| Popis: |
This paper has been written within the research project entitled “Analysis of Demographic Trends and Social Networks in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Based on Parish Registers and Wills”, conducted within the doctoral programme of the History of Population at the University of Dubrovnik. Out of the fifteen Croatian parishes to be investigated in this project, here selected is the Catholic parish of the City of Dubrovnik as a representative sample of a larger urban settlement. The research is based on the parish registers of births and marriages for the years 1870 and 1871. The analysis includes the interval between birth and baptism, proportion of speedy baptisms due to the infant’s fragile condition, days of the week when the ceremony of baptism was most commonly held, number, gender structure, place of origin and social status of the godparents and marriage witnesses, proportion of kin-related godparents and witnesses, criteria for the selection of godparents and witnesses, godparent―godchild name-sharing, repeated godparentage. The results of the analysis show that baptisms were most commonly witnessed by two godparents, whereas marriages always had two witnesses without exception. The latter were always men, but with regard to the godparents, men were given priority over women (4:1), that is, the model that dominated in eighteenth-century Dubrovnik Republic and which involved both genders, as recommended by the Church, was abandoned. Contrary to the decree of the Council of Trent on baptism immediately upon birth, the majority of baptisms were administered in the period after the second week of birth, in accordance with the medical instructions concerning the newborn’s physical well-being. In the cases involving the baptism of a child already baptized in urgency, in more than half of the cases the ceremony was held on Sunday, according to the practice of the European urban centres. Considering that the naming patterns within family were well established, the name of the godparent as godchild’s “protector” came third in the name-sharing practice with a fairly low incidence. A marked frequency of surname-sharing has been established between the child’s parents and the child’s godparents (27.54%), and a modest incidence of surname-sharing between bride and groom and their marriage witnesses (5.66%), which indicates that kinship ties played a significant role in choosing godparents and a minor one when choosing marriage witnesses. In kinship-based godparenthood, a balance between the male and female lineage is evident. The analysis shows that godparents were chosen from at least equal social status or higher than that of the godchild. Some persons acted as godparents or marriage witnesses on several occasions: every eleventh godparent and every eighth marriage witness acted in this capacity at least twice during 1870 and 1871. Given that the status gap between godparents and the godchild’s parents was not significant, it is possible to conclude that the profile of the most popular godparent was not necessarily related to his material status. Godparents were most commonly chosen from among the peers―the locals acted as godparents to the locals, foreigners to the foreigners, yet with a number of exceptions. |
