Topography of Power: Venice and the Eastern Adriatic Cities in the Century Following the Fourth Crusade*

In the thirteenth century, in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, Venice became an important power in the Mediterranean, which caused profound change in its political, territorial and economic ambitions. The main strategy of Venice was to maintain the sea route from the northernmost point in the Adriatic to the Levant, and therefore it was crucial to dominate politically over the Eastern Adriatic: the cities there could serve as points of departure or safe harbours in which Venetian vessels could be sheltered and supplied with merchandise, food, water, and manpower. One of the ways to incorporate the Eastern Adriatic cities into a common area of governance was to construct recognizable public buildings, and to introduce and standardize a legal and administrative order that was mainly adapted to the central political entity, but also served the local urban communities. This paper follows the changes that were directly or indirectly mirrored in the urban structure of the cities during the thirteenth century: primarily the design of urban spaces (especially public ones) and the construction of public buildings linked to governance, defence, trade or administration. During the thirteenth century, one can follow the development of Venetian ambitions and their focus on particular areas or activities (economic, military) in the state, as well as the activities of Venetian patricians holding the governor’s offi ce. Naturally, the local circumstances and the local population had a crucial impact on the formation of urban space, but this paper focuses primarily on the role of the Venetian administration in this respect.


Introduction
The term "top ography of power" i n this paper refers to determining the area of central authority (Venice) over the cities (Eastern Adriatic), and identifying the ways and channels that consolidated and enforced that authority. 1 Implementation, maintenance and enforcement of central power were carried out in diff erent ways and through diff erent channels -institutions, personal relations, rituals, diplomacy, legal and administrative models, public works, and the design and construction of some kind of "compendia" of power symbols. Namely, the power was consolidated through the control and (re)construction of (new) public buildings and facilitiesprimarily government buildings for the government representatives, commercial and/ or administrative buildings -which will be the focus of this paper.
Today, the Eastern Adriatic is geographically perceived as a recognizable segment of the Mediterranean, as part of the coastal area of various countries (mostly Croatia, but also others -Italy and Slovenia in the north, Montenegro and Albania in the south). Many processes in the Eastern Adriatic had been transforming the area since the times before the Middle Ages. The cities had very complex layers of diff erent heritage and it was their interaction that made the urbanization of the Eastern Adriatic coast so specifi c. Also, cities in this area diff ered as to the time and circumstances of their foundation, since some inherited an ancient urban core (Split, Dubrovnik), and some were built ex novo (Šibenik, Korčula). The focus of this paper will be on the Croatian part of the Eastern Adriatic. The cities in this area had a common heritage in terms of ethnicity, religion and language, which were more important criteria of identity than the political divisions or changing borders. 2 However, this area was a heterogeneous geographical entity and it was often politically fragmented during the medieval period. 3 Thus, a number of urban communities had specifi c relations with the local, central or regional authorities. Eastern Adriatic cities are mostly located along the easily navigable, indented coast, which was one of the reasons for the great interest in this area throughout history. 4 The area was strategically important in the Middle Ages, since it was located on the route from Western Europe (via Venice) to the Levant, and from the Mediterranean to the continental areas (Central Europe) -and so the cities were crossroads of encounter and exchange in this part of medieval Europe. The Venetians aspired to bring the Eastern Adriatic -especially its cities -under their control because of its excellent position as well as its existing heritage and "infrastructure" -solidly built harbours that could be enlarged if needed, the existing customs and laws that could be easily adjusted, and the population that they could communicate with as plurilingualism was a specifi c feature of the Eastern Adriatic. 5 For the Venetians, merchants from the coastal cities were of great help as intermediaries in the trade with the states in the hinterland, since they spoke a language similar to that of this area and had better knowledge of the political and social situation. 6 Also, the local population practiced the same (Roman Catholic) religion as the Venetians. 7 Venice showed strong aspirations to dominate the Eastern Adriatic from the early eleventh century, because the area was a natural maritime route for its targeted expansion to the Levant -the Adriatic Sea interconnected various parts of its territory, cities, islands and coasts. 8 The founding element of Venetian expansion out of the lagoon was a naval expedition in the year 1000, commanded by Doge Pietro II Orseolo. He fi rst took control over the Adriatic as the "Gulf of Venice" and titled himself as dux Veneticorum et Dalmaticorum. Thus the Venetians were recognized as an Adriatic power and no longer a regional state. 9 But in this early period, it primarily meant the Byzantine recognition of Venetian authority over the Quarner islands, particularly Rab, Krk, and Osor, and until the Fourth Crusade (or for some cities even later), Venice was not in the position to establish continuous authority in the Eastern Adriatic for prolonged periods of time. 10 For Venice, the urban communes in the Eastern Adriatic 4 RAUKAR, Istočni Jadran u 13. Stoljeću, 13-29. MUELLER, Aspects of Venetian sovereignty, 29-57. 5 Although Roman or Latin languages in the Adriatic often imply the import from Venice or other Italian centres, not all of the Latin culture was imported in this period. Since the early Middle Ages, Roman and Slavic heritage and culture were not just confronted but were elements of a new and unique culture. The infl ux of people from the hinterland to the coastal towns was a lengthy process and their assimilation with the local populations fi nally resulted in the creation of distinctly Croatian-Latin bilingual communities in all strata of society and even in the patriciate. Certainly, this process was not the same in all parts of the Eastern Adriatic. RAUKAR,Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje,136. JANEKOVIĆ RÖMER,Slavensko i romansko,[207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226] 6 Thus, Dubrovnik continued its relations with the hinterland: in 1215, the king of Serbia granted free trade to merchants from Dubrovnik, while in 1230, the Bulgarian tsar allowed the people of Dubrovnik to trade throughout the country. In the thirteenth century, Serbia became very powerful under the rule of Uroš I and that is the time when mines of noble metals are fi rst mentioned. The king tried to conquer Dubrovnik several times. Dubrovnik had a very complex relationship with the hinterland -the populations spoke similar languages, but were of diff erent confessions (Dubrovnik being Roman Catholic).
