Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1687-1715
Author(s): Alexis Malliaris
Source: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 40, Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in
Early Modern Greece (2007), pp. 97-109
Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20066767
Accessed: 01-08-2018 09:57 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CHAPTER 5
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 ALEXIS MALLIARIS
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 99
that their occupation of the P?loponn?se was relatively recent, and that
the country was emerging from a long period of Ottoman domination that
had determined its identity, prevented the Venetian administration from
managing the situation adequately.
The enduring efforts of the Venetian authorities to distinguish between
public and private property in order to supply immigrants with land proves
that they were not familiar with the economic structures of their new do
minion.5 The country's Ottoman past, which had left a decisive stamp, could
not easily be acknowledged by the new Venetian power, which, despite its
long presence in the Greek world, had never before experienced a similar
succession. The P?loponn?se and Lefkas (Santa Maura) were the only in
stances in the history of the Venetian Levant in which the Venetians took
territory from the Ottomans rather than vice versa. (Elsewhere, only in the
northern Balkans and the Slavophonic world were areas under Ottoman
control transferred to Venice; in the case of Dalmatia, Venetians enforced
a similar practice that involved the transfer of populations from Ottoman
areas to their newly conquered territories.)
The settlement of immigrants in the newly conquered area and the way
in which the Venetians dealt with the different population groups reveal
different expectations. To the Athenians the Venetians were generous in
allotting land; they were expecting from them a substantial contribution to
the financial recovery of the area because many of them were of a superior
economic and social class and were involved in commercial activities.6
The vast numbers of immigrants from the rest of central Greece were
dealt with in a different way. These people, who formed the basic population
element, especially in the area of the northern P?loponn?se, were mainly
farmers and shepherds. As they were predestined to cultivate the land, they
were scattered along the lowlands of the north, northwest, and northeast
P?loponn?se from Gastouni, Patras, and Vostitsa to Corinth, Argos, and
Nauplion (Napoli di Romania), where they lived mainly in the villages. In
contrast, the cities of Patras and Nauplion also received a large proportion
of "first-class" immigrants, according to the unofficial categorization of the
Venetian administration, which reflected the immigrants' previous situation
in their places of origin.7
It seems that in the first years of the Venetian occupation, the settle
ment of the population in particular areas of the country where there were
large areas of deserted territory was accomplished mainly on the initiative
5. For further discussion of public of the immigrants themselves. The Athenians, the most powerful group,
and private land, see Malliaris 2001,
favored the cities and settled in Patras, Gastouni, and Nauplion as well
pp. 91-113; Davies 2004, pp. 86-90.
For a general overview, see Malliaris as in Mystras. Patras also was chosen by the powerful people of central
2003. Greece, and the same city was a center for the activities of islanders from
6. Malliaris 2001, pp. 26-37. For the Ionian Sea, mainly from Kephalonia and Zante. The Catholic families
the activities of the Athenians in
from Chios who left their island in 1694, after the failure of Venetian troops
Corinth, see Davies 2002.
to capture it, settled mainly in Methoni, although some of them preferred
7. Dokos 1975; Malliaris 2001,
Nauplion. Finally, a number of Cretans reached Lakonia and settled mostly
pp. 38-48. Immigrants were divided
in Monemvasia and Molaoi.
into three classes for the purposes of
determining their allotments of public After the first years of the Venetian conquest, when the most favor
land and revenues.
able areas?that is, the lowlands?had already been occupied, the Venetian
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IOO ALEXIS MALLIARIS
The fact that various population groups coming from the wider Otto
man-dominated Greek world had to live together created problems for the
construction of a well-integrated society. These groups had different social
and financial backgrounds, cultural perceptions, and religious creeds, as in
the case of the Chios Catholics. This often led to tension and disputes not
only among the immigrants, but also in their relationship with the native
populations.
The new immigrants to the P?loponn?se met not only the native
Greeks and Albanians (Arvanites), but also Christianized Muslims (Turchi
fatti Cristiani), who had stayed in the country when the Ottomans left.8
In some cases, for example in Achaia and Messenia, grants of land from
the Venetian authorities of the Morea to foreigners provoked a reaction
on the part of the natives, who claimed that their fathers' land was being
usurped by the newcomers with the tolerance of the Venetian administra
tion. Similar claims also were made by the Christianized Muslims, who,
whether Orthodox or Catholic, claimed part of their paternal property.
Some of these were descendants of Ottoman officeholders in the Morea
who had cultivated large pieces of land.
The immigrants were compelled to cope with the native groups and
eventually their interrelationships came to form new social, economic, and
political structures. The mutual confrontation of the immigrants and the
natives as groups presupposed that each group would participate in the
formation of the identities of the others. Different social organizations and
symbols of status, as well as self-determination and external recognition,
were elements that resulted in the formulation of an image and identity
for each population group.9
The blending of the population groups ultimately imparted a cosmo
politan image to the cities of Nauplion and Patras. This marked these cities
as important administrative and commercial centers of the P?loponn?se
8. For the Turchi fatti Cristiani, see
Nikolaou 1997, pp. 55-80; Malliaris
and attracted others to them. People of Greek origin from different parts
of the wider Greek world, as well as those of Italian, Venetian, and2001,
Slavicpp. 72-77.
9. For discussion of the construction
origin who had been mercenaries in the Venetian army, mingled and lived
of group identities, see Malliaris 2001,
together in all possible combinations. Natives and foreigners, Greeks
pp. and
22-25.
Italians, Orthodox and Catholic, as well as Christianized Muslims, coex10. A general account can be found
isted during the entire Venetian period.10 in Malliaris 1997a.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 IOI
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I02 ALEXIS MALLIARIS
It is clear that all family members living with a couple were relatives of the
man of the couple. This is not coincidence, given the fixed structures charac
teristic of preindustrial families. Further, an unmarried adult son who lived
with his mother was the head of the family, not the widowed mother.
Another registration of immigrants, from Livadia (Roumeli) to Vostitsa
(1700), also demonstrates the predominance of the nuclear family. Of 25
households, 22 are of the nuclear type of family, two are of the extended
nuclear type (a son with his mother; a widower with his children and his
mother), and one consists of a household without parental or conjugal
bond (unmarried brothers).17 Finally, a registration of the immigrants of
Chios at Methoni (1699) yields the following information: of 75 families,
47 are nuclear families, 12 consist of a single member, 11 lack a parental
or conjugal bond, and 5 are extended nuclear families.18
14. For the size of the total popula demographic issues and the types 16. Dokos 1975, pp. 176-206.
tion of the P?loponn?se and other of households, see Malliaris 2001, 17. ASV, Archivio Grimani ai Servi,
demographic issues pertaining to the pp. 199-215; in the classification of b.35, fol. 453r-454v; see also Malliaris
Venetian censuses, see Panayiotopoulos the various types of households, I used 2001, p. 204.
1987, pp. 135-206. the typological model proposed by 18. ASV, Archivio Grimani ai Servi,
15. For a detailed discussion of Peter Laslett (Laslett and Wall 1972). b.30, fol. 898r-909r.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 IO3
The various forms of the family result not only from the circumstances
of immigration (the long distance between the homeland and the Morea;
the effects of diseases?plague in particular?and the resulting high death
rate of older people during the displacement), but also from the attitude
of immigrants who, in many cases, preferred to move to the Morea alone,
without their families, in order to investigate the opportunities for perma
nent settlement. This strategy explains the fact that many men are registered
as single in households of which they are the only member, as they most
likely belonged to larger family units in their homelands.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i04 ALEXIS MALLIARIS
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 105
As time passed, the groups diverged more radically and the agrarian popula
tion was even more burdened, since it had become completely responsible
for the local population's financial obligations to the state. The weaker part
27. Malliaris 2001, pp. 230-246; of the population had to suffer arbitrary actions from officials and army
Papadia-Lala 2004, pp. 480-489. officers, the members of the comunit?, the tenants of public lands, and the
28. See Dokos 1999-2000; Malliaris
tax collectors, especially those who collected the tithe. Disappointment
2001, pp. 250-261; and Davies 2004,
with the Peloponnesian environment, and the oppression under which the
pp. 72-75.
29. For this phenomenon, see Mal common people suffered, led many ex-refugees, especially in the northern
liaris 2001, pp. 262-276; Davies 2004, and northwestern P?loponn?se, to abandon their new homes and return
p. 105. to their Ottoman-controlled native lands in central Greece.29
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
io6 ALEXIS MALLIARIS
30. ASV, Provveditori da Terra e da b.36, f.92, fol. 477v. It is worth noting
Mar, b.849, no. 3, March 19,1698, that the Venetian army's doctor in
Argos. Napoli di Romania, the Florentine
31. ASV, Provveditori da Terra e da Alessandro Pini, states in his descrip
Mar, b.851, no. 6, February 2,1701, tion of the P?loponn?se, written in
Napoli di Romania. 1703, that the immigrants were di
32. ASV, Provveditori da Terra e da natura unwilling to stay permanently
Mar, b.849, no. 3, March 19,1698, in the Morea, and also that during
Argos. For the connection between the their sojourn in the P?loponn?se they
comunit? and the angarie, see Dokos usually gave birth to only one child,
1999-2000; and Malliaris 2001, whereas in their homelands they had
pp. 250-261. numerous descendants; see Malliaris
33. ASV, Archivio Grimani ai Servi, 1997b, pp. 33-34.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 107
population (the peasantry and the era for the next period of Peloponnesian history, beginning in 1716, after
upper social classes) toward the Otto the Ottoman reconquest, and extending to the Greek Revolution at the
man invasion, see Malliaris 2001-2002. beginning of the 19th century.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
io8 ALEXIS MALLIARIS
PRIMARY SOURCES
Materie ecclesiastiche
b.7 Fascio di carte relative all' amministratione del convento di San Andrea
di Patrasso (Carmelitani Scalzi)
Provveditori soprafeudi
b.1039 Filza famiglia Bosichi
PUBLISHED SCHOLARSHIP
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POPULATION EXCHANGE AND INTEGRATION, 1687-1715 IOC
-. 1983. Dictionary of Marxist -. 2001. "H ai)YKp(kr|or| tod Panayiotopoulos, V. 1987. nAr?6vo/u?c
Thought, Oxford. KOIVCOVIKOD %C?pOD OTTj B.?. Kai oiKiGjuo? Trig TleXonovvr\Gov:
Jacoby, D. 1971. La f?odalit? en Gr?ce rie?orcovvrjGO inv 7iepio?o xrj? 13o?-18o? ai va?, Athens.
m?di?vale: Les Assises de Romanie, " ?evexiKric Kupiocpxia? (1687-1715)" Papadia-Lala, A. 1993. "Oi 'EM?ive?
sources, application et diffusion, Paris. (diss. Ionian Univ., Corfu). Kai n ?ev?TiKT| TtpayuaTiKOTnTa:
Kalligas, H., ed. 1998. HEKorpareia -. 2001-2002. "H ToupKiKTi eio I?eo?oyiKT| Kai koivoovikti oDy
tov Morosini Kai to Regno di ?oXr| air] ?evexiKri Iletam?vvrioo Kp?TT|ar|," in Vy/eig Tr?g iGTop?ag tov
Morea: Moveju?acJiOTiKoc 'Ojui?o?, (1715): H ot?ori tod e?Ativikod ?evETOKpaTOvjuevov eXArfviG?ov, ed.
r' Zvjutt?cjio IcjTopia? Kai T?%vri?, 7iXt|6'?o|l10'6 ?vavTi Bevexcbv Kai C. A. Maltezou, Athens, pp. 173
20-22 Iov?iov 1990, Athens. ToDpKCov Kai rj ?iaarcopa tod 276.
Kasdagli, A. E. 1999. Land and Mar ??Ar|VlKOD Kai TOD ?eV?TlKOD -. 2004. O OeGfi?g tc?v aGTiK?v
riage Settlements in the Aegean: A oT0i%8i0D," in TlpaKTiKalT KOIVOT1JTCOV GTOV eXX?]VlKO %G>pO
Case Study of Seventeenth-Century AieOvovg IvveSpiov TleXonovvr\ KaTa t?]v nepio?o Tr\g BeveTOKpanag
Naxos, Venice. gwkc?v Enov?cov, Tp?noXr] 24-30 f/Jog-ISog au): M?a gwOetikij
Lane, F. C. 1978. Storia di Venezia, IsxTeju?piov 2003, Athens, TtpoGeyyiGT], Venice.
Turin. pp. 420-436. Stouraiti, A. 2001. Memorie di un
Laslett, P., and R. Wall, eds. 1972. -. 2002. "La formazione dello ritorno: La guerra di Morea (1684
Household and Family in Past Time, spazio sociale in un nuovo posedi 1699) nei manoscritti della Querini
Cambridge. mento veneziano: Veneziani, coloni Stamp alia, Venice.
Liata, E., and K. Tsiknakis, eds. 1998. e nativi nel Peloponneso del Topping, P. 1972. "The Post-Classical
Me tt]v apju?Sa oto Mopi? 1684 nordovest (territorio di Patrasso) Documents," in The Minnesota
1687, Athens. 1687-1715," Orfcjavpicj?aTa 32, Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing
Lucassen, J., and L. Lucassen, eds. pp. 219-234. a Bronze Age Regional Environment,
1997. Migration, Migration History, -. 2003. "La mobilizzazione ed. W. A. McDonald, G. R. Rapp,
History: Old Paradigms and New della terra in un paese di nuova Jr., Minneapolis, pp. 64-80.
Perspectives, Bern. conquista: Lo stato fondiario nel -. 1977. "Feudal Institutions
Malliaris, A. 1997a. "'0\|/ei<; at>|i?ic?or|c Peloponneso veneziano agli inizi as Revealed in the Assises of Ro
7i^rj9\)ouiaKC?v ouxx?cov axrjv del XVIII sec?lo," in II Mer cato della mania: The Law Code of Frankish
rie?xmovvr|ao koct?x irj AemEpn Terra secc. XIII-XVLII, ed. S. Cava Greece," in Studies on Latin Greece,
BevexoKpax?a (1685-1715)," in ciocchi, Prato, pp. 499-505. a.D. 1205-1715, London, pp. 1
UpaKTiK? E' A wOvov? IvveSp?ov Nikolaou, G. 1997. "Islamisation et 192.
TleXoTcovvriGiaKC?v IxovS v, Christianisation dans le P?lopon Zamperetti, S. 1991. "Stato regionale
?pyo?-NavjtAio 6-10 EenTE??piov n?se (1715-ca. 1832)" (diss. Univ. of e autonomie locali: Signorie e feudi
1995 4, Athens, pp. 39-48. Strasbourg). nel dominio veneziano di terra
-. 1997b. Alessandro Pini: Avek Page-Moch, L. 1992. Moving Euro ferma," Studi Veneziani n.s. 21,
?ot?] 7tepiypacr? ttj? IJeAOTtovvrjcJov peans: Migration in Western Europe pp. 111-136.
(1703), Venice. since 1650, Bloomington.
This content downloaded from 193.92.235.66 on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:57:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms