Facsimile of the Statute of
the Commune of Piran, Dating from 1384
by
Darko Darovec and Janez Sumrada
istorical
Circumstances Which Influenced the Formation of Istrian Communal
Statutes
The Preserved Issues of the Statute of Piran
The Statute from 1274
General Facts about the Preserved Issues of the
Statute of Piran
The 1384 issue'
About the Codex
The issuance of statements of Roman jurisdiction as well as their
interpretations and adjustments to the peculiarities of time and
territory may be traced back to the very beginning of (so-called)
medieval history; to begin with Corpus luris by Justinian. This
text later served as the basis for two major European social systems,
the Byzantine and Latin worlds. In the latter, the idea of God as the
source of law prevailed. By approximately the 10th century, Roman
collections of laws as well as barbaric laws had been forgotten - owing
to the ignorance of the judges - and common law prevailed. Nevertheless,
in Italy, where no local sovereign house existed, Roman law was not
completely forgotten in spite of the Lombard invasion and a general
spiritual decadence. Pavia, the metropolis of the Lombard kingdom, was
also the centre of jurisdiction and from the 8th century on it became
more and more attractive for students from throughout western Europe.
Meanwhile, the study of law never ceased in Ravenna, the old capital of
Romagna. Towards the end of the 11th century, Irnerius, the great
teacher, founded a school in Bologna which was to outshine all others.
Legal determinations dealing with civil law leaned on glosses from this
school as they did on Gratian regarding canon law.
Although all townsmen's intentions that local representations of Roman
law, scattered rules, regulating the internal organisation of town life
and constitution (iummenta, consuetudines etc.), as well as
feudal privileges, should be collected had at first been called ius
asinorum,
that is, ass law, by scholars of the abovementioned schools, townsmen,
divided into nobility, merchants and peasants, under previously
determined conditions, started to collect and to incorporate the old
communal law into official collections called town statutes. Commissions
of honourable townsmen (statutarii) were founded; normally a
lawyer was also added to the circle.
Feudal dispersion and the distance between centres of state authority
contributed to the expansion of upper Italian and Adriatic cities in the
12th century, as did such events as those related to the Investiture
[84] Dispute, a quarrel between popes
and emperors. For instance, after he had been utterly defeated at the
Battle of Legnano in 1176 by the civic Northern Italian Lombard League,
Frederick Barbarossa was forced to grant the cities an autonomy that
already adhered to a municipal organisation, and was based on a communal
order. In Istria, the communal organisation was at first personified by
consuls - needless to point out on the Antique tradition - elected
among the local men of note. Nevertheless, due to the fact that often
consuls were favourable only to one party or family, the need for an
independent administrator arose. Already by the end of the 12th century
this function was carried out by a chief magistrate, called the
podestà.
The word podestà itself has its origins in the word 'power', but,
interestingly enough, it was first used with the meaning of the
emperor's civic administrator. Independently of podestà, in the 13th and
14th centuries the Major Council (Maggior Consiglio) and the
Minor Council (Minor Consiglio) emerged from the already existing
arengo (a general assembly, including the entire civic population,
which gradually began losing importance in the decision making process
until finally losing it completely). The Major Council was a legislative
body, consisting of the most powerful families in the town, while the
Minor Council had executive power. This kind of power structure was
preserved for Venetians at least until the end of the Venetian Republic
in 1797; succeeding precisely with this type of administrative system,
they did not try to eliminate the autonomy of our towns. At first they
were quite satisfied by appointing their chief town magistrate - the
podestà, who, after he had been elected by members of the Venetian Major
Council, was ordered to obey the well known "Commisiones", as for
instance was Lodovico Morosini, when elected captain of Koper as late as
1784, "to
rule and administer the townsmen in the honour of our authorities, to
apply laws and justice in order with statutes and regulations of this
town, if they are not contrary to our honour and the state; in the case
of lacks of regulations in statutes you will adopt their customs, and if
there are no customs known, you will act as your clear conscience
demands, because we trust completely in your goodness and wisdom."
After they had conquered our towns (Izola and Koper in 1279, Piran in
1283), Venetians played an important role in developing and completing
laws, included in statutes, mainly with orders (commands
[85] or comissiones) or
"ducali", but already before Venetians occupied them, towns themselves
had often supplemented this basic demonstration of town autonomy with
laws from the field of common law; this kind of monument to the commune
of Piran has been preserved in fragments of the statute from 1274, which
is also the oldest document of this type preserved in Istria. At the
same time, it is a known fact that Koper had its laws written down at
least by 1238 (Kos, 1928, 334), all of which suggests a lively juridical
activity prior to the Venetian occupation and, doubtlessly also under
its influence (Darovec, 1989, 159).
At this point let us refresh our memories, thinking again in detail
about all the events that significantly influenced the process by which
Istrian coastal towns achieved and developed their independence, and
consequently, set down these basic juridical writings: the communal
statutes.
HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH INFLUENCED THE FORMATION OF ISTRIAN COMMUNAL STATUTES
Towns on the western Istrian coast were already striving to what extent
they could to rid themselves of the feudal authority's direct influence
from the 9<h century on, the main reason being that they were gradually
achieving new town estates, the possibility of developing free seaborne
trade thus arising. Venetians had practically supplanted the Byzantines
in control of the Adriatic Sea by the 9<h century and began interfering
in the relationships between Istrian cities. Istrian cities and Venice
shared common enemies in the 9th century, specifically Croats (witness
the assaults on Sipar, Umag, Novigrad and Rovinj in 876) and Saracens.
Venetians were assigned a major role in the battle against the enemy and
they knew how to make good use of it. It is no surprise that Koper, in
that period already Venice's most important partner in Istria, in 932
promised the doge of Venice that for the span of his life 100 amphorae
of wine per year would be delivered to him; furthermore, the citizens of
Venice would be provided full protection in Koper and a solution for
paying off Kop-er's debt to Venice would be found.
[86] Venice's supremacy over the
sea was evident at doge Peter Orseolo's visit to Pula in 1000, when he
took punitive action and assaulted pirates, Croats and Neretlyans. For
more than a century these had obliged Venetians to pay taxes for
permission to sail undisturbed across the Adriatic Sea. From this visit
on, Venetians regarded themselves as dukes (dux) of Dalmatia and
every year for Ascension they celebrated the so-called "Sposalizio
del Mar" feast in its honour. During the following period, which was
marked neither by wars against pirates nor against Venetians, Istrian
cities were gradually developing their economies (which included the
influence of the Crusades), mostly by agriculture - olive and wine
growing - fishing, and the manufacture of sea salt (as well as different
crafts). Seaborne trade was also an important source of profit.
This economic expansion led to a quarrel with Venice in 1145, when
Pula, Koper and Izola unsuccessfully rebelled. The defeated Istrian
cities were obliged to accept "promises of loyalty" (facere
fldelitatem), which bound them to the doge of Venice, and to promise
to provide naval support to Venice. Another rebellion by Pula failed in
1149 and was followed by a renewed promise of loyalty towards the doge
of Venice (1150). This promise was expanded to other cities that had
taken part in the rebellion: Rovinj, Porec, Novigrad and Umag. They had
to swear that they would provide military aid, meaning ships, and that
they would pay taxes (mainly in olive oil). Subjecting all the cities
from Savudrija to Premantura was very important to Venetians; as evident
from the wonderful reception given to the Venetian victors - Morosini
and Gradonico, commanders-in-chief - when they finally succeeded in
conquering Istrian towns. On that occasion, the doge of Venice named
himself "Istriae dominator."
Despite the uncertain circumstances, cities were gaining administrative
autonomy, mostly due to economic independence and the absence of their
masters. Moreover, in the period of the last feudal lords temporal,
Spanheim and Andechs-Meran, cities were allowed not only to elect their
civic chief magistrates freely, they could also make trading contacts
"on large distances" one with another, as Pi-ran did with Dubrovnik in
1188 and Split in 1192, and Porec with Dubrovnik in 1194. Moreover, they
were allowed to settle quarrels by themselves; thus Labin made a peace
treaty with Rab, and Piran with Rovinj in 1210 when it was threatened by
warriors from Koper.
[87] In contrast to towns from the
interior, settled by the landlords who could only give the towns town
privileges (in Slovene territory from the 13th century on), Istrian
towns preserved some elements of self-government from the Late Antique
period. From the Byzantine period on, local autonomy had been slowly
disappearing in towns, but it never disappeared completely. There were
some elements of local autonomy preserved, as for instance the elected
jurats (iudices)
called scabins (scabini) in the Frankish period. Towns were
governed by the so called locopositi, appointed by the central
authority. These were becoming more and more accustomed to the town life
until they finally accepted some relationships typical of the life in
town. In the 12th century, towns began gaining independence from the
supremacy of bishops and local feudal lords. Northern Italian towns led
the process, which soon had certain influences in Istrian towns. Thus
townsmen settled communes (Koper in 1186, Piran in 1192, Porec in 1194,
Pula in 1199, Trieste and Muggia in 1202) with the arengo - an
assembly of all townsmen - as the supreme authority that elected
temporary town magistrates called consuls, and later podestàs
and/ or captains, generally also called rectors.
Patriarchs of Aquileia, whom the German emperor had given Istria as a
fief in 1212, managed to considerably restrict the freedom of
decision-making in Istrian towns. Patriarch Wolfgar started appointing
his own representatives in towns and larger villages. One of them was
"Potestas Marchionis", who was on the throne for a certain period of
time in the Pretor's Palace in Koper. Later administrators of patriarchs
of Aquileia were called gastaldius, richtarius and margraves.
in spite of the fact that the Margravate of Istria had been given
power over the whole of Istria, lands of the counts of Gorizia in
central Istria and those of the lords from Duino and Kvarner were left
out of control of the patriarchs of Aquileia. Yet in 1220, the German
Emperor granted the patriarch of Aquileia, Berthold Andech, the right to
publish decrees about trade, to exercise juridical power and grant
amnesties, to coin money and prohibit the towns from electing their
magistrate - podestà (particularly if it was a citizen of Venice) -
without said patriarch's approval. These orders were also the basis of
the so-called Istrian regional law or the statute, approved by the
patriarch in 1222. Given that the patriarchs' policy was grounded in the
reinstatement of central power over the Margravate of Istria, at that
time in danger
[88] of being lost, it necessarily led to
rebellions by the towns on the western coast of Istria and to conflicts
with the Venetians. The latter, helped by the townsmen of Koper, managed
to establish a universal Istrian organisation called "Universitas
Istriae", governed by a citizen of Venice, in 1230. The alliance was
dissolved after a year because Koper was gaining importance in
comparison to other towns. Piran played a decisive role in breaking up
the organisation, deciding to support the patriarch of Aquileia, later
ensuring this town a certain degree of autonomy in regard to Aquileia,
which was confirmed by an agreement of mutual concord, signed by the
patriarch Berthold and the commune of Piran in 1231.
The political situation in Istria became quite strained, especially in
the 2nd half of the 13th century, when the seat of the patriarch of
Aquileia was assigned to Gregorio Montelongo (1251-1269). The
patriarch's power over the country was loosening, yet it was strong
enough to control the policy of the towns.
At first the patriarch favoured the role of Koper over Trieste on one
side and over the coastal towns in the middle Istria and villages in the
central part of the peninsula on the other. Consequently, in 1254 the
patriarch assigned Koper supremacy over Buje, Buzet and Dvigrad.
Similarly, the influence of Koper over Piran and Muggia was enhanced.
The situation was becoming more tense by 1276, when Koper laid siege to
Porec. The fact that the patriarch tried to stop the military expansion
of Koper by asking for help from Albert, the count of Go-rizia, is
evidence enough that he was no longer in control of the situation. The
most egregious aspect of his error was that he put in direct conflict
two parties which, at that time, were both acting against the
patriarchate. The count of Gorizia and the commune of Koper formed an
alliance and in July, 1267, the count ordered that Gregorio Montelongo
should be imprisoned in the Rozac monastery in Friuli. Porec secured
itself against this new alliance by recognising the supremacy of Venice
on July 27. Umag (1267), Novigrad (1270), Sv Lovrenc (San Lorenzo) and
later Motovun (1275) followed the example of Porec, for the new alliance
between Koper and the count of Gorizia was making pressure on Istrian
towns. Venice did not change the communal order in Istrian towns,
limiting itself to appointing the podestà from Venetian among
patricians.
