Abstract
To a nineteenth-century noble family, cohesion was synonymous with status and played a major role in the construction of its identity as part of a powerful social class. Within this society—so reliant on inequality and strongly centered around obedience and hierarchy—the story of Alvise I Mocenigo and his sons shows how the paterfamilias problematized his relatives’ insubordination and how, despite the several challenges to his authority, his decisions regarding the devolution of his wealth were driven to ensure the continuing of the family name and status. In doing so, Alvise bequeathed his goods to his grandsons (i.e., sons of his unsubordinated son, who at that time was already dead) and penalized his own sons. When one of his disinherited sons, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio, went before a court to claim his rightful share of the paternal patrimony, he was not just challenging his father’s will but his own world, where personal ambitions and expectations had to be sacrificed in the name of obedience and family honor. Through the consultation of a number of firsthand materials such as letters, wills, and judicial records held at Venetian archives, this article contributes to the understanding of the Venetian upper-class families and uncovers the changing family dynamics in place in nineteenth-century society.
The nineteenth-century Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, as many other areas of the Italian peninsula, was predominantly an agrarian territory. Within this context, the key institution was the extended patriarchal peasants’ family: a moral body, hierarchically structured and led by a man, the paterfamilias, who was its recognized chief and the dominus of the family’s patrimony.
However, several changes took place from the Enlightenment onward, which had a deep impact on people and on their mind-set. 1 As Steven Mintz has shown in his study on family in Victorian culture, “the conflict between a child and a father absorbed a wide range of other issues and [involved] personal responsibility, internalized discipline, […] preserving continuities with the past,” and highlighted how this struggle had different significance for them. 2 If children aimed at overcoming economic dependence while converting emotional bonds into acceptable adult forms, fathers tested the child’s capacity for self-discipline and denial. 3 Similar issues can be found when analyzing nineteenth-century Italian family with fathers trying to firmly preserve their status and roles within families and society and sons aspiring to a sort of personal independence, which could not be economic, given that fathers held the family’s fortune in their hands but attempted to deploy itself in everyday life and relationships. But what had been defined as “a struggle between two temperaments, two consciences and almost two epochs, […] ended, as was inevitable, in disruption.” 4 As noted by Luciano Guerci, in his study on women and marriage, since the late eighteenth century, a sort of “crisis of obedience” began to emerge. 5 Leveraged by new ideals focusing on individuals and on a new sense of self, this “crisis” was not limited to female members of families: men, too, challenged authority, and like daughters, 6 sons were not as obedient as they had been in the past. Indeed, Marzio Barbagli has shown that this behavior was noticed in many families 7 and was a behavior disgregating the very heart of the nineteenth-century static society and challenging its centuries-old foundations.
Although conforming to expectations had not always been the reality of life among family members, and, with regard to Venice, the studies of scholars such as Gaetano Cozzi, Robert Finlay, Donald Queller, Guido Ruggiero, and Stanley Chojnacki had demonstrated that “the image of a collective adherence to a model of selfless discipline was always too glowing to be credible,” 8 in the nineteenth century, disobedience and insubordination seemed to increase, to take a new form and to further exacerbate the tensions physiologically existing in a society.
This article aims to add in this direction, giving further evidence of the conflicting forces present in the very structure of nineteenth-century society, of how individuals lived the changes in place and did not conform to rules as the result of their emerging sense of individuality: that is, a new sense of self, emerging from the Enlightenment, which could no longer be satisfied within the centuries-old order and as subservient to the identification with their family.
As we shall see, the story of Alvise I Mocenigo and his sons, insubordinate to his authority during his lifetime and not complying with his will after his death, is representative of the clashes that occurred in a society undergoing major changes. This article, after describing the historical and social context, examines the Mocenigo di San Stae family led by Alvise I and focuses on the time when the firstborn son Alvise Commendator left the family home. It particularly highlights how, despite the great challenge to his father’s authority and discord still persisting, Alvise Commendator attempts to maintain relations with his relatives, clearly understanding the importance of being part of a family and, at the same time, trying to carve out a corner for himself. Characteristics such as obedience, cohesion, and honor, which were key to Old Regime’s society, were questioned by the new generations. In specifically addressing individual subjectivities as part of collective family’s identity, the vicissitudes of the Mocenigos contribute to the understanding of this period of transition and to how the several facets of the age-old notion of honor were put forward alongside modern sensibilities. The following section analyzes the paterfamilias’ testament and reveals how intangible features such as family’s honor and continuity were deeply interiorized and went beyond disputes. The unfolding of material held at a number of Venetian archives that I consulted for this research shows how the paterfamilias problematized his relatives’ insubordination and how, despite the several disgusti (disgusts) caused by his sons, his decisions regarding the devolution of his wealth were driven to ensure the continuing of the family name. In doing so, he favored his grandsons (sons of his unsubordinated son, who at that time was already dead), while penalizing his own sons. But one of the neglected sons, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio, questioned his father’s will, thus also challenging his own world, in which the family and its cohesion prevailed over one’s own individuality. Moreover, the analysis of the words used by the people involved in this specific case illustrates how interpersonal relations and dynamics were lived and interpreted by families and society in nineteenth-century Venetia.
The Nineteenth Century between the Old and the New
The structure of the extended patriarchal peasants’ family remained unchanged for centuries and presented similar characteristics as those families belonging to the nobility: its members resided together, shared a common identity, and its social and political power coincided with the strength of its assets. 9 Despite being led by one man, usually the firstborn son, the family’s patrimony was legally managed through a joint proprietorship, known as fraterna, a kind of consortium, in which members (i.e., brothers) lived in the same house and sat at the same table in a “communio ad eundem panem et vinum” (sharing the same bread and wine). 10 Beyond the economic reasons for sharing income and household expenses, living under the same roof in their large houses or palaces, which were the symbol of the whole family—or their casato, was a way of demonstrating their cohesion to the exterior world, to the extent that in their wills “fathers urged their sons to live in fraterna.” 11 As pointed out by the American historian James Davis, unlike other areas in the Italian peninsula, in Venice, the use of institutions such as primogenitures was not frequent, 12 and noble families preferred to manage their wealth in fraterna. Davis ascribed this peculiarity to historical, economic, and political reasons. First, since the foundation of Venice, the use of Roman and canon law ensured equal inheritance rights to children. Even though a form of primogeniture was used during the Middles Ages, from 1242 onward, Venetian statutes provided that equal shares of the family’s patrimony were to be given to sons. Second, the economic life of Venice mainly relied on trade, therefore implying a sort of flexibility in the use of goods that could only be possible if the heirs were able to access their portions of wealth. A third but equally important reason suggested by Davis is political: a group of brothers could be more useful to the republic than one man. This meant that, by sharing the wealth, a family could provide more than one man serving in public offices such as ambassadors or procurators, thus also having larger affluence. 13 With regard to fideicommissa, Davis reported some evidence of its use in Venice among families such as the Contarini and the Tron: 14 even though one of the sons might have some special rights over particular properties (e.g., the family palace), possessions “were left to all sons equally [and] rarely left exclusively to the eldest son.” 15 The Doge Marino Grimani (1532–1605), for example, left his patrimony to his eldest son, who, in turn, had to pay an annual allowance to his younger brothers. 16 In the nineteenth century, according to the Codice civile universale austriaco pel Regno Lombardo-Veneto, which was the law in force in this area, 17 it was still possible to create fideicommissa, but since the seventeenth century, their use was getting more and more rare and criticized, 18 also in other areas of the Italian peninsula. 19
Therefore, as argued by James Davis in his study on the Donà family, the wealth was kept together “chiefly because all of its members, including the unmarried brothers, shared the conviction that the family’s wealth and honor must perdure,” 20 thus implying that, for an extended family, cohesion was “an end or a value in itself.” 21 This also meant that, other than the ethical and economic obligations to ensure its continuity, the “consciousness of the importance of the family to the individual, and the need to work actively for its survival.” 22 Cohesion, together with other intangible features such as reputation and honor, made a family’s status before a society, which, even by the nineteenth century, was still static, based on inequality and strongly centered around obedience and hierarchy.
In a patriarchal society, as was that of the nineteenth century, the task to lead and carry the family forward was entrusted to men. In the words of the jurist Giovanni Maria Negri, “i maschj sono quelli che conservano le proprie famiglie, e colle loro cure lo stato e la dovizia di esse” (men are those who preserve their families and, through their care, the state and wealth of those families);
23
a woman, by contrast, was considered as if she were the only component of her family. As stated by the Roman jurist Ulpianus, “mulier autem familiae suae et caput et finis est” (a woman was the beginning and the end of her family).
24
This understanding of women’s status was further detailed by the medieval jurist Albericus of Rosate who observed that “mulier non habet familiam” (a woman has no family),
25
an idea, this, which continued to be echoed throughout the centuries. Yet, in 1839, the Turinese lawyer Francesco Concone clearly explained that, dovendo le femmine onde lasciar discendenti da sé, passare a marito, che appartiene ad altra famiglia, e con ciò assumere nome diverso, si avevano a considerare, come se cessassero di far parte della famiglia del padre, o almeno ne fossero l’ultimo anello (given that women had to produce offspring, they have to marry a man, who belongs to another family, and assume a different name, as a result, they were to be considered as if they ceased to be part of the father’s family, or, at least, as if they were the last ring).
26
However, since the eighteenth century, the effects of the Enlightenment, the French revolution and its ideals, and other factors such as industrialization and the rise of the bourgeoisie contributed to trigger several changes within nineteenth-century society: extended families, for example, were getting smaller and were facing a transition toward the nuclear family.
29
These changes were also noticed by writers and jurists of the time. In particular, the jurist Giovanni Carcano wrote that: un notevole cambiamento parmi verificato nel corso di non molti anni nelle abitudini della nostra famiglia […]. A memoria d’uomini ancor freschi fu tempo in cui era comune tipo fra noi la famiglia patriarcale […] nella quale i figli maritavano presso i padri, menando le loro donne nella casa dei padri […]. Ora lo sperperarsi e il dividersi […] è il costume dell’epoca nostra (a relevant change seems to have occurred in the habits of our family in recent years […]. Young men still remember that there was a time when the patriarchal family was common […] in this kind of family, married sons settled with their women in the homes of their fathers […]. The custom of our current times is to split up).
30
Challenging Paternal Authority: The Firstborn Son of Alvise I Mocenigo di San Stae
Alvise I Mocenigo (1767–1839) was a man of his time: honor, reputation, and status were key to his moral and cultural heritage. Alvise was a wealthy Venetian count and the paterfamilias of the Mocenigo branch called “di San Stae” (Sant’Eustachio). The nobility of the Mocenigo family was reported to be “coetaneous to the foundation of Venice” and was linked to other noble families of the time. Its members have occupied important offices: among them, there were several maiores, three doges and six Procurators of Saint Mark. 32 The status of the Mocenigos di San Stae was confirmed by the honors bestowed upon them by the Austrian Empire: when the Republic of Venice became part of the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, under Austrian rule, the Emperor of Austria confirmed the family’s ancient nobility and conferred on its members the dignity of counts of the Austrian Empire. 33
Alvise I Mocenigo di San Stae was born in 1767 to Alvise I, called Cavaliere, and Francesca Grimani. At the age of twenty-one, he married Laura Corner di San Polo, the last member of an equally noble and wealthy Venetian family, who was given the honor to be a Dama della Croce Stellata. 34 Her father Giovanni died in 1799, leaving no male descendants, and bequeathed his conspicuous patrimony to her.
Alvise and Laura had three sons and one daughter. 35 Their first son was born in 1789 and was named Alvise. He was subsequently called Alvise Commendator for having inherited, at the age of ten, the Commenda of San Giovanni del Tempio in Treviso from his grandfather Giovanni Corner. This Commenda had been acquired by the Corner family in 1588 and was meant to be bequeathed to the firstborn son through the male line. 36 As Laura Corner had no brothers but only a sister, who had no offspring, the Commenda was left to her son Alvise.
The other sons of Alvise and Laura were Alvise II Giovanni Antonio, born in 1791, and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio, born in 1795. Their only daughter, Orsetta, was born in 1798 and married, aged twenty-one, Count Giovanni Venezze, a patrician from the Veneto. They had three children, Stefano, Alvise, and Annetta: the latter married Sebastiano Giustiniani. 37
In 1813, the firstborn son Alvise Commendator met a noblewoman, Cornelia, the only and beloved daughter of the marquis Filippo Sale Manfredi Repeta from Vicenza and the late Fiorenza Vendramin. 38 The young couple decided to marry, and on February 17, 1814, Alvise Commendator’s parents went before a notary to register their consent to marriage: since their son was younger than twenty-five, 39 he needed his father’s authorization to marry. 40 The marriage was appropriate to their status, and the notary Andrea Dovighello rogated the act in Padua, where the Mocenigo family lived since October 1808, stating that “i Mocenigo genitori esprimono il pieno loro consenso ed esuberante aggradimento per il sullodato matrimonio del loro figlio predetto” (the Mocenigo parents express their full consent to and exuberant approval for the marriage of their son). 41 Alvise Commendator and Cornelia married that same day. 42 Cornelia brought to the Mocenigo house a dowry of 161,792 Italian liras, and her trousseau consisted of 90,200 ducats in linen, 500 gold coins for her dress and a sumptuous supply of laces. 43 As usual, her dowry was given to her father-in-law, Alvise, the chief of the Mocenigo di San Stae family.
Relations within the Mocenigo family were warm and respectful, at least in appearance: in their correspondence, members all greeted and signed off using words of love. Something, however, happened in 1818, when backbiters began to speak ill of Alvise Commendator and Cornelia.
44
Since Alvise’s role as paterfamilias was also to guide the members of his family throughout life and teach them the correct way of behaving for people of their status, he wrote a letter to his son Alvise Commendator, who at that time was in Vicenza, probably visiting his father-in-law.
45
He reported that people talked about his frequent visit to an unnamed woman in a lazaretto; the son’s counterargument was that he just used to go there “per compassione e per amicizia onde far[le] un po’ di compagnia” (out of compassion and friendship in order to bring her some company) and that there were no “secondi fini né per me, né per lei” (ulterior motives neither for me nor for her).
46
He also answered his father’s claims—namely that his wife Cornelia was too often left alone—with these words: non è che mi rifiuti d’andar con mia moglie, perché credo di farlo e al passeggio, et al Teatro, ma che conoscendo il buonissimo suo contegno senza eccezzione, benché le male lingue non la risparmiano nemmeno lei […] ho pensato di dar[le] un poco più di libertà (I am not refusing to go out with my wife, I go both for a stroll and to the theater with her, but as I know her very good behaviour without exception, even if gossips spare not even her, […] I thought to give her a little more freedom).
47
onde schivare nuovi e maggiori disordini, ho risoluto, credendo sempre con la mia debole mente di prendere il partito migliore, di allontanarmi qualche tempo dalla mia Famiglia e dalla mia Consorte a ritirarmi in un luogo, ove possa godere della quiete tanta necessaria al mio fisico, e al mio morale (in order to avoid new and greater disorders, I have decided, convinced by my weak mind to make the best choice, to move away from my Family and from my Wife for a while, and to retire in a place where I could enjoy the peace so necessary to my body, and to my moral).
