Aquileian Patriarch Ottobono and the Commune of Venice conclude a treaty whereby the jurisdiction over the Venetian communes of Istria would be ceded to Venice in perpetuity in exchange for the yearly payment of 500 marks, but only if the pope ratifies this treaty and issues his binding arbitrational sentence regarding this dispute; the parties also promise to help each other militarily.
In nomine Domini, amen.
Anno millesimo trecentesimo VIIo, die XIIo octubris.
Cum inter illustrem dominum Petrum Gradonico, Dei gratia et cetera, et Commune Veneciarum ex una parte et venerabilem in Christo patrem dominum Ottobonum, Eadem gratia patriarcham, et ecclesiam Aquilegensem ex altera questio verteretur occasione quorumdam iurium, iurisdicionum et honorificentiarum que et quas dominus patriarcha dicit se et ecclesiam Aquilegensem habere in terris quas tenent supradictus dominus dux et Commune Veneciarum in Ystria, et dictus dominus patriarcha cum eodem domino duce et suis consiliariis et capitibus Consilii de XL convenissent, ipsi ad infrascriptam concordiam devenerunt, videlicet:
Quod dominus patriarcha contentus est, si a domino papa potest obtineri, dare domino duci et Communi Veneciarum omnia suprascripta iura, iurisdiciones et honorificentias quas habet et habere posset patriarcha Aquilegensis in terris quas tenent dominus dux et Commune Veneciarum in Ystria in perpetuum pro marchis argenti quingentis ad usum Foroiulii in anno; et pro impetranda istius dacionis confirmacione ab Apostolica Sede, dominus dux mittet, sicut ei videbitur, ad Romanam curiam, et dominus patriarcha scribet amicis suis de curia et suis procuratoribus quod ista concordia placet sibi multum, et quod si Commune Veneciarum condescenderet ad dandum pro predictis usque ad quingentas marchas argenti in anno, quod ipsi dicant quod ipsea dominus patriarcha est inde contentus, quia credit quod hoc sit in augumentum et melioramentum ecclesie Aquilegensis, cum quia si dicta iura, iurisdiciones et honorificentie sibi libere restituerentur, sine questione non tantum valerent sibi, tum quia omnis causa scandali per hanc concordiam tollitur et pax et tranquilitas conservatur – et amicitia domini ducis et Communis Veneciarum multum est profectiva Patriarchatui. Et ideo ad confirmacionem ipsam habendam faverent quantum decenter possunt.
Item concordaverunt quod, obtenta dicta confirmacione, talis unio servetur inter predictas partes quod, si accideret quod dominus patriarcha aliquo tempore haberet guerram cum aliquibus, quod gens que vellet per Venecias vel districtum ire ad servicium domini patriarche, qui non esset de inimicis Veneciarum, liberum transitum habeat per Veneciam et districtum cum equis et armis suis; et si dominus patriarcha vellet de gente Veneciarum ad suumb servicium, possit soldiçare de ipsa ad suum beneplacitum; et e converso, si dominus dux aliquo tempore haberet guerram cum aliquibus, quod gens que vellet venire ad servicium Veneciarum per districtum Patriarchatus Aquilegensis, que non esset de inimicis ipsius domini patriarche, liberum transitum habeat per districtum Patriarchatus ipsius cum equis et armis suis; et si dominus dux vellet de gente Foroiulii habere ad suum servicium, possit de ipsa soldiçare ad suum beneplacitum et habere. Item quod neutra partium favorem inpendat inimicis alterius.c
a) add. sup. l. C. b) seq. officium canc. C. c) des. C.
Giovanni de Vergottini, cited above, interpreted this treaty as the definitive recognition of Venetian jurisdiction in Istria by the Patriarchate of Aquileia, a document that officially closed decades of disputes, controversies, and enmity. Paschini, cited above, followed him in this interpretation and Paschini was in turn followed by Brunettin, cited above. The problem was that this pact set the price of the yearly tribute to 500 marks, whereas all the subsequent payments were only 450 marks, as per the old treaties. De Vergottini simply glossed over this discrepancy, interpreting the 1307 treaty as fixing the tribute at 450 marks; Paschini noted this apparent incongruity but left it unexplained. I have also followed in these footsteps and have even gone a step further, ignoring the discrepancy and at one point even interpreting this treaty as the pope’s de facto ratification of Venetian jurisdictions in Istria in exchange for a yearly tribute paid to the Church of Aquileia (cited above). All of these interpretations are wrong and must be abandoned.
Namely, this treaty was contingent upon the pope’s ratification and the promulgation of the definitive arbitrational sentence that would finally end this decade-long dispute. Only if the pope would finally issue his binding verdict – one that would officially sanction Venetian jurisdictions in Istria in exchange for the payment of a yearly tribute – would the treaty be legally valid. Only if such ratification were procured – and both parties agreed to work in tandem to achieve this – would Venice agree to pay 500 marks a year to the incumbent Aquileian patriarch in exchange for the jurisdiction over their communes in Istria (at this time those were Koper, Izola, Piran, Umag, Novigrad, Sv. Lovreč, Motovun, Poreč and Rovinj). Since the pope never ratified this treaty and never issued his arbitrational sentence regarding this dispute over Istrian jurisdictions, the 1307 was never enforced. Instead, Venice continued to pay the sum of 450 marks, as per the old pacts, the 1300 and 1304 treaties (doc. 1304_VP2), patiently awaiting the pope’s arbitrational sentence. Thus, the hereby edited 1307 treaty is nothing more than a testament to Venice’s and Ottobono’s willingness to finally end the entire Istrian dispute and procure the legal ratification of the papacy. The subsequent treaties, such as the 1335 pact sanctioning the Venetian jurisdiction over Bale and the County of Pula (including Vodnjan) (to be edited here as doc. 1335_VB), were built upon the 1300 pact with Patriarch Peter and make explicit references solely to that treaty. In short, there was nothing definitive or epochal about the hereby-edited pact.