were signifi cant primarily for strategic reasons, but symbolic reasons were equally important for expansion -it was necessary that the entire Adriatic enhance the fame of the Serenissima. Dominance over the Adriatic Gulf was rooted in the political culture of Venice and was central to Venetian mythology (including the Ascension Day ceremony of the doge wedding the sea). 11 However, various regional and central powers aspired to control the Eastern Adriatic as well: Byzantium (in this early period, though briefl y), the Hungarian-Croatian kings and the Croatian magnates from the hinterland, and the Patriarch of Aquileia, but also Bosnian and Serbian rulers and magnates. The Genoese were also fi ghting for the same economic area in the Adriatic Sea. 12 In the period that followed, the maritime policy changed and the balance of power with Genoa and the Hungarian king was challenging. The central government over the cities had diff erent continuity, dynamics and reach, which depended on the area and the time period. The Hungarian-Croatian rulers from the Arpad dynasty had considered themselves to be the natural heirs of Dalmatian cities ever since King Koloman's crowning in the city of Biograd in 1102. However, not all Hungarian kings had the same level of power and interest as Koloman to engage in active governance over the Adriatic. This weakening grip on the coastal area resulted in the cities' attempts at securing their independence, but also an increase in the aspiration of other powers, primarily Venice. Before the Fourth Crusade, Dalmatian cities alternately recognized the rule of Venice and the Hungarian rulers, and Venice exerted continuous control over the upper Adriatic before the thirteenth century, in the Quarner islands (Rab/Arbe, Cres/Cherso, and Krk/Veglia). The area of the northern Adriatic was obviously the primary interest of Venice -the cites there were closer to Venice and easier to control. Hungarian rulers invested in "reconquering" Dalmatian cities (like Zadar/Zara, Šibenik/Sebenico, Trogir/Traù and Split/Spalato) with armed force and by making liaisons with the Croatian magnates from the hinterland. 13 Before the second half of the thirteenth century, the impact of Venice on the coastal cities is more diffi cult to assess because of the scarcity of preserved sources. Our information therefore comes only from the narrative sources as well as some sporadic which purpose it was crucial to dominate the Eastern Adriatic. To achieve this aim, they used their connections with the Croatian magnates from the hinterland. In this "campaign" of the Anjou kings in the fourteenth century, Louis I of Anjou was the most successful in this respect. When Dalmatian cities were subjected to the sovereignty of the Hungarian Crown in 1358, this resulted in institutional changes and a partial transformation of the fortifi cations, public spaces and administrative palaces. However, early in the fi fteenth century, the territorial-political relations changed considerably as to the role of Venice, as well as the new circumstances caused by the Ottoman incursions and their important consequences for the Hungarian kingdom. Since then, as part of the Stato da mar, most of the Eastern Adriatic cities shared the fate of Venetian political, social and military plans (except the territory of the Republic of Dubrovnik 13 It is known that after the death of the Hungarian-Croatian king Béla IV and the ensuing dynastic struggles, there was a sudden rise of the Croatian magnates who exercised their power from the fortifi ed cities in the hinterland of Dalmatia (Modruš, Ostrovica, Bribir, Knin, Klis), with territorial pretensions concerning the Dalmatian cities, which all aff ected the status of urban autonomy. The Šubić of Bribir played a major role in the political events of Eastern Adriatic cities at the turn of the fourteenth century, replacing the weak royal power of the last Arpad kings in Croatia and Dalmatia. The relations between the Counts of Bribir and Venice were complex -despite their joint campaigns against the family Kačić of Omiš as well as many personal connections, in regard to the Adriatic cities they were rivals. See: KARBIĆ, Odnosi gradskoga plemstva, 43-58. documents. In the second half of the century, the sources became more systematic, both those linked to private legal aff airs (notarial records) and those of public nature (decisions of councils, statutes). It is known that from the twelfth century, patricians (Venetian but also local) were often given territories in hereditary lease (leased countship) 14 on the Quarner islands, in exchange for consolidating the Venetian rule and off ering military and trade support (often the doges' sons were granted countships there). 15 This principle was applied in Osor/Osera -an important strategical point on the island of Cres (the Venetian patrician families of Michaeli and then Morosini). 16 On the island of Rab/Arbe, the twelfth-century Venetian counts were often sons of doges. They obtained their offi ce for life from Venice, although it was not hereditary owing to the previously gained autonomy (the municipality of Rab was subjected to Venice, not to the count). 17 On the island of Krk/Veglia, the local Counts Bartol I and Vid I were given the offi ce to administer in the twelfth century and their family retained their hereditary power throughout the thirteenth century, although not continuously. 18 The island of Korčula/Curzola was given into hereditary lease to the Zorzi family in the twelfth century by Doge Domenico Michiel (Popone Zorzi obtained the leased countship in the period from around 1125 to 1180) and then it was referred to Marslio Zorzi, who obtained the leased countship of Korčula in the mid-thirteenth century). 19 The Istrian cities were ruled by the Patriarchs of Aquileia until the end of the thirteenth century, yet gradually gained a certain degree of autonomy. However, the city podestàs there were often members of Venetian nobility (but also Friulian, or local Istrian). 20 Also, Venice signed special trade agreements with some Istrian cities (Kopar/Capodistria, 21 Rovinj/Rovigno, Poreč/Parenzio, Novigrad/Cittanova and Umag/Umago, as with the Italian cities of Rimini, Cremona, Treviso, Aquileia, Ravenna and Verona). 22 Among the most attractive Eastern Adriatic cities for Venice were two cities in central and southern Dalmatia -Zadar/Zara and Dubrovnik/Ragusa -which had extensive trade networks infra and extra culfum. 23 Dubrovnik did not recognize the Venetian rule before the thirteenth century (except briefl y in 1171-1172) and Zadar repeatedly rebelled against the Serenissima, relying on the Hungarian king in the twelfth century. Venice had strategical but also economic interest in Zadar because of the salt pans on 14  the island of Pag (mostly owned by the nobles of Zadar and partly Rab). 24 Also, Zadar was surrounded by a large agricultural hinterland, and had trade networks with the Croatian and Hungarian continental lands. 25 The city was a potential supplier of food to Venice. 26 Owing to its geopolitical position, Dubrovnik functioned as a link between Italy, the Slavic hinterland and the Levant. 27 The Balkan hinterland was important for Venice because of the growing exploitation of precious metals and other raw materials in the area of present-day Serbia and Bosnia.

Gaining control after 1204
In the thirteenth century, Venice became an important factor in the Mediterranean. 28 As the Venetian economic empire largely depended on the sea, it was crucial to ensure a safe path to the Mediterranean and the Levant. 29 The cities there could serve as points of departure, return or maritime relay for Venetian military and merchant ships or those destined for the Holy Land. 30 In their harbours, vessels could be sheltered and supplied with merchandise, food, water and manpower.
Thus, in the fi rst half of the thirteenth century, the Venetian rule was established or consolidated in northern Dalmatian cities (Osor, Krk, Rab) as well as the ones in central and southern Dalmatia (Zadar, Dubrovnik and briefl y Dyrrachium). The sea route towards the Levant continued through the Ionic Sea with its newly conquered cities of Corfu, Coron and Modon in south-western Peloponnese, all the way to Crete (Candia) in the Aegean. Venice was also connected to Constantinople via Negroponte, and another route led to Syria (the newly conquered cities of Akkon and Tyr). 31 Parts of the acquired territory along the Mediterranean route were soon lost (Dyrrachium and Corfu were now in the hands of the Despot of Epirus), 32 which made the above-mentioned Eastern Adriatic cities all the more important. 33 Certainly, the conquest of Zadar and Dubrovnik was a great success, but the situation was far from stable in the fi rst half of  Unequal Rivals, the century. In the second half of the thirteenth century, Venice conquered Korčula, and in its fi nal decades, Hvar and the Istrian cities of Poreč, Umag, Rovinj, Piran, Kopar and Sv. Lovreč. 34 However, some of the important coastal ports in central Dalmatia (Split, Trogir, Šibenik) accepted its rule only in the fi rst half of the fourteenth century.
In the beginning of the thirteenth century, Venice signed contracts with some of the Eastern Adriatic cities (e.g. Zadar, Dubrovnik), in which it negotiated their rights and obligations. 35 The conquered cities lost much of their autonomy: external authorities tried to exercise jurisdiction over cities by using constitutional means. 36 Depending on the local circumstances, Venice tried to exert control over the cities by appointing its men to the highest administrative posts -judges and members of the Great Council -and occasionally to the episcopal offi ce. 37 But the degree of autonomy in the Eastern Adriatic cities was a result of political history, geopolitical position and the development of urban elite, and was expressed in the form of institutions, municipal bodies and statutes. 38 Venice introduced a polycentric structure of administration in its new territories, and personal ties, i.e. mediators between the authorities and the cities, were very important. The cities strove for a maximum of both autonomy and protection, so many of the specifi cities of the Eastern Adriatic cities emerged precisely because of the fact that they were building their autonomy between the aspirations of great powers. 39 During the Venetian domination of the fourteenth century (which is not within the focus of this paper), the revision of most of the city statutes followed (and the older ones have mostly been lost). 40 The Venetian administration was not organized in the same way in all the conquered areas. The diff erences primarily depended on the importance of the area in question, its geographic position with regard to Venice, and the given local circumstances (especially the inherited degree of autonomy). In the Eastern Adriatic, Venice maintained close and continuous relations with some cities (e.g. Rab or Osor), while others were occasionally rebellious (e.g. Zadar). In the thirteenth century, Venice introduced a system of public governance -podestal-style countship -in which the count's post was not hereditary. Thus, Zadar and Dubrovnik were directly governed by Venice, who appointed city counts 34 The entire thirteenth century was marked by wars between the patriarch and Venice over the Istrian patrimony, which was eventually ended by the margrave (patriarch) renouncing it in exchange for annual remuneration (the peace treaties of 1291 and 1307 38 It should be emphasized that diff erent national (especially older) historiographies often have their specifi c approaches to the exploration of the Eastern Adriatic, in which medieval urban history has often been perceived (partly because of language barriers) only through particular national narratives -Italian, "Yugoslav, Austrian, Hungarian, Croatian". BERTOŠA, Model 'pobijedjenih' ili historiografi ja, Storia di Venezia,Comes,potestas,prior,consul,. MATIJEVIĆ SOKOL, Item iurabunt ipse potestas, 268-278. JANEKOVIĆ RÖMER, Grad i građani između kraljeva, 207-228.
40 RADIĆ, Neki aspekti kontrole upravitelja, [185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203]. The fi rst mention of the Rab Statute dates from 1244, but it was changed and fi nally established between 1325 and 1327 by the notary Giovanni Antonio Cernotta. It seems that some kind of legal manual existed in Trogir as early as the end of the thirteenth century, but it has not been preserved. Before the statute of 1322 (the year when Trogir accepted Venetian rule), there was also the (unsaved) statute of 1303. The Dubrovnik Statute was codifi ed in 1272, but in 1325 and 1328 regulations were also changed, as they were in 1343. with a temporary mandate (the regimen of 2-3 years), but the policy of introducing a new model of public administration began to prevail only during the dogeship of Giacomo Tiepolo. 41 Some of the counts' families played a signifi cant role in introducing the legal system, others in designing urban space. 42 The political affi liation of some Venetian patrician families and their liaisons with the current doge may have infl uenced their choice to govern a particular city. For example, in the thirteenth century, the families of Querini and Badoer were associated with the dogal family of Tiepolo (i.e. Doges Giacomo and his son Lorenzo, leaders of the new merchant aristocracy in Venice). On the other hand, there were members of old patrician families -Dandolo, Morosini, Gradenigo, Giustiniani and others. 43 Venice occasionally changed the system of governance if it was in the best interest of consolidating its rule.

Consolidation of the Venetian rule
In all Eastern Adriatic cities ruled by Venice, the governor's safety and the prevention of rebellions were the foremost priority, as were the safe harbours for the Venetian vessels. Thus, the bulwarks were under the jurisdiction of the central authority from the beginnings of the Venetian rule. Doge Pietro Ziani (1205-1229), formerly the Count of Rab, dedicated the fi rst decade of his offi ce, from the treaty with Zadar in 1204, to securing the sea route from Venice to the Levant by conquering a series of cities and fortresses and investing in a chain of fortifi cations in Eastern Adriatic cities (unlike Venice's rival Geona). It was necessary to ensure safe navigation in this part of the Adriatic, so as to prevent the plundering of merchant ships by pirates 44 or enemies. 45 41 The practice was established only in the second or third decade of the thirteenth century, and the fi rst counts in Zadar and Split were also appointed for life.
42 Some counts used their offi ce for the private, commercial benefi t of their family in a specifi c area.
43 The political division and mutual rivalry of Venetian patrician families in some areas aff ected the positions of individual counts in the cities, but not all branches of the family necessarily acted the same, or their members sided with the same gropus. Although there were tensions in Venice between the old and the new aristocracy, between rich and poor, there were still many overlapping circles, connections between diff erent families that were created by mutual marriages, individual interests and the like.  Zadar was also to supply military aid to Venice when needed -when Venice was at war in the Adriatic. One in thirty Venetian galleys had to be provided by Zadar, which may have defi ned the city as organized around the harbour and the arsenal. The existing fortifi cations (especially those located at the city margins) were reused and restructured to accommodate the count and his entourage. 46 Zadar's bulwark is known to have been derelict at the time, but it was to be repaired only with the permission of the doge, the count, or the council. 47 Zadar is situated on a peninsula between protective islands in the centre of the Eastern Adriatic: in 1202, before the crusaders devastated the city, it had a strong harbour with an iron chain. 48 In Dubrovnik, the locality chosen for the count's lodgings was an area surrounded by a wall and separated from the city, which included the fortress (castrum) and the newly built cathedral. 49 This building complex was close to the city harbour and, later, the arsenal. 50 In Zadar and Dubrovnik, the (archi)episcopal palace near the cathedral was the most majestic building in the city before the construction of the Count's Palace, and could serve, for example, to accommodate the doge during his visit. 51 At that time, fortresses were obviously not suitable for public purposes or the count's lodgings, and the commune was expected to pay the rent for a house that was worthy of a residence for the count and his family. 52 On the contrary, during the twelfth century, Zadar's count Domenico Morosini and his son Ruggerio (later the Count of Osor) owned their own house with a tower rather than renting one, but when the Venetians left the city, it passed into the hands of a local nobleman.
Real estate in the cities was preferably owned by inhabitants who were loyal to the new ruler. When Zadar was conquered (after the famous sack during the Fourth Crusade), the population loyal to the Venetians, previously exiled, returned to the city in 1205. Rivalries among the local nobility were used by Venice to consolidate the sovereign rule. According to the treaty of 1204, those who had been exiled from the city for having supported Venice could now return. 53 Moreover, thirty hostages from the most distinguished (and rebellious) families were to be sent to Venice. 54 Dubrovnik was also asked to send hostages after the rebellion of 1226: twenty members of the families from the "rebellious clan", who had to stay in Venice on a permanent basis. 55 The weakness of Doge Ziani during the second part of his rule was used by Zadar in 1226 to attempt surrendering to Koloman, brother of the Hungarian-Croatian king Béla, but eventually Venice re-conquered the city. If there were riots in the cities, Venice imposed its authority by means of trade embargos. Thus, in 1226 the Venetians were forbidden to buy goods from Zadar or Dubrovnik. 56 Also, Venice tried to limit the commercial benefi ts and trade activities of the Eastern Adriatic cities in the Gulf. 57 Doge 49 The (arch)bishop was to be appointed from Venice according to the new agreements, same as the count. Governmental Palaces, In Zadar, this was decreed as early as 1204, and in Dubrovnik in 1252 (the contract of 1205 has not been preserved, but the one from 1232 has). Listine I, pp. 20-21, doc. 29 and 30; p. 46, doc. 75. In Dubrovnik, the archiepiscopal palace was likewise the most representative building of all and remained so until the late 1270s. A contract from 1253 (after the last ribellione) established that the doge, should he come to the city, was to be accommodated "in domo archiepiscopali". As late as 1272, the time of the Statute of Dubrovnik, the archiepiscopal palace was the place where the municipal administration assembled for the rector's investiture. Obviously, there was still no other suitable locality in the city or the castrum, although the latter started to be called castellum at that time (1272).

