Josip Banić Venetian Istria in the Nascent Dominium

The Public Defense of the Doctoral Dissertation of Josip Banić on Venetian Istria in the Nascent Dominium (c. 1381 – c. 1470) will be held on Thursday, 10 June 2021, at 12:30 pm CET Examination Committee Chair: László Kontler, CEU, Department of History Members: Gerhard Jaritz, CEU, Department of Medieval Studies (supervisor) Gábor Klaniczay, CEU, Department of Medieval Studies Robert Kurelić, University of Juraj Dobrila in Pula (present) Marcell Sebők, CEU, Department of Medieval Studies External Readers: Nella Lonza, Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences (not present) Darko Darovec, University of Maribor (not present) The doctoral dissertation is available for inspection on the CEU e-learning site. Should you wish to access it and/or join the defense that will take place online, contact Csilla Dobos ([email protected]) Summary of the doctoral dissertation The study explores the effects of Venetian transformation from Commune into Dominium using Istria as a case-study. Namely, between the end of the War of Chioggia in 1381 and Venetian official assumption of the mantle Dominium Veneciarum in 1462, the Republic of St. Mark underwent seminal changes of its institutional framework and its territories drastically increased, spanning from north-eastern Italy, across the eastern Adriatic all the way to Aegean See. This was also the era in which Venice divided its state into two constituent parts: the Terraferma in the Italian mainland and the Stato da Mar on the islands and coasts of the Adriatic, Ionian and Aegean Sea. Istria, a region whose principal cities and towns were subjected to Venice already in the thirteenth century, did not pertain exclusively to either of the two newly constituted Venetian realms. Thus, it is very often the case that both the studies that deal with Terraferma as well as those researching the Stato da Mar ignore the Istrian peninsula. The thesis closes this gap in historiography by approaching Istria as a case-study of Venetian state-building during its momentous transformation into a Dominium and contextualizing the Peninsula with both the mainland and maritime macroregions. The case is approached through the analyses of state’s impact on the region in matters of governmental politics, jurisprudence, social stratification and identity building. Through the examination of judicial documents, notarial registers, rectors’ proclamations, communal statutes and charters issued by the Venetian government and Istrian communal bodies, sources that deal with a variety of topics ranging from official governmental politics to everyday behavior, the study investigates whether the introduction of the Istrian case into the body of existing scholarship pertaining to Venice casts new light on the processes of state transformation that transpired in the region during this fateful transformation from Commune into a Dominium. The thesis is divided into three analytical chapters, each furnished with its own theoretical and methodological framework: first, Istria is analyzed in the broader political context of Venetian fifteenth-century expansion both in the Adriatic as well as on the mainland of Regnum Italicum; second, the scope of analysis narrows to local communities in their daily interactions with the capital, analyzing processes of collective-identity perpetuation, the functioning of communal institutions, and social stratification; finally, the third chapter narrows the focus even further to individual men and women in their relations with the Venetian delegated rectors and the capital’s institutions by studying the main building-block of Venice’s statehood: the administration of justice. First chapter approached Venetian attitudes towards Istria and the place of the Peninsula within the larger context of Venice’s foreign affairs through the conceptual lenses of performativity of the geographical scale, in this case the regional scale. The analyses have shown that throughout the period in question Venice was regionally integrating its subject centers in Istria, mainly in military matters. Moreover, Venice was also intervening both in the neighboring Patriarchate of Aquileia and, consequently, in the Margraviate of Istria as well, a micrioregion formally under the jurisdiction of the Aquileian patriarchs that neighbored Venetian possessions on the Peninsula. This intervention progressed from indirect (1380s) to direct (1410–1420), until it finally resulted with territorial subjection of the entire ecclesiastical principality of the Aquileian Church. Finally, with the annexation of the entire ecclesiastical principality of the Aquileian patriarchs, Venice completely erased any distinction between the two microregion of Istrian peninsula—Venetian and formerly