Saturday, September 25, 2004

---> Constitution of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia

Croatian Studies

Constitution of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia

as discussed by the 4th sitting of the republican majority of Croatia under the rule of the Ban (head of the government) on the 5th and 6th day of March, 1921, accepted by the 5th sitting of the said republican majority of representatives on the 9th day of April 1921, and promulgated in the sitting of the 26th day of June 1921, in the capital city of Zagreb.
Published by L. Kezman, LL. D., Croatian deputy, Secretary General of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party.
Pittsburgh, Pa., 1923.

NOTE

The present edition of the Constitution of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia has, in the first place, been intended for the members of the Croatian Republican Peasant Organizations in America.
From this edition of the Constitution have been omitted the territorial provisions of Section A, number 2 of its original text, which omission is due to the actual changes effected by the popular vote cast at general elections of March 18, 1923. Pending constitutional amendment by the Assembly, the declaration, contained in the resolutions, passed by the Croatian Representative Assembly on March 25, 1923, stating that Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia shall be regarded as indisputable and incontestable territory of the Croatian Nation, may provisionally serve as a formal regulation of the point in question. (See appendix).
It may be taken for granted that amendments relative to territory will abide by the universally acknowledged right of national self-determination as the principle, and the plebiscite to be held within certain bordering areas as the method, by application of which the state territory may be extended or reduced.
Besides territorial regulations there has been omitted from this edition also the political preamble from Section B, number I, entitled "World and home factors which have been at work in making small nations subject of international law."
Both passages, territorial and introductory, have also been barred from the recent edition of this Constitution published at Zagreb, which fact will remove from my proceeding any possible censure of arbitrariness.
These and such other amendments to this Constitution as may deem necessary to the Nation will be made the subject of deliberations by the respective Assembly, if not earlier, then when the times comes for the Constitution of Croatia to take effect.
That this time is no longer far distance, such is the unanimous conviction of the Croatian people.

Pittsburgh, Penna., August 1st, 1923. Dr. L. K.



A. THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA.


1. NAME OF STATE.

The State shall bear the name: The Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

2. THE STATE TERRITORY OF THE NEUTRAL PEASANT REPUBLIC OF CROATIA.

(See note on page 1st and appendix).

3. CITIZENSHIP.

The citizenship shall be Croatian.
The manner of acquiring the right of a citizen and all other particulars shall be enacted by a special Citizenship Act.

4. THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERALDIC BEARINGS.

The State and National Heraldic Bearings shall consist of a checky shield emblazoned with 12 argent (white) and 13 gules (red) squares with an azure edging and the device of a plough.

5. NATIONAL FLAG.

The State Flag shall be the Croatian national red-white-blue tricolor.
The same flag with the national heraldic shield shall be used as commercial flag.


B. GENERAL.


Origin and Purpose, Characteristics and Principles of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

I. World and Home Factors which have been at Work in making small nations subjects of international law.

(See note on page 1st..)

II. Characteristics of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

1. ABSOLUTENESS AND CONTINUOUSNESS OF THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. THE REPUBLIC.

The Sovereignty of the Nation is absolute and continuous. It is exercised by the nation through a plebiscite on territorial and constitutional questions, and through its right of initiative and referendum on legislative questions. From this absoluteness and continuousness of the national sovereignty results the perfect and unlimited right of national self-determination in all matters of internal state organization.
Croatia, consequently, is a Plebiscitary Republic.

2. GOVERNMENT BY PEASANT MAJORITY.

According to the established principle of the constitutional democracy, the decision of all state affairs lies in the hands of the majority of representatives returned at a general election.
The peasantry of Croatia, forming the overwhelming majority of the nation, is incontestably entitled to this right of decision the moment it has won that majority at a general election.
Croatia, consequently, is a peasant republic.

3. PEACEFUL DISPOSITION AND NEUTRALITY.

Perfect neutrality in every international conflict, besides the acknowledgment of its right to self- determination, has, ever since the end of the world war, been the very question of every small nation's existence. A standing army is generally, and among peasants particularly, apt to undermine the foundations of morals, wealth-production, civilization and liberty. For these reasons our plebiscitary republic is pacific and neutral. There shall be no standing army, but all citizens shall have to make themselves fit for the defence of their home and country according to the provisions laid down by a special National Defense Act.
The most elementary military instruction shall always be combined with general instruction as well as with a special teaching of the general principles of wealth- production and with a universal national working obligation.
For the maintenance of internal safety and order a special civil force shall be organized.

4. HUMAN RIGHTS IRRESPECTIVE OF CITIZENSHIP SAFEGUARDED.

For humanity's sake the following rights shall be safeguarded to every person temporarily or permanently residing on the territory of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

a) Personal Safety and Inviolability.

With regard to his or her body every person shall be inviolable. Nobody can be arrested or deprived of his or her personal liberty without a court warrant adducing legal grounds for this proceeding. This warrant shall be read to or served on the person to be arrested before the very act of arrest.
The civil force responsible for the maintenance of public order shall be authorized to arrest without such a warrant persons caught in the very act of a murder, robbery, arson, burglary or theft, and shall immediately hand them over to a court.
The arrested person shall be released, if 24 hours have elapsed after his or her arrest, and the court has failed, in either case, to begin with the investigation of his or her case.
The arrested person shall in no case be kept confined for a longer period than a month after the commencement of the trial.
If the court officers fail to fulfill these two provisions of the Constitution, the prisoner shall be at liberty to leave the prison and nobody shall have the right to prevent him from doing so.
Whosoever violates these provisions, and particularly the police and court officers, shall be personally responsible to the law, and their pleading of having acted upon higher orders shall not be accepted.
The acquitted prisoner shall be entitled to a compensation fixed by law. Every grown-up person shall have the right to sue for redress whenever anything against anybody's personal safety or inviolability has been done.

b) Punishments.

Capital punishment shall be abolished.
The imprisonment shall be combined with work. During the trial such work shall be imposed upon the prisoner as corresponds with his calling, but after judgement has been pronounced, this must not necessarily be so. Duration, kind and enforcement of such work shall be enacted by a special Act.
There shall be no corporal punishments. Any physical ill-treatment of a person on trial or prisoner shall be punished, unless it be a crime of a legally graver kind, by at least an instantaneous dismissal from service.

c) Freedom of Motion.

Within the boundaries of the State territory of Croatia every grown-up person shall be allowed to go where he or she likes, and live where he or she pleases, and nobody shall be interned or confined or expelled either from a community or from the State. Aliens shall not be extradited to be tried for acts considered in their respective countries as political crimes.

d) Inviolability of Home (Dwelling-Place).

A person's home (dwelling-place) shall be inviolable. A search-warrant, if justified by law, may be granted only by a court, and a person's premises shall be searched only by a magistrate himself. A member of the civil force may enter a house only when called for assistance by the inmates.
For the observation of these rules both the police and the court officers shall be personally liable to the law. Under a person's premises his house, the court-yard, and all farm-buildings are to be understood.

e) Letter Secret and Postal Delivery Safeguarded.

The delivery of postal consignments, particularly of letters and newspapers, shall be guaranteed by a special Act, which shall also provide for the inviolability of the letter secret and for the keeping secret of all telegraphic and telephonic messages.

5. THE FREE PEASANT HOME.

The Peasant State is an organic community of free and organized households.
For the general improvement of every single peasant home (family) there shall be enacted a special Farmer's Inheritance Act providing also for liberal facilities of peasant husbandry on the lines of the ancient common unwritten social communities law brought into harmony with modern thought and requirements of peasant classes. Another Act shall provide for the exemption of a peasant's home and property from execution and again another for the internal family organization and authority. The latter act shall also provide for the free establishment of new social communities.

6. FAMILY ORGANIZATION.

The Family is the primary factor of moral education and acquisition of principles on which general culture of mind and production of wealth are based.
A special act shall lay down the duties of the family as to education, culture of mind and teaching of principles of wealth production.

7. PERFECT EQUALITY OF BOTH SEXES.

Both sexes shall have equal rights.

III. Principles of Organization of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

1. THE REPUBLIC IS A MORAL COMMUNITY OF SENSIBLE BEINGS.

a) Freedom of Meeting.

The freedom of meeting, being one of the most natural necessities of man, shall be universal.
The authorities shall in no case and for no reason whatever have the power to forbid the holding of a meeting or gathering.
For gatherings and meetings on private premises or on private ground permission shall have to be asked for of the respective owner.
Of a meeting to be held on a public place generally used or otherwise convenient for that purpose the competent authorities for the maintenance of public order shall have to be notified before the commencement of the meeting at the latest by anyone of its organizers either orally or by a written notice which may be simply posted up on the said authorities' office door.
Meetings in public buildings which are either generally used or otherwise convenient for that purpose, such as public schools, town halls, etc. shall be held by political associations or parties in the same order as they have been notified, and in the same way as in open public places. By the Meeting Act freedom of speech at all meetings shall be safeguarded according to the principle that any interference with a speech held at a meeting, or with the order during the same, forms an infringement of one of the most natural human rights without which there can be no progress. Any infringement of such nature shall be punished by a special punishment.

b) Liberty of Press.

The Press as the chief means of diffusing human thought and knowledge shall be entirely unhampered. No censorship shall be established and no newspaper shall in any case be suppressed.
Only political associations or parties shall be allowed to issue political newspapers. Every article on politics, every notice, and every article referring to a person's name shall have to bear the full signature of the writer. All leaflets, irrespective of their contents, shall also have to be signed by the author's full name.
No special licence from the authorities shall be necessary for the starting and issuing of a newspaper. The responsibility for any article shall always rest with the writer except in case of his absence abroad, when the chief of the political association or party (if the article in question has appeared in its paper) shall be held responsible for it. For personal affronts offered through a newspaper the shortest possible procedure shall be enacted by a special act.

c) Liberty of Associating.

No association of any kind whose activities are public and whose members exercise control over its management and property shall need a permission of the authorities for its starting and working.
Political parties which have been publicly formed and have adopted a party program of their own shall be considered as public associations and normal organs of political life.
Membership of secret societies shall be made punishable by law.

d) Responsibility of Public Officers.

Every public officer shall be entitled to obedience to his orders as long as he keeps within the limit of law. Any disobedience to legal orders as well as the issuing of illegal orders shall have immediately to be accounted for in ordinary court and the offender shall be tried according to criminal law.
For injuries done to individuals by either the state or by the officers of the autonomous bodies, the state or the respective autonomous body (parish, county) shall be made answerable for the injured individuals at an ordinary court.

2. THE REPUBLIC IS A WEALTH-PRODUCING ORGANIZATION.
a) Universal Working Duty. Everybody's Right to Life worthy of man.

Wealth cannot be produced without work. A nation cannot produce wealth, unless every member of the community does his share of work. The most obvious postulate of justice is that everybody should enjoy the fruits of his or her own work.
There shall be no requisitions at all, and in cases of expropriation for common good the manner shall be provided for under an Act. The State as a wealth-producing community shall pass a special Universal Working Duty Act, a General Farming Experience Act, and an act on everybody's right to life worthy of man.
The peasant majority of the nation shall be engaged in agricultural pursuits in their free homes.
The life interests of this majority are inseparable from those of other wealth-producing classes.
The peasant state shall ensure the regularity of working of all wealth-producing industries, but it shall especially secure the industrial production of the country by the passing of a Working Men's Rights Act by which to the whole working classes movement adequate consideration shall be given. Nobody shall be obliged to do any work without a consideration. In future there shall be neither commandeering of vehicles nor of labourers for any purpose whatever. A special act shall be passed on the right to strike.

b) The Foundations of the Production of Wealth. Agrarian Reform. Liberty of following a trade or profession.

Farming forms the foundations of the wealth-production.
A special Act shall be passed to the effect that large estate forests, at present in State, Church and private possession be handed over into the nation's possession so that pasture and timber thereof shall be adequate to meet the wants of every peasant household, and the fuel wood, as far as possible, the requirements of every other citizen. The existing joint Ownership Parishes Act and the Landed Property Communities Act shall be altered in the same spirit.
All state, church and private large estate ownerships shall be abolished. No estate shall be allowed to surpass in extent the largest existing peasant estate in the same county. On the exceptions to that rule, taking into consideration model farming, co- operative progressive farming, and the farming industry, special act shall be passed. By a special Home Colonization Act farmsteads shall be established for the home colonization of farmers on the whole area got by the breaking up of large estates. The same act shall provide for farming areas left uncultivated and for peasant households where there are no children. Moreover, by a special act provision shall be made for the acquisition of farmsteads of their own by peasants who are agricultural labourers and for persons who, though not being peasants, have satisfied the requirements of the General Farming Experience Act. There shall, first and foremost, take place a restitution to the peasantry (Landed Property Communities, social communities and sole owners) of all that landed property which had been taken away from them by an unjust or inaccurate partition of such property (on the occasion of the so called segregation, when the feudal serfdom was abolished). The vested interests of all present owners in such property shall be taken into account inasmuch as they do not collide with the principles set forth above.
In adjudicating compensations for landed property the principal question before the decision of the issue shall be, how a particular large estate has been acquired. The adjudication of compensations for landed property shall be provided for by a special Compensation Act.
Everybody shall be allowed to follow any occupation, and particularly any trade he has learnt and to the extent of his skill. Under a special act special qualification shall be required for the exercise of, and the control shall be established over, professions having any relation to human life or health, or being of primary importance to the people.
Every kind of trade shall be perfectly free, but special tariff advantages shall be granted only to co-operative societies of producers and consumers.
On principle, there shall be no custom duties. Subject to custom duties shall be made by law only articles of luxury, but other kinds of goods only in cases of a foreign state trade policy making the adoption of this course imperative.

c) Banking and Credit.

All the banking business done should go to increase and improve the production, but particularly so of agricultural production.
The Republic will issue paper and metal money as a legal tender for the exchange of goods, and will guarantee for its value.
A special Act shall provide for the encouragement of granting individual credits to farmers and for the promotion of the accumulating co-operative farmers' savings to enable the farmers to supply their wants, and to exercise control over the transactions of every single banking institution.
A normal development of the whole national economic life is conditioned by an orderly working and organization of parish, county and state finances. The fundamental principles of these finances shall be laid down by the Constitution.

d) General Insurance.

General Insurance shall be enacted by law to provide for the relief of persons suddenly becoming disabled to earn their living and especially for old age, lest anybody should, without his or her own fault, go without the means of living.
In the same manner, lest anybody should suffer loss of property without his or her own fault, general insurance of all property shall be enacted against damage done by elementary disasters such as fire, flood, hail-storm, earthquake, as well as epidemics.

3. THE REPUBLIC AS A CULTURAL ORGANIZATION.

a) Religion.

Religion is the foundation of morals. Religion in general and the Christian doctrine in particular is the foundation of sound education.
Christian Churches and all public religious communities shall enjoy perfect freedom of teaching and professing their religion, of observing their religious rites, and of intercourse with their coreligionists and church authorities without the boundaries the Republic.

b) Judiciary.

Under a special Judges' Independence Act the separateness of the judiciary from legislature and government as well as the independence of judges shall be safeguarded.
There shall be neither military nor other special courts nor special police and administrative courts.
The court proceedings shall as a rule take place in the centre of the economics parish or, if necessary, on the spot.
Proceedings, at least those in the lowest courts, shall be public and oral. Expeditiousness of legal proceedings shall be enacted under special acts.
The people's share in the legal proceedings through its jurors and assessors shall be regulated by special laws.
Every person charged with felony or misdemeanor shall be put on his or her trial before the jury.
The jury lists shall be made out in the manner that the majority of the jurors shall consist of peasant household heads of the district of the competent court.
The court shall be competent to examine the laws of the country as to their being in harmony with the Constitution as well as the legality of various decrees. They shall be competent to decide in disputes on competence between the national government and the autonomous authorities as well as in disputes of individual citizens with either the government or the autonomous authorities.

c) Education.

National education in school and without it being a matter of concern of the whole nation, the whole Republic shall take not only the principal care of the national education but shall also, if need be, bear the necessary expenses.
The elementary school shall bear distinctively peasant characteristics having for its primary object a thorough and lasting literacy of the people.

1) School for Literacy.

The economic parish shall in every village (hamlet, place) establish a public school where children and grown-up people shall be taught reading and writing gratuitously. Children shall be supplied with books and stationery gratuitously, and all expenses arising therefrom shall be borne jointly by the parish, the county and the whole Republic as enacted by a special Literacy Act.

2) Common National School.

With regard to the cultural and wealth-producing principles taught in the Common National (elementary) School in villages as well as in towns the said school shall be an eminently peasant institution.

3) General Training of the Youth of the Country to Work. Learning of Russian and German Languages.

All male and female pupils shall, after leaving the Common National (elementary), School. for a period of at least two years, be trained to various practical wealth-producing trades according to the existing facilities or expediency, but always combined with general mind cultivating instruction and practical teaching of the Russian and German languages.

4) National School for General Instruction.

All the existing, so called secondary schools (grammar-schools, secondary schools where ancient languages have been substituted by modern languages, and lyceums) shall be abolished. They shall be substituted by National Schools for General Instruction with a curriculum extending over a period of no more than 4 years. Grown-up people shall also be allowed to attend these schools. Hand in hand with this instruction shall be conducted the training to practical work, either during the scholastic year or during the prolonged vacations.
In these schools there shall be neither marks nor certificates given as in present use, and English shall be taught in them.
Only those pupils who have regularly for two years attended above mentioned practical training courses shall be allowed to attend this National School for General Instruction.

5) Technical and Trade Schools.

Besides National School for General Instruction there shall be established a large number of special technical and trade-school(agricultural, handicraft and commercial schools) where instruction shall be given simultaneously with that in the National Schools for General Instruction.
Besides continuation courses for the Russian and German languages there shall be special courses held in these schools for general instruction.
On leaving the National School for General Instruction students shall have choice to enter schools for learned professions to study for various professions such as schools for agriculture, law, architecture, engineering, surveying, pharmacy, veterinary science, and schools for teachers of elementary schools. The curriculum of these schools shall not extend over more than three years.
The existing University in its present form, pretending to be the highest school, shall be abolished and transformed into a number of scientific institutions. The Faculty of Medicine and the High Technical School (School of Engineering) shall be retained and there shall be established a Professorial Faculty for professors going to be teachers of National Schools for General Instruction and of Schools for various learned professions.
Lectures given at the Professorial Faculty shall be free, but to lectures given at various University scientific institutions shall be admitted only persons (students) able to show at an entrance examination a sufficient knowledge to attend the lectures with profit.

6) Other Educational Institutions not connected with schools.

Private Schools.
The organization of other educational institutions not connected with schools shall be regulated by a special Act.
Anybody may establish various schools and hold courses provided they shall harmonize with the spirit of this Constitution and shall keep within the limit of the School Act.

d) Public Health.

The citizens of the State form the main source of its vitality and intrinsic value. Under a special Public Health Act sanitary administration shall equally be provided both for villages and towns so that even the most indigent part of population shall have the benefit of medical attendance and medicine.

C. SPECIAL SECTION: Organization of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

I. Exercise of National Sovereignty.

By virtue of its absolute and continuous sovereignty the nation will organize the whole of its cultural and wealth-producing activities, determine every citizen's rights and duties and see to their being carried out either directly itself or through the agency of its elected representatives or appointed national officers respectively.

1. DIRECT EXERCISE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

The boundaries of the country or state established by the nation's history can be rectified only by the nation's plebiscite demanded by a majority of grown- up citizens (electors) of a boundary county.
100,000 citizens can by a petition signed by their own hands demand a plebiscite to be held on the following points:

1.) the convening and the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly;
2.) the closing of a session of the Legislative Assembly before the expiration of its legal period;
3.) the resignation of the president and vice-presidents of the Republic.

30,000 grown-up citizens can by a petition signed by their own hands suggest the passing through the Assembly of a new bill or the making of an amendment or the abolition of an existing law (legislative initiative).
By the same kind of petition the nation may demand a plebiscite for the sanction of any law within a period of 2 months from its having been passed through the Assembly (referendum).
Laws relating to vital national questions - such as alliance with foreign states, raising loans without the boundaries of Croatia, making of laws of the reorganization of land-ownership and inheritance relations (the agrarian reform) - shall have no legal power without this referendum.
The registering of signatures as well as all the business of conducting the plebiscite and the referendum shall be done by the courts as laid down by a special Act.

2. EXERCISE OF NATION'S SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH RETURNED REPRESENTATIVES.

a) National Constituent Assembly. National Legislative Assembly.

Members for the National Constituent Assembly shall be elected in the same way as those for the Legislative Assembly with the difference that for every single member of the former only half the number of votes necessary for the election of the latter shall be required.
It shall assemble a fortnight after the general election has taken place. It shall have sovereign powers and shall dissolve itself of its own will.
If three months have elapsed after its convening, the nation may address a petition to the president of the Republic demanding a plebiscite on the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. This petition must bear original signatures of at least 100,000 citizens.
All laws are made by the National Legislative Assembly whose members are elected for a period of 4 years. The suffrage is universal, exercised equally by men and women voters, the only restriction being the age which must not be less than 18 years.
Statutory elections shall take place on the first Sunday in September, but if the Assembly has been dissolved, they shall be held on 9th Sunday after its dissolution.
The number of representatives is not fixed, but depends on the number of given votes.
A representative is elected, if 6000 electors have voted for him.
Every party shall put forward a list for its candidates for all constituencies of Croatia. By the same act of voting for a candidate the voters vote also for the candidate's party. A candidate for whom 6000 voters have voted shall be considered as elected. Any number of votes failing to reach this total or exceeding it shall be accounted in favor of the candidate's party.
Besides those candidates who have been elected representatives by receiving the full 6000 votes, every party shall be allotted the number of representatives resulting from the division of the remaining total of given votes by 6000, the mode of the allotment being as follows. The candidate who has received the largest majority of votes next 6000, shall be elected first and so on until the remainder of the sum total of votes to be divided in this manner has been reached. If this latter remainder exceeds 3000 votes, one more representative shall be allotted to the party which has got them.
Every citizen possessing the right of voting shall be eligible for a representative.
Elections shall take place in parishes. They shall be conducted by courts. Under a special Act delegates of every party interested in the contest shall be admitted. The Board of Seven (the highest court of justice) shall examine and determine the validity of the return of every single elected representative.
The ordinary session of the Assembly shall begin on the 15th October and end on the 15th March. The assembly shall sit without interruption on weekdays only.
Extraordinary sessions may be summoned:

1) if demanded by one fifth of representatives;
2) if the Assembly convenes after having previously been dissolved;
3) if a petition with legal initiative has been presented by the nation;
4) if a question of immunity of a member arises; and lastly
5) if a substitute of the president has to be elected.

Every debate must be attended by at least one third of all the representatives, and when a vote is going to be proposed, by at least one half.
National representatives i.e. members of the Constituent Assembly and the Legislative Assembly shall enjoy not only general personal inviolability which is guaranteed to them as to human beings, but they shall also enjoy an absolute immunity for anything they have said or written in the Assembly or without it during the period of their being representatives, irrespective of the Assembly sitting or not, as well as during the time of the dissolution of the Assembly until the elections have taken place.
For none of his doing, either in speech or in writing, during that period shall a representative ever be called to account.
If a representative should be caught in the very act of committing a crime involving the loss of his claim to immunity from the arrest safeguarded to any person by this Constitution, notice shall at once be given to the president of the Assembly. The president shall, if the Assembly is in session, on the same day, and if in recess, within three days, assemble the Sessional Committee of Immunity which shall by a vote of two thirds of all its members present decide whether judicial proceedings should be instituted against that member or not. This resolution shall have to be adopted by the whole body of representatives of the Assembly within 3 days, if the same is sitting, and within 8 days, if not.
But, if all the measures as here set down have not been taken, such a representative shall be considered free and shall be at liberty to leave the prison, and no person, under personal responsibility, shall have any right to prevent him from doing so.
For any other action done by a member only the Assembly shall have the power to declare that member deprived of his privilege of immunity on the motion of two thirds of the members of the Immunity Committee.
The Privilege of Immunity shall become operative the moment, when the District or the Chief Election Committee has declared a candidate elected by a sufficient number of votes, and it shall become void the moment, when the Chief Election Committee has ascertained the number of the newly elected representatives.
The right of voters to be elected representatives themselves being practically another aspect of the right of voting of all the electors and consequently an act of national sovereignty, any check to personal liberty of an elected representative, on whatever valid judgement it might have been based, shall be stopped the moment, when the privilege of Immunity has taken effect.

b) County Meeting.

The County Meeting shall consist of an equal number of delegates from all the associated economic parishes forming a county. These delegates shall be elected by the Parish Meeting for a period of 4 years from among all grown-up parishioners. They shall be elected at the same election as the parish councillors.
Every two years half the number of the members of the County Meeting shall be re-elected.
The County Meeting shall be empowered to make by-laws within the limits of its autonomy.
The management of the county affairs shall be conducted according to the established principles of progressive community co- operation by the County Administration Committee presided over by a president called zupan.
This committee and its president shall be elected by the County Meeting.

c) Parish Meeting, Parish Council.

Parish Meeting shall consist of all grown-up parishioners of unblemished character. It shall assemble, discuss and conduct business on the principles of progressive community co-operation. The Parish Meeting shall elect the parish councillors whose president shall be called mayor (nacelnik).
It shall have the power fo making by-laws within the limits of its autonomy.

II. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE REPUBLIC

1. EXERCISE OF THE NATIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

The whole existing political administration shall be abolished, and the division of the country into political administrative parishes, political administrative districts and political administrative counties shall disappear.

The existing, purely political, administration, largely supported by the police force, shall be substituted by the administration on economical and sanitary principles.

a.) The Peasant's Household or Home.

The fundamental unit of this administration shall be the peasant's household or home i. e. every farm (homestead) as the primary wealth-producing and educational unit bearing the general national characteristics.
These national characteristics shall mainly depend on the number of the members of a farmer's family and each representative (male or female) of such a farmer's family or farmer's household a respectively shall be given, under a the Economic Parishes Act, as many votes in the parish as there are persons in his family.
The legal titles and position of town-residing families and particularly of the working class families as well as of all families having no home (homestead) of their own shall be formulated by a special Act.

b) Economic Parish.

The primary territorial unit of the whole of this administration shall be the economic parish which shall, as a rule, consist of every village by itself, but where people want it or circumstances require it, it shall consist of several small villages or hamlets, principally of such only as are within the limit of a landed property community or a parish forming at present one tax-collecting unit. A special Economic Parishes Autonomy Act shall be passed on the principles of the general and special peasant progressive community co-operation.
The extent of the sphere of the parish autonomy shall be the same as that of the county, and shall be limited only by actual ability of exercising it. The economic parish as a member of a county shall perform only those duties the performance of which it has voluntarily engaged, and it is only through this function that it shall be considered as an organ of the county.
To meet the expenses incurred by its own sphere of activity the parish shall possess quite independent means obtained by levying of parish rates (sources of taxation and amount of rates to be fixed by the parish council) e. g. tobacco-growing, distilling alcoholic drinks and other similar taxes not imposed by the state itself.

c) County

Counties are formed by the voluntary association of economic parishes. They form organizations of a wider area and simultaneously of a higher degree of wealth-production, education and national health. Their sphere of action shall be laid down by a special County Organization Act.
Under this act the manner of Association of economic parishes into permanent county areas shall be enacted. All economic parishes within the boundaries of the existing political districts shall without delay join to form temporary counties, and the management of their affairs shall remain in the hands of the existing county and district qualified civil service staffs.
Under a special County Self- Government Act the county shall retain its independence in all matters except those belonging to the state sphere of action, such being: country finance, national defense, judiciary (with a special organization of its own), schools, from the National School for General Instruction upwards, as well as all matters bearing upon the production of wealth, means of communication and public health inasmuch as the last mentioned three relate to the whole country or fall within the sphere of international agreements and obligations respectively.
The government of the country cannot make the county its organ in any sphere of its activities, but it may attach to the county civil service staff special government expert officers whose duty shall be to perform functions having reference to matters concerning the whole state.
To meet the expenses incurred by the management of affairs within its own sphere of activity the county shall possess independent financial means of its own.
Both the economic parish and the county shall be autonomous (self-governing) in the fullest sense of these words. These words mean that both the parish and the county shall have the power, with in the limits of the law, to make their own by-laws with binding legal power, and that they shall not be interfered with either by the President of the Republic or the government of the country.
A special Poor Parishes and Counties Grants Act shall lay down the manner of granting poor parishes and counties of the whole republic financial aid for all those needs which are of common national interest.
The parish by-laws shall be made by the Parish Meeting and those of the county by the County Meeting. These by-laws shall be submitted to the national Government with the only purpose of having them examined as to their keeping within the limits of the Parish and County Autonomy Act.
If the national Government be of opinion that these limits have been exceeded, the by-laws shall at once be presented to the Board of Seven who shall have to decide the matter at issue within a month at the latest. If the said Board does not decide it within that period, the Government shall return the by-laws to the parish or county respectively provided with the only remark that they have been examined. In no case shall the by-laws remain with the Government longer than a month.

d) Municipal Self-Government.

The title of Royal Free Town shall be abolished.
The economic parishes shall in future not be allowed to unite with urban districts, whereas the former rural administrative parishes and the individual urban districts belonging to the same tax-collecting areas and having a predominant peasant population shall be allowed under Economic Parishes Act to separate from urban districts and join the economic counties.
Under a special Urban Districts Self-Government Act towns shall be given autonomy on the same scale as economic counties so that the working classes, the tradespeople and the remaining wealth- producing town population shall actually have in their hands the decision in all matters of town government through the town-council elected on the principle of the universal secret equal suffrage.

2. EXERCISE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

National affairs shall be administered by the President of the Republic together with the National Government.

a) National Affairs.

The principal national affairs are:

1) Administration of justice.
2) Production of Wealth of the Nation.
3) National Education and Instruction.
4) National Health.
5) National Defense.
6) Permanent Relations with other Nations and States.
7) State Finance.

A minister shall be entrusted with the management of each of these departments. He must possess adequate qualification necessary for the efficient working of his department. He may be, but need not be a member of the National Assembly. He shall conduct business with the help of other specialty qualified officers (deputy ministers) each of whom shall be the head of a special ministry sub-department.
The specially qualified officers at the head of various ministry sub-departments shall be called deputy ministers. They shall perform their work according to the instructions received from the minister and under the control of specially delegated Assembly Commissioners chosen from among the representatives.
A special Government, Organization Act shall lay down the controlling duties of the Controlling Assembly Commissioners and the duties of the deputy ministers.

b) The President of the Republic (Ban.)

At the head of the administration of National Affairs shall be the president of the Republic, called also Ban. He shall be elected for a period of 4 years by a plebiscite to be held on the first Sunday of May and shall enter upon his office on the 1-st of July of the same year.
Any person entitled to be elected a representative shall also be eligible for the president, if nominated by 60,000 electors or by that party of the Assembly which has received that number of votes at last election. The two vice- presidents shall also be chosen at the same election.
In case of the president's death, resignation, absence or inability (indisposition or otherwise) the first vice-president shall act as his substitute during his absence or till the end of the period for which he has been elected. The second vice-president shall act as the substitute of the first vice- president in the same way in all above mentioned cases.
As president elect and vice- presidents elect respectively shall be considered those candidates for whom the largest number of electors has voted. The president cannot be simultaneously a representative nor can the vice- presidents act as representatives so long as they are performing the duties of a vice president.
The official residence of the president shall be the city of Zagreb.
The president is the representative of the Republic and the head of the National Government, the members of which he alone shall be authorized to appoint and remove. He shall choose the various members of the Government from among the representatives of the National Assembly and other citizens.
The National Government shall administer all national affairs under the political responsibility of the president, and the president shall be responsible for his policy only to the nation.
The Nation as well as the Assembly can, the former by a petition with 100,000 original signatures registered within a month, the latter by means of a resolution carried by two thirds of all its members, demand the president's resignation.
On the 4th Sunday after the Board of Seven have found that the petition submitted has been properly signed or 4 weeks after the resolution demanding the president's resignation has been passed by the Assembly, a plebiscite using the formula: "the president so and so has to resign" or "has not to resign" shall be held.
If the plebiscite decides for the president's resignation, not only the president but also both the vice-presidents shall resign. The Assembly shall, if sitting, without delay, with a simple majority and within 24 hours after the plebiscite at the latest, and, if not sitting, within 8 days, elect the deputy president.
On the 4th Sunday after the deputy president's election a general election shall take place with the purpose of electing the new president. If between the deputy president's election and the first Sunday of May there should happen to be an interval of only 6 months or less, the said extraordinary president's election shall not take place, but the president who had been newly elected at an ordinary election shall enter upon his office as soon as the Board of Seven have declared him elected. The president who has been elected at an extraordinary election shall also immediately enter upon his office.
A special Presidential Election Act shall be passed upon presidential election, on the president's entering upon office, and on every change in the presidency of the Republic.

c) Relations to other Nations and States.

The Republic of Croatia will never use secret diplomacy in international affairs and will not recognize any secret international treaties.
The Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia is a living member of the great human community which is slowly but surely undergoing the transformation into a great world federative republic.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall have no so-called diplomatists. Abroad, the Republic, of Croatia as an organization of both peculiarly Croatian and general human wealth-producing and cultural elements shall have only her consuls whose duty shall be to watch her commercial and cultural interests. Their main care shall be to look after life, health and well-being of her citizens abroad.

d) Defence and Safety of Home and Country.

There shall be no Universal Military standing army training Duty in the Republic. It shall be substituted by an universal national working duty system including the general obligation of home and country defence. Every person living within the territory of the republic shall be required for a period of 6 months to do work for the republic as specified by the Universal Working Duty Act.
For the most part of this period, but at least for 4 months, every person shall have to do work of public utility such as building roads, hydraulic and drainage work, etc., tending to the raising of the productivity of soil and other kinds of similar public work with the purpose of cutting down national expenditure as much as possible by enabling the Government to dispense with paid work.
Less time, but no more than two months, of this period shall be employed on all kinds of physical exercise and on the special t training for the defence of Home and Country (militia). If any special training should require more time, the fittest men shall, if necessary, be chosen, who shall then devote even full 6 months to that training.
The Universal National Working Duty can be imposed on women only by a plebiscite which shall be held as soon as demanded by a petition of 30,000 grown-up inhabitants of the Republic, but women shall be employed only near their homes, and in such a manner that neither their honour nor health shall suffer in any way.
Everybody's duty to defend his home and country shall last to his death.
With the national defence shall be combined also the organization of a special civil force for the maintenance of public order. The training required for the commanders of this civil force as well as the headquarters of the respective militia districts shall be fixed by a special Act. The area of this militia districts shall correspond to that of jurisdictional and tax-collecting districts.

e) State Finance.

Progressive income-tax as the principal state tax shall be imposed by a special Act. Every year, during the budget debate, the National Assembly shall fix the amount of the income-tax based on the assessment of the tax-payers, proportionally to their income, according to the progressive principle i. e. the larger the income the larger the percentage of the income-tax.
The amount of the income absolutely necessary for a person's subsistence shall be fixed by law and shall not be taxed with more than 1 per cent.
On the income-tax no rates shall be levied.
Revenue-taxes can be imposed only by the National Assembly, but county and parish rates respectively only by the county and parish meeting respectively.
No one can be exempted from taxation.
Neither taxes nor any kinds of rates shall be imposed on the most necessary means of supporting life such as bread and flour, salt, milk, kerosine.
No state, county or parish moneys shall be expended unless their expenditure has been provided for by the budget, the county, or parish estimates respectively.
The annual budget shall be debated and voted upon by the National Assembly, and shall remain in force only a calendar year.
The National Government shall present to the National Assembly the budget for the coming year together with the statement of income and outgoings for the previous year. The National Assembly shall have no power to raise the various items of expenditures as forecasted in the estimates, but it shall have the power to cut them down or even to strike them off. If there should happen to be any savings, the Assembly alone shall be authorized to decide what use should be made of them.
The state, county and parish estimates respectively shall always be debated and voted upon for the coming financial year. If the state, county or parish estimates respectively for the coming year have not been voted for, nobody shall be obliged to pay those state taxes, and county or parish rates respectively which have not yet been voted for by the National Assembly, the County and the Parish Councils, so long as the said estimates lack the sanction of these bodies. Any demand for payment of such taxes and rates by the authorities or even unauthorized enforcement of such payments shall be punished as an abuse of official authority.
The exclusive right (monopoly) to sell certain articles of general consumption shall be reserved to, and shall be exercised only by, the Republic.
Under the Auditors' Act a special Government Audit Department shall be established with the purpose of auditing all State accounts.
Under the Auditors' Independence, Qualification and Responsibility Act the independence competence and responsibility before the Board of Seven of the whole audit official staff shall be safeguarded.
The duties of the Audit Department shall be to examine and correct the state, county and parish estimates in the manner specified by a special act and authorize the appropriation of state, county and parish moneys granted. It shall further watch the keeping of expenditure within the limits of the budget. It shall moreover point out those items of county and parish expenditure which have exceeded the amount by the county and parish estimates, and it shall finally close the State accounts.
The Audit Department shall present the annual budget financial statement with a report and a freely expressed comment thereon, through the president of the Republic to the National Assembly for the final examination and sanction within reasonable time to enable the National Government to present to the Assembly the Financial Statement for the past year simultaneously with the budget for the coming year.
For each district forming a tax-collecting area the Republic shall establish a tax-collecting office. The area of these districts shall coincide with that of jurisdictional and militia district. They shall be smaller than the existing administrative districts, but larger than the existing administrative parishes, the aim of the Republic being to facilitate the collection of taxes by tax-collecting offices in all the parishes of their area.

3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Sentences shall be pronounced in the name of justice and law.
Courts of justice can be established and abolished only by law.
Judges shall be independent. They can be neither removed to another place, nor pensioned off before the completion of their 65th year, nor dismissed against their own will unless a competent judgement has been pronounced against them for bad behavior.
After the completion of his 65th year every judge must retire with a pension.
Vacancies on the staff of judges of Low Courts shall be filled on the competitive system, the High Court giving preference in appointments to those competitors who have been longest in the possession of a qualifying examination certificate. Judges for the Court of Appeal and the Board of Seven shall be chosen by the members of these courts themselves among the whole body of judges and barristers of the country.
The first judges of all courts to be appointed shall be nominated by the president of the republic himself. Judges shall not be classed according to their salaries which shall be increased gradually and automatically after a certain number of years to be fixed by law, according to the length of service.
One hundred of grown-up citizens (male or female) of unblemished character earning their own livelihood, and at least 30 years old can by a petition signed by their own hands demand from the Board of Seven that an official enquiry should be instituted against a judge. Such an enquiry shall commence at once and shall be terminated within a month at the latest by a judgement pronounced jointly by the court and the jury.
The area to be served by the lowest courts shall be determined by a special law. These areas shall be called jurisdictional districts and coincide with the tax collecting and militia districts respectively.

III. Final Organization Work of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia.

Acts by which the provisions of the Constitution are carried out and supplemented.
All Acts mention of which is made in this Constitution shall form an integral whole together with the Constitution. They are to be made by the Assembly during its first ordinary session or during the summer extraordinary session of the same year, as the case may be.

APPENDIX

Resolutions of the Croatian Representative Body, Returned at General Election on March 18, 1923, Passed in its First Plenary Sitting, Held at Zagreb, The Capital City of Croatia, on March 25, 1923.
The Representative Body of the Croatian Nation returned at the general election hold on the territory of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the March 18, 1923., i. e., the overwhelming majority of the total number of representatives elected within the indisputable territory of the Croatian Nation (Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia), to wit, 61 out of 83, and a minority of representatives from Bosnia and Herzegovina - 9 out of 48 - this minority being supported for the first time in the Bosnian history by both Mussulman and Catholic Croats united in the great movement for a new type of government based on social justice, which movement is as early as now backed by the majority of Bosnian population - passed in its first plenary sitting of the March 25, 1923, held at Zagreb, the capital city of Croatia, the resolutions as follows:

I

The Croatian Representative Body accepts, agrees to, and approves of, all declarations, resolutions, policies and, in the main, all proceedings of the late Representative Body returned at the elections of Nov. 28, 1920. Accordingly, this Representative Body regards itself as the sole legal and legitimate successor of the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) of Zagreb, which de jure never has discontinued to exist, since it could be neither dissolved nor abolished by any act not emanating from the Constituent Assembly of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but only by passage of a resolution or act voted upon by the said Constituent Assembly and adopted by a qualified majority of the said Assembly under exclusion of any outvoting, these conditions being required by the resolution of the Croatian Parliament passed on October 29, 1918, but which resolution has been infringed upon by the Belgrade men in power.
This Representative Body regards itself, as well as the Representative Body elected in 1920 regarded itself, as Parliament (Sabor) of the Croatian Nation. In omitting, however, a formal installation as parliament it does so only to ward off the danger of civil or internal war, which, from the pacifist and humanitarian standpoint of this Representative Body, would be a crime and an evil even more atrocious than an international war.

II

The foundations of the policy of this Representative Body shall remain:

1) Interpreting, respecting, and enforcing the will of the Croatian people;
2) Full and unlimited right of national self-determination;
3) Practical pacifism and real humanitarianism, which for our country can be secured only through its organization and recognition as a neutral peasant republic.


III

A just and durable agreement between the Croatian Nation and the Serbian Nation shall constitute, as well as it did heretofore, one of the chief tasks of the policies of the Croatian Representative Body.
This Representative Body considers the humanitarian and republican program of the Croatian people as the first and foremost aim to be realized. It is this very aim towards which all efforts shall be directed and on which depends the solution of the question, whether or not a delegation of Croatian representatives shall be sent to Belgrade.

IV

The Croatian Representative Body regards the actual common international frontiers of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as a territorial adjustment most suitable to the present political conditions in Europe, this being so both from the Croatian national point of view and from the European point of view.
It is so from the Croatian point of view, because the Croatian people have been united within the common frontiers of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as never before in their history, and more especially so, because those common frontiers embrace now, after centuries of separation, the whole incontrovertible territory of the Croatian Nation (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia), whose more than millennial continuity as a sovereign and more or less independent state has never been interrupted from 852 AD to October 29, 1918, on which day the Croatian Parliament in Zagreb proclaimed Croatia (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia) a fully independent state. This full independence of the Croatian state did immediately take effect in the practical exercise of this independence under recognition by the kingdom of Serbia, after which Croatia effected the mutual association with Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slovenia, Batchka, Banat, Barania into a federative republic with its center in Zagreb, which republic was officially styled "The state of the National Council of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs" and was in a solemn way recognized by the kingdom of Serbia under a special treaty agreed upon, and signed, at Geneva, November 9, 1918, by the Serbian government (Nikola Pashich) and representatives of all Serbian parliamentary parties on the Serbian part, and by Dr. Koroshetz and Dr. Trumbich on the part of the National Council of Zagreb.
Furthermore, this actual community of international frontiers among the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is a question of European and universal interest, because every change of these common frontiers - and particularly a violent one - would be able to provoke such conflicts and, on the part of certain neighbors, such pretensions as would endanger European and even world peace.

V

The Croatian Representative Body regards as null and void and as non- binding upon the Croatian Nation, and consequently, lacking any legal and moral value, all laws, regulations, ordinances and other acts issued or imposed by the government of Belgrade as far as they affect the indisputable national territory of Croatia, because all these laws, rules, regulations and acts have been made without any previous consultation of, or approbation by, the Croatian Parliament; have been made contrary to the clearly expressed will, and in spite of reiterated protests, and without any concurrence, of the Croatian Representative Body elected in 1920; finally, because the enforcement of these laws, rules, regulations and decrees is tolerated, and the Belgrade men of power are obeyed, by the Croatian people only as far as the latter are forced to do so under the pressure of threats of armed force or under the real application of that force.
In particular, this Representative Body, resuming the resolutions of the late Representative Body returned in November, 1920, declares and proclaims as null and void, and without any binding force on Croatia (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia) both all Belgrade acts passed on loans and all acts, rules, regulations and decisions through which the Belgrade men in power have aimed and still are aiming to deprive Croatia of her national and state property, and at settling the great economical and social problems on lines contrary both to the centennially established principles of peasant freehold and to the existing landed property conditions, over which the political authorities, and still much less the agents of the Ministry of Police, have no legal power, this especially being so of the important problem of agrarian reform.

VI

This Representative Body considers, as did the late Representative Body, the whole administration of the Belgrade government over Croatia as a mere usurpation, against which a continuous resistance is practiced both by the Croatian people as a whole and by the overwhelming majority of the Croats as individual citizens, so that this usurpation is incapable of establishing any tolerable, much less settled, political and economical conditions. If the innumerable acts of violence, lawlessness and ordinary crimes perpetrated by the agents of Belgrade authorities, particularly the barbarous every day bastinado of citizens, civilians and soldiers, the cruel torturing in all, and in particular in military prisons, have caused no revolution, civil war, and foreign intervention this fact is to be ascribed only and solely to the high standard of general consciousness of Croatian people and to the extraordinary strength of their political organization able both to keep the Belgrade oppression and violence within certain limits and to maintain the general conviction that such a political ability and organization accompanied by the triumphant electoral results of March 18, 1923, will finally awaken such an interest of the public opinion of European nations and more especially the attention of the League of Nations all to inspire the Belgrade men of power with the respect for the self-determination of the Croatian people, unless their love for justice and a correct understanding of interests common to both peoples, Croatian and Serbian, are not strong enough to incline them to that respect.

VII

The Croatian Representative Body in concordance with the new international public law regards itself fully equal to every parliament. In the event of failure of all attempts to come to a just agreement with the Serbian people, the condition of which agreement is that the Croatian political and national equality with the Serbian political and national individuality shall be recognized, this Representative Body will apply for support to all European and other parliaments, particularly to the congress of the United States of America, which in its courses of action is not bound by those regards which to an extent restrict European parliaments and which in its highly favorable position may, prior to any other, take into consideration the most important fact that the Croatian people in their claim to independence are not only perfectly unanimous, but also possess all cultural, social, economical and political prerequisites for actual exercise of their sovereignty, so that they are in no need of any military, financial or any other foreign help whatsoever, and want only a purely moral support.
An appeal from such an authority will probably persuade the Belgrade government that now, after the world war, and almost in the very center of Europe, it may not by most brutal and most violent methods of the darkest periods of the Middle Ages continue to carry out a regime of oppression and plunder over the whole Croatian Nation under the mendacious plea of the existence of one tri-named nation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=66

S. Å ego: Recollections of Stalin's Labor Camps

Croatian Studies

Stjepan Sego

Stjepan Sego (1913-1990), a Croat from Herzegovina, was captured by the Soviet troops in Hungary in 1948 and was taken to the Soviet Union where he spent eight years in labor camps. Thanks to Khrushchev's destalinization policy, he was freed in 1956, came to the United States, and lived in Chicago till he died in 1990. We bring here the English translation of a text the late Stipe Sego wrote in Croatian about his experiences in the Soviet prison camps ( American Croatian Review, Year V, No. 1-2, 1998, pp. 48-50)

After long investigation, hearings, and torture in Hungarian prisons, I, and the others, was to be sent to Russia.

We arrived at the Hungarian border. It was wrenching to look out from the train and to see the Hungarians being torn from their homeland, and the same was with Austrians. We departed on the road to the unknown. The train moved below the Carpathian Mountains toward Lvov. We were removed from the train and transferred to a huge camp. I don't know its capacity, but the number of its internees was nonetheless gross. The usual method of counting by barracks was not employed, but rather, the count was by "corps." I know of six such corps, but, undoubtedly, there were more.

We were in Ukraine, which, during the war, was well organized with the aim of establishing a free and independent Ukraine. Their beloved leader was Stepan Bandera. Since the Germans, in their blindness, were opposed to an independent Ukraine, Bandera worked against them. Hitler ordered him captured and placed General Meljnik in his place, thus dividing the Ukrainian forces.

The "Banderites" were a powerful group and were prepared. They spread their organization deeply throughout eastern Ukraine which was under Soviet control. When the war ended, they continued their battle deep in the woods. Since the terrain was favorable to guerrilla warfare, they were able to maintain themselves for a long time. The Soviets had their hands full well into l948. Real battles took place. The Soviets wanted to exterminate them at all costs. Even the slightest hint that a village had any contact with the "Banderites" was cause for it to be destroyed without mercy.

Those residents not killed in such raids were summarily sent to Siberia. That rule applied to all including mothers with small children, as well as old men and women. We found such persons in the camp to be under the most extreme conditions.

So that their deportation might be covered by some element of "law," it was always listed under some sort of "judgment" which carried a penalty, almost consistently, of some 25 years imprisonment. Those fortunate souls to whom no wrong other than that they were from such Ukrainian villages could be attributed, were sentenced up to 5 years and were retained in those camps. All others were sent on the icy road to Siberia.