48
Indeed, when Alvise Commendator wrote to his father again a few days later, things seemed more clearly to revolve around financial matters: he was in Trieste and lamented that his parents-in-law were not happy about the “trattamento” provided to their daughter. 49 Alvise Commendator also added that Cornelia, too, was not happy and “io stesso rispettosamente bisogna che vi confessi che non lo sono; perché non è quale si conviene alla sua nascita, alla dote che portò in casa” (I respectfully confess that I am not [happy, too]; because it is not appropriate to her birth, and to the dowry she brought into our house). 50 From these few words, one can deduce much more than what Alvise Commendator was complaining about in the letter: the son is “respectfully” saying that he was unhappy about his father’s way of providing the trattamento to his wife, a powerful reminder that the paterfamilias was the one who controlled the wealth of the entire family, that his decisions were to be discussed respectfully and interferences were not usually welcomed. Furthermore, when “brought in the house,” the dowry, which was provided to bear the burden of marriage, was given to the paterfamilias, whose goods were constrained to legally guarantee its conservation.
Although asking for his father’s blessing and pleading his love, Alvise Commendator explained that he made a power of attorney in his father-in-law’s favor with regard to his goods and, again, pointed out that the interests of all his wealth were to be given to Cornelia. Despite this power of attorney, relations between Alvise I Mocenigo and Filippo Luigi Sale Manfredi Repeta remained friendly: on August 23, 1818, Cornelia’s father wrote to Alvise about someone confirming to him that Alvise Commendator had followed the advice of a bad man and added that he was comforted to know that his daughter was in good health—“a ciò hanno contribuito sicuramente le affettuose attenzioni del Suocero, della Suocera, e della Cognata, ch’io perciò ringrazio assaissimo” (I thank very much the Father-in-law, the Mother-in-law, and the Sister-in-law, whose affectionate attentions have certainly contributed [to her good health]). 51
The escape of Alvise Commendator, however, could not be left without countermeasures: his younger brothers Alvise II Giovanni Antonio and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio together with their cousin, a certain Lugnani, traveled to Trieste in order to convince him to return home. On September 7, 1818, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio informed his father that they would soon meet Alvise Commendator and “tanto noi due fratelli, quanto il Lugnani impiegheremo tutte le maniere le più amichevoli ed atte a guadagnare del tutto il suo cuore, specialmente ponendogli in vista l’affetto di tutta la sua famiglia per lui, e più particolarmente ancora quel di suo Padre” (we, his two brothers, as well as Lugnani, will employ all the most friendly ways to entirely earn his heart, in particular, by drawing his attention to the love of his whole family towards him, and even more so that of his Father). 52 Despite the accommodating tone, a subpoena, or even an arrest warrant, had been issued against Alvise Commendator, who had already spontaneously appeared before the police: this is how the brothers knew that he was in Trieste in the first place.
According to the Codice civile universale austriaco pel Regno Lombardo-Veneto, parents had the right to “rintracciare i loro figli, se smarriti; di farseli restituire, se fuggiti; di ricondurli col soccorso dei tribunali, se profughi” (to trace their children, if lost; to claim them back, if they escaped; to bring them back with the help of courts, if they have been displaced). 53 The article did not mention any age limits and allowed to argue that parents had the power to ask a tribunal, or the police, to take their offspring back home, regardless of their age.
In a letter written to his father on the same day as his brother’s one, Alvise Commendator expressed all his disappointment over his brother’s behavior, blaming Alvise IV Pietro Giulio for his vicissitudes before the police. Moreover, along with asking for his father’s blessing, he claimed that “il mio onore fu offeso in tal maniera che con mio dolore credo di non più potere per qualche anno ritornare più in Italia e sono risolutissimo di non cangiarmi in ciò” (my honour had been so much offended that, with sorrow, I think I will not be able to return to Italy for a few years, and I am determined not to change my mind about this). 54 The focus on honor might have been a way to manipulate the situation in his favor, by arguing that it has been this offense that has hindered him from returning home and not just a whim.
On September 10, 1818, Alvise Commendator wrote to his wife Cornelia. He explained that he had left home for her happiness but blamed her that, dopo i disgusti ragionevoli, che tu sempre avesti, e che sempre mi dicevi d’avere co’ miei, dopo il maltrattamento conosciuto da tutti, che in tutto tu soffrivi in Casa mia, ora sempre più condanni il passo che ho fatto, neghi d’essere stata sempre malcontenta dei miei e di Casa mia (after the reasonable disgusts, which you have always had, and which you always told me to have because of my family, after the mistreatment known to everyone, after all your sufferings in my House, now, more and more, you condemn the step I have taken, and deny to having always been disappointed with my parents and my House).
55
Alvise Commendator also added that, because of his brother Pietro, si fecero perquisizioni contro di me, si diede ordine d’arrestarmi. In fine non si poteva diffamare il mio onore in peggior maniera dalla mia Famiglia. Non posso però dissimularti il vivo mio dispiacere nel vedere che tu non ti sei opposta a questo loro crudelissimo piano (they searched me, they ordered to arrest me. Ultimately, my honour could not have been besmirched in a worse way by my Family. But I cannot conceal my sorrow in seeing that you have not opposed to their cruel plan).
56
Some days later, Alvise Commendator wrote to his mother expressing all his love for her. He announced that he would soon meet his brothers and complained that fleeing from home was not worth “togliermi l’onore nella maniera che ha fatto il degnissimo mio fratello Pietro, colle sue misure degne del maggior disprezzo” (taking away my honour in the manner that my most worthy brother Pietro did, manners that are worthy of the greatest disdain). 58 Honor, again, was highlighted as key to his status, and such a breach to it was barely acceptable.
But the situation was still far from solved. On September 26, 1818, it was Cornelia’s turn to flee from the Mocenigo house, leaving a letter in which she explained that she loved her in-laws but that the “sommo immenso ardentissimo desiderio di abbracciare mio marito” (supreme immense ardent desire to reunite with my husband) was unbearable. 59 Interestingly, she added that her servants Chiara and Lorenzo had no role in her escape and that their honesty was “superiore alla gente della lor Classe” (superior to that of people of their social class). 60 She also explained that she was going to her grandfather’s house in Venice, Ca’ Priuli (also called Ca’ Vendramin), and that she hoped her husband would soon reach her. Since material goods, such as dresses and other objects for personal use, albeit of negligible value, were appreciated and inventoried in legal acts, Cornelia specified that she had only taken with her a shirt, leaving all her other goods under the custody of her parents-in-law. 61
As soon as Alvise read his daughter-in-law’s letter, he sent a servant to Vicenza to inform Cornelia’s father, who “si è posto a piangere ed ha pianto lungo tratto di tempo” (began to cry, and cried for a long time): 62 the humiliation of a daughter unfulfilling social expectation and behaving in this transgressive way was such that he had to show his extreme disappointment and despair, no matter if Cornelia had fled to Ca’ Priuli, a house of their relatives.
The couple reunited in Venice a few days later, and despite initiating a lawsuit against his father, Alvise Commendator attempted to maintain cordial relations by greeting and expressing love toward his family. Then, through his lawyer Salvatore Marconi, he informed his father about his requests: li Sposi Mocenigo previo assenso del loro Padre sono disposti a passare nella casa dominicale in S. Polo, dove è loro intenzione di stabilirsi, contentandosi per ora dell’uso de’ soliti mezzadi, chè fino a tanto che saranno definitivamente conciliate le differenze tutte, il N. H. Padre, in pendenza di cosa, seguiterà a corrisponder loro il consueto assegno, che li passava, cioè mesate, salari di servitù, è quel più ch’esso credesse conveniente per le cibarie, caffè, zuccaro, lumi ed altro… Che decisi di convivere separati dal Padre, desiderano, che li siano corrisposti li frutti della dote, nonché lasciate in libera proprietà, e disposizione del figlio le rendite derivanti dalla di lui Commenda. […] Finalmente, che non essendo sufficienti li frutti della dote, le rendite della Commenda al conveniente e decoroso mantenimento del matrimonio di famiglia assentito e fatto dal Padre, il di lui affetto paterno concorri con un annuo assegno a carico delle rendite familiari à supplire alli pesi del medesimo. (the Mocenigo spouses, with their father’s consent, accept to move into the palace in S. Polo, where they intend to settle down, content for now with the use of the usual floor, [and request] that, until their issues are solved, their father will continue to give them the usual economic support, that is, the monthly spending money, servants’ salaries, and everything else he believes necessary for the foodstuffs, coffee, sugar, lighting and other goods… Having decided to live apart from the father, they desire that the interests of the dowry be paid to them, and that the income deriving from his son’s Commenda be left in free administration and his disposal. […] Finally, since the interests of the dowry and the income from the Commenda are not sufficient to the convenient and decent maintenance of the family marriage assented and done by the Father, [they request that] his paternal affection will concur to bear the burden of their marriage with an annual allowance to be taken from the Mocenigos’ income).
63
A few days later, Alvise wrote to Mainardi accepting to pay his son the interests produced by Cornelia’s dowry and to hand over the administration of the Commenda. With regard to the request for support, Alvise claimed that “io non mi assumo nessuna obbligazione per chi è fuggito da me. Finalmente che è assurdo pretendersi abitazione nella casa della famiglia da un figlio che vuole vivere separato dal Padre” (I do not take on any obligations to those who have escaped from me. Finally, to demand to live in a family house by a son who wants to live apart from his Father is absurd). 66
Alongside the exchange of letters between the lawyers and their clients, relations between father and son went on with a respectful and almost friendly tone. However, a letter written by Cornelia to her father-in-law did not receive an equally friendly reply and shows Alvise’s disapproval of her behavior, highlighting the mismatch with the common sense of honor and emphasizing again the ideal of living under one roof as a means of showing cohesion to the exterior world, which, as we have seen, was a synonym of honor and status. Alvise wrote: “questa famiglia abita in Padova, io ritengo anzi contrario alli riguardi […] che una Dama Mocenigo sì veda a sgravarsi lungi dalla famiglia suddetta in altra Città, in una Casa chiusa e quasi deserta” (this family lives in Padua, I consider disrespectful that a Dama Mocenigo gives birth far from the aforesaid family and in another town, in a closed and almost deserted house). 67 Even though the couple had been authorized to enter the Mocenigo palace in Venice on October 18, not living and giving birth under the paterfamilias’ roof was an unacceptable circumstance.
