Rhythm of Crime in a Medieval City Examp

8/20/2019 Rhythm of Crime in a Medieval City Examp

1/36


2/36

Our Daily CrimeCollection of studies


3/36

Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica – Zbornici radova

Published by

Hrvatski institut za povĳest(Croatian Institute of History)10000 Zagreb, Opatička 10Phone: +385-1-4851-721Fax: +385-1-4851-725E-mail: [email protected]: www.isp.hr

Publisher Jasna Turkalj

EditorGordan Ravančić

ReviewersMirela Krešić, Nenad Vekarić

Translation from Croatian and Serbian to EnglishDominik Bošnjak

Translation from Slovenian to EnglishProjekt P j.d.o.o.

DesignMarĳa Korotaj

PressIntergrafika TTŽ d.o.o., Bistranska 19, Zagreb

Published in 300 copies

National and University Library in Zagreb Cataloging in Publication Data (CIP) 893775

ISBN 978-953-7840-29-7

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique,without the express wri?en consent of the publisher.

The publisher/editor is not responsible for errors or omissions in the contents or anyconsequences arising from the use of information contained in it. The opinions expressed inthe research papers/articles in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of thepublisher/editor.

This collection of studies is published with financial support of Ministry of Science, Educationand Sports of Republic of Croatia.


4/36

Our Daily CrimeCollection of studies

Edited by

Gordan Ravančić

Hrvatski institut za povĳestZagreb, 2014


5/36


6/36

5

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................7

Faida e vende?a tra consuetudini e riti processuali nell’Europamedievale e moderna. Un approccio antropologico-giuridico ......................................9Claudio Povolo

On cu?ing off noses and pulling out beards: Face as a mediumof crime and punishment in medieval Dubrovnik .........................................................59Nella Lonza

Rhythm of crime in a medieval city – example of Dubrovnik .....................................73Gordan Ravančić

Criminal offenses and violence in medieval Kotor (1326 – 1337) ..............................103Valentina Živković

“Our daily crime” seen through the le?ers and notes of Venetian governmentrepresentatives in the communes of Brač and Omiš (16 th – 18 th c.) ..................... 119Lovorka Čoralić

Social perception and legal treatment of offenses out of necessity ...........................135Dragica Čeč

“A Gypsy is just different from any cultured man”A discourse on the criminalisation of Gypsies with special reference

to criminologist Hans Gross’s racist views ....................................................................165 Andrej Studen

Crime in the city of Zagreb from 1887 to 1912 based on the Reportof the City council ............................................................................................................183Zoran Grĳak & Milan Vrbanus

The crimes of minors in the cases of the Royal court table in Osĳek.........................235Dubravka Božić Bogović

General criminality in the Independent State of Croatia ............................................257Davor Kovačić


7/36

6

Contents

Intrusion in Yugoslavian monetary system in 1946 by counterfeitingdinar banknotes of DF Yugoslavia (1944) or an example of howan economic crime has been declared a political crime ..............................................279Vladimir Geiger

“Comrade Tito, help!” Le?ers of prisoners and in favor of prisonersaddressed to authorities of communist Yugoslavia as a historical source ............... 295 Josip Mihaljević

“Watch out, UNPROFOR!” – some observations on criminal andunprofessional conduct of peacekeeping forces of United Nations in Croatia .......347Ivica Miškulin


8/36

73

Rhythm of crime in a medieval city –example of Dubrovnik

Gordan RavančićHrvatski institut za povĳestZagreb, Croatia

e-mail: [email protected]

If we observe the crime as an integral part of the social reality, then wecertainly have to bear in minds its changing phases and its general incorporationinto a wider picture of social movements. Therefore, my intent is to demonstratein which way crimes have (not) followed the rhythms of labor, leisure, andpublic celebrations of medieval Dubrovnik, especially regarding their typologyand frequency. Thus, the analysis includes crime distribution in relation to thelocation where the wrongdoing has occurred, together with investigation ofsocial provenance of perpetrators and victims within this cheerless statistic ofeveryday life. Given the fact that the total number of the extant criminal recordsof the medieval Dubrovnik would be too huge “bite” for a case study of thiskind, author analyzes preserved judicial records from only one year (1415).

Keywords: crime, Dubrovnik, medieval, everyday life

Public life of a medieval city took place on city streets, squares, and other public spaces.

Concurrently, privacy was more family-oriented, even though the medieval notion of

private was significantly different from our present-day viewpoints.1 These two spheres

of everyday life of medieval people were not clearly separated and were intertwined to a

large extent. One of the connections of those worlds was certainly emotions as an invisibleand indivisible part of any person.2 Along with love and passions, fear undoubtedly

1 See more on the subject, e.g.: City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe , ed. Barbara A. Hanawalt and Kathryn L.Reyerson, (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), passim; David Herlihy, “Societàe spazio nella ci?à Italiana del Medioevo” in Cities and Society in the Medieval Italy, (London: VariorumReprints, 1980), 174-190; David Friedman, “Palaces and the street in late-medieval and renaissanceItaly”, in Urban Landscapes: International Perspectives , ed. J. W. R. Whitehand and P. J. Larkham, (London:Routledge, 1992), 69-113; Gordan Ravančić, “Javni prostor i dokolica kasnosrednjovjekovnog i renesansnogDubrovnika”, Anali Zavoda za povĳesne znanosti HAZU 38 (2000): 54-53; History of Private Life (vol. 2 Revelationsof the Medieval World) , ed. Georges Duby, (London – Cambridge: Harward University Press, 1988), passim.

2 Emotionality of medieval people and mentality in general were oen wri?en about within the Frenchhistoriography originated from the so-called Annales School. See e.g.: Jacques LeGoff, “Mentalities: Anew field for historians”, Social Sciences Information 13/1 (1974): 81-97; Philippe Aries, Eseji o istorĳi smrtina Zapadu, (Beograd: Rad, 1989), passim.


9/36

74

Our Daily Crime

played a large role in the life of medieval people.3 And even though that fear was – viewed

from today’s perspective – occasionally unjustified, it had its justifications in the relatively

widespread violent behavior. Namely, it has long been known that violence was a regular

companion of a medieval man’s everyday life,4 as this is clearly evidenced by criminal

records and preserved court cases from this period. Of course, one should not expect that

criminal courts and systems of punishments of medieval administrative bodies recorded

and resolved all crimes which filled the medieval everyday reality because the a?itude

towards crime in the past was not identical to the present-day viewpoints.5 Nevertheless,

I believe it is important to bear in mind that these records can be indication of trends of

the “rhythm of crime” and ways in which the society as a system responded to these

phenomena. On the other hand, one has to be aware that crimes and criminality need

to be observed as an integral part of the overall society and that the pa?erns of criminal

behavior can be indications of a cultural legacy and environment of each individual

community.6 Namely, I believe that crime in historical research needs to be observed in

the spirit of a research vista provided by the third generation of the so-called Annales

School which particularly characterizes the work of the famous historian Geogres Duby

who maintained that one should strive to write “total history”.

And just as death does not choose on whom it will struck upon, one could say that the

crime does not choose its victims, who would usually stay unrecorded in historical sources

if by some occasion such an unfortunate event has not happened to them. Therefore,

preserved criminal records not only clearly testify to trends of criminal behavior and ways

in which medieval societies reacted to them, but also speak of episodes of (un)fortunate

fates of li?le people of a medieval city. All of that was a part of everyday life about which

we usually do not have many preserved sources le. Namely, the majority of wri?en

sources, used by historians in their research, usually record things that are uncommon,

3 On fear in the pre-modern world see e.g.: Vito Fumagalli, Landscapes of Fear. Perceptions of Nature and theCity in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), 23-31, 39-52; Jean Delumeau, Strah na zapadu: odXIV do XVIII veka: opsednuti grad, (Novi sad: Književna zajednica Novog Sada, 1987), passim.

4 See e.g.: Violence in Medieval Society, ed. Richard W. Kaeuper (Rochester: Boydell Press, 2000), passim;

Johan Huizinga, Jesen srednjeg vĳeka (Zagreb: Naprĳed, 1991), passim; Johan Huizinga, Homo ludens. O podrĳetlu kulture u igri (Zagreb: Naprĳed 1992), passim.

