introduction 15
were adapted to the tastes of the “general public.”41 These factors, plus
the dramatic and rapid changes in venetian historiography in the second
half of the 20th century, perhaps help explain why Cessi’s Storia, though
certainly influential, in comparison with its predecessors had less of an
enduring impact. Though not on the same scale as a Daru, Romanin, or
Molmenti, Cessi’s Storia in many ways represents the last of a vanishing
breed, namely, the single-authored, comprehensive history of venice.
The post-war years brought important developments that moved vene-
tian history in an expanding number of directions. There was a surge in
the number of professional historians and other scholars who undertook
the study of the city, in ever narrower and more specialized ways. Some-
what paradoxically, as scholars collectively came to know more about
venice’s past, no individual historian had the confidence to produce a
master narrative on the scale of earlier generations. Rather, as the lions
of the past were replaced by a more numerous and specialized group of
scholars, the writing of venetian history was collectivized. No longer could
a single scholar pretend to treat alone the increasingly rich fabric of the
lagoon. Now teams of scholars, research institutions, and public and pri-
vate funds were necessary to confront the enormity of the endeavor. The
result has been works that take a much more varied and richer approach
to venice and that evidence notable changes within the broader historical
profession—this in turn has profoundly influenced our knowledge and
understanding of venice. Another result is that no history of venice, single
or collectively authored, has approached the reputation and influence of
the great works of the previous 200 years.42
The first significant attempt at a collaborative history of venice took
shape under the aegis of the Centro internazionale delle arti del costume
at Palazzo Grassi, with Roberto Cessi as the project director. The series
was envisioned as a return to the expansive histories of venice which
had been in vogue in the 19th century but which had been supplanted by
scholars with more narrow and specialized focuses. The ambitious plans
called for a “monumental history” comprising 16 volumes, written by teams
of specialists; ultimately, however, only the first two volumes were pub-
lished, covering venice’s prehistory up to the fourth crusade. These two
volumes attempt to bridge academic and popular historical approaches
41 Seneca, “L’opera storica di Roberto Cessi,” p. 44; Sestan, “Roberto Cessi,” p. 232.
42 James S. Grubb, “When Myths Lose Power: four Decades of venetian Historio-
graphy,” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986), 82–83.