Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service in the First Half of the Fifteenth Century

Father and Son at the Court of Duke Sandalj Hranić

Valentina Zovko

One of the signi#$cant characteristics of the Ragusan foreign afairs during the medieval period was avoiding armed con%&icts. When the authorities did not manage to implement this endeavour, diplomacy played an important role in attempts to end them and insure damage reparations. In the #$rst half of the #$fteenth century the city of Dubrovnik was involved in Ragusan- Bosnian war (1403-1404) and the War of Konavle (1430-1433). During both con%&icts the government turned for help to Duke Sandalj Hranić of . During the #$rst war, duke was in the process of rising to his fame, and the ending of this particular war, that brought Ostoja’s dethronisation and the fall of the Sanković family, marked Hranić’s rise to power. During the second war he was the key partner in Dubrovnik`s plan of destroying the hostile family Pavlović of Bosnia. The importance of Duke Sandalj for the outcome of these con%&icts sets the assumption that the government carefully took into account to select the most skilled noble for a holder of the mission. Marin, son of Ni#$ko de Gondula (around 1355-1405) 1 and his son Benedict (around 1390-1446) 2 received this con#$dence. It is interesting to notice that almost none of them had had an earlier experience in the service. 3 On the other hand, they took advantage of the ‘symbolic capital’ of their predecessors that enjoyed high political and social reputations in ful#$lling diplomatic missions. Marin’s father, Ni#$ko de Gondula (around 1315-1355), 4 was Ragusan ambassador to the Emperor Uroš IV Dušan of in 1346, and two years

1 National archive in Dubrovnik (henceforth: DADu), Testamenta Notariae (henceforth: Test Not.), ser. 10.1, vol. IX, f. 72v-73v (12 January 1405). 2 DADu, Test. Not., vol. XIV, f. 48v-50r (11 December 1446). 3 Marin was sent on a mission in Kotor during 1391. Cf. Bariša Krekić, ‘Contribution to the Study of the Ragusan Presence in Venice in the Fourteenth Century’, Dubrovnik Annals 5 (2001), pp. 249-255, 258. 4 DADu, Test. Not., vol. III, f. 27v-28v. € VALENTINA ZOVKO later, he was engaged as an ambassador in Venice. 5 His brother Nicholas (around 1345-around 1411) 6 was the rector of Dubrovnik more than ten times and a holder of diplomatic missions to the king of Hungary-Croatia, ban of Dalmatia and dukes of Serbia. 7 From the nominee’s perspective, it was harder to #$nd a candidate willing to apply for the tasks that were very hard to achieve. Although the election of Marin de Gondula went smoothly, 8 the ambassador to Sandalj’s court in April 1430 was elected after the fourth attempt. Đore de Goçe, Theodor de Prodanello and Clement de Resti declined the proposal, 9 which was, in the end, accepted by Marin’s son Benedict. 10 Even though he was not the government’s #$rst choice, they were probably counting on Duke Sandalj remembering his father’s mission a little more than two decades earlier. Besides that, many years of experience as Dubrovnik’s consul and judge in gave him a lot of knowledge and connections in Bosnia, which could also bene#$t his election. 11 After his return home we can follow his

5 Imgrid Manhken, Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [The Ragusan Patriciate], vol. 1 (Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1960), p. 269. 6 DADu, Test. Not., vol. IX, f. 157v-159r. 7 Nenad Vekarić, Vlastela grada Dubrovnika [The Nobility of the City of Dubrovnik], vol. 2, Vlasteoski rodovi [The Noble Kindreds] (Zagreb/Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2012), p. 305. 8 Marin de Gondula won 29 votes and 31 members were present in the Senate. DADu, Refor- mationes (henceforth: Ref.), ser. 2, vol. XXXII, f. 152v (23 June 1403). 9 DADu, Acta Consilii Rogatorum (henceforth: Cons. Rog.), ser. 3, vol. IV, f. 150v (27 April 1430). 10 He achieved result of seventeen ‘for’ and seven votes ‘against’ (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v; 27 April 1430). 11 DADu, Acta Consilii Minoris (henceforth: Cons. Minus), ser. 5, vol. I, f. 24r (6 May 1415); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 114v (4 February 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 116v (9 February 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 123r (13 March 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 128v (16 April 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 135v (13 May 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 154v (10 September 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 162v (2 November 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 167r (22 November 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 172r (20 December 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, vol. II, f. 55r (5 April 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 65v (30 May 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 68v (10 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 69r (16 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 70v (20 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 75r (21 July 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 83r (15 September 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 108r (31 January 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 117r (11 March 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 123r (13 April 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 125v (20 April 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 145v (30 August 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 153r (21 October 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 156r (7 November 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 162v (7 December 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 220r (15 October 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 221v (23 October 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 226v (13 November 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 243r (24 January 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 252r (26 February 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 255r (10 March 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, vol. III, f. 198v (8 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 199v (15 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 200r (25 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 201v (24 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 209r (22 March 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 220v (30 April 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 225r (24 May 1425), etc. He continues to perform those duties constantly until 1427 (ser. 5, vol. IV, f. 81r; 1 April 1427). DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE ! career as a customs o#$cer in 1428, 12 and salt mines supervisor in 1429. 13 The fact that Benedict was elected shortly after he was nominated as a holder of a mission to Duke Gregory Nikolić shows that authorities had no idea who should represent their interests in front of Sandalj. Actually, Duke Gregory was Sandalj’s vassal, thus that embassy was less important than the one sent to his senior. 14 In the end, the number of votes that Benedict won was less than sixteen, which meant that he was automatically out of the elections and available for other functions. 15 With this in mind it might seem that the members of the Senate did not think that he was a suitable candidate for the challenging tasks at Sandalj’s court, but in the end, it proved wrong.

