Era
Vol. 3: A 1077 usque ad 1209
Series
Date
April of 1182
Place
Regestum

In response to the plea of the citizens of Koper, Doge Orio Mastropiero and the Commune of Venice issue a privilege to Koper, constituting it the only licensed port for salt trade in entire Istria, from Pula to Grado, and granting it a galley by which the citizens of Koper are to oversee the salt trade along the western coast of Istria; the privilege is accorded for twenty-nine years.

Source
B = Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Atti ducali e diplomatici, busta 6, doc. B/4; a simple copy from the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century.
Previous Editions
Walter Lenel, Venezianisch-Istrische Studien (Strasbourg 1911), pp. 195–196.
Francesco Semi, Capris, Iustinopolis, Capodistria: La storia, la cultura e l’arte (Trieste 1975), pp. 71–72.
FIM Edition
Diplomatic edition based on B. Note that the scribe (or copyist) regularly declined the noun “commune, -is, n” irregularly, as if it were a masculine noun “communis, -is, m.” Hence there are regularly phrases such as “Communis noster” instead of “Commune nostrum”. Irregularities such as this one are signaled in the critical apparatus only once, when they appear for the first time.
Transcription

(SC) In nomine domini Dei, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, amen.

Nos quidem A(urius) Mastropetrus Dei gratia Venecie, Dalmacie atque Chroacie dux, cum in nostro palatio resideremus cum nostris iudicibus et nostre terre sapientibus, venerunt ante presentiam nostram legati civitatis Iustinopolis Hermannus, Almericus, Epusa, Mengossus, offerentes nobis preces, ut in eorum prescripta civitate portum salis locaremus, et ut publicum faceremus edictum imponi, quod nullus homo salem portare deberet in aliquam partium Ystrie, a Gradu usque Polam, nisi illuc. Ad quod, cum nobis suis precibus iugiter insisterent, eorum petitionibus consensum adibere curavimus.

Statuimus itaque cum ipsis quod unam galeam eis concedere debemus et ipsi statuerunt nobiscum quod cum ipsa galea custodire debent mare, ita quod nullus homo, nec Veneticus nec aliquis alius, debeat ire cum sale in aliquam partium Ystrie, a Gradu usque Polam, nisi ad dictam eorum civitatem.

Et si aliquis forte reperitur eundo in aliquam aliam partem nisi illuc, debent ipsum capere et tollere ei salem quem portaverit; de ipso autem Communis nosterb medietatem habere debet et ipsi aliam medietatem.

Similiter quoque, si aliquis homo salem portaverit in predictam eorum civitatem vel in aliam partem sine nostro sigillo, ipsum tollere debent, nisi portaverit pro necessitate domus sue usque duo vel tria staria; de capto autem sale a tribus stariis et sursum, noster Communis debet habere medietatem et ipsi aliam medietatem.

Quam rem ipsi servare iuraverunt bona fide et sine fraude, et quod homines Venecie securos et custoditos habere debent in illis partibus bona fide.

De redditibus autem qui in ipsam terram intraverint de omnibus mercationibus que illuc venerint et ad muduam pertinent, hoc est de hominibus qui defforis veniunt per terram, Communis noster tertiam partem habere debet et cives dicte civitatis aliam tertiam partem; episcopus vero eorum et marchio atque comes eorum debent habere reliquam tertiam partem pro eo, quod stratam debent securam reddere omnibus qui illuc venire voluerint.

Debent insuper operari bona fide quod strata illuc faciat cursum. Si hoc autem facere noluerint, tunc Communis noster de predictis omnibus medietatem habere debet et cives Iustinopolis aliam medietatem.

Debent etiam cives Iustinopolis esse studiosi bona fide ad defendendum quod nulla magna navis que veniat ab illa parte Ystrie debeat facere portum de sale in aliqua parte Ystrie. Et si aliqua illuc venire contigerit, ipsam cogere debent ad revertendum unde venit bona fide. Quod si redire noluerit, salem eis pro posse tollere debent, unde Communis noster medietatem habere debet et ipsi aliam medietatem.

Verum si fuerit navis Veneticorum et in eo loco noluerit facere portum, sed venire voluerit in Veneciam, non debet impediri.

Et etiam, si nostri Venetici per illas partes ire voluerint cum aliis mercibus, impediri non debent.

Si vero propter hoc civibus Iustinopolis impedimentum evenerit ab aliquo Veneticorum, nos et Communis noster ipsos exinde defensare debemus.

Et si per aliquem alium hominem eis venerit impedimentum, Communis noster et eorum debet esse inimicus.

Ista conventio duret usque ad viginti novem annos completos et inde in antea usque dum nostre in unum convenerint voluntates.

Ut ergo super hoc civibus Iustinopolis indubitata fides et firma permaneat, hanc cartam nostro sigillo iubsimusc communiri.

Quam Paternianus da Putheo subdiaconus et notarius nostre curie scripsit et dedit anno Domini millesimo centesimo octuagesimo secundo, mense aprilis, indictione quintadecima, in Venecia.

Feliciter.

Critical apparatus

a) episcopus em. Lenel et Semi, sed perperam, quia Epus (Eppus, Eppo) nomen proprium est.  b) Communis nostrum] sic B: pro Commune nostrum.  csic B.

Selected Bibliography
Bernardo Benussi, Nel Medio Evo: Pagine di storia istriana (Poreč 1897), pp. 671–673.
Adolf Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets bis zum ende der Kreuzzüge (Munich–Berlin 1906), pp. 685–686.
Walter Lenel, Venezianisch-Istrische Studien (Strasbourg 1911), pp. 122–123.
Giovanni de Vergottini, Lineamenti storici della costituzione politica dell’Istria durante il Medio Evo, 2nd ed. (Trieste 1974), p. 71.
Gerhard Rösch, Venezia e l'impero 962-1250. I rapporti politici, commerciali e di traffico nel periodo imperiale germanico, trans. Carla Vinci-Orlando (Rome 1985), pp. 164, 250.
Gerhard Rösch, “Lo sviluppo mercantile,” in Storia di Venezia dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. 2: L’età del comune, ed. Giorgio Cracco and Gherardo Ortalli (Rome 1995), online.
Salvator Žitko, “Politični in upravni razvoj Kopra od pozne antike do konca 13. stoletja / Lo sviluppo politico e amministrativo di Capodistria dalla tarda antichità alla fine del XIII secolo,” in Koper med Rimom in Benetkami / Capodistria tra Roma e Venezia, ed. Mitja Guštin (Ljubljana 1989), pp. 41–42.
Darko Darovec, “I giuramenti di fidelitas delle città istriane nel XIIº secolo,” in Atti del convegno internazionale Venezia e il suo Stato da mar / Venice and its Stato da Mar Venezia / Venice, 9-11 marzo / March 2017, ed. Rita Tolomeo and Bruno Crevato-Selvaggi (Rome 2018), p. 30.
Editor's Notes

The privilege accorded to Koper by Doge Orio Mastropiero is often viewed in the context of volatile relations between Venice and Pula. As Pula “rebelled” against Venice in 1150, inviting a military expedition that brought the city and four other Istrian coastal communities to heel (see doc. 1150_FV), Koper and the adjacent communities (Piran, Izola, Muggia and Trieste) were not targeted by the Venetian armada. For these reasons, it is argued that Koper persevered in its fealty to Venice throughout the second half of the 12th century. The privilege is thus a reward for this unwavering loyalty.

Upon the petition of four representatives of Koper – Hermann, Emery, Eppo (not “episcopus” as Lenel and Semi emended the reading) and Mengossus – the Venetian doge constituted Koper as the sole port licensed to trade salt in entire Istria, a territory here defined “from Pula to Grado”. Moreover, the city was given a Venetian galley by which they were to patrol the coast and enforce their privilege. If any violator were caught, their salt would be confiscated and split fifty-fifty between Venice and Koper. In addition, all the incomes from duties on merchandise from foreign merchants entering Koper by land are to be split in three and divided equally between Venice, Koper, and the third part going to “the bishop, the margrave or the count”, that is, the authority in charge of public land roads. If these land roads are not properly watched over and safeguarded by these authorities, then the income from these duties is to be split only between Venice and Koper.

The Capodistrians also had to swear that Venetians would be safe and secure within their jurisdictions and Venice promised to protect Koper and to treat the enemies of the city as their own enemies.

Finally, the privilege was to last only for twenty-nine years, a clear reference to the praescriptio triginta annorum of Justinianic code (book 7, chap. 39.3).

The privilege draws attention because it shows that Venice felt powerful enough to monopolize the salt trade throughout the entire western coast of Istria, a jurisdictional region that was still de iure part of the Holy Roman Empire. Namely, no ship was allowed to carry more than two or three bushels of salt, judged to be for the consumption of one household, without Venice’s consent, that is, without the official license adorned with the official seal of Venice.

While Rösch’s conclusion, based primarily on this charter, that “from this period on, Istrian trade was completely under Venetian control” (1995, cited above) is exaggerated, the maritime salt trade in Istria was indeed already during this period firmly in the hands of Venice.

Finally, it remains an open question just how much this privilege impacted the economy and the wealth of Koper. The privilege was accorded for only twenty-nine years and in the second quarter of the 13th century, as Schaube demonstrated (cited above), the privilege was no longer in force. However, the 1182 privilege was definitely one of the factors that contributed to Koper’s economic rise that eventually turned the city into the wealthiest and most powerful Istrian commune in the second half of the thirteenth century and onwards (Darovec, cited above).

How to Cite
First citation: Josip Banić (ed.), Fontes Istrie medievalis, vol. 3: A 1077 usque ad 1209, doc. 1182_PI, fontesistrie.eu/1182_PI (last access: date).
Subsequent citations: FIM, 3: doc. 1182_PI.
Facsimile
Image Source and Info

The publication of the facsimile of B (Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Atti ducali e diplomatici, busta 6, doc. B/4) is granted free of charge by Archivio di Stato di Venezia by way of the “simplified procedure” of publishing archival facsimiles (La circolare della Direzione generale archivi n. 39 del 29 settembre 2017: procedura semplificata: pubblicazioni online che perseguano finalità scientifiche o pedagogiche, non beneficino di inserzioni pubblicitarie o commerciali e non siano soggette ad accesso a pagamento).

Photo by the editor.

The facsimile remains under the exclusive copyright of Archivio di Stato di Venezia.