ࡱ> .Rbjbj 4X)(84}H.OO"qqqLLLEEEEEEE$IMLZE= "LL " "Eqq7H(E(E(E "LqqE(E "E(E(E(Eq;X@(EEMH0}H(ELX@0L(EL(EL N(En zLLLEEDLLL}H " " " "LLLLLLLLLL :Zdenka Janekovi Rmer Osmanlis, islam and Christianity in RAgusan chronicles (16th -17th centuries) in: Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex Confinium. Approaching the  Other on the Borderlands. Eastern Adriatic and beyond, 1500-1800, ur. Egidio Ivetic, Drago Roksandi. (Universit degli Studi di Padova, Dipartimento di Storia, History, Economy and Society, 4) Padova: Cleup, 2007: 61-79. The picture of Muslims in medieval and early modern Europe The image of Muslims as the enemies was articulating European identity from the period of the Crusades. They were not portrayed as one among many infidels, but as the fundamental enemies of Christianity, the Cross and the Church. Of all infidels, they were the most alien to the Christian faith. The eleventh century was the starting point of an incessant warfare against Islam in the Mediterranean. Then the picture of the evil Muslim, occupying the holy womb of the Christianity, Jerusalem, began to emerge in the imaginary of Europeans. Pope Urban depicted them in his famous speech in Clermont, when he urged Christians to fight the righteous war: "Oh what a disgrace if a race so despicable, degenerate, and enslaved by demons should thus overcome a people endowed with faith in Almighty God and resplendent in the name of Christ!. Other epithets were added to that: unclean nation, wicked race, barbarians, infidels, fierce and dishonourable enemies of the faith, members of the false sect, idolaters, monstrous beasts, people contaminated with all kinds of crime and ignominies, shameful, superstitious, Christ's mortal enemies, the forces of darkness, the plague, the nightmare of Europe, the threatening East, the greatest curse on Earth, the God's punishment. The war against them was seen as an outlet for violence that would otherwise have ravaged Christendom and Europe. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini portrayed the Turks as destroying Greek and Latin culture, the source of European learning and arts. He accused the European countries for attacking one another instead the common enemy, the enemy of the cross. This is the very context in which he defines Europe: this is the face of Europe, the state of the Christian faith. These attitudes generated from the Crusades echoed in the Ragusan chronicles as well. The Anonymous, Ragnina and Razzi chronicles carry the story of the victory of glorious Christian knight Roland (Orlando) over a Saracen Spuzzente, or Smerdo, i.e. the filthy and smelly Muslim who was attacking the city of Dubrovnik. Mavro Orbini states that the Turk is the common enemy of the Christian name. Nemico dell' humana generatione, says Jakov de Luccari, thus equalizing the Turks with the devil. After the encounter with the Turks in the 14th and 15th centuries, Europeans started to think harder on their own identity. The old imaginary and ideas of the Crusades spluttered to life in the encounter with those were threatening the Christendom, i.e. the European unity of the time. Catholic princes were called to join together against the infidels and not to shed the baptized blood any more. Even if the Christian powers did not actually unite against the common enemy, because they were too busy with their local affairs and enmities, the picture of this violent Other enabled Christendom (i.e. Europe) to become a self-conscious collectivity. Europeans created two, diametrically opposed pictures of the Turks: some of them focused on their inhumanity, monstrous cruelty and pugnacity. They were feared of, being military so successful, known of cruelty and having strange customs. The pictures of tortured and maimed and, the horror of the horrors, impaled people, invaded the imaginary of the Europeans. On the other side, many Europeans noticed the high standards of their civilization, material and spiritual heritage. Sometimes they were even put as examples to the Christians on account of their piety and devotion to their religion and rituals. The firm government and the respect for law were admired, as well as the military and diplomatic skills, domestic comforts, literacy, education, personal self-discipline and decorous stillness of their behaviour. The picture of the oniric, miraculous East excited the minds of Europeans. Among common people, the prejudice towards one another prevailed, while the interest to learn about the others customs, ethical codex or manners was very small, often none existing. Turco can was the widespread Venetian saying. Any person dressed strangely, in Eastern way, was considered a Turk, feared in advance as a person of bad manners, offender or criminal. On the other hand, the Turks were building the stereotypes on Francs or Latins, as infidels, violent, fierce, uncivilized, unclean, unwise, aiming to the earthly goods, voracious and filthy pig eaters, empty headed, unrefined, unsophisticated, superficial, voluptuous, effeminate. In any case, the Turks were present. In the 1530's Sultan Suleiman added to his other titles The Lord of Europe: they had moved deep into the European continent. The "Turkish peril" was twofold: real and symbolic and both ways it inflicted Europe. The reality of Turk-Ragusan relationship (15-17th centuries) It is well known that the Republic of Dubrovnik was in a particular position between the Turks and Christians from the 15th century on, allied to both of them. Its relation to Ottoman Empire had many levels, and for this occasion Im going to concentrate on the intellectual remaking of this situation in Ragusan chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries. The first one is Anonymous chronicle written by the end of the 15th centuries, with the additions from the 16th century. It is followed by the Nikaa Ragnina chronicle from 1522, then Ludovik Crijevi Tubero chronicle written between 1522. and 1527, then Regno degli Slavi by Mavro Orbini published in 1601, Copioso ristretto degli annali di Ragusa by Jakov de Luccari from 1606 and Chronica Ragusina written by Junius de Resti by the beginning of the 18th century. All chroniclers except Orbini were patricians. The picture of Dubrovniks relation with Turks these chronicles give is very different from the reality: the Ragusans communicated with the Turks on the daily basis, knew their customs very well and, to some extent they were familiar with their religion. They got to know the Turks during the 15th century and especially in the centuries to follow. For those who saw the wonders of Istanbul the stories of Ottoman incivility were mere myths. Many nobles from Dubrovnik, mostly tribute ambassadors, were received in the marvellous audience in Top-kapi, even looking Turkish, because they had to grow beards and wear caftans in order to be let before the sultan. The streets of Istanbul and other Ottoman cities were full of Ragusan merchants and members of their families. They had their colonies, judicial autonomy, even their own churches on the territory of the Empire. They got acquainted with the sophisticated Ottoman civilization, style of life, arts and learning. The dragomans (interpreters of the Turkish language) studied in Ottoman cities. Some of them became not only accustomed there, but turned Muslim, overwhelmed with the splendours of the citys life and the career prospects it offered. According to their appointed tutors (consuls and priests), young men who were studying Turkish language in Istanbul were seized by the golden jug full of poison, heaven inhabited by demons from hell who would make even angels