The duration of the embassy – the goals of the ambassador

One of the most important duties for both ambassadors was to persuade Duke Sandalj to act according to Dubrovnik’s interests. The duration of their services had a large efect on the number and the type of the tasks entrusted to them, as on the freedom they enjoyed in achieving their goals. Marin’s mission had a noticeable ad hoc character. His primary duty was to carry out the message from the government contained in the text of instruction. After that his mandate ended regardless of the #$nal outcome of a mission. Because of the limited scope of the tasks entrusted to him and his inability to step out and speak on his own, he stayed on a mission for only nine days. 16 On the other hand, the duration of Benedict’s mission could not be foreseen, because it depended on the wider context in which the negotiations took place. He remained in the service for more than a year. 17 Although he stayed in the embassy much longer, he did not have much more freedom in acting than his father. His powers were restricted to the sphere of oratory skills while the main terms of the negotiation were dictated by the Senate. For some important questions, the city fathers even

12 DADu, Acta Consilii Maioris (henceforth: Cons. Maius), ser. 4, vol. IV, f. 6r (16 December 1428). 13 DADu, Cons. Maius, vol. IV, f. 34r (14 May 1429). 14 That was also con#$rmed at the level of a poorer salary of the elected ambassador and his retinue. In other words, the ceremonial signi#$cance of that mission was less important. DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v (27 April 1430). 15 See: Nella Lonza, ‘Izborni postupak Dubrovačke Republike’ [Election Procedure of the Republic of Dubrovnik], Anali Dubrovnik 38 (2000), p. 28. 16 He was elected on 23 June 1403 (DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 152v) and recalled on 2 July 1403 (DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 155v). 17 He was elected on 27 April 1430 (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v) and recalled at the beginning of April 1431 (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 283). " VALENTINA ZOVKO ordered him dobiate dire ,18 which indicated that he should literally quote their attitude towards the matter. His personal interventions peaked during oral persuasion when he was given the right to use the arguments, which he found to be most suitable in the particular context. 19 One of the diferences between the embassies of the father and the son was in the type and the range of the entrusted tasks. While Marin #$rst and foremost tried to gain dukes’ support in Dubrovnik’s con%&ict with King Stjepan at the beginning of the #$fteenth century, 20 Benedict performed diferent type of duties which were not all so closely connected with his main goal (which was to ensure Sandalj’s participation in the military alliance against Duke Radoslav). According to need, he intervened for Dubrovnik’s traders that were on their way to Apulia, 21 he mediated in the removal of complaints from the customs o#$cers, 22 he asked for the duke’s advice and company of his man for ambassadors who were sent to the Sublime Porte, 23 he complained about the city’s material and human losses on the #$eld of Trebinje, 24 and he did not neglect to ask for the return of the goods and the equipment. 25 As a matter of fact, it is interesting that he did not just intervene for the interest of the community he was representing, but also on behalf of his host. The Senate was willing to ful#$l diferent demands from Sandalj to gain his support and Benedict mediated in those cases. On some occasions, he was openly engaged in favour of Duke Sandalj, which made an impression that he was in his service. For instance, he delivered to the government the list of symptoms and pains that bothered him, and the city fathers tried to help him with advice and medication. 26 That kind of service led to forming a stronger and even intimate relationship, which could only contribute to the positive outcome of the eforts he invested. Whether Benedict was

