The Commune of Pula formally assents to adhere to the decrees regarding their newly built walls facing the sea promulgated by the Venetian Council of Forty (doc. 1300_MP1).
In Christi nomine.
Anno Domini millesimoa trecentesimo, indictione XIIIa, die nono exeunte februario, presentibus Sena qui fuit de Momaranob, Çampario qui fuit dec Medilinod, Picicolo quondam Iohannis Mulli et Sclavono omnibus preconibus Comunis Pole et aliis testibus pluribus.
Ibique dominus Petrus quondam domini Angeli olim domini Verçeriie civis Polensis in plenof et generali Consilio Comunis Pole sindicus electus, ut constat de instrumento syndicatusg manu mei infrascripti notarii confecto sub eodemh millesimo, indictione et die necnon loco et testibus suprascriptis, promisit sindicario nomine Comunis Pole predicti solempniter mihi notario, stipulanti vice et nomine magnifici et potentis viri domini Petri Gradonici Dei gratia Veneciarum, Dalmatie atque Chroatie ducis et domini quarte partis et dimidie totius Imperii Romanie et Comunis Veneciarum, quod redificationemi murorum que noviter facta fuitj super muris veteribus versus mare per homines Pole, occasione iusta Comuni Pole tunc temporis occurrentek, videlicet sub anno Domini millesimo ducentesimo LXXXXl nono, indictione XIIa, de mense maiim, tenebunt sicut nunc stant ad beneplacitum et voluntatem ipsius domini ducis et Comunis Veneciarum ⟨et ipsam redificationemn prosterni facient⟩, sicut reformatum fuit in Consilio de XL Comunis Veneciarum, promittens dictus sindicus solempni stipulatione, sindicario nomine quo supra, habere firmum et ratum quicquid in predictis firmatum et stabilitum est in Consilio supradicto, ⟨quam prosternationem promisit dictus sindicus fieri infra dies XV postquam ipsum Comune Pole requisitum fuerito per dominum ducem prefatum et Comune Veneciarum, sub pena mille librarum denariorum Venetorum parvorum, que pena soluta vel non soluta nichilominus attendere teneatur cum obligatione omnium suorum bonorum presentium et futurorum etp dicti Comunis Pole⟩.
Actum est hocq Pole in sala nova Comunis.
Ego Gislandus imperiali auctoritate notarius etr nunc Comunis Pole interfui et rogatus scripsi.
a) seq. orib canc. P1. b) ex Morano corr. P4; lect. dub. P1. c) seq. meldi canc. P1. d) Medelino P4. e) domini Verçerii] P4; domine Verçere ex. corr. P1. f) P4; plano P1. g) sindicatus P4. h) sic P1P4: pro eisdem. i) redifficationem P4. j) seq. fuit iter. P1. k) P4; occurrerent P1. l) nonagesimo P4. m) madii P4. n) redifficationtem P4. o) requisitum fuerit] P4; inv. P1. p) P4; om. P1. q) P4; om. P1. r) des. et et cetera posuit P4.
The letter sent by the Commune of Pula to Doge Pietro Gradenigo on March 15, 1300, informing him of the entire affair regarding the city walls and the approval of the decree promulgated by the Council of Forty – edited here as doc. 1300_MP3.
The letter sent by the Commune of Pula to Doge Pietro Gradenigo on June 13, 1300, acknowledging the criticism that the original charter assenting to the decree of the Council of Forty regarding the newly build walls was defective because it included neither the clause regarding the demolition of the walls on doge’s request nor any sanctiones; therefore the Commune of Pula draws a newly redacted version of the charter originally issued on February 21, 1300 – edited here as doc. 1300_MP4.
The document hereby edited was originally drafted in a different form. This is known from the letter sent by the Commune of Pula to Doge Pietro Gradenigo on June 13, 1300 (doc. 1300_MP4) where it was explicitly stated that the central government in Venice considered the document in question as defective because it lacked two important parts: it did not mention anything regarding the demolition of the newly constructed walls on the doge’s command, and it lacked any sort of penalty (sanctio temporalis) for disobedience or even the clausula obligativa, parts that Venice considered obligatory in such promissory charters. It was only then, on June 13 of 1300, that a newly drafted charter, a modification of the original one issued on February 21 of the same year, was sent to Venice together with the letter signed by the incumbent podestà of Pula (Giovanni Soranzo, the future doge of Venice) and the civic Commune. Since the text of the charter, as it survives in manuscript traditions, features both parts that the Venetian government originally considered missing, it is concluded that the text of the charter survives in this subsequently modified, “updated” version following Venetian objections.
The original text of the charter is, however, easy to deduce as the subsequently added parts were somewhat clumsily appended. First, the clause “et ipsam redificationem prosterni facient” must have been subsequently added as the original sentence works perfectly without it: “[quod cives Polae muros] tenebunt sicut nunc stant ad beneplacitum et voluntatem ipsius domini ducis et Comunis Veneciarum, sicut reformatum fuit in Consilio de XL Comunis Veneciarum.” Second, since the original document lacked any sanctio and a clausula obligativa, the entire part “quam prosternationem promisit dictus sindicus fieri infra dies XV postquam ipsum Comune Pole requisitum fuerit per dominum ducem prefatum et Comune Veneciarum, sub pena mille librarum denariorum Venetorum parvorum, que pena soluta vel non soluta nichilominus attendere teneatur cum obligatione omnium suorum bonorum presentium et futurorum et dicti Comunis Pole” must have also been subsequently added. For these reasons, these two parts are enclosed in chevrons in this edition, to clearly mark them as subsequent additions, made after the Venetian government protested the validity of the originally issued promissory charter.
The new walls overlooking the sea were erected in May of 1299 due to a “cause that seemed just at the time”. This cause was recognized by Benussi (cited above) as Genoese ships in the Adriatic, the inimical armada that even reached Malamocco following the victory over the Venetian navy at the Battle of Korčula (September 8, 1298). This would also explain the lenient attitude of the Venetian Council of Forty towards these newly built walls, erected contrary to the 1243 Treaty of Rialto (doc. 1243_PP). De Franceschi (cited above), however, argued that there was no immediate Genoese threat in May of 1299 as the armada had already left the Adriatic at the time. Thus, either there were some other inimical pirates roaming the northern Adriatic, or the Commune of Pula simply took advantage of the Genoese threat to refortify their walls.
Be that as it may, the walls remained standing but only ex gratia of the Commune and the doge of Venice.
Note on the dating of the charter: Nono exeunte februario usually corresponds to February 20, but 1300 was a leap year, so the correct date is February 21.