Diplomatic gifts as a status symbol. Examples of late medieval Dubrovnik
Abstract
75
Full text
Diplomatic gifts as astatus symbol. Examples of late medieval Dubrovnik Valentina Šoštarić ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the detection of gifts that Ragusan ambassadors presented to their hosts at various places: European courts, private residences and the Sublime Porte, covering the period from the mid-14th to the mid-15th century. The material culture of diplomatic gifts is seen as adeterminant of power and avisible sign of the recipient’sstatus. Of particular interest is the comparison of specific gifts presented to various political actors with whom the Dubrovnik authorities conducted diplomatic communication, and who resided within the same courts. This comparison allows for conclusions regarding gift -giving among different genders or age groups, if the recipients are of the same gender. In this sense, diplomatic gifts could be seen as adistinguishing factor of an individual’spower within the hierarchical power relations. Finally, such an analysis allows conclusions about how these gifts underwent diachronic alterations, based on the recipient’simportance in Dubrovnik’sforeign policy, the city’seconomic power, or the recipient’spreferences and cultural background. KEYWORDS Dubrovnik; diplomacy; diplomatic gifts; Ottoman Empire; gender diplomacy DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/23368144.2025.1.6 INTRODUCTION The Dubrovnik State Archive preserves sources that enable the reconstruction of adetailed list of diplomatic gifts sent from Dubrovnik/Ragusa1 to various recipients during the period of interest. Marcel Mauss was the first to address the issue of reciprocal gifting in premodern societies.2 Since then, numerous historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists have further developed his theoretical understanding of gifts, often employing an interdisciplinary perspective.3 In this regard, the exchange of gifts in diplomacy is understood as an integral part of ceremonial practices, as well as aform of ‘cultural diplomacy’ and late medieval ‘material culture’.4 Aparticularly important aspect of diplomatic gifts is their use as ameans of nonverbal communication. They conveyed layered messages regarding the hierarchical 1 For adetailed explanation regarding the use of both names cf. Kravar 1994, 77–87. 2 Mauss 2002. 3 Zemon Davis 2000; Krausman Ben -Amos 2008; Algazi– Groebner– Jussen eds. 2003; Komter ed. 1996; Osteen ed. 2014; Godelier 1999; Berking 1999. 4 There are different approaches to defining material culture: Tilley 2006, 7–12; Prown 1982, 1–19; Hicks– Beaudry eds. 2010; Miller 2005, 1–50. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1, 75–92
76 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 relationships between negotiating parties, the identity of the giver, their economic power, trade relations, prevailing tastes, and the artistic achievements of the period. It is important to emphasize that diplomatic gifts were simultaneously used as ‘instruments of persuasion’, where specific manipulations and strategies can be identified in the selection and presentation of the gift. Finally, there was aheightened awareness among the givers of the potential for the gift to provoke an emotional response from the recipient, as well as from a‘third party’ excluded from the gifting process, especially when material benefits were at stake. In this context, it is important to emphasize that the examples analysed will primarily focus on three case studies within abroader framework of gift exchange: textiles, silverware, and money. Other types of gifts, which are essential for drawing more grounded conclusions, such as status -related benefits, food items, as well as animals and weapons, will be briefly discussed. The analysis of diplomatic gifts in this paper will follow an analytical framework that allows for anuanced perspective, shedding light on how diplomatic gifts were strategically used. This framework not only underscores their impact on contemporary and future political relations but also highlights their role in fostering symbolic, material, and emotional exchanges across both similar and diverse cultures and religions. CONTEXT When Louis Iof Anjou defeated the Venetians in 1358 through negotiations in Visegrád Dubrovnik became apart of the Archiregnum Hungaricum. 5 The city enjoyed internal autonomy while being under the protection of apowerful yet geographically distant sovereign. This precondition allowed for uninterrupted internal development and marked the beginning of the ‘golden period’ in its historical development.6 As the city did not possess significant military power, it preserved its republican status and liberties7 by relying on the diplomatic skills and strategies of Dubrovnik state officials,8 with diplomatic gift -giving playing aprominent role. Positioned uniquely on the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea, Dubrovnik was presented as ahinge between different cultures, and religions benefitting from it greatly. 9 To achieve their vital foreign policy goals, the city councillors established anetwork of diplomatic contacts with all the significant political entities of the period. They had their representatives throughout Europe, across the Mediterranean region, and even as far as the Sublime Porte.10 They exchanged gifts with all of 5 Foretić 1960; Janeković -Römer 1998; 2003. For asynthetic overview of Dubrovnik’slate medieval history, see: Foretić 1980; Harris 2003. 6 De Diversis 2001, 11–57; Pešorda Vardić 2004, 1–37. More about Dubrovnik’sstability and prosperity from the 14th to the 17th century through ageostrategic and economic lens, see: Kunčević 2016. 7 For further insights into the concept of Ragusan liberty, see: Kunčević 2008, 9–64. 8 More about them, such as the use of certain rhetorical strategies and emotional intelligence: Šoštarić 2021, 146–158, 242–245. 9 Detailed study on Ragusan diplomatic relations with the Ottomans is provided in: Božić 1952; Bojović 1998. For Dubrovnik’srhetorical strategy to positioning itself on the frontier with the Orthodox ‘schismatics’ and Muslim ‘infidels’, and its significant contributions to Catholic and Christian religion, see: Kunčević 2010, 179–211. For the advantages of Dubrovnik’sgeo -strategic position in facilitating land and maritime trade, see: Bašić 2006, 139–177; Lučić 1991. 10 Sublime Porte, until 1922, was the diplomatic term for the Ottoman government, derived from the translation of the expression Bāb -i‘ālī (High Gate), which primarily referred to the office of the Grand Vizier. For further insights into the diplomatic relations of Dubrovnik in the late medieval period, see: Polić -Bobić ed. 2011; Miović 2003; Šoštarić 2021. General overview of the development of Dubrovnik’sdiplomacy can be found in: Krizman 1951; 1957; Janeković Römer 1999a, 193–204; Janeković Römer 1999b, 136–141.