Hunger, terrible hunger, reigned in the camp we were in. All that one possessed was given up for a bit of bread. The vast majority, unfortunately, had nothing to give. That horrid camp was my first encounter with the "Russian [socialist] heaven."

We found ourselves in this camp for 14 days before our transport moved forward.... Cold and hungry, packed like sardines, our boxcars rolled on for a full two weeks. Ultimately, they allowed us to exit the cars. Half of us were unable to even stand upright. Those who were able to move were taken to another camp. The barracks were empty. There was but one stove in the very center of the barracks. The barracks were infested with bugs eager to get their share of the newly arrived victims.

Inta was the name of the place we arrived at. That is the name of the place and the province it is part of. Its geographic area is about that of France. Two additional provinces lie before us and the North Sea, namely, Yarkuta and Varkuta. These lie in the sub-polar region.

When the weather is clear, one can see the Urals. Tundra surrounds us all about. No inhabitants other than prisoner can be found in the regions mentioned. Only the camp's personnel are free. They founded little villages for themselves and erected schools for their children.

All three provinces are situated in a coal-rich basin. The prisoners work the mines. The quality of the coal produced is poor. It is said to be too "young," and, as declared by the experts, would need at least another million years to "ripen." Nonetheless, it is mined and shipped across Russia.

The area is that of the Tundra and has no forests. Dwarfed shrubs only are to be found. The climate is bitter cold and is often as cold as minus 50 C.

Inasmuch as the region is near the Pole, the days are six months in length and the nights as well. Thunder is not heard, nor is there any rain, except occasionally. The Northern Lights are quite common.

The camp we are situated in is only temporary. The Province has 13 coal mines and each mine has its own camp, the exception being if two mines are in close proximity. One camp then serves both mines. The food at this camp was a bit better and we seemed to improve our health somewhat.

The residents of our camp were from all corners of the world -- Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and others. They were punished for ostensibly spying. A "fertile" source of prisoners for the Russians was Vienna, and, in a similar fashion, Berlin.

A common destiny haunts all those in the far North, a destiny none of them even dreamed of. We all underwent a physical exam while interred in the camp. We were divided into three groups. The first was to work under ground. The second worked outside, while the third, including those who are sick, worked as servants to the camp.

After five weeks, I was sent to a mining camp of some five thousand internees. The very first days were quite difficult since I knew no one.

The camp was quite extensive and was well fortified. Escape from the camp is impossible, and, ultimately, it would have been futile. It was surrounded by barbed wire four meters wide by three meters high. Watch towers with klieg lights lay behind the fence for the guards. Between the rows of barbed wire trained dogs roamed.

The mine was about a kilometer distant from the camp. The road leading to the mine was secured in the same manner as the camp. It was, in fact, a corridor through barbed wire.

I was horrified each morning as I watched the night shift returning. They were as black as the coal they mined. They had no place to wash themselves, the excuse being that the lavatories were not yet completed. Dirty, they consumed their thin soup, and half dead from exhaustion, went to sleep.

By nationality, one fourth of the prisoners were Russian, one fourth prisoners from western Ukraine, a fourth from the Baltic peoples (Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania), and the final fourth was made of those of us who were from a mixture of peoples outside the borders of the Soviet Union.

It is said that some 30 to 40 million prisoners were to be found in Soviet camps. Regions under German occupation were especially hit supposedly because they were "collaborators" with the Germans.

I was told by present inmates of the camp that conditions were notably better than those directly after the war. At that time, prisoners were sent there to build a railroad to be used to transport the coal which was to be mined. They were simply transported to the site and under armed guard were made to erect the very barbed wire fence meant to keep them in. They lived with the sky as their roof, without barracks or any protection from the elements. It is no surprise that few were able to survive the ordeal. This is why the claim is made that beneath each railroad tie a human skeleton can be found.

To my good fortune, I discovered a Ukrainian in the camp who had lived in Croatia. He was my helper and my protection in my most difficult moments. May God reward him!

I was especially pleased that I could finally speak with someone, especially in my own Croatian tongue.

The prisoners were separated into work brigades. Each brigade had its "strukach" which in Russian meant its "denunciation," or, as we might say in Croatian, its "cancer." Even though such a person is never formally known, somehow one always intuited who it was.

Every prisoner was given a number worn on his back. The numbers were large enough to be easily seen at a distance.

Should a prisoner utter a word of criticism against the regime, or commit some sort of infraction, the "strukach" would remember his number and the prisoner would be called in the next day for his punishment. The most heavy punishment was the "kaiser.' That was a room so tiny that a person could not even lie down. The prisoner is left with his own clothes, to the extent he has them, and is made to spend the time in the bitter cold. He is given 300 grams of bread and water each day, and a meal every third day.

Just as everything in the communist system is done by plan, so too there is a "plan" for everything in the camp. Each mine has its "rules," that is, how much coal is to be extracted. If it fails to meet its quota, the prisoners are punished, and if the mine exceeds its quota, the managers receive a "premium."

A quota of l00% was established. Food was distributed from 5 large cauldrons on the basis of that percentage. If the quota was met, namely, l00%, then we received hot water with a few remnants of beans. If we exceeded our quota, namely 110%, then the second cauldron was used giving us a bit more beans in the hot water. In both cases we ended up hungry. If we aimed for more production, the stomach was somewhat fuller, while at 150%, the prisoners were full. However, to achieve 150% meant to give one's all, and to work like an ox. One could endure that for a while, but, ultimately, one would succumb.

The communists would, with sarcasm, quote the Bible and say: "He who does not work, need not eat either." Further, they would point out that all power descends from God, and hence, so to does that of the communists, and so, the need to obey. They are masters of man's exploitation.

Under such a regime of hunger and work, the prisoners had to vie with each other, and hence, our mine carried first prize over the others and was rewarded with a good library. The communists said we had need of good "breeding," while we simply wished for a generous crust of bread.

The library was indeed a good one. Along with a good representation of Russian literature, there was a smattering of foreign classics as well. I was amassed at the number of German works: Goethe, Schuller, Heine, and others. I found a copy of our own Gundulic's "Osman." We were allowed to borrow the books for a ten day period.

Newspapers from Moscow, one copy each, were also available. The were placed between panes of glass so that each side could be read. Each barracks had a bulletin board loaded with satirical items, mostly caricatures of foreign leaders. Since Tito was on a wartime footing with Stalin at the time, he was the frequent butt of such satire. One such cartoon showed Tito all bloodied with a hatchet in his hand decapitating someone's head. The inscription below the cartoon read: "Traitor -- Fascist."

Loud speakers were placed in our barracks and they ripped our ears apart and destroyed our nerves. It was unbearable to listen to them at the time of Stalin's illness and death.

The Russians did not like Stalin, but they had great fear of him. He was the incarnation of cruelty. He was the infinite ruler over millions of his subjects, and he simply removed all who were not to his taste. He liquidated almost all of the October Revolution's leadership.

A popular man in Russia at this time is General Zhukov, a wartime hero. Stalin pushed him into the background. He would like to have liquidated him as well, but it would have been inconvenient.

Camp life in that far northern outpost was horrid. The worst was the fact that the mines were always damp. A man had to work while soaked as though in the rain, and still wet had to return to the camp. Hunger, exhaustion, dampness, and the cold, worse yet, the hopelessness of the situation, a picture of the blackest future, dogged the men and brought them to despair.

Even though it was difficult to come by Vodka, and even though it was strictly forbidden, somehow and from somewhere, it appeared. It was of the worst sort, the kind that tears the nerves apart, nonetheless, it was consumed for sake of relief and with resignation. It also brought with it evil consequences which often led to fights which sometimes ended in tragedy.

To my joy, a fellow Croat from one of the other camps arrived. My joy was short-lived. One of the wagons disengaged while at work and he was killed. When I heard of the accident I went to pay my respects to my lost fellow sufferer. It was hard to recognize his mangled body. Thus my dear Murat Lojo, a son of Bosnia, from Kalinovnik, breathe his last in the far northern regions of Russia. He was a lieutenant in the famous "Black Legion" under the legendary Jure Francetic wherein he spent the entire war.

Through a Ukrainian friend who had good connections in the camp, I was able to improve my situation somewhat. He was helpful to me in many instances. Through his efforts, I was able to attend a course in "geology" conducted by one of the engineers. I was thus able to rid myself of heavy duty. I was given the task of testing the coal. As the coal passes through a grinder, sample particles are taken and are place in a laboratory kiln to determine its caloric value.

Because the camp had good production in l950, we realized a significant improvement in our meals. Even the communists came to realize that hungry men are not as productive as satiated men.

The camp acquired brass instruments. There were musicians among us and when the work brigade exceeded l50% production, the band would greet us at the camp entrance and escort us to the kitchen. The kitchen and its cauldrons are the goal of hungry men.

When it was to their advantage, the communists tried anything. The camp was quite active, in fact, at times we even had a movie.

There are those in Russia known as "blatni" ("dirty"). The connotation of this is somewhat akin to the American "gangster." Such individuals appear strange to the normal person. They deserted during the war and yet achieved political status. They refuse to work, yet when they arrive at the mess hall, the cook must give them that which is best, otherwise they will pay the consequences. Politics really does not concern them, rather they simply live to do evil and to steal. Their bodies are tattooed. They always present a threat to peace-abiding men. Communism tolerates them, I suppose, for their own reasons. The managers of the camp wish to win them over to their side and thus, give them the better jobs, for the other fear them.

The "blatni" have their own unwritten law, one that is quite strict. Once inducted into their group, one needs to be subject to their wishes. If you cross them, death is as certain as it would be in the American "syndicates." It is said that they even take an oath of loyalty. Those who escape the clutches of the group end up working for the regime and are called "sukes." An open battle between the "blatni" and the "sukes" is commonplace. People end up dead.

The "blatnis" are unforgiving and harsh. A package arrives from home, of course for either a Russian or a Ukrainian containing boots, and immediately one of the "blatni" say, "I lost my boots while playing cards, pull off your boots." If a person does not wish to bow to the wishes of the "blatni", he is in trouble, for all the other "blatnis" are behind their fellow "blatni."

In the meanwhile, the Ukrainians who fought in the forests with the revolutionary Bandera, and the Russian prisoners were fiercely opposed to the "blatnis." These Banderites, for whom the communists could not show direct links with Bandera, else they would have been killed, often fought real battles with the "blatnis", and frequently prevailed.

I, myself, was witness to the guards removing four "blatnis" from one of the other camps from the showers. In a flash, five men appeared from one of the barracks and shortly, found themselves in a pool of blood. They killed all of them. The Banderites saw in them a group of "blatnis" of a higher caliber who were "owing" to them. The judgment was swift. There was no inquiry.

I was forced to live under such conditions and to await my fate. My documents, which followed me to the camp, recorded that fate -- 25 years!

(From American Croatian Review, Year V, No. 1-2, 1998, pp. 48-50)

Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=64

---> Letters of Protests against Persecution of Croats in the First Yugoslavia

Croatian Studies

American intellectuals organized by Roger N. Baldwin, Chairman of the International Committee for Political Prisoners, sent the following letter to the Yugoslav representative in Washington on November 24, 1933.

Dr. Leonide Pitamic,

Minister of Yugoslavia,

Washington, D.C.

Sir:

For some years past dispatches in the American and foreign press have indicated that political prisoners in Yugoslavia are suffering inhuman treatment. This committee has noted the reports and has on occasion intervened in behalf of some particular prisoner as have many associations and individuals throughout the world interested in checking persecution for political opinions and activities.

More recently, we have obtained documentary material form one of our associates, Louis Adamic, and American writer of Yugoslav birth, lately returned from a year's stay in his native land as a fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation. Mr. Adamic's standing as a writer of integrity and accuracy is above question. We have substantiated to our satisfaction the genuineness of the material he has brought corroborating previous information.

In the light of these reports, and Mr. Adamic's specific information, we desire to protest, through you, to your government against the whole system of political persecution which marks the regime in Yugoslavia today and particularly against the incredible tortures inflicted on political prisoners under that system. These reports involve authentically reported tortures at police headquarters in Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Skoplye, Novi Sad and other cities, as well as in various state penitentiaries. They affect the various groups opposed to the policies of the present government: the Croat, Slovene, Moslem, and Macedonian nationalists; the Socialists, Agrarians, and Communists.

These reports make it evident beyond question that scores if not hundreds of these prisoners are beaten and tortured before being brought to trial. The records show about 120 known cases of persons either directly killed or so tortured that they died. Such cruel and revolting methods employed during the so-called examination of prisoners are described as sticking needles under prisoners' fingernails, placing live coals between armpits and body, prolonged beating on the soles of the feet, driving sharp instruments into the heels and perpetrating outrages upon sexual organs. These methods are used in attempts to force confessions incriminating themselves and other men and women active in opposition movements.

But the tortures described are not confined to the period of preliminary examination. They continue after commitment to prison. Even those prisoners convicted of such trivial offenses as distributing opposition literature or belonging to opposition groups are systematically beaten and starved. Some are reliably reported as having been inoculated with disease germs, others have had iron bands clamped around their heads for months at a time. Conditions in the prisons are reported to be so inhuman that many prisoners must sleep on the bare floors of their unheated and wet cells. Against these unbearable conditions 248 men and women in the Sremska Mitrovica Prison are now said to be on a mass hunger strike.

Solitary confinement of political prisoners and for long periods of time is another method against which we direct our protest. A reliable report come to us that Dr. Yovanovitch, former professor at Belgrade University, a well know political economist and leader of the Yugoslav Peasant Movement, is, or until very recently, was for several months in solitary confinement. We are advised, too, that Dr. V. Machek, leader of Croat Peasant Party, in serious ill health, is incarcerated under unsanitary conditions which may lead to his death.

We learn, too, that scores of prisoners particularly among the intellectuals, are exiled to the malaria-infested regions of Macedonia where they are required to report to the local police every few hours day and night.

Your government must be aware that knowledge of brutalities such as these arouses the indignation of the civilized world. In the name of a section of the American public opposed to such severity against political opponents, we protest against the policies and methods of your government. So long as 2100 opponents remain in prison under conditions such as these they are a standing indictment of the claims of your government to recognition by the civilized world.

While we are aware that condition in prisons in our own country are not above reproach, that political persecutions sometimes take place here as elsewhere, we are just as quick to condemn them here. But of all the reports which have come to us in recent years these from Yugoslavia are among the most appalling and barbarous.

We are, Sir,

Very truly yours,

For the Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Chairman.

Authorized Signatures William Allen White, Author, Editor-Publisher of Emporia (Kansas) Gazette

Theodore Dreiser, Novelist, Poet, Dramatist; New York

Arthur Garfield Hays, Author, Lawyer; New York

Oswald Garrison Villard, Editor, Author; New York

Mary Austin, Author; New Mexico

Sherwood Anderson, Novelist, Poet; New York

John Dos Passos, Novelist, Dramatist; New York

Norman Thomas, Author, Political and Civic Leader; New York

Harry Elmer Barnes, Historian, Publicist; New York

W. E. Woodward, Novelist, Biographer; New York

Burton Rascoe, Author, Critic; New York

Ernest Boyd, Author, Critic, Editor; New York

Kyle Crichton, Author, Editor; New York

Edmund Wilson, Author, Critic; New York

Upton Sinclair, Novelist, etc.; Los Angeles

Bruce Bliven, Author, Editor; New York

George Soule, Author, Editor; New York

Louis B. Boudin, Author, Historian, Lawyer; New York

Benjamin Stolberg, Author, Critic; New York

Mrs. Paxton Hibben, Author, widow of close personal friend of late King Peter of Yugoslavia

John Haynes Holmes, Minister, Publicist, Civic Leader; New York

Erskine Caldwell, Novelist; Maine

Horace Gregory, Poet, Critic; New York

Grace Lumpkin, Novelist; New York

Clifton Fadiman, Critic, Editor; New York

Richard L. Simon, Publisher; New York

Eliot White, Minister; New Jersey

Lenore G. Marshall, Editor; New York

Carleton Beals, Writer; New York

Newton Arvin, Critic, Professor; Northampton, Massachusetts

George Leighton, Author, Editor; New York

Carey McWilliams, Author, Critic, Lawyer; Los Angeles

V.F.Calverton, Author, Editor, Critic; New York

Alfred M. Bingham, Editor; New York

James Weldon Johnson, Author, Poet; Connecticut

Margaret Reese, Social Worker; New York

Nels Anderson, Sociologist; Columbia University

Edward J. Allen, Economist; Columbia University

Florence L. Voorhis, Librarian; Seth Low Jr. College

John M. Brewster, Professor; Seth Low Jr. College

Paul C. Clifford, Professor; Seth Low Jr. College

Matthew N. Chappell, Professor; Seth Low Jr. College



Einstein Accuses Yugoslavian Rulers in Savant's Murder

The following article concerning the assassination of Dr. Milan Suffly appeared in the New York Times on May 6, 1931.

Charges the Slaying of Sufflay, Noted Croatian Leader, Was Inspired by Government. Links King to Terrorism

Protests With Heinrich Mann Virtually Lays Parliament Killing Monarch

Increase in Cruelty Seen

League for Rights of Man Is Urged to Take Action Against "Horrible Brutality" of Belgrade Regime.



Berlin, May 5.-Accusing the Yugoslav Government of the murder of a Croatian, Professor Milan Sufflay, who was struck down in the streets of Agram (Zagreb) on Feb. 18, Professor Albert Einstein and the novelist Heinrich Mann, the brother of Thomas Mann, have sent a joint letter to the international headquarters in Paris urging a protest against the "horrible brutality which is being practiced upon the Croatian people." The letter also was signed by the German headquarters of the league.

The Paris headquarters, upon receipt of the communication, immediately undertook steps toward an effective protest to Belgrade.

"As the professor was walking home on the fatal day he was attacked from behind with an iron rod, according to our information, and felled," the letter of protest reads. "On the next day, he died and he was buried on the twenty-second beside other Croatians."

Professor Sufflay was noted for a long list of scientific books, the letter continues.

"Yet Agram newspapers were not allowed to report his activities, and the news of his death was suppressed," the protest goes on. "Condolence telegrams were not delivered. The time of the funeral was not allowed to be made public and the raising of the mourning flag on the university was forbidden. The authorities went so far as to expel those school children who took part in the funeral and to remove wreaths which were bound with the Croatian national colors from the grave.

"The name of the murder was known. It was Nikola Jukitsh. His organization (Young Yugoslavia) likewise is known. It was even known that arrangements for the murder had been worked out on the night of the eleventh in the home of the military commandment of the city, General Beli Markowitsch, at a session in which members of the Young Yugoslavia organization, Brkitsh, Godler, Martschetz and the murderer Jukitsh, took part. Yet the Agram police officially stated the next day that the name of the murderer was not known.

Turning to the events leading up to the murder, Professor Einstein and the other signers charged that when the King visited the Croatian capital in January numerous leading Croats received letters, signed "For the King and Country," in which their lives and those of their families were threatened if they uttered any protest while the King was there. Professor Sufflay received one of those letters, it is charged.

"The name of these terrorist organization was Young Yugoslavia, the protest continued. "The King, in an address to the organization, told how the Croatian representatives to the Parliament had been put out of the way at his request. An example of this was the shooting of a Croatian leader on the floor of the House on June 20, 1928."

Following the King's visit the murder of political and intellectual leaders of the Croatians was openly demanded in the government press, says the letter.

"The official organ, Nascha Sloga, in Suschak, on Feb.18 wrote,'Skulls will be spilt.' The same evening Professor Sufflay was struck down," the letter says.

In January the delegates to the Croatian National Assembly sent a memorandum to Geneva calling attention to the situation in Croatia.

"The facts show that the cruelty and the brutality practiced upon the Croatians only increases," Professor Einstein's letter says. "In view of this frightful situation, we urge the International League for the Rights of Man to do everything possible to suppress this unrestrained rule of might which prevails in Croatia.

"Murder as a political weapon must not be tolerated and political murderers must not be made national heroes. The league should muster all possible aid to protect this small, peaceful and highly civilized people."

Sufflay a History Professor

Professor Milan Sufflay, who was murdered in Agram (Zagreb) on Feb.18, had been a Professor of History at Zagreb University for ten years. He had written many works on the history of Albania. In 1920, because of his connection with Croat extremists, he was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment for lese-majeste and high treason. On his release he resumed his political activities.

Protest against the Yugoslav dictatorship of King Alexander have been frequent since the murder of Professor Sufflay and the many "suicides" of Croats and Macedonians in the prisons of Belgrade and Zagreb.

Three Serbs were arrested in Vienna recently who were alleged to have been sent there on a murder mission with the knowledge of the Zagreb Chief of Police.

The bitter feeling in Yugoslavia has resulted in numerous bombings and assassinations.

When King Alexander proclaimed the dictatorship two years ago his chief problem was the deadlock caused by the refusal of Croatia to be dominated by a parliamentary government recruited largely from extreme Serbian sources.

Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=65

---> A. ÄŒuvalo: A PARTIAL LIST OF PERSECUTION OF CROATS IN THE FIRST YUGOSLAVIA

Croatian Studies

Appendix to 'Persecution of Croats in the First . . . '


Ante Cuvalo

Also see the article related to this appendix

Also see: Letters of Protest




1918

Sep. 9 About 100 Serbian soldiers arrived for the first time at the town of Vukovar and, among other misdeeds, confiscated boats loaded with grain on the Danube river.

Oct. 29 Croatian Sabor (Parliament) broke off all ties with the Habsburg Monarchy (Austria-Hungary).

November A number of leading Croatian intellectuals in Zagreb receive letters threatening to hang them on light poles. Many people were afraid to walk the streets at night. Among the arrested in Zagreb were: Ivica dr. Frank (people's representative), Aleksandar Horvat (people's representative),Ante Matasic (general), Mirko dr. Puk (lawyer), Pavao Rauch (former ban/viceroy of Croatia), and Drago dr. Safar (lawyer).

Among the arrested and then forced to retire were the High Court Judges: Milan Accuti, Mirko dr. Kosutic, and Josip Tarabochia.

Among those forced from Zagreb into hiding were Ljudevit dr. Ivancic (priest in Zagreb) and Lovro dr. Radicevic (priest in Zagreb)

Nov.8 Franjo Sarkotic (general in Sarajevo) arrested.

Nov.9 Zvonimir Vukelic (newsman in Zagreb) arrested.

Nov.16 Mihovil Mihaljevic (field Marshall) forced to retire.

Nov. 17 Izidor dr. Krsnjavi (univ. prof. in Zagreb) forced to retire. Ivan Malus (school supervisor in Zagreb) forced to retire. Milan dr. Sufflay (a leading intellectual and univ. professor in Zagreb) forced to retire. ? Heim (judge in Zagreb) forced to retire.

Nov. 21 Lacko Labas (provincial governor in Bjelovar) forced to retire.

Nov. 22 Antun Liposcak (general) arrested.

Dec. 1 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes formed (renamed Yugoslavia in 1929).

Dec. 4 Zagreb newspaper "Hrvatska" banned.

Dec. 5 The gov. officials in Zagreb were ordered to declare this day a holiday with public celebrations in honor of the Serbian king Peter's "krsna slava." After the morning parade in honor of the king, Croatian soldiers stationed in Zagreb began a parade of their own, with their marching band. They protested unification with Serbia and demanded a democratic republic of Croatia. The marchers were met by force. On that day 9 Croatian civilians and 5 soldiers were killed, and 7 civilians and 10 soldiers were wounded. (It is estimated that over 100 people were hurt or killed but the newspaper were forbidden to write the truth.)

Among the killed were: Mato Gasparovic, Nikola Ivsa, Stjepan Juresa, Viktor Kolombar, Dragutin Kostelac, Josip Lupinski, Andro Martinko, Milos Mrse, Slavko Scukanac, ? Sentmartoni, Mijo Stanicer, Miroslav Svoboda, Antun Tasner-Juricic, and Ferdo Versec.

Among the arrested was the general Ante Matasic. Jailed over two months and then retired. Arrested again in 1929. After his release, his movements were restricted to the city of Zagreb.

1919

Gendarme forces maltreated large number of peasants in Zdala, Severin, Raca, Popovaca, Grubisno polje, and other places. Many of them were striped naked and beaten.

Jan. 6 The following Croatians were sentenced in Zagreb because of the Dec. 5, 1918 demonstrations: Ivica Percic (soldier) to 10 years,Rudolf Cecelja (soldier) to 7 years, Josip Simatovic (soldier) to 7 years, Ivan Babic (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Janko Herceg (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Franjo Kovacic (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Dragutin Mort (soldier) 3 and a half years, Adolf Schwartz (soldier) to 3 and a half years, Blaz Barac (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Stjepan Crncec (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Franjo Gasparac (soldier) 1 and half years, Marko Koren (soldier) 1 and a half years, Marko Majsl (soldier) 1 and a half years, Mirko Milosak (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Janko Pomjan (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Tomo Potlacek (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Josip Ruklic (soldier)to 1 and a half years, Konrad Skrebin (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Stjepan Tresoglavac (soldier) to 1 and half years, Mirko Vragovic (soldier) to 1 and a half years, Mustafa Basagic (soldier) ?, Mirko Drobac (soldier) ?, and Andrija Fijan (soldier) ?.

March Two elected parliamentary representatives from the Croatian Party of [State] Rights/HSP, dr. Prebeg (lawyer) and dr. Pazman (university professor) arrested.

Military censorship of the press imposed in Croatia.

Mar. 8Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS/ sent memorandum to the U.S. President Wilson and to members of the Peace Conference in Paris asking for self-determination of the Croatian people.

Mar. 25 President of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party (HRSS), Stjepan Radic, and two of its board members arrested. Although no charges were filed against him, Radic was held in jail without a trial untill Feb. 19, 1920. He was arrested again on March 22, 1920 and finally, he was released on Nov. 28, 1920, the day general elections, in which he and his party won an overwhelming majority of votes in Croatia.

May Josip Zrnek (worker) died in jail under torture.

July 13 Three people (a restaurant owner in Zagreb, his wife and a waitress) arrested by military authorities and badly beaten because the man said "This is not a Greater Serbia."

July 22 Spontaneous rebellion of soldiers in Varazdin.

August Army confiscated all the goods that Croat emigrants had brought with them returning from the USA.

Bartol Vukovic (peasant from Brodska Varos) killed by gendarmes.

September A Croat police officer in Zagreb beaten and maltreated by military authorities.

A "prominent citizen" in Zagreb 70 years old beaten, maltreated, and his dog killed on his own property by a military captain.

1920

A group of "well-respected citizens" in Sisak arrested while eating in a restaurant, kept overnight in the local jail and maltreated because gendarme Lolic was drunk and he felt like doing it.

"Many peasants" beaten in the name of king Peter and forced to genuflect three times and give homage to the Serbian traditional military cap, known as "sajkaca."

A veterinarian in Petrinja, after being asked to come to the office of the local commanding army officer, was maltreated and beaten by the officer. After escaping, the veterinarian was beaten again the next day by the same officer.

February A man was killed by soldiers in Sisak. While his wife was crying over his dead body, the commanding colonel swore at her and gave her two hard blows.

Feb. 20 Nine peasants in Delnice badly beaten by soldiers. Their money was also taken.

Mar. 22 ? Teslic, a Serb and a former Austrian Colonel, attempted to kill Stjepan Radic during a public gathering of the Croatian Peasant Party in Sisak. When Radic was about to begin his speech, Teslic fired four shots at him. After escaping the assassination, Radic was arrested and finally released on Nov. 28, 1920, the day of general elections.

Apr. 16 All public meetings banned in Croatia.

July A military colonel took a boat from a Croat citizen in Petrinja. After his complaint, four soldiers were sent to bring the man to the military compound. They were unsuccessful. But the next day, the citizen was found, beaten, and maltreated.

August Soldiers attack a number of civilians in Zagreb.

September A "large number" of peasants were killed during the attempts of the gendarmes and the military to put down peasant rebellions in northern Croatia. "Many peasants" were killed in Kutina county. Two peasants killed in Ivanjska.

Sep. 5 Forced branding of large domestic animals.

Peasants rebel in Veliki Grdjavac.

Josip Sulicek (peasant) killed by gendarmes.

Sep. 6 A peasant from Sveti Ivan Zeleni killed by gendarmes.

Sep. 8 Ivan Likoder (peasant from Repusnica) killed by gendarmes.? Pintaric (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. Ivan Vraznic (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. Gabor Uroic (peasant from Repusnica) wounded by gendarmes. ? Alapic (peasant from Gracanica) wounded by gendarmes.

Sep. 9 ? Gunjak (peasant) arrested and on the road from Osekova to Kutina killed by gendarmes. ? Pokaz (peasant) arrested and on the road from Osekova to Kutina killed by gendarmes.

Sep. 10 30 peasants in Petrinja badly beaten by the gendarmes in front of other citizens.

Sep. 16 3 peasant huts with all possessions burnt by gendarmes in Novoselce near Zagreb.

Filip Halic (79-year old peasant from Novoselce near Zagreb) killed by gendarmes in front of a hut in his vineyard.

Oct. 4 City Mayor of Vinkovci publically attacked by Serb military officer.

Nov. 28 Elections for the Constitutional Assembly. Croatian Republican Pleasant Party/HRSS/ received majority of votes in Croatia. Its leader, Stjepan Radic, released from jail on the election day.

Dec. 5 Croatian youth organization "Sokol" banned.

Dec. 12 Anti-Croatian demonstrations in Ruma/Srijem. Croatian businesses and homes attacked. All public signs written in Latin script demolished. Military authorities in the town were protecting the attackers.

Dec. 15 Mirko Marcinko arrested and severely tortured.

Dec. 20 Vinko Zugcic (peasant from Novoselce near. Zagreb) arrested and killed by gendarmes.

Vid Zavolic (peasant from Novoselce near Zagreb) wounded by gendarmes.

Dec. 22 A major strike by miners in Husino near Tuzla, Orasje, Breza, and other mining places in Bosnia. Gendarmes, "People's Guards" (Serbian volunteers), and army unites put down the strike. 32 miners and peasants were killed and many more seriously wounded. Robbery, rape, and expulsion from homes followed. Croatian settlements were special targets because the desire was to portray the Croats as Communist sympathizers.

Dec. 29Government in Belgrade issued a document, "Obznana", by which the Communist Party was banned in the country. Persecutions intensified.

Dec. 30 Stjepan Supanc (worker) killed in Vukovar.

1921

Jan. 4 Anka N. (Postal clerk in Vukovar) attacked by soldiers, maltreated, and arrested.

Jan. 26 The following Croats arrested in Zagreb. Trial began on June 12, 1921. On August 6, 1921 sentenced to:Pavao See 12 years, Rudolf Vidak 4 years, Milan dr. Sufflay to 3 and a half years, Jakov Petric to 3 years, Franjo Skvorc to 3 years, Dragutin Taborsak to 3 years, Josip Spoljarec-Drenski to 2 years and 4 months, Ivan Havelka to 8 months, Milan Galovic to 6 months,Ivan Kovacic to 6 months, Gabrijel Kruhak to 6 months, Ivo dr. Pilar 2 months, Andrija Medar freed, Antun Pavicic freed, and Florijan Stromar ?. Feb. 16 18 mineworkers in Tuzla condemned to death by hanging.. One of the condemned miners was Jure Kerosevic.

June Vladimir Copic arrested and sentenced on Feb. 2, 1922 to 2 years.

June 29 Unsucccesful attempt to assassinate king Aleksandar in Belgrade. Excuse to attack sympathizers of the Left and other opponents of the regime. It is estimated that about 10.000 people were arrested in the country and maltreated.

June 28 Centralist Constitution for the newly unified country approved by 233 votes; 35 delegates voted against, and 161 representatives were absent in Belgrade Parliament. July 2 150 workers arrested and maltreated in Split and sentenced from 3 to 8 months.

July 21 ORJUNA (Organizacija Jugoslavenskih Nacionalista/ Organization of Yugoslav Nationalits) attacked and seriously injured four "communists" in Split.

ORJUNA attacked and damaged the house of Mr. Jelaska in Split. ORJUNA demolished the house of Mr. Pinto in Split.

ORJUNA attaked and demolished the house of dr. Vrankovic in Split. July 22 ORJUNA attacked offices of Zagreb papers "Obzor," "Hrvat," and "Jutarnji list." It led violent anti-Croatian demonstration in Zagreb.

ORJUNA attaked "Radnicki dom" (Workers' Hall) in Osijek.

July 24 Rudolf Horvatic (civil servant in Zagreb) wounded by a railroad police, Dusan Kruzica, while riding a train from Sesvete to Zagreb.

Ivan Kosanda wounded togather with Rudolf Horvatic.

Zlatko Arnold (bank clerk) killed by a railroad policeman, Dusan Kruzica, while riding on Sesvete-Zagreb train.

August Catholic religious congress in Split attacked by ORJUNA.

A Catholic religious procession in Sinj attacked by gendarmes.

Aug. 2The Law for the Protection of the State was approved by Belgrade Parliament. Persecutions intensified.

Aug. 9 Drago Gizdic (worker in Dubrovnik) killed by ORJUNA.

Aug. 16 King Peter died. Because the Zagreb's city council did not send a special delegation to the funeral, it was dissolved.

Dec. 11 The "Croatian block" won the municipal elections in Zagreb. But the elected representatives were not allowed to govern. A special city Commissar was appointed be Belgrade.

1922

Newspaper "Hrvatski Glas" banned.

Equipment belonging to youth organization "Croatian Sokol" in Ogulin confiscated and given to the "Yugoslav Sokol." During a public gathering of the "Yugoslav Sokol" that followed in the same town, several leading Croats jailed.

About 400 Croat teachers and professors were dismissed from their jobs.

Jun. 8 King Aleksandar married Romanian princess Mariola. Croatians not welcomed at the wedding. The wedding costs were over 65 million dinars.

Jan. 29 A large number of peasants, including women and children, were attacked and mercilessly beaten by 14 gendarmes in the village near Topusko. Many were incapacitated for a long time because of the harsh beatings.

Feb. 21 ORJUNA attacked members of "Croatian workers union." Army intervened on the side of ORJUNA.

Feb. 23 Ivan Colovic arrested and sentenced to 2 years. Spent 7 months in jail before the trial.

Djuro Salaj arrested and sentenced to 2 years. Spent 7 months in jail before the trial.

March A number of Croatians were attacked by ORJUNA members who were armed by pistols given to them by the military authorities.

? Snidarsic (Zagreb lawyer) shot by ORJUNA members. There was no investigation.

ORJUNA members attacked the house in Zagreb where retired Croatian military officers were having a private party.

June ORJUNA undertook major attacks throughout Zagreb.

June 4 A large number of the "Croatian Sokol" children and their escorts, mostly women, from Karlovac, Jastrebarsko, Ogulin and other towns attacked by local Serbs during the Sokol's field trip to Plitvice Lakes. A number of people injured, investigation was not permitted and no one was punished.

June 14 All chapters of the organization "Croatian Woman" banned and its property comfiscated because they participated in organizing a pilgrimage to the tomb of Ante Starcevic three days earlier.

Women's organization "Katarina Zrinski" also banned because of the pilgrimage to the grave of Ante Starcevic.

Zagreb chapter of the "Croatian Sokol" banned and posessions confiscated because they made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Ante Starcevic three days earlier.

July ? Rozic killed in Zagreb.

Dec. 9 Franjo Vrtat (Novigrad near Koprivnica) jailed for organizing HRSS meetings.

1923

At an ORJUNA meeting attended by the Minister of the Interior an open discussion on assassinating Stjepan Radic (the leader of the Croats) too place.

January During the pre-election campaign, a young man in the village of Kras (Dobrinjstina) was killed after a HRSS public meeting. During the same period, a man was killed in each of the following places: Crikvenica, Otocac, and Vrginmost .

Three HRSS representatives from the region of Sibenik were jailed.

Four members of the HRSS Main Board were jailed.

Three HRSS representatives from Cepin (Osijek) were jailed.

ORJUNA attacked Croatian Sokol members in their hall in Gospic. Because of the attack, the local Sokol organization was deprived of the hall.

Armed ORJUNA members clashed with Croatian youth in a coffee shop in downtown Zagreb. Eight people were wounded.

Jan. 28 ORJUNA members broke up a Croatian Republican Peasant Party (HRSS) gathering in Vinkovci.

February ORJUNA attacked political gatherings organized by Prof. Kerubin Segvic in Split.

ORJUNA attacked two followers of the HRSS in Drnis.

ORJUNA assaulted Dr. Vandekar, son in law of Stjepan Radic, in the town of Metkovic.

ORJUNA attacked a public meeting of the HRSS in Tuzla.

Feb. 3 Public meeting of the HRSS in Kostajnica broken up by ORJUNA members and their simpatizers. Those attending were attacked and more than 30 of homes were damaged.

Feb. 4 Six people seriously, and 18 lightly wounded by ORJUNA members in Crikvenica. One of the wounded died next day.

Feb. 5 Offices of the "Hrvatski list," newspaper in Osijek, raided and vandalized by ORJUNA. A bomb was thrown into the main office.

Feb. 8 ORJUNA members placed a bomb in the hall of the Croatian workers union in Dubrovnik. Local government officials in the region of Dubrovnik banned public gatherings of Croatian political parties.

March Marko Grsic Filipovic wounded by a bullet in the head in the town of Senj.

A Zagreb Croat who stated that he would vote for Radic was forced by a gendarme to kiss the picture of Nikola Pasic, the leading Serbian politician at the time and a symbol of Greater Serbianism.

In Koprivnica, gendarmes opened gun fire on Croatian peasants.

In Split, any one who cried out "Long live Radic" received a 30- day jail sentence.

Gendarmes attacked a peasant from Cerje Tuzno and robbed him of his possessions.

Mar. 4 Peasants from the village of Cukovac (Ludbreg) were fired upon because they prepared a welcoming celebration for the HRSS leaders, including Stjepan Radic. Those who fired on the peasants were not punished. Instead, a peasant from Cukovac, a sympathizer of Radic, was sentenced to a one day jail term for not voting "properly."

ORJUNA and its sympathizers attacked a public meeting of the HRSS in Otocac. Two peasants were wounded and a 14 year old boy was killed.

Mar. 18 After police attacked and dispersed a crowd gathered in Zagreb, OJUNA members opened fire on those running from police. A 16-year old boy was seriously wounded and a 20- year old man and a woman received lesser injuries.

Mar. 18 Second general elections held in the KSHS. The HRSS received an overwhelimg vote among the Croatians (420,000 votes and 69 Deputies).

April Jurije Soce (Sarajevo) killed by ORJUNA members.

June Kerubin Segvic on trial. He wrote in an article that ORJUNA was helped by the government.

Jul. 21 Stjepan Radic, President of the HRSS left the country and visited London, Vienna and Moscow looking for international understanding of the Croatian cause.

1924

Mime Rosandic (forestry engineer) arrested and maltreated.

April ORJUNA member attacked Jewish properties in Zagreb.

Aug. 1 Stjepan Radic, leader of the HRSS returned from abroad to Zagreb. It became clear that the outside world did not want to hear about "the Croatian question."

November A gendarme attempted to assassinate August Kosutic, a leading politician in Croatia in Kastel Stari. Treated for head wounds in gendarme station. Jailed right after his return to Zagreb. Soon after, he took a long trip to the USA in order to avoid physical attacks or even assassination.

The Minister of education, S. Pribicevic, retired 3 leading professors (supporters of HRSS) at the Zagreb University. One of the three was Dr. Ladislav Polic. Dec. 23 Declaration to ban the Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS because it joined the Socialist International. Its public meeting and all its publications were banned. The law of public order and protection of state to be implemented against the HRSS, all its archives to be confiscated, and its leadership arrested.

1925

January Police harassed leading Croatian politicians, among them Dr. Josip Lorkovic, Dr. Albert Bazala, Dr. Stjepan Skrulj, Dr. Stjepan Buc, Dr. Krajac, and others.

Seven peasants from Kustosija (near Zagreb) arrested because they displayed a Croatian flag.

The HRSS and Communist representatives in the Osijek city council were stripped off their political positions.

Jan. 1 The Law for the Protection of State, originally passed against the Communists, extended to the Croatian Republican Peasant Party/HRSS/. Criminal procedures were undertaken against its leadership.

Jan. 2 Police searched apartments and offices of all leading HRSS politicians in Zagreb and throughout the country. Many of them were arrested and released after a short detention. But the following were arrested and kept in jail for 6 months: Dr. Vladko Macek, Dr. Juraj Krnjevic, Dr. Stjepan Kosutic, Augustin Kosutic, Josip Predavec. A few days later, the secretary of the HRSS, Serif Kuzmic, was also arrested.

Offices of Osijek newspaper "Hrvatski list" raided and editors maltreated.

The house of Ivan dr. Loncarevic (lawyer in Mitrovica) raided and vandalized.

Jan. 3 600 peasants from Sibenik region arrested, taken to Sibenik, and about a half of them were jailed.

A number of Croats in Sibenik jailed. Among them were: Marko Berovic, Augustin Bujan (priest), Josip Drezga, Dr. Miho Jernic (dentists), Mate Kalmeta, Sime Zenic, Ivan dr. Krnic (former gov. high official). Next day, he was taken to Ogulin. Three Croatian homes in Susak/Rijeka raided.

Jan. 4 Ten members of the HSS in Imotski arrested.

Prof. Pavao Brkic arrested.Dr. ? Cuzzi (Split) arrested. Josip Paf (Sinj) arrested.Prof. Kerubin Segvic (editor of "Croatian Review" in Zagreb) arrested.Dr. ? Sokol (Split) arrested. Pavao Vucic (Sinj) arrested.Dr. Mile Vukovic (Imotski) arrested.

Jan. 5 Stjepan Radic, President of HRSS, arrested. Rudolf Bicanic (economist in Zagreb) - his apartment raided. Dragan Devcic (merchant in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days. Stjepan dr. Hefer (lawyer) jailed for 14 days. Ivo dr. Majcan (lawyer) arrested. ? Mirtejic (in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days.

Pavle Radic (leading man in the HRSS and Croatian representative in Belgrade parliament)- his apartment in Belgrade raided.

Viktor Tomlinovic (priest in Nasice) jailed.Djuro Turkalj (in Djakovo) jailed for 14 days.

All school teachers members of the Croatian Peasant Party dismissed from their jobs.

Jan. 6 Gendarmes opened fire on a crowd of Croats in Ozelj near Karlovac. One peasant killed and two wounded.

Jan. 7 "Croatian Sokol" youth organizations in Velika, Mihaljevac, and Brestovac near Pozega banned.

Jan. 8 Offices of the "Srijemski Hrvat," Vukovar paper, raided and vandalized.

Seven peasants in Ceric near Vukovar arrested.

Dr. Ivan Majcen (Donji Miholjac) jailed for 6 days.Matijevic (president of the HSS in Bogdanovici) jailed with a number of other HSS members.

All HSS representatives and their secretaries in Donji Miholjac jailed for 5 days.

Jan. 9 In the village of Ladjevac, a local priest (Rev. Mikan) was arrested.

Jan. 13 "Hrvatski List," Osijek newspaper, banned. After changing the name into "Hrvatska Zora" it was banned also. Jan. 13Rude Bacinic, a leading HRSS representative from Dalmatia, arrested in Belgrade.

Jan. (mid)The president of the local election committee and a member of the HRSS, Prof. Josip Hager, was arrested. He was accused of insulting the king and the regime. Besides being suspended from teaching, he was arrested again at the end of the month and sentenced to a 10 day jail term.

Jan. 25"Hrvatski Branik," Vinkovci newspaper, banned.

Jan. 31 Djuro Zivic, a HRSS sympathizer, from Novo selo (Varazdin) was arrested, kept in jail till Feb. 8, 1925, and the case against him dragged on till 1927.

Jan. (end) Dr. Milovan Zanic was arrested.

The secretary of the HRSS Zagreb branch arrested

Police in Varazdin attempted to prevent the HRSS from handing to the local court the election lists and harassed the leading HRSS officials in the city, Dr. Ursic and others.

Nikola Separovic, a baker from Vela Luka living near Delnice, arrested. Accused of insulting the Belgrade regime. Feb. (beg.) Gendarmes beat up four peasants in the village of Lukavac. Two of them were seriously hurt.

Feb. 8 The day of elections, police, gendarmes, and even military forces were employed throughout Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to intimidate the non-Serb electorate. Many members of local election committees were harassed and/or arrested. There were numerous clashes between the voters and the gendarmes, and a number of people were injured and even killed.

In a clash between the gendarmes and the voters in Veliko Trgovisce a peasant was killed, and two gendarmes were wounded. Next day, 20 peasants were arrested and, after long tortures, 11 were released and 9 put on trial.

In the village of Stajnica (Lika) four peasants were killed (including an 80 year old woman) and many were wounded by the gendarmes. Stajnica was a stronghold of the HRSS party.

The mayor of the town of Susak (near Rijeka) was suspended from his functions and deprived of his salary because he was not supporting the Serbian Radical party.

In the village of Straznjevac (Varazdin) gendarmes arrested more than 10 peasants accused of displaying a flag with a slogan: "Faith in God and Peasant Solidarity" and of preventing the gendarmes from arresting the HRSS committee-men. After being maltreated and kept in jail for a while, they received from one to four months prison terms.

After the election results were announced, the HRSS supporters were prevented by police, gendarmes, and the military throughout Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from celebrating the victory.

Feb. 8 General elections - HRSS gained total victory among the Croats.

Feb. 11 "Hrvatski List," Osijek daily newspaper, banned again.

Feb. 17 "Hrvatski Glas," Osijek daily newspaper and successor to "Hrvatski list" banned.

Mar. 22 Dr. Albert Bazala (leading intellectual and people's representative) physically attacked by Serbian members of parliament.

May 25 "Novi List," daily newspaper in Susak/Rijeka, banned.

July 18 Stjepan Radic was released from jail. He and his party joined the government in Belgrade. His party's name from now on is simply Croatian Peasant Party /HSS/; the adjective Republican is abandoned.

1926

May Attempt to assassinate Stjepan Radic (leader of the HSS) in Srijemska Mitrovica

1927

January On the island of Krk, displaying of the Croatian flag was banned and civil servants and school teacher came under special pressure because the local elections were coming up. (Jan. 23, 1927). In Varazdin, the city council and the city mayor were removed, and a government official (a gendarme officer) took control of the city.

In Osijek, a communist election leaflet stating "Long live the Republic" was banned.

On the island of Korcula, the HSS candidates were arrested.

In the provinces of Backa and Baranja, the HSS candidates and supporters were under great pressure to abandon their loyalty to their political party. Jan. 4 The ban against the HSS activities (imposed at the end of 1924) was abolished.

Jan. 23 On the day of local elections, about 2000 HSS members were coming to greet Radic at his home in Zagreb. Police dispersed the crowd and injured a number of people.

Aug. A regional representative of the Serbian Democratic Party from Vrelo near Korenica was arrested and sentenced to a 14 day jail term. The Serbian Democratic Party in Croatia came under pressure because its leader, S. Pribicevic, abandoned his policy of Serbian unitarism and became a federalist.

Aug. 28 In Sv. Jakov (near Crikvenica) gendarmes dispersed a HSS meeting and arrested one participant.

Sep. (beg.) In the village Krivi Put (Lika) the president of the local HSS was arrested and sentenced to 14 days of prison.

In Ludbreg, two HSS members were sentenced to a 14 day jail term each. Spt. 11Parliamentary elections. During these election there were no major eruptions of violence but voting manipulation by the regime was worse than in previous elections.

1928

June 20 Serbian Parliament representative, Punisa Racic, opened fire in Belgrade Parliament on Croatian deputies. Stjepan Radic mortally wounded (died on Aug. 8,1928), Dr. Djuro Basaricek killed, Pavle Radic killed, Dr. Ivan Pernar wounded, and Ivan Grandja wounded.

June 20-22 Massive demonstrations in Zagreb. 5 people killed; 50 wounded, more than a hundred arrested.

Dec. 4 Zagreb students demonstrated. Several killed and wounded by the gendarmes. 1929

Jan. 6 King Aleksandar assumed all power in the country, dismissed Parliament, suspended Constitutions, and banned all political parties.

April 30 Djuro Djakovic and Nikola Hecimovic, after being arrested and tortured, were led to the country border and shot.

May Dr. Milovan Zanic (lawyer and a former representative in parliament from Nova Gradiska) sentenced to 6 months for suggesting that king Aleksandar should be asked to return civil rights to the citizens. He had been arrested also in previous years.

June 28 The leader of the Serbs in Croatia, Svetozar Pribicevic, once right-hand man of the Belgrade regime, was confined to a small village in Serbia for his cooperation with the Croat political leaders. From 1931 till his death in 1936, he lived in exile.

July 17 Dr. Ante Pavelic (Zagreb lawyer and representative in Belgrade parliament) condemned to death in absence and his property is confiscated.

