Navigation – Plan du site
Le mariage dans le pourtour méditerranéen de l’Europe : du modèle à la comparaison

Istrian Custom of Contracting Marriage in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period

Les formes coutumières du mariage en Istrie, au Haut Moyen Âge et au début de l’époque moderne
Marija Mogorović Crljenko et Danijela Doblanović Šuran

Résumés

Au Moyen Âge et à l’Époque moderne, l’Istrie, qui fait aujourd’hui partie de la Croatie, était divisée en deux parties, autrichienne et vénitienne. Dans cet article, l’accent est porté surtout sur la partie vénitienne, la partie autrichienne n’étant mentionnée que de façon sporadique. L’analyse est fondée sur les registres paroissiaux des mariages de Rovinj et Savicenta, les registres des litiges matrimoniaux, les registres des absolutions matrimoniales et des permis de mariage des Archives diocésaines à Poreč et les statuts des villes istriennes. L’article traite des aspects patrimoniaux du mariage, en particulier en fonction des trois types de mariages pratiqués en Istrie (istriens, slaves et vénitiens). Une attention particulière est accordée aux « cadeaux » de mariage (dot, contradote et basadego), à l’âge au mariage et au choix du partenaire. Dans cet article, sont également observés les usages en matière de remariage des veuves (mattinata, charivari), de choix des témoins et de privatisation du mariage à la fin de la période moderne, à la différence du Moyen Âge et du début de la période moderne où la cérémonie du mariage était davantage un événement public que privé.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

We would like to thank Professor Ivan Jurković (Juraj Dobrila University of Pula), who drew the map for this essay.

Notes de l’auteur

This research has been supported in part by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project “Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Urban Elites and Urban Space”, no. IP-2014-09-7235.

Texte intégral

1Contracting marriage is one of the most important events not only in the life of an individual, but also of the whole community, marking the beginning of a new family. Certain usages of contracting marriage in the Istrian region in the medieval and early modern period will be analysed in this paper: the type of contracted marriage, the type and amount of wedding gifts, choice of partners and the related escapes or abductions of the brides, then the relation of the community toward the contracted marriage, especially if it was a newly contracted marriage between a widower or widow, the time of the wedding, days of the week when marriages were usually solemnised, etc.

  • 1 Darovec 1997, p. 43; Štih and Simoniti 2004, p. 142; Bertoša 2003, p. 373; Mogorović Crljenko 2014b (...)
  • 2 Bertoša 1995, pp. 56‑302; Bertoša S. 2005, pp. 59‑63; Darovec 1997, pp. 55‑56; Mogorović Crljenko 2 (...)

2From the end of the Middle Ages Istria was divided into the Austrian and Venetian part (see Map). The coastal part of Istria, primarily its western coast with the hinterland, and part of the eastern coast belonged to the Venetian Republic, while the central part of Istria, the so called Pazin County, belonged to the Habsburg family, and it is therefore called Austrian Istria1. The analysis will primarily encompass the Venetian part, sporadically the Austrian, and it will be based on secular and church documents, primarily on marriage registers (from Rovinj and Savičenta for the Venetian part of Istria, and Draguć and Hum for the so called Austrian Istria), marriage litigations noted down in the Poreč Diocese, statutory regulations, etc. The inhabitants of Istria were various, in the Middle Ages as much as in the modern period, but also in the present times. They were primarily Romance and Slavic people. The Slavs started to inhabit Istria as early as the 7th century, mostly in the areas surrounding towns and in parts of central Istria, while towns had citizens belonging to the Romance population. In the course of the centuries Istria was struck by many adversities, wars, diseases and epidemics, and its population met misfortune many times so their number significantly decreased. At the beginning of the early modern period, both the Venetian and Austrian authorities tried to demographically restore the desolated area, mostly by populating new people. More than once did the attempts of colonisation by inhabitants from Italy or Greece fail. However, the colonisation of the Slavic people, at the time escaping from the Ottoman threat and looking for a safer home, was successful2. All the aforementioned did certainly have an effect on the custom which occurred at contracting marriage. It was very important that the marriage be acknowledged by church and secular authorities, but also by the sole community. That is why in various communities, and in the Istrian as well, there were different usages of contracting marriage which ensured the credibility of a relationship.

M. Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137.

3The most widespread way of contracting marriage in Istria, primarily in the Venetian part of Istria, was the Istrian marriage pattern, also called marriage like brother and sister or marriage according to a certain town (for instance, marriage according to the town of Piran, Novigrad, Umag, etc.). The second most frequent was the Slavic marriage pattern. In Istria it was possible to contract the Venetian type of marriage. According to former research, such marriages were rare, and they usually occurred among members of the higher society, especially among those coming from Venice. However, our cases testify that such marriages could be also contracted between “simple” people, but also by people from the higher social strata of a certain town, and examples will be shown later in this work. Besides, marriages could be contracted according to some other area or a special contract.

  • 3 Margetić 1996; Margetić 1970, pp. 279‑308.
  • 4 Margetić 1970, pp. 279‑308; Margetić 1996, pp. 69‑79; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 19‑24; Mogorović (...)
  • 5 Margetić 1996, pp. 95‑96; Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, p. 25; Mogorović Crljenko 2012b, p. 22; Mogorov (...)

4Literature has dealt a great deal with the topic of the Istrian marriage pattern, and its especially detailed description was given by Lujo Margetić in an analysis of all the Istrian statutes3. Its main characteristic is that the marital spouses had a common administration over their goods. After one of the partner’s death, the living one inherited half of the deceased’s goods. The husband could not sell goods without the wife’s consent, but neither could the wife do so. In case one of the partners did that, the other partner could ask for the annulment of such sales and donations. Regarding debts, the wife was not obliged to pay for debts incurred by her husband at gambling, at an inn, or by giving guarantees, but was liable for their common debts. Even though the property during the marriage was separated, in practice the husband and wife managed it together. After the death of one spouse, the surviving spouse did not inherit but took his/her own part, which was half of the property. So, the widow couldn’t be evicted from the house – because she was the owner of half of the house and the half of all property. She received her part even when she remarried4. In the Slavic and the Venetian pattern of marriage, a wife wasn’t as protected as in the Istrian marriage pattern and didn’t have control over the property. Differently from the Istrian marriage pattern, according to the Venetian marriage pattern, after her husband’s death the woman was allowed to keep only her dowry and contradote (with the basadego), and creditors had an advantage over her. Her position was somewhat better if the husband pronounced her woman and lady of the house (dona et domina) in his will, and in such a case she could continue living in his house till the end of her life and enjoy in his property. In case he did not do that, the husband’s relatives could evict her from the house no later than a year or a year and a day. In the Slavic marriage pattern the marital couple had common ownership of acquired goods. The dowry was only in movable property, while real property was given only to male members of the family. Still, women could become owners of real estate if they bought it or acquired it in some other way5.

  • 6 Bertoša 1995, p. 706.
  • 7 Margetić 1996, p. 95.

5Miroslav Bertoša states that Istrian and Venetian marriage patterns were characteristic for the Romance population, while the Slavic marriage pattern was characteristic for the Slavic population. However, the Slavic population often accepted marriage according to the Istrian marriage pattern6. Lujo Margetić observes that for spouses who contracted marriage according to the Istrian marriage pattern it was of key importance not to do it according to the Venetian marriage pattern. As a fact, the Istrian marriage pattern was more convenient for poor Istrian families, where the woman’s work was extremely valuable and should have somehow been rewarded, which was done through the institution of the Istrian marriage pattern7. The Venetian marriage pattern, which can be seen from the aforementioned examples, was rarely contracted, namely, in less than 1 % of cases. As noticeable, it could be contracted between the so‑called “simple” small people, but it was more commonly contracted between newcomers from the Venetian area and among people from the higher strata.

