116 michael knapton
confirmed by the failure of 18th-century reform—proposed, partly under-
taken, but never formally completed or confirmed by the councils of
state—to codify and simplify mainline civil and criminal lawcodes (less
contentious, and therefore a tardy but very partial success, was the publi-
cation in 1780 of a feudal lawcode).
In ecclesiastical policy, after back-pedaling during the 17th century on
the policy earlier advocated by Paolo Sarpi, for assertion of fuller state
sovereignty over the traditional privileges enjoyed by the clergy, and for
clearer separation between the secular and the ecclesiastical spheres,
there was resumption of a more hardline approach around mid-18th cen-
tury, in tune with most of Europe.58 This policy had direct implications
for the mainland: in the imposition of more efficacious rules concern-
ing mortmain; in the already mentioned confiscation and sale of church
property; in a considerable reduction in the number of houses of the reli-
gious orders and the numbers of professed nuns, monks, and friars; and
in the suppression of the Jesuit order in 1773, with collateral though minor
effects on schooling, since Jesuit secondary schools in various terraferma
cities were converted into state schools.
c. Mainland Society
In the relationship between the Venetian patriciate and mainland aris-
tocracies, signs of more direct hostility to Venice by the latter diminished
and patronage relations between the two groups seem to have intensi-
fied. But there remained the general impediment to the linkage between
the state and mainland society—a problem common to all early modern
republican states, not just Venice—constituted by the lack of substantial
career opportunities and access to power for leading members of pro-
vincial society, obstructed by the existing ruling elite’s hold on mainline
government.
No solution to this problem came from the admission of 128 new fami-
lies to the Venetian patriciate between 1646 and 1718, even though many
were connected with the mainland and a stronger link between the capi-
tal and provincial society had been hoped for.59 Many of the families with
mainland associations had already largely transferred to Venice in pur-
suit of careers as merchants or lawyers, and their new patrician status
58 Preto, “Le riforme.”
59 Roberto Sabbadini, L’acquisto della tradizione. Tradizione aristocratica e nuova nobiltà
a Venezia (secoli XVII–XVIII) (Udine, 1995).