[89]
La Serenissima
did not decide to take measures against the
Koper-Gorizia alliance immediately but it was slowly tightening the
noose around the two. Meanwhile, the seat of the patriarch of Aquileia
had been empty between 1267 and 1274 and only the newly elected
patriarch Raimondo of Torre signed a peace treaty with the Koper-Gorizia
alliance in 1275 in Cividale del Friuli. They promised one another to
exchange prisoners and repair the damage caused in the years between
1267 and 1275 by war, plundering and disorder. The peace treaty did not
put an end to common actions carried out by the Koper-Gorizia alliance
in Istria. In 1278, an alliance in the name of the patriarch was forged
between the count Albert and the representatives of Koper against Venice
and its allies in Istria. The agreement was settled in Pazin in the
absence of the patriarch. The two parties also agreed as to how the
areas of influence should be divided, so that in the case that Koper
won, the city should achieve control over the coastal towns, while the
count should establish control over the estates in the Istria
hinterland. The two allies used the fact that Venice was busy with the
war against Ancona to their advantage and after the siege of Motovun,
which had bravely defended the attacks and finally broken the siege, the
count occupied Sv Lovrenc (San Lorenzo). At that moment Venice responded
with all its military forces. After a successful siege of Izola,
Venetians forced Koper to capitulate. They broke a part of the city
walls and the city towers. Although Venice had subdued Koper by using
military force, it took the same measures with Koper as with other
Istrian towns which had subjected willingly to La Serenissima.
In January, 1283, the Major Council of Venice accepted the
"capitulation" of Piran. Besides the end of the alliance between Koper
and the count of Gorizia, this was also the beginning of the end of the
self-governmental policy of Istrian towns (only Pula, Trieste and Muggia
remained independent), although several attempts at achieving
independence were later carried out.
Although Venetians left a kind of internal autonomy, mainly the town
council and a Venetian podestà as a chief magistrate to certain of the
assaulted Istrian towns, they centralised the conquered territory from
the military point of view and in 1301 established an institution,
called "provincial captaincy", first in Porec, later in Sv. Lovrenc
Pazenatiski (named also San Lorenzo in Pasenatico) (1304). Although the
local
[90] autonomy granted administrative
and legislative power to the towns, from the military point of view
podestàs were subordinate to the regional captain, who was also keeping
an eye over the whole defence system of the land. This military
administration did not cover the territory from Koper to Dragonja,
including Izola and Piran, whose military and legislative power was
executed by the podestà and the captain of Koper, who managed to
preserve the title of town magistrate until the demise of the Republic
of Venice.
Podestàs from Venice were governing towns, lands and market towns
(terre - smaller administrative units, which could not become seats of
dioceses, but had the right to exercise a self-governmental system and
consequently to have podestàs), obeying commands (commissioni),
given by the Senate of Venice (Senato), and to particular communal
statutes, which were usually adapted to Venetian norms after the town
had fallen under Venice's supremacy. Such a legislative and governing
system allowed the richest and the 'most noble' class of townsmen to
exploit their positions and they slowly rose above the rest of the
citizens, partially due to the fact that this segregation made it easier
for them to lead the town community. This process concluded with the
establishment of town councils. These, imitating the Venice of the 13th
century, decreed the "closure" of town councils (serrata),
meaning that town councils were not allowed to accept representatives of
new town families. These were accepted only in the cases of a general
depopulation due to wars or epidemics that affected noble families.
The aristocratic system, following the example of Venice, concentrated
power in the hands of a few wealthy and powerful families, thus
excluding any possibility for the lower class to exert any influence
over the process of governing. An oligarchy of noble families was
created.
The oligarchy was partly limited by Venetians, who, on one hand allowed
the model of the town autonomy familiar to Venice, with a town council
and an appointed magistrate, but established a centralised military
administration on the other. This allowed the Venetians to accrue
benefits from the traditional conflicts between towns and protect the
country from disorders, which arose mostly due to Venice's limitation of
seaborne trade.
[91] Communal statutes represented the
basis of civic autonomy even after the town council had been closed and
a kind of town oligarchy established. The basis of this law was
doubtless the local common law a peculiar mixture of the Roman tradition
and later medieval praxis, which was, later still completed with orders,
or
ducali, from La Serenissima.
According to the sources, the statute of Koper was the first to be
mentioned in Istria (1238), but the oldest existing statute is that of
Piran, from 1274, preserved in the Regional Archive of Koper, unit of
Piran. This is by all means the oldest statute in Slovenia [1]
and after the statute of Dubrovnik the oldest on the eastern Adriatic
coast. The preserved issue of the statute of Koper dates back to 1423
(Margetic, 1993), while the preserved issue of the statute of Izola
dates back to 1360 (Kos, 2000).
THE PRESERVED ISSUES OF THE
STATUTE OF PIRAN
Tt is easy to trace back the interesting history and prehistory of the
first issue of the statute of Piran, dating back to 1274, chapters of
which have survived in fragments, and of all the following issues,
additions and editions, in the text, written by Pahor & Sumrada (1987,
XXV-LXII and LXXIII-XC). Yet we think it is worth mentioning the fact
that no Istrian communality statute has been re-issued and edited so
many times as the statute of Piran, and had its editions so scrupulously
written. In fact, the editions of the 14th century allow us to trace
various aspects of the development of the law of Piran and,
consequently, the law of Istria, back to the 11th century and possibly
even further back. The following issues, fragments of and additions to
the statute of Piran have been preserved (Stari statuti, 1987, 87-94):
- Fragments of the statute of Piran from 1274, in
three different volumes (preserved in the Regional Archive of Koper
(later: PAK), the Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 1, 2 and 3);
- The statute of Piran from 1307, in two parchment codices (preserved
in PAK, the Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 4 and Archivio
Diplomatics Biblioteca Civica Attilio Hortis in Trieste (later: ADT), 6
EE 8)
- [92] The statute of Piran from
1332, likewise in two parchment codices (preserved in PAK, Municipal
Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 5 and ADT, 6 EE 9);
- The statute of Piran from 1358, in two parchment codices (preserved
in PAK, Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 6 and ADT, BEE 10);
- The statute of Piran from 1384, parchment codex (preserved in PAK,
Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 7).