fall, i.e. Istanbul. There were also men from the lower social strata who turned Turk. Some of them even practiced impaling or got involved in the slave trade with the Osmanlis. The Ragusans also experienced the reverse of the picture from the first hand. The merchants had to endure the violence of local Turkish officials and bandits who attacked their caravans. The inhabitants who lived along the borders of the Republic were in constant jeopardy. Some wretched people from Dubrovnik rotted in Turkish dungeons for ten, twenty years, even for life. There were even noblemen who were imprisoned in the ill-famed prison called The well of blood, put to torture, humiliated and starved in filthiness and darkness. Many of them were captured as slaves and sold in the slave markets in Istanbul and North African cities. Some other rowed chained to the ships of the Ottoman war fleet. There were also complaints on compulsory islamization. Many Turks came to Dubrovnik very often, by the end of 15th century and especially in following centuries. Among them were functionaries, emissaries of local beys, cadis, janissaries, messengers, merchants and even tourists who wanted too see this rich Western city they heard splendid stories about. They came to buy clothes, fabrics, jewellery, weapons, and later famous products of European technology: glasses, binoculars, clocks. They were also keen on Ragusan sweets, the vine malvasia, rose liqueur and other delicacies. The Republic disposed several houses in the city for them, taking care that they feel comfortable. Every year the government elected their host, hospes Turchorum, among the nobles of the city. Eminent Turks were placed in the Sandalj Hrani s palace, just next to the Rector s palace. The Sublime Port always kept the emin in Dubrovnik in order to collect the tall from the caravans going to Turkey. There were many conflicts between the citizens and the emins. Some of the emins were violent, arrogant, corrupt and very contemptuous towards the Ragusans. The citizens were especially offended when the emins sexually attacked their wives, daughters and sons. One time (1501.) an open conflict broke out when the emin abducted a boy. The group of citizens led by a nobleman beat all the Turks in the city. Its interesting that the government punished its own citizens and protected the Turks in this and other similar situations. The Ragusans didnt like the Turks to come to Dubrovnik, especially those who were of no use and who came with no particular reason. When writing to the Sublime Port about them, the authorities call them obstinate, unrestrained, drunkards and quarrellers, rude and disrespectful to all, including women. Some of them even offended the churches. The contemporaries and the historiography thought that Ragusans were close to the Osmanlis, because they were privileged in the Empire, but the picture was not so simple. The encounters didnt bring only closeness and acceptance, but also hatred. Common people felt a mixture of hatred, contempt and fear towards the Turks. Most Ragusans didnt like the Turks but just put up with them, or endured this situation. There were accusations on the other side, too. The Turks accused the Ragusans for rudeness, maltreatment and the injustice towards their merchants who were coming to the city. The cadi from Novi wrote to the Sublime Port in 1576 that the Ragusans put the innocent Turks to the dungeons or to the pillory. The weakening of the Ottoman Empire caused further deterioration of these relationships. Also, the Ragusan patricians were constantly withdrawing from the trade, so they were not involved with the Turks in their businesses as they were before. In consequence, they were becoming more and more critical towards the Turks. The founding of the Bosnian pashaluk had its part in this process, because the decisions concerning Dubrovnik were made closer to its borders. To preserve its territory and autonomy, the Republic had to put more and more diplomatic effort and financial means. The Ragusan attitude towards the Turks was therefore ambivalent, even paradoxical. Their very existence was mainly dependant on the Turkish interests. Quite simply, the Republic survived because the Ottoman Empire needed it. The Republic saw itself as independent and autonomous, but from the Ottoman point of view, Dubrovnik was among the vassal countries bound to the Empire by the contract and Ragusans are subjects, raja". The Ragusans hated the Turks even more for being dependant on them. There were many occasions that testify about the conflict between the government and the citizens on that matter. Ill mention only the case when, on the news about the Turkish defeat at Sisak, Ragusans fled to the streets in hilarious exaltation. The poet Antun Sasin wrote a poem, rejoicing the Christian victory and the Turkish failure. Of course, the government took all necessary measures to quiet peoples enthusiasm and to persuade the Turks of their loyalty. The policy of the government was led by the need of survival in the possible way; therefore it reacted to its own citizens who tended to jeopardize the diplomatic balance with severity, sometimes even cruelty. It is obvious that the Christian inhabitants of Dubrovnik could hardly bare the fact that they were dependant on the enemies of the faith, people in so many ways strange and unacceptable for them. For this reason they opposed to the governments policy many times, feeling that it was betraying the Christianity. The incidents fuelled the antagonism of opposed mentalities, so the stereotypes were built up on both sides. For the Turks the Ragusans were Latin crooks, infidels, rich liars, double-faced, cruel people and the Ragusans saw them as brutal soldiers, pagans, greedy, corrupt, child abductors and homosexuals. All together, the Ragusans knew so much about the Turks that they became the main source of the information on the Ottoman Empire for Christian rulers. They had enormous experience with the Osmanlis and knew exactly how to go along with them in different situations. Even more, I would say that the encounter and interrelation with the Osmanlis was essential for Ragusan identity in the early modern ages, in spite of the fact that Ragusans saw themselves as completely different from the Turks. The chroniclers themselves, most of them being patricians and politically active, had to know the Turks much better than they let us know in their works. This was by all means the consequence of the genre and the discourse, but they were also influenced by the policy of the Republic that found the intellectual expression in these chronicles. Their principal aim was not to describe the reality but to emphasize the prime political goals of the Republic and, at the same time to conceal what could provoke the criticism of the Christian countries or the Ottoman Turks on the other side. Thus, these works became a kind of semi-official, ideological version of the relation between the Republic of Dubrovnik and the Osmanlis. The religious matters in the eyes of the chroniclers Both above mentioned European images of the Turk are present in Ragusan chronicles, but slightly altered, since they were fit into the Ragusan state ideology and became the means of the diplomacy. The closeness of the Turks who shared the borders with the Republic also influenced the chronicles very much. The tolerance which the Ottomans showed towards their beliefs and their economical privileges in the Empire, stimulated the Ragusans to accommodate, which meant mere to accept the presence of their new neighbours and to get the best from the situation. Intimately, they thought of Turks as of infidels and the enemies, but they were aware of the Ottoman power and the fact that this was to remain for a long time. In 1530 Erasmus wrote: even if the Turk (heaven forbid!) should rule over us, we would be committing a sin if we were to deny him the respect due to Caesar. This is exactly what the Republic of Dubrovnik did. The stereotypes that chroniclers express are expected: they partly arise from the common Christian attitudes towards the infidels that root from the times of the crusades and gets new dimension in early modern Europe. On the other side, they serve to justify the specific position and policy of the Republic of Dubrovnik. All the chroniclers set up the relation towards the Osmanlis according to the interests of the Republic. This means that they focus on the question of the territory, boundaries, trade privileges and the Catholic faith. They all share the same starting point in religious matters: what's important is the Catholic Republic in its firm boundaries. So, the Catholicism often becomes the means of diplomatic struggle for the preservation of the territory, because it represents the most obvious and firm difference in contrast to the Ottoman Empire, or earlier, Orthodox Serbia and Pataren Bosnia. It is surprising how many prejudice and biases, little knowledge and lack of interest these writers show for the customs and the religion of the Turks, their neighbours. Except for Tubero, they're not interested in Islam at all. Europeans of the time didnt know much of Islam either: for them it was just the religion of Turks. But, it is still striking that the Ragusan authors were not curious in it, since they had so many contacts with Turks both in Dubrovnik and in the Empire. Even Ragnina, who is otherwise very much interested in religious matters and the Church, makes no comments on Islam. He just expresses fear and enmity. Luccari respects the Ottoman power, but, since, their religion and customs have nothing to do with the interests of the Republic of Dubrovnik, he doesnt bother to learn about it. Junius the Resti is interested only in Catholicism and its preservation. He occasionally mentions the Bosnian Manicheans or credenza maomettana but shows no interest in it, although he must have known much more about it, being a diplomat and reading the other chroniclers work. Both the chroniclers and the sources produced by the government judge the Turks more in terms of behaviour than the belief. In my opinion, this shows the level of acceptance, in other words of sole pragmatical attitude to the Ottoman world. Ragusans dont know anything of Islam neither they want to; they just want it to stay on the other side of the border. The chroniclers are much more interested in the schisms and divisions of the Christianity, so they speak about the Orthodoxy, Reformation, Catholic reformation and Christian heresies. They speak much more of the Jews than of the Turks, concentrating on their customs and showing no interest on their faith. Their remarks are drawn from the conventional collection of prejudices. Their attitude towards the Orthodoxy is inconsistent in general, they recognize that the Greek ritual is the part of the Christianity, that this is the denomination equal to Catholicism. On the other hand, they judge the Orthodoxy as the schism, heresy, or Greek superstition. The oldest, Anonymous chronicle describes how kalugieri et preti Rasciani, scismatici et infedeli were expelled from Ston and Peljeac, because non credevano, n Dio n santi, ma credevano in sogni, indovini, et incantatrici. Ragnina retells the same story, claiming that the Republic was righteous towards them because they were paid to go. Luccari explains how the Republic expelled the Orthodox priests from Ston and brought there the Franciscans, who converted the people to the right, i.e. Roman ritual and Western church. Tubero makes sharp distinction between his tolerant opinion on the Orthodox faith and the political attitudes on Orthodox countries in the hinterland of Dubrovnik. Commenting the Turkish conquest of Constantinople he says that God himself wanted the Greek name to be extirpated, because they disregarded the authority of the pope and seceded from the right ritual of the Christian faith. Similarly, Luccari states that this was Gods punishment for Christian schismatics who used the enemy weapons against their own church. Even Junius the Resti who tries to be objective and founds his statements on archival documents, explains that God let the Turks to conquer such a big part of Europe to punish lo scisma dell Oriente and sempre infesti principi Slavi. The Orthodox rulers were seen as non-believers who made pacts with Turks against one another and gave their daughters to the rulers of foreign faith (Islam). Orbini represents the relationship with the hinterland countries completely different than the other chroniclers: while they emphasize the differences and separateness, he puts an accent on the connections, closeness and alliances which Luccari and Resti categorically deny. In spite of this fundamentally different position, he agrees with the other chroniclers when it comes to relationship between the hinterland countries and the Turks. For example, he depicts the despot Brankovi as the unreliable man, the betrayer of the Christianity, who opened the doors to the Turks and even accepted sultan Murat as his son in law. He concludes the imaginary dialogue between St. John Capistrano and despot George with his own commentary that the despot was an obvious proof how perilous was to live in false convictions that become the second nature of the man. This line of thinking is founded in unquestionable Catholicism of the Republic of Dubrovnik which recognized only Roman ritual as true. Patarens are illustrated as heretics, traitors, people of erroneous persuasion which were, just for that reason very willing to accept Islam. Luccari, who tries to be a genuine historian by not making commentaries, still mentions how Ragusans led the Bosnian heretics to the right path. Speaking of the fall of Bosnia, Orbini suggests that the patarens were to blame for that, because they firstly betrayed the Christian faith and repeatedly turned back to the vomit of Manichaeism, and after the Turkish conquest readily accepted the Islam. Again, behind these words lies the interest for the territory not the religion. In reality, Ragusans had diverse business and diplomatic relations with both Orthodox and Pataren population on the Balkans, but on the territory of the Republic they extirpated all the traces of these beliefs, which all the chroniclers consider justified. The only writer who gets into discussion on the Islam is the Ludovik Crijevi, who called himself Tubero. Maybe this is why the first part of his Commentaria meorum temporum, to be published was his commentary on Turks. His chronicle is more personal than the others. This Parisian student, who became Benedictine monk, wrote lucid, critical and erudite commentaries of his time. He had a broad vision of his time: unlike the other authors, he didnt focus on Dubrovnik, but on the whole region: Hungary, Venice, Greece and the Ottoman Empire. Thats why he doesnt repeat the common places of other chroniclers. His opinion on the Islam is contradictory: he calls it a heresy, the silly and vane superstition, the perilous sect which for the moment has earthly power and wealth, but it brings neither spiritual goods nor true happiness. He calls Mohamed a deceiver and cunning liar and asks for the rejection of the Koran. But, in the invented speeches he puts in the mouth of several historical characters he allows himself comments that reveal he actually gave some thought to the closeness of the Islam and Christianity. Therefore, it isn't surprising that his Commentaries came on the list of Index librorum prohibitorum. For example, through the mouth of sultan Beyazit he says that Mohameds teaching is similar and even better to Christ's, because it includes both Old and New Testament and brings something new. Its a reflection of Islamic respect for the people of the Book, Jews and Christians. Tubero was obviously aware that Judaic and Christian tradition were built into the Islam. Beyazits thankful prayer to Allah could easily be addressed to the Christian God. Of course, in Tuberos opinion the Turks followed an erroneous faith, but the monotheism of Islam, the belief in the God Creator made him think about the possible merits of this faith. But, summa summarum, for him, the faith in Christ was the only right faith, for he is the path, the truth and life. Christians are happier than other people, because theyre the only ones enlightened with the light of divine wisdom. As for Muslims, he hopes that they will become enlightened and understand the Trinity of the God. He concludes his reflection with the thought that nothing divides people as the religious differences do. The chroniclers picture of the Turks The chronicles say little of the Turkish customs, particularly those that remain out of the diplomatic arena. Its surprising that they dont go into details about the advance of the Osmanlis towards West: mostly they dont even mention the important battles. The only exceptions are their comments on the fall of Bosnia. This story is marked by uttermost fear, because, for Dubrovnik nothing was the same afterwards. The Anonymous and Ragnina tell about the demolishing of the outside of the city walls for the safety reasons, the processions of terrified people praying for Gods mercy and the heavenly miracle which prevented Mehmed to lead his army towards Dubrovnik. Even Orbini, who generally avoids to comment the Turks, speaks how cruel they were towards the Bosnians, how they raped the women, demolished the churches, humiliated the priests and took the most of the gentry to slavery. After the end of the 15th century, the need to comment the Turks becomes weaker and weaker, as the Ottoman Empire and the presence of the Turks became the reality of everyday life. Not only medieval kingdom of Bosnia, but the very name of Bosnia was soon forgotten. There was no Bosnia or Bosnians anymore, just lochi di Turchia and suditi di Turchia. The relationship towards the Empire was for the most part assigned to the diplomacy. Therefore, the criticism of the chronicles became indulgent, so it wouldn't interfere with the Republic's consolidated diplomatic relations with the Empire. When the chroniclers speak of the Turks generally they call them barbarians, torturers, rapists, killers, infidels, liars, impious and evil. Luccari rarely uses the title sultan: for him the Turkish ruler is just re Barbaro. They often talk about Turkish dissimulation and fallaciousness. The Anonymous chronicler says that the Turks behave a modo di fratello con li basci di Juda. Sometimes they allude to homosexualism which was acceptable in the Turkish civilization unlike the Western one. For example, the Anonymous chronicle calls the Turks women (femine). But when it comes to Ragusan-Turkish relations their judgements are pragmatical. Sometimes, their comments on Turkish dignitaries and officials who were opposed to the interests of the Republic or the merchants are sharp. They call them cruel, severe, cunning, deceitful, barbaric, liars and thieves, but never forget to add that the Sublime Port was always just towards the Ragusans and resolved their conflicts with deceitful officials in their best interest. On the other side, they respect Turkish military skills, loyalty to the sultan, learnedness and piety. They even praise individual Turks, for example sultan Beyazit, whom Tubero depicts as righteous, pious, worthy, honest, humane and constant, word keeper, respectful of other peoples property. Luccari says that Beyazit was gentle, forgiving and interested in philosophy. He thought of sultan Selim as righteous and talented ruler and of Mehmed pasha Sokolovi as prudent, experienced, vigilant, learned and good-tempered man. Junius de Resti said that  hasnadar Ali Subasha was an honest and worthy person, as much as the person of his nation can be. Again, Tubero is interested in Turkish customs much more than the others. He states that the Turks are people just like any other people and shouldn't be despised. He praises their physical sturdiness, modesty, simple and ascetic life, keeping their word, hospitality, pride and loyalty to their emperor and God. He approves of their simple meals, refusal of wine, their skills with horses and weapons, honesty in debts restitution. He emphasizes the fact that the Turks value in the first place personal abilities and accomplishments and not the heritage. On the other hand, he resents their hypocrisy, the desire for power and warfare, cruelty, savageness, lustfulness, servility, blasphemy, polygamy and inclination towards homosexuality. If you kiss a Turk, hell bite off your nose, says he. The stereotypic picture of the Turks in the chronicles most often serves as the basis for the praise of the Ragusans and that goes also for the Orthodox believers and Patarens. Opposite to the double-faced rascals, poisoners, impostors, cowards, savages and ingrates from the hinterland, the Ragusans appear as models of patriotism, reliable, loyal, keepers of the Christianity, brave soldiers ready to defend their faith and their freedom by all means. So, even this kind of literarization and stylization of self and the others assumes the political meaning. The susceptible double alliance of the Republic of Dubrovnik Ethically and religiously delicate problem of Ragusan double alliance with the Turks and the Christians at the same time the chroniclers mostly pass over in silence, or try to justify it in kind of strained way. If they comment the Ragusan vassalage to the Ottoman Empire and the privileges they got in return at all, they see it as a legitimate option. By that Dubrovnik didn't loose any of the prerogatives of the independent state, on the contrary, they think it was the only way the Republic could preserve its independence and freedom. Orbini comments how the Dalmatian cities made a mistake by turning to Venice in fear of the Ottoman advance. Instead, Dubrovnik turned to Turks and successfully kept its freedom and power. Furthermore, they think that the Republic of Dubrovnik is exceptionally meritorious for the Christian victories, although its contribution to the antiturkish campaigns was in fact very modest. The Republics good connections with highest Ottoman officials are represented as very useful for the Christian cause, because the Ragusans passed the important information. Most of the chronicles emphasize the occasions when the Ragusan government stood against the claims of the Sublime Port. For example, the story of them helping and giving shelter to Serbian despot George Brankovi was elevated into the mythical example of Ragusan courage and loyalty to the Christianity. (In reality, the Ragusans advised the old despot to seek the help from the Hungarians and got rid of him as soon as possible). It's interesting that precisely Mavro Orbini, known for his erudition and meticulousness, leads in covering up the inconvenient data. He literally omitted all the events until the end of the 16th century, except for the cases when the Republic of Dubrovnik withstood the Turks and showed