5 Bronisław Geremek, The margins of society in late medieval Paris, (Cambridge, London, New York, PortChester, Melbourne, Sydney and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editiones de la Maison desSciences de l’Homme, 1987), 10; Violence in Medieval Society , IX-XIII.

6 See e.g.: Mike Maguire, “Crime statistics. The ‘data explosion’ and its implications” in The OxfordHandbook of Criminology, ed. Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan and Robert Reiner, (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 52012), 322 and 328; Xavier Rousseaux, “Crime, Justice and Society in Medieval andEarly Modern Times: Thirty Years of Crime and Criminal justice History”, Crime, History & Societies 1/1(1997): 103-107; Eva Österberg and Dag Lindström, Crime and Social Control in Medieval and Early ModernSwedish Towns , Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Historica Upsaliensia 152, (Uppsala: Almquist &Wiksell International, 1988), 36 That even the medieval thinkers and legal experts believed crime is an

integral part of the social mechanism, i.e. that each crime confirms the public good can easily be read inthe document Tractatus de maleficiis by Alberta Gandina (circa 1299). See together with literature: NellaLonza, “Tužba, osveta, nagodba: modeli reagiranja na zločin u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku”, AnaliZavoda za povĳesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 40 (2002): 77 (especially note 95).


10/36

75

Gordan Ravančić - Rhythm of crime in a medieval city – example of Dubrovnik

extraordinary, and in some way special. At the same time, all that is common usually stays

outside of the vista of preserved historical sources, so sources that sporadically contain

such information on everyday behavior and rhythms of life of people and communities

in past times are extremely valuable. However, each one of such preserved pieces of

information unfortunately speaks very li?le of the overall picture and gives very li?le

space for reconstruction of everyday life. Because of that, when a?empting to reconstruct

this part of the past reality, it is necessary to utilize a combination of qualitative and

quantitative approach and analysis of preserved information.7

In accordance to everything stated above, I believe that a look into the structure of

perpetrators of crimes, their victims, and the typology of criminal offenses, as well as their

distribution in the context of temporal and spatial placement within the annual calendar

of work, holy days, and general everyday life can certainly provide a certain supplement

to the a?empt of reconstruction of everyday reality of a medieval city. Furthermore, an

interpretation of obtained quantitative indicators should shed light on the outlines of

functioning of social and administrative mechanisms of the medieval Dubrovnik, and

thus bring us closer to the forming of a reconstruction of a medieval city in the spirit of

the already mentioned “total history”.

The criminal justice system of the Republic of Dubrovnik is relatively well explored

and outlined in the recent historiography.8 As it can be expected, the criminal justice

system of Dubrovnik largely overlapped with contemporary customs of judicial and

general social practice of reacting to the occurrence of crime inside of a community, and the

court procedure could have had an accusative and inquisitive form.9 What is interesting

to note is the fact that the authorities of Dubrovnik “encouraged” denunciation, all with

the purpose of prevention of misdeeds, but also as a good way to control the public life.10

However, regardless of the relatively severe punishments, the crimes still occurred and

followed the rhythm of everyday life of the medieval city.

7 See e.g. together with literature cited there: Rousseaux, “Crime, Justice and Society ...”, 87-118; GordanRavančić, “Kvatifikacĳa svakodnevice – primjer dubrovačkih krčmi”, Povĳesni prilozi 39 (2010): 11-21.

8 Apart from the monograph on the criminal justice system of the Republic of Dubrovnik which mostly

processes the early post-medieval period [Nella Lonza, Pod plaštem pravde. Kazneno pravni sustavDubrovačke Republike u XVIII. stoljeću, (Dubrovnik-Zagreb: HAZU, 1997)], one should definitely takethe following papers into account: Nella Lonza, “Tužba, osveta, nagodba: modeli reagiranja na zločinu srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku”, Anali Zavoda za povĳesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 40 (2002):57-104 and Nella Lonza, “Srednjovjekovni zapisnici dubrovačkog kaznenog suda: izvorne cjeline iarhivsko stanje”, Anali Zavoda za povĳesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 41 (2003): 45-74 For generalliterature in regards to the criminality, certainly see the included literature.

9 Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, 58-59; Trevor Dean, Crime in medieval Europe, (London: Longman, 2001), 1-29;Trevor Dean, Crime and Justice in Late Medieval Italy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 17-19

10 This is also clearly evidenced by numerous provisions of the Statute which offered a part of the moneyof the final penalty to those who reported the crime. See: Statut grada Dubrovnika , ed. Ante Šoljić,Zdravko Šundrica and Ivo Veselić, (Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv Dubrovnik, 2002), lib. 2nd cap. 10, 16,

18, 33, lib. 6 cap. 17, 23, 31, 35, 40, 48, 59, 67, 68, lib. 8 cap. 13, 33, 44, 65, 77, 78, 80. Possibly the bestexample of such an approach is the following quote “That who reports the offender, if it is possible to legally

prove, shall be given half of the given penalty and his name shall be kept private.” (Statute, lib. 8 cap. 44). Alsosee: Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, 70-71.


11/36

76

Our Daily Crime

For the purposes of this small analysis, I have used and analyzed transcripts of the

criminal court of the Republic of Dubrovnik from 1415. The 250 preserved cases from

the said year are encompassed in two volumes of the series Libri de maleficiis which is

kept in the State archive Dubrovnik.11 The documents were wri?en in Gothic secretarial

minuscule and it is clearly visible that several “hands” were writing them into preserved

volumes. The recorded cases, used in this study, certainly do not represent the totality

of criminal activities and actions because the medieval citizens of Dubrovnik have also

widely practiced extrajudicial models of reparation aer suffering from injustices,12 but

I still believe that they can be indication of trends in regards to both the typology of

crimes and the rhythm of criminal proscribed activities throughout the year. Likewise,

a quantitative analysis of data from the preserved criminal cases can be indication of

certain trends inside of society and ways of its functioning, precisely in accordance to the

aforementioned thesis of crime being an integral part of social mechanism.

Looking at the used transcripts of criminal procedures, it is perfectly clear that the so-

called violent crimes were predominant, which confirms the long-stated thesis about the

“forcefulness” of the Middle Ages.13 Besides that, violent crimes usually had consequences

11 Libri de maleficiis , 50-1, vol. 3 and vol. 4 (State archive Dubrovnik). It is important to note that for theyear of 1415, there are no preserved cases le which were usually, since the end of the 14 th centurymanaged in special archival series Lamenta de intus, Lamenta de foris and Lamenta de intus et de foris.

12 Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, passim.

13 It is not irrelevant to point out that a significant percentage of cases (17%) that started as quarrels, i.e.insulting, ended in a brawl or wounding. Such interconnection between an insult and violent crime is alsoa?ested to in other studies. See e.g.: A. J. Finch, “Nature of Violence in the Middle Ages: an AlternativePerspective”, Historical Research 70/173 (1997): 243-268; Dean, Crime and Justice, 9-10, 68-70, 114-182.


12/36

77


which have required compensation for victims by customary law, commonly via the

so-called “blood feud”, which would consequently cause a new “wave of violence”.

Therefore, the search for a “peaceful resolution” through litigation at a criminal court

was probably the most secure model for achieving non-violent reparation, if satisfactory

reparation was not achievable in an extrajudicial manner.14 However, along with violent

crimes (brawling, wounding, and robbery), a significant portion of registered misdeeds

pertained to thes and burglaries.15 Explaining such distribution is also not particularly

diffi cult because damaged parties certainly wanted to protect their right to reparation

regardless of the fact that the identity of offenders was oen unknown.16 Besides that,

another factor that facilitated initiation of proceedings by plaintiffs is the fact that there

was no penalty for a plaintiff who was unable to prove his allegations in the judicial

practice of Dubrovnik.17

Distribution of frequency of recorded crimes and criminality throughout the year in

Dubrovnik is indication of a constant presence of crimes in the social fabric of medieval

Dubrovnik, with several accentuated periods.18 What is clear at the first glance is

frequency of up to twenty registered crimes within a single month, while the frequency

of criminal activity was increasing in March, July, and September.19 The cause of such

distribution is not really simple to explain. Namely, it raises a question of what is the

analogue factor of such crime, i.e. which specific rhythms of everyday life can coincide and

then cause such a trend / matrix of crime distribution of medieval Dubrovnik. Whether

such distribution was result of economical trends in the Dubrovnik district, or was it

influenced by ecclesiastical calendar or something else. For answering this question, I

believe it is necessary to analyze not only the time and types of registered misdeeds, but

also their circumstances.