  • 8 Margetić 1996, pp. 94‑95; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 19‑20.
  • 9 Mogorović Crljenko and Doblanović 2015, pp. 256‑261.

6When contracting marriage, the newlyweds, especially the bride, received certain gifts. In the Istrian region there were three known wedding gifts: dowry, contradote and basadego. The dowry was given by the bride’s family, contradote was given by the bridegroom’s family, while basadego, or wedding gift, was given by the sole bridegroom8. The oldest Rovinj marriage register (1564‑1640) contains, along with the registration of the act of marriage, information about the marriage gift – if it was money or in kind and what was its amount. In time, the contradote and basadego blended into one gift, so the Rovinj marriage register contains formulas basatica sive contradotte, di basadega oltre la contradote, contradotte vel basadego... The basadego is mentioned in more than 90 % of cases in the register. It could be given in cash or in kind. Usually it was in cash, i.e. in more than 92 % of cases, then in kind in 6.6 % of cases, and sometimes it was mentioned that the gift had not been given (0.54 %). Regarding the money gift, usually it was given in ducats (80 %), but other currencies were mentioned, too: ire, zecchini, scudi (d’oro/d’argento), sagatini, marcelli, gazzette, bezzi. The gift in kind was usually cloth (42 %), clothes (19 %), and shoes (15 %), and in a few cases the basadego was jewellery, animals, products in kind, cultivated land9.

  • 10 M. Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 17.
  • 11 Bertoša S. 2002, p. 56.
  • 12 According to Benussi, the following families formed the Rovinj town council: Basilisco, Bello, Brio (...)
  • 13 Our analysis has shown that there were two usual and mostly represented wedding gifts, the lower in (...)
  • 14 Mogorović Crljenko – Doblanović 2015, pp. 258‑259.
  • 15 State archive of Pazin (Državni arhiv u Pazinu; hereinafter: DAPA), HR DAPA 429, Collection of pari (...)

7The representation of a certain type of marriage in Istria is shown in Chart 1, designed on the basis of the research conducted by the historian Miroslav Bertoša who analysed the book of marriage contracts of Bale in the 17th century10. That is a valuable information, because in a large number of cases sources do not state the type of contracted marriage, possibly due to the fact that it was considered that the marriage was contracted in the Istrian marriage pattern if it was not otherwise said. For instance, Slaven Bertoša analysed the Pula registers kept during two centuries (1613‑1815) and found only three cases of marriage being contracted in the Venetian way11. For most marriages, the marriage pattern was not noted down. The oldest marriage register of Rovinj that has been analysed shows that in the period from 1564 to 1633 there were 1,218 solemnized marriages, but only nine cases explicitly stated that marriage was contracted in the Venetian way (0.73 %). Since it is a small number of marriages, they will be mentioned here. On 28 January 1574, marriage according to the Venetian marriage pattern was contracted between the master (mistro) Grigo Sartor (tailor) and Honoranda from Vodnjan. Another marriage according to the Venetian marriage pattern (matrimonio alla Veneziana) was contracted on 18 June 1583 by Francesco Tanaia and Catharina Hospadaliera. In the May of 1596 there were two marriages contracted according to the Venetian marriage pattern (alla usanza di Venezia). The first (6th May) was contracted between master Thomasino Biondo and Chiaretta da Prata; the other (20th May) was contracted between Nicolo Stella, whose father was from Venetia, and Margarita from Zadar. On 20th June 1598, master Francesco Parmesano, resident of Bale (a town neighbouring Rovinj) and lady Meneghina di Vescovi also contracted marriage according to the Venetian marriage pattern. Meneghina belonged to the councillor strata of Rovinj families12, and for her wedding she received one of the biggest wedding gifts registered in the analysed book: 100 ducats as contradote and additional 10 ducats as basadego (100 ducati de Contradotta et altri 10 de basadega). In the next example, we present the Venetian marriage pattern, explicitly said to have marriage documents verified by a notary public (alla usanza Veneziana, si come apar per l’instrumento fato de mano de meser Xphoro Sponza, Nodaro) contracted on 29 October 1603 between Mattio Sponza and lady Thaeda Testa. This was one of the rare marriages without a wedding gift being registered. A document was also written about the marriage contracted according to the Venetian marriage pattern on 10 February 1614 between meser Avise Palaciol from Bale and dona Antonia Sponza (fu contra il suo matrimonio alla Venetiana app. per instrumento fatto da matrimonio). The basadego Antonia received, according to her surname also a member of the Rovinj councillor families, was usual: 10 ducats, considered to be a higher average gift13 (di basadego secondo usanza ducati diese)14. The fact that a document was made was again noted down for the following marriage contracted according to the Venetian marriage pattern (al usanza Veneziana come appar per pub. instr. per mano de Cristofolo Sponza q. Francesco nodaro Publico). In the year 1616, on 28 April, marriage was contracted between mister Cosmano Bichachi, member of the councillor strata of Rovinj families, and Margarita from Šibenik. The amount of the wedding gift was not registered here either. Gabriel Sponza and Bonetta Basilisco, both members of the Rovinj councillor strata, contracted marriage on 22 January 1618 according to the Venetian marriage pattern (alla usanza veneziana). Bonetta did not receive money for her wedding gift, but jewellery (una Maniza con li Bottoni doro), but the recording does not indicate its value in money. The last marriage contracted according to the Venetian marriage pattern was between mister Vendrame Sponza and lady Eufemia de Perinis on 31 July 1618. A document was made about the marriage (alla usanza di Venezia, instrumento fatto per mano del spetabile meser Iacopo Bello nodaro dela Spetabile Comunita sotto li 30. luglio), and Eufemia received 25 ducats as a basadego and contradote (di basadega oltre la contradote 25 ducati)15.

Chart 1 – Representation of each marriage pattern in Bale in the 17th century, according to research conducted by Miroslav Bertoša.

Chart 1 – Representation of each marriage pattern in Bale in the 17th century, according to research conducted by Miroslav Bertoša.

Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137.

  • 16 HR DAPA 429, MR for Rovinj (1564‑1640).
  • 17 Margetić 1996, 96; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 16.
  • 18 Bertoša 1995, p. 706; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 15‑16.

8In most of the other cases the marriage pattern was either not mentioned, or it was said that marriage was contracted according to custom (alla usanza), according to the Istrian custom (alla usanza dell’Istria), according to the Rovinj custom, the town custom or our town, or like brother and sister (usanza de Rovigno; al usanza de Rovigno cioe da fratello e sorella; a fradel et sorella secondo l’usanza alla Terra; secondo il costume della terra; al usanza del Paese; alla usanza del Nostro Paese; al usanza del Paese cioe da fratello e sorella). All these expressions indicate marriage according to the Istrian marriage pattern. Sometimes it was recorded that the marriage was contracted according to another, neighbouring, area. For instance, on 8 February 1610, marriage in the Bale way (all’usanza di Valle) was contracted between Marin Fioretto from Bale and Concordia Basilisco. Concordia was member of the Rovinj councillor families, but the basadego that she received did not differ from the average. Namely, she received 10 sequins (basadego come ordinario cechini 10)16. Although it was a neighbouring area, precisely the town of Bale, it was the same type of marriage, namely the Istrian marriage pattern or marriage according to the name of a town, in this case marriage in the Bale way. However, information on the wedding gift and the type of marriage were not necessary information, which should have been noted down in registers, so the parish priests did not record them. Marriage was considered as contracted according to the Istrian marriage pattern, or according to a certain town’s way, if spouses did not express that marriage was contracted according to some other area’s way. Such a regulation was adopted in almost all Istrian statutes17. It is thus reasonable to think that the other marriages noted down in the observed marriage register were contracted according to the Istrian marriage pattern18. However, due to the lack of expressed data, the analysis of the representation of certain marriage patterns is made much more difficult, so the aforementioned Bale register represents an exception and its data are therefore especially valuable.