its sovereignty. Describing the story of George Brankovi he says that  Murat, before whom the whole Europe trembled in fear, was amazed by the loyalty and steadiness of the Ragusans . What this story tells us is in fact something different, i.e. that not Christian loyalty but the Republics sovereignty was at stake in this case. Furthermore, Orbini mentions only the Republic's alliances with Christian countries and omits the vassalage to the Turks. When speaking generally, he highly values the Christian fight against the Ottoman Empire, praises the Christian victories, courage and heroism. But that has nothing to do with Dubrovnik: he regards the city regarding as a neutral zone, the place of negotiations which is not directly included in the conflict. He strictly avoids admitting to any level of Dubrovniks vassalage to the Ottoman Empire and emphasizes the citys freedom. He deliberately omits all the episodes that testify the opposite: he never talks about Republics dependence on the Empire, the harac and so on. For him, Turks and Christians are just opposed sides fighting for the territory. That's why he concentrates on military and dynastic, not religious matters, in spite him being a Benedictine monk. In many places he mentions the Turks as infidels, barbarians, or Mohammedans, but he is not really interested in their religion. Ludovik Crijevi Tubero was very critical towards Christian countries including his own. He didn t spare the ecclesiastical hierarchy, not even the pope. In his opinion, the Christians were to blame their discords and impioussness for what happened to them. Nor Venetians neither other Christian rulers, not even the pope, did what should have been done for the common good and the salvation of the Christianity. On the contrary, they all behaved as if they wanted the enemy to win, eccept for Hungarians and Croatians. Tubero sees his fellowcitizens as people of humble spirit who first immitated their masters, the Venetians, and then subjugated to the Turks, in fear. He even accuses them for opening the path for the Turks to Dalmatia, which finally led them to slavery. He says that they didn't behave as Christians because they were deceitful in communication with the Turks. Luccari accuses European states because they didnt kick against the Turks. On the contrary, he finds natural that the Republic of Dubrovnik made alliance with them, because it was necessary for its existence. He says directly that the most important thing in Republics relationship with the Turks was to dare spatio alle cose nostre, to preserve freedom, income and the territory. The opposition Turchi Christiani runs through the whole text as something that has nothing to do with Dubrovnik. He sees no controversy in that. Junius de Resti dealt with those delicate questions as well, seeking the Ciceronian truth, as he says, but giving the biased answers (as so many historians do). Hes starting points are Catholicism, the optimality of Republics institutions and the difference between the Republic and the hinterland countries. He discussed the accusations against the Republic of Dubrovnik (put by contemporary Italian writers whose work he read) on account of their alliance with Turks and defended it with the argument that Ragusans did the same thing as Venetians and that they paid a high price for their freedom, peace and survival. He goes even further when he justifies the Ragusan vassalage to the Turks asserting that they agreed to it precisely to preserve the Christian faith. He concludes the discussion by praising the small Republic that stopped the Ottoman torrent and preserved Christianity on its territories. But, there were other interests involved, besides the Christianity, and he tells us about them: in the chaos of Turkish conquests in the Balkans, the Republic wanted and succeeded in turning the situation to its own benefit. In his erudite and superior way, Resti argues the conviction he shares with all the other chroniclers, that the Republic's policy was marvellously led in those turbulent, uncertain times, The Ragusan government not only preserved the traditional political principles but also used them as the means of the agreement with the new power, the Ottoman Empire. Its obvious that chroniclers didnt see anything unbecoming in their Republics alliance with the Ottoman Empire, because the Catholic faith was presereved on its teritorry together with freedom. It's necessary to accomodate with the time The analysis of Ragusan-Turkish relationship as seen in these chronicles shows the ideological picture far from the real one. The rules of the genre, of the narration defined what's important, what should be preserved and what should be omitted, in other words what kind of picture of the self much more than the others they wanted to write down for the future. That's why the chronicles see the Turks and Ottoman Empire in pragmatical terms, in spite of all the loyalty to the Roman Christianity. The religious matter interests them only when it comes to the preservation of Catholicism in the territory of the Republic. Catholicism is seen through the question of territorial power and the exclusiveness of the Catholic faith within the borders of the Republic (Cuius regio, illius religio.). The fact that the boundary of the Republic was at the same time firm religious border they see as the very reason and the guarantee for the stableness and durability of the Republic and its institutions. When it comes to the question of long-term preservation of the Republic of Dubrovnik, the importance of religious tradition is very often disregarded or omitted. In the geopolitically sensitive area, the independence of the Republic of Dubrovnik could only be preserved by wise balance keeping that included tolerance towards the different, with the unquestionable preservation of its own uniqueness to a large degree defined by Catholicism. Catholicism was seen as an important part of republicanism, humanism and patriotism, thus becoming the strong means of political strife. It determined the Republics relations to others: Europe, Ottoman Empire, papacy. An interesting dichotomy appears in these relations: the picture of the Republic of Dubrovnik as passionate defender of the Christian faith and the Church, coming together with close diplomatic and business relations with the Ottoman Empire and its citizens. This relation was contradictory and that contradiction stemmed from diplomatic pragmatism. In spite or through these contradictions, the religious border, the border of Catholicism proved to be the last and firmest line of division along the borders of the Republic. This is the very starting point and the foundation of chroniclers attitudes to whatever lies across the border. Although they had to know much more about the Turks both from the experience and from the literature, they didn't write about it. In reality the communication with the subjects of the Ottoman Empire was constant, ramified, diverse and successfully bridged over the religious differences. But, what connects the stereotypical picture offered in the chronicles and the reality of the Republic of Dubrovnik in that time, are the political goals, above all the urge to preserve the territory, the Catholicism and the autonomous power. This is the reason why the chroniclers emphasize and even exaggerate the differences between the Republic of Dubrovnik and everything on the other side of the border. In spite of the fact that they agree in some fundamental, untouchable concepts of the state ideology and share the common stereotypes, the chronicles also show differences in approach and focusing, which sometimes