Urban_Elites_of_Zadar_Dalmatia_and_the_V.pdf

I libri di Viella156 Stephan Karl Sander-Faes Urban Elites of Zadar Dalmatia and the Venetian Commonwealth (1540-1569) viella Copyright © 2013 - Viella s.r.l. Tutti i diritti riservati Prima edizione: xxxxxxxx 2013 ISBN 978-88-6728-###-# Questo volume è stato pubblicato con il contributo del Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici dell’Università di Venezia nel quadro del progetto nazionale di ricerca PRIN 2009 dal titolo «Forme di statualità fra medio evo ed età moderna. La dimensione mediterranea e il dominio sulla terraferma nel “modello” veneziano». viella libreria editrice via delle Alpi, 32 I-00198 ROMA tel. 06 84 17 758 fax 06 85 35 39 60 www.viella.it Contents Acknowledgements Abbreviations Note on Names and Dates 7 8 10 Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center by Gherardo Ortalli and Bernd Roeck 11 Introduction 15 1. The Setting 27 27 33 35 37 40 42 1. Venice’s Maritime State (1358-1570) 2. Administration 3. Economy 4. The Adriatic Context 5. “Zara è metropoli et chiave” 6. Zadar under Venetian Rule (1409-1570) 2. Zadar’s Society: Geographical Distribution and Social and Occupational Fault Lines 1. Zadar as Communication Centre 2. Trans-Adriatic Networks in the Sixteenth Century 3. Procuratorial Networking 4. Economic, Legal, and Social Incentives 5. Secular and Ecclesiastical Elites 6. Intellectual Elites 7. Ecclesiastical Activities 3. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 1. Political Elites: Venetians and the Local Nobility 2. Ecclesiastical Elites: Convents, Hospitals, and Monasteries 3. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities 64 64 66 66 73 76 82 88 111 111 116 126 Geographical and Social Mobility 3. Croats and Jews 4. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 1. Non-Noble Elites 3. Zadar’s Urban Nobility 2. Planting Concessions/Land Grants 3. Venetians 2. Material Culture 6. Rental and Leasehold Contracts 5. The Cityscape Conclusion 143 143 150 156 171 171 171 178 189 190 192 194 198 213 Appendix Glossary Units of Measurement List of Toponyms in Zadar’s Jurisdiction Maps Sample Transcripts Bibliography Index 221 222 223 227 230 243 271 . Property Sales 2. Urban Elites and Everyday Life 1. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 1.6 Urban Elites of Zadar 4. which are my personal responsibility. for all their comments on and proof-reading of my manuscripts. writing. Dorothea.Acknowledgements As this manuscript goes to print. Marko Trogrlić. University of Zurich. Sascha Attia. University of Vienna. Dorothea Faes. University of Birmingham. None is responsible for any errors or inaccuracies. and my parents-in-law Rosina and Helmut Faes for their interest and support. Zurich. and support over the years and who now knows a lot about the Urban Elites of Zadar around the mid-sixteenth century. and the staff at the Croatian State Archive in Zadar (Državni arhiv u Zadru). I hope you will enjoy the book and it is to you that it is dedicated. University of Graz. University of Zurich. University of Zadar. for all the support they have given me. Schmitt. July 2012 . Karl Kaser and Harald Heppner. Throughout this project. to whom I am enormously indebted for all her care. my two dissertation advisors. I thank my colleagues and friends Rebecca Darley. and Gherardo Ortalli. Even more enduring has been my partner-turned-wife. this book and the PhD thesis it is based on have been a constant companion. whose help facilitated my research stay enormously. and Jose Cáceres Mardones. University of Vienna. Everyone listed below has in some way assisted enormously in the research. If I have failed anyone in this regard. University of Maryland/Empire State College. whose courses awakened my interest in the history of the western Balkans and of Venice’s Stato da mar in particular. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Oliver J. I have relied on the work of others and I sincerely hope that I have represented their work accurately and duly acknowledged them in the appropriate places. and Bernd Roeck. I am indebted to the contributions of a number of individuals and institutions. I offer my unreserved apologies. University of Venice Ca’ Foscari. David Starr-Glass. For the past years. who helped in many ways to see me through the months of preparation of the manuscript. patience. my parents Karl and Ursula Sander and my grand-aunt Wilhelmine Bauer for their support throughout the years. and improvement of this book. Edited by Josip Kolanović and Mate Križman. 1876-1977. Lib.v. Edited by Simeon Ljubić and Grga Novak.Abbreviations DAZd BZ c. . f. capitolo) chapter (titulus) title (Liber) book (Reformationes) amendments Published Sources Commissiones Commissiones et Relationes Venetae: Mletačka i uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. r v m. Zagreb: Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Art. tit. Statuta Iadertina Zadarski statut sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadar’s Statute with all Amendments and New Regulations Adopted by the Year 1563]. Ref. 1997. (Državni arhiv u Zadru) State Archive in Zadar (Bilježnici Zadra) manuscripts of Zadrani Notaries (carta) original pagination of archival material (folio) pagination applied to archival material by archivists (sine pagina) without pagination (recto) right-hand page of a manuscript (verso) left-hand page of a manuscript (more veneto) the Venetian calendar year starting on 1 March (capitulum.p. cap. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska. s. Astareja) general term for public lands in the immediate vicinity of an urban centre . and Vrana governed by castellans but subject to Zadar’s jurisdiction. county. (ager publicus. Novigrad. distrikt) the countryside or hinterlands controlled by an urban centre (districtus.Abbreviations 9 Terminology Used jurisdiction district territory (Contado. distrikt) administrative subdivisions of Nin. g.e. I have added the standardised spelling for Venetian names. the following method of naming individuals and places has been chosen. Venice. For consistency. e. i. Calendrical norms in the rest of the Adriatic are less clear. The Venetian year.v. I have used only present-day toponyms. All names directly quoted from primary sources are spelled as they appear in the notarial manuscripts. . is referenced with the abbreviation “m.” (more veneto). which began in March.. unless indicated otherwise all dates are reproduced as they appear in the cited sources. etc. present-day Croatian toponyms. and if available. In all subsequent references the standardised Latin versions of the names are used. Croatian names in Dalmatia.Note on Names and Dates Given the linguistic characteristics of Venice’s Stato da mar and the geographical scope of this book in particular. For places within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Rome. detailed maps and tables are provided in the Appendix that include their original spelling in the primary sources. etc. Italian names on the Apennine peninsula. Exceptions are places generally familiar. their Italian versions. Sander-Faes’ book is distinctive for the period under survey. and at times surprising contribution. and in the articulation of the investigative methods it employs. Because of these highly-varied relationships Venice was able to acquire. and in regions where Venetian prerogatives and de factodependence substituted direct control. Within this context. Sander-Faes authoritatively articulates this new interpretation of Venetian historiography and the characteristics of the fragmented and varied components of Venice’s rule. while not entirely neglected. This is not merely a figure of speech but proposes a new interpretation of the Republic of St Mark as a reality marked by particular relationships and connections between Venice the metropolis and the many components of her composite state. well-researched. institutionalise. In addition to certain well-studied regions and epochs there are others that. offer ample room for further examination. .Preface. The history of the Serenissima and her commonwealth has always been and continues to be the object of an extensive and growing body of scholarship by a large number of scholars from all over the world and from very different spheres. and maintain her positions in Italy and the Mediterranean over the long term: in the Terraferma and her maritime dominions. in the perspective it offers. beginning with the selection of the title of the book and the reference to a Venetian Commonwealth. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center The path of knowledge proposed by Stephan Sander-Faes in his thorough and well-documented study merits attention for a series of reasons. via informal colonies of citizens in foreign lands. formal delegations throughout the Mediterranean and elsewhere. His book offers an original. in Zara’s jurisdiction. At the heart of the volume there are no great .. The area and period under survey in this volume. It began in 1570 and came to a close in 1573 with Venice’s loss of the large island kingdom of Cyprus. had renewed hope. but did little to change reality or Ottoman attitudes. which centres on Zara. after thirty years of continuous clashes with the Ottoman Empire. the two strategic castles of Vrana and Nadin came under the control of the Ottomans. especially due to the rival interests of the kingdom of Hungary. If 1540 was the year of the unfavourable peace treaty with the Most Sublime Porte 1569 marked the advent of renewed Ottoman-Venetian conflict. He positions the city as a centre of decisive importance for Venice’s commercial. its inhabitants. Within this general context Sander-Faes’ book examines in depth the history of Venetian Zara. Venice’s time as a great power had ended and after an initial phase of shock and bewilderment. continuing a centuries-old interest. and Dalmatia where. and political interests in the Adriatic. The ensuing decades witnessed the indisputable decline of the Serenissima.12 Gherardo Ortalli and Bernd Roeck The years on which the book focuses constitute a period in which the heyday of the Most Serene Republic had passed. Control over this important harbour town had long been troubled. fought in the interim. dating as far back as the expedition of Doge Pietro II Orseolo around the turn of the first millennium. and illusions. conflict temporarily ceased. the Peloponnese. This was reflected in the comment made by the Grand Vizier Sokullu Mehmed Pasha: Lepanto was to Cyprus what a beard trim was to the amputation of an arm. Zara was the key to Venetian presence in the Adriatic. is circumscribed by two traumatic events in Venetian history. and conscious of her limits. The book’s focus rests firmly on the city of Zara. From the early fifteenth century Venice was able to settle the issue and Zara remained under Venetian control until the fall of the Republic in 1797. In 1540. The great battle of Lepanto. Venice’s separate peace imposed by Suleiman II the Magnificent brought about the loss of important centres in the Aegean. and the rhythms of everyday life. pride. the Respublica acquiesced to the logic of military and political neutrality in order to survive. The first two decades of the sixteenth century mark a decisive shift in Venetian fortunes. The ignominious defeat by the troops of the League of Cambrai at Agnedello in 1509 heralded a dramatic change to Venice’s position and her waning role on the international chessboard. maritime. behavioural traits of the Dalmatian nobility. and reinforced loyalty to Venice. variations of conjunctures. we can say frankly that Stephan Sander-Faes’ work is fundamental in making Zara. marriage. defeats. relationships between Venetians and locals. the presence of foreigners. All the while Venice is regarded as the guarantor of security and stability for the inhabitants of Dalmatia during an era of growing dependence of the peripheries on the fortunes of the centre. in which Venice was forced to cede her claims over Dalmatia to King Louis the Great of Hungary. The systematic study of more than 3. which at once gave rise to tensions and fears. Then Zara’s urban life in all its diverse expressions is fully illuminated. Gherardo Ortalli – Bernd Roeck . the detailed activities. artisans. the property market. immigration structures. the allocation of urban spaces. In sum. farmers. Jewish and Croat communities. and the role of transhumance. The historical contextualisation begins with the peace of Zara (1358). or international affairs. victories. family relationships. and the quiet workings of quotidian life. providing the volume with robust substance that transcends the scope suggested by the title. as so often occurs in the treatment of micro-history. And in the background is felt the weight of Ottoman proximity. There are the economic practices and networks that connected Zara’s urban elites with elites of other Adriatic cities. shepherds. Its depth illuminates the smallest events but never minimises perception of the complexities of the whole system.Preface. the lifestyle of the privileged strata. one of the best-understood societies in all its diverse characteristics in the tumultuous middle decades of the sixteenth century. among the Adriatic centers that made up part of the Venetian commonwealth. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center 13 events.500 unpublished documents opens important windows onto diverse social aspects: the secular and ecclesiastical protagonists. . though not .2 John Martin and Dennis Romano. hard pressed from Occident and Orient alike. it was also one of Europe’s most enduring republics. from the fifteenth century on. 1977-1982. Pierre Daru.6 This perilous situation was compounded by the “impious alliance” between the Sultan and the Most Catholic King.1 John Norwich. ‘l’histoire des Vénetiens s’écoule sans être marquée par des évènements dignes d’occuper la postérité’.5 While the Battle of Zonchio marked the end of major acquisitions in the eastern Mediterranean. culminating in the ignominious defeat at Agnadello (1509). a period to which Pierre Daru and John Norwich ascribe the absence of “any events worthy of the attention of posterity.4 Her days as an expanding imperial state came to a close during the ten years between the Battle of Zonchio (1499) and the near-catastrophic War of the League of Cambrai. 1821 Venice was not only one of the greatest cities of medieval and early modern Europe. The Republic of St Mark found herself situated between the two self-styled universal monarchies of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires. These changes coincided with fundamental strategic shifts of other imperial powers. an expansive empire and. 2000 Over the course of the sixteenth century.7 To survive in this hostile environment Venice shifted from assertive policies of previous centuries toward a more defensive stance.”3 Venice stood at a crossroads.Introduction … thanks to a combination of painstaking diplomacy and good luck. Venice was able to settle down to one of the longest periods of peace she could remember – a period in which. She devised new policies to defend her possessions and administer her far-flung territories that extended from Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean to the gates of Milan in Lombardy. an imposing regional state. Changes in Venetian society during the sixteenth century. in the words of one of her principal French historians. the War of the League of Cambrai brought about the cessation of her designs on the Italian mainland. nuanced approaches to medie- .”13 Recent decades have witnessed the decline of myth-centred historiography and the rise of more scientific and varied approaches to Venice proper.21 Second. English. this trend in the scholarship has not yet reached Venice’s peripheral possessions in the eastern Mediterranean. extended beyond matters of foreign policy.20 In the aftermath of the Second World War Venetian historiography was largely characterised by two models. the Stato da mar entered ideologically-charged discourse. and in the aftermath of the Second World War.15 The history of Venice’s maritime state along the shores of the Aegean and Adriatic seas was mostly left to Greek. First.”11 For centuries to come these myths defined how historians approached the history of the Republic of St Mark.16 Yugoslav.17 Dalmatia’s eventful past was first studied from an Italo-centric point of view by scholars like Vitaliano Brunelli. and others10 celebrated the glories of the aristocratic republic and cemented what eventually became known as the “myth[s] of Venice.18 The same events were studied by South Slavic scholars who reached rather different conclusions. and poly-confessional society. multicultural. placing Venice within a long-standing western tradition. most notably in the writings of Freddy Thiriet. Angelo de Benvenuti.9 In the wake of these developments. was the problem John Martin and Dennis Romano termed the “central paradox in Venetian history”: how to illuminate the intricate realities of Venetian economic and social life.19 These selective interpretations and perceptions of Venetian history served the purposes of national movements in the second half of the nineteenth century and nationalistic ends during the first half of the twentieth. Gasparo Contarini. however. and Giuseppe Praga. including new insights into her diverse. most Yugoslav scholarship tended to anachronistically focus on specific ethnic groups. however.22 In recent decades more diverse. What contemporaries described as the “flight from the sea”8 amounted to nothing less than a sea change in the most literal sense of the term: the shift from a Mediterranean to a nascent Atlantic world economy and the encroachment of French. “which was constantly in motion […] and needs further study and elaboration.12 Unresolved by this scholarship. American scholars Frederic Lane and William Bouwsma celebrated the ideals of Renaissance republicanism. and later Croatian scholars.14 By and large. and later Dutch merchants upon previously Venetiancontrolled commerce in the Levant. due to rapid decolonisation and Cold War rhetoric. the writings of Marino Sanuto.16 Urban Elites of Zadar visible on the surface. 31 In order to address these issues on a local level this book combines the insights of existing scholarship with new analysis of contemporary documents to offer a detailed picture of Zadar’s “urban elites. Novigrad. little attention has been given to the Adriatic during the decades after the War of the League of Cognac (1526-1530). the “metropoli et chiave”33 of Venice’s Adriatic dual province of Dalmatia and Albania. economic developments.36 this book presents a tripartite framework that considers the geographical locations. and social relations of the various ecclesiastical and secular elites along the diffuse and ambiguous borders of the Republic of St Mark and the Ottoman Empire.34 and Zadar’s jurisdiction encompassing the minor districts of Nin. there are few recent studies putting Venice’s Adriatic possessions in the spotlight. emphasising continuities between the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Building on established scholarship on cities along the Dalmatian coast. Alain Ducellier. and Chryssa Maltezou are seminal. most notably explored by Tomislav Raukar. While there is no “consensus about how to characterize Venice’s rule over both the Terraferma and the Stato da mar.24 In addition to its analysis of the intricacies of ecclesiastical and secular institutions.30 little effort has gone into furthering our understanding of the complexities of everyday life along the Adriatic’s oriental littoral.23 For the Venetian maritime state the works of Michel Balard. Aside from the relatively large number of edited sources and scholarly literature detailing the intertwined histories of the Republic of St Mark and the Ottoman Empire.25 this contemporary scholarship “has done away with a unilinear reading of Venice’s past. whose repercussions could especially be felt along the frontiers of Venice’s maritime state. and Vrana during the three interwar decades from 1540 to the outbreak of the Cyprus War in 1570.”26 paving the way for new approaches to Venice proper and her overseas possessions.28 the history of early modern Dalmatian economic and social history has yet to attract renewed interest.”37 the terminology used . Yet with the focus of scholarly attention resting firmly on the lagoon metropolis.Introduction 17 val and early modern colonialism have emerged. With the notable exceptions of the Republic of Dubrovnik27 and the Triplex Confinium project initiated by Karl Kaser and Drago Roksandić in the mid-1990s.29 In spite of the abundance of research possibilities in the various Dalmatian branches of the Croatian State Archive.35 These years mark the apogee of Muslim dominance and the corresponding nadir of Christian naval power in the wider Mediterranean basin.”32 The focus will be on the city known in the sixteenth century as Zara. Usually Venice’s representatives—many of whom where patricians of lower rank and wealth42—found themselves in an environment strikingly familiar to them. these factors gradually marginalised and impoverished the coastal communities. military personnel. but included the participation of Dalmatia’s indigenous elites. and the attempted subordination of Dalmatia’s economic life under Venetian prerogatives.41 This study examines how in these circumstances the urban elites interacted with each other. and strategic interests. legates. political. occupational. emphasising its history with Dalmatia between the beginning of the second Venetian dominion (1409-1420) and the outbreak of the Ottoman-Venetian war in 1537. and public officials. The approach to the various “Elite Citizens. Second. The objective is to identify the underlying structural characteristics of Venice and her maritime-mercantile enterprise in the Adriatic.38 and its contemporary English translation.” coined by Gherardo Ortalli. The intellectual elites’46 activities are reconstructed by subjecting a mostly overlooked type of documentary source. “commonwealth. legal. and military commanders. enslavement by marauders from Ottoman lands. the Ottoman subjects.40 The proximity of the neighbouring Ottoman Empire kept the local populace firmly loyal to Venice but also increased insecurity in Zadar’s jurisdiction. geographical.” serves a dual purpose. Chapter 2 identifies the principal actors of Zadar’s society and their trans-Adriatic connections. and Venetians.45 is three-fold. legates. merchants. transhumance peoples from across the frontiers.43 Moreover.” a term applied by James Grubb with respect to Venice proper. and social developments leading up to the period under survey. artisans. they often were required to mitigate the conflicts between commoners and noblemen while first and foremost representing and safeguarding Venice’s overarching economic. military. In exchange for their loyalty the inhabitants of the coastal cities and hinterlands could continue living under Christian rule. First. political. First.”39 Within this framework the administration of the Stato da mar on the local level was concentrated in the hands of the Venetian governors.18 Urban Elites of Zadar here is “respublica-cum-imperial power. it details the most important aspects of economic. procura contracts.44 The book is divided into six chapters. it seeks to provide an overview of the major developments in Venice’s maritime state. and so- . even though in practice this often meant cross-border raids. to quantitative analysis of the economic. The latter group included governors. In combination. Chapter 1. entitled “The Setting. 772 notarial acts detailing real estate sales. and other men and women of the cloth.” examines the developments of Zadar’s real estate transactions between 1540 and 1569. The city’s nobles preferred marriage alliances with families of aristocratic descent from elsewhere in Dalmatia. Following a brief introduction based on Tomislav Raukar’s extensive work on late medieval Dalmatia. 656 marriage-related contracts have . and economic elites: the Venetian and Dalmatian nobilities48 and members of the clergy.Introduction 19 cial origins of contracting parties and the geographical destinations of the appointees. This study calls into question that uniform downward trend. and Franciscans—interacted with individuals of privileged descent. The final two chapters focus on society at the micro level. Additional consideration is directed at how the city’s three main congregations—the Benedictines. and rental and leasehold transactions. etc. A total of 930 individual notarial contracts from 1540 to 1569 have been analysed and provide quantitative and qualitative data to supplement more traditional methods measuring “communication. the various actors and commodities are analysed and discussed. or social) and reveal useful distinctions for classifying the contracting individuals (ecclesiastical versus secular. The results. social stratum. Existing scholarship usually emphasises a general downward direction of Zadar’s property markets after the Venetian reacquisition in 1409.49 The commercially active elite consisted mostly of merchants. legal. ecclesiastical.50 the chapter analyses real estate transactions based on 1. can only be considered a tentative assessment. Chapter 4. examining how they integrated into noble circles. and spice traders. For the nobility and their dealings with the Church an analysis of testaments and codicils is provided. concessions. The identification of the aristocratic elites and literate commoners essential for the functioning of Zadar’s society is at the core of Chapter 3. “Actors” discusses the various political. There is a near-total absence of comparative data for the decades before and after this 30-year period.). but also from farther away. such as Zadar’s archbishopric.”47 The documents allow for a tentative categorisation of the motivations behind these appointments (economic. while appearing rather dense for the three decades between 1540 and 1569. “Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets. Chapter 5 addresses the geographical and social mobility of Zadar’s foreigners. Dominicans. Nin’s bishopric. conclusions consequently must be viewed cautiously. property owners. the city’s monastic congregations. Based on selected examples. the analysis demonstrates that while in the mid-sixteenth century the legal and social ties between the western Balkan hinterlands and the coastal cities were weaker than in earlier centuries. defined as literate individuals of non-noble descent. working within or outside the administrative framework of Venice’s maritime state. covering both shores of the wider Adriatic basin and their hinterlands. legates. they did not cease altogether. demographical distribution.55 In combination. the fact that the present study is based on archival material from the Croatian State Archive in Zadar and the editions by Simeon Ljubić and Grga Novak57 means that its scope is confined to certain areas of central Dalmatia. and use of space. it examines the city’s elite ‘middle’ class.52 A brief glance at the material culture of the upper social stratum concludes the section.”56 Even so. jurists. Chapter 6 first discusses Venetians living in central Dalmatia.54 like interpreters. the city’s “elite citizens” (Grubb).53 The final chapter discusses other elite groups—categorised by their descent. They investigate economic developments. and the Croat and Jewish communities. Finally. The chapter ends with a look at Zadar’s urban landscape.” and “notarial records furnish the soundtrack of the city’s bustle. The first level examines the geographical range of Zadar’s society. and notaries. literacy level.20 Urban Elites of Zadar been analysed51 in order to gain a better understanding of what Neven Budak termed the “self-identity of the Dalmatian urban nobility” with regard to their willingness to let their sons and daughters marry into other aristocratic circles. and military commanders.58 Future research into the activities and interactions of early modern urban elites along both shores of the Adriatic should make use of the vast amounts of material preserved in the various other Dalmatian . geography. and social relations on three levels. or religious affiliation—and their interactions with and integration into Zadar’s society around the mid-sixteenth century. The reports “provide a moving image. which were small but important. Next. specifically its divisions. These groups include Venetians. thus bringing the scene closer to life than either set of sources would do on their own. The second level offers an economic case study of the city’s jurisdiction (Zadar proper and its subject territories and subdivisions). this study reaches the street level through an analysis of reports and notarial records concerning Venice’s governors. This is followed by an analysis of the Croats and Jews. The six chapters of this book document life in the 30 years between two Ottoman-Venetian wars as they were experienced by Zadar’s urban elites. Sanuto.” Finlay. The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. esp. Ravid. Molà. “When Myths Lose Power”.g. De magistratibus et republica Venetorum. 1:300-344. Venice Triumphant. 24-25. “The Immortal Republic”.59 For too long the rich histories of both occidental and oriental shores have been subject to closely delimited and limiting interpretations that artificially divide a past linked. Repubblica di Venezia e il problema Adriatico. this book constitutes the author’s contribution to overcoming centuries of separated historiographies. Rösch.. 315-449. 7. “Beyond the Coast. Ortalli. In the words of Girolamo Priuli as quoted by Doumerc. “Lewkenor’s Venice. 13. 4. among others. 6. Comunità dei Lucchesi a Venezia. Rome. by the salty waters of the Adriatic. Laven. Venise et la mer. van Gelder. Venice. eds. Crouzet-Pavan.. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. and Reform. 12. Gullino. King. Concina.” 172. Povolo. Across the Religious Divide. Venetian Humanism. The Mediterranean. Grubb.). 3. eds. 161-192. 2. and Toscano. “When Myths Lose Power..g. “Reconsidering Venice. E. Virgins of Venice. Byzantium and Venice. “Dominio del mare. Ortalli. 459-460. 3:89-174. L’alliance impie. Jews of Venice. Grubb. Mayhew.” 1. Braudel. 15. Contarini. Martin and Romano. eds. “Frontiere navali. On Contarini’s legacy. Möschter. 9. Civilization and Capitalism. Histoire de la république de Venise. Wallerstein. History of Venice. Introduced by von Ranke as early as 1857 and perpetuated by. not separated. In this sense. Contado di Zara. E.” 90-95. Franchini. Sperling and Wray.Introduction 21 archives. Garnier. Guzzetti. and Scarabello. 1:476. Knapton. Minoranze orientali a Venezia. Doumerc. History of Venice. Storia di Venezia (12 vols. Norwich.. Venezia nell’età moderna. Venezianische Vermächtnisse. 10. Braudel. Gilbert. .” 11. “Venice Misappropriated.” On Venetian humanist writers. Vite. McPherson. Venise et la Méditerranée. 118-150. “Creation of Venetian Historiography”.” 43-44. Nicol. “Dominio del mare.. Notes 1. Cessi. Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice. Sperling. 4:118. Imhaus. Crouzet-Pavan. Venedig. Diarii. Martin and Romano. 5. Finlay. Storia della Repubblica di Venezia.” 21.” 14. Gleason. Tenenti and Tucci. Venice Triumphant. Norwich.” 167-178. 8. See also the review of Martin and Romano. Venice Besieged.. Lane. 11. Cessi. Venice Reconsidered by Drechsler. Modern World System. Sanuto. Juden im venezianischen Treviso. The French passage is quoted after the original (Norwich gives an English translation) by Daru. Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice. Venice. “Reconsidering Venice. “Crisis of the League of Cambrai. eds. 460. Cozzi. Hocquet. Contarini. and Vlassi. Città. Cittolini. “Dalmazia e Slavi”. Coloniser au Moyen Âge. eds. “In Dialogue with the Past”. 20. and Vlassi. and Ivetić. “Historians and the Present Conjuncture. Muir. Povolo. Stanojević. “European Colonial Experience..” Verlinden. Intrigo dell’onere.” 26. “Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni. Balard. 25. Contrast Brunelli. I Greci durante la venetocrazia. and PapadiaLala in Maltezou and Ortalli. 17. Tzavara. Budak. Goldstein. for commentary. See also the more recent works by Ćosić-Vekarić. Balard and Ducellier. Dinić-Knežević. Stipšić. E. Maruša ili suđene ljubavi [Maruša or Trial of Love]. I Greci durante la Venetocrazia. Contado di Zara.” 19. Hrvatski historiografija [Croatian Historiography]. Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i država [Dubrovnik’s Patriciate between Kinship and State]. ed. Martin and Romano. società e giustizia. Maltezou and Ortalli. Janeković-Römer. Storia di Zara. “The ‘Private. Lucio. “Venezia e retorica del dominio adriatico. 2 (first published 1944). Kitromilides.. eds. Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika [Description of the Slavic City . Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Cozzi. “Was there Republicanism?”. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge.. Povijest Splita [History of Split]. Origini dello Stato.” and accompanying essays in the Mediterranean Historical Review 16 (2001). Storia di Dalmazia (first published 1954). O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske [On the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia]. Colonization. 24... see Ivetić. 22. Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes. “Prilog bibliografiji grada Dubrovnika” [Contribution to the Bibliography of the City of Dubrovnik]. For a general discussion on the exploitation of Mediterranean history for political purposes.” 27.g. État et colonisation. Chittolini. Storia della città di Zara (first published 1913) with De Benvenuti. vol. and the essays by Karapidakis. eds. Novak. 18. Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka [Croatian History in the Middle Ages]. Povijest Dubrovnika. Italia-Grecia. Klaić. Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Literature].. see Paladini. 11. Chittolini. “Transfer of Colonial Techniques”. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages]. ed.. Maltezou and Ortalli.. Italia-Grecia. Balard. Le Partage du monde. “’Nobilità e popolo’”. Supičić and Hercigonja. Klaić. Foretić. xvi. Formazione dello stato regionale. See also Maltezou.’ the State. Migracije stanovništa iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik [Migration of Peoples from South Slavic Lands to Dubrovnik]. Thiriet. Balard. Dinić-Knežević..22 Urban Elites of Zadar 16. Stato. Novak. eds. comunità e feudi. Budak and Raukar. [History of Dubrovnik].’ the ‘Public. O’Connell. Jensen and Reynolds. Beginnings of Modern Colonization. ed. Janeković-Römer. Expansion of Latin Europe. Chittolini. Martin and Romano. Praga. Davidson. esp. eds. Maltezou. Croatia and Europe.” 21. “Venice Reconsidered. 17-18. 27. Muldoon and Fernández-Armesto. Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and Hungary in the Middle Ages]. eds. Knapton. 23. Dalmatinske krajine [The Dalmatian Military Border]. Jensen and Reynolds. On Fascist uses of Venice’s past. see the introduction by Hartog and Revel. Croatia: A History.” 5-9. Mayhew. “Reconsidering Venice. For a discussion. Men of Empire. Kuntić-Makvić. 2:93 (first published 1961). Lucius-Lučić. Antoljak. Ferro. eds.. eds. Tzavara. Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the Middle Ages]. eds. Venezia e le Isole Ionie.. ed. Raukar.unizg. 78.” accessed 11 June 2012. Men of Empire. ed. Krekić. presented to the Senate in 1553. Ivetić. “Urban élites in Dalmatia.. Budak. Dubrovačka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovnik’s Diplomacy in Istanbul]. See also Slukan. 3:17. Grbavac.ffzg. Roksandić.. 7-9.” For a more general discussion. Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confiniuma [Cartographic Sources for the History of the Triplex Confinium]. Israel and Schmitt.hr/pov/zavod/triplex/homepagetc. 30. Schmitt. Trgovačke knjige brać Kabužić [Account of Books of the Kabužić Brothers]. 1 covers the city’s prehistory to late Antiquity. Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate of Dubrovnik in the 14th Century]. and the forewords by Roksandić and Ivetić in Mayhew. Raukarov zbornik [Raukar’s Collected Papers]. Statehood and Religion in Late Medieval Dalmatia. Commissiones. ed.. Krekić. Rauker and Budak. ed. Miović..” accessed 11 June 2012.” 10. Ortalli and Schmitt. Tolerance and Intolerance. see the 3 vols. Raukar. Janeković-Römer. as well as their web presence for recent developments: “Triplex Confinium: Croatian Multiple Borderlands in Euro-Mediterranean Context.. based upon a series of lectures given at the Centro Tedesco di Studi Veneziani in 2010-2011 (forthcoming).g. and the SFB-Project “Visions of Community. and vol. In the words of Venice’s syndic Antonio Diedo. vol. stoljeću” [Commune Society in Dalmatia in the 14th Century]. 31. Stuard. See also Schmitt. State of Deference. eds. Valentini. Unequal Rivals. “Beyond the Coast. 428-432. Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka. Kovačević. among others. 33. On the Adriatic Budak. Miović. Giovanni Battista Giustiniano. Prošlost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Schmitt. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. “Venezianische Horizonte”. 34. 2 details the Middle Ages.htm. E.. Contado di Zara.” 35. JanekovićRömer. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen. “Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania. Židovski geto u Dubrovačkoj Republici [The Jewish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]. On Venetian Albania. Venezianisches Albanien. eds. Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku [Studies on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages]. expressed a similar sentiment: “Zara. Mahnken. Ortalli.” 67-68. As highlighted recently by. Balcani occidentali. Raukar. His co-syndic. siccome è principal città di quella provintia. Façade maritime de l’Albanie. Raukar . see Ducellier. Schmitt. 29.ac. Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik]. è medesimamente la chiave di Dalmatia. Venezia e la Dalmazia. http://sfbviscom. eds. “Amministrazione veneta in Albania”.at/home/project-groups/. Višegradski ugovor [The Visegrád Privilege]. ed. Skanderbeg. ed.. http://www. Rod i grad [Kinship and the City]. Élites urbaines au Moyen Âge.. Valentini. Schmitt. Korčula sous la domination de Venise. Triplex Confinium. O’Connell. Poslovna uspešnost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Business Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik].Introduction 23 of Dubrovnik]. see Ganchou. eds..” which also comprises a sub-section on the late medieval Adriatic: “Society. Voje. 11-12. Miović.” 77-78. Dubrovačka Republika u spisima osmanskih sultana [The Republic of Dubrovnik in the Documents of Ottoman Sultans]. Adriatico e Venezia... Voje and Kovačević. 32. 3. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [The Croatian Middle Ages]. Roksandić. esp. Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society. 3:35. 28. Vol.univie. 1-15. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV.” Ibid.. Ekohistorija. of Foretić. 23-29.” 39. O’Connell. Jacoby.”.g.” Venice’s maritime state offers a number of possibilities to combine different sets of quantitative and qualitative data to more appropriately represent the direc- . Cozzi. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom [Zadar under the Venetian Administration]. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [Šibenik in the Late Middle Ages]. 12). surveys the second Venetian dominion (1409-1797). “Šibenik (Sebenico) nel basso medioevo”. See also Chapters 2 and 6. Pederin. ‘City-States. 41. “La Serbie dans l’économie de Venise”. Contado di Zara. Economy. Pederin. Mletačka uprava. Kolanović. Panciera. the body politic. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. Budak. 57-74. [The Port of Split around the mid-14th Century]. O’Connell.” 167-168. 47. empire. republic. Anderle. “Encounter of Two Societies.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37261. See also Elliott. Venetian Patriciate. Men of Empire.” 46.”. “Dalmatien in venezianischer Zeit”. See “Commonwealth.” 48. or “composite state” in reference to the Republic of St Mark.” 10 (emphasis in the original). Brandt.” 325-327. “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice. Grubb. n. “Appunti e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento”. Panciera. Jacoby. Rismondo. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies. privreda i politika [The Venetian Administration. 44. 43.” This provides additional insights into the 16th-century English use of the term. In addition. 19. temporary nature of “communication. “Elite Citizens.’ the State. 38.” 697-698. “The ‘Private. 36.” 23 (emphasis in the original). http://www. republican regime and the pursuit of aggressive policies abroad. literate individuals of noble and non-noble descent. Kovačević. Men of Empire. Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a “whole body of people constituting a nation or state. Ortalli. “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia.24 Urban Elites of Zadar et al.’ the ‘Public. Zadar u XV. regional state). accessed 28 May 2012.” 250261. The term “intellectual elites” refers to educated. “Politica del diritto. in the Oxford English Dictionary online. Pomorski Split druge polovine XIV. stoljeću [Zadar in the 15th Century]. and Politics]. Mayhew. Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu [Wycliffe’s Heresy and Social Movements in Split]. Chittolini. Pederin.” 188..” 186. The medieval and early modern use of the term respublica—and its translation “commonwealth”—offers us the benefit of avoiding anachronistically modern connotations of empire. 40. Despite the unresolved problems with the term and the dynamic.’ and Regional States.. 42. E. as defined by Budak. “Social evolution in Latin Greece”. “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji” [Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia]. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna” [On the Autonomy of Dalmatian Communes]. “Developed Autonomy”. Men of Empire. xvii. “Beyond the Coast. A respublica of this type is the manifestation of ancient and medieval continuities that do not preclude the existence of a domestic. Chittolini. see McKee. “Reconsidering Venice. the term offers a pragmatic way to reunite the terminology used by Martin and Romano (republic. “Cities. 37. “Colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète”. Martin and Romano. the “exception to Venetian overseas rule” (O’Connell.” On Crete. Traljić. Novak-Sambrailo. Queller. Jacoby. See also Raukar. Uncommon Dominion. st. Doumerc. 51-112. 45. Krekić. “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”.oed. Cozzi. “Dominio del mare. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum.” Mayhew. points to the importance of communication in Venice’s maritime state. The ubiquity of Jews in Venice’s maritime state was noted by Arbel. “Attitude of FifteenthCentury Ragusans towards Literacy”. See also O’Connell. Benyovsky. “Urban élites in Dalmatia.” 194-196.” 197-199. In addition. military roles. Raukar. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. 6). “Negotiating Empire”). 83-88.Introduction 25 tions. On the other hand. The noble families from the hinterlands of the western Balkans mirrored more closely their Croatian-Hungarian counterparts in their administrative functions. and family structures. “L’apport des archives de Zadar. “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir”. 2). Kolanović. See most recently. which contain the petitions by Venice’s subjects in Dalmatia. 97-118. Srednjovjekovni Trogir [Medieval Trogir].. Schmitt.” 217. 54. McKee.. Dokoza.” 93-100. and Mlacović. “Gossiping Tongue. Raukar. In the late 1990s Budak described the Church as an “almost unexplored field of the patricians’ activity. stoljeću. of Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga slavenstva i Mletačka Republika [Dispatches on the Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples and the Venetian Republic]. 2 of Hercigonja. Only the coastal. “Church and Christianity. Budak. Men of Empire. Schmitt considers quantitative analysis of export licences of utmost importance to the history of Adriatic trade.” 78-82. . and Šimunković. and the Signoria’s responses. using terms like “bargaining” (Ibid. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. Budak. Contado di Zara. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi” [Adriatic Maritime Commerce].” 196-197. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum. The suitability of testaments and inventories for this task is well-established. Krekić. were continued from the 1960s onward by Novak as Mletačka i Uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. By contrast. evidence of migratory movements. Schmitt. Including matrimonial contracts and dowry quitclaims.” Urban élites in Dalmatia. and flows of exchange. and “correspondence” (Ibid.. and Horodowich. 56. “Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis”.” 35. For a recent overview Šanjek.” 50. 119-122.” 974. Engel. 51. 143. Realm of St Stephen. See also Dursteler. capitoli). Metzeltin. Schmitt. 151-196. Krekić. See also Attia. 52.” 49. These include the so-called contralittere (export/ import licences). At least one recent study refers to fortified places in Dalmatia’s hinterlands as belonging to “mostly Croatian noble families. 97-118 (Chapter 5. see vol. “Bailo in Constantinople”. 1). “Plurilingualismo letterario e pluriculturalismo”. ed. O’Connell. Ljubić edited 10 vols. 57. On literacy and literary production in Dalmatia. Povijest hrvatske književnosti [History of Croatian Literature]. 49. 174-181. Zadar u XV. Saint-Guillain and Schmitt. dynamics. Men of Empire.” 55. Dinamika otočnog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]. “three-way negotiation” (Ibid. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule. urban nobility strongly resembled the Venetian patriciate.. Građani plemići [Citizens and Nobles]. “Politica linguistica della Serenissima. 53. and the petitions by various cities (capitula. “Varietà italiane sulle coste dell’Adriatico orientale”. published as Commissiones et relationes Venetae and edited under the auspices of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Art from the 1860s. Ljubić’s editions of these reports and directives. especially given the absence of pictorial sources for sixteenth-century Dalmatia.” 48. “Šibenik (contralittere)”. Graciotti. eds. Zadar’s statutes were codified in 1563 and published in Venice in 1564.26 Urban Elites of Zadar 58. See also Schmitt. Statuta Iadertina sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadar’s Statute with all Amendments and New Regulations adopted by the Year 1563]. In general Kolanović. The modern edition by Kolanović and Križman.” . was published in 1997. 59. “L’apport des archives de Zadar.. 1:881-884. Pregled arhivskih fondova [Inventory of the Archival Collections]. 2 For the next century and a half the Republic of St Mark enjoyed her position of pre-eminence and managed to hold her foes at bay. Bozdja-Ada)—strategic because of its location at the southern entrance of the Dardanelles—and soon spread across vast stretches of the Mediterranean. renewed hostilities in 1379. and her success and wealth soon became the envy of her neighbours.1.4 The second adversary was Genoa. .6 Fighting initially arose over control of the tiny island of Tenedos (today Bozcaada.5 The Genoese. Signed in the Franciscan monastery of Zadar. Venice ended up in control of vast expanses of the eastern Mediterranean. the treaty provided for the independence of Dubrovnik and placed the other Venetian possessions under the suzerainty of the victorious king. and the establishment of the Latin Empire. well-established in the resurrected Byzantine Empire and in control of the lucrative Black Sea trade. the subsequent conquest of Constantinople in 1204-05. however.1 Due to the events of the Fourth Crusade.3 Her first overseas acquisitions along the eastern shores of the Adriatic. The Setting 1. the Genoese fleet advanced into the Adriatic. led to a severe setback in the mid-fourteenth century. Venice’s Maritime State (1358-1570) The Republic of St Mark emerged as a major Adriatic power around the turn of the first millennium. whom the Republic of St Mark had already fought in the first half of the 1350s and whose attempts to achieve commercial supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean led to another war two decades later.7 In the ensuing war and in a strategic departure from previous conflicts. In the wake of the Black Death an exhausted Venetian Republic faced an array of enemies and in 1358 was forced to cede her Dalmatian territories to Louis I of Hungary. The second development had an even greater impact on the eastern Mediterranean. Bayezid I. In this most perilous hour the Venetians were able to hold their ground. for a time unperturbed by the Ottomans. continued her expansion in the Adriatic and Aegean. He soundly defeated his enemy and took prisoner their Sultan. and Drisht. many communities and regions along both shores of the Adriatic became involved in the struggle for the crown of St Stephen. who died in captivity shortly afterward. In the last decade of the fourteenth century the Republic of St Mark acquired a number of cities along the Adriatic’s southeastern coast. and fight back by virtue of a statewide mobilisation of manpower. Venice re-emerged as a major power by taking over Corfu and a number of minor possessions close by. The cities . Still.10 In combination. As the Venetians renewed expansion the Ottomans advanced deep into the Balkans. rally their forces. This plunged the Ottoman realm into a tumultuous succession crisis that lasted for more than a decade. Unlike her Genoese rival whose society descended into fractional strife and internecine conflict. Venice was able to quickly reconstitute her economy and finances. She added Nafplio. requiring a reorientation of their foreign affairs.8 The decade after the peace of Turin witnessed two major events in the history of the Adriatic. As Tamerlane led his armies westward his forces met the Ottoman host outside Ankara in 1402. But by the summer of 1380 the mortal threat to Venice’s lifelines had receded.12 The fifteenth century began under even more promising auspices. the Cyclades. Venice. First. A final settlement was negotiated in Turin in 1381. and morale. these events contributed to the expansion of Venice into areas previously out of her reach. At this point the Republic of St Mark controlled only the large island of Crete and some minor footholds in the Aegean.28 Urban Elites of Zadar In an attempt to strangle Venice’s access to vital food and supplies it landed an expeditionary force near the town of Chioggia. These acquisitions led to the organisation of the Venetian province of Albania after 1392. and defeated the Serbian host mustered against them. and the tide began to turn. In addition. securing the towns of Durrës. The gruesome fight for Chioggia continued for almost a year. the war raged on until both parties were exhausted.13 Against this background. Shkodër.11 which would not have been possible without the convergence of these contemporaneous developments. supplies. reached the fields of Kosovo.9 In the aftermath of the battle many realms in southeastern Europe and the neighbouring Aegean felt the Ottoman pressure mounting. and the large island of Euboea to her maritime state around 1390. Lëzhe. 25 The decade after the fall of Constantinople witnessed Ottoman expansion not only into the Aegean and Black Sea regions but also into the . Vis.17 Over the following decades Venice extended her hold over the Adriatic by acquiring Šibenik in 1412. Split. Thus the major islands in the Kvarner Gulf. came under Venetian rule again. though these gains were not as numerous as before.000 ducats. and the islands of Brač. and Ulcinj were added to her Albanian province in 1405. The next large territorial acquisitions occurred in the same year. Naupactus and Patras followed in 1408 and 1409. Budva. Murad II consolidated the realm’s power and continued his predecessor’s expansive policies. other important events occurred that would shape the centuries to come.15 This conflict had not been resolved by 1409. Trogir. His successor.14 Soon after his death in 1382. enlarging his vast domains even further. and Korčula in 1420. along the Adriatic’s eastern coasts. Omiš. impact on Christian rulers. if not long-lasting. Vrana.20 After the end of the Ottoman succession crisis following the battle of Ankara.16 The Republic of St Mark accepted. earned the epithet “the Conqueror”21 because on 29 May 1453 his troops breached the walls of Constantinople and put an end to the Byzantine Empire. Kotor. Hvar was added the following year.19 The ensuing half-century until the first long Ottoman-Venetian war can be described as a period of consolidation of Venice’s previous gains.24 The first to bear the brunt of the Ottoman onslaught were the minor realms in the western Balkans and the successor states of the Byzantine Empire in Trebizond and the Peloponnese. Mehmed II. however. as well as the cities of Zadar and Nin. sold his hereditary claims to Dalmatia and his remaining Dalmatian possessions to Venice for the sum of 100. the year in which Ladislaus of Naples. eager to reassert her influence over the eastern shores of the Adriatic to provide additional security to her mercantile shipping. Contemporaneously. The Serbian clan of the Paštrovići.22 The fall of “Christendom’s bulwark”23 and the subsequent relocation of the Ottoman capital from Edirne to Istanbul had a profound. ruling between Budva and Bar.18 These developments coincided with Venice’s brief occupation of Thessaloniki and her expansion into the Italian mainland.The Setting 29 of Bar. his realm disintegrated in short order and descended into a long and bloody succession conflict among the various contenders for the crown of St Stephen. followed by Pag. accepted Venetian suzerainty in 1423. Half a century earlier Louis I of Hungary had driven the Venetians from the Dalmatian cities and forced them to recognise his claims. the last male of the senior Angevin line and titular king of Hungary since 1390. also known as battle of Sapienza or first battle of Lepanto) ended in defeat. the battle of Zonchio (1499.26 In the midst of the Ottoman-Venetian antagonism (1463-1479) stood George Kastrioti Skanderbeg.30 Peace between the Porte and the Republic of St Mark only lasted two decades.32 the first large-scale naval encounter with the Ottomans. From the late 1440s onward he was allied with the Republic of St Mark. But in the aftermath of her ignominious defeat at Agnadello (1509) the Venetians were again able to stem the tide and slowly fought back. but also minor gains. Venice temporarily occupied positions in Apulia and the Aegean. long war. and when the Sultan’s raiding parties reached Friuli via land routes the Senate was ready to sue for peace.29 In the aftermath of the long Ottoman-Venetian war Venice was able to round off her possessions in Dalmatia by incorporating the large island of Krk in the Kvarner Gulf in 1480 and Zakynthos two years later.31 Apart from Methoni and Koroni in the southern Peloponnese. dubbed the “eyes” of Venice. The ensuing conflict almost destroyed the Republic of St Mark. and later with the Kingdom of Naples. War broke out anew before the end of the fifteenth century.28 And well into the second decade of the war the Senate managed to install Caterina Cornaro (Corner) as queen of Cyprus (1473). paving the way for the eventual formal acquisition of the large island kingdom in 1489. At first he opposed both the Ottomans and Venetians. After a century of expansion the conclusion of the war left Venice in possession of extensive territories. but also weakened and with a stained reputation. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities Monemvasia in the Peloponnese was acquired in 1464. This caused further Venetian territorial losses. But she was able to expand her maritime state elsewhere. By attempting to take advantage of the situation Venice’s enemies. In addition to these gains.30 Urban Elites of Zadar Balkans peninsula. The next year Venice took over Kefalonia and neighbouring Ithaca. Venice lost Euboea in this first. commanding a loose alliance of local warlords defending their homelands.33 By the early sixteenth century the Stato da mar reached its maximum territorial extent. The war dragged on for another two years without any other major events. where it subdued Serbia in 1459 and Bosnia in 1463. led by France and blessed by Pope Julius II. coinciding with relative peace and stability in the eastern . eventually reaching Albania.27 In addition to her losses in Albania. successfully replacing the lost ports in the Peloponnese with the Ionian islands. forged an alliance at Cambrai. 38 In addition to these losses. The Ottomans continued their expansion. While in some cases . eventually reducing the Venetian possessions in the city’s hinterlands to mere strip of land “miglia tre solamente lontani dalle Città. In the meantime. most notably by conquering Syria and Egypt in 1516-17. taking advantage of developments elsewhere. The Portuguese established direct maritime trade routes with India by circumnavigating Africa.37 Furthermore.”34 Yet despite these developments the Sultan’s ambitions focused on areas other than Venice’s maritime state35 before the larger contest between Emperor Charles V and the French king François I (by virtue of the latter’s alliance with Sultan Suleiman) forced the Republic of St Mark to choose sides anew. the borders close to Zadar were redrawn twice (in 1573 and 1576). her largest and richest overseas territory. From the first Ottoman-Venetian war over Thessaloniki in the 1420s the growing menace of the Sultans’ armies became painfully visible—at least to Venice’s subjects along the borders.The Setting 31 Mediterranean until the 1530s. both Ottoman and Venetian expansion increased significantly in the early decades of the fifteenth century.40 Nevertheless. In the aftermath of the peace of Turin the Ottomans advanced over land and relied heavily on the military.41 Notwithstanding earlier developments.”39 Venice and her overseas expansion from the 1380s onward cannot be considered outside the context of the Ottoman Empire. In the first conflict Venice lost the Battle of Preveza (28 September 1538). decisive events occurred elsewhere. Both states quickly expanded into the power vacuum left by the moribund Byzantine Empire and its weak Anatolian and southeast European neighbours. and with it Monemvasia and Naupactus in the Peloponnese and some islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas. Venice extended her dominions via the Mediterranean and employed a combination of diplomatic and military tactics. Despite Christendom’s victory off Lepanto on 7 October 1571 Venice could neither save the island kingdom of Cyprus.36 The next two rounds of fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Venice—wars of so-called “Holy Leagues” (1537-1540 and 1570-1573)— resulted in significant losses to the Stato da mar. especially after the end of the interregnum in the aftermath of the Battle of Ankara (1402). the long Ottoman-Venetian war between 1463 and 1479 was fought only once the two powers had gobbled up all buffer realms between them. while the Ottoman Empire reached its apogee over the ensuing decades the Republic of Venice also lost the next war. nor the Albanian cities of Bar and Ulcinj. the “decisive event to their greatness. others did not (but some of these were incorporated later). its defensive needs once annexed. and possible integration within the long-distance trading network were of prime interest to the Venetians. “Honour and profit.44 A number of Aegean islands. while the new suzerain generally adopted the pre- .45 By taking advantage of the confusing circumstances in the western Balkans during the last quarter of the fourteenth century. However. were at the heart of any consideration.”42 preferring commercial over territorial expansion. once the decision was taken to expand the respublica’s commitments.46 Several communities along the southeastern coast of the Adriatic were acquired by military means.47 and some came under Venetian suzerainty via marriage or inheritance. economic. religious. on the other hand. However. the Republic of St Mark did not incorporate at once every commune inviting Venetian dominion as a way to avoid conquest by the Ottoman Empire. formal treaties were drawn up. By exerting considerable cultural. and social pressure Venice eventually recreated many aspects of her domestic society abroad. Bosnia. and Serbia. Usually these treaties (capitoli) contained the legal basis for Venetian rule but reaffirmed most existing privileges and rights of the local population. This is seen in the years leading up to 1409 when Venice’s representatives managed to decrease the price for Ladislaus’ claims on Dalmatia by two-thirds.32 Urban Elites of Zadar these overall strategic circumstances aided Venetian expansionism.43 In some cases circumstance aided Venetian expansion—the extinction of local ruling dynasties for instance: Venice annexed Zakynthos in 1482 after the local populace disposed of its ruler.49 Under all circumstances the advantages and disadvantages were deliberated in the Senate before any action was taken. diplomatic.48 By far the greatest prize was the large island of Cyprus. and military advantages. Potential acquisitions were considered for their commercial.50 While some places immediately attracted Venice’s interest.51 In each case. The consequences of occupying a city. the enlargement of her maritime possessions cannot be attributed to them exclusively. taken over by the respublica after declaring Caterina Cornaro a “daughter of St Mark” and forcing her to abdicate in 1489. the Republic of St Mark pursued “extremely limited territorial ambitions.” embodied by the state motto. In general. The rationale for the acquisition of new dependencies was mainly economic and strategic. were already under indirect Venetian rule and more easily incorporated into her maritime state. the Republic of St Mark capitalised on the disintegration of the local and regional realms in Albania. wherever possible. economic. By the 1440s the nominal boundaries between the Terraferma and the maritime state were drawn up.”53 Venetian expansion into mainland Italy and the eastern Mediterranean followed similar patterns. and military control in the Stato da mar. 2.52 At times the costs of her imperial-mercantile ventures were assigned to individual patricians by means of concessions or feudal investiture subject to Venetian “protection. Over the fifteenth century the power of the . amendments were introduced to the various bodies of communal law.55 Her representatives were invested with their new suzerainty by the local authorities.57 Local or regional differences notwithstanding. Once a city had been put under Venetian suzerainty the new authorities introduced amendments to the existing medieval legal systems. economic.The Setting 33 existing normative and social order. the underlying structural principles of government applied throughout all her dependencies. Commercially. Administration Venice’s commercial and territorial expansion into mainland Italy and the eastern Mediterranean after 1381 triggered a number of administrative and institutional consequences. fiscal. prompting Benjamin Arbel to conclude that Venetian rule was unidimensionally inclined towards the centre.54 On a practical level.56 The enactment of additional legislation to cement Venetian rule was a routine practice after the assumption of administrative. the means of acquisition employed in the Aegean Sea and Friuli were essentially identical. This provided for the smooth execution of Venice’s power and successful administrative by her representatives. and in return the respublica guaranteed (with primary consideration of her own interests) most privileges and rights of the local elites and the established social order. the widespread Venetian possessions formed a large entity in which. the hinterlands provided the agricultural basis for the coastal communities. On the organisational level. Corfu—from whose harbour the trading convoys spread out into the Mediterranean and beyond—was of utmost importance. Administrative. demarcating the two entities as possessions northwest and southeast of Istria. Within the Venetian Signoria the territorial expansion resulted in the enlargement of existing offices and the creation of new ones to accommodate economic. and fiscal differences were negligible. and legal developments. integration of local legal institutions and nobles into the Venetian administration and economy. This is particularly evident in the sheer number of reports written by her overseas representatives. The newly acquired territories in the Terraferma and her maritime state provided Venice with the opportunity to employ her less-successful nobles. These entities were bound to Venice by several factors: defence against the Ottoman Empire. Venice invested increasing amounts of money. the mainstay against these incursions was the light cavalry. the need to provide public offices for the increasing number of impoverished patricians grew larger. These served the dual purpose of alleviating the situation of the poorer patricians and preventing the most disillusioned nobles from becoming too rebellious. and fortified towers along the coasts were commissioned to alarm the naval forces to fend off potential marauders. Occasional raids by bandits.58 The Stato da mar consisted of various sub-regions: the two large islands of Crete and Cyprus. supplies. Around the turn of the sixteenth century a range of new offices in the public administration was created. andor pirates threatened the security of the Stato da mar.59 Outlooks. the Ionian possessions.64 These fortifications were even bigger than before in order to accommodate large numbers of the hinterlands’ population in the event .63 For instance. organised in the dual province of Dalmatia and Albania. However. manned watch posts. the dominions in the Aegean and the Peloponnese. which almost exclusively describe external threats.61 With the exception of the War of the League of Cambrai. Thus the oligarchic rule of the Signoria was further cemented. From the fourteenth century onward these so-called stratioti—recruited mostly among Albanians and Greeks— were highly mobile and whose members over time integrated themselves into the societies of the territories they were defending. the Ottoman Empire was by far the gravest threat to Venice’s security— and especially to her overseas possessions.000 ducats to be invested in the strengthening of the city’s defences. and the Church. and personnel into gigantic fortifications throughout her possessions abroad. and the Adriatic components.60 Most cities and towns under Venetian rule had to muster one or more war galleys.34 Urban Elites of Zadar ruling patrician merchant elite of Venice became more and more confined to a small circle of wealthy and politically influential families. between January of 1568 and July of 1569 Zadar alone received 27. however. corsairs.62 Fearing situations analogous to the temporary territorial losses in the Terraferma during the War of the League of Cambrai. Contemporaneously. such descriptions are much more rare in the Venetian Republic. At first sign of mobilisation of the Sultan’s armies or fleets the merchants and public officials sent word to Venice. The Venetian dominions were the only territories in which the attempted reunification of western and eastern Christianity according to the Council of Florence (1439) was put into effect. the latter had a second crucial commercial tool at her disposal: a reliable.73 3. —mostly Greeks—. state-run convoy system. because of the information the overseas possessions and consulates provided about the Ottoman Empire and its advances. In the lower strata and among the population of the hinterlands. Economy In the decades after the peace of Turin. Venice came to dominate the first “world economy” (Braudel). true or false. Fez. and by extension the rest of Christendom. the Signoria was forced at times to intervene to prevent too much religious zealotry on the part of the Catholic clergy.71 In the Adriatic coastal cities the urban elites—the nobility and the more affluent commoners—were heavily influenced by the neighbouring Apennine peninsula. Civil unrest and factional strife for domestic supremacy describe Genoa’s late medieval experience.68 In addition to providing this substantial defensive buffer the maritime state was important for Venice. and Greek origin—adding further financial strain to the overseas possessions. Damascus.75 These so-called mude . Once the information network picked up speed the Signoria found itself flooded with news. In addition. Albanian and Slavic culture prevailed.74 The major advantages enjoyed by the Republic of St Mark in comparison with her Genoese rivals were found in the coherence and resilience of her society. reinforcements of mercenaries became additional burdens on the cities. roughly circumscribed by Lisbon. Azov.69 In religious matters the Republic of St Mark employed a policy of relative freedom of worship. and the Hanseatic city of Bruges.70 The largest group of non-Catholics was of Orthodox faith. Conversely. Dalmatian. partially because the majority of her subjects in the Stato da mar did not adhere to Catholicism.72 Despite this policy of relative freedom of worship.The Setting 35 of an emergency.67 Venetian galleys were often manned with sailors and oarsmen—so-called galeotti of Albanian. though their clergy was subject to the Catholic dioceses.6 in times of war.65 Usually manned by the local militia. the mainstay of Venice’s merchant and military marine power. guaranteed the respublica’s competitive edge.” until the end of the Cyprus War.77 The nexus between Venice’s imperial enterprise and political-territorial ambitions in the eastern Mediterranean is evident from the geographical extent of her long-distance trading network. The cargo bays of the state-owned galleys were auctioned off to the highest bidder.36 Urban Elites of Zadar had fixed dates to call at the ports along their routes and sailed to the most important harbours in the eastern and western Mediterranean and to the centres of trade in southern England and Flanders. Medium-sized vessels were usually employed in regional transportation while improvements in the state-owned galleys. The enormous sums of money offered to the Ottoman Empire after the losses of Euboea in 1470 (250. fresh water. Cyprus. The coastal cities of the Stato da mar did not just provide safe harbours. Already contributing to the respublica’s opulence during her “Imperial Age” (Chambers). supplies.80 Economically and financially Venice aimed for the self-sufficiency of her possessions and dependencies. Zakynthos.000 ducats) and Cyprus in 1573 (an annual tribute of 100. and food. If excess income was available. obliged to finance the journey in advance. Also.78 places of supra-regional importance like Crete. in whose hands the organization of the government and the most lucrative trading ventures were concentrated. cogs and galleys increased steadily in size and cargo volume. offering secure ports of call.76 A combination of underlying maritime structures and improvements over the course of the fifteenth century enabled Venice to earn most of her riches via maritime commerce. the Stato da mar was highly profitable. Venice’s expansion into mainland Italy significantly increased the salt income over the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. and Zadar served as homeports for large numbers of local seafarers who constituted a readily-available reserve pool of experienced sailors eligible for conscription in wartime.81 From the War of Chioggia to the Cyprus War. it was sometimes sent to another dominion as a subsidy. But he was also able to choose his merchant . subject to continuous monopolisation efforts by the state since the Middle Ages. This bidder became the patron of the vessel. and ample reservoirs of revenues and manpower.83 Throughout the Renaissance the protagonists of Venice’s commercialimperial endeavours were the city’s patricians.000) testify to the economic importance of Venice’s maritime state. trading posts with familiar structures.82 Thus Venetian imperial ambition paid off in that it generated “payments in excess of the cost.79 One of the cornerstones of Venetian wealth and power was the salt trade. wealth. political. Even the reorganisation of the Arsenal in the first decades of the sixteenth century85 could not prevent the slow.84 In combination with the more challenging foreign environment after the 1450s. inexorable shift of the commercial centre of gravity from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. and the Mediterranean steadily lost ground as the prime source of Venice’s opulence. this led to the aggregation of Venice’s mercantile capital.The Setting 37 companions. The rise in the manufacturing of luxury goods and improvements in her mainland possessions became increasingly important economic and political factors. Though by the middle of the sixteenth century her once-favoured trading position with the Ottoman Empire had eroded significantly. The Republic of St Mark intervened in the Hungarian succession crisis to reestablish her author- . and political power in the hands of a small number of patrician families. 4. The Adriatic Context The aftermath of the Chioggia War witnessed a renewed wave of Venetian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean. even during the difficult months in the aftermath of her ignominious defeat at Agnadello (1509). these factors contributed to the decline of Venetian mercantile shipping. This same period saw the end of an epoch in which Venice’s patricians acted as a unified body politic on behalf of their commercial interests and that of the state. By the time the crisis accompanying the War of the League of Cambrai had passed. Venice had changed. especially during the later decades of the fifteenth century and beginning of the sixteenth. Venice was able to compensate for the decline of her maritime fortunes.87 But the Signoria addressed the manifold changes in its environs with continuous innovations. usually consisting of close relatives. Eventually. No longer did maritime trade exclusively dominate her fortunes. A domestic consequence was that what had once been a broad-based aristocratic enterprise gave way to a de facto monopolisation of maritime commerce.86 By the dawn of the sixteenth century Venetian society and the staterun convoy system faced new realities. and technical disadvantages contributed to the demise of this region’s economic position and the increasing marginalisation of Venice’s maritime state over the course of the sixteenth century. A combination of geographical. Yet despite the conflicts and problems the domestic cohesion of the Republic of St Mark did not falter. 38 Urban Elites of Zadar ity over most Dalmatian and Albanian harbours from the late fourteenth century onward. This secured the vital shipping routes along the oriental seaboard of the Adriatic.88 The jurisdictions of the absorbed cities included the smaller towns and villages on the mainland and most of the coastal islands. Venice’s Adriatic dominion covered most communities from Butrint in present-day southern Albania to the large islands in the Kvarner Gulf.89 Despite a number of superficial differences among the cities and towns along the oriental littoral of the Adriatic, their underlying structures were similar. All of these communities exerted some jurisdiction over their surroundings, both on the mainland and the coastal islands. Many of the cities were also sees of Catholic (arch-) bishoprics. Upon their (sometimes involuntary) incorporation into the Stato da mar, the coastal communes were reorganised according to Venetian interests and placed into the dual province of Dalmatia-Albania. Its nominal capital, the city of Zadar, commanded a comparably large hinterland and included the minor fortified towns of Nadin and Vrana and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad.90 After the initial purchase of the rights to Dalmatia in 1409, Venetian expansion progressed gradually; Šibenik was incorporated in 1412, Split was absorbed in 1420, Omiš followed two decades later, and with the takeover of Cres in the Kvarner Gulf in 1480 the reestablishment of Venetian rule was accomplished.91 These developments cannot be separated from Venetian rule elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. The maritime dimension of the Stato da mar in its entirety must always be kept in mind. The driving force of the merchant aristocracy of the Rialto was the security of the vital navigation routes along the eastern Adriatic coastline.92 Venice’s “extremely limited territorial ambitions” had no particular interest in continued expansion into the hinterlands of the western Balkans.93 While the reestablishment of her authority over the coastal areas of Dalmatia and Albania progressed without much trouble, from the 1410s onward a new opponent emerged from the hinterlands: the Ottomans.94 The low-lying hinterland of Zadar enabled frequent cross-border raids that, after first incursions into the district of Nin in the early 1430s, placed considerable strain on agricultural production.95 At the same time, the waning capabilities of Hungary-Croatia to defend the western Balkans against Ottoman advances led to inevitable conflict between the Porte and Venice.96 The Adriatic remained at the periphery of the Ottoman-Venetian conflicts during most of the fifteenth century. The coastal cities of Dalmatia were nonetheless important, especially considering Venice’s supply lines and trade routes:97 “chi non conserva la città di Zara,” The Setting 39 wrote the city’s governor in the 1540s, Marc’Antonio da Mula, “perde non solamente un gran podere sul mare, ma tutto il dominio di questo colfo.”98 After the first Ottoman-Venetian war over Thessaloniki in the 1420s, Mehmed II renewed the war in 1463 in an attempt to conquer and pacify parts of Albania. In September of 1468 his troops raided the jurisdictions of Split, Šibenik, and Zadar. While the cities were not immediately threatened, the raids led to increased investments in their fortifications.99 The subsequent wars between the Ottoman Empire and Venice witnessed further reductions in the agriculturally important hinterlands of many Dalmatians cities. Fighting was mainly concentrated around strategic positions, many of which were established during Hungarian rule.100 One of these, Klis, annexed by the Ottoman Empire in 1537, became the centre of regional administration for the eponymous district (sanjak) after the conclusion of the Cyprus War.101 Only through her maritime power was Venice able to prevent all-out Ottoman assaults on the coastal cities.102 These conflicts constituted an inescapable part of everyday life, the hardships of which were compounded by the ambiguous and ill-respected borders.103 In the aftermath of the Cyprus War, these borders were re-demarcated, at times even without the presence of Venetian representatives.104 Given Venice’s primary interest in keeping the sea lanes open, those who were most disadvantaged were the urban communities and their inhabitants. The local nobles lost the great part of their incomes deriving from landed property. And the rural population and their livestock either fled the hinterlands or were captured, re-settled somewhere across the borders, or sold into slavery.105 One of Zadar’s former captains, Zaccaria Vallaresso, wrote in 1527 that “ogni giorno Turchi sono su le porte de Zara”106 and that continuous agriculture had become impossible without armed guards.107 Those who remained continued to cultivate their fields, causing additional on-going friction between the inhabitants on both sides of the borders.108 As the borders moved closer to the city walls during the 1570s—almost within shouting distance of the ramparts109—many inhabitants chose to emigrate or move to the security of the fortified urban centres.110 All these changes had a profound impact on agricultural production within Zadar’s jurisdiction. While livestock farming prevailed on the coastal islands, many villages were forced to abandon their fields, irrigation networks, and vineyards, resulting in the disruption of agriculture.111 By the mid-sixteenth century the only agricultural export left was wine, even though the cultivation of grapes was considerably more labour-intensive.112 40 Urban Elites of Zadar After the Cyprus War, Venice continued her policy of neutrality regarding the Ottoman Empire and enacted legislation to prevent her subjects from settling too close to the borders.113 But these efforts and another round of border revisions (1626) did not solve the underlying problems caused by insufficient arable land close to the Dalmatian cities. Another factor was the massive influx of funds used for the enlargement of the fortifications, and consequently the expansion of their garrisons. This resulted in additional costs to the fiscal chambers of Dalmatia’s cities. While the Venetians had to import biscuits (biscotti), foodstuffs, grains, and hay, the Ottomans were able to employ the much greater resources of the coastal hinterlands.114 Despite the considerable territorial contraction of the Stato da mar over the course of the sixteenth century, the maritime state became ever more demanding in human and other resources, placing increasing pressure on Venice’s finances.115 Since these expenditures had to be financed at least partially by the coastal communities themselves, surplus wealth was transferred within the Stato da mar, depriving the economically viable communes of available capital.116 5. “Zara è metropoli et chiave”117 The territorial jurisdiction of Zadar was reconstituted by Venice in the years after 1409. This jurisdiction encompassed the city proper and its suburban settlements (burgus, borgo, suburbs), part of the continental mainland including the fortified towns of Nin and Novigrad, and a number of coastal islands. By the mid-sixteenth century, despite the territorial losses sustained in the Ottoman-Venetian war of 1537-1540, Zadar’s jurisdiction comprised 37 islands and 85 minor villages.118 Moreover, despite the additional losses that resulted from the Cyprus War, the basic administrative structures dating back to the Middle Ages were preserved.119 The natural borders of the mainland possessions were the Adriatic, the Krka (Cherca) river basin to the southeast, and the Velebit-Dinara mountain ranges (Morlachia/Montagna della Morlacca) to the northeast.120 The geophysical properties of Zadar’s jurisdiction consist mostly of karst, forming the Bukovica plateau, an elevation averaging between 250 and 300 metres above sea level. Below the southern slopes of the Velebit massif, between the Bay of Karin and the river Krka, lies the flat valley of Ravni kotari. The coastal areas along the Velebitski kanal, composed mostly of limestone The Setting 41 and karst, belonged to Zadar’s medieval jurisdiction too. These conditions impacted habitation and land use, in combination with the availability of fresh water and arable lands.121 Red soil (Terra rossa) was one of the defining characteristics of Zadar’s continental hinterlands. The lowest areas surrounded the town of Nin and its eponymous bay, which was—and still is—used for the production of salt. These differing qualities of the mainland territory formed the basis for two types of agriculture. Red soil was exploited for cultivation of Mediterranean crops like grains, grapevines, and rye. The karst areas, with their vegetation of low shrub (macchia), were used for animal husbandry, mostly by the transhumance peoples (seasonal shepherds).122 These structural characteristics had shaped the lives and livelihoods of the inhabitants of the area since Antiquity. Fertile soil and fresh water meant that most settlements were concentrated in one area. As in other regions of the Mediterranean, many creeks were only seasonal; the longer and permanent streams were used to power mills.123 While human settlements in Zadar’s hinterlands date back 5,000 years, the Romans were the first to systematically change the landscape. By turning the fertile areas into plantations of mostly grapes and olives, and by constructing aqueducts and irrigation canals, they developed the existing villages.124 In the Middle Ages there was a renewed use of Roman castles, roads, and villages around the Catholic bishoprics of Nin, Skradin, and Zadar.125 It was only after Venice regained control of the area that a first cadastre was compiled in 1420, surveying and enlarging the jurisdiction with the incorporation of the minor districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana.126 With the ensuing string of wars between the Ottoman Empire and Venice the former’s marauders continuously exerted pressure on the coastal communities. At first, these incursions were temporary, as was migration to the perceived safety of the Dalmatian islands. As these raids occurred on a more regular basis127 the continuous Ottoman-induced insecurity effected significant changes. Large numbers of inhabitants were killed, robbed of their livestock, or sold into slavery. Many left the hinterlands, abandoning their villages and maintenance of the roads and irrigation systems.128 The places that were not abandoned—Nadin, Novigrad, Tinj, Vrana, and Zemunik— were reinforced, quickly repopulated, and adapted for military purposes. This further changed the cultural landscape of Zadar’s surroundings.129 The losses of Nadin and Vrana during the Ottoman-Venetian war from 1537 to 1540 triggered a new wave of emigration, even though parts of the 42 Urban Elites of Zadar rural population chose to live under the Sultan’s rule.130 Under these circumstances survival became the defining factor of everyday life as agriculture became all but impossible. This precarious situation in the rural hinterlands of Zadar was further compounded by the outcome of the Cyprus War (1570-1573): The Venetians razed the suburban dwellings to make way for new earthworks, fortifications, and ramparts.131 And two rounds of border demarcations during the 1570s left the Ottomans in control of most of the agriculturally productive areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction. By the time the new frontiers were agreed upon in 1576 only those settlements close to fortified places or guard towers were still inhabited. Those who still engaged in agriculture did so within a couple hundred metres of the city walls, causing additional problems like erosion, loss of top soil, and an increase in real estate prices.132 6. Zadar under Venetian Rule (1409-1570) Venetian rule from the late fourteenth century was, in principle, based on additions and amendments to existing administrative and legal institutions. As Gaetano Cozzi and others have demonstrated, this was the case for newly acquired possessions both in mainland Italy and the eastern Mediterranean.133 The medieval Byzantine organisation and adherence to Orthodoxy increased the complexities of Latin rule in the eastern Mediterranean. In central Dalmatia the territory of Zadar’s jurisdiction had previously belonged to three subdivisions: the central and northeastern parts in the county of Luka, the area extending from Biograd na moru to the southeast toward Šibenik in Sidraga county, and the territory in between in the county of Nin.134 After 1409 the Venetians decided to keep these medieval divisions and focused on amending the legal framework of their authority.135 The main changes concerned the districts of Ljubač, Novigrad, and Vrana. They were incorporated into the overall jurisdiction of Zadar, which by then also included Nin and its district. The subject territories were considered to be state property under the control of Zadar’s fiscal chamber. Its officials publicly auctioned (incantum, incanto) their use to the highest bidder to raise revenues. This was the main reason Venice kept the medieval structures in place.136 The border areas with the Hungarian-Croatian kingdom were demarcated by a number of fortified places, usually commanded nominally outranked the governors and military commanders in Dalmatia and Albania. Novigrad. Novigrad.138 The three minor districts and a number of coastal islands were subject to Zadar’s count (comes.137 Yet despite the increasing Ottoman threat. usually patricians of lower status and wealth. a term “with slightly indefinable meaning. Za- .The Setting 43 by Croat nobles. District is used for the minor territorial entities subject to Zadar’s authority.” as Mayhew admits.148 In general. conte). who spent most of their tours of duty aboard military vessels supervising the various communities. Depending on the importance and size of the possession. He was assisted by the city’s military captain (capiteneus. and Vrana was in the hands of their respective castellans. capitano). who embodied the supreme civilian-judicial authority. The safety and security of the vital navigational routes were of utmost importance. and Vrana. which in the Middle Ages were known as ager publicus or territorium.144 After the Republic of St Mark regained control it established offices to safeguard its strategic interests.140 Control over the minor districts of Nin. But the inhabitants of the subject communities had no influence on the election of these officials. no dedicated frontier zone was established until the late sixteenth centuries.142 Territory refers to the immediate surroundings of the urban centre. has been replaced by jurisdiction.141 Contado.147 These posts. and providing sufficient foodstuffs. such as Nin.143 Over the course of the fifteenth century Venice made efforts to unify most of Dalmatia’s cities to facilitate their defense and establish a streamlined administration. The following discussion of territorial divisions applies a different terminology than the one established by Tea Mayhew. The next administrative level consisted of the governors of the cities and towns. These two Venetian officials. Astareja). This is to reflect the fact that after 1409 the authority of Zadar’s count extended beyond its medieval dimension. they were assisted by military personnel.146 Other tasks of these provincial officials included enforcing Venetian rule—upholding the law. reserved for Venetian patricians of lower rank and wealth. conducting low-level negotiations with the Ottoman administrators across the borders.145 The two supra-regional authorities were the Overseer-general (Provveditore generale in Dalmazia et Albania) and the Captain-general (Capitano generale). the new suzerain respected the cities’ local autonomy. provided the officeholders with a certain amount of social stature in the Dalmatian towns.139 Together they administered an area that exceeded the city’s territory (ager publicus. including the office-holder’s correspondence with Venice.153 The subject cities also enjoyed limited autonomy within Venice’s maritime state (and limited economic power to back up such ambitions). The commoners. and Vrana (although these places were commanded by military personnel.156 These gatherings. By virtue of his office he also filled in for the Provveditore during his absences.150 Apart from the count’s office.151 In addition to these two offices. Their duties included the execution of the count’s orders. In the case of Zadar. provincial governors enjoyed only limited autonomy from the Signoria.154 By taking advantage of the social conflicts between the cities’ nobilities and commoners. Novigrad.158 These councilors were allowed to advise count or captain in civil proceedings. the council was the body from which four councilors (consiliarii comitis) were elected every three months. not civilian officials). paid out of the communal fiscal chamber. Despite the geographical distances involved.157 Comprising around 70 individuals around the mid-sixteenth century. offered the most prestigious positions available to Zadar’s urban nobility under Venetian rule.155 The count or the captain presided over gatherings of the local citizenry. Venice was sympathetic toward the commoners.” further strengthening her position.152 The count’s chancellery (cancellaria comitis) organised the day-to-day paperwork. united in their friction with the nobles. The office of Zadar’s count employed a gastald (gastaldus) and four public heralds (praecones). but the office-holder was in no way bound to follow their advice. or cases of a particularly grave nature . overseeing public auctions.44 Urban Elites of Zadar dar’s count was considered the first among his peers to govern Dalmatia’s cities. constantly disagreed with them. on tasks like diplomatic negotiations with neighbouring provincial officials or Ottoman officials from the far side of the borders.149 Outside the walls the authority of Zadar’s count extended over the city’s entire jurisdiction. public announcements. possibilities existed for political participation by local urban elites (although not with any significant executive authority). and ecclesiastical obligations. the Republic of St Mark was able to take on the role of “honest broker. Zadar proper hosted the captain (capitaneus.159 In criminal proceedings. thus separating civilian legislative-judicial administration from matters related to military security. capitano) and his administrative apparatus. including the subdivisions centred on the minor fortified towns of Nin. though lacking political clout. cases involving Venetians or her subjects from other parts of her dominions. and other atrocious instances”) the count “fa. Many of them settled in or around the coastal cities and were employed to work in the fields.173 Legally binding contracts were drawn up by the city’s notaries according to the customary law. there was the possibility of petitioning the Court of Appeals (Quarantia) in Venice. locatio) or payment in kind of produce (concessio. producing vegetables. grand theft.169 After 1537 these officials could be obliged to unpaid public works but were exempted from military service. fruits. This movement.171 As far as possible.172 The legal basis of agricultural production continued to be rents (livellum). the statutes provided the option to re-rent or grant livestock.163 In these cases.161 If none of these were applicable or were not in the best interests of the Republic of St Mark. common law. real estate. Large numbers of people fleeing the Ottoman advances first appear in Venetian reports in the 1520s. and concessions (concessio. and case precedent. the appeals had to be considered in light of local law.168 The office of judge (iudex) in the villages was unpaid.The Setting 45 (Venice’s syndics explicitly mention “extortion. land grants (livellatio). these newcomers were integrated into the economic and social framework of Zadar’s jurisdiction. and were validated by communal public officials in the presence of at least two witnesses. the count judged according to his conscience.170 From the mid-fifteenth century it was these judges who first dealt with the waves of migration.166 In combination with the necessary centralisation of power with the office-holders during wartime these factors detached the office-holders further from the urban citizenry. These documents granted the farmer-labourer property for a certain amount of cash (affictus. which resulted in increased pressure on the towns and villages along the Dalmatian coast.174 They also contained detailed provisions for harvesting and transporting the produce.164 Appeals of lower institutions such as brotherhoods or guilds (schola. rape. fratalea)165 were handled by the count himself.167 Given Venice’s lack of interest in extending her rule over the coastal hinterlands.”160 The legal system was founded on communal statutes. not Venetian legal norms and practices. quanto gli piace. and olives close to Zadar while grain was harvested further inland.176 Over the course of the sixteenth century a ten- . the rural organisation of Zadar’s jurisdiction was able to retain more autonomy within the Stato da mar. sedition. although some territorial privileges could be obtained.162 In case of disagreement with the court’s findings. In addition. senza tor il parere d’essi.175 as well as other complimentary clauses. or other property to a third party (conductio). pastinatio). pastinatio) to colonists. ”185 In combination with the deteriorating situation in the coastal cities’ rural hinterlands. Even though Zadar’s port remained the most important centre of exchange in central Dalmatia. robberies. around 1500 the entire region had become “economically insignificant. the changes introduced by Venice over the course of the fifteenth century were considerable.177 In addition to the stipulated share of the harvest belonging to the landlord. or business partners attempted to raise ransom money. organised cross-border theft—whose frequency testifies to the weak governance of both the Ottomans and Venice in their respective peripheral territories—were punished more severely. relatives. These were facets of living in Dalmatia that had long existed but had become much more serious in the decades leading up to the Cyprus War. honey. the colonist could resell.178 If the landlord altered the provisions (excess of duties. family members. strangling the urban communities and eventually culminating in the crisis of the sixteenth century. While migration originating in the western Balkans subsided. While not without benefits. these factors negatively impacted Dalmatian daily life in a variety of ways.186 Consequently. The hinterlands’ produce—fabrics. most importantly in terms of cattle theft. raisins. While Dalmatia’s cities enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy under the previous Hungarian suzerainty. and enslavement. the Republic of St Mark incorporated her new subject societies into her more centralised and monopolised economic system.187 Capture and enslavement became a common experience for inhabitants of the Mediterranean. re-rent. Ottoman expansion pushed the borders close to the city walls. wax. or leave his or her obligations in accordance with communal statutes.). special gifts (honorantiae) had to be consigned to the proprietor. but in decreasing quantities.46 Urban Elites of Zadar dency emerged toward the cultivation of one half of a field. and wool184—continued to arrive in Zadar and the other coastal cities. given the Dalmatian cities’ reliance on it to balance their budgets. usually with death. etc.189 . The ploughed and fallow halves were swapped every year.180 the obligation to recognise Venice’s staple rights from the 1420s onward constituted a continuous drag on the local economies. change of transport location.179 Viewed together.181 Efforts to monopolise the lucrative salt trade182 were especially grave. leaving the other half for pastureland. commerce and trade too declined after 1409. which was at least partially refundable by the Venetian government.183 Though the artisans were less affected.188 If contacted by the recently enslaved. Les ‘Assisses de Romanie’. Quarta crociata.” 