In the meantime the doge, whose loyalty to
Byzantium
had been
rewarded with the title of Hypatos or Consul, had died (737).
rewarded with the title of Hypatos or Consul, had died (737).
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
Learned, eloquent, and witty, he had
for a long time been the arbiter of fashion and taste in the capital, and
the magnificence of his dwelling had become famous. The exquisiteness
of his dress shewed off his handsome features—handsome enough to befit
a throne, says a chronicler. A man of personal courage, Andronicus, like
Manuel, had distinguished himself in single combat, but his cool and ready
audacity delighted above all things in political intrigue. Full of ambition,
he meditated unceasingly on the means of reaching the throne; of
debauched life, the court rang with stories of his various scandalous
amours. His vices were paraded with astonishing cynicism. While the
lover of his cousin Eudocia, Andronicus had been appointed Duke of
Cilicia, and on his defeat by Thoros II had hastened back to his mistress.
He had then entered into a conspiracy with Géza, King of Hungary, and
when arrested in 1153 was plotting the assassination of Manuel. He made
several unavailing attempts to escape, but in the end after many changes
of fortune succeeded in gaining a refuge at the court of Yaroslav, Prince
of Halicz (1164). Manuel, uneasy that so restless a brain should be
intriguing among the Russians, had pardoned his cousin and had then
re-appointed him Duke of Cilicia. While residing in his province An-
dronicus conceived a passion for the Emperor's sister-in-law Philippa,
daughter of the Princess of Antioch, who yielded to his solicitations.
Quickly forsaking her, Andronicus set out for the Holy Land, where he
carried off his cousin Queen Theodora, widow of Baldwin of Jerusalem.
The couple for several years led a wandering life, going from court to
court in the Muslim East, and finally establishing themselves near Colonea
in a citadel presented to them by a Musulman emir. Andronicus made
use of his position, which was close to the frontier of the Empire, to keep
up incessant warfare against his cousin. Excommunicated by the Patri-
arch for his relations with Theodora, he nevertheless continued to live
with her. It was, however, on her account that he was at last reduced to
sue for pardon. In order to get the better of his cousin, Manuel had his
mistress carried off by the Duke of Trebizond. Andronicus, incapable of
dispensing with her society, resolved upon making his submission. After
a solemn reconciliation with Manuel, in which he proved his talents as
an actor, he retired into private life at Oenaeum on the shores of the
Black Sea.
It was from this retreat that for more than a year he followed the
course of events at Constantinople. Increasing age had taught him
CU. XII.
## p. 382 (#424) ############################################
382
Coup d'état of Andronicus
prudence, and he fully realised that if he did not succeed in reaching the
throne this time all his hopes would be at an end. Affecting complete
indifference to all the rivalries which surged round Alexius II, Andronicus
was meanwhile setting in motion partisans who kept him informed of the
state of opinion. The moment came when his daughter Mary gave him
the signal for action. He marched without hesitation upon Constanti-
nople at the head of his tenants and of some of the troops in Paphla-
gonia whom he had seduced from their allegiance, declaring his object to
be the liberation of the Emperor. His march across Asia Minor was a
triumph; not only did he defeat the loyal troops, but their general, An-
dronicus Angelus, declared for him. His victorious army encamped upon
the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, and before long the very sailors of the
fleet, on whom lay the duty of barring his passage, came to make their sub-
mission to him. The population of the capital rushed to greet its darling,
who took up the rôle of champion of the Greeks against the foreigners.
The Empress-Regent and her favourite no longer received any support
except from the Latins, who alone staved off the entry of Andronicus into
the capital. To overcome this obstacle a formidable outbreak was en-
gineered in Constantinople; the populace, goaded on to attack the Latin
quarters, indulged in the most shameless excesses and even massacred the
sick in the hospitals. Many Latins perished; at the same time a large
number succeeded in getting on board some fifty vessels, and by the
ravages they committed in the islands of the Propontis and along the
coast exacted a heavy penalty from the Greeks for the treacherous
onslaught which they had made.
Once her Latin supporters had been massacred, all was over with the
Regent. Giving himself out as the liberator of Alexius II, Andronicus
entered Constantinople. He began by banishing the Empress from the
palace, and then arranged for the disappearance of such members of the
imperial family as were likely to oppose any obstacle to his plans. Mary
and the Caesar Renier died in a manner unknown; the Empress-mother
was condemned to death, and her son forced to sign her sentence himself.
In the face of these atrocities the Patriarch Theodotus withdrew. In
September 1183 Andronicus became joint Emperor with Alexius II, whom
he murdered in November of the same year, and thereupon married Agnes,
who had been his victim's wife.
The reign of Andronicus presents a series of unparalleled contrasts.
So far as the administration of the provinces is concerned, Andronicus
shewed great and statesmanlike qualities; on the other hand his govern-
ment at Constantinople was that of the most hateful of tyrants.