14 Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, 59, 65 and 67.15 The absolute numbers in this analysis amount to: the 62, lawbreaking 3, material damage 6,

kidnapping 4, arson 1, fraud 1, wounding 55, robbery 19, rape 5, brawling 87, murder 1, insulting 6. Thegraph above only reflects trends in movements of criminal activities throughout the year and should byno means be interpreted as a reflection of an absolute reconstruction.

16 Analysis of thes follows slightly below. However, I believe it is important to note that such crimedistribution in which violent crimes and thes are predominant in medieval societies is well known inliterature. See e.g.: Östenberg and Linström, Crime and Social Control , 38, 40-54 ; Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”,87; Dean, Crime and Justice , 168-180.

17 Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, 66-6718 The absolute numbers for the graph above amount to: January 18, February 20, March 28, April 17, May

17, June 15, July 37, August 20, September 32, October 15, November 10, December 21. The graph aboveonly reflects trends in movements of criminal activities throughout the year and should by no means beinterpreted as a reflection of an absolute reconstruction.

19 Naturally, the real number of criminal offenses will never be completely known to us and this graphonly reflects trends in “rhythm of crimes” on an annual basis. The absolute numbers for this graphamount to: January 18, February 20, March 28, April 17, May 17, June 15, July 37, August 20, September32, October 15, November 10, December 21.


13/36

78

Our Daily Crime

Namely, looking at economical rhythms, it can be observed that there are no extensive

agricultural works on predominant agricultural cultures in the coastal zone in March.

Winter protection from diseases and pests, together with possible pruning and plantingare coming to the final phases in vineyards, while in olive groves there are no significant

works besides fertilization and possible plantation of new olive groves. At the same time,

spring sowing is ending in vegetable gardens. Furthermore, in July, there are no larger

agricultural works in olive groves and vineyards. However, in September, the situation is

not as agriculturally “dormant” because, even though there are no larger works in olive

groves besides protection of olives from humidity, a “hectic rhythm” reigns in vineyards,

mostly because of the harvest which is in full swing which includes preparations of

basements for storage of new wine. At the same time, preparations for autumn plantation

of various radishes are ongoing in vegetable gardens.On the other hand, if we take a look at the months in which the lowest rate of

criminality has been recorded (June, October, and November), one can notice an almost

anti-reciprocal relation. Namely, June is the month when the last spring works are

being performed, so shallow soil cultivation and weed cleaning is conducted in olive

groves, along with fertilization because inflorescence of olives is finished at that time.

Simultaneously, along with shallow soil cultivation, it is important to ensure suffi cient

irrigation of vineyards because the summer cycle is beginning, and sprung saplings have

to be bound to ensure their unobstructed growth. As for vegetable gardens, harvest of

brassicas is taking place at that time, aer which the soil is prepared for a new sowing.Similarly, October is the month when olive harvest is slowly beginning, while at the same

time, harvest at vineyards is not finished yet; and young wine is entering the first phase


14/36

79


of fermentation in basements. In vegetable gardens, this is the time of deep digging /

plowing, and preparation of soil for spring sowing. In November, olive harvest is

continued, and vineyards are ge?ing ready for wintering.20

However, this type of analogy with economical rhythms cannot fully explain / follow

the trends and frequencies of criminal offenses as specified above. Therefore for be?erunderstanding of the above crime frequencies, another factor needs to be taken into

consideration: the calendar of ecclesiastical and secular celebrations in the pre-modern

Dubrovnik. Looking at the above graph of celebrations and holidays, a kind of similarity

with the earlier graph of crime frequency is visible at first glance.21 What certainly

“strikes the eye” is the abundance of holydays in summer months, which coincides with

the increase of the number of crimes in July. However, the high rate of criminal offenses

during March and September cannot be simply matched to the abundance of holydays

and festivities of the medieval Dubrovnik. In regards to that, one has to consider the

so-called “mobile” holidays such as Easter, which was on March 31st in 1415, and thisfact might explain the abundance of crimes in March of that year. However, at the same

time, we can ask ourselves whether the Lenten season should have affected the trends of

movements of criminal offenses in a precisely the opposite manner.

20 Information on rhythms on agricultural activities is taken from: Kalendar i godšnjak poljoprivrednihradova, (Vodnjan: Agroturist, 2012), passim.

21 Of course, the trends of crime and holiday rhythm are not completely analogous. The absolute numbers

for this graph amount to: January 6, February 4, March 2, April 2, May 4, June 6, July 7, August 6,September 6, October 4, November 5, December 8. Information on holydays is taken from: NellaLonza, Kazalište vlasti. Ceremonĳal i državni blagdani Dubrovačke Republike u 17. i 18. stoljeću, (Zagreb –Dubrovnik: HAZU, 2009), 230-233.


15/36

80

Our Daily Crime


16/36

81


Furthermore, what really needs to be taken into account is the classification ofcriminal offenses within a month, because it is not irrelevant which types of crimeswere increasing in relation to the economical rhythms, i.e. the calendar of holydaysand festivities.22 The analysis clearly indicates a significant difference in the typesof registered criminal offenses during months during which crimes were at theirhighest rate. Namely, while thes and brawling are clearly dominating in March,the predominant type of crime in July was wounding, and brawling “occupied” theinfamous second place. Similarly, wounding and brawling composed a significantpercentage of registered misdeeds in September, but the number of thes was stillsomewhat higher. What needs to be kept in mind is the fact that all the registeredcases of wounding have basically started as brawls (sometimes even as robberies), but the consequences were sometimes more dire than a few bruises and/or the loss(robbery) of property. Having that in mind, it is interesting to notice that duringMarch, i.e. during the Lenten season, the number of these types of crimes with bloodyconsequences was truly reduced. On the other hand, during the periods with more“state” holidays and in accordance with beginning of larger field work in relationto grape harvest and preparation of basements for young wine, the number of suchviolent crimes was increased. In contrast, in June – when the number of the recordedcrimes was smallest – these crimes were mostly related to brawls, while the numberof recorded cases of wounding and thes was significantly smaller. Similarly, thenumber of brawls and thes was balanced and not particularly high in November,while at the same time, not a single case of wounding was recorded. On the otherhand, in October – when the abundance of agricultural works was still significant andthe number of state festivities was at the level from June – the number of recorded brawls and thes was balanced, but at the same time, the number of recorded cases ofwounding was somewhat higher.

This kind of correlation between agricultural and holiday calendar of the pre-modern Dubrovnik with the trend of particular (most frequent) recorded crimes onan annual basis indicates a certain connection between agricultural works and thes,

while at the same time, a connection between the number of festivities, i.e. holidays,and the increase of the number of violent crimes can be glimpsed. Still, this hypothesisshould be additionally “questioned” and elaborated on a larger sample. Namely, ifone is to take a look at December and January, dominated by Advent and post-Newyear festivities, a general increase of the number of crimes in relation to Novembercan clearly be seen, whereby the number of recorded thes is somewhat higherduring December, while this domination “migrates” in favor of brawls in January.At the same time, it is interesting to note that regardless of this change in trend ofcriminal offenses, a change of any kind in regard to the agricultural calendar cannot

be identified. Furthermore, in February, when the citizens of Dubrovnik celebrate22 The graph reflects only trends in dynamic of the amount of particular criminal offenses throughout the

year.


17/36

82

Our Daily Crime

their Saint Blaise, the number of recorded thes is on the significant rise again, whilethe frequency of brawls is somewhat dropping. This trend is also continued in March,so it could possibly be put into relation with the fact that it coincides with the Lentenseason.

