![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE (717-1453)CHAPTER XIII. VENICE
DURING the period covered by this chapter
the State of Venice did not reach maturity. She did not become a world-power
till after the Fourth Crusade, nor was it till a full century later that she
finally developed her constitution. But the germs of her constitution and the
seeds of her sea-power are both to be found in these earliest years of her
existence. The problems which dominate these years are the question of
immigration, when and how did the inhospitable islands of the lagoons become
settled; how did the community develop; how did it gradually achieve its actual
and then its formal independence of Byzantium; how did it save itself from
being absorbed by the rulers of the Italian mainland, Charles the Great, Otto
II, and Frederick Barbarossa.
The earliest authentic notice we have of
the lagoon-population is to be found in the letter addressed (c. 536) by
Cassiodorus, in the name of Witigis, King of the
Goths, to the Tribuni Maritimorum, the tribunes of the maritime parts. The
letter, written in a tone between command and exhortation, is highly rhetorical
in style, but gives us a vivid picture of a poor though industrious community
occupying a site unique in the world.
This community, in all probability, formed
part of the Gothic Kingdom, for it seems certain that the Tribuni Maritimorum whom
Cassiodorus addresses were officers appointed by the Goths. The chief
characteristics of this people are that they were salt-workers and seamen, two
points highly significant for the future development of Venice. No doubt the
population here referred to was largely augmented, if not actually formed, by
the refugees who sought safety in the lagoons from the ever recurrent barbarian
incursions on the mainland, Attila’s among the number; but it is not till the
Lombard invasion in 568 that we can begin to trace the positive influence of
the barbarian raids and to note the first signs of a political constitution
inside the lagoons themselves.
The campaign of Belisarius (535-540)
brought Venetia once more under the Roman Empire (539); and, when Narses the
Eunuch undertook to carry out Justinian’s scheme for the final extermination of
the Goths (551), he was forced to recognize the importance of the lagoons. His
march upon Ravenna by way of the mainland was opposed by the Franks and by the
Goths under Teias. In these circumstances John, the son of Vitalian,
who knew the country well, suggested that the army should take the lagoon
and lidi route, through which it was
conducted by the lagoon-dwellers with their long ships and light ships, thereby
enabling the Greek army to reach Ravenna and incidentally leading up to the
final victories of Busta Gallorum (552)
and Mons Lactarius (553); after this the
coast districts became definitely and undisputedly parts of the Roman Empire
once more.
But the hold of Byzantium upon Italy
generally was weak. The Persian war absorbed the imperial resources. There was
little to oppose Alboin and his Lombards when in the spring of 568
they swept down from Pannonia and within the year made themselves lords of
North Italy. Then began a general flight from the mainland; and the process was
renewed during the next hundred years down to the second sack of Oderzo (667). Throughout this period the settlement of
the lagoons definitely took place, and we find the first indication of a
constitution in those obscure officials, the Tribuni Majores and Minores of
the earliest chronicles. Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, fled from his
ruined diocese bearing with him the treasury and the relics. He was followed by
his flock, who sought refuge in Grado. The refugees from Concordia found
an asylum in Caorle; Malamocco and Chioggia were
settled in 602, and possibly some of the Rialto group of islands, the site of
the future City of Venice, received inhabitants for the first time. The final
peopling of Torcello, with which the earliest Venetian chronicles are so
much concerned, took place in 636, when Altino, one of the last remaining
imperial possessions on the mainland, fell. Bishop Maurus and
Tribune Aurius settled in the Torcello group of islands,
and built a church. The tribune assigned certain islands as church-lands,
and appointed, as his tribune-delegate in the island of Ammiana, Fraunduni, who likewise built a church and apportioned
certain lands to furnish the revenue thereof. Twelve lagoon-townships were
settled in this manner, Grado, Bibiones (between Grado and Caorle), Caorle,
Heraclea, Equilio Jesolo (now Cavazuccherina), Torcello, Murano, Rialto,
Malamocco, Poveglia, Clugies minor
(now Sottomarina), and Clugies Major
(now Chioggia). If, as is probable, a process similar to that which took place
in the settlement of Torcello went on in the case of these other
townships, then we find a solution of the vexed question as to the exact nature
of the major and minor tribunes, the former being, like Aurius, the
leaders of the immigrants, the latter, like Fraunduni,
delegates in the circumjacent islands.
In the confusion and obscurity of the early
chronicles it is difficult to arrive at a clear idea of the political
conditions in the lagoon-townships. In the structure of the Empire, Venetia
formed part of the province of Istria. We know from the inscriptions of Santa
Eufemia in Grado that the Greeks maintained a fleet in the lagoons
down to the sixth century; but as they gradually lost ground on the mainland
before the Lombard invaders, they withdrew their forces, leaving the islanders
of the lagoons to defend themselves as best they might. The lagoon-dwellers
gathered round their leading men or tribunes; but their powers of defence were
feeble, as is proved by the raid of Lupus, Duke of Friuli, upon Grado (630),
and it was probably only the intricate nature of their home-waters which saved
them from absorption by the barbarian. These tribunes wielded both military and
civil authority, and in theory were undoubtedly appointed by and dependent on
the Exarch of Ravenna as representing Byzantium in Italy. The office tended to
become hereditary and gave rise to the class of tribunitian families.
Side by side with the secular power, as represented by the tribunes, grew the
ecclesiastical power centring round the
patriarchate of Grado (568), and the lagoon sees of Caorle (598), Torcello (635), Heraclea
(640), Malamocco (640), Jesolo (670), Olivolo (774). The Arianism of the Lombards drove
the orthodox bishops from their mainland churches to seek asylum in the
lagoons. The clergy as was natural, thanks to their education, played a large
part in the developing life of the lagoon communities; but, if we may draw a
conclusion from the instance of Torcello, it would seem that the secular
power reserved a kind of superiority or patronage over the ecclesiastical: a
fact significant in the future development of ecclesiastico-political
relations in Venice. Besides the leading, or “noble”, families represented by
the tribunes, and the clergy gathered round their bishops, we find that there
was a general assembly of the whole population which made its voice heard in
the choice of both tribunes, priests, and bishops, but otherwise appears to
have been of little weight.
Throughout the seventh century the imperial
possessions on the mainland were gradually shorn away by the Lombard kings. The
second sack of Oderzo (667), which had been
the seat of an imperial Magister Militum,
seems to have caused the rise of Heraclea, the lagoon-township where the
refugees from Oderzo found asylum, to the
leading place among the twelve tribunitian centres.
So great was the number of the fugitives that they overflowed into the neighbouring township of Jesolo,
and its population was soon large enough to demand a separate bishopric (670).
The collapse of the Roman Empire on the mainland led to the severing of all
land-communication between the lagoons and Istria, of which they had hitherto
formed a part. It seems that either directly and deliberately by the will of
the imperial authorities, or by the will of the lagoon-dwellers with a view to
their better protection, Sea-Venice was separated from Istria and erected into
a distinct ducatus (after 680). The
Venetian chronicler, John the Deacon, represents the creation of the first doge
in the following terms: “In the times of the Emperor Anastasius and
of Liutprand, King of the Lombards, the whole population of Venice,
along with the Patriarch and the bishops came together and by common accord
resolved that it would be more honourable for
the future to live under dukes than under tribunes; and after long debate as to
whom they should elect to this office, at length they agreed upon a capable and
illustrious man named Paulitio”.
The first doge
The date usually given for the choice of
the first doge is 697, but if John the Deacon be right it cannot be placed
earlier than 713, the year in which Anastasius came to the throne.
The question has been raised as to whether the lagoon population independently
elected their first doge, or whether he was appointed by the imperial
authorities. Both may be true in the sense that he was chosen by the community,
as in all probability were the tribunes, and confirmed by the exarch or the
imperial authority. In any case it is certain that there was no question of the
lagoon population claiming formal independence of Byzantium at that time nor
for long after; but, as a matter of fact, a very few years later (726), at the
time of the Italian revolt against the iconoclastic decrees of Leo the Isaurian,
the population of the lagoons undoubtedly made a free and independent election
of their doge in the person of Orso, the third holder of that title.
The election of the first doge, Paulutius Anafestus, a
“noble” of Heraclea, marks the close of the earliest period in Venetian
history; the second period is concerned with the events which led up to the
concentration of the lagoon-townships at Rialto, the city we now call Venice,
in 810. The notes of the period are: first, the development of the dukedom as
against the older order of the tribunes and against the ecclesiastical power of
the Patriarchs of Grado; second, the internal quarrels between rival
townships, Heraclea, Jesolo, Malamocco, which
largely contributed to the final concentration at Rialto; third, the question
of self preservation, the maintenance of such practical, de facto,
independence of Byzantium as the community had acquired through the weakness of
the Empire, and the struggle to avoid absorption by the powerful barbarian
rulers of the mainland, Lombard and Frank.
The dependence of Venice on Byzantium has
been maintained by modern historians, and it cannot for a moment be disputed
that, in theory, it existed; as late as 979 we find public documents dated by
the year of the imperial reign. But in practice it is the population of the
lagoons which elects the doge, and murders, deposes, blinds, or tonsures him if
dissatisfied with the tendency of his policy, while no one brings them to
account for such acts of independence. An explanation of the frequent
revolutions and ducal downfalls has been suggested in the jealousy of the
various tribunitian families reduced in importance by the creation of
the dukedom; but if it be permissible to consider the lagoon-dwellers as an
individual community and to talk of the spirit of a race, viewed by the light
of events as they occurred, it looks as though the Venetian population was
inspired by an instinct towards independence and deliberately worked towards
that goal.
Relations with the Lombards
The earliest and most important act
of Paulutius was the conclusion of a treaty
(713-716) with Liutprand, the powerful King of the Lombards. The
treaty is lost, but we can gather its terms from the reference to it in
subsequent pacta with the kings of Italy. It consisted of two parts:
the first a guarantee of security for Venetian traders on the mainland;
protection of Venetian flocks and horses; right to cut wood in Lombard
territory; in return for these privileges the doge agreed to pay an annual
tribute. The second part contained a definition of boundaries on the mainland.
