Dubrovnik nakon pada Republike (1808- 1848)/Dubrovnik after the Fall of the Republic (1808-1848). Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 1999. pp. 402. ISBN 953-154-317-8.
Summary History of Dubrovnik 1808-1848: discontinuity and transformation
The first half of the nineteenth century is characterized by radical social changes which marked the beginning of the history of modem bourgeois era. After exhausting Napoleonic campaigns, and despite restoration and absolutism, much of Europe witnessed the strengthening of the basic democratic tenets founded on legal equality and the proclaimed goals of the bourgeois society. Democratic processes established during the revolutionary movements of the 20’s and 30’s, culminated in the general European unrest of 1848. Technological and industrial revolution, population explosion, and the growth of agricultural industry contributed to social changes, accompanied by a major shift in political theory and practice. The principle of monarchist legality was gradually replaced by various forms of conservativism. On the other hand, all the political streams striving toward reforms were founded on the liberal political philosophy. Lastly, the development and strengthening of national consciousness in the liberal context, demanded, with its integrational power, abolition of territorial and ethnic dismemberment, constructing at the same time the framework of European power struggles.
The Dubrovnik area, and Croatian lands in general, did not experience these processes as intensely as did most of the Western Europe. Nevertheless, the territory of the former Republic did witness reverberating effects of the global events, but in social terms, Dubrovnik was not yet ready to undergo internal political reforms. The overall European climate of change crept to the borders of the Republic, followed by repercussions of the Napoleonic wars. Rapid change of political and economic structure as well as the discontinuity in development resulting from these processes, engendered the loss of political autonomy, economic breakdown, and the dissolution of the old social structure, demarcating thus fundamentally new guidelines of Dubrovnik’s history in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Periodization of Dubrovnik’s history following the fall of the Republic is conditioned by a series of institutional and political changes. The 1808 French abolition of the Dubrovnik Republic should be recognized as a historical turning- point. Formally speaking, it marked the disappearance of a social, political, and economic structure which kept struggling over the centuries for its maintenance in the traditional world of the Ancient regime. Dramatical period of French administration experienced two phases. The first, 1808-1809, when new government was established, even though the fate of the abolished Republic still seemed uncertain. The second phase, from 1809 to 1814, saw the annexation of the Dubrovnik area, and its becoming part of the Illyrian provinces. It was then, for the first time, that basic tenets of the bourgeois legislative were being partially introduced, which formally marked the discontinuity of the ancient aristocratic regime. This process was underlined by the complete economic paralysis resulting from the devastation of the commercial fleet, the chief element of Ragusan economic power. The profound social schism provoked the disappearance of the patricians almost overnight, together with old wealthy families whose social status was closely linked to the welfare of the Republic.
The significance of the occurring changes can clearly be seen only in the light of the fact that in the course of the century, the territory of the Republic witnessed the shaping of an original social system with most distinctive features. Therefore, as with the fall of the Republic we are not exclusively dealing with the abolishment of sovereignty and aristocratic pattern of government, which, in part, continued to exist, but also with the folding of a whole social system bearing centuries-old attributes and tradition, so Dubrovnik-like and different from the neighboring lands. It is this perspective that contributes to the better understanding of all the details related to the political history and mentality of the nineteenth-century Dubrovnik society.
Administrative experiments, incompleteness of the introduced social reforms, alongside myriad imposed taxes and a disastrous economic situation, were reasons enough to stir popular discontent of all the Dubrovnik classes against the French government. Contrarily, a fairly short six-year French rule, on account of its social accomplishments, remained deeply rooted in the minds of all the Dubrovnik’s social strata.
The hope of the restoration of the Republic still present in the minds of the nobility and few citizens during the abortive anti-French uprising in 1813/1814, was brutally disillusioned by Austrian steps undertaken over its two-year temporary rule – Intendance (1814-1816). International political situation offered no ground for the Republic’s restoration, and Dubrovnik was yet unable to bear the new integrational idea, and create a real social force capable of its enforcement. Austrian rule was formally established by the resolutions of the Vienna Congress of 1815, and reinforced between the years 1817 and 1822. Being center of one of the districts of the Dalmatian Kingdom, Dubrovnik entered the long-lasting alliance with the Habsburg Monarchy. During the period of absolutism, the old order folded at once. Some patricians fled, while the remaining accepted the reality of the bourgeois society. The latter amalgamated with the well-to-do business-minded commoners, and lived on the land earnings, government and military service. Thus, the patricians were formally losing its noble status symbols, which were strictly determined by the Statutes and other laws of the abolished Republic. An identical process can be traced with Antunini and Lazarini, as the social code with these two most distinguished non-noble groups was directly related to the existence of the aristocratic system.
Losing its previous position, the Catholic church was also experiencing a crisis. Dubrovnik archbishopric lost most of its estate during the French rule. Following the church reorganization in 1828, the Austrian authorities definitely transferred most of the church properties to the state. Ston bishopric was abolished, and Dubrovnik church district was no longer governed by an archbishop. By losing its formal status, Dubrovnik archbishopric came under the authority of the Dalmatian Metropolitan in Zadar.
Finding itself on the outskirts of the new political and industrial landscape, the recently shaped citizen substratum advanced slowly due to the devastated economy and lack of capital. Nobility still owned the bulk of land, but with the dawn of the 19th century, citizens, and even peasants, who earned their capital in trade and shipping, emerged as landowners. The latter amassed their property by buying feudal rights from the nobility during the period of the abolition of the fideikomis institution (I811 – 1817). These new owners and businessmen, in line with the city intelligence, created a colorful substratum of the modern bourgeoisie. The rest of the urban society consisted of small- scale tradesmen, artisans, mariners, fishermen, manual workers, and the city paupers. In the smaller urban centers of the Dubrovnik district, Cavtat, Orebic, and partly Ston and Slano, as well as the City itself, there already existed groups of ship owners and business-minded men. In spite
of the anti-maritime Austrian policy, they continued with commercial pursuits in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. Thus, Dubrovnik’s shipping industry managed to preserve the basis for quicker development which was to take place in the second half of the century. Being dependent upon the conditions of the maritime market, sea-oriented businessmen tended to shift their capital in land, inheriting thus the classical landowner-tenant relationship, the latter being landless peasants. Therefore, land ownership still represented a major social problem. Introduction of the Austrian General Public Law in 1816 implied derogation of all the laws of the former Republic, apart from the issue of feudal rights which remained unsolved, and was, in practice, approached as a private legal matter on the administrative and not judicial level. This generated long-term tension in the relationship between the landowners and peasants, since the latter represented the vast majority of population.
For fear of political dissatisfaction and resurgence of republican traditions, Austrian exertion of authority proved to be much milder in the Dubrovnik area than elsewhere in Dalmatia. In addition to advocating antiquated land ownership relations characteristic of Dubrovnik, Habsburg Monarchy aimed to win over the remainder of the patricians, old middle-class families, and peasantry by introducing a number of stimulating government measures and privileges so as to pacify the area (retirement pensions and state sinecures were granted, no liability to tax payment and military service). The City resumed its significance in the political, administrative, and strategic sense. In this respect, the District Office, civil administrator’s office, Municipal Office, inferior court, and high school were all seated in Dubrovnik. Strong military forces were also stationed there, the army having seized, reconstructed, and rebuilt all the French fortifications, notably Fort Imp rial. Several consular representatives added to the political weight of the City, particularly those of Russia and England who took most active part in diplomatic affairs.
In addition to the production of oil and wine, modest economic results were achieved owing to the revival of the maritime commerce, and trade with the Turkish hinterland. No relation can be established between the existence of several manufacturing workshops in Dubrovnik, and the course of industrialization in Western Europe. Dubrovnik, like the rest of Dalmatia, had built its prosperity on the trade and shipping industry. Agricultural production was insufficient, and no major improvements could have been attained under the new government either, due to the absence of the basic elements of development: natural resources, capital, and market. Governmental economic measures were highly restrictive and unenterprising. On account of the antiquated Austrian mercantilist policy characterized by high taxes and export orientation through the Danube basin, south Croatian lands remained completely isolated. A series of epidemics and crop failures, plus the imposition of land tax in 1842 were to exacerbate the already gloomy prospects. It was the gradual restoration of shipping and transit commerce during the 1840’s and further that enabled Dubrovnik to maintain its central position among the Dalmatian cities.
In the light of romanticism, the politically active population envisaged the abolition of the Republic as something ideal, contributing thus to the escape from the stem absolutistic reality. This idea, however, could not have been materialized in its integrational sense, and was subsequently replaced by contemporary forms of ethnic and national identification. Political, economic, and social lethargy engendered by the isolation and absolutistic centralism, was interrupted by occasional cultural events, such as Martecchini’s edition of Gundulic’s work, alongside other Ragusan poets who wrote in Croatian and Italian languages during the 20’s and 30’s. Publishing results were crowned by the 1841 encyclopedic edition Galleria degli Ragusei illustri. Owing to its remarkable tradition, Dubrovnik succeeded in maintaining its leading cultural and political position in Croatian terms, as it nested some of the foremost artistic and intellectual minds of the period.
