The Commerce of the Dubrovnik Republic, 1500-1700

Author(s): F. W. Carter
Source: The Economic History Review, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1971), pp. 370-394
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Economic History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2594050
Accessed: 01-05-2016 01:22 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2594050?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic History Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Economic History Review

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Commerce of the Dubrovnik Republic,
1500-1700
BY F. W. CARTER

"Ii ne se mange pas en cette ville un seul grain de bled qu'il ne faille aller
chercher a cinq cents mil d'icy."'1

I
DUBROVNIK' s geographical situation at the southern extremity of the
Dalmatian archipelago might not, at first sight, appear to have been
favourable for the development of a port. Half of the city lies on a rocky
peninsula, the other half on the steep slope of the mainland; and the quotation
above, from a letter written at Dubrovnik by the Bishop of Dax to Charles IX of
France in I572, illustrates both the constant fear of food shortage and the trading
distances involved in the life of the small republic.2 Despite early difficulties in
development, by the end of the fourteenth century Dubrovnik (see Fig. i) had
become the principal port on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, and ranked third
in the region after Venice and Ancona. During the fifteenth century, the city
came into the Turkish sphere of influence at which time its neighbouring terri-
tories were directly incorporated into the Turkish lands; from the outset the city
merchants sought to maintain good relations with the new rulers of their markets.
This survey will attempt to trace and explain Dubrovnik's trade in relation to
the wider aspects of Mediterranean economic development between I 500 and
I 700, for the sixteenth century proved to be the greatest period of prosperity for
the city and was followed by a period of alternating fortunes.
The last years of the fifteenth century and the first of the sixteenth were to prove
a turning-point in the life of Dubrovnik. During the Middle Ages European com-
merce developed, in the North and Baltic Seas, new regions of activity which
were linked by land and sea routes with the centres of Mediterranean culture.

1 E. Charriere, Ndgociations de la France dans le Levant (Collection de documents inddits sur 1'histoire de
France, ire sdrie, 4 vols., Paris, i840-60), III, 245.
2 The city was founded on the peninsula by refugees from Roman Epidauros (now Cavtat) at the
time of the Slavonic invasion and first inhabited by a romanized population, who gave it the name
Ragusa meaning "stone" or "rock". The continental half had a Slavonic name from the beginning and
was called Dubrovnik, possibly after the Slavonic word dubrava meaning "wood". In the thirteenth
century these two parts, together with a narrow strip along the coast and four small islands, became a
single municipality. Within the course of the following century, the territory was extended by the
addition of Lastovo, Mijet, Peljesac, and the rest of the coastal region. With the acquisition of Konavle,
in I409 and I427, the Dubrovnik Republic was complete and destined to remain intact until its con-
quest by Napoleon in i8o6, and the formal abolition of the republic two years later.-Z. Muljacic,
'O imenu grada Dubrovnika', Zadarska Revija, xi (Zadar, I962), I47-54.
3 P. Earle, 'The Commercial Development of Ancona, I479-I55i', Economic History Review, 2nd ser.
XXII (i969), 28-44-

370

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 37I

0~~~~~~~~~0

0~~~~~

0~~~~~

a0

0~~~~~~

I]~~~~~

I H _~~~~~~~~~

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 372 F. W. CARTER

Like Dubrovnik, the flourishing cities of Venice, Alexandria, Constantinople,

Bruges, and Lubeck occupied sites which were strategically placed in relation to
the contemporary routes of trade, whilst Egypt held pre-eminence as the best
transit region for the Far Eastern trade. The discovery of the new ocean route to
the East and of the American continent and West Indian islands brought about
a reorientation in European commerce and changed the geographical "values"
of European lands. The Baltic and Mediterranean lost their former centrality and
supremacy in European trace but continued to play an active part in European
commerce. Local products were still distributed within, and outside, Mediter-
ranean shores; western Europe was still supplied with essential raw materials from
the Baltic such as timber. Venice ceased to rule in European commerce, which
in turn affected Dubrovnik. In addition, the supply of accessible timber suitable
for shipbuilding grew scarce-a scarcity which the entire Mediterranean region
appears to have suffered in the course of the sixteenth century. Thus, although
Venice long remained a vigorous maritime power and in fact built larger ships
in the sixteenth century than in her more flourishing days,1 she restricted
her activities to the Mediterranean, thus intensifying her competition with
Dubrovnik.
Venetianjealousy towards Dubrovnik was ever present. 2 Venice believed "that
the only way of saving Dubrovnik from all danger on the part of the Turks is to
occupy the town herself". In the face of these threats Dubrovnik's diplomats
obtained a treaty giving her the joint protection of Christendom, a clause being
inserted to the effect that "no acts of hostility are to be committed against Dub-
rovnik and its territory, the Pope for weighty reasons having so decreed." Thus
by her successful diplomacy Dubrovnik found herself under the aegis of seven
different powers-Spain, the Papacy, the Empire of Naples, Venice, Hungary,
the Turks, and the Barbary Beys-whence the republic earned the sobriquet of
"Le Sette Bandiere" (the Seven Standards); and although subsequently it often
was in difficulties with some of its protectors, it could always play one off against
another. This was the secret of the city's long-continued independence and un-
interrupted trading activity.
Situated on the borders between East and West, Dubrovnik also had to take
account of events in eastern Europe. The city was especially influenced by
Turkish policies, owing to its semi-dependent position and close intercourse with
its powerful neighbour. In I526 Suleiman invaded Hungary, and in the battle of
Mohacs the Hungarians were totally defeated. Thus Dubrovnik's earlier depen-
dence on Hungary now ceased.3 She obtained from the Turks all the commercial
1 F. C. Lane, 'Venetian Shipping during the Commercial Revolution', American Historical Review,
XXXVIII (I 933).
2 In a dispatch to the Senate during the War of Cyprus, dated 8 April I570, the Dubrovnik ambas-
sador in Rome wrote as follows: "The Emperor's ambassador in Rome has been informed from Venice
that the Senate has determined to place a garrison in Dubrovnik so that the Turks may not occupy the
city; and if the Republic refuses to admit it, they have decided to seize it by force, which means that
they wish to capture the town with the excuse of preventing the Turks from doing so."-L. Villari,
The Republic of Ragusa, an Episode of the Turkish Conquest (I 904), pp. 286, 287.
3 In I527 Ferdinand of Austria, who succeeded to what remained of the Hungarian kingdom, wrote
to the Dubrovnik Senate, requesting them to remain faithful to him as overlord of Hungary, as its citizens
had been to his predecessors, but no attention was paid to this demand and the republic remained more or
less under Turkish protection until its fall.-G. Gelcich and L. Thalloczy, Diplomatorium relationum
Reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungarae (Budapest, i887), p. 44I.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 373

privileges' granted by the king of Hungary, and her trade in the latter country
flourished. Notwithstanding good relations with the sultan, there was also
danger to be apprehended from the 'turbulent pashas and sandjakbegs of Bosnia
and Hercegovina. Many of these men were descendants of the lawless native
princelings who had gone over to Islam and still cherished their old ambition to
win their way to the Adriatic seaboard. The whole of Dalmatia was now threat-
ened, and there is no doubt that Dubrovnik's position was always a vulnerable
one and she required all her diplomatic tact to save herself from ruin. On several
occasions throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries Dubrovnik
had reason to fear for her future. The continual struggle between Turkeyand
Venice, the problem of piracy, disturbances in land trade due to the depredations
of the Sandjakbeg of Hercegovina, and the loss of ships in the service of Spain saw
the Dubrovnik republic going through a difficult period of its trading life.
When in I645 the war of Candia broke out between the Venetians and the
Turks, Dubrovnik feared that she too would be involved in the conflict, and
appealed to the Pope for protection. Dubrovnik's appeal resulted in the town
maintaining a neutral attitude without being molested, and the city became the
main port for Oriental and Occidental trade in the Balkans.2 The political scene
had given Dubrovnik years of intense trading coinciding with her wartime policy
of neutrality, but this had been interspersed with periodic economic depressions
and fierce rivalry which tended to curtail her former role of trade mediator be-
tween the Orient and Occident. This was further emphasized by a dramatic
event, for on 6 April I 667 an earthquake followed by fire swept through the city,
killing an estimated 5,000 people3 and destroying much of the port. Very slowly
Dubrovnik arose from her ruins and the work of rebuilding began. The Austro-
Turkish War, i683-99, revealed that Ottoman supremacy in the Balkan lands
had passed its zenith, a prelude to further disasters for the Turks. As the Austrians
had reconquered a large part of Hungary, Dubrovnik was considered to be under
the protection of the emperor as ruler of that country and in August I 684 a treaty
to that effect was signed in Vienna, declaring that this protection was merely a
renewal of the old Hungarian protectorate over Dubrovnik. The emperor pro-
mised to protect and defend the city, and confirmed all the privileges and com-
mercial immunities which the kings of Hungary, his predecessors, had granted it.

