1145_PP

The treaty with Pula hereby edited stems from the same context as the treaty with Fano, signed in 1141, and the treaty with Koper, signed on the same December of 1145 (doc. 1145_PI). For the context, see also the “Editor’s Comments” section in doc 1145_PI.

First, contrary to the claims of traditional Istrian historiography (cf. the accounts of Benussi, cited above) and just as in the case of Koper’s treaty with Doge Polani and Venice (see doc. 1145_PI), there are no evidence that the treaty hereby edited emerged as a result of any sort of hostilities between Venice and Pula during the period (cf. Darovec, cited above, who corrects the age-old interpretation).

The articles of the treaty with Pula show marked similarity to those of the treaty with Koper, but with important differences. Both communities had to swear fealty to the doge and the Commune of Venice (article 1 in both treaties). Moreover, both communities promised to aid the Venetian military efforts by arming one galley if Venice dispatches fifteen or more (article 2 in both treaties). In Koper’s treaty, the wording is such that it leaves no doubt that this community ought to arm just one galley, even if Venice dispatches more than fifteen galleys. In Pula’s treaty, however, the passage is awkwardly styled (Si vero a quindecim galeis usque ad centum vel eo amplius, ampliorem vel minorem numerum navium fecerint apparatum, nos non amplius quam videlicet de quindecim unam galeam in eorum servitio dare debemus). This could be interpreted as “one galley per each fifteen galleys”, meaning that Pula would have to arm two galleys if Venice would dispatch thirty, and this is how Bernardo Benussi read the document (cited above). However, the same passage can also be read differently: regardless of the greater number of galleys, anywhere from fifteen to a hundred, the people of Pula are to support the endeavor as if there are no more than fifteen galleys from which they must arm only one. This second reading is more probable, that is, that both Koper and Venice were required to arm a single galley for any greater Venetian military endeavor, one that would require fifteen or more war galleys. Thus, the obligations of Koper and Pula towards Venice were identical regarding this military support.

Both Koper and Pula then promised to personally assist in any Venetian military campaigns in the Adriatic, in the zone from Venice to the line Ancona–Ragusa. This is a special clause in both treaties, and it is to be understood in addition to the arming of one per fifteen galleys (article 3 in both treaties).

Both Koper and Pula promised the safety of all the Venetians in their cities and districts (article 4 in Koper’s and 5 in Pula’s treaty), and both cities promised to pledge these oaths of fealties to all the Venetian doges to come (article 5 in Koper’s and 9 in Pula’s treaty).

Koper promised to adhere to the same ducal laws and regulations on the grain trade as all the other Venetian cities, something which Pula did not do (article 6 of Koper’s treaty). Instead, the people of Pula promised additional military aid, so that if they spotted a hostile ship approaching Venice, they would sail out against it and notify Venice of the impending danger as soon as possible (article 4 of Pula’s treaty). Moreover, the people of Pula exempted the Venetians from all the dues in their city except the portaticus, that is, the town-gate toll (article 6 of Pula’s treaty). Koper had already exempted the Venetians from the duties on commerce and transportation (teloneum) in their city in 977 (see doc. 977_PI).

Article 7 of Pula’s treaty mirrors the last clause of article 4 of Koper’s treaty, but only partially. In Koper’s treaty, it is only said that Venetians suing Capodistrians are to receive justice according to the laws of Koper. It is implied that Capodistrians suing Venetians would receive justice according to Venetian laws, or at least in mixed tribunals as per the 977 treaty (article 4 of doc. 977_PI). In Pula’s treaty this is spelled out: a Venetian suing a citizen of Pula is to receive justice according to the custom of Pula; a citizen of Pula suing a Venetian receives justice according to the laws of Venice (article 7, although the wording is clumsy and awkward).

Finally, the people of Pula gifted the doge with a fine house by the city’s gate in which a representative of Venice, or even the doge himself, could reside (article 8). This would be the house of a Venetian representative administering justice more Veneto.

