Sander-Faes (2013), Urban Elites of Zadar PROOFS.Pdf

Home , Charles III of Naples, Elizabeth of Bosnia, Morlachs, Pylos, Stratioti, Zadar Cathedral

I libri di Viella 156

Stephan Karl Sander-Faes

Urban Elites of Zadar Dalmatia and the Venetian Commonwealth (1540-1569)

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 7 Abbreviations 8 Note on Names and Dates 10

Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center by Gherardo Ortalli and Bernd Roeck 11

Introduction 15

1. The Setting 27 1. Venice’s Maritime State (1358-1570) 27 2. Administration 33 3. Economy 35 4. The Adriatic Context 37 5. “Zara è metropoli et chiave” 40 6. Zadar under Venetian Rule (1409-1570) 42

2. Zadar’s Society: Geographical Distribution and Social and Occupational Fault Lines 64 1. Zadar as Communication Centre 64 2. Trans-Adriatic Networks in the Sixteenth Century 66 3. Procuratorial Networking 66 4. Economic, Legal, and Social Incentives 73 5. Secular and Ecclesiastical Elites 76 6. Intellectual Elites 82 7. Ecclesiastical Activities 88

3. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 111 1. Political Elites: Venetians and the Local Nobility 111 2. Ecclesiastical Elites: Convents, Hospitals, and Monasteries 116 3. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities 126 6 Urban Elites of Zadar

4. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 143 1. Property Sales 143 2. Planting Concessions/Land Grants 150 3. Rental and Leasehold Contracts 156

5. Urban Elites and Everyday Life 171 1. Zadar’s Urban Nobility 171 2. Geographical and Social Mobility 171 3. Material Culture 178

6. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 189 1. Venetians 190 2. Non-Noble Elites 192 3. Croats and Jews 194 4. The Cityscape 198

Conclusion 213

Appendix Glossary 221 Units of Measurement 222 List of Toponyms in Zadar’s Jurisdiction 223 Maps 227 Sample Transcripts 230

Bibliography 243 Index 271 Acknowledgements

As this manuscript goes to print, I am indebted to the contributions of a number of individuals and institutions. Everyone listed below has in some way assisted enormously in the research, writing, and improvement of this book. None is responsible for any errors or inaccuracies, which are my personal responsibility. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Oliver J. Schmitt, University of Vienna, whose courses awakened my interest in the history of the western Bal- kans and of Venice’s Stato da mar in particular; Marko Trogrlić, University of Zadar, and the staff at the Croatian State Archive in Zadar (Državni arhiv u Zadru), whose help facilitated my research stay enormously; my two dissertation advisors, Karl Kaser and Harald Heppner, University of Graz, for all the support they have given me; and Bernd Roeck, University of Zurich, and Gherardo Ortalli, Univer- sity of Venice Ca’ Foscari, who helped in many ways to see me through the months of preparation of the manuscript. I thank my colleagues and friends Rebecca Darley, University of Birming- ham, David Starr-Glass, University of Maryland/Empire State College, Sascha Attia, University of Vienna, and Jose Cáceres Mardones, University of Zurich, for all their comments on and proof-reading of my manuscripts; my parents Karl and Ursula Sander and my grand-aunt Wilhelmine Bauer for their support throughout the years; and my parents-in-law Rosina and Helmut Faes for their interest and support. Throughout this project, 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. If I have failed anyone in this regard, I offer my unreserved apologies. For the past years, this book and the PhD thesis it is based on have been a constant companion. Even more enduring has been my partner-turned-wife, Dorothea Faes, to whom I am enormously indebted for all her care, patience, and support over the years and who now knows a lot about the Urban Elites of Zadar around the mid-sixteenth century. Dorothea, I hope you will enjoy the book and it is to you that it is dedicated.

Zurich, July 2012 Abbreviations

DAZd (Državni arhiv u Zadru) State Archive in Zadar BZ (Bilježnici Zadra) manuscripts of Zadrani Notaries c. (carta) original pagination of archival material f. (folio) pagination applied to archival material by archivists s.p. (sine pagina) without pagination r (recto) right-hand page of a manuscript v (verso) left-hand page of a manuscript m.v. (more veneto) the Venetian calendar year starting on 1 March cap. (capitulum, capitolo) chapter tit. (titulus) title Lib. (Liber) book Ref. (Reformationes) amendments

Published Sources

Commissiones Commissiones et Relationes Venetae: Mletačka i uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. Edited by Simeon Ljubić and Grga Novak. Zagreb: Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Art, 1876-1977.

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]. Edited by Josip Kolanović and Mate Križman. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1997. Abbreviations 9

Terminology Used jurisdiction (Contado, county, distrikt) the countryside or hinterlands controlled by an urban centre district (districtus, distrikt) administrative subdivisions of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana governed by castellans but subject to Zadar’s jurisdiction. territory (ager publicus, Astareja) general term for public lands in the immediate vicinity of an urban centre Note on Names and Dates

Given the linguistic characteristics of Venice’s Stato da mar and the geographical scope of this book in particular, the following method of naming individuals and places has been chosen. All names directly quoted from primary sources are spelled as they appear in the notarial manuscripts. In all subsequent references the standardised Latin versions of the names are used. I have added the standardised spelling for Venetian names. For consistency, I have used only present-day toponyms, i.e. Croatian names in Dalmatia, Italian names on the Apennine peninsula, etc. Exceptions are places generally familiar, e.g., Venice, Rome, etc. For places within Zadar’s jurisdiction, detailed maps and tables are provided in the Appendix that include their original spelling in the primary sources, present-day Croatian toponyms, and if available, their Italian versions. The Venetian year, which began in March, is referenced with the abbreviation “m.v.” (more veneto). Calendrical norms in the rest of the Adriatic are less clear; unless indicated otherwise all dates are reproduced as they appear in the cited sources. Preface. 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, beginning with the selection of the title of the book and the reference to a Venetian Commonwealth. 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. Because of these highly-varied relationships Venice was able to acquire, institutionalise, and maintain her positions in Italy and the Mediterranean over the long term: in the Terraferma and her maritime dominions, via informal colonies of citizens in foreign lands, formal delegations throughout the Mediterranean and elsewhere, and in regions where Venetian prerogatives and de facto- dependence substituted direct control. Sander-Faes authoritatively articulates this new interpretation of Vene- tian historiography and the characteristics of the fragmented and varied components of Venice’s rule. His book offers an original, well-researched, and at times surprising contribution. 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. In addition to certain well-studied regions and epochs there are others that, while not entirely neglected, offer ample room for further examination. Within this context, Sander-Faes’ book is distinctive for the period under survey, in the perspective it offers, and in the articulation of the investigative methods it employs. 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. 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. The ensuing decades witnessed the indisputable decline of the Serenissima. The area and period under survey in this volume, which centres on Zara, is circumscribed by two traumatic events in Venetian history. In 1540, after thirty years of continuous clashes with the Ottoman Empire, conflict temporarily ceased. Venice’s separate peace imposed by Suleiman II the Magnificent brought about the loss of important centres in the Aegean, the Peloponnese, and Dalmatia where, in Zara’s jurisdiction, the two strategic castles of Vrana and Nadin came under the control of the Ottomans. If 1540 was the year of the unfavourable peace treaty with the Most Sublime Porte 1569 marked the advent of renewed Ottoman-Venetian conflict., It began in 1570 and came to a close in 1573 with Venice’s loss of the large island kingdom of Cyprus. The great battle of Lepanto, fought in the interim, had renewed hope, pride, and illusions, but did little to change reality or Ottoman attitudes. 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. Venice’s time as a great power had ended and after an initial phase of shock and bewilderment, and con- scious of her limits, the Respublica acquiesced to the logic of military and political neutrality in order to survive. Within this general context Sander-Faes’ book examines in depth the history of Venetian Zara. He positions the city as a centre of decisive importance for Venice’s commercial, maritime, and political interests in the Adriatic. Zara was the key to Venetian presence in the Adriatic, continu- ing a centuries-old interest, dating as far back as the expedition of Doge Pietro II Orseolo around the turn of the first millennium. Control over this important harbour town had long been troubled, especially due to the rival interests of the kingdom of Hungary. From the early fifteenth century Ven- ice was able to settle the issue and Zara remained under Venetian control until the fall of the Republic in 1797. The book’s focus rests firmly on the city of Zara, its inhabitants, and the rhythms of everyday life. At the heart of the volume there are no great Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center 13 events, victories, defeats, or international affairs. The historical contextuali- sation begins with the peace of Zara (1358), in which Venice was forced to cede her claims over Dalmatia to King Louis the Great of Hungary. Then Zara’s urban life in all its diverse expressions is fully illuminated, providing the volume with robust substance that transcends the scope suggested by the title. There are the economic practices and networks that connected Zara’s urban elites with elites of other Adriatic cities, the detailed activities, variations of conjunctures, the lifestyle of the privileged strata, and the quiet workings of quotidian life. All the while Venice is regarded as the guaran- tor of security and stability for the inhabitants of Dalmatia during an era of growing dependence of the peripheries on the fortunes of the centre. The systematic study of more than 3,500 unpublished documents opens important windows onto diverse social aspects: the secular and ecclesiastical protagonists, relationships between Venetians and locals, family relationships, the presence of foreigners, marriage, immigration structures, Jewish and Croat communities, the property market, the allocation of urban spaces, behavioural traits of the Dalmatian nobility, artisans, farmers, shepherds, and the role of transhumance. Its depth illuminates the smallest events but never minimises perception of the complexities of the whole system, as so often occurs in the treatment of micro-history. And in the background is felt the weight of Ottoman proximity, which at once gave rise to tensions and fears, and reinforced loyalty to Venice. In sum, we can say frankly that Stephan Sander-Faes’ work is fundamental in making Zara, among the Adriatic centers that made up part of the Venetian commonwealth, one of the best-understood societies in all its diverse characteristics in the tumultuous middle decades of the sixteenth century.

Gherardo Ortalli – Bernd Roeck

Introduction

… thanks to a combination of painstaking diplomacy and good luck, Veni- ce was able to settle down to one of the longest periods of peace she could remember – a period in which, in the words of one of her principal French historians, ‘l’histoire des Vénetiens s’écoule sans être marquée par des évè- nements dignes d’occuper la postérité’.1 John Norwich, 1977-1982, Pierre Daru, 1821

Venice was not only one of the greatest cities of medieval and early modern Europe, it was also one of Europe’s most enduring republics, an expansive empire and, from the fifteenth century on, an imposing regional state.2 John Martin and Dennis Romano, 2000

Over the course of the sixteenth century, a period to which Pierre Daru and John Norwich ascribe the absence of “any events worthy of the attention of posterity,”3 Venice stood at a crossroads.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 Cam- brai, culminating in the ignominious defeat at Agnadello (1509).5 While the Battle of Zonchio marked the end of major acquisitions in the eastern Mediterranean, the War of the League of Cambrai brought about the cessa- tion of her designs on the Italian mainland. These changes coincided with fundamental strategic shifts of other imperial powers. The Republic of St Mark found herself situated between the two self-styled universal monarchies of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, hard pressed from Occident and Orient alike.6 This perilous situation was compounded by the “impious alliance” between the Sultan and the Most Catholic King.7 To survive in this hostile environment Venice shifted from assertive policies of previous centuries toward a more defensive stance. 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 Lombar- dy. Changes in Venetian society during the sixteenth century, though not 16 Urban Elites of Zadar visible on the surface, extended beyond matters of foreign policy. 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, English, and later Dutch merchants upon previously Venetian- controlled commerce in the Levant.9 In the wake of these developments, the writings of Marino Sanuto, Gasparo Contarini, and others10 celebrated the glories of the aristocratic republic and cemented what eventually became known as the “myth[s] of Venice.”11 For centuries to come these myths defined how historians approached the history of the Republic of St Mark.12 Unresolved by this scholarship, however, 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, “which was constantly in motion […] and needs further study and elaboration.”13 Recent decades have witnessed the decline of myth-centred historiography and the rise of more scientific and varied approaches to Venice proper, including new insights into her diverse, multicultural, and poly-confessional society.14 By and large, however, this trend in the scholarship has not yet reached Veni- ce’s peripheral possessions in the eastern Mediterranean.15 The history of Venice’s maritime state along the shores of the Aegean and Adriatic seas was mostly left to Greek,16 Yugoslav, and later Croatian scholars.17 Dalmatia’s eventful past was first studied from an Italo-centric point of view by scholars like Vitaliano Brunelli, Angelo de Benvenuti, and Giuseppe Praga.18 The same events were studied by South Slavic scholars who reached rather different conclusions, and in the aftermath of the Se- cond World War, most Yugoslav scholarship tended to anachronistically focus on specific ethnic groups.19 These selective interpretations and per- ceptions 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.20 In the aftermath of the Second World War Venetian historiography was largely characterised by two models. First, due to rapid decolonisation and Cold War rhetoric, the Stato da mar entered ideologically-charged di- scourse, most notably in the writings of Freddy Thiriet.21 Second, Ameri- can scholars Frederic Lane and William Bouwsma celebrated the ideals of Renaissance republicanism, placing Venice within a long-standing western tradition.22 In recent decades more diverse, nuanced approaches to medie- Introduction 17 val and early modern colonialism have emerged, emphasising continuities between the Mediterranean and Atlantic.23 For the Venetian maritime state the works of Michel Balard, Alain Ducellier, and Chryssa Maltezou are seminal.24 In addition to its analysis of the intricacies of ecclesiastical and secular institutions,25 this contemporary scholarship “has done away with a unilinear reading of Venice’s past,”26 paving the way for new approaches to Venice proper and her overseas possessions. Yet with the focus of scholarly attention resting firmly on the lagoon metropolis, there are few recent studies putting Venice’s Adriatic possessions in the spotlight. 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, little attention has been given to the Adriatic during the decades after the War of the League of Co- gnac (1526-1530). With the notable exceptions of the Republic of Dubro- vnik27 and the Triplex Confiniumproject initiated by Karl Kaser and Drago Roksandić in the mid-1990s,28 the history of early modern Dalmatian economic and social history has yet to attract renewed interest.29 In spite of the abundance of research possibilities in the various Dalmatian branches of the Croatian State Archive, most notably explored by Tomislav Raukar,30 little effort has gone into furthering our understanding of the complexities of everyday life along the Adriatic’s oriental littoral.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.”32 The focus will be on the city known in the sixteenth century as Zara, the “metropoli et chiave”33 of Venice’s Adriatic dual province of Dalmatia and Albania,34 and Zadar’s jurisdiction encompassing the minor districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana during the three interwar decades from 1540 to the outbreak of the Cyprus War in 1570.35 These years mark the apogee of Muslim dominance and the corresponding nadir of Christian naval power in the wider Mediterranean basin, whose repercussions could especially be felt along the frontiers of Ve- nice’s maritime state. Building on established scholarship on cities along the Dalmatian coast,36 this book presents a tripartite framework that considers the geographical locations, economic developments, 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. While there is no “consensus about how to characterize Venice’s rule over both the Terraferma and the Stato da mar,”37 the terminology used 18 Urban Elites of Zadar here is “respublica-cum-imperial power,” coined by Gherardo Ortalli,38 and its contemporary English translation, “commonwealth.”39 Within this framework the administration of the Stato da mar on the local level was concentrated in the hands of the Venetian governors, legates, and military commanders, but included the participation of Dalmatia’s indigenous elites. In exchange for their loyalty the inhabitants of the coastal cities and hinterlands could continue living under Christian rule, even though in practice this often meant cross-border raids, enslavement by marauders from Ottoman lands, and the attempted subordination of Dalmatia’s economic life under Venetian prerogatives. In combination, these factors gradually marginalised and impoverished the coastal communities.40 The proximity of the neighbouring Ottoman Empire kept the local populace firmly loyal to Venice but also increased insecurity in Zadar’s jurisdiction.41 This study examines how in these circumstances the urban elites interacted with each other, the Ottoman subjects, transhumance peoples from across the frontiers, and Venetians. The latter group included governors, legates, military personnel, artisans, merchants, and public officials. Usually Venice’s representatives—many of whom where patricians of lower rank and wealth42—found themselves in an environment striking- ly familiar to them.43 Moreover, they often were required to mitigate the conflicts between commoners and noblemen while first and foremost representing and safeguarding Venice’s overarching economic, military, political, and strategic interests.44 The book is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1, entitled “The Set- ting,” serves a dual purpose. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the major developments in Venice’s maritime state, 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. Se- cond, it details the most important aspects of economic, legal, political, and social developments leading up to the period under survey. The objective is to identify the underlying structural characteristics of Venice and her maritime-mercantile enterprise in the Adriatic. The approach to the various “Elite Citizens,” a term applied by James Grubb with respect to Venice proper,45 is three-fold. First, Chapter 2 iden- tifies the principal actors of Zadar’s society and their trans-Adriatic connections. The intellectual elites’46 activities are reconstructed by subjecting a mostly overlooked type of documentary source, procura contracts, to quantitative analysis of the economic, occupational, geographical, and so- Introduction 19 cial origins of contracting parties and the geographical destinations of the appointees. 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.”47 The documents allow for a tentative categorisation of the motivations behind these appointments (economic, legal, or social) and reveal useful distinctions for classifying the contracting individuals (ecclesiastical versus secular, social stratum, etc.). 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, ecclesiastical, and economic elites: the Venetian and Dalmatian nobilities48 and members of the clergy, such as Zadar’s archbishopric, Nin’s bishopric, the city’s monastic congregations, and other men and women of the cloth. For the nobility and their dealings with the Church an analysis of testaments and codicils is provided. Additio- nal consideration is directed at how the city’s three main congregations—the Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans—interacted with individuals of privileged descent.49 The commercially active elite consisted mostly of merchants, property owners, and spice traders. Based on selected examples, the various actors and commodities are analysed and discussed. Chapter 4, “Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets,” examines the developments of Zadar’s real estate transactions between 1540 and 1569. Existing scholarship usually emphasises a general downward direction of Zadar’s property markets after the Venetian reacquisition in 1409. This study calls into question that uniform downward trend. Following a brief introduction based on Tomislav Raukar’s extensive work on late medieval Dalmatia,50 the chapter analyses real estate transactions based on 1,772 notarial acts detailing real estate sales, concessions, and rental and leasehold transactions. The results, while appearing rather dense for the three decades between 1540 and 1569, can only be considered a tentative assessment. There is a near-total absence of comparative data for the decades before and after this 30-year period; conclusions consequently must be viewed cautiously. The final two chapters focus on society at the micro level. Chapter 5 addresses the geographical and social mobility of Zadar’s foreigners, exa- mining how they integrated into noble circles. The city’s nobles preferred marriage alliances with families of aristocratic descent from elsewhere in Dalmatia, but also from farther away. 656 marriage-related contracts have 20 Urban Elites of Zadar been analysed51 in order to gain a better understanding of what Neven Bu- dak 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.52 A brief glance at the material culture of the upper social stratum concludes the section.53 The final chapter discusses other elite groups—categorised by their descent, literacy level, or religious affiliation—and their interactions with and integration into Zadar’s society around the mid-sixteenth century. The- se groups include Venetians, the city’s “elite citizens” (Grubb), and the Croat and Jewish communities, which were small but important. Chap- ter 6 first discusses Venetians living in central Dalmatia, working within or outside the administrative framework of Venice’s maritime state. Next, it examines the city’s elite ‘middle’ class, defined as literate individuals of non-noble descent,54 like interpreters, jurists, and notaries. This is followed by an analysis of the Croats and Jews.55 In combination, 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, they did not cease altogether. The chapter ends with a look at Zadar’s urban landscape, specifically its divisions, demogra- phical distribution, and use of space. 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. They investigate economic developments, geography, and social relations on three levels. The first level examines the geographical range of Zadar’s society, covering both shores of the wider Adriatic basin and their hinterlands. The second level offers an economic case study of the city’s jurisdiction (Zadar proper and its subject territories and subdivisions). Finally, this study reaches the street level through an analysis of reports and notarial records concerning Venice’s governors, legates, and military commanders. The reports “provide a moving image,” and “notarial records furnish the soundtrack of the city’s bustle, thus bringing the scene closer to life than either set of sources would do on their own.”56 Even so, 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.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 Introduction 21 archives.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, not separated, by the salty waters of the Adriatic. In this sense, this book constitutes the author’s contribution to overcoming centuries of separated historiographies.

Notes

1. Norwich, History of Venice, 459-460. The French passage is quoted after the original (Norwich gives an English translation) by Daru, Histoire de la république de Venise, 4:118. 2. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 1. 3. Norwich, History of Venice, 460. 4. Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia; Cessi, Repubblica di Venezia e il problema Adriatico; Concina, Venezia nell’età moderna; Cozzi, Knapton, and Scarabello, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna; Crouzet-Pavan, Venice Triumphant; Hocquet, Venise et la mer; Lane, Venice; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice; Rösch, Venedig; Franchini, Ortalli, and Toscano, eds., Venise et la Méditerranée; Tenenti and Tucci, eds., Storia di Venezia (12 vols.). 5. Gullino, “Frontiere navali,” 90-95; Gilbert, “Crisis of the League of Cambrai,” Fin- lay, Venice Besieged. 6. Introduced by von Ranke as early as 1857 and perpetuated by, among others, Brau- del, The Mediterranean, 1:476. 7. Garnier, L’alliance impie. 8. In the words of Girolamo Priuli as quoted by Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 172. 9. Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 167-178; Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 3:89-174; Wallerstein, Modern World System, 1:300-344. 10. E.g., Sanuto, Vite; Sanuto, Diarii; Contarini, De magistratibus et republica Vene- torum; Contarini, The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. On Contarini’s legacy, Gleason, Venice, Rome, and Reform; McPherson, “Lewkenor’s Venice.” On Venetian hu- manist writers, King, Venetian Humanism, esp. 118-150, 161-192, 315-449. 11. Finlay, “The Immortal Republic”; Grubb, “When Myths Lose Power”; Povolo, “Creation of Venetian Historiography”; Crouzet-Pavan, Venice Triumphant. 12. Grubb, “When Myths Lose Power,” 43-44. 13. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 21. See also the review of Martin and Romano, eds., Venice Reconsidered by Drechsler, “Venice Misappropriated.” 14. E.g., Imhaus, Minoranze orientali a Venezia; Molà, Comunità dei Lucchesi a Ve- nezia; van Gelder, Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice; Guzzetti, Veneziani- sche Vermächtnisse; Laven, Virgins of Venice, Möschter, Juden im venezianischen Treviso; Ravid, Jews of Venice; Sperling, Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice; Sperling and Wray, eds., Across the Religious Divide. 15. Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 11; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24-25. 22 Urban Elites of Zadar

16. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 11. See also Maltezou, Tzavara, and Vlassi, eds., I Greci durante la Venetocrazia, and the essays by Karapidakis, Kitromilides, and Papadia- Lala in Maltezou and Ortalli, eds., Italia-Grecia. 17. Antoljak, Hrvatski historiografija [Croatian Historiography]; Goldstein, Croatia: A History; Supičić and Hercigonja, eds., Croatia and Europe; Budak and Raukar, eds., Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka [Croatian History in the Middle Ages]; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the Middle Ages]; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages]; Stanojević, Dalmatin- ske krajine [The Dalmatian Military Border]; Lucio, O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske [On the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia], ed. Kuntić-Makvić; Lucius-Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Literature], ed. Stipšić. 18. Contrast Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara (first published 1913) with De Benve- nuti, Storia di Zara; Praga, Storia di Dalmazia (first published 1954); for commentary, see Ivetić, “Dalmazia e Slavi”; and Ivetić, “Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni.” 19. Novak, Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia], esp. vol. 2 (first published 1944); Novak, Povijest Splita [History of Split], 2:93 (first published 1961). For a discussion, Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 17-18. 20. For a general discussion on the exploitation of Mediterranean history for political purposes, see the introduction by Hartog and Revel, “Historians and the Present Conjunc- ture,” and accompanying essays in the Mediterranean Historical Review 16 (2001). On Fascist uses of Venice’s past, see Paladini, “Venezia e retorica del dominio adriatico.” 21. Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge. 22. Martin and Romano, “Venice Reconsidered,” 5-9; Muir, “Was there Republican- ism?”, xvi. 23. E.g., Jensen and Reynolds, “European Colonial Experience,” Verlinden, “Transfer of Colonial Techniques”; Jensen and Reynolds, Beginnings of Modern Colonization; Ferro, Colonization; Muldoon and Fernández-Armesto, eds., Expansion of Latin Europe. 24. Balard, ed., Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes; Balard, État et colonisation; Balard, Coloniser au Moyen Âge; Balard and Ducellier, eds., Le Partage du monde; Maltezou and Ortalli, eds., Italia-Grecia; Maltezou, Tzavara, and Vlassi, eds., I Greci durante la venetocrazia; Maltezou and Ortalli, eds., Venezia e le Isole Ionie. 25. Davidson, “In Dialogue with the Past”; Povolo, Intrigo dell’onere; Cozzi, Stato, società e giustizia; Knapton, “’Nobilità e popolo’”; Chittolini, Formazione dello stato regionale; Chittolini, Città, comunità e feudi; Chittolini, Origini dello Stato; Cittolini, “The ‘Private,’ the ‘Public,’ the State.” 26. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 27. 27. Budak, “Prilog bibliografiji grada Dubrovnika” [Contribution to the Bibliography of the City of Dubrovnik]; Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika, [History of Dubrovnik]. See also the more recent works by Ćosić-Vekarić, Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i država [Du- brovnik’s Patriciate between Kinship and State]; Dinić-Knežević, Migracije stanovništa iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik [Migration of Peoples from South Slavic Lands to Dubrovnik]; Dinić-Knežević, Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and Hun- gary in the Middle Ages]; Janeković-Römer, Maruša ili suđene ljubavi [Maruša or Trial of Love]; Janeković-Römer, Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika [Description of the Slavic City Introduction 23 of Dubrovnik]; Janeković-Römer, Višegradski ugovor [The Visegrád Privilege]; Janeković- Römer, Rod i grad [Kinship and the City]; Kovačević, Trgovačke knjige brać Kabužić [Ac- count of Books of the Kabužić Brothers]; Krekić, Unequal Rivals; Krekić, Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society; Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate of Dubrovnik in the 14th Century]; Miović, Židovski geto u Dubrovačkoj Republici [The Jewish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]; Miović, Dubrovačka Republika u spisima osmanskih sultana [The Republic of Dubrovnik in the Documents of Ottoman Sultans]; Miović, Dubrovačka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovnik’s Diplomacy in Istanbul]; Stuard, State of Deference, Voje, Poslovna uspešnost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Busi- ness Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik]; Voje and Kovačević, eds., Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik]. 28. Ivetić, ed., Tolerance and Intolerance; Roksandić, ed., Triplex Confinium; Roksandić, Ekohistorija. See also Slukan, Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confin- iuma [Cartographic Sources for the History of the Triplex Confinium], as well as their web presence for recent developments: “Triplex Confinium: Croatian Multiple Borderlands in Euro-Mediterranean Context,” accessed 11 June 2012, http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/pov/zavod/triplex/homepagetc.htm. 29. As highlighted recently by, among others, O’Connell, Men of Empire, 1-15; Grba- vac, “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen,” 67-68; Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 10; Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 77-78; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću” [Commune Society in Dalmatia in the 14th Century], 78; and the forewords by Roksandić and Ivetić in Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 7-9, 11-12. 30. Budak, ed., Raukarov zbornik [Raukar’s Collected Papers]; Raukar, ed., Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku [Studies on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages]; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [The Croatian Middle Ages]; Rauker and Budak, eds., Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka, esp. 428-432. 31. Ortalli and Schmitt, eds., Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Venezia. See also Schmitt, Korčula sous la domination de Venise; Schmitt, “Venezianische Horizonte”; Israel and Schmitt, eds., Venezia e la Dalmazia, based upon a series of lectures given at the Centro Tedesco di Studi Veneziani in 2010-2011 (forthcoming), and the SFB-Project “Visions of Community,” which also comprises a sub-section on the late medieval Adriatic: “Society, Statehood and Religion in Late Medieval Dalmatia,” accessed 11 June 2012, http://sfb- viscom.univie.ac.at/home/project-groups/. 32. On the Adriatic Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia.” For a more general discussion, see Ganchou, ed., Élites urbaines au Moyen Âge. 33. In the words of Venice’s syndic Antonio Diedo, presented to the Senate in 1553. Commissiones, 3:17. His co-syndic, Giovanni Battista Giustiniano, expressed a similar sentiment: “Zara, siccome è principal città di quella provintia, è medesimamente la chiave di Dalmatia.” Ibid., 3:35. 34. On Venetian Albania, see Ducellier, Façade maritime de l’Albanie; Schmitt, Ve- nezianisches Albanien; Schmitt, Skanderbeg; Valentini, “Amministrazione veneta in Alba- nia”; Valentini, “Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania.” 35. E.g., see the 3 vols. of Foretić, ed., Prošlost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Vol. 1 covers the city’s prehistory to late Antiquity, vol. 2 details the Middle Ages, and vol. 3, Raukar 24 Urban Elites of Zadar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom [Zadar under the Venetian Administration], surveys the second Venetian dominion (1409-1797). See also Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću [Zadar in the 15th Century]. 36. E.g., Brandt, Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu [Wycliffe’s Heresy and Social Movements in Split]; Kolanović, Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [Šibenik in the Late Middle Ages]; Kovačević, “La Serbie dans l’économie de Venise”; Pederin, “Appunti e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento”; Pederin, “Šibenik (Sebenico) nel basso medioevo”; Rismondo, Pomorski Split druge polovine XIV. st. [The Port of Split around the mid-14th Century]. 37. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 10 (emphasis in the original). 38. Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 23 (emphasis in the original). The medieval and early modern use of the term respublica—and its translation “commonwealth”—offers us the ben- efit of avoiding anachronistically modern connotations of empire, republic, or “composite state” in reference to the Republic of St Mark. A respublica of this type is the manifestation of ancient and medieval continuities that do not preclude the existence of a domestic, republican regime and the pursuit of aggressive policies abroad. In addition, the term offers a pragmatic way to reunite the terminology used by Martin and Romano (republic, empire, regional state). See also Elliott, “A Europe of Composite Monarchies,” 48; Chittolini, “Cities, ‘City-States,’ and Regional States,” 697-698; Chittolini, “The ‘Private,’ the ‘Public,’ the State.” 39. Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a “whole body of people constituting a nation or state, the body politic.” This provides additional insights into the 16th-century English use of the term. See “Commonwealth, n.”, in the Oxford English Dictionary online, accessed 28 May 2012, http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37261. 40. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 186. 41. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 23-29; Panciera, “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalma- zia,”; Panciera, “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”; Traljić, “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji” [Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia]. 42. Cozzi, “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice,” 325-327; Doumerc, “Do- minio del mare,” 167-168; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57-74; Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 51-112. 43. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 19; Jacoby, “Social evolution in Latin Greece”; Jaco- by, “Colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète”; Jacoby, “Encounter of Two Societies,” On Crete, the “exception to Venetian overseas rule” (O’Connell, Men of Empire, 12), see McKee, Uncommon Dominion. 44. Anderle, “Dalmatien in venezianischer Zeit”; Cozzi, “Politica del diritto,” 250- 261; Krekić, “Developed Autonomy”; Novak-Sambrailo, “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna” [On the Autonomy of Dalmatian Communes]; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika [The Venetian Administration, Economy, and Politics], xvii. 45. Grubb, “Elite Citizens.” 46. The term “intellectual elites” refers to educated, literate individuals of noble and non-noble descent, as defined by Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. See also Chapters 2 and 6. 47. Despite the unresolved problems with the term and the dynamic, temporary nature of “communication,” Venice’s maritime state offers a number of possibilities to combine different sets of quantitative and qualitative data to more appropriately represent the direc- Introduction 25 tions, dynamics, and flows of exchange. These include the so-called contralittere (export/ import licences), evidence of migratory movements, and the petitions by various cities (capitula, capitoli), and the Signoria’s responses. Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunika- tionsraum,” 78-82; Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum,” 217. On the other hand, Schmitt considers quantitative analysis of export licences of utmost importance to the history of Adriatic trade. Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Za- dar,” 49. See also Attia, “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir”; Kolanović, “Šibenik (contralittere)”; Raukar, “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi” [Adriatic Maritime Commerce]. By contrast, O’Connell, Men of Empire, 97-118 (Chapter 5, “Negotiating Empire”), points to the importance of communication in Venice’s maritime state, using terms like “bargain- ing” (Ibid., 1), “three-way negotiation” (Ibid., 2), and “correspondence” (Ibid., 6). See also Dursteler, “Bailo in Constantinople”; and Horodowich, “Gossiping Tongue.” 48. Only the coastal, urban nobility strongly resembled the Venetian patriciate. The noble families from the hinterlands of the western Balkans mirrored more closely their Croatian-Hungarian counterparts in their administrative functions, military roles, and family structures. Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 83-88, 119-122, 174-181. At least one recent study refers to fortified places in Dalmatia’s hinterlands as belonging to “mostly Croatian noble families.” Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 143. 49. In the late 1990s Budak described the Church as an “almost unexplored field of the patricians’ activity.” Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 194-196. For a recent overview Šanjek, “Church and Christianity.” 50. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 151-196. 51. Including matrimonial contracts and dowry quitclaims. 52. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 196-197. 53. The suitability of testaments and inventories for this task is well-established, especially given the absence of pictorial sources for sixteenth-century Dalmatia. Budak, “Ur- ban élites in Dalmatia,” 197-199. See most recently, Benyovsky, Srednjovjekovni Trogir [Medieval Trogir]; Dokoza, Dinamika otočnog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]; and Mlacović, Građani plemići [Citizens and Nobles]. 54. On literacy and literary production in Dalmatia, see vol. 2 of Hercigonja, ed., Po- vijest hrvatske književnosti [History of Croatian Literature]; Krekić, “Attitude of Fifteenth- Century Ragusans towards Literacy”; Krekić, “Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis”; Met- zeltin, “Varietà italiane sulle coste dell’Adriatico orientale”; Graciotti, “Plurilingualismo letterario e pluriculturalismo”; and Šimunković, “Politica linguistica della Serenissima.” 55. The ubiquity of Jews in Venice’s maritime state was noted by Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 974. 56. McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 35. 57. Ljubić’s editions of these reports and directives, published as Commissiones et relationes Venetae and edited under the auspices of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Art from the 1860s, were continued from the 1960s onward by Novak as Mletačka i Uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. In addition, Ljubić edited 10 vols. of Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga slavenstva i Mletačka Republika [Dispatches on the Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples and the Venetian Republic], which contain the petitions by Venice’s subjects in Dalmatia. See also O’Connell, Men of Empire, 97-118; Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 93-100. 26 Urban Elites of Zadar

58. Zadar’s statutes were codified in 1563 and published in Venice in 1564. The modern edition by Kolanović and Križman, eds., Statuta Iadertina sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadar’s Statute with all Amend- ments and New Regulations adopted by the Year 1563], was published in 1997. 59. In general Kolanović, Pregled arhivskih fondova [Inventory of the Archival Col- lections], 1:881-884. See also Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar.” 1. The Setting

1. Venice’s Maritime State (1358-1570)

The Republic of St Mark emerged as a major Adriatic power around the turn of the first millennium, and her success and wealth soon became the envy of her neighbours.1 Due to the events of the Fourth Crusade, the subsequent conquest of Constantinople in 1204-05, and the establishment of the Latin Empire, Venice ended up in control of vast expanses of the eastern Mediterranean.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.3 Her first overseas acquisitions along the eastern shores of the Adriatic, however, led to a severe setback in the mid-fourteenth century. 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. Signed in the Franciscan monastery of Zadar, the treaty provided for the independence of Dubrovnik and placed the other Venetian possessions under the suzerainty of the victorious king.4 The second adversary was Genoa, 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.5 The Genoese, well-established in the resurrected By- zantine Empire and in control of the lucrative Black Sea trade, renewed hostilities in 1379.6 Fighting initially arose over control of the tiny island of Tenedos (today Bozcaada, Bozdja-Ada)—strategic because of its location at the southern entrance of the Dardanelles—and soon spread across vast stretches of the Mediterranean.7 In the ensuing war and in a strategic depar- ture from previous conflicts, the Genoese fleet advanced into the Adriatic. 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. In this most perilous hour the Venetians were able to hold their ground, rally their forces, and fight back by virtue of a statewide mobilisation of manpower, supplies, and morale. The gruesome fight for Chioggia continued for almost a year. But by the summer of 1380 the mortal threat to Venice’s lifelines had receded, and the tide began to turn. Still, the war raged on until both parties were exhausted. A final settlement was negotiated in Turin in 1381. Unlike her Genoese rival whose society descended into fractional strife and interne- cine conflict, Venice was able to quickly reconstitute her economy and finances. At this point the Republic of St Mark controlled only the large island of Crete and some minor footholds in the Aegean.8 The decade after the peace of Turin witnessed two major events in the history of the Adriatic. First, Venice re-emerged as a major power by taking over Corfu and a number of minor possessions close by. She added Nafplio, the Cyclades, and the large island of Euboea to her maritime state around 1390. The second development had an even greater impact on the eastern Mediterranean. As the Venetians renewed expansion the Ottomans advanced deep into the Balkans, reached the fields of Kosovo, and defeated the Serbian host mustered against them.9 In the aftermath of the battle many realms in southeastern Europe and the neighbouring Aegean felt the Ottoman pressure mounting, requiring a reorientation of their foreign affairs. In addition, many communities and regions along both shores of the Adriatic became involved in the struggle for the crown of St Stephen.10 In combination, these events contributed to the expansion of Venice into areas previously out of her reach. In the last decade of the fourteenth century the Republic of St Mark acquired a number of cities along the Adriatic’s southeastern coast, securing the towns of Durrës, Lëzhe, Shko- dër, and Drisht. These acquisitions led to the organisation of the Venetian province of Albania after 1392,11 which would not have been possible without the convergence of these contemporaneous developments.12 The fifteenth century began under even more promising auspices. As Tamerlane led his armies westward his forces met the Ottoman host outside Ankara in 1402. He soundly defeated his enemy and took prisoner their Sultan, Bayezid I, who died in captivity shortly afterward. This plunged the Ottoman realm into a tumultuous succession crisis that lasted for more than a decade.13 Against this background, Venice, for a time unperturbed by the Ottomans, continued her expansion in the Adriatic and Aegean. The cities The Setting 29 of Bar, Budva, and Ulcinj were added to her Albanian province in 1405. Naupactus and Patras followed in 1408 and 1409. The next large territorial acquisitions occurred in the same year, along the Adriatic’s eastern coasts. Half a century earlier Louis I of Hungary had driven the Venetians from the Dalmatian cities and forced them to recognise his claims, enlarging his vast domains even further.14 Soon after his death in 1382, however, 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.15 This conflict had not been resolved by 1409, the year in which Ladislaus of Naples, the last male of the senior Angevin line and titular king of Hungary since 1390, sold his hereditary claims to Dalmatia and his remaining Dalma- tian possessions to Venice for the sum of 100,000 ducats.16 The Republic of St Mark accepted, eager to reassert her influence over the eastern shores of the Adriatic to provide additional security to her mercantile shipping. Thus the major islands in the Kvarner Gulf, as well as the cities of Zadar and Nin, came under Venetian rule again.17 Over the following decades Venice extended her hold over the Adriatic by acquiring Šibenik in 1412, followed by Pag, Vrana, Trogir, Split, Omiš, Kotor, and the islands of Brač, Vis, and Korčula in 1420. Hvar was added the following year. The Serbian clan of the Paštrovići, ruling between Budva and Bar, accepted Venetian suzerainty in 1423.18 These developments coincided with Venice’s brief occupation of Thessaloniki and her expansion into the Italian mainland.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, though these gains were not as numerous as before. Contemporaneously, other important events occurred that would shape the centuries to come.20 After the end of the Ottoman succession crisis following the battle of An- kara, Murad II consolidated the realm’s power and continued his prede- cessor’s expansive policies. His successor, Mehmed II, 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.22 The fall of “Christendom’s bulwark”23 and the subsequent relocation of the Ottoman capital from Edirne to Istanbul had a profound, if not long-lasting, impact on Christian rulers.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.25 The decade after the fall of Constantinople witnessed Ottoman expansion not only into the Aegean and Black Sea regions but also into the 30 Urban Elites of Zadar

Balkans peninsula, where it subdued Serbia in 1459 and Bosnia in 1463, eventually reaching Albania.26 In the midst of the Ottoman-Venetian an- tagonism (1463-1479) stood George Kastrioti Skanderbeg. At first he opposed both the Ottomans and Venetians. From the late 1440s onward he was allied with the Republic of St Mark, and later with the Kingdom of Naples, commanding a loose alliance of local warlords defending their ho- melands.27 In addition to her losses in Albania, Venice lost Euboea in this first, long war. But she was able to expand her maritime state elsewhere. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities Monemvasia in the Peloponnese was acquired in 1464.28 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 1489.29 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. In addition to these gains, Venice temporarily occupied positions in Apulia and the Aegean.30 Peace between the Porte and the Republic of St Mark only lasted two decades. War broke out anew before the end of the fifteenth century. This caused further Venetian territorial losses, but also minor gains.31 Apart from Methoni and Koroni in the southern Peloponnese, dubbed the “eyes” of Venice,32 the first large-scale naval encounter with the Ottomans, the battle of Zonchio (1499, also known as battle of Sapienza or first battle of Lepanto) ended in defeat. The next year Venice took over Kefalonia and neighbouring Ithaca, successfully replacing the lost ports in the Pelopon- nese with the Ionian islands. The war dragged on for another two years without any other major events, and when the Sultan’s raiding parties reached Friuli via land routes the Senate was ready to sue for peace. 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. By attempting to take advantage of the situation Venice’s enemies, led by France and blessed by Pope Julius II, forged an alliance at Cambrai. The ensuing conflict almost destroyed 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.33 By the early sixteenth century the Stato da mar reached its maximum territorial extent, coinciding with relative peace and stability in the eastern The Setting 31

Mediterranean until the 1530s. In the meantime, decisive events occurred elsewhere. The Portuguese established direct maritime trade routes with India by circumnavigating Africa. The Ottomans continued their expansion, most notably by conquering Syria and Egypt in 1516-17, the “decisive event to their greatness.”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.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 theStato da mar. In the first conflict Venice lost the Battle of Preveza (28 September 1538), and with it Monemvasia and Naupactus in the Peloponnese and some islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas.37 Furthermore, while the Ottoman Empire reached its apogee over the ensuing decades the Republic of Venice also lost the next war. De- spite Christendom’s victory off Lepanto on 7 October 1571 Venice could neither save the island kingdom of Cyprus, her largest and richest overseas territory, nor the Albanian cities of Bar and Ulcinj.38 In addition to these losses, the borders close to Zadar were redrawn twice (in 1573 and 1576), eventually reducing the Venetian possessions in the city’s hinterlands to mere strip of land “miglia tre solamente lontani dalle Città.”39 Venice and her overseas expansion from the 1380s onward cannot be considered outside the context of the Ottoman Empire, especially after the end of the interregnum in the aftermath of the Battle of Ankara (1402). Both states quickly expanded into the power vacuum left by the moribund Byzantine Empire and its weak Anatolian and southeast European neighbours. 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.40 Nevertheless, the long Otto- man-Venetian war between 1463 and 1479 was fought only once the two powers had gobbled up all buffer realms between them.41 Notwithstanding earlier developments, both Ottoman and Venetian expansion increased significantly in the early decades of the fifteenth century, taking advantage of developments elsewhere. In the aftermath of the peace of Turin the Ottomans advanced over land and relied heavily on the military. Venice extended her dominions via the Mediterranean and employed a combination of diplomatic and military tactics. While in some cases 32 Urban Elites of Zadar these overall strategic circumstances aided Venetian expansionism, the enlargement of her maritime possessions cannot be attributed to them exclusively. In general, the Republic of St Mark pursued “extremely limited territorial ambitions,”42 preferring commercial over territorial expansion. By exerting considerable cultural, economic, religious, and social pressure Venice eventually recreated many aspects of her domestic society abroad.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.44 A number of Aegean islands, on the other hand, were already under indirect Venetian rule and more easily incorporated into her maritime state.45 By taking advantage of the confusing circumstances in the western Balkans during the last quarter of the fourteenth century, the Republic of St Mark capitalised on the disintegration of the local and regional realms in Albania, Bosnia, and Serbia.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.48 By far the greatest prize was the large island of Cyprus, taken over by the respublica after de- claring Caterina Cornaro a “daughter of St Mark” and forcing her to abdi- cate in 1489. 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. This is seen in the years leading up to 1409 when Ve- nice’s representatives managed to decrease the price for Ladislaus’ claims on Dalmatia by two-thirds.49 Under all circumstances the advantages and disadvantages were de- liberated in the Senate before any action was taken. The rationale for the acquisition of new dependencies was mainly economic and strategic. Po- tential acquisitions were considered for their commercial, diplomatic, and military advantages. The consequences of occupying a city, its defensive needs once annexed, and possible integration within the long-distance trading network were of prime interest to the Venetians. “Honour and profit,” embodied by the state motto, were at the heart of any consideration.50 Whi- le some places immediately attracted Venice’s interest, others did not (but some of these were incorporated later).51 In each case, once the decision was taken to expand the respublica’s commitments, formal treaties were drawn up. Usually these treaties (capitoli) contained the legal basis for Venetian rule but reaffirmed most existing privileges and rights of the local population. However, while the new suzerain generally adopted the pre- The Setting 33 existing normative and social order, amendments were introduced to the various bodies of communal law. This provided for the smooth execution of Venice’s power and successful administrative by her representatives.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.”53 Venetian expansion into mainland Italy and the eastern Mediterranean followed similar patterns. Once a city had been put under Venetian suzerainty the new authorities introduced amendments to the existing medieval legal systems.54 On a practical level, the means of acquisition employed in the Aegean Sea and Friuli were essentially identical. Administrative, economic, and fiscal differences were negligible, prompting Benjamin Ar- bel to conclude that Venetian rule was unidimensionally inclined towards the centre.55 Her representatives were invested with their new suzerainty by the local authorities, 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. On the organisational level, the widespread Venetian possessions formed a large entity in which, whe- rever possible, the hinterlands provided the agricultural basis for the coastal communities. Commercially, Corfu—from whose harbour the trading convoys spread out into the Mediterranean and beyond—was of utmost importance.56 The enactment of additional legislation to cement Venetian rule was a routine practice after the assumption of administrative, economic, and military control in the Stato da mar.

2. Administration

Venice’s commercial and territorial expansion into mainland Italy and the eastern Mediterranean after 1381 triggered a number of administrative and institutional consequences. By the 1440s the nominal boundaries between the Terraferma and the maritime state were drawn up, demar- cating the two entities as possessions northwest and southeast of Istria.57 Local or regional differences notwithstanding, the underlying structural principles of government applied throughout all her dependencies. Within the Venetian Signoria the territorial expansion resulted in the enlargement of existing offices and the creation of new ones to accommodate economic, fiscal, and legal developments. Over the fifteenth century the power of the 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. Contempo- raneously, the need to provide public offices for the increasing number of impoverished patricians grew larger. The newly acquired territories in the Terraferma and her maritime state provided Venice with the opportunity to employ her less-successful nobles. Around the turn of the sixteenth century a range of new offices in the public administration was created. These served the dual purpose of alleviating the situation of the poorer patricians and preventing the most disillusioned nobles from becoming too rebel- lious. Thus the oligarchic rule of the Signoria was further cemented.58 The Stato da mar consisted of various sub-regions: the two large islands of Crete and Cyprus; the dominions in the Aegean and the Peloponnese; the Ionian possessions; and the Adriatic components, organised in the dual province of Dalmatia and Albania. These entities were bound to Venice by several factors: defence against the Ottoman Empire, integration of local legal institutions and nobles into the Venetian administration and economy, and the Church. Occasional raids by bandits, corsairs, andor pirates threatened the security of the Stato da mar.59 Outlooks, manned watch posts, and fortified towers along the coasts were commissioned to alarm the naval forces to fend off potential marauders.60 Most cities and towns under Venetian rule had to muster one or more war galleys. However, the mainstay against these incursions was the light cavalry. 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.61 With the exception of the War of the League of Cambrai, however, the Ottoman Empire was by far the gravest threat to Venice’s security— and especially to her overseas possessions. This is particularly evident in the sheer number of reports written by her overseas representatives, which almost exclusively describe external threats.62 Fearing situations analogous to the temporary territorial losses in the Terraferma during the War of the League of Cambrai, Venice invested increasing amounts of money, supplies, and personnel into gigantic fortifications throughout her possessions abroad.63 For instance, between January of 1568 and July of 1569 Zadar alone received 27,000 ducats to be invested in the strengthening of the city’s defences.64 These fortifications were even bigger than before in order to accommodate large numbers of the hinterlands’ population in the event The Setting 35 of an emergency.65 Usually manned by the local militia,6 in times of war, reinforcements of mercenaries became additional burdens on the cities.67 Venetian galleys were often manned with sailors and oarsmen—so-called galeotti of Albanian, Dalmatian, and Greek origin—adding further financial strain to the overseas possessions.68 In addition to providing this substantial defensive buffer the maritime state was important for Venice, and by extension the rest of Christendom, because of the information the overseas possessions and consulates provided about the Ottoman Empire and its advances. At first sign of mobilisation of the Sultan’s armies or fleets the merchants and public officials sent word to Venice. Once the information network picked up speed the Signoria found itself flooded with news, true or false.69 In religious matters the Republic of St Mark employed a policy of relative freedom of worship, partially because the majority of her subjects in the Stato da mar did not adhere to Catholicism.70 The largest group of non-Catholics was of Orthodox faith, —mostly Greeks—, though their clergy was subject to the Catholic dioceses. 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.71 In the Adriatic coastal cities the urban elites—the nobility and the more affluent commoners—were heavily influenced by the neighbouring Apennine peninsula. In the lower strata and among the population of the hinterlands, Albanian and Slavic culture prevailed.72 Despite this policy of relative freedom of worship, the Signoria was forced at times to intervene to prevent too much religious zealotry on the part of the Catholic clergy.73

3. Economy

In the decades after the peace of Turin, Venice came to dominate the first “world economy” (Braudel), roughly circumscribed by Lisbon, Fez, Damascus, Azov, and the Hanseatic city of Bruges.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. Civil unrest and factional strife for domestic supremacy describe Genoa’s late medieval experience. Conversely, such descriptions are much more rare in the Venetian Republic. In addition, the latter had a second crucial commercial tool at her disposal: a reliable, state-run convoy system.75 These so-called mude 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.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. Also, cogs and galleys increased steadily in size and cargo volume. Medium-sized vessels were usually employed in regional transportation while improvements in the state-owned galleys, the mainstay of Venice’s merchant and military marine power, guaranteed the respublica’s competitive edge.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 coastal cities of the Stato da mar did not just provide safe harbours, supplies, fresh water, and food;78 places of supra-regional importance like Crete, Cyprus, Zakynthos, 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.79 One of the cornerstones of Venetian wealth and power was the salt trade, subject to continuous monopolisation efforts by the state since the Middle Ages. Already contributing to the respublica’s opulence during her “Impe- rial Age” (Chambers), Venice’s expansion into mainland Italy significantly increased the salt income over the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.80 Economically and financially Venice aimed for the self-sufficiency of her possessions and dependencies. If excess income was available, it was sometimes sent to another dominion as a subsidy.81 From the War of Chioggia to the Cyprus War, the Stato da mar was highly profitable, offering secure ports of call, trading posts with familiar structures, and ample reservoirs of revenues and manpower. The enormous sums of money offered to the Ottoman Em- pire after the losses of Euboea in 1470 (250,000 ducats) and Cyprus in 1573 (an annual tribute of 100,000) testify to the economic importance of Venice’s maritime state.82 Thus Venetian imperial ambition paid off in that it generated “payments in excess of the cost,” until the end of the Cyprus War.83 Throughout the Renaissance the protagonists of Venice’s commercial- imperial endeavours were the city’s patricians, in whose hands the organization of the government and the most lucrative trading ventures were concentrated. The cargo bays of the state-owned galleys were auctioned off to the highest bidder. This bidder became the patron of the vessel, obliged to finance the journey in advance. But he was also able to choose his merchant The Setting 37 companions, usually consisting of close relatives. Eventually, this led to the aggregation of Venice’s mercantile capital, wealth, and political power in the hands of a small number of patrician families, especially during the later decades of the fifteenth century and beginning of the sixteenth. A domestic consequence was that what had once been a broad-based aristocratic enterprise gave way to a de facto monopolisation of maritime commerce.84 In combination with the more challenging foreign environment after the 1450s, these factors contributed to the decline of Venetian mercantile shipping. Even the reorganisation of the Arsenal in the first decades of the sixteenth centu- ry85 could not prevent the slow, inexorable shift of the commercial centre of gravity from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. 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.86 By the dawn of the sixteenth century Venetian society and the state- run convoy system faced new realities. Yet despite the conflicts and problems the domestic cohesion of the Republic of St Mark did not falter, even during the difficult months in the aftermath of her ignominious defeat at Agnadello (1509). By the time the crisis accompanying the War of the League of Cambrai had passed, Venice had changed. No longer did maritime trade exclusively dominate her fortunes, and the Mediterranean steadily lost ground as the prime source of Venice’s opulence. A combination of geographical, political, and technical disadvantages contributed to the demise of this region’s economic position and the increasing marginalisa- tion of Venice’s maritime state over the course of the sixteenth century.87 But the Signoria addressed the manifold changes in its environs with continuous innovations. Though by the middle of the sixteenth century her once-favoured trading position with the Ottoman Empire had eroded significantly, Venice was able to compensate for the decline of her maritime fortunes. The rise in the manufacturing of luxury goods and improvements in her mainland possessions became increasingly important economic and political factors.

4. The Adriatic Context

The aftermath of the Chioggia War witnessed a renewed wave of Ve- netian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean. The Republic of St Mark intervened in the Hungarian succession crisis to reestablish her author- 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 invol- untary) incorporation into the Stato da mar, the coastal communes were re- organised 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 Kvar- ner 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 Dalma- tians 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 regar- ding 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 Medi- terranean 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 Mediterra- nean, 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 Ve- nice 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 Mediter- ranean. 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 The Setting 43 by Croat nobles.137 Yet despite the increasing Ottoman threat, no dedicated frontier zone was established until the late sixteenth centuries.138 The three minor districts and a number of coastal islands were subject to Zadar’s count (comes, conte), who embodied the supreme civilian-judicial authority. He was assisted by the city’s military captain (capiteneus, capitano). These two Venetian officials, usually patricians of lower status and wealth, nominally outranked the governors and military commanders in Dal- matia and Albania.139 Together they administered an area that exceeded the city’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja).140 Control over the minor districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana was in the hands of their respective castellans. The following discussion of territorial divisions applies a different terminology than the one established by Tea Mayhew.141 Contado, a term “with slightly indefinable meaning,” as Mayhew admits, has been replaced by jurisdiction. This is to reflect the fact that after 1409 the authority of Za- dar’s count extended beyond its medieval dimension.142 Territory refers to the immediate surroundings of the urban centre, which in the Middle Ages were known as ager publicus or territorium. District is used for the minor territorial entities subject to Zadar’s authority, such as Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana.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 stream- lined administration.144 After the Republic of St Mark regained control it established offices to safeguard its strategic interests. The safety and security of the vital navigational routes were of utmost importance.145 The two supra-regional authorities were the Overseer-general (Provveditore generale in Dalmazia et Albania) and the Captain-general (Capitano generale), who spent most of their tours of duty aboard military vessels supervising the various communities.146 Other tasks of these provincial officials included enforcing Venetian rule—upholding the law, conducting low-level negotiations with the Ottoman administrators across the borders, and providing sufficient foodstuffs. The next administrative level consisted of the governors of the cities and towns. Depending on the importance and size of the possession, they were assisted by military personnel.147 These posts, reserved for Venetian patricians of lower rank and wealth, provided the officeholders with a certain amount of social stature in the Dalmatian towns.148 In general, the new suzerain respected the cities’ local autonomy. But the inhabitants of the subject communities had no influence on the election of these officials. Za- 44 Urban Elites of Zadar dar’s count was considered the first among his peers to govern Dalmatia’s cities. By virtue of his office he also filled in for the Provveditore during his absences, 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, including the subdivisions centred on the minor fortified towns of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana (although these places were commanded by military personnel, not civilian officials).150 Apart from the count’s office, Zadar proper hosted the captain (capitaneus, capitano) and his administrative apparatus, thus separating civilian legislative-judicial administration from matters related to military security.151 In addition to these two offices, possibilities existed for political participation by local urban elites (although not with any significant executive authority). The office of Zadar’s count employed a gastald (gastaldus) and four public heralds (praecones), paid out of the communal fiscal chamber. Their duties included the execution of the count’s orders, public announcements, overseeing public auctions, and ecclesiastical obligations.152 The count’s chancellery (cancellaria comitis) organised the day-to-day paperwork, including the office-holder’s correspondence with Venice. Despite the geographical distances involved, provincial governors enjoyed only limited autonomy from the Signoria.153 The subject cities also enjoyed limited autonomy within Venice’s maritime state (and limited economic power to back up such ambitions).154 By taking advantage of the social conflicts between the cities’ nobilities and commoners, the Republic of St Mark was able to take on the role of “honest broker,” further strengthening her position. In the case of Zadar, Venice was sympathetic toward the commoners.155 The count or the captain presided over gatherings of the local citizenry. The commoners, united in their friction with the nobles, constantly disagreed with them.156 These gatherings, though lacking political clout, offered the most prestigious positions available to Zadar’s urban nobility under Venetian rule.157 Compri- sing around 70 individuals around the mid-sixteenth century, the council was the body from which four councilors (consiliarii comitis) were elected every three months.158 These councilors were allowed to advise count or captain in civil proceedings, but the office-holder was in no way bound to follow their advice.159 In criminal proceedings, cases involving Venetians or her subjects from other parts of her dominions, or cases of a particularly grave nature The Setting 45

(Venice’s syndics explicitly mention “extortion, grand theft, rape, sedition, and other atrocious instances”) the count “fa, quanto gli piace, senza tor il parere d’essi.”160 The legal system was founded on communal statutes, common law, and case precedent.161 If none of these were applicable or were not in the best interests of the Republic of St Mark, the count judged according to his conscience.162 In case of disagreement with the court’s findings, there was the possibility of petitioning the Court of Appeals (Qua- rantia) in Venice.163 In these cases, the appeals had to be considered in light of local law, not Venetian legal norms and practices.164 Appeals of lower institutions such as brotherhoods or guilds (schola, fratalea)165 were handled by the count himself.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.167 Given Venice’s lack of interest in extending her rule over the coastal hinterlands, the rural organisation of Zadar’s jurisdiction was able to retain more autonomy within the Stato da mar.168 The office of judge (iudex) in the villages was unpaid, although some territorial privileges could be obtained.169 After 1537 these officials could be obliged to unpaid public works but were exempted from military service.170 From the mid-fifteenth century it was these judges who first dealt with the waves of migration. Large numbers of people fleeing the Ottoman advances first appear in Venetian reports in the 1520s. This movement, which resulted in increased pressure on the towns and villages along the Dalmatian coast.171 As far as possible, these newcomers were integrated into the economic and social framework of Zadar’s jurisdiction. Many of them settled in or around the coastal cities and were employed to work in the fields, producing vegetables, fruits, and olives close to Zadar while grain was harvested further inland.172 The legal basis of agricultural production continued to be rents (livellum), land grants (livellatio), and concessions (concessio, pastinatio) to colonists.173 Legally binding contracts were drawn up by the city’s notaries according to the customary law, and were validated by communal public officials in the presence of at least two witnesses. These documents granted the farmer-labourer property for a certain amount of cash (affictus, locatio) or payment in kind of produce (concessio, pastinatio). In addition, the statutes provided the option to re-rent or grant livestock, real estate, or other property to a third party (conductio).174 They also contained detailed provisions for harvesting and transporting the produce,175 as well as other complimentary clauses.176 Over the course of the sixteenth century a ten- 46 Urban Elites of Zadar dency emerged toward the cultivation of one half of a field, leaving the other half for pastureland. The ploughed and fallow halves were swapped every year.177 In addition to the stipulated share of the harvest belonging to the landlord, special gifts (honorantiae) had to be consigned to the pro- prietor.178 If the landlord altered the provisions (excess of duties, change of transport location, etc.), the colonist could resell, re-rent, or leave his or her obligations in accordance with communal statutes.179 Viewed together, the changes introduced by Venice over the course of the fifteenth century were considerable. While Dalmatia’s cities enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy under the previous Hungarian suzerainty, the Republic of St Mark incorporated her new subject societies into her more centralised and monopolised economic system. While not without benefits,180 the obligation to recognise Venice’s staple rights from the 1420s onward constituted a continuous drag on the local econo- mies.181 Efforts to monopolise the lucrative salt trade182 were especially grave, given the Dalmatian cities’ reliance on it to balance their budgets.183 Though the artisans were less affected, commerce and trade too declined after 1409. The hinterlands’ produce—fabrics, honey, raisins, wax, and wool184—continued to arrive in Zadar and the other coastal cities, but in decreasing quantities. While migration originating in the western Balkans subsided, Ottoman expansion pushed the borders close to the city walls, strangling the urban communities and eventually culminating in the crisis of the sixteenth century. Even though Zadar’s port remained the most important centre of exchange in central Dalmatia, around 1500 the entire region had become “economically insignificant.”185 In combination with the deteriorating situation in the coastal cities’ rural hinterlands, these factors negatively impacted Dalmatian daily life in a variety of ways, most importantly in terms of cattle theft, robberies, and enslavement. 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.186 Consequently, 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, usually with death.187 Capture and enslavement became a common experience for inhabitants of the Mediterranean.188 If contacted by the recently enslaved, family members, relatives, or business partners attempted to raise ransom money, which was at least partially refundable by the Venetian government.189 The Setting 47

After 1409 Zadar under Venetian rule continued to exist as a typical Dalmatian coastal community with medieval commercial, economic, and social organization. These however, were amended by the new suzerain’s administrative and cultural influences. Subject to the city’s jurisdiction were the fortified towns of Ljubač, Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana on the mainland, and numerous islands off the coast. As the Ottoman Empire continued its expansion, life at the frontiers of Venice’s Adriatic dominions became increasingly difficult. 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.