It is necessary that the following issues be separated from the five
stated above due to the differences in the formal structure, contents
and purpose:
- The statute of Piran from 1384, printed in 1606 in Venice (preserved
in PAK, Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 8 and ADT, Raccolta
Patria 3-2502);
- The so-called statute of Piran from 1542, preserved in a paper
volume (preserved in PAK, Municipal Archive of Piran, statutes, n° 9);
- The first volume of amendments and additions to the statute,
1367-1400, parchment codex (preserved in PAK, Municipal Archive of
Piran, statutes, n° 10);
- The second volume of amendments and additions to the statute,
1416-1602, parchment codex (preserved in PAK, Municipal Archive of
Piran, statutes, n° 11).
We consider it appropriate that the thus far extant editions and
transcriptions of the statute of Piran be mentioned here:
- Although it is by all means true that the statute of Piran from
1384, printed in 1606 in Venice, is the first edition, born out of
actual everyday needs, it is also true that especially by printing
another, separate text, published at the same time, called "Novae
leges, or-dines, correctiones, declamtiones, additiones et absolutions
Statu-torum Communis Terrae Pirani..." Nicolai Petronio Caldana
tried to enhance the practical value of the 1606 edition, especially by
adding margin notes which guided the reader to the corresponding
regulations. This edition might be considered an attempt to publish all
the regulations, collected in the statute, in one place; its indices and
instructions were meant to make the edition even more
[93] applicable, as is already evident from the subtitle.
Unfortunately the publisher only printed parts of the regulations from
the second book of the amendments and additions to the statute,
1416-1602, and only those valid yet at the time of publishing (conf.
Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXXXVIII-XC).
- Fragments of the statute from 1274 were first published by Kan-dler
as a supplement to the magazine L'lstria VII/1852, n° 12 (20-3-1852),
and later in Cociice diplomatico Istriano under the year 1274 (n°
360), by the same author (conf. Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXXXVI).
- Camilo De Franceschi prepared for publication the issues of the
statute of Piran from 1307, 1332 and 1358, preserved in Trieste. His
book, entitled Gli statuti del Comune di Pirano del 1307, confronted
con quelli del 1332 e del 1385, was published posthumously in Venice
in 1960 (conf. Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXXXVI-LXXXVII).
- A transcription of all issues of the statute of the commune of Piran
from the 13- to the 17- century was made by Miroslav Pahor and Janez
Sumrada and published in 1987 in the collection The Sources of Slovene
History' at The Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Scientific
Research Centre of the SASA. The edition is accompanied by authors'
presentations and an accompanying study, written in consideration of all
ecdotic principles.
THE STATUTE FROM 1274
The bill of the statute from 1274 was first introduced in the Major
Council of Piran on July 8<h; adopted by the assembly of townsmen
(arengo) on September 29<h, 1275. It was divided into at least eight,
probably 10, volumes, the same as the following issues. Most likely it
was written in two counterparts, which holds true for later issues; one
copy was usually held in the communal treasurers' office, the second by
the podestà. Issues from 1307, 1332 and 1358 have been preserved up to
the present in two duplicate copies, excepting the issue from 1384, only
one copy of which has been preserved; the lost copy had probably served
Nicolo Petronio-Caldana, a jurist [94]
D. Darouec & 1 Sumrada, Statut piranskega komuna iz leta 1384 from
Piran, as a basis for a printed version of what at that time was still a
valid statute that he was preparing in 1606 (Pahor & Sumrada, 1987,
LXXXVIII). Until the middle of the 19th century, when the Municipality
of Piran donated one copy of each of the remaining issues to Kandler,
only one copy of the 1274 issue had been preserved (Pahor & Sumrada,
1987, LXI).
The issue from 1274 has not been preserved in the original version. It
has survived in three comparatively late partial transcriptions of six
of the statute's clauses, which date back to the period between the last
third of the 16<h century and the turn of the 17<h and the early 18<h
centuries.
Let us first sum up which parts of the communal statute from 1274 have
survived in later transcriptions before we continue with a brief
description of the manner issues of the statute of Piran were
promulgated in the 14- century (Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, XXXVII-XXXVIII).
- The introduction to the statute, where the authors are stated. These
were, besides the captain Campolo, four consuls, Almeric Petronio, Henry
Petidona, Dominic Rufo and Joan Nareno. The municipal chamberlain
Almeric, named Pesce, the municipal scribe John Montanesi and 12 sages
(sapientes), appointed by the Major Council to help the captain
during his mandate, also participated in creating the statute. From
among the 12 sages, Henry from the family of Karantans, who was
obviously supporting the Aquileia party, Walter Gojna, supporting the
Koper party, and Nicolai Picha, supporting the Venice party, deserve
special mention. The statute was written by the notary Mengolin Petener
and uicedominos Almeric Fabelli and Mengosi, the son of Marquard
Cataldi.
- The captain's or the podestà's oath, which is almost a statute of
its own, for it states briefly what political laws and rules the
governing podestà or captain will obey. Analysis of the captain's oath
reveals that the statute was divided into ten volumes and that the
majority of laws, which thirty-three years later were to become part of
the statute from 1303, were already included in it.
- The oath of consuls, who governed Piran during the time when it was
not possible to elect a captain or podestà, independently of the reason.
Analysis of the oath reveals that it became part of the statute in 1307,
partly altered, as an oath of jurats, who had replaced consuls in
the Venetian period of the municipal history.
[95]
- Chapter 36 in volume VII of the statute, where it is stated that
after the captain's or the podestà's mandate has expired, he must
transfer the power to consuls. He is prohibited from asking - directly
or indirectly - for a new mandate and from proposing a successor and
handing power over to him.
- Chapter 37 of volume VII of the statute, where it is ordered that
the captain or the podestà should keep the municipality of Piran in the
same state of freedom and independence that the town had possessed at
the moment when he assumed power. A fine of 200 Venetian libras
was imposed on him in case he would try to start any kind of
negotiations to submit the municipality to a third party or to reduce
the municipal territory by any means.
- Chapter 54 of volume VIII of the statute, where it is prohibited to
sell salt, grain and other cereals, unless using measures valid in the
municipality of Piran.
GENERAL FACTS ABOUT THE
PRESERVED ISSUES OF THE STATUTE OF PIRAN
In the 14th century the procedure for adopting new issues of the
statlute of Piran were established. The introduction to the 1307 issue
of the statute informs us that the 1274 statute obliged its authors to
renew and complete the statute every five years, while in the 1307 issue
a rule was adopted that the statute should be reissued every twenty five
years after the previous issue had been published (vol. 1, ch.18). This
rule was first violated as early as the middle of the 14th century, but
was in force until the beginning of the 15th century. The procedure of
creating the 1307 issue, which included amendments and additions,
adopted after the publication of the statute from 1274, was more or less
similar to the previous one, when the 1274 statute was discussed: the
proposal of the issue was presented by the podestà and four jurats,
who had replaced consuls. The 1307 issue was first read and announced in
the Major Council; it was the last issue of the statute of Piran
ratified (but not adopted) by the arengo of Piran (in ipso
arengo uoce tocius populi Pyani fuerunt laudata et confirmata). The
issues which followed were merely announced to the people of Piran
(publicatio in arengo)
for informative purpose, the [96]
Major Council composed of the newly raised town patricians, being the body
where the amendments and additions were discussed and adopted by vote.
The statute prescribes in detail the procedure of voting: at least 80
councillors, two thirds of the members of the Major Council, formed a
quorum at its session. An amendment was adopted if supported by three
quarters of the councillors present (conf. vol. 3, ch. 20). The single
regulations (partes), usually brought up for the discussion by
the podestà or by jurats, came into effect if at least two thirds
of the members of the Major Council were present and if the majority of
the present councillors supported the amendment by secret ballot (ad
busolas et balotas) (conf.vol.9, ch.4). A public announcement
followed. Although the Major Council had the competence to elect the
sages
(sapientes), the Council renounced the right in favour of the
podestà and the four jurats, all of them naturally coming from
patrician families. The elected sages, usually elderly patricians, often
had experience in drafting amendments for a new issue. Quite a few of
them were involved in the preparation of the previous issue a quarter of
a century earlier.
However, the manner in which the 36 amendments and additions,
constituting the beginning of the first volume of amendments
(1367-1400), were adopted did not follow the regular procedure practiced
in the 14th century. On this occasion the order that the statute should
be renewed every twenty-five years was purposely broken, for only nine
years had passed since 1358, when the previous issue had been adopted,
with the explanation that ambiguities and mistakes were present in
several regulations included in the statute, and that they were the
reason for suits and charges (questiones et lites) amongst the
townsmen of Piran. According to the explanation, in order to avoid suits
it was necessary for some of the existing regulations to be amended or
re-adopted. The podestà and four municipal jurats suggested that
the Major Council, exceptionally, ignore the regulation regarding the
time limitation between two editions, which the Major Council approved
by the vast majority of 78 votes to 5. Due to the fact that the session
had a quorum, the resolution came into effect and in the following few
days amendments and additions were approved by members of the council by
ballot vote. Special attention was drawn to the fact that the recently
approved regulations were of the same legal value as those from the 1358
issue, while [97] those clauses from
the 1358 issue that contrasted with the newly approved determinations,
would be regarded invalid after new clauses were publicly announced. A
copy of the recently adopted regulations should be preserved in the
office of the municipal treasurers, as it was the usual procedure for
all new issues of the statute. in the years before the following issue
was published in 1384, seventeen new regulations were written down in
the book of amendments after those adopted in 1367. The process of
continually approving new amendments and additions and thereby of
changing particular regulations of the previous issue, continued after
the following issue had been published and finally replaced the custom
that a new issue should be written every quarter of a century. Thus the
issue from 1384, written between 1383 and 1384 and ratified again in
1401, is the last of Piran statutes which includes the whole municipal
juridical system (the so-called statute from 1542 is but a private
transcription of the 1384 issue and some other determinations; conf.
Pahor & Sumrada, 1978, LXXXV). The 1384 issue, including amendments and
additions, which became hard to follow in the 15th and especially in the
16<h century due to their great number, remained valid till the end of
Venetian supremacy over Piran (1797). Since 1606 the Nicolo
Petronio-Caldana's printed edition of the 1384 issue was being used.
The 1307 issue includes a condition that the statute should be written
down in two counterparts (dua statuta, unum simUern alteri et unius
tenoris, conf. vol. 3, ch. 18). The condition was preserved in the
later issues and undoubtedly also held true for books of amendments and
additions, as we can see in the first book of amendments (1367-1400) and
in the printed Nicolo Petronio-Caldana edition, where it is quite
evident that margin notes in the volume of regulations did not refer to
the second book of amendments and additions to the statute (1416-1602)
but to the duplicate copy of the first book of amendments. Duplicate
copies of the first and second book of amendments and additions have not
been preserved.
It is difficult to determine which copies were held in the municipal
treasurers' office (later in the archive of the vicedomines*
office) and which in the podestà's palace. The first book of amendments
(1367-1400) and the 1384 issue undoubtedly come from the podestà's
office. The series of issues dating from 1307, 1332 and 1358,
[98] preserved in PAK, has been used
considerably less than their counterparts, preserved in Trieste (ADD,
for these editions were preserved in Koper in a better state; it is
evident that copies, currently preserved in Trieste, served as working
papers when the following issues were being prepared. Margin notes in
the 1307, 1332 and 1358 issues, all preserved in ADT, on the basis of
which several clauses have been reformulated, excluded or amended in the
next issue, confirm this hypothesis. These issues can thus be called
working copies and served either the podestà or his "commission" while
they were preparing the next issue of the statute; therefore it is quite
certain that they were preserved in the podestà's office. Two texts
served as sources when the 1384 issue was being prepared, the 1358 issue
and the book of amendments - for many amendments and additions from this
book either served as a basis for new clauses of the 1384 issue or
influenced several clauses from the 1358 issue that were reformulated in
the 1384 issue (Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXXV-LXXVII).
THE 1384 ISSUE
If the fact that the arengo was losing its importance relative
to the 1 Major Council between 1307 and 1358 may be traced through
issues corresponding to that period of time, the 1384 issue provides
evidence of the final and total affirmation of the oligarchy of Piran.