This second part is said to have been “concluded in the days of
King Liutprand, between the Duke Paulutio and
the Magister Militum Marcellus”. Of
this difficult passage three explanations have been suggested. It is said that
Marcellus was the Magister Militum (the
chief imperial authority) of Istria, and that it was he who concluded the
treaty with the consent of the doge. But Istria and Sea-Venice were by this
time separated; “Dux” is superior in rank to “Magister Militum”,
and as a matter of fact the doge’s name comes first; finally the agreement is
said to be not between Marcellus and Liutprand but between
(inter) Paulutio and Marcellus. The second
theory is that Marcellus was Magister Militum in
Venice and associated himself with the doge in treating with Liutprand;
but here again the word inter seems fatal. The third and most plausible theory
is that Marcellus was the imperial Magister Militum in
Venice, and that acting on imperial orders he and the doge delimited the
territory of Heraclea and obtained from Liutprand a confirmation of
the same, as is proved by the “precept” of 25 March 996. Whichever view be
correct, the treaty with Liutprand is of the highest importance as
shewing us the Venetian community under its first doge securing treaty rights
from the masters of the mainland.
It is certain that the early doges did not
exercise a wide or undisputed power in the lagoon community. Not until the
ninth century, after the concentration at Rialto, did they assume the
unchallenged headship of the State. The office of tribune persisted long after
the creation of the dukedom; as late as 887 we hear of the Tribune Andrea
rescuing the body of the Doge Peter I Candianus from
the Slays. But the establishment of the dogeship roused jealousy among
the tribunitian families, and the choice of Heraclea for the ducal
seat stirred the envy of other lagoon-townships and so began the long series of
struggles between the rival centres in one
of which the first doge lost his life (717).
He was succeeded by Marcellus Tegalianus, whose identification with Marcellus,
Magister Militum of Istria, is by no means
certain. He was probably appointed or confirmed by the imperial authorities.
During his reign Serenus, Patriarch of Aquileia, supported by Liutprand,
attacked Donatus, Patriarch of Grado. The doge, afraid of drawing
down on the lagoons the wrath of the Lombards if he employed Venetian
arms in support of the lagoon Patriarch, contented himself with an appeal to
the Pope, who sharply reprimanded Serenus. Subsequently the Lateran
Council (732) formally decreed the separation of the two jurisdictions,
declaring Grado to be the metropolitan see of Istria and the lagoons,
thereby conferring definite form on the lagoon patriarchate. Marcellus died in
726, at the moment when Italy, following the lead of Pope Gregory II, was in
open revolt against the iconoclast decrees of the Emperor Leo III. The various
districts expelled or slew the imperial officers and elected dukes for themselves.
The bolder spirits even talked of electing a new Emperor and marching with him
on Constantinople. Venice shared in the general movement, and,
whether Marcellus' death was due to the revolutionary party or not, his
successor Ursus was undoubtedly elected by the lagoon population
without consulting the imperial authorities.
Relations with Byzantium
The Italian revolt of 726 brought to light
the difficulty in which the growing lagoon community found itself between east
and west. The Pope in his hostility to Leo invited Liutprand to
invade the Exarchate and expel the Greeks. The Lombard king was nothing loth,
seeing in the request an opportunity for extending his domains. In a first
attack on Ravenna, Paul the Exarch was slain. The Emperor despatched Eutychius with gold and troops to take
his place. The new exarch came to terms with Liutprand and assisted
him to subdue the revolted Dukes of Benevento and Spoleto. But when Gregory III
came to the papal throne in 731 he arrived at an understanding with Eutychius which
resulted in a fresh revolt of the Duke of Spoleto. Liutprand at once
attacked the Exarchate (739). Ravenna fell to Duke Hildebrand and Duke Peredeo. Eutychius fled to the lagoons and
summoned the Venetians, by their allegiance to the Emperor, to lend aid in
restoring him. They obeyed. The Venetian fleet replaced the exarch in his
capital (741).
In the meantime the doge, whose loyalty to
Byzantium had been rewarded with the title of Hypatos or Consul, had
died (737). Both he and his two predecessors were nobles of Heraclea, belonging
to the aristocratic or Byzantine party, and ruling in Heraclea. Local jealousy
between the rival townships combined with the hostility of the revolutionary
party, whose policy was anti-Byzantine and ranged, with the Pope for the
freedom of Italy from Byzantine suzerainty, led, as the chronicles tell us, to
an attack by Jesolo upon Heraclea, and in
the fighting the doge fell. Whether the story be strictly true or
not, the episode is of importance as showing us the formation of two distinct
parties inside the lagoons, and in its bearing upon the election of the next
doge which took place not in Heraclea but at Malamocco, an important step towards
the final concentration at Rialto. The reigns of the first three doges had
yielded results not altogether satisfactory, and on the death of Ursus,
the imperial authorities, or, according to the Venetian tradition, the
population of the lagoons, resolved to substitute for the dogeship the yearly
office of Magister Militum. The new magistracy
was of short duration (737-741), and was marked by the continued violence of
party strife. The last Magister Militum, Fabriacus, was blinded and, in 742, the community returned
to the system of ducal government, electing Deusdedit, son of the late
Doge Ursus, to that office. But the seat of government was removed from
Heraclea—not only the scene of violent faction-fights, but also accessible from
the mainland and therefore exposed to the influence of the mainland rulers—to
Malamocco, a township on the lido which divides the lagoon from the
open sea. The choice of Malamocco was a compromise, preluding the final
compromise at Rialto, and was determined by the anti-Byzantine party; but the
new doge was still an Heracleote and
member of the Byzantine party, though no longer ruling in Heraclea.
The Franks
During the reign of Deusdedit the
pressure of external events was never relaxed; the danger that the lagoons
might be absorbed by the lords of the mainland was ever present. The remains of
Greek lordship in North Italy had all but disappeared; the lagoons were almost
all that survived. In 751 Aistulf, the Lombard king, finally captured
Ravenna, and so imminent seemed the threat from the south-west that the doge
undertook the building of a strong fort at Brondolo to
protect his frontiers. Aistulf, however, did not prove hostile; he was at
the moment engaged with his scheme for reducing the Papacy to the position of a
“Lombard bishopric”, and could afford to wait as far as the lagoons were
concerned. He therefore willingly renewed the treaty made with Liutprand.
But a greater power than that of the Lombards was about to appear on
the scene, a power destined to act with decisive effect on the development of
Venice. The Pope, alarmed at the threatening attitude of the Lombard sovereign,
and unable to claim aid from the weak, distant, and also iconoclastically
heretical Emperor, turned to the Franks for protection. Pope Stephen II in 754
made a personal appeal to Pepin, son of Charles Martel. That same year the
Franks entered Italy by the Fenestrelle pass.
They immediately proved their superiority over the Lombards. Aistulf was
defeated and only saved a remnant of his territory through Papal mediation
(756). His son Desiderius saw the destruction of the Lombard Kingdom, and
by 774 Pavia was in the hands of the Franks.
The Venetians, meanwhile, had been
profiting by the disturbed state of the mainland; the decline of Ravenna, in
particular, allowed them to extend their trade, which was now beginning to
assume its prominent characteristic of a carrying-trade between East and West.
We hear of Venetian merchants in Constantinople sending valuable political
information to the Papal authorities in Ravenna; and possibly about this
period Torcello began to assume its position of “great emporium”, as
Constantine Porphyrogenitus styles it. But prosperity did not allay
the internal jealousies of the lagoon-townships. Jesolo still
nursed her ancient hatred of Heraclea. The Jesolans,
headed by Egilius Gaulus,
attacked the Heracleote noble Deusdedit,
the Doge. They blinded and deposed him, and their leader seized the ducal
chair, only to be blinded and banished, in his turn, within the year (755). The
point of the struggle for supremacy between the various townships is emphasized
by the fact that the next doge, Dominicus Monegarius,
was not an Heracleote but a native of
Malamocco, the seat of the government. Either the Venetian population or the
imperial authorities seem to have thought that these perpetual revolutions were
due to the fact that the doges enjoyed too free a hand. The ducal independence
of action was therefore curtailed by the appointment of two tribunes to act in
concert with the doge. The effort to shake himself free of these trammels
cost Monegarius his throne. He was deposed
and blinded and, perhaps by a reaction of party feeling, an Heracleote, Mauritius, was elected in 764. The election of
Mauritius has, however, been taken as a proof and a result of a movement which
had undoubtedly been going on for some time. The internecine quarrels of
Heraclea and Jesolo, ending in the removal of
the capital to Malamocco, had seriously injured both townships; a general
exodus took place from both into the new capital, where the Heracleotes were soon in sufficient numbers to secure
the election of one of themselves to the ducal chair. However that
may be, the fact remains that both Heraclea and Jesolo ceased
to be of great importance among the lagoon-townships, and their territory was
assigned to the fist, forming the origin of what afterwards became the domainlands of the Ducatus.
Olivolo. Charles
the Great
The reign of Mauritius is marked by two
points of importance: first, the beginning of the custom of appointing a
doge-consort, naturally, as the appointment lay with the doge, a member of his
own family, thereby paving the way for the establishment of the dynastic
principle which was to play so large a part in the early history of Venice;
secondly, the founding of the bishopric of Olivolo.
The influx of Heracleotes and Jesolans, which we have already recorded, proved to be so
abundant that the immigrants overflowed to Rialto, and so great were their
numbers that they soon demanded and obtained a see of their own
(774), with its cathedral on the island of Olivolo,
one of the north-eastern islets of the Realtine group,
afterwards known, and known to this day, as Castello. The foundation of the see
of Olivolo may be taken as the first step
in the formation of the city of Venice.