  • 19 HR DAPA 429, MR for Svetvinčenat (1581‑1589.1622‑1623), 7 November 1584.
  • 20 HR DAPA 429, MR for Svetvinčenat (1581‑1589.1622‑1623), 2 July 1584.

9In the period between 1581 and 1588 there was only one marriage contracted according to the Venetian marriage pattern in Savičenta. On Monday, 13th February 1587 marriage was contracted between ser Lorenzo Zanco and Catarina Manzoni, ser Zenero’s daughter (more veneta con promisio di contradote di ducati 50 alla detta sua moglie si prius vitam cum morte conmutasset). Regarding two other marriages, it was explicitly noted down that they belonged to the so‑called Istrian marriage pattern (questto contratto fu fatto all’usanza della Terra19 i stato fato alla usanza della terra che se intende a fra e suor20). The entries about marriages sporadically contain interesting data about the dowry and contradote. For instance, Mattio Bogonich and Gliuba Baizo were married on the last day of October in 1582. The entry about their marriage contains information about the contradote: promise ducati 12 per cotento, et contradotte havendo fioli, et non havendo fioli che la dona possa desponer de ditti ducati 12 presenti et testimoni a questa promisione ser Paulo Vodopia et Piero Bubicich da Fasana. A detailed description of gifts was registered in the marriage between Stana, widow after the late Blaž Medosich from Savičenta, and Marko Bičić from the area of Barban (married on 2 December 1582). Detto Marco Bicich promesse a Stana sua Moglie presenti ser Hieronimo Salgaredo, Ivan Bocordich ditto Baian, et Piero Bocordich ditto Pechich: una vestura di rasa bianca, uno camisoto di tela biancha, una camisa bona et recipiente, un velo di valor di L. 3 , uno paro de calze de valor de L 2, (soldi) 8, un par de scarpe nove, una centura rossa nova et lire cento, L 100, et Questo in dotte, et per ditti danari et robe Ivan Bocordich soprascritto alla presentia de ditti testimonii si costituito piezo, et prinzipal pagador del ditto Marco Bicich alla sopraditta Stana sua moglie.

  • 21 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 39‑47; Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 48‑51; Klapisch-Zuber 2000, pp. 3 (...)

10The choice of the partner was a very important thing at all times, and thusly in the examined medieval and early modern periods. The choice was not only operated by individuals. Members of the family played a very active role as well. The church insisted on the agreement between men and women, which was considered a precondition of a valid marriage, but applauded the consent of parents and families, because it guaranteed the stability of the sole community. However, the agreement between spouses was more important than the family choice. It is obvious that canon and secular laws could contradict each other. Istrian statutes gave the highest importance to the right and will of the parents, i.e. the family or guardian, in the choice of partners, while for the church the agreement between partners was crucial. To achieve this, sanctions were prescribed for those who contracted marriage without the parents or family’s consent. The sanctions were primarily material and regarded the disinheritance of the spouses. However, certain statutes prescribed sanctioning for young men and women, while others sanctioned only the men21.

  • 22 Statute of Motovun, p. 213, in Morteani 1895.
  • 23 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 40‑41; Morteani 1895, p. 116.

11The Motovun statute is an example where both young men and women were sanctioned if they contracted marriage without their parents’ consent. A young man who would promise a girl to marry her without the consent of her father, or mother and two relatives, and with the presence of five witnesses from Motovun, would be punished with a fine of 50 small libars to be paid to the Motovun commune, with a two‑year exile and with an additional punishment according to the decision of the head of commune. A girl who would contract marriage without her parents or relatives’ consent should have remained without her father or mother’s goods, and would be punished with two‑month imprisonment. In case she did not have parents or relatives, she needed the consent of the head of commune to marry. The statute provided that a young man could get married without his father’s consent, but only if older than 22. However, in such a case his father did not need to leave any goods to him. The sole statute22 states that this provision was enacted to prevent mistakes and aberrations, which had happened earlier, too, which witnesses to the fact that marriages contracted without the parents or relatives’ consent existed23. How often were the aforementioned provisions realised in practice is not known due to the fact that no preserved sources which would witness to that fact exist.

  • 24 Statute of Buzet, p. 41, in Zjačić 1963‑1964, pp. 71‑137 and 1965, pp. 118‑199.
  • 25 Statute of Oprtalj, p. 42, in Vesnaver 1884, pp. 133‑180.
  • 26 Zjačić 1979, p. 498; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 41.

12The Buzet24 and Oprtalj25 statutes, for example, do not anticipate punishment for the girl, but only for the man who would marry her without her parents, brother or sister, or her guardian’s consent. The money fine of 500 small libras was prescribed, and in the case of an escape, the punishment would be doubled. Although this regulation seems to show that at that time legislators and communities did not consider a girl as capable of reaching her own decision, practice showed that girls could have been responsible, too. Namely, the preserved will from the beginning of the 16th century drawn up by cobbler Kvirin from Buzet shows that girls could have also been disinherited if they did not have their parents’ consent to marry. In this very situation, the cobbler determined the amount of inheritance for his daughters after his death, but in the case they married without their mother’s consent, they should have been disinherited26. This proves that both parents and the community considered girls capable of reaching decisions.

  • 27 Bertoša 1972, pp. 300‑304; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 42‑43.

13Therefore, the children’s marriage and the choice of marriage partners was mostly decided by parents and family, primarily by the father, or, if he was deceased, by the mother and relatives. The preserved marriage contracts from 17th and 18th century Bale published by M. Bertoša show that marriage was usually contracted by the bridegroom and the bride’s father. Sometimes the bride‑widow would participate in agreeing upon marriage herself, and sometimes the spouses contracted the nuptial agreement, even in cases when they were not widows and widowers. Very rarely, although such a case was also confirmed, the agreement could be closed between the bride‑widow and the bridegroom’s father27.

  • 28 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 129‑179; Mogorović Crljenko 2014a, pp. 617‑632.
  • 29 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, p. 158.

