186 benjamin arbel
Venetian one. The council also elected two procurators, four deputati alla
sanità, and two signori di notte.228 Membership in the councils tended to
be hereditary and, consequently, also became a criterion for nobility. By
contrast, Veglia presents an exceptional case in the Dalmatian context,
since commoners also participated in the communal council as full mem-
bers and could be elected to public offices.229
Another exceptional type of organization is that of far-away Tinos,
where there were two communal councils, one of the so-called “citizens”
and another one, denominated “General Council,” which also included
the leaders of the rural communities.230
Following the conquest of the Morea in the 1680s, town councils,
which had not existed under the Ottomans, were instituted throughout
the peninsula. Their members had the status of citizens, which entailed
certain privileges, such as exemption from forced labor and billeting of
soldiers, and the possibility to be elected to public offices and bishoprics.
In this area, town councils were meant to constitute a counterweight to
the Orthodox bishops, who had enjoyed considerable influence during the
Ottoman domination and were also linked to the Oecumenical Patriarch
of Constantinople. Yet in the absence of a previous communal tradition,
this short experience does not seem to have been very successful.231
The colonial councils were the main channel of collective negotia-
tion between Venice, represented by its own councils, and its overseas
subjects. The Republic, whose system of government was based on such
collective bodies, probably preferred to negotiate with its overseas sub-
jects through similar institutions. The communal council was an essen-
tial instrument of government, on the one hand enabling local elites to
take part in the administration of their lands and gain some profit and
honor from this activity and, on the other, enabling Venice to conduct a
continuous dialogue with its colonial subjects.232 But beyond that, from
the very beginning of its rule in any territory and all the more so in the
distant overseas territories, Venice simply had no other choice. This was
the only way to administer these territories, to care for the necessities of
daily life, to assure the functioning of the fiscal and judicial systems with
228 Giuseppe ( József ) Gelcich, Memorie storiche sulle Bocche Di Cattaro (Zadar, 1880),
pp. 177–78.
229 Pederin, “Die Venezianische Verwaltung... und ihre Organe,” p. 125.
230 Papadia-Lala, Ο Θεσμός, pp. 204–19.
231 Ranke, “Die Venezianer in Morea,” pp. 331–32, 346; Cozzi, “La Repubblica di Venezia
in Morea,” pp. 750–53; Malliaris, “Population Exchange.”
232 Papadia-Lala, Ο θεσμός, pp. 100–03.