Difficult times were at hand for the
lagoon-community. Pepin, son of Charles Martel, in the course of his campaign
against the Lombards had captured Ravenna and the Pentapolis. These
he presented to his ally the Pope. Pepin's son, Charles the Great, after the
final destruction of the Lombard kingdom, confirmed his father's donation. In
considering his new kingdom he must have observed that Maritime-Venice and the
lagoon-townships alone in North Italy still owned allegiance to Byzantium. He
probably resolved to bring them within the bounds of his new territory, all the
more so that, in the almost inevitable clash with the Greek Empire, Venice
alone seemed able to furnish a fleet and a sea-base. In any case Charles
ordered the expulsion of Venetian traders from the Pentapolis (784) and took
Istria (787), thus enclosing the lagoons in an iron circle. These actions
opened the eyes of the lagoon-population to the approaching crisis.
The situation was complicated by the
attitude of the Patriarchs of Grado, who, as good Churchmen, favoured the Pope's allies, the Franks. Thus two
parties were clearly defined inside the lagoons: the party of the doges, the
Byzantine party which clung to its allegiance to the Empire as its safeguard
against the danger of being absorbed by the Franks; and the party of the
Patriarchs, the party of the Church, the Francophile party which seemed willing
to carry the whole community over to Charles, rather than risk the loss of
commerce on the mainland which would be entailed by a rupture with the Franks.
How far there was a third party, a Venetian party, determined to save the State
from the Franks while preserving its de facto independence of Byzantium, is not
clear. Inside the lagoon the crisis was brought to an issue and the party
positions defined over the newly-created see of Olivolo.
The Doge John, son of Mauritius, who had first been doge-consort to his father
(778) and then reigning doge (787), nominated to the see a young Greek, named
Christopher, only sixteen years old. The Patriarch of Grado refused
to consecrate him (798). A little later it was known that the Patriarch was
urging Charles' son, Pepin of Italy, to form a navy in Ravenna for the
subjugation of the lagoons. The doge sent his son, Mauritius the younger, to
attack Grado, and the Patriarch was flung from the highest tower of his
palace and killed (802).
But this high-handed act made no difference
in the policy of the patriarchal see. The murdered John was succeeded by his
nephew Fortunatus, a restless, capable, enterprising man, of Francophile
leanings even more pronounced than those of his uncle. Fortunatus received the
pallium in 803 and at once set to work to develop the Frankish party. Along
with others of the faction, Obelerius and
Felix the Tribune, he formed a plot against the doge. It was discovered, and
the conspirators fled to Treviso, whence Fortunatus proceeded alone to the
court of Charles at Seitz. He brought the Emperor many and costly presents, and
found him in a mood to listen to his plans for the expulsion of the Byzantine
doges and their party, as the Frankish embassy to the court at Constantinople
(803), commissioned to secure recognition of Charles’ new imperial title, had
just been haughtily repulsed.
Meanwhile, encouraged no doubt by news from
Fortunatus, the Francophile conspirators in Treviso elected Obelerius as doge (804). He made a dash for the
lagoons, entered his native town. Malamocco amid popular acclaim, and the Doges
John and Mauritius were forced to fly along with their creature Christopher,
Bishop of Olivolo.
This revolution of 804 meant the complete
triumph of the Francophile party. How complete that triumph was is proved by
the fact that the Doge Obelerius and the
Doge-consort, his brother Beatus, paid a visit to the court of Charles
at Thionville (Theodonis Villa) about
Christmas 805, and early in the next year the Emperor made an ordinatio or disposition for the government of the
doges and populace of Venice as well as for Dalmatia. Venice, Istria, and
Dalmatia were declared to be parts of Pepin's kingdom of Italy.
This deliberate challenge to Nicephorus and
the Eastern Empire was at once taken up. In 807 the patrician Nicetas appeared
in the Adriatic with the imperial fleet. Charles and Pepin were possessed of no
sea-power capable of offering resistance, and Nicetas met with none.
If Charles had counted on the Venetians for support he was deceived. Dalmatia
returned to its allegiance, as did the doges. Obelerius was
rewarded with the title of Spatharius, but Beatus was
sent to Constantinople as a hostage for Venetian loyalty. Nicetas made
a truce with Pepin and withdrew his fleet in the autumn of 807. The truce came
to an end in the autumn of 808, and the patrician Paul appeared with the Greek
fleet in the Adriatic. After wintering in Venetian waters, he attacked Comacchio and was repulsed. The Frankish party in the
lagoons was strong enough to render his position insecure. He withdrew his
fleet down the Adriatic (809), leaving Venice to the wrath of Pepin, who was
resolved to make good his claims to the lagoons and to punish the doges for
their perfidy in violating the ordinatio of Thionville.
In the autumn of 809 the attack was delivered from north and south, by land and
by sea. The lagoon-dwellers offered a vigorous resistance, and the king’s
progress was slow. What remained of Heraclea fell; so did Brondolo, Chioggia, Pelestrina, Albiola, and even the capital Malamocco; both doges were
taken prisoners; but the lagoons were not conquered. The population of
Malamocco withdrew to the central group of islands, called Rialto, and thence
defied the conqueror. In vain he attempted to reach and capture the core of the
lagoons; the intricate channels through the mud banks baffled him; he was
eventually forced to withdraw in 810; and he died in July of the same year.
Recent historians, relying on the testimony
of Einhard, claim that this event was a Venetian defeat, a Frankish
victory. But Einhard, though a contemporary, was far away from the scene
of action, and was moreover in the service of the Carolingians. Though there
can be no doubt that Pepin captured the lidi up
to Malamocco, the capital, and made the doges prisoners, compelling them to
consent to a yearly tribute, yet the fact remains that he did not conquer
Rialto, the heart of the lagoons, and that the lagoon-population compelled him
to abandon his enterprise and to retire. It is not surprising that
Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the next century, and the Venetians
ever after, should have looked upon the repulse of Pepin as the cardinal point
in their early history and have eventually surrounded it with a mass of
patriotic legend.
Pepin's attack on the lagoons, and the
large measure of success which crowned it, alarmed Constantinople; and in
810 Arsafius, the Spatharius,
Rialto, the City of Venice was sent to negotiate with the king, but finding him
dead the envoy proceeded direct to Charles at Aix-la-Chapelle. In the
spring of 811 Arsafius left Aix on his
return to Constantinople, bearing Charles’ terms, which were that he would
surrender Venice, Istria, Liburnia, and Dalmatia
in return for recognition of his imperial title. It may be observed that,
even if Charles considered that Pepin had conquered Venice, Dalmatia certainly
was in no sense his, as Pepin's fleet had immediately retired before the fleet
of Paul, the of Cephalonia. More probably Charles based his claim to Venice on
the ordinatio of Thionville. Arsafius on his way through Venice nominated an Heracleote noble, Agnellus Particiacus, to the vacant dogeship. The Doges Obelerius and Beatus were both in the
custody of Arsafius, the former to be consigned,
as Charles had ordained, to his lawful sovereign (ad dominum),
the Emperor Nicephorus, a phrase which can hardly be reconciled with the claim
that Venice and the Venetians were Frankish territory and people. By the summer
of 812 the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed, and Venice returned to her
ancient position as vassal of the Eastern Empire. The result of the whole
episode, as far as Venice was concerned, was that internally a concentration of
all the lagoon-townships took place at Rialto, which now became the capital.
The rivalries and jealousies between the lagoon-centres came
to an end. Further, the new city emerged from Pepin’s attack Byzantine in sympathies,
and with an Heracleote Byzantine noble
as doge. And, with the failure of the Francophile policy of the Patriarch
Fortunatus, the power of the Church as an independent political element in
Venice began to decline, and Grado slowly waned in power and
influence. Externally Venice remained Eastern not Western, aloof from the rest
of Italy, looking eastward for the most part, a fact of the highest importance
in determining the subsequent character and career of the race.
We are now entering on a new period of
Venetian history which goes down to the reign of Peter II Orseolo (991-1009). It is possible now to talk of
Venice as a city-state. The characteristic notes of the period are: firstly,
the development of the dukedom with its growing dynastic tendencies; the
accumulation in single houses of dignities and wealth, thanks to private
trading by the doges under special privileges; and the revolt of the Venetian
people against these dynastic tendencies. Secondly, we note the relations of
the state with the Western Empire, the effort to maintain its independence and
to extend its commerce, which are revealed in the series of pacta and praecepta. And thirdly, the relations, of the state with
the East; the gradual loosening of the formal bonds which bound it as a vassal
to the Eastern Empire, and the extension of its trading privileges in the
Levant. For many years to come (down to 979 at least) the formal dependence on
the Eastern Empire was fully recognized by the use of the imperial date in
public documents, by public prayers for the Emperor, and by the obligations of
transport, affirmed and acknowledged in the various imperial bulls; but in
fact, owing to the growing sea-power of the Venetians, the relations gradually
became rather those of allies. The final note of the period is the growth and
the embellishment of the new capital.
Commerce
The young state soon began to display those
commercial instincts which were destined to mark its whole career. Either by a
separate treaty—a theory strenuously combated by recent historians—or at least
by a special clause in the Treaty of Aix, Charles renewed the privileges,
endorsed the tribute, and confirmed the frontiers established by the treaty
with King Liutprand. This treaty formed the charter of Venetian trading
rights on the mainland, and was frequently rehearsed and reconfirmed during the
ninth and tenth centuries.