The provincial population had much to bear both from the imperial
functionaries and from the great feudal lords. Andronicus exacted from
the latter class an unfailing respect for the property and rights of the
peasants, and treated with extreme severity such as were reported to him
as having abused their power. As to the officials, he made a point of
## p. 383 (#425) ############################################
Administration of Andronicus
383
choosing them carefully and paying them liberally, so that they should
have no need to oppress the peasants in order to recoup themselves for
the price paid for their appointments. To all he guaranteed rigid justice.
Such as were convicted of peculation were severely punished. “You have
the choice,” the Emperor used to say, “between ceasing to cheat and
ceasing to live. ” Short as was the reign of Andronicus, these measures
had their effect; order and prosperity returned to the provinces, and
some of them which had been deserted by their inhabitants again became
populated. Finally, one of the happiest measures introduced by the
Emperor was the abolition of the rights of wreck and estray.
Andronicus was a lover of literature and of the arts. He surrounded
himself with jurists, and took pleasure in beautifying Constantinople.
The repairing of aqueducts and the restoration of the church of the Forty
Martyrs were the two chief works which he carried out. In one of the
additions made to the church of the Forty Martyrs he had a series of
mosaics executed representing his adventures and his hunting exploits.
But this bright side of Andronicus' reign is defaced by the ferocious
cruelty with which he treated his opponents. The aristocracy opposed
him violently. At Philadelphia, at Nicaea, at Prusa, at Lopadium, and in
Cyprus, risings took place organised by the representatives of the greatest
families among the nobility. At this juncture the Empire was being
attacked on all sides: the Sultan of Iconium had re-taken Sozopolis and
was besieging Attalia, Béla III had crossed the Danube, and finally in .
1185 the King of Sicily, William II, was invading Byzantine territory.
In face of all these dangers Andronicus, fearing to lose the power so
long coveted, determined to maintain himself by terror. The noblest
Byzantine families saw their most illustrious members put to death or
horribly mutilated. At Constantinople as in Asia Minor the work of
repression was terrible; even the Emperor's own family was not spared.
In the capital, terror had bowed the necks of all, and Andronicus seemed
to have nothing left to fear when the Norman invasion came and brought
about his fall.
During the summer of 1185 the Normans, having taken Thessalonica,
advanced
upon Constantinople. At their approach a panic fell upon the
city; the population, in terror of their lives, complained that Andronicus
was making no preparations for resisting the enemy. The Emperor's
popularity, already impaired by his cruelties, crumbled away under the
fear of invasion. Sullen disaffection was muttering in the capital, and An-
dronicus again had recourse to violence; large numbers were arrested on
the pretext of punishing those secretly in league with the Normans, and
the Emperor contemplated a general massacre of the prisoners. The
arrest of a man of no great importance, Isaac Angelus, was the last drop
that made the cup run over. Escaping from the soldiers sent to arrest
him, Isaac took refuge in St Sophia; the people at his summons gathered
in crowds, and before long rebellion thundered around him and burst out
CH, XII.
## p. 384 (#426) ############################################
384
Death of Andronicus. The Angeli
began
with terrific force. Isaac Angelus was proclaimed Emperor. Andronicus
in vain attempted to resist; he was beaten and took to flight, but was
stopped, and soon after given up to the fury of the people. The rabble
tore out his beard, broke his teeth, cut off one of his hands, put out one of
his eyes, and then threw him into a dungeon. On the morrow his tortures
afresh. He was led through the city on a mangy camel, while stones
and boiling water were thrown at him. Finally, he was brought to the
Hippodrome, where the soldiers, having hung him up by the feet, amused
themselves by cutting him in pieces. Throughout these hideous tortures
Andronicus shewed superhuman courage. Raising his mutilated arm to
his lips he constantly repeated “Kyrie eleison! wherefore wilt thou break
a bruised reed? "
Such in September 1185 was the end of the last Emperor of the
house of the Comneni, who for more than a century had arrested the
ruin of their country. With his great qualities of statesmanship, the
last of the dynasty might have helped to regenerate the Empire. Un-
fortunately the evil elements in his character had the mastery, and
contributed to hasten the hour of that decadence which no member of
the house of the Angeli was to prove capable of retarding.
The reign of Isaac II (1185-1195) was indeed a succession of mis-
fortunes, converted by incapacity into disasters. Cyprus remained in
revolt under an Isaac Comnenus until it was conquered by Richard
Coeur-de-lion in 1191; and the great nobles of the Empire were so much
out of hand as to be almost independent. The Bulgarians rose; the Serbs
had thrown off(1180) their vassalage. If the Byzantines were able to throw
back the invasion of William II of Sicily, Isaac II's alliance with Saladin,
and his resistance to Frederick Barbarossa's transit through the Balkans
on the Third Crusade confirmed the growing enmity of the West.
Frederick forced his way to the Bosphorus, ravaging the country and
sacking Hadrianople. He compelled the transport of his troops to Asia
from Gallipoli, and the delivery of provisions, but not before he had
mooted the proposal of a crusade being preached against the Greeks.
