In a detailed apologia addressed to the Patriarch of Aquileia [Anthony Caetani], the margrave of Istria [Bernard of Oltraponte] defends his conduct and that of his subjects of Buzet against Venetian accusations of robbery and border violence, vividly recounting a tangled web of raids, retaliations, fugitive robbers, and contested jurisdictions in late-fourteenth century Margraviate of Istria.
Hec sunt capitula contra querelas factas ab inclito Dominio Veneto domino patriarche super illis de Pinguento.
[1] Et primo ad id, quod dicitisa fuisse robatas CXL pecudes per illos de Pinguento super territorio Iustinopolis, respondeo:
Quod de mea licencia nec voluntate fuit quod aliquis derobaret territorium Venetorum, et de dicta depredatione nichil sentivi, nisi post biduum postquam preda fuit venditab. Et subito volui habere informationem ab illis de Pinguento, qui mihi responderunt, quod dicta preda non fuit facta per eorum concives sed per aliquos forenses. Et propter precepta antea pluribus diebusc per me facta eisdem, noluerunt ipsos acceptare cum preda, unde predicti forenses dictam predam in territorio Pedemontis duxerunt, et ibidem eam ipsis invitis vendiderunt. Unde habita informatione quod predicta acceperant in territorio Venetod, dictis de Pinguento mandavi sub obtentu gratie vestre, quod si quos de dictis forensibus habere possent, ipsos caperent et in carceribus detinerent donec informationem haberem a domino capitaneo et potestatee Iustinopolis. Intervallo vero parvo pro presenti vice dicti de Pinguento mandatis meis hobedierunt at reperuerunt IIIIor de predictis robatoribus qui venerunt in Pinguento, et ipsos ceperunt et in carceribus posuerunt. Ipsis vero captis, ipsi de Pinguento mihi notificaverunt, quibus mandavi quatenus dictos robatores in carceribus conservare deberent, donec a me aliud acceperint in mandatis. Unde subito scripsi domino capitaneo et potestati Iustinopolis, narans quod sentieram dictos forenses aliquid rapuisse super territorio Veneto, et quod se informare deberet si subditis suis aliqua accepissent, eo quod habebam de dictis forensibus IIIIor carceratos in Pinguento. Et habita eiusdem informatione, ulterius procedere contra ipsos robatores volebam secundum delictum per ipsos commissum. Et super premissis dictus dominus capitaneus et potestas mihi respondit per suas literas quas vobisf transmitto. In eodem vero intervallo, antequam a dicto domino capitaneo Iustinopolis responsum reciperem, dicti captivi, fractis carceribus, fugam aripuerunt.
[2] Ad id autem, quod gratia vestra dicit se recordari me exibuisse vobis copias responsionum domini capitanei Raspurgi et potestatis Iustinopolisg, respondeo:
Quod bene potestis recordari me vobis dictas copias tradidisse, quia cum subditi vestri de Pergaria derobati fuerunt die XXIII aprilish, statim volui scire a domino capitaneo Raspurgi et potestate Iustinopolisi quomodo cum predictis vivere possem, ac si subditi vestri erant securi super territorio Venet(iarum) cum rebus et personis. Et super hoc eidem scripsi. Unde dictus capitaneus Raspurgi mihi respondit per suas literas, quod mihi per suos ambaxiatores responderet in crastinum. Et sicut promisit, misit ad me providum virum Lodovicum Capelinum cancellarium suumj cum litera credencie quam vobis transmittok, qui cancellarius pro parte dicti domini capitanei exposuit, quod verum erat quod idem dominus capitaneus Raspurgil et potestas Iustinopolis fuerant in Senosecha ad coloquium cum illis de Iama ad faciendum pacem cum predictis, quam pacem fraternaliter commiserant; et quod in dicta pace promiserant eis dare passus apertos super territorio ipsorum eundo et redeundo cum preda et sine preda. Volui scire ulterius si inimici nostri transirent per territorium ipsorum cum preda aliqua, et nos insequeremur eos per territorium ipsorum, si velent eisdem dare auxilium et favorem, et si dicti inimici nostri deberent esse securi super territorio ipsorum ante nos, et nos econverso ante ipsos.m Unde dictus dominus capitaneus mihi respondit, quod volebat super predictis scribere Dominio Venetiarum, et habita responsione a Dominio Venetiarum mihi responderet. Et super premissis scripsi IIIn dicto capitaneo, rogando eum quo mihi deberet suis literis respondere, qui numquam voluit respondere literis sed per ambaxiatores cauteloseo, et ad hoc ut eum non comprenderem in literis. Verbi gratia, si sic est verum quod mihi tale tradidit responsum, quod quando subditi vestri de Pergaria derobati fuerunt per illos de Iama, predicti de Iama duxerunt predam per territorium Venetorum per quosdam passus communis, qui dicitur Sase, et non volentes predam conducerep extra passus, habuerunt auxilium a rusticis Venetorum et presertim a quodam Marse de Saseq, et pro eorum labore dimiserunt eis unum manzium. Unde sepe et sepius scripsi domino potestati Iustinopolis, quod faceret restitui dictum manzium, et nunquam ab ipso valui habere responsum, ut dictum manzium restitui faceret. Dominus vero capitaneus et potestas Iustinopolis, precessor capitanei et potestatis qui est ad presens, super premissis mihi respondit quod subditi vestri non poterant esse securi super territorio Iustinopolis ante inimicos vestros, nec inimici vestri anter subditos vestros, et quod utraque pars poterant se capere et offendere usque ad pontes Iustinopolis. Originale vero neque copiam litere dicti potestatis Iustinopolis vestre gratie non trasmitto, eo quod dictas literas non habeo hic, quia, si bene recolo, quando tradidi vobis copias dictarum literarum, aportavi mecum originalia in Foroiulii, et si ibidem non sunt, dubito dicta originalia non fore devastata cum aliis literis, quia cum nuperime castrum evacuari feci, ut novit gratia vestra, faciendo conduci res meas ad Tergestum, quidam equss meus cecidit in aqua Risani, et multe res mee devastate fuerunt, et presertim bene circa IIc litere ab aqua devastate sunt taliter quod legi non possuntt.
[3] Ad id autem, quod dicunt dictos de Pinguentou fregisse et clausisse passus in teritorio Venetorum, dico:
Dominium Veneciarum habuit sinistram informationem quod dicti passus sint super eorum teritorio, ymo dicti passus clausi sunt super teritorio vestre Acquilegensis ecclesie longe a confinibus territorii Venetorum plusquam per I miliarev. Et hoc probare intendunt dicti de Pinguento. Et ideo, quia inimici transibant per dictos passus ad dampnificandum subditos vestros, de meo consensu et mandato pro conservatione subditorum vestrorum dicti de Pinguento fregerunt et clauserunt dictos passus.
[4] Ad id autem, quod dicunt furcas esse positas super teritorio eorum, dico:
Quod verum est quod dicti de Pinguento levaverunt furcas superw predictos passus existentes super teritorio vestro, quia dicti subditi Venetorum destruebantx de nocte quidquid dicti de Pinguento laborabant, et claudebant de die in preiudicium subditorum vestrorumy. Et sic facta fuit proclamatio, quod si quis inveniretur frangendo dictos passus, suspendii subiret sententiam. Et non obstante dicta proclamatione, dictiz subditi Venetorum de nocte venerunt et inciderunt dictas furcas super teritorio vestro.
[5] Ad id autem, quod dicunt quemdam molendinarium et uxorem esse spoliatas et cetera, de predictis volui habere informationem cum dictis de Pinguento, et nullo modo reperire potui quis receperit dicta vestimentaa' et denarios, offerentes se dicti de Pinguento, si aliquo tempore debitor reperietur qui talia perpetraverit, si erit mansarius eorum, ipsum ad restitutionem compellent; si erit forensis, contra ipsum condignam iustitiam exercebunt. Sed est magna quantitas ribaldorum qui vadunt latrocinando et rapiendo amicis et inimicis, et tunc datur culpa illis de Pinguento indebite et iniuste. Et predicti ribaldi voluerunt intrare in quodam foramine in montibus Pinguenti causa dampnificandi amicos et inimicosb', nisi per dictos de Pinguento vetatum fuisset. Et plura vero animalia furata fuerunt super teritorioc' Rozii de nocte per dictos ribaldos, et nescitur quis sint.
[6] Ad factum vero domine comittissed', a gratia vestra literas recepi continentes, quod illis de Pinguento mandare deberem, [quod]e' sub obtentu gratie vestre restituere deberent ablata per ipsos subditis domine comitisse. Unde dicti de Pinguento, prout alias vestre gratie scripsi, mihi responderunt, quod quando mortui eorum resurgent, predicta restituent. Die vero XVIII presentis mensis octubris de novo mandavi dictis de Pinguento sub obtentu gratie vestre et in pena C marcharum quod restituere [deberent]f' ablata subditis domine comittisse. Predicti vero de Pinguento mihi responderunt, quod certi concives eorum et certi forenses exeuntes de Pinguento ascenderunt in Carsi ad dampnificandum inimicos vestros, et ducentes predam cum pluribus captivis, descendentes per teritorium dicte domine comittisse per passus ville que dicitur Potgoriach, que villa est dicte domine comittisse, placuit colonis dicte ville dictos de Pinguento armata manu invadere, taliter quod eisdem predam quam ducebant ac captivos receperunt, nec non III de Pinguento acriter vulneraverunt. Predicti vero de Pinguento, relicta preda, fugierunt, et descendendo reperuerunt certa animalia habitatorum dicte ville Potgoriach, et ipsa per restaurationem dampnorum eisdem illatorum per homines Potgoriach receperunt. Dicunt, quod credunt fore iustum, quod si restituere debent ablata dictis subditis domine comittisse, etiam dicte domine comittisse subditi deberent et tenerentur eisdem restituere predam per ipsos dictis de Pinguento acceptam. Insuper sub dicta pena mandavi dictis de Pinguento quod restituere deberent omnia ablata per ipsosg' subditis dominationis Veneciarum, et sic de dictis preceptis feci fieri publicum instrumentum. Et predicti vero de Pinguento super istah' prima parte et ultima in conclusione mihi responderunt quod super premissis gratie vestre per suas litteras scribebant.
[7] In literis autem gratie vestre continetur dominationem vestram extra Patriarchatum fuisse, et per gratiam Iesu Christi victoriam obtinuisse, de quoi' inmensas Altissimo fundo grates, Ipsique suplico, ut vos conservet incolumem et ab omnibus tueatur adversis. Continetur autem in dictis gratie vestre literis me scire de dicta cavalcata. In veritate nec per literas, nec per nuntios aliqualiter ad noticiam meam pervenit. De quo non modicum ego et subditi vestri cogimur admirari, quia nullam requisitionem fecistis in talibus laborantes. Post reversionem vero vestram fui in coloquio cum domino capitaneo Raspurgi, qui mihi naravit quod audierat vos aut gentes vestras ascendisse Carssum ad dampnificandum inimicos vestros, sed non credebat; interrogavit me si ego aliquid de predictis scirem. Cui respondidij' quod non, et certe nichil de predictis scivi veridicum nisi nunc per vestras literas et per quosdam de Mugla, hodie est tertia dies. Predicti vero de Mugla mihi dixerunt, quod Commune Mugle volebat mihi de premissis scriberek' ex parte vestra vel eorum. Iacobus de Brisia respondiditl', quod non erat opus predicta mihi intimare, eo quod eram iam cum gentibus Istrie in Senosecha prestolans adventum vestrum. Et sic pro dicto Iacobo deficit, quod predicta non presensi.m'
[8] Insuper scribitis, quod si non parvero vestris mandatis, me punietis et cetera. Precor gratiam vestram, si contrafecero voluntarien', quod me puniatis. Atamen propter obedire vestris mandatis, postquam veni nunc ad partes Istrie, cum maximo dampno et expensis et verecundia permansi, quia dubitans ne per subditos vestros amici aliqui derobarentur, per omnia loca Marchionatui vestro subiecto proclamari feci quod nullus presumeret spoliare amicos nec inimicos, donec aliud a meo' reciperet in mandatis. Unde omnes subditi vestri in hoc hobedienciam prestiterunt, exceptis illis de Pinguento, qui inproperabant mihi dicentes: “Est hoc auxilium quod tu das nobis? Sunt iste gentes quas nobis in auxilium exibes? Cuiusmodi marchio es tu?” Et predicti de Pinguento et de Rotio et Colmo occasione predicta nolebant mihi de iuribus Marchionatus aliqualiter respondere, donec me oportuit eis minari, et tunc ceperunt mihi de meis iuribus respondere, forsan ab VIII diebus citra. Et propter hobedire mandatis vestris aliquam robariam factam nolui acceptare, nec emere volui de predictis propter non incurere indignationem vestram, nec in aliqua cavalcat[a]p' aliquem de meis familiaribus dimittere voluiq'. Super premissis autem gratie vestre suplico, quatenus mihi scribere dignemini, quem numerum debeo retinere, aut si debeo facere gueram aut stare in pace, quia paratus sum iuxta posse mandatis vestris in omnibus hobedire, et facere totum id quod sit honoris Acquilegensis ecclesie et vestrir'. Copias responsionum capitaneis Raspurgi et Iustinopoliss' quas a me requiritis, credo ipsas in manibus vestris remansisse. Si autem copie non remanserunt in manibus vestris, debent esse in domo mea in Civitate Austria; originalia autem vobis transmittere nequeo causis suprascriptis in tercio capitulo.
