Urban Elites of Zadar Dalmatia and The V PDF

I libri di Viella
156
Stephan Karl Sander-Faes
Urban Elites of Zadar

Dalmatia and the Venetian Commonwealth
(1540-1569)
viella
Copyright 2013 - Viella s.r.l.

Tutti i diritti riservati
Prima edizione: xxxxxxxx 2013
ISBN 978-88-6728-###-#
Questo volume stato pubblicato con il contributo del Dipartimento di Studi

Umanistici dellUniversit di Venezia nel quadro del progetto nazionale di ricerca PRIN 2009 dal titolo Forme di statualit fra medio evo ed et moderna. La dimensione mediterranea e il dominio sulla terraferma nel modello
veneziano.
viella
libreria editrice
via delle Alpi, 32
I-00198 ROMA
tel. 06 84 17 758
fax 06 85 35 39 60
www.viella.it
Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Note on Names and Dates
7
8
10
Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center

by Gherardo Ortalli and Bernd Roeck
11
Introduction
15
1. The Setting
27
27
33
35
37
40
42
1. Venices Maritime State (1358-1570)

2. Administration
3. Economy
4. The Adriatic Context
5. Zara metropoli et chiave
6. Zadar under Venetian Rule (1409-1570)
2. Zadars Society: Geographical Distribution

and Social and Occupational Fault Lines
1. Zadar as Communication Centre
2. Trans-Adriatic Networks in the Sixteenth Century
3. Procuratorial Networking
4. Economic, Legal, and Social Incentives
5. Secular and Ecclesiastical Elites
6. Intellectual Elites
7. Ecclesiastical Activities
3. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites

1. Political Elites: Venetians and the Local Nobility
2. Ecclesiastical Elites: Convents, Hospitals, and Monasteries
3. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities
64
64
66
66
73
76
82
88
111
111
116
126
4. Case Study: Zadars Interwar Property Markets

1. Property Sales
2. Planting Concessions/Land Grants
3. Rental and Leasehold Contracts
5. Urban Elites and Everyday Life

1. Zadars Urban Nobility
2. Geographical and Social Mobility
3. Material Culture
6. Urban Elite Groups and Zadars Urban Landscape

1. Venetians
2. Non-Noble Elites
3. Croats and Jews
4. The Cityscape
Conclusion
143
143
150
156
171
171
171
178
189
190
192
194
198
213
Appendix
Glossary
Units of Measurement
List of Toponyms in Zadars Jurisdiction
Maps
Sample Transcripts
Bibliography
Index
221
222
223
227
230
243
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 Balkans and of Venices Stato da mar in particular; Marko Trogrli, University of
Zadar, and the staff at the Croatian State Archive in Zadar (Dravni 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, University 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 Birmingham, David Starr-Glass, University of Maryland/Empire State College, Sascha
Attia, University of Vienna, and Jose Cceres 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
BZ
c.
f.
s.p.
r
v
m.v.
cap.
tit.
Lib.
Ref.
(Dravni arhiv u Zadru) State Archive in Zadar

(Biljenici Zadra) manuscripts of Zadrani Notaries
(carta) original pagination of archival material
(folio) pagination applied to archival material by archivists
(sine pagina) without pagination
(recto) right-hand page of a manuscript
(verso) left-hand page of a manuscript
(more veneto) the Venetian calendar year starting on 1 March
(capitulum, capitolo) chapter
(titulus) title
(Liber) book
(Reformationes) amendments
Published Sources
Commissiones
Commissiones et Relationes Venetae: Mletaka i

uputstva i izvetaji [Venetian Directives and Reports].
Edited by Simeon Ljubi 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 [Zadars Statute
with all Amendments and New Regulations Adopted
by the Year 1563]. Edited by Josip Kolanovi and Mate
Kriman. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1997.
Abbreviations
Terminology Used
jurisdiction
district
territory
(Contado, county, distrikt) the countryside or hinterlands controlled by an urban centre

(districtus, distrikt) administrative subdivisions of Nin,
Novigrad, and Vrana governed by castellans but subject to Zadars jurisdiction.
(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 Venices 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 Zadars 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.
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 factodependence substituted direct control.
Sander-Faes authoritatively articulates this new interpretation of Venetian historiography and the characteristics of the fragmented and varied
components of Venices 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 Venices 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. Venices separate
peace imposed by Suleiman II the Magnificent brought about the loss of
important centres in the Aegean, the Peloponnese, and Dalmatia where,
in Zaras 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 Venices 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. Venices time as a great power
had ended and after an initial phase of shock and bewilderment, and conscious 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 Venices commercial, maritime, and political interests in the
Adriatic. Zara was the key to Venetian presence in the Adriatic, continuing 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 Venice was able to settle the issue and Zara remained under Venetian control
until the fall of the Republic in 1797.
The books 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
13
events, victories, defeats, or international affairs. The historical contextualisation 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
Zaras 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
Zaras 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 guarantor of security and stability for the inhabitants of Dalmatia during an era of
growing dependence of the peripheries on the fortunes of the centre.
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, Venice 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, lhistoire des Vnetiens scoule sans tre marque par des vnements dignes doccuper la postrit.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 Europes 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 Cambrai, 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 cessation 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 Lombardy. Changes in Venetian society during the sixteenth century, though not
16
visible on the surface, extended beyond matters of foreign policy. What

contemporaries described as the flight from the sea8 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 Venetiancontrolled 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 Venices peripheral possessions in the eastern Mediterranean.15
The history of Venices maritime state along the shores of the Aegean
and Adriatic seas was mostly left to Greek,16 Yugoslav, and later Croatian
scholars.17 Dalmatias 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 Second World War, most Yugoslav scholarship tended to anachronistically
focus on specific ethnic groups.19 These selective interpretations and perceptions of Venetian history served the purposes of national movements in
the second half of the nineteenth century and nationalistic ends during the
first half of the twentieth.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 discourse, most notably in the writings of Freddy Thiriet.21 Second, American 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 Venices 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 Venices 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 Cognac (1526-1530). With the notable exceptions of the Republic of Dubrovnik27 and the Triplex Confinium project initiated by Karl Kaser and Drago
Roksandi 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 Adriatics 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 Zadars urban elites.32 The focus will be
on the city known in the sixteenth century as Zara, the metropoli et chiave33
of Venices Adriatic dual province of Dalmatia and Albania,34 and Zadars
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 Venices 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 Venices rule
over both the Terraferma and the Stato da mar,37 the terminology used
18
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 Dalmatias 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 Dalmatias
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 Zadars 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 Venices representativesmany of whom where patricians of
lower rank and wealth42found themselves in an environment strikingly familiar to them.43 Moreover, they often were required to mitigate the
conflicts between commoners and noblemen while first and foremost representing and safeguarding Venices overarching economic, military, political, and strategic interests.44
The book is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1, entitled The Setting, serves a dual purpose. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the
major developments in Venices 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. Second, 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 identifies the principal actors of Zadars society and their trans-Adriatic connections. The intellectual elites46 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 Zadars 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
Zadars archbishopric, Nins bishopric, the citys 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. Additional consideration is directed at how the citys three main congregationsthe
Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscansinteracted 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, Zadars Interwar Property Markets, examines the developments of Zadars real estate transactions between 1540 and 1569.
Existing scholarship usually emphasises a general downward direction of
Zadars property markets after the Venetian reacquisition in 1409. This
study calls into question that uniform downward trend. Following a brief
introduction based on Tomislav Raukars 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. Chapter5
addresses the geographical and social mobility of Zadars foreigners, examining how they integrated into noble circles. The citys nobles preferred
marriage alliances with families of aristocratic descent from elsewhere in
Dalmatia, but also from farther away. 656 marriage-related contracts have
20
been analysed51 in order to gain a better understanding of what Neven Budak termed the self-identity of the Dalmatian urban nobility with regard
to their willingness to let their sons and daughters marry into other aristocratic circles.52 A brief glance at the material culture of the upper social
stratum concludes the section.53
The final chapter discusses other elite groupscategorised by their
descent, literacy level, or religious affiliationand their interactions with
and integration into Zadars society around the mid-sixteenth century. These groups include Venetians, the citys elite citizens (Grubb), and the
Croat and Jewish communities, which were small but important. Chapter6 first discusses Venetians living in central Dalmatia, working within
or outside the administrative framework of Venices maritime state. Next,
it examines the citys 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 Zadars urban landscape, specifically its divisions, demographical 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 Zadars urban
elites. They investigate economic developments, geography, and social
relations on three levels. The first level examines the geographical range
of Zadars society, covering both shores of the wider Adriatic basin and
their hinterlands. The second level offers an economic case study of the citys 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 Venices governors, legates, and military
commanders. The reports provide a moving image, and notarial records
furnish the soundtrack of the citys 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 Ljubi
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 authors 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 rpublique 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 nellet moderna; Cozzi, Knapton, and Scarabello,
Repubblica di Venezia nellet moderna; Crouzet-Pavan, Venice Triumphant; Hocquet,
Venise et la mer; Lane, Venice; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice; Rsch, Venedig; Franchini,
Ortalli, and Toscano, eds., Venise et la Mditerrane; Tenenti and Tucci, eds., Storia di
Venezia (12 vols.).
5.Gullino, Frontiere navali, 90-95; Gilbert, Crisis of the League of Cambrai, Finlay, Venice Besieged.
6.Introduced by von Ranke as early as 1857 and perpetuated by, among others, Braudel, The Mediterranean, 1:476.
7.Garnier, Lalliance 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 Venetorum; Contarini, The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. On Contarinis legacy,
Gleason, Venice, Rome, and Reform; McPherson, Lewkenors Venice. On Venetian humanist 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; Mol, Comunit dei Lucchesi a Venezia; van Gelder, Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice; Guzzetti, Venezianische Vermchtnisse; Laven, Virgins of Venice, Mschter, 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
16.OConnell, Men of Empire, 11. See also Maltezou, Tzavara, and Vlassi, eds., I
Greci durante la Venetocrazia, and the essays by Karapidakis, Kitromilides, and PapadiaLala in Maltezou and Ortalli, eds., Italia-Grecia.
17.Antoljak, Hrvatski historiografija [Croatian Historiography]; Goldstein, Croatia:
A History; Supii and
Hercigonja, eds., Croatia and Europe; Budak and Raukar, eds., Hrvatski povijest
srednjeg vijeka [Croatian History in the Middle Ages]; Klai, Povijest Hrvata u srednjem
vijeku [History of the Croats in the Middle Ages]; Klai, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom
srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages]; Stanojevi, Dalmatinske krajine [The Dalmatian Military Border]; Lucio, O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske
[On the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia], ed. Kunti-Makvi; Lucius-Lui, Povijesna
svjedoanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Literature], ed. Stipi.
18.Contrast Brunelli, Storia della citt di Zara (first published 1913) with De Benvenuti, Storia di Zara; Praga, Storia di Dalmazia (first published 1954); for commentary, see
Iveti, Dalmazia e Slavi; and Iveti, Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni.
19.Novak, Prolost 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 Conjuncture, and accompanying essays in the Mediterranean Historical Review 16 (2001). On
Fascist uses of Venices past, see Paladini, Venezia e retorica del dominio adriatico.
21.Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge.
22.Martin and Romano, Venice Reconsidered, 5-9; Muir, Was there Republicanism?, 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 Fernndez-Armesto, eds., Expansion of Latin Europe.
24.Balard, ed., Migrations et diasporas mditerranennes; Balard, tat et colonisation; Balard, Coloniser au Moyen ge; 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 dellonere; Cozzi, Stato,
societ e giustizia; Knapton, Nobilit e popolo; Chittolini, Formazione dello stato regionale; Chittolini, Citt, comunit e feudi; Chittolini, Origini dello Stato; Cittolini, The
Private, the Public, the State.
27.Budak, Prilog bibliografiji grada Dubrovnika [Contribution to the Bibliography
of the City of Dubrovnik]; Foreti, Povijest Dubrovnika, [History of Dubrovnik]. See also
the more recent works by osi-Vekari, Dubrovaka vlastela izmeu roda i drava [Dubrovniks Patriciate between Kinship and State]; Dini-Kneevi, Migracije stanovnita iz
junoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik [Migration of Peoples from South Slavic Lands to
Dubrovnik]; Dini-Kneevi, Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and Hungary in the Middle Ages]; Janekovi-Rmer, Marua ili suene ljubavi [Marua or Trial of
Love]; Janekovi-Rmer, Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika [Description of the Slavic City
Introduction
23
of Dubrovnik]; Janekovi-Rmer, Viegradski ugovor [The Visegrd Privilege]; JanekoviRmer, Rod i grad [Kinship and the City]; Kovaevi, Trgovake knjige bra Kabui [Account of Books of the Kabui Brothers]; Kreki, Unequal Rivals; Kreki, Dubrovnik: A
Mediterranean Urban Society; Mahnken, Dubrovaki patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate
of Dubrovnik in the 14th Century]; Miovi, idovski geto u Dubrovakoj Republici [The
Jewish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]; Miovi, Dubrovaka Republika u spisima
osmanskih sultana [The Republic of Dubrovnik in the Documents of Ottoman Sultans];
Miovi, Dubrovaka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovniks Diplomacy in Istanbul]; Stuard,
State of Deference, Voje, Poslovna uspenost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Business Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik]; Voje and Kovaevi, eds., Kreditna
trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik].
28.Iveti, ed., Tolerance and Intolerance; Roksandi, ed., Triplex Confinium;
Roksandi, Ekohistorija. See also Slukan, Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confiniuma [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, OConnell, Men of Empire, 1-15; Grbavac, Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen, 67-68; Ortalli, Beyond the Coast,
10; Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 77-78; Raukar, Komunalna
drutva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeu [Commune Society in Dalmatia in the 14th Century],
78; and the forewords by Roksandi and Iveti in Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 7-9, 11-12.
30.Budak, ed., Raukarov zbornik [Raukars 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, Korula 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://sfbviscom.univie.ac.at/home/project-groups/.
32.On the Adriatic Budak, Urban lites in Dalmatia. For a more general discussion,
see Ganchou, ed., lites urbaines au Moyen ge.
33.In the words of Venices syndic Antonio Diedo, presented to the Senate in 1553.
Commissiones, 3:17.
His co-syndic, Giovanni Battista Giustiniano, expressed a similar sentiment: Zara,
siccome principal citt di quella provintia, medesimamente la chiave di Dalmatia.
Ibid., 3:35.
34.On Venetian Albania, see Ducellier, Faade maritime de lAlbanie; Schmitt, Venezianisches Albanien; Schmitt, Skanderbeg; Valentini, Amministrazione veneta in Albania; Valentini, Stabilmenti Veneti in Albania.
35.E.g., see the 3 vols. of Foreti, ed., Prolost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Vol. 1 covers the citys prehistory to late Antiquity, vol. 2 details the Middle Ages, and vol. 3, Raukar
24
et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom [Zadar under the Venetian Administration], surveys
the second Venetian dominion (1409-1797). See also Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu [Zadar
in the 15th Century].
36.E.g., Brandt, Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu [Wycliffes Heresy and
Social Movements in Split]; Kolanovi, ibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [ibenik in the
Late Middle Ages]; Kovaevi, La Serbie dans lconomie de Venise; Pederin, Appunti
e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento; Pederin, ibenik (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 respublicaand its translation commonwealthoffers us the benefit 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 lites in Dalmatia, 186.
41.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 23-29; Panciera, Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia,; Panciera, Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo; Tralji, Tursko-mletako granice u
Dalmaciji [Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia].
42.Cozzi, Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice, 325-327; Doumerc, Dominio del mare, 167-168; OConnell, Men of Empire, 57-74; Queller, Venetian Patriciate,
51-112.
43.OConnell, Men of Empire, 19; Jacoby, Social evolution in Latin Greece; Jacoby, Colonisation militaire vnetienne de la Crte; Jacoby, Encounter of Two Societies,
On Crete, the exception to Venetian overseas rule (OConnell, Men of Empire, 12), see
McKee, Uncommon Dominion.
44.Anderle, Dalmatien in venezianischer Zeit; Cozzi, Politica del diritto, 250261; Kreki, Developed Autonomy; Novak-Sambrailo, O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna [On the Autonomy of Dalmatian Communes]; Pederin, Mletaka 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 lites in Dalmatia, 188. See also Chapters
2 and 6.
47.Despite the unresolved problems with the term and the dynamic, temporary nature
of communication, Venices 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 Signorias responses. Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 78-82; Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, Die gis als Kommunikationsraum,
217. On the other hand, Schmitt considers quantitative analysis of export licences of utmost importance to the history of Adriatic trade. Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 49. See also Attia, Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir; Kolanovi, ibenik
(contralittere); Raukar, Jadransko gospodarski sustavi [Adriatic Maritime Commerce].
By contrast, OConnell, Men of Empire, 97-118 (Chapter 5, Negotiating Empire), points
to the importance of communication in Venices maritime state, using terms like bargaining (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 Dalmatias 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 lites in Dalmatia, 194-196. For a recent overview anjek,
Church and Christianity.
50.Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 151-196.
51.Including matrimonial contracts and dowry quitclaims.
52.Budak, Urban lites 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, Urban lites in Dalmatia, 197-199. See most recently, Benyovsky, Srednjovjekovni Trogir
[Medieval Trogir]; Dokoza, Dinamika otonog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]; and
Mlacovi, Graani plemii [Citizens and Nobles].
54.On literacy and literary production in Dalmatia, see vol. 2 of Hercigonja, ed., Povijest hrvatske knjievnosti [History of Croatian Literature]; Kreki, Attitude of FifteenthCentury Ragusans towards Literacy; Kreki, Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis; Metzeltin, Variet italiane sulle coste dellAdriatico orientale; Graciotti, Plurilingualismo
letterario e pluriculturalismo; and imunkovi, Politica linguistica della Serenissima.
55.The ubiquity of Jews in Venices maritime state was noted by Arbel, Colonie
doltremare, 974.
56.McKee, Women under Venetian Colonial Rule, 35.
57.Ljubis 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 Mletaka i
Uputstva i izvetaji [Venetian Directives and Reports]. In addition, Ljubi edited 10 vols.
of Listine o odnoajih izmedju junoga slavenstva i Mletaka Republika [Dispatches on the
Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples and the Venetian Republic], which contain
the petitions by Venices subjects in Dalmatia. See also OConnell, Men of Empire, 97-118;
Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 93-100.
26
58.Zadars statutes were codified in 1563 and published in Venice in 1564. The
modern edition by Kolanovi and Kriman, eds., Statuta Iadertina sa svim reformacijama
odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadars Statute with all Amendments and New Regulations adopted by the Year 1563], was published in 1997.
59.In general Kolanovi, Pregled arhivskih fondova [Inventory of the Archival Collections], 1:881-884. See also Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar.
1. The Setting
1. Venices 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 Byzantine 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 Dardanellesand soon spread across vast
stretches of the Mediterranean.7 In the ensuing war and in a strategic departure from previous conflicts, the Genoese fleet advanced into the Adriatic.
28
In an attempt to strangle Venices 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 Venices 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 internecine 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
Adriatics southeastern coast, securing the towns of Durrs, Lzhe, Shkodr, 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 Adriatics 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 Dalmatian 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 ibenik in 1412, followed
by Pag, Vrana, Trogir, Split, Omi, Kotor, and the islands of Bra, Vis, and
Korula in 1420. Hvar was added the following year. The Serbian clan of
the Patrovii, ruling between Budva and Bar, accepted Venetian suzerainty
in 1423.18 These developments coincided with Venices 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 Venices 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 Ankara, Murad II consolidated the realms power and continued his predecessors expansive policies. His successor, Mehmed II, earned the epithet
the Conqueror21 because on 29 May 1453 his troops breached the walls
of Constantinople and put an end to the Byzantine Empire.22 The fall of
Christendoms bulwark23 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
Balkans peninsula, where it subdued Serbia in 1459 and Bosnia in 1463,

eventually reaching Albania.26 In the midst of the Ottoman-Venetian antagonism (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 homelands.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 Peloponnese with the Ionian islands. The war dragged on for another two years
without any other major events, and when the Sultans 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 Venices 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 Sultans
ambitions focused on areas other than Venices maritime state35 before the
larger contest between Emperor Charles V and the French king Franois I
(by virtue of the latters 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
Venicewars of so-called Holy Leagues (1537-1540 and 1570-1573)
resulted in significant losses to the Stato 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. Despite Christendoms 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 citys hinterlands to
mere strip of land miglia tre solamente lontani dalle Citt.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 visibleat
least to Venices subjects along the borders.40 Nevertheless, the long Ottoman-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
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 expansionthe 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 declaring Caterina Cornaro a daughter of St Mark and forcing her to abdicate 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 Venices representatives managed to decrease the price for Ladislaus claims
on Dalmatia by two-thirds.49
Under all circumstances the advantages and disadvantages were deliberated in the Senate before any action was taken. The rationale for the
acquisition of new dependencies was mainly economic and strategic. Potential 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 While some places immediately attracted Venices interest, others did not (but
some of these were incorporated later).51 In each case, once the decision
was taken to expand the respublicas 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 Venices 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 Arbel 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, wherever possible, the hinterlands provided the agricultural basis for the coastal communities. Commercially, Corfufrom whose harbour the trading
convoys spread out into the Mediterranean and beyondwas 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
Venices 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, demarcating 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
ruling patrician merchant elite of Venice became more and more confined
to a small circle of wealthy and politically influential families. Contemporaneously, 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 rebellious. 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 stratiotirecruited 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 Venices 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 citys 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 oarsmenso-called
galeotti of Albanian, Dalmatian, and Greek originadding 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 Sultans 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 elitesthe nobility and the
more affluent commonerswere 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 Genoas 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
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 Venices merchant and military marine power, guaranteed the
respublicas competitive edge.77 The nexus between Venices 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 respublicas opulence during her Imperial Age (Chambers), Venices 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 Empire 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 Venices
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 Venices commercialimperial endeavours were the citys 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 Venices 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 century85 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 Venices 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 staterun 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 Venices opulence. A combination
of geographical, political, and technical disadvantages contributed to the
demise of this regions economic position and the increasing marginalisation of Venices 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 Venetian expansion into the eastern Mediterranean. The Republic of St Mark
intervened in the Hungarian succession crisis to reestablish her author-
38
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. Venices Adriatic dominion covered most communities from Butrint
in present-day southern Albania to the large islands in the Kvarner Gulf.89
Despite a number of superficial differences among the cities and towns
along the oriental littoral of the Adriatic, their underlying structures were
similar. All of these communities exerted some jurisdiction over their surroundings, both on the mainland and the coastal islands. Many of the cities
were also sees of Catholic (arch-) bishoprics. Upon their (sometimes involuntary) incorporation into the Stato da mar, the coastal communes were reorganised according to Venetian interests and placed into the dual province
of Dalmatia-Albania. Its nominal capital, the city of Zadar, commanded a
comparably large hinterland and included the minor fortified towns of Nadin
and Vrana and the minor districts of Nin and Novigrad.90 After the initial
purchase of the rights to Dalmatia in 1409, Venetian expansion progressed
gradually; ibenik was incorporated in 1412, Split was absorbed in 1420,
Omi followed two decades later, and with the takeover of Cres in the Kvarner Gulf in 1480 the reestablishment of Venetian rule was accomplished.91
These developments cannot be separated from Venetian rule elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. The maritime dimension of the Stato
da mar in its entirety must always be kept in mind. The driving force of the
merchant aristocracy of the Rialto was the security of the vital navigation
routes along the eastern Adriatic coastline.92 Venices 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
Venices supply lines and trade routes:97 chi non conserva la citt di Zara,
The Setting
39
wrote the citys governor in the 1540s, MarcAntonio 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, ibenik, and Zadar. While the cities were not immediately threatened, the raids led to increased investments in their fortifications.99 The
subsequent wars between the Ottoman Empire and Venice witnessed further reductions in the agriculturally important hinterlands of many Dalmatians cities. Fighting was mainly concentrated around strategic positions,
many of which were established during Hungarian rule.100 One of these,
Klis, annexed by the Ottoman Empire in 1537, became the centre of regional administration for the eponymous district (sanjak) after the conclusion of the Cyprus War.101 Only through her maritime power was Venice
able to prevent all-out Ottoman assaults on the coastal cities.102
These conflicts constituted an inescapable part of everyday life, the
hardships of which were compounded by the ambiguous and ill-respected
borders.103 In the aftermath of the Cyprus War, these borders were re-demarcated, at times even without the presence of Venetian representatives.104
Given Venices 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 Zadars former captains, Zaccaria Vallaresso,
wrote in 1527 that ogni giorno Turchi sono su le porte de Zara106 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 1570salmost within
shouting distance of the ramparts109many 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 Zadars 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
After the Cyprus War, Venice continued her policy of neutrality regarding the Ottoman Empire and enacted legislation to prevent her subjects
from settling too close to the borders.113 But these efforts and another round
of border revisions (1626) did not solve the underlying problems caused by
insufficient arable land close to the Dalmatian cities. Another factor was
the massive influx of funds used for the enlargement of the fortifications,
and consequently the expansion of their garrisons. This resulted in additional costs to the fiscal chambers of Dalmatias 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
Venices 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 metropoli et chiave117
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, Zadars 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 Zadars 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 Zadars 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 Zadars continental hinterlands. The lowest areas
surrounded the town of Nin and its eponymous bay, which wasand still
isused for the production of salt.
These differing qualities of the mainland territory formed the basis for
two types of agriculture. Red soil was exploited for cultivation of Mediterranean crops like grains, grapevines, and rye. The karst areas, with their
vegetation of low shrub (macchia), were used for animal husbandry, mostly by the transhumance peoples (seasonal shepherds).122 These structural
characteristics had shaped the lives and livelihoods of the inhabitants of
the area since Antiquity. Fertile soil and fresh water meant that most settlements were concentrated in one area. As in other regions of the Mediterranean, many creeks were only seasonal; the longer and permanent streams
were used to power mills.123
While human settlements in Zadars hinterlands date back 5,000 years, the Romans were the first to systematically change the landscape. By
turning the fertile areas into plantations of mostly grapes and olives, and by
constructing aqueducts and irrigation canals, they developed the existing
villages.124 In the Middle Ages there was a renewed use of Roman castles,
roads, and villages around the Catholic bishoprics of Nin, Skradin, and
Zadar.125 It was only after Venice regained control of the area that a first cadastre was compiled in 1420, surveying and enlarging the jurisdiction with
the incorporation of the minor districts of Nin, Novigrad, and Vrana.126
With the ensuing string of wars between the Ottoman Empire and Venice the formers 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 abandonedNadin, Novigrad, Tinj, Vrana, and Zemunik
were reinforced, quickly repopulated, and adapted for military purposes.
This further changed the cultural landscape of Zadars 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
rural population chose to live under the Sultans 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 Zadars jurisdiction. By the time
the new frontiers were agreed upon in 1576 only those settlements close to
fortified places or guard towers were still inhabited. Those who still engaged in agriculture did so within a couple hundred metres of the city walls,
causing additional problems like erosion, loss of top soil, and an increase
in real estate prices.132
6. Zadar under Venetian Rule (1409-1570)
Venetian rule from the late fourteenth century was, in principle, based on additions and amendments to existing administrative and legal institutions. As Gaetano Cozzi and others have demonstrated, this was the
case for newly acquired possessions both in mainland Italy and the eastern
Mediterranean.133 The medieval Byzantine organisation and adherence to
Orthodoxy increased the complexities of Latin rule in the eastern Mediterranean.
In central Dalmatia the territory of Zadars 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 ibenik 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 Ljuba, 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 Zadars 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 Zadars count (comes, conte), who embodied the supreme civilian-judicial
authority. He was assisted by the citys military captain (capiteneus, capitano). These two Venetian officials, usually patricians of lower status and
wealth, nominally outranked the governors and military commanders in Dalmatia and Albania.139 Together they administered an area that exceeded the
citys 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 Zadars 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 Zadars authority, such as Nin, Novigrad, and
Vrana.143
Over the course of the fifteenth century Venice made efforts to unify
most of Dalmatias cities to facilitate their defense and establish a streamlined 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 ruleupholding 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
dars count was considered the first among his peers to govern Dalmatias
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 Zadars count extended over the
citys 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
counts 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 Zadars count employed a gastald (gastaldus) and four public
heralds (praecones), paid out of the communal fiscal chamber. Their duties included the execution of the counts orders, public announcements,
overseeing public auctions, and ecclesiastical obligations.152 The counts
chancellery (cancellaria comitis) organised the day-to-day paperwork, including the office-holders 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 Venices 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 Zadars urban nobility under Venetian rule.157 Comprising 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
(Venices syndics explicitly mention extortion, grand theft, rape, sedition,