are striking. Between the lines they manifest the broad spectrum of mainly political and to a certain extant even religious reflexions that put this Ragusan Turkish relation into different contexts. That gives an additional dimension to their interpretation of the other in this case the Turks. If the word to tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others beliefs and practices, it has to be said that that was not the case when it comes to the relationship between the Republic of Dubrovnik and the Turks. Namely, the Turkish religion, beliefs, customs or practices were never accepted in Dubrovnik. The chroniclers didnt even bother to understand or explain them. Only rarely we can notice traces of tolerance towards persons, behaviour or ideas in their writing. It is true that during the time the Ragusans got to know Turks and their civilization better, but the foundation of their recognition or acceptance of Turkish otherness were mere interests, not the respect of differences. Knowing the Turks and their customs helped them out to achieve their goals, but didnt lead to the tolerance. There was too much fear, reprisal and hatred in these relationships to call them tolerant. The Ragusans didnt find Turkish religion, customs and civilization equally worthy as their own; on the contrary, they disapproved of them and thought they were false, strange and unacceptable. When it came to ideas, the faith or the truth, the Ragusans didnt think of the Turks as their collocutors. They were not at all challenged by their views, opinions or behaviour. For them, Christian faith was the touchstone of truth and that couldnt be discussed. There is only one God in Trinity and who doesnt believe in that doesnt believe in God at all, says Tubero. The only subjects they could discuss with the Turks were political and economical interests of the Republic. Furthermore, medieval and early modern Ragusan society was not multicultural it was Western Catholic society. This relationship was pragmatical, not at all touched by the concept of tolerance as acceptance, concept present in the Middle Ages, but woken up and raised in the Enlightenment. Therefore, it would be more precise to describe the Ragusan relationship to the Turks as co-existence or accommodation and not tolerance. They recognized the distinctions and lived with that fact. They were accommodating to the circumstances. But, the contacts with the Turks, that took place for centuries, were subconsciously built into Ragusan identity and made at least some of them in some manner foreign in regard to those of the western part of Europe. At the beginning of the 16th century the Ragusans were called and perceived as the new Turks on the West. And, I would say that theres a lot of symbolic in the fact that the most precious liturgical garments in the churches of Dubrovnik were in fact Turkish kaftans that the ambassadors regularly brought from Constantinople where they got it from the sultan or Turkish dignitaries. The Ottoman Turks make the important part of the history of permeation of Mediterranean cultures and that goes for the history of the Republic of Dubrovnik in the first place.  In spite of the fact that European culture abundantly profited of rich Muslim culture for centuries. G. Duby, Unseren ngsten auf der Spur. Vom Mittelalter zum Jahr 2000, Kln 1996, p. 70  Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095-1127, edited by H. S. Fink, Knoxille (Tenn.) 1969, pp. 66-67.  J. Le Goff, Il cielo sceso in terra. Le radici medievali dell' Europa, in Fare l'Europa, edited by J. Le Goff, Roma-Bari 2004, pp. 120-124; Duby, Unseren ngsten, pp. 51, 58-60, 63, 108.  Papst Pius II. Ausgewahlte Texte aus seinen Schriften, edited by B. Widmer, Basel-Stuttgart 1960, p. 450; Le Goff, Il cielo, p. 234.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, in Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. XIV, Scriptores I, edited by N. Nodilo. Zagreb 1883, p. 11, p. 188.  M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, Zagreb 1999, p. 444.  Jacomo de Luccari, Copioso ristretto degli annali di Rausa libri quattro di Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, gentilhuomo rauseo ove diligentissimamente si descrive la fondatione della citt, l'origine della Repubblica, e suo Dominio, le guerre, le paci e tutti i notabili avvenimenti occorsi dal principio i essa fino all'anno presente MDCIII dal principio di esse sino al anno presente 1604, Venetiis 1605, p. 144.  J. Hale, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, New York-Toronto 1994, p. 41; F. Braudel, Sredozemlje i sredozemni svijet u doba Filipa II, Zagreb 1997, vol. I, pp. 372-375; R. W. Winks and L. P. Wendel (eds.), Europe in the wider world, 1350-1650, New York-Oxford 2003, pp. 15-21.  M. Bertoa, Istra, Jadran, Sredozemlje. Identiteti i imaginariji, Dubrovnik - Zagreb 2003, p. 19.  Le Goff, Il cielo, pp. 8-15, 29; Tubero puts in the mouth of Jakub pasha the Turkish picture of Latins, precisely, Venetians. Ludovik Tuberon Crijevi, Komentari o mojem vremenu. / Commentarii de temporibus suis, translated by V. Rezar, Zagreb 2001, pp. 168-169.  Hale, The civilization of Europe, p. 39.  I. Bo~i, Dubrovnik i Turska u XV veku, Beograd 1952; V. Miovi-Peri, Na razmeu. Osmansko dubrova ka granica (1667-1806.), Dubrovnik 1997, pp. 47-64, pp. 117-136.  T. Popovi, Turska i Dubrovnik u XVI veku, Beograd 1973, pp. 96-99; V. Miovi, Dubrova ka diplomacija u Istambulu. Zagreb-Dubrovnik 2003, pp. 66-75, pp. 101-103.  Popovi, Turska i Dubrovnik, p. 30; Miovi-Peri, Na razmeu, p. 45; Miovi, Dubrova ka diplomacija, pp. 109-114, 124, 207, pp. 222-224.  Dubrova ki Dr~avni Arhiv (DAD), Lettere di Levante, vol. XVII, f. 126.  V. Miovi-Peri, 'Zadiranja u dubrova ko bie od sultana do obi nog osmanlijskog podanika', Dubrovnik, 2 (1993), pp. 272-276; Miovi-Peri, Na razmeu, pp. 22-36, pp. 137-208.  DAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. XXIX, f. 53, f. 62; vol. XXX, f. 229 ; vol. XXXI, f. 216 , f. 218 ; Acta Consilii Minoris, vol. XXIX, f. 22 ; Lettere di Levante, vol. XXX, ff. 185-187, ff. 214-223; Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, pp. 65-67, pp. 211-212, 248; Miovi, Dubrova ka diplomacija, p. 94, pp. 160-164.  DAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. XVIII, f. 283'; vol. XXIX, f. 90', f. 162; Acta Consilii Minoris, vol. XLVIII, f. 72, f. 74'; Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, pp. 28-30, pp. 75-76, pp. 134-135, p. 236; Miovi Peri, Na razmeu, p. 42.  DAD, Acta Consilii Minoris, vol. XXVII, f. 61 ; Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. XXVIII, ff. 151-152; Lettere di Levante, vol. XVII, f. 88 ; Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, pp. 30-33; Miovi-Peri, Na razmeu, pp. 37-40.  DAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, vol. XXXIII, ff. 91', 104', 106', 125, 170, 183'-4, 189; Lettere di Levante, vol. XVII, ff. 115, 127; vol. XIX, f. 74'; vol. XIC, ff. 195-196', 203, 208-208', 214; Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, pp. 66-67, pp. 135-137, p. 276.  Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, pp. 320-326, pp. 357-361.  Miovi, Dubrova ka diplomacija, pp. 16-17.  'Prisvijetlomu vlastelinu Givu Sima Bunia Antun Sassi pozdravljenje i poklon (prvi razboj od Turaka) , in Stari pisci hrvatski, vol. 16, Zagreb 1988, pp. 173-217; R. Bogiai,  Antun Sasin: Razboji od Turaka , in Sisa ka bitka 1593, Zagreb-Sisak 1994, pp. 227-238.  Miovi, Dubrova ka diplomacija, pp. 127-140, 160.  Ottoman religious tolerance was not absolute but restricted; it was forbidden to build new churches and crosses; many churches were turned to mosques. Sometimes prayers had to be organized in secret. Monumenta Turcica historiam Slavorum meridionalium illustrantia, vol. I, Sarajevo 1957, p. 31; Popovi, Dubrovnik i Turska, p. 100, pp. 315-316.  Desiderius Erasmus, De Civilitate Morum Puerilium Libellus, p. 286, cited after Hale, The civilization of Eu.0rt , 0 2    " $ 4 ׺׺ׯxmaUmUmhAhO6CJaJhAhO5CJaJhAhOCJaJh hFhCJaJhFhhFhCJaJhhFhCJaJhhFh6CJaJhFh6CJaJhFhhFhCJaJhAhO;CJH*\aJhAh;CJ\aJhAhO;CJ\aJhAhO5CJ\aJhAhOCJ\aJ.0t " $ ()fg"IAFFFFGFIMQ $d@a$gdd@gd $d@a$gd $d@a$gdEO4 5 6 789)*+,Kg)*+,()XZf"*"M"^"#ۿ۷۫hhO6CJH*aJhhO6CJaJhAhO5CJaJhPYCJaJhAhOCJaJhnH tH hAhO6CJaJhAhOCJaJhCJaJ!jhAhO0JCJUaJ4##,$-$.$8&9&:&((() )!)2*3*4*,,,X,Z,..000333-5.5/5B:C:D:;;;>> >3BRBSBTBBBFFFGGIIIIIKKK0QCQQQQSS׻׻׻׻h$rhO6CJaJhCJaJh$rCJaJhAhO6CJaJhCJaJ!jhAhO0JCJUaJhAhOCJaJhAhOCJH*aJBSSTTTTUUU'W(W)WWWWiYjYkYZZZZZZ~[[[```c]c^c_c^e`ebefffFfaffffQiRiSifjjkkkIlJlKl mmnnnnnpķhAhOaJmH sH h$rhO6CJaJhAhO6CJaJ!jhAhO0JCJUaJhAhOCJaJh$rCJaJCQ>afennnnttl_`GngdAd@gd $d@a$gdd@gd $d@a$gdpppqqq}rrssssuuuuuvvvvvvvvv{{{Q|R|S|Popq/01‰ĉ/01dfhչչչչի՘hAhOaJh2MaJmH sH h(hO6aJmH sH hAhO6aJmH sH hAhOH*aJmH sH hAhOaJmH sH h$raJmH sH %jhAhO0JUaJmH sH 7=>??ޗ;Nmn-./QRS345`alԦԓԓʓԓʓԂvhAhO6CJaJhAhOCJaJ haJ%jhAhO0JUaJmH sH hAhO6aJmH sH h2MhOaJmH sH h2MhOaJh2MaJmH sH hAhOaJmH sH hAhOaJ h2MaJjhAhO0JUaJ,X []ajmnoȼퟗ폂{ndn{\X{X{nE$jhhm10JUmH nHuhm1hhm16hm1mHnHsHhhm1mHnHsH hhm1jhhm10JUhOCJaJh2MCJaJ!jhAhO0JCJUaJhAhOCJH*aJh2MB*CJaJph*jhAhO0JB*CJUaJphhAhOB*CJaJphhAhOCJaJhzCJaJoϹع9>KVWblv $ͺyrjfrfrhm1hhm16 hhm1hhm1mHnHsHhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhhm16]mH nHuhhm1mH nHu#$,05678hlmŻ׻ %&':ϼzzzzϼjϼXE%hhm16hmHnH sHtH u"hhm1hmHnH sHtH uhhm16mHnHsHu"hhm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1hmHnH sHtH u%hhm16hmHnH sHtH uhhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHuhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHu6%I x&hj" >jDEgdA½Ž̽%UVhoy¾þ̾;Ӿݾ'(25;DHðrÂÂÂrÂÂðbhhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHuhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1hmHnH sHtH u"hhm1hmHnH sHtH u&HIJKT\a@B  "0dlxz|~ĻһĻһҰvfvfvfT"hhm16hmHnHsHtH hhm1hmHnHsHtH hhm1hmHnHsHtH hhm1mHnHsHjhhm10JUhhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHu *frtϿϿn`R`R`hhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhm16mHnHsHhhm16mHnHsHhhm1mHnHsHhm1mHnHsHhhm1hmHnHtH hhm1hmHnHsHtH hm1hmHnHsHtH "hhm16hmHnHsHtH "hhm16hmHnHsHtH    .0BRTXbhvx|~$02ǻDzǻǤǻǃshb4hm16mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhb4hm1mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHuhm1mH nHuhhm1mH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHu-246HPZv "&(jɻ׻׻׻zoɻ]K]"hhm1hmHnH sHtH u"hb4hm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1mHnHsHuhb4hm16mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhb4hm16mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHu ,.24:<BD\^nrt ͺ񨞑uhhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHhhm1mHnHsHhm1mHnHsH"hb4hm1hmHnH sHtH u%hb4hm16hmHnH sHtH u"hhm1hmHnH sHtH u"hb4hm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1hmHnH sHtH u) ,Zx24:Dh&8dlv~ &0Z|&BV`hjĶ߶hm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhb4hm16mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHu=jlrv~2Vlt ӸӸ㯣zpcUpchhm16mHnHsHhhm1mHnHsHhm1mHnHsHhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHuhm1mH nHuhm1mHnHsHuhb4hm16mHnHsHuhb4hm16mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHu(Vz>^  2VXZbt| z",PTøӪøӸøӸӸøӸӸøhhm16mH nHuhm1mH nHuhb4hm1mHnHsHuhb4hm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHu4BDFNjln| "$&N /4>?ܹܮܞwܹܹuܹUhhm16mH nHuhm1mHnHsHuh0Dhm1mHnHsHuh0Dhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHuhm1mH nHu.rope, p. 40.  J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, pp. 134-135.  He mentions his readings in the chronicles and makes comments on his predecessors. Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii (ab origine urbis usque ad annum 1451) item Joannis Gundulae (1451-1484), edited by N. Nodilo, in Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. 25, Zagreb 1893, pp. 4-5.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, p. 110; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, p. 124.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 88, 109, 124, 270; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, p. 51.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 50-51, p. 242.  J. de Lucari, Copioso ristretto, p. 55; Resti was scandalized with Republic's actions towards the previous land-owners on the new territorries. J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, p. 185.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 117, 272.  J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 13, 178, 267, 287.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, p. 139; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, p. 103.  M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, pp. 391-394, 400; Junius de Resti repeats and comments this story: E certo siccome questo principe nel governo politico de suoi stati sempre aveve mostrato daver giudizio solido e saggio discernimento cosi non si pu applicar ad altro la constanza nel seguir il peggior partito questa volta, che daverlo voluto castigar Iddio per il ripudio dato da lui allesortazioni di Giovanni Capistrano, frate di s. Francesco, che provur ridurlo al cattolicisimo. J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 298, 164, 281.  J. de Lucari, Copioso ristretto, p. 54, pp. 89-90, pp. 97-98; J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, p. 290.  Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, 414-415, 429-430.  M. Dini, 'Documenta de patarinis', in Iz dubrova kog arhiva, vol. III. Beograd 1967, 181-236; F. `anjek, Bosansko-humski krstjani i katarsko-dualisti ki pokret u srednjem vijeku, Analecta Croatica christiana, vol. 6. Zagreb 1975, pp. 98, 116, pp. 177-183; . Truhelka, 'Testament gosta Radina. Prinos patarenskom pitanju', Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, 23 (1911), pp. 355-375; . Truhelka, 'Joa o testamentu gosta Radina i o patarenima', Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 25 (1913), pp. 363-381; `anjek, Bosansko-humski krstjani, pp. 177-183; A. Solovjev, 'Le testament du gost Radin', in Mandiev zbornik, Rim 1965, pp. 141-155; M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, 413-414, 430, 435; J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina: 185.  Vladimir Rezar thinks that he might have used some Greek and even Turkish sources. Stjepan Gradi and Pavao Ritter Vitezovi praised his comments on Turkish history. V. Rezar,  Latinitet Ludovika Crijevia Tuberona , in Ludovik Tuberon Crijevi, Komentari o mojem vremenu / Commentarii de temporibus suis (translated by V. Rezar), Zagreb 2001, p. XL, p. XLV.  Ludovici Cervarii Tuberonis, patricii Rhacusani, abbatis divi Jacovi de Turcarum origine, moribus et rebus gestis commentaries, Florentiae 1590.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, p. 129, p. 205.  Z. Zlatar, Our Kingdom Come. The Counter Reformation, the Republic of Dubrovnik and the Liberation of the Balkan Slavs, New York 1992, pp. 75-76.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 129-131, pp. 165, 278.  Ibidem, pp. 169, 170, 177.  M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, p. 434; Z. Janekovi Rmer, Okvir slobode. Dubrova ka vlastela izmeu srednjovjekovlja i humanizma, Zagreb-Dubrovnik 1999, pp. 80-81.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi, item Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 54, 257.  Ibidem, pp. 83, 254, 264; L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 99, 134; M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, pp. 434, 437-438; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, pp. 95, 101, 1?@4IT[_djkl*ññҡұñululul\hhm1hmH nH tH uhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhm1mHnHsHuhm16hmHnH sHtH u"hhm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1hmHnH sHtH u%hhm16hmHnH sHtH uhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHu*;?CDEFv*;<=@EFG$6@ðð{md{TIIð{ITIhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHuhm1mHnHsHuh0Dhm16mHnHsHuh0Dhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1hmH nH tH uhm1hmH nH tH u!hhm16hmH nH tH uEVp    n &4&55667(8R99::::v;gdA@VXZt    : \ d p r t                         0 J l t   ···Ҟ·҇ҕҕ·hhm16mH nHuhm1mH nHuh0Dhm1mH nHuhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHu4                 ( , . 2 4 8 : H J P R ^ ` b h l r v ƻ񏻏㏻ochhm1mH nHuhAhm16mHnHsHuhAhm16mHnHsHuhAhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhm1mHnHsHuhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhAhm1mHnHsHu"v             &(*,<>JLN^`pr.np̢̢̢̢̾̓"hhm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1hmHnH sHtH uhhm1mH nHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhm1hmHnHsHuhhm1hmH nHu+p$df *,>@BDTZ^`rtxz˽˜tdtdthhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHuh(hm1mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhm1mHnHsHuhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHu"hhm1hmHnH sHtH uhm1hmHnH sHtH u%hhm16hmHnH sHtH u'(*RlV4BT^dlnpr̾ڂڂwڂڂih(hm1mHnHsHuhm16mH nHuhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm16mHnHsHuh(hm16mHnHsHuhhm16mH nHuh(hm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHu#rnv "$Nɶɚɏɏɂ{pbRpbEhhm1mHnHsHhhm16hmHnHtH hhm1hmHnHtH hm1hmHnHtH  hhm1jhhm10JUhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuh(hm1mHnHsHuh(hm16mHnHsHuN`bdl~ *.R &(Ĩ׀reUeUhhm1hmH nH tH uhm1hmH nH tH uhm16hmH nH tH u!hhm16hmH nH tH uhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHuh(hm16mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHu(* (Rx4^444444555$5&5(565>5D5r55555ȵȄȵttȵihm16mH nHuh(hm16mHnHsHuUh(hm1mH nHuhm1mH nHuh(hm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuh(hm1mHnHsHu)06, 112, 115, 124, 144, 148, 152; J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 186, 287, 289, 291.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, 104.  Ibidem, p. 50; L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, p. 259; Le Goff, Il cielo, p. 115.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, p. 219; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, pp. 127, 133, 148.  J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, p. 243.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 99, 117, 124, 125, 128, 169, 171, 204, 205, 215, 259, 269.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi, item Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 69, 248.  Annales Ragusini Anonymi, item Nicolai de Ragnina, p. 253; L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 95-96; J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, pp. 92-93.  M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, p. 258.  M. Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slavena, pp. 250-8, 370, 375, 379.  L. Crijevi Tuberon, Komentari, pp. 25, 268-270, 282.  Ibidem, pp. 38, 100, 171, 178, 182.  Ibidem, p. 96.  J. de Luccari, Copioso ristretto, pp. 139, 141, 151-152.  He mentions Flavio Biondo, Sabellico, Giusto Lipsio, Giovanni Tarcagnotta, Giovanni Battista Veri, Giovanni Battista Ignazio, Pietro Bembo, Paolo Paruta, Andrea Morosini, Filippo Briezio, Battista Nani, Giovanni Sagredo, Pietro Garzoni, Foscarini and the others. J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, p. 6.  J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 6-9, 11.  ... e fermando il torrente delle ottomaniche innondazioni, coprir con le sue piccole tenute per cosi lungo tempo la Cristianit, ci che diede motivo a Giusto Lipsio scriver ad un suo amico: Si enim recte verba capio, Ragu55555566B6d6n66666666667"7,7777 88(8*8,8888888989B9P9R9T9l999999999:өǷǎǎhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhm16mHnHsHuh(hm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHu4:: :L:^:h:::::::::::::;; ;B;L;v;x;z;y<<<<<<<<<ĻҮғvododo\Xodhm1hhm16hhm1mHsH hhm1jhhm10JUhhm16mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhm1mHnHsHuhm16mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhhm1mH nHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhhm1mHnHsHu"v;<=HHP4QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ RRR&R(R*R,Rh]h&`#$gdA$a$gdA<<< ===== ==HpHqHsHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH巩~ugT$hhm1B*mHnHphsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhm1mH nHuhhm16mH nHuhhm16mHnHsHuUhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHu$jhhm10JUmH nHuhm1mHnHsHuhhm16mHnHsHuhhm1mHnHsHuhhm1mH nHusia te habet civem, aut incolam, nobilis respublica, et quae a nobis barbariem dividit, legibus et moribus polit. J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 3, 215.  J. de Resti, Chronica Ragusina, pp. 177, 186, 292.  Ma se je trijeba s bremenom akomodavattrijeba je bit pacijent i ugodit zlu bremenu, da se pak dobro brijeme u~iva ; Marin Dr~i, Dundo Maroje, in Marin Dr~i, Djela, ed. by F. ale, Zagreb 1987, p. 324;  But we must adapt ourselves to the times: he who would rule in this world must be a virtuoso. He who knows how to conduct himself is a king among men .HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIII I I IIIIIII"I#I*I,I.I/I1I2I5I6I;I*ph@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*T@T Footnote Text$a$CJaJmHnHsH u4"4 Header  p#4 @24 Footer  p#:B@B: Body Text CJmHsHR^RR Normal (Web)dd[$\$CJaJmHsH.)@a. Page NumberHrH & Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] 47 ) *,82!L$&-(B-.1R5:<>DFG'JJiLM~NQSTUCVVyY\q\^`afdfgjyknWuwuyx}~sy҉aA  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDB>u5u GP|VW4lo D!!!."p"#/#k####$F%u%&*')+)~))X '''*4 #Spo$H2j?*@ v prN(5:<H2JP.Rkmnoqrstuwxyz{|}~QEv;,R.Rlpv!#*!!8@0(  B S  ?!lx",{ d }   T!   L    V  N  ,  l  Y#   ! , l, # $# d# # # $# d# # # $# # #Pb $$ooŭݭ%GC AAH      ]i $$xxʭ(LFFPP  9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNameC*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmetricconverter8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace  % 216 218 22 229 53, f61 72, f88 la Cristianit ProductID!!!!!!        !!!! !hAH , 2 R W .37>&.!!""# #&&I-P-..55*J1JJJMMNNfRnR=VCV[[ \)\@FHSU_`abmΩө')25:;BFQU_`dw|Īpvwyëīǫҫիޫ !".01MOQRtvyz %&)*67?ABKMOPUWZ[d biktw}ƮǮЮҮ57BDFGnpstïǯȯЯѯدHPQcehipŰư˰ #%'(WYtvyzϱѱ #)*/056CFLNRSYZ\]cjopuv~IJŲDzȲβԲ۲ܲ )+=?"#+,9:Fgnz{|մ״ٴڴ 79<=FHQSgilmrt{|ĶŶζڶ )029:CNUV^_fgklsw~CEMOmors}ָظ *,/0>DHMrwxɹʹйѹٹڹ&'*+1245<=DEKLQSVW_`fgopuz|}кӺԺۺܺ*28:ABKjklûȻ̻ͻϻлݻ&'/78>?GJRS[\^_ehpqwyȼʼ .0=?IKSU $%'(/59;HKQS^_fh KPS\]efopx~ÿͿοҿ &(01:<CIOS[elmov|}d $%58AZ]^egBDGH0245:<Z\^_$&OPWY\]fh*02=>Efnovx !#+,4>\^abk 045:;@AFHOSXY^dkmtu  )+,36>?IJQRTYabcdjknovxz~!#>@BCegjkstuuwxxz{}~:Qh( UX)gp !!"##$X&['(0((~**,-&.6/01I455:699G9 :<=0> ?@.ADKEEHI*JJOQV%YEZm[-]z^^ _{_O`bdneefgfngajknMoqqtuvxxyy|~==S^x:H|ѝ-_| :ϱ NL b $fk tuuwxxz{}~h55:Htuuwxxz{}~ EOnFh$r+!'S&b4*k<0D2M ^ukM l1:za/(gO#BFWTbm1A&ayPY@}}0}}8$%(P(Q(U(V(j(k(v(wFxFyF}F~RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRL@ D@0d@^@d@z@@@(@@@ 468:x@@JPUnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial5. *aTahomaA BCambria Math"1g"f 5RS'RS'!4d!3qHX?:2!xxZdenka Janekovi Rmer..Oh+'0  8 D P \hpxZdenka Janekovi Rmer.Normal.12Microsoft Office Word@~mg@b@FY2@<;R՜.+,0 hp|  .'S Zdenka Janekovi Rmer Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F;1TableLWordDocument4XSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q