¹ de Roover, Raymond, Money, Banking and Credit in Medieval Bruges (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1948);Google ScholarLane, Frederick Chapin, Andrea Barbarigo, Merchant of Venice 1418–1449 (Baltimore, 1944);Google ScholarSapori, Armando, Studi di storia economica (secoli XIII-XIV-XV), 3rd ed. (Florence, 1956), p. 667;Google Scholarde Roover, Raymond, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963), introduction.Google Scholar

² Braudel, Fernand, “The Measure of the Century” The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II, vol. 1, trans. Reynolds, Sian(New York, 1972), pp. 358–71;Google ScholarSlicher van Bath, B. H., The Agrarian History of Western Europe, A.D. 500–1800 (London, 1963);Google ScholarWallerstein, Immanuel, working papers, Braudel Institute, State University of New York-Binghamton;Google ScholarWallerstein, Immanuel, The World Capitalist Economy, vol. 2 (New York, 1980), p. 21ff.Google Scholar

³ A debate exists on whether dowries represented a status or an inheritance system in medieval Europe. See Goody, John R. and Tambiah, S. J., Bridewealth and Dowry (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973); andGoogle ScholarHughes, Diane Owen, “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe,” Journal of Family History, 3 (Fall 1978), 290–91.Google Scholar

⁴ Kovačević, Desanka. “Trogovina u Srednjevakovnoj Bosni,” Naucno Društro NR Bosne i Hercegovine, 18 (1961), 18–20. The hyperpera was the money of account in use in Ragusa in the medieval centuries. The silver grossi was the major circulating coin; 12 grossi equalled 1 hyperpera. The hyperpera diminished steadily in relation to the ducat, and tables in this study reflect that progression: early fourteenth century, 2 hyperpera = 1 ducat late fourteenth century, 2.5 hyperpera = 1 ducat fifteenth century, 3 hyperpera = 1 ducat.Google Scholar

⁵ Kovačević, Desanka, “Zore Boksić, Dubrovački Trgovac i Protovestijar Bosanskih Kraljara,” Godišnajak Drustva Istoričara Bosne i Herzegovine, 13 (1962), 307–09; Dubrovnik State Archives (henceforth D.S.A.), Testamenta VIII, f. 135b.Google Scholar

⁶ Bogišić, V., Jireček, Constantin, eds., Liber Statutorum civitatis Ragusii (Zagreb, Yugoslavia, 1904), p. ixiv.Google ScholarOrdo de dotibus, 1235.Google Scholar

⁷ de Diversis, Phyllipus, Situs aedificorum, politiae et laudabilium consuetudinem inclitae civitatis Ragusii, ed. Brunelli, (Zara, Yugoslavia, 1882), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁸ D.S.A., Liber Dotium, V, f. 60 v. Nicola de Mate de Grade, a nobleman, wed Caterina, the non-noble daughter of Maroe Radiosaglich in 1429 with a 300 hyperpera dowry. This appears to be a regular marriage with dowry and sacraments. Nevertheless the offspring were considered non-noble, hence illegitimate.Google Scholar

⁹ Manken, Irmgard, Dubrovački Patricijat u XIV Veku (Belgrade, 1960);Google Scholar Part II contains geneologies of the noble medieval Ragusan lineages. High marriage rate is based on analysis of marriage patterns from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. In 1413 Johannes Blasius de Mence provided two dowries in the same month for daughters Nicoleta and Catharina, one was 1,500, the other 2,000 hyperpera. The latter was apparently swollen by gifts from others (D.S.A., Liber Dotium, IV, f. 10v, 11).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Liber Statutorum, VIII, c. 42 for laws governing tutors' behavior. Tutors for the orphaned daughters of Luce de Baraba made distinguished marriages for the girls despite a poor inheritance. D.S.A., Liber Dotium, II, f. 153, 154v. The orphaned daughters of Symon de Benessa did very well with dowries of 2,200 and 2,500 hyperpera in the early fifteenth century. The discrepancy in the awards for Coletta and Lucia represented growth in their jointly invested estate over a few months. D.S.A., Liber Dotium, IV, f, 13, 19.Google Scholar

¹¹ Dowries awarded noble daughters, 1280–1282: Source: Gregor Čremošnik, Spisi, Thomasina de Savere, doc. 375, 387, 391, 395, 424, 430, 432, 541, 554, 582, 610, 622, 677, 697, 714, 722a, 727, 742, 743, 902, 919.Google Scholar

