ABSTRACT
The courts depended largely on ordinary people to instigate lawsuits, gather evidence or identify suspects. The power of narratives in courts, it argues depended in part on their structure: the better a story was told, the more likely it was to be believed. The credibility of witnesses was measured by comparing other testimonies made during the proceedings. Deviations from other depositions rendered witnesses suspect, and did not help to prove the facts of their testimonies. As a product of cultural practice, public opinion conveyed what neighbours thought of each other – it either testified to or contested the honour and reputation of members of Venetian society. When plaintiffs and defendants were interrogated in court, or when witnesses spoke in detail about marital disputes and people's reputations, their words were recorded. Because we depend entirely on court transcripts of speeches delivered before and in the courtroom, attention should be paid to the process of transforming spoken words into written text.
