the terraferma state 89
b. Historiography
In the early modern centuries, state-commissioned official historiogra-
phies of the Republic of Venice, like orthodox political comment, largely
neglected the terraferma and represented the quality of mainland govern-
ment and subjects’ loyalty and contentment with the optimism typical of
the myth of Venice.6 Most historical writing by terraferma authors primar-
ily expressed fragmented local patriotism and, if covering the Venetian
period, rarely extended beyond idealizing tributes to Venetian govern-
ment and celebration of important local figures. In the 18th-century, non-
official Venetian historians such as Vettor Sandi and Cristoforo Tentori
devoted significant, albeit politically cautious, attention to aspects of
mainland government; the Veronese noble Scipione Maffei’s forthright
Consiglio politico... criticized the failure to strengthen the state by bridg-
ing internal divisions, especially between Venice and the dominion, and
proposed terraferma representation in mainline state institutions—but,
very revealingly, though written in 1736 it was only published in 1797.
The Republic’s demise favored more critical evaluation of its history,
including the Venice-terraferma nexus: thus especially Pierre Daru, who
accused the Venetian patriciate of subjecting, dividing and excluding
the mainland aristocracy from state-building. In the mid-19th century,
emerging nationalism combined with tenets of the myth to make Italian
historiography concerning the Republic largely apologetic, and its rela-
tionship with the terraferma was presented prevalently in terms of pater-
nalism and respect for local autonomies—for example, especially, and
very influentially, Samuele Romanin. Multifarious subsequent research
through to the early 20th century partly addressed that relationship too,
but major progress in terraferma historiography came only after fascism,
whose cultural ethos tended to laud Venice’s general experience of state-
craft. Marino Berengo’s La società veneta... (1956) and Angelo Ventura’s
Nobiltà e popolo... (1964), respectively addressing the later 18th and the
6 For the period through to the early 20th century, see Gino Benzoni, “La storiografia
e l’erudizione storico-antiquaria. Gli storici municipali,” in Girolamo Arnaldi and Manlio
Pastore Stocchi, eds., Storia della cultura veneta, 6 vols (Vicenza, 1976–86), vol. 4 (1984):
Il Seicento, part 2, pp. 67–93; Gino Benzoni, “Pensiero storico e storiografia civile,” in Storia
della cultura veneta, vol. 5 (1986): Dalla Controriforma alla fine della Repubblica. Il Sette-
cento, part 2, pp. 71–95; Gino Benzoni, “La storiografia,” in Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 6
(1986): Dall’età napoleonica alla prima guerra mondiale, pp. 597–623; and Claudio Povolo,
“The Creation of Venetian Historiography,” in John Martin and Dennis Romano, eds., Ven-
ice Reconsidered. The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 1297–1797 (Baltimore,
2000), pp. 491–519.