¹² Slaves, like jewels and gold, had fallen in that portion of the assign which was entirely in the wife's control. In the late thirteenth century a slave's average price was merely 10 hyperpera, that is, only 1/40 of the capital award of the typical dowry. In the fourteenth century urban domestic slavery was largely replaced at Ragusa by a labor contract system. Noble wives, then, would be served by domestics who were contracted to work for terms of 5, 10, even 20 years, usually for less than 10 hyperpera per term. Domestic labor remained relatively cheap at Ragusa. There is a considerable literature on slavery at Ragusa. Gregor Čremošnik's studies are basic to an understanding of the problem. More recently, and for a review of the literature, see Vinaver, Vuk, “Trgovina Bosanskim robljem tokom XIV veka u Dubrovniku,” Dubrovnik Anali, 2 (1953) 127–47;Google ScholarLučić, Josip, Obrti i Usluge u Dubrovniku (Zagreb, Yugoslavia, 1980), pp. 139–59.Google Scholar

¹³ Liber Dotium, I, 1348–1349: ^a One dowry listed a house of stone beyond the gold for jewels and the 1,000 hyperpera bequest. Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, I, f. lv, 2v, 3v, 7, 7v, 9, 9v, 10v (bis) 12, 13v.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Liber Dotium, II, 1380–1393: Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, II, f. 85v, 89v, 96v, 97, 98, 101v, 105, 105v, 106, 106v, 109, 112v– 113, 114v, 125, 126, 127, 132, 137, 138, 138v, 139, 139v, 143, 144v, 148, 151v, 153, 154v.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Liber Dotium, IV, 1412–1419: Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, IV, f. 5, 8v, 10v, 11, 11v, 12v, 13, 15, 17, 18, 18v, 19, 24, 24v, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35, 38v, 39v, 44, 45, 46v, 48, 49, 49v, 51, 51v, 52, 53v, 54, 55, 55v, 56v.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Liber Dotium, V, 1420–1426:Google Scholar Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, VI, f. Iv, 2, 3v, 6, 6v, 8, 11–14, 17, 17v, 18, 18v, 19v, 23, 25, 28–30, 30v, 31v, 37, 38v.Google Scholar

¹⁷ D.S.A., Liber Viridis, C. 180, f 140v. See reconfirmations, C. 371, f. 234–235, C. 478, f. 296v.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Čremošnik, Spisi, Thomasini de Savere, doc. 486 (1281). An inclusive gift to all religious establishments noted eight small conventual houses and 18 female reclusa in Ragusa at that date. Few new houses were subsequently founded.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Manken, Dubrovački Patricijat, pp. 14–16.Google ScholarSoloviev, A., “Le Patricijat de Raguse,” Zbornik iz Dubrovačke Prošlosti (Duborovnik, 1931), p. 65.Google ScholarKrekić, Cf. Barisa, Dubrovnik in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Norman, Oklahoma, 1972), p. 33.Google Scholar

²⁰ Liber Dotium, VI, 1440–1443: ^aOne 1,600 hyperpera dowry listed the bequest of a home as well, making it significantly larger.Google Scholar Inexagia of gold, 150 to 200 became a typical bequest, although there continued to be a range ofdifferences, as well as substitutions of jewels which appear to be heirlooms. Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, VII, f. 2v, 4, 4v, 7, 8v, 11, 12, 15v, 18v, 21v, 27, 30v, 34, 34v, 35, 36v, 37v, 38, 38v, 39, 40v, 42, 47v, 49v. Liber Dotium, VII, 1460–1465: Source: D.S.A., Liber Dotium, VII, f. 4, 7v, 9, 11, 11v, 12v, 14, 21, 22, 23v, 32, 34, 34v, 37v, 38v, 39, 42, 42v, 47v, 49v, 50v, 52v, 53, 54v.Google Scholar

²¹ Krekić, , “Foreigners in Dubrovnik,” Viator 8 (1978), 67–75;Google Scholaridem, “Four Florentine Commercial Companies in Dubrovnik;” in Miskimin, Harry et al. , The Medieval City (New Haven, Connecticut, 1977), pp. 25–41.Google ScholarDinić-Knezević, D., “Trgovina Zitom u Dubrovniku,” Godišnjak Filoz. Facultet, Novi Sad, 10 (1967), 79–131.Google Scholar On Venetian banks see Mueller, Reinhold, “The Role of Bank Money in Venice, 1300–1500,” Studi Veneziani, n.s. 3 (1979), 47–96. Florentine agents frequently acted as Ragusan agents in deposit banking transactions on the Rialto in Venice.Google Scholar

²² Tadić, Jorjo, Dubrovnik Portreti (Belgrade, 1948):Google Scholaridem, “Le Port de Raguse et sa flotte au, XVIe siècle. Le navire et l'économie maritime du Moyen Age au XVIIIe siècle,” Travaux de Second Colloque International d'Historie Maritime (Paris, 1959), pp. 1–21. See also Braudel, The Mediterranean in the Age of Phillip II.Google Scholar

²³ For laws governing dowries see Liber Statutorum, Liber IV, c. 4, 5, 7–9, 24, 26–43, 53, 54. The law of the community was amended in the era of the plague (Liber Statutorum, VIII, c. 94) to favor a woman's natal family with the return of three-quarters of her dower cash award if she had no living direct heirs at her demise.Google Scholar

²⁴ D.S.A., Liber Viridis, c. 180, f. 140v.Google Scholar

²⁵ Stuard, Susan Mosher, “The Adriatic Trade in Silver, c. 1300,” Studi Veneziani, 17–18 (1975–1976), 95–143.Google Scholar

²⁶ Wills, bequests, and favored notarial instruments for investment indicate similar trends. Dowries reflected the trend most graphically because they possess a formulaic nature and because the practice of registering all noble dowries at the chancellery continued from the thirteenth century into the fifteenth century and beyond.Google Scholar

²⁷ D.S.A., Liber Dotium, II, f. 7v. Lucas de Gambe accepted Marie de Catar as a second wife in 1348 with a 1,000 hyperpera dowry.Google Scholar See also Liber Dotium, II, f. 9 and f. 12 for 1,000 awards given and accepted from Catar spouses. See also Liber Dotium, II, f. 85v, (Catar); fol. 148 (Split); Liber Dotium, IV, f. 8, (Split); f. 65v (Zara); f. 122 (Trau); Liber Dotium, VI, f. 39 (Catar). These provide examples of dowries given in exogamous marriages with awards typical for the decade. See also Manken, Dubrovački Patricijat, p. 334, for the marriage of Philippa Martinussius to Lodovicus Correr of Venice. Both the powerful Mence and Gondola lineages contracted marriage alliances with noble Venetians during the period under discussion.Google Scholar

²⁸ Chojnacki, Stanley, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice,” in Stuard, Susan Mosher, Women in Medieval Society (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 192.Google Scholar See also Lane, Andrea Barbarigo, p. 23ff;Google ScholarBesta, Enrico, La Famiglia nella storia del diritto italiano (Milan, 1962);Google ScholarErcole, Francesco, “L'istituto dotale nella pratica e nella legislazione statutaria dell' Italia superiore,” Revista italiana per le scienze giuridiche, 65 (1908), 191–302, 66 (1910), 167–257.Google Scholar

²⁹ Kirshner, Julius and Mohlo, Anthony, “The Dowry Fund and the Marriage Market in Early Quattrocento Florence,” Journal of Modern History, 50 (1978), 403–38.Google Scholar See also their “Il monte delle doti a Firenze dalla sua fondazione nel 1425 alla meta del sedicesimo secolo abbozzo di una ricerca,” Ricerche Storiche, 4 (1980), 21–47.Google ScholarHerlihy, David and Klapische-Zuber, Christiane, Les Toscans et leurs familles (Paris, 1978).Google Scholar See also Kent, Francia, Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1977);Google ScholarBrucker, Gene, Renaissance Florence (New York, 1969);Google ScholarMartines, Lauro, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists (Princeton, 1963).Google Scholar

³⁰ Kirshner and Mohlo, “The Dowry Fund,” p. 418.Google Scholar

³¹ Kent notes in Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence that Margareta Ginori's spouse was induced or coerced into exaggerating the amount given by his wife's family as dowry. The purpose was evidently to collaborate certain evidence the Ginori's had volunteered to the Catasto officials (pp. 92–93).Google Scholar

³² See Hughes, Diane Owen, “Domestic Ideals and Social Behavior,” in The Family in History, Rosenberg, Charles, ed. (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 3–28;Google Scholaridem, “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe,” pp. 278–85.Google Scholar

³³ One Florentine in Ragusa on business married the daughter of another foreigner, a pharmacist from Bologna. He received a dowry of 4,000 hyperpera (2,000 ducats), an award which outran noble dowry awards for the period 1350 by a considerable amount (cf. Table 2 for a comparative award from Liber Dotium, I, 1348–1349).Google Scholar The fortunate groom, Bencius del Bona del Flora, returned to Florence with his bride. On the strength of his wife's dowry and his own amassed capital, he entered the ranks of the prosperous upper bourgeoisie. Dowries were one major element in upward mobility for ambitious Florentine merchants, and could on occasion be found abroad more easily than an home. Voje, Ignacij, “Bencio del Buono,” Isroriski Čašopis, 18 (1971), 189–99.Google Scholar

³⁴ Krekić, , Dubrovnik et le Levant au Moyen Āge (Paris,1961), p. 94.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Stuard, “The Silver Trade in the Adriatic,” pp. 95–143 for a fuller treatment of the issue.Google Scholar