Notes

1. For an introduction see Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast”; Ortalli, “Pietro II Orseolo”; Margetić, “Spedizioni veneziane in Dalmazia”; Fiorentin, ed., Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille. 2. On the Fourth Crusade, most recently Ortalli, Ravegnani, and Schreiner, eds., Quarta crociata. See also Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean; Ja- coby, ed., Les ‘Assisses de Romanie’; Arbel, Hamilton, and Jacoby, eds., Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean; Queller and Madden, Fourth Crusade, 55-78; Nicol, Byzan- tium and Venice, 124-147. In addition to the commercial privileges and a number of islands in the eastern Mediterranean, Venice acquired Crete, then known as Candia, Koroni and Methoni in the Peloponnese peninsula, and established an outpost on Euboea. For a concise overview and further literature, O’Connell, Men of Empire, 18-21. 3. See, e.g., Chambers, Imperial Age of Venice, 33-72; Cozzi and Knapton, Repubbli- ca di Venezia nell’età moderna, 1:177-201; Ducellier, Façade maritime de l’Albanie, 136- 151; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, 158-161; Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge, 63-349. On Crete specifically, McKee, Uncommon Dominion. 4. Engel, Kristó, and Kubinyi, Hongarie médievale, 2:57-95; Engel, Realm of St Ste- phen, 157-194; most recently Brković, “Isprave o Zadarskom miru” [Documents concerning the Zadar Peace Treaty]. On the other possessions of medieval Venice, Borsari, “Vene- ziani delle colonie,” 146-158. 5. The account follows Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 947-951; Cozzi, “Dominio da mar,” 195-201; Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 56-66; Tadić, “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico,” 697-704. 6. Karpov, Impero di Trebisonda; Karpov, Navigazione veneziana nel Mar nero. 7. The account follows Balard, “Lotta contro Genova,” 101-114; Krekić, “Dubrovnik and the War of Tenedos,” Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 524-544; Thiriet, “Venise et l’occupation de Ténedos.” 8. On the aftermath of the Chioggia War, Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 1:3-8; Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge, 181-349. 48 Urban Elites of Zadar

9. On the Ottoman Empire to the Battle of Ankara, Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 406- 425; Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 1-21; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 7-15; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1:28-40; and Werner, Geburt einer Großmacht, 116-179. A recent biblio- graphic guide is presented by Kreiser, Der Osmanische Staat. See also Goffman, Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. 10. Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 195-243. 11. On events in Albania the account follows Ducellier, Façade maritime de l’Albanie, 490-509; Schmitt, Venezianisches Albanien, 217-251. 12. Athens and Argos came under Venetian rule during the 1390s but were lost before the end of the century. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 948. 13. Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 499-509; Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 22-47; Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 16-24; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1: 28-40; Werner, Geburt einer Großmacht, 180-218. For a detailed discussion of Venice and the Ottoman advance follow Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 2:1-38. 14. Which already comprised Hungary, Croatia, and Poland. On his life and accom- plishments see Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 157-194; Engel, Kristó, and Kubinyi, Hongarie médievale, 2:57-95. 15. Louis’ daughter with Elizabeth of Bosnia, Mary, married Sigismund of Luxem- bourg, the later king of Bohemia and Hungary who became also Holy Roman Emperor. His main adversaries were the senior Angevins, Charles III of Naples († 1386) and his son Ladislaus, who continued his father’s claims to the crown of St Stephen. Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 195-243. 16. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 948-949; Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 234; Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 73-82; Novak, Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia] (2001), 129-131, 137-144. 17. These islands were Cres, Osor, and Rab. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 948; Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 81-82. 18. Also, Pylos was added in 1421, Thessaloniki in 1423, and the commune of Poljica in the vicinity of Omiš in 1443. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 948-949. 19. Venetian control of Thessaloniki (1423-1430) resulted in the first Ottoman-Vene- tian war and the loss of the city. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 948-949. Starting in 1389 with the conquest of Treviso, Venice quickly expanded throughout the Friulan plains and the Po Valley into Lombardy, subduing Brescia (1426) and Bergamo (1429), only c. 30 km outside Milan. Ravenna was added to Venice’s Terraferma possessions in 1441. See Rubin- stein, “Italian Reactions to Terraferma Expansion.” 20. The account follows Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 3-63; Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 499-611; Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 22-80; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 25-39; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1:12-40; Vatin, “Ascencion des Ottomans,” Werner, Geburt einer Großmacht, 219-304. 21. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 64-125. 22. In addition to Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, the account follows Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 295-297; Engel, Kristó, and Kubinyi, Hongarie médievale, 2:205-207; Runciman, Fall of Constantinople; Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 2:108-137. 23. Quoted after the German original by Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer, 106. The English translation uses different wording but likewise reads decisively: “Everywhere it was felt that a turning point in history had been reached.” Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 98. The Setting 49

24. Ibid., 116-128. In more detail Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 2:138-270. On the ensuing migratory movements from the eastern Mediterranean in general Ducellier et al., Chemins de l’exil. On the emigration of Greek scholars to Renaissance Italy, Geanakoplos, Byzantine Scholars in Venice; and Monfasani, Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy. 25. 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. On the Peloponnese, see Runciman, Lost Capital of Byzantium. On the Aegean islands; Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 61-64; and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1:55-70. 26. The account follows Schmitt, Skanderbeg, 243-290; and Schmitt, Venezianisches Albanien, 593-628. On the ensuing migratory movements across the Adriatic, see Balard, ed., Migrations et diasporas éditerranéennes, esp. the contributions by Doumerc and Gan- chou. See also Ducellier et al., Chemins de l’exil, 115-220; and Petta, Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia, 7-25. On the light Albanian cavalry, Petta, Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia. 27. On the afterlife of his fight, Petta, Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia, 27- 135; and Schmitt, Skanderbeg, 291-320. 28. As was Cervia, south of Ravenna, in the previous year. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 949. 29. Arbel, Cyprus, the Franks and Venice; Arbel, “Reign of Caterina Corner”; Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 1:61-63; Hill, History of Cyprus, 3:657-764; Richard, “Chypre du protectorat à la domination vénetienne.” 30. The temporary possessions were Naxos (1494-1500, 1511-1517) in the Aegean and the coastal towns of Brindisi, Gallipolli, Mola, Monopoli, Trani, and Otranto in Apulia (1495-1509, 1528-1530). Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 947- 949; Lock, Franks in the Ae- gean, 155-160; Loenertz, “De quelques îles grecque,”; Slot, Archipelagus turbatus, 35-87. 31. The account follows Gullino, “Frontiere navali,” 90-95. 32. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 949. 33. Not without considering a plea to the Porte for assistance. Gullino, “Frontiere navali,” 95-96. On the War of the League of Cambrai, Gilbert, “Crisis of the League of Cambrai.” On its aftermath see Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 2:5-18. 34. Braudel, The Mediterranean, 2:667-669. 35. Suleiman I acceded the Ottoman throne in 1520, conquered Belgrade (1521), besieged Rhodes (1522), and advanced towards Hungary whose armies were utterly defeated on the fields of Mohács, leaving behind the body of its young king, Louis II (1526). Shortly afterward Vienna withstood two sieges (1529, 1532) before Ottoman attention refocused on Venice. Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 115-151; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 42-53; Veinstein, “Süleymān.” For a summary of Christian-Ottoman relations, Preto, “Papacy, Venice and the Ottoman Empire.” 36. Venice was bound to Charles V by the Treaty of Naples (1535) to assist the Emper- or with 6,000 troops in the event of a disputed Milanese succession. The death of Francesco Maria Sforza drew Venice again into the fray of the larger French-Habsburg contest. 37. These were Aigina, Delos, and Mykonos, as well as the islands ruled by branches of the Corner, Querini, Premarin, Michiel, Pisani, and Venier families in the Aegean. In the Ionian Sea the islands of Paxos and Antipaxos were lost. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951. For a contemporary accounts of the fighting, see Francesco Longo’s “Descrizione della 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), “ambasciatore veneto presso il Turco intorno alla conclusione della pace.” Commissiones, 2:113-131, 136-144. 38. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951; Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 2:326-332. 39. Quoted after the “Relatione di Dalmatia, e Leuante” by Andrea Giustiniano, who provides a sense of the desolation from the Ionian Islands to Venice’s Albanian and Vene- tian possessions in 1576. Commissiones, 4:161-185, here 176. Zemunik, today home to Zadar’s airport and only 10 km away from the city centre, was lost to the Ottomans, and Nin had to be abandoned. For a contemporary account see the report by Zuanne da Lezze, “kavalier e procurator venuti di proveditor general di Dalmatia,” presented to the Council of Ten on 17 February 1570 m.v. Commissiones, 3:249-267. On the sixteenth-century border changes in Dalmatia, Panciera, “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia”; and Panciera, “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo.” 40. Venice had little interest in expanding her authority into the hinterlands of the western Balkans. Her prime objective was to keep her ports of call and sea routes safe. Raukar, “Društvene strukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Social Structures in Venetian Dalma- tia], 103. The first Ottoman incursions into the western Balkans and neighbouring Croatia occurred as early as 1415. Zadar’s jurisdiction was eventually reached by raiding parties in 1432. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 66-72; Traljić, “Zadar i turska pozadina” [Zadar and its Turkish Hinterland], 203-204. 41. Arbel suggests three phases of Venetian overseas possessions: expansion (1381-1463- 79), equilibrium (1479-1537), and the Ottomans gaining the upper hand (1540-1570), a trend further confirmed by the outcome of the Cyprus War. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951. 42. Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 23. 43. Cozzi and Knapton speak of “venezianizzazione” of the maritime state. Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 1:191. See also Arbel, ed., Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean; Jacoby, “Social Evolution in Latin Greece”; Jaco- by, “Colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète”; Jacoby, “Encounter of Two Societies”; Krekić, “Developed Autonomy,” 188, 199; and Raukar, “Croatia within Europe,” 19-26. 44. When a rebellion resulted in the assassination of the ruling Tocco family Venice assumed control. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951. 45. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 25-27; Slot, Archipelagus turbatus, 35-87. 46. Fine, Late medieval Balkans, 406-452. 47. As were the cities of Shkodër, Ulcinj, Bar, and Budva. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951. See further, Ducellier, Façade maritime de l’Albanie, 490-509; Schmitt, Venezia- nisches Albanien, 217-251; Valentini, “Amministrazione veneta in Albania,” 843-854; and Valentini, “Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania.” 48. E.g., Argos and Nafplio were bequeathed to Venice by their feudal lord who married a member of the Venetian Corner family. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 951. 49. Down from Ladislaus’ initial offer of 300,000 to 100,000 ducats. Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 79-80. As was the case not only in Zadar but also with many other cities and communities along the eastern coast of the Adriatic, leading O’Connell to comment that “[t]he Venetians wanted an Adriatic empire, but at the least possible cost.” On the communicative nature of entering Venice’s dominions, O’Connell, Men of Empire, 27-31 (quote on 31). The Setting 51

50. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 964. Interestingly, the same reference appears in O’Connell, Men of Empire, 5. Even though the wording does not appear verbatim in the referenced reports by Donato Barbari (Barbaro) and Giovanni Balbi, the portmanteau is useful. For the two reports, see Commissiones, 1:16, 2:53. 51. E.g., Kotor and Zadar asked for Venetian “protection” multiple times before being incorporated into her maritime state. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 952; Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 66-79; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 30; Praga, Storia di Dalma- zia, 133-135. 52. Venice did not automatically confirm all parts of preexisting legislation, especially for exemptions, privileges, and special rights obtained during the Hungarian suzerainty over Dalmatia (1358-1409). Examples include Drivast, Split, Šibenik, and Trogir. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 32-33. For the extensively documented example of Korčula, Orlando, Ac- cordi von Curzola, esp. 54-75. However, communication worked both ways, a point made recently by Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 93-100. 53. On the question of whether one can speak of a “chartered colonial enterprise” and (proto-) colonialism, Ashtor, “Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade”; Ferro, Coloniza- tion, 1-18; Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, 4-20. 54. Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 291-323; Knapton, “Tra dominante e dominio,” 465-524. For a general discussion see Fasano Guarini, “Center and Peri- phery,” 86. On Istria, Ivetić, Oltremare, 21-47; Viggiano, “Amministrazione veneziana in Istria.” On Dalmatia, Maštrović, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji [Development of the Judicial System in Dalmatia], 11-17. 55. The account follows Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 954-979; Knapton, “Fisco nello stato veneziano,” 23; and the commentary thereof by O’Connell, Men of Empire, 22-33. 56. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 959-964; Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 19- 33; Costantini, “Isole ionie nel sistema marittimo veneziano”; Ravegnani, “Conquista veneziana di Corfù”; Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge, 399-404. 57. Which coincided approximately with the use of the title rector or count (rector, rettore, conte) in Dalmatia and Pula, as opposed to the use of the title podestà or chief mag- istrate in “Italy” (in geographical terms), which then also comprised Istria. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 954; Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 302. 58. Chojnacki, “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice,” 268-269; Cozzi, “Au- thority and the Law in Renaissance Venice,” 325-327; Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 164- 178; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57-74; Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 51-112. 59. This problem, while endemic in the Mediterranean, was of particular graveness in the Aegean and Adriatic. Even though not all of the corsairs/pirates were Muslims, their presence was a threat to any merchant vessel. For a general discussion, Tenenti, “Corsari in Mediterraneo.” On the Uskoks of Senj, Bracewell, Uskoks of Senj; Fine, When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, 216-218; Rothenburg, “Venice and the Uskoks”; and the 2 vols. of Monumenta historiam Uscocchorum, eds. Horvat and Jelavić. 60. Lane, Venice, 368. 61. Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 73-74, 376-377, 447-451. 62. For the area of Zadar during the period under survey, Commissiones 2:113-131, 136-144, 146-148, 170-175, 182-186, 189-199; and Commissiones 3:1-41, 48-55, 55-57, 78-88, 99-104, 148-156, 158-160, 164-167, 249-267. 52 Urban Elites of Zadar

63. The major centres throughout the Stato da mar—Heraklion (Candia) and Souda in Crete, Corfu, and the Dalmatian cities of Šibenik and Zadar—were fortified during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For a general discussion, Georgopoulou, Venice’s Medi- terranen Colonies, 55-73; Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 430-447; and Manno, “Difese di Venezia.” On Corfu, Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 85-95. On the Venetian Adriatic, Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of the Croatian Adriatic], 29-71, 189-190; Žmegač, Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste”; and Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara.” 64. Which also included funding for ammunition, cisterns, powder, and various other supplies. To put this number in perspective: In spring of 1566, Giacomo Pisani, count of Zadar 1564-1566, reported that the city’s fiscal chamber “ha de intrade ogn’anno de datii, incanti, livelli sal da Pago, sopra abbondante da Cherso, 9,175 ducati et più et manco, quanto se incantano li datii.” Over the course of the ensuing three years, almost three times as much money, c. 27,000 ducats, was spent. Admittedly, 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. Commissiones, 3:165. On expenditures from 1566- 1569, Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara di Zara,” 63. 65. Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 158-159. 66. Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 456-458. 67. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 967-968. 68. Over the course of the sixteenth century, Venice, while still at least partially rely- ing on paid freemen, resorted increasingly to pressgang convicts or slaves for galley service. The conscription of able-bodied freemen (uomini da fatto), prone to desertion upon (partial) advance payment for their military service, was increasingly avoided after 1550. This gave rise to the widespread use of convict galleys. By the time of the Cyprus War, 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, most of which were operated with men from her overseas dominions, or convicts. Lane, Venice, 364-374. 69. Infelise, “News networks between Italy and Europe”; Jütte, Zeitalter des Geheim- nisses, 93-125. On Venice in particular, Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 969-970; De Vivo, Information and Communication in Venice, 18-156; Dursteler, “Venetian Postal System”; Preto, Servizi segreti di Venezia, 39-146. The most recent study on merchant correspondence and information networks is Christ, Trading Conflicts. 70. For a general discussion, Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 974-976; and Prodi, “Or- ganization of the Church in Renaissance Venice.” On Dalmatia more specifically, Šanjek, “Church and Christianity.” 71. Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge, 287-291, 403-410, 429-435. 72. E.g., Commissiones, 2:191 (Koper), 197 (Zadar), 204-205 (Šibenik), 208 (Trogir), 215 (Split), 227 (Ulcinj), 231 (Bar). See also Pederin, “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalma- tiens und ihre Organe,” 104-105. 73. E.g., the Council of Ten prohibited the obligatory proclamation of the results of the Council of Trent as mandated by Filippo Mocenigo, archbishop of Cyprus (in office 1560-1571). Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 976; Hill, History of Cyprus, 3:873. 74. Braudel, The Mediterranean, 1:370; Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 113; Ferro, Colonization, 52-53. The Setting 53

75. The account follows Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 976-979; Doumerc, “Dominio del mare”; Fasano Guarini, “Comment naviguaient les galères”; and Thiriet, Romanie véne- tienne au Moyen Âge, 303-349. On Venetian ship-building, Lane, Ships and Shipbuilders. 76. Among others, Cozzi, Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani, 191-192; Mueller, “Imperialismo monetario veneziano”; Stöckly, Système de l’Incanto; and Valentini, “Sta- bilmenti Veneti in Albania,” 242-244. 77. Usually, cogs were used in transport en route, as well as end-point delivery. Many privately owned vessels transported ordinary bulk goods like corn from the Black Sea markets, cotton and sugar from Cyprus, or wine from Crete. Occasionally, these vessels were rented on site to transport goods exceeding the cargo capacity of the galleys. Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 117-118. 78. For instance, once a vessel destined for the eastern Mediterranean left the lagoon, it spent more time in Venetian-owned ports than on open sea before reaching the harbour of Corfu. Fasano Guarini, “Comment naviguaient les galères,” 295-296. 79. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 977; Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 71; Lane, Venice, 367-374; Tenenti, Christoforo de Canal, 76; Tucci, “Pratique vénetienne de la navigation,” 72-86. 80. Demonstrated for instance by the fact that Venetian revenues from the monopolised salt trade out of Cyprus amounted to almost 160,000 ducats in 1521-22 alone. As regards the Adriatic during the sixteenth century, Dalmatian salt was also sold to Ottoman subjects living in the hinterlands who, in turn, sold their produce or livestock to the city dwellers. Consequently, some profits of the salt works were shared with the Ottoman officials across the borders, at least during peacetime. Hocquet,Le sel et la fortune de Venise, 1:318-321, 2:387. For a contemporary reference see Commissiones, 2:205-206. 81. As early as 1413, for instance, Nafplio’s excess revenues were transferred to Crete, a policy still in place a century-and-a-half later. E.g., revenues from Cres and Osor were transferred to Zadar in 1553. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 978. Commissiones, 2:197. 82. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 978-979; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 27-31. 83. See Wallerstein, Modern World-System, 1:15-17 (quote on 16); O’Connell, Men of Empire, 31. This holds especially true for the enormous sums invested in citadels, earth works, and other fortifications. See also notes 63 and 64, above. 84. In today’s terminology this construct can be labelled a “holding.” During the fifteenth century it was known as fraterna. It describes an economic unit based on kinship ties comprising at least two brothers who were equal legal partners, even without pre-established notarial paperwork. Consequently, this construction enabled individual wealthy families to acquire a majority of the available cargo volumes, eventually concentrating much of Venice’s economic power in the hands of a limited number of patrician families. Chojnacki, “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians,” 246; Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 151- 154; Lane, “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures.” 85. Davis, Shipbuilders of the Venetian Arsenal; Lane, Venice, 336-389; Lane, Ships and Shipbuilders. 86. Or, as Tucci succinctly put it, “[the] personal interests of the merchant no longer coincided with the public good.” Tucci, Mercanti, navi e monete, 58. 87. Among the most important factors were the expansion of government, the accompanying social and political changes, the geographical location of Venice proper, situated disadvantageously in the Adriatic while the Atlantic trade routes took shape, and the rise of 54 Urban Elites of Zadar direct competition by Dutch, English, French, and merchants from Dubrovnik. Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 178. On societal and political changes, Chojnacki, “Identity and Ide- ology in Renaissance Venice”; Finlay, Politics in Renaissance Venice, 203-204; Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, 167-172; Murano, “La festa Veneziana e le sue manifestazioni”; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57-74; and Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 51-112. 88. See De Benvenuti, Storia di Zara, 23-44 (written from a triumphalist Italian point of view); Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 79-82; and O’Connell, Men of Empire, 27-30. 89. The account follows Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 961-963; Cozzi, “Politica del diritto,” 250-261; Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 66-78; and Pederin, “Handelssystem und Handelspolitik in Dalmatien,” 100-103. On Venetian concepts of space and the maritime dimension, Tenenti, “Senso del mare”; and Tenenti, “Sense of Space and Time.” 90. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 29-30. 91. Bin, Questione Adriatica, 13-31; Cozzi, “Dominio da mar,” 198; Seneca, “Pe- netrazione veneziana in Dalmazia”; Tadić, “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico”; Šunjić, Dalmacija u XV stoljeću [Dalmatia in the 15th Century]. 92. For an account of a voyage from Venice to Istanbul, written by Giuseppe Rosaccio around 1600, Pavić, “Plovidbene rute srednjim i južnim Jadranom” [Navigational Routes on the Middle and Southern Adriatic]. 93. Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 23. See also Raukar, “Društvene srukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji [Social Structures in Venetian Dalmatia], 103. 94. The first Ottoman incursions into the Kingdom of Croatia occurred in 1415. Rau- kar, “Croatia within Europe,” 28. 95. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 66- 72; Traljić, “Zadar i turska pozadina,” 203-204. 96. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 199-206. 97. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24-25. 98. Commissiones, 2:170. 99. Much Venetian money went into fortifications and watch posts to counter piracy, Ottoman corsairs, and the Sultan’s raiding parties. By the conclusion of the Cyprus War, however, most of the recently fortified places had been lost to the Ottomans. Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 329; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 25-26; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 178; Stanojević, Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačko-turskim ratovima [The South Slavic Lands during the Venetian- Ottoman Wars], 11-51; Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 178-187, 189-190. 100. Most of which were constructed 1360-1460 by the Hungarians to provide a fortified border zone in the western Balkans. The fighting over control of these places was one part of the larger Ottoman-Venetian conflict. Raukar et al.,Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 178, 218-220. 101. In the war from 1499 to 1503, the Ottomans conquered Makarska and raided the coastal areas on the mainland in the Kvarner Gulf. In the subsequent war from 1537 to 1540, Klis, Nadin, Vrana, and other parts of Croatia were annexed by the Ottoman Empire. As the Cyprus War came to a close in 1573, even Zemunik, barely 10 km away from the city walls of Zadar, was lost too. In Venetian Albania, the Ottomans took over the far side of the Bay of Kotor, effectively strangling the Venetian cities of Kotor and Ulcinj. Knapton, The Setting 55

“Stato da mar,” 329; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 25-26, Novak, Prošlost Dalmacije (2004), 1:168-169. 102. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 218-220. 103. The account follows Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 330; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 26-27; Panciera, “Frontiera Soranzo- Ferhat in Dalmazia”; Panciera, “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”; Traljić, “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji,” 451-453; and Traljić, “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini” [Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in Zadar’s Borderlands], 409-419. 104. Panciera, “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia,” 246-262. 105. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 27. 106. Commissiones, 1:196. 107. The destruction and depopulation of the fertile hinterlands was also noted by Zuan Moro, captain of Zadar 1523-1524, who ascribed it to the Ottoman takeover of the fortified places of Oštrovica (1523), Karin (1524), and Obrovac (1527). Consequently, the villages located nearby these places had to be abandoned for security reasons. Commissio- nes, 1:171; Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 960-962; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 101. 108. Those who remained continued to farm, causing almost incessant friction with the inhabitants across the borders, leading to raids by Ottoman subjects on Venetian territory. This in turn caused retaliatory attacks by Venetian subjects and vice versa. The Uskoks who continuously harassed the Ottoman subjects, thus further compounding the problematic situation, presented another problem. This resulted, as Mayhew notes, 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 5.000 soldiers, incursions were not considered a casus belli either. Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 331; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 27-28; Traljić, “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini,” 412-418. 109. On 27 March 1586, Gianbattista Michiel, former count of Zadar, reported that in some cases the border ran only some 3/4 of a mile from Sukošan (Porto d’Oro, San Cas- siano), located c. 10 km away from Zadar. Commissiones, 4:370-378. 110. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 27. 111. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 367; Anzulović, “Razgraničenje između mletačke i turske vlasti” [Border Demarcations between the Venetian and Ottoman Governments], 101. 112. Giovanni Battista Giustiniano wrote that wine was sold “ai ferestieri in buona quantità.” He also noted that much potential for export-oriented olive oil production existed in the vicinity of Zadar—but also that the olive trees, cut down during the Ottoman- Venetian war of 1537-1540, had not been replanted. Consequently, “non si fa più oglio, ma si servono di Puglia,” allegedly depriving the fiscal chamber of Zadar of 25,000 ducats per year. Commissiones, 2:199. 113. This related to both the settled inhabitants of the western Balkans and the transhumance peoples, socalled Morlachs and Vlachs, which, according to Marc’Antonio da Mula, count of Zadar 1540-1543, were supposed to be relocated to Istria or the islands off the coast. Commissiones, 2:172-173. See also, Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 28. 114. Especially so after the Cyprus War. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 28-29. 115. Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 335-336, 344; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 29. 56 Urban Elites of Zadar

116. E.g, Corfu was relatively wealthy thanks to a combination of its advantageous geographical location as well as its rich agricultural produce (mostly olives and raisins). Also, the salt-producing communities in the Kvarner Gulf, Pag, and Trogir generated sur- pluses used to help pay for the fortifications of Bar, Kotor, Split, Šibenik, and Zadar, whose balance sheets were negative. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 960; Bacchion, Dominio vene- to su Corfu, 53-54; Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 108-111; and the report by Venetian syndics Leonardo Venier and Hieronymo Contarini from 1525 in Commissiones, 2:9-34 (on Zadar specifically, 11-13). 117. Commissiones, 3:17. 118. Prior to the war, the jurisdiction was larger, more populous, and comprised 280 minor villages. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 960; Pederin, “Handelssystem und Handel- spolitik in Dalmatien,” 96-101; Pederin, “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe,” 117-118. The numbers are from Giovanni Battista Giustiniano’s report (1553) in Commissiones, 2:199. See also Zaccaria Vallaresso’s report (1527) in Commissiones, 1:203-223. 119. On the 1570s and later Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 91-140; however, the islands are not discussed in her study. 120. The account follows Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 92-96. On transhumance, mostly by Morlachs and Vlachs, Ibid., 185-226. 121. Consequently, many toponyms reflect these geophysical conditions on the ground as, for instance, Nadinski Blato, Vransko jezero, Bokanjačko Blato. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 92-93. 122. Šarić, “Lika and Krbava Ecosystems,” 248. 123. Their importance was also noted by Venetian syndics Leonardo Venier and Hieronymus Contarini (albeit with reference to the mills on the Neretva near Skradin). Commissiones, 2:13. The agriculturally productive regions with their fertile soil are located around Karin, Nin, Novigrad, and Posedarje. The area of Ravni kotari, as Mayhew points out, attractive to immigrants since Antiquity, was reestablished as a rich agriculturally productive region during the twentieth century—with the war in former Yugo- slavia in the 1990s having the same effect as wars in previous centuries. Archeological evidence suggests that many places in the area were inhabited even before the Roman era. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 94-96; Suić, Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu [The Ancient Town on the Eastern Adriatic Coast], 95; Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in Antiquity], 18, 95. 124. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 97-98; Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku, 38-39, 62-65. 125. Goldstein, “Županije u ranom srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj” [Croatia’s Counties in the early Middle Ages], 16-17; Novak, Prošlost Dalmacije (2004), 1:93-94; Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku, 54. On agricultural production (mostly grains, grapes, and livestock farming) after 1409, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 49. 126. A second cadastre, though only for the district of Nin, was drawn up in 1609. However, the border revisions of the 1570s and the Ottoman refusal to return parts of the lands (as stipulated in the peace treaty), forced the second cadastre, drawn up in 1609, to take these new realities into account. Antoljak, “Zadarski katastik stoljeća” [Zadar’s 15th-Century Cadastre], 391; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 126-127; Slukan Altić, “Povijest mletačkog katastra Dalmacije” [History of the Venetian Cadastre in Dalmatia], 175-176. The Setting 57

127. After 1468, these raids had become a part of everyday life along the Ottoman- Venetian borders in Dalmatia. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 67-70. See also Anzulović, “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva” [On the Survival of the Croat People], 270. 128. In the wake of the Ottoman advances throughout the 1520s, entire villages were abandoned. This development reached a climax in the early seventeenth century. Knap- ton, “Stato da mar,” 356-357; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 101; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 186-187. 129. Some local nobles like the Pechiaro (Pekarić) in Poličnik or the Venier in Zemu- nik built fortified positions and towers on their own property, partially encouraged by the Venetian government. Given the necessity to protect the hinterlands, some towns adopted a military frontier-style appearance, even though the systematisation of this approach to defending the border areas occurred predominantly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Anzulović, “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva,” 271, 305; Jakšić, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi [Croatian Medieval Landscapes], 202-203; Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 332-335; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 102-103; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 235, 372. 130. Those who remained under Venetian rule stayed in their villages if they could be defended. Examples include Ljubač, Posedarje, and Radovin. In the case of Ražanac, the inhabitants moved their village to a more defensible location nearby. Anzulović, “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva,” 297, Jakšić, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi, 206-207; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 367. 131. Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-40; Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvat- ske, 189-190. 132. Post-1576 safe havens included Preko on the island of Ugljan, the fortress on the neighbouring island of Pag, and the islet of Vir. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 105-110. On events prior to the Cretan War (1645-1669), Ibid., 111-140; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 379-380. On real estate prices in the 15th century see Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 151-196. See also Chapter 4. 133. Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 217-318; Knapton, “Tra dominante e dominio,” 465-524. See also Fasano Guarini, “Center and Periphery,” 86. On Istria, Ivetić, Oltremare, 21-47; and Viggiano, “Amministrazione veneziana in Istria.” On Dalma- tia, Maštrović, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji, 11-17. 134. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 142. See also Goldstein, “Županije u ranom srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj,” 14-15. 135. Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 14; Novak-Sambrailo, “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna.” 136. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 64. 137. However, the authority and roles of these nobles differed from the urban nobility of the coastal communities. Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 83-88, 119-122, 174-181. 138. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 143. 139. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 29-30. 140. Which also contained the most fertile lands close to the city proper—and a constant source of revenue for the fiscal chamber. Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku, 95. 141. The account follows Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 146-150. 142. Ibid., 146. 58 Urban Elites of Zadar

143. For the former, the English translation “territory” has been chosen. It should be noted that the term territory bore only spatial properties without any additional administrative, legal, or political consequences. Ibid., 146. As regards the minor districts, these appear as dictio or districtus throughout the sources and for which the English translation has been chosen for this study. 144. This statement must be treated with utmost caution as Dalmatia’s cities, from Antiquity to the Habsburg takeover in the early nineteenth century “in reality never constituted a unit […], nor were they territorially connected.” Starting with reciprocal guarantees of assistance in the event of armed conflict, Venice gradually bound together the various cities along the Adriatic’s eastern coast. Quoted after Krekić, “Developed Autonomy,” 185. See also Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 17. 145. The account follows Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 971-974; Cozzi, “Politica del diritto,” 241-254; Krekić, “Developed Autonomy”; Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 113-116; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 150-156; Maštrović, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji, 11- 17; Novak-Sambrailo, “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna”; Ortalli, “Entrar nel dominio,” 52- 54; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 17; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 27- 33; and Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 90-100. 146. First mentioned in 1574, the Provveditore was assisted by his own chancellery, which was tasked with the supervision of the entire dual province and, ultimately, responsible for the upholding of the Venetian rule. It was however only after the Cyprus War that the office was transformed and its office-holder made a permanent resident in Zadar. Knap- ton, “Stato da mar,” 328; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 150-156. 147. Captains or castellans were in command of the military dispatched to guard Ven- ice’s overseas possessions. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 964-970. See also O’Connell et al., Rulers of Venice, accessed 5 June 2012, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.90021.0001.001. 148. Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 303. On the necessity of these offices for poorer Venetian patricians, Cozzi, “Authority and the Law,” 325-327; Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 167-168; Chojnacki, “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice”; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57- 74; and Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 51-112. 149. Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 42. 150. Arbel noted that the same individual exercised both offices in Zadar; however, this was clearly not the case as revealed by a cross-check of the dispatches with notarial acts. In late November of 1553, a notarial act writes of “Praeture[que] Magnifici et celeberrimi domini] Francisci Nani comitis Jadre,” at the same time as Giovanni Battista Gius- tiniano refers to “Hieronymi Delphini” as Zadar’s captain. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797); 1279-1797: Daniel Cavalca busta I, fascicle 1, book 1, c.32r, 7 November 1553; hence busta, fascicle, and book are omitted. See also Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 972; Commissiones, 2:198. See also Girolamo Dolfin’s report in Commissiones, 3:78-88. 151. The office was, in principle, comparable to the one of the count, similarly including a tour of duty of around two years and was reserved for Venetian patricians only. In other Dalmatian cities, such a separation of power did not exist. Malz, “Dalmatinis- che Städtewelt,” 115; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 14, 51, 61, 105-106; Peričić, Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of the Fall of the Venetian Republic], 34-39; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 45. The Setting 59

152. Gastald, approximately translated as “administrative ward” describes the office of a paid official with administrative, civil, or military functions in the exercising of sovereignty “che ha cura ai negozii e alle possessioni altrui.” In Venice, the office-holders were originally chosen by the Doge and tasked with executing the ducal orders. In the present context, their office may be described as a type of “chief-of-staff.” Boerio, Dizionario del dialetto veneziano, 301. See also, Ref. 32: “De gastaldione et praeconibus domini comitis et eorum salario.” Statuta Iadertina, 541. 153. See Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 156-164. Mayhew states that “the count was just an extension of the Venetian government in the province with very little possibilities to act alone” (Ibid., 158) and, more often than not, was “just implementing orders given from the Venetian Senate and very often acted in accordance with the governor general” (Ibid., 158-159). 154. Krekić, “Developed Autonomy,” 188-192; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 301-306. 155. Especially given the city’s seven prior rebellions against Venice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 163; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 402. For a sixteenth-century reference of Zadar’s prior rebellions against Venetian rule, Commissiones, 2:193-194. 156. On the petitions of Dalmatian cities to Venice after 1409, most recently O’Connell, Men of Empire, 97-118; and Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 78-82. 157. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 44-45. 158. The councilors had to be at least twenty years of age and were sworn in at the beginning of their term in office. Commissiones, 2:197: Ref. 10: “De Consilio Iadrensi”; Ref. 11: “De iuramento consiliarorum”; Ref. 154: “Quod consiliarii debeant scire legere et scribere”; Ref. 155: “Quod consiliarii debeant venire ad Consilium sub poena 40 solidorum quilibet vice.” Statuta Iadertina, 526-528, 666-670. 159. Ref. 80: “De potestate et arbitrio domini comitis in maleficiis.”Statuta Iadertina, 576. 160. Commissiones, 2:197. See also Krekić, “Developed Autonomy,” 196-197; Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 114-115; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 369; and Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 90-100. 161. Lib. II, tit. I, cap. 8: “De causarum seu litigiorum forensium personarum expe- ditione”; cap. 9: “De universali domini comitis et eius Curiae iurisdictione”; cap. 10: “De speciali Curiae domini comitis seu Maioris Curiae recognitione.” Statuta Iadertina, 132. 162. Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 307. 163. Ref. 81: “A sententia criminali non potest appellari lata per dominum comitem, a civili potest infra decem dies, ab interlocutoria non”; Ref 97: “De appellationibus.” Statuta Iadertina, 576, 586. See also, Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 307. If an appeal was rejected, however, one could not re-appeal the same case. Ref. 82: “Qui semel appellavit et determinatum est, non possit amplius appellare.” Statuta Iadertina, 576. 164. Cozzi, “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto,” 308; Cozzi, “Dominio da Mar,” 199. 165. Such authority over these craft guilds, which originated in the Middle Ages, allowed Venice to better control them. The first Dalmatian guild was Zadar’s cobbler guild. Klaić, “Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra.” 166. Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 15. 60 Urban Elites of Zadar

167. Novak-Sambrailo, “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna,” 125. 168. The account follows Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 164-183. 169. But it did come with a number of restrictions; for example, the judge must be at least 40 years old. Ref. 137: “Forma privilegiorum ligarum comitatus Iadrae”; Ref. 153: “De aetate iudicum villarum.” Statuta Iadertina, 626-632, 664-666. 170. Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 21; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 49. 171. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 229-230. 172. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 228-229. On the Venetian impact on Dalmatian agriculture, see Peričić, “Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa” [Contribution to the Knowledge of Agricultural Relations], 138. 173. See Giorgetti, Contadini e proprietari nell’Italia moderna, 138-199. 174. See Lib. III, tit. XVI: “De locatione et conductione omnium rerum stabilium, mobilium et se moventium et operarum omnium personarum,” containing 19 chapters. See also, 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. 175. Usually, a quarter of the harvest was the landlord’s. Lib. III, tit. XVI, cap. 72: “Quomodo, quousque et quibus expensis laborator vineae tenetur in uvis vel in vino partem domino assignare.” Statuta Iadertina, 318. 176. Exceptions to the stipulated obligations included death, illness (plague), military service, and Ottoman incursions. See Lib. III, tit. XVI, cap. 68: “Qualiter laborator qui vineam conduxit sive ad partem sive ad medietatem, tenetur eam colere; et de poena si cessabit laborare, nisi interveniente iusta causa”; cap. 69: “Quae sunt causae propter quas excusatur laborator, si non laboravit vineam ut convenit.” Statuta Iadertina, 314-316. Also, three days prior to the harvest the landlord had to be notified. Lib. III, tit. XVI, cap. 73: “Quod quicumque laboraverit seu fecerit laborari alienas vineas domino denuntiare tenetur antequam vindimiet per tres dies.” Ibid., 318. 177. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 230-231. 178. Typically including small livestock like piglets, chicken, roosters, or young lambs, which had to be consigned at Christmas, prior to Lent (carnis privum), Easter, or any other date as specified in the contract. Mayhew,Contado di Zara, 231; Peričić, “Prilog poznavanju agranih odnosa,” 153. 179. Lib. III, tit. XVII, cap. 85: “Quomodo rusticus emphiteota volens vendere iura sua tenetur denuntiare domino, et quae forma observari.” Statuta Iadertina, 328. On changes after the Cyprus War, Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 232-249. 180. Dalmatian merchants were allowed to fly the pennant of St Mark but the Senate refused to grant them equal civil status as Venetians. Zadar’s citizens were granted Venetian citizenship only de intus. Cozzi, “Dominio da Mar,” 201; Mueller, “Aspects of Venetian Sovereignty,” 47-48; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 28. 181. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 75-80. 182. For a general discussion, Hocquet, Venise et la mer, 51-55. For details on the salt trade, Hocquet, Le sel et la fortune de Venise, 1:83-88. On Zadar’s salt production in particular, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 85-88; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 214-219, 281-297; and Raukar, “Zadarska trgovina solju” [Zadar’s Salt Trade]. The Setting 61

183. E.g., Pag’s salt production declined by c. 90% over the fifteenth century. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 85-88; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 281-297. 184. Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 365, 368; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 246-262. 185. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 186. 186. Everyone could apprehend a thief and deliver him or her to the Venetian authorities in Zadar. See Lib. II, tit. II, cap. 15: “Qualiter conceditur publicorum malefactorum detentio.” Statuta Iadertina, 136. 187. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 356-359; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 256. 188. Kaiser, ed., Le commerce des captifs. 189. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 256-266.

2. Zadar’s Society: Geographical Distribution and Social and Occupational Fault Lines

1. Zadar as Communication Centre

Over the half-century following the peace of Zadar (1358), Dalmatia’s coastal communities and their jurisdictions were integrated into the larger economic and political framework of the domains of Louis I of Hungary.1 Louis’s rule encouraged business with Florentine bankers and merchants, resulting in increased trans-Adriatic commerce and investment.2 Given Dalmatia’s advantageous geographic location between Florence and Hun- gary, nobles and commoners alike invested in real estate and trade. Italian merchants and financiers cooperated with local businesses in salt production, trade, and the brisk transfer of raw materials.3 By the beginning of the fifteenth century Zadar had gained prominence through its salt production and textile trade. Its economy was rivaled only by Dubrovnik.4 In accordance with local practices and for security reasons parts of the profits were invested in real estate.5 The decades following Louis’s death in 1382 were marked by succession conflicts, contributing to the weakness of the Hungarian-Croatian realm, first felt at its periphery. 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.6 Eager to regain control over the important coastal cities along the eastern Adriatic, the respublica incorporated the communes into her more centralised system of government. A continuous slowdown in economic activities occurred during the period leading up to the first long Ottoman-Venetian war (1463-1479). Ve- nice’s attempt to enforce her staple rights from 1422 onward set the stage for this.7 The other main cause of the economic downturn was external. 64 Urban Elites of Zadar

Ever since the armies of Mehmed II had stormed the ramparts of Constan- tinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire had continued its seemingly inexorable westward expansion. As a consequence of the sustained pressure on the Balkans, agricultural production of the coastal hinterlands declined in lockstep with the trans-Adriatic maritime trade. Thus, due to both external and internal factors, Dalmatia had become economically insignificant by the turn of the sixteenth century.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.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.”10 This presents possibilities for focusing less on traditional indicators of socioeconomic change and more on local, regional, and supra-regional inter-connectedness.11 That is to say, connections between an urban centre and its jurisdiction (local), interactions among a group of neighbouring cities (regional), and networks of regions within the emerging European world-economy (supra-regional).12 At the local level, the number of its inhabitants and the size of its jurisdiction determined a city’s economic importance. In the fourteenth century Zadar proper encompassed around 28 hectares. The adjacent suburban settlement extended over roughly 18 hectares.13 In the subsequent two centuries continuous immigration, originating in the hinterlands of the western Bal- kans, contributed significantly to the population growth of Dalmatia’s coastal cities and necessitated enlargement of the suburbs.14 This tendency was initially reinforced by Ottoman expansion into the western Balkans, causing additional incentives to flee to the more secure coastal areas or beyond the sea. Over time, the continuous influx of newcomers from the Bosnian and Croatian hinterlands markedly altered the social fabric along both shores of the Adriatic. 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.15 Continuous integration of immigrants into Dalmatia’s communes and their jurisdictions resulted in cities with a more agrarian character.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. The Cyprus War, in particular, altered the situation drastically as most of Venice’s possessions along the eastern coast of the Adriatic were reduced to small strips of land. Zadar’s Society 65

In this period Venetian officials wrote about abandoned villages, banditry, pestilence, and the Ottoman threat as major factors responsible for the continued depopulation of vast stretches of coastal hinterland.17 As a consequence of these conditions Dalmatia’s cities remained relatively small and static during the late medieval and early modern period, especially compared to wider European trends.18 Zadar’s fortunes followed this trend. According to the detailed report by Zaccaria Vallaresso from 1527, around 8,000 people lived within the city walls and the suburban settlements. Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland comprised roughly 9,000 inhabitants and the islands were home to some 7,000 people.19 The war from 1537 to 1540 and the ensuing territorial losses exacerbated this already problematic situation, rendering the inhabitants of Zadar’s jurisdiction unable to remain agriculturally self-sufficient from the 1530s onward.20 As the sixteenth century came to a close the urban population had dropped to some 5,200 people and to around 9,200 on the islands, mostly concentrated on Pašman and Ugljan, across from the city proper.21 Those who still migrated toward the coastal areas continued to alter demographic and economic patterns. 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.23 The urban populations, therefore, became increasingly dependent on imported foodstuffs, further straining the little surplus capital available.24 Most of these developments were exogenous, but significant changes occurred within the Republic of St Mark. To secure her position in the long term, Venice began the construction of new fortifications and the expansion of existing ones at the beginning of the sixteenth century.25 Zadar’s medieval castle was located in the southern part of the city to facilitate naval support or evacuation in an emergency.26 As the fifteenth century gave way to the sixteenth, advances in military technology and weaponry necessitated renewed investment. Renowned architect Michele Sanmicheli, who oversaw the fortification efforts on the northeastern defenses guarding the harbour, started the first new projects in Zadar in 1537.27 (These works are still clearly visible within Zadar’s urban landscape today). Associated demographic shifts, such as the influx of military personnel and artisans (carpenters, masons, stonecutters, etc.), are less well documented. A third wave of fortification efforts was precipitated by the outbreak of the Cyprus War, leading to the razing of the suburban settlements to enable the construction of new, gigantic defensive structures under the supervision of Sforza Pallavicino.28 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. 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. Consequently, the previously interconnected coastal areas and hinterlands of the western Balkans became fragmented.29 During the Angevin dominion (1358-1409) central Dalmatia, owing to its advantageous location between Hungary and the southern parts of Italy, functioned as the hub for commercial and financial transactions. Certainly exchange—mercantile or otherwise—between the coastal areas and their hinterlands continued after the beginning of the second Venetian dominion,30 but on a considerably smaller scale.31 Shortly after 1409 Venice amended Zadar’s statutes to enforce the former’s staple rights, only to repeal the legislation not long afterward. However, when it was reinstated about a century later (in 1519), Venetian prerogatives were extended and (theoretically) covered the entire Stato da mar.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.34 When Venice followed Daniel Rodriga’s suggestions and sought to enlarge Split’s role as a free harbour after the Cyprus War, commodity flows were redirected again.35 Venetian policy, though a considerable constraint on economic development in Adriatic commerce after 1409, never stopped commercial exchange between the coastal communities within and without the borders of the Stato da mar.36 Qualitative analysis of customs receipts (contralittere) has demonstrated the extent of these interactions.37 This proven approach notwithstanding, export licenses describe the economic connections between only certain places. If we are to further understanding of the “remarkable geographical mobility”38 so characteristic of Venetian society, more inclusive sets of data must be examined.

3. Procuratorial Networking

To gain a more nuanced picture of Zadar’s urban elites it is necessary to investigate their economic, geographical, and social character. The incentives for and ranges of interconnectedness in the early modern Adriatic can Zadar’s Society 67 be quantitatively discerned in two forms of documentation: export licenses and procuratorial appointments (procurae).39 Analysis of the export licenses is convenient because they are accessible and enable us to reconstruct the documented elements of certain economic activities. But their limited scope renders them methodically problematic.40 Procuratorial appointments, on the other hand, are more inclusive in terms of information about the contracting parties’ economic and social demographics, geographical provenance and destinations, and reasons for drawing up the contract. The following analysis is based on 930 individual procuratorial contracts, written between 1540 and 1569. The analysis is designed to further understanding of the mechanisms of communication between the local Dalmatian elites, foreign dignitaries, and the rest of the populace.41 While the acts are not an ideal source, the appointments they contain enable a more inclusive approach to early modern mobility in terms of the economic, educational, geographical, occupational, and social diversity of the contracting parties. In this sense they are eminently suited for analysis of communication activities across a spectrum of social groups. Individuals, groups, and institutions bestowed legal powers upon their agents via formal contractual obligations drawn up by a notary. Between standardised formulas at the beginning and end, the contracts contain information about the social and geographical provenance of both stipulating parties. In addition, around three-fourths of the procuratorial appointments include descriptions of the assigned duties.42 When combined, these clues allow for the reconstruction of mechanisms of early modern communication within the Stato da mar and its Adriatic components in particular. They reveal certain commonwealth-like characteristics,43 given the adherence of Dal- matia’s cities to common economic, legal, monetary, and social structures.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 1569.45 In addition to possibilities for quantitative analysis, their abundance and uniformity enable the reconstruction and description of communication means in more intimate ways.46 Qualitative analysis of the procuratorial assignments reveals the following three categories of individual contractual obligations: economic, legal, and social. Any task referring to business, commercial, or mercantile endeavours is considered an economic assignment. These include orders to buy, rent, or sell goods or property, and mandates to collect or invest money somewhere outside of Zadar and its jurisdiction. Involvement in 68 Urban Elites of Zadar judicial processes or legal proceedings (e.g., the execution of a testament, representation in a court of law, or the appointment of a lawyer) denotes a legal field of activity. Finally, since many assignments concern a variety of issues occurring outside of Venice’s maritime state, certain social characteristics complete the analytical framework. It must be stressed, however, 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, legal, and social intents of the contracting parties cannot be definitively distinguished. Another advantage of these documents is that they allow the reconstruction of the essential communication networks underlying such assignments.47 According to the model proposed by Arié Malz, these networks can be assessed on three levels: local, regional, and supra-regional.48 As summarised above, local describes activities occurring within Zadar’s jurisdiction, i.e. the city proper, the minor subject districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana, and the islands and mainland territories. Regional denotes activities within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. Supra-regional relates to connections within the wider Mediterranean (see also Table 2, below). 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 1570.49 The average number of procuratorial acts stipulated per decade was 310. Women ordered a quarter of these.50 Despite these

Table 1: Procuratorial Contracts (Overview, 1540-1569)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc ♀ Constituentsd ♀ Procuratorse 1540s 225 24 225 51 5 1550s 330 36 329 83 6 1560s 375 40 347 102 9 930 100 901 236 20

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of procuratorial acts. (b) Relative percentage per decade. (c) Number per decade of instruments stipulated in Latin (as opposed to Venetian). (d) Number per decade of female constituents. (e) Number per decade of female procurators. Zadar’s Society 69

Table 2: Geographical Origins of the Contracting Parties (Overview, 1540-1569)

1540s 1540s 1550s 1550s 1560s 1560s Local Provenancea 177 145 257 198 310 191 Regional Provenanceb 16 33 24 38 18 51 Supra-Regional Provenancec 7 8 9 15 5 21 Venice, Terrafermad 4 16 15 42 9 63 Rest, n/ae 21 23 25 37 33 49

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Shaded columns indicate constituent parties. Toponyms below are listed with their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). (a) Number per decade of local contracting parties from within Zadar’s jurisdiction. (b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. In Venetian Albania: Bar (Antibari), Kotor (Catharo), and Perast (Perasto). In Venetian Dalmatia: Brač (Brachia, Brazza), Cres (Cherso), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Korčula (Chorzula, Corcira), Krk (Vegla), Omiš (Almissa), Osor (Aussero), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe), Selce (Selza), Split (Spalato), Šibenik (Sibenico, Sibinico), Trogir (Tragurij), Novi Vinod- olski (Vinodol), and Vis (Lissa). (c) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties, excluding Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions. In Istria: Buje (Buie), Buzet (Bussetto, Pinguenti), Koper (Jus- tinopolis), Labin (Albona), Loborika (Loborica), Motovun (Motouinschina), Poreč (Paren- tio), Pula (Pola), Serbar, Sv Lovreč (Sancti Lourec), and Višnjan (Visunato). In Ionian Sea: Corfu, Kefalonia (Cephalonia), Nafplio (Nauplia), and Zakynthos (Hiacynthi, Zante). In Apennine peninsula: Ancona, Alta Badia (alla Badia), Bari, Bologna, Castel Sant’Angelo, Ferrara, Genoa, Vasto (Guasto), Manfredonia, the Marche region, Milan, Parma, Pescara, Pisauro, Pontremoli, Rimini, Rivellino, Rome, Tarvisio, and Vicenza. (d) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties from territories under Venetian suzerainty. Venice proper and the following locations in the Terraferma: Bergamo, Chiog- gia, Cividale del Friuli, Crema, Murano, San Grande del Friuli, Trecenta, and Udine. (e) Number per decade of contracting parties from unidentifiable, unlisted, infrequently- listed (e.g. Rijeka), or non-specific locations (e.g., Croatia, Crete [Candia], and Cyprus). numbers, only a meagre two percent of the procuratorial appointees were female (Table 1, above). As Table 2 indicates, four out of five contracting parties originated in Zadar’s jurisdiction. Since this territorial entity included several subdivisions, it is worth taking a closer look at the origins of these individuals, institutions, and groups from an administrative-judicial perspective. As Table 2.1, below, demonstrates, the number of constituent parties residing within the city walls of Zadar increased by more than 10% from the 1540s to the 1560s. Since the procuratorial records initiated at the request of in- 70 Urban Elites of Zadar dividuals outside the fortified city centre declined correspondingly, this phenomenon can be explained by increasing depopulation and insecurity. It is likely that this trend continued well past the conclusion of hostilities in 1573. There are two reasons for this. First, the Ottoman gains during the conflict, affirmed by the border revisions in its aftermath, were significant. These gains included Cyprus (the immediate cause of the war) and large swaths of territory formerly subject to Zadar’s jurisdiction.51 Second, the city’s suburban settlements were razed in 1570 to allow construction of additional massive fortifications. This further reduced the number of individuals residing outside Zadar’s city walls (Table 2.1).52

Table 2.1: Origins of the Constituents within Zadar’s Jurisdiction (1540-1569)

No. of Zadarb Territoryc Jurisdictiond Nine Novigradf Islandsg Actsa 1540s 225 135 5 6 14 4 13 1550s 330 229 1 11 13 1 2 1560s 375 268 2 14 11 10 5 930 632 8 31 38 15 20

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. For the territorial categories, see Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 223. 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 procuratorial acts. (b) Number per decade of constituents residing in Zadar proper. (c) Number per decade of constituents residing in the city’s territory: Bibinje (Bibigne), Diklo (Diclo), Gladuša (Gladussa), the Lazareto (lazarettum), the suburban settlements. (d) Number per decade of constituents residing in Zadar’s jurisdiction, excluding the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad: Brda (Berda), (Chuchagl), Dračevac (Drazevac), Jelsa (Jelsa), Kamenjani (Chamegnani), Miljačka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Nadin (Nadino), Opačić (Opatizaselo), Podi (Podi), Poškaljine (Poscaglina), (Priticeuci), Ražanac (Rasance), Rogovo (Rogovo), Smoković (Smochovich), Sukošan, San Cassiano (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Tinj (Tinj), Turanj (Turretta), Varikašane (Varichassane), Tršci (Tersci), originally located in the dictrict of Vrana. (e) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Nin: Čakavci (Chiacavci), Čerinci (Cerinci), Ljubač (Gliube), Nin (Nona), Podvršje, Vrši (Poduerie), Privlaka (Bevilaqua), Zaton (Zaton). (f) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj, Koruplje (Corpuaglie), Novigrad (Novigrado), Posedarje (Posedaria), Režane (Regiane). (g) Number per decade of constituents residing on the islands: Dugi Otok (Isola Grossa/ Lunga), Iž (Eso, Exo), Molat (Melada), Pašman (Pasmano), Silba (Selba), Ugljan (Ugliano). Zadar’s Society 71

Table 2.2: Origins of the Procuratorial Appointees (Overview, 1540-1569)

Local Regional Supra-Regional Venice, Rest, n/ae Provenancea Provenanceb Provenancec Terrafermad 1540s 72 40 13 38 62 1550s 75 59 20 82 94 1560s 58 78 34 110 95 205 177 67 230 251

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). Unidentified toponyms are given inItalics . The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of local contracting parties (from within Zadar’s jurisdiction). (b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from Venice’s Adriatic dual province. In Albania: Bar (Antibari), Perast (Perasto), and Kotor (Catharo). In Venetian Dalmatia: Brač (Brachia, Brazza), Cres (Cherso), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Korčula (Chorzula, Corcira), Krk (Vegla), Omiš (Almissa), Osor (Aussero), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe), Split (Spalato), Šibenik (Sibenico), Trogir (Tragurij), Vis (Lissa). (c) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties, excluding Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions. In Istria: Buje (Buie), Buzet (Bussetto, Pinguenti), Chercla, Dvigrad (Duograschina), Koper (Justinopolis), Labin (Albona), Loborika (Loborica), Motovun (Motovunschina), Poreč (Parentio), Pula (Pola), Serbar, Sv Lovreč (Sancti Lovrec), Višnjan (Visunato). In the Ionian Sea: Kefalonia (Cephalonia), Naupactus/ Lepanto (Nauplia), Zakynthos (Hiacynthi/Zante). In the Apennine peninsula: Ancona, Bari, Bologna, Ferrara, Vasto (Guasto), Manfredonia, the Marche region, Parma, Pescara, Pisauro, Pontremoli, Rimini, Rome, Tarvisio, Vicenza. (d) Number per decade of supra-regional contracting parties from territories under Venetian suzerainty. Venice proper and the following locations in the Terraferma: Bergamo, Cividale del Friuli, Crema, Padua, Trecenta, Udine, Verona. (e) Number per decade of contracting parties from unidentifiable, unlisted, infrequently- listed (e.g. Brixen [Brixia] and Rijeka/Fiume), or non-specific places (e.g., Croatia, Crete [Candia], and Cyprus), or places within the Ottoman Empire.

Before focusing on the individuals and their assignments, let us investigate the geographical destinations of the procuratorial appointees. The data suggest that large parts of the economic, legal, and social activities originating in the Stato da mar were directed towards Venice proper. This reflects the changes in policies decreed by the Republic of St Mark, most clearly visible in economic matters. Economically, Venice was the most important city in the Adriatic during the sixteenth century.53 As Table 2.2, above, demonstrates, neither the flow of goods and commodities nor analysis of procuratorial data alone offers a full picture 72 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 2.3: Destinations within Venice’s Adriatic Possessions (1540-1569)

Destinations No. of Actsa Greater Areab Krk 17 Kvarner Gulf Cres, Osorc 8 Kvarner Gulf Rab 19 Kvarner Gulf Pag 18 Kvarner Gulf Zadar 205 Dalmatia Šibenik 49 Dalmatia Trogir 14 Dalmatia Split 6 Dalmatia Omiš 3 Dalmatia Brač 6 Dalmatia Hvar 17 Dalmatia Brač, Hvar, Visd 4 Dalmatia Korčula 7 Dalmatia Kotor 7 Albania Perast 1 Albania Bar 1 Albania 382

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Toponyms below are listed giving their present-day Italian name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. It lists the 382 confirmed instances (c. 41 % of the total number of 930 instances) in which procuratorial appointees were sent to destinations within Venice’s Adriatic dual province. (a) Number of acts stipulated in each city. (b) Possible regional centres of procura-related communication in Venice’s Adriatic dual province. The distinctions roughly follow present-day regions, i.e. “Kvarner Gulf” = Northern Croatian Littoral or Sjeverno hrvatsko primorje, “Dalmatia” = Southern Croatian Littoral or Dalmacija, “Albania” = Venetian Albania (the areas in present-day Montenegro which until 1797 belonged to Venice). (c) Because the cities of Cres and Osor are located on the same island they are grouped together. (d) All three islands are mentioned four times as the procuratorial appointees’ destination. of communication networks.54 There (may) have been unofficial voyages not recorded or, more simply, undertaken illegally.55 Notwithstanding the fragmentary state of research, however, 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 2.2, above). When viewed from Venice, the dual province constituted one and the same entity. When viewed in light of the numbers in Table 2.3, above, Zadar’s Society 73 this clear-cut picture changes significantly. Despite their joint organisation within the Stato da mar, procuratorial ties between Zadar and, say, the referenced cities in Albania were practically non-existent. When based on the procuratorial data, communication on the regional level, by contrast, occurred in all but nine instances within Dalmatia itself. This therefore necessitates a more detailed discussion. As indicated by Table 2.3, above, the available procuratorial data suggest the existence of a number of sub-regional areas of increased exchange. By far the greatest number of appointees was destined for action within Zadar’s jurisdiction. This accounts for slightly more than half of all procurators (205 instances or c. 54%). If combined with the neighbouring cities of Pag and Šibenik, the share of central Dalmatia increases to more than seven out of 10 (272 instances or c. 71%) of all appointments. This suggests that these three places were more intensely intertwined than the other areas of Venice’s Adriatic possessions. 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. The large island communities in the Kvarner Gulf—Krk, Cres, Osor, and Rab—attracted 44 appointees or a combined share of c. 12% of the procuratorial appointees. All places to Šibenik’s southeast were the destination of 66 procurators or c. 17% (this comprises Trogir, Split, Omiš, the island communities of Brač, Hvar, Vis, and Korčula, and the three Albanian cities of Bar, Kotor, and Perast). These numbers suggest the existence of an area of increased procura-related connectivity, communication, and exchange in central Dalmatia extending roughly from Pag via Zadar to Šibenik (Table 2.3, above).56

4. Economic, Legal, and Social Incentives

Moving beyond quantitative assessments, new questions about the qualitative aspects of the procuratorial appointments arise. As illustrated above, roughly three out of four notarial acts include the reason for their stipulation, categorised according to the stated aims of the constituent parties. A large number of acts describe economic activities unrelated to the social strata or geographical origins or destinations of the contracting parties. The most ubi- quitous assignment was the recovery of outstanding money, as the following examples amply demonstrate. We learn of artisans who relocated and requi- 74 Urban Elites of Zadar red the assignee to rent or sell real estate property in the constituents’ former city of residence. For instance, when “magister Simon Grubissich quondam Antonij de Jadra calafatus” (master-caulker) moved to Chioggia, he appointed “magistro Martino,” a master-cobbler, to sell his house of stone and wood located in the southern parts of Zadar proper.57 The same request, although in the opposite direction, 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.”58 Another interesting aspect of the data is that almost all procuratorial appointments involving military personnel, their spouses, or offspring as constituent parties have a common economic incentive: the collection of outstanding payment for military service. Testifying to Venetian payment practices (and her dubious credibility) this motivation transcended geographical origins and destinations, military rank, and social boundaries. Con- sider the following examples: In mid-October of 1557, “Joannes Durcich de Aussero [(Osor],” a discharged oarsman, appointed “Reverendum dominum Georgium Matassouich, Archipresbytrum ruralem diocesis Nonen- sis [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.”59 And then there was “dona Catherina quondam Magnifici equitis domini Georgij Rhenesi, et uxor Magnifici equitis domini Thomasij Luxi” who around the same time commanded a cavalry squadron. On behalf of her husband and with his explicit license, she appointed an absent Venetian citizen, “spectabilem dominum Bartholomeum Nigrum,” to finally collect Thomasius’ outstanding payments of 25 ducats per annum from the fiscal chamber of Crete.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 Ba- duario [Badoer], librarum quinquaginta none solidorum octo parvorum.” Evidently, Stephanus’ customers had not paid up, so the butcher assigned the task of collecting the outstanding money owed “pro resto et saldo pretij carnis porcina to Reverendum patrem Fratrem Stephanum, ministrum pro- vinciae fratrium minorum tertij ordinis Sancti Franciscj de observantia.” Zadar’s Society 75

The friar was already on his way to the island of Krk, 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.61 Reasons for legal appointments included custody duties after the death of one or both parents, succession disputes among siblings, neighbours, or otherwise related individuals, and representation in a court of law. In the first case, 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.63 Keeping this substitution provision open was impor- tant64 since differences that might arise over who inherited what could lead to prolonged legal conflicts decades later.65 Cases like these were rather uncommon in sixteenth-century Zadar, however, because the population was not very wealthy. Consequently, legal representation in a court of law and extrajudicial settlements—not inheritance concerns—were the predo- minant reasons for assigning procuratorial powers. The rationale behind these lawsuits ranged from (admittedly few) high-profile homicide cases66 to much more common causes, most notably money. For instance, over the course of ten months “dominus Hieronymus de Gallellis quondam domini Simonis nobilis Jadrensis” thrice appointed “dominum Joannem Franciscum de Dominis nobilem Jadram, et arbensis [of Rab]” to obtain the 15 ducats still missing from his wife’s dowry.67 What these examples and comparable cases, such as people petitioning the count for redress of grievances,68 have in common is that the appointees were individuals from Zadar or elsewhere in Dalmatia. This changed once the destination shifted from local or regional environs to business “in alma civitate Venetiarum.”69 Usually, this led to the appointment of individuals of elevated social status. In almost all such cases procuratorial duties were assigned to Venetian patricians, Dalmatian nobles, individuals with judicial knowledge (attorneys, lawyers, solicitors), or a combination thereof.70 These cases included various undefined legal proceedings in Venice or, more rarely, investigations before the court of appeals, the so-called Quarantia.71 In general, individuals tasked with legal representation, especially proceedings taking place in Venice proper, were explicitly referred to as trained professionals: advocate or barrister (advocatus), attorney (causidicus), doctor of both laws canon and civil (leges utriusque doctor), or solicitor (solicitator). The social motivations behind the appointment of procurators are broad and sometimes overlap with economic or legal motivations since the bounda- 76 Urban Elites of Zadar ries between them are often blurry. For example, issues pertaining to clientele or family relations fall into this category. Of course, subject to the available documentation, late medieval and early modern communication in general may be categorised along its economic, legal, and social incentives. Exam- ples of social assignments include, for instance, the appointment of procurators with a high social position to attend the baptism of a Venetian patrician’s child in Venice. In February of 1558, “spectabilis dominus Franciscus Tho- maseus Civis Jadre,” one of Zadar’s public notaries, sought representatives who would act on his behalf “ad Sacrum baptismatis fontem filiolum vel filiolam nascitutum et nascituram celeberrimi domini Marci Antonij- Cor nelij [Corner] Patritij Veneti et eius cellberrima uxoris.” 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 renowned nobleman of Zadar.72 Other instances involved returning home the remains of relatives who had died elsewhere, although these occasions did not arise with great frequency. A notable case is the posthumous voyage of “quondam nobilis viri domini Theodosij,” brother of “strenuus et nobilis vir Jadrensis dominus Simon de Begna quondam viri nobilis Christophori.”73 A descendant of one of Zadar’s aristocratic families, the late Theodosius was “serviens apud Illustrissimum dominum Joannem Baptistam Gastaldum olim capitum Generalis Exercitus Serenissimi Regis Ungarie, In quibus partibus est vita functus.” As the heir of his deceased brother, Simon appointed no less a figure than “Nobilem virum dominum Baptistam Besalium de Porto Buffaleto [Portobuffolè], familiarem Celeberrimi domini Paulj Theupuli [Tiepolo] dignissimi oratoris Serenissimi Domini venetj apud Regem Ro- manorum.” The bodily remains were to be brought back home, along with whatever goods and money the late Theodosius possessed.74 Instances like these frequently led to disputes among the living relatives over how to divide the movable and immovable possessions of the dead, necessitating the appointment of representatives for legal proceedings.

5. Secular and Ecclesiastical Elites

Having defined the origins and destinations of the contracting- par ties, the next task is to survey the integration of these parties within the social fabric of sixteenth-century Dalmatia. This chapter deals with the Zadar’s Society 77 men, women, groups, and institutions behind the geographical statistics and contracting motivations discussed in the previous section. In general, the numbers deriving from the procuratorial appointments provide a clear indication of the proportion of ecclesiastical versus secular elites. In total 124 (on average c. 13%) of all constituent parties between 1540 and 1569 were members of the clergy. (It should be noted that the term “clergy” describes both individuals and institutions). The ecclesiastical members of Zadar’s society were usually given the adjective “Rever- end” (reverendus) or “venerable” (venerabilis), which preceded the naming of their role, education, or office, described as “canon” (canonicus), “cleric” (clericus), “deacon” (diaconus), “arch/bishop” (archi/episcopus), “priest” (presbyter), “parish priest” (parochianus), “father” (pater), “brother”/”sister” (fra/sor), or “vicar” (vicarius). The institutions include abbeys (abbatia), convents (conventus), churches (ecclesia), monasteries (monasterium), and hospitals (lazarettum). As Table 3, below, suggests, Zadar’s nobility made up the single largest social group appointing representatives. 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. Over the remaining twenty years an increase of ecclesiastical activities can be seen, but the number of aristocratic clergy drops considerably. The percentages of the other constituent groups—artisans, merchants, and other presumably literate individuals—remained stable over the entire period. It is also worth noting that the share of noblewomen who appointed procurators increased significantly over time, almost tripling in absolute numbers from the 1540s to the 1560s. Women of aristocratic descent were not the only group whose importance grew over time. Members of the armed forces too appear as frequent constituent parties in the procuratorial documents. This can be explained by the reports by Venice’s civilian and military officials, which document the militarisation of Zadar, along with the rest of the peripheral regions of the Stato da mar.75 Virtually every dispatch from the period under consideration enumerates the additional defense requirements for the continua- tion 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).76 As Table 3, belove, indicates, the percentage of urban residents of Za- dar increased from roughly 60% in the 1540s to more than 70% in the 78 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 3: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Constituents (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Rest, n/ag Elitesf 1540s 63 22 19 22 7 15 77 (♀ 14) (16) (6 ♀) (2) (7) 1550s 122 53 14 47 15 22 57 (♀ 30) (7) (4 ♀) (10) (10) 1560s 129 49 20 76 11 31 59 (♀ 39) (7) (11 ♀) (19) (11) 314 124 53 145 33 68 193 (♀ 83) (30) (21 ♀) (31) (28)

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 Bergo- mo” (Bergamo),83 “de Sebenico” (Šibenik),84 and “de Castro Nigra de Cur- cula” (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 theStato 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 ances- tral 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 Gliub- gliana,” 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 How- ever, 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 Uelo- xa da Cherso [Cres] habitante a Curzola [Korčula] Taiapiere,” both master- stonecutters. 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. Ho- wever, 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 Rest, n/ag Elitesf 1540s 80 22 18 13 3 63 26 (8) (6) (21) 1550s 137 29 15 17 11 61 60 (♀ 5) (2) (5) (27) 1560s 143 32 18 30 17 72 63 (♀ 3) (2) (10) (33) 360 83 51 60 31 196 149 (♀ 8) (12) (21) (81)

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: Ven- ice, 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 Miro- gogno 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 Ve- nice’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 pre- stitae 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 Zadar’s Society 83

Table 4: Notaries Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties (1540-1569)

Namea Statusb Originc Education/Occupationd Appointmentse Augustinus civis Venice notarius, 2 Martius supramassarius munitionum Gabriel Cernotta nobilis Rab notarius 1 Franciscus civis n/a notarius 1 Thomaseus Johannes nobilis Trogir notarius, 1 Mazzarellus cancellarius communitatis Marcus Aurelius civis n/a notarius, causidicus 11 Sonzonius Nicolaus Canali civis Venice (?) notarius, 2 cancellarius rectoris Nicolaus civis Zadar notarius 3 Drasmileus Petrus de Bassano civis Zadar notarius 5 Simon nobilis Trogir notarius, 7 Mazzarellus cancellarius communitatis 33

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. The names are given in standard Latin. (a) Names of all notaries assuming procuratorial duties. (b) Social status of the notaries, as recorded in the sources. (c) Provenance of the notaries. (d) Occupation of the notaries, including the overseer of the powder magazines (supramassarius munitionum)104 and the office of communal chancellor (cancellarius communitatis).105 (e) Number of appointments for each notary over the three-decade period. out of a population of 6,000-6,500 are identified.106 In spite of their small numbers they were responsible for 196 appointments. Second, subjecting the procuratorial instruments to an analysis of class affiliation and profession reveals additional details. Public notaries, while enjoying elevated authority, social status, education, and literacy rates, were usually not the first choice of the constituent parties. 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. This assertion is supported by the fact that public notaries living in Zadar between 1540 84 Urban Elites of Zadar and 1569 were rarely appointed to carry out procuratorial duties. The unique exception was attorney Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, 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).107 No other public notary was appointed this often (e.g., neither Augustinus Mar- tius, Gabriel Cernotta, Franciscus Thomaseus, Johannes and Simon Mazza- rellus, Nicolaus Canali, Petrus de Bassano nor Nicolaus Drasmileus). The second subgroup of appointees now enters into focus. These were individuals of elevated social status or education who were not public notaries. With the exception of some prominent individuals like Johannes de Rosa and Bernardinus Carnarutus, most of these individuals tend to be overlooked by scholarship since they did not go on to enjoy enduring fame as authors, military commanders, public notaries, or scholars.108 One way to quantitatively assess the educated individuals of a Mediterranean commune, as the present study emphasises, is to include the procuratorial instruments. The predominance of the legal professions among the appointees is immediately apparent: Attorneys, barristers, and other university-educated legal professionals made up two-thirds of all appointees during the period under consideration. By comparison, the nobles’ percentage among the educated procuratorial appointees corresponds roughly to their overall average.109 While a high number of instruments confer duties to “ser Fran- ciscum Petrouich”110 and “dominum Hieronymum de Bassano,”111 both referred to as attorneys and citizens of Zadar, the recurrence of their appointments cannot be considered representative. The former attorney was well-established even before 1 January 1540, and his last appearance in the notarial records dates from the end of March 1543.112 In the case of Hieronymus de Bassano, it is known that he was the brother of Petrus de Bassano, one of Zadar’s public notaries.113 Their father, Marcus Antonius, who died before autumn 1541, was also an attorney.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. “[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,116 specifically referring to him to as an attorney (Table 4.1). On the basis of the procuratorial appointments there does not appear to be a clear-cut bias toward one social or professional group. Tables 4, above, and 4.1, below, show two additional facts. First, the two categories of nobles Zadar’s Society 85

Table 4.1: Non-Notarial Intellectual Elites Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties (1540-1569)

Namea Statusb Originc Education/ Appointmentse Occupationd Bernardinus nobilis Zadar causidicus 2 Carnarutus Camillus Rosa, de nobilis Zadar secretarius provisoris 1 Rosa classis Doymus Cedulinus nobilis Zadar causidicus 6 Franciscus Fumatus nobilis Zadar leges utriusque doctor 11 Franciscus Justus, de civis n/a scriba camerae fiscalis 1 Justis Franciscus Petrouich civis n/a causidicus 12 Hieronymus de civis Zadar causidicus 10 Bassano Hieronymus de nobilis Rab causidicus 15f Cortesijs Johannes de Begna nobilis Zadar leges utriusque doctor, 1 eques Johannes de Venerio nobilis Venice scontrus camerae 1 fiscalis Johannes dictus bon n/a n/a officium stimarie vini 1 datiarum forensis Johannes Jovinus civis Venice leges utriusque doctor 3 Servianus Johannes de Rosa nobilis Zadar leges utriusque doctor, 15g eques Leonardus Fadinus n/a n/a causidicus 1 Marcus Raymundinus clerus Zadar decretorum doctor 1 Nicolaus de Claudis n/a n/a cancellarius capitanei 1 Octavianus Monaldus nobilis Pesaro artium et medicinae 1 doctor Pasinus de Pasinis civis Zadar leges utriusque doctor 4 Petrus Fanfoneus nobilis Zadar leges utriusque doctor 8 Sigismundus de n/a Pontremoli artium et medicinae 1 Seratis doctor Theodorus Adraino n/a Krk scriba camerae fiscalis 1 97 86 Urban Elites of Zadar

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Names are given in standard Latin. (a) Names of all non-notary residents who assumed procuratorial duties. (b) Social status of the procurators. (c) Geographical provenance of the procurators (where known). (d) Occupation of the procurators, including attorney (causidicus), doctor of canon and civil law (leges utriusque doctor), medical doctor (artium et medicinae doctor), doctor of Canon Law (decretorum doctor), official responsible for the import of foreign wines (officium stimarie vini forensis), accountant/scribe in the fiscal chamber (scontrus/scriba camera fiscalis), secretary of the naval overseer (secretarius provisoris classis), knight (eques), and captain’s chancellor (cancellarius capitaneus). (e) Number of appointments per procurator. (f) Hieronymus de Cortesijs was twice jointly-appointed with Franciscus Fumatus. (g) Johannes de Rosa was twice jointly-appointed, once with Petrus de Bassano and once with Franciscus Justus. and intellectual elites were by no means mutually exclusive (as demonstrated by the number of educated individuals in the examples above). On the contrary, educated noblemen were quite a common sight in Dalmatian towns.117 Second, as exemplified by the two attorneys, no bias toward procuratorial appointees of privileged descent can be ascertained. 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. The heterogenei- ty of this subgroup is telling. The 66 assignments were given to 55 individuals. In some cases more than one recipient is named; thus those recipients who were named twice or more stand out. One such case involved “dominus Camillus de Pechiaro quondam domini Johannis nobilis Jadre uti heredes pro dimidia ut asservit quondam domini Darij eius fratris.” To secure his rightful share of the inheritance, he appointed “dominum Aloysium Cesarium de Opitergio [Oderzo] sollecita- torem causarum in inclita Venetiarum Civitatis.”118 The other half of the late Darius’ possessions was to be inherited by his brother, “dominus Franciscus de Pechiaro.” 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.119 Only a couple of months later, a third instrument was drawn up by the two brothers because “domina Catherina filia quondam excellentis domini Federici de Grisogonis,” the second wife of the late Darius de Pechiaro, decided to reassert her right. Again, Aloysius Cesarius was tasked with representing Camillus in court.120 Despite the fact that the procuratorial instruments are silent on the outcome of these proceedings, the root Zadar’s Society 87 cause of the legal suit is named: the restitution of Catherina’s dowry of 490 ducats.121 Matters become more complicated from here since Catherina was married three times. She appears in the sources first as “uxor domini Joannis de Nassis quondam domini Nicolai,”122 then as wife of Darius de Pechiaro, and third as “uxor Nobili Jadrensi domini Joannis de Begna.”123 Obviously, an amount well in excess of the average yearly income of Zadar’s nobility’s was worth a fight, even between next-of-kin.124 A similar story emerges for “dominus Joannes de Soppe quondam spectabili domini Simonis.” A descendant of the eponymous noble family, he worked as the communal chancellor in Kotor around 1540.125 By 1542 he had returned to his native town and was assigned procuratorial duties by “Catherina filia et heres testamentaria, ut dixit, quondam Joannis Margitich de villa Bibigne [Bibinje], et uxor Joannis Ostoych filij Viti de villa Bibigne.” 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.126 On a third occasion, 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.”127 Another case involved the Venetian patrician “dominum Julium Trivisa- no [Trevisan] Civem et causidicum Venetum,” tasked twice by residents of Zadar. In the first instance, “domina Francischina uxor quondam domini Ber- ti Charanina olim Civis, et mercatoris Jadre,” and her two daughters “Paulina and Helysabeth,” appointed Julius to resolve their problems “cum ser Domi- nico Uambirascosi merzario venetiarum ad insignum draconis.” Unfortuna- tely, no reason is given in the procuratorial act; however, since both the late Bertus and Dominicus were merchants, it is likely that the conflict arose over a business deal gone awry.128 In the second instance the above-mentioned daughters, both married to merchants residing in Zadar (Paulina to “Julius Toninus,” Helysabeth to “Bernardinus Tirabuschi”)129 and heirs of their late father, appointed Julius Trevisan and “dominum Vivianum Barlendi mercatorem Venetum” to ratify the agreement reached between them as Bertus’ heirs and “dominum Dominicum de Gamberarijs.”130 In general, the cases in which a non-resident was tasked with procuratorial duties were related to business in the places of residence of the appointees. This allows an impression of the various interactions across cultural, geographical, religious, and social dimensions.131 Consequently, it becomes possible to re-imagine parts of the life and times of “magnifico 88 Urban Elites of Zadar domino Andrea[m] Zane quondam magnifico Joanne Aloysij,” a Venetian patrician who once served as the chamberlain of Bar.132 Likewise, 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, “excellentem dominum Joannem Euretopolo phisicum Corcirensis.” 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, as well as “a domino Jacobo de Aurani Corci- rensis,” and the heirs of “quondam ser Daminano Androminda de Neapolj [Naples of Nafplio]” in particular.133 For a variety of reasons, procurators from abroad were assigned with specific tasks involving individuals personally unknown to the constituent parties. While the relationship between the contracting parties remains in many cases subject to speculation, 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. This was true of both patricians and commoners sent to Venice and elsewhere.

7. Ecclesiastical Activities

Inhabitants of Zadar’s subject dominion were eligible for prebendaries of less than 60 ducats of value,134 but after 1423 Zadar’s archbishopric and the bishopric of Nin were exclusively reserved for members of the Ve- netian patriciate.135 Like their secular counterparts (count, captain), these two high-ranking dignitaries rarely appear in the instruments. Exceptions occurred usually for newly appointed clergymen. For instance, on such an occasion in late 1556 “Dominus presbyter Sanctus de Sanctis Canonicus Jadre, et dominus Joannes Raimundinus Civis Jadre” conferred procuratorial powers upon “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum Mutium Calino,” then the designated archbishop of Zadar. While on his way to his new see, Mutius Calino was to acquire outstanding payments “a Reverendo Auditore camere apostolice” in Rome.136 A second example involved the bishopric of Nin. Like most newly- appointed ecclesiastical dignitaries travelling to their assigned posts, he too left his former prebendary behind. This situation occurred, for instance, in the case of “Reverendus in Christo Patrem et dominum dominus Mar- cus Lauredanus [Loredan] Dei et Apostoli sedis gratia episcopus Nonen- Zadar’s Society 89 sis.” Prior to becoming bishop of Nin, Marcus was appointed procurator “a Reverendo domino Francisco Superantio Abbate Sancti Michaelis de monte” on 5 October 1554. Due to circumstance, 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.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. This land was auctioned off by the officeholders’ procurators to the highest bidder for tax farming purposes.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). Another, quite different, field of ecclesiastical activity was the congregations in Zadar, run by the Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans. They too appear in the procuratorial instruments.139 There were nine monastic institutions within the city walls, two run by the Benedictines and three each by the Dominicans and the Franciscans.140

Table 5: Monastic Communities in Zadar (c. 1550)

Monastic Communitya Orderb Genderc Social Stratad Provoste St Chrysogonus OSB ♂ St Mary OSB ♀ nobility only Antonella Galella St Dominic OP ♂ St Catherine OP ♀ St Demetrius OP ♀ nobility only Coliza Grisogona St Francis OSF ♂ St Nicholas OSC ♀ nobility only Maria Grisogona St Marcella OSC ♀

Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c390r-c.390v, 26 October 1562 (three individual acts). (a) Monastic communities in Zadar, listed by their Anglicised patron saints. (b) Ecclesiastical affiliation of each community: OSB (Order of St Benedict), OP (Order or Preachers or Dominicans), OSF (Order of St Francis), OSC (Order of St Clare, Poor Clares), and TOR (Third Order Regulars). (c) Gender of each congregation. (d) Monastic communities reserved for individuals of privileged descent. (e) Names of the provosts of each nobles-only congregation. 90 Urban Elites of Zadar

All the congregations detailed in Table 5 regularly appointed procurators, for a variety of reasons. Usually procuratorial duties were bestowed upon individuals belonging to Zadar’s aristocracy. The tasks of these representatives included the renting or conceding of landed property to tenants or colonists (discussed in detail in Chapter 4). In five of the six following examples of procuratorial appointments commissioned by the Dominican convent of St Demetrius and the Benedictines of St Mary, the duties of the procurators fell to noblemen from Zadar.141 In the sixth instance, however, the appointee was “ser Hieronymum Bassanum,” the renowned attorney. Though not of privileged birth his family’s social status was evidently high enough to represent the convents appropriately.142 (All three members of the de Bassano family are referenced in the sources as “Lord” [dominus], not “Sir” [ser], the more common title for citizens, underscoring the family’s prominence.143) These two monasteries were reserved exclusively for noblewomen; thus, the appointment of fellow aristocrats can be explained by personal acquaintance, kinship ties,144 or social norms. The bestowal of procuratorial duties upon Hieronymus Bassanus, on the other hand, may be explained by his family’s prominence, legal expertise, and the fact that he was not the only but the second procurator to represent the monastery.145 By contrast, the non-noble Franciscan convent of St Francis appointed both aristocrats and commoners. In 1560 it appointed two nobles:146 “il spettabile meser Zoilo de Ferra nobile, facendo per nome suo et del spettabile et eccelente dottore meser Pietro Fanfogna similmente nobile assente.” Five years later the convent appointed “dominum Franciscum de Ventura civem Jadrensis” (see also Chapter 6).147 In addition to the duties discussed above, the procuratorial appointees were responsible for ensuring that any bestowals of property by recently deceased individuals reached their rightful heirs. These bequests could be money, movable or immovable goods, or a combination thereof. In most cases, however, the procuratorial instruments do not provide specifics on inheritance issues. The appointees had only to ensure that all bequeathed goods to which the respective congregation was entitled be collected. Usually these bequests consisted of charitable donations, annual stipends for cloistered relatives, income from or usufruct rights to immovable property, or requiem money.148 Other tasks included the securing of worldly goods from a deceased bishop149 or nobleman,150 and the collection of any outstanding sum of money owed.151 Zadar’s Society 91

In general, the communication mechanisms of ecclesiastical and secular elites followed the same pattern. While the percentage of female constituents was roughly a quarter of the total, only two percent of the appointees were women. Of all constituents, four out of five contracting individuals originated in Zadar’s jurisdiction. This comprised entities as diverse as the city’s hinterlands on the mainland, the inhabited coastal islands, and the smaller subject districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana. While the numbers for the constituents remained relatively constant over the period under survey, the picture changes slightly for the procuratorial parties. On average, some 60% still originated from the same geographical areas as the constituents; however, there is considerable variation between the first and last decades in question. During the 1540s almost two-thirds of procurators originated within Zadar’s jurisdiction. While the last decade (1560-1569) witnessed an overall increase in the number of individual appointments compared to the first decade, the number of appointees from within Za- dar’s jurisdiction drops to just over 50%. 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. On the basis of the data examined above, the following conclusions and trends can be ascribed to the three interwar decades under survey. First, 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. Contemporane- ously, Zadar’s ties with the rest of the Venetian Adriatic remained more or less constant, although neighbouring Šibenik attracted more procuratorial assignments than any other area in the Venetian dual province (except for Venice proper).152 Based on these findings, 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. The “winners” of this phenomenon were Venice proper and her Terraferma possessions, which eclipsed all other destinations in the Adriatic by the middle of the sixteenth century. As suggested by Arié Malz, communication on the local level decreased and gave rise to the growing importance of regional and supra-regional destinations.153 Of course, these changes occurred gradually and unequally, 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. 92 Urban Elites of Zadar

Reality was much more complex than the tripartite economic/legal/ social model proposed here. But this model allows for a working analytical framework. 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. However, for procuratorial mandates destined for Venice proper, the appointees were more often Venetian patricians or citizens. Ecclesiastical activities mirrored those of secular protagonists. If an assignment led the appointees to high-profile counterparts in Rome or Ven- ice, the best and most renowned procurators available were tasked with the execution of the mandates. More common, however, were tasks such as collecting inheritances or administering real estate property. All of Zadar’s nine monastic communities regularly appointed general representatives to deal with these other day-to-day matters. The terminology used in the documents reveals clear distinctions between the social and occupational groups. At the top of the hierarchy stood the Doge, whose invocation set the tone for the naming of other Venetian patricians. Usually the notarial acts were written “Temporibus serenissimi Principis, et domini Excellentissimi Petri Lando, Dei Gratia Venetiaum et cetera Ducis Illustrissimi.” The doge’s representative administering an urban community was referred to in a like manner: “Pretureque celeberrimi domini Jacobi Antonij Mauro Comitis Jadra dignissimi.”154 Other members of the Republic of St Mark were commonly accorded the adjectives “ac- claimed” (celeberrimus), “magnificent” (magnificus), or “noble” (genero- sus). Additional distinction was conferred by the epithet “Venetian patrician” (patritius venetus), in clear contrast with the terminology used for all other nobles (nobilis).155 While the honorific “sir” (ser) did not convey a particular distinction between aristocrats and commoners in Venice proper, the word may have carried more social status in her maritime state.156 Too much importance must not be attached to these details, but it is useful to observe that there was a distinction in terminology between the Dalmatian and Venetian patriciate.157 Identical patterns of background can be observed for ecclesiastical dignitaries, especially in the higher echelons of Church hierarchy.158 The lower ranks of the clergy were referred to by their titles of “archpriest”/”deacon” (archipresbyter/diaconus),159 “canon” (canonicus),160 “cleric” (clericus),161 “parish priest” (parochianus/presbyter),162 or “vicar” (vicarius).163 For the cloistral population, the provosts were usually referred to as “abbot”/”abbess” Zadar’s Society 93

(abbas/abbatissa) or “prior”/”prioress” (prior/a). Other men and women of the cloth were simply called “father” (pater), “brother” (fra/ter), or “sister” (sor).164 There were two terms, however, that united all members of the Church irrespective of education, rank, or social descent: they were all usually referred to as “Reverend” (reverendus) or “venerable” (venerabilis).165 Craftsmen and their relatives too were noted with a specific denomina- tion: the description “master” (magister) was added in front of the name or trade.166 For military personnel, if an individual was an officer, the term “valiant” (strenuus) was usually written down next to his name and rank.167 Lower ranks and enlisted men appeared only with additional references to their rank (if they had one) before their names.168 For women, 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, in presentia maritis”).169 Apart from the fundamental aspects of educational qualification and social status, the most important factors in selecting a procurator were, unsurprisingly, business relations, kinship ties, or patronage relations. In combination, these aspects lent the procuratorial networks a seemingly familiar, pragmatic, and solution-oriented appearance.

Notes

1. The account follows Borsari, “Veneziani delle colonie”; Engel, Kristó, and Ku- binyi, Hongarie médievale, 2:62-64; Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 161-167; Krekić, “Vene- zia e l’Adriatico,” 56-58; and Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću.” 2. Bettarini, “Toscani al servizio della città di Ragusa”; Budak, “Fiorentini nella Sla- vonia e nella Croazia”; Raukar, “Fiorentini in Dalmazia”; Teke, “Fiorentini in Ungheria.” See also, Prajda, “Rapporti tra la Repubblica Fiorentina e il Regno di Ugheria.” 3. In general Ashtor, “Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade.” For a more focused discussion, Cozzi, Knapton, and Scarabello, Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, 2:183-185; Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 326-396, 536-540; Lane, Venice, 56-65; Luzzatto, Storia economica di Venezia, 133-214; and Thiriet, Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge, 303-352. On the Venetian salt trade in general, Hocquet, Le sel et la fortune de Venise. On the Venetian wheat trade, Aymard, Venise, Raguse et le commerce du blé; and Gallina, Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio. 4. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 88-93. 5. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 186. 6. Concise summaries by Krekić, “Venezia e l’Adriatico,” 79-82; and O’Connell, Men of Empire, 27-33. 94 Urban Elites of Zadar

7. E.g., the output of the saltworks of Pag decreased tenfold over the course of the subsequent decades. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 75-76, 85-88. On related production decreases, Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 107-111. 8. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 186. 9. E.g., de Vries, European Urbanization, Hohenberg and Hollen Lees, The Making of Urban Europe. See also Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 89-122. 10. Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 24. 11. Malz suggests that the alignment of the jurisdictions in the hinterlands towards a clearly defined urban centre was a process of increasing modernisation. It must be stressed that neither commercial nor economic connections alone could account for “modernisation,” especially in the early modern period (Malz anachronistically lists “democracy, [a] market economy, and an open society” as indicators of “modern societies”). Malz, “Dal- matinische Städtewelt,” 104. See also Ringrose, “Urbanization and Modernization,” who argued for future research directed at cities within the context of their environs (including roads, migration patterns, and banking). Also, this may well be what has been referred to as “the underlying reality of economic, social, and geographical fluidity” of Venetian society. Martin and Romano, “Venice Reconsidered,” 21. 12. Distinctions based on Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 104-113. 13. Raukar, “Komunalna društva u XIV. stoljeću,” 155-156. 14. Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-40. 15. Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 86-88; Gestrin, “Mi- gracije iz Dalmacije u Marke” [Migration from Dalmatia towards the Marche]; Kolanović, Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku, 38. 16. Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 107; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 87-89; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XV. i prvoj polovini XVI. stoljeća” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 15th and First Half of the 16th Century], 59. 17. Which was noted by Victor Barbadico, count of Zadar from 1525-1527, upon his return to Venice in 1528. Commissiones, 2:43-46. 18. Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 104-111. 19. The numbers are 6,903 for Zadar proper, 1,148 for the suburbs, 9,109 on the mainland (excluding the city and its suburbs), and 6,859 on the islands. Commissiones, 1:218-219. 20. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 153-162. 21. Budak, “Drei Zentralstädte in Dalmatien,” 116. 22. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 370-372. 23. This had consequences for both demographic developments and agricultural production, eventually resulting in changes in the diet. See Braudel, Sozialgeschichte des 15.- 18. Jahrhunderts, 1:54; and Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 108. 24. Braudel, Sozialgeschichte des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts, 1:124-126; Wallerstein, Mod- ern World System, 1:35-36. 25. These works were a reaction to the increasing tensions between the Charles V and Suleiman. A first wave of investments occurred at the beginning of the second Venetian dominion during the first decades of the fifteenth century. Concina, “Rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia,” 93. Zadar’s Society 95

26. As were the medieval castles of Split and Trogir. The old fort of Šibenik, situated on top of an adjacent hill overlooking the city proper, was connected with the sea via two additional walls. Žmegač, “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste,” 130-131. On recent excavations of Zadar’s city walls Jović, “Jugoistočni potez Zadarskih zidina” [The Southeastern Stretch of the Town Walls in Zadar]. 27. Sanmicheli was sent to oversee the works in Corfu soon after arriving in Zadar and was replaced by his nephew Gian Girolamo. Davis and Hemsoll, Sanmicheli, 42; Puppi, Sanmicheli, 78; Žmegač, “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste,” 131-132. 28. Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-40. 29. Most mountain ranges in the western Balkans run parallel to the coast and only a handful of navigable rivers exist. Most rivers also run parallel to the coast, thus preventing easy exchange of armies, individuals, news, and trading goods from the Adriatic coast towards the hinterlands and vice versa. The most important river systems in the western Balkans are the Krka and Neretva in Dalmatia and the Bojana and Drin in Albania. See also Lampe, “Redefining Balkan Backwardness,” 179-181. 30. 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, discouraging long-distance trade. On the other hand, both Split and Trogir enjoyed better connections to their respective hinterlands in the western Balkans, 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). Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 112; Raukar, “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi,” 65-66, 92. 31. Much older laws were confirmed, but the goods destined for export were subject to ducal approval. These so-called contralittere or bollette contain information about the cargo, its origins and destinations, and the parties responsible for the observation of Vene- tian staple rights (rendering them useful for quantitative measurements). See Kolanović, “Šibenik (contralittere),” 98-110; Raukar, “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi”; and more recently, Attia, “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir”; Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kom- munikationsraum,” 82-90; and Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 48-51. 32. Šunjić, Dalmacija u XV stoljeću, 232-241. See also Ref. 138: “Reformationes cum omnibus et singulis capitulis pro lege inviolabili proclamantur,” dated 13 April 1458. Statuta Iadertina, 632-634. 33. Export-derived taxation levied on goods declined over the fifteenth century, only to be followed by a veritable slump of up to 75 % during the Ottoman-Venetian wars (1537- 1540, 1570-1573), never again to reach medieval scales. See Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 253-257. 34. Šibenik was granted the Gabella del Sal in 1525, testifying to the decline of neighbouring cities. It also profited from its geographical location and advantageous connections with the hinterlands of the western Balkans. The Krka leads towards Knin and Zagreb, while the Svilaja Pass leads towards Bosnia (Cetin, Livanjsko Polje). Over the ensuing decades, Šibenik also became the prime exchange hub for the produce of the hinterlands and its inhabitants, the Morlachs (however, Daniel Rodriga’s efforts put an end to these developments affected the trade flows, see below). Kolanović,Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku, 20-25, 201; Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 112. 96 Urban Elites of Zadar

35. Arbel, Trading Nations, 7; Calabi, “The ‘City of Jews’,” 31-35; Jütte, “Handel, Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke,” 282-285; Paci, La ‘Scala’ di Spalato; and Ravid, “The Venetian Government and the Jews,” 12-20. 36. Despite the fact that the orientation towards Venice was rather unilateral, commerce directed towards areas outside Venice’s maritime state continued to exist, as demonstrated by Raukar. However, 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. See Novak, “Quaternus izvoza iz Splita” [On Exports of Split]; Raukar, “Jadranski gospodarski sustavi,” 61; Rauker, “Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dal- macije” [Venice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia]; Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 84; Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 48-51. 37. Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 82-90 (quote on 82). See also Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 48-51. 38. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 21. 39. A procura describes the unilateral conferment of legal powers with or without explicit mandate as to the duties of the executing party, the so-called procurator. These powers, if not assigned for a specific period of time or task, typically lasted until the death of one or both contracting parties or the stipulation of any new notarial act stating otherwise. Jungwirth, “Procurator,” for the legal basis according to Zadar’s code of law, Lib. II, tit. IV: “Per quas personas agere, conveniri seu ad placitum trahi possunt minores viginti annis, furiosi et mentecapti,” which contains 5 chapters; and Lib. II, tit. V: “De procuratoribus seu per quas personas maiores annis viginti possunt in placitis interesse,” which contains 11 chapters. Statuta Iadertina, 146-160. 40. 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. Also, the lack of consistent, large-scale analysis of export licences over long periods of time constitutes a second problem. 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. Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 49. See also Kolanović, “Šibenik (contralittere),” 127-129; Raukar, “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi”; and Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 83-84. 41. As called for by Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 194. 42. A transcript is provided in the appendix. 43. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, see notes 38 and 39 (introduction). 44. Saint-Guillain and Schmitt speak of “spheres of communication” (Kommunika- tionsraum) defined as a geographical entity characterised by the exchange of ideas, individuals, and goods occurring in an order of magnitude distinctively larger if compared to adjacent (theoretical) entities. Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 78-79; Saint- Guillain and Schmitt, “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum,” 217 (it must be noted that a clear-cut academic definition of such a “sphere of communication” exists neither in German nor in English). 45. The sources for the survey are: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Franciscus Thoma- seus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I, 1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1567-1569; Zadar’s Society 97

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, 1540-1569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1555-1567. In all, 930 individual notarial acts were analysed. 46. 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. Budak, “Urban élites in Dal- matia,” 194; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [The Croatian Middle Ages], 223-225. 47. Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 24. See also Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 124. 48. Definitions based on Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 104-113. 49. For practical considerations the timespan under survey has been divided into three equal periods of time, each covering a decade. 50. The three-decade average is 310; if divided by four the result is 77.5. If the total number of female constituents (236) is divided by three the result is 78.7. 51. These two border demarcations (1573, 1576), gave the Ottomans control over large parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction (as well as over large parts of Venetian Dalmatia). E.g., Zemunik, today home to Zadar’s airport and only c. 10 km from the city centre, became an Ottoman outpost. 52. Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-31. 53. Empirical evidence for such generalisations is inconsistent, but what is available confirms this trend. For instance, 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. About a quarter traded within the Adriatic but outside the borders of the Stato da mar; and c. 23 % within the borders. More recent research focusing on Trogir’s maritime trade during the late 1560s tentatively confirms this tendency, but the overall situation can, in Schmitt’s words, only be considered a “preliminary sketch.” See Raukar, “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi,” 61-62; Attia, “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir,” 65-69; and Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 100. 54. Commercial networks are significant, but more research is needed to put the economic connections and judicial exchange within Venice’s maritime state into a larger framework, especially considering the fact that “communication” cannot be described by the sum of economic data alone. Also, since this data is usually incomplete, the term “sum” must be treated with care; “sample” is usually a more accurate description. 55. Schmitt assumes the existence of two areas of denser, regional communication in the Adriatic, extending roughly from Zadar via Šibenik to Split, 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, Naupactus, and Patras). Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 85. 56. These numbers for the Kvarner Gulf are clear: the area attracted 62 procuratorial appointments (or c. 16 %), roughly the same amount (66 appointments or c. 17 %) of all procuratorial appointments to places southeast of Šibenik (numbers based on Table 2.3). As for Schmitt’s tentative assertion of the existence of a sub-network of increased communication extending from Zadar via Šibenik to Split, this cannot be supported solely by 98 Urban Elites of Zadar the data he uses nor by procuratorial analysis discussed above. Cf. Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 85. 57. The house itself was located “in contrata, sive confinio fabrorum, Super Terreno benefitij venerabilij domini presbytri Grisogoni Cedulinj, canonici Jadrensis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, s.p., 28 May 1541. 58. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.83r, 6 January 1556. Usually, this particular craft was considered important enough by Venice to restrict its performance to her expatriate citizens. Čoralić, “Ragusans in Venice,” 17. 59. 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, data in portu Jadra diei xxx Januarij 1556 […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.78v, 15 October 1557. 60. 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 […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.74v, 10 September 1557. 61. Friar Stephanus was already “modo commorandum in insula Vegle in monasterio Sanctae Mariae de Cauo”, when the butcher approached the notary. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.7r, 7 November 1557. 62. Zadar’s statutes provided distinctions between a variety of age categories. Infants were considered minors up to the age of seven. Girls under the age of twelve and all boys under fourteen were required to have at least one legal guardian. The necessity of guardianship expired once the adolescents of both sexes completed their twentieth year. Lib. II., tit. IV, cap. 26: “Per quas personas infantes, ed est minores septem annis, debeant se tueri et in iudiciis placitare”; cap. 27: “Per quas personas masculus maior quattuordecim annis et femina maior duodecim annis, minores tamen viginti annis debeant se tueri et in iudiciis placitare.” Statuta Iadertina, 146-148. Also, executors were required by law to transact on behalf of underage heirs. Lib. II, tit. IV, cap. 30: “Quod fideicommissarius generalis vel specialis relictus per testatorem vel creatus per Curiam alicui minori annis potest agere et in placitis respondere.” Statuta Iadertina, 150. 63. For the legal framework, Ref. 110: “De testamentis, tutoribus et commissariis; testamentum tenet etiam si commissarius non esset subiectus iurisdictioni temporali civitatis Ia- drae.” Ibid., 594. 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. This happened, for instance, when “Mattheus, Catherina, 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.” 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 7, s.p., 28 October 1565. 64. 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. If a notary left the city for Zadar’s Society 99 periods exceeding two months, his instrument books had to be placed in the communal chancellery. Lib. II, tit. XVII: “De fide instrumentorum et de tabellionum officio et satis- factione decenti,” which contains 17 chapters. See also Ref. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum. De examinatione notariorum. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia.” Statuta Iadertina, 206-218, 670. In the event of the outbreak of plague or any other contagious disease, exceptions were possible. Ref. 141: “Quod contractus confici possint tempore testis sine examinatoribus.” Ibid., 642-644. 65. 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, whose legal rights to dispose of this property was promptly challenged by one of his cousins of the related Grisogono family. At the root of this conflict was a marriage contract from the late fifteenth century. The contract caused the feud between next-of-kin some 60 years later and lasted from spring into the autumn of 1561. One of the city’s notaries, Simon Mazzarellus, filled two entire books with these proceedings. The proceedings include transcripts of the adversaries’ lawyers and copies of the relevant clauses from the statutes, as well as all other documentation pertaining to the case. See HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, books 3 and 4. 66. “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, “quondam domini Stephani ab Aquila.” Prior to the procuratorial appointment, the Captain-general had apprehended the suspect in Split. The trial itself was to take place in Šibenik. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 5, f.62r-f.62v, 1 July 1566. Hieronymus de Laurentijs (“Hierolimo di Lorenzi”) is also among those renowned citizens of Zadar named explicitly by Paulo Justiniani (Giustinian), former captain of Zadar 1550-1552 m.v., in his report to the Venetian Senate in early 1553. Commissiones, 3:52. 67. The adversaries were the constituent’s in-laws, represented by “domino Hierony- mo de Nimira alias Polimulcich nobilis arbensis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 3, f.18r, 14 November 1564; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 3, f.27r, 8 January 1565; Nico- laus Drasmileus, I, 2, 4, f.42v-f.43v, 3 September 1565. 68. Usually, labourers sought redress if landlords attempted to levy excess duties. In the mid-1560s, “Slade Panoeuich […] judex possobe ville Sancti Philippi et Jacobi” (Sv Filip i Jakov), representing himself and the other inhabitants of the village, stated that the rental contract stipulating 12 kvart of corn (1 kvart = ca. 250 litres) as duties to be delivered “in die Sancti Jacobi de mense Julij” (29 July) could not be complied with. 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. Consequent- ly, the inhabitants of Sv Filip i Jakov appointed “Excellens dominus Vincentius Merula,” a doctor of canon and civil law, to act on their behalf and “deffendere omnes causas dicti […] communis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 3, f.50v, 2 April 1565. The term “judex possobe” refers to the rural organisation in Zadar’s hinterland. The claimant was the judge or governor of a village assembly (posoba) and its surrounding lands. After 1409, Venice kept many of the existing medieval institutions of rural autonomy. While the office of the judge itself was unpaid, in some cases territorial privileges could be obtained and its holder was exempt from military service. After the outbreak of the Ottoman-Venetian 100 Urban Elites of Zadar war in 1537, these judges were required to be “uno di piu vecchi della ditta villa,” at least 40 years old, and could be obliged to undertake unpaid public works. Posoba meant one village assembly, liga referred to a number of village assemblies, which were granted special privileges by Francesco Foscari in 1455. See Ref. 137: “Forma privilegiorum ligarum comitatus Iadrae”; Ref. 142: “Provisio contra bannitos a Iadra, territorio et insulis”; Ref. 153: “De aetate iudicum villarum.” Statuta Iadertina, 626-632, 644-646, 664-666. See also Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 164-183; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika, 21; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 49; and O’Connell, Men of Empire, 81-84, who puts these Dalmatian aspects in the context of the Stato da mar as a whole. 69. In the protocols of Zadar’s notaries, the term “alma” is attributed to only two cities: Rome and Venice. Additional semantic differentiation was bestowed by the words used for the cities themselves. Venice was described as either “civitas” (in the sense of a self- governing, free city-state) or as “urbs,” the substantive typically reserved for the Eternal City. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 7, s.p., 1 January 1540; Johannes a Morea, I, 2, 3, f.18r-f.19r, 6 July 1542. 70. Not always, however, as the following example shows. In May or June 1562, 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), leaving four people dead and seven injured. Four of the ship’s sailors appointed two of their fellow seamen to represent them all in a Venetian court of law. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 12 June 1562. 71. As was the case when “dominus Franciscus, Darius et Baldus filij quondam domini Joannis de Pechiaro, nec non dominu Franciscus de Pechiaro quondam Francisci, Nobiles Jadre” appealed a decision concerning the inheritance of movable and immovable goods “ad favorum dominarum Marchette, Slava, et Gasparine de Pechiaris.” The brothers appointed “dominum Camillum de Pechiaro fratrem ipsorum dominorum Francisci, Darij et Baldi” to represent them in the appeal filed “per Excellentem Consilium xxxxta” in Ven- ice. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.124r, 15 October 1556. 72. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.95r, 2 February 1558. 73. Whose nom de guerre was “ut dixit nuncupatim Joannes Croatus” while serving with the Hungarian army. The account is based upon HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Dras- mileus, I, 2, 1, c.13r-c.14r, 8 January 1556. 74. Baptista was appointed “specialiter et expresse ad nominem ipsius domini Consti- tuentis exigendum, percipiendum et recuperandum omnes, et quascumque Sumas, et quan- titates denariorum tantum, quas dictus quondam dominus Theodosius eius frater vocatus Joannes Croatus ut supra debebat, et nunc ipse dominus Constituens uti eius frater, et heres habere debet a quibuscumque personis tam publicis tamquam privatis […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 1, c.13r-c.14r, 8 January 1556. 75. Lost territories and increased insecurity in the hinterlands compounded the existing problems caused by Ottoman pressure on the coastal communities. This forced the inhabitants of the rural parts of Venice’s Dalmatian possessions to adapt to the “Ottoman way of small war, typical for the frontier areas, based on skirmishes, raids and similar guerrilla actions […] creating specific frontiers [sic] societies in the hinterland of the Dalmatian coastal towns.” Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 13-14. On the Uskoks of Senj as an exemplary frontier society, see Knapton, “Stato da mar,” 329-331. See also Stanojević, Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačko- turskim ratovima, 75-101; and Tallett, War and Society in Early Modern Europe, 60. Zadar’s Society 101

76. Marc’Antonio da Mula, count of Zadar from 1540-1543, wrote that “[i]l territorio è bellissimo e grasso, 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. Commissiones, 2:172. This was more or less verbatim repeated by Giovanni Battista Giustiniano, syndic in 1553, about a decade later, who lamented the dilapidated state of the fortifications: “le munizioni […] sono mal all’ordine” and the biscuits “non sono tenuti, come si doveriano governare.” Ibid., 195. Giacomo Pisani, count of Zadar 1564-1566, mentioned negotiations with and “presents” for the neighbouring Ottoman officials across the border, and wrote that most able- bodied inhabitants of the Terraferma carry weapons all the time “ma la maggior parte sono banditi.” Commissiones, 3:165-166. 77. In autumn of 1541, “magister Andreas Nunchouich peliparius [master-furrier] quondam magistri Simonis” appointed “dominum Marcum Aurelium Sonzonium, causidicum,” an attorney and one of Zadar’s notaries, to be his procurator generalis, “ad agendum […] spetialiter in causa, ac causis quam, ac quas ipsa constituens habet, ac habiturus est, cum magistro Francisco fratre suo.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.16v, 19 September 1541. 78. In spring of 1540, “dona Marietta uxor magistri Simoni Butarij de Sibenico ha- bitators venetijs in confinio Sancti Boldi, ac filia quondam ut asservit magistri Cora Mi- chaelis chalder” (master-brazier, coppersmith), tasked her husband, a master-cooper, “ad […] recuperandum nomine ipsius constituentis ducatos vigintinonem […] In Alma Civitate venetiarum ad montem Novum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 7, f.34v, 23 May 1540. On Venice’s public debt Cessi, Politica ed Economia di Venezia, 172-248; Lane, Venice, 324-326; Lane, “Funded Debt of the Venetian Republic”; Lane and Mueller, Money and Banking in Medieval and Renaissance Venice, 2:359-487; and Mueller “‘Quando i Banchi no’ ha’ fede, la terra no’ ha credito’.” 79. In one instance, “ser Bastianus filius quondam magistri Alberti de Persicis sutoris [master-cobbler] de Bergomo” tasked “ser Joannem Andream Pensuum absentem tamquam praesentem modo Venetijs, ut dixit commorandum” with the administration of his inherited property, probably in or near the city of Bergamo. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.127r, 4 June 1558. 80. E.g., “magister Simon Grubissich calafatus [master-caulker] quondam Antonij de Jadra,” then a resident of Chioggia, appointed a fellow artisan “in personam magistri Martini sutoris” (master-cobbler) to sell the former’s house in Zadar’s St John parish. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.3v-f.4r, 28 May 1541. 81. In early 1558, “magister Joannes Baptista filius magistri Stephani de Venzono, cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre” appointed “dominum Franciscum de Ventura” to acquire the outstanding 50 ducats “in auxilium dotis Magdalenae.” 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.94r, 30 January 1558. 82. E.g., “magister Joannes Galeacij Marangonus [master-oarsmaker] de Venetijs habitator Jadre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.83r, 6 January 1556. 83. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.127r, 4 June 1558. 84. E.g., “magister Nicolaus Radotich Tinctor [master-dyer] civis et habitator Jadre” appointed “ser Phyllippum Pinezich Mercatorem habitatorem Sibinici” to sort out the con- 102 Urban Elites of Zadar stituent’s troubles “cum ser Joanne Zdrigne habitatore Tragurij” (Trogir) caused by a co- signing/guarantee (fideiussio) “pro incanto Tintoria Tragurij.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 6, c.30v, 5 November 1559. 85. In early 1569, “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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1, 3, c.29r-c.29v, 25 February 1569. 86. In more detail Sander-Faes, “Merchants of the Adriatic” (forthcoming). 87. E.g. “ser Joannes Antonius de Venetiis aromatarius [spice trader] Jadre” appointed “ser Franciscum Petrouich civem, et habitatorem Jadre” to become the former’s general procurator. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 8 July 1541. 88. As for the trade routes and connections to the hinterlands dominated by the Ot- tomans, 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.” Obviously, cross-border commerce and communication were not prevented by the voyage from Šibenik to Zadar to send someone further inland, borders, insecurity, or the incessant skirmishes between Ottoman and Venetian subjects along the frontiers. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 3, f.35r, 16 February 1565. 89. In August 1559, “ser Benedictus Blanco mercator Jadra” appointed “ser Lauren- tium Zappich,” a fellow citizen of Zadar, 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 4, c.198v, 31 August 1559. 90. Originally from Bologna, “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. A couple of years later, 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, “quondam domini Joannis Francisci Roverbella alias de Zacharia fratris dicti quondam domini Julij.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.329v, 12 September 1561; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 6, c.11v, 23 May 1558; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2, C, c.7v-c.8r, 15 June 1560. 91. Another merchant, “dominus Jacobus de Nobilibus alias Malzapello Parmensis Aromatarius Jadre,” 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, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 3, s.p., 13 March 1562. 92. Among the more prominent individuals as gathered from his appearance in the sources was “ser Philipus Uertcovich civis mercator et habitator Jadre,” who needed legal representation in his feud “cum Rabunno Scriuanich et Nicolao eius filio de Jelsa” (Hvar). The appointee, “spectabilem dominum Joannem Balci de Lesina,” was, as could be expected, not only an inhabitant but also a member of Hvar’s nobility. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.25r, 10 October 1567. The Balci family was also mentioned by Venetian legate Giovanni Battista Giustiniano. Commissiones, 2:221. Zadar’s Society 103

93. On his comparatively impressive wealth, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 259-261. In a number of notarial acts from 15581-559, appear Lazarus’ wife, Hel- ena, and their two daughters, Catherina and Dionora. Helena appointed “dominum Joannem Antonium de Pontremulo mercatorem Jadra,” probably a relative or business associate of her late husband, to deal with all issues pertaining to the restitution of her dowry of 700 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.148v, 15 September 1558. The interests of the daughters were related to Lazarus’s death—but in different ways. Catherina, married to “domini Francesci Sasseto,” appointed “ser Thomasium de Albis habitatorem Jadra” to represent her in her role as Lazarus’s heir “cum omnbius et quibuscumque debitoribus” in Bari. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 5, f.16r-f.16v, 15 October 1558. Dionora, on the other hand, had intentions more closely related to those of her mother: she was married to “domini Ludovici de Michulis aromatarij,” a spice trader originally from Ravenna, 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 6, c.6v, 17 April 1558. 94. For instance, 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, “Ser Radum de Ricinio […] ex cause tribus petias carise.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Si- mon Budineus, I, 1, 7, c.7r-c.7v, 10 November 1556. 95. Cf. Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-40. 96. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 10, s.p., 2 October 1564. For the ratification, the communal judge examiner’s signature was required. Ref. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum. De examinatione notariorum. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia.” Statuta Iadertina, 670. 97. Martin and Romano, “Venice Reconsidered,” 21. 98. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. 99. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 7, f.44v, 19 January 1540. 100. Federicus Grisogonus, alias de Bartholatijs (Federik Grisogono, 1472-1538), was a Zadar-born academic, medical doctor, and a professor at the prestigious University of Padua, working in fields as diverse as astrology, cosmography, mathematics, and mu- sicology. One of his writings, a treatise on fever pathology entitled De modo collegiandi, pronosticandi, et curandi febres, nec non de humana felicitate ac denique de fluxu maris lucubrationes, was first published in Venice in 1528. Federicus’ social status was very high in comparison to his fellow noblemen, 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. Even though Raukar et al. list these two families separately, the sources are quite clear about their ties. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, f.18r-f.18v, 9 May 1546; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 310-111, Dadić, “Natural Sci- ences,” 743-749; Girardi-Karšulin, “Federicus Chrysogonus,” 290. See also Jakić-Čestarić, “Etnički odnosi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru” [Ethnic Relations in Medieval Zadar]. 101. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.90v, 25 August 1555. 102. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, c.24r-c.24v, 3 October 1555. 103. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. 104 Urban Elites of Zadar

104. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, C, s.p., 2 January 1541. 105. The Mazzarelli were one of Trogir’s noble families in Giovanni Battista Giustiniano’s itinerary. Commissiones, 2:208. Both Johannes and his son Simon were communal chancellors in Zadar and, at one point in time, they jointly appointed “ser Jacobum de Leonardis Civem et habitatorem Tragurij” to represent them in all causes in their hometown. This must be considered in conjunction with a rental contract on the same folio in which Jacobus rented “omnes, et singulos fructus redditus, et proventus possessionum, et terrenorum ipsius Locatoris [Johannes stipulated in his and Simon’s name but technically alone] positorum In comitatu Tragurij.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, D, s.p., 3 August 1541 (two individual notarial instruments). 106. Population numbers by Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 107. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.16v, 19 September 1541. 108. Both Johannes de Rosa, referred to throughout the sources as a knight (eques) and doctor of canon and civil law (leges utriusque doctor), and his fellow nobleman Ber- nardinus Carnarutus, famous because of his military and literary achievements, commanded respect in excess of their privileged descent. See also Chapter 5. 109. In 57 instances (or 62%), the above-mentioned educated noblemen were appointed, in contrast to the 35 instances (or 38%), in which educated individuals of non- noble descent were appointed. 110. 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 Cau- sidicum”. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, B, s.p., 19 July 1540. 111. E.g., 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.” His choice fell onto “dominum Hieronymum de Bas- sano” whom he tasked to travel to Venice and to argue on the constituent’s behalf “coram celeberrimis dominis advocatoribus comunis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.152r-f.152v, 22 July 1557. 112. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 28 March 1543. 113. At one point, “Petrus Bassanus civis et Notarius Jadra” appointed “Hieronimum Bassanum eius fratrem modo Venetiae comorandum” to represent him “ad offitium Ad- vocariam Inclitam Urbis Venetiarum contra et adversus Reverendum dominum Albertum Duymum.” The notary’s quarrel with the archbishop revolved around a named but unex- plained decision issued “in excellentissimo consilio Rogatoruam diej xxv. Junij 1557.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.9r, 16 November 1556. 114. In autumn of 1541 “domina Samaritana uxor quondam domini Marci Antonij de Bassiano olim Causidici Jadre” sold four morgen (c. 9,480 m2) of land (a vineyard near present-day Zerodo) to her son, Petrus, for the price of 160 libras. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Au- gustinus Martius, I, 1, B, s.p., 23 October 1541. 115. It was in the same autumn of 1556 when “ser Andreas Postner de Gliubgliana Civis ac habitator Jadra” appointed Hieronymus, as above “modo Venetijs commorandum,” to resolve Andreas’s legal feud with “ser Radum de Ricinis” in front of the relevant tribu- nals of Venice. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.7r-c.7v, 14 November 1556. 116. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1, 4, c.13r, 14 May 1569. Zadar’s Society 105

117. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. See also Chapter 5. 118. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 6, s.p., 25 September 1559. 119. 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, nauta.” The two heirs, Camillus and Franciscus, not only inherited their deceased brother’s possessions, but also his legal feud. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 6, s.p., 2 November 1559. 120. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 2, c.5v-c.6r, 28 January 1560. 121. Paid out “in pecunia numerata” and movable and immovable goods. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 2, s.p., 25 July 1557. 122. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.25v-f.26r, 2 September 1551. 123. Evidently, Catherina was not too lucky to reacquire her dowry because a couple of years later she appointed a procurator of her own, “dominum Bernardinum de Begna,” her third husband’s brother. He was tasked “expresse ad exigendum, percipiendum et recuperandum a domina Slaua ipsius dominae constituentis et dicti quondam domini Joannis filia, 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 4, f.49v, 24 September 1565. 124. In his itinerary from 1553 Giovanni Battista Giustiniano listed the Begna, Nas- sis, and Pechiaro families as disposing of between 100 and 300 ducats of annual income. Commissiones, 2:197. 125. Returning to his hometown of Zadar in late 1541 or early 1542, “[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. Conse- quently, he appointed his brother, “discretum Juvenem dominum Hieronymum de Soppe […] se transferendum ad Civitatem Cathari,” to obtain all outstanding payments “a Camera fiscali Cathari.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 21 June 1542. Obvi- ously, Venice’s bad payment practices affected not just soldiers. This is evidenced by the fact that in early1543, Johannes re-appointed his brother Hieronymus to finally get hold of “omnes pecunias salarij sui Tam Temporis elapsi tamquam futuri.” Specifically, 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 10 February 1543. 126. Michael, on the other hand, had already commissioned Johannes Mazzarellus, Zadar’s communal chancellor, to divide the inheritance, apparently not to the liking of Catherina. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 12 November 1542. 127. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 19 December 1542. 128. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 2, f.31r-31v, 25 April 1564. 129. Ibid. 130. In early 1565 Paulina and Elisabeth appointed Julius Trevisan “ad nominem ipsarum Constituentium, et pro eis, ac quaque earum Laudandum, approbandum, Confir- mandum, et ratificandum quoddam Instrumentum compositionis, Concordij, et transactio- nis factum, ut dixerunt, Inter eumdam dominum Julium Trivisanum, et dominum Vivianum Barlendi mercatorem venetum […] ex una ac dominum Dominicum de Gamberarijs, et 106 Urban Elites of Zadar filios mercatores venetos ex alia.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 3, f.31v, 5 February 1565. 131. Tucci, “Psychology of the Venetian Merchant.” 132. E.g., 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,” worth 32 ducats. Having paid back the money by mid-July of 1566, the instrument cites the ducal letters accepting Maria’s late husband into Venetian military service (dated 21 January 1541). When, in turn, Venice had still not paid the constituent sixteen years later, Andrea Zane was appointed by Maria and sent to Venice “ad comparendum coram quibuscumque cleberrimis dominis Judicibus, officij, et Magistrati- bus civitatis Venetiarum et ad pedes Serenissimi Principis ad agendum, petendum et omnia ac singula Jura sua procurandum etiam si Talia forent quo mandatum exigerent magis spe- tiale, promittens dicta dona Maria Se esse creditricem dicti officij de eius provisione.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 12, s.p., 6 May 1567. 133. In autumn of 1540, Johannes Ulani tasked his procurator “pro eo exigendum, percipiendum, et recuperandum, Chorcire omnia, et quacumque denaria, res, et bona ipsius domini Constituentis a quacumque persona quavis de Causa sibj dare debente, ac praecipue a domino Jacobo de Aurani Corcirensis, et ab heredibus, sive bonatenentibus quondam ser Damiani Androminda de Neapolj.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 30 October 1540. 134. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 975. 135. Ibid.; Pederin, “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe,” 143. After the annexation of Cyprus, this policy was extended to the large island kingdom. Hill, History of Cyprus, 3:873. 136. The terminology used is “Mutium Calino ellectum archiepiscopum Jadre dignissimum,” who was absent at the time of the instrument’s stipulation, suggesting that he was either on his way to Rome or still in its vicinity. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 4, f.128v, 3 November 1556. 137. Initially, Marcus Loredan was tasked “ad capiendum, et intrandam possessionem specialem, 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, f.488r-f.488v, 12 February 1565. 138. 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. 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). The latter could keep all income gained from the rented property minus the agreed-upon rental fees and the Church’s tithes. See Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 113-138; Lane, Venice, 137-152; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 143; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 64. See also Chapter 4. 139. It has only been “exceptionally,” writes Budak, that the Church and its various activities have received much scholarly attention over the past decades. The oldest and, traditionally, largest community was the Benedictines, established in Zadar in the early Middle Ages. This consisted of the monastery of St Chrysogonus and the noble nunnery Zadar’s Society 107 of St Mary. And while the fourteenth century witnessed a decline of their influence when compared with the contemporaneous ascent of the Dominicans and Franciscans, both abbot and abbess of the Benedictine communities continued to command considerable influence in Zadar. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. 140. Not counting the Third Order Regulars (Tertius Ordo Sancti Francisci), organised in the community of St Francis (sv Frane), and open to both sexes. 141. The other monastic communities bestowed procuratorial duties upon the following five noblemen: “spectabilem dominum Johannem de Begna nobilem Jadrensis,” “dominum Donatum Crissana Nobilem Jadra,” “excellentem leges utriusque doctorem dominum Franciscum Fumatum nobilem Jadrensis,” “dominum Doymum Cedulinum Nobilem Ja- dre,” and “dominum Paladinum Ciuallellum.” In order of their listing HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.24r-f.24v, 21 July 1543; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.162v, 5 January 1559; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.415v, 15 April 1563; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.136r-f.136v, 14 January 1557; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 16 January 1562. 142. The convent was St Demetrius OP—and already employed a procurator (Bernar- dino Galelli) of noble descent. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.369r-c.369v, 15 April 1563. 143. This requires further consideration, however. More study is needed to assess this issue conclusively with regard to Venice’s maritime state. Grubb, “Elite Citizens,” 349. Marcus Antonius’s third son, “domino Michaelj de Bassiano quondam spectabili domini Marci Antonii Causidici et aromatario” (spice trader), was also referred to as lord. This tentative statement is restricted to the Latin terminology only (which, in Zadar’s case, amounted to about 95% of all notarial acts stipulated between 1540 and 1569). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, B, s.p., 20 July 1540. 144. As an instrument from early January 1559 details, the nuns of the convent of St Mary OSB were led by “domina Antonella Gallella honoranda abbatissa” and listed “sor Magdalena Tetrica, sor Marchetta Gallella, sor Perina Fumata, sor Jacoba Cedulina, sor Paula Soppe, sor Hieronyma Grisogona, sor Francischina Chernaruta [Carnaruta], sor Ga- briella Rosa, sor Justina Rosa, sor Vigilanta Grisogona, sor Dominica Soppe, sor Pacifica Soppe, sor Cherubina Nassi, sor Catherina Grisogona, sor Dionora Chernaruta, sor Flavia Pechiaro, sor Lucretia Grisogona, sor Daria Begna, sor Maria Galelli, sor Archangela Fer- ra, sor Jacomella Galella, sor Cicilia Ciualella.” As can been seen, 14 of the 17-20 noble families of Zadar had one or more members present in the convent. Jointly, they bestowed procuratorial powers upon “dominum Donatum Crissanam Nobilem Jadram,” who was chosen to replace “dominus Aloysius Tetricus,” himself of noble blood, “ad defferendum, dantes et concedentes eidem domino Donato” all required powers to represent the convent. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.162v, 5 January 1559. 145. His brother, Petrus, was a notary public. Their father, “domino Marco Antonio de Bassano,” was also an attorney living in Zadar. DAZd, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, 1, B, s.p., 23. October 1540. 146. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2C, c.9v, 30 June 1560. 147. The notarial act continues, stating that Franciscus was appointed “loco quondam domini Simonis Britanici dum vixit eorum procuratoris.” And while the Franciscans were not the only order to also appoint commoners, the number of noble appointees easily eclipsed the corresponding appointments of individuals of non-noble descent. HR DAZD 108 Urban Elites of Zadar

31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.480r-c.480v, 28 December 1565. Both Franciscus and Simon were apparently worthy to represent the Franciscans despite their non-noble provenance. The reason may be that both men commanded significant authority. The former was specifically noted by former captain of Zadar, Pauli Justiniani, in his report to the Senate, dated 13 February 1553 m.v. (1554), as one of the most important commoners, together with “Simon Bertonichio, il capitanio Peregrin de Marco, Francesco de Ventura, Zuan Ri- mondin, Hierolimo de Lorenzi et altri simili.” Commissiones, 3:52. The latter, “egregius vir dominus Simeon Britanicus civis et Interpres publicus Jadrae,” was obviously a very important individual too, 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Caval- ca, I, 1, 3, c.27v-c.28v, 30 December 1555; Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 4, f.18r, 20 August 1567. 148. On cloistered lives in Renaissance Venice, Laven, Virgins of Venice, and Sper- ling, Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice. On fourteenth-century noblewomen from Zadar and their testamentary practices, Grbavac, “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen.” For a sixteenth-century comparison Sander, “Adelige Vermächtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie.” 149. For instance, 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), recently deceased in Split. Consequently, 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, quatenus opus esset comparendum Coram Magnifico et celeberrimo domino potestate Tragurij et Spalati, ac alibi ubi opus esset agendum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 4, c.194v, 25 July 1559. 150. A few years earlier, the noble Franciscan nunnery of St Nicholas OSC, represented by “Reverenda domina Cassandra de Nassis Benemerita Abbatissa,” appointed “spectabilem dominum Franciscum Fanfoneum […] Nobilem Jadrensis” to retrieve “omnia, et quaecumque bona tam mobilia tamquam stabilia, pecunias, et scripturas, et quascumque res […] quondam domini Simonis Fanfonei ubique locorum, et a quibusvis personis” had bequeathed to them. 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,” who had recently died in Venice. Consequently, 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 1, c.1r-c.2r, 6 February 1555. 151. Another incident, again involving the Poor Clares, saw their abbess, “Reverenda domina sor Maria Grisogono,” appoint “dominum Petrum Ferra nobilem Jadre” to collect the sum of 50 ducats, which “Reverendo meser Nicolo Difnico” had bequeathed to the convent. The latter was originally from Šibenik and “Sacre theologie professorem ministrum fratrium minorum ordinis Sancti Francisci.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 10, s.p., 2 November 1563; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 17 March 1541. Zadar’s Society 109

152. Which is consistent with the assertion of Zadar’s decline and Šibenik’s ascent over the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century. Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 103. 153. Ibid., 104-113. 154. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.1r-f.1v, 10 May 1545. 155. These honorifics are found in any of the contracts involving a Venetian patrician. E.g., HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.41r, 17 August 1542. 156. Grubb, “Elite Citizens,” 349. 157. In the sources upon which the present study is based, the honorific lord (dominus) is usually found in conjunction with the nobility (both male and female), although some—the most important—commoners were addressed in the same fashion. There appears to have existed a certain arbitrariness behind these labels. For instance, Petrus de Bassano was referred to in both ways (lord and sir) even in the same document. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 9, c.9r, 16 November 1556. 158. In the case of an archbishop the appropriate epithet was “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum […] archiepiscopum Jadre Dignissimum.” Bishops, on the other hand, were addressed as “Reverendum dominum [name] episcopum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.128v, 3 November 1556; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.128r, 3 November 1556. 159. In the mid-1560s, “viri nobilium Jadrensis Reverendus Franciscus Archipresby- ter et domini Hieronymi fratres de Grisogonis” appointed “Magnificum dominum Petrum sopracomitum Triremis Jadertine.” The procurator’s was tasked specifically “ad locandum pro annis sex futuris ipsorum introitus, redditus, et proventus tam in civitate Tragurij [Trogir] tamquam eius comitatu.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 11, c.9r, 8 May 1565. 160. Canons too were occasionally addressed as “Lord,” as in the example of “Rever- endus dominus Mathaeus de Marchettis Canonicus Jadrensis, ac Anconitanensis” (Ancona). He appointed “spectabilem et egregium virum dominum Antonium de Marchettis fratrem ipsius domini constituentis, 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, ac prebende ecclesie cathedralis Anconitanensis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.3v, 21 February 1542. 161. Not all men of the cloth were addressed with the title Lord, however, as evidenced by “clerico Mattheo Battaglich de dicta insula Sali,” referred to without any honorific. He bought a third of a morgen (c. 790 m2) from “Martinus Duornicich de insula Sale” for the price of 18 libras. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 2, c.14r, 9 October 1561. 162. Usually, even non-noble priests were addressed with this epithet. “Dominus presbyter Johannes Liuacich parochianus ville Blato, et Nicolaus Liuacich Eius Nepos ex fratre” sold one morgen (c. 2,370 m2) with grapes to “Gregorio Litarich” for the sum of 62 libras. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 10, f.20r-f.20v, 23 September 1544. 163. In 1564 “excellens artium et medicinae doctor Cesar de Sanctis” appointed “Re- verendum dominum Antonium Garbinum Canonicu, et Vicarium Pagensis” (Pag) to represent him and “pro eo appellationem […] a quadam asserta sententa condemnatoria contra ipsum […] lata per Magnificum dominum Procomitem Pagi.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.464v, 22 September 1564. 164. For the female references HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.390r- c.390v, 30 October 1559. For the male counterparts, e.g., the case of “Reverendus pater 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 Nico- laum 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,” even though the war ended almost a decade earlier. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.8r- f.8v, 31 December 1549. 165. As in “venerabilis dominus Grisogonus Cedulinus canonicus Jadre Prefecturus Romam” who instituted “dominum Vincentium eius fratrem” as his general procurator. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.26r, 26 September 1540. 166. E.g., “magister Franciscus Staglich butarius filius magistri Hieronymi de Le- sina,” a master-butcher residing within Hvar’s jurisdiction, was appointed to take care of the possessions of “strenuus dominus Franciscus Civalellus agendum, et Interveniens nomine suo proprio ac vice nomine fratrium suorum” (Donatus and Gregorius) situated on the island of Vis. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.44r-c.44v, 7 August 1554. 167. As evidenced by “strenuus dominus Petrus Clada Capitaneus stratiotorum” who, as the legal guardian of the children of his late brother, “quondam strenuui domini Nicolai Clada,” appointed “Magnificum dominum Petrum Valareso quondam celeberrimi domini Zacharie” to obtain all outstanding payments. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.49r, 9 February 1555. On Zaccaria Vallaresso, captain of Zadar 1524-1526, and his career, Commissiones, 1:194-195. 168. For instance, “strenui Theodori Mamora de Nauplio [Nafplio] comestabilis in castro magno Jadre” was called valiant, whereas all the men in the company of “strenuus, ac Magnificus dominus Nicolaus Tetrico Nobilis Jadre meritissimus Capitaneus […] Comitam Coruatorum deputatorum ad custodiam civitatis Jadre” were not. The enlisted men, in all c. 40 soldiers, were named without any additional information. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Maz- zarellus, I, 1, 2, s.p., 21 August 1556; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 7, f.40r-f.41r, 1 January 1540. 169. 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, “dominum Julium de Nassis fratrem suum,” to lease one of her possessions near Sali on Dugi Otok. An example for the marital presence involved “Helysabeth uxor magistri Joanis Rubalouich cerdonis” (master-cobbler) who, “cum presentia etiam dicti viri,” sold 6 morgen (c. 14,220 m2) to “domino Zoylo de Ferra Nobile Jadre.” The parcel of land was arable, with grapes growing on it. It was located in the vicinity of the village of Banj and was sold for 60 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.173v, 25 March 1559; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.44v-f.45r, 18 November 1540. 3. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites

It is challenging to assess the numbers of people living in central Dal- matia around the mid-sixteenth century because no census data exists prior to Zaccaria Vallaresso’s 1527 report.1 And while the account of his tenure as Zadar’s captain is very detailed, subsequent indications about the populace must be treated with caution.2 It is even harder to describe in detail the activities in which the population engaged. However, in this chapter and the next, the available documentation is analysed to gain a picture of the demographics and activities of Zadar’s urban elites. The approach is two- fold: Chapter 3 distinguishes these elites by their political, ecclesiastical, and economic roles through examples of their activities and interactions with each other and the wider society. 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.

1. Political Elites: Venetians and the Local Nobility

At the top of the local hierarchy stood Zadar’s count, the highest-ranking civilian authority. The city’s military commander, the captain, assisted him.3 Both offices were reserved exclusively for Venetian patricians and represent the separate civil and military competences. This structure was also in place in the other major urban centres of Venice’s maritime state.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).5 The authority of both count and captain extended well beyond the city walls and by the 112 Urban Elites of Zadar middle of the sixteenth century comprised the entirety of Zadar’s jurisdiction, including the minor fortified villages of Nin, Novigrad, Turanj, and Ze- munik.6 To serve under the Venetian officials, civilian and military personnel were imported to central Dalmatia from both shores of the Adriatic or even beyond the Straits of Otranto.7 The city itself was guarded by two garrisoned forts,8 while a detachment of light cavalry—so-called stratioti—provided security in the hinterlands.9 They consisted mainly of Croats and Levantines. These mounted soldiers were called upon in case of hostile incursions by Morlachs, Ottoman subjects, or Uskoks.10 The count and the captain, by virtue of their offices and patrician descent, enjoyed an eminent social position, even if they are represented minimally in the notarial records. 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. 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, “petias triginta tres Zimbilotorum [goat hides] recuperatum ex fundo maris,” once washed ashore was considered communal property and thus listed in the fiscal chamber’s books.11 Even though the city’s statutes are silent on wrecking (ius litoris),12 the count paid the money to the owner of either the ship or the cargo, “Vellj de Anguri.” The count, “magnifico domino Joanne Dominico Ciconia,” was represented by notary Petrus de Bassano who acted on behalf of the absent count “uti persona publica.” The meeting took place in the large audience chamber of the ducal palace.13 On the following day Vellj issued a quitclaim which formally confirmed the receipt of the 33 goat hides, 11 of which he had already “consignandas Venetijs per egregium dominum Laurentium a Puteo” (possibly Pozzuoli), a citizen of Zadar who then lived as a merchant in Venice. The remaining 22 pieces had been handed over to Vellj “a Spectabile domino Simone de Pasinis vice collaterale Jadre,” who acted on behalf of the commune by virtue of his office.14 Another high-profile case occurred in mid-January of 1555. In the previous year, “ser Jacobus della Zotta,” a sailor and resident of Zadar, had bought a total of 536 star15 of grain from “domini Hieronymi Dilza, et domini Joannis Antonij Paiari,” both absent merchants and citizens of Ferrara.16 They were represented by “ser Gaudentius de Chiavena habitator Ferrariae, uti legitimus Procurator.” Jacobus had sailed his ship directly to Barletta and, by allegedly circumventing Venice’s staple rights, stood Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 113 accused of “committere contrabannum.”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, “domin[us] Lazar[us] de Pontremulo,” a merchant and citizen, and “Zoylo de Ferra,” a nobleman of Zadar.19 In the interim the grain had been stored in three magazines, all of them owned by Lazarus, since the ship’s cargo bay was considered ill-suited to preserve the corn. As it happened, 353 star of grain were already in rather bad condition, forcing a lower price of only five libras and four soldi per unit; the rest, 151 star, could be sold at the higher price of six libras and 10 soldi per unit.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, a commission of 26 star for Lazarus, and an additional charge of four star for the storage of the grain. Gaudentius then formally confirmed the receipt of the money, exone- rating the count of the debt. In the instrument’s valediction, 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, “Mattheo Cuitcouich.”21 The count or captain also appear in a number of instruments involving less dramatic actions. These include the issuing of payment quitclaims, the granting of explicit licence to women to act independently from their husbands, arbitration settlements, and assumed procuratorial duties after leaving office. The following examples of exchanges between the Venetian officials and their subjects serve to illustrate these different types of interaction (Table 6, below). The count or captain were routinely assigned procuratorial duties by members of the upper social strata, mostly involving high-profile individuals or magistrates elsewhere. For instance, in June of 1558 the Venetian patrician “Magnificus dominus Hieronimus Foscarinus [Foscari] quondam celeberrimi domini Michaelis” appointed Zadar’s captain, “dominum Mar- cum Antonium Priolum [Priuli] dignissimum capitaneum Jadrae,” to serve as his procurator. The task was to settle all outstanding financial issues of the constituent’s late brother, “quondam Magnifici domini Petri,” who served as galley commander (sopracomes)22 before his death. The procuratorial duties thus included dealings with the Captain-general, another Ve- netian patrician of considerable influence and prestige. They were drawn up on 28 June 1558 in the presence of public notary Franciscus Thomaseus and “ser Francisco de Venetijs,” the captain on the late Petrus’s galley.23 114 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 6: Transactions on 15 January 1555

Amounta Amount Paid out inb Paid out byc (libras) (soldi) 35 libras 17 soldi superstitus jadrensisd 620 libras Franciscus Nani 112 libras 4 soldi Lazarus de Pontremulo 310 libras Franciscus Nani 1,075 libras 9 soldi 157 scudi Franciscus Nani (1 scudo = 6 libras and 17 soldi) 207 libras 18 soldi 27 ungari Franciscus Nani (1 ungarus = 7 libras and 14 soldi) 62 libras moneta grossa, 0.5 scudi Franciscus Nani 20 libras 4 soldi moneta grossa, 0.5 scudi Franciscus Nani 400 libras Zoylus de Ferra 2,841 libras 52 soldi c. 458 ducats (1 ducat = 6 libras and 4 soldi)

Source: HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.16r-c.17r, 15 January 1555. (a) Amount of money paid out in libras and soldi. (b) Type of coin with which installments were paid. The bottom line gives the approximate sum in Venetian ducats. All exchange rates are given as they appear in the referenced source. Conversions by the author. (c) Individuals who made the payments. (d) Communal official tasked with clearing duties.

In another instance the count, “Aloysij Cornelio [Corner],”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. Magdalena intended to sell one of her houses to “magistro Antonio Balcich cerdoni” (master-cobbler) to reacquire a building “a ser Martino Lucatello,” a citizen and merchant of Zadar. These legal requirements are even reflected in the protocol book of Simon Maz- zarellus, who wrote down the two individual contracts on the same folio. The first act conferred the ducal license to Magdalena; the second was a document of sale, which explicitly stated that the transaction took place “in vim suprascripta Auctoritate Pretorie.”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. This was a restriction Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 115 unknown in Roman Law, which had previously applied in Venice and her dominions.26 Among the more common issues facing count and captain during their tenure of office were disagreements between landlord and tenant, often over excise duties or other forms of payment in cash or kind.27 For instance, in early 1560 labourers on property near Tkon, situated on the island of Pašman and owned by the abbey of Sts Cosmas and Damian of Rogovo, were upset by the excess payments demanded by the landlord. Since this was clearly against the contract, they argued, Zadar’s count, Benedictus Contarenus (Contarini) was petitioned to obtain redress of grievances. The ensuing ducal sentence was appealed by the convent’s representative, the “Reverendum dominum Montemerlum de Montemerlo Comendatarium [provost of the commandry] Abbatie sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani,” further prolonging the dispute. It was only in mid-March of 1562 that an arbitration settlement between the abbey and its labourers was agreed upon, establishing the rent as a quarter of the harvest.28 The various other members of the administration wielded the next layer of political power. These individuals and their families lived within the walled perimeter of the city and ensured the continuous functioning of the bureaucracy. Their main tasks were to oversee the harbour and issue export licenses, to collect taxes from the inhabitants living within Zadar’s jurisdiction,29 and to command the military detachments. Some also engaged in commercial activities. These Venetians regularly appear in the notarial protocols, as demonstrated by one instance from the early 1550s. Two military officers, “strenui Xacman Gleglieuaz et Petrus Naycinouich capitanei murlacorum,” were paid the money owed, confirmed its receipt, and exonerated “Magnificum et generosum patritium venetum dominum Petrum Vallaresso quondam celeberrimi domini Zachariae.”30 Both soldiers were “provisionati ex gratia Illustrissimi ducis domini Veneti,” mercenaries who served the Republic of St Mark, and commanded troops levied among the Morlachs. On at least two previous occasions,31 and one later occasion, the same constituent parties tasked Petrus Vallaresso again to obtain the money owed “ab officio Magnificorum dominorum cameriarorum comunis venetiarum.”32 In the end “domino Antonio de Venturino cive Jadre” paid the three soldiers on behalf of Petrus Vallaresso.33 While the exact nature of the latter’s role within the Venetian administration in Zadar is unclear, he performed the same procuratorial duties for a number of other mercenaries.34 116 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),35 chamberlain (camerarius),36 communal broker (scontrus),37 or salt tax collector (gabellotus).38 In all, the protocol books suggest that the number of Venetians living in Zadar was relatively small, evidenced by the fact that they appear in only 120 instances (out of 6,436 notarial acts stipulated between 1540 and 1569). Also, many of these individuals were mentioned more than once. Beneath this small Venetian presence a number of other individuals worked as chancellors (cancellarius), heralds (praecor), or scribes (scriba).39 These positions, while few in number, were open to qualified educated or literate individuals from the Venetian possessions or elsewhere. For instance, Zadar employed two chancellors, 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). On many occasions these offices were held by nobles from other areas of theStato da mar41 or beyond its borders. Most individuals from the western Balkans were Croat nobles engaged in the defence of the Dalmatian hinterlands. Before addressing the ecclesiastical and economic elites, we must consider the size of Zadar’s nobility in relation to the rest of the population. As Giovanni Battista Giustiniano mentioned in his itinerary, 17 distinct aristocratic families existed in Zadar around the mid-sixteenth century (a number disputed by Tomislav Raukar et al. who suggest the existence of 20 families comprising roughly 600 individuals42). The adult male nobles formed the city’s council, which in 1553 consisted of 70 individuals.43 The combination of these numbers allows for the tentative conclusion that Za- dar’s nobility made up approximately a tenth of the total population.44

2. Ecclesiastical Elites: Convents, Hospitals, and Monasteries

The following section defines the levels of Zadar’s Church hierarchy and examines clerical interactions with the larger society. In the existing literature on the subject, the Dalmatian “ecclesiastical elite” has been defined as the higher echelons of the Church, including the archbishops of Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar; the bishops of Hvar, Korčula, Kotor, Krk, Nin, Osor, Rab, Ston, and Trogir; the members of their respective chapters; and the heads and chapters of the monasteries. While the provosts of Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 117 the large and wealthy convents continued to wield considerable influence, their integration into and interactions with the larger society have “only exceptionally been a matter of interest to scholars of the Dalmatian Middle Ages.”45 Many of these dignitaries were, in fact, “elite citizens” (Grubb) or aristocrats well-integrated into the economic and social fabric of society, irrespective of their geographical provenance. Consequently, 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.” Ecclesiastical dignitaries, convents, hospitals, and parish churches—as well as individuals representing these people, offices, or prebendaries— are members of this category. At the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy stood Zadar’s archbishopric and its chapter. While these offices and the lower-ranking bishoprics were reserved for Venetian patricians only,46 the chapters usually included non-nobles.47 The second layer within the ecclesiastical hierarchy was the bishop of Nin, forced to reside in Zadar after the devastation caused by the Ottoman- Venetian war from 1537 to 1540.48 Next in the hierarchy were the convents. As Table 5 (Chapter 2) outlined, these were affiliated with the Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans. Further down the hierarchy were the parish churches within the city proper, the hospitals of St Jacob and St Mark, and the parish churches elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Generally, the archbishop and the bishop of Nin and their adjunct institutions are absent from the notarial records. There are, however, some exceptions, usually occurring when new office-holders were appointed, or other matters of importance prompted high-level intervention. 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 Fran- cisci de Magistris de Pisauro, […] done Dionore et Priuigna.” The heirs, in turn, gave away half a house constructed of stone and wood in Zadar’s St Vitus’ parish.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.51 In some cases the new appointees were tasked with the acquisition of outstanding payments. In 1556 two of Zadar’s citizens, “dominus presbyter Sanctus de Sanctis Canonicus Jadre, et dominus Joannes Raymundinus 118 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 7: Zadar’s Female Cloistral Population of Noble Descent (c. 1559)

Family, Clana St Mary OSBb St Nicholas OSCc St Demetrius OPd Begna (Benja) sor Gelenta sor Catherina sor Johanna sor Angela sor Laura Charnaruta (Carnaruto) sor Francischina sor Benedicta sor Lucietta sor Dionora Cedulina (Zadulini) sor Lucia sor Benedicta Civallella (Civalelli) sor Cicilia sor Isabetta sor Francischina sor Magdalena Fanfonea (Fanfogna) sor Deodata Ferra sor Vincentia Fumata (Fumatis) sor Perina Gallella (Galelis) sor Antonella, sor Nicolotta abbatissa sor Marchetta sor Jacomella Grisogona (Grisogono) sor Hieronyma sor Maria, sor Coliza, priora sor Vigilanta abbatissa sor Simonella sor Catherina sor Nicolota sor Catherina sor Concordia sor Catherina sor Victoria sor Lucretia sor Perina sor Ursia sor Magdalena Nassis (Našić) sor Cherubina sor Magdalena sor Magdalena sor Catherina sor Cornelia sor Prospera Pechiaro (Pekarić) sor Flavia Rosa (Rosa) sor Arcanglea sor Isabetta sor Perina sor Paulina sor Lucia sor Justina Soppe (Soppe) sor Paula sor Isabetta sor Pacifica Tetrica (Detrik) sor Magdalena Diphnica (Divnić) sor Philippa Mogorichia (Mogorić) sor Helena

Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.390r-c.390v, 26 October 1559 (three individual instruments). Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, 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. 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 Excelentis- simi Domini Venetiarum, quam coram alio quocumque Jusdicente, in inclita Venetiarum civitate quacumque auctoritate fungente, et praetoru tam ecclesiatico quam Seculare causa et occasione petendi exemptionem et liberationem a solutione decimarum et decimarum novissimem impositarum a quarum decimarum solutione, ex antiqua consuetudine et cle- mentia prelibati Illustrissimi Domini huiusque Semper ut asserverunt exempta fuerunt, nec quicquam ullo umquam tempore dicta de causa persolverunt.” (a) Surnames of the 16 noble families who had members living in the three nunneries. The first 14 families lived in Zadar. The last two families, the Diphnica and Mogorichia, originated elsewhere, indicating that these convents were not exclusively reserved for residents of Zadar. Diphnica was a noble family of Šibenik. The Mogorich may have been from the Croatian hinterlands. 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, in present-day Karlovac county). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 6, s.p., 29 May 1565. (b) Nuns in the Benedictine St Mary’s convent in 1559. Judging from the names, this was the preferred religious order for the majority of Zadar’s noble families. The Grisogonus family, however, had comparatively large numbers of members in all three convents (indicating that they were either very pious or hedging their bets). The Benedictine non-noble “moniales Sanctae Catherinae” joined the three aristocratic monasteries. The same procurator, the above-referenced Johannes Grisogonus, was appointed and sent to Venice. The 13 nuns listed were: “sor Francischina de Marco, sor Ursia de Marco, sor Scholastica Venturina, sor Magdalena Armana, sor Perina de Pace, sor Bernardina Pasina, sor Ventura de Veturina, sor Francischina de Marco, sor Gabriella Zappich, sor Rafaela Gislardo, sor Donata Britanica, sor Paulina de Jordanis, sor Archangela Ventura.” The total number of noble nuns was 56, of which 24 (42%) were in the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary, 16 (c. 29%) were in the Franciscan monastery of St Nicholas for Poor Clares, and the remaining 16 (c. 29%) were in the Dominican monastery of St Demetrius. 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. (c) Nuns in the second Franciscan Order of St Clare or Poor Clares (OSC). This order appears to have been favoured over the other convents by the Nassis and Civallellus families. (d) Nuns in the Dominican St Demetrius’ convent. This order was the clear choice of the Benja family, whose members made up a third of all nuns in 1559. The absent families were the Calcina, Ciprianus, Crissana, Gliubavatius, Mathapharis, and Grisogonus alias de Bartholatiis (although it is possible that one of the family members above was from the Bartolatijs branch).

Civis Jadre” appointed “Reverendum in Christo Patrem et dominum dominum Matium Calino,” the absent archbishop-elect, to retrieve all money owed “a Sancta Sede apostolica a Reverendo auditore camere apostolice.” At the time of stipulation the incoming dignitary was not present (probably 120 Urban Elites of Zadar still in Rome or its vicinity), so the two constituents sought to take advantage of the procurator’s social status and presumed geographical nearness to the Vatican.52 A second example involved the designated bishop of Nin. Upon appointment, the new dignitary left behind his former prebendaries to travel to his see, often with little knowledge of the new diocese. 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].” After his desi- gnation he was required to relocate to central Dalmatia. Upon arrival, one of Marcus’ first actions was to appoint “Reverendum dominum Domini- cum 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. There is one notable exception. Sees commanded significant amounts of landed property, and to tap these resources, procurators had to be regularly appointed. For instance, Zadar’s archbishopric possessed estates within the city’s jurisdiction, but also on the neighbouring island of Pag. In both instances the property was auctioned off to the highest bidder for tax farming purposes.54 The following discussion and accompanying tables analyse Zadar’s nobles and their ties with ecclesiastical institutions. Three of the convents within the city walls were exclusively reserved for nuns of aristocratic descent. Each of these nunneries was affiliated with one of three large monastic orders. The Benedictines ran St Mary’s nunnery, the Poor Clare Sisters the nunnery of St Nicholas, and the Dominicans the nunnery of St Deme- trius (see also Table 5 in Chapter 2). As Table 7, above, indicates, Zadar’s aristocratic families exhibited certain preferences for one or another of the monastic orders. These tendencies are further supported by the testaments and codicils of the city’s nobles. In addition to the relative popularity of the three congregations, the documents reveal which families tended to prefer which order (Table 7.1, below). The documents demonstrate additional interesting correlations between the noble families and specific monastic orders. Table 7.2, below, indicates that the churches of the Benedictine and Franciscan orders were the preferred burial places of Zadar’s nobility. Combined, the two congregations housed two-thirds of their grave-sites. Table 7, above, shows that the Grisogonus-de Bartholatijs clan55 had many relatives serving in each of the three convents. But a closer look at the testaments reveals that six of the 21 individuals reque- sting burial in a Benedictine church were members of the Grisogonus-de Bar- Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 121

Table 7.1: Zadar’s Nobility and Their Preferred Orders (1540-1569)

OSBa OSFb OPc other, n/ad 22 individuals 24 individuals 15 individuals 17 individuals 4 in St Chrysogonus1 23 in St Francis4 13 in St Dominic6 5 in other churches8 17 in St Mary2 1 in St Nicholas5 2 in St Demetrius7 12 n/a9 1 in St Andreas of Rab3

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45 (Chapter 2). When possible, the names are given in standard Latin, based on the procuratorial sources. 111 documents are analysed, constituting the entirety of the nobility’s testaments preserved by the notaries. This includes 78 testaments and 33 codicils. The table provides an overview of the preferred burial places of Zadar’s nobility, both individuals native to the city and those who relocated there for marriage. The first entry in each column provides the number of individuals in each religious order that specified a burial place. 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, therefore, whether the Benedictines or the Franciscans were the preferred order overall). The names of the churches are given in English. (a) Burials at Benedictine churches. (1) Burials at St Chrysogonus (all men). (2) Burials at St Mary, adjacent to the Benedictine noble nunnery (six men, 11 women). (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,” which might help explain why the testatrix preferred to be buried at home. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Gabriel Cernotta, I, 2, no. 17, 17 June 1564). (b) Burials at Franciscan churches. (4) Burials at the male-only St Francis (six men, 17 women). (5) Burial at St Nicholas, adjacent to the Franciscan noble congregation of the Poor Clares (last will of “domina Maria filia domini Petri Ciuallelli, et uxor quondam domini Simonis de Mathapharis quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadrensis”. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 68, 12 March 1538). (c) Burials at Dominican churches. (6) Burials at the male-only St Dominic (eight men, five women). (7) Burials at St Demetrius, adjacent to the Dominicans’ noble nunnery. (d) Burials at other churches or unspecified places. (8) Burials in churches unaffiliated with the three above-mentioned orders. Among these five were “Reverendus dominus Franciscus Grisogonus quondam spectabilis domini Antonii,” Zadar’s archpriest and a member of its metropolitan chapter, preferring to be buried in St Anastasia. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, IV, 8, no. 36, 27 November 1563. In the four other cases, all testators were female and preferred locations as diverse as the church of St Hieronymus on Ugljan (“Helisabeth filia quondam Aloysij de Begna,” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Jo- hannes Michael Mazzarellus, IV, 7, no. 553, 12 March 1553), the church of St John in Zadar’s suburbs (“domina Clara filia quondam domini Georgij Xuuich nobilis Sibenicensis, et uxor quondam domini Cose de Begna nobilis Jadre,” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 2, no. 2, 20 August 1545), and two noblewomen preferring St Simeon’s church, namely “domina 122 Urban Elites of Zadar

Francischina uxor quondam domini Damiani de Begna” and “nobilis domina Gelenta filia quondam domini Simonis Ciprianj Jadre,” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, IV, 8, no. 40, 1 March 1564; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus III, 6, no. 189, 4 November 1539. (9) Burials in unspecified places. Four of the 12 testators left the choice of burial place to the husband (“Sepelirj voluit ac ordinavit […] eius maritus,” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 175, 21 June 1539) or the brother (“Corpus suum reposit In ecclesia ubi voluit, et mandavit […] dicti Testatricis frater.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis I, 2, no. 10, 3 September 1549). tholatijs families (related either by blood or marriage). This and the fact that only two family members requested burial elsewhere suggests a clear preference for the Order of St Benedict. On the other hand, the Begna and Nassis families preferred the Dominicans, while the Fanfoneus, Ferra, and Pechiaro families were closely associated with the Franciscans (Table 7.2, below). Relatedly, 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, above).56 In addition, some of the surnames of the nuns listed indicate that they were among the most prestigious non-noble citizens of Zadar.57 The number of noble nuns in autumn of 1562 amounted to 56. If this number is put in the context of Zadar’s overall aristocratic population of around 6,000,58 it suggests that about 20% of Zadar’s noble women lived in convents. (It must be noted however that the tables above are not based upon monastic records but notarial protocol books). These statistics are supported by the fact that a high percentage of noble women in Venice lived in convents, a trend likely mirrored by other urban societies in the Stato da mar, including Dalmatia, as suggested by Jutta Sperling and Mary Laven.59 The third ecclesiastical group consisted of the parish churches and hospitals in Zadar’s old town and its surroundings. While the appearance of these institutions in the notary protocols ranges from relative prominence to insignificance, their activity patterns appear to be similar to the two other groups discussed above. They too appointed procurators for a wide variety of reasons, from leasing parts of their prebends to the highest bidder to the election of new chaplains.60 For instance, around 1550 the church of St Simeon, dedicated to one of Zadar’s two patron saints,61 had two procurators: “spectabilis et excellens leges utriusque doctor dominus Petrus Fanfoneus et spectabilis dominus Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 123

Table 7.2: Zadar’s Noble Families and Their Preferred Burial Places (1540-1569)

OSBa no. OSFb no. OPc no. Grisogono 6 Nassis 3 Nassis 6 de Bartholatijs Nassis 3 Pechiaro 3 Rosa 2 Pechiaro 2 Tetricus 3 Begna 2 Rosa 2 Begna 2 Cyppico* (Trogir) 1 Soppe 2 Fanfogna 2 Fumato 1 Begna 1 Grisogono 2 Grisogono 1 de Bartholatijs de Bartholatijs Calcina 1 Boyco* (Nin) 1 Soppe 1 Cedulino 1 Buchia* (Kotor) 1 Tetricus 1 de Dominis* (Rab) 1 Cedulino 1 Ferra 1 Civallello 1 Gallello 1 Diphnico* (Šibenik) 1 Rosa 1 Drasa* (Osor) 1 Soppe 1 Ferra 1 Tetricus 1 Gallello 1 Soppe 1 22 24 15

Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45 (Chapter 2). Names with an asterisk (*) indicate aristocrats from Dalmatia who originated outside of Zadar. 111 documents are analysed. (a) Testators who requested burial at Benedictine churches (St Chrysogonus [♂] and St Mary [♀]). (b) Testators who requested burial at Franciscan churches (St Francis [♂] and St Nicholas [♀]). (c) Testators who requested burial at Dominican churches (St Dominic [♂] and St Dem- etrius [♀]).

Doymus Cedulinus.” 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). Together they appointed another nobleman and family member of Doymus to represent the church in Venice: “spectabilem dominum Petrum Cedulinum.” Petrus was sent “ad Comparendum et se humiliter praesentandum ad pedes Illu- strissimi Ducis Domini Venetiarum et coram alio quocumque celeberrimo magistratu et offitio eiusdem Inclita civitati.” The collegium was in need 124 Urban Elites of Zadar of additional funding for repairs and in order “ad obtinendum in gratiam auxilium in et pro necessaria reparatione […] ecclesiae.” Needless to say, in cases of such importance the constituent party sought to appoint high- ranking members of society to increase the chances of success.62 Similarly, parish churches rented out parts of their prebendaries for revenues. In autumn of 1554, “Magnificus et excellens leges utriusque doctor et eques dominus Joannes Rosa, et dominus Simon Britanicus uti procuratores ecclesiae Gloriosae Imaginis Virginis Mariae pacis de Subur- bio Jadrae,” two of Zadar’s most renowned individuals (see also Chapter 6) appear in the sources. By virtue of their appointment as representatives of the church of Our Lady of Peace in the city’s suburbs, they leased the income of six morgen (c. 1.4 hectares) located “in pertinentijs villae Cerno [Crno]” to “Stephano Goycich macellatori, civi et habitatori Jadra.” For three years starting in March of 1555 the butcher agreed to an annual payment of 10 ducats, transferable “in fine cuiuslibet mensis Februarij.”63 A final sphere of institutional interaction, which functioned similarly, was the hospitals. Two hospitals existed within the walls of Zadar, while two more lazarettos were situated further away.64 Usually the provosts simply appointed general procurators to represent their institutions.65 Every now and then the administration of a charitable institution was bequeathed at least a part of an inheritance. Once the testator had made his or her intentions known a notary was needed to stipulate legally binding documentation. In 1550 “Dominus Martinus de Lucadelliss guardianus, et ser Simon Britanicus, et Joannes Raymundinus […] ac nomine, et vice domini Nico- lai de Ventura,” all citizens of Zadar and procurators of the Hospital of St Jacob, intervened to secure such a bequest. 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.” She did so “sponte et deliberamente, non seducta neque circumventa,” but under the condition “que dicti Hospitale Teneatur et debeat post eius obitum ei facere funeralia,” probably because her husband, “quondam ser Francisci Britanici,” could no longer do so.66 As for ecclesiastical individuals, one of the most interesting cases was without a doubt the cleric Simon Budineus or “Budinich,”67 probably better known under his Slavic name, Šime Budinić. He was born in Zadar where he also worked as a notary public and is most renowned for his literary skills.68 In the early 1580s he moved to Rome69 where he published at least two books in his native tongue. In these books he pioneered the use of Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 125 certain diacritic signs (č, ž).70 After spending a couple of years in Italy he returned to his hometown where he died on 13 December 1600. Much less is known about his earlier years, except that he was born in the early 1530s. He appeared in the instruments of Zadar’s notaries more than 20 years later, referred to as “clerico Mansionario ecclesise Jadrensis,”71 the sacristan of the city’s cathedral. He left six books filled with 827 individual notarial acts, of which the earliest is dated 3 October 1556. The last entry was written on 3 July 1565.72 In the decade he spent in Zadar, Simon Budineus lived and worked in both the spiritual and temporal worlds, although he only rarely participated in mundane business. Only two contracts hint at economic activities. The first, written in Janua- ry 1560, mentions that he rented “quorumque fructus dicti anni spectantes praebende canonicatus sui quem obtinet in dicta ecclesia Jadrensis” from his uncle, “Reverendus dominus Sanctus de Sanctis canonicus Jadrensis.” The two contracting parties agreed upon the price of 24 ducats, of which Simon had paid 23 libras and two soldi up front and another 76 libras and 18 soldi in cash. The rest, 24 libras, were promised to be paid within the following three weeks. Yet notwithstanding the kinship ties between the two parties, business was business: “Anastasia […] de Sale,” a resident of Zadar, vouched “ad cautellam et securitatem dicti domini conductoris [Simon Budineus] et heredum Suorum.” In the document’s valediction, the contract also reveals the approximate location of Sanctus’s house: “Actum Jadrae in curia domus habitationis dicti domini locatoris in confinio castri.”73 In the second instrument, drawn up in late November 1558, Simon Budineus conceded three morgen (c. 7,110 m2) in the vicinity of St Peter of Iž to “excellenti Juris utriusque Doctoris domino Petri de Fanfoneo,” a nobleman of Zadar, for five years. Simon is referred to as “plebanus, ut dixit, ecclesiae Sancti Petri de Eso diocesis Jadrensis,” rendering it likely that he transferred a part of the church’s prebend. 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. In addition, Petrus was assured a bonus of four soldi for each newly-planted olive tree.74 As suggested by his marginal appearance in the instrument books during his documented presence in Zadar, Simon was busy with the other aspects of his existence. 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. In comparison with 126 Urban Elites of Zadar his notarial peers, his activities considerably elevated his social standing within Zadar’s society.75

3. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities

The final section of this chapter provides an overview -of commer cial activities, divided into the categories of mercantile endeavours and real estate markets. During the Middle Ages banking, commerce, and trade were mostly dominated by foreign individuals and institutions.76 While this started to change with the second Venetian dominion in Dalmatia after 1409, the emphasis here rests on the accessible information provided by the notaries of Zadar. The reports by Venice’s governors, legates, 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, syndic Giovanni Battista Giustiniano wrote in 1553, “non è molta, perchè la maggior intrada che sia fra loro, è di ducati quattrocento, cinquecento et fino settecento.”78 Tomislav Raukar wrote of an economically declining nobility after 1409, with even fewer wealthy commoners. The decline in salt production and the rising frequency of Ottoman raiding parties, which laid the agriculturally important hinterland to waste, contributed to Dalmatia’s economic decline.79 The absence of dynamic activities in the notary books underscores Giustiniano’s comment about the city’s declining wealth.80 With a considerable shift away from commerce and trade, economic activity was increasingly directed toward real estate, the selling and renting of livestock,81 the leasing of (admittedly few) salt pans on the neighbouring island of Pag,82 and the sale of ships.83 This brings us to the problem of identifying the important economic actors. Judging from the notarial records, the involvement of Venetians in the local markets of Zadar was all but non-existent. The local aristocracy and clergy dominated its economy and property markets. Since property markets are discussed in more detail in the following chapter, let us first examine the economic aspects unrelated to real estate transactions. With few exceptions the livestock market was controlled by Zadar’s nobility, which provided those who owned cattle (pecudina), goats (capri- na, pecora), and small domestic animals (animalia minuta) with a steady stream of income. As might be expected, the actual number of owners was Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 127 very small. Among the city’s nobility the Begna and Nassis families stand out. But they were not the only possessors of livestock.84 The Nassis family sold livestock on at least seven occasions, and in four instances the buyers came from the de Pontremulo merchant family. In all, 414 small domestic animals changed hands, netting the Nassis clan a total of 408 ducats.85 Interestingly, the relationship between the contracting parties was kept up in two rental instruments. 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.” Included in the contracts, which grossed another 199 ducats, was the provision that the renting party also be granted usufruct rights to the meadows in which the animals were kept.86 In short, most proprietors of livestock came from the ranks of Za- dar’s nobility. The acquiring parties were either nobles or merchants. Only 40 notarial instruments deal with the transactions of livestock, which as a result of the insecurity along the Ottoman-Venetian border was mostly kept on the coastal islands. The second major non-real estate commodity was salt pans. Production of this vital good, which during the Hungarian suzerainty was the backbone of Zadar’s economy, declined significantly after 1409.87 By the middle of the sixteenth century only small parts of the clergy and aristocracy were still engaged in this trade. Of the latter group the family of “domina Francischina uxor quondam domini Nicolai de Rosa nobilis Jadre,” sold on four different occasions a total of 25 salt pans “in valle Pagi in confinio Sancti Joannis In- cangerich” for the sum of 433 ducats. On all four occasions it was the same buyer: “domino Georgio Mirchouich Nobilis Pagi.” The payment for these transactions was conferred via an intermediary, the well-known Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo, explicitly referred to as “depositarius.”88 Another noble family of Zadar in possession of salt pans on Pag was the Fanfoneus clan. Its most prominent members, “spectabilis et excellens leges utriusque doctor dominus Petrus and dominus Franciscus Fanfoneus Eques,” rented 18 salt pans each to “ser Antonius Romucich de Pago” for a total of 312 ducats for six years.89 But it was not only the worldly elites engaged in this lucrative business. The clergy profited too. For instance, 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, once to Georgius Mirchouich, and once to “domino Matheo Migauzich nobli Pagensis.” While the total earned sum of 12 ducats and 175 libras appears 128 Urban Elites of Zadar low, dealings like these provided the ecclesiastical institutions with a secure and steady flow of income.90 The third area of commerce was maritime trade. With the exception of Franciscus Dandulo, this segment of the local economy existed more or less outside the activities of domestic and foreign nobilities. The contracting parties originated from all over the Adriatic, from “Malamocho [Malamocco]”91 and “Clodia [Chioggia]”92 in the Venetian lagoon to Pi- ran93 in Istria, extending southward to Zadar, Šibenik, and beyond.94 The number of ship sales was very low, however. Only exceptionally are resident Venetian patricians mentioned between 1540 and 1570 in connection to commercial activity. One of them was “Magnifico domino Francisco Dandulo [Dandolo] quondam celeberrimi domini Joannis,” a presumably lower-ranking member of the prestigious Venetian family residing in Zadar.95 Compared to his peers he was in many ways the exception to the rule. He actively participated in the local real estate market: he bought two patches of land in Zadar’s jurisdiction96 and rented out other possessions.97 He also bought a grippo with the cargo capacity of 200 star (c. 16,662 litres) from “ser Petrus Cherletich,” a noble of Pag, for the price of 55 ducats.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, Franciscus further diversified his investments.100 The Venetian patrician was engaged in various aspects of economic life in Zadar,101 as well as maritime commerce, as evidenced by the cause of his death. In summer or autumn of 1551 Franciscus was crossing the Adriatic to trade in Apulia when the ship carrying him capsized and sank. This incident caused his nephew, “Magni- ficus dominus Marinus Dandulo quondam Magnifici domini Marci Antonij Patritius Venetus,” to sail from Venice to Zadar. He and his absent brothers, “Magnificis dominis Petro et Andrea,” 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.102 The story of the life and death of Franciscus Dandolo serves as an example of those individuals who, by virtue of descent, education, or commercial abilities, were part of the political and social elite, as well as the economic elite. 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).103 Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 129

Notes

1. For 1527 he gave the number of 6,903 souls (anime) living in Zadar proper. 1,148 souls dwelt in its suburban areas. Commissiones, 1:194-223, here 203-223. 2. Mocellin presents a useful overview of the population development in Zadar after 1527. Malz provides graphs on the basis of published literature. For the mid-sixteenth century, an urban population which numbered between 6,538 (1553) and 5,826 (1554) souls is given. Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt,” 106; Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 43-44, 60-61; Peričić, Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike, 19-22, 57-60; Peričić, Razvitak gospodarstva Zadra i okolice [The Economic Development of Zadar and its Surroundings], 20-24. 3. On Venetian offices in the Stato da mar most recently O’Connell, Men of Empire, esp. 39-56. 4. The separation of civil and military authority was instituted by the Venetian Senate during the Middle Ages. This appears mainly to have been a response to the fact that Venice relied heavily on mercenary troops for her fighting. Appointing civilian overseers provided a certain amount of control over the “foreign” condottieri. In principle, this policy extended to the Stato da mar, although such dual administrations existed only in the largest and most important possessions—Zadar, Crete, and Cyprus. Furthermore, in Venice’s maritime state Venetian patricians filled both positions, a policy that also applied to the higher positions in the Church. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 964, 966. 5. In Zadar, 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). The seat of civil authority, today called Palace of the Duke/Rector and Provveditore (Kneževa i Providurova palača), is situated in Simeon Budineus Square (Poljana Šime Budinića), which is named after the Zadar-born cleric, grammarian, poet, writer, and public notary quoted extensively throughout this book. The Captain’s Palace was strategically located next to the Land Gate (Porta Terraferma). While no longer extant, the pentagonal Captain’s Tower in the city’s Five Wells Square (Trg pet bunara) testifies to its former use. 6. Before it was lost to the Ottoman as a result of the war of 1537-1540, it included also Vrana. Commissiones, 3:51. 7. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 967-968; Lane, Venice, 355-370. 8. Zadar’s defences consisted of two castles: the medieval citadel in the southern corner of the city and a second fort (arx, castrum, castro) situated at the entrance of the city’s harbour. The remnants of the former are partially visible today. It functions as home to the University of Zadar, Croatia’s oldest university, founded in 1396 by Dominicans and reopened in 2003. See Raukar, “Croatia within Europe,” 20-21. The harbour fort had been demolished and today hosts the docks for trans-Adriatic ferry services. The only reminder of its past use are the Three Wells Square (Trg tri bunara) and the new Arsenal building. See Commissiones, 2:193-194; Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 14-40; and Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 189-190. 9. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 966-968; Petta, Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia. 10. For instance, in 1553 “Il voloroso Brutto Cluson,” commander of Zadar’s citadel and cavalry unit of 74 soldiers, consisting of Croats and Levantines. An additional 47 mounted soldiers were under the joint command of “meser Nicolò e meser Lombardin Tetrico,” noblemen of Zadar. Still smaller detachments were commanded by “Pellegrin di 130 Urban Elites of Zadar

Marco,” “il conte Vido Posedaria” (Posedarje), “Francesco Civallich gentilhuomo di Zara,” and other individuals. Commissiones, 2:196. 11. “[Q]ue petie Triginta Tres Tetigerunt ipsi Magnifico domino Comitj Tempore Di- visionis ipsorum Zimbilotorum Naufragatorum […] recuperatum ex fundo maris, ut Latius apparere dixerunt, de praemissis omnibus in Libris Camere phiscalis Jadre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, s.p., 10 August 1549. 12. Zadar’s statutes do not contain explicit clauses on wrecking; however, three clauses deal with restitution issues and goods washed ashore. Lib. III, tit. I, cap. 4: “Qualiter teneatur ille qui accepit aliquod animal accomodatum si periculum ei acciderit vel casus fortuitus”; Lib. III, tit. II, cap. 8: “Quod nullus teneatur ad restitutionem pecuniae acceptae in collegantiam vel in rogadiam, si casu fortuito perditam contigerit affuisse”; and Lib. III, tit. XIV, cap. 75: “In quibus casibus tenetur ad restitutionem animalis ad naulum accepti et in quibus non, si perierit vel fuerit deterioratum.” Book IV, “De Navigis et Navibus,” contains 83 chapters but likewise does not explicitly address wrecking. Neither do the 160 chapters in the Reformationes. Statuta Iadertina, 248, 252, 320, 394-461, 520-677. See also the commentary by Mijan on the statutes of Dubrovnik, Venice, and Zadar on maritime legislation: “Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta” [Maritime Regulations of the Statute of the City of Zadar]. 13. “Actum Jadre, in sala magna palatij ressidentie praefati Magnifici domini Comitis presentibus domino Michele de Pelegrinis, ac domino Christophoro de Nassis […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, s.p., 10 August 1549. 14. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, s.p., 10 August 1549 (two individual instruments). 15. 1 star = c. 82.25 litres, 536 star = c. 44,086 litres. Statuta Iadertina, 759. 16. Neither merchant was present, but they were represented by their procurator, “ser Gaudentius de Chiavena [Chiavenna] habitator Ferrariae uti legitimus Procurator, Nuntius, et Negotiatorum gestor,” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.16r-c.17r, 15 January 1555. 17. On Venetian policy in general, Orlando, Altre Venezia. On the Venetian Adriatic in particular, Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 50-51; Schmitt, “‘Contrabannum:’ Der adriatisch-balkanische Schmuggel.” See also Ref. 125: “De accusationibus contra bec- carios et alios quoscumque.” Statuta Iadertina, 606. 18. “Quum sit, et rei veritas, sic Se habeat ser Jacobus della Zotta nauta habitator Jadrae, his […] diebus, contra formam, et continentiam legum, ordinum, et partium Excel- lentissimi Consilii Decem, Superinde disponendum ausus fuerit, onerare eius navigium seu barcam in civitate Barleta, furmento de ratione quorumdam Mercatorum Ferrariensis, pro conducendo Illud Ferrariam, et sit committere contrabandum […] pro quo condem- natus fuit ad ipsum Navigium ammitendum; quae condemnatio postea per viam gratie in ducatis octuaginta redacta fuit.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.16r-c.17r, 15 January 1555. 19. Lazarus de Pontremulo was one of the wealthiest individuals who then lived in Zadar. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 259-260, 265, 300. 20. Parts of the grain was already “malefactum, et male conditionatum” and had to be sold in “diversis precijs, rispecta qualitate Ipsius furmenti, sic malefacti, et male condi- tionati.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.16r-c.17r, 15 January 1555. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 131

21. “Actum Jadrae in praetorio, presentibus ser Antonio de Antibaro Stipendiato ad custodiam plathee, et Mattheo Cuitcouich precone Jadre, Testibus habitis vocatis, et spetialiter rogatis.” Ibid. 22. Galley commanders were required to have at least four years of experience and were responsible for the recruitment of sailors, scribes, soldiers, etc. The latter especially amounted to a financial burden since the expenditure had to be borne by the galley commanders. Lane, Venice, 365. 23. 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 […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.137r, 28 June 1558. 24. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2A, c.31v, 30 November 1559. 25. The contract of sale was stipulated on 19 January 1560. Below it, at the bottom of the same folio, a certified copy of the ducal licence was written down to complete the re- cord. 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 […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Maz- zarellus, I, 1, 7, c.7r, 5, 19 January 1560. 26. 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,” with their marital status also defining the degrees of their personal and economic freedoms and opportunities. McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 41. See also Grbavac, “Tes- tamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen,” 68-69. 27. Agriculture, farming, and livestock breeding were the backbone of Dalmatia’s economy, which was left unchanged by the Venetians after 1409. Legal documents, therefore, were based on land grants (concessiones) and rental contracts (locationes) to colonists, farmers, and labourers. Land grants involved payments in kind, usually a quarter of the harvest, which was to be handed over to the landlord. For rental contracts, payment in cash was agreed upon. These contracts were legally binding and negotiated prior to the tenants’ leasehold. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 228-230; Peričić, “Prilog poznavanju agranih odnosa” [Contribution to the Agricultural Relations], 138. See also Chapter 4. 28. The settlement was agreed upon between the abbey’s procurator, Franciscus Thomaseus, and “Vitus Duymouich,” the judge of Tkon, in the presence of “Joannes Radin- cich de eadem villa et Lucas Hostich.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.351v- c.352r, 14 March 1562. 29. Reliable taxation numbers are equally hard to come by since not all reports by Zadar’s governors or captains include financial data. It is known, for instance, that during Petrus Pisani’s captainship 1548-1550, expenditures exceeded income by as much as 400 ducats. More details are given by Giovanni Battista Giustiniano in 1553 when who wrote of the fiscal chamber disposing of roughly 7,000 to 8,000 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 25,000 ducats per year). 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 […].” 16,000 kvart = 1,000 modii (one Venetian modium = c. 333.26 litres, equal 132 Urban Elites of Zadar to four star or 16 kvart). See Commissiones, 2:183, 196-197, 199; Commissiones, 3:50. For the conversions, Statuta Iadertina, 759. 30. All major studies refer to his report from September 1527, mostly because of the immensely detailed information provided. Prior to his assignment as Zadar’s captain, 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. In the end, however, he received too few votes. He then served as “conte e provveditore” in Hvar from 1518 to 1520 before, in the following year, he was again put on the ballot for Provveditore Generale and again was not elected. In the end, in September of 1524 Zaccaria was invested with the captainship in Zadar, which he occupied until the spring of 1527. See Commissiones, 1:194-223. 31. On at least two other occasions the same three soldiers had tasked Petrus Val- laresso with obtaining their outstanding payment. At times, Petrus Naycinouich and his “consanguineus […] comes Paulus Naycinouich, cognominatus Pao” represented each other as procurators. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, f.26r, 27 May 1552; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.11r-f.11v, 24 April 1543; Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 13, s.p., 26 October 1547. 32. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, f.26r, 27 May 1552. 33. Antonius acted “via ac nomine Magnifici domini Petri Vallaresso quondam celeberrimi domini Zacharie” and paid the entire outstanding sum “ab offitio Celeberrimo- rum dominorum supracameris Illustrissimi Ducis domini venetiarum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 13, s.p., 26 October 1547. 34. Including “dominus Petrus Clada, 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). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.25r, 7 October 1549; Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.36r-f.36v, 20 February 1550. 35. This official was in charge of parts of the ducal powers and was paid out of the communal fiscal chamber. 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 bres- sano” (Brescia) in exchange for the payment of 27 ducats. The latter’s service was to begin on 1 October 1554. Zadar’s fiscal chamber in turn paid 25 libras every three months to the office-holder, plus some allowances for board (23 libras and 14 soldi) and lodging (19 libras and eight soldi). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.45r-c.45v, 27 August 1554. 36. The overseer of Zadar’s fiscal chamber too was an important figure within the Ve- netian administration. He oversaw all taxation returns and was responsible for the treasury. This often proved to be an unappreciated position because virtually every report written by Venice’s syndics, counts, and captains mentioned insufficient income, in some cases amassing such deficits that other communities along the Dalmatian coast had to transfer some of their earnings to Zadar. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 978-979; Commissiones, 2:197. In 1558, the city’s chamberlain was “magnificus dominus Hieronymus Zane,” possibly a Venetian patrician who appointed “magnificum dominm Antonium Michael [Michiel] quondam celeberrimi domini Francisci Patricium venetum,” then Zadar’s count, to collect outstanding payments from the Venetian treasury “causa, et occasione augmenti salarij sui.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 1, c.7v, 2 April 1558. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 133

37. This official was tasked with clearing activities on behalf of the commune, such as overseeing settlement of all outstanding financial transaction and seeing that all transactions were settled according to the appropriate legal requirements. 38. The office collected all the salt produced in a given region. In Zadar’s case from the salt works to the southeast of the city and from those located in the neighbouring jurisdiction of Pag. See Hocquet, Le sel et la fortune de Venise, 1:83-88; Raukar et al., Za- dar pod mletačkom upravom, 85-88. 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,” suggesting that Gaspar had previously served in a different position. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.36r-f.36v, 20 February 1550. 39. If not indicated otherwise, the account follows Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 156- 164 and Pederin, “Ämter der venezianischen Verwaltung.” 40. In comparison to the Venetians, the communal chancellors appear more promi- nently in the sources. For instance, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus and his son Simon were both nobles of Trogir, doctors of both laws civil and canon (leges utriusque doctor), and occupied the office of communal chancellor in Zadar. See also Chapter 2. 41. For instance, in 1547 the position was filled by “domino Georgio Diphnico,” a knighted noble (eques) originally from Šibenik. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 12, s.p., 7 April 1547; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 17 March 1541. 42. The number given by by Zaccaria Vallaresso is 564 individuals. Commissiones, 2:197; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 43. Commissiones, 2:197. 44. The number given—again, by Zaccaria Vallaresso—is 564 individuals. However Raukar et al. add that the data are incomplete and must be treated with considerable caution. Commissiones, 1:194-223; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 45. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188, 194-196. For a more general discussion, Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 974-976; Prodi, “Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice”; and, as regards Dalmatia in particular, Šanjek, “Church and Christianity.” 46. Arbel, “Colonie d’oltremare,” 975; Pederin, “Venezianische Verwaltung Dalma- tiens und ihre Organe,” 143. 47. Having convened in the chapel of St Barbara “que est sacristia Ecclesie metropo- litia Sancta Anastasia,” the members of the archbishop’s chapter are listed: “[i]nfrascriptis Reverendis dominis de Capitulo Jadrensi, videlicet, Reverendo domino Francisco Chryso- gonis Archipresbytro, Reverendo domino Petro Britanico Primicerio, Reverendo domino Joanne Donato Begnio canonico et Vicario, domino Joanne Sichirich, domino Matheo de Marchettis, domino Joanne Thomaseo, domino Antonio Mirchouich, domino Sancto de Sanctis, ac domino Vincentio de Ventura canonicis dicta Ecclesia Jadrensis.” 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, starting “a die huius contractus.” Both archpriest and vicar were of noble descent. The other individuals were firmly rooted within the upper layers of Zadar’s social fabric. For example, Johannes Thomaseus, Matthaeus de Marchettis, and Sanctus de Sanctis were all related to notaries. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.112v, 18 April 1558. 134 Urban Elites of Zadar

48. At least two instruments explicitly state that the office-holder, “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,” lived in Zadar. In the first instance he appointed a procurator to act on his behalf in Corfu. In the second, Marcus, as the archbishop’s representative, leased the archbishopric’s income, including the tenth of Pag, “al Spettabile meser Pompeo di Soppe” for the annual payment of 1,000 ducats. The former contract was “Actum Jadre domi habitationis dicti Reverendi constituentis.” The latter “Fatto in Zara nella sala dell’habitation del prefato Reverendo Monsignor Locatore.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 4, c.233r-c.233v, 4 March 1560; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.378v-c.381r, 29 September 1562. 49. Dionora and Priuigna themselves were not present but were represented by one of their guardians, “Magister Petrus Iuanusceuich cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.40v-c.41r, 28 March 1554. 50. In March of 1555 Cornelio Pisauro leased a patch of land belonging to the archbishopric close to Kali, Pašman, “a spettabili domino Doymo, et domino Petro fratribus de Cedulinis nobilibus Jadre.” The contracting parties agreed on annual payments of four ducats for the duration of 29 years (i.e. an “emphytheotica concessio”), “cum hac expressa condictione, et declaratione per Ipsas partes in presenti Instrumento apposito […] nec dicti fratres, neque eorum heredes et Successores possint ullo modo cogi, neque compelli ad Solutionem in toto, 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, seu per eius sancti sedem apostolicam, qua Sic inter partes Ipsas per pactum expressum conventum et statutum fuit.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.26r-c.26v, 5 March 1555. On the Law of Emphyteusis as defined by Zadar’s statutes, Lib. III, tit. XVII, “De iure emphiteotico seu de iure quod acquiruntur danti et recipienti possessiones aliquas pastinandum,” which contains seven chapters; Ref. 63: “De pastinatoribus et laboreriis per eos fiendis.” Statuta Iadertina, 324-332, 562. 51. A bit earlier, in September of 1553, “Reverendus dominus Johannes Donatus Beg- na,” a noble and newly appointed vicar, officially accepted his (unpaid) vicariate, and by officially ratifying his appointment instrument, stipulated on 25 April 1552. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, f.32v, 19 September 1553. 52. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 4, f.128v, 3 November 1556. 53. 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, et quorumcumque bonorum Terrenarum, fructuum adationum livel- lorum et proventuum dicta Abbatia spectandum et pertinendum.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.411r, 19 March 1563; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.488r-c.488v, 12 Febru- ary 1565. 54. As for the sources, the archbishop rented out “omnes, et quoscumque fructus, redditus, et proventus, affictus Jurisdictionis […] Tam Terre firmae tamquam Insularum, diocesis Jadrensis, et decimam Insule Pagi” for the annual payment of 620 ducats. In a contract from the mid-1540s, the archbishop himself rented his sees’ income to Johannes Mazzarellus, a noble of Trogir, notary public, and Zadar’s communal chancellor, and Jo- hannes Thomaseus, a citizen, canon, priest, and member of the metropolitan chapter. Two Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 135 weeks later the two accepted “dominum presbytrum Joannem Barbiricich” as the third co- tenant, slightly augmenting the latter’s price from 620 ducats to 635 per annum. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.1r-f.1v, 10 May 1545; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.2r-f.2v, 14 July 1545. 55. While Raukar et al. list these two families separately, the primary sources usually mention the intermarried individuals as “de Grisogonis alias de Bartholatijs” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, III, 6, no. 175, 21 June 1539. See also Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 269-270. 56. The document refers to the convent as “venerabiles dominae Moniales Sancte Marcellae ordinis Sancte Clarae in Civitate Jadrae.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.391r, 27 October 1562. 57. Those listed include “Veneranda domina soror Martha Armana Abbatissa, sor Hel- ena Clococichia, sor Francischina de Boschettis, sor Helisabeth de Boschettis, sor Clara Bumbichia, sor Justina Brunouich, sor Cherubina Benivento, sor Benedicta Armana, sor Archangela de Martinis, et sor Cornelia de Rossettis.” All the family names listed suggest an elevated social status among Zadar’s commoners. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.391r, 27 October 1562. For instance, members of the Armamus/Armano, Brunouich, de Bonivento, de Martinis, and de Rossettis (de Pontremulo) families were engaged in various mercantile endeavours. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.11v-c.12r, 15 July 1560; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.133r, 26 December 1557; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, f.49r-f.49v, 9 June 1556; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, s.p., 2 September 1543; Petrus de Bas- sano, I, 3, f.17v, 11 September 1548. See also Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 259-260, 265, 300. 58. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 59. See, e.g., Sperling, Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice, 18-71; and Laven, Virgins of Venice. 60. Elections of chaplains rarely appear in the surveyed notarial instruments; however, they bestowed property upon the new dignitary. Usually, the deceased benefactor of a prebend would leave indications in his testament, either willing them directly to his successor or providing for the election of a new holder. The latter instance occurred in the mid-1550s involving the two noble Grisogonus and Tetricus families. In October of 1555 “Reverendus Franciscus de Bartholatijs Nobilis et Archipresbyter Jadrensis ex una, et Magnifici ac Nobiles Viri dominus Joannes Baptista, ac Aloysius Tetrici, Nec non ac nomine et vice Magnificorum dominorum Lombardini et Nicolai Nec Non Magnifica dominae Corneliae Tetricae, ac praefatus dominus Aloysius uti Donatarius et cessionarius noti Venerabilae dominae Perinae de Fumatis monialis In monasterio Sanctae Mariae de Jadra […] ex altera,” in accordance with a notarial instrument stipulated by Johannes Mazzarel- lus on 12 April 1554, convened in Zadar’s communal chancellory. Referring to a number of other documents from as far back as 10 August 1497 and 17 January 1551, 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.” Usually elections such as this were followed by the ratification of instruments at the behest of all involved parties. In this particular case, however, the approbation was followed by Franciscus de Bartholatijs ceding the prebendary to “Reverendum ac excellentem dominum Presbytrum 136 Urban Elites of Zadar

Blasium Sidineum Jadrensis,” an absent doctor of canon and civil law represented by his procurator and uncle, “Reverendus dominus Presbyter Simon Tutofeus.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 1, s.p., 23 October 1555 (two individual instruments). 61. The other is St Anastasia, to whom Zadar’s cathedral is dedicated. 62. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 2, s.p., 26 August 1557. 63. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.4r-c.4v, 2 November 1554. 64. Medieval Zadar and its jurisdiction had two major hospitals, five minor hospitals, and a leper house. Runje, “Lazaret u pregrađu srednjovjekovnog Zadra [The Lazaretto in Medieval Zadar]; Fabijanec, “Dalmatian Lazarettos from the 14th until the 16th Century”; Neralić, “Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia.” By the mid-sixteenth century the situation was as follows. The “lazzaretto di San Marco,” situated in today’s Kolovare area to the southeast of the city centre, served the leprous. A second hospital, the “lazaretj pestiferorum Jadre,” cared for those who contracted the plague (or, presumably, any other visible, highly contagious disease). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, C, s.p., 13 December 1551; Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 16, 30. A second lazaretto for the quarantining of the leprous, named “lazarettum pauperum leprosorum Sancti Spiritu extra menia suburbij Jadrae,” was located outside the suburban fortifications on the far side of the harbour, northeast of today’s Queen Jelena Madijevka Park “In loco dicto lazaretto.” These indications are confirmed by one of the maps provided by Mocellin, placing this second leper house in a minor valley called “Valle de Leprosi” in today’s Voštarnica district of Zadar. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1, 2, c.8r-c.8v, 25 January 1568; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.15r-c.15v, 14 January 1551; Mocellin, “Citta fortificata,” 58. Another lazaretto appeared in the notarial records. Apparently no longer in use by the mid-sixteenth century, its name carried on as a toponym. In an instrument effecting a cassation of an earlier concession, the parcel of land in question is referred to as “Iacentis ad lazaretum vetus” but without any other additional information. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.170v, 12 February 1559. 65. As happened in mid-January of 1556 when “Martinus Brnicouich de Cerseuagne Sello, Vitus Caurich de Sale [Sali, Dugi Otok] uti principales Pauperum leprosorum Sancti Lazari,” speaking on behalf of himself and the absent chaplain of the lazaretto, “dominus presbyter Nicolaus Zubich,” appointed “spectabilem dominum Nicolaum de Nassis quondam domini Cressij et dominum Bernardinum Carnarutum” to represent the lazaretto in its feud with “dominum Alexandrum Cocari, et magistrum Marcum Subich sutorem” (master- cobbler). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.87r, 16 January 1556. 66. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.10r-f.10v, 29 August 1550. 67. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.46v-c.47r, 9 January 1560. 68. His name first appears in the sources in June 1557 when he bought a parcel of land of 3.75 morgen (c. 8,887.5 m2) next to Vrsevac along the road to Nin for the price of 140 libras. In this contract the buyer is specifically referenced as “clericus et notarius jadrensis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 5, c.15r-c.15v, 1 June 1557. 69. Given the Papal ban on Venetian priest-notaries by Eugene IV, this is interesting in and of itself. It is known that the last priest-notary in Venice proper worked until 1570. Thus Simon Budineus may even have been among the last priest-notaries within Venice’s dominions. Pedani Fabris, “Veneta Auctoritate Notarius,” 1-19; Cracco, “Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia,” 179-189; Guzzetti, Venezianische Vermächtnisse, 18-28. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 137

70. Moguš, History of the Croatian Language, 77-78. In the wake of the Council of Trent, Simon Budineus was working on Slavic translations of ecclesiastical and instruc- tional writings in Rome. 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, Izpravik za erei izpovidnici, i za pokornici [Breve directorium ad confessarii ac confitentis munus recte obeundum]. Vidaković, “Cultural-Po- litical History of Zadar,” 16-17; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 413-416. 71. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.46v-c.47r, 9 January 1560. 72. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.1r-c.1v, 3 October 1556; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.505r-c.506v, 3 July 1565. 73. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.46v-c.47r, 9 January 1560. 74. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 2, c.2r-c.3r, 28 November 1558. This particular contract is not the only one in which bonuses for the planting of new olive trees are apportioned. At the root of it was the decline of olive tree cultivation due to the increasing insecurity caused by the Ottomans, a development further reinforced by the Ottoman- Venetian war between 1537 and 1540. In his contemporary report Giacomo Pisano, count of Zadar 1564-66, who returned to Venice in early 1566, wrote that “fu fatto un proclama, che alcuno non potesse pinatar vignie, se non piantasse per ogni gugnial [gonjaj] 12 piedi de olivari, con pene a quelli fussero inobbedienti; per il che fino al partir mio n’erano stà piantadi 5,100. Et essendo, come è, beneffitio delli suoi sudditi, continueranno al piantarne ogn’anno. Et si facea nel contado et isole avanti 1537 miera 600 [mjera or unit of measurement, here 1 mjera = ca. 80 litres, Statuta Iadertina, 759]; ma per li disturbi hora se ne fanno 100 miera, essendo secati et brusati li olivari; il qual con molto apresso che vien dalla Puglia si consuma nella città, contado et isole.” Not only did the overall production of olives and olive drop to about one-sixth of pre-1537 levels, it necessitated the import of olives and olive oil from Apulia. Commissiones, 3:167. 75. Among Simon Budineus’s clients were the archbishop and a variety of other high- profile individuals, including “ser Baptista Diphnyci quondam domini Georgii,” a nobleman of Šibenik, and “meser Hieronymo Gallelli […] spettabile meser Pietro Ferra, et meser Gregorio Grisogono,” all three from the ranks of Zadar’s nobility. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 6, s.p., 26 October, 1558; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2C, c.41v, 20 May, 1560; Johannes a Morea, III, 6, no. 338, 19 December 1545; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1, 5, c.6v- c.7r, 22 October 1569. 76. E.g., by the business practices of Venetian patricians, at times even anachronistically called a “holding.” Doumerc, “Dominio del mare,” 150-154 (quote on 151, emphasis in the original); Lane, “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures,” 37; Chojnacki, “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians,” 246. 77. Commissiones, 2:197. 78. Only the Tetrico (Detrik), Rosa, and Civallello (Civaleli) families disposed of up to 700 ducats annual income. Ibid. The Slavic family names (in parentheses) are from Rau- kar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 79. Raukar concluded that both Ottoman and Venetian factors, in combination with the economic and political developments in the wider Mediterranean, caused the Dalmatian cities to first stagnate during the fifteenth century and continue to decline from the sixteenth century onward. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 214-219, 281-297. 138 Urban Elites of Zadar

80. Commissiones, 2:197. 81. Over the three surveyed decades, only 25 contracts document the sale of livestock. In addition, there are 11 contracts in which livestock was leased or rented to someone else by the owner. In all of these 36 instances, however, the number of owners remained limited, suggesting that the livestock was firmly concentrated in the hands of a few families: the Nassis (named in 11 out of the 36 instances), Soppe (four out of 36), Begna (three out of 36), and the Ferra and Rosa families (one each out of 36). In addition, the archbishopric is named twice as the owner of the livestock. All other owners were listed only once. Con- versely, on the buyer/tenant side of the contracts, the merchants of the de Pontremolo (both Johannes Antonius and Lazarus, nine out of 36 times), the Ventura families (Franciscus and Hieronymus, three out of 36 times), and the Soppe (seven out of 36 times) rank among the most prominent recipients. All other owners of noble (e.g., the Begna or Gallellus families) and non-noble (Toninus, de Hermolais) descent were listed only once. In the livestock sales, the turnover amounted to c. 2,370 ducats, with prices ranging from one ducat per cow to three to four goats per ducat. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.15v, 15 September 1541; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.53r, 10 March, 1555; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.170v, 3 October 1558. The turnover in the 11 rental contracts (locationes) was smaller, totalling only c. 1,017 ducats, or around 92 ducats on average. As for the number of livestock involved, most documents do not list them but in some instances there are references to herds of 400-800 animals. Despite the fact that these contracts remain silent on the species of animals, a third contract listing 600 goats and sheep has been found. 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.78v, 27 June 1555; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.80r-f.80v, 4 July 1555; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 11, s.p., 1 February 1556. Sources: unless indicated otherwise, HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, (1555-1561); Johannes a Morea, (1545-1569); Petrus de Bassano, (1540-1569); Simon Budineus, (1556-1566); Simon Maz- zarellus, (1555-1567). Based upon 25 livestock sales (emptiones) and 11 livestock leases (locationes), in 20 out of these 36 transactions, the livestock was located on islands off Zadar but still within the city’s jurisdiction. 82. In all, salt pans were sold only six times. 13 times they were leased between 1540 and 1569. As in the livestock trade, 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). Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 85-88. 83. The contracts involving the partial or complete transaction of a ship cannot be analysed in similar terms, except for the fact that most ships sold were, at the time of the stipulation of the instrument, in Zadar’s port and that most contracting parties did not reside in Zadar. Also, the number of ships sold via notarial instruments is very small, totalling only 15 instances over the three decades under survey. 84. “Domina Pasiza uxor quondam domini Nicolai de Begna” appeared twice when she sold 1,600 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, totalling 533 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.53r, 10 March 1555; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.84r, 23 July 1555. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites 139

85. Three times Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo is identified as the buyer. The fourth time it is his next-of-kin, “domino Joanni Antonio de Pontremolo mercatori et habitatori Jadre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.28v-c.29r, 16 March, 1555; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.37r-c.37v, 10 May 1555; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, c.99r, 10 September 1555; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 14 March 1562. 86. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.313r-c.313v, 12 May 1561, Corne- lius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.15r-c.15v, 16 July 1567. 87. The number of salt pans in use within Zadar’s jurisdiction declined from 169 (104 run by nobles, 65 by commoners) during the fourteenth century to only 42 (26 run by nobles, 16 by commoners) between 1409 and 1500. This decline of approximately 75% was mirrored by the decline of salt production on the neighbouring island of Pag during the same period. While there were 942 (825 run by nobles, 117 by commoners) salt pans in use during the fourteenth century, only 345 (288 run by nobles, 57 by commoners) were used after the beginning of the second Venetian dominion. These developments were brought about by Venetian attempts to monopolise the salt trade for themselves, rendering it increasingly difficult for local investors to profit from it. This contributed to the overall decline of economic activities after 1409. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 206-219, 281-297. 88. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 1, f.3r-f.4v, 5 February 1545; Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 12, s.p., 28 August 1547; Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, f.16r-f.16v, 9 September 1548; Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, f.17r-f.17v, 11 September 1548. The Rosa family appeared two more times, although in the name of “domini Michael, ac Franciscus de Rosa quondam excellentissimi leges utriusque Doctoris domini Simonis,” when the three brothers leased some of their salt works to “venerabili domino presbitro Georgio Zorulich Canonico Pagen- sis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 2, 1, f.30v-f.31r, 11 October 1540; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, F, s.p., 23 May 1543. 89. Both contracts included the usufruct rights to use the proprietors’ storage facilities on Pag near the salt works, as well as additional payment issues like pay days, etc. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 5, f.29r-f.29v, 13 February 1561; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 6, f.12v-f.13r, 10 April 1564. 90. In addition to the examples cited, it is worth pointing out that in two out of the three instances involving the nunnery of St Mary OSB, nobles of Zadar acted as the congregation’s procurators (in the third case one of the nuns is listed). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.48r, 13 February 1555; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, B, s.p., 10 October 1540; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2B, c.6v-c.7r, 1 February 1560. 91. For the price of 90 ducats “Paulus filius Francisci Bressanini habitator Malam- ochi” sold a marciliana with the capacity of approximately 300 Venetian star (c. 24,675 litres) to “domino Bartholomeo Augustini de Nigris de Ravena ad praesens habitatori Ja- dre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.13r, 16 August 1553. 92. 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. 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 4, c.38v, 17 March 1557. 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 Radi- nouich 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 Bas- sano, 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 Vene- tian 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 eques- trian 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; Commis- siones, 3:51, 102.

4. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets

The decades following Venice’s renewed control over most of Dalma- tia 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 apportion- ment 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 Salesa Concessionsb Rental Contractsc Augustinus Martius 26 3 4 Cornelius Constantius 20 13 10 Daniel Cavalca 269 93 41 Franciscus Thomaseus 55 8 2 Gabriel Cernotta 3 9 2 Horatius de Marchettis 24 17 12 Johannes a Morea 98 95 30 Johannes Michael Mazzarellus 34 7 7 Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius 1 1 – Nicolaus Canali 28 7 5 Nicolaus Drasmileus 138 57 20 Petrus de Sanctis 6 6 1 Petrus de Bassano 197 64 15 Simon Budineus 119 60 54 Simon Mazzarellus 49 39 20 1,067 479 226

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)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc ♀ Constituentsd ♀ Procuratorse 1540s 352 33 % 350 66 21 1550s 356 33.4 % 356 58 21 1560s 359 33.6 % 356 49 46 1,067 100 % 1,062 173 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. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 145 percentage of the former than the latter. While in antiquity women enjoyed rights comparable to those of men in conferring immovable property, their legal powers were significantly eroded during the Middle Ages. It was virtually impossible for women to buy or sell their own immovable property without the explicit consent of their father, husband, brother, or other male relative.5 Table 9, above, demonstrates that slightly fewer women participated in property sales than appointed procurators. On average, slightly more than a quarter of all contracting parties who appointed procurators were female compared to only around 16% who sold real estate. 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%, about four times higher). The following analysis of Zadar’s property market details the occupational, geographical, and social provenances of the contracting parties, the size of the real estate in question, and the relationship between its location and price. Unsurprisingly, slightly fewer than 90% of all vendors originated from within the jurisdiction of Zadar. Roughly a tenth were not identified, and the remaining two percent came from elsewhere in the Adriatic basin.6 By further breaking down the numbers to include the subdivisions of the city’s jurisdiction, the picture changes. Of these 90%, two-thirds lived within the city walls or suburban settlements. Less than a fifth came from one of the coastal islands, and the remaining stipulating parties originated from the other areas of Zadar’s jurisdiction, i.e. the medieval urban territory (ager publicus, Astareja), the minor districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana, and the remaining areas.7 The share of buyers who came from within Zadar’s jurisdiction was slightly higher. On average, almost 91% of individuals who acquired real estate came from Zadar or one of the jurisdiction’s subdivisions. This marginal increase over the vending parties corresponds with a small decrease in the number of unidentified buyers whose share decreased to c. 8%. Ad- ditionally, the share of people who originated from elsewhere is negligible, totaling less than one percent. Again, broken down into subdivisions: of these nine buyers seven lived in Zadar or its suburbs, the islanders accounted for one of the acquiring parties, and all remaining areas “shared” the last buyer.8 In terms of social provenance the picture is less monolithic. The nobility (local and non-local) made up slightly more than 8% of the ven- 146 Urban Elites of Zadar dors and 11% of the buyers. Their share corresponds with estimates of the nobility’s proportion of Zadar’s population around the middle of the sixteenth century.9 Interesting changes occurred in the shares of the other sellers and buyers. On average, artisans, members of the intellectual elite, and merchants made up c. 12% of the vendors. Their corresponding share among the acquiring parties was about 30%. When broken down further it emerges that the artisanal group increased their share by only slightly more than 40%. But the differences between vendors and buyers of the intellectual elite and merchant groups were more dramatic. The buying share of intellectual elites quadrupled compared to its activities as sellers (c. 1.5% or 15 instances among the sellers versus c. 6% or 61 instances among the buyers). The increase in the merchants’ activities was even greater. In only 16 instances did merchants, tradesmen, and small retailers sell property, but they bought property in 120 instances (c. 11%).10 While these changes are impressive, they must be put in perspective. Only a quarter of all vendors belonged to the intellectual elite or merchant groups. The other three-quarters did not. Their share of the purchasing market was slightly higher than 40%. In contrast to their share among the vendors, members of the urban elites made up more than half of the buyers. Property sales remained more or less stable in terms of individual contracts per decade. The upper strata of society continued to dominate sales by virtue of their economic muscle (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1: Transferred Property (Overview, 1540-1569) Total Area Total Area ø Acreage ø Acreage (morgen)a (hectares)b (morgen)c (hectares)d 1540s 1,542.4 368.1 4.4 1 1550s 1,412.5 334.7 4 0.9 1560s 2,955.3 702.4 8.2 1.9 5,910.2 1,405.2 5.5 1.3

Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. 2,370 m2, Statuta Iadertina, 759). (b) Number per decade of transferred properties in hectares. (c) Average number per decade of morgen transferred. (d) Average number per decade of hectares transferred. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 147

Table 9.1 highlights two facts. First, the total number of sales remained more or less constant over the period under survey. The total acreage transferred decreased by a tenth from 368 hectares sold in the 1540s to 334 hectares the 1550s. But the big change occurred in the decade leading up to the Cyprus War. When compared with the preceding 10 years, 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, above). This sudden jump in activity most certainly exerted pressure on property prices, which we shall now investigate.11

Jurisdiction As shown in Table 9.2, below, average property prices did not change uniformly. 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. Another explanation may be that the total transferred acreage increased by more than 15 times from the 1540s to the 1560s, putting downward pressure on prices. These numbers must be treated cautiously; due to data loss the sample size for this category is very small, especially in comparison with the other two categories of territory and the coastal islands.

Territory In addition to an increased desire for property closer to the safety of the city walls, there were forces at work in land-holding trends. Even the slightly receding number of morgen sold had a disproportionately large impact on the average price per unit sold. 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, but the amount of morgen sold almost doubled. This should have exerted downward pressure on prices; however, average prices for a morgen of land in sight of Zadar’s city walls rose in lockstep with the acreage transferred. 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, the monetary denominations kept their relative value, suggesting that these developments were not the result of the invisible hand of the market alone.12 148 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 9.2: Average Prices (Overview, 1540-1569)

Jurisdictiona ø Price/ Territoryb ø Price/ Islandsc ø Price/ morgen morgen morgen 1540s 70.4 3.1 ducats 368.1 4.9 ducats 172.9 5.5 ducats 1550s 218 2.3 ducats 334.7 6.6 ducats 202.8 4 ducats 1560s 1,079.3 1.8 ducats 702.4 10.1 ducats 298.1 5.5 ducats 1,367.7 2.4 ducats 1,405.2 7.2 ducats 673.8 5 ducats

Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade averages for transferred property in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. 2,370 m2, Statuta Iadertina, 759) and the three- decade averages for prices. The categorisation of “Jurisdiction-Territory-Islands” is based on 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 transferred properties in morgen for the parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland not belonging to the city’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja). Analysis is based on 90 contracts (16 from the 1540s, 26 from the 1550s, and 48 from the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Blato (Blato), Briševo (Briseuo), Drenovac (Drinovazzo), Gorica (Goriza), Grobnica (Gromniza), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chameg- nani), Kotopašćina (Cottopaschina), Kožino, Còsino (Cosinoselo), Miljačka (Migliacza), Murvica (Murvizza), Petrčane (Peterzane), Podi (Podi), Račice (Racice), Ražanac (Ras- ance), Rogovo (Rogovo), Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Tršci (Tersci), Turanj, Turretta (Turretta), Veterinići (Veterinichi), Zemunik (Ze- monico), Zlovšane (Slouhsane). (b) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for Zadar’s territory. Analysis is based on 495 contracts (171 from the 1540s, 186 from the 1550s, and 138 from the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bibinje (Bibigne), Bili Brig (Belvederi- um), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Brodarica (in valle magistra), Crno (Cerno), Crvene Kuće (Drassaniza), Diklo (Diclo), Gaženica (Gasenica), Gladuša (Gladussa), Klikor (Chlichor), Kolovare (Colovare), Lazareto (lazarettum), Paprad (Paprad), Ponton (Pontone), Puntami- ka (Puntamica), Smiljevac (Smiglievaz), Višnjik (ad Sanctum Joannem), Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum), and Zerodo (Cerodolo, between Bokanjac and Diklo). (c) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for the islands. Analysis is based on 256 contracts (93 for the 1540s, 62 for the 1550s, and 101 for the 1560s) that concern property on the named islands or near the following places on Dugi Otok: Brbinj (Berbig- ne), Rat Veli (Punta Bianca), Sali (Sale), Savar (Sauro), and Zaglav (Zaglava); on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana), Neviđane (Neviane), Pašman (Pasmano), Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano), Tkon (Tchoni), Ždrelac or Stagno di Pas- mano (Sdrelaz); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Činta (Chinta), Kali (Calle), Kukljica (Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomišćica (Sancte Euphemie), Sušica (Sussiza), and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the four minor islands of Iž (Eso, Exo), Rava (Raua), Silba (Selve), and Vrgada (Vergata). 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 acreage sold increased considerably less than in the two other examples discussed, by a factor of 170%. Whatever the exact reasons, the average price for a morgen of real estate on the islands remained equally stable at the (virtual) value of c. 5 ½ ducats per unit. This is even more remarkable in light of the changes in the overall number of contracts per decade. The total number of ducats transferred by all real estate transactions during the three decades amounted to c. 20,529 ducats. Over this timespan the various developments corresponded with the turnover per decade. During the 1540s the transaction volume amounted to c. 5,072 ducats. The 1550s witnessed a modest increase since this sum totalled c. 6,105 ½ ducats. In the 1560s, the total turnover was c. 9,351 ½ ducats, almost twice as high as the first decade and roughly in line with the numbers discussed above. A final area of investigation concerns the locations in which these notarial acts were drawn up. Generally speaking, the communal square with the loggia and the jurists’ bench was the most important place to conduct any business requiring notarial validation. However, analysis of these 1,067 contracts presents a more nuanced picture. The communal square was noted as the location of stipulation in approximately a third of all instances. The second-largest share of instruments (slightly more than a quarter) were written in the houses of one of the contracting parties.13 Around 15% of the acts were written in business or storage facilities (apotheca), usually located in close proximity to the communal square.14 Another 13.5% were drawn up in one of Zadar’s chancelleries. Less than three percent were made on ecclesiastical property.15 The remaining acts were written in a variety of locations, including the suburbs,16 ships in the port,17 and places as seemingly unlikely as the top of the city’s main gate.18 The vending market was not entirely dependent on the economic muscle of the urban elites. This is underscored by the fact that elite groups made up only a quarter of vendors, and their share among the buyers was only slightly higher than 50%. The urban elites as a whole did invest a considerable share of their income in real estate, probably because of its perceived investment security. The overall volume of the sales market almost doubled during the three interwar decades, mirrored by the number 150 Urban Elites of Zadar of morgen transferred and the turnover of ducats. This imposed pressure on property prices. While the number of contracts transferring real estate within sight of Zadar and their respective prices doubled over the three decades, other areas were less affected. 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. These developments are also evidenced by the price for a morgen of land on one of the islands off the coast, which remained stable over the entire period under survey.

2. Planting Concessions/Land Grants

The second important sector of the real estate market was land grants (concessiones sive pastinationes). In exchange for a fixed share of the harvest, the landlord conceded the right to cultivate his property to a single individual or group.19 In addition to the standard data, these land grants included clauses providing for special gifts (honorantias), fixed dates at which the duties and special gifts were to be delivered to the landlord, and action in case of natural disasters or Ottoman incursions (Table 10).20 Table 10 gives an overview of the concessions market during the three decades under survey. Two points stand out. First, this particular segment of real estate transactions mirrored the developments of the sales market

Table 10: Planting Concessions or Land Grants (Overview, 1540-1569)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc ♀ Landlordsd ♀ Tenantse 1540s 118 25% 118 13 2 1550s 171 36% 171 13 4 1560s 189 39% 183 9 1 478 100 % 472 35 7

Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of concessions. (b) Relative percentage per decade. (c) Number per decade of instruments stipulated in Latin. In the 1560s six acts were written in Venetian. (d) Number per decade of female land-holding parties. (e) Number per decade of female leasing parties. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 151 discussed above, even though at about 55% the changes from the 1540s to the 1560s were considerably smaller. Second, the number of female contracting parties was negligible, in stark contrast to the sales market. Table 10.1, below, shows that the two upper social strata were firmly in control of the concessions market; four out of ten landlords were of privileged descent. If their kinsmen among the clergy are considered, the nobility’s combined share increases to almost 50%. It is interesting however that while both strata started out owning roughly equal shares of the conceded lands during the 1540s, this changed significantly over the two ensuing decades. By the 1560s the nobility conceded property twice as often as the clergy (Table 10.1). It must be kept in mind that the clergy included institutions—such as churches, congregations, and hospitals—and individuals who, on average, made up less than a quarter in this category. Ecclesiastical institutions needed natural persons to represent them, hence the connection between the property

Table 10.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Landlords (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Restg Elitesf 1540s 33 (♀ 2) 33 (7) 13 4 11 5 (3) 19 1550s 72 (♀ 5) 57 (15) 5 5 (2) 10 12 (4) 11 1560s 94 (♀ 5) 44 (11) 8 11 (9) 2 13 (7) 17 198 (♀ 12) 134 (33) 28 20 (11) 23 30 (14) 47

Sources: see note 2. All numbers above include both landowners and locators who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar. The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2). The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3). (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3). 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). (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (e) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. 152 Urban Elites of Zadar markets and previous analysis of the procurae. In all cases where a church, congregation, or hospital was the landowner, a procurator was present, a practice not restricted to the clergy. In more general terms, almost half of all landlords appear in the notarial records only via their legal representatives.21 Most conceded possessions were in the hands of the nobility or the clergy, an observation supported by the geographical provenance of the propertied contracting parties. Comparable to the percentages of the vendors, nine out of ten landowners lived within the city walls of Zadar.22 The data for the recipient parties mirrors these statistics. The nobility and clergy were almost non-existent in the records. Equally absent were the other socio-occupational groups. Also, only slightly more than half of all recipient parties resided in Zadar or its suburbs. The city’s agricultural workforce around the mid-sixteenth century consisted in equal numbers of city-dwellers and inhabitants of Zadar’s hinterlands (Table 10.2, below).23 As time progressed less property was conceded to labourers from Za- dar proper and its suburban settlement. Consequently, the number of tenants who originated from elsewhere under the city’s jurisdiction increased. Most likely this was the result of the cumulative effect of the truce between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, which prompted the return of the hinterland’s inhabitants who, having sought refuge within the city walls during the war, went back to their hamlets and villages in the countryside after the ratification of the peace treaty. One more factor requires explanation: the threefold increase in the column labeled “rest.” This is at least partly due to the fourfold increase in unidentified toponyms appearing in the documents from the 1540s and the 1560s. This can be partially explained by the fact that after fighting ceased Venetian governors attempted to repopulate the rural hinterlands with colonists from elsewhere.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. This is evidenced, for instance, by the origin of “Radichio Muhich de Zahum” (presumably Zahumlje) in present-day Herzegovina (Table 10.3, below).25 The data compiled in Table 10.3, below, allows two conclusions. First, while the conceded surface area increased more than sixfold from the 1540s to the 1560s, the average number of morgen transferred per transaction increased only by a factor of 2.5. Second, the importance of real estate situated within Zadar’s territory increased markedly over the entire period under survey. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 153

Table 10.2: Geographical Provenances of the Tenants (1540-1569)

Zadar, Territoryb Jurisdictionc Nind Novigrade Islandsf Rest, n/ag Suburbsa 1540s 83 (28) 5 2 10 2 8 8 1550s 81 (25) 11 24 3 2 23 27 1560s 88 (38) 10 27 6 5 15 38 252 (91) 26 53 19 9 46 73

Sources: see note 2. For the territorial categories, 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). Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of tenants residing within Zadar proper or its suburban settlements. (b) Number per decade of tenants residing within the city’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja): Bibinje (Bibigne), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Crno (Cerno), Diklo (Diclo), Gaženica (Gasenica), Puntamika (Puntamica), and Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum). (c) Number per decade of tenants residing within Zadar’s jurisdiction, excluding the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad: Artikovo (Articovo), Biograd na moru (Zaretum vetus), Brda (Berda), Briševo (Briseuo), Crnogorišćina (Cernogerschina), Galovac (Galovaz), Grusi (Gruse), Jelsa (Jelsa), Kamenjani (Chamegnane), Kotopašćina (Cottopaschina), Kožino (Cosinoselo), Miljačka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Murvica (Murvizza), Pakoštane* (Pachoschiane), Petrčane (Peterzane), Podi (Podi), Polišane (Polisane), Račice (Racice), Ražanac (Rasance), Starošane (Starossane), Suhovare (Suovare), Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Tinj (Tinj), Tršci (Tersci), Turanj (Turretta), Varikašane (Varichassane). (d) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Nin: Brišane (Brisane), Čerinci (Cerinci), Nin (Nona), Podvršje, Vrši (Podverie), Privlaka (Bevilaqua), and Zaton (Zaton). (e) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj, Koruplje (Corpuaglie), Režane (Regiane), Slivnica (Sliuniza), Tršćane (Terschiane), and Zavod (Zavod). (f) Number per decade of tenants residing on the islands of Dugi Otok: Rat Veli (Punta Bianca) and Sali (Sale); on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana), Pašman (Pasmano), Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano), and Tkon (Tchoni); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the minor islands Iž (Eso, Exo), Molat (Melada), and Rava (Raua). (g) Number per decade of unidentified, unlisted, or infrequently listed places (such as, Murter, Krk, Castro Novo [probably Herceg novi], Raico/Rainu/Raiuo, Poscaglina, Vegliana, and Zahum).

Another interesting fact is that the average concession period increased from 38.5 months during the 1540s to 42.5 months during the 1550s to 45.5 months during the 1560s.26 The minimum duration of such a land grant could range from as little as one27 year to up to two28 or three decades.29 154 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 10.3: Conceded Property (1540-1569)

Total Areaa ø Areab Territoryc Jurisdictiond Islandse Ninf Rest, n/ag 1540s 558.5 4.7 81 3 8 11 14 1550s 3,563.8 18.8 84 38 25 5 19 1560s 2,018.5 11.8 90 43 18 11 27 6,140.8 12.8 255 85 51 27 60

Sources: see note 2. For the territorial categories, 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). Unidentified toponyms are given in Italics. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen or gonjaj (1 morgen = c. 2,370 m2, Statuta Iadertina, 759). (b) Average number per decade of morgen transferred. (c) Number per decade of property transactions for Zadar’s territory. Analysis is based on 255 contracts (81 for the 1540s, 84 for the1550s, and 90 for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bibinje (Bibigne), Bili Brig (Belvederium), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Brodarica (in valle magistra), Crno (Cerno), Crvene Kuće (Drassaniza), Diklo (Diclo), Gaženica (Gasenica), Kolovare (Colovare), Kopranj (Copragl), Lazareto (lazarettum), Ponton (Pontone), Puntamika (Puntamica), Ražacon (Racanzoni), Smiljevac (Smiglievaz), Višnjik (ad Sanctum Joannem), Voštarnica (ultra barchaneum), and Zerodo (Cerodolo, between Bokanjac and Diklo). (d) Number per decade of property transactions in Zadar’s jurisdiction, excluding the minor districts of Ljubač, Novigrad, and Vrana. Analysis is based on 85 contracts (four for the1540s, 38 for the 1550s, and 43 for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Artikovo (Articovo), Biograd na moru (Zaretum vetus), Brda (Berda), Briševo (Briseuo), Divni (Divini), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chamegnane), Kožino (Cosinoselo), Miljačka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Murvica (Murvizza), Petrčane (Peterzane), Podi (Podi), Polišane (Polisane), Poričane (Porizane), Račice (Racice), Rogovo (Rogovo), Sikovo (Sicouo), Skril (Scrile), Smoković (Smochovich), Starošane (Starossane), Sukošan (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Tršci (Tersci), Turanj, Turretta (Turretta), Uškipah (Uschipac), Veterinići (Veterinichi), and Visočane (Visozane). (e) Number per decade of property transactions for the islands. Analysis is based on 51 individual contracts (eight for the 1540s, 25 for the 1550s, and 18 for the 1560s) that concern property on the following islands: on Dugi Otok: Rat Veli (Punta Bianca) and Sali (Sale); on Pašman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana), Pašman (Pasmano), Punta Pašman (Puncta di Pasmano), and Ždrelac (Sdrelaz); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomišćica (Sancte Euphemie), Sušica (Sussiza), and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the two minor islands of Iž (Eso, Exo) and Rava (Raua). (f) Number per decade of property transactions for the district of Nin. Analysis is based on 22 contracts (11 for the 1540s, three for the 1550s, and eight for the 1560s) that concern property near the following places: Bilotinjak (Belotignach), (Brusi), Černise (Cernise), Grbe (Gherbe), Nin (Nona), Ninsko jezero (lacus None), (Novoselci), Papratnić (Papratnich), Perkovo (Percovo), Podvršje, Vrši (Podverie), Privlaka (Bevilaqua), and (Crisine). (g) Number per decade of unidentified, unlisted, or infrequently listed places. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 155

Usually the land owners decided which crops—mainly corn, grapes, or olives—were to be planted by the tenants (colonus, sozalis).30 Zadar’s statutes provide the normative framework for the harvest season. The tenants were to give the landlord three-days notice of the imminent harvest.31 The remaining obligations were contained in the notarial instruments, including instructions on where to deliver the landlord’s share of the harvest32 and who was to pay for the transport of the crops.33 In addition to the landlord’s quarter of the harvest (if not stipulated otherwise), the tenant was obliged to hand over an additional tenth to the Church.34 In case the land had to be prepared prior to cultivation, the tenants were usually required to consign to the landlord partial payments on empty property.35 There were exceptions to this rule. The landlord’s share of the harvest could either be fixed or incremental. When “dominus Franciscus Thomaseus” and his brother, then jointly “conductores affictus triennialis Archiepiscopatus Jadrensis,” conceded parts of said property near Podi to “Andrea Stoymilouich, Petro Stoymilouich, Simoni Tergliaeuich, Paulo Bratussich, Petro Boglielouich, Thomasio Hlapcich et Vucas Sissatouich,” the contracting parties agreed upon the following dues: “primo anno […] sextum dum taxat, pro secundo quintum, et pro tertio quartum.”36 On a number of occasions the landlord agreed to bonus payments for the tenants in exchange for the performance of additional tasks, such as planting a certain number of olive trees,37 a fixed bonus per planted morgen,38 or the waiving of dues for a period of time.39 Granted property could, via another visit to a notary, be reassigned to a third party.40 All instruments also included exemptions from the contractual obligations of either party for certain circumstances such as death, severe illness, military service, Ottoman incursions, pestilence, or unpaid public works.41 As to the locations in which the land grants were written, almost half (on average c. 44%) were written in the communal main square, the loggia, and the jurists’ bench. An additional fifth was drawn up in the houses of one of the individuals involved. Some 18% were written in one of Zadar’s chancelleries. Commercial storage or retail facilities (apotheca) were used in roughly 7% of instances. And about 3% of all contracts were agreed upon on ecclesiastical property.42 In sum, the concessions were the second-largest segment of the property market, totaling slightly less than half the number of the vending market. This fact notwithstanding, the difference in the total acreage transferred is negligible. During the period under survey vendors sold c. 5,901 morgen, compared to the c. 6,141 morgen conceded. However, the differences betwe- 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. Geographically, an absolute majority of the parcels of land conceded to tenants was located within sight of Zadar proper. Slightly more than half the contracts involved property situated in the city’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja). In terms of social provenance/occupation, the nobility and the clergy continued to predominate among the propertied strata. Their combined share remained constant at about two-thirds of all landowners.

3. Rental and Leasehold Contracts

This category is by far the smallest of the three segments of the property market. 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. In addition to the relevant data on the contracting parties, the property, and the various clauses, the notarial acts include provisions such as the date of remittance and special gifts (Table 11). In comparison to the sales market the number of rental contracts amounted to only about a fifth. An analysis of the rental contracts requires the consideration of three factors: the value of the leased property compared to the sold land, the parties who benefited from landed property (traditional-

Table 11: Rental Contracts (Overview, 1540-1569)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc ♀ Landlordsd ♀ Tenantse 1540s 34 15% 34 2 – 1550s 75 33% 73 12 1 1560s 117 52% 96 13 7 226 100% 203 30 8

Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of leasehold contracts. (b) Relative percentage per decade of leasehold contracts. (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin. In the 1550s two acts were written in Venetian; in the 1560s 26 acts were written in Venetian. (d) Number per decade of female landowning parties. (e) Number per decade of female tenants. Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 157

Table 11.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of Landlords (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Restg Elitesf 1540s 12 (♀ 1) 13 (1) 4 – 1 – 4 1550s 31 (♀ 5) 21 (3) 4 4 – 3 (3) 12 1560s 61 (♀ 13) 27 (4) 3 4 – 9 (5) 13 104 (♀ 19) 61 (8) 11 8 1 12 (8) 29

Sources: see note 2. All numbers above include both landowners and individuals who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar. The numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2). The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3). (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3). 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). (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. ly, landownership was concentrated among the nobility and the Church),43 and the nature of female landownership (given the legal and social inferiority of women in property matters, this topic is of particular interest).44 Geographically, while eight out of ten landlords originated from Zadar proper (including the three constituents from its suburbs), the remaining fifth was more widely distributed, ranging from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction to other parts of Dalmatia-Albania to Istria and Venice.45 Le- asing property thus involved a geographically more diverse group of landowners (Table 11.1). Like the concessions market, the clergy and nobility, with a combined share of almost three quarters, dominated the rental market. All other social or occupational groups were found in the remainder, although their numbers were so small as to render their impact economically insignificant. The dominance of the ecclesiastical institutions becomes more evident when considering that only a fraction of those labeled “clergy” in Ta- 158 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 11.2: Social and Occupational Provenance of Tenants (1540-1569) Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Rest, n/ag Elitesf 1540s 4 4 4 4 10 1 7 1550s 14 (♀ 1) 4 4 5 9 7 (1) 32 1560s 28 (♀ 3) 11 6 3 17 8 6) 44 46 (♀ 4) 19 14 12 36 16 (7) 83

Sources: see note 2. All numbers above include landowners and individuals who leased rented property to third parties (conductores). The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from Zadar. Numbers in parentheses marked with ♀ refer to women. (b) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the clergy (see note b for Table 3 in Chapter 2. The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals. (c) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the artisanal class (see note c for Table 3). (d) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the military (see note d for Table 3). 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). (f) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to the intellectual elite (see note f for Table 3). The numbers in parentheses refer to nobles. (g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups. ble 11.1, above, were individuals. Nine out of ten members of this category were institutions such as congregations, parish churches, and hospitals— not people. This, again, connects the property market to the procuratorial analysis in Chapter 2. In 140 of 226 instances (or 62% of the total) the landowning parties employed representatives to lease their property. A second observation is that during the 1540s the clergy enjoyed a slight edge over the nobility. By the 1560s, however, the situation had re- versed. Nevertheless, the “political importance of the abbot of St Chryso- gonus convent”46 was still considerable. In all, the congregation appeared nine times as landowner. The Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary appeared 12 times. By comparison, all other groups of landowners were of limited importance to the rental market. Compared to their dominant role among the landowners, the nobility and clergy played a smaller role among the tenants. The three-decade averages decreased significantly to less than half for the nobles and less Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 159 than a third for members or Church institutions. In the latter case the situation is even more nuanced; while most ecclesiastical landowners were institutions—archbishopric, congregations, churches, and hospitals—all the tenants were individuals. The fundamental fact to extrapolate from Table 11.2, above, is that the single largest category is “rest, n/a,” indicating that most individuals who leased or rented property did not belong to any of the elite groups. Also interesting is that compared to the concessions market, Zadar’s mercantile community invested large amounts of money in real estate. On only one occasion was a merchant designated the landowner (see Table 11.1, above). The mercantile community’s share among the tenants (36 out of 226 instances, c. 16%) well exceeded their relative share among the general population (see Chapter 2). Together, the merchants, shopkeepers, and traders of Zadar were responsible for c. 3,110 ducats or almost 15% of all investments in the rental market over the entire period under consideration. Given that the total number of the merchants within the city’s society can be estimated at 200-250, or three to four percent of Zadar’s urban population around the mid-sixteenth century, their economic muscle far exceeded their small numbers.47 In terms of geographical provenance of the tenants, there was a predicta- ble and significant shift in comparison with the origins of the landlords. Whi- le nine out of ten renting parties originated from within Zadar’s jurisdiction, the city’s relative share declined to slightly less than two-thirds (in contrast to almost 80% among the landlords). Only three-quarters of all tenants came from the city or its suburbs. The remaining tenth could not be identified.48 The turnover of the 226 rental contracts amounted to c. 20,997 ducats, an enormous total when compared with the much larger vending market, both in terms of individual contracts and turnover per notarial act. The rental market turnover was slightly higher even than the turnover of the vending market (c. 20,529 ducats), despite the fact that the rental market was more than 4.5 times the size of the vending market. Landed property was a significant factor in the continuous generation of income for Zadar’s urban elites, predominantly those of ecclesiastical or privileged descent. Table 11.3, below, gives both total and average turnover per decade in ducats for the three categories of jurisdiction, territory, and the islands. In absolute terms, investments in the geographically more remote areas of Za- dar’s jurisdiction increased by a significant magnitude from the 1540s to the 1560s. In relative terms, however, this change had less of an impact than expected since the average turnover per rental contract decreased slightly. 160 Urban Elites of Zadar

Like the jurisdiction and islands categories of the property markets, the city’s territory was the most dynamic area in terms of price developments. While the share of rented property within sight of the city walls increased by only 5% from the 1540s to the 1560s, this seemingly small shift caused significant change. The total number of rental contracts increased fivefold. But more importantly, average prices rose by about the same factor (c. 485% from the first to the last decade under survey), which exerted corresponding pressure upon rental duties. The islands serve as a control group. Unlike their counterparts on the mainland, rents there remained stable. Movement of average prices exhibits virtually no change over the entire period under survey. 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 11.3, below). Assessing the size of the properties, on the other hand, is more difficult since less than half of the contracts list precise information about the size of the parcels of land involved. During the preceding century it was common practice to rent out real estate in sors, patches of 7.1 to 7.6 hectares.49 By the mid-sixteenth century this appeared to have changed. The territory size is referred to as sors in only 72 instances (c. 32%) of all rental contracts. In 30 other contracts (c. 13%) the property size is given in morgen. Since only seven out of 226 notarial instruments lack precise information about the duration of the tenure, it is easier to investigate the length of the rental contracts. On average, real estate was leased for 89 months during the 1540s. This decreased to 49 months during the 1550s, and increased again to 63 months during the decade leading up to the Cyprus War. The three-decade average is 67 months. Every document details the date of remittance. If the rent was not paid in advance the payments were due on previously-fixed days. Typically feast days were chosen as paydays. The following feasts appear most often in the rental contracts: St George (23 April), James, son of Zebedee (25 July), and Michaelmas, the feast of St Michael the Archangel (29 September). Less often payments were set for Christmas, Easter, or around New Year. In addition to the rental dues, some contracts specified the dates for when special gifts (honorantiae) were to be consigned to the landlord prior to Lent (carnis privum), Easter, and Christmas. As in the concessions, these involved small livestock or poultry. Due to the landowner’s desire to ensure the integrity of his or her possession, most documents included provisions against fire clearing or other forms of forest clearance,50 and exemptions from duties linked to damage 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 4 224 4 56 15 1,179.5 ø 56 ø 14 ø 78.5 1550s 23 941 9 353 7 549 ø 41 ø 39 ø 78 1560s 43 2,347 20 1,360 17 1,331 ø 54.5 ø 68 ø 78 70 3,512.5 33 1,770 39 3,060 ø 50 ø 53.5 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, Du- rante 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 Otto- man 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. Pri- ce 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 (XII- 1797); 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; Johan- nes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 1540-1554; Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1544-1548; Nico- laus Canali, I, 1558-1567; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1540- 1569; 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 Jah- ren.” See also Fulbrook and Rublack, “The ‘Social Self’ and Ego Documents”; von Grey- ertz, “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, 56- 61. On women’s property transactions as recorded in dowry bequests, Chojnacki, “Dow- ries 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 Mazzarel- lus, 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 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. 22. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 425 or c. 90% of all landowning parties resided in Zadar proper. 5 individuals or 1% dwelled in the city’s suburbs. All other places, including the other subdivisions of Zadar’s jurisdiction (the territory, the islands, and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad), and six individuals from Krk, Trogir, and Venice combined made up the remaining 48 instances or c. 10%. 23. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 252 instances or c. 53% (161 instances or c. 33% for Zadar proper and 91 or c. 19% for its suburbs). 24. For instance, during Alvise Badoer’s tour of duty as “provveditor generale in Dal- mazia […] con sede fissa a Zara” in the late 1530s, he attempted a large-scale resettlement of the abandoned parts of Zadar’s jurisdiction on the mainland with Morlachs from Istria, temporarily reaching “circa 1,000 fochi.” The Venetian policy of pressganging the newly- arrived 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. This, as commented on by Paolo Giustiniano, once serving as Zadar’s captain, rendered these repopulation attempts all but fruitless. Commissiones, 2:136-144; Commissiones, 3:51-52. 25. It must be noted, however, that the reference to “Zahum” is a singular affair. In most cases there simply was no identifiable origin given. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.141r, 31 July 1558. 26. 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. 27. In mid-January of 1555 “dominus Petrus de Bassano Civis et Notarius Jadre” conceded three morgen (c. 7,110 m2) “in loco vocato Battaglie” to “Nicolao Philipouich ligonizatori habitatori Jadre” and leased the “Introitum presentis anni, 1555” in exchange for a quarter of the grapes of said year’s harvest. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.37v, 13 January 1555. 28. In January of 1562 “dominus Simon de Laurentijs [son of] domini Hieronymi Civis Jadrensis” conceded six morgen, (c. 1.4 hectares) “in pertinentijs Villae Podberiane [Podvršje] per annos viginti proxime venturos [a] Reverendo domini Joanni Urancich par- ochiano Villae Tersce“ (Tršci). The property was located within Zadar’s jurisdiction but within the territory of the minor district of Nin. The tenant was obliged not to confer a quarter of the harvest per annum, but a fifth. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.345r-c.345v, 23 January 1562. Incidentally, the above-mentioned landlord’s father, Hiero- nymus de Laurentijs, was referenced by Paulo Justiniano, captain of Zadar 1552-1553, in his report to the Senate in February of 1553: “El populo è fidelissimo, et doppo dio adora la vostra serenità et questa serenissima signoria. Li principali sono […] Hierolimo de Lorenzi et altri simili.” Commissiones, 3:52. 29. In summer of 1561 “dominus Franciscus de Ventura Civis Jadre […] dominus Hieronymus Cortesius uti procurator excellentis domini Joannis Jovini Severiani doctoris, Ambo patroni ville Tini” (Tinj), conceded all their property in the vicinity of the village to “Joannes Umassich, Antonius Pilizarich, et Vitus Dobranich de dicta villa Intervenientes nominbus proprijs, et omnium villicorum.” In exchange for a sixth of the annual harvest, the inhabitants of Tinj were given the right to cultivate and profit from these lands “ad annos Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 167

Triginta proxime futuros,” with the sole requirement that the tenants brought the harvest “ad marinam” at their own expenses. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 5, f.32r- f.32v, 7 August 1561. 30. The tenants were usually referred to as colonist (colonus, sozalis) in the instruments. Mayhew calls them labourers (težak), while those engaged in day labour were called ligoniza- tor (which means more or less the same as težak). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.3r, 8 October 1556; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 93, 96-100, 111-140, 229-230. 31. Lib. III, tit. LXXIII: “Quod quicumque laboraverit seu fecerit laborari alienas vineas domino denuntiare tenetur antequam vindimiet per tres dies.” Statuta Iadertina, 318. 32. These predefined locations could include the house of the landlord, a ship, Zadar’s harbour, or the landlord’s procurator. When “ser Nicolaus Cimilich Civis Jadre” conceded 1.5 morgen (c. 3,555 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, et expensis omnibus Sozalis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.53v, 6 December 1540. Likewise, “dominus Laurentius de Nassis” conceded 1.5 morgen to “Gregorio Millich et Petro Cusmich de insula ultra barchaneum” (Preko) for the duration of three winters. He required the tenants to deliver a quarter of the harvest “ad marinam ad barcam patroni.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.53v, 10 March 1555. When, on behalf of his absent brothers and their mother, “dominus Nicolaus de Jordanis” leased thee morgen (c. 7,110 m2) of arable land near Petrčane to “Gregorio Marijch Nautj habitatori Jadre” in autumn of 1551. The tenant was required to transport the landlord’s share of the harvest “ad marina.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cav- alca, I, 2, 7, s.p., 16 May 1566. 33. Usually, the tenants were responsible for both the transport of the harvest and its costs: “conducendum Jadram domum dicti patroni sumptibus, et expensis ipsius sozalis.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1, 1, c.15v-c.16r, 3 May 1567. 34. Lib. III, tit. LXXII: “Quomodo, quousque et quibus expensis laborator vineae tenetur in uvis vel in vino partem domino assignare.” Statuta Iadertina, 318. E.g., “Rev- erendus dominus presbyter Joannes Thomaseus canonicus Jadrensis” conceded 11 morgen (c. 2.6 hectares) of farmland in the Kolovare area to “ser Marco Grubacich stipendiato ad custodiam portae Terrae firmae, Georgio Messodilich, et Matthaeo ac Andree Babcich fratribus de Suburbio Jadrae” for the duration of five years. The landlord explicitly stated that the dues included “quintumdecimum pro decima omnium bladorum.” The dues were to be brought to Zadar and, in order to boost his tenants’ motivation, the landlord agreed to subsidy payments of 44 soldi per planted morgen per year. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, c.12r-c.12v, 18 August 1555. 35. The clauses in Zadar’s statutes applied to all, regardless of the landowner’s ecclesiastical or secular descent, office, or sex. For example, Lib. III., tit. XVII, cap. 82 states: “Quod nullus det terram ad pastinandum minmus quam ad quartam partem; et de poena dantis”; cap. 83: “Quod pastinator teneatur in circuitu vineae quae sit ultra quattuor gognay plantare arbores olivarum et quattuor arbores mororum”; cap. 88: “Quibus modis pastinator dara debeat terraticum domino in uvis vel in vino postulanti”. Statuta Iadertina, 324-326, 330-332. 36. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.88v-c.89r, 12 January 1558. 37. 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). HR DAZD 168 Urban Elites of Zadar

31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, D, s.p., 26 July 1541; Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.63v, 3 November 1555. See also Statuta Iadertina, 326. 38. E.g., “dominus Paulus de Pasinis Civis, ac mercator Jadre” offered his four tenants, “domino presbytro Joanni Matulcich, Nicolau Cherstulich, Matheo sive Matulo Su- sich, Michaelj Michocich,” bonus payments for the planting of “pedes quindecim olinari- orum pro quoque gognale” in exchange for 12 soldi “pro quaque arbore” on the landlord’s 10 morgen (c. 2.4 hectares) on Ugljan. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.36v- f.37r, 28 January 1543. 39. E.g., “dominus Donatus Civallellus quondam domini Thomae” conceded nine morgen (c. 2.1 hectares), near Crno to “Hellena uxor quondam Chersuli Dobrocinaz de villa Cerno districtus Jadre et Mattheo Millassich de eodem loco.” For the first six years, the tenants were exempted from delivering any dues to the landlord. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.25v-c.26r, 23 October 1552. 40. Lib. III, tit. XVII, cap. 85: “Quomodo rusticus emphiteota volens vendere iura sua tenetur denuntiare domino, et quae forma observari.” Statuta Iadertina, 328. On changes after the 1570s, Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 232-249. 41. Ibid., 230-231. See also Lib. III, tit. XVI, cap. 68: “Qualiter laborator qui vineam conduxit sive ad partem sive ad medietatem, tenetur eam colere; et de poena si cessabit laborare, nisi interveniente iusta causa”; cap. 69: “Quae sunt causae propter quas excusatur laborator, si non laboravit vineam ut convenit.” Statuta Iadertina, 314-316. 42. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 211 individual contracts or c. 44% were written in the communal main square, 98 or c. 20.5% in houses, 86 or c. 18% in the chancelleries, 35 or c. 7% in business or storage facilities, 16 or c. 3% on ecclesiastical property, and 32 or c. 7% in other locations. 43. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. 44. See McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 41; Grbavac, “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen,” 68-69. 45. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 30 contracts for the 1540s (29 in Zadar, one in the suburbs); 58 in the 1550s (56 in Zadar, two in the suburbs); and 90 in the 1560s (Zadar proper only). 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. 6% for the entire three decades) from elsewhere in Zadar’s jurisdiction (including the territory, the islands and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad), 5 (or c. 2%) from Albania-Dalmatia, and 3 (or c. 1%) each from Istria and Venice proper, respectively. The category “rest” consists of 14 instances (c. 6%). 46. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 188. 47. 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. On Zadar’s population, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. 48. The numbers for the entire three decades are as follows: 24 contracts for the 1540s (22 in Zadar, two in the suburbs); 48 in the 1550s (Zadar only); and 78 in the 1560s (77 in Zadar, one in the suburbs). Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 150 instances or c. 66% for Zadar and its suburbs; 6 instances or c. 6% for the Territory, 5 instances or c. 2% for the islands, 8 instances of c. 3.5%) for the district of Nin, 7 instances or c. 3% for the district of Novigrad, 1 instance for the district of Vrana, and 29 instances of c. 13% from Case Study: Zadar’s Interwar Property Markets 169 elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. The three-decade total is 56 instances or c. 25%. 1 tenant came from elsewhere in Dalmatia. 49. During the fifteenth century the typical property on the mainland was one sors or ždrijeb, equaling 30-32 morgen (7.1-7.6 hectares), of which about an eighth was unavailable for farming (occupied by various houses and farm buildings). Another small part was usually used for growing grapes. The rest was under the plough. A number of such com- pounds made up the hamlets and small villages of the hinterlands of Zadar. See Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 71-196. 50. E.g., in spring of 1540 the Benedictine noble nunnery of St Mary, represented by “venerabila domina Donata de Nassis benemerita Abbatissa” and two other nuns, leased a possession on the island of Iž to “Georgio Piscich de insula Exo.” In exchange for the annual payment of 54 ducats the tenant received the property “[c]um capris Cum lacte numero ducentis sexdecim, animalibus bechinis a femme numero viginti, animalibus bechinis duaninis numero nonem, Capris duaninis numero quinquaginta quatuor Caprinis Inter mares, et feminas numero quinquaginta septem, pecudibus cum lacte numero quinquaginta octo, montonis magnis numero tresdecim, montonis duaninis numero quatuor, agnellis duaninis feminis viginti duabus, Agnellis Inter mares, et feminas numero viginti duobus.” (In total 475 animals.) In addition to the safeguarding of the livestock Georgio further agreed to “Cum pacto, ac Condicione que dictus Georgius affictuarius non possit Incendere neque fundi facere ligna In boscho dicte possessionis pro vendendo nec aliter.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, B, s.p., 13 May 1540. This explicit clause appears slightly redundant since Zadar’s statutes contain a clause banning the burning of fruit trees in Ref. 61: “De arboribus fructiferis non incidendis.” Statuta Iadertina, 560. 51. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.32r-f.32v, 22 October 1543. The relevant clauses of the communal statutes are Lib. III, tit. XVI, cap. 76: “Quam rationem reddere tenetur pastor domino de bestiis minutis et magnis perditis”; cap. 77: “Quod pastor rationem domino reddere teneatur de perceptis de ipsis bestiis, si fuerit requi- situs a domino.” Statuta Iadertina, 320-320. 52. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 1, f.9v-f.10r, 5 May 1545. 53. Of additional importance during wartime. For example, while the Ottoman-Ve- netian war was still raging in the spring of 1540, “dominus Bernardinus Prititius Nobilis Nonensis habitator Jadre” leased his property on the island of Pašman to “magistro Simonj Profete sutor,” a master-cobbler, for the duration of 20 years. In exchange for a rent of 23 ducats the tenant was also assured that “que si durante presenti Locatione acciderit Casus Bellj, aut Grandinis […] in fructibus, ipsum conductorem ultra Tertiam partem, Juxta Juris dispositionis que Tunc sibj conductori fieri debeat restauratio Sive remissio pensionis pro rata […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 7, f.33v, 9 April 1540. 54. As for instance stated in a rental contract from the mid-1560s: “dominus Francis- cus de Pechiaro quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadre” leased 3.5 sors (c. 24.9-26.5 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. Should any damages due to war or storms occur, “quod Deus avertat dictus locator teneatur et debeat resarcire ipsi conductori damnum que passus fuerit ultra comunem extimationem […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 4, f.74r-f.74v, 6 November 1565. 170 Urban Elites of Zadar

55. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, 4, c.11r, 19 August 1566. 56. Three-decade totals and average percentages are: 46 contracts or c. 20% were written in the communal main square, 30 contracts or c. 13% in business or storage facilities, 31 contracts or c. 14% in the chancelleries, 27 contracts or c. 12% on ecclesiastical property, 58 contracts or c. 26% in houses, and the rest, 34 contracts or c. 15% in other locations. 5. Urban Elites and Everyday Life

1. 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.1 Though individual Venetians were widely spread out within the territories the respublica’s influences were clearly visible in the cityscape and in economic, legal, and social structures. 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. 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.2

2. 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.”3 These movements of allegiances, money, and people took place within the “nexus of state power and personal influence” that characterised the Stato da mar.4 An analysis of the economic, geographical, and social dimensions of the Dalmatian nobility must be given a legal framework.5 This chapter begins with a survey of Zadar’s body of statutory law to provide a foundation for the 172 Urban Elites of Zadar subsequent analysis of notarial acts—marriage contracts (contractus matrimonium), dowry quitclaims (quietatio dotis), and other related documents.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. This required the integration of individuals in new urban environments. This study contributes to an understanding of this phenomenon by analysing the notarial acts with respect to relationships between social status and personal wealth. From this analysis emerges a more nuanced “picture of the self-identity of the Dalmatian urban nobility through their willingness or unwillin- gness to mix their own blood with that of members of other élites.”7 Zadar’s communal law contains a number of clauses, subsumed under the title “De nuptiis, et quorum consilio filii masculi vel feminae debeant matrimonialiter aliis copulare.”8 Four specific articles outline the legal framework of marriage, applicable to all social classes. First, it was not permitted to marry without parental consent without forsaking one’s title to a dowry or a share of the inheritance.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.10 If, for whatever reasons, daughters of at least 20 years of age were not married, they were allowed to choose a partner without parental consent.11 Analo- gous laws existed for widows: without the consent of her children a woman was not allowed to remarry after her husband’s death.12 A second title of the Statuta Iadertina dealt with dowries. This section of the communal law contains twice the number of clauses than the one discussed above.13 It is followed by legal definitions of legitimate offspring, the only part of the marital legislation subject to amendments by Venice.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, below).15 Table 12 gives an overview of the notarial acts upon which the following analysis is based. While the numbers of marriage compacts and dowry quitclaims differ, the relationship between these two kinds of contract is, on average, one to four. 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), slightly higher than its share among the general populace of Zadar.16 In addition to these general conclusions, the records offer insightful information about the origins of the contracting parties (Table 12.1, below). Urban Elites and Everyday Life 173

Table 12: Marriage-Related Contracts (Overview, 1540-1569)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc Contractsd Quitclaimse 1540s 255 39 % 255 56 199 1550s 179 27 % 176 33 146 1560s 222 34 % 201 39 183 656 100 % 632 128 528

Sources: see note 6. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of marriage-related contracts. (b) Relative percentage per decade. (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin. In the 1550s one act was written in Venetian and two were written in both Latin and Venetian; in the 1560s 15 acts were written in Venetian and two acts were written in both languages. (d) Number per decade of marriage contracts (contractus matrimonium, nuptiarum). (e) Number per decade of dowry accords (accordium dotis), inventories (carta dotis), quitclaims (quietatio dotis), receipts (receptio dotis), and restitutions (restitutio dotis).

Table 12.1: Origins of Noble Contracting Parties (1540-1569)

No. of Actsa Zadarb Adriaticc Zadard Adriatice Rest, 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. Shaded columns indicate recipient parties. Toponyms below are listed with their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). (a) Number per decade of marriage-related contracts of the nobility. (b) Number per decade of local initiating parties (from Zadar’s jurisdiction, including the minor district of Nin). (c) Number per decade of regional contracting parties (from within Venice’s Adriatic dual province): Kotor (Catharo), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe), Split (Spalato), Šibenik (Sibenico), and Trogir (Tragurij). The number of parties from Albania is two. (d) Number per decade of local recipient parties. (e) Number per decade of regional recipient parties: Kotor (Catharo), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Omiš (Almissa), Rab (Arbe), Šibenik (Sibenico), and Trogir (Tragurij). The number of parties from Albania is one. (f) Number per decade of unidentified or unlisted locations, including two from Monfalcone and two of unidentified origins. 174 Urban Elites of Zadar

Given these numbers, the most important problem is the origins of the contracting parties. Despite the variations over the three decades, a certain tendency is visible. Between a quarter and a third of constituents and recipients were from beyond the borders of Zadar’s jurisdiction. The endogamous marriage practices of the Dalmatian nobility were not confined to individual cities along the eastern seaboard of the Adriatic, as the following examples illustrate.17 In early 1540 “domina Clara filia legittima, et naturalis spectabili domini Joannis Mazzarelli nobilis Traguritum Cancellarij spectabili Commu- nitatis Jadre married” a fellow nobleman. The spouse, “dominus Georgius de Grisanis quondam domini Francisci nobilis Sibenicensis [Šibenik],” came from an area in between Trogir and Zadar. In addition to the sizeable dowry worth 800 ducats, this marriage contract reveals two pieces of information. First, the bride and her father were nobles of the small coastal town of Trogir, situated c. 16 kilometres west of Split. Second, Johannes Mazza- rellus’s move from his native town to Zadar (c. 104 kilometres) signified a large geographical distance and, given his occupation as communal chancellor and notary public, a qualitative rise within his status group.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. Franciscus’s daughter, “honesta damicella domina Cornelia eius filia legitima et naturalis,” was to marry the renowned nobleman from Zadar. Both contracting parties came from the upper echelons of the nobility. The father of the bride was the commander of one of Hvar’s war galleys and, according to contemporary reports his family disposed of an annual income of 500 ducats.19 Franciscus had the financial, military, and social means to provide for the warship, which probably elevated him even among his fellow noblemen from Hvar.20 Johannes Rosa (Ivan Rosa) and his family were explicitly referred to as being among the most prominent and wealthy of Zadar’s nobles.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. It comes as no surprise that Franciscus promised Johannes a stately dowry of “ducatos Mil- le ducentos auri,” of which 400 ducats were to be paid in specie and another 200 ducats “in pannis sericis, auro, et argento.” The second half of the dowry was to be paid in annual installments of 50 ducats. The marriage contract was drawn up in Zadar “in domo spectabili domini Petri Civallellj,” located Urban Elites and Everyday Life 175 in St Michael’s parish.22 It is not clear who profited more from this marriage alliance, but the next example is more explicit on this question. 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.” 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 1,100 ducats: the bride’s sister, “domina Margarita uxor […] domini Bernardi- ni [de Carnarutis], et filie praefata dominae Colice,” 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,24 there may have been something other than precedence at play. Bernardinus Carnarutus (Brne Karnarutić) was a renowned soldier and accomplished writer, and presumably this connection increased the social status of the Ferra family within Dalmatia’s nobility (see also Chapter 2).25 In general, Dalmatian nobles engaged in endogamous marriage practices. Geographical differences among the various coastal communities played only a minor role. Nevertheless, most families chose to marry locally, within Zadar’s jurisdiction. In summer of 1546 “Juvenis nobilis dominus Laurentius de Nassis quondam domini Joannis” gave the hand of his sister, “nobilam dominam Catherinam,” to his fellow nobleman, “domino Vito de Cedolinis quondam domini Simonis.” Since the bride’s father was already dead, Laurentius promised his brother-in-law a dowry worth “Ducatos quadringentos quinquaginta unum auri.” Of this sum, 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.” One of these parcels of land was located “prope Jadram in loco vocato Celopech, sive Orisaz.” The other was on the island of Lukoran across the Canal of Zadar. The rest of the dowry, 331 ducats, was to be disbursed in mobile goods after the relocation of Catherina with her husband. The contract was written “in domo Simonis de Matafaris alias Chrina quondam domini Petri” in Zadar’s St Michael’s parish.26 On another occasion, in summer of 1557, “spectabilis dominus Ber- nardinus Galellus nobilis Jadre, et una, et dominus Simon Civalellus quon- 176 Urban Elites of Zadar dam domini Gregorii ex altera” came together. In the name of the Holy Spirit, Bernardinus promised his daughter, “Honesta damicella domina Catherina,” to Simon, accompanied by a dowry of 800 ducats. One half of this was to be handed over once the bride moved in with her husband. The second half was to be paid in annual rates of 25 ducats.27 A couple of months later, in January of 1558, the two parties reconvened “in apothea domini Baptistae de Nassis nobili Jadre in plathea communis.” The result was a formal dowry quitclaim issued at the request of Simon, who stated “habuisse, et realiter cum effectu recepisse […] ducatos quadringentos et unum […] partim in denarijs et pecunia numerata, partim in auro, argento, perlis, et panis sericeis, partim in panis laneis et lineis.”28 No essential differences between marriages of individuals from within or without Zadar’s jurisdiction are evident. Irrespective of geographical provenance, the urban nobilities of the Venetian Adriatic viewed themselves as belonging to the same social group. As for the Venetian nobility in Zadar, their numbers were few. In only 120 instances are individuals referred to as “Venetian.” Almost all of these were on duty in Dalmatia. This suggests that there were few incentives besides public service to move to the Adriatic. Some names appear in the records more than once. 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. Thus the number must be treated with caution due to multiple appointments of single individuals. 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.30 In late 1542 “ser Georgius de Venerio quondam ser Georgij Civis Jadre” confirmed the receipt of his wife’s dowry, “domina Nicolota filia legitima et naturali quondam domini Simonis Coreuich olim notarius et civis Jadre.” In the size of the dowry there are is no essential difference between this contract and those of the Dalmatian locals; the quitclaim mentions Nicolota’s dowry amounting to 3,029 libras in movable and immovable goods, a sum roughly equivalent to c. 490 ducats.31 Other cases involve the Venetian patricians “dominus Marcus Anto- nius Laretanus [Loredan] quondam Magnifici domini Jacobi patritij veneti” and “dominus Hieronymus de Mosto quondam magnifici domini Joannis Francisci.” The former issued a quitclaim for a dowry worth 641 libras and 14 soldi (c. 103 ducats) he had received with the hand of his wife, “Helysa- Urban Elites and Everyday Life 177 beth […] a ser Joanne Anzolerio civi et habitatori Jadra.”32 The latter, Hie- ronymus da Mosto, a resident of Novigrad, also issued a dowry quitclaim. His wife, “Sancta filia domini Vendramini de Brissia [Brixen] habitat, ut dixit, Padue [Padua],” brought with her a dowry worth 150 ducats.33 A related, albeit minor, factor in the notarial records of the period under survey concerned the connections of Dalmatian nobles with the Cro- atian-Slavonian interior. One procuratorial appointment tells the story of the posthumous voyage of a Zadar-born nobleman Theodosius de Begna, who had died “in partibus Ungarie, et Croatie” (see also Chapter 2).34 In a second instrument “nobilis Juvenis Sibenicensis dominus Melchior Cossi- rich domini Jacobi ex quondam domina Magdalena filia quondam Comitis Georgij Bencouich nobilis Crouatia de Plauno” (Plavno) appointed a pro- curatrix. 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. The appointee was to journey “infra fines Regni Hungariae” to meet with his relatives and retrieve all money and movable and immovable goods. At the time of writing, Helena “ad praesens uxorem Comitis Stephani Crouat modo ut dixit in comitatu Zagrabiensis commorantem.”35 The paucity of documents relating to the Croatian-Hungarian regions, and marital connections in particular, suggests that there were not many ties between the Venetian dominions along the Adriatic coast and the western Balkans or beyond. In the case of sixteenth-century Zadar, only two dotal instruments reveal clues about the existence of such ties. Gabriel Cernotta, himself a nobleman from Rab and one of Zadar’s notaries, had married the daughter of one of the rural nobles from Posedarje, a small fortified village within Zadar’s jurisdiction. 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.36 “Vido Posedaria,” who was among those named explicitly in a report to the Venetian Senate, stipulated on behalf of his dead brother.37 In the second contract “Comes Gregorius Paladinich quondam Co- mitis Gasparis nobilis Croatie” confirmed the receipt of 620 libras (100 ducats) in both specie and movable goods. His wife, “domine Mariete,” was the daughter of Marcus Antonius de Bassano, father of notary Petrus de Bassano. While the sources do not mention that the de Bassano family was of privileged descent, its members evidently commanded a social status high enough to enable Marieta to marry a nobleman.38 178 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.39 These families were probably able to pay for such large dowries because dotal payments could be deferred, and the families owned real estate, which provided a source of future income (see also Chapter 4). As for the geographical origins of the contracting parties, other conclusions are worthy of note. According to the contracts most individuals who married into Zadar’s nobility were of equally privileged descent and were referred to as noblemen, typically in combination with additional information about their place of origin. While the sample does not allow for the assessment of the desirability of marital ties between, for instance, families from a coastal centre and the wider Croatian-Hungarian regions, other aspects can be surmised. A quarter of the cases mention family ties to places ranging from the Kvarner Gulf to the Bay of Kotor. And while the aim of upward social mobility apparently played only a minor role in the marriage practices of the Dalmatian nobility, aspects of incremental status increases can be identified. This is exemplified by the marriage of renowned soldier and writer Bernardinus Carnarutus to a noblewoman from Šibenik, 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. In combination with the procuratorial analysis of Chapter 2, these findings suggest that the kinship ties of Dalmatian nobles extended over a wide area, circumscribed by, but not confined to, the Venetian possessions in the Adriatic. Future studies are likely to confirm that the “remarkable geographical mobility” ascribed to Venice proper by John Martin and Den- nis Romano was, mutatis mutandis, similarly defined by, but not confined to, the borders of the Republic of St Mark in the eastern Mediterranean.41

3. Material Culture

In addition to being devout and loyal to the Most Serene Republic, Zadar’s nobility was described by Venice’s legates as relatively poor, especially in comparison to Venice proper. Despite their limited wealth, Dal- matian noble families lived and clothed themselves all’Italiana. This can be attributed to their regular contact with individuals from the Apennine peninsula.42 By now scholarly research into the self-representation of Ve- Urban Elites and Everyday Life 179 nice’s body politic has established a reliable framework for further study of her dominions.43 Yet with the exceptions of the Republic of Dubrovnik and the island communities of Rab and Korčula, and Trogir,44 this area of inquiry has been largely neglected in the other Adriatic dominions of the respublica. The main obstacle is the lack of illustrative sources. Ne- vertheless, this problem may be resolved by the “abundance of written sources”—more specifically, wills and inventories.45 For a discussion about material culture in Zadar, let us begin by exa- mining testaments of female members from the three wealthiest families of Zadar’s nobility, the Tetrico, Rosa, and Civallello families.46 One example is the testament of “Nobilis Matrona domina Felicita uxor spectabilis domini Francisci Tetrici nobilis Jadrensis,” the daughter of the late “domini Nicolai Buchia nobilis Catarensis [Kotor]”.47 Among the first clauses is the provision that she wanted to be buried by the Franciscans. This was followed by donations to their church.48 For additional ornaments, Felicita ordered that the following movable goods be given: [u]nam vestem ex veluto rubeo, Item alteram vestem ex damascheno rubeo, teriam quoque ex raso rubeo Cum balzana veluti niridis, Item unam Schufiam rachamatam perlis, et Sufultam Seriem pannazia, Item unum par manicharum longarum ex veluto rubeo, Item unam filciam perlarum de conto ad numerarum perlarum Centum quinquaginta In 13 dozeris Cum Collonellis argenti aureati, Item unum pendentem ex argento aureatum Cum perlas quatuor et petra rubea In medio, Item unum pomolum ex argento laborato de truncafillo […].49 The list continues for several more lines and includes rings of silver and gold, necklaces, and other movable goods.50 In all, the sum of 150 ducats was to be taken from Felicita’s dowry and transferred to the Fran- ciscans who, in return, were obliged to read a mass every year in her memory for the equivalent of 30 ducats until the total sum was paid (i.e. over the five years after her death).51 Her husband, Franciscus, was to receive “unam vestem pani nigrj, ac unam peliziam sive vestem ex Sarzia rouana vulpibus Sufultam”; her godmother, “domina Magdalena uxor Strenuus Comestabilis Joannis a Lacu eius Comatri unum anellum aurj Cum arma nobilium Tetricorum.”52 Magdalena’s daughters were to receive “unam vestem a dorso dicti testatricis ex Sarzia rouana […] et unam vestem ex medialana paonazia.”53 Finally, Felicita’s former maid, “Catherine filie Ma- thei Sagoraz,” received “omnes Camisias et aliaquacumque drapamentas et vestimentas quotidiana a dorso.”54 180 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.” She too destined the Franciscan church as her gravesite, 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.”55 She obliged her two children, “dominam Thoma- sinam et dominum Hieronymum,” with the correct execution of her last will. Among the many clauses in which money was destined to kinsmen, there is a hint at movable goods: her other son, “Reverendo domino Zoylo canonico,” was to receive “unus calix argenteus minauratus cum sua pate- na” worth up to 200 libras.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.”57 Contrasting with the two previous cases, Euphemia preferred the Benedictine nunnery of St Mary as her final resting place. In addition to the clauses providing for the testatrix’s immovable property—a plot of land near the villages of Banj, a warehouse in the vicinity of Zadar’s main square, and possessions el- sewhere58—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, et duabus gonas ex rassie Coloris barelini, et ducatorum decem […].” While it is impossible to ascertain whether these movable goods came out of Euphemia’s dowry or her paraphernalia, she could bequeath them at her own discretion. Among the less wealthy families, the testament of “nobilis et honesta matrona domina Lucretia filia quondam spectabili domini Cresij de Gallel- lis et uxor quondam domini Caroli de Cedulinis” serves as an example.59 She ordered her grave to be constructed “in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae,” which was run by the Benedictines. After Lucretia handled her customary charitable bequests60 she destined “unam vestem suam de sarzia nigra [to] Lucie matri presbytri Joanni Francouich.” The priest received the “bona infrascripta vulgari sermone describenda, videlicet, un letto de piuma col Suo cavazzal, un paro de lineaoli, uno paro de intimele et un cussin de piuma.” Lucretia’s sister received “do camise uno paro de lineoli, et uno paro de intimelle” and 200 ducats, which were to be paid out of the testatrix’s income derived from her immovable property. The testament contains a Urban Elites and Everyday Life 181 number of additional clauses concerning monetary matters61 and the appointment of the residual heir. Lucretia bequeathed her entire real estate and the corresponding income to all “damicellas nobiles Jadrensis paupe- riores et seniores.” The testament was preserved in the nunnery of St Mary and contained the following provision: [c]um fuerint cumulati ducatorum ducenti, 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 Baldis- sara filia quondam domini Federici Grisogoni quondam domini Francisci.62 These 200 ducats were to be accumulated out of the income of Lu- cretia’s possessions, the alienation of which was explicitly prohibited. The rest of the testament contains a list of the testatrix’s properties, which suggests that she was rich despite not being specifically indicated as such by Venice’s legates. Thus the wealth of Zadar’s nobles does not seem to have been limited to the Tetrico, Rosa, and Civallello families.63 Two additional examples support this conclusion. “Nobilis domina Gelenta filia quondam domini Simonis Ciprianj Jadrensis,” preferred her family grave “in ecclesia Sanctae Mariae presbytorum alias Sancti Simo- nis Justi.” The testatrix left “Lucretia et Raphaela […] quondam domini Antonii eius testatricis olim fratris” 300 libras (c. 48 ducats) each in the case that her nieces wished to marry. Her maid, “Agneti,” received “unam Gonallam ex rassia Grossa, et unum faciolum a capite.”64 Finally, we have the testament of “Nobilis domina Catherina filia quondam domini Hieronymi de Nassis nobili Jadrensis, et uxor quondam domini Francisci Gallelli.” Again, the testatrix preferred the Franciscan church65 and left some of her movable goods to her relatives. Two of Ca- therina’s nieces, “Reverende Helisabeth, et Magdalene,” were in the noble nunnery of St Mary and each received one ducat and “unum faciolum a capite.” In addition, “Cathussa olim eius ancillae un par manicarum […], et unam cordellam a capite, valoris In totum librarum trium.” Similarly, “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.” As would be expected, Catherina’s maid received goods as well.66 This cursory overview illustrates how bequeathed goods, testaments, and inventories may contribute significantly to the future study of the material culture of Dalmatia’s elites. As has been demonstrated, money, je- 182 Urban Elites of Zadar welry, and expensive garments were predominantly bequeathed to other nobles and members of the clergy. In addition, these sources offer insights into the self-representation of Dalmatia’s urban nobility. The possessions and status symbols range from the explicit mention of a signet ring or piece of furniture to a burial “in habitu ordinis.”67 Right of abode, small amounts of money, pieces of furniture, or clothing of lesser quality and value were willed to former domestic servants or otherwise acquainted individuals. 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. One example is the “Inventarium bonorum, et hereditatis quondam spectabilis domini Nicolai Fanphoneo Nobilis Jadrensis,” written by Zadar’s notary Petrus de Bassano.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 Testa- mentarium.” Among other items, this inventory includes a list of books the deceased Nicolaus owned, alluding to the potential of inventories in assessing the level of education among Dalmatian nobles.69 Item libri de piu Sorte, numero 17, videlicet, uno Oracio, uno Cicero, uno Quintiliam, uno Juvenal, uno Lorenzo Valla vochabulista, uno Epistolle de Ovidio, regulle Sepontine, uno Petrarcha, uno Virgillio, uno Ovidio metamorfosio, uno Matial [Gaius Matius], uno Epistolle de Cicero, meditatione de Santo Bona Ventura, uno Livio, Coperto di pelle rossa, unaltro Juvenal picollo, una institutione de Gramaticha in volume picholo, et uno missal vechio Scripto in Carta pergamina.70

Notes

1. See McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 34. 2. Ibid., 35. 3. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 21. 4. O’Connell, Men of Empire, 12. 5. On Venice proper, see the above-referenced works by Chojnacki, Chojnacka, Sper- ling, et al. 6. Including contracts establishing additional dowry payments (augmentatio dotis), a number of civil proceedings, etc. Sources used: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (No- tarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII-1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Francis- cus Thomaseus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I, 1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, Urban Elites and Everyday Life 183

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 Dras- mileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1540-1569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1555-1567. In all, 656 individual notarial acts were analysed. 7. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 197. 8. Lib. III, tit. XIX. Statuta Iadertina, 334-338. 9. Clearly stated in Lib. III, tit. XIX, cap. 90: “Quod si filia sub potestate patris existens matre vivente nupta fuerit praeter consensum patris, perdat partem, nisi per instrumentum iniuria sit remissa, et idem de filio.” Ibid., 334. 10. As evidenced by Lib. III, tit. XIX, cap. 91: “Quomodo filius vel filia mortua matre in potestate patris existens, vel mortuo patre sit in protectione materna, se valeat maritare.” Ibid., 336. 11. Parental consent had been substituted by the consent of other relatives. Lib. III, tit. XIX, cap. 92: “Qualiter filia ad viginti annorum aetatem perventa, si eam pater vel mater neglexerit maritare, nubere possit.” Ibid., 336. 12. Lib. III, tit. XIX, cap. 93: “Quod mater transgressa ad secundas nuptias filios vel filias primi viri, absque voluntate et consensu ipsorum propinquorum, nequeat maritare.” Ibid., 338. 13. Lib. III, tit. XX: “De iure dotium et de iure bonorum seu rerum acquistarum uxori ex quacumque causa constante matrimonio,” which contains eight chapters. Ibid., 338-344. 14. Lib. III, tit. XXI: “Qui filii sunt legitimi et qui non,” which contains two chapters. Cap. 102: “Quomodo filius natus ante contractum matrimonium ex muliere et viro absolu- tis legitimus habeatus”; cap. 103: “Quod per famam publicam aliquem fore alicuius filius comprobatur.” Ibid., 346. 15. Eight days after the birth of a noble male child, the family was required to register him in the communal chancellery. Ref. 159: “Quod nobiles debeant facere scribere diem matrimonii sui sicut et diem natalem suorum filiorum.” Ibid., 674. 16. Which stood at c. 600 individuals out of approximately 6,000 to 6,500 inhabitants in the 1550s. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 261-262. The numbers for the individual decades are as follows: 23 acts were written in the 1540s (nine marriage contracts, 14 dowry instruments), 34 in the 1550s (eight, 26), and 31 in the 1560s (10, 21). Sources as in note 6, above; in all, 88 individual acts were analysed. 17. E.g., Ćosić-Vekarić, Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i država; and Janeković- Römer, Maruša ili suđene ljubavi, on Dubrovnik. On Trogir, e.g., Benyovsky, Srednjovjek- ovni Trogir; on Rab, see Mlacović, Građani plemići. 18. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, 2, s.p., 19 January 1540; s.p., 27 May 1540; s.p., 30 June 1540 (three individual acts). Clara’s husband, however, died only a couple of years later. 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, who agreed to transfer Clara’s original dowry to her second husband and to augment it with an additional 200 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1, 1, s.p., 18 April, 1548; Paulus de Sanctis I, 1, f.7r-f.7v, 11 June 1548. 19. Commissiones, 2:221. 184 Urban Elites of Zadar

20. 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, sailors, and soldiers, and for the maintenance of the warship. Lane, Venice, 365. 21. Commissiones, 2:197. 22. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 2, s.p., 12 December 1541. 23. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.8r, 29 March 1553. 24. Commissiones, 2:197. 25. Bernardinus Carnarutus fought under Nikola Šubić Zrinski (Zrínyi Miklós, 1508- 1566), the Ban of Croatia, against the Ottomans in Hungary. While the former gave up sol- diering in the mid-1540s, the latter died defending the city of Szigetvár (Siget) against the troops of Suleiman in 1566. Bernardinus Carnarutus is known for his literary oeuvre, which consists of poems and prose lauding the gallantry of his former commander. His book Vazetje Sigeta grada [The Fall of Szigetvár] was the first Slavic epic and was published in Venice in 1584. Thanks to his literary skills, Bernardinus Carnarutus enjoyed close ties with the Republic of Dubrovnik, which during the sixteenth century was the foremost centre of Slavic-Croatian writing. Fine, When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, 197. In addition to his literary connections, he had also personal interests: His illegitimate daughter “Judita” was married to “magister Nicolaus de Andreis de Ragusa,” a master-painter, who received a dowry worth 250 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 6, f.25v, 12 November 1566. 26. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1, 1, f.11v-f.12v, 24 August 1546. Fortunately, Catherina’s (nuncupative) testament is available too. Both her brother Laurentius and her husband Vitus are named as her executors, who should bury her “in ecclesia Sancte Mariae monialium,” hinting at her preference for the Benedictines over the Dominicans and Franciscans. Another, more delicate factor is also known. Apparently, Catherina was pregnant before the marriage contract was written. Her testament, written three months prior, makes this clear: “Instituit, ac voluit filium, auf filiam, Sique essent aut forent” as her residual heir. Only after the eventual death of her unborn child did she designate Vitus as her heir, on the condition that he pay her beloved kinsman “Donatus de Ciuallello” the sum of 50 ducats out of her dowry. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, II, 6, s.p., 18 May 1547. 27. The dowry payment was divided into “[…] ducatos ducentos in pecunia numerata, et ducatos ducentos in tot rebus extimandis de comuni concordio […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.42v-c.43r, 7 July 1555. 28. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 5, c.45v, 27 January 1558. 29. Mostly the constituent parties required an individual of elevated social status to achieve the desired outcome in Venice. On the other hand, some Venetians whose tour of duty had recently ended also appointed procurators from Zadar. Upon leaving office as the city’s captain “Magnificus, et celeberrimus dominus Marcus Antonius Priolus olim capitaneus Jadre dignissimus” appointed “excellentem Doctorem, et equitem dominum Joannem Rosa” as his general procurator. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, c.20v-c.21r, 9 November 1558. 30. Commissiones, 2:172; Anzulović, “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva,” 271; Knapton, “Stato da Mar,” 332-335; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 102-103. 31. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 2, s.p., 22 December 1542. 32. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, c.32r, 11 January 1556. Urban Elites and Everyday Life 185

33. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 12, s.p., 30 April 1567. 34. 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 1, c.13r-c.14r, 8 January 1556. 35. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.189r, 2 July 1559. 36. Interestingly, this particular quitclaim specifically mentions the dowry obligation “pro Integrali et finali Satisfactioneet persolutione […] bonorum paternorum, maternorum, Avitorum et aliorum quorumcumque dicta dominae Margaritae.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Dan- iel Cavalca, I, 2, 2B, c.35r-c.36r, 6 May 1560. Almost all other dotal cards, quitclaims, marriage contracts, and testaments of Zadar’s nobility omit this specific wording, which explicitly refers to, in Chojnacki’s words, the bride’s “rightful share of the patrimony [her] indisputable right to a dowry.” Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice,” 575. 37. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2B, c.35r-c.36r, 6 May 1560. Vido was commanding a small unit of light cavalry. 38. Commissiones, 2:191. 39. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, A, c.35v-c.36r, 21 January 1540. 40. Commissiones, 2:197. 41. Population estimates for the sixteenth century are hard to come by; however, it is the proportion of population size that is of interest here. In 1553 Zadar’s inhabitants numbered c. 6,500. Among them were c. 1,400 able-bodied men, while Trogir proper was home to c. 300 able-bodied men. If the same proportion of able-bodied men to the general populace is assumed, Trogir proper was home to c. 1,500 inhabitants, or about a fifth of Zadar. Commissiones, 2:198, 208. 42. Giovanni Battista Giustiniano described the nobles in 1553 as follows: “La richez- za di questi nobili non è molta, perchè la maggior intrada, che sia fra loro, è di ducati quattrocento, cinquecento et fino settecento, come li Tetrici, Rosa, Civallelli, et altri, ch’hanno ducati cento d’entrada, ducento e fino trecento. E sono di questi nobili molti poverissimi, i costumi dei quali sono quasi italiani, perchè la maggior parte de nobili vive, favella et veste all’usana d’Italia, il che forse avviene per la frequenza de forestieri, nobili veneziani, generali, proveditori, capitanii, sopracomiti et altri, che vi praticano continuamente.” Commissiones, 2:197. Comparable statements can be found about other urban centres in Venetian Dalmatia, such as Koper, Šibenik, Trogir, and Split. Ibid., 191, 204-205, 208, 215. Of the Albanian towns Ulcinj and Bar, however, Venice’s legate wrote of “costumi barbari, parlano lingua albanese tutta differente dalla Dalmatia.” Ibid., 227, 231. 43. See the overview in Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 22-27; and Fortini Brown, “Behind the Walls” in the same volume. See also Fortini Brown, Private Lives in Renaissance Venice; Fortini Brown Art and Life in Renaissance Venice. Cf. further Pavanello, ed., L’enigma della modernità; and Donaglio, Un esponente dell’élite liberale. 44. A cursory overview is provided in Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 197-109. On Dubrovnik, Budak points to the unpublished theses by Janeković-Römer, “Dubrovačko plemstvo u XV. stoljeću” [Dubrovnik’s Nobility in the 15th Century]” (PhD diss.); on Rab Mlacović, “Družbeni in ekonomski odnosi na Rabu v anžujski dobi 1358-1409” [Social and Economic Relations in Rab under Angevin Rule” (M.A. diss., both unavailable to the author); see also Mlacović, Građani plemići, esp. 202-288; on Korčula, Dokoza, Dinamika 186 Urban Elites of Zadar otočnog prostora; and Schmitt, Korčula sous la domination de Venise; on Trogir, Beny- ovsky, Srednjovjekovni Trogir. 45. “Such an investigation should also include the education acquired by patrician youth, which was, as it seems, not as good as the knowledge possessed by ambitious commoners, for whom it was a means of vertical social mobility.” Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 199. Only a few instruments explicitly refer to higher education among the nobility. The named individuals were the sons of Federicus Grisogonus (Federik Grisogono), the renowned medical doctor and professor at the University of Padua. 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, “dominis Hieronimo et Julio, ad praesens in Patavino [Padua] Gimnasio existentibus.” The two beneficiaries were absent but their brother Pompeius was present and accepted the donation on their behalf. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 1, s.p., 11 November 1555. In the late 1550s “dominus Pompeius Chrysogonus quondam excellentis domini Fed- erici 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,” For the annual payment of 230 libras, the canon leased the entire income of the salt pans for the duration of five years. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, c.44v-c.45r, 24 April 1557. 46. Since men tended to leave money rather than possessions to their heirs, the wills of women are more suitable for analysis of worldly goods. See Chojnacki, “Patri- cian Women in Early Renaissance Venice,” 190-193; Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice;” Chojnacka, Working Women of Early Modern Venice, 26-49; Janeković-Römer, Rod i grad, 77-89; Stuard, State of Deference, 69-80. This was done because women transferred most of their possessions only through their testaments. Their belongings consisted overwhelmingly of movable property since real estate was usually transferred through the male line. See Grbavac, “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noble- women,” 68-70; Janeković-Römer, Rod i grad, 89-93; and Stuard, State of Deference, 100- 114. For the relevant clauses in Zadar’s statutes Lib. III, tit. XXIII: “De testamentis et quemadmodum testamenta debeant ordinary,” which contains 11 chapters; tit. XXIV: “De exhereditate liberorum,” which contains two chapters; and tit. XXV: “De codicillis,” which consists of a single chapter. Statuta Iadertina, 348-358. 47. Another instrument, Felicita’s dowry quitclaim from the mid-1550s, proves her noble descent from Kotor. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 1, s.p., 18 Novem- ber 1555. See also the reference to Nicolaus Buchia (or “Gucchia” as the Venetian legates spelled the name) in Commissiones, 2:246. 48. “Item voluit Cadaver suum sepeliri debere In ecclesia venerabilium fratrium mi- narum ordinis Sancti Francisci de Observantia Jadre, In Capella dicti domini Francisci eius mariti In Sepulcro In ea Construendo quod nisi tam erit Constructum voluit, et mandavit Illud Sepelirj tali Casu In eadem ecclesia In Sepulcro In quo Jacent Socrus ac Cognati Sui.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, IV, 8, no. 2, 27 April 1539. 49. Ibid. 50. Cont.: “Item duos deziales ex argento quorum unius est laboraturus, ut dixit alla prosina, Item tresdecim butonzinos ex argento laborato, Item unum penarolum argenti ab Urban Elites and Everyday Life 187 agis, Item sex anullos ex auro, videlicet, unum magnum Cum petra rubea alterum Cum petra turchina, tertium Cum zala quartum Cum perla magnum, quintum Cum nomine Jesu descripto Sextum vero partim Cum capite albo ab homine, Item unam Cathenellam ex argento a gladijs quas res, 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.” Ibid. A codicil stipulated in February of 1559 reveals the value of some of the mobile goods bequeathed to Felicita’s husband, “vulgari Sermone describenda, videlicet, un annello d’oro con la pietra rossa di valuta come la disse di ducati sette, un’annello d’oro con una turchina de ducati quattro […].”HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, III, 1, no. 88, 22 February 1559. 51. To be on the safe side, Felicita ordered a number of additional requiems to be celebrated in the churches dedicated to St Catherine and St Donatus, while leaving small amounts of money to the reliquary chapel of St Simeon and Our Lady of Peace in Zadar’s suburbs. In all of these instances, the bequests were tied to masses in the testatrix’s memory. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, IV, 8, no. 2, 27 April 1539. 52. The coat of arms of the Tetrico family is parted per fess (halved horizontally). The upper half was red with an eight–pointed yellow star in the middle. The lower half was blue. Kolumbić, “Grbovi zadarskih plemićkih obitelj” [Coats of Arms of the Zadar Nobility] (im- ages of the coats of arms on 93); Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 172-173. 53. Magdalena and Johannes a Lacu had two daughters, “domina Ursia […] uxor quondam ser Nicolai Ventura” and “Lucia.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, IV, 8, no. 2, 27 April 1539. 54. Ibid. 55. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 3, no. 4, 11 March 1557. 56. In addition to another 100 requiems, the testament contains detailed succession criteria for Marchetta’s residual heir, her son “dominum Aloysium supradictum filium dicti testatricis ex dicti quondam spectabili domino Petro de Begna eius primo matrimonio.” If Aloysius did not survive or have legitimate offspring, his half brothers and sisters and their offspring would succeed. If neither of her own children or their offspring survived, then Marchetta’s daughters “Maria […] uxor domini Francisci Dragoeuich” and “Helisabeth uxor quondam domini Aloysij Boyci” would inherit their mother’s goods. In addition, the testatrix had the notary insert the provision “utriusque sexus” between the lines. Ibid. 57. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 286, 13 April 1544. 58. Immovable property was only transferable to legitimate male offspring: “Cum condictione per dictum testamentum Testamentaliter expresse apposita ex filij dictorum filiorum Suorum legitimariorum […].” Ibid. 59. The account follows HR DAZd 31BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 4, no. 46, 12 February 1555. 60. All testaments typically included small bequests to the “fabrica cappelle Sancti Simeonis Justi,” the “lazaretto pestiferorum,” one or another school or hospital, or a combination thereof. Ibid. 61. In an additional dowry instrument, Lucretia was promised “a Bernardino et Joanne Petri fratribus de Carnaruto ducatorum centum quinquaginta,“ out of which only 50 ducats had been paid accordingly. Hence she went on to bequeath the total sum of 100 ducats (of 188 Urban Elites of Zadar which 50 ducats were still outstanding) to “domina Marine olim uxor quondam domini Donati de Carnarutis sorori dicti testatrices.” Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Especially in the light of the listed property (the toponyms in parentheses are today’s place names; see also appendix): “Duj scoglij chiamati labdara grande et piccolo Con animali ducento; La possession de Chuchgliza [Kukljica] Isola de Zara; Sorte dieci di Terre poste à Machurci [?]; Sorte cinque a Migliasichi [Miljačka]; Due sorte à Varicassane [Varikašani]; Gognali trentado à Lucorano [Lukoran] arabile et vignati et olinatj; Il molin overo la posta, et paga livello de lire 20 a Machurci [?]; Livelli posti à San Simon [?]; Una ograda sotto’l monte ferreo [?] de gognali 8 vel circa vignada à sozali; Una casetta al castello nella qual habita Lucia Francouich; Una casetta al castello verso San Francesco [probably in Zadar near St Francis]; Livelli in Borgo uno paga dre lire Cioe Zoysici de soldi 20 Miclos Draxinouich et Siglicich un mocenigo; Livello d’un horto per il qual Si paga soldi 30 posto drio San Helie [St Elias’ parish]; Una casetta drio San Helia che paga de livello soldi 40.” Ibid. 64. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 189, 4 November 1539. 65. “Item voluit sepeliri In ecclesia Sancti Francisci fratrium minorum regularis ob- servandum Jadra In sepulcro Suo.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 337, 6 November 1545. 66. “Item reliquit Helisabeth filia Simonis Bratich de Bocagnatio [Bokanjac] famula unam podassam ex pellibus caprinis vetere, et unam cordellam a capite.” Ibid. 67. “[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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, III, 6, no. 338, 19 December 1545. 68. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, II, 6, s.p., 21 June, 1531. 69. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 199. 70. Interestingly, there is an abundance of Classical Latin writings—and only one missal—mentioned at the end of the list. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, II, 6, s.p., 21 June, 1531. A transcript of the inventory is provided in the appendix. 6. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape

Over the course of centuries, enduring myths based on the writings of Marcantonio Sabellico, Gasparo Contarini’s treatise De magistratibus et republica Venetorum, and others’ texts1 shrouded the realities of the Republic of Venice in written accounts (as they still do today in modern scholarship).2 Typically, contemporaries characterised the society of early modern Venice as tripartite, made up of patricians, citizens, and foreigners.3 The ruling patricians were defined elaborately, but the non-noble elites remained obscure and undifferentiated. From the fifteenth century, however, this distinct “ordine cittadinesco” became increasingly diversified in written records.4 Like their aristocratic peers who ruled the Republic of Venice, 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.5 The result was a “distinctively subaltern class” of citizens of Venetian origin tied to, but distinctively separated from, the ruling patriciate.6 Once the splendour of Renaissance Venice and its lagoon is left behind, however, the picture becomes less clear. Unfortunately, historiography of the Stato da mar is uneven. Tendencies to focus on the larger regions—Crete, Cyprus, and Constantinople—have resulted in less scholarly interest in and documentation of other geographical areas.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.8 The following pages examine a broader spectrum of social groups in Zadar, namely Venetians, Croats, Jews, and the non-noble elites. 190 Urban Elites of Zadar

1. Venetians

The number of Venetian patricians and commoners who lived in the Stato da mar, and in Zadar in particular, is hard to assess, especially since the military presence distorts the proportions. In the period surveyed only 120 notorial acts (out of more than 6,000) refer to individuals with geographical, political, or social origins in the Venetian lagoon. And even this number is misleading because sometimes the same individual appears on multiple occasions . Hence, while the following discussion of documentary examples seeks to obtain a picture of the activities of these groups, it must be acknowledged that the data is incomplete and biased toward those individuals who appear more than once in the records. The most prominent Venetians in the notarial instruments were members of the Venier family of central Dalmatia. Well-established by the mid- sixteenth century, they operated out of their residence in Zadar’s “Contrata Sancti Stephani.”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. The village of Zemunik, just 10 kilometres away from the city walls, boasted a “castello di meser Thomaso Venier et fratelli.”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. They leased their real estate to acquaintances like their fellow soldier “Joann[es] Rimanich”11 and conceded other parts to labourers.12 And like Zadar’s nobles, Thomaso and his siblings carried out procuratorial duties. For instance, in June of 1559 “domina Nicolota uxor quondam domini Georgij Venerij olim civis et habitator Jadrae, mulier Sui Juris” appointed “Magnificum et Generosum dominum Sanctum Venerio patritium venetum” to settle her legal problems. The instrument cites a sentence issued on 12 June 1555 “per celeberrimum dominum Nata- lem Donato olim dignissimum Provisorem Generalem in Dalmatia.” San- ctus was to recover the sum of 79 libras from Nicolota’s adversary, “strenui domini Demetrij Lascari,” who evidently did not pay his rent on time.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. In winter of 1542 Thomaso paid the 44 oarsmen of his galley for their military service.15 We learn even more about the composition of the crews of Venetian warships through his brother’s role as commander of Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 191 a galley about a decade later. 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, “Catherina.” Her dowry was composed of movable goods worth 407 libras. The rest was paid in cash.16 Except for the few public officials, the Venier of Zadar, or Franciscus Dandolo (see also Chapter 3), most Venetians who appear in the notarial protocols were affiliated with the Church or military. 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 Sta- to da mar.17 The procuratorial appointments involving military personnel reveal the problematic payment practices of Venice.18 For instance, in early 1560 Zadar’s castellan, “Magnificus dominus Aloysius Memo [Memmo], appointed celeberrimum dominum Bernardinum Contareno […] dignissimum provisorem generalem in Dalmatia” in absentia to represent him in Venice. The task was simple: Bernardinus was to obtain “ab officio Magni- ficorum dominorum camerariorum communitatis Venetiamrum […] omnes et quamcumque denariorum quantitatem quam dixit debere habere a dicto officio pro augmento Salarij Sui.”19 In spring of 1564, Giacomo Pisani had just been appointed to the office of count of Zadar. 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.20 Much to his dismay he disco- vered that large expenditures went toward Ottoman subjects who visited and negotiated with the Venetian administration in Zadar. They ate and drank away a small fortune without ever returning the favour.21 To increase the readiness of the soldiers and fortifications, Pisani went to work within a couple of months after his arrival in Dalmatia. He convened a meeting in his audience chamber and laid out his plan. Two prominent Zadar residents, “Meser Gieronimo Grisogono nobile, et Meser Zanantonio Rossetto cittadin,” were tasked with a specific and potentially dangerous assignment. Because the city’s provisions of corn (biave)22 had dropped considerably, Pisani gave them “ducati quattrocento et trenta […] in tanti contadi” and sent them forth to resupply the dwindling stocks. Because war was raging elsewhere—the Emperor’s requisitions are cited explicitly23—supplies were in high demand. Pisani came up with an ingenious plan: he gave Gieronimo and Zanantonio an additional 290 ducats “per investire quelli in 192 Urban Elites of Zadar formenti et altre biave nelle parti di Turchia al benefficio si di questa città come del Suo territorio […],” specifically earmarked to acquire foodstuffs from subjects of Venice’s potential future adversary.24 Despite renewed Ottoman attacks on the Knights Hospitaller in 1565 Gieronimo and Zanan- tonio, “deputati al proveder di biave per 250 di questa città,” were at least partially successful. They came back with supplies and even returned 465 libras and nine soldi to the communal treasury.25

2. Non-Noble Elites

Referred to as “fedelissimo” by Paulo Giustiniano, the most renowned individuals of non-noble descent were “un Simon Bertonichio, il capitanio Peregrin de Marco, Francesco de Ventura, Zuan Rimondin, Hierolimo di Lorenzi et altri simili.”26 The following discussion, based on data gleaned from procuratorial appointments and property transactions, examines in more detail this social class and its activities. While the notarial instruments do not yield information about Simon Bertonichio, the situation changes considerably for “il capitanio Peregrin de Marco,” who commanded a small cavalry detachment.27 Except for two sisters, Francischina and Ursia,28 who lived behind the walls of the Bene- dictine nunnery of St Catherine’s, the base of the de Marco family was the fortified village of Turanj, c. 21.5 kilometres southeast of Zadar. Around the mid-sixteenth century two families bearing the de Marco surname can be identified. One of these was Peregrin’s family, which centred around Peregrin as valiant commander, citizen, and resident of Zadar. 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, and he had to deal with the unreliable payment practices of his employer. In a procura from the early 1540s Peregrin “Interveniens nomine sup proprio, ac nomine done Anzole eius matris, ac omnium aliorum fratrium et sororium Suarum absentium, cum quibus est in fraterna, ut asservit.” On behalf of himself and his family he appointed a fellow soldier, “ser Dominicum de Tervisio [Tarvisio] stipendiatum ad custodiam platheam,” to collect the outstanding payments “a camera Vegle [Krk].”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.” Simeon had lost a legal feud against Peregrin and, believing Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 193 in his chances in an appeal, formally appointed “Reverendum dominum Petrum eius filium Primicerium Jadrensis” to travel to Venice and present the case in front of the Quarantia. The core of the issue was that Peregrin had successfully appealed against a previous sentence, hence Simeon sent his son in an attempt to reverse the outcome.30 Both de Marco families owned considerable amounts of real estate within Zadar’s jurisdiction. Peregrin and his brothers appear in the records seven times conceding parts of their property to colonists. They owned around 18.5 hectares near the villages of Nin, Turanj, Sv Filip i Jakov, Kožino, and Gaženica (some of the land may have been re-rented).31 The other de Marco family, led by “ser Martinus de Marco alias Mestrouich,” a merchant and citizen of Zadar, possessed real estate within Zadar’s jurisdiction too.32 Mar- tinus also possessed property near his hometown,33 but the instruments are silent on the exact nature of the ties between these two families who bore the same surname. In fact, in one contract both Peregrin and Martinus appear as constituents, but without reference to familial relationship.34 By virtue of marital alliances the de Marco family was related to at least two other non-noble families of comparable social status. In autumn of 1559 “egregius vir dominus Franciscus de Ventura quondam domini Petri civis Jadre, ex una, et dominus Simon de Marco,” Peregrin’s brother, met “in domo Solita habitationis spectabilis et excellentis Juris utriusque doctoris domini Pasini de Pasinis,” located in the parish of St Simeon. The reason was that Franciscus or “Francesco de Ventura”35 promised to Simon the hand of his daughter, “honesta damicella domina Gasparina eius filia legitima et naturalis.” Together with Gasparina, Simon was to receive a stately dowry of 700 ducats, of which 550 ducats came to the bride directly from her father. 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.”36 Of the total sum of 700 ducats, 250 ducats were to be paid in cash. The rest was transferred in annual installments of 25 ducats and movable goods.37 A couple of years after the marriage Simon issued a formal quitclaim and exonerated his father-in-law of the entire debt.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, “honesta damicella domina Laura,” to marry up. Peregrin, who stipulated on behalf of his siblings, managed to breach the social boundaries separating Zadar’s noblemen from the city’s commoners. Lau- 194 Urban Elites of Zadar ra’s husband, “dominus Antonius de Begna alias Grascich quondam Dam- yani nobilis Jadre,” received a comparably large dowry worth 600 ducats from Peregrin, as well as 50 additional ducats “per quondam dominae Mat- theam uxoris in primo matrimonio dicti domini Pellegrini.”40 The marriage practices of these non-noble families were instrumental in the functioning of the Venetian administration. The families participated in local defense, trade, public administration, and other essential services. For instance, “Paulus de Pasinis” was a citizen and merchant of Zadar, and his relative, “Pasinus de Pasinis,” was a doctor of both laws canon and civil (leges utriusque doctoris), hence a member of the intellectual elite.41 Another prominent elite non-noble, “dominus Hieronymus de Laurentijs,” known to Venice’s legates as “Hierolimo di Lorenzi,”42 belonged to this particular socio-occupational group too.43 He was related by marriage to another non- noble family of considerable social status. In the mid-1540s he married the daughter of “egregius vir dominus Simon Britanicus,” a citizen and “interpres publicus” of Zadar.44 Together with the hand of “domina Francischina filia dicti domini Simonis,” Hieronymus received a dowry worth 450 ducats, which was fully paid by his father-in-law in late autumn 1547.45 The intellectual elite included individuals like Franciscus Justus or de Justis, the fiscal chamber’s scribe (scriba camerae fiscalis),46 and the two attorneys Franciscus Petrouich and Hieronymus de Bassano (see also Chapter 2).47 Another example is Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, a notary and barrister of Zadar, whose daughter was married to a merchant from Lju- bljana, Andreas Postner. According to the marriage contract written in Cre- te, Postner received a dowry of 500 ducats.48 In the end, 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.49

3. Croats and Jews

As shown in the procuratorial analysis (see also Chapter 2), exchange between the coastal communities and the wider hinterland of the western Balkans was limited. This is reflected in the absence of reports or directives of Venice’s civil and military servants. Nevertheless, every now and then Croats appear in the protocols of Zadar’s notaries. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 195

One example involves, again, Franciscus de Ventura who appears in an instrument from the mid-1560s. Earlier, he had partnered with “dominus Bernardus Michaglieuich de partibus Croatiae […] Tamquam procurator dominae Hellenae filiae quondam comitis Georgij Bencouich de Plauno [Plavno].” Together they surveyed a document drawn up by the “Reveren- di capituli Zagrabiensis scripta et rogata iuxta morem dicti loci seu capituli.” 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. Now that Bernardus had paid the landlord, Franciscus issued a quitclaim and exonerated the tenant of her debt.50 Ties like these, while relatively rare, were not completely unknown and occurred in a variety of circumstances. This is exemplified by the presence of the members of the Mogorichia (Mogorić) family in Zadar’s St Catherine nunnery (see also Chapter 3). As for the relatives of sister Hele- na, in the spring of 1565 three more names appear in the notarial records: “comes Georgius Mogorich quondam comitis Martini, comes Thomas Mo- gorich quondam comitis Joannis, et comes Nicolaus Mogorich quondam comitis Francisci, patruus et Nepotes habitatores in partibus Croatiae in loco vocato Bosiglieuo [Bosiljevo].”51 The three counts, possibly involved with the Venetian military, owned property in Zadar’s jurisdiction, which they leased to “domino Simoni Mazzarello nobilis Traguriensis cancella- rio Magnifici comunitatis Jadrae.” In all, they transferred three sors52 to the communal chancellor. The properties were located near the villages of “Radohouo […] Reiane [Režane]”, and a place listed as “Franulschina.” In exchange for an annual rent of 26 ducats, Simon was granted usufruct rights. In addition, the contract included a reference to the location of the properties. Režane and probably also the other two plots were located close to the Ottoman-Venetian border. The following clause was included: “si […] infra dictum Terminum annorum decem pateret damnum aliquod, pestis, Belli seu alicuius Incursionis Turcarum, grandinisque Tempestatis cause quod Deus avertat.” The landlords agreed to pay potential damages in accordance with the judgment of jointly-appointed evaluators.53 In addition to these individuals of elevated social status, many rank and file soldiers who served in the various military units originated from the hinterlands. Only rarely though do these soldiers appear in the notarial instruments, usually appointing procurators to retrieve outstanding payment for their service (see also Chapter 2). Occasionally, individuals acted on their own behalf. In summer of 1540 two soldiers, “Matheus Liuaza, et Bilulus 196 Urban Elites of Zadar

Sbizich sotij de Comitatia strenui domini Nicolai Tetricj nobilis Jadrensis Capitanei equitum Croatorum,” sold two slaves to “Georgio quondam Paulj Marizieuich habitator In Castro Ariolo dittionis Lanzani [Lanciano].” The two individuals for sale, referred to as “Captivos turchas,” were boys, “nomine Balia etatis annorum Circa decem alterum vero nomine Schenderbeg etatis annorum Circa sex.” Taken near the fortified village of Ražanac, they were sold for the combined price of 30 ducats, which the buyer paid in specie.54 The majority of the military units appearing in the notarial records was composed of Croats, most of whom are unnamed. Individual soldiers are identified only with explicit reference to their unit commander, who might be a nobleman of Zadar like Nicolaus Tetricus, a member of the Mogori- chia family, or an individual from the hinterlands of the western Balkans like “Joanni Rimanich capitanio crouatorum de Sliuniza [Slivnica].”55 As for those of the Jewish faith,56 their numbers were very small, as indicated by their rare appearances in the notarial documents. Only 18 individuals appear in the books of Zadar’s notaries during the period under survey.57 Their small numbers are also reflected in the absence of references to Jews in the Statuta Iadertina and the Commissiones et Relationes Venetae. 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, as they were in Split.59 The following discussion examines exchange within the Jewish population of Zadar and, more specifically, the importance of kinship relations. This analysis is based on pioneering scholarship on the Jews of Venice and recent comparative studies.60 One case involves two Jewish families, of ambiguous ties. In winter of 1567 “honesta damicella dona Laura filia legitima et naturalis ser Me- lis Zizo hebrei habitatoris Jadra” formally renounced any future claims on parts of her father’s patrimony (refutatio bonorum) in exchange for a dowry.61 About two weeks later the marriage contract was drawn up “In- ter excellentem dominum Salvatorem Alfari artium et medicinae doctorem hebreum ex una et dominam Lauram filiam ser Mellis Zizo hebrei ex altera.” It also contains clauses pertaining to the dowry, written in Hebrew (“scripta letteris hebraicis manu Jacobi Sassi Venetijs habitatoris et Sub- scripto manu duarum Testium”). 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. In addition, Sal- vator Alfari promised his wife a counter-dowry of 175 ducats.62 Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 197

Mele Zizo, Laura’s father, 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 1533.63 By the time of their daughter’s marriage the couple lived in a house in Za- dar’s parish of St Simeon that belonged to the Crissana family.64 Their son “Salamon” had married half a decade earlier. The dowry quitclaims written “nella città d’Ancona, 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. His bride was accompanied by a dowry of 220 ducats in both “denari et robbe,” and she received a counter-dowry worth 50 ducats. Their fortune did not last long. 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.”65 Another instrument, written two decades earlier, revealed something else: Perla’s father, Mele Belinfante, was the brother of Preciosa, wife of Mele Zizo and mother of Salamon. Mele Zizo and Mele Belinfante were brothers-in-law whose children married each other.66 The few resident Jews were involved in a number of business deals with other Zadar’s inhabitants. Mele Zizo, for instance, was a banker and moneylender.67 Two other Jews, “ser Abramus Vigleta hebreus quondam Isach de Alexandria, ac Juda, sive Leonus Gomiel hebreus quondam Jose- ph de dicto Loco,” had deposited 400 ducats, which Mele returned in his town of residence, Zadar, “parti in auro, ac parti in monetis.”68 A decade later the banking endeavours of Mele Zizo attracted more attention. On the basis of a sentence issued by “excellente leges utriusque doctore domino Petro Fanfoneo,” Mele Zizo was required to make restitution to the sum of 6,504 libras and 14 soldi (c. 1,050 ducats) to “domina Regina uxor quondam ser Gabrielis Bellinfante Hebrei, uti mater, tutrix, et legitima guberna- trix filiorum pupillorum dicti quondam ser Gabrielis, ser Melle de Ariano, et ser Mahir Cohen hebrei uti cotutores.”69 Among the Jews of Zadar one individual stood out: “ser Mayr Choen hebreo hispano nunc Jadre habitatori.” He is first mentioned in the second half of the 1540s. Not much is known about him prior to his move to Dal- matia, other than his allegedly Sephardic origins. Apart from his involvement with the Belfinante family, Mayr Choen (or Mahir Cohen) appeared in two other instruments.70 In the first instance he lent the sum of 105 scudi (c. 115 ducats) to “ser Jacobus Bono patronus marciliane, Civis, ac habitator Jadrensis.”71 In the second instrument, written on the same day 198 Urban Elites of Zadar after the credit had been agreed upon, the same two individuals formed a “societas”72 in which each party agreed to bring in 105 scudi. Jacobus also obliged himself “pro ut se obtulit exercere Arte mercantium, tam in Emen- do ipsas mercantias Cuiuscumque Sortis, ac conditionis, ad Sui Libitum, tamquam pro ut ipsi ser Jacobo melius videbitur ac placuerit […]”. If all went well Jacobus was to receive two-thirds of the profits. In case the mercantile endeavours failed, the losses were to be equally divided.73 One final example of the widespread connections between Jewish families in the early modern Mediterranean is documented in an instrument from early 1562. 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 “Magni- ficum dominum Marcum Faletruo [Falier] quondam celeberrimi domini Luce patricium Venetum” as their procurator. To be on the safe side, 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.” Marcus Falier was to obtain “partem et portio- nem bonorum quondam dominae Miliae eius Sororis,” as well as “omnes et quacumque pecuniarum Sumas Sibi spectandum existendum Venetijs in Ghetto in banco filiorum quondam consilij hebrei.”74 The first document is silent on the sum of money; however, in a second, dated 4 April 1564, Johannes de Suave confirmed the receipt of 50 ducats and 12 grossi from Marcus Falier.75 These examples serve to illustrate the interconnectedness and spectrum of activities of late medieval and early modern Mediterranean cities and their inhabitants. Zadar, located in central Dalmatia, was connected with Venice, Padua, and Alexandria, and with Ancona, Novigrad, and the hinterlands of the western Balkans. Married Venetian civil or military officials may have brought their wives and, possibly, children with them to their assigned posts, which, apart from the Rulers of Venice database, have thus far received little scholarly attention.76

4. The Cityscape

The final section of this chapter examines Zadar’s cityscape and its uses, focusing on the distinction between public and private spheres.77 It Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 199 will first give an overview of the locations of stipulation of the more than 2,000 real estate transactions concerning the area outside the city walls. The second set of data analyses the 255 contracts that transferred property within the city walls over the same period (Table 13).

Table 13: Locations of Stipulation (Overview, 1540-1569)

Locations Salesa Leasesb Grantsc Zadard Totale Averagef Business facilities1 154 30 35 35 254 12.5 % Chancelleries2 144 31 86 40 301 15 % Houses3 288 58 98 85 529 26 % Ecclesiastical property4 30 27 16 13 86 4 % Communal main square5 372 46 211 70 699 34.5 % Other6 79 34 32 12 157 8 % 1,067 226 478 255 2,026 100 %

Sources: HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 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, 1540-1569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1555-1567.The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. 2,026 individual instruments are analysed. (a) Number of property sales (emptiones) for each location of stipulation. (b) Number of property leases (locationes) for each location of stipulation. (c) Number of land grants (concessiones, pastinationes) for each location of stipulation. (d) Number of land transfers within Zadar’s city walls for each location of stipulation. (e) Total number of instruments for each location of stipulation. (f) Three-decade averages for each location of stipulation. (1) Contracts drawn up in business or storage facilities (apotheca), typically located at or near Zadar’s main square. (2) Contracts drawn up in one of the city’s three chancelleries (cancellaria comitis, communitatis, ad criminalium). (3) Contracts drawn up in houses (domus, domuncula). (4) Contracts drawn up in churches (ecclesia) or on ecclesiastical property such as cloisters, chapels, etc. (5) Contracts drawn up in Zadar’s main square (in platea), the communal loggia (logia comunis), or the jurists’ bench (ad bancum iuris), since the latter two were located in the main square. (6) Contracts with unlisted or infrequently-listed locations. 200 Urban Elites of Zadar

Zadar proper was organised into about 20 ecclesiastical parishes, plus a few neighbourhoods with secular designations that do not refer to a church.78 Table 13, above, indicates the parish or neighbourhood of stipulation for the 2,026 individual contracts that transferred property. A majority of the contracts were drawn up in public places. A third were written in one of the city’s squares or adjacent structures such as the communal loggia or the jurists’ bench. Slightly more than a quarter of the instruments were written in a house (domus) of one of the city’s inhabitants. In 330 out of 529 occurrences the contracting parties met in the house of a Zadar noble. On many occasions these notarial acts were drawn up in the presence of the communal official whose signature was required to validate any instrument.79 These 330 instances made up only a sixth of the total number of property transactions. Conversely, the houses of the nobility accounted for almost two-thirds of all locations of stipulation in the domus sub-category. The documents reveal two further subcategories of urban space: business or storage facilities (apotheca, 254 contracts) and administrative chancelleries (cancellaria, 301 acts). For these spaces there was no clear distinction between public and private; commercial premises served similar purposes to communal and administrative premises. While the business facilities were mainly in the hands of non-nobles who engaged in a wide variety of economic activities, they also served as locations in which contracting parties met. Likewise, the role of the public chancelleries was not clear-cut because three of the 15 notaries active in Zadar worked as communal officials. 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. Frequently, both retail facilities and public buildings were used to conduct business transactions or activities otherwise unrelated to the purpose of these public spaces. Combined, these three subcategories (apotheca, cancellaria, domus) account for the subject of 1,084 notarial acts, or slightly more than 53%. Their combined share easily exceeds the fully “public” sphere (platea). Moving to the subject of property transferred in Zadar, Table 14, below, demonstrates that the main difference between the real estate transactions within and without the city walls is the number of female contracting parties. In all three previously analysed categories (see also Chapter 4) Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 201

Table 14: Property Transactions in Zadar proper (Overview, 1540-1569)

No. of Actsa % of Totalb Latinc ♀ Sellersd ♀ Buyerse 1540s 81 32 % 81 19 14 1550s 71 28 % 71 16 15 1560s 103 40 % 100 21 19 255 100 % 252 56 48

Sources: see Table 13, above. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. (a) Number per decade of concessions. (b) Relative percentage per decade. (c) Number per decade of instruments written in Latin (as opposed to Venetian). (d) Number per decade of female land-holding parties. (e) Number per decade of female leasing parties. women never amounted to more than about 12% among constituent parties and some 4% among recipient parties. Property transactions within the city walls mainly transferred a house (domus), a small house (domuncula), or parts thereof.80 As for the contracting parties, the combined number of vendors who belonged to the nobility or clergy was 62 (c. 24%). The number among the buyers was 34 (c. 13%). Thus urban real estate transactions were firmly in the hands of Zadar’s non- noble inhabitants.81 Like other segments of the real estate market, the city proper, its suburban settlement, and immediate surroundings were home to four out of five contracting parties.82 The surveyed documents show no major shifts in origins of the contracting parties; however, this presumably changed significantly in the decades after the Cyprus War. 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.83 Once the fighting broke out, defence requirements necessitated razing the suburbs to make room for additional reinforced fortifications after 1570.84 Table 14.1, below, provides data for four of the city’s most important parishes in terms of prominence and frequency of real estate transactions. The total amount of money transferred by the 255 contracts amounted to c. 12,671 ducats. While the numbers vary somewhat among the four parishes, 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. This is consistent with trends in other segments of Zadar’s property 202 Urban Elites of Zadar

Table 14.1: Turnover in Zadar Proper (selected examples, 1540-1569)

St 40a Turnover1 St Johnb Turnover1 St Chrys.c Turnover1 St Vitusd Turnover1 1540s 4 170 15 310.5 3 109 7 331 1550s 4 118 11 783 9 357 6 614 1560s 5 409 14 367 12 884 3 207 No. of Acts 13 697 40 1,460 24 1,350 16 1,152 % of Total2 5 % 5.5 % c. 16 % 11.5 % c. 9 % c. 11 % c. 6 % c. 9 %

Sources: see Table 13, above. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals. 255 instruments are analysed. The real estate transactions concern a house (domus), small house (domuncula), or vacant lot. (a) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of the Holy Forty Martyrs. (b) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of St John or vicinity of the blacksmith’s furnaces (stomorica, pusterla). (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, located across the street from St Chrysogonus. (d) Number per decade of transactions in the parish of St Vitus. (1) Turnover per parish per decade in ducats. (2) Relative percentages for each parish zone for the entire three-decade period. market. Also interesting is the regularity of the named property locations within the administrative, ecclesiastical, and social subcategories of the urban space. Most parishes were mentioned between 10 and 20 times as the approximate location of the transferred property.85 But there were exceptions to this. Some parishes, like St John or Blacksmith’s parish, were mentioned as frequently as 40 times, or as infrequently as nine or fewer times. Examples of the latter category include the parishes centred around the noble nunnery of St Mary’s and St Donatus’ (mentioned twice each), the parish centred around St Lawrence (mentioned once), and the neighbourhoods “arsenatus”86 and “posarischia.”87 If the location of noble residences are considered, further conclusions emerge. The city inside the walls was subdivided into 20 parishes (or 25 churches).88 However, in the 529 contracts that refer to noble houses as the location of stipulation, only 16 parishes are named. This suggests that the nobility preferred to live in certain parishes. In the mid-sixteenth century these parishes were St Anastasia’s Cathedral, St Demetrius, St Chrysogo- nus, Sts Thomas and Silvester, the Holy Forty Martyrs Church, St Vitus, St Catherine, St Salvator, St Lawrence, the noble nunnery of St Mary, St Mary Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 203 of the Priests,89 Sts Stephen/Simeon/Rochus,90 St Dominic, St Michael, and St John or Blacksmith’s parish. 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 communal main square, and the localities “hospitum,” “porta macella,” “beccaria,” and the Butchers’ Gate (in Croatian, Klaonica vrata).91 The parishes unassociated with residing nobles were St Nicolas, St Francis, St George, St Elijah, St Donatus’, St Bernard, St Peter the Old, St Nicolas,92 Sts Cosmas and Damian, and the church of St Mary “de bon gaudio,” located next to the captain’s palace.93 The nobles tended to avoid the southern and western areas of Zadar. The exception was the parish of St Donatus’, located next to St Anastasia Cathedral, the Episcopal Palace, and near the churches of the Holy Forty Martyrs, St Peter, Sts Cosmas and Damian, and St Mary “de bon gaudio.” 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 loggia), business facilities, ecclesiastical spaces (churches, monasteries), and noble residences. An L- shaped area in the north and east of the city was the zone preferred by the nobility. 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. It covered roughly two-thirds of the city. The nobles avoided the parishes in the southwestern and westernmost parts of Zadar. This provides a starting point for future studies that may seek to assess in more depth the social distribution of the city’s housing.

