1 By now the literature has grown quite large. Among recent works especially pertinent and helpful for the present study are: Brucker, Gene, Renaissance Florence, 2nd edition (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1983)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 3; Herlihy, David and Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane, Les Toscans et leurs families (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar and Klapisch-Zuber, , “La ‘Mère cruelle:’ maternité, veuvage et dot dans la Florence des XlV^e-XV^e siècles,” Annates: économies, sociétés, civilisations, 38:5 (Sept.-Oct., 1983), 1097–1109 Google Scholar; Kent, F. W., Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar; Kent, Dale, The Rise of the Medici: Faction in Florence 1426-1434 (Oxford-New York, 1978)Google Scholar and “The Florentine Reggimento in the Fifteenth Century,” Renaissance Quarterly, 28 (1975), 575-638; Trexler, Richard C., Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Diane Owen Hughes, “Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa,” Past and Present, no. 66 (February, 1975). 3-28, and “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe,” Journal of Family History, 3 (1978), 262-96. There are many more.

2 Although patrician social structure still lacks a thorough examination, important contributions have been made to the study of the patrician family: see, notably, Finlay, Robert, Politics in Renaissance Venice (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980)Google Scholar, which integrates di family and kinship into consideration of patrician politics; see esp. pp. 81-96. Among other works that discuss aspects of the patrician family are: Davis, James C., A Venetian Family and Its Fortune, 1500-1900 (Philadelphia, 1975)Google Scholar; King, Margaret L., “Caldiera and the Barbaros on Marriage and the Family: Humanist Reflections of Venetian Realities,“ Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 6 (1976), 19–50 Google Scholar; Betto, Bianca, “Linee di politica matrimoniale nella nobiltà veneziana fino al XV sccolo: alcune note genealogiche e l'esempio della famiglia Mocenigo,” Archivio storico italiano, 139 (1981), 3–64 Google Scholar; Loenertz, R.-J., Les Chisi, dynastes vénitiens dans l'Archipel, 1207-1390 (Florence, 1975)Google Scholar; and two older studies of Lane, Frederic C., Andrea Barbarigo, Merchant of Venice 1418-1449 (Baltimore, 1944; repr. New York, 1967)Google Scholar, and “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures in the Venetian Republic” (1944), in Lane, Venice and History (Baltimore, 1966), pp. 36-55. More characteristically focused on divisions by political interest and wealth are Felix Gilbert, “Venice in the Crisis of the League of Cambrai,” and Gaetano Cozzi, “Authority and the Law in Renaissance Venice,” both in J. R. Hale, ed., Renaissance Venice (Totowa, N.J.-London, 1973), pp. 274-92 and 293-345; and Cracco, Giorgio, “Patriziato e oligarchia a Venezia nel Tre-Quattrocento,” in Sergio Bertelli, et al., eds., Florence and Venice: Comparisons and Relations (Florence, 1979), I, 71–98 Google Scholar. For a comparison of recent writing on Venice and Florence, see Brucker, Gene, “Tales of Two Cities: Florence and Venice in the Renaissance,” American Historical Review, 88 (1983), 599–616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 This crude formulation does not address many nuances in the anthropological literature on the subject, which cannot be gone into here. See, for helpful discussions, Murdock, George Peter, Social Structure (New York, 1949), pp. 15–16, 91-92Google Scholar; Evans-Pritchard, E. E., “Descent and Kinship,” in Paul Bohannan and John Middleton, eds., Kinship and Social Organization (Garden City, N.Y., 1968), pp. 151-54Google Scholar; Fortes, Meyer, “The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups,” American Anthropologist, 55 (1053)Google Scholar. 3° and passim. The whole issue is given wide-ranging consideration, based on discussion of the European historical experience and much pertinent literature, in Goody, Jack, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983), esp. pp. 10–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and appendices.

4 On this pivotal event, called the Serrata, or closing, of the Great Council, see Lane, Frederic C., “The Enlargement of the Great Council of Venice,” in J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale, eds., Florilegium Historiale: Essays Presented to Wallace K. Ferguson (Toronto, 1971), pp. 236–274 Google Scholar; Merores, Margarete, “Der grosse Rat von Venedig und die sogenannte Serrata vom Jahres 1297,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschajisgeschichte, 21 (1928), 75–81 Google Scholar and passim; Stanley Chojnacki, “In Search of the Venetian Patriciate: Families and Factions in the Fourteenth Century,” in Hale, ed., Renaissance Venice, pp. 47-90; Ruggiero, Guido, “Modernization and the Mythic State in Early Renaissance Venice: The Serrata Revisited,” Viator, 10 (1979), 245-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 A strain of legislation beginning in 1407 toughened the rules for establishing patrician credentials. See, e.g., Great Council acts of July 5, 1407 and May 4, 1421. MC 21, Leona, fol. 169; MC 22, Ursa, fol. 43^v. I propose to discuss the significance of this body of legislation in the context of the patriciate's evolution between 1300 and 1500 in another study, now in preparation, called “The Making of the Venetian Patriciate.”

6 An example of the former: Nicolò Morosini Dottor, testating in 1379, offered a 10% discount to Morosini cousins or their male heirs who might want to buy his house. ASV, Cancelleria inferiore, Busta 97, Francesco Gritti, 12, no. 1. An example—one of many—of the latter: another Nicolò Morosini asked in his will of 1447 (1446 Venetian style [= “ven“], the new year beginning March 1) to be buried in “archa de cha Mauroceno” at S. Trinità: ASV, Notarile, Testamenti, Busta 1157, Benedetto dalle Croci, protocollo II, fol. 152-52^V.

7 The concern with inherited status found expression in sharpened distinctions within the patriciate as well, as political lines were drawn between the class's most venerable houses, the case vecchie or longhi and relatively more recent arrivals, the case nuove or curti. See Finlay, Politics, pp. 92-96; Chojnacki, “In Search,” pp. 49-50; Romanin, Samuele, La storia documentata di Venezia, 3rd edition (Venice, 1973), IV, 305–306 Google Scholar.

8 For the dowry as currency in such connections, see Hughes, “Brideprice,” esp. pp. 284, 287-88. More generally, Goody, Development, treats exogamy and its bilateral effects as a central concern; see also Duby, Georges, The Knight, the Lady and the Priest, translated by Barbara Bray (New York, 1983), pp. 94, 104-105Google Scholar, 244-45.

9 The instituting law was passed by the Great Council on November 25, 1319, and a 1356 act of the Council of Ten, noting that the eighteen-year age minimum was being violated, decreed a fine of 200 lire for offenders. AC Reg. 2, Capitolare, fols. 67^v-68, 69^v. Occasional mention is made of the Balla d'Oro in the Avogaria di Comun's fourteenth-century Raspe registers of criminal proceedings, but no records of Balla d'Oro registrations from that century appear to have survived. I am inclined to believe that systematic Balla d'Oro record-keeping began only in the fifteenth century: a Great Council act of 1414, which elaborated Barbarella procedures, specifically mandated the keeping of registration information “in uno quaterno,” suggesting that documentation had hitherto been haphazard. MC 21, Leona, fols. 241^v-42. The history and technical aspects of the Balla d'Oro will be the subject of a separate study. See, however, the valuable article of Law, J. E., “Age Qualification and the Venetian Constitution: the Case of the Capello Family,” Papers of the British School at Rome, 39 (1971), 125-37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 128-31.

10 In a sample of 138 nobles from sixteen clans who entered the Great Council between 1444 and 1454, nearly half, 65 or 47.1%, made it by winning the Barbarella lottery. Of the rest, 37 (26.8%) got in after election as civil court advocates and the remaining 36 (26.1%) took their hereditary places at age twenty-five. AC, Prove di eta, Reg. 178, fols. 1-103^v. The latter two categories included many unsuccessful Balla d'Orp competitors, so the proportion of registrants among young patricians is greater than half. Among these same clans (listed below, note 12) there were 417 registrants during 1408-50, but 648 during 1451-97—an increase of over 50% in the latter halfcentury. BO 162, 163, 164, passim.

11 On office-seeking in the Quattrocento, see Cozzi, “Authority and the Law,” esp. pp. 298 ff.; on the maneuvering that accompanied it, see Finlay, Politics in Renaissance Venice, pp. 59-81 and passim. However, nobles’ desire for remunerative offices should be considered alongside evidence that burdensome posts were shunned. See Donald Queller, “The Civic Irresponsibility of the Venetian Nobility,” in David Herlihy etal., eds., Economy, Society and Government in Medieval Italy: Essays in Memory of Robert L. Reynolds (Kent, Ohio, 1969), pp. 223-35. See also below, note 14.

12 The sixteen clans are: Arimondo, Balbi, Canal, Lando, Loredan, Morosini, Muazzo, Mula, Navagero, Pisani, Polani, Priuli, Ruzzini, Vitturi, Zane, Zulian. They were chosen to represent large, middling and small clans from the three divisions of the nobility by antiquity, the case vecchie or longhi, the case nuove or curti, and a subdivision of these latter, the case ducali, which monopolized the dogeship in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. See the references above, note 7. The terms “clan” and “lineage” are used here in the following sense: The clan is a unilineally connected cluster of lineages whose common ancestry may be shadowy or even mythical and whose relationships to one another are consequently vague; the relationships within the lineage, by contrast, are genealogically precise. John Middleton and David Tait, “The Lineage and the Lineage System,” in idem, eds., Kinship and Social Organization, pp. 155-56; Fortes, “Structure,” p. 25. Goody, Development, pp. 227-32, expresses reservations about the use of “clan” and especially “lineage” in the European context. In the sense indicated above, however, they fit the Venetian patrician context.

13 The long-term economic problems of the patriciate appear to have begun in earnest with the shocks dealt individual finances by the demands of the War of Chioggia against the Genoese (1378-81). See Mueller, Reinhold C., “Effetti delta Guerra di Chioggia (1378-81) sulla vita economica e sociale di Venezia,” Ateneo veneto, n.s., 19 (1981), 27–41 Google Scholar; Lane, Frederic C., Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 189-96Google Scholar; Luzzatto, Gino, Storia economica di Venezia dall'XI al XVI secolo (Venice, 1961), pp. 141-45Google Scholar; Cessi, Roberto, “La finanza veneziana al tempo della guerra di Chioggia,” in the collection of Cessi's writings, Politica ed economia di Venezia nel Trecento: Saggi (Rome, 1952), pp. 172–248 Google Scholar. On the decline of commerce, see Lane, ibid., pp. 285-93.

14 See above, note 11. The Great Council acted already in 1386 to spread the benefits of office-holding around the entire class (“ut omncs participent de honoribus ct beneficiis terre“). Another act, of 1392, stated that certain minor offices were designated for “nostris pauperibus nobilibus.” MC 21, Leona, fols. 14,61^v. An indication of eager pursuit of government-sponsored economic opportunities are Senate measures of 1417 and 1431 aimed at regulating intense competition among young patricians for bowman posts on government vessels. ASV, Senato, Misti, Reg. 52, fol. 33; Reg. 58, fol. 81^v. These posts gave young nobles the chance to trade at ports of call. Lane, Andrea Barbarigo, pp. 17-18; Finlay, Politics, p. 69.

15 On the fraterna see Pertile, Antonio, La storia del diritto italiano (2nd ed.; Turin, 1893), IV, 128-33Google Scholar. On the institution in Venice, see Lane, Frederic, “Family Partnerships and Joint Ventures in the Venetian Republic,’ in Venice and History (Baltimore, 1966), p. 37 Google Scholar and passim; also Davis, A Venetian Family, pp. 7-8 and passim.

16 The Balla d'Oro law of 1414, mentioned above, and other measures of the period toughened procedures for proving patrician status; e.g., a law of 1430 regulating Great Council admission of men who bypassed the Balla d'Oro. MC 22, Ursa, foi. 88.

17 A great Council act of 1422 disqualified sons of women of low condition. MC 22, Ursa, fols. 47^v-48. On dowries, see Chojnacki, Stanley, “Dowries and Kinsmen in Early Renaissance Venice,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 5 (1975), 571–600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hughes, “Brideprice,” pp. 287-90.

18 Another sign of the tightening of pedigree requirements: in 1408 the fine for a false claim of patrician descent was raised from 300 to 500 lire. MC 21, Leona, fol. 181^V.

19 ”… Quod pater dicti juvenis, si tunc vixerit, et erit in civitate Vcneciarum, teneatur presentare dictum talem eius filium … . “ MC 21, Leona, fol. 241^v. On fathers’ legal authority—the patria potestas—see Kuehn, Thomas, Emancipation in Medieval Florence (New Brunswick, N.J., 1982), pp. 25–26 Google Scholar and passim. On patriarchal authority in practice in Florence, see F. W. Kent, Household and Lineage, pp. 33 ff.

20 Fathers absent, candidates were to be presented “per unum aut duos ex propinquioribus.” MC 21, Leona, fol. 241^v. E.g., in 1423 Nicolò di Bartolomeo da Canal was presented by his uncle, Giovanni di Fantin da Canal, because his father was then serving as Venetian consul in Tunis. In 1451 Marco di Paolo Loredan was presented by an uncle because his father was serving as podesta and captain at Belluno. BO 162, fol. 49; BO 163, fol. 289^v. (Paolo Loredan's office—not specified in the BO entry—is in Voci 4, fol. 56).

21 Davis, A Venetian Family, traces this tendency across many generations of the Donà dalle Rose clan.

22 It contrasts with the Florentine case, where young men were likely to be fatherless by their late teens. Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, Les Toscans, pp. 394 ff., esp. 411. Also useful on the present subject: Herlihy, David, “Vieillir à Florence au Quattrocento,” Annates, 24 (1969), 1338-52Google Scholar; and idem, “Mapping Households in Medieval Italy,” Catholic Historical Review, 58 (1972), 1-24. The connection between father-son relations and the patrician political order is explored in my draft article, “Coming of Age in Quattrocento Venice.“

23 Sponsors outnumber registrants because non-parent sponsors often come in pairs; see the quotation above, note 20.

24 It is a bit risky to assume traceable blood relationships among men of the same surname, especially in the large clans, such as the Loredan, the Priuli and above all the Morosini. However, most of the sponsors who shared candidates’ surnames—the category called “Paternal Kin” in Table 1—probably belonged to the candidate's specific lineage within the clan; see examples below. On “clan” and “lineage,” see above, note 12.

25 BO 164, fol. 274^v. Nicolò himself had been enrolled in 1453. BO 163, fol. 341^v; Girolamo apparently never registered. Another example: Antonio qd Donato Arimondo, himself a Balla d'Oro registrant in 1412, enrolled his eighteen-year-old brother Paolo in 1427. A third brother, Marino, sponsored still another, Nicolò, in 1435. BO 162, fol. 7^V; I could find no record of Marino's ever having himself been registered. In this and subsequent references, “qd” (from quondam) is used to signify a dead father, “di” a living one, at the time of the reference; “ d i “ is also used as a general identifier.

26 E.g., Nicolò qd Giovanni da Mula was 29 when he sponsored his brother Alvise in 1464 (preceding note): Nicolò's birthdate, as documented in “libro patris sui,” was noted at his registration as May 9, 1435 (making him exactly 18 years, 7 months at his registration on December 3, 1453). BO 163, fol. 341^v.

27 Volumen statutorum, legum, ac iurium d. venetorum … . (Venice, 1564), p. 41^v: Bk. 3, ch. 4. See also Davis, A Venetian Family, pp. 85 ff.; Lane, “Family Partnerships.“

28 The two sponsoring Mula uncles, Angelo and Benedetto qd Antonio, also attested to the authenticity of the handwriting in the “librum qd patris,” which had recorded Giovanni's birthdate as March 18, 1413, making him eighteen-and-a-half at his registration. BO 162, fol. 108^v. Uncle Angelo da Mula had previously registered another deceased brother's son, Francesco qd Giovanni, in 1424. Ibid. Other examples: Piero qd Daniele da Canal registered “eius nepotem” Bernardo qd Giovanni da Canal in 1458. BO 163, fol. 201^v. Nicolò qd Bernardo Navagero, presenting his late brother Andrea's son Bernardo in September 1474, knew enough about family matters to testify that Bernardo would turn eighteen the following October 13. BO 164, fol. 275.

29 See references above, note 20.

30 For example, in 1417 Antonio qd Lorenzo Loredan and Lorenzo qd Bartolomeo Loredan sponsored the registration of Lodovico qd Tomaso Loredan, identified only as “eorum attinentem.” BO 162, fol. 85^v. In many cases even that vague connection is absent.

31 BO 164, fol. 55—55^v. Piero had also served as a guarantor at the 1481 registration of Nicoletto's older brother Giovanni. Ibid.

32 The common ancestor was Marino di Vitale Lando, who had four sons who registered for the Balla d'Oro. One of these was Giovanni, father of Piero, the sponsor at the 1493 registration; Giovanni himself signed up for the lottery in 1441. BO 163, fol. 294. Another of Marino's sons was Girolamo, grandfather of that Girolamo di Piero enrolled in 1493; at the elder Girolamo's registration, in 1436, his father, the common ancestor Marino, was already dead. BO 162, fol. 88. The registration of 1493 is in BO 164, fol. 214^v.

33 See Finlay, Politics, pp. 90-96 and passim.

34 Ibid., pp. 84-87. On large clans’ advantages, see Chojnacki, “In Search,” pp. 67-70. The political personality that such rules recognize in the patrician casa warrants using the term “clan” to characterize them.

35 An analysis of the office-holding experience of a sample of young patricians in the second half of the Quattrocento reveals that 88% of those who held public office got their first posts before age 35. (Data from Voci 6.) I propose to discuss this at length in a separate study.

36 Genealogical information culled chiefly from BO 162, 163, 164, and 165, and from Nozze. A simplified genealogy of the Landos discussed here, leaving out siblings not mentioned (“R.” = registered for the Balla d'Oro):

The registration of Vitale qd Marino (1439) is in BO 163, fol. 294; those of Piero di Girolamo (1465), Francesco di Alvise (1474), Francesco di Vitale (1475), Piero qd Giovanni (1480), and Marco qd Piero (1496; see below, note 62) in BO 164, fol. 214- 214^V.

37 Voci 6, fols. 102, 34^v, 30^v. I assume that Piero was 18 or 19 at his BO registration in 1480.

38 Among other posts, he was podestà at Verona (1470) and avogador di comun (1472) Voci 6, fols. 16^v, 7. The genealogist Cappellari reports that he was provveditore with the Venetian forces at a siege of Trieste in 1462 and ambassador to Duke of Milan in 1474. Cappellari also credits him with philosophical writings. G. A. Cappellari-Vivaro, “Il Campidoglio Veneto,” BMV, MSS Italiani, classe VII, 16 (8305), fol. 203.

39 Voci 6, fol. 7. Alvise had been elected an avogador the previous year as well. On the importance of the Avogadori di Comun, see Cozzi, “Authority and the Law,” pp. 303-5 and passim.

40 Chojnacki, Stanley, “Patrician Women in Early Renaissance Venice,” Studies in the Renaissance, 21 (1974), esp. 181, 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Dowries and Kinsmen,” pp. 589-90; Betto, “Linee di politica matrimoniale,” pp. 53-4 and passim. Mothers’ significance as Barbarella presenters grew throughout the century: before 1451 they supplied one of every 10.7 sponsors; after 1450 they were one of every 5.5. The reasons for the increase include families’ growing concern to get younger brothers—less likely to have living fathers—into the Great Council as soon as possible, and the developing stature of women in patrician society.

41 A constantly repeated theme in husbands’ wills is an economic inducement to wives to devote chaste widowhood to raising their children. The examples are countless: e.g., testament of Lorenzo qd Bartolomeo Loredan, 10 May 1441 (actually written 1440). ASV, Notarile, Testamenti, Busta 558, Antonio Gambaro, no. 86. On the complexity of the widow's orientation to lineage and family in Florence, especially as concerned dowry and children, see Klapisch-Zuber, “La ‘Mère cruelle.’ “ On the same subject, Trexler, Public Life, pp. 165 ff.

42 Above, note 17.

43 E.g., Elena, widow of Benedetto Morosini, registered her son Piero in 1463, with another son, Antonio, as a guarantor. Another example: the registration of Piero qd Luca Pisani in 1467; Piero's mother sponsored, his older brother Nicolo stood surety. BO 164, fols. 217, 282^v;.

44 BO 164, fol. 204^v.

45 E.g., the registrations of Francesco qd Cristoforo da Canal (1442) and Andrea qd Nicolò Loredan (1468). BO 163, fol. 200^v; 164, fol. 203^v. In both cases, mothers sponsored, fathers’ brothers guaranteed.

46 Klapisch-Zuber, “La ‘Mère cruelle,’ “ passim, and Hughes, “Brideprice,” pp. 287-88, discuss married women's lineage orientation. See also Goody, Development, p. 225; Chojnacki, “Patrician Women,” pp. 180-85.

47 BO 164, fols. 126^v, 127. Delfina's paternity, and thus her sibling tie to Andrea Dolfin, are in Nozze, fol. 104 left. Another example: Foscarina, widow of Agostino qd Piero Priuli, in 1479 registered her son Leonardo with the guarantees of two of her brothers, Francesco and Bernardo qd Piero Foscarini. BO 164, fol. 139^v; Nozze, fol. 368 left. Specific relationships can be established using the patronymics in both BO and Nozze. (Facing pages in Nozze bear the same number; I signal “left” and “right” to distinguish them.)

48 Nozze, fol. 388 left (1422). In any case, the marriage dated at least from 1424, 18 years before the couple's first son, Ruggero, was enrolled (by his father) in the Barbarella in 1442. BO 163, fol. 370. Piero Ruzzini's registration (1459) is in ibid., fol. 371; that of his brother Giorgio (1448), in ibid., fol. 379.

49 BO 164, fol. 127; the young candidate's name was Cristoforo qd Giovanni qd Cristoforo. In another interesting combination, the sponsoring uncle here, Francesco da Canal, was joined by a co-sponsor, Francesco qd Marco Priuli—brother of the young registrant's mother. Nozze, fol. 104 left.

50 Marco's son was named Antonio; his registration took place on November 22, that of his cousin Giorgio on December 2. BO 163, fol. 370. Similarly, instead of recruiting her brothers to guarantee her son's registration in 1479 (above, note 47), Foscarina Priuli could have asked her late husband's brother, Maffeo, who would register his own son, Cristoforo, two years later. BO 164, fol. 140.

51 See Chojnacki, “Patrician Women,” pp. 191-92; Klapisch-Zuber, “La ‘Mère cruelle,’ “ pp. 1101-1102.

52 Chojnacki, “Patrician Women,” pp. 200-203.

53 Barbarella Vitturi's son was Piero, her brother, Tomaso Duodo: BO 162, fol. 141^v; Nozze, fol. 432 left. Maddaluzza Arimondo's son was Simone, her brother, Nicolò Capello: BO 163, fol. 13^v; Nozze, fol. 8 left. Agnesina Loredan's son was Andrea, her brother, Domenico Vitturi: BO 164, fol. 203^v; Nozze, fol. 245 left. Elisabetta Muazzo's son was Marino, her brother, Alvise Loredan: BO 164, fol. 273; Nozze, fol. 264 left.

54 I.e., the categories labeled “Other Maternal Kin” and “Other.“

55 Hughes, “Brideprice,” p. 284, notes the stake that brothers of richly dowered brides had in the fortunes of their sisters’ families. See also Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen,” p. 576 and passim.

56 Francesco di Alvise Lando sponsored by Antonio Valier, 1474; Paolo qd Giovanni Lando sponsored by Francesco Foscari, 1493; and Marco qd Piero Lando sponsored by Giorgio Corner, 1496. BO 164, fol. 214-214^v. All three matrimonial connections are in Nozze, fol. 231 left.

57 Francesco di Alvise's brothers had been (Marino, in 1472) and would be (Girolamo, in 1480) sponsored by their father. BO 164, fol. 214-214^v. Paolo qd Giovanni was sponsored by both Francesco Foscari and his own brother, Piero Lando. Marco qd Piero was a younger brother of the Girolamo di Piero Lando whose registration in 1493 had been sponsored by their cousin once removed, the future doge, Piero qd Giovanni Lando; above, notes 32, 36.

58 Another example of the same thing: Piero qd Benedetto da Mula himself alive when his wife's brother, Piero Querini, sponsored the registrations of Da Mula's two sons, Angelo in 1484 and Girolamo in 1486. BO 164, fol. 274^v; Nozze, fol. 270 left.

59 BO 163, fol. 294 (Alvise), BO 164, fol. 214 (Piero). Also in the latter year, Alvise di Francesco Lando, from a different Lando lineage, was enrolled by his sister's husband, Giacomo qd Andrea Foscarini. Ibid. Both marriage connections are in Nozze, fol. 231 right.

60 BO 164, fol. 214; Nozze, fol. 231 right. Note that Giacomo Bembo belongs to the “Other” category of Table 2a, while as a mother's brother Antonio Valier belongs to “Other Maternal Kin.” Other examples of sponsoring brothers-in-law: Andrea qd Paolo Zane was presented by his sister's husband, Vitale Lando, in 1457. BO 163, fol. 46; Nozze, fol. 231 left. Bertuccio qd Cristoforo da Canal was registered in 1441 by his sister's husband, Marco Magno. BO 163, fol. 200; Nozze, fol. 104 right.

61 Canal-Gritti: BO 163, fol. 200 (1436); Nozze, fol. 103 right. (Note that Filippo da Canal was still alive when his son was registered.) Loredan-Bragadin: BO 164, fol. 206; Nozze, fol. 245 right (1458).

62 BO 164, fol. 214^V; Nozze, fol. 231 left (Lando-Corner, 1471) and right (Lando-Soranzo, 1454). See the genealogical chart above, note 36.

63 Nozze, fol. 323 left; BO 163, fol. 306. A simplified genealogy may help clarify what follows:

64 Ibid., fol. 341^v. Andrea's father, Francesco qd Giovanni da Mula, was living at the time and presumably had at least a hand in the selection of Paolo Morosini as his son's sponsor.

65 BO 164, fol. 274. The big gap between the registrations of Andrea and Domenico di Francesco (1444-1470) is explained by their actually being half-brothers, sons of two mothers, as documented in their BO entries.

66 A further sign of the strength of these matrimonial ties is that Girolamo's other sponsor in i486 was Piero qd Girolamo Querini, brother of the young candidate's mother. Nozze, fol. 270 left. As noted above, note 57, this Piero Querini had also sponsored the registration of Girolamo da Mula's elder brother, Angelo, in 1484. It is interesting that the two sponsors of Girolamo da Mula in 1486—Lorenzo Morosini and Piero Querini—had a close relationship of their own besides their mutual marriage ties to the Da Mulas: in his will of 1490, Lorenzo identified Piero as someone “quern semper habui loco fratris … . “ ASV, Procuratori di San Marco, Commissarie de Ultra, Busta 221, No. 4.

67 One more example: at the 1471 registration of Piero di Nicolo Arimondo, one of the guarantors was Bernardo qd Nicolò da Pesaro. The connection between registrant and guarantor was that Bernardo da Pesaro was the son of a daughter of Nicolò di Fantin Arimondo, a brother of young Piero's grandfather. Candidate and guarantor were thus cousins twice removed through the female line. BO 164, fol. 2; Nozze, fol. 8 right.

68 E.g., when Piero di Benedetto da Mula was elected an advocate in the Corte del Forestier in 1446, his guarantor for good conduct in office was Piero di Paolo Morosini (whose BO registration four years earlier had been guaranteed, as noted above, by Piero da Mula's father, Benedetto.) Voci 4, fol. 16.

69 Examination of the marriages of the 16 sample clans, as recorded in Nozze, shows a drop in the percentage of the men's marriages with non-patrician women. From 1400 to 1450, 41 of 421 (9.7%) married brides from the populace; from 1451-1500, the number was 40 of 460 (8.5%). However, this is a complex business, requiring careful analysis; the percentage of patrician women marrying popolani, by contrast, rose between the two periods, from 0.7% (3 of 404 marriages) to 2% (9 of 455). Even in the latter period, the incidence of patrician women's hypogamy is tiny. Nevertheless, the increase could reflect growing difficulties of contracting good intraclass marriages for girls at a time of increased status consciousness and rising dowries. See Chojnacki, “Dowries and Kinsmen,” pp. 571-75; Betto, “Linee di politica matrimoniale,” pp. 53-59.

70 Nozze, fols. 8 left-9 right, 40 left-41 left. The diffusion of spouses is even more significant in view of both clans’ having contracted multiple marriages with certain other very large clans. The Arimondos married four spouses from each of the Contarini, Pesaro and Loredan clans; the Balbi four each from the Contarini and Morosini.

71 Paolo Arimondo: BO 162, fol. 7^V; Nozze, fol. 8 right (Arimondo-Lion). Francesco Morosini: BO 163, fol. 307^v; Nozze, fol. 324 left (Morosini-Corner).

72 BO 164, fol. 282^v. The other guarantor, seconding Cristoforo Duodo, was Domenico Duodo, husband of Giovanni Pisani's sister and thus the candidate's uncle once removed. Nozze, fol. 361 right. The two Duodo guarantors were cousins, sons of two brothers. The Duodo-Pisani connection, perhaps strengthened by collaborations such as this BO registration, endured: in 1470, a nephew of the guarantor Domenico Duodo—his brother's son, Francesco qd Piero Duodo—married a daughter of Luca Pisani, son of Giovanni, the sponsor in this 1467 BO registration. Ibid., fol. 362 right.

73 BO 164, fol. 127; Nozze, fols. 104 left (Canal-Priuli), 367 left (Priuli-Bondumier).

74 BO 164, fol. 214; Nozze, fols. 231 left (Corner-Lando), 405 right (Soranzo-Corner). The other sponsor of Marco Lando's registration was another Soranzo, Andrea qd Marco, connected to the candidate in another way, one not dependent on the Corner alliance: he was the son of a sister of Marco Lando's grandfather. Ibid., fol. 231 right.

75 Between 1506 and 1526 the Council of Ten enacted measures mandating careful recording of all patrician births and marriages. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti, Reg. 31, fols. 101-101^V , 109^V-10, Comune, Reg. 2, fols. 14^V-17^V. By mid-century Marco Barbaro was compiling his monumental collection of historico-genealogical material, especially Nozze and his “Arbori dei Patritii Veneti,” with copies at the BMV and the ASV. On Barbaro and the various versions of his work, see Cicogna, E. A., Delle inscrizioni veneziane (6 vols.; Venice, 1824-1853), VI, 21–26 Google Scholar.

76 Goody, Development, pp. 16, 226 and passim. Hughes, “Brideprice,” p. 290, sees the dowry regime strengthening the lineage and weakening bilaterality, although she also notes men's interest in the fortunes of their dowered sisters’ marital families (p. 284).

77 Already in 1260 an act of the Great Council had listed as interested parties ineligible to take part in deliberations touching individuals their “Propinqui, vz Germani, Consanguinei, Nepotes, Filii Fratris, vel Sororum, Soceri et Generi, et Avunculi, Fratres Patris, vel Matris vel Cognati… . “ AC, Reg. 2, Capitolare, fol. 66”.

78 The strength of ties through marriage caused the Great Council in 1409 to add “cognati, germani, consanguinei et alii attinentes qui non sunt de eadem domo” to the intraclan relatives who could not sit on the Council of Ten at the same time. MC 21, Leona, fol. 189^v.

79 A proposal of 1403 to replenish the patriciate by giving noble status to a member of the citizen class each time a noble clan died out failed to get beyond the Ducal Council. Both proponents and opponents of this measure regarded the patriciate as consisting of certain identified clans. ASV, Collegio, Notatorio, fol. III^v.

80 Up until then, only the mother's given name had been recorded. The new practice went into effect in 1432; see BO 162, passim. I have not seen any legislation mandating it, but it is an interesting coincidence that it follows by only ten years the measures disqualifying sons of unworthy women from patrician status. MC 22, Ursa, fols. 47^v- 48.

81 On the government's responses to patrician economic need see, in addition to the references regarding office-holding above, Pullan, Brian, “The Occupations and Investments of the Venetian Nobility in the Middle and Late Sixteenth Century,” in Hale, ed., Renaissance Venice, pp. 379–408 Google Scholar.