No More Learning

Her position, however, was far stronger
now than then. Her wealth was great, her importance as an emporium
of necessities established, her sea-power recognised 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.
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 (per cuncta
annorum curricula), 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 shew that her formal allegiance to
the Eastern Empire was still recognised.
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 pro-
tecting 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


## p. 403 (#445) ############################################

Peter Orseolo I
403
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 states-
manship 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
i 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
co. XIII,
26—2


## p. 404 (#446) ############################################

404
Peter Orseolo II
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 feet;
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.
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


## p. 405 (#447) ############################################

Relations with East and West
405
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 (quod ab antiquo fuit consuetudo), 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 the
Λογοθέτης των οικειακών, 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 Longo-
bardia, 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 sub-
mission 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 tribus locis sue ditioni subditis) 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. Af Pomposa he found John the Deacon with a boat, and
CH. XIII.


## p. 406 (#448) ############################################

406
Dux Dalmatiae
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 pre-
servation 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,
Arbè, and Traù 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.
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


## p. 407 (#449) ############################################

New Venice
407
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 Vene-
tian 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 fisc 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 them-
selves. 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 deve-
loped into the Pregadi or Senate of Venice.
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 cam-
paigns 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
CH, XIII.


## p. 408 (#450) ############################################

408
The Normans
gave the supremacy to Aquileia over Grado.
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 pre-
eminence, 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 trans-
formed 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 (1042–
1071), Henry III renewed the ancient treaties (probably 1055). Conta-
rini'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 refinement 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 com-
manded 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 deve-
loped by the Venetian commander—the fleet drawn up in half-moon
Among other luxuries she used a fork, quibusdam fuscinulis aureis et bidentibus,
S. Petrus Damianus, Instit. Monialis, Cap. xi, Opera, Vol. 11.
1


## p. 409 (#451) ############################################

The Crusades
409
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 con-
ferred 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 Corfù 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 ap-
pearance of the Hungarian sovereign upon the coast of Dalmatia. By
1097, however, the principal towns were once more in the hold of Venice.
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 de-
veloped 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 con-
stitution. 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.
CH, XIII.


## p. 410 (#452) ############################################

410
The First Crusade
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 aban-
doned 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 infidei.
On the other hand, the frank espousal of the Crusades by the commercial
rivals of Venice, Genoa and Pisa, threatened to give them such over-
whelming advantages in the East that the republic found herself forced
to abandon her neutral attitude.
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 ģeographical 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 com-
mitted 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 Falier (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


## p.
411 (#453) ############################################

The Levant
411
of the Levant began to assume a prominent place once more in Venetian
history. Baldwin I died in the year of the doge'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 Corfù 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 arro-
gance 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. Circum-
stances, 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, Traù, 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 ruptiire 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 block-
ing the mouth of the Adriatic was still alive; while the menace to
the Eastern Empire, developed by Robert Guiscard, was renewed by
King Royer. In April 1135 ambassadors from Venice and Constantinople
CH, XIII.


## p. 412 (#454) ############################################

412
The Emperor Manuel
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 Constan-
tinople. The Emperor Manuel, impotent at sea without a fleet, was
forced by circumstances to approach the sea-power which had saved Con-
stantinople 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
Protosebastos 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 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 Corfù.
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 thé republic


## p. 413 (#455) ############################################

The constitution
413
יל
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 Corfù, the arrogance and wealth of Vene-
tians 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 Comun, or procurators fiscal, were created about this time. The cam-
panile 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
CI. XIII.


## p. 414 (#456) ############################################

414
The Peace of Venice
final issue was decided by the battle of Legnano (1176), in which the com-
munes 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 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 un-
challenged. Moreover by a special treaty (17 August 1177) the Emperor
renewed all previous privileges and declared that subjects of the king-
dom of Italy might trade "as far as Venice but no farther” (usque ad
vos et non amplius), 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 Con-
stantinople (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 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 rôle: that is to say,
she transported the crusaders, took a part in their sieges, and exacted
trading privileges ás 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 com-
mercial 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 en-
largement 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 hun-
dred 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 follow-
ing chapter.


## p. 415 (#457) ############################################

415
CHAPTER XIV.
THE FOURTH CRUSADE AND THE LATIN EMPIRE. .
לל
On 28 November 1199 some great nobles of Champagne and Picardy,
who had assembled in the castle of Ecri-sur-Aisne for a tournament, re-
solved to assume the Cross and go to deliver the Holy Land. They elected
Theobald (Thibaut) III, Count of Champagne, as leader. The suggested
expedition coincided so entirely with the desires of Pope Innocent III
that he encouraged it with all his might. At his call, Fulk, parish priest
of Neuilly in France, and Abbot Martin of Pairis in Germany, began a
series of sermons, which by their fervour easily persuaded the mass of the
faithful to enlist in the Crusade. No doubt the Western sovereigns inter-
vened only indirectly in the preparation and direction of the expedition,
Philip Augustus being engaged in his struggle with John Lackland, and
Philip of Swabia entirely engrossed in disputing the Empire with Otto
of Brunswick; the Crusade was essentially a feudal enterprise, led by an
oligarchy of great barons, and, even at first, partly inspired by worldly
aspirations and material interests. In this particular the fourth Holy
War differed greatly from the previous ones. “For many of the crusaders,”
says Luchaire, “it was above all a business matter. ” And this consideration
will perhaps help us to a better understanding of the character which
this undertaking quickly assumed.
For the transport of the crusaders to the East a fleet was necessary.
In February 1201 the barons sent delegates, of whom Villehardouin was
one, to Venice to procure the requisite naval force from the mighty re-
public. After somewhat troublesome negotiations, recorded for us by
Villehardouin, a treaty was concluded in April 1201, whereby in return
for a sum of 85,000 marks of silver the Venetians agreed to supply the
crusaders by 28 June 1202 with the ships and provisions necessary for
the transport of their army overseas ;. Venice moreover joined in the
enterprise, astutely realising the advantage to be gained by guiding and
directing the expedition. The Doge, Enrico Dandolo, solemnly assumed
the Cross at St Mark's, and in return the crusaders promised to assign
half of their conquests to Venice.
Most of the knights regarded Syria as the goal of the expedition and
cherished the ambition of reconquering the Holy Land. The great
barons, on the other hand, wished to strike at the heart of the Muslim
power, i. e. Egypt. And this divergence of views heavily handicapped the
whole Crusade. It has been asserted that the Venetians, who were bound
1
CH. XIV.


## p. 416 (#458) ############################################

416
The Crusaders and Venice
by treaties with the Sultan of Egypt and did not wish to compromise
their commercial interests, were from the first hostile to the expedition,
and sought means of diverting the crusaders from their path, thus be-
traying Christendom. There is nothing to prove that they planned this
deliberately, but it is obvious that the stiff contract of April 1201
rendered the Christian army dependent on the republic.
The crusaders slowly prepared to cross the Alps. Meanwhile the
death of Theobald of Champagne had obliged them to find another
leader. On the recommendation of the King of France, an Italian baron
was chosen, Boniface, Marquess of Montferrat, whose brothers had played
a great part in the East, both Latin and Byzantine. At Soissons on
16 August 1201 he was acclaimed by the barons, after which he betook
himself to Germany, where he spent part of the winter with Philip of
Swabia, his intimate friend; and to this visit great importan
ultimate fate of the Crusade has sometimes been attributed. Meanwhile
the army was mustering at Venice, where it was assembled in July-
August 1202. But the crusaders had only paid the Venetians a small
part of the sum agreed upon as payment for the voyage, and it was im-
possible for them to collect the remainder. Interned in the island of
St Niccolò di Lido, harassed by demands from the Venetian merchants
and threats that their supplies would be cut off if the money were not
forthcoming, the crusaders were finally obliged to accept the doge's
proposal that they should be granted a respite if they helped the republic
to reconquer the city of Zara, which had been taken by the Hungarians.
In spite of the indignant protests of Innocent III and his legate at an
attack directed against a Christian city and a crusading ruler, the enter-
prise had to be undertaken in order to satisfy the Venetian demands. The
barons unwillingly agreed to engage in it (September 1202); and on 8
November 1202 the fleet sailed amidst general rejoicings. On 10 November
Zara was attacked, and surrendered in five days, when the Venetians
destroyed it utterly. It was in vain that Innocent III threatened and ex-
communicated the Venetians. The crusaders were now preoccupied by
considerations of greater importance, which diverted the Crusade to a
new objective. It had been undertaken with the object of delivering
Jerusalem, or attacking Egypt; it ended in the conquest of Constantinople.
For over a century the West had for many reasons been casting looks
of hate and envy towards Byzantium. The Norman Kings of Sicily and
their German successor, the Emperor Henry VI, had several times
directed their dreams of conquest towards the Greek Empire. The
leaders of the various crusades, indignant at the treachery and ill-will of
the Byzantines, had more than once contemplated taking Constantinople
and destroying the monarchy. Finally the Venetians, who had for a
century been masters of the commerce with the Levant and were anxious
to keep for themselves the fine markets of the East, were becoming un-
easy, both at the increasing animosity displayed by the Greeks, and at