146-158.. 136151. On the aftermath of the Chioggia War.. “Venise et l’occupation de Ténedos. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. Venice acquired Crete.g. Hongarie médievale. 7. Thiriet. “Beyond the Coast”. Kristó. Thiriet. Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille.” 697-704.. Cozzi. Realm of St Stephen. 18-21. Nin. Karpov. Ortalli. On Crete specifically. “Lotta contro Genova. 6. These however. Queller and Madden. Margetić. Cozzi and Knapton. Cozzi and Knapton. See. 3. “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico. 124-147.” 56-66. See also Jacoby. Byzantium. “Veneziani delle colonie. 157-194. Hamilton. 63-349. The account follows Balard. Borsari. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean. Krekić. Façade maritime de l’Albanie. In addition to the commercial privileges and a number of islands in the eastern Mediterranean. McKee. As the Ottoman Empire continued its expansion. Koroni and Methoni in the Peloponnese peninsula. and numerous islands off the coast. and Schreiner. Engel. Chambers. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Navigazione veneziana nel Mar nero. Jacoby. Uncommon Dominion. . Fourth Crusade. Ducellier. The account follows Arbel. 181-349. On the other possessions of medieval Venice. Karpov. most recently Brković. For an introduction see Ortalli. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. On the Fourth Crusade.” 947-951. Novigrad. were amended by the new suzerain’s administrative and cultural influences.. ed. Byzantium and Venice. “Pietro II Orseolo”. Fiorentin. economic. 5.” Ostrogorsky. Ravegnani. Imperial Age of Venice. 1:3-8. Thiriet..” 101-114. and Vrana on the mainland. Krekić. and established an outpost on Euboea. eds. 524-544. “Colonie d’oltremare. ed. Nicol. eds. But the common enemy held the social strata together and made it easier for the respublica’s representatives to provide a certain amount of stability during the eventful sixteenth century. 2:57-95. O’Connell. History of the Byzantine State. and social organization. 55-78. Byzantium and Venice. 1:177-201.The Setting 47 After 1409 Zadar under Venetian rule continued to exist as a typical Dalmatian coastal community with medieval commercial.” 195-201. 33-72. For a concise overview and further literature.” 8. 4. Notes 1. “Dominio da mar. most recently Ortalli. Nicol. Latin Romania and the Mediterranean. Impero di Trebisonda. 2. 158-161. and Kubinyi. Engel. then known as Candia. Men of Empire. “Isprave o Zadarskom miru” [Documents concerning the Zadar Peace Treaty]. Arbel. and Jacoby. “Spedizioni veneziane in Dalmazia”. life at the frontiers of Venice’s Adriatic dominions became increasingly difficult. “Dubrovnik and the War of Tenedos. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. Tadić. Subject to the city’s jurisdiction were the fortified towns of Ljubač. e. 98. 1:28-40. “Colonie d’oltremare. 129-131.” 948. 157-194. The Papacy and the Levant. Realm of St Stephen. Krekić. Engel. 1-21. Imber. History of the Ottoman Empire. 15. 7-15. Which already comprised Hungary. In addition to Babinger. 13. 18. History of the Ottoman Empire. On events in Albania the account follows Ducellier. 195-243. 219-304. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. 406425. 106. 22-80. On his life and accomplishments see Engel. 23. 16. Geburt einer Großmacht. Shaw. Sons of Bayezid. Hongarie médievale. Venezianisches Albanien. Late Medieval Balkans. Kristó. 137-144. 2:57-95. Realm of St Stephen.” 81-82. Runciman. Kastritsis. The Papacy and the Levant. 499-509. and Werner. 22. 21. and the commune of Poljica in the vicinity of Omiš in 1443. 10. 499-611. For a detailed discussion of Venice and the Ottoman advance follow Setton. Geburt einer Großmacht. Arbel. 116-179.” 948-949. 180-218. Athens and Argos came under Venetian rule during the 1390s but were lost before the end of the century. Kristó. See also Goffman. Imber. 234. Ravenna was added to Venice’s Terraferma possessions in 1441. Late Medieval Balkans. Croatia. Charles III of Naples († 1386) and his son Ladislaus. Shaw. Fine. Venetian control of Thessaloniki (1423-1430) resulted in the first Ottoman-Venetian war and the loss of the city.48 Urban Elites of Zadar 9. 22-47. Ottoman Empire. “Colonie d’oltremare. the later king of Bohemia and Hungary who became also Holy Roman Emperor. and Kubinyi. On the Ottoman Empire to the Battle of Ankara. 16-24. 3-63. Ottoman Empire. Imber. Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia] (2001). Krekić. Arbel.” Werner. Osman’s Dream. 490-509. Mehmed the Conqueror. Louis’ daughter with Elizabeth of Bosnia. 64-125. 30 km outside Milan. Fall of Constantinople. Osor.” 20. “Colonie d’oltremare. subduing Brescia (1426) and Bergamo (1429).” Babinger. Venice quickly expanded throughout the Friulan plains and the Po Valley into Lombardy. Engel. only c. Osman’s Dream. “Italian Reactions to Terraferma Expansion. Geburt einer Großmacht. who continued his father’s claims to the crown of St Stephen. 25-39. 195-243. Realm of St Stephen. Shaw. Finkel. History of the Ottoman Empire. Fine. Pylos was added in 1421. Mehmed der Eroberer. Osman’s Dream.” 948-949. Quoted after the German original by Babinger. Also. Realm of St Stephen. Engel. Engel. the account follows Engel. Hongarie médievale. The English translation uses different wording but likewise reads decisively: “Everywhere it was felt that a turning point in history had been reached. and Kubinyi. “Colonie d’oltremare. Werner. 2:108-137. Realm of St Stephen. Setton. Babinger.” 948-949. Ottoman Empire. 295-297. 14. Late Medieval Balkans. and Rab. Mehmed the Conqueror. Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. 2:1-38. Arbel. Façade maritime de l’Albanie.” 948. Schmitt. 19. A recent bibliographic guide is presented by Kreiser. 1: 28-40. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. 2:205-207. 11. 1:12-40. Fine. “Ascencion des Ottomans. Starting in 1389 with the conquest of Treviso. Mary. Engel. Mehmed the Conqueror. His main adversaries were the senior Angevins. Thessaloniki in 1423. 217-251. See Rubinstein. Arbel. . Mehmed the Conqueror. and Poland.” 73-82. 17. Der Osmanische Staat. Finkel. Novak. These islands were Cres. married Sigismund of Luxembourg. Arbel. Vatin. “Colonie d’oltremare. The account follows Babinger. 12. Finkel. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Reign of Caterina Corner”. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. and Otranto in Apulia (1495-1509. Loenertz. Arbel.. Mola. Louis II (1526).. 32. “Frontiere navali. On the light Albanian cavalry. On the Aegean islands.. 155-160. Osman’s Dream. 593-628. Chemins de l’exil. The Empire of Trebizond and the Despotate of Morea both fell in 1460-61 and the Ottomans conquered the Genoese islands Lesbos and Chios in 1462. 291-320. Not without considering a plea to the Porte for assistance. Pisani. 28. History of Cyprus. Skanderbeg. Migrations et diasporas éditerranéennes.” 95-96. as well as the islands ruled by branches of the Corner. leaving behind the body of its young king. Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia. Venezianisches Albanien. Delos. Finkel. besieged Rhodes (1522). 1511-1517) in the Aegean and the coastal towns of Brindisi.” 36. The temporary possessions were Naxos (1494-1500. south of Ravenna. “Colonie d’oltremare. 25. 61-64. 33. Arbel. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. and Venier families in the Aegean. 243-290. On the emigration of Greek scholars to Renaissance Italy. Slot. 26. “De quelques îles grecque. 2:667-669. 116-128. Richard. “Crisis of the League of Cambrai.. the Franks and Venice. Cozzi and Knapton. For a contemporary accounts of the fighting. see Balard. Hill. Chemins de l’exil. Osman’s Dream.” On its aftermath see Cozzi and Knapton. and Petta. Skanderbeg. “Colonie d’oltremare. Braudel. On the Peloponnese. On the afterlife of his fight. Lost Capital of Byzantium. esp.” 947. On the ensuing migratory movements across the Adriatic. Michiel. Geanakoplos. The Mediterranean. and Schmitt. see Runciman. The account follows Schmitt.” 30. Imber. 27. 35. Arbel. “Frontiere navali.” 90-95. 115-220. Premarin. The death of Francesco Maria Sforza drew Venice again into the fray of the larger French-Habsburg contest.” 949. Petta. Gullino. Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia. Byzantine Scholars in Venice. Shortly afterward Vienna withstood two sieges (1529. Querini. 2:5-18. On the War of the League of Cambrai. 34. and Monfasani. 7-25.” For a summary of Christian-Ottoman relations. Finkel. 35-87. the contributions by Doumerc and Ganchou.The Setting 49 24.” 951. 115-151. Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia. Suleiman I acceded the Ottoman throne in 1520. As was Cervia. Preto. and advanced towards Hungary whose armies were utterly defeated on the fields of Mohács. In the Ionian Sea the islands of Paxos and Antipaxos were lost. Lock. ed. 3:657-764. Arbel. 1528-1530). in the previous year.949. The account follows Gullino. Arbel. Ottoman Empire. Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy. Arbel. 2:138-270. Monopoli. In more detail Setton. “Süleymān.”. 42-53. These were Aigina. History of the Ottoman Empire. 29. Ibid. On the ensuing migratory movements from the eastern Mediterranean in general Ducellier et al. conquered Belgrade (1521). and Shaw. 1:55-70. 31.” 949. Petta. Franks in the Aegean. 27135. The Papacy and the Levant. “Chypre du protectorat à la domination vénetienne. see Francesco Longo’s “Descrizione della . 1:61-63. and Mykonos. 1532) before Ottoman attention refocused on Venice. Veinstein. “Colonie d’oltremare. See also Ducellier et al.000 troops in the event of a disputed Milanese succession. Cyprus. Archipelagus turbatus. Venice was bound to Charles V by the Treaty of Naples (1535) to assist the Emperor with 6. and Schmitt. “Papacy. Trani. Gallipolli. 37. Gilbert. Venice and the Ottoman Empire. Argos and Nafplio were bequeathed to Venice by their feudal lord who married a member of the Venetian Corner family. Cozzi and Knapton speak of “venezianizzazione” of the maritime state. On the sixteenth-century border changes in Dalmatia.. Contado di Zara. and Panciera. Jacoby. Façade maritime de l’Albanie. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Her prime objective was to keep her ports of call and sea routes safe.50 Urban Elites of Zadar guerra seguita tra la serenissima republica di Venetia e sultan Solimano imperator de Turchi l’anno 1537” and the report of Alvise Baduario (Badoer). Fine.” 951. Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean.” 79-80.” On the communicative nature of entering Venice’s dominions. Ortalli. 3:249-267. “Colonie d’oltremare. and Budva. Men of Empire. Cozzi and Knapton. 217-251.” 951. 406-452.” Commissiones. 490-509. Raukar et al. Krekić.” 19-26.000 to 100. “kavalier e procurator venuti di proveditor general di Dalmatia. Zadar’s jurisdiction was eventually reached by raiding parties in 1432. Arbel. Arbel. Raukar. Ulcinj. 25-27.” 48. 45. Venezianisches Albanien. 44. Traljić. here 176. Men of Empire. Jacoby. 136-144. Valentini.” 843-854.000 ducats. For a contemporary account see the report by Zuanne da Lezze. a trend further confirmed by the outcome of the Cyprus War. today home to Zadar’s airport and only 10 km away from the city centre. equilibrium (1479-1537).” 951.v.” 23. but at the least possible cost. Jacoby. 24. 49. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète”. 43. 1:191. “Developed Autonomy. and Valentini.” 951. “Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania.” presented to the Council of Ten on 17 February 1570 m.” 951. Zemunik. and Nin had to be abandoned. 41. “Encounter of Two Societies”. who provides a sense of the desolation from the Ionian Islands to Venice’s Albanian and Venetian possessions in 1576. Late medieval Balkans. 47. “Colonie d’oltremare. See also Arbel. 35-87. leading O’Connell to comment that “[t]he Venetians wanted an Adriatic empire. was lost to the Ottomans.. 2:113-131. Commissiones. Quoted after the “Relatione di Dalmatia. 39. e Leuante” by Andrea Giustiniano. “Colonie d’oltremare. Venice had little interest in expanding her authority into the hinterlands of the western Balkans. As were the cities of Shkodër. E. 199.” 188. Schmitt. Ducellier. 103.g. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Mayhew. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 2:326-332. Commissiones. O’Connell. “ambasciatore veneto presso il Turco intorno alla conclusione della pace. Down from Ladislaus’ initial offer of 300. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. Slot. 38. Bar. and Raukar. Arbel. ed. “Amministrazione veneta in Albania. When a rebellion resulted in the assassination of the ruling Tocco family Venice assumed control.” 40. Panciera. 27-31 (quote on 31). “Croatia within Europe. The first Ottoman incursions into the western Balkans and neighbouring Croatia occurred as early as 1415. “Beyond the Coast. Arbel. Archipelagus turbatus. Arbel. As was the case not only in Zadar but also with many other cities and communities along the eastern coast of the Adriatic. . “Social Evolution in Latin Greece”. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Zadar i turska pozadina” [Zadar and its Turkish Hinterland]. Cozzi and Knapton. “Društvene strukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Social Structures in Venetian Dalmatia]. 46. 203-204. Arbel suggests three phases of Venetian overseas possessions: expansion (1381-146379). and the Ottomans gaining the upper hand (1540-1570). 4:161-185.. 66-72. “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo. 42. O’Connell. “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia”. See further. Krekić. 447-451. of Monumenta historiam Uscocchorum. 78-88. esp. “Colonie d’oltremare. Colonization. Orlando. privileges. On Istria. Costantini. 4-20. and Commissiones 3:1-41. ambiente veneto.” 268-269. Ivetić. “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice. Oltremare. 53. 54. 55-57. “Ambiente veneziano. E. For the extensively documented example of Korčula. O’Connell. rettore. Thiriet. Arbel. 73-74. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice. Viggiano.The Setting 51 50. 32-33. and Trogir. Arbel. “Corsari in Mediterraneo.g. 376-377. On the question of whether one can speak of a “chartered colonial enterprise” and (proto-) colonialism. 60. 368. “Tra dominante e dominio. Even though the wording does not appear verbatim in the referenced reports by Donato Barbari (Barbaro) and Giovanni Balbi. ambiente veneto. This problem. Šibenik. Knapton. was of particular graveness in the Aegean and Adriatic. 99-104. 52.” On Dalmatia. For a general discussion. 133-135. 5. communication worked both ways.” 325-327.” 952. “Venice and the Uskoks”. .” 465-524. “Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade”. Storia di Dalmazia. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. a point made recently by Schmitt. For a general discussion see Fasano Guarini. “Amministrazione veneziana in Istria. Venetian Patriciate. especially for exemptions. Krekić. 164-167. However. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji [Development of the Judicial System in Dalmatia]. 22-33. 399-404. Maštrović. their presence was a threat to any merchant vessel. “Center and Periphery. “Isole ionie nel sistema marittimo veneziano”. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. 1933.” 86. and the commentary thereof by O’Connell. Ashtor. Kotor and Zadar asked for Venetian “protection” multiple times before being incorporated into her maritime state. Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies. “Ambiente veneziano. Accordi von Curzola. 216-218.” 164178. Praga. 182-186. Which coincided approximately with the use of the title rector or count (rector.. Tenenti. 249-267. Rothenburg. 61. For the area of Zadar during the period under survey. Ferro. The account follows Arbel. Dominio veneto su Corfu. 1:16. which then also comprised Istria. 146-148. and the 2 vols. Even though not all of the corsairs/pirates were Muslims. Men of Empire. 148-156. 11-17. 51. Georgopoulou. “Fisco nello stato veneziano. “Colonie d’oltremare. 58. “Colonie d’oltremare. O’Connell. 57-74. Cozzi. 48-55. while endemic in the Mediterranean. Interestingly. eds.” On the Uskoks of Senj. Mallett and Hale. 30. Venice. 2:53. the same reference appears in O’Connell. Men of Empire. Fine. conte) in Dalmatia and Pula. Split. 170-175.” 302.” 959-964. Men of Empire. Uskoks of Senj. Cozzi. 62. “Colonie d’oltremare. 55. Bacchion. O’Connell. Doumerc. 51-112. “Dominio del mare. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. 56. Bracewell. When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans. Examples include Drivast. Military Organization of a Renaissance State. Lane. Arbel. “Conquista veneziana di Corfù”.” 23.” 66-79. Commissiones 2:113-131. Knapton. 59. 54-75.” 954. Men of Empire. Ravegnani. Queller. 57.” 954-979. Horvat and Jelavić. 1-18. 189-199. 136-144. Men of Empire.” 291-323. For the two reports. Cozzi. see Commissiones. “Colonie d’oltremare. Venice did not automatically confirm all parts of preexisting legislation. as opposed to the use of the title podestà or chief magistrate in “Italy” (in geographical terms). the portmanteau is useful. and special rights obtained during the Hungarian suzerainty over Dalmatia (1358-1409). Chojnacki.” 93-100. Arbel. 21-47.” 964. 158-160. count of Zadar 1564-1566. sopra abbondante da Cherso. the worsening situation prior to the outbreak of the Cyprus War contributed to Venice’s willingness to spend this amount of money over such short a period of time. Dursteler. and Prodi. E. Servizi segreti di Venezia. “News networks between Italy and Europe”.” On Corfu. and various other supplies. 55-73. 158-159. 66. Arbel. The most recent study on merchant correspondence and information networks is Christ. “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe.” 976. “Church and Christianity. Venice’s Mediterranen Colonies.” 969-970. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Colonie d’oltremare. 197 (Zadar). the Council of Ten prohibited the obligatory proclamation of the results of the Council of Trent as mandated by Filippo Mocenigo. Thiriet. 67. Georgopoulou. On expenditures from 15661569. Preto. The conscription of able-bodied freemen (uomini da fatto). 208 (Trogir). To put this number in perspective: In spring of 1566. Doumerc. The Mediterranean. E.175 ducati et più et manco. almost three times as much money. 215 (Split).” 63.” 967-968. 403-410. On the Venetian Adriatic.” 64. Military Organization of a Renaissance State. Venice. 2:191 (Koper)..” On Dalmatia more specifically. “Città fortificata di Zara di Zara. and Manno. or convicts. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. “Città fortificata di Zara. 29-71. 74. Venice. Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste”. Corfu. 9. 3:873. Žmegač. . Mocellin. reported that the city’s fiscal chamber “ha de intrade ogn’anno de datii. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Difese di Venezia. “Dominio del mare. Arbel.” Over the course of the ensuing three years. livelli sal da Pago. Praga. Trading Conflicts. 1:370. Giacomo Pisani. Šanjek. De Vivo. Ferro. By the time of the Cyprus War. Zeitalter des Geheimnisses. For a general discussion.” 71. Jütte. 456-458. Commissiones. Admittedly.52 Urban Elites of Zadar 63. 68. 231 (Bar). Venetian resources and manpower were strained to the limit—which does not come as a surprise given the fact that about half of the “Holy League’s” fleet fighting at Lepanto (1571) consisted of Venetian vessels. 52-53. most of which were operated with men from her overseas dominions. Dominio veneto su Corfu. For a general discussion. 430-447. Colonization. 227 (Ulcinj). “Colonie d’oltremare. 70. 69. 72. 287-291. This gave rise to the widespread use of convict galleys. The major centres throughout the Stato da mar—Heraklion (Candia) and Souda in Crete. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of the Croatian Adriatic].g. Arbel. 204-205 (Šibenik). resorted increasingly to pressgang convicts or slaves for galley service. 364-374. Over the course of the sixteenth century. 429-435.” 104-105.g. Military Organization of a Renaissance State. “Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice.” 113. 93-125. Arbel. Mallett and Hale. Storia di Dalmazia. and Mocellin. 65. prone to desertion upon (partial) advance payment for their military service. Hill. while still at least partially relying on paid freemen. quanto se incantano li datii. 39-146. and the Dalmatian cities of Šibenik and Zadar—were fortified during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. History of Cyprus.000 ducats. Žmegač. 27. 85-95. Braudel. 73. c. incanti.” 974-976. 18-156. was spent. Bacchion. “Venetian Postal System”. archbishop of Cyprus (in office 1560-1571). Which also included funding for ammunition. See also Pederin. was increasingly avoided after 1550. cisterns. Infelise. powder. Mallett and Hale. 189-190. On Venice in particular.. Information and Communication in Venice. Lane. Commissiones. 3:165. ” 978.. Christoforo de Canal. “Dominio del mare”. Shipbuilders of the Venetian Arsenal. Men of Empire. Lane. “Imperialismo monetario veneziano”.000 ducats in 1521-22 alone. “Colonie d’oltremare. Among others. Lane. Doumerc.” 978-979. 80. Consequently. 303-349. Nafplio’s excess revenues were transferred to Crete. for instance. Doumerc. it spent more time in Venetian-owned ports than on open sea before reaching the harbour of Corfu. 2:197. See Wallerstein. Bacchion. above. Consequently. On Venetian ship-building. 83. “Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge.” 976-979. Système de l’Incanto. Tenenti. 82. Lane. situated disadvantageously in the Adriatic while the Atlantic trade routes took shape. Cozzi. Among the most important factors were the expansion of government. 86. Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani. cogs were used in transport en route. 77. revenues from Cres and Osor were transferred to Zadar in 1553. 336-389. “Pratique vénetienne de la navigation.” 977. In today’s terminology this construct can be labelled a “holding. in turn. Ships and Shipbuilders. 27-31.” 246. Dominio veneto su Corfu. Mueller. 2:387. sold their produce or livestock to the city dwellers.” During the fifteenth century it was known as fraterna. Demonstrated for instance by the fact that Venetian revenues from the monopolised salt trade out of Cyprus amounted to almost 160. “Dominio del mare. “Comment naviguaient les galères”. “Colonie d’oltremare. Stöckly. “[the] personal interests of the merchant no longer coincided with the public good. earth works. Or. “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures. 1:318-321.” 295-296. Arbel. 191-192. “Colonie d’oltremare.The Setting 53 75. 76.” 85. 87. 79. 367-374. “Dominio del mare. even without pre-established notarial paperwork. This holds especially true for the enormous sums invested in citadels. For instance. Hocquet. Mercanti. E.g. 84. Dalmatian salt was also sold to Ottoman subjects living in the hinterlands who. Tucci. See also notes 63 and 64. O’Connell. It describes an economic unit based on kinship ties comprising at least two brothers who were equal legal partners. eventually concentrating much of Venice’s economic power in the hands of a limited number of patrician families. Usually. the geographical location of Venice proper. Venice. Fasano Guarini. once a vessel destined for the eastern Mediterranean left the lagoon. 2:205-206. Commissiones.” 117-118. or wine from Crete. 81. Ships and Shipbuilders. Davis. this construction enabled individual wealthy families to acquire a majority of the available cargo volumes. Modern World-System. Fasano Guarini. “Comment naviguaient les galères. Lane. Many privately owned vessels transported ordinary bulk goods like corn from the Black Sea markets. “Colonie d’oltremare. Doumerc. 58. navi e monete. some profits of the salt works were shared with the Ottoman officials across the borders. at least during peacetime. Arbel. a policy still in place a century-and-a-half later. 71. “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians. and other fortifications. these vessels were rented on site to transport goods exceeding the cargo capacity of the galleys. Occasionally. and Thiriet. 31. Lane.” 151154. 76. The account follows Arbel. and Valentini. Chojnacki. Venice. As early as 1413. As regards the Adriatic during the sixteenth century. For a contemporary reference see Commissiones. Men of Empire. as Tucci succinctly put it.” 242-244. 78. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. O’Connell.” Tucci.” 72-86. the accompanying social and political changes. and the rise of . 1:15-17 (quote on 16). cotton and sugar from Cyprus. Arbel. as well as end-point delivery. and Tenenti. Commissiones. Ottoman corsairs. barely 10 km away from the city walls of Zadar. Contado di Zara. Cozzi. Tenenti. By the conclusion of the Cyprus War. Raukar et al. “Handelssystem und Handelspolitik in Dalmatien. 23-44 (written from a triumphalist Italian point of view). “Croatia within Europe. Ortalli. In the war from 1499 to 1503. “Colonie d’oltremare.” 23. Klis. Raukar. Finlay. 29-30. Žmegač. Murano. Knapton. 89. 98. Stanojević. 2:170... 24-25. Men of Empire. Pavić. In Venetian Albania. O’Connell. Knapton. 100. In the subsequent war from 1537 to 1540. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. 178-187. Raukar et al. 57-74. and merchants from Dubrovnik. See De Benvenuti.” 203-204. “Beyond the Coast. 27-30.” 961-963. the Ottomans conquered Makarska and raided the coastal areas on the mainland in the Kvarner Gulf. “Dominio del mare. “Zadar i turska pozadina. As the Cyprus War came to a close in 1573. written by Giuseppe Rosaccio around 1600. Mayhew.” 100-103. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. 6672. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. The account follows Arbel. 101. . Dalmacija u XV stoljeću [Dalmatia in the 15th Century]. 25-26. Krekić. effectively strangling the Venetian cities of Kotor and Ulcinj. 94. Men of Empire. Muir.” 250-261. 11-51. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. Contado di Zara. French. Contado di Zara. and Pederin. however.” 66-78. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom.. “Dominio da mar. “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico”. The fighting over control of these places was one part of the larger Ottoman-Venetian conflict. 97. the Ottomans took over the far side of the Bay of Kotor. 92. most of the recently fortified places had been lost to the Ottomans. 199-206. Most of which were constructed 1360-1460 by the Hungarians to provide a fortified border zone in the western Balkans. Storia di Zara. Men of Empire. Traljić. “Sense of Space and Time. Raukar et al. Cozzi. For an account of a voyage from Venice to Istanbul. O’Connell. “Penetrazione veneziana in Dalmazia”. Mayhew. Nadin. 189-190. Venetian Patriciate. On Venetian concepts of space and the maritime dimension.. 93. 13-31. “Društvene srukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji [Social Structures in Venetian Dalmatia].” 79-82. 24. Vrana.” 28. 203-204. and the Sultan’s raiding parties. 51-112. 95. 218-220. 103. Seneca. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Chojnacki. and O’Connell. Bin. Much Venetian money went into fortifications and watch posts to counter piracy. “Politica del diritto.” 198. Questione Adriatica. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice”. “Senso del mare”. Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačko-turskim ratovima [The South Slavic Lands during the Venetian. “Plovidbene rute srednjim i južnim Jadranom” [Navigational Routes on the Middle and Southern Adriatic]. and other parts of Croatia were annexed by the Ottoman Empire. Šunjić. even Zemunik. Contado di Zara. 178. “La festa Veneziana e le sue manifestazioni”. 178. See also Raukar.” 178. English. 24.Ottoman Wars]. Mayhew. Tadić. 99. Mayhew. 96. “Stato da mar. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. was lost too. The first Ottoman incursions into the Kingdom of Croatia occurred in 1415. and Queller.” 329.54 Urban Elites of Zadar direct competition by Dutch. 88.” 90. On societal and political changes. 167-172. 91. Doumerc. Raukar et al. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Krekić. Politics in Renaissance Venice. Contado di Zara. 102. “non si fa più oglio. “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia. “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”. ma si servono di Puglia. 103. captain of Zadar 1523-1524. had not been replanted. 4:370-378. 2:199. 101. San Cassiano). 105. The Uskoks who continuously harassed the Ottoman subjects. “Frontiera Soranzo. 1:171. Contado di Zara. 110. incursions were not considered a casus belli either. who ascribed it to the Ottoman takeover of the fortified places of Oštrovica (1523).The Setting 55 “Stato da mar. and Traljić. 28-29. Raukar et al. “Razgraničenje između mletačke i turske vlasti” [Border Demarcations between the Venetian and Ottoman Governments]. Mayhew. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. according to Marc’Antonio da Mula. Contado di Zara. Consequently. Knapton. Mayhew. Panciera. Commissiones. 367. Contado di Zara. Contado di Zara. 1:196.000 ducats per year. Mayhew.” 329.” allegedly depriving the fiscal chamber of Zadar of 25. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 1:168-169. Mayhew. Panciera. former count of Zadar. The account follows Knapton. Raukar et al. 26-27. “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini. Contado di Zara. Mayhew. Arbel.Ferhat in Dalmazia”. 106. presented another problem. Contado di Zara. Anzulović. Knapton.” 412-418. “Stato da mar. “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji. “Stato da mar. located c. Traljić. Commissiones.000 soldiers.” 335-336. Those who remained continued to farm. This in turn caused retaliatory attacks by Venetian subjects and vice versa. 104. “Stato da mar. 29. 25-26. thus further compounding the problematic situation. Giovanni Battista Giustiniano wrote that wine was sold “ai ferestieri in buona quantità. Prošlost Dalmacije (2004). 108. Gianbattista Michiel. 344. 111. 2:172-173..” 330. 28. Panciera.” 451-453. 409-419. socalled Morlachs and Vlachs. Commissiones. On 27 March 1586. See also. This related to both the settled inhabitants of the western Balkans and the transhumance peoples. count of Zadar 1540-1543..” 331. the villages located nearby these places had to be abandoned for security reasons. causing almost incessant friction with the inhabitants across the borders. Especially so after the Cyprus War. 27. 10 km away from Zadar. The destruction and depopulation of the fertile hinterlands was also noted by Zuan Moro. 27. “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini” [Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in Zadar’s Borderlands]. Mayhew. Novak. and Obrovac (1527). 107.” He also noted that much potential for export-oriented olive oil production existed in the vicinity of Zadar—but also that the olive trees. Traljić. 109. as Mayhew notes.. Raukar et al. leading to raids by Ottoman subjects on Venetian territory.” 246-262. Mayhew. which. 101. in situations eerily familiar to later centuries along the similarly-disputed Habsburg-Ottoman borders in Hungary: Without the deployment of artillery and with less than 5. 115. cut down during the OttomanVenetian war of 1537-1540. “Colonie d’oltremare. Commissiones. 114. This resulted. . 27-28.” 960-962. 112. Consequently. Commissiones. Mayhew. 113. Karin (1524). 218-220. reported that in some cases the border ran only some 3/4 of a mile from Sukošan (Porto d’Oro. were supposed to be relocated to Istria or the islands off the coast. Contado di Zara. 54. “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe. Vransko jezero. E.. Suić. Goldstein. .. 92-96. “Colonie d’oltremare. Contado di Zara. more populous. Consequently. The area of Ravni kotari.56 Urban Elites of Zadar 116. 391. was drawn up in 1609. and comprised 280 minor villages. 95. 1:203-223. 97-98. forced the second cadastre. and Trogir generated surpluses used to help pay for the fortifications of Bar. 94-96. Contado di Zara. Prior to the war.” 960. 3:17. Mayhew. 2:199. Pederin. many toponyms reflect these geophysical conditions on the ground as. See also Zaccaria Vallaresso’s report (1527) in Commissiones. Šibenik. Bokanjačko Blato. Also. On the 1570s and later Mayhew. Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu [The Ancient Town on the Eastern Adriatic Coast]. Prošlost Dalmacije (2004). though only for the district of Nin. 123. 1:93-94. 49. Malz. Commissiones. Their importance was also noted by Venetian syndics Leonardo Venier and Hieronymus Contarini (albeit with reference to the mills on the Neretva near Skradin). 95. however. Mayhew. “Zadarski katastik stoljeća” [Zadar’s 15th-Century Cadastre].” 248. 118. 18. Contado di Zara. Contado di Zara. 117. 53-54. “Handelssystem und Handelspolitik in Dalmatien. 119. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. On agricultural production (mostly grains. Antoljak. Arbel. The numbers are from Giovanni Battista Giustiniano’s report (1553) in Commissiones. Dominio veneto su Corfu. Contado di Zara. the salt-producing communities in the Kvarner Gulf.” 117-118. and livestock farming) after 1409. “Županije u ranom srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj” [Croatia’s Counties in the early Middle Ages]. was reestablished as a rich agriculturally productive region during the twentieth century—with the war in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s having the same effect as wars in previous centuries. and the report by Venetian syndics Leonardo Venier and Hieronymo Contarini from 1525 in Commissiones. On transhumance. Šarić. 120. 16-17. “Colonie d’oltremare. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 185-226. 62-65. to take these new realities into account. 38-39. Zadar u starom vijeku. The account follows Mayhew. “Povijest mletačkog katastra Dalmacije” [History of the Venetian Cadastre in Dalmatia].g. Suić. as Mayhew points out. Novak. Arbel. Nin. the islands are not discussed in her study.” 96-101. 126-127. 122. Contado di Zara. Raukar et al.” 960. Archeological evidence suggests that many places in the area were inhabited even before the Roman era. drawn up in 1609. Novigrad. 2:9-34 (on Zadar specifically. attractive to immigrants since Antiquity. Pederin. and Zadar. Mayhew. Ibid. Zadar u starom vijeku. A second cadastre. Nadinski Blato. Bacchion. Kotor. Suić. 2:13. 121. Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in Antiquity]. 92-93. 124. Commissiones. Suić. 126. Mayhew. the border revisions of the 1570s and the Ottoman refusal to return parts of the lands (as stipulated in the peace treaty). 11-13). Slukan Altić. the jurisdiction was larger. 91-140. “Lika and Krbava Ecosystems. grapes. 175-176. However. mostly by Morlachs and Vlachs. The agriculturally productive regions with their fertile soil are located around Karin.” 108-111. whose balance sheets were negative. for instance. Corfu was relatively wealthy thanks to a combination of its advantageous geographical location as well as its rich agricultural produce (mostly olives and raisins). Split. and Posedarje. 125. Pag. On real estate prices in the 15th century see Raukar. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji. Jakšić. Which also contained the most fertile lands close to the city proper—and a constant source of revenue for the fiscal chamber. See also Anzulović. the inhabitants moved their village to a more defensible location nearby. In the wake of the Ottoman advances throughout the 1520s. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. Raukar et al. On events prior to the Cretan War (1645-1669). Post-1576 safe havens included Preko on the island of Ugljan. Men of Empire. Žmegač. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 133. Jakšić. 14. See also Goldstein. Zadar u starom vijeku. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva” [On the Survival of the Croat People]. Novak-Sambrailo. Knapton. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. “Amministrazione veneziana in Istria.” 297. 206-207. 142. Ivetić. Pederin. Mletačka uprava. 64.” 356-357. 186-187. 202-203. Cozzi. even though the systematisation of this approach to defending the border areas occurred predominantly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Posedarje. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva. Given the necessity to protect the hinterlands. “Tra dominante e dominio. 143. See also Chapter 4. “Stato da mar. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 146-150. “Stato da mar. Examples include Ljubač. . Knapton. the authority and roles of these nobles differed from the urban nobility of the coastal communities. In the case of Ražanac. ambiente veneto. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Raukar et al. Mayhew. On Istria. 130. Realm of St Stephen. 235. Some local nobles like the Pechiaro (Pekarić) in Poličnik or the Venier in Zemunik built fortified positions and towers on their own property. 131. 135. Zadar u XV. Maštrović.” 136. 140. 151-196. and Raukar et al. these raids had become a part of everyday life along the OttomanVenetian borders in Dalmatia. and Viggiano. Oltremare. Mocellin. Mayhew.” 465-524. 372. Contado di Zara. “Città fortificata di Zara. Mayhew. Raukar et al. However.” 332-335. and Radovin. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva.. 146.” 86. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom.. Anzulović.. 128. 270. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi [Croatian Medieval Landscapes]. Contado di Zara. 11-17. 139. 367. Mayhew. 101. “Center and Periphery. 129.The Setting 57 127. 134. 138. Ibid... 21-47. “Županije u ranom srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj.. 379-380. entire villages were abandoned. and the islet of Vir. See also Fasano Guarini. Contado di Zara. 137. Knapton. 111-140. Suić.” 271.” 14-15.. the fortress on the neighbouring island of Pag. 119-122. Contado di Zara.” 217-318. Raukar et al. stoljeću. 67-70. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 95. 29-30. After 1468. Raukar et al. Those who remained under Venetian rule stayed in their villages if they could be defended. privreda i politika.. This development reached a climax in the early seventeenth century. Engel. Anzulović. 132. Mayhew. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna. some towns adopted a military frontier-style appearance.” 29-40. 105-110. 305. Ibid.” On Dalmatia. partially encouraged by the Venetian government. 141. Contado di Zara. The account follows Mayhew. O’Connell. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi. 83-88. 174-181. 142. 102-103. 189-190. “Ambiente veneziano. Contado di Zara. Mletačka uprava. 147. legal. hence busta. “Colonie d’oltremare. similarly including a tour of duty of around two years and was reserved for Venetian patricians only. Pederin. 3:78-88. fascicle.0001. “Developed Autonomy”. See also Pederin. Mletačka uprava. The account follows Arbel. 2733. Cozzi.” 303.32r. 34-39. book 1. See also O’Connell et al. Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of the Fall of the Venetian Republic]. Doumerc. 151. 51-112. 42. or political consequences. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. As regards the minor districts. Quoted after Krekić. Venice gradually bound together the various cities along the Adriatic’s eastern coast. 150-156. . Rulers of Venice. In other Dalmatian cities.” 115. responsible for the upholding of the Venetian rule. these appear as dictio or districtus throughout the sources and for which the English translation has been chosen for this study. and Queller. Mayhew. Krekić. 2:198. On the necessity of these offices for poorer Venetian patricians.” 90-100. this was clearly not the case as revealed by a cross-check of the dispatches with notarial acts.” Starting with reciprocal guarantees of assistance in the event of armed conflict.74.” 185. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797). Peričić. comparable to the one of the count. O’Connell. Men of Empire. Mletačka uprava. In late November of 1553. and book are omitted.” 52. 146. “Politica del diritto. privreda i politika. Malz. 150-156. For the former. Venetian Patriciate. “Authority and the Law. such a separation of power did not exist. 61. Novak-Sambrailo. Pederin. Arbel. Chojnacki.001. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Malz. however. the English translation “territory” has been chosen. Maštrović.. 144. Cozzi.” 972. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji. 105-106. the Provveditore was assisted by his own chancellery. It was however only after the Cyprus War that the office was transformed and its office-holder made a permanent resident in Zadar. Commissiones. Ortalli. privreda i politika. Contado di Zara.” 325-327. Cozzi.” 964-970.54. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. 17. 149. “Colonie d’oltremare. Raukar et al. privreda i politika. Mletačka uprava.” 971-974.net/2027/heb. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna”. 1117. The office was. See also Arbel. and Schmitt. This statement must be treated with utmost caution as Dalmatia’s cities. accessed 5 June 2012.” 328. First mentioned in 1574. nor were they territorially connected. 146. “Entrar nel dominio. See also Girolamo Dolfin’s report in Commissiones. a notarial act writes of “Praeture[que] Magnifici et celeberrimi domini] Francisci Nani comitis Jadre. “Stato da mar.” 113-116. 1279-1797: Daniel Cavalca busta I. 7 November 1553. c. “Dominio del mare. Ibid.” at the same time as Giovanni Battista Giustiniano refers to “Hieronymi Delphini” as Zadar’s captain.handle. fascicle 1. Contado di Zara. http://hdl.” 241-254.” 167-168. O’Connell. 148. ultimately. 57. Men of Empire. 45. Knapton.. “Colonie d’oltremare. which was tasked with the supervision of the entire dual province and. “Developed Autonomy. “Ambiente veneziano. 14. 145. Pederin. from Antiquity to the Habsburg takeover in the early nineteenth century “in reality never constituted a unit […]. Arbel noted that the same individual exercised both offices in Zadar. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice”. Mayhew. in principle.58 Urban Elites of Zadar 143.. privreda i politika. ambiente veneto. 17.90021. 51. Captains or castellans were in command of the military dispatched to guard Venice’s overseas possessions. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 150. It should be noted that the term territory bore only spatial properties without any additional administrative. ” Statuta Iadertina. 97-118. . 155. the office-holders were originally chosen by the Doge and tasked with executing the ducal orders.” Statuta Iadertina. II. tit. non possit amplius appellare. 155: “Quod consiliarii debeant venire ad Consilium sub poena 40 solidorum quilibet vice. 158-159). Ref. 32: “De gastaldione et praeconibus domini comitis et eorum salario. 44-45. Klaić. 369. If an appeal was rejected. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. Contado di Zara. “Developed Autonomy.. Such authority over these craft guilds. Ref. Commissiones. 154. 526-528.” 166. 576. Ref. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum.” 78-82. 156.” In Venice. or military functions in the exercising of sovereignty “che ha cura ai negozii e alle possessioni altrui. 10: “De speciali Curiae domini comitis seu Maioris Curiae recognitione. ab interlocutoria non”. one could not re-appeal the same case. “Ambiente veneziano. See Mayhew. Ref 97: “De appellationibus. ambiente veneto. approximately translated as “administrative ward” describes the office of a paid official with administrative. ambiente veneto. stoljeću. 9: “De universali domini comitis et eius Curiae iurisdictione”. On the petitions of Dalmatian cities to Venice after 1409. Pederin. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom.. 158) and. 576. 402.” 307. 2:197: Ref. Commissiones. Gastald. Mletačka uprava. Raukar et al. 301-306.” Statuta Iadertina. 666-670. 163. privreda i politika. Lib. Dizionario del dialetto veneziano. Zadar u XV. In the present context. 132. 10: “De Consilio Iadrensi”. 163. For a sixteenth-century reference of Zadar’s prior rebellions against Venetian rule. “Dominio da Mar. 80: “De potestate et arbitrio domini comitis in maleficiis.” 196-197. Mayhew. Ref. 301. 576. allowed Venice to better control them. Especially given the city’s seven prior rebellions against Venice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 157. was “just implementing orders given from the Venetian Senate and very often acted in accordance with the governor general” (Ibid. Cozzi. See also Krekić. 160. 156-164. cap. 161. however. I. 153. 15.” Boerio. 541. Ref. Ref. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Cozzi.” 114-115. 82: “Qui semel appellavit et determinatum est. 162. 154: “Quod consiliarii debeant scire legere et scribere”. 2:193-194. Mayhew states that “the count was just an extension of the Venetian government in the province with very little possibilities to act alone” (Ibid. Cozzi. “Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra. Raukar et al. 164. 586.” Statuta Iadertina. 165. more often than not.” Statuta Iadertina.. The councilors had to be at least twenty years of age and were sworn in at the beginning of their term in office. 11: “De iuramento consiliarorum”.” 307. cap. Men of Empire.” 90-100. 158.” Statuta Iadertina. Malz. Krekić. 81: “A sententia criminali non potest appellari lata per dominum comitem. civil. and Schmitt. most recently O’Connell. 159. 2:197. “Developed Autonomy..” 199. Raukar et al. which originated in the Middle Ages. ambiente veneto.The Setting 59 152. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Ref. 8: “De causarum seu litigiorum forensium personarum expeditione”. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. “Ambiente veneziano. Commissiones. Cozzi. a civili potest infra decem dies. Raukar. cap. See also. their office may be described as a type of “chief-of-staff..” 308. See also. The first Dalmatian guild was Zadar’s cobbler guild.” 188-192. and Schmitt. “Ambiente veneziano. Contado di Zara. 170. The account follows Mayhew. Mayhew. 172.. which had to be consigned at Christmas. 318. Pederin. “Zadarska trgovina solju” [Zadar’s Salt Trade]. “Prilog poznavanju agranih odnosa. a quarter of the harvest was the landlord’s. three days prior to the harvest the landlord had to be notified. 153: “De aetate iudicum villarum. 281-297. 175. 328. Raukar. Dalmatian merchants were allowed to fly the pennant of St Mark but the Senate refused to grant them equal civil status as Venetians. See also. 173. III. Raukar et al. illness (plague). tit. 72: “Quomodo. Mayhew. tit. Mayhew. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna. 182. On the Venetian impact on Dalmatian agriculture. Statuta Iadertina. 314-316. 229-230. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 178. Hocquet. Lib. 49. 228-229. 664-666. roosters. Raukar et al.” 201.. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 85-88. 169.” 47-48. 214-219. XVI: “De locatione et conductione omnium rerum stabilium. Novak-Sambrailo. Venise et la mer. Zadar u XV.” containing 19 chapters. the judge must be at least 40 years old. III. and Raukar.” 125. Mayhew. 85: “Quomodo rusticus emphiteota volens vendere iura sua tenetur denuntiare domino. “Aspects of Venetian Sovereignty. 180. 232-249. cap. Peričić. Contado di Zara. 21. Raukar et al. 28. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 177. III.” which contains seven chapters. 310-332. military service. XVI. privreda i politika. for example. 138. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. nisi interveniente iusta causa”. On changes after the Cyprus War.” Ibid. Zadar’s citizens were granted Venetian citizenship only de intus. 69: “Quae sunt causae propter quas excusatur laborator. O’Connell.. Contado di Zara. or young lambs. See Lib. and Ottoman incursions. cap. Mueller. 230-231. 174. See Giorgetti. Also.” Statuta Iadertina. cap. Easter. Lib. Lib. XVII. III. 137: “Forma privilegiorum ligarum comitatus Iadrae”.. XVII: “De iure emphiteotico seu de iure quod acquiritur danti et recipienti possessiones aliquas pastinandum. XVI. 181. 164-183. Ref.” Statuta Iadertina. 626-632. Cozzi. 51-55.” Statuta Iadertina. 73: “Quod quicumque laboraverit seu fecerit laborari alienas vineas domino denuntiare tenetur antequam vindimiet per tres dies. 168. tit. or any other date as specified in the contract.” Statuta Iadertina.60 Urban Elites of Zadar 167. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. Contadini e proprietari nell’Italia moderna. prior to Lent (carnis privum). stoljeću. Typically including small livestock like piglets. cap.” 153. III. Contado di Zara. 68: “Qualiter laborator qui vineam conduxit sive ad partem sive ad medietatem. Contado di Zara. 176. et de poena si cessabit laborare.. cap. 75-80. Raukar et al. Ref. tit. Exceptions to the stipulated obligations included death. Men of Empire. 1:83-88. “Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa” [Contribution to the Knowledge of Agricultural Relations]. 179. mobilium et se moventium et operarum omnium personarum. si non laboravit vineam ut convenit. et quae forma observari. . For a general discussion. quousque et quibus expensis laborator vineae tenetur in uvis vel in vino partem domino assignare. III. tit. 171. Mletačka uprava. Contado di Zara. 318. Lib. chicken. 138-199. See Lib. But it did come with a number of restrictions. For details on the salt trade. Usually. “Dominio da Mar. see Peričić. On Zadar’s salt production in particular. XVI. tenetur eam colere. tit. 231. Hocquet. Zadar u XV.g. Raukar et al. 184. “Stato da mar. Contado di Zara. 256-266. See Lib. Le commerce des captifs. Kaiser. 90% over the fifteenth century. 256. 188. Mayhew. Pag’s salt production declined by c. 189. Raukar et al. Zadar u XV. 281-297. Raukar.” 186. Mayhew. stoljeću. E. 187.” 365. . 186. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Contado di Zara. 246-262. ed.. Knapton. Everyone could apprehend a thief and deliver him or her to the Venetian authorities in Zadar.” Statuta Iadertina. “Urban élites in Dalmatia.. 85-88. 15: “Qualiter conceditur publicorum malefactorum detentio.. 368.The Setting 61 183. II. II. tit. 356-359. 185. 136. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Budak. Raukar. stoljeću. cap.. . 5 The decades following Louis’s death in 1382 were marked by succession conflicts. Its economy was rivaled only by Dubrovnik. trade. . first felt at its periphery. Zadar’s Society: Geographical Distribution and Social and Occupational Fault Lines 1. nobles and commoners alike invested in real estate and trade. Zadar as Communication Centre Over the half-century following the peace of Zadar (1358). resulting in increased trans-Adriatic commerce and investment.2 Given Dalmatia’s advantageous geographic location between Florence and Hungary. contributing to the weakness of the Hungarian-Croatian realm. the respublica incorporated the communes into her more centralised system of government. As the fight between the Houses of Anjou and Luxembourg over the Crown of St Stephen intensified Venice was among the external powers taking advantage of the situation.2. Dalmatia’s coastal communities and their jurisdictions were integrated into the larger economic and political framework of the domains of Louis I of Hungary.6 Eager to regain control over the important coastal cities along the eastern Adriatic.7 The other main cause of the economic downturn was external. and the brisk transfer of raw materials.1 Louis’s rule encouraged business with Florentine bankers and merchants. Venice’s attempt to enforce her staple rights from 1422 onward set the stage for this. A continuous slowdown in economic activities occurred during the period leading up to the first long Ottoman-Venetian war (1463-1479). Italian merchants and financiers cooperated with local businesses in salt production.3 By the beginning of the fifteenth century Zadar had gained prominence through its salt production and textile trade.4 In accordance with local practices and for security reasons parts of the profits were invested in real estate. the Ottoman Empire had continued its seemingly inexorable westward expansion.9 Peregrine Horden and Nicolas Purcell stressed that maritime dominion was in fact “a network of communications” and the corresponding trade routes formed an “essential aspect of Mediterranean power at every period. . Over time. As a consequence of the sustained pressure on the Balkans. and networks of regions within the emerging European world-economy (supra-regional). connections between an urban centre and its jurisdiction (local). regional.12 At the local level. contributed significantly to the population growth of Dalmatia’s coastal cities and necessitated enlargement of the suburbs. The Cyprus War.16 During the long crisis from the Ottoman-Venetian war (1463-1479) to the Cyprus War (1570-1573) the areas in the eastern Mediterranean under the respublica’s control decreased significantly. Dalmatia had become economically insignificant by the turn of the sixteenth century.”10 This presents possibilities for focusing less on traditional indicators of socioeconomic change and more on local. agricultural production of the coastal hinterlands declined in lockstep with the trans-Adriatic maritime trade. the continuous influx of newcomers from the Bosnian and Croatian hinterlands markedly altered the social fabric along both shores of the Adriatic. In the fourteenth century Zadar proper encompassed around 28 hectares.64 Urban Elites of Zadar Ever since the armies of Mehmed II had stormed the ramparts of Constantinople in 1453.11 That is to say. in particular. As early as the first decades of the fifteenth century parts of Zadar’s elites left for cities along the eastern littoral of the Apennine peninsula. due to both external and internal factors. altered the situation drastically as most of Venice’s possessions along the eastern coast of the Adriatic were reduced to small strips of land. interactions among a group of neighbouring cities (regional).13 In the subsequent two centuries continuous immigration.14 This tendency was initially reinforced by Ottoman expansion into the western Balkans. originating in the hinterlands of the western Balkans.15 Continuous integration of immigrants into Dalmatia’s communes and their jurisdictions resulted in cities with a more agrarian character. The adjacent suburban settlement extended over roughly 18 hectares.8 Recent urban historiography of the region has reached beyond analysis of societal microcosms to emphasize the bigger picture of interactions between urban centres and their subject territories. and supra-regional inter-connectedness. causing additional incentives to flee to the more secure coastal areas or beyond the sea. the number of its inhabitants and the size of its jurisdiction determined a city’s economic importance. Thus. stonecutters.000 people lived within the city walls and the suburban settlements.18 Zadar’s fortunes followed this trend. etc.28 . especially compared to wider European trends.200 people and to around 9.20 As the sixteenth century came to a close the urban population had dropped to some 5.24 Most of these developments were exogenous. started the first new projects in Zadar in 1537. rendering the inhabitants of Zadar’s jurisdiction unable to remain agriculturally self-sufficient from the 1530s onward. therefore. across from the city proper.23 The urban populations. Renowned architect Michele Sanmicheli.17 As a consequence of these conditions Dalmatia’s cities remained relatively small and static during the late medieval and early modern period. A third wave of fortification efforts was precipitated by the outbreak of the Cyprus War. who oversaw the fortification efforts on the northeastern defenses guarding the harbour. Most newcomers after the Cyprus War were Catholic and Orthodox refugees22 from the Bosnian and Croatian hinterlands who reinforced the shift away from agriculture to livestock breeding and fishing. According to the detailed report by Zaccaria Vallaresso from 1527.25 Zadar’s medieval castle was located in the southern part of the city to facilitate naval support or evacuation in an emergency. Venice began the construction of new fortifications and the expansion of existing ones at the beginning of the sixteenth century. are less well documented. but significant changes occurred within the Republic of St Mark. further straining the little surplus capital available. pestilence.). banditry. and the Ottoman threat as major factors responsible for the continued depopulation of vast stretches of coastal hinterland.21 Those who still migrated toward the coastal areas continued to alter demographic and economic patterns.27 (These works are still clearly visible within Zadar’s urban landscape today). masons. Associated demographic shifts.000 inhabitants and the islands were home to some 7.26 As the fifteenth century gave way to the sixteenth. mostly concentrated on Pašman and Ugljan.000 people.200 on the islands. Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland comprised roughly 9. around 8. such as the influx of military personnel and artisans (carpenters. became increasingly dependent on imported foodstuffs.Zadar’s Society 65 In this period Venetian officials wrote about abandoned villages. gigantic defensive structures under the supervision of Sforza Pallavicino. advances in military technology and weaponry necessitated renewed investment. leading to the razing of the suburban settlements to enable the construction of new.19 The war from 1537 to 1540 and the ensuing territorial losses exacerbated this already problematic situation. To secure her position in the long term. However.35 Venetian policy. Procuratorial Networking To gain a more nuanced picture of Zadar’s urban elites it is necessary to investigate their economic. Consequently. never stopped commercial exchange between the coastal communities within and without the borders of the Stato da mar.37 This proven approach notwithstanding.30 but on a considerably smaller scale. geographical.34 When Venice followed Daniel Rodriga’s suggestions and sought to enlarge Split’s role as a free harbour after the Cyprus War. only to repeal the legislation not long afterward. functioned as the hub for commercial and financial transactions. more inclusive sets of data must be examined. though a considerable constraint on economic development in Adriatic commerce after 1409. commodity flows were redirected again. Certainly exchange—mercantile or otherwise—between the coastal areas and their hinterlands continued after the beginning of the second Venetian dominion.29 During the Angevin dominion (1358-1409) central Dalmatia. 3. The incentives for and ranges of interconnectedness in the early modern Adriatic can . If we are to further understanding of the “remarkable geographical mobility”38 so characteristic of Venetian society. owing to its advantageous location between Hungary and the southern parts of Italy. and social character.31 Shortly after 1409 Venice amended Zadar’s statutes to enforce the former’s staple rights. the previously interconnected coastal areas and hinterlands of the western Balkans became fragmented. As the Empire’s might began to wane over the course of the eleventh century the cities along the eastern littoral of the Adriatic reoriented themselves. Venetian prerogatives were extended and (theoretically) covered the entire Stato da mar. when it was reinstated about a century later (in 1519).66 Urban Elites of Zadar 2. Trans-Adriatic Networks in the Sixteenth Century For most of their early medieval past Dalmatia’s cities were (at least nominally) under Byzantine suzerainty. export licenses describe the economic connections between only certain places.32 The increase of export duties on certain goods33 and the favouring of Šibenik during the first half of the sixteenth century caused the redirection of trade routes.36 Qualitative analysis of customs receipts (contralittere) has demonstrated the extent of these interactions. But their limited scope renders them methodically problematic. are more inclusive in terms of information about the contracting parties’ economic and social demographics. and reasons for drawing up the contract.44 The following discusses conclusions drawn from analysis of the 930 procuratorial documents written in Zadar by the city’s notaries between 1 January 1540 and 31 December 1569. these clues allow for the reconstruction of mechanisms of early modern communication within the Stato da mar and its Adriatic components in particular. monetary. Between standardised formulas at the beginning and end. occupational.41 While the acts are not an ideal source. the contracts contain information about the social and geographical provenance of both stipulating parties.45 In addition to possibilities for quantitative analysis.43 given the adherence of Dalmatia’s cities to common economic. Individuals. written between 1540 and 1569. They reveal certain commonwealth-like characteristics. or sell goods or property. In this sense they are eminently suited for analysis of communication activities across a spectrum of social groups. Any task referring to business. on the other hand. foreign dignitaries. commercial. their abundance and uniformity enable the reconstruction and description of communication means in more intimate ways. and institutions bestowed legal powers upon their agents via formal contractual obligations drawn up by a notary.Zadar’s Society 67 be quantitatively discerned in two forms of documentation: export licenses and procuratorial appointments (procurae). geographical provenance and destinations.42 When combined.39 Analysis of the export licenses is convenient because they are accessible and enable us to reconstruct the documented elements of certain economic activities. and social.46 Qualitative analysis of the procuratorial assignments reveals the following three categories of individual contractual obligations: economic. These include orders to buy. educational. and mandates to collect or invest money somewhere outside of Zadar and its jurisdiction. and the rest of the populace. around three-fourths of the procuratorial appointments include descriptions of the assigned duties. legal. groups. legal. and social structures. and social diversity of the contracting parties. the appointments they contain enable a more inclusive approach to early modern mobility in terms of the economic. geographical. Involvement in . or mercantile endeavours is considered an economic assignment.40 Procuratorial appointments. rent. The analysis is designed to further understanding of the mechanisms of communication between the local Dalmatian elites. The following analysis is based on 930 individual procuratorial contracts. In addition. 50 Despite these Table 1: Procuratorial Contracts (Overview. representation in a court of law. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.47 According to the model proposed by Arié Malz. (c) Number per decade of instruments stipulated in Latin (as opposed to Venetian). Women ordered a quarter of these. Regional denotes activities within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. legal. that these three aspects constitute a tentative model for qualitatively assessing the interactions of early modern urban elites since in many cases distinctions among economic. (a) Number per decade of procuratorial acts. the execution of a testament. and the islands and mainland territories. of Actsa 225 330 375 930 % of Totalb 24 36 40 100 Latinc 225 329 347 901 ♀ Constituentsd 51 83 102 236 ♀ Procuratorse 5 6 9 20 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. The most immediate revelation of the documentation is that the total number of procuratorial contracts increased by roughly two-thirds over the course of the three decades between 1540 and the outbreak of the Cyprus War in 1570. however.e. Novigrad.48 As summarised above. certain social characteristics complete the analytical framework. and social intents of the contracting parties cannot be definitively distinguished. these networks can be assessed on three levels: local. and supra-regional. or the appointment of a lawyer) denotes a legal field of activity. Supra-regional relates to connections within the wider Mediterranean (see also Table 2. below). (b) Relative percentage per decade. Another advantage of these documents is that they allow the reconstruction of the essential communication networks underlying such assignments. and Vrana. the minor subject districts of Nin..g.49 The average number of procuratorial acts stipulated per decade was 310. . the city proper. regional. Finally. local describes activities occurring within Zadar’s jurisdiction. see note 45. (d) Number per decade of female constituents. (e) Number per decade of female procurators. It must be stressed. 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No.68 Urban Elites of Zadar judicial processes or legal proceedings (e. i. since many assignments concern a variety of issues occurring outside of Venice’s maritime state. Rab (Arbe). In Venetian Albania: Bar (Antibari). Tarvisio. Labin (Albona). (c) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties. Motovun (Motouinschina).. Shaded columns indicate constituent parties. and Perast (Perasto). the number of constituent parties residing within the city walls of Zadar increased by more than 10% from the 1540s to the 1560s. In Istria: Buje (Buie). followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Trecenta. Osor (Aussero). Pisauro. the Marche region. Sv Lovreč (Sancti Lourec). As Table 2. Kefalonia (Cephalonia). Korčula (Chorzula. Cividale del Friuli. and Udine. and groups from an administrative-judicial perspective. and Cyprus). Corcira). Selce (Selza). Venice proper and the following locations in the Terraferma: Bergamo. Crete [Candia]. above). Terrafermad Rest. Loborika (Loborica). Pontremoli. Omiš (Almissa). n/ae 1540s 177 16 7 4 21 1540s 145 33 8 16 23 1550s 257 24 9 15 25 1550s 198 38 15 42 37 1560s 310 18 5 9 33 1560s 191 51 21 63 49 Sources: unless indicated otherwise.g. In Ionian Sea: Corfu. Pag (Pago). Buzet (Bussetto. Šibenik (Sibenico. and Višnjan (Visunato). or non-specific locations (e. (e) Number per decade of contracting parties from unidentifiable. San Grande del Friuli. excluding Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions. Lesina). Chioggia. Split (Spalato). it is worth taking a closer look at the origins of these individuals. Vasto (Guasto). Pescara. Kotor (Catharo). Genoa. infrequentlylisted (e. Since the procuratorial records initiated at the request of in- . numbers. (d) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties from territories under Venetian suzerainty. Croatia. In Apennine peninsula: Ancona.g. Serbar. Milan. Krk (Vegla). Crema. and Vicenza. In Venetian Dalmatia: Brač (Brachia. and Vis (Lissa). four out of five contracting parties originated in Zadar’s jurisdiction. Ferrara. Koper (Justinopolis). Bologna. Rimini.1. Brazza). Poreč (Parentio). Murano. Manfredonia. (a) Number per decade of local contracting parties from within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Rijeka). Sibinico). (b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. and Zakynthos (Hiacynthi. see note 45. Since this territorial entity included several subdivisions. Rome. Nafplio (Nauplia). Novi Vinodolski (Vinodol). Pinguenti). Hvar (Pharo. Castel Sant’Angelo. only a meagre two percent of the procuratorial appointees were female (Table 1. below. Pula (Pola). As Table 2 indicates. Toponyms below are listed with their present-day name. Trogir (Tragurij). Bari. Zante).Zadar’s Society 69 Table 2: Geographical Origins of the Contracting Parties (Overview. demonstrates. unlisted. institutions. Parma. Alta Badia (alla Badia). Rivellino. Cres (Cherso). 1540-1569) Local Provenancea Regional Provenanceb Supra-Regional Provenancec Venice. Režane (Regiane). Ljubač (Gliube). 46. (Priticeuci). and Raukar et al. (g) Number per decade of constituents residing on the islands: Dugi Otok (Isola Grossa/ Lunga). Mokro (Mocro). Zadar u XV. (Chuchagl). Iž (Eso. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Miljačka (Migliacza).51 Second. Tršci (Tersci). followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). . see Raukar.. excluding the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad: Brda (Berda). (b) Number per decade of constituents residing in Zadar proper.1: Origins of the Constituents within Zadar’s Jurisdiction (1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No. Ražanac (Rasance). This further reduced the number of individuals residing outside Zadar’s city walls (Table 2. originally located in the dictrict of Vrana. Pašman (Pasmano). Opačić (Opatizaselo). Podi (Podi). Jelsa (Jelsa). Toponyms below are listed according to their present-day name. Exo). the city’s suburban settlements were razed in 1570 to allow construction of additional massive fortifications. the Lazareto (lazarettum). Gladuša (Gladussa). stoljeću. were significant. Molat (Melada).1). (f) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj. affirmed by the border revisions in its aftermath. Posedarje (Posedaria). First. Podvršje. It is likely that this trend continued well past the conclusion of hostilities in 1573. San Cassiano (Sancti Cassiani). Ugljan (Ugliano). Poškaljine (Poscaglina). Koruplje (Corpuaglie). (a) Number per decade of procuratorial acts.52 Table 2. Sukošan. Novigrad (Novigrado). Rogovo (Rogovo). Privlaka (Bevilaqua). this phenomenon can be explained by increasing depopulation and insecurity. Diklo (Diclo). 223.70 Urban Elites of Zadar dividuals outside the fortified city centre declined correspondingly. (c) Number per decade of constituents residing in the city’s territory: Bibinje (Bibigne). the Ottoman gains during the conflict. Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi). Varikašane (Varichassane). Nin (Nona). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. Vrši (Poduerie). For the territorial categories. Kamenjani (Chamegnani). Tinj (Tinj). Zaton (Zaton). Čerinci (Cerinci). Dračevac (Drazevac). of Zadarb Territoryc Actsa 225 135 5 330 229 1 375 268 2 930 632 8 Jurisdictiond Nine Novigradf Islandsg 6 11 14 31 14 13 11 38 4 1 10 15 13 2 5 20 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. (e) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Nin: Čakavci (Chiacavci). see note 45. Smoković (Smochovich). These gains included Cyprus (the immediate cause of the war) and large swaths of territory formerly subject to Zadar’s jurisdiction. Turanj (Turretta). (d) Number per decade of constituents residing in Zadar’s jurisdiction. the suburban settlements. There are two reasons for this. Nadin (Nadino). Silba (Selba). Verona. Split (Spalato). Rimini. Manfredonia. Crete [Candia]. and Kotor (Catharo). Parma.Zadar’s Society 71 Table 2. and social activities originating in the Stato da mar were directed towards Venice proper.53 As Table 2. excluding Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions. Osor (Aussero). Trogir (Tragurij). Poreč (Parentio). Naupactus/ Lepanto (Nauplia). Toponyms below are listed according to their present-day name. Koper (Justinopolis). In the Ionian Sea: Kefalonia (Cephalonia). Serbar. Padua. Vasto (Guasto). Trecenta. Pinguenti). the Marche region. and Cyprus). Bologna. let us investigate the geographical destinations of the procuratorial appointees. Krk (Vegla). most clearly visible in economic matters.2: Origins of the Procuratorial Appointees (Overview. Ferrara. Croatia. This reflects the changes in policies decreed by the Republic of St Mark. Pescara. In Venetian Dalmatia: Brač (Brachia. Loborika (Loborica). Motovun (Motovunschina). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. Bari. Corcira). above. In the Apennine peninsula: Ancona. infrequentlylisted (e. Vicenza. Pag (Pago). Vis (Lissa).g. or places within the Ottoman Empire. Before focusing on the individuals and their assignments. (b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from Venice’s Adriatic dual province. (e) Number per decade of contracting parties from unidentifiable.g. unlisted. Pontremoli. Višnjan (Visunato). Pisauro. followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Buzet (Bussetto. Dvigrad (Duograschina). legal.. Rome. Šibenik (Sibenico). Pula (Pola).2. Brazza). Sv Lovreč (Sancti Lovrec). Venice was the most important city in the Adriatic during the sixteenth century. n/ae 62 94 95 251 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. Korčula (Chorzula. Terrafermad 38 82 110 230 Rest. (d) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties from territories under Venetian suzerainty. Rab (Arbe). Venice proper and the following locations in the Terraferma: Bergamo. Perast (Perasto). Tarvisio. see note 45. Crema. Udine. Economically. Cividale del Friuli. demonstrates. The data suggest that large parts of the economic. (c) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties. Lesina). Cres (Cherso). In Istria: Buje (Buie). neither the flow of goods and commodities nor analysis of procuratorial data alone offers a full picture . (a) Number per decade of local contracting parties (from within Zadar’s jurisdiction). or non-specific places (e. Hvar (Pharo. In Albania: Bar (Antibari). 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s Local Provenancea 72 75 58 205 Regional Supra-Regional Provenanceb Provenancec 40 13 59 20 78 34 177 67 Venice. Labin (Albona). Chercla. Zakynthos (Hiacynthi/Zante). Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. Omiš (Almissa). Brixen [Brixia] and Rijeka/Fiume). of communication networks.55 Notwithstanding the fragmentary state of research. i. “Albania” = Venetian Albania (the areas in present-day Montenegro which until 1797 belonged to Venice). Hvar. the dual province constituted one and the same entity. (a) Number of acts stipulated in each city. above. It lists the 382 confirmed instances (c.e. 41 % of the total number of 930 instances) in which procuratorial appointees were sent to destinations within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. When viewed from Venice. When viewed in light of the numbers in Table 2. The distinctions roughly follow present-day regions. it is safe to state that Venice made up roughly a quarter of all known procuratorial destinations out of Zadar between 1540 and 1569 (Table 2. see note 45. Visd Korčula Kotor Perast Bar No. Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. of Actsa 17 8 19 18 205 49 14 6 3 6 17 4 7 7 1 1 382 Greater Areab Kvarner Gulf Kvarner Gulf Kvarner Gulf Kvarner Gulf Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Dalmatia Albania Albania Albania Sources: unless indicated otherwise. “Kvarner Gulf” = Northern Croatian Littoral or Sjeverno hrvatsko primorje.3: Destinations within Venice’s Adriatic Possessions (1540-1569) Destinations Krk Cres.2. Toponyms below are listed giving their present-day Italian name.72 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 2. (b) Possible regional centres of procura-related communication in Venice’s Adriatic dual province. “Dalmatia” = Southern Croatian Littoral or Dalmacija. more simply. followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Osorc Rab Pag Zadar Šibenik Trogir Split Omiš Brač Hvar Brač.3. . (d) All three islands are mentioned four times as the procuratorial appointees’ destination. (c) Because the cities of Cres and Osor are located on the same island they are grouped together. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. however. undertaken illegally. above).54 There (may) have been unofficial voyages not recorded or. and Korčula.Zadar’s Society 73 this clear-cut picture changes significantly. Cres. 71%) of all appointments. Split. communication on the regional level. All places to Šibenik’s southeast were the destination of 66 procurators or c. This accounts for slightly more than half of all procurators (205 instances or c. the available procuratorial data suggest the existence of a number of sub-regional areas of increased exchange. Hvar. This is reinforced by the fact that the areas to the northwest and southeast attracted approximately the same share of procuratorial appointees operating out of Zadar. say.3.3. This therefore necessitates a more detailed discussion. and the three Albanian cities of Bar. The large island communities in the Kvarner Gulf—Krk. new questions about the qualitative aspects of the procuratorial appointments arise. Omiš. As illustrated above. and exchange in central Dalmatia extending roughly from Pag via Zadar to Šibenik (Table 2. Vis. When based on the procuratorial data. above. Economic. the referenced cities in Albania were practically non-existent. We learn of artisans who relocated and requi- . and Perast). and Social Incentives Moving beyond quantitative assessments.56 4. If combined with the neighbouring cities of Pag and Šibenik. roughly three out of four notarial acts include the reason for their stipulation. Despite their joint organisation within the Stato da mar. 54%). Osor. 17% (this comprises Trogir. Legal. By far the greatest number of appointees was destined for action within Zadar’s jurisdiction. and Rab—attracted 44 appointees or a combined share of c. the island communities of Brač. as the following examples amply demonstrate. The most ubiquitous assignment was the recovery of outstanding money. by contrast. above). A large number of acts describe economic activities unrelated to the social strata or geographical origins or destinations of the contracting parties. These numbers suggest the existence of an area of increased procura-related connectivity. This suggests that these three places were more intensely intertwined than the other areas of Venice’s Adriatic possessions. occurred in all but nine instances within Dalmatia itself. procuratorial ties between Zadar and. categorised according to the stated aims of the constituent parties. communication. As indicated by Table 2. the share of central Dalmatia increases to more than seven out of 10 (272 instances or c. Kotor. 