other tortures he suffered before being killed, horseshoes were nailed to his hands and feet.
288. Miolin, Bernard (1870-1944)
289. Mirkovic, Josip (killed 1945)
290. Misic, Vitomir (killed 1945)
291. Mitrovic, Adam (killed 1945)
292. Mladina, Jure (1912-1941) – Crucified on a tree and left hanging for 3 days.
293. Mravinac, Andrija (killed 1943)
294. Mueller, Josip (1883-1945)
295. Mueller, Viktor (1906-1945)
296. Muljevic, Dragutin (killed 1945)
297. Naletilic, Stjepan (1907-1942)
298. Niksic, Ivan (killed 1945)
299. Novak, Ceslav (killed 1946)
300. Nuic, Jerko (1915-1945)
301. Nuic, Andjelko (1908-1945)
302. Nuic, Arkandjeo (1896-1945)
303. Olujic, Jozo (killed 1944)
304. Oros, Nikola (killed in prison 1947)
305. Paljug, Mato (1893-1945)
306. Pandzic, Kresimir (1891-1945)
307. Pandzic, Borislav (killed 1945)
308. Papac, Mitar (killed 1951 while serving a prison sentence)
309. Paponja, Fabijan (1897-1945)
310. Pavic, Vladimir (1913-1945)
311. Pavisa, Petar (killed 1943)
312. Pavlov, Vladimir (1900-1944)
313. Pavlov, Anto (1905-1943)
314. Pavosevic, Djuro (killed 1945)
315. Pavunic, Stjepan (killed 1945)
316. Pehar, Nenad (1910-1945)
317. Peitler, Petronije (1912-1945)
318. Percic, Josip (killed 1945)
319. Percinlic, Jozo (1909-1945)
320. Perhac, Ivan (1885-1945)
321. Perica, Petar (1881-1944)
322. Perkan, Viktor (killed 1945)
323. Perkovic, Petar (killed 1945)
324. Perusina, Jure (1879-1944)
325. Petranovic, Stjepan (1878-1944)
326. Petrovic, Nenad (killed 1945 – theology student)
327. Petrovic, Ljudevit (killed 1945)
328. Petrovic, Leon (1883-1945) – Provincial of the Herzegovina Franciscan province. Killed together with several other Franciscans and thrown into the Neretva river.
329. Petrovic, Julijan (killed 1945-theology student)
330. Petrovic, Jure (killed 1945-taken by the Partisans and “disappeared”)
331. Podrug, Stjepan (1888-1943)
332. Poljak, Josip (1908-1946)
333. Posavac, Kerubin (1906-1945)
334. Povoljnjak, Stjepan (killed 1946)
335. Pretner, Josip (1886-1943)
336. Prlic, Melkior (killed 1945)
337. Prusina, Rafo (1884-1945)
338. Puljic, Metod (1912-1945)
339. Putica, Vid (1859-1942) – Pastor in Prenj-Dubrava. He was soaked in gasoline and burned alive in “honor” of King Peter Karadjordjevic’s birthday.
340. Racic, Jakov (1908-1943)
341. Radojkovic, Marijan (1889-1942)
342. Radonic, Bono (1888-1945)
343. Rados, Pavao (killed 1945)
344. Rados, Ljubo (killed 1945)
345. Rados, Mirko (1910-1945)
346. Radovic, Franjo (1891-1945)
347. Raguz, Ivan (1877-1944)
348. Rajic, Serafin (1913-1945) Executed along with 33 more people.
349. Ribic, Rikard (1909-1945)
350. Roje, Ljubomir (1898-1945)
351. Romac, Ante (1900-1944)
352. Romac, Ivan (killed 1943-taken from the altar while celebrating Mass)
353. Romac, Ivan (1900-1944)
354. Roncevic, Tihomir (killed 1945)
355. Rupcic, Leonardo (1907-1945)
356. Sablic, Gracija (killed 1944)
357. Sabulja, Augustin (killed 1945)
358. Sajlb, Ilija (killed-theology student)
359. Salovac, Ivan (1900-1945).
360. Sandrik, Alojzije (killed 1945)
361. Sandrik, Alojzije (killed 1945)
362. Santalab, Sebastijan (killed 1946)
363. Saric, Ivan (tortured and massacred)
364. Scuric, Josip (killed 1945)
365. Segvic, Kerubin (1867-1945)
366. Sesar, Petar (1895-1945)
367. Seuric, Josip (1912-1945)
368. Severovic, Tomo (tortured to the point of insanity-died 1951)
369. Silov, Pavao (1905-1942)
370. Simic, Andjelko (killed 1945)
371. Simic, Vjekoslav (killed 1945)
372. Simic, Bozidar (killed 1943)
373. Simlesa, Bozo(killed 1945)
374. Simovic, Dobroslav (1907-1945)
375. Simrak, Ivan (killed 1944)
376. Simrak, Janko (1883-1946) Bishop of Krizevci-poisoned while in jail)
377. Simunovic, Ivan (1892-1945)
378. Sivjanovic, Petar (1893-1946)
379.Sivric, Mariofil (killed 1945)
380. Slafhauser, Franjo (killed 1946)
381. Sliskovic, Ivo (1877-1945)
382. Sliskvic, Viktor (1891-1945)
383. Smit, Josip (killed 1944)
384. Smoljan, Bernardin (1884-1945)
385. Sokol, Bernardin (1888-1944) – Killed and throne into the sea.
386. Solc, Sidonije (killed 1942)
387. Sopta, Martin (1901-1945)
388. Spika, Petar (1880-1943)
389. Sporer, Ladislav (1893-1941) – His killer, Ivo Vojvoda, became later Yugoslav ambassador to the Vatican and received an award from the papal state on the occasion of the death of Pope John XXIII.
390. Stanic, Ivan (1870-1943) Died after going through some of the most terrible tortures.
391. Stankovic, Ivan (1886-1945)
392. Stepinac, dr. Alojzije (1898-1960) – Died as a prisoner of the Yugoslav regime. He had been slowly poisoned while a prisoner.
393. Stimac, Karlo (killed 1943)
394. Stipic, Emil (1912-1945)
395. Strasek, Josip (killed 1947-executed on Palm Sunday after celebrating the holy mass.
396. Stromar, Stjepan (killed 1944)
397. Strukar, Franjo (killed 1945)
398. Stuban, Ladislav (killed 1945)
399. Stuparic, Vladimir (1886-1943)
400. Subasic, Ivan (killed 1945)
401. Sulenta, Dominik (1900-1944)
402. Sumic, Ivan (killed 1945-taken by the Partisans and “disappeared”)
403. Susac, Kornelije (killed 1945)
404. Susak, Branko (killed 1945)
405. Sutrin, Eugen (killed and thrown into the sea 1948)
406. Szita, Jaroslav (killed 1945)
407. Teklic, Celestin (killed 1945)
408. Tepeluk-Klaric, Ante (killed near Sabac, Serbia, 1945)
409. Terzic, Vjekoslav (killed 1945)
410. Tesic, Luka (1893-1944)
411. Ticic, Ivan(1906-1943) Executed because he would not renounce his belief in God.
412. Timko, Inokentije (killed 1945)
413. Tomas, Ilija (1901-1942) – Pastor in the village of Klepci, Herzegovina. Stabbed many times in the shape of a cross, killed and his body thrown into the Neretva river.
414. Tomasic, Tomo (killed 1944)
415. Tomljenovic, Blaz (1888 – 1942) – Pastor in Hrvatski Blagaj. Taken to the village of Sic near Slunj where he was chopped up to pieces.
416. Topic, Andrija (1918-1945) – Butchered together with his uncle, Fr. Vale Zovko, in the presence of his mother, Zovko’s sister.
417. Torticchio, Nikola (killed 1947)
418. Tumban, Adalbert (1911-1945)
419. Turalija, Karlo (killed 1945-theology student)
420. Turkalj, Pero (1891 – 1947) Killed in the Stara Gradiska jail.
421. Vasilj, Janko (1914-1945)
422. Vasilj, Grga (1886-1945)
423. Vedrina, Stjepan (stoned to death 1949)
424. Velic, Paskal (killed 1944)
425. Venko, Alojzije (1885-1946)
426. Vernaca, Bruno (killed 1945)
427. Vezelic, Metod (1883-1945)
428. Vicic, Rudo (killed in Triest 1945-theology student)
429. Vidovic, Pasko (killed 1945-religious lay brother)
430. Vinic, Vlado (killed 1945)
431. Violoni, Ilija (1879-1945)
432. Vlahovic, Ante (1908-1945)
433. Vlasov, Aleksandar (killed 1942)
434. Vodanovic, Mate (1885-1947)
435. Vrancic, Antun (killed 1946)
436. Vucic, Rudo (killed 1945)
437. Vugdelija, Bozo (killed 1945)
438. Vujnovic, Marijan (1872-1944)
439. Vukovic, Vladimir (killed in a concentration camp 1945-theology student)
440. Vuksic, Rade (1894-1945)
441. Waldemar, Nestor (1899-1941)
442. Weiss, Rikard (1916-1944)
443. Weiss, Antun (killed 1943)
444. Zaguestar, Petar (1899-1945)
445. Zajcic, Andrija (1907-1943)
446. Zekic, Vitomir (1906-1945)
447. Zigrovicm Matija (1886-1943)
448. Zilovec, Antun (1915-1945)
449. Zivkovic, Antun (killed 1945)
450. Zjacic, Andrija (killed 1944)
451. Zlopasa, Roland (1912-1945)
452. Zovko, Vale (1889-1945)
453. Zrno, Ante (1909-1945)
454. Zubac, Zdenko (1911-1945)
455. Zubac, Tihomir (killed 1945)
456. Zubac, Augustin (1890-1945)

Benedikta Zelic-Bucan

     According to information dealing with Glagolitic clergy in Chapter 24 of the constitution of the Split diocesan synod of 1688, there were thirty-six outlying parishes in the diocese. Of these thirty-six parishes, only eight held services in Latin, while the remainder were “Croatian parishes” (“kuratije arvaske”).¹ According to records collected from 1688 to 1700 by Ivan Pastric, forty-two parishes were cited in the Split diocese, seventeen of which were located on the territory of Poljica. The Poljica parishes were: Podstrana, Jesenice, Duce, Zakucac, Kucice, Gornje Polje, Donje Polje, Tugare, Kosatanje, Zvecanje, Ostrvica, Gata, Dubrava, Trnbusi, Srijane, Srinjine and Sitno.² All of these were Glagolitic parishes; however, the number of Poljica clergy greatly exceeded the actual number of parishes they served in. The Glagolites from Poljica served as parish priests throughout the entire diocese. There were also many who were without their own parish and lived with their families. In his 1713 report to Rome, Archbishop Stefano Cupilli indicated that the urban clergy numbered sixty priests and fifteen seminarians, while priests from outlying areas numbered around 125 .³

     The archbishops or vicars general exercised authority over these priests through the outer vicar, whom they appointed from nominations submitted by the Glagolites themselves.⁴ The outer vicar held ecclesiastic authority over the territories of Poljica, Radobilje, the outskirts and districts of Split, and the regions of Omis and Klis.⁵ While Gian Battista Laghi served as archbishop, a confraternity for Glagolitic priests was founded and ratified. Members of the confraternity were to pray and celebrate requiem masses for the repose of their deceased brethren .⁶

     Right up to the mid-18th century, there were neither colleges nor seminaries where these Glagolites could receive a basic education or instruction in the Old Church Slavic language. Rather, individual pastors provided personal training to seminarians according to the apprenticeship system. Individual parish priests recruited gifted youngsters who served as their attendants and students. Through this process, they taught these young men what they themselves knew. However, these novices would often change teachers, especially if the priest was strict. This situation prompted Archbishop Stefano Cosmi to write to the outer vicar on 20 October 1703. In the letter, he made it clear that novices were not to move from teacher to teacher, but were to dutifully and obediently remain with the initial priest; otherwise, they would not be permitted to take their exams .⁷

     As far as the training of Glagolitic priests was concerned, not only were there no cultivated colleges for them, but they did not even have the necessary books for their language, which was the only one they understood. For this reason, Bishop Antun Kadcic’s initiative to write the work Moral theology (Bogoslovje diloredno) represented a significant step in their education. In 1714, Archbishop Stefano Cupilli began to build a seminary for them beside the church of St. Peter on Lucac in Split; however, he passed away before the project was completed. His objective was only realized by Archbishop Pacific Bizza in 1750, when he established a seminary in the former Franciscan hospice beside the old Croatian church of St. Peter in Priko, near Omis. This seminary lacked a prebend (stipend) or a steady source of revenue and the seminarians were required to support themselves and their instructors, while the upkeep and maintenance of the church and seminary building was left to providence and the charity of the faithful .⁸

     During Venetian rule (1699-1797), numerous attempts were made to obtain government support to provide a modest salary for the instructors; however, this never succeeded. Only in 1803, during the first Austrian rule (1797-1805), did the government set a monthly salary of twenty florins for the director of the seminary and fifteen florins for instructors at the seminary.⁹ However, even this minimal pay was discontinued during French rule (1805- 1813), when the seminary was closed for a time. During the second period of Austrian rule (1813-1918), the government again introduced the salary, but only for a brief time. Already in 1821, the seminary was closed and a central seminary established in Zadar for the entire province of Dalmatia. In this new seminary, the Glagolitic alphabet and the Old Church Slavic language were taught from the outset. However, in 1827, even this central Croatian seminary was closed and a new central Latin seminary established in its place, again in Zadar .¹⁰

     When the seminary in Priko first opened, there was one lone instructor. Later, when the number of seminarians began to rise, there were three. One of them was called the director (vladavac), the second the instructor (mestar) and the third the prefect (izvrsitelj). However, all three lectured and instructed the seminarians. The first director of the seminary was Rev. Stjepan Pivcevic, the second Rev. Ivan Bozic and the third and last one Rev. Petar Kruzicevic .¹¹

     In the archival section of the Archaeological Museum of Split, there is kept a bundle of forty-eight documents labelled “Poljica Documents” (signature 49 h 6/I). Some of these documents were published without any accompanying notes at the beginning of the 20th century in the Split journal Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata.¹² Among this group of documents, twenty-two reports dealt with the Glagolitic seminary in Priko for the period from 1760 to 1821.¹³ Included are the minutes of Archbishop Nikola Dinaricic’s 1760 visit to the seminary; two letters of Archbishop Lelio Cipico from 1793; and two letters from Venetian governors Francesco Falier and Alvise Marin, from 1784 and 1794, respectively. Most of the documents are from the 19th century. These include the correspondence of the last director of the seminary, Rev. Petar Kruzicevic, to the vicars general and Split canons: Oracijo Bergelic, Nikola Didos, Josip Koic and Nikola Koic. Also included are his letters to Makarska Bishop Fabijan Blaskovic. The majority of these letters originated during the last few years of the seminary, when its closure was imminent, and the closure was even discussed in some of them; therefore, these letters represent a significant source for the history of this important Croatian college .¹⁴

     Besides providing significant material on the seminary, this small collection of documents also offers important information for the history of the Croatian language. In these documents, we encounter the old Croatian national name (hrvatski) for the language along with the more recent bookish term Slavonic (slovinski), as well as the Italian term Illyrian (illirico). More specifically, in Italian texts, the term Illyrian (illirico) was always used, while in Croatian texts the alternate use of the terms Croatian (hrvatski) and Slavonic (slovinski) appeared, sometimes even with the same author. Thus, the Split vicars and canons regularly addressed Rev. Petar Kruzicevic as the instructor or director of the Slavonic seminary, ¹⁵ while in the text of the letters both Croatian and Slavonic are used. For example, in a letter from 16 January 1815, Split Canon Nikola Didos explains that it is the intention of the future central seminary in Zadar to offer education to the “Slavonic clergy of Priko” (“crikovnakom slovinskim od Prika”).¹⁶ In a letter from 23 August 1816, the bishop’s secretary, Josip Koic, wrote that following an outbrea
k of the plague, there were now: “Latin and Croatian priests…in total, thirty-six” (“latinski misnika i Arvatah…usve trideset i sest”).¹⁷ Makarska Bishop Fabijan Blaskovic used two terms for the seminary. In the address of a letter from 28 December 1816, Bishop Blaskovic called Rev. Petar Kruzicevic the “main educator of the Croatian seminary” (“mestar od semenaria arvaskoga”) ¹⁸ and the “main educator of the Slavonic seminary” (“mestar od seminarija slovinskoga”) in a letter from 15 July 1818 .¹⁹

     In documents that were written by Poljica or other Glagolitic priests, I have never come across the expression Slavonic for their language. They always called their language Croatian and when translating from Italian texts, the term Illyrian (illirco) was translated into Croatian (hrvatski). Thus, in the Croatian translation of Archbishop Lelio Cipico’s letter of 26 June 1793 to Omis church administrator Rev. Jakov Ognjutovic the term “chierizi illirici” is translated into “Croatian priests” (“zakni arvacki”) .²⁰

     The above examples show that by the beginning of the 19th century, the use of the term Slavonic (slovinski) for the Croatian language and institutions of the Croatian language was still inconsistently applied, even among learned individuals. Here and there, these learned individuals continued to use the original Croatian national name alongside this “learned” expression.

     Not only did the Glagolitic clergy of Poljica call their language Croatian, but they also went out of their way to set themselves apart from their Latin colleagues who used the Latin liturgical language.²¹ They did this by appending to their names the term Harvacanin. In Split baptismal and marriage registries from the 17th and 18th century, which were usually completed in the administrative Italian language, there are close to 200 notes entered by Poljica Glagolites in the vernacular language. These notes were entered when they performed christenings and marriages in Split. The majority of these entries were completed in old Croatian Cyrillic (bosancica). Four of these Glagolitic priests (Mihovil Dagelic, Jakov Suturcic, Stipan Jurevic, Barisa Krcatovic) often added the attribute Harvacanin to their surnames or only to their given names when they added their entries. In using this attribute, they wished to emphasize that they were priests of the Croatian language as opposed to Latin clergy, whose liturgical language was Latin and whose language of public communication was Italian.

     In the same manner, the Croatian version of Chapter 24 of the constitution of the diocesan synod of Split from 1688, distinguishes Glagolitic clergy (“harvaski kler”) and Glagolitic parishes (“kuratije arvaske”) from the clergy and parishes using the Latin liturgy.²² In the Latin version of that chapter of the constitution, Croatian clergy are called “clerus illyricus” and Croatian parishes “parochiae Illyricorum”.²³ In Article XII of the same chapter, it is specified that educated priests are to teach the seminarians the Croatian pronunciation in which their missals and breviaries are written; otherwise, the seminarians will not be ordained. In the Latin version of the constitution, the term Illyrian (illyricum) is used for the Croatian language and script.²⁴ It is interesting to note that two years after this synod on Glagolitic clergy was held, Makarska Bishop Nikola Bjankovic translated and printed the constitution in Croatian. However, already in the very title of his version, he stated that the decisions “were translated in the Slavonic language”.²⁵ As we can see, when writing in the Italian and Latin languages, the term Illyrian (illyricus, illirico) was used for the Croatian language, while learned Croats used the expression Slavonic (slovinski), and the simple commoner Glagolites spoke and wrote in the “Croatian” language (jezik “arvacki”), just as the people.

     The Glagolites could not even acquire the habit of using the “learned” terms for the Croatian language (Illyrian and Slavonic) because they not only lacked Croatian books, but some of them did not even know how to read all that well. This can be concluded from the previously mentioned Article XII of Chapter 24 of the synodal constitution. It should also be remembered that they did not even understand Latin or Italian. I have come across two instances in the documents of the Makarska diocese from 1769, in which parish priests expressly state that they do not understand Italian or Latin, and request their bishop to write to them in Croatian so that they can understand him .²⁶

     As we can see from preserved documents written in Croatian Cyrillic (“arvacki”), right up to the end of the 17th century, only the Croatian national name served as the name of the Croatian language for commoners and their Glagolitic pastors. At that time, the Glagolites were the closest intelligentsia to everyday folk. The use of the term “Slavonic” (“slovinski”) as a “learned” name, as was previously characterized by Vatroslav Jagic,²⁷ only began to penetrate later, at the turn of the 18th to 19th century. In part under the sway of learned books and foreign influences, this understanding spread widely in the first half of the 19th century. For this reason, those in Dalmatia who were followers of the Croatian National Revival under the leadership of Mihovil Pavlinovic struggled not only for the affirmation of the Croatian language in public life, but also for the affirmation of its national name among the alienated native intelligentsia and middle class.

     Taking all of this into account, it would seem necessary to return the original name to the old Croatian seminary in Priko. When writing and discussing this seminary, we should identify it in the way in which its former students and teachers identified it; that is, the Croatian Seminary (Sjemeniste hrvatsko). To continue using the old term Illyrian (ilirisko), which was used in documents of the Italian and Latin languages, as well as the vague term Slavonic (slovinski) from Croatian documents of the learned class of past centuries, would only show that to this very day we have not overcome the biased belief that everything foreign is better and more learned than our Croatian national name. To continue to support these non-national and inadequate terms (Illyrian and Slavonic) would signify in our time not learnedness, but a petite bourgeoise mentality.

      Translated by Stan Granic

     *The original reads “Kako se zvalo glagoljasko sjemeniste u Priku?” and first appeared in Marulic, 3, no. 3 (Zagreb, 1970), 17-21. It was later included in Benedikta Zelic-Bucan, Jezik i pisma Hrvata. Rasprave i clanci (Split: Matica hrvatska, 1997), 19-24. The translator thanks the author for clarifying certain parts of the essay; Dr. Vinko Grubisic of the University of Waterloo for his assistance during the translation process; and Matthew Pavelich for reading the manuscript and providing his editorial comments.

     NOTES

     ¹ Vladimir Mosin, “Poljicke konstitucije iz 1620. i 1688. godine,”Radovi staroslavenskog instituta, 1 (Zagreb, 1952), 194.

     ² Fontes historici liturgiae glagolito-romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum, ed. Luka Jelic (Veglae [Krk]: Sumptibus Academiae Palaeoslavicae Veglensis, 1906), XVII, 61-63.

     ³ Fontes, XVIII, 9.

  &nbsp
;  ⁴ M…c, “Njekoji prilozi o glagoljici,” Narod, no. 10 (Split, 1894).

     ⁵ Fontes, XIX, 75.

     ⁶ M…c, “Njekoji,” Narod, no. 6. In the Historical Archives of Split (Historijski arhiv u Splitu HAS), in a small collection entitled “Poljica Documents” (“Poljicki spomenici“), there is a document that lists all the requiem masses said for members of this confraternity from 1790 to 1820 (signature 3KA/PS-15). From the list one can see that membership in the confraternity was composed of Glagolites of the archdiocese, many respected members of the higher urban clergy and even some eminent laymen.

     ⁷ Miroslav Vulic, “Pravila glagoljaskog sjemenista u Priku,” Croatia sacra, 15-16 (Zagreb, 1938), 74.

