ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
503
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
DESECRATION.
THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH  
(ISLE OF PAG, 1578‒1583)
Claudio POVOLO
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Venice, Italy
e-mail: povolo@unive.it
Institute IRRIS for Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment, 
Čentur 1F, 6273 Marezige, Slovenia
e-mail: claudio.povolo@irris.eu
Science and Research Centre of Koper, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia
e-mail: claudio.povolo@zrs-kp.si
ABSTRACT
In the spring of 1583, Nicolò Cassich was killed in the field church in Murvica located 
in the vicinity of the town of Pag. Cassich had been banished in 1579 on the charge of 
having posted a libello famoso (defamatory leaflet) against a representative of Venice 
to the island. The investigation launched by the local authorities promptly revealed that 
the killing had been carried out by Zuanne Pastorcich, himself a bandit, who intended to 
avail himself of the benefits provided by law and request his release from the banishment 
penalty. To that end, Pastorcich presented the head of the bandit on the pietra del bando 
in the town square, so that it could be identified by some witnesses, who readily made 
themselves available. But as the authorities proceeded with such identification, a woman 
stepped out from the crowd that had flooded the square. She removed Cassich’s head from 
the stone and took it to the main church in town. The authorities’ efforts to recover it were 
futile, and the incident evinced that the killing of Nicolò Cassich in that small church had 
created a deep rift within the community. And although Pastorcich eventually obtained 
the bounty he had claimed, the killing was deemed a genuine desecration, and that sacred 
place was interdicted from divine worship for several years.
Keywords: banditry, violence, Isle of Pag, Dalmatia, Republic of Venice, sacred space, 
desecration, customs, enmities
PROFANAZIONE.
L’UCCISIONE DEL BANDITO NICOLÒ CASSICH 
(ISOLA DI PAGO, 1578–1583)
SINTESI
Nella primavera del 1583 Nicolò Cassich venne ucciso nella chiesa campestre 
di Murvica, posta nelle vicinanze della città di Pago. Il Cassich era stato bandito 
Received: 2021-08-01                            DOI 10.19233/AH.2021.21
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
504
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
nel 1579 con l’accusa di aver affisso un libello famoso contro il rappresentante 
veneziano dell’isola. Il processo avviato dalle autorità locali rivelò da subito che 
l’uccisione era avvenuta ad opera di Zuanne Pastorcich, pure bandito, il quale, 
avvalendosi dei benefici previsti dalle leggi, intendeva ottenere la propria libera-
zione. A tal fine egli presentò la testa del bandito nella piazza della città, perché 
fosse identificata da alcuni testimoni, resisi presto disponibili. In realtà, mentre 
le autorità procedevano a tale riconoscimento, dalla folla accorsa numerosa in 
piazza, si staccò una donna, che sottrasse la testa del Cassich, portandola con sé 
sino alla chiesa principale della città. A nulla valsero i tentativi delle autorità di 
recuperarla, in quanto l’episodio dimostrò come l’uccisione di Nicolò Cassich in 
quella piccola chiesa avesse creato una forte spaccatura all’interno della comuni-
tà. E, nonostante il Pastorcich ottenesse infine i premi richiesti, l’uccisione venne 
considerata come una vera e propria profanazione; e quel luogo sacro fu interdetto 
per alcuni anni al culto divino.
Parole chiave: banditismo, violenza, Isola di Pago, Dalmazia, Repubblica di Venezia, 
luoghi sacri, profanazione, consuetudini, inimicizie
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
505
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
HAVING COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE ...1
These are the opening words in the case file2 compiled by the local authorities of 
the Isle of Pag, in Dalmatia, in the spring of 1583, in regard to the investigation into 
the killing of the bandit3 Nicolò Cassich:
Having come to the knowledge of esteemed Mr. Francesco Mircovich, honourable 
vicegerent of the town and island of Pag in the absence of illustrious Mr. Daniele 
Moro, the Conte4 of said territory, that last night5 around 3 a.m. a man was killed 
inside the Church of St. Catherine, who is found having many wounds and no head; 
and wishing his lordship, by virtue of his office and for justice to be served, that light 
be shed on this, he instructed me, Zuanne Giardulich of the late sir Zuan Francesco, 
vicecancelliere,6 to go to the site of aforesaid corpse together with vicecavaliere7 
Matteo Bertinoga to conduct a visum et repertum,8 so that subsequently, servatis 
servandis, it would be possible to examine, investigate and conduct a trial and, 
upon establishing the truth, proceed further according to law and justice.9
Upon arrival at the site and entering the church, the vicecancelliere described the 
sight that awaited him:
1 This paper is the result of research carried out in the research programme The Mediterranean and Slove-
nia (ARRS, P6-0272) and the research project Social functions of fairy tales (ARRS-J6-1807), funded by 
the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS). I would like to thank my friends and colleagues G. Benčić, D. 
Darovec, S. Fornasa, T. Glavina, M. Mazzon, M. Rampin, M. Romio, and A. Vidali, whose help and sug-
gestions were fundamental in the writing of this paper. Special thanks also to E. Hilje and N. Vuletić of the 
University of Zadar for locating and allowing me to use the images presented in these pages.
2 The case file of the incident presented in this article is preserved in ASV-CX, Comuni, filza 157, enclosed 
to the parte (provision) of 26 September 1584. Unless indicated otherwise, the documents used hereon are 
taken from this case file without further citation.
3 The term “bandit” denoted a person who had incurred the penalty of banishment and was as such banned 
from the areas under the jurisdiction of the court that had passed such sentence. It did not, therefore, always 
and necessarily refer to a criminal. Only towards the end of the 16th century did the figure of bandit begin 
assuming the more fearsome character of outlaw.
4 One of the titles that governors of Venice’s territories could hold (also Rettore, Podestà, Provveditore …).
5 23 March 1583.
6 Assistant to magistrate’s clerk. Though originally a local from the island, the vicecancelliere was subordinate 
to cancelliere pretorio (magistrate’s clerk), who was part of the entourage of the representative of Venice.
7 Constable.
8 Official inspection of and report on the body of the crime (corpus delicti), in this case the corpse and the 
wounds that led to the victim’s death.
9 “Essendo pervenuto a orecchie e notizia dello spettabile signor Francesco Mircovich, onorando vicegerente di 
Pago e isola per l’assenza del clarissimo signor Daniele Moro, Conte di detto luogo, qualmente la notte prossima 
passata alle ore tre in circa è stato ammazzato un uomo dentro la chiesa di Santa Caterina, il quale si ritrova avere 
molte ferite e senza capo; per il che, desiderando sua signoria per il carico che tiene e acciò la giustizia abbia il 
suo luogo, di venir in luce di questo, ha commesso a me Zuanne Giardulich quondam messer Zuan Francesco, 
vicecancelliere, che trasferir mi debba al luogo di detto cadavere, insieme con Matteo Bertinoga vicecavaliere e 
togliere di quello il visum et repertum. E poi, fatto ciò, servatis servandis, si possa esaminare, inquisire e formare 
processo, acciò ritrovata la verità possa procedere più oltre, secondo la forma della ragione e giustizia.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
506
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
In front of the altar, a step or so away, I found a corpse or, more exactly, a body, 
to all appearances male, without a head and lying prone on a slender stone slab 
of aforesaid altar.10
And immediately, as required by the customary inspection, he proceeded to de-
scribe the clothes that the victim was wearing:
10 “Ritrovai innanzi l’altare, lontano da quello circa un passo, un corpo seu cadavere, in apparenza da uomo 
senza capo, sopra una pianca del detto altare con la pancia distesa in giù, sopra la detta pietra.”
Fig. 1: The drawing of the fortified town of Pag in the Grimani cadastre, dating from 
the late 18th century, now preserved at the State Archives in Zadar (HR-DAZD-6, 
Mape Grimani, Pag br. 295). In the upper part, to the north-west, is the ancient 
Church of St. Catherine. Image published courtesy of the State Archives in Zadar 
(authorization no. 2198-1-92-1-21-2).
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
507
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Dressed in a pair of turquoise kersy […]11, with thin ankle boots on his feet, wearing 
a shirt in old red satin on top of a chest guard in our local custom, and a plain waist-
-length linen jacket, which presented cuts in several places.12
No effort was necessary to determine the cause of death:
Upon turning over the corpse and examining it for injuries, the following was found: 
first of all, the head had been severed from the bust and taken away; further, two large 
injuries, apparently caused by a hatchet, with incision of the flesh and outpouring of 
blood, one above the right and the other above the left shoulder; other than that no 
injuries were found on the body […] And next to said corpse some blood was found on 
the stone and something like mangled flesh.13
The vicecancelliere had brought with him five witnesses to corroborate his inspec-
tion of the material evidence. He was thus accompanied by far more than the two 
persons formally required to validate the judicial rite that was to set in motion the so 
called processo informativo.14 One of the witnesses, Zuanne Cassich,15 was instructed 
by the vicecancelliere to examine a hole behind the altar which appeared to have been 
made recently and from which some fragments of lead were then extracted. Cassich 
readily reported:
that, being the bullet hole fresh and the lead likewise, arquebus shots had been 
fired against the corpse, but it is remarkable that there are no signs on it to 
indicate that it had been hit by any of them.16
11 Illegible due to correction. The vicecancelliere was probably referring to a pair of trousers.
12 “Vestito di un paio […] di carisea turchina, con un paio di stivaletti sottili, le opanche ai piedi, 
con la camicia indosso di sopra un guardacoretto alla usanza nostrana di raso rosso vecchio e uno 
zippone di tela zicollato e in molte parti tagliato.”