Aquileian—subjecting the large part of the newly conquered Marchionatus to Koper, their richest and largest subject center in Istria. This process, it is concluded, was the beginning of the long transformation of Koper into an undisputed capital of Venetian Istria, a process that ended only on the 4th of August, 1584, when the Commune Iustinopolis became the appellate jurisdiction of all Istrian communities subjected to Venice: the birthdate of Venetian Provinicia dell’Istria. The second chapter demonstrated that the dominant level of collective identification was that of belonging to a local community and that Venice did much to promote these local identities, primarily by way of strengthening local communal institutions and upholding the communal statutes. At the same time, however, Venice imprinted itself on the majority of identity-bestowing symbols, most prominently by overlaying a winged lion of St. Mark over them. Even civic religion—also promoted by Venice—was influenced by Venice with the reliquaries’ of patron saints being adorned by Venetian symbols and coat-of-arms. The chapter also showed that Venice influenced social stratification processes, supporting the civic elites and asking their support in return, thus creating a particularly effective mechanism of local government that, once constituted, was simply maintained by protecting the status quo. Finally, the chapter on justice administration demonstrated the centrality of this aspect of Venetian sovereignty. Venice fashioned itself as the bastion of impartial justice administration and the Republic indeed took great care to maintain this image among its subjects. Even though the delegated Venetian rectors were given large discretionary powers in adjudicating criminal cases, they were nonetheless obliged to respect the local laws and customs. The verdicts promulgated by Venetian rectors were regularly milder than those prescribed by the communal statutes and the fines for everyday petty violence were mostly symbolic and followed a set tariff. Although many elements of community participation in justice administration were still discernable, Venice moved more towards the so-called state law or hegemonic justice as it changed from Commune to Dominium, following the judicial maxim “not to let any crime go unpunished” (ne crimina remaneant impunita). In the end, Venetian Istria emerged as a regular case-study in the context of Quattrocento Venice: it was a region very much comparable to Dalmatia, the Dogado, and the Trevigiano. Even Istrian apparent uniqueness in not belonging exclusively to either of the two realms of the Venetian dominion was easily explained through simple modification of the existing interpretative paradigm: as Terraferma was likened to Italy and Stato da Mar to Venice’s old maritime possessions, Istria could effectively belong to both parts as the peninsula had been seen as regio Italiae since the times of classical antiquity (1st century CE, that is). Nevertheless, the thesis firmly positioned Istria in the contemporary scholarly discussions within Venetian studies and as such it hopefully ushered in a new era in historiography regarding late medieval Dominium Veneciarum, one where the Istrian peninsula would no longer be lost in the artificial chasm separating the maritime from the continental realm. Curriculum vitae Josip was born in Pula – Pola in Istria, present-day Croatia and grew up in Poreč – Parenzo where he finished his primary and secondary education. He received his BA in history and English language and literature at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (2011) and his MA in medieval history at the same university (2014). In the fall of 2015, he enrolled in the one-year MA programme in medieval studies at Central European University in Budapest. Following a successful defense of his MA thesis and after having received the Outstanding Academic Achievement award, Josip was granted admission to the PhD programme in medieval studies at Central European University (2016). Josip’s main scientific focus lies in the Northern Adriatic region in the High and late Middle Ages with a specific focus on medieval Istria and the interplay between Venice and the Patriarchate of Aquileia. He is the author of a dozen research papers, book chapters, and encyclopedia entries. Josip is also the progenitor and leading assistant of Fontes Istrie medievalis project dealing with systematic editing of primary sources related to medieval Istria and publishing them online (https://fontesistrie.eu/). Conference papers relevant to the dissertation Collective Identities in Late Medieval Istria: Between Local, Banderial and Ethnic Identification. Past, Present, Future 2015: Identity in Flux, Pula – Pola (Croatia), May 2015. Consilia communis Pinguenti: Geneza i sastav

Load more