and other atrocious instances) the count fa, quanto gli piace, senza tor
il parere dessi.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 courts findings, there was the possibility of petitioning the Court of Appeals (Quarantia) 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 Venices lack of interest in extending her rule over the coastal
hinterlands, the rural organisation of Zadars 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 Zadars 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 citys 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
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 proprietor.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 Dalmatias 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 Venices staple rights
from the 1420s onward constituted a continuous drag on the local economies.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 producefabrics, honey, raisins, wax, and
wool184continued 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 Zadars 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 theftwhose frequency testifies to the weak governance of both the Ottomans and Venice
in their respective peripheral territorieswere 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 suzerains administrative and cultural influences. Subject to the citys jurisdiction were the fortified towns of Ljuba, 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 Venices Adriatic dominions
became increasingly difficult. But the common enemy held the social strata
together and made it easier for the respublicas 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;
Margeti, 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; Jacoby, 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, Byzantium 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, OConnell, Men of Empire, 18-21.
3.See, e.g., Chambers, Imperial Age of Venice, 33-72; Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nellet moderna, 1:177-201; Ducellier, Faade maritime de lAlbanie, 136151; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, 158-161; Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge,
63-349. On Crete specifically, McKee, Uncommon Dominion.
4.Engel, Krist, and Kubinyi, Hongarie mdievale, 2:57-95; Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 157-194; most recently Brkovi, Isprave o Zadarskom miru [Documents concerning the Zadar Peace Treaty]. On the other possessions of medieval Venice, Borsari, Veneziani delle colonie, 146-158.
5.The account follows Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 947-951; Cozzi, Dominio da
mar, 195-201; Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 56-66; Tadi, Venezia e la costa orientale
dellAdriatico, 697-704.
6.Karpov, Impero di Trebisonda; Karpov, Navigazione veneziana nel Mar nero.
7.The account follows Balard, Lotta contro Genova, 101-114; Kreki, Dubrovnik
and the War of Tenedos, Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 524-544; Thiriet,
Venise et loccupation de Tnedos.
8.On the aftermath of the Chioggia War, Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia
nellet moderna, 1:3-8; Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge, 181-349.
48
9.On the Ottoman Empire to the Battle of Ankara, Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 406425; Finkel, Osmans Dream, 1-21; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 7-15; Shaw, History of the
Ottoman Empire, 1:28-40; and Werner, Geburt einer Gromacht, 116-179. A recent bibliographic 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, Faade maritime de lAlbanie,
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 doltremare, 948.
13.Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 499-509; Finkel, Osmans Dream, 22-47; Kastritsis,
Sons of Bayezid; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 16-24; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1:
28-40; Werner, Geburt einer Gromacht, 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 accomplishments see Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 157-194; Engel, Krist, and Kubinyi, Hongarie
mdievale, 2:57-95.
15.Louis daughter with Elizabeth of Bosnia, Mary, married Sigismund of Luxembourg, 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 fathers claims to the crown of St Stephen. Engel, Realm of
St Stephen, 195-243.
16.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 948-949; Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 234; Kreki,
Venezia e lAdriatico, 73-82; Novak, Prolost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia] (2001),
129-131, 137-144.
17.These islands were Cres, Osor, and Rab. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 948;
Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 81-82.
18.Also, Pylos was added in 1421, Thessaloniki in 1423, and the commune of Poljica
in the vicinity of Omi in 1443. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 948-949.
19.Venetian control of Thessaloniki (1423-1430) resulted in the first Ottoman-Venetian war and the loss of the city. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 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 Venices Terraferma possessions in 1441. See Rubinstein, Italian Reactions to Terraferma Expansion.
20.The account follows Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 3-63; Fine, Late Medieval
Balkans, 499-611; Finkel, Osmans Dream, 22-80; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 25-39; Shaw,
History of the Ottoman Empire, 1:12-40; Vatin, Ascencion des Ottomans, Werner, Geburt
einer Gromacht, 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, Krist, and Kubinyi, Hongarie mdievale, 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 lexil. 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, Osmans 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 diterranennes, esp. the contributions by Doumerc and Ganchou. See also Ducellier et al., Chemins de lexil, 115-220; and Petta, Despoti dEpiro 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 dEpiro e Principi di Macedonia, 27135; and Schmitt, Skanderbeg, 291-320.
28.As was Cervia, south of Ravenna, in the previous year. Arbel, Colonie
doltremare, 949.
29.Arbel, Cyprus, the Franks and Venice; Arbel, Reign of Caterina Corner; Cozzi
and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nellet moderna, 1:61-63; Hill, History of Cyprus,
3:657-764; Richard, Chypre du protectorat la domination vnetienne.
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 doltremare, 947- 949; Lock, Franks in the Aegean, 155-160; Loenertz, De quelques les grecque,; Slot, Archipelagus turbatus, 35-87.
31.The account follows Gullino, Frontiere navali, 90-95.
32.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 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 nellet 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 Mohcs, 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, Osmans Dream, 115-151; Imber, Ottoman Empire, 42-53; Veinstein,
Sleymn. 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 Emperor 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 doltremare, 951.
For a contemporary accounts of the fighting, see Francesco Longos Descrizione della
50
guerra seguita tra la serenissima republica di Venetia e sultan Solimano imperator de Turchi
lanno 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 doltremare, 951; Cozzi and Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia
nellet 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 Venices Albanian and Venetian possessions in 1576. Commissiones, 4:161-185, here 176. Zemunik, today home to
Zadars 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, Drutvene strukture u mletakoj Dalmaciji [Social Structures in Venetian Dalmatia], 103. The first Ottoman incursions into the western Balkans and neighbouring Croatia
occurred as early as 1415. Zadars jurisdiction was eventually reached by raiding parties in
1432. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 66-72;
Tralji, Zadar i turska pozadina [Zadar and its Turkish Hinterland], 203-204.
41.Arbel suggests three phases of Venetian overseas possessions: expansion (1381-146379), 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 doltremare, 951.
42.Ortalli, Beyond the Coast, 23.
43.Cozzi and Knapton speak of venezianizzazione of the maritime state. Cozzi and
Knapton, Repubblica di Venezia nellet moderna, 1:191. See also Arbel, ed., Intercultural
Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean; Jacoby, Social Evolution in Latin Greece; Jacoby, Colonisation militaire vnetienne de la Crte; Jacoby, Encounter of Two Societies;
Kreki, 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 doltremare, 951.
45.OConnell, Men of Empire, 25-27; Slot, Archipelagus turbatus, 35-87.
46.Fine, Late medieval Balkans, 406-452.
47.As were the cities of Shkodr, Ulcinj, Bar, and Budva. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 951. See further, Ducellier, Faade maritime de lAlbanie, 490-509; Schmitt, Venezianisches 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 doltremare, 951.
49.Down from Ladislaus initial offer of 300,000 to 100,000 ducats. Kreki, Venezia
e lAdriatico, 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 OConnell to comment
that [t]he Venetians wanted an Adriatic empire, but at the least possible cost. On the
communicative nature of entering Venices dominions, OConnell, Men of Empire, 27-31
(quote on 31).
The Setting
51
50.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 964. Interestingly, the same reference appears in

OConnell, 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 doltremare, 952; Kreki,
Venezia e lAdriatico, 66-79; OConnell, Men of Empire, 30; Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 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, ibenik, and Trogir. OConnell,
Men of Empire, 32-33. For the extensively documented example of Korula, Orlando, Accordi von Curzola, esp. 54-75. However, communication worked both ways, a point made
recently by Schmitt, Sdosteuropa 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, Colonization, 1-18; Georgopoulou, Venices 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 Periphery, 86. On Istria, Iveti, Oltremare, 21-47; Viggiano, Amministrazione veneziana in
Istria. On Dalmatia, Matrovi, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji [Development of the Judicial
System in Dalmatia], 11-17.
55.The account follows Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 954-979; Knapton, Fisco nello stato veneziano, 23; and the commentary thereof by OConnell, Men of Empire, 22-33.
56.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 959-964; Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 1933; Costantini, Isole ionie nel sistema marittimo veneziano; Ravegnani, Conquista veneziana di Corf; Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge, 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 podest or chief magistrate in Italy (in geographical terms), which then also comprised Istria. Arbel, Colonie
doltremare, 954; Cozzi, Ambiente veneziano, ambiente veneto, 302.
58.Chojnacki, Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice, 268-269; Cozzi, Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice, 325-327; Doumerc, Dominio del mare, 164178; OConnell, 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 Jelavi.
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
63.The major centres throughout the Stato da marHeraklion (Candia) and Souda
in Crete, Corfu, and the Dalmatian cities of ibenik and Zadarwere fortified during the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For a general discussion, Georgopoulou, Venices Mediterranen 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, mega, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of
the Croatian Adriatic], 29-71, 189-190; mega, Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Kste; and Mocellin, Citt 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 citys fiscal chamber ha de intrade ognanno de datii,
incanti, livelli sal da Pago, sopra abbondante da Cherso, 9,175 ducati et pi 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 Venices willingness to spend this amount of
money over such short a period of time. Commissiones, 3:165. On expenditures from 15661569, Mocellin, Citt 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 doltremare, 967-968.
68.Over the course of the sixteenth century, Venice, while still at least partially relying 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 limitwhich does not come as a surprise given
the fact that about half of the Holy Leagues 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; Jtte, Zeitalter des Geheimnisses, 93-125. On Venice in particular, Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 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 doltremare, 974-976; and Prodi, Organization of the Church in Renaissance Venice. On Dalmatia more specifically, anjek,
Church and Christianity.
71.Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge, 287-291, 403-410, 429-435.
72.E.g., Commissiones, 2:191 (Koper), 197 (Zadar), 204-205 (ibenik), 208 (Trogir),
215 (Split), 227 (Ulcinj), 231 (Bar). See also Pederin, Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens 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 doltremare, 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 doltremare, 976-979; Doumerc, Dominio

del mare; Fasano Guarini, Comment naviguaient les galres; and Thiriet, Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge, 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; Stckly, Systme de lIncanto; and Valentini, Stabilmenti 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 galres, 295-296.
79.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 977; Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 71; Lane,
Venice, 367-374; Tenenti, Christoforo de Canal, 76; Tucci, Pratique vnetienne 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, Nafplios 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 doltremare, 978. Commissiones, 2:197.
82.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 978-979; OConnell, Men of Empire, 27-31.
83.See Wallerstein, Modern World-System, 1:15-17 (quote on 16); OConnell, 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 todays 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 Venices economic power in the hands of a limited number of patrician families.
Chojnacki, Kinship Ties and Young Patricians, 246; Doumerc, Dominio del mare, 151154; 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
direct competition by Dutch, English, French, and merchants from Dubrovnik. Doumerc,
Dominio del mare, 178. On societal and political changes, Chojnacki, Identity and Ideology 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; OConnell, 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); Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 79-82; and OConnell, Men of Empire, 27-30.
89.The account follows Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 961-963; Cozzi, Politica del
diritto, 250-261; Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 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.OConnell, Men of Empire, 29-30.
91.Bin, Questione Adriatica, 13-31; Cozzi, Dominio da mar, 198; Seneca, Penetrazione veneziana in Dalmazia; Tadi, Venezia e la costa orientale dellAdriatico;
unji, Dalmacija u XV stoljeu [Dalmatia in the 15th Century].
92.For an account of a voyage from Venice to Istanbul, written by Giuseppe Rosaccio
around 1600, Pavi, Plovidbene rute srednjim i junim Jadranom [Navigational Routes
on the Middle and Southern Adriatic].
93.Ortalli, Beyond the Coast, 23. See also Raukar, Drutvene srukture u mletakoj
Dalmaciji [Social Structures in Venetian Dalmatia], 103.
94.The first Ottoman incursions into the Kingdom of Croatia occurred in 1415. Raukar, Croatia within Europe, 28.
95.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 6672; Tralji, Zadar i turska pozadina, 203-204.
96.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 24; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 Sultans 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 mletakom
upravom, 178; Stanojevi, Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletako-turskim ratovima [The South
Slavic Lands during the Venetian- Ottoman Wars], 11-51; mega, 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 mletakom 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, Prolost Dalmacije (2004),
1:168-169.
102.Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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; Tralji, Tursko-mletako granice u Dalmaciji, 451-453; and Tralji,
Tursko-mletako susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini [Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in
Zadars Borderlands], 409-419.
104.Panciera, Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia, 246-262.
105.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 27.
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 Otrovica (1523), Karin (1524), and Obrovac (1527). Consequently, the
villages located nearby these places had to be abandoned for security reasons. Commissiones, 1:171; Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 960-962; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom
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; Tralji, Tursko-mletako 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 Sukoan (Porto dOro, San Cassiano), located c. 10 km away from Zadar. Commissiones, 4:370-378.
111.Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 367; Anzulovi, Razgranienje
izmeu mletake 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
quantit. He also noted that much potential for export-oriented olive oil production existed in the vicinity of Zadarbut also that the olive trees, cut down during the OttomanVenetian war of 1537-1540, had not been replanted. Consequently, non si fa pi 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 MarcAntonio 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
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 surpluses used to help pay for the fortifications of Bar, Kotor, Split, ibenik, and Zadar, whose
balance sheets were negative. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 960; Bacchion, Dominio veneto su Corfu, 53-54; Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 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).
118.Prior to the war, the jurisdiction was larger, more populous, and comprised 280
minor villages. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 960; Pederin, Handelssystem und Handelspolitik in Dalmatien, 96-101; Pederin, Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre
Organe, 117-118. The numbers are from Giovanni Battista Giustinianos report (1553)
in Commissiones, 2:199. See also Zaccaria Vallaressos 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, Bokanjako Blato. Mayhew, Contado di
Zara, 92-93.
122.ari, 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 centurywith the war in former Yugoslavia 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; Sui, Antiki grad na istonom Jadranu [The
Ancient Town on the Eastern Adriatic Coast], 95; Sui, Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in
Antiquity], 18, 95.
124.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 97-98; Sui, Zadar u starom vijeku, 38-39, 62-65.
125.Goldstein, upanije u ranom srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj [Croatias Counties
in the early Middle Ages], 16-17; Novak, Prolost Dalmacije (2004), 1:93-94; Sui, Zadar
u starom vijeku, 54. On agricultural production (mostly grains, grapes, and livestock farming) after 1409, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 stoljea [Zadars
15th-Century Cadastre], 391; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 126-127; Slukan Alti, Povijest
mletakog 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 OttomanVenetian borders in Dalmatia. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 67-70. See also
Anzulovi, O opstojnosti hrvatskog puanstva [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. Knapton, Stato da mar, 356-357; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 101; Raukar et al., Zadar pod
mletakom upravom, 186-187.
129.Some local nobles like the Pechiaro (Pekari) in Polinik or the Venier in Zemunik 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. Anzulovi, O opstojnosti hrvatskog puanstva, 271, 305; Jaki, 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 mletakom upravom, 235, 372.
130.Those who remained under Venetian rule stayed in their villages if they could be
defended. Examples include Ljuba, Posedarje, and Radovin. In the case of Raanac, the
inhabitants moved their village to a more defensible location nearby. Anzulovi, O opstojnosti hrvatskog puanstva, 297, Jaki, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi, 206-207;
Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 367.
131.Mocellin, Citt fortificata di Zara, 29-40; mega, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 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
mletakom upravom, 379-380. On real estate prices in the 15th century see Raukar, Zadar
u XV. stoljeu, 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,
Iveti, Oltremare, 21-47; and Viggiano, Amministrazione veneziana in Istria. On Dalmatia, Matrovi, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji, 11-17.
134.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 142. See also Goldstein, upanije u ranom srednjem
vijeku u Hrvatskoj, 14-15.
135.Pederin, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 14; Novak-Sambrailo, O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna.
136.Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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.
139.OConnell, Men of Empire, 29-30.
140.Which also contained the most fertile lands close to the city properand a constant source of revenue for the fiscal chamber. Sui, Zadar u starom vijeku, 95.
141.The account follows Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 146-150.
142.Ibid., 146.
58
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 Dalmatias 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 Adriatics eastern coast. Quoted after Kreki, Developed Autonomy, 185.
See also Pederin, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 17.
145.The account follows Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 971-974; Cozzi, Politica
del diritto, 241-254; Kreki, Developed Autonomy; Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt,
113-116; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 150-156; Matrovi, Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji, 1117; Novak-Sambrailo, O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna; Ortalli, Entrar nel dominio,
52- 54; Pederin, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 17; OConnell, Men of Empire, 2733; and Schmitt, Sdosteuropa 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. Knapton, Stato da mar, 328; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 150-156.
147.Captains or castellans were in command of the military dispatched to guard Venices overseas possessions. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 964-970. See also OConnell 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;
OConnell, Men of Empire, 57- 74; and Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 51-112.
149.Pederin, Mletaka 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 Giustiniano refers to Hieronymi Delphini as Zadars captain. HR DAZD 31 Biljenici 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 doltremare, 972; Commissiones, 2:198. See also Girolamo
Dolfins 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, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 115; Pederin, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 14, 51, 61, 105-106;
Perii, Dalmacija uoi pada mletake Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of the Fall of the
Venetian Republic], 34-39; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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.Kreki, Developed Autonomy, 188-192; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 301-306.
155.Especially given the citys seven prior rebellions against Venice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 163; Raukar et al., Zadar pod
mletakom upravom, 402. For a sixteenth-century reference of Zadars prior rebellions
against Venetian rule, Commissiones, 2:193-194.
156.On the petitions of Dalmatian cities to Venice after 1409, most recently OConnell,
Men of Empire, 97-118; and Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 78-82.
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 Kreki, Developed Autonomy, 196-197; Malz,
Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 114-115; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 369;
and Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 90-100.
161.Lib. II, tit. I, cap. 8: De causarum seu litigiorum forensium personarum expeditione; 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 Zadars cobbler guild.
Klai, Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra.
166.Pederin, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 15.
60
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, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 21; Raukar et al., Zadar pod
mletakom upravom, 49.
172.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 228-229. On the Venetian impact on Dalmatian agriculture, see Perii, Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa [Contribution to the Knowledge
of Agricultural Relations], 138.
173.See Giorgetti, Contadini e proprietari nellItalia 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 landlords. 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.
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; Perii, 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. Zadars citizens were granted Venetian
citizenship only de intus. Cozzi, Dominio da Mar, 201; Mueller, Aspects of Venetian
Sovereignty, 47-48; OConnell, Men of Empire, 28.
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 Zadars salt production in particular, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 85-88; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu,
214-219, 281-297; and Raukar, Zadarska trgovina solju [Zadars Salt Trade].
The Setting
61
183.E.g., Pags salt production declined by c. 90% over the fifteenth century. Raukar
et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 85-88; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 281-297.
184.Knapton, Stato da mar, 365, 368; Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 246-262.
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 mletakom upravom, 356-359; Mayhew, Contado di
Zara, 256.
188.Kaiser, ed., Le commerce des captifs.
2. Zadars Society: Geographical Distribution

and Social and Occupational Fault Lines
1. Zadar as Communication Centre

Over the half-century following the peace of Zadar (1358), Dalmatias
coastal communities and their jurisdictions were integrated into the larger
economic and political framework of the domains of Louis I of Hungary.1
Louiss rule encouraged business with Florentine bankers and merchants,
resulting in increased trans-Adriatic commerce and investment.2 Given
Dalmatias advantageous geographic location between Florence and Hungary, 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
Louiss 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). Venices 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
Ever since the armies of Mehmed II had stormed the ramparts of Constantinople 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 citys 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 Balkans, contributed significantly to the population growth of Dalmatias 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
Zadars elites left for cities along the eastern littoral of the Apennine peninsula.15 Continuous integration of immigrants into Dalmatias 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 respublicas control decreased significantly. The Cyprus War, in
particular, altered the situation drastically as most of Venices possessions
along the eastern coast of the Adriatic were reduced to small strips of land.
Zadars 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 Dalmatias cities remained relatively small
and static during the late medieval and early modern period, especially
compared to wider European trends.18
Zadars 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. Zadars 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
Zadars 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 Paman 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 Zadars 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 Zadars 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
2. Trans-Adriatic Networks in the Sixteenth Century

For most of their early medieval past Dalmatias cities were (at least
nominally) under Byzantine suzerainty. As the Empires 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 exchangemercantile or otherwisebetween 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 Zadars statutes to enforce the formers 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 ibenik during the
first half of the sixteenth century caused the redirection of trade routes.34
When Venice followed Daniel Rodrigas suggestions and sought to enlarge
Splits 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 mobility38 so characteristic of Venetian society,
more inclusive sets of data must be examined.
3. Procuratorial Networking
To gain a more nuanced picture of Zadars 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
Zadars 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 Dalmatias 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 citys 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
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 Venices 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 Ari Malz, these networks
can be assessed on three levels: local, regional, and supra-regional.48 As
summarised above, local describes activities occurring within Zadars 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 Venices 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)
1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
225
330
375
930
% of Totalb
24
36
40
100
Latinc
225
329
347
901
Constituentsd
51
83
102
236
Procuratorse
5
6
9
20
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, 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.
Zadars Society
69
Table 2: Geographical Origins of the Contracting Parties (Overview, 1540-1569)

Local Provenancea
Regional Provenanceb
Supra-Regional Provenancec
Venice, Terrafermad
Rest, n/ae
1540s
177
16
7
4
21
1540s
145
33
8
16
23
1550s
257
24
9
15
25
1550s
198
38
15
42
37
1560s
310
18
5
9
33
1560s
191
51
21
63
49
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, 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 Zadars jurisdiction.
(b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from within Venices Adriatic dual
province. In Venetian Albania: Bar (Antibari), Kotor (Catharo), and Perast (Perasto). In
Venetian Dalmatia: Bra (Brachia, Brazza), Cres (Cherso), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Korula
(Chorzula, Corcira), Krk (Vegla), Omi (Almissa), Osor (Aussero), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe),
Selce (Selza), Split (Spalato), ibenik (Sibenico, Sibinico), Trogir (Tragurij), Novi Vinodolski (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 (Justinopolis), Labin (Albona), Loborika (Loborica), Motovun (Motouinschina), Pore (Parentio), Pula (Pola), Serbar, Sv Lovre (Sancti Lourec), and Vinjan (Visunato). In Ionian Sea:
Corfu, Kefalonia (Cephalonia), Nafplio (Nauplia), and Zakynthos (Hiacynthi, Zante). In
Apennine peninsula: Ancona, Alta Badia (alla Badia), Bari, Bologna, Castel SantAngelo,
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, Chioggia, Cividale del Friuli, Crema, Murano, San Grande del Friuli, Trecenta, and Udine.
(e) Number per decade of contracting parties from unidentifiable, unlisted, infrequentlylisted (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
Zadars 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
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 Zadars jurisdiction.51 Second, the
citys suburban settlements were razed in 1570 to allow construction of
additional massive fortifications. This further reduced the number of individuals residing outside Zadars city walls (Table 2.1).52
Table 2.1: Origins of the Constituents within Zadars Jurisdiction (1540-1569)
1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Zadarb Territoryc

Actsa
225
135
5
330
229
1
375
268
2
930
632
8
Jurisdictiond
Nine
Novigradf
Islandsg
6
11
14
31
14
13
11
38
4
1
10
15
13
2
5
20
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. For the territorial categories, see Raukar,
Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 citys territory: Bibinje (Bibigne),
Diklo (Diclo), Gladua (Gladussa), the Lazareto (lazarettum), the suburban settlements.
(d) Number per decade of constituents residing in Zadars jurisdiction, excluding the minor
districts of Nin and Novigrad: Brda (Berda), (Chuchagl), Draevac (Drazevac), Jelsa (Jelsa),
Kamenjani (Chamegnani), Miljaka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Nadin (Nadino), Opai
(Opatizaselo), Podi (Podi), Pokaljine (Poscaglina), (Priticeuci), Raanac (Rasance), Rogovo
(Rogovo), Smokovi (Smochovich), Sukoan, San Cassiano (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i
Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Tinj (Tinj), Turanj (Turretta), Varikaane (Varichassane),
Trci (Tersci), originally located in the dictrict of Vrana.
(e) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Nin: akavci (Chiacavci),
erinci (Cerinci), Ljuba (Gliube), Nin (Nona), Podvrje, Vri (Poduerie), Privlaka
(Bevilaqua), Zaton (Zaton).
(f) Number per decade of constituents residing in minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj,
Koruplje (Corpuaglie), Novigrad (Novigrado), Posedarje (Posedaria), Reane (Regiane).
(g) Number per decade of constituents residing on the islands: Dugi Otok (Isola Grossa/
Lunga), I (Eso, Exo), Molat (Melada), Paman (Pasmano), Silba (Selba), Ugljan (Ugliano).
Zadars Society
71
Table 2.2: Origins of the Procuratorial Appointees (Overview, 1540-1569)
1540s
1550s
1560s
Local
Provenancea
72
75
58
205
Regional
Supra-Regional
Provenanceb
Provenancec
40
13
59
20
78
34
177
67
Venice,
Terrafermad
38
82
110
230
Rest, n/ae
62
94
95
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 in Italics. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.
(a) Number per decade of local contracting parties (from within Zadars jurisdiction).
(b) Number per decade of regional contracting parties from Venices Adriatic dual province.
In Albania: Bar (Antibari), Perast (Perasto), and Kotor (Catharo). In Venetian Dalmatia:
Bra (Brachia, Brazza), Cres (Cherso), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Korula (Chorzula, Corcira),
Krk (Vegla), Omi (Almissa), Osor (Aussero), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe), Split (Spalato),
ibenik (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), Pore (Parentio), Pula (Pola), Serbar, Sv Lovre (Sancti
Lovrec), Vinjan (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, infrequentlylisted (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
Table 2.3: Destinations within Venices Adriatic Possessions (1540-1569)

Destinations
Krk
Cres, Osorc
Rab
Pag
Zadar
ibenik
Trogir
Split
Omi
Bra
Hvar
Bra, Hvar, Visd
Korula
Kotor
Perast
Bar
No. of Actsa
17
8
19
18
205
49
14
6
3
6
17
4
7
7
1
1
382
Greater Areab
Kvarner Gulf
Kvarner Gulf
Kvarner Gulf
Kvarner Gulf
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Dalmatia
Albania
Albania
Albania
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, 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 Venices Adriatic dual province.
(a) Number of acts stipulated in each city.
(b) Possible regional centres of procura-related communication in Venices 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,
Zadars 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 Zadars 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 ibenik, 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 Venices 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 GulfKrk, Cres,
Osor, and Rabattracted 44 appointees or a combined share of c. 12%
of the procuratorial appointees. All places to ibeniks southeast were
the destination of 66 procurators or c. 17% (this comprises Trogir, Split,
Omi, the island communities of Bra, Hvar, Vis, and Korula, 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 ibenik (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 ubiquitous assignment was the recovery of outstanding money, as the following
examples amply demonstrate. We learn of artisans who relocated and requi-
74
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 constituents
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. Consider the following examples: In mid-October of 1557, Joannes Durcich
de Aussero [(Osor], a discharged oarsman, appointed Reverendum dominum Georgium Matassouich, Archipresbytrum ruralem diocesis Nonensis [Nin] to recover outstanding payments for the formers 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 Baduario [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 provinciae fratrium minorum tertij ordinis Sancti Franciscj de observantia.
Zadars 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 constituents testament, though
the citys statutes provided for the possibility of substituting the guardian
with someone else.63 Keeping this substitution provision open was important64 since differences that might arise over who inherited what could lead
to prolonged legal conflicts decades later.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 settlementsnot inheritance concernswere the predominant 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 wifes 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
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. Examples of social assignments include, for instance, the appointment of procurators with a high social position to attend the baptism of a Venetian patricians
child in Venice. In February of 1558, spectabilis dominus Franciscus Thomaseus Civis Jadre, one of Zadars public notaries, sought representatives
who would act on his behalf ad Sacrum baptismatis fontem filiolum vel
filiolam nascitutum et nascituram celeberrimi domini Marci Antonij Cornelij [Corner] Patritij Veneti et eius cellberrima uxoris. 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 Zadars 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 [Portobuffol], familiarem Celeberrimi domini Paulj Theupuli
[Tiepolo] dignissimi oratoris Serenissimi Domini venetj apud Regem Romanorum. 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 parties, the next task is to survey the integration of these parties within the
social fabric of sixteenth-century Dalmatia. This chapter deals with the
Zadars 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 Zadars society were usually given the adjective Reverend (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, Zadars nobility made up the single largest social group appointing representatives. It is interesting to note that
the citys 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 groupsartisans, merchants, and other presumably literate individualsremained 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 Venices 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 continuation of Venetian rule in Dalmatia in the face of constantly increasing pressure (whether perceived or experienced) from beyond the borders of the
respublica (Table 3).76
As Table 3, belove, indicates, the percentage of urban residents of Zadar increased from roughly 60% in the 1540s to more than 70% in the
78
Table 3: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Constituents (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse
1540s
1550s
1560s
63
( 14)
122
( 30)
129
( 39)
314
( 83)
22
(16)
53
(7)
49
(7)
124
(30)
19
(6 )
14
(4 )
20
(11 )
53
(21 )
22
(2)
47
(10)
76
(19)
145
(31)
7
15
11
33
Intellectual
Elitesf
15
(7)
22
(10)
31
(11)
68
(28)
Rest, n/ag
77
57
59
193
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Toponyms below are listed according to
their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). The
bottom line gives the three-decade totals. The numbers in parentheses refer to the specified
sub-categories in the respective columns.
(a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from the following places:
Venice, Krk (Vegla), Rab (Arbe), Pag (Pago), Zadar (Jadra), ibenik (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 lites in Dalmatia, 188. See also Chapter 6.
(g) Number per decade of constituent parties belonging to none of the above groups.
Zadars Society
79
1560s. As insecurity in the rural areas of Zadars 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
Venices officials and the ensuing militarisation discussed above.
In addition to these phenomena, it is interesting to note that neither
Zadars 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 Venices maritime state: de Venetiis,82 de Bergomo (Bergamo),83 de Sebenico (ibenik),84 and de Castro Nigra de Curcula (Korula).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, Zadars merchant community is represented in the
procuratorial records in smaller numbers:86 only 43 individuals could be
identified. They originated from both within and without the Stato da mar.
In the former category, cities like Venice,87 ibenik,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 Zadars mercantile community: Pontremoli was the ancestral town of Lazarus de Gnochis de Pontremulo. He was one of Zadars
wealthiest individuals who, in addition to having an important role among
the citys citizenry, profited from extensive commercial ties to Venice and
the Apulian coastal town of Bari.93 Ljubljana, on the other hand, was significant because it was the hometown of ser Andreas Postner de Gliubgliana, a merchant-turned-citizen of Zadar who operated out of central
Dalmatia from the 1550s onward.94
These examples demonstrate a high degree of geographical mobility. This mobility was closely tied to the flow of goods, money, services,
and human labour in the form of employment opportunities. The need for
artisans skilled in carpentry, masonry, metalworking, and other crafts is
80
evident. These craftsmen were required to improve fortifications or serve

Venices increasing military needs from the mid-1560s onward.95 However, when Zadars 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 citt si attrova in stato tale che non ci si facendo presta provisione,
contracted magistro Hieronymo quondam Zuane Boccanich de Pucischie
[Puia] villa della Brazza [Bra], et magistro Piero quondam Zuan Ueloxa da Cherso [Cres] habitante a Curzola [Korula] Taiapiere, both masterstonecutters. The captain obliged them to obtain all the required stones
for the loggias reconstruction from the quarry near Kamenjani, a village
within Zadars jurisdiction. The two artisans received up-front 60 ducats
for their work, which was vouched for by one of the citys 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 documents concluding
clauses the two artisans agreed to start working within 15 days of the notarial acts ratification.96 These examples demonstrate that the high degree
of geographical mobility suspected by John Martin and Dennis Romano
was not restricted to the upper strata of Venetian society.97
Let us now turn to the individuals upon whom the procuratorial duties were bestowed (Table 3.1, below). Significant shifts can be identified
among the appointees. On average the proportion of appointees deriving
from the nobility increased by a quarter. About 52% of all individuals
entrusted with procuratorial assignments were of privileged descent. However, as Table 3.1, below, indicates, the most profound changes in the
stipulating pattern concern a different social and occupational group: the
intellectual elites (see also below and Chapter 6). Defined as literate individuals of both noble and non-noble descent,98 and identified in the documents by references to their education, these appointees represent almost
a threefold greater percentage than constituent parties from this group; c.
21% of appointees derive from this category (compared to c. 7% among
the constituent parties).
Another obvious conclusion is that while on average women made up
a quarter of all constituent parties (c. 25%), their corresponding percentage among the procuratorial appointees was a meagre 2%. The fact that all
but three female constituents appointed male representatives indicates that
the women showed no bias toward their own gender in making the appoin-
Zadars Society
81
Table 3.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of the Procurators (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual
Elitesf
1540s
80
22
18
13
3
63
(8)
(6)
(21)
1550s
137
29
15
17
11
61
( 5)
(2)
(5)
(27)
1560s
143
32
18
30
17
72
( 3)
(2)
(10)
(33)
360
83
51
60
31
196
( 8)
(12)
(21)
(81)
Rest, n/ag
26
60
63
149
Sources: unless indicated otherwise, see note 45. Toponyms below are listed according to
their present-day name, followed by the name as listed in the sources (in parentheses). The
bottom line gives the three-decade totals.
(a) Number per decade of constituent parties of noble descent from the following places: Venice, Vicenza, Cividale del Friuli, Cres (Cherso), Krk (Vegla), Rab (Arbe), Pag (Pago), Zadar
(Jadra), ibenik (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.
tments. One of these women dona Clara filia quondam ser Dominici de
Petrogna de Justinopolis (Koper), who was referred to as mulier sui juris
and who tasked donam Marietam eius sororem uxorem ser Nicolai Mirogogno de Justinopolj with collecting outstanding payments from unnamed
individuals in Labin and Koper. The fact that the appointee, herself residing
in the Istrian town, was geographically much closer to these cities than the
constituent, helps in explaining one of the main reasons for the appointment:
geographical proximity. In addition to this consideration, Marieta was to be
trusted because she was Claras sister, presumably possessed of connections
within Venetian Istria and potentially enjoying the support of her husband.99
82
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 mothers 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, Margaritas late husband had served in the military and Venices failure to pay him was the reason for the appointment. The appointee
was tasked with obtaining omnem et quascumquem quantitatem, quam
ipse quondam ser Joannes habere debeat de ratione servitutis per eum prestitae et facte in Brighentino patrono ser Nicolao Novello. The naming of
the office alone appears sufficient for the assignee to know what to do since
the notary omitted any further information.102
6. Intellectual Elites
The fact that the percentage of intellectual elites103 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
Zadars Society
83
Table 4: Notaries Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties (1540-1569)

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

cancellarius rectoris
Zadar
notarius
Zadar
Trogir
notarius
notarius,
cancellarius communitatis
Appointmentse
2
1
1
1
11
2
3
5
7
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 Venices 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
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 Martius, Gabriel Cernotta, Franciscus Thomaseus, Johannes and Simon Mazzarellus, 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 Franciscum Petrouich110 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 Zadars 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
Zadars Society
85
Table 4.1: Non-Notarial Intellectual Elites Who Assumed Procuratorial Duties

(1540-1569)
Namea
Bernardinus
Carnarutus
Camillus Rosa, de
Rosa
Doymus Cedulinus
Franciscus Fumatus
Franciscus Justus, de
Justis
Franciscus Petrouich
Hieronymus de
Bassano
Hieronymus de
Cortesijs
Johannes de Begna
Statusb
Originc
nobilis
Zadar
nobilis
Zadar
nobilis
nobilis
civis
Education/
Occupationd
causidicus
Appointmentse
2
Zadar
Zadar
n/a
secretarius provisoris
classis
causidicus
leges utriusque doctor
scriba camerae fiscalis
6
11
1
civis
civis
n/a
Zadar
causidicus
causidicus
12
10
nobilis
Rab
causidicus
15f
nobilis
Zadar
Johannes de Venerio
nobilis
Venice
Johannes dictus bon

datiarum
Johannes Jovinus
Servianus
Johannes de Rosa
n/a
n/a
civis
Venice
nobilis
Zadar
Leonardus Fadinus
Marcus Raymundinus
Nicolaus de Claudis
Octavianus Monaldus
n/a
clerus
n/a
nobilis
Pasinus de Pasinis
Petrus Fanfoneus
Sigismundus de
Seratis
Theodorus Adraino
civis
nobilis
n/a
n/a
leges utriusque doctor,

eques
scontrus camerae
fiscalis
officium stimarie vini
forensis
leges utriusque doctor,

eques
n/a
causidicus
Zadar
decretorum doctor
n/a
cancellarius capitanei
Pesaro
artium et medicinae
doctor
Zadar
Zadar
Pontremoli artium et medicinae
doctor
Krk
scriba camerae fiscalis
1
1
1
3
15g
1
1
1
1
4
8
1
1
97
86
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 captains 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 heterogeneity 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] sollecitatorem 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
Zadars Society
87
cause of the legal suit is named: the restitution of Catherinas 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 Zadars nobilitys
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 fathers 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 Trivisano [Trevisan] Civem et causidicum Venetum, tasked twice by residents of
Zadar. In the first instance, domina Francischina uxor quondam domini Berti Charanina olim Civis, et mercatoris Jadre, and her two daughters Paulina
and Helysabeth, appointed Julius to resolve their problems cum ser Dominico Uambirascosi merzario venetiarum ad insignum draconis. Unfortunately, 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
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 latters task: he was to obtain all outstanding money owed to the constituent
on the island of Korula, as well as a domino Jacobo de Aurani Corcirensis, 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 Zadars subject dominion were eligible for prebendaries
of less than 60 ducats of value,134 but after 1423 Zadars archbishopric and
the bishopric of Nin were exclusively reserved for members of the Venetian 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 newlyappointed 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 Marcus Lauredanus [Loredan] Dei et Apostoli sedis gratia episcopus Nonen-
Zadars 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
abbeys 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
activitieswith 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
St Chrysogonus
St Mary
St Dominic
St Catherine
St Demetrius
St Francis
St Nicholas
St Marcella
Orderb
OSB
OSB
OP
OP
OP
OSF
OSC
OSC
Genderc
Social Stratad
Provoste
nobility only
Antonella Galella
nobility only
Coliza Grisogona
nobility only
Maria Grisogona
Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ, 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
All the congregations detailed in Table 5 regularly appointed procurators, for a variety of reasons. Usually procuratorial duties were bestowed
upon individuals belonging to Zadars 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 familys 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 familys 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 familys 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
Zadars 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 Zadars jurisdiction. This comprised entities as diverse as the
citys 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 Zadars 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 Zadars 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. Contemporaneously, Zadars ties with the rest of the Venetian Adriatic remained more or
less constant, although neighbouring ibenik 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 Zadars 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 Ari 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 ibenik and Venice proper
attracting more procuratorial missions than any other part of the Stato da
mar or mainland Italy.
92
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 Venice, 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 Zadars
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 doges 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 acclaimed (celeberrimus), magnificent (magnificus), or noble (generosus). 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
Zadars 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 denomination: 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, Krist, and Kubinyi, Hongarie mdievale, 2:62-64; Engel, Realm of St Stephen, 161-167; Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 56-58; and Raukar, Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeu.
2.Bettarini, Toscani al servizio della citt di Ragusa; Budak, Fiorentini nella Slavonia 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 nellet 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 vnetienne au Moyen ge,
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 bl; and Gallina, Creta
fra Venezia e Bisanzio.
6.Concise summaries by Kreki, Venezia e lAdriatico, 79-82; and OConnell, Men
of Empire, 27-33.
94
7.E.g., the output of the saltworks of Pag decreased tenfold over the course of the
subsequent decades. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 75-76, 85-88. On related production
decreases, Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 107-111.
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, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 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 Stdtewelt, 104-113.
13.Raukar, Komunalna drutva u XIV. stoljeu, 155-156.
14.Mocellin, Citt fortificata di Zara, 29-40.
15.Raukar, Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeu, 86-88; Gestrin, Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke [Migration from Dalmatia towards the Marche]; Kolanovi,
ibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku, 38.
16.Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 107; Raukar, Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji
u XIV. stoljeu, 87-89; Raukar, Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XV. i prvoj polovini
XVI. stoljea [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 Stdtewelt, 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.
21.Budak, Drei Zentralstdte in Dalmatien, 116.
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 Stdtewelt, 108.
24.Braudel, Sozialgeschichte des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts, 1:124-126; Wallerstein, Modern 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.
Zadars Society
95
26.As were the medieval castles of Split and Trogir. The old fort of ibenik, situated on top of an adjacent hill overlooking the city proper, was connected with the sea via
two additional walls. mega, Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Kste,
130-131. On recent excavations of Zadars city walls Jovi, Jugoistoni 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; mega, Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Kste,
131-132.
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 citys
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 Stdtewelt, 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 Venetian staple rights (rendering them useful for quantitative measurements). See Kolanovi,
ibenik (contralittere), 98-110; Raukar, Jadransko gospodarski sustavi; and more recently, Attia, Handel und Wirtschaft der Stadt Trogir; Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 82-90; and Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 48-51.
32.unji, Dalmacija u XV stoljeu, 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 (15371540, 1570-1573), never again to reach medieval scales. See Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu,
253-257.
34.ibenik 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, ibenik also became the prime exchange hub for the produce of the hinterlands
and its inhabitants, the Morlachs (however, Daniel Rodrigas efforts put an end to these
developments affected the trade flows, see below). Kolanovi, ibenik u kasnome srednjem
vijeku, 20-25, 201; Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 112.
96
35.Arbel, Trading Nations, 7; Calabi, The City of Jews, 31-35; Jtte, 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 Venices 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 Dalmacije [Venice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia]; Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als
Kommunikationsraum, 84; Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 48-51.
37.Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 82-90 (quote on 82). See also
Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 48-51.
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 Zadars 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 issuesand the loss of large amounts
of sourcesone cannot highlight their importance enough for quantitatively analysing regional commerce in the Adriatic. Schmitt, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 49. See also
Kolanovi, ibenik (contralittere), 127-129; Raukar, Jadransko gospodarski sustavi;
and Schmitt, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 83-84.
41.As called for by Budak, Urban lites 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 (Kommunikationsraum) 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, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 78-79;
Saint- Guillain and Schmitt, Die gis 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 Biljenici 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;
Zadars 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 lites in Dalmatia, 194; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [The Croatian Middle Ages], 223-225.
47.Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 24. See also Malz, Dalmatinische
Stdtewelt, 124.
48.Definitions based on Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 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 Zadars jurisdiction (as well as over large parts of Venetian Dalmatia). E.g.,
Zemunik, today home to Zadars airport and only c. 10 km from the city centre, became an
Ottoman outpost.
53.Empirical evidence for such generalisations is inconsistent, but what is available
confirms this trend. For instance, Splits 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 Trogirs maritime
trade during the late 1560s tentatively confirms this tendency, but the overall situation can,
in Schmitts 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, Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 100.
54.Commercial networks are significant, but more research is needed to put the
economic connections and judicial exchange within Venices 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 ibenik to Split, as well as further south
between Kotor and Durrs (in the Ionian Sea he proposes that another communication hub
existed in the triangle between Corfu, Naupactus, and Patras). Schmitt, Sdosteuropa 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 ibenik (numbers based on Table 2.3).
As for Schmitts tentative assertion of the existence of a sub-network of increased communication extending from Zadar via ibenik to Split, this cannot be supported solely by
98
the data he uses nor by procuratorial analysis discussed above. Cf. Schmitt, Sdosteuropa
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. orali, 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.Zadars 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 Iadrae. 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 childrens respective father. This happened, for instance, when Mattheus, Catherina,
et Hellena filij quondam Simonis Panoeuich quondam Matthei seu Mathuli de Insula Exo
[I] 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 fathers
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 notarys books
in case of legal procedures or loss of the original instrument. If a notary left the city for
Zadars 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 satisfactione 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 Zadars Tetrico family left a patch of land with a quantity
of livestock on the island of I 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 citys 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 Bra) appointed
spectabilem ser Hieronymum de Laurentijs Civem Jadram to take the case of the constituents agenda in the proceedings against Hieronymum de Negroponte who allegedly killed
Georgiuss 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 ibenik. 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 constituents in-laws, represented by domino Hieronymo 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; Nicolaus 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. Consequently, 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 Zadars 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
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, Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika, 21;
Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 49; and OConnell, 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 Zadars 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 selfgoverning, 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 citt (Zadar), leaving four people
dead and seven injured. Four of the ships 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 Venice. 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 Drasmileus, I, 2, 1, c.13r-c.14r, 8 January 1556.
74.Baptista was appointed specialiter et expresse ad nominem ipsius domini Constituentis exigendum, percipiendum et recuperandum omnes, et quascumque Sumas, et quantitates 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 Venices 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 Stanojevi, Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletakoturskim ratovima, 75-101; and Tallett, War and Society in Early Modern Europe, 60.
Zadars Society
101
76.MarcAntonio da Mula, count of Zadar from 1540-1543, wrote that [i]l territorio
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
allordine 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 ablebodied 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 Zadars 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 habitators venetijs in confinio Sancti Boldi, ac filia quondam ut asservit magistri Cora Michaelis 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 Venices 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 formers house in Zadars 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
deceaseds 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
stituents troubles cum ser Joanne Zdrigne habitatore Tragurij (Trogir) caused by a cosigning/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 formers 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 Ottomans, 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 ibenik 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 Laurentium Zappich, a fellow citizen of Zadar, to collect outstanding payments a Dominico filio
Hieronymi de Veia [Krk] ad praesens habitatorem Spalati sive Almissa (Omi) 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 constituents 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 Hvars 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.
Zadars Society
103
93.On his comparatively impressive wealth, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 259-261. In a number of notarial acts from 15581-559, appear Lazarus wife, Helena, 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 Lazaruss deathbut in different ways. Catherina, married to
domini Francesci Sasseto, appointed ser Thomasium de Albis habitatorem Jadra to represent her in her role as Lazaruss 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, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 7, c.7r-c.7v, 10 November 1556.
95.Cf. Mocellin, Citt 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 examiners 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.
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 musicology. 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 mletakom upravom, 310-111, Dadi, Natural Sciences, 743-749; Girardi-Karulin, Federicus Chrysogonus, 290. See also Jaki-estari,
Etniki 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.
104
104.HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Canali, I, 1, C, s.p., 2 January 1541.

