hrvatski

Židovke u Dubrovačkoj Republici

The State Archives in Dubrovnik offers a wealth of information on the various aspects of the Jewish community in Dubrovnik from the midfi fteenth to the early nineteenth century. Unlike their male counterparts, Jewish women seldom feature in the sources, yet the scarce data available on them leaves room for ecouragement. There is virtually no mention of Jewish women before their marriage with the exception of Judita Angeli and Lidia Pardo, probably because their betrothal turned into a scandal. In 1748 Baruh Vitali, Judita’s fi ancé, broke off the engagement under suspicion of her having intimate relations with one of the Ambonetti brothers, in whose household she served. Lidia Pardo picked a husband herself in 1773 and thus shocked the male members of the family. Some ninety prenuptial agreements (Heb. ketubbah) translated into Italian and registered in the notary books contain valuable information on the bridegroom’s gift (Heb. tosefet). The fact that in Dubrovnik tosefet constituted 50% of the dowry, which exceeded the traditional amount witnessed in most Italian towns, clearly indicates that the Ragusan Jewish community was a fairly prosperous one. On the basis of the available birth data of bride and groom, the following conclusion can be made about Ragusan Jews: Jewish males rarely married before the age of 25 ; Jewish females married between the ages of 15 and 18 and as a rule to much older grooms. Among others, that was the case of two young girls both named Victoria Terni. One was married to Abram Pardo, her elder by 15 years, and the other to Joseph Isac Tolentino, the 231 age gap being 18 years. Within the sample of 49 couples from the eighteenth century used in this study, two women by the name of Victoria Terni had the largest number of children, eleven and twelve. Traditionally, the husband invested his wife’s dowry in business, but it does not mean that she was excluded from fi nancial issues. The wives ran business together with their husbands or at least kept a close eye on the security of their dowry. This may well be illustrated by the cases of wives who, at the slightest doubt about dowry loss, sought and received legal aid and protection from the Ragusan state. Some wives showed considerable talent for business and some were not deemed able to run family matters, as witnessed from their husbands’ wills. Natan Ambonetti concluded in 1794 that since his wife was incompetent in the business affairs, he personally appointed two persons to supervise her property arrangements. On the other hand, in 1785 Solomon Pardo designated his wife Ester as life benefi ciary of all his goods. In the fi rst years of her widowhood, Ester acted according to Solomon’s wish but gradually retired from business in favour of her sons, under clauses which guaranteed her sustainment. Widows often signed maintenance contracts with their sons, sons-inlaw and cousins. The clearly formulated terms of the contracts expressed the women’s anxiety over reaching old age and weakness in complete loneliness and scarcity. The main reasons underlying their anxiety should be sought in the high mobility of the male family members and the fact that the daughters married outside Dubrovnik. For instance, widow Ester Maestro had fi ve sons and a daughter, and in her will drafted in 1628 she stated that only one son was in Dubrovnik. Jewish widows rarely remarried and Gioia Luzzena is certainly an exception. Her decision to remarry was probably spurred by the fact that she had no children in her fi rst marriage with Isac Luzzena. The will of Didachus Pyrrhus elucidates the position of Gioia, widow of Joseph Salama, the physician, who cared for him in his old days . Gioia was a daughter of Abraham, famous Ragusan surgeon, who settled in Dubrovnik the same year as Didachus (1558). There is reason to assume that Didachus and Abraham were close friends and had probably known each other before their arrival in Dubrovnik. In gratitude for her impeccable attention, Didachus bequeathed all his property to Gioia and her daughters. 232 On the basis of eight women’s wills found to date among the documents of the State Archives in Dubrovnik one may conclude that the Jewish women of Dubrovnik followed the pattern known in Italy in that they never failed to bequeath the members of the family they came from. They left money to Jewish confraternities as well as to the Ragusan hospital Domus Christi. The wills of Moshe Alfandrino (1584), his wife Mira (1593) and their daughter Rachel (1618) represent the basis for this family’s reconstruction. Moshe and Mira had four daughters and a son who died young. Daughter Ester married doctor Moshe Cohen de Herrera, most probably the brother of the famous cabbalist Abraham Cohen de Herrera who also lived in Dubrovnik over a certain period. The documents provide ample information on the Christian maids who served in Jewish households, especially on wet nurses. By interrupting the breastfeeding a woman was able to conceive soon after delivery and that was an essential reason why the Jews, traditionally inclined towards families with many children, looked for wet nurses. Judging by the accusations of Pope Benedict XIV, Ragusan authorities showed no disapproval of this practice. Indeed, until the 1740s there were quite many wet nurses in the Jewish households in Dubrovnik. The fact that the maids slept and ate in Jewish homes increased the possibility of illicit relations with the Jewish employers. This urged the Ragusan archbishops to pass extremely restrictive measures against Catholic women serving in Jewish homes. But, because of the Republic’s vulnerable position, the Senate tried to neutralise the infl uence of the Church in various life segments, the issue of the Catholic live-in domestics being one of them. They represented an important element in the functioning of Jewish families of which the Ragusan authorities were aware as they tried to maintain an acceptable atmosphere for the city Jews. The last decades of the eighteenth century saw a series of anonymous claims about the live-in domestics having sexual relations with the Jews, some resulting in pregnancy, which could not be ignored by the authorities. By the new provisions the maidservants were to be over the age of fi fty, and were forbidden to stay overnight in Jewish homes. These provisions, however, soon fell into oblivion as the authorities turned a blind eye to 233 the common practice of young domestics serving and living in Jewish households. The census of 1799 clearly testifi es that 42 Jewish households had 38 live-in Christian maids. On the other hand, in 1766 the authorities were wary of prohibiting the conversion of Jewish newborns. This issue found its way to the agenda thanks to a scandalous case involving the baptism of a grandson of a distinguished Jewish merchant performed by a midwife. Prior to taking any steps, the senators sought counsel from a confi dent cardinal in Rome, who dissuaded them from their intent. In sum, as the cases of this kind were not many, the Ragusans decided to avoid serious confrontation with the Church over this issue. However, three quite disconcerting cases of fraudulent conversions of mute Jews in 1782 prompted the Ragusan authorities to issue a prohibition of the practice of a kind. Most of Jewish men and women in Dubrovnik were converted voluntarily. One may assume that the most frequent motives for conversion the Jewish women found in the love towards a Catholic or evasion of unwanted marriage. Although scanty, the data show that Jewish women converted at the age of fi fteen to eighteen, the age when they usually were given in marriage to much older men. The Catholic Church in Dubrovnik did not encourage the conversion of Jews , yet it welcomed every new Catholic, and offered him religious education. The state, however, provided the means for the maintenance of the converted Jewish women, and at times stimulated the Catholics through rewards and bonuses to enter marriage with them. The scandals with maidservants, conversions, especially those performed fraudulently, add a gloomy overtone to the life of Jews in Dubrovnik. Given that controversies and negative experiences easier went recorded in the state administration registers, a distorted picture of the reality may easily be created. Also, different habits and an isolated way of life that the Jews led teased the minds of many a Ragusan and it is quite likely that some allegations of sexual relations with Catholics were mere heresay. In 1792 Antonije Gika, Russian consul to Dubrovnik, wrote a report to the Imperial Court in St Petersburg about the Dubrovnik Republic. As an ‘outside’ observer he made some interesting comments, and described the Ragusan Jews in the following way: “Roman Catholic is the unique 234 religion which may be publicly confessed in Dubrovnik. However, the Jews have their own synagogue. For reason of abhorrence of this sect the Republic imposed hostile laws upon it, but their resourcefulness and skill has helped them prove useful to the nobles, so that the latter cannot do without their help, and this condition secures their enjoyment in full freedom.” Quibbles aside, Gika was right in his assertion that the Ragusans, if out of pure pragmatism, accepted the Jews in a manner uncommon in most Catholic states from which both the Jews and Ragusans benefi tted. The Ragusans benefi tted from the well developed Jewish trade network which connected the East and West through Dubrovnik’s port. The Jews were attracted to Dubrovnik by business prospects, but also the fact that they felt safe in the city in which the Jewish community enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. Even serious claims were known to be settled out of court by the distinguished members of the Jewish community. Ragusan authorities and the court would interfere only if the Jews themselves approached them. Jewish women also experienced the benefi t of legal assistance offered to them whenever necessary.

Židovka; Dubrovnik

nije evidentirano