II

Various works on Dalmatia have been written in English,4 many of which in-
clude historical surveys of Dubrovnik; the only specific history of the town in
English, however, is by the Italian political historian, Luigi Villari.5 The works of
I N. H. Biegman, The Turco-Ragusan Relationship (The Hague/Paris, i967), pp. 29-45.
2 The war ended in i669 and "for Venice, a war into which she poured men, money and supplies
endlessly and without effect". For Turkey it meant success and a renewal of the aggressive policy against
Western Christendom which had been adopted by earlier sultans, and for Dubrovnik a period of in-
tense trading prosperity and mediation between the two enemies,-The New Cambridge Modern History, v
(Cambridge, I 961), 462.
3 Villari, op. cit. p. 305.
4 A. A. Paton, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic (i849); Sir John Gardener Wilkinson, Dalmatia and
Montenegro (i848); W. F. Wingfield, A Tour in Dalmatia, Albania and Montenegro with a Historical Sketch
of the Republic of Ragusa ( I859) .
5 Villari, op. cit. This book provides a mine of information but deals principally with the internal

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 374 F. W. CARTER

local historians and chroniclersL although containing some interesting details

and picturesque descriptions, are written without historical accuracy and are in-
spired by a strong bias which admits no facts unfavourable to Dubrovnik.2 Some
scholars have studied certain special aspects of the town's development,3 whilst
R. S. Lopez and I. W. Raymond claim to have "explored, so far as the scanty
documentation permitted, the non-Romance countries of the Eastern (and
Southern) Mediterranean" and add in a footnote that "the number of documents
from each town is not always in proportion to the importance of the town."4
Documents, mainly in Italian/Ragusan dialect, have been systematically kept
in Dubrovnik since I 277,5 though some of the series are confined to certain cen-

development, the archaeology, and the architecture of the town and does not dwell enough on its inter-
national position. Special histories also exist in German and Italian, but these are by no means com-
plete. The best is probably Guiseppe Gelcich's Dello Sviluppo Civile di Ragusa (Dubrovnik, I 884), but this
suffers similar criticism to Villari's work. J. C. von Engel's Geschichte des Freystaates Ragusa (Vienna, I 807)
is useful and fairly accurate, but is more in the nature of a chronicle of events than a real history.
1 G. Resti, Chronica Ragusina (Zagreb, i884); N. Ragnina, Annali di Ragusa and Annali Anonimi di
Ragusa (Zagreb, I890); G. Luccari, Copioso Ristretto degli Annali di Ragusa (Dubrovnik, I790); G. Gon-
dola, Chronica Ragusina (Zagreb, I 887).
2 That of the Tuscan, Razzi, is more reliable, but by no means wholly to be depended on, and it
brings us down only to the end of the sixteenth century.-S. Razzi, La Storia de Raugia (Lucca, I 588).
3 The Czech historian, KonstantinJirecek, made a notable contribution on Dubrovnik's commercial
growth whilst other works exist on law, politics, history, geography, and architecture.-K. Jirecek,
DieBedeutung von Ragusa in derHandelsgeschichte Mittelalters (Vienna, I889); idem, Die Mittelalterliche Kanzlei
derRagusaner (Vienna, I904); idem, VaznostDubrovnika trgovackojPovfjestsrednjega vjeku (Dubrovnik, I 9I5);
B. Stulli, Pregled dr~avno-pravne historje dubrovacke (Dubrovnik, I956); B. Krizman, 0 Dubrovackij dip-
lomaciji (Zagreb, I957); B. Cvjetkovi6, Dubrovacka diplomacija (Dubrovnik, I923); I. Manken, Dub-
rovacki Patricyjat u XIV Veku (Belgrade, I960); J. Engel and C. Stojanovi6. Povijest Dubrovacke republike
(Dubrovnik, I922); J. Roglic, 'The Geographical Setting of Medieval Dubrovnik', in N. J. C. Pounds,
ed. Geographical Essays on Eastern Europe, xxiv (The Hague, I96I), I44; L. Bereti6, Utvrdenja grada Dub-
rovniku (Zagreb, 1955); J. Tadic, 'Pomorska Trgovina Dubrovinka Svrsetkom Srednjega Vijeka',
Glasnik Dubrovackog Ucenog Drustva 'Sveti Vlahlo', Knjiga I (Dubrovnik, I929), pp. II7-2I; idem, 'Po-
morsko Osiguranje u Dubrovnik XVI Stoljeca', Resetarov Zbornik iz Dubrovacke Proslosti (Dubrovnik,
1931), pp. I09-I 2; idem, 'Spanija i Dubrovnik u XVI veku', Posebna Izdanja Srpska Kraljevska Akademija,
Knjiga xciii, Drustveni Istoriski Spisi Knjiga 4I (Belgrade, I932), p. i6i; idem, 'Le Port de Raguse et
sa Flotte au XVIe siecle', in Maritime du Moyen Age au XVIIIe siecle (eds. M. Mollat, E. Denoir, 0. de
Prat), Travaux du Second Colloque International d'Histoire Maritime (Paris, I959); idem, 'Les Archives
6conomiques de Raguse, Annales, VI (196I), I I58-75; idem, 'Le Commerce en Dalmatie et A Raguse
et la decadence economique de Venise au XVIIe siecle' in Instituto per la Collaborazione Culturale,
Aspetti e cause della decadenza economic veneziana nel secolo XVII (Venice and Rome, I96I), pp. 258-70;
idem, 'La Grece et la Dalmatie au XVIe siecle, Balkan Studies (Thessaloniki, I964), IV, i-io; idem,
'Ragusa e il suo porto nel cinquecento, Quaderni dell'Archivio storico pugliese, VII (Bari, I962), 99-I09;
idem, 'Venecija i Dalmacija u Srednjem Veku', jugoslovenski Istoriski Casopis (Belgrade, I968), III-iv,
5-I 7.
4 Piacenza, Bologna, Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Ibiza, and Almira are examples of towns which do not
receive adequate representation in their book because few private commercial documents from these
cities have so far appeared in print.-R. S. Lopez and I. W. Raymond, Medieval Trade in the Mediter-
ranean World (I955).
5 When the town archives were established. The oldest account book dates from 1277 and is con-
cerned with Customs duties-Liber Statutorum Doane. The documents may be divided into four
groups, viz.:
The first is based on the minutes of the three councils of the commune (Consilium Maius, Consilium
Minus, Consilium Rogatorium). They dealt with two main aspects-the internal politics of the various
merchant class factions in the town and the international political relations of the Dubrovnik republic.
The second refers to Dubrovnik's financial affairs and includes port tax returns, expenditure on
armaments, the guard service, navigation and food supplies, the maintenance of salt pans, revenue
from Customs duties, and the cost of public works.
The third refers to public law including reports on court cases over public property, tribunal sen-

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 375

turies.1 A few continued throughout the period I28o-I8o6,2 and they prove in-
valuable in the study of price movements and changing economic conditions, but
one series3 concentrates on a distinct region.4 There is, however, little scope for
statistical analysis. The notaries did not register all contracts, and there is no
reason to assume that those that have survived constitute an acceptable random
sample. The Dubrovnik government itself made early attempts to destroy some
of its own documents; in I 358, for example, when Dubrovnik passed from Vene-
tian domination to Hungarian protection, the Dubrovnik authorities destroyed
documents which they thought might endanger their political existence. The
identical reason led to the massive destruction of documents in i807, after the
French occupation (I 8o6) and before the liquidation of the Dubrovnik republic
in I8o8.
Commodity analysis is facilitated by the existence in the Dubrovnik archives
of a number of specialist dealers' account books, some of the town's merchants
tending to specialize in a few commodities in particular areas.5 Although docu-
ments from Dubrovnik archives serve as a base for this survey, other source col-
lections little known or difficult of access have also been utilized.6