105.The Mazzarelli were one of Trogirs noble families in Giovanni Battista
Giustinianos 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 Simons 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 mletakom 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 Bernardinus 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 nonnoble 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 Causidicum. 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 Bassano whom he tasked to travel to Venice and to argue on the constituents 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 Advocariam Inclitam Urbis Venetiarum contra et adversus Reverendum dominum Albertum
Duymum. The notarys quarrel with the archbishop revolved around a named but unexplained 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, Augustinus 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 Andreass legal feud with ser Radum de Ricinis in front of the relevant tribunals 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.
Zadars Society
105
117.Budak, Urban lites 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
brothers 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 husbands 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, Nassis, 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. Consequently, 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. Obviously, Venices 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 Kotors 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,
Zadars 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, Confirmandum, et ratificandum quoddam Instrumentum compositionis, Concordij, et transactionis factum, ut dixerunt, Inter eumdam dominum Julium Trivisanum, et dominum Vivianum
Barlendi mercatorem venetum [] ex una ac dominum Dominicum de Gamberarijs, et
106
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 Marias 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 Magistratibus 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 spetiale, 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 doltremare, 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 instruments 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 Zadars 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 Churchs tithes. See Doumerc,
Dominio del mare, 113-138; Lane, Venice, 137-152; Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 143; and
Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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
Zadars 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 lites 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 Jadre, 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 OPand already employed a procurator (Bernardino 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 Venices maritime state. Grubb, Elite Citizens, 349.
Marcus Antoniuss 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 Zadars 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 Gabriella 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 Ferra, 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
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 Rimondin, 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 Cavalca, 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 Sperling, 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 Vermchtnisse
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 ibenik 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.
Zadars Society
109
152.Which is consistent with the assertion of Zadars decline and ibeniks ascent
over the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century. Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 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
somethe most importantcommoners 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 Archipresbyter et domini Hieronymi fratres de Grisogonis appointed Magnificum dominum Petrum
sopracomitum Triremis Jadertine. The procurators 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 Reverendus 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 constituents
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 Reverendum 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.390rc.390v, 30 October 1559. For the male counterparts, e.g., the case of Reverendus pater
110
frater Dominicus de Brachia [Bra] Prior Monasterij sive conventus venerabilium fratrium
predicatorum Divi Dominici Jadre who appointed spectabilem virum dominum Nicolaum de Nassis quondam dominum Chrysogoni nobilem Jadre to gain compensation pro
reparatione [] damnum de ratione dicti conventus in quibus milites Tempore recentis belli
turcarum preteriti stabant ab eiumque devastate [] coram quocumque alio celeberrimo
Magistratu et offitio quacumque [] fungente Inclyta Urbis Venetiarum, even though the
war ended almost a decade earlier. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1, 1, f.8rf.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 Lesina, a master-butcher residing within Hvars 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 Mazzarellus, 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 Dalmatia around the mid-sixteenth century because no census data exists prior
to Zaccaria Vallaressos 1527 report.1 And while the account of his tenure
as Zadars 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 Zadars urban elites. The approach is twofold: 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 Zadars 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 Zadars count, the highest-ranking
civilian authority. The citys 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 Venices 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 Simeons church)
and the Captains Palace (in the vicinity of the citys main gate).5 The authority of both count and captain extended well beyond the city walls and by the
112
middle of the sixteenth century comprised the entirety of Zadars jurisdiction, including the minor fortified villages of Nin, Novigrad, Turanj, and Zemunik.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 cavalryso-called stratiotiprovided
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 Zadars count sold off goods collected from a
shipwrecked vessel off the island of Sali. The sunken ships cargo, petias triginta tres Zimbilotorum [goat hides] recuperatum ex fundo maris,
once washed ashore was considered communal property and thus listed in
the fiscal chambers books.11 Even though the citys 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 Venices 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 ships 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, exonerating the count of the debt. In the instruments valediction, the captains
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 Zadars 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 Zadars captain, dominum Marcum Antonium Priolum [Priuli] dignissimum capitaneum Jadrae, to serve
as his procurator. The task was to settle all outstanding financial issues
of the constituents 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 Venetian 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 Petruss galley.23
114
Table 6: Transactions on 15 January 1555

Amounta
(libras)
35 libras
620 libras
112 libras
310 libras
1,075 libras
207 libras
Amount Paid out inb

(soldi)
17 soldi
4 soldi
9 soldi
157 scudi
(1 scudo = 6 libras and 17 soldi)
18 soldi 27 ungari
(1 ungarus = 7 libras and 14 soldi)
moneta grossa, 0.5 scudi
4 soldi moneta grossa, 0.5 scudi
62 libras
20 libras
400 libras
2,841 libras 52 soldi c. 458 ducats
(1 ducat = 6 libras and 4 soldi)
Paid out byc

superstitus jadrensisd
Franciscus Nani
Lazarus de Pontremulo
Franciscus Nani
Franciscus Nani
Franciscus Nani
Franciscus Nani
Franciscus Nani
Zoylus de Ferra
Source: HR DAZD 31 BZ, 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 couples property in
her husbands 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 Mazzarellus, 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
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
Paman 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, Zadars count, Benedictus
Contarenus (Contarini) was petitioned to obtain redress of grievances. The
ensuing ducal sentence was appealed by the convents 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 Zadars
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 latters role
within the Venetian administration in Zadar is unclear, he performed the
same procuratorial duties for a number of other mercenaries.34
116
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 the Stato 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 Zadars 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 citys council, which in 1553 consisted of 70 individuals.43 The
combination of these numbers allows for the tentative conclusion that Zadars 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 Zadars 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, Korula, 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
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 churchesas
well as individuals representing these people, offices, or prebendaries
are members of this category.
At the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy stood Zadars 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 OttomanVenetian 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 Zadars 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 Catherines parish to the heirs of quondam Francisci de Magistris de Pisauro, [] done Dionore et Priuigna. The heirs, in
turn, gave away half a house constructed of stone and wood in Zadars St
Vitus parish.49 Other activities of the archbishop or his representatives included the lease of possessions in the citys 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 Zadars citizens, dominus presbyter
Sanctus de Sanctis Canonicus Jadre, et dominus Joannes Raymundinus
118
Table 7: Zadars Female Cloistral Population of Noble Descent (c. 1559)

Family, Clana
Begna (Benja)
St Mary OSBb
Charnaruta (Carnaruto) sor Francischina

sor Dionora
Cedulina (Zadulini)
sor Lucia
sor Benedicta
Civallella (Civalelli)
sor Cicilia
sor Deodata
sor Vincentia
sor Perina
sor Antonella,
abbatissa
sor Marchetta
sor Jacomella
Grisogona (Grisogono) sor Hieronyma
sor Vigilanta
sor Catherina
sor Concordia
sor Lucretia
St Nicholas OSCc St Demetrius OPd

sor Gelenta
sor Catherina
sor Johanna
sor Angela
sor Laura
sor Benedicta
sor Lucietta
sor Isabetta
sor Magdalena
Fanfonea (Fanfogna)
Ferra
Fumata (Fumatis)
Gallella (Galelis)
Nassis (Nai)
sor Cherubina
Pechiaro (Pekari)
Rosa (Rosa)
sor Flavia
sor Arcanglea
sor Paulina
sor Justina
sor Paula
sor Pacifica
sor Magdalena
Soppe (Soppe)
Tetrica (Detrik)
Diphnica (Divni)
Mogorichia (Mogori)
sor Francischina
sor Nicolotta
sor Maria,
abbatissa
sor Nicolota
sor Catherina
sor Perina
sor Ursia
sor Magdalena
sor Magdalena
sor Catherina
sor Prospera
sor Coliza, priora

sor Simonella
sor Catherina
sor Victoria
sor Isabetta
sor Lucia
sor Perina
sor Magdalena
sor Cornelia
sor Isabetta
sor Philippa
sor Helena
Sources: HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.390r-c.390v, 26 October 1559 (three

individual instruments).
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 Excelentissimi 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 clementia 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 ibenik. 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 Marys convent in 1559. Judging from the names, this was the
preferred religious order for the majority of Zadars 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 Zadars 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
still in Rome or its vicinity), so the two constituents sought to take advantage of the procurators 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 designation he was required to relocate to central Dalmatia. Upon arrival, one
of Marcus first actions was to appoint Reverendum dominum Dominicum Armanum Primicerium Nonensis whom he tasked with administrative business in Istria.53 Beyond these two examples there is little evidence
that these dignitaries engaged in mundane activities. 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, Zadars archbishopric possessed estates within the citys 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 Zadars
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 Marys nunnery, the Poor Clare Sisters
the nunnery of St Nicholas, and the Dominicans the nunnery of St Demetrius (see also Table 5 in Chapter 2).
As Table 7, above, indicates, Zadars 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 citys 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 Zadars 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 requesting burial in a Benedictine church were members of the Grisogonus-de Bar-
121
Table 7.1: Zadars Nobility and Their Preferred Orders (1540-1569)

OSBa
22 individuals
4 in St Chrysogonus1
17 in St Mary2
1 in St Andreas of Rab3
OSFb
24 individuals
23 in St Francis4
1 in St Nicholas5
OPc
15 individuals
13 in St Dominic6
2 in St Demetrius7
other, n/ad
17 individuals
5 in other churches8
12 n/a9
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 nobilitys testaments preserved by the notaries. This includes 78 testaments and 33 codicils. The table provides an overview of the preferred burial
places of Zadars 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,
Zadars 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, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, IV, 7, no. 553, 12 March 1553), the church of St John in Zadars
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 Simeons church, namely domina
122
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 Budineuss 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 Zadars overall aristocratic population of
around 6,000,58 it suggests that about 20% of Zadars 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 Zadars 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
Zadars two patron saints,61 had two procurators: spectabilis et excellens
leges utriusque doctor dominus Petrus Fanfoneus et spectabilis dominus
123
Table 7.2: Zadars Noble Families and Their Preferred Burial Places (1540-1569)
OSBa
Grisogono
de Bartholatijs
Nassis
Pechiaro
Rosa
Soppe
Begna
Calcina
Cedulino
de Dominis* (Rab)
Ferra
Gallello
Rosa
Soppe
Tetricus
no.
6
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
OSFb
Nassis
Pechiaro
Tetricus
Begna
Fanfogna
Grisogono
de Bartholatijs
Boyco* (Nin)
Buchia* (Kotor)
Cedulino
Civallello
Diphnico* (ibenik)
Drasa* (Osor)
Ferra
Gallello
Soppe
no.
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
OPc
Nassis
Rosa
Begna
Cyppico* (Trogir)
Fumato
Grisogono
de Bartholatijs
Soppe
Tetricus
no.
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
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 Demetrius []).
Doymus Cedulinus. Both were prominent nobles whose appointments testify to the importance of the parish and its collegium (consistent with the
churchs function as the resting place of St Simeons 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 Illustrissimi Ducis Domini Venetiarum et coram alio quocumque celeberrimo
magistratu et offitio eiusdem Inclita civitati. The collegium was in need
124
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 highranking 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 Suburbio Jadrae, two of Zadars 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 citys 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 Nicolai 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, ime Budini. 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
125
certain diacritic signs (, ).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 Zadars notaries
more than 20 years later, referred to as clerico Mansionario ecclesise
Jadrensis,71 the sacristan of the citys 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 January 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 documents valediction,
the contract also reveals the approximate location of Sanctuss 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
I 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 churchs 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 Peters of I were
complemented by his literary and linguistic studies. In comparison with
126
his notarial peers, his activities considerably elevated his social standing
within Zadars society.75
3. Economic Elites: Actors and Commodities
The final section of this chapter provides an overview of commercial 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 Venices governors, legates, and military commanders
paint a consistent picture of Zadar and its populace as living di qualche
poca intrada ma per lo pi di trafichi et arti.77 The citys nobility, syndic
Giovanni Battista Giustiniano wrote in 1553, non molta, perch la maggior intrada che sia fra loro, 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 Dalmatias
economic decline.79 The absence of dynamic activities in the notary books
underscores Giustinianos comment about the citys 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 Zadars
nobility, which provided those who owned cattle (pecudina), goats (caprina, pecora), and small domestic animals (animalia minuta) with a steady
stream of income. As might be expected, the actual number of owners was
127
very small. Among the citys 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 Zadars 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 Zadars 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 Incangerich 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 Marys of Zadar leased the income of its salt pans on three different occasions between 1540 and 1569once 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
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 Piran93 in Istria, extending southward to Zadar, ibenik, 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 Zadars 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 Scauich99 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, Magnificus 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 uncles body and possessions and to formally issue a
quitclaim to the sunken ships 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
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 Stdtewelt, 106; Mocellin, Citt fortificata di Zara, 43-44, 60-61;
Perii, Dalmacija uoi pada mletake Republike, 19-22, 57-60; Perii, 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 OConnell, 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 possessionsZadar, Crete, and Cyprus. Furthermore, in Venices maritime state
Venetian patricians filled both positions, a policy that also applied to the higher positions in
the Church. Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 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 (Kneeva
i Providurova palaa), is situated in Simeon Budineus Square (Poljana ime Budinia),
which is named after the Zadar-born cleric, grammarian, poet, writer, and public notary
quoted extensively throughout this book. The Captains Palace was strategically located
next to the Land Gate (Porta Terraferma). While no longer extant, the pentagonal Captains
Tower in the citys 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 doltremare, 967-968; Lane, Venice, 355-370.
8.Zadars 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 citys
harbour. The remnants of the former are partially visible today. It functions as home to
the University of Zadar, Croatias 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, Citt fortificata di Zara, 14-40; and mega,
Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske, 189-190.
9.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 966-968; Petta, Stratioti: Soldati albanese in Italia.
10.For instance, in 1553 Il voloroso Brutto Cluson, commander of Zadars citadel and cavalry unit of 74 soldiers, consisting of Croats and Levantines. An additional 47
mounted soldiers were under the joint command of meser Nicol e meser Lombardin
Tetrico, noblemen of Zadar. Still smaller detachments were commanded by Pellegrin di
130
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 Divisionis 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.Zadars 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, Lapport des archives de Zadar, 50-51; Schmitt, Contrabannum:
Der adriatisch-balkanische Schmuggel. See also Ref. 125: De accusationibus contra beccarios 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 Excellentissimi 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 condemnatus 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 mletakom 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 conditionati. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 1, 2, c.16r-c.17r, 15 January 1555.
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 record. 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 Mazzarellus, I, 1, 7, c.7r, 5, 19 January 1560.
26.The practice of Roman Law in Venices 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, Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen, 68-69.
27.Agriculture, farming, and livestock breeding were the backbone of Dalmatias
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; Perii, Prilog poznavanju agranih
odnosa [Contribution to the Agricultural Relations], 138. See also Chapter 4.
28.The settlement was agreed upon between the abbeys procurator, Franciscus
Thomaseus, and Vitus Duymouich, the judge of Tkon, in the presence of Joannes Radincich de eadem villa et Lucas Hostich. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 6, c.351vc.352r, 14 March 1562.
29.Reliable taxation numbers are equally hard to come by since not all reports by
Zadars governors or captains include financial data. It is known, for instance, that during
Petrus Pisanis 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 Zadars captain Paulo Giustiniano also
sold da quindici in sedici mille quarte a lire 16 la quarta [] il che fa summa di 2 mille et
pi ducati []. 16,000 kvart = 1,000 modii (one Venetian modium = c. 333.26 litres, equal
132
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 Zadars 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 Vallaresso 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 Celeberrimorum 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 bressano (Brescia) in exchange for the payment of 27 ducats. The latters service was to begin
on 1 October 1554. Zadars 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 Zadars fiscal chamber too was an important figure within the Venetian 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 Venices 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 doltremare, 978-979; Commissiones,
2:197. In 1558, the citys chamberlain was magnificus dominus Hieronymus Zane, possibly a Venetian patrician who appointed magnificum dominm Antonium Michael [Michiel]
quondam celeberrimi domini Francisci Patricium venetum, then Zadars 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.
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 Zadars 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., Zadar pod mletakom 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, 156164 and Pederin, mter der venezianischen Verwaltung.
40.In comparison to the Venetians, the communal chancellors appear more prominently 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 ibenik. 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 mletakom upravom, 261-262.
44.The number givenagain, by Zaccaria Vallaressois 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 mletakom upravom, 261-262.
45.Budak, Urban lites in Dalmatia, 188, 194-196. For a more general discussion,
Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 974-976; Prodi, Organization of the Church in Renaissance
Venice; and, as regards Dalmatia in particular, anjek, Church and Christianity.
46.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 975; Pederin, Venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe, 143.
47.Having convened in the chapel of St Barbara que est sacristia Ecclesie metropolitia Sancta Anastasia, the members of the archbishops chapter are listed: [i]nfrascriptis
Reverendis dominis de Capitulo Jadrensi, videlicet, Reverendo domino Francisco Chrysogonis 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 Zadars 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
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 archbishops representative, leased the
archbishoprics 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 dellhabitation
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, Paman, 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 Zadars 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 Begna, 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 livellorum 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 February 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 Zadars communal chancellor, and Johannes Thomaseus, a citizen, canon, priest, and member of the metropolitan chapter. Two
135
weeks later the two accepted dominum presbytrum Joannem Barbiricich as the third cotenant, slightly augmenting the latters 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
mletakom 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 Helena 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 Zadars 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 Bassano, I, 3, f.17v, 11 September 1548. See also Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom,
259-260, 265, 300.
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 Mazzarellus on 12 April 1554, convened in Zadars 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
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 Zadars 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 pregrau srednjovjekovnog Zadra [The Lazaretto in
Medieval Zadar]; Fabijanec, Dalmatian Lazarettos from the 14th until the 16th Century;
Nerali, Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia. By the mid-sixteenth century the situation
was as follows. The lazzaretto di San Marco, situated in todays 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, Citt 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 todays 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 todays Votarnica 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 (mastercobbler). 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 Venices
dominions. Pedani Fabris, Veneta Auctoritate Notarius, 1-19; Cracco, Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia, 179-189; Guzzetti, Venezianische Vermchtnisse, 18-28.
137
70.Mogu, 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 instructional 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 Polancos writings into Slavic, Izpravik za erei izpovidnici, i za pokornici [Breve
directorium ad confessarii ac confitentis munus recte obeundum]. Vidakovi, Cultural-Political History of Zadar, 16-17; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 413-416.
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.
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 OttomanVenetian 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 nerano st
piantadi 5,100. Et essendo, come , beneffitio delli suoi sudditi, continueranno al piantarne
ognanno. 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 citt, 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 Budineuss clients were the archbishop and a variety of other highprofile individuals, including ser Baptista Diphnyci quondam domini Georgii, a nobleman of ibenik, and meser Hieronymo Gallelli [] spettabile meser Pietro Ferra, et meser
Gregorio Grisogono, all three from the ranks of Zadars 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.6vc.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.
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 Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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. stoljeu, 214-219, 281-297.
138
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. Conversely, 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 Mazzarellus, (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 citys 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 familiesnamely 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 mletakom 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 Zadars 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.
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, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1, 1, c.15r-c.15v, 16 July 1567.
87.The number of salt pans in use within Zadars 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.
stoljeu, 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 Pagensis. 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 congregations 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 Malamochi 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 Jadre. 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 Bernardinuss 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
93.In autumn of 1541 ser Georgius Spatario de Pirano Nauta (sailor) sold a barca
a pedota with 350 Venetian star capacity (c. 28,788 litres) to ser Damiano de Lustiza,
habitatori Jadre for the price of 47 ducats. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 8,
f.19r, 30 October 1541.
94.In the beginning of 1541 ser Franciscus de Pontremullo, et ser Michael Radinouich alias Barbiricich Ambo Mercatores, ac Cives, et habitatores Jadre sold their respective halves of a jointly-possessed grippo with 100 star capacity (c. 8,225 litres) to Thome
Ganelich de Sibenico naute habitatori Jadre for the price of 125 libras and 15 soldi. HR
DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, C, s.p., 4 January 1541.
95.HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February 1549; Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.27r, 9 August 1543.
96.The properties were located near the village of Lukoran on the island of Ugljan,
making him stand out among the other Venetians who refrained from engaging in the local
property markets. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Augustinus Martius, I, 1, 1, B, s.p., 8 July 1540 (two
individual instruments).
97.Franciscus leased half of the annual income (introitus) of the village of Sali on
Dugi Otok in exchange for the annual payment of 178 ducats in 1546, payable each April
on St Georges Day (23 April). In January 1547 however he ceded his rights to domimo
Dominico de Nassis quondam domini Petri, the original conductor principalis introitus
insulae Sale. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 2, 13, s.p., 17 January 1547.
98.In summer of 1543 ser Petrus Cherletich Nobilis Terre Pagi, then residing in
Zadar, sold unum Grippum dicti ser Petri venditoris, capacitatis stariorum 200 [1 Venetian star = c. 81.31 litres, 200 star = c. 16,662 litres, Statuta Iadertina, 759], in circa, ad
praesens existentium in portu Jadre. The vessel was sold to Franciscus cum omnibus, ac
Singulis cordis, ac alijs armigijs for the price of 55 ducats, which the latter paid in cash.
HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.27r, 9 August 1543. A grippo was a small,
single-masted sailing boat, up to 17 metres in length and three to four metres in breadth
employed in commerce and fishing and could, if needed, also be rowed and converted for
fighting purposes. Lane, Ships and Shipbuilders, 53.
99.The inclusion of the second surname underlines, again, that Zadars nobility lived
in both Latin-Italian and Slavic worlds. A second naming of the Begna family with the
same second surname further emphasises this. Dominus Georgius de Begna alias Scauich
quondam domini Joannis nobilis Jadrae sold animalium minutorum capita quadraginta
to domino Joanni eius filio. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February
1549; Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 3, s.p., 15 January 1562.
100.A Greek artisan, Magister Joannes Grecus de Corta cerdo, master-cobbler and
resident of Zadar, sold his domuncula to Franciscus for the price of 142 libras and two soldi,
including the obligation to pay an annual rent (livellum) of four libras and 10 soldi to the
owner of the property. Franciscus paid Johannes 37 libras in advance and the remaining 105
libras and two soldi in cash at the time of the stipulation of the contract. HR DAZD 31 BZ,
Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1, f.15r, 28 February 1549.
101.E.g., when strenuus dominus Cominus Frassina Capitaneus stratiotarum in
Jadra, a debtor of Franciscus Dandulo pro unius equi [] pro pannis and other equestrian equipment bought from the latter on 20 September 1536. The total outstanding sum
amounted to 300 ducats and Cominus obliged himself and his heirs to pay it back in its
entirety. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes a Morea, I, 2, 1, f.6r, 26 June, 1540.
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 citys former count,
Antonio Michiel, referred to Thomasos military skills in his report, stating that the latters
cavalry detachment provided a certain degree of security. Commissiones, 2:172; Commissiones, 3:51, 102.
4. Case Study: Zadars Interwar Property Markets
The decades following Venices renewed control over most of Dalmatia witnessed many changes. One of these changes was the slow but steady
decline of opportunities in maritime commerce, due to a variety of factors.
This contributed to the decreasing significance of the entire region. Less
investment in long-distance trade over the course of the fifteenth century
caused a flow of money into what appeared to be safer assets.1 This chapter
examines trends in the subsequent century. It offers insights on the size
and turnover of Zadars real estate transactions between 1540 and 1569
through an investigation of the following three segments of the markets:
sales (emptiones), planting concessions (concessiones, pastinationes), and
rental contracts (locationes) (Table 8).2
1. Property Sales
The sale of immovable property was by far the largest portion of the
property markets in terms of individual transactions, exceeding the number
of rental contracts almost fivefold (Table 9).3
Table 9, below, allows three observations. First, while the apportionment of the data into three decades is arbitrary,4 the total number of property sales remained virtually constant. Second, in almost all instances the
language the notaries used for their instrument books was Latin. At least in
this regard, the property sales constitute a deviation from the procuratorial
instruments (of which about three percent were drawn up in Venetian). A
more important difference between the notarial records and the procuratorial instruments is that as contracting parties, women made up a smaller
144
Table 8: Zadars Property Markets (Overview, 1540-1569)

Notary Public
Augustinus Martius
Cornelius Constantius
Daniel Cavalca
Franciscus Thomaseus
Gabriel Cernotta
Horatius de Marchettis
Johannes a Morea
Johannes Michael Mazzarellus
Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius
Nicolaus Canali
Nicolaus Drasmileus
Petrus de Sanctis
Petrus de Bassano
Simon Budineus
Simon Mazzarellus
Salesa
26
20
269
55
3
24
98
34
1
28
138
6
197
119
49
1,067
Concessionsb
3
13
93
8
9
17
95
7
1
7
57
6
64
60
39
479
Rental Contractsc
4
10
41
2
2
12
30
7
5
20
1
15
54
20
226
Sources: see note 2. 1,772 contracts are analysed. Names are given in standard Latin.
(a) Number per decade of property sales (emptio) by each notary.
(b) Number per decade of planting concessions (concessio, pastinatio).
(c) Number per decade of rental contracts (locatio).
Table 9: Sales Market (Overview, 1540-1569)