Noteworthy linguistic tradition, and Dubrovnik’s consciousness regarding the cultural integrity of the Croatian littoral, provided most favorable conditions for the spread of the Illyrian movement in Dubrovnik, and its interaction with Zagreb. The authority of old Ragusan literature and linguistic heritage were built into the very foundations of the Croat National Revival. Relationship between Dubrovnik and Zagreb was further strengthened by myriad personal contacts, correspondence, and visits by the leading figures of the Revival. The Dubrovnik circle of Croat Illyrians, notwithstanding the omnipresence of the obscure and general Slavic political idea, had most clear views of the national interests. Contributing to the Revival journals, notably to Danica and Zora dalmatinska, a number of Dubrovnik Illyrians and later advocates of the national movement promoted their ideas. The clear political view of the Dubrovnik Revival circle manifested in its determination to grasp the imperative need for the integration of the Croatian lands, and gradual recognition of the Croat name. A similar attitude was expressed in 1848 by none other than the officials of the municipal authority of the Dubrovnik area. Due to the social circumstances in the absolutistic period, many features of the political life began to manifest after the proclamation of the Constitution in 1848. The upheavals of 1848 were the result of political and social fermentation over the preceding decades, and Dubrovnik’s experience should, therefore, be primarily viewed in the sequence of the changes initiated by the 1808 fall of the Republic. Dissolution of absolutism was greeted in both Dalmatia and Dubrovnik with enthusiasm, for it was closely related to the problem of integration with Croatia, and liberal political forces emerged with the issues of land ownership and citizens’ rights. The articulation of national consciousness was one of the major developments of the 1848 revolutions, that triggered thus the publishing of two new journals generally covering democratic and national topics. Democracy and nationhood became the central concern of the future political relations.
There were a number of reasons for the population of eastern Herzegovina to migrate to Dubrovnik: relatively open borders, possibility of gaining citizenship, poverty, and epidemic diseases. Straining to expand its influence over the Ottoman territory, Austria, for the first time, yielded to a variety of Dubrovnik-bound Orthodox immigrants, who, during the first half of the century, assimilated their own confessional integrity to a pronounced Serb national feeling. A parallel process of Croat national integration, notably in culture and literature and within the Illyrian framework, opened the issue of national relations. Although other parts of Croatia witnessed no national rivalries in 1848, Dubrovnik was experiencing the first complex ideological forms of national differentiation. The spread of Karadzic’s idea of the “linguistic Serbhood”, pro-Serbian propaganda of the Russian consul to Dubrovnik and the Orthodox priest in the City parish, as well as the financial prosperity of the Orthodox newcomers – tradesmen and businessmen – vastly contributed to the process of national differentiation in this area.
The year 1848 saw the establishment of two National Revival circles in Dubrovnik. The ideology of the Croat circle of Dubrovnik Illyrians, all of whom belonged to the city intelligence and aristocracy, was best exhibited in the Dubrovnik’s papers Rimembranze delta settimana and L’Avvenire, founded that very year. C
ontrary to the former mainly culturo-linguistic contents, and owing to constitutionality and freedom of press, these journals opened their pages to the political demands of the Dubrovnik populists. The articles in L’Avvenire, in particular, converged with the all-Croat wants for integrity. Devoid of ethnic basis, but fanned by great many outside factors, the Serb national program found its stalwarts among several ideologists of the “Serbo-Catholic” idea. In the initial phase, the “Serb Catholics” were unable to make clear distinction between the Serb and Slavic idea in their intent to spread it in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia. Being governed by pragmatism and political goals of the Serbs in Habsburg monarchy, advocates of the “Serbo- Catholic” idea sup- ported the unity of Dalmatia with Croatia. Later, however, acting as instruments of great Serbian ideology, they held Dubrovnik to be Serbian and not Croatian. Being inconsistent, multi-character and highly dependant, the group of “Catholic Serbs” had no major influence in Dubrovnik, particularly not in the early phase.
Disregarding the negative consequences which, after all, resulted from the overall historical processes, the first decades of the Austrian rule witnessed the reinforcement of the cultural and political bond between Dubrovnik and Croatian lands. A positive, yet latent dimension of the Austrian annexation kept hovering during the longtime process of national and territorial integration of the Croat people, perceptible both in time of the Illyrian movement in the first half of the century, and later, over the period of intense political struggle. The entire history of Dubrovnik is thus experienced as a major ideological backup of the pronounced Croat political aspirations, and an indispensable source of the culturo-historical heritage, the City being viewed as one of the centers of the Croat National Revival.