tences, books on contraband, cadastral surveys in the fourteenth century, and information on the
chancellery of the Dubrovnik commune.
The fourth is a collection of documents referring to civil contracts. These include wills made between
I282 and i8I5, contracts of sale, marriage and dowry contracts, debtors' books, a large number of
solicitors' writs, and the actions of different chancellors. This last group is the richest and most varied.
1 Liber Omnium Reformationium, I335-I410, town statutes; Liber Viridis, I358-I460, containing
town laws and continued after I460 in the Liber Croceus; Naula et Securitas, I563-I755, and Libri
Navigorium, I578-i806, were both concerned with the organization of Dubrovnik's navy; in the middle
of the fourteenth century Sententiae Cancellariae (260 vols.), Lamenta de Foris (138 vols.), and
Lamenta de Intus (I36 vols.) began and dealt exclusively with judicial affairs, to be followed in the
next century by Lamenta de Criminale (247 vols.) and Lamenta de Intus et de Foris (74 vols.).
2 Diversa Cancellariae, Debita Notariae, Lettere di Levante.
3 Lettere e Commissioni di Levante (the official correspondence to the various Dubrovnik repre-
sentatives in the East, I38 vols.).
4 Among the more important series of documents for commodity analysis are the following: Diversa
Cancellariae (235 vols), Diversa Notariae (I 47 vols.), Debita Notariae (i i 6 vols.), and Testamenta
Notaria (94 vols.), all beginning between I278 and I3i0, and continuing until i8o6. They all belong to
the fourth group of documents previously mentioned, i.e. documents of civil contract, to which should
be added Diversa de Foris which commenced in I593 and contains 256 volumes. The private material
in the five series of documents has been registered from extracts of commercial books, private letters,
commercial correspondence, reports on business affairs, wills, etc., often giving precise details on the
type, weight, price, and use of a commodity.
5 More than 30 account books of specialist merchants and tradesmen are found in Dubrovnik under
the series Privata (I426-i829). They belong to the second group of documents previously mentioned, i.e.
documents concerning financial affairs. The oldest of these books is that of the Kabuzi6 brothers (Caboga)
dating from 1426 to I433. They exported a variety of raw materials to Venice and the rest of Italy
(especially silver, lead, and wax from Serbia and Bosnia) and imported merchandise of many kinds,
the most important of which was textiles. Other interesting account books are those of merchants from
the Serbian mine at Novo Brdo (I432-40) and the great merchant shipowner Vice Stjepovi6-Skocibuha
(I585-8); yet again there are the account books of Nikola Miosa (I58i-6), who lived and worked in
Venice, and Benedikt Resti, merchant in Sofia, whose trade connexions covered a large part of Bulgaria
for the years 1590-i605.
6 T. Smiciklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae (I5 vols., Zagreb, I903-34);
F. Miklosi6, Monumenta Serbica Substantia Historium Serbiae, Bosniae, Ragusii (Vienna, i858); V. Makugcev,
Monumenta Historica Slavorium Meridionalium (Warsaw, i874); S. Ljubi6, Historia o odnosajih izmedu
jruznoga Slavenstva i mletacke republike (i o vols., Zagreb, i868-9i); N. Jorga, Notes et extraites pour server a
l'histoire des croissades au XVe siecle (Paris, I899); Venice Archives (Senato Misti and Senato Secreta),
Zadar Archives (Ducali e Terminazioni), Genoa Archives, Istanbul Archives, and Padua Archives.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 376 F. W. CARTER

III

The period between the consolidation of the Turkish Empire in the Balkan penin-
sula, c. I500, and the renewal of Dubrovnik as a Hungarian protectorate at the
end of the seventeenth century had special repercussions on the commerce of the
republic. A decrease in the former importance of spices, salt, slaves, and minerals
in Dubrovnik's commercial structure' after I500 meant that she was obliged to
find alternative commodities in which to trade, resulting in a reorientation of
Dubrovnik's economy. This change meant a decline in the exploitation of Bosnia
and Hercegovina, which had been so powerful in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, and led to an attempt to discover more trading connexions in other
parts of the Balkan peninsula. Furthermore, with the decline of spices, salt, and
minerals in Dubrovnik's commerce greater emphasis was placed on the cheaper
raw materials-skins, wax, and wool-all of which were produced in large quan-
tities throughout the Balkan peninsula.
The period I 500 to I 700 coincided with the town's most active participation in
the skin trade. Dubrovnik imported most of her skins overland, from collection
points along the Danube, as well as from Sofia and towns in central Serbia (Fig. 2).
Whereas wool was Serbia's main export article, Bulgaria tended to place greater
emphasis on different types of skins obtained from nearly every region of the coun-
try. Both domestic and wild animal skins were exported, the former usually from
buffalo, oxen, cow, lamb, and sheep. The raw skins were sent to such towns as
Plovdiv, Sofia, Silistra, and Ruscuk where they were tanned and stored for trans-
port. In Serbia the main buying centres were Belgrade, Prokuplje, and Novi
Pazar. Large numbers were brought to Belgrade from northern Serbia and Hun-
gary and transported by caravan to Dubrovnik. Her monopoly of this trade in
Belgrade was shortlived, for by i 6oo Dubrovnik documents complain of Bosnian
"home" traders in Belgrade, Smederevo, Valjevo, BudimIje (present-day Ivan-
grad), Osijek, and Sombor.2 Skins from Prokuplje were sent via Novi Pazar to
Dubrovnik, the most frequently mentioned being those of cattle and buffalo
which came from large herds kept in the damp pastures of the Leskovac basin.
Novi Pazar, on the main caravan route from Bulgaria to Dubrovnik, was an im-
portant centre, collecting skins not only from its local district but also from other
marketing centres. Hercegovina was still a reliable source of many livestock pro-
ducts, particularly skins from Trebinje, Cernice, Onogost (Niksic), and other
small centres in the poljes3 near to Dubrovnik. Skins also arrived in Dubrovnik by
sea, notably from Bulgaria's Black Sea ports. Varna was the exporting harbour
for those collected in Provadija, Silistra, the region of Dobrudja, and other inland
markets of eastern Bulgaria. Rodosto on the Marmora Sea coast was used by
1 N. Mirkovi6, 'Ragusa and the Portuguese Spice Trade', Slavonic and East European Review (American
ser. xxi (I943), I74-87; F. C. Lane, 'The Mediterranean Spice Trade', Amer. Hist. Rev. XLV (I940),
58i-90; F. W. Carter, 'Balkan Exports through Dubrovnik, I358-I500: A Geographical Analysis',
Journal of Croatian Studies vii (I969), I33-59.
2 V. Vinaver, 'Bosna i Dubrovnik, I595-i645', Godisnjak Drustva Istoricara Bosne i Hercegovine, xiii
(Sarajevo, i962), 222.
3 Serbo-Croat, lit. "field" or "cultivated area"; a common Slav word which has been introduced into
international literature in connexion with karst phenomena. It is a large sunken area in a limestone
district covering up to ioo square miles with a flat bottom intersected by disappearing rivers. After
heavy rain it can temporarily become a lake. In Yugoslavia it is applied to any enclosed or almost en-
closed valley.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 0

0~

Ca~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(&j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

(I)~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

C, 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ )

> C, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 > C, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0M-
0 CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L

on 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~a
0 > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ck: a 0~~~~~~~~~~~
On~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gp

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 378 F. W. CARTER

Dubrovnik's traders as a warehouse and exporting centre for skins collected from
the Thracian Plain, providing an alternative port to Constantinople. In the
Ottoman capital there was a greater threat of competition from Greek and Ar-
menian traders, who may have tried to break Dubrovnik's dominance in the
trade. Moreover, Dubrovnik's merchants had to bear higher marine insurance
costs on their voyages to the Porte (see below, p. 39I, Fig. 8).
Three towns-Ancona, Venice, and Genoa-were Dubrovnik's main cus-
tomers. Once the skins had arrived in Dubrovnik from the Balkan hinterland, the
shortest sea route to a large Italian market was to Ancona. Dubrovnik therefore
became the main warehouse for skins to Italy, for from Ancona the routes led to
Rome, Florence, and Lombardy. After Ancona, Venice was the main overseas
market for Balkan skins going via Dubrovnik. Venetian Jews living in Dubrov-
nik had their connexions both in Venice and in the major skin centres of the
Balkans, such as Sofia, and were extremely active during the Cyprus War of
I570-3 and in the first two decades of the seventeenth century. The other im-
portant market was Genoa. Unfortunately many consignments destined for
Genoa' were only recorded in Dubrovnik documents as having been sent to An-
cona, so that the real importance of Genoa in Dubrovnik's skin trade cannot
be fully assessed.
The prices of skins cannot be calculated precisely for the whole period I 500-
I 700, but the preservation of Resti's trade books show price changes in skins, in
Sofia, at the turn of the sixteenth century. From Fig. 3 certain features can be
noted. First, this was a period of inflationary tendencies, prices of all goods, not
only skins, being closely linked with the fall in value of Turkish money at this time,
a decline particularly noticeable between i602 and i604, a peaceful period in
Balkan history. Inflation had affected Italy as early as I552-60 when prices rose
at an average of 52 per cent per annum,2 but inflation probably took longer to
reach the remoter parts of Europe such as Bulgaria. Second, buffalo skins usually
fetched a higher price than cattle skins, probably due to their larger size and
greater durability. Third, there was a notable difference in the prices of wild ani-
mal skins, from the rare and expensive lynx to the cheaper pelts of the marten.
Paucity of evidence makes it difficult to assess the profits made by Dubrovnik
merchants operating in the skin trade.
Dubrovnik's trade in wax had a very similar distribution pattern to that of
skins. One region in particular, that of Zagoria in Bulgaria, situated along the