Gustav Percec condemned to death in absence and his property is confiscated.

Oct. 3 Displaying of Croatian flag is banned. Oct. 31 The following Croats were arrested and sentenced on June 30, 1931. Marko Hranilovic (student, 20 years old) condemned to death by hanging plus 20 years jail term!! Matija Soldin condemned to death by hanging plus 20 years jail term. Hung on November 25, 1931..

Stipe Javor (from Brinje/Zagreb merchant ) to 20 years. Because of beastly tortures he died in jail on March 27, 1936. Stipe Javor's wife and two daughters were also arrested and maltreated in order to force him to talk. Antun Herceg (newsman) to 20 years. Dragutin Kriznjak (peasant) to 18 years. Stjepan Horvatek (merchant's helper) to 15 years. Pavao Glad (hospital clerk) to 15 years. Milan Siladi (blacksmith from Busevac) to 6 years. Antun Vezmarovic (forest guard) to 5 years. Luka Markulin (peasant from Odra) to three years. Mijo Bizik (craftsman) to 18 months. Marija Hranilovic (Marko's sister; secretary) to 18 months. Gabrijel Kruhak (office clerk in Zagreb) to 18 months. Janko Kruhak (craftsman) to 18 months. Mirko Kruhak (office clerk in Zagreb) to 18 months. Stjepan Markulin (peasant from Odra) to 18 months. Mile Starcevic (office clerk) to 18 months. Luka Cordasic freed. Josip Knoblehar freed. Stjepan Kopcinovic freed. Stjepan Novacic freed. Cvjetko Stahan freed. Mijo Babic escaped the country and condemned in absence. Zvonimir Pospisil condemned in absence. Mladen Lorkovic (Zagreb lawyer) avoided the arrest by escaping the country .

Dec. Blaz Djogic (peasant from Siroki Brijeg) killed by gendarmes

Dec. 5 King Aleksandar banned the "Croatian Sokol" that had over 40,000 members.

Dec. 19 Vilko Begic (military colonel) arrested. Freed on June 14, 1930.

Jaksa Jelasic (professor in Zagreb) arrested and sentenced to 3 years plus the loss of civil rights for 4 years.

52 Zagreb students arrested together with Begic and Jelasic.

Dec. 29 The following Croats were arrested, tried in Belgrade, and on June 14, 1930 sentenced: Ivan Bernardic (merchant's assistant from Barilovic) to 15 years, expulsion from Zagreb for 3 years, and the loss of civil rights for life. Stjepan Matekovic (craftsman from Kostajnica) to 10 years. Filip Paver (state clerk in Zagreb) to 10 years. Martin Franekic to 8 years the loss of civil rights for life.Ivan Skrtak to 6 years and permanent loss of civil rights. Cvjetko Hadzija to 5 years and the loss of civil rights for 5 years. Ante Stefanac to 4 years and the loss of civil rights for 4 years. Velimir Mocnaj (book store owner in Karlovac) to 3 years and the loss of civil rights for 3 years. Ivan Prpic (lawyer from Jastrebarsko) to 2 years. Ivan Ban (merchant's assistant from Kresevo) to 1 year and loss of civil rights for 3 years. Franjo Veselic to 1 year. Ljubomir Kremzir to 6 months. Pavao Margetic to 6 months. Bozo Arnsek freed. Mirko Debanic freed. Albin Gasparac freed. Franjo Kuntic (restaurant owner) freed. Ivan dr. Lebovic (lawyer) freed. Milan Levnajic freed. Antun Stefanic freed.

1930

Ivan Rosic jailed 14 days for placing a wreath on the grave of Stjepan Radic. Jan. 4 Dr. Vladko Macek (leader of the HSS) arrested, tried in Belgrade and freed on June 14, 1930. Seven Croatian prisoners that were acquitted together with Macek at the trial in Belgrade and four of their lawyers were celebrating their release. That was considered a crime and all were sentenced to a 30 days prison term.

May Over 100 Croats arrested. Accused of planning to place an explosive under the train taking a delegation to see the king in Belgrade. Among them were: Antun Budrovac - later sentenced to a jail term. Franjo Canic - later sentenced to a jail term. Franjo Carevic - later sentenced to a jail term. Antun Herman (shoemaker in Djakovo) - later sentenced to a jail term. Zeljko Klemen - later sentenced to a jail term. Karlo Kovacevic - later sentenced to a jail term. Sime Mikic - later sentenced to a jail term. Ivan Ruskan - later sentenced to a jail term. Luka Stjevic - later sentenced to a jail term. Anka Sultajs (woman) - later sentenced to a jail term. Andrija Tilman (postal clerk in Djakovo) - later sentenced to a jail term.

June Josip Predavec (Vice President of the HSS) condemned to 2 and a half years of prison.

1931

During the year "a number of Croats" killed by Chetniks and/or gendarme forces.

Zvonimir Topilnik (bank clerk in Livno) died in jail under torture.

Dr. Dragutin Toth arrested and tried with 13 more members of the HSS.

Ivan Jedlicka tortured and died in Virovitica prison.

Jan. 14 Obrad Pavlovic (Croat from Backa) killed near Italian border.

Feb. ? Bosnjakovic (craftsman in Djakovo) died in jail under gendarmes' torture.

Josip Poropat (young man from Zagreb) killed by gendarmes and his body was thrown from the 3rd floor into the courtyard.

174 Croats arrested in Zagreb

Feb. 17Djuka Ilijanic (peasant) died in Zagreb under torture.

Feb. 18Dr. Milan Sufflaj (a leading Croat intellectual) assassinated.

April Ante Pavelic (peasant from Bosanski Brod) arrested and severely tortured. After his release, escaped to Austria and soon died of complications caused by tortures.

May Josip Nadj (merchant from Ferdinandovac) died in jail under torture

May 4 Trial of 22 Croats began in Zagreb. Among the 22 volunteer defending counsels was Dr. Vladko Macek, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party who a year earlier was himself tried and acquitted in Belgrade. (See Oct. 31, 1929)

May 23 In Belgrade, 3 Croats were sentenced to death, one of them in absence. 11 others received a total of 126 years jail terms. Two were sentenced to 20 and 15 years, but they escaped the country. One of the accused was acquitted.

June Milka Hranilovic (a woman) jailed because of her son's activities.

June 31 Ante Crvic, Ignac Domitrovic, and Mijo Seletkovic were condemned in absence.

July 12About 12,000 people attending the Eucharistic Congress in Omis. Gendarmes opened fire on the masses. Two people killed and many wounded.

July 23 Six months after their arrests, a group of Croats tried in Belgrade and sentenced. Among them, Ivan Rosic (shoemaker's assistant) to death by hanging (hung).

Aug. 1 man (peasant from Lencak near Lasinja) killed by gendarmes. Aug. 10Ilija Petrovic (Nova Gradiska) died under prison torture in Zagreb.

Aug. 11The following Croats were sentenced: Ivan Ljevakovic (father's name Matin from Lipak; streetcar controller in Zagreb) to death. Later commuted to life imprisonment. Ivan Ljevakovic (father's name Franjo; peasant from Lipak) to 15 years. Adolf Miler sentenced in Belgrade to 15 years. Ivan Saub to 10 years. Petar Nozaric to 2 years. Stjepan Papac to 2 years. Ignac Terihaj to 10 months. Milan Lukac (from Nova Gradiska) freed. Josip Miklausic - cooperated with prosecution. Martin Nagy - cooperated with prosecution. Hung himself in jail. Supposedly suicide.

Dec. 8 Chetniks in the country of Benkovac terrorized Croats who did not participate in the elections. Five peasants killed and many wounded. 1932

Villages in Lika region were terrorized and possessions confiscated after the Lika rebellion.

129 Croats were tried for verbal "insult of the king's name" in the regions of Petrinja, Bjelovar, Zagreb, Ogulin, and Varazdin alone.

Pastor of the Catholic parish in Krasna/Lika arrested because of his "provocative" sermon. A number of Croats in Pazariste/Lika were severely beaten by gendarmes. Among them were: Joso Alivojdic, Petar Dasovic (75 years),

Ilka Hodak (24 year woman), Tomo Marinkovic (beaten daily for 10 days), Jerko Rukavina (70 year), ? Smiljcic (14 years), Manda Stimac (older woman), Jure Zivkovic - his skull was broken and the gendarmes left him for dead.

23 people (from 23 to 92 years of age) severely beaten by gendarmes force in Brusani/Lika. Among them were: Sule Devcic (92 years old) and Mican Lisac (73 year old)

Ivan Domitrovic (peasant from near Imotski) killed by the Chetniks in his home.

Jozo Olujic (Opanci/Imotski) killed by the Chetniks.

Towards the end of the year, a group of Croats were arrested and sentenced in Jan. 1933. Among them: Franjo Furlan to 7 years, Stjepan Tomljenovic 7 years, Sime Balen to 4 years, Nikola Busljeta to 2 years, Mile Sikic 6 months, Antun Balen freed, and Jakov Kubretovic freed.

Five Croats killed on the border to Italy and to Hungary.

Towards the end of the year, 121 people (mostly peasants from Prijedor region) brought to trial in Banja Luka.

Feb. 18 Ive Dusevic (20 years old man from Ljubac/Zadar) killed by Chetniks.

Feb. 20 A peasant in Bosanski Brod killed by gendarmes.

March Blaz Savic (peasant in Benkovac region) deprived of any assistance because of his nationality and political beliefs- died of hunger.

Mara Troskat (a woman in Banjevac/Benkovac) deprived of any assistance because of her nationality and political beliefs - died of hunger.

Nikola Zrilic (Sopoti/Benkovac) deprived of job and social assistance because of his nationality and political stands - died of hunger.

Mar. 4 Many peasants from Lisani/Tinja arrested and held in jail for a long time while their children had no food.

Mar. 6 Students at the University in Zagreb display 3 Croatian flags; many of them arrested and maltreated. Branko Buzjak (student in Zagreb) seriously wounded by police.

Mar. 25 ? Aljinovic (truck driver in Ston/Peljesac) killed by Chetniks

April 4 The Government led by General Petar Zivkovic, known for his harsh rule, forced to resign. Hops were high that the new Government would be less oppressive, but such hopes did not materialize.

April 24 About 200 peasants expressed their disatisfaction by marching to the city of Ludbreg. March crushed by gendarmes, leaders arrested and punished.

Apr. 30 Jakov Peraic (peasant in Polaca/Zadar) killed and robbed by a Serb border guard.

May A large number of people maletreated, beaten, arrested or punished by other means in Suska/Rijeka, Bjelovar, Ogulin and other places.

May 12-14 About 600 peasants peacefully demonstrated demanding removal of the local administration in Kosinj/Lika. Gendarmes crushed the protest in blood.

May 15 Gendarmes crushed spontaneous political demonstrations in Senj. Many people were injured, arrested, and punished.

May 26 Gendarmes used a brutal force to crash demonstrations in Split. A large number of people arrested and maltreated.

June Tomislav Corak (peasant from Brdari/Sanski Most) killed by gendarmes.

Ivan Eres (peasant) killed by gendarmes near Hungarian border.

June 7 An attempt to assassinated Dr. Mile Budak, a well known Croatian writer, takes place in Zagreb.

June 14 Attempted murder of two men in Zagreb by members of Young Yugoslavia.

June 20 Commemorations for the Croatian victims shot in Belgrade parliament in June 1928. Arrests, beatings, and shootings by gendarmes take place in many parts of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Secretary of HSS in Bosanski Brod arrested. Gendarmes open fire on the crowd gathered in front of the local jail.Twenty people wounded and many more arrested.

Stjepan Matkovic (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes. A peasant (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes. A peasant woman (Bosanski Brod) killed by gendarmes.

June 20-21 A large number of peasants from Draganic/Karlovac arrested and maltreated.

June 29Gendarmes opened fire on a Catholic religious procession in Stubica/Zagorje. One man and one woman were killed. Numerous people wounded. Many were maltreated and jailed after the event.

July Ivan Kajda and Pavao Lukac (peasants from Virovitica) killed by gendarmes. Aug. Two peasants in Donja Stubica/Zagorje killed by gendarmes.

Aug. 16 Gendarmes attacked the village of Braslovlje/Samobora. A few peasants were killed and several wounded.

Sept. After the "Lika Rebellion" many Croatians jailed and most of them, after being beaten and tortured, where released. Twelve of them taken to Glavnjaca jail near Belgrade where they were maltreated and spent 9 months before they were tried. Andrija Artukovic, Marko Dosen, Josip Tomljenovic, Ivan Saric, and Nikola Oreskovic escaped from the country.

"A few dead and several wounded peasants" (in Oroslavlje/Zagreb region). Gendarmes used violence because Croatian flag was hoisted.

Pasko Kaliterna (merchant in Split) and Fabijan Plazinic (Split) jailed, tried in Belgrade, and freed on March 14, 1933.

Sept. 14 Stipe Devcic (peasant in Jadovno, Lika) killed by gendarmes.

Sept. 21 Djuro Kemfelja (peasant from Stubica Gornja) jailed and sentenced to 18 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.

Petar Posaric jailed and sentenced to 8 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.

Oct. Viktor Kosutic jailed; sentenced to 10 months in Belgrade on March 14, 1933.

? Pecnikar (railroad official in Zagreb) died as a consequence of police tortures.

Oct. 5 Dr. Ivan Pernar (leading Croat politician) jailed and sentenced on March 14, 1933 to 1 year of jail term.

Oct. 17 Dr. Vladko Macek, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, arrested on account of an interview printed in an English newspaper.

Nov. Luka Devcic (peasant from Lika) died in jail under gendarmes' torture.

Nov. 20-28 Three peasants from Nin county killed by gendarmes.

Dec. ? Frkovic (craftsman in Benkovac) died under gendarmes' torture. Sime Grgic (Nin) died in jail under gendarmes' torture.

Mile Kordun (peasnat from Mumici/Nin) killed by gendarmes.

? Misura (tavern owner in Benkovac) died as a consequence of gendarmes' tortures.

Dec. 5 "About 100 students and city people" arrested and tortured because of an explosion that took place in Zagreb on Dec. 1, 1932. Dec. 9 Miro Perkovic (peasant from Ljubac/Nin) killed by gendarmes.

1933

98 people were tried for verbal "insult of the king's name" in the regions of Petrinja, Bjelovar, Zagreb, Ogulin, and Varazdin alone.

"At the beginning of the year," 8 people were jailed from 10 to 14 days in Podravina.

Ivan Borac (peasant from Razanci/Zemunik) mortally wounded by a Chetnik in front of the church right after the church service.

Ante Dobrila (post-office clerk in Senj) sentenceed to 14 years.

Marko Dosen (merchant from Lika) escaped from the country because of persecutions. His family was also persecuted and their business license suspended in May of 1933.

Sime Dusevic (peasant from Asin near Nin) killed by gendarmes Milivoj Cumic. He also killed P. Grgic and was decorated with the "Medal of St. Sava" for special merits.

Ivan Gabaj (peasant from Hlebine) is arrested, severely tortured and then shot to death by gendarmes.

Franjo Mraz (peasant from Hlebine) tortured and killed by gendarmes.

Pavle Perkovic (peasant from Perkovici near Sl. Brod) killed by Chetnik Rusic.

? Rasic (peasant from the region of Sl. Brod) killed at a public meeting by Chetniks.

? Rupcic (from Senj) sentenced to 3 years of jail.

Vladimir Secko (merchant's helper in Senj) sentenced to 18 years of jail.

About 600 large animals were confiscated by gendarmes and 48 houses and barns were torched in northern Dalmatia and Lika, especially in Podgorje and Devcici.

? Stojilovic (peasant from Oreskovica) killed on the day of local elections by Zivot Radivojevic. Drago Vlahovic (clerk in Senj) sentenced to 8 years of jail.

Blaz Vukutin (peasant from Pakostani) died because of tortures suffered in jail.

Jan. 60 peasants from Djelkovac, Koprivnica, and other villages in the area were led barefoot to Prlog jail where they were maltreated and tortured.

The following peasants were jailed and gravely tortured: Antun Babat, ? Dretar, Josip Havajic (Tortured to the point of death. Last minute medical intervention kept him alive.), Josip Jurasin, Franjo Makar, ? Petkovic, ? Stancin, Pavao Turek, and Ignac Zlatar. Sandor Trajber killed by gendarmes near Donja Lendava.

Jan 21 Dr. Valdko Macek (Leader of the Croatian Peasant Party/HSS) jailed. Charges filed against him in March. He is transferred to state security jail in Belgrade. Sentenced to 3 years of jail term on April 29, 1933.

Feb. Vilko Begic jailed.

Vladimir Bogovic (clerk in Karlovac) commited suicide because of persecutions.

Feb. 15 Josip Silobrcic (pharmacist in Biograd near Zadar) jailed and tortured.

40 peasants from the region of Sibenik arrested and taken to the city. All accused of anti-state activities. After 185 days of solitary confinement, Silobrcic and 10 others were taken to Belgrade and declared innocent on December 20, 1933 because the charges were brought against them "arbitrarily."

Mar. 11 Antun Ivanov (peasant from Preko/Zadar) tortured to death while in jail.

Mar. 14 Cvjetko Nizic (from Preko/Zadar) tortured to death while in jail.

April Ruzica Knezevic (peasant woman from Perusic) died because of the beatings she suffered at the hands of gendarmes.

April 18 A group of peasants from Recice were taken to Karlovac jail and tortured. One of them, Andrija Pavlic suffered terrible tortures.

April 24 Gendarmes used force to suppress students' demonstrations in Zagreb.

April 29 Gendarmes used force to stop student demonstrations in Zagreb. May About 200 students in Zagreb jailed and terrorized for displaying Croatian flag.

Josip Kostelac (student in Zagreb) jailed and greatly tortured. Sentenced in December 1933.

? Bekavac (peasant from Prolozac/Benkovac) killed by a Serb member of the Sokol organization.

Sime Dijan (Lika) sentenced to 6 months because he did not report suspected nationalists to gendarmes.

Petar Grgic (Murvice/Zadar) killed by gendarme Milivoj Cumica.

Andrija Nadnicic (Lika) sentenced to life imprisonment.

Five others tried with Nadnicic received sentences from 3 to 8 years.

May 20 The following peasants and former HSS parliamentary representatives from the region of Garasnica were jailed: Tomo Madjeric, Misko Racan, TomoVojkovic, At the same time, many peasants from the region were terrorized by gendarmes and taken to Zagreb prison in order to reveal a presumed "great plot" against the state.

July A woman killed in an attack on a Catholic religious procession in Split.

More than 50 Croats accused of belonging to Ustasha movement were tried in three groups in Lika. Among them the following were sentenced: Josip Cacic to life imprisonment, Stjepan Mabasa to life imprisonment, Milan Silhovic 10 months, and others in the group received jail terms from 6 to 15 years.

July 10 After spending 9 months in the notorious Glavnjaca jail near Belgrade, the following Croats were sentenced: Jure Rukavina (forcefully retired officer) condemned to death. Tortured so much that he had to be carried on a stretcher to the court. It was expected that he would succumb to the tortures and die, the king commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. After the king's assassination the sentence was commuted to 20 years. Jerko Sudar to "eternal servitude" (after king's assassination the sentence was commuted to 20 years). Leopold Super (peasant from Brusani) to 20 years. Ivan Abramovic (a young craftsman) to 15 years. Jure Gazic to 15 years. Antun Super (shoemaker from Brusani) to 15 years. Josip Baric (peasant from Brusani) to 12 years. Josip Vukic (merchant's helper from Tribalj/Crikvenica) 10 years. Ivan Rukavina (peasant from Pazariste Donje) to 3 years. Dane Babic (peasant from Brusani) to 9 months. Josip Super (from Brusani) freed. Pavao Baric (peasant from Brusani) freed. A week later, the third group of suspected "Ustashe" was tried in Lika.

July 14 J. Predavec murdered.

July 24 Mirko Neudorfer (former gov. minister and HSS representative) murdered at Ladislavac/Zlatara.

Aug. Augustin Franic (peasant from Sukosani/Dalmatia) killed by Chetniks.

Sept. 9 Ivo dr. Pilar (59 year old well known intellectual and opponent of the regime) officially committed suicide but it is believed that he was murdered.

Sept. 27-28 A large number of students in Zagreb jailed and/or terrorized.

Oct. A terrorizing expedition into the village of Vinice and the surrounding area takes place. This resulted into: Josip Krobot (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) killed. A few hundreds of peasants severely beaten and terrorized.

Dec. 1 Post-office clerk (Selska cesta) killed for singing Croatian patriotic songs.

Dec. 16 King Aleksander in Zagreb. Failed plot to assassinate him discovered.

Dec. Massive arrests (more than 1000 people) and maltreatments in Zagreb. Many of them highschool students. Others expelled from the city.

1934

"Many peasants" arrested in Koprivnica region. Among them the following were sentenced to life inprisonment, later commuted to 15 years: ? Horvatinovic (from Gola), ? Novak (from Gola), ? Posezi (from Gola), ? Suboticanec (from Gola), Janko Varga (from Novacka Gola), ? Pavlic (from Djelkovac), ? Petak (from Djelkovac), ? Sabol (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak 1 (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak 2 (from Djelkovac), ? Vuljak 3 (from Djelkovac), ? Sijak (from Grbasevac), and ? Vutuc (from Grbasevac).

"About 100 peasants, workers and students" in Zagreb arrested and maltreated. About 20 people severely tortured.

Ivan Saric (peasant from Zemunik) beaten so badly by gendarmes that he died of the injuries received.

Jan. 11 Ivan Varga (peasant from Dubrave/Medjimurje) killed by gendarmes. In July 1934, his son received a bill to pay 13.15 dinars for the five bullets by which his father was killed.

Mar. 13 Trial of eight Croats begins in Belgrade. They are sentenced on March 21, 1934: Stjepan Pizeta (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) condemned to death. Franjo Zrinski (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) condemmned to death. Tomo Kelemen (mason from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) "perpetual servitude." Mijo Kalaman 1 (mason from Gornje Ladanje/ Varazdina) to 1 year. Mijo Kelemen 2 (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/ Varazdina) to 1 year. Marko Krobot (peasant from Gornje Ladanje/Varazdin) to 5 months. Josip Petkovic freed. Milja Brodar (woman) freed.

Mar. 29 Josip Begovic (student in Zagreb) condemned to death by hanging. Petar Oreb (worker from Vela Luka/Korcula) condemned to death by hanging. Hung on May 12, 1934. Antun Podgorelec (masonary apprentice from Suhopolje/Vinkovci) condemned to death by hanging; later commuted to life. After spending three months in jail where they were tortured, a group of eighteen people were sentenced: Nikola Murkovic (lawyer from Gospic) to 2 years, Ante Vlajnic (merchant in Perusic) to 20 months, Martin, Dosen (Licki Osik) to 12 months, Dr. Fran Binicki (pastor in Licki Osik) to 10 months, Mile Butkovic (merchant from Perusic) to 10 months, Nikola Kolacevic (merchant from Kaniza) to 8 months, Mate Zalovic (peasant from village of Vuksice) jailed eight months, Nada Kolacevic (housewife from Gospic) to 6 months, Nikola Polic (pastor in Gospic) to 6 month, Andrija, Brkljacic (Gospic) to 5 months, Ante Brkljacic (Gospic) to 5 months, Mate, Brkljacic (peasant from Kaniza) to 5 months, Josip Matijevic (student from Kaniza) to 5 months, Nikola Matijevic (student) to 5 months, Ivan Stilinovic (peasant from Gopsic) to 4 moths, Marko Smolcic (student under age from Karlobag) sent to a home for delinquent youth, Ivica Murkovic (a retired military officer from Gospic) to ?, and Mime Rosandic (forestry engineer from Gospic) freed but kicked out from work.

Mar. 30 Mato Keselic - (peasant) ambushed and killed by gendarmes near Vrpolje.

Apr. Villagers in Sv. Kriz (Krapina) openly protested against terror of the local gendarmes. Repraisals followed and over 50 villagers were jailed and maltreted.

Apr. 12 About 100 Zagreb Croats arrested and maltreated.

Apr. 20 Two peasants in the village of Lanusa near the Italian border killed.

May 30 Trial of eight Croats began. They were sentenced on June 4, 1934: ? Zindric was aquited. Josip Katusic (permanent residence in the U.S.A.) to death. Ivan Barakovic (civil servant in Osijek) to 15 years of prison. Others received received from 6 month to 10 years jail terms, including Stjepan Crnicki (civil servant in Zagreb).

Aug. Valentin Rosulja - (peasant) killed by Chetnik brothers: Jovan, Milan and Nikola Djurcic.

Josip Sabov - killed by chetniks in Horgac, Backa.

Aug. 1 Ivan Kovacevic - (peasant) killed in Otocko near Bosanski Brod.

Sept. Four political trials: Two people condemnd to death, five received life sentences, and others received sentences from one to 15 years.

Ivan Lucic - (worker) died in Susak(Rijeka) jail while being tortured.

Sept. 11 The following were sentenced in Zagreb from 10 to 24 months of prison terms because of an "anti-state" leaflet: Vinko Begic, Juraj Horvat,Andrija Hrsak, Ljudevit Ivekovic, Dr. Ivan Pernar - lawyer (30 months), Andrija Raspor, Karlo Sejkot, Lenka Stimac (woman),

Sept. 20 The following were sentenced: Stjepan Sever (peasant from Podravina) to 12 years. Ivan Kraljic (people's representative from Podravina till Jan. 6, 1929) to 8 years. Stjepan Prvcic (peasant from Podravina) to 8 years. Blaz Badalec (peasant from Podravina) to 6 years. Ivan Glavak (peasant from Podravina) to 3 years. Marija Glavak (peasant woman from Podravina) to 3 years. Ivan Ostriz to (peasant from Podravina) 2 years. Ivan Horvatinovic (peasant from Podravina) to 2 years. Marija Badalec (peasant from Podravina) to 1 year.

Oct. 9 King Aleksandar assassinated in Marseilles.

1935

From January 1935 to January 1936, 96 people were killed by gendarme forces.

Members of the "Catholic action" maltreated throughout Croatia just because they belonged to a Catholic organization.

A number of the members of the Catholic organization "Zrinski" in Djurdjevac were arrested. They were severely beaten in Pitomaca, on the way to prison, and again while investigated in jail. Teenage boys in the village of Djurdjevac had their hands beaten by gendarmes so hard that they were disabled for a lengthy period.

A number of villagers were hid in the nearby woods out of fear of the gendarmes and they were afraid to come back home. The whole village lived in fear.

A number of peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Mala Erpenja, the region of Krapinske Toplice. Among them were: Stjepan August, Florijan Belin (60 years old), Makso Golubic, Rudolf Golubic, Slavko Golubic, Juraj Juranic, Makso Juranic, Mirko Juranic, Andro Kordej,Franjo Kos (50 years old), Janko Mihel (20 years old), Josip Mihel (70 years old), Vilim Mihel (40 years old), Franjo Rusek (35 years old),Otokar Sostaric, Viktor Sostaric (merchant), Vjekoslav Stengl (25 years old), Makso Svecnjak, and Stjepan Svecnjak.

A "multitude of peasants" beaten up by gendarmes in Zabok. Among them: ? Sepec (beaten by five gendarmes while plowing his land), Marko Bivol, and Ivan Borovcak.

Peaceful peasants terrorized by gendarmes in Vojni Kriz near Cazma. Among the most severely beaten were: Franjo Ciglencki, Franjo Krivacic, and Danijel Magdic.

14 peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Sesvete near Ludbreg.

In Bizovac (Valpovo) gendarme supervisor Vasilije Dinic, arbitrarily arrested Stjepan Kis and beat him severely while in jail. The same officer beat Andrija Perosevic, who ended up in the hospital because of the severe beating.

In Adolfovac near Osijek workers, Luka Vukovic, Antun Gurdel, and Milan Grgic, were arrested, and beaten to unconsciousness. Vukovic's teeth knocked out; had to be taken to Osijek hospital; Grgic's breast bone was broken. From the local gendarme station they were dragged to Osijek prison and beaten severely.

Janko Simatic (peasant from Adolfovac) severely beaten by gendarmes.

Ivan Krelo (peasant from Kravice near Osijek) on the way home from work arrested, taken to gendarme station, and severely beaten. As a consequence he lost hearing on one ear.

Ilija Kereman and Josip Gorzan (peasants from Laslovo) severely beaten by gendarmes.

20 peasants beaten up by gendarmes in Korodje near Osijek. The most severely beaten were: Tobi Arpadz, Marko Mihalj, Mihalj Miskolic, Danijel Pozar, Feri Sabo, and Janos Sosaj.

200 people from Zitnik and Klanac/Lika walked to Gospic to protest the stealing of voting registration lists. They were ambushed by gendarmes using military rifles. Bozo Markovic (76 years old) was first seriously wounded and then a gendarme used a bayonet to finish him off. Martin Starcevic (38 years) was also killed; first shot and then his skull was smashed by a gendarme. Joso Lulic (58 years) was seriously wounded. Stipe Markovic (36 years) was hit by four shots in the back. Also were wounded: Nikola Milinkovic ( 28 years), Ivan Snjaric (40 years), Ivan Zupan (30 years), and 28 other people.

Gendarmes attacked peasants in the village of Dobranje near Metkovic, maltreated them and killed Ivan Devija.

Group of peasants returning from Starigrad (island of Hvar) to the village of Vrbanj were attacked by gendarmes and severely beaten. A day after, gendarmes beat up 39 villagers.

Rev. Blaz Tomljenovic (pastor in Smiljan/Lika) sentenced to pay 500 dinars because of a Sunday sermon.

Rev. Ivan Ilijic (pastor in Dubasnica/Krk) sentenced to pay 500 dinars for having another well known priest from nearby Krk, Rev. Milan Defar, help him during the Easter holidays. He is charged with sheltering an "unknown person"!

Rev. Milan Defar (priest from Krk) arrested on false charges and later banned from teaching catechism in the local highs chool.

Rev. Janko Medved (priest in Novalja/Pag) chained and taken by boat to the town of Rob, publically humiliated, and sentenced to 8 days jail term.

Rev. Ivan Condic (pastor in Rascani/ Imotski) arrested while in Sinj, led to Zagvozd. While there, the local gendarme commander, Ilija Gajic, cursed his "Catholic God," called him swine, criminal, and other names, and knocked him to the floor and maltreated him physically over two hours. A day after, Condic was sentenced to 12 days of jail and to pay a 1000 dinars fine.

? Pavlinovic (a merchant from Imotski region) arrested together with Rev. Ivan Condic, maltreated by gendarme commander in Zagvozd and sentenced to 12 days of jail and a 1000 dinars fine.

Gendarmes killed "several people" and injured many others in Primosten near Sibenik.

Feb. 19-20 Gendarmes killed 15 and injureed many Croatian peasants in Sibinj and Slavonski Brod.

May 4 Msgr. Ivan Mrakovcic, chancellor of the Krk diocese, arrested. In order to humiliate him, he is led through town by a group of gendarmes as the worset criminal.

May 5 General elections held.

In the village of Vid, near Metkovic, gendarmes maltreated peasants including children on election day, and positioned two machine guns in the village threatening the population.

On election day, Rev. Mate Rahelic, pastor in Hreljina, arrested at 11 P.M., taken to Susak/Rijeka jail, and held without being charged.

May 11 Franjo Sostaric (peasant from Selnice/Zlatar) shot and killed by gendarmes.

May 19 Gendarmes opened fire on a crowd of local peasants in Kravarsko near Zagreb after a Church celebration. As a result: Djuro Virek and Antonija Jambris (woman) were killed, and Franjo Kanceljak, Stjepan Cekovic, and Franjo Virek (Djuro's son) were seriously wounded. A number of other peasants were injured.

June 23 Chetniks attack Croatian guests in a well-known restaurant in Zagreb.

Aug. 23 After 11 months of imprisonment and torture, trieal of 37 Croats started in Sarajevo. They were: Antun Alaupovic, Ivan Brcic, Jelisaveta Car (woman), Josip Car, Mate Coric, Stefica Erbic (woman), Tugomir Gelic (Franciscan priest), Mijo Grgic, Antun Hladnik, Leopoldina Hladnik (woman), Marija Hladnik (woman), Tereza Hladnik (woman), Nikola Jarak, Dragutin Juric, Vjekoslav Juric, Vjekoslava Juric (woman), Ante Kacic, Franjo Kolumbic, Augustina Korac (woman), Filip Korac, Miron Kozinovic (Franciscan priest), Blaz Lorkovic,Ela Lorkovic (woman), Josip Milinkovic, Ana Pecek (woman), Emil Pecek, Franjo Pecek, Rafo Prusina (Franciscan priest), Petar Puljic, Ana Sef (woman), Donko Surjan, Petar Surjan, Augustin Tomic (Franciscan priest), Ivanka Trampus (woman), Augustina Ungerman (woman), Franjo Ungerman, and Jozefina Ungerman (woman). Sentences were given on September 17, 1995.

Dec. 11 A few gendarmes were forcfully entering many houses in the village of Djurdjanci/Djakovo and empting them of all posseasions. The official excuse was tax collection. After the peasnts' resitence to this terror, over 20 more policmen arived at 2:00 A.M. next morning and a large number of peasnats were taken to the local gendarme station. Half-naked, cold, and hungry they were severly beaten and maltreated for a few days. Among other tortures, they were forced to hit each other. Even those who came to village as visitors were beaten and arrested. Men from the village that were not arrested were in hiding in the woods for days. The real cause of the terror: some of the villagers participated in the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Croatian anthem in Djakovo on December 8, 1935.

The leading gendarme torturer was Avdo Kujundzic (stationed in Djakovo) and the local acuser was an ill-reputed Chetnik Andrija Separac.

Among the arrested and/or tortured were: Adam Begovic, Anka Begovic (maltreated) (woman), Antun Begovic, Bozo Bosnjakoic, Ana Bosnjakovic (woman on the run), Ilija Bosnjakovic (10 year olf boy), Ivan Bosnjakovic, Marko Carevic, Andrija Djakovic, Pavao Kovacevic,Andro Kusic, Nikola Lett (merchant), Mijo Lett (merchant), Pero Lovrenovic, Ivo Majanovic (the village elder), Ivo Majanovic, Damjan Marinovic, Kuzman Marinovic, Franjo Merc, Fabo Nikolic, Ivan Perkovic, Martin Prokopec (visiting the village), Pero Salic, Mate Saric, Pavo Saric, Pero Saric, Martin Sners (old man), Manda Spanjovic (attempt of rape) (woman), Marko Stojkovic (53 year old; visiting the village), Stipe Trepsic, and Marko Vrtaric.

ADDITIONAL PARTIAL LIST OF CROATS WHO WERE IMPRISONED DURING MONARCHIST YUGOSLAVIA.

Asancaic, Nikola (merchant from Gospic) Bacic, ? (shoemaker from Senj) Bakovic, Pero (student in Zagreb) Balan, Sime (student from Jablanac) Baradic, Jako (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovca) Bedekovic, Vjekoslav (merchant's helper in Gospic) Begovic, Vaso (restaurant owner in Begovici) Bernobic, Pavle (lawyer in Virovitica) Bicanic, Rudolf (lawyer in Zagreb) Biljan, Marijan (sailor from Kuklica/Preko) Biljan, Tomo (type-setter in Kosinj) Bizik, Mijo (merchant's helper in Koprivnica) Bosnjakovic, Marija (peasant from Andijevci) (woman) Bozjak, Mate (peasant from Kraljev Vir) Bradic, Ante (peasant from Starigrad) Brcko, Franjo (peasant from Kraljev Vir) Brkljacic, Zivo (peasant from Kaniza) Budak, Ante (student in Zagreb) Budrovac, Antun (tailor in Budrovici) Bulat, Krizan (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Busljeta, Nikola (worker from Starigrad) Buterin, Sime (peasant from Starigrad) Buterin, Vicko (restaurant owner from Starigrad) Butorac, Ivan (forest guard from Pazariste Donje) Butorac, Zorka (secretary from Senj) (woman) Cacic, Ivan (peasant from Klanc) Cacic, Josip (state employee from Gospic) Cacic, Martin (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Nikola (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Nikola Jr. (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Cacic, Vice (shoemaker from Buzina) Carevic, Franjo (office clerk from Djakovo) Cerovski, Bozo (office clerk from Zagreb) Cilovic, Djuka (electritian from Zagreb) Cudina, Marko (peasant from Pridraga) Dasovic, Stipe Peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Davidovski, Dragan (from Zagreb) Devcic, Dragica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Devcic, Ivan 1 (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Ivan 2 (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Ivan (called Jovo) (peasant from Likovo Sugarje) Devcic, Manda (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Devcic, Marko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Martin (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Nikola ((peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Nikolica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Pavao I. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Pavao S. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Devcic, Zorka (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) (woman) Dian, Drago (peasant from Sukosani) Dobrila, Ante (post-office clerk from Senj) Dosen, Ante (peasant from Rizvanusa) Dosen, Ivica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Jadre (restaurant owner from Gosipic) Dosen, Lovro (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Martin (peasant from Licki Osik) Dosen, Martin M. (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Dosen, Milka (peasant from Rizvanusa) (woman) Dosen, Misko (peasant from Rizvanusa) Dosen, Stipo (peasant from Rizvanusa) Drazic, Ante (peasant from Sukosani) Ersetic, Feliks (merchant's helper from Vukovar) Faber, Stjepan (locksmith from Zagreb) Fehervari, Stjepan (bookstore clerk in Osijek) Ficke, Nijo (peasant from Imrovac) Filipovic, Ivan (tailor from Vinkovci) Fiocic, Franjo (worker from Gosipic) Francetic, N. (peasant from Licki Novi) Frkovic, Juraj (merchants helper from Gospic) Frkovic, Marko (harness-maker) Frkovic, Martin (harness-maker from Benkovo) Frkovic, Pero (peasant from Gospic) Frlen, Franjo (worker from Susak/Rijeka) Frlen, Senta (from Susak/Rijeka) (woman)? Furjan, Djuro (locksmith from Martinec/Cazma) Gajer, Mile (peasant from Udbine) Galovic, Josip (peasant from Desinec) Galovic, Mate (peasant from Perusic) Gasparovic, Josip (from Brod na Kupi) Gasparovic, Stjepan (mason's helper from Crikvenica) Glavak, Ivo (peasant from Fercec) Glojnaric, Mirko (newsman??) Vidi Gmaz, Milan (peasant from Oroslavlje) Goric, Jure (peasant from Novigrad) Gradicek, Matija (merchant from Oroslavlje) Gradicek, Mijo (peasant from Oroslavlje) Gross, Aleksandar (cabinet-maker'shelper from Djakovo) Gruhek, Gabrijel (clerk from Zagreb) Grzan, Ivan (cabinet-maker from Pazariste Donje) Gutic, dr. Viktor (lawyer from Banja Luka) Gvozdic, Ivan (cabinet-maker from Soljani) Harapinac, Miso (peasant from Spisic/Bukovica) Hecimovic, Luka (lawyer from Perusic) Herceg, Antun (newsman from Zagreb) Horvat, Franjo (harness-maker from Zagreb) Horvat, Jurica (printer from Zagreb) Horvat, Vlado (printer from Zagreb) Horvatic, Vid (clerk from Zagreb) Hronic, Franjo (peasant from Trnik) Hronic, Mijo (peasant from Trnik) Hronic, Stjepan (peasant from Trnik) Ivanovic, Josip (peasant from Markovci) Jandric, Imbre (peasant from Trnik) Japundzic, Josip (clerk from Gospic) Jedvaj, Stjepan (restaurant owner from Bistra) Jelic, Ivan (clerk from Brezine) Jelic, Pasko (merchant's helper from Knin) Jelkovic, Mijo (peasant from Recica) Juretic, Filip (peasant from Sibinj) Jurisic, Ivan (Peasant from Perusic) Jurisic, Ivan 2(Peasant from Perusic) Jut, Vjekoslav (shoemaker from Perusic) Kapovic, Mira (from Visi?) (woman) Karcic, dr. ? (lawyer from Ruma) Karlic, Stipe (peasant from Slatnik) Kartela, Andrija (peasant from Puticani) Katalinic, Vlado (student from Senj) Kirhmajer, Mile (barrel-maker from Djakovo) Klanac, Juko (peasant from Posedarje) Klemen, dr. Zeljko (lawyer from Osijek) Knez, Ferdo (clerk from Srijemska Mitrovica) Kolacevic, Ivan (bookshop owner from Gospic) Kozarcanin, Ivo (writer and poet from Zagreb) Kraljevic, Andrija (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Kraljic, Ante (restaurant owner from Zagreb) Krekovic, Dane (peasant from Perusic) Kruhak, Mirko (shoemaker from Konjscina) Kugler, Bojan (clerk from Zagreb) Lamesic, dr. Marko (lawyer from Ruma) Lanec, Juliusk (locksmith's helper from Senj) Lenac, Franjo (house-painter from Senj) Levacic, Mijo (peasant from Merhatovec) Levaic, Tomo (merchant from Sibenik) Ljevakovic, Ivan (policman from Lipik) Ljevakovic, Ivan (peasant from Lipik) Lucic, Kazimir (merchant from Slavonski Brod) Magus, Mato (restaurant owner from Senj) Malbasa, Stjepan (clerk from Dugopolje) Mandusic, Sime (worker from Rupe) Marinac, Antun (cabinet-maker from Pazariste Donje) Marinkovic, Marko (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Markovic, Ivan (peasant from Perusic) Markulin, Mara (peasant from Odra) (woman) Markulin, Petar (peasant from Odra) Markulin, Stjepan Jr. (Peasant from Odra) Martinovic, Josip (sailor from Kuklica) Martinovic, Tomo (peasant from Kuklica) Matijas, Josip (clerk from Trogir) Matonicki, Djuro (student from Virje) Menjaka, Ivan (peasant from Kosut) Micek, Ivan (worker from Batin) Micurin, Tomo (peasant from Trnik) Mihovilic, Ivan (truck-driver from Senj) Mikic, Jure (mechanic from Djakovo) Mikic, Simun (merchant from Djakovo) Miklauzic, Josip (worker from Zagreb) Miler, Adolf (peasant from Sirac/Daruvar) Milinkovic, Vinko (merchant from Gospic) Milkovic, Mijo (shoemaker from Drenovci Brodski) Mirkovic, N. (Student from Gospic) Miskulin, Mate (merchant from Gospic) Mokrovic, Franjo (from Zagreb) Muhar, Ivo (peasant from Klanac) Muhar, N. (Peasant from Pazariste Donje) Murkovic, Ivan (peasant from Gospic) Nadinic, Fudrija (peasant from Sukoisani) Nemec, Blaz (mason from Merhatovec) Nemerschmidt, Albin (upholster from Gospic) Niksic, Tomo (merchants helper from Gospic) Novak, Vinko (peasant from Novacka) Nozaric, Petar (shoemaker from Breznik) Oljica, Josip (peasant from Sukosani) Ozanic, Marko (waiter from Vrgin Most) Papac, Stjepan (printer from Krasno) Papista, Ivan (tailor from Zabok) Paricic, Roko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pasaric, Pero (railroad clerk from Zagreb) Pavici, Roko (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Ivica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Josip (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Lovro (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Marijan (sailor from Poljica) Pavicic, Martin (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Pavao (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Pavlica (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavicic, Vid (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Pavlic, Josip (peasant from Djelkovac) Perkovic, Pero (peasant from Brinje) Peter, Stjepan (carpenter from Djelkovac) Petrovic, Stjepan (merchant's helper from Hlebine) Pill, Tomo (peasant from Ruma) Plese, Pavao (policeman from Ramljani) Pocrnic, Ivan (clerk from Perusic) Polegubic, Petar (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Polegubic, Tomo (peasant from Banjevci/ Benkovac) Poljak, Rok (peasant from Bistra) Prpic, Ivan (student from Senj) Prsa, Josip (post-office clerk from Oborovo Prvcic, Stjepan (peasant from Koprivnica) Pusic, Marija (house-maker from Zagreb) (woman) Radeljak, Stjepan (worker from Zagreb) Rajkovic, Nikola (clerk from Zagreb) Rancevic, N. (Court clerk from Senj) Reli, Franjo (barber from Osijek) Ribic, Ivan (sailor from Biograd) Rozman, Stjepan (peasant from Bistra) Rukavina, Juraj (retired officer from Perusic) Rupcic, Nikola (student from Licko Lesce) Ruskar, Ivan (merchant from Bernardovac) Rusko, Djuro (peasant from Gola) Sabic, Sime (mason from Sunja) Sabol, Stjepan (from Djelkovac) Saric, Karlo (peasant from Lukovo Sugarje) Saub, Ivan (merchant from Pakrac) Secke, Vlado (painter from Senj) Sepek, Franjo (butcher from Zagreb) Serzija, Marija (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) (woman) Sigecen, Misko (peasant from Martinec/Czama) Sijevic, Luka (peasant from Djakovo) Sikic, Mile Student from Jablanac) Siroki, Ivan (peasant from Novacka) Sjak, Rudolf (peasant from Grbasevac) Sjaus, Ivo (peasant from Tribalj) Sjaus, Mile (peasant from Tribalj) Skolic, Djuro (tailor from Zagreb) Skrlin, Josip (peasant from Bistra) Smolcic, Mato (peasant from Gospic) Smolic, Sime (peasant from Sukosani) Smolic, Slavo (peasant from Puticani) Sokac, Bartol (peasant from Stubica Donja) Sostaric, August (blacksmith from Zebovac) Spanic, Tom (peasant from Desinec) Spehanac, Ante (clerk from Karlovac) Starcevic, dr. Mile (professor from Zagreb) Starcevic, Ivan (peasant from Klanac) Starcevic, Josip (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, M. (peasant from Klanac) Starcevic, Martin (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, Mile (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Starcevic, N. (peasant from Pazariste Donje) Stilinovic, Milan (truck-driver from Kaniza) Stimac, Ivan (forest guardian from Perusic) Stimac, Lenka (peasant from Perusic) (woman) Stimac, Manda (peasant from Perusic) (woman) Strtan, Ivan (butcher from Zagreb) Subotinec, Babro (peasant from Novacka) Sucek, Djuro (peasant from Kraljev Vrh) Sucev, Valent (peasant from Kraljev Vrh) Sudar, Ljerko (peasant from Brusani) Suhan, Jakov (peasant from Knigora) Suletic, Grga (worker from Dubrovnik) Sultaj, Anka (secretary from Djakovo) (woman) Super, Dujo (peasant from Brusani) Svast, ? (clerk from Senj) Tomasic, Ivan (peasant from Djelkovac) Tomasic, Stjepan (peasant from Djelkovac) Tomljenovic, I. (from Novoselo) Tomljenovic, Ivan (student from Gospic) Tomljenovic, Stjepan (worker from Cavle) Tonkovic, Stjepan (peasant from Nebojane) Toret, Josip (merchant from Sisak) Troskat, Mate (peasant from Banjevci/Benkovac) Turk, Stjepan (peasant from Oroslavlje) Ujhari, Stjepan (worker from Sombor) Valic, Adam (merchant's helpeer from Jelenje) Varga, Janko (peasant from Otocka) Vedric, Stjepan (peasant from Novacka) Vezmanovic, Stjepan (forest-guard from Busevac) Vidak, Sarlota (from Zagreb) Vlahovic, D. (proprietor from Senj) Vukic, Kuzman (sailor from Triblja) Vuljak, Antun (peasant from Djelkovac) Vuljak, Stjepan (peasant from Djelkovac) Vutuc, Rudolf (carpenter from Koprivnica) Zajec, Drago (truck-driver from Zagreb) Zalec, Djuro (peasant from Mokrice) Zarek, Jandre (peasant from Perusic) Zarek, Josip (harness-maker from Perusic) Zarek, Mile (peasant from Perusic) Zeleznik, Ivka (tailor from Zagreb) (woman) Zelnik, Ignac (from Nasice) Zignic, Ivan (tailor from Zabok) Zniderec, Mijo (mason from Cakovec)


One of the most blatant terrorist acts of the Belgrade regime in Croatia took place in Senj on May 9, 1937. Gendarmes killed and wounded several young people just for displaying the Croatian flag and singing patriotic songs. The killed were: Katica Tonkovic (girl), Marko Smolcic, Franjo Jelaca, Nikola Bevandic, Tomo Niksic, and Petar Frkovic, and the wounded: Jakov Milkovic, Ante Dosen, Branko Milinkovic, Zlatko Vlahinic, Vladimir Nizija, and Mile Biljan. The above picture was taken during the funeral mass of the killed at St. John's Church in Gospic.


The picture on the right is a photocopy of the bill received by the son of Ivan Varga to pay 13.15 dinars for the five bullets by which his father was killed on January 11, 1934.

Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=50

---> A. ÄŒuvalo: Persecution of Croats in the First Yugoslavia and its Political Consequences

Croatian Studies

An Introductory Evaluation
Ante Cuvalo

Also see the Appendix to this article

Also see: Letters of Protest



We [the Serbs] are masters of your [Croat] lives and your possessions. You have nothing but two choices: either to stay in this country and be obedient, or to move out of our state. We want to dominate. We want to rule. We want to control your body, your soul, and your possessions, because we are the guarantors and the foundation of this great Homeland of ours .1

High Hopes and Big Disappointments

Regardless of the social, economic, and political predicaments to be faced by individuals and peoples in Europe, the end of the First World War was greeted enthusiastically. It was seen as the beginning of a new and better future for the world. Peoples who lived under the oppressive and/or foreign rule of the collapsing empires were especially exhilarated: they thought that the bells of freedom were real. Their hopes and expectations were heightened by declarations such as those of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, that the war was fought to make the world "safe for democracy" and by promises that national self-determination would be one of the guiding principles of peacemaking. Furthermore, important social and political changes were taking place. Revolutions were in the making; kaisers and tzars were gone; the newborn countries were promulgating democratic or what looked like democratic constitutions; peasants were becoming an organized political force; in older democracies, women were gaining the right to vote; and new laws promoting higher social justice, including the eight-hour workday, were being passed. These and similar positive changes were signs of a hopeful future.

The Croatian people, despite all the post-war economic hardships, also were caught up in the wave of enthusiasm. Woodrow Wilson's portrait hung on the walls of numerous homes in Croatia. He was the man of their hopes. They believed that on the ruins of the Habsburg Monarchy they, along with other nations, finally would be able to achieve their dream of national and personal freedom. Even the small minority of Croatian politicians who rushed to unite Croatia with Serbia and Montenegro thought that their decisions would secure freedom and democracy not only for the Croats but for all in the newly formed country. Unfortunately, Croats soon realized that the post-war exhilaration was baseless. The reality was cruel and bloody.

Soon after the war, grave disappointments began to be felt in Croatia and the rest of Europe. The war years had hatched two opposing totalitarian ideologies that threatened the entire continent. Many of those who doubted the virtues of liberal democracy looked to the extreme Left or Right for answers. The result was that out of twenty-seven countries in Europe that professed democracy during the immediate post-war era only ten were able to preserve even a modicum of democracy by the end of the 1930s. It became obvious that the Great War and the post-war peace treaties did not lay the foundation for a better future but for another cataclysmic cycle.

The Croatian people did not have to wait very long for the new state to show its true face. Persecutions began even before the official unification of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (known as Yugoslavia after 1929) took place on December 1, 1918. In some official Serbian documents, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other former Habsburg regions united with Serbia were declared as "occupied lands" and the civilian population in these regions was subjected to Serbian military laws .2 Instead of a partnership an occupation began!

The persecution of the Croats in the period between the two World Wars has not been well- known or adequately researched. It was one of the taboo subjects in both monarchist and socialist Yugoslavia. Judicial, police, military, and other records in the country are still waiting for serious research on this important subject. This introductory survey and the partial list of persecutions that follow are based mainly on secondary sources and are intended to give the reader at least a taste of the bitter Croatian experience in monarchist Yugoslavia. However, for lack of available sources to the author, the survey is limited to persecutions from 1918 to 1936 only. We thought that a list and a short description of the main semi-official organizations involved in terrorizing all those who were considered enemies of the state would also be helpful; and, at the end, several political consequences of the persecutions will be mentioned.

Self-imposed Guardians of the State

The use of terror in monarchist Yugoslavia was applied against all those who were seen as enemies not only of the state but of the Serbian centralized and unitary regime. The real object of oppression, however, was not some aberrant individuals but an entire group, a political party, a whole people. In the old Byzantine tradition, the guardians of the state saw politics only as extremes: if one is not with us he must be against us. Politics of negotiations and compromises were not an option. For them that was seen as a defeat. Accordingly, there was no choice but to crush mercilessly all the "dark forces" in the country. Croats as a people were seen as the most dangerous state enemy, because they were not willing to give up their national identity and opposed the militant and Serbian-controlled state. It was necessary, therefore, to force the Croats into submission, to break their national will, to humiliate them, to prevent them from forming a unified, strong national political front, and to deprive their national struggle of sympathy support and legitimacy in the world.

The first anti-Croat terrorist acts were committed even before the official unification of the state took place. From October 29, when the Croatian Sabor (Parliament) severed Croatia's ties with the Habsburg Monarchy till December 1, 1918, when the common state was proclaimed, all leading Croatian political, cultural, and religious persons who were seen as political opponents to the union, were either arrested, physically threatened, and/or lost their jobs. The man who assumed all powers in Croatia was Svetozar Pribicevic, the leading Serb politician in the land, and under his command all those who opposed unification with Serbia had to be silenced or crushed.

Only five days after the unification, a peaceful march at Zagreb's main square was turned into a blood bath. Nine Croatian soldiers and five civilians were killed, and seventeen persons were wounded. A month later, the first post-war political trial in Zagreb was over and 23 Croats were sentenced from one and a half to ten years of prison. The harshest terror in the post-unification era, however, was exerted against the Croatian peasants, who made up the overwhelming majority of the people.

Towards the end and immediately after the war, the villages in Croatia, as in many other regions of Europe, were undergoing various political and social changes. The peasants had seen their sons sent off to the front from which many did not return. They were financially and physically exhaused by ever-increasing taxes and other war burdens, of war profiteering and the war itself. The Croatian peasants lost their traditional respect for state authority as well as monarchy. They became acutely aware of their precarious political, economic, social, and national position, and wanted change, some even a radical one.

In a number of places in Croatia the countryside was controlled by the "Green Cadres," the rebellious bands of soldiers who had deserted and who were joined by various other social elements. Most of these were sons of peasants; and, it is estimated that the rebels' numbers reached 200,000 at one point. The peasant population was, willingly or unwillingly, their main ally. This meant that many villages in Croatia were in near chaos toward the end of the war. Furthermore, the echoes of the revolutions in Russia and in neighboring Hungary were felt in Croatian villages too. Then, at the end of the war, they were pushed into a new state without being asked what they wanted. This new political arrangement did not ease the political, economic, and social tension in the villages. On the contrary, the new rulers and their harsh methods inflamed Croatian villages to the breaking point.

The peasants became well aware of political and social ideals, like personal and national freedoms, equality under the law, and social justice, but instead of getting closer to achieving such goals after 1918, they saw their situation in the new state getting worse. For example, Croatian peasants had to pay more kinds of taxes at higher rates than under the Habsburgs. Some taxes increased as much as eight hundred percent in comparison to the pre-1918 period. For example, the peasant had to pay tax on his home-made wine regardless if he sold it or had it only of his own use. The control over the tobacco production was so strict that persons had to pay fines, endure beatings, and even jail terms for smoking their own home- grown tobacco. Taxation easily turned into a national issue because a peasant in Croatia paid four times higher taxes than a peasant in Serbia. Even his vote was worth less than that of a citizen in Serbia. For example, the number of voters needed to elect a parliamentary representative were: Vojvodina 3,221; Montenegro 4,350; Serbia and Macedonia 5,657; Croatia and Slavonia 6,840; Bosnia and Herzegovina 7,478, and in Dalmatia (southern Croatia) 8,106 3 The peasant was especially offended by registration, stamping, and military mobilization of all large domestic animals (horses, mules, oxen). Most of the time, such animals and their owners were forced to participate in military maneuvers for long periods of time and quite often during planting or harvest seasons. These and similar pressures resulted in numerous peasant rebellions against the new regime in several parts of Croatia. Some independent peasant republics were proclaimed shortly after the new state was formed.

Among the most sensitive issues for the peasants in the immediate post-war era was the recruitment of their sons into military service. In many Croatian villages these efforts were marked by bloodshed. Everyone was weary and wary of war and militarism, especially the Croatian peasant who now had to serve a new state which behaved as a foreign power and oppressor from the outset. The problem of recruitment was also complicated by implementation of a Serbian law by which the village "zadrugas" (communes) and their leaders were responsible for bringing in the new recruits. But such village "zadrugas" did not exist in Croatia for very long. This resulted in military and gendarme expeditions into Croatian villages that apprehended, beat, and otherwise mistreated the recruits or, if they could not find them, their immediate family members, including mothers and sisters. Such raids would often result in killing, major destruction of property, and threats and insults of a national and religious nature. The relatives were kept in jail and most often maltreated till their sons or brothers surrendered to the military authorities.

Terror became the main means to pacify Croatia. In response, the peasants at first turned to rebellions and then accepted the political program of the brothers Antun and Stjepan Radic, who advocated a peaceful struggle for personal, national, and peasant rights. By embracing the program of the Croatian Republican Peasant Party, the peasantry became the backbone of the Croatian resistance during the 1920s. But peaceful politics did not bring desired results. On the contrary, the plan "to level off [Croatia] by the Serbian opanak [peasant footwear]" 4 continued. This culminated with the assassination of Stjepan Radic and his friends in Belgrade's Parliament in 1928 and the King's proclamation of a personal dictatorship a few months later. From that point on, more radical political forces in Croatia turned to violence as the only means of freeing themselves not only from the regime but from the Yugoslav state itself.

Statistical Indicators

Statistical data give a clear picture of the officially sanctioned bloodshed and oppression suffered by the Croats living in monarchist Yugoslavia. One source states that in the five years of 1929 to 1934, that is, from King Aleksandar's assumption of dictatorial powers until his assassination in Marseilles, the following court sentences were imposed on the Croats for political "crimes" 5:

19 were condemned to death by hanging

16 were killed while serving a prison term

30 death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment

85 condemned to death but fled the country

146 were condemned to 20 years of hard labor

484 received penalties from 10 to 20 years jail terms

962 were condemned from 5 to 10 years

2,035 condemned from 1 to 5 years

15,000 condemned from one month to one year of prison

The evidence presented in the Appendix to this article, although partial and collected from secondary sources, strongly indicates the nature of the Yugoslav state and its predisposition toward the Croatian people. It includes over 4,700 cases that can be summarized in the following way.

Killings and imprisonments

231 killed by gendarmes and/or military forces

102 wounded

3,715 arrested

49 killed while in jail

40 condemned to death - out of that 22 executed

16 sentenced to life imprisonment

250 tried for verbal insult of the King's name

14 condemned in absence

Beatings

642 beaten and maltreated - out of which 27 children 48 groups of people maltreated and beaten (individual names not known)

Other persecutions

493 lost jobs or forced to retire 26 newspapers and organizations banned

Women

7 killed

42 arrested

48 beaten and maltreated

Social and/or professional categories (if known)

1,445 peasants either jailed, tried and/or maltreated

472 students

450 workers

153 professionals

117 craftsmen and small business owners

68 state office holders

39 soldiers or policemen

According to regions (if known)

3,176 Northern Croatia

791 Dalmatia

355 Lika and the Littoral

203 Slavonija and Srijem

169 Bosnia and Herzegovina (the primary focus of this study was the Republic of Croatia and not Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Number of Cases according to years

1918 - 155

1919 - 36

1920 - 92

1921 - 209

1922 - 5

1923 - 60

1924 - 5

1925 - 705

1926 - 1

1927 - 8

1928 - 60

1929 - 110

1930 - 107

1931 - 205

1932 - 671

1933 - 1,529

1934 - 312

1935 - 466

The above numbers and categories clearly indicate that the harshness of the persecutions was directed against Croats, regardless of profession, age, gender, or place, and that the intensity of the persecutions reflects the political "moods" in the country at the time.

The Art of Torturing

Because the guardians of the state were guided by their hatred of real or imaginary enemies, they implemented a vast variety of tortures against their victims. The purposes of torture were not only to break the spirit of the victims and to send a message to others, but in many cases to show by sadistic measures, their absolute disdain for the "enemy."

A common practice for gendarmes was to burst into a village and for a minor incident, or even for no reason at all, beat anyone they encountered, destroy property, and jail people without any legal stipulations. In order to humiliate a Croatian peasant, gendarmes would often force him to genuflect three times in reverence for the Serbian traditional military cap (sajkaca) and impel him to acknowledge that "the Serb was his master and god." It was also a common practice for the police to beat or even execute their victims in broad daylight on a city street. Verbal insults, swearing vulgarities, and blaspheming everything holy to the Croatians were a common practice. The gun-butt was a favorite weapon in beating the common people. Its use was so prevalent that one of the Ministers of the Interior was nicknamed "Kundak" (gun-butt).

Those who ended up in prison endured all sorts of humiliations and tortures, from being cursed to being tortured to death. The following were some of the more common means of torturing political prisoners: merciless beatings over the entire body especially the kidney area; pounding the soles till they crack; knocking out teeth, breaking ribs, finger joints, and other bones of the body; jumping on the stomach and groin; sticking needles under nails; crushing testes; tying one's hands to hooks on the walls, so he could not sit down and then hanging bricks on the testes; sleep deprivation for a week at a time; and even placing live coals in the armpits and then tying the arms to the body until the coals cooled. Numerous prisoners were tortured to death and some were simply shot. The official explanations were that they committed suicide or were shot while trying to escape.

Those working in prisons were proud of their inventiveness in torturing inmates. One such ill-famed tormentor was Dragomir (Dragi) Jovanovic in Belgrade's prison. He even received a state patent for "inventing" new and more horrific means of torture. One of his "inventions" was driving wooden pegs soaked in gasoline under the nails of an inmate and then setting the pegs on fire. (This same Jovanovic was one of the chief officials and executioners in Belgrade during the Second World War.) The Belgrade jail, Glavnjaca, became a symbol of the Karadjordjevic regime and of the Yugoslav state. (An emigrant paper named Protiv Glavanjace/Against the Glavnjaca was published in Belgium at that time.) The persecutions and humiliations went so far that the families of the victims would receive a bill to pay for the bullets by which their close relatives were shot.

Besides using visible means of torture all oppressive regimes have other ways to persecute their opponents. These are more silent and perfidious. For example, losing or fear of losing one's job is often used as a major instrument of political punishment. The insecurity of one's own and/or his family's material existence can often be harder than physical punishment. This type of persecution was overwhelmingly used by the Yugoslav regime and it is hard to measure its impact on society, and on the Croatian national life in particular. State Watchdogs

The official guardians of the state and the main instruments of the Belgrade regime were the armed forces, gendarmes, police, and the state revenue police. Among them, the gendarmes were the main "sword of the regime." This semi-military force was formed in January of 1919 to impose "order" in the country. But "order" was never achieved and the number of gendarmes increased from 10,000 to 60,000 by the early 1930s. The gendarmes were also often augmented by military forces on raiding missions. Besides the above mentioned forces, there were 15.000 secret police agents, plus military intelligence, and king's "special agents."6 In addition to the above official guardians, there were a number of semi-official watchdogs of the state who were more than eager to help the regime to crash, what they labeled, the "anti-state elements," "dark forces," and "defeatists"! The following were the best known such organizations.

Unification or Death ( The Black Hand)

This terrorist organization was officially established in 1911, with help and under the protection of Serbian miliary forces, but its real beginnings go back to 1903. A group of officers belonging to this organization assassinated King Aleksandar Obrenovic of Serbia and his wife Dara and secured the royal throne to the Karadjordjevic dynasty in 1903. It also attempted to assassinate King Nikola of Montenegro and his family in 1907. The Black Hand became the "unseen government" of Serbia. The organization modeled itself after the Italian Mafia, and the use of terror was the primary means to achieve its goal of Greater Serbia which, according to the Constitution of the organization consisted (besides of the Kingdom of Serbia) of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Old Serbia and Macedonia, Croatia, Srijem, Vojvodina, and the Sea-coast. By 1914 the Black Hand had close to 150,000 members according to some estimates. Although the Black Hand was officially eliminated during World War I (1917), because King Aleksandar out of fear and/or personal revenge turned against the organization, its sympathizers, goals, and methods were still very much alive during the inter-war period.

The White Hand

It is believed that because Prince Aleksandar was prevented from taking full charge of the Black Hand, he founded his own conspiracy organization within the Serbian military forces and named it the White Hand. Lieutenant-Colonel Petar Zivkovic, who became Prime Minister and the symbol of royalist oppression in the early 1930s, became head of the new organization. The White Hand was an army within the army. Its purpose was to eliminate the Black Hand and to be a semi-official protector of the state and Karadjordjevic's regime. Most of the political, judicial, economic, as well as military state decisions were made by such shadow forces in the country, first the Black Hand and then the White Hand.

The Chetniks (cheta means a cohort or a group)

The first written rules of Chetnik guerrilla type warfare were a translation of a Polish manual published in Belgrade in 1848.7 But the real beginning of the present-day Chetnik movement dates from 1903, when Serbian military officers organized a special training "school" for volunteers for the purpose of undertaking terrorist actions in Macedonia. At the time, Macedonia was a part of the ailing Ottoman empire and the main target of Serbian expansionism. The Chetniks became a useful instrument in executing special assignments (ethnic cleansing) of all who were not either Serbs nor ready to become Serbs in the regions that Serbia wanted to acquire. The Chetnik played a similar role during the two Balkan Wars and World War I, when they "cleared the land" of Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians and, toward the end of World War I, of Muslims in Sandzak and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Between the two world wars, although the Chetniks were split among themselves, they were united in guarding the state and in the struggle against "dark forces." The Union of Chetniks for Freedom and Dignity of the Homeland became close to the Serbian Democratic Party, which was seen by many as not tough enough on the enemies of the state. This resulted into a split in 1924, when the Union of Serbian Chetniks - For the King and the Homeland was founded. This group became the tool of the Serbian Radical Party; the leader of this Chetnik faction, Punisa Racic, assassinated two and wounded three members of the Croatian political leadership in Belgrade's Parliament in 1928. The regime rewarded the Chetniks by giving them arms and permission to use them, land grants, and money: in fact, they were not required to obey many state laws. Also in 1924, the Union of Serbian Chetniks - Petar Mrkonjic (Named after king Peter) was formed in Sarajevo. The last two Chetnik organizations were especially aggressive in establishing their chapters in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, with an openly expressed goal of establishing a Greater Serbia.

Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists (Organizacija Jugoslavenskih Nacionalista/ORJUNA)

The ORJUNA was formed in Split by the royal regional administrator in Croatia in 1921. Its roots are in an organization named Yugoslav Progressive Nationalist Youth (Jugoslavenska Napredna Nacionalisticka Omladina/JNNO). Its "heroic" baptism of fire came when its members burnt the first issue of a newly founded Croatian newspaper in Split, "Hrvatski List" (Croatian Gazette). The ORJUNA was under the patronage of the Serb Democratic Party in Croatia. It gathered militant youth who supported the unitary Yugoslav state. Its chapters were formed first in Dalmatia, then in other parts of former Habsburg regions. The real reason for its formation was to have a terrorist organization for "special assignments." As such ORJUNA became the leading instrument of terror against Croatian "separatists," "communists," "defeatists," and all other "dark elements" in the country.

In that spirit ORJUNA gave instructions to its members in Croatia (August 1921) that "in these days of our activities, develop as much energy and action as possible. Our organization has to be firm and disciplined and stand firmly and resolutely against the separatists. After the assassination of Minister Draskovic [July 21, 1921], there is a need to start a struggle till the elimination not only of the communists, but of all those who are sowing hate against unitarism, the state, and Yugoslavism." 8

ORJUNA terrorist activities were committed quite openly and often with great pride. Its leadership emphasized that "its terrorist actions contributed more than anything else to its own legitimization in the entire country....In practice, ORJUNA will propagate its goals by all possible means. It does not renounce the use of force. On the contrary it emphasizes the need for such type of actions."9

ORJUNA had special units known as Action Groups, which were organized in military fashion. According to one estimate, by 1925 the Action Groups had about 10.000 members.10 They had military style maneuvers on a regular basis, used military equipment, and usually the leading Chetnik figures were heading such Action Groups. Their holy principle "Victory or Death" was accompanied by yet another sacred declaration: "Whoever is not with us, is against us!" 11

Serbian National Youth (Srpska Nacionalna Omladina/SRNAO)

The SRNAO was formed in 1922 at Belgrade University as the antitheses of ORJUNA, which was seen as too much Yugoslav-oriented and as such was polluting the true Serbian spirit and watering down their political goals. The ideology and political program of the SRNAO was formulated in a slogan: "All the Serbs to Serbia, Serbia to all the Serbs!" The goals of its existence, therefore, were "guarding of the Homeland and the king, the spread of [Serbian] nationalism, and defense of Serbian accomplishments to the extermination of all anti-state and anti-national elements."12

The SRNAO was very close to the royal regime, to the Radical Party, to Punisa Racic's Chetniks and to the Union of Serbian Chetniks "Petar Mrkonjic" in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For example, on the occasion of the consecration of the SRNAO flag in Sarajevo, there was a personal delegate of the king, the government representatives, and a Serbian Church delegation. Leading men from all centers of power in Serbia were members of SRNAO. Nikola Pasic, the prime mover of Greater Serbian policies and the symbol of Serbian unitarism, was SRNAO's honorary president and its main financial supporter .13 The biggest obstacle to SRNAO's expansion in Croatia was the split between Svetozar Pribicevic, the main Serb politician in Croatia, and his former allies in Belgrade. Real confusion entered the SRNAO ranks, however, when Stjepan Radic, the leading Croat politician, made a deal with Pasic and entered the Belgrade government in 1925. The SRNAO did recover to some extent after the assassination of Radic(1928). After the King assumed all the power in the country and proclaimed Yugoslavism as the state national ideology (1929), SRNAO continued to work for its well defined goals but now under the Yugoslav name.

Some other semi-official terrorist organizations Organization of the Reserve Officers and War Veterans - It emphasized its "readiness and availability" to defend the state and vowed to fight "against all anti-state elements." 14

The Alliance of Volunteers - It constantly reminded the public that the state was not secure, its foundations were not firm, and that it was threatened by outside and inside enemies. It expressed readiness to continue the struggle for the security and stability of the state .15

Organized Youth - Its main mission was to destroy the Montenegrin Federalists and the followers of the exiled King Nikola of Montenegro.

People's Defense - Its main purpose was "to defend the newly established state by organized actions" against all external and internal "anti-state destructive activities and defeatist elements." 16

People's Guard - It was organized in April of 1920. Its members proved themselves to be worthy of the regime's support during the violent suppression of the railroad workers' and miners' strikes in 1920. The Guard members served as shock troopers against the workers and their families. After the proclamation of the ill-famed "Obznana" banning the Communist party (December 29, 1920), the Guard numbers increased rapidly. They put themselves in the "service of the state" in order to eliminate the "destructive elements which in these days [1920s] were ready to attack the state." 17 These formations were armed by the military authorities and were tools in the hands of the regime to do its "dirty work."

Patriotic Youth Front - This was a terrorist organization of the Bogoljub Jeftic's fascist party.

Young Yugoslavia - This was an ORJUNA militant organization for secondary school students who because of their age could not become full members of political parties.

All of the above groups followed the fascist model of organization, or at least they tried to. Fascists in Italy and Germany were hailed for their zeal and organizing capabilities. Such admiration is expressed, for example, by "Jugoslovenska straza" (Yugoslav Guard) (June 23, 1935): "...[While] the fascist Italy is able to mobilize so many fascist formations and while Hitler's Germany resounds by the marches of the German youth, the Yugoslav youth can and must steel its soul and its muscles by joining the Chetnik organizations, where it will prepare itself for tomorrow's obligations that it must accept."

But these groups admired not only the fascist organizational model, they admired also Hitler for his anti-Semitism. The paper "Jugoslovenska straza" (Yugoslav Guard) clearly expresses such feelings when on October 6, 1935 wrote: "Hitler was right when he went so far as to banish all of those who had even the smallest amount of Hebrew blood in their veins. Hitler was right when he pushed out such a vile sect from Germany."

Propaganda

The Yugoslav regime and its official and unofficial guardians always looked at their opponents as mortal enemies that had to be no less than totally obliterated. Not only did they themselves believe this, they were also very active in promoting public acceptance of this malevolent belief and the means of implementing it. It is sufficient to quote just a few examples of Serbian national propaganda that express this fanatical hatred.

After a Communist sympathizer assassinated interior Minister Milorad Draskovic on July 21, 1921 (believed to be a setup by the regime), use of terror was legitimized by the Belgrade Parliament a few days later. A new wave of persecutions began. The Serb paper "Straza" (The Guard) (July 23, 1921) in the Croatian city of Osijek exhorted its readers: "Let us learn from the ill-reputed Horthy! [Miklos Horthy, the last commander of the Habsburg navy and the man who crushed in blood the Communist regime in post-World War I Hungary.] Under the knife all those who think Bolshevik thoughts! Under the knife even women and children so that even their names do not remain! The final encounter with the anti-state elements must start right now. Serb villages and all who are nationally aware must be constantly ready. In order to stop the Bolsheviks, we must organize National Guards everywhere. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We all must get ready in order to settle the score with them [Bolsheviks] once and for all. Anyone who is not with us, is their ally, and he should be dealt with accordingly. Let us sharpen our knives, load our guns, the enemy has declared war against us. Either we or they [must perish]."

This total struggle not only was meant to be waged against the Communists but also against all who were perceived as enemies. The paper "Pobeda" (Victory), the voice of ORJUNA urged on August 4, 1921 that "a struggle must be undertaken till the total elimination not only of the Communists, but also of all those who are sowing hatred against unitarism, the state, and Yugoslavism." An ORJUNA leader in Vojvodina was even more explicit: "Communists, those who advocate the republic, and the Habsburg black sympathizers [Croatians], have found themselves at the same camp. Those heterogenous elements are united by the abominable hatred of our state" and therefore have to be eliminated.18 On December 14, 1924, the newspaper "Srbadija" expressed the deeply held, uncompromising principle of either we or they: "If we [Serbs] want to preserve ourselves we must struggle using all available means in order to crash and destroy every opponent because the Croat Bolsheviks, Magyars, Germans, and Turks will destroy us if we re not quicker than they. Forget the stupidity that we are one people with three names. Scorn the 'brothers' who are after our existence and our head. Deal with them quickly and decisively."

Stjepan Radic, the leading Croat politician at the time, was a constant target of Serbian nationalist forces. A day after he was arrested in Zagreb and a month before national elections, the SRNAO voice in Novi Sad, "Srbadija"(January 7, 1925) stated: "The gallows must crackle under the weight of the infamy of Stjepan Radic. Mehmed Spaho [leading Bosnian Muslim politician] must be forced to feel the pains of a man impaled alive on the stake... The moment has to be utilized to finish up all important chores before the elections, so that afterwards it can be crystal clear who we are, what we are, what is our name, and who is the master in this Serbia of ours." According to the Serbian nationalists "one can only master over people like Croats, but never cooperate and work with them in a common effort." 19

Political consequences

Persecutions of Croats in the newly formed South Slavic state had the opposite effect from what the guardians of the state and of the regime intended. Instead of preserving the state, it undermined its very existence. The fact is that most of the Croats could not identify with the Yugoslav state from its beginning because the state itself and the Serbian centralist regime was imposed upon them. The persecutions that followed simply alienated them even further from the Serbs and the state. Those Croats (and even some Serbs from Croatia) who once worked for the unification of the South Slavs became quicky disillusioned with the state and joined the anti-centralists and even anti-Yugoslav elements. Influential individuals outside the country who promoted unification of the South Slavs before and during the First World War and used to raise their voices against mistreatment of the Serbs and others in the Habsburg empire suddenly fell silent. Instead of condemning the use of terror and pressuring the regime to reform the country, they often blamed the victims. As a result, Croats increasingly felt more isolated in their desperate need for human and national rights.

The persecutions also helped to politicize and homogenize the Croatian nation, especially the rural population. Terror became a catalyst in crystalizing Croatian goals for nationhood. If there was confusion toward the end of World War I about which road to take, it became clear that Yugoslavia was not the answer. Elections clearly indicated that the Croats wanted a federalist republic as a minimum and an independent state of their own as maximum. As the terror against Croats increased, so did their demands escalate along with increasingly radical means to achieve them.

Another important consequence of the terror was a break with Croatian political traditions and pluralism. The old institutions of Sabor (parliament) and Ban (viceroy) were abolished. The traditions of personal liberties, rule of law, and tolerance of religious and ethnic differences were greatly undermined. Reserves of national energy were used up in inevitably resisting the attempts at Serbianization. According to Serb expansionists, their need to crush any move toward Croatian national identity was necessary because Croats did not have a history or culture of their own, besides being of a servile nature meant to be obedient to others.

Croatians are usually depicted as the destroyers of both Yugoslavias. As a result, historians who would like to believe that Yugoslavia was a natural and positive historical development and the Serbs its true makers and defenders, ignore the persecutions of Croats and others,20 which in reality sealed the fate of the country from its very beginning. It is Serbian centralism, messianism, expansionism, and terrorism that eliminated even the possibility of a successful unification of the South Slavs.

The Yugoslav experiment tragically interrupted the historical continuity of the Croatian people. Experiences in that state had major negative effects on Croat political, economic, social, and cultural developments. The 1918-1990 period was another long and often bloody intermission in the centuries-long history of Croatia. However, the gap is bridged now, and the future of the Croats is in their own hands. It is up to them not to dwell in the past but to live up to the challenges of the present and the future.

NOTES

1 Srbadija. The official organ of the Novi Sad Regional Committee of the SRNAO. February 7, 1925.

2 Narodne Novine. April 28, 1919. See also Rudolf Horvat, Hrvatska na mucilistu. Zagreb: Kulturno-Historijsko Drustvo "Hrvatski Rodoljub," 1942, 81.

3 Vladimir Radic, Zlocin od 20. Lipnja i Medjunarodna Stampa. Paris: n.p., 1931, 22.

4 Dragoljub Jovanovic, Ljudi. Ljudi... Medaljoni 46 umrlih savremenika. Belgrade: D. Jovanovic, 1975, 65.

5 John I. Pintar, Four Years in Tito's Hell. Buenos Aires: H.P.K.: 1954, 17.

6 Struggle. Translated by Louis Adamic with a Preface by the Translator. Los Angeles: Arthur Whipple, 1934,7.

7 Pravilo o cetnickoj vojni. Protolmacio iz' pol'skoj sa n'kim prom'nama, izmetcima i dodasima Matija Ban. Belgrade, 1848.

8 Pobeda. August 4, 1921.

9 Vidovdan. May 30, 1925.

10 Politika. June 3, 1925.

11 Dobroslav Jevdjevic, Izabrani clanci. Novi Sad: Jovanovic & Bogdanov, 1925, 5.

12 Srpska rijec. December 13, 1924.

13 See Nusret Sehic, Cetnistvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (1918-1941). Sarajevo: ANUBiH, 1971, 68.

14 Ratnicki glasnik. 1922, 69. As in Berislav Gligorijevic, "Organizacija jugoslovenskih nacionalista (Orjuna)." Istorija XX veka. Vol. 5. Belgrade: Institute drustvenih nauka, 1963, 318.

15 Jugoslavija (Almanac of the Veterans' Alliance). 1922, 153.

16 Narodna obrana. 1926, 10; Gligorijevic, Orjuna, 318.

17 T. Kazlerovic, Obznana. Beograd, 1952, 13; Statist. Beleske Ust. Skupstine, 1920-1921, I, 20; Gligorijevic, Orjuna, 320.

18 Jevdjevic, Izabrani clanci, 42.

19 Balkan. March 28, 1922.

20 See, for example, Alex N. Dragnich, The First Yugoslavia, Search for a Viable Political System. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1983.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banac, Ivo. "'Emperor Karl has become a Comitadji': The Croatian Disturbances of Autumn 1918." Slavic and East European Review 70:2 (1992) 284-305.

Delic, St. D. "Pitanje nase unutrasnje politike. Oko 'Hrvatskog pitanja'." Nova Evropa 29:1 (1936) 9-12.

Evolucija . Zagreb. Vol. 1, 1936.

Gligorijevic, Branislav. "Srpska nacionalna omladina (SRNAO)." Istorijski glasnik 2-3 (1964) 3-38.

. "Organizacija jugoslovenskih nacionalista (Orjuna)." Istorija XX veka . Vol. V. Belgrade: Institute drustvenih nauka, 1963, 315-393. Glojnaric, Mirko. Borba Hrvata . Zagreb: Antun Velzek, 1940.

Horvat, Rudolf. Hrvatska na Mucilistu . Zagreb: Kulturno historijsko drustvo "Hrvatski Rodoljub," 1942.

Hrvatinic, Matijas. Srpska nacionalna i vjerska nastranost . Buenos Aires, 1973.

Janjatovic, Bosiljka. "Represija spram hrvatskih seljaka 1918-1921." Casopis za suvremenu povijest 25:1 (1993) 25-43.

. "Izborni teror u Hrvatskoj 1923.-1927. godine." Casopis za suvremenu povijest 28:1-2 (1996) 45-71.

Jevdjevic, Dobroslav. Izabrani clanci . Novi Sad: Jovanovic & Bogdanov, 1925.

L. & M. "Seljacka buna u Hrvatskoj." Nova Evropa 1:2 (1920) 80-88.

Lupis-Vukic, I. F. "Nas drzavni (srpsko-hrvatski) problem." Nova Evropa 29:2 (1936) 43-50.

Matesic, Joso. "Seljak o Hrvatskom Pitanju." Nova Evropa 29:3 (1936) 71-73.

Novoselovic, Milan. Beogradska sablast . Zagreb: Vlastita naklada, 1928.

Popovic, A. "Organizacija 'Ujedinjenje ili Smrt'. ('Crna Ruka')" Nova Evropa 15:10-11 (1927) 396-405.

. "Rad organizacije 'Ujedinjenje ili Smrt'." Nova Evropa 16:10-11 308-329.

Radic, Stjepan. "Autobiography of Stephen Raditch. With an Introduction by Charles A. Beard." Current History 29 (Oct. 1928) 82-106.

Radic, Vladimir. Zlocin od 20. lipnja i medjunarodna stampa . Paris, 1931.

Ribar, Ivan. Stara Jugoslavija i komunizam. Zakoni, sudovi, zatvori i logori u staroj Jugoslaviji protiv komunista . Zagreb: Stvarsnot, 1967.

Rojc, M. "Prilike u Hrvatskoj." Nova Evropa 2:2 (1921) 46-71.

Sadkovich, James J. "Terrorism in Croatia, 1929-1934." East European Quarterly 22:1 (1988) 55-79.

Sehic, Nusret. Cetnistvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (1918-1941). Sarajevo: ANUBiH, 1971.

Struggle . Translated by Louis Adamic with a Preface by the Translator. Los Angeles: Arthur Whipple, 1934.


Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=50

---> A. ÄŒuvalo: "Croatian Catholic Priests, Theology Students and Religious Brothers Killed by Communists and Serbian Chetniks in the Former Yugoslavi

Croatian Studies


Ante Cuvalo

Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac's mock trial, imprisonment, and death came to symbolize the sufferings of both the Catholic Church and the Croatian people in the former Yugoslav state. The following list, although incomplete, of murdered Catholic clergymen bears a horrid witness to the persecutions of the clergy and of the Croatian people.

1. Adamcik, Bruno (1908-1945)

2. Adzamic, Ante (killed 1945)

3. Adzija, Antun (1880-1944)

4. Andacic, Bono (Brother, killed 1945)

5. Astalos, Josip (1897-1945) - Assistant pastor in the town of Brod. Tortured and hang in the village of Dalj

6. Babic, Franjo (r. 1901-1942)- His sister and 200 parishioners killed together with him.

7. Bacic, Ante - Tortured, received multiple knife stabs, and then thrown into the "Vranine" cave 1944

8. Badurina, Gabrijel (killed 1942)

9. Bajic, Leonard (killed 1947)

10. Bakula, Ante (1884-1942) - Pastor in the village of Gornje Hrasno. Tortured for five days. Among other tortures, his tongue was cut off, as his torturers said so they can give him the "last communion."

11. Baldo, Beato (Student of theology, killed in 1943)

12. Baltic, Viktor (1903-1943)

13. Bandic, Drago (killed 1945)

14. Barac, Dominik (killed 1945)

15. Barbaric, Marko (1865-1945)

16. Barbir, Gerard (1911-1944)

17. Baricevic, Josip (killed 1946)

18. Barisic, Stjepan (killed 1945)

19. Barisic, Stjepan (1882-1945)

20. Barisic, Kresimir (1907-1941) - While he was still alive his ears, nose and hands were cut off, and his eyes were dug out. Still alive and bound, thrown into his burning church.

21. Barisic, Jakov (1890-1941) - Pastor in the town of Gradacac. Skinned alive.

22. Basic, Miroslav (1895-1942)

23. Beato, Baltazar (killed in 1943)

24. Bebek, Kazimir (1901-1945)

25. Becker, Ivan (killed 1945)

26. Bedenik, Pavao (killed 1945)

27. Bencun, Jozo (1869-1945)

28. Benutic, Ante (1887-1944)

29. Berkovic, Petar (killed 1945)

30. Bezina, Ivan (killed 1948)

31. Bilic, Pasko (1914-1944)

32. Biljeskovic, Anton - Theology student. Had tuberculosis. A few days before Christmas 1941, forced to walk from the town of Prijedor to Kozara where he was crucified on May 17, 1942.

33. Bilogrivic, Nikola (killed 1943)

34. Binicki, Fran (1875 - 1945)- Pastor in the town of Licki Osik. Killed while in jail.

35. Biskupovic, Ante - Taken by the communist Partisans in May 1943 and disappeared.

36. Blazevic, Srecko (poisoned while in a hospital 1946)

37. Blazic, Marijan (1897-1944) - Killed on the island of Daksa near Dubrovnik with 6 more priests and 32 laymen. All of them had to strip naked while facing the firing squad. They were shot, while singing "Te Deum."

38. Bocak, Valentin (1913-1945)

39. Bockmann, Josip (1910-1945)

40. Bogurovac, Stjepan (killed 1943)

41. Borac, Dominik (1912-1945) - Killed because communists did not like his Ph.D. dissertation.

42. Boric, Franjo (1889-1944)

43. Borkovic, Josip (killed 1942)

44. Borkovic, Anton (killed 1942)

45. Bortas, Franjo (1903 -1946) - Killed in Stara Gradiska prison.

46. Bosnjak, Nikola (1909-1945)

47. Bozic, Bono (1903-1945)

48. Bozina, Ivan (killed in the city of Triest 1948)

49. Bradaric, Stanko (killed 1943)

50. Bradic, Mirko (1885-1947) - Killed while in prison.

51. Brajkovic, Slavko (killed 1945)

52. Brajnovic, Josip (1902-1942) - Skinned alive. Killed together with 80 of his parishioners.

53. Brajnovic, Ivan (1914-1944) - Pastor in the village of Skaljari. When he entered into the church to say Mass, a Partisan attacked him and stabbed him many times. After he recovered, he was taken to the island of Daksa, near Dubrovnik, and killed with other priests and laymen.

54. Bralo, Bozidar (1907-1945)

55. Brandic, Mirko (killed 1947)

56. Braskic, Ante (1891-1946)(died under torture)

57. Brisevac, Dane (1890-1944)

58. Brkovic, Augustin (killed 1945)

59. Bubanj, Martin (1898-1945) - Pastor in the town of Susak (Rijeka). Thrown into a cave in Gornja Kostrena.

60. Bucko, Nikola (killed in 1948)

61. Buconjic, Ante (1909-1945)

62. Buerger, Julije (1885-1944)

63. Bujlovic, Anton (killed in 1943)

64. Bukinac, Beato (1912-1945)

65. Bulesic, Miroslav (killed in 1947)

66. Buljan, Nikola (1895-1946) (Poisoned in the Sarajevo jail)

67. Burger, Julije (killed in 1944)

68. Buric, Mato (killed in 1945)

69. Butorac, Ivan (1899-1944)

70. Buzuk, Mirko (killed in 1945)

71. Canjuga, Anselmo (1894 - 1944) - Killed in Stara Gradiska jail.

72. Carev, Zarko (1889-19440)

73. Carevic, Josip (Bishop) (1883-1945)

74. Casic, Emerik (killed in 1947)

75. Cecina, Martin (1902-1944)

76. Ciga, Benedikt (1915-1945)

77. Clujic, Jozo (1888-1944)

78. Colak, Dane (1916-1945)

79. Condic, Ivan (1886-1942)

80. Condic, Alojz (killed 1945)

81. Condic, I. (killed 1947)

82. Condric, Petar (killed 1945)

83. Condric, Ivan (1918-1946)

84. Cosic, Ivo (killed in 1945)

85. Cosic, Efrem (killed 1946)

86. Crnkovic, Matija (1890-1945)

87. Cubelic, Domogoj (theology student - killed 1945)

88. Cubranic, Jerko (1908-1942)

89. Culin, Josip (1916-1942) - Visiting his native parish in Vojnici. The local pastor bagged the Partisans not to kill Culin, but him instead. Culin was executed on the spot. The pastor, however, was executed six months later also by the Partisans.

90. Culum, Karlo (killed 1943)

91. Curic, Andjelko (1914-1945)

92. Cvitanovic, Ante (1889-1944)

93. Delic, Nikola (1889-1944)

94. Delija, Drago (killed 1945)

95. Devcic, Marko (1887-1944)

96. Didovic, Mirko (killed 1945 - together with 14 Croatian families)

97. Djanic, Ivan (1910-1944)

98. Djukovic, August (killed 1948)

99. Djulovic, Ante (killed 1943)

100. Djuric, Anton (killed 1945)

101. Dobud, Mato (1882-1944)

102. Dragicevic, Marko (1902-1945)

103. Dragicevic, Ivo (Tito's Partisans took him away in 1945 and he disappeared).

104. Dragosevic, Ante (1870-1944)

105. Drzaic, Antun (1890-1943)

106. Dujlovic, Anton (killed 1943)

107. Dujmusic, Drago (1899-1944)

108. Dukovic, August (killed 1948)

109. Dumandzic, Nikola (killed 1945)

110. Dunaj, Antun (1911-1944)

111. Duvancic, Nikola (killed 1945-theology student)

112. Dzamic, Ante (killed 1945)

113. Elez, Ante (killed 1945)

114. Erceg, Jozo (killed 1945)

115. Erceg, Ivan (killed 1945)

116. Fantela, Nikola (1880-1944) - Tortured and drowned in the Adriatic sea.

117. Fanzoni, Ivan (1909-1945)

118. Ficic, Ivan (1908-1943)

119. Fifka, Karlo (1890-1944)

120. Flajs, Adalbert (killed 1944 - theology student)

121. Fustos, Adam (1884-1945)

122. Gabric, Ilija (killed 1945)

123. Galic, Tomo (killed 1944)

124. Galic, Krizan (1870-1944)

125. Gasic, Emerik (killed 1947)

126. Gaspar, Filip (1893-1945)

127. Gassmann, Ferdinand-Vendelin (1914-1946) - Franciscan guardian in Bjelovar. While in jail, publically hang as a criminal.

128. Gavrilovic, Nenad (killed 1944)

129. Gecina, Martin (killed 1944)

130. Gelic, Tomo (killed 1944)

131. Gimlesa, Bozo (1892-1945)

132. Gjuric, Anton (1912-1945)

133. Glavadanovic, Berislav (1912-1945)

134. Glavas, Petar (killed 1945)

135. Glavas, Radoslav (1909-1945)

136. Glavas, Petar (1885-1945)

137. Glavas, Ivan (killed 1945)

138. Gospodnetic, Juraj(1910-1941) - Pastor in Bosansko Grahovo. Impaled and roasted alive on the mountain plateau Jelic-polje. Partisans also killed his mother.

139. Grabovickic, Karlo (killed 1945)

140. Grdjan, Miroslav (1915-1945)

141. Grebenarevic, Bono (1884-1943)

142. Grkovic, Nikola (killed 1944)

143. Grubisic, Zvonko (killed 1945)

144. Gruicic, Karlo (1882-1945)

145. Grzanic, Vjekoslav (1902-1943) - His father and mother were killed with him.

146. Gubernia, Ivo (killed 1945)

147. Gugic, Milivoj (killed 1945-theology student)

148. Gujic, Tvrtko (1907-1945)

149. Guncevic, Josip (killed 1945)

150. Gvozdanovic, Pero (1889-1944)

151. Gvozdanovic, Pavao (killed 1943) - Pastor in village of Berkasovo near the town of Sid. Impaled and roasted alive by the Partisans.

152. Habjanovic, Boris Stjepan (killed 1945)

153. Hitrec, Bozidar (1906-1945)

154. Hlobnik, Franjo (killed 1945)

155. Horzic, Stjepan (1917-1945)

156. Hrenic, Hadrian (1913-1945)

157. Idzotic, Ignacije (1903-1945)

158. Igolic, Antun (killed 1943)

159. Ilijic, Nikola (1913-1945)

160. Irgolic, Antun (1877-1943)

161. Ivakic, Pavao (1909-1943)

162. Ivancevic, Karlo (killed 1945)

163. Ivandic, Marijan (1902-1945)

164. Ivandic, Mato (killed 1945)

165. Ivankovic, Milan (killed 1945-theology student)

166. Ivankovic, Ladislav (killed 1942)

167. Ivankovic, Nikola (killed 1946)

168. Ivankovic, Ciril (1878-1945)

169. Ivankovic, Ladislav (1897-1942)

170. Ivankovic, Jure (killed 1945)

171. Ivanovic, Jure (killed 1945)

172. Ivanovic, Ivan (killed 1945)

173. Janes, Ivan (1913-1945)

174. Jelavic, Bono (1898-1945)

175. Jelcic, Andrija (1904-1945)

176. Jelinovic, Ivan (killed 1944)

177. Jerkovic, Radoslav (1901-1950) - Killed while in jail in Split.

178. Jerkovic, Jozo (1911-1944) - Killed while in jail . 179. Josic, Ljudevit (killed 1946)

180. Jurajic, Ivan (1884-1942)

181. Jurcev, Ivan (1912-1944) - He was terribly tortured by the Chetniks. His yes were plucked out before he died.

182. Jurcev, Antun (killed 1944) - Stabbed many times. Tied in a bag and thrown into the sea.

183. Jurcev, Dionizije (killed 1943)

184. Jurcic, Makso (1913-1945)

185. Juric, Rudo (killed 1945-theology student)

186. Juric, Drago (killed 1945 - thrown into a deep cavern)

187. Jurkovic, Julijan(1899-1942) - Guardian in Franciscan monastery in Rama. He was butchered, the church burned down, and the monastery plundered and raised.

188. Jus, Petar (killed 1944)

189. Kalafatovic-Milic, Mato (1911-1945)

190. Kalajdzic, Josip (1909-1945)

191. Kalinic, Rafo (killed 1943)

192. Kamber, Anzelmo (killed 1945)

193. Karaman, Sime (1896-1942) - Executed after the Good Friday church ceremonies.

194. Karamarko, Albert (killed 1945)

195. Kargacin, Vladimir (1906-1945)

196. Kargacin, Vladimir (killed 1945)

197. Karlovic, Velimir (1904-1945)

198. Karlovic, Velimir (killed 1945)

199. Katavic, Anto (1902-1945) - Executed along with 23 other people.

200. Katavic, Mato (killed ("disappeared") 1945)

201. Katavic, Alfons (killed 1945-theology student)

202. Kaurinovic, Josip (killed 1943)

203. Kaurinovic, Josip (1873-1942)

204. Kis, Karlo (1906-1943)

205. Klaric, Antun (killed 1945)

206. Klasic, Antun (1914-1945)

207. Kljucevic, Vlado (killed 1945)

208. Knezevic, Marijan (1908-1943)

209. Kolaric, Mihovil (1880-1945) - killed in the Stara Gradiska jail.

210. Kolaric, Ladislav (killed 1943)

211. Konjevod, Lovro (killed 1945)

212. Kontij, Mihajlo (killed 1945)

213. Kordic, Fabijan (killed 1945 - religious brother)

214. Kosir, Viktor (killed 1945 - theology student)

215. Kovac, Petar (1908-1945) Taken by the Partisans and disappeared.

216. Kovacic, Stjepan (1870-1945) Killed in the prison camp of Stara Gradiska.

217. Kovacic, Petar (killed 1945)

218. Kozul, Tadija (1910-1945)

219. Kozul, Julije (1906-1945)

220. Kraljevic, Stanko (1871-1945)

221. Kraljevic, Krato (1895-1945)

222. Kramar, Stjepan (1883-1945)

223. Kranjc, Ivan (killed 1944)

224. Kranjcic, Mato (1902-1945)

225. Kranjcic, dr. Andrija (killed 1945)

226. Kranje, Ivan ?

227. Kranjic, Ivan (killed 1942)

228. Krecak, Gjuro (1893-1944)

229. Kresic, Martin (killed 1945)

230. Kresic, Ivan (1870-1945)

231. Kristan, Zvonko (killed 1946)

232. Krizic, Jakov (1895-1945)

233. Kroder, Henrik (1877-1945)

234. Krusic, Bogomil (1910-1945)

235. Krusilic, Vlado (killed 1945)

236. Kucmanic, Stjepan (1886-1945)

237. Kuhar, Ivan-Julije (killed 1944)

238. Kukalj, Dragutin (1899-1945)

239. Kukina, Eugen (killed 1945)

240. Kulisic, Stjepan (1886-1945)

241. Kuljevic, Dragutin (1877-1945)

242. Kulundzic, Mato (1912-1945)

243. Kupek, Oton (killed 1945 in the city of Triest - theology student)

244. Ladic, Jakov (killed 1945)

245. Lakajner, Ivan (1873-1945)

246. Lapic, Milan (killed 1943)

247. Lazicki, Ivan (1913-1945)

248. Lesjak, Josip (1889-1944)

249. Letinic, Ante (1899-1945)

250. Leventic, Zarko (1919-1945)

251. Lezatovic, Ante (1913-1943)

252. Liko, Zelimir (1914-1948)

253. Lipovac, Zvonko (1914-1945)

254. Lizatovic, Ante (killed 1943)

255. Ljubas, Eugen (killed 1945 - theology student)

256. Ljubicic, Tihomir (killed 1945)

257. Ljubicic, Mirko (killed 1945)

258. Loncar, Slobodan (1914-1945)

259. Lousin, Andrija (killed by communist party members 1940)

260. Lovretic, Srecko (1911-1945) - Pastor in Luka (Dugi otok). Tied up and thrown alive into the sea.

261. Magas, Ljubomir (1915-1945)

262. Majic, Bonifacije (1883-1945)

263. Majic, Stjepan (killed 1945-theology student)

264. Majic, Ante (killed 1945 in Lepoglava prison - student of theology)

265. Majic, Andrija (1910-1945)

266. Malic, Eugen (killed 1945)

267. Mandaric, Filip (1911-1944)

268. Mandic, Nevinko (1908-1945) - Taken from the altar while celebrating Sunday Mass. Killed together with 2 more Franciscans in the village of Izbicno and thrown into a cave.

