179
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Received: 2017-01-13            DOI 10.19233/AH.2017.10
Original scientifi c article
»FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY 
BROTHER FOREVER«
THE EFFICIENCY OF THE TRADITIONAL PEACE-MAKING 
CUSTOM IN EARLY MODERN AGE MONTENEGRO AND THE 
ROLE OF THE VENETIAN AUTHORITIES IN THE PEACE-MAKING 
PROCESS
Angelika ERGAVER
Nova Revija, Institute of Humanist Studies, Gospodinjska ulica 8, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: angiesmeister@gmail.com
ABSTRACT 
The paper discusses the tradition of vendetta and the peace-making process that were 
a part of a customary legal tradition of rural kinship communities in Montenegro and 
Albania. The custom was preserved throughout the centuries as both Venetian and Ot-
toman administration acknowledged the existing legal customs. However, in some cases 
the customary peace-making custom proved itself to be more effi  cient than the diplomatic 
intervention in the dispute resolution. The Venetian authorities on several occasions 
ordered the rural kinship communities in the coastal area to make customary peace with 
their neighbours in hope of preventing vendetta and feuds from developing immense 
proportions. 
Keywords: peace-making, blood feuding, Montenegro, Albania, Venetian Republic, 
Modern age period
»PRIMA MIO FRATELLO, POI CARNEFICE, POI MIO FRATELLO 
PER SEMPRE« L'EFFICACIA DEL TRADIZIONALE PROCESSO DI 
RICONCILIAZIONE IN MONTENEGRO ALL'INIZIO DELL’ETÀ MODERNA 
E IL RUOLO DELLE AUTORITÀ VENEZIANE NEL PROCESSO DI 
RICONCILIAZIONE
SINTESI
L’articolo tratta la tradizione della vendetta di sangue e della riconciliazione che 
fecero parte delle tradizioni consuetudinarie e legali delle comunità rurali imparentate 
nel Montenegro e nell’Albania. Le consuetudini si sono conservate nel corso dei secoli, 
siccome sia l’amministrazione veneziana sia quella ottomana riconobbero le tradizioni 
giuridiche preesistenti. La riconciliazione in alcuni casi di soluzione dei confl itti si 
180
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
dimostrò più effi  cace dell’intervento diplomatico. Per evitare vendette di sangue, come 
pure che le dispute non raggiungessero dimensioni spropositate, le autorità veneziane in 
varie occasioni ordinarono alle comunità rurali imparentate lungo la fascia costiera di 
riconciliarsi con i loro vicini usando metodi tradizionali.
Parole chiave: pacifi cazione, Montenegro, Albania, Repubblica di Venezia, Età Moderna
THE RESEARCH OF VENDETTA IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE
The original custom of blood revenge remained in practice in some parts of the Balkan 
Peninsula until the 20th century. The supposed peculiarity of the blood-revenge (Lat. 
vindicta; Ita. vendetta, Serb. krvna osveta, Alb. gjakmarrja) triggered the interest and the 
research of the legal customary tradition in the Montenegrin and the Albanian Highlands 
(Crnogorska Brda and Mälesia e Madhe) from the 18th century onwards.1 
In the 19th century, an extensive research of the legal traditions was carried out in the 
territory between Herzegovina, Montenegro and Northern Albania by the renowned legal-
historian and philosopher, Valtazar Bogišić (Bogišić, 1999).2 In the Northern Albania, the 
1  Venetian abbot Alberto Fortis mentioned the custom of vendetta among the Morlachs in Dalmatia in his 
work Viaggio in Dalmazia (fi rst published in Venice, 1774) and stressed the similarity of the Morlach and the 
Albanian (Arbanas) customary tradition, including some customs of the pacifi cation (Fortis, 1984, 39–42). 
In the 19th century the general interest for the customary legal traditions increased as a trend in the European 
scientifi c research (Imamović, 2008, 125), that was accompanied by the interest of oral traditions in the form 
of tales and oral poetry (Kos, 1994, 167–169). The research of the oral traditions was carried out by linguists 
and scholars, such as Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (Karadžić, 1814; 1818; 1846; 1865; 1875; comp. Jurančić, 
1959, 137–138; Skakić, 1998, 46–47). The importance of the oral tradition was of interest to the bishop of 
Zagreb, Matija Vrhovec, Stefan Verković, the Miladinov brothers of Struga, Russian Slavist, Viktor Ivanovič 
Gligorovič, Kuzman Šapkarev, Marko Cepenkov, Ilarion Ruvarac, and other enthusiasts (Jurančić, 1959, 137; 
Sazdov et al., 1988, 10–12; Sazdov, 1997, 243). Some valuable research on Slavic oral epics was carried out 
by Millman Parry and his student, Albert B. Lord (Lord, 1981). Early ethnographers, anthropologists and 
researchers such as Pavel Apolonovič Rovinskiĭ (Rovinskiĭ, 1994), Johan G. Kohl (Kohl, 2005), Gerhard Ge-
seman (Geseman, 2003), Fran Miklošič (Miklošič, 1888), Božidar Petranović (Petranović, 1868) and Milorad 
Medaković (Medaković, 1860), also took notice of the legal customs, yet not all with the same perspective.
2  Bogišić’s work was a commissioned project in the time of the rule of the prince (knjaz) Nikola I. Petrović of 
Montenegro and supported by the Russian Tsar. His research of the legal traditions was carried out through 
an extensive survey. Therefore, his work is also referred to as the Bogišić’s Survey (Bogišićeva anketa) 
181
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
fi rst researchers and collectors of the legal traditions were priests. Sthjefen K. Gjeçovi 
collected legal-oral material known as the Code of Lekë Dukagjini, (orig. »Kanun i Lekë 
Dukagjinit«, in the references KLD),3 whereas Frano Illia collected the legal material 
that was traditionally referred to as the Canon of Skenderbeg (in the references SK; orig. 
Kanuni i Skenderbeut)4 (Trnavci, 2008, 16; Elsie, 2015, 9; Pupovci, 2011, 32).
The 20th century research of the traditional way of life in Albania, Kosova and Mon-
tenegro is marked with local research of legal historians such as Ilija Jelić (Jelić, 1924), 
Surja Pupovci (Pupovci, 2011), Milutin Djuričić (Djuričić, 1975; Đuričić, 1979) Milovan 
Šćepanović (Šćepanović, 2003), Marino Zurl (Zurl, 1979), Genc Trnavci (Trnavci, 2008); 
and foreign anthropological researches of Mary Edith Durham (Durham, 1909), Margaret 
Hasluck (Hasluck, 1954), Christopher Boehm (Boehm, 1987), Fatos Tarifa (Tarifa, 2008), 
Diane Gëllçi (Gëllçi, 2014) and Robert Elsie (Elsie, 2015).
THE LEGAL CUSTOMS IN THE BALKAN PENINSULA 
The custom of blood revenge was deeply imbedded into the traditional way of life of 
the Montenegrin and the Albanian tribal kinship communities. The fi rst preserved written 
mentioning of the custom of vendetta on Balkan Peninsula is from the 6th or 7th century 
Byzantine report on the customs of the Slavic population, who were kind and hospitable 
and even took revenge for the murder of their guests (Jelić, 1926, 17–18).5 Throughout 
the early middle ages, the customary legal traditions were preserved under the local 
rulers, but the tradition was fl exible and it changed and modifi ed over the centuries to 
suit the given socio-political circumstances. The Albanian oral tradition even recognizes 
Lekë III. Dukagjini and Georg Kastriot Skenderbeg, 15th century local aristocratic lead-
ers, as experts in the legal customs and rites (Pupovci, 2011, 7, 9, 15, 23, 30–36). Similar 
principals of rule seem to have been applicable in the Medieval Zeta, where the local 
within the academic discourse. Based on the survey, Bogišić wrote and issued new property legislation for 
the Principality of Montenegro in 1888 (orig. Opšti imovinski zakonik (OIZ)). As the survey tackled all the 
legal spheres, it was diffi  cult to analyse. The Bogišić’s Survey remained in the manuscript for almost a cen-
tury until it was properly organized by a Serbian legal historian, Tomica Nikčević, who in 1984 published 
the Survey under the title that was planned by Bogišić himself: Pravni običaji u Crnoj Gori, Hercegovini i 
Albaniji (Legal customs in Montenegro, Herzegovina and Albania) (Nikčević, 1984; 1999). 
3  The collection was translated in numerous world languages, recently also into the Montenegrin language 
(Camaj, 2011, 230). 
4  The collection was fi rst published in Italian language in Brescia in Italy in 1993. In 2004, it was translated 
into Slovenian language and incorporated as an appendix into a monograph of Martin Berishaj, titled Skrita 
moč bese. Ženske v imaginariju albanskega tradicionalizma. (The hidden power of besa. Women in the 
imaginary of the Albanian traditionalsm) (SK, 105–309). 
5  This custom remained in practice as a rite of hospitality. The guest was off ered »besa of the guest« and 
was treated as a God in the house, and was off ered protection, safe conduct, food and shelter, regardless of 
his origin or »criminal past«. The killing of a guest was perceived as a severe shame for the host and viola-
tion of the host’s honour and hospitability (KLD, §§ 602–652; SK point (hereafter p.) 652–658; Rovinskiĭ, 
1994, 247). Customarily, the host had to kill any violator of the rites of hospitality, including his own family 
members, as the Montenegrin proverb states: »An honest man would kill even his own father for a guest« 
(orig. »Pošten bi čovjek i oca ubijo radi gosta«) (Bogišić, 1999, 330–332). 
182
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
aristocracy, such as the Balšići and the Crnojevići, respected the local legal customs of the 
kinship communities and recognized the role of the clan chieftains and their assemblies 
(Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006, 33–38; comp. Dolenc, 1925, 59; Šuffl  ay, 1991, 44). 
Generally speaking, the tribal leaders and chieftains were traditionally the guardians of 
the legal order and the legal traditions. Their duty was to eff ectively resolve disputes 
within their communities (Stein, 1984. 19; comp. Evans-Pritchard, 1993, 179–188). 
Indeed, the medieval Code of Tsar Stefan Dušan (Dušan’s Code, Serb. Dušanov zakonik, 
DZ), issued in 1349 and edited in 1354, attempted to regulate and unify the legislation 
within the Empire of the Serbs, Albanians and Greeks, yet, the customary tradition re-
mained active, especially in the remote areas such as the Montenegrin and the Albanian 
Highlands. The Dušan’s Code implies that the rural kinship communities had to solve the 
disputes autonomously (Dolenc, 1925, 62), unless it was a case of greater injustice, which 
was within the absolute juridical jurisprudence of the Tsars court, which included the 
murders and the blood-revenge (Dolenc, 1925, 61; DZ, article (hereafter art.) 103; comp. 
Petranović, 1868, 14). The medieval coastal towns of Kotor (Cataro),6 Budva (Budua),7 
Bar (Antivari) and Ulcinj (Dulcigno) were given the privilege to codify their own legal 
customs in written and developed or were granted statutes in the time of Serbian rule. The 
statutes of Bar and Ulcinj have not been preserved. 
THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE AND THE CUSTOMARY 
LEGAL TRADITION IN SOUTHERN ADRIATIC 
According to the statute of Kotor, the count was bound to respect the existing legal 
traditions of the town and its district that was composed of the areas around the Bay of 
Kotor (Ćirković, 2009a, 42–43; Milošević, 2009, 56–57). Therefore, the authorities in 
Kotor were well acquainted with the legal customs of the kinship communities in the 
district, which included the custom of vendetta as well as the custom of reconciliation.
When the Republic of Venice established its administration in the Bay of Kotor8 
(1421–1797), the Venetian governors soon became acquainted with the local legal 
customs. The Venetian administration was familiar with similar traditions of dispute 
resolution from the Venetian Terraferma, where in the 15th century the duality in the legal 
tradition also existed. In Veneto, in the area of Vicenza and Verona, the nobility in the 
cities solved their disputes according to the statutory law, whereas the inhabitants of the 
6  The Statute of Kotor was formed throughout the centuries with several editions and corrections. Its oldest 
statutory legal regulation dates in 1301. In 1616, the Statute of Kotor was printed in Italian language and 
divided into two parts. First part consists of statutory laws that were passed during the period of the au-
tonomy of Kotor (1384–1420); the second part holds the statutory laws that were passed in the fi rst period 
of the Venetian administration in Kotor (1421–1444) (Milošević & Ćirković, 2009, 11–13).
7  During the reign of the Nemanjići dynasty, the town of Budva was given a statute that bares no criminal 
legislation. Criminal justice was in the direct jurisprudence of the Serbian rulers (St B III). 
8  Unlike the Slavic historiography (Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006. 47; Šuffl  ay, 1991, 13), some foreign 
historiography stresses that the nobility of Kotor petitioned for the protectorate of the Republic of Venice 
(O’Connell, 2009, 30–31). The trade between the Kotor and Venice, however, has been recorded from the 
12th century onwards (Bogojević-Glušičević, 2002, 8).
183
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
rural areas outside the city resolved their disputes according to the existing legal customs, 
but with the help and the presence of the town notary (Faggion, 2013, 186–193). 
Besides the Bay of Kotor, the area of Paštrovići, between Budva and Bar, was of 
strategic importance for the Republic of Venice. To gain the support of the local kin-
ship communities, the Venetian administration granted the Paštrovići the privileges that 
the kinship communities supposedly enjoyed during the rule of the Nemanjići dynasty 
(Šekularac, 1999, 9; Mijušković, 1959, 474–475, 507). The privileges, confi rmed by 
the Venetian Senate in 1424, granted Paštrovići the right to further exercise their legal 
customs,9 which included dispute resolution and reconciliation before the local judicial 
assembly (Bankada), composed of the representatives of the communities form the 
Paštrovići area (Mijušković, 1959, 482–483; O’Connel, 2009, 31). 
The medieval legal tradition fl uctuated between the oral and written form. However, 
people were becoming well aware of the importance and the higher level of credibility 
of the written legal documents (Lonza, 2013, 1217). Some of the preserved medieval 
notarial registers of Kotor (IAK SN) testify that the kinship communities from the district 
of Kotor and its hinterland used the notarial offi  ce of Kotor to verify the peace treaties 
after they had reconciled according to their local customs.
PEACE TREATIES OF KOTOR
In the beginning of 1431, the representatives of the villages of Luštica and communi-
ties of Grbalj10 came before the authorities in Kotor to verify their peace treaty. The 
parties stated that they forgave one another and exchanged a kiss of peace (Lat. osculo 
pacis) before the court. The parties agreed upon a fi ne of 200 ducats11 for violation of the 
peace treaty (IAK SN V, 5-6, date (datum, hereafter dat.) 9. 1. 1431).
In 1437, the representatives of the Njeguši clan of Zeta and the representatives of the 
village Orahovac from the district of Kotor came to the town of Kotor to verify the peace 
treaty. The parties exchanged a kiss of peace before the court and declared mutual pardon 
for wounds and killings. The parties agreed to form marriage alliances. In case of the 
violation of peace, the parties agreed upon a fi ne of 100 perper12 (IAK SN VI, 286–287, 
dat. 22. 12. 1437; Kovijanić, 1963, 100).
The following year, on March 31st, 1438, the notarial registers produced a document 
titled Pax inter Regianos, Morignanos, Rexianos et Poliçanos. The representatives of 
the clan Riđani from the hinterland and the villages of Morinje, Risan and Poljice, from 
9  Paštrovići remained under the Venetian protection until the collapse of the Republic of Venice in 1797. The 
privileges of the Paštrovići were abolished by the French administration in 1807 (Šekularac, 1999, 8).
10  At the time, both areas were within the territorial frames of the district of Kotor (Ćirković, 2009b, 39–41).
11  Venetian ducato (zecchino) was a gold piece coin minted from the 12th century onwards with mass of 3.55 
grams (Chown, 1994, 33–35; Darovec, 2004, 66).
12  Serbian perper or perpera was a fi ctive fi scal unit that was composed of 12 silver coins (dinar) with an 
approximate mass of 1.5 grams. The currency exchange rate between the perper(a) and ducato was 2 to 1. 
Medieval Serbian coins were used in Montenegro as late as in the 18th and 19th century (Ćirković, 2009c; 
Srednjovjekovni novac, 2016). 
184
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
the Bay of Kotor, had made customary peace amongst themselves on January 7th, 1438. 
The compensation and the rates were determined by custom and the parties were to form 
fraternities and godfatherhoods. The representatives of Riđani and Poljice promised to 
solve the pending dispute regarding the borders of their pastures and promised to keep 
an open passage through their properties. On the last day of March, the representatives of 
all four communities verifi ed their agreement of permanent peace (pacem perpetuam) by 
giving an oath upon the sacred Gospel and the Cross before the court in Kotor. The fi ne 
for violation of the treaty was 500 Venetian denari.13 The parties requested the authorities 
of Kotor to issue them written proofs of the contract, which were translated from Latin to 
Slavic (IAK SN VI, 450–451, dat. 31. 3. 1438; Kovijanić, 1974, 185).
In March of 1439, the Petrojević brothers from Lastva and the representatives of Veće 
Brdo, Bijela and Lastva came to Kotor to verify the peace treaty that has been made 
customarily in front of the assembly of 24 »good men«. The members of the assembly 
were mutually selected by the parties to determine the compensation in their blood feud 
(IAK SN VI, 683–684, dat. 25. 3. 1439).
Although the Paštrovići enjoyed the judicial autonomy, their judicial body, the 
Bankada, had no permanent notarial offi  ce. Instead, the documents were written by priests 
and monks of the local monasteries (Šekularac, 1999, 8–14; Sindik et al., 1959, V).
In 1440, the representatives of two Paštrovići clans agreed to make peace according to 
the custom before the Venetian authorities in Kotor on April 2nd, 1440. The Venetian authori-
ties, however, were not the judges or the arbiters in this case, but merely the witnesses. Each 
party selected 12 arbiters that jointly determined the amount of the composition for a person 
that has been killed (IAK SN VI, 935–936, dat. 2. 4. 1440).The peace treaty was confi rmed 
on May 25th, 1440. The parties were to form godfatherhoods and were both fi nancially liable 
in case of the violation of the treaty (IAK SN VI, 979–981, dat. 25. 5. 1440).  
In none of the cases, the Venetian authorities were the judges in the disputes and did 
not deliberate on the amount of the compositions. The latter case shows that the town of 
Kotor merely off ered its premises where the parties decided to make peace according to 
the custom.
RURAL KINSHIP COMMUNITIES, THEIR INTERNAL 
AND JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION
In kinship communities, the clan (Serb. bratstvo; Alb. fi s) was the unit that was primar-
ily, but not necessarily entirely, formed on the basis of male blood-line lineage (Tarifa, 
2008, 50–53). The smallest economic and political unit in the village14 was the house, led 
by the head of the household, who controlled and led all the aspects of life within the 
13  The Venetian denaro, also known as grosso, estimated at 1/24 of ducato, was a silver coin with an approxi-
mate mass of 2.18 grams. It contained 95% of pure silver, which is 2.07 grams per coin (Darovec, 2004, 66; 
Monete di Venezia, 2016).
14  The clans usually inhabited a territory of one village, with several family houses, and communal land – 
pastures and fi elds and forests (Jelić, 1926, 60; KLD, § 19 (footnote 2); KLD § 26).
185
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
family, in order to assure its prosperity. He was liable for the behaviour of the members of 
the household towards other members of the clan and/or village and had the right to punish 
the members of the household (Dolenc, 1925, 114–115; KLD paragraphs (hereafter §§) 18, 
22–21, 26–27; KLD, Book 4; Hasluck, 1954, 25–50). The role of the head of the household 
is comparable to the role of the Paterfamilias in the Roman Antiquity (Stein, 1984, 27).
The heads of the households in the village were the members of the village assembly 
(KLD, paragraph (hereafter §) 72). Each clan also had its own clan chieftain. They were 
from the leading household in the clan and the chieftain role was hereditary. The Albanian 
term pleqnise and its slavicized form plećnija were the terms for the village and tribal 
assembly. The assemblies included all the current heads of the households in the clan or 
village, as well as the former and still living heads of the households. The latter, due to 
their age, passed their active chieftain role to the younger generation and kept the role of 
advisors in a council at the assemblies15 (KLD, §§ 1146–1148; Bogišić, 1999, 241–242; 
Jelić, 1926, 60–61; Hasluck, 1954, 10, 130–131). 
The judicial role of the clan chieftains is mentioned in the Dušan’s code (Dolenc, 1925, 
62). The clan or the village assembly gathered regularly to discuss all general questions 
regarding their community, as well as the disputes among the members of the community. 
All adult male members of the community were also present at the assembly, where each 
individual could expose a certain confl ict or a dispute one had with another member of the 
community or lament about an injustice done to them by members of another community. 
Members who suff ered injustice did not need to wait for a regular village assembly meet-
ing, but could lament directly to one of the chieftains,16 who called upon other chieftains 
to form an assembly to resolve the dispute as soon as possible (KLD §§ 1108, 1119–1120; 
1176–1178; Bogišić, 1999, 294–295). The chieftains also called the accused to attend the 
assembly to be questioned about his actions (Bogišić, 1999, 295–296).17
If the wrongdoer was from another clan, the injured party lamented to the local chief-
tains who notifi ed the chieftains of the other clan and demanded composition for their 
clan member. The chieftains of both clans agreed upon a date and place18 of the assembly 
meeting, where the trial was to be held and the chieftains would deliberate on the sum 
of the composition (Bogišić, 1999, 294). Theoretically. Practically, however, in disputes 
between clans and tribes there was always a pending competition for honour and power. 
A deliberate injury between the clans tipped the scales of balance of power in favour of 
one of the parties. The other tried to restore the balance by returning the injury and thus 
entering the state of the feud.19
15  Similar is also recorded in other tribal societies (Radcliff e-Brown, 1994, 241–242).
16  Indeed, in cases of smaller disputes between the members of one village, the disputants could select one 
or two chieftains and let them resolve the dispute by arbitration and no assembly was needed (Bogišić, 
1999, 349).
17  About the accusatory trial rites among the Montenegrin and Albanian tribes see: Bogišić. 1999, 194–316; 
KLD, §§ 1017–1105; Djuričić, 1975, 11–136; Jelić, 1926, 71–79; Dragičević, 1938, 278–288.
18  The joint assemblies of the chieftains of diff erent clans or tribes were held on the borderline areas between 
both communities (Bogišić, 1999, 295). 
19  About the theoretical and practical frames of feuding and dispute resolution see Boehm, 1987, 50–219; 
186
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
The damage caused by the livestock of one clan in the pastures or fi elds another clan 
was a case that called for compensation, but the course of the dispute resolution or evolu-
tion depended upon the numerical and economic power of both clans (KLD, art. »Svinja 
u šteti«, §§ 163, 748–755; comp. Bogišić, 1999, 279–280, 365–367). 
The dispute could have turned into a feud with mutual exchanges of raids and armed 
combats between the parties with multiple physical injuries and casualties on both sides. 
Yet, the violence within the feud was regulated by custom; especially violence against 
women, children and elderlies was prohibited, as was a deliberate poisoning of the water 
sources of common use (KLD, §§ 163, 748–755; Bogišić, 1999, 348–349; Boehm, 1987, 
52; Hasluck, 1954, 202–209). Similarly, feuds arose also on the account of the land-
ownership (Bogišić, 1999, 359–360).
Generally, all communities were inclined towards internal and external harmoni-
ous equilibrium. Therefore, the role of the chieftains was to resolve the disputes as 
soon as they arose, in order to prevent them from acquiring bigger proportions and 
thus preventing vendetta. However, that was not always possible nor were the attempts 
always successful. 
THE RURAL KINSHIP COMMUNITIES BETWEEN THE VENETIAN 
AND THE OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATIVE AREA
After the Ottoman-Venetian war (1499–1503) that marked the end of the expansion of 
the Republic of Venice in the Mediterranean, the borders between both political entities 
were settled in Dalmatia (Orlando, 2014, 183–184). The Bay of Kotor and the coastal 
stripe between Budva and Bar, (the area of Paštrovići), belonged to the Republic of 
Venice, whereas the hinterland of Montenegro, including the area of Grbalj, a district 
between the Bay of Kotor and Budva, belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Although the 
land of Montenegro underwent some administrative division during the Ottoman rule, 
it remained autonomous in many regards. Furthermore, the population had the right to 
exercise their existing legal customs.20 When the territorial division took place in the 
Miller, 1996, 180–219; Byock, 2007; Þorláksson, 2007; Bogišić, 1999, 279–295; 345–384. A detailed over-
view of the research on violence, feud and vendetta has been provided in Povolo, 2015b, 198–214. 
20  At the end of the 15th century, the Ottoman administration established the Timar system in Montenegro. 
The Ottoman tax register of 1497 mentions three Timars of Montenegro. Soon thereafter, the inability of the 
Montenegrin population to meet the tax payments of Timar system called for the administrative reform that 
turned Montenegrin lands into direct property of the Sultan (the Has) and transformed the Timar system into 
the Filuri system, which was more common for the stock-breading areas. The former lands of Crnojevići 
were reorganized into districts (nahis) in the beginning of the 16th century. The districts are also mentioned 
in the description of the Sanjak of Scutari, written by a nobleman, Marino Bolizza of Kotor in 1614, where 
he mentions la Huna (Katunska), Gliubottin (Ljubotinje), Pliesiuzi (Plješivci), Cerniza (Crmnica), in Glir-
ize (Lješkopolje) (Ljubić, 1880, 167–171). The division into districts is still a part of Montenegrin tradition. 
The four districts Katunska, Riješka, Crmniška and Lješanska nahia, are traditionally referred to as »the 
Old Montenegro« (Stara Crna Gora) (Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006, 82–83; Jelić, 1926, VII; Bogišić, 
1999, 227; comp. Kovijanić, 1963; 1974). The district (Zuppa) of Grbalj had a privileged status due to its 
salt fi elds. The inhabitants of Montenegro were granted the autonomy in their internal organization as well 
as the privileges to resolve their disputes according to the existing legal customs. The mobilization of the 
187
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
former Zeta, the members of Montenegrin clans were also present at the negotiation. 
Some of the Montenegrin clans lamented about the borderline between Njeguši and 
Grbalj (Stanojević, 1959, 14–15).
CASES OF LONG-LASTING FEUDS
In longer lasting disputes or feuds between the clans and tribes that came about due 
to dispute over land, the attempts for truce and to ultimately make peace came about as 
soon as severe physical injury or casualty took place, if not sooner (Bogišić,1999, 360).
Among the Albanian tribes, the mediation for peace usually took place after several 
vengeful exchanges and armed combat with severe physical injuries and casualties on both 
sides. The parties decided to make peace due to material damage and physical injuries 
they suff ered and caused. Since the economy among the tribes was primarily extensive 
stockbreeding, the clans and tribes depended upon the peaceful equilibrium between all 
the tribes, as feuding hindered the ability to lead the herds onto the pastures  (Bogišić, 
1999, 359).21 Since the chieftains of clans also got involved in feuding, they themselves 
could not directly propose truce to the chieftains of another clan. The chieftains of the 
clan that was more eager to make peace presented their case to the chieftains of the third 
clan and asked them for their intervention and mediation between the feuding clans (Jelić, 
1926, 115; Bogišić, 1999, 359–362, 366, 369).
However, in analogy to the latter and as it is evident in the following two cases, the 
chieftains also lamented to the third party that ultimately represented an authority to the 
other party. Practically, the clan chieftains from the Ottoman area would lament to the 
Venetian authorities and vice versa. The issue was, however, that the third party was not 
necessarily entirely acquainted with the proportions of the feud and tried to resolve the 
dispute within their own judicial jurisprudence.
During the 16th and the 17th century, the clan of Njeguši from the immediate hinterland 
of Kotor in the area of the Katunska nahia, and the inhabitants of the Špiljarji village in 
the Bay of Kotor, were involved into a land-ownership dispute. 
In 1543, the inhabitants of Grbalj already lamented to the Ottoman commissary about 
Špiljarji, a village kinship community from the Bay of Kotor, who had taken a plot of 
Loznica and some other lands. The Ottoman commissioner intervened in the dispute about 
Loznica, yet it seems that the dispute was not eff ectively resolved. In September of 1602, 
the count of the Njeguši clan came to Kotor with his escort and lamented to the Venetian 
governor regarding the land-dispute with Špiljarji over the plots Selišta and Praćišta. The 
Venetian governor took action and tried to prevent further disputes by force, protecting 
Montenegrins to fi ght for the Ottomans was to be conducted only under direct Sultan’s orders, disregarding 
any potential demands for mobilization of the neighbouring Sanjakbejs (Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006, 
74–77).
21  The truce among the Albanian clans and barjaks was traditionally referred to as the »besa of the herd and 
the shepherd« (KLD §§ 874–885; SK, 155), which Margaret Hasluck translated to English as the »pledge 
of safety of man and beast«, and interpreted the institute as a right of safe travel and a primary form of 
passports (Hasluck, 1954, 155). 
188
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
the inhabitants of Špiljarji village in the process. The Njeguši were refusing to leave the 
plots. The land dispute continued throughout the following decade with mutual raiding of 
the lands and crops, during which armed combats between the Njeguši and Špiljarji took 
place and resulted in casualties.
The governors of Kotor intervened on behalf of Špiljarji and notifi ed the Venetian Bailo 
in Constantinople. He used his diplomatic strings at the Sublime Port, and the latter, from 
1603 onwards, issued several decrees (Firman) to the governor (Sanjakbeg) of Scutari and 
to the Montenegrin supreme judge (kadia) in Podgorica. The latter two were to prevent 
further disturbances of the Njeguši clan on the Špiljarji land. The feud was being resolved 
merely as the question of the land-ownership (Stanojević, 1959, 18, 34–35, 43–45).
It all seems that the Njeguši refused to respect Sultan’s decrees in order to raise 
awareness about the other dimensions of the feud that concerned the physical injuries and 
casualties that they expected composition for. The dispute resolution through diplomatic 
intervention disregarded this fact and the previous casualties seem to have been the reason 
for further attacks of Njeguši on the Venetian land. 
Finally, in 1620, the Venetian governor of Kotor started the negotiation between the 
Njeguši and Špiljarji. On July 13th, 1620, the peace treaty was signed in the presence of 
chieftains of Maine, Brajići, Zalazi and the supreme judge of Montenegro who attended 
the meeting with the members of his escort from Lješkopolje (Stanojević, 1959, 49–50).
The Njeguši fi nally renounced their claims of Loznica and Selište. Praćita, however, were 
acknowledged as a shared pasture between the Njeguši in Špiljarji. Njeguši renounced 
all claims for the compositions of wounds and casualties that their clan members have 
suff ered or, better said, their claims were compensated for with the raiding damage they 
have caused to Špiljarji and other inhabitants of the Bay of Kotor. 
At about the same time, Paštrovići also had a long lasting land dispute with the 
Montenegrin clans. The dispute between Paštrovići and Maine, a kinship community 
from district of Crmnica (Crmniška nahia), began in the years of 1577 and 1578 when 
Maine sold a piece of land to Paštrovići, who were issued an ownership certifi cate by the 
Montenegrin supreme judge. A year later, the dispute over the legally sold plot began. 
For several years Paštrovići were taking their land-ownership dispute to the Montenegrin 
supreme judges in Podgorica and Scutari who (at least in 1579 and 1590) both issued 
additional certifi cates of ownership to the Paštrovići. The feud got further complicated 
due to the question of property borderline between Maine, Paštrovići and Brajići. The 
disputes lasted for some decades, with the appeals to the Sublime Porte, which on several 
occasions ruled in favour of the Paštrovići. However, the feud was not the land dispute 
alone, but it had acquired the proportions of blood feud.
Only after the mediation of the general governor for Dalmatia and Albania, on Sep-
tember 21st and September 25th, 1642, two truce treaties were signed between Paštrovići 
and their neighbours, Maine and Brajići. To revise the borderline, a commission was 
assembled of the representatives of the feuding parties and the representatives of the 
Venetian authorities and the representatives of the Ottoman administration from Žabljak 
and Scutari. The fi nal peace treaty regarding the land dispute was signed on February 15th 
in Budva, in the Monastery of St. Mary, Mother of God (Sveta Bogorodica).
189
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
The plot of dispute was divided between the village Brajići and the clan Bečići 
(of Paštrovići), yet the Paštrovići were bound to pay yearly taxes for their land in the 
Ottoman administrative area, including all their overdue taxes in order to be able to 
enjoy the plot. The arbitrary settlement annulled all the previous judgements of the 
Ottoman authorities that were generally in favour of Paštrovići. The parties took an 
oath to respect the newly set borderline between their communities. To guarantee the 
peace treaty, the Bečići of Paštrovići had to form 13 godfatherhoods of Saint John with 
Maine and Brajići. 
Other pending issues were resolved at the arbitration on February 24th, 1643 in 
Bjelaštica, at the borderline between Budva and Montenegro (Crmnica district), where 
the judges and the assembly of Paštrovići, the Montenegrin counts and other inhabit-
ants of Montenegro, were present. The arbiters were mutual friends of both parties. The 
arbiters were the chieftains of Montenegrin clans and Pastrovići chieftains, along with 
some members of the nobility of Kotor and the Ottoman authorities from Žabljak.
The settlement resolved the question of the casualties, wounds and other debts that 
arose between the parties. The killing of a wife of the captain Nikola Ivanov of Ljubotinj 
was the liability of the Paštrovići, who had to pay 600 perper and form 4 fraternities and 
24 godfatherhoods with the victim’s family. The Montenegrins were liable for the killing 
of Stiepo Lučin from Paštrovići and bound to pay 900 perper and form 4 fraternities and 
24 godfaterhoods. The Montenegrins were to pay additional 150 perper for the wounds 
of Vukac Davidović of Paštrovići. The wound of Maško Ivan Andrijin was settled with 
the wound of the Turk Ramandan Kusovac. Although none of the latter two received 
composition, the two men had to form two fraternities and two godfatherhoods. Andrija 
Zanović of Paštrovići and Dragoja Mirčetov of Ljubotinj also solved their discords at 
the arbitration assembly, which deliberated that they were to form one fraternity and two 
godfatherhoods. 
The members of the commission and the arbitration assembly were entitled to a 
third of the sum of the compositions, which were to be paid in three equal sums. First 
rates were to be paid at the upcoming Easter; the remaining was to be paid in two half-
annual rates. After the deliberation, the parties kissed and swore that they would form 
fraternities and godfatherhoods among them and respect the peace forever (Stanojević, 
1959, 60–62).
These two long-lasting disputes called for »diplomatic intervention«. Yet, the dip-
lomatic intervention itself, without respecting the legal customs of reconciliation, was 
inadequate. The custom of reconciliation and peace making proved to have been rather ef-
fi cient. Furthermore, the customs of reconciliation were acknowledged and respected by 
the Venetian as well as by the Ottoman administration. However, the clans and the tribes 
were well able to resolve their disputes on their own before the disputes turned into feuds 
and blood feuds. Random encounters of members of diff erent tribes were often grounds 
for competition and exchange of harsh words and insults that led to brawls. Brawls led to 
physical injuries, which in some cases lead to casualties. To avoid vendetta, the mediation 
took place and the parties met at the assembly that deliberated on the sum of composition 
and other contractual bonds (spiritual family ties) that further fortifi ed the peace.
190
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
DISPUTE RESOLUTION BEFORE VENDETTA
In June of 1585, the joint assembly of Paštrovići and Maine met at the vineyard at 
Babin Vir. The assembly deliberated on the composition for the lethal wounds suff ered 
by the son of Stijepac Raučević from Maine who had been beaten by Paštrovići in front 
of the gates of Budva. The composition sum was deliberated at 600 perper and the parties 
were to form 40 godfatherhoods (Sindik et al., 1959, 7–8, document (hereafter d.) 8). 
The Albanian legal customs show strict distinction between killings that occurred by 
accident (in a brawl or a fi ght), vengeance killings and killing »for benefi t« (SK, 265, p. 
2736). Only the latter was regarded as murder (Serb. ubistvo; Alb. gjakësi) and the per-
petrator (Serb. krivac, rukostavnik) was a murderer (Serb. ubica), although a blood-taker 
(Serb. krvnik, Alb. gjakësór) could have been anyone who had spilled a blood of another 
person (Bogišić, 1999, 345–384; Hysa, 1995, 132). Ideally, only deliberate killings for 
benefi t should have been avenged for by vendetta.22 Any other case called for a claim for 
composition from the victim’s kin, before the vendetta even came into question. There-
fore, it was crucial to prevent one death or lethal wounds23 from turning into vendetta with 
multiple casualties on both sides. 
In 1693, there was an armed combat between the inhabitants of Grbalj district and 
the Paštrovići. The Venetian governor of Budva intervened and ordered the Paštrovići 
to make peace with the inhabitants of Grbalj according to their common legal traditions. 
Paštrovići were not eager to make peace, yet they obliged, and thus proposed truce to 
the families of the killed inhabitants of Grbalj, who were prone to making peace. The 
reconciliation took place in May of 1693 in San Stefan before the joint assembly of the 
chieftains of Grbalj and Paštrovići (Sindik et al., 1959, 81, d. 125.). The reconciliation 
was within the interest of the Venetian administration as the Grbalj district represented the 
shortest land route between Budva and Kotor, although Grbalj was a part of the Ottoman 
administrative area. Similarly, the Venetian governor of Kotor on July 8th, 1741 ordered 
the judges of Castellastuo, to reinstall peace among the clans of Paštrovići (Bojović et 
22  I am consciously and deliberately discussing only the cases of blood-revenge for severe physical injuries 
or lethal wounds and killings, which occurred in a brawl or a combat. However, the brawls themselves 
started on the account of defending one’s honour or the honour of the community, as it is evident also from 
the numerous cases of blood-revenge in the history. Defending and re-establishing the honour that has been 
damaged with a public insult, by a revenge-killing, was common, as it has been proven by many histori-
cal and anthropological studies (Gluckman, 1955; Evans-Pritchard, 1993; Peristiany, 1965; Boehm, 1987; 
Miller, 1996; Carroll, 2003; Carroll, 2006; Carroll, 2007; Carroll, 2003; Büchert Netterstrøm & Poulsen, 
2007; Davies, 2013; Povolo, 2010; Povolo, 2015a; Povolo 2015b). An attack on honour was an injury one 
could rarely fi nd suffi  cient compensation or composition for.
23  The Montenegrin proverb says, »One dead head brings fear to a hundred living.« Originally, »Jedna 
mrtva glava straši sto živih« (Radov, 1997, 139). Customarily, the deadly wounded person told the mem-
bers of his family the circumstances in which he was wounded, making sure they understood if it was a 
case of an accident, and thus preventing the vendetta. Blood-revenge for death by accident was deemed 
as dishonourable deed in Montenegrin as well as in the Albanian tradition (Bogišić, 1999, 350; KLD, 
§932; SK, 257–258, p. 2727–2731). The Code of Lekë Dukagjin even states, »Undeliberate killing is 
not persecuted by a rifl e.« (KLD § 932) more about undeliberate killing in the Code of Skenderbeg (SK, 
278–279, p. 2980–3002). 
191
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
al., 1990, 37–38, d. 12). In 1766, the Venetian governor of Budva ordered Paštrovići to 
describe the circumstances that had led to the dispute with the inhabitants with Ulcinj, 
where four Paštrovići were injured, and ordered the Paštrovići not to take revenge (Sindik 
et al., 1959, 191, d. 256). 
The prevention of vendetta was in the highest interest of both parties, as well as their 
neighbouring communities and authorities, who highly benefi ted from peaceful relation-
ships. In order to make peace according to the custom, fi rst, the customary mediation 
needed to take place (comp. Darovec, 2016, 31; Oman, 2016, 87–90). 
THE CUSTOMARY MEDIATION FOR TRUCE
In order to prevent vendetta after the »blood was spilled«, the clan of the blood-taker 
had to show some remorse, fear, and humility in front the clan of the killed. As the custom 
of vendetta made every family member of the blood-taker's clan liable for the damage 
caused and all clan members were the potential targets of revenge, they themselves could 
not ask for mercy and truce.24 The mediators (Serb. posrednici, Alb. ndermjetës), the clan 
or tribal chieftains, were to intervene according to their customary duties. In the case of 
single case of lethal wounds and accidental death, mediators were to go directly to the 
house of the victim and humbly ask the head of the victim’s household for truce (Bogišić, 
1999, 361–362; KLD, §§ 845, 851, 965). The head of the victim’s household is referred to 
as »the master of blood« (Alb. hoti i gjakut) in the Albanian tradition. The reconciliation 
is a public ritual with symbolic gestures, phrases and objects (Darovec, 2014, 481–499). 
The mediators used special phrases to plea for truce. In Montenegrin tradition however, 
the word truce itself was never mentioned. Instead, the mediators asked for what was to be 
the result of the reconciliation. The mediators asked for the union of the blood-taker’s and 
the victim’s household in the godfatherhood of Saint John the Baptist.25 The head of the 
victim’s household was thus referred to as the godfather (Serb. kum) (Bogišić, 1999, 365). 
In Montenegrin tradition, the head of the victim’s household had some time to decide, 
whether to accept the off er for truce or not.26 Therefore, the mediators would repeat the 
homage and the plea for truce periodically until they were accepted into the victim’s 
house for negotiation (Jelić, 1926, 95, 98; Bogišić, 1999, 366).
The chieftains were in some cases accompanied by a group of women, who were 
traditionally referred to as »the carriers of peace« (Serb. mironosice), as they were 
24  There was a custom of voluntary seclusion for at least 24 hours after the killing that was implemented 
by the clan of the blood-taker as they were all potential targets of vendetta. By seclusion, the liable party 
expressed its fear from vendetta and humility before the victim’s clan. If this custom was not conducted 
accordingly, it signifi ed an insult to the clan of the victim (Bogišić, 1999, 355–356; KLD, §§ 870–873; 
Hasluck, 1954, 224–226).
25  The pleas in the area of Montenegro were recorded as »Primi kume za Svetoga Jovana«, similar phrases 
were supposedly used in Albania. The variation from Herzegovina is recorded as: »Primi kume, kumimo te 
bogom i tvom svetim Jovanom« (Bogišić, 1999, 365).
26  The head of the victim’s household (the master of blood) had to get the consent for truce from other mem-
bers of the victim’s clan as they were also entitled to take revenge (SK, 281, p. 3017–3027).
192
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
carrying with them babies in the cradles. The babies represented a symbolic gift of the 
blood-taker’s clan and the off er for future union of both clans. The babies symbolically 
represented the number of godfatherhoods, future alliances, which could be made be-
tween the communities, on the other hand, the babies represented the numerical power 
of the clan of the blood-taker, and that the clan would be able to survive further vendetta 
(Bogišić, 1999, 363, 365, 376; Jelić, 1926, 99–100).
In the Albanian tradition, however, the preserved customs state that it was honour-
able to grant the truce (Alb. besë) therefore, the plea for truce after a killing was to be 
immediately granted. However, it lasted only 24 hours (KLD §§ 854–855). During this 
short period of truce, the blood-taker had to show his remorse and humility in front of 
the victim’s clan and attend the funeral of the victim alone, without any escort.27 This 
custom enabled the clan of the victim to evaluate the blood-taker’s character and decide 
whether to grant the blood-taker and his clan the second, 30-day truce, during which 
further negotiation would be taking place (Jelić, 1926, 97; Karan, 1985, 31).
THE CONTRACT OF TRUCE
The truce (Serb. primirje; Alb. besa) was a contract between the house of the victim 
and the house and clan of the blood-taker.
After the mediators and the head of the victim’s household agreed for truce and 
determined its time span, they shook hands and swore28 that the blood-taker’s clan is 
safe from vendetta (KLD, § 854). Handshake was a gesture that was traditionally used 
in contractual agreements, such as vassal or notarial investitures in the middle ages (Le 
Goff , 1985, 387–388; Darovec, 2014, 473–500; Darovec, 2016, 24; Brunner, 1992, 
89–90). However, in Albanian as well as in Montenegrin tradition, the agreement with a 
handshake alone was not valid unless a warrantor (Alb. dorëzan Serb. dorzon, jemac) was 
appointed (Đuričić, 1979, 14; SK, 282, p. 3039). 
The warrantor was chosen by the mediators and was most likely present among them 
while they were mediating for truce. The warrantor was a person that enjoyed great respect 
in the community and had to be on good terms with both the household of the blood-taker 
as well as the victim’s household. Moreover, the warrantor’s household must not have 
been in a blood-feud at a given moment. The warrantor was to supervise the head of the 
victim’s household during the time of truce. The warrantor entered into the contractual 
agreement willingly and free of charge, but putting his good name and reputation at stake 
(Đuričić, 1979 33, 35; KLD § 687; Darovec, 2016, 22). 
Milutin Đuričić in the 20th century recorded the phrases that were used to include per-
sonal warranty (Alb. dorëzania; Serb. dorzonija, jemstvo; Ita. fi deiussione; Lat. sponsio) 
27 The blood-taker was in no danger as he was protected by the truce and the customs of hospitality. He was 
treated as a guest and had an honorary seat at the table (Jelić, 1926, 97). The custom is vividly interpreted 
by Ismail Kadaré in his 1978 novel, Prilli i Thyer, which was translated into English in 1989 as Broken April 
and translated in Slovene in 2006 as Zlomljeni april (Kadaré, 2006, 14–15).
28 In analogy to other contractual agreements comp. Bogišić, 1999, 176.
193
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
into a contractual agreement. I attempt to loosely translate the phrases from Serbian to 
English bellow. 
The head of the victim’s household asked the selected person: »Would you like to be 
my warrantor in this matter?« And the selected person asked: »Are you aware of what a 
warrantor is? He can forgive his own blood but not the blood of another. Do not hold me 
by the neck. If you kill him, I am dishonoured and I will have to kill you. Therefore, think 
well and honestly say - should I enter into this matter as your warrantor?« The head of 
the victim’s household said: »You can enter without a worry. I will not dishonour you in 
this matter; I will stick to my word for a thousand years I will keep my promise as long 
as I and my children are alive.« After this, the warrantor asked the mediators and the 
head of the victim’s household to repeat their statements and to confi rm their agreement. 
After they repeated their statements, the warrantor publicly declared: »I am the warran-
tor, address me in this matter. Have no worries, if he breaks his promise, he betrays me.« 
(Đuričić, 1979, 24. 33–36). The verbal promises of all the parties in the contract for truce 
were invalid, unless all parties took an oath upon a sacral object. Those could be the 
Gospel or the Crucifi x and, in Albanian Highlands, the rock, as the oldest sacral object 
(KLD, §§ 533, 535). 
To sum up, besë, the Albanian term for truce, is in fact a word with many contextual 
meanings.29 The Slavic equivalent for besë is vjera or vera (Karan, 1985, 34; Miklošič, 
1888, 139, 141), which generally translates as faith, yet it also has several contextual 
meanings30 and it is equivalent to Latin term and institution of fi des (fede) (Karadžić, 
1818, 73; comp. Škrubej, 2002, 149–156). Besë, as well as vjera and fi des, in their most 
general uses signifi ed a pledge of honesty, a promise of safety, mutual trust and loyalty 
between the parties (Petkov, 2003, 9–78; comp. Du Cange, 1710, Tom. 3, 1303). The 
latter was formed by an oath (Serb. zakletva; Alb. béja, Lat. jus jurandum) (Comp. Hysa, 
1995, 40; Stevanović et al. 1962, 521–522; Du Cange, 1710, Tom 2., 478) of both parties, 
through the mediators and by the oath of the warrantor, which represents legal obligation 
of all the entities involved (Đuričić, 1979, 30; Darovec, 2016, 23–24). 
On January 28th, 1740, the Paštrovići declared in front of the governor of Budva that 
they had made truce with Maine (datta la fede di bon vivere e di non molestare li Maini 
per le vertenze e pretese di sangue che tra loro corono) which was valid until October 
26th, 1740. The parties determined the fi ne for potential violators of truce (mancator di 
fede). The statement of Paštrovići was ratifi ed from the part of Maine that joined the 
29 Besë is »a word of honour« among Albanians (Berishaj, 1989, 58). Etymologically the noun besë derives 
from Indo-European roots for nouns that signify pledge, truce and trust, roots for adjectives faithful and 
trustworthy and roots for verbs to persuade and to force (Orel, 1998, 59); Besë  is also the pledge of safety 
and protection (Alb. ndorja) and safe conduct (Alb. shpurë i sigurti) (Đuričić, 1979, 7–8).
30 By analysing the vocabulary of former Montenegrin count bishop (vladika) Petar II. Petrović Njegoš, the 
term vjera has been used in several contextual variations. Vjèra was a belief that something is accurate and 
true or that something will happen as promised. Vjèra was also a guaranty and trust in something or some-
one. Vjèra is also defi ned as a given word of honour and a promise to someone that one will not be harmed. 
Vjèra was used as term for oath taking. Vjèra also meant trust into one’s word of honour, the trust that one 
will not be betrayed. Njegoš also used phrases »uhvatiti vjeru od mira« and »dati vjeru« which meant to 
form a peace treaty or to grant truce or safety to someone (Stevanović et al., 1983, 84–85).
194
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Paštrovići at a meeting in front of the governor of Budva on February 6th 1740, where 
they took an oath that they will resolve their dispute according to the custom (Sindik et 
al., 1959, 146–147, d. 203).
The violation of truce (besa, vjera or fi des) was a serious crime, which was not taken 
lightly.31 The violator of truce was to be killed by the warrantor of truce. (Đuričić, 1979, 
29, 42–43). However, in the Albanian Highlands the entire clan of the violator of truce 
was subdued to severe fi nes and punishments.32 
During the period of truce, further negotiation took place. From the negotiation on-
wards, according to the Montenegrin tradition, the head of the victim’s household was 
referred to as umirnik, which would loosely translate as the »peace-giver«. Both parties 
selected equal number of arbiters. The number varied from 6, 12 or 24 arbiters, depend-
ing on the case.33 The most common number of the arbiters for reconciliation of severe 
physical wounds or a killing was 24, although the number could be fewer if the parties 
agreed so.34 The mediators also discussed other demands of the victim’s kin that should 
have been granted in order for the parties to reach permanent peace (Bogišić, 1999, 364, 
366–367; Djuričić, 1975, 21–25; KLD, § 854). 
THE ARBITRATION AND PERMANENT PEACE
On the appointed day, the parties met at the appointed location in front of the arbitra-
tion assembly. The arbiters questioned both parties to determine the level of liability of 
the parties. In some cases, the victim himself had a fair amount of liability for the damage 
done. Each party knew exactly how much damage each party caused and suff ered. The 
arbiters deliberated on the sum of compositions for wounds and casualties and upon the 
sum of the composition for the material damage. Due to high sums of the composition,35 
31  Milorad Medaković wrote about the violation of truce (Serb. vera): »To break the truce or to harm someone 
during truce is the fi rst and the biggest sin on Earth one can never be redeemed from.« »Pogaziti vjeru i 
učiniti kome što na vjeru, držalo se za prvi i naiveći grieh na zemlji, od koeg se grešnik nigda izvaditi ne 
može« (Medaković, 1860, 107).
32  The composition that needed to be paid for a person that was killed during truce was 22 purses or 11000 
grosh (a purse, (turcism Alb. qesë, Serb. ćesa) was a monetary unit of 500 grosh). The community of the 
violator destroyed 3 houses of the violator’s closest relatives, destroyed all their fi elds and seized all their 
livestock (KLD, §§ 881–882; KLD, Dodatak, 211–213). In addition, the clan of the violator were to pay a 
fi ne for violation of truce, which was 100 rams and 1 ox (SK, 155, p. 692–693; KLD §884; Karan, 1985, 
44–47). If transformed into money, the fi ne was 10400 grosh (for customary prices of cattle and livestock 
see: KLD § 484). A grosh is most likely the Ottoman gurush, a sliver piece coin with a mass of 25.65 grams 
(Pamuk, 2000). 
33  The exact same numbers of arbiters, depending on the severity of the case, are mentioned in the Dušan’s 
Code (DZ, art. 151).
34  Some of the arbiters were the same chieftains that had mediated for truce, as the legal tradition refers to 
the chieftains as the mediators and arbiters (Serb. posrednici i plećnari; Alb. ndermjetës dhe pleqnarët) 
(Djuričić, 1975, 21); which may be the reason why some anthropologists tended to equate the mediation 
and arbitration (Stein, 1984, 5).
35  The compositions in the 19th century were recorded as follows: in Katunska, Riješka, Crmniška and 
Lješanska district the composition for death varied from 132 ducats, 4 pieces of 20 (cvancike) and one para. 
Other areas reported 133 zecchini and 2 grossi. Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Bratonožići, Kuči and Rovce, the tribes 
195
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
the sums were divided into rates, and deadlines for payments were determined. Fur-
thermore, the number and types of new alliances were determined. Those were usually 
the fraternities or godfatherhoods. However, as evident from Kotor notarial registers, 
marriages between the parties were also recorded. The arbiters also deliberated about 
the details of the execution. Usually, the clan of the blood-taker was to prepare a feast 
for the victim’s clan and the blood-taker was to perform the act of the public humility or 
humiliation in front of the peace-giver (Bogišić,1999, 362, 367–368, 369, 371, 373; Jelić, 
1926, 115–116). 
The parties swore to respect the peace by taking an oath. According to the Bogišić’s 
Survey, the symbolic act of permanent reconciliation was the kiss of peace (Serb. 
poljubac, cjelov mira; Lat. osculo pacis),36 that fi rst took place in front of the arbitration 
assembly (Bogišić, 1999, 371–372) and was later repeated on several occasions. The kiss 
was repeated in front of the offi  cials, such as the notaries of Kotor. The symbolic gesture 
of kiss was preserved in all the areas of Montenegro throughout the centuries.
The peace treaty between two clans of Paštrovići from 1632 states that the delibera-
tion was accepted by both parties and they kissed in front of the assembly and took an 
oath to form god-fatherhoods and keep the perpetual peace ([…] i pred nama se izljubiše 
i kumstvo obečaše i u vječnom miru ostaše […]) (Jelić, 1926, 134). 
In 1716, in Paštrovići two families made peace after a killing. The liable party was to 
pay the composition, form 6 fraternities and 6 godfatherhoods and prepare a feast for 76 
people. The peace-giver declared after the execution that he was justly compensated for 
of Morača and Vasojevići the composition varied between 200 and 300 talier. The composition for severe 
physical wounds was deemed approximately half of the composition for death, which is 66 zecchin. Com-
position for smaller wounds was between 20 and 50 talier (Bogišić, 1999, 367–368; Jelić, 1926, 89, 92). 
Based on the 1740 monetary reform of the Republic of Venice, the ducato / zecchino represented 22 lire of 
240 gross with 2.18 grams of total mass and 2.07 grams of silver. One para was a Turkish silver piece coin 
with a mass of 0.55 grams (Darovec, 2004, 68–69; Pamuk, 2000).The composition in Herzegovina varied 
between 100 and 300 talier or more, if the victim had small children. If the clan of the victim was numerous 
and strong, the composition was up to 600 talier. The composition for wounds was determined in the same 
way as in the Montenegro (Bogišić, 1999, 367–368). The tallero was a silver-piece coin with the mass of 28 
grams (Coinage, 2016). In Albanian Highlands the composition for the killed man or a boy was six purses 
which is 3000 grosh (KLD § 881; KLD, 170); in practice, the compensation could vary between 9 and 12 
purses (Jelić, 1926, 93). The composition for a killed woman was three purses or 1500 grosh. If a pregnant 
woman was killed, the assembly could inspect the gender of the unborn child. The composition was enlarged 
by three purses for an unborn girl and six purses for an unborn boy. The composition for each bloody wound 
was three purses (1500 grosh) (KLD §§ 935–937; SK, 266; Bogišić, 1999, 367). Among the tribes of Mirditë, 
the composition for wound depended upon the part of the body that was injured. Injury above the belt was 
estimated at least 3 purses (1500 grosh), below the belt, however, not more than a purse and a half, 750 grosh. 
If the injury resulted in permanent handicap, the composition was 2000 grosh. The bloodtaker was to pay the 
»medical« expenses that usually varied between 200 and 300 grosh (Hasluck, 1954, 241; Jelić, 1926, 93). 
Grosh was a Turkish silver piece coin, gurush, with a mass of 25.65 grams (Pamuk, 2000).
36  The kiss of peace represented a confi rmation and a warranty of the peace treaty and new friendship (Lat. 
amicitia) between the parties (Darovec, 2014, 492; comp. Darovec, 2016, 30–32). In the middle ages, the 
kiss represented one of the investiture objects or gestures (Le Goff , 1985, 457). According to Gregorio 
López’s analysis of the Spanish legal codes in Siete Partidas (1555), the kiss represented the symbol of true 
love that transformed the hearts of former adversaries. The change of emotional state was transformed into 
formal legal obligation (Petkov, 2003, 33–34; 40–41, 48).
196
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
the death of his father and that there is nothing but brotherly love left between him and 
the other party (Bojović et al.,1990, 29, d. 7).
On January 12th 1829, in Brčeli tribe, the arbiters deliberated in the feud between 
Lorovići an Aleksići. The killing and the blood revenge were compensated one for the other 
and the composition for a wound and the material damage was determined. The Aleksići 
were to prepare a feast for 50 members of Lorovići and Luka Perov with his 10 friends. The 
parties kissed in front of the assembly that was a sign of perpetual peace. (i celive učinismo, 
[…] i u vječni mir ostavismo, koi se podpisujemo) (Novaković, 1879, 206). 
The custom of vendetta and reconciliation was kept alive even after the dissolution 
of the Venetian Republic in 1797. Thereafter, the unifi cation of the Old Montenegro, the 
Montenegrin Highlands as well as the Montenegrin coastal areas (Crnogorsko Primorje) 
that was previously a Venetian administrative area, took place (Andrijašević & Rastoder, 
2006, 155; Raspopović, 2009, 15).
The Montenegrin count bishops and princes of Petrovići dynasty worked towards the 
abolition of the custom of vendetta with new criminal legislation. Since the rule of the count 
bishop Petar I. Petrović, there was an attempt to form a permanent judicial body in Monte-
negro, which was accomplisched by his successor Petar II. Petrović Njegoš (Andrijašević 
& Rastoder, 2006, 132–134, 161–163, 165; Margulis, 2013, 31; Marinović, 2007, 624). 
The judgements and deliberations of the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud, Senat) that was 
formed on October 2nd 1831, were much like the deliberations of the tribal assemblies 
(Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006, 163). Especially in the fi rst few decades in regards to 
determining compensations for wounds, killings and in some cases in the formation of 
new alliances between the parties (Jelić, 1926, 125–132, d. VI, VIII, XI, XV, XVI XVII).
Although the criminal legislation further developed in the time of prince Danilo I and 
prince Nikola I Petrović (Bogišić, 1999, 294–295, 321; Šćepanović, 2003, 25; Marinović, 
2007, 28–32, 157–167 171, 181, 195–196), the custom of vendetta remained alive as 
have the customs of the pacifi cation. Precisely in the reign of prince Nikola I, one of the 
most detailed descriptions of the execution of the deliberation was recorded by Pavel 
Apolonovič Rovinskiĭ in 1890 in Grbalj. 
THE EXECUTION OF THE DELIBERATION 
In spring of 1890, an assembly of 24 mutually selected arbiters gathered in a vil-
lage Višnjevo. The deliberation stated that Jovo Bojković, the son of the blood-taker, 
should pay the compensation (mito) to the kinship of the Zec family 30 zecchin and the 
composition of 133 zecchin, 2 grossi and one half para for the killed Jovo Zec (Sn.). 
Jovo Bojković was to prepare a feast for Jovo Zec (Jr.) and 300 of his clan members. The 
parties were to form 12 godfatherhoods and 12 great and 12 small fraternities. According 
to the ancient custom, the son of the blood-taker was to hand over the killer’s weapon, by 
all the formalities of humiliation.  
On the day of the execution, August 27th, 1890, around seven in the morning, the 
women with cradles came in front of the house of Jovo Zec. The twelve male godfathers 
of the Bojkovići clan began to loudly greet: »God speed! Good morning in the godfather’s 
197
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
house! […] In the name of God and Saint John, good morning to the godfather!« The 
godfathers were accepted to the house and were given wine and brandy and they gave 
two silver pistols (ledenice) to Jovo Zec. The women with babies in the cradles entered 
the house, carrying a silver-piece coin under the head of each baby. Then, the formation 
of brotherhoods took place by the lead of Jovo Zec, who picked a baby from a cradle ad 
kissed it on the head (Rovinskiĭ, 1994, 257–259).37
THE PUBLIC PARDON 
The ritual of humiliation of the son of the blood-taker in front of the son of the victim38 
is described by Rovinskiĭ as follows: 
The son of the blood-taker, in only single undergarment, barefoot and uncovered, 
crawled on all four, with a long riffl  e strapped around his neck [...] Two arbiters, also 
uncovered, were supporting the riffl  e from both ends. Seeing this, Zec ran towards 
Bojković, to shorten this horrifi cally humiliating scene. By attempting to lift Bojković 
from the ground, Bojković kissed Zec on the feet, the chest and the shoulder. By remov-
ing the rifl e from the Bojković’s neck, Zec said: »First my brother, then my blood-taker, 
then my brother forever. Is this the rifl e that took the life of my father?« and without 
waiting for a reply, he handed the rifl e back to Bojkovićć and expressed a full pardon 
and they both kissed and embraced each other as brothers (Rovinskiĭ, 1994, 259; 
comp. Boehm, 1987, 136; Darovec, 2016, 24).
After the act of public reconciliation, other rites followed. The clan of the bloodtaker 
prepared a feast (Serb. krvna trpeza, krvni sto, hljeb krvne osvete, krvni leb / hljeb / kruh, 
Alb. »büke i gjakut«) for the clan of the peace-giver. Before the meal itself, the composi-
tion was paid, either in money or in goods, usually valuable objects such as riffl  es, pistols 
or knives.39 
After the meal, the fraternity between the main actors of parties was formed with a 
37  The custom was similarly described by Božidar Petranović (Petranović, 1868, 18–19).
38  The homage that expressed humility and humiliation of the blood-taker before the peace-giver, was men-
tioned by A. Fortis (Fortis, 1984, 42). According to the Bogišič’s survey, in Herzegovina, the blood-taker 
approached the peace-giver from 50-meter distance on his knees or crawling on all fours, with the support 
of two members of his clan. In Albania, the blood-taker approached on his knees with his hands tied behind 
his back, asking the peace-giver to free his hands and accept him as a godfather. The common tradition sug-
gested the blood-taker to make 2/3 of the distance and the peace giver the remaining 1/3. The blood-taker 
was to say: »Accept, me godfather, as your godfather by God and Saint John,« as the people who were pres-
ent repeated the blood-taker’s words. When the blood-taker and the peace-giver were in front of each-other, 
the blood-taker kissed the peace-giver on the chest, while the peace-giver kissed the blood-taker on the 
head. After they kissed each other on their cheeks, the peace-giver said: »I forgive him to you, blood-taker, 
by God and Saint John« (Bogišić, 1999, 371–372).
39  The value of individual objects was evaluated by the chieftains who usually deemed the objects as higher 
value as they actually were. There was also a custom that the peace giver returned the composition, and 
donated the compensation as a gift to his new godfather (Bogišić, 1999, 372–373). The custom of returning 
the composition as a gift (Mauss, 1996, 29–30).
198
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
ritual. The peace-giver and the blood-taker pierced their little fi ngers with a pin and each 
dropped a couple of drops of blood into a glass of water, wine or brandy and they drank 
from each-other’s cups (Jelić, 1926, 108–110; KLD, §§ 988-990).40 
In the Albanian Highlands, however, the concluding act of the reconciliation was 
the carving of the cross at the entrance door of the former blood-taker’s house (Jelić, 
1926, 110; KLD § 983–987). »All houses are marked with many crosses«, wrote Mary 
E. Durham by describing the houses in the Vraka village in the High Albania (Durham, 
1909, 17), which indicates that the custom of carving of the cross might have been quite 
frequent. The cross in the Christian tradition represents the absolution of sins (Schmitt, 
2000, 357).
CONCLUSION
The documents suggest that tribes and clans in Modern Age Montenegro enjoyed 
substantial judicial autonomy. The judicial autonomy of the clans in the Ottoman admin-
istrative area, the Old Montenegro, was granted by the Sultan’s decree in the beginning 
of the 16th century, the judicial autonomy of the kinship communities in the Bay of Kotor 
was declared in the Statute of Kotor. It was respected by the Serbian rulers and later by the 
Venetian administration that did not impose its statutory laws onto kinship communities. 
This is especially evident in regards to the Paštrovići, who were confi rmed their existing 
privileges of judicial autonomy. The 15th century peace treaties of the notarial register 
of Kotor testify, that the kinship communities were well able to resolve their disputes 
on their own through implementation of their legal customs of pacifi cation, without 
any interference of the Venetian authorities. The kinship communities did however take 
advantage of the notarial offi  ce of Kotor where they sporadically put their peace-treaties 
in written. After the division of the Montenegrin territory between the Venetian and Ot-
toman administration, some land disputes arose among the clans from both sides of the 
border that developed greater proportions and called for diplomatic intervention of the 
Venetian and the Ottoman authorities. Latter was unfortunately not as eff ective as the cus-
tomary dispute resolution. The dispute resolution called for mediation of the third party 
that resulted in truce. Truce was a contract between the parties and the warrantors, who 
swore that the parties would meet before the arbitration assembly. During the arbitration, 
all points of the dispute were thoroughly revised. The composition for the damage was 
determined by the arbiters, along the number of new alliances between the parties. The 
parties made permanent peace by symbolic gestures of kiss and oath. Yet, the fi nal stage 
of the reconciliation was the execution that took place on a later date. The composition in 
full or in rates was payed and the parties executed some other rites of pacifi cation. Due 
to the effi  ciency of the peace-making custom, the Venetian authorities on some occasions 
40  M. E. Durham discusses the modifi cation of the ritual, as a form of alliance between families, not neces-
sarily linked to the pacifi cation. The parties could put their drops of blood on a block of sugar and ingest 
it. Marriages between the family members of people who were in fraternity were forbidden by custom 
(Durham, 1909, 24). 
199
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
ordered the Paštrovići to make peace with the neighbouring communities or urged them 
not to take blood-revenge against the inhabitants of the Ottoman administrative area. 
The pressure for peace was a strategy that existed within the legal customs of the kinship 
communities. 
200
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
»NAJPREJ MOJ BRAT, NATO KRVNIK, NATO MOJ BRAT ZA VEDNO«
UČINKOVITOST TRADICIONALNEGA POSTOPKA POMIRITVE V ČRNI 
GORI V ZGODNJEM NOVEM VEKU IN VLOGA BENEŠKIH OBLASTI PRI 
POSTOPKU POMIRITVE
Angelika ERGAVER
Inštitut Nove revije, Zavod za humanistiko, Gospodinjska ulica 8, 1000 Ljubljana
e-mail: angiesmeister@gmail.com
POVZETEK
Članek obravnava običaj krvnega maščevanja in običaje pomiritve na območju Črne 
gore v novem veku. Običaji so se ohranili skozi stoletja, njihovo zbiranje pa je potekalo od 
19. stoletja dalje. Pravne običaje rodovnih skupnosti so priznavali srednjeveški vladarji. 
V novem veku so bili beneški in osmanski oblastniki seznanjeni z običajem maščevanja in 
z običaji pomiritve. Slednji so se izkazali kot učinkoviti pri reševanju dolgotrajnih sporov 
med klani iz različnih administrativnih ozemelj. Kljub vsemu, so bile skupnosti na eni in 
drugi strani meje sposobne samostojno reševati spore, brez vpletanja oblastnikov, ki so 
sicer občasno pritisnili na bratstva v sporu, da bi se pomirila. Pomiritev je sestavljena 
iz treh faz, iz mediacije, arbitraže in izvršbe razsodbe. V mediaciji sta podani prisega in 
garancija o premirju. Arbitraža se je odvijala pred zborom razsodnikov, kjer sta si stranki 
oprostili s simbolnimi gestami. V izvršbi so bile simbolne geste ponovljene, še posebej pri 
obredu javne sprave, kjer sta sprta postala »brata za vedno«. Članek z analizo ohranjenih 
mirovnih pogodb in historiografske literature ponazarja, da kljub administrativni razde-
ljenosti ozemlja Črne gore v novem veku med dve véliki politični entiteti, niti osmanska 
niti beneška oblast nista bistveno posegali v sodno avtonomijo bratstev na območju Črne 
gore, temveč sta spoštovali obstoječe pravne običaje.
Ključne besede: pomiritev, Črna gora, Albanija, Beneška Republika, novi vek
201
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 
IAK SN – Državni arhiv Crne Gore, odsijek Istorijski arhiv Kotor (IAK), Acta Notarilia, 
Sudsko-notarski spisi (SN) XVI, 371-386, dat. 22.– 28. 8. 1475, 22. 10. 1475.
IAK SN – V, 5-6, dat. 9. 1. 1431. 
IAK SN – VI, 286-287, dat. 22. 12. 1437.
IAK SN – VI, 450-451, dat. 31. 3. 1438.
IAK SN – VI, 683-684, dat. 25. 3. 1439.
IAK SN – VI, 553-554, dat. 3. 1. 1440.
Andrijašević, Ž. M. & Š. Rastoder (2006): Istorija Crne Gore od najstarijih vremena do 
2003. Podgorica, CICG. 
Berishaj, N. (1989): Albansko-slovenski in slovensko-albanski slovar. Fjalor shqip-
sllovenisht dhe sllovenisht-shqip. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.
Boehm, C. (1987): Blood Revenge. The Enactment and Management of Confl ict in Mon-
tenegro and Other Tribal Societies. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bogišić, V. (1999): Pravni običaji u Crnoj Gori, Hercegovini i Albaniji. Knjiga IV. 
Čizmović, M. (ed.). Beograd-Podgorica, Unireks.
Bogojević-Glušičević, N. (2002): Učešće Mlećana u privrednom životu Kotora u 14. 
vijeku. Istorijski zapisi, LXXXV, 3-4. 7–30.
Bojović, J. R. et al. (1990): Paštrovske isprave. Knjiga 2. Budva, Istorijski arhiv Budva, 
NIO »Univerzitetska riječ«.
Brunner, O. (1992): Land and Lordship. Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria. 
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Poulsen (ed.) (2007): Feud in Medieval and Early Mod-
ern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
Byock, J. L. (2007): Defi ning Feud. Talking Points and Iceland Saga Women. In: Büchert 
Netterstrøm, J. & B. Poulsen (ed.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 
Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 95–111.
Camaj, A. M. (2011): Riječ prevodioca i priređivača. In: Vukčević, D. K. (ed.): Kanon 
Leke Dukađina. Podgorica, CID, 227–231
Carroll, S. (2003): The Peace in the Feud in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France. 
Past and Present, 178, 74–115.
Carroll, S. (2006): Blood and Violence in Early Modern France. New York, Oxford 
University Press.
Carroll, S. (ed.) (2007): Cultures of Violence. Interpersonal Violence in Historical Per-
spective. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Chown, J. F. (1994): A History of Money. From AD 800. Routlege, London-New York, 
Institute of Economic Aff airs. 
Coinage (2016): Coinage of the Republic of Venice. Internet source, available at: https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_of_the_Republic_of_Venice (24.11.2016)
Ćirković, S. (2009a): Knez. In: Antović, J. (ed.): Statuta Civitatis Cathari. Statut Grada 
Kotora. Prevod originala iz 1616. godine sa naučnim aparatom. Kotor, Državni arhiv 
Crne Gore, 42–43.
202
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Ćirković, S. (2009b): Granice i teritorija. In: Antović, J. (ed.): Statuta Civitatis Cathari. 
Statut Grada Kotora. Prevod originala iz 1616. godine sa naučnim aparatom. Kotor, 
Državni arhiv Crne Gore, 39–41.
Ćirković, S. (2009c): Novac. In: Antović, J. (ed.): Statuta Civitatis Cathari. Statut Grada 
Kotora. Prevod originala iz 1616. godine sa naučnim aparatom. Kotor, Državni arhiv 
Crne Gore, 55–56
Darovec, D. (2004): Davki nam pijejo kri. Gospodarstvo severozahodne Istre v novem 
veku v luči beneške davčne politike. Koper, Založba Annales. 
Darovec, D. (2014): Cum lampulo mantelli. The ritual of notarial investiture. Example 
from Istria. Acta Histriae, 22, 3, 453–519.
Darovec, D. (2016): Turpiter interfectus. The Seigneurs of Momiano and Pietrapelosa 
in the Customary System of Confl ict Resolution in Thirteenth-century Istria. Acta 
Histriae, 24, 1, 1–42.
Davies, J. (ed.) (2013): Aspects of Violence in Renaissance Europe. University of War-
wick, UK. London, Ashgate.
Djuričić, M. R. (1975): Arbanaška zakletva – beja. Zagreb, JAZU.
Dolenc, M. (1925): Dušanov Zakonik. Primerjalni prikaz pravnih razmer po Dušanovem 
zakoniku in po istodobnem germanskem pravu s posebnim ozirom na Slovence. 
Ljubljana, Založba zvezne tiskarne in knjigarne.
Dragičević, R. J. (1938): Sok i sođbina. Zapisi., XI. Knj. XX. Cetinje, 278–288. 
Du Cange, C. du Fresne (1710): Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infi mae Latini-
tatis. Frankfurt, Main. Available at: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/
ducange.html (7.01.2017).
Ducat (2016): Ducat. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducat (20.11. 2016).
Durham, M. E. (1909): High Albania. London, Edward Arnold.
DZ – Dušanov zakonik: Dolenc, M. 1925. Slovenski prevod Zakonika Stefana Dušana, 
srbskega carja, po 2. izdaji Stojana Novakovića (1898). In: Dolenc, M.: Dušanov 
Zakonik. Primerjalni prikaz pravnih razmer po Dušanovem zakoniku in po istodob-
nem germanskem pravu s posebnim ozirom na Slovence. Ljubljana, Založba zvezne 
tiskarne in knjigarne. 177–200.
Đuričić, M. R. (1979): Čuvari bese. Beograd, SAZU.
Elsie, R. (2015): The Tribes of Albania: History, Society and Culture. London-New York, 
I. B. Tauris.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1993): Ljudstvo Nuer. Opis načinov preživljanja in političnih 
institucij enega izmed nolitskih ljudstev. Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis, Znanstveni 
inštitut Filozofske Fakultete, Škuc.
Faggion, L. (2013): Violence, Rites and Social Regulation in The Venetian Terra Firma 
in The Sixteenth Century. In: Davies, J.: Aspects of Violence in Renaissance Europe. 
University of Warwick, UK. London, Ashgate, 185–204.
Fortis, A. (1984): Put po Dalmaciji. Alberto Fortis. Viaggio in Dalmatina dell‘ abate 
Alberto Fortis. Venezia, 1774. Bratulić, J. (ed.). Zagreb, Globus.
Gëllçi, D. (2014): Gjakmarrja. Albanian Highlander‘s social obligation. Createspace 
Independent Publishers Platform. America.
203
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Geseman, G. (2003): Crnogorski čovjek. Prilog književnoj istoriji i karakterologiji 
patriarhalnosti. Vlahović, P. (ed.). Podgorica, Etnos, CID.
Gluckman, M. (1955): Custom and Confl ict in Africa. London, Basil Blackwell, 1–26.  
Hasluck, M. (1954): The Unwritten Law in Albania. Hutton, J. H. (ed.). Cambridge. 
Cambridge University Press.
Hysa, R. (1995): Albanian-English Dictionary. New York. Hippocrene Books, Inc.
Imamović, M. (2008): Bilješke o razvitku i metodu historijsko-pravne nauke. Sarajevo, 
samostalno autorsko izdanje
Jelić, I. M. (1926): Krvna osveta i umir u Crnoj Gori i Severnoj Arbaniji. Istorijsko-
pravna studija. Beograd, Gece Kon.
Jurančić, J. (1959): Srbska in hrvatska ljudska epika. Knjižnica Kondor. Izbrana dela iz 
domače in svetovne književnosti 31. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.
Kadaré, I. (2006): Zlomljeni april. Ljubljana, Tuma.
Karadžić, V. S. (1814): Mala prostonarodnja slaveno-serbska pesnarica. Viena, Pečatnja 
G. Ioanna Šnirera.
Karadžić, V. S. (1818): Srpski rječnik. Ivić, P. (ed.) 1966. Beograd, Prosveta.
Karadžić, V. S. (1846): Srpske narodne pjesme. Knjiga treća, u kojoj su pjesme junačke 
srednjijeh vremena. Beč, Štamparija Jermenskoga manastira. 
Karadžić, V. S. (1865): Srpske narodne pjesme. Knjiga peta, u kojoj su pjesme junačke 
novijih vremena o vojevanju Crnogoraca. Beč.
Karadžić, V. S. (1875): Srpske narodne pjesme. Knjiga druga, u kojoj su pjesme junačke 
najstarije. Beč, Novo izdanje preštampano bez ikakve promjene. 
Karan, M. (1985): Krvna osveta. Beograd, Partizanska Knjiga
KLD – Gjeçovi, S. K. (1933): Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit. Shköder. In: Vukčević, D. K. 
(ed.) (2011) Kanon Leke Dukađinija. Prev. Camaj, A.  Podgorica, CID, 50–204.
Kohl, J. G. (2005): Putovanje u Crnu goru, Istru i Dalmaciju. (Reise nach Montenegro, 
Istrien und Dalmazien. 1851). Podgorica, CID.
Kos, J. (1994): Pregled svetovne književnosti. Ljubljana, DZS.
Kovijanić, R. (1963): Pomeni crnogorskih plemena u kotorskim spomenicima (XIV–
XVI vijek). Knjiga I. Cetinje, Istorijski institut SR Crne Gore, Obod.
Kovijanić, R. (1974): Pomeni crnogorskih plemena u kotorskim spomenicima (XIV–
XVI vijek). Knjiga II. Titograd, Istorijski institut SR Crne Gore. 
Le Goff , J. (1985): Simbolično obredje vazalstva. In: Le Goff , J.: Za drugačen srednji 
vek. Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis, ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta. 383–461.
Ljubić, S. (1880): Marijana Bolice Kotoranina Opis Sandžakata Skadarskog od 1614. 
Priobčio na sjednici fi ligičko-historičkog razreda Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti 
i umijetnosti dne 7. veljače 1880. In: Starine, knjiga XII. Zagreb, JAZU, 164–205.
Lonza, N. (2013): Pravna kultura srednovjekovne Dalmacije između usmenosti i pis-
menosti. In: Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu. Vol. 63. No. 5-6., 1203–1233.
Lord, A. B. (1981): The Singer of Tales. Cambridge-Massachusetts-London, Harvard 
University Press.
Margulis, N. R. (2013): Njegoševa Crne Gora. Velike sile i proces modernizacije na 
Balkanu (1830–1851). Podgorica, Matica Crnogorska.
204
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Marinović, S. (2007): Kaznena istorija Crne Gore. Cicero »Cetinje«, Podgorica. 
Mauss, M. (1996): Esej o daru in drugi spisi. Claude Lévi Strauss. Uvod v Delo Marcela 
Maussa. Ljubljana, Škuc, Znanstvena založba Filozofske Fakultete. 
Medaković, V. M. G. (1860): Život i običai Crnogoraca. Novi Sad, Europska 
Knjigopečatnja.
Mijušković, S. (1959): Knjiga paštrovskih privilegija. Istoriski zapisi, let. XII, knj. XV, 
zvezek 2, Titograd, 467–501.
Miklošič, F. (1888): Die Blutrache bei ren Slaven. Denkschriften der Keiserlichen Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe, Wien. In Commission bei 
F. Tempsky, 127–210.
Miller, W. I. (1996): Bloodtaking and Peacemaking. Feud, Law, and Society in Saga 
Iceland. Chichago, University of Chichago Press.
Milošević, M. (2009): Običajno pravo. In: Antović, J. (ed.): Statuta Civitatis Cathari. 
Statut Grada Kotora. Prevod originala iz 1616. godine sa naučnim aparatom. Kotor, 
Državni arhiv Crne Gore, 56–57.
Milošević, M. & S. Ćirković (2009): O statutu grada Kotora. In: Antović, J. (ed.): Statuta 
Civitatis Cathari. Statut Grada Kotora. Prevod originala iz 1616. godine sa naučnim 
aparatom. Kotor, Državni arhiv Crne Gore, 11–29.
Monete di Venezia (2016): Monete di Venezia. Available at: https://it.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Monete_di_Venezia (24.11.2016).
Nikčević, T. (1984): Predgovor. In: Bogišić, V. & T. Nikčević(ed.): Pravni običaji u Crnoj 
Gori, Hercegovini i Albaniji. Titograd, CANU, 5–18.
Nikčević, T. (1999): Predgovor T. Nikčevića i izdanju ove knjige. In: Bogišić, V. Pravni 
običaji u Crnoj Gori, Hercegovini i Albaniji. Knjiga IV. Čizmović, M. (ed.). Beograd-
Podgorica, Unireks, 13–26.
Novaković, S. (1879): Dva crnogorska pisma. Prilog k proučavańu pravnih narodnih 
običaja. Starine, JAZU, knjiga XI. Zagreb, JAZU, 204–206.
O‘Connell, M. (2009): Men of Empire. Power and Negotiations in Venice‘s Maritime 
State. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. 
Oman, Ž. (2016): Will auss der Vnordnung nit Schreitten: A Case of Fehde from 17th 
Century Styria. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 63–100.
Orel, V. (1998): Albanian Ethymological Dictionary. Leiden-Boston-Köln, Brill.
Orlando, E. (2014): Venezia e il mare nel Medioevo. Bologna, Il Mulino, Universale 
Paperbacks.
Pamuk, Ş. (2000): Coins and Currency of the Ottoman Empire. A Monetary History of 
the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://
www.pierre-marteau.com/currency/coins/turk.html (13.11. 2016.)
Peristiany, J. G. (1965): Honour and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society. 
London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Petkov, K. (2003): Kiss of Peace. Ritual, Self and Society in the High and Late Medieval 
West. Boston, Brill-Leiden.
205
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Petranović, B. (1868): O osveti, mirenju i vraždi po negdašnjemu srbsko-hrvatskome 
pravnom običaju. Na sjednici fi losofi čko-pravoslovnoga razreda JANU, 10. 4. 1868, 
1–19.
Povolo, C. (2010): L‘ uomo che pretendeva l‘onore. Storia di Bortolamio Pasqualin di 
Malo (1502–1591). Padova, Marsilio.
Povolo, C. (2015a): Tradicija pride na dan. Razprave iz antropologije prava (16.–18. 
stoletje). Venezia, Cafoscarina.
Povolo, C. (2015b): Feud and Vendetta. Customs and Trial Rites in Medieval and Modern 
Europe. A Legal-Anthropological Approach. Acta Histriae, 23, 2, 195–244.
Pupovci, S. (2011): Kanon Leke Dukađinija. Porijeklo, razvoj i karakteristike. In: 
Vukčević, D. K., (ed.): Kanon Leke Dukađina. Podgorica, CID, 7–58.
Radcliff e-Brown, A. R. (1994): Struktura in funkcija v primitivni družbi. (Structure and 
Function in Primitive Society, 1952). Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis. 
Radov, S. (1997): Izreke i anegdote. Treće izdanje. Kalezić, S. (ed.). Kulturno-prosvetna 
zajednica Podgorica, Podgorica, MZ Komani.
Raspopović, R. (2009): Stega. Podgorica, Sanus. 
Rovinskiĭ, P. A. (1994): Crna Gora u prošlosti i sadašnjosti. (Č ernogorija v‘ eja proš lom‘ 
i nastojaš em, Sanktpeterburg, 1901). Vukčević, D. K. (ed.). Vol. III. Etnografi ja – 
Književnost i jezik. Cetinje, Izdavački centar »Cetinje«.
Sazdov, T. (1997): Usna narodna kniževnost. Istorija na makedonskata kniževnost. Insti-
tut za makedonskata literatura pri Filološkiot fakultet, Skopje. Skopje, Detska Radost.
Sazdov, T. et al. (1988): Makedonska književnost. Zagreb, Školska knjiga.
Schmitt, J. C. (2000): Geste v srednjem veku. Ljubljana, Studia humanitatis.
Sindik, I. et al. (1959): Paštrovske isprave XVI–XVII vijeka. Cetinje. Državni arhiv NR 
Crne gore.
SK – Skenderbegov Kanon. In: Berishaj, M. (2004): Skrita moč bese. Ženske v imagi-
nariju albanskega tradicionalizma. Dodatek: Skenderbegov Kanon. Ljubljana, ZRC, 
SAZU, 105–309.
Skakić, M. (1998): Vuk Karađić u svom i današnjem vremenu ili uočavanja sa vremenske 
distance. Beograd, NB »Vuk Karađić«
Srednjovjekovni novac (2016): Srednjovjekovni novac u Crnoj Gori. Available at: 
https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/Средњовјековни_новац_у_Црној_Гори (24.11. 2016).
St B – Srednjeveški statut Budve. In: Luketić, M. & Ž. Bujuklić (1988): Srednjovjekovni 
statut Budve. The Medieval Statute of Budva. Obćina Budvanska.
Stanojević, G. (1959): Iz istorije Crne Gore u XVI i XVII vijeku. In: Stanojević, G. 
(2007): Crna Gora u XVI i XVII vijeku. Zbornik radova. Stanojević, M. (ed.). Cetinje, 
Obod, 7–104.
Stein, P. (1984): Legal Institutions. The Development of Dispute Settlement. London, 
Butterworths.
Stevanović, M. et al. (1962): Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika, Beograd, 
SANU. 
206
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Angelika ERGAVER: »FIRST MY BROTHER, THEN A BLOOD-TAKER, THEN MY BROTHER FOREVER« ..., 179–206
Stevanović, M. et al. (1983): Rečnik jezika Petra II. Petrovića Njegoša. Beograd-Tito-
grad-Cetinje, Vuk Karadžić – Narodna Knjiga – Obod – Prosveta – SANU –Srpska 
književna zadruga – CANU.
Šćepanović, M. (2003): O krvnoj osveti. Krivičnopravni prilaz. Podgorica, CID.
Šekularac, B. (1999): Paštrovske isprave. Knjiga III. Odbor za sakupljanje istorijske 
građe o Paštrovićima. Petrovac na moru
Škrubej, K. (2002): Ritus gentis Slovanov v vzhodnih Alpah. Model rekonstrukcije 
pravnih razmerij na podlagi starejšega jezikovnega gradiva. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU.
Šuffl  ay, M. (1991): Srbi i Arbanasi. Njihova simbioza u srednjem vijeku. Mala Azurova 
povijesnica, Knjiga 2. Zagreb.
Tarifa, F. (2008): Vengeance is Mine. Justice Albanian Style. Chapel Hill, Globic Press.
Trnavci, G. (2008): The Albanian Customary Law and the Canon of Lekë Dukagjini: A 
Clash of Synergy with Modern Law. Selected works of Genc H. Trnavci. ExpressO,
 1–24. Also available at: http://works.bepress.com/genc_trnavci/1 (10.11.2015).
Zurl, M. (1979): Krvna osveta u Kosovu. Zagreb, August Cesarac. 
Þorláksson, H. (2007): Feud and Feuding in the Early and High middle Ages. In: Netter-
strøm, J. B. & Poulsen, B. (ed): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, 
Aarhus University Press, 69–94.