     ⁸ Ivan Pivcevic, “Sjemeniste u Priku,” in Program c. k. Velike gimnazije u Splitu za sk. god. 1911-12, 47 (Split, 1912), 7.

     ⁹ Pivcevic, p. 9.

     ¹⁰ Pivcevic, p. 11.

     ¹¹ Pivcevic, p. 8.

     ¹² See the supplemental sections in: Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata, 22 (Split, 1900) and 24 (Split, 1901).

     ¹³ Having worked on these documents some ten years ago while preparing my work Bosancica u srednjoj Dalmaciji, Prilog 3. svesku Izdanja Historijskiog arhiva – Split (Split: Historijskog arhiva, 1961), I classified these Poljica documents according to contents. With the approval of the administration of the Museum, I classified them into series I to III, with each individual document assigned a number. Documents dealing with the seminary in Priko were arranged in the first series and marked with numbers 1-20, plus 1a, 2a and 3a. Documents I/1-20 formed part of the archives of the actual seminary, while document I/2a is the Croatian transcription of document I/2 and documents I/1a and I/3a were subsequently taken from series II (“Pisma providura i drugi spisi koji se odnose na polji ku republiku”) because their contents dealt with the seminary in Priko.

     ¹⁴ As far as I could ascertain, to date these documents on the Croatian seminary in Priko, which are housed in the Archeological Museum of Split, have never been published. Concise information on the contents of these letters are provided in my article: “Upotreba bosancice u Splitu i okolici,” Mogucnosti, 3, no. 11 (Split, 1956), 869-875.

     ¹⁵ Archaeological Museum of Split (hereafter AMS), “Poljicke isprave,” signature 49 h 6/I, documents 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.

     ¹⁶ AMS, “Poljicke isprave,” sign. 49 h 6/I, document 7.

     ¹⁷ AMS, “Poljicke isprave,” sign. 49 h 6/I, document 13.

     ¹⁸ AMS, “Poljicke isprave,” sign. 49 h 6/I, document 12.

     ¹⁹ AMS, “Poljicke isprave,” sign. 49 h 6/I, document 13.

     ²⁰ AMS, “Poljicke isprave,” sign. 49 h 6/I, document 2a.

     ²¹ The language of Croatian Glagolitic religious books to the 17th century was completely under the influence of the vernacular speech. For this reason, Modrus Bishop Simun Kozicic could legitimately title his missal, which was printed in Rijeka in 1531, the Croatian Missal (Misal hruacki). The Poljica Glagolites who largely lived as peasants, had a very difficult time in obtaining church books. This is testified to in Chapter 24 (Article XII) of the constitution of the Split synod from 1688 and in articles LX and CIX of Archbishop Sforza Ponzon’s ruling from 1620. It is also likely that they could not have immediately obtained the new missal prepared by friar Rafael Levakovic (Rome, 1631) which had been completely russified. To deal with the shortage of books, Archbishop Dinaricic was still advising the clergy of the seminary at Priko, in the latter half of the 18th century, to transcribe from old books and manuscripts in their possession. Based on this, it can be presumed that their liturgical language differed very little from the existing Croatian vernacular. For this reason, it is understandable that they called themselves Croatian clergy and used Harvacanin to identify themselves.

     ²² Mosin, p. 194.

     ²³ Mosin, p. 194.

     ²⁴ “Zasto osobito s(veta) m(ater) c(rkva) dopusti ovoj ruci privilej harvackoga izgovora u misi, zato ima se nastojati da se dobro uce i nauce razumiti slovi…kako u knjigah uzdarze. Zakni imaju se nauciti bukvicu i juciniti se nauciti se od redovnikov naucni izgovor arvacki slovi nasi, kako izgovara misal i barvija; inako nece biti urdinani buduci tako zapovijeno, i kako nasi po knjizi imaju govoriti se… razumiti tako harvaski na nihov zakon barvarija.”/”Quoniam peculiari, et speciosissimo Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae privilegio in idiomate Illyrico sacra habetur liturgia, maxima habenda est ratio eiusdem idiomatis probe ediscendi, et dicendi. Clerici noverint azbuquidarium, atque a pertis Sacerdotibus erudiantur, qui in eam precipue curam, incubeant, ut illyricum literale, quo Missale et Breviarium conscripta sunt, perfecte calleant alioquin sciant, se ad Ordines non promovendos, cum apud Illyricos eadem sit ratio illyrici idiomatis litdteralis, quae apud nostros Latini. Mosin, p. 196. [In English it would read: “Since the Holy Mother Church especially allows to this hand the privilege of using the Croatian language in the mass, they must endeavor to learn well and master the script…which is contained in the books. The priests must learn the alphabet and be instructed by the monks on the correct pronunciation of our Croatian letters as they are contained in our missals and breviaries. Otherwise, as it is proclaimed, they shall not be ordained. It was ordered so and now our priests must conform themselves to our books…to understand Croatian in order to follow their duties according to their breviaries.” trans.]

     ²⁵ Mosin, p. 178.

     ²⁶ Archives of the Diocese of Makarska, volume 74. Letter of Rev. Jakov Piunovic, pastor of Rascani, 22 September 1769 and letter of Rev. Pavao Ursic, pastor of Brela, 23 October 1769. Fascicle 74 contains the correspondence of Bishop Stjepan Blaskovic to his parish priests from 1768 to 1769. There are 376 letters in total. Of these, three are written in the Croatian language using the Roman script, one in the Italian language and the remainder were written in the Croatian language using the Croatian Cyrillic script.

     ²⁷ Vatroslav Jagic, Historija knjizevnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srpskoga (Zagreb: Vatroslav Jagic, 1867), p. 3.

A Partial List of Persecutions
Ante Cuvalo
Also see the article related to this appendix
Also see: Letters of Protest
1918
Sep. 9 About 100 Serbian soldiers arrived for the first time at the town of Vukovar and, among other misdeeds, confiscated boats loaded with grain on the Danube river.
Oct. 29 Croatian Sabor (Parliament) broke off all ties with the Habsburg Monarchy (Austria-Hungary).
November A number of leading Croatian intellectuals in Zagreb receive letters threatening to hang them on light poles. Many people were afraid to walk the streets at night. Among the arrested in Zagreb were: Ivica dr. Frank (people’s representative), Aleksandar Horvat (people’s representative),Ante Matasic (general), Mirko dr. Puk (lawyer), Pavao Rauch (former ban/viceroy of Croatia), and Drago dr. Safar (lawyer).
Among the arrested and then forced to retire were the High Court Judges: Milan Accuti, Mirko dr. Kosutic, and Josip Tarabochia.
Among those forced from Zagreb into hiding were Ljudevit dr. Ivancic (priest in Zagreb) and Lovro dr. Radicevic (priest in Zagreb)
Nov.8 Franjo Sarkotic (general in Sarajevo) arrested.
Nov.9 Zvonimir Vukelic (newsman in Zagreb) arrested.
Nov.16 Mihovil Mihaljevic (field Marshall) forced to retire.
Nov. 17 Izidor dr. Krsnjavi (univ. prof. in Zagreb) forced to retire. Ivan Malus (school supervisor in Zagreb) forced to retire. Milan dr. Sufflay (a leading intellectual and univ. professor in Zagreb) forced to retire. ? Heim (judge in Zagreb) forced to retire.
Nov. 21 Lacko Labas (provincial governor in Bjelovar) forced to retire.
Nov. 22 Antun Liposcak (general) arrested.
Dec. 1 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes formed (renamed Yugoslavia in 1929).
Dec. 4 Zagreb newspaper “Hrvatska” banned.
Dec. 5 The gov. officials in Zagreb were ordered to declare this day a holiday with public celebrations in honor of the Serbian king Peter’s “krsna slava.” After the morning parade in honor of the king, Croatian soldiers stationed in Zagreb began a parade of their own, with their marching band. They protested unification with Serbia and demanded a democratic republic of Croatia. The marchers were met by force. On that day 9 Croatian civilians and 5 soldiers were killed, and 7 civilians and 10 soldiers were wounded. (It is estimated that over 100 people were hurt or killed but the newspaper were forbidden to write the truth.)
Among the killed were: Mato Gasparovic, Nikola Ivsa, Stjepan Juresa, Viktor Kolombar, Dragutin Kostelac, Josip Lupinski, Andro Martinko, Milos Mrse, Slavko Scukanac, ? Sentmartoni, Mijo Stanicer, Miroslav Svoboda, Antun Tasner-Juricic, and Ferdo Versec.
Among the arrested was the general Ante Matasic. Jailed over two months and then retired. Arrested again in 1929. After his release, his movements were restricted to the city of Zagreb.
1919
Gendarme forces maltreated large number of peasants in Zdala, Severin, Raca, Popovaca, Grubisno polje, and other places. Many of them were striped naked and beaten.
Jan. 6 The following Croatians were sentenced in Zagreb because of the Dec. 5, 1918 demonstrations: Ivica Percic (soldier) to 10 years,Rudolf Cecelja (soldier) to 7 years, Josip Simatovic (soldier) to 7 years, Ivan Babic (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Janko Herceg (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Franjo Kovacic (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Dragutin Mort (soldier) 3 and a half years, Adolf Schwartz (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Blaz Barac (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Stjepan Crncec (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Franjo Gasparac (soldier) 1 and half years, Marko Koren (soldier) 1 and a half years, Marko Majsl (soldier) 1 and a half years, Mirko Milosak (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Janko Pomjan (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Tomo Potlacek (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Josip Ruklic (soldier)to 1 and a half years, Konrad Skrebin (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Stjepan Tresoglavac (soldier) to 1 and half years, Mirko Vragovic (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Mustafa Basagic (soldier) ?, Mirko Drobac (soldier) ?, and Andrija Fijan (soldier) ?.
March Two elected parliamentary representatives from the Croatian Party of [State] Rights/HSP, dr. Prebeg (lawyer) and dr. Pazman (university professor) arrested.
Military censorship of the press imposed in Croatia.
Mar. 8Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS/ sent memorandum to the U.S. President Wilson and to members of the Peace Conference in Paris asking for self-determination of the Croatian people.
Mar. 25 President of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party (HRSS), Stjepan Radic, and two of its board members arrested. Although no charges were filed against him, Radic was held in jail without a trial untill Feb. 19, 1920. He was arrested again on March 22, 1920 and finally, he was released on Nov. 28, 1920, the day general elections, in which he and his party won an overwhelming majority of votes in Croatia.
May Josip Zrnek (worker) died in jail under torture.
July 13 Three people (a restaurant owner in Zagreb, his wife and a waitress) arrested by military authorities and badly beaten because the man said “This is not a Greater Serbia.”
July 22 Spontaneous rebellion of soldiers in Varazdin.
August Army confiscated all the goods that Croat emigrants had brought with them returning from the USA.
Bartol Vukovic (peasant from Brodska Varos) killed by gendarmes.
September A Croat police officer in Zagreb beaten and maltreated by military authorities.
A “prominent citizen” in Zagreb 70 years old beaten, maltreated, and his dog killed on his own property by a military captain.
1920
A group of “well-respected citizens” in Sisak arrested while eating in a restaurant, kept overnight in the local jail and maltreated because gendarme Lolic was drunk and he felt like doing it.
“Many peasants” beaten in the name of king Peter and forced to genuflect three times and give homage to the Serbian traditional military cap, known as “sajkaca.”
A veterinarian in Petrinja, after being asked to come to the office of the local commanding army officer, was maltreated and beaten by the officer. After escaping, the veterinarian was beaten again the next day by the same officer.
February A man was killed by soldiers in Sisak. While his wife was crying over his dead body, the commanding colonel swore at her and gave her two hard blows.
Feb. 20 Nine peasants in Delnice badly beaten by soldiers. Their money was also taken.
Mar. 22 ? Teslic, a Serb and a former Austrian Colonel, attempted to kill Stjepan Radic during a public gathering of the Croatian Peasant Party in Sisak. When Radic was about to begin his speech, Teslic fired four shots at him. After escaping the assassination, Radic was arrested and finally released on Nov. 28, 1920, the day of general elections.
Apr. 16 All public meetings banned in Croatia.
July A military colonel took a boat from a Croat citizen in Petrinja. After his complaint, four soldiers were sent to bring the man to the military compound. They were unsuccessful. But the next day, the citizen was found, beaten, and maltreated.
August Soldiers attack a number of civilians in Zagreb.
September A “large number” of peasants were killed during the attempts of the gendarmes and the military to put down peasant rebellions in northern Croatia. “Many peasants” were killed in Kutina county. Two peasants killed in Ivanjska.
Sep. 5 Forced branding of large domestic animals.
Peasants rebel in Veliki Grdjavac.
Josip Sulicek (peasant) killed by gendarmes.
Sep. 6 A peasant from Sveti Ivan Zeleni killed by gendarmes.
Sep. 8 Ivan Likoder (peasant from Repusnica) killed by gendarmes.? Pintaric (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. Ivan Vraznic (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. Gabor Uroic (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. ? Alapic (peasant from Gracanica) wounded by gendarmes.
Sep. 9 ? Gunjak (peasant) arrested and on the road from Osekova to Kutina killed by gendarmes. ? Pokaz (peasant) arrested and on the road from Osekova to Kutina killed by gendarmes.
Sep. 10 30 peasants in Petrinja badly beaten by the gendarmes in front of other citizens.
Sep. 16 3 peasant huts with all possessions burnt by gendarmes in Novoselce near Zagreb.
Filip Halic (79-year old peasant from Novoselce near Zagreb) killed by gendarmes in front of a hut in his vineyard.
Oct. 4 City Mayor of Vinkovci publically attacked by Serb military officer.
Nov. 28 Elections for the Constitutional Assembly. Croatian Republican Pleasant Party/HRSS/ received majority of votes in Croatia. Its leader, Stjepan Radic, released from jail on the election day.
Dec. 5 Croatian youth organization “Sokol” banned.
Dec. 12 Anti-Croatian demonstrations in Ruma/Srijem. Croatian businesses and homes attacked. All public signs written in Latin script demolished. Military authorities in the town were protecting the attackers.
Dec. 15 Mirko Marcinko arrested and severely tortured.
Dec. 20 Vinko Zugcic (peasant from Novoselce near. Zagreb) arrested and killed by gendarmes.
Vid Zavolic (peasant from Novoselce near Zagreb) wounded by gendarmes.
Dec. 22 A major strike by miners in Husino near Tuzla, Orasje, Breza, and other mining places in Bosnia. Gendarmes, “People’s Guards” (Serbian volunteers), and army unites put down the strike. 32 miners and peasants were killed and many more seriously wounded. Robbery, rape, and expulsion from homes followed. Croatian settlements were special targets because the desire was to portray the Croats as Communist sympathizers.
Dec. 29Government in Belgrade issued a document, “Obznana”, by which the Communist Party was banned in the country. Persecutions intensified.
Dec. 30 Stjepan Supanc (worker) killed in Vukovar.
1921
Jan. 4 Anka N. (Postal clerk in Vukovar) attacked by soldiers, maltreated, and arrested.
Jan. 26 The following Croats arrested in Zagreb. Trial began on June 12, 1921. On August 6, 1921 sentenced to:Pavao See 12 years, Rudolf Vidak 4 years, Milan dr. Sufflay to 3 and a half years, Jakov Petric to 3 years, Franjo Skvorc to 3 years, Dragutin Taborsak to 3 years, Josip Spoljarec-Drenski to 2 years and 4 months, Ivan Havelka to 8 months, Milan Galovic to 6 months,Ivan Kovacic to 6 months, Gabrijel Kruhak to 6 months, Ivo dr. Pilar 2 months, Andrija Medar freed, Antun Pavicic freed, and Florijan Stromar ?. Feb. 16 18 mineworkers in Tuzla condemned to death by hanging.. One of the condemned miners was Jure Kerosevic.
June Vladimir Copic arrested and sentenced on Feb. 2, 1922 to 2 years.
June 29 Unsucccesful attempt to assassinate king Aleksandar in Belgrade. Excuse to attack sympathizers of the Left and other opponents of the regime. It is estimated that about 10.000 people were arrested in the country and maltreated.
June 28 Centralist Constitution for the newly unified country approved by 233 votes; 35 delegates voted against, and 161 representatives were absent in Belgrade Parliament. July 2 150 workers arrested and maltreated in Split and sentenced from 3 to 8 months.
July 21 ORJUNA (Organizacija Jugoslavenskih Nacionalista/ Organization of Yugoslav Nationalits) attacked and seriously injured four “communists” in Split.
ORJUNA attacked and damaged the house of Mr. Jelaska in Split. ORJUNA demolished the house of Mr. Pinto in Split.
ORJUNA attaked and demolished the house of dr. Vrankovic in Split. July 22 ORJUNA attacked offices of Zagreb papers “Obzor,” “Hrvat,” and “Jutarnji list.” It led violent anti-Croatian demonstration in Zagreb.
ORJUNA attaked “Radnicki dom” (Workers’ Hall) in Osijek.
July 24 Rudolf Horvatic (civil servant in Zagreb) wounded by a railroad police, Dusan Kruzica, while riding a train from Sesvete to Zagreb.
Ivan Kosanda wounded togather with Rudolf Horvatic.
Zlatko Arnold (bank clerk) killed by a railroad policeman, Dusan Kruzica, while riding on Sesvete-Zagreb train.
August Catholic religious congress in Split attacked by ORJUNA.
A Catholic religious procession in Sinj attacked by gendarmes.
Aug. 2The Law for the Protection of the State was approved by Belgrade Parliament. Persecutions intensified.
Aug. 9 Drago Gizdic (worker in Dubrovnik) killed by ORJUNA.
Aug. 16 King Peter died. Because the Zagreb’s city council did not send a special delegation to the funeral, it was dissolved.
Dec. 11 The “Croatian block” won the municipal elections in Zagreb. But the elected representatives were not allowed to govern. A special city Commissar was appointed be Belgrade.
1922
Newspaper “Hrvatski Glas” banned.
Equipment belonging to youth organization “Croatian Sokol” in Ogulin confiscated and given to the “Yugoslav Sokol.” During a public gathering of the “Yugoslav Sokol” that followed in the same town, several leading Croats jailed.
About 400 Croat teachers and professors were dismissed from their jobs.
Jun. 8 King Aleksandar married Romanian princess Mariola. Croatians not welcomed at the wedding. The wedding costs were over 65 million dinars.
Jan. 29 A large number of peasants, including women and children, were attacked and mercilessly beaten by 14 gendarmes in the village near Topusko. Many were incapacitated for a long time because of the harsh beatings.
Feb. 21 ORJUNA attacked members of “Croatian workers union.” Army intervened on the side of ORJUNA.
Feb. 23 Ivan Colovic arrested and sentenced to 2 years. Spent 7 months in jail before the trial.
Djuro Salaj arrested and sentenced to 2 years. Spent 7 months in jail before the trial.
March A number of Croatians were attacked by ORJUNA members who were armed by pistols given to them by the military authorities.
? Snidarsic (Zagreb lawyer) shot by ORJUNA members. There was no investigation.
ORJUNA members attacked the house in Zagreb where retired Croatian military officers were having a private party.
June ORJUNA undertook major attacks throughout Zagreb.
June 4 A large number of the “Croatian Sokol” children and their escorts, mostly women, from Karlovac, Jastrebarsko, Ogulin and other towns attacked by local Serbs during the Sokol’s field trip to Plitvice Lakes. A number of people injured, investigation was not permitted and no one was punished.
June 14 All chapters of the organization “Croatian Woman” banned and its property comfiscated because they participated in organizing a pilgrimage to the tomb of Ante Starcevic three days earlier.
Women’s organization “Katarina Zrinski” also banned because of the pilgrimage to the grave of Ante Starcevic.
Zagreb chapter of the “Croatian Sokol” banned and posessions confiscated because they made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Ante Starcevic three days earlier.
July ? Rozic killed in Zagreb.
Dec. 9 Franjo Vrtat (Novigrad near Koprivnica) jailed for organizing HRSS meetings.
1923
At an ORJUNA meeting attended by the Minister of the Interior an open discussion on assassinating Stjepan Radic (the leader of the Croats) too place.
January During the pre-election campaign, a young man in the village of Kras (Dobrinjstina) was killed after a HRSS public meeting. During the same period, a man was killed in each of the following places: Crikvenica, Otocac, and Vrginmost .
Three HRSS representatives from the region of Sibenik were jailed.
Four members of the HRSS Main Board were jailed.
Three HRSS representatives from Cepin (Osijek) were jailed.
ORJUNA attacked Croatian Sokol members in their hall in Gospic. Because of the attack, the local Sokol organization was deprived of the hall.
Armed ORJUNA members clashed with Croatian youth in a coffee shop in downtown Zagreb. Eight people were wounded.
Jan. 28 ORJUNA members broke up a Croatian Republican Peasant Party (HRSS) gathering in Vinkovci.
February ORJUNA attacked political gatherings organized by Prof. Kerubin Segvic in Split.
ORJUNA attacked two followers of the HRSS in Drnis.
ORJUNA assaulted Dr. Vandekar, son in law of Stjepan Radic, in the town of Metkovic.
ORJUNA attacked a public meeting of the HRSS in Tuzla.
Feb. 3 Public meeting of the HRSS in Kostajnica broken up by ORJUNA members and their simpatizers. Those attending were attacked and more than 30 of homes were damaged.
Feb. 4 Six people seriously, and 18 lightly wounded by ORJUNA members in Crikvenica. One of the wounded died next day.
Feb. 5 Offices of the “Hrvatski list,” newspaper in Osijek, raided and vandalized by ORJUNA. A bomb was thrown into the main office.
Feb. 8 ORJUNA members placed a bomb in the hall of the Croatian workers union in Dubrovnik. Local government officials in the region of Dubrovnik banned public gatherings of Croatian political parties.
March Marko Grsic Filipovic wounded by a bullet in the head in the town of Senj.
A Zagreb Croat who stated that he would vote for Radic was forced by a gendarme to kiss the picture of Nikola Pasic, the leading Serbian politician at the time and a symbol of Greater Serbianism.
In Koprivnica, gendarmes opened gun fire on Croatian peasants.
In Split, any one who cried out “Long live Radic” received a 30- day jail sentence.
Gendarmes attacked a peasant from Cerje Tuzno and robbed him of his possessions.
Mar. 4 Peasants from the village of Cukovac (Ludbreg) were fired upon because they prepared a welcoming celebration for the HRSS leaders, including Stjepan Radic. Those who fired on the peasants were not punished. Instead, a peasant from Cukovac, a sympathizer of Radic, was sentenced to a one day jail term for not voting “properly.”
ORJUNA and its sympathizers attacked a public meeting of the HRSS in Otocac. Two peasants were wounded and a 14 year old boy was killed.
Mar. 18 After police attacked and dispersed a crowd gathered in Zagreb, OJUNA members opened fire on those running from police. A 16-year old boy was seriously wounded and a 20- year old man and a woman received lesser injuries.
Mar. 18 Second general elections held in the KSHS. The HRSS received an overwhelimg vote among the Croatians (420,000 votes and 69 Deputies).
April Jurije Soce (Sarajevo) killed by ORJUNA members.
June Kerubin Segvic on trial. He wrote in an article that ORJUNA was helped by the government.
Jul. 21 Stjepan Radic, President of the HRSS left the country and visited London, Vienna and Moscow looking for international understanding of the Croatian cause.
1924
Mime Rosandic (forestry engineer) arrested and maltreated.
April ORJUNA member attacked Jewish properties in Zagreb.
Aug. 1 Stjepan Radic, leader of the HRSS returned from abroad to Zagreb. It became clear that the outside world did not want to hear about “the Croatian question.”
November A gendarme attempted to assassinate August Kosutic, a leading politician in Croatia in Kastel Stari. Treated for head wounds in gendarme station. Jailed right after his return to Zagreb. Soon after, he took a long trip to the USA in order to avoid physical attacks or even assassination.
The Minister of education, S. Pribicevic, retired 3 leading professors (supporters of HRSS) at the Zagreb University. One of the three was Dr. Ladislav Polic. Dec. 23 Declaration to ban the Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS because it joined the Socialist International. Its public meeting and all its publications were banned. The law of public order and protection of state to be implemented against the HRSS, all its archives to be confiscated, and its leadership arrested.
1925
January Police harassed leading Croatian politicians, among them Dr. Josip Lorkovic, Dr. Albert Bazala, Dr. Stjepan Skrulj, Dr. Stjepan Buc, Dr. Krajac, and others.
Seven peasants from Kustosija (near Zagreb) arrested because they displayed a Croatian flag.
The HRSS and Communist representatives in the Osijek city council were stripped off their political positions.
Jan. 1 The Law for the Protection of State, originally passed against the Communists, extended to the Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS/. Criminal procedures were undertaken against its leadership.
Jan. 2 Police searched apartments and offices of all leading HRSS politicians in Zagreb and throughout the country. Many of them were arrested and released after a short detention. But the following were arrested and kept in jail for 6 months: Dr. Vladko Macek, Dr. Juraj Krnjevic, Dr. Stjepan Kosutic, Augustin Kosutic, Josip Predavec. A few days later, the secretary of the HRSS, Serif Kuzmic, was also arrested.
Offices of Osijek newspaper “Hrvatski list” raided and editors maltreated.
The house of Ivan dr. Loncarevic (lawyer in Mitrovica) raided and vandalized.
Jan. 3 600 peasants from Sibenik region arrested, taken to Sibenik, and about a half of them were jailed.
A number of Croats in Sibenik jailed. Among them were: Marko Berovic, Augustin Bujan (priest), Josip Drezga, Dr. Miho Jernic (dentists), Mate Kalmeta, Sime Zenic, Ivan dr. Krnic (former gov. high official). Next day, he was taken to Ogulin. Three Croatian homes in Susak/Rijeka raided.
Jan. 4 Ten members of the HSS in Imotski arrested.
Prof. Pavao Brkic arrested.Dr. ? Cuzzi (Split) arrested. Josip Paf (Sinj) arrested.Prof. Kerubin Segvic (editor of “Croatian Review” in Zagreb) arrested.Dr. ? Sokol (Split) arrested. Pavao Vucic (Sinj) arrested.Dr. Mile Vukovic (Imotski) arrested.
Jan. 5 Stjepan Radic, President of HRSS, arrested. Rudolf Bicanic (economist in Zagreb) – his apartment raided. Dragan Devcic (merchant in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days. Stjepan dr. Hefer (lawyer) jailed for 14 days. Ivo dr. Majcan (lawyer) arrested. ? Mirtejic (in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days.
Pavle Radic (leading man in the HRSS and Croatian representative in Belgrade parliament)- his apartment in Belgrade raided.
Viktor Tomlinovic (priest in Nasice) jailed.Djuro Turkalj (in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days.
All school teachers members of the Croatian Peasant Party dismissed from their jobs.
Jan. 6 Gendarmes opened fire on a crowd of Croats in Ozelj near Karlovac. One peasant killed and two wounded.
Jan. 7 “Croatian Sokol” youth organizations in Velika, Mihaljevac, and Brestovac near Pozega banned.
Jan. 8 Offices of the “Srijemski Hrvat,” Vukovar paper, raided and vandalized.
Seven peasants in Ceric near Vukovar arrested.
Dr. Ivan Majcen (Donji Miholjac) jailed for 6 days.Matijevic (president of the HSS in Bogdanovici) jailed with a number of other HSS members.
All HSS representatives and their secretaries in Donji Miholjac jailed for 5 days.
Jan. 9 In the village of Ladjevac, a local priest (Rev. Mikan) was arrested.
Jan. 13 “Hrvatski List,” Osijek newspaper, banned. After changing the name into “Hrvatska Zora” it was banned also. Jan. 13Rude Bacinic, a leading HRSS representative from Dalmatia, arrested in Belgrade.
Jan. (mid)The president of the local election committee and a member of the HRSS, Prof. Josip Hager, was arrested. He was accused of insulting the king and the regime. Besides being suspended from teaching, he was arrested again at the end of the month and sentenced to a 10 day jail term.
Jan. 25“Hrvatski Branik,” Vinkovci newspaper, banned.
Jan. 31 Djuro Zivic, a HRSS sympathizer, from Novo selo (Varazdin) was arrested, kept in jail till Feb. 8, 1925, and the case against him dragged on till 1927.
Jan. (end) Dr. Milovan Zanic was arrested.
The secretary of the HRSS Zagreb branch arrested
Police in Varazdin attempted to prevent the HRSS from handing to the local court the election lists and harassed the leading HRSS officials in the city, Dr. Ursic and others.
Nikola Separovic, a baker from Vela Luka living near Delnice, arrested. Accused of insulting the Belgrade regime. Feb. (beg.) Gendarmes beat up four peasants in the village of Lukavac. Two of them were seriously hurt.
Feb. 8 The day of elections, police, gendarmes, and even military forces were employed throughout Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to intimidate the non-Serb electorate. Many members of local election committees were harassed and/or arrested. There were numerous clashes between the voters and the gendarmes, and a number of people were injured and even killed.
In a clash between the gendarmes and the voters in Veliko Trgovisce a peasant was killed, and two gendarmes were wounded. Next day, 20 peasants were arrested and, after long tortures, 11 were released and 9 put on trial.
In the village of Stajnica (Lika) four peasants were killed (including an 80 year old woman) and many were wounded by the gendarmes. Stajnica was a stronghold of the HRSS party.
The mayor of the town of Susak (near Rijeka) was suspended from his functions and deprived of his salary because he was not supporting the Serbian Radical party.
In the village of Straznjevac (Varazdin) gendarmes arrested more than 10 peasants accused of displaying a flag with a slogan: “Faith in God and Peasant Solidarity” and of preventing the gendarmes from arresting the HRSS committee-men. After being maltreated and kept in jail for a while, they received from one to four months prison terms.