1 In the commercial correspondence at Genoa Archives from I 56o to I580 only two letters were
found referring to trade with Bulgaria. One of these was connected with the purchase of skins.-
Genoa Archives, 8 May 1556, Lettere detti agente Ferrari alla Ferari alta Smo Repca di G(enov)a,
busta no. 2170, folder 3: "abiano nolegiatto sopra di essa quora sechi fonj 243 et XXI di bufalo et XII
bulgarini".
2 B. H. Slicher van Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe (A.D. 500-r850) (i963), p. i96.
3 One document dated I596 does give some indication of the sort of profit which was expected. In
that year a relation of Benedikt Resti bought I,200 OX and cow skins in Rodosto for I04,I 39 aspri (868
ducats). The skins had previously arrived from Provadija. These skins were then shipped via Dubrovnik
to Ancona and sold for I49,820 aspri (I,248i ducats). Therefore there was a difference of 38ol ducats
between the buying price in Rodosto and the selling price in Ancona, i.e. 30 per cent gross profit. But
this was not pure profit. Compulsory insurance (ranging between 5-9 per cent of the cargo's value from
Rodosto to Dubrovnik and 2-3 per cent from Dubrovnik to Ancona) together with transport costs (2
per cent of the cargo's value) could have reduced the merchant's pure profit to about 20 per cent on
the whole transaction.-Dubrovnik Archives, I 596, Resti, folder 87.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 379

Danube valley between Vidin and Ruscuk, was noted throughout the Mediter-
ranean for its high-quality wax.1 Serbia also was a reliable source of both white
and yellow wax, and certain towns (Nis, Belgrade, Novi Pazar, and Budimlje)
were noteworthy sources. Yet again Hercegovina seems to have contributed its
supply of wax, and skins, to the Dubrovnik economy, for Trebinje, Mostar,
Onogost, and Podgorica (Titograd) were frequently mentioned by Dubrovnik
merchants. The export pattern for wax shows an overwhelming concentration in

Fig. 3. Prices of Skins paid by B. Resti in Sofia, i59o-I 6 o

7-

I9%

5 -

4-

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

2-6@

-40

1590 1600 1610

YEAR

Source: Dubrovnik Archives, I590-I605, Privata (Resti); i605-Io, Diversa Cancellariae.

north and mid-Italy. Pesaro and Ancona appear to have been the main importers,
probably the major source for Rome together with many other centres in the
Papal States. Unfortunately Dubrovnik's documents do not reveal the final
destination of the wax, although it could well be that Florence and Genoa were
supplied through these ports of the west Italian coast.
Fig. 4 shows the distribution pattern of Dubrovnik's wool trade between I 500
and I 700. Wool became important for Dubrovnik for two reasons. First, during
the later Middle Ages Dubrovnik had important trade connexions with Bosnia-
Hercegovina whose wool was of a particularly low quality.2 Dubrovnik's mer-
1 During the seventeenth century lax control, jealousy, and greed amongst the local Turkish rulers
led to corruption and absurd regulations which affected foreign commerce. In i676 the Turkish Beg
(a Turkish governor of a town, province, or district) of Vidin forbade merchants from Dubrovnik to
transport wax, because it was to be used in Italian Christian churches.-Dubrovnik Archives, 20 June
i676, Lettere degli mercanti e ambassatori 5i, no. I9I4.
2 I. Boric, Dubrovnik i Turska u XVI i XV veku (Belgrade, I952), pp. 303-4.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 380 F. W. CARTER

chants could not therefore compete in the Italian markets with higher-quality
wools from Spain and elsewhere; it was more profitable to concentrate on such
products as minerals. Second, during the period I500-I700 demand for wool
from both Dubrovnik's newly developed textile industry and the Italian woollen
textile centres was so great that it made this commerce highly profitable. Wool
therefore became an alternative trading commodity-after the decline in mineral
and slave exports-to Italy and the West. Furthermore, Dubrovnik's citizens
were now fostering more extensive trade connexions with Serbia and Bulgaria-
the better wool-producing areas of the Balkan peninsula.
As Italian textile manufacturers used a large amount of Bulgarian wool in their
products the Dubrovnik government, realizing the profitable nature of this trade,
managed to achieve a near monopoly in wool collection throughout Bulgaria.'
Wool was the most important commodity exported from Serbia to Dubrovnik
between I 5oo and I 700, most of it coming from the region of southern Moravlje,
which covered the area between Nis and Novi Pazar in the north and Kosovska
Mitrovica and Leskovac in the south. Before I 500 it was a region of comparatively
little value to Dubrovnik for it produced no lead or silver, then the main items in
Dubrovnik's export trade. With the change in Dubrovnik's trade structure after
I500, and the new emphasis on livestock products, especially wool, this region
came at length into prominence; it was an area geographically well suited for
livestock production.
Prokuplje2 was the main wool-collecting centre for Dubrovnik's merchants
after the last decade of the sixteenth century, reaching its highest importance
during the middle of the seventeenth century (i620-67) . Of particular interest
are the trade accounts of the Mili brothers,3 who from Prokuplje controlled the
whole of Dubrovnik's wool exports to Italy. The Mili accounts reveal that, be-
sides the larger towns such as Leskovac, Nis, and Trepca, supplies were also col-
lected from many small villages within the southern Moravlje region. The
accounts also show the seasonal nature of the wool trade (March-August),4 for
during the periods of intensive trading it was obligatory to record all wool de-
liveries to Dubrovnik. The major source of income for the remainder of the year
arose from trade in other livestock products.5

1 Two documents dated i6i9 mention Dubrovnik's sole right to export wool from Sofia, the main
wool centre in Bulgaria.-Dubrovnik Archives, 23 July i6i9, Lettere e commissioni di Levante 43,
folder i68. The Turkish authorities gave Dubrovnik's government this right because they knew her
traders had good connexions in the secure markets of Anconsa and Venice. The Dubrovnik ambassador
in Constantinople wrote in a letter dated I 625, to one of his merchants in Sofia, "you can freely transport
wool, skins and wax from Bulgaria to our city".-Ibid. i625, Lettere degli mercanti e ambassatori 44,
no. I 8I 8. A footnote to a document of I646 states that Dubrovnik's merchants have the export of wool,
like that of skins, completely in their hands.-Ibid. Aug. I646, op. cit. go, no. 22I9.
2 A Dubrovnik colony at Prokuplje was first mentioned in I63I (Dubrovnik Archives, 29 Nov. I63I,
Lettere di Levante 45, folder 234v) and according to S. Dimitrejevi6, Dubrovacka Trgovina u Leskovcu i
Okolina (Leskovac, I955), p. II, a total of 493 documents refer to this town in Dubrovnik archives,
many of which are concerned with the wool trade.
3 According to the insurance books, in I626 they sent 1,276 sacks (i.e. I Io,ooo kg.) of wool to Italy,
more than a fifth (i.e. 2 I - 5 per cent) of the total Dubrovnik exports in wool for that year.-Dubrovnik
Archives, Sicurta di notaria, bk 55; Sicurta i nolli cancellaria, bks 54, 56.
4 In I627 the brothers made from Prokuplje the following deliveries: one in March, two in April,
two in May, 13 in June, five in July, and two in August.-Dubrovnik Archives, I627, Diversa di Foris
48, folders 76v-77.
5 This is seen from a comment by Des Hayes de Courmenin, ambassador in Serbia, to the French king

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 0

0~
Cl)

LU

-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NQ

LU~~~~~~~~

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~0

E oa- 01-'3 ""'~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~0)~-0c

U > lp~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
ON m % 0~~~~~~~~~
> FL 'O~~~~~~~~~~D;

ago~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 382 F. W. CARTER

Besides southern Moravije, the region of Kossovo-Metohija was also a source

of Dubrovnik's wool. Prior to the Turkish invasion, Kossovo-Metohija was part
of the Serbian core-area,' then an important mining centre. With the decline in
minerals after the Turkish conquest, Dubrovnik's merchants gradually deserted
the region; however, towards the end of the sixteenth century, the changed em-
phasis in Dubrovnik's trading structure encouraged them to return. Greater
dependence on livestock products, particularly wool, prompted Dubrovnik
traders to reassess the commercial potentialities of this region, the flat plain of
Kossovo and the low, hilly region of Metohija providing excellent grazing for
cattle and sheep. Wool proved to have the greatest export value, reaching, as in
southern Moravlje, maximum production between the years I 620 and I 667. This
period coincided with the decline of Bulgarian wool exports to Dubrovnik and the
increased demand by the Italian markets during the Candian War (i645-69).
Vinaver has estimated that Kossovo-Metohija provided 70 per cent of Dubrov-
nik's total wool exports,2 but as the region is not well documented this is difficult
to verify.
Wool from Dubrovnik began to be exported in large quantities at the beginning
of the sixteenth century, mainly to the markets of north and mid-Italy, the two
main markets being Venice and Ancona. The Venetian textile industry used large
amounts of Balkan wool, especially from Bulgaria, for this seemed particularly
suited to the manufacture of Venetian cloth.3 The annual output of cloth in
Venice soared from a paltry 2,000 pieces in the second decade of the sixteenth
century to a peak of 28,729 pieces in i602.4 Thereafter the trend was reversed,
until by the beginning of the eighteenth century it had returned to the level at
which it stood two hundred years earlier. As Fig. 5 shows, wool prices in Sofia
reached a peak in i 602 of 4 * 7 ducats per sack, a price that was not to be reached
again until during the Candian War. Similarly, Resti's accounts reveal (see
Fig. 6) that Venetian cloth prices rose to a high point in i6oi. After Venice,
Ancona proved a dependable market, valued as much by the Turks as by Dub-
rovnik's citizens, for they saw both Venice and Ancona as secure markets for their
raw materials and as a source of currency with which to buy Western goods.
Further reference to Fig. 5 shows the influence of political events on the wool
price. With the Candian War prices were doubled, reaching a maximum in the
i 66o's. Unfortunately, documentary evidence for Sofia does not give enough in-
formation on the volume of wool exported from the town during this period of

in the mid-seventeenth century: "All the commerce in this town [Prokupije], as at Novi Pazar, is found
to be in the hands of the Dubrovnik merchants, who buy here skins, wool and wax which they send to
Italy."-N. Vuli6, 'Anticki Spomenici u Srbiji', Spomenik, xxxvii (Belgrade, I905), 95-9.
1 F. W. Carter, 'An Analysis of the Medieval Serbian Oecumene: A Theoretical Approach', Geo-
grafiska Annaler, LI, series B, no. I (I 969), 39-56.
2 Out of an average annual export of 6oo,ooo kg. of wool sent from Dubrovnik to Italy between
i620 and i640.-V. Vinaver, 'Tregtoret e Raguzes ne Kosove-Metohi', Perporini, III (Pristina, i96i),
I50.

3 One document of I 6 I 2 illustrates this point. The largest batches of wool which Dubrovnik exported
rarely exceeded Ioo sacks (8,6oo kg.), but in that year I I9 sacks (I0,234 kg.) of Bulgarian wool were
sent via Dubrovnik to Venice in a single load.-Dubrovnik Archives, I6i 2, Testamenta 55, folder 82.
4 Venetian Archives, Inquisitorato alle Arti, busta 45; Senato Rettori, filza 72, sub 4 Jan. I669;
D. Sella, 'Les mouvements longs de l'industrie lainiere a Venise aux XVe et XVII siecles', Annales,
XII (I957), 29-45-

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 383

Fig. 5. Prices of Wool paid by Dubrovnik Merchants in Sofia, I590-I700

7.5

7-

E 5X

6-
d) 4- Lo J 1683-99
_1 /1645-69 Austro -Turkish War
S I e Candian War
U

[] 3-
w
IL

u 2-
D

0 I , I , I X ,
1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700

Source: Dubrovnik Archives, 1 590-I 700, Diversa Cancellariae, Debita Notariae, Privata (Resti), Testa-
menta, Diversa di Foris.

inflated prices. Information does exist, however, for Serbia for the years I 66o
(244,I54 kg.) and i66i (340,990 kg.) when the trade volume reached a peak.'
The end of the Candian War and the cessation of hostilities between Venice and
Turkey saw a fall in wool prices, only to-rise again with the outbreak of the
Austro-Turkish War of I683-99.

1 350,000 kg. of wool were exported from Serbia to Dubrovnik by one Dubrovnik company alone,
in Novi Pazar, between i66o and i662.-S. Dimitrijevic, Dubrovafki Karavani u Jufnoj Srbyi u XVII
Veku (Belgrade, I958).

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 384 F. W. CARTER

Fig. 6. Prices of Clot/i sold by B. Resti in Sofia, i590-i605

150-

,
140-

130-

120-

110 -

1)100-

590

a60 -

YEARS ~ /
10-

:40-

moit most sogh afe inteBla Caktan ewe 50ad

1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605

YEARS

Source: Dubrovnik Archives, I 590-i605, Privata (Resti).

An equally significant branch of Dubrovnik's commerce was in secondary pro-

ducts, particularly textiles (Fig. 7).- Western European textiles were the com-
modity most sought after in the Balkan markets, and between I 500 and I 550
Dubrovnik encountered little competition in this field. Textile imports reached a
peak around I 53 I when 3I,407 pieces of cloth were imported into Dubrovnik.
Unfortunately the major part, 26,404 pieces, consisted of cloth whose origin is
not specified, but of the remainder the majority came from western Europe.' It
has, indeed, been suggested that the industrial quadrilateral bounded by Genoa,
Milan, Venice, and Florence constituted a region of advanced industry in the
late medieval world, but in the sixteenth century this industrial quadrilateral was
beginning to take second place to the new industrial centres of north-western
Europe. This is borne out by the Dubrovnik import list of I53I, which records
cloth also coming from Carcassone, Perpignan, and London. At this time English
cloth exports were increasing and invading the Mediterranean markets, for the
cloths were eminently suited to warmer climates. That Dubrovnik's trade ex-

Venice 2,359 Carcassonne 297 Padua I9

Constantinople 870 Rhodes 213 Brescia I6
London 643 Verona 78 Perpignan 4
Drinopije 587 Florence 21 Unknown 26,404
Source: Dubrovnik Archives, Registro de' debitori per titolo di giumbrucho del'anno
I53I-I534.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~E

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~co

U-

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L

0 ~~~~~~~EC

0 va13v %O

%3fl Oa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O

_~~~~ %

O;F= Q

C > -10, V) (D~o t *>

CD

U) tz~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U
0-5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U

M% % ## op~~~ ~

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 386 F. W. CARTER

tended' as far as England is further proved by the letter of Barbarigo, the Vene-
tian ambassador to the Porte, who in I 5 I 3 passed through the city on his way to
Constantinople;2 and again, in I526, Pope Clement VII addressed a brief to the
Chancellor and Councillors of the Duchy of Brittany, who had seized a Dubrov-
nik ship coming from England.3
If I53I was the peak year for textile imports the following year saw a sub-
stantial drop, with only I5,000 pieces recorded as entering the port, I2,670 of
which were "kersey" cloths of unspecified origin. This decline continued until
partly checked by the brief war between Venice and Turkey from I537 to I540.
Much of the textile trade was in the hands ofJewish merchants, and this war saw
an increase in their numbers resident in Dubrovnik.4 These traders had con-
nexions in many Italian and Balkan towns, and as Dubrovnik remained neutral
during this outbreak and the Cyprus War of I570-3, they channelled their trade
through her port. With the end of the Cyprus War and the restoration of peace
throughout the Mediterranean, Dubrovnik's textile imports fell in face of com-
petition from the "new" Dalmatian harbours.
Peace time, in the second half of the sixteenth century, proved to be an ex-
tremely difficult period for Dubrovnik, particularly for textiles. During the first
half of the sixteenth century, manufactured goods from western Europe, especi-
ally textiles, could always find a market in the Levant if not in the Balkans. The
penetration of the English, Dutch, and French, themselves important textile pro-
ducers, made competition for the Levantine market after I550 much keener.
Dubrovnik and Venice were thus compelled to withdraw from the Mediterranean
trade and concentrate on the Balkan markets. This led to much rivalry, which was
intensified when Venetian merchants began operating through the harbour of
Split in I590, competition coming to a head in i62I when the Venetian Senate
forbade the export of goods by Dubrovnik merchants from Venice to Dubrovnik5
and so compelled recourse to Split for goods bound for the Turkish lands.
This restrictive action affected Dubrovnik in two directions. Firstly, since the
Venetian market had been the main source of western textiles for Dubrovnik's
traders, they now had to look elsewhere for sources of supply. Florence was the
first alternative, but Florentine textiles were more expensive than those from
Venice, and when these were not available Dubrovnik was obliged to import
cloth from London and Ancona.6 This Venetian interdiction encouraged the

