Considerations regarding Antonio Morosini’s Chronicle
Considerations regarding Antonio Morosini’s Chronicle

Summary/Abstract: In one of his studies, Agostino Pertusi noted in a certain moment that “nel periodo che intercorre fra la morte del de Monacis ed i primi anni della seconda metà del ‘400, non vi furono storici che scrissero di cose veneziane. Molto probabilmente la situazione locale in aspro clima di guerra guerreggiata, prima contro i Carraresi ed i Genovesi, poi contro Francesco Sforza, non permise lo sviluppo di una storiografia.” In my opinion, the explanation given by the Italian historian includes two inaccuracies. First, the reference to the war period does not represent an evidence, since there are many cases when the periods of political crisis could not stop the historical writing: it is enough to refer in this sense to the moment when Doge Andrea Dandolo wrote his Chronica per extensium descripta, and this example is far of being singular. Secondly, A. Pertusi, having perhaps in mind the historical work of Flavio Biondo and regarding it as subsequent stage for Lorenzo de’ Monaci’s history, leaves completely aside the so-called “cronache di consultazione”, which continued to be compiled in the period taken into account. I refer here both to the chronicles ascribable to certain authors – such as Antonio Morosini, Fantino Pisani or Giorgio Delfino –, and to the numerous anonymous chronicles written in the 15th century. All of them developed to a large extent in the same time with the more or less ‘official’ Venetian histories (Lorenzo de’ Monaci, Flavio Biondo, Marcantonio Coccio Sabellico).

• Details
• Contents