77VALENTINA ŠOŠTARIĆ them, as these were expected in the sphere of diplomacy and formed an integral part of ceremonial protocols. The rhetoric of gifting was primarily used to promote the achievement of various pragmatic goals, with gifts being valued as a‘desirable tool of persuasion’.11 J. L. Austin’sconcept of the ‘performative function of language’ can be analogously applied to the understanding of diplomatic gifts, with the distinction that gifts possess the power to provoke areaction in the real world.12 The absence or inappropriateness of agift could be interpreted as an insult, which could gradually escalate into aserious incident, or even an open conflict.13 In the tumultuous context of the late medieval period, marked by constant conflicts, secret negotiations, and doubtful information, it was crucial to maneuver through the uncertainties of complex international relations with reliance on thoughtful diplomatic decisions. Their integral part was the wise selection of diplomatic gifts. The city authorities demonstrated their expertise in the careful selection, circulation, and production of gifts. They adeptly navigated the demanding balance between fulfilling the personal preferences of the recipient, adhering to dominant styles, and aligning with the economic and aesthetic values of the period. Simultaneously, diplomatic gifts carried carefully wrapped messages, artfully expressing features of adesirable ‘collective identity’ shaped by the ideological efforts of the city’spolitical authorities. They promoted local craftsmanship, luxury goods, and state symbols, skillfully adapting to prevailing tastes across diverse cultural and religious landscapes. The preserved records in the Dubrovnik State Archive (hereinafter: SAD) enable us to compile an inventory of diplomatic gifts sent from Dubrovnik to diverse recipients in the late medieval period. The selection of diplomatic gifts expressed multilayered messages. An important function of diplomatic gifts was to differentiate the socio -political positions of individuals across different civilizations and religions, primarily the Ottomans, but also the members of the Bosnian Church from the hinterland of Dubrovnik. In this context, the main aim of this paper is to interpret the material culture of diplomatic gifts as markers of hierarchical distinctions, emphasizing their role in reflecting the recipient’ssocial status and shaping collective identity. This analysis extends to the careful selection of materials, production techniques, and finishing processes, providing insights into the donor’seconomic strength, trade connections, current fashion, and artistic achievements of the period. Special attention is given to luxury items, specifically textiles, silverware, and monetary gifts, highlighting their significance within the broader context of political exchanges between Dubrovnik and the Ottomans as well as powerful Bosnian noblemen from the hinterland and prominent European rulers. THE GIFTS GIFT TYPOLOGY– DISTINGUISHING FEATURES ACROSS CULTURES The exchange of gifts in the sphere of diplomacy constitutes arich semantic field that offers various interpretative possibilities.14 An anthropological approach, particularly fruitful, fo11 For the use of gifts as arhetorical tool in diplomatic negotiations for acquiring new territories, see: Zovko 2011, 211–224. 12 Austin 1962. 13 Lonza 2009, 188–189, 205. 14 The approach to the analysis of gifts through the lens of symbolic meanings is offered in: Derville 1974, 341–364; Klapisch -Zuber 1990; Groebner 2002.
78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 cuses on studying the value of objects within arelational context.15 Analysing the diplomatic gifts presented by Ragusan ambassadors to their hosts from that perspective, they can be approached as aform of pragmatic, monetary, social, cultural, and emotional value. 16 In other words, the analysis will not only consider their material value and their power to prompt specific actions but will also regard them as ameans of communication that conveyed messages about the power dynamics between negotiating parties, the strengthening of alliances and political friendships, and aform of symbolic exchange. The Dubrovnik authorities constantly sought to tailor the gift not only to the recipient’sreputation and honour but also to their taste. Akey strategy was to acquire gifts in places where they had alow market value, or to present them to individuals who valued them more than their purchasing price. Aparticular item could be highly desirable to the recipient because it carried acertain aura due to the uniqueness of the material from which it was made, the complex production techniques involved, or the difficulty in obtaining it. The significance of the gift was determined by the recipient’ssocio- -political position and value system, and over time, its value could increase if it became an object of personal emotional attachment. Based on their category, these gifts can be categorized as follows: status -related benefits (e.g., Ragusan nobility, citizenship, 17 palaces in the city 18 ), luxury items (e.g., silverware, 19 precious fabrics, and furs20), food items (e.g., fish,21 sweets,22 citrus fruits,23 sugar,24 spices25), animals (e.g., hunting birds26), and monetary gifts.27 The Dubrovnik citizenship and city palaces were often granted to the nobility from the hinterland, with astanding invitation for the host to visit Dubrovnik, as it was considered his home, whose interests needed to be cared for. 28 Being aDubrovnik citizen was legally, morally, 15 Gell 1998. On mutual beneficial use of agift, see: Fennell 2002, 94. 16 For the emotional engagement of the giver and receiver that could have influenced the creation of the gift’svalue: Cheal 1988, 131. 17 Grujić 1926, 20. 18 State Archive in Dubrovnik (hereinafter: SAD), Reformationes (hereinafter: Ref.), seria 2, vol. xxxi, f. 121r, (9 Oct 1398); SAD, Lettere e Commissioni. Lettere di Levante (hereinafter: Lett. di Lev.), seria 27/1, vol. iv, f. 71v, (6 Sep 1403). 19 SAD, Acta Minoris Consilii, (hereinafter: Cons. Minus), seria 5, vol. vi, f. 52r, (12 Jan 1433). 20 SAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, (hereinafter: Cons. Rog.), seria 3, vol. iv, f. 219v, (17 Aug 1430), f. 224v, (25 Aug 1430). 