Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Judging the Franks: Proof, Justice, and Diversity in Late Medieval Alexandria and Damascus

  • Francisco Apellániz (a1)

Abstract

This article describes how Islamic and Frankish legal devices complemented each other and were even combined to settle disagreements in the late medieval Middle East. For this purpose, it focuses on two legal institutions that provided responses to the biases of Islamic law against non-Muslims and to the prejudices of Franks against the local law. The first are the notaries sent to the Mamluk cities by the Venetian government to draw up legal documents and to support the transactions of Venetian merchants. The second are the new royal or siyāsa courts implemented by the sultans, where justice was dispensed by government officials instead of by traditional judges, or qāḍīs. Specifically, the article discusses, in a comparative manner, what constituted proof for Christians and Muslims, whether minorities could bear testimony or not, and how notaries and judges dealt with unbelievers. A common notarial culture, together with the expansion of siyāsa jurisdiction over the affairs of foreigners, brought about a much deeper legal interplay than has previously been understood. Ultimately, it is argued that Mediterranean medieval societies had evolving attitudes toward justice and diversity, and approached their own legal traditions in ways compatible with the conflict resolution, while constantly borrowing legal concepts about difference from each other.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Judging the Franks: Proof, Justice, and Diversity in Late Medieval Alexandria and Damascus
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Judging the Franks: Proof, Justice, and Diversity in Late Medieval Alexandria and Damascus
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Judging the Franks: Proof, Justice, and Diversity in Late Medieval Alexandria and Damascus
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All

1 For a recent reassessment on the Geniza Merchants, see Jessica Goldberg, Trade and Institutions in the Medieval Mediterranean: The Geniza Merchants and Their Business World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 150–79. As for non-Muslims' recourse to royal courts, Marina Rustow, “The Legal Status of Dhimmis in the Fatimid East: A View from the Palace in Cairo,” in Maribel Fierro and John Victor Tolan, eds., The Legal Status of Dhimmis in the Islamic West (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2013), 307–32. Cohen, Mark R., “A Partnership Gone Bad: Business Relationships and the Evolving Law of the Cairo Geniza Period,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 56 (2013): 218–63.

2 Cheyette, Fredric L., “Suum cuique tribuere,” French Historical Studies 6, 3 (1976): 287–99. For an recent overview on late medieval commercial courts, see Fusaro, M., “Politics of Justice/Politics of Trade: Foreign Merchants and the Administration of Justice from the Records of Venice's Giudici del Forestier,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome—Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines 126, 1 (2014), 21 July 2014, http://mefrim.revues.org/1665 (accessed 8 Sept. 2014). Minority witnessing in Genoa and Venice is discussed below.

3 Dominique Valérian, “Le recours à l’écrit dans les pratiques marchandes en contexte intercultural: Les contrats de commerce entre chrétiens et musulmans en Méditerranée,” in L'autorité de l'écrit au moyen âge: orient-occident: XXXIXe congrès de la SHMESP, Le Caire, 30 avril–5 mai 2008 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2009), 68–72.

4 Timur Kuran, The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

5 Brinkley Messick, The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 203–31; and Jeanette A. Wakin, The Function of Documents in Islamic Law: The Chapters on Sales from Ṭaḥāwī's Kitāb al-Shurūṭ al-Kabīr (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972), 1–70; Udovitch, A. L., “Les échanges de marché dans l'Islam médiéval: théorie du droit et savoir local,” Studia Islamica 65 (1987): 530, 24–25.

6 Kuran, The Long Divergence, 198–202. Ottomanists have, nonetheless, challenged Kuran's theses, Van den Boogert, Maurits H., “Legal Reflections on the “Jurisprudential Shift Hypothesis,” Turcica 41 (2009): 373–82.

7 E. Ashtor, Levant Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), preface; Georg Christ, Trading Conflicts: Venetian Merchants and Mamluk Officials in Late Medieval Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 78–79.

