• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

21 VENICE AND THE VENETO DURING THE RENAISSANCE THE LEGACY OF BENJAMIN KOHL Edited by Michael Knapton, John E. Law, Alison A. Smith thE LEgAcy of BEnJAMin KohL BEnJAMin of LEgAcy thE rEnAiSSAncE thE during VEnEto thE And VEnicE Smith A. Alison Law, E. John Knapton, Michael by Edited Benjamin G. Kohl (1938-2010) taught at Vassar College from 1966 till his retirement as Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities in 2001. His doctoral research at The Johns Hopkins University was directed by VEnicE And thE VEnEto Frederic C. Lane, and his principal historical interests focused on northern Italy during the Renaissance, especially on Padua and Venice. during thE rEnAiSSAncE His scholarly production includes the volumes Padua under the Carrara, 1318-1405 (1998), and Culture and Politics in Early Renaissance Padua thE LEgAcy of BEnJAMin KohL (2001), and the online database The Rulers of Venice, 1332-1524 (2009). The database is eloquent testimony of his priority attention to historical sources and to their accessibility, and also of his enthusiasm for collaboration and sharing among scholars. Michael Knapton teaches history at Udine University. Starting from Padua in the fifteenth century, his research interests have expanded towards more general coverage of Venetian history c. 1300-1797, though focusing primarily on the Terraferma state. John E. Law teaches history at Swansea University, and has also long served the Society for Renaissance Studies. Research on fifteenth- century Verona was the first step towards broad scholarly investigation of Renaissance Italy, including its historiography. Alison A. Smith teaches history at Wagner College, New York. A dissertation on sixteenth-century Verona was the starting point for research interests covering the social history of early modern Italy, gender, urban elites, sociability and musical academies. € 38,00 FUP FIRENZE UNIVERSITY PRESS Reti Medievali E-Book 21 Venice and the Veneto during the Renaissance: the Legacy of Benjamin Kohl edited by Michael Knapton, John E. Law, Alison A. Smith Firenze University Press 2014 The Changing Function of the Collegio in the Governance of Trecento Venice* by Benjamin G. Kohl edited by Monique O’Connell 1. Introduction Among the most famous institutions of Renaissance Venice, along with the Doge, Great Council, Senate and Council of Ten, is the Full College (Pien Collegio), often called the cabinet or steering committee of the Venetian state. This version of the Collegio, which received its definition in the second quarter of the fifteenth century, was a committee of twenty-six members, growing out of the Ducal Council, formed in the twelfth century. Thus, the core of the later Collegio was the Doge and his six ducal councilors, who with the three Heads of the Forty, came to form the Signoria, which, among other duties, was the presiding body over the Great Council, the Consiglio dei Pregadi, or Senate, and the Quarantia (or Forty). To help formulate policy and prepare legislation, various boards of Savi (not wise men, but elected experts, or even consultants) were added. The first of them was a special committee of Five Savi agli Ordini, who were concerned with commerce, the navy and overseas colonies. To these were added in 1380 the six Savi del Consiglio, so called because they were elected from the Consiglio dei Pregadi (or Senate), also known as Savi Grandi; they prepared the agenda and bills for consideration in the Senate and the Maggior Consiglio. After the conquest of the Italian mainland in the early fifteenth century, these Savi Grandi were joined by the Savi di Terraferma, a committee of five concerned with war and administration of the mainland empire. All three groups of Savi, together with the Signoria became a council * This article was originally presented in December 2009 at the conference in honor of Michael Mallett entitled “A Tale of Two Cities. Venice and Florence in the Renaissance” and held at the University of Warwick center in Venice. It was conceptualized as part of a larger study on the functioning of the medieval Venetian state, a project which was sadly left unfinished. Monique O’Connell has edited it, inserting section titles and making minor adjustments to language. The major editorial intervention lies in the addition of notes; in the absence of an accompanying bibliography, the references have been reconstructed from the author’s computer files. Every effort has been made to reflect Kohl’s intentions in this regard, but there are doubtless omissions that remain. 35 Benjamin G. Kohl of ministers, which governed Venice, preparing legislation for passage in the Senate, and the Great Council, and overseeing administration in Venice and throughout its empire. This is the textbook definition of the Collegio, in fact largely taken from the classic account in Frederic Lane’s Venice, A Maritime Republic and older 1 glossaries of Venetian institutions . The purpose of this paper is to understand how the Full College evolved from its beginnings as a small group of nobles appointed to supervise the Doge and help him govern Venice at the end of the twelfth century into one of the central organs of fourteenth century Venetian governance. 2. Ducal councilors and the Minor Council Most historians assign the birth of the Minor Council to 1178, the same year in which Orio Mastropietro became doge, following the assassination of his predecessor. At this time, the Doge’s advisors, the Savi of the major and minor councils (sapientes minoris consilii, sapientes maioris consilii) had become clearly differentiated from one another. By the time the ducal councilors were defined by statute in the early thirteenth century, their number was six. One ducal councilor was elected from each of the six sestieri of Venice, following the usual requirement of geographic distribution of offices, for a term of one year. Following the principle of contumacia, or enforced vacation from office, the councilors had to relinquish their posts for the same amount of time that they had been in office. This practice had two results. In the first place it rendered difficult any dangerous alliance with the doge. Secondly, it denied the power interests of particular groups, which might have elected the same men to the same high office repeatedly and thus compromised the sovereignty of the Great Council. Only members of the aristocratic commune were eligible to participate, with the de iure requirement of a minimum age of twenty-five, though that age was in practice too low given the weighty nature of the 2 functions entrusted to the councilors . The main duties of a member of the Minor Council were to supervise and control the Doge’s activities, while making sure the other councilors acted in the best interests of Venice. The first goal was ensured by excluding all the Doge’s kin and in-laws from membership, and both goals by the requirement that each member had to come from a different family. Of course this demanding office did not appeal to every Venetian noble. The aversion was particularly great among those successful merchants who realized that they would have to suspend their commercial activities if elected. As a result, refusals to accept office were frequent, so much so that very grave sanctions 1 Lane, 254-55. 2 Cessi, 2:37. 36 The Changing Function of the Collegio were imposed on those who did refuse, as we read in this law: “anyone who is elected ducal councilor cannot refuse the dignity, and if he does refuse, he cannot be elected to any other office, or be a member of the Great Council or 3 the Senate” . Like members of all Venetian councils during the thirteenth century but unlike the Doge, the ducal councilors served without salary, following the general principle that membership in the various assemblies should not carry with it any monetary reward. Membership in the Minor Council was also incompatible with service in another public office for the first six months of service. But during the second six months, the councilor could accept another public office, while continuing his service on the Minor Council. Thus, he received a partial reward for his prior service and prepared himself for another post after the expiration of his year in office. Ducal councilors had to observe the usual judicial rules enacted to guarantee the equal and impartial operation of all organs of the Venetian government. A councilor had to absent himself from the chamber when discussion of matters affecting his family were held. On those occasions his place was taken by a substitute, selected according to detailed rules, from one of the higher magistracies: the State’s Attorneys (Avogadori di Comun), the State Commissioners (Provveditori di Comun), and Sopraconsoli (with competence over bankruptcies and other mercantile matters), and most frequently of all, one of the Three Heads of the Forty. It often happened that some councilor, who was involved directly or indirectly in an issue under consideration, relinquished his seat to one of the Heads of the Forty. Thus, these Heads came to have such an intimate continual contact with the business of the Minor Council that they ended up belonging to it as, you might say, added members. I can find no specific law that enacted such a reform; we have only a document of 13 March 1231 in which for the first time this formula was 4 used: “with the consent of the councilors and the Heads of the Forty” . The many duties imposed on the councilors are given to us by the oath that they pronounced for the first time in 1227, which appeared as a kind of 5 appendix to Giacomo Tiepolo’s ducal Promissione . Like all magistrates of the Venetian Republic the councilors had to exercise their office – according to the oath of 1227 – with absolute impartiality, without favor toward or prejudice against anyone, without asking for or receiving gifts, either directly or indirectly, and without attempting to obtain illicit funds.

Load more

  15

Copy Link