92 Gasparis
it had been occupied, is much more evident. The territory of Canea was esti-
mated at 90 cavallarie, 75 of which would be granted to the feudatories, the
remaining 15 staying in the hands of the state. These 75 cavallarie (or 450 ser-
ventarie) were given to 53 Venetian feudatories. In this case, the lower stratum
of landowners that appeared in Rethymnon, those who only received one or
two serventarie, did not materialise. Amongst the feudatories of Canea, one
can discern three distinct tiers, each owning twice as much land as the tier
below it: the members of the first tier owned half a cavallaria (or three serven-
tarie), those of the second owned one cavallaria and those of the third owned
two cavallarie. This is a more acute pyramid and one that is inverted. The lower
tier owns the smallest proportion of land overall; the other two tiers are made
up of similar numbers but the top tier remains the largest numerically. In this
sense the distribution of land seems more even, since the percentage of land
that each tier occupies overall is proportionate to the percentage of the class
itself within the overall number of feudatories, with a slight deviation in favour
of the wealthiest strata.
Taking into account some of the local factors it becomes apparent that this
policy was not accidental. The territory of Canea was the last one that Venice
penetrated and was far away from the central authority of Candia. At the start
of the effort to organise the western part of Crete, before the apparatus of gov-
ernment was fully developed, it was natural for Venice to promote the installa-
tion of strong men, whose financial interests would keep them loyal and who
could ensure the defence of the area. Another important factor is the presence
of a group of Greek feudatories, who occupied the lowest tier, owning one or
two serventarie each. The middle and top tiers of Venetian feudatories could,
therefore, function as a counterweight to this group.
At the same time Venice seemed keen to safeguard her own interests against
the Venetian feudatories of Canea whom she herself had endowed so gener-
ously and to prevent the disproportionate increase of some of the feudato-
ries’ territories. We see then that, even though the presence of a large class of
powerful landowners ensured the protection of the area, a section of this class
comprising of the most powerful individuals and families was a potential dan-
ger for Venice’s authority over the island. The document’s terms were therefore
clear: contrary to Rethymnon where there had been grants of two and a half
cavallarie, no feudatory in the area of Canea was allowed to own more than
two cavallarie and members of the same family were not allowed to own more
than four cavallarie in total. This rule, which initially appears in the colonisa-
tion document of Canea, was later imposed on the whole of the island, though
in practice its enforcement remained difficult.