Notes

1. The account follows Chojnacki, “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice,” 263-294; Grubb, “Elite Citizens,” 339-340; Rösch, “The Serrata of the Great Council and Venetian Society,” 67–88; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57-74. 2. Crouzet-Pavan, Venice Triumphant, 84-96; Grubb, “When Myths Lose Power,” 50-60; Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, 13-61; Povolo, “Creation of Venetian Historiogra- phy,” 491-519; Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 3-28; Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Ven- ice,” 2-9. See also Finlay, Politics in Renaissance Venice, Gullino, “Il Patriziato,” 379-413. 3. The bipartite model fell out of use from the eighteenth century since it was recog- nised that educated and skilled original citizens (cittadini originari) were increasingly tied 204 Urban Elites of Zadar to the ruling patricians via honours, public offices, and other rewards. In exchange, these elite commoners provided essential services for the continuity of government, marked by the rotation of “amateur patricians” in and out of office, a notion introduced by Ranke. Libby, “Venetian History and Political Thought after 1509,” 21-22; Pullan, “Service to the Venetian State,” 103; Ranke, Venezia nel Cinquecento, 148-149. 4. Grubb, “Elite Citizens,” 340 (emphasis in the original). 5. Between 1410 and 1569, their citizenship status and role within the fabric of the Venetian state evolved. On the eve of the Cyprus War, legislation was passed by the Signo- ria that required ambitious elite citizens to register themselves in what Grubb calls a “Libro d’Argento.” Ibid., 341-343, 353 (emphasis in the original). 6. Ibid., 354. On marriage practices in Renaissance Venice Chojnacki, “Marriage Leg- islation and Patrician Society,” 170, 174; Chojnacki, “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians,” 265; Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice,” 575; and Sperling, Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice, 1-17. 7. See Grubb, “When Myths Lose Power,” 50-60; Gullino, “Frontiere navali,” 379- 413; Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, 13-61; O’Connell, Men of Empire, 39-42; Povolo, “Creation of Venetian Historiography,” 491-519; Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 3-28; and Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 2-9. 8. E.g., O’Connell, Men of Empire; and O’Connell et al., Rulers of Venice. On the necessity of combining top-down and bottom-up sources, McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 34- 35. 9. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, C, s.p., 29 July 1551. 10. Commissiones, 3:51. 11. “Magnificus dominus Sanctus Venerio quondam celeberrimi domini Joannis Aloysij, patritius venetus, sponte, et libere per Se suosque heredes, nomine Suo proprio, et celeberrimi domini Antonij eius patrui, ac Magnificorum domini Petri, Thomasij, et Ste- phani fratrium suorum absentium” leased “omnes et Singulis Introitus fructus, redditus, et provenientus, ac utilitates quascumque, ne non affictus et livellos Castri, et ville Slivnize [Slivnica]” to “strenuo Capitano Croatorum Comiti Joanni Rimanich quondam comitis Zor- nichi.” 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. Interest- ingly, the tenant is referred to as count (comes), indicating that Johannes may have been of aristocratic descent, albeit from Zadar’s hinterlands. In HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, C, s.p., 29 July 1551. 12. In September of 1554, “dominus Arcelinus de Abrianis Tridentinus [of Trent], agens et Interveniens ad infrascripta tanquam factor, et Negociorum Gestor, Nobilium virorum Magnificorum Veneriorum quondam celeberrimi domini Joanni Aloysij Patritiorum venetorum” conceded 1.5 morgen (c. 3,555 m2) each “posita in Cerodolo super terreno dictorum Nobilium veneriorum” to “Marco Cerodolo, Simoni Luchinouich, et Petro Sablich ligonizatoribus habitatoribus Jadre.” Over the course of the subsequent decade, 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.49r-c.49v, 9 September 1554. 13. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 1, c.23v-c.24r, 10 June 1559. 14. On another occasion, “domina Catherina uxor quondam strenui domini Joannis Paleologo” appointed Thomaso Venier to collect all outstanding payments “ab officio Mag- Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 205 nificorum dominorum camerarorum […] pro pagis decursis usque in presentem diem”. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 4, f.15r, 21 August 1562. Other examples of Thomaso assuming procuratorial duties involved mostly military personnel attempting to obtain outstanding payments for military service. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.443r- c.443v, 28 January 1564 (two individual instruments). 15. “Constituti Infrascripti quadragina quatuor homines ad praesens galeote biremis Magnifici domini Thomasij Venerio, et olim galeote Cum triremibus Infrascriptis,” who issued a joint quitclaim after having received their payments. The instrument gives names, places of origin, the individual sums, and, on some occasions, remarks about the duration of their service or the personal bravery of the oarsmen. Thomaso paid the oarsmen while still on his bireme “In portu Jadrensis.” This notarial instrument mentions that four witnesses were present, double the usual number (maybe because the total amount of money paid out was c. 3,000 lire = c. 483-484 ducats). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1 E, s.p., 4 December 1542. 16. The instrument also mentions “ser Fantinus filius Joannis de Venetijs Bombard- erius in dicta Triremi,” the galley’s artillerist. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.3r, 30 November 1552. 17. Throughout the sixteenth century almost every report by Venetian officials called for additional funding, more soldiers, increased investments in fortifications, or a combination thereof. During the nadir of Venetian control over Dalmatia’s borders between the Cy- prus War (1570-1573) and the outbreak of the Cretan War (1645-1669), the Venetians took to the “Ottoman way of small war, typical for the frontier areas, based on skirmishes, raids, and similar guerrilla actions. This way of combating also dictated the specific way of living, creating specific frontiers [sic] societies in the hinterland of the Dalmatian coastal towns.” Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 13-14, 23-29. See also Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 29-71; and Žmegač, “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste.” 18. In fact, most procuratorial appointments involving Venetians revolved around this economic motivation (see also Chapter 2). Consider e.g. the case of “clarissimus dominus Joannes de Garzonibus olim comes et capitaneus Tragurij” (Trogir) who, in the late 1540s, appointed “spectabilem virum dominum Joannem Mazzarellum,” Zadar’s communal chancellor, to act as his procurator. 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, c.1r, 2 October 1548. 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. The likewise absent captain of Zadar was tasked to take care of the debts in- curred by the constituent’s late brother. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.137r, 28 June 1558. 19. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.45r-c.45v, 6 January 1560. 20. Pisani was in office from 22 May 1564 to 4 November 1565. For his report Com- missiones, 3:164-167. 21. “Il restante de intrada di quella camera si spende nel presentar et dar mangiar a Turchi, che vengono nella città a negotiare, quanto che suciede de disturbo a quelli confini.” And while these expenses during Pisani’s tenure of the post in Zadar amounted to only 40 ducats over a period of 19 months, he felt treated unfairly: “la maggior parte et più 206 Urban Elites of Zadar importante spesa è l’apresentar ogn’anno di ottobre il sanzacco, che vien per visita a quelli confini, dal qual mai non si ha ottenuto cosa alcuna.” Ibid., 165. 22. These include crops like wheat, rye, or millet, usually milled for bread flour. Chambers and Pullan, Venice: A Documentary History, 460. 23. Triggered by Ottoman attacks on the Knights Hospitaller in 1564, 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, 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, Gli ellesse et deputò a questo negotio approesso le altre provigioni per Sua celeberrima Maesta intorno a cio matura- mente fatte […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 6, s.p., 16 October 1564. 24. Ibid. 25. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 7, s.p., 24 August 1565. 26. Commissiones, 3:52. 27. His five soldiers, according to the report of Antonio Diedo, were Croats, evidenced by an instrument referring to Peregrin as “capitaneus crouatorum”. Commissiones, 2:196; HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.27r-c.27v, 17 November 1559. 28. See Table 7, above. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus I, 1, 6, c.390r-c.390v, 26 October 1559. 29. Peregrin had at least three brothers—Simon, Bartholomaeus, and Julius—and at least three sisters, Francischina, Ursia, and Laura. After the death of her husband, their mother Anzola lived with her children in a house in Zadar’s St John or Blacksmiths’ parish. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8, f.34r-f.34v, 26 March 1542. 30. Petrus was appointed “spetialiter et expresse in lite, seu litibus, quam seu habet quas habet Venetijs in appellation cum strenuo domino Pellegrino de Marco nomine quo In- tervenit causa et occasione ut in sententia diei 27 Julij proxime preteriter lata contra Ipsum dominum Pellegrinum, et ad favorem dicti domini Simonis qua annullatum fuit […].” HR DAZD 31 Z, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, c.27v-c.28v, 30 December 1556. 31. These seven instruments revealed that two-thirds of the property belonging to Peregrin and his siblings was located within Zadar’s territory. 12.3 hectares (32 morgen near Kožino, 20 morgen near Gaženica) were located not far from the city’s fortifications. Another 21 morgen were situated in the vicinity of Turanj. Three morgen were near Nin, and two morgen near Sv Filip i Jakov. See (chronologically listed) HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.4v, 25 February 1542; Simon Budineus I, 1, 2, c.90r-c.90v, 23 January 1558; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.185r-c.185v, 30 May 1559; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2C, c.28r-c.28v, 18 October 1560; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 3, s.p., 6 November 1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I, 1, 5, f.19v-f.20r, 17 August, 1562; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 2, 4, f.72r-f.72v, 4 November 1565. 32. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 4, c.197r, 8 August 1559. 33. Martinus possessed considerably less property: a total of eight morgen (c. 1,9 hectares) near Turanj and three morgen (c. 7,110 m2) near Kukljica on the island of Ugl- jan, combined c. 2.6 hectares. See (chronologically listed) HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.84v, 25 July 1555; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.87v, 11 January 1558; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.89v-c.90r, 21 January 1558. 34. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 3, c.192r-c.192v, 18 June 1559. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 207

35. Commissiones, 3:52. 36. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.10v-c.11v, 15 October 1559; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 6, s.p., 29 May 1565. Laurentius’s testament was written in Venice on 21 June 1553 “per dominum Antonium Mariam de Vincentibus notarium Venetum.” The deceased was originally from Zadar but made his living as a merchant in Venice and was acquainted with Franciscus, probably even related by either blood or marriage. This is revealed by another notarial act from early 1558: “[m]agister Johannes Baptista filius magistri Stephani de Venzono, cerdo [master-cobbler] habitator Jadre” appointed Franciscus de Ventura to acquire 50 ducats he had been promised “in auxilium dotis Magdalenae,” his wife. 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. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, s.p., 11 August 1549; Simon Budineus, I, 1, 2, c.94r, 30 January 1558. 37. 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 excep- tione remota.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.10v-c.11v, 15 October 1559. 38. Simon actually had two quitclaims issued—one in 1561 and the other in 1563. The former states that “ipse dominus Franciscus restat Solum modo debitor dicti eius gen- eri [Simon] occasione dicti dotis de ducatis Nonaginta septem dum taxat […]”. Two years later, Franciscus had paid up, thus “Simon de Marco […] per se et heredes suos dixit, 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2, 3, s.p., 18 January 1561; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 4, f.27v-f.28r, 2 January 1563. 39. The de Marco family was also related by marriage to the de Pasinis family, of which one member, Pasinus de Pasinis, was a doctor of canon and civil law. Another of Marcus de Marco’s daughters, “domine Margarite,” was married to “ser Paulus de Pasino quondam ser Joannis civis Jadre.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 3, s.p., 11 Au- gust 1549; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.24r-f.24v, 25 September 1540. 40. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.27r-c.27v, 17 November 1559. 41. Paulus also invested in real estate and possessed roughly 2.3 hectares of land on Ugljan. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.36v-f.37r, 28 January 1543; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2B, c.40v, 12 May 1560. 42. Commissiones, 3:52. 43. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 2, s.p., 29 October 1547. 44. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 3, c.27v-c.28v, 30 December 1555. See also, Ref. 146: “De interprete.” Statuta Iadertina, 652-654. 45. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 2, s.p., 29 October 1547. Hieronymus had at least one daughter, “Helysabeth,” who married “dominus Georgius de Aymila Nobilis Abrachiae” (of Brač). Again, an important and comparatively wealthy commoner managed to have his daughter marry upward, transcending the social boundaries (probably Helysabeth’s dowry of 500 ducats played a role, too). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 5, s.p., 24 July 1563 (two individual instruments). 46. Franciscus was the second husband of “domina Catherina,” whose dowry was worth 1,263 libras and 18 soldi (c. 203-204 ducats), paid by her relative “Reverendo dom- 208 Urban Elites of Zadar ino Presbytro Martino Cassich Primicerio Pagi,” specifically noted as her first husband’s brother. The Cassich family was also one of neighbouring Pag’s noble families. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 4, f.156r, 27 October 1558; Commissiones, 2:259. For more on the two attorneys, see Chapter 2, specifically the section labelled “Intellectual Elites.” 47. More is known about the de Bassano family, whose ties to other families of both noble and non-noble descent match the patterns described above. For instance, Petrus de Bassano, Hieronymus’s brother, paid his niece’s dowry of 200 ducats: “domina Marie eius nepotis ex fratre quondam domini Michaeli” (another brother of both Petrus and Hierony- mus) was the legitimate wife of “domino Joanni Segotich nobilis Nonensis”. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.4v-c.5r, 5 October 1559. 48. The marriage contract was written by “ser Michiel Geriti Nodao in Candia” and provided for a counter-dowry of 200 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, fols. 34r-34v, 24 November 1553; Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.37r-c.37v, 13 January 1554. 49. See Chojnacki, “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice”; Grubb, “Elite Citi- zens,” 353; and O’Connell, Men of Empire, 57-74. Zadar’s statutes, compiled and printed 1563/64, only oblige the city’s noblemen to register their offspring. See Chapter 5, Ref. 159: “Quod nobiles debeant facere scribere diem matrimonii sui sicut et diem natalem suorum filiorum.”Statuta Iadertina, 674. 50. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 6, s.p., 18 September 1564. 51. There are two towns bearing this name in Croatia, one in Karlovac county (Karlovačka županija) and the other in Bjelovar-Bilogora county (Bjelovarsko-bilogorska županija), making identification difficult. Since Bosiljevo in Karlovac county is much closer to the Dalmatian coast, it may be the likelier place of origin of the Mogorichia family. 52. One sors or ždrijeb = c. 30-32 morgen or 7.1-7.6 hectares. Statuta Iadertina, 759. 53. In addition, the tenant was explicitly allowed to “incidi facere […] in nemore ville Terschiane” (Tršćane). HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 6, s.p., 29 May 1565. 54. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, B, s.p., 30 August 1540. 55. In spring of 1553, “Marcus Jelacich de Varicassane, et Jacobus Fogusich de Sli- uniza uti tutores filiorum pupillorum in etate minori […] Pauli filij quondam Petri Ceruan- ich et alterius Pauli filij quondam Micaheli Ceruanich de Sliuniza” (Slivnica) sold three quarters of a morgen (c. 1,770.5 m2) to “strenuo Joanni Rimanich capitanio crouatorum de Sliuniza.” Located near the village of Slivnica “super Terreno Magnificorum dominorum de cha Venerio,” the captain paid 31 lire and four soldi for the property. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, c.32r, 13 March 1553. 56. Their quasi-omnipresence in the Stato da mar was noted by Arbel (“Colonie d’oltremare,” 974). For a recent comparative study, Keil, ed., Besitz, Geschäft und Frauen- rechte, esp. Grbavac’s contribution on 23-97. 57. This number must be treated with caution since, for instance, at times children or a spouse are not named directly but mentioned implicitly. As a consequence, the total number of individuals of the Jewish faith was without question higher than the above number suggests. 58. Arbel, Trading Nations, 63. 59. On Daniel Rodriga’s efforts to establish a free port in Split after the Cyprus War, Ibid., 7; Calabi, “The ‘City of Jews’,” 31-35; Jütte, “Handel, Wissenstransfer und Netz- werke,” 282-285; Paci, La ‘Scala’ di Spalato; and Ravid, “The Venetian Government and the Jews,” 12-20. Rodriga’s presence in Dalmatia is usually dated to after the Cyprus War; however, one notarial act from 1568 refers to him as “console dilla Nation hebrea in Naren- Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 209 ta.” The instrument, a quitclaim, was issued by “Hasi Memri, Iusuf, Alli Caraoruz, Hasan et Ferhat Mossolmani di Bossnia,” then-present in Zadar aboard “uno Navilio di Mercantia” carrying “Robbe, Cioè cinquantasei Balle di Moltonine et Cordouani tinolti in Schiavenotti, nelle quali sono pelle Cinquemillianovecento e ottanta, cioe 5,980, Balle di Cerra numero Tre, Balle Vinticinque de Cori Crudi, et Sono Cori dusento et centadoi” and en route to An- cona. The trade goods originally belonged to “Petro Bonifacio da Curzola” but were stolen by Uskoks and eventually “recuperatarum di mano loro.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 6, f.34r-f.34v, 25 March 1568. Paci dated Rodriga’s first documented appearance in the Adriatic to the year 1573, stating that Rodriga himself had “forse suggerito al sangiacco” (La ‘Scala’ di Spalato, 48, emphasis in the original) the idea of the establishment of a free port. The instrument from the Croatian State Archive, however, suggests that Rodriga was already established in Dalmatia prior to the outbreak of the Cyprus War, albeit not on the Venetian side of the borders. 60. In addition to the references above, see, Mueller, “Jews in the Venetian Domin- ions”; Möschter, Juden im venezianischen Treviso; and Burns, Jews in the Notarial Culture, Stow, Theater of Acculturation. 61. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.3r, 30 January 1567. 62. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.4v-5r, 12 February 1567. 63. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.44v, 23 May 1567. 64. As an arbitration settlement from the mid-1550s states: “[l]a casa ove stanno li hebrei a San Simeon.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 2, s.p., 22 March 1556. 65. 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, Gabriel Cernotta, I, 1, 5, f.3r-f.4r, 31 March 1562. 66. In a procura two decades earlier “domina Stella uxor quondam domini Rafaelis Belinfante” appointed “excellentem dominum David Chalonimos hebreum fisicum […] ad omnes lites causas, et differentias quas habet vel habitura Est a Mele Belinfante filio ipsius constituentis […].”HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 7 February 1543. Mele Zizo had another daughter, “honesta damicella domina Bonaventura filia legitima et Naturalis ser Mellis Zizo hebrej Nunc habitatoris Jadrensis,” of whom unfortunately nothing else is known. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 14, s.p., 18 September 1560. 67. 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, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.3r, 30 January 1567. 68. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 10, f.48r, 10 June 1545. 69. Upon receipt of the money, the guardians issued a joint quitclaim and formally acknowledged the end of the feud “tam occasione banchi Jadre, et apothece Simul habitj Apulie […].” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 1, 3, f.45r-f.45v, 7 February 1555. 70. The account follows HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 3, s.p., 28 Febru- ary 1548. 71. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 3, s.p., 28 February 1548. 72. Of medieval origins, these societies were also known as collegantia, colleganza, or societas maris, a form of limited partnership in maritime commerce that did not place restrictions on either contracting party. Zadar’s body of law covers maritime matters extensively in Lib. IV, “De navigiis et navibus,” Statuta Iadertina, 394-460. See also the comparative commentary thereof by Mijan (“Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta”). The 210 Urban Elites of Zadar societies in particular are detailed further in Lib. III, tit. II: “De pecunia data in collegantiam,” containing two chapters, and Lib. III, tit. III: “De societate.” Ibid., 250-254. See also Lopez, Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean, 174-178; and Pryor, “Origins of the Com- menda Contract.” 73. Mayr Choen would have profited anyway since he provided the entire capital. Jacobus was already in his partner’s debt for the former’s share of the capital and, if things went well, stood to gain only 16% of the potential profits. Conversely, if things were to go awry, equal division of the capital ensured that Mayr was to lose only what he would have lost anyway. Jacobus, on the other hand, bore not only the risk to his life but also his ship and all tangible assets and would still have had to compensate Mayr. 74. The instrument was “[a]ctum in castro Novigradi, presentibus Magnifico domino Andrea Delfino [Dolfin] dignissimo castellano dicti castri, et strenuo Baptista Vegnola co- mestabile Jadrensis, testibus habitis rogatis et cetera.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarel- lus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 13 January 1562. 75. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 10, s.p., 4 April 1564. 76. O’Connell et al., Rulers of Venice, do not refer to women or children. 77. 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, taking their similarities empirically into account). Löw, Soziologie der Städte, 15-73 (esp. her three points on 66-68). 78. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 27-62, 135; and the maps in the appendix. 79. See Ref. 116: “De officio iudicum examinatorum”; Ref. 117: “Quod iudices examinatores se non subscribant instrumenti continentibus maiorem poenam quarti”; Ref. 118: “Quod iudices examinatores non se subscribant instrumentis aut testamentis in quibus relinquatur aliquid ecclesiis, religiosis aut ecclesiasticis personis”; Ref. 119: “Quod iudices examinatores non se absentent a civitate, nisi unus cum licentia domini comitis”; Ref. 156: “Quod iudices examinatores subscribere acta notariorum. De examinatione notariorum. Quod notarii absentes extra civitatem per duos menses debeant relinquere in cancellaria sua acta et prothocolla notarilia.” Statuta Iadertina, 598-602, 670. 80. The object in question was a house in 89 instances (c. 35%) or a small house on 90 occasions (c. 35%). An additional 35 times (c. 14%) a part of a house or small house was sold, irrespective of its building materials (stone, wood, or both). Combined they made up 214 (c. 84%) of the total. The rest included various other buildings, such as business facilities or warehouses (apotheca, magazenum), taverns (canipa), very small houses or simple lodgings (domunculeta), and vacant lots. Given all these differences and their price differences, the data must be viewed with caution. 81. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 52 (or c. 20%) for the artisans, 12 (c. 5%) for the soldiers, nine (3.5 %) for members of the intellectual elite (of whom two were of noble birth), and seven (or c. 3%) for the merchants. The overwhelming number of contracting parties—113 (or c. 44 %)—belonged to neither category. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 42 (or 16.5%) for the artisans, 16 (c. 6%) for the soldiers, 12 (c. 5%) for members of the intellectual elite (of whom three were of noble birth), and 20 (or c. 8 %) for the merchants. As above, the largest number of contracting parties—131 (or c. 51%)—belonged to neither category. Urban Elite Groups and Zadar’s Urban Landscape 211

82. The three-decade totals for the vendors are 192 (or c. 75%) for the city proper, 5 (c. 2%) for the suburbs, and nine (3.5%) for Zadar’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja). Another 24 (c. 9%) originated from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction. 25 (c. 9%) came from even more distant places. The three-decade totals are slightly different for the buying parties: 180 (c. 70%) for the city proper, 20 (c. 8%) for the suburbs, and 13 (c. 5%) for Zadar’s territory. Another 14 (5.5%) originated from elsewhere within Zadar’s jurisdiction, and 28 (11%) came from more distant places. 83. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 23-29; Panciera, “Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dal- mazia”; Panciera, “Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo”; Traljić, “Tursko-mletačko granice u Dalmaciji.” 84. See Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 29-40; and Žmegač, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 189-190. 85. Typically, the contracts mention the largest nearby location of importance, such as a church, and list the owners of the neighbouring properties. For instance, “dominus Hieronymus Venturinus, et dominus Antonius eius nepos pro una medietate, et dominus Joannes Baptista Bocarich pro alia cives Jadrae” sold a house in Zadar to “ser Jacobo de Nobilibus Parmensis ad praesens aromatario Jadrensis.” The building, “unam domum de muro soleratam, et cuppis copertam Super solo proprio” was located “Ad Angulum Platee” and confined “a Siroco Jura veneabilis capituli Jadrae, a borea Jura domini Francisci de Begna quondam domini Marci Antonij, a Traversa Jura ecclesiae Sancti Laurentij, et a quirina via publica […].” The house was sold for the sum of 100 ducats, which Jacobo promised to pay in its entirety over the next six years. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.15r, 23 March 1549. 86. Situated in the eastern corner of Zadar, 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). 87. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 4, c.14v, 9 August 1556. This locality does not appear in any work about Zadar. The sources refer to it as “in confinio loci vocati posarischia seu Sancti Vigilij.” making it possible to locate it approximately in the vicinity of the parish of St Vigilius. The drawback is that neither Klaić and Petricioli nor Raukar et al. provide a more specific location and the church does not appear anywhere in either study. The church may have been rededicated or destroyed in the interim. Another instrument however suggests that it was located “in confinio Sancti Michaelis in curia Sic vocata busarischia.” See Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku [Zadar in the Middle Ages], 285; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135; HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 1, c.22r-c.22v, 6 June 1559. 88. Numbers based on Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135. 89. The parish around the church named appears as “confinio […] Sancte Marie presbytorum Jadre” (today: Sv Marija velika), situated in the arsenatus or Arsenal area of Zadar in the eastern corner of the city. It takes its name from the old arsenal. The new Arsenal is located in the northern corner of Zadar. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 2, f.24r, 28 March 1552. 90. The Shrine of St Simeon is located in the church of St Stephen. On the saint’s casket, Höfler, Die Kunst Dalmatiens, 174-175. 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.” HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 3, c.9v-c.10r, 27 April 1569. 212 Urban Elites of Zadar

91. The neighbourhood of the Butchers’ Gate is referred to in the sources as “confinio Macelli,” “contrata porte Civitatis vocate della becharia,” or “prope portam Civitatis vocat- am la porta della becharia In contrata hospitum.” See Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135; and (in the order of their listing) HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 27 August 1561; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 11 October 1542; and Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, E, s.p., 17 June 1542. 92. Klaić and Petricioli mention only one church dedicated to St Nicholas, situated in the city’s western corner in the vicinity of the Franciscan monastery. In the subsequent study by Raukar et al, however, a second church dedicated to the same saint is mentioned, located across the street from Sts Stephen/Simeon/Rochus. This is the reason why the churches of St Nicholas appear twice in the listings above. See Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 285; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135. 93. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135. 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. Two universal monarchies, the Spanish and Ottoman Empires, were engaged in a decade-long struggle for preeminence in the Mediterranean. 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, specifically during the three decades circumscribed by the naval battles of Preveza (1538) and Lepan- to (1571). Analysing the business activities, social relations, and material culture of the urban elites in the Stato da mar, this study sheds new light on developments in Venetian Dalmatia during the nadir of Christian sea power and Muslim dominance, using as a central case study the city of Zadar, then the capital of Venice’s Adriatic province. The decades prior to the Cyprus War were a particularly harsh period for the inhabitants of Dalmatia. The enemy stood at the gates, the Serenissima was almost exclusively interested in the security of her vital shipping routes along the eastern Adriatic coast, and the population of the urban communities found itself in serious difficulty. After the end of the Old Regime, the past of Dalmatia was exploited by (Yugo-) Slavic and Italian historiographers as a means of furthering their respective nationalistic ends. These two groups of historians usually treated Venice and her dominion over parts of the western Balkans from opposing viewpoints. As the twentieth century progressed, these perspectives slowly retreated. But with the exception of a few scholars, renewed academic interest in the middle decades of the sixteenth century has yet to materialise. The present study offers a contribution to recent debates about the increased Venetian 214 Urban Elites of Zadar resistance to change from the sixteenth century onward. It also seeks to re-examine the perceived absence of “events worthy of the attention of posterity.”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. These developments are examined with the following methodology. First, by analysing woefully-neglected procuratorial appointments this study reconstructs the directions, networks, intensity, and motivations of communication across the Adriatic. Second, it analyses in detail Zadar’s property markets, comparing for the first time developments on the mainland with price movements on the islands under the city’s jurisdiction. 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. This book demonstrates that these general assertions are in need of additional investigation and, possibly, revision. Third, most studies on Venetian Dalmatia investigate everyday life and interactions within the urban communities by focusing almost exclusively on the highest social stratum. By investigating the activities of non-noble “elite citizens” (Grubb), who were integral to the administrative, economic, and social workings of Venetian society, this study offers a thorough analysis of sixteenth-century Dalmatia. By doing so, it joins comparable scholarly efforts focusing on other regions and periods of Venice’s Stato da mar.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. The nadir of Christian naval power and corresponding Ottoman control of the eastern Mediterranean were felt on land and sea alike. Venetian Dalmatia was no exception. Ottoman raiding parties reached the environs of Zadar in the early 1430s, resulting in incessant and increasing pressure from beyond the borders for the subsequent century and a half. The consequences of these events led to changing borders and seriously impacted the lives of the inhabitants of Zadar’s jurisdiction. Most importantly, 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; this rendered many fortifications obsolete. And discontinued agriculture, cross-border raids, and changing Venetian economic policies contributed to an increasing de- pendency on the Serenissima. 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), changes in the density, directions, and networks of communication and migration ensued. By analysing the procurae in the books of Zadar’s notaries, this study documents shifts in origins and destinations of individuals living in central Dalmatia. The data are clear that communication frequency with Venice proper increased notably in the three interwar decades. This is mirrored by a corresponding decline in the importance of the other destinations along the oriental littoral of the Adriatic. Economic changes are more challenging to assess. 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. By the turn of the sixteenth century the economic life of the coastal cities under Venetian rule was reduced to “little or nothing.”3 Develop- ments in the first two decades after the conclusion of the Ottoman-Venetian war from 1537 to 1540 compounded these trends. The decade prior to the Cyprus War was different, however. In contrast to the preceding long economic decline4 the 1560s in Zadar witnessed a marked upturn in economic activities; both transferred acreage and turnover doubled. (Unfortunate- ly, we are lacking comparable data for the periods prior to the Ottoman- Venetian war of 1537 to 1540 and after the Cyprus War. Thus it cannot be stated conclusively whether these ten years were an economic exception). Significant border revisions and the accompanying shrinking of Zadar’s jurisdiction in the 1570s altered the situation considerably; economic recovery stalled at that point. Venice’s increased commitment to defending the Stato da mar had another, less visible, consequence: as the Republic of St Mark poured increasing quantities of supplies, men, and money into the defense of her overseas possessions, the relationship between the Venetian newcomers and the resident populations changed. 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 Mediterra- nean. This book contributes to these efforts by broadening the discussion to include a wider spectrum of urban elites, rather than just the nobility. In doing so it paints a more inclusive image of the Adriatic coastal cities around the middle of the sixteenth century. 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- 216 Urban Elites of Zadar dity. In existing scholarly contributions, however, the “underlying reality of economic, social, 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. 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. 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. Future research may examine such subjects as the relationship between the mainland coastal areas and the islands, the intricate connections between the cities and their rural jurisdictions, links between marriage patterns and social mobility, and the material culture and self-representation of ecclesiastical and secular elites. Particularly desirable would be studies focusing on the Venetian communities in the Kvarner Gulf (Cres, Pag, Osor, and Rab) in southern Dalmatia around the large islands of Brač, Hvar, and Korčula, and the communities of Split, Šibenik, and Trogir on the mainland.9 For too long the early modern history of Adriatic communities, inex- tricably linked by the sea, has been the subject of interpretations intended to serve nationalistic aims or territorial claims. In the early twenty-first century historiography of the Adriatic is no longer constrained by political borders, yet barriers of language and perception linger. This book seeks to further our understanding of Dalmatia’s rich heritage, characterised by Italian, Venetian, and (Yugo-) Slavic cultural contributions, and hopefully helps to overcome centuries of separate historiographies.

Notes

1. Norwich, History of Venice, 460. 2. E.g., Benyovsky, Srednjovjekovni Trogir; Dokoza, Dinamika otočnog prostora; and Mlacović, Građani plemići. 3. Budak, “Urban élites in Dalmatia,” 186. 4. As late as 2008 the late medieval and early modern period was called a “[p]eriod of stagnation.” Raukar, “Croatia within Europe,” 26. Conclusion 217

5. Around 1550 Zadar was home to 6,500 inhabitants, while the population of Venice proper is estimated at c. 170.000 inhabitants. See Mocellin, “Città fortificata di Zara,” 43- 44, 60-61; Malz, “Dalmatinische Städtewelt, ” 106; and Sardella, Venise au début du XVIe siècle, 10. 6. Martin and Romano, “Reconsidering Venice,” 21. 7. McKee, “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule,” 35. 8. See O’Connell, Men of Empire, 1-15; Ortalli, “Beyond the Coast,” 10; Schmitt, “Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 77-78; and Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dal- maciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 78. 9. As lamented e.g. as recently as 2011 by Schmitt, “L’apport des archives de Zadar,” 54.

Appendix

Glossary

affictus lease or rental contract affictuarius leaseholder or tenant bolletta, contralettere clearance certificate or customs receipt breviarium accounts current, (abridged) statement of assets and liabilities capitulum, capitolo chapters, subsections in legal texts, as in the Statuta Iadertina chyrographum promissory note, obligation, 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, guarantee of payment of a loan, personal security honorantia special gift incantum, incanto process by which public property was auctioned off to the highest bidder indictio indiction, 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, bill of exchange locator landlord pizochara, bizzoche beguine or lay nuns, 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, proxy 222 Urban Elites of Zadar

Units of Measurement1

Measurement of Land 1 gognaj (morgen, gonjaj) c. 2,370 m2 (exact: 2,369.547684 m2) 1 sors (ždrijeb) c. 30-32 gonjaj = c. 7.1-7.6 hectares (exact: 7.11-7.584 hectares)

Measurement of Length 1 passus, pes c. 0.33 m (exact: 0.34773 m) 4 passi (stope) c. 1.4 m (exact: 1.39092 m)

Measurement of Volumes 1 Venetian modium c. 333 litres (exact: 333.26 l) = 4 star = 16 kvart 1 Zadrani modium c. 104.2 litres (exact: 104.1629 l) 1 star c. 83.25 litres (exact: 83.315 l) 1 quarta (kvart) c. 20.83 litres (exact: 20.82875 l) 1 miera (mjera) c. 80 litres

Monetary Denominations 1 ducat (ducat) 6 libras and 4 soldi (solada or solidi) 1 libra (lira, lire) 20 soldi = 240 denarii (denar or denaro) 1 Mocenigo 24 soldi 1 Scudo 6 libras and 17 soldi 1 Ungarus (Ungaro) 7 libras and 14 soldi 1 Zecchino 8 libras and 8 soldi

1. Statuta Iadertina, 759-760, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeću, 298, Tucci, “Convertibi- lità e copertura metallica.” 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, based on analysis of real estate property transactions (emptiones, concessiones, and locationes) between 1 January 1540 and 31 De- cember 1569.

Name in the Sources Croatian Italian Area Bibigne*† Bibinje Bibigne (arch. Territory Argimbusi) Boccagnatio† Bokanjac Boccagnazzo Territory Bubgnane* Bubnjane Territory Cerno*† Crno Cerno Territory Diclo* Diklo Diclo, Dìcolo Territory Drassaniza, Draxaniza Crvene Kuće, Caserosse Territory Dražanica Drazevaz*† Dračevac Malpaga Territory Galovaz* Galovac Galovazzo Territory Gasenica*† Gaženica Porto Nuovo Territory Gladussa* Gladuša Gladussa Territory Colovare Kolovare Colovare, Borgo Èrizzo Territory Chopragl, Copragl*† Kopranj Territory Lazaretto Lazareto Territory Punta Amica* Puntamika Puntamica, Punt’Amica Territory ultra barchaneum Brodarica Barcagno Territory Articovo* Artikovo Articovo Jurisdiction Zaretum vetus, civitas Biograd na moru Zaravecchia Jurisdiction vetera* Blato*† Blato Jurisdiction Brda, Brdo*† Brda Berda Jurisdiction Briseve Briševo Brisevo Jurisdiction Cernogerschina* Crnogorišćina Jurisdiction Goriza* Gorica Goriza Jurisdiction Gromniza*† Grobnica Grommizza Jurisdiction 224 Urban Elites of Zadar

Grusi† Grusi Grue Jurisdiction Jelsa Jelsa Gelsa Jurisdiction Chamegnane† Kamenjani Jurisdiction Cotopanschina* Kotopašćina Jurisdiction Cosinoselo* Kožino Càproli, Còsino Jurisdiction Migliacza* Miljačka Migliazza Jurisdiction Mocro*† Mokro Mocro Jurisdiction Murviza* Murvica Murvizza Jurisdiction Opatizaselo*† Opaćeselo Jurisdiction Pergliane*† Prljane Jurisdiction Peterzane* Petrčane Peterzane, Porto Jurisdiction Schiavine Plernich Plernić Jurisdiction Podi Podi Podi Jurisdiction Polissane* Polišane Polisane Jurisdiction Porizane*† Poričane Jurisdiction Poscaglina*† Poškaljine Jurisdiction Racice* Račice Racice Jurisdiction Rasanze*† Ražanac Rassanzze Jurisdiction Rogovo* Rogovo Rogovo Jurisdiction Smocovich* Smoković Smòcovich Jurisdiction Starossane* Starošani Jurisdiction Stomorino Selo* Stomorinoselo Jurisdiction Strupnich Strupnić Jurisdiction Suovare* Suhovare Suovare Jurisdiction Sancti Cassiani, San Sukošan San Cassiano Jurisdiction Cassiano*† Sancti Philippi et Jacobi Sv Filip i Jakov Santi Filippo e Giacomo Jurisdiction Sancti Petri prope civitatem Sv Petar na moru San Pietro Jurisdiction veterem Tersci Tršći Jurisdiction Turetta, Turretta*† Turanj Torretta, Turretta Jurisdiction Varicassane*† Varikašani Jurisdiction Veternichi* Veterinići Jurisdiction Visocane* Visočane Jurisdiction Xanice (?) Jurisdiction Zemonico, Zumonico* Zemunik Zemonico Jurisdiction Gliuba* Ljubač Gliuba Ljubač Appendix 225

Puncta Gliube Punta Ljubač Punta Gliuba Ljubač Ambrosichiaselo† Ambrozeselo Nin Bevilaqua, Brevilacqua Privlaka Brevilacqua Nin Brischiana dictionis Nonae† Brišane Nin Chiacavci* Čakavci Nin Cerinci Čerinci Nin Chernise Černise Nin Chupari Čupari Nin Chraschia, Chrasia* Hrašcija, Nin Hrašćane Nona Nin Nona Nin Podverie, Podversie Podvršje, Vršje Verchè Nin Puncta Dura Vir Puntadura Nin Saton, Zaton Zaton Zaton Nin Blachiane† Blačani Novegradi Novigrad Cassich Kašić Casscich Novigrad Corpuaglie* Koruplje Novigrad Novigrad* Novigrad Novegradi Novigrad Plernichi Plernić Novigrad Posedaria*† Posedarje Possedaria Novigrad Reiane Režane Novigrad Sliuniza† Slivnica Slivnizza Novigrad Terschiane* Tršćane Novigrad Zauod, Zavod* Zavod Novigrad Aureana* Vrana Aurana Vrana Pachoschiane† Pakoštane Porto Schiavine, Vrana Poschiane Tino Tinj Tino Vrana Bagno Banj Bagno di Pasmano Islands Berbigne Brbinj Berbigno, Brebigno Islands Calle, Callo Kali Mul, Cale, Cal Islands Dobropogliana Dobropoljana Dobropogliana Islands Cuchgliza Kukljica Camera, Cuclizza Islands Lucorano Lukoran Lucorano Islands Melada Molat Melada Islands Neviane Neviđane Neviane, Novigliano Islands Pasmano Pašman Pasmano Islands Oltre Preko Oltre Islands 226 Urban Elites of Zadar

Puncta Pasmano Punta Pašman Punta Pasmano Islands Punta Bianca Beli Rat, Rat Veli Punte Bianche Islands Rava Rava Rava Islands Sale Sali Sale Islands Sauri Savar Sauro Islands Selva Silba Selva, Selve Islands Sancta Euphemia Sutomišćica Sant’Eufemia Islands Sdrelaz Ždrelac Sdrela, Stagno di Islands Pasmano Tcono Tkon Tucconio, Ticconio, Islands Cotunno Ugliano Ugljan Ugliano Islands Vergada Vrgada Vergada Islands Zaglava Zaglav Zaglava Islands

Nota bene: the first row lists the names as they appear in the sources, the second a Croatian transliteration, and the third, if known, the name in Italian. The fourth line categorises the toponyms in Zadar’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja), jurisdiction (excluding the territory), the minor districts of Ljubač, Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana, and the villages on the coastal islands. The names in each of these areas have been ordered alphabetically. *indicates existence in 1527, † indicates appearance on the Venetian side of the border after the demarcation in 1576, both according to Mayhew (“Behind Zara,” 311-315). Mayhew’s compilation is based on the following: the report by Zacharias Vallaresso, dated 10 September, 1527, in Commissiones, 1:219-220; Anzulović, “Razgraničenj između mletačke i turske vlasti,” 102-108. 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. 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.” Mayhew, “Behind Zara,” 310. The table above lists 84 villages for c. 1550; however, it must be stressed that the numbers for the 1527 and 1576 lists represent only one year while the data above covers thirty years. The main changes occurred during the Cyprus War and in its wake. Map 1: Zadar’s jurisdiction in the Sixteenth Century (scale: 1:200,000, map design by Stephan Sander-Faes) showing the names and approximate locations of towns and villages outside the city walls. Under Zadar’s jurisdiction but not on the map are also the islands of Olib, Premuda, and Silba. For the Italian toponyms, see list above.

(O) indicates towns belonging to the Ottoman Empire after the conclusion of the war of 1537-41; (P) indicates the jurisdiction of Pag, in the sixteenth century a jurisdiction of its own; (Š) indicates that the island of Murter belonged to the jurisdiction of Šibenik.

Towns, villages, and islands are indicated by their Croatian name and marked with a dot. Field names are in Italics. Map 2: Zadar’s Territory, c. 1550 (scale: 1:75,000, map design by Stephan Sander-Faes) showing the names and approximate locations of towns and villages outside the city walls. The darker shaded area indicates the approximate extension of Zadar’s territory (ager publicus, Astareja). Villages are indicated by their Croatian name and marked with a dot. Field names are in Italics. For the Italian toponyms and field names, see list above. Map 3: Zadar proper in the Fifteenth and early Sixteenth Centuries, based on Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 135. Shaded areas (not visible in the original) indicate parishes where the nobility dwelled. *indicates the parishes in which nobles dwelled. English translations are provided. The original terms are in parentheses.

(a) wave breaker (lukobran); (b) harbour fortress (kaštel);(c) Chain Gate (lančana vrata); (d) St Demetrius Gate (vrata sv. Dimitrija); (e) St Chrysogonus Gate (vrata sv Krševana); (f) Butcher’s Gate (vrata klaonice); (g) St Mary’s or Simeon’s or Arsenal Gate (vrata Sv. Marije ili Šimuna ili Arsenala); (h) moat (obrambeni kanal); (i) ravelin (revelin); (j) Land Gate or Porta Terraferma (kopnena vrata); (k) citadel (citadella); (l) blacksmiths’ furnaces (pusterla); (m) Angel’s Gate (Anđelova vrata); (n) campo (kampa); (o) main square (glavni trg); 1. St Nicholas (sv Nikola); 2. St Francis monastery (sv frane); 3. St George (sv Juraj); 4. St Elijah (sv Ilija); 5. cathedral of St Anastasia (katedrala)*; 6. St Donat or Holy Trinity (sv Donat ili Trojstvo); 7. archbishopric palace (nadbiskupova palača); 8. hospital of St James (hospicij sv Jakova); hospital of St Mark (hospicij sv Marka); 10. St Demetrius (sv Dimitrije)*; 11. St Chrysogonus (sv Krševan)*; 12. St Thomas or Silvester (sv Petar ili Silvestar)*; 13. Church of the Forty Martyrs (četrdeset mučenika)*; 14. St Mary monastery (sv Marija beneditinki); 15. St Vitus (sv Vid)*; 16. St Catherine (sv Katarina)*; 17. St Salvator (sv Spasitelj)*; 18. St Peter the Old (sv Petar stari); 19. St Lawrence (sv Lovre)*; 20. St Mary of the Priests or Arsenatus (sv Marija velika ili Arsenala)*; 21. communal loggia (Gradska loža); 22. St Rochus (sv Rok)*; 23. St Stephen or Simeon (sv Stjepan ili Šimuna)*; 24. ducal palace (kneževa palača); 25. captain’s palace (kapetanova palača); 26. St Mary ‘de bon gaudio’ (sv Marija ‘boni gaudii’); 27. St Dominic (sv Domink)*; 28 St Michael (sv Mihovil)*; (29) St John’s or blacksmith’s parish (sv Ivan kovački)*; (30) blacksmith’s furnaces (Stomorica, Pusterla). 230 Urban Elites of Zadar

Sample Transcripts1

Procura Johannes de Garzonibus, former count of Trogir, appoints Johannes Mazzarellus to collect the outstanding sum of 90 ducats from ser Francisco Patini Brixiensis. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, c.1r, 2 October 1548.

In Christi nomine amen, Anno ab eius Nativitate Millesimo quingentesimo quadragesimo octavo, Indictione sexta die vero secundo mensis octobris, Tempori- bus serenissimi Principis et domini excellentissimi Domini Francisci Donato [Do- nadi], Dei gratia venetiarum et cetera Ducis Illustrissimi, praetureque clarissimus domini Joannis Dominici Ciconia comitis Jadrae eiusque agri dignissimi, Coram spectabile domino Zoylo de Ferra honorando consiliario dicti celeberrimi domini cominitis, Personaliter constitutus clarissimus dominus Joannes de Garzonibus olim comes et capitaneus Tragurij2 omni meliori modo via Jure causa et forma, quibus melius et efficatius de Juris solemnitate potuit et debuit, potestque et debet, fecit, constituit, creavit et solemniter ordinavit suum verum certum legettimum, et indubitatum procuratoruem nuntium et comissum Spetialem, et generalem, ita tam tamquam Spetialitas generalitati non deroget nec e contra videlicet, spectabilem virum dominum Joannem Mazzarellum cancellarium Magnificae comunitatis Jadrae presentem et onus acceptantem ad nomine dicti domini constituentis, et pro eo exigendum et recuperandum a ser Francisco Patini Brixiensis3 eius debitore ducatos Nonaginta et libras quatuor parvorum pro totidem sibi per dictum celeber- rimem dominum comitem, et capitaneum Tragurij mutuatis, 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 per me Notarium publicum viso in copia, et de exactis recuperatis

1. The transcripts offer examples of the sources used, which are quoted extensively and analysed quantitatively throughout the book. I have reproduced as accurately as possible the notarial texts as they were originally written down. Hence, the spelling differs from today’s standardised Italian and Latin. I have provided transcriptions and summaries and have written out the abbreviations. All homonyms and toponyms below are spelled as they appear in the notarial manuscripts. I have, however, added in brackets the standardised spelling to Venetian family names. For toponyms, footnotes are provided that include present-day names. 2. Trogir. 3. Brixen. Appendix 231 quietandum, et faciendum de receptis in forma Juris debita et pro premissis et cetera, cum plena libera et omnimoda facultate potestate et mandato et ad substi- tuendum unum vel plureis procuratorum Seu procuratores cum cimili auf limitata potestate et mandato, Promittens se ratum gratum atque firmum perpetuo habitu- rum totum id et quicquid per dictum procuratorem suum et subsituendum ab eo actum, dictum, gestum, factum vel procuratum fuerit in premissis sub obligatione omnium suorum bonorum mobilium et Immobilium presentium et futurorum, Actum Jadrae in sala Palatij celeberrimi domini Laurentij Bragadero [Braga- din] dignissimi capitanei Jadrae, Presentibus excellente artium et medicinae doctore domino Federico Zeno medico physico sallariato sive stipendiato Jadrae, et domino Francisco de Muttina4 cive Testibus habitis vocatis, et rogatis; Ego Franciscus Thomaseus Jadertinus publicus Apostolica et Imperiali Au- thoritatibus Notarius Juratus Jadrae, supradictis rogatus interfui eaque fideliter scripsi et in hanc publicam formam redegi ac in robur me subscripsi, signumque mei tabellionatus solitum pariter et consuetum apposui.

Sales Contract Martinus Liscich quondam Jacobi de insula Dobrapogliana (Dobrapoljana) sells 15 morgen of his fields to Zoylo de Ferra nobili Jadrensis. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Da- niel Cavalca, I, 1, 1, c.1v-c.2r, 6 April 1551.

MDLI, Indictio viiij, die vj mensis Aprtilis Temporibus ut ante, 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, vendidit, Tradidit, 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, et pertinentis posita in dicta Insula loco vocato Liscichia Dragan6 Infra hos ut dixerunt confines, videlicet, a siroco iura abbatiae Sancti Chrysogoni de Jadra, a traversa quedam Terrena sic vocata Cerbichia Tuz, a borea dictus dominus Zoylus, a quirina Nemus dictae insulae salvis semper verioribus confinibus, Ad habendum, Tenendum, gaudendum, possidendum, et usufructandum, et quicquid Ipsi domini

4. Modena. 5. 1 gonjaj or morgen = c. 2,370 m2; 15 gonjaj = c. 35,550 m2. Statuta Iadertina, 759. 6. Local toponym, situated in the vicinity of the village of Dragove on the island of Dugi Otok. 232 Urban Elites of Zadar emptori suisque heredes et Successores deinceps perpetuo placiunt faciendum cum omnibus et Singulis Jurisbus, actionibus habentijs et pertinentijs, Ipsi rei vendita quovis modo spectantia et pertinentia tam de iure tamquam de sonsuetudine, et hoc pro pretio et nomine veri et certi pretij librarum centum parvorum ad quarum com- putum 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, exceptioni sibi non datarum, et non receptarum dicti vini et denariorum pro amontare dicti libras 88 speique futurae habitis ac omni alij Juris et leges auxilio omnino renuntians, 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, 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, nec inferenti consentire Sed Ipsam rem venditam ei et Suis heredibus ab omni homine, communi, collegio, et universitate le- gitime deffendere, auctorizare et desbrigare, et preedictam venditionem, et omnia et Singula suprascripta perpetuo firma, rata, et grata habere, tenere, et non contrafacere vel venire per se vel alium aliqua ratione vel causa de iure vel de facto, sub poena quarti in statutj Iadrae contenta, et obligatione omnium Suorum bonorum mobilium et stabilium presentium et futurorum; Actum Jadrae in cancellaria pretoria, presentibus Magistro Phyllippo Ma- messich sutore, et Vincentio Ghergureuich precone Testibus, vocatis, et rogatis; Ego Michael Rosa Judex examinator Curia Jadre me subscripsi.

Planting Concession/Land Grant Simon Tutofich, sacristan of the church of St Mary of the Priests, concedes 4.5 morgen of the church’s fields in the vicinity of Lukoran to Antonius and Hierony- mus Matolcuch for at least three years. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.23r, 11 January 1551.

Die xi mensis Januarij 1551 Temporibus et Praetura et cetera, coram Viro Nobile Jadrensis domino Mariano de Soppe quondam domini Simonis honorando Judice examinatore curiae Jadrae, Personaliter constitutus dominus Simon Tutofich Mansionarius in ecclesia Sancte Mariae Presbytorum uti procurator, et eo nomine collegij dictorum Presbytorum Sanctae Mariae, per se et successores dicto nomine dedit, tradidit et ad pastinandum, et plantandum concessit Antonio, et Hieronymo Matolcuch fratribus de Insula Lucorani,7 Ibidem presentibus conducendum, et acceptandum, pro se et heredibus

7. Lukoran. Appendix 233 suis quatuor Gognalia cum dimidio in circa, Terrae aratorie posite loco vocato Be- drischina in dicta Insula Lucorani, videlicet, 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, videlicet, que prefatus Antonius sozalis dictum unum Gognalem cum dimidio in termino Trium annorum, et Hieronimus dicta sua Tria Gognalia in termino annorum quinquam proxime futurorum, Incipiendum a die presentis celebrationis Instrumenti et sic succes- siva finiendum, teneantur et obligati sint pastinare, et plantare in Integrum pro rata dictum Terrenum bonis et utilibus vitibus, et vineam plantandum, et pastinandum bene et diligenter laborare seu laborari facere, videlicet, bis in anno Zappare, semel putare suis debitis, et congruis Temporibus et alia facere, prout ordines, et statuta Jadrae disponunt, et sub penis in dictis statutis contentis, et quam primum vites plantandum, et pastinandum et supra ceperint fructare dare, et respondere dicto domino fundi quartum rectum, et Integrum conducendum, et defferendum ad barcam, sumptibus dictorum Sozzalium, Item pacti que si dicti sozzales non plantaverint et quilibet ipsorum non plantaverit in suprascripto Termino in Integrum dictum terrenum, videlicet, quilibet partem Suam suprascipram que ellapso dicto Termino sint obligati, et quilibet ipsorum sit obligatus dare quartum de fundo non plantato, sicut de eo fundo quod erit plantatum, ad extimationem proborum virorum a partibus el- ligendum unum, videlicet, pro parte, 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, Promitten- tes dicte partes vicissim prefata omnia, et singula attendere, observera, in nulloque contrafacere, 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, nomine quo supra presentium et futurorum; Actum Jadre in contrata ante portam domus habitationi dicti domini Judicis examinatoris, presentibus Simone Bubich, et Gregorio Scogliarich ligonizatoribus Jadrae, Testibus et cetera.

Rental or Leasehold Contract Marcus Loredan, bishop of Nin and procurator general of Mutio Calino, Zadar’s archbishop, leases the income of the archiepiscopal see to Johannes and Franci- scus Thomaseo for three years. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, f.24r- f.24v, 8 January, 1557.

Nel nome di Cristo amen, L’anno dalla Nativita del istesso MDLVij l’In- dittion XVa, 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 234 Urban Elites of Zadar

Zara et suo Destretto dignissimo, Inanti il Nobel huomo di Zara Meser Marian di Soppe honorando Giudice essaminatore della corte personalmente constitu- ido il Reverendissimo Monsignor il signor Marco Loredan per la gratia di Dio Vescovo di Nona8 dignissimo Vicegerente et procurator Generale del Reveren- dissimo 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, l’Indittio 14a per me Nodaro infrascritto visto, et letto, con poter tra gl’atre cose in quello contenute di locat, et affitar tutte et qualumque entrate, frutti, redditi, et proventi al Arci- vescovato di Zara spettanti, et pertinenti, co’l detto procuratorio nome ha datto, locato, et Concesso ad affitto al Reverendissimo Meser Gioan Thomaseo Cano- nico di Zara et a Meser Francesco Thomaseo cittadin et Nodaro di Zara fratello del detto Reverendissimo meser Zuanne, li presenti, stipulanti, confirmanti, et in solidum conducenti per anni Tre prossimi che hanno a venire, i qual hanno a cominciare a primo di Maggio prossimo venturo, et cosi sussequentemente ch’hanno a finire, tute et qualumque entrate del ditto Arcivescovato di Zara, et delle sue ville, frutti, redditi et proventi emolumenti Juridittion, feudi, Livelli, fitti, cathedratici, decime, cosi di terra ferma, come dell’Isole della diocesi di Zara, et la decima dell’Isola di Pago9 et etiam la decima grande del corpo di questa Città, et ogni, et qualumque altra rason, attion, et giuridittion temporale a qualsi voglia modo spettante, et pertinente, et qual spettar et pertenir potesse al ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor signor Mutio Arcivescovo per raggion del det- to suo Arcivescovato, 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, non eccetuando ne resservan- dosi cosa alcuna al ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo mal il tutto comprendendo nella presente location, Ad haver, tenir, goder, et posseder per il tempo d’anni tre sopra specificati et questo per precio et per nome di pretio, overo fitto, 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, overo paghe, prima al primo di Aprile, dal principio della presente location prossimamente venturo ducati quatrocento simil, et il restante che sono altri ducati quatrocento, per tutto’l mese di luio Exinde proximo che viene e cosi de anno in anno alle dui rathe, 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 Cor-

8. Nin. 9. Pag. Appendix 235 naro [Corner] fratello del Reverendissimo et Illustrissimo signor Il Cardinale Cornaro Il signor Alovise overo a quallo che havessero spetial mandato dal det- to Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo, a spese, risico, et danno delli detti conduttori in solidum il qual pagamento essi conduttori siano tenuti, et obligati far come di sopra, si come si obligano in solidum in meliori, et ampliori forma Camera apostolica, 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; Item il prefato Reverendissimo Monsignor Vescovo et procuratore, per el detto procurato nome come di sopre promette alli detti conduttori presenti, et accettanti in caso del restauro se occoresse in caso di guerra, ò peste, che Dio non voglia, per li qual casi fussero dannificate le dette entrate sino alla terza parte, 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, et in ditto caso esso Reverendissimo Monsignor principale sia tenuto farli restauro, et non in altri casi ne alerimente, con condittion tra le dette parti posta et fermata che li detti conduttori fra’l detto Termene d’anni tre della presente location pos- sano, et vagliano liberamente dar, 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; Item il Detto Reverendissimo Procuratore disse haver Consegnato alli detti conduttori botte numero nove da vino de raggion del ditto Arcivescovato, le qual botte numero nove Li dette conduttori promesseno restituir in fin della ditta locatione per tre anni in buon esser; 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, 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, de raggion o de fatto Sotto poena del quarto contenuta nelli statuti de Zara et obligation in solidum de tutti li loro beni mobel, et stabel presenti et futuri, 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; Fatto nella Camera dell’habitation del soprascritto Reverendissimo Monsi- gnor Vescovo procuratore posta a Zara nel confin del castel grande, Presenti il Reverendo Meser prete Dominico Armano Zaratino et Meser Antonio Valmaran dal Castelfranco10 servitor del soprascritto Reverendissimo Monsignor, Testimoni havuti, chiamati et spetialmente pregati

10. Castelfranco Veneto. 236 Urban Elites of Zadar

Inventory Inventory of all immovable and movable goods of the late Nicolaus Fanfogna, written at the request of his brother and testamentary heir, Gregorius Fanfogna. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, II, 6, s.p., 21 June 1531.

Marco Antonio Contarinj [Contarini] Conte de Zara, 1531, die 21 mensis Junij Hoc est Inventarium bonorum, et hereditatis quondam spectabilis domini Ni- colai Fanphoneo Nobilis Jadrensis, scriptum per me Petrum de Bassano Notarium requisitum per virum Nobilem Jadrensis dominum Gregorium de Fanphogna eius fratrem heredem Testamentarium, protestationem praemissam, tam ipse heres non intervenit Tenori, ultra unius, hereditatis, 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, videlicet, Primo una veste fodrada de volpe de pano negro venetiam piu della mida usada; item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de Contado della Con- ditione ut supra; item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de vari non Troppo usada; item unaltra veste negra de pano venetiam fodrada de dossi; item una veste per portar per caxa fodrada di volpe Collor Come musta valier usada; item spaliere duj, fruade Tesude a verdure; item Tapedi, Fra vechi, et nove, numero 7; item unaltro Covertor straponto biano, usado di famulle; item uno paro di busti de portar misura pro indivixo; item uno Covertor, biancho de lombaxo, straponto usado; item una Cortina di Tella biava vechia, lavorada, doro; item una Cortina biancha de lombarxina schietta; item uno antiporta de rassa, cum L’arma da cha fanphogna sopra; item Camixa da homo usada, numero diexe; item uno quadro di nostra dona, in dorado, vechio Intagliato; item uno Crucifixo de Legno picolo; item uno spechio Tuto indorado, picholo; item unaltro spechio indorado vechia ala anziga; itam una Cassa biancha di ancipresso; item una Cassa pichola de ancipresso rossa; item una Cassa vechia depenta; item una Cassa biancha de Talpon; item una Cassa Grande deprenta, cum L’arma loro sopra; item una Cassetta di nogera vechia, da Zoprir scripturus; item uno descho quadro de nogara; item dui Casse di Collor Zallo, et nogara; item dui forcieri, noni de collor rosso; item dui forcieri, de penti, di Collor verde; item uno Copliano ala anziga vechio; item una Cassa vechia de nogara; item Carnege, numero diexe Tra Grande, et pichole; item uno Libro, scripto, armam Coperto, di rosso, vocato politica; item libri de piu Sorte, numero 17, videlicet, uno Oracio, uno Cicero, uno Quintiliam, uno Juvenal, uno Lorenzo Valla vochabulista, uno Epistolle de Ovidio, regulle Sepontine, uno Petrarcha, uno Virgillio, uno Ovidio metamorfosio, uno Matial,11 uno Epistolle de Cicero, medi-

11. Gaius Matius. Appendix 237 tatione de Santo Bona Ventura, uno Livio, Coperto di pelle rossa, unaltro Juvenal picollo, una institutione de Gramaticha in volume picholo, et uno missal vechio Scripto in Carta pergamina; Tarzenti. Taza Tre, di arzento, de una marcha Luna de Liga; Tazera una pichola darzento basso; item Taze duj Grade darzento maron Tanto fin; item uno per di Salien darzento; item chuchiari darzento, numero Tre; item pironi darzento, numero Cinque; item uno anelleno, doro, cum uno rubin in mezzo; item Lavezi, numero Tre di bronco; item Caldare, numero Tre pichole, et una Grande de Lissia, de lire 4; item pelza de diverse Sorte prexo in Tuto lire …; item uno mersento di bronzo cum el suo pistorzio; item banchali Tra verdi, et rossi, et zalj, numero …; item dui bon Grande da vin viojde, vechio; item charatellj, numero 4, de ronen, de moza, il Luno; item caratellj piu picoli, numero 3; item una orsia Grande, et lalatra pichola; item Tirazi, numero duj vechi; item dui Costrani indoradi, duj Laj, per Tener avanti letto; stabille. una Caxa proindivisa, cum meser Gregorio herede suprascritto posta per mezo La Ecclexia de Santo Simon Justo, dove al presente habita; item unaltra caxa, apresso Santo Grisogono apresso quellj de Ferra sul Terreno suo proprio, non divixa tra loro; item uno pezo de orto in borgo apresso Santo Mar- tin, paga de Livello anuatim lire xiij soldi de picholj, non divixio Tra loro; item una possessione, in villa Berdo12 pro indivixa cum meser Simon Fanphogna; item unaltra possessione, in villa Drazeuaz,13 pro indivisa Tra de loro fratellj; item una possessione, in villa Gersane de sorte cinque,14 ut circa; item una ograda Sotol monte ferro posta, olinata, circa gognali 17,15 pro indivixa, Tra de loro; item uno pezo de Terrena doltra il porto apresso Santo Pietro et Santo Zuane16 de Gognali circa cinque;17 item una ograda, in loco dicto Celopech,18 circa Gognali dui;19 item una possessione, a Exo,20 cum la sua habitatione, in Soller pro indivisa; item una ograda apresso, lj frati, in loco dicto Passinam,21 circa Gognali sete;22 item una possessione, de Gognali 8,23 vel circa, tenuta per Michiel Trauicich et altri Socalj, apresso, la possessione, de quelli che nassi, in loco dicto Passinam, pro indivixa

12. Brda. 13. Dračevac. 14. 5 sors = c. 355,500 m2-379,200 m2 or c. 35.6-37.9 hectares. 15. 17 gonjaj = c. 40,290 m2. 16. Voštarnica. 17. 5 gonjaj = c. 11,850 m2. 18. Local toponym, place located in Zadar’s territory. 19. 2 gonjaj = c. 4,730 m2. 20. Iž. 21. Pašman. 22. 6 gonjaj = c. 16,590 m2. 23. 8 gonjaj = c. 18,960 m2. 238 Urban Elites of Zadar

Tra de loro; item uno pezo de Terra, circa Gognali 8,24 in dobra pogliana,25 tien Michiel Bosichieuic, pro indivisa;item una possessione, Sul Isola de Pago, a Pon- gliana26 villam, Simon Rubocich; item Saline, in insula de Pago, numero 50, in circa, cum el suo magazen, pro indivisa; Item lettj dui Grandi pieni, di piuma; item sechi di ramina, numero Tre, et uno di Lato picholo; item bacilj, numero Tre, et uno ramina de Lato; item Candelieri, de […] numero Cinque; item unaltro paro de manego curte de damascho verde da dona; item uno paro de manego da dona curte de charisea Zalla; item uno paro de manego Longo da dona de pano negro usado; item uno paro de manego de veludo cremasin da dona curto le qual disseno esse, da pascha; item unaltro paro de manego curte da dona de raso rosso dala dita; item duj pironj darzento, dala dita, lj qual disse domina Anzola esse de suasorella; item una Centura da dona ala antiga, de veludo verde dala dita; item uno pocho de fil de lino suril […], Naspo, dala dita; item lire 9 soldi 16 di moneda dala dita; item 4 majere darzento indorado da manego di dona Saladina; item uno paro de asolo darzento, dala dita; item 4 braza di vello; item duj faciolj, di vello da spalle di dona; item uno paro de manego de Tella da dona; item una Centura rossa stretta da dona, lovara con Seda; item uno vello vechio da spalle; item duj Schiavine pelosa usada; item una batesel de piuma usado; item Tre Schiavine pelosa vechie; item uno linaiol da leto, strazado; item uno paro de licj, da Tesser Nionj; item una coltrina, in duj pezi di pella bianca, et Zalla; item una banchal de rassa grossa biancho; item banchal divisado vechio; item una oplechie da dona; item uno paro de gardassj vechi; item Cinque giemj de lana grossa;, 3 bianchi, et 2 Berninj; item una faciol da mano vechio, con lj charj bianchj; item duj Tanaiolj; item una camisia da puto pichola; item una chasettam vechio da pano negro; item duj fasse divisado da lana; item uno paro de manego longe de pella; Item duj Saliene de pietra rossa; item sete petenj da Tessere; item unaltro paro de licj vechie; item unaltra coltrina de pella negra vechia; item duj sedri di ramo; item duj chaldare de ramo, et la 3 piu picholo; item 4 zare da agua, et da oglio; item duj piteri da loglio; item una stagna vechia; item una Tellar da Tesser farindo; item una fersora dj ramo; item uno paro de teri da fogo, et chade- na; item casse 8, vechio; item una quarta de legno, con duj cerchi sopra; item una zapa et uno dente di ferro; item una banacha da mangiar sopra; item uno morter de pietra, laltro de legno; item una bataluga grande; item uno verdator de rusta valier da homo lo qual dissero, de […] la portar fuor de casa; item duj charega da sentar; item uno molinal; item 4 bote, et uno mastul, sive orna; item duj luarno; item 2 barilo, de Sechi lima; item uno paro de moleno; item chiavj, 10, di piadera di ferra; item una chiusa; item bochalj 4, item una chassano, antiquo; item una

24. 8 gonjaj = c. 18,960 m2. 25. Dobropoljana. 26. Poljana, situated on the island of Pag. Appendix 239 concha grande da far pane, et uno tarviso vechio; item uno choncholo; item uno maniol longo, lo qual dissero esse, in pegon per lira 1 soldi 10; item Tre mase sive Sachi; item uno paro de scarpe da homo; item una casa de legname posta in orto de San Grisogono nel terreno de San Grisogono fralj sui veri confini; item duj gognalj, in circa, dichiarj de vignada in circa, a Ponta Micha;27 item una vestura de pano panonazo Noua formida; item una vestura de pano negro usada; item una vestura de samito negro usada; item una vestura de mezalana negra usada; item una vestura de rassa verde; item una chapa de Sarza, Noua, da dona; item unaltra chapa da dona de acsamito usada; item unaltra chapa da dona de Sarza vechia; item una chamiza de Sarza negra con lj suj chavi; item duj spalenete de rassa verde; item uno banchatero, divisado picholo; item dui altri banchatarj divisadj, piu longorj; item duj faziolj da chaua Surilj; item uno mortereo de bronzo con il suo piston; item duj bochalj; item uno fado; item 4 Scudelle de Terra; item 9 chari de piader, et schudelini de Terra; item uno cestel; item Tre chandelieri de Laron; item una chalderieta, et uno laniziero; item Tre ladnize; item una piadeno di petra; item uno bochal da spinieri, con uno pocho de Sal dentro; item una pignata; item uno vaso da oglio; item una lana de rocho de lana seriz; item uno paro de cortelinj; item lana de lana, lavada seriz; item Lana susia, videlicet, non lavada chalari sete e mezo, videlicet 7 ½; item Tella grossa griza, in una peza braza, 32 ½ Zaratini; item una vestura verde de rassa grossa da masseri; item unaltra vestura vechia de rassa strazada da masseri; item una goneleta verde de rassa da putina; item una vestura de rassa grossa romana; item unaltra vestura de rassa simil romana strazada; item una coltra bianca straponta vechia strazada; item uno Suchama, rosso da letto; item una banchal schrito vichio per una sala chassa de rassa; item unaltro banchal zallo de rassa con lj chavj negri; item cinque altri banchalj per Turj Zallj de rassa con lj chavj negri; item duj Schiavine murlachesche vechie; item Tre para de Linciolj vechi strazadi; item uno paro de Linciolj Integri ma usadj; item Camisa numero None usade, fra strazade, et non; item duj para de manego negro de paro longo vechio; item unaltro paro de manego de pano negro longo vechio da fantescho; item uno paro de fratoni, con le sui schare; item braza 13 de fustanio grosso; item nove peteni da Tesson fra picholj, et grandj, sive altra alla schianona berda; item pano rosso alto duj dada, lo qual estato Sotto una vestura; item quatuor fazolj similj da charo, lj quallj ad opera da di in di essa dona Francischina; item uno oplechie, sive oniza camisa; item Tre Intimele da chussini, le qual adopera si- militer la dicta; item Tre Tanniolj vechi strazadj, item cinque rasadori da barbiero; item dui para de schartaci vechi, da lana sualj; item dui para de peteni da petenas la lana; item uno Tavolier con le sue Tavole da ciogar de Cipresso; item uno Libro, vocato Intus Tesaurus pauperum; item uno quadro di Croa, vechissimo; item uno Libro da corsi longo; item uno forcimento da cipresso anticho; item una piera da

27. Puntamika. 240 Urban Elites of Zadar guar da barbiere; item uno Lavel da mano; utem una coltrina biancha da letto; item una fersora; item una chaldara de Lissia; item uno Casto de vimene bianche Longa da pane; item duj chasselene vechie; item duj pateri verdi de Terra […]; item dui Tavolo segadize; item 4 pezetj de Tella, ac uno pocho chordala razene; item uno Schanzol da magnar saxo; item i chanava, 2 sachi da chamano garzol, et fora di sacho xi, mazuj, in Tuto prexo Libri 310, item unaltro sacho prexo Libri 131; item al quali pezi di ramo roto; item uno baril pieno non Tropo pieno di churche; item 2 bote da vi voyda una, et laltra pieno de aceto […]; item unaltro baril pieno con charobe; item 4 bige de cerchiotj picholj, item una Zangola; item 3 pezetj de Sirro de chiochulj; item 2 barilj de Tuorina, Salada; item i lissia, 3 Camixe, et 3 liniolj; item lix [59] marchiam Libri 114; item unaltra stadiera Grande; item una barila de biava sechia la qual dissero esse da Radosseuich; item uno Sechio da chalar aqua, de rame; item uno pocho de maronj, in uno chasso, in magazeno sono queste cose; item uno baril con charolo niouo balanze de legno da pexar charobo; item una barila de […] sechi voyda sechia; item uno Sacho con una quarta de faxolj dentro; item una barila da Sardoli – con uno pacho de […] rossa dentro; item una chassa biancha con una Linciol dentro grezo; item una vesta de pano panonazo da dona vechia; item una vesta da dona negra vechia de pano; item uno paro de bragesse bianche vechie de razza; item uno bolador de ferro; item uno pastoral de pello da dona; item uno schudeli de pelzo; item certe axole con certj choralarj; item danari in dicta chasselasa, fra loro, e moneda libri 41 soldi 6; item stara,28 5, de formento; item danarj libri 3 soldi 3; item sardelle migliana, numero 55; item sarj migliana, numero 13 de compagnia con meser Alberto; item uno Schagno vechio, item uno bancheto da porta; item una chaza sbusara di Ferro; item una Tavola Zonda de cipresso; item duj bataluge; item uno Lanel de Lano; item una charega da pazo; item uno Zamiso; item duj schion, una Sopra il leto, laltra per Terra; In chamera una roda da molin formida; item 15 pezi storti de legno da far Roda da Torcholo; item duj Schrone per il Torcholo da vin; item uno fuso da Torcholo; item uno pezo de mandoler; item una piera da guar rossa; item cinque charaselleri da vin; item uno linazero Niouo; item duj barile de b[iave] sechi; item duj mastellj da folar lana; item Tre roche da Molin; item una chameniza, sine pilla da oglio, con duj starichi doglio dentro; item quattro quarti grande in circa de orzo; item Tre Torcholj, fornidj, salvo che ad uno solo mancha le piere; item uno servan chremignach; bona autem stabilia; item una caseta, sup proprio Terreno, parte de muro et parte de ligname coperta de chopj, in uno Soler con la Sua corte; fra lj sui confini, ala citadela;29 item una chamara Sotto la detta caseta, in la detta corte; item unaltra chamara parte de muro, et parte de ligname nela qual Sono posti lj diti Torcholj;

28. 1 star = ca. 82.25 litres. Statuta Iadertina, 759 29. The area in the vicinity of Zadar’s citadel. Appendix 241 item gognali Tre de chavi de vigna, sul Terreno de meser Nicolo Cimilich, in Cerodol;30 item gognalj duj de chavi de vigna sotto bel veder31 uno, et Sul Terreno delle venerabili Sor monache de San Dimitri, et laltro a Celopech32 sul Terreno de meser Zoylo de Ferra;

30. Local toponym, place located in Zadar’s territory. 31. Bili Brig. 32. Local toponym, place located in Zadar’s territory.