Cornelia tried to smooth the tones by explaining that her grandfather and her father had both offered to host them in their houses in Venice and Vicenza but that they had preferred to stay in a Mocenigo property; in their minds, this was a way of showing her and her husband’s respect toward Alvise, their paterfamilias. As a result of her letter, Alvise asked Cornelia not to write him anymore: the act carried out by the couple was an extreme disregard of his authority and could not be discussed with a woman—the last ring of a family. As Cesarina Casanova has observed, “per la nobiltà tutte le relazioni si modellavano su comportamenti e parametri di identificazione sociale precisi rispetto ai quali ogni famiglia commisurava il suo successo o i suoi fallimenti” (for the nobility all the relationships were modelled on behaviours and criteria of precise social identification with regard to which each family assessed its success or its failures). 68 One may argue that Alvise interpreted the behavior of Cornelia and Alvise Commendator as an outrage to his power and therefore a personal failure.
On November 17, 1818, Cornelia gave birth to the first grandson of Alvise I Mocenigo; he was given the name of Alvise III Francesco. Alvise Commendator immediately reported the news to his father, who in turn answered that “non [lo] vedrò crescere sotto a’ miei occhi, come dovrebbe fare il figlio di mio figlio, iddio Signore e Padrone di ogni cosa [fa che] questo fanciullo […] non ti porti mai li disgusti e li dispiaceri che provati han tuo Padre” (I will not see him grow up under my eyes, as the son of my son should do, God the Lord and Master of everything, may this child never give you the disgusts and sorrow that your Father has experienced). 69 The firstborn son of Alvise Commendator was much more than the first child to make Alvise a grandfather: Alvise III Francesco was the socially designated head of the Mocenigo family, the future paterfamilias entrusted with the task to carry the name forward, and Alvise would not see him growing up.
The lawsuit between father and son went on and eventually also involved Filippo Luigi Sale Manfredi Repeta, the father of Cornelia, who asked his daughter’s dowry back because she had not received the trattamento appropriate to her status. The address delivered by Alvise’s lawyer again shows how dramatically the situation was perceived: he described the Mocenigos as a family in which love reigned, but “uno di questi figli, l’ammogliato, ed il maggiore, che agli altri dovea servir di modello, [ha elaborato] senza motivo di sorte […] il crudele progetto di abbandonare il Padre, la Madre, i Fratelli, la Moglie in istato di gravidanza” (one of these children, the married and eldest one, the one who had to serve as an example to the others, [has elaborated] the cruel project of abandoning the Father, the Mother, the Brothers, the pregnant Wife). 70 Up to the moment, he decided to flee from home, Alvise Commendator had the usual characteristics of a noble filiusfamilias: he had always lived “nella casa paterna, docile, subordinato, affettuoso” (in the paternal home, obedient, subordinate, affectionate). 71 Although Alvise Commendator was twenty-nine years old, married and a father, obedience and subordination were still highly valued and would continue to be praised until the death of his paterfamilias, thus implying that within a family, a son would reach “real” emancipation only when he, in turn, would become the chief of a family. 72
The following years saw the lawsuit ending with Alvise handing over the Commenda to his son, who had also been legally interdicted for some years because of the numerous debts he had incurred. He then enlisted in the army, while Cornelia went to live in the house of her natal family, her dowry was returned to her father. Cornelia and Alvise Commendator had two other sons, Alvise IV Ottaviano, born in 1820, and Alvise V Giovanni, born in 1822. A letter from Padua, dated September 30, 1826, shows that relations between family members were not tight: Laura Corner, Alvise Commendator’s mother, wrote to him lamenting the fact that she had never seen her grandchildren and did not know them. 73
“I Forgive My Sons for Any Disgust They Might Have Caused Me”: The Will of Alvise
Laura Corner died a year later, in 1827. 74 At the time of her death, her wealth was large and had a credit balance of roughly 920,000 liras. 75 For not having made up a will, her goods were equally divided among her children, and her husband Alvise obtained the usufruct of a quarter of her patrimony, 76 as provided by the law in force, the Codice civile universale austriaco pel Regno Lombardo-Veneto. 77 This was one of the only three codes of the Italian peninsula allowing equal inheritance rights to daughters and sons (the other two were the Codice per lo Regno delle Due Sicilie, promulgated by King Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies in 1819, and the Codice per gli Stati di Parma, Piacenza e Guastalla, promulgated by Duchess Maria Luigia in 1820). 78
Alvise Commendator died for unknown reasons on August 6, 1837; 79 two years later, his father died, too. Alvise I Mocenigo was seventy-two years old and left a will rogated by the Venetian notary Antonio Santibusca a year before his death, on March 25, 1838.
Writing a will was very common at that time. Through a will, people ensured that the “chosen” person—usually the firstborn son—could obtain a larger portion of the family’s patrimony as opposed to other offspring. It was also a means of limiting the portion that daughters could obtain by giving them the legitima portio only.
Although the lawsuit initiated by his son Alvise Commendator challenged the role of Alvise as chief of the family, the “correct” devolution of his goods was a major concern, and his decisions were driven by the need to perpetuate the family name and prestige. A man like Alvise, aware of the fact that a family “accipitur in iure pro substantia” (has relevance before the law for its wealth), 80 believed he had the moral obligation to preserve in its entirety the patrimony he had inherited from his ancestors. 81 As described by James C. Davis, the paterfamilias of such a family “saw himself at any moment as a link in a long line of generally distinguished men.[…] Through the haze of the past he could see their faces turned seriously and expectantly toward him [and another line of distinguished men] was to succeed him and lead away into the infinite future.” 82 In the same way, Alvise saw himself as a link between the past and the future of the Mocenigo family. He had to carry forward his ancestors’ honor and, in order to preserve the standing of his family, grudges were to be put apart; this meant that, sometimes, the individual had to be sacrificed for the higher goal of allowing the family and its name to “continue to exist in the future.” 83
Alvise’s testament reported the usual formulas of the time. First, he explained that his will was made “con ponderata riflessione” (with well-considered thought), recommended his soul to God, expressed his faith toward God and the Celestial Court, and provided for his funeral. 84 Next, Alvise bequeathed the movable goods held in the numerous houses he owned to his sons Alvise II Giovanni and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio and to his grandsons born from his deceased firstborn son Alvise Commendator (Alvise III, Alvise IV Ottaviano, and Alvise V Giovanni), per stirpes and not per capita. 85
Alvise’s will also reported that his grandchildren Stefano, Alvise, and Annetta born to Giovanni Venezze and his deceased daughter Orsetta were entitled to receive the legitima portio over his inheritance. 86 In this case, the per stirpes legitime was one-eighth of the entire hereditaments, but in order to secure equal division of the goods, the Venezzes had to fictitiously reunite Orsetta’s dowry, which was given at the time of her marriage in 1819 and was worth 142,684.75 Italian liras (164,005.46 Austrian liras).
Alvise prescribed that the usufruct of the remaining portion of his patrimony was to be divided into three parts, per stirpes: two parts to his sons Alvise II Giovanni and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio, and the other to his grandsons from Alvise Commendator. This meant that his two sons could use and live in the properties but were not their owners. His two sons could enjoy the usufruct of their portions during their lifetime. If one of them died, the usufruct of his part would be shared with his brother and his nephews.
The actual heirs of Alvise’s patrimony, that is, those who would own it, were his three grandsons, born from Alvise Commendator: in other words, Alvise left the ownership of his goods to his grandchildren and provided his own sons with the usufruct only. 87 As Cesarina Casanova has observed, inequality as criteria for inheritance was not a value in itself, but the conservation of wealth was, therefore, the way wealth was devolved only adapted to circumstances. 88 On the one hand, Alvise, as many other noble patresfamilias, complied with the idea of not leaving the goods representing his family to those who did not bear the family name 89 —in this case, the sons and daughter of Orsetta; on the other, his choices of continuity focused on Alvise Commendator’s sons because his own sons—Alvise II Giovanni and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio—were already forty-eight and forty-four years old, respectively, yet not married and without offspring.
Alvise added that he wanted to ensure peace and harmony among his sons and grandchildren, and the aim of his testamentary dispositions were to “mantenere col lodevole attuale sistema unita l’amministrazione della mia sostanza” (to keep united the administration of my wealth through the commendable current system). 90 Alvise pointed out that the joint management of his wealth was the correct way to continue to enjoy the Mocenigos’ wealth: he thus imagined a fraterna, which would allow his heirs to preserve their status, and one day, one of his grandchildren would become the head of the family like he was, a new Alvise Mocenigo di San Stae leading the name to the infinite future.
A brief overview of Alvise’s goods allows us to understand the extent of his wealth and what was really at stake. At the time of his death, Alvise’s patrimony was worth 2,883,341.87 Austrian liras. He owned 1,457 houses and plots of land worth 2,091,960 Austrian liras; his livestock (cattle and horses) was worth 29,674 Austrian liras, and he had four horses for personal use. Even though in the last thirty years of his life he lived in Padua before moving to the countryside, as other noble and wealthy Venetians, Alvise had his palace in Venice, the Mocenigo di San Stae palace, 91 which was worth 31,625 Austrian liras. 92 Alvise also had other properties in Venice as well as in the provinces of Padua, Treviso, and Vicenza. His palace in Belveder di Cordignano (in the countryside of Treviso), where he died, was worth 48,924 Austrian liras.
The inventory of his goods compiled after his death, also listed clothing. Alvise’s wardrobe was that of a seventy-two-year-old man, who probably did not lead a very mundane life: among other things, Alvise left twenty-three used shirts (worth 50 Austrian liras), fourteen white underpants in good condition (worth 28 Austrian liras), thirty handkerchiefs (worth 18 Austrian liras), two old pairs of trousers (worth 7 Austrian liras), and one fox fur (worth 110 Austrian liras). 93 In an economic context still bearing the characteristics of the Old Regime, used clothing clearly were significant also for wealthy individuals: the limited means and techniques of production made valuable also negligible goods.
As mentioned earlier, according to the Codice civile universale austriaco pel Regno Lombardo-Veneto, all sons and daughters were entitled to inherit part of their parents’ wealth or, in the presence of a will, to be given at least the legitime. By providing his own sons with no more than the usufruct of his properties, Alvise allowed room to challenge his will before a tribunal. Alvise might have considered the possibility of one of his sons not complying with his provisions: indeed, he wrote that “perdono pienamente [ai miei figli] qualunque disgusto che per avventura mi avessero arrecato” (I completely forgive [my sons] for any disgust they might possibly have caused me) and added that if his son Alvise IV Pietro Giulio “vorrà darmi contrassegno di filiale dipendenza uniformandosi alla disposizione da me fatta” (would give me a sign of filial subordination by complying with my will), he would be rewarded with 3,000 liras to be deducted from the portion of Alvise Commendator’s sons. Alternatively, he would only receive the legitima portio, that is, one-eighth of Alvise’s patrimony. The behavior of the paterfamilias shows again his concerns and how he structured his sense of self in his world: by pointing out that he forgave his sons and asking a sign of filial subordination, he demonstrated the persistence of a relation son/father that still adhered to a hierarchical model, at least from his perspective, but at same time, he made evident the rift in their relationship, which is testified by the need to offer a tangible reward.
Alvise IV Pietro Giulio was not flattered by the 3,000 liras and did not abide by his father’s will. He immediately claimed his lawful share of wealth. The issue was peacefully solved and did not require the intervention of a judge. The Mocenigo wealth was divided between Alvise Commendator’s sons, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio, and the Venezzes. The notarial act, signed on January 14, 1842, stated that their decision was driven “dal sentimento di pace, e scambievole affetto” (by the feeling of peace, and mutual affection). Alvise Commendator’s sons, through their legal guardians (their mother Cornelia and their grandfather Filippo Luigi Sale Manfredi Repeta), and Alvise II Giovanni accepted the testament. Stefano, Alvise, and Annetta Venezze, through their father Giovanni, and Alvise IV Pietro Giulio obtained the legitima portio. Archival material regarding the years after the division of the Mocenigo wealth showed that Alvise IV Pietro Giulio did not engage in any kind of business. In 1870 up to his death in 1876, he served as great prior of the Great Priory of Lombardy and Venetia, a delegation of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. 94
Conclusion
Like Alvise Commendator’s escape from home, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio’s request for his own share of the family wealth questioned not only his father’s will but a centuries-old paternal authority and the dominant patriarchal culture of the time, 95 which assigned to firstborns—or to the chosen ones—the management and ownership of the family’s wealth. By asking for his rightful share of his father’s patrimony, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio was not just challenging a will but his own world, in which personal ambitions and expectations had to be sacrificed in the name of obedience and family honor.
After three centuries, the patrimony of the Mocenigo di San Stae was eventually fragmented into several holdings. A similar event had happened within the Mocenigo family in the second half of the sixteenth century, that is, three centuries earlier, when the Mocenigo di San Samuele brothers decided to dissolve their fraterna, and one of them—Nicolò—bought the palace in the quarter of San Stae (Sant’Eustachio), giving origin to the branch of the Mocenigos called Mocenigo di San Stae.
Several decades after Alvise’s death, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio made his will, too, and left his goods not to the nephews from his brother Alvise Commendator, who bore his name, but to the children of his deceased sister Orsetta. As mentioned earlier, Alvise IV Pietro Giulio never married and had no offspring but preferred to favor the Venezzes instead of the Mocenigos. 96 Despite claiming that he had bequeathed his goods to them because his sister entered a family of “scarsa fortuna” (limited wealth) 97 —the Venezze family was wealthy but not as much as the Mocenigos—some doubts could be raised. In particular, at that time, the Mocenigos (sons of Alvise Commendator) were undergoing extremely harsh economic situation with overwhelming debts and creditors insistently asking the debts to be repaid. 98 The situation of the Venezze family, instead, was far better: Stefano was a respectable notary, while Annetta had married Sebastiano, who belonged to the Giustiniani family. Although there is no precise information about Alvise Venezze, several letters between the Mocenigos and the Venezzes show that the latter did not have any kind of economic problem. 99 Since Alvise was a man of his time, chances are that also Alvise IV Pietro Giulio was a man of his time: the former aimed to abide by the social constraints of the past, bore in mind his ancestors’ faces “turned seriously and expectantly toward him,” and was prone to sacrifice individual’s expectations and ambitions for the family’s continuity—this pursuit is also demonstrated by the centuries-old custom of naming every son Alvise. Alvise IV Pietro Giulio did not seem to be concerned about the ideals of the past: he appeared to attach broader importance to affective relationships he had with Orsetta’s offspring, thus testifying to a changing society, which began to give prominence to the individual instead of the family. This trend was also recorded by the new laws enforced in this territory, which, in the meanwhile, became part of the new Italian nation: indeed, the new civil code enacted in 1865 did not recognize the family as a legal entity worthy of protection, 100 unlike the 1889 criminal code, which still ruled on crimes against “the order of families.”
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation for the generous grant that allowed her to carry out this research. She would also like to thank Floriana Cenzi Dall’Armi and Alvise Cenzi Venezze for providing with valuable insights into their family’s history.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.