1 F. W. Carter, 'The Trading Organization of the Dubrovnik Republic', Historickd Geografie, in

(Prague, I969), 33-50.
2 "boats had come from England laden with 9,ooo pieces of cloth worth 85,ooo ducats, besides tin
and various kinds of stuff valued at 13,000 ducats, all belonging to Dubrovnik citizens".-G. Valen-
tinelli, Exposizione dei Rapportifra la Republica Veneta e gli Slavi Meridionali. Brani tratti dai Diarj di Marin
Sanudo (Venice, i863), I, 297.
3 The ship was laden with English cloth and mistakenly thought to be English property.-A. Theinen,
Veteran Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium historiam illustrantia (Zagreb, 1875), I, 805. Part of the cargo was
recovered, but the loss amounted to 70,000 ducats, which caused a number of bankruptcies at Dubrov-
nik.-Ragnina, op. cit. p. 42.
The import list of 153i records 2,359 pieces from Venice. According to Sella, the number of cloths
produced in Venice in 1531 totalled 4,537 pieces; so presumably 52 per cent were exported to Dub-
rovnik.-Sella, op. cit.
4J. Tadi6, Jevreji a Dubrovniku do polovine XVII stoljeca (Sarajevo, 1937), p. 137.
5 Venetian State Archives, 30 April I62I, Deliberazioni (Senato Secreta), no. I I I.
6 Ibid. i5 Oct. I626, Deliberazioni (Senato Secreta), no. I28.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 387

smuggling of cloth from Venice to Dubrovnik, but even then prices were higher
than before. Secondly, Turkish traders, especially those from Bosnia, found
sources other than Dubrovnik for buying Venetian goods, particularly the
cheaper cloth, thereby making competition in the Balkan peninsula even sharper
and more intensive. The Venetian Senate also advised many of their Jewish citi-
zens to leave Dubrovnik, and for political and economic reasons many did so be-
tween I620 and I 630.1 After I 630 Dubrovnik entered a period of decline and stag-
nation.2 With the advent of the Candian War Venice was compelled completely
to reverse her earlier policy of isolating Dubrovnik and now channelled her goods,
as did other western European ports, through the town. Textiles provided the
bulk of the imports, again attracting Jewish traders to Dubrovnik, especially
those from Venice.
The general pattern of places exporting textiles to Dubrovnik shows that Bal-
kan sales were extended to include the whole of Bulgaria, whilst in the Levant
only western Greece seems to have provided markets. In the Balkans, competi-
tion from the Bosnian "home" traders resulted in Dubrovnik's merchants ex-
tending their cloth sales into Bulgaria. This proved to be a wise move, for textiles
were in great demand not only in the wealthier towns, but in the villages also. One
of the main reasons for the success of this cloth was the direct dealing by Dubrov-
nik merchants with the Bulgarian peasants. Most of the villages were settled by
Bulgarians (compared with the towns, in which many of the inhabitants were
Turks or Jews) and cheap, rough, simple kersey cloth was a commodity within
their means. Consequently when Dubrovnik merchants bought supplies of skins,
wax, and wool from the villages they often paid for them on a barter basis in kersey
cloth.3 Besides kersey, Dubrovnik's merchants imported other more expensive
textiles into Bulgaria, not only from England but also from Venice, Ancona, and
Florence.
For limited periods during the sixteenth century textiles were also exported to
Persia. This was a two-way traffic, for the Persians bought their silks and sold
them in Dubrovnik in order to buy Western textiles. Other imports included linen
and cotton as well as carpets from Baghdad.4 In the reverse direction Persian
merchants returned from Dubrovnik with Italian textiles5 and English kersey
cloth,6 whilst Dubrovnik's traders also travelled to Persia with cloths7 but less fre-
quently than their Persian counterparts visited the small republic. In the Levant,
competition from the English, French,8 and Dutch discouraged Dubrovnik's

1 Tadi6, j'evreji . . ., op. cit. p. i6o.

2 The French traveller Recault noticed that Dubrovnik was very poor during the period prior to
the Candian War but when the war began "this town was a canal in which the manufactured products
from Venice and the whole of Italy went to Turkey".-H. Recault, Histoire de l'dtat de l'empire Ottoman
(Amsterdam, I 670), p. I 64.
3 ". ... ducati ducento settanta uno per pezze trenta di carisee prese a credenza et mandate a Dimitar
Petrovich che sta in casa de detti compagni in Sophia".-Dubrovnik Archives, 1547, Diversa Can-
cellariae I32, folder 235. (Carisee: Bulgarian, kariseity; French, crdseau, cariset, carisel; English, kersey;
Ragusan dialect, carisee.)
4 Istanbul Archives, I 572, Basrekulet avsivi Muhinione defteri I 2, p. 545, no. I038; Dubrovnik Archives
I9 Dec. 1525, Consilium Rogatorium 38, folder 69.
5 Dubrovnik Archives, Feb. I 536, Consilium Rogatorium 42, folder 258.
6 Ibid. I525, Consilium Rogatorium 38, folder 39; I528, Op. cit. 39, folder 34; I530, Op. cit. 40,
folder I I 7; I533, Op. cit. 4I, folder I I2. 7 Ibid. I567, Letterae Ponentes, I, 67.
8 P. Masson, Histoire du Commerce Franqais dans le Levant i7e siecle (Paris, 19I I), pp. 356-65.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 388 F. W. CARTER

traders, who now concentrated on markets in western Greece and Albania. But
here again they faced stiff competition. Venetian, Greek, and Jewish traders be-
gan sending their cloth direct from Italy, cutting out Dubrovnik's middleman
role, so that towards the end of the sixteenth century it became rare for a Dub-
rovnik trader to consign a large shipload of textiles to Albania.
Lack of arable land within the republic meant that Dubrovnik's wheat crop
scarcely sufficed for more than four months of the year, and there was thus a con-
stant need to procure sufficient grain for the remaining eight months. More docu-
mentation exists on cereal imports than on many other commodities, probably
because of Dubrovnik's constant concern and the close watch kept on her wheat
reserves.1 Three main areas emerge in Dubrovnik's cereal imports. Firstly, the
Aegean, particularly the coastal settlements of Phocea, Smyrna, Altologo
(Ephesus), and Palatia. These towns were ports for the agricultural produce of
the Gediz and Menderes river valleys, where cereals grew well and whose gran-
aries Dubrovnik merchants frequently visited for supplies. The islands of Mitilene
(Lesbos), Chios, and Rhodes, as well as Constantinople with its adjoining suburb
of Pera, were also cereal marts for Dubrovnik. The second area was the Balkan
interior. After the Turkish conquest of the Balkans, no nation other than Dubrov-
nik was allowed to buy grain, but even then only for her own use. Because of the
chronic shortage of grain since the mid-sixteenth century2 one of the most diffi-
cult problems of the Ottoman government was supplying this vital product to
both the army and the big cities. Dubrovnik managed to get a certain amount of
grain from the empire almost every year, generally buying from the sultan's own
estates, but in cases of insufficient quantities, permission was given to purchase
grain elsewhere. By preference the Dubrovnik merchants bought their wheat in
the region ofVolos or, when available, from the Gulfof Patras. Valona in Albania
ranked third in popularity, supplying mainly millet.3 Southern Italy was the
third large area exporting to Dubrovnik, the ports ofApulia and Sicily being most
frequently mentioned as exporting cereals to the town.
Other secondary products assumed a lesser part in Dubrovnik's commerce.
Ornaments and expensive luxury articles are occasionally mentioned, most of the
ornaments coming from Venice and other Italian towns. Church adornments
were sometimes noted as being transported to the Balkans, including silver crosses,
cups, chalices, candlesticks,4 gold and silver plates, icon stands, and incense
burners. Other expensive luxuries included precious stones,5 pearls, rings, belts,
and decorated headscarves, but all of minor importance.