The valley of the Po formed the natural
trade: route from the head of the Adriatic to Lombardy, France, and West
Germany; but for the command of this route the lagoon-city of Comacchio was an active competitor, lying as it did
near the mouth of that river. At Pavia, the capital of the Italian kingdom, two
great trade-routes converged, the Po-valley route, and the route from Rome
across the Apennines. Already in the days of Charles, the monk of St Gall
reports, Venetian merchants frequented the markets of Pavia, bringing with them
"from overseas all the wealth of the orient", chiefly, it seems,
silks, spices, golden pheasant and peacock feathers. The life of St Gerald,
of Aurillac shows us how a Venetian merchant at Pavia acted as
expert-adviser on the current prices of silk webs in the markets of
Constantinople: The trade of Comacchio was
chiefly confined to salt, but we shall presently see how Venice went to war
with her rivals in order to secure a monopoly of this commodity.
As regards relations with the East we
naturally find no treaties during the ninth century. The formal position of
vassal and suzerain was fully recognised; the
Emperors, through their officers and bulls, sent their orders, as, for example,
those forbidding the Venetians to trade with enemies of the Empire in arms and
timber; these orders were obeyed as long as the interests of Venice and of the
East were identical. We have a proof that Venetians were already trading far
afield in the Levant, for in 829 the body of St Mark was brought from
Alexandria to Venice by Venetian merchants on board their own ship; and by 840,
on the request of the Emperor Theophilus, Venice was able to send sixty ships
to sea. Indeed we find that from the reign of Michael II (820-829) onwards the
Emperors made frequent calls on the naval power of Venice. The claim was, no
doubt, a right (see the chrysobull of 991),
but it gradually assumed the aspect of an appeal to an ally, until it
definitely took that form in the dogeship of Peter II Orseolo.
The city itself, during the reigns of the
first three doges of the house of Particiacus,
shewed a rapid extension in buildings. Agnellus began the first ducal
palace, a wooden structure; his son Justinian founded the first church of St
Mark, a small basilica, with apse and crypt, occupying the site of the
present Capello Zen. The basilica was built to receive the body of St
Mark, the translation of whose remains from Alexandria to Venice is an
essential point in the ecclesiastical history of the City; for by the
possession of the Saint's body the Venetians, in a manner, asserted their
superiority to Aquileia and also to Grado, a superiority which was finally
confirmed in 1445 by the removal of the patriarchal see of Grado to
Venice. By his will (June 829) the Doge Justinian left instructions that the
stones of the house of a certain Theophylact of Torcello were
to be used in the construction of the Church. During this same period the
famous monastery of Sant Ilario on the Brenta. the convent
of San Zaccaria near the ducal palace, and the cathedral church of
San Pietro at Olivolo, came into being and
received large endowments from members of the ducal family.
Constitution. Dynastic tendencies
As to the constitution of the new state we
have little information; we know that Agnellus had two tribunes
appointed as assessors in the interests of the Greek Empire, but we hear
nothing of their action. The doge seems to have had the sole disposal of the
treasury and to have been, for administrative purposes, quite uncontrolled. The
tribunes still existed in the various lagoon-townships, but after the
concentration at Rialto they possessed but restricted powers. The national
assembly seems to have been of vital significance only on the occasions when it
was convened. Its voice was heard in the election of the doge, and the doges
seem to have called it to confirm their public acts; for example, in May 819,
the Doges Agnellus and Justinian Particiacus,
who in a possibly spurious passage are styled per divinam gratiam duces, declare that, in a donation to the
Abbot of San Servolo, they are acting in
concert cum universis Venecie populis habitantibus.
The dynastic tendency in the dukedom was
clearly marked under the first three doges of the house of Particiacus. We find the system of appointing a
doge-consort from the reigning family in full force, while the important see
of Olivolo-Castello was filled for the long
period of thirty-two years (822-854) by Ursus, son of John. Resentment at
this tendency to concentrate the supreme power in a single house took definite
shape in two conspiracies against the Doge John Particiacus;
the first, in 835, headed by the Tribune Carosus,
failed after a brief success; the second, under the leadership of the noble
family of the Mastalici, deposed the doge (836)
and compelled him to retire to a monastery near Grado. The choice of the
Venetians then fell upon Peter Tradonicus, a man
of noble blood, strong and vigorous, but illiterate—he could not even sign his
name. His long reign of twenty-eight years (836-864) was signalised by unsuccessful sea-campaigns against the
Slav pirates of the Dalmatian coast, who had already begun to harass the rich
and growing trade of Venice in the Adriatic, and against the Saracens in the
south of Italy. At the request, or order, of the Emperor Theophilus, conveyed
by the patrician Theodosius, the doge fitted out sixty ships for the unlucky
expedition to Taranto (840). Unfortunate as were these earliest naval
enterprises of the growing State of Venice, they were fruitful in calling out
the energy and resolution of the people and in leading to a revolution in
Venetian ship-building. It was under Tradonicus that
the first great ships’ were built in Venetian docks, and the type established
which was to serve both for trade and war.
The pactum of Pavia
A second important point in the reign
of Tradonicus, a point which bears upon Venetian
relations with the West, was the conclusion of the pactum, or treaty, with
the Emperor Lothar in 840, the very year in which the Emperor of the
East had summoned the Venetians to his aid against the Saracens. This
remarkable document, the earliest extant monument of Venetian diplomacy, was
prepared during preliminary negotiations in Ravenna, but was signed on 22
February 840 at Pavia. It undoubtedly referred to and recited the terms of the
special Venetian clauses in the Treaty of Aix (812), of the ordinatio of Thionville (806), and of
King Liutprand’s treaty of 713. It was to
last for five years, and as a matter of fact we find it being renewed every
five years down to the Treaty of Millhausen (19
July 992). It stipulated for the payment of fifty librae of Venetian
coinage (parve), equal to twenty-five librae of the Pavese coinage,
as an annual tribute from Venice, due in March each year. But the payment of
this tribute is not to be taken as in any sense a token of vassalage; it was
merely a return for the privileges conceded by the pactum; peace and good
friendship are to exist between Venice and various neighbouring districts
inside the kingdom of Italy; these districts are specified and include Istria,
Friuli, the Trevisan Marches, Vicenza, Monselice,
Ravenna, and the ports on the Adriatic down to Fermo. Neither party is to
injure the other. Venetian fugitives inside the kingdom are to be extradited;
envoys and couriers are to be protected. The confines of Venetian territory as
defined in the treaty with Liutprand are recognised.
The Venetians may trade freely in the kingdom, except for the customary dues of
water and land transit, and Italian subjects are to enjoy a like privilege by
sea. The subjects of the Empire are to lend no aid to enemies of Venice, while
Venice is to lend her aid by sea against all Slav freebooters. The importance
of the document lies in the fact that it is an independent contract between the
Doge of Venice and the rulers of the mainland, and that it confirms and extends
existing trading privileges, which were subsequently still further enlarged.
At Thionville, by a praeceptum dated 1
September 841, the Emperor formally recognised Venetian
possessions inside the Empire.
Secular versus ecclesiastical power
The Doge Tradonicus did
not escape the dynastic ambitions which were common to all the earlier holders
of the ducal throne. He surrounded himself with a body-guard of foreign
soldiers, Croats, devoted to his service. This, and his attempt to raise his
relative, Dominicus, to the bishopric of Olivolo-Castello,
gave the Particiaci faction, which was
still strong, the desired opportunity. The doge was murdered on his way from
the palace to San Zaccaria (13 September 864).
The murder of Tradonicus cannot
be considered as a popular demonstration against the dynastic principle; it was
carried out by a group of nobles instigated by the Patriarch of Grado who
was a Particiacus, and in the interest of that
family. Tradonicus was succeeded by Ursus Particiacus and subsequently by three other members of
his house before the Particiaci gave way to
the powerful family of the Candiani.
With the Western Empire Ursus maintained
friendly relations and on 11 January 880 the pactum of Lothar was
renewed with Charles the Fat in Ravenna. The modifications in the terms prove
the extent to which Venice was growing in power and importance. It is no longer
the case of certain specified places inside the kingdom entering on a treaty
with Venice, but the Emperor himself treats on behalf of his whole kingdom. The
slave trade is again to be condemned by a decree signed by doge and patriarch,
and, most important of all, the doge's personal merchandise, his private
trading stock, was to go free of customs dues. Ursus was further
successful in a sharp encounter with the Patriarch of Grado, the upshot of
which was to demonstrate and establish the supremacy of State over Church in
Venice. The doge insisted on raising to the see of Torcello a
eunuch named Dominicus. The Patriarch Peter Marturius refused
to consecrate him as being canonically unfit, but had to fly before the doge's
wrath. He appealed to the Pope, who summoned Dominicus and the
Bishops Peter of Jesolo and Felix of
Malamocco to Rome; in obedience to the doge they did not respond. The Pope
convened a council in Ravenna (21 July 877), but the Venetian bishops did not
appear till it was closing. Finally the Patriarch of Grado came to
terms with the doge; he permitted Dominicus to reside at Torcello and
to enjoy the revenues of the see, but the bishop was only consecrated by Marturius' successor. The whole episode, however, was a
triumph for the doge and the secular authority.
Ursus was succeeded by his son John
(881-887), in whose reign Venice embarked on her first aggressive commercial
war. Comacchio, lying in its lagoons, near the
mouth of the Po, was a serious commercial rival, both on account of its
commanding position on the great trade-route and because of its salt industry
which brought it into contact with the whole of North Italy. John made an
effort to secure by diplomacy the lordship of Comacchio.
He sent his brother Badoero to Rome to beg
the Pope to grant him investiture. But on his way Badoero was
wounded and captured by Marinus, Count of Comacchio,
who was alive to the danger. Badoero returned
to Venice and there died of his wounds. The doge and the whole population
seized the opportunity to sack Comacchio and
to establish Venetian officials in the town. Charles III, no more than the
Pope, seems to have taken notice of this high-handed attack, and at Mantua (10
May 883) he confirmed by a praeceptum the
Ravenna pactum of 880 with several important additions: the private
goods of the doge and his heirs were exempt from the ordinary dues of teloneum and ripaticum (land
and water transit) which other Venetians had to pay; conspiracy against the
life of any prince, and therefore of the doge, on the part of any subject of
the Empire was a crime; the doge was to enjoy full judicial powers over
Venetian subjects in the Empire.
Pacta and praecepta
John and his brother and doge-consort
resigned their offices in 887, and the choice fell upon Peter Candianus, member of a family destined to play a prominent
part in the ensuing years of Venetian history. Peter's brief reign of a few
months (April to September 887) at once indicated the lines along which the
other doges of his house would move. He immediately undertook an expedition
against the Slav pirates of the Dalmatian coasts, a proof that the security of
the sea route down the Adriatic was becoming an imperative necessity for the
growing state of Venice. The expedition was a failure. The doge fell, and was buried
in the church of Santa Eufemia at Grado. The next two reigns, those of
Peter Tribunus (888-911) and Ursus (Paureta) Particiacus (911-932),
proved to be a long period of quiet and growth for Venice, except for the
terror of the Hungarian raid in 900. Venice was threatened by the Magyar
hordes who came down the Piave in their coracles of osier
and hides and devastated the territories of Heraclea and Jesolo. The alarm at their coming led to the fortification
of the city by the construction of a great wall along the line of the present
Riva degli Schiavoni, from Castello to St Mark's, which was
surrounded, and thence as far as Santa Maria Zobenigo,
whence a strong chain was stretched across the mouth of the grand canal to
San Gregorio. The doge is said to have defeated the Magyars at Albiola. Whether that be so or not, the fact
remains that they never occupied the city of Venice.
The distracted state of the Western Empire,
torn in pieces between competing princes, gave Venice an opportunity for
renewing and enlarging her treaty rights. The series of pacta and praecepta is continued under the reigns of Berengar,
Guy, Rodolph, and Hugh. In the Berengar pactum (7 May 888),
signed at Olona, the sea-power of Venice is recognized, and she is
entrusted with the policing of the Adriatic for the suppression of the
Dalmatian pirates; in return, the duty on goods bartered in the kingdom of
Italy was fixed at two and a half per cent., instead of being arbitrary as
heretofore. The praeceptum of Rodolph (29
February 924), signed at Pavia, recognised in
Venice "the ancient right" to coin money for circulation in the
kingdom. That Venice had coined money for home circulation at least as early as
the middle of the ninth century is proved by the pactum of Lothar (840),
in which the annual tribute is made payable in Venetian librae. The
exemption of ducal goods from payment of dues was extended from the doge
personally to his agents to the great enrichment of the family estate, as we
shall presently see in the case of Peter IV Candianus who
employed it to support a private army.
The Candiani
We now come to the period of the dynastic
supremacy of the Candiani (932-976). With
the brief exception of three years (939-942) when the last of the Particiaci, Peter Badoero,
occupied the throne, Peter II, Peter III, and Peter IV, of the Candiani were supreme. They were a fighting race, and
the question of Venetian relations with Istria and Dalmatia, and her position
in the Adriatic, gave them full employment. We have seen how the first doge of
their house, Peter I, had already fallen in battle with the Slavs. Marquess Gunter
(Wintker) of Istria, resenting the steady growth of
Venetian commercial importance in the peninsula, had resorted to the
confiscation of ducal and episcopal property in Istria and had forbidden his
subjects to pay their just debts to Venetian merchants. Peter II, instead of
resorting to the costly method of arms, which would have implied an attack on a
province of the Italian kingdom with risks to Venetian commerce in Italy,
reduced Marquess Gunter to sign a humiliating treaty of peace (12
March 933) by the simple process of boycotting Istria: a striking demonstration
of the commanding position of Venice as an emporium. By this treaty, which was
renewed in 977 and enlarged in 1074, Venice established her supremacy in Istria
and took her first step down the Adriatic and towards her complete dominion in
that sea.
The next Candiani Doge,
Peter III (942-959), applied the system of boycott with equal success against
Lupus, Patriarch of Aquileia, who had attacked Grado, and compelled him to
sign a treaty (13 March 944), by which he confirmed the clauses of the treaty
with his predecessor Walpert, including the exemption of the doge from all
customs dues in his territory.
Peter III died and was succeeded by his son
Peter IV (959-976), the most remarkable of the Candiani doges.
In him the intention of converting the dukedom into an hereditary
monarchy is at once made clear. One of his earliest steps was to employ the
family funds, accumulated through the personal private trading of the doges,
for the creation of a small standing army in his own pay. But the conditions in
both Eastern and Western Empires had undergone a remarkable change. In the West
the strong dynasty of the Saxon Ottos had raised the imperial
prestige once more, while in the East the Emperor Tzimisces was about
to revive the ancient supremacy of Byzantium. It seemed likely that the East
and West would once again clash and that, as in 800-810, Venice would find her
existence threatened by the conflict between the two great powers. Her
position, however, was far stronger now than then. Her wealth was great, her
importance as an emporium of necessities established, her sea-power recognized
and respected. It was clearly the keystone of Venetian foreign policy to stand
well with both East and West, and Peter IV applied himself to the task.
The Emperor Otto I
On the fall of Berengar II (961)
and the coronation of Otto I, the doge hastened to secure the confirmation of
the Venetian treaties. By the terms of the pactum signed in Rome on 2
December 967, there seems to have been a certain shrinkage in the
privileges which Venice and her doges had gradually acquired during the period
of disturbance in the kingdom of Italy. The judicial rights of the doge
over all Venetians resident in the kingdom were not confirmed, nor was the
exemption of ducal goods from taxation. On the other hand the treaty was now
declared to run not for five years only but for all time, though in fact it
required to be renewed on the accession of each new sovereign. The yearly
tribute still remained at its normal fifty librae "nostrae monetae," as
fixed by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (812), and for the first time we hear
of unum pallium, though it is probable that this obligation figured
in earlier pacta. In any case the pallium and the tribute cannot in any
sense be taken as an indication of vassalage; the pallium here referred to was
a web of silk, a rich specimen of Venetian wares. The terms of this pactum were
renewed in 983, and an attempt has been made to prove that from that date down
to 1024 Venice acknowledged the suzerainty of the Western Empire. But the
evidence seems to show that her formal allegiance to the Eastern Empire was
still recognized.
The imperative orders of the Emperor Tzimisces,
forbidding, under penalty of confiscation and death, the lucrative traffic of
Venice with the Saracens, may have helped to throw Peter IV more and more into
the arms of the Emperor Otto, who was only too ready to secure Venetian sea-aid
in the clash with the Eastern Empire which seemed inevitable if he were to
carry out his policy of making all Italy part of his domains. In any case Peter
divorced his wife Giovanna and married Gualdrada, daughter of
Hubert, Marquess of Tuscany, granddaughter of King Hugh of Provence
and niece of Adelaide, wife of Otto I. She brought with her a large dower in
money and lands in the Trevisan Marches, in Friuli, and in the
territory of Adria; and her husband the doge now began to assume regal state.
He increased his private army and undertook military expeditions on the
mainland on the plea of protecting his wife's possessions. Feeling rose high in
Venice against the obviously monarchical tendencies of the doge. In a general
tumult Peter was besieged in the palace; his guards offered resistance; the
palace was fired, the doge slain. The conflagration was not stopped till it had
destroyed the palace, part of St Mark's, and three hundred houses as far as
Santa Maria Zobenigo (11 August 976). The
act seems to have been the violent protest of the Venetian people against the
attempt to convert the dukedom into a monarchy.
The murder of Peter Candianus placed Venice in a difficult position
towards the Emperor Otto II. His hold on the lagoons and their sea-power was
shaken; his cousin Gualdrada, wife of the late doge, claimed his defence of
her rights. The task of meeting the dangerous situation fell chiefly upon
the Orseoli, the third, and most distinguished,
of the dynastic ducal families which governed Venice from 810 to 1009.
The day after the murder of Candianus the choice of the electors fell on
Peter Orseolo, the first of the new dynasty, a
man of saintly character, but, like all his race, possessing higher
qualities of statesmanship than we have met with hitherto in his predecessors
in the ducal chair. His first care was to repair the damage wrought by the
fire. He began the building of a new palace and church. He renewed the treaty
with Istria, the original of which had been burned along with the rest of the
public documents. But his great service to the state lay in this, that he met
and settled, to the nominal satisfaction of Otto II, the claims of the
widowed dogaressa Gualdrada. Under his guidance the general assembly
agreed to restore to her her morganaticum (400 pounds) and also the portion of the
late doge's property which fell by right to her son, who had shared the fate of
his father. On these terms Gualdrada signed a quittance of all claims
against the State of Venice.
The danger was past for the moment. But the
doge, obeying his pious instincts, resolved to retire from the world. On the
night of 1 September 978 he secretly left Venice and fled to the monastery
of Cusa in Aquitaine. Possibly with a view to appeasing Otto further,
a member of the house of Candiani, Vitalis,
brother of the murdered Peter, was elected, but reigned little more than a year
(September 978–November 979). He was succeeded by Tribunus Menius (Memmo)
(979-991), during whose reign the question between Otto II and the Venetian
State was brought to a crisis.
The murder of Peter Candianus had not only exposed Venice to the wrath of
Otto II; it had also created inside the state two factions, the Caloprini who espoused the policy of the Candiani and leaned towards the Western Empire, and
the Morosini whose sympathies were with the Orseoli and
the Byzantine allegiance as a means of saving the state from absorption by the
West. By 980 the Western Emperor was in Italy. The great Emperor of the East,
John Tzimisces, had died in 976. The south of Italy, the theme of Longobardia,
seemed likely to fall a prey to the Saracens. Otto resolved to seize the
opportunity to render Southern Italy a part of his Empire. Towards this object
the possession of Venice and her fleet seemed of prime importance, but since
the murder of Candianus Otto's party was no
longer in the ascendant, especially after the failure of the Caloprini plot to murder all the Morosini.
Without waiting to secure Venetian aid, the Emperor pushed south. His
expedition failed, and in 983 he was back again in Verona, and there the
ambassadors of Venice came to seek renewal of their treaties. By the terms of
the new treaty the burdensome dues for river traffic (ripatica)
were removed, to the great advantage of Venice, but the exemption of ducal
goods from customs and the ducal judicial rights over Venetians in the kingdom
were not restored. A special clause permitted the subjects of the Empire, who
after the murder of Peter Candianus had
been forbidden to trade with Venice, to frequent Venetian ports once more (per
mare ad vos), a phrase which the Venetians
subsequently amplified into per mare ad vos et
non amplius, thereby attempting to concentrate
all Italian traffic in the Adriatic at Venice and implicitly establishing a
claim on those waters. The favourable conditions
of this treaty were probably intended to secure Venetian assistance for the
Emperor's future schemes in South Italy. But at this juncture Stefano Caloprini, leader of the Venetian faction, appeared at
Verona and offered the Emperor a more speedy method for attaining his ends. He
promised that he and his party would assist in reducing Venice if the Emperor
would invest him with the dukedom and grant him a yearly pension. The Emperor
agreed. The method adopted was a rigid blockade of the lagoons from the mainland.
Venice was only saved from starvation and surrender by the friendly offices of
the Saracen fleet; but the situation was more serious than it had been even at
the time of Pepin's attack. The mainland, under the Bishops of Treviso, Ceneda, and Belluno, was
entirely against the sea-city. Its subjects of Cavarzere and Loreo revolted. But on 7 December 983 the Emperor
died, and the whole Caloprini scheme fell
to pieces. Apart from the grave menace to Venetian independence, the
significance of the episode lies in the fact that it illustrates the growing
importance of Venetian sea-power.
Peter Orseolo II
Tribunus Menius had seen his country
safely through the external crisis, but was powerless to repress the bloody
faction-fights between the Caloprini and
the Morosini. He was deposed and compelled to retire to the monastery of
San Zaccaria. The greatest doge that Venice had as yet seen, Peter Orseolo II, succeeded to the throne (991-1009). His
chaplain, friend, and biographer, John the Deacon, pictures him as a man of
culture, refinement, even imagination, coupled with the statesman's instincts,
a strong will, and military energy. His first step was to allay all internal
tumults. In the interests of the country he exacted an oath and the signature
of ninety-one nobles to a pledge that they would not stir tumult nor draw
weapon inside the ducal palace under a penalty of twenty pounds of fine gold
or, in default of payment, loss of life (February 997). His next care was to
establish the Orseoli family in a
commanding position in the State. He chose his son John as doge-consort, and
on John's death his third son Otto; his second son Orso was Bishop
of Torcello, and subsequently Patriarch of Grado.
Peter's foreign policy was crowned with
complete success. In 992 he concluded the first Venetian treaty with the
East—the chrysobull of Basil II (March, indictione quinta). By the terms of the deed, which
was rather a declaration of ancient rights than a bestowal of new ones Venetian
ships, provided they bore Venetian not Amalfitan or other cargoes,
were to pay a fixed sum of two soldi for each ship entering and
fifteen soldi for each ship clearing a Greek port, irrespective of
the ship's burden and cargo; no ship might be detained by the Greek authorities
longer than three days against its will; Venetians were placed under the
jurisdiction of a high official in whose court procedure was more rapid than in
the lower courts. In return, Venice was pledged to furnish transport and
warships for the defence of the theme of Longobardia, that is
of Southern Italy. The chrysobull of 992 is
of importance in the commercial history of Venice: it gave Venetians trading in
the East valuable advantages over their rivals, Amalfitans, Jews, and
others, while the uniform tax on ships irrespective of burden and cargo soon
induced the Venetians to increase the size of their build. The consequences
will be seen presently in the development of Venetian trade on the mainland of
Italy.
In the same year, 992, Peter renewed the
treaties with the Western Empire by the pactum (praeceptum)
of Mülhausen. Here again Venetian diplomacy was
entirely successful. Venetian rights and privileges were restored to the
position they occupied in 961, at the fall of Berengar and before the
breach with the Saxon Emperors; the territories of Cavarzere and Loreo, which had seceded to the Emperor at the time of
Otto's blockade, were now returned to Venice; and the encroaching Bishops of
Treviso and Belluno were ordered to
evacuate the lands they had seized in the diocese of Heraclea, though it was
not until the doge had applied the blockade that the stubborn John of Belluno made submission to Otto's orders after
the placitum of Staffolo (998).
The growing importance of Venetian
commerce, chiefly in oriental goods, is proved by Peter's request that Otto
would allow him to open three markets in the Italian kingdom, at San Michele
del Quarto, on the Sile, and on the Piave, a request which was
granted (Ravenna, 1 May 996) and marked a stepping-stone in the history of
Venetian western trade.
The new palace, begun under the first Orseolo, was now approaching completion; Venice as a city
was rapidly expanding under the cultured guidance of the second Orseolo. Peter was anxious to shew the glories of his
capital to his friend the Emperor; Otto was nothing loth to take a romantic
journey to the city of the lagoons. The invitation was conveyed through John
the Deacon to the Emperor at Como in June 1000. It was agreed that a secret
visit should be paid on the Emperor's return journey from Rome. In March 1001
Otto was at Ravenna. Announcing that he was going into retreat in the abbey
of Pomposa, he left Ravenna. At Pomposa he found John the Deacon
with a boat, and the same evening he set out for Venice. After travelling all
night he reached the island of San Servolo the
following day about sunset. The doge met him ; they embraced, and,
waiting till it was quite dark, they rowed into Venice, and the Emperor was
lodged in San Zaccaria. Otto granted his every wish to the Doge Peter: he
stood sponsor to a daughter, and remitted the yearly tribute of the pallium and
any monetary tribute beyond the ancient statutory sum of 50 Venetian librae.
Otto returned to Ravenna, and three days later Orseolo told
his people who his guest had been.
But between the issue of the invitation and
the visit of the Emperor, Peter had carried to a successful conclusion the
greatest enterprise of his reign. The growing Venetian factories down the
Dalmatian coast had been in the habit of paying tribute to the Serbs and Croats
for the preservation of their right to trade. Orseolo resolved
to put an end to these levies of blackmail. At the beginning of his reign he
refused to pay tribute, and on the Dalmatians assuming a threatening attitude
he at once prepared a naval expedition. He sailed on 9 May 1000, and made for
Istria, where he learned the value of the Candiani's Istrian
policy and achievements, in finding Istrian ports open to his fleets.
Zara, Veglia, Arbe, and Trail
submitted. Spalato was taken. An oath of allegiance was exacted and a
formal recognition that the waters of the Adriatic were open to Venetian
traffic. The victorious doge returned to Venice and assumed the title of
Dux Dalmatiae, a title which was recognised by the Western Empire in the treaty of 16
November 1002. We must bear in mind, however, that centuries passed
before Dalmatia became definitely Venetian. Zara was always in revolt down to
the fourteenth century. Nevertheless Peter's expedition was of the highest
importance; it raised the prestige of the Venetians, it opened to them a long
line of factories down the Dalmatian coast, and it advanced their claim to free
trade in the Adriatic.
Two years later, in 1002, Orseolo was called on to fulfil his obligations to the
Eastern Empire under the chrysobull of 992.
The Saracens of Sicily had attacked and besieged Bari, the capital of the theme
of Longobardia. On 10 August the Venetian fleet, under the command of the
doge, set sail, and by 18 October Bari was relieved by a brilliant Venetian
victory. This victory led to a marriage-alliance between John, the eldest
son of Peter, and the Princess Maria, the niece of Basil II; John's younger
brother Otto married the sister-in-law of the Emperor Henry II, thus connecting
the family of the Orseoli with both
imperial houses. But in 1005 the plague carried off John and Princess Maria as
well as their son. The doge never recovered from the blow; he lost his interest
in worldly matters, led a claustral life at home, and died in 1009.
New Venice
Peter's death closed a reign which had a
profound significance in Venetian history. A new Venice, the aurea Venetia of the chronicler John the Deacon, came
into being on the ruins left by the fire which destroyed Peter Candianus; a new palace and a new St Mark's, adorned with
the finest workmanship of Byzantine masters, took the place of the older
buildings. The doge's taste was shown in the gifts he presented to his compater Otto, an ivory chair elaborately carved and a
silver bowl of rich design. It is a new Venice, too, we now find in its
relations to the great world-powers, to Eastern and Western Empire alike. Neither
Imperial Court refused an alliance with the Doge of Venice, and the
Venetian fleet had made its strength felt down both shores of the Adriatic.
But inside Venice there was a party
strongly opposed to the dynastic and monarchical tendencies of the Orseolo family. Peter's son and successor Otto
(1009-1026), whose elder brother Orso was translated from Torcello to Grado,
and whose younger brother Vitalis succeeded to the vacant see, found
that jealousy of his family's supremacy had gradually undermined his position.
The open hostility of Conrad the Salic, and his refusal to renew the pacta,
led eventually to the expulsion of the doge. The fall of the Orseoli marked the end of the dynastic system in the
dukedom. During the rule of the three great families, the Particiaci, the Candiani,
and the Orseoli, the reigning doge had been, to
all intents and purposes, an absolute monarch; the first was in his sole
administration, the popular assembly was summoned merely to sanction his
decrees; a recognised constitution cannot
be said to have existed. After the fall of the Orseoli we
find ourselves dealing with a new kind of doge; the germs of a constitution
begin to shew themselves. In 1032, the first year of Domenico Fabiano's reign
(1032-1043), the appointment of a doge-consort was declared illegal. This
appears to have been an act of the popular assembly, proving that this body was
beginning to assume a more prominent place. It is also said that the same body
appointed two councillors to assist the
doge in current matters, and enjoined him on graver occasions to consult the
more prominent citizens, possibly a foreshadowing of the council which
eventually developed into the Pregadi or
Senate of Venice.
