OVEaDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per it. RETURN!“ LIBRARY MATERIALS: Mac: in book return to remove charge from circulation records S. GIACOMO DAL'ORIO: PARISH LIFE IN FOURTEENTH-CENTURY VENICE BY Dennis Romano A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1981 .'/' /L/ I / Copyright by Dennis Romano 1981 ‘5 “. ABSTRACT S. GIACOMO DALL'ORIO: PARISH LIFE IN FOURTEENTH-CENTURY VENICE BY Dennis Romano In recent years, historians of early Renaissance Italy have turned their attention to the role that neigh- bors and neighborhoods played in the life of the Italian city-states. Set within that comparative framework, this work explores the role that parish residence played in the private lives of trecento Venetians and explores, more generally, the characteristics of Venetian neighborhood life. Using material drawn from notarial records in the Venetian archives, this study examines the social contacts and solidarities that shaped the lives of the residents of the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio from 1297 to 1423. Examining the religious, familial, and professional contacts of various parishioners, this study finds that there was little correspondence in trecento Venice between the city's administratively defined neighborhoods and pri- Vate notions of neighborhood. All groups in the parish had contacts and associations which drew them into a largerr Often city-wide, orbit. Nobles did not cultivate local no- 1...“ cu. Dennis Romano bases of support or transform neighborhoods into family enclaves as they did in other cities. Rather, noble families lived widely dispersed and developed a city-wide orientation. And among the lower classes as well, guild associations, kin ties, and scuole memberships drew parishioners beyond parish confines and into a larger sphere. Because most parishioners had a non-parochial orienta- tion, the parish did not form a tight-knit community imbued with feelings of belonging and local pride. And various indices show that parochial solidarity grew even weaker during the course of the fourteenth century. The example of S. Giacomo dall'Orio points to the conclusion that Eggggggg Venice was not a congeries of tight-knit, inte- grated, parish communities. Finally, these findings suggest, contrary to prevailing oPinion, that it was the absence rather than the presence of integrated communities on the parish level that contributed to Venice's social stability. Unlike the governments of Genoa and Florence, the Venetian government did not have to compete with strong local solidarities. It faced a Populace with a city-wide orientation. That orientation not only promoted civic loyalty, but also facilitated control by the city's aristocratic regime. _ i To my parents iii -.- .- n.‘ ‘ .".-- .__..‘ ‘ 0- “‘¢..,‘ u ' .‘ - . ‘ ‘ ... _ ‘ . . u- _‘ .""¢| o._ ‘u - '«. 'A .5 ‘ t I U‘ I ». I 1 u ‘- ‘1 s.\ ~\. -. I Q . H- ‘h ‘n \ uh ‘ ‘- § \ . .“M‘ I” ~ - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A great many people have provided encouragement and assistance to me over several years and, in one way or another, have helped in the completion of this project. My thanks go first to the directors of the Fulbright- Hays Program in Italy and to the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation under whose auspices I was able to spend a productive year in the Venetian archives. I would also like to thank my alma mater, Wake Forest University, for allowing me to be a guest at Casa Artom. Many excellent teachers have helped guide me through the study of history. Katherine F. Drew of Rice University first introduced me to the study of social history and has always provided encouragement and sound advice. At Michi- gan State University, Richard Sullivan has kept me from losing sight of the larger historical picture, while Eleanor Huzar has taught me the virtues of attentiveness to sources. David LoRomer and Anne Meyering have responded to my work with careful readings and probing questions. To them all, I am deeply indebted. My stay in Venice was made easier and more enjoyable by many friends, both Venetian and American. I would like iv .- 15".- v -9‘.‘ -. - O. a.» 0.. . " "a 2' 0' up..- ‘. ‘-"‘~ -. '-‘- ..- ‘ - —.'” v..- V n n . “-‘. C '- . ¢..- .~--‘ ' | .. l - ..‘ u”. .. . ~ . . \ ‘_. ‘ .‘-:“' Q ~ I n-n ‘--‘ -“ - o.- ... a - : ‘-‘. “s‘. .‘ especially to thank Michela dal Borgo, Laura Giannetti, and Robert Zago for taking the time to explain thenwsteries of the archives to an oft-confused straniero. Fellow americani John Martin, Sharon Farmer, and Joanne Ferraro provided friendship and support both within the archives and without. And Professor Guido Ruggiero took more time than one ought rightfully to expect to share with me his knowledge of the Venetian archives. My most special thanks, however, belong to Stanley Chojnacki who has overseen my studies for the past several years. He has provided me with the very things I most sought in a teacher: generous time, constructive criticism, and good friendship. My debt to him is very great indeed. Finally, this work is for my parents who have provided support in so many ways, for so many years. - v I . hm...~. *o-v- .‘ i o . .1- .‘ ‘ . 1 ~'- 70-. .‘, . ‘ p I . ..._~ ." ... ‘- I“ v..- s.._ 4 1 t.”- o»... "" .Dn‘ ."~. .,.‘ . I Q h I .. I I I .Q.‘ ‘ : n-‘ 'u.. " 5.. a u .‘I " 'T‘v ‘. ‘u.~‘| \ v.“ I I I ‘.“. . ‘ h‘_- ~.. §‘. I I - Iu-.\.-." ‘IQ x \ ' \H a... “ I “‘- . ‘ .~“ TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ONE INTRODUCTION: NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBOR- HOODS IN RENAISSANCE ITALY . . . . . . . . 1 TWO URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: VENETIAN NEIGHBOR- HOOD ADMINISTRATION. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 THREE SAN GIACOMO DALL'ORIO: THE PARISH AND ITS INHABITANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 FOUR THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS LIFE. . . 71 FIVE KINSHIP AND RESIDENCE: FAMILIES IN THE PARISH . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 SIX CRAFTSMEN IN THE PARISH: THE FURRIERS OF s. GIACOMO DALL'ORIO. . . . . . . . . . 193 SEVEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL MOBILITY: SOME EXAMPLES FROM S. GIACOMO . . . . . . . . . 246 EIGHT CONCLUSION: THE VENETIAN PARISH IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 APPENDIX: A NOTE ON SOURCES AND APPROACH. . . . . . 337 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 vi ~u... .. a. ~.‘ -‘-._ .- he... J- TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE LIST OF TABLES Charitable Bequests to Poor Parishioners . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Charitable Bequests . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Scuole Bequests. Dowry Averages . . . . . . . . . Parish Marriage Patterns . . . Selection Of Fiduciaries . . . . vii PAGE 97 97 106 130 130 170 uqq FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE 9 LIST OF FIGURES The Sestieri of Venice The Parishes of Venice S. Giacomo dall'Orio . Religious Institutions Vicinity of S. Giacomo Distribution of Burial in the Sites Distribution of Exogamous Marriages. Genealogy of the Badoers . Genealogy of the Pesaros . . Sites of Furrier Associations. 10 Genealogy of the Bedolotos . ll Genealogy of the Reglas. . . viii PAGE 33 48 52 103 112 134 140 150 227 252 255 ‘ 1... _\ u'p. a... '0 1‘. ASV BMV CI Felice - mv NT PSM SN Note: KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Archivio di Stato, Venice. Biblioteca Marciana, Venice. Cancelleria Inferiore Sebellico, Andreina Bondi, ed., Felice de Merlis prete e notaio in Venezia ed Ayas, (1315-1348), 2 vols. (Venice, 1973-1978). more veneziano (The Venetian year began on March 1). Notarile Testamenti Procuratori di S. Marco Signori di Notte For purposes of consistency, names have been changed from Latin to their Italian equivalents. ix as. \. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN RENAISSANCE ITALY In the past three decades the politics and society of late medieval and Renaissance Italy have come under increased scrutiny from a large and distinguished group Of scholars. Initially attracted to the study of Italy by the issue Of republicanism versus dictatorship, these scholars and their students have since broken away from the traditional concerns Of history such as politics, diplomacy, and economics to explore new areas Of interest including demographic, family and cultural history.1 In- deed, the areas Of interest seem to change almost as rapid- ly as the most recently published research. Nor have methodologies remained constant. Historians now borrow heavily from their colleagues in anthropology, sociology, and psychology in search of tools for the study of non- traditional interests such as ritual behavior, sex roles, and violence. Yet while students Of Renaissance Italy may rightly look with pride on their accomplishments in uncovering vast amounts of information on a variety Of topics, there remains a certain uneasiness about the lack of a paradigm in which to place this information. The Burckhardtian notion of the Renaissance has not claimed the allegiance of Renaissance scholars for years, but nothing has, as yet, satisfactorily taken its place. One of the outstanding problems for historians interested in new areas of inquiry is how to relate their findings to traditional issues and concerns of Renaissance studies. There is now discernible in the literature a growing reaction on the part of social historians, not just those working in Renaissance Italy, to the drift in historical research. Hoping to salvage social history from the obliv- ion of antiquarianism, they are suggesting remedies to so- cial history's plight. For example, in 1976 Natalie Zemon Davis published a review essay on women's history in which she stated that, "the study of the sexes should promote a rethinking of some of the central issues faced by histori- ans -- power, social structure, property, symbols, and periodization."2 She believes that social history can and should illuminate the distribution and play Of power in society. More recently, Tony Judt has launched a frontal attack on some practitioners of social history in an article entitled, ”A Clown in Regal Purple: Social History and the Historians." Judt believes that the new emphasis on models, Paradigms, and quantification has led to the bankruptcy of nmst works in social history. He too suggests a remedy. .o.. 4 :- -,-. 32'”: . .2 a ..- - 7v - " bu-q 9- . - ' -lb. ouch-.ig. - 0v -:-o -. ,. ..~-.‘ v. r‘ ‘ a O o 4 ‘--.-'.. s ' . u "0.... ..‘ n . .. on... .u-'( ‘- ...‘.‘.. ... ‘ ‘. '0- ___. n ' ‘ a ..."‘..no. ' u .. “ n -' . ;\ v *1 I-D‘.-.’ .'.‘. .0 .-- ‘- ~-- .- ... 'ul. . . ‘.‘ ., ' . ‘.-‘: .2 H 1 ..-.'. -_. ' . e V. . I I. D-:. .‘ I ~‘o. _.I.- o a o. ‘ Q.-. . q ‘15.:u- ‘F;" “ -‘.‘.‘ . v :‘Q . It..- . a . ~-. s ""., . U u.. . us~;. h-..’ .‘.._‘ :‘--'_ ' ~u... -Vs .. _ u. , q ...‘- "v.'~ ‘. _ -."- I ‘5.“ ‘ I a...' . L‘s. . C.‘ \ ‘. .‘ . .~ ‘ - “~ .‘I s ..‘ I a a ‘ n ..VV 5 §.‘ 5.- .‘. r“. “~‘ - ‘ . \.‘. ”I h. N ‘ . . ~ ‘ av.‘ Q" I. ‘\. ‘ _.‘ \ ‘~ me . - \ 5 * .‘ n ‘ “. 0 ~— _ ‘ x.‘ 2‘ 9‘ ‘- h ‘L A n ‘I.: ‘~ Kc . 3 He believes that the task before social historians "is un- doubtedly that of reemphasizing, on every occasion, the 3 primacy of politics." For these prognosticators of social history's ills, the cure is for social historians to make their work address some of the traditional interests of historians. In Judt's words, "History is about politics."4 Addressing specifically the field of Italian Renaissance studies, Richard Goldthwaite has suggested in a review essay in the Journal of Urban History that students of Renais- sance Italy be more cognizant of the Italian Renaissance as an urban phenomenon. Goldthwaite argues that scholars have focused their attention on the elite of Renaissance society and have ignored urban infrastructure, urban space, and the "urban tenor of life." According to Goldthwaite, "for most scholars the urban setting of the Italian Renaissance is 5 As a solution, he recommends that all as- irrelevant." pects of urban life be studied not only in and Of themselves but also in order to understand how they relate "to the political and cultural history of the elites."6 Like the others, Goldthwaite believes that social history should help illuminate the distribution of power in society. One of the newest areas of research in Italian Renaissance studies is the investigation of neighbors (vicini) and neighborhoods (vicinanze) in the Italian cities. This area of inquiry perhaps has the best Chance of fulfill- ing both Davis and Judt's demand that social history Speak t0 the issue of power and Goldthwaite's regard for the --;- . --,. - ._‘v--~‘ . .IOvo. ... 0.x... o _ u 5:...3 v.-. .o.-- .. .'- 'O.‘ u. .- u o :u 0. -o [J I! i urban tenor of life. By focusing their attention on neigh- borhoods, historians have an opportunity to study the very things (social structure, property, etc.) that Davis sug- gests social historians need to study. And by looking at neighborhoods, social historians can evaluate how such things as residential patterns and neighborhood clientage systems influenced the distribution of power in society, thereby helping to fulfill Goldthwaite's demand that the political and cultural history of the elites be seen in their "urban setting." Although this seems like a large bill for one subject matter to fill, the studies already produced show great promise of doing just that. As in so many other aspects of Italian Renaissance studies, students of Florentine history have led the way in the study Of neighbors and neighborhoods.7 Several years ago, in his synoptic work Renaissance Florence, Gene Brucker noted the importance of neighborhoods for understanding both the society and politics of the city. Brucker argued that "a remarkable feature of Renaissance Florence was the social and economic heterogeneity of each district and neighborhood."8 All quarters of the city were socially integrated with rich and poor living in Close proximity. Brucker believed that this residential pattern influenced, in turn, political life. Powerful families and factions Within the elite cultivated friends and dependents in their neighborhoods. This led him to conclude, "in one sense this urban community was a complex of hundreds of family nuclei, each representing a focus of power and influence within its own neighborhood."9 More recently, historians have begun examining various aspects of the bonds between neighbors and the structure of neighborhoods in Renaissance Florence. In a recent article entitled, "'Parenti, amici e vicini': il territorio urbano d'una famiglia mercantile nel xv secolo," Christiane Klapisch has surveyed the familial and friendship ties of a Florentine merchant, Lapo di Giovanni Niccolini. She ar- rived atlunrconclusions by analyzing one of the most useful sources for Florentine history, the ricordanza or family diary of Lapo. Among other things, Klapisch found that with- in the family there was a strong tendency to protect "the cohesion and coherence of the 'casa' Niccolini." In addi- tion, she found that during Lapo's generation, the family made a concerted effort, through marriage, to strengthen its ties to families in other parts of the city. Finally, Klapisch noted that between the close household ties and the distant matrimonial ties with other parts of the city, there were friendship ties to the neighborhood. Many of Lapo's friends came from neighboring lineages (lignaggi ‘Vicini). These amigi were the ones who served as godparents ‘to»the Niccolini children and were the peOple with whom llapo had daily contact. Significantly, they came from a ‘raxiety of social backgrounds, many of them less prestigious than that of Lapo.lo Although she has examined only one family in the early guattrocento, Klapisch has broken significant ground for she has identified some of the characteristics and be— haviors that distinguished parenti from amigi and vicini. In addition, she has shown that, to some extent, there was a geographic correspondence to these relationships. Blood and marriage ties bound families to more distant parts of the city, whereas friendship ties bound families to their immediate neighborhood. F.W. Kent's book, Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence, a study of the Capponi, Ginori, and Rucellai clans in the fifteenth century, argues that Brucker's contention that Florence was "a complex of hundreds of family nuclei" is largely correct. Writing in order to prove that noble consorti had not been superseded but rather coexisted with nuclear family households, Kent has found that these three noble lineages continued to live in their traditional family parishes. In addition, the families maintained ties to the country regions from which they had originally migrated to the city. Writing of the neighborhood aspect of clan life, Kent says, "the fact that most consorti lived near one another in the city was not just a reflection but a vital ingredient f the Genoese popolani formed protective neighborhood units. Ikacated in the peripheral areas of the city, especially on the steep slopes of the hills, these pOpular neighborhoods 12 centered around parish churches. Hughes believes thatixxthese neighborhoods, men and women "tended to confine themselves to a tight network of personal relationships centered on the neighborhood."24 To some extent, the residential pattern in thirteenth-century Genoa corresponded to the residential pattern of quattrocento Florence as described by Cohn. Nobles tended to live in the central city, the lower class on the city's outskirts. During the late Middle Ages, a transformation took place in Genoa. As a response to economic and social pressures, Genoa's aristocratic families (of different lineages) bound themselves together in fictive kin groups known as alberghi. Many families dropped their own names and assumed the sur- name Of the albergo's leading family. By the fifteenth century, membership in an albergo had become a requirement of noble status. The creation of the alberghi led to the urban transformation of the city. The alberghi created clienteles among the lower classes in Genoese society: and, according to Heers, the city became a cluster of fortified, inward-looking cells.25 Unlike Florence, quattrocento Genoa became more socially integrated, but not to positive effect. Social integration on the neighborhood level (in the quarters dominated by alberghi) did not lead to civic peace. Like the evidence from Florence, the evidence of neigh- borhood life in Genoa sheds light on more traditional con- Icerns of Renaissance studies. In her studies of Genoese (family and neighborhood life, Hughes sets forth several o-w-ADD- P‘- 1 ~‘—“ -¢----.-- .1 . ' 1 an ...q- :_4 ‘ 'U.....- ‘-- . ,, . . .“C ‘u - . - .o 'I A‘ :1 "" inc-vou- ‘ . .fisao - 0-... . c v .. 1 .- 'h _ 'I..... a On; .'2 - ...‘ I. «u .- .- D “o I O. h! I C ‘e a. Q.' . u- I l O f: 13 hypotheses about the influence of social structures on politics and culture. First, she speculates that the forti- fied enclaves of the patricians and the close-knit neighbor- hoods Of the popolani "contributed to medieval Genoa's peculiarly anarchic social and political life." And in the trecento, the creation of the alberghi signaled the popolo‘s failure to curb the power of the aristocrats. “Corporate exclusiveness and isolation" threatened the peace 27 Second, Hughes suggests that the peculiar forms in Genoa. of family and neighborhood life may also help to explain Genoa's culture. The inward-looking orientation of the aristocratic and pOpular enclaves and of the alberghi inhibited the development of civic humanism as it was known in Florence. There developed instead a "private" human- ism.28 Finally, architecture and urban space reflected this differing orientation. Large public squares, which served as the set-pieces of Florence's civic life, were not a feature of Genoese architecture; Genoese life centered instead around private squares and local churches. Hughes concludes, "Genoa was not only different from Florence; it was . . . an urban reality Of its own."29 The comparison of the role of neighborhoods and neigh- bors in Florence and Genoa illustrates how varied the organ- ization of urban life in Renaissance Italy could be. In 'mercantile Genoa neighborhoods were always more introverted and segregated than in industrial Florence, but the Cities Gavolved in different ways. Whereas Genoese neighborhoods .a tout-u u-- -.—--. --v . . Il- ‘9- g on u..- v . Q- a... 4 0‘ a... -- 0-... l... ~ ‘~ .- u"..- ‘ “ ~' :1- »- - "‘ n. 5‘ .- u ‘- ‘ 9.. o .- . c § .‘ ‘ 14 became more heterogenous between the trecento and the quattrocento, Florentine neighborhoods became less so. In turn, the organization of neighborhood life had, as we have seen, an effect on the political and cultural history of those cities. In Genoa it contributed to anarchy; in Florence it contributed to the decline of the republican regime. Most importantly, the evidence from Florence and Genoa should serve as a warning to any who would make general- izations about the role of neighborhoods in Italian cities from the evidence of a single city. Each city had unique urban structures and a unique development. The last city to be examined in this survey Of the literature is Venice. Not surprisingly, Venice's unique urban environment has prompted many musings from city planners, architects, poets, and dreamers. But it has re- ceived little serious consideration from historians. AdOpted as part of the famous "myth Of Venice," the city's topogra- ;phy has led some to attribute to the Venetians incredible foresight for choosing their watery home. Already in the sixth century, Cassiodorus was waxing poetic over Venice's 30 And in the twentieth century, Lewis Mumford in location. llis The City in History has adopted an amazingly similar ‘tone. Mumford believes that the Venetians "without any ap- Iparent consciousness Of their achievement, devised a new 1:ype of urban container, marked by the etherialization of 31 1:he wall." He argues that Venice was the prototype of Inodern urban planning because the city was divided into t ‘ _ . ..._. .. . _. ”r‘ 1...- :u-.. . . - -.‘ .- a---;'-‘ -- '1'-.- .- n _ i . v ‘- ‘ ‘ ‘0 a... :1.-- . ~I. I . " : -.-.;‘ I. - ':-.-- ., —- a n..:,::. - :“" '- , . O t-.. : o.~ ‘.- I ~ ! "v- “I. _ u S .- n:”.,_ _. . Q.“:... 2 I '.""...a - A - -; "~.;s “ '.. ...‘ .- . ‘-_.I‘J “t. ~v‘-l.‘. ‘.“ . a.. .‘. ‘ — ‘I‘ ‘AI‘~ - Q a... IA".-- 'i.‘ ‘ D ‘; n... .-' .- ‘.-." ‘u‘ .- . :"Lv ‘ I.-‘ h‘.’ ..‘ I‘ . -0 -.' “. Gnu-u h‘.:’ _. C ‘..Q ‘ . ‘ ..‘ “. Q“ ‘.“I.‘ “ . u ‘_ I "‘I“ “ .-: 5... .K ’h‘;‘:¢h.. ‘ ““- “ V. . Q ‘Q s N ‘ . k‘...: ._ ‘ $.. . . a... “. ‘ i ‘ ‘ ‘I ‘A \. ‘ -‘ 5:“:sav. - ~‘ ' . a"-:.‘ Q . “ . ‘I-S : s I ‘ .h~ ‘u‘ QA‘.‘ " . in- * ~‘~Q. \ \~~ ‘e ‘ ~ v .. .. I. ~’ .. \‘- wa. “ A. . v‘. 8.- ‘ ~‘O‘ V~~ \ fl. 2““, ‘1‘ "s . o vc‘ '1‘” 0“ . A‘ ‘ “ .‘- ' “~~‘\. \ ~ ‘ 5“ A 15 specialized neighborhoods and precincts. Government was centered at 8. Marco, trade at Rialto, and shipbuilding at the Arsenal. In addition, the Piazza S. Marco was re- peated on a smaller scale in each of the city's ggmpi or squares. For Mumford, Venice is the ideal of city planning. For all its attractiveness, Mumford's description of Venice's urban development is seriously flawed. First, it contains a number of historical inaccuracies. For example, he argues that members of the Council of 480 (the Great Council) had to reside in the parishes they represented, and that the six sestieri or precincts of the city each housed one of the city's six guilds. There is no solid evi— dence for these assertions. In addition, despite his dis- claimer, Mumford attributes to the Venetians a consciousness that they did not have. For example, he argues that the island of Torcello was designated as a functional pre- cinct -- that it was Chosen as the site for a church and cemetery. In fact, Torcello was one of the first settle- Inents in the lagoon which for practical reasons was aban- doned in favor of the Rialtine settlement. Torcello's church and cemetery were vestiges of Torcello's past, not the jproducts of Venetian planning. In spite of its inaccuracies and compression Of 1000 years Of development into an in- stant, Mumford's vision of Venice has had a strong influence (on the image of Venice's urban history.3 Most notably, Mumford's work has influenced the views (Df Frederic C. Lane, the only historian studying Venice to 16 33 consider the role of neighborhoods in Venetian life. In his work Venice: A Maritime Republic, Lane presents a highly lau- datory view of Venice's urban development. According to Lane, Venice's early settlers founded new communities, which became parishes, on the separate islands clustered around the market island at Rialto. As the city grew in size and population, these small communities maintained their unique character and identity: and they remained socially integrated. In Lane's words, "rich and poor lived cheek by jowl." For Lane, the creation of communities on the parish level was a foundation stone of Venice's social stability."34 Lane presents his views (one might say a theory) about the significance of parishes in an introductory chapter to his work which is set outside the chronological survey Of Venetian history. There it serves as a kind of overture to the work. .At various points, when discussing the changing structure of <:ommunal government in the thirteenth century and when dis- <:ussing sixteenth-century government, he returns to this theme and sounds it as one of the principal reasons for Venetian 35 For Lane, parish-based social integration pro- stability. ‘Vides the harmony that underlies Venice's history. Lane's View of the importance of neighborhood life to lunderstanding Venetian history is provocative. Yet he Eiresents it only as an opinion; he has not studied the Iissue in detail. At only one point in the book, does he Vmeigh the importance of the parish relative to other social limits as a force promoting solidarity in Venetian society. 17 He does this when discussing the changing nature of the navy in the sixteenth century. Lane notes that in 1539 the Senate devised a new way of recruiting men for its reserve fleet. The traditional method (that is the method of the fourteenth century) had been to register by parish all men between ages twenty and sixty in groups of twelve (called duodene) and then to determine which duodene would serve.36 In 1539, the Senate decided that the guilds and the scuole grande rather than the parishes would each be assigned a quota of recruits to fill. Commenting on this change, Lane states, Substituting guilds and confraternities for parishes as the units on which to place the responsibility for finding men was in accord with the fact that these professional or reli- gious associations had more solidarity than the traditional divisions into neighborhoods. A bargeman or gondolier who went to fill the quota assigned to his traghetto might feel that his brother guildsmen would help his family in his absence.37 This is Lane's sole comment on the change. He does not identify when the guilds and scuole superseded parishes as the more important units (presuming that the parishes were ever stronger units of solidarity) or what the forces were that brought about this change. Yet as the discussion of the works dealing with Florence and Genoa shows, the structures, changes, and influences of neighborhood life in Venice need to be studied and understood. The examples of Florence and Genoa suggest two primary reasons why parochial life in Venice needs to be examined. 18 First, as the evidence of those Cities illustrates, the structures of neighborhood life developed and changed; they were not static. Genoa changed from a city character- ized by aristocratic enclaves and popolano parishes into a city dominated by alberghi. And Florence, at least accord- ing to Cohn, Changed from an open city in the trecento to a closed, segregated city in the quattrocento. An examina- tion of the evolving structures of Venetian neighborhoods is needed. Second, a question arises when we consider the supposed consequences of neighborhood integration for Venetian poli— tical life. As Gene Brucker noted for Florence and Diane Hughes for Genoa, neighborhoods in those Cities also ex- hibited a fair degree of social integration. In that respect at least, Venetian neighborhood life may not have been as exceptional as some have claimed. More importantly, we must ask why if integration helped create stability in Venice, it did not have the same effect in Florence and Genoa. The im- pact Of social structures on Venice's political history needs to be examined. The works already produced on Florence and Genoa i1- lustrate that there were complex and subtle differences in the neighborhood structures of Italian Renaissance cities, and that these differences had important political and cultural consequences. Therefore, it will not suffice simply to say that Venetian neighborhoods were integrated. We need to examine the structures and rhythms of Venetian n-vq-p-runa ....-.o-v-oc— a - n- ...q- . 0.. . “v--- .- -~.-.¢ _' u :u" .Q‘ U a ‘ .0. a.-- - :hc.-.‘ ...... .D-.. .- c u.- c ‘ -c. .~ a z“. .. O.- -‘.. u..— w -I . "an. I I o I 0: . a- ---.-J u 9 a. v-.. ‘ ‘ '._~ () 2 u ’- . (J. '(' u “I 19 neighborhood life and then to evaluate their social and political ramifications. In order to do that, we will examine in the pages that follow one parish, the parish Of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, during the period from 1297—1423. Focusing on one parish will allow us the Opportunity to look closely at the in- habitants Of the parish, to delineate the patterns and rhythms of parochial life and then to draw larger conclusions about the place of the parish in trecento Venice.38 The limits of our survey, 1297 and 1423, represent major turn- ing points in Venetian history. In 1297, with the Serrata or closing of the Great Council, Venice came under the domi- nation of a closed, hereditary aristocracy. The political regime established in 1297 was to last until Napoleon's con— quest Of the city in 1797. And in 1423, Venice made another critical change. With the election of Francesco Foscari as doge in 1423, Venice began an era of increased involvement on the Italian mainland. In that year, Venice made a shift away from exclusive concentration on its overseas posses- sions and toward greater involvement in Italian and European affairs. In the long period from 1297 to 1423, the regime established in the Serrata had to meet the multiple chal- lenges of internal dissent, conflict with Genoa, recurring epidemics, and increased pressure from its terraferma neigh- bors. It presents an ideal framework in which to evaluate the role of parish life in Venetian history. -' a- H 0-... «A ‘v \3’ . _. n. n In 'u- 0... ~‘. .- -- . q 0 '— ‘- . ‘1. ‘ :-‘ ‘1. -“n ..:. 'u .. ‘. .~- . \ '- en‘s I .‘U I‘- - -. . a to. ~.._“‘:.. ~~‘.‘ - u q‘- a. . - . o ' e c 5"- 5 u -. -i ‘n. . I“ t: ‘ ‘ V‘, G u ‘ '5 .' ‘- in .U . N. ‘. p. N \‘ s_ ‘t‘ ~:“-, ‘ s s \‘A “ §:‘~‘ ~~ a H I \U A 5.. ' ‘ In ~‘\ :“ I V.‘ n NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 1The list of scholars and works is much too long to re- count here. A recent work that incorporates much of the accepted wisdom is Christine Meek, Lucca, 1369-1400: Poli- tics and Society in an Early Renaissance City-State (Oxford, 1978). 2Natalie Zemon Davis, "Women's History in Transition: The European Case," Feminist Studies 3 (1976), p. 90. 3Tony Judt, "A Clown in Regal Purple: Social History and the Historians," History Workshop 7 (1979), p. 88. 4 Ibid., p. 68 (his emphasis). 5Richard A. Goldthwaite, "Urban History and Italian Renaissance Studies," Journal of Urban History 1 (1975), pp. 233-234. 61bid., p. 237. 7Most of the older studies have not really examined neighborhoods, except to note that representation in com- munal councils was Often assigned on the basis of geOpraph- ically-defined administrative units. See, for example, John Larner, The Lords of Romagna (London, 1965), pp. 13, 128; and Ferdinand Schevil, Siena: The History Of a Medieval Commune (New York, 1964), pp. 275-278. 8Gene A. Brucker, Renaissance Florence (New York, 1969), p. 23. 9Ibid. 10Christiane Klapisch, "'Parenti, amici e vicini': i1 territorio urbano d'una famiglia mercantile nel xv secolo," Quaderni storici 33 (1976), pp. 953-982. The quotation is on page 962. 11See F.W. Kent, Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence: The Family Life of the Capponi, Ginori and Rucellai (Princeton, 1977), pp. 227-252. Quotation on page 249. 20 O. 1 4 (a : ~ q 1. i 4 - ~ a g . .~h vs gun a Q n :. T. .o. u on. u. a: .a. . . .. v. v . s. —. a s u a s In . 0‘. . . .3 u a . a . a I. L. . a . ~ .~ .. a s I. .. a s at s u. u. a.‘ .. ..u .5 2. . . ._ a. 4.. Z. .a :— .- . . s§~ ~u :— “ . s (w — ... ..- n o .5 s is I u... ~\~ .c . . .: -.. an . a a. .G. .P. . ‘ ... .a v. .. .a . G :s ...uv.. Va 21 12Dale Kent, The Rise of the Medici: Faction in Florence, 1426-1434 (Oxford, 1978), p. 19. 13Ibid., p. 67. 141pm. 15Samuel Kline Cohn, Jr., The Laboring Classes in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980). 161bid., p. 39. 17Ibid., p. 210. 18Given his political position, Cohn almost apologizes for having to shift the discussion away from the laboring Classes when discussing criminality. Ibid., pp. 176-177. 191bid., p. 210. 20Ibid., pp. 11, 14. For my doubts about the technical reliability of dowry receipts for Venice, see the Appendix on sources and approach at the end Of this work. 1Cohn acknowledges the contradiction between his and Kent's findings but does not attempt to eXplain it. Ibid., p. 60, note 22. A consensus on the nature Of Florentine neighborhoods has yet to emerge. For instance, Richard Trexler believes that parochial life was not very important in quattrocento Florence. See Richard C. Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980), pp. 12—14. 22See Diane Owen Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa," Past and Present 66 (1975), pp. 3-28; Diane Owen Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors in Medieval Genoa," in The Medieval City, eds. Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and A.L. Udovitch (New York, 1977), pp. 95-112; Jacques Heers, Family Clans in the Middle Ages (Amsterdam, 1977); Jacques Heers, "Urbanisme t structure sociale a Genes au‘Moyen-Age, " in Societe et economie 3 Genes (xive-xve siecles) (London, 1979), pp. 371- 412. See also, Ennio Polleggi, "Le contrade delle consorterie a Genova tra 11 xii e il xiii secolo," Urbanistica 42- 43 (1965), pp. 15- 20. See also his new work (with Luciano Grossi Bianchi) entitled, Una Cittayportuale del medioevo: Genova nei secoli x xvi (Genoa, 1980). 23Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors," pp. 100-101. 24Ibid., p. 106. 22 25Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure," pp. 27- 28: and Heers, "Urbanisme," pp. 384-388. 26Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors," p. 111. 27Ibid. 28Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure," p. 28. 29Ibid. 30Thomas Hodgkin, ed., The Letters of Cassiodorus (London, 1886), pp. 515-518. For a good bibliography of literature on the myth of Venice, see Edward Muir, "Images of Power: Art and Pageantry in Renaissance Venice," American Historical Review 84 (1979), p. 16, note 2. For a discussion of the myth, see Edward Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981), pp. 13-61. 31Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York, 1961), pp. 369-373. The quotation is on p. 372. 32For these reservations, see Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), p. 462. 33Aside from Lane's comments, there is little informa- tion in the literature about Venetian neighborhoods or parishes. Jacques Heers in his Family Clans in the Middle Ages argues that the parishes of Venice were founded by great families and that these families continued to patron- ize the parishes. See Heers, Family Clans, p. 246. The festival of the Marie, a parish-based celebration, has re- ceived some consideration, most notably from Edward Muir. In general, Muir accepts Lane's characterization Of Venetian parishes. See Muir, Civic Ritual, pp. 146-147. Historians have garnered some evidence of the 'emotional' bonds of neighborhood life. For example, Heers notes that when the Venetians colonized Crete, they recreated the six sestieri of Venice on that island. This may indicate a de- sire to recreate the neighborhood life of Venice in a foreign place. See Heers, Family Clans, pp. 138, 165, note 31. Finally, in his work on criminality, Guido Ruggiero has noted a tendency for the popolo to commit crimes near home. He believes that this reflects "the intense localism of lower- class life in Venice." See Guido Ruggiero, "Sexual Crimi- nality in the Early Renaissance: Venice, 1338-1358," Journal of Social History 8 (1975), p. 28. 34Lane, pp. 11-12. 23 35Ibid., pp. 109, 271. 361bid., p. 49. 37Ibid., p. 367. 38For a fuller explanation of the decision to examine only one parish and for a discussion of sources, see the Appendix. ‘ y 1‘ a: as an a a CHAPTER TWO URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: VENETIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ADMINISTRATION In order to understand the nature Of neighborhood life in trecento Venice, we first need to examine the institu- tional framework of that life, the geographic divisions of the city. By the twelfth century, Venice had been divided, for purposes of administration, into a series of geograph- ically defined neighborhoods, including six precincts known as sestieri and approximately seventy parishes. The im- position Of this uniform system of administration served to minimize, on the public level, peculiarities of topog- raphy, settlement, and association which made some parishes rich and densely settled and others poor and underpopulated. The creation of these urban infrastructures provided a framework for organizing the public life of trecento Venetians and for marshalling their resources for the use of the Venetian church and state. They became an inescap- able part of the residents' public identity. The creation of geographically defined administrative units began with the foundation of the first Venetian parishes in the eighth and ninth centuries. It would be useful to know how the sites for parish Churches were chosen 24 .-.-_-‘ ..--”"" . Q a - ‘ p .-‘_--4 5 Q o ‘o- -= .... ... i 1. .~5 .- 5 ~_- .p.» .. .u A» ~ —. m g. z‘ . a . -u v. .: n a. Q 9 ¢ . u... .... . . z. a. .. 2‘ o u a: v. ’~. 2. ..~ \.. 25 and what rights were accorded to them; but unfortunately, because of a lack of sources and critical studies, that information is unavailable. However, the evidence that is available indicates that from an early date Venetian parochial administration developed differently from that of the Italian mainland. On the terraferma, parishes were large territorial units with vast amounts of land under their jurisdiction. The inaccessibility of these churches to many parishioners and the need to attend to their souls prompted the founda- tion of chapels that were subordinate to them. While some sacraments were performed in these chapels, parish churches retained certain prerogatives, notably the right to per- form baptisms and burials and the right to tithes. Slowly, during the course Of the late Middle Ages, the terraferma 1 chapels asserted their right to full parochial status. In Venice, the pattern of development was different. There the territory of each parish was very small -- usually an island separated from all surrounding islands. In the Venetian setting, distance and inaccessibility prompted the formation of autonomous parishes on each Of the islands, with none subordinate to others, rather than the creation of inferior chapels as happened on the terraferma.2 Therefore, from an early date, the principle of administrative uniformity and equality between parishes Operated in Venice. 26 As these island communities and their churches developed, so, apparently, did the practice of iuspatronatus. Iuspatronatus was the right, enjoyed by certain lay individ- uals, to have a voice in the churches' administration.3 Ac- cording to Venice's civil statutes, those who enjoyed the right of iuspatronatus were known as vicini or neighbors. Vicini were defined as, "those who have possessions in the parish wherever they might live" ("et intelligantur omnes vicini, qui possessiones habent in parochia ubicunque habitarent").4 This, the only definition of neighbor found in the Venetian statutes, illustrates that property owner— ship, not residence, was the critical factor determining who would have a say in parochial affairs. Only those who had a stake in the parish were recognized as having some right to make decisions. Traditionally, historians have argued that the right of iuspatronatus entailed two major privileges: the right to have some say in the selection of the parochial Clergy and the right to advise the Clergy about the disposition of church property. For example, the civil statutes stated that church property could be alienated only with the con- sent of the vicini gathered together in congregation.5 At first glance, an examination of iuspatronatus and especially of the evidence of parochial elections would seem an ideal way of studying the structures and rhythms of Venetian parochial life. Ideally, we could use the evidence to determine who the vicini were and how important decisions 27 were made in the parishes. Unfortunately, solid evidence of vicini participation in fourteenth-century clerical elections has yet to be uncovered. Historians have noted sixteenth-century conflicts over lay participation in the selection of clergy and assumed that the practice was com- mon in an earlier period. For the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, the subject of this study, there is no evidence to indicate that laymen exercised rights of iuspatronatus over the church. Ac- cording to the eighteenth-century scholar Giambattista Gallicciolli, in the year 1200 Pope Innocent III ceded to Giovanni Signale, Patriarch of Grado, certain churches in venice, including S. Giacomo dall'Orio, "cum omni jure institutionis et destitutionis." Gallicciolli believed that by this cession, Innocent granted to the patriarch all rights to select priests for S. Giacomo dall'Orio.6 The records of clerical election and a promotion in the parish seem to confirm Gallicciolli's hypothesis, for they contain no evidence of lay participation. In February 1408, the chapter of S. Giacomo gathered together "in secretario ipsius ecclesia" to elect a certain Marino to the presbytery Of the church. The members of the chapter noted that this was done with "the whole chapter of the said church present, with no others being in the church, or in any place, who ought by law or custom to be called to the said chap- "7 ter. On another occasion, in 1392, the members of the chapter gathered together in the sacristy "where normally 28 the chapter of the church meets," to promote Basilio, son of Cristoforo de Artusio, from the position of subdeacon to that of deacon.8 Again, no laymen were present. Although we cannot make a definitive statement about the practice of iuspatronatus in the fourteenth century, there is no evidence for the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio of legal participation by laymen in the selection of the parish clergy. Nor have I found any evidence of united action by property owners concerning the disposition of church affairs or any other parochial matters. While the absence of evidence does not disprove the existence of iuspatronatus or of lay rights in the disposition of church property, it may indicate that practices varied among parishes. It also seems tO indicate that by the fourteenth century the notion of the parish as a public unit of ad- ministration had superseded the notion of the parish as a community of neighbors. Indeed, the statute that makes ownership of property rather than residence the requirement for inclusion as a vicinus indicates that administrative definitions of neighborhood had little relation to actual residence patterns. This should alert us to the possibili- ty that there was a divergence in trecento Venice between urban infrastructures and private notions of neighborhood.9 Parishes were the basic ecclesiastical unit in Venice. The ecclesiastical hierarchy assigned the parishes and their officials a number of duties. In addition to their pastoral duties, the parochial clergy were responsible for 29 administering the patrimony of the church and for collect- ~ ing and distributing the tithe. The chief official in each parish was the plebanus or parish priest.10 He was assisted by the members of his chapter which included presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, and clerics. The size of chapters varied among parishes, but generally they averaged between six and ten members. In the election of Marino to the presbytery of S. Giacomo, mentioned above, the members of the chapter noted that the number of clerics was uncer- 11 tain ("non est certus Clericorum numerum"). In addition to the other titolati or members of the Chapter, the olebanus sometimes was assisted by custodes or zaqi who h—-——— helped maintain the church, and by a procurator who was 12 placed in charge of the material wealth of the church. Under normal circumstances, a young man entering the clergy as a cleric in a parish church could expect, during the course of his lifetime, to advance through the ranks of the chapter, being promoted from cleric to subdeacon, from subdeacon to deacon, and so forth. While this was the normal pattern of advancement, clergymen also moved between parishes, although this seems to have been more common among higher officials, the presbyters and plebani. For instance, presbyter Felice de Merlis of S. Giacomo moved in his later years to the plebanate of S. Simeon Piccolo.13 Together, the seventy parishes of fourteenth-century Venice were administered by between 300 and 400 clergymen.14 . a . . 9 c 4 is p d a I u u u . a a -\ a c RE 5 \ FIN his t ... a. t. ... S . . .... . c 3 .. .. ~ 5 .. a ... . .. z. .. ... —.. Lu —.. .qu .. .3 ... «b s ... .... . . a . ... . . . . a. . _ 3 z a. ... a c v uh I 2. ... ... ... v. . ... .. ... .. .a ..a .... .2 ... ... ... ... .2 ... . a a: v .. a. ‘1 \.~ s» . a a. v. .. .. ..u ... ... .... 2. i. .. ... ... 4; .a ... 2. :— :— u: .. u. .. ... a. v. . . .3 a» ... . a a» a. ...! 0- 30 Members of the parochial Clergy were grouped together, by parish, into nine congregations. An archpriest (arciprete) assisted by a treasurer and other officials presided over each of these congregations.15 The parishes and the parochial clergy were the foundation on which the Venetian ecclesiastical establishment was built. In time, the secular government as well adOpted the parish for its administrative purposes. Every government faces the problem of how to divide responsibilities in order to ensure the smooth operation of public life. The need is greater for urban governments where high population density makes order even more criti- cal. One Of the simplest ways for governments to delegate responsibilities is to divide the territory under their jurisdiction into geographic sub-units and to assign re- sponsibility for those units to certain individuals. The cities of medieval and Renaissance Italy were divided into administrative units such as the gonfalons Of Florence, the campagne of Genoa, and the Egrzi of Siena. In Venice, the. limits of these units were, to some extent, defined by the city's peculiar topography and by preexisting ecclesiasti- cal units which had themselves been defined by the city's watery location. The most Obvious physical boundary in Venice is the Grand Canal which slices the city in two. Remembering that for centuries only one bridge spanned the canal (at Rialto), 31 it could prove a formidable boundary. Accordingly, Venetians felt some vague sense of loyalty to their 'half' of the city. The rivalry between the Nicolotti, the fisher- men of the parish Of S. Nicold’dei Mendicoli (on the west- ern side of the canal) and the Castellani from the area of Castello in the east, which was ritualized into pugilistic tournaments, bespeaks this loyalty. Quite naturally, the Venetian government adopted this division into its adminis- trative framework. To give one example. In 1319 the num- ber of procurators of 5. Marco, the officials responsible for the basilica and the fiduciaries for many Venetians, was increased from four to six; and responsibilities were divided. The procuratori de supra were placed in Charge of the basilica itself; the procuratori de citra were placed in charge of all estates left in their care by people living on the S. Marco side Of the Grand Canal: and the procuratori de ultra were responsible for estates on the Opposite side of the canal. Because the S. Marco side was the more heavily settled, the procuratori de ultra were commissioned to assist the procuratori de citra with the estates in the area of the city known as Cannereggio.16 The division of the procurators clearly illustrates how the government adapted a geographical division of the City into its administrative framework. In 1171, for purposes of administering government loans, the city was divided into sestieri.17 As the name indicates, these sestieri were sixths of the City; and, .- F ‘2: -.. 5“. Oi . . .‘CO‘ "I -1 .— ."R l- .- ...‘.' .... ._ A .- a ’ ‘ V 0- - ‘ ‘ . .u- in- ... _ . .v... I t . n ..q _ -..? .‘.: 1“..—-. ..1 ...-V V~~v g- -. Q 7‘": n no ......“ »'. ‘ o ~;-~G b- |-‘. ....»b 5‘, ‘..‘ I:b.v.n " _ "-..._ S=--S: . I ...-I' .F ”v.— .u. _‘VH - a... ‘ A I In.“ S ;~‘= ‘ f-w _‘ ‘ ‘ ‘5 A. ' . .445 \::‘ i. '5 . . t — ..- .‘V~§ O A._ ' .A ' 5:... :N' n=qfi v5 "‘\... :‘n. ‘ ' us‘uafl ‘fi “ ‘ “ 'V L49 "1 \ 4‘ ‘ “0’ A::. a.‘ A v“-‘ 'h'. 1‘ ,. sG‘gn F: ‘:'-‘ V. u.'_- ‘L s. 5'. ‘ bue ‘h ‘ ‘ 32 perhaps in an effort to keep things even, both sides of the Grand Canal had three sestieri: on the San Marco side the sestieri of San Marco, Castello, and Cannereggio; on the Opposite side S. Polo, S. Croce, and Dorsoduro. (See Figure 1) Other than that attempt at equity, the basis of the division appears to have been quite arbitrary. Unlike the Grand Canal division, the division into sestieri was not based on topography; one could not tell when one had passed from one into another. The physical integrity Of the sestieri was Of minor importance. For instance, the sestiere of S. Croce included the parish of S. Lucia on the opposite side of the Grand Canal and the parish of 18 S. Maria on the island of Murano. Nor is there any evi- dence to indicate that the sestieri corresponded to a 19 native sense of neighborhood. The division appears to have been made purely for practical administrative reasons. Two groups of officials in the Venetian administration had special ties to the sestieri. The first of these were the capi di sestiere. An act of the Council of Ten, dated' 1319, stated that the Ten were to Choose "six good and honest noblemen (to be) the capi di sestiere, namely one capo for each sestiere." Among the responsibilities as- signed to the capi in the legislation were the appointment of lower Officials, the capi di contrade, and the super- vision of taverns and inns (osterie). The legislation stated that the “capi di sestiere de ultra canale oversee the inns and taverns de ultra canale and that the capi di 33 .mowcm> mo Humaumom one I: H Tasman Ouspomuoo 029230 ‘ Q: ouaoouoccoo 34 sestiere de citra canale oversee the inns and taverns d3 citra canale." The capi, who had to be at least thirty years of age, were furnished with four aides who had to be at least twenty-five years old.20 In time, the number Of gapi and their assistants was eXpanded; and they became, in the words of one recent historian, "the strongest patrol- ling body in Venice."21 The Signori di notte, Venice's Lords Of the Nightwatch, were also linked to the sestieri. Like the capi di sestiere, the Signori di notte numbered six, and each was assigned to a particular sestiere. Each signore was alloted sixteen assistants or custodes who were supposed to patrol the city heavily armed.22 As a matter Of policy, the custodes were supposed to be Venetians or foreigners with ten years resi- dence in Venice; and they were supposed to be residents Of the sestiere in which they served. But during the later thirteenth century concessions were made allowing the signore di notte of Cannereggio to Choose custodes from other sestieri, "if he cannot find custodes from his sestiere."23 Together with another grOUp, the Cinque alla pace, the signori di notte, and the capi di sestieri con- stituted Venice's police force. Based in the neighborhoods, these bodies were quite successful in maintaining peace within the city. Collectively, the system provided about one policeman for every 250 inhabitants.24 The smallest administrative unit in Venice was the parish (contrata, confinio).25 A reading of Official 35 records shows that the parish and its functionaries were assigned a number of responsibilities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Perhaps the Venetian government originally adopted the parishes into its administration for reasons of efficiency; it simply adopted or coopted the pre- existing religious units into its own framework. Indeed, historians note that Venice, originally a Byzantine protectorate, long maintained the kind of close cooperation between church and state that was characteristic of Byzantium.26 Venetian notaries are a good example of this cooperation. Until 1433, when pressure from Pope Eugene IV put a stop to it, most of the official notaries or scribes for the Venetian government were clerics.27 In each parish one of the ecclesiastics of the parish chapter served as notary for the parish. Although notaries were parish-based officials, most administrative tasks in the parishes were assigned to a group of lay officials known as the capi di contrade. Little is known about the capi di contrade as a position, and even less is known about the men who filled the post. The previously-mentioned law of the Council of Ten from August 1319 gives the impression that the gapi are a new position. It also states that they are to be nobles (sint de nobilibus) and are to be selected by the capi di sestiere. However, legislation from the thirteenth century shows that the office was created long before 1319, and there are records of non-noble capi di contrade.28 36 On the whole, the responsibilities assigned to these parish-based Officials involved mundane administrative tasks of public safety and order.29 The thirteenth century Capitulare super pontibus et viis civitatis Rivoalti as- signed the ggpi the task of keeping streets and bridges in their parishes in good order and gave them the power to assess parishioners for their share of maintenance costs.30 In addition, the gapi were assigned the job of distributing grain to parishioners on the basis Of need.31 On certain occasions, however, the capi were assigned more important tasks. For example, on November 12, 1296, the Great Council ordered the capi di contrade to survey all monasteries, churches, and ecclesiastics in their parishes in order to determine whether or not they had 32 And in paid their share of loans to the government. the above-mentioned legislation of August 1319, the Council Of Ten ordered the caoi to make a survey Of foreigners 33 This may indicate that the living in their parishes. government was suspecting trouble from its foreign pOpula- tion -— a group known for its trouble-causing capabili- ty.34 It certainly indicates that the ggpi had, or soon would have, an acquaintance with the residents Of their parish. Parishes and their officials, the capi, also played a role in the military organization Of the city. Until the sixteenth century, recruits for the City's reserve 37 fleet were selected according to the parish-based dozens system. A militia based on the dozens system also was organized at the parish level and was under the jurisdic- tion of the capi di contrade. Nobles and commoners were grouped separately, and the ggpi were supposed to see that all members put in a certain number of hours of archery practice each week.35 This local militia may have been called into action in 1355 when the Ducal Council discovered that there was a conspiracy afoot led by the doge himself. The council called on nobles to arm themselves and men from their neighborhoods whom they could trust.36 In addition to their role in administrative and mili- tary life, Venetian parishes were responsible for one of the festivals of medieval Venice, the festival of the Marie or Marys. In 944 pirates seized a group of Venetian girls who were gathered at the church of S. Pietro di Castello for the feast of the Purification of the Virgin. The doge, Pietro Candiano III, pursued the pirates and recovered the girls. Thereafter, in commemoration of the event, a feast was held at the church of S. Maria Formosa in which twelve girls, who were chosen to be the Marys, were presented to the doge and feted. The girls were selected by parish, and it was the responsibility Of the parishioners (usually the nobles) to outfit the girls for the occasion. As the festival grew in elaboration and expense, it was placed under the supervision Of the Straordinarii, in 38 whose capitulary regulations concerning the Marys are found. Most of the regulations resemble sumptuary laws, for the government increasingly had to regulate the ex- pense of the festival. The regulations also Show that conflicts arose between and within parishes over the festival. For example, in 1346 the Great Council ruled that because of the poverty of the parish of S. Biagio, three of the six Marys who were supposed to be furnished by S. Biagio were to be furnished instead by S. Martino.37 In another instance, they ordered all those who had fled the parishes of S. Giacomo dall'Orio and S. Giovanni Degolado, in order to avoid responsibility for the Marie, to return within eight days or face a penalty of 100 1133 and loss of residence in the parishes for five years.38 During the War of Chioggia, the festival was suspended, and, probably as a result of the trouble that it had caused, was not revived.39 Only one vestige, the doge's annual visit to the church of S. Maria Formosa, survived. Until the time of the War of Chioggia (1379—1381), parishes played a vital role in one of the Civic festivals of Venice. This brief survey shows that the parish was the smallest of several geographically defined units in Venice's secular and ecclesiastical administrations. In accordance with that position, parishes and the officials assigned to them were responsible for the most basic administrative 39 tasks: the care of souls, the collection of the tithe, the distribution Of grain, the maintenance of order and safety, the supervision of the populace, and the re- cruitment of soldiers and sailors. Parishes were also responsible for a civic festival, the Marie. From the point of view of the governments, both ecclesiastical and secular, the parishes were corporate bodies with privileges and responsibilities to larger corporate bodies -- the Venetian church and state. By the fourteenth century at the latest, parochial organization had become an inescapable part of public life for residents of Venice. Their responsibilities to the government and expectations from it were funneled through the parish and its officials. Parochial residence even provided legal identification for residents of trecento Venice. Almost invariably they identified themselves in legal documents by their parish of residence (Marino de confino S. Giacomo dall'Orio). In recent years historians have debated at considerable length the significance of names in the Middle Ages. They have tried to identify when surnames came into general use and to identify trends in the use of patronymics and toponymics.40 The evidence from trecento Venice indicates that among the popolo naming practices were still in flux. But while names varied, residents did have a standard way of identifying themselves —- they used their place of resi- dence. It was a measure of the government's success in 4O imposing its system of administration that this was the case. Venetians' legal identity derived in part from their parochial residence; and this made the parish, in— escapably, a part of their public lives. But the extent to which these urban infrastructures influenced the private lives of trecento Venetians remains an open question. As the incoherent boundaries of the sestieri and the definition of vicinus indicate, adminis- trative notions of neighborhood may have had little corre- spondence with informal, private notions of neighborhood and community.41 In order to examine the structures and rhythms of parochial life and in order to see to what extent personal definitions of neighborhood did correspond with the legal confines of the parishes, let us now turn our attention to one particular parish, the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio. NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO 1See Maurizio Rosada, ed., S. Maria Formosa, Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 2, Archivi ecclesiastici (Venice, 1972), pp. xviii-xix, note 2; and Catherine E. Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy (Ithaca, 1952), pp. 154-164. 2The few works available on Venetian religious history are problematic. Many reach contradictory conclusions about specific issues. In addition, the authors often as- sume that practices current in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were also in use in the medieval period. The point about the creation of Venetian parishes is a good example of the controversies in Venetian ecclesiastical history. Some historians believe that certain churches called matrici or mother churches did indeed enjoy pre- eminence over others in Venice, including the right to perform baptisms. However, by the fourteenth century all Venetian churches (except those attached to the regular clergy) were presided over by plebani. That generally is the criterion used for distinguishing parishes from chapels. For the problem, see Rosada, p. xix, note 2, and pp. xx- xxii, note 2. 3Ibid., p. xix, note 2; and Paolo Prodi, "The Structure and Organization Of the Church in Renaissance Venice: Suggestions for Research," in Renaissance Venice, ed. J.R. Hale (London, 1974), PP. 419-420. 4Statutorum legum ac iurium de venetorum (Venice, 1564), Book 6, Ch. 3, pp. 87v-88v. 5For the statute about the alienation of church property, see Ibid. Paolo Prodi notes the conflict that developed in the sixteenth century between the Venetian patriarch on the one hand, and the Venetian government and the papacy on the other over lay participation in clerical elections. The patriarch wanted to abolish the practice Of parishioners voting for Clergy. Prodi notes that "de- spite abuses and the muddle into which voting procedures had got, the tradition was too strong to be eradicated." Prodi, p. 420. 6Giambattista Gallicciolli, Delle memorie venete antiche profane ed ecclesiastiche (Venice, 1795), Tome 4, p. 260. 41 42 7Flaminio Cornellio, Ecclesiae venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis illustratae (Venice, 1794), Decade 10, p. 381. It reads in part, "ad presens totum Capitulum dictae Ecclesiae, cum nullus alius esset in dicta Ecclesia, vel alio loco, qui deberet de iure vel consuetudine ad dictum Capitulum evocari . . . ." 8Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cancelleria Inferiore, Notai, Busta 190, notary Stefano, protocol, 17 Nov. 1392. Hereafter cited as ASV, CI. In April of 1366, the chapter of the neighboring church of S. Stae gathered together and elected Zanino, son of a tanner named Olivo, to be a cleric in the church. He filled the post vacated by another cleric who had recently been elevated to subdeacon. Again, there appears to have been no lay participation in this election. See ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, proto- col, 6 Apr. 1366. Prodi believes that lay participation in clerical elections was common, but that laymen did not have a voice in clerical promotions. Promotions were based solely on seniority, according to Prodi. See Prodi, p. 420. The sixteenth century diarist Marino Sanudo, a resi- dent Of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, described an election in the parish. In February 1513 "we parishioners" (nui parochiani) gathered in the church to elect a new plebanus. Ninety people voted. After seven ballots a certain presbyter Cristoforo from the parish was elected. Among the other candidates was the plebanus Of S. Stae. It seems likely that ninety parishioners represented the number of prOperty holders in the parish. See Marino Sanuto, I diarii di Marino Sanuto, 58 vols. (Venice, 1879-1903), vol. 15, coll. 542. 9Richard Trexler argues that this was the case in Florence. He says, "because of their lack of tradition and artificial construction, the political sections of the city might seem poor settings in which to form endogamous unions." See Richard C. Trexler, Public Life in Renais- sance Florence (New York, 1980), pp. 12-14. The quotation is on page 13. 10As in everything else, there is controversy over whether or not plebani had to be priests. See Rosada, pp. xxiv-xxvi, note 3. The role of the clergy in parochial life will be considered fully in Chapter Four below. lCornellio, p. 381. 43 12For the procurator, see Rosada, p. xxiv, note 3. In 1356, the chapter of S. Giacomo dall'Orio gave general power of attorney over the church's property to Giacomo Nardi, a layman in the parish. It seems likely that through this act, Nardi was made a procurator of the church. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 23 Feb. 1359mv. Cristoforo de Artusio, a cheeseseller, was named procurator of the church, and nobleman Gregorio da Mula received power of attorney over church property. See ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 9 Nov. 1382, and ASV, CI 79, notary Gasparino Favacio, protocol, 10 May 1359. l3Andreina Bondi Sebellico, ed., Felice de Merlis, prete e notaio in Venezia ed Ayas, (1315-1348), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 3, ArchiVi notarili, 2 vols. (Venice, 1973-1978), vol. 1, p. xi. Hereafter cited as Felice. l41>ompeOMolmenti, "Venezia e il clero," Atti del reale istituto veneto di scienze, lettere, ed arti 60 (1900-1901), pp. 673-684. 15 Ibid., and Prodi, p. 420. 16Reinhold C. Mueller, "The Procurators of San Marco in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: A Study of the Office as a Financial and Trust Institution,” Studi veneziani 13 (1971), Pp. 111-112. l7Tradition assigns the date 1171, during the dogeship of Vitale Michiel, for the establishment of the sestieri. See Aldo Contento, "I1 censimento della popolazione sotto la Repubblica veneta," Nuovo archivio veneto 19 (1900), p. 232. 18The division does not even appear to have been very efficient administratively. The assignation of the parish of S. Lucia to the sestiere of S. Croce was very incon- venient. As a result, in 1314 the Great Council assigned the task of patrolling the parish to the signore di notte of Cannereggio rather than to the signore di notte Of S. Croce. This was done because it was more convenient (commodius) for him to do so. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Deliberazioni, Register 12, f. 50v. 19Out of more than 300 wills, I have found only one in which a testator made a charitable bequest on the basis of a sestiere. Bartolomeo, the plebanus Of S. Giacomo, left twenty soldi di grossi for the purpose of marrying poor girls who had been born in the sestiere of S. Croce. See ASV, Procuratori di S. Marco de ultra, Commissarie, Commissaria of Bartolomeo, quaderno with testament, f. 9r. (Hereafter cited as PSM de ultra). As a plebanus, Bartolomeo probably was better acquainted with the administrative apparatus of the city than most Venetians. This probably acounts for his unusual bequest. 44 20See F. Zago, ed., Consiglio dei dieci: deliberazioni miste, registri I-II (1310-1324), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 1, Archivi pubblici (Venice, 1962), doc. 31, pp. 25-28. 21For the quotation and a fuller discussion of the capi di sestiere, see Guido Ruggiero, Violence in Early Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980): PP. 12-13. 22For the capitulary of the Signori di notte, see Melchiore Roberti, Le magistrature giudiziarie veneziane e i loro capitolari fino a1 1300, 3 vols. Monumenti storici dalla R. deputazione veneta di storia patria (Venice, 1907- 1911), vol. 3, p. 25. 23 Ibid., p. 25, notes 2 and 3. 24Ruggiero, pp. 13-17. 25There was an intermediate division between the sestieri and the parishes called the trentacie. Sometimes parishes were grouped in twos. For example, Martino da Canale writes, "Sappiate che Monsignor il Doge ha dispartite 1e contrate di Vinegia in XXX parti, cioe II contrade a ciaschedune parte." See Martino da Canale, "La cronica dei veneziani," Archivio storico italiano 8 (1845), pp. 566, 567, 572. This may explain why S. Giacomo dall'Orio and S. Giovanni Degolado were listed together in a ruling on the festival on the Marie -- see note 38 below. 26Reinhold C. Mueller, "Charitable Institutions, the Jewish Community, and Venetian Society: A Discussion of the Recent Volume by Brian Pullan," Studi veneziani 14 (1972), p. 76. 27Even with papal pressure, the practice did not end immediately. See Giorgio Cracco, "'Relinquere laicis que laicorum sunt': un intervento di Eugenio IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia," Bollettino dell'instituto di storia della societa e dello stato veneziano 3 (1961), pp. 179-189. 28Zago, doc. 31, pp. 25-28; Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 98-99. Bartolomeo Cecchetti believed that the capi di contrade were instituted in the twelfth century. See Bartolomeo Cecchetti, "La vita dei veneziani nel 1300," Archivio veneto 27-29 (1884-1885), vol. 28, p. 25. For example, in S. Giacomo one of the capi was a certain Blasio, a tanner. See ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, Register 3644, f. 18lr. 45 29Roberti believed that the capi di contrade original- ly had jurisdiction in penal matters but that they lost it during the course of the thirteenth century to the signori di notte and the Cinque alla pace. See Roberti, vol. 3, p. 25, note 5. 30Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 278-279, especially clause 47; see also Cecchetti, vol. 27, pp. 43, 329. 31The oath of the capi, in which they swore to distrib- ute grain fairly, can be found in Pompeo Molmenti, La storia di Venezia vella nita privata, 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. 1, p. 507. 32Roberti, vol. 3, p. 96. 33Zago, doc. 31, pp. 25-28. 34For foreigners as trouble-makers, see Stanley Chojnacki, "Crime, Punishment, and the Trecento Venetian State," in Violence and Civil Disorder in Italian Cities, 1200-1500, ed. Lauro Martines (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 214- 218. 35For the oaths of the capi concerning the militia, see Molmenti, Vita privata, vol. 1, pp. 506-508. In 1346 a parishioner, Taldo Bartoli, was fined by the capi di sestieri for not registering for the militia. His fine was reduced by the Great Council on account of his poverty. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 11, f. 90r. 36 p. 176. Vittorio Lazzarini, Marino Faliero (Florence, 1963), 37For a discussion of the Marie and a synopsis of some Of the regulations, see Bartolomeo Cecchetti, "La donna nel medioevo a Venezia," Archivio veneto 31 (1886), pp. 33- 69, 307-349; also S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, 2nd ed. in 10 volumes (Venice, 1912), vol. 1, pp. 235-240. 38The regulation concerning parishioners of S. Giacomo and S. Giovanni Degolado can be found in ASV, Cinque Savi alla Mercanzia, Capitolare degli Straordinarii, Register 22 ter (olim Miscellanea Codice 132), f. 4lr-41v. 39See now the consideration of the Marie in Edward Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981), pp. 135-156. He argues that the government may actually have suppressed the festival because "the Festival of the .Marys had allowed the contrade rivalries to threaten wsou< HOHDOO owns: “mousom OUwcm> mo mozmwuom one N musmflm jnoondhou 88“}... “a! (1.8%- .J is! Jon... II‘Jh. .-- .. . C .plqod- up u- .” u“ .u . u . .‘K c. ...n .. . .. on”. .n. c . f1".m...’— . n. .95-.— 4P5” ..t.....m..m .... 0.... t .I. a .33 9.2!.“ LEE. II. '4‘ .0 In. .“S H“ 1MW$M on... .1: to...“ ‘- .Iyl ill-ll.) 1%.“ a :1- .133 influx»... . at 'l u. ‘7 tmtilpltar..o£ "D- g A '3’: Oahurl.h.d .x ...IIJK .4. ..ufiufi L4,... .. H: unanswnu. . . .. . .‘rp . . ”pun!nls 3‘ .n...o.'ch. Howl“? “In“. \ uh. ...: ll... ill i Ltd-8* 3.4...Ih .‘J~.:.1o.. It . In... .‘I... Q n‘a o. a..." . I. . ... rs: . .:. . Zoo .n «p24: <3:— 02320 THE: bursa... LEN. < _ F m 2 m > . . I . O c .pdv-P3 :2- .2122 Inf; ...-also. to: do. %I Cochin. m i! I vi- 0"; n '91.- ul . u.-. I... I ' I 'III III! 1‘1 , . a I ... 49 named for an anatomy theater that was built there in the eighteenth century. Proceeding down the narrow, building- lined street, one enters the large arbored square or ggmpg S. Giacomo dall'Orio. From this direction, the south facade of the church is visible. The church of S. Giacomo, which dominates the square, faces the Rio di S. Giacomo dall'Orio so unless one enters the gampg from the parish of S. Simeon Grande along another street, the ruga vecchia, one first sees either the north, east, or south ends of the church. The church's rounded, Byzantine-style apse provides the point around which the ggmpg pivots. The square in front of the church is very small since the build- ing was designed to be seen from the water. A large campanile or bell tower (forty-four meters high) adjoins the church on its north wall. Proceeding across the ggmpg, one sees that it is lined on three sides by the facades of buildings most of which stand three or four stories tall. Occasionally, there is a break in this line of walls where a narrow alley or street enters the ggmpg, having originated in an interior courtyard or canal. The buildings were originally the homes of wealthy parishioners, but today they have been converted into apartments and businesses. In the fourteenth century, space on the ground floor of these buildings was used for workshops and storage while the second floor or piano nobile and other floors were devoted to living areas. The poor of the parish found 50 housing in the garrets of these buildings or in wooden structures, long since destroyed, which were attached to them.2 If one proceeds out of the gampg along the Calle Lunga, one soon comes to an intersection and another bridge, the Ponte del Meggio. Near this spot was the home of Marino Sanudo, the most famous resident of S. Giacomo. Sanudo, a sixteenth-century nobleman, was an indefatigable writer whose diaries are today an invaluable source for historians. By following the Rio del Meggio along the Fondamenta del Meggio, one soon reaches the Grand Canal. At this, the farthest point of the parish, stand two buildings which had an important place in the history of Venice. On the left side of the Rio del Meggio is the Fondaco dei Turchi. Built in the thirteenth century by the noble Pesaro family and now heavily restored, the palace displays many of the characteristics oftflmaByzantine period in Venetian architecture, most notably the rounded arches. The ground floor has a covered portico at which goods could be unloaded. During the fourteenth century, the Pesaro family was forced to sell the palace, and it was taken over by the government as a residence for diplomats. In the seventeenth century, it was converted into the warehouse (fondaco), residence, and headquarters Of Turkish merchants, whence it got its name.3 On the Opposite side of the Rio del Meggio stands the Meggio itself. The Meggio was a government-owned grain warehouse 51 where grain supplies were kept for emergencies. The build- ing is very austere and totally lacking in ornamentation. By retracing one's steps back down the Fondamenta del Meggio, one returns to the Ponte del Meggio. Turning either left or right, one quickly leaves the parish enter- ing either of the now defunct parishes of 8. Giovanni Degolado or S. Stae. The building pattern which one finds in the parish today corresponds, more or less, to that of the fourteenth century, except that at that time, there were more canals and open spaces, which were subsequently filled in and developed.4 For example, Iacobo de Barbari's perspective view of Venice, executed in 1500, shows the same general layout as that found today. In general, the plan of the parish can most easily be compared to a wagon wheel in which the boundary canals form the rim, the gampg the hub, and the streets or Sillir the spokes. Indeed, many of the streets, which have been termed "street—courts" (calli-corti) terminate in the canals.5 More than in some venetian parishes, the layout of the parish of S. Giacomo seems both logical and orderly. (See Figure 3) In his work L'edilizia gotica veneziana, Paolo Moretto argues that S. Giacomo retains its medieval features -- that is is "a beautiful example of the island neighborhood of late Byzantine type."6 The date of the first settlement of the area which comprises the island of S. Giacomo dall'Orio is unknown, 52 SSS—=7. 3:32:25. 3" \u u}. ... .z«.\\..~3r.\ ... xiv .55.}...1... 9. C3\ fi‘u‘l‘ra‘ ... .....YIA... 3...?3. o. 1.3! .v E...‘\.§.¢ttHN ... ..Inuhu~$é“\ .f. \‘ 3.9...3‘3 \\ j‘ gtn-q. \‘ 1t D‘s‘J ca . ....J....\ .1». 1......th t Videiiratle. ... :.\.\.3 s‘ info“. .0}: L-IQ. O .............\...u.. a was). a... .... x 3‘51“. 3. ...._..... 7.. .‘IY. . .53. ..JWJ‘I- U. l‘...I\..o\ ..C. s.“ .3 J'.‘ I‘N. ... 11$.V‘VJV a s \K. .\\\ \.\ — . \.\u- .8“. {N kykv. {R o ( \ o :5 :55 [IL .===Z / ; ... ...{V ...»... .flnuscmmmm "mousom ofluo.aamp OEOUMflw .m m mhsmwm-. J< 0 ..‘..III!\ 1“» ‘3. \ My. . .14.... fl ....th 11V... 15.1.». 1% .. ......x»..3. .. .. Rica‘s»... .. .th\‘ zij‘xlfiod \ ....lu. $.64-.. 3 .1 5‘3... .. \..(a|!..w \ it .. in. \. .u .\ 1311:...” . 25...}; V tn!“ 9. ..-“... O 3...... 1...... . «I» '1‘,- y‘u"? 2’?” ’34,, i o . >565: . . s; . ..3C:$.¢ . . A\ ‘ . \ . . \ 53 although the area was almost certainly settled by the tenth century. Scholars have spent a great amount of time and energy arguing over the first reference to the area; and while many believe that this can be dated to the period between 971 and 999, the first undisputed reference is a document from March 1120 in which a certain Dominicus Bilongo "quondam Petro Bilongo de confinio S. Iacobi de Luprio" appears.7 Similarly, the origin of the name Orio (Latin Luprio) has provoked long and at times tedious discussion. Most likely the name Orio was the name of the island or islands at the western end of the Rialtine settle— ment, and the church became known as the church of S. Giacomo in the area of Orio. But more imaginative (and romantic) explanations for the name have been suggested, including the suggestion that the name derived from wolves (122;) which frequented the area or from a laurel tree which stood on the site.8 The reader can choose the one that best suits his or her inclinations. Like so much else, the early history of the church is shadowy. Many of the older studies state that a church dedicated to St. James the Apostle was first erected in the late tenth century by the Campoli da Oderzo and Muli families.9 Certainly, in the year 1225 the church of S. Giacomo dall'Orio was rebuilt with the financial assistance of the Badoer and Mula clans. Even today the church re- tains the basic thirteenth-century design. It is in the form of a Greek cross with the nave divided into three 54 aisles.10 The interior is capped with a wooden "ship's keel" ceiling -- a fine example of a common fourteenth- century form of construction.11 In the fourteenth century the church had three altars: the main altar, an altar dedicated to S. Giacomo, and one dedicated to S. Sebastiano.12 The campanile or bell tower, solid and un- adorned, dates from the thirteenth-century period of re- construction. According to the diarist Marino Sanudo, it was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1347.13 In the fourteenth century the scuola piccola or reli- gious confraternity of S. Giacomo was located at the church. Despite the fact that the records of the scuola are not extant, we may assume that it resembled, in general form, the many other Venetian scuole piccole. These scuole were brotherhoods of men and women which were under the direc- tion of a rector or gastaldus. The primary purpose of the scuole was to provide for the spiritual edification of members. Ordinarily, this included looking after poor members, attendance at the burial of fellows, and recitation of prayers for the souls of the deceased.14 In addition to being the site of a church and a scuola, the parish of S. Giacomo was the site of one of the hospitals or almshouses of medieval Venice. In his will dated June 15, 1309, Angelo da Pesaro, a member of the noble Pesaro family and a resident of S. Giacomo, left a bequest of 3000 lire, "for the erection, construc- tion, and maintenance of a new hostpital (to be done) for 55 my soul . . . ." Angelo stated that he wanted the hospital to house at least twenty poor and infirm persons and that it was to be managed by a rector. In addition, he left a bequest of 300 lire annually for maintenance of the hospital.15 Eventually, it passed into the jurisdic- tion of the procurators of S. Marco de supra.l6 One other feature that distinguished trecento S. Giacomo from most other parishes was the presence of a ballestrius or practice range for archery. One of the responsibilities of the capi di contrade was to ensure that the local militia had weekly archery practice. It was held on ranges such as the one in S. Giacomo.17 Few events punctuate the history of the parish in later centuries. The church itself underwent a number of minor reconstructions and alterations. Works of Lorenzo Lotto, Paolo Veronese, Palma il Vecchio, Palma il Giovane, and Francesco Bassano decorate the interior. The diarist Marino Sanudo recorded a few events which took place in the parish, including the election of a new plebanus in 1512.18 And, as noted earlier, a bequest by nobleman Lorenzo Loredan of 3000 ducats led to the establishment, in the eighteenth century, of an anatomical theater in the parish.19 Finally, during the nineteenth century, the number of Venetian parishes was reduced from seventy to thirty. S. Giacomo dall'Orio retained its parochial status and absorbed the territory and responsibilities of several surrounding parishes. 56 As a glance at Figure 2 shows, S. Giacomo lies rela- tively near the center of the city. It only takes ten minutes to walk from the parish to the business center at Rialto. For this reason, the parish developed more quickly and became more densely settled than parishes on the city's periphery. But because we lack censuses for the fourteenth century, it is impossible to determine exactly where S. Giacomo ranked in population and wealth compared to other parishes. A few rough indices do, how- ever, give a general sense of the parish's position. One such source is the estimo of 1379 on the basis of which Venetians were assessed for forced loans to help the government during the Fourth Genoese War or War of Chioggia. Seventy parishes are listed in the estimo, including the parishes of S. Eufemia on the island of the Giudecca and 8. Stefano on Murano. The estimates range from 333,733 lire worth of prOperty assessed the residents of S. Maria Formosa to the meagre 1,100 lire assessed two residents of 5. Nicola dei Mendicoli. Of the seventy parishes listed, S. Giacomo dall‘Orio ranks almost exact— ly in the middle (thirty-sixth), with an estimated value of 71,400 lire. Out of the ten parishes in the sestiere of S. Croce, it ranks fourth. Among adjacent parishes, it has lower assessments than the parishes of S. Stin, S. Stae, and S. Maria Mater Domini.20 Another indicator of S. Giacomo's wealth and standing relative to other parishes is the data compiled by André 57 Wirobisz in an article on building activity in the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries. By establishing an index based on two estimates of property, one from the late fourteenth century or early fifteenth century and the other from 1425, Wirobisz is able to give a general in- dication of the amount of building activity that took place in a given parish during those twenty-five years. From that, he is able to estimate which parishes were al- ready well developed by 1400 and which were still in the early stages of development. The index figure for S. Giacomo is 123 which signifies that the parish was al- ready well develOped by 1400 and that it experienced only a moderate rate of growth in the next twenty-five years. In the estimate from c. 1400, S. Giacomo ranked twenty- third out of sixty-eight parishes in total property value; in the estimate of 1425, it dropped to twenty-seven out of sixty-eight.21 Taken together, these two indices demon- strate that in the late fourteenth century, in wealth and degree of develOpment, S. Giacomo dall'Orio was very much i a middling rank Venetian parish. Unfortunately, there are no records that can provide even a rough indication of the parish's population or of its rank among Venetian parishes. In the seventeenth century, when the city had a population of around 160,000, Giustiniano Martinioni estimated the pOpulation of S. Giacomo to be about 3,000 souls.22 Frederic Lane estimates that the pOpulation of Venice before the Black Death stood 58 at 120,000. Assuming that the parish's population, rela- tive to the rest of the city, remained proportionally the same between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, S. Giacomo must have had a population of around two thousand inhabitants in the fourteenth century.23 Al- though we cannot know the size of the population, a careful scrutiny of various records in the Archivio di Stato does allow us to identify many of the kinds of peOple who lived in S. Giacomo and even to know some of them as individ- uals.24 Who did live in S. Giacomo dall'Orio during the four- teenth century? The sources show that a cross-section of the Venetian populace lived there. Nobles, cittadini, clergy, guildsmen, laborers, servants, slaves, and foreigners all made their homes in the parish. To this extent, at least, S. Giacomo conforms to Frederic Lane's characterization of Venetian parishes as socially inte- grated. Venetians of all ranks and statuses did live in close proximity to one another; they were 'neighbors.‘ Whether or not physical proximity affected their social contacts or created a sense of community is a question that will be examined later. At this point, we should again recall that social integration within neighborhoods was a common feature of all preindustrial cities and that it was not unique to Venice.25 Among the noble residents of S. Giacomo were repre- sentatives of some of Venice's most renowned families. 59 Both the Badoer and Pesaro clans had branches in the parish. As we have already seen, the Badoers had a long history in the parish, having financed the reconstruction of the church in 1225. The Badoers also had strong ties to the nearby scuola grande of S. Giovanni Evangelista -- ties which allowed them to hold in perpetuity the prior- ate of the hospital there.26 The Pesaros too were well established in the parish. They erected a large palace on the Grand Canal (the Fondaco dei Turchi). In addition, through Angelo da Pesaro the family endowed a hospital in the parish. While these two noble families had special connec- tions with the parish, a myriad of other noble families were resident there. Members of the Morosini, Loredan, Zane, Polani, Barbaro, Grimani, Navagero, Gradenigo, and other noble families lived in the parish at various times throughout the fourteenth century. According to the estimo of 1379, at least ten noble clans had property in the parish}.7 In some cases, branches of these families were resident in the parish; in other instances, these families were represented by a solitary individual. In Venetian society after the "closing" or Serrata of the Great Council in 1297, the right to exercise political power was the exclusive prerogative of the city's patricians. But one group of non-nobles, the citizens or cittadini, enjoyed special privileges which set them apart from the rest of the pOpulace. Those privileges included 60 exclusive right to the office of Grand Chancellor and other posts in the bureaucracy and special trade privileges.28 Although the cittadini comprised about five percent of the city's population, they were seldom identified as such in the sources. I have found only two individuals from S. Giacomo, Marco Disenove and a Pisan immigrant merchant named Pignol Zucchello, who were described as cittadini; but there were certainly many others as well.29 Below the cittadini came the mass of inhabitants who constituted around ninety percent of the populace. Yet an analysis of the population based solely on legal definitions of status is somewhat misleading, for in many instances successful guildsmen and merchants were wealthier than the city's nobles. Illustrative of this point is the evidence from the estimo of 1379. In order to be included in the estimo, a person had to have property worth more than 300 lire. Thirty-three individuals (or families) from S. Giacomo and the patrimony of the parish church met that qualification. Fourteen nobles (from 10 clans) were' assessed, as were nineteen commoners. The biggest sum (15,000 lire) was assessed the heirs of nobleman Fantino da Pesaro, but the second largest assessment (14,000 lire) fell to the commoner (cittadino?) Pietro Regla. The furrier Bartolomeo Brocha assessed at 1,500 lire surpassed several noblemen, including Andrea Zusto, Gasparino Loredan, and Nicold Alberto. Together the nobles had property valued at 35,400 lire while the non-nobles held property 61 valued at 38,300 lire.30 This evidence demonstrates that status was not necessarily equated with economic power. The non-noble inhabitants of S. Giacomo dall'Orio earned their livings in a wide variety of ways. Many of the residents were skilled craftsmen who belonged to the city‘s guilds. Especially noticeable in the documents are the furriers, who were divided into three separate guilds. Many people engaged in the fur industry made their homes in S. Giacomo.31 Another large group of parishioners found their livelihood in various aspects of the textile industry. Silk workers and wool weavers, shearers, and dyers were all represented. The Rio Marin in the nearby parish of S. Simeon Grande became the center of wool manu- facturing in the latter part of the fourteenth century. This may account in part for the large number of parishion- ers who earned their living in the textile industry. There were also many inhabitants engaged in the building trades (sawyers, carpenters, stonecutters, masons, and pavers), in luxury trades (rock crystal workers, gold- smiths, and spicers), and in service industries (barbers, cobblers, tailors, butchers, bakers, and foodsellers). One could even find a school teacher (rector scolarium) and a trumpeter in the parish.32 Perhaps because the parish was some distance from the Arsenal, not many parish- ioners were engaged in work connected with maritime in— dustries. There were, however, some parishioners who were caulkers and Shipwrights. 62 Even among the craftsmen there were often dramatic differences in wealth and status. Masters in the city's guilds were often wealthy men with investments in over- seas trade, in real estate, and in government bonds. These men were employers who in all likelihood seldom did the actual work of their guild -- instead they hired journey- men and apprentices to do the work for them. A good example of these well-to—do guildsmen is the furrier Bartolomeo Brocha mentioned above. On the other hand, journeymen and apprentices were often very poor men whose only asset was their knowledge of their trade. Many of these men were immigrants who came to the city in hope of finding work and making their fortune. For example, the status of an immigrant furrier from Udine named Canciano contrasted sharply with that of the furrier Bartolomeo Brocha. Canciano's lowly status is revealed by his wife Maria's meagre dowry of twenty-seven gglgi di grossi (about 13k ducats).33 The differences in status. among the popolani and even among fellow guildsmen were often more striking than the differences between nobles and wealthy non-nobles. In addition to these skilled workers, there were un- skilled laborers in the parish. Many of them found jobs supplying the muscle power that commerce required. They found work as porters and bailers. Others transported goods and people about the city. A number of parishioners 63 were boatmen and traghetto (ferry) operators. Other parish- ioners, especially women, found employment as domestic servants. Women served as maids, cooks, and wetnurses in the homes of their more wealthy neighbors. But women were not confined to unskilled jobs; most guilds were open to both men and women. Slaves also made up a share of the parochial popula- tion. The slave trade flourished in fourteenth-century Venice; and many parishioners, both nobles and commoners, had one or more slaves in their households.34 It was common for wealthy Venetians to free their slaves in their wills, and freed slaves gradually blended into the rest of the populace. Undoubtedly, the parish also had its share of vagabonds, prostitutes, beggars, and thieves; but, for obvious reasons, they seldom left a trace in the records. Finally, the pOpulation of the parish constantly was augmented by immigrants. While a few were wealthy merchants or skilled workers such as Pignol Zucchello, the Pisan trader, most were unskilled or semi-skilled workers like a certain Otolino, who came to Venice from the "villa Fleme" near Trent.35 Immigrants from through- out northern Italy, from north of the Alps, and from the East brought different dialects and tongues, as well as different ideas and customs to the parish. 64 With such a diverse population, the parish must have presented to the fourteenth-century observer a bustling and 36 During the morning hours, nobles variegated prospect. could be seen leaving the parish for meetings at Rialto and S. Marco. Merchants counted goods as they were unloaded from small boats at their ground floor warehouses; artisans allowed their work to spill out of their shOps into the open air, and servants and slaves made continuous trips to the 2955; or wellheads in the center of the ggmp_. Porters and messengers delivered goods and information, while the patrol- men of the capi di sestiere came through the square making their rounds. Women were also highly visible. The wives of nobles and well-to-do commoners went to visit the altars of their favor- ite saints or to visit with relatives in neighboring parishes. A noblewoman could be seen making a small loan to a local artisan, while the wives and daughters of artisans worked at the sides of their husbands and fathers. Older children were sent to the market at S. Polo to pick up a needed item, while children who were too young to work played about the gampg as they do today. The parish was no more quiet in the evenings. Men fished in the canals, played cards, drank, gossiped, and even prac- ticed archery on the target range. Women, too, gathered in groups, drinking and discussing matters of interest. Occasionally, a special event interrupted the every- day routine. For example, there was feasting in the house 65 of a nobleman on the dies traditionis, the day that his new bride was brought to his house to live. And on one of the EEEEE or narrow streets, a corpse was displayed in the doorstep of an artisan's home. This was done in the hope that passersby would give alms.37 The next day, members of the deceased man's scuola would come to his house, garbed in black and carrying candles, to carry 38 The election the corpse to the church and graveyard. of a new parish priest was sure to be the topic of dis- cussion for days or even weeks; and perhaps there were special celebrations on the feast day of S. Giacomo. Finally, acts of violence interrupted the normal routine. Robberies, rapes, even murders, were not uncommon events. Much of life was lived in the open, in view of the entire parish. Because of the crowded housing condi- tions, life spilled out into the streets, the courtyards, and the square where it could be observed by all. To the casual observer who walked into the parish in the four- teenth century, as well as to the observer today, S. Giacomo may well have appeared to be an integrated, tight-knit, and closed community. But appearances could be deceptive. For example, in the criminal records of the Signori di notte, witnesses to crimes testified that they recognized the faces, but did not know the names of fellow parishioners.39 The fourteenth- or twentieth- century observer would be wrong to assume, solely on the 66 basis of the public nature of life or on the basis of exchanged pleasantries on a doorstep, that there were deeply laid patterns of kinship, patronage, or friendship uniting parishioners. Indeed, only one group in the parish, the parochial clergy, was sure to have regular contact with all of the parishioners. The parish priest and his assistants, the presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, and clerics, were responsible for the souls of their disparate flock. Per- haps when the clergymen crossed the bridge at Rialto and looked to the right and saw "every . . . knight, lord, marquis, and count" gathered together and then looked to the spot below the bridge and saw "the common sort play at dice, at tables, and at cards," they wondered to them- selves what their parishioners had in common except their residence in S. Giacomo dall'Orio and their Christian souls.40 It is a question that we must consider as well. NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1Antonio Niero, Chiesa di S. Giacomo dall'Orio, Venezia, venezia sacra 16 (Venice, 1979), p. 31. Still use- ful is the old guidebook, Giovanni Costantini, La Chiesa di S. Giacomo dall'Orio in Venezia: notizie di storia e d'arte (Venice, 1912). 2Lacking systematic sources, it has been impossible to reconstruct the residential pattern in the parish. For some attempts to do so for trecento Venice, see Paolo Moretto, L'edilizia gotica veneziana (Rome, 1960). 3For the Fondaco dei Turchi, see Giuseppe Tassini, Curiosita veneziane, 6th ed. (Venice, 1933), pp. 272-274. 4The topography of the parish probably changed a great deal during the course of the fourteenth century. Canals were filled in, buildings were built, and other buildings were converted from wood to stone. For instance, the Badoers filled in a pool (piscina) in the parish; and Zanino de Artico built or repaired a bridge. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 3, f. 51v., and Register 8, f. 24v. Canals had to be dredged to keep them open. In 1321 the Great Council ordered that two canals in S. Giacomo, one running "between the house of ser Angelo de Pesaro and the communal salt warehouse," be dredged; the other circled the section of the parish referred to as the "island" (insula) on which stood the house of the noble Tron family. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Deliberazioni, Register 16, f. 151r. A Pesaro family property division illustrates that there was still a good bit of Open space in the parish including a garden (ortus) owned by the church. They also referred to a piece of property which originally belonged to one family but which had been bought and built upon by another. (”in terra Nicolai Cassulo que nunc est Iacobi Begoloto et super ipsa terra nunc sunt proprietates hedifficata (sic) ipsius Iacobi Begoloto . . . .") See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 15 July 1377. 5Moretto, p. 23. 61bid. 67 68 7See the judicious summary in Niero, pp. 9-14. This work was published in 1979 to help celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the church's foundation. 8Ibid., pp. 16-17. Also Tassini, p. 316. 9Tassini, p. 316. 10Niero, pp. 19-20. 11Giulio Lorenzetti, Venice and Its Lagoon, Translated by John Guthrie (Rome, 1961), p. 616. 12Niero, p. 12. 3Marino Sanuto, I diarii di Marino Sanuto, 58 vols. (Venice, 1879-1903), vol. 12, coll. 83. 14See the brief remarks on the scuole in Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 105, 152. See also Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971). 15It reads, "ad edifficandum et construendum ac reperandum unum hospitalum de novo pro anima mea." See his will in ASV, PSM de ultra, Miscellenea Testamenti, Busta 1-2, testament 158, 15 June, 1309. For some general remarks on hospitals in medieval Venice, see Pullan, pp. 206-215. 16See Pullan, p. 427. 17Pompeo Molmenti, La stgria di Venezia nella vita privata, 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 170-173. Pathetic testimony to the range's existence is the case of Antonio, the year and one half old son of a woolworker in the parish, who was killed when he wandered into the path of an arrow shot by a certain Giovanni from S. Cassian. See ASV, Signori di Notte al Criminal, Processi, Register 9, f. 69r-69v. (Hereafter cited as SN a1 Criminal.) 18 Sanuto, Diarii, 15, coll. 542. 9Tassini, p. 16. 20The estimo was published by Gino Luzzatto in his I prestiti della Repubblica di Venezia (sec. xiii-xv), 2 vols. Documenti finanziari della Repubblica di Venezia, Series 3 (Padua, 1929), vol. 1, doc. 165, pp. 138-195. 21See Andre Wirobisz, "L'attivita edilizia a Venezia 11el xiv e xv secolo," Studi veneziani 7 (1965), pp. 307— 343, see especially, pp. 307-319. 69 22For Martinioni's estimate, see his additions to the work of Franqesco Sansovino. See Francesco Sansovino, Venetia citta nobilissima, reprint of Venice edition of 1663 (Farnborough, 1968), p. 203. For the seventeenth- century population, see Richard Tilden Rapp, Industry and Economic DeclineigSeventeenth-Century Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p. 24. 23Lane, pp. 18-21. I realize that it is dubious to assume that the population remained proportionally the same. This figure is only intended to give the reader some general sense of the population. 24For a discussion of the sources used in this study, see the Appendix. 25Preindustrial cities did, however, tend to have a higher concentration of the elite at the center and of the poor at the periphery. To some extent this was true in trecento Venice as the estimo indicates. Peripheral parishes such as S. Nicold, S. Biagio, and S. Lucia were very poor. S. Maria Formosa, centrally located, was very rich. For general remarks, see Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City (Glencoe, Ill., 1960), pp. 95—103. 26Tassini, p. 321. 27Luzzatto, pp. 191-192. 28Lane, pp. 151-152. 291n a charter, Marco Disenove was identified as a "civis venetus." See ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 57, Commissaria of Marco Desenove, loose parchment 58, 12 June 1346. For Pignol Zucchello, see Raimondo Morozzo della Rocca, ed., Lettere di mercanti a Pignol Zucchello, (1336-1350), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 4, Archivi privati (Venice, 1957), p. vii. 30Luzzatto, pp. 191-192. 31For a full consideration of the furriers, see the Chapter Six entitled, "Craftsmen in the Parish: The Furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio." 32For the rector scolarium, see Enrico Bertanza, Documenti per la storia della cultura in Venezia, Vol. 1, Maestriyiscuole, e scolari in Venezia fino al 1500, Monumenti storici dalla R. deputazione veneta di storia patria, Series 1, Vol. 12 (1907), p. 103; for the trumpeter, see Felice, doc. 881. 7O 33Felice, doc. 168. 34For remarks on the slave trade, see Lane, pp. 132- 133. 35Felice, doc. 172. 36This brief portrait of parish life is drawn largely from testimony taken by the signori di notte and found in the registers of the Signori de Notte al Criminal, Processi. 37 . . . For this funeral practice among pogolani, see Mario Brunetti, "Venezia durante la peste del 1348," Anteneo veneto 32 (1909), p. 292. 38For instructions about guild funeral procedures, see G. Monticolo and Enrico Besta, eds., I capitolari delle arti veneziane, 3 vols. Fonti per la storia d'Italia (Rome, 1896-1914), vol. 2, p. 482. 39See, for example, the trial of Fabiano of Capodistria accused of killing fellow parishioner Beatrice of Capodistria. One of the witnesses, a certain dona Donata listed variously as being from S. Giacomo dall'Orio and S. Giovanni Degolado, testified that she could recog- nize Fabiano's face, but that she did not know his name. See ASV, SN al Criminal, Processi, Register 10, f. 99r- 99v. 40The quotes come from a descriptive poem about Venice written in 1442 by Iacopo d'Albrizzotto Guidi. It reads in part, A man dritta isciendo e1 ponte, uom gentile La dove si riducie ongni E chavalieri, singnior, marchese e chonte. Abasso questa e per gienta piu vile; Si zioucha a zar a tavole e charte, Sechondo che cciaschuno S'piu sottile. Quoted in Roberto Cessi and Annibale Alberti, Rialto: l'isola, i1 ponte, i1 mercato (Bologna, 1934), p. 439. CHAPTER FOUR THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS LIFE In early Renaissance Venice, the parish was both a secular and a religious unit of administration. Utilized by the state as the locus of tax and military obligations and by the church as the center of spiritual activities, the parish and its functionaries were the bottom rung on Venice's political and ecclesiastical ladders. A legacy of Byzantine caesaro-papism, the goals of these two hierarchies were complementary. Both wished to channel the spiritual and temporal wealth of the populace and put it to use for the Venetian church and state. To meet these goals, residents were organized by parish, and they gained their legal and religious identity from their place of residence. S. Giacomo dall'Orio was one of seventy such parishes in fourteenth-century Venice, and in this chapter we will try to determine the extent to which legal residence in the parish influenced or determined the religious associ- ations and activities of the parishioners. We want to see to what extent parishioners looked to the parish for Spiritual nourishment and to what extent they looked beyond 71 72 the parish to other religious organizations, such as other parish churches, monasteries, and scuole, for religious ful- fillment. Put another way, we want to know whether the parish, administratively defined, corresponded to the parishioners' sense of religious neighborhood. In order to understand the role that the parish played in the religious lives of the residents of S. Giacomo, we first need to explore the place of the clergy in the parish and their relationship to the parishioners. This is necessary because for most parishioners, the parochial clergy were the only ecclesiastics with whom they had regu— lar contact. The role the clergy played in parishioners' lives went far in determining the residents' attitudes toward the church as a whole. Once we have explored the place of the clergy in parochial life, we will then try to determine, through an examination of testamentary practices, the geographic boundaries of parishioners' religious lives. At this point, the reader should note that the follow- ing analysis is based almost entirely on private docu- ments -- charters found in the records of the city's notaries. This was not done by choice, but because there are no ecclesiastical records from the fourteenth century preserved in the parochial archives.1 Nonetheless, we can construct a general picture of the parochial clergy and church affairs because the clerics often had the city's notaries (their own colleagues) draft charters concerning church business. Information about parochial church 73 governance, about clerical elections and promotions, and about the patrimony of parochial churches can be gleaned from these sources. In addition, information about parishioners' attitudes toward the clergy and toward the parish can be culled from pious bequests which they made in their wills. Therefore, in spite of the lacunae in ecclesiastical records, it is possible to reconstruct the main features of religious life in the parish. In order to understand the place of the clergy in parochial life, we first need to identify their social origins. This is necessary because the social status of the clerics may have affected the way parishioners related to them. For example, if they were drawn from the ranks of the nobility, the pOpolo minuto were likely to show deference to them. On the other hand, a nobleman may well have felt contempt for a popolano cleric. Similarly,’ parishioners' attitudes toward the clergy may have varied if the clergy were drawn from their own ranks or if they came to the parish, as strangers, from afar. For these reasons, we need to get some sense of the social origins of the parochial clergy. Of the clergymen from S. Giacomo whose social origins we can trace, most seem to have come from respectable 74 popolano families either from the parish or from neighbor- ing parishes. A few examples are illustrative. Presbyter Felice de Merlis, who later became the plebanus of S. Simeon Piccolo, came from a fairly prominent popolano family. His brother Bertuccio, a furrier in S. Giacomo, was twice elected to the post of guardian of the scuola grande of S. Giovanni Evangelista.2 Election to that post signified that Bertuccio was a respected individual, trusted by both noble and popolano members. Giacomo Bogatino, a presbyter in the parish in the early years of the fourteenth century, was a nephew of parishioner Marco de Merzaria, who was himself a well-established resident of the parish.3 The Merzaria family had business connections with the noble Badoer and Contarini families.4 A third individual, Basilio, subdeacon and later deacon at the church in the later years of the fourteenth century, was the son of a cheeseseller (caxarolus) Cristoforo de Artusio.5 Even though a cheeseseller, Cristoforo was a respected and responsible member of the parish, for he held the post of procurator or guardian of the church's property.6 These examples show that some members of the parochial clergy were drawn from respect- able, if not extremely wealthy, popolano families. They did not come from the lower reaches of the popolo minuto. Other members of the parochial clergy may have come from the ranks of the nobility. Giacomo Cavalier, plebanus 75 during the latter half of the fourteenth century, had a noble surname; but lacking corroborative evidence, it is impossible to say whether or not he was a member of that noble family. What we do know is that the Cavaliers were a very minor noble family, so even if Giacomo were a noble, he was not a very distinguished one. Also there was a cleric in the church by the name of Gracia da ca' Navagero. Gracia, who was described by one of the presbyters as “most sad and weak" (trisisstissimus et debilis), probably was a member of the noble Navagero family which was resi- dent in the parish.7 In the notarial records, there are examples of clergymen from other parishes with noble surnames; but again, it is difficult to determine whether or not they were members of noble families. Probably by the fourteenth century, the more prominent noble families thought the post of parochial clergyman to be below their status and dignity. They were more interested in posts in the monasteries and in the church hierarchy. In general then, members of the parochial clergy came. from prominent popolano families or lesser noble ones.8 Either background made them socially acceptable to the majority of parishioners. They were not of such exalted status that they could intimidate the pOpolo minuto or so lowly that they themselves could be intimidated by the nobility. Their status made them acceptable and therefore accessible to most parishioners. 76 From the available evidence, it also appears that most clergymen came from families resident in the parish or from nearby parishes. In the three cases of popolano clergymen cited above, all had relatives resident in the parish. There are other examples as well. Presbyter Pietro de Marchese had a brother Marco who lived in the parish, and a deacon by the name of Marino had a married sister who resided there.9 Several residents of S. Giacomo had close relatives who were clerics in nearby parishes. For example, the brothers Giuseppe and Restauro Favaccio had another brother, GaSparino, who was plebanus of the contiguous parish of S. Agostin.10 Leonardo Cavazza, from a well-to-do popolano family, had a brother, Francesco, who was the plebanus of S. Cassian.11 These examples suggest that most clergymen employed in the parish were re- cruited from families in the parish or from neighboring parishes. The transfer of clerics from one parish to another further reflects this localism. Clergymen seldom moved far when they accepted a new post (and a promotion). Plebanus Giacomo Cavalier came to S. Giacomo from the neighboring parish of S. Boldo. Presbyters Felice de Merlis and Marco Dartico both moved from S. Giacomo to the parish of S. Simeon Piccolo. The choice of local residents to fill posts in the parochial clergy meant that many of these clerics were familiar to the parish- ioners even before they took office. 77 Finally, the evidence suggests that certain families had, either by right or by custom, the privilege of having one of their members hold a post in the parochial clergy. We have already cited the case of the cheeseseller Cristoforo de Artusio, the procurator of the church, whose son was elected to the deaconry. More persuasive is the example of presbyter Luciano Bono whose nephew Nicold 12 Either their himself became a presbyter in S. Giacomo. families enjoyed special rights to hold posts in the church, or Luciano and Cristoforo used their influence to secure these posts for their relatives. There were good reasons why popolano families in partic- ular coveted positions in the parochial clergy. First, as a consequence of the Serrata of 1297, popolano families had no voice in the political decisions of the city. Entry into the clergy, even the parochial clergy, represented an outlet for the ambitions of families and individuals. Through ecclesiastical posts, families gained social and, in some cases, political prestige. For instance, the nethew of Bartolomeo Recovrati, plebanus of S. Giacomo in the first half of the fourteenth century, became a canon of S. Marco. No doubt this represented an advance for the Recovrati family; and, as a consequence, Bartolomeo himself requested that his name be inscribed in the registers and remembered in the prayers of the chapter of 8. Marco.13 78 Similarly, posts in the nine congregations of secular clergy were powerful and prestigious positions which pOpolano families sought. Equally important to popolano families were the economic advantages to be gained from having a family member hold ecclesiastical office. Especially if the cleric were also a notary, there were real possibilities for economic gain. As a notary, a cleric might be asked to do a tour of duty overseas with a government official. This meant that he then had direct access to the world of international trade. Just such a tour of duty took presbyter Felice de Merlis to the city of Ayas in Armenia; and from a rare extant letter, we can see that Felice was taking advantage of the post. The letter was written by presbyter Nicold Bono to Felice. In it Nicold‘discussed everything from Can Grande della Scala, lord of Verona, to the cost of breviaries. It also shows that Felice and Nicold were using the Opportunity presented by Felice's post to engage in overseas trade. For instance, they made investments in pistachio nuts and in cotton. At one point, Nicold‘tried to summarize how he had used certain of Felice's monies. He wrote, I gave to your aunt 4% soldi di grossi and 3 soldi di grossi to Bogatino[a presbyter at S. Giacomo]. Of the other 3 ggldi, I gave 2 to Taso the furrier, 12 grossi I put toward the debt of 32 grossi which you owe me, so that you still owe me 20 grossi, our plebanus [Bartolomeo] got his cope yesterday and gave me 2 soldi. I still have 4 grossi . . . Now 79 we come to other things. I gave your aunt 3 soldi di grossi. Item 12 grossi. My intention with the next voyage, is to satisfy Marco Trevisano for the 15 grossi which he seeks, he says that he gave them to you on my account.1 Nicold‘even stated in a letter that he had mixed emotions about Felice's possible return to Venice. He said, "I was hoping, through the help of friends, that you could remain there."15 But if Felice did return to Venice, Nicold'had another plan in mind. He was trying to secure a post as a scribe in a government office for Felice. He wrote, "It's possible that I can get you into my office." However, he was waiting for the right moment to make the request. He said, "I haven't offered the petition yet, because right now it wouldn't be examined by friends."16 Posts in the bureau- cracy had appeal not only because they were salaried, but also because they placed one at the center of action. In a world in which information about trade was passed by word of mouth, being at the center was critical. In order to secure these posts, clergymen had to cultivate the favor of the powerful. Again Nicold; who was a real schemer, had a plan. He wrote to Felice, ad- vising him on how to deal with Marino Badoer, a powerful nobleman in S. Giacomo. He wrote, Marinello Badoer is the best of all his family (de sua domo); if you can, send him a tapestry, and if you can't, excuse yourself to him in a letter, because he is a good man and a powerful one (bonus est et forte), and if you ask it, he would lend money to you (at least I think so). Write to him by all means, for he is interested in your welfare.17 80 Through the cultivation of certain noble families, popolano families hoped to secure positions both in the clergy and in bureaucratic posts which could bring them economic rewards and social prestige. In sum, with regard to the social origins of the parochi- al clergy, the evidence from S. Giacomo dall'Orio indicates that in most instances they came from respectable popolano families or from minor noble ones. Families sought these positions for the social and economic advantages which they could bring. From their point of view, an ecclesiastical career represented a way for the family to get ahead in the world. From the point of view of the ecclesiastical hier- archy, it probably served its purposes well to have parishes manned by men who were respectable but not so powerful that they could pose a threat to the aristocratically dominated hierarchy. To church leaders, these men were ideally suited to fill the post of parochial clergy, where they were sup- posed to minister to the daily needs of their parishioners. II For the resident of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, his first official contact with members of the parochial clergy must have come on the day of his baptism. We cannot make a definitive statement because little is known about baptismal rites in medieval Venice, including the site of 81 those ceremonies. Again the paucity of sources is the problem. The issue of baptisms has prompted a good deal of scholarly debate. The eighteenth-century scholar Giambattista Gallicciolli believed that five mother churches (S. Pietro, 8. Marco, S. Silvestro, S. Maria Formosa, and S. Maria Zobenigo) had baptistries and that on appointed days parochial clergy went to those churches 18 Those Opposing this view to baptize their parishioners. argue that baptisms were performed in all of the parish churches. They point out that by the sixteenth century baptisms were regularly performed in the parishes, as parochial records indicate; and that in Venice there was no central baptistry like S. Giovanni in Florence.19 They take this as evidence that from the earliest times, baptisms were performed throughout the city. In the notarial records of Felice de Merlis, there is rare notice of a baptism, performed in the parochial church of S. Agnese by the parochial clergy. In 1319 presbyter Marco Sclapado Of the church baptized Simone, son of Tixe de Buzzacarini, an immigrant from Padua.20 The charter shows that baptisms could take place in parochial churches, and it broadens our knowledge about the ceremony. Two men, Marco Ruzzini and Marco da Riva, presented the child at the baptismal fount; two others, Marco Baseggio and Pietro Tolomano, received him from the fount. The child's uncle, who was a monk at the nearby monastery of S. Gregorio, placed a "good candle Of wax" on the altar 82 of S. Agnese in thanksgiving. The ceremony was performed "according to the rite and form Of the Roman church."21 This document proves that baptisms sometimes were performed in parochial churches. Whether this was the usual procedure remains uncertain; but in all likelihood, Venetians were accepted into the family Of the church in their native parishes. The paucity Of sources prevents us from following closely the progress of parishioners' lives in the church. There are no extant records of first communions, confirma— tions, or other passages which marked their spiritual transit through life. Nonetheless, the records are not entirely mute. They show that parishioners especially looked to the parish clergy for absolution Of their sins and for intercession for their souls. For the residents of S. Giacomo, one member Of the parochial chapter had special significance for he was their patrinus or parin. He was not their godfather as the modern Italian equivalent padrino would seem to indicate. The Latin compater or Italian compare denoted a godfather. Rather the patrinus was the parishioner's confessor and Spiritual advisor. Franceschina, wife of Giacomello Tomassini, made this clear in her will when she left a bequest of two ducats to "mio parin de penetentia," the presbyter Pasquale.22 The patrinus' job was to counsel his flock, to hear their confessions, and generally to help 83 guide them through their life in the church. The tasks assigned to patrini and to compatres complemented one another. Godparents were laymen who undertook the responsibility of guaranteeing their godchildren's up- bringing in the church; the patrinus was a cleric who, through his sacral role, educated his parishioners in the ways of the church. The testaments of parishioners contain numerous be- quests to patrini, usually given in return for the recita- tion of masses after death. The prominent place assigned to confessors in the wills of fourteenth-century Venetians indicates that patrini held an important place in parish- ioners' religious lives. It may also indicate that confes- sion was the preeminent sacrament for laymen. This would be in keeping with the church's view throughout the Middle Ages that confession rather than communion was the critical sacrament for laymen. Thus, while parish- ioners went to the great monastic churches such as the Franciscan church of S. Maria Gloriosa dei Frari and to the Dominican church at SS. Giovanni e Paolo (S. Zanipolo) to hear preachers, and to scuole to participate in religious exercises and pageants, they went home, to their parochial church, to take the sacraments. Again, the parish performed the everyday, routine (but vital) tasks Of ministering to the people. 