21 Cons. Rog., vol. iii, f. 142r, (18 Feb 1423). 22 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 240r, (6 Oct 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, f. 7r, (6 Oct 1430). 23 Lett. di Lev., vol. viii, ff. 145rv, (16 Feb 1423); Janeković -Römer 1999a. 24 Janeković -Römer 2003. 25 Vi mandemo pesçe barile 27 e confetti scatole 48 e lemoni barile 4 e zuccharo e spese e peuerada como in una cedula qui dentro messa se contien el qual pesce e limoni e parte de li confetti presentate amisser lo re per parte del nostro regimento., Lett. di Lev., vol. viii, f. 138v, (13 Dec 1422)…de mittendo ambassiatoribus nostris qui sunt penes dominum regem Bosne confetiones et pisces in gelatina pro dicto domino rege., Cons. Rog., vol. iii, f. 131r, (3 Dec 1422). 26 Prima pars est de solvendo precium duarum falconum ser Marino de Bona, ut donet illas ex parte sua domino bano de Dalmacia, (7 Jul 1379), Gelcich ed. 1896, 229; Janeković -Römer 2003, 75. 27 Ref., vol. xxxiv, f. 176v, (22 Nov 1412); SAD, Acta Consilii Maioris, (hereinafter: Cons. Maius), seria 4, vol. v, f. 107v, (14 Dec 1436). 28 Impreo preghemo el detto Radiz come quello in qui habiamo bona speranza chel se debia adourar come uno de nuy in quello che sia per conservamento de la cita de Ragusa caxa soa et che ge plaça nostro esserne favorevolle aconservamento dela dita casa cum quelle parolle ala discrecion vostra parera aço convignir., Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 20r, (10 Jun 1403); E Ragusa sempre animo tenuto per special casa sua, Lett. di Lev., vol. x, f. 111r, (30 Apr 1430); Per le qual cosa Ragusa special casa di la corona vostra et li zentilomeni
79VALENTINA ŠOŠTARIĆ emotionally, and practically binding. Those who held the status of Dubrovnik citizens were expected to offer help, protection, and make sacrifices in order to promote the city’sinterests. One of those who enjoyed this status was the Bosnian duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača. He was granted the status of aDubrovnik citizen at the end of the 14th century and was later included in the ranks of the Dubrovnik nobility at the beginning of the 15th century.29 Along with these honours, he was also awarded aluxurious palace in the city.30 Food items were excluded due to the risk of spoilage during long -distance travel, while weapons were mostly reserved as diplomatic gifts among Muslim rulers.31 Ragusan authorities did not hesitate to establish diplomatic contacts with members of different religious beliefs. For instance, on several occasions, they gifted sweets to distinguished members of the Bosnian church.32 High -ranking individuals also requested food gifts, but at one point, the Dubrovnik authorities angrily responded to the Bosnian king that it was not customary to present aking with such trivial items and that they were not ‘court suppliers who deliver goods upon order’.33 Specifically, the king had asked for fish, oranges, and other fruits, but the envoys were authorized to refuse not only this request but any future demands from King TvrtkoII.34 In doing so, they demonstrated sufficient authority to decide, on acase -by -case basis, whether or not to meet the host’sgift requests. Some artifacts, such as food and weapons, which were commonly exchanged in diplomatic interactions of the period,35 were not included in the documented lists of gifts sent to the Ottomans. While some types of food could spoil during long distance travels, certain animals could die for the same reason. For instance, 1514 King Ferdinand Iof Aragon reported that he had received seven hawks, although eight had been sent to him.36 Hunting birds, especially hawks (astore) and falcons (falcone), were valued gifts in both the East and the West. They were sourced from Dubrovnik’sterritory or its vicinity, specially trained, and used in hunting among the high -ranking members of society. For instance, in the first half of the 16th century, Ibrahim Pasha expressed adesire for apair of falcons with a‚white dessa seruitori et cordiali suoi., Lett. di Lev., vol. x, f. 111v, (30 Apr 1430)…et ad conseruare et defendere Ragusa casa vostra mandare lo subsidio et reparo vostro di gente… lassando di ricordare che sempre cusi caldamente et di bon core aueti offerto et promesso alla conseruacion di Ragusa casa et patria vostra contra zascun chi la volesse offendere, Lett. di Lev., vol. x, f. 115r, (30 Apr 1430). 29 For abroader context, see Kurtović 2009, 100–101, 141, 151, 156. 30 For adetailed study of the Sandalj’spalace in Dubrovnik, see: Grujić– Zelić 2010, 47–132. 31 Pedani 2009, 191 32 Intendessimo lo motiuo vi feci voiuoda per mandar confetti per honorar per suo amor lo died et gosti. Et pero noi voliando far in questo et altro possibile anoi lo suo honor et piacer vi mandemo scatole de confetto le qual per parte nostra vogliamo dobiate donare et presentare alli detti died et gosti come meglio et piu honor nostro vi parera., Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, f. 7r, (6 Oct 1430); Prima pars est de donando died et gosti qui venerunt ad Sandagl. (Captum per omnes). Prima pars est de donando eisdem in confectionibus yperperos viginti. (Captum per xxviiii contra v), Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 240r, (6 Oct 1430); Dinić 1967, 191, 223. 33 Voi dite che el re domando pesse e naranze e fructi de piu maniere, e la qual cosa ve diremo che mai non fu costumo nostro di sottomettere la terra e queste cose si minute con algun signore. Et avanti ho voluto questa terra sogiacere e spese di gran doni et di cose di valore degne di se, che volersi mettere con alguno in servitu de queste piccole cose che serto ne pareira gran manchamento de honor tanto per lo re quanto per altri suoi cortigiani e baroni che anche domand di tali cose., Lett. di Lev., vol. viii, ff. 145rv, (16 Feb 1423); Janeković Römer 1999a, 201–202; Janeković Römer 1999b, 138; Jireček 1915, 87. 34 …el dicto messer lo re vi domandasse tal cose, et voi scusate nostra comunita per quello piu bell modo che vi pare., Lett. di Lev., vol. viii, f. 145v, (16 Feb 1423). 35 For example, weapons were sent as agift to Ludovic the Great in the second half of the 14th century, Janeković -Römer 2003, 112. 36 Mitić 1978, 118.