IV
The changing vicissitudes of the Dubrovnik republic during the period i500-
I 700 were not so much due to the geographical situation of the city as to the trans-
I M. Aymard, Venise, Raguse et le commerce du ble'pendant la second moitid du XVIe siecle (Paris, I 966).
2 Caused by a decrease of the acreage seeded with corn during that period.-H. Inalcik, 'Osmanli
Imperatorlugunun kurulus ve inkisafi devrinde Tuirkiye' nin iktisadi vaziyeti uizerinde bir tetkik
muinasebetiyle', Belleten, xv (Constantinople, 1951), 629-go.
3 V. Vinaver, 'Dubrovacko-albanski ekonomiski odnosi krajem XVI veka', Anali Historiskog Instituta
Jugoslovenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, I (Dubrovnik, I 952), 207-32.
4 Dubrovnik Archives, i642, Testamenta 63, folder 25.
5 Ibid. I555, Testamenta 4I, folder 20.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUBROVNIK COMMERCE 389

formed political circumstances of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the

most important being the Turkish occupation of the Balkan peninsula. The Otto-
man Empire was significant, both as a market and as a source of raw materials,
for Dubrovnik's merchants, but for that privilege the small republic paid dearly.'
Naturally, the ability to pay was closely linked with Dubrovnik's prosperity,
which in turn was, dependent upon the large measure of freedom, as well as upon
the favourable terms of trade in Turkey. Nevertheless, here was an area that is
estimated to have sustained a population of I6 million,2 channelling much of its
commerce through the small state of Dubrovnik.3 Had Dubrovnik been annexed
to the empire proper it would inevitably have declined into the position of one
out of many not very important Turkish harbours in the Mediterranean.
Furthermore, at the time when most of the Balkans remained in Turkish hands
and the adjoining countries were often hostile, Dubrovnik provided a useful point
of contact with the Mediterranean world.4 Surrounded as it was by Ottoman
territory, the republic was under Turkish control and the ever-present fear of
Venice kept Dubrovnik tied to the empire. All these objective reasons help to
explain the Ottoman Empire's reluctance to attack Dubrovnik and fully occupy
the city.
Despite all these advantages Dubrovnik had her own problems. After I500,
internal competition arose from the "home" traders. They were Bosnian mer-
chants who wished to exclude Dubrovnik's middlemen and trade directly with
markets in western Europe and the Levant.5 In the sixteenth century their in-
fluence was mainly confined to west-central Bosnia but in the following century
their trading network stretched eastwards into Serbia and northwards beyond
the Sava River into Hungary. Coupled with the growth of Bosnian "home"
traders was the development of the "new" ports, so called because these harbours
had existed prior to Turkish occupation, but had never developed owing to
Dubrovnik's trading monopoly. The Turks rejuvenated them or permitted them
1 A yearly tribute of I 2,500 ducats, together with a further i,6oo ducats as Customs duty for goods
imported into the empire and sold in places other than Istanbul, Adrianople, and Bursa; to which may
be added the Customs duties not included in that sum: one-third of salt revenues, and several hundreds,
sometimes thousands, of ducats spent as presents to acquire and maintain the friendship of various
Turkish authorities.
2 F. Braudel, La Mediterrande et le monde mdditerranden a l'epoque de Philippe II (Paris, I949), pp. 348-9.
3 In the sixteenth century it was around i ,092 square kilometres in area, with a population of 8o,ooo
people.-Rogli6, loc. cit. p. I44. Until the nineteenth century there is no reliable statistical information
on Dubrovnik's population. Exaggerated figures from chroniclers and writers exist, who give the town's
population as between 30,000 and 40,000 people. People have always lived outside the walls, but
2,000-3,000 inhabitants appear to have been the maximum. The first census of i807 showed that there
were 4,I 75 people living inside the walls and a further 3,749 in the suburbs.-Enciklopedija J7ugoslavije,
iII (Zagreb, I958), p. I24.
4 Travellers often entered or left the empire at that point, and it was also a suitable place for ex-
changing prisoners and information. In comparison, Dubrovnik's autonomy had hardly any dis-
advantages for the sultan. She presented no danger to Turkey, as she lacked any military power of her
own, and she was unlikely to lend herself as a base for her invasion. Some aspects of Dubrovnik's
position towards Turkey are comparable with the present situation of Hong Kong on the borders of
China.-Anon., 'Hong Kong ein politisches und wirtschaftliches Phdnomen', Neue Zfiricher Zeitung
(Zuirich, i964).
5 Prior to the Turkish occupation, Dubrovnik had arranged with the Bosnian feudal lords that
"home" traders who possessed such ideas were gaoled. Once the Turks had consolidated their power
in Bosnia, many were freed by the Pashas and Sandjakbegs of Bosnia-Hercegovina who saw these
traders as a possible means of winning their way to the Adriatic seaboard and a lever against Dub-
rovnik's grip on hinterland commerce.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 390 F. W. CARTER

to be developed by Venice, for during peace time Turks and Christians had be-
come less hostile and did much business mutually. Turkey also needed revenue
and goods to support her war campaigns, and as trade mediator Dubrovnik found
that alone she could no longer assume this role.
In the second half of the sixteenth century Turkish traders were becoming in-
creasingly dissatisfied with the lack of harbour facilities for trade to Italy: in
Dubrovnik, in the lower Neretva valley, and at Split. They wished to find a trad-
ing point on the east Adriatic coast from which goods from the whole of their
empire, especially Thrace, Serbia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, could be transported
to Italy,' importing commodities in the opposite direction. Thus in I590 a new
harbour and quarantine house were built in Split to act as a link between the Bal-
kan interior and Venice.2 Split had certain advantages over Dubrovnik. First, the
land route from Sarajevo and Banja Luka to Split was shorter than to Dubrovnik,
so that transport costs were much lower, which greatly helped the Bosnian
"home" traders exporting goods to the Italian markets. Second, danger from
piracy along the coast near Split had lessened with the Venetian occupation of
Omis, the main pirate centre of mid-Dalmatia, in I444, making it much safer to
transport goods through Split. Third, Split harbour was much more spacious,
cheaper, and safer than that of Dubrovnik.3 Fourth, a swift galley service from
Split to Venice meant that goods were quickly transported to the Italian markets,
and not allowed to wait for long periods in Split's warehouses.4 Split therefore set
the precedent for the "new" harbours, followed in the seventeenth century by
others along the east Adriatic coast. After the Austro-Turkish War, Venice, as
Austria's ally, gained considerable territory along the Adriatic coast and began
to build the "new" harbours of Gabela and Pocitelj (c. I 700) to serve the Bosnian
markets which together with Kastelnuovo, Omis, and Makarska resulted in the
expansion of Sarajevo at Dubrovnik's expense.
Some of the disappointments which faced Dubrovnik were partially offset by
the development of tertiary activities, in providing ships and seamen for the ser-
vice of other nations. Despite Dubrovnik's early importance as an outlet for
Bosnia and Serbia, it did not, until the fifteenth century, build ships capable of
carrying ioo tons of wheat. However, by I530 the republic had built up its
merchant fleet to i 8o vessels,5 and was one of the most powerful merchant navies
of that time. Even by I574 its fleet was still the largest in the Adriatic,6 its mer-
chants having contacts in all the important towns of the Mediterranean. Con-
trary to trends in other ports (e.g. Marseilles) the extent of Dubrovnik shipping
was increasing.7 Trade was not exclusive to the Adriatic ports of Italy but to a
1 Padua Biblioteca seminora, Citirani Documenti (Senato Secreto), p. 365, ed. Solitro.
2 G. Novak, Povjest Splita (Split, I 957), II, 40.
3 Venetian State Archives, 3 June I 6oo, Relazione di me Leonardo Bollani ritornato di Conte et cop
di Spalato presentata nel'E. Cons. Relazioni Collegio V Secreta, fasc. 72.
4 Ibid. 23 Sept. I602, Relazione del N. H. Andrea Renier letta in Collo, Relazione Collegio V
Secreta, fasc. 72.
5J. Tadic, '0 Pomorstvu Dubrovnika u XVI i XVII veku', Dubrovacko Pomorstvo (Dubrovnik, 1952),
p. I69.
6 & Cl6ray, 'Le voyage de Pierre Lescalopier Parisien de Venise A Constantinople l'an I574', Revue
d'Histoire diplomatique, xxxv (I 92 I), 26.
7 Between I 570 and I 585 Dubrovnik had more than I8o ships with twice the tonnage of the average
ship of that port of thirty years earlier. It had more than 36,ooo tons, 5,500 crew members, and was
worth approximately 700,000 ducats.-Enciklopedija jugoslavije, op. cit. p. I40.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 G)

CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
(0

C
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(

o (0

0'