8 For the maẓālim and the Islamic judiciary, see Hallaq, Wael B., “Islamic Law: History and Transformation,” in The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 4 (2010), 158–62. For Mamluk siyāsah, see Fuess, Albrecht, “Zulm by Mazālim? The Political Implications of the Use of Mazālim Jurisdiction by the Mamluk Sultans,” Mamluk Studies Review 13 (2009): 121–47; Irwin, R., “The Privatization of “Justice” under the Circassian Mamluks,” Mamluk Studies Review 5 (2002): 6370; Jørgen S. Nielsen, Secular Justice in an Islamic State: Maẓālim under the Baḥrī Mamlūks, 662/1264–789/1387 (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1985); Rapoport, Yossef, “Royal Justice and Religious Law: Siyāsah and Shariʿah under the Mamluks,” Mamluk Studies Review 15 (2012): 71102.

9 On late medieval siyāsah, see Ann K. S. Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam: An Introduction to the Study of Islamic Political Theory: The Jurists (New York: Routledge/Curzon, 1981) 138–52. For the origins, meaning, and different perceptions of the term, see F. E. Vogel, “Siyāsah,” in C. E. Bosworth et al., eds., The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), vol. 9, 693–96; and Bernard Lewis, “Siyasa,” in A. H. Green, ed., In Quest of an Islamic Humanism: Arabic and Islamic Studies in Memory of Mohamed al-Nowaihi (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1984).

10 Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 100–1; Irwin, “Privatization,” 66.

11 The debate has been thoroughly addressed by Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 73–80. On the doctrinal similitudes with maẓālim, see Fuess, “Zulm by Mazālim?,” 132, 141; Nielsen, Secular Justice, 32.

12 Johansen, Baber, “Signs as Evidence: The Doctrine of Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 1351) on Proof,” Islamic Law and Society 9, 2 (2002): 168–93; Baber Johansen, “Vérité et torture: Ius commune et droit musulman entre le Xe et le XIIIe siècle,” in Françoise Héritier, ed., De la violence (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1996).

13 Hallaq, “Islamic Law,” 171; and Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 73.

14 In early treaties the ḥājib is never mentioned, while the qādī clearly adjudicates, Kate Fleet, “Turks, Mamluks, and Latin Merchants: Commerce, Conflict, and Cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in Jonathan Harris, Catherine J. Holmes, and Eugenia Russell, eds., Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World after 1150 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 340–41. The treaty with Genoa of 1271 foresees that in some circumstances “the case was to be brought before the Muslim judge (archadi; i.e., al-qādī); P. M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 1260–1290: Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 145–46. Similarly, in the treaty of 1303 some disputes are settled by the qādī: questio oriretur, debeat diffiniri per cadhy terre; G. M. Thomas and R. Predelli, Diplomatarium veneto-levantinum sive acta et diplomata res venetas graecas atque levantis illustrantia, vol. 1 (Venice: Deputazione veneta di storia patria 1880), 7. The same is found in article 22 of the Mamluk-Venetian treaty of 1345: tunc uenditor et emptor debeant ire ad rationem coram el cadi; ibid., 295. This does not contradict the general right to appeal to the sultan's maẓālim, invariably mentioned in Ayyubid, Mamluk, and Ottoman treaties.

15 Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah al-sharʻīyah fī iṣlāḥ al-rāʻī wa-al-raʻīyah, ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad ʻUmrān, ed. (Mecca: Dār ʻĀlam al-Fawāʼid, 1429 H), 60. Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali al-Maqrizi, Kitāb al-Mawāʻiẓ wa-al-iʻtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqafa al-Diniyya, n.d.), vol. 2, 220–22; Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 82–83; Irwin, “Privatization,” 66.

16 Aziz Atiyya, “An Unpublished XIVth Century Fatwa,” in W. Heffening, P. Kahle, and W. Kirfel, eds., Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen und Fernen Ostens (Leiden: Brill, 1935); Taqī al-Dīn ʻAlī ibn ʻAbd al-Kāfī al-Subkī, Fatāwā al-Subkī, Ḥusām al-Dīn Qudsī, ed., 2 vols. (1355H), vol. 2, 417–21.

17 On Ibn Taymīyah and taʿzīr, see Masud, Muhammad Khalid, “The Doctrine of Siyāsah in Islamic Law,” Recht van de Islam 18 (2001): 129, 11. On discretionary punishment, see Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic law (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1982), 175–87; and W. Heffening, “Ta'zīr,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., P. J. Bearman et al., eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), vol. 10, 406.

