Gasparo Contarini - The Commonwealth and Government of Venice

The Commonwealth and Government of Venice

Contarini remains the most important source for the study of sixteenth and seventeenth century Venice's unique system of government. This magisterial work, written during his time as an ambassador to Charles V, extols the various institutions of the Venetian state in a manner designed to emphasize harmony, fairness and serenity. Historians have demonstrated that this text represents Contarini's idealization of Venetian reality. Probably written for a foreign, courtly audience, this work functions as the source for the everlasting propagation of the 'myth of Venice' as a stable, unchanging and prosperous society.

His depiction of how members of the council were elected to the senate, for example, aimed to emphasise the way the electoral system prevented factionalism from occurring, instead making sure that “public benefits are largely extended among the citizens” rather than narrowly amongst “one family” . An elaborate lottery is described as giving the maximum amount of chance in appointing patricians to particular offices, and care is taken to point out if two of one family are standing for similar posts. Fairness is further emphasised in Contarini’s constant references to the equality the members of the council enjoyed. They “sit down where it pleases them, for there is no place appointed to any”, and they “with oath promise to do their utmost diligence, that the laws may be observed” . He creates an image of disparate individuals, with factions broken up by the guiding hand of the law, working to ensure those in positions of importance are fairly chosen from their number and without the capacity to serve the interests of a smaller group.

Contarini’s depiction of the Doge lucidly demonstrates the way in which this figure embodies both the conscious illusion of a resplendent monarchical ruler and an equally conscious demonstration of a regime that wishes to portray itself as ruled by many limiting the powers of one. This calculated duality means that Contarini’s doge, which the second book of De magistratibus is almost entirely devoted to discussing, represents the closest point in his text to what actually occurred, because the Doge served as a literal embodiment of the idealisation of the reality of Venetian politics. For Contarini, this duality almost defines the greatness of the Venetian constitution. The Doge is the “heart”, under which “all are comprised” . Contarini places him in the centre of his body metaphor, making him synecdochical for the city and the people that reside within it. This means he is to ensure that the disparate, competing interests of the city beat in time with one another, creating in the process the “perfection of civil agreement”. His job as a conductor, rather than a ruler, means therefore that the role takes on the aspect of representative of the entire city. Contarini’s description of his vestments, privileges and rituals can therefore be compared to Marin Sanudo’s description of the physical spaces of Venice in his essay In Praise of Venice. Both are designed to extol the virtues of the entire city by describing representative parts. This is apparent in the way both authors treat the chapel of St. Mark. Patron saints were hugely important in terms of civic self-identification in renaissance Italy . Contarini emphasizes this, saying that he is “with exceeding honour solemnized of the Venetians” . His description of the Doge’s close relationship with the saint, through the “solemn pomp” with which he attends mass at the saint’s chapel, attaches him to the aforementioned “exceeding honour”, in a similar fashion to the way in which Sanudo glorifies Venice as a whole by constantly referring to the beauty and worth of St. Mark’s square and chapel as part of his panoramic praise of the city.

At the same time, however, Contarini’s overall purpose is, of course, the glorification of the republican nature of his city. Therefore, he cannot avoid referring to “the other side” of the Doge’s figure when discussing his “royal appearing show” . Things like the “kingly ornaments” which were “always purple garments or cloth of gold”, both very ostentatious assertions of wealth and power, were to ensure he was “recompensed” for his “limitation of authority” . Contarini thus openly concludes that the Doge is a combination of myth and reality, saying that “in everything you may see the show of a king, but his authority is nothing” . Indeed, as Edward Muir points out, “by the sixteenth century virtually every word, gesture and act that the doge made in public was subject to legal and ceremonial regulation” . He could not buy expensive jewels, own property outside Venice or the Veneto, display his insignia outside the Ducal Palace, decorate his apartment as he wanted, receive people in his ducal dress, send official letters, or have close ties with guilds, amongst a great many other restrictions. Legally, therefore, power in Venice came from the numerous councils, not the figurehead. The Doge thus becomes a brazen republican statement. Venice drew attention to a princely, magnificently adorned figurehead, only to direct most executive power to councils of her citizens.