When in 1195 Alexius III took advantage of the general discontent to
blind and depose his brother, no improvement came about. Rather,
the anarchy became worse, while the government's incompetence and
oppression remained glaring. The thirteenth century was to shew that
there were sound elements and great men still in the Empire, but before
they could gain control there fell upon it the shattering disaster of the
Fourth Crusade.
## p. 385 (#427) ############################################
385
CHAPTER XIII.
VENICE.
During the period covered by this chapter the State of Venice did not
reach maturity. She did not become a world-power till after the Fourth
Crusade, nor was it till a full century later that she finally developed her
constitution. But the germs of her constitution and the seeds of her sea-
power are both to be found in these earliest years of her existence. The
problems which dominate these years are the question of immigration,
when and how did the inhospitable islands of the lagoons become settled;
how did the community develop; how did it gradually achieve its actual
and then its formal independence of Byzantium; how did it save itself
from being absorbed by the rulers of the Italian mainland, Charles the
Great, Otto II, and Frederick Barbarossa.
The earliest authentic notice we have of the lagoon-population is to
be found in the letter addressed (c. 536) by Cassiodorus, in the name of
Witigis, King of the Goths, to the Tribuni Maritimorum, the tribunes of
the maritime parts. The letter, written in a tone between command and
exhortation, is highly rhetorical in style, but gives us a vivid picture of a
poor though industrious community occupying a site unique in the world.
This community, in all probability, formed part of the Gothic
Kingdom, for it seems certain that the Tribuni Maritimorum whom
Cassiodorus addresses were officers appointed by the Goths. The chief
characteristics of this people are that they were salt-workers and seamen,
two points highly significant for the future development of Venice. No
doubt the population here referred to was largely augmented, if not
actually formed, by the refugees who sought safety in the lagoons from
the ever recurrent barbarian incursions on the mainland, Attila's among
the number; but it is not till the Lombard invasion in 568 that we can
begin to trace the positive influence of the barbarian raids and to note
the first signs of a political constitution inside the lagoons themselves.
The campaign of Belisarius (535–540) brought Venetia once more
under the Roman Empire (539); and, when Narses the Eunuch under-
took to carry out Justinian's scheme for the final extermination of the
Goths (551), he was forced to recognise 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
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XIII.
25
## p. 386 (#428) ############################################
386
Lombard invasion. The Tribuni
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 (vîes kai
ăkatoi), thereby enabling the Greek army to reach Ravenna and inciden-
tally leading up to the final victories of Busta Gallorum (552) and Mons
Lactarius (553); after this the coast districts (Tà émialaosidia xwpía)
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 Alight from the mainland; and the process was re-
newed 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. Pauli-
nus, 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 appor-
tioned 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-town-
ships. 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
## p. 387 (#429) ############################################
Growth of the community
387
the Lombard invaders, they withdrew their forces, leaving the islanders
of the lagoons to defend themselves as best they might. The lagoon-
dwellers gathered round their leading men or tribunes; but their powers.
of defence were feeble, as is proved by the raid of Lupus, Duke of Friuli,
upon Grado (630), and it was probably only the intricate nature of their
home-waters which saved them from absorption by the barbarian. These
tribunes wielded both military and civil authority, and in theory were
undoubtedly appointed by and dependent on the Exarch of Ravenna as
representing Byzantium in Italy. The office tended to become hereditary
and
gave rise to the class of tribunitian families. Side by side with the
secular power, as represented by the tribunes, grew the ecclesiastical
power centring round the patriarchate of Grado (568), and the lagoon
sees of Caorle (598), Torcello (635), Heraclea (640), Malamocco (640),
Jesolo (670), Olivolo (774). The Arianism of the Lombards drove the
orthodox bishops from their mainland churches to seek asylum in the
lagoons. The clergy as was natural, thanks to their education, played a
large part in the developing life of the lagoon communities; but, if we
may draw a conclusion from the instance of Torcello, it would seem that
the secular power reserved a kind of superiority or patronage over the
ecclesiastical: a fact significant in the future development of ecclesiastico-
political relations in Venice. Besides the leading, or “noble,” families
represented by the tribunes, and the clergy gathered round their bishops,
we find that there was a general assembly of the whole population which
made its voice heard in the choice of both tribunes, priests, and bishops,
but otherwise appears to have been of little weight.
Throughout the seventh century the imperial possessions on the main-
land 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
CA. XIII.
25-2
## p. 388 (#430) ############################################
388
The first doge
יל
יל
elect to this office, at length they agreed upon a capable and illustrious
man named Paulitio. ”
The date usually given for the choice of the first doge is 697, but it
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 im-
perial 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 concentra-
tion 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 preserva-
tion, the maintenance of such practical, de facto, independence of By-
zantium 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.
The earliest and most important act of Paulutius was the conclusion
of a treaty (713–716) with Liutprand, the powerful King of the Lombards.