In Koper’s treaty, the doge and the Commune of Venice made no promises to the Istrian city; in Pula’s case this was different – the doge promised military protection on sea and military aid on land, in addition to guaranteeing the safety of all the citizens of Pula in Venice and their treatment as Venetian citizens. This was no small gain for Pula.

The treaty has traditionally been viewed as the Venetian de facto subjection of Pula and the rise of Venice in the Adriatic at the detriment of the two largest and most powerful Istrian cities, Koper and Pula. This interpretation is not entirely consonant with the primary sources. More than anything, the treaties with Fano, Koper, and Pula had the principal aim of securing the safety of the North Adriatic basin, a “highway” that was to be under the supervision and the supreme protection of Venice. The communities that pledged fealty to Venice acknowledged that protection and agreed to cooperate in exchange for privileged Venetian treatment. There was, however, more than just the supervision of the Adriatic.

Both Koper and Pula abolished a number of fees for the Venetians, making them privileged “foreigners” in their cities. Both Istrian cities, however, could count on similar benefits in Venice and Venetian territories, that is, the Dogado, where the citizens of Koper and Pula would be treated the same as Venetians. Both Istrian cities, however, had to offer more.

Koper went a step further than Pula when it promised to observe the Venetian regulations on grain trade, but Pula promised additional military-defensive support and even gifted a house to serve as the residence of the delegated Venetian official. Taken together, the pacts surely benefited Venice the most, but it was also Venice that was investing the most resources in the security of the Adriatic, a security direly needed for Venetian traders. We cannot, therefore, talk of “subjection” of Pula or Koper to Venice, but the 1145 treaties surely opened wide the door for further Venetian intervention in the region and planted a seed from which the true subjections of Istrian communities would spring in the late 13^th and early 14^th centuries.

The document presents one considerable interpretative difficulty: who is Henricus comes and is Pula a distinct county during this period?

Traditional Istrian historiography gave two different answers: according to Benussi, this Henry would be a progeny of House Gorizia and “the most prominent person in the city” (2002, cited above). New research on the genealogy of House Gorizia completely invalidates this old thesis. According to De Vergottini, this Henry would be a count of Pula whose family background could not be ascertained. Most recently, Jenko Kovačič (cited above) interpreted comes Henricus as “the most important and prominent representative of the city.” According to traditional historiography, Pula would constitute a proper county during this period with its own count; according to Jenko Kovačič, the term “commitatus” mentioned in the 1145 pact simply refers to the territories adjacent and subjected to the city, that is, the city’s district. While Jenko Kovačič’s interpretation of “commitatus” is preferable and consonant with Italian historiography, it still does not solve completely the background of Henricus comes – what is he the count of?

Since the treaty mentions the locopositus of Pula, that is, the regional count’s/margrave’s appointed representative, it could very well be argued that this Henry was a count of Istria, just like Sigehard was back in 977 (see doc. 977_PI). This would mean that the pact was approved by the count of Istria, an official representative of the Empire, governing the region in the name of the ruling margrave of Istria, who was at this time Engelbert III Spanheim (margrave of Istria from 1124 to 1173). Moreover, a “Henricus filius Wecelini comitis Aquilegensis ecclesie” is mentioned in a document issued on May 26, 1174, by Pope Alexander III to the provostry of St. Stephan of Aquileia, as one of the benefactors who at some undefined point in the past donated properties to the provostry (cf. Anja Thaller, “Die älteren Urkunden der Propstei S. Stefano zu Aquileia,” Archiv Für Diplomatik, 52 (2006): p. 136). This Wezelin could be the count of Istria from the first period of Aquileian dominion over the region, the one that lasted from 1077 to 1079, and his son Henry mentioned in the document could be the “Henricus comes” from the 1145 treaty, although the chronology would be a bit stretched (the two generations spanning over a period of circa eighty years). In any case, I would rather see a count of Istria than a count of Pula or even just a prominent citizen of Pula in this “Henricus comes”.