84 Parishioners' testamentssflumvthat they expected their relationship with their patrini to continue, even to enter a critical stage, after death. As noted above, parish- ioners made bequests to the clergy in return for the recitation of masses and prayers. This was done in order to free their souls from purgatory. For instance, Lucia, wife of a mason, left one ducat to her patrinus, the presbyter Pasquale, that he might recite masses of St. Gregory (masses to free souls from purgatory) for her soul. But when enlisting support for this important task, parishioners were not parochial; they enlisted the aid of other parish clergymen, of monks "from Grado to Cavarzere," of the nine congregations Of secular clergy, of the scuole grandi and piccole, and Of laymen. Parishioners wanted many individuals and organizations, in addition to their patrini, to pray for their souls. While the relationship between an individual and his patrinus was primarily a religious one, in some instances, depending on the temperament Of the individuals involved, it became much more than that. Like their lay counter- parts, the compatres, patrini formed a kind of extended family or fictive kin which individuals could call upon in times of need. What began as a purely religious rela- tionship often developed into a social one as well. For instance, the plebanus Paolo Re was not only confessor to Tiziano, a furrier in the parish, but also an executor 85 of Tiziano's will. Tiziano's other executors were his wife Donata, his godfather (compater) Moreto de Donata (a fellow furrier from S. Giacomo), and another furrier, Pietro de Bonaventura from S. Croce.24 Tiziano included his patrinus Paolo in a group closely tied to him by marital, professional, and neighborhood bonds. Especial- ly among widows, clerics and godparents were popular choices as fiduciaries. With the deaths of their husbands, they often looked to these individuals to provide not only 25 spiritual comfort but also practical assistance. The relationship between a parishioner and his patrinus could develOp into more than a purely religious association. For many residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio then, one member of the parochial clergy held a prominent place in their lives. The patrinus was someone to whom they could turn not only for the absolution of their sins and intercession for their souls, but also for assistance in practical, everyday, secular matters. Ideally, one member Of the parochial clergy helped guide parishioners through life -- from the day of baptism until their journey ended in paradise. In addition to the patrinus, other members of the parochial clergy played a role in the lives of their parish- ioners. The parochial chapter was a group to which parish- ioners could turn for various kinds Of assistance. Because one member of the parochial chapter served as the parish 86 notary, parishioners made a series of trips throughout their lives to the clergy for legal purposes. Just as they went to see the priest for baptisms, confessions, and funerals, so they also went to the priest gum notary when they wanted to draft marriage contracts, charters of filial emancipation, testaments, and other kinds of documents which charted their legal transit through life. In the absence of the necessary witnesses, the notary would round up his fellow clerics to witness the acts which he had drafted. Consequently, clerics were present at most of the critical events in their parishioners' lives, either in their sacral role as priests or in their legal role as notaries and witnesses. Perhaps because of this legal tradition associated with the clergy, many Venetians, especially members of the 202010, chose to entrust legal responsibilities for their affairs to the clergy. We have already noted that many parishioners chose clerics, usually patrini, to be executors for their estates. They also gave power of attorney over their affairs to clerics during their life- time, through grants of proctorship. For instance, in April 1316, a parishioner by the name of Andrea de Corado, gave power of attorney over his affairs to his wife Giacomina and to presbyter Pietro of S. Giacomo. In August Of the same year, Andrea drew up a new charter, but this time he entrusted responsibility solely to Pietro.26 87 Giovanni de Bonsignor, from the adjacent parish of S. Maria Mater Domini, gave presbyter Francesco of S. Giacomo special power of attorney, including the right to oversee, rent, or even sell his properties on the terraferma.27 A number of parishioners gave power of attorney to relatives who were clerics. For instance, Marco de Marchese granted proctor- ship to his brother, presbyter Pietro; and presbyter NicolO Bono received power of attorney from his brother, his sister, and his brother-in-law.28 The choice of a cleric as the recipient of power of at- torney was a wise one for members of the popolo for two rea- sons. First, as we have already seen, clergymen were familiar with legal procedures. If problems arose, if decisions had to be made, they were in a position to make them quickly and wisely. Second, for members of the popolo, the choice of a cleric was an astute move because clergymen enjoyed a degree of power and prestige in society. If disputes arose, they had a better chance of protecting their clients' interests than did laymen. For instance, in the example cited above, NicolO Bono received power of attorney from his relatives who recently had emigrated from Venice to the terraferma. They must have believed that Nicolo‘, not only as their brother but also as a clergyman, could best protect their interests in Venice. Of the grants made by parishioners to clerics, none was made to a cleric below the rank of presbyter. This adds further to the conviction that part of the motivation in 88 granting power of attorney to clergymen was the hope that they would use their position to protect their clients' interests. Therefore, it made no sense to make such grants to simple deacons or subdeacons, for they had little power. Only one noble resident of S. Giacomo granted power of attorney to a cleric. Nobleman Francesco Morosini gave power of attorney to plebanus Marco Dartico from S. Simeon Piccolo (but formerly of S. Giacomo) and to a fellow noble- man from S. Fosca.29 Nobles almost always granted power of attorney to their fellow nobles. For them, that was a wise decision for nobles had more influence than the parochial clergy. In addition to looking to the clergy for legal assis- tance, residents of S. Giacomo also saw the clergy as a source of loans and investment money. One of the problems for residents of fourteenth-century Venice, especially for the poor, was to find a source of small, low-interest loans. Venice did not have an official lending institu- tion, a Monte di Pieta, in this period; and the Jews, a common source of such loans, were banned from the city during much Of the fourteenth century.30 The alternative for those in need Of money was to find a private individ- ual in the city who would lend them the money. In the records of the notaries, there are many examples of loans which were made "causa amoris et dillectionis," or as they are known to historians, "free loans." Many historians 89 believe that free loans concealed interest payments. Historians speculate, for example, that one party would lend eighteen ducats to another party. But when the con- tract was drawn up, the parties would inform the notary that twenty ducats had been loaned and were, of course, expected as repayment. On paper it was a "free loan" -- twenty ducats were lent; twenty ducats were eXpected as repayment. Therefore, from the records, it is impossible to determine when these loans were genuinely free and when they concealed interest.31 One source Of these free loans was the parochial clergy. For example, in one charter dated July 22, 1315 the plebanus of S. Giacomo,BartolomeO Recovrati, loaned "causa amoris et dillectionis" twenty soldi di grossi to Bartolomeo Tartaro, a glassworker from Murano.32 Presbyter Nicold Bono loaned ten soldi di grossi to Monica, a servant from the contiguous parish of 8. Giovanni Degolado, and presbyter Giacomo Padavino loaned eight soldi di grossi 33 to a shearer (cimator) Rigeto and his wife Marchesina. These were small loans, made to humble peOple, to tide them over bad times. As noted above, there is no way to determine whether these loans were given in charity by the clergy (and therefore were genuinely "free loans") or not. Regardless, the parochial clergy provided one source of quick money for the pOpolo minuto. 90 Another kind Of loan commonly made in fourteenth- century Venice was the local colleganza. Unlike the free loan which may not have earned interest, the local colleganza was a profit-making business loan in which the lender expected a secure return on his investment. Be- cause of their safety, local colleganze were popular with widows who used them to increase their often small fixed income. Local colleganze were so named, because it was written into the contract that the money was to be used in Venice only.34 The parochial clergy, in addition to widows, nuns, and nobles, were a steady source of such loans for a wide variety of peOple. Unlike the recipients Of free loans, however, the recipients of local colleganze came from the more prosperous ranks Of Venetian society. Both nobles and commoners saw them as a source of capital, to be used in a variety of commercial ventures. The plebanus Bartolomeo Recovrati made local colleganza loans to a variety of peOple, including the parishioner Scalco, a furrier, and his son Martino.35 Omenbono, plebanus of S. Giacomo in 1348, loaned 500 ducats to Marco Disenove, a well-to-do cittadino resident of the parish.37 No doubt Marco planned to use the money in an important commercial venture. From these examples, it is clear that in lending local colleganze, clergymen had contact with a different group than those to whom they made free loans. Local colleganze were made to pOpolani who had the resources and 91 connections to turn the capital to a profit. Free loans, on the other hand, were frequently made to help the desti- tute. In either case, the evidence shows that a wide variety of' Venetians saw the parochial clergy as a ready source of capital. Finally, for some Of the residents Of S. Giacomo, the clergy were their landlords. Over the years the church accumulated, through pious bequests, various properties which it put to gain by renting them. In the estimo of 1379, "1e case di S. Jacomo" were valued at 400 lire. For the tenants of these houses, the parochial chapter was their landlord. In addition, certain clergymen owned properties which belonged not to the church, but to them- selves as private individuals. In his will, the plebanus Bartolomeo Recovrati was very concerned that thiskxaunder- stood; he stated that he had bought and maintained certain properties "with my own money, at my own cost and expense" (de meis prOpriis denariis, sumptibus, et espensis).39 Bartolomeo's will shows that he was very concerned about the condition and disposition of his properties. He left them under the jurisdiction of his executors, even going so far as to inform them that rents were due twice a year -- on the feast of St. Peter in June and on the Feast Of the Circumcision. Furthermore, he enjoined his executors to maintain his properties in good condition ("in suo bono statu").40 Bartolomeo was also a strict landlord. In 1329 he took a case before the Giudici di 92 Petizion, one of Venice's civil courts, and tried to ex- tract 3% soldi di grossi in back rent from the executors of a certain Pietro Bono of S. Salvador. Before his death, Pietro had rented a prOperty in S. Giacomo from Bartolomeo.41 The renting of properties was one more in a long series Of contacts which could unite parishioners and clergymen in secular and spiritual enterprises. The evidence from S. Giacomo dall'Orio clearly illus- trates that the relationship between parishioners and the parochial clergy was a complex and varied one. Parishioners had religious, familial, legal, and business ties to the clergy. The kinds of contact which they had determined parishioners' attitudes toward the clerics. For some residents, their relationship with the clergy was close and friendly. The clerics provided not only spiritual nourish- ment, but also friendship, legal assistance, and financial aid in times of need. To their flock, the clergy of S. Giacomo dall'Orio appeared alternatively as confessors, intercessors, landlords, relatives, litigants, and exec- utors. Irrefutably, the clergy had a highly visible role in parochial life; and they, in one way or another, influ- enced the lives of virtually all parishioners. III As we have seen, the spiritual well-being of trecento Venetians was linked inextricably to their place of 93 residence. Parishioners depended for their salvation on the mediating power of their patrini with whom they had a personal relationship. Parochial residence provided the basis for the relationship between parishioners and patrini; and, as a consequence, parishioners regarded the parish as the locus Of personal salvation. The objective of this third section is twofold. First, we want to see if residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio viewed the parish not only as the locus of personal salva- tion but also as a corporate religious entity. We want to see whether or not they regarded the parish as a com- munity of rich and poor working together for salvation. Second, we want to see to what extent parishioners' reli- gious associations were circumscribed by the boundaries of the parish. We want to determine, if possible, the boundaries of the parishioners' sense Of neighborhood, religiously defined. In order to do this, we will examine in some detail pious bequests made in the wills of 331 parishioners who lived in S. Giacomo between 1297 and 1423. Commoners' wills account for 275 Of the 331 testaments; 37 are nobles' wills, 7 are clerics', and 12 are wills of parish- ioners of indeterminate status.42 There are 210 women's wills and 121 men's wills. Wills are a notoriously difficult source with which to work. Those who discount their use generally do so 94 on two grounds: first, that in the process of making wills, people act differently than under normal circumstances (thereby invalidating them as indices Of 'normal' be- havior), and second, that the historian has no guarantee that the terms Of wills were carried out as outlined. These Objections are easily countered. Against the charge that testaments reflect extraordinary circumstances, we may respond that this is an asset rather than a liability, for in the process of making a will, a testator gives thought to what is most basic in life, rather than to the extraordinary or normal.43 The second charge is valid only if the historian is interested in the execution of wills by fiduciaries. The post-mortem actions of fiduciaries do not affect the original intentions Of the deceased. The examination of wills does, however, present several technical difficulties. First, we must keep in mind, especially when examining religious bequests, that the notary who drafted the will was a cleric. One part of the notary's job was to interrogate the testator. For example, if a male testator made no mention of a wife or children, the notary was supposed to ask if he were mar- ried and if his wife and children were to be the recipients of bequests. The government, through the notary, wanted to ensure that survivors were protected. A second factor to consider is that the presence of a cleric may have 95 prompted religious bequests. Again, the notary was supposed to inquire about pious bequests; and this may have caused testators to leave more money to religious organizations than they would have done otherwise. A third problem, especially common to pious bequests, is lack of specificity. Often, testators would designate that a certain amount of money be used for pious bequests "at the discretion of my executors." There is no way of knowing how the money was used. For instance, Martino de Morostega asked that the residuum or balance of his estate be distributed "in masses, in marrying young girls, in freeing prisoners from the prisons Of the commune of Venice, and in other pious works."44 We do not know what Martino meant by "other pious works." Finally, it should be noted that Venice had a tithe (decima) or death-tax that was required of all Venetians. According to law, the tithe was supposed to be divided into four parts: one each for the bishop, the parish clergy, the maintenance of the church, and the poor of the parish.45 When considering what follows, the reader should remember that the religious bequests under consideration were bequests made in addition to the tithe -- a bequest that by law included donations to the parish church, clergy, and poor.46 In order to evaluate parishioners' perception of the parish as a community, let us examine the incidence of pious bequests known as caritadi. Unlike bequests given 48 to the clergy and bequests made to the church itself, 96 caritadi were directed to one's fellow parishioners. As such, they are particularly useful for trying to gauge parish- ioners' perceptions of the parish as a community of rich and poor. A caritade or "love feast" was a meal that was prepared and distributed to poor parishioners. A person wishing to make a caritade bequest left enough money for the procure— ment of the necessary items. For instance, Catarucia, wife of Giovanni Furlan, a mason stated in her will that she wanted a caritade of bread and wine ("de pane et de vino") distributed in S. Giacomo.49 Another parishioner, Giovanni Tron, left enough money for four caritadi, stipulating that the poor receive "uncooked pork, bread, and wine."50 Other parishioners, who could not afford to fund a complete caritade, made contributions toward one. For instance, Paxino Zucha left 25 ligg for such a purpose.51 Table 1 gives the aggregate figures for the number of persons making bequests to the poor of S. Giacomo. It shows that in the period 1297 to 1423, out Of a total of 331 testators, 41 or 12.4 percent made bequests to the poor Of the parish. However, when the figures are broken down chronologically, they show that there was not a constant rate of endowment. Instead, they show that be— quests declined steadily during the period. For purposes Of analysis, I have divided the period 1297 to 1423 into three sub-periods. The first (1297-1347) was 97 TABLE 1 Charitable Bequests to Poor Parishioners Date Number of Testators Number of Bequests* 1297-1347 57 14 24.6% 1348-1381 128 20 15.6% 1382-1423 146 7 4.8% TOTAL 331 41 12.4% *These are the figures for the number of testators makingai bequest to the poor of S. Giacomo. Included are caritade bequests and other bequests to the poor of the parish. TABLE 2 Distribution of Charitable Bequests Date Testa- S. Giacomo S. Lazzaro Prisons Malis tors Ablatis 1297-1347 57 14 24.6% 2 3.5% 4 7.0% 3 5.2% 1348-1381 128 20 15.6% 24 18.8% 21 16.4% 30 23.4% 1382-1423 146 7 4.8% 33 22.6% 7 4.8% 11 7.5% TOTAL 331 41 12.4% 59 17.8% 32 9.7% 44 13.3% 98 the era in which Venice's aristocratic regime was estab- lished and tested. It began in 1297 with the closing of the Great Council and ended on the eve of the plague. Two conspiracies, one in 1300 and another in 1310, challenged the regime but failed. Economically, the period was prosperous. The second period (1348-1381) also has in- tegrity as a unit. Beginning in 1348 with the Black Death, these were years of crisis, instability, and economic problems. The Black Death caused severe social disloca- tion, and a conspiracy led by the doge himself shook the city in 1355. The period also witnessed two wars with Genoa. The second, known as the Fourth Genoese War or the War of Chioggia (1378-1381), caused severe financial strain and almost led to the capture Of Venice by the Genoese fleet. The final period (1382-1423) was one of re- construction and reorientation for the Venetians. In the first decade of the fifteenth century, Venice acquired Padua, Vicenza, and Verona. And the election of Francesco Foscari as doge in 1423 marked a new orientation toward the west in Venetian foreign policy. As the table shows, in the first period, 1297 to 1347, 14 Of 57 testators or 24.6 percent made a bequest to their poor neighbors. A full quarter of the testators, both nobles and commoners, left part of their estate to help those less fortunate 99 than themselves. In the period from 1348 to 1381, the number of parishioners remembering their neighbors dropped to 15.6 percent. Twenty of 128 testators left bequests for the poor of the parish. By the final period, 1382 to 1423, the number had drOpped precipitously so that only 7 of 146 testators, a mere 4.8 percent, were remembering their neighbors with pious bequests. When broken down chronologically, the figures illustrate a steady and marked decline in this testamentary practice. By the end of the fourteenth century, fewer and fewer residents of S. Giacomo were leaving pious bequests to their fellow parishioners. In order to get some sense of the scale of this de- cline in testamentary largesse, it is instructive to compare the figures of caritadi for S. Giacomo with other forms Of charity. Caritadi were not only given to the poor of the local parish. Two other groups were frequently the recipients of caritade bequests: the poor of the hospital Of S. Lazzaro and prisoners in the city's jails. The monastery and hospital of S. Lazzaro originally served as a leper colony but later came to serve as one of Venice's plague hospitals. People made bequests to help maintain 52 the patients. Testators left legacies to prisoners either to provide them with a caritade or to help poor 53 debtors pay their debts. Table 2 compares donations to the poor of S. Giacomo, with donations to S. Lazzaro, 100 to prisoners, and to bequests made in expiation for usury (known as malis ablatis, mal tolesto). Several trends can be discerned here. First, we see that bequests to S. Lazzaro were the only form of charitable bequest under consideration that grew in pOpularity during the entire period. Indeed, bequests to the poor Of the parish and to S. Lazzaro reversed themselves in parishioners' wills from 1297 to 1423. Bequests to S. Lazzaro increased steadily while bequests to parishioners decreased steadily. Second, the table shows that all charities, except caritadi for S. Giacomo, increased substantially in the period 1348- 1381. This means that the decline in bequests to S. Giacomo during that period was not the result of a general constric- tion of bequests. Instead, parishioners channeled bequests elsewhere. They did that for several reasons. First the Black Death no doubt prompted a greater outpouring of sup- port to S. Lazzaro, and recurrence of the plague through- out the century led to continued support of the hospital. In addition, the crises Of the years 1348 to 1381 (plague, revolt, war) caused financial disruption which may have sent many Venetians to jail as debtors. This may account for the sudden upsurge in bequests to prisoners during this period. The bequests given as atonement for usurious practices indicate that another factor affected testamentary practices. Bequests made as expiation for usury increased dramatically 101 (by 18.2 percent) during the period 1348 to 1381, showing an even stronger increase than bequests to S. Lazzaro (up 15.3 percent). The specter of death in 1348 and the possibility of defeat during the War of Chioggia, which many took as signs of God's displeasure, led to personal atonement for sins and a desire to purchase forgiveness. Once the crisis passed, bequests drOpped to their previous level. As an index of community feeling, the evidence of charitable bequests strongly suggests that the perception of the parish as a community of rich and poor, united by their common parochial residence, declined during the fourteenth century. Fewer and fewer parishioners viewed their neighbors as worthy recipients of their bequests.54 They decided instead to channel their bequests elsewhere. Even during the years 1348 to 1381, when a series of dis- ruptions created a desire to atone for sins (which trans- lated into increased testamentary largesse), bequests to the parish continued to decline. Viewed from another perspective, we can say that while parochialism declined, the donative horizons of testators expanded. Legacies to the city's sick and imprisoned increased. Perhaps the experience of suffering on a grand scale led residents of S. Giacomo to look beyond their particular situation.55 Increasingly, the favored recipients of pious bequests were strangers in distant hospitals and prisons rather than fellow parishioners. v --Av -..-“ -r“’ -..‘- .1 i... is Vs I. a . . .. a: u . 1. ‘ . I. a. -: . . ... 1‘ av 4h ..n L» nah x». Q» . . c . . . 2,. .... .. . . .. -n.. . .... a 3 . a C s: .c . .3 .u I . . a C a. a . .... a. C we. 2. 5? 102 Although the evidence of charitable bequests shows that the donative horizons of the parishioners expanded during this period, an examination Of bequests to other religious institutions shows that parishioners did not make bequests randomly. A plotting of those bequests shows that most parishioners made bequests to institutions located within that area of the city defined by the first U-shaped bend in the Grand Canal. (See Figure 4.) In all likelihood, that zone comprised the parishioners' neighborhood, religiously defined. In order to illustrate this, let us look more closely at the geographic distribu- tion of bequests to other parochial churches and scuole and at parishioners' choices for burial sites. Residents of S. Giacomo left bequests to other parish churches for a variety of reasons. Some gave money to other churches because they had a favorite clergyman there.56 This was especially the case when the clergyman had originally served in S. Giacomo. Other parishioners, especially women, gave money to the parish church and clergy in their native parish, as did immigrants who left money to churches in their native villages and towns.57 Parishioners with relatives who were clerics in other parishes, sometimes remembered those parishes in their wills.58 Finally, as we shall see later, Venetians of all classes moved from one parish to another with extra- ordinary frequency. Some, no doubt, maintained ties to 103 oHHmummo we ouumflm .m .mH anecdm .m .oH Hanson noun: mesa: .m .m 06.62 .m .43 mumflflmmam>m .>oflo .m. .m .mmum. oesomumsm .m .e change .MH :Humomm .m .m oomaooma flacm>oflw .m .m Humum amt chums .m .NH iowaom. 66664 .m .e mncmuo maomsflm .m .m ouumm>ahm .m .HH cmnmmmo .m .o ofluO.HHmo osoomfio .m .H oaoomew .m MO muflcfloe> msu cfl mcoflusueumcH mOOMmeHOm II v musmflm fi‘vovh" Al w Unbfigbuabt Y! . . Fl'vwan A 501-. Vaac. ' v FFUv-nh .. Louisi'In: .c-~—-‘ “.-..-. h \- 0'! S. () EXCO'w Bu. . ‘ | r“*-- inn-- 5“: 104 former places of residence.59 For all Of these reasons, residents of S. Giacomo left bequests to the clergy and churches Of other parishes. Although some parishioners left bequests to parochial churches far distant from S. Giacomo, most left money to churches that were in the immediate vicinity. For example, in her will dated 1369, Filippa, wife of nobleman Michele Zancani, left eighteen ducats for the recitation of masses. She left money to the Franciscan church, the Frari, to the Dominican church, S. Zanipolo, and to the parochial churches of S. Croce, S. Giovanni Degolado, and S. Giacomo. All except S. Zanipolo were in the vicinity of S. Giacomo.60 Another noblewoman, Beruzia da Molin, left money for masses at s. Giacomo, s. Boldo, and s. Stae.61 Both 5. Boldo and S. Stae were contiguous with S. Giacomo, and many Molins lived at S. Stae. Maria, widow of Antonio Bono, left money for candles for the illumination of the Eucharist. She left them to the churches of S. Giacomo, S. Boldo, S. Maria Mater Domini, S. Cassian, S. Aponal, and S. Silvestro.62 It is easy to imagine that these churches marked Maria's routes to the markets at Rialto. (See Figure 4.) Perhaps she stopped in them to say prayers to her favorite saints. These examples illustrate a tendency to favor with pious bequests parochial churches in the vicinity of S. Giacomo. R-v" ----u. .. : . .2 o. I -- h“ .. C. . . .1 ~.. Q _—~ ... 2. .1 ~«. . . AW 3. a» ..u «E he. s . In P. .... .... .1 gt .. . ~ ~ u \‘ \V‘ \«h n-VIH «\x s . .5. 105 This tendency is even more apparent in the data con- cerning bequests to scuole. Scuole or religious confratern- ities were a hallmark of Venetian life; and residents of S. Giacomo, both noble and common, belonged to them and left money to them. Again, the scuola located at S. Giacomo and those located nearby were the favored recipients of bequests. Table 3 lists the number of parishioners who made bequests to particular scuole. The scuola located in the parish, the scuola of S. Giacomo, leads the list with twenty-two testators leaving bequests to it. The second most popular (with eighteen bequests) is the scuola of S. Caterina, located in the neighboring parish of S. Stae. The scuola grande of S. Giovanni Evangelista, which the parish's Badoer family patronized, is third with thirteen bequests, followed by the scuola of S. Francesco at the Frari, and the scuola of S. Agata, which was probably at S. Boldo, for the church of S. Boldo was originally dedicated to S. Agata. As a glance at Figure 4 shows, all five scuole were in the immediate vicinity of S. Giacomo. Like bequests to parish churches, parishioners left bequests to scuole that encircled the parish. Some parishioners left bequests that, quite literally, encircled the parish. Giovanni Asapone left money to the scuole of S. Croce, S. Giacomo, S. Agostin, and S. Caterina; Lucia Cavazza left one ducat each to the scuole of S. Giacomo, S. Agata, S. Agostin, - ‘nvv‘m wind“ 2 3 N... no . . ... a. ..........n.» u.” .c H.“ u.“ u... PC a; at «u C l... i E ..u S -... t C u... N... v... 1. 4...: t e a. I e E . I O I o I I O I O O O O I «5‘ V .5 A v ‘4.- N.» u‘ * 67V: H I Q\ quA H” O ' Fly H» C. .2 C. 2. 2. 2. .2 .3 .2 C. 2. u... .... m. t d 5 3. t .C 1.. 2O .3 ~ . C CO S r. at C n- nN. «\- 106 TABLE 3 Distribution of Scuole Bequests Scuola Location Number of (when known) Bequests* S. Giacomo S. Giacomo dall'Orio 22 S. Caterina S. Stae 18 8. Giovanni S. Giovanni Evan. l3 Evangelista (S. Stin) S. Francesco Frari 11 S. Agata S. Boldo (S. Agata?) 11 S. Croce 6 S. Maria de Valverde S. Maria de Valverde 6 S. Chiara \ ~ 6 S. Maria della Carita S. Maria della Carita 5 S. Marcuola 5 S. Maria de Subter S. Maria dei Servi 4 Conf. S. Giovanni Degolado S. Cristina S. Giovanni Battista S. Barnaba Martiri S. Silvestro All other scuole** 4 muwww TOTAL 164 *Again, this refers to the number of testators leaving a bequest to the scuola, not necessarily to the number of actual bequests. Some testators left more than one be- quest to a particular scuola. **The following scuole were the recipients of bequests by two testators: S. Agostin, S. Andrea de Zirada, S. Antonio, S. Cecilia, S. Elena, S. Gotardo, 8. Leonardo, 8. Marco (scuola grande), S. Maria Maddalena, S. Matteo de Murano, S. Orsola, S. Stae, S. Tome de Conturbia. The following scuole were the recipients of bequests by one testator: SS. Angeli, S. Antonin, S. Armoro, S. Biagio, S. Cassian, S. Cosme e Damian, S. Cristofalo, S. Cristoforo, S. Giobbe, S. Giuliano, S. Marco (at S. Croce), S. Maria Formosa, S. Marta, S. Matteo, S. Maurizio, S. Pantalon, Scuola dei Apostoli, S. Tomassini (of Treviso), S. Vettore. 1‘ ‘- I!“ .... 2 A: u ... Q d ‘ .‘ ‘ ~ a: .. w 2n 0 .n . ..n .u L.. C 107 and S. Caterina.63 One parishioner, Maddalena, wife of Bertuccio a furrier, made a very special bequest to S. Caterina at S. Stae. She asked that a gold ring "be placed on the finger of the image of the blessed Caterina of S. Eustachio."64 The evidence of scuole bequests strengthens the notion that there was an area, comprising the parish and several surrounding parishes, that contained most of the parishioners' religious affiliations and loyal- ties. One institution that we would expect to have been the recipient of numerous bequests is the basilica of S. Marco, which houses the relics of Venice's patron saint. Yet only 2 of 331 testators left bequests to S. Marco. In his will, nobleman Nicoleto Trevisan left twelve grossi annually, "for the illumination of the Virgin Mary which 65 is in S. Marco." The other testator who made a bequest to S. Marco was the plebanus Bartolomeo Recovrati. He left ten soldi di grossi to the chapter that they might include him in their prayers.66 Again, the reader should recall that Bartolomeo had a special connection with the basilica; his nephew was a canon there. It is difficult to explain the paucity of donations to the church that houses Venice's patron. Perhaps the church's ducal nature (for S. Marco was the doge's private chapel) inhibited bequests from most individuals. Only a nobleman and a well-connected clergyman among 331 testators 108 remembered S. Marco in their wills. On the other hand, it is possible that because of its distance from S. Giacomo, residents had no particular reason to remember it in their wills.67 Finally, the evidence of burial sites provides further confirmation of our findings about the religious identities of parishioners and about the geographic limits of their religious lives. Not much is known about the cemeteries Of fourteenth-century Venice, but most people probably were buried in parish cemeteries. In all likelihood there was such a cemetery in S. Giacomo, for even today one area of the gampg goes by the name Campiello dei Morti. It was there that parishioners who did not leave instructions about burial site, probably expected to be buried.68 Only 4 of 331 testators specifically stated that they wanted to be buried in S. Giacomo; they were the presbyters Spinabello and Marino, the plebanus Bartolomeo, and Tiziano, a furrier. Tiziano stated that he wanted to be buried "in the tomb of my relatives and of my house located under the portico of the church." If he were re- fused burial there, he wanted to be buried at the scuola of S. Maria dell Carita‘.69 Fifty-one of 331 testators left specific instructions about where they wanted to be buried. Two considerations governed the choice of a gravesite. For some parishioners it was important to be buried with their family. Alvisa v-vn- N- . Utes: ....‘ v. .( Q“-- -..‘~ hu- n k 109 Nardi wanted to be buried at the Frari, in the tomb of her husband Tomaso; Aliegra, wife of NicolO de Olperti, wanted to be buried in her father's tomb at S. Croce; and Donata Badoer wanted to be buried in the tomb of the Badoer clan at the Frari.70 An immigrant from Treviso, Martino de Villa, asked to be returned to Treviso.71 The knowledge that they would be buried with family members probably provided solace for the living and certainly re- inforced notions of family solidarity. It was with one's family that one would sleep and with one's family that one would rise at the Last Judgment. Perhaps members of great families, such as the Badoers, took comfort in the fact that they would go to judgment not as individuals but as members of ca' Badoer. For other parishioners, religious considerations were paramount in the choice of a burial site. They hoped to gain spiritual benefits by being associated with a partic- ular order of religious or a scuola. The example of Fiordelise Bedoloto is illustrative. She asked to be buried at the Frari in the habit of the order.72 Pace Navagero likewise asked to be buried in the habit of nuns; but in her case, she asked to be buried at the church of S. Maria dei Servi where her mother was buried.73 Both women, no doubt, hoped to gain the spiritual benefits of deathbed acceptance into the orders. Olda, wife of a notary, wanted to be buried in the tomb .: the g : Ava-.1 U. hgwbv .lOv-‘ "QvOHO ...- \— . 32(3" 5.. “a: "“ .v C“~"'§v " “Maui. L“. “A “‘- ~; ....e .. 61. 1.4“ ‘43 L 5C 4v. H‘: Ti“. At“s N“ . a“: r. ‘Nh:¥ ”Nd 1~ 110 of the scuola of S. Francesco (at the Frari) as did Marco Barbaro; and Nicold de Adolberto, asked to be buried in the tomb of the scuola_piccola of S. Marco located at S. Croce.74 These individuals chose to be buried with their fellows and, no doubt, expected to gain grace by virtue of their association with the scuole. Numerically, the Frari was the most popular burial site among those who named one. Thirteen parishioners asked to be buried there; the monastery and scuola of S. Giovanni Evangelista was second with eight, followed by the Dominican church (S. Zanipolo), and S. Giacomo dall'Orio with four each. Some chose parish churches (S. Croce, S. Salvador, S. Silvestro), while others chose monasteries scattered about the city. Figure 5 shows the distribution of burial sites throughout the city and reinforces a final time the theme that we have seen through- out this discussion, namely that residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio tended to favor in choice of gravesites (as in pious bequests), institutions (scuole, parish churches, monasteries) that were in the immediate vicinity of their homes. Many chose to be buried not only near their dead relatives but near their living ones as well. This examination of testamentary practices, allows us to draw some conclusions about the religious attach- ments and geographic limits of parishioners' lives. With regard to the first issue, that of parishioners' attachment 111 ouoo.aaoo ooooooz H>Hmm How mama: MHUHOOHHOmHE MHHOO mane: mamwuumz Hummwoouu amp mflumz OHOQHGMN Oncmuoq ovum: .m .m UJCDUJUJUJ .mH .mH .va .ma .NH .HH .0H .m ocmmmum Hoom>amm commas mo monocm ooouo ouumm>aflm wumum Hop mean: mumwaomcm>m .>Oeo ofluo.aamo OEOOMeU CDUJUJUJUJCDUlUi O HNMV‘LODI‘Q wouflm Howpsm wo :oflusneuumflo II m musqem 0", 112 mmuwm aneusm mo COwusnflHumflo II m musmwm 113 to the parish, the evidence indicates that it was based primarily on a personal relationship with the parochial clergy, especially with the patrini, on whom they depended for salvation. One of the reasons for the strength of that connection was that it was a complex one -- parish- ioners found in the clergy not only spiritual advisors and dispensers of the sacraments but also close friends, legal advisors, and even benefactors. But the attachment and sense of identity that parish- ioners felt toward the clergy did not extend as strongly to their fellow parishioners. Exemplary of this was the dramatic decline in pious bequests to poor parishioners. The decline of the religious festival of the Marie, dis- cussed in an earlier chapter,75 is further evidence of a declining sense of parochial solidarity. The identifica- tion that parishioners felt toward the parish was personal not communal. With regard to the second issue, that of the geograph- ic boundaries of parishioners' religious activities, we found that S. Giacomo was the geographic center of a zone of religious activity comprising about twenty parishes. Most of the religious affiliations that parishioners had, as re- flected in bequests to parish churches and scuole and in selection of burial sites, took place within that part of the city defined by the first U-shaped bend in the Grand Canal. Two great religious institutions, the Francsican church, the Frari, and the scuola grande and monastery of .‘-".'~ .4 --' -..! 1‘--.1 ‘U ...2.. -- . C Rh.."‘“ ”H“ it. Pa. 56- ‘ -.‘n‘ Q “n "H 114 S. Giovanni Evangelista, dominated the area. Many persons living in the zone had ties to one or both of those institutions. The boundaries of the zone were not, how- ever, clearly defined or impenetrable. Parishioners be- longed to scuole and asked to be buried outside the area. The example of S. Giacomo dall'Orio indicates that the religious life of trecento Venetians was local, if not strictly parochial. There was for them a loosely articu- lated religious neighborhood, centering around the parish church and dominated by the Frari and S. Giovanni Evangelista. It seems likely that other such 'neighborhoods' existed in the city -- one blending imperceptibly into the next. The Dominican church at S. Zanipolo, the church of the Madonna dell'Orto, the Servite church at S. Stefano, S. Marco, and the bishop's seat at Castello come to mind as possible centers of other zones. Together with parish churches, they provided foci for the religious activities and identities of Venetians in the early Renaissance. v;vnn n~§~v «v ... 0 (he an C n.- 3 ...§ ac ‘.V ‘ v‘ 53"" E I\ S e S I e C T C A... S C ... n... r .-.. .... 9 .2 A: e by who vs . 1 av I. ... u. A“: ‘ e G» Pu ...« Aw .Hu 5.. (hlu n v.~ n NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 1For a discussion of the sources used in this study, see the Appendix. 2The connections between Felice and Bertuccio are established in Marco Merlo's will, see, ASV, NT 566, notary Gerardo, protocol, 17 June 1348. For Bertuccio as guardian, see ASV, Scuola Grande di S. Giovanni Evangelista, Mariegole, vol. 7, f. 37r. 3See Marco de Merzaria's will in ASV, CI 10, notary Marco Buco, protocol, 19 July 1314. 4For the business connections of Nicold’de Merzaria, who was probably Giacomo's cousin, see Felice, docs., 185, 221, 365, 394, 423. Nicold's wife had a‘asazy of 800 lire a grossi (about 308 ducats). This was a good-sized dowry for a non-noble in 1326. See Felice, doc., 442. 5See the promotion of Basilio from subdeacon to deacon, in ASV, CI 190, notary Stefano, protocol, 17 Jan. 1391 m.v. 6For Cristoforo as procurator, see ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 9 Nov. 1382. 7Gracia is mentioned in a letter from presbyter Nicold Bono to presbyter Felice de Merlis. See Felice, p. xxxiv. 8See Guido Ruggiero, Violence in Early Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980), pp. 58-59. Richard Trexler believes that the situation was somewhat similar in Florence. He believes that the parochial clergy, those he terms "the curative clergy," were of "lower-class or non-Florentine origins." See Richard C. Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980), PP. 33-35. 9See Felice, doc., 1285; also ASV, NT 566, notary Gerardo, protocol, 13 July 1347. 115 “ n \ ~ -.. ~- on ‘Q ‘- \,r.1 - .. It“--- - . v~~~ -: .I‘ a “.3“- ‘- o6. . u ‘1‘..,. V - . - ... '(J ([1 kl) m h; 01 () I? (J '4. '1. I" U) 4“ \a 1‘. Ra‘- \ :‘~‘ k.“ 5;. _“3 L h‘ ‘ V '5 ‘ U: A s ‘- VC“ ~' \a°\"‘ ‘ 116 10For the Favaccio family, see ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 31 Oct. 1368. Also ASV, NT 337, notary Marco, protocol, 12 May 1312 provides another example of a parishioner with a relative who was a cleric in S. Agostin. llASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 28 April 1366. Their father, Omenbono Cavazza, had been a resident of S. Bartolomeo. 12Felice, docs., 139, 1247. 13For Bartolomeo's relation with his nephew and his testamentary wishes, see his will in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 220, Commissaria of Bartholomeus plebanus. l4"quia dedi amite tue soldos. IIII+u grossorum et Bogatinus soldos III. grossorum. De reliquis soldis .III. grossorum, duos soldos grossorum dedi Tasso pilipario, reliquos .XIII. grossos posui in mea racione de grossis .XXXII. quos michi debebas, sic quod michi restares ad dandum grossos .XX., de quibus plebanus noster pridie accepit suam coppam et dedit michi soldos .II. grossorum. Restant michi grossos .IIII. quos restituam plebano, aut dabo amite tue, quia de racione antiqua prescripto nunquam tibi amplius faciam racionem. Modo perveniamus ad alia. Dedi amite tue soldos .III. grossorum. Item grossos .XII.. Mee intencionis est alio viatico satisfacere Marco Tervisano de grossis .XV., quis peciit, dicens quod tibi pro me dedit." Felice, p. xxxvi. 15" . . . Sperabam cum am1Cis SlC procurare quod remansisses et credebam firmiter obtinere." Ibid. 16"Possibile est quod te accipiam in socium ad meum officium. Mee intentionis est firma stabilitas ut scimus unum eorum et nunquam ad invicem dividamus. Ego non porrexi hanc peticionem, quia modo non fuit per amicos consultum." Ibid. 17"Marinello Badoario meliori cunctis de sua domo, si potes, unum tapetum mitte et si non, excusa te sibi per tuas litteras, quia bonus est et forte, si peteres, tibi peccuniam exiberet, ut oppinor. Scribe sibi, omni occasione remota, quia diligit tuum bonum." Ibid. 18See G. Gallicciolli, Delle memorie venete antiche profane ed ecclesiastiche (1795), Book 2, Ch. 6, pp. 156- 185. ‘4’ ~I¢ _,,,..‘ l \ .. .3 ._ . .3 In. 2v ... fi‘ ‘4 HI. \ \-¢\ ups H” v V. s a Fs 2 «(J A: «(a z _ Q‘ .V‘ a... 7 \ VIM \JvCu 117 19A judicious summary of the problem may be found in Maurizio Rosada, ed., S. Maria Formosa, Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 2, Archivi ecclesiastici (Venice, 1972), pp. xx-xxii, note 2. Pompeo Molmenti believed that a holy-water fount in the church of S. Giacomo was original- ly used as a baptismal fount. See Pompeo Molmenti, Ea storia di Venezia nella vita privata. 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. 1, p. 464, note 1 and photograph, p. 454. 20See Felice, doc. 130. 21Ibid. It reads, "secundum ritum et forman ecclesie Romane." 22 ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 20 July 1389. 23ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 15 August 1384. 24ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 12 March 1374. 25For a fuller consideration of the choice of fiduciaries, see Chapter Five, entitled, "Kinship and Residence: Families in the Parish." 26Felice, docs., 1266, 1289. 27Ibid., doc., 702. 28%.I dOCSoI 1285, 1236, 1247. 29ASV, CI 93, notary Giovanni Gazo, protocol, 28 August 1377. 30See Part Three of Brian Pullan's Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971) for a discussion of the Jews in Venice and the Monti di Pieta. For the medieval background, see especially pp. 431-475. 31For a discussion of free loans, see Robert S. Lopez and Irving W. Raymond, Medieyal Trade in the Mediterranean World (New York, 1955) pp. 157-158. 32Felice, doc., 19. . g ' AQI-A ... .‘y-nacnv1 q q n» .i.‘ '9. ... a... Y. ”I \I . i. ' IN“- . h VV-<_u-:: a “we 2:. v. A. ab a n 3 3 “y. C L» S .3 I 3 «Fa nu a rs t t,» ntd :H V" my. ‘¥ .‘fl 3 . r £$ ..fia T? ~3 rs mun Q. my 5 . Ru 3 is .-.. S h \ S We a V A\U as 118 33Ibid., docs. 18, 250. In his will presbyter Marino of S. Giacomo listed five people who owed him money from loans. See ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, proto- col, 14 Feb. 1410mv. 34For a discussion of the local colleganza, see Reinhold Mueller, "The Procurators of San Marco in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: A Study of the Office as a Financial and Trust Institution," Studi yeneziani 13 (1971), pp. 156-165; also Gino Luzzatto, "La commenda nella vita economica dei secoli xiii e xiv con particolare riguardo a Venezia," in Studi di storia economica veneziana (Padua, 1954), PP. 59-79; and A. Arcangeli, aLa commenda a Venezia specialmente nel secolo xiv," Rivista italiana per le scienze giurdiche 33 (1901), Pp. 107-164. 35ASV, CI 219, notary Vettore, protocol, 11 Jan. 1329 36ASV, CI 219, notary Vettore, protocol, 29 Dec. 1329. 37ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 57, Commissaria of Marco Disenove, parchment 8, 27 Sept. 1348. 38I do not wish to leave the impression that only the poor got free loans from the clergy. Sometimes even the wealthy contracted them. For example, lebanus Gasparino Favaccio loaned thirty ducats to his brothers; and nobleman Francesco Morosini got a loan from presbyter Marco Dartico. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantinus Rizzo, protocol, 31 Oct. 1368; ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 18 Nov. 1366. What I do wish to illustrate from the evidence of local colleganze and free loans is that a wide variety of people saw in the clergy potential lenders, and for different reasons. 39ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 220, Commissaria of Bartholomeus plebanus, testament. 40 Ibid., 41ASV, Giudici di Petizion, Sentenze e Interdetti, Register 3, f. 88r. Plebanus Paolo Re was also a land- lord. See ASV, CI 143, notary Stefano Pianigo, protocol, 3 April 1350. 42Most of those in the indeterminate group have noble surnames, but lacking corroborative evidence, it is im- possible to be sure of their status. 0 p: 36 'a ... l -..- . all ...-V" I!" a u ..n‘ ..vu ‘ l..-»-0 up. if v. ... or- -.. .: .u .. .3 .a. o. G. av ... A» w. v. v. 2‘ :u :u a... .m c. 119 43The notion that the circumstances of will-making were extraordinary may be a facet of our own culture which separates death from other aspects of life and which we read back into a period when death was not hid- den from view but rather was ubiquitous. 44ASV, NT 380, notary NicolS‘Benedetto, unbound parchment, 6 Aug. 1367. It reads, "in missis, in maritando domicellas, in extrahendo carceratos de carceribus comunis veneciae et aliis piis elemossionis." 45For the tithe, see Catherine E. Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy (Ithaca, 1952), pp. 198-199; Mueller, p. 130. 46A study of the tithe in fourteenth-century Venice is needed. It would be useful to know how, in actuality, the tithe was distributed. 47Parishioners made a variety of bequests to the parochial clergy. Most were given in return for the recitation of masses. Usually the gifts were monetary but occasionally a special gift was made. For instance, Polluzia, wife of Oliveri Darpo, wanted a chalice worth six lire di grossi to be given to Nicoleto, a cleric (clericus) in S. Giacomo when he reached the rank of presbyter. See ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 2 June 1388. 48Nineteen (5.7 percent) of the 331 testators left money either for the church's building fund (pro fabrica ecclesiae) or for some other form of decoration. Three parishioners (Gasparino Loredan, Francesca Zusto, and Alvisa Nardi) left money for altar cloths. See ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 54, 8 May 1348; ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament, 28 Feb. 1366mv; Felice, doc. 1079. 49ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 18 June 1389. 50Felice, doc. 1127. 51ASV, NT 566, notary Gerardo, protocol, 8 May 1348. 120 52The plague hospital or Lazzaretto was not founded until 1423, but it is likely that S. Lazzaro was handling plague victims before that date. Indeed, during the plague of 1348, one policy of the government was to "isolate" (place on islands in the lagoon) victims. By 1431 the government required notaries to inquire whether or not testators wanted to make a contribution to the Lazzaretto, "since there is no better form of charity." ("cum nulla melior eleemosina fieri possit"). See the catalogue prepared by Reinhold C. Mueller, "Dalla reazione alla prevenzione," in Venezia e la peste: 1348/1797 (Venice, 1979), pp. 84-86. 53For the changed methods of relief to prisoners in the sixteenth century, see Brian Pullan, "The Relief of Prisoners in Sixteenth-Century Venice," Studi veneziani 10 (1968), PP. 221-229. 54Another indication that concern for one's immediate neighbors was on the decline is that only 3 parishioners (of 331) left money to the hospital in the parish. One was the man who was prior of the place and another was an inmate in the hospital. See ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound parchment 13, 30 July 1384; ASV, NT 1025, notary Donato Gibellino, testament 38, 3 April 1348. The absence of bequests to the hospital was not the result of a lack of awareness of hospitals as possible recipients of bequests. Many parishioners left money for hospitals. For example, nobleman Nicoleto Moro left one soldo to each person in a hospital in Venice and Murano. He stipulated that the money be "good money" (de zecha) not counterfeit. See ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 2 dates, 12 Jan.1376mv, 10 July 1378. Angelo da Pesaro was not the only parishioner to endow a hospital. Cittadino Marco Disenove left money for the foundation of a five-bed hospital in Venice, Murano or the Giudecca. The hospital was to have a prior and a servant, and it was supposed to serve first Marco's relatives and servants. He wanted it to be named "[the hospital] of the five poor of God, in honor of the five wounds to the body of our Lord Jesus Christ." ("deli V poveri de dio a honor dele V Plague del corpo del nostro segnor iso cristo.") See ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 57, CommissariacfifMarco Disenove, testament, 3 Oct. 1350. a. .a av .. b v u 3. as. 2. v . .3 a: O a. a . .... p: A. «1. u... 4i 30 121 55It is possible that changing testamentary patterns were the result of church directives. The church hierarchy (or the Venetian government) may have instructed notaries to encourage bequests to institutions outside the parish. See, for example, note 52 above. But even this would represent a declining sense of the importance of parishes as the locus of charity. 56For example, Franceschina Seguro (?) of S. Giacomo left money to the priests of S. Silvestro and asked to be buried there. One of the clerics of that parish was her executor. See ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 13 July 1400. 57For example, Martino, son of Gabriele de Villa, from the burgo of S. Tomasini of Treviso, asked to be buried at S. Francesco of Treviso and left 100 soldi to the scuola of S. Tomasini. ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 17 Nov. 1378. 58A certain Olda asked to be buried at the Frari and left several bequests to the friars. Her son was a friar there. See ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament, 2 dates, 29 Jan. 1361mv, 24 Dec. 1361. 59For instance, Agnesina, widow of Pietro Salexino, formerly of S. Maurizio, left money for masses at S. Maurizio and to presbyter Giovanino of the church. See ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 108, 3 July 1371. 60ASV, NT 380, notary Nicolo Benedetto, unbound testament, 13 Aug. 1369. 61ASV, NT 380, notary Nicold Benedetto, unbound testament, 31 Oct. 1363. Another example is Maria, widow of Giacomello de Ponte, who asked to be buried at S. Salvador but requested that candles be given to S. Salvador, 8. Giacomo, and S. Boldo. See ASV, NT 380, notary Nicold Benedetto, unbound testament, 16 June 1361. 62ASV, NT 1024, notary Donato Gibellino, testament 30, 27 Sept. 1347. 122 63ASV, CI 130, notary Nicold‘Nadal, protocol, 13 March 1387; ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, un- bound testament, 28 July 1392. Another example is provided by Nida, widow of Alterichi, who left twelve grossi each to the scuole of S. Giacomo, S. Boldo, S. Battista (at S. Barnaba), S. Croce, and S. Chiara. See ASV, NT 380, notary Nicola Benedetto, 4 Dec. 1363. 64"ponatur in digito ymagis beate Caterine San Eustachii et ducatum unum dicte scole." ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 147, 27 Aug. 1366. 65" . . per aluminar la vergene Maria che se a Scen Marco" See ASV, PSM\de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 151, Commissaria of Nicolo Trevisan, quaderno with testament. 66ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 220, Commissaria of Bartholomeus plebanus, testament. 67This does not seem very likely, however, because S. Zanipolo, which received many bequests, was equally distant from S. Giacomo. 68Bernardo Combatti believed that the Campiello dei Morti was a cemetery. ‘See Bernardo Comabtti, Nuova planimetria della citta di Venezia (Venice, 1846), . 293. 69"in archa meorum attinentium et domus mee sita subter portucale ecclesie." See ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 12 March 1374. 70For Nardi, ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, illegible month, 1371; for Aliegra, ASV, NT 915, notary Constantino de Cison, unbound testament 1, 23 Aug. 1379; Donata Badoer, ASV, NT 827, notary Stefano Pianigo, protocol, 3 April 1349. Another noble, Nicoletto Moro, asked to buried in the tomb of his house (de caxa mia). See ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 2 dates, 12 Jan. l376mv, 10 July 1378. For a discussion of funerals and burials that is long on description and short on analysis, see B. Cecchetti, "Funerali e sepolture dei veneziani antichi," Archivio veneto 34 (1887), pp. 265-284. 71ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 17 Nov. 1378. 72ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 17 July 1400. 123 73ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 5 Nov. 1397. 74For Olda, see ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 199, 14 Feb. 1382mv; for Marco, ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 25 Feb. 1418mv; for Nicold} ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 105, 10 Sept. 1366. 75For a discussion of the festival of the Marie, see Chapter Two: Urban Infrastructure: Venetian Neighbor- hood Administration. CHAPTER FIVE KINSHIP AND RESIDENCE: FAMILIES IN THE PARISH La femmina fa 1'uom viver contento. gli uomini sanza lor niente fanno. Trista la casa dove non se stanno, 1 pero che sanza lor vi se fa stento. With these words, the trecento Florentine poet Antonio Pucci expressed a commonly felt sentiment of his contempo- raries: "Sad is the house where there are no women." For a man in trecento Italy, "to live contentedly" was to have a wife who would bring honor to her husband. In another sonnettnzPucci, a father gives advice to his soon-to-be- married daughter. He admonishes her to be virtuous and honorable, "so that your husband may go about with raised head through every parish," and he advises her to manage the household prudently so that her husband will be con- tented.2 The father promises his daughter that, if she follows his advice, she will be beloved by her in-laws (“tu verrai in amore de' suo parenti") and provided for in her needs ("t'ho ammonita se vuoi d'ogni ben essere fornita.")3 Poetically expressed, Pucci's words illustrate that to trecento Italians, marriage was an agreement or compact 124 125 between spouses in which the wife exchanged service to her husband for protection by him. And a woman who brought honor to her husband could expect respect in turn. Yet as we shall see shortly, in Venice the expectations which a pogolano male and a patrician male attached to marriage differed. The Venetian artisan or laborer sought a wife who, through her own labor, would contribute substantially to the family income. The Venetian noble, on the other hand, sought a wife who, through family connections, would provide him with a variety of mercantile, social and poli- tical contacts. For trecento Venetians, marriage was more than a mere compact between individuals. Marriage was, in fact, an alliance between families -- an alliance forged, according to circumstances and the parties' status, with political, social, and economic ends in mind. Just as in the political world alliances involved military strategies, so in the familial world marriages involved marital strategies. These marriage strategies were most evident in the negotiations which preceded and the contracts which con- Cluded marriages. The Florentine noblewoman Alessandra Strozzi's letters to her exiled son Filippo are a well- known example of the negotiations that preceded the con- clusion of a marriage contract. She informed her son about the character, looks, and family of prospective brides.4 Once the parties agreed upon a marriage, the terms were formalized in a written contract. 126 Unfortunately, there are few extant Venetian marriage 5 We find instead contracts from the fourteenth century. in the records of the notaries cryptic dowry receipts which often state no more than the names of the spouses and the amount of the dowry. Some dowry receipts do give more com- plete information, such as the resident parishes of the spouses, the professions of the husband and his father-in- law, and the names of the spouses' fathers. Despite their cryptic nature, dowry receipts are useful because they are plentiful and because dowries lay at the heart of marriage negotiations. The amassing of dowries for their daughters was a pro- cess that ruined a great many Venetian fathers, and the failure to amass one doomed many Venetian maidens to life 6 Yet as a recent study of dowry accu- as nuns or spinsters. mulation among the Venetian patriciate has shown, patrician fathers were not the only ones involved in building dowries for their daughters. Often patrician girls received contri- butions to their dowry fund from their paternal grandfathers and uncles; in addition, many received contributions from Paternal aunts and other female relatives who had themselves married into other patrician families. Taken together, this Suggests that contributions to relatives' dowry funds,espec- ially on the part of women testators, had the effect of 7 Strengthening the ties that linked one noble clan to another. Similarly, testaments show that popolano fathers could expect 127 help in providing their daughters with dowries. Many non- noble fathers received help from friends, neighbors and em- ployers in the building of dowries. And poor men benefited from pious bequests made for the purpose of marrying des- titute young women.8 Legally, the dowry was a daughter's share of the pat- rimony, and Venetian law was solicitous of her dowry rights. For the duration of a marriage, the husband enjoyed the usu- fruct of his wife's dowry, but it had to be returned to her on his death. In addition, the woman enjoyed complete free- dom to dispose of her dowry as she pleased. In order to protect a woman's dowry rights, her husband had to give her some form of collateral. Among the patricians this usu- ally meant that the husband signed over to his wife a piece of property.9 Dowries themselves were usually cash, but some were combinations of cash and kind. In addition to the dowry, the woman usually brought with her a coredum or trosseau which included clothes and household items such as linens.10 In Venice, as in most of Italy, the conclusion of a mar— riage was a three-step process. The first step, which took Place on the dies desponsationis, was the conclusion of an agreement between the parties, including agreement on the size 11 0f the dowry. Among patricians and most of the popolani, this agreement was formalized by a notary. 128 For others the agreement may have been oral. For instance, in 1322 a rock crystal worker named Giovanni testified that he had heard "from the mouth of Leonardo Bono,“ ano- ther crystal worker that he (Leonardo) had received 50 lire as a dowry for his wife Diamante.12 Until the dies traditionis or "day of transferral," it was possible for either party to break the agreement under pain of a monetary 13 The third step was the marriage rite itself. penalty. This consisted of the transfer of the woman to the home of her husband (the transductio ad domum), a visit to the 14 church, and the blessing of the couple and ring. Normally the three steps took place on different days; sometimes weeks, even years, would elapse between the dies desponsationis and the transfer of the bride.15 Feasting and celebrations and, in the case of awkward alliances, pranks and charivaris followed the transductio ad domum.16 For the residents of the Venetian parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, I have found 210 dowry receipts for the period 1297-1423. Cryptic as they are, they do answer certain questions about marriage among the parishioners. Most im- Portantly, they indicate the size of dowries. An examina- tion of the receipts shows that the average dowry was 87% ducats. The largest dowry (1500 ducats) was received by nObleman Nicold Marcello from his wife, Fiornovela, in 1403; the smallest, 20 soldi di grossi or 10 ducats, was brought 129 in 1329 by Maddalena to her husband Pietro, a weaver (texarius).17 Table 4 presents the figures for average dowries throughout the period. Broken down chronologically,18 the figures reveal a moderate rate of dowry inflation during the course of the fourteenth century. This is especially the case when we remove Fiornovela Marcello's dowry of 1500 ducats from the figures for.the period 1382-1423. When that is done, the average 1382-1423 dowry drops dramatically to only 91 ducats. In 1334 and 1360 the Venetian government passed laws limiting dowries to 200 and 400 ducats respectively.19 Most Venetians would have had no trouble abiding by those prescriptions. One reason for the modest size of the figures is that only five of the 210 dowries unquestionably involved nobles. Nobleman Nicoleto Grimani received a dowry of 1200 lire a grossi (about 462 ducats) from his noble wife Lorenza da Verardo; Catarucia, daughter of nobleman Rafaele Civran of S. Maria Formosa, brought a dowry of 750 lire a grossi (about 288 ducats) to her non-noble husband, Marco a Cagnolis of S. Giacomo.20 Biagio Dandolo received 60 lire di grossi (600 ducats) from his wife Marina, while the non-noble Nicold da Lago of S. Giacomo received a small dowry (90 ducats) from Agnesina, daughter of nobleman Andrea Darduin of S. Geminiano.21 The average noble dowry in the parish was 588 ducats which is in keeping with figures 130 TABLE 4 Dowry Averages Period Number of Dowries Average Dowry 1297-1347 83 73.0 ducats 1348-1381 74 81.5 ducats 1382-1423 53 117.5 ducats TOTAL 210 87.5 ducats TABLE 5 Parish Marriage Patterns Period Endogamies Exogamies Unknown 1297-1347 36 43.4% 29 34.9% 18 21.7% 1348-1381 27 36.5% 19 25.7% 28 37.8% 1382-1423 17 32.1% 23 43.4% 13 24.5% TOTAL 80 38.1% 71 33.8% 59 28.1% 131 from a city-wide study of patrician dowries which found that they averaged 650 ducats in the period 1346-1366 and 1000 ducats during the period 1370-1386.22 Zanina, bastard daughter of nobleman Paolo Morosini (who was not included in the average above), brought a dowry of 190 ducats to her husband Zanino, a goldsmith of S. Vitale.23 The evidence also shows that a number of Venetian popolani could rival nobles in the size of their dowries. 0 ‘ O O O O For example, Nicolo de Merzaria, a prominent parishioner and gastaldus of the scuola grande of the Misericordia, received, in 1326, a dowry of 800 lire a grossi (about 308 ducats) from his wife Maddalena.24 Maddalena Regla, from another prominent family in the parish, took a dowry of 385 ducats to her husband Marino de Raynaldo, of the neigh- boring parish of S. Agostin.25 Even among artisans, there was a great deal of variation in the size of dowries. In 1321, Canciano, a furrier and immigrant from Udine, received a dowry of 27 soldi di grossi (138 ducats) from his wife Maria, daughter of Giovanni de la Farina.26 By contrast, in 1385 a furrier named Franceschino received a dowry of 15 lire di grossi or 150 ducats from his wife.27 Artisan dowries varied according to the status and wealth of the spouses. In addition to illustrating average dowry size, the dowry receipts provide a very tentative measure of parochial endogamy and exogamy. As noted above, dowry receipts often 132 list the parish residence of the spouses. At first glance, this would seem ideal for measuring the extent of intra- and inter-parochial marriage. But there is a problem, because in most cases it is unclear in the dowry receipts whether the woman had already been transferred to her husband's home or not. If a dowry receipt were drawn up after the transductio ad domum, there is a danger that the wife may already have begun to list her new residence when, in fact, before her marriage, she had lived in a different parish. The case of Benedetto de Lunardo and his wife Felice Gambello is illustrative. On 4 January 1332, Benedetto, a resident of S. Severo, accepted, with his father's consent, 9 lire di grossi as the first installment on a 12% lire di grossi dowry from Felice, daughter of Giacomo Gambello of S. Giacomo. Three months later, on April 8, Benedetto accepted the remaining 3 lire di grossi from Felice who was described as being "formerly from the parish of S. Giacomo 28 This dall'Orio now from the same parish of S. Severo." example proves that dowry receipts could be drawn up before or after the transductio, and thus illustrates the problem of using dowry receipts as a measure of parochial endogamy and exogamy. If anything, they tend to bias the data in favor of endogamous marriages.29 Another problem with dowry receipts is that in many cases the notary failed to record at all the residence of the woman. Out of a total of 210 dowry receipts, 80 or 38.1 per- cent list both spouses as residents of S. Giacomo; 71 or 133 33.8 percent list different parishes, and 59 or 28.1 per- cent give incomplete information. The high percentage of receipts with incomplete data make judgments difficult. However, if the figures are broken down chronologically, they do reveal a trend away from endogamous marriages. Table 5 gives the figures for endogamous and exogamous marriages in the three-sub periods. It shows that endog- amous marriages declined steadily from 1297 to 1423. In the early period 43.4 percent of all marriages were endog- amous; by the end of the period, this had dropped to 32.1 percent of the marriages. By contrast, exogamous marriages rose from 34.9 percent to 43.4 percent of all marriages. Remembering that dowry receipts possibly were biased in favor of endogamies, the data show a steady trend away from parochially endogamous marriages. Another approach is to look at the marriages that were parochially exogamous to see if a pattern of geographic dis- tribution emerges. Figure 6 plots cases of parochial exogamy. Crosses represent women from S. Giacomo who married outside the parish; dots represent women who married into S. Giacomo. The map shows that when residents of S. Giacomo went outside the parish for marriage partners, they tended to find part- ners in the area of the city defined by the first U-shaped bend in the Grand Canal. This seems particularly signifi- cant when we recall that religious institutions in that same area were the favored recipients of parishioners' 30 bequests. ~Second, the map shows that the Grand Canal did 134 .ocmusz ou c0503 osu paw .AOGAA. OUUOEmamz cu :mEo3 oco .omw>mue on :mEoz moo "Omad smflumm may opfimuso mcflmuuma :mEoz OEOUMAU .m ucmmmudmu mommouu OEoomflw .m Eoum :mE mcflauumE :mEoz ucmmmummu muoo mommwuumz msoamooxm mo :oHusQwHumHo u: o mnsmflm lull!) / 135 not prove a formidable barrier to marriage. A large number of parishioners married people living on the de citra side of the canal. Third, we can see that only one of the mar- riage partners was from the opposite side of the city, near Castello. Finally, two women from S. Giacomo married Muranese men, one married a Trevisan, and one a Malamoccan. The evidence of marriages, like the evidence of pious bequests in the previous chapter, reveals a tendency toward localism, if not parochialism, among trecento Venetians. Most residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio found marriage part- ners either within the parish itself or within an area comprising several surrounding parishes. Indeed, it seems logical that most parishioners found partners in the vicinity of their homes, because most of their social and religious contacts took place in that zone. Contacts diminished the further parishioners went from the parish. More conclusive remarks must, however, await further study of the issue. Once a marriage was contracted, the dowry paid, and the transfer of the bride completed, the newly-married couple fit, according to particular circumstances, into a larger family structure. In some instances, married couples lived 'with their parents, in others they lived alone. While some maintained close contact with married and unmarried siblings, others lost all contact with their kin. But the degree to which a married couple fit into a larger kinship group was not purely a matter of chance. Rather, it depended on the 136 couple's social status. Among the nobility, married couples were part of a larger kinship group, the lineage. And the welfare and honor of the lineage (or to use the term the nobles themselves used, the casa) transcended the concerns of individual branches. Among the popolani, the pattern was different. For them economic necessity made the conjugal unit the keystone, and often the sole focus, of family life. These differences in family structure and family ideals in- fluenced, in turn, families' and individuals' relationships to the parish. Among the patricians, the lineage or casa was trans-parochial; and, as a consequence, the parish was not viewed as the focus of family life. Among the popolani, economic necessity demanded mobility and, in many cases, family dispersal. As a result, the parish did not become for them either the locus of family activity. In order to understand these differences in family structure and ideals, and families' relationshipstx>the parish, let us examine more closely noble and popolano families in S. Giacomo dall'Orio.3l In Venice, only the patricians have received the atten- tion of historians interested in the history of the family. A variety of works, some focused specifically on the family, others concerned with different issues, provide us with a general picture of patrician family life.32 The evidence shows that the Venetian aristocratic family was patrilocal and that patricians traced descent patrilineally. A crucial 137 feature of patrician family life was the fraterna and joint inheritance by brothers of their father's estate. Accord— ing to Venetian law, brothers who lived together and engaged in business automatically were considered partners unless they went through the process of legal separation. Main— tenance of a joint residence often reinforced this legal bond; and in some instances, marriage was limited to the eldest brother in order to protect the patrimony from dis- persal.33 In addition, patricians recognized their kinship to and solidarity with the larger kin group, the casa. Many patricians looked to their fellow clansmen for support in trading ventures and for the votes needed to gain public office. Nevertheless, patrician gage were not always homog- enous groups. Often there were major disparities in the wealth and therefore the social status of members of the same clan.34 Furthermore, unlike noble consorterie in other Italian cities, Venetian patrician clans did not live in family enclaves. Rather geographic dispersal typified the patrician gage. For instance, in the year of the estimo (1379) of 156 clans, 110 had members living in at least two sestieri and over a third L68) had members in three or more sestieri.-35 Clan membership did not require physical proximity. 138 Patrician women performed two important functions in family life. First, by producing male children, they en- sured the continuation of the family. Second, through their own family connections, wives extended the range of poten— tial contacts and connections for their husbands. In his classic study of the noble merchant Andrea Barbarigo, Frederic Lane showed how Barbarigo took advantage of his marriage connections in order to extend his trade contacts 36 And recent studies and to build a considerable fortune. of dowry bequests by patrician women show that they were able to strengthen the ties between families linked by marriage by contributing to the dowries of their native and affinal kin.37 A well-connected wife was a valuable asset to the patrician male. Taken together, these studies illustrate that Venetian patricians had a family structure that was well adapted to their needs. The fraterna provided security and protection of the patrimony. And links to the clan provided a secure but flexible series of connections that noblemen could use to economic and political advantage. Complementing this family structure was an ideology of the family which empha- sized "the continuum of outstanding men." For patricians there were really two families, the living family and the family of ancestors and successors.38 The example of two patrician families which were resi- dent in S. Giacomo dall'Orio during the fourteenth century, 139 the Badoers and the Pesaros, confirms the general picture of patrician family life outlined above. In addition, their example allows us to examine more fully the relationship be- tween patrician family life and parochial residence. The Badoers were one of Venice's premier patrician families. Counted among the case vecchie, they traced their ancestry to the earliest days of Venetian history. As we have seen, they also had a venerable history in the parish of S. Giacomo, having been the main contributors to the re- construction of the church in the thirteenth century. Around the year 1300, two brothers, Marco (nicknamed Beleto) and Ruggiero, were resident in S. Giacomo. Marco had four children who survived to adulthood: Marino (or Marinello), Nicola, Marco, and a daughter Zana. Ruggiero had at least three sons: Nicold (nicknamed Brutto), Marino, and Giovanni.39 (See Figure 7.) A good deal of evidence has survived which allows us to follow the actions of Marco's children. Marino cu? Marinello married and made his living in trade and commerce. Nicold‘remained single and held the position of prior of the hospital of 8. Giovanni Evangelista. Zana married nobleman Francesco Soranzo from the parish of S. Giustina and took up residence there. Marco married noblewoman Beriola Soranzo, but he died young, in 1311.40 For purposes of clarity, we will follow the family through the actions of one member -- Marino. mucowmm on» no xmonmcmw k musmha oNcmuom wowumucoo Oumaooflz .oHooflz 323333 .2 ..e ooumz Oumaoofiz mcmN mflsmmsm m>m~om _( ,_ p _ _ oNcmuom amaze «Capone mHHOMMom mwmom oomwocmum .E .E Auofludv .E Aouusumv M ovum: ocfiumz maooflz mcmN Hccm>ofio ocflnmz mHooflz 1 — _ _ w _ P h b mcfinmso mcammeoe AOumemv .E mocha Hmnuo ovum: ouoflmmsm mocha umzuo p1 -..... ...... _ p 4 . ooumz mmmoodm mm? 141 Two Badoer family property divisions in which Marino was involved illustrate the complexity of the links between individual branches of the family and the gaga as a whole. In March of 1320, Marino and his brother Nicola, the prior of S. Giovanni Evangelista, reached an agreement between them- selves about the division of twenty properties in S. Giacomo. This property division, which may have been one step in the dissolution of the fraterna that linked the brothers, was done "for the sake of peace and in order to avoid trouble."41 For his share, Marino got a large property (proprietas magna) and a row of buildings (a ruqa) containing eight dwellings. Nicola; for his part, got a large property (proprietas seu domus magna), seven buildings on a ruga, and three houses which "used to be of wood but now are of mortar." The brothers rented most of the dwellings to commoners. In describing the properties, the brothers noted that Marino's properties bordered those of his first cousins (the heirs of his uncle Ruggiero) and the property of his former sister- in-law, his brother Marco's widow. She held the property as surety for her dowry.42 This charter shows that there was a concentration of Badoer prOperty in the parish. What it does not show is why the brothers chose to make the division or where they lived. Perhaps they still maintained a joint residence in another proprietas magna. Sixteen years later, in 1336, Marino was involved in another Badoer family property division. This time Marino 142 and Nicole, acting together, divided prOperties between themselves and their cousins Nicold (son of Ruggiero) of S. Giustina and Enrico and Ziani (sons of Giovanni) also of S. Giustina. The properties were in the parish of S. Stin (near S. Giovanni Evangelista) and in S. Giustina.43 The three parties subdivided a large property in S. Stin into three units. Included in the division were provisions for the building of walls to delineate boundaries and for the continued communal use of certain entrances. For ex- ample, Nicold‘(son of Ruggiero) agreed to close openings through which refuse (liquor vel aliqua immudicia) might seep 44 into the section of Marino and Nicold. Marino and Nicold’ got as their jgint share one part of the large prOperty in S. Stin and part of a £233 in S. Stin. In return, they re- linquished their share of the property in S. Giustina which until then they had held jointly (habemus pro indiviso) with their cousins. Enrico and Ziani also received a joint share of the property in S. Stin. Unlike the property division noted above, this was a joint not an individual division. The Badoers of S. Giacomo divided property with their cousins, the Badoers of S. Giustina. This was done despite the fact that Marino and Nicold were no longer living together. In the second document, Nicold stated that he was from S. Giacomo (d2 confinio Sancti Iacobi de Luprio), but that he was living at the monastery of S. Giovanni Evangelista, "since I am prior 143 of the place" (cum simjrior ipsius loci) .45 Despite his position, Nicold continued to identify himself as part of the S. Giacomo branch of the Badoers. Taken together, these charters illustrate several features of patrician family life. First, they provide more evidence that patrician gage were geographically dis- persed. Badoers lived in S. Giacomo, S. Giustina, and S. Stin. Second, they illustrate that despite that dispersal, various branches of the family remained linked to one another. Indeed, for a time these geographically dispersed kinsmen held properties in joint ownership. Even after the division took place, they still remained 'neighbors' to the extent that they held adjoining properties. Third, these documents show that the Badoers from S. Giacomo had prOperty and therefore vested interests in several parishes besides the one in which they resided. As property holders, they may even have enjoyed the rights of vicini in S. Giustina and S. Stin.46 Thus, despite their own particular interests, the Badoers of S. Giacomo shared a sense of identity and, to some extent, solidarity with the larger kin group, the clan. The solidarity which bound one member of the Badoer clan to all other members found concrete expression in a commemora- tive plaque which the clan erected at S. Giovanni Evangelista in 1349. The plaque was placed there as thanksgiving for the end of the plague and “for the good of the scuola and 144 the aid of our brothers." The signatories came from many branches of the clan. They were Giacomo Badoer from Peraga, Maffeo Badoer of S. Stin, Filippo and Alberto Badoer, and Marino Badoer of S. Giacomo dall'Orio.47 Marino Badoer's will provides us with another indica- tion of the multi-leveled nature of patrician family life. On November 8, 1346 Marino had presbyter Felice de Merlis record his testament. Marino named as his executors his wife Sofia, his daughters Eufemia Contarini and Zana Soranzo, his cousin Marino Badoer, his niece Agnesina da Canal, and his son Nicoleto. Marino's main concern was to provide for his own children, both legitimate and illegitimate. For example, he left a yearly allowance to his bastard son Marco; and he left the residuum or balance of his estate to his legitimate son Nicoleto. But Marino also took an inter- est in the welfare of more distant members of ca' Badoer. He wanted fifty ducats from his estate to be invested and the profits which accrued to be used to support one of his cousin's sons. A further indication of his attachment to the clan is the provision he made for sixty lire di grossi owed him by the hospital of S. Giovanni Evangelista. Marino noted that a dispute had developed between "those of ca' Peraga or ca' Badoer" and the bishop of Castello over the priorate of the hospital. If the case were settled in favor of ca' Badoer, then Marino wanted forty of the sixty lire to be remitted to S. Giovanni Evangelista, "for the 145 soul of Nicold, my dead brother and prior of the said place, and for my soul." If the Badoers lost, he wanted his executors to give only twenty lire to the hospital.48 Quite clearly, Marino was concerned with the reputation and prestige of the family. The provisions for the disposition of his prOperties also illustrate Marino's divided loyalty. Marino left the properties as part of the residuum of his estate to his legitimate son Nicoleto. However, in the event that Nicoleto should die without male heirs, Marino wanted the properties to pass not to his daughter or to his bastard son, but rather to the heirs of his cousins Enrico, Giovanni, and Zanino Badoer. Furthermore, he stated that the prOper- ties were never to be sold. Instead, they were to go "al- ways to the male heirs of this house of ca' Badoer."49 Marino wanted to keep the prOperties within the Badoer family. He viewed them as symbols of the solidity and permanence of the clan. From his will we can see clearly that Marino's first loyalty was to his immediate family, but that it then ex- tended to other branches of the Badoer clan. But Marino was not alone in his concern for other members of the clan or in his interest in keeping prOperty in the family. In 1370 Maffeo Badoer of S. Giustina made a reciprocal gesture. Maffeo left his prOperties to his sons or in the case of their deaths, to his daughters or in the case of their 146 deaths, to his nephew Giacomino. But if Giacomino were to die without male issue, then Maffeo wanted his prOperties to pass to Nicoleto, son of Marino Badoer of S. Giacomo dall'Orio.50 A common sense of identity and a common re- gard for the reputation of the clan bound members of noble gage together. For a nobleman to be successful either in politics or in business in trecento Venice, he had not only to maintain ties to his paternal kin (the other members of his casa) but also to extend his range of contacts with other noble families. Again, the example of Marino Badoer shows how this could be done. First, Marino cultivated close ties with his affinal kin. Marino married noblewoman Sofia Ghisi from the neighboring parish of S. Simeon Grande.51 The Ghisi were a large and substantial noble family, and Marino took full advantage of Sofia's family connections. For example, he used the Ghisi as a source of business capital. In 1316, Marino borrowed 1500 lire in local colleganza from Pietro Ghisi of S. Simeon and 40 soldi di grossi from Sofia Ghisi, 52 a nun at the convent of S. Maria. Marino also viewed his affinal kinsmen as reliable legal associates. In 1325 he entrusted full power of attorney over his affairs to Nicold Ghisi of S. Simeon.53 Sofia, for her part, strengthened the ties between the clans by staying in close contact with her family. In 1332 she acted as executor for her sister Alvisa, who had left her a bequest.54 Similarly, Sofia 147 remembered paternal kinsmen in her own will. In 1356 Sofia's own executors bestowed a legacy of 10 soldi di grossi on Caterina Ghisi of SS. Apostoli.55 Through their marriage and through their actions, Marino and Sofia provided use- ful contacts for Marino's ambitions. Second, Marino furthered his connections by maintain- ing ties to his sister Zana who had married nobleman Francesco Querini of S. Giustina. When she drew up her will, Zana named her husband and her brothers (Marino and Nicold) as her executors; and she bequeathed 200 lire "equally be- tween them" (equaliter inter eos) to her brothers.56 In turn, Marino left 5 lire di grossi for the dowry of Zana's daughter Agnesina and 25 lire to her other daughter, Maria, a nun at the monastery of S. Giovanni di Torcello. He also returned the 200 lire left to him and Nicold by Zana to Zana's daughter Agnesina.57 While Zana's marriage to Francesco Querini provided immediate and short-term benefits to Marino, it served a different and long-term purpose from the point of view of the entire clan. Zana's marriage further cemented a bond between the two clans that had begun at least a generation earlier. Marino and Zana's aunt, Tomasina, wife of Ruggiero Badoer, had herself been a Querini.58 Also, Zana's marriage to Francesco provided a further link for the S. Giacomo Badoers with the parish of S. Giustina where, as we have already seen, several other members of the Badoer clan lived. 148 Finally, Marino provided himself with another series of connections through the marriage of his daughters. In 1342 Marino and Pietro Contarini made arrangements for the marriage of Marino's daughter Sclava to Pietro's son.59 The marriage may or may not have taken place, but in 1346 Sclava must have been dead for her father did not mention her in his will. In the meantime, however, Marino had managed to marry another of his daughters, Eufemia, to nobleman Nicold Contarini. The Contarini connection re- mained secure.60 Marino married another daughter, Zana, to 61 In this way Marino reestab- nobleman Nicoleto Soranzo. lished a link to the Soranzo clan which his father had be- gun a generation earlier by marrying Marino's brother Marco to Beriola Soranzo.62 Both the Contarini and Soranzo clans were case vecchie like the Badoers, and marriage into these families provided more contacts for Marino and his heirs. This glimpse into some aspects of Marino Badoer's life demonstrates that he took the time to cultivate connections with his paternal kin and with those connected to him by marriage. No doubt, he used those connections to promote his commercial and political ambitions. It also shows that when Marino was concerned with family strategy, he usually Operated on two levels. His first concern was for his immediate family (his wife, children, and siblings); yet he also had the good of the clan in mind. The marriages 149 which Marino Badoer arranged for his children served both; they benefited his children and helped secure already- established bonds between clans. The trends discernible in the career of Marino Badoer are confirmed when we look at another noble family from S. Giacomo dall'Orio, the Pesaros. (See Figure 8.) A much briefer examination of their family history will suffice. The scion of the S. Giacomo Pesaros at the beginning of the fourteenth century was Angelo da Pesaro who, as we have al- ready seen, founded a hospital in the parish. With an eye to connections, he married his daughters well, claiming a Querini, a Gradenigo, and a Morosini among his sons-in-law. To his only son Nicold he left the balance of his estate, including his main house (the Fondaco dei Turchi) located in S. Giacomo. Angelo enjoined Nicold never to sell or alien- ate the property; and in the event that Nicold should die without heirs, Angelo wanted the property to pass to his brother Marco.63 Like Marino Badoer, Angelo wanted his house to stay in the family. Angelo's son Nicola married noblewoman Francesca Michiel and became, in turn, head of the S. Giacomo Pesaros.64 Actively involved in commerce, he had business connections with other noble families, such as the da Molins, 65 Nicola, like Marino the Albertos, and the Dandolos. Badoer, made good use of his marriage connections. At dif- ferent times he gave power of attorney to his brother-in-law 150 THE PESAROS Angelo [’II' I V I *7 Caterina_ Ysabeta Nicold Zanina m. m. (caroso) m. Bertuccio Querini m. Nicold‘ Gradenigo Francesca Morosini Michiel l V I Fantino Maria m. - m. Beta Filippo Gradenigo Zane F I I 1 Andrea Marco Caroso Maffeo Figure 8 Genealogy of the Pesaros. 151 Nicold’Morosini and to his son-in-law Filippo Zane.66 Nicola and Francesca had two children who married: a daughter, Maria, who married Filippo Zane of S. Maria Mater Domini, and a son, Fantino, who married Beta Gradenigo.67 Through the latter marriage, the Pesaro-Gradenigo con- nection, begun by Angelo, continued for another generation. Not much is known about the next head of the family, Fantino, except that he and his wife, Beta Gradenigo, had four sons: Maffeo, Caroso, Andrea, and Marco. When Fantino died, he left the prOperties, which had been passed down to him since the time of his grandfather Angelo, equally to his four sons. And in July 1377 the four Pesaro brothers gathered together, like the Badoer brothers had done before them, to divide the properties. They were located in the parishes of S. Zulian, S. Lio, S. Felice, S. Geminiano, S. Eufemia (on the Giudecca), and S. Giacomo dall'Orio.68 Like the Badoers, the Pesaros had widely dispersed holdings. The brothers divided the properties into four shares, except for the main house, which they continued to hold un- divided (pro indiviso).69 In 1379, during the War of Chioggia, a forced loan of 15,000 lire was assessed the brothers; and, in order to pay the loan, they had to sell their "possession grande" to the procurators of S. Marco for 10,000 ducats.70 Having withstood the vagaries of succession and kept together despite the tendency toward fraternal division, the palace which Angelo da Pesaro in 152 1309 had requested never be alienated from the family fell, in 1381, to the war demands of the Venetian state. Yet financial ruin did not deprive Venetian nobles of their noble status (as would happen to a family, over time, in 71 Never fearful of losing their other parts of Europe). status, Venetian nobles facing financial ruin could regroup and, relying on the help of fellow clansmen, rebuild. In— deed, in 1679 distant relatives of Angelo da Pesaro built an even bigger and more splendid ca' Pesaro within sight of Angelo's domus magna.72 This brief examination of the family history of two noble families shows that Venetian nobles (particularly the males) felt a strong sense of loyalty both to their immediate family and to the lineage or clan. While their immediate concern was always their children and grandchildren, they were also mindful of the reputation and prestige of the casa. As we shall see shortly, their identification with a lineage distinguished Venetian nobles from their pppolano countrymen. Unlike the popolani, Venetian nobles maintained contact with distant kinsmen, most notably with cousins.73 The strongest evidence of noble attachment to the lineage was their desire to keep property within the casa. Many other nobles from S. Giacomo, beside the Badoers and Pesaros, made provisions in their wills for the reten- tion of property within the clan.74 153 Before concluding this discussion of noble families in S. Giacomo, however, we need to consider what role parish residence played in noble family life. Did parish residence determine the structure or rhythms of noble family life? In general, we can say that parish residence had little in- fluence on noble families and that, as a consequence, nobles attached little significance to the parish. There were several reasons for this. First, as we have seen, noble case were super—parochial. Most of the clans had family members living in more than one parish. Noble families did not concentrate in or patronize only one parish. For ex- ample, the Badoers patronized S. Giacomo (through their financing of its reconstruction), but they also patronized S. Giovanni Evangelista. Second, as we also saw, individual nobles often owned prOperty in several parishes that were widely dispersed. Therefore, noblemen often had interests in several parishes not exclusive interest in one. Third, for noblemen, it was the prOperty they owned, not the parish in which it was located, which engendered their loyalty. Palaces rather than parishes were the focus of family activity and loyalty. Among Venetian patricians, the parish was not viewed as the locus of family activity. Male patricians' wills reflect, to some extent, this lack of close identification with the parish. For example, despite his family's long association with the church, Marino Badoer made no special provisions in his will for 154 S. Giacomo. He did leave money to two presbyters there and asked that prayers be said there for his soul, but he left no money (in excess of the tithe) for the fabric of the church or for caritadi. By contrast, he left twenty lire to S. Giovanni Evangelista (in addition to the bequest dependent on the outcome of the lawsuit with the bishop) and forty soldi di grossi to the Frari where he asked to be buried.75 Angelo da Pesaro did endow a hospital in S. Giacomo, but it was identified with the Pesaro family and not the parish. Angelo made no provisions in his will for the parish and, like Marino Badoer, asked to be buried at the Frari.76 Noblemen were not particularly generous to the parish in their testamentary bequests. The failure of male patricians to cultivate a pOpular clientele within the parish is another indication of how little significance they attached to it. In other Italian cities, notably Florence and Genoa, noblemen cultivated a 77 This does not pOpular clientele around their homes. appear to have been the case in Venice. There is little evidence to suggest that the nobles of S. Giacomo dall'Orio had regular contacts with their common fellow parishioners. Records of power of attorney contracts, executorships, colleganze, and loans do not indicate that families such as the Badoers and the Pesaros were regularly employed as the legal de- fenders or lenders of money to their fellow parishioners.78 155 Indeed, the popolani were more likely to look to the parochial clergy for this kind of help. The one area in which there was consistent contact be- tween noblemen and commoners from the same parish was in the renting of living quarters. Most members of the lower classes rented living quarters from nobles or wealthy com- moners.79 Yet the landlord/tenant bond was hardly grounds for an amicable relationship. The absence of clear evidence of a neighborhood client- age system is one of the more surprising features of male patricians' lives. Yet there is a good reason why this was so. First, as we have seen, the nobles' basic orientation was super-parochial. More importantly, however, nobles did not cultivate a neighborhood clientele for the simple reason that it was not politically advantageous to do so. Assured of a position in the nobility as a consequence of the Serrata, Venetian patricians did not have constantly to assert their right to hold political power. Unlike patri- cians in other cities who used their clients to increase their personal prestige and, in darker moments, to threaten the regime, Venetian nobles had a hereditary right to a place in government. The creation of a clientele among the popolani would have been superfluous. The energy could 80 be better spent cultivating their fellow patricians. In sum, patrician males were not great benefactors of the parish church and did not cultivate a following within 156 the parish. To the nobleman who went daily to the business district at Rialto and to the councils of government at S. Marco, the parish was not an important center of activity. Patrician men tended to have a city-wide orientation -- an orientation that stretched at least as far as their family connections. For patrician women, the relationship between family life and parochial residence was more complex than that of their husbands. We have already seen that women, like their husbands, maintained a whole series of super-parochial ties, especially to their paternal kin. But there is evidence to indicate that the parish, the site of the household, was also important to patrician women. The reason for this is clear. Unlike their husbands, the pattern of daily life did not put patrician women into contact with the larger city; their world centered around the household, the scuole, the church, and perhaps the parish ggmp_. There they had contact with common folk: artisans, servants, wetnurses, and slaves, and with other noblewomen who, like themselves, were confined to a fairly restricted area. Also, because they often moved across town into strange households at marriage, patrician women had more need to develop friendships within the parish. And evidence gleaned from their wills indicates that patrician women did cultivate a friendship circle within the parish. For example, the Badoer women maintained close 157 contact with Cecilia Loredan, a widowed noblewoman. Zana Badoer left a bequest in her will to Cecilia; Cecilia, in turn, named Querini Badoer, wife of Marino's son Nicoleto, to be one of her executors.81 Friendships were struck with non-nobles as well. Commoner Giovanni da Robegano named Querina Badoer as one of his executors and entrusted care of his daughter to her.82 Patrician women also found business associates in fellow parishioners. Whereas male patricians could find business associates through family connections and at Rialto, the range for noblewomen may have been narrower. Noblewoman Sibilia Badoer found partners in the parish. As a widow, Sibilia probably had a certain amount of money (her dowry) that she could invest. She loaned part of her money in local colleganze to commoners Guelfo, Francesco Donato, and Caterina Santolino, all of S. Giacomo.83 Sibilia, perhaps like other noblewomen, found investment opportunities close to home. Finally, there are numerous examples of patrician women's bequests to common women in S. Giacomo, which could only have been prompted by feelings of affection or a spirit of charity. Many of the recipients were servants or employees, such as wetnurses. Marina Loredan, Chiara Emo, and Natalia Zane all left bequests to their own or their children's wetnurses.84 Other recipients were neighbors; some were even tenants. For instance, Zana Querini (originally a 158 Badoer) left seven lire to a certain Margarita, "who lives 85 in S. Giacomo dall'Orio at ca' Badoer." Catarucia Badoer left one ducat to "dona Fura who lives in my courtyard" (in mea curia).86 And Donata Badoer made a series of be- quests to fellow parishioners. In addition to bequests to her servants, Donata left two ducats and some clothes to Umiliana, a furrier (pilliparia) and three ducats and a fur to Azolina, wife of Bernardo a furrier. Donata also left money for a caritade for the poor of the parish and for the fabric of the church. She did, however, ask to be buried at the Frari in the Badoer tomb.87 Noblewomen's wills are filled with small bequests of money and clothes to women who are not identified as relatives. This stands in marked contrast to the wills of patrician males, who seldom left small bequests to unidenti- fied recipients. As the examples given above demonstrate, the recipients of these bequests were often fellow parishion- ers for whom noblewomen had affection. Unlike their husbands who had a city-wide orientation, many patrician women moved in a world more centered around the household and the parish. Indeed, it is to noblewomen that we must look to find any- thing resembling a neighborhood—based clientage system. Perhaps noblewomen served as mediators on the parochial level between the dominant class and the disenfranchised. Among non-nobles the pattern of family organization differed markedly from the pattern of the nobility. The major difference between the patricians and the rest of the 159 society was their membership in a clan. Nobles knew them- selves to be part of a larger entity -- the lineage or clan -- which transcended households and which seemed even to transcend time. In the nobility's eyes, the clan represented an ongoing tradition. This was not the case among the popolo of Venice. If demographic patterns were similar to those of other Italian cities (and there is little reason to think otherwise), the households of the Venetian popolo were small and often truncated.88 Given their lower status and their proximity to the edge of sub- sistence, the pogolo were especially subject to the vagaries of life (famine, disease, violence) which militated against extension or even coherence in family life. Many of the poorer members of Venetian society were all too familiar with death and migration. To compensate for the lack of an extended family and out of economic necessity, Venetian popolani clung tenaciously to the conjugal bond. It was the nuclear family, created and solidified by the conjugal unit, that was the predominant family structure among the Venetian pOpolo. Yet to lump the popolani together and argue that one type of family structure (and ideal) governed their exist- ence is to oversimplify a complex picture. Indeed, there were significant variations in family structure among the popolani. As a general rule, it seems that the higher one moved up the social scale, the less one emphasized the 160 conjugal unit, and the more one emphasized family extension both agnatically and affinally. Conversely, the lower one moved, the more one relied on the conjugal unit.89 The history of the Disenove family which can be re- constructed from the estate records of Marco Disenove main- tained by the procurators of 5. Marco is illustrative of the patterns and emphases of a wealthy non—noble family. Marco Disenove was a wealthy man actively engaged in over- seas trade. He was also a cittadino. Cittadinanza or citizenship was a special status in Venetian society; and cittadini, who made up about a small percentage of the total pOpulation, enjoyed a number of privileges, including the exclusive right to certain posts in the Venetian Chancery.90 When he drafted his will in October of 1350, Marco Disenove named as his executors his wife Lucia, his sons Franceschino and Pietro, and the procurators of S. Marco.91 Marco left a large estate. In addition to endowing a hospital, he left 80 lire di grossi (800 ducats) for the dowry of his daughter Cristina. He made similar provisions for any other daughters who might be born to him. He allowed his executors to do with his terraferma properties as they pleased, but requested that his property in S. Giacomo, which he bequeathed equally to his sons, not be alienated from the family. In the event that his sons should die without male heirs, Marco wanted the prOperty 161 to be rented and the money used for the poor of the parish and for masses. However, the property could be used to provide dowries for any daughters his sons might have. In the event that his sons should die without any heirs, Marco wanted his prOperties sold, and the money distributed for his soul "except that the house in S. Giacomo dall'Orio remain in the condition described above" (that is rented, with the income going for his soul).92 At the time of his death, Marco had four children (or three children and a pregnant wife): an elder son Franceschino, a daughter Cristina, a younger son Pietro, and an infant or unborn daughter Chiara. Franceschino took primary charge of his father's estate for he dispensed the tithe owed the church, and he sued the estate (the procurators) for the expenses he incurred caring for his brother and sisters and the family servants.93 In that same year, 1354, the elder daughter Cristina, who was still a minor, married nobleman Marco Soranzo of S. Marina.94 Shortly thereafter, Franceschino died; and the younger children, Pietro and Chiara, took up residence with their uncle, Pietro Disenove of S. Polo.95 In 1358, at age 19, Pietro, who was now a resident of S. Marina (his sister's new home), married noblewoman Orsa Trevisan who brought to him a dowry of 1000 lire a grossi.96 In 1361 Chiara, who was still a child, died; and her share of 97 the estate passed to Pietro. In 1411 after Pietro's death, the procurators sold the properties in S. Giacomo.98 162 This unusually complete picture of a fourteenth-century cittadino family calls for several observations. First, the structure and emphases of the Disenove family paralleled in several ways those of the nobility. For instance, the fraternal bond between Marco and Pietro must have been fairly strong, for on his brother's death, Pietro took his niece and nephew into his care. Also, like the nobles, the Disenoves used their marriage connections to advance their own interests. Young Pietro had one of his sister's affinal kin, nobleman Marino Soranzo of S. Marina, stand as pledge for him in a loan.99 Third, like the nobility, the family was geographically dispersed and owned property throughout the city. Marco, originally from S. Agostin, built a patrimony in S. Giacomo. His brother, on the other hand, settled in S. Polo. His wife, Lucia, owned property in S. Fosca; and his son, Pietro, settled ultimately in 8. Marina.100 The Disenoves were by no means parish- bound. Finally, we may note that Marco Disenove had what might be considered a nobleman's view of the family property. Marco built a patrimony in S. Giacomo. In 1334 Marco, then a resident of S. Agostin, bought the S. 101 Giacomo property of the da Avril family. Then in 1341 he rented certain properties in S. Giacomo for twenty-nine years from Tomasina, widow of Ruggiero Badoer.102 Proud of his accomplishment, Marco bequeathed his properties to 163 his sons and expressly forbade any alienation of them. But circumstances beyond his control, especially the early death of Franceschino, dispersed the family and led eventually to the sale of the property. In many ways, the Disenove family, like other wealthy non-noble families,103 was very similar to patrician families. Indeed, it is testimony to the similarity between the two that two of Marco Disenove's children married into the ranks of the nobility. Yet in one crucial respect, the Disenove family dif- fered radically from the nobles whom they emulated. They were not part of a larger kin group, the lineage or clan. They could not trace their relation to distant relatives or to an illustrious past. Consequently, their hopes for the family's future were easily dashed by fortune. Nothing contrasts more markedly with the hopes that Marco Disenove had for his family than what actually happened to it. Marco hoped that his sons would produced heirs and that they would live in his palazzo in S. Giacomo. Instead, Franceschino died single, and Pietro moved to S. Marina. And in 1411, Marco's property was sold. When misfortune struck, there was no lineage to preserve the wealth, to produce an heir, or to inherit the palazzo. Curiously, the histories of the Pesaro and Disenove families of S. Giacomo parallel one another. Both families were wealthy, both en- dowed hospitals, both had palazzi in S. Giacomo, and both vanished within a few years from the parish. Yet the 164 Pesaro clan did not vanish; other lines continued to flour- ish. By contrast, Pietro Disenove (now of S. Marina) appears to have died without heirs. The contrast in family organization and ideals between classes becomes even more marked when wemove from the upper reaches of the pOpolani to the popolo minuto, the artisans and laborers of trecento Venice. The typical lower class family was small, unstable, and geographically mobile. Economic necessity forced both partners in a marriage to work in order for a family to earn even a subsistence income, and so the family economy promoted a heavy reliance on the partnership of two working spouses.104 Family structure and mobility created, in turn, an ambivalent attitude on the part of the popolo minuto toward the parish. On the one hand, they found a group of friends and associates among their fellow parishioners, who served as a substitute for the extended family. On the other hand, lacking property and needing mobility to find work, they did not have a vested, long-term interest in their place of residence. It did not, in the end, become their 'home.' Let us ex- plore more fully the structure of lower class families and the relationship between family and parochial life. In order to earn enough money to cover the basic costs of subsistence, both the husband and wife in the Venetian laboring class family had to work. For lower class Venetians, the purpose of marriage was to find a work 165 partner. Indeed, many husbands and wives worked side by side. No restrictions were placed on the types of work done by popolano women. Women from S. Giacomo worked as furriers, platers, and glassworkers; and statutes from a variety of guilds illustrate that women worked in most trades.105 Other women contributed to the family income by selling their services as servants and wetnurses.106 The dowry is further evidence of the economic character of matrimony. It helped the husband defray the cost of main- taining his wife. Given the economic importance of marriage, the bond be- tween spouses (whether or not it was characterized by genuine affection) was certainly critical; and evidence from legal documents testifies to its primacy. A sample of fifty married common women's wills and fifty married common men's wills shows that seventy-six percent of the women and eighty percent of the men named their spouse to be sole or joint executor of their estate. And records of proctorships con- tain numerous cases in which artisan husbands gave sole power of attorney to their wives. For instance, Giovanni, a boatman, entrusted his affairs to his wife Catarucia, as did Perino, a furrier, Donato, a tailor, and Leonardo, a trumpeter.107 Most male artisans and laborers considered their spouses as partners in the family's affairs and treated them as such. 166 A further indication of the close bond uniting spouses is the content of their wills. There are numerous wills of those who appear to have been among the poorest Venetians in which one spouse left everything to the other spouse. For example, on 7 January 1392 Daniele Bono, a boatman, and his wife Margarita drew up their wills. With the ex- ception of one ducat for the notary, both left everything 108 to the other. In her will, Magdalucia, wife of Giovanni of Vicenza, left everything to her husband; and Franceschino de Croce, a sailor, left everything to his wife.109 In some instances, the naming of a sole benefactor probably indicates that the testator had no other relatives to whom a legacy could be left. In other cases, it probably re- flects a desire to keep intact an already meagre patrimony. With economic necessity working as a powerful incentive, many lower class Venetians remarried rather quickly upon the death of their spouse. While some male artisans tried to prevent their wives from remarrying by presenting testamen- tary enticements to remain a widow (a practice common 110 most recognized that among nobles and rich commoners), their wives would remarry. Such was the case with Antonio Cavaleto. Antonio named his wife and his father-in-law as his executors. In addition to several charitable bequests and grants to a niece, he left the residuum of his estate to his wife. But he entrusted care over the residuum to his father-in-law, until such time as his wife should remarry.111 167 Indeed, nothing better illustrates the primacy of the marriage bond to lower class Venetians than the personal history of two individuals. In 1397 Margarita, wife of Cristoforo Quattropani, a boatman, drew up her will. She named her husband Cristoforo and Bartolomeo, a shoemaker from S. Stin, as her executors; and she left the residuum of her estate to her husband. But Cristoforo died first, and by 1399 Margarita had remarried, taking as her husband Giovanni de Plan, a goldsmith. In September of 1399 Margarita revised her will not by drawing up a new one , but simply by crossing out Cristoforo's name and substituting the name of Giovanni. Evidently, to Margarita, marriage was a station in life, which was interchangeable with husbands.112 Maintaining the conjugal unit was so important to Nicoleto Rosso of S. Simeon Grande that he had an agree- ment drawn up in which he promised his wife, Biancafiore, that he would not abuse her under pain of a fifty lire penalty. Earlier, he had abused her to the point that she returned to her father's house in Treviso.113 These ex- amples indicate the importance of maintaining the conjugal unit. In the same way that economic necessity promoted mar— riage among lower class Venetians, it also inhibited the creation of large extended family groups. The isolated nuclear family was more capable of meeting its subsistence needs and finding adequate housing than was a large, 168 extended kinship group. Consequently, lower class Venetians did not maintain close contact with distant agnatic kin. The evidence of fiduciaries, which is compiled in Table 6. illustrates this lack of reliance on distant relatives. The table shows that out of a sample of fifty married com— mon males, forty (or eighty percent) named their wives as sole or joint executor of their estate. Among other rela- tives, sons and godfathers were the next most frequent choices, having been chosen by eight of the fifty men. Five selected their brothers-in-law and three their brothers as fiduciaries. None of the men chose their fathers and three named their mothers. Women relatives (daughters, sisters, and mothers-in-law) were named infrequently, and only one man named an uncle and one a cousin. These data call for several comments. First, the ab- sence of fathers as fiduciaries indicates that most lower class fathers were dead by the time their sons drew up a will. It also seems to indicate that non—noble men married late, so that their fathers were dead by the time they reached testamentary age. Second and more importantly, the figures show that there was little reliance on distant relatives as fiduciaries; uncles and cousins are conspicuous in their absence. This is a reflection of the isolation of popolani from a large and extended kinship group. Yet the large number of godfathers named as fiduciaries shows that 169 TABLE 6 ABBREVIATIONS Sp = Spouse Mo = Mother Fa = Father Br = Brother Si = Sister So = Son Da = Daughter Mi = Mother-in-law Pi = Father-in-law 51 = Son-in-law Di = Daughter-in-law Au = Aunt Un = Uncle Bi = Brother-in-law Si = Sister-in-law Co = Cousin C1 = Cleric Gd = Godparent P5 = Procurators of S. Marco Un = Unspecified non-relative Unspecified relative, either nephew or grandson Selection of Fiduciaries 170 a ... N 3 m a: mm to Ho oo am am a: :4 mo am am a: no om am .8 mm oz m mm mm HN Pit-4N HmmI—Im HID I-le N m HOP-1 mcuoLn cu oumvnnl H unr4MLnu1mcv o ~4H u-i mmcom QCDQ'LHQ‘NNNr—lr—l IDMNI—i 0"") V 3 Buoeucmeoz a H3886: m Hanoeucmsoz om Hmuoeucmeoz om Hmuoeucmz om Buoyémeoz manoz cmzopfiz manoz pwflunmz manoz pmwnnmz COEEOU ©m3opw3 £02500 nmfinnmz :OEEOU powunmz mmwnmfiospwm mo cofluomamm w mqmda 171 this artificial form of family extension was important. In the absence of a large kinship group, popolani found support among those linked to them through fictive kin ties. The naming of non-relatives as executors further reflects this situation. Fourteen of the fifty men (twenty—eight per— cent) named people unrelated to them, such as fellow workers and neighbors, to be their executors. To some ex- tent, commoners found compensation for the lack of family extension in a friendship circle. The pattern among married common women differed some- what from that of men. After husbands, mothers and brothers were the most frequently named executors of married common women (named by eight and five of the women). Fathers and sisters were next, having been named by four women each. Children and in-laws were named infrequently, and only two women chose their aunts as executors. None named their uncles. Non-relatives and godparents were not as popular with married women, but a significant number (six out of fifty) chose clerics to be executors. Only two of the men so chose. These figures too call for several comments. First, married women were less likely than men to go outside the kin group for executors. The single exception was in the choice of clerics. This may indicate that women's circle of contacts was smaller than that of men so that they had a smaller pool of people on whom they could draw. Second, 172 women testators probably were, on average, younger than male testators since many drew up their wills during pregnancy. This may explain their greater reliance on parents and siblings, and the relative absence of children as executors. Third, like their male counterparts, common women seldom found executors among more distant kin. Again, this reflects the minor role that distant kin played in the family life of lower class Venetians. Finally, the data from fifty common widows' wills is informative for it shows where women turned when the conjugal bond was broken. For widows the most common choice as an executor was not, in fact, a relative. Twenty-nine or fifty-eight percent of the widows chose one or more persons unrelated to them as fiduciaries. Among relatives, daugh- ters were the most common choice (chosen by nine), followed by sons-in-law (by six), mothers, sons, and sisters (chosen by five each). Godparents became more popular with widows, having been chosen by five (only one married woman named a godparent), and clerics continued to be popular with widows. These data indicate that when the conjugal unit was broken, women turned to non-relatives, godparents and clerics, but among relatives they stuck close to the immediate family. The will of Maria, widow of Antonio Bono, is illustrative. When she drew up her will, she named as her executors presbyter Nicold of S. Giacomo, her niece (or granddaughter) Mattea, another widow named Caterina, and a friend, also 173 named Caterina, who lived at ca' Tron in the neighboring 114 Widowed common women, like married parish of S. Boldo. common men and women, relied little on distant kin as fiduciaries. The evidence about fiduciaries confirms quantitatively an impression apparent from a reading of the sources. For the artisans and laboring groups in Venetian society, it was the nuclear family that was the critical unit. Marriages were alliances between nuclear families, not alliances be- tween lineages, as was the case with the patricians. The failure of families to maintain contact over generations and beyond the nuclear family is apparent from the in- frequent naming of aunts, uncles, and cousins as fiduci- aries.115 Lower class Venetians did not have contact with a wide kinship group. Why was this the case? We have already considered some of the reasons. We noted, for example, that economic necessity did not make the extended family a viable economic unit. A working couple could best meet their own subsist- ence needs and those of their children if they were unen- cumbered with other relatives. But there are other reasons as well for the lack of extension in lower class family life. Most importantly, the need for work forced members of the lower class to be very mobile. They moved where they could find work; and, as a consequence, migration pulled them away from their families. The parish of S. Giacomo 174 was filled with immigrants, particularly from northern Italy. Many were unmarried men who came to Venice and gave up con- tactvfiifl1their place of origin.116 They settled in the city and took Venetian wives. People also emigrated from the city. Presbyter Nicold’Bono's sister moved to Treviso, and his 117 brother to Conegliano. The need to find work even pulled native-born popglano families apart. Apprenticeship wrenched children out of the family at an early age. Giacomo, nephew of Uliana of S. Giacomo, was lucky. He was apprenticed to master Pietro, a shoemaker, who also lived in S. Giacomo.118 Bartolomeq son of Giovanni, a shoemaker in S. Giacomo, was not so fortunate. He was apprenticed to Antonio Bono, a spice dealer'(§peciariush of S. Bartolomeo.119 In order to get work, lower class Venetians, especially the young, had to be ready to move where the work was and, in the process, to leave their families be- hind. The housing situation was another factor that affected the family life of lower class Venetians. Most artisans and laborers did not own the dwelling in which they lived. In- stead, they rented rooms and apartments from the property holders in the parish, who tended to be nobles, wealthy commoners and clergy. Rents were normally paid on a six month basis, and at times space must have been difficult to find. In addition, most of the dwellings would have been in- adequate to house a large extended family group. Consequent- 1y, parents and grown children often had to live in different 175 parishes. This may explain the dispersal of the Baxerio family. Michele Baxerio and his sons, Giovanni and Pelegrino, were all masons. Yet Michele lived in the parish of S. Trovaso in the sestiere of Dorsoduro, Pelegrino lived across the Grand Canal in the parish of S. Angelo, while Giovanni lived in S. Giacomo dall'Orio.120 The housing situation was another factor that contributed to the dispersal of families and that led, in turn, to the loosening of family ties. Finally, because they were more susceptible to the vagaries of life, the families of the popolo minuto were less stable than those of the patricians and often very small.121 Famine, illness, eviction, and death all helped undermine the stability and the coherence of lower class family life. How did parochial residence influence family life among lower class Venetians? For the patricians, we found that the family was trans- or super-parochial. Family life for the nobility cut across parochial boundaries; and, as a consequence, parochial residence was not particularly im- portant. For very different reasons, parochial residence was not very important to lower class families either. Parochial residence was not important to lower class families because most lower class Venetians did not own a house or have property in the parish. They were not vicini. As a consequence, the parish was not really viewed as the locus of family life for there was no hearth to which a widely dispersed family could return. Instead, the popolo minuto were mere tenants in the houses of others. Thus, popolani 176 were identified in criminal records not only by their parochial residence but also by their landlord (Caterina of S. Giacomo at ca' Pesaro). The parish did not become the center of family activity because the family had no permanent interest in the form of property in the parish. Fortunate was the popolano who lived at "ca' prOpria" ("in his own house").122 As individuals, howeven,the pOpolo minuto did look to their fellow parishioners to fulfill functions that family members might have been asked to perform. As the reader should by now understand, most artisans and laborers faced life not as members of a large kin group, like the patricians, but as isolated, vulnerable members of small nuclear family units. In order to compensate for the lack of family con- nections, the popolo minuto had to look to others for aide. As we saw earlier, fifty-six percent of the widows sampled and twenty-eight percent of the men chose people unrelated to them to be their executors. They found substitutes or complements to family in patrini and other clergymen, in god- parents, in fellow tradesmen, in friends, and in fellow I parishioners and neighbors. For instance, Daniele, a plater in S. Giacomo, named his fellow tradesmen and parishioner, Pasquale, to be his executor.123 A certain Caterina, who described herself as formerly a wetnurse to nobleman Lorenzo .Moro, had no family and little wealth. She named as her executors presbyter Luca of S. Giacomo and her fellow parish- ioner Bartolomeo, a barber. Caterina made only two bequests. 