## p. 389 (#431) ############################################
Relations with the Lombards
389
The treaty is lost, but we can gather its terms from the reference to it in
subsequent pacta with the kings of Italy. It consisted of two parts: the
first a guarantee of security for Venetian traders on the mainland; protec-
tion of Venetian flocks and horses; right to cut wood in Lombard territory;
in return for these privileges the doge agreed to pay an annual tribute.
The second part contained a definition of boundaries on the mainland.
This second part is said to have been “concluded in the days of King Liut-
prand, between the Duke Paulutio and the Magister Militum Marcellus. ”
Of this difficult passage three explanations have been suggested. It is said
that Marcellus was the Magister Militum (the chief imperial authority)
of Istria, and that it was he who concluded the treaty with the consent
of the doge. But Istria and Sea-Venice were by this time separated;
“Dux” is superior in rank to “Magister Militum,” and as a matter of
fact the doge's name comes first; finally the agreement is said to be
not between Marcellus and Liutprand but between (inter) Paulutio and
Marcellus. The second theory is that Marcellus was Magister Militum
in Venice and associated himself with the doge in treating with Liut-
prand; but here again the word inter seems fatal. The third and most
plausible theory is that Marcellus was the imperial Magister Militum in
Venice, and that acting on imperial orders he and the doge delimited the
territory of Heraclea and obtained from Liutprand a confirmation of the
same, as is proved by the “precept” of 25 March 996. Whichever view
be correct, the treaty with Liutprand is of the highest importance as
shewing us the Venetian community under its first doge securing treaty
rights from the masters of the mainland.
It is certain that the early doges did not exercise a wide or undis-
puted 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 Slavs. But the establish-
ment 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,
CA. XIII.
## p. 390 (#432) ############################################
390
Relations with Byzantium
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 un-
doubtedly elected by the lagoon population without consulting the
imperial authorities.
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 Bene-
vento 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 Aed 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 revolu-
tionary 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 shewing 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
## p. 391 (#433) ############################################
The Franks
391
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 ex-
posed to the influence of the mainland rulers—to Malamocco, a town-
ship 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.
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 fron-
tiers. 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 Liut-
prand. 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 informa-
tion to the Papal authorities in Ravenna ; and possibly about this period
Torcello began to assume its position of eutroplov péya, the “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
1
CH, XIII.
## p. 392 (#434) ############################################
392
Olivolo. Charles the Great
a
of the struggle for supremacy between the various townships is empha-
sised 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
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 town-
ships; 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 im-
portance among the lagoon-townships, and their territory was assigned
to the fisc, forming the origin of what afterwards became the domain-
lands of the Ducatus.
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 con-
sidering 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
## p. 393 (#435) ############################################
Fortunatus of Grado
393
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 fung
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 Seltz. He brought the Emperor many and costly presents,
and found him in a mood to listen to his plans for the expulsion of the
Byzantine doges and their party, as the Frankish embassy to the court
at Constantinople (803), commissioned to secure recognition of Charles'
new imperial title, had just been haughtily repulsed.
Meanwhile, encouraged no doubt by news from Fortunatus, the
Francophil conspirators in Treviso elected Obelerius as doge (804). He
made a dash for the lagoons, entered his native town of Malamocco
amid popular acclaim, and the Doges Johu and Mauritius were forced
to Ay 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
CU. XIII.
## p. 394 (#436) ############################################
394
Pepin's attack
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 re-
pulsed. 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 Porphyro-
genitus 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,
## p. 395 (#437) ############################################
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 Praetor 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 Vene-
tians 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 sympa-
thies, 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, look-
ing 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 pucta 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 recog-
nised 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
CH, XIII.
## p. 396 (#438) ############################################
396
Commerce
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.
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 re-confirmed
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 com-
petitor, 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 mer-
chants 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 shews
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
## p. 397 (#439) ############################################
Constitution. Dynastic tendencies
397
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.
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 con-
vened. 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 signal-
ised by unsuccessful sea-campaigns against the Slav pirates of the Dal-
matian 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
CH. XIII.
## p. 398 (#440) ############################################
398
The pactum of Pavia
expedition to Taranto (840). Unfortunate as were these earliest naval
enterprises of the growing State of Venice, they were fruitful in calling
out the energy and resolution of the people and in leading to a revolution
in Venetian ship-building. It was under Tradonicus that the first great
ships were built in Venetian docks, and the type established which was
to serve both for trade and war.
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 Mülhausen (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 docu-
ment 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.
The Doge Tradonicus did not escape the dynastic ambitions which
were common to all the earlier holders of the ducal throne. He sur-
1 Biremes with a crew of 150 men. The proper name for this vessel was Chelandia
(Xedávòia). Johannes Diaconus (ed. Monticolo, Chron. Venet. Ant. in Fonti, p. 115)
calls it Zalandria. Thietmar (Chronicon, SGUS, p. 62) says:
“ salandria. . . est. . . nauis
mirae longitudinis et alacritatis. ” See also infra, Chapter xxiii, p. 743.
## p. 399 (#441) ############################################
Secular versus ecclesiastical power
399
rounded 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 demon-
stration 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 Parti-
ciacus 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
(etiam tocius regni nostri). 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 (22 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.
for a long time been the arbiter of fashion and taste in the capital, and
the magnificence of his dwelling had become famous. The exquisiteness
of his dress shewed off his handsome features—handsome enough to befit
a throne, says a chronicler. A man of personal courage, Andronicus, like
Manuel, had distinguished himself in single combat, but his cool and ready
audacity delighted above all things in political intrigue. Full of ambition,
he meditated unceasingly on the means of reaching the throne; of
debauched life, the court rang with stories of his various scandalous
amours. His vices were paraded with astonishing cynicism. While the
lover of his cousin Eudocia, Andronicus had been appointed Duke of
Cilicia, and on his defeat by Thoros II had hastened back to his mistress.
He had then entered into a conspiracy with Géza, King of Hungary, and
when arrested in 1153 was plotting the assassination of Manuel. He made
several unavailing attempts to escape, but in the end after many changes
of fortune succeeded in gaining a refuge at the court of Yaroslav, Prince
of Halicz (1164). Manuel, uneasy that so restless a brain should be
intriguing among the Russians, had pardoned his cousin and had then
re-appointed him Duke of Cilicia. While residing in his province An-
dronicus conceived a passion for the Emperor's sister-in-law Philippa,
daughter of the Princess of Antioch, who yielded to his solicitations.
Quickly forsaking her, Andronicus set out for the Holy Land, where he
carried off his cousin Queen Theodora, widow of Baldwin of Jerusalem.
The couple for several years led a wandering life, going from court to
court in the Muslim East, and finally establishing themselves near Colonea
in a citadel presented to them by a Musulman emir. Andronicus made
use of his position, which was close to the frontier of the Empire, to keep
up incessant warfare against his cousin. Excommunicated by the Patri-
arch for his relations with Theodora, he nevertheless continued to live
with her. It was, however, on her account that he was at last reduced to
sue for pardon. In order to get the better of his cousin, Manuel had his
mistress carried off by the Duke of Trebizond. Andronicus, incapable of
dispensing with her society, resolved upon making his submission. After
a solemn reconciliation with Manuel, in which he proved his talents as
an actor, he retired into private life at Oenaeum on the shores of the
Black Sea.
It was from this retreat that for more than a year he followed the
course of events at Constantinople. Increasing age had taught him
CU. XII.
## p. 382 (#424) ############################################
382
Coup d'état of Andronicus
prudence, and he fully realised that if he did not succeed in reaching the
throne this time all his hopes would be at an end. Affecting complete
indifference to all the rivalries which surged round Alexius II, Andronicus
was meanwhile setting in motion partisans who kept him informed of the
state of opinion. The moment came when his daughter Mary gave him
the signal for action. He marched without hesitation upon Constanti-
nople at the head of his tenants and of some of the troops in Paphla-
gonia whom he had seduced from their allegiance, declaring his object to
be the liberation of the Emperor. His march across Asia Minor was a
triumph; not only did he defeat the loyal troops, but their general, An-
dronicus Angelus, declared for him. His victorious army encamped upon
the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, and before long the very sailors of the
fleet, on whom lay the duty of barring his passage, came to make their sub-
mission to him. The population of the capital rushed to greet its darling,
who took up the rôle of champion of the Greeks against the foreigners.
The Empress-Regent and her favourite no longer received any support
except from the Latins, who alone staved off the entry of Andronicus into
the capital. To overcome this obstacle a formidable outbreak was en-
gineered in Constantinople; the populace, goaded on to attack the Latin
quarters, indulged in the most shameless excesses and even massacred the
sick in the hospitals. Many Latins perished; at the same time a large
number succeeded in getting on board some fifty vessels, and by the
ravages they committed in the islands of the Propontis and along the
coast exacted a heavy penalty from the Greeks for the treacherous
onslaught which they had made.
Once her Latin supporters had been massacred, all was over with the
Regent. Giving himself out as the liberator of Alexius II, Andronicus
entered Constantinople. He began by banishing the Empress from the
palace, and then arranged for the disappearance of such members of the
imperial family as were likely to oppose any obstacle to his plans. Mary
and the Caesar Renier died in a manner unknown; the Empress-mother
was condemned to death, and her son forced to sign her sentence himself.
In the face of these atrocities the Patriarch Theodotus withdrew. In
September 1183 Andronicus became joint Emperor with Alexius II, whom
he murdered in November of the same year, and thereupon married Agnes,
who had been his victim's wife.
The reign of Andronicus presents a series of unparalleled contrasts.
So far as the administration of the provinces is concerned, Andronicus
shewed great and statesmanlike qualities; on the other hand his govern-
ment at Constantinople was that of the most hateful of tyrants.
The provincial population had much to bear both from the imperial
functionaries and from the great feudal lords. Andronicus exacted from
the latter class an unfailing respect for the property and rights of the
peasants, and treated with extreme severity such as were reported to him
as having abused their power. As to the officials, he made a point of
## p. 383 (#425) ############################################
Administration of Andronicus
383
choosing them carefully and paying them liberally, so that they should
have no need to oppress the peasants in order to recoup themselves for
the price paid for their appointments. To all he guaranteed rigid justice.
Such as were convicted of peculation were severely punished. “You have
the choice,” the Emperor used to say, “between ceasing to cheat and
ceasing to live. ” Short as was the reign of Andronicus, these measures
had their effect; order and prosperity returned to the provinces, and
some of them which had been deserted by their inhabitants again became
populated. Finally, one of the happiest measures introduced by the
Emperor was the abolition of the rights of wreck and estray.
Andronicus was a lover of literature and of the arts. He surrounded
himself with jurists, and took pleasure in beautifying Constantinople.
The repairing of aqueducts and the restoration of the church of the Forty
Martyrs were the two chief works which he carried out. In one of the
additions made to the church of the Forty Martyrs he had a series of
mosaics executed representing his adventures and his hunting exploits.
But this bright side of Andronicus' reign is defaced by the ferocious
cruelty with which he treated his opponents. The aristocracy opposed
him violently. At Philadelphia, at Nicaea, at Prusa, at Lopadium, and in
Cyprus, risings took place organised by the representatives of the greatest
families among the nobility. At this juncture the Empire was being
attacked on all sides: the Sultan of Iconium had re-taken Sozopolis and
was besieging Attalia, Béla III had crossed the Danube, and finally in .
1185 the King of Sicily, William II, was invading Byzantine territory.
In face of all these dangers Andronicus, fearing to lose the power so
long coveted, determined to maintain himself by terror. The noblest
Byzantine families saw their most illustrious members put to death or
horribly mutilated. At Constantinople as in Asia Minor the work of
repression was terrible; even the Emperor's own family was not spared.
In the capital, terror had bowed the necks of all, and Andronicus seemed
to have nothing left to fear when the Norman invasion came and brought
about his fall.
During the summer of 1185 the Normans, having taken Thessalonica,
advanced
upon Constantinople. At their approach a panic fell upon the
city; the population, in terror of their lives, complained that Andronicus
was making no preparations for resisting the enemy. The Emperor's
popularity, already impaired by his cruelties, crumbled away under the
fear of invasion. Sullen disaffection was muttering in the capital, and An-
dronicus again had recourse to violence; large numbers were arrested on
the pretext of punishing those secretly in league with the Normans, and
the Emperor contemplated a general massacre of the prisoners. The
arrest of a man of no great importance, Isaac Angelus, was the last drop
that made the cup run over. Escaping from the soldiers sent to arrest
him, Isaac took refuge in St Sophia; the people at his summons gathered
in crowds, and before long rebellion thundered around him and burst out
CH, XII.
## p. 384 (#426) ############################################
384
Death of Andronicus. The Angeli
began
with terrific force. Isaac Angelus was proclaimed Emperor. Andronicus
in vain attempted to resist; he was beaten and took to flight, but was
stopped, and soon after given up to the fury of the people. The rabble
tore out his beard, broke his teeth, cut off one of his hands, put out one of
his eyes, and then threw him into a dungeon. On the morrow his tortures
afresh. He was led through the city on a mangy camel, while stones
and boiling water were thrown at him. Finally, he was brought to the
Hippodrome, where the soldiers, having hung him up by the feet, amused
themselves by cutting him in pieces. Throughout these hideous tortures
Andronicus shewed superhuman courage. Raising his mutilated arm to
his lips he constantly repeated “Kyrie eleison! wherefore wilt thou break
a bruised reed? "
Such in September 1185 was the end of the last Emperor of the
house of the Comneni, who for more than a century had arrested the
ruin of their country. With his great qualities of statesmanship, the
last of the dynasty might have helped to regenerate the Empire. Un-
fortunately the evil elements in his character had the mastery, and
contributed to hasten the hour of that decadence which no member of
the house of the Angeli was to prove capable of retarding.
The reign of Isaac II (1185-1195) was indeed a succession of mis-
fortunes, converted by incapacity into disasters. Cyprus remained in
revolt under an Isaac Comnenus until it was conquered by Richard
Coeur-de-lion in 1191; and the great nobles of the Empire were so much
out of hand as to be almost independent. The Bulgarians rose; the Serbs
had thrown off(1180) their vassalage. If the Byzantines were able to throw
back the invasion of William II of Sicily, Isaac II's alliance with Saladin,
and his resistance to Frederick Barbarossa's transit through the Balkans
on the Third Crusade confirmed the growing enmity of the West.
Frederick forced his way to the Bosphorus, ravaging the country and
sacking Hadrianople. He compelled the transport of his troops to Asia
from Gallipoli, and the delivery of provisions, but not before he had
mooted the proposal of a crusade being preached against the Greeks.
When in 1195 Alexius III took advantage of the general discontent to
blind and depose his brother, no improvement came about. Rather,
the anarchy became worse, while the government's incompetence and
oppression remained glaring. The thirteenth century was to shew that
there were sound elements and great men still in the Empire, but before
they could gain control there fell upon it the shattering disaster of the
Fourth Crusade.
## p. 385 (#427) ############################################
385
CHAPTER XIII.
VENICE.
During the period covered by this chapter the State of Venice did not
reach maturity. She did not become a world-power till after the Fourth
Crusade, nor was it till a full century later that she finally developed her
constitution. But the germs of her constitution and the seeds of her sea-
power are both to be found in these earliest years of her existence. The
problems which dominate these years are the question of immigration,
when and how did the inhospitable islands of the lagoons become settled;
how did the community develop; how did it gradually achieve its actual
and then its formal independence of Byzantium; how did it save itself
from being absorbed by the rulers of the Italian mainland, Charles the
Great, Otto II, and Frederick Barbarossa.
The earliest authentic notice we have of the lagoon-population is to
be found in the letter addressed (c. 536) by Cassiodorus, in the name of
Witigis, King of the Goths, to the Tribuni Maritimorum, the tribunes of
the maritime parts. The letter, written in a tone between command and
exhortation, is highly rhetorical in style, but gives us a vivid picture of a
poor though industrious community occupying a site unique in the world.
This community, in all probability, formed part of the Gothic
Kingdom, for it seems certain that the Tribuni Maritimorum whom
Cassiodorus addresses were officers appointed by the Goths. The chief
characteristics of this people are that they were salt-workers and seamen,
two points highly significant for the future development of Venice. No
doubt the population here referred to was largely augmented, if not
actually formed, by the refugees who sought safety in the lagoons from
the ever recurrent barbarian incursions on the mainland, Attila's among
the number; but it is not till the Lombard invasion in 568 that we can
begin to trace the positive influence of the barbarian raids and to note
the first signs of a political constitution inside the lagoons themselves.
The campaign of Belisarius (535–540) brought Venetia once more
under the Roman Empire (539); and, when Narses the Eunuch under-
took to carry out Justinian's scheme for the final extermination of the
Goths (551), he was forced to recognise 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
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XIII.
25
## p. 386 (#428) ############################################
386
Lombard invasion. The Tribuni
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 (vîes kai
ăkatoi), thereby enabling the Greek army to reach Ravenna and inciden-
tally leading up to the final victories of Busta Gallorum (552) and Mons
Lactarius (553); after this the coast districts (Tà émialaosidia xwpía)
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 Alight from the mainland; and the process was re-
newed 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. Pauli-
nus, 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 appor-
tioned 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-town-
ships. 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
## p. 387 (#429) ############################################
Growth of the community
387
the Lombard invaders, they withdrew their forces, leaving the islanders
of the lagoons to defend themselves as best they might. The lagoon-
dwellers gathered round their leading men or tribunes; but their powers.
of defence were feeble, as is proved by the raid of Lupus, Duke of Friuli,
upon Grado (630), and it was probably only the intricate nature of their
home-waters which saved them from absorption by the barbarian. These
tribunes wielded both military and civil authority, and in theory were
undoubtedly appointed by and dependent on the Exarch of Ravenna as
representing Byzantium in Italy. The office tended to become hereditary
and
gave rise to the class of tribunitian families. Side by side with the
secular power, as represented by the tribunes, grew the ecclesiastical
power centring round the patriarchate of Grado (568), and the lagoon
sees of Caorle (598), Torcello (635), Heraclea (640), Malamocco (640),
Jesolo (670), Olivolo (774). The Arianism of the Lombards drove the
orthodox bishops from their mainland churches to seek asylum in the
lagoons. The clergy as was natural, thanks to their education, played a
large part in the developing life of the lagoon communities; but, if we
may draw a conclusion from the instance of Torcello, it would seem that
the secular power reserved a kind of superiority or patronage over the
ecclesiastical: a fact significant in the future development of ecclesiastico-
political relations in Venice. Besides the leading, or “noble,” families
represented by the tribunes, and the clergy gathered round their bishops,
we find that there was a general assembly of the whole population which
made its voice heard in the choice of both tribunes, priests, and bishops,
but otherwise appears to have been of little weight.
Throughout the seventh century the imperial possessions on the main-
land 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
CA. XIII.
25-2
## p. 388 (#430) ############################################
388
The first doge
יל
יל
elect to this office, at length they agreed upon a capable and illustrious
man named Paulitio. ”
The date usually given for the choice of the first doge is 697, but it
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 im-
perial 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 concentra-
tion 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 preserva-
tion, the maintenance of such practical, de facto, independence of By-
zantium 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.
The earliest and most important act of Paulutius was the conclusion
of a treaty (713–716) with Liutprand, the powerful King of the Lombards.
## p. 389 (#431) ############################################
Relations with the Lombards
389
The treaty is lost, but we can gather its terms from the reference to it in
subsequent pacta with the kings of Italy. It consisted of two parts: the
first a guarantee of security for Venetian traders on the mainland; protec-
tion of Venetian flocks and horses; right to cut wood in Lombard territory;
in return for these privileges the doge agreed to pay an annual tribute.