14Despite the statutory provisions, sources show that the spouses did not always abide by them. Namely, whole books of abductions of girls for marriage from the beginning of the 17th century on are kept in the Diocesan Archives in Poreč. Processes from the first half of the 17th century show that in two‑thirds of cases, those were agreed abductions, or escapes, and usually the girl was the initiator. Those were mostly orphan girls, whose father or both parents died. Their relatives, usually uncles from their father’s side, looked after them, but they did not always feel good under their guardianship. Besides, the family had plans for their marriage, and if they did not agree with the plans, they would take matters in their own hands and escape with their chosen one. They would regularly spend the night with him. Regardless of them having a sexual intercourse or not, the girl would be doubted of that and she would not be a desirable bachelorette any more. The family would then usually agree upon the marriage to avoid that the girl, and consequently the whole family, be reproached. When the abduction was real and violent, the abductor usually had a group of helpers, often armed and riding horses. They followed the girl’s movements and they would grab her when she was unprotected, alone, or in a smaller group. She would then be taken to the abductor or one of his helpers’ house and sexual intercourse, i.e. rape, would follow. The forcibly abducted girls would agree to marriage after such events. Abductions were mostly practiced by Slavic settlers, although they existed among the Romance population as well. Nevertheless, women abductions were not only characteristic of Istria and the Slavic inhabitants only, because the Council of Trent has not in fact enacted special provisions on women abductions28. In any case, on the suspicion of abduction, the young woman and man would first be separated, so that she was safe, not under his ownership, and able to freely decide if she wanted to be married to him or not. Istrian cases from the first half of the 17th century show that all abductions, whether violent abductions of women or just escapes, ended up in marriage29.

  • 30 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 28‑34; 82‑84.
  • 31 Statute of Pula, Supplementary decisions, p. 51, in Križman 2000.
  • 32 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 73‑75.

15In the medieval and early modern periods mortality was rather high due to diseases, epidemics and wars. As a result, many people were left as widowers or widows at a young age, i.e. at an age when they could still get married. In the poor land of Istria, a spouse was usually necessary to easily secure the basic existence. Men needed a woman if they remained alone with children from their previous marriage. On the other hand, if women were left as widows with children, they often had to given up custody over their children in case they remarried. Their husband’s family would then usually gain tutelage of the children as their father’s heirs. Research carried out for the Istrian region has shown that widows with children were usually in a poor financial situation30. That is why many widowers and widows who were still at an age suitable for marriage entered into new marital relationships. Contracting the second marriage was usually more discrete, but there were still certain usages connected to that. The usage of the charivari (Croatian: pojutarje, Istro-Venetian: mattinata, English: skimmington ride), confirmed the separation of the alive and the deceased spouse, and the widow or widower were given the possibility of contracting a new marriage. Some Istrian sources and usages show that the community did not always give their consent to remarriage, and they showed that by sometimes mocking and teasing the widowers and widows who married again. Such sources are rare, but they do exist. For instance, the Pula statute forbade pojutarje (mattinata), the usage which took place when a person, either male or female, contracted marriage for the second time, in a provision enacted on 19 November 144731. This custom included making noise with various specific instruments (horn, hoe, etc.) with the aim of mocking those who got married for the second time. Similar mockery was evidenced in cases when there was a great age difference between the spouses (a 70 years old man would marry a 20 years old girl)32.

  • 33 Dražen Vlahov (see the List of sources) transliterated them.
  • 34 Doblanović 2013, p. 30.
  • 35 S. Bertoša 2002, p. 334.
  • 36 Doblanović 2017, pp. 201‑202.

16In the medieval and early modern periods most Istrian inhabitants engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding. Most Istrian towns inhabitants also engaged in farming land around the towns. Agriculture and cattle breeding presupposed respect for certain rhythms which can be clearly read from registers. Seasonal occupations dictated the rhythm of life which can be observed in the schedule of christenings, but also weddings, during the year. Regarding the 16th and 17th century Istrian region, the Glagolitic registers of christenings were mostly studied33. Thus is for the Lindar parish. In the period between 1591 and 1648 most conceptions happened in April and May, while the least occured in August, September and October34. The schedule of conceptions for Pula in the first half of the 17th century was similar. Most conceptions happened in spring, the least in late summer and autumn35. Many authors have carried out research about registers of christenings in later periods (18th, 19th and 20th century). Regarding the schedule of christenings/conceptions according to months, the results are almost the same as for previous periods. For example, in the 18th century in Kaštel, Novigrad, Poreč, Pula and Savičenta most conceptions happened in spring (in the post‑lent period), while the least happened in late summer and early spring36.

  • 37 See especially: Bertoša 2002, Budicin 1988‑89; Idem, 1987‑88; Ivetic 1991; Manin 1997; Jelinčić 200 (...)
  • 38 Doblanović 2017, p. 84.

17The weddings were, however, determined not only by agriculture, but also by religious norms. Research conducted for (mostly) 18th c. Istrian parishes indicates that there were two periods in the year when weddings were celebrated more often: autumn (November) and winter (January and February)37. The winter maximum prevailed in Pula, Novigrad, Poreč and Vrsar, and the autumn one in Buzet, Kaštel, Savičenta and Vranja38.

  • 39 Draguć and Hum were studied through the transcript of Glagolitic registers made by Dražen Vlahov. S (...)
  • 40 In Charts 2 to 5, spring encompasses the months of April, May and June, summer is July, August and (...)

18This paper studies the earlier period (the second half of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century) in Draguć, Hum, Rovinj and Savičenta39. In these parishes, there was a prevalence of the winter-autumn maximum in the number of weddings, while in Rovinj the highest number of weddings occurred in spring and the least in autumn (Charts 2 to 5, Table 1)40.

19Both winter and autumn weddings were determined by the period of the upcoming religious forbiddance of marriages – advent and lent. Spouses rushed to get married before lent, i.e. in January and February, or before advent, in November. November was also the period of a standstill in agricultural works and when there was the largest quantity of food in the house (agricultural products were mostly collected in late summer or during the early autumn). Draguć, Hum and Savičenta belong to this group because agricultural activities were primary there. On the other hand, in Rovinj, where the largest share of inhabitants was made by those oriented toward non-agricultural activities, there was the spring maximum of weddings, while there was the smallest number of weddings in autumn. Contrary to the other two parishes where there was the least number of weddings during summer, in Rovinj summer was also a popular period for weddings. The inhabitants of Rovinj were mostly fishermen, sailors and shipbuilders’ families, so the rhythm there was different than in agriculture.

Tableau 1 – Distribution of weddings during the year.

parish

(year)

Draguć

(1582‑1649)

Hum

(1618‑1641)

Rovinj

(1569‑1618)

Savičenta

(1582‑1588)

%

%

%

%

Jan.

22

18.48

13

28.26

111

13.31

22

15.07

Feb.

27

22.69

4

8.7

98

11.75

29

19.86

Mar.

2

1.68

1

2.17

9

1.08

1

0.68

Apr.

2

1.68

0

0

54

6.47

8

5.48

May

8

6.72

1

2.17

93

11.15

11

7.54

Jun.

7

5.89

1

2.17

94

11.27

11

7.54

Jul.

2

1.68

3

6.52

64

7.67

7

4.79

Aug.

6

5.04

0

0

76

9.11

14

9.59

Sep.

1

0.84

2

4.35

74

8.87

5

3.42

Oct.

7

5.89

3

6.52

67

8.03

14

9.59

Nov.

34

28.57

16

34.79

90

10.79

22

15.07

Dec.

1

0.84

2

4.35

4

0.5

2

1.37

119

100

46

100

834

100

146

100

Chart 2 – Weddings according to seasons in the Rovinj Parish (1569‑1618).

Chart 2 – Weddings according to seasons in the Rovinj Parish (1569‑1618).

Chart 3 – Weddings according to seasons in the Savičenta Parish (1582‑1588).

Chart 3 – Weddings according to seasons in the Savičenta Parish (1582‑1588).

The chart was designed according to D. Vlahov (Vlahov 2015, Table 6, p. 64).

Chart 4 – Weddings according to seasons in the Draguć Parish (1582‑1649).

Chart 4 – Weddings according to seasons in the Draguć Parish (1582‑1649).

The chart was designed according to D. Vlahov (Vlahov 2015, Table 6, p. 64).

Chart 5 – Weddings according to seasons in the Hum Parish (1618‑1641).

Chart 5 – Weddings according to seasons in the Hum Parish (1618‑1641).

The chart was designed according to entries of marriages in the Glagolitic register after the transcription done by Dražen Vlahov (Vlahov 2003, pp. 101‑109).

  • 41 Doblanović 2017, pp. 90‑91, 208‑211.
  • 42 Mihelič – Pocajt – Mihelič 1994, p. 195.

20Research about the day of the week when spouses usually got married in Istria in the early modern period exists only for the Savičenta Parish41. Slovene historians, when writing about marriages contracted in Piran in that period (1889‑1892), have shown that most marriages were celebrated on Wednesdays (36 %) and Saturdays (35 %). Only 12 % of couples married on Sundays, while Friday was absolutely avoided42.

  • 43 Dirbe and Van de Putte 2012, p. 16.

21Research about the wedding day in south Sweden has shown that from the middle 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century the number of marriages solemnized on Sunday decreased to a great extent. In the 18th century, 50 % of all marriages were solemnized on Sunday, while at the beginning of the 20th century only 10 % of marriages occurred on this day. According to those studies, these changes are a result of the privatisation of weddings, i.e. the transition from the wedding in which the whole community takes part into the wedding as a more intimate event in which only the spouses’ narrower or wider family participates43.

22Weddings in Savičenta from the end of the 16th century to 1900 have many similarities to the Swedish example. At the end of the 16th century (1582‑1589) the largest number of weddings took place on Sunday (43 %) and Monday (21 %). A hundred years later (1682‑1689) Sunday was still the most usual day for weddings to be celebrated (37 %), and a similar situation is found in the period from 1710 to 1719 (35 % on Sunday). In the second part of the 18th century (1762‑1770), Sunday marriages made a third of all marriages (33 %). At the end of the 18th century (1790‑1799) Sunday and Monday were equally represented (19 % each). Only ten years later (1800‑1809) the number of Sunday weddings decreased (15 %), while the number of weddings celebrated on Wednesdays (21 %), Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays increased. In the five‑year period from 1896 to 1900 the smallest number of weddings was celebrated on Sundays and Fridays (less than 3 % for both days). The decrease in the number of Sunday weddings (Chart 6) suggests that there were more people who wanted to make this day more intimate and share it only with close relatives and friends.

Chart 6 – Sunday wedings in Savičenta.

Chart 6 – Sunday wedings in Savičenta.

Chart taken from Doblanović 2007, p. 211.

23When comparing wedding days in the three remaining parishes (Draguć, Hum and Rovinj) with Savičenta, there is a discrepancy. While in the 16th and 17th century Savičenta Sunday weddings prevail, they are considerably less present in the other parishes (Charts 7 to 10, Table 2). Half of the couples in Draguć and over 60 % of couples in Hum were married on Monday or Tuesday. Rovinj, on the other hand, had the largest number of weddings on Thursdays (almost a fourth), followed by Sundays.

24There are inconsistencies in worshiping Friday as the day of Jesus’ Passion. It it was not respected equally in the four parishes; weddings were to be avoided on that day (Table 2).

Tableau 2 – Days of the week and weddings.

Parish

(year)

Savičenta

(1582‑1588)

Draguć

(1582‑1649)

Hum

(1618‑1641)

Rovinj

(1580‑1619)

%

%

%

%

MONDAY

30

20.98

22

18.49

14

30.43

84

13.48

TUESDAY

13

9.09

37

31.09

14

30.43

71

11.4

WEDNESDAY

17

11.89

17

14.29

5

10.87

83

13.32

THURSDAY

18

12.58

13

10.92

4

8.7

150

24.08

FRIDAY

2

1.4

8

6.72

5

10.87

53

8.51

SATURDAY

2

1.4

6

5.04

0

0

76

12.2

SUNDAY

61

42.66

16

13.45

4

8.7

106

17.01

143

100

119

100

46

100

623

100

Chart 7 – Wedding days in Rovinj (1580‑1619).

Chart 7 – Wedding days in Rovinj (1580‑1619).

Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Draguć (Vlahov 2015, pp. 307‑314).

Chart 8 – Wedding days in Draguć (1582‑1649).

Chart 8 – Wedding days in Draguć (1582‑1649).

Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Draguć (Vlahov 2015, pp. 307‑314).

Chart 9 – Wedding days in Hum (1618‑1641).

Chart 9 – Wedding days in Hum (1618‑1641).

Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Hum (Vlahov 2003, pp. 101‑109).

Chart 10 – Wedding days in Savičenta (1582‑1588).

Chart 10 – Wedding days in Savičenta (1582‑1588).

25For the period from 1582 to 1588 there were 143 weddings registered in the Savičenta marriage register. Some of them were celebrated outside the parish, in the bride’s parish, but were registered in Savičenta too (6). There is not an annotation about the witnesses to these weddings. As a rule, spouses had two male witnesses. There is no record about women witnesses, and only exceptionally were there more than two witnesses or only one. The analysis of the witnesses’ surnames indicates that more than a quarter belonged to the clerical circle or to those who were related to the church by their profession (pre Zuanmaria Carminati, prebendary Vido Stoicovich, Reverendo Miser Piero Pessola, deacon Pasqulin Sellaro, pre Zuanne Scampich, pre Zamaria Favro da Cherso, pre Mattio Toncovich, Zuan Maria Zamperich clerico, Antonio Lovrinich ostiario, Zamaria Lugan campanaro, etc.). Besides them, there is frequent mentioning of witnesses without the specification of their profession like, for instance, Antonio Calenta (18 weddings or 13 %), ser Zener di Manzoni q. ser Franceschin (10 weddings or 7.3 %), and mistro Antonio Nevo ditto Lenart (8 weddings or 5.84 %). Those surnames and others very frequent among witnesses indicate that these were people who lived in the very centre of Savičenta, not in one of the surrounding villages, and probably they lived close to the parish church where weddings were usually celebrated so they could “serve” as witnesses. Differently from today, when wedding witnesses are regularly the spouses’ close friends, in the past witnesses were in fact only witnesses to the act of marriage.

  • 44 The expression priča denotes a witness. The same Glagolitic register uses the expression na svedoča (...)
  • 45 Vlahov 2003, p. 50.
  • 46 Vlahov 2003, p. 104.

26In the period from 1618 to 1627 there were 21 marriages registered in the Hum marriage register. Only men were wedding witnesses, and regularly there were two of them. The witnesses were noted down at the end of a marriage entry with the expression na priču, or na priča44 (Croatian expression for: to the testimony of) (recorder parson Juri Fabijančić)45. Only one wedding was registered as having three, and another one as having four witnesses, while there was one where witnesses were not registered, probably due to a recorder’s mistake. It is interesting to see that for the marriage contracted on Wednesday 27 January 1627 it was noted down that the witnesses were many people in the Church of the Mother of God in Hum (Croatian: mnogo ludi v crekvi Svete Marie v Humi)46. The same surnames often appear among witnesses: Ivan Geržinić who was prefect in 1618 (five times), Martin Geržinić (four times), Luka Glogovac (three times), Gašper Malinarić (tree times).

  • 47 Vlahov 2015, pp. 57‑59.
  • 48 For instance, marriages solemnized on 30 November 1586 and 4 February 1587.
  • 49 On 26 November 1586.

27In the neighbouring Draguć witnesses were also noted down with expressions na priču, priče or na svidočanstvo (Croatian for: to the testimony of)47. In the period from 1582 to the end of the 16th century there were 29 weddings. Some entries did not mention witnesses at all, while for some others it was registered that marriage was contracted before witnesses (Croatian: pret svidoci)48. In Draguć witnesses were only men, regularly two or three of them. In some weddings, along the witnesses’ names, it was noted down that there were also good Christians and others present (Croatian: druzi dobri karstijani i pročaê)49 to testify of the event. Here again, witnesses were mostly individuals linked to the church (priest, deacon – pop, žakan), but also prefects and other men. Pre Ivan Lešnak, pre Ivan Perčina and pre Marko Maroić (registered also as mister pastor Marko Maroić) and the deacon Jadre Marković were witnesses to almost a third of all weddings (29.2 %).

  • 50 Doblanović – Mogorović Crljenko 2017, pp. 27‑28.

28The Rovinj marriage register (1590‑1610) shows that wedding witnesses were always men, and there is no example when a woman was one. In the same period, in a large number of cases, namely 38 %, witnesses to weddings held in Rovinj were clergymen (canons, deacons, chaplains, priests, ostiaries, etc.), when, along with their name, appeared the mark indicating that50.

29All the aforementioned indicates that wedding witnesses had to be credible, a category, which at the time included only men. As a rule, they were neither close friends nor relatives of the spouses, but people who were available in the church when the marriage was contracted because they were linked to it by profession or place of residence.

30This paper presents the custom of contracting marriage present in the Istrian region in the medieval and early modern period, and for which there are existing proofs in sources. Many things influenced contracting marriage, and therefore the custom linked to it, from the decision about the division and administration of goods in a marriage, when in the Venetian part of Istria the Istrian marriage pattern prevailed, to the custom linked to the choice of partners, when families tried to have a dominant role, but some young couples opposed it, usually through agreed abductions or escapes. Sources indicate that there was a certain custom linked to remarrying, which was usually realised through throbbing and mocking. It has also been shown that a certain custom linked to contracting marriage was also linked to a certain region and its people’s economy. It influenced the inhabitants’ whole lives, and therefore contracting marriage, too, and it can be observed in the time when marriage was contracted. This was especially prominent with rural inhabitants who were linked to the soil and agricultural works, so weddings were mostly held in periods when there was less work in the fields, or after crops and products were collected. The work aimed at presenting various practices of choosing the wedding day, where it can be observed that during the early modern period changes in the choice of the wedding day occurred in some towns. The changes went from Sunday, the day when almost the whole community could witness about the act, to the other days, which indicates the privatisation of weddings (Savičenta). In the end, a marriage custom is seen in the choice of the witness. Sources show that, contrary to the present situation, the witnesses were not usually chosen among friends and members of the family, but among people who were somehow connected to the church, or who lived near the church, like priests, deacons, bell ringers, etc. Sources also tell us that women appeared rarely, and in some towns almost never, in the role of a wedding witness.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Unpublished sources

Marriage register for Rovinj (1564‑1640), in State archive in Pazin, HR DAPA 429.

Marriage register for Svetvinčenat (1581‑1589.1622‑1623), in State archive in Pazin, HR DAPA 429.

Published sources

Statutes

Križman 2000 = Mate Križman (ed.), Statuta Communis Polae. Statut pulske općine, Pula, Povijesni muzej Istre, 2000.

Morteani 1895 = Luigi Morteani, Storia di Montona con Appendice e documenti, Trieste, Stabilimento artistico tipografico G. Caprin, 1895.

Vesnaver 1884 = Giovanni Vesnaver, “Statuto municipale di Portole”, Archeografo triestino XI, 1884, pp. 133‑180.

Zjačić 19631964 = Mirko Zjačić, “Statut buzetske općine”, Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu VIII‑IX, 1963‑1964.

Parish registers of baptisms and marriage

Vlahov 2003 = Dražen Vlahov, Glagoljski zapisi u knjizi krštenih, vjenčanih i umrlih iz Huma (1618‑1672), Pazin, Državni arhiv u Pazinu, 2003 (Glagoljski rukopisi XIV).

Vlahov 2012 = Dražen Vlahov, Matica krštenih župe Lindar (1591‑1667), Pazin, Državni arhiv u Pazinu, 2012 (Glagoljski rukopisi X).

Vlahov 2015 = Dražen Vlahov, Glagoljske matice krštenih i vjenčanih iz Draguća u Istri 1579‑1650, Pazin, Državni arhiv u Pazinu, 2015.

Notary book

Zjačić 1979 = Mirko Zjačić, “Notarska knjiga buzetskog notara Martina Sotolića (Registrum imbreviaturarum Martini Sotolich notarii Pinquentini) 1492‑1517. Godine”, Monumenta historico-juridica slavorum meridionalium XVIII, 1979, pp. 293‑578.

Bibliographic references

Barthélemy 2001 = Dominique Barthélemy, “La vita privata nelle famiglie aristocratiche della Francia feudale, Parentela”, in Georges Duby (ed.), La vita privata dal feudalismo al Rinascimento, Rome‑Bari, Laterza, 2001, pp. 71‑129.

Benussi 1888 = Bernardo Benussi, Storia documentata di Rovigno, Trieste, Tipografia del Lloyd Austro-Ungarico, 1888.

Bertoša 1972 = Miroslav Bertoša, “Valle d’Istria durante la dominazione veneziana”, Atti del Centro di ricerche storiche Rovigno 3, 1972, pp. 57‑207.

Bertoša 1995 = Miroslav Bertoša, Istra: Doba Venecije (XVI‑XVIII stoljeće), Pula, Zavičajna naklada “Žakan Juri”, 1995.

Bertoša 2003 = Miroslav Bertoša, “Istra od 12. Do 15. Stoljeća”, in Franjo Šanjek (ed.), Povijest Hrvata. Prva knjiga: Srednji vijek, Zagreb, Školska knjiga, 2003, pp. 371‑376.

Bertoša 2002 = Slaven Bertoša, Život i smrt u Puli: Starosjedioci i doseljenici od XVII. do početka XIX. Stoljeća, Pazin, Skupština udruga Matice hrvatske Istarske županije, 2002.

Bertoša 2005 = Slaven Bertoša, “Mletačka Istra u 16. stoljeću”, in Mirko Valentić and Lovorka Čoralić, Povijest Hrvata. Od kraja 15. stoljeća do kraja Prvog svjetskog rata, Zagreb, Školska knjiga, 2005, pp. 59‑63.

Budicin 1987‑1988 = Marino Budicin, “Alcune linee e fattori di sviluppo demografico di Orsera nei secoli XVI‑XVIII”, Atti del Centro di ricerche storice Rovigno 18, 1987-1988, pp. 93‑120.

Budicin 1988‑1989 = Marino Budicin, “L’andamento della popolazione a Cittanova nei secoli XVI-XVIII”, Atti del Centro di ricerche storice Rovigno 19, 1988‑1989, pp. 75‑106.

Darovec 1997 = Darko Darovec, Pregled istarske povijesti, Pula, C.A.S.H., 1997.

Dibie 1988 = Pascal Dibie, Storia della camera da letto. Il riposo e l’amore nei secoli, Milan, Rusconi, 1988.

Dirbe and Van de Putte 2012 = Martin Dirbe and Bart Van de Putte, “Marriage seasonality and the industrious revolution: Southern Sweden 1690‑1895”, Economic History Review 65, 2012, pp. 1123‑1146.

Doblanović 2013 = Danijela Doblanović, “Crtice o stanovništvu Lindara na kraju 16. i početku 17. Stoljeća”, Vjesnik istarskog arhiva 20, 2013, pp. 23‑38.

Doblanović 2017 = Danijela Doblanović, Žrvanj života. Stanovništvo Savičente od početka 17. do početka 19. Stoljeća, Zagreb, Srednja Europa, 2017.

Doblanović and Mogorović Crljenko 2017 = Danijela Doblanović and Marija Mogorović Crljenko, “Godparents and Marriage Witnesses in Istria from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century”, Dubrovnik Annals 21, 2017, pp. 9‑29.

Duby 1987 = Georges Duby, Vitez, žena i svećenik. Ženidba u feudalnoj Francuskoj, Split, Logos, 1987.

Duby 1996 = Georges Duby, Il potere delle donne nel Medioevo, Rome‑Bari, Laterza, 1996.

Duby 2002 = Georges Duby, Medioevo maschio. Amore e matrimonio, Rome‑Bari, Laterza, 2002.

Ivetic 1991 = Egidio Ivetic, “La popolazione di Parenzo: aspetti, problemi ed episodi del movimento demografico”, Atti del Centro di ricerche storice Rovigno 21, 1991, pp. 117‑185.

Janeković Römer 1989 = Zdenka Janeković Römer, “Pristup problemu obitelji i roda u stranoj i domaćoj medijevistici”, Historijski zbornik XLII, 1989, pp. 171‑182.

Jelinčić 2005 = Jakov Jelinčić, “Matična knjiga vjenčanih župe Vranja 1771.‑1806.”, Lupoglavski zbornik 5, 2005, pp. 69‑94.

Klapisch‑Zuber 2000 = Christiane Klapisch‑Zuber, “La donna e la famiglia”, in Jacques Le Goff (ed.), L’uomo medievale, Rome‑Bari, Laterza, pp. 319‑349.

La Rocca 2002 = Chiara La Rocca, “Interessi famigliari e libero consenso nella Livorno del Settecento”, in Silvana Seidel Menchi and Diego Quaglioni (eds), Matrimoni in dubbio. Unioni controverse e nozze clandestine in Italia dal XIV al XVIII secolo, Bologne, Il Mulino, 2002, pp. 529‑550.

Lombardi 2000 = Daniela Lombardi, “Scelta individuale e onore familiare: conflitti matrimoniali nella diocesi fiorentina tra '500 e '700”, Acta Histriae IX 8, 2000, pp. 111‑128.

Lombardi 2006 = Daniela Lombardi, “Giustizia ecclesiastica e composizione dei conflitti matrimoniali (Firenze, secoli XVI-XVIII)”, in Silvana Seidel Menchi and Diego Quaglioni (eds), I tribunali del matrimonio (secoli XV-XVIII), Bologne, Il Mulino, 2006, pp. 577‑607.

Lombardi 2008 = Daniela Lombardi, Storia di matrimonio. Dal medioevo a oggi, Bologne, Il Mulino, 2008.

Manin 1997 = Marino Manin, “O demografskim kretanjima u župi Kaštel tijekom druge polovice 18. stoljeća”, in Lino Šepić et al. (eds), Kaštel – Castelvenere, Kaštel, KUŠD, 1997, pp. 35‑39.

Margetić 1970 = Lujo Margetić, “Brak na istarski način”, Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu XV, 1970, pp. 279‑308.

Margetić 1996 = Lujo Margetić, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovno obiteljsko i nasljedno pravo, Zagreb, Narodne novine, 1996.

Meek 2006 = Christine Meek, “Il matrimonio e le nozze sposarsi a Lucca nel tardo medioevo”, in Silvana Seidel Menchi and Diego Quaglioni (eds), I tribunali del matrimonio (secoli XV-XVIII), Bologne, Il Mulino, 2006, pp. 359‑373.

Mihelič, Pocajt and Mihelič 1994 = France Mihelič, Jasna Pocajt and Darja Mihelič, “Piransko prebivalstvo pred sto leti”, Annales, Anali Koparskega primorja in bližnjih pokrajn [Annalli del Litorale capodistriano e delle regioni vicine] 5, 1994, pp. 191‑202.

Mihelič 1997 = Darja Mihelič, “Srednjeveška Tržačanka v ogledalu mestnega statuta”, Etnolog. Glasnik Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja 7, 1997, pp. 87‑102.

Mogorović Crljenko 2006 = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, Nepoznati svijet istarskih žena, Zagreb, Srednja Europa, 2006.

Mogorović Crljenko 2010 = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, “Women, Marriage, and Family in Istrian Communes in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries”, in Jutta Gisela Sperling and Shona Kelly Wray (eds), Across the Religious Divide, New York/London, Routledge, 2010, pp. 137‑157.

Mogorović Crljenko 2012a = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, Druga strana braka, Zagreb, Srednja Europa, 2012.

Mogorović Crljenko 2012b = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, “The position of women in Istrian marriage pattern (Istria in the 15th and 16th centuries)”, in Anna Bellavitis, Nadia Maria Filippini and Tiziana Plebani (eds), Spazi, poteri, diritti delle donne a Venezia in età moderna, Verona/Bolzano, QuiEdit, pp. 21‑30.

Mogorović Crljenko 2014 = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, “The Abduction of Women for Marriage: Istria at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century”, Acta Histriae 22/3, 2014, pp. 617‑632.

Mogorović Crljenko 2015 = Marija Mogorović Crljenko, “The position of women on the East Adriatic Coast in the Middle and Early Modern Ages”, in Grethe Jacobsen and Heide Wunder (eds), East meets West: A Gendered view of Legal Tradition, Kiel, Solivagus Verlag, pp. 141‑158.

Mogorović Crljenko and Doblanović 2015 = Marija Mogorović Crljenko and Danijela Doblanović, “Stanovništvo Rovinja prema najstarijoj Matičnoj knjizi vjenčanih (1564.‑1640.)”, Povijesni prilozi 49, 2015, pp. 239‑274.

Nikolić 1999-2000 = Zrinka Nikolić, “Rejection of Marriage in Medieval Dubrovnik”, Otium 7‑8, 1999-2000, pp. 87‑94.

Opitz 1999 = Claudia Opitz, “La vita quotidiana delle donne nel Tardo Medioevo (1250‑1500)”, in Christiane Klapisch-Zuber (ed.), Storia delle donne. Il Medioevo, Rome‑Bari, Laterza, pp. 330‑401.

Štih and Simoniti 2004 = Peter Štih and Vasko Simoniti, Slovenska povijest do prosvjetiteljstva, Zagreb, Matica hrvatska, 2004.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Darovec 1997, p. 43; Štih and Simoniti 2004, p. 142; Bertoša 2003, p. 373; Mogorović Crljenko 2014b, pp. 153‑155.

2 Bertoša 1995, pp. 56‑302; Bertoša S. 2005, pp. 59‑63; Darovec 1997, pp. 55‑56; Mogorović Crljenko 2012b, p. 22; Mogorović Crljenko 2015, pp. 154‑155.

3 Margetić 1996; Margetić 1970, pp. 279‑308.

4 Margetić 1970, pp. 279‑308; Margetić 1996, pp. 69‑79; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 19‑24; Mogorović Crljenko 2012b, pp. 20‑22; Mogorović Crljenko 2010, pp. 137‑145; Mogorović Crljenko 2014b, pp. 162‑165.

5 Margetić 1996, pp. 95‑96; Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, p. 25; Mogorović Crljenko 2012b, p. 22; Mogorović Crljenko 2010, pp. 140‑141; Mogorović Crljenko 2014b, p. 165.

6 Bertoša 1995, p. 706.

7 Margetić 1996, p. 95.

8 Margetić 1996, pp. 94‑95; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 19‑20.

9 Mogorović Crljenko and Doblanović 2015, pp. 256‑261.

10 M. Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 17.

11 Bertoša S. 2002, p. 56.

12 According to Benussi, the following families formed the Rovinj town council: Basilisco, Bello, Brionese, Burla, Caenazzo, Calucci, Giotta, Leonardis, Pesce, Quarantotto, Segala, Sponza, Vescovi. The family Bichiachi was admitted to the Council in the 16th century, the Constantini family in the middle of the 17th century and the families Beroaldo, Piccoli, Biondi were given admission in the 18th century. Their names were entered in the Book of Nobles (Libro dei nobili). See: Benussi 1888, pp. 84‑85.

13 Our analysis has shown that there were two usual and mostly represented wedding gifts, the lower in the amount of five and the higher in the amount of ten ducats.

14 Mogorović Crljenko – Doblanović 2015, pp. 258‑259.

15 State archive of Pazin (Državni arhiv u Pazinu; hereinafter: DAPA), HR DAPA 429, Collection of parish registers (Zbirka matičnih knjiga), Marriage register (Matična knjiga vjenčanih; hereinafter: MR) for Rovinj (1564‑1640).

16 HR DAPA 429, MR for Rovinj (1564‑1640).

17 Margetić 1996, 96; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 16.

18 Bertoša 1995, p. 706; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 15‑16.

19 HR DAPA 429, MR for Svetvinčenat (1581‑1589.1622‑1623), 7 November 1584.

20 HR DAPA 429, MR for Svetvinčenat (1581‑1589.1622‑1623), 2 July 1584.

21 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 39‑47; Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 48‑51; Klapisch-Zuber 2000, pp. 324‑326; Lombardi 2000, pp. 112‑114; Lombardi 2006, p. 578; Lombardi 2008, pp. 62‑71; La Rocca 2002, pp. 534‑542; Meek 2006, p. 359; Duby 1987, p. 29; Duby 1996, pp. 45‑55, 93‑104; Duby 2002, p. 31; Opitz 1999, p. 338; Barthélemy 2001, pp. 98‑103; Dibie 1988, pp. 100‑101; Nikolić 1999‑2000, p. 87; Janeković Römer 1989, pp. 174‑175, 179; Mihelič 1997, p. 91; Ivetic 1991, p. 157.

22 Statute of Motovun, p. 213, in Morteani 1895.

23 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 40‑41; Morteani 1895, p. 116.

24 Statute of Buzet, p. 41, in Zjačić 1963‑1964, pp. 71‑137 and 1965, pp. 118‑199.

25 Statute of Oprtalj, p. 42, in Vesnaver 1884, pp. 133‑180.

26 Zjačić 1979, p. 498; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, p. 41.

27 Bertoša 1972, pp. 300‑304; Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 42‑43.

28 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 129‑179; Mogorović Crljenko 2014a, pp. 617‑632.

29 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, p. 158.

30 Mogorović Crljenko 2006, pp. 28‑34; 82‑84.

31 Statute of Pula, Supplementary decisions, p. 51, in Križman 2000.

32 Mogorović Crljenko 2012a, pp. 73‑75.

33 Dražen Vlahov (see the List of sources) transliterated them.

34 Doblanović 2013, p. 30.

35 S. Bertoša 2002, p. 334.

36 Doblanović 2017, pp. 201‑202.

37 See especially: Bertoša 2002, Budicin 1988‑89; Idem, 1987‑88; Ivetic 1991; Manin 1997; Jelinčić 2005; Doblanović 2017, pp. 84, 207.

38 Doblanović 2017, p. 84.

39 Draguć and Hum were studied through the transcript of Glagolitic registers made by Dražen Vlahov. See the List of sources.

40 In Charts 2 to 5, spring encompasses the months of April, May and June, summer is July, August and September, autumn includes October, November and December, while the last three months, January, February and March, represent winter.

41 Doblanović 2017, pp. 90‑91, 208‑211.

42 Mihelič – Pocajt – Mihelič 1994, p. 195.

43 Dirbe and Van de Putte 2012, p. 16.

44 The expression priča denotes a witness. The same Glagolitic register uses the expression na svedočanstvo (to the testimony of), or kum na svedočanstvo (witness to the testimony of) (Vlahov 2003, p. 50).

45 Vlahov 2003, p. 50.

46 Vlahov 2003, p. 104.

47 Vlahov 2015, pp. 57‑59.

48 For instance, marriages solemnized on 30 November 1586 and 4 February 1587.

49 On 26 November 1586.

50 Doblanović – Mogorović Crljenko 2017, pp. 27‑28.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Crédits M. Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 376k
Titre Chart 1 – Representation of each marriage pattern in Bale in the 17th century, according to research conducted by Miroslav Bertoša.
Crédits Bertoša 1972, pp. 132‑137.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 243k
Titre Chart 2 – Weddings according to seasons in the Rovinj Parish (1569‑1618).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Titre Chart 3 – Weddings according to seasons in the Savičenta Parish (1582‑1588).
Crédits The chart was designed according to D. Vlahov (Vlahov 2015, Table 6, p. 64).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 214k
Titre Chart 4 – Weddings according to seasons in the Draguć Parish (1582‑1649).
Crédits The chart was designed according to D. Vlahov (Vlahov 2015, Table 6, p. 64).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 267k
Titre Chart 5 – Weddings according to seasons in the Hum Parish (1618‑1641).
Crédits The chart was designed according to entries of marriages in the Glagolitic register after the transcription done by Dražen Vlahov (Vlahov 2003, pp. 101‑109).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 251k
Titre Chart 6 – Sunday wedings in Savičenta.
Crédits Chart taken from Doblanović 2007, p. 211.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 191k
Titre Chart 7 – Wedding days in Rovinj (1580‑1619).
Crédits Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Draguć (Vlahov 2015, pp. 307‑314).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 448k
Titre Chart 8 – Wedding days in Draguć (1582‑1649).
Crédits Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Draguć (Vlahov 2015, pp. 307‑314).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 560k
Titre Chart 9 – Wedding days in Hum (1618‑1641).
Crédits Chart made according to the transcription of the Glagolitic marriage register of Hum (Vlahov 2003, pp. 101‑109).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 800k
Titre Chart 10 – Wedding days in Savičenta (1582‑1588).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/docannexe/image/287/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 651k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Marija Mogorović Crljenko et Danijela Doblanović Šuran, « Istrian Custom of Contracting Marriage in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period », Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain [En ligne], 1 | 2019, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2019, consulté le 27 janvier 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bchmc/287

Haut de page

Auteurs

Marija Mogorović Crljenko

Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Faculty of Humanities, Department of History

Danijela Doblanović Šuran

Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Faculty of Humanities, Department of History

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain

Haut de page
  • Logo École française d’Athènes
  • Logo Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l’innovation
  • OpenEdition Journals