Bibliography

Published Primary Sources

Kolanović, Josip, and Mate Križman, eds., 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]. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1997. Ljubić, Simeon, and Grga Novak, eds. Commissiones et relationes Venetae: Mletačka i uputstva i izveštaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium, 1876-1977.

Unpublished Sources from the Croatian State Archive in Zadar

HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, busta I, 1540-1552. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Cornelius Constantius, busta I, 1567-1569. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Daniel Cavalca, busta I-III, 1551-1566. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Franciscus Thomaseus, busta I, 1548-1561. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Gabriel Cernotta, busta I, 1562-1564. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Horatius de Marchettis, busta I, 1567-1569. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Johannes a Morea, busta I, 1540-1569. 244 Urban Elites of Zadar

HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, busta I-IV, 1540-1554. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, busta I, 1544-1548. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Nicolaus Canali, busta I, 1548-1567. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Nicolaus Drasmileus, busta I, IV, 1540-1566. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Petrus de Bassano, busta I-II, 1540-1569. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Paulus de Sanctis, busta I, 1545-1551. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Simon Budineus, busta I, 1556-1566. HR DAZD 31 Bilježnici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) – Zadar (XII- 1797); 1279-1797: Simon Mazzarellus, busta I, 1555-1569.

Secondary Literature

Anderle, Marija Dragica. “Das öffentliche Leben in Dalmatien in venezianischer Zeit.” In Dalmatien als europäischer Kulturraum, edited by Wilfried Pot- thoff, 63-92. Split: Filozofski Fakultet u Splitu – Odsjek za Povijest, 2010. Antoljak, Stjepan. Hrvatski historiografia [Croatian Historiography]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2004. Antoljak, Stjepan. “Zadarski katastik 15. stoljeća” [Zadar’s Cadastre from the 15th Century]. Starine 40 (1950): 371-417. Anzulović, Ivna. “Razgraničenje između mletačke i turske vlasti na zadarskom prostoru 1576. nakon Ciparskog rata” [Border Demarcation between the Ve- netian and Ottoman Governments in Zadar’s Environs after the Cyprus War]. Zadarska smotra 1-3 (1998): 53-150. Anzulović, Ivna. “O opstojnosti hrvatskog pučanstva sjeverne Dalmacije iz pred- turskog vremena” [On the Survival of the Croat People of Northern Dalmatia in Pre-Turkish Times]. Zadarska smotra 4-6 (1998): 269-313. Arbel, Benjamin, ed. Cyprus, the Franks, and Venice, 13th-16th Centuries. Alder- shot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000. Arbel, Benjamin. “Colonie d’oltremare.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Società ed economia, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 5:947-985. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Arbel, Benjamin, ed. Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean: Stu- dies in Honor of David Jacoby. London: Frank Cass, 1996. Bibliography 245

Arbel, Benjamin. Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern East- ern Mediterranean. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Arbel, Benjamin. “The Reign of Caterina Corner (1473-1489) as a Family Affair.” Studi Veneziani, n.s. 26 (1993): 67-85. Arbel, Benjamin, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby, eds. Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. London: Frank Cass, 1995. Ashtor, Eliyahu. “The Venetian Supremacy in Levantine Trade: Monopoly or Pre- Colonialism?” Journal of European Economic History 3, no. 1 (1974): 5-53. Attia, Sascha H. “Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir nach der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” M.A. diss., University of Vienna, 2008. Aymard, Maurice. Venise, Raguse et le commerce du blé pendant la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966. 192

Babinger, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time. Edited by William C. Hickman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Babinger, Franz. Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltenstürmer einer Zeit- enwende. Munich: Bruckmann, 1953. Bacchion, Eugenio. Il dominio veneto su Corfu, 1386-1797. Venice: Altino, 1956. Balard, Michel, ed. Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes, Xe-XVIe siècles. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002. Balard, Michel, ed. État et colonisation au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1998. Balard, Michel, and Alain Ducellier, eds. Le partage du monde: Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médievale. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998. Balard, Michel. “La lotta contro Genova.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio, edited by Girolamo Arnaldi and Giorgio Cracco, 3:87-126. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Balard, Michel, and Alain Ducellier, eds. Coloniser au Moyen Âge. Paris: Colin, 1995. Benyovsky Latin, Irena. Srednjovjekovni Trogir: Prostor i društvo [Medieval Tro- gir: Space and Society]. Zagreb: Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest, 2009. Bettarini, Francesco. “Toscani al servizio della città di Ragusa (Dubrovnik) nella prima metà del Quattrocento.” Medioevo Adriatico 1 (2007): 135-150. Bin, Alberto. La Repubblica di Venezia e la questione Adriatica, 1600–1620. Rome: Il Veltro, 1992. Boerio, Giuseppe. Dizionario del dialetto veneziano. Venice: Cecchini, 1867. Borsari, Silvano. “I veneziani delle colonie.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio, edited by Girolamo Arnaldi and Giorgio Cracco, 3:127- 158. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Bracewell, Catherine. The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry, and Holy War in the 16th-Century Adriatic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. 246 Urban Elites of Zadar

Brandt, Miroslav. Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu krajem XIV. st. [Wycliffe’s Heresy and Social Movements in Split in the Late 14th Century]. Zagreb: Kulturna, 1955. Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Translated by Siân Reynolds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer- sity of California Press, 1996. Braudel, Fernand. Sozialgeschichte des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts: Der Alltag. Trans- lated by Siglinde Summerer. Munich: Kindler, 1985. 193 Braudel, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century: The Perspec- tive of the World. Translated by Sîan Reynolds. New York: Harper & Row, 1984. Brković, “Isprave o Zadarskom miru” [Documents concerning the Zadar Peace Treaty from 1358]. Radovi Zavoda povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 51 (2009): 69-107. Brunelli, Vitaliano. Storia della citta di Zara: Dai tempi più remoti sino al 1409. Edited by John J. James. Trieste: Lint, 1974. Budak, Neven, and Tomislav Raukar, eds. Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka [Croa- tian History in the Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2006. Budak, Neven, ed. Raukarov zbornik: Zbornik u čast Tomislava Raukara [Rau- kar’s Collected Papers: Studies in Honour of Tomislav Raukar]. Zagreb: FF Press, 2005. Budak, Neven. “Urban élites in Dalmatia in the 14th and 15th Centuries.” In Città e sistema adriatico alla fine del medioevo: Bilanci degli studi e prospettive di ricerca, edited by Michele P. Ghezzo, 181-199. Venice: Società Dalmata di Storia Patria, 1998. Budak, Neven. “Drei Zentralstädte in Dalmatien: Salona, Zadar, Split.” In Haupt- städte zwischen Save, Bosporus und Dnjepr: Geschichte-Funktion-Nationale Symbolkraft, edited by Harald Heppner, 101-123. Vienna: Böhlau, 1998. Budak, Neven. “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]. Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti 35 (1997): 195-239. Budak, Neven. “I fiorentini nella Slavonia e nella Croazia nei secoli XIV e XV.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153, no. 4 (1995): 681-695. Burns, Robert I. Jews in the Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, 1250-1350. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Calabi, Donatella. “The ‘City of the Jews’.” In The Jews of Early Modern Venice, edited by Robert C. Davis and Benjamin C. Ravid, 31-49. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Cessi, Roberto. Storia della Repubblica di Venezia. Milan: Principato, 1968. Bibliography 247

Cessi, Roberto. La Repubblica di Venezia e il problema Adriatico. Naples: Ed. Scientifiche Italiane, 1953. Cessi, Roberto. Politica ed economia di Venezia nel Trecento. Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 1952. Chambers, David S., and Brian Pullan, Venice: A Documentary History, 1450- 1653. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993. Chambers, David S. The Imperial Age of Venice, 1380-1580. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. Chittolini, Giorgio. La formazione dello stato regionale e le istituzioni del contado (secoli XIV e XV). Milan: Unicopli, 2005. Chittolini, Giorgio. Città, comunità e feudi negli stati dell’Italia centro-settentrio- nale (XIV-XVI secolo). Milan: Unicopli, 1996. Chittolini, Giorgio. “The ‘Private,’ the ‘Public,’ the State.” Journal of Modern History 67, Supplement: The Origins of the State in Italy, 1300-1600 (1995): 34-61. Chittolini, Giorgio. Origini dello stato: Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna. Bologna: Mulino, 1994. Chittolini, Giorgio. “Cities, ‘City-States,’ and Regional States in North-Central Italy.” Theory & Society 18, no. 5 (1989): 689-706. Chojnacka, Monica. Working Women of Early Modern Venice. Baltimore and Lon- don: Johns Jopkins University Press, 2001. Chojnacki, Stanley. “Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice: The Third Ser- rata.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 263-294. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Chojnacki, Stanley. “Marriage Legislation and Patrician Society in Fifteenth-Cen- tury Venice.” In Law, Custom, and the Social Fabric in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of Bryce Lyon, edited by Bernard S. Bachrach and David Nicholas, 163-184. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1990. Chojnacki, Stanley. “Kinship Ties and Young Patricians in Fifteenth-Century Ven- ice.” Renaissance Quarterly 38 (1985): 240-270. Chojnacki, Stanley. “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice.” Jour- nal of Interdisciplinary History 5, no. 4 (1975): 571-600. Chojnacki, Stanley. “Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice.” Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974): 176-203. Christ, Georg. Trading Conflicts: Venetian Merchants and Mamluk Officials in Late Medieval Alexandria. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cohn, Samuel K. Death and Property in Siena, 1205-1800: Strategies for the Af- terlife. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Concina, Ennio. Venezia nell’età moderna: Struttura e funzioni. Venice: Marsilio, 1989. 248 Urban Elites of Zadar

Concina, Ennio. “Il rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia nella prima metà del Cinquecento: Modelli, dibattiti, scelte.” In Atti del conve- gno di studi architettura militare nell’Europa del XVI secolo, edited by Carlo Cresti, Amelio Fara, and Daniela Lamberini, 91-109. Siena: Periccioli, 1988. Contarini, Gasparo. The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. Translated by Lewes Lewkenor. London: n.p., 1599. Contarini, Gasparo. De magistratibus et republica Venetorum. Paris: n.p., 1543. Costatini, Massimo. “Le isole ionie nel sistema marittimo veneziano.” In Venezia e le isole ionie, edited by Chryssa A. Maltezou, 141-165. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2005. Cozzi, Gaetano. “Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto: Governanti e governati nel dominio di qua dal Mincio nei secoli XV-XVIII.” In Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto: Saggi su politica, società, cultura nella Repubblica di Venezia in età moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi, 291-352. Venice: Marsilio, 1997. Cozzi, Gaetano, Michael Knapton, and Giorgio Scarabello, eds. La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna. Turin: UTET, 1986-1992. Cozzi, Gaetano. “Il dominio da mar.” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi and Michael Knapton, 1:195-204. Turin: UTET, 1986. Cozzi, Gaetano. Stato, società e giustizia nella Repubblica Veneta (sec. XV-XVIII). Rome: Jouvence, 1985. Cozzi, Gaetano. “La politica del diritto nella Repubblica di Venezia.” In Repub- blica di Venezia e stati italiani: Politica e giustizia dal secolo XVI al secolo XVIII, edited by Gaetano Cozzi, 227-261. Turin: Einaudi, 1982. Cozzi, Gaetano. Repubblica di Venezia e stati italiani: Politica e giustizia dal secolo XVI al secolo XVIII. Turin: Einaudi, 1982. Cozzi, Gaetano. “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 293-345. London: Faber & Faber, 1973. Cracco Ruggini, Lellia, et al., eds. Storia di Venezia: Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1992-2002. Cracco, Giorgio. “‘Relinquere laicis que laicorum sunt:’ Un’intervento di Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia.” Bollettino dell’Istituto di Storia della So- cietà e dello Stato Veneziano 3 (1961): 179-189. Crouzet-Pavan, Élizabeth. Venice Triumphant: The Horizons of a Myth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Čoralić, Lovorka. “The Ragusans in Venice from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century.” Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999): 13-40. Ćosić, Stjepan, and Nenad Vekarić. Dubrovačka vlastela između roda i države: Salamankezi i Sorbonezi [The Ragusan Patriciate between Kinship and State: Salamankezi and Sorbonezi]. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Um- jetnosti, 2005. Bibliography 249

Dadić, Žarko. “Natural Sciences.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and Sci- ences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey, edited by Ivan Supičić and Eduard Hercigonja, 2:741-760. London: Wilson, 2008. Daru, Pierre. Histoire de la république de Venise. Paris: Didot, 1821. Davidson, Nicholas S. “‘In Dialogue with the Past:’ Venetian Research from the 1960s to the 1990s.” Bulletin of the Society for Renaissance Studies 15 (1997): 13-24. Davis, Paul, and David Hemsoll. Michele Sanmicheli. Milan: Electa, 2004. Davis, Robert C. Shipbuilders of the Venetian Arsenal: Workers and Workplace in the Preindustrial City. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. De Benvenuti, Angelo. Storia di Zara dal 1409 al 1797. Milan: Bocca, 1944. De Vivo, Filippo. Information and Communication in Venice: Rethinking Early Modern Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. De Vries, Jean. European Urbanization, 1500-1800. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1984. Dinić-Knežević, Dušanka. Migracije stanovništa iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Du- brovnik tokom srednjeg veka [Migration of Peoples from South-Slavic Lands to Dubrovnik in the Middle Ages]. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Ogranak u Novom Sadu, 1995. Dinić-Knežević, Dušanka. Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and Hungary in the Middle Ages]. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umet- nosti, Ogranak u Novom Sadu, 1986. Dokoza, Serđo. Dinamika otočnog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]. Split: Književni Krug, 2009. Donaglio, Un esponente dell’élite liberale: Pompeo Molmenti: Politico e storico di Venezia. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004. Doumerc, Bernard. “Les Vénetiens confrontés au retour des rapatriés de l’empire colonial d’outremer (fin XVe-début XVIe siècle).” In Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes, Xe-XVIe siècles, edited by Michel Balard, 375-398. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002. Doumerc, Bernard. “Il dominio del mare.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Società ed economia, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 5:113-180. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Drechsler, Wolfgang. “Venice Misappropriated.” Trames 6, no. 2 (2002): 192-201. Ducellier, Alain, Bernard Doumerc, Brünehilde Imhaus, and Jean de Miceli. Les chemins de l’exile: Bouleversements de l’Est européen et migrations vers l’Ouest à la fin du Moyen Âge. Paris: Armand Colin, 1992. Ducellier, Alain. La façade maritime de l’Albanie au Moyen Âge: Durazzo et Valo- na du XIe au Xve siècle. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981. 250 Urban Elites of Zadar

Dursteler, Eric. R. “Power and Information: The Venetian Postal System in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean.” In From Florence to the Mediterra- nean: Essays in Honour of Anthony Molho, edited by Diogo Ramada Curto, Eric R. Dursteler, Julius Kirshner, and Francesca Trivellato, 2:601-623. Flor- ence: Olschki, 2009. Dursteler, Eric R. “The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and Career in Venice’s Early Modern Diplomatic Corps.” Mediterranean Historical Review 16, no. 2 (2001): 1-30.

Elliott, John H. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies.” Past & Present 137 (1992): 48-71. Engel, Pál, Gyula Kristó, and András Kubinyi. Histoire de la Hongarie médievale: Des Angevins aux Habsbourgs. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008. Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: Tauris, 2001.

Fabijanec, Sabine Florence. “Hygiene and Commerce: The Example of Dalmatian Lazarettos from the 14th until the 16th Century.” Ekonomska i ekohistorija: Časopis za gospodarsku povijest i povijest okoliša 4, no. 4 (2008): 115-133. Fasano Guarini, Elena. “Center and Periphery.” Journal of Modern History 67, Supplement: The Origins of the State in Italy, 1300-1600 (1995): 74-96. Fasano Guarini, Elena. “Au seizième siècle: Comment naviguaient les galères.” Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 16 (1961): 279-296. Ferro, Marc. Colonization: A Global History. London: Routledge, 1997. Fine, John V.A. When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Fine, John V.A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late 12th century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987. Finkel, Caroline. Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923. London: Murray, 2005. Finlay, Robert. Venice Besieged: Politics and Diplomacy in the Italian wars, 1494- 1534. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2008. Finlay, Robert. “The Immortal Republic: The Myth of Venice during the Italian Wars (1494-1530).” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 4 (1999): 931-944. Finlay, Robert. Politics in Renaissance Venice. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univer- sity Press, 1980. Fiorentin, Nedo, ed. Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni. Treviso: Canova, 2002. Bibliography 251

Foretić, Dinko, ed. Prošlost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Zadar: Narodni list, 1976- 1987. Foretić, Vinko, ed. Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808 [The History of Dubrovnik until 1808]. Zagreb: Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske, 1980. Fortini Brown, Patricia. Private Lives in Renaissance Venice: Art, Architecture and the Family. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004. Fortini Brown, Patricia. “Behind the Walls: The Material Culture of Venetian Elites.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 295-338. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Fortini Brown, Patricia. Art and Life in Renaissance Venice. New York: Abrams & Prentice Hall, 1997. Franchini, Sandro G., Gherardo Ortalli, and Gennaro Toscano, eds. Venise et la Méditerranée. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2011. Fulbrook, Mary, and Ulinka Rublack: “In Relation: The ‘Social Self’ and Ego Documents.” German History 28, no. 3 (2010): 263-277.

Gallina, Marino. Una società coloniale del trecento: Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio. Venice: Deputazione Editrice, 1989. Ganchou, Thierry. “Le rachat des Notaras après la chute de Constantinople ou les relations ‘étrangères’ de l’elite byzantine au XVe siècle.” In Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes, Xe-XVIe siècles, edited by Michel Balard, 149- 229. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002. Ganchou, Thierry, ed. Les élites urbaines au Moyen Âge. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1996. Garnier, Édith. L’alliance impie: François Ier et Soliman le Magnifique contre Charles Quint (1529-1547). Paris: Félin-Kiron, 2008. Gelder, Maartje van. Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Mod- ern Venice. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Geanakoplos, Deno J. Greek Scholars in Venice: Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learnings from Byzantium to Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Georgopoulou, Maria. Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urban- ism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Gestrin, Ferdo. “Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV i XVI. stoljeću” [Migration from Dalmatia towards the Marche region during the 15th and 16th centuries]. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977): 395-404. Gilbert, Felix. “Venice in the Crisis of the League of Cambrai.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 274-292. London: Faber & Faber, 1973. Giorgetti, Giorgio. Contadini e proprietari nell’Italia moderna: Rapporti di pro- duzione e contratti agrari dal secolo XVI a oggi. Turin: Einaudi, 1974. 252 Urban Elites of Zadar

Girardi-Karšulin, Mihaela. “Federik Grisogono (Federicus Chrysogonus) und der Begriff der nützlichen theoretischen Wissenschaft.” Prolegomena 6, no. 2 (2007): 279-294. Gleason, Elisabeth G. Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome, and Reform. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Goldstein, Ivo. Croatia: A History. Translated by Nikolina Jovanović. London: Hurst, 1999. Goldstein, Ivo. “Županije u ranum srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj” [Croatia’s Coun- ties in the early Middle Ages]. In Hrvatske županije kroz stojeća [The Croa- tian Counties through the Centuries], edited by Ivo Goldstein, 12-20. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1996. Graciotti, Sante. “Plurilinguismo letterario e pluriculturalismo nella Ragusa antica (un modello per la futura Europa?).” Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 20, no. 9 (1997): 1-16. Grbavac, Branka. “Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen on the eastern Adriatic Coast in the Fourteenth Century: The Case of Zadar.” In Across the Religious Divide: Women, Property, and the Law in the wider Mediterranean, 1300-1800, edited by Jutta G. Sperling and Shona K. Wray, 67-80. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Von Greyertz, Kaspar. “Ego-Documents: The Last Word?” German History 28, no. 3 (2010): 273-282. Grubb, James S. “Elite Citizens.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civili- zation of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 339-364. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Grubb, James S. “When Myths Lose Power: Four Decades of Venetian Historiog- raphy.” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 43-94. Gullino, Giuseppe. “Le frontiere navali.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Politica e cultura, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 4:13-111. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Gullino, Giuseppe. “Il patriziato.” In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento: Politica e cultura, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 4:379-413. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Guzzetti, Linda. “Testamentsforschung in Europa seit den 1970er Jahren: Biblio- graphischer Überblick.” In Seelenheil und irdischer Besitz: Testamente als Quellen für den Umgang mit ‘den letzten Dingen’, edited by Markwart Her- zog and Cecilie Hollberg, 17-33. Konstanz: UVK, 2007. Guzzetti, Linda. Venezianische Vermächtnisse: Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Si- tuation von Frauen im Spiegel spätmittelalterlicher Testamente. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 1998. Bibliography 253

Hartog François, and Jacques Revel. “Historians and the Present Conjuncture.” Mediterranean Historical Review 16, no. 1 (2001): 1-12. Hercigonja, Eduard. Povijest hrvatske književnosti: Srednjovjekovna književnost [History of Croatian Literature: Medieval Literature]. Zagreb: Liber, 1975. Hill, George. A History of Cyprus: The Frankish Period, 1432-1571. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Hocquet, Jean-Claude. Venise et la mer, XIIe-XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Fayard, 2006. Hocquet, Jean-Claude. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. Lille: Publications de l’Université de Lille III, 1978-1979. Hohenberg, Paul M., and Lynn Hollen Lees. The Making of Urban Europe, 1000- 1994. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediter- ranean History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Horodowich, Elizabeth. “The Gossiping Tongue: Oral Networks, Public Life, and Political Culture in Early Modern Venice.” Renaissance Studies 19, no. 1 (2005): 22-45. Horvat, Karlo, and Vjekoslav Jelavić, eds. Monumenta historiam Uscocchorum il- lustrantia ex archivis romanis, praecipue e secreto Vaticana desumpta. Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium, 1910-1913. Höfler, Janez. Die Kunst Dalmatiens vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance, 800- 1520. Graz: Akad. Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1989.

Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Ba- singstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Imhaus, Brünehilde. Le minoranze orientali a Venezia, 1300-1510. Rome: Il Vel- tro, 1997. Infelise, Mario. “News Networks between Italy and Europe.” In The Dissemina- tion of News and the Emergence of Contemporaneity in Early Modern Eu- rope, edited by Brendan Dooley, 51-67. Burlington: Ashgate, 2010. Ivetić, Egidio, ed., Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex Confinium: Approach- ing the ‘Other’ on the Borderlands Eastern Adriatic and Beyond, 1500-1800. Padua: CLEUP, 2007. Ivetić, Egidio. “Dalmazia e slavi neigli studi di Roberto Cessi.” Archivio Veneto V, 164 (2005): 125-144. Ivetić, Egidio. “Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni della Dalmazia medieva- le.” In Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni, edited by Nedo Fiorentin, 95-134. Treviso: Canova, 2002. Ivetić, Egidio. Oltremare: L’Istria nell’ultimo dominio veneto. Venice: Istituto Ve- neto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2000.

Jacoby, David. Byzantium, Latin Romania, and the Mediterranean. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. 254 Urban Elites of Zadar

Jacoby, David. “La colonisation militaire vénetienne de la Crète au XIIIe siècle.” In Le partage du monde: Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médievale, edited by Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier, 297-313. Paris: Pub- lications de la Sorbonne, 1998. Jacoby, David. “Social Evolution in Latin Greece.” In A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, edited by Norman P. Zacour and Har- ry W. Hazard, 4:177-222. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Jacoby, David. “The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byz- antines in the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade.” American Historical Review 78 (1973): 873-906. Jacoby, David. La féodalité en Grèce médievale: Les ‘Assises de Romanie’: Sourc- es, applications et diffusion. Paris: Mouton, 1971. Jakić-Čestarić, Vesna. “Etnički odnosi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru preme analizi osobnih imena” [Ethnic Relations in Medieval Zadar in the Light of Analysis of Family Names]. Radovi Jugoslovenska Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zadru 17 (1972): 99-166. Jakšić, Nikola. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi [Croatian Medieval Land- scapes]. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 2000. Janeković-Römer, Zdenka. Maruša ili suđenje ljubavi: Bračno-ljubavna priča srednjovjekovnog Dubrovnika [Maruša or Trial of Love: A Marital Love Sto- ry from Medieval Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Algoritam, 2008. Janeković-Römer, Zdenka. Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika: Hravtski–latinski [Description of the Slavic City of Dubrovnik: Croatian-Latin]. Zagreb: Dom i Svijet, 2004. Janeković-Römer, Zdenka. Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike [Visegrád Privilege: Foundations of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 2003. Janeković-Römer, Zdenka. Rod i grad: Dubrovačko obitelj od XIII do XV stoljeća [Kinship and the City: Dubrovnik’s Families from the 13th to the 15th Cen- turies]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zagrebu, 1994. Jensen, Merril, and Robert L. Reynolds. “European Colonial Experience: A Plea for Comparative Studies.” In The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion, Contraction, Continuity, edited by James Muldoon and Felipe Fernández-Armesto, 37-52. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2008. Jović, Vedrana. “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]. Radovi Za- voda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 52 (2010): 79-119. Jungwirth, Julia. “Procurator.” In Studienwörterbuch Rechtsgeschichte und Rö- misches Recht, edited by Thomas Olechowski and Richard Gamauf, 375. Vi- enna: Manz, 2006. Bibliography 255

Jütte, Daniel. Das Zeitalter des Geheimnisses: Juden, Christen und die Ökonomie des Geheimen, 1400-1800. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Jütte, Daniel. “Handel, Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke: Eine Fallstudie zu Gren- zen und Möglichkeiten unternehmerischen Handels unter Juden zwischen Reich, Italien und Levante um 1600.” Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 95, no. 3 (2008): 263-290.

Kaiser, Wolfgang, ed. Le commerce des captifs: Les intermédiaires dans l’échange et le rachat des prisonniers en Méditerranée, XVe-XVIIIe siècle. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 2008. Karapidakis, Nicolas. “Narrazione e concetti della storiografia greca sul periodo del dominio veneziano.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto, edited by Chryssa A. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli, 113-125. Venice: Istitu- to Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2001. Karpov, Sergej P. La navigazione veneziana nel Mar nero, XIII-XV sec. Translated by Giovanni Fanti and Marina Bakhmatova. Ravenna: Girasole, 2002. Karpov, Sergej P. L’impero di Trebisonda, Venezia, Genova e Roma, 1204-1461. Translated by Eleonora Zambelli. Rome: Il Veltro, 1986. Kastritsis, Dimitris J. The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Keil, Martha, ed. Besitz, Geschäft und Frauenrechte: Jüdische und christliche Frauen in Dalmatien und Prag, 1300-1600. Kiel: Solivagus, 2011. King, Margaret L. Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance. Princ- eton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Kitromilides, Paschalis. “Bridges to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: The Assimilation of Italian Culture as a Problem in Greek Historiography.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto, edited by Chryssa A. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli, 37-46. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2001. Kittel, Ellen E. “Testaments of Two Cities: A Comparative Analysis of the Wills of Medieval Genoa and Douai.” European Review of History 5 (1998): 47-82. Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the Mid- dle Ages]. Zagreb: Biblioteka Posebna izdanja, 1990. Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1976. Klaić, Nada, and Ivo Petricioli. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until 1409]. Zadar: Narodni list, 1976 (Foretić, Dinko, ed. Prošlost Zadra, vol. 2). Klaić, Nada. “Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra.” Matasovićev zbornik (1972): 135-149. Knapton, Michael. “‘Nobiltà e popolo’ e un trentennio di storiografia veneta.” Nuova rivista Storia 82 (1998): 167-192. 256 Urban Elites of Zadar

Knapton, Michael. “Tra dominante e dominio (1517-1630).” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi, Michael Knapton, and Giorgio Scarabello, 2:201-549. Turin: UTET, 1992. Knapton, Michael. “Lo Stato da mar.” In La repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi and Michael Knapton, and Giorgio Scarabello, 2:326-396. Turin: UTET, 1992. Knapton, Michael. “Il fisco nello stato veneziano tra ‘300 e ‘500: La politica delle entrate.” In Il sistema fiscale veneto: Problemi e aspetti, XV-XVIII secolo, edited by Giorgio Borelli, 15-57. Verona Libreria Universitaria Editrice, 1982. Kolanović, Josip, ed., Pregled arhivskim fondova i zbirki republike Hrvatske [In- ventory of the Archival Collections and Manuscripts of the Republic of Croa- tia]. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 2006-2007. Kolanović, Josip. Šibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [Šibenik in the Late Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1995. Kolanović, Josip. “Izvori za povijest trgovine i pomorstva srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih gradova s osobotim osvrtom na Šibenik (contralittere)” [Sources Per- taining to the History of Commerce and Maritime Trade in Medieval Dalmatian Cities under Individual Consideration of the contralittere of Šibenik]. Adriatica Maritima Zavoda zu povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 3 (1979): 63-150. Kolumbić, Jelena. “Grbovi zadarskih plemićkih obitelj” [Coats of Arms of the Zadar Nobility]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 47 (2005): 27-98. Kovačević, Desanka. “La Serbie dans l’économie de Venise au XVème siècle.” In Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Venedig (13.-18. Jahrhundert), edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Schmitt, 39-52. Vienna: Verlag der Österre- ichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Kovačević, Desanka. Trgovačke knjige brać Kabužić (Caboga) [Account of Books of the Kabužić (Caboga) Brothers]. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, 1999. Kreiser, Klaus. Der Osmanische Staat, 1300-1922. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008. Krekić, Bariša. Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Ven- ice in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 2007. Krekić, Bariša. “Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the War of Tenedos/Chioggia (1378- 1381).” In Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Ven- ice in the 13th and 14th Centuries, edited by Bariša Krekić, 303-334. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 2007. Krekić, Bariša, ed. Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society, 1300-1600, Al- dershot: Variorum, 1997. Bibliography 257

Krekić, Bariša. “The Attitude of Fifteenth Century Ragusans towards Literacy.” In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society, 1300-1600, edited by Bariša Krekić, 225-232. Aldershot: Variorum, 1997 (priginally published in Byzan- tine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, edited by Speros Vryonis, jr., 225- 232. Malibu: Undena, 1985). Krekić, Bariša. “On the Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis in Late Medieval and Renaissance Dalmatia and Dubrovnik.” In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Ur- ban Society, 1300–1600, edited by Bariša Krekić, 312-332. Aldershot: Vario- rum, 1997. Krekić, Bariša. “Venezia e l’Adriatico.” In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello stato patrizio, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 3:51-85. Rome: Isti- tuto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996. Krekić, Bariša. “Developed Autonomy: The Patricians in Dubrovnik and Dalma- tian Cities.” In Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times, edited by Bariša Krekić, 185-215. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califor- nia Press, 1987.

Lampe, John R. “Imperial Borderlands or Capitalist Periphery? Redefining Bal- kan Backwardness, 1524-1914.” In The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe, edited by Daniel Chirot, 177-209. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Lane, Frederic C., and Reinhold C. Mueller. Money and Banking in Medieval and Renaissance Venice: The Venetian Money Market: Banks, Panics and the Public Debt, 1200-1500. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 1997. Lane, Frederic C. Venice: A Maritime Republic. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. Lane, Frederic C. “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures.” In Venice and His- tory: The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane, edited by Gino Luzzatto, 36-55. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966. Lane, Frederic C. “The Funded Debt of the Venetian Republic.” In Venice and History. The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane, edited by Gino Luzzatto, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1966), 87-98. Lane, Frederic C. Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1934. Laven, Mary. Virgins of Venice: Broken Vows and Cloistered Lives in the Renais- sance. New York: Viking, 2003. Libby, Lester J. “Venetian History and Political Thought after 1509.” Studies in the Renaissance 20 (1973): 7-45. Ljubić, Simeon, ed. Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga slavenstva i Mletačka Republika [Dispatches on the Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples and the Venetian Republic]. Zagreb: Župan (Albreht i Fidler), 1868-1891. 258 Urban Elites of Zadar

Lock, Peter. The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500. London and New York: Long- man, 2002. Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph. “De quelques îles grecques et de leurs seigneurs vé- netiens aux XIVe et XVe siècles.” Studie Veneziani 14 (1972): 3-35. Lopez, Robert S. Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean: Illustrative Documents. Translated by Robert S. Lopez and Irving M. Raymond. New York, Columbia University Press, 1955. Löw, Martina. Soziologie der Städte. Frankfurt am Main, 2008. Lucio, Giovanni. O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske [On the Kingdoms of Dal- matia and Croatia]. Edited by Bruna Kuntić-Makvić. Zagreb: Latina et Grae- ca, 1986. Lucius-Lučić, Ivan. Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Lit- erature]. Edited by Jakov Stipšić. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1979. Luzzatto, Gino. Storia economica di Venezia dall’XI al XVI secolo. Venice: Mar- silio, 1995.

Mahnken, Irmgard. Dubrovačko patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate of Dubrovnik in the 14th Century]. Belgrade: Naučno delo, 1960. Mallett, Michael E., and John R. Hale, eds. The Military Organization of a Renais- sance State: Venice, ca. 1400 to 1617. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Maltezou, Chryssa A., Angeliki Tzavara, and Despina Vlassi, eds. I Greci durante la venetocrazia: Uomoni, spazio, idee (XIII-XVIII sec.). Venice: Istituto Elle- nico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2009. Maltezou, Chryssa A., and Gherardo Ortalli, eds. Venezia e le Isole Ionie. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2005. Maltezou, Chryssa A., and Gherardo Ortalli, eds. Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2001. Malz, Arié. “Frühneuzeitliche Modernisierung als Sackgasse: Die dalmatinische Städtewelt vom 15. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert.” In Städte im östlichen Europa: Zur Problematik von Modernisierung und Raum vom Spätmittelalter bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Carsten Goehrke, 103-133. Zurich: Chronos, 2006. Manno, Antonio. “Politica e architettura militare: Le difese di Venezia (1557- 1573).” Studi Veneziani 11 (1986): 91-137. Margetić, Lujo. “Le cause delle spedizioni veneziane in Dalmazia nel 1000.” In Histrica et Adriatica: Raccolta di saggi storico-giuridici e storici, edited by Lujo Margetić, 218-254. Trieste: Lint, 1983. Martin, John, and Dennis Romano, eds. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Bibliography 259

Martin, John, and Dennis Romano. “Reconsidering Venice.” In Venice Reconsid- ered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 1-35. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Mayhew, Tea. Dalmatia between Ottoman and Venetian Rule: Contado di Zara, 1645-1718. Rome: Viella, 2008. Mayhew, Tea. “Behind Zara: Zara’s Contado between Ottoman and Venetian Rules, 1645-1718.” PhD diss., University of Padua, 2008. Maštrović, Vjekoslov. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji u XIX. stoljeću [Development of the Judicial System in Dalmatia in the 19th Century]. Zadar: Jugoslaven- ska Akademija Zannosti i Umjetnosti, 1959. McKee, Sally. Uncommon Dominion: Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Pu- rity. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2000. McKee, Sally. “Women under Venetian Colonial Rule in the Early Renaissance: Observations on the Economic Activities.” Renaissance Quarterly 51, no. 1 (1999): 34-67. McPherson, David. “Lewkenor’s Venice and its Sources.” Renaissance Quarterly 41, no. 3 (1988): 459-466. Metzeltin, Michael. “Le varietà italiane sulle coste dell’Adriatico orientale.” In Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Venedig (13.-18. Jahrhundert), edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Schmitt, 199-237. Vienna: Verlag der Öster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Mijan, Domagoj. “Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta u usporedbi s istim odred- bama venecijanskog, dubrovačkog i splitskog statuta” [Maritime Regulations of the Statute of the City of Zadar in Comparison with the same Regulations of the Venetian, Dubrovnik, and Split Statute]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 46 (2004): 109-168. Miović, Vesna. Židovski geto u Dubrovačkoj Republici (1546-1808) [The Jew- ish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2005. Miović, Vesna. Dubrovačka Republika u spisima osmanskih sultana [The Re- public of Dubrovnik in the Documents of the Ottoman Sultans]. Dubrovnik: Državni arhiv, 2005. Miović, Vesna. Dubrovačka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovnik’s Diplomacy in Istanbul]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2003. Mlacović, Dušan. Građani plemići: Pad i upson iga plemstva [Citizens and Nobles: The Rise and Fall of the Nobility]. Zagreb: Leykam international, 2008. Mocellin, Marina. “La città fortificata di Zara dal XV al XVI sec.”Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 15, no. 4 (1992): 9-68. 260 Urban Elites of Zadar

Moguš, Milan. A History of the Croatian Language: Towards a Common Stan- dard. Zagreb: Globus, 1995. Molà, Luca. La comunità dei Lucchesi a Venezia: Immigrazione e industria della seta nel tardo medioevo. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1994. Monfasani, Jon. Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés. Aldershot, Ashgate, 1995. Möschter, Angela. Juden im venezianischen Treviso, 1389-1509. Hannover: Hahn, 2008. Mueller, Reinhold C. “The Status and Economic Activity of Jews in the Venetian Dominions during the Fifteenth Century.” In Wirtschaftsgeschichte der mit- telalterlichen Juden: Fragen und Einschätzungen, edited by Michael Toch, 63-92. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008. Mueller, Reinhold C. “Aspects of Venetian Sovereignty in Medieval and Renais- sance Dalmatia.” In Quattrocento Adriatico: Fifteenth-Century Art of the Adriatic Rim, edited by Charles Dempsey, 29-56. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Edi- toriale, 1996. Mueller, Reinhold C. “‘Quando i Banchi no’ ha’ fede, la terra no’ ha credito:’ Bank Loans to the Venetian State in the 15th Century.” In Banchi pubblici, Banchi privati e Monti de Pietà nell’Europa preindustriale: Amministrazione, tec- niche operative e ruoli economici, edited by Società Ligure di Storia Patria, 275-308. Genoa: Società Ligure di Storia Patria, 1991. Mueller, Reinhold C. “L’imperialismo monetario veneziano nel Quattrocento.” Società e Storia 8 (1980): 277-297. Muir, Edward W. “Was there Republicanism in the Renaissance Republics? Ven- ice after Agnadello.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-state, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 137-167. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Muir, Edward W. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1981. Muldoon, James, and Felipe Fernández-Armesto, eds. The Expansion of Latin Eu- rope, 1000-1500. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2007-2009. Muldoon, James, and Felipe Fernández-Armesto, eds. The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion, Contraction, Continuity. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2008. Murano, Maria T. “La festa Veneziana e le sue manifestazioni rappresentative: Le compagnie della calza e le momarie.” In Storia della cultura veneta: Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento, edited by Gianfranco Folena and Girolamo Arnaldi, 3:315-341. Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1980.

Neralić, Jadranka. “Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia.” Mitteilungen des Insti- tuts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 115 (2007): 271-289. Bibliography 261

Nicol, Donald M. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Re- lations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Norwich, John J. A History of Venice. London: Penguin, 2003. Novak, Grga. Povijest Splita [The History of Split]. Split: Škuna, 2005. Novak, Grga. Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Split: Slobodna Dal- macija i Marjan Tisak, 2004. Novak, Grga. Prošlost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Zagreb: Golden Market- ing, 2001. Novak, Grga. “Quaternus izvoza iz Splita 1475-1476 godine” [On Exports of Split]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 2, no. 1-2 (1928): 92-102. Novak-Sambrailo, Maja. “O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna pod Venecijom” [On the Autonomy of Dalmatian Communes under Venice]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 11-12 (1965): 11-131.

O’Connell, Monique, Benjamin G. Kohl, Andrea Mozzato, and Claudia Salamini, eds. Rulers of Venice, 1332-1524: Governanti di Venezia: Interpretations, Methods, Databases. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, c2009. Ac- cessed 5 June 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.90021.0001.001. O’Connell, Monique. Men of Empire: Power and Negotiation in Venice’s Mari- time State. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Orlando, Ermanno, ed. Gli accordi von Curzola, 1352-1421. Rome: Viella, 2002. Ortalli, Gherardo, and Oliver J. Schmitt, eds. Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Ve- nezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Ve- nedig (13.-18. Jahrhundert). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Ortalli, Gherardo. “Beyond the Coast – Venice and the western Balkans: The Ori- gins of a Long Relationship.” In Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Venedig (13.-18. Jahrhundert), edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Schmitt, 9-25. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Ortalli, Gherardo, Giorgio Ravegnani, and Peter Schreiner, eds. Quarta crociata: Venezia, Bisanzio, impero latino. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2006. Ortalli, Gherardo. “Pietro II Orseolo: ‘Dux Veneticorum et Dalmatorum.’” In Ve- nezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni, edited by Nedo Fiorentin, 13-27. Treviso: Canova, 2002. Ortalli, Gherardo. “Entrar nel Dominio: Le dedizioni delle città alla Repubblica Serenissima.” In Società, economia, istituzioni: Elementi per la conoscenza della Repubblica di Venezia, edited by Giorgio Zordan and Gino Benzoni, 1:49-62. Verona: Cierre, 2002. Ostrogorsky, Georgije. History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. 262 Urban Elites of Zadar

Owen Hughes, Diane. “Domestic Ideals and Social Behavior: Evidence from Medieval Genoa.” In The Family in History: Lectures given in Memory of Stephen A. Kaplan under the Auspices of the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania, edited by Charles E. Rosenberg, 115-143. Pitts- burgh: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975. Oxford English Dictionary. “Commonwealth, n.” In Oxford English Diction- ary. Accessed 28 May 2012. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/ Entry/37261.

Paci, Renzo. La ‘Scala’ di Spalato e il commercio veneziano nei Balcani fra cinque e seicento. Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezia, 1971. Paladini, Filippo Maria. “Storia di Venezia e retorica del dominio Adriatico: Vene- zianità e imperialismo (1938-1943).” Ateneo Veneto 38 (2000): 253-298. Panciera, Walter. “‘Tagliare i confini:’ La linea di frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dal- mazia (1576).” In Studi storici dedicati a Orazio Cancila, edited by Antoni- no Giuffrida, Fabrizio D’Avenia, and Daniele Palermo, 1:237-272. Palermo: Associazione Mediterranea, 2011. Panciera, Walter. “La frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo: Fonti e problemi.” Società e Storia 114 (2006): 783-803. Papadia-Lala, Anastassia. “La ‘venetocrazia’ nel pensiero greco: Storicità, realtà, prospettive.” In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto, edited by Ch- ryssa A. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli, 61-70. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2001. Pavanello, Giuseppe, ed. L’enigma della modernità: Venezia nell’età di Pompeo Molmenti. Venice: Istituto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2006. Pavić, Milorad. “Plovidbene rute srednjim i južnim Jadranom u izolaru Giusepp- pea Rosaccia” [Navigational Routes on the Middle and Southern Adriatic in Giuseppe Rosaccio’s Viaggio]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 45 (2003): 153-199. Pedani Fabris, Maria. ‘Veneta Auctoritate Notarius’: Storia del Notariato Venezia- no, 1514-1797. Milan: Giuffrè, 1996. Pederin, Ivan. “Appunti e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento.” Studi Veneziani 21 (1992): 323-409. Pederin, Ivan. “Šibenik (Sebenico) nel basso medioevo fino al 1440.” Archivio Storico Italiano 149 (1991): 811-885. Pederin, Ivan. Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409-1797) [The Venetian Administration, Economy, and Politics]. Dubrovnik: Časopis, 1990. Pederin, Ivan. “Die wichtigsten Ämter der venezianischen Verwaltung und der Einfluß venezianischer Organe auf die Zustände in Dalmatien.” Studi Vene- ziani 20 (1990): 303-354. Pederin, Ivan. “Das venezianische Handelssystem und die Handelspolitik in Dal- matien (1409-1797).” Studi Veneziani 14 (1987): 91-177. Bibliography 263

Pederin, Ivan. “Die venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe (XV. und XVI. Jh.).” Studi veneziani 12 (1987): 99-164. Peričić, Šime. Razvitak gospodarstva Zadra i okolice u prošlosti [The Economic De- velopment of Zadar and its Surroundings in the Past]. Zagreb: Hrvatska Aka- demija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Zadru, 1999. Peričić, Šime. “Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Con- tribution to the Study of Agricultural Relations in Venetian Dalmatia]. Radovi HAZU u Zadru 34 (1992): 135-159. Peričić, Šime. Dalmacija uoči pada mletačke Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of the Fall of the Venetian Republic]. Zagreb: Liber, 1980. Petta, Paolo. Despoti d’Epiro e Principi di Macedonia: Esuli albanesi nell’Italia del Rinascimento. Lecce: Argo, 2000. Petta, Paolo. Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia, sec. XV-XIX. Lecce: Argo, 1996. Povolo, Claudio. “The Creation of Venetian Historiography.” In Venice Reconsid- ered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 491-519. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Povolo, Claudio. L’intrigo dell’onere: Poteri e istituzioni nella Repubblica di Ve- nezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Verona: Cierre, 1997. Praga, Giuseppe. Storia di Dalmazia. Varese: Dall’Oglio, 1981. Prajda, Katalin. “Rapporti tra la Repubblica Fiorentina e il Regno d’Ungheria a livello di diplomazia, migrazione umana, reti mercantili e mediazione cultu- rale nell’età del regime oligarchico (1382-1434), che corrisponde al regno di Sigismondo di Lussemburgo (1387-1437).” PhD diss., European University Institute, 2011. Preto, Paolo. I servizi segreti di Venezia: Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima. Milan: Il Saggiatore, 2004. Preto, Paolo. “Relations between the Papacy, Venice and the Ottoman Empire in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent.” InSüleymān the Second and his Time, edited by Halil Inalcık, 195-202. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993. Prodi, Paolo. “Structure and Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 409-430. London: Faber & Faber,1973. Pryor, John H. “The Origins of the Commenda Contract.” Speculum 52, no. 1 (1977): 5-37. Pullan, Brian S. “Service to the Venetian State: Aspects of Myth and Reality in the Early Seventeenth Century.” Studi Secenteschi 5 (1964): 95-148. Puppi, Lionello. Michele Sanmicheli architetto: Opera completa. Rome: Caliban, 1986.

Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1997. 264 Urban Elites of Zadar

Queller, Donald E. The Venetian Patriciate: Reality versus Myth. Urbana: Univer- sity of Illinois Press, 1986.

Ranke, Leopold von. Die Osmanen und die Spanische Monarchie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Dunker & Humblot, 1877. Ranke, Leopold von. Venezia nel Cinquecento: Con un saggio introduttivo di Ugo Tucci. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1974. Raukar, Tomislav. “Croatia within Europe.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cul- tural Survey, edited by Ivan Supičić and Eduard Hercigonja, 2:7-40. London: Wilson, 2008. Raukar, Tomislav, ed. Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku [Studies on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages]. Split: Književni krug, 2007. Raukar, Tomislav. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 14th Century]. In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku, edited by Tomislav Raukar, 69-140. Split: Književni krug, 2007 (originally published in Historijski zbornik 33-34 (1980-1981): 139-209). Raukar, Tomislav. “Jadransko gospodarski sustavi: Split 1475.-1500. godine” [Adriatic Maritime Commerce: Split]. Radovi HAZU, Razred za društvene znanosti 38 (2000): 49-125. Raukar, Tomislav. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor, ljudi, ideje [The Croatian Middle Ages: Spaces, Peoples, Ideas]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997. Raukar, Tomislav. “I fiorentini in Dalmazia nel secolo XIV.”Archivio Storico Ita- liano 153, no. 4 (1995): 657-680. Raukar, Tomislav, Ivo Petricioli, Franjo Švelec, and Šime Peričić. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 1409-1797 [Zadar under the Venetian Administration]. Zadar: Nardoni list, 1987 (Foretić, Dinko, ed. Prošlost Zadra, vol. 3). Raukar, Tomislav. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XV. i u prvoj polovici XVI. stoljeća” [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 15th century and the First Half of the 16th Century]. Historijski zbornik 25 (1982): 43-118. Raukar, Tomislav. “Društvene strukture u mletačkoj Dalmaciji” [Social structures in Venetian Dalmatia]. In Društveni razvoj u Hrvatskoj of 16. od početka 20. stoljeća [Social Developments in Croatia from the 16th to the Beginning of the 20th Century], edited by Mirjana Gross, 103-125. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1981. Raukar, Tomislav. “Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije u XV i XVi st.” [Ven- ice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia in the 15th and 16th Centu- ries]. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977): 203-225. Raukar, Tomislav. Zadar u XV. stoljeću: Ekonomski razvoj i društveni odnosi [Za- dar in the 15th Century: Economic Development and Social Relations]. Za- greb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu – Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1977. Bibliography 265

Raukar, Tomislav. “Zadarska trgovina solju u XIV i XV stoljeću” [Zadar’s Salt Trade in the 14th and 15th Centuries]. Radovi filozofskog fakulteta: Odsijek za povijest Zagreb 7-8 (1969-1970): 19-79. Ravid, Benjamin C. Studies on the Jews of Venice, 1382-1797. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Ravid, Benjamin C. “The Venetian Government and the Jews.” In The Jews of Early Modern Venice, edited by Robert C. Davis and Benjamin C. Ravid, 3-30. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Ravignano, Giorgio. “La conquista veneziana di Corfù.” In Venezia e le isole ionie, edited by Chryssa A. Maltezou, 101-112. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2005. Richard, Jean. “Chypre du protectorat à la domination vénetienne.” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV: Storia, diritto, economia, edited by Agostino Pertusi, 1:657-677. Florence: Olschki, 1973. Ringrose, David R. “Urbanization and Modernization in Early Modern Europe.” Journal of Urban History 24, no. 2 (1998): 155-183. Rismondo, Vladimir. Pomorski Split druge polovine XIV. st.: Notarske imbrevi- jature [The Port of Split around the mid-14th Century: Notarial Manuscripts]. Split: Izdanje Muzeja grada Splita, 1954. Roksandić, Drago. Triplex Confinium ili O granicama i regijama hrvatske pov- ijesti 1500-1800 [On Frontiers and Spaces in Croatian History]. Zagreb: Bar- bat, 2003. Roksandić, Drago, ed. Triplex Confinium (1500-1800): Ekohistorija[Ecohistory]. Split: Književni Krug, 2003. Rothenburg, Günther E. “Venice and the Uskoks of Senj, 1537-1618.” Journal of Modern History 33, no. 2 (1961): 148-156. Rubinstein, Nicolai. “Italian Reactions to Terraferma Expansion in the 15th Cen- tury.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 197-217. London: Fab- er & Faber, 1973. Runciman, Steven. Lost Capital of Byzantium: The History of Mistra and the Peloponnese. London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2009. Runciman, Steven. The Fall of Constantinople 1454. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1965. Runje, Petar. “Lazaret u pregrađu srednjovjekovnog Zadra i njegovi kapelani” [The Suburban Lazaretto in Medieval Zadar and its Chaplains]. Radovi Hrvatska Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Zadru 39 (1997): 81-116. Rösch, Gerhard. Venedig: Geschichte einer Seerepublik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. Rösch, Gerhard. “The Serrata of the Great Council and Venetian Society.” In Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 67-88. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. 266 Urban Elites of Zadar

Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, and Oliver J. Schmitt. “Die Ägäis als Kommunikation- sraum im späten Mittelalter.” Saeculum 56, no. 2 (2005): 215-225.

Sander, Stephan Karl. “Adelige Vermächtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie: Die Testa- mente dalmatinischer nobiles um 1550.” In Die Pein der Weisen: Alter(n) in Ro- manischem Mittelalter und Renaissance, edited by Christoph O. Mayer and Al- exandra-Kathrin Stanislaw-Kemenah, 215-230. Munich: Meidenbauer, 2012. Sanuto, Marino. I diarii. Edited by R. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria. Venice: R. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria, 1879-1903. Sanuto, Marino. Le vite dei dogi. Edited by Angela Caracciolo Aricò and Chiara Frison. Venice: n.p., 2002-2004. Schmitt, Oliver J. Korčula sous la domination de Venise au XVe siècle: Pouvoir, économie et vie quotidienne dans une île dalmate au Moyen Âge tardif. Paris: Collège de France, 2011. Accessed 26 November, 2011. http://conferences- cdf.revues.org/270. Schmitt, Oliver J. “L’apport des archives de Zadar à l’histoire de la Méditerranée orientale au Xve siècle.” In Venise et la Méditerranée, edited by Sandro G. Franchini, Gherardo Ortalli, and Gennaro Toscano, 45-54. Venice: Institut National du Patrimoine – Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2011. Schmitt, Oliver J. “Das venezianische Südosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum (ca. 1400-ca. 1600).” In Balcani occidentali, Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Venedig (13.-18. Jah- rhundert), edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Schmitt , 77-101. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. Schmitt, Oliver J. Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan. Regensburg: Pustet, 2009. Schmitt, “Venezianische Horizonte der Geschichte Südosteuropas.” Südost-Forsc- hungen 65/66 (2006-2007): 87-116. Schmitt, Oliver J. Das venezianische Albanien, 1392-1479. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001. Seneca, Federico. “La penetrazione veneziana in Dalmazia.” Atti e Memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 106 (1993-1994): 31-43. Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976-1984. Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey: Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Slot, Ben J. Archipelagus Turbatus: Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottoman, 1500-1718. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelo- gisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1982. Slukan Altić, Mirela. “Povijest mletačkog katastra Dalmacije” [History of the Ve- netian Cadastre in Dalmatia]. Arhivski vijesnik 43 (2000): 171-198. Bibliography 267

Slukan Altić, Mirela. Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confiniuma [Carto- graphic Sources for the History of the Triplex Confinium]. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 1999. Sperling, Jutta G., and Shona Kelly Wray, eds. Across the Religious Divide: Wom- en, Property, and the Law in the wider Mediterranean, 1300-1800. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Sperling, Jutta G. Convents and the Body Politic in Late Renaissance Venice. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Stanojević, Gligor. Dalmatinske krajine u XVIII. vijeku [The Dalmatian Military Border in the 18th Century]. Zagreb: Prosvjet, 1987. Stanojević, Gligor. Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletačko-turskim ratovima XVI-XVIII vijeka [The South Slavic Lands during the Venetian-Ottoman Wars, 16th-18th Centuries]. Belgrade: Istorijski institut, 1970. Stöckly, Doris. Le système de l’Incanto des galées du marché à Venise: Fin XIIIe – milieu XVe siècle. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Stow, Kenneth R. Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the 16th Cen- tury. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001. Stuard, Susan M. A State of Deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the Medieval Centu- ries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. Suić, Mate. Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu [The Ancient Town on the Eastern Coast of the Adriatic]. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 2003. Suić, Mate. Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in the Old Time]. Zadar: Narodni list, 1981 (Foretić, Dinko, ed. Prošlost Zadra, vol. 1). Supičić, Ivan, and Eduard Hercigonja, eds. Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and Sciences. London: Wilson, 1999-2008. Šanjek, Franjo. “The Church and Christianity.” In Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey, edited by Ivan Supičić, 2:227-258. London: Wilson, 2008. Šarić, Marko. “The Turkish Wars and the Changing Realities of the Lika and Krbava Ecosystems (15th and 16th Centuries).” In Triplex Confinium (1500- 1800): Ekohistorija [Ecohistory], edited by Drago Roksandić, 241-251. Split: Književni krug, 2003. Šimunković, Ljerka. “La politica linguistica della Serenissima verso i possedi- menti ‘di là da mar’: Il caso della Dalmazia.” In Mito e antimito di Vene- zia nel bacino adriatico (secoli XV-XIX), edited by Sante Graciotti, 95-104. Rome: Il Calamo, 2001. Šunjić, Marko. Dalmacija u XV stoljeću [Dalmatia in the 15th Century]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1967.

Tadić, Jorjo. “Venezia e la costa orientale dell’Adriatico fino al secolo XV.” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV: Storia, diritto, economia, edited by Agostino Pertusi, 1:687-704. Florence: Olschki, 1973. 268 Urban Elites of Zadar

Tallett, Frank. War and Society in Early Modern Europe, 1495-1715. London: Routledge, 1992. Teke, Susanna. “Operatori economici fiorentini in Ungheria nel tardo Trecento e primo Quattrocento.” Archivio Storico Italiano 153, no. 4 (1995): 697-707. Tenenti, Alberto. “Il senso del mare.” In Storia di Venezia: Temi: Il mare, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 12:7-76. Rome: Enciclopedia Italiana, 1991. Tenenti, Alberto. “The Sense of Space and Time in the Venetian World of the 15th and 16th centuries.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John. R. Hale, 17-46. London: Faber & Faber, 1973. Tenenti, Alberto. Christoforo da Canal: La marine vénetienne avant Lépante. Pa- ris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1962. Tenenti, Alberto. “I corsari in Mediterraneo all’inizio del Cinquecento.” Rivista Storica Italiana 72 (1960): 234-287. Thiriet, Freddy. La Romanie vénetienne au Moyen Âge: Le développement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénetien. Paris: Boccard, 1959. Thiriet, Freddy. “Venise et l’occupation de Ténedos au XIVe siècle.” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire (1953): 219-245. Traljić, Sead M. “Tursko-mletačke granice u Dalmaciji u XVI. i XVII. stoljeću” [Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia in the 16th and 17th Centuries]. Ra- dovi JAZU u Zadru 20 (1973): 447-457. Traljić, Sead M. “Zadar i turska pozadina od XV do potkraj XIX stoljeća” [Zadar and its Turkish Hinterland from the 15th to the Beginning of the 19th Cen- tury]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 11-12 (1965): 203-227. Traljić, Sead M. “Tursko-mletačko susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini XVII. stoljeća” [Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in Zadar’s Borderlands in the 17th Cen- tury]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 4-5 (1959): 409-424. Triplex Confinium. “Triplex Confinium: Croatian Multiple Borderlands in Euro- Mediterranean Context.” Accessed 11 June 2012. http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/ pov/zavod/triplex/homepagetc.htm. Tucci, Ugo. Mercanti, navi, monete nel Cinquecento Veneziano. Bologna: Il Mu- lino, 1981. Tucci, Ugo. “The Psychology of the Venetian Merchant in the 16th Century.” In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 346-378. London: Faber & Fab- er, 1973. Tucci, Ugo. “Convertabilità e copertura metallica della moneta del Banco Giro veneziano.” Studi Veneziani 15 (1973): 349-448. Tucci, Ugo. “Sur la pratique vénetienne de la navigation au XVIe siècle.” Anna- les: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 13 (1958): 72-86.

Valentini, Giuseppe. “Dell’amministrazione veneta in Albania.” In Venezia e il Le- vante fino al secolo XV: Storia, diritto, economia, edited by Agostino Pertusi, 1:843-910. Florence: Olschki, 1973. Bibliography 269

Valentini, Giuseppe. “Appunti sul regime degli stabilmenti veneti in Albania nel secolo XIV e XV.” Studi Veneziani 8 (1956): 195-265. Vatin. Nicolas. “L’ascension des Ottomans (1451-1512).” In Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, edited by Robert Mantran, 81-116. Paris, Fayard, 1989. Veinstein, Gilles. “Süleymān.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2012. Accessed 29 July, 2012. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/ entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/suleyman-COM_1114. Verlinden, Charles. “The Transfer of Colonial Techniques from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.” In The Medieval Frontiers of Latin Christendom: Expansion, Contraction, Continuity, edited by James Muldoon and Felipe Fernández- Armesto, 1:191-220. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2008. Verlinden, Charles. The Beginnings of Modern Colonization: Eleven Essays with an Introduction. Translated by Yvonne Freccero. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. Vidaković, Josip. “Cultura-Political History of Zadar with Emphasis on History of Printing Book and Script.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Confer- ence of Printing, Design and Graphic Communications Blaž Borović, Zadar September 26th-29th, 2007, edited by Zdenka Bolanča, 15-18. Zagreb: Fa- culty of Graphic Arts, 2007. Viggiano, Alfgredo. “Note sull’amministrazione veneziana in Istria nel secolo XV.” Acta Histriae 3 (1994): 5-20. Visions of Community. “Society, Statehood, and Religion in Late Medieval Dal- matia.” Accessed 11 June 2012. http://sfb-viscom.univie.ac.at/home/project- groups/. Voje, Ignacij. Poslovna uspešnost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Business Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik]. Ljubljana: Znanstveni Inštitut Filozofske Fakultete, 2003. Voje, Ignacij, and Desanka Kovačević, eds. Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik]. Sarajevo: Društvenih nauka, 1976. Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy. New York and London: Academic Press, 1974. Werner, Ernst. Die Geburt einer Großmacht – die Osmanen, 1300-1481. Vienna: Böhlau, 1985.

Žmegač, Andrej. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of the Croatian Adri- atic]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2009. Žmegač, Andrej. “Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Küste.” In Türkenangst und Festungsbau: Wirklichkeit und Mythos, ed. Harald Heppner and Zsusza Barbarics-Hermanik, 129-142. Frankfurt am Main: Internation- aler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2009.