The Normans.
The period upon which we are now entering,
from the fall of the Orseoli to the opening
of the Crusades (1026-1096), is chiefly concerned with the resistance of Grado against
the attacks of Poppo, the turbulent Patriarch of Aquileia, supported by
Conrad the Salic; with the campaigns against the Normans at the mouth of the
Adriatic; and with the expansion of Venetian commercial privileges in
Constantinople. Conrad came to Italy in March 1026. He was embittered against
the Italians generally by their obvious desire to throw off the German yoke. As
regards Venice in particular, he shared the views and aspirations of Otto II;
he regarded the Venetians as rebellious subjects, and refused to renew
the pacta. This, as we have seen, led to the fall of the Orseoli and a weakening of the Venetian State. Poppo,
Patriarch of Aquileia, a devoted adherent of Conrad, seized the opportunity to
carry out his design of enforcing the decree of the Synod of Mantua (827),
which gave the supremacy to Aquileia over Grado. He attacked and
sacked Grado twice, once in 1024 immediately after Conrad's accession
to the crown of Germany, when he plundered the church and palace and carried
off the treasury to Aquileia, and once again in 1044. But Rome was steadily
against him, and in 1053 the “Constitution” of Leo IX definitely declared Grado to
be "the Metropolitan Church of Venice and Istria." The see of Grado maintained
its hierarchical preeminence, but the town itself was hopelessly ruined. The
growing importance of Venice drew the patriarchs to longer, and eventually
continuous, sojourn in that city, bringing with them for the benefit of Venice
the prestige of their metropolitan see, till it was finally transformed into
the Patriarchate of Venice (1445).
On the death of Conrad relations between
Venice and the Western power became easier. During the reign of Domenico Contarini (10421071),
Henry III renewed the ancient treaties (probably 1055). Contarini’s successor,
Domenico Silvio (1071-1084), proved once again that a doge of Venice was a fit
mate for an imperial princess by marrying Theodora, sister of the Emperor
Michael Ducas, a lady to whose oriental luxury and refinement1 the rougher
Venetians attributed the loathsome malady of which she died. During this doge's
reign Venice was called upon to play a more prominent part in world-history
than she had hitherto done. A new power now appeared at the mouth of the
Adriatic. The Normans, after making themselves masters of Sicily and South
Italy (Bari fell in 1071 and Palermo in 1072), stretched across to the eastern
side of the Adriatic and threatened to advance on Constantinople itself. Under
their leader, Robert Guiscard, they laid siege to Durazzo, which commanded
the western end of the Via Egnatia, the great Roman road which led by
Thessalonica to the capital. Alexius Comnenus had been called to the
imperial throne (8 April 1081) on purpose to replace the incompetent
bureaucratic government of Michael Ducas and Nicephorus Botaniates.
He saw at once that Durazzo must not be allowed to fall. He appealed
to Henry IV, but that sovereign was too deeply involved in the struggle with
the Pope to be able to lend aid, and he turned to request the aid of Venice.
The Venetians could not view with indifference the success of the Normans,
which threatened to make them masters of both sides of the Adriatic, and thus
to close the mouth of the water avenue which led to and from Venice. Moreover,
the Amalfitans, the vigorous commercial rivals of the lagoon-state, were
actively supporting Robert. All her interests induced Venice to lend a willing
ear to Alexius' appeal. A bargain was soon struck (1081), and in June of that
year a fleet of sixty Venetian ships, under the command of Doge Silvio, set
sail to relieve Durazzo.
The battle which followed was remarkable
both for the tactics developed by the Venetian commander—the fleet drawn up in
half-moon formation, the vessels lashed together with the lighter craft between
the horns—and for the ingenious engineering device by which iron-pointed balks
of timber were either launched against the enemy's hulls or dropped on his
decks from overhanging yards. The upshot was a complete victory for the
Venetians and the relief of Durazzo. But in a land battle which took place
in October of this year the Greeks were utterly beaten; Durazzo fell
into the hands of the Normans, and the Venetian fleet sailed home. In May of
the following year (1082) Venice received the rewards for which she had
stipulated. The chrysobull of Alexius
conferred on Venetians the privilege of trading free of dues throughout the
whole Eastern Empire, including the capital, and placed all Venetian merchants
under the jurisdiction of the doge, privileges which at once gave Venice an
advantage over her rival Amalfi. In return for these concessions Venice was
still pledged to support Alexius at sea. In the next three years (1083-1085)
the Venetian fleet carried on campaigns against the Normans with varying
fortune. At first (spring of 1084) they captured Corfu and in the autumn of the
same year they won a great victory at Cassiopo.
But at length Robert succeeded in breaking up their strong formation, and the
result was a crushing and bloody defeat. The blame was laid at the door of the
doge, who was compelled to abdicate and retire to a monastery. It remained for
his successor, Vitale Falier (1084-1096),
to witness the final freeing of the Adriatic from the Norman fleet, thanks
partly to a brilliant victory at Butrinto (1085), partly to sickness
which drove the Normans back to Italy. Robert Guiscard died in July of that
year.
But though Robert’s plans were shattered
and the Normans failed to hold the mouth of the Adriatic, Venice was still
compelled to fight for her right to free passage in that sea, which was
threatened by the appearance of the Hungarian sovereign upon the coast of
Dalmatia. By 1097, however, the principal towns were once more in the hold of
Venice.
The Crusades
We are now approaching the period of the
Crusades, throughout which Venice plays a prominent but distinctly
self-interested part, deliberately building up her commercial status until,
with the Fourth Crusade, she emerges as the greatest sea-power, the
most flourishing commercial community, in the Mediterranean. As yet the state
had developed no fixed constitution, nor did she until the close of the
thirteenth and the opening of the fourteenth century, when the constitution
received its rigidly oligarchical form by the closing of the Great Council
(1296) and the creation of the Council of Ten (1310). But during the period
with which we have now to deal (1096-1201) we shall find the germs of several
departments which went eventually to create the Venetian constitution. These,
and the further development of her sea-power, so vigorously displayed during
the Norman campaigns, form the chief points of interest in Venetian history
during the twelfth century.
The position of Venice as regards the
Crusades was by no means easy. On the one hand, if she joined with vigour she risked her flourishing trade with the
Saracens, and she would have to face the hostility of the. Eastern Emperors,
who disliked and suspected the Crusades. Moreover her sea-route down the
Adriatic was far from secure; the Hungarians were a standing menace to
Dalmatia, while the Normans had not abandoned their designs on both shores of
the Adriatic mouth. All these considerations led Venice to desire a neutral
place: she wished to trade with the Crusaders and their enemies alike; she was
prepared to supply transport and provisions but not to draw her sword against
the infidel. On the other hand, the frank espousal of the Crusades by the
commercial rivals of Venice, Genoa and Pisa, threatened to give them such
overwhelming advantages in the East that the republic found herself forced
to abandon her neutral attitude.
The First Crusade
In 1095 the Council of Clermont proclaimed
the First Crusade. The question of transport immediately presented itself. Of
the three maritime powers of Italy—Genoa, Pisa, and Venice—the latter
undoubtedly offered the greatest advantages both in geographical position and
in strength of armament. But Venice was the last of the sea-states to move. It
was not until Jerusalem fell (1099) that she made up her mind in view of the
growing importance of Genoa and Pisa. Under the Doge Vitale Michiel I
(1096-1101), the first Venetian fleet with crusaders on board sailed for the
Holy Land (1099). It wintered in Rhodes, and there almost immediately revealed
the true object of its presence in the Levant by coming to blows with the
Pisans who were also wintering in the harbour. In the
following spring the Venetians set sail for the Holy Land, plundering as they
went, notably at Myra where they broke up the church in their search for the
bones of St Nicholas. They arrived in time to take part in the siege of Haifa,
which fell in October 1100. The Venetians at once claimed and received a
trading quarter in the town and thereby opened the long list of their factories
in the Levant, but also by their new possession committed themselves to all the
complications of the Levant. The fleet returned home in 1100.
A long pause ensued. Venice was chiefly
occupied with the effort to secure her sea-route down the Adriatic and to
settle the question of Dalmatia with the Hungarians.
On the mainland of Italy too she was surely
consolidating her trade. In 1102 she had the satisfaction of seeing the rival
city of Ferrara reduced by the troops of Countess Matilda, and of establishing
trading rights there under the protection of a Visdomino or
Consul.
During the reign of Ordelafo Faller (1101-1118), Venice continued to
prepare steadily for the part she was destined to play in the Levant. The
necessity for maintaining her sea-route, and the certainty that she would be
called on to fight in the Eastern Mediterranean, compelled the State to turn
its attention to its fleet. In 1104 the Arsenal was founded. When
Domenico Michiel came to the throne (1118-1130), the affairs of the
Levant began to assume a prominent place once more in Venetian history. Baldwin
I died in the year of the dope's accession. Baldwin II, threatened by Musulman power, appealed to the Italian sea-states for
help. The doge convened the general assembly in St Mark's, laid the situation
before it, and insisted on the danger of allowing Pisa and Genoa to reap all
the advantage in the Levant. An expedition was voted, though the dangers from
the insecure sea-route and the hostility of the new Emperor of the East,
John Comnenus, who had refused to renew the ancient privileges, were not
overlooked. The pressure of Genoese and Pisan rivalry in fact forced the hand
of Venice. The splendid fleet of one hundred ships, ablaze with colour, set sail on 8 August 1122. The expedition assumed
the aspect of a marauding enterprise. Under cloak of wintering there the
Venetians tried to seize Colin but failed. By 29 May 1123 the Venetians were at
Jaffa. The doge immediately attacked and defeated the Egyptian fleet off Ascalon.
The question now arose as to which of the two cities, Tyre or Ascalon,
the allies should besiege. The lot decided it in favour of Tyre,
but not until the doge had secured for his nation the promise of extensive
trading rights throughout the whole Latin kingdom: exemption from dues, a
church, a quarter, a bakery, and a bath, in each city. The siege lasted from 16
February till 7 July 1124. On the fall of the city Venice exacted the
fulfilment of her bargain, and with the capture of Tyre laid the
solid foundation of her great Levantine trade.
The success of Venice in Palestine, and the
numbers, wealth, and arrogance of the Venetians in Constantinople (it seems
that the male Venetian population between twenty and sixty years of age
residing in the capital was no less than 18,000 towards the close of the
twelfth century), coupled with the dislike and suspicion of the crusaders
generally, rendered the Greek Emperors hostile on the whole towards the
republic. Circumstances, however, such as the need for Venetian assistance
against the Normans, prevented the unrestrained display of their animus. On the
fall of Tyre the Emperor John forbade all Venetians in Constantinople
to leave the city - they were to remain as hostages - while he refused to renew
Venetian privileges. The doge replied by plundering Rhodes, Chios, Cos, Samos,
on his triumphant journey home, and crowned his glories by recovering Spalato,
Trail, and Zara Vecchia from the Hungarians on his way up the
Adriatic. The Emperor was without a fleet; he was entirely dependent on the
Venetians for help at sea; the rupture of commercial relations proved a serious
loss to his Capital. Willingly or unwillingly he came to terms and in 1126 he
renewed the treaties.
But Venice was presently called upon to
face anew a complicated situation between East and West. On Christmas Day 1130
Duke Roger was crowned King of Sicily. The danger of a Norman power blocking
the mouth of the Adriatic was still alive; while the menace to the Eastern
Empire, developed by Robert Guiscard, was renewed by King Roger. In April 1135
ambassadors from Venice and Constantinople appealed to the Emperor Lothar,
who seized the occasion to form a combination against the Normans. In May 1137
the fleet of King Roger suffered defeat off Trani, probably owing to the
Venetians. But the Norman power remained a standing menace to both Venice and
Constantinople. The Emperor Manuel, impotent at sea without a fleet, was forced
by circumstances to approach the sea-power which had saved Constantinople in
the days of Robert Guiscard and Alexius. The Venetians, as usual, made a
bargain. The Emperor renewed the Golden Bull, enlarged the Venetian quarter in
Constantinople, conferred the title of Protasebastos upon
the doge in perpetuity, and confirmed the annual tribute to the church of St
Mark. The commercial supremacy of the Venetians was asserted in the clearest
terms (1147).
The Emperor Manuel
The bargain struck, the doge set sail to
attack the Normans, but died at Caorle. He was
succeeded by Domenico Morosini (1148-1156). The fleet pursued its
course under the command of John Polani, effected a
junction with the imperial squadron, and beleaguered Corfu. The siege lasted a
year. But during the course of it the Greeks and Venetians came to loggerheads.
In derision the Venetian sailors dressed up a negro slave as the
Emperor and paid him mock homage. Manuel Comnenus never forgave the
insult and treasured its memory till his day for vengeance arrived.
A new trend in Greek imperial politics was
laid bare in 1151 by the capture of Ancona. It was clear that Manuel
contemplated the revival of the Exarchate and possibly the recovery of Italy.
Such a policy was, of course, a peril for Venice, a menace to the supremacy in
the Adriatic which she was so carefully building up by her treaties with Fano (1141)
on the one coast, and Capo d' Istria (1145), Rovigno, Umago, Parenzo on the
other. In Dalmatia, too, the same object was steadily pursued by the
appointment of Venetian “counts” in Zara (1155) and other Dalmatian cities. In
fact the supremacy of Venice in the northern Adriatic was officially recognised by the treaty of peace between William,
King of Sicily, and the republic (1154), which brought the war with the Normans
to a close, and that supremacy was threatened by Manuel.
To the west too, from the mainland of
Italy, the independence, the very existence of Venice, were likewise menaced.
The appearance of Frederick I Barbarossa in Italy, his declared hostility to
the communes and to the Italian aspirations towards independence, warned the
republic of what might be in store for her. She espoused the cause of Alexander
III, the anti-imperial Pope, drawing down upon herself the wrath of the
Emperor, who stirred her neighbours, Padua, Verona, Ferrara, and the
Patriarch of Aquileia, against her. In 1167 the Lombard League was formed and
Venice was forced to join it.
The confusion in Italy now seemed to the
Emperor Manuel to offer the opportunity for realising his
dream of regaining the whole country for the Eastern Crown. The assistance of
Venice, powerful in the Adriatic, was essential to his scheme. He approached
the republic on the subject but met with no encouragement. His accumulated
hatred of Venice, caused by the part she had played in the Crusades, the insult
her sailors had offered him at Corfu, the arrogance and wealth of Venetians in
Constantinople, suddenly blazed out. In 1171 every Venetian in the capital was
arrested and his property confiscated.
When the news reached Venice there was a
unanimous cry for war. One hundred and twenty ships were soon ready, and in
September 1171 the doge set sail. On his way he attacked Ragusa, which
surrendered and received a “count”. At Negropont the Emperor began to open
negotiations and kept them dragging on till the fleet was obliged to
go into winter quarters at Chios. There the plague broke out, some said from
poisoned wells. The whole force was decimated, and when spring came it was only
just able to struggle home; here the doge fell a victim to popular indignation
(28 May 1172).
This disastrous close to the expedition
against Manuel led to a reform in the constitution. Events seemed to have
proved that the doge was too independent, and that the popular assembly was too
liable to be swept away by a storm of passion. To correct these defects a body
of four hundred and eighty leading citizens was elected, for one year, in the
six districts (sestieri) into which the city had
lately been divided; this body was consultative and elective, and in it we
doubtless get the germ of the Great Council (Maggior Consiglio). The doge,
for the future, was required to take a coronation oath, the promissione ducale, by which
he bound himself to observe certain constitutional obligations. To the two
existing ducal councillors were added four
more; the duties of the new body were to act with the doge, and to supervise
and check his actions. The doge was absolutely forbidden to trade on his own
account. In return for these restrictions he was now surrounded with increased
pomp. The Lombard League, for which Venice acted as banker, and the
war with Manuel, proved a severe strain on the treasury and compelled the state
to have recourse to a forced loan (1171). The loan bore interest at four per
cent., and was secured on the whole revenue of the state; the exaction and
administration of the fund was entrusted to a body called the Chamber of Loans
(Camera degli imprestidi). The amount of
the loan was one per cent. of net incomes. The bonds could be
devised, sold, or mortgaged; and here we find, perhaps, the earliest example of
national obligations, or consols.
Other important magistracies such as
the Quarantia, or supreme court, the Giudice del Proprio,
or judge in commercial suits, and the avogadori del
Conran, or procurators fiscal, were created about this time. The campanile was
completed as far as the bell chamber, the Piazza was enlarged and paved, the
twin columns of San Teodoro and San Marco erected. In short, it is clear that
in the latter half of the twelfth century Venice was rapidly developing as a
constitutional state, though the completion of her growth took place in a
period beyond the limits of this chapter.
The affairs of the Lombard League had now
reached a crisis. The final issue was decided by the battle of Legnano (1176),
in which the communes were victorious. Frederick resolved to make peace. He
expressed a desire to meet Pope Alexander III, and Venice was chosen as the
scene of the conference, where the Peace of Venice was signed.
The Peace of Venice
The advantages which accrued to the
republic were great. All Europe was assembled within her walls; she appeared as
the equal and the friend of Emperor and Pope alike; her independent position
was apparently unchallenged. Moreover by a special treaty (17 August 1177) the
Emperor renewed all previous privileges and declared that subjects of the
kingdom of Italy might trade "as far as Venice but no farther", a
restriction which looks very much as if Venice had established her claim to
dominion in the upper Adriatic. From the Pope Venice received the ring with
which her doge wedded the Adriatic, and, more important still, a final
settlement of the long-standing quarrel between Aquileia and Grado.
During the reign of the Doge Orio Mastropiero (1178-1192), the position of Venice in the
East was threatened once more and the seeds of the Fourth Crusade were sown.
Andronicus attacked the Latins in Constantinople (1182) and sacked their
quarters. The refugees appealed to William, King of Sicily, and he and the
Venetians set out to avenge the massacre of Constantinople. Their approach
caused the fall of Andronicus, to whom succeeded Isaac Angelus, favourably disposed towards Venice, ready to renew
the chrysobulls and to compensate for
damage, in return for which Venice pledged herself to supply from forty to one
hundred warships at the imperial request.
During the Third Crusade Venice played her
usual role: that is to say, she transported the crusaders, took a part in their
sieges, and exacted trading privileges as her recompense.
In fact the commerce of Venice was steadily
expanding under the vigilant care of her rulers. She was now about to set the
seal to her commercial supremacy by her acquisitions after the Fourth Crusade,
under her great Doge Enrico Dandolo (1193-1205). Early in his reign,
though not without considerable trouble, the doge secured the renewal and
enlargement of the Venetian privileges in Constantinople, where their quarter
became as it were a little semi-independent state inside the Empire.
In 1201 the ambassadors from the French
crusaders appeared at Venice, begging, as usual, for transport. The bargain was
struck. Venice pledged herself to carry and to victual for a year four thousand
five hundred horses, nine thousand esquires, and twenty thousand foot soldiers;
the price was to be eighty-five thousand silver marks of Cologne. The republic
was to furnish for her own part fifty galleys on condition that half of all
conquests by sea or land should belong to her. It is a proof of the great sea-power
of Venice that she could undertake the transport of so large an army. The last
clause of the bargain left little doubt as to her real intentions in the Fourth
Crusade, which forms the subject of the following chapter.
CHAPTER XIVTHE FOURTH CRUSADE AND THE LATIN EMPIRE
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |