MIDDLE AGES
Wine in medieval Dubrovnik
In the Middle Ages, wine was considered a foodstuff and the care for wine came immediately after the care for grain. The vineyards represented almost the only natural wealth of the municipality. It was the most traded commodity. The oldest territory of the Dubrovnik municipality stretched between Kantafiga and Višnjice. It was later expanded by the Astareja, which includes the Parish with Cavtat, Šumet, Rijeka and Zaton with Poljica. In the mentioned border territory, the people of Dubrovnik grow vineyards and pay tribute to the prince of Travun and Zahumlje. The land estate in the oldest area of Dubrovnik, Astareja and the islands, developed differently than in Mljet and Lastovo, and there again differently than in Pelješac, Primorje or Konavle. The land planted with vines in the Dubrovnik municipality was significantly more expensive when sold or purchased than arable land or plots of ordinary land. In the Dubrovnik parish, for example, arable land was sold in the 13th century for 3-20 perpers, while the same area for the vineyard cost between 20 and 98 perpers, or an average of 49 perpers. The price of vineyards in Gruž was on average 31 perpers, and on the island of Šipan 43.5 perpers (Gregor Čremošnik, “Viticulture and Wine in Dalmatia of the Middle Ages.”: 16-18).
On penalties for the import of foreign wine
Wine from Pelješac was not allowed to be brought to Dubrovnik or its area for sale, donation or personal use (Statute, Book VII, Article LXXX: 491). There was a fine of 25 perpers for a person that owns wine and 25 perpers for a patron who brought the wine. The scribe of that vessel had to bear 10 perpers of punishment, and the sailor and the carrier each had to bear 5 and 3 perpers, respectively. Being an important merchandise, wine was often smuggled. According to the town’s statute from 1272, the penalty for smuggling foreign wine was confiscation and spilling of wine. If the smuggler was from Dubrovnik, he had to pay a fine of 25 perpers. Since 1320, foreigners have been paying the same fine, and it could also be 500 perpers. The penalty could have been earned by imprisonment of 2 months or longer.
Provisions of the Statute
In agricultural and production relations a custom was formed the Statute had been written, which distinguishes between leasing land for a definite and indefinite period of time. If the time was indefinite, one should distinguish whether the land was turf or already cultivated. If the lessee has erected a vineyard, he may not leave the land before the third fruit, nor may his master take it away from him before that deadline, unless he wanted to sell or give it in dowry, before the first fruit, with compensation to the farmer.
The lessee may cancel the contract concluded for an indefinite period of time after collecting the fruit of the first and third years but may not cancel the contract if it is concluded for a definite period of time. He shall be entitled to compensation only if the master dismisses him before the deadline, in which case he shall be entitled to a part of the fruit of that year. For vineyards, there was a special rule that the master can always dismiss the farmer if he does not fulfil his obligations. Anyone who took someone else’s vineyard for cultivation was obliged to properly prune it according to the custom of the Town, hoe it twice a year and regularly clean and weed it. If he did not comply with these provisions, the owner had the right to seize both the vineyard and its fruits (Statute, Book V, Article XXX: 311). The relationship between peasants and masters has always been judged by these principles in Dubrovnik. Therefore, under Dubrovnik law, it was a simple lease, and it remained a lease until the collapse of the Republic, although the custom filled the provisions of the Statute. The lease was not interrupted by the death of the farmer or the master but passed to the heirs. The peasants, who were usually called second-grade people in Dubrovnik, were also initially tenants and remained tenants until the collapse of the Republic.
The statute also stipulates that those who enter someone else’s vineyard and steal grapes or do some other damage have to pay a fine in the amount of five perpers. In Book V, Article XXIII, the statute states that the road to the vineyard must be passable and so wide that two loaded donkeys can pass it. Trees between neighbouring vineyards were also important. If the branches of a tree from one vineyard spread and loom over the land or vineyard of another, the owner of that land or vineyard has the right to collect and eat all the fruits from those branches, including cutting down those branches, without penalty and compensation (Statute, Book V, Article XXVI: 309).