18 DADu, Lettere di Levante (henceforth: Lett. di Lev.), ser. 27/1, vol. X, f. 157v (14 June 1430). 19 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 151r (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 161v (18 June 1430). 20 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v-29r (25 June 1403). 21 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 195v (16 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 197v (19 August 1430). 22 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153v (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). 23 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 200v (24 August 1430). 24 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 148r (7 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153v (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 157r (14 June 1430). 25 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 43r (28 February 1431); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 20v (10 March 1431). 26 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 180r (14 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 184v (27 July 1430). Cf. Esad Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda bosanski Sandalj Hranić Kosača [Great Duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača] (Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju, 2009), p. 328, note 1179. DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE # awarded for his services remains unknown. The truth is that the Senate was very anxious about their ambassadors receiving gifts, because they saw it as a threat to their loyalty, especially if they were not very motivated for the service from the very beginning. Because of that, the government issued a short decree in 1439, and then a strict regulation in 1467, which forbade ambassadors from keeping all gifts, except for food and supplies. 27 The close relationship between Sandalj and Benedict was con#$rmed in the sources; the end of his service did not mean the break of their connec- tions. In April 1431 the duke ordered, through his ‘old acquaintance’, a silver pitcher from the goldsmith Živko Gojković for which Benedict paid twelve libras of #$ne silver. 28 Their former relationship, and bene#$ts that could be gained from it, was enough for the government to entrust Benedict another embassy to Duke Sandalj at the end of 1432. 29 Moreover, he remained con- nected with the Kosača family even after duke’s death in 1435. He was once more holder of an embassy to his nephew Stephen Vukčić in 1438, which, in a way, con#$rms his specialization for diplomatic relations with this family. 30 Benedict’s longer stay in a service, more freedom in performing duties and the increase in the range of tasks, compared with those that were given to his father, are the result of social and political changes that required the modi#$cations in diplomatic practices. All those factors carried their part in the further development and professionalisation of the service.

The costs of the embassy

Another noticeable diference between the embassies of the son and the father can be tracked through the aspect of costs. Marin was paid #$fteen perpers for his service, which is the sum that corresponds to the value of a present he brought for his host. On the other hand, Benedict received weight four times larger than his father (60 perpers) and gave a present to Sandalj to the value of 40 perpers. The total costs of his mission were enlarged by

27 Nella Lonza, Kazalište vlasti, ceremonijal i državni blagdani Dubrovačke Republike u 17. i 18. stoljeću [The Theatre of Authority, Ceremony and State Festivities of the Republic of Dubrovnik in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century] (Zagreb/Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2009), p. 218. 28 Cvito Fisković, ‘Dubrovački zlatari od XIII do XVII stoljeća’ [Ragusan Goldsmiths from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century], Starohrvatska prosvjeta III/1 (1949), p. 219. 29 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 122r (18 November 1432). 30 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XII, f. 110v (8 November 1438); Lett. di Lev., vol. XIII, f. 13r (7 March 1441). $ VALENTINA ZOVKO his retinue (six horses and four servants), 31 while his father did not have one. The servants were paid four perpers per month and the total costs of the mission were restricted to four and a half perpers per day. 32 Also the #$ne that ambassadors had to pay if they left the threshold of a city door before the set deadline without a valid reason, difered signi#$cantly. Thus, Marin was obliged to pay 50 33 and Benedict 120 pepers. 34 Besides the aforementioned expenses, the costs rose each and every day of the mission. For that reason, Benedict wrote to the government to send him additional funds. On one occasion the authorities sent him 100 perpers, 35 while on the other they told him to take a loan from Duke Sandalj, because they did not #$nd a secure way to transfer the money, due to war circumstances. 36 Benedict did what he was told, which can be proven by the instruction sent to him. The city fathers pointed out that they did not see the possibility of returning 200 perpers to the duke because of the unsecure routes. 37 Some other reasons for sending money from Dubrovnik are also noted. They were often involved with the purchase of new horses for the ambas- sador and his retinue. In one particular case Benedict complained that he did not receive the money for their purchase or rent. 38 The government was aware of that, because they wrote to him in September that he could buy or rent a new horse, because the one he currently had was ill. 39 Finally, that problem was solved when the ambassador rented two horses, and the government was obliged to pay the cost. 40 The impressive mobility of the ambassador, who was accompanying Duke Sandalj on his travels, probably in%&uenced the animal’s overall medical condition. His itinerary can be reconstructed out of the instructions which the government used to con#$rm the receipt of his letters, although not sys- tematically. Their analysis shows that he reported from eight diferent locations and changed his place of residence thirteen times. However, it

31 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430). 32 The #$nancial construction was done according to a mission to the king of Bosnia, which was approved the same day. That indicates the importance of Duke Sandalj for Dubrovnik’s foreign afairs (DADu, Cons. Rog ., vol. IV, f. 149v-150r; 27 April 1430). 33 DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 153r (24 June 1403). 34 DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 150r (27 April 1430). 35 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 43r (28 February 1431). 36 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430). 37 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 195v (16 August 1430). 38 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). 39 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 205v (24 August 1430). 40 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 141v (27 May 1430). DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE % does not seem impossible to assume that actual number was even higher. To illustrate, from 15 September 1430 when he was in Nevesinje until 1 January 1431 when he wrote from Ključ, we cannot follow his motions. For this reason, it is possible to assume that in a period of 109 days he changed his residence at least once or even more. In fact, there is also a possibility that not all of his letters have been registered because they never arrived at their destination. On the contrary, his father went from Dubrovnik to Sutorina, and from there returned home. 41 Consequently we can stress the increased mobility of the ambassadors as one more noticeable diference between their services. Moreover, Benedict was obliged to follow his host. One of the motives for that could be connected with the necessity to be at ‘the source of information’ the whole time. 42 He was reporting news consciously, so the government had to provide him funds for writing on multiple occasions, which also in%&uenced on total expenses of the mission. 43 In the end, it should be emphasized that the rise of costs of the embassies over time also increased because their persuasion methods changed. While Marin relied mostly on tradition, charters and old customs, 44 Benedict supported his demands with money and other forms of material awards, which became much more convincing in the time he belonged. 45

Reporting

Changes that afected Dubrovnik’s diplomatic services at the beginning of the #$fteenth century were clearly con#$rmed by the fast-growing cor- respondence between the ambassadors and the city government. For instance, Marin had received only one instruction, and that is where all the

41 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403). 42 That also proves an example of the ambassador Nicholas de Resti who was appointed at the court of king of Bosnia. DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 144v (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 160v (18 June 1430). 43 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 175r (1 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 178v (7 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 196r (16 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2v (18 September 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6v (30 September 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 9v (7 November 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (22 November 1430). 44 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403). 45 Valentina Zovko, Uloga poklisara u širenju teritorija Dubrovačke Republike na zaleđe (krajem 14. i početkom 15. stoljeća) [The Role of Ambasadors in the Spread of the Territory of the Republic of Dubrovnik to its Hinderland (at the End of the Fourteenth and the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century)], unpublished doctoral thesis (Zagreb: Centre of Croatian Studies of University of Zagreb: 2012), pp. 204-206. & VALENTINA ZOVKO correspondence ended. On the other hand, during Benedict’s embassy the Senate con#$rmed reception of his 49 reports and sent him 42 instructions. This imbalance can be somewhat explained with the changes in recogni- tion of the importance of recent information. Although the government gave Marin orders to ‘seek for advice and gather useful information’ from Sandalj, 46 during the embassy of his son fresh news had a central role. For sure the importance of adequate reaction to the dynamic needs of everyday life was recognised. Thus, it is not surprising that the government often requested from Benedict new reports about his #$ndings. 47 The city fathers were generally satis#$ed with his involvement in that speci#$c task, 48 but in some cases, they did show their dissatisfaction. The Senate complained that he did not respond to two of their letters from 20 and 23 June, which put them in the uncomfortable position towards Duke Sandalj. 49 The problems in the communication could have been afected by diferent circumstances caused by war and uncertainties that were common for medieval travels. 50 The most dangerous thing for ‘information leakage’ was the violent seizure of the information during its travel to the recipient. Because of that, Dubrovnik’s government noti#$es their ambassador to use a ‘safe way and a trusted messenger’ to send his report. 51 Their fear was con#$rmed by Benedict who expressed doubt that one of his letters did not arrive to Dubrovnik, but the government removed that suspicion. 52 Even Duke Sandalj expressed his doubt that one of the letters, thanks to Radoslav Pavlović, got in the hands of the Ottomans, which just con#$rms that there were no limits in actions to retrieve the information during the time of crisis. 53

46 DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 154v (29 June 1403). 47 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430). 48 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 191v (12 August 1430). 49 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 170v, 171v (26 June 1430), 173r (30 June 1430). 50 For an example, see: Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda , p. 397, note 1470. 51 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). Diferent couriers, some of them namely, reliable Dubrovnik citizens and one Vlach are mentioned as carriers of the correspondence. Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 187v (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 9v (7 November 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (22 November 1430). 52 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v: Lo responder nostro a voi fatto, ben vi doueua leuar lo dubio il qual pigliate de la lettera vostra fatta adi 5 che non fosse riceputa per noi. Ma ancora per renderui piu certo vi dicemo che tanto quella fo fatta a 5 quanto a 10 reciuessimo ambe duo (12 August 1430). Cf. Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda , p. 302, note 1068. 53 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 187r: Et per lo dubio pia voiuoda per la informacion a luy data, che una lettera nostra sia inuolata, ad uno nostro corier, a venuta alle man de Radossau, et per esso mandata allo imperador Turcho, dite a voiuoda sia de bon animo e di çio non pia dubio algun DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE '

Problems in corresponding were also noted in the other direction. De- spite the eforts put into sending information for action to the ambassador on time, 54 the process of sending messages from Dubrovnik had its troubles too. That is why the government expressed concerns that their letter from 1 July was not received by Benedict. 55 Benedict also complained that new instructions were late, which made his job much harder. The city fathers justi#$ed their late delivery with the complex procedure of making the new one, which cannot be done in such a short time. 56 In the end the factors that in%&uenced the instruction production in combination with speed in which the events occurred, sometimes resulted in the fact that the instruction was already outdated by the time it got to the ambassador. 57 Besides the obvious diferences in the extent of the reports that were sent by father and son to Dubrovnik, they are also visible in the matters of informing the host. For instance, Marin conveyed some news about the town events to Sandalj, 58 but Benedict did that much more often. Because of its geographical position Dubrovnik was the important crossroads of information exchange between East and West. By conveying informa- tion to duke, Benedict created the environment that could help him in achieving his goals. He reported to Sandalj about the con%&ict between Venice and Milan, 59 but also about the situation in other Italian towns, such as Lucca, Pisa, Genoa and Naples. 60 Thanks to the ambassador from Dubrovnik the duke had knowledge of the events in Austria, Germany and Czech lands. 61 He knew about the con%&ict between Aragon and Castile, and he heard about Barcelona and Valencia in that same context. 62 He also che per Dio gratia NOn ino nessuna lettera nostra non e perduta ne mal captata (1 August 1430). Cf. Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda , pp. 301-302. 54 DADu, Lett. di Lev. , vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430). 55 DADu, Lett. di Lev. , vol. X, f. 178r (7 July 1430). 56 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146v: Li marauigliate del tardare che voi direte faciamo a dare risposta alle vostre la qual molto bramate de auer con presteza. A questo vi dicemo che noi di qua molto siamo soliciti a risponderi sempre al bisogno, et non ne retardiamo… come voi ben sapete non si puo far con mancho che non si vada alli nostri consigli per consigliar sopra çio, e di puo bisogna fare le oQNOciali a formare la risposta (7 June 1430). 57 DADu, Lett. di Lev. , vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430). 58 For example, he informed Sandalj about the visit of ambassadors of the king of Bosnia to Dubrovnik on 15 May 1430 (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v). 59 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153r (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 198r (19 August 1430). 60 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 138r (18 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 198r (19 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2r (12 September 1430). 61 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2r (12 September 1430). 62 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430). €( VALENTINA ZOVKO had information about the work of the ambassadors of Dubrovnik at the Sublime Porte. 63 He heard about the death of the lord of Ilok. 64 He knew that Isa-bey went to Senta with the despot’s son and that they attacked the territories of Venice all the way to Shkodër. 65 Benedict regularly informed him about the events in his closer surroundings, for instance about the plague in Kotor 66 and Dubrovnik. 67 In that way, the ambassador was his ‘window to the world’. In return, Benedict used his extensive knowledge through seeking of advices. 68 We can conclude that Benedict wrote to the government not just about the progress of Dubrovnik’s plans concerning the con%&ict, 69 but on many other events in Bosnia. 70 He gained new information thanks to Duke Sandalj, but also to his men, 71 and other persons that were at the court at the same time. 72 The government expected him to obtain information about the events in which he participated, but also about those that he did not. 73 He was able to do that thanks to his network of associates, which was based on mutual trust. Certain information could be easily manipulated to feed the enemy misinformation. Due to that, Benedict had to be careful in the evaluation of their truthfulness. The government warned him on this matter when writing about the visit of the Armenian bishop who was on his way to Rome. 74 They underlined that the news of Venetian-Ottoman peace treaty was correct, because he was ‘the man that can be trusted’. 75 Diference in the interpretation of the value of the new information, and use of the new means and methods to obtain it, announced the appearance and future development of the secret diplomacy.

63 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 188r (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (2 September 1430). 64 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153r (10 June 1430). 65 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430). 66 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 188r (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192r (12 August 1430). 67 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10r (22 November 1430). 68 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430). 69 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 185v (27 July 1430). 70 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 154v (12 June 1430). 71 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 147v (7 June 1430). 72 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 148v (7 June 1430). 73 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 205r (24 August 1430). 74 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2v (18 September 1430). 75 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6v (18 September 1430). DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE €

Secret diplomacy

Even though there were signs of secret diplomacy in the earlier history of Dubrovnik, during the War of Konavle it became a structural part of the diplomatic practice. In a way, that can be explained by the necessity of hiding the methods of gathering information. On the whole, it is notice- able that these actions were used much more in that particular con%&ict compared to the city’s war with Ostoja at the beginning of the #$fteenth century. Obviously, the change of perception of the protagonists of the main world events contributed to the development of that practice. Above all, they were interested in their personal gain, which was built upon the current state of power, and not so much on the traditional foundations of the medieval world. ‘New values’, perhaps, are best con#$rmed by the action of Duke Sandalj who was willing to form a military alliance with Dubrovnik in order to destroy Duke Radoslav without the participation of the king of Bosnia. 76 Benedict did very well in the aforementioned boundaries of the ‘mental landscape’ of the world he was part of. He gathered information through spying and eavesdropping on the conversation that Sandalj had with important persons on his court. 77 He was even not afraid to destroy the material evidence that proved the conditions of forming the league against the Pavlović family, so it would not lead to possible protests and potentially unpleasant situations that could occur. 78 Hiding information concerning the compromises made for the Duke Sandalj became his ‘business routine’. 79 Occasional problems arose, because the government did not share all their information with Sandalj through their ambassador. Thus, his complaints about the inconsistency of the actions from Dubrovnik are not surprising, just like his accusations that they were hiding something from him. 80 The leaders of the city justi#$ed their actions by claiming that they did not receive

76 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 139r (27 May 1430). Even more unusual situation occurred when rumours of a possible coalition between Sandalj, Radoslav Pavlović and some other magnates of Bosnia directed against King Tvrtko II of Bosnia became visible. Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 21r (10 March 1431). 77 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 141v (27 May 1430). 78 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 180r (14 July 1430). 79 Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 135r: vi prega che de li ducati mille di quali vi honera la mia signoria, e della prouision ouer denari… et delle VI M yperperi… de queli che in comuni vi vogliamo tuore a prode non si debia far motto ne mencion alguna allo re ne anche ad altri, ma rimaxa secretto appresso di voi (13 May 1430). Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192r: per che noi siamo vostra credença et bon stara secreto quello aueti scritto (12 August 1439). 80 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6r (30 September 1430). €€ VALENTINA ZOVKO any news from their ambassador on the court of the king of Bosnia, which made it hard for them to come up with new conclusions. 81 Nevertheless, Du- brovnik also kept secrets in front of Tvrtko II, because on one occasion they decided to send someone to Duke Radoslav senza dare a sapere e fare noticia alla corona di Bosna. 82 An impression is formed that the relationship, into which they put a lot of efort, was standing on thin ice. In the background of the process stood personal interest, which was behind all actions.

Skills

As time passed by, the necessary skills which could be appointed to the phrase an ‘ideal ambassador’ changed. The list of desirable competences became much longer. Hence the government encouraged Benedict to be hard-working, 83 wise, 84 prepared 85 and eager in his convincing. Special attention was given to the ambassador’s oratory skills. 86 As a matter of fact Marin and Benedict devoted much attention to the selection of words that were supposed to help in creating the proper atmosphere. 87 This can be best observed during their opening speech to the duke. Benedict addressed him con singularissima carita, amicicia et devotione. 88 He %&attered him with expressions like prinipale e honoreuolo consigliero, cordialissimo amico e benefactore. His adulation was not reserved just for the host, but also for the other in%&uential individuals that were present at the court. 89 Words became the ‘universal tool’ that could help ambassadors to achieve their mission goals. However, the analyses of the verbal performance of Marin and Benedict show signi#$cant diferences. To be more convincing, both of them relied on diferent rhetorical #$gures to support their arguments. In addressing Sandalj they did not perceive the house he owned in Dubrovnik just as real-estate, but they gave a much broader meaning to it. He was obliged to defend Dubrovnik as

81 They suspected that the courier died on his way or maybe someone seized a letter from him. DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 5v (30 September 1430); Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda , p. 313, note 1118. 82 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430). 83 DADu, Lett. di Lev ., vol. X, f. 115v (30 April 1430). 84 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 127v (9 May 1430). 85 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 12r (7 December 1430). 86 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167r (20 June 1430). 87 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114v-115v (30 April 1430). 88 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 151r (10 June 1430). 89 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 161r (14 June 1430). DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE €! his home land. 90 All in all, Benedict used stylistic #$gures much more often than his father. That way he showed the required cultural knowledge and understanding of the changes that were happening in the world he lives in, which in the end left their mark on a linguistic level. His favourite rhetoric #$gure was metaphor. According to H. White, it re%&ects real life and marks the #$rst degree of the consciousness of the society. 91 This practice can be con#$rmed by the example when he showed the role of Duke Sandalj by using the image that the course and outcome of the con%&ict lay in his ‘hands and head’. 92 He especially loved to use metaphors out of the animal world. In that sense, he compared Duke Radoslav with pessimo serpente , whose poison, even though it is not always visible, is a constant threat. He also gladly used other rhetorical #$gures, like pars pro toto ,93 and the Slavic antithesis. 94 Both had a clear purpose: to provoke an emotional reaction of the audience. Furthermore, Benedict did actualize ‘topos’ which was in constant use from the beginning of the fourteenth century. 95 He moved the con%&ict with Duke Radoslav from the political to religious arena when he said that ‘catholic religion had no greater enemy than patharen Radoslav, who is more and more corrupted in his acts as his reign continues’. 96 It is interesting that Sandalj respected the place and the role of the in public life. As a matter of fact, he was tolerant towards it, so it is doubtful how much impact those words left on him. 97 To acquire the duke’s attention towards the interest of Dubrovnik Ma- rin and Benedict used to evoke the ‘committing role of history’. Benedict

90 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v-29r (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 115r (30 April 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 127v-128r (9 May 1403). 91 Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 72. 92 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r (30 April 1430). 93 This practice can be con#$rmed by the example when Benedict presented Duke Radoslav not just as an enemy of the city but also of the (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r; 30 April 1430). 94 This practice can be con#$rmed by the example when Benedict pointed out that Radoslav does not have even one friend and moreover he is not a friend to himself (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r; 30 April 1430). 95 More about, see: Lovro Končević, ‘Retorika granice kršćanstva u diplomaciji renesansnog Dubrovnika’ [The Rhetoric of the Border of Christendom in Renaissance Diplomacy of Du- brovnik], Anali Dubrovnik 48 (2010), pp. 179-211. 96 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 117r-117v (30 April 1430); Bariša Krekić, ‘Dva priloga bosanskoj historiji prve polovine petnaestog vijeka’ [The Two Contributions to Bosnian History of the First Half of the Fifteenth Century], Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne i Hercegovine 37 (1986), p. 139. 97 Sima Ćirković, ‘Bosanska crkva u bosanskoj državi’ [Bosnian Church in the Bosnian State], Prilozi za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovine 88 (1987), pp. 219, 222, 230. €" VALENTINA ZOVKO reminded Sandalj about the promise he gave to their ambassador Nicholas de Goçe more than twenty years ago that he would defend the city and take care of his progress. 98 Just like his father he did not pass the opportunity to mention the good relations between Dubrovnik and Sandalj’s predeces- sors. 99 In that way, city plans for the future relied on the past patterns, which were fragile in the present moment. In the end, those callings remained on the level of ‘past relics’ and did not have any signi#$cant efect.

Conclusion

Dubrovnik’s authorities put great hope in the work of their ambassadors Marin and his son Benedict de Gondula, who were sent on negotiations to Duke Sandalj during the two con%&icts that city was involved in in the #$rst half of the #$fteenth century. The changes that afected the world they worked in during the twenty-six year period had a great impact on the dip- lomatic service. While Marin #$ts in the medieval frame with his methods and working techniques, his son Benedict can be considered as a predictor of the early modern age of diplomacy. As a result, he stayed on a mission much longer than his father, had wider freedom in his acts, he did a wide range of tasks which concerns much more than just the primary goals of the mission, he collected information for the government in Dubrovnik, but he also passed them to his host, for which he did various private services, and he used #$ne rhetoric which rested upon education and knowledge of the afairs of the outside world. In conclusion, the #$nal result of the transformation meant implementation of the new methods and techniques, and required new skills and knowledge from the ambassador. In other words, he became specialized for a certain individual and his family. Accordingly, he created and nourished personal relationships with them, based upon mutual trust which contributed to the ful#$lling of his mission goals.

98 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 139v (27 May 1430). 99 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 113v (30 April 1430). DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE €# ,

Ibid . Rog., s , f. 283r, f. 283r, , , f. 153r, 153r, f. , ., vol. f e Con vol. IV, + . + vol. IV, 149v-150r, (27.4.1430.); Ibid (6.4.1431.) f. 155v, 155v, f. (2.7.) R XXXII, 152v, f. (23.6.1403.); Ibid (24.6.); Source 4.5 Daily costs limt/ perp. month of the retinue/ perp. Retinue HorsesSalary Present/ perp. o Duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača of Bosnia Kosača Sandalj Hranić o Duke Fine/ perp. Salary of the ambassa- dor/ perpers Days spent in a mission rged from duty 27.4.1430. 6.4.1431. 345 60 120 40 4 6 4 per 23.6.1403. 2.7.1403. 9 15 50 15 - - - - Elected Discha- Name of the ambassa- dor Benedict deGondula Marin de Gondula Appendix Table € embassy t and Marin’s of the Benedict’s Comparison €$ VALENTINA ZOVKO ., vol. X, v e , f. 127v f. , , f. 132v , f. , f. 136v f. , , f. 139r , f. , f. 145r f. , , f. 146v f. , , f. 151r , f. , f. 154r , f. , f. 156v f. , , f. 173r f. , , f. 170v , f. , f. 161v , f. , f. 166r , f. , f. 169r , f. tt. di L e f. 113r f. Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Source L Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Days spent waiting for reply - 0 3. 6. 6 Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik 20. 6. 3 26. 6. - Days the letter was on the way 3 6 - - 6 €"" 28. 5. 5 Dubrovnik 17. 6.17. 5 - - 26. 6. , pp. 459-462. 25. 5. Date of sending Received in 13. 6. 13. 18. 6. 18. 20. 6. Veliki vojvoda Cernica 5. 5. 5. 7. 2 5. 9. 2 Sutjeska 8. 5. 5. 11. 3 5. 13. 2 Sokol 5. 13. 5. 16. 3 5. 18. 2 - 5. 19. 5. 24. 5 5./28. 5. 27. 3/4 - - - - 30. 4. 1430. - Samobor Drina) (on 5. 23. Place from which the ambassador writes Samobor Drina) (on 5. 31. 6. 5. 5 6. 7. 2 Samobor Drina) (on 3. 6. 6. 7. 4 6. 10. 3 Samobor Drina) (on 6. 6. 6. 10. 4 6. 12. 2 Samobor Drina) (on 6. 10. 6. 13. 3 6. 14. 1 - - - - 6. 18. - - 6. 12. - 6. 16. 20. 6. 4 23. 6. 3 - 6. 24. 6. 29. 5 30. 6. 1 Kukanj 6. 19. Table ! Table ! Benedict to Letters Gondula de answers his and 100 Cf. Kurtović, DEVELOPMENT OF RAGUSAN DIPLOMATIC SERVICE €% , f. 207v f. , , f. 5r f. , , vol. 1r XI, f. , f. 199r , f. , f. 196v f. , , f. 2v , f. , f. 191v , f. 195r f. , , f. 205r f. , , f. 188v , f. , f. 187r , f. , f. 184v , f. , f. 180r , f. , f. 4r , f. , f. 178r , f. , f. 173v , f. Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Source Ibid 3 Days spent waiting for reply 1 2. 9. 6 24. 8.24. 0 12. 8.12. 4 30.9. - 7. 7.7. 3 Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik 2 2 7 4 - 8. 16. - 3 4 Days the letter was on the way - 2 27. 8. 27. 30. 8. (questi) 8. 24. - - 23. 9. - questi proximi da passadi 8. 8. 4 questi di passadi 9. 29. 4. 7. 7 Dubrovnik 28. 8. 20. 8. 18. 9. 18. 8. 8. 8. 9. 8. 11. 5. 8. 5. 27. 9. 27. 30. 6. Date of sending Received in Nevesinje 8. 9. - - 9. 12. - - 9. 10. questi di passadi - 9. 18. - - 25. 8. Cernica 8. 17. Nevesinje 9. 15. -- 8. 7. - 8. 18. - 8. 19. 1 - 4. 8. - - - - 8. 7. - Sokol 30. 7. 2. 8. 3 2. 8. 0 Kozman 26. 7. 7. 29. 3 8. 1. 3 Samobor Drina) (on 7. 19. 26. 7. 7 7. 27. 1 - - Kukanj 7. 10. 7. 13. 3 7. 14. 1 - 6. 27. - 25. 6. 30. 6. 5 7. 1. 1 Place from which the ambassador writes €& VALENTINA ZOVKO , f. 20v f. , , f. 42v , f. , f. 15r , f. , f. 41v , f. , f. 13r , f. , f. 12r , f. , f. 42r , f. , f. 10r , f. , f. 9r , f. , f. 7v f. , , f. 6v f. , Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Source Ibid 2 3 Days spent waiting for reply 6. 1. 1431.6. 1. 3 28. 2. 4 Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik 2 3 2 2 Days the letter was on the way 3. 1. 4. 1. 24. 2. 24. 25. 2. Dubrovnik 1. 1. 1. 1. 23. 2. Date of sending Received in - - 2. 7. - 2. 9. 2 - - 2. 17. - 2. 21. 4 Ključ, kod Cernice 1. 1. - 4. 3. 6. 3. 2 3. 10. 4 - - - - 28. 12. - - 22. 2. - 28. 11. 4. 12. 6 12. 7. 3 - 11. 13. 11. 18. 5 22. 11. 4 - 25. 10. 30. 10. 5 11. 7. 8 - 10. 10. 10. 14. 4 20. 10. 6 - 2. 10. 4. 10. 2 6. 10. 2 Place from which the ambassador writes