Monique O'Connell by Men of Empire

Author:Men of Empire [Inconnu(e)]
Language: fra
Format: epub
Published: 2020-05-05T04:39:24.988000+00:00

* * *

Syndics, Prosecutions, and Scandal

127

Nicolò di Andrea Foscolo, bailo of Corfu (1417–1419), was prosecuted for holding

the goods of a deceased merchant despite the claims of the merchant’s son and

sisters.36 Antonio Diedo, duke of Crete (1447–1449), took some possessions of the

Grimani against the form of their father’s will.37 In 1491, the Dieci proceeded

against Andrea di Zaccaria Giustinian, count of Lesina (1489–1491), who had

been bribed not to prosecute two brothers for monetary fraud.38

The denunciations themselves could easily become tools in contests between

governor and governed. Antonio di Benedetto da Lezze (1477) was the last Vene-

tian count of Scutari and was the Venetian representative who surrendered the

city to the Ottomans in March 1479.39 On his return to Venice in April of 1479, Da

Lezze was knighted for his service to the state. The following month, Da Lezze ap-

peared before the Collegio and accused several Scutarian citizens of disloyalty.

The Dieci then interrogated these citizens, who proclaimed their innocence and

in turn denounced Da Lezze, claiming that he had falsely informed the Signoria

that Scutari could not possibly hold out against the Ottoman siege when in fact

there were supplies for at least four months. The Dieci investigated the matter,

forming a special committee (Zonta) to question Da Lezze under torture. Da

Lezze eventually confessed and was sentenced to one year in prison, banned from

further officeholding, exiled to Capodistria for ten years, and fined 500 ducats.

He also had to return the golden vest and prize money he had received from the

state.

In rare instances, there is evidence that denunciations against former officials

were part of ongoing personal disputes. As seen in chapter 5, it was a regular func-

tion of an official’s position to use his office to influence Venetian councils and to

bring requests to them on behalf of individuals. Records rarely explain what it

was these officials received in return, but occasionally it becomes clear that there

was a certain quid pro quo. In 1420, the avogadori heard an appeal from Silvestro

Floranite of Canea.40 Michele Trevisan, former rector of Canea (1419), had de-

clared Silvestro eligible for the chancellery in Canea and all other offices in Canea,

something he was not empowered to do. This favor apparently had a cost, be-

cause one of Trevisan’s associates, Emmanuel Argyropolus, then brought a great

quantity of salt to Silvestro’s house to be stored there, presumably as part of some

commercial transaction Trevisan was trying to hide. Silvestro, however, refused

to allow him to do so. Trevisan then prosecuted Silvestro for selling salt in small

and large quantities and fined him for doing so. The Minor Council canceled Tre-

visan’s sentence against Silvestro; the significance of the case is that it reveals the

favor trading that could go wrong and end up in prosecution.

Not every denunciation resulted in a conviction, nor did a conviction neces-

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.