CL
0

(0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F

cc, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

co

C~~~~~~~~~~C

o~~ ~ ~~~~~~ cd(

0 cc C')~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,. OC)Z
~~~~~~~~~0 o v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E

c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

-3 (0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

co~ Lo c-
E~~~~~~ eM ~~~~~~~~~~4 -
Cy) la0

< 0 ( -

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 392 F. W. CARTER

wider sphere beyond. Dubrovnik's ships carried wine, spices, and raisins to Lon-
don in return for cloth and metal goods, and sailed regularly to eastern Spain and
the Levant. It is interesting to compare the English and Dubrovnik fleets at this
time. As Davis states: "In I560 England ranked low among the maritime states;
her merchant fleet was by European standards an insignificant one. It stood far
behind that of the Dutch ... behind Venice or even Ragusa and Genoa."' By
i582 English merchant shipping totalled 76,ooo tons, whilst that of Dubrovnik
was about 40,000 tons.
Marine insurance costs give some indication of the extent of Dubrovnik's
shipping (Fig. 8). The lowest rates were paid to the Adriatic ports,2 the shortest
distances having the lowest premium of 2-3 per cent.3 The Ionian Sea, Sicily, and
the west coast of Italy cost 3-5 per cent,4 whilst the Aegean, Marmora, and Black
Seas ranged from 5 to 9 per cent.5 The Near East, Egypt, and Spain had rates be-
tween 6 and i o per cent6 with England and Constantinople I 2-I 5 per cent.? These
were the average insurance costs assessed by special committees appointed by the
Dubrovnik government, which acted as naval court ofjustice. The highest pre-
mium paid was I 5 per cent,8 increasing during war time,9 whilst May followed
by April and January appeared the most popular months for insuring cargo.'0
The main reason for the decline of Dubrovnik's merchant navy was the in-
vasion of the Mediterranean by northern shipping. Towards the end of the six-
teenth and in the seventeenth centuries the insecurity of overland routes, the
growing efficiency of maritime trade, notably as a result of Dutch shipbuilding

1 R. Davis, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries ( I962), p. 2
(my italics).
2 In the sixteenth century each owner of a boat or cargo had to insure it for the length of a journey
(i.e. distance) and against such risks as piracy, shipwreck, fire, and other mishaps. All such evidence
was recorded in Diversa Cancellariae, Diversa Notariae, and a special book for this purpose, Securta e
nolegiamenti notaria. The contracts were registered almost always by the same men who were en-
gaged in the insurance business. The insurance policy was either for a single voyage or for a period of
six to twelve months. The premiums had to be paid immediately and they differed according to the
length of voyage.
3 Dubrovnik Archives, I 539-42, Diversa Notariae i o6, folders 5, 77, 78, I I 7, I 73; I 542-4, op. cit.
I o6, folders i 6, I 8, I 09, I 43; I 546-8, Diversa Cancellariae I 32, folder 8; I 566-7, Securta e nolegiamenti
notaria, folders i, 7; I587-8, op. cit. folders I, 32, 36, I25, 2I5, 264; I588, op. cit. folders 32, 2I I;
I588-9, op. cit. folder 7I; I598, op. cit. folders 3I, 37, 44, 57, 223; I604-5, Op. cit. folder 4.
4 Ibid. I 3 Jan. I5I9, Diversa Notariae 98, folder 6; I570-I, Securth e nolegiamenti notaria, folders
i o6, I 23; I 539-42, op. cit. folders 98, I 55, I 78, I 90, I 93; I 546-8, Diversa Cancellariae I 32, folder 9;
I 566-7, Securta e nolegiamenti notaria, folders 40,43; I 587-8, op. cit. folder 267; I 598, op. cit. folder I.
5 Ibid. I539-42, Diversa Notariae io6, folders I94, i96; I542-6, op. cit. I07, folder I IO; I587-8,
Securta e nolegiamenti notaria, folders 37, I44; I588, op. cit. folders II7, I42; I598, op. cit. folder
134.
6 Ibid. I539-42, Diversa Notariae io6, folders 73, 82, I49, I 70, I 76, i8o; I549-50, Op. cit. I IO, folder
57; I588, Securta e nolegiamenti notaria, folder 254; I546, Diversa Notariae I07, folder 87; I566-7,
Securta e nolegiamenti notaria, folder 62.
7 Ibid. I542-6, Diversa Notariae I07, folders I39, I54, I55, I56, I62, I72, 175; I549-50, Diversa
Cancellariae I36, folder 245; I587-8, Securta e nolegiamenti notaria, folder I76; I588-9, op. cit.
folder 63.
8 There are three examples, one for a voyage from Dubrovnik to Alexandria and twice in I 543 for
fine textiles travelling from London to Dubrovnik.-Ibid. 8 Feb. I520, Diversa Notariae 95, folder 42;
I543, op. cit. I07, folders I72, I75-
9 Ibid. 8 July I57I, Securth e nolegiamenti notaria, folder 8o.
10 Ibid., I56o, Diversa di Cancellariae I45, folders i65, I72-3, I74, I75, I76, I77, i8o, I88-92, i96-7,
20I, 203; op. cit. I46, folders 6, 7, I2, 13, I4, I7, 24, 33, 40,43,46, 47,48-9,50, I04-7, I33, I34, I45-8,
I50-3, I55-6i, I64-5, I67-8, I70-I, I74, I82-3, I93-4, I98-203, 208-9, 2I I-I3, 2I5-I8, 226-9.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 E 0~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 nf

t t t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 CC)

C~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ e (D
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ co:
:< ASS 'I_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(

n ,, eS~~~~~~(

\ X > ;4~

I - I \ 1 - l ?? *J2 g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U-

g g 8 8 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LO

slesnc m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 394 F. W. CARTER

and organization, plus the advantages of an unbroken journey all tended to give
a greater advantage to the all-sea route around the European peninsula. But it
was now northern European shipping, not the Mediterranean fleets, which were
making the journey, with the net effect of making such places as Dubrovnik the
termini of sea routes, not the vital and strategic transit points between long-
distance land and sea routes which they had once been. Whilst the size ofDubrov-
nik's merchant fleet dwindled,' English merchant shipping grew from I I5,000
tons in i629 to 340,000 tons by i686, of which 39,000 tons was serving in the
Mediterranean.2
Only during war time could Dubrovnik hope to benefit on a large scale from
her trading connexions. With all her competitors in either the Christian or the
Muslim camp, neutral Dubrovnik was the only avenue through which East-West
trade could flow,3 but unfortunately for her, wars were either too infrequent or
did not last long enough. An examination of the annual Customs duty from im-
ports gives some indication of their importance. Fig. 9 shows that the annual
revenue gradually rose from I 500 to I 53 I (the peak year of textile imports), fol-
lowed by a rapid decline until the short war of I 537-40. Apart from the small rise
during the Cyprus War of I 570-3, it then remained steady at 20,000 ducats up to
the Candian War when the annual revenue shot up from 20,000 to 500,000 ducats
in the peak year of i666, only to be followed by an equally rapid descent to
6o,ooo ducats four years later. The Austro-Turkish War from I 683 to I 699 again
saw a rise, but to a much lesser extent than in the previous war. The graph illus-
trates clearly how a small commercial city-state could gain financially from a
policy of neutrality during war time. Unfortunately for Dubrovnik, however, the
decline, politically and militarily, of Venice and the end of Turkish expansion in
the Mediterranean meant less opportunity for a neutral policy. Likewise, the in-
cursion of the English, French, and Dutch into the ports of the Levant all contri-
buted to Dubrovnik's problems, to which no permanent answer was found, and
after I 700 the town slowly moved towards its impending decline.4

University College and

School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London

1 By i650 it totalled only about I20 ships, with an average carrying capacity of i00 tons. Thus the
total carrying power was no more than 12,000 tons, in other words only a third of that of the second half
of the sixteenth century, but even worse it did not yield a third of the former revenue. During the second
half of the seventeenth century the number of ships fell below ioo with a total carrying capacity of
about 8,ooo tons.-B. Koji6, 'Brodogradnja na Istocnom Jadranu Kroz Vijekove', Pomorski Zbornik, I
(Zagreb, i962), 87-94. See also T. Guiard Larrauri, Historia del consuladoy Casa de Contratacion de Bilbao
y del comercio de la villa (I5I i-i88o) (2 vols., Bilbao, I9I3-I4), I, 53I, where a similar decline is recorded.
2 Davis, op. cit. pp. 15-17.
3 F. W. Carter, 'Dubrovnik; the Early Development of a Pre-Industrial City', Slavonic and East
European Review, XLVII (i969), 355-68.
4 Idem, 'The Decline of the Dubrovnik City-State', Balkan Studies, ix (i968), I27-3 8 (Thessalonika,
I 968).

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 01 May 2016 01:22:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms