Maritime Regulations of the Statute of the City of Zadar in Comparison with the Same Regulations of the Venetian, Dubrovnik and Split Statute

Autor: Domagoj Mijan
Jazyk: chorvatština
Rok vydání: 2004
Předmět:
Zdroj: Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru
Issue 46
ISSN: 1848-8943
1330-0474
Popis: U ovome radu autor daje neke odgovore u vezi s pomorskim odredbama Zadarskog statuta. Zadarske pomorske odredbe, kao i općenito cjelokupni Statut, relativno su slabo obrađene u našoj pravnoj povijesti. Osim načelno, u dosadašnjoj literaturi nisu prikazane direktne veze između pomorskih odredbi Venecijanskog i Zadarskog statuta. Prema broju pomorskih odredbi Zadarski je uz Dubrovački naš najbogatiji statut, tako da zaslužuje cjelovitu obradu. U ovom radu kompariraju se pomorske odredbe Zadra s istim odredbama Venecijanskog, Dubrovačkog i Splitskog statuta. Pomorske odredbe autor dijeli na posebna poglavlja, od kojih će svaka biti obrađena kao posebna tema u sklopu pomorstva. Također su obrađene odredbe koje direktno ne spadaju u pomorske odredbe, ali imaju s njima izravne veze, kao što su npr. odredbe koje reguliraju putovanja zadarskih poklisara i carinsku problematiku. U radnji su obuhvaćene odredbe koje su donesene u vrijeme nastanka Statuta, ali i odredbe koje su donesene u kasnijim Reformacijama, s time da je proučavanje odredbi vremenski ograničeno do sredine XV. stoljeća.
At the beginning of the 14th century Zadar was the largest and the wealthiest Dalmatian city so that it had the most progressive maritime regulation of all the neighboring cities’ statutes. This is particularly evident in the treatment of wounded or dead sailors. According to the capacities of its ships Zadar stood on equal footing with Venice as a naval power. According to statute regulations the capacity of its ships is much greater than the capacity of ships not only on the eastern Adriatic coast itself but also of ships belonging to other European countries. The statute regulations make it clear that the city of Zadar had a very developed shipping industry which was not contained on the Culfum (the Adriatic) but traded with the entire Mediterranean region. Indeed, maritime trade was more important to the growth of the city than the trade carried out on land. The maritime regulations of the city of Split were established under the influence of those in Zadar. There is also a great resemblance with the Dubrovnik maritime regulations but to a lesser extent than those of Split. The Zadar maritime regulations differ from the Dubrovnik regulations because they are under the greater influence of Venice whereas Dubrovnik retained many regulations deriving from Byzantine law. According to statute regulations Zadar had such a developed maritime industry that it no longer necessitated sailor-shareholders but could rather seek sailors-laborers. However these sailors continued to have the right to transport goods for their own profit so that as far as that goes they were near the status of the sailorshareholders. Dalmatian sailors retained this benefit up to the fall of the Venetian Republic. Of all the statutes the one in Zadar was the only one which had a distinct maritime court of law which evinces the importance that Zadar assigned to maritime affairs. Zadar also placed a strong emphasis on written documents so that in Zadar as well as in Dubrovnik we have the beginning of ships’s bills of lading. Strangely in the Zadar statute there are no regulations which speak about the number of sailors aboard a ship while such detailed regulations are to be found in the Dubrovnik statute. Another thing which is not regulated, excepting two headings, is the maximum ship load which is precisely defined in the Dubrovnik and even in the Split statute. Of the 83 maritime regulations from the IV book of the Zadar statute the author establishes, on the basis of available data, that 48 headings of the Zadar statute were copied or that they are greatly similar to the maritime regulations of the Venice statute. The Zadar headings for which the article establishes a similarity to the Venice statute intermittently stretch from I to XXIII heading, from XXV–XXXVI, from XXXVIII–LXI and LIII, from LXV–LXVII, from LXXIV–LXXVI and LXXIX.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: