engleski

Ragusan views of Venetian Rule (1205-1358)

Venetian rule in Dubrovnik between 1205 and 1358 did not threaten the fundamental institutions of the commune, so it can be said that the autonomy of the city was at least partially preserved. However, Venetian rule cannot be described as merely nominal. Venetian tutelage over Dalmatia between the twelfth and the fourteenth century proved less firm than in the century that followed. Yet, even in this earlier period Venice exhibited its strength by ensuring a more favourable commercial position in the Mediterranean. In the second half of the 13th century the power balance in Dubrovnik changed significantly. Dubrovnik’s economic growth spurred its desire for independence, but also added tensions to the relations with Venice. Territorial issues, control of revenues and local administration, as well as trade restrictions remained the main points of dispute. The accounts of the Ragusan chronicles (Anonymous, Nikola de Ragnina, Ludovicus Cerva Tubero, Seraphino Razzi, Mavro Orbini, Jacob de Luccari, Junius de Resti, Seraphino Cerva) mainly focus on the early years of Venetian suzerainty, and somewhat less on its end. In doing so, they tend to veil Dubrovnik’s inferior position and shift the glory of their Republic to earlier centuries. For that reason, they belittle the significance and the accomplishments of the Venetian count and councils or describe the acceptance of Venetian rule as a prudent choice of the Ragusans themselves. They substantiate this claim with the story of count Damjan Juda, which interpreted the submission of Dubrovnik to as resistance to tyranny and civic disunity. Ragusan tradition fosters a two-sided, contradictory attitude towards Venetian rule. On the one hand, the chronicles stress that Venice did not truly rule over Dubrovnik, but only sent its count, while the political power lay in the hands of the nobility. At the same time, they provide a contradictory picture, depicting the period of Venetian rule as the time of tyranny and injustice, against which Ragusans rebelled and managed to overthrow on a number of occasions. As witnessed by chroniclers, the shift of Dalmatian cities under the rule of Louis I in 1358 was as a triumph and liberation. They speak of the liberation of Dubrovnik from the Venetians, of the freedom and peace in the city under the rule of their own rectors and the protection of King Louis I. Acceptance of Hungarian rule was not only desirable but the only possible choice for Dubrovnik. Under nominal protection of the crown of St. Stephen, from then on Ragusan nobility was granted the right to choose the count by themselves, bring laws, control the army and police, and run the city’s internal and foreign affairs. Upon the recognition of the Hungarian crown, the international position of Dubrovnik saw a fundamental change. The city became an important political factor not only to the Hungarian king and Venice, but also to the pope, Dalmatian cities, strengthened Bosnia, and the lords from the hinterland, strengthened by the weakening and decay of Serbia. In the centuries following the Visegrad Treaty, political relations between the Republics of Dubrovnik and Venice were subject to oscillation, but in the other fields they blossomed. Although the two republics were constantly on the verge of conflict, economic relations were always maintained. Remaining loyal to the Hungarian crown, Dubrovnik never discontinued its relations with Venice. Alongside seafaring and trade, similar social relations and cultural atmosphere of that part of the Mediterranean contributed significantly to their closeness.

Dubrovnik, Venice, Adriatic, Middle Ages, chronicles

nije evidentirano