80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 mark‘ (falconi con lo signal biancho). However, despite all the efforts made, the authorities were unable to fulfill his request and acquire the requested gift.37 Luxurious fabrics were frequently used as diplomatic gifts among the medieval social elite. 38 These high -quality textiles conveyed messages of prestige, reputation, and honour expressed to the recipients. They served as aform of payment for taxes in Islamic societies, further confirming their significant value and esteem.39 Ragusan authorities gifted luxury textiles to high -ranking individuals, both in the East40 and the West,41 apractice that remained consistent throughout the entire period of interest. In addition to textiles, silverware was ahighly valued gift at the Sublime Porte, as evidenced by a1442 agreement in which the Ragusan authorities committed to paying the Ottoman Empire an annual ‘gift’ of 1,000 ducats in silverware.42 In the late medieval period Dubrovnik goldsmiths manufactured alarge number of silver objects that were sent as diplomatic gifts to foreign rulers and prominent political figures of the time. The Republic did not purchase luxury items made of precious metals from foreigners but rather relied on the services of local craftsmen such as Živko Gojković, Jakov Rusmanović, Antun Branković, and others, who produced diplomatic gifts for the Hungarian -Croatian kings Matthias Corvinus and Władysław II Jagiełło, as well as his son, in their independent production facilities.43 This indicates that both textiles and luxury items made from precious metals were considered equally valuable gifts in both the East and the West. To sum up, addressing the types of presents, it is noticeable that those sent as diplomatic gifts from Dubrovnik to its neighbouring regions or within broader European countries did not differ significantly. The challenge arose with the initially established diplomatic contacts with the Sublime Porte, where it was necessary to find the ideal calculation– to invest as little as possible in afinancial sense while triggering apositive reaction from the recipient. When the Dubrovnik authorities defined their tributary obligations to the Ottoman Empire in the mid-15th century, the city found itself in an uncomfortable position that required an explanation of the promised annual tribute and loyalty to the Sultan to other European Catholic rulers. These new circumstances led to feelings of shame, guilt, and discomfort, as the city was part of the community res publica christiana.44 Christian contact with Muslims was considered undesirable since Pope John VIII formulated the doctrine of ‘impious alliance’ in the 9th century.45 While trade contacts were permitted,46 other forms of cooperation were sanctioned by excommunication. Acknowledging their tributary status, the ruling elite ultimately justified it with two arguments: the necessity of preserving their freedom and the selfless sacrifice for the entire Latin West, whose interests they could better serve with their new status in relation 37 Mitić 1978, 118. 38 For more detailed discussion about textiles and furs, silverware, and monetary gifts cf. the following chapters. 39 Arcak 2012, 251. 40 For some examples see chapter Luxurious fabrics and power hierarchy. 41 Crowned heads, such as Bosnian king Tvrtko II, were gifted with luxurious fabrics…il dono il qual vi abiamo dato da fare per parte nostra allo re son peze 4 de panno veronese e sette altre peze de l’ altra, Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, f. 66r, (25 Nov 1431). 42 Stojanović 1934, 234. 43 Fisković 1949, 189–190. More recent studies on Dubrovnik’sgoldsmiths, the sacred artefacts they produced, and their connections can be found in Lupis 2015. 44 For an analysis of Dubrovnik’sposition towards the Ottoman Empire, see: Kunčević 2013, 91–122. 45 For the idea of impium foedus, see: Vismara 1974; Mastnak 2002, 108–113, 149–151. 46 For instance, in the year 1433 the participants of the Church Council in Basel granted Dubrovnik the privilege of trading in the Ottoman Empire: Radonić 1934, 430.
81VALENTINA ŠOŠTARIĆ to the Empire.47 By the mid-15th century, both European rulers and the Ottomans adhered to asimilar system of values regarding luxury diplomatic gifts from Dubrovnik, with textiles, silverware, and monetary gifts playing acentral role, an aspects explored in greater detail in the following chapters. LUXURIOUS FABRICS AND POWER HIERARCHY The role of gifts in shaping social relationships was particularly emphasized in the medieval period.48 Luxurious fabrics, in particular, served as powerful nonverbal messages, symbolizing the status and rank of the recipient. This use of textiles to signify hierarchical differences is clearly illustrated in 1428, when Bosnian King Tvrtko II was presented with fabrics valued at 400 ducats, 49 while the Bosnian duke Sandalj received alesser quantity, valued at 240 ducats. 50 At this place it is worth mentioning that Ragusan authorities did not miss the opportunity to accompany important ceremonial events in the lives of influential women with gifts of textiles, thereby building their political networks and creating conditions for fruitful collaboration in the years that followed. On the occasion of the wedding of Doroteja, the wife of Bosnian king Tvrtko II, they presented her with fabrics worth 300 ducats.51 However, it is worth noting that sometimes only the groom was honoured with gifts, especially when the bride came from alower social rank.52 The distinction in the recipient’srank was determined by the type of raw materials used, length and width of the fabric, the number of layers, the type of dye used, the dyeing technique, embellishments, the presence of precious metals and furs on the fabric, and the origin of the material. Focusing our further analysis on gifts in textiles sent from Dubrovnik to the Sublime Porte during the first half of the 15 th century can lead to interesting conclusions about the correlation between an individual’spower status and the received gift. Discussing the type of raw material, only silk fabric crafted in the technique zetanin aveluta was reserved for the Sultan.53 C. C. Frick writes that this was ‘one of the most luxurious and expensive materials in history. It is asilk fabric with asingle -thread weave, in contrast to velvet, which is visible in certain areas’.54 Its price was conditioned by acomplicated production process that required special techniques and weaving skills. In addition to velvet -woven silk, brocade was also exclusively presented to the Sultan. This refers to arich and heavy silk fabric with asatin background, featuring an embedded design emphasized by the contrast of colours, in this specific case with golden threads.55 Grand viziers received fabrics made of scarlet of lower market value compared to fabrics gifted to the Sultan. 56 When individuals were gifted the same type of fabric (e.g., woolen fabric), the difference in their hierarchical position was signalled by the quantity, i.e., the length of the fabric. For instance, Isa -bey 57 47 For some examples see Kunčević 2010, 190–191. 48 Bijsterveld 2001, 124–156; Cutler 2008, 79–102. 49 Zovko 2012, 166. 50 Lett. di Lev., vol. x, f. 91v, (10 Jun 1428); Cons. Rog., vol. iv, ff. 57rv, (5 and 9 Jun 1428). 51 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 63r, (23 Jul 1428); Cons. Maius, vol. iii, f. 219r, (23 Jul 1428); Anđelić 1972-1973, 381. 52 Cons. Maius, vol. x, f. 18v, (29 May 1455). 53 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 224v, (25 Aug 1430). 54 Frick 2002, 98. 55 Gooch ed. 2011, 129. 56 Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, ff. 50rv, (28 Jul 1431). 57 Isa -bey is the successor of the Sanjak -bey of Skopje, Jigit.
82 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 received four pieces of woolen fabric, valued at 70 ducats,58 while the woolen fabric given to the grand viziers measured one kavetac, approximately 1–1.5 meters longer than the fabric received by alower -ranking Ottoman official.59 Dubrovnik largely relied on imports for the raw materials necessary for textile production. The city did not produce its own silk or other luxury fabrics; instead, it sourced these from Venice for use in diplomatic gifts.60 Luxurious merino wool was imported from regions such as Castile and Aragon, England, France, Apulia, Turkey, and northern Africa.61 At the beginning of the 15th century, Dubrovnik’sauthorities made considerable efforts to modernize local workshops and improve the techniques for woolen textile production. In the early stages, these initiatives were mainly entrusted to foreign craftsmen, particularly those from the Apennine Peninsula.62 By the 15th century, there were around 50 weaving shops in the small city. The production of wool was subject to strict state control, ensuring that the manufactured fabrics carried an official quality and authenticity mark. This was verified by aseal featuring the image of St. Blaise along with asize designation on one side and aseal depicting the city of Dubrovnik on the other.63 Dyes were also imported from awide range of regions. 64 The material value of the finished fabrics depended not only on the type but also on the dye used. The name given to the colour usually indicated the method of dyeing the fabric and served as adirect indicator of the fabric’svalue and the origin of the dye used. While there were cultural preferences in choosing the colour of the fabric, popularity changed across space and time, consequently shaping fashion. Colour and dye were visual indicators of the worth, social significance, and appropriateness to the recipient’sstatus. For example, in comparison to other Ottoman officials, only the Sultan was gifted with crimson satin velvet.65 Crimson had different undertones leaning towards purple, which was reserved for rulers in Latin West. Crimson (cremesi) was aterm designating the colour reserved for silk, indicating the dye used. The term ‘Cremesi’ is derived from the Balkan Turkish word grimiz, more specifically purpur, or the Greek word porfir, indicating that true crimson was obtained from dye extracted from insects.66 This dye is typically derived from the insect Coccus ilicis (also known as Kermes vermilio, Hermes ilices, Lecanium ilicis), more precisely by drying the females and eggs of these insects under the sun. These insects parasitize the Mediterranean holm oak (Quercus ilex).67 While grand viziers were also gifted with fabrics dyed in various shades of red, there was asignificant difference in the dye used. Typically, scarlet de grana 68 or panno de grana 69 dye was used for their fabrics. Grana was ared dye derived from the desiccated bodies of the Mediterranean scale insect. In addition to crimson, sky blue70 and black satin velvet were reserved 58 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 224v, (25 Aug 1430). 59 Miović 2003, 51. 60 Jemo– Parac -Osterman 2016, 37. 61 Belamarić 2020, 304. 62 Dinić -Knežević 1982, 149–152. 63 Jemo– Parac -Osterman 2016, 39. 64 Cochineal or crimson, lapis lazuli, and ultramarine were imported from Bosnia and Serbia: Lučić 1985, 95–114; Kovačević 1961, 166–177. For more information on the dyes used by Ragusan craftsmen, see Roller 1951, 58–59. 65 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 224v, (25 Aug 1430). 66 Monnas 2014, 46. 67 Lorger 2011, 27. 68 Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, ff. 50rv, (28 Jul 1431). 69 Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, f. 61v, (2 Dec 1431); vol. xii, f. 213r, (15 Jun 1441). 70 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 224v, (25 Aug 1430).