It is obvious that wine was an important daily foodstuff, therefore also an important merchandise. Domestic production most often met the internal needs of the town and district, and therefore wine trade in the Dubrovnik Republic was mostly domestic and local.
However, the constant repetition of the provisions against wine smuggling testifies that traders often did not pay too much attention to these rules. According to the town’s statute from 1272, the penalty for smuggling foreign wine was confiscation and spilling of wine.
If the smuggler was from Dubrovnik, he had to pay a fine of 25 perpers. However, in 1320, this penalty was changed, so foreigners had to pay the same penalty for wine smuggling. Moreover, the penalties for wine smuggling could be extremely high, even up to 500 perpers, which could be “earned” (if the offender had no money) with two months or more of imprisonment.
In 1432, the provision that the smuggled wine should have been spilled into the sea was amended, so that confiscated wine was then distributed to poor and sick inhabitants of the town. This provision shows how much the Dubrovnik government cared about the standard of living of its subjects. Moreover, it opens a whole new perspective on restrictive wine import laws: it suggests that the government considered wine not only a commodity, but an important foodstuff, which must be on the table of every, even the poorest, citizen.
According to some calculations, the annual consumption of wine in the town of Dubrovnik in the 1360s was about 2 million litres, which means approximately 517½ litres per capita. Such a consumption of wine per capita, although it may seem large, is not actually surprising. Namely, we should have in mind that it made up the daily diet of the average person in the Middle Ages. Although today the Middle Ages seem to be the “Dark Ages”, in terms of nutrition it was not – the diet of people in the late Middle Ages was quite diverse, and besides cereals, meat (game, fish, poultry, etc.) was eaten the most, in all social strata.
THE IMAGE OF WINE
“Bearing in mind that our town is poorly supplied with wine, and especially since this product is one of the main and most important things necessary for human health, without which all other world goods can be of little use to mortals…”
In medieval Dubrovnik, as well as in the entire medieval world, wine was considered food, that is, a foodstuff. As already indicated, the wine had both a concrete economic and market value – it was an important merchandise. But at the same time, it was sometimes used as a substitute for monetary payment, and for the payment of daily allowances. For example, in the year 1378 the Council of the Petitioners determined that all workers who were renovating the port in Pile should receive one tertiary of wine for each day of work.
On the other hand, wine has often been a substitute for repaying various debts. This can be seen in numerous private contracts. Thus, for example, if the father of the bride did not have enough cash to pay the dowry, he could give the future son-in-law the vineyard for use until, through the wine obtained from that vineyard, the agreed amount of dowry was paid. This method of payment was also common when paying other types of debts.
However, some did not just see the foodstuff in the wine but consumed it because of its intoxicating properties. In a drunken state, people provoked excess situations and ended up in court. Although this disturbed public order and peace, and (probably) caused public scandal, historians must be grateful to them because without them, a good part of the past everyday life of the crowd, that went to taverns, would remain unknown.
POSITION OF THE INNKEEPER IN THE MEDIEVAL DUBROVNIK
“If a dispute arises between the owner of the wine sold and the innkeeper because the owner claims that the innkeeper did not give him enough wine, the owner should be trusted in this regard for up to a year; and after one year, he should be trusted only with witnesses.”
According to the Korčula Statute from 1214, a person who caused damage to the vineyard was cut off one hand. During the harvest, no sessions of the Dubrovnik City Council were held, and the summons to court were not valid. Only the princes of Trogir and Dubrovnik were allowed to buy wine where they wanted.
The Dubrovnik Statute strictly prohibited the sale of wine mixed with honey. Wholesale and retail sales differed. As a merchandise, wine was well protected from competition by customs, which were also an important source of municipal revenues, but also by taxes, which were increased many times in the 14th century.
The customs duty paid on the import and export of wine was an important source of Dubrovnik municipal revenues that settled the various needs of the municipality. Similar was the case with wine taxes, which were initially low in Dubrovnik, three folars per one bucket of wine or 1/30 of its value. Since 1349, taxes have been increased to 1/8 of the value of wine. The average price of wine at that time was one perper for two buckets.
The price did not depend so much on the quality of the wine as on the requirements of the market, and the varieties of wine did not differ either. There were only red and white wine, which was more appreciated, so in the 15th century, the import of Malvasia required both a medical certificate and a special permission from the government. Import duty was paid by all those who imported wine. Since 1350, the duty has amounted to one groschen per bucket, and in the seventies of the 14th century, this amount has doubled, so for each bucket, the customs duty amounted to two groschen. As Pelješac wine was considered a foreign wine, it could only be exported outside the borders of the Dubrovnik Republic. There, in the 14th century, export duties corresponded to Dubrovnik customs duties and amounted to two groschen per bucket. This was paid to customs officers on the Neretva River when exporting wine to Bosnia, where, as well as to Serbia, wine was most often exported. Part of it also went to Drač, Ulcinj, Senj and Francavilla, while Pelješac needed special permission from the Dubrovnik authorities as early as the 14th century.
For the Dubrovnik Republic, Pelješac was a strategically important area in which it persistently and skilfully promoted its political and economic interests. For almost 500 years Pelješac belonged to the Republic, the most stable country in the Mediterranean, which mitigated the consequences of all war events and turbulence during the Middle Ages and the Modern Era and preserved the rural and agricultural orientation of this area, valuing the country as the most important natural resource. The evidence shows that the two oldest preserved land registers in Croatia are precisely the two Pelješac cadastral records from the 14th century, which were scientifically researched and published by Josip Lučić (“The oldest land registry in Croatia – Dubrovnik land registry of land division in Ston and Pelješac from 1336.” Annals of the Institute for Historical Sciences IC JAZU in Dubrovnik 18 (1980): 57-89) and Nenad Vekarić ( Pelješac settlements in the 14th century. Dubrovnik: Institute for Historical Sciences JAZU in Dubrovnik, 1989).
In the land register from 1393/96, which was prepared by the Government of the Republic of Dubrovnik, the size of the ownership plots and their owners were determined. Based on the aforementioned and other archival material, Nenad Vekarić, with an interdisciplinary scientific approach, explored the economic, demographic and administrative image of Pelješac and the Dubrovnik Republic in the 14th century. The analysis of the mentioned land registers shows that Pelješac was densely planted with vineyards at that time. Thus, even then, viticulture had an important place in its economy.
In the Dubrovnik Littoral, which belonged to Dubrovnik only in 1399, there were few vineyards that were later divided by the authorities in order to encourage the production of grain, while Korčula was part of the Venetian Republic.
WINE IN THE MIDDLE AGES IN DUBROVNIK
In Dubrovnik in the Middle Ages, white wine (vinum album) and red wine (vinum vermelum) were produced. The town statute strictly prohibited the sale of wine mixed with honey (molca or mulsa). With this provision, the town government probably sought to maintain some reasonable level of wine quality in the town, because by mixing it with various additives, such as honey, the wine would change its taste and basic property. If we look at regulations from other parts of Europe, this provision does not seem at all strange, it only follows a pattern that existed elsewhere.
There were two types of wine trade in Dubrovnik: wholesale and retail. Most often, both the buyer and the seller were more interested in wholesale trade, but their motives were still somewhat different. Namely, the producer-seller often did not have enough funds to maintain the vineyard throughout the year, especially if he had to plant it himself. Therefore, small producers often borrowed money, so that they could maintain the vine until harvest.
Although domestic wine production often exceeded the needs of the town, and legal provisions prohibited the import of wine, foreign wine (for example, sweet Malvasia) could be purchased in the town. Moreover, even municipal authorities sometimes sold such wine from their own reserves. Thus, for example, in 1335, the Small Council allowed them to import 100 buckets of foreign wine, but only for their personal needs. But, although they had this permission, the Dominicans often tried to smuggle more wine than they were allowed to import. Thus, for example, in 1434, the prior of the Dominican monastery, Peter, tried to smuggle 8 more buckets than he was allowed to import. The prior was caught and, in accordance with the law, he was sentenced to one year of deportation from the town or a fine of 49 perpers. Of course, he chose the fine. It is interesting that even the ship’s captain and sailors were fined, which confirms the severity of wine duty control and the importance of wine trade for the Dubrovnik Republic.