As usual the Major Council entrusted the so-called "Council of Sages
(Consiglio dei savi)" - on that occasion there were nineteen of them -
the body which together with the podestà composed the statutory
commission, to create the statute. The commission went through the 1358
statute, planned changes, wrote new clauses and decrees on the basis of
the amendments to the statute, written down in the era between the two
statutes, and reformulated the entire statute. There is no evidence that
the arengo
or the Major Council adopted the changes. The order that whatever was
done by the commission, to which the statute was entrusted, should enter
in force, prevailed. The arengo had lost its political power
completely, although it is named once again in the chapter entitled
"Defacientibus stridorem in arengo" (Prohemium f. l). According to
this decree, the arengo might be convoked by the podestà, but
nowhere is it stated that the arengo should
[99] have any function. The decree was
written against individuals who might try to break the assembly convoked
for the populari of Piran to listen to the orders of the podestà.
Obviously the Major Council was behind the podestà's orders. Although
the decree has been repeated in all the preserved issues of the statute
of Piran, in the last issue it acquired a completely new importance. It
is evident that the disputes between the Major Council and the podestà
resolved in the favour of the former.
That aside, the statute from 1384 is the most scrupulously organised of
all the statutes of Piran from the 14th century. It appears as if the
authors had in their minds the structure of the 1274 issue, and imitated
it in some aspects, although with different purposes and content. The
first volume is dedicated entirely to the authorities and administrative
bodies. Besides the Major Council, the jurats (indices comunis),
the town chancellor (cancelario comunis), the chamberlain
(camemrio comunis), valuers (iusticiarii), fontegarii, cathauerii,
doorkeepers, lawyers, heralds and vicedominos, mentioned in
previous issues, in this one we also come across inspectors of streets
and the coast, inspectors of villages, custodians of ecclesiastic
properties and the Minor Council, unknown to the previous statutes
written in the 14th century. We also come across several clauses dealing
with voting; that is, with electing administrators and members of the
Major Council. In spite of the fact that the number of the members in
the Major Council had been limited up to that time, a solution was found
for admitting in the council all adult members of those families who had
participated in the closure and had not yet disappeared or moved or lost
their membership in any other way. Normally a deceased member was
replaced by the voting in of a replacement. This procedure was nothing
new, but the present statute changed it significantly. The so-called
vote was anything but legal. There was a hat on the podestà's table and
as many ballots in it as the number of councilors present. The number of
golden ballots corresponded to the number of commanding officials the
election required and the number of silver ballots corresponded to the
number of administrative officials required. In the case of the election
of a new member or members, the corresponding number of golden ballots
was introduced into the hat. The person who received the golden or gilt
ballot had the right to name one person from amongst the members of
patrician families whom he
[100] regarded "worthy" of the honour
of becoming a councilor. The person elected into the Major Council by
this procedure could become a member if he had reached the age of 20.
The same procedure held true for the election of clerks. But the newly
raised nobility wanted to achieve the right of all adult noblemen to
become members of the Major Council. For this reason every son from a
noble family who had reached the age of 25 could present himself to the
podestà and claim his membership rights. After the rights had been
approved, the Major Council had to elect him, meaning that he was
granted membership more or less automatically. This procedure obviously
led to the violation of the membership limit. In the first half of the
15<h century the number 100 was more or less respected. In the following
years, the Major Council counted 120 or even more members. The rule that
the majority should have four fifths, meaning 80 votes, in order that a
bill be passed, apparently protected the rights of the weaker families.
Notwithstanding that appearance, weaker families were gradually left
aside. Although the regulation explicitly excluded all possibilities of
new families being elected among the members, two new families were
granted membership approximately at that time: the family della Torre
and the family De Castro. Undoubtedly the first one was accepted for its
wealth, the second in order to finally incorporate the Kastinjol fief
into the municipal area.
The second and third volumes of the statute include penal law. It is
obvious that some of the laws had changed since 1307. Some laws had been
annulled, others transferred to different volumes. Civil law, mainly
chapters referring to protection of property, begins in the fourth
volume. The fifth volume continues the previous subject, laying stress
on debts, foreigners and guarantees (conf. Gestrin, 1978). In the sixth
volume there are some regulations about contracts of sale; further on,
there are several regulations dealing with exchanging, auctioning,
donating, alienating and dividing property. In the seventh book
regulations about inheritance, guardianship and protection of minor
orphaned heirs' property are collected. The eighth volume deals with
house rents, some particular types of trade with meat, bread, wine,
olive oil and fruit. In this volume regulations forbidding gambling
(conf. Mihelic, 1993), on protection of the municipal property, measures
and weights are gathered. The ninth volume enacts works on farms in the
Savudrian karst, works in vineyards, salt marshes and olive oil
[101] mills and declares obligations of the colonus
towards his master. In addition, there are two regulations on notaries
(conf. Darovec, 1994) and some other, less important regulations.
Finally the tenth volume deals with fishing, fish reservations and
preserves and fish inspectors; further on with safeguarding of
vineyards, feasts and lending arms to foreigners. Here regulations that
the statute should be written in two counterparts and that it should be
renewed every 25 years are stated, together with some other regulations
about refugees, taxes on articles of consumption and others (conf.
Darovec, 2004). It is easy to notice that the statute written in 1384
has its regulations organised in a logical order, as opposed to those
dating from 1307 to 1358, which included new regulations replacing those
annulled or joined together in a special chapter in those statutes.
Several regulations protecting the poor and casual workmen were included
in the statute by the Major Council. It should especially be mentioned
that the commune of Piran, after bad experiences with bankers,
prohibited lending money at interest until 1348, a year marked by pest.
The prohibition is also mentioned in the statute from 1358. The
regulation about lending money imposed a penalty of loss of capital and
a fine of 30 "lira", 12 "soldi" and 6 "denar". The prohibition is
repeated in the 1384 statute, reducing the fine to 25 "lira", while the
penalty of losing one's capital still remained. But if the authors of
the 1354 statute had elaborated the regulation to render it "concise",
in 1384 they did away with concision, and, consequently, they made the
regulation less severe. The new regulation is even milder because all
workers and Piran's casual workmen were exempted from it, "qui non
subiacent huic statute".
Although lending money was still prohibited, probably it was precisely
this regulation that enabled Jews to settle in Piran. These, in
different circumstances and with different rates of interest, replaced
the former bankers from Florence. This indicates that the municipality
could not survive without people lending money. The hypothesis becomes
quite logical if we think that especially ship owners and merchants
needed loans and cash. The settlement of Jews in Piran may therefore be
considered as ancillary to the proliferation of the expansion of credit
operations on the coast as well as in the hinterland (conf. Persic,
1975; 1977; 1984). The abovementioned regulation was in force until the
end of the Republic of Venice.