83VALENTINA ŠOŠTARIĆ exclusively for the Sultan. 71 This may be surprising as black and blue are often associated with mourning, extreme asceticism, and the humility in medieval Western culture. Nevertheless, towards the end of the 15th century, blue and black became symbols of power and urban aristocracy in the Latin West.72 Green was also represented among fabric gifts, reserved for socially privileged classes. Even though green was suitable for the Sultan and grand viziers, the distinction in their positions was made by the choice of fabric dyed in this colour.73 Fabrics containing gold and silver were quite popular among the Ottoman ruling elite.74 Typically, golden threads were added around the loom as an additional layer of weaving on the base luxurious fabric.75 Fabrics with gold and silver were reserved for the Sultan, his brother, and the Pasha of Rumelia.76 Furs were also represented on the list of diplomatic gifts for the highest Ottoman officials, either independently or as part of tailored garments. On one occasion, the Sultan received miliaro uno de dossi fini caualareschi and an equal amount of ermine fur.77 Even more frequently than ermine, among the gifts dispatched from Dubrovnik, one comes across the esteemed fur of the squirrel. During the Middle Ages, squirrel fur was valued as one of the finest among all furs.78 Acoat presented to the Sultan and grand viziers was crafted from 250 squirrel back furs. 79 Dubrovnik’sauthorities often gifted the Sultan garments made from acombination of luxurious fabrics and esteemed fur. Avest made of brocade, with woven gold threads, included 300 ermine furs, while two other vests for the Sultan made of satin velvet incorporated 600 squirrel back furs.80 In addition to the type of gift, the material used, dyeing method, and colour selection, another important parameter, the quantity of the same item, was utilized in signaling differences in the hierarchy of power among gift recipients at the Sublime Porte. Specifically, when it came to identical items, their quantity differentiated the position of the recipient. For instance, the Sultan received three cloaks, while each of the three grand viziers received only one such identical item.81 As the examples presented in this chapter have shown, the choice of fabric and colour expressed powerful messages about the political power of the recipient serving as avisual metaphor for personal identity and socio -political status.82 On the other hand, it reflected the economic power of the donor, their access to specific markets of the Mediterranean and the Balkans through which the city was interconnected with the rest of the world. This is particularly evident in their reliance on imports for fabrics and dyes, rather than local resources and domestic production. By selecting certain other gifts, the city authorities, on the other 71 Lett. di Lev., vol. xii, f. 213r, (15 Jun 1441). 72 Pleij 2004, 6; Piponnier– Mane 1997, 20. This is confirmed by the practice of French kings, who regularly crowned themselves dressed in blue (Scott 2011, 63), while Alfonso of Aragon predominantly wore black garments (Muzzarelli 1999, 252). 73 The garment for the Sultan was crafted from silk fabric using the velvet technique with added fur, while that for viziers was made of wool, Lett. di Lev., vol. xii, f. 213r, (15 Jun 1441). 74 Lett. di Lev., vol. xii, f. 218r, (without date); vol. xiii, f. 40v, (2 Aug 1441); vol. xiv, f. 52r, (15 Dec 1450). 75 Wardwell 1976-1977, 180. 76 Lett. di Lev., vol. xii, f. 213r, (15 Jun 1441); vol. xiii, f. 40v, (2 Aug 1441); vol. xiv, ff. 52r–53r, (15 Dec 1450). 77 Cons. Rog., vol. iv, f. 219v, (17 Aug 1430). 78 Gage 1993, 82. Fur became highly valued in Islamic societies from the Middle East to Central Asia from the second half of the 8th century until the end of the Middle Ages. Many pelts were obtained from the Middle Volga/Volga Bulgar region, as reported by Marco Polo. For other prized furs from the Middle Volga region according to Marco Polo’swritings, see: Kovalev 2001, 58–59. 79 Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, ff. 50rv, (28 Jul 1431). 80 Lett. di Lev., vol. xii, f. 213r, (15 Jun 1441). 81 Lett. di Lev., vol. xi, f. 50rv, (28 Jul 1431). 82 Davis 1992, 25.