## p. 417 (#459) ############################################

The diversion of the Crusade to Constantinople
417
the rivalry of the other maritime cities of Italy. In the course of the
twelfth century they had several times been obliged to defend their posi-
tion and privileges by force of arms; therefore their politicians, and
especially the Doge Enrico Dandolo, were considering whether the easiest
way of resolving the problem and securing the commercial prosperity of
the republic in the East would not be to conquer the Byzantine Empire
and establish on its ruins a colonial Venetian empire. All these various
causes, unrealised ambitions of conquest, old accumulated grudges against
the Greeks, threatened economic interests, almost inevitably led to the
diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople; all that was necessary
was that an opportunity should offer itself.
This opportunity occurred in the course of 1202. The Basileus
reigning in Constantinople, Alexius Angelus, had dethroned his brother
Isaac in 1195, and had cast the deposed monarch and his young son
Alexius into prison. The latter succeeded in escaping and came to
Germany, either at the end of 1201 or else in the spring of 1202,
to seek the help of his brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, husband of
his sister Irene. But Philip had no means of giving direct support to
the young prince. Did he arrange with Boniface of Montferrat, or with
the Venetians, who were interested in re-opening the Eastern question,
that the crusading army, then inactive at Venice, should be utilised
against Byzantium? Scholars of to-day have devoted much discussion to
this very obscure historical point. It has been suggested that Philip of
Swabia, deeply interested in his young brother-in-law, and moreover
cherishing, like his brother Henry VI, personal ambitions with regard to
the East, immediately on the arrival of Alexius agreed with Boniface of
Montferrat that the Crusade should be diverted to Constantinople. It
has been suggested that he hoped by this means to checkmate the Papacy,
and, by threatening to ruin the projected Crusade, force Innocent III to
seek a reconciliation with him. The question has also been raised whether
the Venetians had long premeditated their attack on Zara, and whether
or not they had agreed with the Marquess of Montferrat that the fleet
should next set sail for Byzantium; in a word, whether the diversion of
the Crusade sprang from fortuitous causes, or was the result of deep
intrigues and premeditated designs. “This," says Luchaire wisely, “will
never be known, and science has something better to do than interminably
to discuss an insoluble problem. ” All that can be said is that the arrival
of young Alexius in the West suited the policy of the Doge Enrico
Dandolo admirably, and that the latter used it with supreme ability to
insist on an attempt upon Byzantium against the wishes of some of the
crusaders, thereby ensuring enormous advantages to his country.
Even before leaving Venice in September 1202 the leaders of the
Crusade had received messengers from the Greek claimant, and had
entered into negotiations with Philip of Swabia. After the capture of
Zara, envoys from the German king and his young brother-in-law brought
27
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CA, XIV.


## p. 418 (#460) ############################################

418
Arrival at Constantinople
them much more definite proposals. In return for the help to be given
him in recapturing Constantinople, Alexius promised the crusaders
to pay the balance still owing to the Venetians, to provide them with
the money and supplies necessary for conquering Egypt, to assist them
by sending a contingent of 10,000 men, to maintain five hundred
knights to guard the Holy Land, and, finally, to bring about religious
reunion with Rome. It was a tempting offer, and, under pressure from
the Venetians and Montferrat, the leading barons decided to accept it.
No doubt a certain number of knights protested and left the army,
starting for Syria direct. It was represented to the majority that the
expedition to Constantinople in no way superseded the original plan,
that, in fact, it would facilitate its execution, that moreover it would be
a meritorious act and one pleasing to God to restore the legitimate heir
to the throne; it is also clear that at this time no one contemplated the
destruction of the Greek Empire. Whatever their real wishes, the majority
allowed themselves to be persuaded. On 25 April 1203 Alexius joined
Montferrat and Dandolo at Zara, and at Corfù in May was signed the
definitive treaty which established the diversion of the great enterprise.
The Pope, solicitous as always that the Crusade should not fall to pieces,
allowed matters to go their own way. On 25 May the crusading fleet
left Corfù, and on 24 June 1203 it appeared outside Constantinople.
Every one knows the celebrated passage in which Villehardouin
describes the impressions which the crusaders experienced at first sight
of the great Byzantine city. “Now wit ye well that they gazed at
Constantinople, those who had never seen it; for they had not dreamed
that there was in all the world so rich a city, when they beheld the high
walls and the mighty towers by which she was enclosed all round, and
those rich palaces and those great churches, of which there were so many
that none might believe it if he had not seen it with his own eyes, and
the length and breadth of the city, which was sovereign among all. And
wit ye well that there was no man so bold that he did not tremble; and
this was not wonderful ; for never was so great a matter undertaken by
any man since the world was created. ”ı
The crusaders had expected that the Greeks would welcome with
enthusiasm the monarch whom they had come to restore. But on the
contrary every one rallied round Alexius III, who was regarded as the
defender of national independence. The Latins were therefore obliged to
resort to force. They stormed the tower of Galata, forced the chain
across the harbour, and entered the Golden Horn; then on 17 July 1203
they assaulted the town by land and sea. Alexius III, realising his
defeat, fled ; his victims, Isaac and the young Alexius, were restored to
the throne; on 1 August they were solemnly crowned at St Sophia in
the presence of the Latin barons.
1 Villehardouin, ed. Wailly, N. de, ch. 128.


## p. 419 (#461) ############################################

Breach with the Byzantine government
419
pass
The new sovereigns received the Latins “as benefactors and preservers
of the Empire"; they hastened to carry out the promises they had made,
and lavished on them the wealth of the capital, thereby only increasing
the covetousness of the crusaders, which was already excited. This
friendship did not last long. Torn between the demands of his allies and
the hostility of the national party, which accused him of having betrayed
Byzantium to aliens, the young Alexius IV was soon unable to fulfil his
promises. Urged by the Venetians, the Latins had decided to the
winter season in Constantinople, but they had made the mistake of
evacuating the capital after an occupation of a few days, and the insolence
of the Greeks had been thereby greatly increased. Finally Dandolo, who
during the temporary absence of Montferrat was in command, seized the
opportunity of multiplying difficulties and preparing a breach by his
unreasonableness. In these circumstances a catastrophe was inevitable.
There were affrays and riots, followed by a revolution. In February 1204
the son-in-law of the Emperor Alexius III, Alexius Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzouphlos, the leader of the national party, caused the downfall of
the two weak Emperors who were incapable of resisting the demands of
the crusaders; and a few days later Alexius IV was strangled in prison.
Henceforth any agreement was impossible. The only means of realising
the great hopes inspired by the capture of Constantinople, ensuring the
success of the Crusade, and attaining the union of the Churches, was to
seize Constantinople and keep it. The Venetians especially insisted on
the necessity of finishing the work and founding a Latin Empire; and
in the month of March 1204 the crusaders agreed on the manner in
which they should divide the future conquest. The French and the
Venetians were to share equally in the booty of Constantinople.