A public placitum held in front of Istrian Count Werihen whereby the dispute between the Bishopric of Poreč, represented by Bishop Andrew, and a Bertha, a widow of a Cadoloh, regarding the latter's fiscal obligations towards the Church of Poreč (herbaticum and glandaticum) is judged in Bertha's favor.
In nomine domini Dei eterni.
Regnante domino nostro Othone iuniore magnifico atque serenissimo rege, anno regni eius in Dei omnipotentis nomine VIII, die vero V intrante mense octobris, per cursum de inditione IIII, Christoque regente omnia.
Dum resedisset dominus Hverihent Histriensium comes ad colloquium in loco ubi vocabulum est Traiectum sancti Andree iuxta mare, ibique aderant dominus Andreas sancte Parentine ecclesie episcopus atque Petrus sancte Tergestine ecclesie episcopus, necnon Ioannes sancte Nove Civitatis ecclesie episcopus, omnes nanque seniores ad rectas iustitias terminandas vel deliberandas.
In ipso vero colloquio affuerunt scavini: Ioannes de Pazo locopositoa scavinus1, Andreas scantinusb, Oderlicus scavinus, Leo scavinus civitatis Parentine, Germini locopositus et scavinus, Benedictus scavinus, Antonius scavinus, Petrus scavinus civitatis Iustinopolis, Venerius scavinus civitatis Tergestine, Wido scavinus, Iustus scavinus, Venerius scavinus Civitatis Nove, Ioannes scavinus, Venerius scavinus de castro Pirani et alii plures et non modica turba populi.
Et illorum omnium presentia adveniens domnus Andreas venerabilis Parentinus episcopus insimul cum Alberico advocato suo, tunc dixit ipse Albericus advocatus ecclesie sancti Mauri:
“Domine comes et vos seniores episcopi seu iudices, si vobis placet, legem volumus habere de Bertha uxore que fuit beate recordationis Cadolani insimul cum filio suo Almerico de Monteunoc, qui est ante vicum qui nominatur Rosarium ubi certissime vinee esse videntur, unde semper ad predictam Parentinam ecclesiam beati Mauri et seniorum episcoporum, qui antea per multorum annorum tempora fuerunt usque domno atque seniori nostro Andree episcopo per omnem annum sicut antiquitus fecerunt ita et in antea, similique modo per veram rectitudinem atque legem semper glandaticum porcorum et herbarias pecorum exinde habere debent, sed tantummodo ista iam predicta Bertha cum filio suo Almerico ad prefatam ecclesiam suumque rectum nobis contradixerunt et iterum contradicunt.”
Ad hanc interrogationem tunc veniens ipsa Bertha cum filio suo Almerico insimul cum Benedicto advocato suo de civitate Iustinopoli in presentia ipsorum seniorum, et dixit ipse Benedictus quod:
“Certe Deo non placuisset neque voluisset quod ex parte illorum nullam veritatem neque contrarium ad ipsam sanctam et supradictam ecclesiam beati Mauri seu ad suos episcopos factum habuisset, quod per legem emendare ipsi debuissent, nisi tantum que nos recordamur et ista negare non possumus que vidimus, et scimus quod beate recordationis Olmmannus in vita sua et post ipsum Cadolus filius suus dum viveret, et ambo et nos post illos, qui plus minus per triginta annos et amplius tenere vidimus medietatem unam de ipso monte qui supra dictus est, tantum et tertiam partem glandatici porcorum seu tertiam partem herbarie pecorum.”
Post hec vero iussit ipse Werihent comes ut iudices iudicarent.
Et iudicaverunt quod ipsa Bertha per se iurare debuisset secundum quod suus advocatus Benedictus dixerat, quod per triginta annos et amplius inter Olmmannum et Cadolum filium suum in vita ipsorum et istorum atque inter ambos matrem et filium post illos tenere visi fuissent tantum medietatem unam de iam dicto monte ubi est vinea, de aliis vero terris nihil, nisi tantum de sola medietate una de ipso monte insimul cum sua quarta, que de medietate ipsa exinde per annum exire debet, de vino, seu et tertia pars de glandatico porcorum et tertia pars de herbaria pecorum, plus vero nihil non de terris neque de ullis rebus inter nos aliquam rationem habuimus, nisi tantum quam supra diximus de medietate una de monte insimul cum sua quarta et ipsas partem de glandatico porcorum et herbaria pecorum, sicut superius legitur.
Et ipsa Bertha per suum sacramentum coram omnibus firmavit, sicut per legem atque iudicium certe facere debuit, et predictam medietatem unam de monte insimul cum sua quarta et tertia parte de glandatico porcorum simul et tertia parte de herbaria pecorum in suam propriam hereditatem atque possessionem et suorum heredum veram esse defensavit.
Et sic inter illos omnes definite sunt contentiones, ut ex illa die de hac re et deinceps usque in perpetuum nulla contentio seu inquisitio inter illos et eos qui post ipsos venturi sunt nullo modo fieri debeat per nullum ingenium.
Tunc ipse dominus Werihent iussit comesd, ut de hoc placito seu definitione diiudicati cartula fieri debere[t]e. Quod ita factum est, ut ipsi qui ibi fuerunt recordentur, et illi qui ibi non fuerunt per annorum curricula rationem detineant. Ambas vero diiudicati cartulas uno tenore conscriptas, unam apud vos Bertha et Almericum filium tuum dimissam, aliam vero vobis domino Andrea episcopo, in archivo sancti Mauri martyris credimus esse retentas.
Actum vero ad Traiectum sancti Andree, anno Dominice incarnationis DCCCCLXXXXIIII, domini vero Othonis serenissimi regis anno VIII, vel inditione ut supra suprascripta.
In Christi nomine feliciter.
Ego Acio de Aquilegia interfui.
Ego Gualtramus frater domni Andree episcopi interfui.
Ego Ioannes advocatus ecclesie sancti Thome interfui.
Ego Ioannes de civitate Parentina interfui.
Ego Bonifacius frater ipsius Ioannis interfui.
Ego Waltramus de Duobus Castellis interfui.
Ego Olmannus et Andreas fratres de civitate Polensi interfuimus.
Ego Aldericus de castro Sancti Georgii interfui.
Ego Vinderius de civitate Parentina interfui.
Ego Waltramus filius Heletgardi interfui.
Ego Andreas gastaldo de castro Montabona interfui.
Similiter et alii multi interfuerunt, quorum nomina per diem dicere longum est, set in quantum possumus nomina illorum breviter perstrinximus.
(SN) Ego Hyno diaconus et notarius Parentine civitatis per iussionem domni Werihenti comitis seu vicedomini diaconi et tabellionis in hac diiudicati cartula omnia sicut superius leguntur manu vero mea scripsi, complevi atque firmavi.
a) sic B: pro locopositus. b) sic B: pro scavinus. c) sic B: pro Montelino. d) sic B: pro comes iussit, sicut em. Manaresi. e) debere B; deberet em. Manaresi.
1) This Ioannes de Pazo is a locopositus, the count's deputy in the city. The next word "scavinus" most surely relates to him as well because he is both a locopositus and a member of the judicial assembly as a scavinus, just as the below-mentioned Germinus who appears with the title "locopositus et scavinus". Manaresi, however, edited the document differently and put a comma after "locoposito", interpreting the following Andrew as appearing with two names and a title in front of them: "scavinus Andreas Scantinus". I disagree with this editorial choice. Namely, all the titles in this list come after the personal names, not before them. Moreover, the locopositus here is part of the judicial assembly and thus bears the title of a scavinus as well. That this is the case was already demonstrated by Julius Ficker in 1872 (Forschungen zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens, vol. 3, pp. 218-219). For these reasons, I have edited the document in line with the interpretation that John de Pazo was both a locopositus and a scavinus, just like Germinus, and that the following "Andreas Santinus" is a contaminated form of the originally written "Andreas scavinus".
The dating elements of the document do not concord with each other: the anno Domini dating 994 does not correspond to the 8th year of Otto III's reign or to the 4th indiction. This discrepancy can, however, easily be explained as a simple copyist error as the oldest (and only) copy dates to the late 15th/early 16th century.
Thus, it is highly possible that the anno Domini dating features a lapsus calami because the 8th year of Otto III's reign as the King of Romans (crowned on Christmas Eve, 983) indeed conforms to the 4th indiction, that is the year 991.
The Istrian count Werihen who appears in this placitum is traditionally interpreted as the same comes Werihen who appears as the count in Friuli from 1001 to 1028 and who received half of Solkan and Gorizia from emperor Otto III in 1001 (see doc. 1001_GW). Research carried out by Therese Meyer and Heinz Dopsch (cited above) identified this count as Werihen III, stemming from the line of the eponymous advocates of St. Peter's abbey in the Archbishopric of Salzburg. This Werihen III married twice: first to an unknown woman with whom he had three sons - Azzo, Adalger and Werihen IV; and secondly to Williburga II of Sempt-Ebersberg (cf. doc. 1045_HD)) with whom he had three daughters - Hademoud II, Gerbriga and Liutcard. This Hademoud II would end up marrying Poppo II of House Weimar-Orlamünde with whom she would have a son Ulrich I - the future margrave of Carniola and Istria († 1070). Werihen III was succeeded in Friuli by his purported son, Werihen IV, whereas in Istria the next known count is a certain Wezelin of unknown dynastic origin (cf. doc. 1027_KA).
The judicial assembly, presided by Count Werihen, was composed of the local scavini (minor judicial officials) and two locopositi, the count's representatives tasked with justice administration (cf. Giuseppe Salvioli, Storia della procedura civile e criminale, Storia del diritto italiano 3/1 (Milan 1925), pp. 65–68 and Jenko Kovačič, cited above). The locopositi were therefore not, as traditional Istrian historiography would have them, local elites elected by the municipalities to serve as their representatives.