90 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Arcak, S.A. 2012: Gifts in Motion. Ottoman -Safavid Cultural Exchange, 1501–1618. Available online: https:// conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/135900 (visited 17/03/2025). Austin, J.L. 1962: How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge. Babić, A. 1960: Diplomatska služba usrednjovjekovnoj Bosni. Radovi Naučnog društva Bosne iHercegovine 5/13, 11–70. Bašić, Đ. 2006: Pomorstvo Dubrovnika od XII. do početka XX. stoljeća. Pomorski zbornik 44/1, 139–177. Belamarić, J. 2001: Sveti Vlaho idubrovačka obitelj svetaca zaštitnika. In: Ž. Puljić– N.A. Ančić eds.: Tisuću godina dubrovačke (nad)biskupije. Dubrovnik– Split, 703–731. Belamarić, J. 2020: Studije iz starije umjetnosti na Jadranu 3. Split. Berking, H. 1999: Sociology of giving. London– Thousand Oaks– New Delhi. Bijsterveld, A.J.A. 2002: The Medieval Gift as Agent of Social Bonding and Political Power. AComparative Approach. In: E. Cohen– M.B. de Jong eds.: Medival Transformations. Texts, Power and Gifts in Context. Leiden, 124–156. Bojović, B.I. 1998: Raguse et l’Empire Ottoman (1430–1520). Les actes impériaux ottomans en vieux -serbe de Murad II à Selim Ier. Paris. Božić, I. 1952: Dubrovnik iTurska uXIV iXV veku. Beograd. Cheal, D. 1988: The gift economy. London– New York. Cutler, A. 2008: Significant gifts. Patterns of exchange in Late Antique, Byzantine and early Islamic diplomacy. Journal of medieval and early modern studies 38, 79–102. Cvjetković, B. 1916: Sveti Vlaho iDubrovnik. Dubrovnik. Damen, M. 2007: Princely entries and gift exchange in the Burgundian Low Countries– acrucial link in late medieval political culture. Journal of Medieval History 33/3, 233–249. Davis, F. 1992: Fashion, Culture and Identity. Chicago. Derville, A. 1974: Pots -de -vin, cadeaux, racket, patronage. Essai sur les mécanismes de décision dans l‘État bourguignon. Revue du Nord 56, 341–364. Dinić -Knežević, D. 1982: Tkanine uprivredi srednjovekovnog Dubrovnika. Beograd. Fennell, L.A. 2002: Unpacking the gift. Illiquid goods and empathetic dialogue. In: M. Osteen ed.: The Question of the Gift. Essays Across Disciplines. London– New York, 85–101. Fisković, C. 1949: Dubrovački zlatari. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3/1, 143–249. Fletcher, C. 2011: ‘Those who give are not all generous’. Tips and bribe at the Sixteenth -Century papal court. Working Paper. European University Institute 15, 1–10. Foretić, V. 1960: Godina 1358. upovijesti Dubrovnika. Starine 50, 251–278. Foretić, V. 1980: Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808. 1– Od osnutka do 1526. Zagreb. Frick, C.C. 2002: Dressing Renaissance Florence. Families, Fortunes & Fine Clothing. Baltimore– London. Gage, J. 1993: Colour and Culture. Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction. Singapore. Gell, A. 1998: Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford. Godelier, M. 1999: The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago. Gooch, J.W. ed. 2011: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Polymers. New York. Groebner, V. 2002: Liquid Assets, Dangerous Gifts. Presents and Politics at the End of the Middle Ages. The Middle Age series. Philadelphia. Grujić, R.1926: Konavli pod raznim gospodarima od XII. do XV. vijeka. Zemun. Grujić, N.– Zelić, D. 2010: Palača vojvode Sandalja Hranića uDubrovniku. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 48, 47–132. Harris, R.2003: Dubrovnik. AHistory. London. Hicks, D.– Beaudry, M.C. eds. 2010: The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford. Janeković -Römer, Z. 1998: Priznanje krune svetog Stjepana. Izazov dubrovačke diplomacije. In: S. Berković ed.: Zbornik diplomatske akademije 3. Zagreb, 293–301.
91VALENTINA ŠOŠTARIĆ Janeković -Römer, Z. 1999a: Oposlaničkoj službi idiplomatskom protokolu Dubrovačke Republike u15. stoljeću. In: M. Andrilić– M. Valentić eds.: Zbornik diplomatske akademije 2. Zagreb, 193–204. Janeković Römer, Z. 1999b: Okvir slobode. Dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja ihumanizma. Zagreb– Dubrovnik. Janeković -Römer, Z. 2003: Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike. Zagreb. Jemo, D.– Parac -Osterman, Đ. 2016: Razvojni tijekovi proizvodnje, tehnologije bojenja itrgovine tekstilom ukontekstu pomorsko -trgovačkih puteva Dubrovnika. Naše more 63/1, 36–43. Jireček, K. 1915: Važnost Dubrovnika utrgovačkoj povijesti srednjeg vijeka. Dubrovnik. Klapisch -Zuber, C. 1990: La Maison et le nom. Stratégies et rituels dans l‘Italie de la Renaissance. Paris. Komter, A.E. 1996: The Gift. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam. Kovačević, D. 1961: Trgovina usrednjovjekovnoj Bosni. Sarajevo. Kovalev, R.K. 2001: The Infrastructure of the Nothern Part of the ‘Fur Road’ Between the Middle Volga and the East During the Middle Ages. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 11, 25–64. Krausman Ben -Amos, I. 2008: The Culture of Giving. Informal Support and Gift -Exchange in Early Modern England. Cambridge. Kravar, M. 1994: Oko toponima Ragusa za Dubrovnik. Folia onomastica Croatica 3, 77–87. Krekić, B. 1986: Dva priloga bosanskoj istoriji prve polovine petnaestog vijeka. Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne iHercegovine 37, 129–142. Krizman, B. 1951: Odubrovačkoj diplomaciji. Zagreb. Krizman, B. 1957: Diplomati ikonzuli ustarom Dubrovniku. Zagreb. Kunčević, L. 2008: Odubrovačkoj libertas ukasnom srednjem vijeku. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 46, 9–64. Kunčević, L. 2010: Retorika granice kršćanstva udiplomaciji renesansnog Dubrovnika. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 48, 179–211. Kunčević, L. 2016: Ostabilnosti Dubrovačke Republike (14.–17. stoljeće). Geopolitički iekonomski faktori. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 54/1, 1–38. Kunčević, L. 2013: Janus faced Sovereignty. The International Status of the Ragusan Republic in the Early Modern Period. In: G. Kármán– L. Kunčević eds.: The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden– Boston, 91–122. Kurtović, E. 2000: Motivi Sandaljeve prodaje Konavala Dubrovčanima. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 38, 103–120. Kurtović, E. 2009: Veliki vojvoda bosanski Sandalj Hranić Kosača. Sarajevo. Lonza, N. 2009: Kazalište vlasti. Zagreb– Dubrovnik. Lorger, S. 2011: Kermes, crvac– ijoš neka crvena bojila. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku, 49, 27–76. Lučić, J. 1968-1969: Stjecanje, dioba iborba za očuvanje dubrovačkog Primorja 1399–1405. Arhivski vjesnik 11-12, 99–201. Lučić, J. 1979: Obrti iusluge uDubrovniku do početka XIV. stoljeća. Zagreb. Lučić, J. 1985: Gospodarsko -društveni odnosi uDubrovniku uStojkovićevo vrijeme. Historijski zbornik 38/1, 95–114. Lučić, J. 1991: Pomorsko -trgovačke veze Dubrovnika na Mediteranu uXIII. stoljeću. Zagreb. Mastnak, T. 2002: Crusading Peace. Christendom, the Muslim World and Western Political Order. Berkeley. Mauss, M. 2002: The Gift. The form and the reason for exchange in archaic societies. London– New York. Miller, D. 2005: Materiality. An Introduction. In: D. Miller ed.: Materiality. Durham, 1–50. Miović, V. 2003: Dubrovačka diplomacija uIstambulu. Zagreb– Dubrovnik. Mitić, I. 1978: Ptice za lov kao poklon Dubrovačke Republike vladaru Napulja. Anali Centra za znanstveni rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti iumjetnosti uDubrovniku 15-16, 113–135.
92 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIX/1 Monnas, L. 2014: Some Medieval Colour Terms for Textile. In: R. Netherton– G. R. Owen -Crocker eds.: Medieval Clothing and Textiles 10. Woodbridge, 25–58. Muzzarelli, M.G. 1999: Guardaroba medievale. Vesti e società dal XIII al XVI secoli. Bologna. Lupis, V.B. 2015: Dubrovačke srednjovjekovne zlatarske teme. Zagreb– Dubrovnik. Osteen, M. ed. 2014: The Question of the Gift. Essays Across Disciplines. London– New York. Pedani, M. P.2009: Ambassadors’ travels from East to Venice. Annali di Ca’ Foscari 48/3, 183–197. Pešorda Vardić, Z. 2004: Kruna, kralj igrad. Odnos Dubrovnika prema Ugarskoj kruni ivladaru na početku protudvorskog pokreta. Povijesni prilozi 26, 19–37. Piponnier, P.– Mane, P.1997: Dress in the Middle Ages. New Haven– London. Pleij, H. 2004: Colors demonic and divine. Shades of meaning in the Middle Ages and after. New York. Polić -Bobić, M. ed. 2011: Tajna diplomacija uDubrovnikuXVI. stoljeću. Zagreb. Prlender, I. 1994: Dubrovačko posvajanje sv.Vlaha. Dubrovnik 5/5, 9–22. Prown, J.D. 1982: Mind in Matter. An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method. Winterthur Portfolio 17/1, 1–19. Rešetar, M. 1924: Dubrovačka numizmatika 1. Beograd. Roller, D. 1951: Dubrovački zanati uXV. iXVI. stoljeću. Zagreb. Scott, M. 2011: Fashion in the Middle Ages. Exhibition catalogue of the eponymic exhibition on view at the J. Paul Getty Museum, May 31 to August 14, 2011. Los Angeles. Swan, C. 2013: Birds of Paradise for the Sultan. Early 17th -century Dutch -Turkish encounters and the uses of wonder. De Zeventiende Eeuw 29/1, 49–63. Šoštarić, V. 2021: Dubrovački poklisari. Upotrazi za novim teritorijima. Zadar. Tilley, C. 2006: Introduction. In: C. Tilleyetal. eds.: Handbook of Material Culture. London, 7–12. Truhelka, Ć. 1917: Konavoski rat (1430–1433). Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne iHercegovine 29, 145–211. Vismara, G. 1974: Impium foedus. Le origini della respublica christiana. Milano. Wardwell, A.E. 1976-1977: The Stylistic Development of Fourteenthand Fifteenth -Century Italian Silk Design. Aachener Kunstblätter 47, 177–226. Webley, P.– Lea, S.E.G.– Portalska, R.1983: The unacceptability of money as agift. Journal of economic psychology 4, 223–238. Zemon Davis, N. 2000: The gift in sixteenth -century France. Madison. Zovko, V. 2011: Virtuoznost uvjeravanja ili oargumentaciji dubrovačkim teritorijalnim aspiracijama. Radovi Hrvatskog društva za znanost iumjetnost 12-13, 211–224. Zovko, V. 2012: Uloga poklisara uširenju teritorija Dubrovačke Republike na zaleđe (krajem 14. ipočetkom 15. stoljeća). Unpublished PhD dissertation. Available online: https://dabar.srce.hr/islandora/object/hrstud%3A1850 (visited 18/03/2025). Valentina Šoštarić University of Zadar, History departament Ruđera Boškovića 5 23000 Zadar, Croatia vzo[email protected]