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 ecclesiasticopolitical 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.
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 Francophil 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 Francophil 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 tozecure recognition of
Charles' new imperial title, had just been haughtily repulsed.
Meanwhile, encouraged no doubt by news from
Fortunatus, the Francophil conspirators in Treviso elected Obelerius as doge
(804). He made a dash for the lagoons, entered his native town.lf 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 Francophil 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 395 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
Francophil 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 over seas 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 navalenterprises 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
morganaticurn (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 brofight 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 shewn 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 fist 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 A malfitans, 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 Corfii 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 passdge 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 (naves coloribus variis picturate erant), 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 rupfure 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.
|