[9] Item ad factum bovum, feci requiri boves pulcerimos pro vobis in Pulisana et in Duobus Castris, et non possum reperire boves aratorios minori pretio XX ducatorum par(ium), nec possum habere boves V annorum qui numquam laboraverint minori pretio XVI ducatorum. Expendere autem tantum non fui ausus. Si vobis placent pro dicto pretio, mihi rescribatis, quia ipsos vobis transmittam.
[10] Ad factum pecuniarum quas a me requiritis, in veritate ad presens non possum vobis aliquas pecunias transmittere, quia per fidem meam nondum recepi I soldum de iuribus Marchionatus, nect' aliquam partemu' panis et vini. Et de rusticis castri nichil recepi, quia omnes fugierunt. Et certe si credidissem habere tot labores et malanconias et expensasv' in veritate pro aliqua mea utilitate non acceptassem Marchionatum si mihi gratis prebuissetisw'. Tamen de vestro mandato acceptasse ad faciendum omnia que sint honoris et proficui Acquilegensis ecclesie et vestri. Sed postquam dictum Marchionatum acceptavi, sum dispositum facere totum id quod sit contentamenti vestri et status vestre Accquillegensisx' ecclesie iuxta posse, si deberem in camisia remanere. Et nichilominus in paucis diebus mittam vobis iuxta posse pecunias.
a) ex corr. et sub sign. abbr. (sed supervacanee) B: fort. pro dicunt? b) seq. que canc. B. c) antea pluribus diebus] add. sup. l. B. d) quod predicta acceperant in territorio Veneto] add. cum sign. insertionis B. e) et potestate] add. sup. l. B. f) seq. copiam canc. B. g) et potestatis Iustinopolis] add. sup. l. B. h) die XXIII aprilis] add. sup. l. B. i) et potestate Iustinopolis] add. sup. l. B. j) seq. qui prop canc. B. k) quam vobis transmitto] add. sup. l. B. l) add. sup. l. B. m) volui scire—ante ipsos] ex insuper vero contentans de dicta responsione volui a dicto domino capitaneo Raspurg scire si subditi vestri qui reducerent se super territorio Venetorum essent securi ab inimicis cum rebus et personis et econverso si inimici vestri erant securi super dicto territorio cum rebus et personis et cetera corr. B. n) sic B: pro ter. o) ex mautiose corr. B. p) seq. habuerunt canc. B. q) et presertim a quodam Marse de Sase] add. sup. l. B. r) seq. ipsos canc. B. s) sic B. t) feci ut—non possunt] add. in marg. sin. B. u) seq. posuisse furcas super teritorio Venetorum canc. B. v) seq. et ideo de meo consensu canc. B. w) seq. de canc. B. x) seq. quidquid canc. B. y) in preiudicium subditorum vestrorum] add. sup. l. B. z) seq. de canc. B. a') seq. nec canc. B. b') causa dampnificandi amicos et inimicos] add. sup. l. B. c') seq. Rozii canc. B. d') seq. alliaas canc. B. e') om. B; em. Banić. f') om. B; em. Banić. g') per ipsos] add. sup. l. B. h') seq. ultima canc. B. i') seq. alti canc. B. j') sic B. k') seq. Iacobus canc. B. l') sic B. m') seq. Vobez de Portullis, Iurius de Pergaria, Anz faber de Portullis, Marinus de Sdregna, Lodovicus de Piero de Alemania, Basso, Clemens de Portullis. Ad id quod dicunt, quod illustris dominus dux add. in capite B. n') add. sup. l. B. o') a me] add. sup. l. B. p') cavalcat B; em. Banić. q') et propter—dimitter volui] add. in marg. sin. B. r') seq. pnet canc. B. s') capitaneis Raspurgi et Iustinopolis] add. sup. l. B. t') seq. iura canc. B. u') aliquam partem] add. sup. l. B. v') et expensas] add. sup. l. B. w') seq. nisi canc. B. x') sic B.
