250 APPENDIX, 1

than of any additional proof, I shall quote a few more of the best accredited Chronicles.

The passage given by Bettio from the Sivos Chronicle, is a very important parallel with that from the Zancarol above:

“Essendo molto vecchio, e quasi rovinoso el Palazzo sopra la piazza, fo deliberato di far quella parte tutta da novo, et continuarla com’ é quella della Sala grande, et cosi il Lunedi 27 Marzo 1424 fu dato principio a ruinare detto Palazzo vecchio dalla parte ch’ è verso panateria, cioé della Giustizia, ch’ é nelli occhi di sopra le colonne fino alla Chiesa, et fo fatto anco la porta grande, com’ è al presente, con la sala che si addimanda la Libraria.”*

We have here all the facts told us in so many words: the “old palace” is definitely stated to have been “on the piazza,” and it is to be rebuilt “like the part of the great saloon.” The very point from which the newer buildings commenced is told us; but here the chronicler has carried his attempt at accuracy too far. The point of junction is, as stated above, at the third pillar beyond the medallion of Venice; and I am much at a loss to understand what could have been the disposition of these three pillars where they joined the Ziani Palace, and how they were connected with the arcade of the inner cortile. But with these difficulties, as they do not bear on the immediate question, it is of no use to trouble the reader.

The next passage I shall give is from a chronicle in the Marcian Library, bearing title, “Supposta di Zancaruol;” but in which I could not find the passage given by Cadorin from, I believe, a manuscript of this chronicle at Vienna. There occurs instead of it the following, thus headed:

“Come la parte nova del Palazzo fuo hedificata novamente.

“El Palazzo novo de Venesia quella parte che xe verso la Chiesia de S. Marcho fuo prexo chel se fesse del 1422 e fosse pagado la spexa per li officiali del sal. E fuo fatto per sovrastante G. Nicolo Barberigo cum provision de ducati X doro al mexe e fuo fabricado e fatto nobelissimo. Come fin ancho di el sta e fuo grande honor a la Signori a de Venesia e a la sua Citta.”

This entry, which itself bears no date, but comes between others dated 22nd July and 27th December, is interesting, because it shows the first transition of the idea of nenness, from the Grand Council Chamber to the part built under Foscari. For when Mocenigo’s wishes had been fulfilled, and the old palace of Ziani had been destroyed, and another built in its stead, the Great Council Chamber, which was “the new palace” compared with Ziani’s, became “the old palace” compared with Foscari’s; and thus we have, in the body of the above extract, the whole building called “the new palace of Venice;” but in the heading of it we have “the new part of the palace” applied to the part built by Foscari, in contradistinction to the Council Chamber.

The next entry I give is important, because the writing of the MS. in which it occurs, No. 53 in the Correr Museum, shows it to be probably not later than the end of the fifteenth century:

“El palazo nuovo de Venixia zoe quella parte che se sora la piazza verso la giesia di Miss. San Marcho del 1422 fo principiado, el qual fo fato e finito molto belo, chome al presente se vede nobilissimo, et a la fabricha de quello fo deputado Miss. Nicolo Barberigo, soprastante con ducati dieci doro al mexe.”

* Bettio, p. 28.

[Version 0.04: March 2008]