In his history of Venice, John Julius Norwich most likely reached the pinnacle of his storytelling skills, as of the histories I have read by him, this one was by far the most engaging. Norwich tells the story, not of the city per se, but of the Republic of Venice, that political entity that began as an ad hoc means of resolving disputes among various sets of refugees who had fled to the Venetian lagoon in the face of successive waves of barbarian invasions (the Goths, the Huns, the Lombards and the Magyars, among others) and grew into a powerful commercial trading empire. He describes in quite lively tones the paradox that Venice became, and the combination of a wonderful writing style and a quite unique history work their magic on the reader.
Venice is of course a fascinating enough subject that writing a fascinating book on it can't be that hard... but this sounds very good, all the same.
We learn both the Venetians' own, glorified account of their origins as well as the more likely story. We hear how St. Theodore, the original patron saint of the city, was unceremoniously swept aside after a merchant ship claimed to have stolen the body of St. Mark the Evangelist from Alexandria, Egypt. We see Venice in her moments of glory, such as at the siege of Candia, which lasted over 22 years, as well as in her moments of infamy, none of which can compare with the perfidy she inflicted upon the Byzantine Empire in the Fourth Crusade.
I don't necessarily disagree, but you would think that as we evolve towards a more balanced and less "us vs. them" view of world history, we might stop singling out that attack on a co-religionist (and only up to a point, anyway) during a series of religiously inspired wars as so particularly perfidious. Sure, it remains a remarkably opportunistic and ugly move even so, but not necessarily worse than many other events in history that haven't been given remotely the same status.
What is perhaps most amazing, however, is how Venice was able to remain separate from the rest of Italy throughout war after war after war, and through the entire period of time remained a republic. Yes, it was an oligarchic republic, where only the old families of the Venetian nobility (most of whom, it should be pointed out, had no land in the first place, as Venice was never involved in the feudal system) could vote for the Doge or hold the high offices, from serving in the Grand Consiglio to the Council of Ten to the Signoria. Even so, at no time in its history did a power-hungry tyrant rule over Venice or her possessions, which at one time or other included Cyprus, Crete, "a quarter and a half a quarter of the Roman Empire" (i.e., 3/8 of the Byzantium that the Crusaders dismembered in 1204), the Peloponnese, Euboea (Negropont), Chios, Corfu, Zante, Zacynthos, Ithaca, Zara, Fiume, Istria, Dalmatia, the Veneto, Brescia, Verona, Bergamo, and other towns of Eastern Lombardy.
And then that description doesn't even go into its still greater economic power... while it lasted, anyway.
Since I wrote on the topic of the spice trade in university (and read F.C. Lane's history of Venice in the process - have you read it, and how do they compare?), I'm interested to know how well Norwich handles that topic, in your opinion?
Norwich, in his introduction, warns the reader that, toward the end of the book, the reader will find that an entire century receives less attention than some decades earlier in the book, and that, lest the reader believe that the author has become as weary writing the book as he has of reading it, he should know that Venetian history falls into a decline after the War of the Spanish Succession because Venice turned in on herself and, essentially, celebrated her eclipse with ever more lavish parties until the whole thing came to a quick and ignominious end when Napoleon invaded Italy. I have to confess that, when I reached that point in the book, I was not weary of the read.
I think all histories of Venice would do that, yeah. Though I'm sure in its own way the history of Venice in the eighteenth century could still be interesting, even if it's just a tale of decay.
Was it really even their own fault, though? When da Gama reached Calicut in 1498, one might fairly argue it was always going to be the beginning of the end for La Serenissima, at least the beginning of the end of its superpower status. Even if the Portuguese and Turks combined to keep the Levantine trade alive for another century after that, by the early 17th century it was over and done with, and Venice's attempts to increase its weight in Italy to compensate for the losses of its maritime empire were always doomed to fail beyond a certain point, I would think... what do you (and Norwich) think?
A History of Venice by John Julius Norwich
- 29/12/2012 11:39:31 PM
874 Views
Was I the one who recommended this book to you?
- 30/12/2012 03:28:16 PM
624 Views
I bought this one sua sponte from the Folio Society.
- 30/12/2012 05:02:12 PM
685 Views
This is definitely on my list.
- 31/12/2012 07:01:05 PM
776 Views
The Fourth Crusade was a travesty for world civilization
- 31/12/2012 09:48:20 PM
674 Views
Ah, I see your point.
- 31/12/2012 10:58:33 PM
673 Views
Well, the Venetians weren't the ones doing the worst of the looting...
- 01/01/2013 07:36:49 AM
616 Views
It's extremely readable
- 03/01/2013 02:09:23 AM
592 Views
I don't doubt that he extrapolates a bit much
- 04/01/2013 03:48:28 AM
647 Views
I don't recall the specifics.
- 05/01/2013 03:49:26 AM
629 Views