After the election results were announced, the HRSS supporters were prevented by police, gendarmes, and the military throughout Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from celebrating the victory.
Feb. 8 General elections – HRSS gained total victory among the Croats.
Feb. 11 “Hrvatski List,” Osijek daily newspaper, banned again.
Feb. 17 “Hrvatski Glas,” Osijek daily newspaper and successor to “Hrvatski list” banned.
Mar. 22 Dr. Albert Bazala (leading intellectual and people’s representative) physically attacked by Serbian members of parliament.
May 25 “Novi List,” daily newspaper in Susak/Rijeka, banned.
July 18 Stjepan Radic was released from jail. He and his party joined the government in Belgrade. His party’s name from now on is simply Croatian Peasant Party /HSS/; the adjective Republican is abandoned.
1926
May Attempt to assassinate Stjepan Radic (leader of the HSS) in Srijemska Mitrovica
1927
January On the island of Krk, displaying of the Croatian flag was banned and civil servants and school teacher came under special pressure because the local elections were coming up. (Jan. 23, 1927). In Varazdin, the city council and the city mayor were removed, and a government official (a gendarme officer) took control of the city.
In Osijek, a communist election leaflet stating “Long live the Republic” was banned.
On the island of Korcula, the HSS candidates were arrested.
In the provinces of Backa and Baranja, the HSS candidates and supporters were under great pressure to abandon their loyalty to their political party. Jan. 4 The ban against the HSS activities (imposed at the end of 1924) was abolished.
Jan. 23 On the day of local elections, about 2000 HSS members were coming to greet Radic at his home in Zagreb. Police dispersed the crowd and injured a number of people.
Aug. A regional representative of the Serbian Democratic Party from Vrelo near Korenica was arrested and sentenced to a 14 day jail term. The Serbian Democratic Party in Croatia came under pressure because its leader, S. Pribicevic, abandoned his policy of Serbian unitarism and became a federalist.
Aug. 28 In Sv. Jakov (near Crikvenica) gendarmes dispersed a HSS meeting and arrested one participant.
Sep. (beg.) In the village Krivi Put (Lika) the president of the local HSS was arrested and sentenced to 14 days of prison.
In Ludbreg, two HSS members were sentenced to a 14 day jail term each. Spt. 11Parliamentary elections. During these election there were no major eruptions of violence but voting manipulation by the regime was worse than in previous elections.
1928
June 20 Serbian Parliament representative, Punisa Racic, opened fire in Belgrade Parliament on Croatian deputies. Stjepan Radic mortally wounded (died on Aug. 8,1928), Dr. Djuro Basaricek killed, Pavle Radic killed, Dr. Ivan Pernar wounded, and Ivan Grandja wounded.
June 20-22 Massive demonstrations in Zagreb. 5 people killed; 50 wounded, more than a hundred arrested.
Dec. 4 Zagreb students demonstrated. Several killed and wounded by the gendarmes. 1929
Jan. 6 King Aleksandar assumed all power in the country, dismissed Parliament, suspended Constitutions, and banned all political parties.
April 30 Djuro Djakovic and Nikola Hecimovic, after being arrested and tortured, were led to the country border and shot.
May Dr. Milovan Zanic (lawyer and a former representative in parliament from Nova Gradiska) sentenced to 6 months for suggesting that king Aleksandar should be asked to return civil rights to the citizens. He had been arrested also in previous years.
June 28 The leader of the Serbs in Croatia, Svetozar Pribicevic, once right-hand man of the Belgrade regime, was confined to a small village in Serbia for his cooperation with the Croat political leaders. From 1931 till his death in 1936, he lived in exile.
July 17 Dr. Ante Pavelic (Zagreb lawyer and representative in Belgrade parliament) condemned to death in absence and his property is confiscated.
Gustav Percec condemned to death in absence and his property is confiscated.
Oct. 3 Displaying of Croatian flag is banned. Oct. 31 The following Croats were arrested and sentenced on June 30, 1931. Marko Hranilovic (student, 20 years old) condemned to death by hanging plus 20 years jail term!! Matija Soldin condemned to death by hanging plus 20 years jail term. Hung on November 25, 1931..
Stipe Javor (from Brinje/Zagreb merchant ) to 20 years. Because of beastly tortures he died in jail on March 27, 1936. Stipe Javor’s wife and two daughters were also arrested and maltreated in order to force him to talk. Antun Herceg (newsman) to 20 years. Dragutin Kriznjak (peasant) to 18 years. Stjepan Horvatek (merchant’s helper) to 15 years. Pavao Glad (hospital clerk) to 15 years. Milan Siladi (blacksmith from Busevac) to 6 years. Antun Vezmarovic (forest guard) to 5 years. Luka Markulin (peasant from Odra) to three years. Mijo Bizik (craftsman) to 18 months. Marija Hranilovic (Marko’s sister; secretary) to 18 months. Gabrijel Kruhak (office clerk in Zagreb) to 18 months. Janko Kruhak (craftsman) to 18 months. Mirko Kruhak (office clerk in Zagreb) to 18 months. Stjepan Markulin (peasant from Odra) to 18 months. Mile Starcevic (office clerk) to 18 months. Luka Cordasic freed. Josip Knoblehar freed. Stjepan Kopcinovic freed. Stjepan Novacic freed. Cvjetko Stahan freed. Mijo Babic escaped the country and condemned in absence. Zvonimir Pospisil condemned in absence. Mladen Lorkovic (Zagreb lawyer) avoided the arrest by escaping the country .
Dec. Blaz Djogic (peasant from Siroki Brijeg) killed by gendarmes
Dec. 5 King Aleksandar banned the “Croatian Sokol” that had over 40,000 members.
Dec. 19 Vilko Begic (military colonel) arrested. Freed on June 14, 1930.
Jaksa Jelasic (professor in Zagreb) arrested and sentenced to 3 years plus the loss of civil rights for 4 years.
52 Zagreb students arrested together with Begic and Jelasic.
Dec. 29 The following Croats were arrested, tried in Belgrade, and on June 14, 1930 sentenced: Ivan Bernardic (merchant’s assistant from Barilovic) to 15 years, expulsion from Zagreb for 3 years, and the loss of civil rights for life. Stjepan Matekovic (craftsman from Kostajnica) to 10 years. Filip Paver (state clerk in Zagreb) to 10 years. Martin Franekic to 8 years the loss of civil rights for life.Ivan Skrtak to 6 years and permanent loss of civil rights. Cvjetko Hadzija to 5 years and the loss of civil rights for 5 years. Ante Stefanac to 4 years and the loss of civil rights for 4 years. Velimir Mocnaj (book store owner in Karlovac) to 3 years and the loss of civil rights for 3 years. Ivan Prpic (lawyer from Jastrebarsko) to 2 years. Ivan Ban (merchant’s assistant from Kresevo) to 1 year and loss of civil rights for 3 years. Franjo Veselic to 1 year. Ljubomir Kremzir to 6 months. Pavao Margetic to 6 months. Bozo Arnsek freed. Mirko Debanic freed. Albin Gasparac freed. Franjo Kuntic (restaurant owner) freed. Ivan dr. Lebovic (lawyer) freed. Milan Levnajic freed. Antun Stefanic freed.
1930
Ivan Rosic jailed 14 days for placing a wreath on the grave of Stjepan Radic. Jan. 4 Dr. Vladko Macek (leader of the HSS) arrested, tried in Belgrade and freed on June 14, 1930. Seven Croatian prisoners that were acquitted together with Macek at the trial in Belgrade and four of their lawyers were celebrating their release. That was considered a crime and all were sentenced to a 30 days prison term.
May Over 100 Croats arrested. Accused of planning to place an explosive under the train taking a delegation to see the king in Belgrade. Among them were: Antun Budrovac – later sentenced to a jail term. Franjo Canic – later sentenced to a jail term. Franjo Carevic – later sentenced to a jail term. Antun Herman (shoemaker in Djakovo) – later sentenced to a jail term. Zeljko Klemen – later sentenced to a jail term. Karlo Kovacevic – later sentenced to a jail term. Sime Mikic – later sentenced to a jail term. Ivan Ruskan – later sentenced to a jail term. Luka Stjevic – later sentenced to a jail term. Anka Sultajs (woman) – later sentenced to a jail term. Andrija Tilman (postal clerk in Djakovo) – later sentenced to a jail term.
June Josip Predavec (Vice President of the HSS) condemned to 2 and a half years of prison.
1931
During the year “a number of Croats” killed by Chetniks and/or gendarme forces.
Zvonimir Topilnik (bank clerk in Livno) died in jail under torture.
Dr. Dragutin Toth arrested and tried with 13 more members of the HSS.
Ivan Jedlicka tortured and died in Virovitica prison.
Jan. 14 Obrad Pavlovic (Croat from Backa) killed near Italian border.
Feb. ? Bosnjakovic (craftsman in Djakovo) died in jail under gendarmes’ torture.
Josip Poropat (young man from Zagreb) killed by gendarmes and his body was thrown from the 3rd floor into the courtyard.
174 Croats arrested in Zagreb
Feb. 17Djuka Ilijanic (peasant) died in Zagreb under torture.
Feb. 18Dr. Milan Sufflaj (a leading Croat intellectual) assassinated.
April Ante Pavelic (peasant from Bosanski Brod) arrested and severely tortured. After his release, escaped to Austria and soon died of complications caused by tortures.
May Josip Nadj (merchant from Ferdinandovac) died in jail under torture
May 4 Trial of 22 Croats began in Zagreb. Among the 22 volunteer defending counsels was Dr. Vladko Macek, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party who a year earlier was himself tried and acquitted in Belgrade. (See Oct. 31, 1929)
May 23 In Belgrade, 3 Croats were sentenced to death, one of them in absence. 11 others received a total of 126 years jail terms. Two were sentenced to 20 and 15 years, but they escaped the country. One of the accused was acquitted.
June Milka Hranilovic (a woman) jailed because of her son’s activities.
June 31 Ante Crvic, Ignac Domitrovic, and Mijo Seletkovic were condemned in absence.
July 12About 12,000 people attending the Eucharistic Congress in Omis. Gendarmes opened fire on the masses. Two people killed and many wounded.
July 23 Six months after their arrests, a group of Croats tried in Belgrade and sentenced. Among them, Ivan Rosic (shoemaker’s assistant) to death by hanging (hung).
Aug. 1 man (peasant from Lencak near Lasinja) killed by gendarmes. Aug. 10Ilija Petrovic (Nova Gradiska) died under prison torture in Zagreb.
Aug. 11The following Croats were sentenced: Ivan Ljevakovic (father’s name Matin from Lipak; streetcar controller in Zagreb) to death. Later commuted to life imprisonment. Ivan Ljevakovic (father’s name Franjo; peasant from Lipak) to 15 years. Adolf Miler sentenced in Belgrade to 15 years. Ivan Saub to 10 years. Petar Nozaric to 2 years. Stjepan Papac to 2 years. Ignac Terihaj to 10 months. Milan Lukac (from Nova Gradiska) freed. Josip Miklausic – cooperated with prosecution. Martin Nagy – cooperated with prosecution. Hung himself in jail. Supposedly suicide.
Dec. 8 Chetniks in the country of Benkovac terrorized Croats who did not participate in the elections. Five peasants killed and many wounded. 1932
Villages in Lika region were terrorized and possessions confiscated after the Lika rebellion.
129 Croats were tried for verbal “insult of the king’s name” in the regions of Petrinja, Bjelovar, Zagreb, Ogulin, and Varazdin alone.
Pastor of the Catholic parish in Krasna/Lika arrested because of his “provocative” sermon. A number of Croats in Pazariste/Lika were severely beaten by gendarmes. Among them were: Joso Alivojdic, Petar Dasovic (75 years),
Ilka Hodak (24 year woman), Tomo Marinkovic (beaten daily for 10 days), Jerko Rukavina (70 year), ? Smiljcic (14 years), Manda Stimac (older woman), Jure Zivkovic – his skull was broken and the gendarmes left him for dead.
23 people (from 23 to 92 years of age) severely beaten by gendarmes force in Brusani/Lika. Among them were: Sule Devcic (92 years old) and Mican Lisac (73 year old)
Ivan Domitrovic (peasant from near Imotski) killed by the Chetniks in his home.
Jozo Olujic (Opanci/Imotski) killed by the Chetniks.
Towards the end of the year, a group of Croats were arrested and sentenced in Jan. 1933. Among them: Franjo Furlan to 7 years, Stjepan Tomljenovic 7 years, Sime Balen to 4 years, Nikola Busljeta to 2 years, Mile Sikic 6 months, Antun Balen freed, and Jakov Kubretovic freed.
Five Croats killed on the border to Italy and to Hungary.
Towards the end of the year, 121 people (mostly peasants from Prijedor region) brought to trial in Banja Luka.
Feb. 18 Ive Dusevic (20 years old man from Ljubac/Zadar) killed by Chetniks.
Feb. 20 A peasant in Bosanski Brod killed by gendarmes.
March Blaz Savic (peasant in Benkovac region) deprived of any assistance because of his nationality and political beliefs- died of hunger.
Mara Troskat (a woman in Banjevac/Benkovac) deprived of any assistance because of her nationality and political beliefs – died of hunger.
Nikola Zrilic (Sopoti/Benkovac) deprived of job and social assistance because of his nationality and political stands – died of hunger.
Mar. 4 Many peasants from Lisani/Tinja arrested and held in jail for a long time while their children had no food.
Mar. 6 Students at the University in Zagreb display 3 Croatian flags; many of them arrested and maltreated. Branko Buzjak (student in Zagreb) seriously wounded by police.
Mar. 25 ? Aljinovic (truck driver in Ston/Peljesac) killed by Chetniks
April 4 The Government led by General Petar Zivkovic, known for his harsh rule, forced to resign. Hops were high that the new Government would be less oppressive, but such hopes did not materialize.
April 24 About 200 peasants expressed their disatisfaction by marching to the city of Ludbreg. March crushed by gendarmes, leaders arrested and punished.
Apr. 30 Jakov Peraic (peasant in Polaca/Zadar) killed and robbed by a Serb border guard.
May A large number of people maletreated, beaten, arrested or punished by other means in Suska/Rijeka, Bjelovar, Ogulin and other places.
May 12-14 About 600 peasants peacefully demonstrated demanding removal of the local administration in Kosinj/Lika. Gendarmes crushed the protest in blood.
May 15 Gendarmes crushed spontaneous political demonstrations in Senj. Many people were injured, arrested, and punished.
May 26 Gendarmes used a brutal force to crash demonstrations in Split. A large number of people arrested and maltreated.
June Tomislav Corak (peasant from Brdari/Sanski Most) killed by gendarmes.
Ivan Eres (peasant) killed by gendarmes near Hungarian border.
June 7 An attempt to assassinated Dr. Mile Budak, a well known Croatian writer, takes place in Zagreb.
June 14 Attempted murder of two men in Zagreb by members of Young Yugoslavia.
June 20 Commemorations for the Croatian victims shot in Belgrade parliament in June 1928. Arrests, beatings, and shootings by gendarmes take place in many parts of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Secretary of HSS in Bosanski Brod arrested. Gendarmes open fire on the crowd gathered in front of the local jail.Twenty people wounded and many more arrested.
Stjepan Matkovic (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes. A peasant (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes. A peasant woman (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes.
June 20-21 A large number of peasants from Draganic/Karlovac arrested and maltreated.
June 29Gendarmes opened fire on a Catholic religious procession in Stubica/Zagorje. One man and one woman were killed. Numerous people wounded. Many were maltreated and jailed after the event.
July Ivan Kajda and Pavao Lukac (peasants from Virovitica) killed by gendarmes. Aug. Two peasants in Donja Stubica/Zagorje killed by gendarmes.
Aug. 16 Gendarmes attacked the village of Braslovlje/Samobora. A few peasants were killed and several wounded.
Sept. After the “Lika Rebellion” many Croatians jailed and most of them, after being beaten and tortured, where released. Twelve of them taken to Glavnjaca jail near Belgrade where they were maltreated and spent 9 months before they were tried. Andrija Artukovic, Marko Dosen, Josip Tomljenovic, Ivan Saric, and Nikola Oreskovic escaped from the country.
“A few dead and several wounded peasants” (in Oroslavlje/Zagreb region). Gendarmes used violence because Croatian flag was hoisted.
Pasko Kaliterna (merchant in Split) and Fabijan Plazinic (Split) jailed, tried in Belgrade, and freed on March 14, 1933.
Sept. 14 Stipe Devcic (peasant in Jadovno, Lika) killed by gendarmes.
Sept. 21 Djuro Kemfelja (peasant from Stubica Gornja) jailed and sentenced to 18 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.
Petar Posaric jailed and sentenced to 8 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.
Oct. Viktor Kosutic jailed; sentenced to 10 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.
? Pecnikar (railroad official in Zagreb) died as a consequence of police tortures.
Oct. 5 Dr. Ivan Pernar (leading Croat politician) jailed and sentenced on March 14, 1933 to 1 year of jail term.
Oct. 17 Dr. Vladko Macek, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, arrested on account of an interview printed in an English newspaper.
Nov. Luka Devcic (peasant from Lika) died in jail under gendarmes’ torture.
Nov. 20-28 Three peasants from Nin county killed by gendarmes.
Dec. ? Frkovic (craftsman in Benkovac) died under gendarmes’ torture. Sime Grgic (Nin) died in jail under gendarmes’ torture.
Mile Kordun (peasnat from Mumici/Nin) killed by gendarmes.
? Misura (tavern owner in Benkovac) died as a consequence of gendarmes’ tortures.
Dec. 5 “About 100 students and city people” arrested and tortured because of an explosion that took place in Zagreb on Dec. 1, 1932. Dec. 9 Miro Perkovic (peasant from Ljubac/Nin) killed by gendarmes.
1933
98 people were tried for verbal “insult of the king’s name” in the regions of Petrinja, Bjelovar, Zagreb, Ogulin, and Varazdin alone.
“At the beginning of the year,” 8 people were jailed from 10 to 14 days in Podravina.
Ivan Borac (peasant from Razanci/Zemunik) mortally wounded by a Chetnik in front of the church right after the church service.
Ante Dobrila (post-office clerk in Senj) sentenceed to 14 years.
Marko Dosen (merchant from Lika) escaped from the country because of persecutions. His family was also persecuted and their business license suspended in May of 1933.
Sime Dusevic (peasant from Asin near Nin) killed by gendarmes Milivoj Cumic. He also killed P. Grgic and was decorated with the “Medal of St. Sava” for special merits.
Ivan Gabaj (peasant from Hlebine) is arrested, severely tortured and then shot to death by gendarmes.
Franjo Mraz (peasant from Hlebine) tortured and killed by gendarmes.
Pavle Perkovic (peasant from Perkovici near Sl. Brod) killed by Chetnik Rusic.
? Rasic (peasant from the region of Sl. Brod) killed at a public meeting by Chetniks.
? Rupcic (from Senj) sentenced to 3 years of jail.
Vladimir Secko (merchant’s helper in Senj) sentenced to 18 years of jail.
About 600 large animals were confiscated by gendarmes and 48 houses and barns were torched in northern Dalmatia and Lika, especially in Podgorje and Devcici.
? Stojilovic (peasant from Oreskovica) killed on the day of local elections by Zivot Radivojevic. Drago Vlahovic (clerk in Senj) sentenced to 8 years of jail.
Blaz Vukutin (peasant from Pakostani) died because of tortures suffered in jail.
Jan. 60 peasants from Djelkovac, Koprivnica, and other villages in the area were led barefoot to Prlog jail where they were maltreated and tortured.
The following peasants were jailed and gravely tortured: Antun Babat, ? Dretar, Josip Havajic (Tortured to the point of death. Last minute medical intervention kept him alive.), Josip Jurasin, Franjo Makar, ? Petkovic, ? Stancin, Pavao Turek, and Ignac Zlatar. Sandor Trajber killed by gendarmes near Donja Lendava.
Jan 21 Dr. Valdko Macek (Leader of the Croatian Peasant Party/HSS) jailed. Charges filed against him in March. He is transferred to state security jail in Belgrade. Sentenced to 3 years of jail term on April 29, 1933.
Feb. Vilko Begic jailed.
Vladimir Bogovic (clerk in Karlovac) commited suicide because of persecutions.
Feb. 15 Josip Silobrcic (pharmacist in Biograd near Zadar) jailed and tortured.
40 peasants from the region of Sibenik arrested and taken to the city. All accused of anti-state activities. After 185 days of solitary confinement, Silobrcic and 10 others were taken to Belgrade and declared innocent on December 20, 1933 because the charges were brought against them “arbitrarily.”
Mar. 11 Antun Ivanov (peasant from Preko/Zadar) tortured to death while in jail.
Mar. 14 Cvjetko Nizic (from Preko/Zadar) tortured to death while in jail.
April Ruzica Knezevic (peasant woman from Perusic) died because of the beatings she suffered at the hands of gendarmes.
April 18 A group of peasants from Recice were taken to Karlovac jail and tortured. One of them, Andrija Pavlic suffered terrible tortures.
April 24 Gendarmes used force to suppress students’ demonstrations in Zagreb.
April 29 Gendarmes used force to stop student demonstrations in Zagreb. May About 200 students in Zagreb jailed and terrorized for displaying Croatian flag.
Josip Kostelac (student in Zagreb) jailed and greatly tortured. Sentenced in December 1933.
? Bekavac (peasant from Prolozac/Benkovac) killed by a Serb member of the Sokol organization.
Sime Dijan (Lika) sentenced to 6 months because he did not report suspected nationalists to gendarmes.
Petar Grgic (Murvice/Zadar) killed by gendarme Milivoj Cumica.
Andrija Nadnicic (Lika) sentenced to life imprisonment.
Five others tried with Nadnicic received sentences from 3 to 8 years.
May 20 The following peasants and former HSS parliamentary representatives from the region of Garasnica were jailed: Tomo Madjeric, Misko Racan, TomoVojkovic, At the same time, many peasants from the region were terrorized by gendarmes and taken to Zagreb prison in order to reveal a presumed “great plot” against the state.
July A woman killed in an attack on a Catholic religious procession in Split.
More than 50 Croats accused of belonging to Ustasha movement were tried in three groups in Lika. Among them the following were sentenced: Josip Cacic to life imprisonment, Stjepan Mabasa to life imprisonment, Milan Silhovic 10 months, and others in the group received jail terms from 6 to 15 years.
July 10 After spending 9 months in the notorious Glavnjaca jail near Belgrade, the following Croats were sentenced: Jure Rukavina (forcefully retired officer) condemned to death. Tortured so much that he had to be carried on a stretcher to the court. It was expected that he would succumb to the tortures and die, the king commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. After the king’s assassination the sentence was commuted to 20 years. Jerko Sudar to “eternal servitude” (after king’s assassination the sentence was commuted to 20 years). Leopold Super (peasant from Brusani) to 20 years. Ivan Abramovic (a young craftsman) to 15 years. Jure Gazic to 15 years. Antun Super (shoemaker from Brusani) to 15 years. Josip Baric (peasant from Brusani) to 12 years. Josip Vukic (merchant’s helper from Tribalj/Crikvenica) 10 years. Ivan Rukavina (peasant from Pazariste Donje) to 3 years. Dane Babic (peasant from Brusani) to 9 months. Josip Super (from Brusani) freed. Pavao Baric (peasant from Brusani) freed. A week later, the third group of suspected “Ustashe” was tried in Lika.
July 14 J. Predavec murdered.
July 24 Mirko Neudorfer (former gov. minister and HSS representative) murdered at Ladislavac/Zlatara.
Aug. Augustin Franic (peasant from Sukosani/Dalmatia) killed by Chetniks.
Sept. 9 Ivo dr. Pilar (59 year old well known intellectual and opponent of the regime) officially committed suicide but it is believed that he was murdered.
Sept. 27-28 A large number of students in Zagreb jailed and/or terrorized.
Oct. A terrorizing expedition into the village of Vinice and the surrounding area takes place. This resulted into: Josip Krobot (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) killed. A few hundreds of peasants severely beaten and terrorized.
Dec. 1 Post-office clerk (Selska cesta) killed for singing Croatian patriotic songs.
Dec. 16 King Aleksander in Zagreb. Failed plot to assassinate him discovered.
Dec. Massive arrests (more than 1000 people) and maltreatments in Zagreb. Many of them highschool students. Others expelled from the city.
1934
“Many peasants” arrested in Koprivnica region. Among them the following were sentenced to life inprisonment, later commuted to 15 years: ? Horvatinovic (from Gola), ? Novak (from Gola), ? Posezi (from Gola), ? Suboticanec (from Gola), Janko Varga (from Novacka Gola), ? Pavlic (from Djelkovac), ? Petak (from Djelkovac), ? Sabol (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak ¹ (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak ² (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak ³ (from Djelkovac), ? Sijak (from Grbasevac), and ? Vutuc (from Grbasevac).
“About 100 peasants, workers and students” in Zagreb arrested and maltreated. About 20 people severely tortured.
Ivan Saric (peasant from Zemunik) beaten so badly by gendarmes that he died of the injuries received.
Jan. 11 Ivan Varga (peasant from Dubrave/Medjimurje) killed by gendarmes. In July 1934, his son received a bill to pay 13.15 dinars for the five bullets by which his father was killed.
Mar. 13 Trial of eight Croats begins in Belgrade. They are sentenced on March 21, 1934: Stjepan Pizeta (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) condemned to death. Franjo Zrinski (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) condemmned to death. Tomo Kelemen (mason from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) “perpetual servitude.” Mijo Kalaman ¹ (mason from Gornje Ladanje/ Varazdina) to 1 year. Mijo Kelemen ² (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/ Varazdina) to 1 year. Marko Krobot (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) to 5 months. Josip Petkovic freed. Milja Brodar (woman) freed.
Mar. 29 Josip Begovic (student in Zagreb) condemned to death by hanging. Petar Oreb (worker from Vela Luka/Korcula) condemned to death by hanging. Hung on May 12, 1934. Antun Podgorelec (masonary apprentice from Suhopolje/Vinkovci) condemned to death by hanging; later commuted to life. After spending three months in jail where they were tortured, a group of eighteen people were sentenced: Nikola Murkovic (lawyer from Gospic) to 2 years, Ante Vlajnic (merchant in Perusic) to 20 months, Martin, Dosen (Licki Osik) to 12 months, Dr. Fran Binicki (pastor in Licki Osik) to 10 months, Mile Butkovic (merchant from Perusic) to 10 months, Nikola Kolacevic (merchant from Kaniza) to 8 months, Mate Zalovic (peasant from village of Vuksice) jailed eight months, Nada Kolacevic (housewife from Gospic) to 6 months, Nikola Polic (pastor in Gospic) to 6 month, Andrija, Brkljacic (Gospic) to 5 months, Ante Brkljacic (Gospic) to 5 months, Mate, Brkljacic (peasant from Kaniza) to 5 months, Josip Matijevic (student from Kaniza) to 5 months, Nikola Matijevic (student) to 5 months, Ivan Stilinovic (peasant from Gopsic) to 4 moths, Marko Smolcic (student under age from Karlobag) sent to a home for delinquent youth, Ivica Murkovic (a retired military officer from Gospic) to ?, and Mime Rosandic (forestry engineer from Gospic) freed but kicked out from work.
Mar. 30 Mato Keselic – (peasant) ambushed and killed by gendarmes near Vrpolje.
Apr. Villagers in Sv. Kriz (Krapina) openly protested against terror of the local gendarmes. Repraisals followed and over 50 villagers were jailed and maltreted.
Apr. 12 About 100 Zagreb Croats arrested and maltreated.
Apr. 20 Two peasants in the village of Lanusa near the Italian border killed.
May 30 Trial of eight Croats began. They were sentenced on June 4, 1934: ? Zindric was aquited. Josip Katusic (permanent residence in the U.S.A.) to death. Ivan Barakovic (civil servant in Osijek) to 15 years of prison. Others received received from 6 month to 10 years jail terms, including Stjepan Crnicki (civil servant in Zagreb).
Aug. Valentin Rosulja – (peasant) killed by Chetnik brothers: Jovan, Milan and Nikola Djurcic.
Josip Sabov – killed by chetniks in Horgac, Backa.
Aug. 1 Ivan Kovacevic – (peasant) killed in Otocko near Bosanski Brod.
Sept. Four political trials: Two people condemnd to death, five received life sentences, and others received sentences from one to 15 years.
Ivan Lucic – (worker) died in Susak(Rijeka) jail while being tortured.
Sept. 11 The following were sentenced in Zagreb from 10 to 24 months of prison terms because of an “anti-state” leaflet: Vinko Begic, Juraj Horvat,Andrija Hrsak, Ljudevit Ivekovic, Dr. Ivan Pernar – lawyer (30 months), Andrija Raspor, Karlo Sejkot, Lenka Stimac (woman),
Sept. 20 The following were sentenced: Stjepan Sever (peasant from Podravina) to 12 years. Ivan Kraljic (people’s representative from Podravina till Jan. 6, 1929) to 8 years. Stjepan Prvcic (peasant from Podravina) to 8 years. Blaz Badalec (peasant from Podravina) to 6 years. Ivan Glavak (peasant from Podravina) to 3 years. Marija Glavak (peasant woman from Podravina) to 3 years. Ivan Ostriz to (peasant from Podravina) 2 years. Ivan Horvatinovic (peasant from Podravina) to 2 years. Marija Badalec (peasant from Podravina) to 1 year.
Oct. 9 King Aleksandar assassinated in Marseilles.
1935
From January 1935 to January 1936, 96 people were killed by gendarme forces.
Members of the “Catholic action” maltreated throughout Croatia just because they belonged to a Catholic organization.
A number of the members of the Catholic organization “Zrinski” in Djurdjevac were arrested. They were severely beaten in Pitomaca, on the way to prison, and again while investigated in jail. Teenage boys in the village of Djurdjevac had their hands beaten by gendarmes so hard that they were disabled for a lengthy period.
A number of villagers were hid in the nearby woods out of fear of the gendarmes and they were afraid to come back home. The whole village lived in fear.
A number of peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Mala Erpenja, the region of Krapinske Toplice. Among them were: Stjepan August, Florijan Belin (60 years old), Makso Golubic, Rudolf Golubic, Slavko Golubic, Juraj Juranic, Makso Juranic, Mirko Juranic, Andro Kordej,Franjo Kos (50 years old), Janko Mihel (20 years old), Josip Mihel (70 years old), Vilim Mihel (40 years old), Franjo Rusek (35 years old),Otokar Sostaric, Viktor Sostaric (merchant), Vjekoslav Stengl (25 years old), Makso Svecnjak, and Stjepan Svecnjak.
A “multitude of peasants” beaten up by gendarmes in Zabok. Among them: ? Sepec (beaten by five gendarmes while plowing his land), Marko Bivol, and Ivan Borovcak.
Peaceful peasants terrorized by gendarmes in Vojni Kriz near Cazma. Among the most severely beaten were: Franjo Ciglencki, Franjo Krivacic, and Danijel Magdic.
14 peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Sesvete near Ludbreg.
In Bizovac (Valpovo) gendarme supervisor Vasilije Dinic, arbitrarily arrested Stjepan Kis and beat him severely while in jail. The same officer beat Andrija Perosevic, who ended up in the hospital because of the severe beating.
In Adolfovac near Osijek workers, Luka Vukovic, Antun Gurdel, and Milan Grgic, were arrested, and beaten to unconsciousness. Vukovic’s teeth knocked out; had to be taken to Osijek hospital; Grgic’s breast bone was broken. From the local gendarme station they were dragged to Osijek prison and beaten severely.
Janko Simatic (peasant from Adolfovac) severely beaten by gendarmes.
Ivan Krelo (peasant from Kravice near Osijek) on the way home from work arrested, taken to gendarme station, and severely beaten. As a consequence he lost hearing on one ear.
Ilija Kereman and Josip Gorzan (peasants from Laslovo) severely beaten by gendarmes.
20 peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Korodje near Osijek. The most severely beaten were: Tobi Arpadz, Marko Mihalj, Mihalj Miskolic, Danijel Pozar, Feri Sabo, and Janos Sosaj.
200 people from Zitnik and Klanac/Lika walked to Gospic to protest the stealing of voting registration lists. They were ambushed by gendarmes using military rifles. Bozo Markovic (76 years old) was first seriously wounded and then a gendarme used a bayonet to finish him off. Martin Starcevic (38 years) was also killed; first shot and then his skull was smashed by a gendarme. Joso Lulic (58 years) was seriously wounded. Stipe Markovic (36 years) was hit by four shots in the back. Also were wounded: Nikola Milinkovic ( 28 years), Ivan Snjaric (40 years), Ivan Zupan (30 years), and 28 other people.
Gendarmes attacked peasants in the village of Dobranje near Metkovic, maltreated them and killed Ivan Devija.
Group of peasants returning from Starigrad (island of Hvar) to the village of Vrbanj were attacked by gendarmes and severely beaten. A day after, gendarmes beat up 39 villagers.
Rev. Blaz Tomljenovic (pastor in Smiljan/Lika) sentenced to pay 500 dinars because of a Sunday sermon.
Rev. Ivan Ilijic (pastor in Dubasnica/Krk) sentenced to pay 500 dinars for having another well known priest from nearby Krk, Rev. Milan Defar, help him during the Easter holidays. He is charged with sheltering an “unknown person”!
Rev. Milan Defar (priest from Krk) arrested on false charges and later banned from teaching catechism in the local highs chool.
Rev. Janko Medved (priest in Novalja/Pag) chained and taken by boat to the town of Rob, publically humiliated, and sentenced to 8 days jail term.
Rev. Ivan Condic (pastor in Rascani/ Imotski) arrested while in Sinj, led to Zagvozd. While there, the local gendarme commander, Ilija Gajic, cursed his “Catholic God,” called him swine, criminal, and other names, and knocked him to the floor and maltreated him physically over two hours. A day after, Condic was sentenced to 12 days of jail and to pay a 1000 dinars fine.
? Pavlinovic (a merchant from Imotski region) arrested together with Rev. Ivan Condic, maltreated by gendarme commander in Zagvozd and sentenced to 12 days of jail and a 1000 dinars fine.
Gendarmes killed “several people” and injured many others in Primosten near Sibenik.
Feb. 19-20 Gendarmes killed 15 and injureed many Croatian peasants in Sibinj and Slavonski Brod.
May 4 Msgr. Ivan Mrakovcic, chancellor of the Krk diocese, arrested. In order to humiliate him, he is led through town by a group of gendarmes as the worset criminal.
May 5 General elections held.
In the village of Vid, near Metkovic, gendarmes maltreated peasants including children on election day, and positioned two machine guns in the village threatening the population.
On election day, Rev. Mate Rahelic, pastor in Hreljina, arrested at 11 P.M., taken to Susak/Rijeka jail, and held without being charged.
May 11 Franjo Sostaric (peasant from Selnice/Zlatar) shot and killed by gendarmes.
May 19 Gendarmes opened fire on a crowd of local peasants in Kravarsko near Zagreb after a Church celebration. As a result: Djuro Virek and Antonija Jambris (woman) were killed, and Franjo Kanceljak, Stjepan Cekovic, and Franjo Virek (Djuro’s son) were seriously wounded. A number of other peasants were injured.
June 23 Chetniks attack Croatian guests in a well-known restaurant in Zagreb.
Aug. 23 After 11 months of imprisonment and torture, trieal of 37 Croats started in Sarajevo. They were: Antun Alaupovic, Ivan Brcic, Jelisaveta Car (woman), Josip Car, Mate Coric, Stefica Erbic (woman), Tugomir Gelic (Franciscan priest), Mijo Grgic, Antun Hladnik, Leopoldina Hladnik (woman), Marija Hladnik (woman), Tereza Hladnik (woman), Nikola Jarak, Dragutin Juric, Vjekoslav Juric, Vjekoslava Juric (woman), Ante Kacic, Franjo Kolumbic, Augustina Korac (woman), Filip Korac, Miron Kozinovic (Franciscan priest), Blaz Lorkovic,Ela Lorkovic (woman), Josip Milinkovic, Ana Pecek (woman), Emil Pecek, Franjo Pecek, Rafo Prusina (Franciscan priest), Petar Puljic, Ana Sef (woman), Donko Surjan, Petar Surjan, Augustin Tomic (Franciscan priest), Ivanka Trampus (woman), Augustina Ungerman (woman), Franjo Ungerman, and Jozefina Ungerman (woman). Sentences were given on September 17, 1995.
Dec. 11 A few gendarmes were forcfully entering many houses in the village of Djurdjanci/Djakovo and empting them of all posseasions. The official excuse was tax collection. After the peasnts’ resitence to this terror, over 20 more policmen arived at 2:00 A.M. next morning and a large number of peasnats were taken to the local gendarme station. Half-naked, cold, and hungry they were severly beaten and maltreated for a few days. Among other tortures, they were forced to hit each other. Even those who came to village as visitors were beaten and arrested. Men from the village that were not arrested were in hiding in the woods for days. The real cause of the terror: some of the villagers participated in the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Croatian anthem in Djakovo on December 8, 1935.
The leading gendarme torturer was Avdo Kujundzic (stationed in Djakovo) and the local acuser was an ill-reputed Chetnik Andrija Separac.
Among the arrested and/or tortured were: Adam Begovic, Anka Begovic (maltreated) (woman), Antun Begovic, Bozo Bosnjakoic, Ana Bosnjakovic (woman on the run), Ilija Bosnjakovic (10 year olf boy), Ivan Bosnjakovic, Marko Carevic, Andrija Djakovic, Pavao Kovacevic,Andro Kusic, Nikola Lett (merchant), Mijo Lett (merchant), Pero Lovrenovic, Ivo Majanovic (the village elder), Ivo Majanovic, Damjan Marinovic, Kuzman Marinovic, Franjo Merc, Fabo Nikolic, Ivan Perkovic, Martin Prokopec (visiting the village), Pero Salic, Mate Saric, Pavo Saric, Pero Saric, Martin Sners (old man), Manda Spanjovic (attempt of rape) (woman), Marko Stojkovic (53 year old; visiting the village), Stipe Trepsic, and Marko Vrtaric.
ADDITIONAL PARTIAL LIST OF CROATS WHO WERE IMPRISONED DURING MONARCHIST YUGOSLAVIA.
Asancaic, Nikola (merchant from Gospic) Bacic, ? (shoemaker from Senj) Bakovic, Pero (student in Zagreb) Balan, Sime (student from Jablanac) Baradic, Jako (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovca) Bedekovic, Vjekoslav (merchant’s helper in Gospic) Begovic, Vaso (restaurant owner in Begovici) Bernobic, Pavle (lawyer in Virovitica) Bicanic, Rudolf (lawyer in Zagreb) Biljan, Marijan (sailor from Kuklica/Preko) Biljan, Tomo (type-setter in Kosinj) Bizik, Mijo (merchant’s helper in Koprivnica) Bosnjakovic, Marija (peasant from Andijevci) (woman) Bozjak, Mate (peasant from Kraljev Vir) Bradic, Ante (peasant from Starigrad) Brcko, Franjo (peasant from Kraljev Vir) Brkljacic, Zivo (peasant from Kaniza) Budak, Ante (student in Zagreb) Budrovac, Antun (tailor in Budrovici) Bulat, Krizan (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Busljeta, Nikola (worker from Starigrad) Buterin, Sime (peasant from Starigrad) Buterin, Vicko (restaurant owner from Starigrad) Butorac, Ivan (forest guard from Pazariste Donje) Butorac, Zorka (secretary from Senj) (woman) Cacic, Ivan (peasant from Klanc) Cacic, Josip (state employee from Gospic) Cacic, Martin (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Nikola (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Nikola Jr. (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Vice (shoemaker from Buzina) Carevic, Franjo (office clerk from Djakovo) Cerovski, Bozo (office clerk from Zagreb) Cilovic, Djuka (electritian from Zagreb) Cudina, Marko (peasant from Pridraga) Dasovic, Stipe Peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Davidovski, Dragan (from Zagreb) Devcic, Dragica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Devcic, Ivan ¹ (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Ivan ² (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Ivan (called Jovo) (peasant from Likovo Sugarje) Devcic, Manda (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Devcic, Marko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Martin (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Nikola ((peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Nikolica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Pavao I. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Pavao S. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Zorka (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Dian, Drago (peasant from Sukosani) Dobrila, Ante (post-office clerk from Senj) Dosen, Ante (peasant from Rizvanusa) Dosen, Ivica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Jadre (restaurant owner from Gosipic) Dosen, Lovro (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Martin (peasant from Licki Osik) Dosen, Martin M. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Milka (peasant from Rizvanusa) (woman) Dosen, Misko (peasant from Rizvanusa) Dosen, Stipo (peasant from Rizvanusa) Drazic, Ante (peasant from Sukosani) Ersetic, Feliks (merchant’s helper from Vukovar) Faber, Stjepan (locksmith from Zagreb) Fehervari, Stjepan (bookstore clerk in Osijek) Ficke, Nijo (peasant from Imrovac) Filipovic, Ivan (tailor from Vinkovci) Fiocic, Franjo (worker from Gosipic) Francetic, N. (peasant from Licki Novi) Frkovic, Juraj (merchants helper from Gospic) Frkovic, Marko (harness-maker) Frkovic, Martin (harness-maker from Benkovo) Frkovic, Pero (peasant from Gospic) Frlen, Franjo (worker from Susak/Rijeka) Frlen, Senta (from Susak/Rijeka) (woman)? Furjan, Djuro (locksmith from Martinec/Cazma) Gajer, Mile (peasant from Udbine) Galovic, Josip (peasant from Desinec) Galovic, Mate (peasant from Perusic) Gasparovic, Josip (from Brod na Kupi) Gasparovic, Stjepan (mason’s helper from Crikvenica) Glavak, Ivo (peasant from Fercec) Glojnaric, Mirko (newsman??) Vidi Gmaz, Milan (peasant from Oroslavlje) Goric, Jure (peasant from Novigrad) Gradicek, Matija (merchant from Oroslavlje) Gradicek, Mijo (peasant from Oroslavlje) Gross, Aleksandar (cabinet-maker’shelper from Djakovo) Gruhek, Gabrijel (clerk from Zagreb) Grzan, Ivan (cabinet-maker from Pazariste Donje) Gutic, dr. Viktor (lawyer from Banja Luka) Gvozdic, Ivan (cabinet-maker from Soljani) Harapinac, Miso (peasant from Spisic/Bukovica) Hecimovic, Luka (lawyer from Perusic) Herceg, Antun (newsman from Zagreb) Horvat, Franjo (harness-maker from Zagreb) Horvat, Jurica (printer from Zagreb) Horvat, Vlado (printer from Zagreb) Horvatic, Vid (clerk from Zagreb) Hronic, Franjo (peasant from Trnik) Hronic, Mijo (peasant from Trnik) Hronic, Stjepan (peasant from Trnik) Ivanovic, Josip (peasant from Markovci) Jandric, Imbre (peasant from Trnik) Japundzic, Josip (clerk from Gospic) Jedvaj, Stjepan (restaurant owner from Bistra) Jelic, Ivan (clerk from Brezine) Jelic, Pasko (merchant’s helper from Knin) Jelkovic, Mijo (peasant from Recica) Juretic, Filip (peasant from Sibinj) Jurisic, Ivan (Peasant from Perusic) Jurisic, Ivan ²(Peasant from Perusic) Jut, Vjekoslav (shoemaker from Perusic) Kapovic, Mira (from Visi?) (woman) Karcic, dr. ? (lawyer from Ruma) Karlic, Stipe (peasant from Slatnik) Kartela, Andrija (peasant from Puticani) Katalinic, Vlado (student from Senj) Kirhmajer, Mile (barrel-maker from Djakovo) Klanac, Juko (peasant from Posedarje) Klemen, dr. Zeljko (lawyer from Osijek) Knez, Ferdo (clerk from Srijemska Mitrovica) Kolacevic, Ivan (bookshop owner from Gospic) Kozarcanin, Ivo (writer and poet from Zagreb) Kraljevic, Andrija (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Kraljic, Ante (restaurant owner from Zagreb) Krekovic, Dane (peasant from Perusic) Kruhak, Mirko (shoemaker from Konjscina) Kugler, Bojan (clerk from Zagreb) Lamesic, dr. Marko (lawyer from Ruma) Lanec, Juliusk (locksmith’s helper from Senj) Lenac, Franjo (house-painter from Senj) Levacic, Mijo (peasant from Merhatovec) Levaic, Tomo (merchant from Sibenik) Ljevakovic, Ivan (policman from Lipik) Ljevakovic, Ivan (peasant from Lipik) Lucic, Kazimir (merchant from Slavonski Brod) Magus, Mato (restaurant owner from Senj) Malbasa, Stjepan (clerk from Dugopolje) Mandusic, Sime (worker from Rupe) Marinac, Antun (cabinet-maker from Pazariste Donje) Marinkovic, Marko (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Markovic, Ivan (peasant from Perusic) Markulin, Mara (peasant from Odra) (woman) Markulin, Petar (peasant from Odra) Markulin, Stjepan Jr. (Peasant from Odra) Martinovic, Josip (sailor from Kuklica) Martinovic, Tomo (peasant from Kuklica) Matijas, Josip (clerk from Trogir) Matonicki, Djuro (student from Virje) Menjaka, Ivan (peasant from Kosut) Micek, Ivan (worker from Batin) Micurin, Tomo (peasant from Trnik) Mihovilic, Ivan (truck-driver from Senj) Mikic, Jure (mechanic from Djakovo) Mikic, Simun (merchant from Djakovo) Miklauzic, Josip (worker from Zagreb) Miler, Adolf (peasant from Sirac/Daruvar) Milinkovic, Vinko (merchant from Gospic) Milkovic, Mijo (shoemaker from Drenovci Brodski) Mirkovic, N. (Student from Gospic) Miskulin, Mate (merchant from Gospic) Mokrovic, Franjo (from Zagreb) Muhar, Ivo (peasant from Klanac) Muhar, N. (Peasant from Pazariste Donje) Murkovic, Ivan (peasant from Gospic) Nadinic, Fudrija (peasant from Sukoisani) Nemec, Blaz (mason from Merhatovec) Nemerschmidt, Albin (upholster from Gospic) Niksic, Tomo (merchants helper from Gospic) Novak, Vinko (peasant from Novacka) Nozaric, Petar (shoemaker from Breznik) Oljica, Josip (peasant from Sukosani) Ozanic, Marko (waiter from Vrgin Most) Papac, Stjepan (printer from Krasno) Papista, Ivan (tailor from Zabok) Paricic, Roko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pasaric, Pero (railroad clerk from Zagreb) Pavici, Roko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Ivica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Josip (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Lovro (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Marijan (sailor from Poljica) Pavicic, Martin (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Pavao (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Pavlica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Vid (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavlic, Josip (peasant from Djelkovac) Perkovic, Pero (peasant from Brinje) Peter, Stjepan (carpenter from Djelkovac) Petrovic, Stjepan (merchant’s helper from Hlebine) Pill, Tomo (peasant from Ruma) Plese, Pavao (policeman from Ramljani) Pocrnic, Ivan (clerk from Perusic) Polegubic, Petar (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Polegubic, Tomo (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Poljak, Rok (peasant from Bistra) Prpic, Ivan (student from Senj) Prsa, Josip (post-office clerk from Oborovo Prvcic, Stjepan (peasant from Koprivnica) Pusic, Marija (h
ouse-maker from Zagreb) (woman) Radeljak, Stjepan (worker from Zagreb) Rajkovic, Nikola (clerk from Zagreb) Rancevic, N. (Court clerk from Senj) Reli, Franjo (barber from Osijek) Ribic, Ivan (sailor from Biograd) Rozman, Stjepan (peasant from Bistra) Rukavina, Juraj (retired officer from Perusic) Rupcic, Nikola (student from Licko Lesce) Ruskar, Ivan (merchant from Bernardovac) Rusko, Djuro (peasant from Gola) Sabic, Sime (mason from Sunja) Sabol, Stjepan (from Djelkovac) Saric, Karlo (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Saub, Ivan (merchant from Pakrac) Secke, Vlado (painter from Senj) Sepek, Franjo (butcher from Zagreb) Serzija, Marija (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) (woman) Sigecen, Misko (peasant from Martinec/Czama) Sijevic, Luka (peasant from Djakovo) Sikic, Mile Student from Jablanac) Siroki, Ivan (peasant from Novacka) Sjak, Rudolf (peasant from Grbasevac) Sjaus, Ivo (peasant from Tribalj) Sjaus, Mile (peasant from Tribalj) Skolic, Djuro (tailor from Zagreb) Skrlin, Josip (peasant from Bistra) Smolcic, Mato (peasant from Gospic) Smolic, Sime (peasant from Sukosani) Smolic, Slavo (peasant from Puticani) Sokac, Bartol (peasant from Stubica Donja) Sostaric, August (blacksmith from Zebovac) Spanic, Tom (peasant from Desinec) Spehanac, Ante (clerk from Karlovac) Starcevic, dr. Mile (professor from Zagreb) Starcevic, Ivan (peasant from Klanac) Starcevic, Josip (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, M. (peasant from Klanac) Starcevic, Martin (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, Mile (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, N. (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Stilinovic, Milan (truck-driver from Kaniza) Stimac, Ivan (forest guardian from Perusic) Stimac, Lenka (peasant from Perusic) (woman) Stimac, Manda (peasant from Perusic) (woman) Strtan, Ivan (butcher from Zagreb) Subotinec, Babro (peasant from Novacka) Sucek, Djuro (peasant from Kraljev Vrh) Sucev, Valent (peasant from Kraljev Vrh) Sudar, Ljerko (peasant from Brusani) Suhan, Jakov (peasant from Knigora) Suletic, Grga (worker from Dubrovnik) Sultaj, Anka (secretary from Djakovo) (woman) Super, Dujo (peasant from Brusani) Svast, ? (clerk from Senj) Tomasic, Ivan (peasant from Djelkovac) Tomasic, Stjepan (peasant from Djelkovac) Tomljenovic, I. (from Novoselo) Tomljenovic, Ivan (student from Gospic) Tomljenovic, Stjepan (worker from Cavle) Tonkovic, Stjepan (peasant from Nebojane) Toret, Josip (merchant from Sisak) Troskat, Mate (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Turk, Stjepan (peasant from Oroslavlje) Ujhari, Stjepan (worker from Sombor) Valic, Adam (merchant’s helpeer from Jelenje) Varga, Janko (peasant from Otocka) Vedric, Stjepan (peasant from Novacka) Vezmanovic, Stjepan (forest-guard from Busevac) Vidak, Sarlota (from Zagreb) Vlahovic, D. (proprietor from Senj) Vukic, Kuzman (sailor from Triblja) Vuljak, Antun (peasant from Djelkovac) Vuljak, Stjepan (peasant from Djelkovac) Vutuc, Rudolf (carpenter from Koprivnica) Zajec, Drago (truck-driver from Zagreb) Zalec, Djuro (peasant from Mokrice) Zarek, Jandre (peasant from Perusic) Zarek, Josip (harness-maker from Perusic) Zarek, Mile (peasant from Perusic) Zeleznik, Ivka (tailor from Zagreb) (woman) Zelnik, Ignac (from Nasice) Zignic, Ivan (tailor from Zabok) Zniderec, Mijo (mason from Cakovec)