12% of the procuratorial appointees. “Joannes Durcich de Aussero [(Osor]. For instance. their spouses.”59 And then there was “dona Catherina quondam Magnifici equitis domini Georgij Rhenesi. to sell his house of stone and wood located in the southern parts of Zadar proper. On behalf of her husband and with his explicit license. he appointed “magistro Martino. so the butcher assigned the task of collecting the outstanding money owed “pro resto et saldo pretij carnis porcina to Reverendum patrem Fratrem Stephanum.60 In most cases unrelated to the military the reasons for appointing a procurator to collect outstanding money were probably as mundane as the following case from autumn of 1556: “Stephanus Goycich macellator [butcher] habitator Jadre” had sold a quantity of pork and had not been paid and now needed a procurator “pro eo exigendum et recuperandum ab Andrea dicto del Conte cive Vegle [Krk] et ser Francisco Baduario [Badoer]. although in the opposite direction.”58 Another interesting aspect of the data is that almost all procuratorial appointments involving military personnel. Archipresbytrum ruralem diocesis Nonensis [Nin]” to recover outstanding payments for the former’s service (which had ended more than a year-and-a-half before) on the warship commanded by “Magnificum domini Petri Pisani dignissimi supracomitis Birremium. or offspring as constituent parties have a common economic incentive: the collection of outstanding payment for military service. Consider the following examples: In mid-October of 1557. occurred when “magister Joannes Galeacij de Venetijs Marangonus [master-oarsmaker] habitator Jadre” tasked “Franciscum quondam Demetrij Eugenico de Nauplio [Naupactus]” to rent the constituent’s house “posita in alma urbe Venetiarum in confinio Sancti Antonij. “spectabilem dominum Bartholomeum Nigrum.” . she appointed an absent Venetian citizen. when “magister Simon Grubissich quondam Antonij de Jadra calafatus” (master-caulker) moved to Chioggia. Testifying to Venetian payment practices (and her dubious credibility) this motivation transcended geographical origins and destinations. appointed “Reverendum dominum Georgium Matassouich.” Evidently. ministrum provinciae fratrium minorum tertij ordinis Sancti Franciscj de observantia. military rank. et uxor Magnifici equitis domini Thomasij Luxi” who around the same time commanded a cavalry squadron.” a discharged oarsman.” to finally collect Thomasius’ outstanding payments of 25 ducats per annum from the fiscal chamber of Crete. Stephanus’ customers had not paid up.57 The same request.74 Urban Elites of Zadar red the assignee to rent or sell real estate property in the constituents’ former city of residence. and social boundaries.” a master-cobbler. librarum quinquaginta none solidorum octo parvorum. doctor of both laws canon and civil (leges utriusque doctor). most notably money.71 In general.65 Cases like these were rather uncommon in sixteenth-century Zadar. and representation in a court of law. Dalmatian nobles. neighbours.70 These cases included various undefined legal proceedings in Venice or.67 What these examples and comparable cases. especially proceedings taking place in Venice proper. or otherwise related individuals. attorney (causidicus). individuals tasked with legal representation. For instance. the appointment of one or more guardians for children not yet of legal age62 was usually stipulated in the constituent’s testament. though the city’s statutes provided for the possibility of substituting the guardian with someone else. legal representation in a court of law and extrajudicial settlements—not inheritance concerns—were the predominant reasons for assigning procuratorial powers. the so-called Quarantia. Consequently.63 Keeping this substitution provision open was important64 since differences that might arise over who inherited what could lead to prolonged legal conflicts decades later. investigations before the court of appeals. or solicitor (solicitator). This changed once the destination shifted from local or regional environs to business “in alma civitate Venetiarum. succession disputes among siblings. however. The social motivations behind the appointment of procurators are broad and sometimes overlap with economic or legal motivations since the bounda- . In almost all such cases procuratorial duties were assigned to Venetian patricians. solicitors). lawyers. individuals with judicial knowledge (attorneys. et arbensis [of Rab]” to obtain the 15 ducats still missing from his wife’s dowry. and perhaps the constituent hoped his customers might be more willing to pay their debts if a man of the cloth came collecting the money.”69 Usually. In the first case. such as people petitioning the count for redress of grievances. more rarely. were explicitly referred to as trained professionals: advocate or barrister (advocatus). over the course of ten months “dominus Hieronymus de Gallellis quondam domini Simonis nobilis Jadrensis” thrice appointed “dominum Joannem Franciscum de Dominis nobilem Jadram. because the population was not very wealthy. this led to the appointment of individuals of elevated social status.Zadar’s Society 75 The friar was already on his way to the island of Krk.68 have in common is that the appointees were individuals from Zadar or elsewhere in Dalmatia.61 Reasons for legal appointments included custody duties after the death of one or both parents. or a combination thereof. The rationale behind these lawsuits ranged from (admittedly few) high-profile homicide cases66 to much more common causes. subject to the available documentation. For example.76 Urban Elites of Zadar ries between them are often blurry. although these occasions did not arise with great frequency. Examples of social assignments include. Secular and Ecclesiastical Elites Having defined the origins and destinations of the contracting parties. the appointment of procurators with a high social position to attend the baptism of a Venetian patrician’s child in Venice. and social incentives. Of course. 5.” brother of “strenuus et nobilis vir Jadrensis dominus Simon de Begna quondam viri nobilis Christophori. In February of 1558. In quibus partibus est vita functus.” The appointees were consequently of social standing and descent appropriate to the occasion: “Magnificum dominum Michaelem Fuscareno [Foscari] Magnifici domini Hieronymi nobilem Venetiarum and dominum Christophorum de Nassis. A notable case is the posthumous voyage of “quondam nobilis viri domini Theodosij.” a renowned nobleman of Zadar. the late Theodosius was “serviens apud Illustrissimum dominum Joannem Baptistam Gastaldum olim capitum Generalis Exercitus Serenissimi Regis Ungarie. familiarem Celeberrimi domini Paulj Theupuli [Tiepolo] dignissimi oratoris Serenissimi Domini venetj apud Regem Romanorum. necessitating the appointment of representatives for legal proceedings. This chapter deals with the . late medieval and early modern communication in general may be categorised along its economic. “spectabilis dominus Franciscus Thomaseus Civis Jadre.”73 A descendant of one of Zadar’s aristocratic families. Simon appointed no less a figure than “Nobilem virum dominum Baptistam Besalium de Porto Buffaleto [Portobuffolè].” As the heir of his deceased brother.72 Other instances involved returning home the remains of relatives who had died elsewhere. along with whatever goods and money the late Theodosius possessed. for instance.” The bodily remains were to be brought back home. legal.” one of Zadar’s public notaries. the next task is to survey the integration of these parties within the social fabric of sixteenth-century Dalmatia. sought representatives who would act on his behalf “ad Sacrum baptismatis fontem filiolum vel filiolam nascitutum et nascituram celeberrimi domini Marci Antonij Cornelij [Corner] Patritij Veneti et eius cellberrima uxoris. issues pertaining to clientele or family relations fall into this category.74 Instances like these frequently led to disputes among the living relatives over how to divide the movable and immovable possessions of the dead. which preceded the naming of their role. “arch/bishop” (archi/episcopus). Zadar’s nobility made up the single largest social group appointing representatives. and hospitals (lazarettum). the percentage of urban residents of Zadar increased from roughly 60% in the 1540s to more than 70% in the . belove. churches (ecclesia). “deacon” (diaconus). but the number of aristocratic clergy drops considerably. almost tripling in absolute numbers from the 1540s to the 1560s. It is interesting to note that the city’s noblemen played a relatively prominent ecclesiastical role only during the first decade of the epoch under survey. described as “canon” (canonicus). This can be explained by the reports by Venice’s civilian and military officials. “parish priest” (parochianus). Members of the armed forces too appear as frequent constituent parties in the procuratorial documents.Zadar’s Society 77 men. along with the rest of the peripheral regions of the Stato da mar. convents (conventus). “priest” (presbyter). merchants. 13%) of all constituent parties between 1540 and 1569 were members of the clergy. or office. (It should be noted that the term “clergy” describes both individuals and institutions). In general. “father” (pater). which document the militarisation of Zadar. monasteries (monasterium). Women of aristocratic descent were not the only group whose importance grew over time. The ecclesiastical members of Zadar’s society were usually given the adjective “Reverend” (reverendus) or “venerable” (venerabilis). indicates. It is also worth noting that the share of noblewomen who appointed procurators increased significantly over time. education.76 As Table 3. As Table 3. and institutions behind the geographical statistics and contracting motivations discussed in the previous section. or “vicar” (vicarius). the numbers deriving from the procuratorial appointments provide a clear indication of the proportion of ecclesiastical versus secular elites. suggests. The percentages of the other constituent groups—artisans. “cleric” (clericus). The institutions include abbeys (abbatia). Over the remaining twenty years an increase of ecclesiastical activities can be seen. In total 124 (on average c. women. and other presumably literate individuals—remained stable over the entire period. groups. “brother”/”sister” (fra/sor). below.75 Virtually every dispatch from the period under consideration enumerates the additional defense requirements for the continuation of Venetian rule in Dalmatia in the face of constantly increasing pressure (whether perceived or experienced) from beyond the borders of the respublica (Table 3). 78 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 3: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Constituents (1540-1569) Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse 1540s 1550s 1560s 63 (♀ 14) 122 (♀ 30) 129 (♀ 39) 314 (♀ 83) 22 (16) 53 (7) 49 (7) 124 (30) 19 (6 ♀) 14 (4 ♀) 20 (11 ♀) 53 (21 ♀) 22 (2) 47 (10) 76 (19) 145 (31) 7 15 11 33 Intellectual Elitesf 15 (7) 22 (10) 31 (11) 68 (28) Rest, n/ag 77 57 59 193 Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Toponyms below are listed according to their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. The numbers in parentheses refer to the specified sub-categories in the respective columns. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from the following places: Venice, Krk (Vegla), Rab (Arbe), Pag (Pago), Zadar (Jadra), Šibenik (Sibenico), Trogir (Tragurij), Split (Spalato), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), and Kotor (Catharo). The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy. This includes both institutions and individuals referred to by the following designations: canon (canonicus), cleric (clericus), deacon (diaconus), arch/bishop (archi/episcopus), parish priest (parochianus), father (pater), presbyter (priest), sister/brother (sor/frater), and vicar (vicarius). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class, as defined by job descriptions or the title “master” (magister). The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military, as defined by their functions, including captain (capitaneus), galley commander/count (sopra/comes), oarsman (galeotus), soldier (miles), and light cavalry (stratiotus). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties engaged in commerce and trade, as defined by their job description, such as spice trader (aromatarius), small retailer (bazariotus), or merchant (mercator). (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite, as defined by their job description, such as lawyer (advocatus/causidicus/solicitator), chancellor (cancellarius), salt tax collector (gabellotus), doctor of canon and civil law (leges utriusque doctor), notary public (notarius), scribe (scriba), or medical doctor (artium et medicinae doctor/medicus physicus). The numbers in parentheses refer to those of noble descent. For a definition, see Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. See also Chapter 6. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. Zadar’s Society 79 1560s. As insecurity in the rural areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction increased, more inhabitants moved to the perceived security behind the city walls. These numbers provide the empirical evidence to verify both the reports by Venice’s officials and the ensuing militarisation discussed above. In addition to these phenomena, it is interesting to note that neither Zadar’s artisans nor its mercantile community contributed significantly to the procuratorial appointments. Those who did need representation in a court of law77 or abroad mostly did so to obtain (relatively small) amounts of money invested in the Venetian Monte nuovo,78 to administer79 or sell property elsewhere,80 or for dowry-related reasons.81 These activities and motivations suggest a high degree of geographical mobility (migration caused by economic, employment, or work-related incentives). The place names at times also yield information about the provenance of the constituent parties. For instance, there were artisans from virtually everywhere in the Adriatic parts of Venice’s maritime state: “de Venetiis,”82 “de Bergomo” (Bergamo),83 “de Sebenico” (Šibenik),84 and “de Castro Nigra de Curcula” (Korčula).85 Another interesting fact is that while only 53 contracts list craftsmen as constituents, 21 of these were ordered by their daughters, mothers, or wives. In comparison, Zadar’s merchant community is represented in the procuratorial records in smaller numbers:86 only 43 individuals could be identified. They originated from both within and without the Stato da mar. In the former category, cities like Venice,87 Šibenik,88 and Split89 are referenced in the contracts. The latter group includes Bologna90 and Parma91 in Emilia-Romagna, Skradin in Ottoman Dalmatia,92 Pontremoli in Tuscany, and Ljubljana in present-day Slovenia. The last two locations had specific importance for Zadar’s mercantile community: Pontremoli was the ancestral town of Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo. He was one of Zadar’s wealthiest individuals who, in addition to having an important role among the city’s citizenry, profited from extensive commercial ties to Venice and the Apulian coastal town of Bari.93 Ljubljana, on the other hand, was significant because it was the hometown of “ser Andreas Postner de Gliubgliana,” a merchant-turned-citizen of Zadar who operated out of central Dalmatia from the 1550s onward.94 These examples demonstrate a high degree of geographical mobility. This mobility was closely tied to the flow of goods, money, services, and human labour in the form of employment opportunities. The need for artisans skilled in carpentry, masonry, metalworking, and other crafts is 80 Urban Elites of Zadar evident. These craftsmen were required to improve fortifications or serve Venice’s increasing military needs from the mid-1560s onward.95 However, when Zadar’s communal loggia partially collapsed in 1564, it also had to be rebuilt. In October of the same year, “Vedendo il celeberrimo meser Antonio Cacco Capitano di Zara dignissimo che la lozza di questa città si attrova in stato tale che non ci si facendo presta provisione,” contracted “magistro Hieronymo quondam Zuane Boccanich de Pucischie [Pučišća] villa della Brazza [Brač], et magistro Piero quondam Zuan Ueloxa da Cherso [Cres] habitante a Curzola [Korčula] Taiapiere,” both masterstonecutters. The captain obliged them to obtain all the required stones for the loggia’s reconstruction from the quarry near Kamenjani, a village within Zadar’s jurisdiction. The two artisans received up-front 60 ducats for their work, which was vouched for by one of the city’s nobles, “meser Gregorio Ciualelli pro se et heredi suoi.” In addition to this payment for the labour, the price of 25 soldi per four-foot stone block was agreed upon, paid for by the communal fiscal chamber. In the document’s concluding clauses the two artisans agreed to start working within 15 days of the notarial act’s ratification.96 These examples demonstrate that the high degree of geographical mobility suspected by John Martin and Dennis Romano was not restricted to the upper strata of Venetian society.97 Let us now turn to the individuals upon whom the procuratorial duties were bestowed (Table 3.1, below). Significant shifts can be identified among the appointees. On average the proportion of appointees deriving from the nobility increased by a quarter. About 52% of all individuals entrusted with procuratorial assignments were of privileged descent. However, as Table 3.1, below, indicates, the most profound changes in the stipulating pattern concern a different social and occupational group: the “intellectual elites” (see also below and Chapter 6). Defined as literate individuals of both noble and non-noble descent,98 and identified in the documents by references to their education, these appointees represent almost a threefold greater percentage than constituent parties from this group; c. 21 % of appointees derive from this category (compared to c. 7% among the constituent parties). Another obvious conclusion is that while on average women made up a quarter of all constituent parties (c. 25%), their corresponding percentage among the procuratorial appointees was a meagre 2%. The fact that all but three female constituents appointed male representatives indicates that the women showed no bias toward their own gender in making the appoin- Zadar’s Society 81 Table 3.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Procurators (1540-1569) Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Elitesf 1540s 80 22 18 13 3 63 (8) (6) (21) 1550s 137 29 15 17 11 61 (♀ 5) (2) (5) (27) 1560s 143 32 18 30 17 72 (♀ 3) (2) (10) (33) 360 83 51 60 31 196 (♀ 8) (12) (21) (81) Rest, n/ag 26 60 63 149 Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Toponyms below are listed according to their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from the following places: Venice, Vicenza, Cividale del Friuli, Cres (Cherso), Krk (Vegla), Rab (Arbe), Pag (Pago), Zadar (Jadra), Šibenik (Sibenico), Trogir (Tragurij), Split (Spalato), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Kotor (Catharo), and Hungary. The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b in Table 3, above). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c in Table 3). (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d in Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties engaged in commerce and trade (see note e in Table 3). (f) Number per decade of constituent parties presumed to have been literate (see note f in Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. tments. One of these women “dona Clara filia quondam ser Dominici de Petrogna de Justinopolis” (Koper), who was referred to as “mulier sui juris” and who tasked “donam Marietam eius sororem uxorem ser Nicolai Mirogogno de Justinopolj” with collecting outstanding payments from unnamed individuals in Labin and Koper. The fact that the appointee, herself residing in the Istrian town, was geographically much closer to these cities than the constituent, helps in explaining one of the main reasons for the appointment: geographical proximity. In addition to this consideration, Marieta was to be trusted because she was Clara’s sister, presumably possessed of connections within Venetian Istria and potentially enjoying the support of her husband.99 82 Urban Elites of Zadar The second case involved “domina Lucretia quondam spectabilis domini Federici de Grisogonis,” a noblewoman of Zadar, who appointed “dominam Marchettam de Bartholatijs” to regain her mother’s dowry. As the surname suggests, the two contracting parties in this case were related by kinship.100 No further details were written, which suggests that the contracting parties knew each other, allowing the details of the agreement to be left unwritten.101 The third and last instance involved “dona Margarita uxor quondam ser Joannis Rachouich olim civis et habitator Jadre.” Again, the constituent acted on her own behalf and appointed “Magnificam dominam Zanettam uxor quondam Magnifici domini Francisci Dandolo,” a Venetian patrician and resident of Zadar, to collect all outstanding payments “ab officio camerae Armamenti Illustrissimi Ducis domini Venetiarum” (see also Chapter 3). Evidently, Margarita’s late husband had served in the military and Venice’s failure to pay him was the reason for the appointment. The appointee was tasked with obtaining “omnem et quascumquem quantitatem, quam ipse quondam ser Joannes habere debeat de ratione servitutis per eum prestitae et facte in Brighentino patrono ser Nicolao Novello.” The naming of the office alone appears sufficient for the assignee to know what to do since the notary omitted any further information.102 6. Intellectual Elites The fact that the percentage of “intellectual elites”103 among the procuratorial appointees was on average three times higher than that of the constituent parties requires further elaboration. Despite the shifting absolute numbers of the appointees (especially the difference between the 1540s and the subsequent decades) their relative share remained stable. Besides these tendencies, the average share of appointees of aristocratic descent in this socio-occupational group increased from slightly less than a third during the 1540s to c. 45% during the decade prior to the Cyprus War (see Table 3.1, above). In this context, two other issues must be addressed. First, these numbers represent individual contracts, not individual persons. In absolute numbers, the intellectual elites were never as numerous as their three-decade average of c. 21% suggests. In the 930 notarial acts, only 29 individuals This comes as no surprise since notaries were of such essential importance to the functioning of urban societies in Venice’s Stato da mar that their absence would have left a hole in the organisational fabric of their communities of residence. cancellarius communitatis Appointmentse 2 1 1 1 11 2 3 5 7 33 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. Public notaries. (a) Names of all notaries assuming procuratorial duties. (d) Occupation of the notaries.500 are identified. education. were usually not the first choice of the constituent parties.105 (e) Number of appointments for each notary over the three-decade period. while enjoying elevated authority. The names are given in standard Latin. out of a population of 6. Second. subjecting the procuratorial instruments to an analysis of class affiliation and profession reveals additional details. (b) Social status of the notaries.000-6.Zadar’s Society 83 Table 4: Notaries Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties (1540-1569) Namea Augustinus Martius Gabriel Cernotta Franciscus Thomaseus Johannes Mazzarellus Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius Nicolaus Canali Statusb civis Originc Venice nobilis civis Rab n/a nobilis Trogir civis n/a civis Nicolaus civis Drasmileus Petrus de Bassano civis Simon nobilis Mazzarellus Education/Occupationd notarius. cancellarius communitatis notarius.106 In spite of their small numbers they were responsible for 196 appointments. (c) Provenance of the notaries. and literacy rates. supramassarius munitionum notarius notarius notarius. as recorded in the sources. causidicus Venice (?) notarius. This assertion is supported by the fact that public notaries living in Zadar between 1540 . cancellarius rectoris Zadar notarius Zadar Trogir notarius notarius. social status. see note 45. including the overseer of the powder magazines (supramassarius munitionum)104 and the office of communal chancellor (cancellarius communitatis). 84 Urban Elites of Zadar and 1569 were rarely appointed to carry out procuratorial duties. barristers.113 Their father. the two categories of nobles . Marcus Antonius. Gabriel Cernotta. as the present study emphasises. neither Augustinus Martius.107 No other public notary was appointed this often (e. show two additional facts. below. and his last appearance in the notarial records dates from the end of March 1543.116 specifically referring to him to as an attorney (Table 4. The unique exception was attorney Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. military commanders.g. The former attorney was well-established even before 1 January 1540. one of Zadar’s public notaries. it is known that he was the brother of Petrus de Bassano. was also an attorney. The predominance of the legal professions among the appointees is immediately apparent: Attorneys. who died before autumn 1541. and other university-educated legal professionals made up two-thirds of all appointees during the period under consideration.114 Hieronymus continued to appear in the notarial instruments throughout the 1550s115 and most likely remained active until the end of the period under survey and probably beyond. First.1).”111 both referred to as attorneys and citizens of Zadar. On the basis of the procuratorial appointments there does not appear to be a clear-cut bias toward one social or professional group. the nobles’ percentage among the educated procuratorial appointees corresponds roughly to their overall average. or scholars.. public notaries. Petrus de Bassano nor Nicolaus Drasmileus). and 4.108 One way to quantitatively assess the educated individuals of a Mediterranean commune. “[D]ominae Bianca et Julia filie et heredes quondam domini Francisci de Rossettis de Pontremulo civis Jadre” jointly appointed him to represent them as their new general procurator. Tables 4. most of these individuals tend to be overlooked by scholarship since they did not go on to enjoy enduring fame as authors. These were individuals of elevated social status or education who were not public notaries. The second subgroup of appointees now enters into focus. who was the only notary whose appointments reached the double figures (the fact that he left only 15 individual acts may have had something to do with these assignments). above. the recurrence of their appointments cannot be considered representative. By comparison.109 While a high number of instruments confer duties to “ser Franciscum Petrouich”110 and “dominum Hieronymum de Bassano. With the exception of some prominent individuals like Johannes de Rosa and Bernardinus Carnarutus. Nicolaus Canali. Franciscus Thomaseus.112 In the case of Hieronymus de Bassano. Johannes and Simon Mazzarellus. is to include the procuratorial instruments.1. de Rosa Doymus Cedulinus Franciscus Fumatus Franciscus Justus. de Justis Franciscus Petrouich Hieronymus de Bassano Hieronymus de Cortesijs Johannes de Begna Statusb Originc nobilis Zadar nobilis Zadar nobilis nobilis civis Education/ Occupationd causidicus Appointmentse 2 Zadar Zadar n/a secretarius provisoris classis causidicus leges utriusque doctor scriba camerae fiscalis 6 11 1 civis civis n/a Zadar causidicus causidicus 12 10 nobilis Rab causidicus 15f nobilis Zadar Johannes de Venerio nobilis Venice Johannes dictus bon datiarum Johannes Jovinus Servianus Johannes de Rosa n/a n/a civis Venice nobilis Zadar Leonardus Fadinus Marcus Raymundinus Nicolaus de Claudis Octavianus Monaldus n/a clerus n/a nobilis Pasinus de Pasinis Petrus Fanfoneus Sigismundus de Seratis Theodorus Adraino civis nobilis n/a n/a leges utriusque doctor.Zadar’s Society 85 Table 4. eques n/a causidicus Zadar decretorum doctor n/a cancellarius capitanei Pesaro artium et medicinae doctor Zadar leges utriusque doctor Zadar leges utriusque doctor Pontremoli artium et medicinae doctor Krk scriba camerae fiscalis 1 1 1 1 3 15g 1 1 1 1 4 8 1 1 97 . eques scontrus camerae fiscalis officium stimarie vini forensis leges utriusque doctor leges utriusque doctor.1: Non-Notarial Intellectual Elites Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties (1540-1569) Namea Bernardinus Carnarutus Camillus Rosa. Aloysius Cesarius was tasked with representing Camillus in court. (f) Hieronymus de Cortesijs was twice jointly-appointed with Franciscus Fumatus. once with Petrus de Bassano and once with Franciscus Justus.” To secure his rightful share of the inheritance. Names are given in standard Latin. doctor of Canon Law (decretorum doctor). as exemplified by the two attorneys. medical doctor (artium et medicinae doctor). (b) Social status of the procurators. a third instrument was drawn up by the two brothers because “domina Catherina filia quondam excellentis domini Federici de Grisogonis. (e) Number of appointments per procurator. official responsible for the import of foreign wines (officium stimarie vini forensis). Let us now focus on the remaining 66 instances and apply a similar methodology that examines the status of the appointees and correlation between geographical/social provenance and destination. see note 45.”118 The other half of the late Darius’ possessions was to be inherited by his brother.86 Urban Elites of Zadar Sources: unless indicated otherwise. decided to reassert her right. (d) Occupation of the procurators. Again. (a) Names of all non-notary residents who assumed procuratorial duties.” the second wife of the late Darius de Pechiaro. educated noblemen were quite a common sight in Dalmatian towns.” He and Camillus appointed the same procurator to represent them in a court of law in Venice to sort out all other differences related to their inheritance. “dominus Franciscus de Pechiaro. On the contrary. the root . knight (eques). including attorney (causidicus). The 66 assignments were given to 55 individuals. doctor of canon and civil law (leges utriusque doctor). and intellectual elites were by no means mutually exclusive (as demonstrated by the number of educated individuals in the examples above).120 Despite the fact that the procuratorial instruments are silent on the outcome of these proceedings. thus those recipients who were named twice or more stand out. (c) Geographical provenance of the procurators (where known). In some cases more than one recipient is named.117 Second. no bias toward procuratorial appointees of privileged descent can be ascertained. he appointed “dominum Aloysium Cesarium de Opitergio [Oderzo] sollecitatorem causarum in inclita Venetiarum Civitatis. and captain’s chancellor (cancellarius capitaneus). One such case involved “dominus Camillus de Pechiaro quondam domini Johannis nobilis Jadre uti heredes pro dimidia ut asservit quondam domini Darij eius fratris. The heterogeneity of this subgroup is telling. accountant/scribe in the fiscal chamber (scontrus/scriba camera fiscalis).119 Only a couple of months later. (g) Johannes de Rosa was twice jointly-appointed. secretary of the naval overseer (secretarius provisoris classis). ”123 Obviously. he worked as the communal chancellor in Kotor around 1540.124 A similar story emerges for “dominus Joannes de Soppe quondam spectabili domini Simonis.125 By 1542 he had returned to his native town and was assigned procuratorial duties by “Catherina filia et heres testamentaria.121 Matters become more complicated from here since Catherina was married three times. This allows an impression of the various interactions across cultural. religious.Zadar’s Society 87 cause of the legal suit is named: the restitution of Catherina’s dowry of 490 ducats. and social dimensions.” Unfortunately.”122 then as wife of Darius de Pechiaro. “domina Francischina uxor quondam domini Berti Charanina olim Civis.131 Consequently.” A descendant of the eponymous noble family. In the first instance.”127 Another case involved the Venetian patrician “dominum Julium Trivisano [Trevisan] Civem et causidicum Venetum. appointed Julius Trevisan and “dominum Vivianum Barlendi mercatorem Venetum” to ratify the agreement reached between them as Bertus’ heirs and “dominum Dominicum de Gamberarijs. et uxor Joannis Ostoych filij Viti de villa Bibigne.” and her two daughters “Paulina and Helysabeth. no reason is given in the procuratorial act. et mercatoris Jadre. it is likely that the conflict arose over a business deal gone awry.” Johannes was to nullify the actions taken by “Michael[i] Margitich eius patruo” and divide her father’s inheritance equally between Catherina and her paternal uncle. even between next-of-kin.”130 In general. both married to merchants residing in Zadar (Paulina to “Julius Toninus.” Helysabeth to “Bernardinus Tirabuschi”)129 and heirs of their late father. the former chancellor of Kotor appears in the procuratorial sources when he was appointed the general representative of “Jacobus Clarich de villa Podi [Podi] territorij Jadre.128 In the second instance the above-mentioned daughters.” tasked twice by residents of Zadar.” appointed Julius to resolve their problems “cum ser Dominico Uambirascosi merzario venetiarum ad insignum draconis. an amount well in excess of the average yearly income of Zadar’s nobility’s was worth a fight. She appears in the sources first as “uxor domini Joannis de Nassis quondam domini Nicolai. since both the late Bertus and Dominicus were merchants. however. and third as “uxor Nobili Jadrensi domini Joannis de Begna. geographical. the cases in which a non-resident was tasked with procuratorial duties were related to business in the places of residence of the appointees. quondam Joannis Margitich de villa Bibigne [Bibinje]. it becomes possible to re-imagine parts of the life and times of “magnifico . ut dixit.126 On a third occasion. the existence of foreign appointees highlights the one underlying commonality that unites these seemingly diverse appointments: assumed intimate knowledge of the procuratorial appointees of the destination area. procurators from abroad were assigned with specific tasks involving individuals personally unknown to the constituent parties.135 Like their secular counterparts (count. these two high-ranking dignitaries rarely appear in the instruments. et dominus Joannes Raimundinus Civis Jadre” conferred procuratorial powers upon “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum Mutium Calino. While the relationship between the contracting parties remains in many cases subject to speculation. Like most newlyappointed ecclesiastical dignitaries travelling to their assigned posts. he too left his former prebendary behind. on such an occasion in late 1556 “Dominus presbyter Sanctus de Sanctis Canonicus Jadre.88 Urban Elites of Zadar domino Andrea[m] Zane quondam magnifico Joanne Aloysij. captain).133 For a variety of reasons. as well as “a domino Jacobo de Aurani Corcirensis.136 A second example involved the bishopric of Nin. for instance. Ecclesiastical Activities Inhabitants of Zadar’s subject dominion were eligible for prebendaries of less than 60 ducats of value. in the case of “Reverendus in Christo Patrem et dominum dominus Marcus Lauredanus [Loredan] Dei et Apostoli sedis gratia episcopus Nonen- . once can speculate about the exact nature of the relations between “strenuus dominus Joannes Ulani de Neapolj [Naples or Nafplio] Capitu stratiotarum Jadrae” and his procuratorial appointee.” then the designated archbishop of Zadar.” and the heirs of “quondam ser Daminano Androminda de Neapolj [Naples of Nafplio]” in particular. 7. Mutius Calino was to acquire outstanding payments “a Reverendo Auditore camere apostolice” in Rome.” a Venetian patrician who once served as the chamberlain of Bar. While on his way to his new see. This was true of both patricians and commoners sent to Venice and elsewhere.134 but after 1423 Zadar’s archbishopric and the bishopric of Nin were exclusively reserved for members of the Venetian patriciate.132 Likewise. This situation occurred. For instance.” This is especially so in light of the latter’s task: he was to obtain all outstanding money owed to the constituent on the island of Korčula. “excellentem dominum Joannem Euretopolo phisicum Corcirensis. Exceptions occurred usually for newly appointed clergymen. They too appear in the procuratorial instruments. two run by the Benedictines and three each by the Dominicans and the Franciscans. . c390r-c. run by the Benedictines. 6.390v. and Franciscans. Poor Clares). (c) Gender of each congregation.139 There were nine monastic institutions within the city walls. Franciscus then transferred Marcus’ procuratorial duties to “dominum Hieronymum de Bellis clericum Veronensis dioecesis” and tasked the latter with taking care of the abbey’s problems with its temporal possessions. 1550) Monastic Communitya St Chrysogonus St Mary St Dominic St Catherine St Demetrius St Francis St Nicholas St Marcella Orderb OSB OSB OP OP OP OSF OSC OSC Genderc ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♀ Social Stratad Provoste nobility only Antonella Galella nobility only Coliza Grisogona nobility only Maria Grisogona Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ.140 Table 5: Monastic Communities in Zadar (c.138 These legal matters involving ecclesiastical land-holding underline the need for further study of the representatives’ essential role as mediators along the often blurry lines between families and institutions (see also Chapter 3). (b) Ecclesiastical affiliation of each community: OSB (Order of St Benedict). Simon Budineus. field of ecclesiastical activity was the congregations in Zadar. Marcus was appointed procurator “a Reverendo domino Francisco Superantio Abbate Sancti Michaelis de monte” on 5 October 1554. 1.Zadar’s Society 89 sis. OSC (Order of St Clare. OP (Order or Preachers or Dominicans). This land was auctioned off by the officeholders’ procurators to the highest bidder for tax farming purposes. OSF (Order of St Francis). Dominicans.” Prior to becoming bishop of Nin. and TOR (Third Order Regulars).137 Beyond these two high-profile examples the notarial protocol books contain little evidence that these dignitaries engaged in mundane or secular activities—with one exception: both sees possessed significant amounts of landed property. (e) Names of the provosts of each nobles-only congregation. Due to circumstance. quite different. (d) Monastic communities reserved for individuals of privileged descent. (a) Monastic communities in Zadar. 26 October 1562 (three individual acts). Another. listed by their Anglicised patron saints. I. however. the appointee was “ser Hieronymum Bassanum. legal expertise.148 Other tasks included the securing of worldly goods from a deceased bishop149 or nobleman. may be explained by his family’s prominence. movable or immovable goods. for a variety of reasons. the non-noble Franciscan convent of St Francis appointed both aristocrats and commoners.141 In the sixth instance. not “Sir” [ser]. thus. annual stipends for cloistered relatives. In most cases. The bestowal of procuratorial duties upon Hieronymus Bassanus. underscoring the family’s prominence. the duties of the procurators fell to noblemen from Zadar. the more common title for citizens.151 .144 or social norms. kinship ties. the procuratorial appointees were responsible for ensuring that any bestowals of property by recently deceased individuals reached their rightful heirs. Usually these bequests consisted of charitable donations. however. and the fact that he was not the only but the second procurator to represent the monastery.143) These two monasteries were reserved exclusively for noblewomen.145 By contrast.” the renowned attorney.150 and the collection of any outstanding sum of money owed.” Five years later the convent appointed “dominum Franciscum de Ventura civem Jadrensis” (see also Chapter 6). facendo per nome suo et del spettabile et eccelente dottore meser Pietro Fanfogna similmente nobile assente. Usually procuratorial duties were bestowed upon individuals belonging to Zadar’s aristocracy. the procuratorial instruments do not provide specifics on inheritance issues. In 1560 it appointed two nobles:146 “il spettabile meser Zoilo de Ferra nobile. on the other hand. The appointees had only to ensure that all bequeathed goods to which the respective congregation was entitled be collected. Though not of privileged birth his family’s social status was evidently high enough to represent the convents appropriately. In five of the six following examples of procuratorial appointments commissioned by the Dominican convent of St Demetrius and the Benedictines of St Mary. income from or usufruct rights to immovable property. or a combination thereof.147 In addition to the duties discussed above.90 Urban Elites of Zadar All the congregations detailed in Table 5 regularly appointed procurators. or requiem money.142 (All three members of the de Bassano family are referenced in the sources as “Lord” [dominus]. These bequests could be money. the appointment of fellow aristocrats can be explained by personal acquaintance. The tasks of these representatives included the renting or conceding of landed property to tenants or colonists (discussed in detail in Chapter 4). Contemporaneously. Novigrad. During the 1540s almost two-thirds of procurators originated within Zadar’s jurisdiction. communication on the local level decreased and gave rise to the growing importance of regional and supra-regional destinations.152 Based on these findings. the communication mechanisms of ecclesiastical and secular elites followed the same pattern. and Vrana. This comprised entities as diverse as the city’s hinterlands on the mainland. As suggested by Arié Malz. While the numbers for the constituents remained relatively constant over the period under survey. which eclipsed all other destinations in the Adriatic by the middle of the sixteenth century. While the last decade (1560-1569) witnessed an overall increase in the number of individual appointments compared to the first decade. On average. although neighbouring Šibenik attracted more procuratorial assignments than any other area in the Venetian dual province (except for Venice proper). . The “winners” of this phenomenon were Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions. four out of five contracting individuals originated in Zadar’s jurisdiction. some 60% still originated from the same geographical areas as the constituents. these changes occurred gradually and unequally. the picture changes slightly for the procuratorial parties. This coincides with the doubling of individuals tasked with procuratorial duties in Venice proper and a slight increase in missions destined to other parts of Venetian Dalmatia-Albania. the following conclusions and trends can be ascribed to the three interwar decades under survey. it follows that overall network density within Zadar’s jurisdiction was high in the decade after the conclusion of the Ottoman-Venetian war in 1540 but decreased in importance in the subsequent period leading up to the Cyprus War. only two percent of the appointees were women. however. and the smaller subject districts of Nin. While the percentage of female constituents was roughly a quarter of the total. First. there is considerable variation between the first and last decades in question. On the basis of the data examined above. the number of appointees from within Zadar’s jurisdiction drops to just over 50%. the relative importance of Zadar and its jurisdiction decreased by roughly the same amount as Venice and her Terraferma possessions gained in importance with respect to procuratorial appointments.153 Of course. with the neighbouring city of Šibenik and Venice proper attracting more procuratorial missions than any other part of the Stato da mar or mainland Italy. Of all constituents. the inhabited coastal islands. Zadar’s ties with the rest of the Venetian Adriatic remained more or less constant.Zadar’s Society 91 In general. 162 or “vicar” (vicarius). especially in the higher echelons of Church hierarchy. the provosts were usually referred to as “abbot”/”abbess” . or “noble” (generosus).92 Urban Elites of Zadar Reality was much more complex than the tripartite economic/legal/ social model proposed here. for procuratorial mandates destined for Venice proper.”154 Other members of the Republic of St Mark were commonly accorded the adjectives “acclaimed” (celeberrimus). At the top of the hierarchy stood the Doge. If an assignment led the appointees to high-profile counterparts in Rome or Venice. the best and most renowned procurators available were tasked with the execution of the mandates. “magnificent” (magnificus). in clear contrast with the terminology used for all other nobles (nobilis).156 Too much importance must not be attached to these details. the appointees were more often Venetian patricians or citizens.157 Identical patterns of background can be observed for ecclesiastical dignitaries.155 While the honorific “sir” (ser) did not convey a particular distinction between aristocrats and commoners in Venice proper.” The doge’s representative administering an urban community was referred to in a like manner: “Pretureque celeberrimi domini Jacobi Antonij Mauro Comitis Jadra dignissimi. More common.161 “parish priest” (parochianus/presbyter). et domini Excellentissimi Petri Lando. were tasks such as collecting inheritances or administering real estate property. Ecclesiastical activities mirrored those of secular protagonists.160 “cleric” (clericus). Additional distinction was conferred by the epithet “Venetian patrician” (patritius venetus). Dei Gratia Venetiaum et cetera Ducis Illustrissimi. However.158 The lower ranks of the clergy were referred to by their titles of “archpriest”/”deacon” (archipresbyter/diaconus). however. For most business within or without the Stato da mar (excluding Venice proper) any nobleman or commoner with sufficient social status or education could fulfill virtually any task within the range of procuratorial assignments.159 “canon” (canonicus). All of Zadar’s nine monastic communities regularly appointed general representatives to deal with these other day-to-day matters. the word may have carried more social status in her maritime state. Usually the notarial acts were written “Temporibus serenissimi Principis.163 For the cloistral population. whose invocation set the tone for the naming of other Venetian patricians. But this model allows for a working analytical framework. but it is useful to observe that there was a distinction in terminology between the Dalmatian and Venetian patriciate. The terminology used in the documents reveals clear distinctions between the social and occupational groups. In combination.” 2. and O’Connell. rank. 4.” 56-58. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV.” 186. Venise.165 Craftsmen and their relatives too were noted with a specific denomination: the description “master” (magister) was added in front of the name or trade. Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio. 161-167. “Rapporti tra la Repubblica Fiorentina e il Regno di Ugheria. “brother” (fra/ter). Budak. Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. or social descent: they were all usually referred to as “Reverend” (reverendus) or “venerable” (venerabilis). pragmatic. Raguse et le commerce du blé. unsurprisingly. Raukar. Storia economica di Venezia. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. 27-33. . the term “valiant” (strenuus) was usually written down next to his name and rank. the most important factors in selecting a procurator were. Lane. On the Venetian wheat trade.Zadar’s Society 93 (abbas/abbatissa) or “prior”/”prioress” (prior/a). 303-352. kinship ties. Cozzi. “Fiorentini in Dalmazia”. Knapton. 2:183-185. 536-540. Notes 1. The account follows Borsari. Engel. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. Raukar.166 For military personnel. Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. “Toscani al servizio della città di Ragusa”. stoljeću. Zadar u XV. “Stato da mar. Teke. and Raukar. “Veneziani delle colonie”. Hongarie médievale.” See also. 88-93. Hocquet.” 326-396. an individual was explicitly noted as “mulier sui iuris” even though in most instances the stipulating women were acting with the licence of or in the presence of their husband (“cum licentia. or “sister” (sor).” 3. and solution-oriented appearance. “Fiorentini in Ungheria.164 There were two terms. stoljeću.169 Apart from the fundamental aspects of educational qualification and social status. if an individual was an officer. business relations. Other men and women of the cloth were simply called “father” (pater). and Kubinyi. Venice. 2:62-64. Luzzatto. 6. Budak. Knapton. Concise summaries by Krekić. “Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade. 5. that united all members of the Church irrespective of education. Realm of St Stephen. 133-214. Krekić. On the Venetian salt trade in general. and Thiriet. Prajda.” 79-82. Engel.” For a more focused discussion. however. Men of Empire. or patronage relations. In general Ashtor. in presentia maritis”).168 For women. “Fiorentini nella Slavonia e nella Croazia”. Aymard. these aspects lent the procuratorial networks a seemingly familiar. “Urban élites in Dalmatia.167 Lower ranks and enlisted men appeared only with additional references to their rank (if they had one) before their names. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. and Gallina. Kristó. 56-65. Bettarini. and Scarabello. “Drei Zentralstädte in Dalmatien. migration patterns. Raukar. 1:218-219. . “Venice Reconsidered. Commissiones. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. and 6.903 for Zadar proper. See Braudel. 20.” 104-111.” 108.” 29-40. This had consequences for both demographic developments and agricultural production. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Malz. “Città fortificata di Zara. Commissiones. 16. 38. These works were a reaction to the increasing tensions between the Charles V and Suleiman. 21.94 Urban Elites of Zadar 7. Raukar. European Urbanization.” 186. 15.. 18. 24. See also Ringrose. count of Zadar from 1525-1527. 12. “Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke” [Migration from Dalmatia towards the Marche]. and geographical fluidity” of Venetian society. Martin and Romano.” 107-111. 24. 75-76. The Corrupting Sea. 9. 89-122. Raukar.” 104. Budak. Budak. 1. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Distinctions based on Malz. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku. Malz. 153-162. Wallerstein. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. It must be stressed that neither commercial nor economic connections alone could account for “modernisation. Horden and Purcell. 1:54. Raukar et al. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt.” 93. Raukar. upon his return to Venice in 1528. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. 1:35-36.. Mocellin. stoljeću. this may well be what has been referred to as “the underlying reality of economic. stoljeću. Raukar. the output of the saltworks of Pag decreased tenfold over the course of the subsequent decades. 370-372. E. Zadar u XV.148 for the suburbs. stoljeću.859 on the islands. 17. Braudel. 1:124-126. On related production decreases. 85-88. Jahrhunderts. 23. “Rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia. “Urbanization and Modernization. 19. 11. eventually resulting in changes in the diet. Malz. stoljeća” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 15th and First Half of the 16th Century]. Also. 59. [a] market economy. and banking). Zadar u XV. Malz suggests that the alignment of the jurisdictions in the hinterlands towards a clearly defined urban centre was a process of increasing modernisation. A first wave of investments occurred at the beginning of the second Venetian dominion during the first decades of the fifteenth century. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. Jahrhunderts. Raukar.109 on the mainland (excluding the city and its suburbs). “Komunalna društva u XIV. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. 9. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 22. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XV. Sozialgeschichte des 15.” 87-89. i prvoj polovini XVI. 25.” 155-156.” 86-88. The numbers are 6. 14. Sozialgeschichte des 15. Gestrin.” 116. 10. Which was noted by Victor Barbadico.g. de Vries.” 107. Concina.18. See also Horden and Purcell.-18.” especially in the early modern period (Malz anachronistically lists “democracy. stoljeću. 8. social. Kolanović. stoljeću.. and an open society” as indicators of “modern societies”).g. E.” 21. 13. 2:43-46. The Corrupting Sea.” 104-113. Malz. Modern World System.” who argued for future research directed at cities within the context of their environs (including roads. The Making of Urban Europe. and Malz. Hohenberg and Hollen Lees. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Most mountain ranges in the western Balkans run parallel to the coast and only a handful of navigable rivers exist. The most important river systems in the western Balkans are the Krka and Neretva in Dalmatia and the Bojana and Drin in Albania. It also profited from its geographical location and advantageous connections with the hinterlands of the western Balkans. On the other hand. See Kolanović. Sanmicheli. See also Ref. Schmitt. Malz argues that the reason for less long-distance trade out of Zadar was the city’s success in the production and trade of salt.” 130-131.” 29-40. Šibenik also became the prime exchange hub for the produce of the hinterlands and its inhabitants. thus preventing easy exchange of armies. Livanjsko Polje).” 179-181. and more recently. Šibenik was granted the Gabella del Sal in 1525. 138: “Reformationes cum omnibus et singulis capitulis pro lege inviolabili proclamantur. 201. 42. Zadar u XV. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku. Dalmacija u XV stoljeću.” dated 13 April 1458. and the parties responsible for the observation of Venetian staple rights (rendering them useful for quantitative measurements). its origins and destinations. 29. Most rivers also run parallel to the coast. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi. See Raukar. Much older laws were confirmed. Žmegač. news. “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste. 78. 232-241. Raukar. Malz. Sanmicheli was sent to oversee the works in Corfu soon after arriving in Zadar and was replaced by his nephew Gian Girolamo. “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste. 33. the Morlachs (however. Puppi. 253-257. Attia. 28.” 48-51. Sanmicheli. As were the medieval castles of Split and Trogir. while the Svilaja Pass leads towards Bosnia (Cetin. “L’apport des archives de Zadar.” 98-110.” 131-132. Kolanović. “Jugoistočni potez Zadarskih zidina” [The Southeastern Stretch of the Town Walls in Zadar]. Export-derived taxation levied on goods declined over the fifteenth century. 20-25. but the goods destined for export were subject to ducal approval. see below). Malz. “Šibenik (contralittere). 27. Statuta Iadertina. 1570-1573). never again to reach medieval scales. Mocellin. and Schmitt. “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir”. The old fort of Šibenik. These so-called contralittere or bollette contain information about the cargo. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. 32. 632-634. 92. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi”. On recent excavations of Zadar’s city walls Jović. and merchants from these two cities started to establish trading posts from the fourteenth century onward (though merchants of neither city ventured outside the Adriatic). “Redefining Balkan Backwardness. situated on top of an adjacent hill overlooking the city proper.” 65-66. stoljeću.” 112.Zadar’s Society 95 26. both Split and Trogir enjoyed better connections to their respective hinterlands in the western Balkans. and trading goods from the Adriatic coast towards the hinterlands and vice versa. See also Lampe.” 112. only to be followed by a veritable slump of up to 75 % during the Ottoman-Venetian wars (15371540. Daniel Rodriga’s efforts put an end to these developments affected the trade flows. Žmegač. “Città fortificata di Zara. Over the ensuing decades. testifying to the decline of neighbouring cities. 34. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. discouraging long-distance trade. Raukar. individuals.” 82-90. . 31. The Krka leads towards Knin and Zagreb. Davis and Hemsoll. was connected with the sea via two additional walls. 30. Šunjić. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. “The Venetian Government and the Jews. Raukar. V: “De procuratoribus seu per quas personas maiores annis viginti possunt in placitis interesse. Schmitt. Schmitt. if not assigned for a specific period of time or task. I. conveniri seu ad placitum trahi possunt minores viginti annis. “L’apport des archives de Zadar.” 78-79. A procura describes the unilateral conferment of legal powers with or without explicit mandate as to the duties of the executing party. La ‘Scala’ di Spalato. 38. and Ravid. Rauker. I. I. 1548-1561. individuals. tit. A transcript is provided in the appendix. typically lasted until the death of one or both contracting parties or the stipulation of any new notarial act stating otherwise. 146-160. See also Kolanović. the so-called procurator. 40. Saint. tit. “Šibenik (contralittere). “Procurator.” 127-129. large-scale analysis of export licences over long periods of time constitutes a second problem.” 21. 7. “Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije” [Venice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia]. 44. Daniel Cavalca. See Novak. furiosi et mentecapti.” for the legal basis according to Zadar’s code of law. “The ‘City of Jews’. 1562-1564.” 84. the absence of comparative data for the period prior to 1409 (and the fact that export licences do not attract much scholarly attention) precludes more authoritative assessments. Paci. Cornelius Constantius.Guillain and Schmitt. the lack of consistent. 43.” 49. “Quaternus izvoza iz Splita” [On Exports of Split].” 217 (it must be noted that a clear-cut academic definition of such a “sphere of communication” exists neither in German nor in English).” 12-20. Also.” 61. As called for by Budak. 39. See also Schmitt.” which contains 11 chapters. Notwithstanding these issues—and the loss of large amounts of sources—one cannot highlight their importance enough for quantitatively analysing regional commerce in the Adriatic. These powers. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum.” 48-51. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.” 48-51. Lib. 1567-1569. The sources for the survey are: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797). Saint-Guillain and Schmitt speak of “spheres of communication” (Kommunikationsraum) defined as a geographical entity characterised by the exchange of ideas. II. 41. Raukar. Gabriel Cernotta. “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum. Calabi. Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke.” 83-84. Schmitt. 37. . “Reconsidering Venice. 36. I. Jungwirth. as demonstrated by Raukar.” 194. I. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. 1540-1551. and goods occurring in an order of magnitude distinctively larger if compared to adjacent (theoretical) entities. Franciscus Thomaseus.” 31-35. 1551-1566. “L’apport des archives de Zadar. 1567-1569. I. Despite the fact that the orientation towards Venice was rather unilateral. Arbel. II. “L’apport des archives de Zadar. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. and Schmitt. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi”. and Lib. Horatius de Marchettis. Trading Nations. Jütte. 45. Schmitt. 42. Schmitt.” 282-285. commerce directed towards areas outside Venice’s maritime state continued to exist. “Handel.” which contains 5 chapters. However. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. Especially given the fact that they document only the legal economic activity involved in maritime long-distance trade without references to local or regional commerce.96 Urban Elites of Zadar 35. 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius. Martin and Romano. IV: “Per quas personas agere. “Jadranski gospodarski sustavi.” 82-90 (quote on 82). Statuta Iadertina. see notes 38 and 39 (introduction). 1544-1548. in Schmitt’s words. and c. but what is available confirms this trend. and Patras). only be considered a “preliminary sketch. extending roughly from Zadar via Šibenik to Split. 54. Paulus de Sanctis. These two border demarcations (1573.” See Raukar. Horden and Purcell. 1540-1554.” 100. the term “sum” must be treated with care. See also Malz. Commercial networks are significant. became an Ottoman outpost. this cannot be supported solely by .” 124. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi.. Schmitt assumes the existence of two areas of denser. 1558-1567.” 61-62. Empirical evidence for such generalisations is inconsistent. 1540-1566. 51. I.” 194. Also. In all. Simon Mazzarellus. since this data is usually incomplete. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. Nicolaus Canali. 23 % within the borders. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. I. The Corrupting Sea.5. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. 1540-1569. As for Schmitt’s tentative assertion of the existence of a sub-network of increased communication extending from Zadar via Šibenik to Split. and Schmitt.” 29-31. I. Schmitt. 53. Especially given the fact that little is known about the mechanisms of communication and exchange between noblemen and commoners in medieval and early modern Dalmatia since most research centres on their social conflicts. regional communication in the Adriatic. 10 km from the city centre.” 65-69. For practical considerations the timespan under survey has been divided into three equal periods of time. Nicolaus Drasmileus. if divided by four the result is 77. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. Simon Budineus. E.7. Naupactus. The three-decade average is 310. Split’s trading destinations over the last quarter of the fifteenth century suggest that roughly half of all ships leaving its harbour steered towards Venice. 56. Raukar. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. 49. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. I. 46. 52. 16 %). 50. I. I. but the overall situation can. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [The Croatian Middle Ages]. I. today home to Zadar’s airport and only c. I. These numbers for the Kvarner Gulf are clear: the area attracted 62 procuratorial appointments (or c. “sample” is usually a more accurate description. 1545-1551.Zadar’s Society 97 Johannes a Morea. Petrus de Bassano. 223-225. 17 %) of all procuratorial appointments to places southeast of Šibenik (numbers based on Table 2.3). Attia. 1576). roughly the same amount (66 appointments or c. each covering a decade. 1556-1565. Zemunik. If the total number of female constituents (236) is divided by three the result is 78. as well as further south between Kotor and Durrës (in the Ionian Sea he proposes that another communication hub existed in the triangle between Corfu. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. 47. but more research is needed to put the economic connections and judicial exchange within Venice’s maritime state into a larger framework. 55. For instance. especially considering the fact that “communication” cannot be described by the sum of economic data alone. Definitions based on Malz. 930 individual notarial acts were analysed. 1555-1567.” 85. Mocellin. More recent research focusing on Trogir’s maritime trade during the late 1560s tentatively confirms this tendency.g. Budak. 24. “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir. About a quarter traded within the Adriatic but outside the borders of the Stato da mar. 1545-1569. I. 48. “Città fortificata di Zara. gave the Ottomans control over large parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction (as well as over large parts of Venetian Dalmatia).” 104-113. . I. tutoribus et commissariis.” The latter was to travel to Venice and collect the outstanding payments for the constituents’ late father’s service as oarsman “super Trireme supracomito Magnifico domino Manfredo Justiniano. for instance.p.78v. 1. 6 January 1556. II. 1. 4. 7 November 1557. I. 58. Catherina. Bartholomaeus was tasked to “ad nomine dicte domine constituentis et pro ea exigendum elleuandum et recuperandum a dicta Camera Cretae omnem et quantacumque pecuniarum summam et quantitatem eiudem domini constituenti debitam ratione dictae provisionis suo pro annis decursis […]. 2. 64. cap. 594. 1. 2. All legal documents in Zadar had to be copied into the stipulating notary’s books in case of legal procedures or loss of the original instrument. Friar Stephanus was already “modo commorandum in insula Vegle in monasterio Sanctae Mariae de Cauo”. 2. 30: “Quod fideicommissarius generalis vel specialis relictus per testatorem vel creatus per Curiam alicui minori annis potest agere et in placitis respondere. IV. Schmitt. 1.. 59. Johannes a Morea. I. Girls under the age of twelve and all boys under fourteen were required to have at least one legal guardian. 1. Simon Budineus.7r.” 85. 10 September 1557. this particular craft was considered important enough by Venice to restrict its performance to her expatriate citizens. Some cases involved procurators to be dispatched posthumously by the legal guardians of underage children to collect outstanding payments for military services rendered by the children’s respective father. 110: “De testamentis.” 17. tit. when the butcher approached the notary. 1. 150. Lib. 146-148.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. executors were required by law to transact on behalf of underage heirs.p. I. Petrus de Bassano. canonici Jadrensis. 60. If a notary left the city for . For the legal framework. cap.74v. 61. This happened. Infants were considered minors up to the age of seven. 8. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 62. 26: “Per quas personas infantes. 15 October 1557. when “Mattheus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.” Statuta Iadertina. Also. 57. f. The notarial act reads as follows: “ut dixit desserviens pro Galeotta super birremi per celeberrimum dominum Georgium Pisani dignissimi Capitum Birremium ut in licentia desuper facta. “Ragusans in Venice. Usually. testamentum tenet etiam si commissarius non esset subiectus iurisdictioni temporali civitatis Iadrae. Lib. Super Terreno benefitij venerabilij domini presbytri Grisogoni Cedulinj. Zadar’s statutes provided distinctions between a variety of age categories. tit. I. IV. Čoralić. Ref. et Hellena filij quondam Simonis Panoeuich quondam Matthei seu Mathuli de Insula Exo [Iž] districtus Jadre facientes nominibus suis proprijs et vice ac nomine Georgij et Michaelis fratrium suorum in minori aetate existentium” appointed “celeberrimum dominum Johannem Franciscum Salomono quondam celeberrimi domini Laurentii patritium venetum. cap. Simon Budineus. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. Cf.” Ibid. c.98 Urban Elites of Zadar the data he uses nor by procuratorial analysis discussed above. data in portu Jadra diei xxx Januarij 1556 […]. minores tamen viginti annis debeant se tueri et in iudiciis placitare. II. Daniel Cavalca.. c. sive confinio fabrorum. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” Statuta Iadertina. c. The necessity of guardianship expired once the adolescents of both sexes completed their twentieth year. ed est minores septem annis. Simon Budineus.83r. The house itself was located “in contrata.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. I. 28 October 1565.. 27: “Per quas personas masculus maior quattuordecim annis et femina maior duodecim annis. 28 May 1541. debeant se tueri et in iudiciis placitare”.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 63. 7. While the office of the judge itself was unpaid.. “Spectabilis dominus Georgius ab Aquila nobilis brachiensis” (of Brač) appointed “spectabilem ser Hieronymum de Laurentijs Civem Jadram” to take the case of the constituent’s agenda in the proceedings against “Hieronymum de Negroponte” who allegedly killed Georgius’s next-of-kin. I. 3 September 1565. 2. Usually. 3:52. labourers sought redress if landlords attempted to levy excess duties. 67. Hieronymus de Laurentijs (“Hierolimo di Lorenzi”) is also among those renowned citizens of Zadar named explicitly by Paulo Justiniani (Giustinian). I. The contract caused the feud between next-of-kin some 60 years later and lasted from spring into the autumn of 1561. representing himself and the other inhabitants of the village. former captain of Zadar 1550-1552 m.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 8 January 1565. as well as all other documentation pertaining to the case. Lib. XVII: “De fide instrumentorum et de tabellionum officio et satisfactione decenti. See HR DAZD 31 BZ. “quondam domini Stephani ab Aquila. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. The trial itself was to take place in Šibenik. f. in his report to the Venetian Senate in early 1553. The term “judex possobe” refers to the rural organisation in Zadar’s hinterland. f.62v. 642-644. 5. in some cases territorial privileges could be obtained and its holder was exempt from military service. 2. Consequently. At the root of this conflict was a marriage contract from the late fifteenth century. Simon Mazzarellus. 3. represented by “domino Hieronymo de Nimira alias Polimulcich nobilis arbensis. Commissiones. f. After 1409.” a doctor of canon and civil law. De examinatione notariorum. 14 November 1564. 2 April 1565. the inhabitants of Sv Filip i Jakov appointed “Excellens dominus Vincentius Merula.” Ibid. 68. 2. I. 670. exceptions were possible. Nicolaus Drasmileus. This issue was raised at the beginning of April either because the upcoming harvest would not allow for such large duties or because the landlord had increased the charges unilaterally. I.Zadar’s Society 99 periods exceeding two months. I.42v-f.” Prior to the procuratorial appointment.” Statuta Iadertina. II. Ref. Nicolaus Drasmileus. See also Ref.v. filled two entire books with these proceedings. f. books 3 and 4. Venice kept many of the existing medieval institutions of rural autonomy.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. In the mid-1560s. In late 1561a member of Zadar’s Tetrico family left a patch of land with a quantity of livestock on the island of Iž to his heirs. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum. In the event of the outbreak of plague or any other contagious disease. 2.27r. 206-218.43v. The claimant was the judge or governor of a village assembly (posoba) and its surrounding lands. After the outbreak of the Ottoman-Venetian . 3. The adversaries were the constituent’s in-laws. 65. 3. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 2.50v.62r-f. f. whose legal rights to dispose of this property was promptly challenged by one of his cousins of the related Grisogono family. 250 litres) as duties to be delivered “in die Sancti Jacobi de mense Julij” (29 July) could not be complied with.18r.” which contains 17 chapters. 66. Nicolaus Drasmileus. his instrument books had to be placed in the communal chancellery.. 4. I. 141: “Quod contractus confici possint tempore testis sine examinatoribus. “Slade Panoeuich […] judex possobe ville Sancti Philippi et Jacobi” (Sv Filip i Jakov). Nicolaus Drasmileus. 1 July 1566. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia. The proceedings include transcripts of the adversaries’ lawyers and copies of the relevant clauses from the statutes. Simon Mazzarellus. stated that the rental contract stipulating 12 kvart of corn (1 kvart = ca. the Captain-general had apprehended the suspect in Split. to act on their behalf and “deffendere omnes causas dicti […] communis. One of the city’s notaries. tit. ” Statuta Iadertina. leaving four people dead and seven injured. quas dictus quondam dominus Theodosius eius frater vocatus Joannes Croatus ut supra debebat. I. and Tallett.” at least 40 years old.” 329-331. War and Society in Early Modern Europe. 70. 2. et quantitates denariorum tantum. 644-646. percipiendum et recuperandum omnes. based on skirmishes. I. 12 June 1562. 73. these judges were required to be “uno di piu vecchi della ditta villa. 60. et quascumque Sumas. liga referred to a number of village assemblies. 13-14. 1. 21. Posoba meant one village assembly.19r. Whose nom de guerre was “ut dixit nuncupatim Joannes Croatus” while serving with the Hungarian army. a marciliana “carica di olij con Turchi 7” was shipwrecked “nel porto di Sancta Mariae de Melada [Molat] Isola della Giurisdittione di questa città” (Zadar). Nobiles Jadre” appealed a decision concerning the inheritance of movable and immovable goods “ad favorum dominarum Marchette. 2. 142: “Provisio contra bannitos a Iadra. 75-101.124r. et nunc ipse dominus Constituens uti eius frater. 164-183. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Lost territories and increased insecurity in the hinterlands compounded the existing problems caused by Ottoman pressure on the coastal communities. 6 July 1542. I. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. 1 January 1540. Ref.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I.” the substantive typically reserved for the Eternal City. 69. c. 81-84. “Stato da mar.100 Urban Elites of Zadar war in 1537. . Darius et Baldus filij quondam domini Joannis de Pechiaro. privreda i politika. Darij et Baldi” to represent them in the appeal filed “per Excellentem Consilium xxxxta” in Venice. Ref. the term “alma” is attributed to only two cities: Rome and Venice.p. Four of the ship’s sailors appointed two of their fellow seamen to represent them all in a Venetian court of law. See also Mayhew. 626-632. Venice was described as either “civitas” (in the sense of a selfgoverning.. 71. HR DAZD 31 BZ. On the Uskoks of Senj as an exemplary frontier society. I. The account is based upon HR DAZD 31 BZ. 664-666.p. 1. and could be obliged to undertake unpaid public works. In May or June 1562.18r-f. c. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Additional semantic differentiation was bestowed by the words used for the cities themselves. 49. et heres habere debet a quibuscumque personis tam publicis tamquam privatis […]. See also Stanojević.14r. Slava. 9. see Knapton.13r-c. 3. 15 October 1556. Pederin. 75.. however. 74. 1. who puts these Dalmatian aspects in the context of the Stato da mar as a whole. Simon Mazzarellus. Baptista was appointed “specialiter et expresse ad nominem ipsius domini Constituentis exigendum. free city-state) or as “urbs. 137: “Forma privilegiorum ligarum comitatus Iadrae”. et Gasparine de Pechiaris. In the protocols of Zadar’s notaries. I. which were granted special privileges by Francesco Foscari in 1455. Petrus de Bassano. 1. I. and O’Connell. 8 January 1556. Mletačka uprava. 2 February 1558. raids and similar guerrilla actions […] creating specific frontiers [sic] societies in the hinterland of the Dalmatian coastal towns. Men of Empire..13r-c. See Ref. 7. Johannes a Morea.14r. f. c.” The brothers appointed “dominum Camillum de Pechiaro fratrem ipsorum dominorum Francisci. f. 153: “De aetate iudicum villarum.” Mayhew. Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačkoturskim ratovima. s. 1. As was the case when “dominus Franciscus. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Johannes a Morea. 8 January 1556. 4. 72. This forced the inhabitants of the rural parts of Venice’s Dalmatian possessions to adapt to the “Ottoman way of small war. 1. nec non dominu Franciscus de Pechiaro quondam Francisci. Simon Budineus.95r. Contado di Zara. as the following example shows. Not always. typical for the frontier areas. territorio et insulis”. Raukar et al. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Contado di Zara. 6 January 1556.83r. cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre” appointed “dominum Franciscum de Ventura” to acquire the outstanding 50 ducats “in auxilium dotis Magdalenae. c. I.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. HR DAZD 31 BZ. count of Zadar 1564-1566.34v.. about a decade later. This was more or less verbatim repeated by Giovanni Battista Giustiniano. and wrote that most ablebodied inhabitants of the Terraferma carry weapons all the time “ma la maggior parte sono banditi. 2. 2:359-487. 8.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 4 June 1558. “dona Marietta uxor magistri Simoni Butarij de Sibenico habitators venetijs in confinio Sancti Boldi. f.g. Giacomo Pisani. “magister Andreas Nunchouich peliparius [master-furrier] quondam magistri Simonis” appointed “dominum Marcum Aurelium Sonzonium. Lane and Mueller. wrote that “[i]l territorio è bellissimo e grasso. cum magistro Francisco fratre suo.g.” Ibid. ut dixit commorandum” with the administration of his inherited property. I. 1. I. 84. ac quas ipsa constituens habet. 82.. E. In spring of 1540. 4 June 1558. Simon Budineus. Lane. count of Zadar from 1540-1543. alquanto ristretto per la perdita di Laurana [Vrana] e Nadin […] non si habitava in alcun luogho in terra ferma” and called for additional troops and funding to defend the immediate surroundings of the city proper. syndic in 1553. ac habiturus est. 3. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 3:165-166. 1.” 79. 324-326. Venice. “magister Nicolaus Radotich Tinctor [master-dyer] civis et habitator Jadre” appointed “ser Phyllippum Pinezich Mercatorem habitatorem Sibinici” to sort out the con- . 1. 80. probably in or near the city of Bergamo. E.Zadar’s Society 101 76. mentioned negotiations with and “presents” for the neighbouring Ottoman officials across the border.3v-f. Money and Banking in Medieval and Renaissance Venice. 81. “Funded Debt of the Venetian Republic”. “ad agendum […] spetialiter in causa. causidicum. tasked her husband. 1. In one instance. Simon Budineus.127r.16v.” Commissiones. Lane. 1.94r. c.127r. 1. In autumn of 1541. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 23 May 1540.. I. c. Marc’Antonio da Mula. 78. 195. f. who lamented the dilapidated state of the fortifications: “le munizioni […] sono mal all’ordine” and the biscuits “non sono tenuti. a master-cooper. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 4. “magister Joannes Baptista filius magistri Stephani de Venzono. to be his procurator generalis. 3. I. On Venice’s public debt Cessi. Petrus de Bassano.4r.” then a resident of Chioggia.” The financial assistance for Johannes’ wife was to be obtained “ab heredibus quondam domini Laurentij de Puteo olim civis et mercatoris Venetiarum” or any other person responsible for the payment in accordance with the deceased’s testament. 172-248. E. Simon Budineus.. ac causis quam.” an attorney and one of Zadar’s notaries. Commissiones. “magister Simon Grubissich calafatus [master-caulker] quondam Antonij de Jadra. 30 January 1558. Petrus de Bassano. 83. f. and Mueller “‘Quando i Banchi no’ ha’ fede. “magister Joannes Galeacij Marangonus [master-oarsmaker] de Venetijs habitator Jadre. la terra no’ ha credito’. f. Petrus de Bassano. Politica ed Economia di Venezia. “ser Bastianus filius quondam magistri Alberti de Persicis sutoris [master-cobbler] de Bergomo” tasked “ser Joannem Andream Pensuum absentem tamquam praesentem modo Venetijs.g. Johannes a Morea. 77. I. appointed a fellow artisan “in personam magistri Martini sutoris” (master-cobbler) to sell the former’s house in Zadar’s St John parish. come si doveriano governare. I. 7. ac filia quondam ut asservit magistri Cora Michaelis chalder” (master-brazier. “ad […] recuperandum nomine ipsius constituentis ducatos vigintinonem […] In Alma Civitate venetiarum ad montem Novum. 19 September 1541. 1. 28 May 1541. 8. coppersmith). 2:172.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. In early 1558. I. Daniel Cavalca. Originally from Bologna. s. 87. “spectabilem dominum Joannem Balci de Lesina. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. 1. Among the more prominent individuals as gathered from his appearance in the sources was “ser Philipus Uertcovich civis mercator et habitator Jadre. c. 13 March 1562. 23 May 1558. Daniel Cavalca. “dominus Jacobus de Nobilibus alias Malzapello Parmensis Aromatarius Jadre. 2. 4. Commissiones.25r. 6. C. “ser Joannes Antonius de Venetiis aromatarius [spice trader] Jadre” appointed “ser Franciscum Petrouich civem. as could be expected. c. The appointee.” a fellow citizen of Zadar. I. The Balci family was also mentioned by Venetian legate Giovanni Battista Giustiniano. As for the trade routes and connections to the hinterlands dominated by the Ottomans.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 86.8r. f. 16 February 1565. 90. c. 25 February 1569.329v. I. A couple of years later.” was.198v. “quondam domini Joannis Francisci Roverbella alias de Zacharia fratris dicti quondam domini Julij. cross-border commerce and communication were not prevented by the voyage from Šibenik to Zadar to send someone further inland. 1. 92. 1. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Nicolaus Drasmileus.” Obviously. Daniel Cavalca.102 Urban Elites of Zadar stituent’s troubles “cum ser Joanne Zdrigne habitatore Tragurij” (Trogir) caused by a cosigning/guarantee (fideiussio) “pro incanto Tintoria Tragurij. C. I. c. 31 August 1559. 2:221. to collect outstanding payments “a Dominico filio Hieronymi de Veia [Krk] ad praesens habitatorem Spalati sive Almissa” (Omiš) according to a promissory note (chyrographum) written on 2 October 1557.30v. 1. I. 1. E. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 6. In August 1559.11v.29v..35r. insecurity. 3. 2.. In early 1569. et habitatorem Jadre” to become the former’s general procurator. “dominus Alexander de Roverbellis alias Zacarie quondam domini Julij de Bononia mercator civis et habitator Jadra” first appears in the sources in the late 1550s. 10 October 1567. 5 November 1559.p. c.g.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.p. I. 15 June 1560. 85. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. 91. 12 September 1561. 1. c. Daniel Cavalca. he appointed “dominum Jacobum et Franciscum fratres suos filios dicti quondam domini Julij” to collect the sum of “librarum 400 moneta bononiensis” from the heirs or executors of his recently deceased uncle. Cornelius Constantius. Simon Budineus. 1. there are hints too: “dominus Petrus de Capellis de Sibenico quondam ser Laurentij Civis et mercator Sibenici” travelled to Zadar to appoint “Nobilem Jadrensis dominum Marcum de Cedulinis quondam spectabili domini Doymi” to collect the promised “uborchi quadraginta tres frumento […] ad scalam Obrovatij [Obrovac] a Georgio alias Amadario Obrovatij.7v-c. I. 89. borders. Simon Budineus.” appointed “dominum Jacobum de Paycis quondam domini Baptistae de Chrema” (Crema) to take care of all of the constituent’s agendas. HR DAZD 31 BZ. c. or the incessant skirmishes between Ottoman and Venetian subjects along the frontiers. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. “magister Jacobus quondam Andreae Paulouich de Corcira nigra alias Curcula carpentarius [master-wainwright] ad praesens habitator Jadra” first revoked all prior procuratorial appointments and subsequently tasked “magistrum Franciscusm Boninum Carpentarium de dicto loco” with all of his dealings. 8 July 1541. 2. “Merchants of the Adriatic” (forthcoming). . Horatius de Marchettis. 3. 88. 3. I. “ser Benedictus Blanco mercator Jadra” appointed “ser Laurentium Zappich. I. not only an inhabitant but also a member of Hvar’s nobility. 6. Another merchant. In more detail Sander-Faes.” who needed legal representation in his feud “cum Rabunno Scriuanich et Nicolao eius filio de Jelsa” (Hvar). HR DAZD 31 BZ.29r-c. I.  HR DAZD 31 BZ.16v. 3. a treatise on fever pathology entitled De modo collegiandi. 1. 310-111. “Etnički odnosi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru” [Ethnic Relations in Medieval Zadar]. . 3. Catherina. 97. Even though Raukar et al. I.” Statuta Iadertina.44v. 1.” 29-40. I. Johannes a Morea.” 21. 103. Helena appointed “dominum Joannem Antonium de Pontremulo mercatorem Jadra. Mocellin.16r-f. was a Zadar-born academic..” a spice trader originally from Ravenna. was first published in Venice in 1528.” 743-749.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. In a number of notarial acts from 15581-559. Simon Budineus. 94.” appointed “ser Thomasium de Albis habitatorem Jadra” to represent her in her role as Lazarus’s heir “cum omnbius et quibuscumque debitoribus” in Bari. mathematics. Simon Budineus.24v. “Città fortificata di Zara. 5. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I.18v. Dadić. Simon Mazzarellus. Petrus de Bassano. Martin and Romano. pronosticandi. 1472-1538). 19 January 1540. Daniel Cavalca. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia. medical doctor. HR DAZD 31 BZ. and a professor at the prestigious University of Padua. married to “domini Francesci Sasseto. Federicus’ social status was very high in comparison to his fellow noblemen. f. Girardi-Karšulin. and musicology. working in fields as diverse as astrology. 1. 17 April 1558. and their two daughters. c. 2 October 1564. appear Lazarus’ wife.. 1.” 290. 98. Budak. Budak. had intentions more closely related to those of her mother: she was married to “domini Ludovici de Michulis aromatarij. list these two families separately. 96. Raukar et al. 3 October 1555.6v. 670.p. Helena. the communal judge examiner’s signature was required.7v. See also Jakić-Čestarić. I. 1. c. nec non de humana felicitate ac denique de fluxu maris lucubrationes. on the other hand. HR DAZD 31 BZ. De examinatione notariorum. For the ratification. the sources are quite clear about their ties. f. 15 October 1558. Dionora. On his comparatively impressive wealth. 1. “Federicus Chrysogonus. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 95.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 6. 3. “Venice Reconsidered. et curandi febres. 1. Simon Mazzarellus. Catherina and Dionora. “Natural Sciences. c. Cf. to deal with all issues pertaining to the restitution of her dowry of 700 ducats. 259-261. Johannes a Morea. alias de Bartholatijs (Federik Grisogono. “Ser Radum de Ricinio […] ex cause tribus petias carise. I. 101. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. f. 25 August 1555. 7. 7.” 188. and appointed “dominum Joanned Baptistam de Michulis de Ravena” to resolve “[ad] omnes et Singulas lites et causas quas haberunt habitura est causa et occasione dotis sua. 15 September 1558. I. Raukar et al. One of his writings.Zadar’s Society 103 93. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 102. s. I. 1. 9 May 1546. HR DAZD 31 BZ.18r-f. For instance.. Daniel Cavalca. f.” probably a relative or business associate of her late husband. The interests of the daughters were related to Lazarus’s death—but in different ways. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom.148v.24r-c. an impression reinforced by the fact that his name is mentioned in virtually all relevant documents pertaining to the de Bartholatijs branch of the Grisogono clan. I. “Urban élites in Dalmatia.” 188. 10 November 1556. 100. 99. 1. Federicus Grisogonus. cosmography. 10. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum.7r-c. Ref. in the mid-1550s “ser Andreas Postner de Gliubgliana Civis ac habitator Jadra” dispatched “Prudentem Juvenem dominum Hieronymum Bassanum Jadrensis modo Venetijs commorandum” to ratify the arbitration settlement reached with his business partner.90v. I. c. for the price of 160 libras. It was in the same autumn of 1556 when “ser Andreas Postner de Gliubgliana Civis ac habitator Jadra” appointed Hieronymus. 19 September 1541. I. at one point in time. Petrus de Bassano. they jointly appointed “ser Jacobum de Leonardis Civem et habitatorem Tragurij” to represent them in all causes in their hometown.p.7v.. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 19 July 1540.16v. 8. 111. Nicolaus Canali. E. f. I. 1. I. referred to throughout the sources as a knight (eques) and doctor of canon and civil law (leges utriusque doctor). I. c. s. 23 October 1541. c. 16 November 1556. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I..p. Simon Budineus.” to resolve Andreas’s legal feud with “ser Radum de Ricinis” in front of the relevant tribunals of Venice.” The notary’s quarrel with the archbishop revolved around a named but unexplained decision issued “in excellentissimo consilio Rogatoruam diej xxv. Population numbers by Raukar et al. 115. and his fellow nobleman Bernardinus Carnarutus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 14 May 1569.7r-c. .13r. 2 January 1541. E. 9. 3 August 1541 (two individual notarial instruments). I. 109. commanded respect in excess of their privileged descent.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. et singulos fructus redditus.152v. At one point. 108. 106.9r. 1. 28 March 1543. 1. in which educated individuals of nonnoble descent were appointed. et proventus possessionum. 113. This must be considered in conjunction with a rental contract on the same folio in which Jacobus rented “omnes. 114. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. in summer of 1557 “Petrus Antonius de Ferra nobilis Jadre” needed an attorney “in causa criminali assiste in putationis mortis quondam dominae Philipe eius uxoris contra ipsum constituents. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 22 July 1557. f. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. I.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. et terrenorum ipsius Locatoris [Johannes stipulated in his and Simon’s name but technically alone] positorum In comitatu Tragurij. In 57 instances (or 62%). 14 November 1556. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 1. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 110. 1. 261-262. 4. Nicolaus Canali. Junij 1557.p. c. Petrus..g. 4.. 2:208. famous because of his military and literary achievements.. Both Johannes and his son Simon were communal chancellors in Zadar and. “Petrus Bassanus civis et Notarius Jadra” appointed “Hieronimum Bassanum eius fratrem modo Venetiae comorandum” to represent him “ad offitium Advocariam Inclitam Urbis Venetiarum contra et adversus Reverendum dominum Albertum Duymum. D.. 1.p. 116. I. Both Johannes de Rosa. 1. Augustinus Martius.” His choice fell onto “dominum Hieronymum de Bassano” whom he tasked to travel to Venice and to argue on the constituent’s behalf “coram celeberrimis dominis advocatoribus comunis. Horatius de Marchettis.152r-f. C. See also Chapter 5. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. 1. s. 107.. Johannes a Morea. Simon Budineus. the above-mentioned educated noblemen were appointed. Commissiones. In autumn of 1541 “domina Samaritana uxor quondam domini Marci Antonij de Bassiano olim Causidici Jadre” sold four morgen (c. in contrast to the 35 instances (or 38%). I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 112. B. 105. s. B. In summer of 1540 “magister Georgius Ripich Cerdo [master-cobbler] arbensis [of Rab] ad praesens habitator Jadre uti maritus et Coniuncta persona dona Marie eius uxoris” needed undefined legal representation and appointed “ser Franciscus Petrouich Causidicum”.104 Urban Elites of Zadar 104.480 m2) of land (a vineyard near present-day Zerodo) to her son.p. as above “modo Venetijs commorandum. The Mazzarelli were one of Trogir’s noble families in Giovanni Battista Giustiniano’s itinerary. I. Nicolaus Drasmileus. E. 127. 2:197. E. he appointed his brother. 1. Concordij. 19 December 1542. Simon Mazzarellus.p. Johannes re-appointed his brother Hieronymus to finally get hold of “omnes pecunias salarij sui Tam Temporis elapsi tamquam futuri. s. 1. 21 June 1542. 2. apparently not to the liking of Catherina. HR DAZD 31 BZ.p.p. I. ac quaque earum Laudandum. Paid out “in pecunia numerata” and movable and immovable goods. 1.. I.” to obtain all outstanding payments “a Camera fiscali Cathari... 121. 2 September 1551. See also Chapter 5.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. I.p. nauta. Evidently. f. I. not only inherited their deceased brother’s possessions.p. Obviously. 25 September 1559. Nicolaus Canali. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 126. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. s. et . s.. E. Paulus de Sanctis. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. Nicolaus Drasmileus.26r. He was tasked “expresse ad exigendum. I. Ibid. 1. 25 July 1557. Returning to his hometown of Zadar in late 1541 or early 1542. Inter eumdam dominum Julium Trivisanum.. Nicolaus Drasmileus. f. and Pechiaro families as disposing of between 100 and 300 ducats of annual income. 28 January 1560. c. In his itinerary from 1553 Giovanni Battista Giustiniano listed the Begna.49v. I. 120. Simon Mazzarellus. to divide the inheritance. 10 February 1543. Catherina was not too lucky to reacquire her dowry because a couple of years later she appointed a procurator of her own. 1. Nicolaus Drasmileus. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 129. I. 130. The procurator was sent “ad comparendum coram eccelentissimo consilio de Triginta” in the still-pending proceedings between the late Darius and “ser Georgium de Jadra. “dominum Bernardinum de Begna. HR DAZD 31 BZ. but also his legal feud. 12 November 1542. This is evidenced by the fact that in early1543. 1. et ratificandum quoddam Instrumentum compositionis. percipiendum et recuperandum a domina Slaua ipsius dominae constituentis et dicti quondam domini Joannis filia. on the other hand.. Commissiones. 2. “discretum Juvenem dominum Hieronymum de Soppe […] se transferendum ad Civitatem Cathari. 119. I. 1. 2. f.. Budak. et dominum Vivianum Barlendi mercatorem venetum […] ex una ac dominum Dominicum de Gamberarijs. s.Zadar’s Society 105 117.” 188. 1. In early 1565 Paulina and Elisabeth appointed Julius Trevisan “ad nominem ipsarum Constituentium. 2. Consequently. Zadar’s communal chancellor. nunc uxore domini Gregorij de Calcina herede dicti quondam patris sui […] omnia et quecumque dona eidem dominae Catherinae constituenti factam Tempore nuptiarum quando nupsit dicto quondam domini Joanni. the office of Kotor’s communal chancellor is named as one of the past assignments for which Johannes had not been paid for until then.5v-c.6r. “[c]ircumspectus dominus Joannes de Soppe quondam spectabili domini Simonis nobilis Jadre Cancellarius magnifici communitatis Cathari” had not been paid for his public service in Kotor. 128.” The two heirs. ut dixerunt. 122. had already commissioned Johannes Mazzarellus. Simon Mazzarellus. 4. 2 November 1559. s. Camillus and Franciscus. 1. 6.p. 124.” Specifically.31r-31v. 25 April 1564. 123.” her third husband’s brother.25v-f. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Michael. I. 118. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. et transactionis factum. E. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 6. Venice’s bad payment practices affected not just soldiers. Nassis.p. Confirmandum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 24 September 1565. approbandum. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 125. et pro eis. ” 975. promittens dicta dona Maria Se esse creditricem dicti officij de eius provisione. 138. Simon Mazzarellus. Arbel.p. 131. 137-152. 139. 12. “Colonie d’oltremare. “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe. Here the term refers to the practice of conceding or renting property (which was also transmissible to third parties) for a fixed annual sum of money or payment in kind..” 113-138. 136. I. The latter could keep all income gained from the rented property minus the agreed-upon rental fees and the Church’s tithes.” worth 32 ducats. et quacumque denaria.31v. s. Pederin. 135.” 132. The landlord transferred his or her rights to the income of the property to the renting party (or the renting party to the third party). See also Chapter 4. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 4. Initially. suggesting that he was either on his way to Rome or still in its vicinity. traditionally. I. Venice had still not paid the constituent sixteen years later. History of Cyprus.” writes Budak. res. 3:873. I. The terminology used is “Mutium Calino ellectum archiepiscopum Jadre dignissimum. f. that the Church and its various activities have received much scholarly attention over the past decades. percipiendum. The oldest and.” 143. Lane. 1. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. this policy was extended to the large island kingdom. Ibid. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 30 October 1540. et bona ipsius domini Constituentis a quacumque persona quavis de Causa sibj dare debente.128v.. largest community was the Benedictines. After the annexation of Cyprus. ac praecipue a domino Jacobo de Aurani Corcirensis. et recuperandum. 3. petendum et omnia ac singula Jura sua procurandum etiam si Talia forent quo mandatum exigerent magis spetiale. “Psychology of the Venetian Merchant. in turn. Nicolaus Drasmileus. I..488r-f. E. “Dominio del mare.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.p. Simon Budineus..106 Urban Elites of Zadar filios mercatores venetos ex alia. Chorcire omnia. 64. f. et intrandam possessionem specialem. Having paid back the money by mid-July of 1566. 143. the instrument cites the ducal letters accepting Maria’s late husband into Venetian military service (dated 21 January 1541). It has only been “exceptionally. Tucci. 6 May 1567. established in Zadar in the early Middle Ages. et ab heredibus. 133. Marcus Loredan was tasked “ad capiendum. s. 12 February 1565. Hill. officij. 3 November 1556. 1. Venice.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Contado di Zara.g. f. Mayhew. Andrea Zane was appointed by Maria and sent to Venice “ad comparendum coram quibuscumque cleberrimis dominis Judicibus. C. 2. This consisted of the monastery of St Chrysogonus and the noble nunnery . et Magistratibus civitatis Venetiarum et ad pedes Serenissimi Principis ad agendum. 134. when “dona Maria uxor quondam Luca Luchissa de Neapoli Romania” (Nafplio) recounted her previous encounters with him “in civitate Antibari sibi mutuo datos fuisse a magnifico domino Andrea Zane quondam magnifici Joannis Aloysij Tunc Temporis questore in dicta civitate.488v. When. et temporalem dicta Abbatia et propterea praesentandum celeberrimo domino Rectori Jadra cui diriguntur litteras Ducales super eodem possessum […]” most likely because the mentioned property was located within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Johannes a Morea. 5 February 1565. See Doumerc. and Raukar et al. sive bonatenentibus quondam ser Damiani Androminda de Neapolj. 1. 137. In autumn of 1540.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. Johannes Ulani tasked his procurator “pro eo exigendum.” who was absent at the time of the instrument’s stipulation.. 6. 2. 9. c. Augustinus Martius. The convent was St Demetrius OP—and already employed a procurator (Bernardino Galelli) of noble descent. Simon Budineus.. 145. I. 4.369r-c.” “dominum Doymum Cedulinum Nobilem Jadre.” and “dominum Paladinum Ciuallellum. Budak. Johannes a Morea. I. 147. Petrus.. DAZd. sor Vigilanta Grisogona. 6.” “dominum Donatum Crissana Nobilem Jadra. 143. Jointly. sor Dominica Soppe. 142.” And while the Franciscans were not the only order to also appoint commoners.” In order of their listing HR DAZD 31 BZ. stating that Franciscus was appointed “loco quondam domini Simonis Britanici dum vixit eorum procuratoris. 15 April 1563. 1. sor Cicilia Ciualella. 21 July 1543. Simon Budineus. October 1540. sor Gabriella Rosa. “domino Marco Antonio de Bassano.p. B. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 20 July 1540. This requires further consideration. Simon Budineus. in Zadar’s case. 14 of the 17-20 noble families of Zadar had one or more members present in the convent. 5 January 1559. was a notary public. sor Jacomella Galella. 1. “ad defferendum. The notarial act continues. 6. His brother. Grubb. I.” who was chosen to replace “dominus Aloysius Tetricus. sor Francischina Chernaruta [Carnaruta]. I.” As can been seen.. “domino Michaelj de Bassiano quondam spectabili domini Marci Antonii Causidici et aromatario” (spice trader). 1. Simon Budineus.9v. B. c. sor Dionora Chernaruta. I.” 349. Simon Mazzarellus. 1.162v. Daniel Cavalca. f.136v.415v. More study is needed to assess this issue conclusively with regard to Venice’s maritime state. c. 1. s. c.” himself of noble blood. 141. both abbot and abbess of the Benedictine communities continued to command considerable influence in Zadar. sor Marchetta Gallella.136r-f. “Elite Citizens. 146.p. sor Catherina Grisogona. 3. 23. sor Paula Soppe. dantes et concedentes eidem domino Donato” all required powers to represent the convent. sor Cherubina Nassi. Petrus de Bassano. sor Perina Fumata. sor Pacifica Soppe. 1. I. Not counting the Third Order Regulars (Tertius Ordo Sancti Francisci). Marcus Antonius’s third son. This tentative statement is restricted to the Latin terminology only (which. I. sor Archangela Ferra.” was also an attorney living in Zadar. As an instrument from early January 1559 details.Zadar’s Society 107 of St Mary. HR DAZD .24r-f. 14 January 1557. and open to both sexes. 1. Their father. 1.” “excellentem leges utriusque doctorem dominum Franciscum Fumatum nobilem Jadrensis. sor Jacoba Cedulina. 2C. 15 April 1563. 144. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. HR DAZD 31 BZ. The other monastic communities bestowed procuratorial duties upon the following five noblemen: “spectabilem dominum Johannem de Begna nobilem Jadrensis. Nicolaus Drasmileus.” 188. 16 January 1562.162v. I. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. And while the fourteenth century witnessed a decline of their influence when compared with the contemporaneous ascent of the Dominicans and Franciscans. I. 30 June 1560. c. 1. the number of noble appointees easily eclipsed the corresponding appointments of individuals of non-noble descent. 9. s. however. 140. f. HR DAZD 31 BZ. sor Flavia Pechiaro.24v. sor Lucretia Grisogona. sor Hieronyma Grisogona. I. sor Daria Begna. amounted to about 95% of all notarial acts stipulated between 1540 and 1569). they bestowed procuratorial powers upon “dominum Donatum Crissanam Nobilem Jadram.p. 5 January 1559. sor Justina Rosa. organised in the community of St Francis (sv Frane). sor Maria Galelli. was also referred to as lord.369v. 3. s. the nuns of the convent of St Mary OSB were led by “domina Antonella Gallella honoranda abbatissa” and listed “sor Magdalena Tetrica. f. 28 December 1565.” appoint “dominum Petrum Ferra nobilem Jadre” to collect the sum of 50 ducats. A few years earlier. 2 November 1563. The former was specifically noted by former captain of Zadar. On cloistered lives in Renaissance Venice. pecunias. the Benedictines of Zadar appointed “Reverendum dominum Patrem Georgium de Pulchris spalatensis” and tasked him to retrieve “ab hereditate seu bonatenentibus […] quodcumque et quecumque legatum Seu legata per dictum quondam Reverendum dominum episcopum factum et facta […] et pro premmissi. 20 August 1567. as one of the most important commoners. again involving the Poor Clares. et quaecumque bona tam mobilia tamquam stabilia.” 149. 6.2r. For instance. The reason may be that both men commanded significant authority. 6 February 1555. ac alibi ubi opus esset agendum.18r. et a quibusvis personis” had bequeathed to them. “Reverenda domina sor Maria Grisogono. recently deceased in Split. Hierolimo de Lorenzi et altri simili. On fourteenth-century noblewomen from Zadar and their testamentary practices. c. quatenus opus esset comparendum Coram Magnifico et celeberrimo domino potestate Tragurij et Spalati. Virgins of Venice. et quascumque res […] quondam domini Simonis Fanfonei ubique locorum.108 Urban Elites of Zadar 31 BZ.480r-c. Zuan Rimondin. et scripturas. the instrument referred to the necessity of traveling to the lagoon metropolis twice and that the procurator should carry out all required duties “In Alma Civitate Venetiarum tam ubicumque locorum.p. 150.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. . saw their abbess. “egregius vir dominus Simeon Britanicus civis et Interpres publicus Jadrae. Simon Budineus. for otherwise his daughter “Cicilia filia quondam domini Simonis Britanici et relicta quondam domini Joannis Venerij civis Jadrae” would not have been married to a member of the local branch of the Venier family. 1. together with “Simon Bertonichio.28v. The latter. Grbavac.” who had recently died in Venice.. which “Reverendo meser Nicolo Difnico” had bequeathed to the convent. I. c. in his report to the Senate. Consequently. I. 4. 17 March 1541. in summer of 1559 “Reverendus Pater dominus Bernardus de Jadra Prior Monasterij Sancti Chrisogoni Monachorum ordinis Sancti Benedicti Agens nomine dicti totius conventus” needed a representative because the monastery had been named the heir of “quondam Reverendi domini domini Chrystophori de Balistris episcopi traguriensis” (Trogir). 10.1r-c. il capitanio Peregrin de Marco.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. s. Both Franciscus and Simon were apparently worthy to represent the Franciscans despite their non-noble provenance. 1. s. 3:52. Simon Mazzarellus.. I. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen. Nicolaus Canali. 3. 148. This was because the late Simon named the Poor Clares of Zadar his heir “pro tertia parte ut constat eius testamento manu sua propria scripto. Nicolaus Drasmileus. c. I. Daniel Cavalca. dated 13 February 1553 m.27v-c. the noble Franciscan nunnery of St Nicholas OSC. 151.” Commissiones.” appointed “spectabilem dominum Franciscum Fanfoneum […] Nobilem Jadrensis” to retrieve “omnia. I. 30 December 1555.” For a sixteenth-century comparison Sander. I. Laven. C. (1554). 1. Simon Budineus. Another incident. Nicolaus Drasmileus.480v. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Francesco de Ventura. 1. and Sperling. “Adelige Vermächtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie. 1. Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice. Pauli Justiniani. 25 July 1559.” was obviously a very important individual too. c.194v. 1. The latter was originally from Šibenik and “Sacre theologie professorem ministrum fratrium minorum ordinis Sancti Francisci. 4.p. 1. Consequently. 2. represented by “Reverenda domina Cassandra de Nassis Benemerita Abbatissa.v. Petrus de Bassano was referred to in both ways (lord and sir) even in the same document. I.128r.14r. 3 November 1556. Petrus de Bassano. I. 1. although some—the most important—commoners were addressed in the same fashion. For the male counterparts. 104-113. 6. Which is consistent with the assertion of Zadar’s decline and Šibenik’s ascent over the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century. 16 November 1556.41r. f. et Vicarium Pagensis” (Pag) to represent him and “pro eo appellationem […] a quadam asserta sententa condemnatoria contra ipsum […] lata per Magnificum dominum Procomitem Pagi.” as in the example of “Reverendus dominus Mathaeus de Marchettis Canonicus Jadrensis. Nicolaus Canali. however. E. Canons too were occasionally addressed as “Lord. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt.370 m2) with grapes to “Gregorio Litarich” for the sum of 62 libras.1r-f.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 9. ac prebende ecclesie cathedralis Anconitanensis. In the mid-1560s.g. 153. 163. Johannes a Morea. 156. Simon Budineus. 23 September 1544.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. He bought a third of a morgen (c. 1. Petrus de Bassano. Ibid. “viri nobilium Jadrensis Reverendus Franciscus Archipresbyter et domini Hieronymi fratres de Grisogonis” appointed “Magnificum dominum Petrum sopracomitum Triremis Jadertine.3v. I.390v. In the sources upon which the present study is based. 17 August 1542. f.” 103. 8. 30 October 1559. ac Anconitanensis” (Ancona). f.20r-f.” 349. I. 164. Simon Mazzarellus. For the female references HR DAZD 31 BZ. 3 November 1556. 6. Johannes a Morea. c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 154. 158. I. I. In 1564 “excellens artium et medicinae doctor Cesar de Sanctis” appointed “Reverendum dominum Antonium Garbinum Canonicu. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Grubb. 1. 21 February 1542. “Elite Citizens. 1. Simon Budineus. I. f. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ.464v. Not all men of the cloth were addressed with the title Lord. 1. For instance. et dominum Franciscus de Marchettis Nepotem Suum ex fratre praedicto” to travel across the Adriatic and to take corporal possession of the constituent’s “canonicatus. I.128v. I. 160. c. These honorifics are found in any of the contracts involving a Venetian patrician. on the other hand. 1. Simon Budineus. There appears to have existed a certain arbitrariness behind these labels. et Nicolaus Liuacich Eius Nepos ex fratre” sold one morgen (c. f. 8 May 1565. 157. c. 4. 1. In the case of an archbishop the appropriate epithet was “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum […] archiepiscopum Jadre Dignissimum. c. 155... 162. 10 May 1545. Petrus de Bassano. redditus. Paulus de Sanctis. the case of “Reverendus pater . “Dominus presbyter Johannes Liuacich parochianus ville Blato. 1. 1.g. 1. 11. 4. the honorific lord (dominus) is usually found in conjunction with the nobility (both male and female). 10. 22 September 1564. 9. He appointed “spectabilem et egregium virum dominum Antonium de Marchettis fratrem ipsius domini constituentis. were addressed as “Reverendum dominum [name] episcopum. 9 October 1561. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Usually.” referred to without any honorific.390rc. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. f.” Bishops. as evidenced by “clerico Mattheo Battaglich de dicta insula Sali. et proventus tam in civitate Tragurij [Trogir] tamquam eius comitatu.9r.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 1.20v.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. c.. e. 2.1v. even non-noble priests were addressed with this epithet. 159. 161.Zadar’s Society 109 152.” The procurator’s was tasked specifically “ad locandum pro annis sex futuris ipsorum introitus. Malz.9r. 790 m2) from “Martinus Duornicich de insula Sale” for the price of 18 libras. ” a master-butcher residing within Hvar’s jurisdiction. I. was appointed to take care of the possessions of “strenuus dominus Franciscus Civalellus agendum. “dominum Julium de Nassis fratrem suum. 2. The enlisted men. I. 2. ac Magnificus dominus Nicolaus Tetrico Nobilis Jadre meritissimus Capitaneus […] Comitam Coruatorum deputatorum ad custodiam civitatis Jadre” were not. It was located in the vicinity of the village of Banj and was sold for 60 ducats. I. An example for the marital presence involved “Helysabeth uxor magistri Joanis Rubalouich cerdonis” (master-cobbler) who. 1. 167. Simon Budineus. “magister Franciscus Staglich butarius filius magistri Hieronymi de Lesina.40r-f. 1:194-195.p. 21 August 1556. f. “strenui Theodori Mamora de Nauplio [Nafplio] comestabilis in castro magno Jadre” was called valiant.110 Urban Elites of Zadar frater Dominicus de Brachia [Brač] Prior Monasterij sive conventus venerabilium fratrium predicatorum Divi Dominici Jadre” who appointed “spectabilem virum dominum Nicolaum de Nassis quondam dominum Chrysogoni nobilem Jadre” to gain compensation “pro reparatione […] damnum de ratione dicti conventus in quibus milites Tempore recentis belli turcarum preteriti stabant ab eiumque devastate […] coram quocumque alio celeberrimo Magistratu et offitio quacumque […] fungente Inclyta Urbis Venetiarum. 165. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. f. 3.g. 18 November 1540.8v. in all c. s.. As in “venerabilis dominus Grisogonus Cedulinus canonicus Jadre Prefecturus Romam” who instituted “dominum Vincentium eius fratrem” as his general procurator. HR DAZD 31 BZ. c. “quondam strenuui domini Nicolai Clada. 1. 1. I. As evidenced by “strenuus dominus Petrus Clada Capitaneus stratiotorum” who. f. et Interveniens nomine suo proprio ac vice nomine fratrium suorum” (Donatus and Gregorius) situated on the island of Vis. 3. 7. 1.8rf.49r. f. I.” to lease one of her possessions near Sali on Dugi Otok. whereas all the men in the company of “strenuus.45r. 1. c.44v-f. Simon Mazzarellus. 169. 1. An example of the former: when “domina Catherina uxor domini Georgii Lucii filia quondam domini Simonis de Nassis dicti il Mesco de presentia et voluntate dicti Viri sui” appointed her brother. Commissiones.” sold 6 morgen (c. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” appointed “Magnificum dominum Petrum Valareso quondam celeberrimi domini Zacharie” to obtain all outstanding payments. 1.” The parcel of land was arable. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. were named without any additional information. captain of Zadar 1524-1526. 40 soldiers. I.. HR DAZD 31 BZ.44v. 14. Petrus de Bassano. 168.26r. Daniel Cavalca. 26 September 1540. On Zaccaria Vallaresso.41r. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” even though the war ended almost a decade earlier. 1. E. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. 31 December 1549. 25 March 1559. “cum presentia etiam dicti viri. 1. . and his career. with grapes growing on it. 9 February 1555. f. 1. Johannes a Morea. I.220 m2) to “domino Zoylo de Ferra Nobile Jadre. 166. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1 January 1540. as the legal guardian of the children of his late brother. For instance. Franciscus Thomaseus.173v. 7 August 1554.44r-c. Actors: Political. Political Elites: Venetians and the Local Nobility At the top of the local hierarchy stood Zadar’s count. 1.4 This division between civil and military authority can be seen in the locations in which these officials resided: the Ducal Palace (across from St Simeon’s church) and the Captain’s Palace (in the vicinity of the city’s main gate). This structure was also in place in the other major urban centres of Venice’s maritime state. The city’s military commander. the available documentation is analysed to gain a picture of the demographics and activities of Zadar’s urban elites. subsequent indications about the populace must be treated with caution.1 And while the account of his tenure as Zadar’s captain is very detailed. Chapter 4 details their involvement in Zadar’s real estate markets between 1540 and 1569 in order to quantitatively establish an economic framework and identify shifting trends. and Economic Elites It is challenging to assess the numbers of people living in central Dalmatia around the mid-sixteenth century because no census data exists prior to Zaccaria Vallaresso’s 1527 report.5 The authority of both count and captain extended well beyond the city walls and by the . Ecclesiastical. and economic roles through examples of their activities and interactions with each other and the wider society.3. the captain.2 It is even harder to describe in detail the activities in which the population engaged. However. The approach is twofold: Chapter 3 distinguishes these elites by their political.3 Both offices were reserved exclusively for Venetian patricians and represent the separate civil and military competences. the highest-ranking civilian authority. ecclesiastical. assisted him. in this chapter and the next. enjoyed an eminent social position. civilian and military personnel were imported to central Dalmatia from both shores of the Adriatic or even beyond the Straits of Otranto. “Vellj de Anguri. “ser Jacobus della Zotta. Turanj.12 the count paid the money to the owner of either the ship or the cargo.11 Even though the city’s statutes are silent on wrecking (ius litoris).13 On the following day Vellj issued a quitclaim which formally confirmed the receipt of the 33 goat hides. In the previous year. uti legitimus Procurator.14 Another high-profile case occurred in mid-January of 1555.” was represented by notary Petrus de Bassano who acted on behalf of the absent count “uti persona publica. and Zemunik.9 They consisted mainly of Croats and Levantines. “magnifico domino Joanne Dominico Ciconia. These mounted soldiers were called upon in case of hostile incursions by Morlachs. There are only a handful of instances where a situation was evidently important or grave enough for the count or the captain to appear as acting parties. et domini Joannis Antonij Paiari. or Uskoks. 11 of which he had already “consignandas Venetijs per egregium dominum Laurentium a Puteo” (possibly Pozzuoli).8 while a detachment of light cavalry—so-called stratioti—provided security in the hinterlands.112 Urban Elites of Zadar middle of the sixteenth century comprised the entirety of Zadar’s jurisdiction. The remaining 22 pieces had been handed over to Vellj “a Spectabile domino Simone de Pasinis vice collaterale Jadre. by allegedly circumventing Venice’s staple rights.” Jacobus had sailed his ship directly to Barletta and.” who acted on behalf of the commune by virtue of his office.” a sailor and resident of Zadar.16 They were represented by “ser Gaudentius de Chiavena habitator Ferrariae. stood . “petias triginta tres Zimbilotorum [goat hides] recuperatum ex fundo maris.” The meeting took place in the large audience chamber of the ducal palace. One of these cases occurred in the summer of 1549 when Zadar’s count sold off goods collected from a shipwrecked vessel off the island of Sali. The sunken ship’s cargo.” both absent merchants and citizens of Ferrara.7 The city itself was guarded by two garrisoned forts.” once washed ashore was considered communal property and thus listed in the fiscal chamber’s books.6 To serve under the Venetian officials. by virtue of their offices and patrician descent.” The count. including the minor fortified villages of Nin. a citizen of Zadar who then lived as a merchant in Venice. Novigrad. Ottoman subjects. even if they are represented minimally in the notarial records.10 The count and the captain. had bought a total of 536 star15 of grain from “domini Hieronymi Dilza. ” to serve as his procurator. They were drawn up on 28 June 1558 in the presence of public notary Franciscus Thomaseus and “ser Francisco de Venetijs.Actors: Political. The task was to settle all outstanding financial issues of the constituent’s late brother.20 The difference between the number of star sold and the initial cargo is explained by the loss of two star prior to the sale. “domin[us] Lazar[us] de Pontremulo. since the ship’s cargo bay was considered ill-suited to preserve the corn. In the instrument’s valediction. below). the rest.” a nobleman of Zadar. “quondam Magnifici domini Petri. another Venetian patrician of considerable influence and prestige.” who served as galley commander (sopracomes)22 before his death. exonerating the count of the debt.” the captain on the late Petrus’s galley. and an additional charge of four star for the storage of the grain. Gaudentius then formally confirmed the receipt of the money. and assumed procuratorial duties after leaving office. As it happened. forcing a lower price of only five libras and four soldi per unit. “dominum Marcum Antonium Priolum [Priuli] dignissimum capitaneum Jadrae. For instance.”21 The count or captain also appear in a number of instruments involving less dramatic actions. Ecclesiastical.”17 He and his ship were caught and brought to Zadar where count and captain promptly sentenced Jacobus to pay a fine of 80 ducats18 and sold off the grain via two intermediaries. “Mattheo Cuitcouich. and “Zoylo de Ferra. The procuratorial duties thus included dealings with the Captain-general. in June of 1558 the Venetian patrician “Magnificus dominus Hieronimus Foscarinus [Foscari] quondam celeberrimi domini Michaelis” appointed Zadar’s captain. and Economic Elites 113 accused of “committere contrabannum. arbitration settlements. could be sold at the higher price of six libras and 10 soldi per unit. mostly involving high-profile individuals or magistrates elsewhere. The count or captain were routinely assigned procuratorial duties by members of the upper social strata. 353 star of grain were already in rather bad condition. 151 star.23 . all of them owned by Lazarus.” a merchant and citizen. the granting of explicit licence to women to act independently from their husbands. the captain’s palace is noted as the location in which the transaction took place in the presence of “ser Antonius de Antibaro Stipendiato ad custodiam plathee” and one of Zadar’s public heralds. a commission of 26 star for Lazarus. The following examples of exchanges between the Venetian officials and their subjects serve to illustrate these different types of interaction (Table 6.19 In the interim the grain had been stored in three magazines. These include the issuing of payment quitclaims. Daniel Cavalca. 15 January 1555. The bottom line gives the approximate sum in Venetian ducats.”25 A notable aspect of these types of dealings is that a woman was required to have her husband present at the signing or his permission to sell her own property. (b) Type of coin with which installments were paid.5 scudi 62 libras 20 libras 400 libras 2. 458 ducats (1 ducat = 6 libras and 4 soldi) Paid out byc superstitus jadrensisd Franciscus Nani Lazarus de Pontremulo Franciscus Nani Franciscus Nani Franciscus Nani Franciscus Nani Franciscus Nani Zoylus de Ferra Source: HR DAZD 31 BZ.17r.841 libras 52 soldi c.”24 intervened more directly in local affairs by granting “Magdalena de Sanctis uxoris Joannis Tubicini” a ducal license to sell parts of the couple’s property in her husband’s absence. which explicitly stated that the transaction took place “in vim suprascripta Auctoritate Pretorie. 2. In another instance the count. (d) Communal official tasked with clearing duties. Magdalena intended to sell one of her houses to “magistro Antonio Balcich cerdoni” (master-cobbler) to reacquire a building “a ser Martino Lucatello. (c) Individuals who made the payments. “Aloysij Cornelio [Corner].16r-c.” a citizen and merchant of Zadar. 0. 1. Conversions by the author. 0. This was a restriction . the second was a document of sale. who wrote down the two individual contracts on the same folio. c.114 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 6: Transactions on 15 January 1555 Amounta (libras) 35 libras 620 libras 112 libras 310 libras 1.075 libras 207 libras Amount Paid out inb (soldi) 17 soldi 4 soldi 9 soldi 157 scudi (1 scudo = 6 libras and 17 soldi) 18 soldi 27 ungari (1 ungarus = 7 libras and 14 soldi) moneta grossa. These legal requirements are even reflected in the protocol book of Simon Mazzarellus.5 scudi 4 soldi moneta grossa. (a) Amount of money paid out in libras and soldi. I. The first act conferred the ducal license to Magdalena. All exchange rates are given as they appear in the referenced source. and Economic Elites 115 unknown in Roman Law. Zadar’s count. These individuals and their families lived within the walled perimeter of the city and ensured the continuous functioning of the bureaucracy. and commanded troops levied among the Morlachs. The ensuing ducal sentence was appealed by the convent’s representative. Two military officers.”30 Both soldiers were “provisionati ex gratia Illustrissimi ducis domini Veneti. the same constituent parties tasked Petrus Vallaresso again to obtain the money owed “ab officio Magnificorum dominorum cameriarorum comunis venetiarum. he performed the same procuratorial duties for a number of other mercenaries. On at least two previous occasions. “strenui Xacman Gleglieuaz et Petrus Naycinouich capitanei murlacorum.34 .” further prolonging the dispute. confirmed its receipt. and exonerated “Magnificum et generosum patritium venetum dominum Petrum Vallaresso quondam celeberrimi domini Zachariae. Since this was clearly against the contract.” were paid the money owed. Some also engaged in commercial activities.33 While the exact nature of the latter’s role within the Venetian administration in Zadar is unclear.28 The various other members of the administration wielded the next layer of political power. as demonstrated by one instance from the early 1550s.” mercenaries who served the Republic of St Mark.Actors: Political.26 Among the more common issues facing count and captain during their tenure of office were disagreements between landlord and tenant. Ecclesiastical. Their main tasks were to oversee the harbour and issue export licenses. situated on the island of Pašman and owned by the abbey of Sts Cosmas and Damian of Rogovo. These Venetians regularly appear in the notarial protocols. they argued. often over excise duties or other forms of payment in cash or kind.27 For instance.29 and to command the military detachments.31 and one later occasion. It was only in mid-March of 1562 that an arbitration settlement between the abbey and its labourers was agreed upon. which had previously applied in Venice and her dominions. Benedictus Contarenus (Contarini) was petitioned to obtain redress of grievances. were upset by the excess payments demanded by the landlord. to collect taxes from the inhabitants living within Zadar’s jurisdiction. in early 1560 labourers on property near Tkon.”32 In the end “domino Antonio de Venturino cive Jadre” paid the three soldiers on behalf of Petrus Vallaresso. the “Reverendum dominum Montemerlum de Montemerlo Comendatarium [provost of the commandry] Abbatie sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani. establishing the rent as a quarter of the harvest. one responsible for communal affairs (cancellarius communitatis)40 and the other for the up-keep of the legal system and its processes (cancellarius ad criminalium). evidenced by the fact that they appear in only 120 instances (out of 6. Hospitals. Kotor. While the provosts of . including the archbishops of Dubrovnik. Before addressing the ecclesiastical and economic elites.44 2. Ston. Nin.36 communal broker (scontrus). were open to qualified educated or literate individuals from the Venetian possessions or elsewhere. Rab. Zadar employed two chancellors.436 notarial acts stipulated between 1540 and 1569). As Giovanni Battista Giustiniano mentioned in his itinerary.35 chamberlain (camerarius). who suggest the existence of 20 families comprising roughly 600 individuals42). and Zadar. the Dalmatian “ecclesiastical elite” has been defined as the higher echelons of the Church. and Trogir.43 The combination of these numbers allows for the tentative conclusion that Zadar’s nobility made up approximately a tenth of the total population.116 Urban Elites of Zadar Other Venetian patricians and citizens worked in the administration of Zadar and occupied positions like the principal gastald of the ducal office (gastaldus principalis offitium comitis). 17 distinct aristocratic families existed in Zadar around the mid-sixteenth century (a number disputed by Tomislav Raukar et al. the bishops of Hvar. Ecclesiastical Elites: Convents. the protocol books suggest that the number of Venetians living in Zadar was relatively small. many of these individuals were mentioned more than once.38 In all. heralds (praecor). Also. On many occasions these offices were held by nobles from other areas of the Stato da mar41 or beyond its borders. Krk.39 These positions. the members of their respective chapters. while few in number. and the heads and chapters of the monasteries. Korčula. we must consider the size of Zadar’s nobility in relation to the rest of the population. Split. or scribes (scriba). and Monasteries The following section defines the levels of Zadar’s Church hierarchy and examines clerical interactions with the larger society. which in 1553 consisted of 70 individuals. The adult male nobles formed the city’s council. Most individuals from the western Balkans were Croat nobles engaged in the defence of the Dalmatian hinterlands.37 or salt tax collector (gabellotus). Osor. For instance. In the existing literature on the subject. Beneath this small Venetian presence a number of other individuals worked as chancellors (cancellarius). At the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy stood Zadar’s archbishopric and its chapter. “dominus presbyter Sanctus de Sanctis Canonicus Jadre.51 In some cases the new appointees were tasked with the acquisition of outstanding payments. these were affiliated with the Benedictines. the hospitals of St Jacob and St Mark. There are. and the parish churches elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Ecclesiastical. […] done Dionore et Priuigna. gave away half a house constructed of stone and wood in Zadar’s St Vitus’ parish. irrespective of their geographical provenance. As Table 5 (Chapter 2) outlined. and parish churches—as well as individuals representing these people. Dominicans. some exceptions. convents. hospitals. the archbishop and the bishop of Nin and their adjunct institutions are absent from the notarial records.” Ecclesiastical dignitaries. forced to reside in Zadar after the devastation caused by the OttomanVenetian war from 1537 to 1540. Generally. and Franciscans.48 Next in the hierarchy were the convents.46 the chapters usually included non-nobles. Consequently. their integration into and interactions with the larger society have “only exceptionally been a matter of interest to scholars of the Dalmatian Middle Ages. Further down the hierarchy were the parish churches within the city proper.”45 Many of these dignitaries were. et dominus Joannes Raymundinus . in turn. in fact. usually occurring when new office-holders were appointed. or prebendaries— are members of this category.47 The second layer within the ecclesiastical hierarchy was the bishop of Nin.Actors: Political. One of these instances dates from the mid-1550s when “Joanne Thomaseo canonico et vicatrio Jadrensis uti procuratori et eo nomine uti dixit Reverendi domini Cornelij Pisauro dignissimi archiepiscopi Jadrensis” conceded a quarter of a stone house built in St Catherine’s parish to the heirs of “quondam Francisci de Magistris de Pisauro. offices. both individual members of the clergy and the institutions to which they belonged are here regarded as part of the same socio-occupational group “clergy. however.” The heirs.49 Other activities of the archbishop or his representatives included the lease of possessions in the city’s hinterlands (sometimes on the condition of obtaining the explicit consent of the Pope50) and the receipt of pledges of allegiance from lower-ranking ecclesiastical dignitaries. “elite citizens” (Grubb) or aristocrats well-integrated into the economic and social fabric of society. While these offices and the lower-ranking bishoprics were reserved for Venetian patricians only. and Economic Elites 117 the large and wealthy convents continued to wield considerable influence. or other matters of importance prompted high-level intervention. In 1556 two of Zadar’s citizens. 390v. 26 October 1559 (three individual instruments). c. abbatissa sor Marchetta sor Jacomella Grisogona (Grisogono) sor Hieronyma sor Vigilanta sor Catherina sor Concordia sor Lucretia St Nicholas OSCc St Demetrius OPd sor Gelenta sor Catherina sor Johanna sor Angela sor Laura sor Benedicta sor Lucietta sor Isabetta sor Magdalena Fanfonea (Fanfogna) Ferra Fumata (Fumatis) Gallella (Galelis) Nassis (Našić) sor Cherubina Pechiaro (Pekarić) Rosa (Rosa) sor Flavia sor Arcanglea sor Paulina sor Justina sor Paula sor Pacifica sor Magdalena Soppe (Soppe) Tetrica (Detrik) Diphnica (Divnić) Mogorichia (Mogorić) sor Francischina sor Nicolotta sor Maria. 1. . 1559) Family. I. abbatissa sor Nicolota sor Catherina sor Perina sor Ursia sor Magdalena sor Magdalena sor Catherina sor Prospera sor Coliza.118 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 7: Zadar’s Female Cloistral Population of Noble Descent (c. 6. Simon Budineus.390r-c. Clana Begna (Benja) St Mary OSBb Charnaruta (Carnaruto) sor Francischina sor Dionora Cedulina (Zadulini) sor Lucia sor Benedicta Civallella (Civalelli) sor Cicilia sor Deodata sor Vincentia sor Perina sor Antonella. priora sor Simonella sor Catherina sor Victoria sor Isabetta sor Lucia sor Perina sor Magdalena sor Cornelia sor Isabetta sor Philippa sor Helena Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. Ecclesiastical. sor Francischina de Marco. sor Magdalena Armana. et praetoru tam ecclesiatico quam Seculare causa et occasione petendi exemptionem et liberationem a solutione decimarum et decimarum novissimem impositarum a quarum decimarum solutione. however. Gliubavatius. The 15 Grisogonus family members in the three aristocratic nunneries make up more than a quarter (27%) of Zadar’s entire known female cloistral population. and the remaining 16 (c. nec quicquam ullo umquam tempore dicta de causa persolverunt. sor Donata Britanica. Crissana. s. sor Paulina de Jordanis.” The total number of noble nuns was 56. 29 May 1565. originated elsewhere. sor Perina de Pace. sor Bernardina Pasina. was appointed and sent to Venice. HR DAZD 31 BZ.. The convents sent out a joint procuratorial mission in the person of Zadar nobleman “dominum Joannem Chrysogoni quondam domini Andreae” to achieve a continued exemption of paying tithes to the Venetian state: “specialiter et expresse ad earum nominem comparendum tam ad pedes Illustrissimi et Excelentissimi Domini Venetiarum. 16 (c. of which 24 (42%) were in the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary. The 13 nuns listed were: “sor Francischina de Marco. The Benedictine non-noble “moniales Sanctae Catherinae” joined the three aristocratic monasteries. The Grisogonus family.p. sor Rafaela Gislardo. (c) Nuns in the second Franciscan Order of St Clare or Poor Clares (OSC). in present-day Karlovac county). The first 14 families lived in Zadar. In a rental contract from the mid-1560s a number of individuals bearing the Mogorich surname are referred to as “habitatores in partibus Croatie in loco vocato Bosiglieuo” (Bosiljevo. Civis Jadre” appointed “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum Matium Calino. Judging from the names. 29%) were in the Franciscan monastery of St Nicholas for Poor Clares. This order appears to have been favoured over the other convents by the Nassis and Civallellus families. in inclita Venetiarum civitate quacumque auctoritate fungente.” (a) Surnames of the 16 noble families who had members living in the three nunneries. 29%) were in the Dominican monastery of St Demetrius. ex antiqua consuetudine et clementia prelibati Illustrissimi Domini huiusque Semper ut asserverunt exempta fuerunt. 6. This order was the clear choice of the Benja family. sor Gabriella Zappich. to retrieve all money owed “a Sancta Sede apostolica a Reverendo auditore camere apostolice. the Diphnica and Mogorichia. the above-referenced Johannes Grisogonus. indicating that these convents were not exclusively reserved for residents of Zadar. quam coram alio quocumque Jusdicente. Ciprianus. The Mogorich may have been from the Croatian hinterlands. and Grisogonus alias de Bartholatiis (although it is possible that one of the family members above was from the Bartolatijs branch). sor Ventura de Veturina. this was the preferred religious order for the majority of Zadar’s noble families. (b) Nuns in the Benedictine St Mary’s convent in 1559. The absent families were the Calcina.” At the time of stipulation the incoming dignitary was not present (probably . The same procurator. 2. had comparatively large numbers of members in all three convents (indicating that they were either very pious or hedging their bets). Diphnica was a noble family of Šibenik. Mathapharis. Daniel Cavalca. The last two families. sor Archangela Ventura.Actors: Political.” the absent archbishop-elect. sor Scholastica Venturina. whose members made up a third of all nuns in 1559. and Economic Elites 119 Table 7 gives the names and cloistral affiliation of the members of three noble nunneries according to the three procuratorial contracts. (d) Nuns in the Dominican St Demetrius’ convent. sor Ursia de Marco. Three of the convents within the city walls were exclusively reserved for nuns of aristocratic descent. one of Marcus’ first actions was to appoint “Reverendum dominum Dominicum Armanum Primicerium Nonensis” whom he tasked with administrative business in Istria.53 Beyond these two examples there is little evidence that these dignitaries engaged in mundane activities. In both instances the property was auctioned off to the highest bidder for tax farming purposes. Table 7. In addition to the relative popularity of the three congregations. Zadar’s archbishopric possessed estates within the city’s jurisdiction. the documents reveal which families tended to prefer which order (Table 7. This happened to “Reverendus in Christo patrem et dominum dominus Marcus Lauredanus [Loredan] Dei et Apostolica sedis gratia episcopus Nonensis et Abbatis Sancti Michaelis de Monte Civitatis Pola [Pula].2. below. The documents demonstrate additional interesting correlations between the noble families and specific monastic orders. and the Dominicans the nunnery of St Demetrius (see also Table 5 in Chapter 2). the two congregations housed two-thirds of their grave-sites. Upon appointment. These tendencies are further supported by the testaments and codicils of the city’s nobles.1. so the two constituents sought to take advantage of the procurator’s social status and presumed geographical nearness to the Vatican.54 The following discussion and accompanying tables analyse Zadar’s nobles and their ties with ecclesiastical institutions. Each of these nunneries was affiliated with one of three large monastic orders. For instance. Zadar’s aristocratic families exhibited certain preferences for one or another of the monastic orders. But a closer look at the testaments reveals that six of the 21 individuals requesting burial in a Benedictine church were members of the Grisogonus-de Bar- . often with little knowledge of the new diocese. indicates that the churches of the Benedictine and Franciscan orders were the preferred burial places of Zadar’s nobility. the Poor Clare Sisters the nunnery of St Nicholas. above. but also on the neighbouring island of Pag. and to tap these resources. Sees commanded significant amounts of landed property. As Table 7. There is one notable exception. Upon arrival. indicates. below).52 A second example involved the designated bishop of Nin. Table 7.120 Urban Elites of Zadar still in Rome or its vicinity). shows that the Grisogonus-de Bartholatijs clan55 had many relatives serving in each of the three convents. the new dignitary left behind his former prebendaries to travel to his see. Combined. above.” After his designation he was required to relocate to central Dalmatia. The Benedictines ran St Mary’s nunnery. procurators had to be regularly appointed. Gabriel Cernotta. no. 68. and Economic Elites 121 Table 7. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. five women). 6. adjacent to the Franciscan noble congregation of the Poor Clares (last will of “domina Maria filia domini Petri Ciuallelli. no. (2) Burials at St Mary. (7) Burials at St Demetrius. 17 women). no. 2. (5) Burial at St Nicholas. I. 36. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. 2. I. 17. Nicolaus Drasmileus.” which might help explain why the testatrix preferred to be buried at home. therefore. see note 45 (Chapter 2). no. Ecclesiastical. (1) Burials at St Chrysogonus (all men). et uxor quondam domini Simonis de Mathapharis quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadrensis”. 111 documents are analysed. 20 August 1545). 7. 11 women). The names of the churches are given in English. adjacent to the Benedictine noble nunnery (six men. n/ad 17 individuals 5 in other churches8 12 n/a9 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. (b) Burials at Franciscan churches. In the four other cases. 12 March 1553). The table provides an overview of the preferred burial places of Zadar’s nobility. IV.Actors: Political. all testators were female and preferred locations as diverse as the church of St Hieronymus on Ugljan (“Helisabeth filia quondam Aloysij de Begna. The data given must be viewed with caution since a fifth of the documents do not include such a clause (We do not know with certainty. HR DAZD 31 BZ. the names are given in standard Latin. whether the Benedictines or the Franciscans were the preferred order overall). The first entry in each column provides the number of individuals in each religious order that specified a burial place. This includes 78 testaments and 33 codicils. both individuals native to the city and those who relocated there for marriage. III. (8) Burials in churches unaffiliated with the three above-mentioned orders. adjacent to the Dominicans’ noble nunnery. and two noblewomen preferring St Simeon’s church. 8. When possible. (d) Burials at other churches or unspecified places. 2. (3) Burial at St Andreas of Rab (“domina Catherina filia spectabilis domini Nicolai de Dominis Soldarich nobilis Arbi […] uxor spectabilis domini Hieronymi de Soppe nobilis Jadrensis. constituting the entirety of the nobility’s testaments preserved by the notaries. 17 June 1564). et uxor quondam domini Cose de Begna nobilis Jadre. preferring to be buried in St Anastasia.1: Zadar’s Nobility and Their Preferred Orders (1540-1569) OSBa 22 individuals 4 in St Chrysogonus1 17 in St Mary2 1 in St Andreas of Rab3 OSFb 24 individuals 23 in St Francis4 1 in St Nicholas5 OPc 15 individuals 13 in St Dominic6 2 in St Demetrius7 other. 12 March 1538).” HR DAZD 31 BZ. no.” Zadar’s archpriest and a member of its metropolitan chapter. Paulus de Sanctis. (4) Burials at the male-only St Francis (six men. (a) Burials at Benedictine churches. (6) Burials at the male-only St Dominic (eight men. based on the procuratorial sources. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. namely “domina . 27 November 1563. Among these five were “Reverendus dominus Franciscus Grisogonus quondam spectabilis domini Antonii. IV. (c) Burials at Dominican churches. the church of St John in Zadar’s suburbs (“domina Clara filia quondam domini Georgij Xuuich nobilis Sibenicensis. 553. while the Fanfoneus. 6.000.122 Urban Elites of Zadar Francischina uxor quondam domini Damiani de Begna” and “nobilis domina Gelenta filia quondam domini Simonis Ciprianj Jadre. dedicated to one of Zadar’s two patron saints.2. On the other hand. above). 40. Ferra. the Begna and Nassis families preferred the Dominicans.57 The number of noble nuns in autumn of 1562 amounted to 56. Relatedly. If this number is put in the context of Zadar’s overall aristocratic population of around 6. (It must be noted however that the tables above are not based upon monastic records but notarial protocol books).” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1 March 1564. from leasing parts of their prebends to the highest bidder to the election of new chaplains. 8. (9) Burials in unspecified places. Nicolaus Drasmileus. no. 21 June 1539) or the brother (“Corpus suum reposit In ecclesia ubi voluit. 3 September 1549).59 The third ecclesiastical group consisted of the parish churches and hospitals in Zadar’s old town and its surroundings. a trend likely mirrored by other urban societies in the Stato da mar.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. While the appearance of these institutions in the notary protocols ranges from relative prominence to insignificance. around 1550 the church of St Simeon. no.61 had two procurators: “spectabilis et excellens leges utriusque doctor dominus Petrus Fanfoneus et spectabilis dominus . as suggested by Jutta Sperling and Mary Laven. 6. These statistics are supported by the fact that a high percentage of noble women in Venice lived in convents.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.58 it suggests that about 20% of Zadar’s noble women lived in convents. including Dalmatia. no. IV. 4 November 1539. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. They too appointed procurators for a wide variety of reasons. Paulus de Sanctis I. This and the fact that only two family members requested burial elsewhere suggests a clear preference for the Order of St Benedict. some of the surnames of the nuns listed indicate that they were among the most prestigious non-noble citizens of Zadar. below). tholatijs families (related either by blood or marriage). et mandavit […] dicti Testatricis frater. 175. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus III.60 For instance. 189.56 In addition. no. III. and Pechiaro families were closely associated with the Franciscans (Table 7. Four of the 12 testators left the choice of burial place to the husband (“Sepelirj voluit ac ordinavit […] eius maritus. an instrument in Simon Budineus’s records demonstrates that the non-noble congregation of the Poor Clares (under the patronage of St Marcella) appointed the same procurator that their aristocratic counterparts did (“Nobilem Virum Jadrensis Joannem Chrisogonum quondam domini Andreae”) for the same task of the liberation of the tithes (see also Table 7. 10. their activity patterns appear to be similar to the two other groups discussed above. ” Petrus was sent “ad Comparendum et se humiliter praesentandum ad pedes Illustrissimi Ducis Domini Venetiarum et coram alio quocumque celeberrimo magistratu et offitio eiusdem Inclita civitati. 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 OSFb Nassis Pechiaro Tetricus Begna Fanfogna Grisogono de Bartholatijs Boyco* (Nin) Buchia* (Kotor) Cedulino Civallello Diphnico* (Šibenik) Drasa* (Osor) Ferra Gallello Soppe no. 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 OPc Nassis Rosa Begna Cyppico* (Trogir) Fumato Grisogono de Bartholatijs Soppe Tetricus no.” The collegium was in need .2: Zadar’s Noble Families and Their Preferred Burial Places (1540-1569) OSBa Grisogono de Bartholatijs Nassis Pechiaro Rosa Soppe Begna Calcina Cedulino de Dominis* (Rab) Ferra Gallello Rosa Soppe Tetricus no. see note 45 (Chapter 2). (c) Testators who requested burial at Dominican churches (St Dominic [♂] and St Demetrius [♀]). (a) Testators who requested burial at Benedictine churches (St Chrysogonus [♂] and St Mary [♀]).Actors: Political. Doymus Cedulinus. and Economic Elites 123 Table 7. Names with an asterisk (*) indicate aristocrats from Dalmatia who originated outside of Zadar. 111 documents are analysed. (b) Testators who requested burial at Franciscan churches (St Francis [♂] and St Nicholas [♀]). 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 15 Sources: unless indicated otherwise. Together they appointed another nobleman and family member of Doymus to represent the church in Venice: “spectabilem dominum Petrum Cedulinum. Ecclesiastical.” Both were prominent nobles whose appointments testify to the importance of the parish and its collegium (consistent with the church’s function as the resting place of St Simeon’s relics). which functioned similarly. et vice domini Nicolai de Ventura. “quondam ser Francisci Britanici. et Joannes Raymundinus […] ac nomine. et dominus Simon Britanicus uti procuratores ecclesiae Gloriosae Imaginis Virginis Mariae pacis de Suburbio Jadrae. He was born in Zadar where he also worked as a notary public and is most renowned for his literary skills.124 Urban Elites of Zadar of additional funding for repairs and in order “ad obtinendum in gratiam auxilium in et pro necessaria reparatione […] ecclesiae.” all citizens of Zadar and procurators of the Hospital of St Jacob.65 Every now and then the administration of a charitable institution was bequeathed at least a part of an inheritance. while two more lazarettos were situated further away.” She did so “sponte et deliberamente.” probably because her husband. et ser Simon Britanicus. transferable “in fine cuiuslibet mensis Februarij. By virtue of their appointment as representatives of the church of Our Lady of Peace in the city’s suburbs. 1.68 In the early 1580s he moved to Rome69 where he published at least two books in his native tongue.62 Similarly.4 hectares) located “in pertinentijs villae Cerno [Crno]” to “Stephano Goycich macellatori. “Magnificus et excellens leges utriusque doctor et eques dominus Joannes Rosa.” but under the condition “que dicti Hospitale Teneatur et debeat post eius obitum ei facere funeralia. they leased the income of six morgen (c. In these books he pioneered the use of . In 1550 “Dominus Martinus de Lucadelliss guardianus. Šime Budinić.”67 probably better known under his Slavic name. Two hospitals existed within the walls of Zadar. civi et habitatori Jadra.” For three years starting in March of 1555 the butcher agreed to an annual payment of 10 ducats.” two of Zadar’s most renowned individuals (see also Chapter 6) appear in the sources. parish churches rented out parts of their prebendaries for revenues. in cases of such importance the constituent party sought to appoint highranking members of society to increase the chances of success. non seducta neque circumventa.”63 A final sphere of institutional interaction. Once the testator had made his or her intentions known a notary was needed to stipulate legally binding documentation. In autumn of 1554.64 Usually the provosts simply appointed general procurators to represent their institutions. Among the female inhabitants of the institution was “domina Simonella [who] Se obtulit et promisit post eius mortem relinquere suprascripto hospitali omnia bona sua que habibit in hos Sericolu. one of the most interesting cases was without a doubt the cleric Simon Budineus or “Budinich.66 As for ecclesiastical individuals.” Needless to say.” could no longer do so. intervened to secure such a bequest. was the hospitals. 110 m2) in the vicinity of St Peter of Iž to “excellenti Juris utriusque Doctoris domino Petri de Fanfoneo.74 As suggested by his marginal appearance in the instrument books during his documented presence in Zadar.” The two contracting parties agreed upon the price of 24 ducats. The last entry was written on 3 July 1565. were promised to be paid within the following three weeks. His duties as the metropolitan sacristan and the administration of the prebend of St Peter’s of Iž were complemented by his literary and linguistic studies. except that he was born in the early 1530s. vouched “ad cautellam et securitatem dicti domini conductoris [Simon Budineus] et heredum Suorum. The rest.” a resident of Zadar.Actors: Political. although he only rarely participated in mundane business. Only two contracts hint at economic activities. ut dixit. Simon Budineus conceded three morgen (c. In comparison with . of which the earliest is dated 3 October 1556.”71 the sacristan of the city’s cathedral. ž).” rendering it likely that he transferred a part of the church’s prebend. Yet notwithstanding the kinship ties between the two parties. for five years. In addition. The first. referred to as “clerico Mansionario ecclesise Jadrensis.”73 In the second instrument. He appeared in the instruments of Zadar’s notaries more than 20 years later. ecclesiae Sancti Petri de Eso diocesis Jadrensis. 24 libras. He left six books filled with 827 individual notarial acts. of which Simon had paid 23 libras and two soldi up front and another 76 libras and 18 soldi in cash. Much less is known about his earlier years. mentions that he rented “quorumque fructus dicti anni spectantes praebende canonicatus sui quem obtinet in dicta ecclesia Jadrensis” from his uncle.70 After spending a couple of years in Italy he returned to his hometown where he died on 13 December 1600.” a nobleman of Zadar. the contract also reveals the approximate location of Sanctus’s house: “Actum Jadrae in curia domus habitationis dicti domini locatoris in confinio castri. Simon Budineus lived and worked in both the spiritual and temporal worlds. Simon was busy with the other aspects of his existence. 7. The contract further details the obligation to cultivate the parcel of land in its entirety over the next three years. and hand over a quarter of the grapes and a third of the olives from 1563 onward. “Reverendus dominus Sanctus de Sanctis canonicus Jadrensis. business was business: “Anastasia […] de Sale.72 In the decade he spent in Zadar. Ecclesiastical. written in January 1560.” In the document’s valediction. Petrus was assured a bonus of four soldi for each newly-planted olive tree. Simon is referred to as “plebanus. and Economic Elites 125 certain diacritic signs (č. drawn up in late November 1558. During the Middle Ages banking.126 Urban Elites of Zadar his notarial peers. divided into the categories of mercantile endeavours and real estate markets. let us first examine the economic aspects unrelated to real estate transactions. cinquecento et fino settecento.83 This brings us to the problem of identifying the important economic actors. The decline in salt production and the rising frequency of Ottoman raiding parties. pecora). the actual number of owners was . the emphasis here rests on the accessible information provided by the notaries of Zadar. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities The final section of this chapter provides an overview of commercial activities. The reports by Venice’s governors. contributed to Dalmatia’s economic decline. legates. his activities considerably elevated his social standing within Zadar’s society.”78 Tomislav Raukar wrote of an economically declining nobility after 1409.79 The absence of dynamic activities in the notary books underscores Giustiniano’s comment about the city’s declining wealth. With few exceptions the livestock market was controlled by Zadar’s nobility.76 While this started to change with the second Venetian dominion in Dalmatia after 1409.75 3. the involvement of Venetians in the local markets of Zadar was all but non-existent.80 With a considerable shift away from commerce and trade. which provided those who owned cattle (pecudina). Since property markets are discussed in more detail in the following chapter. è di ducati quattrocento. which laid the agriculturally important hinterland to waste. Judging from the notarial records. the selling and renting of livestock. “non è molta. with even fewer wealthy commoners. and small domestic animals (animalia minuta) with a steady stream of income. and military commanders paint a consistent picture of Zadar and its populace as living “di qualche poca intrada ma per lo più di trafichi et arti.”77 The city’s nobility. and trade were mostly dominated by foreign individuals and institutions.82 and the sale of ships. goats (caprina. syndic Giovanni Battista Giustiniano wrote in 1553.81 the leasing of (admittedly few) salt pans on the neighbouring island of Pag. The local aristocracy and clergy dominated its economy and property markets. perchè la maggior intrada che sia fra loro. economic activity was increasingly directed toward real estate. commerce. As might be expected. Only 40 notarial instruments deal with the transactions of livestock. Production of this vital good. and once to “domino Matheo Migauzich nobli Pagensis. The second major non-real estate commodity was salt pans. and in four instances the buyers came from the de Pontremulo merchant family. Of the latter group the family of “domina Francischina uxor quondam domini Nicolai de Rosa nobilis Jadre.” Included in the contracts.” rented 18 salt pans each to “ser Antonius Romucich de Pago” for a total of 312 ducats for six years. On all four occasions it was the same buyer: “domino Georgio Mirchouich Nobilis Pagi.” The payment for these transactions was conferred via an intermediary.85 Interestingly. Among the city’s nobility the Begna and Nassis families stand out. Ecclesiastical. 414 small domestic animals changed hands. which during the Hungarian suzerainty was the backbone of Zadar’s economy. most proprietors of livestock came from the ranks of Zadar’s nobility.89 But it was not only the worldly elites engaged in this lucrative business.87 By the middle of the sixteenth century only small parts of the clergy and aristocracy were still engaged in this trade. netting the Nassis clan a total of 408 ducats. The acquiring parties were either nobles or merchants. In both instances “domina Catherina filia quondam domini Simonis de Nassis dicti il Mesco nobilis Jadrensis uxor domini Lucij Georgio Veneti” leased 255 goats and sheep to “domino Joanni de Pontremulo Civi et mercatori Jadra. declined significantly after 1409.84 The Nassis family sold livestock on at least seven occasions.Actors: Political. the relationship between the contracting parties was kept up in two rental instruments.”88 Another noble family of Zadar in possession of salt pans on Pag was the Fanfoneus clan. once to Georgius Mirchouich. “spectabilis et excellens leges utriusque doctor dominus Petrus and dominus Franciscus Fanfoneus Eques. The clergy profited too. the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary’s of Zadar leased the income of its salt pans on three different occasions between 1540 and 1569—once to Antonio Ramorich de Pago. explicitly referred to as “depositarius. In all.” While the total earned sum of 12 ducats and 175 libras appears . For instance. which as a result of the insecurity along the Ottoman-Venetian border was mostly kept on the coastal islands. the well-known Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo. But they were not the only possessors of livestock. and Economic Elites 127 very small. was the provision that the renting party also be granted usufruct rights to the meadows in which the animals were kept.” sold on four different occasions a total of 25 salt pans “in valle Pagi in confinio Sancti Joannis Incangerich” for the sum of 433 ducats. Its most prominent members. which grossed another 199 ducats.86 In short. 16.95 Compared to his peers he was in many ways the exception to the rule.” to sail from Venice to Zadar. With the exception of Franciscus Dandulo. for the price of 55 ducats. He actively participated in the local real estate market: he bought two patches of land in Zadar’s jurisdiction96 and rented out other possessions. this segment of the local economy existed more or less outside the activities of domestic and foreign nobilities. This incident caused his nephew. were part of the political and social elite.” a noble of Pag. by virtue of descent. extending southward to Zadar.100 The Venetian patrician was engaged in various aspects of economic life in Zadar.101 as well as maritime commerce.98 By acquiring a small house (domuncula) next to his own “prope ecclesiam Sanctae Mariae de bongaudio” on the property of “domino Joanni Begna dicti Scauich”99 in 1549. “Magnificus dominus Marinus Dandulo quondam Magnifici domini Marci Antonij Patritius Venetus. He and his absent brothers.” were the heirs of their deceased uncle. Upon his arrival in central Dalmatia Marinus subsequently appointed “dominum Jacobum Moran ferrariensem in Terra Bari” to arrange for the retrieval of his uncle’s body and possessions and to formally issue a quitclaim to the sunken ship’s captain.94 The number of ship sales was very low.97 He also bought a grippo with the cargo capacity of 200 star (c. however. as well as the economic elite. Šibenik. education. One of them was “Magnifico domino Francisco Dandulo [Dandolo] quondam celeberrimi domini Joannis. A comparable group of individuals was the branch of the Venier family that resided in Zadar and was also integrated into the wider society (see also Chapter 6). In summer or autumn of 1551 Franciscus was crossing the Adriatic to trade in Apulia when the ship carrying him capsized and sank. Only exceptionally are resident Venetian patricians mentioned between 1540 and 1570 in connection to commercial activity. and beyond.103 .” a presumably lower-ranking member of the prestigious Venetian family residing in Zadar.662 litres) from “ser Petrus Cherletich.128 Urban Elites of Zadar low. from “Malamocho [Malamocco]”91 and “Clodia [Chioggia]”92 in the Venetian lagoon to Piran93 in Istria. The contracting parties originated from all over the Adriatic.102 The story of the life and death of Franciscus Dandolo serves as an example of those individuals who. Franciscus further diversified his investments. dealings like these provided the ecclesiastical institutions with a secure and steady flow of income.90 The third area of commerce was maritime trade. or commercial abilities. “Magnificis dominis Petro et Andrea. as evidenced by the cause of his death. “Città fortificata di Zara.” noblemen of Zadar. Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia. Zadar’s defences consisted of two castles: the medieval citadel in the southern corner of the city and a second fort (arx. Petta. Mocellin presents a useful overview of the population development in Zadar after 1527.” commander of Zadar’s citadel and cavalry unit of 74 soldiers. 57-60. an urban population which numbered between 6. “Città fortificata di Zara. in Venice’s maritime state Venetian patricians filled both positions. 9. 2:193-194. 8. It functions as home to the University of Zadar. Arbel.” 966-968. “Colonie d’oltremare. 19-22.903 souls (anime) living in Zadar proper. today called Palace of the Duke/Rector and Provveditore (Kneževa i Providurova palača). The only reminder of its past use are the Three Wells Square (Trg tri bunara) and the new Arsenal building. The harbour fort had been demolished and today hosts the docks for trans-Adriatic ferry services. See Raukar. here 203-223. “Croatia within Europe. a policy that also applied to the higher positions in the Church. Still smaller detachments were commanded by “Pellegrin di . Before it was lost to the Ottoman as a result of the war of 1537-1540. this policy extended to the Stato da mar. and Žmegač. in 1553 “Il voloroso Brutto Cluson. The seat of civil authority. castrum. writer. 1. poet. the pentagonal Captain’s Tower in the city’s Five Wells Square (Trg pet bunara) testifies to its former use. For instance. Crete. Venice. 355-370. While no longer extant. On Venetian offices in the Stato da mar most recently O’Connell. 4.538 (1553) and 5. For the mid-sixteenth century. The remnants of the former are partially visible today. 39-56. This appears mainly to have been a response to the fact that Venice relied heavily on mercenary troops for her fighting. See Commissiones. In Zadar. 10. 60-61. and public notary quoted extensively throughout this book. Peričić. castro) situated at the entrance of the city’s harbour. Furthermore. The separation of civil and military authority was instituted by the Venetian Senate during the Middle Ages. Malz provides graphs on the basis of published literature. 3. 189-190. Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike.” 43-44. which is named after the Zadar-born cleric. 2. 20-24. esp. “Colonie d’oltremare. Arbel. 5. and Cyprus. Mocellin. although such dual administrations existed only in the largest and most important possessions—Zadar. 1:194-223. In principle. consisting of Croats and Levantines. The Captain’s Palace was strategically located next to the Land Gate (Porta Terraferma).” 14-40. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. Razvitak gospodarstva Zadra i okolice [The Economic Development of Zadar and its Surroundings]. and Economic Elites 129 Notes 1.” 967-968.” 20-21. Mocellin.” 106. Croatia’s oldest university. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. Peričić. 6. Arbel. “Colonie d’oltremare. Malz. For 1527 he gave the number of 6.” 964. 7. this separation of civil and military authority was also expressed in the separate locations of the two offices (although these were not far away from each other). 966. founded in 1396 by Dominicans and reopened in 2003.826 (1554) souls is given. Appointing civilian overseers provided a certain amount of control over the “foreign” condottieri. An additional 47 mounted soldiers were under the joint command of “meser Nicolò e meser Lombardin Tetrico. is situated in Simeon Budineus Square (Poljana Šime Budinića). 3:51.Actors: Political. it included also Vrana. Commissiones. Commissiones. Lane. grammarian. Ecclesiastical.148 souls dwelt in its suburban areas. Men of Empire. 44. s. Schmitt. 1.. et continentiam legum. 1. I. Lazarus de Pontremulo was one of the wealthiest individuals who then lived in Zadar. 10 August 1549. cap. Schmitt. 8: “Quod nullus teneatur ad restitutionem pecuniae acceptae in collegantiam vel in rogadiam. II.17r. Daniel Cavalca.130 Urban Elites of Zadar Marco. si casu fortuito perditam contigerit affuisse”. Petrus de Bassano. III. ut Latius apparere dixerunt. I.25 litres. “Francesco Civallich gentilhuomo di Zara.. On Venetian policy in general. s. Daniel Cavalca.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. et male conditionati. I. 3. 2. Nuntius. 520-677. quae condemnatio postea per viam gratie in ducatis octuaginta redacta fuit. 13. et male conditionatum” and had to be sold in “diversis precijs. 2. III. 1 star = c. tit. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. cap.p. I. 4: “Qualiter teneatur ille qui accepit aliquod animal accomodatum si periculum ei acciderit vel casus fortuitus”. 606. Petrus de Bassano.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Orlando.16r-c. and Lib. his […] diebus. 17. ordinum. 3. et sit committere contrabandum […] pro quo condemnatus fuit ad ipsum Navigium ammitendum. 1. Statuta Iadertina. tit. Neither merchant was present. See also the commentary by Mijan on the statutes of Dubrovnik. 265.” 50-51. pro conducendo Illud Ferrariam.” See also Ref. Zadar’s statutes do not contain explicit clauses on wrecking.” contains 83 chapters but likewise does not explicitly address wrecking. Statuta Iadertina. in sala magna palatij ressidentie praefati Magnifici domini Comitis presentibus domino Michele de Pelegrinis. Superinde disponendum ausus fuerit. 11. contra formam. Raukar et al.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.086 litres. 15 January 1555. “Quum sit.17r.17r. III. sic Se habeat ser Jacobus della Zotta nauta habitator Jadrae. ac domino Christophoro de Nassis […].p. onerare eius navigium seu barcam in civitate Barleta. 2. 16. 10 August 1549 (two individual instruments). tit. 10 August 1549.p. 248. “Actum Jadre.” Book IV.” Statuta Iadertina. s. 259-260. Venice.16r-c. sic malefacti. “‘Contrabannum:’ Der adriatisch-balkanische Schmuggel. Lib.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. “ser Gaudentius de Chiavena [Chiavenna] habitator Ferrariae uti legitimus Procurator. I. Parts of the grain was already “malefactum. c. et Negotiatorum gestor. c. 15 January 1555. “De Navigis et Navibus.16r-c. 536 star = c. 300. si perierit vel fuerit deterioratum. three clauses deal with restitution issues and goods washed ashore. I. de praemissis omnibus in Libris Camere phiscalis Jadre. 320. XIV. Neither do the 160 chapters in the Reformationes. Lib. 759. 12. Altre Venezia. 125: “De accusationibus contra beccarios et alios quoscumque. furmento de ratione quorumdam Mercatorum Ferrariensis. 20. 82.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 14. 252.” and other individuals. Commissiones. and Zadar on maritime legislation: “Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta” [Maritime Regulations of the Statute of the City of Zadar]. but they were represented by their procurator. I. On the Venetian Adriatic in particular. et rei veritas. Petrus de Bassano. 15 January 1555. et partium Excellentissimi Consilii Decem. 19. “L’apport des archives de Zadar. rispecta qualitate Ipsius furmenti. 2:196.” “il conte Vido Posedaria” (Posedarje). “[Q]ue petie Triginta Tres Tetigerunt ipsi Magnifico domino Comitj Tempore Divisionis ipsorum Zimbilotorum Naufragatorum […] recuperatum ex fundo maris. 3.. 75: “In quibus casibus tenetur ad restitutionem animalis ad naulum accepti et in quibus non. 15. HR DAZD 31 BZ.. . c. 18. 394-461. however. Daniel Cavalca. cap. ” HR DAZD 31 BZ.Actors: Political. See also Chapter 4.351vc. etc. Hieronymus is also referred to as “successionarius bonorum et in bonis quondam domini Petri fratris sui dum viveret dignissimi supracomitis Triremis hijs proximis lapsis diebus in hac civitate vita functi […]. McKee. Below it. The practice of Roman Law in Venice’s dominions curtailed the role of most women to being “daughters or wives of men who were their legal guardians. therefore. I.000 modii (one Venetian modium = c. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule. Simon Mazzarellus.” with their marital status also defining the degrees of their personal and economic freedoms and opportunities. equal . 29. 27. 30 November 1559. soldiers. Legal documents.000 ducats per annum but lamented the destruction of most olive trees during the war of 1537-1540 (and the end of which oil sales were worth about 25. c.352r.000 ducats per year). The latter especially amounted to a financial burden since the expenditure had to be borne by the galley commanders. 6. These contracts were legally binding and negotiated prior to the tenants’ leasehold.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. which was left unchanged by the Venetians after 1409. 25. et Mattheo Cuitcouich precone Jadre. “Actum Jadrae in praetorio. that during Petrus Pisani’s captainship 1548-1550. 3. Venice. 1. 1.” the judge of Tkon. c. scribes. at the bottom of the same folio. 19 January 1560. Galley commanders were required to have at least four years of experience and were responsible for the recruitment of sailors. expenditures exceeded income by as much as 400 ducats. and Economic Elites 131 21. For rental contracts. The settlement was agreed upon between the abbey’s procurator. Land grants involved payments in kind.” 68-69. I. which was to be handed over to the landlord. a certified copy of the ducal licence was written down to complete the record. 2A.7r. It is known. Simon Budineus. “Prilog poznavanju agranih odnosa” [Contribution to the Agricultural Relations]. The contract of sale was stipulated on 19 January 1560. were based on land grants (concessiones) and rental contracts (locationes) to colonists. It reads as follows: “Sub die 5 instantis celeberrimus dominus comes dederit licentiam Magdalene de Sanctis uxoris Joannis Tubicine non obstante absentia eius Mariti prefati vendendum unam domunculam pro reddimendo una eius domo intromissa ad instantiam ser Martini Lucatelli mercatoris et habitatoris Jadre […]. 1. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Agriculture. Ecclesiastical. et spetialiter rogatis. and labourers. Lane. More details are given by Giovanni Battista Giustiniano in 1553 when who wrote of the fiscal chamber disposing of roughly 7. Testibus habitis vocatis. 138. 28 June 1558. Franciscus Thomaseus.31v.26 litres. in the presence of “Joannes Radincich de eadem villa et Lucas Hostich. for instance. 26. usually a quarter of the harvest. 5. 1. 23. c.” Ibid. 365.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.137r.000 to 8. Peričić. c.” 16. 333. Contado di Zara. Simon Budineus. payment in cash was agreed upon.” 41. 28. 14 March 1562. 24. Daniel Cavalca. 7.000 kvart = 1. and livestock breeding were the backbone of Dalmatia’s economy. Reliable taxation numbers are equally hard to come by since not all reports by Zadar’s governors or captains include financial data. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen. presentibus ser Antonio de Antibaro Stipendiato ad custodiam plathee. In 1553 Zadar’s captain Paulo Giustiniano also sold “da quindici in sedici mille quarte a lire 16 la quarta […] il che fa summa di 2 mille et più ducati […]. Mayhew. I. farmers. farming. 228-230. See also Grbavac. and “Vitus Duymouich. 22. In 1554 the office of principal gastald was occupied by “ser Alessandro de Zuane da Venetia” who later conceded the office to “ser Morando Costa bressano” (Brescia) in exchange for the payment of 27 ducats. 34.45r-c. s. 32. The overseer of Zadar’s fiscal chamber too was an important figure within the Venetian administration. I. Zadar’s fiscal chamber in turn paid 25 libras every three months to the office-holder. in September of 1524 Zaccaria was invested with the captainship in Zadar. to collect outstanding payments from the Venetian treasury “causa. I. 196-197. Antonius acted “via ac nomine Magnifici domini Petri Vallaresso quondam celeberrimi domini Zacharie” and paid the entire outstanding sum “ab offitio Celeberrimorum dominorum supracameris Illustrissimi Ducis domini venetiarum.26r. f. 1:194-223. See Commissiones.” possibly a Venetian patrician who appointed “magnificum dominm Antonium Michael [Michiel] quondam celeberrimi domini Francisci Patricium venetum. Commissiones. 33. f.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. . At times. 9. Petrus de Bassano. the city’s chamberlain was “magnificus dominus Hieronymus Zane. For the conversions. 13. Petrus Naycinouich and his “consanguineus […] comes Paulus Naycinouich.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. 36. 1. 3:50. f. plus some allowances for board (23 libras and 14 soldi) and lodging (19 libras and eight soldi). 24 April 1543. c. however. HR DAZD 31 BZ. The latter’s service was to begin on 1 October 1554. HR DAZD 31 BZ. counts. 30. Commissiones.” 978-979. c. he received too few votes. Including “dominus Petrus Clada. 2. 759. This official was in charge of parts of the ducal powers and was paid out of the communal fiscal chamber. 2:197. 1. Petrus de Bassano. mostly because of the immensely detailed information provided. in some cases amassing such deficits that other communities along the Dalmatian coast had to transfer some of their earnings to Zadar. 26 October 1547. 27 May 1552. 1. which he occupied until the spring of 1527.26r. s. 35. 2:183.p. I. 13. I. This often proved to be an unappreciated position because virtually every report written by Venice’s syndics. Franciscus Thomaseus. He oversaw all taxation returns and was responsible for the treasury.36v. “Colonie d’oltremare. Franciscus Thomaseus. 1. et occasione augmenti salarij sui.45v. 2. 1. Daniel Cavalca. On at least two other occasions the same three soldiers had tasked Petrus Vallaresso with obtaining their outstanding payment. In the end.7v. Arbel. 31. 1. See Commissiones. I. 1. 1. 199. Franciscus Thomaseus. I. In the end. 2.36r-f.25r. 7 October 1549.11v. 2.” then Zadar’s count.. 27 May 1552. capitaneus stratiotarum deputatus ad custodie Tragurii” (Trogir) and “strenui domini Hectoris Renessi capitanei stratiotarum Jadre” who both tasked Petrus Vallaresso to obtain all outstanding payments for their services “a camere Zephalonie” (Kefalonia). Petrus de Bassano. 20 February 1550. Zaccaria Vallaresso had already served as count of Rab when in September of 1511 he was put on the ballot for the office of Provveditor Generale in Dalmazia. Prior to his assignment as Zadar’s captain.p. f. in the following year. Franciscus Thomaseus. He then served as “conte e provveditore” in Hvar from 1518 to 1520 before. I. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2 April 1558. I. Nicolaus Canali. and captains mentioned insufficient income. f.11r-f. Statuta Iadertina.. 1. All major studies refer to his report from September 1527. cognominatus Pao” represented each other as procurators. In 1558. 26 October 1547. 1.132 Urban Elites of Zadar to four star or 16 kvart). HR DAZD 31 BZ. 27 August 1554. he was again put on the ballot for Provveditore Generale and again was not elected. Raukar et al. 1. 20 February 1550.112v. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 1:83-88. 41.36v. as regards Dalmatia in particular. 1.” 143. Petrus de Bassano. “Church and Christianity. I. the communal chancellors appear more prominently in the sources.” 40. Having convened in the chapel of St Barbara “que est sacristia Ecclesie metropolitia Sancta Anastasia. doctors of both laws civil and canon (leges utriusque doctor). If not indicated otherwise. For a more general discussion. The office collected all the salt produced in a given region.” 975. Arbel. in 1547 the position was filled by “domino Georgio Diphnico. 7 April 1547.” They continue to lease for the duration of six years “Unam dicti Reverendi capituli domum de muro […] a ser Martino Lucathello Civi et mercatori Jadrensis” for the annual payment of 12 ducats. 12. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 42. 44. and.p.” 974-976. Simon Budineus.” the members of the archbishop’s chapter are listed: “[i]nfrascriptis Reverendis dominis de Capitulo Jadrensi. domino Antonio Mirchouich. Franciscus Thomaseus. 261-262. 18 April 1558. Matthaeus de Marchettis. Prodi. Commissiones. I. “Ämter der venezianischen Verwaltung. 194-196. videlicet. 45. Johannes Thomaseus. I. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. domino Joanne Sichirich. “Colonie d’oltremare. In 1550 “ser Gaspar Gasparovich gabellotus Jadra” tasked Petrus Vallaresso with obtaining outstanding payments “ab offitio celeberrimorum dominorum provisorum super fortilitijs […] ex causa contiguationis facta per praefatum ser Gasparem fabrice pontoni civitatis Jadrae. 2:197.. The number given—again. See also Chapter 2. Ecclesiastical. 43. In Zadar’s case from the salt works to the southeast of the city and from those located in the neighbouring jurisdiction of Pag. The number given by by Zaccaria Vallaresso is 564 individuals. “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe. 2. f. Contado di Zara. Raukar et al. “Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice”. For example. 261-262. I. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 2:197. such as overseeing settlement of all outstanding financial transaction and seeing that all transactions were settled according to the appropriate legal requirements. 156164 and Pederin.” 46. and Economic Elites 133 37.” suggesting that Gaspar had previously served in a different position.” 188. 39. Commissiones. s. 85-88.” Both archpriest and vicar were of noble descent. For instance. Commissiones. ac domino Vincentio de Ventura canonicis dicta Ecclesia Jadrensis. “Colonie d’oltremare. See Hocquet. Arbel. by Zaccaria Vallaresso—is 564 individuals. Šanjek. s. 1:194-223.p. add that the data are incomplete and must be treated with considerable caution. Reverendo domino Joanne Donato Begnio canonico et Vicario. HR DAZD 31 BZ. starting “a die huius contractus. HR DAZD 31 BZ. . domino Matheo de Marchettis. 47.” a knighted noble (eques) originally from Šibenik. For instance. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus and his son Simon were both nobles of Trogir.. However Raukar et al. 17 March 1541.Actors: Political. 1... Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. c. C. and occupied the office of communal chancellor in Zadar. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Reverendo domino Petro Britanico Primicerio. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. 38. Reverendo domino Francisco Chrysogonis Archipresbytro. the account follows Mayhew. domino Sancto de Sanctis. In comparison to the Venetians..36r-f. The other individuals were firmly rooted within the upper layers of Zadar’s social fabric. and Sanctus de Sanctis were all related to notaries. Pederin. Budak. domino Joanne Thomaseo. 3. 1. This official was tasked with clearing activities on behalf of the commune. Raukar et al. “Reverendus dominus Johannes Donatus Begna. Marcus.233v. “Magister Petrus Iuanusceuich cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre. At least two instruments explicitly state that the office-holder. 1.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. As for the sources. I. Dionora and Priuigna themselves were not present but were represented by one of their guardians. Franciscus Thomaseus. et quorumcumque bonorum Terrenarum. seu per eius sancti sedem apostolicam. 19 September 1553. 1. et declaratione per Ipsas partes in presenti Instrumento apposito […] nec dicti fratres.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 50. “al Spettabile meser Pompeo di Soppe” for the annual payment of 1. 562. 49.40v-c. “a spettabili domino Doymo. 63: “De pastinatoribus et laboreriis per eos fiendis. officially accepted his (unpaid) vicariate. “De iure emphiteotico seu de iure quod acquiruntur danti et recipienti possessiones aliquas pastinandum.” which contains seven chapters. I. Simon Budineus. c. The former contract was “Actum Jadre domi habitationis dicti Reverendi constituentis. A bit earlier. The instrument clearly states that Dominicus task was appointed “spetialiter et expresse ad nomine dicti Reverendi domini episcopi et Comendatarij cathastica quecumque seu inventaria omnium. the archbishop rented out “omnes. and Zadar’s communal chancellor. I.” Statuta Iadertina.26r-c. 2. Daniel Cavalca. and Johannes Thomaseus. stipulated on 25 April 1552. f. On the Law of Emphyteusis as defined by Zadar’s statutes. 1. f. ut in parte dicti livelli seu pensionis donec et quousque huiusmodi datio et livellaria ac emphytheotica concessio non fuerit confirmata per sanctissimam in Christo patrem et dominum Nostrum dominum Julium divina providentia Papam tertium. 28 March 1554. In a contract from the mid-1540s. c. 324-332. notary public. c.32v. qua Sic inter partes Ipsas per pactum expressum conventum et statutum fuit. 1.381r. neque compelli ad Solutionem in toto. Simon Budineus.378v-c.” lived in Zadar. a noble of Trogir.26v. 12 February 1565. 1. I. et quoscumque fructus. 6. as the archbishop’s representative. neque eorum heredes et Successores possint ullo modo cogi. redditus. 4. I. et domino Petro fratribus de Cedulinis nobilibus Jadre. 4 March 1560. fructuum adationum livellorum et proventuum dicta Abbatia spectandum et pertinendum.128v. c. and by officially ratifying his appointment instrument. “Reverendus in Christo pater et dominus dominus Marcus Lauredanus [Loredan] Dei et Apostolice sedis gratia Episcopus Nonensis dignissimus nec non ecclesie mairois Corcira [Corfu] Canonicus et Thesaurarius.233r-c. Johannes a Morea. leased the archbishopric’s income. c. et proventus. c. 53. 6. I. 6.41r. a citizen. 4.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 54.” The latter “Fatto in Zara nella sala dell’habitation del prefato Reverendo Monsignor Locatore.” a noble and newly appointed vicar. tit. HR DAZD 31 BZ. et decimam Insule Pagi” for the annual payment of 620 ducats. “cum hac expressa condictione. In March of 1555 Cornelio Pisauro leased a patch of land belonging to the archbishopric close to Kali. I. III. 1.” The contracting parties agreed on annual payments of four ducats for the duration of 29 years (i. 1. Two . Daniel Cavalca.488r-c. 19 March 1563. the archbishop himself rented his sees’ income to Johannes Mazzarellus.411r. HR DAZD 31 BZ. and member of the metropolitan chapter. 2. in September of 1553.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 3 November 1556. 1. including the tenth of Pag. 51.000 ducats. Pašman. 52. affictus Jurisdictionis […] Tam Terre firmae tamquam Insularum. In the first instance he appointed a procurator to act on his behalf in Corfu. diocesis Jadrensis. In the second.e. 5 March 1555.488v. Simon Budineus. canon. Lib. 29 September 1562. Simon Budineus. Ref. priest. XVII.134 Urban Elites of Zadar 48. an “emphytheotica concessio”). sor Justina Brunouich. and Laven.. Paulus de Sanctis. sor Archangela de Martinis. no. however. 57. and de Rossettis (de Pontremulo) families were engaged in various mercantile endeavours.. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 11 September 1548. the primary sources usually mention the intermarried individuals as “de Grisogonis alias de Bartholatijs” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. de Martinis. 10 May 1545. de Bonivento. I. Daniel Cavalca. sor Helena Clococichia. 27 October 1562.49v. Brunouich.11v-c.49r-f.” All the family names listed suggest an elevated social status among Zadar’s commoners. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 175. I. 14 July 1545. I.” in accordance with a notarial instrument stipulated by Johannes Mazzarellus on 12 April 1554. f. I. Those listed include “Veneranda domina soror Martha Armana Abbatissa. 269-270. Petrus de Bassano. Raukar et al. 300.1v. 259-260. 9 June 1556. 55. sor Benedicta Armana. 6. 21 June 1539. et Magnifici ac Nobiles Viri dominus Joannes Baptista. While Raukar et al. Daniel Cavalca. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 6. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 58. c.2v. 1. Johannes a Morea. the approbation was followed by Franciscus de Bartholatijs ceding the prebendary to “Reverendum ac excellentem dominum Presbytrum . either willing them directly to his successor or providing for the election of a new holder. ac praefatus dominus Aloysius uti Donatarius et cessionarius noti Venerabilae dominae Perinae de Fumatis monialis In monasterio Sanctae Mariae de Jadra […] ex altera. Virgins of Venice. III.” Usually elections such as this were followed by the ratification of instruments at the behest of all involved parties. Sperling. Simon Budineus. 1.p. the deceased benefactor of a prebend would leave indications in his testament.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. 3. et sor Cornelia de Rossettis. f. Johannes a Morea.17v. f. I.g. See also Raukar et al. 15 July 1560. I. c. 6. I. 18-71. 2 September 1543.391r. Paulus de Sanctis. sor Cherubina Benivento. Elections of chaplains rarely appear in the surveyed notarial instruments. slightly augmenting the latter’s price from 620 ducats to 635 per annum. ac Aloysius Tetrici.2r-f.. In October of 1555 “Reverendus Franciscus de Bartholatijs Nobilis et Archipresbyter Jadrensis ex una. See. 59. For instance. 1.391r. I. 9. e. f. sor Francischina de Boschettis. Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice. Usually. Ecclesiastical. Referring to a number of other documents from as far back as 10 August 1497 and 17 January 1551. c. 1. Franciscus de Bartholatijs “fuerit et sit electus et institutus in cappellanum ad altarem seu capellam Sanctae Mariae virginis in dicta ecclesia moniales Sanctae Mariae […] vigore Testamenti quondam Magnifici domini Donati Ciualelli Nobili Jadre facti Venetijs. I.12r. 1. 1. sor Clara Bumbichia. they bestowed property upon the new dignitary. The document refers to the convent as “venerabiles dominae Moniales Sancte Marcellae ordinis Sancte Clarae in Civitate Jadrae. however.1r-f. list these two families separately. In this particular case. 27 October 1562.133r.. 261-262. sor Helisabeth de Boschettis. f. 2A. 60. members of the Armamus/Armano. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Nec non ac nomine et vice Magnificorum dominorum Lombardini et Nicolai Nec Non Magnifica dominae Corneliae Tetricae. convened in Zadar’s communal chancellory. 265.Actors: Political. Simon Budineus. 26 December 1557. 56. See also Raukar et al. and Economic Elites 135 weeks later the two accepted “dominum presbytrum Joannem Barbiricich” as the third cotenant. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. The latter instance occurred in the mid-1550s involving the two noble Grisogonus and Tetricus families. Petrus de Bassano. 3.. 4. c. C.p. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” appointed “spectabilem dominum Nicolaum de Nassis quondam domini Cressij et dominum Bernardinum Carnarutum” to represent the lazaretto in its feud with “dominum Alexandrum Cocari.p. I. placing this second leper house in a minor valley called “Valle de Leprosi” in today’s Voštarnica district of Zadar. c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 69. highly contagious disease). the “lazaretj pestiferorum Jadre. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” speaking on behalf of himself and the absent chaplain of the lazaretto.8v.87r.10v. Pedani Fabris. c.15v. 62.” 179-189. 64.136 Urban Elites of Zadar Blasium Sidineum Jadrensis. Augustinus Martius. five minor hospitals. 1.75 morgen (c. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 12 February 1559.” an absent doctor of canon and civil law represented by his procurator and uncle. HR DAZD 31 BZ.15r-c. 1. et magistrum Marcum Subich sutorem” (mastercobbler). any other visible.” These indications are confirmed by one of the maps provided by Mocellin. Runje. Medieval Zadar and its jurisdiction had two major hospitals. 67. As happened in mid-January of 1556 when “Martinus Brnicouich de Cerseuagne Sello. His name first appears in the sources in June 1557 when he bought a parcel of land of 3. 5. 2.47r. presumably. Guzzetti. Johannes a Morea. In this contract the buyer is specifically referenced as “clericus et notarius jadrensis. Daniel Cavalca. Cracco.15v. Daniel Cavalca. A second hospital. Apparently no longer in use by the mid-sixteenth century. 61.15r-c.4r-c. 30. It is known that the last priest-notary in Venice proper worked until 1570.” 1-19. 4.” cared for those who contracted the plague (or. 1. its name carried on as a toponym. c. served the leprous. “Reverendus dominus Presbyter Simon Tutofeus.. Daniel Cavalca. the parcel of land in question is referred to as “Iacentis ad lazaretum vetus” but without any other additional information. 8. Venezianische Vermächtnisse. 23 October 1555 (two individual instruments). The “lazzaretto di San Marco. s. Neralić. s. 14 January 1551. “Veneta Auctoritate Notarius. I. Daniel Cavalca. Simon Budineus. Mocellin. Johannes a Morea. “Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia. “Dalmatian Lazarettos from the 14th until the 16th Century”. c. northeast of today’s Queen Jelena Madijevka Park “In loco dicto lazaretto. 3. I.4v. named “lazarettum pauperum leprosorum Sancti Spiritu extra menia suburbij Jadrae. 68. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. f. c. 66. Simon Mazzarellus. 9 January 1560. Thus Simon Budineus may even have been among the last priest-notaries within Venice’s dominions. 1. I.887.46v-c. f. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” By the mid-sixteenth century the situation was as follows. to whom Zadar’s cathedral is dedicated. 2. The other is St Anastasia. 1.170v. “Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia. I. 1. 2A.p. A second lazaretto for the quarantining of the leprous. “Città fortificata di Zara. I. “Citta fortificata. “dominus presbyter Nicolaus Zubich. I. .. 26 August 1557.” was located outside the suburban fortifications on the far side of the harbour. 1 June 1557. 1. 13 December 1551. I. 2 November 1554. 65. 18-28.” 58. 63.10r-f. Dugi Otok] uti principales Pauperum leprosorum Sancti Lazari. In an instrument effecting a cassation of an earlier concession.8r-c.” 16. and a leper house. 16 January 1556. 25 January 1568. 2. 1. Given the Papal ban on Venetian priest-notaries by Eugene IV. Another lazaretto appeared in the notarial records. Horatius de Marchettis. Fabijanec. “Lazaret u pregrađu srednjovjekovnog Zadra [The Lazaretto in Medieval Zadar]. 2. Simon Mazzarellus. 1. Vitus Caurich de Sale [Sali. 4. I. s. Mocellin.5 m2) next to Vrsevac along the road to Nin for the price of 140 libras. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. this is interesting in and of itself. 1..” situated in today’s Kolovare area to the southeast of the city centre. 29 August 1550. 1. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ.p. Daniel Cavalca. Vidaković.” 16-17.. 2C. con pene a quelli fussero inobbedienti. by the business practices of Venetian patricians. 3:167. who returned to Venice in early 1566. 3 October 1556.1r-c. 2. Statuta Iadertina. it necessitated the import of olives and olive oil from Apulia. 80 litres.” all three from the ranks of Zadar’s nobility. 1.7r. I. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. HR DAZD 31 BZ. i za pokornici [Breve directorium ad confessarii ac confitentis munus recte obeundum]. c. Lane. Ecclesiastical.” 150-154 (quote on 151. Raukar. 2. here 1 mjera = ca. 72. At the root of it was the decline of olive tree cultivation due to the increasing insecurity caused by the Ottomans. Horatius de Marchettis.46v-c. in combination with the economic and political developments in the wider Mediterranean.” Not only did the overall production of olives and olive drop to about one-sixth of pre-1537 levels. I. 261-262. Raukar et al. 75. Daniel Cavalca.. 281-297. continueranno al piantarne ogn’anno. His works include Pokorni i mnozi inii psalmi Davidavi carminice [Humble and Meek Psalms in the Songs of David] and a translation of influential Jesuit Juan de Polanco’s writings into Slavic.506v. 73.. 1. Nicolaus Canali. Et essendo.47r. essendo secati et brusati li olivari.” 37. come è. 74. caused the Dalmatian cities to first stagnate during the fifteenth century and continue to decline from the sixteenth century onward. 20 May.. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Raukar concluded that both Ottoman and Venetian factors. c.” Doumerc. I.” a nobleman of Šibenik. Commissiones.” 246. 6. Zadar u XV. including “ser Baptista Diphnyci quondam domini Georgii. 759]. 2A. 9 January 1560. and “meser Hieronymo Gallelli […] spettabile meser Pietro Ferra. “Dominio del mare. 77. Simon Budineus. 2. che alcuno non potesse pinatar vignie. 28 November 1558. 77-78. History of the Croatian Language. c. 9 January 1560. 2:197.2r-c. Daniel Cavalca. c. 338. Moguš. c. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 6. In the wake of the Council of Trent. and Economic Elites 137 70. beneffitio delli suoi sudditi.505r-c. 2A. 78. Rosa. Johannes a Morea. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. et meser Gregorio Grisogono. Izpravik za erei izpovidnici. E. In his contemporary report Giacomo Pisano. 26 October.3r. wrote that “fu fatto un proclama. contado et isole. Ibid. 1560. per il che fino al partir mio n’erano stà piantadi 5. 214-219.Actors: Political. I. 1. Simon Budineus. and Civallello (Civaleli) families disposed of up to 700 ducats annual income. I. Et si facea nel contado et isole avanti 1537 miera 600 [mjera or unit of measurement. .100. 71. 76. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 6. 19 December 1545.g. s. 22 October 1569. c. se non piantasse per ogni gugnial [gonjaj] 12 piedi de olivari.41v. Daniel Cavalca. Simon Budineus was working on Slavic translations of ecclesiastical and instructional writings in Rome.1v. The Slavic family names (in parentheses) are from Raukar et al. Only the Tetrico (Detrik). Among Simon Budineus’s clients were the archbishop and a variety of other highprofile individuals. 2. III. 1. I. c. 3 July 1565. Chojnacki. emphasis in the original). I. il qual con molto apresso che vien dalla Puglia si consuma nella città. stoljeću. “Cultural-Political History of Zadar. count of Zadar 1564-66.46v-c. ma per li disturbi hora se ne fanno 100 miera. 1. no. 413-416. Commissiones. 5.47r. “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures.6vc. This particular contract is not the only one in which bonuses for the planting of new olive trees are apportioned. 79. a development further reinforced by the OttomanVenetian war between 1537 and 1540. “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians. 1558. at times even anachronistically called a “holding. 1. Johannes a Morea. (1556-1566).80v. I. at the time of the stipulation of the instrument. Johannes a Morea. salt pans were sold only six times. Sources: unless indicated otherwise. nine out of 36 times). in Zadar’s port and that most contracting parties did not reside in Zadar. I. 1555. Despite the fact that these contracts remain silent on the species of animals. most documents do not list them but in some instances there are references to herds of 400-800 animals. f. 85-88. Based upon 25 livestock sales (emptiones) and 11 livestock leases (locationes). Simon Mazzarellus. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Most likely these large herds were goats or sheep since the existence of comparable numbers of cattle in the agriculturally marginal lands of central Dalmatia is highly unlikely.p. (1540-1569). 3 October 1558.017 ducats. (1545-1569). there are 11 contracts in which livestock was leased or rented to someone else by the owner.. or around 92 ducats on average. on the buyer/tenant side of the contracts.53r. I. totalling only c. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. In all. (1555-1567). 2. Raukar et al. Petrus de Bassano. Johannes a Morea. 3. 1. Commissiones.15v. the livestock was located on islands off Zadar but still within the city’s jurisdiction. three out of 36 times). “Domina Pasiza uxor quondam domini Nicolai de Begna” appeared twice when she sold 1. however. . 81.600 goats (two to three years old) to “spectabili domino Joanni de Hermolais quondam Magnifici domini Francisci nobili Arbensis” for the price of three to four goats per ducat. the Ventura families (Franciscus and Hieronymus. the turnover amounted to c. 11. 1. 4 July 1555. The turnover in the 11 rental contracts (locationes) was smaller. Also. 23 July 1555. 2:197. (1555-1561).84r. Johannes a Morea. totalling only 15 instances over the three decades under survey. Soppe (four out of 36). the number of ships sold via notarial instruments is very small. As in the livestock trade. f.370 ducats. and the Ferra and Rosa families (one each out of 36). f.170v. Conversely. Johannes a Morea. 3. and the Soppe (seven out of 36 times) rank among the most prominent recipients. 4. 1 February 1556. f. totalling 533 ducats. 8. 10 March 1555. except for the fact that most ships sold were. I. Johannes a Morea. In addition. in 20 out of these 36 transactions. In all of these 36 instances. a third contract listing 600 goats and sheep has been found. 15 September 1541. 84. I. the number of owners remained limited. the Begna or Gallellus families) and non-noble (Toninus. Simon Budineus. 13 times they were leased between 1540 and 1569.. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. suggesting that the livestock was firmly concentrated in the hands of a few families: the Nassis (named in 11 out of the 36 instances). 82.138 Urban Elites of Zadar 80. 3. only 25 contracts document the sale of livestock. 1.53r. Johannes a Morea.80r-f. f. All other owners of noble (e. the archbishopric is named twice as the owner of the livestock. As for the number of livestock involved. 1. 83. de Hermolais) descent were listed only once. f. 1. 3. 3. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Petrus de Bassano. 1. Simon Mazzarellus.78v.g. 1. s. 1. the salt production capacities were concentrated in the hands of a few noble families—namely the Rosa (appearing seven times) and Fanfoneus (four times)—and the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary of Zadar (three times).. f. Daniel Cavalca. 27 June 1555. 10 March. In addition. Over the three surveyed decades. the merchants of the de Pontremolo (both Johannes Antonius and Lazarus. All other owners were listed only once. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Begna (three out of 36). In the livestock sales. with prices ranging from one ducat per cow to three to four goats per ducat. The contracts involving the partial or complete transaction of a ship cannot be analysed in similar terms. .” when the three brothers leased some of their salt works to “venerabili domino presbitro Georgio Zorulich Canonico Pagensis. “domino Joanni Antonio de Pontremolo mercatori et habitatori Jadre. 206-219.31r. f. Johannes a Morea. 16 August 1553. 88. Johannes a Morea. Three times Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo is identified as the buyer. as well as additional payment issues like pay days.99r. 1. f. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 117 by commoners) salt pans in use during the fourteenth century. In early 1557 “ser Bernardinus quondam Nicolai Mantacouich de Bescamodo habitator Clodie” (Chioggia) sold “unam barcam bracezam pedum viginti quatuor in circa existentem in portum Jadre” to “ser Joanni quondam Stoie de Corcira” (Corfu) for the price of 100 libras. Petrus de Bassano. 1.37r-c. stoljeću. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 14 March 1562. I. 10 October 1540. 23 May 1543.48r.29r-f.p.29v. Zadar u XV.13r. only 345 (288 run by nobles. 2. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1555. Daniel Cavalca. c. The Rosa family appeared two more times. Johannes a Morea. 10 September 1555.313r-c. 3. For the price of 90 ducats “Paulus filius Francisci Bressanini habitator Malamochi” sold a marciliana with the capacity of approximately 300 Venetian star (c. 57 by commoners) were used after the beginning of the second Venetian dominion.675 litres) to “domino Bartholomeo Augustini de Nigris de Ravena ad praesens habitatori Jadre. 1. I. s. 16 July 1567. However ship had only recently been in Bernardinus’s possession since the instrument also states that he acquired it on 17 January 1557 in Rab. . 2. Johannes a Morea. 13 February 1555. Johannes a Morea. 12. 87. s.37v. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2. 12 May 1561. 10 May 1555. 5 February 1545. 2. ac Franciscus de Rosa quondam excellentissimi leges utriusque Doctoris domini Simonis. While there were 942 (825 run by nobles. nobles of Zadar acted as the congregation’s procurators (in the third case one of the nuns is listed).29r. Petrus de Bassano. 3. 1 February 1560. Ecclesiastical. 1.Actors: Political.3r-f. 9 September 1548. I. and Economic Elites 139 85. I. I.28v-c. 1. f..” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. I. Both contracts included the usufruct rights to use the proprietors’ storage facilities on Pag near the salt works.p. 1. 3. Simon Budineus. Daniel Cavalca. Daniel Cavalca. s. The fourth time it is his next-of-kin. 1. Nicolaus Drasmileus. This decline of approximately 75% was mirrored by the decline of salt production on the neighbouring island of Pag during the same period. 11 October 1540. 65 by commoners) during the fourteenth century to only 42 (26 run by nobles. Simon Mazzarellus. I. 3. 90. I. I. 2B. 89. 5. HR DAZD 31 BZ. B. I. f. rendering it increasingly difficult for local investors to profit from it. 11 September 1548. 13 February 1561. c. 92. f. 1.313v. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 3. c. 17 March 1557. I. 1. s. I.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.38v.12v-f.15v. 16 by commoners) between 1409 and 1500. In addition to the examples cited. 1. 10 April 1564. c. Cornelius Constantius.17v.4v.13r.16v. Johannes a Morea. f. 28 August 1547.17r-f.16r-f. I. f.. Johannes a Morea. 1. I. although in the name of “domini Michael. 91. I.15r-c. 6. 1.30v-f. 4. This contributed to the overall decline of economic activities after 1409. c. 24. Daniel Cavalca.. f. it is worth pointing out that in two out of the three instances involving the nunnery of St Mary OSB. 6.p. 86. 1. Raukar. The number of salt pans in use within Zadar’s jurisdiction declined from 169 (104 run by nobles. c. 16 March.p. 281-297. 1. These developments were brought about by Venetian attempts to monopolise the salt trade for themselves.7r. I. 9. c. F.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1.6v-c. Petrus de Bassano. I. 1. etc. 140 Urban Elites of Zadar 93. In autumn of 1541 “ser Georgius Spatario de Pirano Nauta” (sailor) sold a “barca a pedota” with 350 Venetian star capacity (c. 28,788 litres) to “ser Damiano de Lustiza, habitatori Jadre” for the price of 47 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.19r, 30 October 1541. 94. In the beginning of 1541 “ser Franciscus de Pontremullo, et ser Michael Radinouich alias Barbiricich Ambo Mercatores, ac Cives, et habitatores Jadre” sold their respective halves of a jointly-possessed grippo with 100 star capacity (c. 8,225 litres) to “Thome Ganelich de Sibenico naute habitatori Jadre” for the price of 125 libras and 15 soldi. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 4 January 1541. 95. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February 1549; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.27r, 9 August 1543. 96. The properties were located near the village of Lukoran on the island of Ugljan, making him stand out among the other Venetians who refrained from engaging in the local property markets. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, 1, B, s.p., 8 July 1540 (two individual instruments). 97. Franciscus leased half of the annual income (introitus) of the village of Sali on Dugi Otok in exchange for the annual payment of 178 ducats in 1546, payable each April on St George’s Day (23 April). In January 1547 however he ceded his rights to “domimo Dominico de Nassis quondam domini Petri,” the original “conductor principalis introitus insulae Sale.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 13, s.p., 17 January 1547. 98. In summer of 1543 “ser Petrus Cherletich Nobilis Terre Pagi,” then residing in Zadar, sold “unum Grippum dicti ser Petri venditoris, capacitatis stariorum 200 [1 Venetian star = c. 81.31 litres, 200 star = c. 16,662 litres, Statuta Iadertina, 759], in circa, ad praesens existentium in portu Jadre.” The vessel was sold to Franciscus “cum omnibus, ac Singulis cordis, ac alijs armigijs” for the price of 55 ducats, which the latter paid in cash. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.27r, 9 August 1543. A grippo was a small, single-masted sailing boat, up to 17 metres in length and three to four metres in breadth employed in commerce and fishing and could, if needed, also be rowed and converted for fighting purposes. Lane, Ships and Shipbuilders, 53. 99. The inclusion of the second surname underlines, again, that Zadar’s nobility lived in both Latin-Italian and Slavic worlds. A second naming of the Begna family with the same second surname further emphasises this. “Dominus Georgius de Begna alias Scauich quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadrae” sold “animalium minutorum capita quadraginta” to “domino Joanni eius filio.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February 1549; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 3, s.p., 15 January 1562. 100. A Greek artisan, “Magister Joannes Grecus de Corta cerdo,” master-cobbler and resident of Zadar, sold his domuncula to Franciscus for the price of 142 libras and two soldi, including the obligation to pay an annual rent (livellum) of four libras and 10 soldi to the owner of the property. Franciscus paid Johannes 37 libras in advance and the remaining 105 libras and two soldi in cash at the time of the stipulation of the contract. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February 1549. 101. E.g., when “strenuus dominus Cominus Frassina Capitaneus stratiotarum in Jadra,” a debtor of Franciscus Dandulo “pro unius equi […] pro pannis” and other equestrian equipment bought from the latter on 20 September 1536. The total outstanding sum amounted to 300 ducats and Cominus obliged himself and his heirs to pay it back in its entirety. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 2, 1, f.6r, 26 June, 1540. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 141 102. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, f.15r, 8 October 1551. 103. The local Venier branch also appears comparatively prominent in the reports of the Venetian officials where they were noted as being responsible for the fortified outpost in Zemunik in the early 1540s. The same family appears in 1553 when, upon his return from his captainship in Zadar, Paulo Justiniano (Giustinian) described Thomaso Venier as an able commander who was well-liked by both the citizens of Zadar and the Ottomans because of his “gentilezza et destrezza.” Only a few years later, in mid-1557, the city’s former count, Antonio Michiel, referred to Thomaso’s military skills in his report, stating that the latter’s cavalry detachment provided a certain degree of security. Commissiones, 2:172; Commissiones, 3:51, 102. 4. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets The decades following Venice’s renewed control over most of Dalmatia witnessed many changes. One of these changes was the slow but steady decline of opportunities in maritime commerce, due to a variety of factors. This contributed to the decreasing significance of the entire region. Less investment in long-distance trade over the course of the fifteenth century caused a flow of money into what appeared to be safer assets.1 This chapter examines trends in the subsequent century. It offers insights on the size and turnover of Zadar’s real estate transactions between 1540 and 1569 through an investigation of the following three segments of the markets: sales (emptiones), planting concessions (concessiones, pastinationes), and rental contracts (locationes) (Table 8).2 1. Property Sales The sale of immovable property was by far the largest portion of the property markets in terms of individual transactions, exceeding the number of rental contracts almost fivefold (Table 9).3 Table 9, below, allows three observations. First, while the apportionment of the data into three decades is arbitrary,4 the total number of property sales remained virtually constant. Second, in almost all instances the language the notaries used for their instrument books was Latin. At least in this regard, the property sales constitute a deviation from the procuratorial instruments (of which about three percent were drawn up in Venetian). A more important difference between the notarial records and the procuratorial instruments is that as contracting parties, women made up a smaller 144 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 8: Zadar’s Property Markets (Overview, 1540-1569) Notary Public Augustinus Martius Cornelius Constantius Daniel Cavalca Franciscus Thomaseus Gabriel Cernotta Horatius de Marchettis Johannes a Morea Johannes Michael Mazzarellus Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius Nicolaus Canali Nicolaus Drasmileus Petrus de Sanctis Petrus de Bassano Simon Budineus Simon Mazzarellus Salesa 26 20 269 55 3 24 98 34 1 28 138 6 197 119 49 1,067 Concessionsb 3 13 93 8 9 17 95 7 1 7 57 6 64 60 39 479 Rental Contractsc 4 10 41 2 2 12 30 7 – 5 20 1 15 54 20 226 Sources: see note 2. 1,772 contracts are analysed. Names are given in standard Latin. (a) Number per decade of property sales (emptio) by each notary. (b) Number per decade of planting concessions (concessio, pastinatio). (c) Number per decade of rental contracts (locatio). Table 9: Sales Market (Overview, 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No. of Actsa 352 356 359 1,067 % of Totalb 33 % 33.4 % 33.6 % 100 % Latinc 350 356 356 1,062 ♀ Constituentsd 66 58 49 173 ♀ Procuratorse 21 21 46 88 Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of vending contracts. (b) Relative percentage per decade. (c) Number per decade of instruments stipulated in Latin. In the 1540s two acts were written in both Latin and Venetian; in the 1560s three acts were written in Venetian. (d) Number per decade of female constituents. (e) Numbers per decade of female procurators. brother. On average. demonstrates that slightly fewer women participated in property sales than appointed procurators. and the remaining areas.6 By further breaking down the numbers to include the subdivisions of the city’s jurisdiction.e. Astareja). Novigrad. i. almost 91% of individuals who acquired real estate came from Zadar or one of the jurisdiction’s subdivisions. about four times higher). the share of people who originated from elsewhere is negligible. two-thirds lived within the city walls or suburban settlements. above. or other male relative. and social provenances of the contracting parties. and Vrana. It was virtually impossible for women to buy or sell their own immovable property without the explicit consent of their father. geographical.8 In terms of social provenance the picture is less monolithic. Of these 90%. husband. the size of the real estate in question. Unsurprisingly. the medieval urban territory (ager publicus. and the remaining two percent came from elsewhere in the Adriatic basin.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 145 percentage of the former than the latter. 8%. Additionally. An even bigger contrast is seen in the percentage of procurators who were women (a mere 2%) compared to the percentage of acquiring parties who were women (8%. Roughly a tenth were not identified. While in antiquity women enjoyed rights comparable to those of men in conferring immovable property.7 The share of buyers who came from within Zadar’s jurisdiction was slightly higher. and all remaining areas “shared” the last buyer. On average. the minor districts of Nin. broken down into subdivisions: of these nine buyers seven lived in Zadar or its suburbs. slightly more than a quarter of all contracting parties who appointed procurators were female compared to only around 16% who sold real estate. and the relationship between its location and price.5 Table 9. The following analysis of Zadar’s property market details the occupational. The nobility (local and non-local) made up slightly more than 8% of the ven- . This marginal increase over the vending parties corresponds with a small decrease in the number of unidentified buyers whose share decreased to c. slightly fewer than 90% of all vendors originated from within the jurisdiction of Zadar. Less than a fifth came from one of the coastal islands. the picture changes. the islanders accounted for one of the acquiring parties. totaling less than one percent. Again. and the remaining stipulating parties originated from the other areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction. their legal powers were significantly eroded during the Middle Ages. 7 702.955.370 m2.9 1.5% or 15 instances among the sellers versus c. Their corresponding share among the acquiring parties was about 30%.2 5. The other three-quarters did not.2 ø Acreage (morgen)c 4. But the differences between vendors and buyers of the intellectual elite and merchant groups were more dramatic. 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s Total Area (morgen)a 1. 2. The upper strata of society continued to dominate sales by virtue of their economic muscle (Table 9.1).9 1. Their share corresponds with estimates of the nobility’s proportion of Zadar’s population around the middle of the sixteenth century. Property sales remained more or less stable in terms of individual contracts per decade. members of the intellectual elite. In contrast to their share among the vendors.4 1. In only 16 instances did merchants.542.10 While these changes are impressive. tradesmen. Statuta Iadertina. Only a quarter of all vendors belonged to the intellectual elite or merchant groups. When broken down further it emerges that the artisanal group increased their share by only slightly more than 40%. they must be put in perspective. members of the urban elites made up more than half of the buyers. but they bought property in 120 instances (c. .2 Total Area (hectares)b 368.4 4 8.146 Urban Elites of Zadar dors and 11% of the buyers. On average. 11%). 12% of the vendors. 6% or 61 instances among the buyers). The increase in the merchants’ activities was even greater. The buying share of intellectual elites quadrupled compared to its activities as sellers (c.5 2. Their share of the purchasing market was slightly higher than 40%. (d) Average number per decade of hectares transferred.412. 1.405. and merchants made up c. Table 9. (a) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c.910.3 Sources: see note 2. (c) Average number per decade of morgen transferred.1: Transferred Property (Overview. 759). and small retailers sell property. (b) Number per decade of transferred properties in hectares.9 Interesting changes occurred in the shares of the other sellers and buyers.1 334. artisans.3 5.4 1. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.5 ø Acreage (hectares)d 1 0. This development is even more pronounced once we take into account the relative value of the ducat and its fixed conversion rate of six libras and four soldi. While the prices doubled. there were forces at work in land-holding trends. While it is true that increased insecurity in the rural areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction contributed significantly to falling prices. this may not have been the only cause.2. When compared with the preceding 10 years. The total acreage transferred decreased by a tenth from 368 hectares sold in the 1540s to 334 hectares the 1550s. however. suggesting that these developments were not the result of the invisible hand of the market alone. This sudden jump in activity most certainly exerted pressure on property prices. but the amount of morgen sold almost doubled. the total number of morgen sold more than doubled despite the fact that this massive change is not reflected by any significant increase in notarial acts (see Table 9.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 147 Table 9. average prices for a morgen of land in sight of Zadar’s city walls rose in lockstep with the acreage transferred. putting downward pressure on prices.1 highlights two facts. These numbers must be treated cautiously. the monetary denominations kept their relative value. Even the slightly receding number of morgen sold had a disproportionately large impact on the average price per unit sold.12 . which we shall now investigate. below. Another explanation may be that the total transferred acreage increased by more than 15 times from the 1540s to the 1560s. average property prices did not change uniformly. But the big change occurred in the decade leading up to the Cyprus War.11 Jurisdiction As shown in Table 9. due to data loss the sample size for this category is very small. the total number of sales remained more or less constant over the period under survey. Territory In addition to an increased desire for property closer to the safety of the city walls. This should have exerted downward pressure on prices. especially in comparison with the other two categories of territory and the coastal islands. The factor by which the total acreage increased from the 1540s and 1550s to the decade prior to the Cyprus War is not as high as in the jurisdiction category. First. above). Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani). Gaženica (Gasenica). stoljeću.9 202. Toponyms below are listed by their present-day name. (c) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for the islands. Còsino (Cosinoselo). and on the four minor islands of Iž (Eso. Tršci (Tersci). and Zaglav (Zaglava).4 ducats Territoryb 368. Miljačka (Migliacza). Kožino. Raukar. Analysis is based on 90 contracts (16 from the 1540s. Puntamika (Puntamica).370 m2. Ždrelac or Stagno di Pasmano (Sdrelaz). Zlovšane (Slouhsane). Silba (Selve). Kamenjani (Chamegnani). Analysis is based on 256 contracts (93 for the 1540s. Višnjik (ad Sanctum Joannem). Kukljica (Chuchgliza). and 138 from the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bibinje (Bibigne).6 ducats 10. Astareja). Preko (Oltre). Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi). Turanj.5 ducats 4 ducats 5.8 298. 223. Exo). Crno (Cerno). Briševo (Briseuo). Grobnica (Gromniza).5 ducats 5 ducats Sources: see note 2. Gorica (Goriza). Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Kali (Calle). Murvica (Murvizza). Rogovo (Rogovo). and 48 from the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Blato (Blato).1 673.3 1. Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana). Drenovac (Drinovazzo). Neviđane (Neviane). (a) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for the parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland not belonging to the city’s territory (ager publicus. Sutomišćica (Sancte Euphemie). Sušica (Sussiza). Diklo (Diclo).079. and Vrgada (Vergata). (b) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for Zadar’s territory. Brodarica (in valle magistra).1 ducats 7. Tkon (Tchoni). 46. Zemunik (Zemonico). and 101 for the 1560s) that concern property on the named islands or near the following places on Dugi Otok: Brbinj (Berbigne). The categorisation of “Jurisdiction-Territory-Islands” is based on Chapter 2. 62 for the 1550s. Crvene Kuće (Drassaniza). followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses).148 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 9.7 702. Zadar u XV. Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum). 26 from the 1550s. Kolovare (Colovare).4 1.8 ducats 2. Grusi (Grusi). Rava (Raua). Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano). Petrčane (Peterzane). Rat Veli (Punta Bianca). Lazareto (lazarettum). Bili Brig (Belvederium).1 334.7 ø Price/ morgen 3. and Raukar et al. The bottom line gives the three-decade averages for transferred property in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. and Ugljan (Ugliano). Ražanac (Rasance). Klikor (Chlichor). Analysis is based on 495 contracts (171 from the 1540s. 186 from the 1550s.367. Turretta (Turretta). Pašman (Pasmano). Podi (Podi).2 ducats Islandsc 172. Ponton (Pontone).2: Average Prices (Overview. Gladuša (Gladussa). on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno). 1540-1569) Jurisdictiona 1540s 1550s 1560s 70.4 218 1. . 759) and the threedecade averages for prices..8 ø Price/ morgen 5. Lukoran (Lucorano). Veterinići (Veterinichi). Paprad (Paprad). between Bokanjac and Diklo).3 ducats 1. Statuta Iadertina.1 ducats 2. Kotopašćina (Cottopaschina).405. Smiljevac (Smiglievaz).9 ducats 6. Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo).2 ø Price/ morgen 4. on Ugljan (Ugliano): Činta (Chinta). Savar (Sauro). Račice (Racice). 2. and Zerodo (Cerodolo. Sali (Sale). usually located in close proximity to the communal square.14 Another 13.5% were drawn up in one of Zadar’s chancelleries. 6. The urban elites as a whole did invest a considerable share of their income in real estate.13 Around 15% of the acts were written in business or storage facilities (apotheca). Whatever the exact reasons. However. This is even more remarkable in light of the changes in the overall number of contracts per decade.529 ducats. and their share among the buyers was only slightly higher than 50%. by a factor of 170%.15 The remaining acts were written in a variety of locations. This is underscored by the fact that elite groups made up only a quarter of vendors.067 contracts presents a more nuanced picture. The communal square was noted as the location of stipulation in approximately a third of all instances. including the suburbs. The second-largest share of instruments (slightly more than a quarter) were written in the houses of one of the contracting parties.351 ½ ducats.17 and places as seemingly unlikely as the top of the city’s main gate. The 1550s witnessed a modest increase since this sum totalled c.16 ships in the port. mirrored by the number . In the 1560s. Generally speaking.18 The vending market was not entirely dependent on the economic muscle of the urban elites. the total turnover was c. 9. The overall volume of the sales market almost doubled during the three interwar decades.072 ducats. Less than three percent were made on ecclesiastical property. Over this timespan the various developments corresponded with the turnover per decade.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 149 The Coastal Islands The islands are the best-documented category since the total number of contracts involving the transaction of a parcel of land remained virtually constant over the entire period under survey. The total number of ducats transferred by all real estate transactions during the three decades amounted to c. analysis of these 1. The total acreage sold increased considerably less than in the two other examples discussed. During the 1540s the transaction volume amounted to c. 5.105 ½ ducats. probably because of its perceived investment security. A final area of investigation concerns the locations in which these notarial acts were drawn up. almost twice as high as the first decade and roughly in line with the numbers discussed above. the communal square with the loggia and the jurists’ bench was the most important place to conduct any business requiring notarial validation. 20. 5 ½ ducats per unit. the average price for a morgen of real estate on the islands remained equally stable at the (virtual) value of c. these land grants included clauses providing for special gifts (honorantias). and action in case of natural disasters or Ottoman incursions (Table 10).150 Urban Elites of Zadar of morgen transferred and the turnover of ducats. Increased demand in the territory and rising insecurity in the more remote areas of the city’s jurisdiction on the mainland impacted negatively on property prices further away from the walls. Planting Concessions/Land Grants The second important sector of the real estate market was land grants (concessiones sive pastinationes).19 In addition to the standard data. First. While the number of contracts transferring real estate within sight of Zadar and their respective prices doubled over the three decades. (a) Number per decade of concessions. This imposed pressure on property prices. (d) Number per decade of female land-holding parties. (e) Number per decade of female leasing parties. which remained stable over the entire period under survey. In exchange for a fixed share of the harvest. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. . fixed dates at which the duties and special gifts were to be delivered to the landlord. In the 1560s six acts were written in Venetian. 2. 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No. (c) Number per decade of instruments stipulated in Latin. of Actsa 118 171 189 478 % of Totalb 25% 36% 39% 100 % Latinc 118 171 183 472 ♀ Landlordsd 13 13 9 35 ♀ Tenantse 2 4 1 7 Sources: see note 2. Two points stand out. other areas were less affected. (b) Relative percentage per decade. this particular segment of real estate transactions mirrored the developments of the sales market Table 10: Planting Concessions or Land Grants (Overview.20 Table 10 gives an overview of the concessions market during the three decades under survey. the landlord conceded the right to cultivate his property to a single individual or group. These developments are also evidenced by the price for a morgen of land on one of the islands off the coast. (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3). (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3). All numbers above include both landowners and locators who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). Second.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Landlords (1540-1569) Nobilitya 1540s 1550s 1560s 33 (♀ 2) 72 (♀ 5) 94 (♀ 5) 198 (♀ 12) Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Restg Elitesf 33 (7) 13 4 11 5 (3) 19 57 (15) 5 5 (2) 10 12 (4) 11 44 (11) 8 11 (9) 2 13 (7) 17 134 (33) 28 20 (11) 23 30 (14) 47 Sources: see note 2. the nobility’s combined share increases to almost 50%. the number of female contracting parties was negligible. even though at about 55% the changes from the 1540s to the 1560s were considerably smaller. The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. By the 1560s the nobility conceded property twice as often as the clergy (Table 10. this changed significantly over the two ensuing decades. Ecclesiastical institutions needed natural persons to represent them. shows that the two upper social strata were firmly in control of the concessions market. The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar.1). and hospitals—and individuals who.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 151 discussed above. It must be kept in mind that the clergy included institutions—such as churches. The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. It is interesting however that while both strata started out owning roughly equal shares of the conceded lands during the 1540s. The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties engaged in commerce and trade (see note e for Table 3).1. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. If their kinsmen among the clergy are considered. four out of ten landlords were of privileged descent. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). hence the connection between the property Table 10. made up less than a quarter in this category. below. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2). in stark contrast to the sales market. congregations. . on average. Table 10. This can be partially explained by the fact that after fighting ceased Venetian governors attempted to repopulate the rural hinterlands with colonists from elsewhere. Also.25 The data compiled in Table 10. congregation. Consequently. nine out of ten landowners lived within the city walls of Zadar. went back to their hamlets and villages in the countryside after the ratification of the peace treaty. Most likely this was the result of the cumulative effect of the truce between Venice and the Ottoman Empire.3. the importance of real estate situated within Zadar’s territory increased markedly over the entire period under survey. below).22 The data for the recipient parties mirrors these statistics. which prompted the return of the hinterland’s inhabitants who. almost half of all landlords appear in the notarial records only via their legal representatives. below.24 These endeavours both changed the social fabric of the inhabited parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction and contributed to the increase in the appearance in the records of unidentified toponyms relating to the colonists’ origins.3.5. for instance. First. The city’s agricultural workforce around the mid-sixteenth century consisted in equal numbers of city-dwellers and inhabitants of Zadar’s hinterlands (Table 10.23 As time progressed less property was conceded to labourers from Zadar proper and its suburban settlement. Second. or hospital was the landowner.” This is at least partly due to the fourfold increase in unidentified toponyms appearing in the documents from the 1540s and the 1560s. while the conceded surface area increased more than sixfold from the 1540s to the 1560s.2. In more general terms. the number of tenants who originated from elsewhere under the city’s jurisdiction increased. One more factor requires explanation: the threefold increase in the column labeled “rest. the average number of morgen transferred per transaction increased only by a factor of 2. Equally absent were the other socio-occupational groups. having sought refuge within the city walls during the war. an observation supported by the geographical provenance of the propertied contracting parties. below). The nobility and clergy were almost non-existent in the records. only slightly more than half of all recipient parties resided in Zadar or its suburbs.21 Most conceded possessions were in the hands of the nobility or the clergy. a practice not restricted to the clergy. Comparable to the percentages of the vendors. . a procurator was present. allows two conclusions.152 Urban Elites of Zadar markets and previous analysis of the procurae. This is evidenced. In all cases where a church. by the origin of “Radichio Muhich de Zahum” (presumably Zahumlje) in present-day Herzegovina (Table 10. and Zavod (Zavod). Kamenjani (Chamegnane). Režane (Regiane). Tršci (Tersci). Nin (Nona). Gaženica (Gasenica). Pašman (Pasmano). n/ag 8 27 38 73 Sources: see note 2. Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi). excluding the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad: Artikovo (Articovo). on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno). Jelsa (Jelsa). Podvršje. Murvica (Murvizza).2: Geographical Provenances of the Tenants (1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s Zadar. (b) Number per decade of tenants residing within the city’s territory (ager publicus. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. Ražanac (Rasance). and Zaton (Zaton). Vegliana. and on the minor islands Iž (Eso. Tinj (Tinj). Zadar u XV. Mokro (Mocro). (d) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Nin: Brišane (Brisane). Tršćane (Terschiane). unlisted. Kožino (Cosinoselo). (a) Number per decade of tenants residing within Zadar proper or its suburban settlements. see Chapter 2. (e) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj. and Ugljan (Ugliano). Brda (Berda). Slivnica (Sliuniza).Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 153 Table 10. 46. Murter. Castro Novo [probably Herceg novi]. Kotopašćina (Cottopaschina).26 The minimum duration of such a land grant could range from as little as one27 year to up to two28 or three decades. Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano). Krk. Briševo (Briseuo). Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana). Crno (Cerno). Koruplje (Corpuaglie). Vrši (Podverie). Podi (Podi). Raico/Rainu/Raiuo. Galovac (Galovaz). 223. on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza). Varikašane (Varichassane).29 . Suhovare (Suovare). Biograd na moru (Zaretum vetus).5 months during the 1550s to 45. and Rava (Raua). Lukoran (Lucorano). Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. and Raukar et al. Raukar. Puntamika (Puntamica). Čerinci (Cerinci). and Zahum). Turanj (Turretta). Another interesting fact is that the average concession period increased from 38. Suburbsa 83 (28) 81 (25) 88 (38) 252 (91) Territoryb Jurisdictionc Nind 5 11 10 26 2 24 27 53 10 3 6 19 Novigrade Islandsf 2 2 5 9 8 23 15 46 Rest. Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo). Račice (Racice). Starošane (Starossane).5 months during the 1540s to 42. Diklo (Diclo).. Exo). Miljačka (Migliacza). or infrequently listed places (such as. (c) Number per decade of tenants residing within Zadar’s jurisdiction. For the territorial categories. Astareja): Bibinje (Bibigne). Pakoštane* (Pachoschiane). Privlaka (Bevilaqua). Molat (Melada). followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). and Tkon (Tchoni). Toponyms below are listed by their present-day name.5 months during the 1560s. Grusi (Gruse). Polišane (Polisane). Poscaglina. Crnogorišćina (Cernogerschina). Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani). (f) Number per decade of tenants residing on the islands of Dugi Otok: Rat Veli (Punta Bianca) and Sali (Sale). and Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum). Petrčane (Peterzane). stoljeću. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. (g) Number per decade of unidentified. Smoković (Smochovich). Kamenjani (Chamegnane). Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi). (g) Number per decade of unidentified. 38 for the 1550s. Papratnić (Papratnich). followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Toponyms below are listed by their present-day name. Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum). Podi (Podi). Raukar. Pašman (Pasmano). Statuta Iadertina. on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza). Černise (Cernise). (b) Average number per decade of morgen transferred. Preko (Oltre). and Zerodo (Cerodolo. between Bokanjac and Diklo). Bili Brig (Belvederium). For the territorial categories.154 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 10. Briševo (Briseuo). 46. n/ag 14 19 27 60 Sources: see note 2.. Vrši (Podverie). Ponton (Pontone). (Brusi). Smiljevac (Smiglievaz). excluding the minor districts of Ljubač.7 18. Brodarica (in valle magistra).8 ø Areab 4. and 43 for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Artikovo (Articovo). 759). and (Crisine). Podvršje. and Ždrelac (Sdrelaz). Crno (Cerno). Analysis is based on 22 contracts (11 for the 1540s. and Vrana. (Novoselci). Brda (Berda). Petrčane (Peterzane). Račice (Racice). Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani). Crvene Kuće (Drassaniza). and 90 for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bibinje (Bibigne). 25 for the 1550s. Analysis is based on 85 contracts (four for the1540s. Lazareto (lazarettum). (e) Number per decade of property transactions for the islands. or infrequently listed places. Murvica (Murvizza). Polišane (Polisane). 2. Starošane (Starossane). and eight for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bilotinjak (Belotignach). Miljačka (Migliacza). and Visočane (Visozane). Skril (Scrile). Grusi (Grusi).5 1550s 3. Turanj. Diklo (Diclo). and Raukar et al. Tršci (Tersci). (c) Number per decade of property transactions for Zadar’s territory. Puntamika (Puntamica). Analysis is based on 51 individual contracts (eight for the 1540s.3: Conceded Property (1540-1569) Total Areaa 1540s 558. stoljeću. Ražacon (Racanzoni). Višnjik (ad Sanctum Joannem). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo). Rogovo (Rogovo). Exo) and Rava (Raua). Nin (Nona).8 1560s 2. (f) Number per decade of property transactions for the district of Nin. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 84 for the1550s. Ninsko jezero (lacus None). on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno). Kožino (Cosinoselo). and Ugljan (Ugliano). three for the 1550s. Divni (Divini). Uškipah (Uschipac). . Zadar u XV. and on the two minor islands of Iž (Eso. Mokro (Mocro).8 11. Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. Poričane (Porizane). Gaženica (Gasenica). Sutomišćica (Sancte Euphemie).8 12. Kopranj (Copragl). see Chapter 2. Veterinići (Veterinichi). (d) Number per decade of property transactions in Zadar’s jurisdiction. Lukoran (Lucorano).563. and 18 for the 1560s) that concern property on the following islands: on Dugi Otok: Rat Veli (Punta Bianca) and Sali (Sale). Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano). Novigrad. Turretta (Turretta). Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana). Sušica (Sussiza).5 6. Privlaka (Bevilaqua).018. 223. Analysis is based on 255 contracts (81 for the 1540s.8 Territoryc 81 84 90 255 Jurisdictiond 3 38 43 85 Islandse 8 25 18 51 Ninf 11 5 11 27 Rest. unlisted.370 m2.140. Perkovo (Percovo). Sikovo (Sicouo). Kolovare (Colovare). Grbe (Gherbe). Biograd na moru (Zaretum vetus). 38 or the waiving of dues for a period of time. Some 18% were written in one of Zadar’s chancelleries. pestilence. grapes. et pro tertio quartum. The landlord’s share of the harvest could either be fixed or incremental. the tenants were usually required to consign to the landlord partial payments on empty property. and the jurists’ bench. Simoni Tergliaeuich.35 There were exceptions to this rule. Thomasio Hlapcich et Vucas Sissatouich. almost half (on average c. severe illness. During the period under survey vendors sold c.” the contracting parties agreed upon the following dues: “primo anno […] sextum dum taxat.34 In case the land had to be prepared prior to cultivation. An additional fifth was drawn up in the houses of one of the individuals involved. 6.901 morgen.42 In sum.30 Zadar’s statutes provide the normative framework for the harvest season. Commercial storage or retail facilities (apotheca) were used in roughly 7% of instances. However. 44%) were written in the communal main square. compared to the c. When “dominus Franciscus Thomaseus” and his brother. 5. Paulo Bratussich. such as planting a certain number of olive trees.40 All instruments also included exemptions from the contractual obligations of either party for certain circumstances such as death. including instructions on where to deliver the landlord’s share of the harvest32 and who was to pay for the transport of the crops. military service. then jointly “conductores affictus triennialis Archiepiscopatus Jadrensis.141 morgen conceded. totaling slightly less than half the number of the vending market. sozalis). the differences betwe- . the tenant was obliged to hand over an additional tenth to the Church. Ottoman incursions. the difference in the total acreage transferred is negligible.”36 On a number of occasions the landlord agreed to bonus payments for the tenants in exchange for the performance of additional tasks. via another visit to a notary.33 In addition to the landlord’s quarter of the harvest (if not stipulated otherwise).31 The remaining obligations were contained in the notarial instruments. pro secundo quintum. This fact notwithstanding.37 a fixed bonus per planted morgen. The tenants were to give the landlord three-days notice of the imminent harvest.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 155 Usually the land owners decided which crops—mainly corn. the concessions were the second-largest segment of the property market. And about 3% of all contracts were agreed upon on ecclesiastical property. or olives—were to be planted by the tenants (colonus.” conceded parts of said property near Podi to “Andrea Stoymilouich. Petro Stoymilouich. the loggia.39 Granted property could. be reassigned to a third party.41 As to the locations in which the land grants were written. or unpaid public works. Petro Boglielouich. (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin. . (a) Number per decade of leasehold contracts. the notarial acts include provisions such as the date of remittance and special gifts (Table 11). In addition to the relevant data on the contracting parties. of Actsa 34 75 117 226 % of Totalb 15% 33% 52% 100% Latinc 34 73 96 203 ♀ Landlordsd 2 12 13 30 ♀ Tenantse – 1 7 8 Sources: see note 2. In terms of social provenance/occupation. (b) Relative percentage per decade of leasehold contracts. (e) Number per decade of female tenants. In comparison to the sales market the number of rental contracts amounted to only about a fifth. Rental and Leasehold Contracts This category is by far the smallest of the three segments of the property market. 3. an absolute majority of the parcels of land conceded to tenants was located within sight of Zadar proper. An analysis of the rental contracts requires the consideration of three factors: the value of the leased property compared to the sold land. It totals 226 individual contracts in which the landowner leased his or her proprietary rights to usufruct a plot of land to one or more individuals in exchange for a defined amount of money per rental term. Slightly more than half the contracts involved property situated in the city’s territory (ager publicus. (d) Number per decade of female landowning parties. the nobility and the clergy continued to predominate among the propertied strata. the property. Astareja).156 Urban Elites of Zadar en the two segments of the property market are more apparent if one considers that the number of morgen in question increased sixfold from the 1540s to the 1560s. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. Their combined share remained constant at about two-thirds of all landowners. In the 1550s two acts were written in Venetian. in the 1560s 26 acts were written in Venetian. 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No. the parties who benefited from landed property (traditionalTable 11: Rental Contracts (Overview. Geographically. and the various clauses. with a combined share of almost three quarters.1). landownership was concentrated among the nobility and the Church). The dominance of the ecclesiastical institutions becomes more evident when considering that only a fraction of those labeled “clergy” in Ta- . Like the concessions market. ranging from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction to other parts of Dalmatia-Albania to Istria and Venice. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. the clergy and nobility. (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3).43 and the nature of female landownership (given the legal and social inferiority of women in property matters. the remaining fifth was more widely distributed. dominated the rental market.44 Geographically. this topic is of particular interest). (e) Number per decade of constituent parties engaged in commerce and trade (see note e for Table 3). All other social or occupational groups were found in the remainder. All numbers above include both landowners and individuals who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2).1: Social and Occupational Provenance of Landlords (1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s Nobilitya Clergyb 12 (♀ 1) 31 (♀ 5) 61 (♀ 13) 104 (♀ 19) 13 (1) 21 (3) 27 (4) 61 (8) Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse 4 4 3 11 – 4 4 8 1 – – 1 Intellectual Elitesf – 3 (3) 9 (5) 12 (8) Restg 4 12 13 29 Sources: see note 2. The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. while eight out of ten landlords originated from Zadar proper (including the three constituents from its suburbs). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 157 Table 11. although their numbers were so small as to render their impact economically insignificant. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. ly. The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3).45 Leasing property thus involved a geographically more diverse group of landowners (Table 11. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar. (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). A second observation is that during the 1540s the clergy enjoyed a slight edge over the nobility. By the 1560s. again. (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3). connects the property market to the procuratorial analysis in Chapter 2. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. and hospitals— not people. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar. the “political importance of the abbot of St Chrysogonus convent”46 was still considerable. Nine out of ten members of this category were institutions such as congregations. The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. the situation had reversed.1. n/ag Elitesf 1 7 7 (1) 32 8 6) 44 16 (7) 83 Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2. All numbers above include landowners and individuals who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). In all. all other groups of landowners were of limited importance to the rental market. above. parish churches. were individuals. Nevertheless. The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. Compared to their dominant role among the landowners. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties engaged in commerce and trade (see note e for Table 3). The three-decade averages decreased significantly to less than half for the nobles and less . Numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. the nobility and clergy played a smaller role among the tenants. however. The Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary appeared 12 times.2: Social and Occupational Provenance of Tenants (1540-1569) Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd 1540s 1550s 1560s 4 14 (♀ 1) 28 (♀ 3) 46 (♀ 4) 4 4 11 19 4 4 6 14 4 5 3 12 Merchantse 10 9 17 36 Intellectual Rest. the congregation appeared nine times as landowner. This. (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). By comparison. ble 11.158 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 11. In 140 of 226 instances (or 62% of the total) the landowning parties employed representatives to lease their property. is that the single largest category is “rest. .48 The turnover of the 226 rental contracts amounted to c. The remaining tenth could not be identified. predominantly those of ecclesiastical or privileged descent. The mercantile community’s share among the tenants (36 out of 226 instances. Landed property was a significant factor in the continuous generation of income for Zadar’s urban elites. the city’s relative share declined to slightly less than two-thirds (in contrast to almost 80% among the landlords). Together. congregations. Only three-quarters of all tenants came from the city or its suburbs. While nine out of ten renting parties originated from within Zadar’s jurisdiction. their economic muscle far exceeded their small numbers. Given that the total number of the merchants within the city’s society can be estimated at 200-250.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 159 than a third for members or Church institutions. below. the merchants. Table 11. gives both total and average turnover per decade in ducats for the three categories of jurisdiction. The fundamental fact to extrapolate from Table 11.110 ducats or almost 15% of all investments in the rental market over the entire period under consideration. shopkeepers. despite the fact that the rental market was more than 4. and the islands. this change had less of an impact than expected since the average turnover per rental contract decreased slightly. territory.” indicating that most individuals who leased or rented property did not belong to any of the elite groups. n/a. c. churches.1. Zadar’s mercantile community invested large amounts of money in real estate. In the latter case the situation is even more nuanced. or three to four percent of Zadar’s urban population around the mid-sixteenth century. both in terms of individual contracts and turnover per notarial act. while most ecclesiastical landowners were institutions—archbishopric.2. above.3. there was a predictable and significant shift in comparison with the origins of the landlords. 3. In absolute terms. above). however. On only one occasion was a merchant designated the landowner (see Table 11. and traders of Zadar were responsible for c. Also interesting is that compared to the concessions market. 20. and hospitals—all the tenants were individuals. 20.47 In terms of geographical provenance of the tenants. investments in the geographically more remote areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction increased by a significant magnitude from the 1540s to the 1560s.529 ducats). an enormous total when compared with the much larger vending market. 16%) well exceeded their relative share among the general population (see Chapter 2).5 times the size of the vending market.997 ducats. In relative terms. The rental market turnover was slightly higher even than the turnover of the vending market (c. In 30 other contracts (c. these involved small livestock or poultry. The islands serve as a control group. James. Every document details the date of remittance. the city’s territory was the most dynamic area in terms of price developments. rents there remained stable. this seemingly small shift caused significant change. Due to the landowner’s desire to ensure the integrity of his or her possession. The three-decade average is 67 months.6 hectares. If the rent was not paid in advance the payments were due on previously-fixed days. Assessing the size of the properties. Easter. Typically feast days were chosen as paydays.49 By the mid-sixteenth century this appeared to have changed. which exerted corresponding pressure upon rental duties. As in the concessions. son of Zebedee (25 July). average prices rose by about the same factor (c. and increased again to 63 months during the decade leading up to the Cyprus War. on the other hand. Since only seven out of 226 notarial instruments lack precise information about the duration of the tenure. some contracts specified the dates for when special gifts (honorantiae) were to be consigned to the landlord prior to Lent (carnis privum). This is significant given the high fluctuation of the number of contracts and their respective market shares during each of the three surveyed decades (Table 11. 13%) the property size is given in morgen. and Michaelmas. Easter.1 to 7. 485% from the first to the last decade under survey).50 and exemptions from duties linked to damage . During the preceding century it was common practice to rent out real estate in sors. patches of 7. the feast of St Michael the Archangel (29 September). Less often payments were set for Christmas. The territory size is referred to as sors in only 72 instances (c. it is easier to investigate the length of the rental contracts. Movement of average prices exhibits virtually no change over the entire period under survey. or around New Year. While the share of rented property within sight of the city walls increased by only 5% from the 1540s to the 1560s. is more difficult since less than half of the contracts list precise information about the size of the parcels of land involved. The total number of rental contracts increased fivefold.160 Urban Elites of Zadar Like the jurisdiction and islands categories of the property markets. The following feasts appear most often in the rental contracts: St George (23 April). most documents included provisions against fire clearing or other forms of forest clearance. 32%) of all rental contracts. On average. below). real estate was leased for 89 months during the 1540s. Unlike their counterparts on the mainland. In addition to the rental dues. and Christmas. This decreased to 49 months during the 1550s. But more importantly.3. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 161 Table 11.3: Rental Market Turnover (Overview, 1540-1569) Jurisdictiona Total Turnover Territoryb Total Turnover Islandsc Total Turnover ø Turnover ø Turnover ø Turnover 1540s 4 1550s 23 1560s 43 70 224 ø 56 941 ø 41 2,347 ø 54.5 3,512.5 ø 50 4 9 20 33 56 ø 14 353 ø 39 1,360 ø 68 1,770 ø 53.5 15 7 17 39 1,179.5 ø 78.5 549 ø 78 1,331 ø 78 3,060 ø 78.5 Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade average for transferred property in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. 2,370 m2, Statuta Iadertina, 759) and the three-decade averages for prices (the top line gives the total turnover, the bottom line the average for each respective category and decade; all prices are given in ducats). For the categorisaton of “Jurisdiction-Territory-Islands,” see Chapter 2, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 223. Toponyms below are listed by their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). (a) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen for the parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland not belonging to the city’s territory (excluding the minor districts of Ljubač, Nin, and Novigrad) that concern property near the following places: Artikovo (Articovo), Bašćica (Basizza), Blato (Blato), Brda (Berda), Drenovac (Drinovazzo), Galovac (Galovaz), Gladuša (Gladussa), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chamegnani), Kotopašćina (Cottopaschina), Kožino (Cosinoselo), Mahurci (Mahurci), Miljačka (Migliacza), Murvica (Murvizza), Podi (Podi), Polišane (Polisane), Poričane (Porizane), Račice (Racice), Skril (Scrile), Smoković (Smochovich), Starovci (Starovzzi), Strupnić (Strupnich), Tršci (Tersci), Veterinići (Veterinichi), Visočane (Visozane), Zlovšane (Slouhsane). (b) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen for the city’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja; excluding the suburbs) that concern property near the following places: Babindub (Sancte Marie de Rovere), Bibinje (Bibigne), Bili Brig (Belvederium), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Crno (Cerno), Diklo (Diclo), Gaženica (Gasenica), Grgomičić (Gerguriza), Kolovare (Colovare), Kopranj (Copragl), Višnjik (ad Sanctum Joannem), and Zerodo (Cerodolo). (c) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen concerning property on the named islands or near the following places: on Dugi Otok: Rat Veli (Punta Bianca), Sali (Sale), and Dragove (Dragoua); on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Neviđane (Neviane), Pašman (Pasmano), and Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomišćica (Sancte Euphemie), and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the minor island of Iž (Eso, Exo). from bad weather or incursions from across the Ottoman-Venetian border. Examples include a case from autumn of 1543. When “Reverendus dominus Matheus de Marchetis canonicus Jadrensis, Nec non Comendatarius 162 Urban Elites of Zadar Abbatie Sancti Michaelis de Monte in Insula, ultra Barchaneum Jadrensis diocesis” leased the abbey’s entire property to “Gregorio Gerdouich quondam Laurentij de dicta insula [Ugljan]” and the latter’s absent brother. In exchange for the annual rent of 50 ducats the tenants received usufruct rights for a period of three years, which included 118 animals (small livestock). This particular contract included the following clause: “Item que si dicti conductores aliquam Damnificationem paterentur, quam Deus avertat, In dicta conductione, Abbatie occasione Grandinis, seu Tempestatis, Durante ipsa locatione Trienia Tunc ipse dominus Abbas possit restauratione facere ipsis conductoribus Secundum Jus Comuni […].”51 A second case involved cross-border raids that originated from Ottoman territory. In May 1545 “dominus Joannes de Pechiaro quondaom domini Francisci Nobilis Jadre” leased four sors (c. 28.4-30.3 hectares) near the village of Polišane to “strenuo domino Petro Clada Capitaneo stratiotarum.” For the duration of three years, the tenant agreed to pay an annual rent of 10 ducats, a much lower sum. This was most likely due to two factors. First, no livestock was involved. Second, the Ottoman-Venetian border was much closer, which prompted the contracting parties to include the following clause: “[in] casu quo dictus dominus Petrus non poterit percipere utilitatem ex dictis sortibus quatuor occasione belli et Incursionis Turcharum quod Deus avertat, non debeat teneatur solvere nisi pro anno […].”52 In some documents the landlord, who usually paid for damage to his or her property, capped his liabilities to a third of the sum.53 This had to be estimated jointly by both contracting parties.54 At times the tenants conceded pastoral rights upon rented property to a third party. In spring of 1566 “dominus Pompeius Grisogonus nobilis Jadre agens nomine suo proprio, et domini Julij eius fratris” leased their property near Zemunik to the village’s inhabitants who were represented by “Jacobo Bancich […] pro se ipso, ac nomine totius communis dictae villae.” The villagers jointly rented the plot of land for four years in exchange for the annual payment of 90 libras. In addition, one of them, “Jurat Ziucouich villicus dicti domini Pompei possit, et valeat absque aliqua solutione sive angaridio pasculare in dictis pasculis locatis eius animalia tam bovina tamquam ovina, et alia quecumque.”55 Of the 226 individual contracts, a fifth was drawn up in or in front of the loggia, at or near the jurists’ bench, or elsewhere in the communal main square. About 13 percent each were written in a business facility (apotheca) or one of Zadar’s chancelleries. Slightly fewer were leased on ecclesia- Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 163 stical property, and the remaining quarter was stipulated in the houses of the involved individuals.56 In summing up the principle characteristics of the rental market it is critical to acknowledge the dominance of the two upper strata: the nobility and clergy. On average, about three-quarters of all leased land belonged to them. While the distribution between these two groups varied over time, their combined share remained constant. Most ecclesiastical property belonged to institutions such as Zadar’s archbishopric, the various congregations, parish churches, and hospitals. Including both landlords and tenants, the nobility and clergy made up almost a third of all leaseholders. While neither merchants nor members of the intellectual elites owned significant amounts of real estate, in combination they made up about a quarter of all tenants. Rental market turnover totaled 21,000 ducats for the entire period under survey, of which roughly three-quarters went to nobility or clergy. Price developments mirrored those in the vending market. While rents on the islands or other areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction did not change much, prices within sight of the city walls skyrocketed, increasing almost fivefold. In most other aspects such as date of remittance, the delivery of special gifts, and other additional obligations, the rental contracts contained provisions comparable to the concessions. Notes 1. This has been well-established for fifteenth-century Zadar by Raukar who ascribed to real estate a continuous importance in the local economy, even after 1409. Consequently, increasing trade restrictions imposed by Venice, he claimed, resulted in less available surplus capital, thereby further reinforcing Dalmatia’s economic decline—and the contemporaneous rise of real estate. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 71-196, esp. the section on property developments (151-196). 2. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I, 1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1567-1569; Johannes a Morea, I, 1545-1569; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 1540-1554; Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1544-1548; Nicolaus Canali, I, 1558-1567; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano, I, 15401569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1555-1567. In all, 1,772 individual notarial acts were analysed. 3. A transcript is provided in the appendix. 164 Urban Elites of Zadar 4. The average of the three decades is 355.67. The median is 356. 5. Women’s lives and their rights to transfer real estate in Venice’s dominions were very limited. In addition, the marital status of women defined the degrees of their personal and economic freedoms and opportunities. A recent summary of scholarly research since the 1970s is provided by Guzzetti, “Testamentsforschung in Europa seit den 1970er Jahren.” See also Fulbrook and Rublack, “The ‘Social Self’ and Ego Documents”; von Greyertz, “The Last Word?” On women’s property rights in Venice proper, Chojnacka, Working Women of Early Modern Venice, 26-49; Guzzetti, Venezianische Vermächtnisse, 33-35, 5661. On women’s property transactions as recorded in dowry bequests, Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice,” 575-577; Chojnacki, “Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice,” 178-185; Owen Hughes, “Domestic Ideals,” 116-118. On Venice’s dominions McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 41; and Grbavac, “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen,” 68-69; Sander, “Adelige Vermächtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie.” Cf. also Kittel, “Testaments of Two Cities,” 59-61; and Cohn, Death and Property in Siena. 6. I.e., in 941 out of 1,067 instances; that means on average, c. 88% of all vendors came from within Zadar’s jurisdiction. In 103 instances the provenance was not mentioned (c. 10%). The remaining c. 2% (23 out of 1,067 instances) came from Dalmatia-Albania, Croatia, Istria, Italy, and Venice. Percentages are three-decade averages. 7. The three-decade totals and average percentages are: 646 or c. 61% for Zadar and its suburban dwellings, 182 or c. 17% for the islands), 29 or c. 3% for the territory (ager publicus, Astareja, excl. the suburbs), 32 or c. 3% for the districts of Nin and Ljubač, 12 or c. 1% for the district of Novigrad (incl. the county of Posedarje), and 39 or c. 4% for the rest of Zadar’s jurisdiction. 8. In 941 instances the vendors came from Zadar’s jurisdiction; based on these 941 instances the numbers and average percentages are: 527 or 56% for Zadar, 119 or c. 13% for its suburbs, 182 or c. 19% for the islands, 30 or c. 3% for the territory (ager publicus, Astareja, excl. the suburbs), 29 or 3% for the districts of Nin and Ljubač, 12 or c.1% for the district of Novigrad (incl. the county of Posedarje), and 39 or c.4% for the rest of Zadar’s jurisdiction. 9. No data is available for the period before 1527. Around the mid-sixteenth century Zadar’s population stood at c. 6,000-6,500 individuals of whom c. 600 were of privileged descent. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. See also Chapters 2 and 3. 10. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 102 or c. 10% of the vendors were artisans vs. 146 (c. 14%) of the buyers; 16 (c. 1.5%) of the vendors were merchants vs. 120 (c. 11%) of the buyers; 15 (c. 1.5%) of the vendors were members of the intellectual elites vs. 61 or c. 6% of the buyers. 11. The decimals were caused by the conversion of prices denominated in ducats or libras via the fixed conversion rates of 1 ducat = 6 libras and 4 soldi, 1 libra = 20 soldi, 1 ducat = 124 soldi. Statuta Iadertina, 759. 12. A comparable trend occurred in the minor district of Nin. Average prices increased from (fictional) 1.2 ducats per morgen sold during the 1540s to 1.7 ducats during the 1560s, another price hike of almost 50%. In the 1540s, 33 contracts transferred c. 552 morgen (c. 131 hectares) for a total of c. 641 ducats while in the 1560s c. 366 morgen (c. 87 hect- Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 165 ares) changed their proprietors for c. 621 ½ ducats. The total amount of money remained more or less constant but the number of individual property transactions and the number of morgen transferred decreased by roughly the same factor as the price went up. 13. I.e., the house of either of the two contracting parties, one of the witnesses present, or of the communal official. In 288 instances or c. 27% contracts were stipulated at home (in domo), at the threshold (ad ianuas portas), or inside (in camera domus). 