269. Manzoni, Ivan (killed 1944)

270. Maretic, Ivan Ferdo (1875-1945)

271. Marjanovic, Jakov (1913-1945)

272. Markotic, Svetislav (killed 1945)

273. Maroevic, Bernard (1884-1944)

274. Martinac, Pasko (1882-1945)

275. Martinac, Josip (1905-1943)

276. Marvinac, Andrija (tortured and killed 1943)

277. Matijevic, Juraj (1900-1943)

278. Matijevic, Josip (1879-1945)

279. Mihic, Juraj (killed 1945)

280. Mikec, Rudolf (1912-1943)

281. Mikulic, Darko (killed 1945)

282. Milanovic, Stanko (1911-1944) Died under torture.

283. Miletic, Ivan (1913-1943)

284. Milicevic, Lujo (killed 1945)

285. Milinovic, Zvonko (1914-1943)

286. Mimica, Filip (1912-1945)

287. Mioc, Borivoj (1907-1944) - Among other tortures he suffered before being killed, horseshoes were nailed to his hands and feet.

288. Miolin, Bernard (1870-1944)

289. Mirkovic, Josip (killed 1945)

290. Misic, Vitomir (killed 1945)

291. Mitrovic, Adam (killed 1945)

292. Mladina, Jure (1912-1941) - Crucified on a tree and left hanging for 3 days.

293. Mravinac, Andrija (killed 1943)

294. Mueller, Josip (1883-1945)

295. Mueller, Viktor (1906-1945)

296. Muljevic, Dragutin (killed 1945)

297. Naletilic, Stjepan (1907-1942)

298. Niksic, Ivan (killed 1945)

299. Novak, Ceslav (killed 1946)

300. Nuic, Jerko (1915-1945)

301. Nuic, Andjelko (1908-1945)

302. Nuic, Arkandjeo (1896-1945)

303. Olujic, Jozo (killed 1944)

304. Oros, Nikola (killed in prison 1947)

305. Paljug, Mato (1893-1945)

306. Pandzic, Kresimir (1891-1945)

307. Pandzic, Borislav (killed 1945)

308. Papac, Mitar (killed 1951 while serving a prison sentence)

309. Paponja, Fabijan (1897-1945)

310. Pavic, Vladimir (1913-1945)

311. Pavisa, Petar (killed 1943)

312. Pavlov, Vladimir (1900-1944)

313. Pavlov, Anto (1905-1943)

314. Pavosevic, Djuro (killed 1945)

315. Pavunic, Stjepan (killed 1945)

316. Pehar, Nenad (1910-1945)

317. Peitler, Petronije (1912-1945)

318. Percic, Josip (killed 1945)

319. Percinlic, Jozo (1909-1945)

320. Perhac, Ivan (1885-1945)

321. Perica, Petar (1881-1944)

322. Perkan, Viktor (killed 1945)

323. Perkovic, Petar (killed 1945)

324. Perusina, Jure (1879-1944)

325. Petranovic, Stjepan (1878-1944)

326. Petrovic, Nenad (killed 1945 - theology student)

327. Petrovic, Ljudevit (killed 1945)

328. Petrovic, Leon (1883-1945) - Provincial of the Herzegovina Franciscan province. Killed together with several other Franciscans and thrown into the Neretva river.

329. Petrovic, Julijan (killed 1945-theology student)

330. Petrovic, Jure (killed 1945-taken by the Partisans and "disappeared")

331. Podrug, Stjepan (1888-1943)

332. Poljak, Josip (1908-1946)

333. Posavac, Kerubin (1906-1945)

334. Povoljnjak, Stjepan (killed 1946)

335. Pretner, Josip (1886-1943)

336. Prlic, Melkior (killed 1945)

337. Prusina, Rafo (1884-1945)

338. Puljic, Metod (1912-1945)

339. Putica, Vid (1859-1942) - Pastor in Prenj-Dubrava. He was soaked in gasoline and burned alive in "honor" of King Peter Karadjordjevic's birthday.

340. Racic, Jakov (1908-1943)

341. Radojkovic, Marijan (1889-1942)

342. Radonic, Bono (1888-1945)

343. Rados, Pavao (killed 1945)

344. Rados, Ljubo (killed 1945)

345. Rados, Mirko (1910-1945)

346. Radovic, Franjo (1891-1945)

347. Raguz, Ivan (1877-1944)

348. Rajic, Serafin (1913-1945) Executed along with 33 more people.

349. Ribic, Rikard (1909-1945)

350. Roje, Ljubomir (1898-1945)

351. Romac, Ante (1900-1944)

352. Romac, Ivan (killed 1943-taken from the altar while celebrating Mass)

353. Romac, Ivan (1900-1944)

354. Roncevic, Tihomir (killed 1945)

355. Rupcic, Leonardo (1907-1945)

356. Sablic, Gracija (killed 1944)

357. Sabulja, Augustin (killed 1945)

358. Sajlb, Ilija (killed-theology student)

359. Salovac, Ivan (1900-1945).

360. Sandrik, Alojzije (killed 1945)

361. Sandrik, Alojzije (killed 1945)

362. Santalab, Sebastijan (killed 1946)

363. Saric, Ivan (tortured and massacred)

364. Scuric, Josip (killed 1945)

365. Segvic, Kerubin (1867-1945)

366. Sesar, Petar (1895-1945)

367. Seuric, Josip (1912-1945)

368. Severovic, Tomo (tortured to the point of insanity-died 1951)

369. Silov, Pavao (1905-1942)

370. Simic, Andjelko (killed 1945)

371. Simic, Vjekoslav (killed 1945)

372. Simic, Bozidar (killed 1943)

373. Simlesa, Bozo(killed 1945)

374. Simovic, Dobroslav (1907-1945)

375. Simrak, Ivan (killed 1944)

376. Simrak, Janko (1883-1946) Bishop of Krizevci-poisoned while in jail)

377. Simunovic, Ivan (1892-1945)

378. Sivjanovic, Petar (1893-1946)

379.Sivric, Mariofil (killed 1945)

380. Slafhauser, Franjo (killed 1946)

381. Sliskovic, Ivo (1877-1945)

382. Sliskvic, Viktor (1891-1945)

383. Smit, Josip (killed 1944)

384. Smoljan, Bernardin (1884-1945)

385. Sokol, Bernardin (1888-1944) - Killed and throne into the sea.

386. Solc, Sidonije (killed 1942)

387. Sopta, Martin (1901-1945)

388. Spika, Petar (1880-1943)

389. Sporer, Ladislav (1893-1941) - His killer, Ivo Vojvoda, became later Yugoslav ambassador to the Vatican and received an award from the papal state on the occasion of the death of Pope John XXIII.

390. Stanic, Ivan (1870-1943) Died after going through some of the most terrible tortures.

391. Stankovic, Ivan (1886-1945)

392. Stepinac, dr. Alojzije (1898-1960) - Died as a prisoner of the Yugoslav regime. He had been slowly poisoned while a prisoner.

393. Stimac, Karlo (killed 1943)

394. Stipic, Emil (1912-1945)

395. Strasek, Josip (killed 1947-executed on Palm Sunday after celebrating the holy mass.

396. Stromar, Stjepan (killed 1944)

397. Strukar, Franjo (killed 1945)

398. Stuban, Ladislav (killed 1945)

399. Stuparic, Vladimir (1886-1943)

400. Subasic, Ivan (killed 1945)

401. Sulenta, Dominik (1900-1944)

402. Sumic, Ivan (killed 1945-taken by the Partisans and "disappeared")

403. Susac, Kornelije (killed 1945)

404. Susak, Branko (killed 1945)

405. Sutrin, Eugen (killed and thrown into the sea 1948)

406. Szita, Jaroslav (killed 1945)



407. Teklic, Celestin (killed 1945)

408. Tepeluk-Klaric, Ante (killed near Sabac, Serbia, 1945)

409. Terzic, Vjekoslav (killed 1945)

410. Tesic, Luka (1893-1944)

411. Ticic, Ivan(1906-1943) Executed because he would not renounce his belief in God.

412. Timko, Inokentije (killed 1945)

413. Tomas, Ilija (1901-1942) - Pastor in the village of Klepci, Herzegovina. Stabbed many times in the shape of a cross, killed and his body thrown into the Neretva river.

414. Tomasic, Tomo (killed 1944)

415. Tomljenovic, Blaz (1888 - 1942) - Pastor in Hrvatski Blagaj. Taken to the village of Sic near Slunj where he was chopped up to pieces.

416. Topic, Andrija (1918-1945) - Butchered together with his uncle, Fr. Vale Zovko, in the presence of his mother, Zovko's sister.

417. Torticchio, Nikola (killed 1947)

418. Tumban, Adalbert (1911-1945)

419. Turalija, Karlo (killed 1945-theology student)

420. Turkalj, Pero (1891 - 1947) Killed in the Stara Gradiska jail.

421. Vasilj, Janko (1914-1945)

422. Vasilj, Grga (1886-1945)

423. Vedrina, Stjepan (stoned to death 1949)

424. Velic, Paskal (killed 1944)

425. Venko, Alojzije (1885-1946)

426. Vernaca, Bruno (killed 1945)

427. Vezelic, Metod (1883-1945)

428. Vicic, Rudo (killed in Triest 1945-theology student)

429. Vidovic, Pasko (killed 1945-religious lay brother)

430. Vinic, Vlado (killed 1945)

431. Violoni, Ilija (1879-1945)

432. Vlahovic, Ante (1908-1945)

433. Vlasov, Aleksandar (killed 1942)

434. Vodanovic, Mate (1885-1947)

435. Vrancic, Antun (killed 1946)

436. Vucic, Rudo (killed 1945)

437. Vugdelija, Bozo (killed 1945)

438. Vujnovic, Marijan (1872-1944)

439. Vukovic, Vladimir (killed in a concentration camp 1945-theology student)

440. Vuksic, Rade (1894-1945)

441. Waldemar, Nestor (1899-1941)

442. Weiss, Rikard (1916-1944)

443. Weiss, Antun (killed 1943)

444. Zaguestar, Petar (1899-1945)

445. Zajcic, Andrija (1907-1943)

446. Zekic, Vitomir (1906-1945)

447. Zigrovicm Matija (1886-1943)

448. Zilovec, Antun (1915-1945)

449. Zivkovic, Antun (killed 1945)

450. Zjacic, Andrija (killed 1944)

451. Zlopasa, Roland (1912-1945)

452. Zovko, Vale (1889-1945)

453. Zrno, Ante (1909-1945)

454. Zubac, Zdenko (1911-1945)

455. Zubac, Tihomir (killed 1945)

456. Zubac, Augustin (1890-1945)


Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=53

---> B. Zelic-Bucan: What Was the Name of the Glagolitic Seminary in Priko?

Croatian Studies

*The original reads "Kako se zvalo glagoljasko sjemeniste u Priku?" and first appeared in Marulic, 3, no. 3 (Zagreb, 1970), 17-21. It was later included in Benedikta Zelic-Bucan, Jezik i pisma Hrvata. Rasprave i clanci (Split: Matica hrvatska, 1997), 19-24. The translator thanks the author for clarifying certain parts of the essay; Dr. Vinko Grubisic of the University of Waterloo for his assistance during the translation process; and Matthew Pavelich for reading the manuscript and providing his editorial comments.


What Was the Name of the Glagolitic Seminary in Priko?

Benedikta Zelic-Bucan

According to information dealing with Glagolitic clergy in Chapter 24 of the constitution of the Split diocesan synod of 1688, there were thirty-six outlying parishes in the diocese. Of these thirty-six parishes, only eight held services in Latin, while the remainder were "Croatian parishes" ("kuratije arvaske").1 According to records collected from 1688 to 1700 by Ivan Pastric, forty-two parishes were cited in the Split diocese, seventeen of which were located on the territory of Poljica. The Poljica parishes were: Podstrana, Jesenice, Duce, Zakucac, Kucice, Gornje Polje, Donje Polje, Tugare, Kosatanje, Zvecanje, Ostrvica, Gata, Dubrava, Trnbusi, Srijane, Srinjine and Sitno.2 All of these were Glagolitic parishes; however, the number of Poljica clergy greatly exceeded the actual number of parishes they served in. The Glagolites from Poljica served as parish priests throughout the entire diocese. There were also many who were without their own parish and lived with their families. In his 1713 report to Rome, Archbishop Stefano Cupilli indicated that the urban clergy numbered sixty priests and fifteen seminarians, while priests from outlying areas numbered around 125 .3

The archbishops or vicars general exercised authority over these priests through the outer vicar, whom they appointed from nominations submitted by the Glagolites themselves.4 The outer vicar held ecclesiastic authority over the territories of Poljica, Radobilje, the outskirts and districts of Split, and the regions of Omis and Klis.5 While Gian Battista Laghi served as archbishop, a confraternity for Glagolitic priests was founded and ratified. Members of the confraternity were to pray and celebrate requiem masses for the repose of their deceased brethren .6

Right up to the mid-18th century, there were neither colleges nor seminaries where these Glagolites could receive a basic education or instruction in the Old Church Slavic language. Rather, individual pastors provided personal training to seminarians according to the apprenticeship system. Individual parish priests recruited gifted youngsters who served as their attendants and students. Through this process, they taught these young men what they themselves knew. However, these novices would often change teachers, especially if the priest was strict. This situation prompted Archbishop Stefano Cosmi to write to the outer vicar on 20 October 1703. In the letter, he made it clear that novices were not to move from teacher to teacher, but were to dutifully and obediently remain with the initial priest; otherwise, they would not be permitted to take their exams .7

As far as the training of Glagolitic priests was concerned, not only were there no cultivated colleges for them, but they did not even have the necessary books for their language, which was the only one they understood. For this reason, Bishop Antun Kadcic's initiative to write the work Moral theology (Bogoslovje diloredno) represented a significant step in their education. In 1714, Archbishop Stefano Cupilli began to build a seminary for them beside the church of St. Peter on Lucac in Split; however, he passed away before the project was completed. His objective was only realized by Archbishop Pacific Bizza in 1750, when he established a seminary in the former Franciscan hospice beside the old Croatian church of St. Peter in Priko, near Omis. This seminary lacked a prebend (stipend) or a steady source of revenue and the seminarians were required to support themselves and their instructors, while the upkeep and maintenance of the church and seminary building was left to providence and the charity of the faithful .8

During Venetian rule (1699-1797), numerous attempts were made to obtain government support to provide a modest salary for the instructors; however, this never succeeded. Only in 1803, during the first Austrian rule (1797-1805), did the government set a monthly salary of twenty florins for the director of the seminary and fifteen florins for instructors at the seminary.9 However, even this minimal pay was discontinued during French rule (1805- 1813), when the seminary was closed for a time. During the second period of Austrian rule (1813-1918), the government again introduced the salary, but only for a brief time. Already in 1821, the seminary was closed and a central seminary established in Zadar for the entire province of Dalmatia. In this new seminary, the Glagolitic alphabet and the Old Church Slavic language were taught from the outset. However, in 1827, even this central Croatian seminary was closed and a new central Latin seminary established in its place, again in Zadar .10

When the seminary in Priko first opened, there was one lone instructor. Later, when the number of seminarians began to rise, there were three. One of them was called the director (vladavac), the second the instructor (mestar) and the third the prefect (izvrsitelj). However, all three lectured and instructed the seminarians. The first director of the seminary was Rev. Stjepan Pivcevic, the second Rev. Ivan Bozic and the third and last one Rev. Petar Kruzicevic .11

In the archival section of the Archaeological Museum of Split, there is kept a bundle of forty-eight documents labelled "Poljica Documents" (signature 49 h 6/I). Some of these documents were published without any accompanying notes at the beginning of the 20th century in the Split journal Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata.12 Among this group of documents, twenty-two reports dealt with the Glagolitic seminary in Priko for the period from 1760 to 1821.13 Included are the minutes of Archbishop Nikola Dinaricic's 1760 visit to the seminary; two letters of Archbishop Lelio Cipico from 1793; and two letters from Venetian governors Francesco Falier and Alvise Marin, from 1784 and 1794, respectively. Most of the documents are from the 19th century. These include the correspondence of the last director of the seminary, Rev. Petar Kruzicevic, to the vicars general and Split canons: Oracijo Bergelic, Nikola Didos, Josip Koic and Nikola Koic. Also included are his letters to Makarska Bishop Fabijan Blaskovic. The majority of these letters originated during the last few years of the seminary, when its closure was imminent, and the closure was even discussed in some of them; therefore, these letters represent a significant source for the history of this important Croatian college .14

Besides providing significant material on the seminary, this small collection of documents also offers important information for the history of the Croatian language. In these documents, we encounter the old Croatian national name (hrvatski) for the language along with the more recent bookish term Slavonic (slovinski), as well as the Italian term Illyrian (illirico). More specifically, in Italian texts, the term Illyrian (illirico) was always used, while in Croatian texts the alternate use of the terms Croatian (hrvatski) and Slavonic (slovinski) appeared, sometimes even with the same author. Thus, the Split vicars and canons regularly addressed Rev. Petar Kruzicevic as the instructor or director of the Slavonic seminary, 15 while in the text of the letters both Croatian and Slavonic are used. For example, in a letter from 16 January 1815, Split Canon Nikola Didos explains that it is the intention of the future central seminary in Zadar to offer education to the "Slavonic clergy of Priko" ("crikovnakom slovinskim od Prika").16 In a letter from 23 August 1816, the bishop's secretary, Josip Koic, wrote that following an outbreak of the plague, there were now: "Latin and Croatian priests...in total, thirty-six" ("latinski misnika i Arvatah...usve trideset i sest").17 Makarska Bishop Fabijan Blaskovic used two terms for the seminary. In the address of a letter from 28 December 1816, Bishop Blaskovic called Rev. Petar Kruzicevic the "main educator of the Croatian seminary" ("mestar od semenaria arvaskoga") 18 and the "main educator of the Slavonic seminary" ("mestar od seminarija slovinskoga") in a letter from 15 July 1818 .19

In documents that were written by Poljica or other Glagolitic priests, I have never come across the expression Slavonic for their language. They always called their language Croatian and when translating from Italian texts, the term Illyrian (illirco) was translated into Croatian (hrvatski). Thus, in the Croatian translation of Archbishop Lelio Cipico's letter of 26 June 1793 to Omis church administrator Rev. Jakov Ognjutovic the term "chierizi illirici" is translated into "Croatian priests" ("zakni arvacki") .20

The above examples show that by the beginning of the 19th century, the use of the term Slavonic (slovinski) for the Croatian language and institutions of the Croatian language was still inconsistently applied, even among learned individuals. Here and there, these learned individuals continued to use the original Croatian national name alongside this "learned" expression.

Not only did the Glagolitic clergy of Poljica call their language Croatian, but they also went out of their way to set themselves apart from their Latin colleagues who used the Latin liturgical language.21 They did this by appending to their names the term Harvacanin. In Split baptismal and marriage registries from the 17th and 18th century, which were usually completed in the administrative Italian language, there are close to 200 notes entered by Poljica Glagolites in the vernacular language. These notes were entered when they performed christenings and marriages in Split. The majority of these entries were completed in old Croatian Cyrillic (bosancica). Four of these Glagolitic priests (Mihovil Dagelic, Jakov Suturcic, Stipan Jurevic, Barisa Krcatovic) often added the attribute Harvacanin to their surnames or only to their given names when they added their entries. In using this attribute, they wished to emphasize that they were priests of the Croatian language as opposed to Latin clergy, whose liturgical language was Latin and whose language of public communication was Italian.

In the same manner, the Croatian version of Chapter 24 of the constitution of the diocesan synod of Split from 1688, distinguishes Glagolitic clergy ("harvaski kler") and Glagolitic parishes ("kuratije arvaske") from the clergy and parishes using the Latin liturgy.22 In the Latin version of that chapter of the constitution, Croatian clergy are called "clerus illyricus" and Croatian parishes "parochiae Illyricorum".23 In Article XII of the same chapter, it is specified that educated priests are to teach the seminarians the Croatian pronunciation in which their missals and breviaries are written; otherwise, the seminarians will not be ordained. In the Latin version of the constitution, the term Illyrian (illyricum) is used for the Croatian language and script.24 It is interesting to note that two years after this synod on Glagolitic clergy was held, Makarska Bishop Nikola Bjankovic translated and printed the constitution in Croatian. However, already in the very title of his version, he stated that the decisions "were translated in the Slavonic language".25 As we can see, when writing in the Italian and Latin languages, the term Illyrian (illyricus, illirico) was used for the Croatian language, while learned Croats used the expression Slavonic (slovinski), and the simple commoner Glagolites spoke and wrote in the "Croatian" language (jezik "arvacki"), just as the people.

The Glagolites could not even acquire the habit of using the "learned" terms for the Croatian language (Illyrian and Slavonic) because they not only lacked Croatian books, but some of them did not even know how to read all that well. This can be concluded from the previously mentioned Article XII of Chapter 24 of the synodal constitution. It should also be remembered that they did not even understand Latin or Italian. I have come across two instances in the documents of the Makarska diocese from 1769, in which parish priests expressly state that they do not understand Italian or Latin, and request their bishop to write to them in Croatian so that they can understand him .26

As we can see from preserved documents written in Croatian Cyrillic ("arvacki"), right up to the end of the 17th century, only the Croatian national name served as the name of the Croatian language for commoners and their Glagolitic pastors. At that time, the Glagolites were the closest intelligentsia to everyday folk. The use of the term "Slavonic" ("slovinski") as a "learned" name, as was previously characterized by Vatroslav Jagic,27 only began to penetrate later, at the turn of the 18th to 19th century. In part under the sway of learned books and foreign influences, this understanding spread widely in the first half of the 19th century. For this reason, those in Dalmatia who were followers of the Croatian National Revival under the leadership of Mihovil Pavlinovic struggled not only for the affirmation of the Croatian language in public life, but also for the affirmation of its national name among the alienated native intelligentsia and middle class.

Taking all of this into account, it would seem necessary to return the original name to the old Croatian seminary in Priko. When writing and discussing this seminary, we should identify it in the way in which its former students and teachers identified it; that is, the Croatian Seminary (Sjemeniste hrvatsko). To continue using the old term Illyrian (ilirisko), which was used in documents of the Italian and Latin languages, as well as the vague term Slavonic (slovinski) from Croatian documents of the learned class of past centuries, would only show that to this very day we have not overcome the biased belief that everything foreign is better and more learned than our Croatian national name. To continue to support these non-national and inadequate terms (Illyrian and Slavonic) would signify in our time not learnedness, but a petite bourgeoise mentality.

Translated by Stan Granic



NOTES

1 Vladimir Mosin, "Poljicke konstitucije iz 1620. i 1688. godine,"Radovi staroslavenskog instituta, 1 (Zagreb, 1952), 194.

2 Fontes historici liturgiae glagolito-romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum, ed. Luka Jelic (Veglae [Krk]: Sumptibus Academiae Palaeoslavicae Veglensis, 1906), XVII, 61-63.

3 Fontes, XVIII, 9.

4 M...c, "Njekoji prilozi o glagoljici," Narod, no. 10 (Split, 1894).

5 Fontes, XIX, 75.

6 M...c, "Njekoji," Narod, no. 6. In the Historical Archives of Split (Historijski arhiv u Splitu HAS), in a small collection entitled "Poljica Documents" ("Poljicki spomenici"), there is a document that lists all the requiem masses said for members of this confraternity from 1790 to 1820 (signature 3KA/PS-15). From the list one can see that membership in the confraternity was composed of Glagolites of the archdiocese, many respected members of the higher urban clergy and even some eminent laymen.

7 Miroslav Vulic, "Pravila glagoljaskog sjemenista u Priku," Croatia sacra, 15-16 (Zagreb, 1938), 74.

8 Ivan Pivcevic, "Sjemeniste u Priku," in Program c. k. Velike gimnazije u Splitu za sk. god. 1911-12, 47 (Split, 1912), 7.

9 Pivcevic, p. 9.

10 Pivcevic, p. 11.

11 Pivcevic, p. 8.

12 See the supplemental sections in: Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata, 22 (Split, 1900) and 24 (Split, 1901).

13 Having worked on these documents some ten years ago while preparing my work Bosancica u srednjoj Dalmaciji, Prilog 3. svesku Izdanja Historijskiog arhiva - Split (Split: Historijskog arhiva, 1961), I classified these Poljica documents according to contents. With the approval of the administration of the Museum, I classified them into series I to III, with each individual document assigned a number. Documents dealing with the seminary in Priko were arranged in the first series and marked with numbers 1-20, plus 1a, 2a and 3a. Documents I/1-20 formed part of the archives of the actual seminary, while document I/2a is the Croatian transcription of document I/2 and documents I/1a and I/3a were subsequently taken from series II ("Pisma providura i drugi spisi koji se odnose na polji ku republiku") because their contents dealt with the seminary in Priko.

14 As far as I could ascertain, to date these documents on the Croatian seminary in Priko, which are housed in the Archeological Museum of Split, have never been published. Concise information on the contents of these letters are provided in my article: "Upotreba bosancice u Splitu i okolici," Mogucnosti, 3, no. 11 (Split, 1956), 869-875.

15 Archaeological Museum of Split (hereafter AMS), "Poljicke isprave," signature 49 h 6/I, documents 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.

16 AMS, "Poljicke isprave," sign. 49 h 6/I, document 7.

17 AMS, "Poljicke isprave," sign. 49 h 6/I, document 13.

18 AMS, "Poljicke isprave," sign. 49 h 6/I, document 12.

19 AMS, "Poljicke isprave," sign. 49 h 6/I, document 13.

20 AMS, "Poljicke isprave," sign. 49 h 6/I, document 2a.

21 The language of Croatian Glagolitic religious books to the 17th century was completely under the influence of the vernacular speech. For this reason, Modrus Bishop Simun Kozicic could legitimately title his missal, which was printed in Rijeka in 1531, the Croatian Missal (Misal hruacki). The Poljica Glagolites who largely lived as peasants, had a very difficult time in obtaining church books. This is testified to in Chapter 24 (Article XII) of the constitution of the Split synod from 1688 and in articles LX and CIX of Archbishop Sforza Ponzon's ruling from 1620. It is also likely that they could not have immediately obtained the new missal prepared by friar Rafael Levakovic (Rome, 1631) which had been completely russified. To deal with the shortage of books, Archbishop Dinaricic was still advising the clergy of the seminary at Priko, in the latter half of the 18th century, to transcribe from old books and manuscripts in their possession. Based on this, it can be presumed that their liturgical language differed very little from the existing Croatian vernacular. For this reason, it is understandable that they called themselves Croatian clergy and used Harvacanin to identify themselves.

22 Mosin, p. 194.

23 Mosin, p. 194.

24 "Zasto osobito s(veta) m(ater) c(rkva) dopusti ovoj ruci privilej harvackoga izgovora u misi, zato ima se nastojati da se dobro uce i nauce razumiti slovi...kako u knjigah uzdarze. Zakni imaju se nauciti bukvicu i juciniti se nauciti se od redovnikov naucni izgovor arvacki slovi nasi, kako izgovara misal i barvija; inako nece biti urdinani buduci tako zapovijeno, i kako nasi po knjizi imaju govoriti se... razumiti tako harvaski na nihov zakon barvarija."/"Quoniam peculiari, et speciosissimo Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae privilegio in idiomate Illyrico sacra habetur liturgia, maxima habenda est ratio eiusdem idiomatis probe ediscendi, et dicendi. Clerici noverint azbuquidarium, atque a pertis Sacerdotibus erudiantur, qui in eam precipue curam, incubeant, ut illyricum literale, quo Missale et Breviarium conscripta sunt, perfecte calleant alioquin sciant, se ad Ordines non promovendos, cum apud Illyricos eadem sit ratio illyrici idiomatis litdteralis, quae apud nostros Latini. Mosin, p. 196. [In English it would read: "Since the Holy Mother Church especially allows to this hand the privilege of using the Croatian language in the mass, they must endeavor to learn well and master the script...which is contained in the books. The priests must learn the alphabet and be instructed by the monks on the correct pronunciation of our Croatian letters as they are contained in our missals and breviaries. Otherwise, as it is proclaimed, they shall not be ordained. It was ordered so and now our priests must conform themselves to our books...to understand Croatian in order to follow their duties according to their breviaries." trans.]

25 Mosin, p. 178.

26 Archives of the Diocese of Makarska, volume 74. Letter of Rev. Jakov Piunovic, pastor of Rascani, 22 September 1769 and letter of Rev. Pavao Ursic, pastor of Brela, 23 October 1769. Fascicle 74 contains the correspondence of Bishop Stjepan Blaskovic to his parish priests from 1768 to 1769. There are 376 letters in total. Of these, three are written in the Croatian language using the Roman script, one in the Italian language and the remainder were written in the Croatian language using the Croatian Cyrillic script.

27 Vatroslav Jagic, Historija knjizevnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srpskoga (Zagreb: Vatroslav Jagic, 1867), p. 3.

http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=52

---> THE STATUTE OF VINODOL FROM 1288 (BC Review, No. 14, May 1978)

Croatian Studies


BC REVIEW No. 14 May 1978


EDITOR'S FOREWORD

The Statute of Vinodol from 1288 and the Poljica Statute from 1440 (published in the BC Review No. 11/12, March / June 1977) are two oldest surviving statutes written in the Croatian language. They provide a rare contemporary picture of the life and political conditions in this turbulent and much fought_over frontier land of medieval Europe. The Statute of Poljica, especially, abounds with interesting social detail. This Statute was at once the political constitution and legal code_book of a small self_governing principality and was continuously added to over the centuries. The Statute of Vinodol represented an agreement, a social contract of sorts, between the people of Vinodol and their new liege lords, the Princes of Krk, and contains important information about the feudal law in this area which had replaced the tribal customs of an earlier period.

In the famous 12th century chronicle Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina Vinodol is referred to as a border region of Croatia. There is a considerable disagreement among historians as to whether or not Vinodol was constituted as a separate county ( zupanija ) before A. D. 1102, i.e. before Croatia, having suffered a series of disastrous military defeats, was united with Hungary under the Hungarian monarch. Be this as it may, the Hungarian King claimed Vinodol as his possession, while the neighbouring island of Krk was occupied by Venice who installed there in A. D. 1117, or shortly thereafter, a certain Domnius as their vassal _ the founder of what was to become the powerful family of the Princes of Krk, later to become known under the name of Frankopani. The Krk Princes acquired Vinodol in 1225 and as their power grew, so their ties with Venice weakened, and they increasingly identified themselves with local interests and aspirations.

Vinodol, despite its limited natural resources and its relative poverty, or perhaps because of it, has always excelled in the vitality and intelligence of its people. A number of prominent personalities in Croatia's history came from there, among them the celebrated miniature painter Juraj Julije Klovic ( 1498-1578), better known outside Croatia as Clovio, who was born at Grizane and was educated by the Pauline monks of Crikvenica and Ivan Mazuranic ( 1814-1890 ), author of the famous epic Smrt Smail_age Cengica ( Death of Smail_aga Cengic) and the politician chiefly responsible for the Freedom of the Press Act of 1875, granting the freedom of the press and the right of public assembly in Croatia, who was a native of Novi. In fact, several Mazuranices of the Vinodol stock made their name in literature, notably Ivana Brlic_Mazuranic ( 1874-1938), a granddaughter of Ivan, who gained an international reputation as a writer of stories for children. Two of her books have appeared in English translation. _ Croatian Tales of Long Ago

( London, 1924) and The Brave Adventures of a Shoemaker's Boy (London, 1971).

The authors and copyists of both the Vinodol Statute ( Cf. articles 1 & 72 ) and the Statute of Poljica (Cf. Supplement No.4) call their language 'Croatian'. There would be no need to specially mention this fact if it were not for the absurdities of modern Yugoslav politics in which linguistic problems are deliberately treated as political problems to be solved by political means, disregarding expert opinion and linguistic tradition. As recently as 1971_ nearly seven hundred years after the Statute of Vinodol and over five centuries after the Statute of Poljica _ in an act of unparalleled barbarism little noted by world public opinion, forty thousand copies of a new textbook of Croatian Orthography were seized and destroyed because it was thought politically undesirable that the Croats should preserve and develop the distinctive features of their own language. Books had been burned before, but this must have been the first time that a completely non_political work of linguistic scholarship was destroyed in this fashion.

When in 1976 I invited the young historian Alan Ferguson to translate the statute of Poljica for the BC Review, I knew that it would not be an easy task. The medieval text contains a number of obscurities which are not entirely cleared up in the available modern versions of the Statute. Nevertheless Ferguson has succeeded in producing a very good and very readable translation. A short stay in Poljica in the summer of 1976 as a guest of a well known Poljican family gave him an opportunity to find out of first hand about the loca1 history and traditions.

This stood him in good stead when, at my repeated urgings, he tackled the Statute of Vinodol. Although here too there were the inevitable difficulties owing to the obscurities in the text, he has completed his translation in a remarkably short time as well as producing a short historical introduction for it, and I am very grateful to him for thus making it possible to bring both these important medieval documents to the attention of English_speaking scholars and historians.

My thanks are also due to Christine E. Hill of the University College London who drew a mop of Vinodol specially for this issue, and to Christopher Cromarty for his help in processing some of the photographs.

Edo Pivcevic

Vinodol and Medieval Croatia

Alan Ferguson

Essentially, the compilation of the statute of Vinodol in 1288 represented an attempt formally to regulate rights and duties of the men of Vinodol, on the one hand, and their 'Great Lords', the princes of the nearby island of Krk, on the other. The association of mainland Vinodol and its insular lords had been established sixty_three years previously, in 1225, when King Andrija I of Croatia ( II of Hungary) issued a deed of covenant to Prince Vid II of Krk, granting him and his descendants 'totam terram .... Wynodol et Modros'. The hinterland region of Modrus, to which reference is also made in the opening section of the Statute of Vinodol, had in fact already been granted to the princes of Krk in 1193. Their tenure of it was thereby confirmed.

The reason for King Andrija's gratitude, expressed in the gift of land in 1225, was the readiness with which Prince Vid had sent a flotilla to assist the Croatians and Magyars in their crusade against the 'heretical' men of the Neretva, its estuary and the adjacent coastline earlier in that year. That the prince had done so no less to protect the interests of Venice, to which he had sworn loyalty and remained subject, than to counter heresy, was well appreciated by the king. It was not coincidental that apart from having embraced Bogomilism, which had roused Pope Honorius III to call for the crusade against them, the men of the Neretva were also a thorn in the side of Venice. Their piratical activities like those of the Kacic clan of Omis to the north, had proved a constant threat to Venetian merchantmen. In any event, the princes of Krk were seen by the king to be a strong potential ally who might be eased from allegiance to Venice by the grant of feudal lands.

The desired effect was achieved. In 1244 the Venetian Republic responded to the shift in gravitation of the princes' loyalties towards the king of Croatia and Hungary by seizing the island of Krk. By then, however, the princes already had a firm foothold on the littoral. The determination of Andrija's successor and son King Bela III (IV of Hungary) not to lose the favour of the princes in this strategically and economically important border region of his realm, led to his requesting the supply of no more than twenty armed soldiers and the provision of but two vessels (one sajka, one barka) in time of war. What makes the modesty of such a demand the more remarkable is that just two years earlier Bela had been forced to retreat to Dalmatia in the face of the near fatal Mongol invasion.

The turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was of especial significance for the history of medieval Croatia in that it witnessed the first formal association between mainland Croatia and the princes of Krk, who were subsequently to become the mighty noble family of the Frankopani.

A general survey of the period following 1102, in which year Croatia and Hungary were first linked in the person of a joint king of the Arpad dynasty, has already been given in this periodical (No 11/12, Vol. IV, 1977. pp. 4-6). To place against a more particular background the years in which the Vinodol_Frankopan connection was established and the Statute of Vinodol came into being, reference to the contemporary Croatian context is necessary.

In the thirteenth century, the division of Croatian territory which had been effected after the 'Pacta conventa' of 1102, remained valid. The lands between Mount Gvozd and the Adriatic, including Vinodol, and commonly referred to as 'medieval Croatia', enjoyed a degree of self_government; those between Gvozd and the River Drava, or 'Slavonia', the Magyar rulers had linked more directly to the Kingdom of Hungary. This distinction was maintained throughout

the life of the first Croato_Hungarian state, until the sixteenth century. The pace of feudalization in both regions was perceptibly increased in the thirteenth century with the implementation of new agricultural techniques, notably the rotation system, the development of mining, crafts, trade and the appearance of new urban settlements. This economic advance in its own turn accelerated social changes in the decline of the remnants of the patriarchal-tribal order. The formation of large feudal estates under both temporal and spiritual lords proceeded apace.

The creation of the dual Croato_Hungarian state had, moreover, fundamentally altered the political complexion of the Danubian and Dinaric lands. Its burgeoning economic life made the possession of Dalmatian towns, as trade outlets, a question of the first order. This was appreciated even during the reign of King Koloman (1095 [from 1102 King of Croatia and Hungary] _ 1116), who succeeded in obtaining the consent of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Komnen to his taking possession of them. The resultant competition with Venice was, as has been mentioned, still keen in the thirteenth century. It was in the conflict so engendered between Croato-Hungarian and Venetian interests, that noble families such as the princes of Krk first distinguished themselves. Later in the century, Miroslav Subic, zupan (Lord Lieutenant of the County) of Bribir, acquired that zupa as an exclusive feudal holding. Similarly, but inland, zupan Stjepan Babonic and his descendants won a hereditary right over the region between the Sava and Una, together with the title 'princes of Blagaj'. Thus there developed in Croatia, including much of the littoral, a strong domestic feudal nobility with vassal duties towards the Crown and feudal rights over their villeins.

The dual kingdom suffered a setback and was seriously weakened in the early thirteenth century by internal disturbances and dynastic disputes. These reached a peak in 1217, while Andrija I (II), a king as ambitious and adventurous as he was myopic, was away leading crusading armies in the Holy Land. Disorder and disloyalty awaited him upon his return from a disastrous campaign. In his absence, the lot of lesser nobility, free peasantry and town dwellers alike had been made miserable by conflict between larger fief_holders. When his return brought no amelioration of their condition, in concert they imposed on the king the 'Golden Bull' (Bulla aurea) of 1222. Though not as rich a source of sociopolitical data as the Statute of Vinodol, the Bull represents a clear indication of political relations and the respective strengths of particular social classes in the kingdom at that time. Both lesser nobility and the military were to be represented, alongside the magnates, at annual assemblies. Their holdings could not be arbitrarily seized by the monarch and granted to the magnates.

The two decades following the proclamation of the Bull saw but slight reduction in social disorder. Bela III (IV) was still seeking to re_establish the royal prerogative at the expense of the magnates, when Central Europe succumbed to the Tartar invasion. Led by Batu_Khan, the Mongol hordes surged westward from the region of what are nowadays the Russian steppes around the river Volga. A section of them, under Khan Kadan, crossed the Carpathians, swamped Hungary, and routed Bela's Magyar army in the battle of Mohi on the River Saj in 1241. In the following year the Pannonian Plain was ravaged and Bela was forced back as far as the Adriatic coastal towns. Rural settlements and unfortified places were especially hard hit by the onslaught. Croatia was spared further depredation only by the death in Asia of the supreme Khan Ogotai, after which the Mongols withdrew eastward.

The Mongol invasion put a halt to King Bela's plans to quash the magnates' resistance to the re_establishment of regal authority. More by necessity than by choice, his first priority was to revive the realm and fortify it against any renewed Mongol incursions. As citadels and fortresses had provided the best defense against the Tartars, King Bela instigated the erection of new ones and assisted the reconstruction of those damaged during hostilities. lt was at this time that such towns as Budim and Visegrad in Hungary, and Kalnik and Medvjedgrad in Croatia were fortified.

To revitalise the economy, Bela III (IV) took pains to develop urban life and encourage the establishment of new settlements. Towns were granted a number of considerable privilege, in order to attract foreign craftsmen and merchants. Freed of all obligations to feudal lords or monasteries on whose lands they might technically be situated, the ‘royal free towns’ enjoyed the right to elect their own town vijece or council and appoint magistrates to administer justice on their territory. Varazdin, Zagreb, Bihac, Samobor and other Croatian towns thus came to resemble free German imperial towns. Their populations were augmented, apart from foreigners, by minor nobility, free peasants and even serfs, displaced or for any reason in flight from their lord.

Outside the towns, however, the condition of the lesser nobility was in constant decline. The increasing influence of magnates was reflected in the tendency for lesser nobles to be forced to become their pseudo-vassals. Fortified places which did not enjoy the status of ‘royal free town’ but were in the hold of magnates, soon became the bases of a species of despotate. When dynastic disputes arose in the final decades of the century, the attitude of the magnates towards claimants was of axial importance. The attempts of presumptive or aspirant rulers to win the magnates’ favor by the grant of larger estates, together with serfs, led to a further accumulation of their wealth and influence, with a parallel waning of the king's authority. The most striking example of this was during the reign of King Bela's son, Andrija 'The Venetian' ( 1290-1301 ), when Pavle Subic and his descendants became hereditary bani or governors of Croatia. The influence of the Subici was so great that when the Arpad dynasty was extinguished and replaced in Croatia and Hungary by that of Anjou in 1301, Juraj Subic was not only prince of Bribir and banus of Croatia but practically independent ruler of the kingdom also.

In the light of these developments, the Statute of Vinodol acquires an extra dimension. While its primary and most obvious significance in a period not otherwise rich in documentation is as a source of socioeconomic data, it records the inception of a process which was central to and characteristic of medieval and early modern Croatian history: the ascendancy of princely families and their transformation into political factors on the national plane. The celebrated Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy of 1671, intended to free Croatia from Austrian domination, represented at once the culmination and collapse of this process.



The Geography of the Vinodol Region
Frank Carter


The contemporary term for the Vinodol region refers to the Commune of Crikvenica. This is much smaller than the Vinodol area referred to in the past which covered a large part of the Rijeka hinterland and stretched as far south as Senj. It is necessary in this short article to set the scene as a backcloth to the Vinodol Statute of 1288 and to make a sequential and retrospective appraisal of changes in this area throughout time up to the nineteenth century. Such a task will involve the reconstruction of past environments in the Vinodol region from the first half of the thirteenth century, when it came into the possession of the Krk Princes ( 1225 ),1 until those mementous changes during the last century inflicted by the new railway age.

Physically, the coasts of the Velebit mainland may be divided into two parts: from Rijeka to Novi a narrow, cliff_bordered limestone ridge rises sharply alongside the coast to altitudes of over 1,000 feet. Behind this, and parallel with it, a restricted zone of Tertiary Flysch beds forms a continuous depression of quite low relief, and beyond this inland, the main karst ranges rise above the depression on its eastern margins. Because of the greater fertility it is along this inner valley, rather than along the coast, that early settlement was concentrated; the gentle slopes of the depression were wooded or terraced, and widely cultivated. It is in the southern part that the depression is known as the Vinodol which runs out to the coast at Novi. In th~ north the depression is submerged below sea level, where it forms the conspicuous inlet of Bakar Bay. South of Novi, the coast becomes very barren and precipitous, with the Velebit Mountains towering to over 5,000 feet immediately above the sea. From Novi to Senj only one small inlet ( Zrnovnica ) breaks the continuity of the shore line, which has a peculiarly uninhabited and desolate appearance.

The Bora, that extremely cold, violent wind blowing from the north and north_east, is particularly intense below the Velebit Mountains during the winter months. Much of the coast affords only limited protection from the Bora, as around Bakar, where it blows with great severity and suddenness, or at Senj beneath Vratnik Pass which coincides with the same direction as the same direction as the wind, immediately inland the wind force usually affects vegetation, prohibiting tree growth, although vegetation is more abundant along the coastline, where the Bora is likely to be weaker. The Sirocco, a warm wind from the south east, like the Bora is essentially a winter wind in the northern Adriatic, although it blows with great fury through the Kraljevica Channel, penetration into the Vinodol Depression is limited by the littoral ridge, and even the inlet of Bakar Bay and Senj are protected from these southerly winds.

With a background so hostile to human settlement, one questions the suitability of the Vinodol region as a place of habitation, yet people have lived here since prehistoric times.2 The area provides an answer to man's adaptability to his environment, to settle, to husband and to build towns, already in evidence during Roman times. By the thirteenth century the coastal area between Trsat and Novi was settled by people who had taken advantage of the favorable agricultural conditions found in the more sheltered parts. The most cultivatable and populated area was the Vinodol Depression, some 15 miles long, and running parallel to the coast. (See map on p. 5 ). Here small villages succeeded each other at close intervals, especially along the route which traversed the depression. The valley and its bordering slopes were intensively cultivated, the vine predominating - as the name Vinodol implies. A high, steep and sparsely populated ridge separated the Vinodol Depression from the less populated coastal strip, where fishing supplemented agricultural pursuits. The next stretch of coast from Novi to Senj, some 13 miles long, was one of the most scantily peopled sections of the littoral region, lacking most of the conditions conducive for habitation.

Survival in the Vinodol region was dependent on adequate agricultural production and close contact with the immediate hinterland. Two factors contributed to its success; favorable conditions in the Vinodol valley for growing agricultural crops, and a well organized exploitation of livestock rearing through periodic exchange with the hinterland. Evidence of agricultural production may be gleaned from the Vinodol Statute in which mention is made of wheat, hay, honey, vineyards, garden plots and ploughed land. Supporting documentary material from other sources confirm this agricultural activity 3 throughout the period under review to which other crops like flax may be added, together with fishing.4 Apart from the areas of fertile flysch arable land surrounding higher slopes contained much forest for timber exploitation, always in demand for building construction, shipbuilding and firewood by other settlements around the Adriatic shores. Finally, close contact was maintained between the backward shepherds or the hinterland (Gorski Kotar)and the settled coastal communities, as in other parts of the East Adriatic. Movement of livestock from the winter pastures along the coastal mountain slopes to the dolomitic and high alpine meadows in summer meant not only adequate supply of meat, wool, skins and other livestock products, for the local population, but availability of horses, oxen and other draught animals for transport and ploughing the arable land. Some idea of the agricultural situation in the Vinodol region during the French occupation ( 1809_1813 ) may be seen from Table 1.

Table 1. Agricultural Land Use in the Vinodol Region 1812.
Year Arable land, orchards, gardens, and vineyards - in hectares Meadows Cultivated area Pasture No. agricultural population per hectare of cultivated land
1812 2,281 1,520 3,801 1,520 2,100
Source: State Archives Zagreb, Acta Gallica 1812-13, Mairie de Novi.

Analysis of these figures5 has suggested that income from agriculture and stock rearing was already becoming too low to support the local population, and alternative sources of finance had to be obtained from transporting salt inland in exchange for goods needed on the coast, and possibly greater seasonal employment in other regions.

Handicrafts and industrial development appear to have played a very subservient role in the Vinodol economy. No evidence is forthcoming from the Vinodol Statute, but by the fifteenth century there was some trade in iron and metal goods, both on an import and export basis. The Frankopan rulers also obtained coal, iron and lye for bleaching through their harbour at Bakar, 6 and imported cloth, silk and other manufactured goods through Senj. Open hearth iron smelting was introduced into the high karstic hinterland by the Zrinski rulers in the seventeenth century ( Lic, 1638; Cabar, 1651 ), which led to a lively export of metal through Bakar harbor, in successful competition to Rijeka. In the eighteenth century, under Habsburg rule, Charles III encouraged the Temisvar trading company to establish a textile mill in Bakar, to offset loss of trade as a result of the new harbour at Kraljevica, built at the entrance to Bakar Bay in 1720. Finally, proximity to the sea had inevitably led to a shipbuilding industry, albeit mainly for local use and occasionally selling boats to Venetian merchants.

The evolution of urban settlements in the Vinodol region may be divided into two periods, the Later Middle Ages and the Early Modem era, with a watershed circa 1500 when the real impact of the Ottoman conquest was beginning to be felt throughout the Balkan peninsula. 7 During the Middle Ages the region found difficulty in maintaining permanent settlements except in the most favorable geographical areas, due to poor trade development and insufficient arable land. At the time of the Vinodol Statute the urban hierarchy was dominated by the coastal towns of Bakar, Novi and Senj, with the inland sites of Grobnik, Trsat, Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane, Bribir and Ledenice of secondary importance. Each settlement was the centre of a commune, often defended by a castle, and responsible for a certain area of agreed territory. The urban society was clearly divided into the commoners (pucani) and the landed proprietors ( vlastela ), but as the Middle Ages progressed and trade connections grew, a merchant class also appeared within the urban complex.

The real key to the development of these towns was the number of privileges accorded them by the local rulers. For example, Bakar received important tax concessions and privileges in 1479 and 1489, 8 the town being the seat of the local feudal governor for Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane, Bribir and Grobnik. In the fifteenth century, Bakar became an important commercial city, trading with Greece, Turkey and the Levant, and a centre of tunny fishing. This was the period when the town overtook Novi, formerly the main centre of Vinodol, in the urban hierarchy. Similarly, Senj, a popular residence of the Frankopan rulers (up to 1469), received privileges, like its town status in 1388, with a blossoming of trade as commercial mediator between the karstic hinterland and overseas areas.
Table 2. Population of the Vinodol Region 1170-1847
Year 1770 1796 1770-96 1770-96 1812 1847 1812-47 1812-47
No. of inhabitants 7,866 10,578 34.4% increase 13.2%. increase 10,400 16,409 54.3% increase 15.0%. increase
Source: see footnote 10

The invasion and subsequent conquest of Bosnia_Hercegovina by the Turks had its repercussions on Vinodol's urbanization. The year 1527 saw the first Ottoman raids into the Vinodol region, especially around Bakar. The urban landscape changed with the construction of fortifications and castles (Bakar, 1530; Senj, 1558) not only against invasions from the land but also Venetian attacks by sea (Bakar, 1557, 1581, 1592, 1599, 1611, 1615 and 1616)9. Furthermore, local populations were swelled by refugees from inland (Uskoks ), especially in Bakar and Senj, and their piratical activities were a menace to Venetian and Turkish merchants alike for over seventy years.

The conclusion of the Uskok War (1617) and increasing Austrian control brought more stability to the Vinodol region and a resurgence of trade. A revival or livestock rearing in the immediate hinterland and arrival of cattle breeding colonists from northern Dalmatia, was accompanied by the founding of important 'new' towns like Kraljevica, and to a lesser extent Crikvenica. Visible progress was experienced in the Vinodol region from the beginning of the eighteenth century, thanks to the demand for wood and cattle products. In spite of trade wars between Vinodol and Rijeka over hinterland trade, commerce thrived attracting merchants from Venice and Italy (Benedetti , Michieli, Terzi, Carina) to construct warehouses in ports like Bakar and Senj, the latter having an estimated population of 2,500 inhabitants together with a further 4-5,000 in the surrounding area by 1700. The construction of new roads into the interior (e.g. the famous Karolina route from Karlovac to Rijeka and Bakar, 1726; and Josefina route from Karlovac to Senj, in 1832) led to the export of iron and livestock products through the Vinodol ports to the Italian harbours in exchange for cargoes or wine, olive oil, spices, cloth, salt and other manufactured goods.

In spite of a very profuse amount of information on settlement continuity in the Vinodol region throughout time, data on actual population only exist from the end of the eighteenth century. Relatively reliable sources about settlement date from 1770 followed by 1796, 1812-1813, and finally from the Senjsko-Modruska bishopric for 1847.10 Although the Vinodol region was subject to immigration over the centuries, the population appears to have varied little from the late Middle Ages until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Mirkovic has calculated the population for the whole of Vinodol at the time of the Statute to have been 5-6,000 inhabitants (compared with 3-4,000 in the contemporary region).11 Whatever the validity of such estimates, population growth in the Vinodol region during the nineteenth century entirely disturbed the ecological balance between crop husbandry and stock farming potential. As the century progressed this growth (1890: 21,911 inhab.) even began to endanger the maintenance of the region's traditionally low standard of living; nor did Vinodol benefit from the advent or the steamship and railway transport, for they by-passed the Vinodol region in preference to the development of Rijeka and Trieste.

Thus, Vinodol was a victim of external influence. Throughout much of its history it had withstood interference from outsiders, be they Venetians or Turks, yet by the end of the nineteenth century the region found itself isolated from trade, for the new ports, like Trieste and Rijeka, were nearer to the newly developed Pannonian Plain and the West European capitals. Its success as an entrepot region lay in an earlier period when a certain combination of factors had contributed to the region's development. Once this combination of factors was radically altered, then its position lost its impetus and ability to compete successfully declined. The Vinodol, like other areas along the Croatian coast, succeeded to a destiny shaped by factors far beyond her own control.

NOTES

1. Vinodol was first mentioned in the Chronicle of the Priest from Dioclea in the twelfth century as a border area of the Croatian Kingdom, and also as a parish of the Split Synod in 1185. It is also mentioned in the deed of covenant of Andrija II to the Princes of Krk in 1225, but it is also possible that as part of the Modruska zupa, it was already under their control in 1193. See V. Koscak, 'Polozaj Vinodola u hrvatskoj feudalnoj drzavi' Historijski zbornik. Vol.XVI, Zagreb 1963, pp. 131-146.

2. S. Ljubic 'Arheolosko iskopavanje u Bakru' Vjesnik Hrvatskog Arheoloskog Drustva u Zagrebu, 1900, pp.159-165; J. Klemenc, 'Senj u predhistorijsko i rimsko doba', Zagreb 1940, pp. 10-21. I. Degmedzic, 'Arheoloska istrazivanja u Senju' Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, Vol, LIII, Zagreb 1952, pp. 25-37.

3. State Archives, Zadar, 27 / V/ 1354, Split’s government ( Veliko Vijece ) decided to send a merchant to Senj to buy wheat for the commune, Liber Consiliorum, 1354, folder 36; State Archives Dubrovnik, 17 / V / 1382, wheat sent from Senj and region around Trieste to Ragusa, Consilium Minus, 7, folder 18; I. Marochino, 'Iz pomorsko trgovacke historije Bakra. Rijecka Revija, No. 3-4, Rijeka 1953, pp.10-24; 8 / 111 / 1687, wheat sent from Senj to Novi (Hercegnovi ) via Ragusa, S. Ljubic: 'O odnosajih medu republikom mletackom i dubrovackom od pocetka XVI stoljeca do njihove propasti', Rad J. Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Knjiga 54, Zagreb, 1880, p. 68.

4. M. Mirkovic, Ekonomska historija Jugoslavije, Zagreb 1958. p. 127.

5. V. Rogic, ‘Vinodol: suvremena uslovljenost novih odnosa regionalne zonalnosti', Geografski Glasnik, Vol. 30, Zagreb 1968, p. 116.

6. E. Laszowki, 'lzbor isprava velikih feuda Zrinskih i Frankopana' . Grada za gospodarsku povijest Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1951, p. 155; M. Barada, 'Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam', Zagreb, 1952, p. 27.

7. F .W . Carter; Urban Development in the Western Balkans 1200-1800' in An Historical Geography of the Balkans, ed. F.W. Carter, New York, London, San Francisco, 1977, pp.147-195.

8. Prince Martin Frankopan gave Bakar various privileges which were confirmed by King Matija Korwin in 1479, and increased in number in 1489, Narodna Enciklopedija S.H.S., Vol. I, p.20.

9. Pomorska enciklopedija, Vol.I, Zagreb, 1961, p. 352.

10. State Archives, Zagreb, Acta Buccarana za XVIII i XIX stoljece, fasc. 60A; comparison may be made with I. Erceg, 'Kmetsko feudalni odnosi na Komorskim imanjima u Vinodolu i Gorskom Kotaru neposredno prije Marijaterezijanske regulacije', Zbornik radova Historijskog Instituta J, A., Zagreb, Vol. IV, 1961, pp. 289-348. - V. Batthiany, Uber das Ungarische Kustenland Pesth, 1805. in which a description of Vinodol is given for the year 1796. - State Archives, Zagreb, Acta Gallica op cit. - Shematismus Segniensis pro anno 1847, Zagreb.

11. M. Mirkovic, Ekonomska Historija Jugoslavije, op cit., p. 127; for Senj see G. Szabo, Srednjovjekovni gradovi u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji, ( Matica Hrvatska ) Zagreb 1920. p. 196



The Social Structure of Vinodol


Miho Barada

In the year 1225 Vinodol gained a new ruler, the Princes of the island of Krk, later called Frankopani. What was formerly a royal principality (comitatus) became thereby a feudal fief. However the social structure of Vinodol changed only in the main owner of the means of production and powers and in the apparatus necessary for the maintenance of social relations and order in Vinodol. All the rights of the ruler and of his steward, until the 12th century the zupan (Lord Lieutenant of the County), and later the prince ( comes) passed to the new feudal ruler, the Frankopani. In all other respects the social life of Vinodol remained the same dominated by, and subjected to the changes of social development of the contemporary feudal period.

The Means of Production


The means of production in Vinodol depended on its geographical, littoral position and the morphology of its soil. In general Vinodol divides morphologically into three areas: the coastal, well-developed but rocky and infertile, fit for fishing and marine industry; the central area, which consists of karst-ringed fields of varying size, suitable for intensive Mediterranean agriculture; the third area, mountainous, with large forests and pastures in the hinterland, suitable for cattle-raising and timber. Since the main means of production in Vinodo1 were concentrated in the central area, this was also where the main centres of productive forces were to be found. This area was the most densely populated, containing the majority of settlements in Vinodol. Due to a well-developed coast-line with good harbours and havens and facilities for fishing, there had existed settlements, though more scattered, upon the coast from time immemorial, like the very ancient Trsat and Bakar , and later Novi, Crikvenica and others. Save for shepherds and woodcutters, a seasonal population, the mountainous area was uninhabited.

In the Vinodol Statute the details relating to the means of production are to be found under the general heading 'blago' and the more specific terms' plough-land', ‘vineyard,', 'gardens' etc- The meaning of the term blago is clearly indicated in articles 34 and 51. Article 34 defines blago as 'any property', plough-land, vineyard, plot or garden’ and article 51 defines the term still more comprehensively as ‘all that is movable and immovable’, in other words all property - entirely in keeping with other old Croatian documents which, as is well known, call blago all that a person has or owns, all his movable and immovable possessions, or what the same Vinodol Statute (in an addendum) calls iminje (estate). Concerning specific means of production the Statute mentions firstly ‘land’ in the sense of arable land sown with corn or other crops. There were threshing floors for threshing the corn. Most certainly there were corn mills too, since there was plenty of suitable water to work them, and they are in fact often mentioned in other documents from Vinodol. That the Statute itself does not mention them suggests that they were not included in the relations between the Prince and his subjects, since by medieval law all water has the property of the King (regalia) or feudal lord. In addition to arable land, vineyards are also mentioned. These flourished upon terraced plots situated to catch the sun. There were also vegetable gardens and orchards. Other types of property which the Statute defines as posision included houses, hram, which designated a larger house and possibly also a shop, osik or cattle-stalls, and mosuna, a half-roofed shelter for cattle. The Statute makes no mention of either meadows or hay-fields, but since article 10 speaks of hay and hay-stacks, these certainly existed. Nor is there any mention of forests in which a large part of Vinodol, especially the mountainous areas, was covered. Nor does the Statute mention saw-mills, although according to other sources, these existed. Cattle-raising was a valuable branch of economy in Vinodol and large and small stock are regularly mentioned in the Statute. The coastal area of Vinodol was suitable for various types of fishing and for shipping generally. Thus the sea-faring part of the population certainly engaged in both, although the Statute says nothing of either. That there was shipping may be concluded from the fact that article 11 speaks of theft in pristanisce, that is in a constructed harbour containing transit goods, in addition to timber, timber structures and other timber products, Vinodol exported, generally by sea, large and small stock, wine, salted meat and fish, hides oil, (olives had grown there from earliest days ), wax

(article 8 mentions bees ), wool, rough cloth etc. It imported iron weapons, spices. luxury goods and all types of trade goods .

2.

Clearly the means of production of Vinodol were both varied and considerable, but who owned these means of production? Whereas in the period of the zupans they belonged mainly to the crown, now their owner was the feudal lord. Every feud was linked to the possession of land with its natural products and rents. According to feudal law, the feudal lord was the owner of almost all the means of production. If some of them belonged to other people, then because they owned them from the days of the old zupanijas, arising from some ancient tribal rights, or through a gift by the King while the land was still in his possession, or from the time after the feud was created, for feudal lords often rewarded individuals for their services with gifts of land etc. The Frankopans, having received Vinodol as a feudal holding in 1225, became the sole owners of its means of production, all of which, till that time, had been the property of the King. Andrew II gave Gvido of Krk ' totam terram...Wynodol...cum pertinenciis et totis redditibus'. The Frankopans became thereby the supreme lords and masters of the whole of Vinodol, of all the political and property rights, all incomes and everything which, by any right whatsoever, had belonged to that feudal unit. The new feudal prince was first and foremost the owner of all the blago (wealth ), that is of all the property, movable and immovable, from which he took a part (uceste) as his income. Thus article 34 prescribes severe punishment for anyone who should withhold anything from which the prince was entitled to receive a part 'any property, or plough_land or some vineyard or some plot or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right and if the other will not surrender it...' According to article 34 the Prince received the natural rent from plough_lands, vineyards, gardens etc. That he was the ultimate owner of everything is shown by article 33. 'If a man should be in possession of anything improperly acquired which is nobody's and should accrue to the Court, irrespective of whether an official order or demand in respect of it had been made, and the Lord or his officer discover this ... that is to say, if anyone in Vinodol retained anything whatsoever that remained without a legal inheritor, and which by this very fact belonged to the Prince, it would revert to the Prince without any further legal or other proceedings'. Article 5 gives the Prince the right of requisition of property from any member of the population, '... the stock albeit of villeins, plemeniti, priests or of any other men'. These articles provide the best illustration of the power that the feudal Prince Frankopan had in relation to the means of production in Vinodol. He was not only the main, but the supreme lord and master of everything. Of course, as is clear from what has been said, the feudal Lord of Vinodol was the entire family of the Princes of Krk, not any single member of it. Individual members ruled only temporarily and then only as representatives of the family as a whole.

Nevertheless since article 34 emphasises '... if over these possessions the Prince should have a right to a part ...' this would indicate that there were possessions and properties from which the Prince took no part and received no due or income as of right. These were in the main the properties of the various ecclesiastical establishments. Thus the second largest owner of the means of production in Vinodol was the Church with its many institutions. The Statute itself says nothing of the Church's ownership of the means of production. This is understandable, since this topic was outside its frame of reference; its purpose being only to regulate the relations between the feudal Prince and his subjects in a narrow sense, while the Church and its subjects generally did not concern it. But the Church of course possessed its own means of production. An ancient and well-known canonical provision states that no church, chapel or altar may be built if beforehand not endowed with a beneficium or bequeathal, which in the Middle Ages regularly consisted of landed property known as nadarbina by which the institution and its appointed clerics were maintained. The Statute makes regular mention of churches, abbeys monasteries and confraternities. Also there is regular mention of the various kinds of clergy, of which we shall speak later. Since there existed such institutions and their clergy, clearly there also existed their beneficia of land and other property which are otherwise regularly mentioned in other documents from Vinodol.

There were also other owners of the means of production, such as plemeniti, merchants and others, but of this later.

The Subject Population

Apart from the Lord's immediate family, his administrative personnel, court officers and servants, the population of Vinodol consisted of villeins, plemeniti, the clergy and others as may be seen in articles 5 and 75 of the Statute. According to article 5 the Prince or the Bishop may requisition '... the stock albeit of villeins, plemeniti , priests or any other man'. According to article 75 the Prince has full legal and executive power' ... as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and all other men' . In these two articles all the classes of the population of Vinodol are mentioned.

a. The Villeins

Numerically the strongest and socially the lowest category were the villeins. Feudal organisations saw the feud as consisting of two main components: the feudal Lord the main owner of the means of production encompassed in the feud, and his labour force the villeins, From 1225 Vinodol was a feud and consequently its main work force were the villeins. They are specifically mentioned in articles 5, 17, 25, 31, 36, 50, 54, 73 and 75, and obliquely referred to in many others.

But villeins did not only work the Lord's lands; they also worked on the church estates in Vinodol. The Statute makes no direct mention of this since this was outside its province. According to the canon law, priests did not usually undertake the more arduous labours, and this refers in particular to the times and area in which villeins constituted the main work force; so the conclusion must be that villeins also worked ecclesiastical estates, especially since in a majority of cases such estates were gifts from kings and feudal lords and by the law of the day the villeins passed with the land to the new owner. That villeins laboured on church estates is confirmed by various other documents from Vinodol. On December 10, 1450 the Prince Martin Frankopan in reply to the complaint of the Pauline monks of Crikvenica alleging that the Markovici '... refused to serve the said church _ St Mary's _ as do other villeins with transport and tithes and that they do not work in church vineyards as they ought to according to law', ordered the Markovici 'to give full and complete service as do other villeins of the church'. On 26 July 1460 Martin Frankopan presented these same Pauline monks of Crikvenica with a vineyard planted by a man called Bezicic together 'with the service that he rendered to us'. On 7 January 1470 Martin Frankopan took from the church of St Mary at Novi the villein Jakov Cikulic 'whom we had given them, and gave them another villein' _ a man called Dminko, from St Vid _ 'with all the service due from him'; in addition he gave them a Vlah ' ... as their villein and as a shepherd with all and full service thereto appertaining' . The final passage is important in that it shows that the 'shepherds and ploughmen' mentioned in article 66 belonged to the class of villeins.

Evidently the villeins were the most numerous class of the population in Vinodol. I have already shown that from the 8th to the 11th century the labour force on the estates of the Croatian rulers consisted of slaves and, after the 11th century, villeins. However, in the course of five centuries the economic and social status of the labour force on the royal estates in Croatia had changed considerably and since Vinodol until the year 1225 was a crown property inevitably its labour force participated in the general process of social improvement. In the Statute there is no trace of slaves, because in the 12th century they were already transformed into villeins. It is villeins _ these direct descendants of slaves _ that formed the basis of the labour force and the bulk of the non_noble population of Vinodol.

The economic and social position of the Vinodol villeins can be gleaned from a number of different articles of the Statute. Thus article 34 states 'If a man holds any property, some plough_land or some vineyard or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right ... This refers to various branches of agriculture, but the point is that the products from the land are not enjoyed only by him that holds the land cares for it and works it, but others also, in this case the Prince. From all branch's of the economy the Prince has a uceste, a share, an income, a rent. Since Vinodol was a feudal holding and the Prince the feudal lord, article 34 clearly relates only to villeins and not to some other class of population. At the time of the formulation of the Vinodol Statute villeins held and worked the Prince's estates, sowed the fields set the vineyards and gardens and cared for them, as they also performed all other labour in the agriculture of Vinodol, rendering the Prince a defined tribute in kind. In addition, the serfs of Vinodol tended the cattle and rendered a share of these too. That they tended cattle is clear from article 5 of the Statute, which states that when the Prince or the Bishop travelled in Vinodol '... and either of them comes to a town, he may through the captain of that town have food taken and brought for himself and his retinue, cattle or smaller creatures which are to hand, the stock albeit of villeins ...' According to article 25 in the case of an affray between villeins the guilty party pays the Prince 40 soldin, '... but the one who is assaulted shall receive two wethers and the price of his treatment'. According to article 54, if a serf represented a plemeniti before the court and 'without the permission of the court' , he must pay a fine of bullock or 8 lira. It is clear that the villeins of Vinodol raised cattle and smaller creatures and were at least partly their owners.

Apart from land and cattle, which are explicitly mentioned in the Statute, villeins in Vinodol also had dwelling houses and farm buildings with the necessary appendages for both which are all characterised in article 34 generally as blago and posision. But none of these were genuine personal property of the Vinodol villeins, since the true owner of everything was the Prince who took his share from much of it. That the Statute does not expressly state what part of which products was due to the Prince does not alter this fact. The ancient custom in respect of the dues was unquestioned at the time of the writing of the statute and was thus not noted. This question , in fact, did not arise until much later, when feudalism was in decline, and was settled by the so_called 'urbars' in the 17th century. But even without the evidence of these later documents the feudal system as such and the term 'villein' that is linked with it imply a definite type of relations between the feudal lord and his subjects; the economic dependence of the latter upon the one whose land they worked and whose cattle they tended. Thus the Vinodol villein was not the complete owner of what he lived by Mainly he was a share_cropper. .

What the payments of the Vinodol villeins to the Prince were, the Statute does not say. But since Vinodol was in Croatia, the dues payed by the Vinodol villeins are likely to have been the same as those paid by the villeins in the other parts of the country. According to the evidence given in the case of the Vladika and others versus Jakov Subic from the year 1361, when Subic forced the Vladika and other landowners of Banjevac and Kacic to become his serfs, he demanded from them a quarter of the crops as well as other dues and services. Recently Dr. S. Antoljak has published a list of feudal holdings which Venice took over with the purchase of Zadar and the suzerainty rights to the rest of Dalmatia in 1409. This refers to the ancient Croatian feudal holdings which _ like Vrane, for example _ King Zvonimir set up in 1075 and which in the 12th century passed to the knights Templars, and later in 1312 to the knights of St John. The serfs on the holding of Vrane gave quartam et decimam partem omnium fructuum, that is to say a quarter plus a tenth which is equal to seven twentieths, nearly a half of all the crops, which included cattle. The serfs of Vinodol probably gave some similar amount. The feudal dues for the fief of Ljuba are described in rather more detail. The serfs gave a quarter plus a tenth of wine, corn and flax; of sheep and goats' one tenth of the lambs and kids and, in addition, as honorantias each year three loaves of bread and a sausage or a shoulder of mutton at Christmas, three loaves and seven eggs at Easter and three loaves, one chicken and three quarts of wine on the feast of St Michael. In addition, the dwellers had to plough and sow four 'gonjaj' of land for the Lord, at his expense, that is they merely provided the labour force, to dig up two 'gonjaj' of vineyard, also at his expense, and to transport his corn and wine to and from the sea. Whoever owned a donkey had to deliver a load of fire_wood at Christmas. All fines were payable to the lord. For meat sold one soldin was paid for small cattle, two for larger, while a foreigner paid double. Since the feudal holdings of Vrane and Ljuba, like Vinodol, were both in Croatia, it is reasonable to assume that in all of them the internal system was much the same.

2.

A good illustration of the position of the serfs in Vinodol is provided by article 32 according to which - entirely in the spirit of the feudal system _ the serf even on his deathbed could not dispose freely of his property.

Article 32 states: ' And daughters who survive their father and mother or sons, unless those daughters' brethren be still alive, must be equipped or left their father's or mother's estate in order to perform such service as their father or mother would have had to fulfill to the court. Likewise if sons should have survived and died heirless.' The main purpose here is to clarify the rights of inheritance of those descendants of serfs who could carry out 'all services which their father and mother would have had to fulfill to the court (of the Lord)'. The term 'service' here, as in innumerable other Croatian documents, refers to the serfs' dues which included labour as well as dues in kind. 'Service' is the equivalent of the Latin servitus, officium, ministerium etc. In other words, article 32 is concerned with the right of inheritance only in so far as it affects the serf's ability to perform all the duties of serfdom. The Statute does not speak directly of the inheritance of male descendants since it is taken for granted that male descendants are capable in any case of carrying out their feudal duties as laid down by the general feudal law, that is the law concerning serfdom. Article 32 refers only to female descendants in cases where there is no direct male offspring. Thus the words 'If these daughters have no brothers' refer indirectly to the general law of inheritance of male descendants and indicate that daughters were merely facultative inheritors.

The regular inheritors were generally male and if these did not exist and there were females, then article 32 was applicable. This article envisages two different kinds of situation. First, if daughters are left without brothers after the death of their parents, they are to be given only their trousseau, while the rest of the estate reverts to the prince. The other possibility is that, after the death of their parents, the daughters inherit the entire estate. Th e first possibility is indicated by the words ‘... must be equipped’. Antun Mazuranic, the first publisher of the Statute, assumed that the term areditati came from the Italian ereditare _ to inherit. Other editors and translators have accepted this. Only Vladimir Mazuranic saw the difficulty presented by the reflexive form of the verb. Since ereditare is intransitive like the Croatian naslijediti, and areditati in the text is transitive, he considers that the reflexive particle se (imaju se areditati ) is really vse (all). But such interpretations are dubious not only because of the particle se but because if one accepts that areditati means to inherit, then the entire article is contradictory. For whereas the first part states 'they must inherit everything' (if we accept this interpretation), that is to say the daughters must be the inheritors of their father's entire estate, the second part affirms that they have the right of inheritance only if they are able to fulfill all obligations due to the Prince, which means that they were only facultative inheritors. For this reason I would interpret this areditati differently. This word does not come from the Italian ereditare but from arredo_arredare, which means fernery Di arredo, to furnish with a trousseau. In Italian arredo, corredo means the trousseau which a bride takes as a dowry. If this be correct, the daughters of serfs in Vinodol were not necessarily the inheritors after their parents' death, in the absence of direct male descendants; their inheritance depended rather on the will of their feudal lord. He could either give them a dowry and deprive them of the inheritance of their parents' serf holding, or leave them on the holding if he considered that they, naturally together with the husband they would bring, could fully and regularly fulfill the duties owed to him. Lastly, article 32 taken as a whole clearly shows that serf estates in Vinodol were merely 'household estates', as was in the period of the old zupanijas.

Having thus clarified the basic principles governing inheritance of property among Vinodol serfs we are now in the position to deduce the relevant rules. Since a villein's estate was merely a 'household estate' and was as a rule in the hands of male members of the family, it follows that after the death of the male who might be either father or grandfather, his serf property went first to the surviving widow, and after her death the property was passed on to the surviving sons or, if the sons were already dead, the grandsons. Thus the property of serfs, as far as was possible, remained in the hands of the male line. Only if there were no male descendants did the inheritance become facultative, that is to say, if the Prince should so wish, the property passed to the direct female line, i.e. to daughters or granddaughters. In the absence of such direct descendants the property passed to the Prince and never to the serf's relatives, that is, never to a side issue of the serf's family be it male or female; which confirms the fact the serf's property pertained to the household and was not a family property in the strict sense. Such a law of inheritance in Vinodol was in direct contrast to the tribal laws of inheritance which, as showed earlier, were at the time still very much in force among the feudals and descendants of the former family clans. ...

All this suggests that the Vinodol serf was not able freely to dispose with even the smallest amount of his property, movable or immovable. He was testandi incapax. And if he could not do with it as he wished on his deathbed, he was equally unable to do with it what he liked during his life_time, at least in regard to that part which might cause the loss of dues to the Prince; but of this the Vinodol Statute is silent. The Vinodol serf only partly owned the fruits from the land he worked. His economic freedom was severely restricted by a harsh system of feudal laws and customs.

3.

Inevitably the low social position of the serf reflected his low economic situation. Not only that the serfs were the feudal lord's labour force, subject to him and dependant upon him in every way, so that they were exposed to an ever increasing exploitation .in a variety of ways, but in other respects too they were completely subjected to the Prince and limited in their rights and freedoms. So, although the Vinodol villeins had long left the state of slavery, the Statute contains many signs of their class subjection and dependence on their lord which are reminiscent of their social position from the times of slavery. According to article 17 the serfs of Vinodol did not have the right of movement (liberae migrationes ), not even within the frontiers of Vinodol itself. 'No villein or any commoner may lodge io a church or serve in an abbey or monastery or become a sacristan there without the consent of the Prince and the district.' If a villein was not even allowed to settle on church property or take up service with the Church without the Prince's permission, then clearly he was even less free to settle elsewhere. Article 16 points to the erstwhile position of slavery of Vinodol serfs: 'No cleric of the principality may take holy orders without the permission of the Prince and the town in which he resides.' This article reflects the ancient ecclesiastical-canonical practice according to which no slave may become a priest if beforehand his master had not liberated him. True, at the time of the Statute, there were no more slaves in Vinodol. The state of slavery had long since ceased to exist. Nevertheless the Prince, anxious to ensure that his labour force stays on his estates, kept some of his ancient rights: the serfs of Vinodol could not freely move without his permission, not even within Vinodol itself let alone outside its frontiers; nor could they become priests without his consent. That the term' serf' ( kmet ) in the Statute does not merely designate a subject or labourer of the feudal master, be the latter the Prince, the Church or any other, but a member of a lower social order, is shown, in addition to the evidence hitherto quoted, by article 31 which determines the punishment for the slaying of 'a serf or one of serf descent'. Here the Statute makes no distinction with respect to class between the serfs in the narrow sense, i.e. those who worked the lord's lands, and those who were 'serfs by extraction', that is those who no longer worked the lord's lands, but did other work, such as craftsmen, traders and other such workers, yet still being descendants of serfs. In short, the term 'kmet' (serf or villein) in the Statute was a class term referring to people of low social status. Even priests who were the sons of serfs were regarded as members of the serf class.

4.


Yet in a number of respects the serfs of Vinodol did enjoy equal rights with the non_serfs. Thus according to article 5 they are treated equally with all others as regards requisitioning of food by the Bishop or the Prince. Although not all serfs belonged to the Prince, nonetheless according to articles 73 and 75, the Prince alone had the right to judge them. This deviates from the general feudal practice, according to which serfs, juridically, were subject to those to whom they belonged. Article 73 states: 'Summoners must be sworn and villeins must also be summoned before the Court's bench, before the magistrate.' Article 75: 'In all penalties, guarantees and contracts the Lord Prince has the complete authority and power to judge as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and over all other men, as above established'; that is to say, as laid down in the previous articles of the Statute. That the Prince retained in his hands every right of justice and punishment over all serfs, be they his or another's, was characteristic of our feudal law. By the customary feudal law, the serfs were judged by their own feudal lord. However, according to a document dated 26 October 1450, when the Markovici, serfs of the Pauline monks, refused their services to the latter, the monks summoned them before the Prince who pronounced that the Markovici had to go on serving the monks as they had done in the past. In addition, the Prince ordered 'all our officers that if at any time these said friars should complain to you that these serfs are refusing to serve them or have not rendered their dues, the said friars should be given the necessary aid so that they may punish them in accordance with this order with penalties and imprisonment'. In this case the Prince expressly permits that, if the Markovici should rebel again, the friars themselves may punish them. Although all the inhabitants of Vinodol, including the serfs, were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prince, that is to say under the jurisdiction of his court of law, according to article 25 there was a special legal and punitive code for the serfs: 'For striking, injuring and for an affray involving villeins the penalty is 40 soldin which the culprit must pay to the Prince and to the one who is assaulted two wethers and the cost of his treatment. And the same for the captain, constable and district crier, who are not herein subject to officials' but to villein law and its penalties; and they are to be Judged according to villein law, so that enough is done for their injuries.' According to this ,article there existed, though not in written form a special law for serfs, of which many traces can be found in articles 17, 31, 32, 34, 36, 50 and 54. Thus according to article 31: 'If a man should kill a villein or one of that estate and be caught, he is to pay a fine or 100 lira to the victim's kinsmen and to the victim's town_district 2 lira. Of those 100 lira: if the victim had children, they must receive one half and his kinsmen the other half. The culprit pays that fine. If he flees, his kinsmen must pay one half of the fine and his heirs, should he have any, one half. But if he can be taken before the penalty is paid, or if or if an agreement has been reached, vengeance may be carried out on him, and his kinsmen are thereby freed.' This article describes the legal action in the case of a serf being killed. Traces of the old legal customs relating to serfs are also clearly detectable in articles dealing with theft. According to articles 35 and 50 for the theft of anything which belongs to the Prince or his servants, and according to article 36 for stealing anything that belongs to the church, the payment is sevenfold. If anything be stolen from a serf, then, according to article 50, the indemnity they receive is only twice the value of the goods stolen. According to article 54 a serf could not represent a plemeniti nor a plemeniti a serf without the permission or the Prince's court. According to article 34 a serf who has failed to pay a year's dues to the Prince must pay a sevenfold indemnity. All this is a clear proof that in Vinodol too there was a special legal code for serfs.

This code which reflected their low and subordinate social position defined their rights and duties and their relations with their master, but of all this the Statute is silent; the code, although unwritten, remained in force as an age_old well_tried custom.

b. The Clergy

Closest to the serfs in class terms were the priests. According to the Statute the most senior ecclesiastical personage was the Archpriest (Arhiprvad), who was the representative of the Bishop for the whole of Vinodol and whose residence was in Bribir. Since the title of Arhiprvad (which comes from the Venetian archiprevede ) was in use when the Statute was written and points to a linguistic usage which goes much further back in history, clearly this office must have existed in Vinodol long before that time. And since there was such an office, i.e. since there was a head of the local Church, it follows that Vinodol was already in earlier times a separate ecclesiastical _ and hence also distinct political _ unit. Furthermore since the Archpriest's official residence, according to the Statute, was in Bribir, it is clear that Bribir was the original ecclesiastical and hence also the economic, political and military centre of the whole of Vinodol. For what applied to the main representative of the Church, applied also to the lord lieutenant of the County, the so_called zupan, who also lived there. The town or Novi (Novigrad), as its name indicates, belonged to a more recent generation of settlements. It was probably built by the Princes of Krk who transferred the administration from Bribir to Novi. Novi thus became the new centre of the whole or Vinodol. later Novi was to become also the seat of the Archpriest, for according to a document dated 15 December 1445, Juraj, the parish priest of Novi 'was the Archpriest of Vinodol'. According to the Statute there were parish priests in Novi, Hreljin, Bakar, Trsat and (Grobnik, while in Ledenice there was a prvad (presbyter ), certainly a parish priest and possibly also a deputy of the Archpriest. The Statute makes no mention of a parish priest for Grizane and Drvnik. Apart from the parish priests, there were ordinary clergymen which the Statute (in articles 3, 5, 15, 36 and 57) calls pop, popi. In addition, there were clerics and deacons who (in articles 1, 3 and 16) are called zakan / zakani. Articles 2, 17 and 36 mention monasteries (molstiri and opatije), but since at the time of the writing of the Statute there were no monasteries in Vinodol, these are probably later insertions, dating from a period after the arrival or the Pauline monks who founded a monastery in Crikvenica circa 1412, and another near Ospa by Novi in 1462, and the Franciscans Who founded a monastery at Trsat in 1431.

The social position of the Vinodol clergy as described in the Statute was typical or the general situation in that region. At a time when clergy, that privileged class of medieval society, dominated every aspect of social life, in Vinodol its position was subordinated rather than privileged. I have already drawn attention to the importance of articles 16 and 17 by which 'no serf or commoner' could become a priest without the permission of the Prince and the communal authorities indicating that the freedom to become a priest was limited. At a time when throughout the rest of Europe the so_called privilegium fori was in force, whereby a member of the Church not only enjoyed the legal protection of the Church but was entirely subject to its jurisdiction, in Vinodol none of this was applicable. Not the Canon Law but the articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Statute laid down what the priests of Vinodol were obliged to give to the Bishop. Moreover for those priests who committed some transgression _ ' if they should commit some misdeed or offence' _ it was not left to the Bishop to freely decide the punishment in accordance with Canon Law, but the maximum fine was determined by article 3 of the Statute and 'he ( the Bishop) may not collect a greater fine from those priests and deacons'. According to article 5, the priests were bound by the ius descensus not merely in relation to the Bishop, but also in relation to the Prince, just as were all other inhabitants of Vinodol. The low, subordinate status of the priests is illustrated most clearly by article 15 according to which 'every priest is to keep watch in the town at night like any other man'. According to article 58 if an urban priest missed a day or service without good reason, he was not punished by the Bishop but by the Prince, and with a heavy fine at that: he paid a bullock of which the Prince received one half and the other the town district 'in which the offence was committed'. According to article 36, theft of property belonging to a priest was punishable in the same way as theft of property belonging to a serf, and not like thefts of property belonging to the Prince or his servants or to Church establishments. This is yet another proof of the low social status of the clergy as individuals. Finally article 75 makes it quite clear that the clergy were entirely under the jurisdiction of the Prince and not of the Bishop.

All these decrees of the Statute, unusual though they were for the Middle Ages, were characteristic of the social position of the clergy in Vinodol. Clearly there must exist historical reasons for this. The idea that such anti_canonical decrees might have been imposed by force sometime during the twelfth or the thirteenth century is of course quite out of the question. They can be explained only as a surviving feature of the local tradition. Since according to the canons of the Church, everyone was free to become a priest except for slaves , who required the permission of their master, it may be assumed that the decrees mentioned above go back to the period when slavery still existed in Vinodol. ... In my opinion, the reason for this ( survival of the earlier attitudes) may be sought in the relatively low level of education of the Vinodol clergy. It is well known that Krk, Cres, Senj and Vinodol, in other words the erstwhile Krajina, from the tenth century onwards were not only strongholds but also one of the breeding grounds of the Croatian 'Glagolitic' movement, whereas the establishment culture of the time was linked with the Latin writing and language which, despite the decrees of the Synod of Split in 1060, forbidding ordination of 'Glagolitic' priests unless they knew Latin, these priests neither knew nor learned. l As a rule, the education of 'Glagolitic' priests consisted in their being able to read the liturgical books written in Croatian Glagolitic Alphabet and very little else. This was the only difference between them and their native brethren, especially since they usually lived together with them, sharing households with their closest relatives. It is here that one must seek the causes for the unusual decrees in the Statute concerning priests, the decrees which contain very important clues as to the state of social development of Vinodol.

The Plemeniti


In articles 5, 54 and 75 the Vinodol Statute mentions the plemeniti ('nobles' ) as a separate class of the population. According to article 5 the Prince and the Bishop had the right to requisition cattle for food from all classes, including the 'people of noble standing'.2 According to article 54 'a villein may not act as representative for a plemeniti, nor a plemeniti for a villein without the permission of the Prince's court'. It is clear from this article that there was indeed a considerable difference in status between villeins and plemeniti in Vinodol, that the plemeniti constituted a separate social class. But of their rights and duties by which it would be possible to determine the true position of the plemeniti, the Statute says nothing. This is understandable since the Statute was concerned principally with the rights of the Prince in regard to the villeins and his relations with the villeins and not with the other classes. Consequently it is not surprising that the plemeniti of the Statute are differently interpreted by different commentators. According to Leontovic, they constituted an upper class in society but without special privileges. According to Jagic the difference between the serfs and the plemeniti was that the serfs worked the land of the Prince, while the plemeniti worked their own land, did not pay the Prince any dues and had the status of gentry. According to M. Kostrencic the plemeniti of Vinodol were the officials of the Prince. Grekov considers that they were an upper economic and political class, with their own land and serfs, and that the officials of the Prince's court were included among them.

In Croatian medieval documents the term 'plemenit' is clear and well_defined. Until very late the term 'plemenit', in its widest sense, meant only those who were free. Originally 'plemenit' was anyone who belonged to a village community or tribe( 'pleme' ). And since such people were free from all fiscal burdens and legal dependence on any power outside their community, 'free' and 'plemenit' became synonymous, but not the terms 'free' and 'noble'. Of the many examples I shall take only that of a document dated 26 September 1423, even though this document does not come from this part of Croatia. In the Croatian version of this document the words 'of the plemeniti oppidum of Jastrebarsko', and in the Latin version 'liberi regii oppidi Jazterbarszka' occur twice; which shows that in our old documents the word 'plemenit' does not always denote a noble, as in later times, but rather a descendant of the original village community and generally a free man. Thus every man was 'plemenit' who owned the land he worked and paid for it no dues or rent. Such 'plemeniti' estates in Croatia either go back to the tribal period or are feudal in origin. All hereditary lands were 'plemenit', since they regularly remained in the family or tribe, and those who owned them were 'plemeniti' or 'dedici'. But even the royal estates worked by serfs (terrae regales) could become 'plemenit'. Often the King, as later also the feudals, made a gift of land to individuals for various services. If the King gave the land to the one who had hitherto worked that land for him, by this very gift the recepient who until that time had been in an inferior position now rose socially. Whereas before he was economically subordinate, now he became independent, from a serf he became a free man, a 'plemenit' and even a noble (plemic), It was no rare occurrence for one who was free or a 'plemenit' to forsake his land for a variety of reasons and seek service on the royal estates or those of other nobles. If the newcomer was given other land as his property, he would continue as a free man and a 'plemenit'. If, on the other hand, he had to render dues from his newly acquired land to its owner, the land having remained the property of the king or feudal lord, he would suffer a social demotion and with time both he and certainly his descendants would become by virtue of their dependence socially as well as economically subordinate serfs.

1. In Croatia at that time there was a strong opposition to Latin liturgy, especially among the lower clergy. The Latin language was seen as a symbol of foreign domination and foreign influence and as a threat to the indigenous culture and traditions. Editor.

2. Since it is not quite clear whether these people did enjoy the full status of nobility ( Barada thinks they did not) we have retained here the Croatian term 'plemeniti'. Editor.

All this was valid for the plemeniti of Vinodol. They were no more than the owners of their lands, for which they gave no dues to the Prince, and in this sense they were 'nobles'. The one question is whether their ownership of land went back to an earlier tribal period or whether it was due to gifts by the king or feudal lord. On the whole, I am inclined to think that tribal origins may be discounted here. Although initially there were 'dedici' [tribal gentry] in Vinodol, like in the 'rest of Croatia, the fact that Vinodol was a frontier region with an integrated system of defence, including a compulsory military service, caused a rapid desintegration of the tribal order in this area. Therefore the plemeniti of Vinodol were probably of feudal origin. From the twelfth century onwards it is generally possible to detect considerable differentiations in status among the serfs, due to the differing obligations and services to their lords. Of all obligations, the most important were military. In Hungary, in Croatian Panonia of that time, and in Croatia proper there emerged the class of the jobbagiones castri, that is urban serfs ( gradokmeti ). For the lands which they worked they gave no dues but were merely obliged to give military service to the king or their feudal lord, in addition to coming under their lord's jurisdiction in legal matters. It is impossible to say with certainty when precisely the gradokmeti in Croatia first came into being, for there are no documents available, but it is possible that the oppidans of Trsat who slew Erich the Markgraf of Furlania ( Friuli ) in 799 ha d already this status. No doubt also it was the fear of the gradokmeti that was responsible for the surrender of Biograd on Sea to the Doge Peter Orseolo in A.D. 1000. It was gradokmeti who served as the milites of the zupan of Bribir Strezinja and who together with their zupan acted as witnesses to a land transaction in the second half of the eleventh century. More details relating to gradokmeti are to be found in the recently published documents from the land registry in Zadar. Among the subjects of the feudal lord of Vrane are the jobaggiones castri whom the document calls feudatarii. In return for quite sizeable portions of land they were obliged to serve as soldiers, with one or two horses. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the urban villeins rose steadily on the social scale, so that in Slavonia in the second half of the thirteenth century they acquired the full status of nobles. The lands which hitherto they were allowed to keep in return for military service, now became their own estates. Their military service

which earlier was simply a matter of their relations with their feudal lord, now became a public duty. Henceforth they served in the army not because of their obligations to their feudal lord, but because, as nobles it was incumbent upon them to do so.

That the plemeniti mentioned in the Statute were something similar to the private urban villeins of Slavonia is shown by later historical evidence from Vinodol. Thus Prince Stjepan Frankopan in a document dated 16th November 1457 gives and confirms to Zigmund, his chief official, in return for the latter's faithful service from an early age, the gift of a house and garden in Grobnik 'to be freely enjoyed by him and his descendants in perpetuity' so that he might 'be free from all service, great or small, and that he and his progeny need not enter any service, nor be liable to call for service or any other duty, great or small, by eternal law'. In the registry books relating to the Vinodol towns of Grobnik, Bakar, Hreljin, Divenik, Grizane and Bribir and originating from between 1610 and 1612, almost exactly the same definition of 'plemeniti' is given for each individual town: 'Freemen, noble people'. In the case of Hreljin, Drivenik, Grizane and Bribir the term plemenitasi is used instead of plemeniti _ 'those who have always been free and enjoy now the same freedom by the grace of the most gracious lord', while for Bakar, Hreljin, Grizane and Bribir the latter description ends simply 'by the lord's grace'. These quotations, even though they come from a later period, confirm what was stressed earlier, viz. that the term 'plemenit' in Croatian old documents does not always designate the status or nobility, but often refers simply to the class of free_men. In Vinodol these free men were few in number. Lapasic, writing of Grobnik, says that there were only two 'plemenit' families dating from ancient times, and that Count Petar Zrinski created another three. The latter families included that of Francisko Frankulin who by an edict of 12 January 1653 was freed 'from all dues, tribute and taxes, including grazing dues for cattle large and small and was made noble'. A list of the ancient free_men of Novigrad is appended to the Novljan charter and it is there stated of one Nikola Mudrovcic '... that he is a freeman from ancient times. His documents were burned when the town was burned. He is confirmed as a freeman now, since the relevant facts have been verified in the old register of nobles; therefore he is obliged to give the lord military service and to accompany the lord on horse_back or on foot whenever the lord leaves town'. Along with Mudrovcic another six names arc mentioned. In regard to the eighth person on the list the document declares: 'He has always been a freeman who bears the standard before the lord or the army, when ordered to do so by the lord' . Although all these sources stem from a later period, nevertheless since they all refer to ancient customs they bear out the information derived from the Zadar registry and confirm what I said earlier about the plemeniti of the Vinodol Statute, viz. that they were of feudal_military origin and in no sense nobility by birth. The plemeniti of the Vinodol Statute did not constitute a noble order but rather a social economic class and were somewhat similar to the first urban villeins of Slavonia, that is to say free_men, in the sense that they owed no serf_duties to the lord.

The gradokmeti (urban villeins) in Slavonia, as shown by the decisions of the Slavonian assembly recorded in a surviving document from 19 April 1273, succeeded not only to free themselves from all obligations, but also to extricate themselves from the jurisdiction of the feudal lords or royal zupans within whose boundaries their lands lay. They thus succeeded not only in gaining a better economic position, but in raising their own social status and, in effect, achieving full equality with the old noble families. Whereas formerly the gradokmeti went to war with their respective feudal lords, now, as nobles, they could accompany any of the great lords they wished (cum baronibus quibus voluerint). And, as the main symbol of their new freedom, they no longer came under the jurisdiction of their respective zupans and were judged only by the bonus who was soon to be replaced by the iudices nobiliurn. Such a status of nobility was never achieved by the plemeniti of Vinodol, Vrane, Novigrad or Ljuba. By article 5 of the Statute the Bishop and the Prince could freely requisition from the Vinodol plemeniti both large and small stock, as a rule against payment, but when on official business without payment. According to article 75 the Prince had power to try them and punish them. The plemeniti of Vinodol remained on the level on which the gradokmeti of Slavonia were before, or during the twelfth and the first half of the thirteenth century, at the latest; that is, they constituted a separate social class but not a noble order .

D. Incomers

Article 5 mentions 'all other kinds of people' and article 75 'all other people' as distinct from villeins, plemeniti and priests. There were publicans and traders in Vinodol as shown by the articles 43 and 44, and, in addition, most certainly there were seamen, craftsmen and others but they did not constitute a separate class. Those among them who belonged to the native population were either 'villeins by birth' or plemeniti, and were treated accordingly. Quite clearly among them there were foreigners (hospites ) too, but the Vinodol statute gives no details about these. They are referred to simply as 'all other kinds of people' in article 5 and 'all other people' in article 75.

From: Miho Barada, Hrvotski vlasteoski feudalizam

Zagreb 1952.

( It should be pointed out that the question of the social and political conditions in medieval Vinodol has aroused a great deal of controversy in recent Croatian historiography and Barada's views should be seen as an important contribution to the discussion rather than as a final word on the matter. Editor. )


Vinodol Statute - A Legal

Footnote

John Farrar

The relationship of law to society is always complex. This is true of modem mass societies. It is no less true of earlier societies and the difficulties are exaggerated by our lack of knowledge and our attempt to reconstruct the ancient world from fragments of old laws and legal documents. The motives for recording laws in such societies are not always explicable in terms of an increasing legal rationality and this is perhaps the case with the Vinodol Statute. The motivations behind its enactment were doubtless political.

The Method of Codification

The method of codification was a regular assembly in the presence of the Prince, of elders from each town who were knowledgeable in these customs. In their laws they were required to recall what had been handed down to them by oral tradition and this was recorded in writing. The assembly in fact included a number of clergy and the code covers a number of matters relating to ecclesiastical law.

The Structure and Content of the Statute


The structure of the code seems rather haphazard and at times, although this is by no means unusual, arbitrary. We are not pursuing a document of the comprehensiveness and elegance of Justinian's work, nor a hybrid code of the later Byzantine period, but a simple working document of a small community facing change, but wishing to preserve the knowledge and customs of its past.

The first part of the code deals with ecclesiastical matters and seems to be mainly concerned to limit the powers of the church and particularly the bishop to exact excessive tribute .

Then follow various articles dealing with crime, which show a pronounced Slav character and differ from the severer penalties of Byzantine Roman Law. Thus theft is punishable by fine payable to the Prince. This is typical of Slavonic communities of the time when such fines were a valuable source of revenue.

Homicide of any of the Prince's household is punishable by the death fine but not death itself. Homicide of a villein is punishable by a fine of less amount. A person accused of murder must produce 50 witnesses _ a rather absurd requirement.

The patterns of feudalism are already quite pronounced. The Prince is given a number of rights over the person and property of his villeins, including art. 16 which even prevents a man from entering the Church without his permission.

The essentially inferior position of women in such a society is clearly reflected in the Statute, although we see perhaps the glimmering of an early liberalisation in art. 18 which provides that a woman of good repute can be called as a witness if there are no other witnesses in matters among women, in cases of malediction or beating or injury. The wording is a little ambiguous since it is not entirely clear whether she can only be a witness in disputes between women. It is likely though that this was in fact the case. Art. 27 contains the amusing crime of maliciously removing a woman's head scarf which almost suggests a Moslem attitude to the covering of women.

Rape is punishable by fine and there is an elaborate procedure in art. 56 to deal with an alleged rape or other sexual assault. The victim must try to produce 24 character witnesses which seems quite excessive. The question of litigants producing a large number of witnesses to order was one which the British Raj in India attempted to stamp out. One good witness is better than a legion of indifferent or mendacious ones.

Another pitfall in medieval society which particularly affects women and demonstrates their vulnerability is set out in art. 59. Older women ran the risk of being regarded as witches if they lived by themselves and became at all eccentric. This was punishable by fine, but an unfortunate woman who had not the wherewithal to pay the fine was to be burnt. Art. 59, however, provided for sexual equality in a sense. Men could also be charged and punished for the same offence, but warlocks generally were quite rare.

The political power of the Prince is seen in art. 57 which bans assemblies unless there is a man of the Prince's present. In art. 70 the Prince has complete power over a traitor.

The Social and Historical Context


So much by way of summary of the main provisions of the code. Like all feudal documents it may be regarded as a primitive kind of social contract. The nature of the Vinodol society like that of medieval England is pyramidal or conical. At its base are the cultivators of the soil, the shepherds and the fishermen. At its apex is the Prince, and beyond him the Hungarian King. The cone is a low one, The number of landowners is small; the number of land_users large.

One of the most complete statements of the nature of the feudal relationship is contained in a letter of

1020 A.D. written by Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres. The duties of fealty, he says, are characterised by six things: what is harmless, safe, honourable, useful, easy and practicable. Harmless means that the vassal must not injure the law; safe means that he should keep the secrets of his lord's defences; honourable means that he must not injure his lord's justice; useful means that he should not injure his lord's property; easy means that he should not put difficulties in the way of his lord; and practicable means that he should not make things impossible for his lord.

For his part, the lord should also act' in the same manner in all these things and if he fails, he will be rightly regarded as guilty of bad faith'. Fulbert is often regarded as one of the first representatives of the intellectual renaissance of the West and his description aptly expresses the spirit of the Vinodol code and the society it represented.

Feudalism was not however an unchanging institution. The major changes came from within and consisted mainly of a gradual relaxation of the Prince's rights. The Vinodol Statute is much earlier than most of the Poljica Statute and consequently bears less evidence of this change. The world of the Vinodol Statute is very much a Gemeinschaft_world, a close_knit organic society. The major economic and political challenge to the power of the feudal lord came in most societies from a middle class. This class appears to be small in the Vinodol community and this probably accounts for its relatively static character.

A Comparison with the Poljica Statute

Brief reference has been made so far to the Poljica Statute. Let us now attempt a more specific comparison. The Vinodol Statute represents a relatively clear feudal order. The Poljica Statute is more complex. At the time of the drafting of the original Poljica Statute, Poljica was not a standard kind of Slavonic society, nor was it a purely feudal one either. It was a primitive feudal system with two species of nobles arising from an earlier tribal organisation consisting of three tribes. There was, however, overall recognition of the suzerainty of the Doge of Venice. There was an elected prince chosen by an assembly. Indeed Poljica seems in this and certain other respects to have practiced a primitive kind of democracy. The structure of the code is rather like an archeological discovery of an ancient city revealing different strata representing different periods of historical development.

There were three significant features of the Poljica Statute which Paul Bowden and I identified in our earlier article ('A Legal Commentary on the Poljica Statute', BC Review, No. 11/12, Vol. IV, p.9, June 1977 ). These were the recognition of basic human rights, the rule of law and an early development of a concept of community personality and responsibility. The Vinodol Statute seems to lack all these features. It was possible to discover traces of earlier systems in the Poljica Statute. It is arguable that later Roman Law, Byzantine Law, Venetian Law and Slavonic custom all had some influence on drafting and content of the Poljica Statute. On the other hand, the Vinodol Statute probably represents the feudal modifications on an earlier variant of Slavonic custom and localised ecclesiastical law.

In our article on the Poljica Statute Paul Bowden and I concluded that it was the product of a traditional society taking its first tentative step towards legal rationality. The Vinodol Statute, on the other hand, is still at the traditional stage of legal development. The Statute is a record ( if what is said in the opening paragraph can be taken at its face value) not a code in the legal rational sense. It is a record of old custom modified by a feudal order.

It is difficult for modern minds to understand fully feudal society. As Eugen Ehrlich wrote in 'Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law' p. 32, we seek for a constitution of the feudal state 'whereas the chief characteristic of the feudal state is the fact that it has no constitution but only agreements'; in other words, piece-meal social contracts. He added (p. 34) that in trying to understand the law of medieval society one must not confine oneself to the study of legal propositions. 'Even at this period, the centre of gravity of the law lies in the inner order of the human associations.' This proposition arguably applies to all law. It certainly is true of the Vinodol Statute. The inner order of human associations of medieval Vinodol eludes us. The Statute is probably only truly intelligible when it is taken as part of the whole of its contemporary social culture. Even our modern law is found puzzling for this reason not only by foreigners but also by lay people who do not perceive the whole. In the case of the Vinodol Statute clearly a great deal of historical spadework still has to be done before we can fully understand the significance of all its provisions.

THE STATUTE OF VINODOL

from 1288

translated by ALAN FERGUSON

Translator's note. The oldest known manuscript of the Vinodol Statute dates from the sixteenth century and is written, as the original was, in the Glagolitic orthography, When transliterated into modern latinica, however, its language is for the most part comprehensible to the Croatian speaker. Precise enumeration of the Statute's 77 articles has been made possible by the presence in the manuscript of the letter 'C' indicating the opening of new articles, which have no other numerical designation.

The first edition of the Statute in modern script was prepared by Antun Mazuranic and published by him in the periodical Kolo (Zagreb, 1843, Vol. 3). Fifty years later Franjo Racki published essentially the same version in Monumenta historico-iuridica Slavorum meridionalium ( Vol. IV. Zagreb, 1890 ). A rendition in contemporary Croatian, together with the original transliterated text, is contained in Dr. Miho Barada's Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam ( Zagreb, 1952) pp. 96_133. The present translation is based essentially on Barada's modern version of the original text, and it relies largely on his explanatory footnotes and comments.

I am indebted to Edo Pivcevic who has made a number of corrections in the translation.

In the Name of God, Amen. In the year of Our Lord 1288, first year of the indiction, the sixth day of the month of January.

In the reign of King Ladislav, the most illustrious Hungarian King, in the sixteenth year of his rule, and during the time of the Great Lords Friedrich, Ivan, Leonard, Domnius, Bartul and Vid, Princes of Krk, Vinodol and Modrus.

Since men have oft deemed it meet for their old and tested laws to be safeguarded, each individual and every man of Vinadol, church and laymen alike, did gather all together in a desire to preserve intact those good laws of old which their elders did maintain inviolate. At the conclusion of the regularly held assembly in Novi Grad, in the presence of the Prince Leonard, the same as was above mentioned, there were chosen from each town of Vinodol elders, not all of them, but those who were known to be able the better to recall the laws of their fathers and what they had heard from their grandfathers. And they were solemnly ordered and commanded to record all the good and old tested laws of Vinodol which they could recollect or might have heard from their aforementioned fathers and grandfathers, so that errors might henceforth be avoided in those matters and that their offspring in time to come might be constant in those laws.

And those chosen to that end by those same men of Vinodol were: from Novi Grad, Crna, Lord Steward of all Vinodol and of the aforementioned Princes; Petar, the parish priest, and Vukonja Pribohna, the captain; Ranac Sarazin; Bogdan Vucinic; from Ledenic, Ratko, the presbyter, and Radoslav, priests; Dobrosa, the captain; from Bribir, Dragoslav, the archpresbyter, and Bogdan, the priest; Zlonomer, the captain; Jurislav Gradenic; From Grizan, Ljuban and Petar, priests; Domjan, the captain; Dunat and Dragoljub and Vidomir Vucic; from Drivenik, Dragoljub, the captain, and Mikula Dragoljub and Pribinig; from Hreljin, Raden, the parish priest and Ivanac, the captain; Zivina, the magistrate and Kliman Nedal; from Bakor, Krstiha, the parish priest and Grubina, the priest; Ivan, the captain; Derga Vucina and Nedrag; from Trsat, Vazmina, the parish priest and Nedrag, the captain; Dominik, the magistrate and Vieka; from Grobnik, Kirin, the parish priest and Slavan, the captain; and Domjan Kinovic, Paval and Slavina Vukodruzic. And all those here written did gather by the will of all and by the unanimous assent and decree of the assembly of the entire district of Vinodol ... .(1) which are to be written below and which they heard from their elders.

1. First, that if any of the public churches in Vinodol is to be consecrated or any have been consecrated by the Lord Bishop in whose diocese the said church is, not more than 40 soldin in small Venetian coins, one dinner and one supper may be given for the said consecration, and that specifically by those who give that church to be consecrated. And the deacon, called malik (2) in Croatian or mazzarol in Italian, who attends the Bishop in that same church, is to receive for that same consecration not more than 15 balanza in small Venetian coins.

2. And: concerning the churches of abbeys, monasteries or the said public churches, the Lord Bishop may not request or take or demand more than the wardens of those same churches would of their own volition be prepared to give him.

3. And: concerning priests of the said district, that same Bishop may not order or take anything, but when he sends another or goes himself about the Principality, in each town of Vinodol to which he goes, the priests of that town must give him one dinner and one supper; they are not however in any way bound to take that dinner and that supper to him outside the boundaries of that town. And the said priests and deacons are not bound to do him any other service, unless one of them should have committed a misdeed or some offence for which he would have to pay a fine, when the Bishop may raise a fine of 40 Venetian soldin from the offenders; a greater fine he may not collect from those priests and deacons.

4. And: when the Lord Bishop is making a visitation, with the seven horses of his suite must go on eighth pack_horse.

5. And: if the Lord Prince of Vinodol or the said Bishop is making a circuit of the Principality of Vinodol and either of them comes to some town, he may through the captain of that town have food taken and brought for himself and his retinue, cattle or smaller creatures which are to hand, the stock albeit of villeins, of plemeniti (3), of priests or of any other men. Nonetheless, wherever he may be, the Lord Prince must pay for them, and may have his attendants take the nearest cattle to hand from the same town district or from any of the above mentioned men for himself and his family and for his entire court.

6. And: if anyone should commit robbery on the highway or anywhere else, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira.

7. And: if a man should break into o dwelling by night or steal something from it and if 'Help' be shouted, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira and twice the damage, Those who cry 'Help' are to be believed if they solemnly swear that they recognised that malefactor. Nonetheless, if no shout was raised, he has to pay but 40 soldin and restitution as abovesaid. And if he commits the misdeed by day, he is not bound to pay more than 40 soldin if his guilt can be established by a trustworthy witness.

8. And: if by night anyone should steal some animal from its stall or corn from the threshing floor or honey from a hive _ at a place where bees are kept _ he too is to pay the Prince 50 lira, if there was a cry of 'Help'; and by day 40 soldin and as much by night if there was no cry, and twice the damage, as is written, and a cry is to be believed.

9. If there is litigation before the court involving assault or the theft of some thing and the plaintiff has no testimony against the accused and he is allowed to swear an oath, 25 character witnesses must swear for the defendant charged with robbery and 12 on account of the aforementioned theft, if in that theft damage was done and there was a cry of 'Help'.

10. And: in cases of theft from a pen or the burning of wheat in the field or the taking of hay from a stack by night, only 6 must swear that he did not do it, And the defendant may not have a legal spokesman without the court's assent, In any case it is for the one who is to toke the oath to find character witnesses as best he may. And if he may not have them, let him swear himself or as many times as they must swear.

11. And: if a man commits an act of violence in Vinodol harbour, he must pay the Prince fifty lira. If he commits theft there too, he pays 24 lira. If there are no eye_witnesses, he who denies the charge must swear together with 11 character witnesses, whether the deed was done by day or night.

12. And: if a man receives a person exiled from that Principality or gives him food, drink or any other aid or counsel, he must pay the Prince 50 lira.

13. And: if any brotherhood divides among its members what it has acquired, it is bound to pay the full tithe.

14. And: no zavez may be agreed on or exacted by men of the Principality among themselves nor may any public or private zagovor be concluded: half of the value of such a fine accrues to the town district in which it was done, and half to the lords.(4)

15. And: every priest is to keep night_watch in the town like any other man.

16. And: no cleric of the Principality may take holy orders without the permission of the Prince and the town in which he resides.

17. And: no villein or any commoner may lodge in a church or serve in an abbey or monastery or become a sacristan there without the consent of the Prince and the district.

18. And: a good woman of good repute called to bear witness is trustworthy, if there are no other witnesses, in matters among women, in cases of malediction or beating or injury .

19. And: no witness called as such may bear testimony unless he has first been questioned by the court officer; whoever does so is to pay 40 soldin to the Prince, and to him who would have suffered loss by his testimony let him pay as much in damages as the other would hove lost.

20. And: no one may call his wife to testify in his defence; in no matter relating to him may she be a credible witness.

21. And: if before the court in the palace one litigant says to the other: 'Is it so or not?' or makes a charge against him, the other is free to admit or deny it.

22. And: if a man appears before the court to bring a charge, he must appoint witnesses and prove it to be so.

23. And: for the guarding or protection of vineyards and ploughlands and threshing floors and other things, trustworthy guards are to be appointed. When damage is done before a guard, he is then to cry 'Help'; except in the event of his taking some token from the miscreant, pointing him out to trustworthy witnesses or taking that token to the court before the offender is charged, or personally taking that same offender to the court.

24. And: any man may cry 'Help' if he sees another committing some misdeed, and in no way may he be punished for doing so.

25. And: for striking, injuring and for an affray involving villeins the penalty is 40 soldin, which the culprit must pay to the Prince, and to the one who is assaulted 2 wethers and the cost of his treatment. And the some for a captain, constable and district crier, who are not herein subject to officials' but to villein law and its penalties; and they are to be judged according to villein law, so that enough is done for their injuries.

26. And: a captain and constable and district crier are not trustworthy in any matter arising during the term and relating to the competence of their office, but only one year after their term of office expires.

27. And: if a man should maliciously remove a woman's headscarf or headcover, and this should be confirmed by three good men or women, if a complaint should be made on that account, he is to pay 50 lira; of this the Lord Prince is to receive 40 soldin and she who was so disgraced 48 lira. But if a woman should remove another woman's headcover, as aforesaid, she is to pay 2 lira to the court and 2 sheep to the other woman. But if there should have been no good witnesses where the offence was committed, and the one against whom the accusation was made takes an oath denying the charge, he or she is to be acquitted.

28. And: if a man or woman speaks profanely or insults some other man or woman, and this can be confirmed by a worthy witness, either man or woman, if there were no other witnesses there, he is to pay the court 2 lira and the party to whom he spoke 2 lira.

29. And: if a man should kill one of the underprinces (5) or one of the Lord Prince's household servants, or one of his attendants and then flee, and so not be taken, the Prince is to levy the death fine, that is, a monetary penalty, whichever and as much as he will, from the culprit's tribe one half, for the tribe is bound to pay but one half, and from the culprit the other half. But if that culprit should be taken, that same Prince, or some other in his stead may avenge the misdeed as he pleases, without his tribe being in any way punished.

30. And: if a man should ambush and rob one of the said underprinces or an official or attendant, and this can be confirmed by worthy witnesses, he is to pay the Prince 50 lira. In like manner, if the other should be beaten or injured, for the hurt he must pay half. And if a part of the body of one of them should be severed or so mutilated that it could not be restored to its original state of health, he is to pay the penalty which the Prince will impose on him.

31. And: if a man should kill a villein or one of that estate and be caught, he is to pay a fine of 100 lira to the victim's kinsmen and to the victim's town-district 2 lira. Of those 100 lira: if the victim had children, they must receive one half, and his kinsmen the other half. The culprit pays that fine. If he flees, his kinsmen must pay one half of the fine and his heirs, should he have any, one half. But if he can be taken, before the penalty is paid, or if an agreement has been reached, vengeance may be carried out on him, and his kinsmen are thereby freed.

32. And daughters who survive their father and mother or sons. unless those daughters' brethren be still alive, must be equipped or left their father's or mother's estate in order to perform such service as their father or mother would have had to fulfil to the court. Likewise if sons should hove survived and died heirless.

33. And: if a man should be in possession of anything improperly acquired which is nobody's and hence should accrue to the court irrespective of whether an official order or demand in respect of it had been made, and the Lord

(Prince) or his officer discover this, that man must pay the Prince seven times his annual income from it, for as many years as he has been in possession of it, and a fine of 40 soldin for each year. And that property must still accrue to the Prince's court.

34. And: if a man holds any property, some ploughland or some vineyard or plot or garden to part of which the Lord Prince would have a right, and if the other will not surrender it, he is to pay the abovesaid penalty or that part, if it can be proved that he was guilty.

35. And: if a man has stolen something from the Prince or his court or an under-prince or official of any of the aforementioned, he is to pay the fine to the Prince as above written concerning theft; and to the person from whom he stole, sevenfold.

36. And: villeins and priests are to have the same law for thefts among themselves. But if a man steals something from any church or monastery or abbey, he is to pay the fine which is paid for the theft of the Prince's or the abovewritten officials' things.

37. And: for no single theft committed by day or by night is the fine to be more than 40 soldin, unless there should have been the cry of 'Help' and it should have been in a town, and apart from the theft defined above. And also for any theft by day or night, the culprit must pay 40 soldin, which are to accrue to the town district in which the theft was committed.

38. And: where there is no charge there can be no penalty either. No one can be forced to bring a charge on any matter before the court or elsewhere, unless it is of his own volition. Whoever brings a charge must pursue it to its conclusion.

39. And: a charge brought outside the court can not carry a penalty of more than 6 lira, except for the aforesaid instances of assault.

40. And: no_one may be acquitted and no fine, great or small, imposed without the Prince's assent, or unless a man of the Prince's should do so at his command.

41. And: of those serving as magistrates. The judgements are invalid of those magistrates who, whenever an offence is committed, do not send a sealed summons to the culprit to appear before the court with that summons within three days and display it.

42. And: no keeper of the keys is to be considered trustworthy or to be believed concerning any goods worth more than 20 soldin which he claims to have given, presented or lent or in any other manner rendered to another from his vault, unless he should have trustworthy witnesses. Also, for that which is worth over 20 soldin he must swear on the Holy Gospel.

43. And: no publican is to be considered trustworthy or to be believed, without witnesses, for any credit he may have given of his own wine, except for less than 10 soldin; and a partner, that is one who sells another's wine, up to 50 soldin. They must, moreover, swear an oath.

44. And: no merchant's records are to be considered reliable without worthy witnesses but for individual debts of up to 50 lira. And for these also he must swear on the (holy) scriptures to confirm his merchant's records.

45. And: no reward privately given for the discovery of some object, misdeed or other thing such as lands, vineyards or any other items for which a reward is usually given, or for finding large cattle, may exceed 40 soldin, and if a man gives more, he may not recover it; except when it seems to the Lord Prince that more should have been given to discover some misdeed or for some other thing which would clearly have accrued to that same Prince. Concerning those 40 soldin, he who claims to have given that reward and that it was demanded and received, must swear that he gave and promised to give it. He is bound to give the court but 5 soldin as a penalty for the other 40, and for each small animal, 2 soldin.

46. And: if a man declares that something has been improperly acquired in whole or in part as aforesaid, and can not prove this, he is to pay the same penalty as the accused party would have had to pay.

47. And: if a man should make a charge before the court or appoint witnesses, saying: 'So_and_so knows this is so' and the opposing party says: 'But so_and_so knows it is not', the witnesses of the former are accepted and those of the latter are rejected.

48. And: no court officer may accept more than 10 soldin for a major case; and a major case is for any matter worth more than 40 soldin; for a minor case, for 40 soldin or less, he may receive 5 soldin. Whoever acts contrary to this, pays one ox or 8 lira of which the Prince is to receive one half and the town in which it occurs the other half.

49. And: if, in the presence of a court officer, a stolen calf is found, he is to receive a pair of soles, and the creature is to belong to him whose it had previously been, and the right to litigation is as has been defined. Should it be taken dead but still whole, the officer must then have one quarter of it; if what is found is not complete, it is to belong to that same officer, and the man whose meat it was may have recourse to law.

50. And: if full_grown cattle are stolen, then discovered, the officer is to receive 5 soldin for each head, dead or alive. And for property worth 40 soldin or less he receives 2 soldin, and for more, 5 soldin. That same officer must certainly be taken from the court and with its consent. And it should be known that for stolen property a villein receives twice its value and the Prince's court or its officials as abovewritten, sevenfold.

51. And: if a court officer is found guilty of an offence, all that is his, movable and immovable, accrues to the Prince. But if someone charges him before the court or elsewhere with being false, and can not substantiate this, he is to pay the Prince 40 soldin, and to that officer one ox or 10 lira. But if he is found guilty, he is to pay the aforesaid penalty and may no more be an officer of the court without the Prince's consent, and the party against whom he spoke falsely, if he should have been sentenced, is to be acquitted or may have recourse to a counteraction concerning the initial case. It must certainly be established by three worthy witnesses that he acted falsely.

52. And: if a man be found a false witness, he pays the Prince one ox or 8 lira; and the party against whom he testified is to be acquitted of all culpability in any offence for which he might have been punished. Thereafter, the other may not bear witness without the court's consent. But if he is accused of having been false and this can not be shown, the man who accused him but was unable to substantiate the charge, pays the Prince 2 lira, and to that witness an ox or 8 lira. And he must be shown to have been a false witness by three worthy men.

53. And: if a man proves a court officer or witnesses to have been false, neither of the latter has thereafter any further case on that account against hi s accuser or the witness, nor has any other in his stead. But if a man maintains that the officer or witness acted falsely and undertakes to prove this with witnesses, but those witnesses will not testify, or disagree with his accusation, he may not thereafter bring any case against them. Or, if a witness is brought before the court concerning some matter, and the other party would gainsay his testimony, this may be done if there are witnesses. If witnesses are brought against him or against his testimony and confirm what the complainant undertook to shew, against none of those witnesses may the other thereafter bring witnesses in a counteraction; nor may he or any other on account of that accusation or the testimony or in any other matter bring an action against him, he may not have recourse to law against any of them on any account.

54. And: no representative acting on behalf of a litigant may take more than 10 soldin for a major case, or 5 soldin for a minor one. A villein cannot represent a plemeniti or a plemeniti a villein without the permission of the Court. Those who break this rule are liable to pay a fine to the Prince of one ox, and the same to the person on whose behalf they acted, or 8 lira.

55. And: all stipulated penalties which the Prince himself may have agreed to or previously decreed, whether under public or private law, are to be his and must be paid to him.

56. And: if a man should commit rape on any woman, abusing her sexually or attempting to do so, he must pay 50 lira to the Prince, and to that woman also if no arrangement can be made with her in any way. Or if she has no witnesses to the said assault, she is to be believed; 24 character witnesses and the woman herself must certainly swear to the assault, placing their hand on the scriptures and touching them against him she has accused; that woman is to find her character witnesses as best , she can. If there are no character witnesses or she is unable to find so many, that woman is bound to swear in the place of those who are lacking. Those who do swear with her, or she herself after the first time, must touch the Bible with their hand and declare: on this I swear. And all her character witnesses must be women. And she who swears, and not her spokesman, must say: 'Verily do I swear with this oath', and she must swear as abovesaid. And if that some woman or any of her character witnesses should omit any of the abovesaid, he against whom she speaks is to be acquitted of the abovesaid sin.

57. And: there may be no assembly, public or private, in a town or elsewhere, on any business which comes under the district's competence, unless there is a man of the Prince's there; and if they should act contrary to this, they lose all their property, and it is to accrue to the abovesaid Prince.

58. And: every priest having a town church must celebrate mass and other holy offices daily, unless he should be prevented by a just impediment. If he does contrary to this, he forfeits one ox; and half passes to the Prince, the other half to the town district in which it was done.

59, And: if any woman is found to be a witch, and this can be proved by trustworthy testimony, for the first offence 100 lira are paid to the Prince, or if she has not the wherewithal to pay, she is to be burned. If a woman is found a witch a second time, the Lord Prince is to punish her as is his will. An d if a man is taken in that sin, he too is to suffer that some penalty.

60. And: if a man should wish to accuse another of some malfeasance before the court, or of some other punishable act or some other deed, he must address the court thus: 'I accuse that man before thee with such a deed', or 'I say to thee that that man did do such a deed'. No other method of accusation or denunciation is valid. But if a man should make an accusation against another before the court and not be able to prove it, he is to pay to the court the penalty which he who was accused would have had to pay, and the accused is to be acquitted.

61. And: a charge brought outside the court is valid and may be made before the Lord Prince and before any of his officials and before a captain and also before his wife if the captain should not be there.

62. And: if any man should plant fire in a building or dwelling or another's stall, for committing arson a first time he is to pay a fine of 100 lira to the court and to the man against whom he acted, restitution, or he is to undergo corporal punishment if he has not the wherewithal to pay; if he commits arson a second time, he pays with his life. If one or several persons are burned to death in the fire and the malefactor can not be taken, the death fine as abovesaid is to be paid for each victim.

63. And: henceforth no one may seek settlement of a debt incurred for the court's needs from those in charge of the court or from any of its officials unless it is sought during the last year before retirement from office.

64. And: if a man exhibits own blood maliciously spilt by another, that blood is credible evidence. Nonetheless, he must swear, together with character witnesses, if there were no eyewitnesses there.

65. And: court officers and summoners are to be trustworthy unless they are found false.

66. And: outside a town, shepherds and ploughmen and other men of good repute, each of them, that is, are trustworthy as witnesses whether in cases of robbery, of assault or of any other malfeasance.

67. And: father may stand witness for son, son and daughter for father; and brother and sister for sister, provided each abides separately and their estate is not jointly held.

68. And: if there are no eyewitnesses to a murder, the accused must clear himself by finding but fifty character witnesses as best he can. If there are no character witnesses, he must himself swear that many times, or just for those that are lacking.

69. And: if a man should be called to swear on oath concerning another's character, he may be properly exempted, if he so wishes, if it is in a minor case, when they are assembled at the customary place where oaths are taken. And there the defendant may, if he is prepared, swear as many times as he needs. Nonetheless, a man of the court must be present. But all the others, the character witnesses, he may discharge without any reward.

70. And: if any man be found a traitor to a rightful Lord Prince, that same Lord Prince has complete authority over him and over his estate, and may have vengeance on him as he will.

71,. And: if I find a robber doing damage by night, damaging my property, that is, and I am unable to take him alive or recognise him, if I would know what punishable offence he has committed and kill him, I may not be punished in any way and no one may institute or conduct proceedings against me.

72. And: the testimony of an emissary is not acceptable in any litigation if he is not under oath, unless he has been sent by the court, which emissary so charged is in Croatian coiled 'arsal'.

73. And: summoners must be sworn. And villeins also must be summoned before the court of justice, before the magistrate.

74. And: if those sentenced to pay a fine have not the means to pay the abovesaid fines and penalties, the Lord Prince is free to order corporal punishment should he will it.

75. And: in all penalties, guarantees and contracts the Lord Prince has the complete authority and power to judge as over plemeniti, so over churchmen and over villeins and over all other men, as above established.

76. And: thus have these laws been above written, and all the abovesaid elders, chosen from the said districts of Vinodol, have declared and confirmed, establishing and citing the old and tested laws of Vinodol have they confirmed, that their grandfathers and their fathers and all their forbears did ever live according to them.

77. And: to commemorate this in the future, and for public testimony, that same district of Vinodol has commanded that the text now be recorded and that one such copy of it be kept in every town.

Done in Novi Grad, in the hall of the aforenamed Princes, in the year, month, day, indiction as said.


---------------------------

(1) Words have been omitted from the original here; probably their sense is: 'and recorded' or 'and compiled laws' .

(2) Crosier

(3) For the meaning of ‘plemeniti’ see Barada’s comments on page 22 ff. Editor

(4) zavez or zagovor (Lat. poena condicionata): a predetermined fine covering a contract and payable by either contracting party not fulfilling its obligations.

(5) Lat. vicecomes, appointed representative of the Prince.




* * * * *

And: if it happens that in or before the court. any man should bring a case against another concerning some estate, that is, a vineyard or land or building plot or any property, and he declares that he purchased that property from a certain man, whom he must there name; or declares that the property was given to him or endowed or pledged or bequeathed to commemorate a departed soul, and there are present living witnesses to it, as the law requires, those witnesses of his are trustworthy. But if there are no living witnesses and he cites deceased witnesses who had said to those now living that it was so done before them, the surviving witnesses are trustworthy; nevertheless, an oath must be taken according to the law of the town to the effect that it did so happen before those original witnesses, as above said. And he must not be molested in future, but is to be left to freely and peaceably enjoy and hold that property.



THE GLAGOLITIC SCRIPT

( What follows below is a translated extract from a French article entitled 'Le Glagolisme Croate' by the Croatian medievalist Vjekoslav Stefanic. Ed. )

It was mainly Dalmatia, north Croatian littoral and Istria that were the homeground of Croatian Glagolism. In these areas the Glagolitic culture for centuries successfully resisted the attacks by its Latin enemies who consisted mainly of the remaining Roman population in the coastal towns and the senior clergy, whereas in other Croatian regions it disappeared very quickly _ as early as the 12th century. The setting up of the bishopric at Zagreb in 1095 seems to have dealt it a mortal blow in those regions, for the Latin liturgy was soon introduced everywhere. The political rulers of Croatian nationality for a variety of political reasons did not wish to publicly support the Croatian 'Glagolitic' priests. By contrast the various foreign powers who succeeded each other in the Glagolitic regions of Istria and Dalmatia, including Venice, were not interested in such matters. All that was important to them was that the local population fulfilled their obligations as their subjects. The Roman Catholic Church who through the Popes Adrian II and John VIII initially gave official approval for the use of the Slavonic liturgy of St Cyril and St Methodius, did not always take the same view on the subject. In fact, it often tried to suppress the Glagolitic liturgy in Croatia, or at least to put difficulties in its way. However the priests of Dalmatia and Istria supported by the local population who remained loyal to them steadfastly defended their rights and the Church hierarchy was forced to tolerate them, to legalise their work, and, eventually ( from the 17th century onwards ), to accept the responsibility for helping them with liturgical books.

Throughout history the area in which Glagolitic liturgy was practiced remained fairly limited in size. In addition, because of its position close to the frontier, it found itself parcelled out among several different powers: Venice, Germany, Croatia_Hungary, Turkey. Nevertheless in this area there evolved a distinct type of civilisation which stood out like an island in the uniform sea of European Latin Christianity and remained untouched by either Humanism or Renaissance. It even resisted for a long time the influence of Croatia's own Renaissance literature which flourished in Dalmatian towns and which used Latin script.

When in the first decades of the 19th century the movement for Croatian national and cultural re_awakening got under way there began a new era for Croatian Glagolism as well. Interest in the Glagolitic tradition increased considerably, stimulated by the romantic and popular enthusiasm for the nation's history and also by the growing scientific interest in Slavic philology. However it was clear that as far as ordinary usage was concerned the Glagolitic script suffered a total defeat. This was due above all to the increasing secularisation of public life and to the fact that the Latin alphabet and the stokavic dialect eventually prevailed in literature. Glagolism was brought to a standstill, that is it remained confined to the Church; and from 1927 onwards the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Latin alphabet even in ecclesiastical use. [Since Vatican II the old language of the Glagolitic liturgical books has been abandoned along with Latin in favour of modern vernacular - Translator .]

On the 'Glagolitic territory' the Church services were conducted in the Slav language but in accordance with the Roman rite, since the Glagolitic priests were invariably Roman Catholics ( the Protestant movement of the 16th century was merely a passing phenomenon ). Originally the liturgical books were written ( and later printed) in Old Church Slavonic, but this language drew progressively closer to the spoken Croatian of everyday life ( the cakavic version) and this is why it is sometimes referred to as 'Old Croatian'.

The Glagolitic ecclesiastical books ( missals, breviaries etc. ) have in part survived until the present day in parchment manuscripts that are now kept in various libraries throughout Europe ( Rome, Paris, Vienna, London, Zagreb etc. ). When the printing press was invented the Croatian Glagolitic priests made extensive use of the new technique to produce the books they needed until the Council of Trent gave the Church authorities the exclusive right to publish liturgical books. The very first Glagolitic _ and at the same time Croatian _ printed book was a Roman Missal printed in Venice [ or, according to some, in Kosinj, Croatia] in 1483. It was followed by a Breviary printed also in Venice in 1493. Very soon however, the Croatian Glagolitic priests decided to set up a printing press in their own country despite the difficult conditions in Croatia at that time due to the Turkish invasion. This was how in 1493 the first Croatian printing works came into being in Senj. The first book _ a Roman Missal _ was produced there in 1494; this was followed by a whole series of Glagolitic books, until the press closed down in 1508. In 1530 Bishop Simun B. Kozicic, a native of Zadar, founded a second printing works in Rijeka where he produced several Glagolitic books. In later times Glagolitic books were often published in Venice and in Rome where the office of the Propaganda Fide looked after the needs of the Glagolitic priests. Another Glagolitic press was in operation between 1560-1564 in Tubingen in Germany and several books were produced there, including the first Croatian Bible, with the aim of propagating Protestantism in Croatia. In more recent times there was a Glagolitic press on the island of Krk, the heart of the palaeo_slavic liturgical tradition, which was still in use in 1901.

However the Croatian Glagolitic script was not merely a liturgical script. Moreover Glagolitic was not used only by priests for their own purposes, but was used in daily transactions in both public and private life; indeed the Glagolitic priests knew no other form of writing. It was in Glagolitic that the authorities, the princes, above all the Frankopans of Krk, published their charters and laws; for example, the Statute of Vinodol from 1288, the Statute of Krk from the 16th and 17th centuries. the Statute of Kastav, the Statute of Veprinac and an Istrian document called 'razvod' relating to the demarcation between the local communities, dating from the 14th century. The Glagolitic script was used by lawyers from the earliest times right up to the 19th century for drafting legal documents, of which a number of volumes have been preserved. These documents originate mainly from the Kvarner islands, the northern Croatian coast and Istria. Parish priests wrote their entries in the parish registers of births and marriages in the Glagolitic script, and it was not until after the fall of Venice that registers began to be kept in Latin or Italian. Glagolitic priests corresponded with their Bishops, who were usually Italian, in , Glagolitic, and there is even evidence to prove that they used Glagolitic when addressing themselves to the Holy See.

Numerous inscriptions on churches, tombs and monuments along the north Croatian coast, in Istria and Dalmatia were written in Glagolitic. One of the most important surviving inscriptions is that of Baska, on the island of Krk, which dates from 1100 AD. This is the oldest surviving document in which the Croatian ( as distinct from the Latin) word for ‘Croatian' ( hrvatski) is explicitly used in the text. In it the Benedictine Abbot Drziha reports that the 'Croatian King Zvonimir' _ who probably visited the island _ made a gift of land to his order for the construction of a church near Baska.

Since the Glagolitic movement remained confined to a relatively small area it was"hardly capable of producing an extensive literature or establishing Glagolitic schools of larger significance. The Bishops, who were usually foreigners, regarded the Glagolitic priests as uneducated because they knew no Latin, and they exerted pressure on them to attend Latin schools, never seriously considering the idea of opening special schools in which these priests could be trained for their vocation in their own language and liturgy. It was not until the 18th century that a Glagolitic seminary was established in Zadar, followed by others at Kopar, Krk and Omis. All this, however, came too late to yield any appreciable results. Surrounded by the pressures of modern progress Glagolitic was destined to disappear.

Nevertheless the Glagolitic priests over the centuries succeeded in accumulating a corpus of literature, consisting mainly of translations, which was necessary to meet their requirements. Modest as these results may appear, it is difficult not to look at them with admiration if one bears in mind the unfavourable circumstances in which the Glagolitic priests worked. In addition to the liturgical literature already mentioned, these priests, in the period up to the 16th century, managed to add to their stock of books a series of other translations from the theological literature of the Christian West. These were little compendia, lucidarii, pastoral and moral manuals, collections of sermons, almanacs that were both moralising and entertaining in content and included apocryphal, legendary and poetic material. Until the 18th century all this was disseminated through handwritten copies. After the 16th century this inventory of books was enriched by catechisms, new and longer volumes of religious meditations, school manuals etc. Spiritual poetry and religious drama which flourished particularly during the 15th and 16th centuries played the central role in the Glagolitic areas, spreading gradually to other Croatian regions, especially southern Dalmatia. In fact it is argued by some that not only the religious drama but nearly all the Croatian religious literature in Latin characters during the Middle Ages and the subsequent period either directly or indirectly originated in the Glagolitic areas and hence that it was in these areas, long before Dubrovnik, that Croatian literature first came into being.

Source:
http://www.croatianstudies.org/index.php?action=page&id=57



---> Edo Pivcevic: THE STATUTE OF POLJICA

Croatian Studies

The Autonomous Principality of Poljica
March / June 1977

Edo Pivcevic



The Statute of the Principality of Poljica ( pronounced Pol'yeetsa) from 1440 published here for the first time in English translation is one of the most interesting documents in the European legal history. It codifies the ancient customs, rules, practices of a small self-governing community inhabiting the 100 odd square miles of mountainous land bordering the sea just south of Split between the rivers Zrnovnica and Cetina (see map on page 3 ). It provides a rare picture of what life was like in a region of medieval Europe which for centuries had been the main meeting ground between East and West, and for this reason alone it is of immense value to social historians.
Administratively Poljica first came into being as a separate county (zupanija) within the medieval Croatian kingdom, probably in - or around -AD 1015. It turned out to be a remarkably durable political structure; for owing to a number of different circumstances, but chiefly to the unfaltering spirit of resistance among the local population who had developed an unusually strong sense of communal identity, Poljica was able to retain a measure of political freedom and continue in existence as a self-governing principality long after the medieval Croatian state collapsed and was united by treaty with the kingdom of Hungary in 1102.
The population of Poljica was never very large. According to a census taken in 1781 in Poljica's twelve katuni or clusters of tiny hamlets there lived 6813 people. In 1806 the French-appointed civilian governor of Dalmatia Vicenzo Dandolo, in a report on Poljica, recorded an even smaller figure - 6566. Nor has there been a very large increase in population since then, except perhaps in the coastal area. Yet despite its small population Poljica, by virtue of its geographical position, played an important role in the political history of the region. The principality survived with its internal organisation virtually intact until 1807 when it was abolished by the French in a peak of fury following a local rebellion against their rule. Its centuries old autonomy was thus brought abruptly and violently to an end, never to be regained.
In addition to losing its autonomy Poljica was divided among the neighbouring counties and it remained administratively dismembered for over a century. In fact it was not until 1912, and even then only after a long and dedicated campaign by some leading Poljicans, that Poljica was restored as an administrative unit within its historical boundaries. Thus only two years before the outbreak of the First World War and almost exactly nine hundred years after it was first founded Poljica began a second period of its life as a county borough - this time under Austrian rule. The new administrative arrangement remained in force under a succession of different governments -Austrian, Yugoslav and Croatian -until 1945 when it was abolished by the new Yugoslav government who re-drew the administrative boundaries yet again, with the result that Poljica disappeared from the administrative map for a second time, its territory being annexed to the surrounding districts.
By comparison with other small medieval and post-medieval European principalities Poljica was in many ways unique. Throughout its long existence it never developed any urban centres on its territory. Its economy was exclusively rural, based on animal farming and agriculture. What is more, despite the closeness of the sea and the obvious advantages of a reasonably well developed coast-line the Poljica people never seemed to take a great interest in shipping. Nor did fishing play a great part in their economy. This was partly due, no doubt, to the geography of the area, for the mountain ranges run parallel with the coast and the access to the coast from the interior, where the majority of the population lived, was made that much more difficult. But basically there was no great interest in the sea.
But Poljica was also unique in its social structure. For although Poljica's society had many unmistakably feudal features, its sheer complexity, the disproportionately large number of 'noble' families (there were no less than 80 such families in 1799) not a single one of which ever gained the position of complete dominance, the two species of nobility, and especially the intricate relations of ownership, made Poljica unlike any other community in feudal Europe. In Poljica, it seems, there were no serfs in the more extreme sense of this term. There were, instead, bonded tenants who were increasingly allowed to own property of their own and could, under certain conditions, leave their masters. Moreover it seems, it was accepted that they could leave their masters even without the latter's consent if they were maltreated in any way. ('A man is free to flee from evil if he can.' Art. 89c of the Statute. ) There were also independent peasant farmers and free labourers and herdsmen. What is of special interest is that in a number of cases important decisions demanded a consensus of the whole community. The phrase 'All the men of Poljica are unanimously agreed...' occurs in several Articles of the Statute. The Prince had to be a nobleman, but his office was not hereditary and both the Prince and the main officers of government were elected on an annual basis in open air assemblies in which all noble families took part.


*

All this can be better understood in the context of Poljica's early medieval history which began with the arrival of Croats in this area. In Roman times, it seems, no large settlements existed on the territory of Poljica, although the coastal region did attract a number of Roman war veterans who built their villas there. In addition , the emperor Diocletian, himself a Dalmatian by origin, who after his abdication in 305 lived in retirement nearby, in the palace he built for himself in what later became the town of Split, is alleged to have owned estates in Poljica, including a game reserve near the present day village of Dubrava.
Croats did not arrive in Dalmatia until the third decade of the 7th century. They came from what is in subsequent sources referred to as 'White' Croatia' ('white' being the colour symbol for 'west' ), a region comprising parts of modern southern Poland and eastern Czechoslovakia. 1 In De Administrando Imperio, the famous political-historical manual which the 10th century Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (AD 905-959) wrote for his son and prospective successor Romanus, the following account is given of the migration:


...the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. ....From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of llyricum and Pannonia.2


Of those Croats who stayed in Dalmatia a large number, perhaps the majority , settled close to the old Roman towns between Zadar and Split, which at the time of their arrival were under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperor. It was this region that subsequently became the nucleus of the Croatian medieval state. The territory of Poljica, or at any rate its most attractive parts, seem to have been claimed by Croat leaders themselves, for large chunks of the best land in Poljica were in later documents regularly referred to as terra regalis, the crown property. Much of this land, it seems, was made over to the Split Church by various Croat princes and kings in order to facilitate their dealings with the Split Archbishop. This later became a constant source of friction and hostility between the Poljicans and the Split Chapter, especially after repeated attempts by the Church to extend its possessions in Poljica on the basis of forged title deeds. In one tragic incident the Archbishop Rainerius who in August of 1180 came to Poljica to reassert his claim to some disputed land was attacked and killed by the local peasants near the village of Srinjine.
This conflict over land was exacerbated by the fact that the Split Church represented the Latin, and hence to Croats an alien culture which many of them feared as a possible threat to their own identity. They stubbornly resisted the attempts by the Church to replace the Croat vernacular by Latin in church liturgy and rather than use the Latin alphabet they clung to their Glagolitic and Cyrillic script. In Poljica, especially, the resistance to Latin was strong and unyielding, although it was not until 1750 that the Church finally decided to come to terms with the situation and establish a 'Glagolitic' Seminary for training of young priests in the Poljica village of Priko at the mouth of the river Cetina, famous for its 8th century church of St. Peter . It should be mentioned at this point that the Poljica Statute itself was written in the Croatian version of the Cyrillic script. This script which is also occasionally referred to as Bosancica was in a fairly wide use in southern Croatia at that time and, in fact, it was not until well into the 19th century that the Cyrillic finally gave way to the Latin alphabet.
The term Bosancica indicates a connection with Bosnia and indeed the ties with Bosnia, especially in Poljica, are deeply rooted in history. The local tradition in Poljica links the origins of the county with the arrival there from Bosnia, probably in AD 949, of the three sons of the Croatian prince Miroslav - Tjesimir, Kresimir and Elem (the last name being probably a corruption of 'Velimir' ) - after their father was killed by the Bosnian bonus
(governor) Pribina in the civil war that flared up following the death of king Kresimir 1. It was their descendants -the three 'tribes' mentioned in Art. 3 of the Statute -that effectively ruled the county. They were Poljica's old nobility - the didici as they are called in the Statute ( did grandfather ).
Much later we find in Poljica a second species of nobility, the so-called vlaste/a. Their arrival is connected with the ascendancy of the Hungarian power in the middle of the 14th century. As mentioned earlier, Croatia was formally united with Hungary in 1102. However, owing to the continuing opposition to the union in many Croatian provinces the Hungarian kings were never able to exercise an effective control throughout the country. The opposition was strong in Poljica too and at least on one occasion the Poljicans swallowed their pride and gave active support to their archenemy, Split, when the Split leaders refused to help king Bela IV who fled to Dalmatia during the Mongol invasion of 1242.3 But there were other powers too who competed with the Hungarians for the control of Dalmatia and chief among them was Venice. Whereas in northern Croatia the Hungarians eventually managed to solidify their rule, southern Croatia what with continuing local resistance, the constant incursions by Venice and devious political manouvres by Byzantium ( later to be replaced by the Turks), remained very much a disputed territory.
However in 1358 Ludovic I by an agreement with Venice signed that year managed to gain control over Dalmatia for a short lime and it was then, it seems, that the rirst vlastela arrived in Poljica. They consisted, first, of a single family, later joined by a second; both of them, it would appear, ethnically Croat, but clearly sufficiently trusted by the king to represent his interests in this unruly little principality.
In the event, their arrival made no difference as far as the political situation was concerned, although the vlaste/a and their descendants did succeed in gaining for themselves a leading position in the community, even to the extent of socially outranking the didici-nobles in some respects. During the following 450 years, between 1358-1807, the principality was forced to accept suzerainty of a number of different powers - Hungary, Bosnia, Venice, Turkey -but it always managed to preserve internal autonomy. Several long periods were spent under Venetian overlordship and it seems that of all Poljica's suzerains the Venetians, who were busy trying to maintain their hold on the Dalmatian towns, interfered least with Poljica's internal affairs. In January of 1444 the Poljica leaders signed their first formal agreement with Venice, voluntarily placing themselves under Venetian protection, and it is likely that the oldest preserved version of the Statute which is here reproduced in translation was prepared for this occasion. (The date on the original manuscript is now generally taken to be 1440, but the manuscript is slightly damaged in this place and the numerical symbols used are not easy to read.) Be this as it may, the preserved version of the Statute contains a clear reference to an unknown earlier version and there seems little doubt that the origins of the Statute go further back in history, perhaps as far back as the first half of the 13th century.4
There are other Croatian statutes from this period, the best known being the Statute of Vinodol from 1288. Moreover, unlike the pre-1440 versions of the Poljica Statute none of which has survived, the original text of the Statute of Vinodol has been preserved (albeit only in a 16th century copy of the original document) and has been extensively studied by scholars. But the Vinodol statute had a somewhat different function. It was drafted with the explicit purpose of regulating the relations between several small formerly self-governing municipalities and their new liege lords, the princes of Krk. The Poljica Statute, on the other hand, as well as incorporating a civil code set out the constitutional structure of a semi-independent mini-state.
In fact, of all the counties of the medieval Croatia Poljica was the only one to survive as a semi- independant mini-state and preserve its territorial and political integrity for nearly eight hundred years. For the most part, it was a precarious balancing act on the edge of the precipice. The Turks, especially, from the middle of the fifteenth century onward presented a constant threat and the sheer severity of the penalties which according to the Statute awaited all those who might be foolish enough to collaborate with the Turks is a striking reminder of the precariousness of Poljica's position in this dangerous frontier region.
Yet the constant threat of extinction undoubtedly helped to keep the principality united and to strengthen its sense of identity. It also helped, in a curious sort of way, to keep the harsher aspects of feudalism at bay, for if the principality was to be successfully defended from external enemies it was imperative that, within the community, there should exist a large measure of consensus and willing co-operation from all sides in essential matters.
All this, however, came under severe strain when French troups arrived in Poljica in February of 1806, following Napoleon's defeat of the Austrians the previous year. For a great many Poljicans, but especially for the ruling nobility the arrival of the French was a traumatic experience. Suddenly they found themselves at the mercy of a new invader who was much more powerful than any of the others they had to contend with in the past. But more worrying still was the fact that the French had brought with them the new revolutionary ideas which the spectacular victories of their armies gave such a powerful impetus throughout Europe. A confrontation at the social as well as the political level seemed inevitable. The French, at first, looked at Poljica with some amusement and then increasingly with disfavour. Their administration set about introducing new rules, showing marked impatience with the local interests and ancient privileges. This caused a great deal of alarm and resentment among the local population. Before long the whole Poljica was astir.
Changes were very necessary, but the habits were centuries old. Unhappily the manner in which the new administration went about implementing the new rules was such that it upset more people than it otherwise might have done. To make things worse Russian warships unexpectedly turned up off the coast of Poljica and the Russian admiral Sinyavin lost no time in trying to induce the local leaders to resist the French, promising help in men and equipment. Eventually, after a stormy meeting in the Glagolitic Seminary in Priko at which most of the leading men of Poljica were present, the decision was taken to attack the French troups. It was a fatal decision and a grave error of judgement.
There were a few dissenters. Marko Kruzicevic, a priest and a teacher at the Seminary, who had travelled through Europe and was able to judge the situation more clearly, w'arned against the foolishness of such an action, but his voice was quickly drowned in the angry shouts of those who thought otherwise. The plan went ahead and, predictably, ended in disaster. The French suppressed rebellion with extreme savagery. The Russians did not fire a single shot to help the rebels and when the inevitable end came they speedily sailed off for home taking with them the last Prince of Poljica, ostensibly to save him from the French. He never came back.


*

Being myself a native of Poljica I might perhaps be forgiven for closing this introduction with one or two personal reminiscences. Many years ago as a young boy I often used to play near the building of the old Seminary and the medieval church of St. Peter close-by. They both were conveniently tacked away in a secluded corner at the foot of the mountain some short distance from the main village and there were many trees there to climb and plenty of things to explore. The building of the old Seminary was then known as opcina because it housed the offices of the county borough. The Glagolitic Seminary was in fact closed down by the Austrians as long ago as 1820, although some decades later a new theological college was opened there for a short period. In fact, a whole succession of Church and state schools found a home in the building at one time or another and even after the arrival of the county officies the teaching in the building still continued for a few years and it was there that my mother received her first reading lessons.
But then the opcina was never just another office building. It was also a social centre and a place to which the people of Poljica naturally gravitated whenever important issues had to be discussed and decisions taken, as they had done in the past.
There were very good reasons for this. The building of the opcina which first began its life as a monastery several centurries ago had an important place in Poljica's history. But the Church of St. Peter was more important still. The history of this small church goes back over twelve hundred years and is connected in many ways with the history of medieval Croatia. It was to this church that we were taken as children on all important occasions and I remember seeing a great mass of people, many of them in national costume, crowding the church and the space in front of it, milling around on the common or sitting under the trees.
Then the war came and with it came refugees. There was quite a large number of them in the last stages of the war. They too tended to gather around the opcina and the church. It was a very different crowd from those noisy multitudes that used to come here with their brass bands and flags and banners only a few years earlier. They squatted outside the buildings, clutching their few possessions and staring vacantly into space, waiting for the single daily meal of boiled maize flower that was being cooked in a large cauldron on an open fire a few paces away. But the place where I spent most of my time in those days was an old garage, just behind the opcina where an elderly bookseller called Jakov Tomasovic, himself a refugee from across the river, installed himself with a few dozens of books and some stationary that he was able to salvage after his shop was destroyed by bombs during an air raid, He was a soft-spoken kindly man with a thin face and a pair of pale blue eyes peering a little absent-mindedly through silver-rimmed spectacles. He was not only a book-seller - the only one, in fact, for miles around - but also an expert book-binder and an amateur writer. In the early thirties he earned himself a reputaton for eccentricity by starting a literary periodical in a town of less than two thousand people whose only place of learning was the local elementary school. He sold text-books and pencils to generations of school children. He kept a good supply of story-books too and I often used to stop outside his shop to look at the glossy covers of the hard-back editions displayed in the tiny showcase next to the entrance. One afternoon I walked into the shop and bought myself a copy of the beautifully illustrated Voyage around the World in Eighty Days, the very first book that I decided I could afford to buy with my own pocket money. I can still feel the smell of this book in my nostrils.
Not many customers came to the garage, but he did not seem to mind. Usually he would sit behind a trestle table which was piled up with books, making notes. The garage was damp but pleasantly cool in the summer heat. He would let me browse through the shelves and read from new books for hours, pretending not to notice me. We hardly ever exchanged a word. I knew that years ago he had published a little book called S puta i raspuca in which he described his country walks, for we had a copy at home, and I was itching to know what he was scribbling in his notebook, but all my carefully devised schemes to address him on the subject came to nothing, for each time my courage failed me.
He was gunned down in the mountains for no apparent reason a year before the war ended while walking back to his village. As I write these lines it is the picture of him sitting behind the trestle table in the old garage that comes to my mind most clearly. He was a shy and solitary man, yet immensely resilient in the face of failure and neglect. He had done more good than he ever knew. But for his quiet perseverance many of my generation would have grown up the poorer. I would like to dedicate this English edition of the Poljica Statute to his memory.

NOTES


1 The memory of this migration though enveloped in legends was still alive centuries after it had happened. It seems that the term 'White Croats' was still in occasional use in the 14th century. An unknown historical writer from this period recounts an incident which allegedly took place about three hundred years earlier when in the chaotic situation following the death of the Croatian king Zvonimir a delegation consisting of two Croats came to the Hungarian king to ask for his help in restoring the law and order in their country. They introduced themselves to the king as 'White Croats' ( Croates Albi sumus ). See N. Klaic, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku. Zagreb 1971, p. 35. The unknown writer who recorded this story clearly did not think it necessary to explain the term 'White Croats' to his readers.
2 See: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio. Greek and English. Edited by G. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins. Budapest 1949. P. 143.
3 See: Ivan Pivcevic, Povijest Poljica, Split 1921, p. 9f.
4 Cf. Stipe Kastelan, Povijesni ulomci iz bivse slobodne opcine-republike Poljica, Split 1940. pp. 38-44.




A Legal Commentary on the Poljica Statute

J.H. Farrar and Paul Bowden

In this paper we shall briefly refer to the history of the Poljica Statute and discuss its structure and suggest possible influences on it. In doing so we shall make comparisons where appropriate with early English Law. We are English lawyers with some knowledge of Roman Law but do not claim any expertise in the history of Slavonic legal systems. Our knowledge of the Statute and the literature through the medium of English translation.


The History ond Structure of the Statute

The Statute is said to be one of the most important socio-legal documents of early Croatian history, the other being the Vinodol Law of 1288 which was basically feudal law. The Poljica Statute is really a twofold code, being a collection of old customs and new decrees reached by agreement between the various representatives of Poljica society. The Statute has been studied by various Russian scholars, some of whom derive from the Statute an idealised picture of life in Poljica and it was even claimed on the slenderest evidence that the reports reaching England of the little Principality influenced Thomas More's 'Utopia'.1 The structure of the present text of the Statute is somewhat disorganised with a number of additions made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There is no apparent logical cohesion but simply an attempt to record items as they arose. At the time of the drafting of the original statute Poljica was not a standard kind of Slavonic society nor was it a purely feudal one either. It appears to be a primitive feudal system with two species of nobles - the Didici and the Vlastela - arising from an earlier tribal organisation consisting of three tribes. There is, however, a recognition in article 1 of the suzerainty of Venice in that the prince who holds office for a year must at least be loyal to the Doge. At the same time Poljica seems to be moving towards a truly democratic organisation. The entire Poljica male population seems at times to have discussed important matters such as treason, captivity and assault at meetings which represent a pure form of democracy only really feasible in a small community generally free from gross inequalities or at least a sufficiently socially cohesive that certain inequalities of wealth are accepted by those least privileged. Nevertheless all the important offices seem to have usually been in the hands of the nobles. There are two species of ownership of property - common and private. Originally communal property seems to have been widespread and extended to the whole tribe or all relatives; later it is limited to some relatives. It is, however, notoriously difficult to establish the nature of ancient systems of ownership and the concept of family ownership may only be an impression created by various interrelated rules of individual inheritance.2
There are a number of provisions of the statute which are worthy of comment. These reflect three key ideas - a) the recognition of basic human rights, b) the Rule of Law and c) an early development of a concept of community personality and responsibility.
Article 59b deals with the case of inheritance of property with a possibly defective title. The article stipulates that in such a case 'the fact that each man must live must in some way be taken into consideration. As there is nothing which has existed for all time.' This is a clear recognition of a basic human right. Similarly in article 89c which deals with a tenant leaving his lord. In .this article although there are traces of feudalism the article states that 'differing cases must be treated on their merits. A man is free to flee from evil if he can.'
Article 19 contains a recognition of a right of appeal against a decision of the Prince and of Poljica. In other words the state is subject to the Law. This resembles Magna Carta and the famous passages In Bracton and Coke. Thus Bracton, writing in the thirteenth century, stated "lpse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et sub rege, quia lex tacit regem'.3 While this was common theory in the Middle Ages it was unusual to find a right of appeal under the Law.
Articles 23b, 26, 29, 37d and 41b recognise some notion of the community as a legal person. It should be noted however that the purpose of recognition of such personality in these articles is to impose duties upon it as opposed to conferring rights . This is an unusual state of affairs in early law. It is more usual to find recognition of legal personality as the subject of legal rights in the first instance. Article 23b does in fact confer rights on Poljica. It refers to property of a traitor going to 'the district' which may refer to the community as a legal person or alternatively to an aggregate of individuals or individual families. It is interesting to contrast with these articles F.W. Maitland's striking description of legal development in Western Europe - '...the line of advance is no longer from status to contract, but through contract to something that contract cannot explain, and for which our best, if inade- quate, name is the personality of the organised group.'4 In Poljica the movement seems to be from status to some kind of social ( rather than individualised) contract situation which is leading to the recognition of the community as a legal person with rights and duties under the law. In F. Tonnies' language Poljica is changing from one form of gemeinschaft - or organic form of society - to another. The process of transition to a gesellschaft type of society, i.e. to a more atomised form of society, was perhaps to come later.5
There are some unusual procedures laid down by the Statute. Thus under article 5a a person who has a case against another must summon him thrice. This is uncommon. It is more usual to give the defendant a period of notice. The formal responses laid down by article 73a are quaint but resemble the formulae of Roman Law and English pleadings in certain respects.
Attempts to codify ancient customary laws were made in many European countries in the Middle Ages probably as a result of Papal influence or at least the availability of a clerical class.
There are in fact a number of points of resemblance with the social and legal organisation of England in the twelfth century. Articles 22 and 66 give a right of appeal to the magistrate and the assembly if the lord refuses to do justice. This resembles some of the earliest Royal writs whereby the King at the petitioner's request commanded the lord to do justice. However whereas an English lord was entitled to service and the incidents of tenure the rights of a Poljican lord not only to the tenant's personal service but also his chattels go further and suggest almost a lord / serf relationship (see article 89 but see also article 89c discussed above ). It is difficult to reconcile this with the apparen- tly advanced form of franchise on important legal matters. Perhaps the answer is that the Statute is a 'patchwork quilt' containing provisions from different periods. The form of pleading in a real property dispute (article 73a is reminiscent of the English writ of mort d'ancestor and the use of character witnesses upon sworn oath (article 73d is identical to the English procedure of wager of law.
Lastly, despite the claims which have been made by some historians about Poljica's communal system one wonders whether it was really any more communal than a twelfth century English village with its common land, plough team and uniform peasantry.6


Possible Legal Influences an Poljica Statute


There are four possible influences which will be considered. These are:


(1) Classical Roman Law
(2) Byzantine Law
(3) Venetian Law
(4) Slavonic Law


Any comment hereunder is necessarily tentative and our knowledge of the Slavonic literature is derivative and limited.


(1) a Classical Roman Law


Poljica was part of Dalmatia which was a Roman province and Split was the seat of Diocletian in the fourth century A.D. However any traces of classical Roman Law would be swept away except in the coastal towns in the numerous Slavic and Magyar invasions and there is no clear evidence that we can see in the Statute. The principal system of provincial land holding was latifundia - large private estates worked by servile labour - which does not fit the Poljica pattern as it is emerging in the Statute.


(1) b Later Roman Law


By the fourteenth century there was renewed activity in the Balkan countries producing legislation on the Roman model. The history of Roman Law in this period is complex but it is possible that even isolated Poljica may have been spurred on to codify its customs as a result of this development percolating through Venetian, Byzantine or Papal influences.


(2) Byzantine Law


Croatia was for several centuries within the orbit of the Byzantine Commonwealth. The main later legislation was the Ecloga of Leo III (717-741 ), the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata and the Hermanopoulos Hex- abiblos.7 The second was based inter alia on legislation of Basil I, the Ecloga of Leo III and the Farmer's Law and was composed in Greek and applied to the Greek speaking subjects of the Norman Kings of Sicily although its influence spread further afield. It is titled in the Freshfield edition 'A Selection of Laws arranged in a brief and compendious form by Leo and Constantine the wise emperors taken from the Institutes, the Digests, the Code and the Novels of the Great Justinian, and from the Martial, Penal and Rhodian Laws, improved in the direction of humanity'. The Farmer's Law represents the closest parallel to the Poljica Statute although the Statute has more
un-Roman features which are probably attributable to Slavonic influences . The Farmer's Law provides for many similar contingencies as the Statute, e.g. murder, defamation and straying animals, but the penalties are much harsher than those of the Statute which tends to follow the Slavic practice of fining. The Statute contains a constitution, administrative law and procedure unlike the Farmer's Law. In scope it almost approximates to the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata themselves.8 The first part of the latter (Chapters I - XIX) dealt with Private Law, the second (Chapters XX to XXX) with Criminal Law, the third ( Chapters XXXI to XXXIII ) with Ecclesiastical Law, the fourth (Chapters XXXIV to XXXVI) with Agricultural Law and the last part ( Chapter XXXVII ) dealt with Maritime Law. Compared with this the Statute has more Public Law provisions, a less comprehensive Private and Criminal Law and no Ecclesiastical and Maritime Law.


(3) Venetian Law


The renaissance of Roman Law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had its impact in Venice and probably this extended to Split and possibly from thence to Poljica. The Charter of Split c. 1300 may have influenced the Statute, at least as regards the desirability of codifying the law.9 Also by the time of the Statute the Italians were becoming increasingly familiar with the Byzantine texts and in fact it was a Venetian nobleman, Antonio, who presented a copy of Basil I's Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata to Francis I of France in the sixteenth century. Thus, slightly paradoxically, Venice may have acted as a source of dissemination of Byzantine ideas.


(4) Slavonic Law and Custom


We have already noted some specific Slavonic features. The full scope of Slavonic influence on law and administration in Medieval Eastern Europe is difficult to ascertain and the origin of some institutions, traditionally regarded as Slavonic, is not beyond dispute. It has been suggested for example, that the zadruga family group which prevailed in Poljica owes less to Slavonic custom than to Byzantine fiscal policy.10


Conclusion

The Statute depicts a Poljica in a period or social change. Indeed the very production or the Statute itself is evidence of that. Some Roman, Byzantine, Slavonic and Venetian influences may have been at work but the Statute at the end or the day probably represents a codification of local laws in which there are 'remains or the past, which live only in memory, which are manifestly dying, which sometimes are already dead, and new rules with perspectives for the future'. 11 In Weberan terms, the Statute is the product of a traditional system taking its first tentative step towards legal rationality. 12 In terms of substance as opposed to form the Statute as we have seen has a number of striking features. These are the recognition of basic human rights, the Rule of Law and a sense of community identity which is beginning to assume separate legal personality with rights and duties. The curious patchwork character of the Statute reminds one of the aptness of Mr Justice Holmes' remark that 'The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious...,' have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which man should be govern ed.' (The Common Law p.l ) The content of the Poljica Statute reflects all of these influences at work in a small community which maintained effective autonomy until the nineteenth century.


NOTES


1 This idea was put forward by the Russian academician M.P. Alekseev hi book of essays on English Literature, published in 1960.
2 See: Theodore F.T. Plucknett. A Concise History of the Common Law, p.522.
3 De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, f. 5b.
4 F. W. Maitland, Select Essays, ed. by H. D. Hazeltine, G. Lapsley and P.H. Winfield, p. 233.
5 See: F. Tonnies, Community and Association
6 See E. H. Freshfield, A Manual of Later Roman Law -the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata, p. 216-7.
7 See Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 404 ff.
8 Cf. Chapters I to XXXVI of the Ecloga ad Procheiron Mutata in Freshfield, op. cit. pp. 70 et seq.
9 See: J .H. Wigmore, A Panorama of the World's Legal Systems, pp. 758.
10 See Norman H. Baynes, The Byzantine Empire, p. 230.
11 Boris Gekov, Politsa, p 87, cited in A. Kadic, The Democratic Spirit of the Poljica Commune in: Communal Families in the Balkans, ed. by R. Bymes, p. 203.
12 See: Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. by Max Rheinstein




THE STATUTE OF POLJICA
translated by ALAN FERGUSON

Translator's Foreword. The orthography of the Statute of Poljica poses considerable problems for the editor and translator. The 'Bosancica' in which it is written was a cursive form of the Cyrillic script, a variation widely used in Bosnia and Dalmatia from the 12th century. Although the language of the statute is not altogether dissimilar to the dialect of Croatian spoken in Poljica until modern times, the orthography of the original manuscripts differs from both Serbian Cyrillic and Old Church Slavonic. The statute was first published in 1859 by M. Mesic but appeared in an authoritative edition only in 1890. V. Jagic, who realised the statute's historical importance and hence devoted much time and energy to preparing this edition, compiled it using the oldest preserved manuscripts, all in 'Bosancica', which he calculated to date from between 1567 and 1605. As the basic text was still incomplete he supplemented and, where necessary ,corrected it according to the texts of four later transcripts. Jagic's edition contains 116 articles, or 206 when these are broken down into their individual paragraphs. To these he appended extracts from eighteenth-century redactions. Its most ancient section he considered to have dated from about 1440. Regrettably the exact year referred to in the statute's heading was damaged in the oldest manuscript. He based this estimation on the assumption that on the eve of Poljica's attachment to Venice in January 1444, its inhabitants would have wished to have their laws recorded, so that the county's ancient rights and autonomy could be confirmed. As can be seen from this translation, various additions were made to the original text during later centuries. The statute remained valid as a whole until Poljica's autonomy ceased in the early 19th century. A few years ago the statute was rendered into modern Croatian by Zvonimir Junkovic (Poljicki zbornik, Vol I.,.Zagreb 1968) and I have on occasion - though by no means always - found his rendition a useful guide. My impression on the whole was that Junkovic might have done much more to clarify the obscurities in the original text.
Finally 1 wish to express my thanks to Edo Pivcevic with whom I have discussed some of the more opaque terms and passages in the statute and who has suggested a number of minor alterations and improvements all of which have been incorporated in the final version of the translation.

IN THE NAME OF THE LORD GOD, AMEN. THE STATUTE OF POLJICA. THIS NEW STATUTE WE DO FORM FROM THE OLD, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 1440.

1. The first law of Poljica is to elect from among the nobles a prince who is both loyal to the doge and acceptable to Poljica.l The law demands that he be chosen for one year and administer justice thrice and that on each such occasion he be given 30 rams, so that there be ninety of them in a year. Of these, three rams are to go to the officer of the district court as it is he who is to gather them.
2. Of the fines imposed by the prince and magistrates, one half accrues to the prince, one half to the district and to the officer of the district court one tenth of that.
3. Besides the prince there must be three sworn magistrates, from three tribes: one from the Tisemirs, a second from the Limices and a third from the Kremenicanins. Their term of office ends and they are replaced together with the prince.
4a. Poljica law determines that a man of Poljica may prosecute another initially only before the bench of Poljica -whatever the matter might be. And no other man may prosecute a man of Poljica save before the bench of Poljica when the matter relates to land within the region of Poljica.
4b. If he is dissatisfied with the decision in Poljica, he may go on to appeal, and that until the third term. The appeal of the man who fails to appeal until then is invalid in the term in which sentence is passed.
5a. He who has a case against another must summon him thrice, having taken a court officer from the prince or magistrates. At each session to which the other is summoned, the complainant must also appear. If he fails to appear, then his summons for that appearance is invalid.
5b. If the man summoned fails to respond in the first instance, he must pay 10 balanza. If he fails to respond in the second instance, he must pay one lira. If he is absent from the third session, and the summons was delivered to him at home, he loses the suit, unless it relates to joint estate.
6. When the time of the third summons is complete and the defendant appears, the plaintiff must present the grounds for his complaint. If the respondent's case is to be put by an advocate and he says 'He is not present' , or says: ' Let me find an advocate! I can not speak on my own behalf' - then, he shall be granted a period to find an advocate even after the third summons. If he finds an advocate in that time, he may speak on his behalf. If he does not find one, let him speak in his own defence; the law does not permit a further period being granted for this purpose.
7. If the defendant avers as part of his case 'God forbid' and, while in possession, says 'It is mine, by God!' -and if the complainant has no creditable evidence against him, he may take an oath to retain his property. If the complainant disputes that 'God forbid' and takes the officers of court to the place in question and he who says 'God forbid' is in possession - if the litigation concerns land, and if the disputed land is worth more than fifty lira..... (in the original manuscript a page is missing here )


On treason, pledges and assault

8. If a man is found a traitor to our land, that is, when a man surrenders himself and our land to another lord against the will of the other noble men of Poljica, then he is to be pronounced a traitor to our lords and our land, he is to be banished, the district of Poljica is to appropriate his estate and he is no longer to be considered a man of Poljica.
9. If a man binds himself before the prince and magistrates when charged with assault and if he designates anything as a pledge - if his pledge before the prince and magistrates is surrendered, half of the pledge accrues to the prince and the other half to the district of Poljica, having set aside the portion of the district court officer.
10. If during litigation before the prince and magistrates, a man should mention assault, that assault may not remain unpunished. Either he who is said to have committed it or he who mentions it must be punished.


Procurators may lay charges against a criminal and collect the tithe

11. The law demands that the district of Poljica appoint for a year three procurators from three tribes, one from each tribe, similarly magistrates to oversee district affairs.
12. Primarily to take responsibility for the tithe: to collect it in due time and deliver it within the stipulated period. Whoever fails to deliver it in time is to pay a fine of five lira and must still render the tithe.
13. They must seek out and prosecute anyone who commits an offence, namely: whoever sheds blood or plants a new grove without the permission of the prince of Poljica, whoever encloses an old road and creates a new one without the permission of the assembled princes; whoever assaults another and the assaulted person complains of this to a procurator or they see the affray with their own eyes; or if anyone in any way commits an act of violence and a complaint reaches the procurator, they have the right to lay charges and issue a summons on account of those things.
14. If a man is caught thieving in his own village, a noble man or a tenant, they may summon and prosecute him before the prince or the magistrates or the assembly. Of the fine imposed, the three procurators are to receive a quarter of that part which accrues to the district.
15. When a man commits theft in his own village, if he is of noble birth and found guilty by the assembly, three parts of the fine go to the district and the fourth to the procurators. If the thief in his own village is a tenant, three parts go to his lord the fourth to the district and to the procurators their portion.
16. If the thief calls character witnesses, by law no one connected with the theft may call the other party to take the oath. In any other case, anyone who does not call the other party to take the oath at the place of trial, may not by law subsequently do so.
17a. When anything is stolen from a dwelling and character witnesses are called because of that, the accused must swear twelfth. If the theft is out of doors and character witnesses are called, then sixth. If the matter is one of property, then he must also swear sixth.
17b. However if the oath is returned, the plaintiff who is called to take the oath must swear third. If a man summoned on account of property should not appear at the appointed time, then he must swear sixth, after witnesses, on his own property.
18. If anyone acquires movable property through litigation, an equal part accrues to the prince and the district of Poljica.
19. The prince of Poljica resolves with all other men of Poljica as follows: if a man appeals against a decision of the prince and of Poljica, and if the appellant fails to summon the man in whose favour sentence was passed within a month, his appeal is invalid.
Written in the year of Our Lord 1475, the 5th day of August.
20. Whoever is duke of Poljica need pay no tax save the tithe, any fines and head-tax when due to the Turks, He may not be exempt from this, but from all else each duke is exempt.
21. Poljica has resolved that four vlastela-nobles and nine didici-nobles 2 - whatever complaint comes before the magistrates, whether made to the procurators or themselves - that they should investigate everything concerning property. But regarding joint estate (plemenscina) if anyone should make to commit an unlawful act, those magistrates should forestall and consider it. The fine for anyone committing assault is 25 lira.
22. If anyone brings a complaint against a tenant, he must initially complain before the other's lord during the first session. If that man's lord should not pass judgement in keeping with the law, he may be summoned before these magistrates and jurors. If that man's lord should not wish to pronounce sentence, the aggrieved party should appear before the jurors and summon the accused.


On captivity

23a. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed and command all vlastela-nobles and didici- nobles and tenants and herdsmen 3 : Whoever is found engaging in hostilities with the Turks or their frontiersmen, if he be of the didici or the vlastela, must be caught and hanged, all his movables accrue to the district, but his joint estate to his next-of-kin; a tenant or herdsman found fighting with the Turks or their frontiersmen must be caught and hanged, half of his
property goes to the district and the other half to his lord. By this it is intended that whosoever personally participates in such activity must lose his head, but the rest of his household need not lose theirs.
Vlastela-nobles, didici-nobles and tenants have agreed on the aforesaid: that for everyone committing that offence the penalty should be the same - as written above.
23b. In fine, whichever man of Poljica, no matter what his birth, takes prisoners with the Turks or their frontiersman or surrenders to the Turks or of his own volition joins the Turks, he must needs lose his head, as written above, and his property accrues to the district. If he possesses joint estate, it accrues to his next-of-kin. If he is a tenant, then a half of his property accrues to his lord and the rest to the district.
24. The following was resolved by the men of Poljica at an assembly of all the vlastela-nobles and the entire district of Poljica, thus and in this manner: Four of the vlastela-nobles and four of the didici-nobles are to be appointed for three months, to be replaced after three months by others, so that there should constantly be eight of the above-mentioned. Should an injustice be done against anyone, three days every month he may summon the accused before them. If he does not come at the first summons, he is to pay 10 balanza. If he does not come at the second summons, he is to pay another 10 balanza. If he does not come at the third summons, he loses the suit.
25. This likewise was jointly resolved by the assembled men of Poljica: no man of Poljica may keep a Wallachian in Poljica if he can not keep him on his (property) and at his own (expense) and if they have not made a voluntary agreement to that effect.
26. All men of Poljica have agreed together: Should a man of Poljica kill a man approaching Poljica with the apparent intention of committing a misdeed in Poljica, all Poljica is bound to pay for him. Or, if a man should find a thief on his own property or on the property of some other man of Poljica and kill the thief as he is stealing or removing the stolen goods, all Poljica is bound to pay for him. Or, if a man should kill a brigand who is about to rob him and should kill him in self-defence - Poljica pays for him too. But if a man of Poljica should quarrel, argue with and murder another man of Poljica, Poljica does not pay for him.
27. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed that no man of Poljica is permitted or able to sustain an alien against another man of Poljica if there is litigation for joint estate. Whoever, notwithstanding, does sustain an alien, is to pay a fine of 50 lira.


If a man is assaulted

28. All men of Poljica are unanimously agreed: any man of Poljica who assaults another man of Poljica, - if the victim of the assault in defending himself should injure the assailant, then the injured man must still be paid for his injury, but the original assailant must pay the district of Poljica as much as is paid to him for the injury.


29. The men of Poljica have agreed among themselves: Should any man of Poljica commit abduction, as written above, and be caught or killed by another man of Poljica, then all Poljica takes this upon itself. Should any other threaten the latter because of this, he is to receive the same punishment as the criminal and is to be treated in like manner to the first.
* In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. In the 1482nd year after His birth, on the fourteenth of February. The noble Duje Papalic arose and made a tour of Poljica for the first time with his magistrates and the entire court, administered justice according to the law and encompassed all Poljica and its borders which are from of old.
Beginning in the West, where the river Zrnovnica flows into the sea, the frontier goes up the first hill Stojni Kamen, beneath Kamin straight towards the sea, up the river Vrelo Zrnovnice towards Pecine, the frontier goes from Oslji ridge. the frontier is the water Srdenik, Pec on Krivice, the frontier is in Kucisca, the frontier is in Konjevod, the frontier is Trnova Kamenica, Hanging Oak, by which is the frontier Vladavic's Grove, the hill Samolek. Little Konacnik, Cetina by Gardun. The frontier then goes down the Cetina, immediately beneath the village of Caporice, by the village of Ugljani, down the Cetina or midstream to Blato of Radobilja, down the river by Kresevo, by the village of Katuni, continuing downstream to Perucica, to the fortress of Zadvarje, downstream by Slimen to Kucici, downstream by Miric, Visec, Medvija, downstream to before the walls of Omis. The frontier then joins the sea and continues down the coast to Stobrec or into the river Zrnovnica.
30. In the year of Our Lord 1485, the 30th day of the month of December. In God's name, amen. By joint agreement Poljica has created and enacted its statute and its laws, having first approved and confirmed the laws and customs contained in the charters and instruments of previous lords and the privileges endorsed by our present illustrious Venetian government.

Table of Contents

First, church matters.
Benefactions, endowments. Anathema. Murders. Killing. Brigandage. Robbery. Assault. Slaughter. Penalties for injuries or bruises. Burglary. Wife-beating. The abuse of woman. Obduracy concerning joint estate and other matters. The penalty for assault. The penalty for brigandage. The penalty for insult or suchlike or for securities. On joint estates and those owning them on the purchase and sale of joint estates; on the pledging of joint estates. On movable property. He who betrays or is untrue to his country. He who is unjustly accused of treason, but found to be innocent. The law on groves and pasture. or on groves already grazed. Old laws deriving from other lords and confirmed in the charters of our lords. The laws on grazing-fees and unharvested vineyards; then on those harvested, but in winter. On fields, kitchen-gardens, mown fields or woods cultivated for acorns.


Church matters

31. Church benefactions and endowments must be safeguarded and should be given priority over all other. No one may take or acquire that which is the church's or retain it. Tithes must be paid as the holy father has confirmed and as it is written.


On anathema

32. In like manner whoever in his misfortune is publicly anathematized and excommunicated may not communicate or live with other people, save the household where he has his dwelling. Should death overtake him thus anathematized, he may not be interred with other Christians but elsewhere. To whomsoever should be confirmed a public usurer or should not make confession at least once a year, and be thus overtaken by death, and to whomsoever - God forbid! - should take his own life, the same applies.


On severance

33. When there is severance between brothers or cousins, the sons of one father or kinsfolk among whom severance is rightly to be made, it is easy to divide justly if the property is movable. However, if there be payment or reward from the lords, it belongs to the person to whom it is allotted.
If the matter is one of joint estate, it must be divided equally, but the home hearth must pass to the younger. When severance has been made justly, each is bound to retain his own. Should they make subsequent division or allotment, each may divide and re-measure freely whenever he pleases. However, each is free to remain on land drawn his by lot.
For as long as brothers or other fellow estate-holders do not separate, all is common to them, good and evil, gain and loss, debts which are owed by or to them; all is common to them until they separate. But when they separate, then to each belongs his own portion.


Chapter on litigation

34. Before all other, when a man has a dispute with, or case against another, and one party has already summoned the other according to the law - whether the matter concerns joint estate or anything else - then he who is charged first may not lay a complaint against the other or summon him until the first suit is completed. That is, it is forbidden for litigations to run concurrently or for one to interfere with another. This applies when the second party does not wish to respond. If he should begin to respond and enter litigation, that is if the first case is so old as to have passed into oblivion, then it is permitted. Regardless of this right, should the original complainant in the meantime commit some violent, unlawful or self-willed act against the defendant, the latter may then lay charges and speak against him -irrespective of the first case. He may lay charges and institute proceedings against him on account of that violent or unlawful action but he may not answer force with force.


On quarrels and affrays

35a. If a man quarrels with another and they pluck each other's hair and fight, but this causes no injury or bruising, then he who started the fight pays a fine of 25 lira.
If a man provokes another to fight, then the original provoker must pay a fine of 25 lira.
All else relating to affrays or injuries is dealt with under 'Hand'.
If bruising is caused, the fine totals 5 lira.
When a wound is caused by a weapon or in some other way and the wound is covered by clothing, 25 lira are paid for each such wound.
If the wound is to the face or arm and not covered by clothing, 50 lira are paid for such a wound.
If it is neither the one nor the other and clothing covers part but not all of it, the case is to be considered on its merits.
If a man maims another's arm, and one of the latter's arms, legs or even eyes should be injured, each separate injury totals one half of the fine for murder, which is 120 lira.


On injuries

35b. When two such limbs are lost, then twice as much is to be paid. If three, thrice. If four, four times. If five, five times. If as many as all six and the man does not so die. then the same calculation applies. And it is confirmed by law that there be fines greater than that for murder, as a crippled life is worse and more difficult for a man than immediate death.
Otherwise, when such events occur as are extremely complex, they must be examined by appraisers - in part according to the law, in part according to their own mind and conscience, considering in this why the deed was done and to what purpose.


On injuries to the hand

35c. When a finger is lost, as much is to be paid for a thumb as for half a hand, which is 60 lira. The value of the one must be set so much higher than the other as it is so much more valuable. If a limb is partially lost, the case must be treated on its merits: it must be examined.
Half as much is to be paid for toes as for fingers; for the big toe similarly half, and for all the rest half.
It should be considered where and in what place the event occurred. in what circumstances and for what reason, as by no means all events can be cited, but to an extent one must judge according to one's conscience.
When a tooth is knocked out in a fight, the fine is 50 lira.
When a nose is severed, the law demands that 50 lira first be paid for the wound, then the same amount for disfigurement of the face, which is 100 lira.
This applies to each limb when there is disfigurement and a wound. When an ear is severed, 50 lira are to be paid.
If an ear be rendered deaf by a blow, 50 lira are to be paid. If it is severed and rendered deaf, then 100 lira are to be paid.


On blood

36a. If a man kills his brother - which God forbid! - he may no longer be considered a man of Poljica, and his share of the inheritance, if there be any, is inherited by his next-of-kin, to whom it accrues as patrimony, as though the other had died. if the man is still to be found in Poljica, all Poljica must pursue and slay him.
36 b. If a man kills his brother or cousin and is subsequently found in Poljica, he must be pursued with a vigour proportionate to the closeness of their kinship.
36 c. If a man kills a relative or other kinsman 4 In order to acquire joint estate accruing to him as patrimony, that part of it may not accrue to the murderer but to whomsoever the tribe may determine.
If the murdered man has one or several daughters, the joint estate passes to them.
36d. If a man of Poljica should by misadventure kill another in Poljica or elsewhere, the same applies.
36e. If a man of Poljica kills an alien in vengeance, Poljica must stand behind him.
36f. If the matter is not one of revenge, it is the affair of the man who spills the blood.
36g. If an alien kills a man of Poljica, he must be pursued by Poljica. unless it was in vengeance. If it is because of previous hostility Poljica need not pursue him.
36h. If an alien kills or injures another alien in Poljica. Poljica is not to. interfere in the matter.


On blood

37a. When mortal blood falls, the old law demands that the penalty for it be 240 lira. This presumes two men quarreling and one of them killing the other.
37b. When a man kills another in a criminal manner or by artifice or from an ambush, or kills him for property or other profit, or robs him once having killed him - the law demands that the penalty in such a case be twice as great. If such a criminal or robber can be caught, whether a man of Poljica or an alien, he must be hanged or quartered.


On blood

37c. If a man kills another in hand-to-hand combat 5, while grappling, and the cause is not previously unavenged blood or suchlike, then for such blood as the victim sheds, fatal or not, Poljica is to pay.
37d. That apart, if a man sheds blood, mortal or not, on his own land or in his own dwelling while another robs him, the same law applies to him. Whether by cattle or elsewhere, the law is the same. If over wheat or in a vineyard or over other fruit, the law also applies that Poljica is to pay for it. If the thief is caught in the act, he must certainly be hanged, as is written below concerning robbery.
37e. Likewise, when a man kills another having broken into his dwelling, he must pay for the blood shed and the burglary.
37f. If he assaults members of the household or commits some other act of violence in the dwelling, this is spoken of below.


On convalescence after an affray

38. When, following an affray, a man convalesces and loses several days, there is no law for that save what might be awarded him by arbiters.
39a. If a man of Poljica seizes a noble man by the hair and casts him to the ground, and that is not an act of vengeance, namely, for no just reason, - if he disgraces him in such a way, he must pay him the injury fine of 120 lira. This applies if the latter does not pluck his hair also; if he does pluck his hair, this is considered retaliation. But the instigator is the culpable party. This applies to noble men.
39b. If a tenant so disgraces a noble man, the penalty is greater.
39c. If a tenant raises his hand against his lord. he loses his right hand.
40. In fine, whatever the injury, one or several. and in whatever place, by law Poljica has determined thus: Inasmuch as there be no other agreement or settlement between those concerned, then, those who estimate damages must see, examine and, after consideration, make their estimation - in part according to the law and custom, in part according to their own mind and conscience. As all cases can not be fully and entirely legislated for, evaluated and foreseen neither can all eventualities be included in the statute, but which injury is more serious or severe or dangerous to life must be established and appraised, namely, which injuries cause more serious illness or hardship, or expense in medicines and damage. Then, when it happens that bones or lungs or brains or any other parts of the body be rendered visible - all this must be investigated and assessed, as not everything can be cited individually as we have already written.
41a. If a man molests or robs another on the highway or elsewhere or sets an ambush for him, and the latter has done him no wrong, then a fine of 100 lira is to be paid; half goes to the other party and the other half to the district of Poljica. The stolen property must first be returned. However, if he strikes or injures him, the law cited above speaks of this. If he kills him on the spot, he pays two death fines, as above-written in connection with crime.
41b. If the victim does anything in self-defence while on the ground, Poljica pays for it, as was said previously.


On beating women

42. If a man beats the wife or sister or daughter of any man without real provocation on their part, he is to pay twice the fine for assault, which is 50 lira.
If he breaks into a dwelling and commits this act in the dwelling or the courtyard, he is to pay twice as much again, which is 100 lira.


On the malediction of men by women

43. If a woman rains curses on another, he is not permitted to strike her, but to make reply. However, if a woman comes upon another to strike or assault, to pluck or fight him, and he has given no real provocation and is innocent - if he drives her to her dwelling with a stick, nothing is to be paid.


Fines

44. The fine for assault is 25 lira. The fine for insults 10 lira.
The fine for brlgandage 100 lira.
The pledge-fine -for as much as a man has rightly bound himself by law.
The fine for cursing. Whoever curses his fellow without just cause is to pay 5 lira. If a tenant curses a noble man, twice as much. When a tenant curses his lord, his tongue should be severed or redeemed in the sum of 100 lira.
45. When in litigation a man mentions assault or makes a charge on account of assault, the fine for assault, which totals 25 lira, may not go unpaid by the litigants. If the guilt of the accused is shewn, then he pays. If it is not shewn but confirmed that the accused is innocent, then the fine again falls on the man who mentioned assault and complained without justification.


On burglary

46. In the old times the fine and law for burglary was so very great and serious that no one could pay it with facility. Now Poljica has formulated and enacted a milder law, that is 100 lira. Irrespective of all else that happens during the offence, that fine is to be paid for the burglary alone.
47. In the year of Our Lord 1476, on the 20th day of November, at Vraci when Poljica was
assembled, it determined, enacted and thus recorded in its statute as follows: When any land is pledged, part of the income from it must be given to the lord who pledged it, so that a half of the income from the part to which he has a right be given to him. Which means: when the land is divided in twain, he must be given a quarter of it, when in three, a sixth of it must be given; and when in four, an eighth is given: and when in five, a tenth part of it is given, and so on after the same fashion.


On the notary

48. This year, 1485 since the birth of Christ, on the 18th day of July, Poljica determined that it should maintain a sworn district notary, who should receive annually 20 rams or 39 balanza for each ram, so that three- year rams are reckoned four thirds. For an instrument from the notary' s ledger he receives 5 balanza, for a judgement sealed on cotton parchment 10 balanza, and for a sentence revised by the bench one lira. He is moreover exempt from all taxes save the head tax.


Chapter on patrimony

49a. The law on patrimony declares thus: He who possesses ancient patrimony which comes down to him from his forbears, must cultivate, enjoy or otherwise draw his livelihood from it. It is not honourable for it to be squandered and wasted without great need, but - as the old law and custom prescribe - let him leave it as he found it.
But whatever a man finds and acquires, or assembles or earns separately or in any other way gains himself and obtains through his own endeavours, - the old law determines that he be allowed freely to do with it whatever he wishes - at the moment of death or during his life, for his body or soul. Which means that what a man finds or wins or acquires for himself - apart from his share of patrimony, be there one or several such parts - he may dispose of freely: just as he acquired, so may he freely arrange it as he sees fit.
49b. Let this be stated moreover: When a man is on his deathbed and has several children or heirs to whom he is bequeathing his property, he is allowed to do with it whatever he wishes. But, even at the point of death, he should not at the expense of one leave all to another, and deprive the first of everything, but should act justly and honourably. That applies to the death-bed. However, while a man is alive and well he may freely dispose of all that he has.


The law on sons and fathers

49c. There are only thirteen reasons for which a father may in conscience deprive his sons of patrimony: 1. when a son raises his hand against his parents; 2. when he personally brings disgrace upon them; 3. when he accuses them of an unworthy deed not directed against the faith or the temporal ruler; 4. when he is a criminal or associates with criminals; 5. when he attempts to take his parents' lives, either with poison or by some other means; 6. when he profanes his father's bed; 7. when, by going to law, he causes his parents great expense; 8. when he will not vouch his father in captivity; 9. when he obstructs his parents in taking their last decision; 10. when he engages in a dishonourable or humiliating profession which his parent did not engage in, if for instance he be on the stage, that is an actor, or suchlike; 11. when a daughter or grand-daughter who is not yet 25 and may marry chooses a dishonest life: 12. when he does not nurse a parent who has lost his reason 13. when he does not attempt to redeem him if he is in captivity.
These are the reasons for which parents may deprive children of their patrimony or dowry .


What are immovables and what movables

50a. Whatever can be easily moved is called movables. What can not be moved from its position is stable or immovables, that is: land or a dwelling, a stone building or two-storey building, or a village hut which is sturdy, or a church, tower or cave.
50b. These are immovable or stable things, and all else is called movables: a loosely-built thatched hut could not be called other than a movable object. But a mill or watercourse is an immovable object.
All else in the world is called movable, as it can easily be moved from its position.
50c. A spring which never runs dry is said to be stable and immovable.
But a well dug by hand is a movable object.
And all else in the world is movable, as it is moved easily: that is why it is called movable.


On the sale of joint estate

51a. Before all other, the old law prescribes that joint estate may not be sold or pledged secretly, that is covertly, especially without the knowledge cf one's kinsmen, but must be sold openly, in the light of day, and be first offered to one's kinsmen. The old law of Poljica prescribes that he who would sell must first declare this at three assemblies or in the prince's presence for three terms, saying: 'I intend to sell this; if one of my kinsmen wishes to purchase it, let him approach me; if he will not, I shall sell to whom I can:
51b. He who sells joint estate may not again redeem it, Poljica, however, has now established that a kinsman may redeem it within one year.
51c. If there is a member of one's tribe more closely related than the man who redeemed the joint estate, he may redeem it from him.
51d. If both are equally related to the original vendor or there are several who are equally related to him, they must redeem it in such proportion and in the same way as they divide their own joint estate.
51e. In fine, if it is desired that the sale be valid and lawful, just appraisers must make an evaluation and, according to their conscience, assess and determine the value of that joint estate.


On exchange

52a. When two men exchange an animal, for instance a horse or an ox or some other animal, for either clothing or some other movable object, when they exchange, with or without supplement, and both are satisfied and each of them goes home and sleeps one night thereafter, - they may not revoke the exchange or re-exchange unless it is the wish of them both or unless some fraud is involved. The exception is when there is some contract or agreement concerning a trial period, or some other understanding or fixed term.
52b. If a man should exchange with another one or several parts of his joint estate, reciprocally, without supplement, the exchange must be made publicly, in the light of day, and he is permitted to exchange with whomsoever he pleases. However, if before the exchange is made and confirmed, one of any of the parties' kinsmen should appear and declare: ‘Brother, I shall give thee in exchange the same amount of such land, do though exchange with me!' - he may not then be refused.
52c. However, once they have exchanged and measured each other's land and confirmed it in writing or through court officers, if both are satisfied with the exchange and if there has been no artifice or concealment or deception, and if supplementary payment in money or in kind has been made, then according to Poljica law a kinsman may redeem it at the price for which it was sold, for one year.


Law on chickens

53. A chicken in a vineyard must lose its head; it should be slaughtered and eaten. And if it scratches around a dwelling, it may be slaughtered.


Law on kitchen-gardens

54a. The same law applies for a garden as for a vineyard. If any animal does damage in it at a time when vegetables are being cultivated, then a small animal may be slaughtered. But a garden should first be well and completely enclosed, and then the owner of the garden is to declare the damage being caused to it. Thereafter he may slaughter a small animal and catch a greater one.
54b. A pig may be slaughtered, as may also a goat or sheep. If the damage done to the garden be great, a goat, sheep and pig may be slaughtered and eaten, as also they may be in a vineyard.
54c. When chickens do damage in a garden or vineyard, then the owner, having made it known, may slaughter and eat one, even if there be several of them, If there is a cockerel in their number, then he may slaughter another hen, but not the cockerel.
54d. If this happens in wheat which chickens may otherwise peck, the owner of the wheat must make it known and then slaughter. If the owner of the wheat is willing to give one quarter of his bran to the owner of the chickens, he may whenever he happens upon a chicken slaughter and eat it.


When a man betrays his lords

55a. In the name of God, amen. Let this be known. At an assembly of Poljica at Ma(j)cin 6, there did all of one mind and unanimously, both vlastela-nobles and didici-nobles, all as one determine and enact thus: If it be established of any man - be he of the vlastela or didici, or a friar or any other man no matter what his estate - that he personally or through some other in writing or in speech did slander or revoke obedience to our most illustrious Venetian lords or their governors and against our land, of whom this be established, he may in no way - with no mercy and irrespective of the appeals of any other man on this earth - receive any other punishment but must be burned with fire; thus and in no other way.
55b. All unanimously determined and enacted and cleaved with faith and soul that no one may be pardoned this, once it has been established. That apart, if another should assist him in this or sustain his cause because of kinship or any other attachment, he is to share his fate.
55c. If a man betrays the council of Poljica. he is a treacherous person and a traitor to Poljica.
55d. If a man refutes or opposes what the assembly of Poljica does and determines, he must be sentenced to pay 25 lira to the district of Poljica, and, notwithstanding, it is to be as the assembly resolves.


On groves and pastures

56a. Villages which have their own par