13 “E quello fatto rivolgere e vedere per la vita delle ferite che ha, gli furono ritrovate al detto cadavere le ferite 
infrascritte: spiccato prima il capo dal busto e portato via; poi ritrovate due ferite, a giudizio da taglio di 
manerini grandi, con incisione di carne e effusione di sangue, una sopra la spalla destra e l’altra sopra la 
sinistra e non altre ferite gli furono ritrovate […]. E presso detto cadavere fu ritrovato del sangue sulla pietra 
e come della carne pestata.” Hence, the visione (inspection) was carried out inside the church. This seemingly 
minor detail would gain importance in the course of the trial.
14 The investigation phase preceding the actual trial, which was followed by other judicial rites (Povolo, 2004, 
45‒75). In fact, in the case of death of a bandit, it was the killer himself, presenting the dead man’s head, who 
asked that an investigation be launched which could validate his claim of the benefits provided. Of course, as it will 
be seen further on, Mircovich knew very well both the identity of the victim and the fact that he had been banished 
on the authority of the Council of Ten; but since he had learned that someone had witnessed the ambush, he most 
probably wanted to make sure they had not seen anything that could jeopardise this initial phase of investigation.
15 Probably involved in the killing, as can be observed further on. When questioned by the judge, he would 
state he was a distant relative of both the killed bandit and his killer.
16 “Per esser il buco fresco e il piombo similmente, che a questo cadavere gli sono state tirate delle archibugiate, ma 
che è gran cosa che non gli si ritrova nella vita alcun segnale che da quelle sia stato colto.” It emerges from this 
testimony and the very inspection of the corpse that several arquebus shots were fired that night against Nicolò 
Cassich but missed him. 
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
508
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Despite the absence of the head, the other four witnesses, Zuanne Maca, Do-
menico Cazzan, Zuanne Bellinich and Antonio Rumorich, testified under oath to 
have recognised the identity of the murdered man. Antonio Rumorich, not unlike the 
others, did not hesitate to certify that:
said body, which I can see here in the church, headless, along with the blood 
on the stone and even some mangled flesh, I knew it when it was alive: 
this was Nicolò Cassich of the late sir Francesco of Pag, a bandit, as it is 
publicly said; and I know that based on my knowledge of him when he was 
still alive.17
AN UNEXPECTED WITNESS
It emerges from the trial documents that the Church of St. Catherine was situ-
ated outside the town’s centre, where the Venetian representative resided and the 
main local institutions were located.18 The vicecancelliere and the vicecavaliere, 
accompanied by that large group of people, had thus been quick to arrive at the 
scene of the killing that had taken place the previous night. At least some of 
those witnesses, as it would inevitably emerge from the investigation itself, had 
also taken part in that veritable execution and rushed to report the incident to the 
competent authorities. And it was probably them who informed the vicegerent 
Francesco Mircovich of an unforeseen event that had occurred that night, prompt-
ing him to speed up the investigation that had only just been launched, on that 
same day, 24 March 1583:
Having learned from public knowledge that a foreigner, a poor man and 
beggar who goes about the town asking for bread in God’s name, was re-
sting last night in the aforesaid Church of St. Catherine together with the 
aforesaid Nicolò Cassich, the bandit who was killed, and that he could know 
the killers of said corpse […]. So that afterwards the will of His Serenity in 
similar cases of bandits killed within the boundaries can be fulfilled.19
17 “il detto corpo, qual vedo qui in chiesa senza testa e il sangue sulla pietra e pure pestato della carne, 
io l’ho conosciuto mentre era vivo, che si chiamava ed era Nicolò Cassich quondam messer France-
sco da Pago, bandito così come pubblicamente si dice; e questo io so per la cognizione che io aveva 
di lui quando era in humanis.”
18 The site where the little Church of St. Catherine once stood is that of present day Govejak, near Murvica 
(Murvice), where the town’s cemetery lies. Erected in the second half of the 14th century, the church was 
located about a kilometre from the town’s centre towards the north-west (Hilje, 2011, 158).
19 “Avendo inteso così per pubblica voce e fama come un forestiere poveruomo e mendico, che va mendi-
cando per la città e domandando pane per l’amor d’Iddio, è stato la prossima passata notte a riposare 
nella suddetta chiesa di Santa Caterina con il suddetto Nicolò Cassich bandito e ucciso e che lui può 
sapere gli uccisori del detto cadavere […]. Poi si possa eseguire il voler di Sua Serenità in simili casi 
di banditi uccisi dentro i confini.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
509
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
He thus ordered that the foreigner be tracked down and interrogated. His order 
was promptly executed by the vicecavaliere, who, however, pointed out that it would 
not be possible to conduct the interrogation at the place that was usually used for this 
purpose, since the cancelliere pretorio, who had left town a few days before together 
with the Venetian representative20, had taken with him the keys to the cancelleria 
(office).
But the vicegerent did not hesitate to proceed with the investigation, ordering 
that the interrogation be carried out anyway, in his presence, in the fiscal chamber of 
Pag.21 The foreigner was a young man from Romagna by the name of Ercole.22 The 
vicecancelliere barraged him with a series of questions: Why did he go outside the 
town walls the previous night and to that church? Did he know the man who had been 
killed? Did he know the man was a bandit? Had he come to town with him?
The young man promptly answered all the questions: he had decided to sleep in 
the Church of St. Catherine because he had been promised that the next morning a 
ship would collect him and take him as far as Karlobag.23 He had come to the church 
alone, but met a man there with whom he exchanged a few words and of whom 
he only remembered the name, Nicolò. The latter confessed to him that five years 
previously he had been banished from all the territories of the Venetian Republic. The 
young man was then urged to tell what had happened inside the church:
At three in the morning I was lying in the doorway of the church, trying to 
sleep; and as I lay there on the ground, I noticed a light enter the church; 
seeing that light I stood up and exclaimed “Jesus.” There were two fellows, 
one of them with a lighted candle in his hand. Then, shining the light around 
they also saw Nicolò, who was still lying on the ground on a slender slab that 
he had taken from the altar, because it was raining; that Nicolò said some-
thing that I did not understand, and the moment he said that, the aforesaid 
two men fired two arquebus shots at his body, but I don’t know if they hit 
them, because as soon as I heard the shots I ran out of the church.24
20 The Venetian patrician elected by the Great Council of Venice with the title of Conte, whose office lasted 
about 16 months. Before leaving for the island he had been required, together with his entourage, to take 
an oath before the Heads of the Council of Ten, swearing he would respect the local statuti et consuetudini 
(statutes and customs) and apply the commissioni (instructions) he had been entrusted.
21 Mircovich, as we will see, clearly proceeded already in agreement with the Venetian camerlengo (chamberlain).
22 Described as follows: “a man of average stature, slim, with a short blond beard; he looks around 25 years 
old, is wearing an old long jacket in homespun linen, yellow socks on his feet, and a white felt hat.”
23 A town on the Dalmatian coast opposite the Isle of Pag.
24 “Ritrovandomi collegato a ore tre di notte dentro l’uscio in chiesa per dormir; e così stando collegato in 
terra vidi un lume che entrò dentro la chiesa; e io vedendo tal lume mi levai in piedi dicendo ‘Iesus’. E 
erano due compagni, ma uno aveva la candela accesa in mano. Il che, avendo anche visto esso Nicolò detti 
compagni con il lume, che ancora lui era collegato in terra sopra una pianca, che aveva tolto giù dall’al-
tare, perché gli pioveva; qual Nicolò disse non so che parola che non gli intesi. E subito, ciò detto, ad un 
tempo dai predetti due gli furono sparate due archibugiate verso la vita di detto Nicolò, ma io non so se lo 
colsero, perché di subito, sentito che ebbi le archibugiate, fuggii via dalla chiesa.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
510
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Fleeing in all haste he instantly stumbled on a less than reassuring surprise:
And when I came out the door I ran into two other fellows waiting outside, 
one on each side of the door, holding a falchion or scimitar in their bare 
hands. So I fled and set out in the direction of the town; and having arrived 
at the port of Galliola, I found there the ship of your lordship vicegerent, 
loaded with salt, with a sailor aboard whom I don’t know, and I told him 
everything that had happened, as I have now told you, and begged his 
permission to come aboard for the night and rest there till the morning.25
He was also asked if he had recognised those men; which kind of weapons 
they had had; and whether the bandit had been hit by shots fired from the 
arquebuses inside the church. The young man cautiously replied:
I was sleeping far away from said Nicolò in the church and couldn’t see if 
he got hit, because, as I said, I ran out of the church immediately […]; last 
night I didn’t know, I only learned this morning that he had been killed, but 
since I don’t know the people here, I don’t know from whom I heard that.26
THE KILLER
That same day, the vicegerent Francesco Mircovich received at his residence 
Tommaso Pastorcich, a resident of the town of Pag, who informed him that his 
brother Zuanne, a bandit himself, killed Nicolò Cassich, whom he had tracked 
down “on this island near the Church of St. Catherine”27. As his procurator, 
Tommaso made a request that his brother be allowed to prove that he was the 
person who had carried out the killing and thus be relieved of the penalty of 
banishment.28 Mircovich, with whom the killer had clearly acted in full accord, 
granted Tommaso’s request. But since the temporary authority delegated to him 
by Daniele Moro, the Conte of Pag, had not been attested in writing, Mircovich 
immediately betook himself to the town, accompanied by Pastorcich, to the 
25 “E nell’uscire fuori dall’uscio ritrovai altri due compagni dietro all’uscio di fuori, uno da una 
parte e l’altro dall’altra, con una storta o scimitarra in mano nuda. E così fuggendo mi avviai 
alla volta della città; e essendo giunto al porto della Galliola ritrovai ivi la barca di vostra 
signoria vicegerente carica di sali, con un marinaio dentro, che non conosco, e gli dissi il suc-
cesso tutto, come di sopra ho detto, pregandolo che per quella notte mi accettasse in barca a 
riposare fino al giorno.”
26 “Io dormivo lontano dal detto Nicolò in chiesa e non ho potuto vedere se fu colto, perché, come 
dissi, fuggii di subito via dalla chiesa […]; ieri sera non l’intesi, se non questa mattina, che è 
stato ammazzato, ma io che non conosco la gente non so chi erano, che lo dicevano.”
27 He was careful not to say that the killing had taken place inside the church.
28 This demonstration, as will be seen further on, never came to be. But most likely, Pastorcich, 
using as witnesses the very people who had participated in the ambush, would have upheld the 
version that the bandit had been killed outside the church.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
511
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Monastery of St. Francis to ask the camerlengo Girolamo Battaglia29 for permis-
sion to jointly continue the investigation. Having received a confirmation in that 
regard, the investigation could proceed with the rapidity that had characterised 
it since the very beginning.
29 The camerlengo (chamberlain) was the patrician who attended the Venetian Conte as the person 
in charge of the fiscal chamber of Pag. It was an important role in view of the conspicuous in-
come generated by the saltworks, which represented virtually the entire economy of the island. 
The reports by the Venetian representatives repeatedly focussed on this aspect. See, for exam-
ple, the one titled Sindaci in Dalmazia [Inquisitors in Dalmatia] written in 1559 (Liubiċ, 1880, 
130‒131).
Fig. 2: Map of the town of Pag in 1780 (HR-DAZD-479, Zbirka rukopisa, M. 
L. Ruiċ, Delle riflessioni storiche: sopra l’antico stato civile ed ecclesiastico 
della città e isola di Pago. Vol. I, Rkp. 34/1). Based on the legend it is possible 
to identify the sites that were the theatre of the event described in these pages. 
Image published courtesy of the State Archives in Zadar (authorization no. 
2198-1-92-1-21-2).
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
512
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Still the same day, 24 March 1583, Tommaso Pastorcich presented a head on the 
pietra del bando30, asking that it be recognised by four witnesses; these, promptly 
questioned by the two vicegerents, testified without hesitation that it belonged to the 
bandit Nicolò Cassich.31
Thus, the matter seemed to have taken a favourable turn for the bandit’s killers, 
who could, to all appearances, rely on vicegerent Francesco Mircovich’s support. 
But something went awry; something related to the events of five years earlier that 
saw Cassich as a disputed protagonist had distilled into a knot of tension that now 
re-emerged dramatically with his violent death in that solitary church.
NICOLÒ CASSICH
The fate of Nicolò Cassich collided with that of patrician sir Marco Manolesso, 
elected in the autumn of 1575 by the Venetian Great Council to the position of the 
Conte of the Isle of Pag. As it seems, something went wrong between the two. The 
Venetian representative had probably failed to meet those standards of fairness and 
balance that were to inform his role as caring protector. A complex role, with cultural 
and political aspects distinguished in particular by the languages of friendship and 
honour, the fusion of which essentially manifest in the institutional physiognomy of 
the community and in the defence of its traditions and privileges.32
A minutely detailed report written in 1551 by Giovan Battista Giustinian, sindaco 
(a type of inquisitor) in Dalmatia and Albania, highlighted the fact that the local 
political system of the island was based on a complex balance between the local 
powers and the representative sent from Venice:
30 A stone in the town square from which official public announcements used to be made and on which the 
heads of executed bandits were displayed to be recognised and claimed.
31 Nicolò Gabioli, Zuanne Ancovich, Zuanne Bachan, and Antonio Rumorich of the late Luca. The 
latter had also been present at the inspection of the corpse. The recognition of the head of the bandit 
constituted the first phase in the process of obtaining the so-called voce liberar bandito (the right to 
release or be released from the banishment penalty, granted by a public institution to the claimant of 
the voce upon his proving through witnesses to be the killer of the bandit. The killer could use the 
certificate of pardon to plead for a release from his own penalty of banishment, or cede it to others 
for the liberation of some other bandit, in which case the voce became a negotiable instrument to be 
sold to the highest bidder). Then, the claimant of the bounties and such benefit would have to prove 
that they were actually the killer of the bandit (Povolo, 2018, 138‒139). The presence of the young 
beggar inside the church clearly complicated this second phase, which Pastorcich and his comrades 
could have otherwise artfully reconstructed, claiming that Cassich had been killed in the vicinity of 
the sacred place.
32 For the relationships of amicizia (friendship) and the role of Venetian rettore (governor) as a protet-
tore amorevole (caring protector), I refer to Povolo (2020a and 2020b). This role was inseparable 
from the governor’s ability to make his governance an expression of efficient amalgamation of 
the relations he forged with the local elites and the institutional and customary prerogatives of the 
community over which he governed. For other aspects concerning the Stato da mar, see O’Connell, 
2009, 56‒68. It was these types of abilities that favoured the cursus honorum of the patricians who 
mostly occupied the lower-middle ranks of the ruling class, allowing them to hold political offices 
of some importance.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
513
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
The inhabitants of the castrum are divided into commons and nobility, with only 
the latter being elected into the council and governing the commune, excluding 
the commons. They elect the sopracomito33 into their council, when so comman-
ded by the dominant city; and appoint their own judges and other ministers and 
public officials to churches, fonteghi34 and other administrative organs.
These were important offices, also emphasised by the role performed by the com-
mune in dispensing civil justice:
The judges of the minor court decide smaller matters; those of the superior court 
decide together with the magnificent Conte Zuanne Bondumier, but only in civil 
cases, whereas in criminal cases they have no say.
Various competences were allocated, which apparently accentuated the mutual re-
lationships between the local high-ranking families and the Venetian representative.35 
Giustinian did not fail to provide information even on the few prominent families of 
the island:
The noble families are: Spiercevich, Discovich, Mircovich and Cassich. Many 
others have become extinct. They are all poor, except for two houses, that of the 
Mircoviches and that of the Cassiches.
It was these two important families, the Mircoviches and the Cassiches, whom 
the Conte Marco Manolesso would have to measure himself against twenty years 
later.36 A sign placed in the communal loggia in July 1578 in celebration of his role as 
protettore seemed to reflect the positive results achieved by him in the course of his 
governance. In truth, that sign deliberately disregarded the fact that the political deci-
33 Captain of a galley.
34 A building that served as a warehouse and, often, accommodation for foreign merchants in maritime towns.
35 The administration of civil justice gave considerable discretion to the town council and to the fam-
ilies who managed its power. The Venetian Conte could potentially interfere in these dynamics 
through administration of criminal justice, as probably happened with Marco Manolesso. For Gius-
tinian’s report, see Ljubiċ, 1880, 258‒261. During the 16th century, the competence of the governor 
and the commune developed in ways much more complex than was foreseen by the commissioni 
guiding the rettori in their office (Cozzi, 1982, 253; O’Connell, 2009, 80). The various authors who 
focussed on the island’s economy stressed its poverty, but also its resources deriving from the salt-
pans: an aspect that made relations with the dominant centre particularly intense and important. See 
Panciera, 2014, 114.
36 Marco Manolesso belonged to that middle stratum of aristocracy to which the Quarantias were also 
related. His career following the appointment to Pag did not seem to be particularly brilliant: castel-
lano (chatelaine) in Chiusa in 1580, Old and New Civil Quarantias in 1587, 1589, 1592, 1594, and 
1597; College of Twenty Wise Men in 1587 and 1594; provveditore (administrator) of Gambarare in 
1590; counsellor in Cephalonia in 1597 (BNM-I7: n. 829 [=8908], reg. 17, c. 268; n. 830 [=8909], 
reg. 18, cc. 77, 86; n. 831 [=8910], reg. 19, cc. 55, 122, 287, 397, 462; n. 832 [=8911], reg. 20, c. 38; 
BMC-PDV: reg. 67, cc. 11, 116). I am indebted to my friend Vittorio Mandelli for this information.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
514
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
sions enacted by the Venetian Conte had marked a deep rift within the community. 
On 10 July 1578, as the town council hastened to report, a libello famoso (defamatory 
leaflet) denouncing Manolesso appeared in the middle of the night:
attached with wax to a corner of this palace, under his coat of arms, which 
overlooks the public square. For which reason, all the nobility, the burghers, 
the commoners, and other people of any sex and station in this town and the 
foreigners who were also there, rose in great discontent over and condemnation 
of the nameless and most deceitful offender.37
Praising the governance of the Venetian representative and the equilibrium and 
honesty that characterised his decisions, the representatives of the commune38 offered 
the sum of 100 ducats to anyone who would report the author of the leaflet, although 
scarcely anyone on the island could be unaware of his identity. Although written, per-
haps deliberately, in a hesitant and ungrammatical vernacular, those words unequivo-
cally referred to certain decisions taken by Manolesso during his office in Pag.39
To his letter of 21 July 1578 addressed to the Heads of the Council of Ten, Marco 
Manolesso enclosed the ruling of the commune and a copy of the defamatory leaflet, 
requesting that the case be heard by the rettori of Zadar. Given the gravity of the 
offence,40 his request was promptly granted. From the sentence of banishment passed 
by them on Nicolò Cassich on 24 May 1579 it is possible to infer the conflicting 
dynamics that emerged in the chief town of the island:
As if it had not sufficed him to have at various times and places found fault 
with the magnificent sir Marco Manolesso, then Conte of Pag, and threatened 
him, for having been banished by His Magnificence for his demerits, to go to 
37 “Con cera attaccato sopra un cantone di questo palazzo e sotto la sua arma che guarda sopra la 
piazza pubblica. Per la qual cagione tutta la nobiltà, i cittadini, il popolo e altri di ogni sesso e 
ogni stato in questa città e i forestieri ancora che si sono trovati, si hanno sollevati a grandissima 
mormorazione e dannazione contro l’incognito e falsissimo delinquente.”
38 The judges and procuratori (procurators) of the commune who proposed the ruling were: Francesco 
Cassich, Antonio Xorolich, Zorzi Bellinich, Vicenzo Palladinich.
39 “Marcho Manoleso l’è chonte da Paigo, l’ha abudo in gola de sti malandrini perché manigo rosto e 
leso, perchè Marcho manaleso vituperoso, omo indeigno da governar sta tera, l’é bon a zrafar, non 
fa igusticiga, anco di quel Zuane Faca, di quel ladro provado, perché i ge deti in gola, chome ancho 
questi malfatori fuzindo loro, o Marcho Manoleso non governar tante chure, e non quela tera da 
Pago.” ASV-CX, Comuni, filza 134, document enclosed to the parte of 29 October 1578, together 
with the ruling of the commune of Pag and Marco Manolesso’s dispatch. Despite the unsteady writ-
ing, the threat made against the Venetian representative in relation to his continuation of political 
activity is unmistakable, a threat that evinced a profound knowledge of the logic steering the rela-
tionships between Venice and the centres subordinate to it.
40 The offence was that of lese-majesty, which unquestionably marked a sharp divergence between the 
logic of the local power and that of the Venetian ruling class. And it would be highlighted as such by 
the patrician who later acquired the voce liberar bandito from Pastorcich to more easily obtain his 
own liberation from the Heads of the Council of Ten.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
515
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Venice and make sure that he would not be elected to any office again by pur-
posefully spreading slander and damaging the reputation of his unimpeachable 
superior, he arrogantly demonstrated his sentiment to His Magnificence, thus 
taking vengeance for his other grievances. Finally, on the past 10 July, he had 
the audacity to affix to the corner of the municipal palace of Pag, under the 
coat of arms of the magnificent Manolesso, a calumnious leaflet, i.e., libello 
famoso, unjustly defaming and insulting his lord and superior.41
41 “Non contento di aver in diversi tempi e luoghi dolutosi del magnifico signor Marco Manolesso, allora 
conte di Pago, e minacciatogli, per esser stato bandito da sua magnificenza per suoi demeriti, di andar 
a Venezia per fare che non avesse più reggimenti, con fine di disseminare calunnie ed intaccare l’onore 
di esso suo innocente superiore, ha etiam arrogantemente procurato di far intender tale suo animo 
a sua magnificenza, perché delle altre cose processate contro detto Nicolò restasse di far giustizia. 
Con avergli poi bastato l’animo sotto li dieci di luglio prossimo passato attaccare sopra il canton del 
palazzo del reggimento di Pago, sotto l’arma di detto magnifico Manolesso, un cartello vituperoso, 
ovvero libello famoso, infamando ingiustamente e vituperando detto suo signore e superiore.” ASV-
CX, Comuni, filza 157, sentence enclosed to the parte of 26 September 1584.
Fig. 3: The town of Pag. The palace that used to be the residence of the Venetian 
Conte (photo by E. Hilje), on which Nicolò Cassich in 1578 posted a libello famoso 
against sir Marco Manolesso.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
516
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Most likely, Marco Manolesso had banished Cassich because of dissensions 
arisen in the management of the local power. Cassich’s banishment penalty, ac-
cording to the justice administered by the Conte, was limited to the Isle of Pag 
and the customary fifteen miles beyond its boundaries.42 Still, it had forced him to 
abandon his business and his interests. A sentence that was deemed unjust by Cas-
sich, so much so that it led him to confront the Venetian rettore and threaten that 
he would go to Venice to report him for abuse of power. And since the commune, 
governed by an opposing faction, decreed that in honour of the patrician who was 
leaving the island a sign be erected on the façade of the town’s communal palace, 
Nicolò Cassich decided to blatantly express his dissent. It was an act openly 
declaring that Marco Manolesso had failed in his role of protettore amorevole, as 
Cassich’s decision to go to Venice and report the alleged abuse of power commit-
ted by Manolesso during his governance seems to suggest.
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE HEAD
Although the two vicegerents decided to promptly proceed with the investiga-
tion so as to decree in the end the alleged legitimacy of Pastorcich’s request, an 
unexpected event forced them to revise their plan. On that same day, 24 March 1583, 
they declared to have heard rumours of someone wanting to steal the head from the 
pietra del bando on which it was displayed in order to pervert the course of justice 
and prevent the obtainment of the benefits provided for the claimant. To avert that, 
they sent the vicecavaliere Matteo Bersinoga to the town square to publish a public 
notice that was to dissuade anyone contemplating such action:
Upon the order and mandate of the illustrious sir camerlengo and sir Francesco 
Mircovich, vicegerents and representatives of the illustrious sir Conte, it is made 
known to everyone, be they of any rank, station or position, that they should not dare 
or in any way presume it is lawful to remove and take away from the pietra del bando 
the head of the bandit Nicolò Cassich of the late sir Francesco, killed within the 
boundaries by Zuanne Pastorcich, on whose behalf it has been presented in the public 
square by sir Tommaso, his brother.43
42 Such banishment penalty was usually imposed by the ordinary judicial authority of the representative of Venice, 
based on the local statutes and customs and could at times include the so-called quattro luoghi (the territories of 
four localities: Oriago, Lizzafusina, Bottenigo and Gambarare). When inclusive of Venice and its Dogado it was 
to be considered perpetual (Morari, 1708, 84‒88). On a formal level, Venice would generally grant a wide discre-
tion to the rettori it sent to Dalmatia, especially in criminal matters. A discretion which, nevertheless, still had to 
comply with the provisions of local statutes (Orlando, 2013, 30‒31). But the essential province that not even the 
Conte himself could afford to neglect was that of careful preservation of the local equilibrium.
43 “Di ordine e mandato del clarissimo signor camerlengo e il signor Francesco Mircovich, vicegerenti e rappresentanti 
del clarissimo signor Conte, si fa sapere a chiara intelligenza di ciascuno e sia di che grado, stato e condizione esser 
si voglia non ardisca, né presuma per qualsivoglia modo farsi lecito alcuno di togliere e portar via la testa, posta e 
presentata alla pietra del bando in pubblica piazza, del quondam Nicolò Cassich quondam messer Francesco, bandito 
e dentro i confini ucciso per Zuanne Pastorcich, a nome del qual messer Tommaso suo fratello l’ha presentata.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
517
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Bersinoga readily obeyed the order, executing it in the presence of a “great mul-
titude of people,” but shortly thereafter he had to report to the two vicegerents that
Shortly after his arrival at the square, Marga, the housekeeper of sir priest Vido 
Cassich, came there, grabbed the head displayed on the pietra del bando and took 
it away ‒ as far as he could understand ‒ to the main church.44
It is therefore quite probable that while the two vicegerents were at the Monastery 
of St. Francis, busy gathering the testimonies of the men who had come forward on 
44 “Ritrovatosi in piazza or ora è venuta Marga, massara di messer pre Vido Cassich, e aver tolto e portato 
via la testa qual ut supra era presentata sopra la pietra del bando e quella aver inteso che l’ha presentata 
in chiesa grande.”
Fig. 4: Town of Pag: Church of Saint Mary of Assumption (photo by E. Hilje). It was 
inside this church that the head of Nicolò Cassich was hidden, shortly after it had 
been put on display on the pietra del bando in the town’s main square.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
518
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Pastorcich’s behalf to identify the head of the bandit, the people had rushed to the 
square to demonstrate their strong objection to the killing of a member of their com-
munity who most certainly was not perceived as a dangerous offender. And a house 
servant, sent there by the relatives of the murdered man, took care of removing the 
head of Nicolò Cassich. It was a resounding statement by someone who disapproved 
not only of the killing of the bandit itself, but also of how and where it had been 
carried out.
The removal of the head from a public town square was also an expression of 
explicit disapproval of the investigation being conducted with such urgency, in the 
absence of the town’s supreme representative and on behalf of a member of the local 
elite who appeared to be moving in phase with Cassich’s killers.45
In vain did the two vicegerents try to regain possession of the stolen head. First 
they sent the vicecavaliere to the main church in town, where, after speaking with the 
two brothers of the dead bandit, whom he found sauntering inside, he learned that the 
head had been locked away in the sacristy and they had no idea where the servant was. 
Shortly afterwards he returned to the church and forwarded to the Cassich brothers a 
new and threatening command issued by the vicegerents, but despite being warned of 
severe punishments they told the vicecavaliere they had no intention to deal with the 
issue. Theirs was a manifestation of open protest against what had happened and the 
way the investigation was being conducted. 
EXPEDIENTS
The next day (25 March), Tommaso Pastorcich came to vicegerent Francesco Mir-
covich to have him take note of the law passed by the Council of Ten on 10 September 
1582 which, among other things, provided that a bandit could regain freedom by 
killing another bandit.46 The purpose of this move was to unequivocally highlight the 
fact that the killing of Nicolò Cassich had been made possible precisely by virtue of 
a decision adopted by the supreme Venetian body.
However, the series of events that had taken place on March 24, culminating 
in the removal of the head of the dead bandid, had demonstrated the weakness of 
the action undertaken by the local authorities in the face of the unexpected reaction 
of the community. Thus, on 26 March, Pastorcich sought to prove, firstly, that his 
brother was Cassich’s killer through the testimony of several people who would have 
seen the head of the bandit at his house;47 and secondly, that the head, after it had 
45 Only a thorough study of the local documents could clarify the role of the murdered man’s kin in organising 
the dissent that caught the men at the helm of the local council unprepared. The difficulties subsequently en-
countered by the two vicegerents and the Pastorciches in gathering testimonies that could corroborate their 
assertions suggest there was a certain opposition among the various social strata of the local community.
46 To be exact, the law of 1582 was a derivative of that of 1580, which had marked a genuine turning point in 
the battle against banditry (Povolo, 1997, 157‒158, 200).
47 Avoiding this way a formal request to prove, by way of witnesses, that the killing had been his doing and that 
it had taken place within the boundaries defined in the banishment penalty at a precise place indicated by him.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
519
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
been displayed on the pietra del bando, had been taken away by the housekeeper of 
the Cassich brothers.48 But there were scarcely any witnesses who came forward to 
corroborate his first claim and whose testimony could be taken as some indication 
that it was indeed Zuanne Pastorcich who killed Nicolò Cassich. Nicolò Mircovich49 
testified that on 24 March he had been prompted by the wife of Zuanne Pastorcich to 
come by her house:
And when I came there I saw that Zuanne Pastorcich was in the house;50 he had 
an arquebus, a cleaver and a dagger there. Pastorcich, sir Zuanne said to me: 
‘Sir Nicolò, do you know that last night I cut off the head of Nicolò Cassich to 
help myself?’ Surprised by his words, I then replied: ‘How can that be? I don’t 
believe it.’ And immediately said Zuanne called me over and said: ‘Come here 
and I’ll show you the truth.’ Then he went to his room and pulled that head 
out of a sack. I was stunned, for he was my relative. And Pastorcich asked me 
if he could help himself with that head. I said: ‘I don’t know,” and left. […]. 
Pastorcich told me that he had killed him, and this because he had understood 
that said Cassich had said to want to put himself to rights again with the head of 
Pastorcich, and that he had forced himself to do it.51
Given that Nicolò Mircovich was notoriously an enemy of Cassich, the at-
tempt to prove, albeit indirectly, that Zuanne Pastorcich was the killer of Nicolò 
Cassich resulted essentially in a failure. Thus that same 26 March, Zuanne’s 
brother Tommaso opened a new front, claiming that Cassich, during his ban-
ishment, had entertained relationships with the dreaded Uskoks. This was a 
seriously grave claim, for Venice was in open conflict with those dangerous 
pirates. Although the inhabitants of the island were not above a modest eco-
nomic exchange with them, the presence of Uskoks was a source of continuous 
48 However, his only alleged witness failed to turn up.
49 Mircovich, although claiming to be related to Cassich through his wife and his mother, appeared from some 
testimonies to be one of his sworn enemies.
50 Since Pastorcich was himself a bandit, Mircovich wanted to stress that the encounter had taken him by surprise.
51 “E giunto alla porta vidi che esso Zuanne Pastorcich era in detta casa sua; e aveva un archibugio, 
una cortella e un pugnale, il quale Pastorcich messer Zuanne mi disse ragionando meco: ‘Messer 
Nicolò sapete voi qualmente io ieri sera ho tagliato la testa a Nicolò Cassich per aiutarmi?’ Io al-
lora, ciò sentendo, sbrigatomi di tal ragionamento, gli dissi: ‘Come è possibile? Ciò non credo?’. 
Subito esso Zuanne mi chiamò e disse: ‘Venite qui e io vi mostrerò la verità’. Dove, andato in camera 
sua, cavò fuori da una saccoccia essa testa. Allora rimasi stupefatto, per esser mio parente. E esso 
Pastorcich mi domandò se si poteva con quella aiutarsi. Io gli dissì: ‘Non so’, e mi partii […]. Esso 
Pastorcich mi ha detto che l’ha ammazzato e questo perché aveva inteso che il detto Cassich aveva 
detto che si voleva acconciare con la testa di lui Pastorcich e che sforzatamente aveva ciò operato.” 
This testimony clearly wants to justify Pastorcich’s actions before the community. Nicolò Cesse, the 
other witness called to make a deposition on this point refused to corroborate Pastorcich’s claim: “It 
was already some days ago, I don’t remember when exactly, but it was a day in this past Lent period, 
that sir Zuanne Pastorcich, who was at home at the time, called me to come over; I didn’t want to go 
nor did I know what he wanted of me nor have I seen the head.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
520
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
tensions (Bracewell, 2010, 84–85, 99, 222–223, 274).52 But even on this point 
witnesses who could provide any concrete evidence were scarce.53
In the meantime, on 4 April 1583, the Conte Daniele Moro returned to Pag. 
Tommaso Pastorcich, dissatisfied with the poor results achieved in the previous 
days, changed his strategy and produced a new argument with which he directly 
attacked the person of Nicolò Cassich, suggesting that he was a dangerous man 
and a disturber of the public peace. According to Tommaso, on the past 17 
March,54 Nicolò had come into town fully armed and forcibly entered the house 
of Margherita, his spouse, who 
unsure about the law,55 jumped out of the window onto the public street, 
badly hurting her leg, so that at present she is in bed in the home of re-
spectable sir Antonio Xorolich56 recovering from the fall; since the late 
Nicolò Cassich was left alone in the house, he had the opportunity to take 
some of his wife’s belongings, he locked the door and took money and other 
things from the chest […]. And that same day, when he left the house, the 
late Nicolò, armed as I said above, left the town through the gate of St. 
Velinac.57
And on the 24th day of the same month, added Tommaso Pastorcich, despite 
his banishment penalty, Cassich had again trespassed beyond the boundaries he 
was prohibited to cross and was killed by his (Pastorcich’s) brother. This veritable 
subterfuge allowed Pastorcich to avoid having to specify the exact place where 
the bandit was killed, while portraying Cassich as a dangerous man and a source 
of unrest in the town.
52 For the intense economic and social relationships between the Christian and Ottoman worlds in the region 
of Dalmatia, I refer to Ivetic, 2013, 140‒141.
53 The only testimony of any relevance was that of Angelo Ifcich, who recalled that two years previ-
ously, as he was taking a walk, he had seen Cassich on a rock and “there was a large number of 
Uskoks […]. And then these Uskoks plundered a large amount of animals from the Turks.” Whereas 
Zuanne Cassich, who ‒ as it has been already speculated ‒ may have participated in the ambush laid 
in the night of that past 23 March, declared: “I never saw the late Nicolò Cassich di Molini associate 
with the Uskoks nor go claiming and plundering anything with them from the Turks.”
54 A week before his death, that is.
55 It is telling that the testimony does not say that the woman fled out of fear of the husband, but rather 
of the possible legal implications, seeing that he was a bandit. It is likely that references to any threats 
from her husband were avoided because that could have suggested that she was involved in a love 
affair with one of the locals.
56  One of the judges who passed the decision on Cassich in 1578.
57 “dubitandosi della giustizia, saltò fuori dalla finestra in strada pubblica e si sinistrò una gamba 
malamente, così come oggi, da tal buttarsi dalla finestra, è a letto in casa dello spettabile messer 
Antonio Xorolich; e vistosi il detto quondam Nicolò Cassich esser rimasto solo in casa e avere 
comodità di togliere delle robe di essa sua moglie, serrata prima la porta e andato alle casse e 
tolto da quelle denari e altre cose […]. E poi il detto giorno, uscito fuori di casa il detto quondam 
Nicolò armato come di sopra, andò fuori della città per la porta di San Velinaz.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
521
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Once more, Nicolò Mircovich58 fully corroborated Pastorcich’s version, 
stating that when he was at the store of Luca Giuricievich he heard someone 
screaming that Nicolò Cassich had killed his wife and
hearing that I jumped into the street and saw that Orazio from Karlobag 
was holding donna Margherita, wife of said Nicolò Cassich, who was 
complaining of a broken foot. Afterwards I went to the house of said donna 
Margherita to see if she was alright, taking my arquebus with me, and I 
saw aforesaid sir Nicolò Cassich standing on the balcony; as soon as he 
saw me he withdrew inside. Then I went home and he sent someone over to 
tell me to have faith and not give him any trouble, for he would not touch 
anything.59
This testimony, which could not conceal the deep enmity between the two 
men, was meant to attest to the violent behaviour of Cassich. Giorgio Giuriciev-
ich also attested to having heard shouts in the square and that, having hurried 
there, he found Cassich’s wife, who was lamenting. He accompanied her to the 
house of Antonio Xorolich and headed to the apothecary:
And I saw in the house of said donna Margherita, on the balcony, sir Nicolò 
Cassich of the late sir Francesco, who had been banished from lands and 
places, and when we talked I told him that Nicolò Mircovich was waiting for 
him with an arquebus because he did not want him to take anything out of the 
house or he would have killed him, to which Cassich replied that he hadn’t 
taken anything and had only come to see his wife.60
This testimony tended to weaken the claims of Nicolò Mircovich and, in 
truth, many other witnesses limited themselves to relating the presence of Cas-
sich at the house of his spouse, stressing how evidently he regretted her fleeing 
and falling. Marin Bellotich reported to have seen and heard the bandit Nicolò 
Cassich 
58 This testimony, like those subsequent, was heard on 12 April 1583, a week after the return of 
the Conte.
59 “ciò sentendo saltai fuori dove vidi che Orazio da Scissa teneva madonna Margherita moglie di 
esso Nicolò Cassich e si lamentava che aveva rotto un piede. Andato poi alla casa di essa ma-
donna Margherita per veder che non le succedesse danno, avendo prima preso l’archibugio, vidi 
messer Nicolò Cassich suddetto che era al balcon; e vedutomi si tirò dentro. Di poi andai a casa 
mia e lui mi mandò a dire che gli dessi la fede di non fargli dispiacere perché non avrebbe toccato 
cosa alcuna.”
60 “E vidi in casa di essa madonna Margherita, cioè al balcone, messer Nicolò Cassich quondam 
messer Francesco, il quale era bandito di terre e luoghi, che ragionando con lui disse che messer 
Nicolò Mircovich capo l’aspettava con l’archibugio perché non intendeva portasse roba via fuori di 
casa, altrimenti l’avrebbe ammazzato, per il che lui Cassich mi rispose che lui non le aveva portato 
via di casa cosa alcuna, ma che era venuto da sua moglie.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
522
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
who was at the house of Margherita, his wife, here in the territory of Pag, it 
could have been around two in the afternoon; I hadn’t seen him leave or enter the 
territory, he was alone, talking to Orazio, the soldier from Karlobag, and saying 
he regretted that his wife had jumped over the balcony and that he hadn’t done 
anything to hurt her.61
The head stolen from the pietra del bando had triggered an almost surreal repre-
sentation, shifting the attention and the interest of the authorities and the community 
at large from the killing of Nicolò Cassich to his controversial image, which the 
banishment penalty clearly had not managed to damage completely. It is probable that 
the interests of Cassich’s adversarial kin and of his killers coincided with that of the 
Venetian representative, who had every interest in putting an end to an episode that 
could further inflame the minds, threatening to spill over the boundaries of the island 
and eventually reach the “most serene city.”
However, the issue was not only the stolen head, but also and even more so that 
the killing had been committed in a sacred place dedicated to the worship of a saint 
and to the supernatural world of which she was a revered intermediary. This was an 
unacceptable event, even sacrilegious, which could stir up divine wrath ‒ one which, 
ultimately, could not be ignored.
BETWEEN THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE
For centuries, churches and the adjacent space were considered sacred ground 
that provided protection to anyone seeking refuge in them.62 Particularly during the 
Middle Ages, they guaranteed immunity even to people who would take refuge in 
them after committing a crime:
The fugitive might be required to pay a fine, forfeit his goods, perform penance, 
or go into exile, but almost without exception his body and his life were to be 
preserved. (Shoemaker, 2011, 169–172)
The purpose of such protection was essentially to break the circle of vio-
lence and retaliation which had its roots mostly in the widespread networks of 
enmity and vendettas characterising mediaeval and early modern societies. In 
political and social contexts in which the resolution of conflicts was entrusted 
61 “che era in casa di Margherita sua moglie, qui nella terra di Pago, che questo poteva esser due ore 
di giorno, né l’ho veduto uscire, nemmeno entrare nella terra, solum ragionava con Orazio soldato 
di Scrissa, dicendo che gli dispiaceva che sua moglie si avesse gettata fuori dal balcone e che non le 
aveva fatto dispiacere.”
62 A controversial and overcenturies diversely interpreted matter: “The material refuge provided by altars 
and temples and cemeteries, which have always been respected by cultured peoples as repositories of the 
wretched remains of common humanity, was extended to sacred fields, vast enclosures attached to churches 
and, where these were lacking, to a large adjacent space.” (Cristiani, 1766, 7)
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
523
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
to parental and community structures or regulated by a judicial system not es-
sentially characterised by punitive instances, the sanctuary had the function of 
containing violence and facilitating a phase of truce and peace (Schuster, 2003, 
62–63). Such holy and parental dimension to the right of sanctuary, notably from 
the beginning of the 16th century onwards, was eroded by secular power, which 
introduced an important series of exceptions, particularly in relation to crimes 
considered particularly grave (Shoemaker, 2011, 169–172).63 Although the matter 
was interpreted in controversial ways,64 sanctuary was nevertheless granted even 
to people who had been banished from a certain territory, as long as they had not 
committed any particularly grave crime.65
Nicolò Cassich had been banished for the crime of lese-majesty,66 deemed one of 
the most grave and in relation to which neither ecclesiastical nor secular authorities 
were willing to guarantee the right of sanctuary. But what was the perception of 
the community from which he had been permanently excluded following the severe 
sentence passed by a judicial authority that invoked an eminently political logic?67 
It is very likely that his reaction to the Conte Marco Manolesso had been at least 
understood if not justified by a part of the community of which he was a member. 
Had not that Venetian governor ultimately failed in his role of protettore amorevole, 
imprudently interfering in the dynamics of local enmities or, worse still, arbitrar-
63 In this regard, the author recalls attention to some statements made by the jurist Giulio Claro 
as well as the bull issued by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, which granted secular authorities the 
power to remove from the sacred ground persons accused of grave crimes. The matter was 
nevertheless subject to various interpretations, as jurist and cardinal Giovan Battista De Luca 
observed in relation to famoso ladrone (robber operating in the public street), who was theoreti-
cally excluded from the sanctuary: “Modern writers are in error to interpret the law according 
to letter alone, when, as we have said, it should be interpreted according to the spirit, i.e., the 
purpose or reason behind the law […]. If there should be a peasant bandit who disturbs the 
Republic with blackmail and retaliation and other grave damages, but who, in an impulse of 
honour, which is customary even among thieves, would not deign to go out and rob in a public 
street, he should not be considered as included in this exception. However, everything should 
be interpreted with due discretion and prudence, considering (as we said) principally the spirit 
rather than the letter of the law.” (De Luca, 1673, 32‒33). Paolo Sarpi, a legal consultant, had 
a much different opinion, invoking in his writings a firm intervention of secular powers that 
would drastically limit the right of sanctuary, much more severely than it had been proposed in 
the bull of Pope Gregory XIV (Pin, 2021, 111‒112).
64 Giovan Battista De Luca remarked: “The great diversity of laws and styles of princedoms makes it 
quite impossible to establish definite and general rules that would be universally applicable.” (De 
Luca, 1673, 12).
65 “If the exiled and banished have not committed any of the crimes excepted, they also enjoy ecclesi-
astical impunity, as Giulio Claro and others claim, including, later, Prospero Farinacci” (Perrimezzi, 
1731, 59‒60). 
66 De Luca himself, when reflecting on the eccezioni (exceptions) cited in Pope Gregory’s bull and 
interpreting them in the spirit of the law, remarked about the crime of lese-majesty: “it is not very 
likely that a person under investigation for the type of lese-majesty described in the bull, unless 
manifestly insane, would want to reduce his safety to such sanctuary” (De Luca, 1673, 28). 
67  Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that Cassich, having been previously banished by the Venetian 
Conte, was certainly not in a most favourable position to produce a defence.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
524
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
ily pursuing his own personal gain? And that killing in the church, could it not, in 
turn, have been seen as a true violation of that right of sanctuary which not even a 
bandit could be denied? Tradition and customs regarded the sacred ground as a space 
in which the law was not allowed to interfere and, moreover, a space which even 
the conflicting dynamics driven by enmities should consider as the insurmountable 
limit. The threshold of the sacred place, even before becoming an inalienable right of 
sanctuary, symbolically denoted the entrance to the supernatural world.
However, during the 16th century the political and social climate underwent 
a profound change. The legislation on banditry adopted by the Council of Ten 
reflected fear of a phenomenon that had to be unreservedly contained; in particular 
because robberies and assaults on couriers carrying valuables had become much 
more frequent. Ravages of private possessions and property were often carried out 
for reasons of retaliation and vendetta. The granting of rewards and benefits quickly 
spread across the state, finding foothold in the web of animosities that still deeply 
permeated the society of that time.68 It was inevitable that sacred grounds them-
selves would become a space no longer impenetrable and that increased conflicts 
between antagonistic groups would extend even to within the very churches.69 It 
is no coincidence that Tommaso Pastorcich, to condone the cruel killing of Nicolò 
Cassich, would rush to submit to the magistrate clerk’s office a copy of the 1582 
law that granted freedom to a bandit who killed another person inflicted with a 
similar banishment sentence.
But the removal of Cassich’s head was most probably an expression of the dis-
sent in relation to his tragic killing at the hands of those who were considered his 
enemies in collusion with Venetian authorities. His killers had done everything to 
depict Nicolò Cassich as a dangerous bandit and, above all, they aspired to obtain the 
rewards and benefits promised by exploiting his severe sentence. His killing on sacred 
ground could ultimately be condoned given the political and social climate ignited 
towards the end of the century. In spite of the reluctance among some members of the 
community to validate this action, the Venetian Conte Daniele Moro was certainly 
inclined to close this matter and grant the requests made by Cassich’s killers, as he 
had not opposed the formulation of those arguing points which, in truth, did not really 
address the dynamics that had led to the bandit’s death.
THE “MIRACLE” OF ST. CATHERINE
But there was at least one issue to address, if not solve, before granting Pas-
torcich his benefits. Had the killing taken place on the threshold of the church 
68 The killing of a bandit sentenced to the penalty of banishment thus became entirely legal, as one’s enemy 
had become an enemy and opponent of the State. Citing self-defence as a reason, it was possible for a 
person to obtain a gun licence, which was extended to their whole suite, and set out on a veritable manhunt 
after the bandit turned public enemy. It seems obvious therefore that even sacred grounds could become 
settings of the most brutal violence (Povolo, 2018, 139‒142).
69 For a more extensive record of cases, cf. Carroll & Cecchinato, 2019, 573‒575.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
525
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
or inside it?70 How to justify an attack so cruel on sacred ground? Naturally, 
with a skilful manoeuvre that in the end, paradoxically, took on the contours of 
a miracle. Two witnesses, who had almost certainly participated in the bloody 
ambush were called on 16 April 1583 to testify in the presence of the Venetian 
Conte in relation to an all but insignificant question that had probably been put 
and suggested to them by the Pastorcich brothers: was Nicolò Cassich killed 
outside or inside the church?71
The first to depose was Zuanne Cassich, who, as we have seen, had been 
present at the inspection of the corpse. He said:
I know, having gone to see this corpse before sir Zuanne Giardulich conducted 
the inspection, that said corpse was outside the church. Then I entered the 
church and saw that the stone where the priest stands in the middle of the altar 
was stained with blood. And I saw there a piece of flesh from the neck and I 
even recognised a piece of brain. When I was called to witness [the inspection] 
by the vicecancelliere and went there with him, said body was not there, it had 
been dragged into the church; but I don’t know if the man was killed inside or 
outside the church.72
Antonio Rumorich, who was also a witness to the inspection, testified:
It is true that before the inspection of the dead body of the late Nicolò was 
carried out, I saw his body outside the church, near the door, because the bruises 
from the blows when his head was cut off were visible, the ground was trampled 
and blood could be seen. Afterwards, sir Zuanne Giardulich made the inspection 
and said body had been carried into the church […]. I don’t know if said late 
Nicolò was killed in the church or outside the church […]. When I first saw him 
he was outside the church.73
70 The threshold which – as the young beggar realised – was guarded by two men armed with a scimitar.
71 The killers could rely on the fact that the beggar they surprised that night inside the church 
fled in a hurry as soon as had heard arquebus shots, without recognising the men participating 
in the ambush.
72 “So che, essendo io andato a veder questo cadavere, prima che messer Zuanne Giardulich togliesse 
il viso reperto, il qual cadavere era fuori dalla chiesa. E poi entrato in chiesa vidi la pietra dove sta 
il prete in piedi per mezzo l’altare qual era insanguinata. E vidi un pezzo di carne di collo e anche 
ho conosciuto un pezzo di cervello. Di poi, chiamato per testimone con il vicecancelliere, essendo 
andato, ivi non era il detto corpo, ma tirato in chiesa, ma però non so se è stato ammazzato in chiesa 
o fuori.”
73 “E’ vero che prima di quello fu tolto il viso reperto del cadavere del quondam Nicolò, il corpo del 
quale io l’ho veduto fuori della chiesa, appresso le porte, perché si vedeva le botte che erano state 
date nel tagliar la testa, che era pestata la terra e si vedeva il sangue. Di poi messer Zuanne Giar-
dulich andò a togliere il viso reperto e il detto corpo era stato menato in chiesa […]. Mi non so se il 
detto quondam Nicolò è stato ammazzato in chiesa, ovvero fuori di chiesa […]. Lo vedessi fuori di 
chiesa la prima volta.”
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
526
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Surprisingly, that headless body appeared to have, miraculously and at its own 
initiative, dragged itself into the church. Of course, the two witnesses could no 
longer hide having been part of the group who had killed Nicolò Cassich, as they 
met that night near the Church of St. Catherine. Zuanne Cassich had seen the 
corpse outside that sacred place, but he did not add that it was missing the head. 
He had also noticed the trail of blood and flesh near the altar. When he returned 
with the vicecancelliere, the corpse had been put inside the church. Antonio 
Rumorich provided a very different account: he said he had noticed the headless 
corpse outside and added particulars that seemed to confirm that Cassich had 
been killed there. But he never said to have entered the building.74 Indeed, the two 
testimonies seemed to contradict one another, for Zuanne Cassich reported that 
the traces of that cruel killing were plainly visible inside the church.75 Both con-
curred, however, that after their leaving someone dragged Cassich’s body inside 
the sacred building. But none of them wanted to openly confirm that the killing 
had been carried out on this side or the other of the threshold of the sacred place. 
If, as is quite probable, they took part in the ambush, their testimonies aimed at 
indirectly corroborating Pastorcich’s words, ascribing to others the subsequent 
moving of the corpse to within the church.
Still, that was already enough. The following day Daniele Moro granted Tommaso 
Pastorcich the fede (certificate) of the killing carried out by his brother and on 26 
April forwarded the prepared case file to Avogaria di Comun (public prosecution). 
On 18 August 1583, Zuanne Pastorcich formally delegated the power of attorney 
to his brother Tommaso, authorising him to cede and sell the benefit obtained from 
the Conte of Pag for the sum of money that he would deem appropriate. And finally, 
in a notary act drawn up on 29 September 1584, Tommaso Pastorcich declared to 
have ceded the acquired right to the Venetian patrician Luca Tron, who, after several 
unsuccessful attempts, in December 1585 finally managed to obtain his liberation 
from the Council of Ten.76
Zuanne Pastorcich had evidently renounced the possibility of obtaining 
release from his own banishment penalty: perhaps out of desire for profit; or, 
simply because he felt that his return to the Isle of Pag would not be welcomed, 
for he had left behind a score that Nicolò Cassich’s kin would undoubtedly be 
eager to settle.
What happened that night at the Church of St. Catherine was perhaps destined 
to leave an indelible mark on the community. During his visitation in 1603, the 
74 Clearly, his intention was to confirm the assertion made by Pastorcich, who, as it has been shown, had 
claimed that the bandit was killed “near the Church of St. Catherine.”
75 As Rumorich himself had stated in his first deposition. Also, during the inspection of the body of the 
crime the vicecancelliere had not noticed any traces outside the sacred building. 
76 On 7 October 1581, Tron, accused of theft, had been relegated to the Isle of Cres for fifteen years. 
Opposing his liberation was avogadore di comun (public prosecutor) Alvise Michiel, who had re-
ceived several threats from Tron upon opening an investigation against him. For this reason, many 
councillors had repeatedly voted against his release from the banishment penalty.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
527
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
apostolic visitor Michele Priuli confirmed that the church “near the town” had 
been “profaned and destroyed” (Hilje, 2011, 158).77 Was that in consequence of 
what had happened that night twenty years prior? Had the incident perhaps led 
someone to destroy its remains? Although it had been committed against a bandit, 
accused of a crime considered grave by the political authorities, the killing of 
Nicolò Cassich was probably deemed a genuine desecration that could not be 
ignored or rectified that easily, as it contaminated the sacredness of a place lead-
ing into the supernatural world.
77 Michele Priuli, bishop of Vicenza, had been appointed apostolic visitor to Dalmatia by Pope Clem-
ent VIII, with the approval of the Venetian College (Collegio). His task was to promote the Trent 
reform. Interestingly, in addressing the supreme Venetian body, Priuli observed: “I know that with 
those peoples of Dalmatia, out of respect for their poverty and the border they have, it is reasonable 
and a duty to keep them all the more inclined to a faithful obedience to this Most Serene Dominion, 
to handle them with utmost dexterity and consideration; I am also aware that one cannot expect to 
enforce in those parts certain terms of the reform that are, by God’s grace, already in place in these 
parts, subject to Your Serenity” (Mantese, 1974, 139).
Fig. 5: Isle of Pag, the area of Murvica: ancient remains of the Church of St. Cathe-
rine, located to the north-west of the town of Pag (photo by E. Hilje).
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
528
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
OSKRUMBA.
UBOJ BANDITA NICOLÒJA CASSICHA (PAG, 1578‒1583)
Claudio POVOLO
Univerza Ca’ Foscari v Benetkah, Oddelek za humanistiko, Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Benetke, Italija
e-mail: povolo@unive.it
Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja, Čentur 1f, 6273 Marezige, Slovenija
e-mail: claudio.povolo@irris.eu
Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče Koper, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenija
e-mail: claudio.povolo@zrs-kp.si
POVZETEK
Spomladi 1583 je bil v poljski cerkvi sv. Katarine, oddaljeni kakšen kilometer od obzidja 
mesta Pag, ubit neki moški. V preiskavi, ki so jo lokalne oblasti nemudoma sprožile, je bilo 
ugotovljeno, da gre za Nicolòja Cassicha, člana ene od najuglednejših družin na otoku. 
Njegov morilec, Zuanne Pastorcich, je takoj zahteval, da se mu priznajo nagrada in ugo-
dnosti, predvidene s strogimi zakoni o javnem redu, ki so jih beneške oblasti sprejele proti 
koncu 16. stoletja, saj so Cassicha zadrski mestni načelniki, t. i. rektorji (Rettori), leta 1579 
obsodili na izgnanstvo zaradi razžalitve Veličanstva (izgnana oseba oziroma bandit pa se je 
lahko »rehabilitiral« z ubojem drugega izgnanca). Cassich je bil obtožen, da je na javnem 
mestu objavil pamflet proti Marcu Manolessu, ki ga je leta 1575 beneški Veliki svet izvolil na 
položaj načelnika otoka Paga z nazivom grof (Conte). Čeprav je paški mestni svet sklenil, 
da se v Manolessovo čast na javno zgradbo izobesi simbol, ki bi slavil njegovo upravljanje, 
pa beneški predstavnik verjetno le ni izpolnjeval vseh zahtev, ki mu jih je nalagala njegova 
vloga predstavnika Beneške republike, s čimer je izzval nasilen odziv Nicolòja Cassicha. 
Glava ubitega izgnanca je bila postavljena na ogled na tako imenovani razglasni kamen 
(pietra del bando) na mestnem trgu Paga, da bi ljudje prepoznali in pod zaprisego potrdili 
njegovo identiteto, s čimer bi njegov morilec postal upravičen do nagrad, predvidenih z 
zakonom. Vendar je iz prvih izjav prič postalo jasno, da je morilec deloval skladno z neka-
terimi vidnimi predstavniki lokalne elite, zagotovo pa ne s soglasjem večine skupnosti, ki je 
bila verjetno mnenja, da je bilo Cassichevo stališče glede Marca Manolessa upravičeno. 
Nestrinjanje skupnosti je bilo toliko glasnejše, ker je bilo moškemu kruto odvzeto življenje 
na svetem kraju, ki bi mu moral zagotavljati božjo zaščito. In tako se je, med odvijanjem 
preiskave, iz množice, zbrane na trgu, iztrgala neka ženska, pograbila Cassichevo glavo in 
jo odnesla v glavno mestno cerkev. Čeprav je morilcu nazadnje uspelo pridobiti zahtevane 
ugodnosti, pa preiskava lokalnih oblasti ni mogla prikriti dejstva, da je bilo hudo kaznivo 
dejanje storjeno ob samem vznožju cerkvenega oltarja. Avtor v članku obravnava temo na-
silja na svetem kraju v zgodovinskem obdobju srditega boja proti banditizmu, pri čemer se 
poglablja v tedanjo družbo, prežeto s sovražnostmi, a hkrati zaznamovano z neustavljivim 
pozivom tradicionalnih vrednot in običajev.
Ključne besede: banditizem, nasilje, otok Pag, Dalmacija, Beneška republika, sveti kraji, 
oskrumba, običaji, sovražnosti
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
529
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
SOURCES AND LITERATURE
ASV-CX – Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV), f. Consiglio dei dieci (CX): Comuni, 
filze 134 e 157.
BMC-PDV – Biblioteca del Museo Correr (BMC), Provenienze diverse-Venier 
(PDV): reg. 67.
BNM-I7 ‒ Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (BNM), ms. it. Cl. VII (I7): nn. 829 (8908) 
– 832 (8911), regg. 17‒20.
Bracewell, C. W. (2010): The Uskoks of Senj: piracy, banditry and holy war in the 
sixteenth-century Adriatic. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press (1st ed. 
1992).
Carroll, S. & U. Cecchinato (2019): Violence and sacred space in early modern 
Venice. Acta Histriae, 27, 4, 561‒580.
Cozzi, G. (1982): Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani. Torino, Einaudi.
Cristiani, B. (1766): Deduzione sopra l’asilo sacro. Venice, Graziosi.
De Luca, G. B. (1673): Il dottor volgare, XIV. Parte quarta: Dell’immunità ecclesias-
tica et ancora delle censure ecclesiastiche. Rome, Giuseppe Corvo.
Hilje, E. (2011): Spomenici povijesnoga graditeljstva na otoku Pagu. In: Skračić, V. 
(ed.): Toponimija otoka Paga. Zadar, Centar za jadranska onomastička istraživanja 
Sveučilišta u Zadru, 105‒192.
Ivetic, E. (2013): Sulla frontiera veneta. La percezione del turco nella Dalmazia 
veneta nei secoli XVI‒XVII. Atti del Centro di ricerche storiche di Rovigno, 
LXIII, 139‒159.
Ljubiċ S. (ed.) (1880): Commissiones et relationes Venetae, III – 1553‒1571 (Monu-
menta spectantia historia Slavorum meridionalium, XI). Zagreb, Hartman.
Mantese, G. (1974): Memorie storiche della chiesa vicentina, IV. Dal 1563 al 1700. 
Parte 1. Vicenza, Accademia Olimpica.
Morari, G. (1708): Prattica dei reggimenti in Terraferma. Padova, Giuseppe 
Corona.
O’Connell, M. (2009): Men of empire. Power and negotiation in Venice’s maritime 
state. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.
Orlando, E. (2013): Politica del diritto, amministrazione, giustizia. Venezia e la 
Dalmazia nel basso medioevo. In: Israel, U. & O. J. Schmitt (eds.): Venezia e 
Dalmazia. Rome, Viella, 9‒61.
Panciera, W. (2014): La Repubblica di Venezia nel Settecento. Rome, Viella.
Perrimezzi, G. M. (1731): Della immunità dei sagri luoghi tra cristiani. Urbino, 
Antonio Fantauzzi.
Pin, C. (2021): Il diritto d’asilo a Venezia e il trattato di Paolo Sarpi “Sopra 
le immunità delle chiese”. In: Bertrand, G., Brice, C. & M. Infelise (eds.): 
Exil, asile: du droit aux pratiques, XVIe–XIXe siècle. Rome, École française 
de Rome, 102‒115.
Povolo, C. (1997): L’intrigo dell’onore. Poteri e istituzioni nella Repubblica di 
Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Verona, Cierre.
ACTA HISTRIAE • 29 • 2021 • 3
530
Claudio POVOLO: DESECRATION. THE KILLING OF THE BANDIT NICOLÒ CASSICH (ISLE OF PAG, ..., 503–530
Povolo, C. (2004): Retoriche giudiziarie, dimensioni del penale e prassi processu-
ale nella Repubblica di Venezia. Da Lorenzo Priori ai pratici settecenteschi. In: 
Chiodi, G. & C. Povolo (eds.): L’amministrazione della giustizia penale nella 
Repubblica di Venezia (secoli XVI‒XVIII), II. Verona, Cierre, 19‒170.
Povolo, C. (2018): Voci liberar bandito (Repubblica di Venezia, 1580‒1592): nar-
razioni di un’etnografia della violenza in età moderna. In: Levati, S. & S. Mori 
(eds.): Una storia di rigore e di passione. Saggi per Livio Antonielli. Milan, Franco 
Angeli, 126‒148.
Povolo, C. (2020a): Suoi Amorevoli. Relazioni di amicizia e politica nella Venezia 
del Cinquecento. In: Sabaté, F. (ed.): Ciutats mediterrànies: l’espai i el territori - 
Mediterranean towns: space and territory. Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 
181‒190.
Povolo, C. (2020b): Il protettore amorevole (Magnifica Patria della Riviera del 
Garda. 1570–1630). In: Ateneo di Salò (ed.): Sul lago di Garda tra passato e 
futuro. Storia, lingua e letteratura. Salò, Liberedizioni, 87‒124.
Shoemaker, K. (2011): Sanctuary and crime in the middle ages, 400‒1500. New 
York, Fordham University Press.
Schuster, L. (2003): The use and abuse of political asylum in Britain and Germany. 
London, Routledge.