BENYOVSKY LATIN,
52 In Zadar, this was decreed as early as 1204, and it may be presumed that the situation was similar elsewhere. 57 In 1228, the doge concluded treaties with some Italian cities (Osimo, Recanti, Castelfodardo) in order to weaken the monopoly of Ancona, which remained the largest trading competitor in the Adriatic after the conquest of Zadar and Dubrovnik. In a new treaty with Dubrovnik, the navigation activities of the Ragusans were even more limited: it was declared that when Dubrovnik merchants brought goods from Byzantium, they had to pay 5% of the customs duty, and if they exceeded the norm, they had to pay 20%. For goods from Egypt, Tunisia and Barbaria, the duty was as high as 20%. This order was repeated in 1236 and later (which means that the people of Dubrovnik still traded in these areas). On the other hand, the Venetians in Dubrovnik had no such limits and were privileged there. As for the goods imported from "Sclavoniae" (Serbia and Bosnia), the Ragusans had a freer initiative. Listine I, pp. [84][85]Dubrovnik et la mer,[192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202] Ziani, a member of the ancient Venetian aristocracy (like his predecessor, Dandolo) fi nally retired in 1229 as an old man. The new (narrowly elected) doge was a member of the new trading patrician circles: the famous Giacomo Tiepolo (1229-1249). Nevertheless, during the fi rst part of his rule, Tiepolo had to focus on problems with Emperor Frederick II 58 and some Eastern Adriatic cities used this period of instability to enhance their autonomy and get rid of Venetian sovereignty. Venice tried to bind the commune of Dubrovnik more tightly to its authority with the treaty of 1232. 59 (This was also the period when Dubrovnik secured its trade monopoly in the wider Balkan hinterland and signed trade contracts in the Adriatic. 60  still relatively unlimited. 61 After 1236, the doge appointed his son, Giovanni Tiepolo, as the Count of Dubrovnik 62 (he was the fi rst one to serve in the city for two years and not for life, and the fi rst who swore an oath to serve the commune of Dubrovnik besides the doge, and to protect the city's customs). 63 Doge Giacomo Tiepolo placed members of close and reliable families (e.g. Michieli, Querini) in strategically important and/or unstable posts (he was known for nepotism of this kind). 64 As for Zadar, Doge Tiepolo appointed his confi dant Giovanni Michiel as the count in 1236. 65 However, Zadar rebelled in 1239 and expelled Count Michiel, who was then restored in his offi ce with the help of doge's son, Giovanni Tiepolo. Zadar rebelled again in 1242 (quinta rebellione), trying to use the presence of Béla IV (the expelled Count Giovanni Michiel would be appointed the Count of Dubrovnik in 1243 and return to Zadar in 1250 66 ). After the rebellion of Zadar in 1242, Venice began to build a fortress to house the Venetian army and countship was converted from lifelong to two-year, which allowed Venice to change the offi cials without the citizens' consent. Doge Tiepolo supposedly decided to consolidate his authority by installing more patrician and commoner families from Venice in Eastern Adriatic cities. 67  and distribute them among those who were granted these estates by the Venetian council. 71 But since Zadar rebelled again in the following year (1244), the planned land division probably never took place, and neither did the construction of the fortress.
The year 1243 was marked by intense Venetian presence in the entire Eastern Adriatic: according to the narrative sources, in Krk and Osor the hereditary counts were temporarily substituted through direct governance. Instead of Bartol Krčki, Lorenzo Tiepolo was appointed to the count's offi ce in 1243. 72 He was another son of Doge Tiepolo and a future doge himself. That same year, Giovanni Tiepolo, formerly the Count of Dubrovnik, was appointed the Count of Osor (and in 1236, the same offi ce was occupied by the doge's third son, Pietro Tiepolo). As explained by the Venetian chronicler Dandolo, the doge took this course because of the rebellious inclinations of the counts of Osor and Krk (who were allegedly helping King Béla IV and Zadar). A treaty with Osor and Krk was signed in Rab at the doge's orders in 1243, stating that the city would defend the new population of Zadar with its ships for a period of three years. 73 That same year, Pula (which was under the rule of the local Castropola family, relatively independent of the patriarch, until the early fourteenth century) was briefl y subjected to Venetian rule (owing to its reliance on the pro-Venetian fraction among the local nobility). 74 The city promised to accept a Venetian for its governor and not to rebuild the bulwark without permission from Venice. But the Venetian rule in Pula was short-lived, and Zadar rebelled again in 1244 (after which king Béla IV nevertheless renounced the city). 75 The rebellious citizens of Zadar allegedly moved to the nearby Nin, and when Zadar signed a new treaty with Venice in 1247, they had to plead with the doge to let them return home. 76 According to the sources, they were allowed to do so, but had to repair the bulwark and their own houses, as well as maintain guards at their own cost in the newly built castrum. Its construction is specifi cally mentioned that very year, perhaps referring to the fortress planned back in 1243. 77  The same house had already been mentioned in the fi rst treaty (1205) -apparently, it was luxurious and well-positioned, since it was also sublet to the subsequent counts until as late as 1278. From 1279, Damijan's descendants lived in a house next to the bulwark and St Stephen's, which allows for the conclusion that this was the location of the rental house for the counts, with the commune paying the rent. 80 (It is known from a document that in 1237 Count Giovanni Michiel likewise lived in a house next to the bulwark and St Stephen's church. 81 ) Unlike these rental houses, in twelfth-century Zadar, Count Domenico Morosini (son of Doge Domenico) 82 and his son Rogerio (who would later become the Count of Osor) 83 owned their own house with a tower, which passed into the hands of a local nobleman when the Venetians left the city. 84 It is possible that in those cities that Venice had given to certain families in inheritance, counts lived in their own houses prior to the construction of Counts' Palaces (in Rab, for example, a palatio comitisae is mentioned as being owned by the mother of the Morosini brothers). 85 In Dubrovnik, the Venetian governors may have lived in rented houses from the mid-thirteenth century. In the present-day Držićeva Poljana, there was a set of two buildings (owned by the nobility) in which the Venetian governor and the judges lived until 1283. 86 In this period, Venetian fortresses were not suitable either for public events or for the count's lodgings, and thus the communes were expected to pay the rent for houses that were fi t to accommodate the count and his family. In Dubrovnik, this house must have been located next to the bulwark, same as in Zadar. Before the construction of permanent residences for the counts, the (archi)episcopal palaces in Dubrovnik and Zadar were the most luxurious houses in the city (and the doge was to be accommodated there in case of a visit). In Zadar, this was decreed as early as 1204. 87 Under the newly appointed Doge Marino Morosini (1249-1252), Venice pursued a policy of stabilizing the conquered territories and signing peace treaties. 88  89 Listine I, p. 82, doc. 106. Venice again imposed a customs tax that limited Dubrovnik's trade, while the Venetian merchants were again exempted from these limitations. Merchants from Dubrovnik were allowed to travel to Venice with only four small ships per year, and there was a prohibition of trade between them and other foreign merchants in the Venetian territory. Venice also prescribed that if Venice was banned from trading in the Kingdom of Sicily, this was also to apply to the people of Dubrovnik. strategic harbours on the way to the Levant. The Venetian (trade and maritime) law and institutions were gradually introduced in the cities under control, 90 but it was a long process and Venice had to adapt to the local circumstances and customs. 91 Doge Rainero Zeno was the last doge who had authority over Romania. 92 At that time, Venice still primarily controlled trade in the northern Gulf. 93 But after the fall of Constantinople, in 1261, Venice intensifi ed its control over the whole Adriatic, as it had lost the coastal holdings around the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara. 94 94 In 1264, Ancona was forced to recognize the Venetian system of staple in the northern Adriatic, while its trade with Palestine, as well as with Bologna and Ferrara, was limited. Eastern Adriatic cities were transit centres in trade with the continent, and thus, for example, there were warehouses of goods in Rab in 1267 that served a Venetian merchant for trade between Hungary and Venice. MLACOVIĆ, Rapsko plemstvo, 154.
In Dubrovnik, one may observe the restructuring of the suburbs in the form of regular blocks from the mid-thirteenth century. 97 He probably also confi rmed the property and possession rights of the local nobility of Dubrovnik. He came there as an experienced army leader and governor after the rebellion of the nobility in 1252 as well as to negotiate a peace treaty with Uroš. It was a Venetian practice to send governors with strong military experience from Syria to rebellious cities, and occasionally those who had marital ties with rulers from the hinterland. As a Venetian bailo, Zorzi was also involved in urban planning elsewhere: thus, in 1244 he revised the memoriale possessionum in Syria, which listed the Venetian properties: the governor's (bailo's) palace, the loggia, the fondaco, the cistern and the seafront tower. At the site of the existing settlement, Marsilio Zorzi founded a city ex novo, designed according to the latest principles of urban planning. Starting from the main street, access lanes descended towards land plots in private ownership and the newly built bulwark. Their size was comparable to the length of the blocks in Dubrovnik's suburb in the mid-thirteenth century. However, in a Statute supplement from 1265, Marsilio Zorzi proclaimed that all land in Korčula that was not private should henceforth belong to the Zorzi family (rather than the commune as in Dubrovnik). 99 The new city of Korčula was gradually surrounded by a bulwark (around 750m long), which integrated the private towers, with the Count's Palace situated next to the mainland gate. The Count's Palace was defended by two towers, and the third, called turris comitis, was directly incorporated into the Palace. 100 According to the (rather unreliable) narrative sources from 1252, the mandate of Marsilio Zorzi in Dubrovnik was also the time when a bulwark was built around the suburbs, due to the threat from the hinterland. 101 Nevertheless, parts of the old bulwark were sold to private persons, which implies that the old wall was no longer functional and that a new one had been built. 102 Doge Zeno relied on individual Venetian patricians along the Adriatic route, whom he gave leased countship; the foundation of Korčula should also be viewed in this context. He also returned Krk to the Counts of Krčki in 1260 as hereditary counts, with precisely defi ned conditions for both family lineages (Vid's and Škinela's). 103 On the island of Rab, Counts Marco Badoer (1262-1268) and Giovanni Badoer (1269-1279) acquired a large estate that served as a base for their permanent settlement on the island. 104

The era of public works and the construction of Counts' Palaces
Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268-1275), 105 son of the famous Giacomo, again abolished the practice of leased countship and proclaimed that the Count of Osor should only stay in the offi ce for two years. 106 Before becoming a doge, Lorenzo Tiepolo was a representative of the Venetian government in the Adriatic cities -for example in Krk -but he was also a podestà outside Venetian territory, for instance twice in Fermo (where in 1267 a pentagonal citadel called Rocca Tiepolo was built). His sons were also counts in the area -Pietro, the Count of Dubrovnik, and Giacomo, the Count of Zadar (and also the podestà of Chioggia and Fermo as many as three times.) 107 The Genoese support of the Byzantine restoration of 1260 worsened the relations with Venice, and during the war with Genoa (1257-1270) Venice established its supremacy in the Adriatic. During Lorenzo's dogeship, Venetian sovereignty was acknowledged by the Istrian cities of Poreč (1267) and briefl y Pula (1271) (but Pula would be subjected to the Venetian rule only in the fourteenth century). 108 In the newly conquered cities, it was decreed at once that a house should be provided to accommodate the count (probably a rental one). Thus, in Umag it was stated as early as 1269 that the count should receive a domum pro sua habitacione sine fi ctu with his salary. 109 Similar decrees were made in Sv. Lovreč in 1271 110 and in Novigrad in 1270. 111 In Poreč, which was conquered in 1267, Count Marco Michiel, probably son of Zadar's Count Giovanni Michiel, 112 ordered the construction of a Count's Palace as early as 1270. 113 (This count, like his father, was deeply involved in the politics of cities in the Quarner Gulf and the northern Adriatic. 114 ) According to descriptions in the narrative sources, Poreč had a loggia in the square, in front of the Count's Palace. Such an early construction of a permanent palace may have been related to the confl icts between the Count of Poreč and the bishop. 115 (Another reason why the palace in Poreč was built signifi cantly before those in the other cities -although there is no documentary or material evidence for it -may have been the fact that a communal palace had stood in the same locality before. 116  113 This is known from a transcript of the plaque at the palace, published in: CAPRIN. L'Istria nobilissima, 201. The situation of that palace, which is no longer extant, can be inferred (by its rear side) from Valla's drawing of the city from 1755, and eighteenth-century narrative sources mention it next to the tower and the city gate, its front façade overlooking the square and the loggia. Cf. KANDLER,Codice diplomatico istriano,doc. 353 and 354. 114 MLACOVIĆ,The Nobility and the Island,143. 115 The patriarch was also supported by his suff ragans, the local bishops (of Pula, Poreč, Kopar, and Novigrad), with whom the communes were often in confl ict.
116 There was, namely, a similar case in Kopar, where the oldest communal palace in the Eastern Adriatic was built in 1269, and which became the Count's seat in 1278, with the Venetian rule. Cf. CAPRIN,L'Istria nobilissima,199. BELLO,Capodistria,la Piazza,[245][246][247][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264]. Even though Kopar acknowledged the authority of the margrave (the Patriarch of Aquileia) in the thirteenth century (before the Venetian rule), they did manage to achieve a degree of autonomy. In such circumstances, the fi rst communal palaces were built, which were later transformed into seats of the Venetian counts. Unlike the Counts' Palaces, communal palaces (both in Istria and in Dalmatia) were built in the city centre, mostly in the main square. BENYOVSKY LATIN, Governmental palaces, passim.
117 Listine I,doc. 166. 118 That same year, in 1278, the decision on building the castellum Jadre was made -possibly the Babarum tower was also transformed into a castrum, since in 1281 a castrum novum is mentioned (next to St Silvester's Church). This was also the time when the fi rst offi cial notary came to Zadar: it was Henrik, who was active until 1296.  (1278)  This period is known for numerous public works -new planned suburbs, bulwarks, arsenals, and Counts' Palaces -which are easier to track down owing to a greater number of systematic documents. Intensifi ed control over public space and its planning was linked to the demographic surge and the development of a legal and administrative system. The suburbs of Dubrovnik (south of Placa), an area of private estates with access lanes, were now turned into an organized communal urban area with transversal public streets (as confi rmed in the statutary regulation of 1272). The Count of Dubrovnik who ordered the codifi cation of the Statute in 1272 was Marco Giustiniani, who was succeeded by Pietro Tiepolo, son of the former Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo (who was permitted by the Major Council to take foreigners as his assistants as well as notaries). 124 In 1277, a count of the same name, Marco Giustiniani, was again holding the count's offi ce, 125 and at that time the fi rst offi cial notary, Tomasino de Savera, came to Dubrovnik. 126 From 1278, rental land plots owned by the commune are mentioned north of the (private) suburb regulated by the Statute of 1272. 127 At the time of Count Nicola Morosini (1279-1281), this communal land was systematically divided into land plots and given in lease to those who off ered the most. One should also take into account the impact of the notary and other assistants of the count on urban planning, including the administering and perhaps partly structuring public areas. In 1277, the Count of Zadar was Giacomo Tiepolo, another son of the former Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo. Supposedly the pentagonal tower next to the city gate and St Stephen's Church (as well as the house where the counts lodged) was built at that time. 128 Tiepolo was responsible for extensive public works in the city and the pentagonal tower is probably a part of his project. Next to it, integrated in the bulwark, there was a smaller tower, no longer extant, rounded in the south: the so-called turris Babarum (mentioned in 1270). The bulwark was running between them (parts of its indented crest are preserved, identical to those of the pentagonal tower). 129 This type of pentagonal tower -also next to the mainland gate -can be seen in Poreč as well, and south of it (and to the north), linked through the bulwark, there was the so-called round tower. 130 These elements indicate a similar way of designing the city.
