Post-Renaissance London and Venice: a Political Comparison
| [Part1] | [Part2] |
| [Part1] |
The political scene of post-Renaissance Venice starkly contrasted with that of London, reflecting great differences between each city’s level of economic and social stability. Although each city possessed its own underlying economic history and set of social circumstances, they still shared many common practices.
–more–>
The true earmark of the Venetian political system was its unique and amazingly efficient government setting it apart from other European cities but showing close ties to that of London in occasional practices. The Doge, the head of state in Venice, acted as a figurehead, a constitutional monarch whose only real power rested in personal influence upon the more powerful government officials. Much like the government of England, the actual governing was done by a group of patricians twenty five years of age or older, in a political grouping known as the Great Council. This system mirrors the constitutional monarchy of England under King James I and Charles I when Parliament began to make claims of constitutional power unthinkable in the days of the Tudor kings. Religious issues constantly placed the Stuart monarchs into conflict with Parliament because of their theory of absolute monarchy. The ideology of an absolute monarchy suggests that not only the king be the political sovereign, but he also dominate the economic and religious lives of those he rules. However, following the collection of money by the king without Parliament’s approval led to the Petition of Rights in 1628, placing the Parliament in a once more powerful position.
Both the Great Council and Parliament consisted of wealthy nobles, although Venetian politicians also lived by the profits of their shipping industry as well as that of the government, possessing great powers over the state. The Great Council appointed other officials including the Senators, the “Ten Men”, the Procurators of Venice’s patron saint, St. Mark, the Justices, and a College of Sages.
Unlike the Parliament of London, the Great Council of Venice, namely the “Ten Men” elected for one-year terms, dealt with morals, public decency, rebels, and foreign enemies. Venice had eleven trial courts and two used solely for appeals, reaching a verdict not by juries but by government officials. However, each of the accused was given a counselor, many centuries before this legal practice became common in London. From their work coined as miscellaneous, the Ten chose three as leaders, serving alternately for one month each. Other departments had a head for one day. The official was quarantined until his term was over, thus keeping the people entirely unpolitical. Venetian leaders had been trained since boyhood so that they could take office effectively upon reaching proper age, proving that the Venetian took their political system far more seriously than those of England did. Perhaps one reason for this is that in England at this time of Glorious Revolution, Parliament, and not inheritance or divine right, would determine the succession to the throne, so that no one man was entirely sure of his political station until chosen.
Internal and international conflicts, which each city was engaged in, further influenced the contrasting views of each political system but revealed similarities in their practices. To keep peace in their city, the Venetian government set up a corps of Ambassadors, but was also contending against four strong, neighboring powers, including that of the pope. The eastern outpost of Venice had been lost to a pirate crew following a twenty five-year war. Besides several less significant conflicts taking place in Venice, the world was focused on the events taking place in England at the time.
Although Venice remained relatively peaceful in comparison to the other city-states of its time, London erupted into civil war.
| [Part1] | [Part2] |