Similarly, the distribution of frequency of criminality on a weekly basisdemonstrates that a relatively larger portion of crimes occurred near the end of theweek, i.e. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, while the daily average was approximately30 crimes.23 This kind of distribution, when a third of crimes occur during the“weekend”, should not be particularly surprising if the types of the predominantcriminal activities in these days are kept in mind.

Still, it is interesting to note that Monday was also one of the days when numberof crimes was significantly higher than the specified daily average. The reasonfor such result certainly can be related to the fact that a part of crimes occurred inthe evening hours of Sunday and such crimes were recorded at court on Monday.Similarly, the frequency of recorded crimes was also someway higher on Wednesday.For explaining this increase in criminal activities in the middle of the week, one hasto – once again – reflect on the types of crimes which have occurred on these days, anda?empt to identify analogous rhythms of life of a medieval city.

It is to be expected that violent crimes (brawls and consequent cases of wounding)were predominant at the end of the week, as they are related to nightlife, leisure, andentertainment in general, which was commonly accompanied with consumption ofalcoholic beverages (in case of Dubrovnik, the alcohol of choice was wine).24 At thesame time, it would be common that thes and similar crimes were more frequentduring market days. However, the analysis of distribution of predominant crimes

23 The graph reflects only trends in dynamic of movements. The absolute numbers for these graphsamount to: Monday 41, Tuesday 31, Wednesday 38, Thursday 28, Friday 30, Saturday 36, Sunday 46.

24 See e.g.: Nikola Gučetić, Upravljanje obitelji , translation from Italian Maja Zaninović, (Zagreb: Hrvatskistudĳi, 1998), 82-83; Beno Kotruljević, O trgovini i savršenom trgovcu , ed. Rikard Radičević and ŽarkoMuljačić, Djela znanosti Hrvatske 1, (Zagreb: JAZU, 1985), 164-165; Dušanka Dinić-Knežević, “Trgovinavinom ...”, 83; Gordan Ravančić, Život u krčmama srednjovjekovnog Dubrovnika , 23, 75-76.


18/36

83



19/36

84

Our Daily Crime

demonstrates a somewhat different picture. Namely, violent offenses and crimes suchas brawling, rape, wounding, and robbery were truly predominant during the so-called weekend because their share in the total number of recorded crimes amountsto over 70%. Still, even during the working days, that percentage remains extremelyhigh because violent crimes make up a bit more than half of all the recorded crimes(50.59%).25 However, this result should not be particularly surprising because it onlyvalidates the thesis on the violence of medieval world. However, I consider importantto note the obvious change in relation of criminal offenses in favor of non-violentcrimes (approximately 20%) during the working days of a week. Among these non-violent crimes, the undoubtedly makes up the major portion of recorded cases, andI believe that this kind of distribution is probably connected to various economicalactivities during working days.

Furthermore, for creating a clearer picture on the background of recorded criminal

offenses, it is important to keep in mind who were the offenders, and who were the victims.

The analysis of records of the criminal court from 1415 clearly indicates a predominance

of male offenders (approx. 70%), while females were not recorded as particularly frequent

offenders.26 On the other hand, it is interesting to note a relatively high percentage of

unknown offenders, but I will try to explain this phenomenon a bit later.

Similarly, in recorded criminal procedures from 1415, males were also thepredominant plaintiffs, which should not be particularly surprising if we keepin mind that most recorded criminal offenses was of violent nature and it can bepresumed that this is the reason for a smaller number of female plaintiffs who havemost likely avoided any kind of potentially violent circumstances.27 However, if

25 The graph reflects only trends in dynamic of the number of particular criminal offenses during the week.

26 The graph does not reflect actual dynamic, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amountto: male offenders 180, female offenders 29, unknown offenders 48.27 The graph does not reflect actual dynamic, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amount

to: male plaintiffs 206, female plaintiffs 44.


20/36

85


we are to examine the distribution of offenders in regard to the four most frequenttypes of crimes,28 the picture obtained becomes even more interesting. Namely, basedon what is stated above it would be to expect that the share of female offenderswas largest in non-violent crimes such as thes, but the a?ached graph reveals asomewhat different trend of distribution of the offenders. To be precise, the share offemale offenders in recorded thes is smaller than in recorded cases of brawls andwounding. Such result of the data analysis, although somewhat unexpected, can beexplained with a correction of thesis and schemes stated earlier. Thus, the rather smallshare of female offenders in recorded criminal offenses shown earlier is not relatedto the fact that women did not have a tendency for violent crimes which were mostfrequent, but instead, it can be related to the simple fact that women in general werenot significantly present in a public life of a medieval city because their primary socialrole was associated to family.29 A good example of how a crime with female offenderscould have looked like is the case of a husband who filed a lawsuit on behalf of hisdamaged wife. Namely, a housemaid Tvrdica and Miloslava have first insulted her,aer which they have entered the victim’s home and beat up the poor woman withfists and pulled her hair.30

28 The graph does not reflect actual dynamic, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amountto: the (males 38, females 4, unknown 15), wounding (males 34, females 8, unknown 8), brawl (males63, females 7, unknown 10), robbery (males 10, females 1, unknown 7).

29 On the role of women in the public life of middle ages, see e.g.: Daily Life through World History inPrimary Documents, vol. 2, “The Middle Ages and Renaissance”, ed. Lawrence Morris, (Westport (CT):Greenwood Press, 2009), 12; History of Private Life: II. Revelations of the Medieval World, ed. Georges

Duby (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1993), 63-85; Georges Duby and Michelle Perrot,Storia delle donne in Occidente. Il Medioevo , ed. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, (Bari: Laterza, 1999), 337-350;Ravančić, Život u krčmama , 88.

30 Libri de maleficiis , 50-1, vol. 3, fol. 219’ (hereaer referred to as LM).


21/36

86

Our Daily Crime

Furthermore, it would be expected that the unknown offenders were mostlypresent in cases of thes and burglaries but the analysis shows a somewhat differentpicture. As can be seen from the a?ached graph, unknown offenders are also presentin all other types of recorded crimes. We can certainly ask ourselves how is it possiblethat someone files a lawsuit for a physical a?ack without being certain who a?ackedhim or her. Although everything becomes even more confusing when we take intoconsideration cases of robbery and wounding in which a repeated physical contact hadto occur, the explanation of this type of lawsuits was already stated earlier. Namely,the fact that the plaintiff, according to the contemporary legislation of Dubrovnik, wasnot sanctioned if it would be established that his or her lawsuit has no basis enabledthe damaged party to initiate a procedure without specifying who the guilty party is because during the procedure, through the witnesses’ testimonies, the offender could“emerge”. Furthermore, initiation of a procedure would in some way ensure the rightof a plaintiff to reparation, even through an extrajudicial se?lement, if a guilty party,i.e. an offender would be determined at any later point.31

In the same manner, even though it was not systematically recorded in theanalyzed criminal records, it is interesting to reflect on and comment the social statusand professions of actors of recorded criminal offenses. Namely, out of 250 preservedcases for the year of 1415, the profession/social status of the plaintiff was recorded inonly 81 of them. At the same time, the social status/profession of the defendant wasrecorded in 70 of the preserved cases.

From both a?ached graphs,32 it is clear that crasmen and servants made upthe majority of participants of the recorded cases, which should not be particularly

31 Lonza, “Tužba, osveta ...”, 83.32 The graphs do not reflect actual dynamics, only trends. The absolute numbers for the graph “Plaintiffs

in recorded cases” amount to: nobleman 18, servant 17, cleric 3, crasman 28, cleric 5, merchant 3,


22/36

87


surprising because these are extremely diverse groups of economically activepopulation, which also made up the largest portion of total population of the City. 33 In the same manner, a similar distribution of plaintiffs and defendants can also beobserved in other European urban communities.34 However, there are also significantdifferences in these distributions. It is interesting to note that nobility also constitutesa significant portion of the group of plaintiffs (22%), while at the same time, noblemenand noblewomen as defendants, i.e. perpetrators of criminal offenses constitute asignificantly smaller portion. The reason for such distribution is the fact that a largenumber of reports are the cases of the, and in this period, nobility is certainly thelargest possessor.35 Similarly, crasmen have most oen addressed the court becauseof thes, but it seems like they were also oen victims of physical violence.36

In contrast, it seems that servants have, as the third most common group ofrecorded plaintiffs, most frequently complained to the criminal court of Dubrovnikabout brawls and wounding.37 This kind of division of types of recorded crimes inrelation to social groups, i.e. professions, is essentially logical because crasmen were– just like noblemen – owners of their products which were oen the target of thievesand robbers. Thus, for example, butcher Rade has complained to the court thatsomeone has secretly stolen his ox which he has kept near the door of the butcheryover night.38 At the same time, in an a?empt to defend their property, crasmendid not hesitate to use physical force. A neat example is the robbery commi?ed by stonecu?er Radoslav Petrović during which he has stolen money from anotherstonecu?er, Miladin Stepoević.39 From the lawsuit itself and witnesses’ testimoniesit is not clear what exactly the motive for this robbery was: takeover of an agreed jobor unpaid wages. However, what can clearly be read is that the a?acked Miladin wascertainly not willing to give up the earned money without resistance. Similarly, the blacksmith Ostoja Dragojević was not willing to give up his property without a fightto three assailants, who have broken into his workshop looking to collect a debt from

seaman 3, musician 1, innkeeper 1 and bellhop 2. The absolute numbers for the graph “Perpetrators of

recorded crimes” amount to: seaman 1, innkeeper 6, bellhop 2, crasman 29, servant 20, nobleman 6,prostitute 1, cleric 1, merchant 1, cleric 1, ship captain 1.33 Stjepan Krivošić, Stanovništvo Dubrovnika i demografske promjene u prošlosti, (Dubrovnik-Zagreb: JAZU,

1990), 36-39, passim.34 Gertrud Blaschitz, “Lehrhae Literatur als Quelle für mi?elalterliche Realienkunde: ‘Der Jüngling” des

Konrad von Haslau und der ‘Magezoge’”, Medium Aevum Quotidianum 28 (1994): 33; Dean, Crime and Justice , 9, 171.

35 Namely, out of 18 cases in which the plaintiff is a nobleman, 10 are related to the, and 1 to robbery.36 Out of 28 of recorded cases in which crasmen are plaintiffs, 11 of them are related to thes and

2 to robberies. On the other hand, crasmen were also recorded as victims of brawls (7 cases) andwounding (4 cases).

37

Out of 17 cases in which servants were recorded as plaintiffs, there are 7 cases of brawls and 5 cases ofwounding.38 LM, 50-1, vol. 4. fol. 109.39 LM, 50-1, vol. 4. fol. 84’.


23/36

88

Our Daily Crime

some game they have played earlier.40 But, the cause of conflict between crasmencould also be professional rivalry. Although preserved and examined cases mostly donot provide the entire context of the recorded misdeed, something can be assumedand revealed. Thus, for example, from the case of a brawl between the butcher Ivanand Vlakota Milinović (also butcher), one can “sense” the rivalry between these two.Even though the court was not interested in detailed reasons of their brawl, judgingfrom the witnesses’ testimonies and the verdict itself, it is clear that this brawl had alonger or shorter history of disagreements, most likely related to the business theyhave been practicing.41 Similarly, the brawl between the shoemaker Orsan and tannerStojkan Dupetina was also result of their previous fierce quarrel on the street.42 By thesame token, the case of shoemakers Radoslav Pribilović and Pripko Lukojević alsoclearly speaks of a crasmen’s quarrel which ended in an intense brawl, to which theirapprentices have also apparently joined in, at the main city square.43

On the other hand, servants ( famuli and famule) were economically, but also legally,the least protected group and, according to that, the number of their complaintspertaining to stolen property is negligible, while at the same time, a larger numberof their lawsuits is related to violence towards them and their loved ones. ThusVukuša, servant of Maruša, complained to the court that she was a?acked in front ofher home by Tomko Grampić who wanted to cut off her nose. Similarly, Miss Roza,daughter of the Paskvo de Babalio, also sued Anđelo Kačić because he has a?ackedher servant on a street and tried to forcefully drag her into his home.44 From this case,it is not clear whether the assailant also had intent to rape this servant, but that suchcases occasionally did occur can be confirmed by the case when Laurencĳe de Risacomplained to the court about an unnamed adopted son of Branislav because a day before, this unnamed son a?empted to rape his servant Ljubislava in a vineyard.45

Looking at the “opposite picture” of the analyzed crimes – namely, from theviewpoint of the defendants, i.e. offenders – one can notice some differences, as it waspreviously stated. To be precise, crasmen and servants are still the most commongroups, but members of nobility are not usual among offenders. At the same time,

the analyzed cases witness that innkeepers46

remained relatively oen perpetrators40 LM, 50-1, vol. 4. fol. 113’-114.41 LM, 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 105’.42 LM, 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 14’.43 LM , 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 19’-20.44 LM , 50-1, vol. 4. fol. 64’.45 LM , 50-1, vol. 4. vol. 113.46 The reader can ask himself/herself why were the innkeepers separated as a special group, i.e. they were

not included into the crasmen group. The reason for that is that according to studies so far, it wasestablished that innkeepers in medieval Dubrovnik were mostly not the owners of spaces in which they

were performing their business activity, and at the same time, one portion of them were servants innoble or any other richer families and were managing inns as a part of service in their masters’ taverns.See more on the subject in: Ravančić, Život u krčmama , 69-71; Gordan Ravančić, “Krčme i krčmarisrednjovjekovnog Dubrovnika”, Kolo – časopis Matice hrvatske 16/4 (2006): 229-252.


24/36

89


of criminal offenses. Most frequent crimes of these groups were brawls.47 However, besides that, crasmen were relatively oen accused for wounding,48 and servants forthe49. The reasons for such distribution of criminal offenses according to the socialstatus and profession have already been partially explained with the social contextof each of these groups. Thus, for example, the relatively small share of nobility asperpetrators of criminal offenses is tightly connected with their social status, whichundoubtedly would be tarnished if a blame for some misdeed was proven in court. 50 On the other hand, the analysis demonstrates that crasmen were not only oenvictims of violent a?acks, but they were a?ackers too. Still, as was already stated in oneof the revealed examples, one portion of recorded brawls and cases of wounding was basically result of quarrels, which occurred between crasmen because of businessor neighborly rivalry, or because of some unresolved business debts. Similarly, dueto the nature of everyday life at taverns and inns,51 innkeepers were more exposed toviolent crimes, in part due to “naughty” guests, and in part due to a common need toforcefully charge the bill. A neat example of a brawl caused in such a way was the caseof Novak Vokačić who complained that the innkeeper Nikša Đinović has beat him up, but through the procedure, it turned out that Novak has broken some glasses whilehe was drinking in the inn aer the third bell, aer which he lost the argument overthe amount of the bill, what finally ended with a brawl.52

Of course, all of this information should not be taken as absolute indicators ofdistribution of recorded crimes between social groups, i.e. professions of medievalpeople. The reason for that is, above all, the relatively small sample on which theanalysis has been conducted, as well as the fact that the sources did not record theprofessions and social statuses of all actors in the recorded crimes. Therefore ifone wants to be more precise then should note that the already stated information,pertaining to the fact that in almost 20% of the analyzed cases, the perpetrator wasrecorded as unknown, additionally reduces the accuracy of the entire analysis.However, regardless of all noted deficiencies, I believe that the obtained results can be considered as an indication of trends of crime rhythm and its connection to other

rhythms of medieval everyday life.As was stated already, it seems like the practice of extrajudicial se?lements wasrelatively ingrained into the contemporary society of Dubrovnik, and that initiation

47 Used sources record the following number of accused for starting a brawl during 1415: noblemen 3,crasmen 17, servants 10, innkeepers 4.

48 Used sources record that crasmen were accused for wounding 5 times during 1415.49 Used sources record that servants were accused for the 7 times during 1415.50 On questions pertaining to criminality within the nobility stratum, see e.g.: Barbara W. Hanawalt,

“Fur-Collar Crime: The Pa?ern of Crime among the Fourteenth-Century English Nobility”, Journal of

Social History 8/4 (1975): 1-17; Esther Cohen, “Pa?erns of Crime in Fourteenth-Century Paris”, FrenchHistorical Studies 11/3 (1980): 308-310; Dean, Crime and Justice , 9, 171-180.51 Ravančić, Život u krčmama , 91-96.52 LM , 50-1, vol. 4. vol. 8’.


