the terraferma state 119
As to the rural environment, there was no drastic change in the respon-
sibilities discharged by its institutions.65 The corpi territoriali seem to
have lost their inclination to challenge urban jurisdiction any further in
the course of the 17th century, settling for the exercise of the functions
they had achieved. There was periodic action by Venetian authority, espe-
cially the Sindici Inquisitori and city governors, to regulate the function-
ing of mainland institutions, primarily by decreeing rules—concerned
with their budgeting, taxing, borrowing, spending, and auditing; with use
of collective property and rights; and with turnover in executive offices.
Such action seems to have addressed rural bodies more than urban ones,
not just contado-level corpi territoriali but also mountain valley commu-
nities and intermediate administrative levels such as vicariates, as well
as single communities. But its actual impact on administrative practice
and underlying political strategies by local elites seems limited, and this
scepticism may be extended to Venetian pressure to limit discrimination
within single rural communities between families of local origin and of
more recent immigration, which had significant practical implications for
access to collective property and rights.
Central government sought to develop political communication and
direct contact with single rural communities via mechanisms such as
petitions, and in the specific circumstances of Friuli it sought to extend
the Udine governor’s judicial competence within feudal jurisdictions
(supported by the city of Udine’s aspiration to redress its own jurisdic-
tional weakness). However, other features of policy did little to favor such
communication and contact. The long Ottoman wars were accompanied
by the sale of new mainland feudal rights, whose overall valency may be
considered more social and economic than jurisdictional in strict terms,
indicating the central government’s lack of concern about the risk of sub-
stantial loss of sovereignty—a different attitude from that advocated in
Sarpi’s 1621 short treatise on Friulan feudal jurisdictions.66 Furthermore,
despite rural society’s undying capacity to generate what might be called
bourgeois families, despite the immense variety of local situations, despite
65 Knapton, “Cenni sulle strutture fiscali”; Ivana Pederzani, Venezia e lo “Stado de Ter-
raferma.” Il governo delle comunità nel territorio bergamasco (secc. XV–XVIII) (Milan, 1992);
Germano Maifreda, Rappresentanze rurali e proprietà contadina. Il caso veronese fra Sei e
Settecento (Milan, 2002).
66 Sergio Zamperetti, “Patriziato e giurisdizioni private,” in Storia di Venezia, vol. 7, ed.
Benzoni and Cozzi, pp. 201–23.