1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
352
356
359
1,067
% of Totalb
33 %
33.4 %
33.6 %
100 %
Latinc
350
356
356
1,062
Constituentsd
66
58
49
173
Procuratorse
21
21
46
88
Sources: see note 2. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.
(a) Number per decade of vending contracts.
(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: Zadars 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 Zadars 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 citys
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 Zadars 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 Zadars jurisdiction was
slightly higher. On average, almost 91% of individuals who acquired real
estate came from Zadar or one of the jurisdictions 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%. Additionally, 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
dors and 11% of the buyers. Their share corresponds with estimates of
the nobilitys proportion of Zadars 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)
1540s
1550s
1560s
Total Area
(morgen)a
1,542.4
1,412.5
2,955.3
5,910.2
Total Area
(hectares)b
368.1
334.7
702.4
1,405.2
Acreage
(morgen)c
4.4
4
8.2
5.5
Acreage
(hectares)d
1
0.9
1.9
1.3
(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.
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 Zadars 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 Zadars
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
Table 9.2: Average Prices (Overview, 1540-1569)

Jurisdictiona
1540s
1550s
1560s
70.4
218
1,079.3
1,367.7
Price/
morgen
3.1 ducats
2.3 ducats
1.8 ducats
2.4 ducats
Territoryb
368.1
334.7
702.4
1,405.2
Price/
morgen
4.9 ducats
6.6 ducats
10.1 ducats
7.2 ducats
Islandsc
172.9
202.8
298.1
673.8
Price/
morgen
5.5 ducats
4 ducats
5.5 ducats
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 threedecade averages for prices. The categorisation of Jurisdiction-Territory-Islands is based
on Chapter 2, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom
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 Zadars jurisdiction on the mainland not belonging to the citys 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), Brievo (Briseuo), Drenovac
(Drinovazzo), Gorica (Goriza), Grobnica (Gromniza), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chamegnani), Kotopaina (Cottopaschina), Koino, Csino (Cosinoselo), Miljaka (Migliacza),
Murvica (Murvizza), Petrane (Peterzane), Podi (Podi), Raice (Racice), Raanac (Rasance), Rogovo (Rogovo), Sukoan (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et
Jacobi), Trci (Tersci), Turanj, Turretta (Turretta), Veterinii (Veterinichi), Zemunik (Zemonico), Zlovane (Slouhsane).
(b) Number per decade of transferred properties in morgen for Zadars 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 (Belvederium), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Brodarica (in valle magistra), Crno (Cerno), Crvene Kue
(Drassaniza), Diklo (Diclo), Gaenica (Gasenica), Gladua (Gladussa), Klikor (Chlichor),
Kolovare (Colovare), Lazareto (lazarettum), Paprad (Paprad), Ponton (Pontone), Puntamika (Puntamica), Smiljevac (Smiglievaz), Vinjik (ad Sanctum Joannem), Votarnica (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 (Berbigne), Rat Veli (Punta Bianca), Sali (Sale), Savar (Sauro), and Zaglav (Zaglava); on Paman
(Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana), Neviane (Neviane), Paman
(Pasmano), Punta Paman (Puncta di Pasmano), Tkon (Tchoni), drelac or Stagno di Pasmano (Sdrelaz); on Ugljan (Ugliano): inta (Chinta), Kali (Calle), Kukljica (Chuchgliza),
Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomiica (Sancte Euphemie), Suica (Sussiza),
and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the four minor islands of I (Eso, Exo), Rava (Raua), Silba
(Selve), and Vrgada (Vergata).
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 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 ducats. In the
1560s, the total turnover was c. 9,351 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 Zadars 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 citys 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
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 citys 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)
1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
118
171
189
478
% of Totalb
25%
36%
39%
100 %
Latinc
118
171
183
472
Landlordsd
13
13
9
35
Tenantse
2
4
1
7
(a) Number per decade of concessions.
(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.
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
nobilitys 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 institutionssuch as
churches, congregations, and hospitalsand 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
1540s
1550s
1560s
33 ( 2)
72 ( 5)
94 ( 5)
198 ( 12)
Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse Intellectual Restg

Elitesf
33 (7)
13
4
11
5 (3)
19
57 (15)
5
5 (2)
10
12 (4)
11
44 (11)
8
11 (9)
2
13 (7)
17
134 (33)
28
20 (11)
23
30 (14)
47
Sources: see note 2. 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
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
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 citys agricultural
workforce around the mid-sixteenth century consisted in equal numbers of
city-dwellers and inhabitants of Zadars hinterlands (Table 10.2, below).23
As time progressed less property was conceded to labourers from Zadar proper and its suburban settlement. Consequently, the number of tenants who originated from elsewhere under the citys 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 hinterlands 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 Zadars 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 Zadars territory increased markedly over the entire period
under survey.
153
Table 10.2: Geographical Provenances of the Tenants (1540-1569)
1540s
1550s
1560s
Zadar,
Suburbsa
83 (28)
81 (25)
88 (38)
252 (91)
Territoryb Jurisdictionc Nind

5
11
10
26
2
24
27
53
10
3
6
19
Novigrade Islandsf
2
2
5
9
8
23
15
46
Rest, n/ag
8
27
38
73
Sources: see note 2. For the territorial categories, see Chapter 2, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu,
46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 citys territory (ager publicus,
Astareja): Bibinje (Bibigne), Bokanjac (Bocagnazzo), Crno (Cerno), Diklo (Diclo),
Gaenica (Gasenica), Puntamika (Puntamica), and Votarnica (ultra barchaneum).
(c) Number per decade of tenants residing within Zadars jurisdiction, excluding the minor
districts of Nin and Novigrad: Artikovo (Articovo), Biograd na moru (Zaretum vetus), Brda
(Berda), Brievo (Briseuo), Crnogoriina (Cernogerschina), Galovac (Galovaz), Grusi (Gruse),
Jelsa (Jelsa), Kamenjani (Chamegnane), Kotopaina (Cottopaschina), Koino (Cosinoselo),
Miljaka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Murvica (Murvizza), Pakotane* (Pachoschiane),
Petrane (Peterzane), Podi (Podi), Poliane (Polisane), Raice (Racice), Raanac (Rasance),
Staroane (Starossane), Suhovare (Suovare), Sukoan (Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti
Filippi et Jacobi), Tinj (Tinj), Trci (Tersci), Turanj (Turretta), Varikaane (Varichassane).
(d) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Nin: Briane
(Brisane), erinci (Cerinci), Nin (Nona), Podvrje, Vri (Podverie), Privlaka (Bevilaqua),
and Zaton (Zaton).
(e) Number per decade of tenants residing within the minor district of Novigrad: Rupalj,
Koruplje (Corpuaglie), Reane (Regiane), Slivnica (Sliuniza), Trane (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 Paman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana),
Paman (Pasmano), Punta Paman (Puncta di Pasmano), and Tkon (Tchoni); on Ugljan
(Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), and Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the
minor islands I (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
Table 10.3: Conceded Property (1540-1569)

Total Areaa
1540s
558.5
1550s
3,563.8
1560s
2,018.5
6,140.8
Areab
4.7
18.8
11.8
12.8
Territoryc
81
84
90
255
Jurisdictiond
3
38
43
85
Islandse
8
25
18
51
Ninf
11
5
11
27
Rest, n/ag
14
19
27
60
Sources: see note 2. For the territorial categories, see Chapter 2, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu,
46; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 Zadars 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 Kue (Drassaniza),
Diklo (Diclo), Gaenica (Gasenica), Kolovare (Colovare), Kopranj (Copragl), Lazareto
(lazarettum), Ponton (Pontone), Puntamika (Puntamica), Raacon (Racanzoni), Smiljevac
(Smiglievaz), Vinjik (ad Sanctum Joannem), Votarnica (ultra barchaneum), and Zerodo
(Cerodolo, between Bokanjac and Diklo).
(d) Number per decade of property transactions in Zadars jurisdiction, excluding the
minor districts of Ljuba, 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), Brievo
(Briseuo), Divni (Divini), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chamegnane), Koino (Cosinoselo),
Miljaka (Migliacza), Mokro (Mocro), Murvica (Murvizza), Petrane (Peterzane), Podi
(Podi), Poliane (Polisane), Poriane (Porizane), Raice (Racice), Rogovo (Rogovo),
Sikovo (Sicouo), Skril (Scrile), Smokovi (Smochovich), Staroane (Starossane), Sukoan
(Sancti Cassiani), Sv Filip i Jakov (Sancti Filippi et Jacobi), Trci (Tersci), Turanj, Turretta
(Turretta), Ukipah (Uschipac), Veterinii (Veterinichi), and Visoane (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 Paman
(Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Dobropoljana (Dobrapogliana), Paman (Pasmano), Punta Paman
(Puncta di Pasmano), and drelac (Sdrelaz); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica (Chuchgliza),
Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomiica (Sancte Euphemie), Suica (Sussiza), and
Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the two minor islands of I (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), ernise (Cernise),
Grbe (Gherbe), Nin (Nona), Ninsko jezero (lacus None), (Novoselci), Papratni (Papratnich),
Perkovo (Percovo), Podvrje, Vri (Podverie), Privlaka (Bevilaqua), and (Crisine).
(g) Number per decade of unidentified, unlisted, or infrequently listed places.
155
Usually the land owners decided which cropsmainly corn, grapes, or

oliveswere to be planted by the tenants (colonus, sozalis).30 Zadars 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 landlords share of the harvest32 and
who was to pay for the transport of the crops.33 In addition to the landlords
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 landlords 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 Zadars
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
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 citys 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 (traditionalTable 11: Rental Contracts (Overview, 1540-1569)
1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
34
75
117
226
% of Totalb
15%
33%
52%
100%
Latinc
34
73
96
203
Landlordsd
2
12
13
30
Tenantse
1
7
8
(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.
157
Table 11.1: Social and Occupational Provenance of Landlords (1540-1569)
1540s
1550s
1560s
Nobilitya
Clergyb
12 ( 1)
31 ( 5)
61 ( 13)
104 ( 19)
13 (1)
21 (3)
27 (4)
61 (8)
Artisansc Soldiersd Merchantse

4
4
3
11
4
4
8
Intellectual
Elitesf
3 (3)
9 (5)
12 (8)
Restg
4
12
13
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
in Chapter 2). The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals.
Table 3).
for Table 3).
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 Zadars
jurisdiction to other parts of Dalmatia-Albania to Istria and Venice.45 Leasing 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
Table 11.2: Social and Occupational Provenance of Tenants (1540-1569)

Nobilitya Clergyb Artisansc Soldiersd
1540s
1550s
1560s
4
14 ( 1)
28 ( 3)
46 ( 4)
4
4
11
19
4
4
6
14
4
5
3
12
Merchantse
10
9
17
36
Intellectual Rest, n/ag

Elitesf
1
7
7 (1)
32
8 6)
44
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
in Chapter 2. The numbers in parentheses refer to individuals.
Table 3).
for Table 3).
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 reversed. Nevertheless, the political importance of the abbot of St Chrysogonus convent46 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
159
than a third for members or Church institutions. In the latter case the situation is even more nuanced; while most ecclesiastical landowners were
institutionsarchbishopric, congregations, churches, and hospitalsall
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, Zadars 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 communitys 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 citys society can be estimated at 200-250, or
three to four percent of Zadars 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 predictable and significant shift in comparison with the origins of the landlords. While nine out of ten renting parties originated from within Zadars jurisdiction,
the citys 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 Zadars
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 Zadars 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
Like the jurisdiction and islands categories of the property markets,

the citys 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 landowners 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
161
Table 11.3: Rental Market Turnover (Overview, 1540-1569)

Jurisdictiona Total Turnover Territoryb Total Turnover Islandsc Total Turnover
Turnover
Turnover
Turnover
1540s
1550s
23
1560s
43
70
224
56
941
41
2,347
54.5
3,512.5
50
4
9
20
33
56
14
353
39
1,360
68
1,770
53.5
15
7
17
39
1,179.5
78.5
549
78
1,331
78
3,060
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. stoljeu, 46; and
Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 Zadars
jurisdiction on the mainland not belonging to the citys territory (excluding the minor districts
of Ljuba, Nin, and Novigrad) that concern property near the following places: Artikovo
(Articovo), Baica (Basizza), Blato (Blato), Brda (Berda), Drenovac (Drinovazzo), Galovac
(Galovaz), Gladua (Gladussa), Grusi (Grusi), Kamenjani (Chamegnani), Kotopaina
(Cottopaschina), Koino (Cosinoselo), Mahurci (Mahurci), Miljaka (Migliacza), Murvica
(Murvizza), Podi (Podi), Poliane (Polisane), Poriane (Porizane), Raice (Racice), Skril
(Scrile), Smokovi (Smochovich), Starovci (Starovzzi), Strupni (Strupnich), Trci (Tersci),
Veterinii (Veterinichi), Visoane (Visozane), Zlovane (Slouhsane).
(b) Number per decade of parcels of transferred property in morgen for the citys 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), Gaenica (Gasenica), Grgomii
(Gerguriza), Kolovare (Colovare), Kopranj (Copragl), Vinjik (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 Paman (Pasmano): Banj (Bagno), Neviane (Neviane),
Paman (Pasmano), and Punta Paman (Puncta di Pasmano); on Ugljan (Ugliano): Kukljica
(Chuchgliza), Lukoran (Lucorano), Preko (Oltre), Sutomiica (Sancte Euphemie), and
Ugljan (Ugliano); and on the minor island of I (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
Abbatie Sancti Michaelis de Monte in Insula, ultra Barchaneum Jadrensis

diocesis leased the abbeys entire property to Gregorio Gerdouich quondam Laurentij de dicta insula [Ugljan] and the latters absent brother. In
exchange for the annual rent of 50 ducats the tenants received usufruct
rights for a period of three years, which included 118 animals (small livestock). This particular contract included the following clause: Item que si
dicti conductores aliquam Damnificationem paterentur, quam Deus avertat,
In dicta conductione, Abbatie occasione Grandinis, seu Tempestatis, Durante ipsa locatione Trienia Tunc ipse dominus Abbas possit restauratione
facere ipsis conductoribus Secundum Jus Comuni [].51
A second case involved cross-border raids that originated from Ottoman territory. In May 1545 dominus Joannes de Pechiaro quondaom domini Francisci Nobilis Jadre leased four sors (c. 28.4-30.3 hectares) near the
village of Poliane 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 villages 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 Zadars chancelleries. Slightly fewer were leased on ecclesia-
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 Zadars archbishopric, the various congregations, parish churches, and hospitals. Including both landlords and tenants,
the nobility and clergy made up almost a third of all leaseholders. While
neither merchants nor members of the intellectual elites owned significant
amounts of real estate, in combination they made up about a quarter of all
tenants.
Rental market turnover totaled 21,000 ducats for the entire period under survey, of which roughly three-quarters went to nobility or clergy. Price developments mirrored those in the vending market. While rents on the
islands or other areas of Zadars 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 Dalmatias economic declineand the contemporaneous rise of real estate. Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 71-196, esp. the section on
property developments (151-196).
2.HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569;
Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I,
1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1567-1569; Johannes a Morea, I, 1545-1569; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 1540-1554; Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1544-1548; Nicolaus Canali, I, 1558-1567; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano, I, 15401569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus,
I, 1555-1567. In all, 1,772 individual notarial acts were analysed.
3.A transcript is provided in the appendix.
164
4.The average of the three decades is 355.67. The median is 356.

5.Womens lives and their rights to transfer real estate in Venices dominions were
very limited. In addition, the marital status of women defined the degrees of their personal
and economic freedoms and opportunities. A recent summary of scholarly research since
the 1970s is provided by Guzzetti, Testamentsforschung in Europa seit den 1970er Jahren. See also Fulbrook and Rublack, The Social Self and Ego Documents; von Greyertz, The Last Word? On womens property rights in Venice proper, Chojnacka, Working
Women of Early Modern Venice, 26-49; Guzzetti, Venezianische Vermchtnisse, 33-35, 5661. On womens property transactions as recorded in dowry bequests, Chojnacki, Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice, 575-577; Chojnacki, Patrician Women
in Early Renaissance Venice, 178-185; Owen Hughes, Domestic Ideals, 116-118. On
Venices dominions McKee, Women under Venetian Colonial Rule, 41; and Grbavac,
Testamentary Bequests of Urban Noblewomen, 68-69; Sander, Adelige Vermchtnisse
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 Zadars 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 Ljuba, 12 or
c. 1% for the district of Novigrad (incl. the county of Posedarje), and 39 or c. 4% for the
rest of Zadars jurisdiction.
8.In 941 instances the vendors came from Zadars 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 Ljuba, 12 or c.1% for the
district of Novigrad (incl. the county of Posedarje), and 39 or c.4% for the rest of Zadars
jurisdiction.
9.No data is available for the period before 1527. Around the mid-sixteenth century Zadars population stood at c. 6,000-6,500 individuals of whom c. 600 were of
privileged descent. Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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-
165
ares) changed their proprietors for c. 621 ducats. The total amount of money remained
more or less constant but the number of individual property transactions and the number of
morgen transferred decreased by roughly the same factor as the price went up.
13.I.e., the house of either of the two contracting parties, one of the witnesses present,
or of the communal official. In 288 instances or c. 27% contracts were stipulated at home
(in domo), at the threshold (ad ianuas portas), or inside (in camera domus).
14.The communal square as category includes the following locations: in the square
(in platea communis), in the communal loggia (sub logia communis), at the jurists bench
(ad bancum iuris ex opposito logiae communis), and the various descriptions of the business facilities (apotheca), typically referred to as at or in the communal square (ad/in/penes
plateam). The numbers are 372 instances or c. 35% for the communal square and 154 or c.
14% for the business facilities, totaling 526 instances or c. 49%.
15.This refers to all instruments written in churches, monasteries, and in a couple of
cases, cemeteries. Their number is 30 or c. 3%.
16.In one instance the contract was written extra Suburbem Jadrensis penes domum
capitanei Suburbii. In it magister Franciscus Nunchouich, a master-furrier, citizen, and
resident of Zadar, sold a parcel of land to Joanni Voychouich, ligonizatori, a day labourer
and resident. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.39v, 2 March 1543.
17.Admittedly, this occurred only rarely, such as when meser Paulo Begna, stipulating for himself and his absent brother, meser Simone, sold one morgen (c. 2,370 m2)
to Barichio Mandich de Melada (Molat), a priest, for the price of 25 lire. The contract
was written in una barca fuori del porto. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Cornelius Constantius, I, 1,
2, c.22r, 18 October 1568.
18.As happened when Catherina filia quondam Maruli de Sale, et uxor quondam
Joannis Plauocamcich alias Marcouich cognominato Xuvina de valle Sancti Stephani sold
one morgen (c. 2,370 m2) to Martino Chissauich de dicta valle Sancti Stephanj. The property was located near that village and changed hands for the sum of 35 libras. The contract
itself was written apud portas terre firme. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 2, 1, f.16r, 30 July 1540.
19.These contracts followed the legal frames closely. See Lib. III, tit. XVI: De locatione et conductione omnium rerum stabilium, mobilium et se moventium et operarum
omnium personarum, which contains 19 chapters; and Lib. III, tit. XVII, De iure emphiteotico seu de iure quod acquiritur danti et recipienti possessiones aliquas pastinandum,
which contains seven chapters. Statuta Iadertina, 310-332.
20.Small livestock such as piglets, chickens, roosters, or young lambs had to be consigned to the landlord at Christmas, prior to Lent (carnis privum), Easter, or any other specified date. Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 231; Perii, 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
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 citys suburbs. All other
places, including the other subdivisions of Zadars 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 Badoers tour of duty as provveditor generale in Dalmazia [] con sede fissa a Zara in the late 1530s, he attempted a large-scale resettlement
of the abandoned parts of Zadars jurisdiction on the mainland with Morlachs from Istria,
temporarily reaching circa 1,000 fochi. The Venetian policy of pressganging the newlyarrived people to serve as oarsmen on war galleys caused the Morlachs cross the border to
the Ottoman Empire in an attempt to escape military service. This, as commented on by
Paolo Giustiniano, once serving as Zadars 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 years 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
[Podvrje] per annos viginti proxime venturos [a] Reverendo domini Joanni Urancich parochiano Villae Tersce (Trci). The property was located within Zadars 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 landlords father, Hieronymus de Laurentijs, was referenced by Paulo Justiniano, captain of Zadar 1552-1553, in
his report to the Senate in February of 1553: El populo fidelissimo, et doppo dio adora la
vostra serenit 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
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.32rf.32v, 7 August 1561.
30.The tenants were usually referred to as colonist (colonus, sozalis) in the instruments.
Mayhew calls them labourers (teak), while those engaged in day labour were called ligonizator (which means more or less the same as teak). 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, Zadars
harbour, or the landlords 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 Petrane to
Gregorio Marijch Nautj habitatori Jadre in autumn of 1551. The tenant was required to
transport the landlords share of the harvest ad marina. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, 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., Reverendus 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 Zadars statutes applied to all, regardless of the landowners 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
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 Susich, Michaelj Michocich, bonus payments for the planting of pedes quindecim olinariorum pro quoque gognale in exchange for 12 soldi pro quaque arbore on the landlords
10 morgen (c. 2.4 hectares) on Ugljan. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Petrus de Bassano, I, 1, 9, f.36vf.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.
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 Zadars 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%).
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 Zadars population, Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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
169
elsewhere within Zadars 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
drijeb, 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 compounds made up the hamlets and small villages of the hinterlands of Zadar. See Raukar,
Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 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 I 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 Zadars 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 requisitus 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-Venetian war was still raging in the spring of 1540, dominus Bernardinus Prititius Nobilis
Nonensis habitator Jadre leased his property on the island of Paman 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 Franciscus 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
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. Zadars Urban Nobility

Venices 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 respublicas influences were clearly visible
in the cityscape and in economic, legal, and social structures. The written
legacyin particular notarial protocolsallows 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 documentationthe moving
image in Sally McKees wordsand existing published researchthe
soundtrack of the citys bustleto 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 Zadars body of statutory law to provide a foundation for the
172
subsequent analysis of notarial actsmarriage 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 unwillingness to mix their own blood with that of members of other lites.7
Zadars 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 ones 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 Analogous laws existed for widows: without the consent of her children a woman
was not allowed to remarry after her husbands 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 communes 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 nobilitys 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)