By building the bulwark at the southeastern edge of Zadar, its mainland front was shifted towards the southeast. The sources sporadically mention communal land plots there, allowing us to presume that this newly designed area was intended for rent. It was organized in regular blocks, perhaps divided into rental plots. Giacomo Tiepolo was succeeded by the aforementioned Marco Michiel, who came to Zadar in 1278. He decided that the count should no longer live in the rented residence near St Stephen's and also initiated the construction of the castellum Jadre (this term may have referred the former Babarum tower, since in 1281 this fortress next to St Silvester's Church was called castrum novum).
128 As for the so-called pentagonal tower in Zadar, Smiljanić has suggested that it was built at the time of Zadar's Count Giacomo Tiepolo, since it preserved the coat-of-arms of the Tiepolo family. Cf. SMILJANIĆ, Iz urbane topologije srednjovjekovnog, 379-384. It should be added, however, that Giacomo Tiepolo was the Count of Zadar on two occasions, in 1276/77 and 1289/90, with other Venetian patricians holding this offi ce in between.
130 The tower was enlarged in the fi fteenth century. Cf. PRELOG, Poreč, grad i spomenici, 206. In the last decades of the thirteenth century, local harbours were becoming increasingly important for military and economic purposes, for sheltering and supplying ships: according to the documents, in 1272 Venice leased a galley to the island of Cres and sold one each to Dubrovnik and Korčula. 131 One galley was sold to each of the communes of Rab and Krk in 1273, per patronos arsane. We fi nd the same declaration in 1273 for Krk, which created the need of building and restructuring the arsenals. 132 These ships had multiple functions: from merchant ships they could became military if needed, and vice versa. To strengthen its position in the Adriatic, Venice implemented the custodia Culphi from 1280, meaning that the gulf squadron controlled navigation in the Gulf. 133 To ensure a safe journey through the Adriatic, Venice had to confront its enemies with the help of its subjects and allies (particularly problematic were the Genoese). Moreover, merchants were often attacked by pirates from the city of Omiš (south of Split). 134 Venice forbade the coastal cities to trade with the pirates (like in 1226, when Dubrovnik, for instance, established trade contacts with the Omiš pirates) and supported them with the necessary vessels for fi ghting them: for instance, in 1280 Venice sent a galley (with this sole purpose) to Dubrovnik. 135 The City Statute's regulations assigned an important role to navigation. An entire book (VII) of the Statute of Dubrovnik (1272), containing 64 chapters, is dedicated to the regulation of seafaring and shipping, as well as piracy, smuggling and shipwrecks. 136 In 1277, the Liber statutorum doane Ragusii was codifi ed, with regulations on customs taxes and excise duties in the commune of Dubrovnik. One chapter of the Zadar Statute drafted at the end of the thirteenth century was also entirely devoted to seafaring (Chapter IV). The legislation covered the employment contracts of seafarers, the construction and sale of ships, cargoes and ballasts, insurance and liability for goods on board, shipwrecks etc. 137 Venetian law was incorporated in the local statutes and as such could be an instrument of both political control and coordination, but some aspects were useful for the local communities (like development of institutions and maritime law). 138 Under Doge Giovanni Dandolo (1280-1289), a representative of the traditional aristocratic families, Venice extended its sovereignty to the Istrian towns of Piran and Rovinj (1283). The fi rst Venetian podestà in Piran was Andrea Dandolo, the doge's son known as il Calvo, and before that he was also the fi rst Venetian podestà of Motovun. 139 Pietro Gradonigo, the future doge, was at the time of Dandolo the podestà of Koper (in 1280, and he held the same position again in 1289). 140 In 1280, Dandolo again assigned the Osor County to patrician Marino Mauroceno, with hereditary rights. 141 The leased countship was introduced in Rab as well, and Count Marco Michieli remained there for life. 142 During Dandolo's dogeship, Venetian counts and the territories they controlled were placed under stricter control. 143 The tax and customs system, as well as the use of the same currency across the territory, was an important means of maintaining the Venetian presence in the Adriatic. In Dandolo's time, the Venetian gold coin (ducat) was introduced in Venice. 144 In 1280, the offi ce of the Contraband was founded in order to coordinate diff erent administrative offi ces, but also to supress smuggling. 145 The offi ce dealt with maritime trade in the upper Adriatic 146 and the counts received its orders on trade regulation. 147 Venice tried to hinder the Istrian cities in imposing their own duties and tariff s on exports and imports, 148 and in creating a commercial network with the Istrian communes. However, Venice also systematically supressed salt production in Piran and Pula. 149 In 1281, the import of salt became compulsory: the Major Council ordered merchants to return to Venice with a load of salt (ordo salis). 150 Doge Dandolo wanted to emphasize the role of Venice in the cities, and it was under his rule that the fi rst separate Counts' Palaces were built in the Eastern Adriatic (with similar public works observable in other Venetian territories). 151 In Hvar, it was decreed in 1278, following the Venetian conquest, that a house should be built to accommodate Count Andrea de Molino, but it was built only in 1282-1283, a castrum "that they had previously lacked". 152 In 1283, it was decreed that Piran should build for the Count a domum pro habitatione sua et sue familie. 153 Marco Michiel, the count of Rab (and formerly of Poreč and Zadar) invested from 1283 onwards in the construction of the Count's Palace and the arsenal. 154 That same year, a house for the count's assistants is mentioned in Zadar. In 1283, the practice of renting houses as residences for the Venetian governors (in today's Držićeva Poljana) was also discontinued in Dubrovnik. 155 The houses -both of them cum volta -were sold to real-estate traders, Venetians Filipo 146 The Cattaveri were the auditors of public accounts, and they controlled the receipts and expenditure of Venice.
148 From the turn of the fourteenth century, the offi ce of Contraband-Cattaver controlled illegal trade and smuggling; In 1281, the Venetian Maggior Consiglio ordered the Istrian cities to provide offi cial inventories for the ships, in order to control maritime traffi c in the upper Adriatic: DMC II, pp. 219-220, 330, 328. Cf. MILLER, Venice in the East Adriatic, 181-182. 149 HOCQUET, Le sel et la fortune de Venise,[181][182][183][184] 150 Salt transport and export trade became closely linked. HOCQUET, Au coeur de la puissance maritime, 152. 151 ÖZTÜRKMEN, From Constantinople to Istanbul, 271-294. GEORGOPOULOU, Venice's Mediterranean Colonies, 60-62, 77. DMC III, pp. 38, 197. 152 DCM III, p. 8. Listine I, p. 119, doc. 168. 153 DCM III, p. 17. KANDLER, Codice diplomatico istriano, p. 705, doc. 404. 154 MLACOVIĆ, The Nobility and the Island, 150. 155 MHR II, p. 282, doc. 1142;p. 322, doc. 1278;p. 323, doc. 1279. Veroci and Furlano Bazili). In 1283, there is a mention of a locia domini comitis, 156 possibly built in front of the fortress, 157 which began to be transformed into a Count's Palace. 158 The former orientation of the fortress to the south (the old town) was altered: the new structures were turned westwards, where the communal square 159 and a new suburb were starting to take shape. In 1283, houses for the Venetian count in Dubrovnik were no longer rented in what is now Držićeva Poljana. 160 It is possible that the castrum/ castellum was transformed into a Count's Palace at the time and the archiepiscopal palace lost its status as the most lavish building in the city. 161 In Zadar, a logia domus nostri comitatus is mentioned in 1289. 162 However, another communal or "great" loggia is mentioned from the late thirteenth century in the main square, in the city centre (at the site of the present-day one, built in 1565). 163 Opposite it was the church of St Peter the New (demolished in the fi fteenth century), where the citizens' assembly met. 164 The loggia of Rab was also separate from the Count's Palace and positioned in the city centre (it is mentioned from the fourteenth century, but may have been there from an earlier period), at the site of the present-day one, built in 1509. The position of loggias in the main square is perfectly logical, since that was the centre of socio-economic life in the commune. 165 Those loggias that were built near or within the Counts' Palaces, namely in Dubrovnik and Poreč, 166 were situated next 156 There are no preserved data on its construction, but it is known that the new loggia was built at the new church of St Blaise in 1356 (opposite the Rector's Palace), although the old loggia is mentioned as late as 1362. The sources tell of an old loggia, demolished in the fi fteenth century, which was situated in front of the western façade of the Rector's Palace: it was an annexed structure with four columns, vaults and a terrace. GRUJIĆ,Knežev dvor u Dubrovniku, The new loggia is known to have been built next to the new church of St Blaise in 1356 (opposite the palace), but the old loggia is still mentioned in 1362.
158 At the time of the Statute of 1272, the castrum seems not to have been a majestic place, since it was the archiepiscopal palace (archiepiscopatum) where the city government met for the Count's investiture. Cf. BENYOVSKY LATIN, Notes on Urban Elite, 38-39. In Dubrovnik, it was only in the fourteenth century that the castellum started to be called a "communal palace" -palatium or pallazzo magior. GELCICH, Mon umenta Ragusina (hereinafter MR) I, 239.
159 In 1281 and 1282, the camerlengaria is mentioned in the square, and the fonticus was located nearby.
160 Both were cum volta and sold to real-estate retailers Filipo Veroci and Furlano Basilio from Venice. Cf. MHR II, p. 282, doc. 1142;p. 322, doc. 1278;p. 323, doc. 1279. 161 At the time of the Statute, in 1272, the castrum was not luxurious enough: for the Count's investiture, the Archiepiscopal Palace (archiepiscopatum) was where the municipal administration met. In 1282, the archbishop sold a house owned by the archdiocese and located in front of the cathedral entrance, and in 1283 he sublet another one to a merchant from Venice (afterwards the bishop and his canons mostly met in the Archiepiscopal Palace). Cf. BENYOVSKY LATIN, Notes on Urban Elite, 38-39. The original defence fortress was oriented towards the cathedral and the old town, but the new façade was opened up towards the west, where a new part of the city (burgus) was developing. It was only in the fourteenth century that the castellum started to be called the 166 In Poreč, the palace was not built in the former forum (the later Piazza di Marafor), but in the newly formed communal square (next to the bulwark, the tower and the harbour gate). Cf. PRELOG,Poreč,grad i spomenici,40. CAPRIN,L'Istria nobilissima,199. On the urban development of Rab, see: DOMIJAN, Rab, grad umjetnosti. DOMIJAN, Rab u srednjem vijeku. to the (newly formed) main square. 167 (Some documents from Dubrovnik refer to the thirteenth-century loggia as the logia comunis. 168 ) In the cities under Venetian rule, loggias could also function as seats of the city council before the construction of town halls. 169 Even though the late thirteenth century was marked by the construction of Counts' Palaces as seats of the representatives of the Venetian administration, it was also the time when the communal institutions developed and the local nobility became more powerful. 170 In Dubrovnik, north of the Count's Palace, there was a fonticus in the late thirteenth century, with rooms for the council meetings on the fi rst fl oor. 171 167 In Dubrovnik, the new loggia, built in the fourteenth century and likewise a separate structure, was not far from the Count's Palace. 168 GRUJIĆ,Knežev dvor u Dubrovniku,The Nobility and the Island,62,[240][241]Developed Autonomy,esp. 186. LONZA,The Statute of Dubrovnik,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]Arhitektura Kneževa Dvora,Knežev dvor u Dubrovniku,28. The Counts' Palaces built during the Venetian rule in the thirteenth century were always located at the city margins, next to the bulwark and usually the tower, probably to ensure the safety of the count and his retinue. In Dubrovnik, the palace was built near the eastern city gate and the harbour, and in Zadar next to the mainland gate and the pentagonal tower (later the "Captain's Tower"). In Rab and Poreč, the palace was located next to the harbour gate (in Rab, it was towards the present-day Donja Street, with the tower to the east). In Korčula, the Count's Palace was built at the very entrance to the city, 172 and in Hvar at the city margins, next to the fortifi cations. The marginal position of Counts' Palaces often meant the vicinity of suburbs (that is, the new part of the city). The position of Rab's palace between the old town and the burgus 173 may be compared to some extent to the situation in Dubrovnik or Piran. The burgus of Rab is believed to have been created in the twelfth or thirteenth century, 174 apparently as a planned area (perhaps with rental plots). In Piran, the same as in other cities, the Count's Palace was situated at the margins of the old town, next to the city gate and the new suburb that was gradually encircled by the new bulwark. 175 In Dubrovnik too, the suburbs became a new zone of economic activity, and the administrative and political centre of the commune gradually moved to the north. During the offi ce of Count Nicola Morosini (1279-1281), 176 the land division of large private estates in the suburbs was completed. Also, the new communal suburbs were systematically divided into land plots at the same time as the new city square was created and the Counts's Palace restructured. 177 The communal land was retained with the purpose of lease, which served as an "open call" to the best bidders -not only those who paid the highest rent, but also with regard to the needs of the city. The population that settled there and was involved in real-estate transactions often consisted of newcomers (from the surrounding areas as well as Venice). 178 Communal land plots rented in 1282 were listed in the Book of Communal Property, 179 started in 1286 by Aço de Titulo, personal secretary to Count Michele Morosini, son of Albertino (he took care of the income from communal property after the fi rst notary Tomasino de Savere). According to recent research, the daughter of Count Michele Morosini was married to Vladislav, son of the Serbian ruler Stefan Dragutin. It was the time when the Serbian ruler Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282-1321) renewed his territorial ambitions towards Dubrovnik, and the connection between the Morosinis and the Serbian royal family could certainly be used in Venetian diplomatic activities. 180 Dubrovnik's documents from the mid-1280s mention the construction of a new bulwark around this suburb, fi nished only after the fi re of 1296 and the new regulation of the area north of Placa. In 1286, the count of Dubrovnik was, for the second time, Venetian patrician Niccolò Querini. Querini had also been a podestà in cities outside Venetian territory, such as Treviso (1279) and Bergamo (1282) (regions with so-called planned cities, which may have had an impact on the formation and administration of the then Dubrovnik burgus 181 ). Although he was associated with the Tiepolos, his family in Dubrovnik (especially before the conspiracy of 1310) still had strong business ties and a network of contacts. The Querini were owners of various real estates and speculated with them: in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, 11 members of this family are mentioned in Dubrovnik, as well as 13 from the Contarini family. 182 Zadar's suburb next to the Babarum fortress was probably controlled by the commune (as it would be in the fi fteenth century) and the notarial records mention several rental land plots owned by the commune from the 1290s onwards. In Poreč, the palace was situated in the centre of the (ancient) city, but according to some researchers, the eastern part of the city was ruralized in the early Middle Ages and possibly functioned as a suburb 183 (this is supported by documents from the midthirteenth century, which refer to this area as burgus, 184 and it is only then that the new medieval bulwark, towers and city gates were built around it).
The thirteenth century was marked by urban demographic growth and expansion of the cities. The construction of new suburbs (and their inclusion within the city walls) was also an invitation to the newcomers who could contribute to the progress of urban economy and administration. The former suburbs were integrated in the city by enclosing them within the walls, which altered the relationship between centre and periphery. Thus, the seats of counts in some cities, originally situated marginally next to the city gates, were now in the city centre owing to the expansion of urban space.
After the death of Doge Giovanni Dandolo, there were again tensions between the two factions of patrician families for the dogal position: the Tiepolos tried to impose their candidate Giacomo, son of the former Doge Lorenzo (and the former count of Zadar). Nevertheless, the offi ce came into the hands of Pietro (Pierazzo) Gradenigo (1289-1311), son of Marco Bartholomeo, a true representative of the old aristocratic families. Doge Gradenigo was familiar, like Giacomo Tiepolo, with the Eastern Adriatic area, having served as the podestà of some cities. In 1278, he was also in charge (along with Tommaso Gritti) of building Castel Leone in Koper, a fortifi cation in the middle of the bridge that connected the city with the coast. Public works in the cities continued during his dogeship as well. 185 During Gradenigo's dogeship, Venice was again at war with its rival Genoa (1293-1299) and the subjected cities were giving military support. 186 Thus, in 1297 the count of Rab was ordered to prepare armed ships against Genoa. Besides military support from the cities under its rule, Venice also expected their services to work within a network. This was especially important after the failed Querini-Tiepolo conspiracy, as Baiamonte Tiepolo fl ed to the Eastern Adriatic and to Paul I of Bribir, a Croatian magnate from the hinterland, to whom he was related (members of Paul's family were counts in Šibenik, Trogir and Split at the time). The beginning of the fourteenth century was very dynamic and variable in the political sense -at fi rst marked by the dominance of Croatian magnates -the Counts of Bribir, and ultimately by the instability and dynastic struggles within the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom. Venice was defeated by the Genoese near Korčula in a new war, but the treaty of Milan from 1299 banned Genoa from the Adriatic (and Venice was forbidden to enter the territories under Genoese control).
Gradenigo's rival Giacomo Tiepolo became the count of Zadar (for the second time in 1289). 187 He was married to a noblewoman of Croatian descent: Šubić, sister of Paul Bribirski Šubić, 188 and one of their sons was Baiamonte Tiepolo. In 1289, Count Jacopo Tiepolo ordered the paving of the foundations of the Zadar's harbour next to the bulwark, from the arsenal to the new castrum (the north-western corner). 189 In 1289, Zadar had a logia domus nostri comitatus, and in 1290 a turris comunis. 190  In other cities, the construction activity fl ourished as well. Thus, in Hvar it was decreed in 1292 that an arsenal should be built, but it is not known whether it was completed, since the documents still mention the building plans in 1317. Before that, in 1288, the governor or Hvar was allowed to spend 500 librae for repairing the palace and the fortifi cations, and a year afterwards the bulwark was repaired as well. 194 Besides palaces that served as the Counts' residences, there was an increasing need for buildings that would accommodate the city administration and the city councils (which were established at the time). 195 The Count's Palace complex in Rab shows that it grew out of several palaces built at diff erent times. The oldest palace (the south wing) was the thirteenth-century Count's Palace, next to which various other buildings were constructed for the city administration and the city council, established at the time. 196 In 1320, Andrea Michiel, the count of Rab, continued the project of restructuring the palace built by his father, Marco Michiel. 197 Figure 11: As yet unpublished depiction of Dubrovnik with its famous port. It is held in Austrian National Library, dated 1700 (after the great earthquake of 1667) 198 ; Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Kartensammlung -Albertina-Vues, Sign. ALB Vues 08646 KAR MAG. The town hall of Dubrovnik is mentioned only in 1301 (in sala comunis Ragusii), 199 when the hall of the Major Council bridged the passage through the fonticus 200 (which was annexed) at the level of its fi rst fl oor. However, a town hall may have existed earlier, before the fi re. 201 It was only in the Angevin period that the Count's Palace was transformed into a building complex organized around an inner courtyard. The fi re of 1296, which destroyed much of the burgus, made room for new, modern planning of this area (especially on communal land), with the so-called double rows, according to the latest model of urban planning. 202 It may have been conducted under Venetian infl uence (e.g. the area of San Lio) or that of other Italian cities where this model can be identifi ed (Aquila, Manfredonia, Alcamo, Chiogga; 203 cities with which Dubrovnik had trade contacts) -through the counts, notaries or merchants.

Conclusion
At the time when communes were emerging in the Eastern Adriatic, there were serious attempts to conquer the area by the central and regional authorities, to achieve a temporary or long-term consolidation of power by means of negotiations and appointments of offi cials, which later infl uenced the level of urban autonomy and institutions, as well as the spatial layout of the cities. 204 In the century after the Fourth Crusade, the pretensions of Venice over the Eastern Adriatic cities intensifi ed, and concrete measures were taken to retain control over them more permanently. Venetian power was established in medieval cities by means of military ventures and/ or diplomacy and agreements, and it was consolidated through certain hierarchically organized structures -institutions and personal contacts. 205 The processes of implementing power were dynamic and variable, depending on the diff erent external and local circumstances to be scrutinized. Geographical position was very important in this respect. 206 Some cities were in frontier zones and they were subject to overlapping infl uences. Others relied on their own heritage and the fact that the political power was far away, both geographically and at the political or institutional level. The Adriatic cities had diff erent relations with Venice: some of them had continuous and strong links -as had cities of the Quarner Bay, partly due to their geographical proximity -while others oscillated and had strong links with the Hungarian kings (e.g. Zadar), in which cases Venice had to use diff erent strategies, and sometimes resort to compromise. In some periods, Venetian power over the cities weakened, which had the eff ect of strengthening the cities' autonomy. The occasional increase of urban autonomy was also linked to the strengthened local economic circumstances, alliances with other political entities, or an insuffi cient focus or power of the central authorities to exercise actual power in cities.
The central authorities mostly relied on the existing local elites in the Eastern Adriatic, so they were deeply involved in the local social relations, creating personal and institutional ties and new loyalties. The representatives of the central government and administration played a key role not only in the relationship between the authorities and the cities, but also that between diff erent cities, because their service was temporary and mobile within the area and in terms of power. They were transmitting infl uences and knowledge. The counts and their assistants brought new knowledge, which would then be applied in planning, organizing and administering the urban area, especially the communal parts. These counts certainly implemented ideas crafted in Venice, but at the same time had diverse contacts and connections with the local elites, which could directly infl uence their relations with the central authorities and with other cities. The numerous connections -especially in legal culture, the circulating individuals, common measurements and trade, institutions and symbols -resulted in new customs, community circles, and new overlapping identities. Communication at this level was primarily about the transmission and exchange of information (knowledge, ideas, social values, beliefs, values and norms) and was largely conducted through personal presence and contacts, symbols and rituals, 207 but also increasingly in writing and by means of laws. 208 The Venetian authority was sometimes an integrative element in a particular area -one that connected the cities and standardized their systems, created interrelated networks, and brought stability. Sometimes, it was an element of dissent between the cities -if cities of the same cultural heritage were within diff erent political entities, or if they were dissatisfi ed with their position within a sphere of power.
Various measures that Venice applied in the Eastern Adriatic cities during the thirteenth century had an impact on urban change: ordering the construction (or reconstruction) of the castrum to accommodate the count, the bulwark and the arsenal for military and merchant ships. Some of the urban changes -institutional or spatialresulted from decisions made due to extra-regional circumstances, namely the Venetian government in the thirteenth century, and not merely from those made by the local governments. On the other hand, although Venice often tried to introduce unifi ed systems and order throughout their domain of power, their implementation was always subject to the specifi c circumstances. So, comparison is important for establishing similarities as well as diff erences in the design of cities under the same sovereign in the Adriatic and beyond -within a particular political formation. 209 Based on the selected examples, it may be concluded that the Venetian rule had had a considerable impact on urban change already in the thirteenth century: nevertheless, this paper is a still a preliminary study in long-term research that aims to explore the complex relationship between urban planning, the cities, the government and the local circumstances in each individual city. 210 Thereby it is particularly important to take a comparative approach, which will make it possible to evaluate this relationship: not only in the context of Eastern Adriatic cities, but also in other cities that were part of the Venetian territory.