92 michael knapton
of ambiguity allowed differing notions about the terraferma state to coex-
ist, together with diversity of language describing political relationships.
The legitimacy of the Republic’s annexations and subsequent exercise
of government became increasingly sensitive between the mid-15th and
early 16th centuries, as other Italian rulers developed propaganda hostile
to Venetian “imperialism,” drawing answers often couched in humanist
language (e.g., Bernardo Giustinian’s 1457 funeral oration for Doge Fran-
cesco Foscari).
In justifying annexation and rule of mainland provinces, tact towards
subjects curbed reference to Venice’s de facto right of conquest, and
though it obtained belated imperial investiture with most terraferma
lands in 1437, it later drew no attention to this. Preference went to such
generic concepts as God’s favor towards the Republic, its right to self-
defense, its commitment to freedom and peace, and its altruism towards
communities previously crushed by tyranny. And the most significant spe-
cific source of de iure sovereignty lay in subjects’ spontaneous acceptance
of Venetian rule, usually part of the exchange of requests by new sub-
jects and concessions by Venice, whose broader tone was that of a pact,
although negotiated between parties of disparate status. Though many
single issues named in these pacts were soon superseded, they maintained
lasting symbolic value.
New, extensive territorial power in Italy was one of the factors behind
the transition from 1423 onwards in Venetian official language, from refer-
ence to the state as a whole as commune, towards dominium, or signoria
in Italian—words expressing a principle of authority, the political body
exercising it, and also the territory concerned (meanings also conveyed
by the vernacular imperio and Latin imperium). But none of these terms
assimilated terraferma subjects as participants in the Venetian political
order or the authority with which it was invested, and they themselves
made no request for representation in mainline Venetian government.
Both they and Venetians might use the same political metaphors (parents/
children, patrons/clients, head/members of the same body), but in the
15th century, a mainland city would call itself civitas, meaning a politi-
cal body with its own laws, authority, and jurisdiction over a districtus,
while Venetian government language did not necessarily consider civitas
as implying such rights. Moreover, neither this terminology nor political
practice signified any meaningful perception of the mainland provinces
as a common entity by virtue of subjection to the Republic. There was
a lasting carry-through from each territory’s specific experience of gov-
ernment and politics into overwhelmingly one-to-one relationships with