Search

The Dutch Republic offers a remarkable picture of two parallel elites that developed side by side in the early modern period. While in other European countries high officials and merchants were eventually admitted to the peerage, here the knighthoods remained closed, even to the most powerful urban regents. How can we understand this almost hermetic and by European standards unique separation of nobility and patriciate? Why did urban aristocrats with numerous lordships and foreign noble titles copy the culture of an elite to which they never belonged? The answer to these questions is often sought in the misleading distinction between the Dutch, mainly (but not exclusively) Amsterdam merchant gentry with its hundreds of new mansions, and the rural knightly order with its old mansions in the landed provinces. This is a misleading picture. Although after the Dutch Revolt a largely feudal hierarchy of lordships did indeed persist in the countryside outside the walled cities, in the coastal regions most of it was commercialized and appropriated by this feudal-capitalist elite. Although never knighted, but often adorned with foreign titles, ‘burghers’ combined, in competition with each other, in their portraits, houses, and lifestyles an entirely unique style of princely wealth, courtly virtues, merchant spirit, and feudal simplicity.

The Dutch Republic offers a remarkable picture of two parallel elites that developed side by side in the early modern period. While in other European countries high officials and merchants were eventually admitted to the peerage, here the knighthoods remained closed, even to the most powerful urban regents. How can we understand this almost hermetic and by European standards unique separation of nobility and patriciate? Why did urban aristocrats with numerous lordships and foreign noble titles copy the culture of an elite to which they never belonged? The answer to these questions is often sought in the misleading distinction between the Dutch, mainly (but not exclusively) Amsterdam merchant gentry with its hundreds of new mansions, and the rural knightly order with its old mansions in the landed provinces. This is a misleading picture. Although after the Dutch Revolt a largely feudal hierarchy of lordships did indeed persist in the countryside outside the walled cities, in the coastal regions most of it was commercialized and appropriated by this feudal-capitalist elite. Although never knighted, but often adorned with foreign titles, ‘burghers’ combined, in competition with each other, in their portraits, houses, and lifestyles an entirely unique style of princely wealth, courtly virtues, merchant spirit, and feudal simplicity.

The Dutch Republic offers a remarkable picture of two parallel elites that developed side by side in the early modern period. While in other European countries high officials and merchants were eventually admitted to the peerage, here the knighthoods remained closed, even to the most powerful urban regents. How can we understand this almost hermetic and by European standards unique separation of nobility and patriciate? Why did urban aristocrats with numerous lordships and foreign noble titles copy the culture of an elite to which they never belonged? The answer to these questions is often sought in the misleading distinction between the Dutch, mainly (but not exclusively) Amsterdam merchant gentry with its hundreds of new mansions, and the rural knightly order with its old mansions in the landed provinces. This is a misleading picture. Although after the Dutch Revolt a largely feudal hierarchy of lordships did indeed persist in the countryside outside the walled cities, in thecoastal regions most of it was commercialized and appropriated by this feudal-capitalist elite. Although never knighted, but often adorned with foreign titles, ‘burghers’ combined, in competition with each other, in their portraits, houses, and lifestyles an entirely unique style of princely wealth, courtly virtues, merchant spirit, and feudal simplicity.

This article analyzes the unusual career of M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus (cos. 31 BC), especially the need to reconcile his republican ideal with the Augustan Principate. The study is based on key moments in the patrician’ s political career : his resignation from the praefectura Vrbis at the beginning of the Principate (26 BC), his acceptance of the position of curator aquarum (11 BC), and the granting of the title of Pater patriae to Augustus in 2 BC. The diachronic approach thus highlights the personal evolution of Messalla Corvinus, and the final acceptance of the Augustan consensus., L’ article analyse la carrière singulière de M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus (cos. 31 av. J.-C.), plus spécifiquement la nécessité de concilier son idéal républicain avec la nouvelle donne du Principat augustéen. L’ étude se concentre sur des moments clés de la carrière politique du patricien : sa démission de la praefectura Vrbis au début du Principat (26 av. J.-C.), l’ acceptation du poste de curateur des eaux (11 av. J.-C.) et l’ octroi du titre de Pater patriae à Auguste en 2 av. J.-C. Ainsi, l’ approche diachronique met-elle en lumière l’ évolution personnelle de Messalla Corvinus, et l’ acceptation finale du consensus augustéen., Landrea Cyrielle. Concilier l’idéal républicain et le Principat augustéen : la carrière singulière de M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus (cos. 31 av. J.-C.). In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne. Supplément n°24, 2021. Une République impériale en question ? pp. 141-163.

International audience; Even though adoption was one of the means used by aristocratic families to ensure social reproduction, such a practice remains difficult both to identify and measure. During the last century of the Republic, it is best-known for two borderline cases, which partly overlap, since one is a procedure, whereas the other means a specific aim-'testamentary adoptions' and 'political adoptions'. The first type implies successional and onomastic effects without leading to any change in family statuses. The second one has a political aim which entails a transformation of the family status. Both types of adoption can be accounted for by a growing competition among aristocrats, which required to resort to new family strategies.; Bien qu' elle fasse partie des instruments dont disposaient les familles aristocratiques pour assurer leur reproduction sociale, l'adoption demeure une pratique difficile à identifier et à quantifier. Lors du dernier siècle de la République, elle est surtout connue par deux cas-limites, qui se recoupent partiellement, puisque l'un, les « adoptions testamentaires », renvoie à une procédure, tandis que l'autre, les « adoptions politiques », a un objectif spécifique. Les premières empruntent à l'adoption ses effets successoraux et onomastiques, sans modifier le statut familial ; les secondes subordonnent la transformation du statut familial à une finalité politique. Toutes deux peuvent s'interpréter comme un effet de l'intensification de la compétition aristocratique, qui exige de nouvelles stratégies familiales.

Il saggio ha preso spunto da lettere e appunti riservati del patrizio senese Celso Bargagli Stoffi presenti nell’archivio di famiglia (conservato a Montefollonico (SI) in corso di deposito all’Archivio di Stato di Siena), della seconda metà dell’Ottocento. Nel 1888 si rese conto che il figlio diciassettenne Antonio aveva di fatto abbandonato gli studi e si era pericolosamente compromesso con usurai, ballerine e prostitute. Perciò, esercitando la sua “potestà correzionale”, sperimentò varie strategie per indurlo a cambiare vita. La ricchezza della documentazione e la prospettiva tutta interna all’élite cittadina, che vede a confronto parenti, amici, membri delle istituzioni e uomini di legge, fanno di questo singolo episodio un “caso di studio” che, se non può essere generalizzato, offre la possibilità di un’analisi minuziosa delle questioni relative al controllo della gioventù indisciplinata all’interno di un ceto dirigente provinciale in trasformazione. Antonio, rimasto orfano di madre alla nascita, era cresciuto circondato dalle tenerezze delle nonne, degli zii e della governante tedesca, che ne avevano fatto un bambino garbato ma viziato. Quando raggiunse gli 11 anni, il padre ritenne necessario assicurargli un’educazione adeguata al rango di gentiluomo, e lo mandò nel noto collegio dei gesuiti Stella matutina di Felkirch in Austria. L’impatto con la rigida disciplina e un severo sistema di studi, fu traumatico e scatenò in lui la rivolta contro ogni autorità, quindi dopo due anni riuscì a lasciarlo. Il padre si rassegnò a riportarlo in Italia, ma per collocarlo nel collegio della Badia Fiesolana, gestito dai più tolleranti padri scolopi. In pochi anni era avvenuta in lui una profonda trasformazione e a Firenze si avvicinò ai giovani più scapestrati, con i quali prese a condurre la vita dissoluta del libertino. Il padre intervenne alla fine del 1888: lo ritirò dal collegio e lo riportò a Siena per vivere insieme a lui nel palazzo di famiglia, dove avrebbe potuto meglio controllarlo. Ma il ragazzo continuò a sprecare la sua vita in vino, donne, sesso e divertimenti, assumendo tutti i comportamenti antisociali tipici dell’adolescenza: sempre scontento, preda di appetiti sessuali incontrollabili che lo inducevano a comportamenti imprudenti, bugiardo, permaloso, ostile nei riguardi del padre fino alla provocazione, spavaldo e presuntuoso, non rispettava le distanze sociali e ostentava rapporti confidenziali con persone di ceto inferiore o di scarsa moralità. Nessuna azione di parenti, amici e avvocati, riuscì a correggerlo, per cui il padre come estrema risorsa, nel dicembre 1890, chiese al Presidente del Tribunale di Siena, in base all’art.222 del Codice Civile, di rinchiuderlo in un istituto di educazione o di correzione. Si trattò solo di una minaccia, perché, d’accordo con altri nobili senesi esponenti del ceto dirigente, decise di obbligarlo ad un lungo viaggio per mare verso il Cile. I notabili sfuggirono così all’applicazione di una legge dello Stato che avrebbe provocato discredito sociale al gruppo, e idearono una sanzione quasi privata, organizzata grazie a rapporti personali con gli alti livelli istituzionali. Il programma non contemplava nessuna pratica punitiva o rieducativa, ma aveva lo scopo di allontanare il giovane dalle amanti e dai creditori per impedirgli di fare nuovi debiti. Solo la diretta esperienza dei disagi e dei pericoli cui era esposto lontano dalla famiglia avrebbe potuto convincerlo a cambiare vita, perché nessun particolare insegnamento gli venne impartito né nei quattro mesi trascorsi sulla nave né a Valparaiso, dove il console lo trattò come un giovane di riguardo. Non si sa se Antonio si fosse davvero pentito perché, malato di tisi all’ultimo stadio, venne rimandato in fretta in Italia, morendo però sulla nave tre giorni prima di toccare il porto di Genova nel settembre 1891, dopo aver da poco compiuto vent’anni., This essay took inspiration from letters and notes of the Sienese patrician Celso Bargagli Stoffi found in the family’s archive (kept in Montefollonico (SI) and to be deposited to the State Archive of Siena), dating back to the second half of the 1800’s. In 1888, he realized that his 17 years old son, Antonio, had abandoned his studies and compromised himself with usurers, dancers and prostitutes. Hence, enforcing his “potestà correzionale”, he tried various strategies to induce him into changing his lifestyle.The abundance of documentation and the perspective from the city’s élite, that includes confrontation between relatives, friends, members of the institutions and lawmen, makes this single episode a “case study”. Although it can’t be generalized, this case offers the possibility of a detailed analysis of the matters relative to the control of undisciplined youth among a transforming provincial leading social class.Antonio, motherless from birth, grew up surrounded by the tenderness of his grandmothers, his aunts, his uncles and the German housekeeper, that made him a well-mannered but spoiled kid. When he turned 11, his father found it necessary for him to get an adequate education for the title of gentleman, and sent him to the well-known Jesuit school Stella matutina in Felkirch, Austria. The impact of the strict discipline and study system on him was traumatic and triggered in him rebellion against any authority. After two years, he managed to leave the school. His father gave up and brought him back to Italy, to put him in the Badia Fiesolana school that was managed by the more tolerant Piarist Fathers. During the course of a few years he deeply changed and, while living in Florence, got close to the wildest youth and started living a libertine and dissolute life.His father took action at the end of 1888. He brought him back to Siena to live together in the family mansion where he could better control him. But the kid kept wasting his life with wine, girls, sex and flings, assuming all the anti-social behaviors typical of adolescence: always disgruntled, victim of uncontrollable sexual appetites that led him to reckless behaviors, liar, touchy, hostile towards his father up to taunting him—bold and pretentious—he did not respect the social boundaries and flaunted confidentiality with people of lower class or low morality.No action from parents, friends, and lawyers managed to correct him, hence the father, as his last resort, in December 1890, asked to the President of the Court of Siena, on the basis of article 222 of the Civil Code, to confine him into a re-education and correction institute.This was only a threat because, in agreement with other Sienese nobles and members of the leading social class, he decided to force him to a long sea travel to Chile. The notables managed to avoid the application of a State law that would have brought social discredit to the group and came up with a nearly ad hoc sanction, made possible thanks to the personal relationships with the high institutional levels.The sanction did not include any punitive or re-educative action, but it had the objective of withdraw the young man from his lovers and his creditors to prevent him from creating more debts. Only the direct experience of the inconveniences and dangers he would have faced by living away from the family could convince him to change his lifestyle. Although he did not learned any specific lesson either during the four months spent on the ship or in Valparaiso, where the Consul treated him as a young man of respect. It is not known if Antonio actually repented of his misbehavior. In fact, he suffered from last stage phthisis and was rushed back to Italy, where he did not arrive alive. He died on the ship three days before reaching the port of Genoa in September 1891, at the age of 20. (trad. M. Vigni, V.Barra).

Niniejszy artykuł, przygotowany w związku z przypadającą w 2016 r. 140. rocznicą urodzin Jana Ptaśnika (1876–1930), przypomina sylwetkę oraz istotny fragment twórczości tego uznanego historyka. Wywodzący się z rodziny chłopskiej Jan Ptaśnik – uczeń Stanisława Krzyżanowskiego i Wincentego Zakrzewskiego – związany był z Uniwersytetami w Krakowie, gdzie uzyskał doktorat i habilitował się w wieku trzydziestu jeden lat, oraz we Lwowie, gdzie w 1920 r. otrzymał samodzielną katedrę, którą kierował do przedwczesnej śmierci w 1930 r. Był pionierem nowoczesnych badań w zakresie historii kultury oraz historii miast i mieszczaństwa, a także cenionym wydawcą źródeł. W pierwszej części prezentowanego tekstu nakreślił Autor życiorys tego badacza, uzupełniając dawniejsze opracowania oraz omawiając jego dorobek naukowy. W części drugiej skupił się natomiast na studiach J. Ptaśnika nad rodzinami mieszczańskimi Krakowa XIII–XVI w., analizując te prace m.in. pod względem trwałości poczynionych przezeń ustaleń. Zreferował nadto osiągnięcia nowszej historiografii krakowskiej, rozwijającej wątki zainicjowane na początku XX w. przez J. Ptaśnika, dając jednocześnie możliwie pełny obraz wiedzy o warstwie wyższej społeczeństwa miasta Krakowa w wiekach średnich. A painter of urban life – Jan Ptaśnik (1876–1930). The genesis of studies into a patriciate of Krakow This article, prepared in connection with the 140th anniversary in 2016 of the birth of Jan Ptaśnik (1876–1930), recalls the man himself and an important fragment of the creativity of this highly-regarded historian. Born into a peasant family, Jan Ptaśnik – a pupil of Stanisław Krzyżanowski and Wincenty Zakrzewski – was connected with universities in Krakow, where he became a doctor at the age of thirty one, and Lviv, where in 1920 he became the head of a faculty, which he directed until his premature death in 1930. He was a pioneer of modern research into the history of culture and the history of towns and townspeople, as well as a valuable publisher. In the first part of the text, the Author presents the biography of the researcher, complementing former works as well as discussing his scientific achievements. The second part focuses, however, on J. Ptaśnik’s studies into the townspeople of Krakow in the XIII–XVI centuries, analysing this work, among others, in terms of the durability of the settings he established. It refers extensively to the achievements of later historiographies of Krakow, developing aspects initiated at the beginning of the XX century by J. Ptaśnik, simultaneously providing a picture of the knowledge about the level of high society in the city of Krakow during the Middle Ages.

This dissertation describes the social history of the Königsberger / Koningsberger family from 1485 to 1995. Drawing on the theories of Weber, Bourdieu and Braun, it is a study of both a social elite and its migration and integration. The history of the Koningsberger family can be divided into four phases. The first of these comprises the four 16th and 17th-century generations whose heads of family served on the city council of Mainbernheim (Franconia) in Germany, a position they held based on their wealth, descent and prestige. They were part of the patriciate. The second phase comprises the next three generations, who lived in the 18th century. Of these three generations, the first two heads of family moved to another city within Germany and the last emigrated to Holland. These migrations caused a decline in status. The family was now middle class. In the third phase, which began in the late 18th century and continued into the early 19th, the heads of family of the eighth and ninth generations successfully integrated into society in the Dutch Republic and later the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The family rose through the social ranks to the bourgeoisie. The fourth phase took place in 19th-century Rotterdam, where the twelfth-generation heads of family were able to re-enter the upper class, mainly due to the family’s new-found wealth, which was acquired largely through wholesaling tea. Two heads of family became Dutch Reformed minister, and also joined the upper class. In the 20th century, the thirteenth generation, academically trained, consolidated this position, which led to the inclusion of the Koningsberger genealogy in the Nederlands Patriciaat (‘Dutch Patriciate’, a register of distinguished and influential Dutch families who are not part of the nobility). The heads of the family in the first and fourth phases owed their place in the elite to their integrated capital, which consists of at least three forms of capital, two of which are economic and social. In the 16th and 17th century, the family possessed economic capital (real estate in particular), social capital and managerial capital stemming from the family’s service on the city council. In phase four, the family’s integrated capital was based on more elements. The family had not only economic (real estate and securities) and social capital, but also cultural and managerial (private-legal) capital. Some family members also had political capital and/or managerial (public-legal) capital. In phases two and three, the heads of the family possessed only economic and social capital, but in phase three slightly more than in phase two. Thanks to the financial support of their father, the social decline the family experienced in phase two was less steep than the drop in income and status that most migrants tend to experience. Intergenerational transfer of especially economic capital was the norm in the family. This provided all the heads of family with a house and a solid start to their careers. There were other constants as well; all the heads of family married a woman from virtually the same social class as their own. In addition, they shared a sense of great responsibility, not only for their families, but also for the society they lived in. To an unusual extent their actions were guided by principles, in part religious and based on their Lutheran roots.

This dissertation describes the social history of the Königsberger / Koningsberger family from 1485 to 1995. Drawing on the theories of Weber, Bourdieu and Braun, it is a study of both a social elite and its migration and integration. The history of the Koningsberger family can be divided into four phases. The first of these comprises the four 16th and 17th-century generations whose heads of family served on the city council of Mainbernheim (Franconia) in Germany, a position they held based on their wealth, descent and prestige. They were part of the patriciate. The second phase comprises the next three generations, who lived in the 18th century. Of these three generations, the first two heads of family moved to another city within Germany and the last emigrated to Holland. These migrations caused a decline in status. The family was now middle class. In the third phase, which began in the late 18th century and continued into the early 19th, the heads of family of the eighth and ninth generations successfully integrated into society in the Dutch Republic and later the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The family rose through the social ranks to the bourgeoisie. The fourth phase took place in 19th-century Rotterdam, where the twelfth-generation heads of family were able to re-enter the upper class, mainly due to the family’s new-found wealth, which was acquired largely through wholesaling tea. Two heads of family became Dutch Reformed minister, and also joined the upper class. In the 20th century, the thirteenth generation, academically trained, consolidated this position, which led to the inclusion of the Koningsberger genealogy in the Nederlands Patriciaat (‘Dutch Patriciate’, a register of distinguished and influential Dutch families who are not part of the nobility). The heads of the family in the first and fourth phases owed their place in the elite to their integrated capital, which consists of at least three forms of capital, two of which are economic and social. In the 16th and 17th century, the family possessed economic capital (real estate in particular), social capital and managerial capital stemming from the family’s service on the city council. In phase four, the family’s integrated capital was based on more elements. The family had not only economic (real estate and securities) and social capital, but also cultural and managerial (private-legal) capital. Some family members also had political capital and/or managerial (public-legal) capital. In phases two and three, the heads of the family possessed only economic and social capital, but in phase three slightly more than in phase two. Thanks to the financial support of their father, the social decline the family experienced in phase two was less steep than the drop in income and status that most migrants tend to experience. Intergenerational transfer of especially economic capital was the norm in the family. This provided all the heads of family with a house and a solid start to their careers. There were other constants as well; all the heads of family married a woman from virtually the same social class as their own. In addition, they shared a sense of great responsibility, not only for their families, but also for the society they lived in. To an unusual extent their actions were guided by principles, in part religious and based on their Lutheran roots.

Johan Huizinga schreef eens dat het verlangen van stedelingen 'naar de behaaglijke rust van een blij buitenleven' de Gouden Eeuw van de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden kenmerkte. Dit boek laat de grote verscheidenheid van de toen bloeiende buitenplaatscultuur zien - in alle gewesten van de Republiek, niet alleen in Holland. Belangrijk waren daarbij de boven-gewestelijke contacten tussen bestuurlijke en economisch elites.

International audience

Il saggio si propone di studiare la trasmissione libraria attraverso lo strumento giuridico di fedecommesso per poter capire il ruolo dei libri nella trasmissione dei beni e l’intreccio tra cultura e strategie patrimoniali familiari. Il caso veneziano possa costituire un ottimo punto di partenza poiché, come dimostrato attraverso l’esame di un numero di casi, il comportamento dell’élite lagunare ricalca il conflitto tra la consapevolezza che la cultura fa parte dell’immagine della famiglia e la necessità per la sopravvivenza sociale della famiglia di conservare ampi margini di azione nel campo economico. Contrariamente ad altre aree nella penisola italiana, a Venezia lo strumento di fedecommesso veniva guardato come l’ultima arma a disposizione del collezionista piuttosto che accettata come prassi comune per costituire una collezione al servizio del pubblico. Nella dialettica tra pubblico e privato, frutto di secoli di spirito repubblicano, le famiglie aristocratiche veneziane abbisognavano di un margine di manovra e di libertà culturale che sconsigliava l’uso estensivo dello strumento di fedecommesso. The present article aims to contribute to the analysis of the transmission of book collections and entire libraries through the study of the fideicommissary law in an attempt to understand the role of books in the overall property transmission and the relationship between cultural aspirations and delicate family strategies regarding its property. Venice is a privileged case study as the number of cases analyzed clearly demonstrates the Serenissima ruling elite’s attempts to use culture in order to magnify the family’s prestige, hence the attempts to restrict alienation of books. Yet, on the same time, the Venetian patriciate tended to choose flexible legal instruments in order to be able to turn the books into a valuable property. Unlike other States on the Italian peninsula then, Venetians regarded fideicommissum as the last resort of the book collector, rather than a valid instrument in order to ensure the library’s survival and its usefulness for the public of scholars.

Partiendo de los conceptos de ciudad hidalga y ciudad patricia que expone José Luis Romero en su obra Latinoamérica: las ciudades y las ideas, este trabajo aborda cómo se constituyó la narrativa urbana de Popayán (Colombia) en la primera mitad del siglo XX. Para el análisis se toma como base el ensayo de carácter histórico originado en la ciudad y que, a la postre, se convirtió en fuente esencial de la narrativa urbana tradicional de la misma. Esta narrativa ha operado en la lógica de un pensamiento hegemónico y eurocéntrico, donde el discurso colonial sigue estando presente y latente en las diversas formas en que se asume y se nombra a la ciudad. Based on the definitions of noble city and patrician city presented by José Luis Romero in his book Latinoamérica: las ciudades y las ideas, this research focuses on how was constructed Popayan Urban Narrative in the first half of twentieth century. The analysis is rooted in the historical essay originated in the city which, eventually, became in an essential source for the traditional urban narrative in the City. This narrative has operated in the logic of a hegemonic and eurocentric thought, where the colonial discourse is still present and latent in the various forms in which the city is recognized and named. Partindo dos conceitos de cidade fidalga e cidade patrícia propostos por José Luis Romero em sua obra Latinoamérica: las ciudades y las ideas, este trabalho aborda como foi constituída a narrativa urbana de Popayán (Colômbia) na primeira metade do século XX. A análise tem como base o ensaio de caráter histórico originado na cidade e que, posteriormente, converteu-se em fonte essencial para a sua própria narrativa urbana tradicional. Essa narrativa tem funcionado na lógica de um pensamento hegemônico e eurocêntrico, onde o discurso colonial ainda está presente e latente nas várias formas em que é assumida a cidade.

Attraverso un’ampia ricerca documentaria, il saggio offre una riflessione sul fedecommesso non solo quale partita accesa dell’amministrazione familiare e clausola giuridica volta alla trasmissione patrimoniale, ma anche come significativo indicatore dello sviluppo economico e culturale dei gruppi sociali insediati alla periferia del Granducato. Sull'arco cronologico chiuso in maniera elastica tra il 1550 e il 1750, il contesto è offerto dallo Stato Nuovo di Siena, una compagine territoriale vasta e composita, caratterizzata dall’esistenza di grossi borghi distanti dalla dominante e strutturati da una loro specifica storia comunitaria, feudale e istituzionale nonché da gruppi dirigenti locali connotati e capaci di considerevoli accumulazioni patrimoniali. Senza trascurare l’analisi dell’istituto fedecommissario all’interno del patriziato senese e del contesto cittadino, il saggio si concentra in particolare su questi nuclei demici decentrati, in grado di fornire elementi diversi alla valutazione delle varie realtà economiche dello Stato Nuovo. Nello spazio territoriale che si apre tra Siena e Roma, l’approccio degli individui alla prassi e alle strategie trasmissorie porta a riconsiderare con nuovi elementi le dinamiche di gruppi familiari e di agglomerati extraurbani capaci di svilupparsi in autonomia dalla forza centripeta della dominante. Risulta con chiarezza l’importanza degli organismi educativi presenti in loco (collegi, seminari), delle carriere ecclesiastiche locali, dei ruoli militari, delle diverse risorse della comunità e del paesaggio, quali efficaci fattori di avanzamento sociale ed economico sia nelle diverse strutture istituzionali della Toscana medicea che in quelle di altri Stati italiani. Ample documentary research supports the author’s reflections on the fideicommissum, not only as an aspect of family accounting and a jurisdictional instrument for property transfer but also as a significant indicator of the economic development and cultural evolution of the social groups installed at the periphery of the Grand Duchy. The timespan is defined, somewhat elastically, as embracing the years from 1550 to 1750; the context is the « Stato Nuovo » of Siena, a vast and complex territorial compages characterized by large villages, quite distant from the seat of regional power, each structured by its own specific feudal and institutional community history and shaped by local « establishments« with specific connotations and capable of accumulating considerable assets. Without slighting analysis of the institution of the fideicommissum within the Sienese patriciate and the context of the city itself, the author’s research concentrates on these decentralized demic nuclei, which provide different elements for evaluating the various facets of the economy of the Stato Nuovo. Individuals’ approaches to the praxes and strategies of property transfer in the territory stretching from Siena toward Rome invites consideration of the dynamics of the family groupings and of the extra-urban agglomerates that proved capable of developing autonomously despite the centripetal force exerted by the dominating power. The analysis clarifies the importance of the in loco educational institutions (colleges, seminaries), the local ecclesiastical hierarchy and military orders, and the various community and land resources as factors providing efficacious support for social and economic advancement in the various institutional structures both of Medici Tuscany and of other Italian states of the time.

Based on the sources kept in the state archive of Venice (the series of the Council of Ten and the Venetian Inquisition), the article presents some components of social and religious life in the city of Ulcinj in the 1540s. Central protagonists of the paper are Archbishop Lodovico Chieregati of Bar (1528-1551) and his general vicar of the Bar Archdiocese for many years James Dalmas, a nobleman of Bar, the bishop of Budva and Ulcinj. The latter bishop, according to a report of the count and captain of Ulcinj Baldassare Condumier, the main culprit for social, but also for confessional disputes in the Ulcinj Diocese, caused by Condumier’s intentions on aggregating some new families in the nobility of Ulcinj. As a sequel of these conflicts, the Archbishop Chieregati reacted with a letter from Vicenza, giving support to his confident Dalmas and accusing a part of the clergy of Ulcinj in front of the Venetian inquisition for supporting Protestantism. Based on these data, social and confessional circumstances in Ulcinj and the Archdiocese of Bar in general and the Diocese of Budva have been analysed, as well as clarified the role of main protagonists in the events. The article argues that the testimonies of witnesses (main protagonists), directed to the high bodies of Venetian secular and ecclesiastical authorities do not reflect full historical truth, but they are result of personal intentions and interests of persons sending them. However, even in spite of the subjectivity of their statements, this kind of sources may be considered as a valuable historical source.

A comparative and critical analysis is made of the various modes of participation in the high and late medieval urban governments under the Crown of Aragon. In the process, the traditional thesis of the citizensÆ participation (along the lines of a communal democracy) is set against the self-propagation of patrician power (typically oligarchic practices), and at the same time the ultimate direction of the institutional developments is examined. In order to do this, and as an exercise in comparative history between the various fueros, attention is paid firstly to the origins of the municipality, which has to be understood in relation to the evolution of its institutions, its forms of political organisation and its very relationship with the monarchy. Se procede a un análisis comparativo y crítico sobre los modos de participación en los gobiernos urbanos bajomedievales de la Corona de Aragón. De esta manera se confronta la tesis tradicional de la participación vecinal (en la línea de una democracia comunal) con la autoreproducción del poder patricial (prácticas propias de una oligarquía), al tiempo que se interroga sobre el sentido último de los desarrollos institucionales. Para ello, y proponiendo un ejercicio de historia comparada entre los distintos territorios forales, se atiende en primer lugar a los orígenes del municipio, lo que hay que poner en relación con la evolución de sus instituciones, sus formas de organización política y su propia relación con la monarquía.

Prognani nakon ljubavne afere, Jakov Giorgi i Jakov Resti uključuju se u protuosmanske planove savojskog vojvode Karla Emanuela I., pokušavajući u njihovo provođenje uplesti i Dubrovačku Republiku. Nakon uhićenja početkom rujna 1612., zaprijetila im je smrtna kazna. Rođaci urotnika uspijevaju izvšiti obrat. Zavjerenici odnose političku pobjedu nad pragmatičnom strujom «čuvara Republike». Oko jezgre glavnih zavjerenika oblikuje se snažna rodovsko-politička struja, koja se do kraja definirala nakon agregacije novog plemstva (tzv. salamankezi). Ona je tijekom sljedećih stopedeset godina dominirala nad poraženom strujom (tzv. sorbonezi), kojoj se nakon agregacije priključilo i obezvrijeđeno «novo» plemstvo. Dvije zatvorene skupine ne miješaju se međusobno tijekom cijelog 18. stoljeća, a njihovom bespoštednom borbom za političku prevlast mijenja se i dotadašnji model vladanja., The history of the Ragusan patriciate and with it the entire institutional system of the Republic of Dubrovnik were marked by a centuries-old, legally established class structure of society. Genealogical network and internal political ferment were the two main factors that determined this social framework. Underlying class identity was the principle of consensus, incorporated into the laws and institutions of the Republic. This principle, however, melted away with increasing rivalries between the noble families, leading subsequently to a serious conflict between patrician factions and a change in the political pattern. The roots of the conflict could be sought in the stirring events of 1611/12, often referred to as the Great Conspiracy. An alleged love affair apparently led to the banishment of the two Ragusan patricians - Jakov Giorgi and Jakov Resti. Once in exile, they collaborated with Charles Emmanuel I, duke of Savoy, against the Ottomans, in an attempt to involve the Republic of Dubrovnik as well. They were arrested shortly afterwards and in the early September of 1612 Dubrovnik authorities condemned them to death. Their sentence, however, caused quite a stir among the Ragusan patricians. What followed was a theatrical display of agnatic solidarity. Thanks to the support from their kin, the formerly accused «counter-Ottoman» oriented conspirators won a political victory over the pragmatic faction of the «Republican loyalists.» Not only was their punishment mitigated but the conspirators were encouraged to escape. This incident polarized the nobility, giving way to a rift between the conspirators’ kin and the prosecutors, who eventually exchanged roles: The traitors were acclaimed heroes and the prosecutors labeled as hangmen. Many patricians, initially neutral, were to join the party which booked a social victory. A strong agnatic network gathered around the conspirators, and formed the faction called salamankezi (the Salamancanists), becoming fully determined after the aggregation of the new nobility. This faction played a dominant role in the forthcoming century-and-a-half in Dubrovnik, while an inferior position was reserved for the so-called sorbonezi (the Sorbonnists), who would eventually coalesce with the new nobility. Hostilities between these two closed groups continued well into the eighteenth century. Their unscrupulous struggle for power reshaped the long-established model of political behavior. The prior political stability was based on the electoral procedure and balance among the most prominent government bodies, but from the latter half of the eighteenth century, the antiquated institutional pattern could no longer meet the needs of this new political reality marked by intense internal conflict. Although they played the major role in the new framework, the Salamancanists were doomed to extinction due to an uncommonly strict endogamic practice. Each mé salliance directly undermined their group and thus aided their opponents: by the 1770s the Sorbonnists had outnumbered them. Despite this shift in number, the Salamancanists still managed to neutralize the Sorbonnists by destroying their political unity. The possibility of losing the majority in the most important institutions (Great Council, Senate) forced the Salamancanists to reform the electoral system to their own benefit and thus maintain power. Nevertheless, the establishment of the oligarchy within the Salamancanists led to internal tensions (with the peak in 1762-1763), produced the number of dissidents, and weakened the entire faction. Contrary to expectations, however, the Sorbonnists were far too impotent to take advantage of the situation, and with the dawn of the nineteenth century the two patrician factions crumbled away together with their state.

This study is an analysis of the share that each patrician house had in the exercise of the most important functions in government (the Rector, the member of the Minor Council, the Senator, the Guardian of Justice), and the ratio of these houses in the Major Council. Some houses secured more offices than they were entitled to according to their numerical strength in the Major Council (Gradi/Gradić, Gondola/Gundulić, Georgi/Đurđević, Cerva/ Crijević, Menze/Menčetić, Zamagno/Džamanjić, Resti/Rastić, Bona/Bunić), while others did not get their fair share (Caboga/Kaboga, Sorgo/Sorkočević, Pozza/Pucić, Ragnina/Ranjina, Bobali/Bobaljević, Gozze/Gučetić). Despite these differences, one cannot talk of an oligarchy within Dubrovnik’s ruling class.

Johan Huizinga schreef eens dat het verlangen van stedelingen 'naar de behaaglijke rust van een blij buitenleven' de Gouden Eeuw van de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden kenmerkte. Dit boek laat de grote verscheidenheid van de toen bloeiende buitenplaatscultuur zien - in alle gewesten van de Republiek, niet alleen in Holland. Belangrijk waren daarbij de boven-gewestelijke contacten tussen bestuurlijke en economisch elites.