1199_BP

The document shows how the nascent Istrian communes expanded their jurisdictional areas, adding neighboring villages to their districts.

Traditionally, from Benussi onwards (cited above), this document was interpreted as a result of local warfare, one waged by the budding Commune of Pula against their neighbors with the aim of the city’s expansion. The surviving primary sources, however, do not support this thesis (as correctly noted by Margetić, cited above).

The exact reasons why the people of Barban decided to subject their village to Pula will remain unknown as it is not documented in the surviving primary sources. The fact that the subjection was witnessed by “comes Engelpretus”, that is, Count Engelbert III of Gorizia, the lord of Pazin, the advocate of the Church of Aquileia, and by far the most potent lord in the region, speaks in favor of the hypothesis that Pula’s expansion was supported by the regional nobility and ministerials, or at least a part of them.

Lujo Margetić (cited above), offered a creative and informed explanation of the forces that led to this subjection: everything was orchestrated by Count Engelbert III of Gorizia who wanted to win over the support of the Commune of Pula as he was at this specific period embroiled in a legal battle against the Archbishop of Pula for the so-called “Fief of St. Apollinaris”, a set of jurisdictions in Pula and its district of Pula de iure belonging to the Archbishopric of Ravenna but that somehow, sive iuste sive iniuste, ended up in the hands of the Gorizian (see De Franceschi, cited above, pp. 72–73 and Benussi 2002, cited above, 83–84, 182–183).

The charter has occupied the attention of Croatian scholars as it is the first written mention of Slavic communal organization in Istria, as the document features two župani (latinized as zupanus, -i). Antoljak (cited above) claimed that the document proves the existence of two such Slavic communities presided by a župan in Istria: Plomin and Grašiće, based on the phrases “zupanus Andreas filius Dentasio [sic!] de Flaona, zupanus Drasicha de Galegnana”. However, these “de Flaona” (of/from Plomin) and “de Galegnana” (of/from Gračišće) may also refer to the places of origin of these two individuals, not necessarily to the places they governed as župani.

In any case, the fact that župani appear in the charter most certainly mirrors the fact that the Istrian countryside was at this point already slavicized to a degree. Any attempt at precisely measuring this degree of slavization (or Croatization, or the resistance of non-Slavic population toward these processes) is bound to fail due to the lack of primary sources and the multilingual nature of medieval communities in Istria (and generally in all premodern regions subjected to plural ethnolinguistic influences).

Moreover, the employment of the term “župan” does not ipso facto mean that entire communities were organized differently, according to some specific “Slavic” or “Croatian” model. Instead, the term “zupanus” is used here in the same meaning as “meriga” in other rural communities in Istria, Friuli and the Veneto: both terms essentially designate the same official – a distinguished local elected by the heads of households to govern the community in most basic administrative matters and represent it before the higher jurisdiction (lord, either secular or ecclesiastical, or a city). Theoretically, the gastalds were appointed by the higher jurisdiction, whereas the župani/merige were locally elected officials. However, in smaller village communities the difference between the two officials, both tasked with simple administrative matters, slowly faded away.

Discussing this charter, Camillo de Franceschi (cited above) offered the following interpretation: “some Slavic colonies, freshly immigrated from Dalmatia or Bosnia to the Valley of Raša, were pillaging and looting in the district of Pula, committing a number of thefts and robberies”; this triggered the offensive launched against them by the Commune of Pula, backed by Count Engelbert III of Gorizia, which, in the end, resulted with this charter of subjection. This interpretation is grounded solely in De Franceschi’s fantasy and should therefore be completely abandoned.

Regarding the contents of the promise, the village of Barban was to pay the quartese and herbaticum to Pula. The herbaticum is a rent paid for the use of grazing pastures, also called grazing due or grazing tax. The quartese is a quarter of the tithe, the entire tithe being split into four parts that were variously enfeoffed by bishops. One quarter of the tithe regularly remained to the local parish church; the other three parts could by split in a variety of ways. We cannot deduce how exactly the tithes of Barbana were split, but one fourth was to go to Pula as per this document, one fourth, it is safe to infer, was to remain to the parish church; the two other fourths could remain in the hands of the bishop and/or the Chapter of Pula, but there are no primary sources that would any shed additional light.

Moreover, the village of Barban is henceforth to be considered as one of the villages of Pula. Therefore, the villagers are to receive justice from the podestà and the magistrates of Pula, whom they should heed in all matters regarding the administration of justice (article 2). The subjection was to be confirmed by twelve sworn villagers of Barban (article 3) and this was done on the same day. The twelve sworn oath-givers further promised that they will extradite to Pula all accused of theft in the city and its district; that they will safeguard the goods of the citizens of Pula; that they will make sure all the villagers of Barban swear the same oath; and that anyone who refuses to swear obedience to Pula was to be exiled from Barban and their goods seized. The oath was given in Pula’s district, in the open, somewhere between Gočan and Barban.

The charter lacks the completio. The document was transcribed in 1339 together with the subjection of village Prnjani, done just several days later (edited here as doc. 1199_PP), which has the completio at the very end: “(SN) Ego Rikerius sacri palatii tabellio rogatus in omnibus interfui et eorum iussu hoc scripsi.” It is very probable that the same completio was featured in this charter of Barban’s subjection as well, but that the 14^th-century copyists, who copied both charters as one single vidimus, only appended one completio to the very end of their copy, omitting the completio of the first document.

Finally, there is the question of comes Rugerius, the first documented podestà of Pula. It has traditionally been argued that this comes Rugerius is none other than Ruggero Morosini, a noble Venetian who at the time held the title of count of Osor from the Commune of Venice. Whether he was elected by the Commune of Pula or whether he was enforced upon Pula by Venice as a sort of a punishment for the city’s 1195 “rebellion” (see doc. 1195_RP), remains an open question (De Vergottini, cited above).

Moreover, based on the surviving primary sources it cannot be deduced if this Ruggero Morosini was the original holder of the so-called “Morosini fief” in Pula. Namely, later sources, from the beginning of the 14^th century, shed additional light onto this set of jurisdictions in Pula: they were originally of the bishops of Pula who enfeoffed them to “a Ruggero Morosini”; the family held the set of jurisdictions until 1286 when the bishop of Pula enfeoffed to family Ionata of Pula, sparking a great controversy which ended with the fief back in the hands of the Morosini family; in 1312, Nicoletto Morosini the Younger sold the fief to Sergio Castropola for 46 Venetian groats.

All of this is read from a nowadays lost treatise: “Compendio delle cose contenute nel lungo processo della causa e differenza trattata davanti il legato apostolico tra Sergio di Nassinguerra detto Forella da Castro Pola e Sergio vescovo di Pola per occasione dei feudi pertinenti alla famiglia predetta di Castro Pola, de’ quali esso Sergio da detto vescovo era stato spogliato l’anno 1332” written by Bishop Gaspare Negri of Poreč (1742–1778) and based on documentation nowadays presumed lost (the treatise is edited in L’Istria, ed. Pietro Kandler, vol. 2, no. 65–66 (October 1847): pp. 263–266).

De Franceschi (cited above) hypothesized that the original connection between this fief and House Morosini dates back precisely to the age of Count Ruggero Morosini who lived in the late 12^th/ early 13^th century and who served as the podestà of Pula in 1199. This hypothesis was subsequently taken over as “fact”. Looking at the surviving primary sources, it is impossible to precisely identify the first Morosini who received this fief from the bishop of Pula.