The second part contained a definition of boundaries on the mainland.
This second part is said to have been “concluded in the days of King Liut-
prand, between the Duke Paulutio and the Magister Militum Marcellus. ”
Of this difficult passage three explanations have been suggested. It is said
that Marcellus was the Magister Militum (the chief imperial authority)
of Istria, and that it was he who concluded the treaty with the consent
of the doge. But Istria and Sea-Venice were by this time separated;
“Dux” is superior in rank to “Magister Militum,” and as a matter of
fact the doge's name comes first; finally the agreement is said to be
not between Marcellus and Liutprand but between (inter) Paulutio and
Marcellus. The second theory is that Marcellus was Magister Militum
in Venice and associated himself with the doge in treating with Liut-
prand; but here again the word inter seems fatal. The third and most
plausible theory is that Marcellus was the imperial Magister Militum in
Venice, and that acting on imperial orders he and the doge delimited the
territory of Heraclea and obtained from Liutprand a confirmation of the
same, as is proved by the “precept” of 25 March 996. Whichever view
be correct, the treaty with Liutprand is of the highest importance as
shewing us the Venetian community under its first doge securing treaty
rights from the masters of the mainland.
It is certain that the early doges did not exercise a wide or undis-
puted 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 Slavs. But the establish-
ment 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,
CA. XIII.
## p. 390 (#432) ############################################
390
Relations with Byzantium
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 un-
doubtedly elected by the lagoon population without consulting the
imperial authorities.
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 Bene-
vento 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 Aed 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 revolu-
tionary 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 shewing 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
## p. 391 (#433) ############################################
The Franks
391
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 ex-
posed to the influence of the mainland rulers—to Malamocco, a town-
ship 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.
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 fron-
tiers. 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 Liut-
prand. 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 informa-
tion to the Papal authorities in Ravenna ; and possibly about this period
Torcello began to assume its position of eutroplov péya, the “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
1
CH, XIII.
## p. 392 (#434) ############################################
392
Olivolo. Charles the Great
a
of the struggle for supremacy between the various townships is empha-
sised 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
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 town-
ships; 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 im-
portance among the lagoon-townships, and their territory was assigned
to the fisc, forming the origin of what afterwards became the domain-
lands of the Ducatus.
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 con-
sidering 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
## p. 393 (#435) ############################################
Fortunatus of Grado
393
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 fung
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 Seltz. He brought the Emperor many and costly presents,
and found him in a mood to listen to his plans for the expulsion of the
Byzantine doges and their party, as the Frankish embassy to the court
at Constantinople (803), commissioned to secure recognition of Charles'
new imperial title, had just been haughtily repulsed.
Meanwhile, encouraged no doubt by news from Fortunatus, the
Francophil conspirators in Treviso elected Obelerius as doge (804). He
made a dash for the lagoons, entered his native town of Malamocco
amid popular acclaim, and the Doges Johu and Mauritius were forced
to Ay 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
CU. XIII.
## p. 394 (#436) ############################################
394
Pepin's attack
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 re-
pulsed. 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 Porphyro-
genitus 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,
## p. 395 (#437) ############################################
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 Praetor 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 Vene-
tians 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 sympa-
thies, 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, look-
ing 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 pucta 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 recog-
nised 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
CH, XIII.
## p. 396 (#438) ############################################
396
Commerce
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.
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 re-confirmed
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 com-
petitor, 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 mer-
chants 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 shews
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
## p. 397 (#439) ############################################
Constitution. Dynastic tendencies
397
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.
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 con-
vened. 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 signal-
ised by unsuccessful sea-campaigns against the Slav pirates of the Dal-
matian 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
CH. XIII.
## p. 398 (#440) ############################################
398
The pactum of Pavia
expedition to Taranto (840). Unfortunate as were these earliest naval
enterprises of the growing State of Venice, they were fruitful in calling
out the energy and resolution of the people and in leading to a revolution
in Venetian ship-building. It was under Tradonicus that the first great
ships were built in Venetian docks, and the type established which was
to serve both for trade and war.
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 Mülhausen (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 docu-
ment 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.
The Doge Tradonicus did not escape the dynastic ambitions which
were common to all the earlier holders of the ducal throne. He sur-
1 Biremes with a crew of 150 men. The proper name for this vessel was Chelandia
(Xedávòia). Johannes Diaconus (ed. Monticolo, Chron. Venet. Ant. in Fonti, p. 115)
calls it Zalandria. Thietmar (Chronicon, SGUS, p. 62) says:
“ salandria. . . est. . . nauis
mirae longitudinis et alacritatis. ” See also infra, Chapter xxiii, p. 743.
## p. 399 (#441) ############################################
Secular versus ecclesiastical power
399
rounded 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 demon-
stration 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 Parti-
ciacus 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
(etiam tocius regni nostri). 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 (22 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.