25/36

90

Our Daily Crime

of litigations was possibly just an additional instrument of pressure on a suspect,i.e. potentially proven culprit.53 The analysis of judicially finalized and abandonedprocedures from 1415 confirms this assumption to some degree. Namely, if one isto observe the relationship between recorded cases in regards to the existence of acourt verdict,54 it can clearly be seen that the number of procedures without a verdictdepends on the consequence of the criminal offense. Thus, for example, all recordedcases of thes and robberies in which the consequences for a damaged party wereonly of material nature do not have wri?en court verdicts in 1415, while a number ofrendered verdicts in majority of the cases pertains to cases of wounding and brawls.55 However, it is interesting to note that within recorded cases of robberies and insulting,the percentage of formally judicially abandoned procedures was extremely high. Still,the analyzed sample was extremely small, so the analysis cannot be fully reliable,In spite of this, I would like to a?empt to provide some explanations regardingthis relation between analyzed cases. For cases of insulting in which there were nophysical consequences, but only those of moral nature, it can be assumed, with relativecertainty, that a conflict was more easily resolvable with an extrajudicial se?lementthan what would be possible in cases of robbery which have most certainly includeds physical a?ack on the damaged party. But, although robbery included a physicala?ack and violence, seizure of property was the most important part of the entiremisdeed. Besides, robbery has certainly included both premeditation and criminalintent, which could not have been tolerated at any cost.56 The city statute also clearlyspeaks of that because carrying of a weapon for wounding in the City was subject toa fine which amounted to 5 perpers along with seizure of the weapon.57 However, inthe analysis of robberies and similar more serious crimes, it is important to note thataccording to the Statute, a testimony from only one witness was not suffi cient for averdict, so this also could have been the reason for the lack of a verdict.58

Just like the type of crime, the time of recorded crimes can be indication of someanalogies in life rhythm of a medieval Dubrovnik. Similarly, the scene of crime can be an important factor in the reconstruction of city’s everyday life and an indicator

to what extent crime was an integral part of daily life of medieval people. AlthoughDubrovnik was a trade city, a significant part of its economy was related to agricultural

53 Lonza, “Tužba i osveta ...”, 83-84, 102.54 Only the most frequent and most severe recorded crimes were taken for the analysis. The absolute

numbers for this graph amount to: wounding 13/39, murder 1/0, robbery 2/19, rape 1/4, brawl 18/69,insulting 1/5.

55 I do not believe it would be representative to take cases of rape and murder as an example due to atoo small analyzed sample inside of which only a single case of murder and only 5 cases of rape wererecorded.

56

Later analysis of distribution of location of registered crimes sheds some additional light and explainswhy verdicts were not rendered for a somewhat larger portion of planned violent crimes.57 Statut, lib. 6, cap. 24.58 Statut , lib. 3. cap. 33.


26/36

91


rhythms in vineyards and olive groves.59 On the other hand, even though Dubrovnikwas deeply rooted in maritime economy, a large portion of trade in Dubrovnik reliedon caravan traffi c towards the nearer and farther hinterland of the City.60 In accordanceto such a way of thinking, and having in mind that a significant portion of recordedcrimes pertained to thes and robberies, it is justifiable to ask ourselves how many

59 See e.g.: Dušanka Dinić-Knežević, “Trgovina vinom u Dubrovniku u XIV. veku”, Godišnjak Filozofskog

fakulteta u Novom Sadu 9 (1966): 39-85; Dušanka Dinić-Knežević, “Trgovina uljem u Dubrovniku u XIV.veku”, Historĳiski zbornik 23-24 (1970-1971): 287-306.60 See e.g.: Bariša Krekić, “Contributions of Foreigners to Dubrovnik’s Economic Growth in the Late

Middle Ages”, Viator 9 (1978): 375.


27/36

92

Our Daily Crime

of these crimes occurred inside of the city, and how many happened in its nearer orfarther surroundings.61 The analysis indicates that a major portion of recorded crimestook place inside of the city,62 which should not be surprising if we bear in mind theexistence of extrajudicial se?lement which has most likely, provided that if a crimewould occur far away from judge’s headquarters, it would be successfully replacedwith this informal procedure without initiation of litigation at court. Furthermore, theanalysis of crime scenes in regard to the relation of private and public space indicatedthat the majority of the crimes happened on public surfaces inside and outside ofthe city.63 Such a result is also not surprising because the majority of city’s life tookplace in public spaces, while the medieval understanding of private and public wassignificantly shied “in favor” of the public.64

Therefore, it is interesting to also observe the frequency of certain types of crimes inregard to places at which they have occurred. The analysis of used records expectedlyindicates that these crimes have mostly occurred in public spaces. However, taking thenature of crime into account, that distribution in the context of a relationship betweena city and its surroundings shows certain regularities. Thus, it is clearly obvious that brawls have mostly occurred in public spaces inside the city, while in case of thes ahigh percentage of misdeeds occurred in a private space. On the other hand, the casesof wounding have mostly occurred on public spaces, but the share of recorded casesof wounding inside of the city and outside of it is equal. Furthermore, the a?achedgraph clearly indicates that robberies were the only type of crimes that stands outfrom the rest because, while other crimes mostly occurred inside the city, this typeof crime was more frequent on public surfaces outside the city. In fact, if one takes a be?er look at the obtained distribution of recorded crimes regarding the places wherecrimes occurred, I believe that it is possible to determine a certain analogous pa?ernconnected to the nature of each of the analyzed criminal offenses. Namely, crimes,which could be connected to the higher concentration of people and their interaction,such as thes and brawls, mostly happened inside the city, since there generalfrequency of people and goods is higher. The difference between these two types of

crimes is the percentage of misdeeds that occurred on private spaces is increasing,

61 It is necessary to note that Dubrovnik authorities recorded all reported criminal cases in the threedifferent registers, which are presently kept in State Archive in Dubrovnik (Libri de maleficiis, Lamenta deintus and Lamenta de foris). Although according to the titles of these archival series it might be concludedthat these registers recorded different types of offenses (e.g. that Libri de maleficiis contains records ofmore serious crimes and that Lamenta de intus contains various complains from city area), that is notso. Moreover, criminal records from 1415 are preserved only in two volumes of archival series Libri demaleficiis , and its content covers criminal cases that took place inside and outside of the city. See: Lonza,“Srednjovjekovni zapisnici duborvačkog kaznenog suda ...”, passim.

62 The graph does not reflect actual situation, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amount

to: unknown 46, outside of city 48, inside of city 156.63 The graph does not reflect actual situation, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amountto: unknown 46, public space 140, private space 64.

64 Ravančić, “Javni prostor i dokolica ...”, passim.


28/36

93


since success of thes obviously depended on the “secrecy” of the act itself, and suchcondition could be more easily achieved within victim’s private space. On the otherhand, it is clear from the analysis that crimes which undoubtedly include physicalviolence followed with more permanent physical and material consequences, suchas wounding and robbery, have an increased share of reported cases outside the city,especially regarding robberies. Having in mind such distribution of crime, it seemsthat it reflects natural undesirability of violent crimes within the city walls; especiallyif the violent crime was previously planned, as it was oen case with fierce robberies.

Naturally, a portion of recorded cases of wounding was not planned beforehand, but was simply an unfortunate result of a set of circumstances, which have led to the

act itself. A good example is the wounding of Miltos Stojanović during the night watchin the night between December 12th and 13th. Namely, during a guard switch in thecity loggia Miltos has looked for Vukoslav Vocičnić to return him a borrowed sword.Unfortunately, Vukoslav refused that, and instead has started “bragging” about howwell he handles the weapon. In the struggle that ensued, Miltos has unfortunately“ran into” a blade, so he had to give the entire testimony to the court lying in bed.65

Similarly, neither all the recorded cases of brawls were initially planned butsometimes a physical conflict could occur aer intense argument or series of insults.By the same token, a brawl could have been a result of an a?empt to prevent the

or some other crime. A good example of such development is the case of brawl and

65 LM , vol. 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 111’-112.


29/36

94

Our Daily Crime

wounding in a quarrel between the blacksmith Ostoja Dragojević and nobleman ser Jacob de Volzo. That neither one of them had intent to a?ack the other is also a?ested by the fact that both of them have complained to the court looking for justice due tothe unfortunate outcome of their conflict.66 Namely, during public works in the moataround the city walls, the unfortunate Ostoja has quarreled over tools with some ofthe other workers. All of that was seen by ser Jacob who supervised the works andhas reprimanded Ostoja for “loafing”. Word by word, and aer a short while fistsstarted to “speak”; ser Jacob has hit the unfortunate blacksmith in the teeth becauseof which the later has sustained injuries with bleeding and has, logically, complainedto the court. Similarly, in the case of wounding of Marina, son of Nikola from Baška, by ser John Lampredio de Zrieua, the reason of the unfortunate epilogue was Marin’sunwillingness to leave the property in which he had entered. As Marin was not givingup, a logical outcome was struggle and brawl in which ser Ivan wounded Marin fromBaška.67

This analysis also sheds additional light onto the possible reasons for lack ofverdicts in a large number of recorded robberies and cases of wounding, i.e. whyprocedures were not judicially completed. Namely, if a significant portion of suchcases occurred outside the city and in the wider surroundings of Dubrovnik, or insome of trade emporia of Dubrovnik, it became significantly more diffi cult to bringthe guilty parties “in front of the face of justice”.

However, crime distribution by crime scene takes us back to an earlier analysis/workflow of crimes throughout the year and certainly more can be said about thenature of the link between everyday life and the pa?ern of recorded crimes. Namely,the analysis of crime scenes of recorded offenses throughout the year shows certainvariations in regard to the relationship between public and private space, in andoutside of the city.68 If we ignore the cases in which the scene of crime remainedunknown, it becomes clear that the analysis reveals certain deviations from theexpected crime scenes during January, March, May, and July. Namely, based on the

66 LM , vol. 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 32’ and 33.67 LM , vol. 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 90’.68 The graph does not reflect actual situation, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amount

to: January (public inside of city 6, private inside of city 7, public outside of city 1, private outside ofcity 1, unknown 2), February (public inside of city 10, private inside of city 2, public outside of city 4,private outside of city 1, unknown 3), March (public inside of city 5, private inside of city 10, publicoutside of city 4, private outside of city 0, unknown 9), April (public inside of city 4, private inside ofcity 4, public outside of city 4, private outside of city 1, unknown 4), May (public inside of city 6, privateinside of city 2, public outside of city 7, private outside of city 0, unknown 2), June (public inside of city11, private inside of city 1, public outside of city 1, private outside of city 0, unknown 2), July (publicinside of city 18, private inside of city 12, public outside of city 2, private outside of city 2, unknown 3),August (public inside of city 7, private inside of city 2, public outside of city 5, private outside of city 1,unknown 5), September (public inside of city 13, private inside of city 8, public outside of city 5, private

outside of city 0, unknown 6), October (public inside of city 7, private inside of city 2, public outside ofcity 4, private outside of city 1, unknown 2), November (public inside of city 6, private inside of city 2,public outside of city 0, private outside of city 0, unknown 2), December (public inside of city 5, privateinside of city 4, public outside of city 5, private outside of city 1, unknown 6).


30/36

95


previous analyses of crime scenes, it is to be expected that a major portion of crimestook place in public spaces and inside the City. I believe that each deviation from suchpa?ern additionally speaks on the analogous processes and events which affectedeveryday life, the frequency of criminal acts, as well as distribution of crime scenes.69

Thus, the increased frequency of crimes in private spaces inside the City during January should most likely be linked to a colder weather when people linger morein closed spaces. Besides that, we should remember that precisely in January thenumber of festivities and holidays, which were celebrated in pre-modern Dubrovnik,is increased.70 Consequently, if we recall that during January the most commoncrime was brawling, we can partially reconstruct social background for such a crimedistribution – a higher number of holidays and gathering inside of closed spacesled towards increase of brawls in private areas. Similarly, in July, when the highestfrequency of criminality was recorded, the predominant share of crimes consistedof misdeeds commi?ed inside the City. In that month, the number of festivities andholidays is also increased like in January.71 Furthermore, we should not forget thatviolent crimes (brawl and wounding) were the predominant type of the recordedcriminal activities in July. Thus, bearing in mind agricultural activities in this timeof the year one should expect a higher share of criminal offenses outside the city,especially on public surfaces. However, for the most probable explanation of suchdistribution of crimes in July one should search for a somewhat stronger analogy between everyday life and the calendar of festivities and holidays, taking intoconsideration the fact that this is a rather warm time of the year, when large quantitiesof fluids are consumed. Moreover, when we are dealing with fluids consumption ithas to be noted that Dubrovnik at that time still does not have constant inflow of freshwater, and people have oen “disinfected” water from wells by mixing it with winewhich was regarded as basic foodstuff.72 In such constellation of an increased wineconsumption, along with holidays, surely connected to leisure, a physical conflictcould easily occur.

69 This way of thinking can, to a degree, be linked to the old adage Occasio facit furem (Opportunitymakes the thief) because the largest portion of recorded crimes was not connected to premeditationand planned endeavor aer all, but was instead just a result of a set of circumstances. Even though itis not closely related to the subject of this discussion, I believe it does not hurt to mention the recentlyconducted study from the field of psychology which more or less reliably validates the aforementionedadage. See: Rimma Teper, Michael Inzlicht and Elizabeth Page-Gould, “Are We More Moral Than WeThink Exploring the Role of Affect in Moral Behavior and Moral Forecasting”, Psychological Science 22/4 (2011): 553-558.

70 See the earlier graph pertaining to the number of festivities. More in: Lonza, Kazalište vlasti , 230-233.71 Besides that, the festivity Hand of St Blaise was celebrated on July 5th , which, for contemporary citizens

of Dubrovnik was one of the most important festivities related to the patron of their city.72 Gordan Ravančić, “Imago vini: predodžba o vinu u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku”, in Cerealia, oleum,

vinum … Kultura prehrane i blagovanja na jadranskom prostoru , ed. Marĳa Mogorović Crljenko i ElenaUljančić-Vekić, (Poreč: Zavičajni muzej Poreštine, 2009), 107-120.


31/36

96

Our Daily Crime

On the other hand, March and May are characterized by a smaller numberof crimes in the City’s public spaces. March is truly not abundant with festivities,and besides that, the entire month was dedicated to the Lenten season in that year,which certainly affected the frequency of public gatherings. In May, the number offestivities is somewhat higher, which – seemingly – reflects on the increase of shareof crimes commi?ed on public city surfaces. However, what “stands out” of the usualpa?ern here is the increased share of crimes on public surfaces outside of the city.For explaining this “anomaly”, I believe it is necessary to keep in mind the nature ofterritorial diffusion of the cult of saints which are celebrated in May. Among them,

the cult of St Pancras is certainly the most important one, regularly followed by the SsNereus and Achilles and accompanied by St Domitilla. These saints certainly form thecircle of the oldest cults of saints who were celebrated on the territory of Dubrovnikand who were only in the fourteenth century properly “pushed out” by the cult ofSt Blaise.73 In the context of this research it interesting to note is that in the fieenthcentury most churches dedicated to those saints were located outside of the cityspace of Dubrovnik,74 which can possibly explain the increased number of recordedcrimes on public surfaces outside the city in May. Similarly, the feast of Ss Phillip and

73 See more on the subject in: Lonza, Kazalište vlasti , 233-235 (especially note 839); Ana Marinković,“Teritorĳalno širenje Dubrovačke komune/Republike i Ckrve njezinih svetaca zaštitnika”, Anali Zavodaza povĳesna istraživanja HAZU u Dubrovniku 45 (2007): 219-234.

74 Marinković, “Teritorĳalno širenje ...”, 226-228.


32/36

97


Jacob has largely been connected to agriculture and agricultural works which weregenerally intensified precisely in May.75

All in all, it looks like the “rhythm of crime” of the medieval Dubrovnik districtand Republic of Dubrovnik has largely been compliant to the rhythm of work andfestivities. Something like that should not be particularly surprising because the life ofa medieval man was mostly defined exactly by the rhythm of work and ecclesiasticalcalendar.76

A similar approach can also be applied in the analysis of recorded crimesthroughout the week. From the a?ached graph, it is clear that Wednesday and Fridaystand out because they have an increased share of recorded crimes in private spacesinside the City, while the expected pa?ern reveals domination of crimes on publicsurfaces inside of the city.77 On the other hand, we can trace a larger share of recordedcrimes on public surfaces outside the city on Wednesdays and Sundays.

It is not easy to establish a firm explanation of such distribution of criminaloffenses during the week. Namely, let us recall that violent crimes, i.e. brawls andwounding, were most frequent on Wednesdays and Sundays, while thes had a“slight advantage” on Fridays. Therefore, one should seek for some analogousprocesses within the urban and extra-urban daily life; namely processes that couldprovide logical explanation for the “anomalies” indicated in the graph above. Namely,if we presume that the increase of the frequency of misdeeds is connected to any kindof economical activities such as the weekly trade market, this unfortunately cannotprovide a satisfactory explanation of the increase of criminal offenses in private spacesduring that time.

Still, if we try to determine each particular crime scene within analyzed cases, it becomes clear that thes, for example, which were relatively frequent on Friday were basically commi?ed “on the edge” of public and private, i.e. in merchants’ stores thatcan be considered as private spaces, but closely connected to public streets and squares.A neat example of such a robbery on the “verge” space is the case of burglary intothe store of Gregory Tripa who has obviously used his store as a pawnshop because

75 On the pagan origins on the festivity of Saint Phillip and Jacok and the link with the agricultural cycle,see, together with literature: Lonza, Kazalište vlasti , 262-266.

76 See e.g.: The Economic History of Europe , vol. 1, Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages, (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 21966), 138, 241, 387, 655; Hugh O’Relly, “Medieval Work & Leisure” (h?p://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_021_Festivals.htm published on October 14th , 2011).

77 The graph does not reflect actual dynamics, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amountto: Monday (public inside of city 17, private inside of city 6, public outside of city 7, private outsideof city 0, unknown 11), Tuesday (public inside of city 13, private inside of city 5, public outside of city4, private outside of city 1, unknown 7), Wednesday (public inside of city 10, private inside of city12, public outside of city 9, private outside of city 1, unknown 6), Thursday (public inside of city 15,private inside of city 6, public outside of city 4, private outside of city 1, unknown 3), Friday (public

inside of city 8, private inside of city 9, public outside of city 4, private outside of city 3, unknown 7),Saturday (public inside of city 16, private inside of city 9, public outside of city 5, private outside of city1, unknown 5), Sunday (public inside of city 19, private inside of city 9, public outside of city 9, privateoutside of city 3, unknown 7).


33/36

98

Our Daily Crime

the majority of stolen goods were in fact pawned for certain amounts of money.78 Having that in mind, in such a case it would not be surprising if an unknown thiefwas someone, who had pawned goods in such a shop. Similar to that was a dispute between the artisan dyer Francis from Florence and Raduša, mother-in-law of theshoemaker Vukašin, which occurred because Raduša was carrying an ember througha windy street. Namely, when wind sca?ered ember and consequently ignited thefabrics in the dyer’s shop, unfortunate Francis was forced to complain at the court.79

On the other hand, brawls and wounding were the most frequent crimes onWednesdays, while thes by their frequency on these days in the middle of a weekwere only on the third place; and such a distribution of these types of offenses could be considered unexpected regarding the analysis of the crime scenes connected withprivate space. However, if we look into this closely it becomes clear that a good part ofthese cases basically had only their ending in victims’ private space, while the crimehad begun before on the public city surface. A neat example of that is the alreadymentioned case of the maidservant Vukuša and Tomko Grampić. Namely, it seemslike that the assaulted maidservant a?empted to avoid the a?ack by fleeing homewhere the crime had its epilogue.80 Another similar story is that of Bačić Staničnić andhis wife, who were a?acked by a group of men in front of their home at night. Still,

78 LM, 50-1, vol. 3, fol. 213’.79 LM, 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 109’.80 LM, 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 34.


34/36

99


reading the testimonies reveals that the beginning of the entire dispute was an earlierargument and a brawl between the plaintiff and one of the accused offenders.81

However, I am afraid that the increased frequency (over 20%) of criminaloffenses on public surfaces outside the city still has to be le without a satisfactoryexplanation. Namely, the analyzed sample is actually too small for any reasonableassumption or speculation about the possible reasons of such an increase. Recorded“extra-urban” crimes occurred in a rather wide area which encompasses the isles ofDubrovnik and Dubrovnik’s district, as well as the relatively distant regions such asthe Drĳeva market, Sveti Stefan in Montenegro, or Novo Brdo and Srebrenica, whichwere Dubrovik’s trade emporia on Balkans. In order to identify the possible analogousprocesses such as economical cycles (rhythms of agricultural works or caravan tradecycles), it would be necessary to obtain and analyze a great collection of relevant data.Although the obtained information might not reveal too much on the incorporation ofcrime and “deviant” behaviors into the urban everyday life of medieval Dubrovnik, I believe that results of such an analysis could shed some light on the “coexistence” ofcrime and the trade network of Dubrovnik.

81 LM, 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 49 i 49’.


35/36

100

Our Daily Crime

Namely, based on the analysis of types of crimes which occurred on publicsurfaces outside the City in 1415, it is clear that wounding (29%), robbery (24%), brawl(24%), and the (12%) constitute the majority of recorded crimes.82 Consequently,it is more or less clear that a significant portion of recorded cases were connectedto seizure or an a?empt of seizure of other people’s property. However, in order toconfirm or overthrow this hypothesis regarding connection between economical/trade processes and extra-urban crimes recorded in the criminal registers of theRepublic of Dubrovnik, one should provide and execute an additional investigationon a significantly larger sample.

On the other hand, the reflection of picture of crime on public surfaces inside ofcity is rather different, which is undoubtedly a result of circumstances which haveenabled or prevented certain crimes from happening. The analysis indicates that brawl was by far the most frequent type of misdemeanor/crime in the city (54%),while thes (21%) and wounding (15%) were significantly less usual.83 At the sametime, it seems that robberies – one of the most common forms of crimes in extra-urban spaces – were not particularly frequent inside of the city. This kind of crimedistribution should not be particularly surprising if we recall one of the statutoryprovisions stated earlier, according to which it was forbidden to bear a weapon insideof the City.84 Moreover, such distribution of types of crimes also reflects an analogy ofDubrovnik’s daily life with some examples from contemporary European cities whereviolent crimes also constituted majority of recorded criminal offenses.85

82 The graph does not reflect actual movements, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amountto: the 5, material damage 0, kidnapping 1, arson 1, fraud 0, wounding 12, robbery 10, rape 1, brawl10, insulting 1, and lawbreaking 1.

83 The graph does not reflect actual movements, only trends. The absolute numbers for this graph amount

to: the 20, material damage 2, kidnapping 0, arson 0, fraud 0, wounding 15, robbery 4, rape 1, brawl52, insulting 3, and lawbreaking 0.84 Statut, lib. 6, cap. 24.85 E.g. see graphs in: Österberg and Lindstörm, Crime and Social Control , 47.


36/36


All in all, the crime network which was intertwined with the urban and rural

everyday life was intensive. Even though preserved sources obviously do not recordall criminal activities, I hope that above analyses and investigation reveal someregularities and analogies between a “rhythm of crime” of a medieval city and someother rhythms which have determined the everyday life of medieval inhabitantsof Dubrovnik. Furthermore, it seems like rhythms of economical activities and thecalendar of festivities and holidays certainly offer the best “context” if one wants toexplain distribution of scenes of occurrence and types of particular recorded crimes.Still, as was pointed out in the paper, all of these analyses are only indications ofpossible trends, and as such they only represent hypotheses which will have to beconfirmed or rejected through future research on a significantly larger sample.