One of the most blatant terrorist acts of the Belgrade regime in Croatia took place in Senj on May 9, 1937. Gendarmes killed and wounded several young people just for displaying the Croatian flag and singing patriotic songs. The killed were: Katica Tonkovic (girl), Marko Smolcic, Franjo Jelaca, Nikola Bevandic, Tomo Niksic, and Petar Frkovic, and the wounded: Jakov Milkovic, Ante Dosen, Branko Milinkovic, Zlatko Vlahinic, Vladimir Nizija, and Mile Biljan. The above picture was taken during the funeral mass of the killed at St. John’s Church in Gospic.

The picture on the right is a photocopy of the bill received by the son of Ivan Varga to pay 13.15 dinars for the five bullets by which his father was killed on January 11, 1934.

An Introductory Evaluation
Ante Cuvalo
Also see the Appendix to this article
Also see: Letters of Protest
We [the Serbs] are masters of your [Croat] lives and your possessions. You have nothing but two choices: either to stay in this country and be obedient, or to move out of our state. We want to dominate. We want to rule. We want to control your body, your soul, and your possessions, because we are the guarantors and the foundation of this great Homeland of ours .¹
High Hopes and Big Disappointments
Regardless of the social, economic, and political predicaments to be faced by individuals and peoples in Europe, the end of the First World War was greeted enthusiastically. It was seen as the beginning of a new and better future for the world. Peoples who lived under the oppressive and/or foreign rule of the collapsing empires were especially exhilarated: they thought that the bells of freedom were real. Their hopes and expectations were heightened by declarations such as those of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, that the war was fought to make the world “safe for democracy” and by promises that national self-determination would be one of the guiding principles of peacemaking. Furthermore, important social and political changes were taking place. Revolutions were in the making; kaisers and tzars were gone; the newborn countries were promulgating democratic or what looked like democratic constitutions; peasants were becoming an organized political force; in older democracies, women were gaining the right to vote; and new laws promoting higher social justice, including the eight-hour workday, were being passed. These and similar positive changes were signs of a hopeful future.
The Croatian people, despite all the post-war economic hardships, also were caught up in the wave of enthusiasm. Woodrow Wilson’s portrait hung on the walls of numerous homes in Croatia. He was the man of their hopes. They believed that on the ruins of the Habsburg Monarchy they, along with other nations, finally would be able to achieve their dream of national and personal freedom. Even the small minority of Croatian politicians who rushed to unite Croatia with Serbia and Montenegro thought that their decisions would secure freedom and democracy not only for the Croats but for all in the newly formed country. Unfortunately, Croats soon realized that the post-war exhilaration was baseless. The reality was cruel and bloody.
Soon after the war, grave disappointments began to be felt in Croatia and the rest of Europe. The war years had hatched two opposing totalitarian ideologies that threatened the entire continent. Many of those who doubted the virtues of liberal democracy looked to the extreme Left or Right for answers. The result was that out of twenty-seven countries in Europe that professed democracy during the immediate post-war era only ten were able to preserve even a modicum of democracy by the end of the 1930s. It became obvious that the Great War and the post-war peace treaties did not lay the foundation for a better future but for another cataclysmic cycle.
The Croatian people did not have to wait very long for the new state to show its true face. Persecutions began even before the official unification of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (known as Yugoslavia after 1929) took place on December 1, 1918. In some official Serbian documents, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other former Habsburg regions united with Serbia were declared as “occupied lands” and the civilian population in these regions was subjected to Serbian military laws .² Instead of a partnership an occupation began!
The persecution of the Croats in the period between the two World Wars has not been well- known or adequately researched. It was one of the taboo subjects in both monarchist and socialist Yugoslavia. Judicial, police, military, and other records in the country are still waiting for serious research on this important subject. This introductory survey and the partial list of persecutions that follow are based mainly on secondary sources and are intended to give the reader at least a taste of the bitter Croatian experience in monarchist Yugoslavia. However, for lack of available sources to the author, the survey is limited to persecutions from 1918 to 1936 only. We thought that a list and a short description of the main semi-official organizations involved in terrorizing all those who were considered enemies of the state would also be helpful; and, at the end, several political consequences of the persecutions will be mentioned.
Self-imposed Guardians of the State
The use of terror in monarchist Yugoslavia was applied against all those who were seen as enemies not only of the state but of the Serbian centralized and unitary regime. The real object of oppression, however, was not some aberrant individuals but an entire group, a political party, a whole people. In the old Byzantine tradition, the guardians of the state saw politics only as extremes: if one is not with us he must be against us. Politics of negotiations and compromises were not an option. For them that was seen as a defeat. Accordingly, there was no choice but to crush mercilessly all the “dark forces” in the country. Croats as a people were seen as the most dangerous state enemy, because they were not willing to give up their national identity and opposed the militant and Serbian-controlled state. It was necessary, therefore, to force the Croats into submission, to break their national will, to humiliate them, to prevent them from forming a unified, strong national political front, and to deprive their national struggle of sympathy support and legitimacy in the world.
The first anti-Croat terrorist acts were committed even before the official unification of the state took place. From October 29, when the Croatian Sabor (Parliament) severed Croatia’s ties with the Habsburg Monarchy till December 1, 1918, when the common state was proclaimed, all leading Croatian political, cultural, and religious persons who were seen as political opponents to the union, were either arrested, physically threatened, and/or lost their jobs. The man who assumed all powers in Croatia was Svetozar Pribicevic, the leading Serb politician in the land, and under his command all those who opposed unification with Serbia had to be silenced or crushed.
Only five days after the unification, a peaceful march at Zagreb’s main square was turned into a blood bath. Nine Croatian soldiers and five civilians were killed, and seventeen persons were wounded. A month later, the first post-war political trial in Zagreb was over and 23 Croats were sentenced from one and a half to ten years of prison. The harshest terror in the post-unification era, however, was exerted against the Croatian peasants, who made up the overwhelming majority of the people.
Towards the end and immediately after the war, the villages in Croatia, as in many other regions of Europe, were undergoing various political and social changes. The peasants had seen their sons sent off to the front from which many did not return. They were financially and physically exhaused by ever-increasing taxes and other war burdens, of war profiteering and the war itself. The Croatian peasants lost their traditional respect for state authority as well as monarchy. They became acutely aware of their precarious political, economic, social, and national position, and wanted change, some even a radical one.
In a number of places in Croatia the countryside was controlled by the “Green Cadres,” the rebellious bands of soldiers who had deserted and who were joined by various other social elements. Most of these were sons of peasants; and, it is estimated that the rebels’ numbers reached 200,000 at one point. The peasant population was, willingly or unwillingly, their main ally. This meant that many villages in Croatia were in near chaos toward the end of the war. Furthermore, the echoes of the revolutions in Russia and in neighboring Hungary were felt in Croatian villages too. Then, at the end of the war, they were pushed into a new state without being asked what they wanted. This new political arrangement did not ease the political, economic, and social tension in the villages. On the contrary, the new rulers and their harsh methods inflamed Croatian villages to the breaking point.
The peasants became well aware of political and social ideals, like personal and national freedoms, equality under the law, and social justice, but instead of getting closer to achieving such goals after 1918, they saw their situation in the new state getting worse. For example, Croatian peasants had to pay more kinds of taxes at higher rates than under the Habsburgs. Some taxes increased as much as eight hundred percent in comparison to the pre-1918 period. For example, the peasant had to pay tax on his home-made wine regardless if he sold it or had it only of his own use. The control over the tobacco production was so strict that persons had to pay fines, endure beatings, and even jail terms for smoking their own home- grown tobacco. Taxation easily turned into a national issue because a peasant in Croatia paid four times higher taxes than a peasant in Serbia. Even his vote was worth less than that of a citizen in Serbia. For example, the number of voters needed to elect a parliamentary representative were: Vojvodina 3,221; Montenegro 4,350; Serbia and Macedonia 5,657; Croatia and Slavonia 6,840; Bosnia and Herzegovina 7,478, and in Dalmatia (southern Croatia) 8,106 ³ The peasant was especially offended by registration, stamping, and military mobilization of all large domestic animals (horses, mules, oxen). Most of the time, such animals and their owners were forced to participate in military maneuvers for long periods of time and quite often during planting or harvest seasons. These and similar pressures resulted in numerous peasant rebellions against the new regime in several parts of Croatia. Some independent peasant republics were proclaimed shortly after the new state was formed.
Among the most sensitive issues for the peasants in the immediate post-war era was the recruitment of their sons into military service. In many Croatian villages these efforts were marked by bloodshed. Everyone was weary and wary of war and militarism, especially the Croatian peasant who now had to serve a new state which behaved as a foreign power and oppressor from the outset. The problem of recruitment was also complicated by implementation of a Serbian law by which the village “zadrugas” (communes) and their leaders were responsible for bringing in the new recruits. But such village “zadrugas” did not exist in Croatia for very long. This resulted in military and gendarme expeditions into Croatian villages that apprehended, beat, and otherwise mistreated the recruits or, if they could not find them, their immediate family members, including mothers and sisters. Such raids would often result in killing, major destruction of property, and threats and insults of a national and religious nature. The relatives were kept in jail and most often maltreated till their sons or brothers surrendered to the military authorities.
Terror became the main means to pacify Croatia. In response, the peasants at first turned to rebellions and then accepted the political program of the brothers Antun and Stjepan Radic, who advocated a peaceful struggle for personal, national, and peasant rights. By embracing the program of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party, the peasantry became the backbone of the Croatian resistance during the 1920s. But peaceful politics did not bring desired results. On the contrary, the plan “to level off [Croatia] by the Serbian opanak [peasant footwear]” ⁴ continued. This culminated with the assassination of Stjepan Radic and his friends in Belgrade’s Parliament in 1928 and the King’s proclamation of a personal dictatorship a few months later. From that point on, more radical political forces in Croatia turned to violence as the only means of freeing themselves not only from the regime but from the Yugoslav state itself.
Statistical Indicators
Statistical data give a clear picture of the officially sanctioned bloodshed and oppression suffered by the Croats living in monarchist Yugoslavia. One source states that in the five years of 1929 to 1934, that is, from King Aleksandar’s assumption of dictatorial powers until his assassination in Marseilles, the following court sentences were imposed on the Croats for political “crimes” ⁵:
19 were condemned to death by hanging
16 were killed while serving a prison term
30 death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment
85 condemned to death but fled the country
146 were condemned to 20 years of hard labor
484 received penalties from 10 to 20 years jail terms
962 were condemned from 5 to 10 years
2,035 condemned from 1 to 5 years
15,000 condemned from one month to one year of prison
The evidence presented in the Appendix to this article, although partial and collected from secondary sources, strongly indicates the nature of the Yugoslav state and its predisposition toward the Croatian people. It includes over 4,700 cases that can be summarized in the following way.
Killings and imprisonments
231 killed by gendarmes and/or military forces
102 wounded
3,715 arrested
49 killed while in jail
40 condemned to death – out of that 22 executed
16 sentenced to life imprisonment
250 tried for verbal insult of the King’s name
14 condemned in absence
Beatings
642 beaten and maltreated – out of which 27 children 48 groups of people maltreated and beaten (individual names not known)
Other persecutions
493 lost jobs or forced to retire 26 newspapers and organizations banned
Women
7 killed
42 arrested
48 beaten and maltreated
Social and/or professional categories (if known)
1,445 peasants either jailed, tried and/or maltreated
472 students
450 workers
153 professionals
117 craftsmen and small business owners
68 state office holders
39 soldiers or policemen
According to regions (if known)
3,176 Northern Croatia
791 Dalmatia
355 Lika and the Littoral
203 Slavonija and Srijem
169 Bosnia and Herzegovina (the primary focus of this study was the Republic of Croatia and not Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Number of Cases according to years
1918 – 155
1919 – 36
1920 – 92
1921 – 209
1922 – 5
1923 – 60
1924 – 5
1925 – 705
1926 – 1
1927 – 8
1928 – 60
1929 – 110
1930 – 107
1931 – 205
1932 – 671
1933 – 1,529
1934 – 312
1935 – 466
The above numbers and categories clearly indicate that the harshness of the persecutions was directed against Croats, regardless of profession, age, gender, or place, and that the intensity of the persecutions reflects the political “moods” in the country at the time.
The Art of Torturing
Because the guardians of the state were guided by their hatred of real or imaginary enemies, they implemented a vast variety of tortures against their victims. The purposes of torture were not only to break the spirit of the victims and to send a message to others, but in many cases to show by sadistic measures, their absolute disdain for the “enemy.”
A common practice for gendarmes was to burst into a village and for a minor incident, or even for no reason at all, beat anyone they encountered, destroy property, and jail people without any legal stipulations. In order to humiliate a Croatian peasant, gendarmes would often force him to genuflect three times in reverence for the Serbian traditional military cap (sajkaca) and impel him to acknowledge that “the Serb was his master and god.” It was also a common practice for the police to beat or even execute their victims in broad daylight on a city street. Verbal insults, swearing vulgarities, and blaspheming everything holy to the Croatians were a common practice. The gun-butt was a favorite weapon in beating the common people. Its use was so prevalent that one of the Ministers of the Interior was nicknamed “Kundak” (gun-butt).
Those who ended up in prison endured all sorts of humiliations and tortures, from being cursed to being tortured to death. The following were some of the more common means of torturing political prisoners: merciless beatings over the entire body especially the kidney area; pounding the soles till they crack; knocking out teeth, breaking ribs, finger joints, and other bones of the body; jumping on the stomach and groin; sticking needles under nails; crushing testes; tying one’s hands to hooks on the walls, so he could not sit down and then hanging bricks on the testes; sleep deprivation for a week at a time; and even placing live coals in the armpits and then tying the arms to the body until the coals cooled. Numerous prisoners were tortured to death and some were simply shot. The official explanations were that they committed suicide or were shot while trying to escape.
Those working in prisons were proud of their inventiveness in torturing inmates. One such ill-famed tormentor was Dragomir (Dragi) Jovanovic in Belgrade’s prison. He even received a state patent for “inventing” new and more horrific means of torture. One of his “inventions” was driving wooden pegs soaked in gasoline under the nails of an inmate and then setting the pegs on fire. (This same Jovanovic was one of the chief officials and executioners in Belgrade during the Second World War.) The Belgrade jail, Glavnjaca, became a symbol of the Karadjordjevic regime and of the Yugoslav state. (An emigrant paper named Protiv Glavanjace/Against the Glavnjaca was published in Belgium at that time.) The persecutions and humiliations went so far that the families of the victims would receive a bill to pay for the bullets by which their close relatives were shot.
Besides using visible means of torture all oppressive regimes have other ways to persecute their opponents. These are more silent and perfidious. For example, losing or fear of losing one’s job is often used as a major instrument of political punishment. The insecurity of one’s own and/or his family’s material existence can often be harder than physical punishment. This type of persecution was overwhelmingly used by the Yugoslav regime and it is hard to measure its impact on society, and on the Croatian national life in particular. State Watchdogs
The official guardians of the state and the main instruments of the Belgrade regime were the armed forces, gendarmes, police, and the state revenue police. Among them, the gendarmes were the main “sword of the regime.” This semi-military force was formed in January of 1919 to impose “order” in the country. But “order” was never achieved and the number of gendarmes increased from 10,000 to 60,000 by the early 1930s. The gendarmes were also often augmented by military forces on raiding missions. Besides the above mentioned forces, there were 15.000 secret police agents, plus military intelligence, and king’s “special agents.”⁶ In addition to the above official guardians, there were a number of semi-official watchdogs of the state who were more than eager to help the regime to crash, what they labeled, the “anti-state elements,” “dark forces,” and “defeatists”! The following were the best known such organizations.
Unification or Death ( The Black Hand)
This terrorist organization was officially established in 1911, with help and under the protection of Serbian miliary forces, but its real beginnings go back to 1903. A group of officers belonging to this organization assassinated King Aleksandar Obrenovic of Serbia and his wife Dara and secured the royal throne to the Karadjordjevic dynasty in 1903. It also attempted to assassinate King Nikola of Montenegro and his family in 1907. The Black Hand became the “unseen government” of Serbia. The organization modeled itself after the Italian Mafia, and the use of terror was the primary means to achieve its goal of Greater Serbia which, according to the Constitution of the organization consisted (besides of the Kingdom of Serbia) of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Old Serbia and Macedonia, Croatia, Srijem, Vojvodina, and the Sea-coast. By 1914 the Black Hand had close to 150,000 members according to some estimates. Although the Black Hand was officially eliminated during World War I (1917), because King Aleksandar out of fear and/or personal revenge turned against the organization, its sympathizers, goals, and methods were still very much alive during the inter-war period.
The White Hand
It is believed that because Prince Aleksandar was prevented from taking full charge of the Black Hand, he founded his own conspiracy organization within the Serbian military forces and named it the White Hand. Lieutenant-Colonel Petar Zivkovic, who became Prime Minister and the symbol of royalist oppression in the early 1930s, became head of the new organization. The White Hand was an army within the army. Its purpose was to eliminate the Black Hand and to be a semi-official protector of the state and Karadjordjevic’s regime. Most of the political, judicial, economic, as well as military state decisions were made by such shadow forces in the country, first the Black Hand and then the White Hand.
The Chetniks (cheta means a cohort or a group)
The first written rules of Chetnik guerrilla type warfare were a translation of a Polish manual published in Belgrade in 1848.⁷ But the real beginning of the present-day Chetnik movement dates from 1903, when Serbian military officers organized a special training “school” for volunteers for the purpose of undertaking terrorist actions in Macedonia. At the time, Macedonia was a part of the ailing Ottoman empire and the main target of Serbian expansionism. The Chetniks became a useful instrument in executing special assignments (ethnic cleansing) of all who were not either Serbs nor ready to become Serbs in the regions that Serbia wanted to acquire. The Chetnik played a similar role during the two Balkan Wars and World War I, when they “cleared the land” of Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians and, toward the end of World War I, of Muslims in Sandzak and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Between the two world wars, although the Chetniks were split among themselves, they were united in guarding the state and in the struggle against “dark forces.” The Union of Chetniks for Freedom and Dignity of the Homeland became close to the Serbian Democratic Party, which was seen by many as not tough enough on the enemies of the state. This resulted into a split in 1924, when the Union of Serbian Chetniks – For the King and the Homeland was founded. This group became the tool of the Serbian Radical Party; the leader of this Chetnik faction, Punisa Racic, assassinated two and wounded three members of the Croatian political leadership in Belgrade’s Parliament in 1928. The regime rewarded the Chetniks by giving them arms and permission to use them, land grants, and money: in fact, they were not required to obey many state laws. Also in 1924, the Union of Serbian Chetniks – Petar Mrkonjic (Named after king Peter) was formed in Sarajevo. The last two Chetnik organizations were especially aggressive in establishing their chapters in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, with an openly expressed goal of establishing a Greater Serbia.
Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists (Organizacija Jugoslavenskih Nacionalista/ORJUNA)
The ORJUNA was formed in Split by the royal regional administrator in Croatia in 1921. Its roots are in an organization named Yugoslav Progressive Nationalist Youth (Jugoslavenska Napredna Nacionalisticka Omladina/JNNO). Its “heroic” baptism of fire came when its members burnt the first issue of a newly founded Croatian newspaper in Split, “Hrvatski List” (Croatian Gazette). The ORJUNA was under the patronage of the Serb Democratic Party in Croatia. It gathered militant youth who supported the unitary Yugoslav state. Its chapters were formed first in Dalmatia, then in other parts of former Habsburg regions. The real reason for its formation was to have a terrorist organization for “special assignments.” As such ORJUNA became the leading instrument of terror against Croatian “separatists,” “communists,” “defeatists,” and all other “dark elements” in the country.
In that spirit ORJUNA gave instructions to its members in Croatia (August 1921) that “in these days of our activities, develop as much energy and action as possible. Our organization has to be firm and disciplined and stand firmly and resolutely against the separatists. After the assassination of Minister Draskovic [July 21, 1921], there is a need to start a struggle till the elimination not only of the communists, but of all those who are sowing hate against unitarism, the state, and Yugoslavism.” ⁸
ORJUNA terrorist activities were committed quite openly and often with great pride. Its leadership emphasized that “its terrorist actions contributed more than anything else to its own legitimization in the entire country….In practice, ORJUNA will propagate its goals by all possible means. It does not renounce the use of force. On the contrary it emphasizes the need for such type of actions.”⁹
ORJUNA had special units known as Action Groups, which were organized in military fashion. According to one estimate, by 1925 the Action Groups had about 10.000 members.¹⁰ They had military style maneuvers on a regular basis, used military equipment, and usually the leading Chetnik figures were heading such Action Groups. Their holy principle “Victory or Death” was accompanied by yet another sacred declaration: “Whoever is not with us, is against us!” ¹¹
Serbian National Youth (Srpska Nacionalna Omladina/SRNAO)
The SRNAO was formed in 1922 at Belgrade University as the antitheses of ORJUNA, which was seen as too much Yugoslav-oriented and as such was polluting the true Serbian spirit and watering down their political goals. The ideology and political program of the SRNAO was formulated in a slogan: “All the Serbs to Serbia, Serbia to all the Serbs!” The goals of its existence, therefore, were “guarding of the Homeland and the king, the spread of [Serbian] nationalism, and defense of Serbian accomplishments to the extermination of all anti-state and anti-national elements.”¹²
The SRNAO was very close to the royal regime, to the Radical Party, to Punisa Racic’s Chetniks and to the Union of Serbian Chetniks “Petar Mrkonjic” in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, on the occasion of the consecration of the SRNAO flag in Sarajevo, there was a personal delegate of the king, the government representatives, and a Serbian Church delegation. Leading men from all centers of power in Serbia were members of SRNAO. Nikola Pasic, the prime mover of Greater Serbian policies and the symbol of Serbian unitarism, was SRNAO’s honorary president and its main financial supporter .¹³ The biggest obstacle to SRNAO’s expansion in Croatia was the split between Svetozar Pribicevic, the main Serb politician in Croatia, and his former allies in Belgrade. Real confusion entered the SRNAO ranks, however, when Stjepan Radic, the leading Croat politician, made a deal with Pasic and entered the Belgrade government in 1925. The SRNAO did recover to some extent after the assassination of Radic(1928). After the King assumed all the power in the country and proclaimed Yugoslavism as the state national ideology (1929), SRNAO continued to work for its well defined goals but now under the Yugoslav name.
Some other semi-official terrorist organizations Organization of the Reserve Officers and War Veterans – It emphasized its “readiness and availability” to defend the state and vowed to fight “against all anti-state elements.” ¹⁴
The Alliance of Volunteers – It constantly reminded the public that the state was not secure, its foundations were not firm, and that it was threatened by outside and inside enemies. It expressed readiness to continue the struggle for the security and stability of the state .¹⁵
Organized Youth – Its main mission was to destroy the Montenegrin Federalists and the followers of the exiled King Nikola of Montenegro.
People’s Defense – Its main purpose was “to defend the newly established state by organized actions” against all external and internal “anti-state destructive activities and defeatist elements.” ¹⁶
People’s Guard – It was organized in April of 1920. Its members proved themselves to be worthy of the regime’s support during the violent suppression of the railroad workers’ and miners’ strikes in 1920. The Guard members served as shock troopers against the workers and their families. After the proclamation of the ill-famed “Obznana” banning the Communist party (December 29, 1920), the Guard numbers increased rapidly. They put themselves in the “service of the state” in order to eliminate the “destructive elements which in these days [1920s] were ready to attack the state.” ¹⁷ These formations were armed by the military authorities and were tools in the hands of the regime to do its “dirty work.”
Patriotic Youth Front – This was a terrorist organization of the Bogoljub Jeftic’s fascist party.
Young Yugoslavia – This was an ORJUNA militant organization for secondary school students who because of their age could not become full members of political parties.
All of the above groups followed the fascist model of organization, or at least they tried to. Fascists in Italy and Germany were hailed for their zeal and organizing capabilities. Such admiration is expressed, for example, by “Jugoslovenska straza” (Yugoslav Guard) (June 23, 1935): “…[While] the fascist Italy is able to mobilize so many fascist formations and while Hitler’s Germany resounds by the marches of the German youth, the Yugoslav youth can and must steel its soul and its muscles by joining the Chetnik organizations, where it will prepare itself for tomorrow’s obligations that it must accept.”
But these groups admired not only the fascist organizational model, they admired also Hitler for his anti-Semitism. The paper “Jugoslovenska straza” (Yugoslav Guard) clearly expresses such feelings when on October 6, 1935 wrote: “Hitler was right when he went so far as to banish all of those who had even the smallest amount of Hebrew blood in their veins. Hitler was right when he pushed out such a vile sect from Germany.”
Propaganda
The Yugoslav regime and its official and unofficial guardians always looked at their opponents as mortal enemies that had to be no less than totally obliterated. Not only did they themselves believe this, they were also very active in promoting public acceptance of this malevolent belief and the means of implementing it. It is sufficient to quote just a few examples of Serbian national propaganda that express this fanatical hatred.
After a Communist sympathizer assassinated interior Minister Milorad Draskovic on July 21, 1921 (believed to be a setup by the regime), use of terror was legitimized by the Belgrade Parliament a few days later. A new wave of persecutions began. The Serb paper “Straza” (The Guard) (July 23, 1921) in the Croatian city of Osijek exhorted its readers: “Let us learn from the ill-reputed Horthy! [Miklos Horthy, the last commander of the Habsburg navy and the man who crushed in blood the Communist regime in post-World War I Hungary.] Under the knife all those who think Bolshevik thoughts! Under the knife even women and children so that even their names do not remain! The final encounter with the anti-state elements must start right now. Serb villages and all who are nationally aware must be constantly ready. In order to stop the Bolsheviks, we must organize National Guards everywhere. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We all must get ready in order to settle the score with them [Bolsheviks] once and for all. Anyone who is not with us, is their ally, and he should be dealt with accordingly. Let us sharpen our knives, load our guns, the enemy has declared war against us. Either we or they [must perish].”
This total struggle not only was meant to be waged against the Communists but also against all who were perceived as enemies. The paper “Pobeda” (Victory), the voice of ORJUNA urged on August 4, 1921 that “a struggle must be undertaken till the total elimination not only of the Communists, but also of all those who are sowing hatred against unitarism, the state, and Yugoslavism.” An ORJUNA leader in Vojvodina was even more explicit: “Communists, those who advocate the republic, and the Habsburg black sympathizers [Croatians], have found themselves at the same camp. Those heterogenous elements are united by the abominable hatred of our state” and therefore have to be eliminated.¹⁸ On December 14, 1924, the newspaper “Srbadija” expressed the deeply held, uncompromising principle of either we or they: “If we [Serbs] want to preserve ourselves we must struggle using all available means in order to crash and destroy every opponent because the Croat Bolsheviks, Magyars, Germans, and Turks will destroy us if we re not quicker than they. Forget the stupidity that we are one people with three names. Scorn the ‘brothers’ who are after our existence and our head. Deal with them quickly and decisively.”
Stjepan Radic, the leading Croat politician at the time, was a constant target of Serbian nationalist forces. A day after he was arrested in Zagreb and a month before national elections, the SRNAO voice in Novi Sad, “Srbadija”(January 7, 1925) stated: “The gallows must crackle under the weight of the infamy of Stjepan Radic. Mehmed Spaho [leading Bosnian Muslim politician] must be forced to feel the pains of a man impaled alive on the stake… The moment has to be utilized to finish up all important chores before the elections, so that afterwards it can be crystal clear who we are, what we are, what is our name, and who is the master in this Serbia of ours.” According to the Serbian nationalists “one can only master over people like Croats, but never cooperate and work with them in a common effort.” ¹⁹
Political consequences
Persecutions of Croats in the newly formed South Slavic state had the opposite effect from what the guardians of the state and of the regime intended. Instead of preserving the state, it undermined its very existence. The fact is that most of the Croats could not identify with the Yugoslav state from its beginning because the state itself and the Serbian centralist regime was imposed upon them. The persecutions that followed simply alienated them even further from the Serbs and the state. Those Croats (and even some Serbs from Croatia) who once worked for the unification of the South Slavs became quicky disillusioned with the state and joined the anti-centralists and even anti-Yugoslav elements. Influential individuals outside the country who promoted unification of the South Slavs before and during the First World War and used to raise their voices against mistreatment of the Serbs and others in the Habsburg empire suddenly fell silent. Instead of condemning the use of terror and pressuring the regime to reform the country, they often blamed the victims. As a result, Croats increasingly felt more isolated in their desperate need for human and national rights.
The persecutions also helped to politicize and homogenize the Croatian nation, especially the rural population. Terror became a catalyst in crystalizing Croatian goals for nationhood. If there was confusion toward the end of World War I about which road to take, it became clear that Yugoslavia was not the answer. Elections clearly indicated that the Croats wanted a federalist republic as a minimum and an independent state of their own as maximum. As the terror against Croats increased, so did their demands escalate along with increasingly radical means to achieve them.
Another important consequence of the terror was a break with Croatian political traditions and pluralism. The old institutions of Sabor (parliament) and Ban (viceroy) were abolished. The traditions of personal liberties, rule of law, and tolerance of religious and ethnic differences were greatly undermined. Reserves of national energy were used up in inevitably resisting the attempts at Serbianization. According to Serb expansionists, their need to crush any move toward Croatian national identity was necessary because Croats did not have a history or culture of their own, besides being of a servile nature meant to be obedient to others.
Croatians are usually depicted as the destroyers of both Yugoslavias. As a result, historians who would like to believe that Yugoslavia was a natural and positive historical development and the Serbs its true makers and defenders, ignore the persecutions of Croats and others,²⁰ which in reality sealed the fate of the country from its very beginning. It is Serbian centralism, messianism, expansionism, and terrorism that eliminated even the possibility of a successful unification of the South Slavs.
The Yugoslav experiment tragically interrupted the historical continuity of the Croatian people. Experiences in that state had major negative effects on Croat political, economic, social, and cultural developments. The 1918-1990 period was another long and often bloody intermission in the centuries-long history of Croatia. However, the gap is bridged now, and the future of the Croats is in their own hands. It is up to them not to dwell in the past but to live up to the challenges of the present and the future.
NOTES
¹ Srbadija. The official organ of the Novi Sad Regional Committee of the SRNAO. February 7, 1925.
² Narodne Novine. April 28, 1919. See also Rudolf Horvat, Hrvatska na mucilistu. Zagreb: Kulturno-Historijsko Drustvo “Hrvatski Rodoljub,” 1942, 81.
³ Vladimir Radic, Zlocin od 20. Lipnja i Medjunarodna Stampa. Paris: n.p., 1931, 22.
⁴ Dragoljub Jovanovic, Ljudi. Ljudi… Medaljoni 46 umrlih savremenika. Belgrade: D. Jovanovic, 1975, 65.
⁵ John I. Pintar, Four Years in Tito’s Hell. Buenos Aires: H.P.K.: 1954, 17.
⁶ Struggle. Translated by Louis Adamic with a Preface by the Translator. Los Angeles: Arthur Whipple, 1934,7.
⁷ Pravilo o cetnickoj vojni. Protolmacio iz’ pol’skoj sa n’kim prom’nama, izmetcima i dodasima Matija Ban. Belgrade, 1848.
⁸ Pobeda. August 4, 1921.
⁹ Vidovdan. May 30, 1925.
¹⁰ Politika. June 3, 1925.
¹¹ Dobroslav Jevdjevic, Izabrani clanci. Novi Sad: Jovanovic & Bogdanov, 1925, 5.
¹² Srpska rijec. December 13, 1924.
¹³ See Nusret Sehic, Cetnistvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (1918-1941). Sarajevo: ANUBiH, 1971, 68.
¹⁴ Ratnicki glasnik. 1922, 69. As in Berislav Gligorijevic, “Organizacija jugoslovenskih nacionalista (Orjuna).” Istorija XX veka. Vol. 5. Belgrade: Institute drustvenih nauka, 1963, 318.
¹⁵ Jugoslavija (Almanac of the Veterans’ Alliance). 1922, 153.
¹⁶ Narodna obrana. 1926, 10; Gligorijevic, Orjuna, 318.
¹⁷ T. Kazlerovic, Obznana. Beograd, 1952, 13; Statist. Beleske Ust. Skupstine, 1920-1921, I, 20; Gligorijevic, Orjuna, 320.
¹⁸ Jevdjevic, Izabrani clanci, 42.
¹⁹ Balkan. March 28, 1922.
²⁰ See, for example, Alex N. Dragnich, The First Yugoslavia, Search for a Viable Political System. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banac, Ivo. “‘Emperor Karl has become a Comitadji’: The Croatian Disturbances of Autumn 1918.” Slavic and East European Review 70:2 (1992) 284-305.
Delic, St. D. “Pitanje nase unutrasnje politike. Oko ‘Hrvatskog pitanja’.” Nova Evropa 29:1 (1936) 9-12.
Evolucija . Zagreb. Vol. 1, 1936.
Gligorijevic, Branislav. “Srpska nacionalna omladina (SRNAO).” Istorijski glasnik 2-3 (1964) 3-38.
. “Organizacija jugoslovenskih nacionalista (Orjuna).” Istorija XX veka . Vol. V. Belgrade: Institute drustvenih nauka, 1963, 315-393. Glojnaric, Mirko. Borba Hrvata . Zagreb: Antun Velzek, 1940.
Horvat, Rudolf. Hrvatska na Mucilistu . Zagreb: Kulturno historijsko drustvo “Hrvatski Rodoljub,” 1942.
Hrvatinic, Matijas. Srpska nacionalna i vjerska nastranost . Buenos Aires, 1973.
Janjatovic, Bosiljka. “Represija spram hrvatskih seljaka 1918-1921.” Casopis za suvremenu povijest 25:1 (1993) 25-43.
. “Izborni teror u Hrvatskoj 1923.-1927. godine.” Casopis za suvremenu povijest 28:1-2 (1996) 45-71.
Jevdjevic, Dobroslav. Izabrani clanci . Novi Sad: Jovanovic & Bogdanov, 1925.
L. & M. “Seljacka buna u Hrvatskoj.” Nova Evropa 1:2 (1920) 80-88.
Lupis-Vukic, I. F. “Nas drzavni (srpsko-hrvatski) problem.” Nova Evropa 29:2 (1936) 43-50.
Matesic, Joso. “Seljak o Hrvatskom Pitanju.” Nova Evropa 29:3 (1936) 71-73.
Novoselovic, Milan. Beogradska sablast . Zagreb: Vlastita naklada, 1928.
Popovic, A. “Organizacija ‘Ujedinjenje ili Smrt’. (‘Crna Ruka’)” Nova Evropa 15:10-11 (1927) 396-405.
. “Rad organizacije ‘Ujedinjenje ili Smrt’.” Nova Evropa 16:10-11 308-329.
Radic, Stjepan. “Autobiography of Stephen Raditch. With an Introduction by Charles A. Beard.” Current History 29 (Oct. 1928) 82-106.
Radic, Vladimir. Zlocin od 20. lipnja i medjunarodna stampa . Paris, 1931.
Ribar, Ivan. Stara Jugoslavija i komunizam. Zakoni, sudovi, zatvori i logori u staroj Jugoslaviji protiv komunista . Zagreb: Stvarsnot, 1967.
Rojc, M. “Prilike u Hrvatskoj.” Nova Evropa 2:2 (1921) 46-71.
Sadkovich, James J. “Terrorism in Croatia, 1929-1934.” East European Quarterly 22:1 (1988) 55-79.
Sehic, Nusret. Cetnistvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (1918-1941). Sarajevo: ANUBiH, 1971.
Struggle . Translated by Louis Adamic with a Preface by the Translator. Los Angeles: Arthur Whipple, 1934.

Croatian Nationalism And The Croatian National Movement (1966-1972) In Anglo-American Publications – A Critical Assessment

Ante Cuvalo
On Nationalism in General
Nationalism is one of the greatest forces in modem history. It seems that no political, economic, psychological, ideological, or any other drive can match its compulsion and its impact on our world. Furthermore, nationalism continues to defy scholarly analysis, prognosis, and even logic itself.¹ One of the major reasons for this defiance is that nationalism has a chameleonic nature, has a number of contingencies, and can be expressed in multiple ways. A strong indication of the complexity of the subject is the fact that a good study of nationalism must include a host of interdisciplinary fields, such as history, geography, language, religion, economy, political science, international relations, sociology, literature, ethnography, and art, just to name a few. No wonder, then, that among numerous definitions of nationalism one can not find an adequate one.
Although nationalism can be linked to imperialism of one kind or another, most nationalisms strive to gain, maintain or increase a certain national group’s self-awareness, cohesion, individuality and self-rule. Nationalisms, however, differ in their formation, goals, expression, degree of self-consciousness, mobilization, and in a number of other features. Even the same nationalism can be expressed differently and in various degrees of intensity at particular times. Furthermore, different individuals, social elements, and regions of the same nation express their nationalism in distinct ways and measures of passion at different times and situations. Thus, it is very hazardous to bring a generalized judgment about nationalism as a phenomenon, or even about the nationalism of a particular nation.
The purpose of this paper is not to examine nationalism in general, but to explore how the latest surge of Croatian nationalism has been viewed in contemporary Anglo-American publications. Nevertheless, I will mention just a few more difficulties with which a student of nationalism is faced. For example, is nationalism something “primordial” and “irrational,” or is it a historical phenomenon? Is nationalism simply an invention of modem intellectuals and politicians for the purpose of harvesting political legitimacy in the name of the people, or does it go deeper?
Who can tell precisely when did people begin to have “national feelings”? Was it after the French Revolution, during the Reformation, the Renaissance, or the Middle Ages? Or did such feelings already exist in ancient times when the Jews considered themselves the “chosen people” and, therefore, different from the rest, or when the Greeks saw themselves as civilized and all others as barbarians? What were the feelings, for example, of Croatians like Grgur Ninski (10th century) and his followers when they fought for the use of the Croatian language in church liturgy, or of Joan of Arc (1412-1431) when she gave her life for, the cause of her people? Were such feelings “national” or simply “tribal,” “parochial” or “religious”? Were those feelings something “primordial” and “irrational”; were they already a politically mobilizing force, or possibly a little of everything? One can say with some certainty that nationalism gained its full political force only after the people’s sovereignty replaced “divine right,” hereditary principles, and similar claims of government legitimization. But how far the roots of national consciousness go, even the roots of political nationalism, is still an open question. Had not the concept of the “chosen people” been already used at biblical times for the political purpose of conquering the “promised land”?
Is nationalism just a phase in history which will disappear from the face of the earth? For those who consider nations as a natural division of mankind, certainly, nationalism is not just a passing phenomenon. True, nations are born and die, but national divisions are here to stay. On the other hand, according to Marxist ideology, nationalism cannot be considered “primordial” but a product of bourgeois capitalism. For both the Marxist and non-Marxist “assimilationists, ” the age of nationalism has been over for some time and, therefore, nationalism is on the way out. What is left of it is merely a negative force which is being misused by those who wish, for one reason or another, to disrupt the integration process of the world into a global community brought about by modernization and/or revolution.
The empirical evidence, however, clearly indicates that nationalism is not subsiding. On the contrary, nationalism is alive and doing well in all parts of the world. Predictions that modernization (industrialization, transportation, communications, literacy, education, etc.) would bring about a unification and homogenization of the world and that nationalism would become irrelevant did not come true. We see that the world is becoming smaller and smaller; states and nations are becoming more and more interdependent economically, environmentally; and much of the world is united in fear of nuclear annihilation. At the same time, membership in the United Nations has been growing steadily and national liberation-movements are not decreasing but increasing. Not to mention a growing gap between the rich and the poor which is contrary to the process of a meaningful world unification.
Even in Western Europe, where it was believed that the question of nationalism had been resolved by unification (Germany, Italy) or by assimilation (Britain, France, Spain), nationalism is very much present. Presence of nationalism can be seen in Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, South Tyrol, France, as well as in the animosity toward the “guest-workers” in Germany, Austria and other West European countries.²
Nationalism in the communist countries is doing even better than in the capitalist societies. Suffice it to mention the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.³ Thus, neither the proletarian revolution nor the capitalist modernization theory brought an end to nationalism.
It is very possible that the effects of the revolution and modernization were just the opposite of what the internationalists hoped for. More and more people became aware of their oppressed positions and of their human and group rights. Thus, the demonstration effect has been stronger than the willingness to sacrifice one’s own national identity and rights for the sake of some eschatological vision of a nation-less world.
Leaving aside all predictions and theories, the fact is that nationalisms do exists, and should be taken as a fact of the historical and political panorama. Historical evidence also indicates that nationalism can be imperialistic and anti-imperialistic, oppressive and liberating, a unifying and disunifying force, offensive and defensive, backward-looking and future-looking; it can be economic, political, cultural and so on. Thus, it is pointless to argue that nationalism is good or evil in itself. The virtue of nationalism as such, or more often of a particular nationalism, most of the time, depends on the ideological view or, very often, on the political or economic interest of the observer’s nation at the time of the evaluation.
Croatian Nationalism Before 1960s
Historical evidence indicates that the roots of Croatian national self-awareness go deep into Croatian national history. Despite a centuries-old struggle for mere existence, national identity and the nucleus of national statehood were kept alive. Thus, Croatian nationalism and the idea of statehood were not a product of some accident in the nation’s modem history, nor of geographic position, nor of an outside action of some bigger power(s). Neither is the Croatian nation a product of religion, as some would suggest.⁴ The foundations of modem Croatian nationalism are based mainly on two principles: historical memory and rights, and on popular sovereignty.
The Croatian “Illyrians” began (1830s) the national reawakening, but it was Ante Starcevic (1823-1896) who, in the spirit of the French Revolution, articulated most clearly the historical rights and peoples’ sovereignty. He transformed these two principles into a national ideology and a political action in the middle of the last century. Today’s main streams of Croatian nationalism are based on these two fundamental components: that Croatians are a nation with a long history and centuries-old statehood and culture, and that they have every right to determine their own fate. It is on this principle of self-rule that their nationalism had been frustrated for a very long time. The common feeling among the Croatians is that their individual and national destiny has persistently been in someone else’s hands. Thus, the essence of their nationalism is a struggle for self-preservation and national sovereignty.
Since the middle of the nineteenth century, there have been two main political streams in Croatian nationalism: one envisioned an independent Croatian state as the only guarantee for the national future; and the other sought a wider Slavic, specifically South-Slavic, federated political framework in which Croatia would be autonomous. Both of these streams played an important role among the Croatians. However, the pro-Yugoslav version of Croatian national ideology tended to be elitist and it played a disproportionately important role in Croatian politics. At critical moments, such as the end of World War I and the end of World War II, the pro- Yugoslavs had a decisive role in determining the fate of the Croatian nation. But one should not forget that, in both cases, external factors were more decisive in the political settlement of the Croatian question than the will of the people.⁵ The second brand of Croatian nationalism, promoted by the advocates of Croatian independence, had much less understanding in the international community, although the Peasant Party, which advocated an independent peasant republic, represented most of the people in Croatia in the inter-war period.
Generally speaking, Croatian nationalisms never gained much sympathy in the West, more specifically in the Anglo-American world. This can be said of the nationalism of the Croatian liberals in the Habsburg empire, of the pacifist nationalism of Stjepan Radic and his Peasant Party, the revolutionary nationalism of the Ustasha movement (1929-1945), and of the socialist nationalism of the 1960s and 1970s.
Already in the middle of the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels condemned Croatian nationalism as reactionary because it did not fit into their revolutionary theory.⁶ Similarly, C.A. Macartney, a historian of nineteenth-century Hungary, stated that Croatians were “a people which had, indeed developed the habit of opposition for opposition’s sake further than any [other nation] in Europe”⁷ This subjective judgment has been often quoted by contemporary observers of Croatian affairs as if to suggest that it is deep in the Croatian nature to be troublemakers for no reason at all. Interestingly, while Croatians were encountering the full force of the reinvigorated Magyar nationalism and were faced with the policy of Magyarization, they were considered as unreasonable obstructionists; on the other hand Hungarian nationalism was seen as progressive and not oppressive. Clearly, the two nationalisms were defined differently.
In the inter-war period, Croatians found themselves in a state which was, for all practical purposes, a Greater Serbia. Croatia was treated as an occupied land and Serbian terror ran rampant. Although Stjepan Radic, and the Croatian Peasant Party, which in reality was more a national movement than a political party, responded with pacifism and then with parliamentary struggle, Croatians were seen by many, especially in England, as unreasonable, as a poison in Yugoslav politics, and later on as wreckers of the state. Some experts on Yugoslavia’s politics even accepted Belgrade’s propaganda that Radic was emotionally unstable and his assassination was simply a violent response to his unbearable insults of the Serbian carsija. Or, at best, Radic and the Serbian Radical leader, Pasic, were put on the same level of fanaticism and stubbornness.⁸ It was believed that the two were the main stumbling block of a “normal” development of the Yugoslav state.
One American social scientist wrote recently that Serbian nationalism of the 1920s was modern and of the “Jacobin type, intolerant of particularism and regionalism.” On the other hand, Croatian nationalism for him has been “legitimist” in nature, stressing only historical rights.⁹ However, he does not point out that Serbian nationalism could afford to be anti-particularist, because the Serbs were the ruling nation in the state. It would more correct to say that Serbian nationalism was “intolerant of particularism” because it was imperialistic, not because it was progressive. It is an absurdity to conclude that every “state-making” nationalism is progressive, and every “state-breaking” nationalism is retrogressive.
World War II Croatian nationalism has been seen as an “evil incarnate,” and every expression not only of Croatian nationalism but of Croatian consciousness itself, ever since the war, has been labeled as reactionary, Ustashism, fascism, and the like. But those who write about Croatian’ nationalism of the period do not even try to distinguish between state legitimacy and government legitimacy. It seems that very few are interested in finding out whether the Croatians did have a legitimate claim to have a state or not.
The fact is that the vast majority of Croatians accepted the state in 1941 as an expression of their wishes. Even most of those who opposed Pavelic and the Ustashe, wanted a Croatian state, in one form or another, as the realization of their national dreams and rights.¹⁰ Furthermore, those who identify Croatian nationalism only with Ustashism seldom mention that Croatians fought on both sides in World War II. However, even the nationalism of those who were on Tito’s side, or the nationalism of their children has been labeled as “extremism,” “chauvinism,” “fanaticism,” “terrorism,” “neo-fascism,” and so on.¹¹ This is a weapon constantly used to disarm the Croatian quest for human and national dignity of all moral values.
It seems that the most often condemned aspect of Croatian nationalism is its quest for statehood. All Croatians, Marxists or non-Marxists, who stand for a Croatian statehood in any shape or form are condemned as chauvinists and even neo-fascists. This labeling tactic has been practiced in Yugoslavia, as well as by many outside the country, since World War II. Thus, one should keep in mind that the issue is not alleged Croatian chauvinism, or an ideology, but the integrity of the Yugoslav state and a potential Croatian statehood, which are mutually exclusive.
Croatian Nationalism in the 1960s and 1970s
The Croatian socialist nationalism, or national Communism, of the late Sixties did not fare much better than the past Croatian nationalism in the Anglo-American press. I will touch upon only a few of the categories and labels which have been attributed to the Croatian national movement and to its leaders of the late Sixties and early Seventies.
First, in newspapers, magazines, and even scholarly periodicals in English, one can find most often that Croatians are a “nationality” (or sometimes “a major nationality”), an “ethnic group, ” a “minority, ” or a similar social-group category; but very seldom are they considered as a nation. Is this just an indication of sloppy writing, or can we conclude that it is up to the individual author and his or her whim to decide when a certain people become a nation or when they lose that prerogative. There is the usual interchangeability of the terms “nation” and “state” in English. Thus very often multi-national states, like Yugoslavia, or the Soviet Union, are identified and treated as “nation-states”.¹² For many journalists, politicians, and even scholars, it is the state which determines nationhood. If this is so, it is not clear what happens to the nationhood of those people who once had a state and lost it, or those nations that had been divided into two states? Do the first simply turn into an ethnic group, or the latter become two distinct nations? Ironically, Croatians have been recognized as a nation, at least on paper, in Communist Yugoslavia, while outside the country they often are not granted even that basic recognition.
One should keep in mind that there is a political effect of such misuse of terminology. For example, an uninformed American reader imagines that Yugoslavia, the USSR or other multi- national states, are in nature the same as the United States. No wonder, then, that many average Americans or Australians are quick to compare their multi-ethnic country with multi-national Yugoslavia. Although the multi-ethnic model differs from the multi-national as apples differ from oranges, the differences remain obscure to such readers who, seeing terms such as “self- determination,” “self- rule, ” or ” independence, ” imagine a region or an ethnic group in their own country demanding autonomy or independence. But the news media or the experts in the field seldom even attempt to clarify such issues and differences.
There are some authors who simply do not see any serious flaw in the Yugoslav state, in its legitimacy, its regime, in its politics, economy or the inter-national relations (inter-national here means relations among different nations within the country). For an American scholar, Bogdan Denitch, for example, Yugoslavia has been by “far the most open of the societies ruled by communist parties”; its “intellectuals are far more outspoken than any in Eastern Europe”; its “public and press [are] outspoken”; “more American social scientists and journalists wander around Yugoslavia than in any East European country”; its economic emigration is a “temporary solution … and not as massive exodus “; that Yugoslavia does not need to build a Berlin wall to keep the people in or out the country, etc. These are supposedly proofs that the system is stable and that both the state and the regime are legitimate; that its military and secret police forces have no sympathy for the East; that its economy is being integrated with Western Europe rather than with the East European bloc; that the Belgrade regime is “the most open and progressive of regimes ruled by a Communist party”; that religious toleration in Yugoslavia “is the norm, and the decentralization of political and economic power has gone further not only than in any other Communist regime but probably further than in many of the West European politics”; that multi- national problems are more “acute in Spain, Belgium, Canada and Great Britain, and the problem of the social order is posed far more sharply in Italy, Turkey and Portugal” than in Yugoslavia.¹³ If this is one’s scientific conclusion of the national, social, political, and economic situation in Yugoslavia, then there is no choice but to see in the Croatian national movement of the late Sixties and early Seventies, as well as in Croatian nationalism in general, a negative and destructive force which disrupts a presumably normal and progressive development of a very “normal” country. It cannot, however, be concluded from the above praises that Croatians should be happy and legitimize the Yugoslav state and its regime because they enjoy freedom and prosperity, but they should not rock the boat because there are peoples who are worse off than they are.
Some other authors are not so generous in praising the Yugoslav regime; they are critical of the Communist monopoly of power and of its economic policies. They even recognize some of the injustices and grievances raised by Croatians and other non-Serbian nations and nationalities in the country, but for them the unity and integrity of the Yugoslav state, and for some even its centralism, become an indispensable value, an untouchable good in itself.¹⁴
In their eyes, the latest Croatian national movement was either purely separatist, or its leaders had gone too far in their decentralizing demands. Although the Party leaders themselves might have been moderate, supposedly they were not able to control their “extremist” allies. Or the movement was a mix of various forces which really got out of hand, and there was no choice but nip it in the bud. The proofs of “extremism” are usually found in Croatian demands not only for more personal freedom or decentralization of economy, but in the fact that the leaders of the movement dared to raise the question in national terms. Moreover, they indicated that the time had come for an ideological reconciliation, or at least a truce, between the Croatians themselves. To speak, however, in terms of Croatian national rights and grievances has been an anathema in the eyes of the Belgrade regime (as well as in the eyes of some of the foreign observers) not only since 1945 but since 1918. Any united Croatian voice, no matter how democratic or reactionary, how humanistic or oppressive it might be, has been perceived as threatening, and, therefore, condemned.
Interestingly, the observers are almost repetitious in pointing out that some Croatians suggested that Croatia, as well as other nations in Yugoslavia, should be members in the United Nations and that most of the army recruits should serve in their own republics. While these were peripheral issues that came up during public debates, where anybody could express his or her opinions, the real Croatian grievances for example economy, emigration, foreign currency, import-export firms, education, language, freedom of speech, independence of the courts, free market economy, and similar basic national issues were barely mentioned or simply papered over. And these and such issues were not of romantic but of down-to-earth nature.
Although some observers considered the national problem in Yugoslavia to be “the most basic of all” and that “for many Croatians, Yugoslavia and Serbia are virtually synonymous”¹⁵, according to them, the solutions to the national and other questions of the country have to be found within the existing state and even under the same system. To think otherwise, or even to ask for further decentralization and democratization of the system, was nothing less than Croatian “inherent” oppositionism and national hard-headedness.
The following are some of the views and judgments passed about Croatians and the Croatian national movement one can find in some of Anglo-American publications: “Continental Europe has no more volatile and troublesome minority than the Croats.” They are described as “dour and resentful,” as well as “having a case of permanent national paranoia”.¹⁶ Some also talked about “chronic Croat animosity” and the “Serb frustration” with them.¹⁷ For others Croatians are incapable of “genuine politics of give and take”.¹⁸ Although Croatians did have some reasonable grievances they were carried by “ancient passions” .¹⁹ For some, Croatian nationalism of the 1960s and the 1970s was a nationalism in the classic tradition of East Europe²⁰, which, in the West, means everybody hates everybody else. Thus, for some, there has been nothing, or very little, positive in the Croatian national movement. One author stated that “it would be a prime mistake to equate either Croat of Slovak nationalism with liberalism”.²¹ Similarly, another observer concluded that “the Croatian crisis did not represent … a temporary upsurge of modern liberal humanism.” According to her, the centralist forces, “because they were defending a precarious socialist status quo against the resurgence of historically dangerous politics of romantic nationalism, were in the right in 1971”.²² But is humanism possible only in stepping out from the national framework? Is every nationalism devoid of humanism? If not, who decides whose nationalism is and whose is not humanistic? What are the objective criteria for such judgments?
There is also something contradictory in the evaluation of nationalism in Yugoslavia. According to the research of an American scholar, which was done in the early 1970s, 45% of the Serbs, 52% of the Croatians, 60% of the Slovenes and 73% of the Macedonians rank as particularistic.²³ The Slovenes also “stray from the common ‘Yugoslav’ pattern in socialist patriotism”.²⁴ But it is also concluded that while Slovenes were “considerably more particularistic than Croats,” they “at the same time possessed a very modern system of beliefs”.²⁵ Interestingly, while the Slovenes could be progressive and most particularistic (nationalistic) in Yugoslavia, Croatian nationalism has been constantly seen as reactionary and retrogressive. We can guess that the reason for such views is that Slovene nationalism, at least up to recent times, was not seen as dangerous to the Yugoslav state, while Croatian nationalism always carried at least such a potential. Thus, the measuring stick of the progressiveness of nationalisms in Yugoslavia is not, it seems, a particular nationalism itself or its ideology but its position on the integrity of the Yugoslav state and its centralism.
Dennis Rusinow, who wrote a four-part report on the Croatian national movement and whom some consider to be a leading expert on the subject, argues that the “movement was evolving in the direction of separatism” and therefore it “represented destructive and dangerous forces. ” For him, “the Croatian Party leaders … were in fact creating a political system that had more in common with fascism than with either democracy or socialism.” Naturally, he was “glad that the whistle was blown,” meaning that he was pleased to see that the central powers crushed the Croatian evil spirit that got out of the bottle.²⁶
Leadership of the Croatian National Movement