18 Joseph Schacht, “Amān,” and “’Ahd,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds. (Leiden: Brill, 1986), vol. 1, 429–30, and 255, respectively. Wansbrough, John, “The Safe-Conduct in Muslim Chancery Practice,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 34, 1 (1971): 2035. On Mamluk jurists and the idea of public interest, see Michael A. Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 151–56; Masud, “Doctrine of Siyāsah”; and Fauzi M. Najjar, “Siyasa in Islamic Political Philosophy,” in George F. Hourani and Michael E. Marmura, eds., Islamic Theology and Philosophy: Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), 92–110.

19 Johansen, “Vérité et torture.”

20 Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 75, 101.

21 Wansbrough, John, “Venice and Florence in the Mamluk Commercial Privileges,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 28, 3 (1965): 483523, 488 (Mamluk-Venetian treaty of 1442), and 512 (Mamluk-Florentine treaty of 1497).

22 M. Amari, I diplomi arabi del R. Archivio Fiorentino (Florence: Le Monnier, 1863), see the treaty of 1496, ch. 10, 192, and the negotiations in 1488, ch. 11, 377: per dare disagio et sconcio a merchanti fiorentini.

23 Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: “Dhimmīs” and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 179–83; Johansen, “Signs as Evidence,” 186.

24 The delegates' (nā'ib) responsibility, punishment (taʿzīr), and public good (maṣlahat al-muslimīn) are explicitly addressed by al-Subkī, Atiyya, “An Unpublished XIVth Century Fatwa,” 60, 65–66. Maqrīzī insists also on punishment, but instead uses the term ʿāqabahum.

25 Archivio di Stato di Venezia (hereinafter ASV), Giudici di Petizion, reg. 98, f. 151v, mentions a trial in Tripoli before the ḥājib: davanti lazebo.

26 The function is described in a chancery manual for Mamluk secretaries (ca. 1450), traditionally attibuted to Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Khālidī, al-Maqṣad al-rafī' al-munšā' al-hādī li-ṣinā'at al-inšā', Paris, BNF, Arabic 4439, f. 126, 144.

27 Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥimṣī, Ḥawādith al-zamān wa-wafayāt al-shuyūkh wa-al-aqrān, ʻUmar Tadmurī, ed., 3 vols. (Ṣaydā: al-Maktabah al-ʻAṣrīyah, 1999), vol. 2, 201, 212, 220, 227; Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Ibn Ṭawq, al-Taʻlīq: yawmīyāt Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Ṭawq, 834–915 H/1430–1509 M: mudhakkirāt kutibat bi-Dimashq fī awākhir al-ʻahd al-Mamlūkī, 885–908 H/1480–1502 M, Jaʻfar Muhājir, ed. (Damascus: IFEAD, 2000), 119; Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī Ibn Ṭūlūn, Iʿlām al-wará bi-man wulliya nāʾiban min al-atrāk bi-Dimashq al-Shām al-kubrá, Muḥammad Aḥmad Dahmān, ed. (Damascus: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah 1964), 117; ʻ196 ibn Yūsuf al-Buṣrawī, Tārīkh al-Buṣrawī: ṣafaḥāt majhūlah min tārīkh Dimashq fī ʻAṣr al-Mamālīk, min sanat 871 H li-ghāyat 904 H, Akram Ḥasan ʻUlabī, ed. (Damascus; Beirut: Dār al-Maʼmūn lil-Turāth, 1988), 119.

28 Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 80.

29 Johansen, Baber, “Le jugement comme preuve. Preuve juridique et vérité religieuse dans le Droit Islamique Hanéfite,” Studia Islamica 72 (1990); Johansen, “Signs as Evidence.” On Ibn Qayyim's attitude to written documents, see G. Bechor, God in the Courtroom: The Transformation of Courtroom Oath and Perjury between Islamic and Franco-Egyptian Law (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 347.

30 Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah, al-Ṭuruq al-ḥukmīyah fī al-siyāsah al-sharʻīyah (Mecca: Dar al-ʻAlim, 1428 h), 470–82.

31 Thomas and Predelli, Diplomatarium, I, 295 (article 22); Orsatti, R. Ruiz, “Tratado de Paz entre Alfonso V de Aragon y el Sultan de Egipto, al-Malik al-Ashraf Barsbay,” Al-Andalus 4 (1939), 343, 345, 361 (articles 11, 15, 26); John Wansbrough, “A Mamluk Commercial Treaty Concluded with the Republic of Florence, 894/1489,” in S. M. Stern, ed., Documents from Islamic Chanceries (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1965); Wansbrough, “Venice and Florence,” 488 (article 4), 512 (article 5), 498: 35 (article 2).

32 Émile Tyan, Le notariat et le régime de la preuve par écrit dans la pratique du droit musulman (Harissa: Imp. St. Paul, 1945), 18–21.

33 For the use of deeds in similar contexts, see Robert I. Burns, Jews in the Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, 1250–1350 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 32–51; Sally McKee, Uncommon Dominion: Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Purity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 19–57; Daniel L. Smail, The Consumption of Justice: Emotions, Publicity, and Legal Culture in Marseille, 1264–1423 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003); and his “Notaries, Courts and the Legal Culture of Late Medieval Marseille,” in Kathryn Reyerson and John V. Drendel, eds., Urban and Rural Communities in Medieval France, Provence and Languedoc, 1000–1500 (Leiden: Brill, 1998).

34 Johansen, Baber, “Formes de langage et fonctions publiques: Stereotypes, temoins et offices dans la preuve par l'ecrit en droit musulman,” Arabica 44, 3 (1997): 333–76; Christian Muller, “Ecrire pour établir la preuve orale en Islam: Ia Pratique d'un tribunal à Jérusalem au XIVe siècle,” in Akira Saito and Yusuke Nakamura, eds., Les outils de la pensée: Etude historique et comparative des textes (Paris: Editions MSH, 2010); Wakin, Function of Documents.

35 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 43r–v, undated (though surely drawn up between 5–9 Mar. 1401): Item soluit testibus saracenis a gabano qui scripserunt, f. 108r–v, 22 Dec. 1405: in testificatione testium saracenorum.

36 Among the profuse Italian scholarship on notaries are the monographs on Genoa and Venice included in the Studi storici sul notariato italiano series: Giorgio Costamagna, Il notaio a Genova tra prestigio e potere, (Milano: Giuffrè, 1995); Maria Pia Pedani, Veneta auctoritate notarius: storia del notariato veneziano, 1514–1797 (Milano: Giuffrè, 1996); together with several conference proceedings edited by Vito Piergiovanni, including Hinc publica fides: Il notaio e l'amministrazione della giustizia (Milan: A. Giuffrè, 2006). On the validity of notarial documents as juridical items “in court and outside,” see Burns, Jews in the Notarial Culture, 38–43; Alessandro Pratesi, Genesi e forme del documento medievale (Roma: Jouvence, 1979), 47–55; and for Genoa and Venice, Attilio Bartoli, Notai: scrivere documenti nell'Italia medievale (Roma: Viella, 2006), 59–87, which provides an exhaustive bibliography.

37 Archivio di Stato di Genova, San Giorgio 590/1289, f. 106v. A Damascene deed dated 1447 by the Venetian clerk Andrea Michiel was produced as proof in a trial in Famagusta. For a trial in Genoa, see the de Negro trial, referenced below.

38 On preservation, see Muller, Christian, “The Ḥaram al-Šarīf Collection of Arabic Legal Documents in Jerusalem: A Mamlūk Court Archive?al-Qantara 32, 2 (2011): 435–59. Venetian authorities put instead a great emphasis on the preservation of registers in state archives; see Marco. A. Bigaglia, Capitulare legum notariis publicis Venetiarum (Venice: Andrea Poleti, 1689), 16, 24–27; Joseph R. Wheeler, The Sestiere of San Polo: A Cross Section of Venetian Society in the Second Half of the Fifteenth Century, PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 1995, 12–14.

39 Archivio di Stato di Genova, Notai Antichi, 871, doc. 295: mauri non tenent autenticum instrumentorum per ipsos conpositorum; and again in doc. 296: notari barbari non tenent registrum instrumentorum per ipsos conpositorum.

40 el-Leithy, Tamer, “Living Documents, Dying Archives: Towards a Historical Anthropology of Medieval Arabic Archives,” al-Qanṭara 32, 2 (2011): 389434; Muller, “Haram al-Šarīf Collection,” 456–58, questions instead the existence of proper qāḍī archives in pre-Ottoman times.

41 Jean-Philippe Lévy, Autour de la preuve dans les droits de l'antiquité (Naples: Jovene, 1992), 155–75; Laurie Nussdorfer, Brokers of Public Trust: Notaries in Early Modern Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 9; Mark W. Steinhoff, Origins and Development of the Notariate at Ravenna (Sixth through Thirteenth Centuries), PhD thesis, New York University (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1976), 73–75.

42 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 17r, 2 Mar. 1400: procuratorepro quadam carta moresca. Sometimes deeds were drawn up to deal with Muslim third-party associates: ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, 2 May 1461; ASVe, CI, N, B. 148, Notary P. Pellacan, 7 Oct. 1444: una charta moresca mi rechiedete chio fazi a chonfirmatione de uno chompromesso fatto tra ser fra Antonio Mozzo e me; ASVe, Notarile Testamenti, B. 215, Notary S. Peccator, 14 Oct. 1448; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, 21 May 1455.

43 ASVe, CI, N, B. 36, Notary G. Campione, 27 Oct. 1362: christianus a centura; 28 Oct. 1362, 30 Oct. 1362: saraxino.

44 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 13r, 3 Apr. 1419: cuidam Ellie, judeo ebraicho, illo tunc existenti in Damasco et ad presens habitatori dicte civitatis Nichosie.

45 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 9v, 18 Oct. 1418: aliquibus mercatoribus saracenis moris.

46 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 13r, 4 May 1419.

47 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 74v, 20 Oct. 1404; f. 183v, 29 July 1405; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 59v, 4 Oct. 1455.

48 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 80r, 3 Dec. 1404: Salem façolato habitatori nicosie presenti et intelligenti per Nessinum interpretem venetorum lingua Arabica; ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 19v, 29 May 1419: in su laqual nave I era haver de mori e fazolati per i quali franchiano habudo de grande strazo.

49 al-Khālidī, al-Maqṣad al-rafī', f. 138–41; Ibn Taymīyah, al-Siyāsah al-sharʻīyah, 55–56.

50 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 41r, 25 Feb. 1401; f. 119v, 16 Aug. 1406; ASVe, CI, N, B. 22, Notary V. Bonfantin, 28 June 1419; ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 5v–6r, 18 May 1418; f. 6r–v, 16 May 1418; ASVe, CI, N, B. 148, Notary P. Pellacan, 9 Nov. 1444; ASVe, Notarile Testamenti, B. 215, Notary S. Peccator, 10 Oct. 1448; ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, f. 15v, 14 June 1426; f. 24r, 30 May 1426; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 38, 8 Feb. 1435.

51 Gabriella Airaldi, Studi e documenti su Genova e l'oltremare (Genova: Università di Genova, 1974), 209; James M. Murray, Notarial Instruments in Flanders between 1280 and 1452 (Bruxelles, Académie Royale, 1995), 11.

52 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 17r, 2 Mar. 1400, mentions an Arabic contract drawn in Cyprus; ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, 2 May 1461: vigore certe carte arabice, se constituerit plezium. As for contracts in Hebrew: vigore unius scripti anotati in ydiomate ebreo, ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 66r, 26 July 1428.

53 ASVe, CI, N, B. 148, Notary P. Pellacan, 7 Oct. 1444; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 38, 8 Feb. 1435, an Arabic contract is produced as evidence to be used before Rhodian courts.

54 ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 46v, 11 Sept. 1455.

55 Valérian, “Le recours à l'écrit,” 68.

56 Fleet, Kate, “Turkish-Latin Diplomatic Relations in the Fourteenth Century: The Case of the Consul,” Oriente Moderno 22 (83), 3 (2003): 605–11.

57 Examples are two sworn testimonies by Muslims: ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 30v, 4 Mar. 1435; and again f. 48r, 27 Apr. 1435: per vocem turcimatam cuidam vocati Acmar saraceni.

58 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 80r, 3 Dec. 1404; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 58v–59r, 9 Aug. 1435; f. 61r, 19 Aug. 1435; f. 30r, 8 Dec. 1434; ASVe, Notai di Venezia, 14832, Notary I. Dalla Torre, f. 2 (n. 2), mentions a Genoese dragoman, “olim cristiano,” 31 May 1412.

59 Yusuf Ragib, Actes de vente d'esclaves et d'animaux d'Egypte médiévale, vol. 2 (Le Caire: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 2006), 107.

60 Non-Christian witnesses appear invariably in deeds related to other Non-Christians: ASVe, CI, N, B. 22, Notary V. Bonfantin, 17 Jan. 1393; 28 June 1419; ASVe, Notarile Testamenti, B. 215, Notary S. Peccator, 2 May 1448; 5 Oct. 1448; 14 Oct. 1448; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 6v, 21 May 1455.

61 On non-Muslim witnesses, see Antoine Fattal, Le statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d'Islam (Beyrouth: Impr. Catholique, 1958), 361–64; Emon, Religious Pluralism, 136–41; Ragib, Actes de vente, 105–15. For minority witnessing in Genoa's colonies, see Philip P. Argenti, The Religious Minorities of Chios: Jews and Roman Catholics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 100–46.

62 Santschi, Elisabeth, “Contribution à l’étude de la communauté juive en Crète vénitienne au XIVe siècle, d'après des sources administratives et juridiques,” Studi Veneziani XV (1973), 177211, 207–8; Head, R. C., “Religious Boundaries and the Inquisition in Venice: Trials of Jews and Judaizers, 1548–1580,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 20, 2 (1990): 175201.

63 Bechor, God in the Courtroom, 122–27.

64 Vicens, Belen, “Swearing by God: Muslim Oath-Taking in Late Medieval and Early Modern Christian Iberia,” Medieval Encounters 20 (2014): 117–51; Mélanie Jecker, “Jurer selon sa religion: La figure de l'autre dans le droit médiéval castillan,” in Lucien Faggion, Christophe Regina, and Bernard Ribemont, eds., La culture judiciaire: Discours, représentations et usages de la justice du Moyen Age à nos jours (Dijon: Presses universitaires de Dijon, 2014).

65 Fattal, Le statut légal, 361–64.

66 Bigaglia, Capitulare, 28–29.

67 ASVe, CI, N, B. 229, Notary L. de Valle, Verbali del consiglio, 11 May 1402: cum mulcti mercatori saraceni et aliis forensis faciant mercata cum mercatoribus nostrissed quem super ipsos non possit dare ordo necesse est super mercatores nostros providere.

68 ASVe, CI, N, B. 229, Notary L. de Valle, Verbali del consiglio, Oct. 1401–Oct. 1403; Christ, Trading Conflicts, 72.

69 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 108r–v, 22 Dec. 1405; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 32v, 34v, 11 Mar. 1435. Some treaties allowed mixed arbitration, if on a voluntary basis: Orsatti, “Tratado de Paz,” 343, 361. Fleet, “Turkish-Latin Diplomatic Relations,” 609–10, mentions episodes of mixed arbitration. A mixed suit (vertenza) between a Dragoman and a Venetian is in ASVe, CI, N, B.122, int.25, f. 10v–11v, 10 Apr. 1436.

70 Thomas Kuehn, “Law and Arbitration in Renaissance Florence,” in Law, Family & Women: Toward a Legal Anthropology of Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Wray, Shona K., “Instruments of Concord: Making Peace and Settling Disputes through a Notary in the City and Contado of Late Medieval Bologna,” Journal of Social History 42, 3 (2009): 733–60. For Genoa and its Greek colonies, see Steven Epstein, Genoa & the Genoese, 958–1528 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 64–65; Brian N. Becker, Life and Local Administration in Fifteenth-Century Genoese Chios, PhD thesis, Western Michigan University (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2010), 214–15.

71 ASVe, Notai di Venezia, 14832, Notary I. Dalla Torre, f. 3v, 17 Sept. 1412: vos non habui nec habeo per meos judices, qui debetis esse quatuor vel quinqueet nichil contra nationes catelanorum non habetis ad iudicandum.

72 For an eight-member panel drawn by lots, see ASVe, CI, N, B. 148, Notary P. Pellacan, 29 Sept. 1444. The parties added supplementary members to judge again in case of disagreement with the final decision: ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 93r, 2 Sept. 1405. A consul compelled a reluctant defendant to accept arbitration, yet he was at liberty to choose the board: ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 21r–23r, 16 Aug. 1455: veniatis ad arbitrium mercatorum cuiuscumque nationis quam velitis.

73 This seems to have been the case in Geniza times; Goldberg, Trade and Institutions, 161.

74 The arbiters inspected the Arabic notarized contract: visa quadam carta more saracenorum, and the consulate registers: carta testificationis … in libro Actium; ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 42r–45v, 9–10 Sept. 1455.

75 ASVe, CI, N, B. 148, Notary P. Pellacan, 29 Sept. 1444: pro qua executione per partem victorem contra partem tunc victam possit licite peti et implorari ac obtineri iuditium subsidium et favores maurorum et alterius cuiuscumque generationis.

76 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 108r–v, 22 Dec. 1405: electo et constituto iudice per magistratus Alexandrie. See also the de Negro case discussed below.

77 ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, f. 15v, 5 Nov. 1463: comparendum in quocumque iuditio et offitio et coram quibuscumque dominis saraceniset universis officialibus mauris.

78 For the 1271 treaty, see Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 145–46. The first explicit mention of the siyāsah courts as competent for mixed trials can be found in the 1368 draft treaty with Cyprus: René De Mas Latrie, Histoire de l'île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan, 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1852–1861), 2, 293.

79 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, 12 Oct. 1418; ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 4r–v, 2 Sept. 1435.

80 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 5v–6r, 8 Jan. 1436: tam coram iudicio cristiano videlicet coram domino consule veneciisquam coram domino er Cadi [sic] ipsius civitatis damasci certas lites habuerint et coram etiam quibusdam arbitris et arbitratoribus. A Venetian was sentenced by the qāḍī Ḥanbalī of Damascus: ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, 25 Oct. 1463.

81 Rapoport, “Royal Justice,” 73–80; Irwin, “Privatization,” 64–65; Nielsen, Secular Justice, 105.

82 For the greater liberty of royal courts to examine documentary evidence, see Nielsen, Secular Justice, 25–28.

83 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 15r–16r, 18 May 1419: dimandandole mori alazebo chostoro abia de le robe de catellani; Nielsen, Secular Justice, 24.

84 ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, f. 24r, 31 May 1426; f. 15v, 14 June 1426: Mahomet ebne Muse morusrecepisse per sententiam Admirati Alexandrie.

85 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 38v–39r, 18 Jan. 1401: asserunt se esse parcionabiles dicte coche ferazium pro medietate et melechi pro 1 tertium [sic].

86 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 38v–39r, 18 Jan. 1401; f. 43r–v, undated (ca. 5–9 Mar. 1401).

87 ASVe, Senato, Deliberazioni, Misti, 44, f. 56r, n.d.

88 ASVe, CI, N, B. 222, Notary A. Vactaciis, f. 101r–v, 8 Dec. 1405: davant la jegp que ten la justiçia dels morossenyos de consols e franch que al present son en alexandria los cals coneixeran mells lo fach de franch a franch que non fara la justiçia dels moros; f. 107v, 14 Dec. 1405: davant la jegp dalesandria local ten en lo dit loch la iustiçia per lo soldan.

89 ASVe, CI, N, B. 83II, Notary C. Del Fiore, 21 Oct. 1460: et cum sie chelsia contra leze et consuetudine nostre et contra la commission del consolo a metter davanti segnorie de mori tal gare et defferentie tra francho e francho e maxime tra venezian e venezian.

90 ASVe, CI, N, B. 229, Notary L. de Valle, 10 Mar. 1403: et nec nos domino consul Ianuensis cum omnibus nostris mercatoribus contra quantibus equitatis et iustitiam mihi veneritis coram iuditio morescocontra iuditium dicti armiragii de quacumque re sit vel contingerit inter nos et vos dicere non possumus nec ultra voluntatis ipsius armiragii facere non possumus.

91 As in a trial involving litigants from Gaeta, ASVe, CI, N, B. 211, Notary N. Turiano, f. 8v–9v, 1 Sept. 1434: contra ius et justitiamsecundum mores et consuetudines et legem saracenorum et non secundummores christianorum.

92 Archivio di Stato di Genova, Governo, Archivio Segreto, Materie politiche, f. 18B–2737B, n. 72: offerendosse voler provar questo cum li libri de la massaria, 15 Jan. 1493.

93 ASVe, CI, N, B. 230, Notary N. Venier, f. 10v–11r, 12 Feb. 1419.

94 Haim Gerber, State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 69; Michael Ursinus, Grievance Administration (Şikayet) in an Ottoman Province: the Kaymakam of Rumelia's ‘Record Book of Complaints’ of 1781–1783 (New York: Routledge, 2004), 1–47; Fuess, “Zulm by Mazālim?,” 141.

Judging the Franks: Proof, Justice, and Diversity in Late Medieval Alexandria and Damascus

  • Francisco Apellániz (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed