Zdenka Janeković Römer
Dubrovnik and its first shepherd through the changes of citizenship in the Middle Ages
Bishop's honour in Byzantine Dalmatia and Dubrovnik
In Dubrovnik, the relationship between the bishop and city authorities, significant and important to a medieval European city, assumes certain characteristics that are a consequence of its specific political and social system. Old historiographic theses accentuate the pronounced supremacy of Dubrovnik's secular authority over spiritual, as well as the contrast between Republic's loyalty to the Catholicism and papacy, and the repression that it enforces over the Church on its territory. Theirpoint is still valid, however, it is possible to consider this situation from a different aspect, the one that provides the opportunity for different or more complete conclusions.
Early medieval Dubrovnik can be defined by the usual syntagm "bishop's city", but specific circumstances in medieval Dalmatia and the city of Dubrovnik itself need to be taken into consideration. Beside all the reasons known from the other European cities, in Dubrovnik's case the exceptional significance of the archbishop is conditioned by the lengthy battle for archbishop's pallium throughout the Early Middle Ages. However, in medieval times, the share of Church hierarchy in the secular authority was evident in the wider area of the Byzantine empire. Church organisation took over a great number of administrative and governing authorities. Admittedly, the bishops on the territory under the influence of Byzantine empire never achieved the stage of secular authorities and landowner power that was held by bishops on the northern side of the Alps.[1]They were not domines loci, but their secular governing authority was significant. According to Justinian's law, the bishop represented the citizens, had financial authority, and passed judgements. Without a doubt, such status of the bishop stemmed form the power of the Church in Middle Ages, but also from the tradition of late Antiquity Christian societies. The city gathered around the bishop, who was its representative and leader, defensor civitatis.[2] An important role of the Church hierarchy in late Antiquity cities on the Dalmatian coast was, among other things, the result of the fight for supremacy on that territory between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Papacy. That subject was, after generations of historians and law historians that delved in it on a smaller or larger scale (Rački, Strohal, Kostrenčić, Margetić, Cvitanić, Novak, N. Klaić, Lučić), almost forgotten, so the beginnings of the commune are rarely considered in the context of the relationship of secular and Church authority. Existing syntheses of medieval history do not even mention this subject. However, the fact is that the beginning of communes spring from the Christian community clerus et populus of the cities in late Antiquity.
Archbishop and the communal authority
Dubrovnik's status as the bishop’s seat at the turn between the Antiquity and Middle Ages provided the affirmation of citizenship and was one of the pillars on which the commune was founded. As archaeological research shows, it was the Christian tradition that marked the beginning of developed urban life in the Dubrovnik area.[3] At the time of the shaping of the commune of Dubrovnik, the Church hierarchy and municipal governing bodies were not the opposed forces. As in other Dalmatian cities of that time, clerus et populus shared the administrative responsibilities. The lack of an efficient Byzantine administration on the east coast of the Adriatic sea was in favour of this. Within such symbiosis of government, the clergy influenced civic activities, and the laymen partook in decision-making that concerned the Church. Secular officials and Church dignitaries are chosen from the same, most reputable group of citizens. At the beginning it was clerus et populus who elected the archbishop, later this right went to the body of canons and, finally, to the Pope. This process also depicts the change of role and meaning of spiritual shepherd in Dubrovnik commune/republic.[4]
In the very centre of Christian city community formed by the clergy and populace was the archbishop. During the 11th and partly the 12th century, the archbishop had a leading role in the city government. Public and private documents were dated with his name, and it is regularly found on all documents before the prior's name. On important matters he decided in agreement with municipal leaders, confirmed the decisions of the assembly and appeared as the representative of the city. Alongside diplomatic, he also held supervisory functions. Steindorff claims that the archbishop was a member of the city council, but this is questionable since the council is not explicitly mentioned up until the end of 12th century.[5] Bishop's name appears in last wills and testaments, deeds of donation, foundation documents.[6] The power of the spiritual leader of the city was founded on the combination of his service and property: he had a share in public authority and an autonomous income. Such role of the bishop is a trace of an important influence that the Church organisation had in defining the cities and their administration during the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages. Remnants of such influence up to the 12th century are a sign that the commune is still not completely established.[7]
The development of the commune gradually decreased secular power of the bishop, starting at the end of the 11th century. Social and political structures evolved, expressing new demands and modalities of unity. In communal period the archbishop does not have the same place in the city administration as before, but up to the beginning of 13th century, together with other clergy, still partakes in political decision-making. However, his role weakened on account of new administrative bodies.[8] With the introduction of Roman law, notaries, city constitution and the development of public judiciary, secular government was rationalised and grew stronger, and the old division of civil responsibilities of secular and Church authority disappeared. Since the 13th century, the strengthening of the institutions of secular authority in Dubrovnik is evident, as is the expropriation of the archbishop and the clergy. This is where the politics of Dubrovnik government towards the Church hierarchy resembled that that was lead by Venetian signoria.[9] Although Dubrovnik's rulers in many cases had to give in to the Papal authority, it all gradually moved in the direction of interest of the aristocratic government. The pressure of secular authority on Church began and ended on the highest level, the archbishop's honour. Not only did the archbishop lose his former role, but he was often nothing but a highly esteemed figure that could not realise his authority. Although the commune authority based itself on the legacy of the bishop’s seat, a significant change occurred: full affirmation of the commune cut off the institutional authority of the archbishop. He was no longer allowed to interfere in public affairs of the Republic, particularly those of international character.[10] This was not the case of simple fight for power but of the necessity to preserve political and economic autonomy of the city. An important role in that process was played by the class interests of the nobility. Since the second half of the 13th century the process of stratification of population was very strong.[11] In accordance with that, lay pole dominated the development of the city: in late Middle Ages Dubrovnik commune/republic is no longer situated in the shadow of the cathedral, which it shows clearly and literally by its urbanism. To face the authority of the bishop, the government founded another religious pole, independent of the cathedral, and even competitive - the church of St. Blaise.[12] Celestial protector of the city, St. Blaise, was also a bishop; moreover, the mitre was the reason why he was chosen for the patron during the times of struggle for the archbishop's pallium. However, he later became the symbol of the Republic's identity, the marking of its self-awareness and the stronghold of power, a strong weapon offered to municipal politics, a certain kind of second, it could be said, secular bishop of the city. He marked the transition from late Antiquity to medieval tradition, from Byzantine leadership towards autonomy, and from bishop's civitas to aristocratic republic.
Republic expropriates the Church and its shepherd
With the disappearance of communal institutions and the establishment of aristocratic republic (in the second half of the 14th and in the 15th century) that process went a lot further, that is to say, not only that the archbishop did no longer participate in secular government, but the secular government decided on Church matters. Patricians formulated the political relationship of the Republic with the Papacy, influenced the choice of archbishop, decided on the choice of suffragan bishops and other Church dignitaries, as well as basic priests, managed Church estate and oversawChurch assets and the judiciary. Priests were excluded from the rule of bishop and Church discipline and became officials of private persons. That is to say, chaplains in aristocracy's chapels were only fictitiously under the archbishop's jurisdiction, while actually being the servants to the aristocracy. But not only that: the government appointed chaplains and parish priests in rural parishes, as well as priests in town churches, moreover, many of them received pay from the state, so that the archbishop could de facto not manage the diocese.[13] Eventually all donations to the Church fell into the hands of the state and were managed by the state officials. As was already stated, last wills and testaments were also managed by state officials, treasurers. Laws were passed that granted that right to the state treasury and not, as it was before, to Church institutions or fraternities. In the letter of November 5th 1582 to Pope Gregory XIII, the senators refer to the right of the execution of testaments and managing the estates that have "ab urbe condita". By executing such jurisdictions they prevent unrests, decay and destruction of the Republic: “l’amministrazione nostra dell’opere predette sono le mura e fortezze nostre”.[14] Legacies were a large and continuous source of income and the beginning of a later state foundation institution Opera pia, monetary institution alike Venetian and Florentine Monti di Pietà. That institution pushed out direct Church foundations and fraternities from the contest for revenues from last will legacies. Through it the government gradually conquered Church estate.[15] And the Church tithe went to the state, in exchange for an annual flat rate subsidy to the archbishopric. The collection of the tithe was forbidden, since the government did not want to provide the clergy with an independent source of income, but to keep it dependant on the state. In the city itself the Republic did not allow parish organisation since it did not want to allow the existence of a parallel institutional authority. In the predominance of temporal over spiritual authority the spiritual level was not bypassed: the government declares and executes a jubilee, abolishes prescribed indulgencies, prescribes the day of public prayer, executes reforms of monasteries.[16] It also manages relics, influences the liturgy calendar and prescribes the details of religious ceremonies. It is known that the greatest number of Dubrovnik nuns, particularly those from aristocratic families, entered monasteries upon the will of their families, protected by law, and not by the call of the spiritual. And since their daughters were there, the councilmen usurped the legislature concerning the monasteries. Their jurisdiction over female monasteries was far greater than that of the Church.[17] Despite the protests of the archbishop and other clergy, secular government did not give in on that matter at all, presenting themselves as the protectors of the good, catholic beliefs and wows of nuns. Collections of laws from the 15th and 16th century are swarmed by provisions that concern the Church and its institutions.[18]
From top to the bottom of the hierarchy, a career in Church in Dubrovnik archbishopric depended on secular authority and in large part on the affiliation to the nobility. The power of the archbishop in the hands of a member of the aristocracy could result in the overlapping of Church and state authority and undesirable superiority of his kin and endangerthe state patronage over the Church. For that reason Dubrovnik government made a provision that only foreigners will be elected archbishops.[19] Since 1360, or the death of the last medieval archbishop that was from Dubrovnik, the famous Ilija de Saracha,[20] Dubrovnik diplomacy was preoccupied with the question of election of the archbishop. Missions were sent to the Pope to intervene and prevent all attempts of appointment of Dubrovnik natives to that post.[21] The law on that matter was passed in 1385, and it was made active in 1409 and included in legal collection Liber viridis. The reasons for passing this law were not explained, and the fine was set at 1000 gold coins, imprisonment and, of course, loss of position. The punishment also threatened the relatives of the candidate.[22] Dubrovnik chronicles report on that, as well as Philip de Diversis in his "Description of Dubrovnik".[23] Whenever any of ambitious Dubrovnik canons would run for the seat of archbishop, the Senate received unlimited powers and an open account to prevent this agitation.[24] Formal nomination of other high Church dignitaries, canons and abbots, belonged to the archbishop and the Pope, but the government always backed their own people. In 1569 Sormano, in his letter to the Pope, describes how it was decided upon Dominican vicars at the Rector's palace at a secret council, and the voting of monks was just a formality without any effect.[25] With the support of Hungarian king, Dubrovnik citizens gained the right to name suffragan bishops and the archbishop’s vicar. Every citizen of Dubrovnik that would accept a high Church office against the will of the Senate had to endure sanctions. Lobbying of a canon who desired the mitre of bishop of Mrkan and Trebinje or of Ston also bore grave consequences - loss of assets or lifelong exile from the Republic.onskog biskupa također je povlačilo teške posljedice – gubitak imovine i doživotni izgon iz Republike.[26] The Republic was particularly afraid of the agitation of individuals directly in Rome, since it found it hard to challenge the Papal authority.[27]
The government of the Republic in no way allowed that any member of the nobility became the archbishop, but wanted to affect the choice. In Lettere e commissioni di ponente we often come across indirect mediation of the government through emissaries and Cardinal Protector on the choice of the archbishop of Dubrovnik: they wanted the archbishop to be, if possible, a monk, in no case a Venetian subject or from Dubrovnik. They even asked the Hungarian king to confirm he will always participate in decision-making, so that the seat would not be occupied by an "unknown and suspicious person".[28] But the well known Papal flexibility towards Dubrovnik Republic fell short on this matter, so that the nobility, despite numerous attempts, did not manage to gain the right of patronage over the archbishop's seat. The Papacy leaned towards the principle of universality in this matter, against the interests of the Republic.[29]
However, the government managed to control the archbishops through bishops, canons and procurators. The archbishops came from outside Dubrovnik, did not speak the language or were familiar with customs, did not have a stronghold within the city, so it was hard for them to assert themselves upon the nobility in power. Many of them did not have much interest for the situation in Dubrovnik since they considered it just a starting point for a better position within the Church hierarchy. They were often distant and completely ineffective, and this bore grave consequences for the Church in Dubrovnik. A small number of them resisted such state of things and attempted to conduct a reform, while the majority cared only for earnings from donations they often illegally kept for themselves. Some of them, as well as members of their escort, did not keep respectable lives, which lead to confrontations and unrests. In the 15th century and later they had no influence over the politics of the Republic, but the politics certainly affected their field of activity.[30] The isolation of the archbishop went so far that the nobility was expected to keep themselves at a distance from him. Cerva states as an example of the government’s benevolence towards the archbishop Beccaddelli the fact that they did not hold against him having lunch at rector Stephen de Gozze, “since the government was usually uncomfortable with such familiarities between the nobility and the archbishop”.[31]
Key segments of the government of Dubrovnik Republic pressure on the Church were property and judicial law. Restructuring of land property that began in the first half of the 14th century empowered local noblesse elite that with each land separation in its hands held even larger property, thus suppressing Church institutions and citizens. By the prohibition of donations to the Church the municipality limited its economic growth and ensured the nobility's advantage in acquiring land property. The entire estate of the archbishopric, monasteries, churches and hospitals were under direct administration of the Dubrovnik government, that is, the procurators named by the Grand council that oversaw the division of revenues and management of Church institutions, representing the interests of secular administration, in other words, the interest of nobility. Procurator’s authority were such that not even monasteries nor the body of canons could not pass decisions, not only on revenues, but on other matters concerning the activities of those institutions. Procurators were not completely free to do what they wanted, but acted with knowledge and the approval of the council.[32] Softer rules applied only to newer Franciscan monasteries in the area, since their role to catholicise local population was an important interest of the Republic[33] Without Minor council’s approval no Church estate could be leased, let alone sold, and the same was true for the property of the archbishopric. For any kind of property management, the archbishop and other clergy had to address Minor council in writing. Otherwise, the government took possession of the estate. It happened that the government sequestered the revenue from property owned by the archbishopric.[34] This was in opposition to the examples of widening of bishop’s authority on the surroundings of the city through vassal connections as was the custom in Italy.