While some considered Savka Dapcevic-Kucar, the Party chief in Croatia in the early 1970s, to be “the first genuinely popular Croat leader since World War II” ²⁷, Rusinow, for example, in order to prove his hypothesis that the movement was reactionary, backward looking, and destructive, tried to discredit its leaders by his own method of psychoanalysis. According to him, the leaders of the movement were “individual neurotics, people with special personal problems or chapters in their lives to live down” or “those with political ambitions who ‘never made it’. ” He stressed that the leading Croatian Communists of the time came from “old and distinguished Dalmatian bourgeois families”; we can conclude, therefore, that they were of a suspicious background and could not be true proletarians. Rusinow also tried hard to discredit the student leaders by using their religious affiliation, or the regions they come from, as indications that they, and the movement as a whole, were linked, at least spiritually, if not organizationally, with Ustashism .²⁸ To anyone who is familiar with the Croatian scene, this approach of Rusinow’s is a clear reminder of the methods used by the Yugoslav regime, especially during the Rankovic era. Those who came from certain regions of Croatia were then always looked upon with suspicion. They were the first to end up in jail for political reasons, or they had to serve in special army camps because the UDBA could “see in their eyes” that they were an anti-Yugoslav element. Thus, according to Rusinow, Drazen Budisa, for example, became one of the student leaders, not because he was, as Rusinow himself admits, “handsome, articulate, highly intelligent and respected by his contemporaries,” but because he was from Drnis. And to be from Dalmatian hinterland or from Hercegovina one has to be “Ustasha” by birth. It seems for the same reason Rusinow tendentiously stated that Zvonimir Cicak, another student leader, was from Hercegovina, although he was from Zagreb .²⁹
The young Communist leadership of the time has been accused of mere “careerism”³⁰ and of “manipulating the hitherto dampened fires of ethnic and cultural nationalism” as “a means of protecting and extending their influence. Ambition drove them to push ‘Croatianness’. ” Savka and Tripalo are identified as the “Croatian Bonnie and Clyde”.³¹ It is said that Tripalo and Savka “played upon the underlying fears and insecurities of the Croatian populace” for personal gains.³² However, authors do not explain why Croatians were in fear and insecure. What were the reasons for such feelings in an entire nation? One should also have in mind, that Savka, Tripalo and Pirker had been already at the top of the Party hierarchy, and surely they did not get there because they were good nationalists. One does not climb the Communist Party ladder on the basis of popular sentiments! National Communism is nothing new in the world; why would one not allow at least a possibility that the Party leadership in Croatia was genuinely interested in the fate of their nation.
It seems that one of the major “faults” of the Croatian leadership, Party and intellectuals, was that they raised too much expectation and optimism among their people. And when they could not deliver, it is stated, the frustrations were turned into nationalism.³³ In most countries optimism and enthusiasm of the people is considered as a positive and not a negative indicator. Stock markets and sales go up or down because of the mood of the people. Politicians and economists love optimism. But it seems that if there is calm and gloom in Croatia, it is seen as “deceptive quiet”³⁴; if there is some enthusiasm, it is perceived as dangerous. Thus it should be clear that the Croatian issue is much deeper than the particular mood of the people at a certain time, and a serious observer should go beyond those moods in order to understand the true nature of Croatian grievances and Croatian nationalism.
The leading “troika” (Tripalo, Savka and Pirker) have also been accused of being intolerant of other opinions in the party. One observer claimed the “the struggle was ruthless on both sides [conservative and liberal], and the methods used [by the liberals] did not inspire confidence that nationalism would usher in a new period of socialist democracy”.³⁵ However, no one compared the methods used against the opposition during the national movement and the way the Croatians, those in and out of the Party, were treated before and after the movement. In order to condemn “both sides,” one should see how many people were jailed for so-called political offenses, or were kicked out of the Party; how much freedom there was for individuals, groups, and institutions; or how much the state interfered in the economy, education, press, and judicial system before, during and after the movement. The methods and goals of the conservatives and liberals were entirely different. While the Croatian liberals fought for socialist humanism, their opponents were defending socialist centralism. While the first brought the politics to an open forum, the later clung to the Party’s monopoly of power and mere force.
A few authors did consider the Party leadership in Croatia as being “essentially moderate, looking for peaceful methods to reform the system and meet the basic demands of the Croatian population .³⁶ However, generally speaking, the Anglo-American observers have passed a negative judgment on the movement and on its leadership. Although most of them praised Tito for ending the Croatian spring, some. did regret the way the movement was crushed.
Nature of the Movement
At this point one should probably ask, what was so terrible about the Croatian national movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s to deserve such condemnation? In a wider context of Croatian history, the movement represented a continuous Croatian national quest for political, economic, and cultural autonomy and national emancipation. That struggle began under the Habsburgs and it continued under the Karadjordjevics after 1918. In the new state (after 1918) the Croatian nation was completely dominated by the Serbian army, police, and bureaucracy, and Croatians were treated as an occupied nation. A similar Croatian subordination continued within Tito’s Yugoslavia. Although Communist Yugoslavia claimed to have solved the national question in the country and was organized on a federalist basis, that federalism was on paper only till the mid-1960s. The policy of cultural unitarism was implemented in all aspects of life in the country. In practice, Yugoslav unitarism meant first of all suppression of everything that was Croatian. Croatians were pressured to become “Yugoslavs,” while others could remain what they were. (New nations in the country were even invented.) A number of Croatian historical figures were thrown out from history books and other publications, the Croatian language officially lost the status of a national language, Croatian culture was suppressed, its economy exploited, and anyone who raised questions about this kind of national oppression was hit hard. In many cases, just being Croatian was enough to be considered an enemy of the state.
It was only in the late Sixties that a new Croatian national revival took place. The prime movers of the national renaissance were the intellectuals, first of all the Left intelligentsia. The regime itself realized that unitarism and centralism did not work, thus they introduced decentralizing reforms in the mid-1960s. These reformers in turn provided room for more and more national expression. Croatians began to demand the implementation of the constitutional stipulations, meaning that federalism in words be realized in practice.
The main issues that were raised during the Croatian national revival were of very practical nature. First of all, there was a demand to halt the economic exploitation of Croatia which had been taking place in a number of forms for a long time. Skimming off Croatian economy in the name of “brotherhood and unity” for nothing in return was done through the central banks, export-import firms, investment policies, foreign currency collection and exchange by the federal government, remittance of the close to a million Croatian “guest workers” in the West, and so on. For example, while Croatia earned more than 50% of all foreign currency entering the country, it could keep only 7% of it for its needs. The federal investment policy had a similar discrepancy. While 46.6% of all federal investment funds, from 1965-1970, went to Serbia, only 16.5% went to Croatia.
The problem of emigration was another major issue. While Croatians were making most of the money and supposedly were a richer region, they had a tremendous outflow of population to foreign countries. Besides the brain drain caused by the emigration, this phenomenon was loaded with a number of negative effects for Croatia and the Croatians for generations to come. Croatians were for a long time not able to learn about their own past or their cultural heritage. Their language was Serbianized, the Army, police and other federal, and even republican institutions were controlled by Serbs. Thus, demands were made by the Croatians to take control of their economy, to rehabilitate their culture and national history by lifting the official “curse” from everything that was Croatian. They also advocated greater freedom of expression, separation of the judicial system from the Party’s tutelage, greater pluralism, equal rights for religious believers, and market economy. In order to assure the implementation of these and similar demands, there was a strong quest for decentralization of the federal power and greater republican autonomy. In fact, it was the question of the federal power (Party, military, and economic institutions) that the struggle was all about, and not the issue of a Croatian “romantic,” “reactionary,” “counter-revolutionary,” or “neo-fascist” nationalism. These and similar labels were merely weapons of the centralist forces to disarm their opponents and defend the privileges and powers that they enjoyed.
The question of the Serbian minority in Croatia usually came up as one more useful weapon for the centralists and unitarists in their preservation of the monopoly of power. It has been constantly projected that the movement was a threat to the Serbs in Croatia. But Croatia is one of the rare places in the world where a minority has been privileged and not oppressed. What the movement was in fact trying to achieve was equal rights for the Croatians in their own home. An indicator that the movement had not been a threat to any of the minorities in Croatia is the fact that most of the minorities supported the movement; even some leading Serbs in the republic were part of it.
It seems that a major objection outside and inside the country to the Croatian national revival has been that its leaders presented the issues in national terms, which made them instantly old- fashioned, romantic, reactionary etc. However, if a whole nation has been oppressed and exploited, how can one present the issues in class or some other terms? One thing that all Croatian classes and social elements had in common is their Croatianism, and all of them had experienced the negative effects of being Croatian. It is, then, reasonable to expect that Croatianism would unite them in defending their human and national rights.
Ever since the time of Humanism, Croatian intellectuals tended to be internationalist in their world view, without giving up their own identity and heritage (Pribojevic, Krizanic, the Illyrians, Strossmayer, Radic, etc). But they were also among the first ones to question internationalist ideologies which tended to crush personal freedom and individuality in the name of the greater good (Strossmayer’s fight against Papal infallibility and Croatian Marxist revisionism in the 1930s are good examples). Leading intellectuals in the latest Croatian national movement also were world visionaries, on one side, and on the other, defenders of personal and national freedoms. This was clearly expressed by the leading ideologue of the latest Croatian movement, Vlado Gotovac, who stated “I have never understood those who think that the rainbow should be of one color! A uniform world means a homogenized emptiness! The existence of different ‘homelands’can only retain the beauty of the world when the dedication to the world’s future transforms its colors into a harmony . . .”.³⁷ Clearly, his vision is one of a peaceful world, where every color, every culture, social element, national group, and every individual is seen as a blessing and not as a curse. What is needed, therefore, is not a forced unification of mankind into a monotonous and enslaving mechanical world, but creative human freedom, freedom to be responsible, freedom to be different and a harmonization of those differences into a rainbow of humanity. Certainly this is a humanist and an internationalist vision, but it is not an internationalism of forced assimilation, imperialism or a totalitarian ideology. It is an internationalism through freedom.
Why a Negative View?
It is clear that there is sharp dichotomy between the perceptions of the Croatian national movement among the Croatians themselves and in the Anglo-American world. While Croatians saw their struggle as part of a human quest for freedom, human dignity, and self-rule, and even expected much understanding in pluralistic societies, many Anglo-American observers portrayed them as nothing more than passionate reactionaries who could not get rid of their backward looking mentality. It is legitimate to ask what were the reasons for such a negative judgment of the latest Croatian national movement. There are numerous answers to this question, including personal likes and dislikes, political pragmatism, and visions of the world. I will attempt to give here at least some probable causes for this Western view of Croatia and the Croatians in the recent past.
There has been very little written in English that deals with the Croatian national movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. And among those who did write on the subject, very few attempted to analyze the movement in itself: its origins, ideology, goals, visions, methods, its claims, etc. The main interest of the observers has been how Croatian nationalism effected, or might effect, East-West relations. Thus, although the observers slightly differed in their views of the movement, they all had the same approach to the problem and the same basic assumptions, which can be summarized as follows: Yugoslavia might have an oppressive Communist system, Serbs might be hegemonistic, Croatians might have some legitimate grievances; though we salute freedom, pluralism, market economy, etc., a unified “Yugoslavia is the healthiest for the West at this time” .³⁸ Anyone who even comes close to rocking the foundations of Yugoslavia is dangerous to peace in the world, and, therefore, a villain. Furthermore, the Communist party is the only trans-national force in Yugoslavia which holds the country together, therefore, our support of the Party should be also unconditional .³⁹
Major reasons for such thinking rise mostly from a vision that the world should remain as it has been the last few decades, that international society should be dominated by two superpowers. The Croatian national movement, or other similar movements in the world, are relevant only in so far as they interfere with the balance of power. It has been evident for some time that the Soviet Union has been “domesticated,” that it has given up its early revolutionary ambitions, and it has become merely a traditional great power. To the people with this world view, the ideas of equality of nations, or even of the states, freedom of the oppressed peoples, etc., are minor problems, or wishful thinking and of the idealists or of the weak. According to them, an emancipated world would result in an international anarchy. Thus, it is the duty and responsibility of the great powers to save the world from itself. They are the only ones that can coordinate economic interdependence and retain the political status quo (out of altruism, of course!). In a sense, this model is similar to the trickle-down theory in domestic economic and social policies in some countries or the Party’s role in others. For those in power, the world is a chess board on which, they hope, two super-powers play the game. This old European concept of power politics has been transferred to the world-wide arena. Rights, freedoms, and equality, are nice words, but without political reality.
On the other hand, there are the bourgeois and socialist internationalists who in the name of their world view tend to crush all individual freedoms. These are mostly intellectuals who believe that modernization and/or revolution will erase all our differences. It means that in an assimilated and uniform world we will live in peace and happiness. For such believers “those who wrap themselves up in the skirts of nationalism are living in the dangerous past .⁴⁰
Interestingly, such internationalist voices most often come from within the nations which have “made it.” This kind of “internationalism” also often comes from those who have economic or political interest in being internationalist. One may call this a “Coca-cola” internationalism, and not a humanist vision of the future. Internationalists of this kind usually “love” the whole world standing on the backs of someone near to them.
It seems that most of the Anglo-American observers of Croatia see Croatian nationalism from the pragmatic political, bipolar world perspective. No wonder, then, they come with negative conclusions about the Croatian national movement and its leaders. At least one of the observers writing in a British journal was honest enough to admit that,”not one self-respecting Western intellectual raised voice in defense of the [Croatian] students and intellectuals in prison, nor on behalf of the professors and the judges who were summarily dismissed … It is no wonder that, with the worst seemingly over, Western diplomats sighed with audible relief and vied with each other in assuring both their Chanceries and visiting foreign correspondents about Tito, that ‘the old man has once again saved Yugoslav unity after all this is what matters for us all’ .⁴¹
Ideologies, human and national rights, justice, humanism, trials, prisons, life or death have very little to do with such a pragmatic approach. The essential question for them was what would happen if Yugoslavia would collapse, or of its foundations were shaken. Again, the issue is not Yugoslavia itself but its geopolitical importance.
There has been a constant preoccupation with the Soviet enigma. What would they do in the Balkans? One effect of the Soviet question has been that the Croatians have been suspected, or directly accused, of being in touch with the Soviets. The “Russians are coming!” has been the Yugoslav regime’s tactic for a long time. A message of the West to the nations in Yugoslavia also has been “stay together or hang separately”.⁴² Supposedly, Yugoslavia and its “defense system and the determination behind it are the gold in the bank that American strategists count on”.⁴³ But the historical indicators do not give any assurances for such a belief. On the contrary, one should keep in mind that what happened with Yugoslavia’s defense system in 1941 might happen again tomorrow.
To conclude, historical evidence shows that nationalism has been a very fluid ideology. It has been used by the extreme left and the extreme right, as well as by the liberals; every kind of government has appealed to it: tyrannical (left and right), authoritarian, royal and democratic; it has been imperialistic, oppressive, and liberating. It could be bad or good. But many times its moral quality is relative to the perspective from which it is viewed.
The Croatian national movement of the late Sixties and early Seventies has been looked by most of the Anglo-American observers in a negative light. However, the reasons for such interpretation of the events in Croatia have been predetermined by the observers’ initial belief that the Yugoslav state is indispensable for the balance of power in Europe. Furthermore, evidence points out that inter- national problems have been the primary cause of Yugoslavia’s internal instability; therefore, any sign of Croatian nationalism is perceived as unhealthy because it can cause the disintegration of the country. Moreover, the primary function of moral judgments and the labeling of the Croatian movement and its leaders is to disarm them of any moral value in the eyes of potential sympathizers outside the country.
Some also think that what Yugoslavia needs is more time, and that then the various nations and nationalities will melt and become one nation. One student of nationalism wrote not so long ago about such new multi-national and multi-ethnic states the following. “Put into the pot of physical proximity, covered by the lid of a common political system, exposed to the heat of cultural and social interchange, the various elements will change after a fairly long time . . . into a brew. The brew will not be quite homogeneous. You can still point to grain of rice, to a leaf of onion, to a chunk of meat, to a splinter of bone. But it will manifestly be one brew, with its distinct flavor and taste.”⁴⁴ However, those who are fanning the fires under the pot known as Yugoslavia and are eager to cook “a Yugoslav brew” should be careful, because the latest indications are that pot and the brew may blow up into their faces.
NOTES
¹ Jayant Lele, “Two Forces of Nationalism: On the Revolutionary Potential of Tradition.” In Jacques Dofney and Akinsola Akiwowo, eds., National and Ethnic Movements (Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, 1980), p. 201.
² See Milton J. Esman, ed. Ethnic Conflict in the Western World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977).
³ Quite often there is a double standard on nationalism. For example the Yugoslav regime on one hand suppressed Croatian nationalism while on the other encouraged Macedonian and the so called “Moslem” nationalism. The U.S.S.R. and other governments have done similar things.
⁴ Many popular writers, even some scholars, state that Croatian and Serbian nations came as a result of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. See for example Eugene Kamenka ed. Nationalism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976), p. 13. Their national identity developed much earlier than the split in the Christian church and their conflict is not religious in nature at all. Contrary to popular opinion in the West, religious toleration has been much better in that part of the world than in Western Europe.
⁵ Although many authors stress that “most Croats opted to join a common State with the Serbs” the fact is that Croatians as a people never had a chance to express their political will in freedom. See Stephen Clissold, Conflict Studies No.103, January 1979, p. 3.
⁶ One should, however, keep in mind that they also considered all of the South-East European nations as the trash of humanity, and the sooner they disappear the better.
⁷ C. A. Macartney, Hungary – A Short History (Chicago: Aldine, 1962), p. 189.
⁸ See for example Joseph Rothschild, East Central Europe between the Two World Wars (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974), p. 212 and 232.
⁹ Bogdan Denitch, “The Evolution of Yugoslav Federalism” Publius Vol. 7, No. 4, 1977, p. 109.
¹⁰ On some aspects of legitimacy, see Walker Connor “Nationalism and Political Illegitimacy” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism Vol. 8, No. 2, 1981, pp. 201-228.
¹¹ Interestingly, some scholars label Croatian nationalism simply as “neo-fascism,” although it is evident from their writings that they have little knowledge about Croatian nationalism or Yugoslavia as a whole. See, for example, T. V. Sathyamurthy, Nationalism in the Contemporary World (London: Frances Pinter, 1983), pp. 90-92.
¹² On the confusing terminology of nation, state, nation-state, etc, see Conner “Nationalism,” p. 201.
¹³ See Bogdan Denitch, “Succession and Stability in Yugoslavia,” Journal of International Affairs Vol. 32, No. 2, 1978, pp. 223-238 and Bogdan Denitch, “The Tito legacy,” Commonweal Vol. 107, No. 5, March 14, 1980, pp.143-146.
¹⁴ For some the solution to Yugoslav problems is in a “democratization” of the country (Aleksa Djilas, Nora Beloff, Mihajlo Mihajlov, Oskar Gruenwald). Others advocate a status quo, Dennison 1. Rusinow and Fred Singleton for example.
¹⁵ J. F. Brown, “The Balkan: Soviet ambitions and opportunities,” The World Today Vol. 40, No. 6, 1984, pp. 245-246.
¹⁶ Time June 5, 1972; “The most troublesome . . . nationality . . .” Ibid. Feb. 7, 1972.
¹⁷ Brown, “The Balkan,” p. 246.
¹⁸ Oskar Gruenwald, “The Croatian Spring, 1971: Socialism in One Republic,” Nationality Papers Vol. 10, No. 2, 1982, p. 225. Interestingly, similar opinions were expressed about Stjepan Radic in the 1920s.
¹⁹ The Times (London) Jan 24, 1972.
²⁰ George Schopflin, “The Ideology of Croatian Nationalism” Survey Vol. 19, No. 1, 1973, p. 142.
²¹ George Klein, “The Role of Ethnic Politics in the Czechoslovak Crisis of 1968 and the Yugoslav Crisis of 1971,” Studies in Comparative Communism Vol. 8, No. 4, 1975, p. 356.
²² Cynthia W. Frey, “Yugoslav Nationalisms and the Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty,” (Part II) East European Quarterly Vol. 11, No. 1, 1977, p. 102.
²³ Gary Bertsch, “A Cross-National Analysis of the Community-Buildings Process in Yugoslavia,” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 4, No. 4, 1972, pp. 450-451; f.n. 24, p. 459.
²⁴ Gary Bertsch and M. George Zaninovich, “A Factor-Analytic Method of Identifying Different Political Cultures,” Comparative Politics Vol. 6, No. 2, 1974, p. 235.
²⁵ Bertsch, “A Cross-National Analysis,” p. 450.
²⁶ Dennison 1. Rusinow, Crisis in Croatia (Part I) Southeast Europe Series, Vol 19, No. 4, 1972, p. 19.
²⁷ Paul Lendvai, “Yugoslavia in Crisis,” Encounter Vol. 39, No. 2, 1972, p. 68.
²⁸ Rusinow, Crisis (Part I), pp. 18-19.
²⁹ Ibid., p. 18.
³⁰ Frey, “Yugoslav Nationalisms,” (Part 1) East European Quarterly Vol. 10, No. 4, 1976, p. 439.
³¹ Alvin Z. Rubinstein, “Whither Yugoslavia?” Current Histor Vol. 64, No. 381, 1973, p. 204 and Alvin Z. Rubinstein, “The Yugoslav Succession Crisis in Perspective” World Affairs Vol. 135, No. 2, 1972, p. 103.
³² Gary K. Bertsch, “The Revival of Nationalisms” Problems of Communism Vol. 22, No. 6, 1973, p. 8.
³³ Ibid., p. 11.
³⁴ Brown, “The Role of Ethnic Politics,” p. 357.
³⁵ Klein, “The Role of Ethnic Politics,” p. 357.
³⁶ Pedro Ramet, “Yugoslavia and the Threat of Internal and External Discontents” Orbis Vol. 28, No. 1, 1984, p. 113.
³⁷ Vlado Gotovac, “Autsaiderski fragmenti” (Part III) Kritika Vol. 2, No. 8, 1969, p. 538.
³⁸ Ramet, “Yugoslavia,” p. 120.
³⁹ Klein, “The Role of Ethnic Politics,” p. 362.
⁴⁰ George Macesich, Economic Nationalism and Stability (Now York: Praeger, 1985), p. 3.
⁴¹ Lendvai, “Yugoslavia in Crisis,” p. 69.
⁴² Robin Remington, “Yugoslavia-the Strains of Cohesion” Survival May-June, 1972, p. 116.
⁴³ Sterling, Clair, “Tito’s New Balancing Act” Atlantic Vol. 231, No. 6, 1973, p. 50.
⁴⁴ Benjamin Akzin, State and Nation (London: Hatchinson University Library, 1964), pp. 83-84.
Published in Journal of Croatian Studies, Vol. XXX, 1989. A shorter version of this paper was presented at the International Symposium “Croatia and Croatians in the 20th Century” held at the Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, October 2-7, 1988.