These are the points addressing the complaints lodged by the illustrious Venetian Dominion with the Lord Patriarch concerning the people of Buzet.
[1] First, regarding your claim that 140 head of livestock were stolen by the people of Buzet on the territory of Koper, I reply:
It was neither by my permission nor with my consent that anyone raided Venetian territory, and I knew nothing of this raid until two days after the plunder had been sold. I immediately sought information from the people of Buzet, who replied that this plunder had been taken not by their own citizens but by outsiders. And because of orders I had given them several days earlier, they refused to shelter these men or receive the plunder, and so the outsiders took the plunder into the territory of Završje and sold it there against the will of the people of Buzet. Therefore, having received information that these goods had been stolen on Venetian territory, I ordered the people of Buzet, under pain of losing your favor, that if they could apprehend any of these outsiders, they should capture them and hold them in prison until I received information from the Lord Captain and Podestà of Koper.
Shortly thereafter, the people of Buzet obeyed my commands and found four of the robbers, who had come into Buzet, and they captured them and placed them in prison. After capturing them, the people of Buzet informed me, and I ordered them to keep the robbers in prison until they received further orders from me. I immediately wrote to the Lord Captain and Podestà of Koper, informing him that I had learned these outsiders had plundered something on Venetian territory, and that he should ascertain if they had taken anything from his subjects, because I had four of the outsiders imprisoned in Buzet. Once I received his response, I intended to proceed against these robbers according to the crime they had committed.
Concerning these matters, the Lord Captain and Podestà replied in a letter, which I enclose herewith. But during that same interval, before receiving a reply from the Lord Captain of Koper, these prisoners broke out of jail and escaped.
[2] Furthermore, regarding the point that Your Grace says you recall me having presented you with copies of the responses from the Lord Captain of Rašpor and the Podestà of Koper, I reply:
You will surely recall that I provided you with those copies, because when your subjects from Pregarje were plundered on April 23rd, I immediately wanted to know from the Lord Captain of Rašpor and the Podestà of Koper how I should conduct myself toward these people, and whether your subjects could safely travel through Venetian territory with their goods. And concerning this I wrote to him. The Captain of Rašpor then replied to me in his letter that he would answer me the next day through his envoys. And as he promised, he sent to me the worthy man Louis Capelino, his chancellor, with a letter of credence which I am sending to you. This chancellor, on behalf of the Lord Captain, explained that it was true that these same officials had been in Senožeče for talks with the people of Predjama to make peace with them, which peace they had solemnly concluded; and that in this peace they had promised to give them open passage through their territory, coming and going, with plunder and without.
I further wished to know whether, if our enemies crossed through their territory with any plunder, and we were to pursue them through their territory, they would assist and support them, and if our enemies were to be safe on their territory from us, and we, conversely, from them. The Lord Captain replied to me that he wished to consult the Venetian Dominion on these matters, and once he had a response from the Venetian Dominion, he would answer me. And concerning the above, I wrote three times to the captain, asking him to answer me in his letters, but he consistently refused to answer in writing, responding only cautiously through ambassadors, so that I could not hold him to his words in writing.
For instance, if what he told me was true, then when your subjects from Pregarje were robbed by the people of Predjama, those people of Predjama brought the plunder through Venetian territory by a certain public pass called Sase, and wishing to stay on the pass, they received help from Venetian peasants, especially from a certain Marse of Sase, and as payment for their help, they left them one ox. Therefore, I wrote again and again to the Lord Podestà of Koper, requesting that he have the ox returned, but I never received any reply, nor was the ox restored.
The Lord Captain and Podestà of Koper, the predecessor of the current Captain and Podestà, replied to me concerning the above that your subjects could not be safe on the territory of Koper from your enemies, nor your enemies from your subjects, and that either party could capture and attack the other right up to the bridges of Koper. I am not sending Your Grace either the original or a copy of the Podestà’s letter, because I do not have these letters with me; for, if I remember correctly, when I gave you copies of these letters, I brought the originals with me to Friuli, and if they are not there, I fear these originals were destroyed along with other documents. For, as Your Grace knows, when I recently had the castle evacuated, arranging for my possessions to be transported to Trieste, one of my horses fell into the Rižana, and many of my possessions were destroyed; in particular, some 200 letters were so damaged by water as to be illegible.
[3] Furthermore, as to the claim that the people of Buzet destroyed and blocked passes in Venetian territory, I respond:
The Venetian Dominion has been misinformed: these passes are not on their territory; rather, these blocked passes lie within the territory of your Aquileian Church, more than a mile away from the borders of Venetian territory. The people of Buzet stand ready to prove this. Therefore, since enemies were using these passes to attack your subjects, the people of Buzet destroyed and blocked these passes with my consent and at my command, to protect your subjects.
[4] Furthermore, regarding the claim that gallows were erected on their territory, I say:
It is true that the people of Buzet erected gallows near these passes, which are on your territory, because these Venetian subjects were destroying by night whatever the people of Buzet constructed by day, thereby harming your subjects. A proclamation was therefore issued that anyone found destroying these passes would be hanged. Yet despite this proclamation, these Venetian subjects came by night and cut down the gallows on your territory.
[5] Furthermore, as to the claim that a certain miller and his wife were robbed, etc., I sought information about this from the people of Buzet but could discover in no way who took the clothes and money. The people of Buzet pledged that should the perpetrator ever be found who committed this crime, if he is one of their residents, they will compel him to make restitution; if he is an outsider, they will see that proper justice is administered.
But there is a great number of rogues who go about thieving and plundering from friends and enemies alike, and the people of Buzet are then wrongly and unjustly blamed. These rogues even attempted to enter a cave in the mountains near Buzet, intending to prey upon friends and enemies alike, but were prevented by the people of Buzet. Moreover, several animals were stolen at night in the territory of Roč by these rogues, and it is not known who they are.
[6] Regarding the matter of the Lady Countess [Anne of Gorizia], I received Your Grace’s letter directing me to order the people of Buzet to restore what had been taken by them from the subjects of the Lady Countess. The people of Buzet replied (as I wrote to Your Grace previously) that they would restore these goods when their dead rose again.
But on October 18th of this month, I again ordered the people of Buzet, under pain of losing your favor and penalty of 100 marks, to restore what had been taken from the Lady Countess’s subjects. The people of Buzet replied as follows: certain of their citizens, together with some outsiders, had left Buzet and gone up into the Karst to raid your enemies, and were returning with plunder and several captives when, descending through the Lady Countess’s territory by way of a pass near the village of Podgorje, which belongs to the Lady Countess, the peasants of that village chose to attack the men of Buzet with an armed force, seizing both the plunder and the captives, and gravely wounding three men of Buzet. The men of Buzet abandoned the plunder and fled, and during their flight came upon livestock belonging to the inhabitants of Podgorje, which they seized as compensation for the harm done to them by the men of Podgorje.
They maintain that if they must restore what was taken from the Lady Countess’s subjects, then the Lady Countess’s subjects should likewise be bound to restore the plunder they took from the people of Buzet. Furthermore, under the same penalty, I ordered the people of Buzet to restore everything they had taken from subjects of the Venetian Lordship, and I had a public document drawn up concerning these orders. And on this first and last part, the people of Buzet replied that they were writing directly to Your Grace concerning the matters above.
[7] Moreover, Your Grace’s letter states that your Lordship was outside the Patriarchate, and through the grace of Jesus Christ obtained a victory, for which I give immense thanks to the Almighty, and I pray He keeps you safe from all adversity.
Your Grace’s letter also states that I knew of this expedition. In truth, I learned of it in no way whatsoever, neither by letter nor by messenger. Your subjects and I are greatly surprised by this, since you made no request of us who labor in such matters. After your return, I met with the Lord Captain of Rašpor, who told me he had heard you or your men had gone up into the Karst to attack your enemies, but he did not believe it; he asked if I knew anything of this. I told him I did not, and indeed I knew nothing of these events until three days ago, when I learned of them through your letter and from certain people of Muggia.
These people from Muggia told me the Commune of Muggia wished to write to me about this matter, either on your behalf or on their own. Jacob of Brescia replied that there was no need to inform me, because I was already in Senožeče with the men of Istria awaiting your arrival. And so, because of Jacob’s intervention, I was never informed.
[8] Furthermore, you write that if I do not obey your commands, you will punish me, etc. I beseech Your Grace: if I willfully disobey, then punish me. Nevertheless, in my effort to obey your commands since coming to this region of Istria, I have remained here at great cost, expense, and dishonor.
Fearing that your subjects might plunder our friends, I had it proclaimed throughout all places subject to your Margraviate that no one should dare plunder friend or foe without further orders from me. All your subjects obeyed, except the people of Buzet, who reproached me, saying: “Is this the help you give us? Are these the men you provide as our aid? What kind of margrave are you?” And because of this, the people of Buzet, Roč, and Hum utterly refused to acknowledge my authority regarding the rights of the Margraviate until I was forced to threaten them. Only then did they begin to yield to my demands concerning my rights, only within these past eight days.
And in order to obey your commands, I refused to accept any plunder that was taken, nor would I purchase any such goods, lest I incur your displeasure, nor would I permit any of my household to join in any raid. Concerning the above, I beseech Your Grace that you deign to write to me, informing me what forces I should maintain, or if I ought to make war or remain in peace, because I am prepared, according to my ability, to obey your commands in all things, and to do all that serves the honor of the Aquileian Church and yourself.
I believe the copies of the responses from the captains of Rašpor and Koper, which you request from me, remain in your hands. If the copies are not in your possession, they should be at my house in Cividale; however, I cannot send you the originals for the reasons stated above in the third point.
[9] Likewise, regarding the matter of the oxen, I have had the finest oxen sought for you in the district of Pula and Dvigrad, and I cannot find any draught oxen for a price lower than 20 ducats a pair, nor can I obtain five-year-old oxen that have never been yoked for less than 16 ducats. I have not dared to spend so much. If this price is acceptable to you, please inform me and I will send them.
[10] Regarding the matter of the money which you request from me, in truth, I cannot at present send you any money, for I swear I have not yet received a single shilling from the Margraviate’s revenues, nor any portion of bread and wine. And from the peasants of the castle [of Petrapilosa] I have received nothing, because they have all fled. And certainly, had I known I would face such labors, troubles, and expenses, I would not have accepted the Margraviate even if you had offered it to me for free, were it for my personal gain alone.
Yet I accepted it at your command, to do all that serves the honor and benefit of the Aquileian Church and yourself. But having accepted this Margraviate, I am resolved to do all that is for your satisfaction and the wellbeing of your Aquileian Church according to my ability, even if it should leave me with nothing but the shirt on my back. And nonetheless, in a few days, I will send you money to the best of my ability.
[trans. Josip Banić]
The letter is not dated. However, based on its content and the mention of the patriarch’s military expedition in the Karst (May-June 1398), the letter can be dated to the end of October 1398 (see Paschini, cited above). Thus, Kandler’s dating, who published the document under 1393, must be wholly abandoned. Giovanni de Vergottini (cited above) dated the document to 1397, but this also does not stand up to scrutiny.
The letter contains a wealth of information regarding the various problems of life on the triple frontier that the modest communities of the Aquileian Margraviate of Istria had to deal with quotidianly, especially Buzet and its wider area, situated on the border with Venetian, Gorizian, and Austrian jurisdictions. It also illuminates the impotence of the delegated margraves, who were obviously not equipped with adequate resources to deal with these issues, especially against the considerably more powerful Venetian authorities. Due to its vivid descriptions of the Istrian margraviate during its final decades, the letter has been translated into contemporary English, ad omniam intelligentiam.
Awaiting formal authorization of the Archivio di Stato di Udine.