[102] While reading the
introduction to the 1384 statute, the reader may soon notice a wish,
expressed by the members of the statutory commission, that statutes
should be written in an elegant style (Prohemi-um f. 1). It appears that
the Council of the Sage wanted to relieve the prevailing monotony of all
the earlier issues. Every earlier regulation besides those regarding
governing and oaths, which needed to be pronounced explicitly by members
of the Major Council or by municipal governing and administrative
bodies, began with "statuimus". The Council of Sages, creating
the last statute of Piran in the 14th century, avoided the monotony by
replacing
"statuimus" with corresponding synonyms, as for example "mandamus",
"ordinamus", "jubemus", "flrmamus", etc. The true author of the
statute was striving to formulate clauses in such a way that he would
not need to repeat synonyms. For instance, he also used the forms
"volumus", "providimus", "disposuimus", "prohibemus", "censimus
providendum", "constitu-imus", "addimus", "declaramus" etc. Further
on, he used forms such as "teneantur", "obsewetur", "eligantur",
"eligi debeant", "habeat lib-ertatem eligi", etc. The old verb
"statuimus"
is here expressed by 41 different verbs, 36 of which are verbs of
command. But this author had another plan in mind, as well. The fact
that the abovementioned verbs do not always appear at the beginning of
each regulation, meaning that the author of the statute did not cling to
the usual form repeated by the earlier authors, who had stuck to the
verb
"statuimus", confirms this supposition. -statuimus' was used by
the creator of the present statute almost exclusively in the fourth
volume, in which 20 out of 21 regulations start in the usual way.
Similarly, he used the verb "mandamus" in the third volume. The
second volume is more interesting from the stylistic point of view, for
the verb "ordinamus" is used only once. In all the remaining
regulations, the principal verb has been replaced by the adverb "item".
These few examples are sufficient demonstration that the scribe of the
1384 statute wanted to create something new. For this reason it would be
worth examining his style in detail. The richness of his syntax, of
which he makes good use, especially by using the inverted word order, is
surprising. For example: "avium pauperum et habitatorum nostrorum
miserentes, ordinamus", etc., or "Carceratis subvenientes
statuimus", etc. These are still among the most simple formulations.
More complicated, for instance, is "Solvere expensas qui eorum
[103] causa
fuerit clignum noscitur, quare providimus"
or "Ad hoc ut cives et habitatores Pirani
causam habent labomndi super temtorio comunis Pimni, mandamus", and
the like. Such extraposition is not always necessary. Sometimes the main
verb stands on the beginning of the clause. Sometimes the only particle,
preceding the verb, is an adjective or an adverb.
Writing down all the initial letters of all regulations in order to
find out why the notary, who gave the final shape to the text, decided
on this unconventional use of grammar, revealed a surprise. If the
"Council of the Sages" decided to remodel the statute, in order that it
would not sound so dry and dull as all the preceding issues had sounded,
this had to be done. But the notary, of whom the linguistic creation of
the text and its final image depended, outsmarted the Council of the
Sages and - probably for the first time in the history of the writing of
statutes on the eastern Adriatic coast - produced an acrostic. The
initial letters of all the regulations from the first volume (including
the introduction) make up the following clause: GRACIA SANCTI SPIRITVS
ASSIT PRINCIR that is: The mercy of the Holy Ghost be present at the
beginning', PRINCIP being an abbreviation for principio.
Regarding the practice, applied in the second, third, and fourth volume,
described in the present text, we should expect that the notary would
continue in the same way. The fifth volume illustrates the notary's
determination to prove to the reader that he could write the statute
successfully without needing to respect a certain word order. Twelve
different initials were used in 42 chapters; the letter U, occasionally
used also instead of a y has been used eight times, the letter C six
times, N five times, O and P four, E, I and S three, Q and L twice and A
and B once. The same holds true for the tenth volume, where the initials
do not obey any particular kind of order. However, the tenth volume
yields a surprise: the initials of all the 32 clauses sum up the
following sentence: MARCUS CAVIANO SCRIPSIT HOC STATVTVM - 'Marko
Caviano wrote this statute'. Thus the scribe and the linguistic creator
of the 1384 issue of the statute of Piran revealed his name and surname.
According to the introduction, Mark Caviano was one of the "sages"; that
is, one of the authors of the statute. The sentences about him tell us
that he was a notary, and surely a good one. The entire structure of the
statute, especially the acrostics, is evidence that, by following this
unusual procedure, he wanted to immortalise
[104] his name, as he succeeded in doing - discretely yet
excellently. The initials of regulations, included in the seventh
volume, sum up the complete Latin alphabet from A to U. Regarding the
fact that in the text he always used a Z instead of a C, and also a U
instead of a V the acrostic sums up a complete alphabet, or better, the
initials sum up a perfect alphabetical acrostic, probably inspired by
oriental texts. Three regulations were left out of the acrostic; he
decided to begin them with initials A (Addimus), I (Iuris)
and C (Carere). That was carried out in a perfect way, too.
Finally, if we sum up the initials of the eighth and the ninth volume
and read them top-to bottom, as was intended by Caviano, we get the
fourth acrostic, which runs as follows: GERIVS BANC), PETRVS DE SALONO,
EGORGIVS DE MAFEO CAPITA STATVTARIORVM (George Bano, Peter de Salono,
George de Mafeo, leaders among the authors of the statute).
Like Mark Caviano, these three were members of the "Council of the
Sages". Gerius Bano was called Georgius in the introduction of the
statute
(Prohemium). In the same introduction, the surname of Peter de
Salono was de Asalono. Given the number of regulations in both volumes,
Caviano had to choose abbreviated forms. When giving shape to George de
Mafeo, Caviano made the mistake of mixing up the order of two
regulations, so that the acrostic reads Egorgius instead of Georgius.
The question arises whether the Major Council or at least the "Council
of the Sages" knew what the notary Caviano was doing as the leading
scribe. There is no indication that they did. All that can be said is
that the acrostics were noticed neither by Lorenzo Appolonio, who
transcribed the statute in 1542, nor Nicolo Petronio Caldana, who
prepared the statute together with his own Italian translation for the
publication in 1606. The fact that both read VOLUMUS where they should
have read NOLUMUS proves it. (Besides, they committed other, quite
serious errors while reading the text.) The acrostics also went
unnoticed by later writers of the history of Piran: Luigi Morteani,
Pietro Kandler and Camillo de Franceschi. So it seems that the acrostics
in the last book of statutes of Piran of the 14th century were Caviano's
secret. Be that as it may, these facts make the 1384 issue of the
statute of Piran an authentic linguistic and graphic masterpiece (conf.
Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXI-LXII; Stari StatUti, 1988, 28-32).
[105]
ABOUT THE CODEX
The parchment codex with folio dimensions 31 x 21.5 cm (arcus 31 x 43
cm) is a unique example. The actual structure of the codex is not
original: instead of the missing folios, sixteen unnumbered pages, made
of paper, of 30 x 21, 5 cm format (that is, folios of 30 x 45 cm
format), written in Humanistic Cursive Script, have been inserted into
the codex. They include a detailed list of additions to the statute,
followed by the index (pp. 7-10) of the first and second volumes, a list
of feasts (De foestivitatibus observances capitulum pp. 11 -12)
and the third, fourth and a part of the fifth volume's indices ( pp.
13-16). An unnumbered folio with a resting part of the fifth volume's
index and the sixth and seventh volume's indices follow. Two paper
sheets from folios, including pages 13-14 and 15-16 follow, including
the eight, ninth and tenth volume's indices. The following paper sheet
of the same format includes most of the introduction to the statute. The
missing folio with part of the introduction was numbered 1, for original
folios follow, numbered from 2 to 148, and finally one unnumbered folio.
The first eleven quinternium were bound, then a bin-ium, then an
uncompleted trinium (with ff. before 115 and between 115' and 116 cut
off). Then came a binium, with the folio for f. 120' cut off. The codex
ends with three quinternium, the last of them being incomplete: the last
folio has been excluded from the codex. The codex is bound in two wooden
cases 1 -1.2 cm wide, lined with brown cloth, the same as the other two
copies of the statute, preserved in Piran, and has a stick with data:
Volumen Statutomm et Correctionum Com (munitatis) Pirhani 1384, the
signature 3/V.
The codex starts with an index and an introduction, followed by the
first volume of the statute (ff. 2-29), than the second (ff. 29'-35),
the third (ff. 35-40), the fourth (ff. 40'-44'), the fifth (ff.
44'-60'), the sixth (ff. 61-74), the seventh (ff. 74'-90'), the eighth
(ff. 90'-99), the ninth (ff. 99-107) and the tenth (ff. 107-114'). What
follows on ff. 114'-147' are several regulations from the period between
the beginning of the 15<h century and 1588, mixed with transcriptions of
the ducali. The text of the 1384 statute is written in a splendid
Gothic Bookhand Minuscule, adorned with beautiful initials in several
colours at the beginning of each volume. Titles of the volumes, making
up the fragment of index, rubrics, including singular volume and clause
titles, [106]
and Roman numerals for each of the clauses appear in decorative red ink.
The text itself is written with black ink, faded and damaged by abrasion
in many spots. The sheets, substituting folios, which have been torn out
of the original, are written in a uniform Humanistic Cursive Script with
ink, while the additions at the end of the codex are written in
different scripts, from Gothic Cursive to several types of Humanistic
Cursive.
The codex in general is preserved in a worse state than the rest of
codices in the archive of Piran; it can be compared with the issues
preserved in the Arcivio Diplomatico in Trieste. Many folios, the empty
ones as well as those written on, have been cut out. The text also has
some other lesions: text on ff. 2-2' and 3 recto is rather damaged by
abrasion, the right lower corner of f. 6 has been torn off, part of the
text at the right lower corner of f. 14 is torn, there is a hole in f.
17. A stain under the initial letter Q at the beginning of the fourth
volume (f. 40) make the last five lines of the text on f. 40 and on the
opposite 41 recto more difficult to read. The right lower corner of f.
48 is torn diagonally, while f. 49 is torn from the lower edge towards
the middle of the page, thus making an inverted V shape. F. 67 is torn
from the lower edge towards the middle of the page, the right lower
corner was cut out, but both lesions have been restored. There is a
small hole on the lower edge of f. 98, the right upper corner is cut out
in an L shape, also ff. 102 and 104 have small holes, a part of
parchment has been cut out off the lower part of f. 114.
F. 148 recto has been left empty, but the writing scheme is still
visible, as it is also in some other places. There is information
written on f. 148' that the codex was restored in 1578, in the time of
the podestà Andrea Balbi, because time had ruined it quite badly
(uetustate consumption). The judices, syndicus, both
vicedominos,
the secretary and the military commander (comiles domini potestatis)
of Piran at the time are listed. There are some writings and sentences
from 1587 on f. /149/, the author being Cezar Prat, the secretary of
Piran at that time, while on f. /149'/ there are exercises in
calligraphy, the beginning of the writing and some sentences, written
down in the time of the podestà Piero Giustiniani by his secretary,
Baldissero Guidozzo. The sentence "Non decet principem totam stertere
noctem" (It does not befit to an emperor to snore all night"),
(conf. Pahor & Sumrada, 1987, LXXXIII-LXXXIV and Stari statuti, 1988,
91-92) is particularly humorous.
[107] For all the reasons
discussed, it is easy to agree with the decision to choose to publish
the 1384 issue of the statute of Piran as the first edition of a
facsimile of a statute. Not only is this issue a unique exemplary, it is
also the last complete issue of statutes of Piran, an issue which sums
up and gives a new order to all the existing law of Piran and to all
customs, developed by a particular juridical system and a particular
civilisation. And it is an artistic masterpiece, with ingenious, hidden
and direct witticisms. We hand over this edition, as faithfully
reproduced as we could manage, believing that it may revive the interest
in such cultural monuments in all public spheres.
Piran, the 8th July 2006
Editors' note: This is an inaccurate and
misleading statement since Piran, Istria was not part of Slovenia before
the recent breakup of Yugoslavia.
Source:
- Založba Annales, 2006 -
http://www.heartofistria.hr. © All rights reserved.
|