177 She left a meagre two ducats for her burial; the rest of her estate she left as a dowry for Bartolomeo's sister.124 A final example is that of Giovanni Catanio, a goldsmith from S. Giacomo, who named his wife Catarucia and two fellow goldsmiths (one from S. Stin, one from S. Giacomo) as his executors.125 Their familial situation forced lower class Venetians, like these, to look to neighbors and fellow workers rather than to distant kinsmen for aide. Thus we can say that while the parish was not the focus of family life for lower class Venetians, residents often found in their fellow parishioners a substitute family. In sum, in fourteenth-century S. Giacomo dall'Orio family structure varied accordingtx>the status and wealth of the residents. Among the nobility, the joint patri- archal family was the ideal, coupled with a strong attachment to the larger kinship group, the clan. For them, the conjugal bond served to unite allied clans, and the sibling bond (especially the fraterna) served to protect the patrimony. Wealthy commoners, to the extent that they were able, imitated the nobles. Often allied to the nobility by marriage, wealthy non-nobles worked diligently to build a patrimony and establish a casa. But without the security of the clan, these Venetians were particularly susceptible to changes of fortune. Among the laboring groups in Venetian society, economic necessity dictated the pattern of famiLycmganization The need for two partners working together and the 178 dislocations caused by poverty forced the workers of Venice to form a tight unit with their spouses. The nuclear family was their only source of security. Thus the Florentine poet Antonio Pucci was right -- a woman did make a man live contentedly. But the finding of a wife and the subsequent creation of a family unit meant very different things to men of different classes. And in their relationship to the parish, families were different as well. For the nobles, the parish might be the location of their palazzo, but it was little more than that. Their loyalty went to the clan which transcended parochial boundaries. For the popolo minuto, the need for mobility meant the loss of family cohesion and the absence of a sense of permanence in family residence. There was no hearth which could draw widely dispersed family members together. For them the parish was little more than the place they lived. Nonetheless, they might find in their fellow parishioners friends who would help them meet the challenges of life. Late medieval Venetian society is often portrayed as stable and slow to change. Yet when we look below the sur- face and behind legal categories, we see a society (and especially a family life) characterized by incredible move- ment and flux. At any given moment, families were passing through various stages of the family cycle, families were moving up and down the social ladder, and families were moving within and without the city. The vagaries of life 179 and the demands of human institutions played upon the destinies of Venetian families both noble and common. We need only recall that wealthy Pesaros and Disenoves, like poor sailors and porters, passed out of S. Giacomo dall'Orio during the course of the fourteenth century. NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 1Printed in Natalino Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori del trecento (Milan, 1952), p.356. 2Ibid., p. 362. Among other things, the father said, "E conVienti brigar d'essere ornata/de vita virtuosa e d' onorare/il tuo marito si che possa andare/ ad occhi aperti per ogni contrata." 31bid. 4Excerpts from Alessandra's letters are most readily available in Gene Brucker, ed., The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (New York, 1971), pp. 37-40. 5The closest thing I have found to a marriage contract for a resident of S. Giacomo is a notarized agreement between Marino Badoer of S. Giacomo and Pietro Contarini that Pietro's son will marry Marino's daughter when the son returns to venice. However, the size of the dowry is not mentioned. See, Felice, doc. 1010. 6For the problems of dowry building and dowry inflation, see Stanley Chojnacki, "Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renais- sance Venice," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5 (1975), pp. 571-600. 71bid. 8For instance, Lucia Disenove, wife of a wealthy cittadino, left twenty soldi di grossi (ten ducats) to Cecilia her servant to marry. ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 57, Commissaria of Marco Disenove, parchment 25, 18 Apr. 1354. Pasquale, a plater, left fifty lire di piccoli to help the three daughters of Paolo, a baker. Pasquale named Paolo to be one of his executors. ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 8 Apr. 1377. Martino de Marostega left the residuum of his estate for the triple purpose of saying masses, extracting debtors from rison, and marrying poor girls. ASV, NT 380, notary Nicolo Benedetto, unbound testament, 6 June 1367. 9 For a brief consideration of the legal protection of 180 181 a woman's dowry, see Stanley Chojnacki, "Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice," Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974), pp. 190-193. 10In her will Filippa, wife of nobleman Michele Zancani, listed the household items (massaricias) which she had received. They included, among other things, two caskets, one large and one small "with a depiction of the arms of ca' Sabadino" (cum armis depictis de cha Sabadino). The Sabad- inos were a prominent non-noble family in the parish; in all likelihood, Filippa was herself a Sabadino. It is inter- esting to note that a noninoble family had a family crest. ASV, NT 380, notary Nicolo Benedetto, unbound testament, 13 Aug. 1369. llPompeo Molmenti, La storia di Venezia nella vita privata. 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 440-442. . 12ASV, CI 199, notary Guido Trevisano, protocol, 12 Jan. 1322mv. Giovanni testified that he heard it, "ab ore Leonardi Boni." 3Molmenti, vol. 1, p. 441. In their agreement to marry their children, Marino Badoer and Pietro Contarini agreed to pay a penalty of 1000 lire should the contract be broken. Felice, doc. 1010. l4Molmenti, vol. 1, pp. 441-442. lslbid., p. 446. 16In two recent articles, Christiane Klapisch-Zuber has considered the issue of charivaris in Italy. See ChristianeKlapisch-Zuber, "The Medieval Italian Mattinata," Journal of Family History 5 (1980): pp. 2-27; and "Zacharie, ou le pEre evince. Les rites nuptiaux toscans entre Giotto et le concile de Trente," Annales, E.S.C. 34 (1979), pp. 1216-1243. 17For Marcello's dowry, see ASV, CI 241, notary Pietro Zane, protocol, 19 Nov. 1403. For Pietro's see, Felice, doc. 516. 18For the rationale behind the periodic divisions, see the preceding chapter. 196. Bistort, I1 magistrato alle pompe (Bolgna, 1969), pp. 106-107. 20For the Grimani dowry, see Felice, doc. 981; for Civran, ASV, CI 140, notary Pietro Pino, 5 Dec. 1332. 182 l 2 For Dandolo, ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 13 Aug. 1419; for Darduin, ASV, CI 162, notary Francesco de Recovratis, protocol, 16 Aug. 1348. 22Chojnacki, "Patrician Women," p. 194. Again, the figures would seem to indicate that dowry inflation was largely a problem for patricians, not for popolani. 23ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 10 Feb. 1365mv. 24Felice, doc. 442 25Ibid., doc. 866. 26Ibid., doc. 168. 27ASV, CI 36, notary Iohannes Campion, protocol, 21 Nov. 1385. 28Felice, docs. 824, 828. The case of Marino Variente and his wife Cecilia Barozzi also illustrates the problem. On April 28, 1323 Marino made receipt to Cecilia for her dowry. Both were listed as being from S. Giacomo. Yet on the same day, Marino made an agreement with his father-in-law who was from S. Moise. See Felice, docs. 338, 339, 1124. 29For a fuller discussion of these problems, especial- ly with reference to work on Florence, see the Appendix. 30See the preceding chapter. 31For what follows, I owe a very great debt both to the methodology and the conceptual framework outlined in the work of Diane Owen Hughes. See particularly her articles: "Toward Historical Ethnography: Notarial Records and Family History in the Middle Ages," Historical Methods Newsletter 7 (1974), pp. 61-71; "Domestic Ideals and Social Behavior: Evidence from Medieval Genoa," in The Family in History, ed. Charles E. Rosenberg (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 115-143; and "Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa," Past and Present 66 (1975), pp. 3-28. 32For example, Frederic Lane's work on Andrea Barbarigo, which is primarily a study of a merchant's economic activities, provides much useful information on the workings of a patrician family. See Frederic C. Lane, Andrea Barbarigo: Merchant of Venice, 1418-1449 (Baltimore, 1944). 33See the remarks about the fraterna in Frederic C. 183 Lane, "Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures,"in Venice and History: The Collected Papers Of Frederie C. Lane (Baltimore, 1966), p. 36-55; and Chojnacki, "Patrician Women," pp. 178-180. 34For some remarks on the relationship of family to office holding and on disparities within noble clans, see Stanley Chojnacki, "In Search of the Venetian Patriciate: Families and Factions in the Fourteenth Century,"in Renaissance Venice, ed. J.R. Hale (London, l974),especially pp. 58-70. 35 Ibid., p. 60. 36Lane, Barbarigo, especially ch. 3. 7Chojnacki, "Dowries and Kinsmen." 38James C. Davis, A Venetian Family and Its Forteee, 1500—1900 (Philadelphia, 1975), PP. 1-20. The phrase "cont- inuum of outstanding men" is on p. 8. 39For the genealogy of the Badoer family (males only), see Marco Barbaro, Arbori de' Patritii Veneti, BMV ital, 925 (8594), f. 36v—37r. For the fourteenth century, Barbaro is not always reliable, but most points in the succeeding discussion have, as the notes indicate, been confirmed independently. 40For the death date of Marco, see Ibid. 41"pro bono pacis et omni scandullo evitando." See PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 133, Commissaria of Marino Badoer, parchment 134, 3 Mar. 1320. 42"que erant de lignamine nunc vero sunt de muro." Ibid. 43 . Felice, doc. 1045. 44 "tenetur et debet claudere et murari facere omnes scaffas et conductos qui seu que proiciunt seu dessendunt super curtem seu terram vacuam huius partis, ita quod liquor vel aliqua immudicia non dessendat in alio muro comuni huic parti et suprascripte parti dictorum Marini et Nicolay Baduario fratrum, super quem murum comunem utraque pars potestatem habet et cetera." Ibid. 451bid. 184 46For vicini, see Chapter Two entitled. "Urban Infra- structure: Venetian Neighborhood Administration." 47 The inscription was probably intended as a prayer for intercession to end the plague; it reads in part, "MCCCXLVIIII fo fato questo lavorier per miser lo vardian de la scola de miser Sen Giovane Vangelista e per li soi conpagni e de li beni de la scola e con l'aida de 1i nostri frari . . . ." Quoted in Reinhold C. Mueller, "Catalogo: dalla reazione alla prevenzione," in Venezia e la peste, 1348/1797 (Venice, 1979), pp. 81-82. Joint undertakings by noble families were common occurences in other Italian cities. See, for example, F. W. Kent, "The Rucellai Family and Its Loggia," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 35 (1972), pp. 397-401. 48 Marino's will is found in Felice, doc. 1206. 491bid. 50Maffeo Badoer's will is in ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 14 Nov. 1370. 51Felice, doc. 862. 521616., docs. 56, 58. 53Ibid., doc. 764. 54Ibid., doc. 862. 55ASV, CI 14, notary Nicold Betino, paper protocol, 14 May 1356. S6Zana's will, dated April 17, 1331, is found in Felice, doc. 1088. 57Ibid., doc. 1206. 58See Tomasina's will in PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 133, Commissaria of Tomasina Badoer, will dated 2 Aug. 1312. Tomasina may have been a member of the branch of the Querinis known as those of "ca' Grande," with whom the Badoers conspired in 1310 to overthrow tha government. For an account of the conspiracy and the Badoer's role in it, see Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 114-117; also Guido Ruggiero, Violence in Early Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980) p. 8 and passim. 185 59Felice, doc. 1010 6°Ihid., doc. 1206. There is a slight possibility that Eufemia was nicknamed Sclava (although it does not appear in the documents). Absolute confirmation of the double marriage is hampered by a lacuna in the text where the name of Pietro Contarini's son should appear. See, Ibid., doc. 1010. 61Ibid., doc. 1206. 62The connection of Beriola Soranzo to Marino can be found in PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 133, Comm- issaria of Marino Badoer, parchment 134, Mar. 1320. One should note that Beriola remarried (Nicolo Contarini of SS. Apostoli) and on so doing, sold her properties in S. Giacomo, which she held as surety for her dowry, to Sofia, wife of .Marino. One of the properties was the "domus maior seu partes domus maioris." In turn, Sofia sold them to Marino. Ibid., 2 parchments, 16 Nov. 1316, 14 June 1317. 63For his sons-in-law and the distribution of his property, see Angelo's will in ASV, PSM de ultra, Miscell- anea Testamenti, Busta 1-2 testament 58, 15 June 1309. The Pesaro genealogy is in Marco Barbaro, Arbori de' Patritii Veneti, BMV, ital., 927 (8596), f. 244v-245v. 64That Francesca was a Michiel seems to be confirmed in her will in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 142, Commissaria of Francesca da *Pesaro, will dated 6 June 1348. 65For various business connections, see Felice, docs. 451,452,832,833,921,1186. 661bid., docs. 832, 1185; also ASV, c1 11, notary Bartolomeo Recovrati, protocol, 24 Aug. 1337; in 1334 Nicold served as one of the arbiters in a diSpute between Filippo Zane (his son-in-law) and Marco Zane, both origi- nally from S. Maria Mater Domini. See Felice, doc. 1040 and inserts. The three arbiters were Marco da Molin (for Marco), Nicold'da Pesaro (for Filippo) and Ermolao Zane (for both). 67The will of Beta Gradenigo is in ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 11 Sept. 1377. An order of the Giudici di Petizion in 1347 ordered a Nicoleto da Pesaro of S. Giacomo to pay 5 lire 12 denarie to his brother Fantino. I have found no othersurezreference to this brother Nicoleto. Perhaps he died in the following year in th estir 28:1: 1347: 08118 1, dc '1 CO pOz 186 in the plague. There is a Nicold’da Pesaro listed in the estimo of 1379 and assessed 500 lire. See ASV, Giudici di Petizion, Sentenze e Interdetti, Register 6, f. 1r., 3 Oct. 1347; for the estimo, see Gino Luzzatto, I prestiti della Repubblica di Venezia (sec xiii-xv), Documenti finanziari della Repubblica di Venezia, Series 3 (Padua, 1929), vol. 1, doc. 165, p. 191. 68The division is in ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 15 July 1377. ' 69 Ibid. 70The document in which the brothers sold the property is printed as doc. 178 in Luzzatto, vol 1, pp. 208-209; the assessment on "i heriedi di ser Fanti da cha da Pesaro" is in doc. 165, p. 191. 71For an example of how financial ruin could lead to the loss of noble status, see Rene Fedou "Une famille aux xive et xve siecles: les Jossard de Lyon," Annales, E.S.C. 9 (1954) pp. 461-480; and Philippe Wolff, "Une famille du xiiie au xvie siecle: Les Ysalgier de Toulouse,“ Melanges d' histoire sociale l (1942), pp. 35-58. 72Giuseppe Tassini, Curiosita‘veneziane, 6th ed. (Venice, 1933), pp. 529-531. Angelo's home later became the Fondaco dei Turchi, Ibid., pp. 272-274. 73One indication of this orientation was the granting ‘ of power of attorney to cousins. For example, in 1326 Nicolo da Pesaro gave power of attorney to his cousin (consanguineus) Bertucio da Pesaro of S. Samuele, to his brother-in-law Nicolo Morosini, and to his son-in-law Filippo Zane. See Felice, doc. 1185. Giorgio da Molin gave power of attorney to his brother Ludovico and to his cousins Michaleto and Giacomello. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 26 July 1362. The naming of executors reflects the difference between nobles and commoners. Out of seven married noble male parishioners whose wills are extant from the fourteenth century, three named cousins (consanguinei) as executors; by contrast, a sample of fifty non-noble men's wills shows that only one named a cousin tolxehis executor. The three nobles were Marino Badoer, Gregorio da Mula and Giovanni Barbaro. See Felice, doc. 1206; ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 18 June 1374, ASV, CI 15, notary Nicolo Benedetto, loose parchment, 16 July 1364. The one commoner was Antonio, a packer (ligador). See ASV, NT 54, notary Nicolaus, proto- col, 7 Mar. 1334. Antonio named his cousin Benevenuto, a porter, to be one of his executors. 187 74For example, Marco Loredan, Marco Barbaro, and Giovanni Barbaro. Loredan stated in his will that he wanted proceeds from rents and imprestiti to go to his "propinquos magnos" of "domo Lauredano." See ASV, NT 1115, notary Luciano Zeno, protocol, 7 Aug. 1360; Marco Barbaro left his "chasa grande" to his nephews with the proviso that it not be divided. See ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protooflq 25 Feb. 1418mngiovanni Barbaro, who had no sons, left his property in S. Giacomo to his brothers; he left part of his property in S. Maria Mater Domini to his nephew Antonio and part to his cousin Candiano. ASV, CI 15, notary Nicolo Benedetto, parchment, 16 July 1364. There were exceptions. Nobleman Michaleto Zancani made no provisions for relatives other than his mother and sister. Indeed, he asked that his possession in S. Pantalon be sold to pay his mother's dowry. ASV, NT 917, notary Nicolaus Benedetto, loose parchment, 22 Apr. 1349. 75 Felice, doc. 1206 76ASV, PSM de ultra, Miscellanea Testamenti, Busta 1-2, testament 58, 15 June 1309. 77See, for example, Gene A. Brucker, Renaissance Florence(New York, 1969), p. 23; Dale Kent, The Rise of the Medicizu Faction in Florence, 1426- 1434 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 19, 67; Hughes, "Urban Growth," p. 28; and Diane Owen Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors in Medieval Genoa,"in The Medieval City, ed. Harry A. Miskimin et.a1. (New Haven, 1977), pp. 95-111. 78The examples which I have found of nobles having business connections with common parishioners involved commoners of considerable wealth. For instance, in 1366 Pietro Disenove, a wealthy son of a cittadino, gave power of attorney to nobleman Vito da Mosto. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, 7 Sept. 1366. Marino Badoer loaned 400 lire a grossi in local colleganza to Nicolo de Merzaria, but N1colo also got colleganze from two Contarinis of S. Cassian. Felice, docs. 185, 221, 365, 394, 423. Noblemen did make loans and colleganze with commoners but residence does not appear to have been a criterion in choosing as- sociates.I have found no patrician in S. Giacomo comparable to nobleman Nicold'Venerio of S. Samuele who made seven loans to commoners in S. Samuele. See Maria Francesca Tiepolo, ed., Domenico prete di S. Maurizio, notaio in Venezia (1309- 1316), Fonti per _1a storia di Venezia, Series 3, Archivi notarili (Venice, 1970)docs. 108,109,134, 147, 223, 344, 352, 359. Also noblemen seldom appeared as witnesses to the acts of commoners. An exception was 188 Nicold Badoer, the prior of 5. Giovanni Evangelista; but his position as prior rather than his noble status probably accounts for this. Some popolani did name nobles as exe- cutors. In 1315 a certain Maria, who said that she had once lived (stetit) with nobleman Andrea da Molin, named Andrea as her executor. And Vendramina, wife of Giovanni a tavernkeeper, named Cecilia Loredan and Nicoleto Corner as her executors. See ASV, NT 850, notary Nicolo Bon, protocol, 9 Sept. 1315; ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, June 1361. 79The commissaria of Marino Badoer contains some rent receipts paid to the estate of NicolS'Badoer in 1383 and 1384. A paver, a volper, a tanner and a furrier (among others) were tenants. They paid between two and eleven ducats in rent (for six months?). See PSM de ultra, Commis- sarie, Busta 133, Commissaria of Marino Badoer, loose paper page. One rare glimpse of a nobleman in contact with com- moners was the sale by Uliana, widow of a milk vendor (pistrinarius), of the materials in her shop to Moreto, a furrier. The shop was located in a house owned by Nicoleto Badoer, and he was present at the sale and witnessed the transaction. See ASV, CI 130, notary Nicolo Nadal, protocol, 31 July 1378. 80Exemplary of the nobility' s disregard for the popolo as a political force is their disregard of the popolo' 5 choice for doge. For example, in the 1290' s Pietro Gradenigo was elected doge; but the popular candidate was Giacomo Tiepolo. See Lane, Venice, pp. 112-113. For a balancing of this view, see the remarks about the influence of pOpular Opinion in Robert Finlay, Politics in Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980). pp. 49-55. 81ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 21 Dec. 1375; ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 28 Dec. 1388. 82ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 24 June 1388. 83Felice, docs. 435, 455, 464. Of course, noblewomen also found business associates outside the parish. This same Sibilia Badoer also loaned twenty soldi di grossi in local colleganza to Bartolomeo Beginato of Torcello. Ibid., doc. 456. For some brief remarks on widows as investors, see Frederic C. Lane, "Investment and Usury," in Venice and History: The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane (Baltimore, 1966). p.59: also Chojnacki, "Patrician Women," p. 193. 84 ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testa- ment, 8 Sept. 1395; ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 16 Aug. 1414; Felice, doc. 1103. 189 85"item, dimitto Margarite que stat in contrata Sancti Iacobi de Luprio ad cha' Baduario libras septem." Felice, doc. 1088. 86ASV, CI 128, notary Nicold’di S. Angelo, protocol, 17 Dec. 1368. 87ASV, NT 827, notary Stefano Pianigo, protocol, 3 Apr. 1349. 881m 1427 the average Florentine household numbered 3£3persons; the average Pisan household 4.2 persons. See Christiane Klapisch and Michel Demonet, "A uno pane e uno vinoz" La famille rurale toscane au debut du xve siecle," Annales, E.S.C. 27 (1972), pp. 874-875. In 1395 the average Bolognese household had 3.5 persons, while in the Veneto, Verona had an average of 3.68 persons per household in 1409. See David Herlihy,"The Population of Verona in the First Century of Venetian Rule," in Renaissance Venice, ed. J.R. Hale (London, 1974): PP. 104-105. 891n fact, the conjugal bond was the critical bond for all groups. However, as one moved up the social scale, the conjugal unit became relatively less important, or it became important for different reasons. It served to eXpand one's contacts. 90For remarks on cittadini, see Brian Pullan, Rich and Poor in_Renaissance Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971) pp. 99- 113. 91Most of the information in this section comes from the will and account books of Marco Disenove's estate found in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 57, Commissaria of ' Marco Disenove (Dixenove), testament, 3 Oct. 1350. 92"salvo cha 1a possession de Sen Iacomo de loria romagna ala condicion scrita de sovra." Ibid. 93;§i§., see the will and loose parchment 7, dated 5 June 1354. 94Ibid., unbound parchment 3, dated 18 June 1354 and parchment 14, dated 18 June 1354. 95Ibid., document inserted in guaderno one, dated 11 Jan. 1356mv. 96£Qid., unbound parchment 8, 27 Aug. 1358. 190 97£bid., receipt written into the will in Sept. 1361. 98Ibid., receipt in guaderno 2, dated 16 Mar. 1411. No Disenoves are mentioned in the estimo of 1379. 99;§i§,, document inserted in guaderno 2, dated 11 Aug. 1358. " ”" 100 For Lucia's property, see Ibid., will of Lucia Disenove, unbound parchment 25, dated 18 Apr. 1354. loig;g., unbound parchment 3, dated 10 July 1338. o lolbid., unbound parchment J, dated 11 July 1341. 10aor a much fuller consideration of these wealthy non-noble families, see Chapter Seven, entitled,"Social Structure and Social Mobility:; Some Examples from S. Giacomo dall'Orio." 10For the family economy, see Olwen Hufton, "Women and the Family Economy in Eighteenth-Century France," French Historical Studies 9 (1975), pp. 1-22. 10For instance, the capitulary of the rock crystal workers stated that masters were not allowed to hire more than two boys or girls (do fenti 0 de do mammole) as ap- prentices.The regulation went on to state that all reg- ulations were binding on every woman member of the guild ("da mo innanti zascuna femena o maistra in tutte preditte cose simelmentre sia tegnuda"). See G. Monticolo and Enrico Besta, eds., I capitolari delle arti veneziane. 3 vols. Fonti per la storia d'Italia (Rome, 1896-1914), vol. 3, p. 146. 10g‘or example, Zanina, wife of Giovanni Ruggiero of S. Giacomo, was wetnurse to the child of Daniele, a boatman also of S. Giacomo. ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 7, f. 89r-89v. In 136521certain Lorenzo of Chioggia drew up an agreement with nobleman Giacomello Corner of S. Felice, in which Lorenzo agreed to have his wife live with Corner for two years in order to nurse Corner's son. Lorenzo had to agree not to interfere with his wife's work. See Antonio Lombardo, ed., Nicola de Boateriis, notaio in Famagosta e Venezia (1355-1365), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 3, Archivi notarili (Venice, 1973), doc. 294. 10ZSV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 26 July 1361; ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 29 Jan. l380mv; ASV, CI 130, notary Nicola Nadal, protocol, 23 Mar. 1380; Felice, doc. 881. 191 108ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound test- ament, 7 Jan. l391mv. 109ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 4 Mar.1398; ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 8 May 1382. 110The aforementioned Franceschino de Croce left every- thing to his wife, but if she remarried, she was to get only her dowry. In that case. Giovanni dal Suto, a boatman,was to be the executor and distribute the residuum for Frances- chino's soul. ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, un- bound testament, 8 May 1382. 111ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound test- ament, 29 Nov. 1384. 112ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testa- ment, 29 Sept. 1399. 113Tiepolo, Domenico,doc. 204. 114NT 1024, notary Donato Gibellino, unbound testament 30, 27 Sept. 1347. 115There are, however, a few examples of commoners giving power of attorney to cousins.For example, Pietro de Murano of S. Giovanni Degolado gave power of attorney to his cousin Antonio, a barber of S. Giacomo. See ASV, CI 220, notary Vettore, protocol, 20 Apr. 1334. Avancio Solario of S. Giacomo gave power of attorney to his cousin Galuano Solario of S. Biagio. ASV, CI l6-I, notary Suriano Belli, protocol, 20 Feb. 1364mv. 116For example, Cambiucio from Bologna married Maria Malfato of Chioggia; and Federico, a woolworker from Verona, married Donata of Udine. Felice, docs.383, 889. Stephen Ell believes that immigrants from the same city sometimes settled in the same areas of the city, but he finds that they did intermarry with native Venetians. See Stephen R. E11, "Citizenship and Immigration to Venice, 1305-1500" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1976), especially chapter 3. 117 Felice, docs. 1216, 1236, 1247. 118ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 30 Dec. 1378. ll9ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 11 Jan. l378mv. 192 120ASV, CI 185, notary Nicolo‘ Staniero, protocol, 11 May 1367. Another good example is the dispersal of presby- ter Nicolo Bono' 5 family which is considered in the preced- ing chapter. (References in note 117 above). 121For some general indications of family size, see the next chapter entitled, "Craftsmen in the Parish: The Furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio." 122For the use of the phrase "aca' propria," see ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 11, f. 18r-l9r. It is used to describe a certain Franceschino dall'Oro from S. Pantalon. 123See ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 16 Sept. 1373. Pasquale reciprocated by naming Daniele as one of his executors. He also chose his wife and Paolo, a baker from S. Giovanni Degolado. ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 8 Apr. 1377. 124For Caterina's will, see ASV, CI 189, notary Antonio Spinello, protocol, 13 Nov. 1397. On December 12, presbyter Luca renounced his appointment as fiduciary. 125ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, unbound testament, 2 Jan. l405mv. On April 6, the goldsmith Antonio renounced the job. CHAPTER SIX: CRAFTSMEN IN THE PARISH: THE FURRIERS OF S. GIACOMO DALL'ORIO. Above all else, Venice in the late Middle Ages was a mercantile city. The city rose to prominence during the eleventh and twelfth centuries because of its pivotal posi- tion on the trade routes that extended from the North Sea to India and China. As the city grew in size, support indust- ries developed and flourished. Increasing numbers of peopka found employment in shipbuilding and in the service indust- ries that provisioned the city. Special industries develop- ed as well. Venice became a center in the production of glass, salt, and other products. By the fourteenth century, Venice was not only a shipper of goods but a producer of them as well.1 The rise of Venice to international importance in trade and the growth of native industries affected the urban de- velopment of the city. As Venice grew, the face of the city changed. Increasingly, zones developed that specializ- ed in certain kinds of economic activities. Sometimes this specialization was the result of government action. For instance, the glass industry developed on the island of 193 194 Murano and the tanning trade on the island of the Giudecca as a result of government orders. Glassmaking was moved to Murano in 1292 because the use of kilns posed a serious threat of fire; tanning to the Giudecca because it was a smelly business which fouled the waters.2 Other times spe- cialization was the result of the special suitability of a place to particular activities. For this reason, the salt industry centered on the distant island of Chioggia, in the midst of the lagoon's salt flats.3 Even within the city, some diversification took place. Most of the city's ships were built at the Arsenal, located at the eastern end of the city nearest the Adriatic; cloth-making, a relative newcomer, was concentrated at the Rio Marin in the sparsely populated western side of the city. Wholesale merchandis- ing was located at Rialto and along the street running from Rialto to S. Marco; retail marketing in the Piazza 8. Marco and the ggmpg at S. Polo.4 Nevertheless, the city never be- came so specialized that one area became the exclusive domain of a particular activity. One could find a ship- builder living near the Rio Marin and a woolworker living near the Arsenal. 5. Giacomo dall'Orio did not become by government onkur or by particular suitability the center of an industry; and yet for some reason, large numbers of furriers settled in the parish. Lacking a census for the fourteenth century, it is impossible to demonstrate quantitatively that more 195 furriers lived in S. Giacomo than in other parts of the city. Yet the furriers are so highly visible in the docu- ments (compared to other artisans) that we may safely say that there was a concentration of furriers in the parish. Indeed, a fourteenth-century membership list for the scuola grande of 8. Giovanni Evangelista seems to bear this out. Twenty-six members from throughout the city were identified as furriers; of these, fifteen were from S. Giacomo, and an additional six were from the adjacent parish of S. Simeon Grande.5 There does not appear to be any particular reason why furriers should have congregated in S. Giacomo; the industry did not require an unusual amount of space or other special considerations. Perhaps it simply became customary for furriers to settle there. This concentration of furriers in one place provides us with a unique opportunity -- an opportunity to look more closely at the lives and social contacts of one group of Venetian artisans. By examining the furriers, we can get a glimpse into the family life and working world of fourteenth- century Venetians below the level of nobles and great mer- chants. It may not be a view of Venetian society "from the bottom up," but neither is it a view "from the top dom.‘ Studying the furriers of S. Giacomo dal'Orio also gives us an opportunity to assess the effects of certain factors, such as common residence and shared occupation, on the so- cial contacts cxf venetians artisans. In other words, we 196 may ask whether or not common residence and shared occupa- tion forged the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio into a tight-knit group. Our analysis of the furriers will be divided into three parts. The first section will examine the mechanics of the fur trade and the organization of the furrier guilds in fourteenth-century Venice. Through an analysis of guild organization, I hope to demonstrate that the guilds were not unions of equals but rather were hierarchic, even oligarchic, institutions in which the few had control. Part two will be an analysis of the social contacts of the furriers who lived in S. Giacomo dall'Orio. In this section, I hope to show that common profession and shared parochial residence did not forge the furriers into a tight-knit, closed, hered- itary caste. Instead furriers tended to divide along lines of wealth. In part three I will try to illustrate the inter- section of the two previous sections -- to show how guild organization and hierarchic tendencies work to pull apart rather than unite the furriers of S. Giacomo. Finally, I will suggest that the city's aristocratic government actual- ly fostered hierarchic tendencies and, through patronage, protected the leading guildsmen as a way of diffusing any resentment that they might feel at political exclusion. I Combining luxury and utility, fur garments were a common item in the medieval wardrobe. While the rich bedecked 197 themselves in ermine, sable, and lynx, the less wealthy kept warm in garments made of squirrel, lamb, and even cat. The demand for huge quantities of pelts fostered an inter- national trade in furs. Skins from the Baltic and from Russia were shipped to Europe and the Near East, and furs (especially lambskins) from southern Europe made their way to ports in the north. As in so many other things,the Venetians found themselves in an unusually propitious posi- tion at the intersection of various fur trade routes; and Venetian merchants took special advantage of the situation.6 Much of the trade, that is the bulk of the pelts ship- ped by Venetian merchants, consisted of the furs of domesth: animals, notably sheepskins. Most of these furs were pur- chased in Italy (in the Marches, the Abruzzi, and Puglia), but others came as well from Crete and from Spain. More precious wild furs (fewer in quantity but higher in value) were purchased in the north, especially at Bruges, and ship- ped to Mediterranean ports. The fur trade became such an important aspect of Venetian trade that R. Delort, who has studied the fur trade in the third decade of the fifteenth century, estimates that "hundreds of thousands" of pelts, valued at "tens of thousands" of ducats came through Venice yearly.7 Most of the furs, however, only passed through Venice. While the city's consumption of furs was certainly very great, more furs came to Venice than could possibly have 198 been used by the populace. Accordingly, the city became not only a center in the international fur trade, but also one of the major centers of the fur industry. In fact, the fur industry became so efficient that it was cheaper for Venetian merchants to ship raw furs from Crete to Venice and then ship them 223k to the East than it was to have the furs finished in the East itself.8 Once merchants brought the furs to Venice, they had to work outanrarrangement with the city's furriers to finish the pelts. In some instances, merchants simply sold the raw pelts to the furriers and that was the end of their in- volvement. The furrier then finished the pelts and sold them on the retail market. Indeed, guild statutes were de- signed to protect members in that regard. Only members of the guild were allowed to sell finished furs in the city. More often, merchants retained ownership of the skins but entrusted them to master furriers who acted as their agents (called compari). The compari farmed the furs out to work- ers for finishing and then handled their reeXport. Accord- ing to Delort, the compare was nothing more than a "front- man" for the merchant.9 Yet the arrangement was mutually beneficial. The: merchant was able to get his product finished and avoid legal entanglements with the guild, and the master furrier was assured a steady supply of raw pelts to work. 199 Noble merchants were not the only ones who imported raw pelts to Venice. While it was most common for furriers to act as agents for others, sometimes they themselves got involved in shipping. Of course, only those furriers who had the necessary capital and connections could do this. One such furrier from S. Giacomo was Fachino Bono. Fachino was very active in international trade. In addition to dealing in furs, he also traded grain, hemp, tallow, jewels, 10 But most furriers, even master fur- and other products. riers, did not engage in international trade on the scale of a man like Fachino. When they did engage in trade, it tend- ed to be on a more local level. They bought and sold furs within the city or in nearby terraferma cities.ll These furriers depended for most of their raw materials on noble merchants. The furriers of Venice were organized into three sep- arate guilds which, like all Venetian guilds, occupied a decidely subordinate place in Venetian society. Indeed, the guild history of Venice differs from that of most cities in that respect.12 During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, most of the communes of northern Italy were shaken by strug- gles between different groups trying to gain control of the government. Usually the struggle was between an aristo- cratic group of magnates and a group of new men, or as they were often called in Italy, "the fat people" (ilgpgpolo grasso). In most instances, the new men were merchants; 200 and they used the power, prestige, and organization of their merchant guild and of other guilds to wrest control of the government from the magnates. In Venice this did not occur. In Venice, the great magnates were themselves merchants; and, at least until 1297, when membership in the Great Council was closed, men who became wealthy through trade were given a voice in the government.13 Therefore the guilds did not become an organ of advancement for up- wardly mobile new men. However all was not quiet in Venice. It is clear that in the 1260's the government was worried about discontent and possible unrest among the "little people" (i1 popolo minuto). This is evident from a clause which-was inserted into all guild statutes at the time. It read in part, that no one of the present craft dare or pre- sume to make any order, company, community, or conspiracy by faith or by oath or by promise against the honor of miser the Doge, the Coun- cil, the commune of Venice, the Justices, or against any person, under penalty of the ban . . . . 14 Something was astir among Venice's lower classes, and the government decided to respond. It decided to respond by supervising the guilds more closely. As early as 1173, the guilds had been placed under some government supervision. In that year, Doge Sebastiano Ziani created the office of the giustizieri or justices. The three justices were responsible for over- seeing retailing in the city. They had to maintain standand weights and measures and supervise the city's market. In 201 1261 the government decided that the task had grown too big for one set of officials to handle and so divided the office into the giustizierivecchi and the giustizieri novi. The new justices were responsible for supervising the city's food supply; the old justices were supposed to control and oversee the guilds.ls The government gave to the giustizieri vecchi (who were nobles) a great deal of power over the city's guilds. For example, the justices held the guilds' capitularies or official rules, and officers of the guilds had to come be- fore the justices to receive them. The justices' control of the statutes was not merely formal. No changes could be made in them without their consent. In addition, the jus- tices severely limited the guilds' autonomy. For instance, guild officers were not allowed to convoke members of the craft more than twice a year without the prior consent of the justices. Rules such as these make it clear that the government (through its officials the giustizieri vecchi) intended to keep a tight rein on the city's guilds. It did not want the guilds to become a focus for anti-government activity.16 A guild of furriers was certainly among the oldest guilds in Venice. Indeed, the earliest reference to any type of organization among craftsmen is found in the will of a certain Bernardo Tedesco dated 1213. In his will Bernardo left charitable bequests to the scuola of the gold- 202 smiths and to the scuola of the furriers, which he identi- fied as being at the church of S. Maria dei Crociferi.l7 As the fur trade and industry grew, the furriers prospered; and in 1268, they were among the many guildsmen who paid homage to the newly elected Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo. The chronicler Martino da Canal recorded the procession of the furriers. He wrote, The master furriers-of-new skins had decked their bodies with sumptuous robes of ermine and squirrel and other rich furs of wild animals and had dressed their apprentices and servants richly. At their head was a fair banner, be- hind it they came two by two and were well marshalled with trumpets and other instruments in front. And so they came to the palace and mounted its staircase, and there where they found their new lord, Messer Lorenzo Tiepolo, they saluted him ceremoniously . . . .18 As the industry grew in size and complexity, a special- ization of skills took place, so that by 1312 there were three distinct guilds of furriers. The distinction was based on the kind of pelts that the guildsmen worked. One group was the peliparii or furriers who worked the furs of domestic animals (notably sheepskins); another was the varotarii, who worked the skins of wild animals such as vair (hence varotarii) and ermine; the last group was the 19 glirarii, who worked the skins of dormice. While the crafts were distinct and completely independent organiza- tions, in private documents furriers themselves did not always clearly identify the guild to which they belonged. For example, Bertuccio Merlo, a prominent furrier in 203 S. Giacomo, identified himself as.a "peliparius operis 20 vairis." Properly then, he was a varotarius. Outside the confines of the fur industry, the distinctions had little meaning; and most furriers used the term peliparius, which had both a specific and generic meaning, to identify themselves.21 Our sole source for the institutional history of Venetian guilds in the fourteenth century is the capitula- ries or statutes that governed their existence.22 As noted above, the capitularies had to be registered with the giustizieri vecchi. At the beginning of this century, Giovanni Monticolo edited the statutes of all of the guilds registered with the justices up to 1330. Included in his edition are the capitularies of the peliparii and the glirarii. However, in his edition of the statute of the varotarii, Monticolo included all amendments that were made 23 in the fourteenth century. These additions are invaluable because they reveal problems and changes that developed in the guild over time and, consequently, provide a moving rather than a static picture of guild organization. For this reason, we will focus our examination of the structure of the furrier guilds on one guild, that of the furriers of wild animal skins, the varotarii. As in all Venetian guilds, an elected official called the gastaldus presided over the guild of the varotarii. Assisting him in the administration of the craft were five 204 judgescn:iudices. All held office for one year. Together, the gastaldus and his assistants had a number of responsi- bilities. One of their primary responsibilities was judi- cial. They were supposed to settle minor disputes between guildsmen, as long as the matters involved less than five lire worth of goods. More important cases, those involving greater sums of money, had to be taken before the giustimmufi. vecchi for adjudication. This is another example of govern- mental control of the guilds. It refused to relinquish im- portant judicial rights to the guildsmen. The penal powers delegated to the guild officers were minor as well; they were only permited to levy fines of up to forty soldi on members of the guild.24 The second major responsibility of guild officials was guild oversight. The gastaldus and the iudices were sup- posed to regulate membership in the guild and to ensure the guild's smooth operation. For example, guild officials were responsible for ensuring that all members of the craft knew the rules of the corporation. In order to do this, they had to call members together twice a year in convoca- tion to read the capitulary. The varotarii held their con- vocations at the church of 8. Giovanni de Rialto.25 In addition, guild officials had to maintain an accurate and up-to-date list of all guild members. New entrants to the guild had to be registered with the giustizieri.26 Finally, guild officers were responsible for supervis- 205 ing the business practices of guildsmen. Guild regulations prohibited the sale of stolen goods and listed in detail the kinds and quantities of materials that could be used for making various fur garments.27 The gastaldus and the iudices were supposed to ensure the observation of these rules. In addition, they were responsible for assigning shops along the £333 or street of the furriers at Rialto to various guildsmen.28 The capitulary of the varotarii tells us almost nothing about the division of the guildsmen into masters, appren- tices, and laborers. However, only masters were allowed a full voice in guild affairs. Entrance into the guild re- quired that the applicant swear an oath to uphold the rules of the corporation, and an annual fee of 18 lire di piccoli was required.29 In a sole reference to employees, the capi- tulary stated that masters could employ no more than two workers of either sex.30 Finally, like other Venetian guilds, the guild of the varotarii had an adjunct organization attached to it -- a guild scuola. Unlike the guild or arte_which emphasized the economic and organizational aspects of shared profession, the scuola emphasized the fraternal side of shared profes- sion. Probably all members of the trade (masters,appren- tices, and journeymen) enjoyed the privileges of scuola membership. Members of the scuola held an annual feast, said prayers for their deceased fellows, aided the poor and 206 the ill, and accompanied their fellows to burial. Scuola activities were funded by pious bequests and by fines levied for transgressions of the guild capitulary.31 As Bernardo Tedesco's will indicated, and as later evidence confirms, the scuola of the varotarii met at the church of S. Maria 32 dei Crociferi. Ideally, the guild of the varotarii was supposed to function as an egalitarian organization in which members worked for the good of their fellows. United by a fraternal bond, members were expected to work together to ensure the reputation of their trade and an equitable share of the business for their fellows. Indicative of this ideal was a rule that enjoined masters to report contraventions of guild regulations to the officers.33 Ideally, the guild was to be a self-regulating body in which each member worked for the good of his fellows. In practice, the guild was not the equitable institu- tion to which the capitulary, at least nominally, aspired. Additions to the capitulary made throughout the century show that certain guildsmen tried to develop monopolies and tried to secure advantages over their fellows. Indeed, one of the reasons that guild statutes emphasized the rules of fair play was that they were so often broken. For instance, in April of 1334 the giustizieri vecchi uncovered a plot by five members of the guild of the varotarii to establish a cartel. The five had gotten together and reached an agree- 207 ment establishing the minimun prices that they could charge for certain items. They even had a notary draft the agree- ment! Upon discovering the agreement, the giustizieri cancelled it and fined the participants. They cited as their rationale the clause in the capitulary which prohibit- ed any "order, company, community, or conspiracy" against the doge and commune.34 Examples of this kind of abuse were common enough. There were always individuals who were willing to break guild rules in order to gain an advantage over their fellow guildsmen. But the egalitarian ideals of the guild were compromis- ed in a much more serious way than by mere infractions of guild rules by individuals. A careful reading of the guild statutes reveals that an inner circle of master guildsmen was able, through manipulation of the electoral process and through the distribution of shops on the rugg, effectively to control the guild and hence the fur industry. They were able to turn what was supposed to be an egalitarian insti- tution into a hierarchic and oligarchic one. One of the ways in which this group controlled the guild was through the manipulation of guild elections. As established in the capitulary, the procedure for electing guild officials required that the retiring gastaldus and iudices select (eleger) five "good and loyal men" of the guild who were, in turn, to select (eleger) the new gastal- dus and iudices.35 It is obvious that this system facili- 208 tated the creation of an oligarchy. The retiring officials selected the men who selected the new officials. It was possible for certain men to remain in office permanently. Just such abuse must have prompted a ruling of the giusti- zieri vecchi dated October 6, 1354. In that order the justices stated that from then on a person could only be elected to the office of gastaldus at five-year intervals;36 In October of 1400, the rule was modified again. Complain- ing that the number of members had declined and that the term of rotation was so long that offices could not be filled adequately, the guildsmen received a new ruling that shortened the period that men had to wait between terms of office from five years to three years for the gastaldus and 37 to two years for the iudices. Neither the guildsmen nor the giustizieri could have been ignorant of the potential that this electoral system had for creating a ruling faction within the guild. At this very time, the Venetian government was famous for the intricate system of lots which it used to discourage the 38 influence of factions within its own ranks. Rather, the patricians, through their officials, the giustizieri, ap- proved and fostered this system; and they had their own reasons for doing so. It made the guild masters who pro- fited from it beholden to them. While the manipulation of guild elections was one way by which certain guildsmen were able to control the guild, SE th On OI). EL 209 they also did so by controlling the distribution of shops (botteghe, staciones) on the ruga of the furriers at Rialto. The desirability of having a shOp at Rialto is obvious; there one was at the center of Venice's business district. Proximity to Rialto gave guildsmen maximum opportunities for making trade contacts and, incidentally, for overseeing the work and business practices of their competitors. In time, a shop on the £222 became more than a luxury, it be- came a necessity. An order of 1397 stated that, in order to prevent fraudulent practices, no master could buy or sell goods pertaining to the craft outside the ruga.39 By then, to be a full-fledged master, one had to have a shop on the £232- Yet as we have already seen, the distribution of shops on the ruga was the responsibility of the gastaldus. The capitulary stated, "that the gastaldus and his companions (the iudices) are required to give a shop or place to each master who asks for one, in good conscience, as seems best 40 to them." The possibility existed that guild officials would distribute the best shops or possibly all of the shops to themselves and their friends. And this did occur. For instance, another rule stated that those without a shop were prohibited from using space in the shop of another.41 Clearly, there were fewer spaces on the ruga than there were guildsmen who wanted one. 210 The aforementioned rulings provide only indirect evidence that a distinction existed in the guild between those who had a shop on the £233 and those who did not. However a statute from 1340, which was designed to correct certain abuses that had occured with the scuola's funds, makes the distinction explicit. In a move to make the selection of guild officers more equitable, the justices ordered, "that the gastaldus and three of the iudices ought to be (chosen) from the ruga and the other two officials ought tobe from among the others.42 This ruling by the giustizieri proves beyond a doubt that guildsmen were distinguished by whether or not they had a shop on the Eggg. Those who did not probably were forced to work for those who did, since sale of items outside the £13331 was forbidden. By controlling the distribution of botteghe,guild officials were able to limit competition and exclude those they wished to exclude. This rule also pro- vides further evidence that guild elections were manipulated. Those without shops on the ruga_were being excluded from guild offices. However, on this particular occasion, those who were excluded from power were able to put enough pres- sure on the giustizieri to secure for themselves two of the five posts as iudices. Usually, those in the inner circle, that is those who had shops and held guild office, were able to control the guild. 211 Evidently, the city's patricians, through their offi- cials the giustizieri vecchi, tolerated a system of elec- tion and a method of distributing shops on the rug; that actually worked against the ideal of equality touted by the capitulary. Why was this the case? The reader will recall that noble merchants who imported raw pelts had to have those pelts finished before they could reexport them and that only registered guildsmen could sell furs in Venice. In order to get their furs finished and to circumvent the rules concerning sales, merchants employed master furriers as their agents or compari. Merchants depended on these "43 It seems clear that one of compari as their "frontmen. the prices that the compari exacted in return for their service as agents was a relatively free hand in controlling the guild. In return for their service, the compari de- manded the right to limit the number of compari (and there- fore their own competition) by controlling the distributkn1 of shops; and they demanded the right to control the workers (who did the actual work of finishing and sewing the pelts) through their monopoly of guild offices. All in all, the evidence of guild elections and dis- tribution of shops on the £239 shows that the guild was not always the just and equitable institution to which the capitulary aspired. More that that, we can say that the guild was a hierarchic, even an oligarchic, institution in which real power was reserved for those masters who held 212 office and who, through their shops at Rialto, had access to merchants and merchandise of the international fur trade. As we shall see shortly, the hierarchic nature of the guild affected the social world of the furriers and had important consequences for the political history of Venice. This brief examination of the Venetian fur trade and of the organization of the guild of the varotarii provides needed background information for our examination of the social world of the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio. It is to them and to their world that we must now turn. II The problems involved in trying to reconstruct the social world of any group in fourteenth-century Venetian society, especially any group below the nobility, are legion. To the traditional problems of unsystematic and inconsistent sources, we must add problems unique to the lower classes. For instance, we encounter the problem of flexible and inconsistent use of surnames. In the four- teenth century many members of the lower classes did not have standardized family names. Consequently, we are pre- sented with problems of identification. Are Luciano da Calle and Luciano Datale the same man? Another problem is that of identifying the furriers by profession. As we noted earlier, furriers themselves (and the notaries) were not always careful to distinguish between peliparii, 213 varotarii, and glirarii. In addition, guildsmen seldom identified themselves by their status within the guild. Therefore, it is often impossible to tell if a man identi- fied as a furrier was a master furrier or simply a hired hand. A fourth problem is that seldom is there enough in- formation about particular individuals to construct re- presentative biographies. We must substitute instead less satisfying collective portraits. Finally, the size of the sample presents problems. Often we find in the records notice of a furrier engaging in a particular activity or kind of behavior. Yet in many instances, there is no way to determine the relative frequency of such behavior among other furriers. The task becomes that of balancing one qualitative example against another. Despite these problems, we can at least begin to recon- struct the social world of the furriers of S. Giacomo dall' Orio. The picture may not be finely etched, but it does reveal the general features of the subject. In considering the social world of the furriers, we might expect to find that shared profession and common re- sidence worked to make the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio a close-knit group. We could logically assume that profes- sional and residential ties were mutually reinforcing. However, as I hope to demonstrate below, the evidence shows that the furriers were not a homogenous group and that they did not become a closed, inward-looking caste. Contacts 214 between furriers very much depended on their status and wealth. Our first indication that the furriers were not a homogenous group with common interests is the differences in wealth among them. Dowries and property ownership are two indices of wealth, and both illustrate how divergent the wealth of the S. Giacomo furriers could be. I have found in the notarial records notice of thirty-one dowries received or given by furriers. The average dowry was 59 ducats. Yet the average dowry size does not indicate how widely divergent furriers'dowries were. For example, in 1332 Benedetto a varotarius from S. Simeon Grande received a dowry of 30 ducats from his wife Giacoma from S. Giacomofl‘4 By contrast, six years later, in 1338, a certain Albertino received a dowry of 120 ducats from his wife Caterina.45 Furrier dowries varied from the 150 ducats which furrier Franceschino received from his wife, to the 13% ducats which a furrier name Canciano received from his wife.46 While some furriers were so poor that they would consider tiny dowries from prospective brides, others were prosperous enough that fathers were willing to pay large sums of money 'Uasecure them as their sons-in-law. Dowry receipts indicate the variations in wealth (and therefore status) that dis- tinguished the furriers of S. Giacomo. Another indication of wealth is prOperty ownership. As we saw in the previous chapter, most of the artisans and 215 laborers of Venice did not own a dwelling. They lived instead in dwellings which they rented from the wealthy. Most of the furriers from S. Giacomo were in this situation; they lived as tenants in the houses of others.47 However, there were a few furriers in the parish who did own property. One such furrier was a certain Tiziano. In his will, he noted that he had acquired property from his relatives ("ex parentella") and that he had bought other properties for the sum of 500 lire di piccoli, which he had paid out of his own pocket, ("de meis propriis denariis"). Tiziano bequeath- ed his properties to his wife Donata with the hope that upon her death, she would leave them to their daughters.48 Another property owner was the varotarius Franceschino Vendelino. Franceschino left equal shares of his estate to his four children. He stated, however, that if his eldest son wished to maintain the family stazon, he could have as much of the estate as he needed; otherwise he would only get one-quarter.49 Thus while most furriers in the parish were propertyless, a few did have a stake in the parish. Evidently, Tiziano's family had been resident in the parish for some time, for he asked to be buried "in the tomb of my relatives and my house" which was located under the portico of the church.50 Dowry receipts and property ownership reveal that the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio were hardly a homogenous group, equal in wealth and status. One of the parish's 216 furriers,Bartolomeo Brocha, even was included in the estimo of 1379 with an assessment of 1500 lire. That made him one of the fifteen richest men in the parish in terms of immov- able wealth. He was wealthier than several nobles.51 The estimo of 1379 includes at least twelve furriers from throufii- out the city who had assessments ranging from the 4500 lire assessed Agostin de Pelegrin, a varotarius from S. Aponal, 52 to the 300 lire assessed several others. But most furriens were too poor to be included at all. In terms of wealth, the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio were a divergent group -- both wealthy master furriers and poor laborers lived in the parish. While dowries and property ownership clearly illustrate that the furriers of S. Giacomo were a widely divergent group in wealth and status, they do not indicate whether or not ties of common profession and parochial residence were able to overcome inequalities of wealth to forge the furriers into a tight-knit group. In order to evaluate the degree of soli- darity among the furriers, we need to examine several indices of interaction among the furriers. Our first measure of solidarity among furriers, the evi- dence of marriage, reveals that furriers often married out- side of the profession. Of thirty-one dowry receipts involv- ing furriers, only four allow us to compare the husband's profession with that of his father-in-law. Yet in all four 217 cases, the marriages were professionally exogamous. Two furriers married daughters of men practicing different trades. One married the daughter of a sawyer (secatore);the othertflua 53 daughter of a silkworker (samitarius). Two furriers from S. Giacomo married their daughters to men of different pro- fessions. One married a barber; the other a silkworker.54 In some instances, marriages were professionally endogamous. Catarucia, daughter of a furrier from S. Giacomo, married Gulielmo de Pavia, a furrier from S. Pantalon. And common profession provided a certain Maria with the opportunity of finding a new spouse. In February 1321 Maria, widow of a 55 While the size of the furrier, married another furrier. sample prevents us from drawing any conclusions about the incidence of professional endogamy and exogamy, it indicates that furriers did marry outside the profession. This suggests that the furriers were not a tightly interwoven group, bound together by marriage ties. Dowry receipts do indicate that furriers were more parochially endogamous than the populace as a whole. Fif- teen of the thirty-one marriages (48 percent) were parochi- ally endogamous; seven (.23 percent) were exogamous; nine (29 percent) give incomplete information. This compares with the populace as a whole in which 38.1 percent of the mar- riages were endogamous; 33.8 percent were exogamous, and 28.1 percent contain incomplete information. Of the seven exo- gamous marriages,on1y two involved parishes some distance 218 from S. Giacomo. They were S. Moise and S. Luca. The others were S. Geremia, S. Stae, S. Simeon Grande, S. Margarita, and S. Stin. The greater incidence of parochial endogamy among fur- riers than among the population as a whole suggests that many did find a spouse among their fellow furriers in the parish, or at least that contact with fellow furriers in the parish put them in touch with a greater number of eligible spouses close to home. They had less reason than the populace as a 56 It also whole to go beyond the parish to find a partner. suggests that the furriers' orientation was slightly more parochial than that of the population as a whole. Just as the evidence examined above shows that furriers were willing to marry their daughters to men in different trades, so they were willing to send their sons into differ- ent trades. Many furriers' sons did follow their fathers in the profession. Rnrinstance, Bartolomeo Brocha, Giacomo de Cristoforo, and Giovanni de Otolino, all had sons who became furriers. And both sons of Sempreben, a furrier, became furriers.57 On the other hand, the guilds' capitularies provided no special incentives for sons to take up their fathers' profession.58 Consequently, it was not uncommon for furriers' sons to take up a trade different from that of their fathers or for sons of other tradesmen to become fur- riers. The father of Fachino, a furrier from S. Giacomo, . . 59 was a tanner; another furr1er's father was an oil measurer. 219 Bartolomeo de Enrico had two sons; one became a furrier, the other a shield-maker.60 It is impossible to know why some sons followed in their fathers' footsteps and others did not. Fluctuations in the demand for furriers surely affected young men's decisions. The perception that certain professions were more prestigious than others may have influenced other 61 Whatever the reason for an individual's individuals. decision, the evidence shows that succession to profession was not automatic, and, more importantly, that the profession was not a closed hereditary caste. It seems clear that the furriers did not try to exclude any but their own sons from entering the profession. One reason why the profession was open was that the furriers may have had difficulty reproducing themselves. Evidence about family size reveals some startling figures. Furriers' wills show that at the time they made out their wills, male furriers had an average of only 1.75 children. Even more startling is the figure for furriers' wives. When they made out their wills, they had an average of .44 child- ren.62 The low figures can partly be explained by peculiari- ties of the testamentary process. For example, male furriers may not have mentioned daughters who had already married and received their share of the patrimony (the dowry); and fur- riers' wives often drew up their wills during pregnancy be- 63 fore their children were born. Both would contribute to low figures. Nevertheless, while these reservations may 220 modify the absolute accuracy of these figures, the numbers do show that, at best, accepting the figure from the men's wills as slightly low, Venetian furriers were just barely maintain- ing the population. Therefore recruitment of newcomers may have been essential to manning the industry. Recruitment, however, also meant that the trade was not as homogenous and tight-knit as it would have been if the furriers had reproduced themselves and sons had followed in the trade. The newcomers had to be assimilated into both the industry and the social world of the furriers. Complicating the assimilation process even further was the fact that many of the recruits were not native-born Venetians but rather immigrants. For example, immigrant furriers came to S. Giacomo from Bergamo, Udine, Cremona, Verona, Feltre,Modena, and other cities.64 Different dialects, trade practices, and customs complicated the assimilation process and contributed further to the heterogeneity of the furrier community. Even among those who were native-born Venetians, there was a propensity toward inter-parochial mobility. Because most furriers owned no property, they moved about the city during their lives in search of dwellings. For instance, Pietro Lombardo, a glirarius, lived in S. Giacomo for a time but eventually took up residence in S. Marzial; Luciano Datale moved from S. Marcuola to S. Giacomo; and Giovanni de Otolino lived in S. Giacomo while his son Otolino, who was also a furrier, lived in S. Zulian. Even the wealthy 221 furrier Bartolomeo Brocha took up residence in a different parish.65 These examples show that the furrier population in S. Giacomo was not a stable one; immigrants added new elements to its composition and native-born Venetians moved into and out of it. The indices which we have examined so far, marital endogamies, professional succession,recruitment, and mobility, show that the furrier community in S. Giacomo was not a stable community. It was not composed of a group of families that had lived in the parish generation after generation marrying their children to one another and sending their sons into the same profession. In other words, these indices do not sug- gest that the furriers were a tight-knit group bound by traditional ties to one another. But these indices do not tell the whole story, for they do not illuminate the informal patterns of contact that shaped furriers' day to day lives. To gain some perspective on the friendship circles of the furriers, let us look briefly at the factors that influenced the selection of godparents and fiduciaries and at furriers' participation in scuole. The evidence of godparentage provides the surest indica- tion that shared profession could lead to close personal bonds between furriers. Many furriers from S. Giacomo had fellow furriers as their godparents. For example, Bartolomeo Trevisan's godfather, Natale, was himself a furrier, as was Moreto de Donato, godfather of Tiziano.66 However, 222 godparents were not always from the same profession. Varotarius Franceschino Vendelino's first choice to be his executor (niaddition to his wife) was his godfather Lio Rosso, a cheeseseller from S. Stae; if Lio refused the job, then Franceschino wanted his other godfather, Donato, also 67 a varotarius, to assume the job. Franceschino's eldest daughter Chiara named the same Donato to be her executor, 68 This indicates and Lio Rosso was a witness to her will. how important the bond between a godfather and his godchild could be. The close link even extended across generations. The attachment of furriers to their godparents lasted throughout their lives, and several furriers from S. Giacomo and their wives remembered their godparents in their wills with bequests of money or goods.69 Shared profession was certainly one factor considered in the selection of those who would help oversee their spiritual deve10pment. Any one of several factors influenced furriers in the selection of fiduciaries and witnesses to legal documents. In some instances, shared profession was clearly the link that bound individuals together. For instance, Zanino Uto from S. Giacomo served as executor for Franceschino de Bernardo, a fellow furrier from S. Pantalon; and Maria, wife of a varotarius from S. Polo, named the varotarius Frances- 70 chino Vendelino to be her executor. In other cases, neigh- borhood ties were the basis of the friendship. Giovanni Taglia, a druggist or spice dealer (speciarius) in S.Giacomo, 223 named his fellow parishioner Antonio, a furrier, to be his executor; and a caulker by the name of Antonio Rosso asked furrier Bartolomeo Brocha to witness the payment of his wife's dowry.71 In still other cases, several ties reinforced one another, making it difficult to claim any particular one was the basis for the friendship. For instance, Caterina, widow of Stefano, a furrier from S. Giacomo, named as her executors Maddalena, another furr1er's widow from S. Giacomo, and Tomassina, a widow from the neighboring parish of S. Simeon Grande.72 Any one or all of several factors -- shared widow- hood, residence, or profession -- could have served to unite these women. Finally, religious institutions provided further contact points which placed furriers in touch not only with other members of their profession but also with others. At least three furriers from S. Giacomo held posts in religious and charitable institutions. Luciano Datale was prior of the hospital of S. Giovanni de Murano; Bertuccio Merlo was twice prior of the scuola grande of S. Giovanni Evangelista, and Bartolomeo Trevisan was for a time gastaldus of the scuola piccola of S. Giacomo.73 Furriers belonged to a variety of different scuole, and for some membership was an important aspect of their lives. For example, Maria, wife of Nicola a furrier, named as her executor, in addition to her sister from S. Stae and Benevenuto, a fontegarius from S. Giacomo, the gastaldus of the scuola of S. Pantalon "and his succes- 224 sors."74 The furriers and their wives remembered a variety of scuole in their wills, but only two (out of twenty-four) made pious bequests to scuole associated with the furrier guilds.75 Memberships in scuole along with parochial church attendance provided other social contacts for the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio. Many of these took them beyond the confines of the parish and the profession.76 As far as furriers' friendship circles are concerned, evidence of godparentage, fiduciaries, and religious associa- tions shows that the furriers sometimes moved in friendship circles with their fellow guildsmen but that these circles included many non-furriers as well. Profession alone did not determine the social contacts of the furriers. In sum, how do we characterize the social world and social contacts of the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio? The first point to make is that the furriers were by no means a homogenous group. Major differences in material wealth separated them. While a few were wealthy property holders and therefore vicini of the parish, most were mere tenants, too poor to own the dwelling in which they lived. Similarly, while some like Tiziano, whose family had a tomb in the church, and Bertuccio Merlo, whose brother was a presbyter, came from respectable and established parochial families, many were newcomers from the terraferma or other parts of the city, who only recently had settled in the parish. Wealth and length of residence made the group fairly divergent. 225 A second observation is that the furriers of S. Giacomo were an open rather than a closed community. Furriers mar- 'ried their daughters to men in different professions, and while many furriers' sons followed their fathers in the trade, it was not unusual for a furr1er's son to enter a different profession. Indeed, the evidence of family size may indicate that immigration had to be encouraged in order to replenish the workforce. In any case, the furriers were not a stable community in which sons invariably followed their fathers in the profession. Finally, we should note that profession and residence were only two of many factors which determined the social contacts of the furriers. Furriers did develop friendships with fellow furriers who were also fellow parishioners, but their range of contacts was by no means bound by parochial or professional considerations. Many had contacts with fellow tradesmen who lived in other parts of the city and with fellow parishioners who practiced different trades. Many factors (familial,residential, and professional) in- fluenced the friendship networks of the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio. Although it is difficult on the basis of the evidence to hazard too definitive a statement about the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio, we can say that common residence and shared profession alone were not enough to forge the furriers into a closed or tight-knit group. While these factors did 226 contribute to links between certain individuals, the furriers as a group did not form a highly integrated and self-contained community. It seems safe to say that S. Giacomo was not regarded by other inhabitants of fourteenth- century Venice as the 'parish of the furriers.‘ III Why did the furriers of S. Giacomo not form a closed and inward looking group? In addition to several factors already mentioned -- the inability of the furriers to reproduce them- selves, the necessity of geograhic mobility, the lure of other professions -- a couple of other factors may be sug- gested as well. First, although there was a concentration of furriers in S. Giacomo, the parish was but one of several focal points in their professional lives. Guild activities took the varotarii to convocations of the chapter at 8. Giovanni de Rialto, to their workshops on the rugs of the furriers at S. Bartolomeo, and to the site of their scuola in the church of S. Maria dei Crociferi. (See Figure 9) Add to this the fact that a large number of furriers also lived in the parishes of S. Pantalon, S. Margarita, and on the island of the Giudecca, and we see that occupation alone drew furriers beyond parochial boundaries. The furriers of S. Giacomo were not alone in this regard. .Most of the city's guilds had a street of shops at Rialto, a scuola in one of the city's churches, and market stalls at 227 fiummfloouu amp Mano: .m .v moomGSww .h owEoHouHmm .m .m muwummnmz .m .w ounfim mp flccm>oflu .m .N conucmm .m .m OEOUMfiw .m .H mc0wumfioomm€ “menusm mo mmuflm II a musmflm no 228 at 8. Marco.77 Work pulled most Venetian artisans out of occupational and parochial spheres and into a larger orbit. Economic specialization and functionaldiversification did not transform the city of Venice into a series of closed, occupationally defined neighborhoods.78 A variety of factors, from the organization of commercial life to the structure of popolano families, worked to integrate various parts of the city. More importantly, differences in wealth among the fur- riers, which were only reflections of their differing statuses within the guild, worked to pull the furriers of S. Giacomo apart. As we have already seen, hierarchy, even oligarchy, characterized the guild of the varotarii. Master furriers controlled the guild through the manipulation of guild elections and the distribution of shops on the £233, The masters controlled the guild, and this created dissent and discontent among the laborers who felt excluded. Despite its claims to equality, the guild fostered inequality and resent- ment.79 The differences, however, were not confined to the work- shops at Rialto. The master furriers who ran the guild were the same men who were most visible and well-to-do in the parish, men such as Franceschino Vendelino, Bartolomeo Brocha, Bertuccio Merlo, and Bartolomeo Trevisan.80 The animosity that first was generated by inequalities in the guild was carried over into social contacts. 229 Indeed, although there is not much illustrative evidence, the little that there is shows that equal status (and wealth) within the guild had much more to do with creat- ing solidarities and friendships between guildsmen than did shared profession or common parochial residence. In other words, the evidence indicates that master furriers associated wth master furriers regardless of their parochial residence; and laborers with laboreres. For example, the well-to-do varotarius Franceschino Vendelino from S. Giacomo was named an executor by Marina, wife of Nicold‘de Francesco, a wealthy 81 And Luciano Datale, who was fairly furrier from S. Polo. prominent, having been chosen prior of the hospital of S. Giovanni de Murano, was witness to the furrier Tiziano's will.82 The case of Nicoleto Bianco, a furrier from S. Giacomo, and his worker (laborator) Francesco de Modena provides further evi- dence that solidarities broke down along lines of wealth and that animosity existed in the guilds between those who controlled the guilds and workers. On September 10, 1373 Nicoletogxnzinto a dispute with Francesco in which he accused Francesco of not working; Francesco responded with the words,'%nrthe body of God, I'll get you" ("ad corpus dei ego soluam tibi"). Later, when Nicoleto was at home drinking with Alvise de Rastello, an official of the giustizieri novi, and another friend, Francesco showed up (with Giovanni de Udine, another furrier) and began threatening his employer. A fight broke out which 230 ended with Francesco mortally wounding Nicoleto.83 There are several possible explanations for this murder; Nicoleto may have been an unreasonable master; Francesco may have been a hot-tempered young man; or drink may have gotten the best of both men. But another explanation is also possible. Perhaps the murder was the result of Francesco's pent up frustration at the master Nicoleto and what he represented. Perhaps the murder reflected the resentment that young immi- grants such as Francesco and Giovanni felt toward those on the inside such an Nicoleto (a master furrier) and Alvise (a government official). Another reason the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio were not a tight-knit group is that common residence did little to overcome the inequities and hierarchic nature of the guilds. While the evidence presented here is that of one parti- cular group of guildsmen, other guilds displayed many of the same inequalities and hierarchic tendencies as the varotarii. In other industries, such as the wool industry, masters owned the raw materials and hired laborers to work for them.84 Like the master furriers, these guild masters depended on noble merchants to supply them with raw materials.85 And, like the master furriers, these masters were able, through the manipulation of guild elections, to control the guilds and 86 Indeed, as the example of the subordinate the workers. S. Giacomo furriers clearly illustrates, the popolo of Venice were not a unified class with similar interests.87 Just as hist; CORté time the . the j hist For the the poli 0the quie ing guil View Over 9085 Wit} Bit} the 16m bone mer< 231 historians are now beginning to explore factions and contending interests within Venice's patriciate, so it is time to explore more fully differences among the popolo. As a final point, I would suggest that understanding the differences among guildsmen and their relationship with the patricians is crucial to understanding the political history of Venice, particularly inthe late Middle Ages. For a long time, historians have held one of two views of the Venetian popolo. One view holds that, after the 1260's the popolo were a defeated, disheartened group incapable of political action. Indeed, they have been described both as a "spineless multitude" and a "dead body" (corpo morto).88 Other historians have held that the Venetian pOpolo were quiescent because the nobles kept them contented by supply- ing them with plenty of food, with honorific positions in 89 The first guilds and scuole, and with equitable justice. view is patently wrong; the second partially correct but overly favorable to the patricians. A third alternative is possible -- a view that takes into account differentiations within the popolani, but that does not reflect so favorably either on the nobles or the leading guildsmen. I would posit the hypothesis that one of the reasons why the popolo minuto were quiescent is that their potential leaders, the popolo grasso (the leading guildsmen) were bought off by the city's noble merchants. As we saw earlier, merchants and master guildsmen were locked into a situation 232 of mutual dependence. The guildsmen depended on merchants to supply them with raw materials; the merchants relied on their compari to have the materials worked. For the guilds- men to have opposed the patricians would have been equiva- lent to cutting their own throats. However, the guildsmen realized that the merchants de- pended on them and that they could exact a price for their cooperation. The price was twofold. On one hand, the guilds- men demanded and got a relatively free hand in running the guilds. The nobles, through their officials the giustizieri vecchi, sanctioned procedures that allowed the masters to dominate the guilds. In addition, the guildsmen demanded 90 Thus leniency in the meting out of punishments for crimes. leading guildsmen were regular recipients of grazie or re- ductions of sentences. Again, the furriers of S. Giacomo provide examples. The wealthy furrier Bartolomeo Brocha got two grazie for crimes which compromised the guild's rules of fair competition: one for having a light on in his stazon at night, the other for not paying the dacium or customs duty 91 Luciano Datale, another leading furrier on certain items. also receiveda grazia for not paying the dacium.92 Grazie were not only given for crimes which compromised guild rules. In 1381 Bartolomeo Brocha's son Bernardo, who was also a furrier, got his sentence for rape reduced.93 Some of the grazie were not actually reductions of sentences but pure political favors. For example, Fachino Bono, who encountenai 233 great misfortune in his trading ventures, received special trade privilegesfrcm1the nobles; and Marco Rosso, a very wealthy furrier from S. Croce, was granted the right to make 94 It seems clear that, in improvements on his property. return for their loyalty and labors as compari, master guildsmen expected special favors from the patricians. In sum, this brief examination of the structure of the Venetian fur trade and industry and the social world of the furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio suggests that Venice was not a collection of geographically defined occupational groups and that a variety of forces pulled artisans beyond parochial boundaries. It also suggests that relations be- tween the nobility and the popolo were more complex than previously believed. The popolo, especially the popolo grasso, were not a "spineless mulitude" or a "corpo morto." Neither were they lulled into quietude by the nobility's beneficence. Instead, they were a realistic group of bargainers who knew what price they could reasonably exact for their loyalty to the regime. NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX 1For a brief discussion of Venice's industries, see Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Repgblic (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 155-166. Also, B. Cecchetti, "Le industrie in Venezia nel secolo xiii," Archivio veneto 4 (1872), pp. 211-257. 2Lane, p. 16; Gino Luzzatto, Storia economica di di Venezia dall'xi a1 xvi secolo (Venice, 1961). p. 65. For remarks on Venice's urban development, see Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York, 1961), pp. 321- 328. 3Lane, p. 16. 4For the site of the markets, see Cecchetti, p. 216. 5The list of members can be found in ASV, Scuola Grande di S. Giovanni Evangelista, Mariegole, vol. 3. A large number of furriers also lived in the parishes of S. Margarita and S. Pantalon. For example, out of a total of 84 wills of furriers and their wives, which I have located, 24 are from S. Giacomo, twenty-three are from S. Pantalon, seven from S. Croce, and five each from S. Margarita and S. Simeon Grande. The rest are scattered throughout the city. Most of the wills from S. Pantalon are from the latter half of the fourteenth century. Perhaps, the furriers began to move there as the century progressed. As noted in the text, the tanners,- a group closely allied to the furriers, worked on the Giudecca. See Luzzatto, p. 65. 6For a discussion of the fur trade and the techniques used by merchants,\see R. Delort, "Un aspect du commerce venitien au xve siecle: Andrea Barbarigo et le commerce des fourrures (1430-1440)," Le ngen Age, 71 (1965), pp. 29-70; 247-273. 7 Ibid., p. 69. 8Ibid., p. 45. 234 235 9Delort uses the phrase "strawman" (homme de paille). On the various arrangements between merchants and furriers, see Ibid., pp. 43-46. For example, during the 1430's Andrea Barbarigo, the noble merchant studied by Delort, had arrangements with about twenty different furriers. While some were men from whom Andrea bought garments for his own use, most served as his agents. Nicoletto Gatta, a furrier of Venetian origin, served as the agent at Tana for several Venetian merchants including Pignol Zucchello, a cittadino resident of S. Giacomo. At Tana, Nicoletto purchased and shipped furs for merchants and fellow furriers at home in Venice. For instance, in 1341 he wrote to Pignol, "you know, compare, that I received 132 marten skins and 26 ferrets for ser Andriol Pelegrin" (sepi compare co io recevi per ser Andriol Pelegrin martori 132, foine 26 . . . .). See Raimondo Morozzo della Rocca, ed., Lettere di mercanti a Pignol Zucchello, (1336-1350), Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 4, Archivi privati (Venice, 1957), doc. 6, p. 6. For infor- mation on Gatta, see pp. x-xi. 10Information about Fachino's trading ventures (which, incidentally, were very ill-fated), see ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 9, f. l7r. 11For example, a certain Maffeo, a furrier from S. Giacomo, took a quantity of furs valued at 200 lire to the market at Padua; and another furrier, Luciano Datale, took some to Verona. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 9, f. 65v; Register 8, f. 61r. 12For example, the guilds played a major role in Florentine politics. See, among others, John M. Najemy, "Guild Republicanism in Trecento Florence: The Successes and Ultimate Failure of Corporate Politics," American Historical Review 84 (1979), PP. 53-71. 13For a general discussion of the rise of the popolo, see J.K. Hyde, Society and Politics in Medieval Italy (New York, 1973), pp. 79-82, 104-118; and Lane, pp. 103-104. 4"che algun de la presente arte no olse ne presuma fare algun ordinamento, campagnia, comunitade over conspiration per fidanca 0 per sagramento 0 per alguna promission contra l'onore de miser lo duxe et del conseio et del comun de Venexia et de la Iustixia o contra alguna persona, sotto la pena del bando . . . ." See G. Monticolo and E. Besta, eds., I capitolari delle arti veneziane, 3 vols. Fonti per la storia d'Italia (Rome, 1896-1914), vol. 3, pp. 378-379, clause XXI. This clause can be found in most of the guilds' capitularies. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to the capitulary of the varotarii and will include the page number and the number of the clause in the statute. 236 15Lane, pp. 104-105. 16For a history of the office of the giustizieri vecchi, see G. Monticolo, "L'ufficio della giustizia vecchia a Venezia dalle origini sino a1 1330," in Miscellanea dalla_§. deputazione veneta di storia patria 12 (1892). PP. 1-173. 17For this reference to Bernardo Tedesco, see Monticolo, vol. 2, pp. lxxvii-lxxviii and note 1. 1 8Quoted in Lane, p. 108. 19These differences are clearly explained in Delort, p. 46. 20Felice, doc. 1056. 21The ambiguity of the term peliparius has prompted me to group all men identified as peliparii, varotarii, and glirariii together in the second section of this chapter. This also was done to increase the size of the group under study. 22Other guild sources, such as minutes of meetings, legal cases, etc., have been lost. Some information about guild governance can be gleaned from the grazie. 23An early capitulary of the peliparii can be found in Monticolo, vol. 2; a fragment of the capitulary of the glirarii is in volume 3. Volume 3 also contains the capitulary of the varotarii which was registered in 1312 and part of one registered in 1444. 24Monticolo, vol. 3, pp. 374-375, clauses I-III. 25;p;g., vol. 3, p. 410, clause II. 26 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 378, clause XVIII. 27;§i§., vol. 3, p. 380, clause XXVII; for quality control regulations, see pp. 383-388, clauses XXXXI-LXVI. 28l§i§., vol. 3, p. 411, clause VI. The ruga of the furriers was in the parish of S. Bartolomeo. See Morozzo della Rocca, p. 94. 29Ibid., vol. 3, p. 380, clause XXVI; vol. 3, p. 384, clause XXXXIIII. A complete, comparative study of internal guild structure has never been done. Monticolo intended to include one as the introduction to Volume Three of the capitularies, but he died before it could be completed. BOLEiQ-y vol. 3, p. 389, clause LXVIII. 237 311219., vol. 3, p. 382, clause XXXV. 32A furrier from S. Giacomo, Franceschino Vendelino, left a bequest to the scuola of the varotarii, which he noted was at S. Maria dei Crociferi. See ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 14 Nov. 1379. 33Monticolo, vol. 3, p. 383, clause LXVIII. 34Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 395-396, clause LXXXII. The records of the grazie contain many examples of infrac- tions of guild rules. For example, Bartolomeo Brocha, a furrier from S. Giacomo, was charged with having a light in his shop at night. The inspectors at Rialto suspected that Bartolomeo was working at night and that was considered an unfair advantage over his competitors. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 13, f. lSr. 35Monticolo, vol. 3, p. 374, clause I. 36;§id., vol. 3, p. 402, clause LXXXX. 37 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 407-408, clause LXXXXVIII. In registering for a new ruling, the varotarii noted that there were only thirty members at the meeting. If they had used a simple and egalitarian rotation system, thirty members would have been sufficient to fill all six posts with the rotation completed every five years. However, the majority (twenty-seven) voted for the change. 38For an explanation of the government's attempts to restrain factions and of the ducal election system, see Lane, pp. 109-111. 39Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 405- 406, clause LXXXXVI; a rule of 1400 stated that all tanning pertaining to the craft had to be done on the rug . Ibid. , vol. 3, pp. 406- 407, clause LXXXXVII. Since these rulings were issued at the time when the number of members was dwindling, they may have been prompted by a desire to ensure as much work and business for the members as possible. 40"et che puo' e1 gastaldo e conpagni sian tegnudi de dar stagon o luogo a chadaun mestier, che la domandera, a bona consientia chomo a lor meio parera . . . . Ibid., vol. 3, p. 411, clause VI. 41 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 411-412, clause VII. 42"quod castaldio et tres iudices dicte artis debeant fieri de ruga et alii duo offitiales debeant fieri de aliis . . . ." Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 400-401, clause LXXXXVIII. 238 43It appears that the guildsmen (that is the master furriers) got the nobles to agree that they would not employ laborers directly (thereby bypassing the master furriers). A rule was included in the capitulary which stated that no one "either noble or of the peOple" (algun, nobele osia de povol), who was not a member of the guild was to have anything made which was a product of the guild of the varotarii. See Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 392-393, clause LXXVII. 44Felice, doc. 847. 4sASV, CI 199, notary Marco de Tocci, act dated 24 March 1338. 46ASV, CI 36, notary Iohannes Campion, protocol, 21 Nov. 1385; Felice, doc. 168. 47The estate of Marino Badoer rented several properties in S. Giacomo to furriers. For example, a certain Bartolomeo paid a rent of eleven ducats to the estate. See ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 133, Commissaria of Marino Badoer, loose paper sheet. 8Tiziano's will is in ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantinus Rizzo, protocol, 13 March 1374. A furrier from S. Margarita, Bartolomeo de Ugolin, hOped that his house would stay in his family. He left it to his son with the proviso that he not sell it; if the son should die, then Bartolomeo wanted it to go to his brother and his male heirs. If they should die, then he wanted the house to be sold and the money distributed for his soul. Again, it is interesting to note that family structure probably prevented Bartolomeo from making further provisions for the house. He could not bequeath it to more distant relatives (consanguinei) as nobles might have done. Bartolomeo was included in the estimo of 1379 (from S. Pantalon) with an assessment of 1000 lire. For his will, see ASV, NT 645, notary Bertoldi di Conte, unbound testament 171, 5 Sept. 1375. 49Franceschino even stated that if his son "wished to do well” (volese far ben), he would retain the stazon. See the will in ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 14 Nov. 1379. 0"in archa meorum attinentium et domus mee." See ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantinus Rizzo, protocol, 12 March 1374. 51For the estimo, see Gino Luzzatto, I prestiti della Repubblica di Venezia (sec. xiii-xv), 2 vols. Documenti finanziari della Repubblica di Venezia, Series 3 (Padua, 1929), vol. 1, doc. 165, p. 191. 239 52Luzzatto counted nine furriers in the estimo. I have found eleven listed either as varoter or as pelizer. I have also counted Bartolomeo Brocha who, though he was not listed as such, was a furrier. There may well be others who are not identified by trade. See, Luzzatto, Storia economica di Venezia, p. 131. 53Felice, docs. 105, 246. 54Ibid., docs. 818, 170. 55 For Catarucia, see ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da venezia, unbound testament, 18 Oct. 1377. For Maria, Felice, docs. 168, 169. The widow and daughter of Tiziano married into the same family. Donata, widow of Tiziano, married a certain Marco Repotello. Catarucia, Tiziano's daughter, married Matteo, son of Marco Repotello. It is unclear whether the mother or the daughter married into the Repotello family first. The Repotellos' occupations, likewise, are unknown. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 17 April 1376; ASV, NT 921, notary Saiabianca, testament 320, 9 July 1378. 56The greater number of endogamous marriages cannot be attributed to class differences, for only five of the 210 dowries involved nobles. 57ASV, CI 219, notary vettore, protocol, 29 Dec. 1329. 581n some guilds, rules were made that made it easier for the sons and other relatives of members to become apprentices than for outsiders to join. For instance, the guild of the goldsmiths prohibited the acceptance of ap- prentices under age five, except when the apprentice was a "germanus consanguineus." See Monticolo, vol. 1, pp. 124- 125, clause XXVII. Giorgio Cracco has suggested that the state wanted sons to ollow their fathers in the trade as a "specie di schiavit dell'arte." See Giorgio Cracco, Societa e stato nel medioevo veneziano (Florence, 1967), p. 330. I do not believe that this was the case. 59Felice, doc. 159; ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 16, f. 81v. 60Felice, doc. 327. It was not uncommon for a man to practice more than one trade. For example, a certain Maffea described herself as the daughter of Andrea, a butcher and silkworker. See ASV, CI 130, notary Nicolo Nadal, protocol, 7 April 1414. 240 61Testimony to the desire for mobility among the popolani of trecento Italy can be found in a poem by the Sienese burgher Bindo Bonichi, who wrote, El calzolai' fa '1 suo figliuol barbiere, cosi '1 barbier fa 'l figliuol calzolaio; il mercatante fa '1 figliuol notaio, cosi 'l notaio fa 'l figliuol drappiere. Mal contento e ciascun de suo mestiere . . . This poem can be found in Natalino Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori del trecento (Milan, 1952), p. 291. 62There are eight furriers' wills and sixteen wives' wills. For the figures I have counted the number of chil- dren mentioned in the wills. In a few instances, where I knew from other sources that the individual had other chil- dren, I included them in the calculation. In order to test these figures further, I increased the sample by in- cluding furriers from other parishes. When that was done, the figures changed little. Thirteen male furriers had an average of 1.85 children; twenty-two wives had an average of .45 children. 63For example, Franceschino Vendelino did not mention a daughter, Chiara, who had already married. It is general- ly recognized that men drew up their wills much later in life than women. The risk of death during childbirth prompted many women to make testaments. See Stanley Chojnacki, "Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice," Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974), pp. 183-184. 64These examples of immigrants can be found in Felice, docs. 141, 168, 311, 465; see also ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 16, f. 21v. 651n an act dated 1385, Brocha is listed as a resident of S. Simeon Grande. See ASV, CI 36, notary Iohannes Campion, protocol, 7 Aug. 1385. 66See Tiziano's will cited above (note 48), and ASV, CI 130, notary Nicold'Nadal, protocol, 19 Aug. 1403. 67 See Franceschino's will already cited in note 49. 68For Chiara's will, see ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 30 Jan. l378mv. 69For example, the oft-mentioned Tiziano left ten ducats to another of his godfathers, Giacomello Malfato. Maddalena, wife of the furrier Bertuccio, left a tunic to her godmother. See ASV, NT 335, notary Simeon, unbound testament 147, 27 Aug. 1366. 241 70ASV, NT 645, notary Bertoldi di Conte, unbound testament 184, 26 March 1373; ASV, NT 571, notary Gibellino, unbound testament, 12 June 1389. 71ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, testament 58, 17 Jan. 1421mv; ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, 29 Dec. 1364. 72ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, unbound testament, 7 Aug. 1385. Fantina Brocha, wife of Bartolomeo, had her will witnessed by two furriers and a subdeacon. One of the furriers was from S. Giacomo. See ASV, CI 16-I, notary Suriano Belli, protocol, 29 May 1355. 73For Datale as prior, see ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 14 April 1374; for Merlo, see ASV, Scuole Grande di S. Giovanni Evangelista, Mariegole, Vol. 5; for Trevisan, see ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 5 May 1388. 74ASV, NT 566, notary Gerardo, protocol, testament 56, 7 April 1348. 75The two were Giacomo de Cristoforo and Franceschino Vendelino. For Giacomo's will, see ASV, NT 925, notary Lotus, 7 Aug. 1311. 76There are other indices as well. In economic ventures (loans and local colleganze) furriers often looked to the parochial clergy, to nuns, and to nobles for money. For instance, Bertuccio Merlo got a loan of 500 ducats from noblewoman Filippa Polo, a nun at Mazzorbo. See Felice, doc. 1056. The arrangement between Pelegrino Varal, a furrier from S. Giacomo, and noblewoman Beriolla Trevisan from S. Giustina must have been mutually beneficial, for they renewed the agreement (a local colleganza) three times and raised the amount of capital lent. See ASV, CI 14, notary Nicolo Betino, protocol, acts dated 17 March 1334, 13 Feb. 1334mv, 14 June 1336, and 8 July 1337. In the securing of loans, furriers definitely went beyond their parish and their fellow tradesmen for contacts. I found no instances in which furriers were the lenders. In granting proctorships, most of the furriers stuck to family members, especially wives, fathers, brothers, and brothers-in-law. See, for example, ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 29 Jan. 1380mv; ASV, CI 162, notary Francisco de Recovratis, protocol, 13 July 1358; ASV, CI 130, notary Nicolo Nadal, protocol, 6 Nov. 1408; Felice, docs. 1249,1265. Bartolomeo Trevisan gave general power of attorney to his godfather Natale, who was himself a furrier. See ASV, CI 130, notary Nicolo Nadal, protocol, 19 Aug. 1403. The evidence of business contracts 242 and proctorships shows that shared profession was not very important in determining the choice of associates. 77Monticolo was able to identify the location of many of the guilds' scuole. See Monticolo, vol. 2, note 1, pp. lxxvii—civ. 78Diane Hughes has found that the same was true in Genoa. In Genoa artisan districts were "usually no more than a few houses on a short street, and even these often contained people pursuing other trades." She suggests that their "lack of geographic base" helps to explain the political impotence of the Genoese guilds. See Diane Owen Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors in Medieval Genoa," in The Medieval City, eds. Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and A.L. Udovitch (New Haven, 1977), p. 105. 79 . . . . For example, we exam1ned earl1er the 1nstance 1n which those who did not have a shop on the ruga were able to put enough pressure on the giustizieri vecchi to secure for themselves two of the five posts as iudices. See note 42 above. Another example of discontent, which even spread to some masters, was the case of Bertuccio Stevano who, in 1337, was dismissed from the office of iudex for recommending to the gastaldus that they "throw out the capitulary of the old justices" (proicite capitulare iusticiariis veteribus). According to the witnesses against him, he said it, "cum maxima superbia et arogantia." See Monticolo, vol. 3, pp. 399-400, clause LXXXVI. 80Lacking guild records, it is impossible to show that these men held guild office. However, we do know that Brocha had a workshop at Rialto and that Vendelino had a stazon. These men could not have been mere laborers. In 1364, Brocha even rented storerooms on the "ruga pilipariorum" to a ducal gastaldus. See ASV, CI l6-I, Suriano Belli, protocol, 1 April 1364. 811t is at this point, when trying to establish con- nections between various furriers, that the failure of the notaries to record individuals' statuses within the guild becomes most vexing. Maria's husband was certainly one of the more prosperous guildsmen for Maria herself disposed of more than 115 ducats in her will. That probably represented her dowry. See ASV, NT 571, notary Ghibellino, 12 June 1389. It is even ossible that this Nicold’de Francesco was the same Nicolo de Francesco who was assessed 1000 lire in the estimo. However in the estimo, he is listed as a pelizer (not varoter) and as being from S. Pantalon. 82For Tiziano's will, see note 48. 243 83The case is in ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 10, f. 95r-96r. 84For remarks on the structure of Venetian guilds, see Lane, chapter 12. See also, N. Fano, "Ricerche sull' arte della lana a Venezia nell xiii e xiv secolo," Archivio veneto 14 (1936), pp. 73-213, especially pp. 96- 97 for the organization of the guild. The drapers owned the raw materials and farmed them out to others for process- ing. A number of guilds were not organized along those lines, but were more\traditional. See, for example, Andr Wirobisz, "L'attivita edilizia a Venezia nel xiv e xv secolo," Studi veneziani 7 (1965), pp. 307-343. 85Gino Luzzatto notes, for example, that rich patricians funded the goldsmiths. A simple goldsmith, even a master, would not have had enough capital to procure the materials needed for his trade. See Luzzatto, Storia economica di Venezia, p. 68. Speaking more generally of the ties between patricians and guildsmen, Luzzatto notes, "gli stessi elementi del patriziato o -- in minor numero -- della borghesia ricca, che esercitano il grande commercia . . . si incontrano spesso come finanziatori di piccole e medie imprese industriali." Ibid., p. 72. 86See, for example, the capitulary of the fustagnai or fustian makers. In the guild only the masters who had a workshop were allowed to participate in the electoral process. See, Monticolo, vol. 2, p. 571, clause LXXXV. For electoral procedures in the wool guilds, see Fano, pp. 164-165. My interpretation of the significance of guild electoral procedures flies in the face of the prevailing Opinion that does not view electoral procedures as manipulative. See Monticolo, vol. 2, pp. cxxxvi- cxxxviii. See also the remarks by Giorgio Cracco who, following Monticolo, argues that the government actually tried to prevent the manipulation of guild elections. See Cracco, pp. 327-329. However, it is essential to consider who was allowed to participate in the electoral process. 87Monticolo reached a very different conclusion. He said, "nella corporazione artigiana di Venezia mancava un vero contrasto di classe tra maestri e salariati per quanti gli interessi degli uni e degli altri fossero opposti; gli intenti egoistici dei capi di bottega e dei lavoranti non impedirono che lo stato normale dell'associazione fosse 1a concordia tra i suoi elementi costitutivi rafforzata della beneficenza sociale, dalle pratiche devote e dall' azione stessa dello Stato." Monticolo, vol. 2, p. cxxviii. as, to t1 adva: See : Vene‘ in Re In h. mortc says at b and 109. was LIES: Con: k 244 88Alberto Tenenti has referred to the Venetian popolo as, "hardly more than a spineless multitude who felt bound to the fortunes of its rulers chiefly by the immediate advantages and disadvantages to be derived from them." See Alberto Tenenti, "The Sense of Space and Time in the Venetian World of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries," in Renaissance Venice, ed. J. R. Hale (London, 1973), p 19. In his work Giorgio Cracco refers to the pogolo as a corpo morto and says, "i piu colpiti furono i maestri, il vero nerbo della classe artigiana." See Cracco, p. 454,293. 89This view is best exemplified by Frederic Lane who says, "the 'little peOple' of Venice showed no discontent at being excluded from political power." For this phrase and the reasons for their complacency, see Lane, pp. 108- 109. 90I do not wish to imply that such an arrangement was consciously worked out. Rather it was an informal, unspoken agreement that developed over time. 91The two grazie for Bartolomeo are in ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 13, f. lSr and f. 22v. 92 f. 61r. 93This grazia is very interesting. In July 1381 Bartolomeo's son, Bernardo, and nine other men entered the house of Giacomina, wife of Antonio Lion, and three of the men (Bernardo and two others) raped her. Antonio was away with the galleys. For this crime Bernardo was sentenced to six months in jail and a fine of twenty- -five lire. See ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, Register 3644/4, f. 30r-31v. In the records of the grazie, we learn that Bernardo was delinquent in paying his fine (he was sup- posed to pay the fine before entering jail), because he claimed great poverty ("propter suam magmam paupertatem"). Finally, he did pay his fine, and deciding that he would set a bad example to others who might decide to pay their fines when they pleased ("mali exempli aliis condemnatis quia solvent suis condemnatis quando eis placet" ), the nobles decided that he would have to spend one month in jail. He was absolved from the rest of the jail term. See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 17, f. 123r. There are a couple of points to note here. First, unless great misfortune struck Bartolomeo between 1379 and 1381, his son could not have been a pauper. Indeed, the son was not emancipated from his father until 1385. See ASV, CI 36, notary Iohannes Campion, protocol, 7 Aug. 1385. The nobles ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 8, seem stand to Be that be we to th accom anot. 245 seem to have allowed this feeble excuse of poverty to stand. Second, it is interesting to note that the favor to Bernardo had to be weighed against the possiblity that he would be a bad example to others. Accordingly, he was given a token jail term of one month. According to the register of the avoqadori, two of Bernardo's accomplices (one a varotarius) also got reduced sentences. 94ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 16, f. 122v; another furrier got a similar grazia the same day. CHAPTER SEVEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL MOBILITY: SOME EXAMPLES FROM 8. GIACOMO The year 1297 has long been recognized as one of the critical dates in the history of Venice for in that year amajor change was made in the eligibility requirements governing membership in the Maggior Consiglio, Venice's main deliberative body. Until 1297, membership in the Great Council was, theoretically at least, open to all male members of Venetian society. Men sat on the council by virtue of their past service to the government or be- cause they were nominated to do so by a special nominat- ing committee. In practice, the core of the council was made up of men who belonged to distinguished families of ancient Venetian ancestry. During the late thirteenth century pressure mounted foraichange in the eligibility requirements. This pressure came, for the most part, from those families which traditionally sat on the council. They feared that a rising tide of new men would swamp the council, depriving themselves of a place in it. The result was the law of 1297 which guaranteed a permanent seat in the 246 canc memb Was and the nObl 247 council to all those who had served on it during the past four years and which made special provisions for the accep- tance of a few men not covered by the four-year rule, but which excluded all others. For this reason, the action taken in 1297 became known as the "locking" or Serrata of the Maggior Consiglio.l The closing of the Great Council in 1297 had signifi- cance far beyond the mere definition of eligibility for membership. In time, it took on social significance as well. Membership in the Great Council became synonymous with noble status, and since membership in the council was restricted to those included in 1297, ascent to noble status was closed as well. The equation of council membership and noble status eventually found concrete expression in the Libro d'Oro or Golden Book -- the official register of noble offspring. As a consequence of the Serrata, Venice came to be ruled by a closed, hereditary aristocracy.2 For centuries, the closing of the Great Council was seen by political thinkers and by historians as an essen- tially exclusive act. According to this View, Doge Pietro Gradenigo and the group of prominent men around him who supported the law wanted to exclude others from political power. To these writers, the event was aptly named the Serrata (from the Venetian verb serrar -- to lock), for all newcomers were locked out of the council.3 248 Recently, Frederic C. Lane and Stanley Chojnacki have challenged this view of the Serrata.4 Placing the event in the broader context of Italian politics of the period, they view the law of 1297 as inclusive rather than exclusive. The central problem facing the communal governments of the north Italian city-states was factionalism, and the history of many communes is the story of one oligarchic faction wresting political power from a rival faction. Lane and Chojnacki believe that Venice solved this problem in 1297 by including all major groups, all factions, in the council and by guaranteeing them a permanent place there. In Lane's works, "at a time when other Italian communes were being torn by factions, Venice acquired a structure of government relatively able to resist that evil."5 In addition, the authors demonstrate that the Serrata was not achieved quickly. Instead, the process of defin- ing eligibility continued throughout the fourteenth centu- rY- Fearing that some who ought rightfully to belong might be excluded, the government made provision that those not included in 1297 could petition the government and through a grazia be granted membership. During the trecento the procedures for gaining a grazia became more and more restrictive. One major exception occurred in 1381, at the end of the War of Chioggia, when 30 families (some cadet lines of already-included families) were accepted into the council. For the authors, the final step in the process 249 of inclusion came in 1403 when the ducal council rejected a prOposal to allow one non-noble family to enter the Council whenever a noble family died out. In Chojnacki's words, "the Serrata can be viewed as a long process, last- ing nearly till the end of the trecento, of forming the patriciate."6 Lane and Chojnacki have performed a valuable service by forcing historians to rethink the significance of the Serrata of 1297. They have shown that the process of legally defining eligibility in the Great Council took more than one hundred years to complete. They spend much less time, however, treating a corollary development -- namely that the process of defining the social distinctions be- tween nobles and commoners also took a long time to complete. To some extent the authors disagree on this point. Lane argues that the full equation of Great Council membership and nobility occurred in 1323 when new restrictions were placed on eligibility to Great Council membership. He states that nobility came to be viewed, "not as a matter "7 For Lane, of personal life style, but as hereditary. the nobility rather quickly became a self-conscious group solicitous of its position.8 Chojnacki, on the other hand, believes that it took much longer for members of the Great Council to become a self-conscious social elite. Citing as evidence legislation of the quattrocento which placed restrictions on council membership according to the 250 status of the candidates' parents, Chojnacki argues that "the conception of nobility in Venice, like the composition of the nobility, far from attaining definitude at the end of the thirteenth century, continued to develop throughout the trecento."9 To date, the research conducted on the Serrata of the Maggior Consiglio has examined it largely as a juridical action that defined the city's governing elite. Historians have just begun to explore the impact of the Serrata beyond the council hall and on the private lives of trecento Venetians. In order to explore the influence of the Serrata on the microcosmic level, we will examine in the discussion that follows the social structure of a Venetian parish as it was understood by Venetians of the trecento. I hope to demonstrate that for the residents of trecento S. Giacomo dall'Orio, the characteristic that distinguished some parishioners from others was not legally defined status but rather the ownership of property and a certain style of life. Indeed, there was a group of wealthy non- noble parishioners who, in terms of family structures and ideals and in social behaviors and mores, were largely in- distinguishable from their aristocratic neighbors. An examination of social structure on the parochial level sup- ports the suggestion that the process of distinguishing both legally and socially the city's nobles from non-nobles continued throughout the trecento. 251 In order to illustrate these aspects of trecento social structure, the discussion which follows will concen- trate on two prominent and prosperous parochial families: the Bedolotos and the Reglas. I have selected these families because their residence in the parish spans most of the period from 1297 to 1423. These families were not, however, exceptional. As we shall see later, several other parochial families showed the same characteristics and be- haviors and seem to have occupied the same position in the parish and the city as they did. The first reference to a Bedoloto in the parish is contained in the estate records of nobleman Pietro Navagero, dated 1293. (See Figure 10.) In that year the procurators of S. Marco, Pietro's fiduciaries, made an entry into the account books noting that they had paid to Marco Bedoloto "procurator ecclesiae Sancti Iacobi de Luprio" three lire and seventeen soldi as part of Navagero's tithe or decima.10 Thus four years before the Serrata a member of the Bedoloto family was acting as caretaker of the parish church's patrimony. The next reference to Marco occurs in 1304 when he received permission from the Maggior Consiglio to make improvements (the installation of drains) on his prOperty in S. Giacomo.11 The final reference to Marco is found in the records of the avogadori di comun. In 1326 he was sentenced, along with a companion, to a jail sentence for fornicating with another man's wife. He was mgrvqoemm a :5 .mOanOpom on» mo wqoamocoo OH Guzman myfiummumz mmcmofl> mo Camonoumz .E OEHoHHSU OHGOUcd Gama Aoaoaomv .E .E Iouflw meosumumu cmnad oHHwEOOMMo mumbmmH mflusuofim muoHOOMZ mcwmmcm< mmoflumuo . _ L _ _ g _ _ L 2 m>dm mp amazofiz % mmfiHOQHme .E ocumcuom mocmfim .E mmH>H¢ _ - _ A332,: msfiumumo .E OHHmEoome MCOHMUQMZ .E acauaso ovum: mOEOAODmm mzfi 253 described as a "custos dominorum de nocte" -- that is he held the post of patrolman in Venice's police force, the 12 These references to Marco show that signori di notte. as early as the late thirteenth century the Bedoloto family was resident in the parish, that they were property holders, and that they were occupying minor posts in the city's bureaucracy. The next reference to a Bedoloto family member occurs in the year 1322 when a certain Giacomello Bedoloto, nick- named Melelo, witnessed a local colleganza contract between 13 the furrier Baldo and the nun Cecilia Lando. Unfortunate- ly, it is unclear what the relationship was between Marco and Melelo, though it is possible that Melelo was Marco's son. During his lifetime, Melelo bought land in the parish bordering the prOperty of the Pesaro family; and he 14 He married a certain Caterina and 15 built on that land. together they had two sons, Bernardo and Alvise. It is Melelo's two sons and his grandchildren who will most con- cern us. The fortunes of the family certainly prospered during the fourteenth century for in 1379 Melelo's son Bernardo was assessed 1500 lire on his prOperty in S. Giacomo, making him (according to immovable wealth) one of the six- teen richest men in the parish. Bernardo's brother Alvise was also wealthy for he dispensed thousands of ducats in 16 his will. How the Bedolotos made their money is unclear, 254 but is seems likely that they engaged in overseas trade. Both Bernardo and Alvise owned properties in Tana on the river Don.17 Similarly, it is not clear what the legal status of the Bedoloto family was; it is likely but un- provable that they were cittadini -- members of Venice's legally defined citizen class. The Regla family first appears in the parish at a later date than the Bedolotos. (See Figure 11.) In 1326 a certain Giovanni Regla from the parish of S. Simeon Grande settled a dispute with the heirs of a certain Nicoleto Trevisan over a property in S. Giacomo.18 Giovanni reappears six years later as a testator and as a resident of S. Giacomo. By that time, he had accumulated enough wealth to leave about 60 ducats in pious bequests, to leave 30 ducats and "a workshop in one of my houses" (stacium in una domibus meis) to his daughter Maddalena, dowries of about 250 ducats each to his two granddaughters, and the rest of his wealth to his sons Francesco and Marco.19 The family remained in the parish and continued to prosper so that by 1379 Giovanni's grandson Pietro was the second wealthiest man in the parish, placing second 20 only behind the Pesaros. In 1379, Pietro was one of the 26 richest pogolani in the city (again in immovable wealth) and one of the 117 richest Venetians of all categories.21 Unlike the Bedolotos, we have some sure indications of the sources of the Regla family's wealth. For instance, mmcww Cm. m! m c E. 255 .mmHmmm ecu mo >mo~wmcww I Ha musmwb manomsm mp Oumnumm omEOHOuumm meuofio .E .E ou0aum> ou0moumwuo oHHmEoomflo ooumz 0w20uc< magnomwocmum msflummaamm .l _ c L t i. -... i-.- -..... g .-E t ouwmm>mz umflcm> camcoaz ovum: .E .E meum: ocfl> ommeoe mHOuum> mmubs< wwosq mcflumz _ _ _ r _ L c oummmm mp oommocmum .E Macon m flcflmouoz oNNmz mp r wwosq mumm ovum: acmam .E .E .E .E ocflcma oHHwEoomflu muOuum> oouwz ouumwm monocomq mcwumumu Oumaooflz p _ _ _ ._ _ r _ . II omcmumz oc~mc>wm mo m scans: ocwumz .E .E .E ovum: commocmuh unmatcwmz .1: fl _ flccm>0wo mfiAOm—m m2? 256 we know that Pietro Regla was involved in overseas trade, particularly in the grain trade.22 Indeed, only overseas trade could have provided the kind of profits needed to build a fortune the size of Pietro's. Also unlike the Bedolotos, there is evidence, though no absolute proof, that the Reglas were cittadini. In one document the Reglas were 23 referred to as "circumspecti et providi viri." These were 24 adjectives commonly used to describe cittadini. Also in 1379 a certain Vettore Regla, son of Francesco, was witness in Milan to a contract between Pietro Corner and the 25 Visconti for soldiers. Cittadini had a monopoly on certain chancery posts and often served in ambassadorial entourages. It is likely that such a mission took Vettore to Milan. Finally, evidence from the Libri Commemoriali shows that in 1500 the Reglas were cittadini.26 They probably enjoyed that status long before. These thumbnail sketches of the two families are in- tended to serve only as the briefest of introductions to the families. As is apparent, the difference in wealth be- tween the two families was great. Pietro Regla was one of the 117 richest men in the city in 1379 whereas Bernardo Bedoloto only placed in the t0p 1000. Yet as we shall see, common attitudes and behaviors far outweighed the differ- ences that separated them and made the Bedolotos and the Reglas more similar to the city's nobles than to the mass of Venice's residents. 257 As I tried to demonstrate in an earlier chapter, the family was the critical social unit for Venetians from all segments of society. Yet, as we also saw, family structure and domestic ideals varied greatly among Venetians from different social backgrounds. For prosperous non-noble Venetians such as the Bedolotos and the Reglas, family structures and ideals more nearly resembled those of the patricians than those of the city's artisans and workers. One area in which this found concrete expression was in the emphasis on the fraterna -- the bond between brothers. Throughout the fourteenth century the Regla family especially showed a strong allegiance to the concept of sibling solidarity. The actions of Giovanni Regla's three children, Francesco, Marco, and Maddalena, are illustrative. Giovanni drew up his will in 1326 and probably died shortly thereafter. The next reference to the family occurs in 1333 when Giovanni's daughter Maddalena legally separated herself from her brothers in order to marry Marco de Raynaldo from the neighboring parish of S. Agostin.27 It is clear that Maddalena and her brothers did not feel the need to divide their inheritance until it was time for her to leave the household. Failure to separate at that point would have placed her brothers in a position of potential liability that was unacceptable to them -- hence the separa- tion. In all likelihood, the brothers Marco and Francesco remained united in the fraterna, for in 1335 and 1341 when 258 Francesco's daughters Caterina and Leonarda were themselves about to marry, they had charters drafted separating them- selves not only from their father but also from their uncle Marco.28 It was common for Venetian women to separate from their fathers at marriage but much more unusual for them to have to include their uncles in these separations. This seems to indicate that Marco and Francesco still main- tained a joint patrimony and that both men were potentially liable to claims made by the girls. Despite the fact that the brothers were still legally attached, they were not living together. Francesco lived in S. Giacomo, but Marco lived in S. Agostin in 1335 and in S. Stae in 1341. For these brothers fraternal allegiance continued until death. When Marco drafted his will in 1348, he named as his execu- tors his brother Francesco and Francesco's son Giacomello. Marco, who died a widower and without heirs, made a number of bequests to his nieces and nephews (the children of both Francesco and Maddalena) and to at least one grand- niece.29 Close association between siblings continued to be a trait of the Regla family in the next generation. Francesco's sons Pietro, Nicoleto, and Zanino maintained many ties. This is clear from Pietro's will. As the reader will recall, Pietro was the second richest man in the parish in 1379, so when he drew up his will in 1403, he had a lot of goods to distribute. First, he noted that he had a compagnia with his brother Nicoleto; and he left 259 to him more than 5000 ducats, 4000 of which were his (Pietro's) share of the capital in the compagnia. His second bequest was a grant of 10,000 ducats to the seven children of his brother Zanino. The money was to be in- vested in imprestiti or government bonds and used to main- tain the children. The only provision was that the chil— dren had to live either with Pietro's wife Beta or with their grandmother Orsa Morosini. In another bequest, Pietro stated that his wife could live in his house for six years after his death, at which time it would pass to his brother Nicoleto for six years and then to his brother Zanino for six years. It was to continue to pass between the brothers at six year intervals until their deaths, at which point it would go to his nephews who were advised never to sell it. In addition, Pietro left rents on busi- nesses at Rialto and on houses at S. Giacomo to his brothers and their children.30 The records of Pietro's estate maintained by the procurators of S. Marco after his death show that the family did not remain together in S. Giacomo. His wife Beta lived for a time in the parishes of S. Tomé and S. Pantalon. However, she did keep one of her nieces with her. Zanino, Pietro's brother, who was described in 1417 as paterfamilias, was a resident of S. Salvador, across the Grand Canal.31 At the time he drew up his will in 1409, Pietro's other brother, Nicoleto, was living in Pietro's domus magna in S. Giacomo.32 260 The example of the Regla family calls for several observations. First, it clearly shows that male members of the family did feel a special allegiance to their brothers. However, it should also be noted that the two men who made numerous bequests to their brothers' children (Marco and Pietro) both died without sons. In the absence of male heirs, they directed much of their estates to their nearest male kin. Even with that caveat, it is clear that 33 Second, the evidence from the fraternal bond was strong. Pietro's will indicates that wealthy non-noble families, like their noble counterparts, were conscious of and solici- tous of their families' fortunes, and that those fortunes were symbolized by the dgmgg or palazzo. Third, among the Reglas at least, fraternal solidarity did not include maintenance of a joint household. Marco and Francesco Regla lived in different parishes, and Pietro seems to have had no intention of his brothers sharing his house. They were to occupy it at six year intervals. Family solidarity did not require physical proximity. In these ways, the Regla family resembled many of their patrician counterparts. The fraterna represented an economically useful form of family organization. It provided for the pooling of re- sources, and it inhibited too great a dispersal of the family patrimony. In addition, it probably provided some psychological comfort by reinforcing the notion that the fortunes of the family could survive and supersede the individual. 261 While the evidence about the Regla family shows that they resembled the city's patricians in emphasizing the importance of the fraterna, the Bedoloto family resembled the city's patricians in another important respect. The Bedolotos, like many of the city's noble families, limited the number of daughters who were married in order to prevent the dispersal of the family patrimony.34 This is evident from the example of Bernardo Bedoloto's children. As we have already noted, Bernardo Bedoloto was a prosperous but not extraordinarily wealthy man. It is possible that Bernardo's father Melelo was himself quite well-to-do for he arranged very good marriages for his sons. Bernardo married a noblewoman from the da Riva family; his brother Alvise married a member of the noble Michiel family. Bernardo and his wife Fiordelise had at least nine children, including six girls, all or most of whom survived to adulthood. Finding good marriages for six daughters would have placed an unbearable strain on Bernardo's resources and would have left his sons with a considerably reduced patrimony. Therefore, Bernardo limited the number of marriages among his daughters. At the time he drew up his will in 1395, Bernardo had already married his daughters Agnesina and Nicoleta and had placed his daughter Catarucia in the convent of S. Caterina dei Sacchi.35 According to the daughter Agnesina's will, her dowry was 250 ducats.36 In the late fourteenth century when noblewomen's dowries were averaging about 1000 262 ducats, this was a very small sum for the daughter of a noblewoman; and the marriage itself was fairly undistin- guished.37 Agnesina married a certain Antonio Marchoffo. Her sister Nicoleta, who probably got a dowry of equal size, married a certain Gulielmo da Vicenza.38 Neither was a nobleman. Even so, Bernardo had probably used well over 500 ducats to marry the girls and to put Catarucia in the convent. This represented a considerable drain on his resources since his immovable wealth was estimated in 1379 as being worth 1500 lire a grossi or about 600 ducats. In 1395 Bernardo still had to decide the fate of his other three daughters. He decided that one of them, Gratiosa, would be placed in the same convent as her sister Catarucia. That solved one problem. Another daughter, Fiorucia, Bernardo decided to have married. That solved another problem. However the last (but not youngest) daughter, Isabeta, presented special problems. Bernardo stated in his will that Isabeta had told him that she did not want to marry but rather wished to serve God. But for some reason, perhaps because he doubted her vocation, Bernardo did not make provisions to place her in a convent. He decided instead that she could live with her brothers, or, if they were incompatible, in one of the five houses in the courtyard on his prOperty. But even before he completed his will, Bernardo had further doubts not only about Isabeta's sincerity, but also about the wisdom of allowing her to live by herself. He noted that on the day 263 he had talked with her she was in a bad mood ("la fose . . . mal desposta"), and this led him to question her sincerity ("ela non me par desposta chomo la me aveva detto"). None- theless, Bernardo was convinced that Isabeta did not want to marry and that it would be a "great sin" (gran pechado) to make her do so. Finally, he decided that she could live as a spinster but that she had to live with her mother 39 or brothers. From her testament of 1416, it is clear that she did just that.40 Thus, although it was not totally conscious or planned, Bernardo was able to prevent too great a dispersal of his patrimony by marrying only three of his daughters, by placing two in convents, and by allowingcnmato remain a spinster. The savings from the arrangements for the latter three were probably considerable. Although he had to provide money to his daughters who became nuns, their entrance fees were certainly less than a good marriage would have cost. In addition, their maintenance fees were negligible. In his will Bernardo stated that if his wife found all of the possible living arrangements presented to her unacceptable, that she could have forty ducats a year for maintenance; by contrast, he left bequests of three ducats a year to each of his daughters who were nuns.41 This alone represented a considerable savings. Second, the provisions that he made concerning his wife Fiordelise and unmarried daughter Isabeta were designed to protect the patrimony for his sons. He hoped that the women would 264 live with his sons who wouldlxaresponsible for their maintenance. If that did not work, then he wanted the women to live in one of the five houses in the courtyard. According to this arrangement, the sons would lose the rent on that house, but at least they would not have to pay rent for other accommodations for the women; and, more importantly, the properties would eventually revert to the sons. In any event, it seems clear that these arrangements were better than having to provide dowries for six daughters. Among noble families, marriages were not only restricted for female children but also for male children. While some daughters were sent to the monastery and others remained spinsters, some sons entered the clergy and others remained bachelors. There is little information on the sons of Nicoleto and Zanino Regla and on the sons of Bernardo Bedoloto, but it does not appear likely that marriages were restricted for them. Perhaps in an age of high mortality, the desire to ensure the perpetuation of the family out- weighed the advantages which the restriction of male mar- riages could bring. One surprising decision was that of Belelo Bedoloto to go on a pilgrimage to Saint James of Compostella in Spain in 1396. Belelo undertook this long and dangerous pilgrimage within a year of his father's death. Evidently the urge to go on pilgrimage (perhaps as eXpi- ation for his father's sins) outweighed his newly acquired 42 responsibilities as paterfamilias. Ultimately, Belelo 265 returned to Venice and married. The scant evidence seems to indicate that in the trecento, wealthy non-nobles had not yet adopted the noble practice of limiting marriages for both male and female offspring. The evidence of the family history of the Bedoloto and Regla families demonstrates that in two very important respects prominent non-noble families practiced some of the same family strategies as the city's patricians. Like the nobles, these families promoted family solidarity by emphasizing the fraternal bond; and they protected the family's wealth, when necessary, by limiting its dispersal through female marriage. In these areas, the family or- ganization and domestic ideals of the Bedolotos and Reglas resembled those of their aristocratic counterparts. How- ever, there was one important difference between these families and the nobles. Unlike the nobles, they were not part of a larger kin group -- the clan. Their inability to trace kinship to an extended kin group may explain why they did not restrict marriage among males. Unlike the nobles, they could not rely on the clan to assure preserva- tion of the family.43 The discussion of the family organization of the two families leads us to a consideration of the second point of contact between them and the city's patricians, namely that there was intermarriage between the two groups. It has long been recognized that Venice's nobles often married 266 non-noble, usually cittadinoywomen with large dowries. In these instances, Venetian practice accorded with the maxim of social mobility which states that women tend to marry up, while men marry down.44 According to this view, the male patrician was willing to accept marriage with a woman of lower status because her dowry would restore financial solvency to his estate. On the other hand, the bride's father was willing to grant his daughter a large dowry in return for the prestige of a noble alliance and for the promise that his grandchildren would, as the children of a noble father, be accepted into the ranks of the nobility. Yet as the examples of the Bedolotos and Reglas demonstrate, in trecento Venice, the direct opposite of the maxim also occurred. In many instances, Bedoloto and Regla males mar- ried noblewomen. In these instances, the men married up and the women married down. In order to understand this phenomenon, we need to look in some detail at the marital histories of the two families which despite some similar- ities, also differed in some important ways. The first marriage in the Bedoloto family about which we know anything at all, was the marriage between Giacomello Bedoloto, nicknamed Melelo, and Caterina. It is unclear what family Caterina came from, but her sister married into the noble Duodo family of the parish of S. Maria Zobenigo, and Caterina named as one of her executors the noblewoman Anna Falier.45 Thus it is clear that, even if 267 Caterina was not herself a noblewoman, she moved in a circle of noblewomen. Caterina probably represented a good marriage for Melelo. Melelo and Caterina had two sons, Alvise and Bernardo, who married well. Alvise, who was eventually exiled from the city for certain crimes, married noblewoman Chiara Michiel, but they seem to have had no children. Rather, Alvise had an illegitimate daughter by his slave Zerchasa 46 to whom he left a dowry of 3000 ducats. Bernardo married noblewoman Fiordelise da Riva from the parish of S. Canciano.47 The da Rivas were a prosperous though not out- 48 standing noble family. Having originated from stock that included a man who was procurator of the parish church and a patrolman for the signori di notte, the Bedoloto family within two generations had married into very respectable noble families. Why did the Michiel and da Riva families choose to marry below their status? The answer no doubt lies in the fact that the Bedolotos were themselves a wealthy family who might provide valuable economic contacts. In his will Alvise dispensed thousands of ducats, and both he and Bernardo owned prOperty in Tana. Perhaps the Michiels and da Rivas saw potential trading partners in their non-noble sons-in-law. As we have already seen, Bernardo Bedoloto was visited by one of the misfortunes most feared by fathers in Renais- sance Italy -- he had a lot of daughters. The need to provide dowries for several (plus the possibility that he 268 suffered economic reversals) forced Bernardo to contract much less distinguished marriages for his children than he or his brother contracted. Bernardo's daughters, who were provided with small dowries, married into non-noble families. The history of the Bedoloto family in the trecento provides an almost classic example of the rise and decline in the fortunes of a Venetian family. Good marriages helped ad- vance the fortunes of the family; too many daughters caused those fortunes to decline. In contrast to the Bedolotos, the fortunes of the Regla family continued to rise throughout the period under con- sideration. Giovanni Regla, the first representative of the family, had three children. We know how he married two of them. Giovanni married his daughter Maddalena to a certain Marino de Raynaldo from the parish of S. Agostin. Marino came from a family that was originally from Trieste and that continued to live there some of the time. Maddalena brought with her a dowry of 1000 lire a grossi (about 385 ducats) -- a good dowry in 1333.49 Her marriage was a union between two substantial non-noble families both of which probably engaged in trade. Giovanni married his son Francesco to Marina Marango from a very minor noble family which became extinct during the fourteenth century. Nonetheless, it was a marriage into the nobility, and Marina's brother was engaged in international trade.50 The alliance gave some prestige and presented some potential 269 contacts for the Reglas. Giovanni's other son Marco married, but died without heirs. Together Francesco and Marina Regla had eight chil- dren, but we have complete information on only one of their marriages. Francesco's daughter Leonarda married nobleman Marco da Mezzo from the neighboring parish of S. Stae.51 This seems to have been a good marriage for the Reglas. In the estimo of 1379, Leonarda, by then a widow, was 52 assessed at 1000 lire a grossi. Nothing certain can be said about the marriages of the other children, but it is probable that the son Zanino married into the large Morosini clan, and Pietro's wife Beta, in all likelihood, 53 In the third generation, the came from a noble family. Regla family no doubt contracted good, if not outstanding marriages. In the fourth generation, the evidence suggests that the Regla family made a series of outstanding marriages. Nicoleto and Elena Regla had six children, three sons and three daughters. They married their daughters Marina and Lucia into the noble Venier and Navagero families respec- 54 tively. The youngest daughter Maria, who was unmarried at the time her mother made her will in 1421, was to be provided with a dowry of at least 900 ducats -- a competi- 55 tive sum. Nicoleto's brother Pietro, the wealthiest of the brothers, had only one child, a daughter Lucia, whom he married to nobleman Francesco da Pesaro from S. Fosca.56 270 Finally, the brother Zanino had seven children, including two daughters. Using their share of the 10,000 ducats left to them by their uncle Pietro, the girls were married. Franceschina made what was perhaps an undistinguished marriage to a certain Bartolomeo de Foschis of the Giudecca, but her sister Pelegrina married nobleman Giorgio Barbaro from S. Fosca.S7 The marriages of the Regla family illustrate an inter- esting evolution. In the second and third generations, the non-noble Reglas married into lesser noble families, the Marangos and the da Mezzos. In the fourth generation, they married into some of Venice's premier families: the Veniers, Navageros, Pesaros, and Barbaros. In the second generation, commoner Francesco Regla married 'up' (and the noble Marangos married 'down'). By the fourth generation, the family practiced the more conventional pattern of social mobility. The Regla girls, well-dowered daughters of a non-noble family, married into the nobility. The his- tory of the Regla family in the trecento can be viewed as a steady rise in prestige. The marriage arrangements made by the Bedolotos and the Reglas for both their sons and their daughters reveal not only the traditional and paradigmatic pattern of social mobility, but also a less traditional and previously un- explored (in Venice) pattern of mobility, namely that noblemen married their daughters to wealthy non-nobles. 271 Still the question remains why noble fathers agreed to marry their daughters below their station. Since political contacts have to be ruled out and since the family cannot have gained prestige by such alliances, the only explanation is that noble fathers hoped to gain economic advantages from these unions. In the examples from S. Giacomo, both the Reglas and the Bedolotos were engaged in overseas trade and both, at least for a time, had a substantial amount of capital. The promise of business contacts and potential partners must have been the inducement needed for noblemen to marry their daughters to less distinguished Venetians. In addition, it seems clear that while noble families did not gain prestige from such alliances, they also did not lose much prestige. The decision to marry outside of the nobility was not as potentially damaging in the trecento as it became in the quattrocento. In the fourteenth century, when the lines defining the nobility as a special group were still faintly drawn, the fear of derogating noble status was weak. One reason for this, as we have already seen, was that in the critical area of family structure and ideals, the two groups were very similar. A second reason is that the frequency with which inter-marriage occurred worked to lessen the novelty and impact of such alliances. A third reason is that in social behavior and customs, nobles and wealthy non-nobles were remarkably similar. When the son or daughter of a nobleman married into a non-noble family, he or she did not move into a different culture. 272 Traditionally, historians examining the late Middle Ages have chosen to divide their discussion of culture in— to a discussion of elite versus popular culture. But another useful distinction in customs and mores can be drawn along sexual lines. In the late Middle Ages in Venice there were often dramatic differences in male and female culture. Indeed, it is possible that this cultural barrier was greater than others, for while there is in- creasing evidence of overlapping between aristocratic and popular culture (and secular and ecclesiastical culture), there is less evidence of overlapping between male and female culture.58 Male patricians in early Renaissance Venice borrowed many of their behaviors and attitudes from the ideals of feudal, courtly society. In the trecento, Venice's nobles participated in jousts, constructed coats of arms, and read or listened to courtly romances.59 One area in which the aristocratic ethos found clear expression was in the com- mission of crimes, especially rape. Venice's nobles com- mitted rapes all out of prOportion to their numbers. It seems that Venice's noblemen wielded their political and sexual power over a large portion of the city's women.60 This has led one recent student of violence in early Renaissance Venice to suggest that in "violent crimes the nobility behaved more like a feudal nobility than a mer- chant elite."61 273 The example of the Bedoloto family clearly illustrates that some of the city's non-noble males shared this ethos with their aristocratic counterparts. Melelo Bedoloto's sons Alvise and Bernardo committed a large number of crimes and, in many instances, they committed them in concert with aristocrats. For example, Bernardo went on two escapades with noble accomplices. In the first incident, he assisted noblemen Domenico Dolfin and Antonio Loredan in the com- mission of a rape. Noblemen Fantino Ghisi and Fantino Contarini also assisted.62 A few years later, Bernardo went along with noblemen Marco Contarini, Moreto Boccasso, Zanino Baseggio and commoner Filippo de Mercadellis to the convent of S. Lorenzo. Moretto, Zanino, and Filippo had either forced or consensual sexual relations with the nuns; Bernardo and Marco Contarini stole some chickens 63 These examples show Bernardo committing from the convent. what must have been considered youthful pranks. They show, more importantly, that he and other non-noble youths moved in friendship circles with noble youths. Alvise Bedoloto showed the same behaviors as his brother Bernardo, but his chronic criminality ended with serious consequences. In March of 1348, Alvise committed a crime much like the one his brother was to commit twelve years later. He, along with noblemen Zanino Savonario, Lorenzo Manolesso, Ludovico Quirini, Giacomello Baseggio and a certain Pietro Cappa (COppa?) miles, went to three convents: S. Caterina de Mazzorbo, S. Ariana de Imanis, 274 and S. Giovanni de Torcello. At these convents they stole wine and food, shouted insults at the religious, and made nuisances of themselves.64 Like the crime of his brother, this appears to have been a fairly harmless youthful prank, and it was committed in the company of several noblemen. They were, however, given jail sentences. A year later, Alvise was on trial for a more serious crime. He was accused along with nobleman Maffeo da Mezzo of insulting Signore di Notte Giovanni Bondemiro in the execution of his duties. Bondemiro tried to stOp the two at Rialto to conduct a routine arms check. Angered, da Mezzo and Alvise verbally abused Bondemiro. Both men were subsequently absolved of the crime.65 Two years later, Alvise was sentenced to fifteen days in jail for going to see his former accomplice in the convent escapade, Zanino Savonario, who was in jail. Zanino was prohibited from having visitors. Although he was convicted by a vote of twenty-eight to nine with four abstentions, Alvise was 66 Alvise's noble judges absolved of having to go to jail. continued to show leniency to him. In his final two crimes, when the victims were noble- women, Alvise overstepped the bounds of acceptable be- havior. It seems that one day Alvise encountered Catarucia, wife of Giacomo da Molin, and began insulting her. He fol- lowed her home and tried unsuccessfully to enter her house. Several months later, he showed up at the home of Agnesina, wife of Marco Barbaro, and began insulting the reputations 275 of both her and Catarucia. In a vote of thirty-nine to two with one abstention, Alvise was sentenced to two years in jail and a fine, but he had fled at the time.67 Perhaps he returned surreptiously, for two years later in 1357 Alvise, who was described as a "nefarious and terrible man," entered the house of the same Catarucia da Molin and stole from her a pearl bag. Perhaps there were suspicions of a liason for Catarucia was described as good and pure "as every good wife ought to be." This time, by a vote of thirty to two, Alvise was banished permanently from Venice and its territory. Furthermore, it was made a crime to assist him in any way. However, by a vote of the Maggior Consiglio his penalty was lightened somewhat; he was given 68 more flexibility in choosing the site of his exile. When he drew up his will in 1374, he was living in Ferrara.69 The case of Alvise is interesting because it shows that, like his brother Bernardo, he was imbued with the same ethos as the city's nobles. Also, like his brother Bernardo, Alvise committed several of his crimes with noble companions. The city's nobles only reacted to his crimes when he made the mistake of insulting two noblewomen and offending the honor of their husbands. Even then the nobles showed remarkable leniency to Alvise. Indeed, in 1376 the Great Council voted to absolve him of his banishment; and he probably returned (perhaps to die) to his native city.70 276 Although the criminal records provide the best evi- dence of a shared ethos and style of life uniting nobles and wealthy non-nobles, they are not the only evidence. For Venice's elite there was always tension between the contrary impulses to frugality and prodigality. The courtly ethic demanded generosity and reckless spending; the mercantile ethos, stinginess. The church's condemnation of usury placed an extra burden of guilt on those involved in commerce. In order to eXpiate their sins, nobles and mer- chants made generous bequests for pious works. In S. Giacomo, both Pesaro and Badoer males made such bequests. Most notably, Angelo da Pesaro endowed a hospital in the parish. Wealthy non-nobles did the same. We have seen in an earlier chapter that the wealthy cittadino Marco Disenove endowed a hospital on Murano. Similarly, when Pietro Regla drew up his will in 1403, he left one of his houses in the parish as a home for twenty poor sailors. In addition, he left a trust fund of 3000 ducats in imprestiti and specified that the profit from the bonds was to be used to maintain the sailors.71 These examples suggest that Venice's wealthy non-nobles shared a style and outlook on life in common with their aristocratic fellows. That outlook was shaped by the often contradictory values of feudal nobles and merchant bankers. In their youth these men sported about the city in the guise of courtly lords; on their deathbeds they atoned for their usurious ways. 277 Just as there was an elite male ethic that included nobles and non-nobles, so there was an elite female ethic and style of life that did the same. Of course, there is one obvious reason why the wives of non-nobles partook of this elite female culture; many of them were noblewomen. But unlike male culture, female culture had an institutional focus. It tended to center around the convent and the household. Also in contrast to male culture, which tended to emphasize the distinction between the elite and the rest of society, elite female culture provided what were some of the most inclusive social groupings to be found any- where in the society. Attentiveness to the convent was decidely the more exclusive aspect of female culture. Only the daughters of nobles or wealthy non-nobles could enter convents; the entrance fees were too high for most artisans and, besides, the family economy dictated marriage for most lower class Venetians. Accordingly, convents were the domain of the 72 But convents were not restricted to the city's elite. women who had passed their lives in them. One of the more common aspects of elite female culture in trecento Venice was their decision either to enter tertiary orders in widowhood or, at least, to be accepted into religious orders at the time of death.73 For example, when she drew up her will in 1400, Fiordelise, widow of Bernardo Bedoloto, stated that she wanted to be buried at the church of the 278 Franciscans (the Frari) and that she wanted to be enrolled in the order and buried in the habit of the order of the 74 Friars Minor. Fiordelise's spinster daughter, Isabeta, 75 When she made a similar bequest in her will of 1416. drew up her will in 1389 Beta, wife of Pietro Regla, asked to be accepted into the order of and buried at S. Biagio Catoldo where her sisters Franceschina and Franca were nuns.76 When she drew up her new will in 1427, she still wished to be buried in the habit of nuns, but this time 77 Convents in order of the convent of 8. Andrea de Zirada. were an important organization in the lives of aristocratic and wealthy common married women. They had sisters, daughters, nieces, and friends in those institutions, and they remembered them frequently in their wills. Indeed, as a final gesture, many widows chose to spend their last days as members of religious orders. The other focus of female culture was the home and the household. In this realm the lines between elite and non-elite women were very faintly drawn. As we have already seen in an earlier chapter, the care of household and children tended to draw together wealthy women with their artisanal counterparts and also with wetnurses and slaves.78 Daily contact often made for close ties. Of course, the closest ties were between women of similar status. For example, when Fiordelise Bedoloto drew up her will in 1400, she named Agnesina, wife of Doge Antonio Venier, to be one of her executors.79 This might seem a 279 surprising choice until one realizes that both Fiordelise and Agnesina were raised in the parish of S. Canciano and that when it came time to marry, Fiordelise da Riva mar- ried merchant Bernardo Bedoloto of S. Giacomo dall'Orio and Agnesina da Mosto married nobleman Antonio Venier from 80 In all likelihood, common resi- S. Giovanni Degolado. dence and a shared move bound the women in friendship. Fiordelise had other contacts with the Venier family. In 1407 she sold one of her slaves to Caterina Venier.81 In both of her wills (from 1389 and 1427) Beta Regla made be- quests to her neighbor Fiordelise Bedoloto. In her first will she left Fiordelise one ducat; in the second a be- quest of clothes.82 Obviously, Fiordelise did not need one ducat or the clothing; the bequests were intended instead as tokens of affection. The wills of wealthy women contain many bequests to poor women. For example, Beta Regla left one ducat each to two women: dona Felice and dona Margarita, and to her 83 A final bit of evidence that grandson's wetnurse. women's lives revolved around the household is provided by evidence of the witnesses to Beta's will. Among the wit— nesses was a certain Nicolino Rizzo from Piacenza who was a tenant in Beta's house (in domo ser Petri Regla).84 Like their male counterparts, noble and wealthy non-noble women shared a common view of the world and a common code of behavior. Unlike the ethic of their husbands, however, their ethic was less exclusive of those below them. The 280 world of the household was more inclusive than that of the council hall or the market place. Added together, these descriptions of the Bedoloto and Regla families clearly illustrate that in family structure and ideals, through intermarriage with nobles, and in their outlook on life, they were largely indistin— guishable from the city's patricians. In the realm of family organization and domestic ideals, these families, like the nobles, emphasized the importance of the fraterna and strove to protect the reputation of the family. Often family pride found concrete expression in attempts to pro- tect the family prOperty or domus magna from alienation. These families also intermarried frequently with the city's patricians. While this usually followed the pattern by which their well-dowered daughters married noblemen, their sons as well married into the ranks of the nobility. Finally, in the area of customs and mores, the Bedolotos and the Reglas resembled Venice's governing elite. The males adopted the conflicting ethics of feudal nobles and urban merchants while the women lived a life centered around the convent and the household. Each of these features served to reinforce the others and helped to blur the lines divid- ing the nobles from wealthy commoners. Families such as the Reglas and the Bedolotos traded, married, played, and died in the company of aristocrats. The only place from which they were excluded was the council hall (except in 281 the role of secretaries). They were excluded from a direct voice in political decision making. As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, the Bedolotos and the Reglas were by no means exceptional. They are only the best examples that we have of a group of families in S. Giacomo that occupied a similar position. For instance, the cittadino Disenove family, which we con- sidered in some detail in an earlier chapter, displayed many of the characteristics discussed here. Most notably, Disenove children, both male and female, married into the ranks of the nobility.85 Another S. Giacomo family which displayed many of these same characteristics was the Nardi family, originally from Lucca. Like many Lucchese immigrants to Venice, the Nardis were involved in the silk trade.86 In 1365 Tomaso Nardi, a resident of S. Giacomo, received a grant of Cittadinanza from the government; yet he had al- 87 ready married Loica, daughter of noble Domenico Gossoni. Indeed, it is not difficult to find examples of intermar- riage with the nobility among S. Giacomo's wealthy non-noble residents. Nicola de Merzaria, who was gastaldus of the scuola grande of the Misericordia and who had business contacts with Badoers and Contarinis, married his daughter into the noble Capello family; and Cecilia, daughter of nobleman Nicoleto Soranzo, married the non-noble Pietro 88 The Bedolotos and the Reglas Bernardino of S. Giacomo. were not unique; a number of other parochial families en- joyed the same social status that they enjoyed. 282 While these findings about the nature of social con- tacts between the parish's well-to-do commoners and the city's nobles have some intrinsic interest, they also have a number of ramifications regarding parochial life. Most importantly, they provide a clue to the real and perceived social structure of the parish. They illustrate that dur— ing much of the trecento social contacts were not based on legally defined status but rather on the bases of shared wealth, attitudes, and style of life. It seems clear that if trecento residents of S. Giacomo had been asked to divide their fellow parishioners into categories, they would not have answered that they were divided into nobles, 89 cittadini, and all others. It is more likely that they would have responded that the leading citizens in the parish were those who owned a significant amount of property (and who also resided) in the parish. In saying this, they would have identified the group that was relatively wealthy and that had a house or gagg in the parish. In this regard, it is instructive to recall that the sole definition of vicini or neighbors found in the Venetian statutes defined them as those who owned property in a particular parish.90 The respondent probably would have grouped all others in the second category -— the propertyless. Here again, one may recall that in the criminal records especially, artisans and laborers were identified not only by their parish resi- dence but also by their role as tenants (Maria at ca' Badoer). 283 Indeed, if the question of who counted in the parish had been posed to the residents of S. Giacomo in 1379, it seems likely that the list would have corresponded almost exactly (with a few additions) to the list found in the estimo, plus the parochial clergy. On that list were twelve noble families or individuals and nineteen commoners (in- cluding Bernardo Bedoloto, Pietro Regla, the furrier Bartolomeo Brocha, and Tomaso Nardi). It was property holding, more than any other factor, including legally de- fined status, that distinguished the residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio from one another and, thereby, determined the parish's social structure.91 Further corroboration of this point is found in the list of those who were granted some form of proctorship over the parish church's property. At different times during the fourteenth century, the parochial chapter saw fit to delegate power of attorney over various parts of the church's patrimony to certain individuals, some of whom actually held the post of procurator. The lay recipients of these grants were Cristoforo de Artusio, a cheeseseller (caxarolus), Marco Bedoloto, Giacomo Nardi, and nobleman 92 Gregorio da Mula. It is clear that the clerics would only have granted this power to respectable and responsible parishioners, yet only one of the four was a nobleman. This indicates that certain guildsmen and cittadini were con- sidered as trustworthy as the city's nobles. The presence 284 of only one nobleman may also indicate that the initiative in parochial affairs was taken by those who were excluded from other forms of political power. Perhaps non-noble property holding parishioners saw the parish as their arena of influence. Finally, the terms used to describe individuals in the documents provide further evidence that the critical distinction in society was not between groups of differing legal status, but rather based on prOperty. Officially, a nobleman was referred to as a nobilis vir dominus and cittadini had attributions such as circumspectus et_providus vir.93 Yet there are many examples in the sources of the general use of the term dominus (lord) to describe both nobles and commoners. For example, Bernardo Bedoloto was several times referred to as a dominus, as was his father 94 Giacomello. Natalia Zane, a resident of S. Giacomo, re- ferred to her father who was a doctor (physicus) as 95 discretus vir dominus and as dominus magister. While the legal distinctions existed, to lower class Venetians in particular, a man such as Bernardo Bedoloto was as much a “lord" as his noble counterparts. The terms used to de- scribe women show the same flexibility. In the estimo of 1379, noblemen were given the title "ser" and women the title "dona." In the estimo, Bernardo was not accorded the title "ser", but a certain Costanza Bedoloto from S. Aponal was referred to as "dona" Costanza, and Leonarda Regla, widow of nobleman Marco da Mezzo, was called "dona 285 96 Lunarda Degla." It seems clear that in the trecento, the terminology of social status, like the status itself, was still in flux.97 In sum, the evidence of the Bedoloto and Regla families tells us not only a great deal about the lives of wealthy non-noble Venetians but also provides useful clues about the real and perceived social structure of the parish of S. Giacomo in the fourteenth century. It was the property holders who were the "lords" (domini) of the parish. These were the men who held positions of responsibility in the parish and who were addressed in deferential terms by the mass of the parishioners. But these findings have ramifications which extend far beyond the confines of the parish. They shed light on some important political developments in trecento Venice. First and most importantly, they illustrate that just as the lines that legally defined the patricians remained blurred for nearly a century after the Serrata, so that lines which socially defined the patricians also remained blurred. These findings support Chojnacki's suggestion that for much of the trecento "the conception of nobility . . . con- tinued to develop." Just as the Serrata is now seen as a process of inclusion rather than exclusion, so it may be argued that during much of the trecento Venice's patricians continued to include non-nobles in their social world, often through marriage. The nobles had not yet developed an ex— clusive, self-centered point of view. A deliberation of 286 the Maggior Consiglio from 1394 perhaps illustrates this point. The council was debating whether or not to make physical improvements at Rialto like those made at the Piazza S. Marco. They finally decided to make the improve- ments, arguing that it was there, at Rialto, that "our nobles and merchants and generally all visitors gather."98 This deliberation of Venice's nobles shows that even in their estimation, it was themselves plug the city's wealthy merchants and foreign visitors who counted. Second, these findings may help to explain the poli- tical and social stability that Venice enjoyed. Even though it is now understood that in the short run (a century) the Serrata was inclusive, in the long run it proved exclusive. The novi cives of the late trecento had no hope of entering the ranks of the Venetian aristocracy. Yet as these find— ings confirm, there were 'safety valves' that kept resent- ment at political exclusion within safe limits. For example, there was some opportunity for intermarriage with the nobility; and this provided the prospect of social mobility. In addition, non-nobles enjoyed positions of authority and responsibility in the scuole, the chancery, and the 98 Perhaps, most importantly, because they shared parishes. a common ethic and style of life with their noble counter- parts, for much of the trecento, non—nobles did not feel that they were social inferiors. Finally, a practice that we saw at work with the furriers was also at work with these wealthy, politically disenfranchised merchants. Like the 287 master furriers, these men were regular recipients of grazie or reductions of sentences. For instance, Alvise Bedoloto received absolutions for his minor crimes and was shown remarkable leniency even when he attacked the wives of noblemen. And Pietro and Nicoleto Regla received special concessions after they were unable to fulfill the terms of a contract which they had made.100 Again, it appears that loyal commoners could expect special favors from the city's nobles. Undoubtedly this affected the way these commoners looked at the government and helped to diffuse resentment against their exclusion. For much of the trecento then, the process of defining the Venetian patriciate both legally and socially continued. But just as the last entrance of new men into the nobility for two hundred years took place in 1381, so there is evi- dence that attempts to distinguish the nobility socially and to maintain its purity gathered momentum during the later years of the trecento. In 1376 the measures were tightened by which illegitimate children born to noblemen could be accepted into the Great Council.101 Perhaps there was a group within the nobility which especially wished to ad- vance this process. One of the major objections raised by his opponents to the candidacy of Marco Corner as doge in 1365 was that he had a non-noble wife with a large family which would insinuate itself into the government. Corner responded by noting that he hardly stood alone in having a 102 common wife, and he was elected. Nonetheless, as the jec to tin clo its bec( 288 years went on, the process of exclusion continued until 1403 when the government made what Lane has termed a "definitive change." In that year the ducal council re- jected a proposal that would have allowed a common family to enter the nobility whenever a noble family became ex- tinct. Lane believes that the patricians had become "a closed caste fearful lest the admission of new men destroy "103 its solidarity. By 1403, the Venetian nobility had become both legally and socially a closed caste. NOTES TO CHAPTER SEVEN 1A brief summary of the Serrata can be found in, Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973). pp. 111-114. 21bid. 3See, for example, Giuseppe Maranini, La costituzione di Venezia, 2 vols. (Florence, 1974), vol. I, pp. 332—364. See also, Giorgio Cracco, Societa e stato nel medioevo veneziano (Florence, 1967), pp. 290-350. Cracco sees the Serrata as the triumph of a "regime di classe" (p. 349). Samuele Romanin said of the Serrata, "1a legge e dunque a considerarsi sotto l'aspetto d'una depurazione non di un restringimento del Consiglio, ma quella depurazione, condusse poi naturalmente allo stabilimento dell'aristo- crazia e mise a poco a poco tutto i1 governo nelle mani di questi." See S. Romanin, Storia documentata diVenezia, 2nd ed. in 10 vols. (Venice, 1925), vol. 2, p. 347. 4Frederic C. Lane, "The Enlargement of the Great Council of Venice," in Florilegium Historiale: Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, eds. J.G. Rowe and W.H. Stockdale (Toronto, 1971), pp. 236-274; and Stanley Chojnacki, "In Search of the Venetian Patriciate: Families and Factions in the Fourteenth Century," in Renaissance Venice, ed. J.R. Hale (London, 1974), pp. 47-90. 5Lane, "Enlargement," p. 260. 6Chojnacki, p. 58. Lane and Chojnacki's view of the Serrata has been challenged recently by Guido Ruggiero. He does not dispute their interpretation of the event as an inclusive action but rather their estimation of the amount of time it took to complete the process. Ruggiero believes that the process of gathering up the stray members was largely complete by 1310. Nor does he dispute the ad- mission of thirty new families in 1381. See Guido Ruggiero, “Modernization and the Mythic State in Early Renaissance Venice: The Serrata Revisited," Viator 10 (1979), pp. 245- 56. 7Lane, Venice, pp. 113-114. The view of nobility as a matter of lifestyle was characteristic of thirteenth- Century Venice. Ibid., pp. 89—90. 289 290 8Lane believes that restrictions in the 1320's were the result of a fear that "new admissions . . . might dilute the homogeneity of Venice's governing class." See Lane, "Enlargement," pp. 259-260. In keeping with his notion that all aspects of the Serrata were completed fairly quickly, Ruggiero argues that "the merging of the political and social elites in that city was . . . rapid and complete." See Guido Ruggiero, Violence in_§arly Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, 1980), pp. 57-58. 9Chojnacki, p. 71. 10ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 161, Commissaria of Pietro Navagero, guaderno, act dated August 1293. ll ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Deliberazioni, Register 8, f. 95v. 12ASV, Avogaria di Commun, Raspe, Register 3641, f. 33r. 13 Felice, doc. 259. Actually the second reference to a Bedoloto is found in a property sale dated 1301. A certain Maddalena, widow of Quirini Bedoloto of S. Giacomo, is briefly mentioned. I have found no further references to either Quirini or Maddalena. See Museo Civico Correr, Cod. Cicogna 2986, Filza 6, "Firma di Marino Zorzi," parch- ment dated 10 June 1301. 14Melelo's property is described in a Pesaro family property division. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 15 July 1377. 15Felice, docs., 791, 887. 16See G. Luzzatto, I prestiti della Repubblica di Venezia, sec. XIII-XV. Documenti finanziari della Repubblica di Venezia, series III, vol. 1 (Padua, 1929), doc. 165, p. 191. For Alvise's will see, ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 2 dates 8 March 1374 (Ferrara), 16 Oct. 1377 (Venice). 17Both brothers disposed of these properties in their wills. For Bernardo's will, see ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 28 July 1395. 18Felice, doc. 775. 191bid., doc. 1089. 20Luzzatto, doc. 165, p. 192. The reader may recall that it was this assessment that forced the Pesaros to sell their domus magna. 291 21These figures are based on Gino Luzzatto's calcula- tions from the estimo. See Gino Luzzatto, Storia economica di Venezia dall xi a1 xvi secolo (Venice, 1961), p. 130. 22 ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 18, f. 32r. 23Ibid. 24See Benjamin Z. Kedar, Merchants in Crisis: Genoese and Venetian Men of Affaigsand the Fourteenth-Century Depression (New Haven, 1976), pp. 90-92. 25R. Predelli, ed., I libri commemoriali della Repubblica di Venezia: Regesti. Monumenti storici dalla deputazione veneta di storia patria. Series I. 8 vols. (Venice, 1876-1914), vol. 3, book 7, doc. 60, p. 140. 26 Ibid., vol. 3, book 7, doc. 797, p. 123. 27Felice, docs. 865, 866. 281bid., docs. 939, 997, 998. 29For Marco's will, see ASV, CI 89, notary Geraroto, protocol, 5 June 1348. 30For Pietro's will, see ASV, NT 572, notary Gibellino, unbound testament, 8 Jan. 1403mv. The brother Marco was dead by 1370 for Pietro was acting as executor for him in that year. See ASV, CI 38, notary Francesco Cavazza, protocol, 18 Sept. 1370. The other brother, Giacomello, is only mentioned in his uncle Marco's will. See note 29. 31See the commissaria of Pietro Regla in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 90, Commissaria of Pietro Regla. For Beta's residence see, parchments dated 24 Feb. 1415mv and 15 April 1410 in the commissaria. For Zanino, see parchments dated 18 Sept. 1409 and 17 March 1417. 32Nicoleto's will is in ASV, NT 858, notary Marco Raphanelli, unbound testament, 13 June 1409. 33For example, Nicoleto, who had children, named as one of his executors his brother Zanino, with whom he shared part of Pietro's legacy. Ibid. 34See James C. Davis, A Venetian Family and Its Fortune, 1500-1900 (Philadelphia, 1975), especially chapters 5 and 6. 292 35In his will Bernardo did not mention the two married daughters, but his son's will dated one year later (1396) mentions his brothers-in-law. Bernardo does mention his daughter Catarucia who had entered the convent. See ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 28 July 1395. For his son Belelo's will, see ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 6 March 1396. §6For Agnesina's will, see ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament 17 Sept. 1392. 37For average dowries, see Stanley Chojnacki, "Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice," Studies in the Renais- sance 21. (1974), p. 194. 38For the husbands, see Belelo's will, note 35 above. 39Again, see Bernardo's will, note 35 above. 40 For Isabeta's will, see ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 21 June 1416. 1See note 35 above. 42For Belelo's will, note 35 above. For his wife Margarita's will, see ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 11 Sept. 1400. Margarita's family name is unknown. For the restriction of marriages for male patricians (in the seventeenth century and beyond) see, Davis, ch. 6. 43In our discussion of the cittadino Disenove family, we saw how the family suffered because of its inability to trace its relation to a larger kinship group. See the dis- cussion of the Disenove in Chapter Five. However, there is another issue at stake here. While it is clear that the absence of the clan distinguished these families from the great nobles such as the Badoers, Quirinis, Morosinis, and others, we must wonder how different these families were from the numerous minor noble families -- those families whose names we do not readily recognize. I suspect that there was little difference; but unfortunately, to date, there has been little research on the lesser families of the Venetian patriciate. 44Evidence of patrician marriages in the fifteenth century supplied to me by Stanley Chojnacki seems to confirm this. Out of 1,749 marriages contracted by 16 clans, 93 or 5.3 percent were with non-nobles. However, while 9.1 percent of the males married popolano women (81 of 890 male marriages), only 1.4 percent of patrician females took popolano grooms (12 of 859 female marriages). 293 For general remarks, see Lauro Martines, The Social World _9f the Florentine Humanists (Princeton, 1963),p,63,fk3beliéves that in fifteenth-century Florence, marriages were "class bound." However, more recent work on Florence shows a tend- ency for Florentine women to marry "down." See David Herlihy and Christiane Klapish, Les Toscans et leurs familles (Paris, 1978), P. 418. 45See Caterina's will, in ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantinus Rizzo, protocol, 17 Sept. 1377. 46See Alvise's will, note 17 above. He gave the slave Zerchasa a dowry of 500 ducats. 47For Fiordelise's family connections, see ASV, CI 93, notary Giovanni Gazo, protocol, acts dated 12 June 1383. It is possible that her parish of origin was 5. Maria Nova rather than S. Canciano. It is interesting to note that Fiordelise's own mother was a commoner. See ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 16 Aug. 1379. 48For example, five members of the da Riva family from S. Maria Nova were included in the estimo of 1379. See Luzzatto, I prestiti, doc. 165, p. 173. 49Felice, docs. 865, 866, 991. For the family connec- tions in Trieste, see Marco Regla's will, note 29 above. 50See ASV, CI 143, notary Stefano Pianigo, protocol, 31 Oct. 1349. In this act Marina acts for her brother who had shipped some precious stones to Venice. 51ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 2 acts 28 June 1379, 20 Sept. 1379. 52In the estimo she is listed as "dona Lunarda Degla." See Luzzatto, Igprestiti, doc. 165, p. 192. 53The probability that Zanino married a Morosini is based on his brother Pietro's will. In his will, Pietro left generous bequests to Zanino's children with the proviso that they live either with his wife or with their grandmother, Orsa Morosini. See ASV, NT 572, notary Gibellino, unbound testament, 8 Jan. l403mv. If Beta Regla, Pietro's wife, was not herself a noblewoman, it is certain that she moved in noble circles. 54For the sons-in-law, see Nicoleto's will in ASV, NT 858, notary Marco Raphanelli, unbound testament, 13 June 1409. 55See Elena Regla's will in ASV, NT 54, notary Cechinus Alberti, testament dated 22 June 1421. 294 56See Beta Regla's will in ASV, NT 947, notary Henricus Saloman, protocol, 10 Oct. 1427. 57For the marriages of Zanino's daughters, see Pietro Regla's commissaria in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 90, Commissaria of Pietro Regla, parchment 9, dated 16 March 1416 and act dated 1 Aug. 1413. 58On the overlapping of aristocratic and popular (and ecclesiastical and secular) culture, see Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmology of a Sixteenth- Century Friulian Miller. Translated by John and Anne Tedeschi (Baltimore, 1980), esp. pp. xiii-xxvi. For some Venetian examples, see Edward Muir, Civic Ritual in Renais- sance Venice (Princeton, 1981), especially pp. 156-181. For some provocative remarks on male and female culture in Tuscany, see David Herlihy, "Some Psychological and Social Roots of Violence in the Tuscan Cities," in Violence and Civil Disorder in Italian Cities, 1200:1500, ed. Lauro Martines (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), pp. 129-154. 59Ruggiero, Violence, pp. 65-66. See also Pompeo Molmenti, La storia di Venezia nella vita privata. 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. I, pp. 182-208 and passim. 60Ruggiero, Violence, pp. 70-72. 61 Ibid., p. 72. 62ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, Register 3642, f. 3v- 4r. 63Ibid., f. 92v. 64Ibid., f. 37v. 65Ibid., f. 13r. See also Antonio Lombardo, ed., Lg deliberazioni del consiglio del XL della Repubblica di Venezia. Vol. II. (1347-1350). Monumenti storici dalla deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie, New Series, vol. XII (Venice, 1958), doc. 244, p. 72. This case is also discussed briefly in Ruggiero, Violence, p. 134. 66ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, Register 3642, f. 40r. 68 homo" and "ut quelibet bona mulier esse debet." In the text Catarucia is incorrectly called Caterina. 69 67Ibid., f. 29:; f. 30r. Ibid., f. 60r. The phrases read "nefarius et pessimus For his will, see note 46 above. 295 70 . . . . . See ASV, Maggior ConSlgllo, GraZle, Register 17, f. 46v (cancelled) and f. 76r. Alvise and Bernardo were not the only Bedolotos with criminal records. A certain Fantino Bedoloto from S. Giacomo was tried in 1352, along with nobleman Nicoleto Michiel of S. Basilio, of raping a servant girl from S. Samuele. Nicoleto was convicted and had to pay five ducats; Fantino was absolved. See ASV, Avogaria di Comun, Raspe, Register 3642, f. 72v. This is the only reference I have found to this Fantino Bedoloto. Again, it is noteworthy that he commited the crime with a nobleman. Guido Ruggiero has characterized the "important people" of Venice as non-violent. This, of course, contra- dicts my findings about the Bedolotos. The discrepancy is explicable in part because of our differing definitions of important people. I believe that the group he charac- terizes as "important people" is too inclusive, especially regarding the inclusion of petty officials. They were not "important people" in trecento Venice. See Ruggiero, Violence, pp. 82-94. 71See ASV, NT 572, notary Gibellino, unbound testament, 8 Jan. 1403mv. 72For example, see the list of members of the chapter of the convent of S. Maria de Virginibus. The names are easily recognizable patrician names. A.Lombardo, ed., Nicola de Boateriis: notaio in Famogosta e Venezia (1355- 1365). Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 3, Archivi notarili (Venice, 1973), doc. 321. See,for comparison, Richard C. Trexler, "Le célibat a la fin du Moyen Age:les religieuses de Florence," Annales, E.S.C. 27 (1972), pp. 1329-1350. 73I do not wish to imply that artisan women never entered tertiary orders. However, it was much more common for elite women to do so. 74See ASV, NT 467, notary Giacomo Cavalier, unbound testament, 17 July 1400. 75See ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 21 June 1416. 76ASV, NT 335, notary Bortolo da Venezia, testament, 2 March 1389. 77ASV, NT 947, notary Henricus Saloman, protocol, 10 Oct. 1427. 78See Chapter Five entitled, "Kinship and Residence: Families fix: the Parish.“ 9See note 74 above. 296 80For the biographical information on Agnesina Venier, see Andrea da Mosto, I dogi di Venezia nella vita pubblica e privata (Florence, 1977), pp. 147-148. 81ASV, CI 189, notary Antonio Spinello, protocol, 25 May 1407. 82See notes 76 and 77. 83See note 76. 84£bid. The other witness was a certain Lorenzo of Treviso, a clothworker (texarius) who lived at ca' Pesaro. 85 Five. 86For the Lucchese as silk weavers, see Lane, Venice, pp. 161-162. Evidence of the Nardi's involvement in the silk trade can be found in ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 28 March 1368. 87Predelli, Libri commemoriali, vol. 3, book 7, doc. 239, p. 44. For Loica's family connections, see her will in ASV, CI 186, notary Simeon, protocol, testament dated 1371. Another Nardi received a grant of citizenship in 1341. This was a certain Lenino Nardi described as a "merciaio da Lucca." See Predelli, Libri commemoriali, vol. 2, book 3, doc. 543, p. 95. For Nicold de Merzaria, see Felice, docs. 185, 221, See the discussion of the Disenove family in Chapter 88 618, 1083. In his will of 1330 (doc. 1083) Nicola mentioned that his daughter (who was deceased) had been married to Leonardo Capello. The family connection of Cecilia Bernardino (wife of Pietro) can be found in her mother's will. See the will of Franceschina Soranzo in ASV, NT 545, notary Lorenzo Buscareno, protocol, 7 Feb. 1390mv. There are a few other examples. Commoner Marco a Cagnolis of S. Giacomo married Catarucia, daughter of nobleman Rafaele Civran of S. Maria Formosa. And commoner Nicold da Lago of S. Giacomo married Agnesina, daughter of nobleman Andrea Darduin of S. Geminiano. See ASV, CI 140, notary Pietro Pino, 5 Dec. 1332; ASV, CI 162, notary Francesco de Recovratis, protocol, 16 Aug. 1348. 891n conversation, Professor Guido Ruggiero first alerted me to the danger of considering the cittadini as a distinct class in anything but a legal sense. Outside the legal statutes, there is little to indicate that they were treated or considered as such. 90See Chapter Two: "Urban Infrastructure: Venetian Neighborhood Administration." 297 91Another indication of the importance of property holding is a regulation concerning the furnishing of the Marie. One of the rules stated that if a parish did not have sufficient nobles to outfit the girls, then the populares who owned property were to do it. ("quod nobiles non sunt sufficientes tunc vocentur populares habentes possessiones in contrata e commorantes in ipsa habentes domos abiles . . . . ") See ASV, Cinque Savi alla Mercanzia, Capitolare degli Straordinarii, Register 22 ter (olim Miscellanea Codice 132), f. 45r. 92Cristoforo de Artusio and Marco Bedoloto were identified as procurators of the church. Giacomo Nardi and Gregorio da Mula received grants of power of attorney. In 1382, in his role as procurator of the church, Cristoforo de Artusio made a receipt to the estate of Nicoleto Badoer. See ASV, CI 34, notary Giacomo Cavalier, protocol, 9 Nov. 1382. Giacomo Nardi received general power of attorney over the church's property. See ASV, CI 79, notary Gasparino, protocol, 10 May 1359. This was renewed several months later. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, protocol, 23 Feb. l359mv. At the same time the clergy gave power of attorney over the church's plate to nobleman Gregorio da Mula. See ASV, CI 166, notary Fantin Rizzo, 10 May 1359. For Marco Bedoloto as procurator in the late thirteenth century, see note 10 above. 93 Kedar, pp. 90-92. 94For the use of dominus to describe Bernardo, see ASV, CI 93, notary Giovanni Gazo, protocol, 12 June 1383. It should be noted that in this particular instance, the nobles were referred to as nobili viri domini whereas Bernardo was only called a dominus. For Giacomo, see his wife Caterina's will in ASV, NT 1226, notary Fantinus Rizzo, protocol, 17 Sept. 1377. 95 See Natalia's will in Felice, doc. 1103. 96Luzzatto, I prestiti, doc. 165, pp. 185, 192. Al- though the title "ser" was reserved for nobles in the estimo, in other documents it commonly was used for both nobles and non-nobles. 97I do not wish to overemphasize the significance of the terminology. These findings do indicate, however, that one of the old working assumptions (that the term dominus was reserved for nobles) must be discarded. 98It reads in part, "et super ea [platea] continuo se reducunt et conversantur nobiles et mercatores nostri, ac generaliter omnes forenses huc undique accedentes . . . See ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Deliberazioni, Register 21, f. 79v. See also f. 85v. 298 99A brief summary of the explanations for the quietude of the pgpolani can be found in Lane, Venice, pp. 108-109. 100The leniency shown to Alvise was considered in the discussion of his criminal record. For the grazie to the Reglas, see ASV, Maggior Consiglio, Grazie, Register 18, f. 32r, and also f. 7r. 101Chojnacki, "In Search," p. 82, note 44. 102See P.G. Molmenti, La dogaressa di Venezia (Turin, 1884). pp. 141-142. 103Lane, "Enlargement," pp. 241-242. amh ..... lllllll CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION: THE VENETIAN PARISH IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. In the preceding pages, we have examined in some detail various aspects of life in one fourteenth-century Venetian parish, the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio. We have examined the place of the parish in Venetian administration; we have looked at the role of the clergy and the religious assoc- iations of the parishioners; we have examined the structure of Venetian families and the ties between family and resi- dence; we have looked in detail at one group of artisans, the furriers; and we have tried to delineate the social structure of the parish as it was understood by Venetians of the fourteenth century. At times our discussion has taken us far from the boundaries of the parish and far from the issue of parochialism in Venetian life; yet we ventured there because that was where the parishioners themselves led us. If we had kept the discussion focused narrowly on the parish, we would have forced the parishioners into confines and categories alien to them; and we would have distorted the picture of life as it was lived in the trecento. 299 nee h00 cor. C11 Gi mi 300 But now, having examined the parishioners from a va— riety of perspectives, we need to return to the central issues of our inquiry. Specifically, we need to evalute the role parochial residence played in the lives of the parishioners, and we must try to set forth some character- ization of the parish in the fourteenth century. And we need to place our findings in the broader contextthe parish as the focus of family life. The vast majority of commoners did not own property in the parish; there was no family hearth to which widely dispersed family members could return. As a conse- quence, popolani had little reason to regard a particular parish as their home, For members of the lower class, their 309 attachment to the parish was based on their relationship with other residents (their patrini and friends). It was not an attachment to place.11 Our examination of one popolano group, the furriers, demonstratedthat.not even the combination of shared occu- pation and residence was enough to forge the furriers into a tight-knit, inward-looking group}2 We found that for the furriers of S. Giacomo, the factors pulling them away from each other and out of the parish outweighed the forces working in the opposite direction. The oligarchic tendencies of guild administration, the hierarchical structure of guild life,the competition for shops on the £333, and the competition for customers created tensions and rifts within the ranks of the furriers. In addition, the very mechanics of guild life drew guildsmen beyond the parish. Guild func- tions took the furriers from their homes in S. Giacomo to Rialto and to the guild's scuola at S. Maria dei Crociferi Friendships with fellow guildsmen led them to S. Pantalon, S. Margarita, and to the island of the Giudecca, the location of the tanning trade. The structure of guild life was non- parochial, and this found reflection in the patterns of furriers' lives. The example of the S. Giacomo furriers illustrates that trecento Venice was not a cluster of iso- lated artisan communities knit together by common bonds of profession, residence, and blood. For the lower class, family ties, guild obligations, and friendships counter— 310 acted the attractions of parochialism. Taken together, the evidence from S. Giacomo dall' Orio indicates that Vicinanza or physical proximity was only one of many factors determining the contacts and assoc- iations of trecento Venetians. More importantly, it shows that ties to family, occupation, scuole, and friends all acted as centrifugal forces pulling parishioners out of the parochial orbit and into a larger range of contacts, and that this was true both for the popolo and the patricians. The main force pulling patricians beyond the parish was the casa or kin group to which they belonged. To the patrician, the clan was a "continuum of outstanding men" 13 which neither time nor space could limit. Unlike nobles on the terraferma and the elites of other cities, Venetian patricians did not define themselves by defining the terri- tory they controlled, but rather by counting the familial, business, and political connections that they could muster.14 The man with the power was not the man whose connections were confined to parochial boundaries but the one whose connections extended, like the canals themselves, into every corner of the city. The popolano too was in search of contacts. But un- like the patrician who used his contacts to increase his wealth and expand his prestige, the popolano sought in his contacts the security that was so difficult to find in an 311 insecure world. While some popolani found contacts in neighbors and fellow parishioners, their contacts too ex- tended beyond parochial boundaries to family members, fellow tradesman, and scuole associates. For most Venetians, the geographically expansive bonds of parentado and amicizia prevailed over the inward-turning bond of Vicinanza. II Just as the evidence from S. Giacomo allows us to evaluateparochial life from the perspective of the indi- vidual parishioner and to see that contacts pulled most residents beyond the parochial sphere, so it also allows us to make some observations about the collective experience in a Venetian parish. It allows us to draw some conclusions about the nature and structure of Venetian parishes. In his synoptic work Venice: A Maritime Republic, Frederic Lane characterized the typical Venetian parish as an "integrated community" in which there was "strong neighborhood feeling."15 YEt the evidence from S. Giacomo dall'Orio indicates that this is not, at least for the trecento,an.entire1y accurate portrayal of the Venetian parish or parochial life. In theory, S. Giacomo, like most Venetian parishes, had the potential for being an integrated community. It had a very diverse population and residential patterns in which rich and poor lived "cheek by jowl."16 Yet there is little evidence that parishioners of varying statuses had regular contacts beyond mere exchanges in the campo. As WE wc 8:; cr ex so 08 11 on ci 01 312 we have seen, there is no evidence, except among noble- women, to indicate that a systemof patronage and client- age existed at the parochial level. Vicinanza did not create a community of rich and poor. As our rather detailed examination of the Bedoloto and Regla families illustrated, social contacts among Venetians cut across lines of legally defined status but not across lines of wealth and style of life.17 The major division that separated parishioners from one another and that kept them separate was wealth, espe- cially the ownership of property. Wealth and shared style of life united patricians and well-to-do commoners. Wealth and control of workshops united guild masters. Wealth (or more accurately, the lack of it) created bonds between poor immigrants and other popolo minuto. Shared residence was unable to overcome differences in economic status in order to forge parishioners into a community of rich and poor. Lacking a sense of community with their fellow parish- ioners, residents of S. Giacomo dall'Orio did not display strong neighborhood feeling. This was most apparent in their testamentary bequests. Parishioners remembered individual neighbors in their wills and usually remembered the parochial clergy, but they were less generous to the parish as a community of souls. Only 12.4 percent of the residents left a caritade bequest to their fellow residents. By con- 313 trast, 17.8 percent left alms to the inmates of the distant hospital of S. Lazzaro.18 Indeed, concerning the one re- quirement for collective action, the festival of the Marie, the central government had to pass a law specifically for- bidding residents from fleeing the parish in order to avoid their responsibilities. Divided by wealth and style of life, the inhabitants of S. Giacomo dall'Orio did not see themselves as a collectivity. The question of neighborhood feeling is, however, an important one; and we need to ask if there was some geographic area, obviously larger than the parish, which the residents of S. Giacomo did define as their 'neighborhood' and to which they felt some sense of loyalty. It is clear that such a neighborhood did not correspond to any of the administra— tiveLydefined neighborhoods of Venice. The sestieri, espec- ially the sestieri of S. Croce and S. Polo, had no coherence as topological units, their boundaries twisted and turned. Indeed, only one parishioner, the plebanus Bartolomeo Recovrati, directed a pious bequest to the sestiere.19 Similarly, the two halves of the city based on the course of the Grand Canal were too amorphous to elicit more than the vaguest feelings of loyalty. Rather, if they had been asked to define their neigh- borhood, it seems likely that the parishioners, primarily the popolo,20 of S. Giacomo dall'Orio would have described it again as that part of the city which is defined by the 314 first U-shaped bend in the Grand Canal. Most of the popolo's religious, economic, and familial activities were carried out in that area, which comprises about twenty parishes. A five to ten minute walk from the gampg S. Giacomo dall' Orio could easily put them at the markets and workshops of Rialto or at the church of the Frari or at the scuola grande of S. Giovanni Evangelista. The parish itself was too small to contain the activities of the parishioners, but a ten minute walk in any direction could put them in contact with most of what they needed. Even a trip to S. Marco, the center of Venice, required at the very most a twenty minute walk. The compact size of the city should not be ignored when considering the geographic range of social contacts and associations. The easy accessibility of all parts of the city by foot and by boat helped to break down parochial boundaries and, conversely, to expand notions of neighborhood beyond parochial boundaries. In summary, the example of S. Giacomo dall'Orio suggests that trecento Venice was not a congeries of tight-knit, introverted, parochial communities and that the range of contacts and associations enjoyed by Venetians of all classes extended Well beyond parochial boundaries. This makes the Venetian situation stand in marked contrast to that of late 21 medieval Genoa or quattrocento Florence. It means, like- wise, that the mental horizon of trecento Venetians was not 315 bounded by parochialism. Most residents of S. Giacomo had a non-parochial, expansive, multi-faceted identification of themselves and their community. III Having set forth this characterization of the Venetian parish in the fourteenth century and of the role that parish residence played in parishioners' lives, let us now try to identify whether or not there was any change in the parish in the period under consideration. While it is fairly easy to delineate the main features of parish life in the trecento, it is much more difficult to evaluate how the parish of S. Giacomo changed from 1297 to 1423. Were the patterns of association and contact the same? Did parochial solidarity, which we have characterized as weak during the period, grow even weaker or stronger? The answers to these questions must, by the nature of the sources, remain tentative; yet the indices that do exist indicate that parochial soli-- daritygrew steadily weaker during the fourteenth century. Our first indicator, testamentary bequests for caritadi, shows that during the course of the fourteenth century, the choice of the parish as the site for caritadi declined. During the period from 1297 to 1347, 24.6 percent of the lparishioners making testaments left money for a charity to be dispensed to their fellow parishioners. In the per- icxi 1348-1381, that figure declined to 15.6 percent; and bar the period 1382-1423, it had dropped precipitously so 316 that only 4.8 percent of the testators left money for caritadi in S. Giacomo. In contrast, caritadi for the leper (and plague) hospital of S. Lazzaro grew from 3.5 percent to 18.8 percent to 22.6 percentin.the three periods. The evidence clearly shows a change in the testamentary behavior of the parishioners of S. Giacomo and indicates that parishioners increasingly viewed the victims of disease rather than their own unfortunate neighbors as those most in need of their testamentary largesse. Another indication of declining parochial solidarity is the decline in parochially endogamous marriages. I have already alerted the reader to the pitfalls involved in using dowry receipts; but it should be recalled that if there was a bias in dowry receipts, it tended to overesti- mate the number of endogamous marriages. In the period 1297-1347, 43.4 percent of all marriages studied were paro- chially endogamous, 34.9 percent were exogamous, and 21.7 percent give incomplete data. In the middle of the fourteenth century (1348-1381) parochial endogamies declined to 36.7 jpercent, but so did exogamies to 25.7 percent. Marriages xvith incomplete data account for 37.8 percent. In the final Eneriod (1382-1423), marriages between residents continued 'to decline (32.1 percent), while exogamous marriages rose sharply to 43.4 percent of those contracted; 24.5 percent are incomplete. Taking into account the tendency of the 317 dowry receipts to overestimate endogamous marriages, the data show that as the century progressed, fewer and fewer resi- dents of S. Giacomo turned to their fellow parishioners when choosing partners. Again, this seems to indicate a de- clining sense of parochialism. A third indicator of declining parochial solidarity is the festival of the Marie. The reader will recall that the festival, which was dedicated to the Virgin, commemorated the rescue of a group of Venetian maidens from pirates. The annual celebration of the festival required the outfitting of twelve girls, the "Marys," by the city's parishes. Yet in 1323 the government had to pass a law placing a heavy penalty on those who fled the parishes of S. Giacomo dall' Orio and S. Giovanni Degolado in order to avoid the obligations of the Marie. This hardly indicates that residents of S. Giacomo had strong feelings of parochial loyalty and pride. It was not, however, an isolated case; many other problems with the festival developed. As a consequence, during the War of Chioggia, the festival was suspended and never revived. Various explanations have been posited for the decline and eventual discontinuation of the festival. Most scholars believe that the festival was discontinued because of the expense involved and because wrangling between parishes became too great.22 Recently, it has been suggested that the government actively suppressed this symbol of local, 318 parish-based loyalty.23 To my mind, the first View, that the festival withered, accords more fully with the sources. If indeed parochial solidarity was declining, then the festival was becoming more of a burden to those responsible for it. In addition, it seems unlikely that the government would have felt the need actively to suppress something that was already in decline. The festival of the Marie is our third indicator pointing to declining parochial solidarity. These three, albeit rough and very different, indices point to the conclusion that while parochial solidarity was weak at the beginning of the trecento, it grew even weaker as the century progressed. The evidence indicates that resi- dents of S. Giacomo increasingly looked beyond the parish for spouses. Testamentary evidence and the fate of the festival of the Marie suggest that loyalty to the parish and parochial solidarity were on the decline. Indeed, these in- dices tend to confirm what I can only term an impression based on a long acquaintance with the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio -- that it was a less tight—knit place in 1423 than it had been in 1297. As the trecento progressed, parochial- ism declined in the parish and throughout the city. Why was the parish less integrated, less tight—knit in 1423 than it had been in 1297? Two events in particular, the Black Death of 1348 and the War of Chioggia, played a major role in this transformation. First, the Black Death, which struck in March of 1348 and lasted throughout the summer, broke, at least temporarily, the established rhythms 319 and patterns of parochial life. Many prominent parishioners and many less prominent ones as well perished during that period. The plague cut a wide swath through the parish, destroying the important and the unimportant alike. In response to this population loss, the government of 24 Venice, passed laws encouraging immigration to the city. Peasants and artisans from the terraferma flocked to Venice taking jobs and positions formerly held by plaque victims. This sudden influx of foreigners had the affect of ac- celeratingthe transformation of the parish from a close-knit community into a less integrated one. The immigrants bought with them new tongues, new customs, and an unfamiliarity with the ways of S. Giacomo dall'Orio.25 Following the Black Death by one generation was the destructive Fourth Genoese War or, as it was known in Venice, the War of Chioggia. The war placed a tremendous burden on the populace. Popolano men were called upon to man the fleet, and the wealthy were forced to contribute great sums of money to support the war effort. The wealthy, espe- cially the nobles, suffered as a consequence of the finan- cial strain caused by the war.26 Many were forced to sell property at disastrous prices. The most notable example from S. Giacomo is, of course, that of the noble Pesaro family. As a consequence of their assessment in the estimo, the Pesaro brothers were forced to sell their "possession 27 grande." The Pesaro family, which had been resident in the 320 parish since the thirteenth century and which through its scion Angelo had endowed a hospital in the parish, was forced to give up its palace. The war also led to another noble displacement. As a consequence of his assessment, Marco da Molin, from the neighboring parish of S. Stae, had to sell one of his properties in S. Giacomo. The da Molin family, headquarteredzhls. Stae, had long held pro- perties and maintained residences in S. Giacomo. The property 28 These two was sold to our old acquaintance Pietro Regla. examples illustrate how the war brought about changes in the social composition of the parish. Two noble families were forced to sell their property and probably to give up their rights as vicini of S. Giacomo. The war of Chioggia jolted the social structure of Venice both on the parochial level and the civic level. The reader will recall that it was in 1381 that the last entrants for two hundred years were admitted to the Great Council. The effect of the war was to jumble again, within a generation of the Black Death, the status quo. While the Black Death and the War of Chiogga are two specific events that we can point to as contributing to the weakening of ties binding parishioners to one another, another less obvious transformation was taking place as well. As the century progressed, the wool industry became centered 29 at the Rio Marin in the nearby parish of S. Simeon Piccolo. The promise of work in the cloth industry led to a steady 321 influx of immigrants, augmenting the ranks of those who had come following the Black Death. Perhaps more than some other parishes, S. Giacomo dall'Orio continued to see an influx of new residents because of its proximity to the Rio Marin. Like all immigrants, these new textile workers felt alienated from their new home and tended to associate with one another. But unlike immigrants from the earlier part of the century who tended to come from nearby terraferma cities, more and more of these men were from distant spots in Italy, notably Tuscany.30 Because they spoke a non- Venetian dialect, they tended to associate with one another and perhaps assimilated less quickly.31 The high rate of immigration, perhaps higher than that in other parts of the city, was another factor working to break down still further feelings of parochial solidarity. By 1423 the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio was less cohesive than it had been in 1297. Although certain factors, notably proximity to the Rio Marin, made S. Giacomo a special case, it seems likely that the transformation that was occuring there was repeated to varying degrees throughout the city. Indeed, it seems likely that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Mhen.the city was smaller and less densely populated, the separate island-parishes were integrated, cohesive communities .like those described by Frederic Lane. Most of the city's cxn1rches were first built through the patronage of noble 322 families, and the donors probably enjoyed semi-feudal rights over these churches (iuspatronatus) and developed clienteles among the neighboring popolani.32 But as the city grew in size and complexity and as the separate island- parishes became physically united by the buildingtmfbridges and the filling of canals, old parochial bonds broke down}:3 This process, which was well under way by 1297, the start- ing point for this study, was intensified and completed by forces operating in the trecento. The Black Death and periodic recurrences of the plague accelerated the displace- ment of old social bonds and the creation of new ones. The War of Chioggia disrupted the social system, ruining certain noble families and helping to create new ones. And in administration, the imposition of a uniform civic adminis- tration assisted in the breakdown of localism. The forces at work in S. Giacomo were not peculiar to it; they were working throughout the city and society, transforming what was the parochial and insular city of the Middle Ages into the unified city of the Renaissance. IV At the beginning of this study, we noted a new trend among the practitioners of social history -- an effort to :make their findings address some of the traditional con— cerns of history, such as the distribution of power in society. 323 And in our survey of the work on neighbors and neighborhoods in Florence and Genoa, we saw that historians have deepened our understanding of traditional issues in the history of those cities, such as the reasons for Genoa's anarchy and the reasons for the rise of the Medici, by studying the urban infrastructure. In the few pages that follow, I would like to suggest some ways in which a better understanding of parochial life in trecento Venice broadens our understanding of the city's political history in the early Renaissance. The transformation that we have just considered in Venice's urban development, the trend away from parochial solidarities between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, had a number of important consequences with regard to Venice's political history. In his work Venice: A Maritime Republic, Frederic Lane set forth the hypothesis that social integra- tion and community spirit at the parochial level contributed to Venice's social stability. But after having examined the parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio in great detail, we have seen that trecento Venetian parishes were not the integrated enti- ties Lane believed they to be. Accordingly, the notion that parishes were the foundation of Venetian stability must like- wise be reconsidered. Paradoxical though it seems at first, a more plausible explanation is that it was the 133k of paro- chial solidarity and the absence of intense localism which 34 accounts for Venice's stability. As the examples of Florence and especially Genoa clearly illustrate, magnates and 324 patricians with local bases of power and with neighborhood clienteles posed a grave threat to republican regimes in the Italian city-states. In Genoa, the incessant fighting of rival locally-based factions turned the city into a maze of fortified cells and made the city's history especially anar- chic. In Florence, competition between the rival Medici and Albizzi factions (both with local bases of support) led to the triumph and establishment of the Medicean regime. In Venice, by contrast, patricians did not develop local bases of power within the city. Without the support of local power bases and a popular clientele, discontented nobles were unable to mount a successful challenge to the aristocratic regime.35 It was a measure of the Venetian nobles' security and confidence that they did not feel compelled to cultivate local bases of support. Again, much of the credit for that security must be accorded to the "enlargement" of the Great Council or Serrata which assured nobles a permanent place in the councils of government not only for themselves but also their succes- sors.36 By guaranteeing each other a permanent voice in the government, nobles diffused the threat of factionalism within their own ranks and the concomitant creation of local bases of support. Secure in their position, noble clans were not forced to dwellimlfortified enclaves; instead, they dwelled in unfortified palaces scattered throughout the city. This, in turn, contributed further to the breakdown of parochial feel- ing. Several factors, the absence of local solidarities, the 325 political settlement reached in the Serrata, and the city- wide orientation of family life worked together to create a unified aristocratic class and a stable aristocratic regime. The aristocrats were not, however, the only threat to Venice's regime; the popolani also posed a potential threat. Popular uprisings were common enough in Italy; and in Floralce, the Ciompi were able, for a time, to transform the political regime. In Venice, after the 1260's, there is no evidence that the popolani posed a threat to the city's government. Again, the urban structure of the city partially accounts for that situation. Unlike medieval Genoa and fifteenth-century Florence, fourteenth-century Venice never became a truly bifur- cated city with the elite living at the city's core and the 37 While there was a concentration of poor on the outskirts. wealth in certain central zones and poorer parishes on the periphery, the pattern was not clear-cut.38 Credit for that must, to some extent, be attributed to the city's unique topography. For one thing, the advantage of a building site on a wide canal (especially the Grand Canal) caused the city's patricians to choose building sites throughout the city, not just in the densely settled core around S. Marco. In addition, ‘Venice's truly poor urban outskirts, the islands of the la- goon, were so far removed from the city that they were not really part of Venice's urban environment. Dispersed through- CNIt the city and the lagoon, the popolani were not able to chevelop tight-knit parochial identities.39 Unlike other cities, 326 trecento Venice did not have peripheral lower class neigh- borhoods seething with discontent. The disenfranchised and discontented elements in Venetian society formed an inchoate, dispersed mass. Unable to unify around neighborhood bases, two institu— tions represented rallying points for the Venetian popolani: the guilds and the scuole. In this regard, it is instructive to consider how the noble government dealt with them. Start- ing in the 1260's, the government began a policy of strict guild supervision. The guilds were placed under special officials, the giustizieri vecchi, and severe limitations were placed on their right to assemble and govern themselves.40 Similarly,the scuole or religious confraternities were placed under the jurisdiction of the Council of Ten. For example, in 1312 the Ten passed a rule forbidding the scuole to assem- 41 ble or process at night. Diffused by their geographic dis- persal, the government made sure that the popolani could pose no threat through the guilds or confraternities. But there were two groups within the popolo minuto for whom the conjuncture of profession and residence had the potential of creating tight-knit associations and therefore some threat to the aristocrats. These were the Arsenalotti, the workers at the Arsenal, and the Nicolotti, the fishermen of the parish of S. Nicold dei Mendicoli. The Arsenalotti posed the more serious threat since they could easily arm themselves with weapons from the Arsenal and because they 327 could travel quickly to S. Marco. Accordingly, the govern- ment maintained strict supervision of the trades practiced at the Arsenal, allowing them a lesser degree of autonomy even than that allowed other guilds.42 But the carrot bal- anced the stick. The Arsenalotti were accorded several pri- vileges.especially the right to form an honor guard at the doge's funeral.43 They were integrated into the government and made Uofeel that they belonged. The Nicolotti, poor fishermen, lived in one of the few parishes that exhibited strong community feelings. The poor fisherman of S. Nicold‘ probably posed no real threat to the city; but, as a precau- tionary measure, the government integrated them into the city by according them the right to elect their own gastaldus, who was received by the doge..44 In both cases, the government turned the particularism of the Arsenalotti and the Nicolotti to its own advantage. As with the nobles, it was the lack of local bases of support that prevented the Venetian popolo minuto from posing a threat to the aristocratic regime. Because they were dif- fused throughout the city, the popolo minuto were unable to create an effective network of associations that could threaUal the government. Those entities that had the potential for creating rival bases of power (the guilds and the confrater- nities) were strictly supervised by the government. But by far the greater threat to the government among the popolani came not from the popolo minuto, the artisans and 328 laborers of Venice, but from the prosperous element of the popolani, the wealthy merchants and great guildsmen. In other Italian communes, regimes were consistently overthrown by the novi cives.45 In Venice, the nobles met this threat in sev- eral ways. First, as we have already seen, they placed tight controls on the very organs, the guilds and confraternities, which the novi cives might have used to build their own bases of support. Second, in the Serrata and particularly in later admissions to the Great Council, the nobles brought into their ranks many of those who posed a potential threat. But that solution did not continue, for admissions to the council ended in 1381. By the end of the trecento, a group of novi cives had arisen, men such as Pietro Regla and Bernardo Bedoloto, who had no prospect of entering the ranks of the nobility.46 The aristocrats met the threat posed by these men not with admission into the nobility or with repression, but with co- Optation. Through the careful and deliberate granting of com- mercial contracts and privileges and through intermarriage, the patricians were able to unite the novi cives to themselves. Again, it is testimony to the non-parochial nature of trecento Venetian life that that patronage did not proceed along neigh- borhood lines. Rather patronage flowed from the central government -- specifically from the Great Council -- through grazie. The novi cives owed their gratitude not only to per- sonal patrons who had sponsored them but also to the governing council of the aristocratic regime which had approved their petitions. 329 The situation in fourteenth-century Venice then was very different from that of either Florence or Genoa. Par- ishes and neighborhoods were indeed mixtures of the rich and poor of Venetian society, but they were not tight-knit com- munities imbued with feelings of parochial solidarity. Paradoxically, we can state that it was the lack of integra- tion and the absence of localism either on the part of the nobles or the popolani that account for Venice's stability. The geographic dispersal of their families and their city- wide orientation united the nobles in support of the govern- ment; their geographic dispersal and strict supervision by the government kept the popolani quiet.47 The absence of parochialism in fourteenth-century Venice promoted Venetian stability. Finally, we may note that Venice's urban space and architecture reflected the non-parochial, civic orientation of the populace. Historians have noted that in Florence urban architecture was a reflection of the city's civic humanism and patriotism and that in Genoa the closed, inward— looking squares reflected the city's private humanism.48 For Venice, much has been made of the fact that the city's parish squares are microcosms of the Piazza 3. Marco. Supposedly, the parish squares (and therefore the parishes) of Venice replicate the integrated, rational nature of the Piazza S. 49 Marco (and thereforetfluecity) over and over again. But again, there is an alternative interpretation. The signifi- 330 cance is not that there are hundreds of minature piazze, for that is characteristic of all Italian cities, but that there is only one great piazza, the Piazza S. Marco.50 The focus of the city comes to rest on that place where urban space finally expands and where the government and the chunfll 51 are united. The Grand Canal with its splendid presentation of noble palaces serves only as an extended entryway into the piazza. The focus of Venetian architecture and urban plan- ning, like the focus of Venetian lives, was the Piazza S. Marco. There all Venetians came under the protective care of Venice's patron, St. Mark, and under the watchful eye of its aristocratic regime. NOTES TO CHAPTER EIGHT 1The case vecchie and case nove were two groups within the patriciate. The vecchie were very old and prestigious families, which traced their ancestry to the early days of Venetian history. For this distinction and a list of the case vecchie, see Stanley Chojancki, "In Search of the Venetian Patriciate: Families and Factions in the Fourteenth Century," in Renaissance Venice, ed. J.R. Hale (London, 1974), P. 49 and note 19. 2We found this especially in our consideration of family life. See Chapter Five, entitled, "Kinship and Residence: Families in the Parish." 3For the familial aspects of neighborhood life in Florence and Genoa, see, among others, F.W. Kent, Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1977), esp. pp. 121-149; Gene A. Brucker, Renaissance Florence (New York, 1969), pp. 23-24; Diane Owen Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa," Past and Present 66 (1975), PP. 3-28; Jacques Heers, Family Clans—in the Middle Ages (Amsterdam, 1977), pp. 148-150. Samuel Cohn argues that in the fifteenth century, the "ecology" of Florence changed. The peripheral parishes became concentra- tions of lower class residents. See Samuel Kline Cohn, Jr. The Laboring ClassestlRenaissance Florence (New York, 1980), Chapter 5. For lower class districts in Genoa, see Diane Owen Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors in Medieval Genoa," in The Medieval City, eds. Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and A.L. Udovitch (New York, 1977), p. 106; also Heers, Family Clans, pp. 139+l4l. 4 Felice, docs. 865, 940, 998. 5This is according to the estimo of 1379. See Gino Luzzatto, I_prestiti della Repubblica di Venezia (sec. xiii-xv) , 2 vols. Documenti finanziari della Repubblica di Venezia, Series 3 (Padua, 1929), vol. 1, part 1, doc. 165. Another example is the case of Michele di Fantin Morosini who lived in S. Maria Formosa. For a time his son Giovanni lived across town in S. Cassian but he eventually returned to S. Maria Formosa. Giovanni's son lived in S. Giovanni Laterano and his grandson in S. Salvador. See Chojnacki, "In Search," p. 61. See also the example of family dispersal displayed by the noble Zusto family in Luigi Lanfranchi, ed., Famiglia Zusto, Fonti per la storia di Venezia (Venice, 1955), p. xiii, note 1. 331 332 6For the Doria, see Jacques Heers, "Urbanisme et struc- ture sociale a Genes au Moyen-Age," in Société et économie a Genes (xive—xve siecles) (London, 1979), pp. 387- 388, 412. 7For the Medici, see Dale Kent, The Rise of the Medici (Oxford, 1978), pp. 61-71. 8Again the best example from S. Giacomo is that of Angelo da Pesaro who wanted his palace to stay in the family. See ASV, PSM de ultra, Miscellanea Testamenti, Busta 1-2, testament, 15 June 1309. 9Frederic C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973). p. 116. 10The elites of Florence and Genoa cultivated neighbor- hood ties with popolani. For Florence, see Dale Kent, Rise of the Medici, pp. 61-71; for Genoa, Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure," p. 28. 11Richard Trexler argues that thlorence, it was not space that elicited reverence, but objects. He says, "reverence was due to Mass not to natural or architectonic volume, to the relic or image not to the church, to the Signoria not the Palace, to the nuns not their nunneries." This accords nicely with the idea that for Venetians territory (space) was not as important as objects in that space (palaces) or contacts. See Richard C. Trexler, Public Life in Renais- sance Florence (New York, 1980), pp. 47-54. 12Diane Hughes argues that in Genoa guilds did not have geographic bases and that this helps to explain their lack of political influence. See Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors," p. 105. Stephen E11 has found that immigrants to Venice did not create ethnic neighborhoods. They settled throughout the city and intermarried with native Venetians. See Stephen R. Ell, "Citizenship and Immigration in Venice, 1305-1500" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1976), chapter 2. 13For the phrase "continuum of outstanding men," see James C. Davis, A Venetian Family_and Its Fortune, 1500- 1900 (Philadelphia, 1975). p. 8. 14Of course patricians in other cities also cultivated connections; but they also had a stronger territorial identification of themselves than did the nobles of Venice. 15 Lane, Venice, pp. 11-12. 16The phrase in Lane's. Ibid., p. 11. 333 17That is, despite the fact that the Bedolotos and Reglas were not aristocrats, they moved in aristocratic circles. See Chapter Seven, "Social Structure and Social Mobility: Some Examples from S. Giacomo dall'Orio." 18 Pious bequests are considered more fully in Chapter Four, "The Parochial Clergy and Religious Life." 19Bartolomeo left money for the marrying of twenty poor girls born in the sestiere of S. Croce. See Bartolomeo's will in ASV, PSM de ultra, Commissarie, Busta 220, Commissaria of Bartolomeo plebanus. 201 say primarily the o 010, because the nobles' concept of space was linked inextricably to their concept of famiglia. Their sphere, their orbit, extended at least as far as their family connections. 21Recently Richard Trexler has sounded major reserva- tions about the importance of parish solidarity in Florence. He states, "Rarely indeed did a Florentine express pride or affection for one's gonfalon and quarterf In this city, one was either a member of a family and a Florentine, or nothing at all. No significant voluntary organizations were to be found in the parishes and sections." Trexler, Public Life, pp. 13-14. He does, however, accept Cohn's findings about parochial endogamy. 22See, for example, Bartolomeo Cecchetti, "La donna nel medioevo veneziano," Archivio veneto 31 (1886), 33-69, 307- 349; S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, 2nd ed. in 10 vols. (Venice, 1912), vol. 1, pp. 235-240; Pompeo MolmentL La storia di Venezia nella vita privata, 7th ed. in 3 vols. (Trieste, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 194-199. 23Edward Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981), pp. 151-156. 24 . . . . For the government acts encouraging 1mmlgratlon after the plague and general government response to the plague, see Mario Brunetti, "Venezia durante 1e peste del 1348." Ateneo veneto 32 (1909). PP. 5-42, 289-311. 25In his study of citizenship and immigration, Stephen Ell finds that immigration to the city grew substantially in the period 1348-1430. See Ell, chapter 2. 26For a discussion of the strain caused by the war, see Gino Luzzatto, I1 debitoApubblico della Repubblica di Venezia (Milan, 1963), pp. I64-l76. 334 27The Pesaro sale can be found in Luzzatto, I prestiti, doc. 178 (pp. 108-109). 28 Ibid., doc. 173, (pp. 202-203). 29See N. Fano, "Ricerche sull'arte della lana a Venezia nell xiii e xiv secolo," Archivio veneto 14 (1936), p. 149. 30E11 found that in the period 1305-1348 more immigrants came to Venice from the Veneto than any other region; in the period 1348-1430, both Tuscany and Emilia surpassed the Veneto. See Ell, pp. 67, 130. 31One indication that these workers were not assimilat- ing quickly is that they were quite prone to violence. This may have been a symptom of their general alienation from Venetian society. For some cases of violence (which inci- dentally show that they moved in friendship circles), see ASV, SN a1 Criminal, Processi, Register 11, f. 12v-l3r; Register 12, f. 26v. 32See, for example, the very brief remarks in Heers, Family Clans, p. 246, note 100. Although Venetian parishes and neighborhoods have not been studied for the medieval period, there are a few indications that parochial solidarity was stronger then. For example, in 1194 the bishop of Torcello, on the recommendation of the parochial clergy, sent a letter to a certain Galiciana Venier of S. Maria Formosa reminding her of her obligation to attend the church of S. Maria Formosa. This close familiarity with their fel- low parishioners may have been characteristic of parochial life in the earlier centuries. See Maurizio Rosada, ed., S. Maria Formosa, Fonti per la storia di Venezia, Series 3, Archivi ecclesiastici (Venice, 1972), doc. 24. Edward Muir also accepts Lane's characterization of Venetian parishes in the early centuries. See Muir, p. 146. 33For a discussion of the topological features of four- teenth—century Venice, see B. Cecchetti, "La vita dei veneziani nel 1300," Archivio veneto 27-29 (1884-1885). 34I would argue that parochialism was one of the many forms of particularism against which the Italian city-state governments had to struggle. For a view of city-state history as a struggle against particularism, see Marvin Becker, FlorencejxlTransition, Vol. 1, The Decline of the Commune (Baltimore, 1967), especially pp. 218-229. 335 35The prevailing opinion among scholars today is that the two most serious threats to the city's aristocratic regime in the fourteenth century, the Querini-Tiepolo conspiracy of 1310 and the conspiracy of Doge Marino Falier in 1355, were disputes between rival noble factions not popular uprisings. There does not seem to have been a territorial aspect to these rivalries. See G. Pillinini, "Marino Falier e la crisi della meta del '300 a Venezia," Archivio veneto, Series 5, 84 (1968), pp. 45-71; also Lane, Venice, pp. 114-117, 181-183; and Chojnacki, "In Search," p. 50. 36For a discussion of the interpretation of the Serrata as an "enlargement" of the Great Council, see the preceding chapter. 37For this view of fifteenth-century Florence's urban ecology. See Cohn, Laboring Classes, chapter 5. Cohn argues that the city was more integrated in the trecento than in the quattrocento. A consensus has not developed on the issue of Florentine neighborhoods however. Gene Brucker argues that "a remarkable feature of Renaissance Florence was the social and economic heterogeneity of each district and neighborhood." See Brucker, Renaissance Florence, p. 23. For Genoa, see Hughes, "Kinsmen and Neighbors," pp. 103—104. 38The estimo of 1379 shows that certain peripheral parishes, such as S. Biagio, S. Pietro di Castello, S. Nicolo dei Mendicoli, and S. Lucia, which were at Opposite ends of the city, were quite poor. However, wealthy parishes such as S. Maria Formosa, S. Angelo, SS. Apostoli, and S. Polo were scattered throughout the city. Only one parish, S. Nicold‘dei Mendicoli, contained no noble resi- dents in 1379. For the estimo, see Luzzatto, I prestiti, doc. 165. 39In his treatise Ragion di stato, Giovanni Botero suggested that the city's tOpography helped to explain its stability. He wrote, "I believe that one of the main reasons for the peaceful condition of Venice is the canals which so intersect the city that its inhabitants can only Ineet together with difficulty and after much delay, during ‘which their grievance is remedied." See Giovanni Botero, 'The Reason of State, trans. P.J. Waley and D.P. Waley (New Haven, 1956), p. 109. 40See Lane, Venice, pp. 104-109; and the discussion in Chapter Six above, entitled, "Craftsmen in the Parish: The Furriers of S. Giacomo dall'Orio." 336 41 . . . For government superv1s1on of the scuole, see Brlan Pullan, Rich and Poor in Renaissance Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 44- 45. 42For the Arsenalotti, see Frederic C. Lane, Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1934), pp. 146-188. 43Lane, Venice, p. 271. 44Ibid., p. 12. 45See, for example, Marvin Becker, "An Essay on the 'Novi Cives' and Florentine Politics, 1343-1382," Medieval Studies 24 (1962), pp. 35-82; also Becker, Florence in Transition, pp. 218-223. 46For the position of these men, see Luzzatto, ll debito pubblico, pp. 170-171. 47This accords with Giorgio Cracco's view that Venetian history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries can be viewed as a dialectic between society and the state with the triumph of the state. He says, "la dialettica interna a1 patriziato, ridotta 1a societd’al suo destino di servitu e di miseria, non restava che l' immoto, secolare predominio dei dominatori sui sudditi, dei padroni sui servi. C' e gia chi e inquieto, chi non accetta questo stato splendido in alto ma spento alla base." See Giorgio Cracco, Societa e stato nel medioevo veneziano (Florence, 1967), p. 458. 48Hughes, "Urban Growth and Family Structure, p. 28; Trexler, p. 15. 49Lewis Mumford, The City in History (New York, 1961), pp. 369-373; Lane, Venice, p. 12; also (with expressed reservations) Muir, p. 147. 50Nomenclature reflects this fact even today. Only the Piazza S. Marco is called a piazza; all other squares go by the name campi. Slln his study of civic ritual, Edward Muir shows that S. Imarco was the ritual center of Venice. See Muir, p. 154. APPENDIX APPENDIX: A NOTE ON SOURCES AND APPROACH Anyone wishingtx>study parishes and neighborhoods in late medieval and early Renaissance Venice is faced with the problem of finding sources which can answer the kind of questions the researcher wishes to ask. For this early period in Venetian history there are few sources, either ecclesiastical or secular, which focus specifically on the parish. Parochial archives contain little from this early period; and parish registers (a valuable and unexplored source) do not begin until the late sixteenth century.1 The Patriarchal Archives, housed near S. Marco, contain little for this period in the way of parish records. No records of the city's parish-based officials, the capi di sestieri and the capi di contrade, except for some statutes, are extant. It is even impossible for the historian to find a list of the inhabitants of a particular parish. Although venice was among the first of the Italian cities to keep censuses of its population, the first extant census records 2 The estimo (and they are incomplete) date from 1509. of 1379, while an invaluable source, only lists parishioners with real property valued above 300 lire a grossi. Given the available sources, it is impossible to reconstruct the 337 338 total population of a particular parish during this early period. Lacking a parish-centered source, I was forced to turn to other sources in order to reconstruct and under- stand as fully as possible the important features of parochial life. The most valuable source of information about the private lives of fourteenth-century Venetians is the records of the notaries who were stationed as priests in the parishes. Today these records are housed in the Archivio di Stato, but as a quirk of the archives they have been divided into separate funds; the Cancelleria Inferiore and the Archivio Notarile. The Cancelleria Inferiore section contains more than 200 ppppg of notarial records from the thirteenth and four- teenth centuries. The material is arranged chronologically by notary. Several notaries found in this archive, who were priests in S. Giacomo, formed the primary basis for the present study. They were Felice de Merlis (1315-1348), Bartolomeo Recovrati (1294-1348), Simeon (1361-1389), and Giacomo Cavalier (1349-1400).3 These four men were not the only priests stationed in S. Giacomo whose records are ex- tant, but theirs are the most complete. For example, all that remains of Giacomo Padavino's notarial output is one folio page. All notaries active in the parish in the period under consideration were examined, as well as many others. The protocols of the various notaries contain a huge variety of acts. Wills, dowry receipts, business contracts 339 of all sorts, rent receipts, property sales, power of attorney contracts, and many other kinds of agreements can be found intfluaprotocols. Although notaries were stationed in particular parishes, parishioners were not obliged to go to their parish notary; they could go to any notary they wished. For this reason, it was important for this study to consult notaries besides those stationed in S. Giacomo. In contrast to notaries in other cities, the venetian notaries did not tend to Specialize either in the kinds of contracts which they drafted or in their clientele, except when they were employed as scribes in government offices.4 Because it was impossible to consult all of the notarial records in the Cancelleria Inferiore, I had to limit the scope of my investigation by consulting notaries from S. Giacomo, and notaries from parishes in the vicinity of S. Giacomo. As a general rule, I found that the number of residents of S. Giacomo contained in the records diminished the further I (and the notary) ventured from the parish. The other great fund of notarial documents is the Archivio Notarile in which are deposited testaments. While some testaments can be found in the protocols and parchments of the Cancelleria Inferiore, the majority are found in the Archivio Notarile. For example, three of Giacomo Cavalier's protocols are housed in Cancelleria Inferiore, while the Archivio Notarile contains hundreds of his unbound, paper testaments. Some of the paper testaments have duplicates in the protocols. 340 The testaments found in the Archivio Notarile are an invaluable source. They are especially useful for recon- structing families (through legacies) and for analyzing the patterns and content of bequests. Some acts other than wills can be found in the Archivio Notarile. Occasionally, especially when the wills are in protocols, one finds other kinds of acts. Indeed, one of the noble dowries (the Dandolo dowry) used in this study came from the records of the Archivio Notarile.5 Together, the notarial records found in the Cancelleria Inferiore and the Archivio Notarile provide huge amounts of information for anyone interested in Venetian social history. Another important source of information about the private lives of fourteenth-century venetians is the estate records maintained by the procurators of S. Marco. Many Venetians decided in their wills to leave their estates under the care of the procurators. When the procurators be- came responsible for an estate, they placed a copy of the will in their files and started an account book of all de- posits and withdrawals from the estate's funds. In addi- tion, the deceased's personal papers were often placed in 6 this file. As this brief description of the typical commissaria indicates, these sources contain information on a variety of topics. For example, they allow one to fol- lOW'the execution of a will. Indeed, a study is needed to determine whether or not wills were executed according to testators' wishes, and the records of the procurators would 341 be an ideal place to begin. In addition, one can learn much about families from these records and about the busi- ness activities of individuals or families. The commissarie are organized according to the division of the procurators (de ultraLAde citra, de supra) and are arranged according to testator. While the aforementioned sources provided the bulk of the material contained in this study, public records, the records of official government bodies, can also provide much information. Notable among the public archives are the records of two of Venice's administrative bodies, the signori di notte and the avogaria di comun. The Signori di Notte a1 Criminal, Processi and the Avogaria di Comun, Raspe are the records of criminal cases brought before the two bodies. Containing cases of murder, rape, robbery, assault, and other crimes, these records have been of special interest to those studying violence and criminality, but they contain much more as well. For example, the testi- mony provided by witnesses to crimes (especially that found in the signori di notte) is one of the few places where one may hear what was the authentic voice of the popolo minuto and other disenfranchised elements of Venetian society. A common question asked in the interrogation procedure was whether or not others were witness to a crime. The answers provide clues about the associations people had. Weighed carefully, these sources can provide data about friendships, alliances, and animosities among fourteenth-century Venetians. 342 Civil court records are another useful source. Notable among these are the records of the giudici dippetizion which are quite extensive for the fourteenth century. Again, these records provide information about business associations and practices. However, of all the documents consulted, these presented the greatest paleographic difficulties. Another public source is the records of the grazie or reductions of sentences granted by the Great Council. The registers from the fourteenth century contain over 18,000 cases. The entries are cryptic and often formulaic, but they briefly state the offense committed and then give a reason why the sentence is being reduced. As such, they provide a veritable catalogue of illegal behaviors (many concerning infringement of guild regulations). In addi- tion, they can provide much information about the individ- uals receiving the grazie. Finally, the grazie provide faint clues about the network of patronage that was Operat- ing in fourteenth-century Venice. In addition to the above-mentioned sources, a number of other sources were (and can be) consulted to provide information about parish life and social history in general. For example, the deliberations of the Great Council con- tain much information about the changing topography of the city; The Council was responsible for major changes in the city's development (building of bridges, dredging of canals, etc.), and its records provide information about building activity in particular parishes. Guild records are sparse 343 for the fourteenth century, but the mariegole or statutes of the city's guilds are easily consultable in Giovanni Monticolo's edition of them.7 However, his edition ends at 1330, and one must consult the manuscripts (many at the Museo Correr) for further changes in the statutes. Another source of information (which I was able only to quickly sample) is the records of the scuole, especially the scuole grande. The records of the city's monasteries, which I was unable to explore (except for the records of the Frari) may also contain information about parochial life. Brief excursions into the trecento holdings of the Museo Correr, the Biblioteca Marciana, and the Querini- Stampalia yielded only bits of information. Because parishioners from different social groups and occupations were involved in virtually all aspects of Venetian life, it is safe to assume that in all of the re- cords extant from the trecento, one will find information that illuminates the lives of particular parishioners. Each new source, each new bit of information nuances (and compli- cates) the picture of parochial life. To that extent, the process of researching a particular parish is never finished. For the single researcher, however, who is working under the normal constraints of one set of eyes, one pair of hands, and limited time, the sources outlined above are sure to yield the richest results for his or her labor. 344 As noted in the introduction to this work, the study of neighbors and neighborhoods in late medieval and Renais- sance Italy is a new area of inquiry for historians. And although the newness of the field gives the researcher some sense of being a 'pioneer', that same novelty brings with it serious problems. In a new area of study, there are not standard methodologies, definitions, or assumptions from which to proceed. One must simultaneously develOp methods, collect data, and test hypotheses. One runs the constant risk of pursuing paths which lead nowhere. Fortunately, in my own research, I have had the oppor- tunity of following the path that was cleared by Diane Owen Hughes in her work with the notarial records of late medieval Genoa. In an article entitled, "Toward Historical Ethnog- raphy: Notarial Records and Family History in the Middle Ages," Hughes has outlined the general characteristics of notarial records, including their strengths and weaknesses.8 Furthermore, Hughes has outlined an approach which she be- lieves is the most practical to use with notarial sources. Stated briefly, she suggests that these records "let us start with the individual and construct a network of social relationships, some familial, others not, which will shape his life and give form to the community in which he lives."9 In general, Hughes suggests that the historian adopt the techniques of network analysis developed by sociologists. 345 Having decided to follow generally the guidelines sketched by Hughes, the first problem I encountered was that of finding a way to sample the extensive notarial archives and thereby limit the boundaries of my inquiry. The choice of a single parish as the subject of my inquiry was the logical one since the records for one parish represented a large but manageable body of material and, more importantly, because it would allow me to test the validity of Frederic Lane's hypothesis about the nature of Venetian parochial life. The parish of S. Giacomo dall'Orio was chosen for its extensive run of fourteenth-century notaries. I began my inquiry with the notaries. Reading the notaries, I slowly compiled lists of people living in the parish and began collecting as much information about the individual parishioners as possible. Once I had scoured the notaries from the parish and surrounding parishes, I was able to extend the range of sources consulted (and thereby the perspectives on the parishioners). The records outlined at the beginning of this essay yielded the greatest amounts of information. Gradually, as the data were com- piled, I was able to identify individuals and families and to recognize their relationships to one another. The pro- cess of reconstructing social networks proceeded slowly. When applicable (in the case of dowry receipts and choice of fiduciaries) I was able to make some very elementary quantitative analyses. 346 An alternative approach, like that employed by Samuel Cohn in his The Laboring Classes in Renaissance Florence, would have been to take a city-wide sample by focusing on a single kind of relationship (in Cohn's case, marriage).10 While that approach has three distinct advantages (a greater geographic scope, readily quantifiable data, and facility in perceiving change over time), it has clear disadvantages as well. First, the reliance on a single type of document (and therefore a single type of relationship) immediately limits the vantage points from which individuals or classes are viewed.11 An individual viewed from the perspective of the family can look very different when viewed in the light of his livelihood, religious life, or neighborhood. For example, too narrow a focus on the family life of a S. Giacomo furrier would obscure the fact that his professional life took him to workshops at Rialto, to the guild's scuola at S. Maria Crociferi, and to friends' homes in other parishes. Second, the necessity of placing data in preconceived cate- gories in order to quantify the material forces one to make difficult decisions which can distort the material. This second problem seems particularly serious. Innurown research, I have been surprised repeatedly by the way in which the records (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally) conceal information which, when