1133_MSP

The charter presents some interpretative difficulties.

First, the charter is nowadays preserved only as a late 15^th-century copy which is in turn a copy of another copy made in 1238 by a notary Peter. The fact that the language of the original charter was most probably far from perfect, and that every subsequent transcription only further deteriorated the original imperfect Latin, resulted in the text that requires a number of conjectural emendations in order to make sense.

Two previous editions, by Carli and by Cornaro, are based on different manuscripts. While it cannot be inferred which precise manuscript Carli relied upon for his edition, Cornaro claims to have consulted “an autograph” in the monastery’s archive, thus most probably the 12^th-century original or at least a copy much closer to the original than the 15^th-century Catasticum Histrie. Be that as it may, Cornaro’s “autograph” can no longer be found in San Nicolo’s archive that is nowadays in the State Archive in Venice. Thus, the present edition reports both Carli’s and Cornaro’s different readings, since they may be closer to the nowadays lost original, but one must bear in mind that both editors are known for their very liberal “corrections” of medieval Latin.

As far as the text is concerned, the first problem is the fact that the dating elements do not concur with each other: the tenth indiction conforms to 1132 and not 1133 as the anno Domini dating states. The apparent discrepancy may be solved by presupposing the employment of Pisan calculation and the issuing of the document between the 25^th of March and 31^st of December, but this is highly unlikely as calculus Pisanus was used neither in medieval Istria nor in the Patriarchate of Aquileia. It is much more probable that the discrepant dating elements arise from a simple lapsus calami: the document may thus be dated either to 1132 or to 1133. Since it is traditionally dated to 1133 in Friulian and Istrian historiography, the editor has decided to keep that dating and presuppose a scribal error in the writing of the indiction, but the readers ought to bear in mind that the document could very well be dated to 1132.

The second problem concerns the pertinence clause which features the line “cum omni pertinentia sua et eyus confines et Pinguento con pascuis, pratis” etc. The “eius confines et Pinguento” makes no sense grammatically and semantically as that would mean that St. Peter’s monastery possessed the entire town of Buzet together with its dependencies. This is not the case as St. Peter’s monastery only had the possession of a mill in Buzet, as read from the 1125 donation charter (see it edited here) and as confirmed by Wolfger’s 1205 confirmation charter (see it edited here). Cornaro, who possibly consulted the original, could not decipher this part and only put dots followed by “no et Pinguento.” Carli transcribed it “confines et Pinguento” but then corrected the transcription (p. 283) to “de Pinguento.” Taking all the possible variants into consideration, and especially the wording of the 1205 confirmation charter, it seems most likely that the original line went “cum omni pertinentia sua et eius molendino de Pinguento, cum pascuis, pratis” etc. This is the emendation proposed by the editor, making the text completely consonant to both the 1125 and to the 1205 charters. Finally, it may very well be that the subsequent scribes employed by San Nicolò di Lido’s monastery intentionally “emended” the original charter in this precise part to claim greater jurisdiction over Buzet and its dependencies, resulting in this clumsy clause. It seems more likely, however, that the contamination is simply a product of copying and of the original parchment fading in this precise spot (which would explain Cornaro’s dots).

Finally, there is the clause on Advocate Maynard I of Gorizia’s precept or renunciation to Abbot Vitalus. According to the surviving text and to Carli’s edition, the clause referred to Maynard’s renunciation of his rights of advocacy over this monastery, a renunciation that he made after having been asked to do so by the very abbot (prece religiosi abbatis Vitalis) who had originally bestowed the right of advocacy to him (quicquid iuris advocatie sue in predicto monasterio sancti Petri de Carso videbatur optinere per manus ipsius abbatis, refutavit), so that the institution could be better managed. This version of the text is hereby edited. However, according to Cornaro’s edition, Advocate Maynard I issued a precept (preceptavit instead of prece religiosi abbatis Vitalis) to the abbot, granting him and his successors the right to govern their brethren for the same reason as above so that the institution could be better managed. Cornaro’s version omits an entire clause “quicquid iuris advocatie sue in predicto monasterio sancti Petri de Carso videbatur optinere per manus ipsius abbatis, refutavit”. There are two explanations for this discrepancy: either Cornaro simply missed a line when transcribing the manuscript and subsequently interpreted “prece” as “preceptavit”, or the line was originally written as Cornaro transcribed it, but was only later “emended” in order to show that the House of Gorizia maintains absolutely no rights of advocacy over this institution as these rights, bestowed by the very abbots, were wholly and unequivocally relinquished. Again, both options are possible, but it seems more likely that the discrepancy resulted from Cornaro simply missing a line when transcribing the document rather than from San Nicolò’s putative dispute over advocacy with the members of House Gorizia and their subsequent interpolation of the charter.

Be that as it may, the Venetian monastery of San Nicolò di Lido further expanded onto Istria with this donation, becoming one of the richest monastical institutions on the Peninsula.