1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
255
179
222
656
% of Totalb
39 %
27 %
34 %
100 %
Latinc
255
176
201
632
Contractsd
56
33
39
128
Quitclaimse
199
146
183
528
(a) Number per decade of marriage-related contracts.
(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
14
12
11
1550s
34
25
23
11
1560s
31
26
21
88
60
28
56
28
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 Zadars jurisdiction, including the
minor district of Nin).
(c) Number per decade of regional contracting parties (from within Venices Adriatic dual
province): Kotor (Catharo), Hvar (Pharo, Lesina), Pag (Pago), Rab (Arbe), Split (Spalato),
ibenik (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),
Omi (Almissa), Rab (Arbe), ibenik (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
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 Zadars 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 Communitatis Jadre married a fellow nobleman. The spouse, dominus Georgius
de Grisanis quondam domini Francisci nobilis Sibenicensis [ibenik],
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 Mazzarelluss 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. Franciscuss 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 Hvars 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 Zadars 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 Mille 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
175
in St Michaels 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 brides sister, domina Margarita uxor [] domini Bernardini [de Carnarutis], et filie praefata dominae Colice, and her dowry. The
marriage contract specifically mentioned that Philippas dowry payment
was to be deferred until Bernardinus had received the rest of his wifes
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 Karnaruti) was a renowned soldier and accomplished
writer, and presumably this connection increased the social status of the
Ferra family within Dalmatias 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 Zadars 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 brides 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
Zadars St Michaels parish.26
On another occasion, in summer of 1557, spectabilis dominus Bernardinus Galellus nobilis Jadre, et una, et dominus Simon Civalellus quon-
176
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 Zadars 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 wifes 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 Nicolotas 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 Antonius 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-
177
beth [] a ser Joanne Anzolerio civi et habitatori Jadra.32 The latter, Hieronymus 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 Croatian-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 Cossirich domini Jacobi ex quondam domina Magdalena filia quondam Comitis
Georgij Bencouich nobilis Crouatia de Plauno (Plavno) appointed a procuratrix. With his fathers consent Melchior tasked dominam Helenam
Bencouichiam filiam suprascripte quondam comitis Georgij to acquire the
rightful share of his mothers 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 Zadars notaries, had married the
daughter of one of the rural nobles from Posedarje, a small fortified village
within Zadars 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 wifes 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 Comitis 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
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 Zadars 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 ibenik, and by the two
members of the Mazzarellus family of Trogir who moved from a small town
to the provincial capital40 and became Zadars 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 Dennis 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,
Zadars nobility was described by Venices legates as relatively poor, especially in comparison to Venice proper. Despite their limited wealth, Dalmatian noble families lived and clothed themselves allItaliana. 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-
179
nices 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 Korula, 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. Nevertheless, this problem may be resolved by the abundance of written
sourcesmore specifically, wills and inventories.45
For a discussion about material culture in Zadar, let us begin by examining testaments of female members from the three wealthiest families of
Zadars 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 Felicitas dowry and transferred to the Franciscans 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 Magdalenas daughters were to receive unam vestem a dorso dicti testatricis ex Sarzia rouana [] et unam vestem ex medialana paonazia.53 Finally, Felicitas former maid, Catherine filie Mathei Sagoraz, received omnes Camisias et aliaquacumque drapamentas
et vestimentas quotidiana a dorso.54
180
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 Thomasinam 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 patena 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 testatrixs immovable propertya plot of land near the villages of Banj,
a warehouse in the vicinity of Zadars main square, and possessions elsewhere58her 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 Euphemias 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 Gallellis 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. Lucretias sister received do camise uno paro de lineoli, et uno paro
de intimelle and 200 ducats, which were to be paid out of the testatrixs
income derived from her immovable property. The testament contains a
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 pauperiores 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 Baldissara filia quondam domini Federici Grisogoni quondam domini Francisci.62
These 200 ducats were to be accumulated out of the income of Lucretias possessions, the alienation of which was explicitly prohibited. The
rest of the testament contains a list of the testatrixs properties, which suggests that she was rich despite not being specifically indicated as such by
Venices legates. Thus the wealth of Zadars 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 Simonis 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 Catherinas 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, Catherinas
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 Dalmatias elites. As has been demonstrated, money, je-
182
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 Dalmatias 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 Dalmatias 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
Zadars 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 Testamentarium. 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.
4.OConnell, Men of Empire, 12.
5.On Venice proper, see the above-referenced works by Chojnacki, Chojnacka, Sperling, et al.
6.Including contracts establishing additional dowry payments (augmentatio dotis),
a number of civil proceedings, etc. Sources used: HR DAZD 31 Biljenici 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,
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 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, 656 individual
notarial acts were analysed.
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 absolutis 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 mletakom 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., osi-Vekari, Dubrovaka vlastela izmeu roda i drava; and JanekoviRmer, Marua ili suene ljubavi, on Dubrovnik. On Trogir, e.g., Benyovsky, Srednjovjekovni Trogir; on Rab, see Mlacovi, Graani plemii.
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). Claras 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 Claras
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.
184
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.
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.
25.Bernardinus Carnarutus fought under Nikola ubi Zrinski (Zrnyi Mikls, 15081566), the Ban of Croatia, against the Ottomans in Hungary. While the former gave up soldiering in the mid-1540s, the latter died defending the city of Szigetvr (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 Szigetvr] 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, Catherinas (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
citys 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; Anzulovi, O opstojnosti hrvatskog puanstva, 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.
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 Theodosiuss 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, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2B, c.35r-c.36r, 6 May 1560. Almost all other dotal cards, quitclaims,
marriage contracts, and testaments of Zadars nobility omit this specific wording, which
explicitly refers to, in Chojnackis words, the brides 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.
39.HR DAZD 31 BZ, Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1, A, c.35v-c.36r, 21 January 1540.
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 Zadars 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 richezza di questi nobili non molta, perch la maggior intrada, che sia fra loro, di ducati quattrocento, cinquecento et fino settecento, come li Tetrici, Rosa, Civallelli, et altri, chhanno
ducati cento dentrada, ducento e fino trecento. E sono di questi nobili molti poverissimi,
i costumi dei quali sono quasi italiani, perch la maggior parte de nobili vive, favella et
veste allusana dItalia, 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, ibenik, Trogir, and Split. Ibid., 191, 204-205, 208, 215.
Of the Albanian towns Ulcinj and Bar, however, Venices 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., Lenigma della modernit; and Donaglio, Un esponente delllite liberale.
44.A cursory overview is provided in Budak, Urban lites in Dalmatia, 197-109.
On Dubrovnik, Budak points to the unpublished theses by Janekovi-Rmer, Dubrovako
plemstvo u XV. stoljeu [Dubrovniks Nobility in the 15th Century] (PhD diss.); on Rab
Mlacovi, Drubeni in ekonomski odnosi na Rabu v anujski dobi 1358-1409 [Social
and Economic Relations in Rab under Angevin Rule (M.A. diss., both unavailable to the
author); see also Mlacovi, Graani plemii, esp. 202-288; on Korula, Dokoza, Dinamika
186
otonog prostora; and Schmitt, Korula sous la domination de Venise; on Trogir, Benyovsky, 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 lites 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 brothers 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 Federici artium et medicinae doctoris nobilis Jadrensis agens nomine proprio ac nomine et vice
dominorum Hieronymi et Julij fratrium suorum modo in Ghymnasio patavino studentium
leased all jointly-owned salt pans in valle Pagi in confinio Sancti Joannis de Cangerich
to Reverendo domino Joanni Ifcich canonico pagensis, 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, Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice, 190-193; Chojnacki, Dowries and Kinsmen in
Early Renaissance Venice; Chojnacka, Working Women of Early Modern Venice, 26-49;
Janekovi-Rmer, 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 Noblewomen, 68-70; Janekovi-Rmer, Rod i grad, 89-93; and Stuard, State of Deference, 100114. For the relevant clauses in Zadars 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, Felicitas dowry quitclaim from the mid-1550s, proves her
noble descent from Kotor. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 1, s.p., 18 November 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 minarum 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
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 Felicitas husband, vulgari Sermone describenda, videlicet,
un annello doro con la pietra rossa di valuta come la disse di ducati sette, unannello doro
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 Zadars
suburbs. In all of these instances, the bequests were tied to masses in the testatrixs 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 eightpointed yellow star in the middle. The lower half was blue.
Kolumbi, Grbovi zadarskih plemikih obitelj [Coats of Arms of the Zadar Nobility] (images of the coats of arms on 93); Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 Marchettas 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
Marchettas daughters Maria [] uxor domini Francisci Dragoeuich and Helisabeth
uxor quondam domini Aloysij Boyci would inherit their mothers 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
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 todays
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
Machurci [?]; Sorte cinque a Migliasichi [Miljaka]; Due sorte Varicassane [Varikaani];
Gognali trentado Lucorano [Lukoran] arabile et vignati et olinatj; Il molin overo la posta,
et paga livello de lire 20 a Machurci [?]; Livelli posti San Simon [?]; Una ograda sottol
monte ferreo [?] de gognali 8 vel circa vignada 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 dun 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 observandum 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.
70.Interestingly, there is an abundance of Classical Latin writingsand only one
missalmentioned 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 Zadars Urban Landscape
Over the course of centuries, enduring myths based on the writings

of Marcantonio Sabellico, Gasparo Contarinis 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 regionsCrete, Cyprus, and Constantinoplehave resulted in less
scholarly interest in and documentation of other geographical areas.7 The
most recent contributions have focused heavily on the administrators of
Venices maritime state and investigate the patricians sent to administer
and govern the Doges subjects.8 The following pages examine a broader
spectrum of social groups in Zadar, namely Venetians, Croats, Jews, and
the non-noble elites.
190
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 midsixteenth century, they operated out of their residence in Zadars Contrata
Sancti Stephani.9 We also know from contemporary accounts by Venices
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] Rimanich11 and conceded other parts
to labourers.12 And like Zadars 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 Natalem Donato olim dignissimum Provisorem Generalem in Dalmatia. Sanctus was to recover the sum of 79 libras from Nicolotas 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 brothers role as commander of
Urban Elite Groups and Zadars Urban Landscape
191
a galley about a decade later. In this capacity Stephanus issued a quitclaim

to this ships 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 Stephanuss 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 latters importance grew over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a
consequence of the increasing militarisation of the frontier areas of the Stato da mar.17 The procuratorial appointments involving military personnel
reveal the problematic payment practices of Venice.18 For instance, in early
1560 Zadars 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 Magnificorum 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 discovered 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 citys 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 elsewherethe Emperors requisitions are cited explicitly23supplies 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
formenti et altre biave nelle parti di Turchia al benefficio si di questa citt

come del Suo territorio [], specifically earmarked to acquire foodstuffs from subjects of Venices potential future adversary.24 Despite renewed
Ottoman attacks on the Knights Hospitaller in 1565 Gieronimo and Zanantonio, deputati al proveder di biave per 250 di questa citt, 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 Benedictine nunnery of St Catherines, 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 Peregrins 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
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 Zadars 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, Koino, and
Gaenica (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 Zadars jurisdiction too.32 Martinus 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, Peregrins 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 Ventura35 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
Simons sister, honesta damicella domina Laura, to marry up. Peregrin,
who stipulated on behalf of his siblings, managed to breach the social
boundaries separating Zadars noblemen from the citys commoners. Lau-
194
ras husband, dominus Antonius de Begna alias Grascich quondam Damyani nobilis Jadre, received a comparably large dowry worth 600 ducats
from Peregrin, as well as 50 additional ducats per quondam dominae Mattheam 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 Venices legates as Hierolimo di Lorenzi,42 belonged to this particular
socio-occupational group too.43 He was related by marriage to another nonnoble 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 chambers 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 Ljubljana, Andreas Postner. According to the marriage contract written in Crete, 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 Venices civil and military servants. Nevertheless, every now and then
Croats appear in the protocols of Zadars notaries.
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 Reverendi 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 (Mogori) family in Zadars St
Catherine nunnery (see also Chapter 3). As for the relatives of sister Helena, in the spring of 1565 three more names appear in the notarial records:
comes Georgius Mogorich quondam comitis Martini, comes Thomas Mogorich 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 Zadars jurisdiction, which
they leased to domino Simoni Mazzarello nobilis Traguriensis cancellario Magnifici comunitatis Jadrae. In all, they transferred three sors52 to
the communal chancellor. The properties were located near the villages of
Radohouo [] Reiane [Reane], 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. Reane 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
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 Raanac, 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 Mogorichia 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 Zadars 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 Melis Zizo hebrei habitatoris Jadra formally renounced any future claims
on parts of her fathers patrimony (refutatio bonorum) in exchange for a
dowry.61 About two weeks later the marriage contract was drawn up Inter excellentem dominum Salvatorem Alfari artium et medicinae doctorem
hebreum ex una et dominam Lauram filiam ser Mellis Zizo hebrei ex altera. It also contains clauses pertaining to the dowry, written in Hebrew
(scripta letteris hebraicis manu Jacobi Sassi Venetijs habitatoris et Subscripto manu duarum Testium). Hence Lauras 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, Salvator Alfari promised his wife a counter-dowry of 175 ducats.62
197
Mele Zizo, Lauras 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 daughters marriage the couple lived in a house in Zadars 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 citt dAncona, uno in Hebreo et laltro 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 Perlas counterpart and gubernator di detti
pupillj et bonatenente del detto quondam Salamon suo figlio.65 Another
instrument, written two decades earlier, revealed something else: Perlas
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 Zadars 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 Joseph 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 gubernatrix 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 Dalmatia, 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
after the credit had been agreed upon, the same two individuals formed a
societas72 in which each party agreed to bring in 105 scudi. Jacobus also
obliged himself pro ut se obtulit exercere Arte mercantium, tam in Emendo 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 Magnificum 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 portionem 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 Zadars cityscape and its
uses, focusing on the distinction between public and private spheres.77 It
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
Business facilities1
Chancelleries2
Houses3
Ecclesiastical property4
Communal main square5
Other6
Salesa
154
144
288
30
372
79
1,067
Leasesb Grantsc
30
35
31
86
58
98
27
16
46
211
34
32
226
478
Zadard
35
40
85
13
70
12
255
Totale
254
301
529
86
699
157
2,026
Averagef
12.5 %
15 %
26 %
4%
34.5 %
8%
100 %
Sources: HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569;
Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta,
I, 1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1567-1569; Johannes a Morea, I, 1545-1569;
Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 1540-1554; Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1544-1548;
Nicolaus Canali, I, 1558-1567; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano,
I, 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 Zadars 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 Zadars main square.
(2) Contracts drawn up in one of the citys 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 Zadars 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
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 citys 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 citys 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)
201
Table 14: Property Transactions in Zadar proper (Overview, 1540-1569)

1540s
1550s
1560s
No. of Actsa
81
71
103
255
% of Totalb
32 %
28 %
40 %
100 %
Latinc
81
71
100
252
Sellersd
19
16
21
56
Buyerse
14
15
19
48
Sources: see Table 13, above. The bottom line gives the three-decade totals.
(a) Number per decade of concessions.
(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 Zadars nonnoble 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 citys 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 Zadars property
202
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
1550s
1560s
No. of Acts
% of Total2
4
4
5
13
5%
170
118
409
697
5.5 %
15
11
14
40
c. 16 %
310.5
783
367
1,460
11.5 %
3
9
12
24
c. 9 %
109
357
884
1,350
c. 11 %
7
6
3
16
c. 6 %
331
614
207
1,152
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 blacksmiths
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 Blacksmiths 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 Marys and St Donatus (mentioned twice each),
the parish centred around St Lawrence (mentioned once), and the neighbourhoods arsenatus86 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 Anastasias Cathedral, St Demetrius, St Chrysogonus, 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
203
of the Priests,89 Sts Stephen/Simeon/Rochus,90 St Dominic, St Michael, and

St John or Blacksmiths 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 citys 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 captains 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 Zadars 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 Lshaped 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 citys housing.
Notes
1.The account follows Chojnacki, Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice,
263-294; Grubb, Elite Citizens, 339-340; Rsch, The Serrata of the Great Council and
Venetian Society, 6788; OConnell, 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 Historiography, 491-519; Queller, Venetian Patriciate, 3-28; Martin and Romano, Reconsidering Venice, 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 recognised that educated and skilled original citizens (cittadini originari) were increasingly tied
204
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 Signoria that required ambitious elite citizens to register themselves in what Grubb calls a Libro
dArgento. Ibid., 341-343, 353 (emphasis in the original).
6.Ibid., 354. On marriage practices in Renaissance Venice Chojnacki, Marriage Legislation 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, 379413; Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, 13-61; OConnell, 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., OConnell, Men of Empire; and OConnell 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.
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 Stephani 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 Zornichi. 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. Interestingly, the tenant is referred to as count (comes), indicating that Johannes may have been
of aristocratic descent, albeit from Zadars 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 Zadars 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-
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.443rc.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 Bombarderius in dicta Triremi, the galleys 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 Dalmatias borders between the Cyprus 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 mega, Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske,
29-71; and mega, Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Kste.
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, Zadars 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 brothers 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 incurred by the constituents 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 Commissiones, 3:164-167.
21.Il restante de intrada di quella camera si spende nel presentar et dar mangiar a
Turchi, che vengono nella citt a negotiare, quanto che suciede de disturbo a quelli confini. And while these expenses during Pisanis 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 pi
206
importante spesa lapresentar ognanno 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 dominionsat 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 questanno cosi
piacendo a Sua Divina Maesta se ne ha havuto pochissimo raccolto, Gli ellesse et deput a
questo negotio approesso le altre provigioni per Sua celeberrima Maesta intorno a cio maturamente 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.
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 brothersSimon, Bartholomaeus, and Juliusand 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 Zadars 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 Intervenit 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 Zadars territory. 12.3 hectares (32 morgen
near Koino, 20 morgen near Gaenica) were located not far from the citys 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 Ugljan, 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.
207
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. Laurentiuss 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 exceptione remota. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Daniel Cavalca, I, 2, 2A, c.10v-c.11v, 15 October 1559.
38.Simon actually had two quitclaims issuedone in 1561 and the other in 1563.
The former states that ipse dominus Franciscus restat Solum modo debitor dicti eius generi [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 Marcos 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 August 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.
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 Bra). Again, an important and comparatively wealthy commoner managed to have his daughter marry upward, transcending the social boundaries
(probably Helysabeths 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
ino Presbytro Martino Cassich Primicerio Pagi, specifically noted as her first husbands
brother. The Cassich family was also one of neighbouring Pags 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, Hieronymuss brother, paid his nieces dowry of 200 ducats: domina Marie eius
nepotis ex fratre quondam domini Michaeli (another brother of both Petrus and Hieronymus) was the legitimate wife of domino Joanni Segotich nobilis Nonensis. 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 Citizens, 353; and OConnell, Men of Empire, 57-74. Zadars statutes, compiled and printed
1563/64, only oblige the citys 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
(Karlovaka upanija) and the other in Bjelovar-Bilogora county (Bjelovarsko-bilogorska
upanija), 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 drijeb = 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 (Trane). 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 Sliuniza uti tutores filiorum pupillorum in etate minori [] Pauli filij quondam Petri Ceruanich et alterius Pauli filij quondam Micaheli Ceruanich de Sliuniza (Slivnica) sold three
quarters of a morgen (c. 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
doltremare, 974). For a recent comparative study, Keil, ed., Besitz, Geschft und Frauenrechte, esp. Grbavacs 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 Rodrigas efforts to establish a free port in Split after the Cyprus War,
Ibid., 7; Calabi, The City of Jews, 31-35; Jtte, Handel, Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke, 282-285; Paci, La Scala di Spalato; and Ravid, The Venetian Government and
the Jews, 12-20. Rodrigas 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-
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, Cio 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 Ancona. 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 Rodrigas 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 Dominions; Mschter, 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 February 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. Zadars 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
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 Commenda Contract.
73.Mayr Choen would have profited anyway since he provided the entire capital.
Jacobus was already in his partners debt for the formers 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 comestabile Jadrensis, testibus habitis rogatis et cetera. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 9, s.p., 13 January 1562.
75.HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Mazzarellus, I, 1, 10, s.p., 4 April 1564.
76.OConnell 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). Lw, Soziologie der Stdte, 15-73 (esp. her three
points on 66-68).
78.Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 parties113 (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 parties131 (or c.
51%)belonged to neither category.
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 Zadars territory (ager publicus, Astareja).
Another 24 (c. 9%) originated from elsewhere within Zadars 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
Zadars territory. Another 14 (5.5%) originated from elsewhere within Zadars jurisdiction,
and 28 (11%) came from more distant places.
83.Mayhew, Contado di Zara, 23-29; Panciera, Frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia; Panciera, Frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo; Tralji, Tursko-mletako granice
u Dalmaciji.
84.See Mocellin, Citt fortificata di Zara, 29-40; and mega, 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 citys old
arsenal and must not be confused with the new arsenal in the citys 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 Klai 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 Klai and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku [Zadar in the Middle Ages],
285; Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 mletakom 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 saints
casket, Hfler, 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
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 vocatam la porta della becharia In contrata hospitum. See Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom
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.Klai and Petricioli mention only one church dedicated to St Nicholas, situated in
the citys 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 Klai and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem
vijeku, 285; and Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom upravom, 135.
93.Raukar et al., Zadar pod mletakom 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 Venices Stato da mar, specifically during the three
decades circumscribed by the naval battles of Preveza (1538) and Lepanto (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 Venices 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
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 Zadars 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 Zadars
property markets, comparing for the first time developments on the mainland with price movements on the islands under the citys 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 Venices 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 Zadars jurisdiction.
Most importantly, improvements in military technology made defence of
the vast expanse of Venices 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 dependency 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 Zadars 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 Developments 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. (Unfortunately, we are lacking comparable data for the periods prior to the OttomanVenetian 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 Zadars
jurisdiction in the 1570s altered the situation considerably; economic recovery stalled at that point.
Venices 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 Venices representatives integrated into the host societies in the wider eastern Mediterranean. 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 Venices Adriatic dominions strongly
resembled the lagoon metropolis in terms of its social diversity and flui-
216
dity. In existing scholarly contributions, however, the underlying reality

of economic, social, and geographical mobility6 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 citys 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 Bra, Hvar, and Korula, and
the communities of Split, ibenik, and Trogir on the mainland.9
For too long the early modern history of Adriatic communities, inextricably 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 Dalmatias 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 otonog prostora; and
Mlacovi, Graani plemii.
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, Citt fortificata di Zara, 4344, 60-61; Malz, Dalmatinische Stdtewelt, 106; and Sardella, Venise au dbut du XVIe
sicle, 10.
7.McKee, Women under Venetian Colonial Rule, 35.
8.See OConnell, Men of Empire, 1-15; Ortalli, Beyond the Coast, 10; Schmitt,
Sdosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum, 77-78; and Raukar, Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeu, 78.
9.As lamented e.g. as recently as 2011 by Schmitt, Lapport 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
Units of Measurement1
Measurement of Land
1 gognaj (morgen, gonjaj)
1 sors (drijeb)
c. 2,370 m2 (exact: 2,369.547684 m2)

c. 30-32 gonjaj = c. 7.1-7.6 hectares
(exact: 7.11-7.584 hectares)
Measurement of Length
1 passus, pes
4 passi (stope)
c. 0.33 m (exact: 0.34773 m)

c. 1.4 m (exact: 1.39092 m)
Measurement of Volumes
1 Venetian modium

1 Zadrani modium
1 star
1 quarta (kvart)
1 miera (mjera)
c. 333 litres (exact: 333.26 l) = 4 star

= 16 kvart
c. 104.2 litres (exact: 104.1629 l)
c. 83.25 litres (exact: 83.315 l)
c. 20.83 litres (exact: 20.82875 l)
c. 80 litres
Monetary Denominations
1 ducat (ducat)
1 libra (lira, lire)
1 Mocenigo
1 Scudo
1 Ungarus (Ungaro)
1 Zecchino
6 libras and 4 soldi (solada or solidi)

20 soldi = 240 denarii (denar or denaro)
24 soldi
6 libras and 17 soldi
1.Statuta Iadertina, 759-760, Raukar, Zadar u XV. stoljeu, 298, Tucci, Convertibilit e copertura metallica.
Appendix
223
List of Toponyms in Zadars 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 December 1569.
Name in the Sources
Bibigne*
Croatian
Bibinje
Boccagnatio
Bubgnane*
Cerno*
Diclo*
Drassaniza, Draxaniza
Bokanjac
Bubnjane
Crno
Diklo
Crvene Kue,
Draanica
Draevac
Galovac
Gaenica
Gladua
Kolovare
Kopranj
Lazareto
Puntamika
Brodarica
Artikovo
Biograd na moru
Drazevaz*
Galovaz*
Gasenica*
Gladussa*
Colovare
Chopragl, Copragl*
Lazaretto
Punta Amica*
ultra barchaneum
Articovo*
Zaretum vetus, civitas
vetera*
Blato*
Brda, Brdo*
Briseve
Cernogerschina*
Goriza*
Gromniza*
Blato
Brda
Brievo
Crnogoriina
Gorica
Grobnica
Italian
Bibigne (arch.
Argimbusi)
Boccagnazzo
Cerno
Diclo, Dcolo
Caserosse
Malpaga
Galovazzo
Porto Nuovo
Gladussa
Colovare, Borgo rizzo
Puntamica, PuntAmica
Barcagno
Articovo
Zaravecchia
Berda
Brisevo
Goriza
Grommizza
Area
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Territory
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
224
Grusi
Jelsa
Chamegnane
Cotopanschina*
Cosinoselo*
Migliacza*
Mocro*
Murviza*
Opatizaselo*
Pergliane*
Peterzane*
Grusi
Jelsa
Kamenjani
Kotopaina
Koino
Miljaka
Mokro
Murvica
Opaeselo
Prljane
Petrane
Plernich
Podi
Polissane*
Porizane*
Poscaglina*
Racice*
Rasanze*
Rogovo*
Smocovich*
Starossane*
Stomorino Selo*
Strupnich
Suovare*
Sancti Cassiani, San
Cassiano*
Sancti Philippi et Jacobi
Sancti Petri prope civitatem
veterem
Tersci
Turetta, Turretta*
Varicassane*
Veternichi*
Visocane*
Xanice
Zemonico, Zumonico*
Gliuba*
Plerni
Podi
Poliane
Poriane
Pokaljine
Raice
Raanac
Rogovo
Smokovi
Staroani
Stomorinoselo
Strupni
Suhovare
Sukoan
Grue
Gelsa
Cproli, Csino
Migliazza
Mocro
Murvizza
Peterzane, Porto
Schiavine
Podi
Polisane
Racice
Rassanzze
Rogovo
Smcovich
Suovare
San Cassiano
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Sv Filip i Jakov
Santi Filippo e Giacomo
Sv Petar na moru San Pietro
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Tri
Turanj
Varikaani
Veterinii
Visoane
(?)
Zemunik
Ljuba
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Ljuba
Torretta, Turretta
Zemonico
Gliuba
Appendix
Puncta Gliube
Ambrosichiaselo
Bevilaqua, Brevilacqua
Brischiana dictionis Nonae
Chiacavci*
Cerinci
Chernise
Chupari
Chraschia, Chrasia*
Nona
Podverie, Podversie
Puncta Dura
Saton, Zaton
Blachiane
Cassich
Corpuaglie*
Novigrad*
Plernichi
Posedaria*
Reiane
Sliuniza
Terschiane*
Zauod, Zavod*
Aureana*
Pachoschiane
Punta Ljuba
Ambrozeselo
Privlaka
Briane
akavci
erinci
ernise
upari
Hracija,
Hraane
Nin
Podvrje, Vrje
Vir
Zaton
Blaani
Kai
Koruplje
Novigrad
Plerni
Posedarje
Reane
Slivnica
Trane
Zavod
Vrana
Pakotane
Tino
Bagno
Berbigne
Calle, Callo
Dobropogliana
Cuchgliza
Lucorano
Melada
Neviane
Pasmano
Oltre
Tinj
Banj
Brbinj
Kali
Dobropoljana
Kukljica
Lukoran
Molat
Neviane
Paman
Preko
225
Punta Gliuba
Brevilacqua
Nona
Verch
Puntadura
Zaton
Novegradi
Casscich
Novegradi
Possedaria
Slivnizza
Aurana
Porto Schiavine,
Poschiane
Tino
Bagno di Pasmano
Berbigno, Brebigno
Mul, Cale, Cal
Dobropogliana
Camera, Cuclizza
Lucorano
Melada
Neviane, Novigliano
Pasmano
Oltre
Ljuba
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Nin
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Novigrad
Vrana
Vrana
Vrana
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
226
Puncta Pasmano
Punta Bianca
Rava
Sale
Sauri
Selva
Sancta Euphemia
Sdrelaz
Punta Paman
Beli Rat, Rat Veli
Rava
Sali
Savar
Silba
Sutomiica
drelac
Tcono
Tkon
Ugliano
Vergada
Zaglava
Ugljan
Vrgada
Zaglav
Punta Pasmano
Punte Bianche
Rava
Sale
Sauro
Selva, Selve
SantEufemia
Sdrela, Stagno di
Pasmano
Tucconio, Ticconio,
Cotunno
Ugliano
Vergada
Zaglava
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Islands
Sources: HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, I, 1540-1551; Cornelius Constantius, I, 1567-1569;
Daniel Cavalca, I, 1551-1566; Franciscus Thomaseus, I, 1548-1561; Gabriel Cernotta, I,
1562-1564; Horatius de Marchettis, I, 1567-1569; Johannes a Morea, I, 1545-1569; Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, I, 1540-1554; Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, I, 1544-1548; Nicolaus Canali, I, 1558-1567; Nicolaus Drasmileus, I, 1540-1566; Petrus de Bassano, I, 15401569; Paulus de Sanctis, I, 1545-1551; Simon Budineus, I, 1556-1565; Simon Mazzarellus,
I, 1555-1567. 2,026 contracts are analysed.
Disclaimer: This is not a complete list of toponyms in all 2,026 contracts since in some
contracts no names or specifics are given. The listing provides an indicative overview of
the inhabited villages.
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 Zadars territory (ager publicus, Astareja), jurisdiction (excluding the territory), the minor districts of Ljuba, 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). Mayhews compilation
is based on the following: the report by Zacharias Vallaresso, dated 10 September, 1527,
in Commissiones, 1:219-220; Anzulovi, Razgranienj izmeu mletake 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: Zadars 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 Zadars 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; () indicates that the island of Murter belonged to the jurisdiction of ibenik.
Towns, villages, and islands are indicated by their Croatian name and marked with a dot.
Field names are in Italics.
Map 2: Zadars 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 Zadars 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 mletakom 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 (katel);(c) Chain Gate (lanana vrata);
(d) St Demetrius Gate (vrata sv. Dimitrija); (e) St Chrysogonus Gate (vrata sv Krevana);
(f) Butchers Gate (vrata klaonice); (g) St Marys or Simeons or Arsenal Gate (vrata Sv.
Marije ili imuna 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) Angels Gate (Anelova 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 palaa); 8. hospital of St
James (hospicij sv Jakova); hospital of St Mark (hospicij sv Marka); 10. St Demetrius (sv
Dimitrije)*; 11. St Chrysogonus (sv Krevan)*; 12. St Thomas or Silvester (sv Petar ili
Silvestar)*; 13. Church of the Forty Martyrs (etrdeset muenika)*; 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 loa); 22. St Rochus (sv Rok)*; 23. St Stephen or Simeon (sv Stjepan ili
imuna)*; 24. ducal palace (kneeva palaa); 25. captains palace (kapetanova palaa);
26. St Mary de bon gaudio (sv Marija boni gaudii); 27. St Dominic (sv Domink)*; 28
St Michael (sv Mihovil)*; (29) St Johns or blacksmiths parish (sv Ivan kovaki)*; (30)
blacksmiths furnaces (Stomorica, Pusterla).
230
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, Temporibus serenissimi Principis et domini excellentissimi Domini Francisci Donato [Donadi], 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 celeberrimem 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 todays
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 substituendum unum vel plureis procuratorum Seu procuratores cum cimili auf limitata
potestate et mandato, Promittens se ratum gratum atque firmum perpetuo habiturum 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 [Bragadin] 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 Authoritatibus 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, Daniel 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
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 computum dictus venditor confessus fuir et manifestavit habuisse et cum effectu recepisse a dicto domino emptore libras octuaginta octo parvorum in tanto vino et pecunia
numerata, 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 legitime 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 Mamessich 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 churchs fields in the vicinity of Lukoran to Antonius and Hieronymus 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 Bedrischina 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 successiva 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 elligendum 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, Promittentes 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, Zadars
archbishop, leases the income of the archiepiscopal see to Johannes and Franciscus Thomaseo for three years. HR DAZD 31 BZ, Simon Budineus, I, 1, 1, f.24rf.24v, 8 January, 1557.
Nel nome di Cristo amen, Lanno dalla Nativita del istesso MDLVij lIndittion 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
Zara et suo Destretto dignissimo, Inanti il Nobel huomo di Zara Meser Marian
di Soppe honorando Giudice essaminatore della corte personalmente constituido il Reverendissimo Monsignor il signor Marco Loredan per la gratia di Dio
Vescovo di Nona8 dignissimo Vicegerente et procurator Generale del Reverendissimo Monsignor signor Mutio Calino per la miseration divina Arcivescovo
di Zara dignissimo sicome del mandato di Procura prefato ampiamente consta
per pubblico instrumento celebrato in Roma et annotato di mano des discreto
huomo meser Desiderio Bonaannona della corte di cause della Camera apostolica Nodaro de di 13 del mese davosto del anno 1556, lIndittio 14a per me
Nodaro infrascritto visto, et letto, con poter tra glatre cose in quello contenute
di locat, et affitar tutte et qualumque entrate, frutti, redditi, et proventi al Arcivescovato di Zara spettanti, et pertinenti, col detto procuratorio nome ha datto,
locato, et Concesso ad affitto al Reverendissimo Meser Gioan Thomaseo Canonico di Zara et a Meser Francesco Thomaseo cittadin et Nodaro di Zara fratello
del detto Reverendissimo meser Zuanne, 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
chhanno 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 dellIsole della diocesi di
Zara, et la decima dellIsola di Pago9 et etiam la decima grande del corpo di
questa Citt, 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 detto suo Arcivescovato, quomodocumque et qualitercumque cosi de rason come
de consuetudine et con comodit del palazzo Archiepiscopale et ogni altra attion
et giuridittion temporale de qual si voglia sorte, non eccetuando ne resservandosi cosa alcuna al ditto Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo mal il tutto
comprendendo nella presente location, Ad haver, tenir, goder, et posseder per
il tempo danni 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 tuttol 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 Cor8.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 detto 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 dubit 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, peste, che Dio non voglia, per li qual
casi fussero dannificate le dette entrate sino alla terza parte, il qual per danno Li
preditti Conduttori in termene duno mese doppo che sar occorso siano tenuti
notificar al prefato Reverendissimo Monsignor Arcivescovo overo al prefato signor Marcantonio Cornaro in Venetia overo sia giudicato infral detto mese per
dui di questa citt da esser Eletti per li celeberrimi Rettori di questa citt, 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 fral detto Termene danni tre della presente location possano, et vagliano liberamente dar, et conceder a pastinar terreni in quantit 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
lalatra et lalatra laltra 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 dellhabitation del soprascritto Reverendissimo Monsignor 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
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 Nicolai 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 Conditione 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 Larma 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 Larma 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, medi11.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 Martin, 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.Draevac.
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.Votarnica.
17.5 gonjaj = c. 11,850 m2.
18.Local toponym, place located in Zadars territory.
19.2 gonjaj = c. 4,730 m2.
20.I.
21.Paman.
22.6 gonjaj = c. 16,590 m2.
23.8 gonjaj = c. 18,960 m2.
238
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 Pongliana26 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 chadena; 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 ; item Tella grossa griza, in una peza braza, 32 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 similiter 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
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 Zadars 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;

31.Bili Brig.
Bibliography
Published Primary Sources

Kolanovi, Josip, and Mate Kriman, eds., Zadarski statut sa svim reformacijama
odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563 [Zadars Statute with
all Amendments and New Regulations Adopted by the Year 1563]. Zagreb:
Matica Hrvatska, 1997.
Ljubi, Simeon, and Grga Novak, eds. Commissiones et relationes Venetae:
Mletaka i uputstva i izvetaji [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 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Augustinus Martius, busta I, 1540-1552.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Cornelius Constantius, busta I, 1567-1569.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Daniel Cavalca, busta I-III, 1551-1566.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Franciscus Thomaseus, busta I, 1548-1561.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Gabriel Cernotta, busta I, 1562-1564.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Horatius de Marchettis, busta I, 1567-1569.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Johannes a Morea, busta I, 1540-1569.
244
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Johannes Michael Mazzarellus, busta I-IV, 1540-1554.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Marcus Aurelius Sonzonius, busta I, 1544-1548.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Nicolaus Canali, busta I, 1548-1567.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Nicolaus Drasmileus, busta I, IV, 1540-1566.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Petrus de Bassano, busta I-II, 1540-1569.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Paulus de Sanctis, busta I, 1545-1551.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Simon Budineus, busta I, 1556-1566.
HR DAZD 31 Biljenici Zadra (Notarii civitatis et districtus Iadrae) Zadar (XII1797); 1279-1797: Simon Mazzarellus, busta I, 1555-1569.
Secondary Literature
Anderle, Marija Dragica. Das ffentliche Leben in Dalmatien in venezianischer
Zeit. In Dalmatien als europischer Kulturraum, edited by Wilfried Potthoff, 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. stoljea [Zadars Cadastre from the
15th Century]. Starine 40 (1950): 371-417.
Anzulovi, Ivna. Razgranienje izmeu mletake i turske vlasti na zadarskom
prostoru 1576. nakon Ciparskog rata [Border Demarcation between the Venetian and Ottoman Governments in Zadars Environs after the Cyprus War].
Zadarska smotra 1-3 (1998): 53-150.
Anzulovi, Ivna. O opstojnosti hrvatskog puanstva sjeverne Dalmacije iz predturskog 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. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000.
Arbel, Benjamin. Colonie doltremare. In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento:
Societ 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: Studies in Honor of David Jacoby. London: Frank Cass, 1996.
Bibliography
245
Arbel, Benjamin. Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern Eastern 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 PreColonialism? 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 bl pendant la seconde moiti
du XVIe sicle. 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: Weltenstrmer einer Zeitenwende. Munich: Bruckmann, 1953.
Bacchion, Eugenio. Il dominio veneto su Corfu, 1386-1797. Venice: Altino, 1956.
Balard, Michel, ed. Migrations et diasporas mditerranennes, Xe-XVIe sicles.
Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002. Balard, Michel, ed. tat et colonisation au Moyen ge et la Renaissance. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1998.
Balard, Michel, and Alain Ducellier, eds. Le partage du monde: changes et colonisation dans la Mditerrane mdievale. 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.
Balard, Michel, and Alain Ducellier, eds. Coloniser au Moyen ge. Paris: Colin,
1995.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. Srednjovjekovni Trogir: Prostor i drutvo [Medieval Trogir: Space and Society]. Zagreb: Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest, 2009.
Bettarini, Francesco. Toscani al servizio della citt di Ragusa (Dubrovnik) nella
prima met del Quattrocento. Medioevo Adriatico 1 (2007): 135-150.
Bin, Alberto. La Repubblica di Venezia e la questione Adriatica, 16001620.
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, 3:127158. 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
Brandt, Miroslav. Wyclifova hereza i socialni pokreti u Splitu krajem XIV. st.
[Wycliffes 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 Sin Reynolds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.
Braudel, Fernand. Sozialgeschichte des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts: Der Alltag. Translated by Siglinde Summerer. Munich: Kindler, 1985. 193
Braudel, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century: The Perspective of the World. Translated by San Reynolds. New York: Harper & Row,
1984.
Brkovi, 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 pi remoti sino al 1409.
Edited by John J. James. Trieste: Lint, 1974.
Budak, Neven, and Tomislav Raukar, eds. Hrvatski povijest srednjeg vijeka [Croatian History in the Middle Ages]. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 2006.
Budak, Neven, ed. Raukarov zbornik: Zbornik u ast Tomislava Raukara [Raukars Collected Papers: Studies in Honour of Tomislav Raukar]. Zagreb: FF
Press, 2005.
Budak, Neven. Urban lites in Dalmatia in the 14th and 15th Centuries. In Citt
e sistema adriatico alla fine del medioevo: Bilanci degli studi e prospettive
di ricerca, edited by Michele P. Ghezzo, 181-199. Venice: Societ Dalmata
di Storia Patria, 1998.
Budak, Neven. Drei Zentralstdte in Dalmatien: Salona, Zadar, Split. In Hauptstdte zwischen Save, Bosporus und Dnjepr: Geschichte-Funktion-Nationale
Symbolkraft, edited by Harald Heppner, 101-123. Vienna: Bhlau, 1998.
Budak, Neven. Prilog bibliografiji grada Dubrovnika i Dubrovake 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, 14501653. 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. Citt, comunit e feudi negli stati dellItalia centro-settentrionale (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 et 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 London: Johns Jopkins University Press, 2001.
Chojnacki, Stanley. Identity and Ideology in Renaissance Venice: The Third Serrata. 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-Century 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 Venice. Renaissance Quarterly 38 (1985): 240-270.
Chojnacki, Stanley. Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice. Journal 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 Afterlife. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Concina, Ennio. Venezia nellet moderna: Struttura e funzioni. Venice: Marsilio,
1989.
248
Concina, Ennio. Il rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia

nella prima met del Cinquecento: Modelli, dibattiti, scelte. In Atti del convegno di studi architettura militare nellEuropa 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, societ, cultura nella Repubblica di Venezia in
et moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi, 291-352. Venice: Marsilio, 1997.
Cozzi, Gaetano, Michael Knapton, and Giorgio Scarabello, eds. La repubblica di
Venezia nellet moderna. Turin: UTET, 1986-1992.
Cozzi, Gaetano. Il dominio da mar. In La repubblica di Venezia nellet moderna, edited by Gaetano Cozzi and Michael Knapton, 1:195-204. Turin: UTET,
1986.
Cozzi, Gaetano. Stato, societ e giustizia nella Repubblica Veneta (sec. XV-XVIII).
Rome: Jouvence, 1985.
Cozzi, Gaetano. La politica del diritto nella Repubblica di Venezia. In Repubblica 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: Unintervento di Eugenio
IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia. Bollettino dellIstituto di Storia della Societ e dello Stato Veneziano 3 (1961): 179-189.
Crouzet-Pavan, lizabeth. Venice Triumphant: The Horizons of a Myth. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
orali, Lovorka. The Ragusans in Venice from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth
Century. Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999): 13-40.
osi, Stjepan, and Nenad Vekari. Dubrovaka vlastela izmeu roda i drave:
Salamankezi i Sorbonezi [The Ragusan Patriciate between Kinship and State:
Salamankezi and Sorbonezi]. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 2005.
Bibliography
249
Dadi, arko. Natural Sciences. In Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and Sciences: Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural
Survey, edited by Ivan Supii and Eduard Hercigonja, 2:741-760. London:
Wilson, 2008.
Daru, Pierre. Histoire de la rpublique 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 University Press, 1984.
Dini-Kneevi, Duanka. Migracije stanovnita iz junoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik 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.
Dini-Kneevi, Duanka. Dubrovnik i Ugarska u srednjem veku [Dubrovnik and
Hungary in the Middle Ages]. Novi Sad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Ogranak u Novom Sadu, 1986.
Dokoza, Sero. Dinamika otonog prostora [The Dynamics of an Island]. Split:
Knjievni Krug, 2009.
Donaglio, Un esponente delllite liberale: Pompeo Molmenti: Politico e storico
di Venezia. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004.
Doumerc, Bernard. Les Vnetiens confronts au retour des rapatris de lempire
colonial doutremer (fin XVe-dbut XVIe sicle). In Migrations et diasporas mditerranennes, Xe-XVIe sicles, edited by Michel Balard, 375-398.
Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002.
Doumerc, Bernard. Il dominio del mare. In Storia di Venezia: Il rinascimento:
Societ ed economia, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 5:113-180.
Drechsler, Wolfgang. Venice Misappropriated. Trames 6, no. 2 (2002): 192-201.
Ducellier, Alain, Bernard Doumerc, Brnehilde Imhaus, and Jean de Miceli. Les
chemins de lexile: Bouleversements de lEst europen et migrations vers
lOuest la fin du Moyen ge. Paris: Armand Colin, 1992.
Ducellier, Alain. La faade maritime de lAlbanie au Moyen ge: Durazzo et Valona du XIe au Xve sicle. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981.
250
Dursteler, Eric. R. Power and Information: The Venetian Postal System in the
Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean. In From Florence to the Mediterranean: Essays in Honour of Anthony Molho, edited by Diogo Ramada Curto,
Eric R. Dursteler, Julius Kirshner, and Francesca Trivellato, 2:601-623. Florence: Olschki, 2009.
Dursteler, Eric R. The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and Career in Venices
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, Pl, Gyula Krist, and Andrs Kubinyi. Histoire de la Hongarie mdievale:
Des Angevins aux Habsbourgs. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes,
2008.
Engel, Pl. 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:
asopis za gospodarsku povijest i povijest okolia 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 seizime sicle: Comment naviguaient les galres.
Annales: conomies, Socits, 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. Osmans Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923.
London: Murray, 2005.
Finlay, Robert. Venice Besieged: Politics and Diplomacy in the Italian wars, 14941534. 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 University Press, 1980.
Fiorentin, Nedo, ed. Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni.
Treviso: Canova, 2002.
Bibliography
251
Foreti, Dinko, ed. Prolost Zadra [The Past of Zadar]. Zadar: Narodni list, 19761987.
Foreti, 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
Mditerrane. 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 societ coloniale del trecento: Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio.
Venice: Deputazione Editrice, 1989.
Ganchou, Thierry. Le rachat des Notaras aprs la chute de Constantinople ou les
relations trangres de lelite byzantine au XVe sicle. In Migrations et
diasporas mditerranennes, Xe-XVIe sicles, edited by Michel Balard, 149229. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002.
Ganchou, Thierry, ed. Les lites urbaines au Moyen ge. Paris: Publications de la
Sorbonne, 1996.
Garnier, dith. Lalliance impie: Franois Ier et Soliman le Magnifique contre
Charles Quint (1529-1547). Paris: Flin-Kiron, 2008.
Gelder, Maartje van. Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern 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. Venices Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Gestrin, Ferdo. Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV i XVI. stoljeu [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 nellItalia moderna: Rapporti di produzione e contratti agrari dal secolo XVI a oggi. Turin: Einaudi, 1974.
252
Girardi-Karulin, Mihaela. Federik Grisogono (Federicus Chrysogonus) und der

Begriff der ntzlichen 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 Jovanovi. London:
Hurst, 1999.
Goldstein, Ivo. upanije u ranum srednjem vijeku u Hrvatskoj [Croatias Counties in the early Middle Ages]. In Hrvatske upanije kroz stojea [The Croatian Counties through the Centuries], edited by Ivo Goldstein, 12-20. Zagreb:
kolska knjiga, 1996.
Graciotti, Sante. Plurilinguismo letterario e pluriculturalismo nella Ragusa antica
(un modello per la futura Europa?). Atti e Memorie della Societ 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 Civilization 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 Historiography. 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: Bibliographischer berblick. In Seelenheil und irdischer Besitz: Testamente als
Quellen fr den Umgang mit den letzten Dingen, edited by Markwart Herzog and Cecilie Hollberg, 17-33. Konstanz: UVK, 2007.
Guzzetti, Linda. Venezianische Vermchtnisse: Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Situation von Frauen im Spiegel sptmittelalterlicher Testamente. Stuttgart and
Weimar: Metzler, 1998.
Bibliography
253
Hartog Franois, and Jacques Revel. Historians and the Present Conjuncture.
Mediterranean Historical Review 16, no. 1 (2001): 1-12.
Hercigonja, Eduard. Povijest hrvatske knjievnosti: Srednjovjekovna knjievnost
[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 sicle. Paris: Fayard, 2006.
Hocquet, Jean-Claude. Le sel et la fortune de Venise. Lille: Publications de
lUniversit de Lille III, 1978-1979.
Hohenberg, Paul M., and Lynn Hollen Lees. The Making of Urban Europe, 10001994. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean 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 Jelavi, eds. Monumenta historiam Uscocchorum illustrantia ex archivis romanis, praecipue e secreto Vaticana desumpta. Zagreb:
Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slavorum Meridionalium, 1910-1913.
Hfler, Janez. Die Kunst Dalmatiens vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance, 8001520. Graz: Akad. Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1989.
Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Imhaus, Brnehilde. Le minoranze orientali a Venezia, 1300-1510. Rome: Il Veltro, 1997.
Infelise, Mario. News Networks between Italy and Europe. In The Dissemination of News and the Emergence of Contemporaneity in Early Modern Europe, edited by Brendan Dooley, 51-67. Burlington: Ashgate, 2010.
Iveti, Egidio, ed., Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex Confinium: Approaching the Other on the Borderlands Eastern Adriatic and Beyond, 1500-1800.
Padua: CLEUP, 2007.
Iveti, Egidio. Dalmazia e slavi neigli studi di Roberto Cessi. Archivio Veneto
V, 164 (2005): 125-144.
Iveti, Egidio. Storiografie nazionali e interpretazioni della Dalmazia medievale. In Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: Secoli di vicende comuni, edited by
Nedo Fiorentin, 95-134. Treviso: Canova, 2002.
Iveti, Egidio. Oltremare: LIstria nellultimo dominio veneto. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2000.
Jacoby, David. Byzantium, Latin Romania, and the Mediterranean. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2001.
254
Jacoby, David. La colonisation militaire vnetienne de la Crte au XIIIe sicle.

In Le partage du monde: changes et colonisation dans la Mditerrane
mdievale, edited by Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier, 297-313. Paris: Publications 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 Harry W. Hazard, 4:177-222. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
Jacoby, David. The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade. American Historical
Review 78 (1973): 873-906.
Jacoby, David. La fodalit en Grce mdievale: Les Assises de Romanie: Sources, applications et diffusion. Paris: Mouton, 1971.
Jaki-estari, Vesna. Etniki 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.
Jaki, Nikola. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni krajobrazi [Croatian Medieval Landscapes]. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheolokih spomenika, 2000.
Janekovi-Rmer, Zdenka. Marua ili suenje ljubavi: Brano-ljubavna pria
srednjovjekovnog Dubrovnika [Marua or Trial of Love: A Marital Love Story from Medieval Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Algoritam, 2008.
Janekovi-Rmer, Zdenka. Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika: Hravtskilatinski
[Description of the Slavic City of Dubrovnik: Croatian-Latin]. Zagreb: Dom
i Svijet, 2004.
Janekovi-Rmer, Zdenka. Viegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovake Republike
[Visegrd Privilege: Foundations of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb:
Golden Marketing, 2003.
Janekovi-Rmer, Zdenka. Rod i grad: Dubrovako obitelj od XIII do XV stoljea
[Kinship and the City: Dubrovniks Families from the 13th to the 15th Centuries]. 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
Fernndez-Armesto, 37-52. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2008.
Jovi, Vedrana. Jugoistoni 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 Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u Zadru 52 (2010): 79-119.
Jungwirth, Julia. Procurator. In Studienwrterbuch Rechtsgeschichte und Rmisches Recht, edited by Thomas Olechowski and Richard Gamauf, 375. Vienna: Manz, 2006.
Bibliography
255
Jtte, Daniel. Das Zeitalter des Geheimnisses: Juden, Christen und die konomie
des Geheimen, 1400-1800. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Jtte, Daniel. Handel, Wissenstransfer und Netzwerke: Eine Fallstudie zu Grenzen und Mglichkeiten unternehmerischen Handels unter Juden zwischen
Reich, Italien und Levante um 1600. Vierteljahresschrift fr Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte 95, no. 3 (2008): 263-290.
Kaiser, Wolfgang, ed. Le commerce des captifs: Les intermdiaires dans lchange
et le rachat des prisonniers en Mditerrane, XVe-XVIIIe sicle. Rome: Ecole
franaise 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: Istituto 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. Limpero 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, Geschft und Frauenrechte: Jdische und christliche
Frauen in Dalmatien und Prag, 1300-1600. Kiel: Solivagus, 2011.
King, Margaret L. Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance. Princeton: 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.
Klai, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats in the Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Biblioteka Posebna izdanja, 1990.
Klai, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats
in the High Middle Ages]. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1976.
Klai, Nada, and Ivo Petricioli. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the
Middle Ages until 1409]. Zadar: Narodni list, 1976 (Foreti, Dinko, ed.
Prolost Zadra, vol. 2).
Klai, Nada. Fratalea artis calegariorum de Iadra. Matasoviev zbornik (1972):
135-149.
Knapton, Michael. Nobilt e popolo e un trentennio di storiografia veneta.
Nuova rivista Storia 82 (1998): 167-192.
256
Knapton, Michael. Tra dominante e dominio (1517-1630). In La repubblica di

Venezia nellet 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 nellet 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.
Kolanovi, Josip, ed., Pregled arhivskim fondova i zbirki republike Hrvatske [Inventory of the Archival Collections and Manuscripts of the Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb: Hrvatski dravni arhiv, 2006-2007.
Kolanovi, Josip. ibenik u kasnome srednjem vijeku [ibenik in the Late Middle
Ages]. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1995.
Kolanovi, Josip. Izvori za povijest trgovine i pomorstva srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih gradova s osobotim osvrtom na ibenik (contralittere) [Sources Pertaining to the History of Commerce and Maritime Trade in Medieval Dalmatian
Cities under Individual Consideration of the contralittere of ibenik]. Adriatica
Maritima Zavoda zu povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 3 (1979): 63-150.
Kolumbi, Jelena. Grbovi zadarskih plemikih obitelj [Coats of Arms of the
Zadar Nobility]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti i umjetnosti HAZU u
Zadru 47 (2005): 27-98.
Kovaevi, Desanka. La Serbie dans lconomie de Venise au XVme sicle.
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 sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Kovaevi, Desanka. Trgovake knjige bra Kabui (Caboga) [Account of Books
of the Kabui (Caboga) Brothers]. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka i
Umetnosti, 1999.
Kreiser, Klaus. Der Osmanische Staat, 1300-1922. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008.
Kreki, Baria. Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Venice in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i
Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 2007.
Kreki, Baria. Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and the War of Tenedos/Chioggia (13781381). In Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Venice in the 13th and 14th Centuries, edited by Baria Kreki, 303-334. Zagreb:
Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 2007.
Kreki, Baria, ed. Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society, 1300-1600, Aldershot: Variorum, 1997.
Bibliography
257
Kreki, Baria. The Attitude of Fifteenth Century Ragusans towards Literacy.

In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society, 1300-1600, edited by Baria
Kreki, 225-232. Aldershot: Variorum, 1997 (priginally published in Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, edited by Speros Vryonis, jr., 225232. Malibu: Undena, 1985).
Kreki, Baria. On the Latino-Slavic Cultural Symbiosis in Late Medieval and
Renaissance Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. In Dubrovnik: A Mediterranean Urban Society, 13001600, edited by Baria Kreki, 312-332. Aldershot: Variorum, 1997.
Kreki, Baria. Venezia e lAdriatico. In Storia di Venezia: La formazione dello
stato patrizio, edited by Alberto Tenenti and Ugo Tucci, 3:51-85. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996.
Kreki, Baria. Developed Autonomy: The Patricians in Dubrovnik and Dalmatian Cities. In Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times, edited
by Baria Kreki, 185-215. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987.
Lampe, John R. Imperial Borderlands or Capitalist Periphery? Redefining Balkan 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 History: 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 Renaissance. New York: Viking, 2003.
Libby, Lester J. Venetian History and Political Thought after 1509. Studies in
the Renaissance 20 (1973): 7-45.
Ljubi, Simeon, ed. Listine o odnoajih izmedju junoga slavenstva i Mletaka
Republika [Dispatches on the Relationship between the South Slavic Peoples
and the Venetian Republic]. Zagreb: upan (Albreht i Fidler), 1868-1891.
258
Lock, Peter. The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500. London and New York: Longman, 2002.
Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph. De quelques les grecques et de leurs seigneurs vnetiens aux XIVe et XVe sicles. 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.
Lw, Martina. Soziologie der Stdte. Frankfurt am Main, 2008.
Lucio, Giovanni. O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske [On the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia]. Edited by Bruna Kunti-Makvi. Zagreb: Latina et Graeca, 1986.
Lucius-Lui, Ivan. Povijesna svjedoanstva o Trogiru [Trogir in Historical Literature]. Edited by Jakov Stipi. Split: akavski sabor, 1979.
Luzzatto, Gino. Storia economica di Venezia dallXI al XVI secolo. Venice: Marsilio, 1995.
Mahnken, Irmgard. Dubrovako patricijat u XIV veku [The Patriciate of Dubrovnik
in the 14th Century]. Belgrade: Nauno delo, 1960.
Mallett, Michael E., and John R. Hale, eds. The Military Organization of a Renaissance 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 Ellenico 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, Ari. Frhneuzeitliche Modernisierung als Sackgasse: Die dalmatinische
Stdtewelt vom 15. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. In Stdte im stlichen Europa:
Zur Problematik von Modernisierung und Raum vom Sptmittelalter bis zum
20. Jahrhundert, edited by Carsten Goehrke, 103-133. Zurich: Chronos, 2006.
Manno, Antonio. Politica e architettura militare: Le difese di Venezia (15571573). Studi Veneziani 11 (1986): 91-137.
Margeti, Lujo. Le cause delle spedizioni veneziane in Dalmazia nel 1000. In
Histrica et Adriatica: Raccolta di saggi storico-giuridici e storici, edited by
Lujo Margeti, 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 Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited
by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 1-35. Baltimore and London: Johns
Mayhew, Tea. Dalmatia between Ottoman and Venetian Rule: Contado di Zara,
1645-1718. Rome: Viella, 2008.
Mayhew, Tea. Behind Zara: Zaras Contado between Ottoman and Venetian
Rules, 1645-1718. PhD diss., University of Padua, 2008.
Matrovi, Vjekoslov. Razvoj sudstva u Dalmaciji u XIX. stoljeu [Development
of the Judicial System in Dalmatia in the 19th Century]. Zadar: Jugoslavenska Akademija Zannosti i Umjetnosti, 1959.
McKee, Sally. Uncommon Dominion: Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Purity. 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. Lewkenors Venice and its Sources. Renaissance Quarterly
41, no. 3 (1988): 459-466.
Metzeltin, Michael. Le variet italiane sulle coste dellAdriatico 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 sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Mijan, Domagoj. Pomorske odredbe Zadarskog statuta u usporedbi s istim odredbama venecijanskog, dubrovakog 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.
Miovi, Vesna. idovski geto u Dubrovakoj Republici (1546-1808) [The Jewish Ghetto in the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija
znanosti i umjetnosti, Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2005.
Miovi, Vesna. Dubrovaka Republika u spisima osmanskih sultana [The Republic of Dubrovnik in the Documents of the Ottoman Sultans]. Dubrovnik:
Dravni arhiv, 2005.
Miovi, Vesna. Dubrovaka diplomacija u Istambulu [Dubrovniks Diplomacy in
Istanbul]. Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zavod za
Povijesne Znanosti u Dubrovniku, 2003.
Mlacovi, Duan. Graani plemii: Pad i upson iga plemstva [Citizens and Nobles:
The Rise and Fall of the Nobility]. Zagreb: Leykam international, 2008.
Mocellin, Marina. La citt fortificata di Zara dal XV al XVI sec. Atti e Memorie
della Societ Dalmata di Storia Patria 15, no. 4 (1992): 9-68.
260
Mogu, Milan. A History of the Croatian Language: Towards a Common Standard. Zagreb: Globus, 1995.
Mol, Luca. La comunit 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 Emigrs. Aldershot, Ashgate, 1995.
Mschter, 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 mittelalterlichen Juden: Fragen und Einschtzungen, edited by Michael Toch,
63-92. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2008.
Mueller, Reinhold C. Aspects of Venetian Sovereignty in Medieval and Renaissance Dalmatia. In Quattrocento Adriatico: Fifteenth-Century Art of the
Adriatic Rim, edited by Charles Dempsey, 29-56. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 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 Piet nellEuropa preindustriale: Amministrazione, tecniche operative e ruoli economici, edited by Societ Ligure di Storia Patria,
275-308. Genoa: Societ Ligure di Storia Patria, 1991.
Mueller, Reinhold C. Limperialismo monetario veneziano nel Quattrocento.
Societ e Storia 8 (1980): 277-297.
Muir, Edward W. Was there Republicanism in the Renaissance Republics? Venice 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 University Press, 1981.
Muldoon, James, and Felipe Fernndez-Armesto, eds. The Expansion of Latin Europe, 1000-1500. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2007-2009.
Muldoon, James, and Felipe Fernndez-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.
Nerali, Jadranka. Late Medieval Hospitals in Dalmatia. Mitteilungen des Instituts fr sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 115 (2007): 271-289.
Bibliography
261
Nicol, Donald M. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Norwich, John J. A
History of Venice. London: Penguin, 2003.
Novak, Grga. Povijest Splita [The History of Split]. Split: kuna, 2005.
Novak, Grga. Prolost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Split: Slobodna Dalmacija i Marjan Tisak, 2004.
Novak, Grga. Prolost Dalmacije [The Past of Dalmatia]. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 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.
OConnell, 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. Accessed 5 June 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.90021.0001.001.
OConnell, Monique. Men of Empire: Power and Negotiation in Venices Maritime 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 Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo/Der westliche Balkan, der Adriaraum und Venedig (13.-18. Jahrhundert). Vienna: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Ortalli, Gherardo. Beyond the Coast Venice and the western Balkans: The Origins 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 sterreichischen 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 Venezia 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 citt alla Repubblica
Serenissima. In Societ, 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
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. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1975.
Oxford English Dictionary. Commonwealth, n. In Oxford English Dictionary. 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: Venezianit e imperialismo (1938-1943). Ateneo Veneto 38 (2000): 253-298.
Panciera, Walter. Tagliare i confini: La linea di frontiera Soranzo-Ferhat in Dalmazia (1576). In Studi storici dedicati a Orazio Cancila, edited by Antonino Giuffrida, Fabrizio DAvenia, and Daniele Palermo, 1:237-272. Palermo:
Associazione Mediterranea, 2011.
Panciera, Walter. La frontiera dalmata nel XVI secolo: Fonti e problemi. Societ
e Storia 114 (2006): 783-803.
Papadia-Lala, Anastassia. La venetocrazia nel pensiero greco: Storicit, realt,
prospettive. In Italia-Grecia: Temi e storiografie a confronto, edited by Chryssa A. Maltezou and Gherardo Ortalli, 61-70. Venice: Istituto Ellenico di
Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2001.
Pavanello, Giuseppe, ed. Lenigma della modernit: Venezia nellet di Pompeo
Molmenti. Venice: Istituto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2006.
Pavi, Milorad. Plovidbene rute srednjim i junim Jadranom u izolaru Giusepppea Rosaccia [Navigational Routes on the Middle and Southern Adriatic in
Giuseppe Rosaccios Viaggio]. Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU
u Zadru 45 (2003): 153-199.
Pedani Fabris, Maria. Veneta Auctoritate Notarius: Storia del Notariato Veneziano, 1514-1797. Milan: Giuffr, 1996.
Pederin, Ivan. Appunti e notizie su Spalato nel Quattrocento. Studi Veneziani 21
(1992): 323-409.
Pederin, Ivan. ibenik (Sebenico) nel basso medioevo fino al 1440. Archivio
Storico Italiano 149 (1991): 811-885.
Pederin, Ivan. Mletaka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409-1797) [The
Venetian Administration, Economy, and Politics]. Dubrovnik: asopis, 1990.
Pederin, Ivan. Die wichtigsten mter der venezianischen Verwaltung und der
Einflu venezianischer Organe auf die Zustnde in Dalmatien. Studi Veneziani 20 (1990): 303-354.
Pederin, Ivan. Das venezianische Handelssystem und die Handelspolitik in Dalmatien (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.
Perii, ime. Razvitak gospodarstva Zadra i okolice u prolosti [The Economic Development of Zadar and its Surroundings in the Past]. Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zavod za Povijesne Znanosti u Zadru, 1999.
Perii, ime. Prilog poznavanju agrarnih odnosa u mletakoj Dalmaciji [Contribution to the Study of Agricultural Relations in Venetian Dalmatia]. Radovi
HAZU u Zadru 34 (1992): 135-159.
Perii, ime. Dalmacija uoi pada mletake Republike [Dalmatia on the Eve of
the Fall of the Venetian Republic]. Zagreb: Liber, 1980.
Petta, Paolo. Despoti dEpiro e Principi di Macedonia: Esuli albanesi nellItalia
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 Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297-1797, edited
by John Martin and Dennis Romano, 491-519. Baltimore and London: Johns
Povolo, Claudio. Lintrigo dellonere: Poteri e istituzioni nella Repubblica di Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Verona: Cierre, 1997.
Praga, Giuseppe. Storia di Dalmazia. Varese: DallOglio, 1981.
Prajda, Katalin. Rapporti tra la Repubblica Fiorentina e il Regno dUngheria a
livello di diplomazia, migrazione umana, reti mercantili e mediazione culturale nellet 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 Sleyman the Magnificent. In Sleymn the Second and his Time,
edited by Halil Inalck, 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
Queller, Donald E. The Venetian Patriciate: Reality versus Myth. Urbana: University 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 Cultural Survey, edited by Ivan Supii 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: Knjievni krug, 2007.
Raukar, Tomislav. Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeu [Commune
Societies in Dalmatia in the 14th Century]. In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjeg vijeku, edited by Tomislav Raukar, 69-140. Split: Knjievni 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 drutvene
znanosti 38 (2000): 49-125.
Raukar, Tomislav. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor, ljudi, ideje [The Croatian
Middle Ages: Spaces, Peoples, Ideas]. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1997.
Raukar, Tomislav. I fiorentini in Dalmazia nel secolo XIV. Archivio Storico Italiano 153, no. 4 (1995): 657-680.
Raukar, Tomislav, Ivo Petricioli, Franjo velec, and ime Perii. Zadar pod
mletakom upravom, 1409-1797 [Zadar under the Venetian Administration].
Zadar: Nardoni list, 1987 (Foreti, Dinko, ed. Prolost Zadra, vol. 3).
Raukar, Tomislav. Komunalna drutva u Dalmaciji u XV. i u prvoj polovici XVI.
stoljea [Commune Societies in Dalmatia in the 15th century and the First
Half of the 16th Century]. Historijski zbornik 25 (1982): 43-118.
Raukar, Tomislav. Drutvene strukture u mletakoj Dalmaciji [Social structures
in Venetian Dalmatia]. In Drutveni razvoj u Hrvatskoj of 16. od poetka 20.
stoljea [Social Developments in Croatia from the 16th to the Beginning of
the 20th Century], edited by Mirjana Gross, 103-125. Zagreb: Sveuilina
naklada Liber, 1981.
Raukar, Tomislav. Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije u XV i XVi st. [Venice and the Economic Development of Dalmatia in the 15th and 16th Centuries]. Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977): 203-225.
Raukar, Tomislav. Zadar u XV. stoljeu: Ekonomski razvoj i drutveni odnosi [Zadar in the 15th Century: Economic Development and Social Relations]. Zagreb: Sveuilite u Zagrebu Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1977.
Bibliography
265
Raukar, Tomislav. Zadarska trgovina solju u XIV i XV stoljeu [Zadars 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 Corf. 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 la domination vnetienne. 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 imbrevijature [The Port of Split around the mid-14th Century: Notarial Manuscripts].
Split: Izdanje Muzeja grada Splita, 1954.
Roksandi, Drago. Triplex Confinium ili O granicama i regijama hrvatske povijesti 1500-1800 [On Frontiers and Spaces in Croatian History]. Zagreb: Barbat, 2003.
Roksandi, Drago, ed. Triplex Confinium (1500-1800): Ekohistorija [Ecohistory].
Split: Knjievni Krug, 2003.
Rothenburg, Gnther 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 Century. In Renaissance Venice, edited by John R. Hale, 197-217. London: Faber & 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 University Press, 1965.
Runje, Petar. Lazaret u pregrau 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.
Rsch, Gerhard. Venedig: Geschichte einer Seerepublik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
Rsch, 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
Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, and Oliver J. Schmitt. Die gis als Kommunikationsraum im spten Mittelalter. Saeculum 56, no. 2 (2005): 215-225.
Sander, Stephan Karl. Adelige Vermchtnisse an Venedigs Peripherie: Die Testamente dalmatinischer nobiles um 1550. In Die Pein der Weisen: Alter(n) in Romanischem Mittelalter und Renaissance, edited by Christoph O. Mayer and Alexandra-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 Aric and Chiara
Frison. Venice: n.p., 2002-2004.
Schmitt, Oliver J. Korula sous la domination de Venise au XVe sicle: Pouvoir,
conomie et vie quotidienne dans une le dalmate au Moyen ge tardif. Paris:
Collge de France, 2011. Accessed 26 November, 2011. http://conferencescdf.revues.org/270.
Schmitt, Oliver J. Lapport des archives de Zadar lhistoire de la Mditerrane
orientale au Xve sicle. In Venise et la Mditerrane, 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 Sdosteuropa 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. Jahrhundert), edited by Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver J. Schmitt , 77-101. Vienna:
Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Schmitt, Oliver J. Skanderbeg: Der neue Alexander auf dem Balkan. Regensburg:
Pustet, 2009.
Schmitt, Venezianische Horizonte der Geschichte Sdosteuropas. Sdost-Forschungen 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
Societ 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Slot, Ben J. Archipelagus Turbatus: Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottoman, 1500-1718. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1982.
Slukan Alti, Mirela. Povijest mletakog katastra Dalmacije [History of the Venetian Cadastre in Dalmatia]. Arhivski vijesnik 43 (2000): 171-198.
Bibliography
267
Slukan Alti, Mirela. Kartografski izvori za povijest Triplex Confiniuma [Cartographic Sources for the History of the Triplex Confinium]. Zagreb: Hrvatski
dravni arhiv, 1999.
Sperling, Jutta G., and Shona Kelly Wray, eds. Across the Religious Divide: Women, 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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Stanojevi, Gligor. Dalmatinske krajine u XVIII. vijeku [The Dalmatian Military
Border in the 18th Century]. Zagreb: Prosvjet, 1987.
Stanojevi, Gligor. Jugoslovenske zemlje u mletako-turskim ratovima XVI-XVIII
vijeka [The South Slavic Lands during the Venetian-Ottoman Wars, 16th-18th
Centuries]. Belgrade: Istorijski institut, 1970.
Stckly, Doris. Le systme de lIncanto des gales du march Venise: Fin XIIIe
milieu XVe sicle. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Stow, Kenneth R. Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the 16th Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001.
Stuard, Susan M. A State of Deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the Medieval Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
Sui, Mate. Antiki grad na istonom Jadranu [The Ancient Town on the Eastern
Coast of the Adriatic]. Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 2003.
Sui, Mate. Zadar u starom vijeku [Zadar in the Old Time]. Zadar: Narodni list,
1981 (Foreti, Dinko, ed. Prolost Zadra, vol. 1).
Supii, Ivan, and Eduard Hercigonja, eds. Croatia and Europe: Culture, Arts, and
Sciences. London: Wilson, 1999-2008.
anjek, 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 Supii, 2:227-258. London: Wilson, 2008.
ari, Marko. The Turkish Wars and the Changing Realities of the Lika and
Krbava Ecosystems (15th and 16th Centuries). In Triplex Confinium (15001800): Ekohistorija [Ecohistory], edited by Drago Roksandi, 241-251. Split:
Knjievni krug, 2003.
imunkovi, Ljerka. La politica linguistica della Serenissima verso i possedimenti di l da mar: Il caso della Dalmazia. In Mito e antimito di Venezia nel bacino adriatico (secoli XV-XIX), edited by Sante Graciotti, 95-104.
Rome: Il Calamo, 2001.
unji, Marko. Dalmacija u XV stoljeu [Dalmatia in the 15th Century]. Sarajevo:
Svjetlost, 1967.
Tadi, Jorjo. Venezia e la costa orientale dellAdriatico 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
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 vnetienne avant Lpante. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1962.
Tenenti, Alberto. I corsari in Mediterraneo allinizio del Cinquecento. Rivista
Storica Italiana 72 (1960): 234-287.
Thiriet, Freddy. La Romanie vnetienne au Moyen ge: Le dveloppement et lexploitation du domaine colonial vnetien. Paris: Boccard, 1959.
Thiriet, Freddy. Venise et loccupation de Tnedos au XIVe sicle. Mlanges
dArchologie et dHistoire (1953): 219-245.
Tralji, Sead M. Tursko-mletake granice u Dalmaciji u XVI. i XVII. stoljeu
[Turkish-Venetian Borders in Dalmatia in the 16th and 17th Centuries]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 20 (1973): 447-457.
Tralji, Sead M. Zadar i turska pozadina od XV do potkraj XIX stoljea [Zadar
and its Turkish Hinterland from the 15th to the Beginning of the 19th Century]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 11-12 (1965): 203-227.
Tralji, Sead M. Tursko-mletako susjedstvo na zadarskoj krajini XVII. stoljea
[Turkish-Venetian Neighbourhood in Zadars Borderlands in the 17th Century]. Radovi JAZU u Zadru 4-5 (1959): 409-424.
Triplex Confinium. Triplex Confinium: Croatian Multiple Borderlands in EuroMediterranean 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 Mulino, 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 & Faber, 1973.
Tucci, Ugo. Convertabilit e copertura metallica della moneta del Banco Giro
veneziano. Studi Veneziani 15 (1973): 349-448.
Tucci, Ugo. Sur la pratique vnetienne de la navigation au XVIe sicle. Annales: conomies, Socits, Civilisations 13 (1958): 72-86.
Valentini, Giuseppe. Dellamministrazione veneta in Albania. In Venezia e il Levante 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. Lascension des Ottomans (1451-1512). In Histoire de lEmpire
Ottoman, edited by Robert Mantran, 81-116. Paris, Fayard, 1989.
Veinstein, Gilles. Sleymn. 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 FernndezArmesto, 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.
Vidakovi, Josip. Cultura-Political History of Zadar with Emphasis on History of
Printing Book and Script. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Printing, Design and Graphic Communications Bla Borovi, Zadar
September 26th-29th, 2007, edited by Zdenka Bolana, 15-18. Zagreb: Faculty of Graphic Arts, 2007.
Viggiano, Alfgredo. Note sullamministrazione veneziana in Istria nel secolo
XV. Acta Histriae 3 (1994): 5-20.
Visions of Community. Society, Statehood, and Religion in Late Medieval Dalmatia. Accessed 11 June 2012. http://sfb-viscom.univie.ac.at/home/projectgroups/.
Voje, Ignacij. Poslovna uspenost trgovcev v srednjeveskem Dubrovniku [Business
Relations of Traders in Medieval Dubrovnik]. Ljubljana: Znanstveni Intitut
Filozofske Fakultete, 2003.
Voje, Ignacij, and Desanka Kovaevi, eds. Kreditna trgovina u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Medieval Credit Market in Dubrovnik]. Sarajevo:
Drutvenih 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 Gromacht die Osmanen, 1300-1481. Vienna:
Bhlau, 1985.
mega, Andrej. Bastioni jadranske Hrvatske [Fortifications of the Croatian Adriatic]. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 2009.
mega, Andrej. Venezianische Festungen an der ostadriatischen Kste. In
Trkenangst und Festungsbau: Wirklichkeit und Mythos, ed. Harald Heppner
and Zsusza Barbarics-Hermanik, 129-142. Frankfurt am Main: Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2009.

Urban Elites of Zadar Dalmatia and The V PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Urban Elites of Zadar Dalmatia and The V PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

I libri di Viella

Stephan Karl Sander-Faes

Urban Elites of Zadar

Copyright 2013 - Viella s.r.l.

Questo volume stato pubblicato con il contributo del Dipartimento di Studi

Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center

1. Venices Maritime State (1358-1570)

2. Zadars Society: Geographical Distribution

3. Actors: Political, Ecclesiastical, and Economic Elites

Urban Elites of Zadar

4. Case Study: Zadars Interwar Property Markets

5. Urban Elites and Everyday Life

6. Urban Elite Groups and Zadars Urban Landscape

(Dravni arhiv u Zadru) State Archive in Zadar

Commissiones et Relationes Venetae: Mletaka i

Zadarski statut sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim

(Contado, county, distrikt) the countryside or hinterlands controlled by an urban centre

Note on Names and Dates

Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center

Gherardo Ortalli and Bernd Roeck

Preface. New Perspectives for an Important Adriatic Center

Urban Elites of Zadar

visible on the surface, extended beyond matters of foreign policy. What

val and early modern colonialism have emerged, emphasising continuities

Urban Elites of Zadar

here is respublica-cum-imperial power, coined by Gherardo Ortalli,38

cial origins of contracting parties and the geographical destinations of the

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

1. Venices Maritime State (1358-1570)

Urban Elites of Zadar

In an attempt to strangle Venices access to vital food and supplies it landed

Urban Elites of Zadar

Balkans peninsula, where it subdued Serbia in 1459 and Bosnia in 1463,

Mediterranean until the 1530s. In the meantime, decisive events occurred

Urban Elites of Zadar

existing normative and social order, amendments were introduced to the

Urban Elites of Zadar

of an emergency.65 Usually manned by the local militia,6 in times of war,

Urban Elites of Zadar

companions, usually consisting of close relatives. Eventually, this led to the

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

and karst, belonged to Zadars medieval jurisdiction too. These conditions

Urban Elites of Zadar

by Croat nobles.137 Yet despite the increasing Ottoman threat, no dedicated

Urban Elites of Zadar

(Venices syndics explicitly mention extortion, grand theft, rape, sedition,

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

50.Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 964. Interestingly, the same reference appears in

Urban Elites of Zadar

75.The account follows Arbel, Colonie doltremare, 976-979; Doumerc, Dominio

Urban Elites of Zadar

Urban Elites of Zadar

116.E.g, Corfu was relatively wealthy thanks to a combination of its advantageous

Urban Elites of Zadar

152.Gastald, approximately translated as administrative ward describes the office

Urban Elites of Zadar

167.Novak-Sambrailo, O autonomiji dalmatinskih komuna, 125.