14. The communal square as category includes the following locations: in the square (in platea communis), in the communal loggia (sub logia communis), at the jurists’ bench (ad bancum iuris ex opposito logiae communis), and the various descriptions of the business facilities (apotheca), typically referred to as at or in the communal square (ad/in/penes plateam). The numbers are 372 instances or c. 35% for the communal square and 154 or c. 14% for the business facilities, totaling 526 instances or c. 49%. 15. This refers to all instruments written in churches, monasteries, and in a couple of cases, cemeteries. Their number is 30 or c. 3%. 16. In one instance the contract was written “extra Suburbem Jadrensis penes domum capitanei Suburbii.” In it “magister Franciscus Nunchouich,” a master-furrier, citizen, and resident of Zadar, sold a parcel of land to “Joanni Voychouich, ligonizatori,” a day labourer and resident. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.39v, 2 March 1543. 17. Admittedly, this occurred only rarely, such as when “meser Paulo Begna,” stipulating for himself and his absent brother, “meser Simone,” sold one morgen (c. 2,370 m2) to “Barichio Mandich de Melada” (Molat), a priest, for the price of 25 lire. The contract was written “in una barca fuori del porto.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 2, c.22r, 18 October 1568. 18. As happened when “Catherina filia quondam Maruli de Sale, et uxor quondam Joannis Plauocamcich alias Marcouich cognominato Xuvina de valle Sancti Stephani” sold one morgen (c. 2,370 m2) to “Martino Chissauich de dicta valle Sancti Stephanj.” The property was located near that village and changed hands for the sum of 35 libras. The contract itself was written “apud portas terre firme.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.16r, 30 July 1540. 19. These contracts followed the legal frames closely. See Lib. III, tit. XVI: “De locatione et conductione omnium rerum stabilium, mobilium et se moventium et operarum omnium personarum,” which contains 19 chapters; and Lib. III, tit. XVII, “De iure emphiteotico seu de iure quod acquiritur danti et recipienti possessiones aliquas pastinandum,” which contains seven chapters. Statuta Iadertina, 310-332. 20. Small livestock such as piglets, chickens, roosters, or young lambs had to be consigned to the landlord at Christmas, prior to Lent (carnis privum), Easter, or any other specified date. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 231; Peričić, “Prilog poznavanju agranih odnosa,” 153. A transcript is provided in the appendix. 21. Over the entire three-decade period, a representative was present in 227 or c.  47.5% of all concession deals; the numbers for the sales market are 123 instances or c. 11.5% out of 1,067 instances; the numbers go further up in the rental market in which 140 landowners or c. 62% out of 226 instances were represented by a procurator. However, in many cases a single individual did not own the property alone thus the following caveat must be added: if a parcel of land was owned by two or more individuals or institutions, only one representative for all constituent parties was present. Under such circumstances 7. 3. conceded all their property in the vicinity of the village to “Joannes Umassich. Commissiones. 3:51-52. 24. as commented on by Paolo Giustiniano. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 425 or c.37v.141r. In January of 1562 “dominus Simon de Laurentijs [son of] domini Hieronymi Civis Jadrensis” conceded six morgen. (c. in his report to the Senate in February of 1553: “El populo è fidelissimo. c. The property was located within Zadar’s jurisdiction but within the territory of the minor district of Nin. he attempted a large-scale resettlement of the abandoned parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland with Morlachs from Istria. 53% (161 instances or c. and six individuals from Krk. In most cases there simply was no identifiable origin given. once serving as Zadar’s captain. Simon Budineus. captain of Zadar 1552-1553.” Commissiones. All other places. et omnium villicorum. however. Commissiones. In mid-January of 1555 “dominus Petrus de Bassano Civis et Notarius Jadre” conceded three morgen (c. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 252 instances or c.345v. 31 July 1558. f. 1. 3. 29. 10%. The tenant was obliged not to confer a quarter of the harvest per annum. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 22. et Vitus Dobranich de dicta villa Intervenientes nominbus proprijs. 6. I. 23 January 1562. Antonius Pilizarich. Trogir. 1555” in exchange for a quarter of the grapes of said year’s harvest.” In exchange for a sixth of the annual harvest. 1. I. but a fifth.4 hectares) “in pertinentijs Villae Podberiane [Podvršje] per annos viginti proxime venturos [a] Reverendo domini Joanni Urancich parochiano Villae Tersce“ (Tršci). Hieronymus de Laurentijs. Johannes a Morea. 13 January 1555. 19% for its suburbs).345r-c. c. that the reference to “Zahum” is a singular affair. In summer of 1561 “dominus Franciscus de Ventura Civis Jadre […] dominus Hieronymus Cortesius uti procurator excellentis domini Joannis Jovini Severiani doctoris. 33% for Zadar proper and 91 or c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. It must be noted. 25. temporarily reaching “circa 1. 28. 3:52. This. 5 individuals or 1% dwelled in the city’s suburbs. Li principali sono […] Hierolimo de Lorenzi et altri simili. during Alvise Badoer’s tour of duty as “provveditor generale in Dalmazia […] con sede fissa a Zara” in the late 1530s.110 m2) “in loco vocato Battaglie” to “Nicolao Philipouich ligonizatori habitatori Jadre” and leased the “Introitum presentis anni. et doppo dio adora la vostra serenità et questa serenissima signoria. the above-mentioned landlord’s father. was referenced by Paulo Justiniano. I. 26.” The Venetian policy of pressganging the newlyarrived people to serve as oarsmen on war galleys caused the Morlachs cross the border to the Ottoman Empire in an attempt to escape military service. For instance.000 fochi. 27. 1. These numbers are the averages for the three decades but must be used with caution since not all contracts contain exact tenure periods and since it has been assumed that one winter equals one year.166 Urban Elites of Zadar the notary duly noted that this present individual also possessed the legal authority to stipulate for the absent party or parties. and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad). Incidentally. 90% of all landowning parties resided in Zadar proper. 2:136-144. including the other subdivisions of Zadar’s jurisdiction (the territory. the inhabitants of Tinj were given the right to cultivate and profit from these lands “ad annos . Ambo patroni ville Tini” (Tinj). and Venice combined made up the remaining 48 instances or c. rendered these repopulation attempts all but fruitless. Simon Budineus. the islands. 23. 1.  Lib. HR DAZD 31 BZ. III. c. I. on behalf of his absent brothers and their mother. cap. Johannes a Morea. LXXIII: “Quod quicumque laboraverit seu fecerit laborari alienas vineas domino denuntiare tenetur antequam vindimiet per tres dies. 2. 8 October 1556. These predefined locations could include the house of the landlord. Lib. 37. tit. 1. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 7. 10 March 1555. et de poena dantis”. 3. or sex. 35.53v. “dominus Laurentius de Nassis” conceded 1. 330-332. Lib. the tenants were responsible for both the transport of the harvest and its costs: “conducendum Jadram domum dicti patroni sumptibus.6 hectares) of farmland in the Kolovare area to “ser Marco Grubacich stipendiato ad custodiam portae Terrae firmae. in order to boost his tenants’ motivation. regardless of the landowner’s ecclesiastical or secular descent. Mayhew.g. c.53v. 318. 229-230. 7 August 1561.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. The landlord explicitly stated that the dues included “quintumdecimum pro decima omnium bladorum. XVII. 32.32v. Likewise. III.” The dues were to be brought to Zadar and..16r. 33. I. the landlord agreed to subsidy payments of 44 soldi per planted morgen per year. 2. et expensis ipsius sozalis.32rf. 1. cap. 34.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 167 Triginta proxime futuros. et Matthaeo ac Andree Babcich fratribus de Suburbio Jadrae” for the duration of five years. 36. quousque et quibus expensis laborator vineae tenetur in uvis vel in vino partem domino assignare.5 morgen (c. sozalis) in the instruments. c. LXXII: “Quomodo.p. 82 states: “Quod nullus det terram ad pastinandum minmus quam ad quartam partem. HR DAZD 31 BZ. These ranged from four to 12 soldi per planted tree and were usually linked to a certain number of trees (within a certain number of growing seasons or years). 31. 111-140.” with the sole requirement that the tenants brought the harvest “ad marinam” at their own expenses. “dominus Nicolaus de Jordanis” leased thee morgen (c. or the landlord’s procurator. 1. Horatius de Marchettis. 1. Simon Budineus. Georgio Messodilich.110 m2) of arable land near Petrčane to “Gregorio Marijch Nautj habitatori Jadre” in autumn of 1551. I. f. a ship.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. “Reverendus dominus presbyter Joannes Thomaseus canonicus Jadrensis” conceded 11 morgen (c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Usually. office. 1. 30.5 morgen to “Gregorio Millich et Petro Cusmich de insula ultra barchaneum” (Preko) for the duration of three winters.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. c. 1. et expensis omnibus Sozalis. 2. E. 6 December 1540.. 12 January 1558. When. When “ser Nicolaus Cimilich Civis Jadre” conceded 1.555 m2) to “Vito filio Joannis Ostrouizanin de suburbio ligonizatori Jadre” he requested his share of the harvest “conducendum et defferendum Jadram domus ipsius patroni Sumptibus. 18 August 1555. The tenants were usually referred to as colonist (colonus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.88v-c. Mayhew calls them labourers (težak). tit. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. cap. 93. Daniel Cavalca. 2. I. while those engaged in day labour were called ligonizator (which means more or less the same as težak). 3.” Statuta Iadertina. f. 16 May 1566. He required the tenants to deliver a quarter of the harvest “ad marinam ad barcam patroni. Simon Budineus.3r. I. tit. 88: “Quibus modis pastinator dara debeat terraticum domino in uvis vel in vino postulanti”. Statuta Iadertina. III. 1.” Statuta Iadertina. For example. Contado di Zara.12r-c. 3. The clauses in Zadar’s statutes applied to all. Johannes a Morea. HR DAZD . The tenant was required to transport the landlord’s share of the harvest “ad marina. f. 1.89r.. I. s. I.12v. Zadar’s harbour. 96-100. 5. 3 May 1567. 1. 7. 318. 324-326. Daniel Cavalca.15v-c. 83: “Quod pastinator teneatur in circuitu vineae quae sit ultra quattuor gognay plantare arbores olivarum et quattuor arbores mororum”. 39. See also Lib. I.5% in houses.. Ibid. ac mercator Jadre” offered his four tenants. 35 or c. 2% for the islands. 1. The category “rest” consists of 14 instances (c.25v-c. tit. 7% in other locations. See McKee. the tenants were exempted from delivering any dues to the landlord.36vf. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 58 in the 1550s (56 in Zadar.37r.” Statuta Iadertina.. f. 3% on ecclesiastical property. 6% for the entire three decades) from elsewhere in Zadar’s jurisdiction (including the territory. 3.” 188. Nicolau Cherstulich. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. On changes after the 1570s. 3 November 1555. Budak. 1. et quae forma observari. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 211 individual contracts or c.. I. the islands and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad).. Lib.” bonus payments for the planting of “pedes quindecim olinariorum pro quoque gognale” in exchange for 12 soldi “pro quaque arbore” on the landlord’s 10 morgen (c. 2. 16 or c. 1. 261-262. 4.168 Urban Elites of Zadar 31 BZ. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 182 (179 from Zadar and 3 from its suburbs) or 80% out of 226 instances for Zadar and its suburbs The remaining fifth is composed of: 14 contracts (c. 38. Matheo sive Matulo Susich. 9. and 29 instances of c. and 90 in the 1560s (Zadar proper only). E. I. 8 instances of c.g. See also Statuta Iadertina. tit. 44.” For the first six years. 1. si non laboravit vineam ut convenit. cap.g. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 30 contracts for the 1540s (29 in Zadar. 1. Michaelj Michocich. respectively. and 78 in the 1560s (77 in Zadar. 86 or c. III. Raukar et al. 41. “dominus Donatus Civallellus quondam domini Thomae” conceded nine morgen (c.63v. c.” 41. 42. On Zadar’s population. cap. “dominus Paulus de Pasinis Civis. 46. s. et de poena si cessabit laborare. D. 2. 5 (or c. Nicolaus Drasmileus. nisi interveniente iusta causa”. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule. 47.4 hectares) on Ugljan. 43.p. 1 instance for the district of Vrana. 6%). Daniel Cavalca. 7% in business or storage facilities. Mayhew. 48 in the 1550s (Zadar only). two in the suburbs). Johannes a Morea. I. 69: “Quae sunt causae propter quas excusatur laborator.1 hectares).. near Crno to “Hellena uxor quondam Chersuli Dobrocinaz de villa Cerno districtus Jadre et Mattheo Millassich de eodem loco. Petrus de Bassano. 230-231. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. 6% for the Territory.” Statuta Iadertina.” 188. 232-249. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 150 instances or c. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 24 contracts for the 1540s (22 in Zadar. XVII. f. 45. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen. The merchants’ numbers are based upon the fact that slightly less than 50 individuals were identified and the assumption that each had two to three children and a spouse.” 68-69. III. and 3 (or c. 13% from . tenetur eam colere. cap. 3% for the district of Novigrad. 328.26r. Contado di Zara. 98 or c. 18% in the chancelleries. and 32 or c.5%) for the district of Nin. 23 October 1552. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 85: “Quomodo rusticus emphiteota volens vendere iura sua tenetur denuntiare domino. 40. two in the suburbs). 68: “Qualiter laborator qui vineam conduxit sive ad partem sive ad medietatem. 26 July 1541. 314-316. 20. one in the suburbs). 66% for Zadar and its suburbs. one in the suburbs). 5 instances or c. 2%) from Albania-Dalmatia. “domino presbytro Joanni Matulcich. XVI. 44% were written in the communal main square. 1%) each from Istria and Venice proper. E. 48. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. Grbavac. 326. Budak. 6 instances or c. 28 January 1543. 7 instances or c. f. 7. animalibus bechinis a femme numero viginti. 53.Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 169 elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. 2.” Statuta Iadertina. for the duration of 20 years.” In exchange for the annual payment of 54 ducats the tenant received the property “[c]um capris Cum lacte numero ducentis sexdecim. I. For example. III.. Should any damages due to war or storms occur. Juxta Juris dispositionis que Tunc sibj conductori fieri debeat restauratio Sive remissio pensionis pro rata […]. I. montonis duaninis numero quatuor. 560. 61: “De arboribus fructiferis non incidendis. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. 9 April 1540. 9.. s. 320-320. ipsum conductorem ultra Tertiam partem.” a master-cobbler. 1. I. I. 50. XVI. f. cap. montonis magnis numero tresdecim. Agnellis Inter mares.g. 1 tenant came from elsewhere in Dalmatia. si fuerit requisitus a domino. . 1. B. A number of such compounds made up the hamlets and small villages of the hinterlands of Zadar.33v.32v. equaling 30-32 morgen (7. This explicit clause appears slightly redundant since Zadar’s statutes contain a clause banning the burning of fruit trees in Ref. Johannes a Morea.5 hectares) to “domina Cornelie uxori domini Francisci de Pechiaro quondam domini Francisci patruelis sui.” The property was located near the village of Artikovo and leased in exchange for the annual rent of eight ducats. f. 25%. agnellis duaninis feminis viginti duabus. et feminas numero viginti duobus. The rest was under the plough. Zadar u XV.6 hectares). cap. 54.9-26.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Of additional importance during wartime. E. 76: “Quam rationem reddere tenetur pastor domino de bestiis minutis et magnis perditis”. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 52. As for instance stated in a rental contract from the mid-1560s: “dominus Franciscus de Pechiaro quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadre” leased 3. animalibus bechinis duaninis numero nonem.” (In total 475 animals.9v-f.p.” Statuta Iadertina. Capris duaninis numero quinquaginta quatuor Caprinis Inter mares. 1. pecudibus cum lacte numero quinquaginta octo. See Raukar. The relevant clauses of the communal statutes are Lib. During the fifteenth century the typical property on the mainland was one sors or ždrijeb. 24. tit. Petrus de Bassano. In exchange for a rent of 23 ducats the tenant was also assured that “que si durante presenti Locatione acciderit Casus Bellj. “quod Deus avertat dictus locator teneatur et debeat resarcire ipsi conductori damnum que passus fuerit ultra comunem extimationem […]. 5 May 1545. 22 October 1543. The three-decade total is 56 instances or c. 13 May 1540. I. 1.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.1-7.10r.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. represented by “venerabila domina Donata de Nassis benemerita Abbatissa” and two other nuns. 4. Petrus de Bassano. while the Ottoman-Venetian war was still raging in the spring of 1540. 71-196. stoljeću. in spring of 1540 the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary. ac Condicione que dictus Georgius affictuarius non possit Incendere neque fundi facere ligna In boscho dicte possessionis pro vendendo nec aliter. et feminas numero quinquaginta septem.5 sors (c.32r-f.74v. leased a possession on the island of Iž to “Georgio Piscich de insula Exo. 49. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 77: “Quod pastor rationem domino reddere teneatur de perceptis de ipsis bestiis. Another small part was usually used for growing grapes. aut Grandinis […] in fructibus.) In addition to the safeguarding of the livestock Georgio further agreed to “Cum pacto.74r-f. 51. 6 November 1565. of which about an eighth was unavailable for farming (occupied by various houses and farm buildings). Nicolaus Drasmileus. “dominus Bernardinus Prititius Nobilis Nonensis habitator Jadre” leased his property on the island of Pašman to “magistro Simonj Profete sutor. f. 26% in houses. 15% in other locations. 4.170 Urban Elites of Zadar 55. I. . 12% on ecclesiastical property. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 46 contracts or c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 27 contracts or c. 13% in business or storage facilities. 20% were written in the communal main square. 14% in the chancelleries. 56. 58 contracts or c.11r. 31 contracts or c. 30 contracts or c. and the rest. 19 August 1566. c. Nicolaus Canali. 34 contracts or c. 1. The written legacy—in particular notarial protocols—allows for the reconstruction of a lively picture of sixteenth-century routine more in touch with the intricacies of Mediterranean daily life than is possible in other periods. and social dimensions of the Dalmatian nobility must be given a legal framework. Urban Elites and Everyday Life 1. and social structures.4 An analysis of the economic.5 This chapter begins with a survey of Zadar’s body of statutory law to provide a foundation for the .1 Though individual Venetians were widely spread out within the territories the respublica’s influences were clearly visible in the cityscape and in economic. Chapters 5 and 6 bring together these original archival documentation—the “moving image” in Sally McKee’s words—and existing published research—the “soundtrack of the city’s bustle”—to illuminate the personal and quotidian lives of the inhabitants of the Dalmatian nobility. money.5.”3 These movements of allegiances. Zadar’s Urban Nobility Venice’s expansion into the eastern Mediterranean in the Middle Ages resulted in a Latin minority in charge of what was politically feasible and culturally conceivable. legal. Geographical and Social Mobility Though usually perceived to be a relatively static society Venice in reality offered “a certain degree of social mobility up and down the status hierarchies […] characterized by remarkable geographical mobility. geographical.2 2. and people took place within the “nexus of state power and personal influence” that characterised the Stato da mar. 12 A second title of the Statuta Iadertina dealt with dowries.6 Many Dalmatian noble families in the mid sixteenth century made marriage alliances with their peers in cities along the eastern coast of the Adriatic. From this analysis emerges a more nuanced “picture of the self-identity of the Dalmatian urban nobility through their willingness or unwillingness to mix their own blood with that of members of other élites. below). the relationship between these two kinds of contract is.11 Analogous laws existed for widows: without the consent of her children a woman was not allowed to remarry after her husband’s death.9 The only exception to this rule was the clause which detailed the procedure for cases in which the legal guardianship of the offspring was held by non-consanguineous kin. If we only consider the instruments in which one or both parties was of privileged descent the numbers change: the nobility’s share was about 13% (88 of 656 instances). it was not permitted to marry without parental consent without forsaking one’s title to a dowry or a share of the inheritance.”8 Four specific articles outline the legal framework of marriage. . the only part of the marital legislation subject to amendments by Venice.15 Table 12 gives an overview of the notarial acts upon which the following analysis is based. and other related documents. This section of the communal law contains twice the number of clauses than the one discussed above.14 By the end of 1563 the four councilors had introduced a motion to increase the commune’s control over the birthrights of their fellow noblemen in Zadar (Table 12. This study contributes to an understanding of this phenomenon by analysing the notarial acts with respect to relationships between social status and personal wealth.13 It is followed by legal definitions of legitimate offspring.”7 Zadar’s communal law contains a number of clauses. subsumed under the title “De nuptiis. one to four. on average. daughters of at least 20 years of age were not married. for whatever reasons. they were allowed to choose a partner without parental consent. dowry quitclaims (quietatio dotis). applicable to all social classes. et quorum consilio filii masculi vel feminae debeant matrimonialiter aliis copulare. below). slightly higher than its share among the general populace of Zadar.1.16 In addition to these general conclusions. This required the integration of individuals in new urban environments. While the numbers of marriage compacts and dowry quitclaims differ.172 Urban Elites of Zadar subsequent analysis of notarial acts—marriage contracts (contractus matrimonium). First.10 If. the records offer insightful information about the origins of the contracting parties (Table 12. 1: Origins of Noble Contracting Parties (1540-1569) No. The number of parties from Albania is one. (a) Number per decade of marriage-related contracts. including the minor district of Nin). . inventories (carta dotis). The number of parties from Albania is two. Lesina). of Actsa 255 179 222 656 % of Totalb 39 % 27 % 34 % 100 % Latinc 255 176 201 632 Contractsd 56 33 39 128 Quitclaimse 199 146 183 528 Sources: see note 6. quitclaims (quietatio dotis). receipts (receptio dotis). Pag (Pago). in the 1560s 15 acts were written in Venetian and two acts were written in both languages. and Trogir (Tragurij). Table 12. Omiš (Almissa). (b) Relative percentage per decade. (e) Number per decade of regional recipient parties: Kotor (Catharo). Šibenik (Sibenico). nuptiarum). In the 1550s one act was written in Venetian and two were written in both Latin and Venetian. and Trogir (Tragurij). and restitutions (restitutio dotis). (b) Number per decade of local initiating parties (from Zadar’s jurisdiction. Lesina). Toponyms below are listed with their present-day name. (d) Number per decade of marriage contracts (contractus matrimonium. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No. Hvar (Pharo. (c) Number per decade of regional contracting parties (from within Venice’s Adriatic dual province): Kotor (Catharo). (f) Number per decade of unidentified or unlisted locations. Šibenik (Sibenico). Rab (Arbe). including two from Monfalcone and two of unidentified origins. n/af 1540s 23 9 14 12 11 – 1550s 34 25 9 23 11 – 1560s 31 26 5 21 6 4 88 60 28 56 28 4 Sources: see note 6. followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Shaded columns indicate recipient parties. Hvar (Pharo. (a) Number per decade of marriage-related contracts of the nobility. of Actsa Zadarb Adriaticc Zadard Adriatice Rest.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 173 Table 12: Marriage-Related Contracts (Overview. Split (Spalato). Rab (Arbe). (d) Number per decade of local recipient parties. (e) Number per decade of dowry accords (accordium dotis). (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin. “honesta damicella domina Cornelia eius filia legitima et naturalis. Second. a qualitative rise within his status group. “dominus Georgius de Grisanis quondam domini Francisci nobilis Sibenicensis [Šibenik]. 16 kilometres west of Split. Franciscus’s daughter. First. and social means to provide for the warship.20 Johannes Rosa (Ivan Rosa) and his family were explicitly referred to as being among the most prominent and wealthy of Zadar’s nobles. Between a quarter and a third of constituents and recipients were from beyond the borders of Zadar’s jurisdiction.17 In early 1540 “domina Clara filia legittima. et naturalis spectabili domini Joannis Mazzarelli nobilis Traguritum Cancellarij spectabili Communitatis Jadre married” a fellow nobleman.” The second half of the dowry was to be paid in annual installments of 50 ducats.21 The listing of his education (leges utriusque doctor) and knighthood (eques) suggests that his social status was elevated in comparison with his fellow noblemen too. Johannes Mazzarellus’s move from his native town to Zadar (c. Despite the variations over the three decades. The father of the bride was the commander of one of Hvar’s war galleys and. a certain tendency is visible. given his occupation as communal chancellor and notary public.” came from an area in between Trogir and Zadar. Both contracting parties came from the upper echelons of the nobility. which probably elevated him even among his fellow noblemen from Hvar. The endogamous marriage practices of the Dalmatian nobility were not confined to individual cities along the eastern seaboard of the Adriatic.” located . the most important problem is the origins of the contracting parties. the bride and her father were nobles of the small coastal town of Trogir.” was to marry the renowned nobleman from Zadar.19 Franciscus had the financial. The spouse. according to contemporary reports his family disposed of an annual income of 500 ducats.174 Urban Elites of Zadar Given these numbers. It comes as no surprise that Franciscus promised Johannes a stately dowry of “ducatos Mille ducentos auri. military. this marriage contract reveals two pieces of information.18 A comparable event took place in December 1541 when “Magnificus dominus Franciscus Paladinus honorando sopracomitus Triremis pharensis [Hvar] ex una et Magnificus et Excellens doctor ac eques dominus Joannes Rosa nobilis Jadrensis” came together. auro.” of which 400 ducats were to be paid in specie and another 200 ducats “in pannis sericis. In addition to the sizeable dowry worth 800 ducats. 104 kilometres) signified a large geographical distance and. situated c. et argento. as the following examples illustrate. The marriage contract was drawn up in Zadar “in domo spectabili domini Petri Civallellj. 22 It is not clear who profited more from this marriage alliance. “spectabilis dominus Bernardinus Galellus nobilis Jadre.” The other was on the island of Lukoran across the Canal of Zadar. Geographical differences among the various coastal communities played only a minor role. was to be disbursed in mobile goods after the relocation of Catherina with her husband. in summer of 1557. et una.” Since the bride’s father was already dead. “domina Margarita uxor […] domini Bernardini [de Carnarutis]. In spring of 1553 “domina Coliza uxor quondam spectabili domini Georgij Dragoeuich Nobilis Sibenicensis” promised the hand of her daughter to “dominus Petrus Antonius quondam Hieronymi de Ferra Nobilis Jadre.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 175 in St Michael’s parish. Laurentius promised his brother-in-law a dowry worth “Ducatos quadringentos quinquaginta unum auri. et dominus Simon Civalellus quon- . “domino Vito de Cedolinis quondam domini Simonis. The rest of the dowry.25 In general. “nobilam dominam Catherinam. 120 ducats were still in the possession of a third party and Laurentius contractually agreed to redeem two pieces of property “nomine ipsius domini Viti et fratris eius e manibus ser Simonis de Grisogonis quondam domini Petri. The contract was written “in domo Simonis de Matafaris alias Chrina quondam domini Petri” in Zadar’s St Michael’s parish.” and her dowry. The marriage contract specifically mentioned that Philippa’s dowry payment was to be deferred until Bernardinus had received the rest of his wife’s dowry.23 Despite the fact that the Ferra family disposed only of 100-300 ducats annual income and was considered a relatively poor noble family. Nevertheless.100 ducats: the bride’s sister. sive Orisaz.” Of this sum. Bernardinus Carnarutus (Brne Karnarutić) was a renowned soldier and accomplished writer. 331 ducats. and presumably this connection increased the social status of the Ferra family within Dalmatia’s nobility (see also Chapter 2).” One of these parcels of land was located “prope Jadram in loco vocato Celopech. In summer of 1546 “Juvenis nobilis dominus Laurentius de Nassis quondam domini Joannis” gave the hand of his sister.” After Coliza had secured the consent of her two sons one obstacle remained in the way of “nobilis et honesta Damicella domina Philippa filia dictj quondam domini Georgij” and her equally noble dowry of 1. Dalmatian nobles engaged in endogamous marriage practices. but the next example is more explicit on this question. within Zadar’s jurisdiction.” to his fellow nobleman.24 there may have been something other than precedence at play. et filie praefata dominae Colice. most families chose to marry locally.26 On another occasion. 176 Urban Elites of Zadar dam domini Gregorii ex altera” came together. the urban nobilities of the Venetian Adriatic viewed themselves as belonging to the same social group. 103 ducats) he had received with the hand of his wife. The second half was to be paid in annual rates of 25 ducats. partim in auro. On many occasions these Venetians acted as procurators for Zadar-based constituent parties.29 Most of these Venetian patricians were affiliated with the military of the Republic of St Mark. perlis. Bernardinus promised his daughter. their numbers were few. et realiter cum effectu recepisse […] ducatos quadringentos et unum […] partim in denarijs et pecunia numerata. Given their marginal appearance in the notarial protocols it comes as no surprise that Venetians appear on only three occasions in marriage contracts The most important and prominent case was the Zadar-based branch of the Venier family. partim in panis laneis et lineis. Thus the number must be treated with caution due to multiple appointments of single individuals.”28 No essential differences between marriages of individuals from within or without Zadar’s jurisdiction are evident.” In the size of the dowry there are is no essential difference between this contract and those of the Dalmatian locals. argento.31 Other cases involve the Venetian patricians “dominus Marcus Antonius Laretanus [Loredan] quondam Magnifici domini Jacobi patritij veneti” and “dominus Hieronymus de Mosto quondam magnifici domini Joannis Francisci. As for the Venetian nobility in Zadar. a sum roughly equivalent to c. Irrespective of geographical provenance. 490 ducats. the two parties reconvened “in apothea domini Baptistae de Nassis nobili Jadre in plathea communis.029 libras in movable and immovable goods. “Honesta damicella domina Catherina.30 In late 1542 “ser Georgius de Venerio quondam ser Georgij Civis Jadre” confirmed the receipt of his wife’s dowry. who stated “habuisse.” to Simon. et panis sericeis. the quitclaim mentions Nicolota’s dowry amounting to 3. accompanied by a dowry of 800 ducats. In the name of the Holy Spirit.” The former issued a quitclaim for a dowry worth 641 libras and 14 soldi (c. One half of this was to be handed over once the bride moved in with her husband. In only 120 instances are individuals referred to as “Venetian. “domina Nicolota filia legitima et naturali quondam domini Simonis Coreuich olim notarius et civis Jadre. in January of 1558. This suggests that there were few incentives besides public service to move to the Adriatic. “Helysa- . Some names appear in the records more than once.” The result was a formal dowry quitclaim issued at the request of Simon.” Almost all of these were on duty in Dalmatia.27 A couple of months later. also issued a dowry quitclaim. One procuratorial appointment tells the story of the posthumous voyage of a Zadar-born nobleman Theodosius de Begna. In the summer of 1553 Gabriel “uti procuratorem et eo nomine domine Margaritae eius uxoris filiae quondam comitis Nicolai de Possedaria” confirmed the solution of his wife’s dowry worth 250 ducats.”32 The latter.” was the daughter of Marcus Antonius de Bassano. himself a nobleman from Rab and one of Zadar’s notaries. His wife. Hieronymus da Mosto. only two dotal instruments reveal clues about the existence of such ties.34 In a second instrument “nobilis Juvenis Sibenicensis dominus Melchior Cossirich domini Jacobi ex quondam domina Magdalena filia quondam Comitis Georgij Bencouich nobilis Crouatia de Plauno” (Plavno) appointed a procuratrix. “domine Mariete.36 “Vido Posedaria. a resident of Novigrad.” who was among those named explicitly in a report to the Venetian Senate. its members evidently commanded a social status high enough to enable Marieta to marry a nobleman. At the time of writing. With his father’s consent Melchior tasked“ dominam Helenam Bencouichiam filiam suprascripte quondam comitis Georgij” to acquire the rightful share of his mother’s inheritance. who had died “in partibus Ungarie. Helena “ad praesens uxorem Comitis Stephani Crouat modo ut dixit in comitatu Zagrabiensis commorantem.” brought with her a dowry worth 150 ducats. and marital connections in particular. Padue [Padua]. His wife. et Croatie” (see also Chapter 2). stipulated on behalf of his dead brother.”35 The paucity of documents relating to the Croatian-Hungarian regions.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 177 beth […] a ser Joanne Anzolerio civi et habitatori Jadra. albeit minor. While the sources do not mention that the de Bassano family was of privileged descent. “Sancta filia domini Vendramini de Brissia [Brixen] habitat. In the case of sixteenth-century Zadar. factor in the notarial records of the period under survey concerned the connections of Dalmatian nobles with the Croatian-Slavonian interior. The appointee was to journey “infra fines Regni Hungariae” to meet with his relatives and retrieve all money and movable and immovable goods. a small fortified village within Zadar’s jurisdiction. suggests that there were not many ties between the Venetian dominions along the Adriatic coast and the western Balkans or beyond.37 In the second contract “Comes Gregorius Paladinich quondam Comitis Gasparis nobilis Croatie” confirmed the receipt of 620 libras (100 ducats) in both specie and movable goods. ut dixit.33 A related. Gabriel Cernotta. had married the daughter of one of the rural nobles from Posedarje.38 . father of notary Petrus de Bassano. Future studies are likely to confirm that the “remarkable geo­graphical mobility” ascribed to Venice proper by John Martin and Dennis Romano was. aspects of incremental status increases can be identified. the borders of the Republic of St Mark in the eastern Mediterranean.178 Urban Elites of Zadar A trend of particular interest that emerges in the marriage-related contracts is that dowries regularly appear to have exceeded the annual income of noble families who disposed only of 100-300 ducats per year. similarly defined by. This is exemplified by the marriage of renowned soldier and writer Bernardinus Carnarutus to a noblewoman from Šibenik.42 By now scholarly research into the self-representation of Ve- . the Venetian possessions in the Adriatic. but not confined to. Dalmatian noble families lived and clothed themselves all’Italiana. these findings suggest that the kinship ties of Dalmatian nobles extended over a wide area. families from a coastal centre and the wider Croatian-Hungarian regions. especially in comparison to Venice proper. which provided a source of future income (see also Chapter 4). other aspects can be surmised. While the sample does not allow for the assessment of the desirability of marital ties between. and by the two members of the Mazzarellus family of Trogir who moved from a small town to the provincial capital40 and became Zadar’s communal chancellors. This can be attributed to their regular contact with individuals from the Apennine peninsula. And while the aim of upward social mobility apparently played only a minor role in the marriage practices of the Dalmatian nobility. In combination with the procuratorial analysis of Chapter 2. typically in combination with additional information about their place of origin. According to the contracts most individuals who married into Zadar’s nobility were of equally privileged descent and were referred to as noblemen. Despite their limited wealth. mutatis mutandis. circumscribed by. for instance.41 3. but not confined to. Zadar’s nobility was described by Venice’s legates as relatively poor. other conclusions are worthy of note. As for the geographical origins of the contracting parties. A quarter of the cases mention family ties to places ranging from the Kvarner Gulf to the Bay of Kotor.39 These families were probably able to pay for such large dowries because dotal payments could be deferred. Material Culture In addition to being devout and loyal to the Most Serene Republic. and the families owned real estate. Nevertheless. was to receive “unam vestem pani nigrj. and Civallello families.” the daughter of the late “domini Nicolai Buchia nobilis Catarensis [Kotor]”. Felicita ordered that the following movable goods be given: [u]nam vestem ex veluto rubeo.45 For a discussion about material culture in Zadar. in return. Item unam filciam perlarum de conto ad numerarum perlarum Centum quinquaginta In 13 dozeris Cum Collonellis argenti aureati. Item unum par manicharum longarum ex veluto rubeo. let us begin by examining testaments of female members from the three wealthiest families of Zadar’s nobility.46 One example is the testament of “Nobilis Matrona domina Felicita uxor spectabilis domini Francisci Tetrici nobilis Jadrensis.” received “omnes Camisias et aliaquacumque drapamentas et vestimentas quotidiana a dorso.”52 Magdalena’s daughters were to receive “unam vestem a dorso dicti testatricis ex Sarzia rouana […] et unam vestem ex medialana paonazia.”54 .e. Rosa. the sum of 150 ducats was to be taken from Felicita’s dowry and transferred to the Franciscans who. necklaces. wills and inventories. Item unum pomolum ex argento laborato de truncafillo […]. Item unam Schufiam rachamatam perlis. This was followed by donations to their church. The main obstacle is the lack of illustrative sources. ac unam peliziam sive vestem ex Sarzia rouana vulpibus Sufultam”.50 In all. and other movable goods.44 this area of inquiry has been largely neglected in the other Adriatic dominions of the respublica. Item alteram vestem ex damascheno rubeo.47 Among the first clauses is the provision that she wanted to be buried by the Franciscans. over the five years after her death). her godmother. the Tetrico. were obliged to read a mass every year in her memory for the equivalent of 30 ducats until the total sum was paid (i.48 For additional ornaments.”53 Finally. Item unum pendentem ex argento aureatum Cum perlas quatuor et petra rubea In medio. et Sufultam Seriem pannazia.49 The list continues for several more lines and includes rings of silver and gold.51 Her husband. Felicita’s former maid. teriam quoque ex raso rubeo Cum balzana veluti niridis. Franciscus. “Catherine filie Mathei Sagoraz.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 179 nice’s body politic has established a reliable framework for further study of her dominions. and Trogir. this problem may be resolved by the “abundance of written sources”—more specifically.43 Yet with the exceptions of the Republic of Dubrovnik and the island communities of Rab and Korčula. “domina Magdalena uxor Strenuus Comestabilis Joannis a Lacu eius Comatri unum anellum aurj Cum arma nobilium Tetricorum. et ducatorum decem […].”55 She obliged her two children. and possessions elsewhere58—her testament contains remarks about movable goods: “Item dimisit et reliquit Magdalena filia naturali domini Michaelis eius filij […] omnia et quascumqua bona mobilia a dorso propriata […] et una alia veste ex medialana coloris nigri.59 She ordered her grave to be constructed “in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae.” The priest received the “bona infrascripta vulgari sermone describenda. et uno paro de intimelle” and 200 ducats. “Reverendo domino Zoylo canonico. The testament contains a . Euphemia preferred the Benedictine nunnery of St Mary as her final resting place.” with the correct execution of her last will. Among the many clauses in which money was destined to kinsmen. In addition to the clauses providing for the testatrix’s immovable property—a plot of land near the villages of Banj. After Lucretia handled her customary charitable bequests60 she destined “unam vestem suam de sarzia nigra [to] Lucie matri presbytri Joanni Francouich. uno paro de intimele et un cussin de piuma.”57 Contrasting with the two previous cases.” Lucretia’s sister received “do camise uno paro de lineoli. et duabus gonas ex rassie Coloris barelini. videlicet. Among the less wealthy families. there is a hint at movable goods: her other son.” While it is impossible to ascertain whether these movable goods came out of Euphemia’s dowry or her paraphernalia. “dominam Thomasinam et dominum Hieronymum.” was to receive “unus calix argenteus minauratus cum sua patena” worth up to 200 libras. a warehouse in the vicinity of Zadar’s main square. which were to be paid out of the testatrix’s income derived from her immovable property.” She too destined the Franciscan church as her gravesite.56 A third example is “Nobilis matrona domina Euphemia filia quondam domini Joannis de Grisogonis et uxor quondam Excellenti leges utriusque Doctoris domini Simonis Rosa nobili Jadre.” which was run by the Benedictines. un letto de piuma col Suo cavazzal.180 Urban Elites of Zadar Another case is the testament of “Nobilis et honesta matrona domina Marchetta filia quondam domini Philippi de Ferra et uxor in secundo matrimonio quondam domini Petri Ciuallelli nobili Jadre. instructing her heirs to “celebrari faciant in ecclesia Sancti Francisci per fratres dicti ecclesiae Missas centum parvas per animam suam […] post obitum dicti testatricis […] cum helemosino consueta. the testament of “nobilis et honesta matrona domina Lucretia filia quondam spectabili domini Cresij de Gallellis et uxor quondam domini Caroli de Cedulinis” serves as an example. un paro de lineaoli. she could bequeath them at her own discretion. testaments.” In addition.63 Two additional examples support this conclusion.” received “unam Gonallam ex rassia Grossa. The rest of the testament contains a list of the testatrix’s properties. praefati commissarij Sui debeant dare et exbursare ipsos ducatos 200 in augmentum dotis uni ex damicellis nobilis praefatis pauperiori Sive ut seniori […] si vellet se nubere domina Baldissara filia quondam domini Federici Grisogoni quondam domini Francisci. 48 ducats) each in the case that her nieces wished to marry. Catherina’s maid received goods as well. we have the testament of “Nobilis domina Catherina filia quondam domini Hieronymi de Nassis nobili Jadrensis.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 181 number of additional clauses concerning monetary matters61 and the appointment of the residual heir.” preferred her family grave “in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae presbytorum alias Sancti Simonis Justi.66 This cursory overview illustrates how bequeathed goods.” The testatrix left “Lucretia et Raphaela […] quondam domini Antonii eius testatricis olim fratris” 300 libras (c.” Again. As has been demonstrated.” Similarly.” As would be expected. which suggests that she was rich despite not being specifically indicated as such by Venice’s legates. Lucretia bequeathed her entire real estate and the corresponding income to all “damicellas nobiles Jadrensis pauperiores et seniores. “Agneti. “Nobilis domina Gelenta filia quondam domini Simonis Ciprianj Jadrensis. and inventories may contribute significantly to the future study of the material culture of Dalmatia’s elites.” were in the noble nunnery of St Mary and each received one ducat and “unum faciolum a capite. et Magdalene. Rosa.62 These 200 ducats were to be accumulated out of the income of Lucretia’s possessions. Her maid. money. “reliquit Franiza de Ugliano pizochara comorani In hospitalis Sancti Bernardini Jadre unum eius testatricis pelliziam ex pellibus agnilinis […] ex duabus quas habet. et unum faciolum a capite. Thus the wealth of Zadar’s nobles does not seem to have been limited to the Tetrico. je- . and Civallello families. et uxor quondam domini Francisci Gallelli. the testatrix preferred the Franciscan church65 and left some of her movable goods to her relatives. et unam cordellam a capite. the alienation of which was explicitly prohibited. “Reverende Helisabeth. Two of Catherina’s nieces.” The testament was preserved in the nunnery of St Mary and contained the following provision: [c]um fuerint cumulati ducatorum ducenti. et unum faciolum a capite. valoris In totum librarum trium. “Cathussa olim eius ancillae un par manicarum […].”64 Finally. 5. videlicet. uno Lorenzo Valla vochabulista. small amounts of money. numero 17. 35. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule.” written by Zadar’s notary Petrus de Bassano. Daniel Cavalca. 1548-1561. see the above-referenced works by Chojnacki. One example is the “Inventarium bonorum. Men of Empire.” 21. etc. uno Ovidio metamorfosio. 4. 12. “Reconsidering Venice. 3. meditatione de Santo Bona Ventura.” Among other items. et hereditatis quondam spectabilis domini Nicolai Fanphoneo Nobilis Jadrensis. Including contracts establishing additional dowry payments (augmentatio dotis). uno Epistolle de Ovidio. I. et uno missal vechio Scripto in Carta pergamina. I. 1562-1564. Sperling. Ibid. 2.”67 Right of abode. Gabriel Cernotta. uno Epistolle de Cicero. uno Matial [Gaius Matius]. alluding to the potential of inventories in assessing the level of education among Dalmatian nobles. et al. this inventory includes a list of books the deceased Nicolaus owned. 1540-1551. unaltro Juvenal picollo. uno Quintiliam. uno Juvenal. On Venice proper. uno Oracio. una institutione de Gramaticha in volume picholo. uno Cicero.69 Item libri de piu Sorte. these sources offer insights into the self-representation of Dalmatia’s urban nobility. a number of civil proceedings.70 Notes 1. .. regulle Sepontine.68 At 12 folii in length it meticulously documents movable and immovable goods “requisitum per virum Nobilem Jadrensis dominum Gregorium de Fanphogna eius fratrem heredem Testamentarium. I. The rich archives of Dalmatia’s cities offer ample possibilities for future research into the material culture and self-representation of the urban elites as a whole. Franciscus Thomaseus. See McKee. The possessions and status symbols range from the explicit mention of a signet ring or piece of furniture to a burial “in habitu ordinis. In addition. Chojnacka. 1551-1566. I. Coperto di pelle rossa. 6.” 34. Sources used: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797). I. and expensive garments were predominantly bequeathed to other nobles and members of the clergy. uno Livio. 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius. Cornelius Constantius. pieces of furniture. uno Virgillio. O’Connell. Horatius de Marchettis. Martin and Romano. or clothing of lesser quality and value were willed to former domestic servants or otherwise acquainted individuals.182 Urban Elites of Zadar welry. uno Petrarcha. I. 1567-1569. 1544-1548. Statuta Iadertina. Parental consent had been substituted by the consent of other relatives. Lib.” Ibid.000 to 6. 1.p. Which stood at c. III. E. 346. tit. I. 336. I. 10. Johannes a Morea.. 334-338.” 197. 17. 27 May 1540. Paulus de Sanctis I. 1. on Rab. Lib. HR DAZD 31 BZ. cap. 1. As evidenced by Lib.. 16. s. Cap. se valeat maritare. 1545-1569. XIX.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 183 1567-1569.g. I. 1556-1565. I. vel mortuo patre sit in protectione materna.” Ibid. et idem de filio. 1540-1554.. III. 13. XXI: “Qui filii sunt legitimi et qui non. Ćosić-Vekarić. III.500 inhabitants in the 1550s. 18 April. 159: “Quod nobiles debeant facere scribere diem matrimonii sui sicut et diem natalem suorum filiorum. absque voluntate et consensu ipsorum propinquorum. cap. si eam pater vel mater neglexerit maritare.” which contains eight chapters. cap.. Nicolaus Canali. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. In all. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. 15. Lib. 2:221.” Ibid. Commissiones.7v. Maruša ili suđene ljubavi. 34 in the 1550s (eight. 674. tit. 1555-1567. 14. On Trogir.. Sources as in note 6. e. Budak. died only a couple of years later. Simon Mazzarellus. s.. tit. 30 June 1540 (three individual acts). 21). I. I. 11 June 1548. 1558-1567.7r-f. 1540-1566. Clearly stated in Lib. tit. 103: “Quod per famam publicam aliquem fore alicuius filius comprobatur. nequeat maritare.” Ibid. XIX. III. III.. 7. Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i država. the family was required to register him in the communal chancellery. 26). I.. cap. 92: “Qualiter filia ad viginti annorum aetatem perventa. I. 656 individual notarial acts were analysed.p.p. s. XX: “De iure dotium et de iure bonorum seu rerum acquistarum uxori ex quacumque causa constante matrimonio. 334. tit. I. Srednjovjekovni Trogir. Ibid. Augustinus Martius. I.. I. 261-262. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. who agreed to transfer Clara’s original dowry to her second husband and to augment it with an additional 200 ducats. Petrus de Bassano. 88 individual acts were analysed. Benyovsky. on Dubrovnik. 338. XIX. 102: “Quomodo filius natus ante contractum matrimonium ex muliere et viro absolutis legitimus habeatus”. 1545-1551. 93: “Quod mater transgressa ad secundas nuptias filios vel filias primi viri. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom..p. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. . Paulus de Sanctis.” Ibid... HR DAZD 31 BZ. 8. 12. see Mlacović. 11. 14 dowry instruments). f. 19. cap. and 31 in the 1560s (10. The numbers for the individual decades are as follows: 23 acts were written in the 1540s (nine marriage contracts.g. Građani plemići. s. Clara’s husband. Ref. perdat partem. 1548.. XIX. nubere possit. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 18. 600 individuals out of approximately 6. Eight days after the birth of a noble male child. 19 January 1540. Lib. 90: “Quod si filia sub potestate patris existens matre vivente nupta fuerit praeter consensum patris. however.” which contains two chapters. Simon Budineus. III. III.” Ibid. nisi per instrumentum iniuria sit remissa. 1540-1569. 336. 338-344. and JanekovićRömer. In spring of 1548 the widowed Clara married a second time: “excellens leges utriusque doctor dominus Hieronymus de Hermolais nobilis Arbensis” (of Rab) became the new son-in-law of Johannes Mazzarellus. Lib.. 1. 9. above. tit. in all. XIX. 2. Raukar et al. tit. 91: “Quomodo filius vel filia mortua matre in potestate patris existens. I. Her testament. I. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. et celeberrimus dominus Marcus Antonius Priolus olim capitaneus Jadre dignissimus” appointed “excellentem Doctorem. Lane.p. Anzulović. . HR DAZD 31 BZ.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 24. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2.184 Urban Elites of Zadar 20.p. Another. As galley commander (sopracomes) he had at least four years of service experience and also bore the related expenditures for recruitment and upkeep of oarsmen. Bernardinus Carnarutus fought under Nikola Šubić Zrinski (Zrínyi Miklós. HR DAZD 31 BZ. c. 32. 29. 29 March 1553.. more delicate factor is also known. 2. I. His book Vazetje Sigeta grada [The Fall of Szigetvár] was the first Slavic epic and was published in Venice in 1584. 30. 11 January 1556.20v-c. While the former gave up soldiering in the mid-1540s. I. 24 August 1546. he had also personal interests: His illegitimate daughter “Judita” was married to “magister Nicolaus de Andreis de Ragusa. When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans. 2. c. Mostly the constituent parties required an individual of elevated social status to achieve the desired outcome in Venice.21r. 23.32r. the latter died defending the city of Szigetvár (Siget) against the troops of Suleiman in 1566. 365. 21. 2:197. 102-103. 18 May 1547.11v-f. 31. Venice. Johannes a Morea. “Stato da Mar. 25. 2. 26. 2:172. Fortunately. some Venetians whose tour of duty had recently ended also appointed procurators from Zadar. 1. the Ban of Croatia. 6. 1. I.12v.45v. f.. 2. Apparently. makes this clear: “Instituit. 27 January 1558. 2:197. Bernardinus Carnarutus is known for his literary oeuvre. Bernardinus Carnarutus enjoyed close ties with the Republic of Dubrovnik. 15081566). who received a dowry worth 250 ducats. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. written three months prior. Mayhew. Daniel Cavalca. 27. 197. I. 1. on the condition that he pay her beloved kinsman “Donatus de Ciuallello” the sum of 50 ducats out of her dowry. The dowry payment was divided into “[…] ducatos ducentos in pecunia numerata.43r. Commissiones. 1. Thanks to his literary skills. c. 12 November 1566. Knapton. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Upon leaving office as the city’s captain “Magnificus. Daniel Cavalca. HR DAZD 31 BZ.p. c. Fine. I. against the Ottomans in Hungary. 1. s. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” 271. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Daniel Cavalca. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva. I. 3. 7 July 1555. Nicolaus Canali.” hinting at her preference for the Benedictines over the Dominicans and Franciscans.42v-c. Only after the eventual death of her unborn child did she designate Vitus as her heir. 1. who should bury her “in ecclesia Sancte Mariae monialium. Catherina was pregnant before the marriage contract was written. s. HR DAZD 31 BZ. auf filiam. 6. and soldiers. Catherina’s (nuncupative) testament is available too. Commissiones. et ducatos ducentos in tot rebus extimandis de comuni concordio […]. In addition to his literary connections. 22 December 1542.. f. et equitem dominum Joannem Rosa” as his general procurator.25v. Contado di Zara. 3.” 332-335. On the other hand. Johannes a Morea. 28. 1. Both her brother Laurentius and her husband Vitus are named as her executors. II. and for the maintenance of the warship.” a master-painter. Sique essent aut forent” as her residual heir. 22. ac voluit filium. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. 12 December 1541. sailors. 5. 1. f. Commissiones. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. Petrus de Bassano. which consists of poems and prose lauding the gallantry of his former commander. which during the sixteenth century was the foremost centre of Slavic-Croatian writing. 9 November 1558.8r. 35.13r-c. che vi praticano continuamente. è di ducati quattrocento.500 inhabitants. L’enigma della modernità. Budak points to the unpublished theses by Janeković-Römer. 41. et altri. I. 39. i costumi dei quali sono quasi italiani. or about a fifth of Zadar. which explicitly refers to. Private Lives in Renaissance Venice.14r. 231. Rosa. the bride’s “rightful share of the patrimony [her] indisputable right to a dowry. Interestingly. Giovanni Battista Giustiniano described the nobles in 1553 as follows: “La richezza di questi nobili non è molta. 204-205. generali. stoljeću” [Dubrovnik’s Nobility in the 15th Century]” (PhD diss.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 191. s. and Donaglio. See the overview in Martin and Romano. see also Mlacović. Građani plemići. maternorum. c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Among them were c. Commissiones.” Commissiones.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 185 33. c. Avitorum et aliorum quorumcumque dicta dominae Margaritae.35r-c.500. “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice. Population estimates for the sixteenth century are hard to come by. 44.. on Rab Mlacović. further Pavanello. 38. Ibid. 202-288. however. 1. proveditori. Of the Albanian towns Ulcinj and Bar.400 able-bodied men. come li Tetrici. 6. A cursory overview is provided in Budak. 21 January 1540.35r-c. 12. perchè la maggior parte de nobili vive. 215. 43. such as Koper. both unavailable to the author). Nicolaus Drasmileus. E sono di questi nobili molti poverissimi. and testaments of Zadar’s nobility omit this specific wording. 1. favella et veste all’usana d’Italia. 34. and Fortini Brown. 2. Daniel Cavalca. HR DAZD 31 BZ. ed. it is the proportion of population size that is of interest here. I.). “Behind the Walls” in the same volume. 2 July 1559. 2. And whose brother Simon appointed a member of the entourage of the Venetian ambassador to the Imperial Court to return Theodosius’s possessions and remains to Zadar.36r. 300 able-bodied men.189r. 6 May 1560. Vido was commanding a small unit of light cavalry.” Ibid. 2. while Trogir proper was home to c. parlano lingua albanese tutta differente dalla Dalmatia. esp. Simon Budineus. 1. 2B. il che forse avviene per la frequenza de forestieri. 2:197. Simon Mazzarellus. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 208. Commissiones. Fortini Brown Art and Life in Renaissance Venice. however. “Reconsidering Venice.” 575. 40. If the same proportion of able-bodied men to the general populace is assumed... Daniel Cavalca. Almost all other dotal cards. 208. Trogir proper was home to c.” Chojnacki. 3. quitclaims. “Družbeni in ekonomski odnosi na Rabu v anžujski dobi 1358-1409” [Social and Economic Relations in Rab under Angevin Rule” (M. See also Fortini Brown. 1. 1.” 197-109. “Dubrovačko plemstvo u XV. I. On Dubrovnik. nobili veneziani. HR DAZD 31 BZ.A. Comparable statements can be found about other urban centres in Venetian Dalmatia. on Korčula. capitanii. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. Cf. In 1553 Zadar’s inhabitants numbered c. Dinamika . 36.. 30 April 1567.35v-c. this particular quitclaim specifically mentions the dowry obligation “pro Integrali et finali Satisfactioneet persolutione […] bonorum paternorum. Civallelli..36r. 2B. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2:198. Dokoza.36r. c. A. Trogir. c. che sia fra loro. 37. 6 May 1560. Un esponente dell’élite liberale. ch’hanno ducati cento d’entrada. I. cinquecento et fino settecento. and Split. sopracomiti et altri.p. 227. 2:197. perchè la maggior intrada. in Chojnacki’s words. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Šibenik. I. c. diss. 2:191. Venice’s legate wrote of “costumi barbari.” 22-27. marriage contracts. 42. Commissiones. ducento e fino trecento. 8 January 1556. State of Deference. XXIV: “De exhereditate liberorum. Korčula sous la domination de Venise. 11 November 1555.” 190-193.. I. 1. Working Women of Early Modern Venice. “Such an investigation should also include the education acquired by patrician youth. Simon Mazzarellus. tit. on Trogir. This was done because women transferred most of their possessions only through their testaments. not as good as the knowledge possessed by ambitious commoners. ad praesens in Patavino [Padua] Gimnasio existentibus. 49.” For the annual payment of 230 libras. 1. Another instrument. “dominis Hieronimo et Julio. See also the reference to Nicolaus Buchia (or “Gucchia” as the Venetian legates spelled the name) in Commissiones.: “Item duos deziales ex argento quorum unius est laboraturus. Only a few instruments explicitly refer to higher education among the nobility.” which consists of a single chapter. 1.” Budak. and Stuard. III. proves her noble descent from Kotor. HR DAZD 31 BZ. In the late 1550s “dominus Pompeius Chrysogonus quondam excellentis domini Federici artium et medicinae doctoris nobilis Jadrensis agens nomine proprio ac nomine et vice dominorum Hieronymi et Julij fratrium suorum modo in Ghymnasio patavino studentium” leased all jointly-owned salt pans “in valle Pagi in confinio Sancti Joannis de Cangerich” to “Reverendo domino Joanni Ifcich canonico pagensis. Felicita’s dowry quitclaim from the mid-1550s. which was. the renowned medical doctor and professor at the University of Padua. Rod i grad. For the relevant clauses in Zadar’s statutes Lib.” Chojnacka. Cont. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Benyovsky. 46. c. 100114. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen. Ibid. I. “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice. ut dixit alla prosina. IV. 8. Their belongings consisted overwhelmingly of movable property since real estate was usually transferred through the male line. and tit. 69-80.45r. 27 April 1539. 1. Item tresdecim butonzinos ex argento laborato.” 68-70. Stuard.” 199. 89-93. 1. and Schmitt. Nicolaus Drasmileus. no. Rod i grad. 50. 1. Item unum penarolum argenti ab . In autumn of 1555 “Reverenda domina dor Marchetta [Grisogona] Monialis professa in monasterio Sanctae Mariae Jadrensis ordinis Sancti Benedicti” donated 200 ducats to her late brother’s sons. Simon Budineus.” which contains two chapters. 48. See Grbavac. I. Chojnacki. Since men tended to leave money rather than possessions to their heirs. Statuta Iadertina. See Chojnacki. the wills of women are more suitable for analysis of worldly goods. 2. “Item voluit Cadaver suum sepeliri debere In ecclesia venerabilium fratrium minarum ordinis Sancti Francisci de Observantia Jadre.44v-c. as it seems. XXIII: “De testamentis et quemadmodum testamenta debeant ordinary. tit. XXV: “De codicillis. 45. et mandavit Illud Sepelirj tali Casu In eadem ecclesia In Sepulcro In quo Jacent Socrus ac Cognati Sui. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Simon Mazzarellus. “Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice. 348-358.p. In Capella dicti domini Francisci eius mariti In Sepulcro In ea Construendo quod nisi tam erit Constructum voluit.p. State of Deference. for whom it was a means of vertical social mobility. 47. 77-89. 24 April 1557. 2:246.” which contains 11 chapters. 18 November 1555.. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. Srednjovjekovni Trogir. 26-49. The named individuals were the sons of Federicus Grisogonus (Federik Grisogono). s. the canon leased the entire income of the salt pans for the duration of five years.186 Urban Elites of Zadar otočnog prostora.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Janeković-Römer. s.” The two beneficiaries were absent but their brother Pompeius was present and accepted the donation on their behalf. Janeković-Römer. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 57. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Ibid. et quas ornamenta asservit ipsa domina testatrix Esse ab eius dorso ea tam omnia sibi dono fuisse lata In domo paterna ante transductionem suam ad domum mariti. 54. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. Simon Mazzarellus. Felicita ordered a number of additional requiems to be celebrated in the churches dedicated to St Catherine and St Donatus. 11 March 1557. III. videlicet. Hence she went on to bequeath the total sum of 100 ducats (of . 1. 53. HR DAZD 31 BZ. no. 55. 51. un annello d’oro con la pietra rossa di valuta come la disse di ducati sette. 46. videlicet. the bequests were tied to masses in the testatrix’s memory. “vulgari Sermone describenda. or a combination thereof. 60.”HR DAZD 31 BZ. Raukar et al. un’annello d’oro con una turchina de ducati quattro […]. 172-173.“ out of which only 50 ducats had been paid accordingly. The lower half was blue. Immovable property was only transferable to legitimate male offspring: “Cum condictione per dictum testamentum Testamentaliter expresse apposita ex filij dictorum filiorum Suorum legitimariorum […]. The upper half was red with an eight–pointed yellow star in the middle. no. 8. 2. 13 April 1544. 4. If neither of her own children or their offspring survived. All testaments typically included small bequests to the “fabrica cappelle Sancti Simeonis Justi. Franciscus Thomaseus. Ibid. 27 April 1539. then Marchetta’s daughters “Maria […] uxor domini Francisci Dragoeuich” and “Helisabeth uxor quondam domini Aloysij Boyci” would inherit their mother’s goods. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ. In addition. IV. “Grbovi zadarskih plemićkih obitelj” [Coats of Arms of the Zadar Nobility] (images of the coats of arms on 93). 59. Ibid. Lucretia was promised “a Bernardino et Joanne Petri fratribus de Carnaruto ducatorum centum quinquaginta. IV. no. tertium Cum zala quartum Cum perla magnum. Daniel Cavalca. 61. To be on the safe side. The coat of arms of the Tetrico family is parted per fess (halved horizontally). In all of these instances. while leaving small amounts of money to the reliquary chapel of St Simeon and Our Lady of Peace in Zadar’s suburbs. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. In an additional dowry instrument. 88. her son “dominum Aloysium supradictum filium dicti testatricis ex dicti quondam spectabili domino Petro de Begna eius primo matrimonio. 2. 8. 58.” If Aloysius did not survive or have legitimate offspring. “domina Ursia […] uxor quondam ser Nicolai Ventura” and “Lucia. The account follows HR DAZd 31BZ.Urban Elites and Everyday Life 187 agis.. the testament contains detailed succession criteria for Marchetta’s residual heir. 4. 52. I.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 22 February 1559.” Ibid. Kolumbić. 27 April 1539. no. Item unam Cathenellam ex argento a gladijs quas res.” the “lazaretto pestiferorum. Magdalena and Johannes a Lacu had two daughters. 3. no. 12 February 1555. the testatrix had the notary insert the provision “utriusque sexus” between the lines. In addition to another 100 requiems. no. 56. his half brothers and sisters and their offspring would succeed. A codicil stipulated in February of 1559 reveals the value of some of the mobile goods bequeathed to Felicita’s husband.” Ibid. I. 286. III. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Item sex anullos ex auro.” one or another school or hospital. 6. quintum Cum nomine Jesu descripto Sextum vero partim Cum capite albo ab homine. unum magnum Cum petra rubea alterum Cum petra turchina. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. 65. 338. Livelli in Borgo uno paga dre lire Cioe Zoysici de soldi 20 Miclos Draxinouich et Siglicich un mocenigo. 21 June. “Item reliquit Helisabeth filia Simonis Bratich de Bocagnatio [Bokanjac] famula unam podassam ex pellibus caprinis vetere. III. Una ograda sotto’l monte ferreo [?] de gognali 8 vel circa vignada à sozali. 70. Budak. “Item voluit sepeliri In ecclesia Sancti Francisci fratrium minorum regularis observandum Jadra In sepulcro Suo. Gognali trentado à Lucorano [Lukoran] arabile et vignati et olinatj. Interestingly. 6. 21 June. see also appendix): “Duj scoglij chiamati labdara grande et piccolo Con animali ducento. 1531. 67.” Ibid. 6. 62. A transcript of the inventory is provided in the appendix. “[D]omina Joanna filia quondam domini Cypriani Diphnich Sibinicensis et uxor viri nobilis Jadrensis domini Joannis de Begna quondam domini Scauich” ordered to be buried “In ecclesia venerabilium fratrium Sancti Francisci Jadra ordinis minorum regulantis observantia In habitu dicti ordinis. Sorte dieci di Terre poste à Machurci [?]. 337. 63. III.” Ibid. 69.p. 6. Especially in the light of the listed property (the toponyms in parentheses are today’s place names. 4 November 1539. Una casetta drio San Helia che paga de livello soldi 40.p. 1531.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. no. 19 December 1545. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. III. Sorte cinque a Migliasichi [Miljačka]. 6. s. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ. Una casetta al castello nella qual habita Lucia Francouich. La possession de Chuchgliza [Kukljica] Isola de Zara. 66. Petrus de Bassano. 6. Il molin overo la posta. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. Petrus de Bassano. II. Livelli posti à San Simon [?]. Ibid. Una casetta al castello verso San Francesco [probably in Zadar near St Francis]. no. there is an abundance of Classical Latin writings—and only one missal—mentioned at the end of the list.188 Urban Elites of Zadar which 50 ducats were still outstanding) to “domina Marine olim uxor quondam domini Donati de Carnarutis sorori dicti testatrices. 189. 6 November 1545. no. 64. et unam cordellam a capite. 68. II.. . Due sorte à Varicassane [Varikašani]. et paga livello de lire 20 a Machurci [?]. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.. Livello d’un horto per il qual Si paga soldi 30 posto drio San Helie [St Elias’ parish].” Ibid.” 199. 3 The ruling patricians were defined elaborately. and others’ texts1 shrouded the realities of the Republic of Venice in written accounts (as they still do today in modern scholarship). From the fifteenth century. contemporaries characterised the society of early modern Venice as tripartite. but distinctively separated from. Gasparo Contarini’s treatise De magistratibus et republica Venetorum. members of this particular group of original citizens were eventually required to provide information about the legitimacy of their birth if they aspired to certain public offices like the Procurator of St Mark. but the non-noble elites remained obscure and undifferentiated. Cyprus. made up of patricians. and the non-noble elites. this distinct “ordine cittadinesco” became increasingly diversified in written records. the ruling patriciate.8 The following pages examine a broader spectrum of social groups in Zadar. Jews. Tendencies to focus on the larger regions—Crete.2 Typically. Unfortunately. enduring myths based on the writings of Marcantonio Sabellico. and foreigners. .6.6 Once the splendour of Renaissance Venice and its lagoon is left behind. citizens. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape Over the course of centuries. the picture becomes less clear. historiography of the Stato da mar is uneven. namely Venetians. Croats.7 The most recent contributions have focused heavily on the administrators of Venice’s maritime state and investigate the patricians sent to administer and govern the Doge’s subjects. however. however.5 The result was a “distinctively subaltern class” of citizens of Venetian origin tied to.4 Like their aristocratic peers who ruled the Republic of Venice. and Constantinople—have resulted in less scholarly interest in and documentation of other geographical areas. just 10 kilometres away from the city walls. or social origins in the Venetian lagoon. Venetians The number of Venetian patricians and commoners who lived in the Stato da mar. they operated out of their residence in Zadar’s “Contrata Sancti Stephani.12 And like Zadar’s nobles. mulier Sui Juris” appointed “Magnificum et Generosum dominum Sanctum Venerio patritium venetum” to settle her legal problems. especially since the military presence distorts the proportions. The instrument cites a sentence issued on 12 June 1555 “per celeberrimum dominum Natalem Donato olim dignissimum Provisorem Generalem in Dalmatia.”9 We also know from contemporary accounts by Venice’s legates that members of this family were tasked with the military security of the immediate environs Zadar.190 Urban Elites of Zadar 1. They leased their real estate to acquaintances like their fellow soldier “Joann[es] Rimanich”11 and conceded other parts to labourers. “strenui domini Demetrij Lascari.” Sanctus was to recover the sum of 79 libras from Nicolota’s adversary. it must be acknowledged that the data is incomplete and biased toward those individuals who appear more than once in the records. while the following discussion of documentary examples seeks to obtain a picture of the activities of these groups. boasted a “castello di meser Thomaso Venier et fratelli.000) refer to individuals with geographical.”10 Apart from these military endeavours no distinction can be discerned in activities or habits between the Venetian patrician family of the Venier and their Dalmatian peers. in June of 1559 “domina Nicolota uxor quondam domini Georgij Venerij olim civis et habitator Jadrae. and in Zadar in particular. The most prominent Venetians in the notarial instruments were members of the Venier family of central Dalmatia. For instance. The village of Zemunik.15 We learn even more about the composition of the crews of Venetian warships through his brother’s role as commander of . is hard to assess. Hence. Thomaso and his siblings carried out procuratorial duties.” who evidently did not pay his rent on time. In winter of 1542 Thomaso paid the 44 oarsmen of his galley for their military service. In the period surveyed only 120 notorial acts (out of more than 6.13 When Thomas and his brother Stephanus were not carrying out procuratorial duties14 they were galley commanders in the service of the Republic of St Mark. political. Well-established by the midsixteenth century. And even this number is misleading because sometimes the same individual appears on multiple occasions . et Meser Zanantonio Rossetto cittadin. Because the city’s provisions of corn (biave)22 had dropped considerably. “Magnificus dominus Aloysius Memo [Memmo].” Her dowry was composed of movable goods worth 407 libras. Two prominent Zadar residents. They ate and drank away a small fortune without ever returning the favour. appointed celeberrimum dominum Bernardinum Contareno […] dignissimum provisorem generalem in Dalmatia” in absentia to represent him in Venice.17 The procuratorial appointments involving military personnel reveal the problematic payment practices of Venice. The latter’s importance grew over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a consequence of the increasing militarisation of the frontier areas of the Stato da mar. Giacomo Pisani had just been appointed to the office of count of Zadar. the Venier of Zadar. Pisani came up with an ingenious plan: he gave Gieronimo and Zanantonio an additional 290 ducats “per investire quelli in .Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 191 a galley about a decade later.” were tasked with a specific and potentially dangerous assignment. He convened a meeting in his audience chamber and laid out his plan. Because war was raging elsewhere—the Emperor’s requisitions are cited explicitly23—supplies were in high demand. “Catherina. most Venetians who appear in the notarial protocols were affiliated with the Church or military.20 Much to his dismay he discovered that large expenditures went toward Ottoman subjects who visited and negotiated with the Venetian administration in Zadar. The task was simple: Bernardinus was to obtain “ab officio Magnificorum dominorum camerariorum communitatis Venetiamrum […] omnes et quamcumque denariorum quantitatem quam dixit debere habere a dicto officio pro augmento Salarij Sui. Soon after his arrival in Dalmatia he found that rising costs were not just caused by the increasing military presence and the upkeep and expansion of fortifications. Pisani gave them “ducati quattrocento et trenta […] in tanti contadi” and sent them forth to resupply the dwindling stocks.18 For instance. “Meser Gieronimo Grisogono nobile.21 To increase the readiness of the soldiers and fortifications. The rest was paid in cash. in early 1560 Zadar’s castellan. or Franciscus Dandolo (see also Chapter 3). Pisani went to work within a couple of months after his arrival in Dalmatia. In this capacity Stephanus issued a quitclaim to this ship’s wainwright in late November of 1552: “Magister Iseppus quondam Bernardini de Venetijs Carpentarius” confirmed the receipt of 500 libras. not for services rendered on board the ship but because he had married Stephanus’s maid.”19 In spring of 1564.16 Except for the few public officials. citizen. ac omnium aliorum fratrium et sororium Suarum absentium.25 2.” who commanded a small cavalry detachment. Francesco de Ventura.” specifically earmarked to acquire foodstuffs from subjects of Venice’s potential future adversary. “deputati al proveder di biave per 250 di questa città.24 Despite renewed Ottoman attacks on the Knights Hospitaller in 1565 Gieronimo and Zanantonio. il capitanio Peregrin de Marco. They came back with supplies and even returned 465 libras and nine soldi to the communal treasury. Like many other soldiers in the service of the Republic of Venice he had been on duty elsewhere before he made his home in central Dalmatia.” On behalf of himself and his family he appointed a fellow soldier. the most renowned individuals of non-noble descent were “un Simon Bertonichio.” to collect the outstanding payments “a camera Vegle [Krk]. and resident of Zadar. based on data gleaned from procuratorial appointments and property transactions.”29 More than a decade later Peregrin appeared in another procura which tied him to “Egregius vir dominus Simeon Britanicus civis et Interpres publicus Jadre. 21. One of these was Peregrin’s family.5 kilometres southeast of Zadar. which centred around Peregrin as valiant commander. While the notarial instruments do not yield information about Simon Bertonichio. Hierolimo di Lorenzi et altri simili. and he had to deal with the unreliable payment practices of his employer.192 Urban Elites of Zadar formenti et altre biave nelle parti di Turchia al benefficio si di questa città come del Suo territorio […]. Zuan Rimondin. “ser Dominicum de Tervisio [Tarvisio] stipendiatum ad custodiam platheam. Non-Noble Elites Referred to as “fedelissimo” by Paulo Giustiniano. the base of the de Marco family was the fortified village of Turanj. In a procura from the early 1540s Peregrin “Interveniens nomine sup proprio.27 Except for two sisters. Around the mid-sixteenth century two families bearing the de Marco surname can be identified. the situation changes considerably for “il capitanio Peregrin de Marco.” were at least partially successful. c. ac nomine done Anzole eius matris. Francischina and Ursia. cum quibus est in fraterna.”26 The following discussion. believing . ut asservit.28 who lived behind the walls of the Benedictine nunnery of St Catherine’s.” Simeon had lost a legal feud against Peregrin and. examines in more detail this social class and its activities. The reason was that Franciscus or “Francesco de Ventura”35 promised to Simon the hand of his daughter. in one contract both Peregrin and Martinus appear as constituents. led by “ser Martinus de Marco alias Mestrouich.” located in the parish of St Simeon. Turanj. Kožino. possessed real estate within Zadar’s jurisdiction too. They owned around 18. managed to breach the social boundaries separating Zadar’s noblemen from the city’s commoners.” a merchant and citizen of Zadar. who stipulated on behalf of his siblings. of which 550 ducats came to the bride directly from her father. In fact. Peregrin and his brothers appear in the records seven times conceding parts of their property to colonists. Peregrin. The core of the issue was that Peregrin had successfully appealed against a previous sentence. Sv Filip i Jakov.32 Martinus also possessed property near his hometown.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 193 in his chances in an appeal. but without reference to familial relationship.” to marry up. “honesta damicella domina Laura.5 hectares near the villages of Nin. ex una. and Gaženica (some of the land may have been re-rented).33 but the instruments are silent on the exact nature of the ties between these two families who bore the same surname. met “in domo Solita habitationis spectabilis et excellentis Juris utriusque doctoris domini Pasini de Pasinis. Simon was to receive a stately dowry of 700 ducats. hence Simeon sent his son in an attempt to reverse the outcome. 250 ducats were to be paid in cash.”36 Of the total sum of 700 ducats. “honesta damicella domina Gasparina eius filia legitima et naturalis.34 By virtue of marital alliances the de Marco family was related to at least two other non-noble families of comparable social status.” Peregrin’s brother.38 In addition to their ties with other families of non-noble yet elevated status39 the de Marcos were possessed of sufficient prestige to enable Simon’s sister. formally appointed “Reverendum dominum Petrum eius filium Primicerium Jadrensis” to travel to Venice and present the case in front of the Quarantia. The remaining 150 ducats were “legati dimissas ipsi domini Francisco per Testamentum quondam domini Laurentij de Ventura alias a Putheo quondam domini Georgij civis Venetijs. In autumn of 1559 “egregius vir dominus Franciscus de Ventura quondam domini Petri civis Jadre.37 A couple of years after the marriage Simon issued a formal quitclaim and exonerated his father-in-law of the entire debt. Lau- . The rest was transferred in annual installments of 25 ducats and movable goods. et dominus Simon de Marco.31 The other de Marco family.30 Both de Marco families owned considerable amounts of real estate within Zadar’s jurisdiction.” Together with Gasparina. 41 Another prominent elite non-noble. public administration.49 3. the fiscal chamber’s scribe (scriba camerae fiscalis). a notary and barrister of Zadar. Andreas Postner.45 The intellectual elite included individuals like Franciscus Justus or de Justis. The families participated in local defense. exchange between the coastal communities and the wider hinterland of the western Balkans was limited.44 Together with the hand of “domina Francischina filia dicti domini Simonis. and other essential services.47 Another example is Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius.46 and the two attorneys Franciscus Petrouich and Hieronymus de Bassano (see also Chapter 2).” was a doctor of both laws canon and civil (leges utriusque doctoris). Nevertheless. For instance.” a citizen and “interpres publicus” of Zadar. hence a member of the intellectual elite. .194 Urban Elites of Zadar ra’s husband.”40 The marriage practices of these non-noble families were instrumental in the functioning of the Venetian administration. “Pasinus de Pasinis. This is reflected in the absence of reports or directives of Venice’s civil and military servants.48 In the end. According to the marriage contract written in Crete. trade. Postner received a dowry of 500 ducats.” known to Venice’s legates as “Hierolimo di Lorenzi.”42 belonged to this particular socio-occupational group too. Croats and Jews As shown in the procuratorial analysis (see also Chapter 2). whose daughter was married to a merchant from Ljubljana.” Hieronymus received a dowry worth 450 ducats. which was fully paid by his father-in-law in late autumn 1547. every now and then Croats appear in the protocols of Zadar’s notaries. “dominus Antonius de Begna alias Grascich quondam Damyani nobilis Jadre. and his relative. as well as 50 additional ducats “per quondam dominae Mattheam uxoris in primo matrimonio dicti domini Pellegrini.43 He was related by marriage to another nonnoble family of considerable social status. “dominus Hieronymus de Laurentijs. it must be left to future scholars to elaborate on questions such as whether cities in the Stato da mar enacted legislation similar to those of Venice proper that formalised the existence of and regulated this particular group of non-noble elites. In the mid-1540s he married the daughter of “egregius vir dominus Simon Britanicus. “Paulus de Pasinis” was a citizen and merchant of Zadar.” received a comparably large dowry worth 600 ducats from Peregrin. ” Prior to the event Francisucs had leased the usufruct rights “ex lignis nemoris villae Bahelizze” to Hellena in exchange for the payment of 297 libras and 12 soldi. pestis. again. Franciscus issued a quitclaim and exonerated the tenant of her debt. grandinisque Tempestatis cause quod Deus avertat. he had partnered with “dominus Bernardus Michaglieuich de partibus Croatiae […] Tamquam procurator dominae Hellenae filiae quondam comitis Georgij Bencouich de Plauno [Plavno]. the contract included a reference to the location of the properties. “Matheus Liuaza. in the spring of 1565 three more names appear in the notarial records: “comes Georgius Mogorich quondam comitis Martini. they transferred three sors52 to the communal chancellor. Simon was granted usufruct rights.”51 The three counts. usually appointing procurators to retrieve outstanding payment for their service (see also Chapter 2). Franciscus de Ventura who appears in an instrument from the mid-1560s. possibly involved with the Venetian military. while relatively rare. Režane and probably also the other two plots were located close to the Ottoman-Venetian border. individuals acted on their own behalf. comes Thomas Mogorich quondam comitis Joannis.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 195 One example involves. et comes Nicolaus Mogorich quondam comitis Francisci. In addition.53 In addition to these individuals of elevated social status. As for the relatives of sister Helena. which they leased to “domino Simoni Mazzarello nobilis Traguriensis cancellario Magnifici comunitatis Jadrae. Earlier. and a place listed as “Franulschina.” In exchange for an annual rent of 26 ducats.” In all. many rank and file soldiers who served in the various military units originated from the hinterlands.50 Ties like these.” The landlords agreed to pay potential damages in accordance with the judgment of jointly-appointed evaluators. patruus et Nepotes habitatores in partibus Croatiae in loco vocato Bosiglieuo [Bosiljevo]. Now that Bernardus had paid the landlord. This is exemplified by the presence of the members of the Mogorichia (Mogorić) family in Zadar’s St Catherine nunnery (see also Chapter 3). Occasionally. In summer of 1540 two soldiers. Belli seu alicuius Incursionis Turcarum. Only rarely though do these soldiers appear in the notarial instruments. The properties were located near the villages of “Radohouo […] Reiane [Režane]”. The following clause was included: “si […] infra dictum Terminum annorum decem pateret damnum aliquod. et Bilulus . were not completely unknown and occurred in a variety of circumstances. owned property in Zadar’s jurisdiction.” Together they surveyed a document drawn up by the “Reverendi capituli Zagrabiensis scripta et rogata iuxta morem dicti loci seu capituli. 196 Urban Elites of Zadar Sbizich sotij de Comitatia strenui domini Nicolai Tetricj nobilis Jadrensis Capitanei equitum Croatorum. more specifically.”55 As for those of the Jewish faith. as indicated by their rare appearances in the notarial documents.59 The following discussion examines exchange within the Jewish population of Zadar and. most of whom are unnamed. or an individual from the hinterlands of the western Balkans like “Joanni Rimanich capitanio crouatorum de Sliuniza [Slivnica].57 Their small numbers are also reflected in the absence of references to Jews in the Statuta Iadertina and the Commissiones et Relationes Venetae. Hence Laura’s husband formally issued a quitclaim confirming the receipt of 150 ducats in cash and 200 ducats in movable goods to exonerate his father-in-law of all debts.” were boys. Salvator Alfari promised his wife a counter-dowry of 175 ducats. who might be a nobleman of Zadar like Nicolaus Tetricus.62 . which the buyer paid in specie. as they were in Split.61 About two weeks later the marriage contract was drawn up “Inter excellentem dominum Salvatorem Alfari artium et medicinae doctorem hebreum ex una et dominam Lauram filiam ser Mellis Zizo hebrei ex altera.60 One case involves two Jewish families.” Taken near the fortified village of Ražanac. Individual soldiers are identified only with explicit reference to their unit commander. In addition. written in Hebrew (“scripta letteris hebraicis manu Jacobi Sassi Venetijs habitatoris et Subscripto manu duarum Testium”). Only 18 individuals appear in the books of Zadar’s notaries during the period under survey. they were sold for the combined price of 30 ducats. the importance of kinship relations. a member of the Mogorichia family. In winter of 1567 “honesta damicella dona Laura filia legitima et naturalis ser Melis Zizo hebrei habitatoris Jadra” formally renounced any future claims on parts of her father’s patrimony (refutatio bonorum) in exchange for a dowry.56 their numbers were very small. referred to as “Captivos turchas.” sold two slaves to “Georgio quondam Paulj Marizieuich habitator In Castro Ariolo dittionis Lanzani [Lanciano].54 The majority of the military units appearing in the notarial records was composed of Croats. This analysis is based on pioneering scholarship on the Jews of Venice and recent comparative studies.” The two individuals for sale. It is not known whether the Jews of Zadar were expelled in 156858 or what their situation was during the Cyprus War. but the post-war efforts of Daniel Rodriga may have proved favorable for Jews in Zadar.” It also contains clauses pertaining to the dowry. “nomine Balia etatis annorum Circa decem alterum vero nomine Schenderbeg etatis annorum Circa sex. of ambiguous ties. which Mele returned in his town of residence. Apart from his involvement with the Belfinante family. Civis.” and she received a counter-dowry worth 50 ducats.” had deposited 400 ducats. Salamon died within a couple of years and his father acted as Perla’s counterpart and “gubernator di detti pupillj et bonatenente del detto quondam Salamon suo figlio. “ser Abramus Vigleta hebreus quondam Isach de Alexandria. Mele Zizo and Mele Belinfante were brothers-in-law whose children married each other. Not much is known about him prior to his move to Dalmatia. Mele Belinfante. for instance. Laura’s father.63 By the time of their daughter’s marriage the couple lived in a house in Zadar’s parish of St Simeon that belonged to the Crissana family. “parti in auro.050 ducats) to “domina Regina uxor quondam ser Gabrielis Bellinfante Hebrei. 1. 115 ducats) to “ser Jacobus Bono patronus marciliane. The dowry quitclaims written “nella città d’Ancona. sive Leonus Gomiel hebreus quondam Joseph de dicto Loco. wife of Mele Zizo and mother of Salamon. Zadar. Their fortune did not last long.”68 A decade later the banking endeavours of Mele Zizo attracted more attention. was a banker and moneylender.66 The few resident Jews were involved in a number of business deals with other Zadar’s inhabitants.” He is first mentioned in the second half of the 1540s.504 libras and 14 soldi (c. Mayr Choen (or Mahir Cohen) appeared in two other instruments. written on the same day . Mele Zizo. written two decades earlier.” Mele Zizo was required to make restitution to the sum of 6. uno in Hebreo et l’altro in lingua Latina” detail that he had married “dona Perla sua moglie figlia del quondam Mele Belinfante hebreo” in spring of 1562. On the basis of a sentence issued by “excellente leges utriusque doctore domino Petro Fanfoneo. et ser Mahir Cohen hebrei uti cotutores. had married “madona Preciosa figliola de madona Stella Marcilia uxor quondam ser Rafael Belinfante” in the Apulian coastal town of Monopoli “ad costume Ebraico” as early as 1532 or 1533. revealed something else: Perla’s father. ser Melle de Ariano. tutrix.”71 In the second instrument. et legitima gubernatrix filiorum pupillorum dicti quondam ser Gabrielis. uti mater.67 Two other Jews. ac habitator Jadrensis.”65 Another instrument. ac Juda.”69 Among the Jews of Zadar one individual stood out: “ser Mayr Choen hebreo hispano nunc Jadre habitatori. His bride was accompanied by a dowry of 220 ducats in both “denari et robbe.70 In the first instance he lent the sum of 105 scudi (c. was the brother of Preciosa.64 Their son “Salamon” had married half a decade earlier. ac parti in monetis. other than his allegedly Sephardic origins.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 197 Mele Zizo. 198 Urban Elites of Zadar after the credit had been agreed upon. and with Ancona. apart from the Rulers of Venice database.” Marcus Falier was to obtain “partem et portionem bonorum quondam dominae Miliae eius Sororis. Johannes de Suave confirmed the receipt of 50 ducats and 12 grossi from Marcus Falier. in a second.77 It . the same two individuals formed a “societas”72 in which each party agreed to bring in 105 scudi. focusing on the distinction between public and private spheres. was connected with Venice. Jacobus also obliged himself “pro ut se obtulit exercere Arte mercantium. possibly.73 One final example of the widespread connections between Jewish families in the early modern Mediterranean is documented in an instrument from early 1562. the notary added that the constituent parties acted “cum presentia et consensum ad abundantiorem cautelam domini Curtij filij strenui domini Joannis de Suave capitj Militum ad custodiam castri Novigradi [Novigrad] districtus Jadrensis eius mariti. To be on the safe side. ad Sui Libitum. the losses were to be equally divided. and the hinterlands of the western Balkans. The Cityscape The final section of this chapter examines Zadar’s cityscape and its uses. If all went well Jacobus was to receive two-thirds of the profits. children with them to their assigned posts. have thus far received little scholarly attention. however. In mid-January “domina Margarita filia quondam domini Iseppi Gavatti de Padua et domina Lucietta filia quondam celeberrimi domini Philippi Trono [Tron] Procuratoris Divi Marci” appointed “Magnificum dominum Marcum Faletruo [Falier] quondam celeberrimi domini Luce patricium Venetum” as their procurator.75 These examples serve to illustrate the interconnectedness and spectrum of activities of late medieval and early modern Mediterranean cities and their inhabitants. Padua.76 4. Zadar. Married Venetian civil or military officials may have brought their wives and. Novigrad. ac conditionis. tamquam pro ut ipsi ser Jacobo melius videbitur ac placuerit […]”. and Alexandria. located in central Dalmatia. In case the mercantile endeavours failed. which.”74 The first document is silent on the sum of money. dated 4 April 1564.” as well as “omnes et quacumque pecuniarum Sumas Sibi spectandum existendum Venetijs in Ghetto in banco filiorum quondam consilij hebrei. tam in Emendo ipsas mercantias Cuiuscumque Sortis. 026 individual instruments are analysed. 1540-1569) Locations Business facilities1 Chancelleries2 Houses3 Ecclesiastical property4 Communal main square5 Other6 Salesa 154 144 288 30 372 79 1.067 Leasesb Grantsc 30 35 31 86 58 98 27 16 46 211 34 32 226 478 Zadard 35 40 85 13 70 12 255 Totale 254 301 529 86 699 157 2. (d) Number of land transfers within Zadar’s city walls for each location of stipulation. Simon Mazzarellus. (3) Contracts drawn up in houses (domus. I. I. Franciscus Thomaseus. Horatius de Marchettis. (b) Number of property leases (locationes) for each location of stipulation. (5) Contracts drawn up in Zadar’s main square (in platea). (1) Contracts drawn up in business or storage facilities (apotheca). 1558-1567. (6) Contracts with unlisted or infrequently-listed locations. I. (a) Number of property sales (emptiones) for each location of stipulation. 1545-1551. 1548-1561. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. 1544-1548. I. I. 1540-1566. or the jurists’ bench (ad bancum iuris). 2.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 199 will first give an overview of the locations of stipulation of the more than 2. I. 1567-1569. ad criminalium). Johannes a Morea. 1540-1551. 1551-1566.The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. 1562-1564. The second set of data analyses the 255 contracts that transferred property within the city walls over the same period (Table 13). 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius. 1567-1569. (c) Number of land grants (concessiones. (2) Contracts drawn up in one of the city’s three chancelleries (cancellaria comitis. 1556-1565. 1540-1569. I. since the latter two were located in the main square. the communal loggia (logia comunis).000 real estate transactions concerning the area outside the city walls. typically located at or near Zadar’s main square.5 % 15 % 26 % 4% 34. I.5 % 8% 100 % Sources: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). Petrus de Bassano. 1545-1569. Paulus de Sanctis. (f) Three-decade averages for each location of stipulation. I. pastinationes) for each location of stipulation. Nicolaus Canali. Cornelius Constantius. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. 1555-1567. I. (e) Total number of instruments for each location of stipulation. I. Gabriel Cernotta. I. Nicolaus Drasmileus. I.026 Averagef 12. Table 13: Locations of Stipulation (Overview. Daniel Cavalca. (4) Contracts drawn up in churches (ecclesia) or on ecclesiastical property such as cloisters. I. 1540-1554. etc. I. communitatis. Simon Budineus. chapels. . domuncula). Slightly more than a quarter of the instruments were written in a house (domus) of one of the city’s inhabitants. A third were written in one of the city’s squares or adjacent structures such as the communal loggia or the jurists’ bench.026 individual contracts that transferred property.200 Urban Elites of Zadar Zadar proper was organised into about 20 ecclesiastical parishes. they also served as locations in which contracting parties met. A majority of the contracts were drawn up in public places.78 Table 13. While the business facilities were mainly in the hands of non-nobles who engaged in a wide variety of economic activities. Frequently. In all three previously analysed categories (see also Chapter 4) . or slightly more than 53%. The documents reveal two further subcategories of urban space: business or storage facilities (apotheca. below. In 330 out of 529 occurrences the contracting parties met in the house of a Zadar noble. For these spaces there was no clear distinction between public and private. both retail facilities and public buildings were used to conduct business transactions or activities otherwise unrelated to the purpose of these public spaces. Likewise. indicates the parish or neighbourhood of stipulation for the 2.79 These 330 instances made up only a sixth of the total number of property transactions. Table 14. plus a few neighbourhoods with secular designations that do not refer to a church. above. 254 contracts) and administrative chancelleries (cancellaria. Their combined share easily exceeds the fully “public” sphere (platea). 301 acts). Moving to the subject of property transferred in Zadar. domus) account for the subject of 1. demonstrates that the main difference between the real estate transactions within and without the city walls is the number of female contracting parties. Johannes a Morea served in the criminal chancellery (cancellarius ad criminalium) and Johannes Mazzarellus and his son Simon spent at least a part of their public life as communal chancellors (cancellarius communitatis). These three alone were responsible for slightly more than a third of all contracts written in their workplaces. Conversely. the houses of the nobility accounted for almost two-thirds of all locations of stipulation in the domus sub-category. commercial premises served similar purposes to communal and administrative premises. Combined.084 notarial acts. these three subcategories (apotheca. the role of the public chancelleries was not clear-cut because three of the 15 notaries active in Zadar worked as communal officials. On many occasions these notarial acts were drawn up in the presence of the communal official whose signature was required to validate any instrument. cancellaria. 1. of Actsa 81 71 103 255 % of Totalb 32 % 28 % 40 % 100 % Latinc 81 71 100 252 ♀ Sellersd 19 16 21 56 ♀ Buyerse 14 15 19 48 Sources: see Table 13.83 Once the fighting broke out. the city proper. however. While the numbers vary somewhat among the four parishes. women never amounted to more than about 12% among constituent parties and some 4% among recipient parties. The total amount of money transferred by the 255 contracts amounted to c. (e) Number per decade of female leasing parties. defence requirements necessitated razing the suburbs to make room for additional reinforced fortifications after 1570. (b) Relative percentage per decade. this presumably changed significantly in the decades after the Cyprus War. Thus urban real estate transactions were firmly in the hands of Zadar’s nonnoble inhabitants. Property transactions within the city walls mainly transferred a house (domus). 12.82 The surveyed documents show no major shifts in origins of the contracting parties.80 As for the contracting parties. The number among the buyers was 34 (c. taken as a whole they reveal a considerable increase in the number of individual contracts and amount of land turnover (in ducats) inside the city walls. and immediate surroundings were home to four out of five contracting parties. above. its suburban settlement. 13%). 1540-1569) 1540s 1550s 1560s No.81 Like other segments of the real estate market. Considerable losses to the jurisdictions of the cities of Venetian Dalmatia resulting from the war constitute a watershed moment in the appearance of Zadar and its immediate surroundings. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.84 Table 14.671 ducats. or parts thereof. the combined number of vendors who belonged to the nobility or clergy was 62 (c.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 201 Table 14: Property Transactions in Zadar proper (Overview. below. (d) Number per decade of female land-holding parties. a small house (domuncula). (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin (as opposed to Venetian). provides data for four of the city’s most important parishes in terms of prominence and frequency of real estate transactions. (a) Number per decade of concessions. This is consistent with trends in other segments of Zadar’s property . 24%). ecclesiastical. St Lawrence.202 Urban Elites of Zadar Table 14. or vacant lot. 16 % 310. 9 % 109 357 884 1. St Demetrius.”87 If the location of noble residences are considered.350 c.5 % 3 9 12 24 c. (d) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of St Vitus.85 But there were exceptions to this. (1) Turnover per parish per decade in ducats. The real estate transactions concern a house (domus). Examples of the latter category include the parishes centred around the noble nunnery of St Mary’s and St Donatus’ (mentioned twice each). of Acts % of Total2 4 4 5 13 5% 170 118 409 697 5. and social subcategories of the urban space. market. 6 % 331 614 207 1. and the neighbourhoods “arsenatus”86 and “posarischia. pusterla). 255 instruments are analysed. St Vitus. the noble nunnery of St Mary. St Chrysogonus. like St John or Blacksmith’s parish. were mentioned as frequently as 40 times. Some parishes. 1540-1569) St 40a Turnover1 St Johnb Turnover1 St Chrys.460 11.5 783 367 1.5 % 15 11 14 40 c. St Catherine.1: Turnover in Zadar Proper (selected examples. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. In the mid-sixteenth century these parishes were St Anastasia’s Cathedral.88 However. further conclusions emerge. the parish centred around St Lawrence (mentioned once). or as infrequently as nine or fewer times. small house (domuncula). located across the street from St Chrysogonus. St Mary . 9 % Sources: see Table 13. This suggests that the nobility preferred to live in certain parishes. above.152 c. (2) Relative percentages for each parish zone for the entire three-decade period. Also interesting is the regularity of the named property locations within the administrative. Sts Thomas and Silvester. (a) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of the Holy Forty Martyrs. the Holy Forty Martyrs Church. in the 529 contracts that refer to noble houses as the location of stipulation. 11 % 7 6 3 16 c. Most parishes were mentioned between 10 and 20 times as the approximate location of the transferred property. (c) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of St Chrysogonus (near the Benedictine monastery or its garden) and the minor parishes of Sts Thomas and Silvester. (b) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of St John or vicinity of the blacksmith’s furnaces (stomorica. The city inside the walls was subdivided into 20 parishes (or 25 churches). St Salvator.c Turnover1 St Vitusd Turnover1 1540s 1550s 1560s No. only 16 parishes are named. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice. 84-96.” 491-519. 3-28. St Bernard. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. 13-61.” 67–88. Notes 1. 57-74. “Creation of Venetian Historiography. “The Serrata of the Great Council and Venetian Society. The exception was the parish of St Donatus’. Povolo. St George. “When Myths Lose Power.89 Sts Stephen/Simeon/Rochus. This provides a starting point for future studies that may seek to assess in more depth the social distribution of the city’s housing. Sts Cosmas and Damian. “Elite Citizens.” located next to the captain’s palace. The bipartite model fell out of use from the eighteenth century since it was recognised that educated and skilled original citizens (cittadini originari) were increasingly tied . St Donatus’.” This chapter has offered tentative insights into Zadar’s changing cityscape in the sixteenth century and raised questions about the functions and locations of public spaces (chancelleries. the Episcopal Palace.” 339-340. See also Finlay. St Peter the Old. Muir. Grubb.” “beccaria. St Francis.92 Sts Cosmas and Damian. business facilities. Queller.93 The nobles tended to avoid the southern and western areas of Zadar.” “porta macella. ecclesiastical spaces (churches. Grubb. and noble residences. the communal main square. and the church of St Mary “de bon gaudio. Venetian Patriciate. It covered roughly two-thirds of the city. the loggia). This area extended from the castle in the northern corner to the main communal square in the eastern corner to the citadel in the southern corner. Gullino.” 263-294.” 379-413. “Il Patriziato.91 The parishes unassociated with residing nobles were St Nicolas. Rösch. Men of Empire. and St John or Blacksmith’s parish.” 50-60. St Elijah. An Lshaped area in the north and east of the city was the zone preferred by the nobility.” and the Butchers’ Gate (in Croatian. “Reconsidering Venice. Martin and Romano.” 2-9. monasteries). Klaonica vrata). In addition to these parishes a number of neighbourhoods with secular (rather than ecclesiastical) designations appear in the records as preferred places of residence: the old Arsenal (arsenatus) in the city’s eastern corner. The nobles avoided the parishes in the southwestern and westernmost parts of Zadar. and the localities “hospitum. St Michael. 3. St Peter. located next to St Anastasia Cathedral.90 St Dominic. St Nicolas. and near the churches of the Holy Forty Martyrs. The account follows Chojnacki. O’Connell. and St Mary “de bon gaudio.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 203 of the Priests. Venice Triumphant. 2. Politics in Renaissance Venice. Crouzet-Pavan. and other rewards.49r-c. O’Connell. Venezia nel Cinquecento. legislation was passed by the Signoria that required ambitious elite citizens to register themselves in what Grubb calls a “Libro d’Argento. I. I.24r. “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians.” 50-60. On the necessity of combining top-down and bottom-up sources.” Over the course of the subsequent decade. 174.p. 3. and Martin and Romano.5 morgen (c. et ville Slivnize [Slivnica]” to “strenuo Capitano Croatorum Comiti Joanni Rimanich quondam comitis Zornichi. ac Magnificorum domini Petri. “Elite Citizens. 9. a notion introduced by Ranke. 1. ne non affictus et livellos Castri. C.35. Ibid. 354. Queller. s. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. Nobilium virorum Magnificorum Veneriorum quondam celeberrimi domini Joanni Aloysij Patritiorum venetorum” conceded 1. 1. Gullino.” 21-22. “Marriage Legislation and Patrician Society. redditus. “Reconsidering Venice. “domina Catherina uxor quondam strenui domini Joannis Paleologo” appointed Thomaso Venier to collect all outstanding payments “ab officio Mag- . See Grubb. Venetian Patriciate. 3-28. 13. 39-42. “When Myths Lose Power. agens et Interveniens ad infrascripta tanquam factor. “Venetian History and Political Thought after 1509.” 170. In September of 1554.. HR DAZD 31 BZ.. I. Thomasij. In exchange. Commissiones. 1. the tenant is referred to as count (comes). 9 September 1554.” 379413.g. public offices. Men of Empire.. 12. C.” 491-519. Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice.49v. 1-17. and Sperling. 353 (emphasis in the original). 4. E.555 m2) each “posita in Cerodolo super terreno dictorum Nobilium veneriorum” to “Marco Cerodolo. Augustinus Martius. c. s. et Petro Sablich ligonizatoribus habitatoribus Jadre.” 2-9.” 575. 1. 6. and O’Connell et al. 7. Simoni Luchinouich. In HR DAZD 31 BZ. Augustinus Martius. McKee. c. Rulers of Venice. patritius venetus. “Frontiere navali. On marriage practices in Renaissance Venice Chojnacki. 148-149. HR DAZD 31 BZ. et provenientus.23v-c. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule. On another occasion. “dominus Arcelinus de Abrianis Tridentinus [of Trent]. albeit from Zadar’s hinterlands. 11. indicating that Johannes may have been of aristocratic descent. I.” Ibid. 13-61. et celeberrimi domini Antonij eius patrui. Chojnacki. Daniel Cavalca. “Service to the Venetian State. Muir.. 8. marked by the rotation of “amateur patricians” in and out of office. 5.” 103. et libere per Se suosque heredes.” For the duration of three years beginning “a die festivitatis Sancti Martini de mense Novembris” (11 November) the tenant agreed to pay an annual rent of 300 ducats. 14. et Negociorum Gestor. Povolo. Chojnacki. Libby. Grubb. O’Connell.p. Ranke. 10 June 1559. “Creation of Venetian Historiography. 341-343. their citizenship status and role within the fabric of the Venetian state evolved. 1. Interestingly. On the eve of the Cyprus War. 29 July 1551. 2.” 340 (emphasis in the original). these elite commoners provided essential services for the continuity of government.204 Urban Elites of Zadar to the ruling patricians via honours. 10. “Magnificus dominus Sanctus Venerio quondam celeberrimi domini Joannis Aloysij..” 34. Between 1410 and 1569. the three labourers were to diligently work in accordance with the relevant passages in Zadar’s statutes and grow grapes and other crops in exchange for a quarter of the harvest. “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice.” 265. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Men of Empire. Pullan.. sponte. nomine Suo proprio. 3:51. et Stephani fratrium suorum absentium” leased “omnes et Singulis Introitus fructus. 29 July 1551. Daniel Cavalca. ac utilitates quascumque. 483-484 ducats).” Zadar’s communal chancellor. For his report Commissiones. “Constituti Infrascripti quadragina quatuor homines ad praesens galeote biremis Magnifici domini Thomasij Venerio. The instrument also mentions “ser Fantinus filius Joannis de Venetijs Bombarderius in dicta Triremi. In fact. 6. c.137r. c. Simon Budineus. 4 December 1542. 3:164-167.” 18. 19. I. et olim galeote Cum triremibus Infrascriptis. HR DAZD 31 BZ. HR DAZD 31 BZ. HR DAZD 31 BZ.3r. he felt treated unfairly: “la maggior parte et più . f.g. Johannes was to obtain the 90 ducats and four libras the former count of Trogir had loaned “a ser Francisco Patini Brixiensis” (of Brixen) earlier that year. 2 October 1548. the Venetians took to the “Ottoman way of small war.” the galley’s artillerist. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. the case of “clarissimus dominus Joannes de Garzonibus olim comes et capitaneus Tragurij” (Trogir) who. Nicolaus Drasmileus. 2.45v. 6 January 1560. 1. increased investments in fortifications. f. The instrument gives names. Consider e. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste. I.. Johannes a Morea. Other examples of Thomaso assuming procuratorial duties involved mostly military personnel attempting to obtain outstanding payments for military service. 29-71. “Il restante de intrada di quella camera si spende nel presentar et dar mangiar a Turchi. Thomaso paid the oarsmen while still on his bireme “In portu Jadrensis.p. 2A. appointed “spectabilem virum dominum Joannem Mazzarellum. c. to act as his procurator. 17. in the late 1540s. the individual sums. See also Žmegač. 30 November 1552. double the usual number (maybe because the total amount of money paid out was c. 20. I. typical for the frontier areas. 3. The likewise absent captain of Zadar was tasked to take care of the debts incurred by the constituent’s late brother. and similar guerrilla actions. 2. 3. 28 January 1564 (two individual instruments).” This notarial instrument mentions that four witnesses were present. I. Throughout the sixteenth century almost every report by Venetian officials called for additional funding. 13-14.” And while these expenses during Pisani’s tenure of the post in Zadar amounted to only 40 ducats over a period of 19 months.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 205 nificorum dominorum camerarorum […] pro pagis decursis usque in presentem diem”. 1. I.45r-c. Pisani was in office from 22 May 1564 to 4 November 1565. and.” Mayhew.15r. Simon Budineus. A second example was “Magnificus dominus Hieronymus Foscarinus [Foscari] quondam celeberrimi domini Michaelis” who as his late brother’s heir appointed “Magnificum et celeberrimum dominum Marcum Antonium Priolum [Priuli] dignissimum capitaneum Jadrae” to act on his behalf. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. on some occasions. s. 1 E.443v.443rc. 4. 1. 28 June 1558. Franciscus Thomaseus. HR DAZD 31 BZ. most procuratorial appointments involving Venetians revolved around this economic motivation (see also Chapter 2). or a combination thereof.1r. 21 August 1562. c. During the nadir of Venetian control over Dalmatia’s borders between the Cyprus War (1570-1573) and the outbreak of the Cretan War (1645-1669). remarks about the duration of their service or the personal bravery of the oarsmen. and Žmegač. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” who issued a joint quitclaim after having received their payments. I. Daniel Cavalca. based on skirmishes. che vengono nella città a negotiare.000 lire = c. Contado di Zara. raids. Daniel Cavalca. places of origin. 21. 23-29. quanto che suciede de disturbo a quelli confini. This way of combating also dictated the specific way of living. 3. more soldiers. 16. 15. creating specific frontiers [sic] societies in the hinterland of the Dalmatian coastal towns. I.  Triggered by Ottoman attacks on the Knights Hospitaller in 1564. f.. Commissiones. 3. See (chronologically listed) HR DAZD 31 BZ. Daniel Cavalca. 2:196. et nel Suo territorio che […] non venghino a partir di Saggio di biave delle quali quest’anno cosi piacendo a Sua Divina Maesta se ne ha havuto pochissimo raccolto. 1. Simon Budineus.390v. 1. s.89v-c. 8 August 1559. Petrus de Bassano. s. 28. HR DAZD 31 BZ. the Emperor had started to acquire supplies on a grand scale in order to increase his readiness in the event of a subsequent attack on the Habsburg dominions—at least this is the reason given in the instrument: “[…] per Il carico chel tiene talmente proveder al bisogno degli habitanti in essa.6 hectares.27v. were Croats. 22. 33. These seven instruments revealed that two-thirds of the property belonging to Peregrin and his siblings was located within Zadar’s territory. seu litibus. 3. 23.19v-f. 18 October 1560. I. c. 2. 1. I. c.110 m2) near Kukljica on the island of Ugljan. c. 2. 4 November 1565.84v. I. c. Simon Budineus. s. evidenced by an instrument referring to Peregrin as “capitaneus crouatorum”.87v. 11 January 1558. Martinus possessed considerably less property: a total of eight morgen (c. rye. Simon Budineus I. c. 7. 26 October 1559. 3:52. above. 1562. 1. dal qual mai non si ha ottenuto cosa alcuna. 34. 24 August 1565. Commissiones.72r-f. Francischina. 24. I. See Table 7.p. and Laura. 21 January 1558.185v. 2A. f. 30 December 1556. See (chronologically listed) HR DAZD 31 BZ. Peregrin had at least three brothers—Simon. f. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. et ad favorem dicti domini Simonis qua annullatum fuit […].. 1. 2. Chambers and Pullan.p.90r. I. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. combined c. Daniel Cavalca. their mother Anzola lived with her children in a house in Zadar’s St John or Blacksmiths’ parish. 1. 460. 17 August. Johannes a Morea. 8.192v. c. 2. 9. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I.28v. Gabriel Cernotta.192r-c. I. 165. 2.185r-c.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. These include crops like wheat.28r-c. 3. Petrus was appointed “spetialiter et expresse in lite. 5. Three morgen were near Nin.27v-c. 26. 2. Simon Budineus. 3.” Ibid. and two morgen near Sv Filip i Jakov. 1. 30 May 1559. Simon Budineus. 2. I. I. 25. Gli ellesse et deputò a questo negotio approesso le altre provigioni per Sua celeberrima Maesta intorno a cio maturamente fatte […].390r-c. c. c. 1.p. Daniel Cavalca. c. c. 30. I. 32.28v.9 hectares) near Turanj and three morgen (c.20r. 1.4v. 6 November 1561. Simon Budineus. 6. 26 March 1542. 29. 16 October 1564. His five soldiers. 31.72v. 2. Venice: A Documentary History. 2. I. 1. I. Daniel Cavalca. 25 July 1555. f. 17 November 1559. I. quam seu habet quas habet Venetijs in appellation cum strenuo domino Pellegrino de Marco nomine quo Intervenit causa et occasione ut in sententia diei 27 Julij proxime preteriter lata contra Ipsum dominum Pellegrinum. Simon Budineus I. and Julius—and at least three sisters. Ursia. f. 18 June 1559. Daniel Cavalca. Ibid.34r-f. usually milled for bread flour.206 Urban Elites of Zadar importante spesa è l’apresentar ogn’anno di ottobre il sanzacco. HR DAZD 31 BZ.90v. I. 3. or millet. 6. 1. 12. Petrus de Bassano. 23 January 1558. 2C. 20 morgen near Gaženica) were located not far from the city’s fortifications.27r-c. After the death of her husband. I. according to the report of Antonio Diedo.” HR DAZD 31 Z. Bartholomaeus.197r.3 hectares (32 morgen near Kožino. 25 February 1542. Daniel Cavalca. 4. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Another 21 morgen were situated in the vicinity of Turanj.34v. 27. Nicolaus Drasmileus. .. 4.. 1. che vien per visita a quelli confini. I. 7.90r-c. 24 July 1563 (two individual instruments).. 42. I. 3. 2.p. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Annual payments started at the end of the year in which Gasparina moved in with her husband and to last “de anno in annoum usque ad integrum Satisfactionem omni exceptione remota. 41.p.” whose dowry was worth 1.24r-f. 37.” was married to “ser Paulus de Pasino quondam ser Joannis civis Jadre. s. 2. Daniel Cavalca.27v-c.94r.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 207 35. 2. “Helysabeth.. I.. confessus fuit et publici manifestavit habuisse et se recepisse realiter et cum effectu a domino Francisco Ventura eius socero […] ducatos quinquaginta ad rationem librarum 6 solidorum 4 pro ducato ex causa dotis dominae Gasparinae […] ut in Notis mei Notarii sub die xv Octobris 1559 et 28 Januarij 1561. I. Petrus de Bassano. 11 August 1549. 3:52. c. 2 January 1563. c. 25 September 1540. Daniel Cavalca. This is revealed by another notarial act from early 1558: “[m]agister Johannes Baptista filius magistri Stephani de Venzono. too). 2. 2.263 libras and 18 soldi (c. 2A.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.” who married “dominus Georgius de Aymila Nobilis Abrachiae” (of Brač).28r. Daniel Cavalca. c. 2. 3.27v-f. I.” The deceased was originally from Zadar but made his living as a merchant in Venice and was acquainted with Franciscus. s. 146: “De interprete. c. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. Simon actually had two quitclaims issued—one in 1561 and the other in 1563. 17 November 1559. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 15 October 1559. 44. s. 2. 6. HR DAZD 31 BZ.11v.” Statuta Iadertina.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 1.. 2. was a doctor of canon and civil law.” his wife. 30 December 1555.27r-c.. 3. 38. s. 15 October 1559. transcending the social boundaries (probably Helysabeth’s dowry of 500 ducats played a role. 46. Daniel Cavalca.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.37r.p. The former states that “ipse dominus Franciscus restat Solum modo debitor dicti eius generi [Simon] occasione dicti dotis de ducatis Nonaginta septem dum taxat […]”. 1. Commissiones. I. Ref. I.. 2. Daniel Cavalca. of which one member.3 hectares of land on Ugljan. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. f. Hieronymus had at least one daughter. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 36.p. I. Simon Budineus. Again.p. 2. Commissiones.10v-c. Petrus de Bassano. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Franciscus was the second husband of “domina Catherina. Laurentius’s testament was written in Venice on 21 June 1553 “per dominum Antonium Mariam de Vincentibus notarium Venetum. 1. 3:52. cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre” appointed Franciscus de Ventura to acquire 50 ducats he had been promised “in auxilium dotis Magdalenae. 2.11v. f. See also. Daniel Cavalca.10v-c. 18 January 1561. 43. 1. 29 October 1547. I. 29 October 1547. 40. Franciscus had paid up.28v. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. The procurator was to obtain the money “ab heredibus quondam domini Laurentij de Puteo olim civis et mercatoris Venetiarum” or any other person responsible for the payment. 12 May 1560.24v. Petrus de Bassano. 2A. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. c. I. 2A. Paulus also invested in real estate and possessed roughly 2. I. 2. I.p. 29 May 1565. Another of Marcus de Marco’s daughters. 4. 5. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Daniel Cavalca. The de Marco family was also related by marriage to the de Pasinis family. f. 3.. I. 45.27v. Two years later. 39. I. s. Daniel Cavalca.36v-f. 2B.40v. 203-204 ducats). Daniel Cavalca. 30 January 1558. 9. thus “Simon de Marco […] per se et heredes suos dixit. 11 August 1549. I. s. Pasinus de Pasinis. 28 January 1543. 652-654. HR DAZD 31 BZ. an important and comparatively wealthy commoner managed to have his daughter marry upward. probably even related by either blood or marriage. paid by her relative “Reverendo dom- . “domine Margarite. 2. s. 2.p. c. the total number of individuals of the Jewish faith was without question higher than the above number suggests. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 30 August 1540. “Marcus Jelacich de Varicassane. Daniel Cavalca. one in Karlovac county (Karlovačka županija) and the other in Bjelovar-Bilogora county (Bjelovarsko-bilogorska županija). 2. Rodriga’s presence in Dalmatia is usually dated to after the Cyprus War.” 974). 2. “Handel. HR DAZD 31 BZ. This number must be treated with caution since. For more on the two attorneys. s. one notarial act from 1568 refers to him as “console dilla Nation hebrea in Naren- . making identification difficult. 6. More is known about the de Bassano family. 2A.770. 27 October 1558. Trading Nations. 48.4v-c. c. Daniel Cavalca. Jütte.” 47. 7.5r. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 58.. 1. c. at times children or a spouse are not named directly but mentioned implicitly. 4. Men of Empire. Nicolaus Drasmileus. for instance. Ref. Keil.208 Urban Elites of Zadar ino Presbytro Martino Cassich Primicerio Pagi. On Daniel Rodriga’s efforts to establish a free port in Split after the Cyprus War. 2.37v.. I.37r-c.” 31-35. Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke.156r..” Statuta Iadertina. 53.p. See Chapter 5. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice”.32r. fols. 50. The Cassich family was also one of neighbouring Pag’s noble families. Franciscus Thomaseus. The marriage contract was written by “ser Michiel Geriti Nodao in Candia” and provided for a counter-dowry of 200 ducats. 57.5 m2) to “strenuo Joanni Rimanich capitanio crouatorum de Sliuniza. 1. Johannes a Morea. There are two towns bearing this name in Croatia. See Chojnacki. s. 63. I. 30-32 morgen or 7. 29 May 1565. Petrus de Bassano. B. La ‘Scala’ di Spalato. Their quasi-omnipresence in the Stato da mar was noted by Arbel (“Colonie d’oltremare. Daniel Cavalca. 6. I. “The Venetian Government and the Jews. 49.” 353.” specifically noted as her first husband’s brother. 159: “Quod nobiles debeant facere scribere diem matrimonii sui sicut et diem natalem suorum filiorum. As a consequence. only oblige the city’s noblemen to register their offspring. 34r-34v. HR DAZD 31 BZ. One sors or ždrijeb = c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 759. whose ties to other families of both noble and non-noble descent match the patterns described above. 52. et Jacobus Fogusich de Sliuniza uti tutores filiorum pupillorum in etate minori […] Pauli filij quondam Petri Ceruanich et alterius Pauli filij quondam Micaheli Ceruanich de Sliuniza” (Slivnica) sold three quarters of a morgen (c.. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Daniel Cavalca. Besitz. paid his niece’s dowry of 200 ducats: “domina Marie eius nepotis ex fratre quondam domini Michaeli” (another brother of both Petrus and Hieronymus) was the legitimate wife of “domino Joanni Segotich nobilis Nonensis”.” the captain paid 31 lire and four soldi for the property. the tenant was explicitly allowed to “incidi facere […] in nemore ville Terschiane” (Tršćane). however. Daniel Cavalca.1-7. 1. For a recent comparative study.” Located near the village of Slivnica “super Terreno Magnificorum dominorum de cha Venerio. esp. s. 57-74. 51. 13 January 1554.” 282-285. Hieronymus’s brother. 59. Calabi. Since Bosiljevo in Karlovac county is much closer to the Dalmatian coast.. For instance. 1. I. In addition.p. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 674. 56. specifically the section labelled “Intellectual Elites. 24 November 1553. compiled and printed 1563/64.” 12-20. I. 54. Paci. c. Geschäft und Frauenrechte. and O’Connell. 1. Ibid. Commissiones. ed. I. and Ravid. Grubb.p. 5 October 1559. f. 13 March 1553. Grbavac’s contribution on 23-97. Statuta Iadertina. see Chapter 2. 2:259. 1. Zadar’s statutes. “The ‘City of Jews’.6 hectares. I. it may be the likelier place of origin of the Mogorichia family. I. 2. 55. “Elite Citizens. In spring of 1553. 1. Arbel. 18 September 1564. 1. “De navigiis et navibus.p. 28 February 1548. 1. 28 February 1548. or societas maris. I. 18 September 1560. The trade goods originally belonged to “Petro Bonifacio da Curzola” but were stolen by Uskoks and eventually “recuperatarum di mano loro. 63. Mele Zizo had another daughter. Zadar’s body of law covers maritime matters extensively in Lib. Petrus de Bassano. 12 February 1567. Johannes a Morea. Juden im venezianischen Treviso. 60. The Hebrew contract was not copied into the protocol book by Gabriel Cernotta and was only referenced by the notary in the Latin quitclaim.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. Nicolaus Drasmileus. Paci dated Rodriga’s first documented appearance in the Adriatic to the year 1573. suggests that Rodriga was already established in Dalmatia prior to the outbreak of the Cyprus War. 1. Stow. f. 7 February 1543. 65.45v. s. 394-460. The contract arranging the marriage between Laura Zizo and Salvator Alfari was drawn up “In apothecha sive banco dicti ser Melis Subtus domus habitationis Eiusdem.” HR DAZD 31 BZ.. however. f. was issued by “Hasi Memri.. c. The instrument from the Croatian State Archive. As an arbitration settlement from the mid-1550s states: “[l]a casa ove stanno li hebrei a San Simeon. s.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. “Jews in the Venetian Dominions”.Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 209 ta. 30 January 1567. I. 48. et apothece Simul habitj Apulie […]. 1. emphasis in the original) the idea of the establishment of a free port. I. Jews in the Notarial Culture. the guardians issued a joint quitclaim and formally acknowledged the end of the feud “tam occasione banchi Jadre. In addition to the references above. I. 61. Theater of Acculturation. 1. Möschter.” The instrument. Cornelius Constantius. stating that Rodriga himself had “forse suggerito al sangiacco” (La ‘Scala’ di Spalato. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Cioè cinquantasei Balle di Moltonine et Cordouani tinolti in Schiavenotti. IV.4r. I. c. 68. 1. Iusuf. HR DAZD 31 BZ. a form of limited partnership in maritime commerce that did not place restrictions on either contracting party. I. 2. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Cornelius Constantius.34r-f. s.48r. I. 72.4v-5r. Hasan et Ferhat Mossolmani di Bossnia. and Burns.. 62. 5.44v. In a procura two decades earlier “domina Stella uxor quondam domini Rafaelis Belinfante” appointed “excellentem dominum David Chalonimos hebreum fisicum […] ad omnes lites causas. 3. 10. 23 May 1567. I.3r-f. See also the comparative commentary thereof by Mijan (“Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta”). 22 March 1556.p. I. albeit not on the Venetian side of the borders. 7 February 1555. Simon Mazzarellus. 1.” then-present in Zadar aboard “uno Navilio di Mercantia” carrying “Robbe. c. 1. Alli Caraoruz. 25 March 1568. c. nelle quali sono pelle Cinquemillianovecento e ottanta. a quitclaim. 6. Petrus de Bassano. Johannes a Morea. E. see. 30 January 1567. Balle Vinticinque de Cori Crudi. f. 3.p. colleganza. Cornelius Constantius.”HR DAZD 31 BZ. these societies were also known as collegantia. et differentias quas habet vel habitura Est a Mele Belinfante filio ipsius constituentis […].3r.p. The .” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 67. 1. s. 71. 14. Mueller.3r. s. 1. Gabriel Cernotta. 10 June 1545.p.” Statuta Iadertina.. 64. Of medieval origins.34v.45r-f. 1. cioe 5. 2. “honesta damicella domina Bonaventura filia legitima et Naturalis ser Mellis Zizo hebrej Nunc habitatoris Jadrensis. 1.. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Petrus de Bassano. 31 March 1562. I. 70. Upon receipt of the money. I. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” of whom unfortunately nothing else is known. 1.980. et Sono Cori dusento et centadoi” and en route to Ancona. Cornelius Constantius. Balle di Cerra numero Tre. 3. 66. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 1. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 1. f. I. 69. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ. Petrus de Bassano. 1. “Origins of the Commenda Contract. Rulers of Venice. 84%) of the total. Löw. magazenum). 598-602. 9. and Pryor. 74. The instrument was “[a]ctum in castro Novigradi. and the maps in the appendix. 75. s. 119: “Quod iudices examinatores non se absentent a civitate.” containing two chapters. 3%) for the merchants. 1. 15-73 (esp. Which constitutes one out of three factors identified by urban sociology as promising starting points for future studies (the other two being the impetus and consequence of actions on the city itself and the comparative analysis of a number of cities. on the other hand. taverns (canipa). 27-62. 670. Mayr Choen would have profited anyway since he provided the entire capital. Jacobus. 14%) a part of a house or small house was sold. 77.” Ibid. very small houses or simple lodgings (domunculeta). tit. et strenuo Baptista Vegnola comestabile Jadrensis. 81. Ref. 78. 4 April 1564. taking their similarities empirically into account). 250-254. Simon Mazzarellus. Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean. if things were to go awry. s. equal division of the capital ensured that Mayr was to lose only what he would have lost anyway. if things went well. Ref. 12 (c. The rest included various other buildings. 80. Soziologie der Städte. nisi unus cum licentia domini comitis”. 117: “Quod iudices examinatores se non subscribant instrumenti continentibus maiorem poenam quarti”.. As above. . 174-178. such as business facilities or warehouses (apotheca. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 52 (or c.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 12 (c. her three points on 66-68). The object in question was a house in 89 instances (c. 76. 44 %)—belonged to neither category. An additional 35 times (c.. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. testibus habitis rogatis et cetera. tit. HR DAZD 31 BZ. I. 8 %) for the merchants. 51%)—belonged to neither category. and Lib.” 73. presentibus Magnifico domino Andrea Delfino [Dolfin] dignissimo castellano dicti castri. 16 (c. and vacant lots.210 Urban Elites of Zadar societies in particular are detailed further in Lib. 13 January 1562. 1. 10.” Statuta Iadertina. 35%). III. and seven (or c. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 42 (or 16. See also Lopez. or both). and 20 (or c. bore not only the risk to his life but also his ship and all tangible assets and would still have had to compensate Mayr. De examinatione notariorum. III: “De societate. 5%) for the soldiers. Jacobus was already in his partner’s debt for the former’s share of the capital and. Combined they made up 214 (c.. Simon Mazzarellus.p.5 %) for members of the intellectual elite (of whom two were of noble birth). the data must be viewed with caution. Ref. 116: “De officio iudicum examinatorum”. stood to gain only 16% of the potential profits. wood. do not refer to women or children. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum. O’Connell et al.. 5%) for members of the intellectual elite (of whom three were of noble birth).5%) for the artisans. nine (3. 20%) for the artisans. See Ref. Ref. 118: “Quod iudices examinatores non se subscribant instrumentis aut testamentis in quibus relinquatur aliquid ecclesiis. 79. I. Raukar et al. The overwhelming number of contracting parties—113 (or c. II: “De pecunia data in collegantiam.p. the largest number of contracting parties—131 (or c. III. 35%) or a small house on 90 occasions (c. Conversely.. Given all these differences and their price differences. religiosis aut ecclesiasticis personis”. 135. 6%) for the soldiers. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia. irrespective of its building materials (stone. 23-29.” making it possible to locate it approximately in the vicinity of the parish of St Vigilius.15r. 70%) for the city proper.24r. See Mocellin. Traljić. c. 88. 28 March 1552.22v. The church may have been rededicated or destroyed in the interim. Die Kunst Dalmatiens.. The parish around the church named appears as “confinio […] Sancte Marie presbytorum Jadre” (today: Sv Marija velika).” 84. I. 1. 1. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. The drawback is that neither Klaić and Petricioli nor Raukar et al. 9 August 1556. Situated in the eastern corner of Zadar. The new Arsenal is located in the northern corner of Zadar. 9%) originated from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. I. c. 23 March 1549. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom.9v-c. 135. Typically. 135. For instance. Cornelius Constantius. et a quirina via publica […]. situated in the arsenatus or Arsenal area of Zadar in the eastern corner of the city. . et dominus Joannes Baptista Bocarich pro alia cives Jadrae” sold a house in Zadar to “ser Jacobo de Nobilibus Parmensis ad praesens aromatario Jadrensis. 2. Numbers based on Raukar et al. I. “Città fortificata di Zara. provide a more specific location and the church does not appear anywhere in either study. 6 June 1559. “dominus Hieronymus Venturinus. 85. et cuppis copertam Super solo proprio” was located “Ad Angulum Platee” and confined “a Siroco Jura veneabilis capituli Jadrae. and 28 (11%) came from more distant places. Franciscus Thomaseus. 1.” 29-40. 89. 2. Höfler. The second reason for the merger of these three churches was that a document named the patron saints Simeon and Rochus as equals: “[…] ecclesie divi Simeonis seu Roci. a Traversa Jura ecclesiae Sancti Laurentij. f.” The building. On the saint’s casket. and 13 (c. Another 24 (c. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 4. Panciera. the contracts mention the largest nearby location of importance. Another 14 (5. Zadar u srednjem vijeku [Zadar in the Middle Ages]. 1.10r. c. “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia”. 5%) for Zadar’s territory. Daniel Cavalca. 1. 83.5%) originated from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. 5 (c. 285.. 75%) for the city proper. f. The Shrine of St Simeon is located in the church of St Stephen. 8%) for the suburbs. I.22r-c. which Jacobo promised to pay in its entirety over the next six years. “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”. Mayhew. 25 (c. 27 April 1569. Another instrument however suggests that it was located “in confinio Sancti Michaelis in curia Sic vocata busarischia. 90. It takes its name from the old arsenal. 3. The sources refer to it as “in confinio loci vocati posarischia seu Sancti Vigilij. Franciscus Thomaseus. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 192 (or c. This locality does not appear in any work about Zadar. and list the owners of the neighbouring properties. 20 (c. “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji. 189-190. The three-decade totals are slightly different for the buying parties: 180 (c. HR DAZD 31 BZ. and Žmegač. Astareja). 86. 2%) for the suburbs.” See Klaić and Petricioli. HR DAZD 31 BZ.” The house was sold for the sum of 100 ducats.5%) for Zadar’s territory (ager publicus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ. 9%) came from even more distant places. Daniel Cavalca. this location was named after the city’s old arsenal and must not be confused with the new arsenal in the city’s northern corner in Three Wells Square (today: Trg tri bunara).Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 211 82. et dominus Antonius eius nepos pro una medietate. and nine (3. 1. Panciera. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 87.14v. I. 174-175. “unam domum de muro soleratam. such as a church. a borea Jura domini Francisci de Begna quondam domini Marci Antonij. Raukar et al. Contado di Zara. . Raukar et al.. Simon Mazzarellus. 9. located across the street from Sts Stephen/Simeon/Rochus. 135.. 92.” See Raukar et al..p. s. 1.212 Urban Elites of Zadar 91. I.” “contrata porte Civitatis vocate della becharia. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. Zadar u srednjem vijeku. 17 June 1542. I. situated in the city’s western corner in the vicinity of the Franciscan monastery. I. s.. 93. Klaić and Petricioli mention only one church dedicated to St Nicholas. and Raukar et al. . 135. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. a second church dedicated to the same saint is mentioned.p.” or “prope portam Civitatis vocatam la porta della becharia In contrata hospitum. 11 October 1542. The neighbourhood of the Butchers’ Gate is referred to in the sources as “confinio Macelli. See Klaić and Petricioli. and Nicolaus Drasmileus.p. 27 August 1561.. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. 135. 285. E. 1. Nicolaus Drasmileus. This is the reason why the churches of St Nicholas appear twice in the listings above. 1. however. and (in the order of their listing) HR DAZD 31 BZ. In the subsequent study by Raukar et al. E. s. the Spanish and Ottoman Empires. But with the exception of a few scholars. specifically during the three decades circumscribed by the naval battles of Preveza (1538) and Lepanto (1571). using as a central case study the city of Zadar. and the population of the urban communities found itself in serious difficulty. The decades prior to the Cyprus War were a particularly harsh period for the inhabitants of Dalmatia. and material culture of the urban elites in the Stato da mar.Conclusion The Republic of St Mark embarked upon the sixteenth century as a state whose power had declined significantly relative to the contemporaneous ascent of its main allies and rivals. After the end of the Old Regime. Analysing the business activities. social relations. the Serenissima was almost exclusively interested in the security of her vital shipping routes along the eastern Adriatic coast. this study sheds new light on developments in Venetian Dalmatia during the nadir of Christian sea power and Muslim dominance. Two universal monarchies. then the capital of Venice’s Adriatic province. the past of Dalmatia was exploited by (Yugo-) Slavic and Italian historiographers as a means of furthering their respective nationalistic ends. renewed academic interest in the middle decades of the sixteenth century has yet to materialise. The enemy stood at the gates. The events surrounding the ascent of these powers form the backdrop for this book as it examines contemporary developments in Venice’s Stato da mar. were engaged in a decade-long struggle for preeminence in the Mediterranean. As the twentieth century progressed. These two groups of historians usually treated Venice and her dominion over parts of the western Balkans from opposing viewpoints. these perspectives slowly retreated. The present study offers a contribution to recent debates about the increased Venetian . and social workings of Venetian society. most studies on Venetian Dalmatia investigate everyday life and interactions within the urban communities by focusing almost exclusively on the highest social stratum. The nadir of Christian naval power and corresponding Ottoman control of the eastern Mediterranean were felt on land and sea alike. Second. Venetian Dalmatia was no exception. cross-border raids. it joins comparable scholarly efforts focusing on other regions and periods of Venice’s Stato da mar. who were integral to the administrative. improvements in military technology made defence of the vast expanse of Venice’s maritime state increasingly expensive due to the need for extensive construction and recruitment. and motivations of communication across the Adriatic. and changing Venetian economic policies contributed to an increasing dependency on the Serenissima. comparing for the first time developments on the mainland with price movements on the islands under the city’s jurisdiction. These developments are examined with the following methodology. revision. It has already been established by existing scholarship that Dalmatian economic development after the beginning of the second Venetian dominion (1409) had undergone stagnation and decline. networks. The consequences of these events led to changing borders and seriously impacted the lives of the inhabitants of Zadar’s jurisdiction. economic. First. resulting in incessant and increasing pressure from beyond the borders for the subsequent century and a half. Ottoman raiding parties reached the environs of Zadar in the early 1430s. And discontinued agriculture. .2 It is precisely the combination of these three interrelated themes that enables the reconstruction of Zadar and its inhabitants around the middle of the sixteenth century. By doing so. by analysing woefully-neglected procuratorial appointments this study reconstructs the directions.”1 Analysis of the notarial acts written between 1540 and the outbreak of the Cyprus War revealed considerable change beneath the surface of Zadar’s society. Most importantly.214 Urban Elites of Zadar resistance to change from the sixteenth century onward. it analyses in detail Zadar’s property markets. intensity. By investigating the activities of non-noble “elite citizens” (Grubb). This book demonstrates that these general assertions are in need of additional investigation and. this rendered many fortifications obsolete. possibly. It also seeks to re-examine the perceived absence of “events worthy of the attention of posterity. Third. this study offers a thorough analysis of sixteenth-century Dalmatia. By the turn of the sixteenth century the economic life of the coastal cities under Venetian rule was reduced to “little or nothing. men. less visible.”3 Developments in the first two decades after the conclusion of the Ottoman-Venetian war from 1537 to 1540 compounded these trends. The past two or three decades have witnessed an increase in studies on the manner in which Venice’s representatives integrated into the host societies in the wider eastern Mediterranean. consequence: as the Republic of St Mark poured increasing quantities of supplies. directions. the relationship between the Venetian newcomers and the resident populations changed. The data are clear that communication frequency with Venice proper increased notably in the three interwar decades. Thus it cannot be stated conclusively whether these ten years were an economic exception). This book contributes to these efforts by broadening the discussion to include a wider spectrum of urban elites. this study documents shifts in origins and destinations of individuals living in central Dalmatia. Despite obvious differences in scale5 and institutional complexity Venice’s Adriatic dominions strongly resembled the lagoon metropolis in terms of its social diversity and flui- . changes in the density. The combination of internal and external factors had a significant impact on the development of Dalmatian cities after the advent of the second Venetian dominion in 1409. rather than just the nobility. both transferred acreage and turnover doubled. In doing so it paints a more inclusive image of the Adriatic coastal cities around the middle of the sixteenth century. (Unfortunately. and networks of communication and migration ensued. however. By analysing the procurae in the books of Zadar’s notaries. Significant border revisions and the accompanying shrinking of Zadar’s jurisdiction in the 1570s altered the situation considerably. The decade prior to the Cyprus War was different. In contrast to the preceding long economic decline4 the 1560s in Zadar witnessed a marked upturn in economic activities. we are lacking comparable data for the periods prior to the OttomanVenetian war of 1537 to 1540 and after the Cyprus War. This is mirrored by a corresponding decline in the importance of the other destinations along the oriental littoral of the Adriatic. Venice’s increased commitment to defending the Stato da mar had another. Economic changes are more challenging to assess. economic recovery stalled at that point.Conclusion 215 As the Republic of St Mark increased military commitments to defend her maritime state in the aftermath of the battle of Preveza (1538). and money into the defense of her overseas possessions. “Croatia within Europe. Pag. inextricably linked by the sea. and hopefully helps to overcome centuries of separate historiographies. In the early twenty-first century historiography of the Adriatic is no longer constrained by political borders. Dinamika otočnog prostora. E. Benyovsky. “Urban élites in Dalmatia. the “underlying reality of economic.216 Urban Elites of Zadar dity. Norwich. 460. the intricate connections between the cities and their rural jurisdictions. Srednjovjekovni Trogir.. and Korčula. Venetian. links between marriage patterns and social mobility. characterised by Italian. This book seeks to further our understanding of Dalmatia’s rich heritage. and Trogir on the mainland. 4. Hvar. As late as 2008 the late medieval and early modern period was called a “[p]eriod of stagnation. and (Yugo-) Slavic cultural contributions.” 26. Future research may examine such subjects as the relationship between the mainland coastal areas and the islands. The archival riches of Dalmatia and exemplary scholarship on the Republic of Dubrovnik8 provide ample possibilities for expanding the analytical picture of this region in the early modern period.g. and Mlacović. yet barriers of language and perception linger.” 186. 3. Notes 1. Budak. History of Venice. Građani plemići. and Rab) in southern Dalmatia around the large islands of Brač. social. Particularly desirable would be studies focusing on the Venetian communities in the Kvarner Gulf (Cres. Dokoza. has been the subject of interpretations intended to serve nationalistic aims or territorial claims. 2. Osor. and geographical mobility”6 so characteristic of the Venetian ruling class has rarely been the focus of interest for the peripheral areas of the Stato da mar. especially in the Adriatic. and the material culture and self-representation of ecclesiastical and secular elites.” Raukar. In existing scholarly contributions. and the communities of Split. Šibenik.9 For too long the early modern history of Adriatic communities. The combination of reports by Venetian officials and notarial sources from the city’s rich archives provides “moving image[s]” and an accompanying “soundtrack.”7 What emerges is a vivid reconstruction of urban daily life and a better understanding of the relations of Dalmatian coastal communities with each other and the wider Mediterranean world around them. . however. “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum. “Città fortificata di Zara. Martin and Romano. See Mocellin. Venise au début du XVIe siècle. “Reconsidering Venice. McKee. . 60-61. “L’apport des archives de Zadar.” 78.” 4344.g. See O’Connell.000 inhabitants. stoljeću. 10. 1-15. Malz.” 10. 6. Schmitt.” 77-78. ” 106. “Beyond the Coast. Men of Empire. “Dalmatinische Städtewelt. 170.” 54. while the population of Venice proper is estimated at c. and Sardella. Ortalli. and Raukar.Conclusion 217 5. 9. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule. Around 1550 Zadar was home to 6.500 inhabitants.” 21. 8. As lamented e. as recently as 2011 by Schmitt.” 35. 7. . Appendix . . member of a lay sisterhood primicerius first or senior of the lower clergy procura legally binding authorisation or mandate of representation procurator legal agent or representative. capitolo chapters. or debt security colonus holder of a concession or land grant concessio concession or land grant conductio lease or tenancy contract conductor leaseholder or tenant contrados (donatio propter nuptias) counter-dowry dos dowry emphytheosis lease of property on the condition of taking care of it during the tenure emptio contract of purchase/sale fideiussio co-signing. obligation. bill of exchange locator landlord pizochara. proxy .Glossary affictus lease or rental contract affictuarius leaseholder or tenant bolletta. bizzoche beguine or lay nuns. as in the Statuta Iadertina chyrographum promissory note. personal security honorantia special gift incantum. guarantee of payment of a loan. (abridged) statement of assets and liabilities capitulum. incanto process by which public property was auctioned off to the highest bidder indictio indiction. contralettere clearance certificate or customs receipt breviarium accounts current. 15-year cycle used in dating medieval documents instrumentum pacis extrajudicial settlement of a legal feud invocatio formal beginning of a legal document licentia comitis ducal licence livellatio document certifying a lawful contract. subsections in legal texts. “Convertibilità e copertura metallica. 0. Zadar u XV.” .33 m (exact: 0.315 l) c. gonjaj) 1 sors (ždrijeb) c. 298. 2. pes 4 passi (stope) c. 333 litres (exact: 333. 759-760. 83. Raukar. 104.82875 l) c.34773 m) c.26 l) = 4 star = 16 kvart c. stoljeću.83 litres (exact: 20. 1.2 litres (exact: 104.1-7.547684 m2) c. 7.6 hectares (exact: 7. 30-32 gonjaj = c.4 m (exact: 1. lire) 1 Mocenigo 1 Scudo 1 Ungarus (Ungaro) 1 Zecchino 6 libras and 4 soldi (solada or solidi) 20 soldi = 240 denarii (denar or denaro) 24 soldi 6 libras and 17 soldi 7 libras and 14 soldi 8 libras and 8 soldi 1.369.11-7.25 litres (exact: 83.222 Urban Elites of Zadar Units of Measurement1 Measurement of Land 1 gognaj (morgen.584 hectares) Measurement of Length 1 passus. 80 litres Monetary Denominations 1 ducat (ducat) 1 libra (lira.370 m2 (exact: 2. Tucci. 20.39092 m) Measurement of Volumes 1 Venetian modium 1 Zadrani modium 1 star 1 quarta (kvart) 1 miera (mjera) c.1629 l) c. Statuta Iadertina. Argimbusi) Boccagnazzo Cerno Diclo.Appendix 223 List of Toponyms in Zadar’s Jurisdiction All the places referred to around the mid-sixteenth century in Zadar proper and outside the city walls. Name in the Sources Bibigne*† Croatian Bibinje Boccagnatio† Bubgnane* Cerno*† Diclo* Drassaniza. Brdo*† Briseve Cernogerschina* Goriza* Gromniza*† Blato Brda Briševo Crnogorišćina Gorica Grobnica Italian Bibigne (arch. Borgo Èrizzo Puntamica. civitas vetera* Blato*† Brda. concessiones. Copragl*† Lazaretto Punta Amica* ultra barchaneum Articovo* Zaretum vetus. Draxaniza Bokanjac Bubnjane Crno Diklo Crvene Kuće. Punt’Amica Barcagno Articovo Zaravecchia Berda Brisevo Goriza Grommizza Area Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Territory Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction . Dìcolo Caserosse Malpaga Galovazzo Porto Nuovo Gladussa Colovare. and locationes) between 1 January 1540 and 31 December 1569. Dražanica Dračevac Galovac Gaženica Gladuša Kolovare Kopranj Lazareto Puntamika Brodarica Artikovo Biograd na moru Drazevaz*† Galovaz* Gasenica*† Gladussa* Colovare Chopragl. based on analysis of real estate property transactions (emptiones. Turretta Zemonico Gliuba . Còsino Migliazza Mocro Murvizza Peterzane. Porto Schiavine Podi Polisane Racice Rassanzze Rogovo Smòcovich Suovare San Cassiano Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Sv Filip i Jakov Santi Filippo e Giacomo Sv Petar na moru San Pietro Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Tršći Turanj Varikašani Veterinići Visočane (?) Zemunik Ljubač Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Ljubač Torretta. San Cassiano*† Sancti Philippi et Jacobi Sancti Petri prope civitatem veterem Tersci Turetta. Zumonico* Gliuba* Plernić Podi Polišane Poričane Poškaljine Račice Ražanac Rogovo Smoković Starošani Stomorinoselo Strupnić Suhovare Sukošan Grue Gelsa Càproli.224 Urban Elites of Zadar Grusi† Jelsa Chamegnane† Cotopanschina* Cosinoselo* Migliacza* Mocro*† Murviza* Opatizaselo*† Pergliane*† Peterzane* Grusi Jelsa Kamenjani Kotopašćina Kožino Miljačka Mokro Murvica Opaćeselo Prljane Petrčane Plernich Podi Polissane* Porizane*† Poscaglina*† Racice* Rasanze*† Rogovo* Smocovich* Starossane* Stomorino Selo* Strupnich Suovare* Sancti Cassiani. Turretta*† Varicassane*† Veternichi* Visocane* Xanice Zemonico. Chrasia* Nona Podverie. Brebigno Mul. Cuclizza Lucorano Melada Neviane.Appendix Puncta Gliube Ambrosichiaselo† Bevilaqua. Brevilacqua Brischiana dictionis Nonae† Chiacavci* Cerinci Chernise Chupari Chraschia. Vršje Vir Zaton Blačani Kašić Koruplje Novigrad Plernić Posedarje Režane Slivnica Tršćane Zavod Vrana Pakoštane Tino Bagno Berbigne Calle. Podversie Puncta Dura Saton. Cale. Hrašćane Nin Podvršje. Novigliano Pasmano Oltre Ljubač Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Nin Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Novigrad Vrana Vrana Vrana Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands . Callo Dobropogliana Cuchgliza Lucorano Melada Neviane Pasmano Oltre Tinj Banj Brbinj Kali Dobropoljana Kukljica Lukoran Molat Neviđane Pašman Preko 225 Punta Gliuba Brevilacqua Nona Verchè Puntadura Zaton Novegradi Casscich Novegradi Possedaria Slivnizza Aurana Porto Schiavine. Poschiane Tino Bagno di Pasmano Berbigno. Zavod* Aureana* Pachoschiane† Punta Ljubač Ambrozeselo Privlaka Brišane Čakavci Čerinci Černise Čupari Hrašcija. Cal Dobropogliana Camera. Zaton Blachiane† Cassich Corpuaglie* Novigrad* Plernichi Posedaria*† Reiane Sliuniza† Terschiane* Zauod. Simon Mazzarellus. 1567-1569. the second a Croatian transliteration. I. however. Nota bene: the first row lists the names as they appear in the sources. The names in each of these areas have been ordered alphabetically. Ticconio. Franciscus Thomaseus. Rat Veli Rava Sali Savar Silba Sutomišćica Ždrelac Tcono Tkon Ugliano Vergada Zaglava Ugljan Vrgada Zaglav Punta Pasmano Punte Bianche Rava Sale Sauro Selva. I.” Mayhew. 1544-1548. I. dated 10 September.026 contracts are analysed. I. 1567-1569. 2. Horatius de Marchettis. Gabriel Cernotta. Mayhew’s compilation is based on the following: the report by Zacharias Vallaresso. 1548-1561. Nicolaus Canali. . Astareja). I. I. Mayhew also adds a disclaimer stating that her “is not the final number of villages [… but] to give the an idea about the large number of villages. I.” 310. The table above lists 84 villages for c. The main changes occurred during the Cyprus War and in its wake. the name in Italian. Stagno di Pasmano Tucconio. Johannes a Morea. I. Simon Budineus.226 Urban Elites of Zadar Puncta Pasmano Punta Bianca Rava Sale Sauri Selva Sancta Euphemia Sdrelaz Punta Pašman Beli Rat. Paulus de Sanctis. and the villages on the coastal islands. Petrus de Bassano. and the third. Novigrad. I. 1540-1551. “Behind Zara. if known. Cotunno Ugliano Vergada Zaglava Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Islands Sources: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). The listing provides an indicative overview of the inhabited villages. Daniel Cavalca. I. Nin. Selve Sant’Eufemia Sdrela. *indicates existence in 1527. Mayhew contrasts a list of the 83 villages given by Zacharias Vallaresso in 1527 with a list of the 54 villages appearing in 1576 after the redrawing of the borders. 1:219-220. Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. 1545-1569. 1555-1567. and Vrana. I. jurisdiction (excluding the territory). 15401569. “Razgraničenj između mletačke i turske vlasti. both according to Mayhew (“Behind Zara. Cornelius Constantius.” 311-315). Anzulović. † indicates appearance on the Venetian side of the border after the demarcation in 1576. Disclaimer: This is not a complete list of toponyms in all 2. Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. I. The fourth line categorises the toponyms in Zadar’s territory (ager publicus. 1527. I. 1545-1551. I. 1550. 1556-1565. 1558-1567.026 contracts since in some contracts no names or specifics are given. 1540-1566. the minor districts of Ljubač. 1562-1564. Nicolaus Drasmileus. I.” 102-108. 1551-1566. 1540-1554. it must be stressed that the numbers for the 1527 and 1576 lists represent only one year while the data above covers thirty years. in Commissiones. 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius. 000. and islands are indicated by their Croatian name and marked with a dot. see list above. . villages. (P) indicates the jurisdiction of Pag. Field names are in Italics. and Silba. Under Zadar’s jurisdiction but not on the map are also the islands of Olib. (O) indicates towns belonging to the Ottoman Empire after the conclusion of the war of 1537-41. map design by Stephan Sander-Faes) showing the names and approximate locations of towns and villages outside the city walls. For the Italian toponyms. Premuda. in the sixteenth century a jurisdiction of its own.Map 1: Zadar’s jurisdiction in the Sixteenth Century (scale: 1:200. (Š) indicates that the island of Murter belonged to the jurisdiction of Šibenik. Towns. . The darker shaded area indicates the approximate extension of Zadar’s territory (ager publicus. Villages are indicated by their Croatian name and marked with a dot. Field names are in Italics. Astareja). map design by Stephan Sander-Faes) showing the names and approximate locations of towns and villages outside the city walls. 1550 (scale: 1:75. For the Italian toponyms and field names. c.000. see list above.Map 2: Zadar’s Territory. . (h) moat (obrambeni kanal). (29) St John’s or blacksmith’s parish (sv Ivan kovački)*. 23. Church of the Forty Martyrs (četrdeset mučenika)*. (n) campo (kampa). (j) Land Gate or Porta Terraferma (kopnena vrata). St George (sv Juraj). archbishopric palace (nadbiskupova palača). 16. 8. St Catherine (sv Katarina)*. Dimitrija). (f) Butcher’s Gate (vrata klaonice). 2. 1. 7. (g) St Mary’s or Simeon’s or Arsenal Gate (vrata Sv. 19. English translations are provided. 12. *indicates the parishes in which nobles dwelled. 25. St Stephen or Simeon (sv Stjepan ili Šimuna)*. 26. 3.Map 3: Zadar proper in the Fifteenth and early Sixteenth Centuries. 22. 20. 14. 4. ducal palace (kneževa palača). (d) St Demetrius Gate (vrata sv. 15. hospital of St James (hospicij sv Jakova). The original terms are in parentheses. 135. Pusterla). St Salvator (sv Spasitelj)*. (l) blacksmiths’ furnaces (pusterla). 10. St Lawrence (sv Lovre)*. (e) St Chrysogonus Gate (vrata sv Krševana). (a) wave breaker (lukobran). 27. 11. St Donat or Holy Trinity (sv Donat ili Trojstvo). St Thomas or Silvester (sv Petar ili Silvestar)*. (b) harbour fortress (kaštel). St Demetrius (sv Dimitrije)*. St Francis monastery (sv frane). Marije ili Šimuna ili Arsenala). St Peter the Old (sv Petar stari). hospital of St Mark (hospicij sv Marka). based on Raukar et al. St Nicholas (sv Nikola). St Rochus (sv Rok)*. (i) ravelin (revelin). St Mary monastery (sv Marija beneditinki). St Vitus (sv Vid)*. cathedral of St Anastasia (katedrala)*. 18. communal loggia (Gradska loža). Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. St Mary ‘de bon gaudio’ (sv Marija ‘boni gaudii’). St Dominic (sv Domink)*. 17. 6. (k) citadel (citadella). (m) Angel’s Gate (Anđelova vrata). (o) main square (glavni trg). St Mary of the Priests or Arsenatus (sv Marija velika ili Arsenala)*. 28 St Michael (sv Mihovil)*. 13. Shaded areas (not visible in the original) indicate parishes where the nobility dwelled. St Chrysogonus (sv Krševan)*. St Elijah (sv Ilija). . 21. 5. captain’s palace (kapetanova palača). (30) blacksmith’s furnaces (Stomorica. 24.(c) Chain Gate (lančana vrata). potestque et debet. I have provided transcriptions and summaries and have written out the abbreviations. . Franciscus Thomaseus. however. et pro eo exigendum et recuperandum a ser Francisco Patini Brixiensis3 eius debitore ducatos Nonaginta et libras quatuor parvorum pro totidem sibi per dictum celeberrimem dominum comitem. 1. constituit. added in brackets the standardised spelling to Venetian family names. et per me Notarium publicum viso in copia. former count of Trogir. 1. 2. ut patet chyrographo confessionis debiti dictarum pecuniarum manu ut idem dominus constituens asservit ipsius ser Franciscus condito in eadem civitate Tragurij sub die xxviii Junii nuper elapsi. et capitaneum Tragurij mutuatis. appoints Johannes Mazzarellus to collect the outstanding sum of 90 ducats from ser Francisco Patini Brixiensis. fecit. 3. ita tam tamquam Spetialitas generalitati non deroget nec e contra videlicet. Temporibus serenissimi Principis et domini excellentissimi Domini Francisci Donato [Donadi]. In Christi nomine amen. HR DAZD 31 BZ. 2 October 1548. et de exactis recuperatis 1. I.1r. Trogir. the spelling differs from today’s standardised Italian and Latin. I have. Coram spectabile domino Zoylo de Ferra honorando consiliario dicti celeberrimi domini cominitis. footnotes are provided that include present-day names. Anno ab eius Nativitate Millesimo quingentesimo quadragesimo octavo. creavit et solemniter ordinavit suum verum certum legettimum.230 Urban Elites of Zadar Sample Transcripts1 Procura Johannes de Garzonibus. The transcripts offer examples of the sources used. spectabilem virum dominum Joannem Mazzarellum cancellarium Magnificae comunitatis Jadrae presentem et onus acceptantem ad nomine dicti domini constituentis. quibus melius et efficatius de Juris solemnitate potuit et debuit. Hence. Brixen. praetureque clarissimus domini Joannis Dominici Ciconia comitis Jadrae eiusque agri dignissimi. For toponyms. I have reproduced as accurately as possible the notarial texts as they were originally written down. et indubitatum procuratoruem nuntium et comissum Spetialem. which are quoted extensively and analysed quantitatively throughout the book. All homonyms and toponyms below are spelled as they appear in the notarial manuscripts. c. Personaliter constitutus clarissimus dominus Joannes de Garzonibus olim comes et capitaneus Tragurij2 omni meliori modo via Jure causa et forma. et generalem. Indictione sexta die vero secundo mensis octobris. Dei gratia venetiarum et cetera Ducis Illustrissimi. Presentibus excellente artium et medicinae doctore domino Federico Zeno medico physico sallariato sive stipendiato Jadrae. 2.550 m2. dictum. 1. die vj mensis Aprtilis Temporibus ut ante. a traversa quedam Terrena sic vocata Cerbichia Tuz. et rogatis. 15 gonjaj = c. et quicquid Ipsi domini 4.2r. Modena. 35. gestum. 5. factum vel procuratum fuerit in premissis sub obligatione omnium suorum bonorum mobilium et Immobilium presentium et futurorum. Daniel Cavalca. et domino Francisco de Muttina4 cive Testibus habitis vocatis. Promittens se ratum gratum atque firmum perpetuo habiturum totum id et quicquid per dictum procuratorem suum et subsituendum ab eo actum. Actum Jadrae in sala Palatij celeberrimi domini Laurentij Bragadero [Bragadin] dignissimi capitanei Jadrae.1v-c. Ego Franciscus Thomaseus Jadertinus publicus Apostolica et Imperiali Authoritatibus Notarius Juratus Jadrae. possidendum. et pertinentis posita in dicta Insula loco vocato Liscichia Dragan6 Infra hos ut dixerunt confines.370 m2. Local toponym. Tradidit. 6. Ad habendum. et usufructandum. Statuta Iadertina. 6 April 1551. Sales Contract Martinus Liscich quondam Jacobi de insula Dobrapogliana (Dobrapoljana) sells 15 morgen of his fields to Zoylo de Ferra nobili Jadrensis. et faciendum de receptis in forma Juris debita et pro premissis et cetera. Tenendum. et alienavit spectabili domino Zoylo Ferra Nobili Jadrensis presenti et pro se suisque heredibus et Successoribus ementi et aquirenti Gognalia5 quindecim vel circa Terreni aratorij iam annis octo vel decem ut dictus venditor asservit non laboratis neque cultivatis cum omnibus alijs Terris deris et incultis Ipsi venditori quocumque et qualitercumque spectantis. a borea dictus dominus Zoylus. c. . 1. situated in the vicinity of the village of Dragove on the island of Dugi Otok. cum plena libera et omnimoda facultate potestate et mandato et ad substituendum unum vel plureis procuratorum Seu procuratores cum cimili auf limitata potestate et mandato. I.Appendix 231 quietandum. gaudendum. supradictis rogatus interfui eaque fideliter scripsi et in hanc publicam formam redegi ac in robur me subscripsi. Indictio viiij. MDLI. signumque mei tabellionatus solitum pariter et consuetum apposui. a siroco iura abbatiae Sancti Chrysogoni de Jadra. HR DAZD 31 BZ. a quirina Nemus dictae insulae salvis semper verioribus confinibus. vendidit. videlicet. 1 gonjaj or morgen = c. 759. Coram viro Nobile Jadrensis domino Michaele Rosa honorando Judice examinatore Curiae Jadrae personaliter constititus Martinus Liscich quondam Jacobi de insula Dobrapogliana disctrictus Iadrae per se suosque heredes et Successores iure proprio in perpetuum Dedit. 1. actionibus habentijs et pertinentijs. tradidit et ad pastinandum. et non receptarum dicti vini et denariorum pro amontare dicti libras 88 speique futurae habitis ac omni alij Juris et leges auxilio omnino renuntians.7 Ibidem presentibus conducendum.232 Urban Elites of Zadar emptori suisque heredes et Successores deinceps perpetuo placiunt faciendum cum omnibus et Singulis Jurisbus. sacristan of the church of St Mary of the Priests.23r. Promittens dictus venditor per se et Suos heredes dicto emptori pro Se et Suis heredibus stipulanti litem vel controversiam ei vel Suis heredibus de dicta re seu parte Ipsius aliquo tempore non inferre. Reliquum vero ad complementum dictarum librarum centum Idem dominus Zoylus in presentia dicti spectabili domini examinatoris meique notarii et Testium infrascriptorum dedit et numeravir eidem venditori libras duodecim parvorum. et eo nomine collegij dictorum Presbytorum Sanctae Mariae. sub poena quarti in statutj Iadrae contenta. 11 January 1551. et omnia et Singula suprascripta perpetuo firma. rata. et grata habere. et plantandum concessit Antonio. Lukoran. et non contrafacere vel venire per se vel alium aliqua ratione vel causa de iure vel de facto. auctorizare et desbrigare. et Hieronymo Matolcuch fratribus de Insula Lucorani. vocatis. coram Viro Nobile Jadrensis domino Mariano de Soppe quondam domini Simonis honorando Judice examinatore curiae Jadrae. I. per se et successores dicto nomine dedit. Planting Concession/Land Grant Simon Tutofich. nec inferenti consentire Sed Ipsam rem venditam ei et Suis heredibus ab omni homine.5 morgen of the church’s fields in the vicinity of Lukoran to Antonius and Hieronymus Matolcuch for at least three years. f. communi. et universitate legitime deffendere. et acceptandum. et hoc pro pretio et nomine veri et certi pretij librarum centum parvorum ad quarum computum dictus venditor confessus fuir et manifestavit habuisse et cum effectu recepisse a dicto domino emptore libras octuaginta octo parvorum in tanto vino et pecunia numerata. Actum Jadrae in cancellaria pretoria. presentibus Magistro Phyllippo Mamessich sutore. pro se et heredibus 7. exceptioni sibi non datarum. et preedictam venditionem. concedes 4. Die xi mensis Januarij 1551 Temporibus et Praetura et cetera. Paulus de Sanctis. et rogatis. et Vincentio Ghergureuich precone Testibus. tenere. Ego Michael Rosa Judex examinator Curia Jadre me subscripsi. et obligatione omnium Suorum bonorum mobilium et stabilium presentium et futurorum. HR DAZD 31 BZ. Personaliter constitutus dominus Simon Tutofich Mansionarius in ecclesia Sancte Mariae Presbytorum uti procurator. collegio. . Ipsi rei vendita quovis modo spectantia et pertinentia tam de iure tamquam de sonsuetudine. 24rf. et Integrum conducendum. et pastinandum bene et diligenter laborare seu laborari facere. et sub penis in dictis statutis contentis. que prefatus Antonius sozalis dictum unum Gognalem cum dimidio in termino Trium annorum. Zadar’s archbishop. ad extimationem proborum virorum a partibus elligendum unum. leases the income of the archiepiscopal see to Johannes and Franciscus Thomaseo for three years. Antonio prefato unum gognale cum dimidio et Hieronymo prefato tria gognalia in circa Terreni prefati Cum Infrascriptis pactis modis et condictionibus inter ipsas partes concorditer firmatis. et congruis Temporibus et alia facere. et respondere dicto domino fundi quartum rectum. Item dictus dominus Simon nomine quo supra in subsiduum et adiumentum dictorum Sozzalium et dicte pastinatiorum Promiisit dono dare cuilibet eorum libras quinque parvorum pro singulo gognali. quilibet partem Suam suprascipram que ellapso dicto Termino sint obligati. Actum Jadre in contrata ante portam domus habitationi dicti domini Judicis examinatoris. prout ordines. et statuta Jadrae disponunt.24v. 1. bis in anno Zappare. Nel nome di Cristo amen. I. Item pacti que si dicti sozzales non plantaverint et quilibet ipsorum non plantaverit in suprascripto Termino in Integrum dictum terrenum. et Hieronimus dicta sua Tria Gognalia in termino annorum quinquam proxime futurorum. pro parte. L’anno dalla Nativita del istesso MDLVij l’Indittion XVa. in nulloque contrafacere. sicut de eo fundo quod erit plantatum. et singula attendere. f.Appendix 233 suis quatuor Gognalia cum dimidio in circa. Promittentes dicte partes vicissim prefata omnia. dicere vel venire per se vel alios aliqua ratione vel cause de Jure vel de facto sub pena quarti in statutis Jadre contenta et obligatione omnium suorum bonorum. a di 8 Zenaro: Nel tempo del Serenissimo Principe et Illustrissimo Signor Il signor Lorenzo Priuli per la gratia di Iddio di Venetia et cetera Duce Illustrissimo et della Pretura del celeberrimo meser Antonio Michiel conte di . videlicet. videlicet. et quilibet ipsorum sit obligatus dare quartum de fundo non plantato. videlicet. presentibus Simone Bubich. 1. semel putare suis debitis. Terrae aratorie posite loco vocato Bedrischina in dicta Insula Lucorani. Simon Budineus. videlicet. HR DAZD 31 BZ. et defferendum ad barcam. Testibus et cetera. bishop of Nin and procurator general of Mutio Calino. 1557. teneantur et obligati sint pastinare. et pastinandum et supra ceperint fructare dare. observera. et quam primum vites plantandum. 8 January. et vineam plantandum. nomine quo supra presentium et futurorum. et Gregorio Scogliarich ligonizatoribus Jadrae. sumptibus dictorum Sozzalium. et plantare in Integrum pro rata dictum Terrenum bonis et utilibus vitibus. videlicet. Incipiendum a die presentis celebrationis Instrumenti et sic successiva finiendum. Rental or Leasehold Contract Marcus Loredan. et proventi al Arcivescovato di Zara spettanti. co’l detto procuratorio nome ha datto. Ad haver. fitti. dal principio della presente location prossimamente venturo ducati quatrocento simil. et affitar tutte et qualumque entrate. Pag. et delle sue ville. goder. frutti. et letto. confirmanti. come dell’Isole della diocesi di Zara. et qual spettar et pertenir potesse al ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor signor Mutio Arcivescovo per raggion del detto suo Arcivescovato. Inanti il Nobel huomo di Zara Meser Marian di Soppe honorando Giudice essaminatore della corte personalmente constituido il Reverendissimo Monsignor il signor Marco Loredan per la gratia di Dio Vescovo di Nona8 dignissimo Vicegerente et procurator Generale del Reverendissimo Monsignor signor Mutio Calino per la miseration divina Arcivescovo di Zara dignissimo sicome del mandato di Procura prefato ampiamente consta per pubblico instrumento celebrato in Roma et annotato di mano des discreto huomo meser Desiderio Bonaannona della corte di cause della Camera apostolica Nodaro de di 13 del mese d’avosto del anno 1556. attion. et giuridittion temporale a qualsi voglia modo spettante. et qualumque altra rason. cosi di terra ferma. Nin. i qual hanno a cominciare a primo di Maggio prossimo venturo. prima al primo di Aprile. et posseder per il tempo d’anni tre sopra specificati et questo per precio et per nome di pretio.234 Urban Elites of Zadar Zara et suo Destretto dignissimo. . per tutto’l mese di luio Exinde proximo che viene e cosi de anno in anno alle dui rathe. tenir. et pertinenti. cathedratici. redditi. et in solidum conducenti per anni Tre prossimi che hanno a venire. et pertinente. Livelli. quomodocumque et qualitercumque cosi de rason come de consuetudine et con comodità del palazzo Archiepiscopale et ogni altra attion et giuridittion temporale de qual si voglia sorte. overo paghe. et la decima dell’Isola di Pago9 et etiam la decima grande del corpo di questa Città. et ogni. decime. feudi. et termini predetti per il tempo della presente location da esser mandato il detto Danaro de Tempo in tempo a Venetia alle mani de celeberrimo meser Marcantonio Cor8. 9. non eccetuando ne resservandosi cosa alcuna al ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo mal il tutto comprendendo nella presente location. overo fitto. li presenti. tute et qualumque entrate del ditto Arcivescovato di Zara. et cosi sussequentemente ch’hanno a finire. locato. l’Indittio 14a per me Nodaro infrascritto visto. responsion et arrendation de ducati ottocento a rason de lire 6 soldi 4 pro ducato al anno della detta presente location da esser pagati in solidum per li detti conduttori ogni anno in due rathe. redditi et proventi emolumenti Juridittion. con poter tra gl’atre cose in quello contenute di locat. et Concesso ad affitto al Reverendissimo Meser Gioan Thomaseo Canonico di Zara et a Meser Francesco Thomaseo cittadin et Nodaro di Zara fratello del detto Reverendissimo meser Zuanne. et il restante che sono altri ducati quatrocento. stipulanti. frutti. de raggion o de fatto Sotto poena del quarto contenuta nelli statuti de Zara et obligation in solidum de tutti li loro beni mobel. Item il prefato Reverendissimo Monsignor Vescovo et procuratore.Appendix 235 naro [Corner] fratello del Reverendissimo et Illustrissimo signor Il Cardinale Cornaro Il signor Alovise overo a quallo che havessero spetial mandato dal detto Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo. et vagliano liberamente dar. per el detto procurato nome come di sopre promette alli detti conduttori presenti. il qual però danno Li preditti Conduttori in termene d’uno mese doppo che sarà occorso siano tenuti notificar al prefato Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo overo al prefato signor Marcantonio Cornaro in Venetia overo sia giudicato infra’l detto mese per dui di questa città da esser Eletti per li celeberrimi Rettori di questa città. chiamati et spetialmente pregati 10. et obligati far come di sopra. risico. ò peste. Promettendo esse Reverendissimo Monsignor Vescovo procuratore per el ditto nome di procurator conservar indenni i detti conduttori nella presente location durante per i detti anni tre Sotto obligation de tutti li beni del ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo principale. et ampliori forma Camera apostolica. Le qual tutte et cadaune cose Sopraditte nel presente instrumento Contenute le ditte parte una à l’alatra et l’alatra à l’altra promessero. Item il Detto Reverendissimo Procuratore disse haver Consegnato alli detti conduttori botte numero nove da vino de raggion del ditto Arcivescovato. et danno delli detti conduttori in solidum il qual pagamento essi conduttori siano tenuti. Castelfranco Veneto. per li qual casi fussero dannificate le dette entrate sino alla terza parte. si come si obligano in solidum in meliori. Testimoni havuti. a spese. . Dechiarando per remover ogni dubità che potesse nascer che li detti conduttori in solidum ut supra habbino et haver debbano tre intrade integre con li sui sgoni in virtu della presente location et affitto. che Dio non voglia. le qual botte numero nove Li dette conduttori promesseno restituir in fin della ditta locatione per tre anni in buon esser. et non in altri casi ne alerimente. et accettanti in caso del restauro se occoresse in caso di guerra. Presenti il Reverendo Meser prete Dominico Armano Zaratino et Meser Antonio Valmaran dal Castelfranco10 servitor del soprascritto Reverendissimo Monsignor. Fatto nella Camera dell’habitation del soprascritto Reverendissimo Monsignor Vescovo procuratore posta a Zara nel confin del castel grande. et convenero attender et inviolabelmento osservar et non contravenir a modo qual si voglia per si o per altri per qual si voglia causa o raggione. con condittion tra le dette parti posta et fermata che li detti conduttori fra’l detto Termene d’anni tre della presente location possano. et conceder a pastinar terreni in quantità qual si voglia de raggion de detto Arcivescovato con le solite clausule che in simil Concession servar si soglioo. et in ditto caso esso Reverendissimo Monsignor principale sia tenuto farli restauro. et stabel presenti et futuri. item una Cassa vechia depenta. numero 7. biancho de lombaxo. item Carnege. tam ipse heres non intervenit Tenori. item Tapedi. ultra unius. 1531. item una Cassa vechia de nogara. numero diexe Tra Grande. uno Ovidio metamorfosio.236 Urban Elites of Zadar Inventory Inventory of all immovable and movable goods of the late Nicolaus Fanfogna. videlicet. vechio Intagliato. hereditatis. Fra vechi. cum L’arma loro sopra. di rosso. die 21 mensis Junij Hoc est Inventarium bonorum. item libri de piu Sorte. et nogara. Gregorius Fanfogna. medi11. item una veste per portar per caxa fodrada di volpe Collor Come musta valier usada. item una Cortina biancha de lombarxina schietta. II. uno Matial. item Camixa da homo usada. itam una Cassa biancha di ancipresso. uno Cicero. lavorada. regulle Sepontine. armam Coperto.. item uno Libro. uno Petrarcha. item spaliere duj. Marco Antonio Contarinj [Contarini] Conte de Zara. uno Oracio.p. doro. numero diexe. Gaius Matius. et pichole. de penti. Primo una veste fodrada de volpe de pano negro venetiam piu della mida usada. usado di famulle. in dorado. et nove. item una Cassetta di nogera vechia. item unaltro spechio indorado vechia ala anziga. item dui Casse di Collor Zallo. item dui forcieri. di Collor verde. item uno Crucifixo de Legno picolo. cum L’arma da cha fanphogna sopra. item uno quadro di nostra dona. item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de Contado della Conditione ut supra. . uno Juvenal. fruade Tesude a verdure. 21 June 1531. item uno Covertor. straponto usado. protestationem praemissam. item uno descho quadro de nogara. item una Cassa biancha de Talpon. scriptum per me Petrum de Bassano Notarium requisitum per virum Nobilem Jadrensis dominum Gregorium de Fanphogna eius fratrem heredem Testamentarium. item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de vari non Troppo usada.11 uno Epistolle de Cicero. item dui forcieri. scripto. vocato politica. item una Cortina di Tella biava vechia. uno Epistolle de Ovidio. 6. uno Quintiliam. noni de collor rosso. item uno paro di busti de portar misura pro indivixo. et tamquam Creditorum ipsius heredis quod habetur dixit Cum dicto deffuncto Sit Sibi Salvam protestando etiam tam si quod in futuram ad eius notitiam provenerit quod non esset hic Inventarium opfuit Illum poni facere. item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de dossi. picholo. numero 17. item uno spechio Tuto indorado. uno Lorenzo Valla vochabulista. videlicet. item uno antiporta de rassa. item unaltro Covertor straponto biano. item uno Copliano ala anziga vechio. HR DAZD 31 BZ. s. Petrus de Bassano. et hereditatis quondam spectabilis domini Nicolai Fanphoneo Nobilis Jadrensis. item una Cassa pichola de ancipresso rossa. written at the request of his brother and testamentary heir. item una Cassa Grande deprenta. uno Virgillio. da Zoprir scripturus.  5 sors = c. a Exo.9 hectares.14 ut circa. et zalj. la possessione.500 m2-379. item uno mersento di bronzo cum el suo pistorzio.200 m2 or c.960 m2. item charatellj.6-37. numero duj vechi. et una Grande de Lissia. de ronen. numero Tre. . item pelza de diverse Sorte prexo in Tuto lire …. in villa Drazeuaz.590 m2. 18. place located in Zadar’s territory. 19. in loco dicto Celopech. item dui bon Grande da vin viojde.23 vel circa.18 circa Gognali dui. item una possessione. Local toponym. Tarzenti. vechio. 8 gonjaj = c. numero Tre pichole. Iž. 23. Taza Tre. item una ograda apresso. Dračevac. tenuta per Michiel Trauicich et altri Socalj. 16.Appendix 237 tatione de Santo Bona Ventura. 5 gonjaj = c. non divixa tra loro. 2 gonjaj = c.730 m2. pro indivixa 12. 6 gonjaj = c. 4. de moza. item una orsia Grande. numero …. item Lavezi. circa gognali 17. et rossi. 16. apresso. 355.21 circa Gognali sete. item Caldare.20 cum la sua habitatione. item banchali Tra verdi. item una ograda Sotol monte ferro posta. per Tener avanti letto. unaltro Juvenal picollo. item uno pezo de Terrena doltra il porto apresso Santo Pietro et Santo Zuane16 de Gognali circa cinque. Pašman. 17 gonjaj = c. item unaltra possessione. de quelli che nassi. in Soller pro indivisa. in loco dicto Passinam. 22. item uno anelleno. numero 4. di arzento. numero 3.290 m2. et uno missal vechio Scripto in Carta pergamina. Coperto di pelle rossa. item caratellj piu picoli. item chuchiari darzento. olinata. 13. item Tirazi. Voštarnica. in villa Gersane de sorte cinque. 17. item uno per di Salien darzento.22 item una possessione. Tazera una pichola darzento basso. non divixio Tra loro. cum meser Gregorio herede suprascritto posta per mezo La Ecclexia de Santo Simon Justo. una institutione de Gramaticha in volume picholo. item dui Costrani indoradi. paga de Livello anuatim lire xiij soldi de picholj. Brda. numero Tre di bronco. item uno pezo de orto in borgo apresso Santo Martin. dove al presente habita. 35.13 pro indivisa Tra de loro fratellj.15 pro indivixa.850 m2. duj Laj. il Luno. doro. de Gognali 8. de lire 4. stabille. 20. una Caxa proindivisa. item unaltra caxa. numero Cinque. 21. item Taze duj Grade darzento maron Tanto fin. lj frati. 11. in villa Berdo12 pro indivixa cum meser Simon Fanphogna. item una possessione. 14.17 item una ograda. et lalatra pichola.19 item una possessione. 40. item pironi darzento. 15. 18. de una marcha Luna de Liga. Tra de loro. apresso Santo Grisogono apresso quellj de Ferra sul Terreno suo proprio. in loco dicto Passinam. cum uno rubin in mezzo. uno Livio. strazado. item uno paro de manego Longo da dona de pano negro usado. item uno morter de pietra. 3 bianchi. in duj pezi di pella bianca. Simon Rubocich. et chadena. item una chiusa. item una Tellar da Tesser farindo. item bochalj 4. con duj cerchi sopra.. item una banchal de rassa grossa biancho. Item lettj dui Grandi pieni. item 4 zare da agua. item una fersora dj ramo. item uno paro de moleno. da pascha. item Saline. item uno paro de manego longe de pella. item bacilj.24 in dobra pogliana. Item duj Saliene de pietra rossa. item banchal divisado vechio. item una Centura da dona ala antiga. item duj pironj darzento. item una batesel de piuma usado. vechio. item casse 8. laltro de legno.item una possessione. in insula de Pago. item uno paro de licj. item una faciol da mano vechio. a Pongliana26 villam. pro indivisa. de veludo verde dala dita. item duj piteri da loglio. pro indivisa. 10. item uno pezo de Terra. item uno paro de gardassj vechi. in circa. 26. item una coltrina. di piuma. item uno molinal. Naspo. et uno mastul. item lire 9 soldi 16 di moneda dala dita. item uno paro de manego de veludo cremasin da dona curto le qual disseno esse. de […] numero Cinque. item Cinque giemj de lana grossa. et Zalla. antiquo. item uno verdator de rusta valier da homo lo qual dissero. item uno paro de asolo darzento. item duj luarno. item uno pocho de fil de lino suril […]. da Tesser Nionj. item una 24.960 m2. item 4 braza di vello. de Sechi lima. cum el suo magazen. item una camisia da puto pichola. item duj faciolj.25 tien Michiel Bosichieuic. item uno paro de manego da dona curte de charisea Zalla. item sechi di ramina. item uno linaiol da leto. item una zapa et uno dente di ferro. et 2 Berninj. numero Tre. item duj charega da sentar. circa Gognali 8. Sul Isola de Pago. item duj chaldare de ramo. item unaltra coltrina de pella negra vechia. item una quarta de legno. item 4 majere darzento indorado da manego di dona Saladina. item duj sedri di ramo. Dobropoljana. item Tre Schiavine pelosa vechie. situated on the island of Pag. et uno di Lato picholo. et la 3 piu picholo. dala dita. item duj Schiavine pelosa usada. . item chiavj. item una stagna vechia. item una banacha da mangiar sopra. numero 50. et uno ramina de Lato. item sete petenj da Tessere. 18. item Candelieri. sive orna. item unaltro paro de licj vechie. di piadera di ferra.238 Urban Elites of Zadar Tra de loro. dala dita. lj qual disse domina Anzola esse de suasorella. Poljana. con lj charj bianchj. item 4 bote. de […] la portar fuor de casa. 8 gonjaj = c. item unaltro paro de manego curte da dona de raso rosso dala dita. item uno paro de teri da fogo. item 2 barilo. item una oplechie da dona. item una chasettam vechio da pano negro. item uno vello vechio da spalle. item una chassano. di vello da spalle di dona. item una bataluga grande. 25. dala dita. numero Tre. item unaltro paro de manego curte de damascho verde da dona. item una Centura rossa stretta da dona. item duj Tanaiolj. item duj fasse divisado da lana. item uno paro de manego de Tella da dona. lovara con Seda. et da oglio. item uno maniol longo. et uno tarviso vechio. item uno choncholo. videlicet 7 ½. item duj spalenete de rassa verde. in una peza braza. item Camisa numero None usade. fra strazade. vocato Intus Tesaurus pauperum. item dui para de peteni da petenas la lana. piu longorj. item una pignata. item cinque altri banchalj per Turj Zallj de rassa con lj chavj negri. non lavada chalari sete e mezo. dichiarj de vignada in circa. item uno bochal da spinieri. item nove peteni da Tesson fra picholj. rosso da letto. videlicet. item Tre Tanniolj vechi strazadj. item uno banchatero. sive altra alla schianona berda. 32 ½ Zaratini. item una piadeno di petra. item duj para de manego negro de paro longo vechio. item cinque rasadori da barbiero. item una chamiza de Sarza negra con lj suj chavi. item Tella grossa griza. item duj bochalj. item uno Suchama. item duj faziolj da chaua Surilj. sive oniza camisa. item uno oplechie. item una vestura de pano negro usada. item Lana susia. item uno paro de fratoni. in pegon per lira 1 soldi 10. con le sui schare. item una coltra bianca straponta vechia strazada. item uno cestel. item braza 13 de fustanio grosso. . item dui altri banchatarj divisadj. et grandj. item unaltro paro de manego de pano negro longo vechio da fantescho. item uno paro de Linciolj Integri ma usadj. item dui para de schartaci vechi. item unaltra vestura de rassa simil romana strazada.27 item una vestura de pano panonazo Noua formida. item lana de lana. et uno laniziero. item uno mortereo de bronzo con il suo piston. lj quallj ad opera da di in di essa dona Francischina. et non. item uno paro de cortelinj. Noua. item Tre chandelieri de Laron. lo qual estato Sotto una vestura. item una piera da 27. lo qual dissero esse. item duj gognalj. item una goneleta verde de rassa da putina. item una lana de rocho de lana seriz. item una chapa de Sarza. Puntamika. item duj Schiavine murlachesche vechie. item una banchal schrito vichio per una sala chassa de rassa. item una chalderieta. item una casa de legname posta in orto de San Grisogono nel terreno de San Grisogono fralj sui veri confini. item 4 Scudelle de Terra. item uno fado. item Tre Intimele da chussini. item uno quadro di Croa. a Ponta Micha. item Tre para de Linciolj vechi strazadi.Appendix 239 concha grande da far pane. item una vestura de rassa verde. item uno forcimento da cipresso anticho. item unaltra chapa da dona de acsamito usada. item una vestura verde de rassa grossa da masseri. et schudelini de Terra. da dona. divisado picholo. item unaltra chapa da dona de Sarza vechia. da lana sualj. item uno Libro da corsi longo. con uno pocho de Sal dentro. item una vestura de rassa grossa romana. item uno Tavolier con le sue Tavole da ciogar de Cipresso. lavada seriz. item unaltro banchal zallo de rassa con lj chavj negri. item una vestura de samito negro usada. item uno vaso da oglio. in circa. item Tre ladnize. item uno paro de scarpe da homo. item Tre mase sive Sachi. item 9 chari de piader. item quatuor fazolj similj da charo. vechissimo. le qual adopera similiter la dicta. item unaltra vestura vechia de rassa strazada da masseri. item pano rosso alto duj dada. item una vestura de mezalana negra usada. item uno Libro. item una Tavola Zonda de cipresso. item duj Schrone per il Torcholo da vin. item una Zangola. numero 13 de compagnia con meser Alberto. item una chaza sbusara di Ferro.28 5.25 litres. item 2 barilj de Tuorina. con duj starichi doglio dentro. item uno bolador de ferro. item una piera da guar rossa. Salada. item una barila de biava sechia la qual dissero esse da Radosseuich. item uno Schanzol da magnar saxo. item una charega da pazo. item danarj libri 3 soldi 3. in uno chasso. In chamera una roda da molin formida. item uno Sacho con una quarta de faxolj dentro. item uno baril con charolo niouo balanze de legno da pexar charobo. Statuta Iadertina. item uno Lanel de Lano. item uno Casto de vimene bianche Longa da pane. salvo che ad uno solo mancha le piere. item uno bancheto da porta. item una chaldara de Lissia. item uno linazero Niouo. item unaltra chamara parte de muro. item sardelle migliana. ala citadela. item 2 bote da vi voyda una. et fora di sacho xi. laltra per Terra. e moneda libri 41 soldi 6. item uno servan chremignach. item 15 pezi storti de legno da far Roda da Torcholo.240 Urban Elites of Zadar guar da barbiere. et laltra pieno de aceto […]. item duj chasselene vechie. item duj mastellj da folar lana. et 3 liniolj. item duj pateri verdi de Terra […]. item uno Sechio da chalar aqua. The area in the vicinity of Zadar’s citadel. item Tre roche da Molin. item certe axole con certj choralarj. item uno paro de bragesse bianche vechie de razza. in Tuto prexo Libri 310. item unaltro sacho prexo Libri 131. 759 29. fra lj sui confini. item i chanava. una Sopra il leto. utem una coltrina biancha da letto. item cinque charaselleri da vin. de rame. in magazeno sono queste cose. item lix [59] marchiam Libri 114. et parte de ligname nela qual Sono posti lj diti Torcholj. 2 sachi da chamano garzol. fornidj. item dui Tavolo segadize. item uno baril pieno non Tropo pieno di churche. de formento. item Tre Torcholj. item uno pocho de maronj. parte de muro et parte de ligname coperta de chopj. item uno Schagno vechio.29 item una chamara Sotto la detta caseta. 28. item uno Zamiso. item uno pastoral de pello da dona. numero 55. item una caseta. in la detta corte. item unaltro baril pieno con charobe. item 4 pezetj de Tella. item stara. item una chameniza. ac uno pocho chordala razene. item duj schion. item 3 pezetj de Sirro de chiochulj. item uno Lavel da mano. item duj barile de b[iave] sechi. 1 star = ca. item una barila da Sardoli – con uno pacho de […] rossa dentro. sup proprio Terreno. item sarj migliana. mazuj. item duj bataluge. item una vesta da dona negra vechia de pano. item unaltra stadiera Grande. fra loro. item al quali pezi di ramo roto. 3 Camixe. item una vesta de pano panonazo da dona vechia. bona autem stabilia. 82. item 4 bige de cerchiotj picholj. in uno Soler con la Sua corte. sine pilla da oglio. item danari in dicta chasselasa. . item una chassa biancha con una Linciol dentro grezo. item i lissia. item uno fuso da Torcholo. item una fersora. item una barila de […] sechi voyda sechia. item quattro quarti grande in circa de orzo. item uno pezo de mandoler. item uno schudeli de pelzo.  Local toponym. in Cerodol. et laltro a Celopech32 sul Terreno de meser Zoylo de Ferra. sul Terreno de meser Nicolo Cimilich. 32. Local toponym. 30. Bili Brig. place located in Zadar’s territory.Appendix 241 item gognali Tre de chavi de vigna.30 item gognalj duj de chavi de vigna sotto bel veder31 uno. 31. . et Sul Terreno delle venerabili Sor monache de San Dimitri. place located in Zadar’s territory. . 1279-1797: Franciscus Thomaseus. 1279-1797: Horatius de Marchettis. eds. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). 1548-1561. busta I-III. 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius.Bibliography Published Primary Sources Kolanović. busta I. and Grga Novak. and Mate Križman. eds. 1279-1797: Johannes a Morea. busta I. busta I. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). 1551-1566. busta I. 1567-1569.. busta I. 1279-1797: Daniel Cavalca. Simeon. Ljubić. Commissiones et relationes Venetae: Mletačka i uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. Unpublished Sources from the Croatian State Archive in Zadar HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium. Josip. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska. 1279-1797: Gabriel Cernotta. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). 1540-1569. Zadarski statut sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadar’s Statute with all Amendments and New Regulations Adopted by the Year 1563]. 1567-1569. 1997. 1540-1552. busta I. 1562-1564. . 1876-1977. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). 1279-1797: Cornelius Constantius. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). . Zadarska smotra 1-3 (1998): 53-150. Antoljak. 2004. 1555-1569. 2010. 13th-16th Centuries. Split: Filozofski Fakultet u Splitu – Odsjek za Povijest. Stjepan. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva sjeverne Dalmacije iz predturskog vremena” [On the Survival of the Croat People of Northern Dalmatia in Pre-Turkish Times].” In Dalmatien als europäischer Kulturraum. and Venice. Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean: Studies in Honor of David Jacoby. “Colonie d’oltremare. busta I. Ivna. 1540-1566. ed. 1545-1551. 1279-1797: Simon Mazzarellus. 1548-1567. “Razgraničenje između mletačke i turske vlasti na zadarskom prostoru 1576. 1279-1797: Johannes Michael Mazzarellus. IV. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1556-1566. busta I. 63-92. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci. Marija Dragica. 2000. Zadarska smotra 4-6 (1998): 269-313. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). Antoljak. busta I-II. busta I. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). “Das öffentliche Leben in Dalmatien in venezianischer Zeit. Starine 40 (1950): 371-417.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Società ed economia. the Franks. nakon Ciparskog rata” [Border Demarcation between the Venetian and Ottoman Governments in Zadar’s Environs after the Cyprus War]. Arbel. 1279-1797: Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius. Anzulović. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum. edited by Wilfried Potthoff. 1279-1797: Petrus de Bassano. London: Frank Cass. Benjamin. Hrvatski historiografia [Croatian Historiography]. ed. Benjamin. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). Arbel. 5:947-985. busta I-IV. 1279-1797: Simon Budineus. 1279-1797: Nicolaus Canali. busta I. Benjamin. 1279-1797: Paulus de Sanctis.244 Urban Elites of Zadar HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). Cyprus. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). busta I. Secondary Literature Anderle. 1996. 1540-1569. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII1797). 1544-1548. busta I. stoljeća” [Zadar’s Cadastre from the 15th Century]. Ivna. 1540-1554. Anzulović. Arbel. 1996. “Zadarski katastik 15. Stjepan. 1279-1797: Nicolaus Drasmileus. 1995. n. Lyon: La Manufacture. 3:87-126. Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time. Babinger. Benjamin. University of Vienna. . Le partage du monde: Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médievale. eds.” Studi Veneziani.. Banditry. Alberto. Leiden: Brill. Giuseppe. Aymard. Munich: Bruckmann.” M. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. État et colonisation au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance. Balard. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1978. and David Jacoby. 1995.” Medioevo Adriatico 1 (2007): 135-150. Il dominio veneto su Corfu. Sascha H. Benjamin. 2002. Michel.A. Hickman. Michel. no. Bracewell. Zagreb: Hrvatski Inst. diss.V. 1996. za Povijest. 26 (1993): 67-85. Jahrhunderts. 1386-1797. Arbel. Borsari. Bin. Bernard Hamilton. London: Frank Cass. edited by Girolamo Arnaldi and Giorgio Cracco. 1600–1620. 1998. Venice: Altino. 3:127158. Coloniser au Moyen Âge. 1992. “La lotta contro Genova. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Bacchion. eds. and Alain Ducellier. Bettarini. ed. “The Reign of Caterina Corner (1473-1489) as a Family Affair. “Toscani al servizio della città di Ragusa (Dubrovnik) nella prima metà del Quattrocento.Bibliography 245 Arbel. Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltenstürmer einer Zeitenwende. Eugenio. Rome: Il Veltro. 1966. 192 Babinger.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio. Arbel.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio.P. Venice: Cecchini. Boerio. 1867. 1998. Benjamin.N. 1992. Michel. Maurice. 2008. “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir nach der Mitte des 16. Balard. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Balard. 1956. Ashtor. Eliyahu. Francesco. 1 (1974): 5-53. Benyovsky Latin. Balard. edited by Girolamo Arnaldi and Giorgio Cracco. Attia.. La Repubblica di Venezia e la questione Adriatica. Paris: S. Edited by William C. Irena. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.E. Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes. Xe-XVIe siècles. eds. 1953. Raguse et le commerce du blé pendant la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle. Michel. Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean. Michel. “The Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade: Monopoly or PreColonialism?” Journal of European Economic History 3. Balard. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Franz. and Alain Ducellier. The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy. ed. Srednjovjekovni Trogir: Prostor i društvo [Medieval Trogir: Space and Society]. 1995. Dizionario del dialetto veneziano. and Holy War in the 16th-Century Adriatic. Venise.E. 1996. Franz. Silvano. Catherine. “I veneziani delle colonie. 2009. Paris: Colin.s. Berkeley: University of California Press. edited by Michele P. Fernand. Raukarov zbornik: Zbornik u čast Tomislava Raukara [Raukar’s Collected Papers: Studies in Honour of Tomislav Raukar]. Zagreb: FF Press. Edited by John J. “Drei Zentralstädte in Dalmatien: Salona. Neven. edited by Harald Heppner. Budak. Davis and Benjamin C. Roberto. eds.246 Urban Elites of Zadar Brandt. 181-199. 2005. 4 (1995): 681-695. Translated by Sîan Reynolds.” In Hauptstädte zwischen Save. 1984. Vitaliano. 31-49. Storia della citta di Zara: Dai tempi più remoti sino al 1409. Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu krajem XIV. New York: Harper & Row. [Wycliffe’s Heresy and Social Movements in Split in the Late 14th Century]. Jews in the Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain. “Isprave o Zadarskom miru” [Documents concerning the Zadar Peace Treaty from 1358]. and Tomislav Raukar. 101-123. Translated by Siglinde Summerer. Neven. Braudel. Split. “I fiorentini nella Slavonia e nella Croazia nei secoli XIV e XV. Cessi. “Urban élites in Dalmatia in the 14th and 15th Centuries. Miroslav. Budak. Brunelli. Neven. 1955. Zagreb: Kulturna. “The ‘City of the Jews’. 1250-1350. Fernand. James. Budak. Neven. Bosporus und Dnjepr: Geschichte-Funktion-Nationale Symbolkraft. 1996. Brković. st. no. 193 Braudel. Trieste: Lint.” In Città e sistema adriatico alla fine del medioevo: Bilanci degli studi e prospettive di ricerca. Fernand. Ghezzo. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti 35 (1997): 195-239. Ravid. Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka [Croatian History in the Middle Ages]. Budak. Zadar. “Prilog bibliografiji grada Dubrovnika i Dubrovačke republike na stranim jezicima” [Contribution to the Bibliography of the City of Dubrovnik and the Republic of Dubrovnik in Foreign Languages]. Civilization and Capitalism. Vienna: Böhlau. Milan: Principato.-18. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Neven. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. 1974. ed. . Calabi. 15th-18th Century: The Perspective of the World. 1998.” In The Jews of Early Modern Venice. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Venice: Società Dalmata di Storia Patria. 1996. Robert I. 1968. Donatella. Sozialgeschichte des 15. Burns. 2001. Braudel. 1998. Munich: Kindler. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Translated by Siân Reynolds. Storia della Repubblica di Venezia. Neven. 2006.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153. Budak. Jahrhunderts: Der Alltag. 1985. Radovi Zavoda povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 51 (2009): 69-107. Budak. edited by Robert C. 1994. 14501653. 1993. 1205-1800: Strategies for the Afterlife.’ the ‘Public. Stanley.’ and Regional States in North-Central Italy. 1988.. 1989. Concina. Scientifiche Italiane. “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice. 4 (1975): 571-600. 163-184. “Cities. David S. 2001. 2012. Giorgio. Leiden: Brill. no. 5 (1989): 689-706. “The ‘Private. Custom. 263-294. 1952. 1996. Milan: Unicopli. 1300-1600 (1995): 34-61. no. Giorgio. Naples: Ed. Origini dello stato: Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna. Baltimore and London: Johns Jopkins University Press. Giorgio. 1297-1797. Chojnacki. “Marriage Legislation and Patrician Society in Fifteenth-Century Venice.” Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974): 176-203. Chittolini. Stanley.” Theory & Society 18. Venezia nell’età moderna: Struttura e funzioni. comunità e feudi negli stati dell’Italia centro-settentrionale (XIV-XVI secolo).Bibliography 247 Cessi. Chambers. Stanley. Politica ed economia di Venezia nel Trecento. Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura. . 1990. Chittolini. Working Women of Early Modern Venice. Milan: Unicopli. Bachrach and David Nicholas.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State. and Brian Pullan. Samuel K. Chojnacka. and the Social Fabric in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of Bryce Lyon. “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians in Fifteenth-Century Venice. Chojnacki. Cessi. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. 1953. Ennio. Giorgio. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Bologna: Mulino. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. ‘City-States. “Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice. Cohn. Trading Conflicts: Venetian Merchants and Mamluk Officials in Late Medieval Alexandria. Monica. David S. Chambers. Chojnacki. Stanley. Chojnacki. Stanley. 1380-1580. 2005. Chittolini. 1970. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. Chojnacki. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice: The Third Serrata. Death and Property in Siena.” Journal of Modern History 67. La formazione dello stato regionale e le istituzioni del contado (secoli XIV e XV). Chittolini.” In Law. Città.’ the State. edited by Bernard S. 2000. Chittolini. Venice: A Documentary History. The Imperial Age of Venice. Roberto.” Renaissance Quarterly 38 (1985): 240-270. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Georg. Giorgio. Christ. Venice: Marsilio.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Supplement: The Origins of the State in Italy. La Repubblica di Venezia e il problema Adriatico. Roberto. 1992-2002. Paris: n. Storia di Venezia: Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima. ambiente veneto: Governanti e governati nel dominio di qua dal Mincio nei secoli XV-XVIII. XV-XVIII). La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. edited by Chryssa A. Cozzi.248 Urban Elites of Zadar Concina.” In Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani: Politica e giustizia dal secolo XVI al secolo XVIII. Cozzi. and Daniela Lamberini. and Giorgio Scarabello.” In Venezia e le isole ionie. Gasparo. società. Gaetano. 2005. Gaetano. Rome: Jouvence. Cozzi. società e giustizia nella Repubblica Veneta (sec. 91-109. 141-165.” In Atti del convegno di studi architettura militare nell’Europa del XVI secolo. 1997. Cozzi. 1982. Venice: Marsilio. Stjepan. Élizabeth. 2005. Lellia. Turin: UTET. “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice. London: n. Translated by Lewes Lewkenor. 1973. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani: Politica e giustizia dal secolo XVI al secolo XVIII.” Bollettino dell’Istituto di Storia della Società e dello Stato Veneziano 3 (1961): 179-189.” In Renaissance Venice. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1988. 293-345. Amelio Fara. dibattiti. scelte. 1:195-204. De magistratibus et republica Venetorum. The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. Cozzi. Contarini. London: Faber & Faber.” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Michael Knapton. 1543. 291-352. “Ambiente veneziano. 1985. Crouzet-Pavan.” In Ambiente veneziano. “Il rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia nella prima metà del Cinquecento: Modelli. eds. Costatini. Cracco Ruggini. Čoralić. . eds. Lovorka. Ennio. Giorgio. Ćosić. 2002. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. “La politica del diritto nella Repubblica di Venezia. edited by Gaetano Cozzi. “Il dominio da mar. Lettere ed Arti. Hale.p. Massimo. Gaetano. Stato. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti. Turin: Einaudi. Gaetano. “‘Relinquere laicis que laicorum sunt:’ Un’intervento di Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia. and Nenad Vekarić. Gaetano. Turin: UTET.p. 1982. “The Ragusans in Venice from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century.. Contarini. Gaetano. Cozzi. edited by John R. Cozzi. Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i države: Salamankezi i Sorbonezi [The Ragusan Patriciate between Kinship and State: Salamankezi and Sorbonezi].” Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999): 13-40. Gaetano.. Maltezou. 1986-1992. ambiente veneto: Saggi su politica. et al. Turin: Einaudi. cultura nella Repubblica di Venezia in età moderna. Cracco. edited by Gaetano Cozzi. Venice Triumphant: The Horizons of a Myth.. “Le isole ionie nel sistema marittimo veneziano. edited by Gaetano Cozzi and Michael Knapton. 227-261. Gasparo. 1599. Siena: Periccioli. 1986. edited by Carlo Cresti. 2004. and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey. De Vivo. Ducellier. 2008. Milan: Bocca. “Les Vénetiens confrontés au retour des rapatriés de l’empire colonial d’outremer (fin XVe-début XVIe siècle). Wolfgang. 2 (2002): 192-201. 1981.” In Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes. 2:741-760. Information and Communication in Venice: Rethinking Early Modern Politics. De Vries. Serđo. no. Davis.” Bulletin of the Society for Renaissance Studies 15 (1997): 13-24. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti. Ducellier. 1500-1800. Filippo. 2009. Lettere ed Arti. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Società ed economia. 2007. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1991. Bernard Doumerc.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture. Žarko. Alain. 375-398. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Doumerc. Jean. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2002. La façade maritime de l’Albanie au Moyen Âge: Durazzo et Valona du XIe au Xve siècle. Bernard. 1996. Ogranak u Novom Sadu. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci. edited by Ivan Supičić and Eduard Hercigonja. “‘In Dialogue with the Past:’ Venetian Research from the 1960s to the 1990s. London: Wilson. Dokoza. “Natural Sciences. Daru. De Benvenuti. . New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. European Urbanization. Split: Književni Krug. Les chemins de l’exile: Bouleversements de l’Est européen et migrations vers l’Ouest à la fin du Moyen Âge. and David Hemsoll. Donaglio.” Trames 6. Shipbuilders of the Venetian Arsenal: Workers and Workplace in the Preindustrial City. Angelo.Bibliography 249 Dadić. Paris: Didot. Michele Sanmicheli. Migracije stanovništa iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik tokom srednjeg veka [Migration of Peoples from South-Slavic Lands to Dubrovnik in the Middle Ages]. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and Hungary in the Middle Ages]. Milan: Electa. Histoire de la république de Venise. Robert C. “Venice Misappropriated. Dinić-Knežević. 1944. Alain. Un esponente dell’élite liberale: Pompeo Molmenti: Politico e storico di Venezia. Dušanka. 1821. Doumerc. Pierre. Dinić-Knežević. 1984. Dušanka. Davis. Arts. Xe-XVIe siècles. 1986. and Jean de Miceli. Drechsler. Storia di Zara dal 1409 al 1797. Paul. 2004. 1995. Davidson. Bernard. Paris: Armand Colin. Dinamika otočnog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]. Nicholas S. “Il dominio del mare. Brünehilde Imhaus. edited by Michel Balard. Ogranak u Novom Sadu. 5:113-180. Pál. 895-1526. 4 (2008): 115-133. Sociétés. John V. 2009. John H.” Annales: Économies. Elena.” Past & Present 137 (1992): 48-71. Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni. “The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and Career in Venice’s Early Modern Diplomatic Corps. Pál. Fine.” Mediterranean Historical Review 16. 4 (1999): 931-944. Politics in Renaissance Venice. “Power and Information: The Venetian Postal System in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean. Treviso: Canova. Ferro. 1997. Robert. and Francesca Trivellato. Fine. edited by Diogo Ramada Curto. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies. “Center and Periphery. 2001. Finkel. Fabijanec.” Journal of Modern History 67. 2008. Dursteler. Eric. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum. 2002.A. Histoire de la Hongarie médievale: Des Angevins aux Habsbourgs. Eric R. 2 (2001): 1-30. 2008. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. “Au seizième siècle: Comment naviguaient les galères. Engel. . Finlay. ed. Robert. R. London: Routledge. Caroline. 1980. no. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in pre-nationalist Croatia. “Hygiene and Commerce: The Example of Dalmatian Lazarettos from the 14th until the 16th Century. Dursteler. Supplement: The Origins of the State in Italy. 1300-1600 (1995): 74-96. no. 2005. Engel. London: Murray. Finlay. Eric R. Nedo. 1987.” In From Florence to the Mediterranean: Essays in Honour of Anthony Molho. Elliott. Florence: Olschki. “The Immortal Republic: The Myth of Venice during the Italian Wars (1494-1530). Venice Besieged: Politics and Diplomacy in the Italian wars. Elena. no. Dalmatia. Fasano Guarini. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. and András Kubinyi. Sabine Florence. Civilisations 16 (1961): 279-296. Julius Kirshner. 1300-1923. Robert. The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary. Marc. John V. London: Tauris.” Ekonomska i ekohistorija: Časopis za gospodarsku povijest i povijest okoliša 4. 14941534.A. Colonization: A Global History. Fiorentin.250 Urban Elites of Zadar Dursteler. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late 12th century to the Ottoman Conquest. 2006. Gyula Kristó. Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire. Fasano Guarini. 2:601-623. Finlay. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.” Sixteenth Century Journal 30. and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods. edited by Michel Balard. 2004. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808 [The History of Dubrovnik until 1808]. eds. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. ed. Geanakoplos. Ganchou. Xe-XVIe siècles. 1297-1797.” In Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes. “Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV i XVI. Giorgetti.. 3 (2010): 263-277. 1989. Les élites urbaines au Moyen Âge. 2001. 149229. Fortini Brown.Bibliography 251 Foretić. 2000. 1973. Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977): 395-404. stoljeću” [Migration from Dalmatia towards the Marche region during the 15th and 16th centuries]. Patricia. Contadini e proprietari nell’Italia moderna: Rapporti di produzione e contratti agrari dal secolo XVI a oggi. Giorgio. Turin: Einaudi. 2011. Franchini. Dinko. “Behind the Walls: The Material Culture of Venetian Elites. Fortini Brown. 19761987. Private Lives in Renaissance Venice: Art. 2001. Prošlost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deno J. edited by John R. 2002. Hale. Patricia. Lettere ed Arti. “Le rachat des Notaras après la chute de Constantinople ou les relations ‘étrangères’ de l’elite byzantine au XVe siècle. Leiden: Brill. Thierry. Fortini Brown. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. Ferdo. “Venice in the Crisis of the League of Cambrai. Garnier. 2009. Maria. Architecture and the Family. Marino. 1996. . Gherardo Ortalli. Gestrin.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State. Georgopoulou. Venice: Deputazione Editrice. 2008. 274-292. 1980. London: Faber & Faber. and Ulinka Rublack: “In Relation: The ‘Social Self’ and Ego Documents. 1997. Thierry. Zadar: Narodni list. ed. ed. Paris: Félin-Kiron. 295-338. Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism. Art and Life in Renaissance Venice. Felix. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Venise et la Méditerranée. Maartje van. Sandro G. Patricia. Ganchou. Gelder. New York: Abrams & Prentice Hall. Gallina. Fulbrook. Gilbert. Foretić. Mary. Vinko. no. Greek Scholars in Venice: Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learnings from Byzantium to Western Europe. and Gennaro Toscano.” In Renaissance Venice. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze.” German History 28. 1974. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zagreb: Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske. Una società coloniale del trecento: Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio. Édith. L’alliance impie: François Ier et Soliman le Magnifique contre Charles Quint (1529-1547). Kaspar. Wray. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Gullino. “Elite Citizens.” Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 20. 1998. 2007.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Politica e cultura. Linda. 2 (2007): 279-294.” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 43-94. 1297-1797. Grbavac.” Prolegomena 6.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Politica e cultura. Linda. 67-80. Sante. Branka. “Županije u ranum srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj” [Croatia’s Counties in the early Middle Ages]. 2000. Guzzetti. James S. no. Giuseppe. Gleason. 3 (2010): 273-282. 17-33. . 1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Gasparo Contarini: Venice. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.252 Urban Elites of Zadar Girardi-Karšulin. Venezianische Vermächtnisse: Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Situation von Frauen im Spiegel spätmittelalterlicher Testamente. 4:379-413. Property. Graciotti. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. “Plurilinguismo letterario e pluriculturalismo nella Ragusa antica (un modello per la futura Europa?). 1300-1800. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci. “Federik Grisogono (Federicus Chrysogonus) und der Begriff der nützlichen theoretischen Wissenschaft. 1996. Gullino. Elisabeth G. 9 (1997): 1-16. Ivo. Ivo. James S. 12-20. Daniel. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci. 2003. Goffman. 339-364. 1993. Sperling and Shona K. edited by Ivo Goldstein. 4:13-111. and the Law in the wider Mediterranean. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen on the eastern Adriatic Coast in the Fourteenth Century: The Case of Zadar. Berkeley: University of California Press. no. Croatia: A History. Goldstein. “Le frontiere navali. 1996. London and New York: Routledge. “When Myths Lose Power: Four Decades of Venetian Historiography. no. London: Hurst. “Il patriziato. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. 2010. Goldstein. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Grubb. edited by Jutta G. edited by Markwart Herzog and Cecilie Hollberg. and Reform. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. In Hrvatske županije kroz stojeća [The Croatian Counties through the Centuries]. Von Greyertz.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State.” In Across the Religious Divide: Women. “Testamentsforschung in Europa seit den 1970er Jahren: Bibliographischer Überblick. “Ego-Documents: The Last Word?” German History 28.” In Seelenheil und irdischer Besitz: Testamente als Quellen für den Umgang mit ‘den letzten Dingen’. Mihaela. Guzzetti. Konstanz: UVK. Rome. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler. Grubb. Giuseppe. 164 (2005): 125-144. Byzantium. Zagreb: Liber. Hocquet. Imber. Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium. 1975. . “The Gossiping Tongue: Oral Networks. 1910-1913. 2006. 1948. Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex Confinium: Approaching the ‘Other’ on the Borderlands Eastern Adriatic and Beyond. and the Mediterranean. Jean-Claude. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Egidio. 2007. 1500-1800. Padua: CLEUP. Oltremare: L’Istria nell’ultimo dominio veneto. Infelise. Paris: Fayard. Latin Romania. and Jacques Revel. Jacoby. edited by Brendan Dooley. Egidio. praecipue e secreto Vaticana desumpta.” Mediterranean Historical Review 16. 2000. Mario.” In The Dissemination of News and the Emergence of Contemporaneity in Early Modern Europe. no. Oxford: Blackwell. 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. ed.” In Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni. Janez. Hohenberg. Druck. Lille: Publications de l’Université de Lille III. David. Aldershot: Ashgate. 2002. The Making of Urban Europe. Monumenta historiam Uscocchorum illustrantia ex archivis romanis. Le minoranze orientali a Venezia. Ivetić. Karlo. 2001. George. Burlington: Ashgate. edited by Nedo Fiorentin. and Vjekoslav Jelavić. Graz: Akad. Horodowich. no. Egidio. Brünehilde.” Renaissance Studies 19. 10001994. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. 95-134. Treviso: Canova.” Archivio Veneto V. 1 (2001): 1-12. Horden. 1300-1510.und Verlagsanstalt. Horvat. Rome: Il Veltro. “Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni della Dalmazia medievale. XIIe-XVIIIe siècle. “News Networks between Italy and Europe. “Dalmazia e slavi neigli studi di Roberto Cessi. Ivetić. Ivetić. Jean-Claude. The Ottoman Empire. Ivetić. Die Kunst Dalmatiens vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance. 8001520. 1989.. Colin. “Historians and the Present Conjuncture. Hocquet. Eduard. 2002. Hill. Venise et la mer. Egidio. 2000. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. eds. and Nicholas Purcell. 2010. Povijest hrvatske književnosti: Srednjovjekovna književnost [History of Croatian Literature: Medieval Literature]. 1 (2005): 22-45. Elizabeth. Peregrine. Hercigonja. Public Life. 1978-1979. 51-67. Paul M.Bibliography 253 Hartog François. 1432-1571. Imhaus. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. and Lynn Hollen Lees. Lettere ed Arti. and Political Culture in Early Modern Venice. 1997. A History of Cyprus: The Frankish Period. Höfler. Le sel et la fortune de Venise.. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. 1998. Maruša ili suđenje ljubavi: Bračno-ljubavna priča srednjovjekovnog Dubrovnika [Maruša or Trial of Love: A Marital Love Story from Medieval Dubrovnik]. “Social Evolution in Latin Greece. Zdenka. 2003. Jungwirth. Janeković-Römer. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zagrebu. 37-52. applications et diffusion. 1994. edited by Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier. 375. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. “Etnički odnosi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru preme analizi osobnih imena” [Ethnic Relations in Medieval Zadar in the Light of Analysis of Family Names]. Zacour and Harry W. Zagreb: Dom i Svijet. edited by Norman P. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika. Radovi Jugoslovenska Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zadru 17 (1972): 99-166. “European Colonial Experience: A Plea for Comparative Studies.” In A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe. Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika: Hravtski–latinski [Description of the Slavic City of Dubrovnik: Croatian-Latin]. David. “La colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète au XIIIe siècle. Reynolds. Hazard.254 Urban Elites of Zadar Jacoby. 1971. 297-313. David. Rod i grad: Dubrovačko obitelj od XIII do XV stoljeća [Kinship and the City: Dubrovnik’s Families from the 13th to the 15th Centuries]. Vesna. Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike [Visegrád Privilege: Foundations of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi [Croatian Medieval Landscapes]. Jensen. Jacoby. “Procurator. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. “Jugoistočni potez Zadarskih zidina: Povijesni razvoj od antike do kasnog srednjeg vijeka” [The Southeastern Stretch of the Town Walls in Zadar: Historical Development from Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages]. Zdenka.” In The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion. and Robert L.” In Le partage du monde: Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médievale. Vedrana. Contraction. 2000. 1989. 2006. 2008. . edited by Thomas Olechowski and Richard Gamauf.” American Historical Review 78 (1973): 873-906.” In Studienwörterbuch Rechtsgeschichte und Römisches Recht. Jakšić. David. Janeković-Römer. Janeković-Römer. 2008. Merril. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 52 (2010): 79-119. 4:177-222. Paris: Mouton. Jakić-Čestarić. Zdenka. Zdenka. La féodalité en Grèce médievale: Les ‘Assises de Romanie’: Sources. Jović. Julia. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum. Zagreb: Algoritam. David. Jacoby. “The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade. edited by James Muldoon and Felipe Fernández-Armesto. Jacoby. Vienna: Manz. Zagreb: Golden Marketing. Nikola. Continuity. 2004. Janeković-Römer. Nada. Michael. . 2011. Besitz. Karpov. Klaić.Bibliography 255 Jütte. XIII-XV sec. Karpov. Rome: Il Veltro. Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance. 1400-1800. Kaiser. Zadar: Narodni list. Kittel. 2001. 1990. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages]. Prošlost Zadra. Nicolas. Geschäft und Frauenrechte: Jüdische und christliche Frauen in Dalmatien und Prag. Dinko.” Matasovićev zbornik (1972): 135-149. Sergej P. 2). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. 1300-1600. Margaret L. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli. edited by Chryssa A. 1976. Wolfgang. 2008. 2001. “‘Nobiltà e popolo’ e un trentennio di storiografia veneta. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli. edited by Chryssa A. Keil. Paschalis. XVe-XVIIIe siècle. ed. Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke: Eine Fallstudie zu Grenzen und Möglichkeiten unternehmerischen Handels unter Juden zwischen Reich. Translated by Giovanni Fanti and Marina Bakhmatova.” European Review of History 5 (1998): 47-82.und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 95. 37-46. Knapton. ed. and Ivo Petricioli. Ellen E.” Nuova rivista Storia 82 (1998): 167-192. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia. Jütte. Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the Middle Ages]. Kitromilides.” Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial. 113-125. Daniel. Klaić. Das Zeitalter des Geheimnisses: Juden. Rome: Ecole française de Rome. La navigazione veneziana nel Mar nero. “Narrazione e concetti della storiografia greca sul periodo del dominio veneziano. Nada. Leiden: Brill. “Bridges to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: The Assimilation of Italian Culture as a Problem in Greek Historiography. “Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra. L’impero di Trebisonda. Daniel. 1986.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto. Dimitris J. Kiel: Solivagus. Klaić. 3 (2008): 263-290. Le commerce des captifs: Les intermédiaires dans l’échange et le rachat des prisonniers en Méditerranée. 2007. 1986. 2002. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until 1409]. Klaić. Zagreb: Biblioteka Posebna izdanja. Italien und Levante um 1600. Kastritsis. “Handel. Ravenna: Girasole. 1976 (Foretić. Nada. King. Sergej P. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia. Martha.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto. Nada. Princeton: Princeton University Press. “Testaments of Two Cities: A Comparative Analysis of the Wills of Medieval Genoa and Douai. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. no. The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War. 2011. 1204-1461. Christen und die Ökonomie des Geheimen. Translated by Eleonora Zambelli. vol. ed. Karapidakis. Venezia. Genova e Roma. Schmitt. edited by Giorgio Borelli. edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Kolanović. Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society. Knapton. 2006-2007. Kolanović. “Tra dominante e dominio (1517-1630). Krekić. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 47 (2005): 27-98. Trgovačke knjige brać Kabužić (Caboga) [Account of Books of the Kabužić (Caboga) Brothers]. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku. Turin: UTET. Munich: Oldenbourg. 39-52. Klaus. ed. ed. Josip.” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. 1992. 1300-1600. Bariša. “La Serbie dans l’économie de Venise au XVème siècle. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku. 1300-1922.” In Il sistema fiscale veneto: Problemi e aspetti. Bariša. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv.” In Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Venice in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Desanka. Kovačević. Der Osmanische Staat. edited by Bariša Krekić. Josip. Verona Libreria Universitaria Editrice. Turin: UTET. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [Šibenik in the Late Middle Ages]. 1982. Michael. Josip.” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Kreiser. and Giorgio Scarabello. “Il fisco nello stato veneziano tra ‘300 e ‘500: La politica delle entrate.” In Balcani occidentali. Kolumbić. 2008. . Krekić. Krekić. Michael Knapton. Michael. Bariša.-18. 1997. 303-334. Desanka. “Lo Stato da mar. edited by Gaetano Cozzi and Michael Knapton. and Giorgio Scarabello. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Jelena. edited by Gaetano Cozzi. 2:201-549. 2007. 15-57. “Izvori za povijest trgovine i pomorstva srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih gradova s osobotim osvrtom na Šibenik (contralittere)” [Sources Pertaining to the History of Commerce and Maritime Trade in Medieval Dalmatian Cities under Individual Consideration of the contralittere of Šibenik]. Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan. Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Venice in the 13th and 14th Centuries. 2009. Pregled arhivskim fondova i zbirki republike Hrvatske [Inventory of the Archival Collections and Manuscripts of the Republic of Croatia]. 1992. XV-XVIII secolo. 2007. “Grbovi zadarskih plemićkih obitelj” [Coats of Arms of the Zadar Nobility]. Kolanović. Michael. Kovačević. 2:326-396. “Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the War of Tenedos/Chioggia (13781381).256 Urban Elites of Zadar Knapton. Adriatica Maritima Zavoda zu povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 3 (1979): 63-150. 1995.. der Adriaraum und Venedig (13. Aldershot: Variorum. 1999. Knapton. Jahrhundert). Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. 177-209. Lane. Bariša.” In Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times. Lane. Malibu: Undena. Laven. edited by Speros Vryonis. Mary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Panics and the Public Debt. Frederic C. 1973. 36-55. “Developed Autonomy: The Patricians in Dubrovnik and Dalmatian Cities. Venice: A Maritime Republic. “The Funded Debt of the Venetian Republic. 225232. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 1997. Krekić. 1524-1914. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci. Bariša. Lane.” In Venice and History: The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane. Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga slavenstva i Mletačka Republika [Dispatches on the Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples and the Venetian Republic]. 1934. Lane. 1985).. edited by Bariša Krekić. 1300–1600. John R. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. “The Attitude of Fifteenth Century Ragusans towards Literacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. edited by Daniel Chirot. Berkeley: University of California Press. Frederic C. 225-232.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio. 1997. “Imperial Borderlands or Capitalist Periphery? Redefining Balkan Backwardness.” In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society. 1868-1891. 1997 (priginally published in Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures. 2003. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 185-215. Bariša. edited by Gino Luzzatto. Zagreb: Župan (Albreht i Fidler). edited by Gino Luzzatto. Lane. Frederic C. Lampe.” In Venice and History. Lane. The Collected Papers of Frederic C. “Venezia e l’Adriatico. Bariša. Simeon. Anastos. 312-332. Lester J. 1987. .” Studies in the Renaissance 20 (1973): 7-45. Krekić. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. and Reinhold C. 1966. ed.. 1966).Bibliography 257 Krekić.” In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society. 1300-1600. 1989. Frederic C.” In The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe. Mueller. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. edited by Bariša Krekić. “On the Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis in Late Medieval and Renaissance Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. “Venetian History and Political Thought after 1509. Money and Banking in Medieval and Renaissance Venice: The Venetian Money Market: Banks. Ljubić. Aldershot: Variorum. Press. 3:51-85. 1200-1500. Press. jr. Libby. Aldershot: Variorum. New York: Viking. 1996. Frederic C. 87-98. Virgins of Venice: Broken Vows and Cloistered Lives in the Renaissance. edited by Bariša Krekić. Krekić. Frankfurt am Main. Luzzatto. 2002. I Greci durante la venetocrazia: Uomoni. Margetić. and Gherardo Ortalli. Gino. Edited by Bruna Kuntić-Makvić. Michael E. ca. 2009. Loenertz. Lopez and Irving M. Malz. Lopez. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia. 1297-1797. Chryssa A.” In Städte im östlichen Europa: Zur Problematik von Modernisierung und Raum vom Spätmittelalter bis zum 20. Edited by Jakov Stipšić. spazio. Peter. 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Franks in the Aegean. Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean: Illustrative Documents.. Manno. Irmgard. Raymond-Joseph.258 Urban Elites of Zadar Lock.. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. and Dennis Romano. 1400 to 1617. 2008. Split: Čakavski sabor. eds. Angeliki Tzavara. 1955. Martin. “Politica e architettura militare: Le difese di Venezia (15571573). New York.” In Histrica et Adriatica: Raccolta di saggi storico-giuridici e storici. and Gherardo Ortalli. 1204-1500. “Frühneuzeitliche Modernisierung als Sackgasse: Die dalmatinische Städtewelt vom 15. Mallett. Storia economica di Venezia dall’XI al XVI secolo. Martina. 103-133. London and New York: Longman. 1986. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia. Belgrade: Naučno delo. Venice: Marsilio. . Jahrhundert. 2006. 1960. “De quelques îles grecques et de leurs seigneurs vénetiens aux XIVe et XVe siècles. 1979. Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Literature]. Raymond.. Zagreb: Latina et Graeca.. Maltezou. Giovanni.). Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Chryssa A. 1984. 2001. Hale. eds. Jahrhundert. and Despina Vlassi. Lucius-Lučić. “Le cause delle spedizioni veneziane in Dalmazia nel 1000. Mahnken. eds. idee (XIII-XVIII sec. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State. Chryssa A. edited by Lujo Margetić. Trieste: Lint. 1983. John. Soziologie der Städte. eds. Lujo. Columbia University Press. Maltezou. 2000. 218-254. Zurich: Chronos. Löw. Translated by Robert S. edited by Carsten Goehrke. O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske [On the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia]. Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto. Dubrovačko patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate of Dubrovnik in the 14th Century].” Studie Veneziani 14 (1972): 3-35. Antonio. Venezia e le Isole Ionie. Arié. Maltezou. eds. and John R. Ivan. bis zum 18. Lettere ed Arti. Lucio.” Studi Veneziani 11 (1986): 91-137. Robert S. 1995. 2009. Vesna. Uncommon Dominion: Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Purity. and Dennis Romano. Sally. Zadar: Jugoslavenska Akademija Zannosti i Umjetnosti. Dubrovnik. Sally. Mocellin. 1 (1999): 34-67. 1959. Rome: Viella. 2008. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1645-1718. Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv. Vesna. Miović. Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku. Marina. Židovski geto u Dubrovačkoj Republici (1546-1808) [The Jewish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. “Lewkenor’s Venice and its Sources.” Renaissance Quarterly 41. Tea. Maštrović. Domagoj. Dubrovačka Republika u spisima osmanskih sultana [The Republic of Dubrovnik in the Documents of the Ottoman Sultans]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Schmitt. Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan.-18. Miović. 2003. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 46 (2004): 109-168. Mayhew.” PhD diss. Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1-35. no. edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Građani plemići: Pad i upson iga plemstva [Citizens and Nobles: The Rise and Fall of the Nobility]. no. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji u XIX. stoljeću [Development of the Judicial System in Dalmatia in the 19th Century]. dubrovačkog i splitskog statuta” [Maritime Regulations of the Statute of the City of Zadar in Comparison with the same Regulations of the Venetian. 2005. Vesna. Dušan.” Renaissance Quarterly 51. John. McKee. 4 (1992): 9-68. 2000. no.. Mlacović. Vjekoslov. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule in the Early Renaissance: Observations on the Economic Activities. “Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta u usporedbi s istim odredbama venecijanskog. University of Padua. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. 2005. and Split Statute]. Dalmatia between Ottoman and Venetian Rule: Contado di Zara. 2008. Zagreb: Leykam international.” Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 15. McPherson. 2008. Mijan. Metzeltin. “La città fortificata di Zara dal XV al XVI sec. Miović. “Reconsidering Venice. “Behind Zara: Zara’s Contado between Ottoman and Venetian Rules. 3 (1988): 459-466. David. 2000. 1645-1718. der Adriaraum und Venedig (13. Jahrhundert). Michael.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State. . McKee.” In Balcani occidentali. Mayhew. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Dubrovačka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovnik’s Diplomacy in Istanbul]. Tea.Bibliography 259 Martin. 1297-1797. “Le varietà italiane sulle coste dell’Adriatico orientale. 199-237. Contraction. Muldoon. 2007-2009. Reinhold C. Vicenza: Neri Pozza. A History of the Croatian Language: Towards a Common Standard. Muir. and Felipe Fernández-Armesto.” In Storia della cultura veneta: Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento. James. 2008. Edward W. James. Hannover: Hahn. eds. Muldoon. “Aspects of Venetian Sovereignty in Medieval and Renaissance Dalmatia. 1980. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum.” Società e Storia 8 (1980): 277-297. Mueller. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale. Murano. 1981. Angela.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 115 (2007): 271-289. eds. Edward W. Aldershot. 63-92. “The Status and Economic Activity of Jews in the Venetian Dominions during the Fifteenth Century. The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion.” In Wirtschaftsgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Juden: Fragen und Einschätzungen. 1389-1509. and Felipe Fernández-Armesto. 3:315-341.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-state. Lettere ed Arti. “‘Quando i Banchi no’ ha’ fede. . 1000-1500. Mueller. 1297-1797. 1995. 2008. 1991. La comunità dei Lucchesi a Venezia: Immigrazione e industria della seta nel tardo medioevo. Zagreb: Globus. Maria T. Möschter. 29-56. tecniche operative e ruoli economici. Monfasani.260 Urban Elites of Zadar Moguš. edited by Gianfranco Folena and Girolamo Arnaldi. “Was there Republicanism in the Renaissance Republics? Venice after Agnadello. Mueller. Genoa: Società Ligure di Storia Patria. 275-308. Reinhold C. edited by Michael Toch. 1994.” In Banchi pubblici. 1996. Reinhold C. Neralić. Jadranka. “L’imperialismo monetario veneziano nel Quattrocento. Banchi privati e Monti de Pietà nell’Europa preindustriale: Amministrazione. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum. edited by Charles Dempsey. edited by Società Ligure di Storia Patria. The Expansion of Latin Europe. Munich: Oldenbourg. 2008. “Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia. 137-167. la terra no’ ha credito:’ Bank Loans to the Venetian State in the 15th Century. Mueller. Continuity. Ashgate. 1995. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. Luca. Molà. Juden im venezianischen Treviso. Milan. Jon. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. “La festa Veneziana e le sue manifestazioni rappresentative: Le compagnie della calza e le momarie. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés. Muir.” In Quattrocento Adriatico: Fifteenth-Century Art of the Adriatic Rim. Reinhold C. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2000. and Peter Schreiner. Men of Empire: Power and Negotiation in Venice’s Maritime State. 1988. Georgije. Andrea Mozzato. Zagreb: Golden Marketing. O’Connell. Ann Arbor. istituzioni: Elementi per la conoscenza della Repubblica di Venezia. Povijest Splita [The History of Split]. 2002. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. 2009. der Adriaraum und Venedig (13. Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Bisanzio.” In Balcani occidentali. Grga. Kohl.0001. 1:49-62. Jahrhundert). Grga. Giorgio Ravegnani. Rulers of Venice. Schmitt. der Adriaraum und Venedig (13. 2004. Ortalli. and Oliver J. edited by Giorgio Zordan and Gino Benzoni. Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan. eds. Ortalli.’” In Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni. “Pietro II Orseolo: ‘Dux Veneticorum et Dalmatorum. 2005. Ortalli. 1352-1421. Monique. Donald M. . A History of Venice. 2003. 2002. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. economia. Databases. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. and Claudia Salamini. 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. History of the Byzantine State. Novak. Oxford: Blackwell. Gherardo. Ortalli. Gherardo. Novak. 1-2 (1928): 92-102. 2002. London: Penguin. Novak. 2009. Gherardo. University of Michigan Press. Gli accordi von Curzola. edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. no. Lettere ed Arti.Bibliography 261 Nicol. Novak-Sambrailo. Grga. Split: Slobodna Dalmacija i Marjan Tisak. Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.” In Società.-18. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 2.handle. Ostrogorsky. Verona: Cierre. eds. ed. impero latino.001. “Entrar nel Dominio: Le dedizioni delle città alla Repubblica Serenissima. John J. Ortalli. 2009. Treviso: Canova. Benjamin G. 1968. “Beyond the Coast – Venice and the western Balkans: The Origins of a Long Relationship. Monique. Novak. Rome: Viella. Split: Škuna. Gherardo. Schmitt. 1332-1524: Governanti di Venezia: Interpretations. 9-25. Gherardo. Methods. Norwich. Accessed 5 June 2012. http://hdl. O’Connell.net/2027/heb. eds. Orlando.-18. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna pod Venecijom” [On the Autonomy of Dalmatian Communes under Venice]. c2009. Jahrhundert). Balcani occidentali. Grga. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 11-12 (1965): 11-131. “Quaternus izvoza iz Splita 1475-1476 godine” [On Exports of Split]. Maja.90021. Quarta crociata: Venezia. edited by Nedo Fiorentin. Ermanno. 13-27. 2001. L’enigma della modernità: Venezia nell’età di Pompeo Molmenti. realtà. 1:237-272. Walter. La ‘Scala’ di Spalato e il commercio veneziano nei Balcani fra cinque e seicento. “La frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo: Fonti e problemi. Ivan. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli. Accessed 28 May 2012. Pavanello. Venice: Istituto di Scienze. “Die wichtigsten Ämter der venezianischen Verwaltung und der Einfluß venezianischer Organe auf die Zustände in Dalmatien. Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezia. “Appunti e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento. Mletačka uprava. Ivan. Renzo. and Politics]. ed. “Commonwealth.” Società e Storia 114 (2006): 783-803. Kaplan under the Auspices of the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania. Diane. “Das venezianische Handelssystem und die Handelspolitik in Dalmatien (1409-1797). http://www. Palermo: Associazione Mediterranea. Milan: Giuffrè.” Ateneo Veneto 38 (2000): 253-298. Anastassia. 2001. ‘Veneta Auctoritate Notarius’: Storia del Notariato Veneziano. Rosenberg. “La ‘venetocrazia’ nel pensiero greco: Storicità. Pavić. Fabrizio D’Avenia. Oxford English Dictionary. Ivan. Paci. Giuseppe. 1971.oed. and Daniele Palermo.” Archivio Storico Italiano 149 (1991): 811-885. Economy. Milorad. Walter. Maria. n. 1975.” In Studi storici dedicati a Orazio Cancila. 115-143. “Storia di Venezia e retorica del dominio Adriatico: Venezianità e imperialismo (1938-1943). .” Studi Veneziani 20 (1990): 303-354. “‘Tagliare i confini:’ La linea di frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia (1576). Pedani Fabris. “Šibenik (Sebenico) nel basso medioevo fino al 1440.” In Oxford English Dictionary. Pederin.” Studi Veneziani 21 (1992): 323-409.262 Urban Elites of Zadar Owen Hughes. “Plovidbene rute srednjim i južnim Jadranom u izolaru Giusepppea Rosaccia” [Navigational Routes on the Middle and Southern Adriatic in Giuseppe Rosaccio’s Viaggio]. 2011. Ivan. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 45 (2003): 153-199. edited by Charles E. 1514-1797. Panciera. 1996. Pederin. 61-70. “Domestic Ideals and Social Behavior: Evidence from Medieval Genoa.com/viewdictionaryentry/ Entry/37261. 2006. Ivan. Panciera. Papadia-Lala. 1990. prospettive. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.” Studi Veneziani 14 (1987): 91-177. Pederin. edited by Chryssa A. Paladini. Pederin.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto.” In The Family in History: Lectures given in Memory of Stephen A. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia. edited by Antonino Giuffrida. Pederin. privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409-1797) [The Venetian Administration. Lettere ed Arti. Filippo Maria. Dubrovnik: Časopis. Pryor. edited by Halil Inalcık. John H. Petta. 409-430. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. Lionello. “Relations between the Papacy.” PhD diss. Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia. Brian S. 1986. Šime. Claudio.. “Die venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe (XV. Milan: Il Saggiatore. XV-XIX. “The Origins of the Commenda Contract. Zagreb: Liber. 2011. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. 1997. Katalin. 2000. edited by John R. Ivan. Paolo. Praga. Jh. 491-519. Preto. 2004. 1999. Razvitak gospodarstva Zadra i okolice u prošlosti [The Economic Development of Zadar and its Surroundings in the Past]. I servizi segreti di Venezia: Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima. “Structure and Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice. 2000.” Speculum 52. Rome: Caliban. Hale. Peričić.. Paolo. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.” Studi Secenteschi 5 (1964): 95-148.” In Süleymān the Second and his Time. “Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Contribution to the Study of Agricultural Relations in Venetian Dalmatia]. Istanbul: Isis Press. Queller. Pullan. Lecce: Argo. reti mercantili e mediazione culturale nell’età del regime oligarchico (1382-1434). 1297-1797. Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of the Fall of the Venetian Republic]. migrazione umana. 1997.Bibliography 263 Pederin. 195-202. “Service to the Venetian State: Aspects of Myth and Reality in the Early Seventeenth Century.” In Renaissance Venice. Povolo. che corrisponde al regno di Sigismondo di Lussemburgo (1387-1437). . Claudio. “Rapporti tra la Repubblica Fiorentina e il Regno d’Ungheria a livello di diplomazia. Prodi. Peričić. Povolo. sec. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti. Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia: Esuli albanesi nell’Italia del Rinascimento. Madden. Donald E. Verona: Cierre. Radovi HAZU u Zadru 34 (1992): 135-159.” Studi veneziani 12 (1987): 99-164. 1993. Šime. Lecce: Argo. Petta. Šime. 1981. Puppi. Prajda. Storia di Dalmazia. L’intrigo dell’onere: Poteri e istituzioni nella Repubblica di Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. und XVI.).” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State. European University Institute. 1980. Venice and the Ottoman Empire in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. 1996. Michele Sanmicheli architetto: Opera completa. and Thomas F. Preto. Paolo.1973. “The Creation of Venetian Historiography. 1 (1977): 5-37. no. Peričić. Giuseppe. London: Faber & Faber. Varese: Dall’Oglio. Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Zadru. Paolo. Paolo. Raukar. 2007 (originally published in Historijski zbornik 33-34 (1980-1981): 139-209). 2008. Tomislav. Franjo Švelec. Tomislav. Ranke. Leipzig: Dunker & Humblot. Radovi HAZU. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. ed. Tomislav. 1987 (Foretić. Tomislav. Tomislav. Raukar. “Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije u XV i XVi st. Raukar. Split: Književni krug. 1974. 1997. “Croatia within Europe. vol. 2007. Historijski zbornik 25 (1982): 43-118. 3). stoljeća [Social Developments in Croatia from the 16th to the Beginning of the 20th Century]. Prošlost Zadra. Raukar. 4 (1995): 657-680. Tomislav. i u prvoj polovici XVI.-1500. stoljeću” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 14th Century]. stoljeću: Ekonomski razvoj i društveni odnosi [Zadar in the 15th Century: Economic Development and Social Relations]. ed. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi: Split 1475. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1986.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153. “Društvene strukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Social structures in Venetian Dalmatia]. Tomislav. Zadar u XV. and Šime Peričić. Donald E. Tomislav. 2:7-40. 1981.” [Venice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia in the 15th and 16th Centuries]. Arts. Jahrhundert. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom. In Društveni razvoj u Hrvatskoj of 16. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XV. Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku [Studies on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages]. 1877. and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey. . Leopold von. stoljeća” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 15th century and the First Half of the 16th Century]. Tomislav. In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku. 69-140. Die Osmanen und die Spanische Monarchie im 16. ljudi. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977): 203-225. Raukar. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu – Institut za hrvatsku povijest. Leopold von. edited by Ivan Supičić and Eduard Hercigonja. und 17. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. London: Wilson. Ideas]. Tomislav. Split: Književni krug. Raukar. Peoples. The Venetian Patriciate: Reality versus Myth. Ivo Petricioli. Dinko. godine” [Adriatic Maritime Commerce: Split]. “I fiorentini in Dalmazia nel secolo XIV. Zadar: Nardoni list. Ranke.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ideje [The Croatian Middle Ages: Spaces. edited by Mirjana Gross. Venezia nel Cinquecento: Con un saggio introduttivo di Ugo Tucci. Raukar. edited by Tomislav Raukar. Tomislav. no. 1977. Raukar. Raukar. 1409-1797 [Zadar under the Venetian Administration]. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber. Raukar.264 Urban Elites of Zadar Queller. Raukar. 103-125. Razred za društvene znanosti 38 (2000): 49-125. od početka 20. ” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV: Storia. “Lazaret u pregrađu srednjovjekovnog Zadra i njegovi kapelani” [The Suburban Lazaretto in Medieval Zadar and its Chaplains]. Florence: Olschki. Roksandić. “Venice and the Uskoks of Senj. Venedig: Geschichte einer Seerepublik. 2 (1998): 155-183. Ringrose. 2 (1961): 148-156. Tomislav. Zagreb: Barbat. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” Journal of Urban History 24. Lost Capital of Byzantium: The History of Mistra and the Peloponnese. Hale. 1297-1797. The Fall of Constantinople 1454. Ravid. Jean. edited by John R. economia. Radovi filozofskog fakulteta: Odsijek za povijest Zagreb 7-8 (1969-1970): 19-79. Runciman. no. Ravignano. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Davis and Benjamin C. . edited by Robert C. David R. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000. Maltezou. Split: Izdanje Muzeja grada Splita.” In Renaissance Venice. Vladimir. Runciman. Gerhard. 1382-1797. ed. Lettere ed Arti. 2003. edited by Chryssa A. 1965. Triplex Confinium ili O granicama i regijama hrvatske povijesti 1500-1800 [On Frontiers and Spaces in Croatian History].: Notarske imbrevijature [The Port of Split around the mid-14th Century: Notarial Manuscripts]. 2000. Runje. 67-88.Bibliography 265 Raukar. 2001. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Split: Književni Krug. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. “La conquista veneziana di Corfù. 2009. Petar. “Chypre du protectorat à la domination vénetienne. 2005. Rothenburg. 197-217. Rismondo. “Urbanization and Modernization in Early Modern Europe. Rubinstein.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State.” In Venezia e le isole ionie. no. “Italian Reactions to Terraferma Expansion in the 15th Century. Drago. 1973. Triplex Confinium (1500-1800): Ekohistorija [Ecohistory]. Radovi Hrvatska Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zadru 39 (1997): 81-116. 2003. Rösch. “The Serrata of the Great Council and Venetian Society. Nicolai. Benjamin C. Benjamin C. diritto. Steven. Gerhard. Roksandić.” In The Jews of Early Modern Venice. “The Venetian Government and the Jews. 101-112. st. 1973. Ravid. Aldershot: Ashgate. Steven. “Zadarska trgovina solju u XIV i XV stoljeću” [Zadar’s Salt Trade in the 14th and 15th Centuries]. London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks. Studies on the Jews of Venice. 3-30.” Journal of Modern History 33. edited by Agostino Pertusi. Pomorski Split druge polovine XIV. Rösch. Giorgio. London: Faber & Faber. Richard. 1537-1618. 1954. Günther E. 1:657-677. Drago. edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano. Ravid. Munich: Meidenbauer. 1976. Schmitt. 2009. 1976-1984. économie et vie quotidienne dans une île dalmate au Moyen Âge tardif. and Oliver J. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Le vite dei dogi. 2001. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). Regensburg: Pustet. 2002-2004.” In Balcani occidentali. Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan. “Venezianische Horizonte der Geschichte Südosteuropas. Federico. Sanuto.p.org/270. “Adelige Vermächtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie: Die Testamente dalmatinischer nobiles um 1550. Jahrhundert). Schmitt. 2011. Stanford J. Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan. der Adriaraum und Venedig (13. 77-101. Schmitt.” Saeculum 56. Slot. Stephan Karl. 2009. 2011. Mirela. I diarii. Schmitt. Schmitt. Oliver J. Schmitt.” Südost-Forschungen 65/66 (2006-2007): 87-116. and Gennaro Toscano. Marino. 215-230. Oliver J. Korčula sous la domination de Venise au XVe siècle: Pouvoir. . edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Das venezianische Albanien. 45-54.revues. 1400-ca. edited by Sandro G. Arhivski vijesnik 43 (2000): 171-198. Sanuto. Seneca. Marino. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Paris: Collège de France. Setton.-18. Slukan Altić. Mayer and Alexandra-Kathrin Stanislaw-Kemenah. Oliver J. “La penetrazione veneziana in Dalmazia. Edited by Angela Caracciolo Aricò and Chiara Frison. 1982. 2 (2005): 215-225. Venice: Institut National du Patrimoine – Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Venice: R. History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey: Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Instituut te Istanbul. Oliver J. 1600). no. Edited by R. “Povijest mletačkog katastra Dalmacije” [History of the Venetian Cadastre in Dalmatia]. Franchini. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria. http://conferencescdf. Oliver J.266 Urban Elites of Zadar Saint-Guillain. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. 1879-1903. Guillaume. 2012. Venice: n. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria. edited by Christoph O. 1500-1718. 1392-1479. Archipelagus Turbatus: Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottoman. Lettere ed Arti.. Schmitt . Ben J. Munich: Oldenbourg. “Das venezianische Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum (ca.” In Die Pein der Weisen: Alter(n) in Romanischem Mittelalter und Renaissance. Gherardo Ortalli.” Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 106 (1993-1994): 31-43. Kenneth M. 1280-1808. “L’apport des archives de Zadar à l’histoire de la Méditerranée orientale au Xve siècle. “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum im späten Mittelalter. Schmitt. Accessed 26 November. Sander.” In Venise et la Méditerranée. Dalmatinske krajine u XVIII. London: Wilson. and Shona Kelly Wray. Leiden: Brill. 1999. Stöckly. Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu [The Ancient Town on the Eastern Coast of the Adriatic]. 241-251. Zadar: Narodni list. 2001. 2001. 1992. Marko. Sperling. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.” In Mito e antimito di Venezia nel bacino adriatico (secoli XV-XIX).. Rome: Il Calamo. 1). 2003. Doris. Across the Religious Divide: Women. Šarić. Convents and the Body Politic in Late Renaissance Venice. Arts. Jutta G. Šunjić. Dinko. Split: Književni krug. Tadić. vijeku [The Dalmatian Military Border in the 18th Century]. economia. Le système de l’Incanto des galées du marché à Venise: Fin XIIIe – milieu XVe siècle.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture. Belgrade: Istorijski institut. 1995. London: Wilson. Mirela. Ivan. Stuard. Stanojević. “La politica linguistica della Serenissima verso i possedimenti ‘di là da mar’: Il caso della Dalmazia. Stanojević. Supičić.Bibliography 267 Slukan Altić. Dalmacija u XV stoljeću [Dalmatia in the 15th Century].” In Triplex Confinium (15001800): Ekohistorija [Ecohistory]. “The Turkish Wars and the Changing Realities of the Lika and Krbava Ecosystems (15th and 16th Centuries). 1999. Florence: Olschki. and the Law in the wider Mediterranean. Suić. 1987. A State of Deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the Medieval Centuries. Suić. Property. and Sciences. 1967. 2008. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv. Arts. Zagreb: Golden Marketing. 1300-1800. “The Church and Christianity. Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in the Old Time]. 16th-18th Centuries]. Zagreb: Prosvjet. Jorjo. Šimunković. 2003. diritto. 95-104. Croatia and Europe: Culture. Ljerka. Stow. 1:687-704. vol. Kenneth R. Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačko-turskim ratovima XVI-XVIII vijeka [The South Slavic Lands during the Venetian-Ottoman Wars. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Susan M. Jutta G. Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confiniuma [Cartographic Sources for the History of the Triplex Confinium]. Gligor. and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey. edited by Agostino Pertusi. edited by Drago Roksandić. and Eduard Hercigonja. eds. Prošlost Zadra. 2:227-258. 1981 (Foretić.” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV: Storia. Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the 16th Century. Šanjek. Gligor. 1973. Mate. Franjo. 1999-2008. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mate. edited by Ivan Supičić. Sperling. London and New York: Routledge. Marko. ed. edited by Sante Graciotti. . Seattle: University of Washington Press. 2010. eds. 1970. “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico fino al secolo XV. Bologna: Il Mulino. “I corsari in Mediterraneo all’inizio del Cinquecento. “Il senso del mare. R. Susanna.” Annales: Économies. Tenenti. Mercanti. 17-46. 1991. edited by John R. Tucci.” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire (1953): 219-245.ffzg. diritto. “Dell’amministrazione veneta in Albania. Civilisations 13 (1958): 72-86. Hale. War and Society in Early Modern Europe. Rome: Enciclopedia Italiana. Triplex Confinium. “The Psychology of the Venetian Merchant in the 16th Century.E. Alberto. navi.” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV: Storia. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 20 (1973): 447-457.unizg. Sociétés. “Tursko-mletačke granice u Dalmaciji u XVI. “Convertabilità e copertura metallica della moneta del Banco Giro veneziano.htm. Paris: Boccard. Frank.V. Tenenti. Ugo. Ugo. Valentini.E. Freddy. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 4-5 (1959): 409-424. Traljić. economia. 1981. Sead M. “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini XVII.268 Urban Elites of Zadar Tallett. Tucci.” Accessed 11 June 2012. Thiriet. Ugo. stoljeća” [Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in Zadar’s Borderlands in the 17th Century].” In Renaissance Venice. Traljić. Tucci. Traljić. 1962. i XVII. La Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge: Le développement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénetien. “Operatori economici fiorentini in Ungheria nel tardo Trecento e primo Quattrocento. Sead M. Sead M. “Triplex Confinium: Croatian Multiple Borderlands in EuroMediterranean Context. .” In Renaissance Venice. 1:843-910. Tenenti. Hale. Alberto. “Venise et l’occupation de Ténedos au XIVe siècle. 1973. Tucci. 1959.N. stoljeću” [Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia in the 16th and 17th Centuries]. Alberto. “Sur la pratique vénetienne de la navigation au XVIe siècle. 1495-1715. Florence: Olschki.P. no. http://www. 12:7-76. Tenenti. London: Faber & Faber.” In Storia di Venezia: Temi: Il mare. monete nel Cinquecento Veneziano. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 11-12 (1965): 203-227. edited by Agostino Pertusi. Ugo. “The Sense of Space and Time in the Venetian World of the 15th and 16th centuries. 4 (1995): 697-707. Christoforo da Canal: La marine vénetienne avant Lépante. Giuseppe. 1973. Freddy. Paris: S.hr/ pov/zavod/triplex/homepagetc.. 346-378. “Zadar i turska pozadina od XV do potkraj XIX stoljeća” [Zadar and its Turkish Hinterland from the 15th to the Beginning of the 19th Century]. Alberto.” Rivista Storica Italiana 72 (1960): 234-287. London: Routledge. London: Faber & Faber. 1992. 1973. Thiriet. Teke. edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci.” Studi Veneziani 15 (1973): 349-448.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153. edited by John. 2007. Josip. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of the Croatian Adriatic]. “Süleymān. Verlinden. 1974.” Accessed 11 June 2012. “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste. Voje. Visions of Community. “Appunti sul regime degli stabilmenti veneti in Albania nel secolo XIV e XV. edited by Robert Mantran. Alfgredo. 15-18. Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. 81-116. Ignacij. eds.” Acta Histriae 3 (1994): 5-20. edited by Zdenka Bolanča. Werner. Wallerstein. Veinstein. Accessed 29 July. Charles. Statehood. Die Geburt einer Großmacht – die Osmanen.univie. Ljubljana: Znanstveni Inštitut Filozofske Fakultete. Žmegač. http://referenceworks.” In Türkenangst und Festungsbau: Wirklichkeit und Mythos. and Desanka Kovačević. Frankfurt am Main: Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. edited by James Muldoon and Felipe FernándezArmesto. New York and London: Academic Press. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy. Zadar September 26th-29th. 2009. Ignacij.” In The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion. 1970. http://sfb-viscom. “L’ascension des Ottomans (1451-1512). Andrej. Second Edition. 1:191-220. 2003. 2012.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Printing. Poslovna uspešnost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Business Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik]. Design and Graphic Communications Blaž Borović. “The Transfer of Colonial Techniques from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.Bibliography 269 Valentini. Contraction. 2007. “Cultura-Political History of Zadar with Emphasis on History of Printing Book and Script. Gilles.at/home/projectgroups/. Voje. 2012. Ernst. Vidaković. 2009. 1300-1481. ed. Paris. Giuseppe.” In Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Vienna: Böhlau. “Note sull’amministrazione veneziana in Istria nel secolo XV. Andrej. 1976. 2008. Vatin.” In Encyclopedia of Islam. Verlinden. and Religion in Late Medieval Dalmatia. Immanuel. Sarajevo: Društvenih nauka. Translated by Yvonne Freccero. Charles. Fayard. 1989. Continuity. “Society. Viggiano.com/ entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/suleyman-COM_1114. 1985.” Studi Veneziani 8 (1956): 195-265. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. The Beginnings of Modern Colonization: Eleven Essays with an Introduction. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum. Zagreb: Faculty of Graphic Arts. . Brill Online. Nicolas. 129-142. Žmegač.ac. Harald Heppner and Zsusza Barbarics-Hermanik.brillonline.