Early Medieval Venice: Cultural Memory and History 0367900564, 9780367900564, 0367536951, 9780367536954, 9781003022169

Citation preview

Early Medieval Venice

Early Medieval Venice examines the significant changes that Venice underwent between the late-sixth and the early-eleventh centuries. From the periphery of the Byzantine Empire, Venice acquired complete independence and emerged as the major power in the Adriatic area. It also avoided absorption by neighbouring rulers, prevented serious destruction by raiders, and achieved a stable state organization, all the while progressively extending its trading activities to most of northern Italy and the eastern Mediterranean. This was not a linear process, but the Venetians obtained and defended these results with great tenacity, creating the foundations for the remarkable developments of the following centuries. This book presents the most relevant themes that characterized Venice during this epoch, including war, violence, and the manner in which ‘others’ were perceived. It examines how early medieval authors and modern scholars have portrayed this period, and how they were sometimes influenced by their own ‘present’ in their reconstruction of the past. Luigi Andrea Berto is Professor of Medieval History at Western Michigan University, USA. His research focuses on medieval Italy and the Mediterranean, and the relationships between Christians and Muslims.

Studies in Medieval History and Culture

Recent titles include Travel, Pilgrimage and Social Interaction from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Edited by Jenni Kuuliala and Jussi Rantala Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes Luigi Andrea Berto Margaret’s Monsters Women, Identity, and the Life of St Margaret in Medieval England Michael E. Heyes Supernatural Encounters Demons and the Restless Dead in Medieval England, c.1050–1450 Stephen Gordon Ancestor Worship and the Elite in Late Iron Age Scandinavia A Grave Matter Triin Laidoner Warfare and the Making of Early Medieval Italy (568-652) Eduardo Fabbro Rethinking Medieval Margins and Marginality Edited by Ann E. Zimo, Tiffany D. Vann Sprecher, Kathryn Reyerson and Debra Blumenthal English Readers of Catholic Saints The Printing History of William Caxton’s Golden Legend Judy Ann Ford

Early Medieval Venice Cultural Memory and History Luigi Andrea Berto

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Luigi Andrea Berto The right of Luigi Andrea Berto to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Berto, Luigi Andrea, author. Title: Early medieval Venice : cultural memory and history / Luigi Andrea Berto. Description: New York : Routledge, [2021] | Series: Studies in medieval history and culture | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020013087 (print) | LCCN 2020013088 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367900564 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003022169 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Venice (Italy)–History–697-1508. | Violence–Italy–Veneto–History–To 1500. Classification: LCC DG677 .B459 2021 (print) | LCC DG677 (ebook) | DDC 945/.31102–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020013087 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020013088 ISBN: 978-0-367-90056-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-02216-9 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Chapters 1–7 are a revised version in English of La guerra, la violenza, gli altri e la frontiera nella ‘Venetia’ altomedievale (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2016).

Contents

List of maps Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction 1

2

War and violence in early medieval Venice: perceptions and mentality

vi vii viii 1

5

Peter IV Candiano: a Duke deposed because he was too virtuous or too authoritarian?

40

Under the ‘Romans’ or under the Franks? Venice between two empires

46

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors: circulation of news and ‘stories’ about non-Venetians in early medieval Venice

60

5

Emperor Otto III in Venice

84

6

All is well on the western front? The image of the early medieval Venetian frontier between the second and the third millennium

92

3

4

7

8

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? The Latin and Greek onomastics of eighth-century Lombard Treviso and its relationship with early medieval Venice

101

‘As an angel revealed to her’: miracles, visions, predictions, and supernatural phenomena and the politics of memory in early medieval Venice

127

Bibliography Index

151 161

Maps

The main locations of the Venetian duchy North-eastern Italy The Adriatic Sea

148 149 150

Acknowledgments*

I wish to thank Michael Greenwood for accepting this volume for publication; the staff at Routledge, Delphine, Stefano Trovato, Susan Shapiro, Jason Glatz, Madison Prall, and Matthew Trojacek for their help.

* Chapters 1–7 are a revised version in English of La guerra, la violenza, gli altri e la frontiera nella ‘Venetia’ altomedievale (Pisa, 2016). Earlier versions of Chapters 3, 4, and 8 have been published in Haskins Society Journal 28 (2016), Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 28, 2 (2016), and Mediterranean Studies, 23, 1 (2015).

Abbreviations

MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica

Introduction

Between the late sixth century and the early eleventh, Venice underwent huge changes. From a periphery of the Byzantine Empire, Venice1 acquired complete independence and emerged as the major power in the Adriatic area. Moreover, in this period the Venetians, while avoiding being absorbed by neighboring rulers and undergoing serious destruction by raiders, progressively extended their trading activities to most of northern Italy and the eastern Mediterranean, and achieved a stable state organization. This was not a linear process, but the Venetians obtained and defended these results with great tenacity, thus creating the foundations for the remarkable developments of the following centuries. This volume presents the most relevant themes that characterized Venice in that epoch: war; violence; the manner in which ‘others’ were perceived; what was known about them; and the frontier, focusing in particular on how early medieval authors and modern scholars portrayed that period and were, sometimes, influenced by their ‘present’ in their reconstruction of the past. Because the Istoria Veneticorum (History of the Venetians) by John the Deacon, the main source for the history of early medieval Venice, will be used often in this volume, I believe it is useful to include some information about this text.2 This chronicle has no dedication, prologue, or title3 and is anonymous. It is, however, attributed to John the Deacon, because in the last section of the work a deacon named John appears with the duties of ambassador for Duke Peter II Orseolo (991–1008).4 This Deacon John was in charge of organizing Emperor Otto III’s secret visit to Venice in the year 1001 and personally accompanying the German ruler to the duchy.5 That these events are described in such great detail and only in this chronicle has led to the hypothesis that Deacon John himself wrote it. Another factor supporting this supposition is the fact that the History of the Venetians reports that, while Otto III was traveling to Rome for the election of Pope Gregory V (996–999), the sovereign also visited Ravenna. There he ordered the punishment of the Count of Rimini, Rodulf, for having appropriated resources that were to be employed for the benefit of churches and the poor.6 No other text narrates this detail, though a document dating to May 6, 996 refers to it.7 Deacon

2

Introduction

John probably witnessed this episode, because in the document issued in Ravenna by the German ruler just a few days earlier,8 the ambassador of Duke Peter II Orseolo is a Deacon John.9 The imperial crowning of Otto III in Rome in that year is recorded in the History of the Venetians,10 and it is very likely that this Venetian churchman accompanied the German sovereign on that occasion. In a document dating to Peter II Orseolo’s reign,11 it is in fact explained that a sum of money was given to a Deacon John for his expenses in Rome.12 Further information about the relationship between Deacon John and his lord is provided in a diploma of Otto III dated 995, in which it is stated that the churchman was Duke Peter II Orseolo’s chaplain.13 As Deacon John appears for the first time in a document dated 995 – a date believed to coincide with his first diplomatic position – it has been supposed that in that period he was between 25 and 30 years old. He would therefore have been born sometime around 965–97014 and have been a witness to the events described in the History of the Venetians beginning around the middle of the rule of Duke Tribunus Menio (979–991). In a diplomatic mission dating to 967, however, one of Duke Peter IV Candiano’s ambassadors was a certain Deacon John.15 John was a very popular name in early medieval Venice,16 so we cannot be certain that this is the same person. Still, if we hypothesize that he was born around 940–945, in 1018 – the year of the last known reference to Deacon John17—he would have been about 75 years old, a venerable age for the period, but not impossible to reach.18 According to this hypothesis, Deacon John would have been an adult around 960, that is, at the beginning of Peter IV Candiano’s rule (959–976); this would explain why the History of the Venetians is much more detailed beginning with the reign of this duke. The fact that Deacon John was an ambassador for both Peter IV Candiano and Peter II Orseolo – the Orseolos were enemies of the Candiano family – would indicate that he had followed the example of the most important Venetians, who withdrew support from Peter IV Candiano because his actions were in contrast with the traditional Venetian policy and trade activities in the eastern Mediterranean. Whether Deacon John composed the History of the Venetians or not, this work was certainly written shortly after Peter II Orseolo’s death (1008) because the oldest manuscript, which contains this text and which is not an autograph, dates to the first half of the eleventh century.19 The History of the Venetians reports events beginning from the Lombard invasion of Italy in 568/569, which forced a part of the northeastern Italian population to flee to the Venetian lagoon,20 up to Peter II Orseolo’s rule (991–1008). The passing of the duke is, however, not mentioned and the chronicle ends with the news that one of the duke’s sons was elected bishop of Torcello.21 The main thread of the work is the narration of what took place during the rule of each duke, but there are also references to episodes not concerning Venetian history. As for the part of the chronicle from its beginning up to the election of Duke Maurice (ca. 764), one should take into account that it is missing in

Introduction

3

the earliest manuscript of the Istoria Veneticorum. Because most of the episodes about the period between the late sixth century and the beginning of the eighth century do not concern the history of Venice and have been copied from other sources, one suspects that the missing section does not correspond to the original text.22

Notes 1 I use ‘Venice’ as synonymous with the Venetian duchy, as opposed to the city of Venice. In the early Middle Ages, the central part of the modern city of Venice was called ‘Rivoalto,’ where, in 810/811, the duke established his headquarters. For a discussion of this terminology, see G. B. Monticolo, ‘Intorno al significato del nome Venecia nella Cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono,’ Nuovo Archivio Veneto 3 (1892), pp. 379–86; G. Ortalli, ‘I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città,’ in Storia di Venezia, II: L’età del comune, eds. G. Cracco – G. Ortalli (Rome, 1995), pp. 761–82; and L. A. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary of John the Deacon’s ‘Istoria Veneticorum’ (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 141–5. The mistaken use of the definition ‘city of Venice’ for the early Middle Ages is unfortunately still present in scholarly works. For example, see V. West-Harling, ‘Introduction,’ in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, 750–1000, ed. V. West-Harling (Turnhout, 2015), pp. 15–19. 2 This section is a revised version of John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia medievale, Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2 (Bologna, 1999), pp. 7–25, Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. vii–xv, and L. A. Berto, ‘Giovanni Diacono, veneziano,’ in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 56 (Rome, 2001), pp. 8–10. 3 In the latest edition of the chronicle it has been decided to change the previous titles, Chronicon Venetum, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, VII (Hanover, 1846), pp. 4–38, and La cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 9 (Rome, 1890), pp. 59–171, into Istoria Veneticorum because the Venetians in this work are always identified as Venetici and because the only time the author refers to it, he uses the term istoria. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 6: ‘Imperatorum Grecorum ratio coegit nos a nostrae istoriae seriae aliquid discedere; nunc necesse est illam ordine repetere (The behavior of the Byzantine emperors has forced us to stray a bit from continuing our history; now it is necessary to resume it in good order).’ In the catalog of the Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo it has been mistakenly titled as Historia Veneticorum. 4 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55. 5 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 56–61. 6 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 39. 7 Ottonis II. et III diplomata, ed. Th. von Sickel, in MGH, Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae, II (Hanover, 1893), number 193. 8 May 1, 996. 9 Ottonis II. et III diplomata, number 192. This document is also reported in Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille, ed. R. Cessi, 2 vols (Padua, 1942–1943), II, pp. 153–4. 10 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 39. 11 Unfortunately, we do not have a precise date for this document. 12 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 140.

4

Introduction

13 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 148. 14 B. Rosada, ‘Il “Chronicon Venetum” di Giovanni Diacono,’ Ateneo Veneto 178 (1990), p. 84; G. Fasoli, ‘I fondamenti della storiografia veneziana,’ in La storiografia veneziana fino al secolo XVI: Aspetti e problemi, ed. A. Pertusi (Florence, 1970), p. 15, note 4. 15 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 86. 16 For early medieval Venetian onomastics, see L. A. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians: Prosopography of Early Medieval Venice (Turnout, 2014). 17 Codice diplomatico padovano dal sec. VI a tutto l’XI, ed. A. Gloria (Venice, 1877), p. 139. 18 For example, the Patriarch of Grado Vitalis Candiano was born around 940 and died sometime between 1012 and 1018.. R. Capasso, ‘Vitale Candiano (patriarca),’ in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 17 (Rome, 1974), pp. 771–3. 19 It is the Codex Urbinatis Latinus number 440 (Vatican Library, Rome). 20 According to the chronicler, this episode marked the birth of Venice. 21 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 78. 22 For further information about this point, see E. Besta, ‘Sulla composizione della cronaca veneziana attribuita al diacono Giovanni,’ Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti LXXIII (1914), pp. 775–802, and John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, pp. 12–20.

1

War and violence in early medieval Venice Perceptions and mentality

War and violence in the Middle Ages have been the subject of various studies aimed primarily at examining military history, behavior in war, and ideological aspects.1 Little attention, however, has been devoted to how the medieval chroniclers describe them. This is not an irrelevant gap, if one takes into account the important information that could be drawn from a systematic analysis of how they, for example, depict enemy populations. The goal of this chapter is to contribute to this kind of study by examining the Istoria Veneticorum (History of the Venetians) by John the Deacon. Since this work is the only early medieval Venetian chronicle and the sources used by the author are not known, the only possible analysis that one can make is to analyze all information that goes over and above a simple description of events.2

The Venetians at war The deeds of the Venetian dukes are the main thread of this work and, therefore, beginning the examination with them seems relevant. The Istoria Veneticorum mentions several Venetian rulers leading at the head of their troops, especially emphasizing their commitment to defending their compatriots. For example, after the Muslims and the Slavs defeated the Venetians several times in the 840s, Duke Peter (836–864) ordered the construction of two warships that ‘were of a size that had never before seen in Venice.’3 Immediately after the incursion of the Hungarians in Venice (ca. 899), Duke Peter Tribuno (887– 911) had the capital of the Venetian duchy, Rivoalto, fortified with walls, and ordered the mouth of the Grand Canal blocked with a chain.4 However, John the Deacon reports only one occasion during which a Venetian ruler fought. This duke was Peter Candiano (887), who ruled for a few months and was the sole Venetian ruler to lose his life in combat (the other three dukes, who died violent deaths, were all assassinated during plots and uprisings).5 Peter Candiano died while on an expedition against the Narentans.6 John the Deacon makes no comments about this episode. Nevertheless, he explains that the duke attacked the enemy with a few men, thus probably implying that the failure of this expedition and Peter Candiano’s death were attributable to his imprudence. Considering that the chronicler was a member

6

War and violence in early medieval Venice

of Duke Peter II Orseolo’s entourage and that the Orseolos and the Candianos were rivals, that detail could be interpreted as a desire to present the Candiano family in a bad light.7 If so, this was just a small hint. Indeed, John the Deacon narrates how Peter Candiano bravely fought against the Narentans and, before dying, killed several enemies and sank five of their ships. The fact that a Venetian was able to take away the duke’s corpse from the Narentans made the defeat less bitter. Peter immediately sent an army against the Narentan Slavs; it returned with no result. Then, in August, he himself sailed out with twelve ships into the sea with bellicose intentions. Having arrived at the mountain of the Slavs, in a place called Macarsca, he attacked the Slavs despite having few men. At first he put to flight the Slavs who were resisting him, killed many of them and with some axes broke up five ships that were there. But in the end, the Slavs attacked and killed him and another seven there, on the 18th of September; the others, on the contrary, returned home unharmed.8 The uniqueness of Peter Candiano is emphasized by the fact he is the only person in the Istoria Veneticorum to be remembered with the adjectives ‘bellicosus et audax’ (warlike and brave)9 and the sole character described fighting. The way John the Deacon narrates war events contemporary to him further highlights this particularity. In the case of the detailed account of Duke Peter II Orseolo’s expedition in Dalmatia in 1000, John the Deacon10 reports that there was only one battle; it was an assault on one of the Narentans’ bases, the island of Lagosta/Lastovo. This island was surrounded by rocky cliffs and, although it did not deny access to those entering, it was nevertheless distinguished by the height of its mountains, one of which, fortified with towers and walls, was considered by all impregnable.11 Having then collected a multitude of ships, the above-mentioned prince [Peter II Orseolo] entered one of that island’s ports. He sent word to the citizens to give up their stubbornness and come to him, otherwise they should know that he would face them in battle. They, driven by fear, responded with words of peace. Afterwards, he warned them that they would not be in any way able to obtain peace from the duke, if they did not destroy the city themselves and if, after having destroyed it, they left it irreparable and uninhabitable. They absolutely refused to do this and tried to resist this great army. The duke then ordered his men to prepare themselves for battle and attack them vigorously. Because the location’s steep terrain made the access difficult to the advancing people, however, the inhabitants tried, with as much valor as they could, to hold off the enemy for a little while by hurling javelins. Finally, thanks to Almighty God, most of the army attacked the area where the gates of the fortress

War and violence in early medieval Venice 7 were located, while the other soldiers climbed over the mountain trails and conquered the towers where the water cisterns were kept. The inhabitants were oppressed from this position in such a way that, finally, having lost their spirit and laid down their arms, they begged on their knees for nothing more than to escape the odious danger of death. The merciful duke decided to keep them all alive and ordered that only the city be destroyed.12 John the Deacon also describes the battle of the Venetian fleet, led by Peter II Orseolo, against the Muslims, who were besieging Bari (1002). In that same year, a multitude of Saracens invaded the land of Apulia and besieged the city of Bari from all sides. It was then under the command of Catapan Gregory. When the mighty Duke Peter learned of this, he ordered a very great expedition to be prepared, and, on the solemn day of Saint Lawrence, he sailed from Venice to fight the Saracens. Sailing across the vast sea, he passed through many places and, on the sixth of September, approached the aforesaid city. When both Saracen forces13 saw that this unexpected assistance had come to the Christians, some mounted horses and lined up on the beach, while others boarded the ships and boldly provoked the Christians to fight. With the help of God, his lordship Duke Peter nevertheless succeeded in entering the port of the aforesaid city unharmed and with all his men. The citizens, along with Catapan Gregory, welcomed him with dignity and received him in the city palace. His lordship the duke then began to plan how he could defend the city against the cruelty of the pagans, but first he strengthened the citizens, who had been exhausted by hunger, with rations.14 The duke then encouraged them to fight with courage against this most wicked people. He ordered the victorious banner to be hoisted, sent some to fight in the suburbs, and took others with him to begin the naval battle. Then, for three consecutive days, they pressed the Saracens hard, now with swords, now with flaming arrows. On the third night, the army of the pagans retreated in silence. The others, who had invaded the surrounding places and cruelly subjugated them, did not stay much longer either, and soon retreated in confusion. And so, from that moment on, the citizens of Bari celebrated and honored the name of his lordship Duke Peter who, driven not by human fear, but by fear of God, had liberated them from the persecution of their enemies.15 These accounts clearly show that John the Deacon did not omit war episodes in which the Venetian dukes took part from his chronicle. Although he sometimes lingered over such events, he mainly stressed the difficulties in each battle in order to present the victory as an honorable event for the Venetians. Yet it is clear that in his way of narrating those episodes, he is only interested in describing the deeds of the entire army, not of an individual. What is absent, therefore, is the presence of a Venetian hero. With this

8

War and violence in early medieval Venice

in mind, it is significant that the chronicler records that in the Battle of Bari, Duke Peter II Orseolo simply ordered the assault against the Muslims and the raising of the Venetian banner, but he did not place himself at the head of his soldiers with weapons in hand. John the Deacon, therefore did not believe that being a brave warrior was a quality that the rulers of his homeland had to possess. The fact that he often mentions the dukes at the head of their soldiers suggests that he believed they had to prove themselves to be good military leaders, but this was enough for a Venetian ruler. This characteristic is especially relevant in the section of his work dedicated to Peter II Orseolo, whom John the Deacon portrays as the best duke that Venice ever had, since he possessed the best features of all those who had ruled before him.16 Unlike Duke Peter Candiano, however, Peter II Orseolo is not depicted as ‘bellicosus et audax’ (warlike and brave). As already emphasized, Peter Candiano was an exception.17 It is also worth noting that, regarding two of the most victorious Venetians dukes, namely Ursus II (864–881) and Peter II Orseolo, John the Deacon reports that they behaved in an exemplary manner during their war campaigns. After having inflicted a heavy defeat on the Slavs and believing that his victory was obtained thanks to God, Ursus II ordered the freeing of the prisoners and the return of all the objects that the enemies had stolen from the churches.18 Similarly, Peter II Orseolo decided not to execute any of the inhabitants of Lagosta/Lastovo who were the only ones to oppose him with arms during his expedition in Dalmatia.19 At Bari, after having entered the city, the first thing the duke did was to feed the citizens exhausted by the siege.20 John the Deacon does not hide that the Venetians sometimes caused devastation during their campaigns.21 Moreover, he does not shy away from using harsh terminology for describing his compatriots’ war deeds. For example, Duke Obelerio (805–810/811) sent the Venetian fleet ‘to destroy the province of Dalmatias.’22 The fights between the Venetians and the Lombards during the seventh century are thus portrayed: ‘very many conflicts occurred between the two sides to the point that they often fought, causing suffering and destruction to each other.’23 Duke John III (881–887) ‘ordered the Venetians to depredate the Ravennati.’24 Duke Peter II Candiano (931–939) ’sent an army there (Comacchio), burned their fortified center, killed some of the inhabitants, and took the others of both sexes to Venice. He kept them there until they submitted themselves to him by taking an oath of fealty and obeyed him in everything as subjects.’25 Likewise, Duke Peter IV Candiano (959–976) commanded ‘the fortified citadel of Oderzo to be burned and destroyed.’26 Lastly, Peter II Orseolo told the inhabitants of Lagosta/Lastovo that ‘they would not be in any way able to obtain peace from the duke, if they did not destroy the city themselves and if, after having destroyed it, they left it irreparable and uninhabitable.’27 In surveying such events, it is necessary to remember that John the Deacon often provides a reason that made the action of the Venetians justifiable. The devastation ensuing from the Venetian campaigns did not, therefore, represent

War and violence in early medieval Venice 9 anything other than the inevitable consequence of war and was not the Venetian’s objective, as, on the contrary, was the case with the campaigns of Venice’s enemies as described in the Istoria Veneticorum.28 It is significant that John the Deacon never mentions that the Venetians obtained some booty in their campaigns. Rather, the Venetian chronicler narrates how, after having defeated the Slavs who were sacking Istria, Duke Ursus II (864–881) returned all that had been stolen from the churches of that region.29 This episode is also relevant because John the Deacon provides the motive for the Venetian expedition; indeed, he adds that the Slavs were planning to attack the Venetian city of Grado.30 Peter II Orseolo sent a fleet against the Croats, because the latter began to harass the Venetians after the Venetian duke’s refusal to pay them the usual tribute. At around these times, a ruler of the Croats tried to harass the Venetians on account of the tribute that the duke had denied him. His lordship the duke then sent six warships commanded by Badoer, surnamed Bragadinus. After conquering one of their cities, called Chissa, he brought prisoners of both sexes to Venice.31 According to the Venetian author, Peter II Orseolo intervened in Dalmatia at the request of that region’s inhabitants, who wanted to be freed ‘from the harshness of the Slavs.’32 John the Deacon also explains that the Croats and Narentans captured forty Zarans, which is what prompted the Dalmatians to ask for aid from the Venetians.33 In addition, the Comaclenses provoked the two clashes they had with the Venetians. The first happened because the count of Comacchio had captured and wounded Badoer, brother of Duke John III (the Venetian later died as a consequence of the wounds);34 the imprisonment of some Venetians by the Comaclenses caused the second conflict.35 In the case of the Muslims, the Venetians attacked them three times at the request of the Byzantines;36 the fourth intervention was justified by the need to rescue Bari, which the Saracens37 were besieging (1002).38

A bellicose and violent duke and a saintly duke: Peter IV Candiano (959–976) and Peter Orseolo (976–978) When compared to other Venetian rulers, John the Deacon describes the campaigns of Duke Peter IV Candiano much differently. Immediately after emphasizing that this ruler oppressed his subjects, he adds how Peter IV Candiano behaved with his external adversaries. He subdued the foreigners who opposed him by punishing them harshly. In fact he completely conquered the population of the castle of Ferrara, ordered the fortified citadel of Oderzo to be burned and destroyed, and caused great suffering to many others who had resisted him.39

10 War and violence in early medieval Venice It is relevant that, in addition to not explaining the reasons that prompted the duke to make war, John the Deacon points out that Peter IV Candiano punished his enemies harshly. This is the only time John the Deacon expresses this type of comment. Its uniqueness is further underlined if one compares it with the chronicler’s observation about how Peter II Orseolo acted in similar circumstances. According to John the Deacon, the latter always sought to maintain friendly relations with all the Italian rulers. Yet, if any of them dared to impose on the Venetians something more than what had been established ‘he, although forcefully opposing them, kept control of himself when dealing with them.’40 Peter II Orseolo thus acted against Venice’s enemies harshly, though only in response to provocations.41 John the Deacon does not make an explicit statement about perceived differences between Peter IV Candiano and the other Venetian rulers, but the manner in which he narrates the actions of Peter IV Candiano emphasizes that this duke clearly behaved differently from the other Venetian dukes and that he certainly did not enjoy the chronicler’s approval. Even if Peter IV Candiano is never portrayed with weapons in hand, like his fore-bearer who died fighting against the Slavs, bellicosity and toughness are the qualities that characterized him in all his actions. While Peter IV Candiano was coregent duke under his father, Duke Peter III Candiano, he opposed his parent to such an extent that their partisans clashed in Rivoalto’s square; John the Deacon explains that his father was ‘infirm’ and ‘old,’ thus further highlighting the seriousness and reprehensible nature of this act. Duke Peter had three sons; he made one of them, Peter, co-ruler with the assent of the people. Holding his father’s admonitions in no account, his son tried to rise up against him, so that one day the soldiers of both sides went into the square of Rivoalto to fight. Yet while the majority of the people was in favor of the old and infirm father…42 After being exiled for his rebellious actions, Peter IV Candiano retaliated by attacking some Venetian ships.43 Elected duke at the death of his father, he took actions that no other ruler of Venice had ever taken before. He repudiated his wife in order to marry Waldrada, one of the most important members of the Italian kingdom’s aristocracy,44 who brought him a large dowry in land. He made his son Vitalis, whom he procreated with his first wife, the leader of the Venetian Church, i.e., patriarch of Grado, and formed a sort of private guard, composed of warlike ‘milites’ (warriors/knights) from the Italian mainland.45 John the Deacon, furthermore, emphasizes that even the Venetians suffered from how Peter IV Candiano behaved: ‘It is said that his boldness was so great that he oppressed his subjects with his severe rule more than he should have.’46 One notes that the chronicler highlights both the effrontery and the unusual hardness with which the duke treated his subjects.47 The other events related to Peter IV Candiano allow us to examine how John the Deacon portrays violent deeds within Venice. Indeed, he says that

War and violence in early medieval Venice 11 he cannot explain all that the duke had done and prefers to narrate how he died.48 The chronicler highlights that the Venetians no longer tolerated his behavior and rose up against him after plotting to eliminate him for a long time. Because the ducal palace was guarded by Peter IV Candiano’s soldiers, no one dared to enter the building. Accordingly, the insurgents successfully carried out a plan to burn nearby houses so that the flames would spread to the palace. Peter IV Candiano was forced to exit the building and was immediately killed by the rebels, among whom were some of his relatives. The Venetians had long hated him because of his harshness and carefully devised an opportunity to eliminate him. One day, having hatched a conspiracy, they decided to rise up against him; yet they did not dare to enter the palace in any way, because they knew it was protected by soldiers, who, though few in number, were bellicose. They finally devised an evil plan: they decided to set the houses opposite the palace and beyond the canal on fire, using kindling mixed with pitch, so that the highest part of the flames, by swaying, might reach the nearby palace and burn it. As it happened, not only the palace, but also the churches of St. Mark, St. Theodore, and St. Mary of Zobenigo, along with more than three hundred dwellings, burned down that day.49 Unable to withstand the heat of the fire inside the palace for very long and choking from the smoke, the duke tried to flee with a few of his men through the doors of the atrium of St. Mark’s. There he found a number of the aristocrats of the Venetians along with his relatives waiting to kill him. As he saw them, he spoke thus: ‘You too, brothers, did you come to increase my ruin? If I did wrong somehow in my words or public actions, I beg you to let me live and I promise to satisfy your every desire.’ Then they stated that he was very wicked and worthy of death, and shouted in ferocious yells that there was no chance for him to flee, and they immediately stabbed him cruelly with sword strokes to every part of his body. His divine soul left the prison of his body and went toward its celestial abode. Even his son, whom his nurse-maid had saved from the fire, was pierced by a most iniquitous spear, and the soldiers who tried to help him were likewise killed. Their cold bodies, that is, of the father and son, were at first brought ingloriously on a small boat to the butcher’s square; then, at the request of a certain most holy man named John Gradenigo, they were brought to the monastery of St. Hilary.50 Unfortunately, this uprising is the only one contemporary with John the Deacon,51 and this makes the comparison less meaningful because in the other cases the chronicler had far less available data and those episodes did not concern any member of the Candiano and Orseolo families. It is, nevertheless, worth noting that John the Deacon explains the reason for assaulting a duke only in the case of Peter IV Candiano. The chronicler does not express any explicit negative judgment against this ruler and, actually, has

12 War and violence in early medieval Venice words of condemnation for the violence against him: the idea to set fire to the houses close to the ducal palace—the fire destroyed most of Rivoalto—is designated as an ‘evil plan/suggestion,’ while the murder of Peter IV Candiano and of his son is called ‘most iniquitous crime.’52 Styling the assassination with such condemnatory language is a sign of the personality of John the Deacon, who could not remain insensitive to events of this kind.53 The detailed account of Peter IV Candiano’s forced decampment from the burning ducal palace, the dramatic exchange between the duke and his murderous relatives, the killing of the duke’s son, and the macabre public display of their corpses go far beyond a simple reporting of events. For one thing, the dialogue between the duke and his relatives features the only time that direct speech is used to describe an episode featuring violence or war. In a broader sense, the entire account constitutes a sort of a cautionary tale through which a historian like John the Deacon, unwilling to praise only his lord and to discredit the Orseolos’ opponents, could highlight what could happen if the leader of the duchy was a person with the characteristics of Peter IV Candiano. The message seems to be: violence, which marked every act of this duke, inevitably called for more violence to the point that some members of his own family—without whose solidarity even the most powerful man was lost—were those who pronounced his death sentence; indeed, they stated that Peter IV Candiano was ‘most wicked and worthy of death’ and killed him. It is noteworthy that these narrative choices allow John the Deacon to express his negative opinion and at the same time to not be accused of factionalism. The negative model represented by Peter IV Candiano is furthermore enhanced by comparing him with the manner in which Duke Peter Orseolo (976–978), father of Peter II Orseolo, behaved. Among the many qualities of this duke, the chronicler reports that, thanks to his goodness, God always allowed him to discover the conspiracies hatched by his opponents. Moreover, explains John the Deacon, Peter Orseolo never wanted these men to be punished. [Some Venetians] acted as evil opponents to his authority to the point that they cruelly tried to kill him. Nevertheless, thanks to his great goodness, as well as to divine will, he had such great strength that, without investigation, he became aware of whatever they secretly decided among themselves in their unjust machinations. He did not want to punish his opponents’ wickedness, but, with a calm spirit and for fear of God, tolerated everything.54 In the previous pages, I have observed that John the Deacon does not seem to be a reticent historian. In this case, the need to present exemplary behavior, which completely contrasted with that of Peter IV Candiano, perhaps led the chronicler to omit certain details which could cast a shadow over Peter Orseolo. This hypothesis can be further supported by comparing his version of the uprising with the account of the same episode reported in the biography of Saint Romuald (d. ca. 1027) by Peter Damiani (1007–1072).55

War and violence in early medieval Venice 13 According to this author, Peter Orseolo agreed to set fire to his house near the ducal palace so that the flames would spread to the building and Peter IV Candiano would be forced to leave the palace. Peter Damiani outlines that in exchange for his lost home, Peter Orseolo thus gained all of Venice. It then happened that they asked to set fire to the house of Peter, which was near the palace, so that they could thus get the duke and all his servants. This way of acting occurred with the consent of Peter, who devised that plan with them. They promised him that, in exchange for the house that would have been destroyed by the fire, they would subdue all of Venice to his authority. Having killed the one [Peter IV Candiano] whom they hated, they immediately replaced him as duke with Peter [Orseolo]. In this way Peter obtained the rule of the Dalmatian kingdom. Afterwards, he repented in his heart for his ambition for respect of the divine grace.56 In the biography of Saint Romuald, Duke Peter Orseolo’s subsequent repentance for his actions and his need to atone led to his decision to leave Venice and to enter a monastery. In contrast, John the Deacon ascribes the reason behind his choice as the desire to fulfill a calling felt since Peter Orseolo’s childhood.57 Both the Venetian chronicler and the biographer of Saint Romuald resorted to hagiographic narrative strategies, which makes a reconstruction of events problematic.58 Yet, it is very unlikely that Peter Damiani invented everything.

Defeats In the account of the clash in which Duke Peter Candiano lost his life, John the Deacon seems to say: ‘yes, the Venetians lost a battle, yet they were few, and before succumbing, they eliminated many adversaries.’ This reasoning is also present in another episode of the second half of the ninth century, for which the chronicler proves himself to have had a good amount of accurate information. Having heard that the Muslims were sacking Dalmatia, Duke Ursus II (864–881) sent a small ship with a crew of 14 men to discover whether the enemies were planning to attack Venice. However, some Slavs assaulted the Venetian ship. According to John the Deacon, both sides fought harshly and many Slavs perished under the blows of the Venetians; the ship was eventually seized and all its occupants were killed. The Saracens left the island of Crete, pillaged some cities of the Dalmatias, and also invaded Brač, a city of that province. When this was reported to his lordship Duke Ursus, he quickly had a small ship with 14 men sent to Istria to discover if, by chance, the Saracens wanted to attack Venice and how many they were. As the Venetians left the city of Grado to reach Istria, Slavic marauders, who were hiding in the port of

14 War and violence in early medieval Venice Salvore, swiftly attacked the small ship. Each side fought fiercely and many Slavs died, but eventually the small ship of the Venetians was captured by the Slavs and all of the men who were on board were killed.59 The depiction of this event, together with Peter Candiano’s death, indicate John the Deacon’s willingness to portray Venetian defeats. His work, therefore, was not written in order to exalt the victories of his compatriots. From this point of view, John the Deacon cannot be considered as a reticent historian. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this attitude was probably influenced by the fact that the rule of Peter II Orseolo appears as a golden age characterized by internal stability and important military and diplomatic successes.60 Unfortunately, the chronicler does not record any Venetian defeats contemporary with him, and there are no other sources that allow verification of this particularity. For this reason, it is not possible to determine whether John the Deacon was always impartial. Worthy of note is that the chronicler also relates much bigger Venetian defeats than the two just cited. The most serious were those against the Muslims in the ninth century. For example, Duke Peter (836–864) consented to the request for help from the Byzantines (ca. 841) and sent 60 ships against the Saracens of Taranto, who killed and captured all the Venetians.61 The Muslims took advantage of the success and sailed up the Adriatic, reaching the borders of the Venetian lagoon. On their way back, they seized other Venetian ships.62 The raid was repeated the following year and the Venetians were again beaten at Sansego/Susak.63 The Slavs profited from this serious moment of weakness for the Venetians, and they were able to sack Caorle, which was one of the most important Venetian centers.64 All these events are briefly recounted and no comment is expressed. The only justification for the routs seems to be the great number of enemies; there was a ‘maximus exercitus (very big army)’ of Muslims at Taranto, and a ‘moltitudo (multitude)’ of Saracens beat the Venetian fleet.65 The ‘multitudo Saracenorum’ constitutes a sort of topos, since it is also mentioned in the description of Emperor Otto II’s defeat by the Muslims in Calabria in 98266 and of the Saracen siege of Bari in 1002.67 In the latter case, the great number of Muslims emphasizes the success of Peter II Orseolo against the besiegers. John the Deacon does not neglect to mention unedifying aspects of his compatriots’ military history even during the incursion of the Hungarians (ca. 899). The raiders, narrates the chronicler, burned the Venetian centers close to the mainland and put to flight their inhabitants before being defeated by the Venetian fleet. As demonstrated by this example, he does not omit that, even if they had been beaten, some enemies were able to penetrate his homeland and sow destruction. They [the Hungarians] also entered the Venices with horses and boats made of hides: first, while the population was fleeing, they destroyed Cittanova

War and violence in early medieval Venice 15 with fire, then they torched Equilo, Fine, Chioggia, and Cavarzere and devastated the coastal areas.68

Omissions The missing reference to the capture of John, the son of Duke Maurice (764–797), by the Lombards during a campaign in Istria in the early 770s, to which the biography of Pope Hadrian (772–795) makes reference,69 cannot be designated as an omission by John the Deacon, since there is no evidence that he knew of this work. Accordingly, the more likely hypothesis is that the Venetians contemporary with that event judged that it was better not to remember it. In this regard, it should be noted that, although it is not an act of war tout court, John the Deacon unflinchingly recounts how, while travelling through the territory of the Croats, the son of Duke Ursus Particiaco (911–931), Peter Badoer, who later became duke, was captured and sent into exile by the Slavs.70 The charge of reticence gains further traction in light of the chronicler’s recognition that one of Duke Peter II Orseolo’s first acts was refusing to give the customary tribute to the Croats: ‘the duke effectively freed his subjects from the oppression of the Slavic Croats, to whom he, for the first time, refused to pay the usual tribute.’71 This did not constitute an act of war, but the payment of it was likely obtained by force or by the threat of its use. The chronicler does not explain why the Venetians had to pay it and, unfortunately, there is no other source that can provide an explanation.72 A possible answer is that even the impartiality of John the Deacon had its limits. He could admit that his country had suffered defeats by the Slavs in the past, but describing the circumstances that led to that tribute meant acknowledging some form of Venetian dependency and, in consequence, inferiority to those who were among the most dangerous adversaries of Venice in the early Middle Ages. Of course, it is also possible that, due to John the Deacon not being contemporary to the period in which the Venetians began to pay that tribute, he was not aware of any source on that event.73

Victories In addition to the Venetian defeats, the chronicler also reports the victories his countrymen obtained, yet he never mentions any celebration for them. He makes only a brief mention after the victory of Duke Ursus II (864–881) against the Slavs—the first against them—‘he then went triumphantly back to the palace,’74 and at the end of the expedition in Dalmatia Peter II Orseolo75 ‘returned to Venice with a great triumph.’76 It may be argued that the other victory of Peter II Orseolo, namely the defeat of the Muslims at Bari in 1002, was glorified, since the chronicler outlines that the Baresi honored the name of the duke from that moment onwards.

16 War and violence in early medieval Venice And so, from that moment on, the citizens of Bari celebrated and honored the name of his lordship Duke Peter who, driven not by human fear, but by fear of God, had liberated them from the persecution of their enemies.77 The account of the great celebrations in Venice for the return of Duke Peter II Orseolo’s son, John, who went to Constantinople to marry the Byzantine princess Mary,78 indicates that John the Deacon did not consider the mention of celebrations to be superfluous. This detail makes even more relevant the fact that a member of the ducal chancellery did not record great feasts for the victories of his lord. Even if the celebrations for those successes were presumably not comparable to those for the return of John Orseolo and his wife, it cannot be argued that they did not take place. Giving great importance to that marriage, of which the chronicler also describes the ceremony,79 and not to the military achievement is highly symbolic. John the Deacon thus considered the marriage of the son of the duke to a relative of the Byzantine emperors a much more prestigious success for the Venetians. To be sure, this event highlighted the great international status achieved by the Venetians during Peter II Orseolo’s rule better than any victory.80 Nevertheless, this does not mean that John the Deacon is completely indifferent toward the successes his compatriots obtained in the past or that he always recounts them briefly without any emotional involvement. For example, in the case of the victory over King Pippin (810), the chronicler explains that the Venetians attacked that ruler ‘audacter’ (bravely), that they won thanks to God and that, after having been defeated, Pippin retreated ‘confusus’ (in disarray): ‘[the Venetians] bravely attacked the king. The victory over the enemies was assigned to the Venetians by divine will and therefore the king withdrew in disarray.’81 At the news that the Slavs were devastating Istria and were planning to attack Venice, Duke Ursus II (864–881) assaulted them ‘audacter’ (bravely) and made such a slaughter of them that none of the Slavic raiders were able to return to their country: ‘the duke bravely attacked the Slavs and slaughtered them so that none of them escaped and returned to their fatherland.’82 Except for attributing the victory to divine intervention, John the Deacon does not report anything special about the Venetians’ success over the Hungarians (ca. 899). He, however, places this episode between the Magyar victory over the Italian King Berengar’s enormous army and the explanation that this sovereign managed to get rid of them only through the concession of gifts and hostages. The different manner in which the Venetians and their Italian neighbors confronted those dangerous enemies was certainly more eloquent than any comment about the Venetian victory. Meanwhile the pagan and very cruel people of the Hungarians came to Italy, laid waste to everything through fire and plunder, killed a very large multitude of men, and also took numerous captives. King Berengar

War and violence in early medieval Venice 17 sent an army of fifteen thousand men against them, but only a few of them returned. The Hungarians passed through Treviso, Padua, Brescia and other territories, then went to Pavia, Milan and as far as the mountain of Jupiter, ravaging everything. They also entered the Venices with horses and boats made of hides: first, while the population was fleeing, they destroyed Cittanova with fire, then they torched Equilo, Fine, Chioggia, and Cavarzere and devastated the coastal areas. Indeed, they also tried to enter Rivoalto and Metamauco through a place called Albiola on the day of the passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, but, by the protection of God, his lordship Duke Peter put the Hungarians to flight with a fleet. This persecution in Italy and Venice lasted for one year. Then, by giving hostages and gifts, King Berengar made the Hungarians withdraw from Italy with all the plunder they had taken.83

Plots and uprisings Beside the revolt against Peter IV Candiano, other plots and uprisings against the dukes occurred in the eighth and ninth centuries, and John the Deacon does not seem to possess much information about them. Consequently, one can only examine whether these upheavals provoked any reaction in the chronicler. The first revolt took place against Ursus (ca. 726 – ca 737), and John the Deacon explains only that the Venetians killed him ‘acri livore’ (with bitter rage).84 The son of Ursus, Deusdedit, became duke and he, too, was violently deposed. Unlike his father, he was blinded rather than killed. The chronicler specifies however that this violent deed took place through the initiative of a single person called Galla, who replaced Deusdedit. John the Deacon briefly expresses his disapproval towards Galla by designating him as ‘infidelis’ (unfaithful/traitor): ‘his [Deusdedit’s] eyes were plucked out by a certain traitor, named Galla.’85 The chronicler offers a far more involved appraisal after he reports that the Venetians had deposed Galla and plucked out his eyes,86 elected Dominic Monegario as the new duke, and decided to elect two tribunes every year who were at the orders of the duke.87 Indeed, he harshly criticizes the institutional change, asserting that: as it is customary with the rabble, that is never consistent with the decisions taken, but, because of its superstitious stupidity, always devises new things, in the first year of his dukedom, put at their command two tribunes who had to be under the command of the duke. They tried to do that every year of the life of the above-mentioned duke.88 John the Deacon’s outburst offers considerable insight into understanding his mentality because, in this case, his criticism is levelled at the institutional change implemented by his eighth-century countrymen. It is worthy of note that a few years before this episode, the Venetians decided against being ruled by a duke, but by a ‘magister militum’ (master of the soldiers) who

18 War and violence in early medieval Venice was to remain in office for one year only. The chronicler’s words—the term ‘vulgus,’ clearly used in a derogatory sense, is only used in this point89— show the reaction of a member of the ducal chancellery, who identified the best form of government possible in the ducal regime. John the Deacon seems to perceive the violent depositions of the dukes as an evil which was an inevitable part of the struggle for power, but that did not undermine the internal stability of Venice, as could instead happen with other types of government.90 In contrast, the chronicler does not express any comment on the attempt of the former Duke Obelerio to regain possession of the ducal office in ca. 830.91 His bid was made all the more serious due to the support of the inhabitants of Metamauco, which is where he was from and which had been the capital of the Venetian duchy until Obelerio was deposed in 810/811.92 These episodes indicate the existence of profound divisions and old grudges in Venice, but they would have presumably been reported differently by John the Deacon if they were contemporary with him. It is nonetheless significant that he dwells on the exemplary punishment reserved for the rebels. Metamauco was stormed and set ablaze, while Obelerio was beheaded and his head was brought to Metamauco and then placed on the borders of the Venetian duchy. Meanwhile, Obelerio, who had been condemned to exile at Constantinople, returned to Venice and went into the city of Vigilia, near Correggio. When he heard this, Duke John readied an army to capture him. But after the city had been besieged for a while, the army split and the people of Metamauco took refuge with Obelerio. The troops, who remained loyal to their lord, however, conquered the island of Metamauco and set fire to all of it. Then his lordship Duke John assembled an army again, with which he himself went and conquered the city of Vigilia and, having captured Obelerio, ordered him to be beheaded. His head was taken to Metamauco, then was hung at the border of St. Martin on the day of holy Saturday.93 Demonic influence is cited as the force behind the coup instigated by certain Venetian members of the Mastallici family, who captured Duke John II (829–836) in front of Saint Peter’s church on Peter’s feast day, and forced him to become a cleric. Thereafter, some Venetians of the Mastallici family, being deceived by diabolical suggestion, seized John, who was coming from the church of St. Peter in the festivity of this saint. They cut his hair and beard, and had him consecrated as a cleric in the city of Grado.94 Significantly, right before this episode, John the Deacon does not express any opinion when the same duke was driven out of Venice by Tribune

War and violence in early medieval Venice 19 Carosus; he merely states that Carosus usurped the ducal office.95 This difference is not coincidental. In all likelihood, John the Deacon believed the Mastallici family conspiracy to be the work of the devil because it had taken place in a sacred location and on a holy day. The same logic appears when John the Deacon recounts how God did not permit the assassination of Duke Peter (836–864) by several Venetians to remain unpunished for long. Some of the conspirators were killed, while others were exiled and never allowed to return to their native land; one of the murderers, who remained in Venice, died as a consequence of being ‘tormented by a demon.’ Indeed Duke Peter was killed while exiting the monastery of Saint Zachary, after having participated in Mass on that saint’s feast day. On the day in which a holy day was celebrated in the monastery of St. Zachary, the innocent duke was cruelly killed by some very bad man while he was leaving the church at the end of the Vespers . . . Divine clemency however did not want to leave this evil deed un-avenged for a long time. John Gradenigo and two of his sons, Stephen de Sabulo and John Labresella were killed on Saint Sixtus’s feast day. The Bishop of Equilo, Peter, the Archdeacon of Grado, John, and Dominic Massonus exiled Peter Candiano, Peter Cletensius, Peter Flabianicus, and Dominic Falier to Constantinople. The others, that is Stephen Candiano, John Gradenigo’s nephew, along with all the aforementioned accomplices in the crime, were driven out of their fatherland and exiled to Francia. They were never able to devise a way to return home. Nevertheless, one of them, Ursus Grugnarius, who had stayed in Venice, died tormented by a demon.96 As emphasized in Chapter 8 of this book, these episodes also allow us ‘to deepen our understanding of John the Deacon’s mentality; for him, the devil was able to be both an inspirer of particularly wicked acts, and an instrument of divine vendetta as well.’ The very serious betrayal of some members of the Coloprini family characterized Duke Tribunus Menio’s rule (979–991). Failing to eliminate their rivals, the Morosini family, they left Venice and allied themselves with Emperor Otto II against their own country (ca. 982/983). John the Deacon calls them ‘repugnantes infidels’ (repugnant infidels/traitors) and describes their deeds as ‘nequitia’ (wickedness).97 The strongest condemnation against them is, however, not expressed explicitly by the author. According to the chronicler, when Otto II died in 983, the Coloprini family were deprived of their powerful ally and, therefore, sought the protection of Empress Adelaide, Otto II’s mother, since all the Italian lords considered them worthy of death for having betrayed their ‘patria’ (fatherland). Stephen Coloprini rushed to Pavia along with his sons and others and, kneeling before Empress Adelaide, who was residing there, began to beg her incessantly that they be allowed to stay in her kingdom safely,

20 War and violence in early medieval Venice because almost all the princes of Italy had deemed them worthy of death for betraying their fatherland.98 John the Deacon could have, thus, wanted to emphasize his impartiality in this matter. Indeed, he only reports the judgment of the Italian aristocrats who had not been involved in those events and could therefore be considered as impartial judges in that matter.99 The accusation against the Coloprini family by the Italian lords is relevant for another reason as well. John the Deacon mentions their words, though the concept of infidelity that is expressed in them is not typical of the mentality of the Italian aristocracy. Indeed, they say that the Coloprini family betrayed their fatherland and not their lord, the Venetian duke. The Italian principes therefore report an idea that John the Deacon knew belonged to the value system of his compatriots for whom the worst betrayal was one against the ethical values embedded in their community.100 A further noteworthy particular is present in the account of the events about the Coloprini family. According to John the Deacon, after they left Venice to ally with Emperor Otto II, Duke Tribunus Menio did not let their betrayal remain unavenged, by ordering their wives to be imprisoned and allowing their homes to be looted. Not suffering the wickedness of those repugnant traitors to go unpunished for long, Duke Tribunus allowed their houses to be destroyed and had their wives imprisoned so that they could not escape.101 The destruction of the properties belonging to conspirators, who managed to escape, is also mentioned in the account of the failed plot against Duke Agnellus (810/811–827). At that time, some Venetians tried to organize a plot against the dukes. Two of them, that is John Tornaricus and Bonus Bradanissus, were hanged near the church of St. Gregory. John Monetarius, on the contrary, managed to run away to King Lothar, but, everything he had, his house and fortune, were pillaged.102 The dukes, therefore, used this method to punish escapees and likely to provide an outlet for the Venetian population to take revenge on the traitors. It is noteworthy that John the Deacon insists on this detail, which could be due to a desire to assert that even those who acted against the duke and were able to escape his justice paid for the consequences of their actions. The chronicler indicates that the same punishment was inflicted for the same crimes, which occurred over a century and a half away from each other. In the case of John Monetario, John the Deacon, nevertheless, does not express any comment, while for the Coloprini family he stresses that they were ‘repugnantes infidels’ (repugnant infidels/traitors). The Coloprini

War and violence in early medieval Venice 21 family’s deed was certainly much more serious—they allied themselves with an adversary of their fatherland—and this explains the difference. However, the coevality of the chronicler to this event was also of notable importance, and his remark emphasizes the disdain John the Deacon felt for the Coloprini family when he recorded their deeds. As already emphasized, the Venetian author recounts the events that were not contemporary with him and that were not particularly heinous (i. e. killings that took place on a holy day and in a religious building) without expressing any judgment. This particularity has allowed us to have a better understanding of his value system.103 Nevertheless, the existence of a certain logic is also present in those brief accounts. Indeed, the chronicler records episodes in which all the culprits of violent deeds against Venetian leaders and Venice are punished. In so doing, he implicitly illustrates the existence of a justice system according to which the wicked could not escape their punishment. For example, the ‘infidelis’ Galla, who had deposed Duke Deusdedit and had ordered him to be blinded, was overthrown and suffered the same treatment.104 Two of the authors of the plot against Duke Agnellus were hanged, while the properties of the third one, who had managed to escape from Venice, were looted.105 The former Duke Obelerio, who had tried to take power and had caused the people of Metamauco to rebel, was beheaded.106 The only exception is represented by the Mastallici family, who deposed Duke John II; on that occasion the duke, however, was only forced to become a cleric and there was no bloodshed.107

‘Innocent’ persons The coup against Duke Peter (836–864) permits us to make another consideration about John the Deacon’s mentality. He defines the duke as ‘insons’ (innocent), an adjective also used in the accounts of the killings of the Patriarch of Grado, John (ca. 802), and of Dominic Morosini (ca. 982). Regarding the murder of the churchman, the chronicler does not provide the reasons for this serious act.108 He stresses, however, that, in order to eliminate the patriarch, Duke John (797–805) had even sent his son with a fleet. In the twenty-third year of his rule,109 the above-mentioned John, taking advantage of an opportunity, sent his son Maurice with a fleet of ships to the city of Grado in order to kill his lordship John, the very holy patriarch. As Maurice arrived there, he executed the paternal orders and cruelly killed that very holy man. The death of John left great grief to his fellow citizens, because an innocent had been cut off from life.110 The killing of Dominic Morosini is, on the other hand, a contemporary event to John the Deacon. It took place during the troubled rule of Duke Tribunus Menio (979–991) and was the most violent episode of the clash between the Venetians families of the Coloprini and the Morosini. One day,

22 War and violence in early medieval Venice narrates the chronicler, the Coloprini decided with the consent of the duke to eliminate all their opponents, who, having been warned of the danger, managed to escape. The Coloprini were able to capture only Dominic Morosini, who was unaware of their intentions. He therefore found himself alone without the support of his relatives against numerous enemies, who lynched him. Meanwhile, a very great fight broke out between the Morosini and the Coloprini, nobles of Venice, to the point that one day Stephen Coloprini, along with his sons and relatives and acting with the duke’s consent and support, attacked the Morosini to eliminate them. By the grace of God, however, everyone was able to avoid this danger through foresight. Only one of them, Dominic Morosini, an innocent man, was captured in the square of St. Peter of Olivolo and was beaten for a long time. His body, shamefully stripped, was transported, half dead, on a small boat to the monastery of St. Zachary. Placed in the church there, he was mourned by his surrounding relatives, and, after two hours, he gave up the breath of life.111 The episodes just mentioned have in common the brutality with which they occurred and the fact that the victims did not have the possibility to defend themselves. Asserting that they were innocent, John the Deacon highlights his disapproval for the manner they were killed. Being aware that his duty was to write a history of Venice and he could not therefore indulge on moralistic annotations, he thus showed that he was not insensitive about this type of violent deeds.112 Among the persons whom John the Deacon defines as innocent certainly the absence of Duke Peter IV Candiano’s young son stands out. He was killed during the uprising against his father and his only guilt was to be the child of that controversial ruler. It is, of course, impossible to determine whether this was intentional. If so, such an omission would represent an aspect of the personality of John the Deacon, whose impartiality, therefore, had limits. Indeed it still dealt with the heir of an opponent of the Orseolos.

Descriptions of violence In the analysis of the events concerning Peter IV Candiano, I have remarked that the accurate account of how this duke was killed along with his son might be interpreted as a way to highlight what could happen if the ruler of Venice was a person with the characteristics of Peter IV Candiano. Lingering on the details of the killing could therefore have served the purpose of inspiring horror, from which reflection about the reasons for that violence should have followed. This occurs for two other episodes that took place under Duke Tribunus Menio; in their description the chronicler also adds the great sorrow of the victims’ relatives.113 Worthy of note is that, according to John the Deacon, the only gift of that duke was to be very rich, and

War and violence in early medieval Venice 23 during his rule Venice was often disgraced: ‘Although devoid of skill in secular affairs, he nevertheless greatly abounded in wealth. In his time, golden Venice was ignominiously disgraced on numerous occasions.’114 As already emphasized, John the Deacon recounts how, with the approval of this duke, the Coloprini sought to eliminate the Morosini, but succeeded in assassinating only Dominic Morosini. The chronicler explains that Dominic was ‘beaten for a long time’ and his body ‘shamefully stripped’ was brought to a church, where he died two hours later among his mourning relatives.115 According to John the Deacon, Duke Tribunus Menio, who should have had to ensure the internal order of the duchy, was instead co-responsible for this terrible episode.116 The author of the Istoria Veneticorum insinuates that the duke also had a role in the murder of Stephen Coloprini’s children. Tribunus Menio pardoned them for having acted against Venice along with their father and Emperor Otto II and promised that they could safely return to Venice. Yet, in spite of the duke’s promise, they were murdered by some Morosini wishing to avenge the death of Dominic Morosini. The chronicler explains that they were killed while going back home in a boat, and that the water of the canal turned red because of their blood. Their bodies were returned to their despairing mother and widows. He granted them both his pardon and their return to their fatherland. Moreover, reassured by four people who swore they would not be killed by their enemies, they fearlessly stayed in their fatherland. In reality, the Morosini, who had quietly observed everything, decided firmly to avenge the death of their relative. Thus, while one day the three brothers, the sons of Stephen Coloprini, wanted to return home from the palace, as usual, on a small boat, they were killed by four Morosini, and they dyed the waters of the canal with their blood. Their bodies were removed from the water by one of their men and were taken to their despairing mother and to the widows; the next day they were buried in the monastery of St. Zachary. Two of them were laymen; the third, John, had pursued an ecclesiastical career. Although the duke claimed no responsibility in this crime, some nevertheless stated that he was culpable in this murder.117

The enemies of the Venetians As already emphasized, the Muslims were among the main adversaries whom the Venetians confronted during the early Middle Ages. John the Deacon never explicitly says that they belonged to a different religion and were, therefore, special enemies. Yet his use of the word ‘Christians’ in the descriptions of battles with the Saracens,118 and labeling the latter as ‘pagans,’119 indicate that the Venetian chronicler was aware of this.120 In the accounts of the ninth-century battles between Venetians and Muslims, John the Deacon portrays the Saracens neutrally. However, he employs a negative

24 War and violence in early medieval Venice term, ‘impiety,’ in the narration of the Muslims’ failed attempt to take one of the Venetian duchy’s cities. Around these times, the Saracens arrived and attempted to capture the city of Grado. However, the impiety of the Saracens did not prevail because the citizens of Grado fought fiercely.121 In contrast, John the Deacon makes use of far more hostile terminology for Muslims when recounting the expedition against the Saracens besieging Bari in 1002, presumably in order to aggrandize Peter II Orseolo’s feat. On that occasion, the Venetian duke fought against that ‘most wicked people’122 and freed the Baresi from the ‘harshness/cruelty’ and ‘persecution’ of those ‘pagans’123 who had cruelly devastated the area surrounding the Apulian city.124 The use of this type of terminology was also likely due to the Venetian chronicler’s feelings toward the Muslims. Indeed, in narrating Emperor Otto II’s defeat against the Saracens in Calabria in 982, John the Deacon employs terms that are not only negative, but emphasize the fear that the Muslims spread in Italy in the early Middle Ages. He characterizes them as ‘formidolosa gens’ (terrible people), ‘pagans,’ and ‘barbarians’: moreover, he designates a Muslim group of soldiers as a ‘tetra cohors’ (dreadful cohort).125 In point of fact, the adjectives ‘formidolosa’ and ‘tetra’ only appear in this particular episode of the Istoria Veneticorum, which serves to further emphasize how dangerous the Muslims were perceived to be. The word ‘barbarians’ is, on the other hand, also utilized for the Lombards when John the Deacon briefly narrates how the Venetians fought with that people in the late sixth and seventh centuries. And because these peoples complained about the fact that their fatherland had been completely occupied by barbarians, very many conflicts occurred between the two sides to the point that they often fought, causing suffering and destruction to each other.126 The acridity toward the people that had forced some of the inhabitants of northeastern Italy to take refuge into the islands of the Venetian lagoons in 569 evidently remained in the memory of the Venetians. Other adversaries that left their mark in Venetian memory were the Hungarians who had attacked the Venetian duchy in ca. 899 and destroyed several Venetian towns. John the Deacon calls them ‘pagans’ and ‘most cruel people.’127 Worthy of note is the fact the chronicler defines their raid as a ‘persecution,’128 as he likewise does with the Muslims who besieged Bari in 1002.129 In the case of the Hungarians, John the Deacon does not deliberately invoke the trope of Christian persecution by explicitly calling the Hungarians’ victims ‘Christians,’ yet associating the terms ‘pagans’ and ‘persecution’ was likely aimed at inviting the readers of the Istoria Veneticorum to remember the persecution the Christians had suffered at the times

War and violence in early medieval Venice 25 of the pagan Romans. The fact that no early medieval Italian chronicler employed the word ‘persecution’ to describe Muslim and Hungarian aggression130 indicates that his use of this word was not a topos in his work and this makes its utilization by John the Deacon more significant. The adversaries whom the Venetians confronted the most often were the Slavs living on the other side of the Adriatic Sea.131 John the Deacon describes them as ‘most-wicked peoples,’ who, along with the Dalmatians, sacked Istria in the 870s–880s.132 The same adjective is utilized for Domagoj, one of their rulers of that period, yet the chronicler does not mention any venture of his which could justify this judgment.133 ‘By deceit’ is, on the other hand, the manner in which the Slavic Duke Michael captured the son of the Venetian Duke Ursus Particiaco (911–931), who was passing through the Croats’ territory while returning from Constantinople.134 John the Deacon almost always portrays the Slavs performing acts of piracy and it is therefore not surprising that they are the only adversaries of the Venetians to be defined as ‘marauders.’135 The chronicler, unsurprisingly, justifies Duke Peter II Orseolo’s expedition in Dalmatia in 1000 as an action aimed to eradicate this problem.136 John the Deacon’s opinion of this population emerges clearly in his description of the inhabitants of the Lagosta/Lastovo Island, which Peter II Orseolo conquered on that occasion. He calls them ‘dishonest’ and stresses that ‘rabies/fury’ guided their actions: ‘he tried to attack the dishonest inhabitants of the island of Lastovo. Because of that people’s fury, the Venetians, who had sailed in those places, were deprived of their goods and were often left naked.’137 Particularly relevant in this passage is the chronicler’s use of the word ‘rabies,’138 because it hints at a bestial behavior not driven by the human mind, even if this only resulted in the theft of property and not in the killing of those who sailed in those places. In spite of this, the behavior of the Slavs, who, according to John the Deacon, lived by plundering the fruits of the Venetians’ work,139 were likely regarded similarly by the chronicler’s countrymen. The fact that precisely the impediments inflicted upon the Venetian trade-activities were those that inspired John the Deacon’s harshest condemnation of the Slavs emphasizes the importance that trade had for Venetian society. The emphasis of the Venetian chronicler, who was not a merchant, on this detail further delineates the relevance of this aspect for the Venetian mentality.140 The chronicler presents the decision of Peter II Orseolo not to pay the usual tribute to the Croats anymore as liberation from ‘oppression.’141 The Venetians must have similarly perceived that tribute which was a kind of tax on their trading activities. ‘The surplus of hatred between the Venetians and Slavs greatly increased’ is the significant expression John the Deacon uses for describing the ensuing tensions between the two peoples after the Venetians’ militant response to the Croats’ ‘harassments.’142 The manner in which the Slavs treated the Dalmatians and which also induced Duke Peter II Orseolo to lead an expedition against them is called ‘harshness of the

26 War and violence in early medieval Venice Slavs’143 and ‘hardness of the Slavs.’144 By commenting on a peace agreement that occurred in the 830s with the Narentan Slavs with the remark that ‘this, however, did not last at all,’145 John the Deacon seems to indicate the futility of such actions, adding shortly, thereafter, that the Narentans killed some Venetian merchants.146 The only manner of solving the problems caused by the Slavs was therefore that adopted by Peter II Orseolo, that is, to destroy their bases. As for Emperor Otto II, his action against Venice is defined using the terms ‘harshness’ and ‘hardness,’ which are identical to those utilized for the Slavs during the Venetian expedition to Dalmatia in 1000: ‘Meanwhile, the emperor persevered in his siege of the Venetians with such harshness and hardness that they could not placate him either with pleas or any kind of gift.’147 John the Deacon, perhaps, means to suggest that the German ruler was to be considered as an opponent equal to the Slavs. It is noteworthy that, as with the damage done by the inhabitants of Lagosta/Lastovo, the damage Otto II inflicted on the Venetians was of an economic nature. Indeed, the emperor imposed an embargo on Venice.148 John the Deacon never gives accurate descriptions of the Venetians’ enemies’ cruelty, and the figure of the anti-hero, i.e., an adversary with extreme negative connotations, is absent in his work. However, he always portrays the Muslims and the Slavs as engaging in looting and ravaging. For example, the Muslims, after having defeated the Venetian fleet near Taranto in ca. 841, sailed up the Adriatic, and: did not hesitate to go as far as the city of Ossero, which they destroyed with fire on the second days of Easter. They then went to the city of Ancona and set fire to it in the same way, taking away many captives with them.149 Shortly thereafter, ‘the Saracens also dared to go to Rome and sack the church of St. Peter, but, as they arrived at the church of St. Paul, they were almost all killed by the Roman citizens.’150 Around 872, they ‘pillaged some cities of the Dalmatias, and also invaded Brač, a city of that province,’ and ‘after sacking the cities about which we had said, the aforementioned Saracens returned home with an inestimable amount of booty.’151 In 875 the Saracens ‘plundered the village of Comacchio.’152 In 1002 the Muslims besieged Bari and John the Deacon emphasizes that they ‘invaded the surrounding places [of Bari] and cruelly subjugated them.’153 The Slavs are described engaged in the same activities. In the 840s, they ‘plundered the fortified center of Caorle’;154 thirty years later, ‘the mostwicked peoples of the Slavs and the Dalmatians began to pillage the province of Istria. They devastated four cities.’155 Just before the expedition of Peter II Orseolo to Dalmatia, the Venetian chronicler narrates how ‘the princes of the Croats and the Narentans often afflicted them [the Zarans] to the point that the Narentans captured forty of them and took them away in chains.’156

War and violence in early medieval Venice 27 Fires, thefts, destruction, murders, and the capture of prisoners, in short, the entire range of horrors that could happen in wartime, are all recorded in the account of the raid in northern Italy and in Venice by the Hungarians in ca. 899. This represents a sign of the painful legacy that those raiders left in the memory of the Venetians. The pagan and very cruel people of the Hungarians came to Italy, laid waste to everything through fire and plunder, killed a multitude of men, and also took numerous captives . . . ravaging everything as far as the mountain of Jupiter. They also entered the Venices with horses and boats made of hides: first, while the population was fleeing, they destroyed Cittanova with fire, then torched Equilo, Fine, Chioggia, and Cavarzere and devastated the coastal areas.157

Conclusions One of the main characteristics of the Istoria Veneticorum is, undoubtedly, the desire to emphasize that the Venetians always acted in response to a provocation in their military campaigns. It is not known if Duke Peter II Orseolo or his son, Duke Otto Orseolo, commissioned this chronicle. John the Deacon’s membership in the ducal entourage, however, suggests that the ducal court shared his opinions. In a period in which Venice became the main Adriatic power, it seems that there was a need to highlight that the position the Venetians achieved was not the result of the thirst for conquest, but the wish to maintain peace and to punish those who disturbed it. Indeed, the chronicler never reports that the Venetians looted on those occasions and no praise of the warrior values of the dukes or of any other Venetian is present in his work. The absence of these details may be due to the type of information available to John the Deacon, who perhaps believed that narrative invention was inappropriate or was personally unwilling to provide these kinds of details. The chronicler was a churchman, but a member of the ducal chancellery as well, and was, therefore, in close contact with the secular world. It is very likely that he knew the mentality of the Venetian elites to whom his work was probably addressed. It is, therefore, also possible that the chronicler’s writing was influenced by the value system of the Venetian elites, which was quite different from that of the Italian mainland’s aristocrats. War, in all its aspects, played a fundamental role for them.158 As for the adversaries of his homeland, the Venetian historian does not fail to ascribe negative connotations to them, making sure to differentiate them according to who they were and, above all, to what kind of problems they had caused to the Venetians.

Notes 1 A few examples of this are: F. Cardini, Alle radici della cavalleria medievale (Florence, 1981); Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages. Essays

28 War and violence in early medieval Venice

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10 11

presented to Karl Leyser, ed. by T. Reuter (London – Rio Grande, 1992); P. Moro, ‘Quam horrida pugna.’ Elementi per uno studio della guerra nell’alto Medioevo italiano (secoli VI–X) (Venice, 1994); M. Strickland, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066–1217 (Cambridge, 1996); La guerre, la violence et les gens au Moyen Age, eds. P. Contamine – O. Guyot Jeannin (Paris, 1996); R. W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1999); W. C. Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe (Harlow, 2011). God’s role and supernatural interventions in war in John the Deacon’s chronicle will be examined in Chapter 8. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 55: ‘antedicti duces ad sua tuenda loca eo tempore duas bellicosas naves tales perficere studuerunt quales nunquam apud Veneciam antea fuit, que greca lingua zalandriae dicuntur.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 39. The dukes, who were killed during uprisings, were Ursus (ca. 726 – ca. 737), Peter (836–864), and Peter IV Candiano (959–976). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11, III, 1, IV, 13. The Narentans were a population who had settled at the mouth of the Narenta/ Neretva river and on the neighboring islands. A tenth-century Byzantine source defines them as pagans. Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, eds. G. Moravcsik – J. H. Jenkins (Washington, DC, 1967), pp. 164–5. In general on them and their relationships with Venice, see J. Hoffmann, ‘Venedig und die Narentaner,’ Studi Veneziani, 11 (1969), pp. 3–41. Peter Candiano was the first member of the Candianos to become duke of Venice. After him, four other Candianos held that office. On this family, see Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, pp. 69–75, and A. Castagnetti, La società veneziana nel Medioevo, II. Le famiglie ducali dei Candiano, Orseolo e Menio e la famiglia comitale vicentino-padovana di Vitale Ugo Candiano (secoli X–XI) (Verona, 1993), ad indicem. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 33: ‘Contra Narrentanos Scavos confestim exercitum misit. Qui cum sine effectu reversus esset, tunc per semetipsum cum duodecim navibus mense augusto in mare hostiliter est egressus, et ad montem Scavorum perveniens in loco, qui vocatur Mucules, exivit, licet cum paucis, sed Sclavos sibi resistentes primum in fugam vertit multosque ex illis occidens, quinque naves illorum, que ibi erant, securibus fregit. Sed demum irruentibus Scavis, ibidem interfectus est cum aliis septem mense septembris die octavo decimo; ceteri vero incolomes reversi sunt.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 34: ‘Tenuit autem ducatum idem Petrus dux mensibus quinque. Fuit autem vir bellicosus et audax, sapiens et amodum largus; ecclesiam vero in tantum frequentans ut nullo tempore divino careret officio (Duke Peter held the duchy for five months. He was a warlike, brave, learned, and very generous man. He attended church so much that he never missed the divine office).’ In reality, John the Deacon also defines Teupernus as ‘vir bellicosissimus,’ who was among those who accompanied Emperor Otto III on his secret visit to Venice in 1001. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 57. In that case, however, the chronicler does not furnish any details which might justify the use of this attribute. This seems to have been dictated by the need to give a quality to the one companion of Otto III who did not have an office. Cf. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, p. 134. John the Deacon did not take part in it; he explains that in that period he was at Como. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 53: ‘Erat siquidem eadem insula scopulosis promunctoriis circumsepta; licet aditum intrantibus non denegaret,

War and violence in early medieval Venice 29

12

13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21

montium tamen sublimitate ostentabatur, e quibus unus murorum menibus turriumque hedificiis munitus, inexpugnabilis ab omnibus credebatur.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54: ‘Dein vero predictus princeps, multitudine navium collecta, quendam illius insulae portum penetravit, mandans civibus ut relicta pertinatia ad se venirent, aut pugna sese petituros scirent. Qui timore constricti pacifica verba protulerunt. Postmodum illis iniunctum fuit nulla ratione pacem a duce consequi posse, nisi civitatem ipsi destruerent, destructam vero inreparabilem inhabitabilemque relinquerent. Quod omni nisu facere interdicentes, tanti exercitui sese obsistere adorsi sunt. Tunc isdem princeps suos ad certamen preparare illosque inpugnare acriter iussit; verum quia arduus locus difficilem dabat appropinquantibus ingressum, iaculorum ictibus hostes aliquandiu procul, virtute qua poterant, coarcere satagebant. Tamen Dei omnipotentis dispensacione maior pars exercitus ex illo loco, unde illius municionis ostia patebant, impetum facientes, reliqua montis per devia consendendo, turres, ubi aquarum vascula tuebantur, comprehenderunt. In quibus consistentes, in tantum luctamine comprimebant, donec deiecti animo, armis depositis, nichil amplius quam mortis exosum periculum evadere flecsxis exorabant poplitibus. Dux itaque pietatis amator omnes vivos conservare instituens, civitatem tantum devastare precepit.’ The Venetian chronicler probably means that Bari was besieged both by sea and by land. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66: ‘Eodem vero anno Sarracenorum multitudo, Apuliensium fines invadens, Varensem civitatem, ubi Gregorius imperialis catapanus preerat, ex omni parte obsidione circumdabat. Quod audiens Petrus prepotens dux, preparare maximam expedicionem iussit sanctique Laurentii in solempni die de Venecia exiens eosdem expugnaturos aggressus est. Qui vastum per mare velificando terrarum diversa loca dum transiret, octavo idus septembris predictam urbem appropinquabat. Sarracenorum nempe uterque exercitus cernens insperatam salutem christianis advenire armatis manibus, alii supra equos littore adstabant, alii naves ascendentes christianos ad certamen audacter provocabant. Sed divina propiciatione domnus Petrus dux cum omnibus suis antedictę civitatis in portum indemnis ingressus est. Quem cives una cum Gregorio imperiali catapano digne suscipientes eiusdem urbis in palacio ospitari fecerunt. Tunc domnus dux quomodo urbem a paganorum severitate tueri quivisset pertractare cepit; verum prius alimoniarum solatiis cives inedia perpessos sufficienter recreavit.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘Tum ut viriliter contra nequissimam gentem bellum agerent amonuit et victrice vexillum se preire iubens, quosdam in suburbio ad pugnandum instituit, quosdam vero secum adsumens, navalem adorsus est peragere bellum. Unde factum est quatinus per triduum continuatim nunc gladiorum, nunc igneis iaculis Sarracenos acriter insequerentur. Tercię noctis in silentio paganorum aufugit exercitus; ceteri autem, qui finitimarum loca crudeli iure mancipando possidebant, non multum post illos degentes, confusi recesserunt. Cives itaque domni Petri ducis nomen deinceps celebre et honorabile habuerunt, qui nullo terreno sed divino constrictus timore eos liberavit ab inimicorum persecutione.’ On this topic, see Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 15–17. This does not exclude the possibility that, since Peter Candiano had been killed because of his underestimation of the enemies, John the Deacon, who rarely openly criticizes a duke, did not consider him an example to follow. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66. However, he does not insist on these details as much as he does with the enemies of Venice.

30 War and violence in early medieval Venice 22 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24: ‘ad Dalmaciarum provinciam depopulandam.’ 23 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 1: ‘maxima inter utrasque partes iurgia versabatur ita ut inter se vicissim molestias et depopulationes conferre decertarent.’ John the Deacon also utilizes ‘depopulatio’ in the description of the expedition of Peter II Orseolo in Dalmatia. According to the chronicler, the king of the Croats made proposals of peace to the duke, as soon as he learned that Peter II Orseolo came ‘ad suae gentis depopulationem (to destroy his people).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 49. The chronicler uses the verb depopulare also when he recounts how the goods and the house of the Venetian rebel John Monetarius were sacked in the 820s. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 35. 24 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 28: ‘Ravennates depredari iussit.’ 25 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 44: ‘misso illuc exercitu, ipsorum castrum igne combussit quosdamque illorum interficiens, reliquos utriusque sexus ad Veneciam duxit. Ibique tam diu ipsos detinuit, donec sese sue dicioni sacramentorum fide subderent et ut proprii sibi deinceps in omnibus obtemperarent.’ 26 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11: ‘Opiterginum quidem castrum igne concrematum devastari.’ 27 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54: ‘nulla ratione pacem a duce consequi posse, nisi civitatem ipsi destruerent, destructam vero inreparabilem inhabitabilemque relinquerent.’ 28 On this point, see the section ‘The enemies of the Venetians.’ 29 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14. 30 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14. Shortly after, John the Deacon recounts how Ursus II, after having made peace with the Slavs, organized an expedition against the Narentans because he had an ‘iurgium’ (dispute) with them. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 16. 31 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 40: ‘Circa haec namque tempora Croatorum iudex propter interdictum sibi censum a duce in Veneticos lesionis molestiam exercere conatus est. Unde domnus dux sex naves praeparatas illuc mittens, quibus Badovarius, cognomento Bragadinus, prefuit. Qui unam illorum civitatem, quae Issa nominabatur, conprehendens utriusque sexus captivos ad Veneciam deportavit.’ 32 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45: ‘a Sclavorum severitate liberaret.’ 33 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45. No justification is, on the other hand, provided for the campaigns against the Slavs during the rule of Duke Peter (836–864) and for the expedition in which Duke Peter Candiano died. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 49, III, 33. 34 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 28. 35 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 44. 36 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 38 (twice) and 50. In reality, in the first two cases, the chronicler states only that the Venetian fleet was sent to Sicily, where however we know that in that period the Muslims had begun to fight against the Byzantines for possession of the island. 37 The term Saracen was the most common word used in medieval Europe to refer to Muslims. In this book, it will be used as a synonym for Muslim. 38 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66. In that period Bari was a part of the Byzantine Empire. It is very likely that the Byzantine emperor asked the Venetians to help the Apulian city. On the occasion of Duke Ursus II’s victory against them in ca. 870, John the Deacon only mentions that the Venetian ruler sent a fleet, when he learned that a large army of Saracens was near Taranto. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 5. For an early-ninth-century episode, John the Deacon only narrates how, after the Venetians attacked the

War and violence in early medieval Venice 31

39

40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50

Venetian town of Cittanova, Duke Obelerio sent a Venetian fleet to devastate Dalmatia without providing an explanation of the reasons for these actions or against whom they were directed. It is very likely that the chronicler had very little information about that period. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11: ‘extraneosque sibi obsistentes ulciscendo devinceret. Ferrariensis quippe castelli populum potentissime debellavit; Opiterginum quidem castrum igne concrematur devastari iussit nonnullaque alia se obiurgantibus aspera intulit.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31: ‘viriliter obsistendo sui compos in omnibus manebat.’ The harsh embargo Peter II Orseolo imposed on the March of Verona is proof of this. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33–5. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 8: ‘Antedictus quidem Petrus dux tres habuit filios, quorum unum, nomine Petrum, populo suggerente consortem sibi elegit. Qui paterna monita flocci pendens, adversus eum insurgere temptavit, adeo ut quadam die utrarumque parcium milites ad pugnam peragendam in Rivoalto foro convenirent. Sed dum infirmo et vetulo patri maior pars populi obtemperaret.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 9. She was the sister of the Marquis of Tuscany, Hugh. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12: ‘nempe tante audaciae fuisse fertur quo et subditos virtutis rigore plus solito premeret.’ In this context, ‘rigor virtutis’ should not be literally translated as ‘rigor of his virtue.’ In this case it probably means ‘rigor of his authority/behavior.’ For an in-depth analysis of this point, see Chapter 2 of this book. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11: ‘quia omnia gesta ab illo explicare minime possum, eius exitum exarando demonstrare curemus (since I cannot possibly describe everything he did, we shall try to narrate his end).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12: ‘Dum illum longo tempore Venetici ob austeritatem sui exosum haberent facultatemque perdendi sedulae machinarent, quadam die facta conspiratione in illum insurgere adorsi sunt. Palatium tamen, qui a bellicosis licet paucis militibus illum stipatum noverant, nulla ratione ausi sunt penetrare. Tandem nequam consilium invenientes, propinquas domos, quae e contra palatium citra rivolum consistebant, igne mixto picino fomento accendere studuerunt, quatinus flamarum flexibilia culmina vicinum palatium attingere et concremare possent. Unde factum est quod non modo palatium, verum etiam sancti Marci sanctique Theodori nec non sanctae Mariae de Iubianico ecclesiae et plus quam trecente mansiones eo die urerentur.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 13: ‘Is autem dux, cum ignis calorem fumique suffocationem diu intra palatium ferre nequiret, per Sancti Marci atrii ianuas evadere cum paucis conatus est, ubi nonullos Veneticorum maiores una cum generis afinitate suum expectantes periculum repperit. Quos ut cernens, taliter allocutus est: “Et vos, fratres, ad exicii mei cumulum venire voluistis? Si aliquid in verbis vel in rebus publicis deliqui, meae inspiratae vitae spacium rogo et omnia ad vestrum velle satisfacere promitto.” Tunc ipsi sceleratissimum et morte dignum eum adfirmantes, diris vocibus clamaverunt quod nulla evadendi in illo possibilitas foret et instanter mucronum ictibus undique illum crudeliter vulnerantes, diva anima, corporeo relicto ergastulo, superum petiit solia. Filium siquidem, quem nutrix ab incendii poena liberavit, a quodam nequissimo cuspide transverberatus est pariterque milites, qui illi favere nitebantur, occisi sunt. Gelida namque corpora quorum, id est genitoris et sobolis, ob ignominiam primitus exigua nave ad macelli forum, deinde, quodam sanctissimo viro, Iohanne Gradonico nomine, interpellante, ad sancti Yllari monasterium detulerunt.’

32 War and violence in early medieval Venice 51 The previous attack against a duke took place in 864. Moreover, this episode was not an uprising, but a murder. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 1. 52 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘nequam consilium . . . nequissimum scelus.’ 53 This topic is examined below. 54 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 17: ‘sue ditioni perversos repugnatores efficerentur adeo ut suam vitam crudeli funere perdere molirentur. Tamen tante bonitatis et divinae virtutis gratia vigebat, ut quicquid ipsi de se clanculo iniqua machinatione determinarent, nemine indagante, cognosceret. Nullique resistente aliquod nefas recompensare voluit, sed equo animo Dei timore omnia tollerando sustinebat.’ 55 Peter Damiani, however, confuses Peter IV Candiano with Vitalis Candiano (978– 979), who ruled after Peter Orseolo. He also confuses Peter Orseolo with Peter II Orseolo. As already highlighted, the latter took control of Dalmatia. Peter Damiani, Vita beati Romualdi, ed. G. Tabacco, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 94 (Rome, 1957), chapter 5, p. 21: ‘Eodem vero tempore Petrus, cognomine Ursiulus, Dalmatici ducatus gubernabat habenas. Qui videlicet ad huius fastigium dignitatis ascendere idcirco meruerat, quia decessoris sui, Vitalis scilicet Candiani, peremptoribus fautor extiterat (At this same time Peter, surnamed Orseolo, was governing the duchy of Dalmatia. He had in fact earned his rise to the rank of this office by reason of his support for the killers of his predecessor, that is Vitalis Candiano.)’ The English translation is taken from Saint Peter Damian’s ‘Vita beati Romualdi’: introduction, translation and analysis by C. R. Phips, Doctoral dissertation, King’s College (London, 1988), p. 71. I made small changes to it. 56 Peter Damiani, Vita beati Romualdi, chapter 5, p. 23: ‘visum est ut domum Petri, quę ducis palatio adiacebat contigua, prius incenderent, istoque modo et ducem caperent et universa eius domestica concremarent. Istius vero rei experiendę consensum a Petro, qui eorum consilii particeps fuerat, flagitantes, huius tandem mercedis foedere pacti sunt, ut pro una eius domo, quam igne consumerent, totam ditioni illius Venetiam subderent et, deleto illo quem exosum habebant, ducem hunc loco eius protinus subrogarent. Hoc igitur modo Petrus Dalmatici regni adeptus est principatum, qui postmodum ambitionis suę iam voluptate potitus, respectu divinę gratię demum corde compunctus est.’ 57 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 14, 16, 18. 58 For the different ways these sources have been interpreted, see G. Ortalli, Petrus I. Orseolo und seine Zeit. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Venedig und dem ottonischen Reich (Venice – Sigmaringen, 1990); and G. Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici: religione e politica nella Venezia del Mille,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 931–4. 59 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 7: ‘Sarraceni a Creta insula egredientes, quasdam Dalmaciarum urbes depopulati sunt pariterque etiam Braciensem eiusdem provincie urbem invaserunt. Quod cum domno Urso duci denunciatum foret, parvam naviculam cum quattuordecim hominibus ad Istriam usque destinare sub festinacione studuit, quatenus Sarraceni ne forte Veneciam petere vellent, vel qualis eorum fortitudo subsisteret explorare deberent. Qui cum Gradensi de civitate Istriam petituri exissent, predones Sclavi, qui in portu Silvodis reclusi latitabant, supra eandem naviculam velociter irruerunt. Ubi cum uterque pars fortiter dimicaret multique Sclavorum percussi deficerent, novissime vero capta Veneticorum ab eisdem Sclavis navicula, omnes Venetici, qui intus erant, occisi sunt.’ 60 Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 15–16, 28–34. 61 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 50. 62 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51.

War and violence in early medieval Venice 33 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72

73

74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81

It is an island near Istria. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 50. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 22. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘Ad Venecias introgressi cum aequis adque pelliciis navibus, primo Civitatem novam fugiente populo igne concremaverunt, deinde Equilum, Finem, Cloiam, Caputargelem incenderunt litoraque maris depopulaverunt.’ Other military failures of the Venetians, that John the Deacon records are those inflicted on two occasions to the fleet sent to Sicily by Duke Justinian (827–829), that of Duke Peter (836–864) against the Slavic Prince Mislav, and the killing of merchants by the Narentans during the rule of Duke John II (829–836). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 38, 49, 46. Liber pontificalis, edited by L. Duchesne (Paris, 1882), I vol., p. 491. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31: ‘Hisdem namque dux a Croatorum Sclavorum oppressione suos potenter liberavit, quibus etiam solitum censum primus dare interdixit.’ It is not known what this tribute consisted of. It has been hypothesized that the Venetians began to give it in 878–879, when the Byzantine Emperor Basil ordered the Dalmatian cities to pay the Slavs the tributes that were previously given to the Byzantines. On that occasion the Venetians probably gave this tribute to keep the trade lanes in the Adriatic secure. R. Cessi, ‘Venezia e i Croati,’ in Italia e Croazia (Rome, 1942), p. 337; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 745. On the supposed Frankish conquest of the Venetian duchy in 810 and the accusation of reticence against John the Deacon about this episode, this hypothesis has very weak foundations because the chronicler wrote two centuries after that event and his sources are unknown. For an in-depth examination of this point, see Chapter 3. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘triumphali cum gloria palatium reddit.’ For this endeavor, John the Deacon seems rather to be more interested in remembering all the names of the cities which paid homage and swore fealty to the duke. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54: ‘ad Veneciam cum tali triumph tandem regressus est.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘Cives itaque domni Petri ducis nomen deinceps celebre et honorabile habuerunt, qui nullo terreno sed divino constrictus timore eos liberavit ab inimicorum persecutione.’ As soon as Peter II Orseolo knew of the arrival of the couple, a great number of ships went to meet them, creating a sort of procession which accompanied them to the ducal palace. The duke organized so great a number of banquets that no one could remember such great joy ever being in Venice. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 71. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 71. That opinion was probably also shared by the entourage of the ducal court. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27: ‘eundem regem audacter aggressi sunt, et divinitus datum est Veneticis de inimicis triumphum, sicque predictus rex confusus recessit.’ The use of this adjective is not unique to John the Deacon. For example, it is utilized in a thirteenth-century Venetian chronicle for Emperor Frederick I – Historia ducum Venetorum, in Testi storici veneziani (XI–XIII secolo), ed. L. A. Berto (Padua, 1999), chapter 15 – and by a 10thcentury Salernitan chronicler. Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with

34 War and violence in early medieval Venice

82 83

84 85 86 87

88

89 90

91

92 93

Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stockholm, 1956), chapters 71, 93, 118, 126, 140, and 171. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘audacter super eosdem Sclavos inruens, in tantum eosdem cede prostravit ut nemo illorum evadens, patriam valuit reverti.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘Interea Ungrorum pagana et crudelissima gens Italiam veniens, incendiis et rapinis cuncta devastans maximamque multitudinem hominum interficiens, nonnullos etiam captivos reservavit. Contra quos Berengarius rex direxit exercitum quindecim milia hominum, set pauci ex eis reversi sunt. Ungri vero pertranseuntes Tarvisium, Patavim, Brixiam ceterosque fines, Papiam et Mediolanum venerunt et usque ad montem Iob depopulantes cuncta. Sed ad Venecias introgressi cum aequis adque pelliciis navibus, primo Civitatem novam fugiente populo igne concremaverunt, deinde Equilum, Finem, Cloiam, Caputargelem incenderunt litoraque maris depopulaverunt. Verum etiam temptantes Rivoaltum et Metamaucum ingredi per loca que Albiola vocantur in die passionis sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Paoli, tum domnus Petrus dux navali exercitu, Dei protectus auxilio, predictos Ungros in fugam vertit. Fuit namque hec persecucio in Italia et Venetia anno uno. Rex igitur Berengarius, datis obsidibus ac donis, predictos Ungros de Italia recedere fecit cum omni preda quam ceperant.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 17: ‘a quodam infideli, Galla nomine, eius avulsi sunt oculi.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 17. It has been claimed that this particular form of government and the frequent violent depositions were the expression of the Venetian tribunes’ desire not to grant too much power to a single person. Pavan – Arnaldi, ‘Le origini dell’identità lagunare’, p. 441. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 18: ‘ut mos vulgi est, qui nunquam in preposita voluntate persistens, sed quandam superstitiosa stultitia alias atque alias adinventiones excogitans, primo illius ducati anno tribunos duos, qui sub ducali decretu consisterent, sibi preposuerunt. Quod etiam per singulos annos prenominati ducis vite facere conati sunt.’ Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 223–4. John the Deacon, on the other hand, does not express any opinion, when he narrates how, after having elected Agnellus as duke (810/811–827), the Venetians decided to place two tribunes serving alongside him. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 29. An identical measure therefore did not cause an equal criticism; the only comment that one can make is that in the first case John the Deacon seems almost to feel entitled to intervene by the fact that in a few lines he had to describe four violent overthrows of dukes and two institutional changes. Obelerio and his brother Beatus, co-regent duke, were deposed and exiled in ca. 810/811 under pressure from the Byzantines because of their continuous changes between Francophile and Byzantinophile positions. On these events and relevant bibliography, see Chapter 3. The capital was moved to Rivoalto. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 29. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 41: ‘Interea Obellierius, qui apud Constantinopolim exilio fuerat dampnatus, Veneciam reciprocavit et in Vigilia civitate apud Curiclum sese retrusit. Quo audito, Iohannes dux ad eundem capiendum promovit exercitum. Sed cum diu predictam civitatem obsidione circumvallaret, tandem diviso exercitu, Metamaucenses ad predictum Obelierium confugium fecerunt. Exercitus vero, qui suo seniori fidem servabant, Metamaucensem insulam expugnantes prorsus incenderunt. Tunc domnus Iohannes dux iterum preparavit

War and violence in early medieval Venice 35

94

95 96

97 98

99 100

101 102

103 104 105 106

exercitum cum quo ipse veniens Vigiliam civitatem expugnavit et, capto Obelierio, decolare eum iussit. Cuius caput ad Metamaucensem insulam delatum in sabbati Sancti die iuxta sancti Martini marginem suspensum est.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 48: ‘Preterea quidam Veneticorum, cognomento Mastallici, diabolica sugestione decepti, eundem Iohannem sancti Petri de ecclesia in eiusdem festivitate venientem comprehendentes, detonsa barba cum capillis, clericum apud Gradensem urbem consecrare fecerunt.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 44. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 1: ‘Dum in sancti Zacharie monasterio diem celebraret festum, a pessimis hominibus, exiente eo peracto vespero de ecclesia, insons crudeliter interemptus est. . . Sed divina clemencia diu noluit inultum hoc pretermittere scelus. In sancti Sixti festivitate Iohannes Gradonicus cum duobus natis, Stephanus de Sabulo, Iohannes Labresella occisi sunt. Petrus quidem Candianus et Petrus Cletensius, Petrus Flabianicus, Dominicus Faletrus per Petrum Equilegensem episcopum et Iohannem Gradensem archidiaconem et Dominicum Massonem Constantinopolin ad exulandum destinati sunt. Ceteri namque, id est Stephanus Candianus cum Iohannis Gradonici nepote, seu omnes sceleris predicti conscii, repulsi a patria, exilio apud Franciam damnati, redeundi aditum numquan repperire valuerunt. Tamen unus illorum, qui apud Veneciam remansit, id est Ursus Grugnarius, a demonio conquasatus expiravit.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 25. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 27: ‘Praelibatus quidem Stefanus Coloprinus una cum filiis et ceteris aliis Papiensem urbem adire satagerunt, flexisque poplitibus Adheleidam augustam, quae inibi morabatur, exorare incessanter ceperunt, ut inlesi suo conservarentur in regno, quoniam omnibus pene Italiae principibus morte digni ob propriae patriae delationem diiudicati sunt.’ This way of reasoning is similar to the description of the revolt against Peter IV Candiano, when John the Deacon explains that the duke’s relatives told him that he was worthy of death. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 13. In general, on the meaning of ‘patria’ in medieval Venice see A. Carile, ‘La coscienza civica di Venezia nella sua prima storiografia,’ in La coscienza civica cittadina nei comuni italiani del Duecento (Todi, 1972), pp. 95–136; and Ortalli, ‘I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città,’ p. 768. For the way in which John the Deacon uses this term, see Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 150–6. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 25: ‘Tribunus dux repugnantium infidelium nequitiam inultam diu non ferens, domos illorum devastari permisit uxoresque ne aufugere possent, custodire precepit.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 35: ‘Eo quoque tempore quidam Veneticorum conspirationem adversum duces facere conati sunt, ex quibus duo prope sancti Gregorii ecclesiam suspensi sunt, id est Iohannes Tornaricus et Bonus Bradanisso. Iohannes autem Monetarius fuga lapsus est ad Lotharium regem; tamen quicquid habuit et domus et fortuna depopulata sunt.’ The presence of the same details for each episode would have made them less meaningful, because they would have been a sort of topos. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 17. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 35. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 41. The usurper Carosus could enjoy the title of duke for only very little time, since he was removed shortly after having deposed Duke John II and was blinded; his followers were killed. The chronicler states that two servants of the Bishop of Torcello, Deodatus, who had murdered their master, were hanged. The Coloprini, guilty of having created internal disorder and of having betrayed their homeland, were not affected

36 War and violence in early medieval Venice

107 108 109 110

111

112

113 114 115 116 117

118 119 120

by ducal justice, but equally atoned for their faults. Their rivals, the Morosini, murdered the sons of their leader, while their father, Stephen Coloprini suddenly died shortly after Emperor Otto II’s death. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 44, III, 3, IV, 27–8. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 48. Patriarch John was probably killed because he sided with Charlemagne, who wanted to have Venice under his sphere of influence. On this, see Chapter 3. John the Deacon is incorrect: this happened in 802, the fifth year of John’s rule. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 22: ‘Anno vero vigesimo tercio ducatus predicti Iohannis, comperta occasione, suum filium Mauricium navali exercitu ad Gradensem urbem ut domnum Iohannem, sanctissimum patriarcham, interficeret, destinavit. Ubi illuc pervenit, paternis iussionibus optemperare studens, eundem sanctissimum virum crudeliter interfecit. Cuius mors maximum dolorem suis reliquit civibus, quoniam insons fuerat interemptus.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20: ‘Interea inter Maurecenos et Coloprinos, Venetiae proceres, maximum iurgium exortum est, adeo ut Stefanus Coloprinus cum filiorum et parentum afinitate, praedicti ducis consensu et virtute, quadam die in Maurecenos abolendos insurgeret. Sed Dei virtute huius periculi flagitium providi omnes evadendi facultatem consecuti sunt. Unus tantum illorum, id est Dominicus Maureceni, innocens in sancti Petri Olivolensis foro detentus et diutissimae laceratus est. Cuius corpus, turpiter denudatum, semivivum ad sancti Zachariae monasterium parva lintre delatum est cumque in ecclesia positum a circumstantibus parentibus deploraretur, infra duarum orarum spacia vitalem deposuit halitum.’ According to Cessi, the use of the word innocent for Patriarch John is suspect and was a way to defend the patriarch, who sided with the Franks. Cessi, Venezia ducale, p. 133. In my opinion, this interpretation would be plausible only if John the Deacon were contemporary with this episode that took place two centuries before the composition of the chronicle, or if the chronicler had a great amount of information about this event at his disposal. Except for the killing of Patriarch John (ca. 802)—one the few persons defined as innocent in the chronicle—this is the only part of the Istoria Veneticorum in which John the Deacon mentions these details. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20: ‘qui licet secularis sollertia careret, maximis tamen fortunae copiis exuberabat. Temporibus cuius aurea Venetia nonnullis ignominiorum periculis dehonestata est.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20: ‘praedicti ducis consensu et virtute, quadam die in Maurecenos abolendos insurgeret (acting with the duke’s consent and support, attacked the Morosini to eliminate them).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 28: ‘Gratiam simul et patria illis concessit et insuper, ne ab aliquis inimicorum temere occiderentur, quattuor iuratoribus, sacramentorum fide muniti, securi in patria persisterunt. Maureceni sane taciti hoc totu considerantes, firmiter parentis mortem vindicare decreverant. Quapropter dum quadam die tres fratres, Stefani Coloprini nati, de palatio solito vellent domum parva rate redire, a quattuor Maurecenis interempti, rivoli latices proprio cruore infecerunt. Quorum corpora, a quodam suo homine de limpha sublata, orbate genetrici atque coniugibus delata sunt. . . Licet dux ab huiuscemodi nefas se inmunem redderet, nonnulli tamen eiusdem sceleris eum noxium affirmabant.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51, III, 6, 15, IV, 22, 66. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66. Many Venetians probably knew this. This is suggested by the fact that, when Duke Peter IV Candiano forbade the sale of slaves, weapons, and timber to the

War and violence in early medieval Venice 37

121

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

131 132 133 134

135

Muslims, he emphasized that these actions were a sin. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, numbers 41, 49. For a comparison with other early medieval Italian texts, see L. A. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes (London – New York, 2020), chapter 2. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 12: ‘Circa hec tempora Sarraceni advenientes, Gradensem urbem capere conati sunt. Sed civibus fortiter decertantibus, Sarracenorum impietas non prevaluit.’ The chronicler employs the same word when he narrates how Emperor Louis II conquered the Muslim emirate of Bari in 871. ‘Reddita est illis impietas quam cristianis civibus olim intulerat (the impiety, which they had previously brought onto the Christian citizens, was given back to them.)’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘nequissimam gentem.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66, 67: ‘domnus dux quomodo urbem a paganorum severitate tueri quivisset pertractare cepit. . . Tercię noctis in silentio paganorum aufugit exercitus. . . eos liberavit ab inimicorum persecutione.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67. ‘qui finitimarum loca crudeli iure mancipando possidebant (who had invaded the surrounding places and cruelly subjugated them).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 22, 23: ‘Sarracenorum formidolosam gentem . . . tetra cohors . . . paganorum moltitudo . . . barbarorum acies.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 1: ‘Et quoniam omnino patrios fines dolebant a barbaris possidere, maxima inter utrasque partes iurgia versabatur ita ut inter se vicissim molestias et depopulationes conferre decertarent.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘Interea Ungrorum pagana et crudelissima gens Italiam veniens.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘Fuit namque hec persecucio in Italia et Venetia anno uno.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67. The ninth-century chronicler Erchempert only uses this word for the attacks of Charlemagne’s son, Pippin, against Benevento and of the bishop of Naples, Athanasius II against the Capuans. Erchempert, Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento / Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ed. L. A. Berto (Naples, 2013), chapters 6 and 71. The Venetian chronicler defines the Narentans as Slavs as well. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 227–30. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘Tunc Sclavorum pessime gentes et Dalmacianorum Ystriensem provinciam depredare ceperunt.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 16: ‘Domogoi Sclavorum pessimo duce.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40: ‘Qui dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus (He was captured, by deceit, by the Duke of the Slavs, Michael).’ Since the Venetians did not have a colonial empire either in Croatia or Dalmatia and paid tributes to the Croats before the rule of Peter II Orseolo, I believe that considering John the Deacon’s descriptions of the Slavs as ‘a Venetian colonial discourse of dominations over “filthy barbarians”’ as Danjiel Džino argues, is misleading and anachronistic. Moreover, the Venetian chronicler never defines the Slavs as ‘filthy barbarians.’ D. Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden, 2010), p. 195. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 7: ‘predones Sclavi’ (Slavic marauders). Unlike for the Muslims, John the Deacon never utilizes the word ‘moltitudo (multitude)’ for the Slavs. This detail indicates that the Venetian paid attention to

38 War and violence in early medieval Venice

136

137 138

139

140

141 142

what he wrote, and did not use the stereotype that the enemy is always a ‘multitude.’ With regard to this event, it is worth noting that Peter II Orseolo did not hesitate to utilize the same methods as his adversaries. John the Deacon, in fact, says that the duke captured 40 Narentans, who were returning from Apulia, where they had gone to trade. Peter II Orseolo therefore sought to strike the mercantile activities of his enemies and used the prisoners as a means of imposing his conditions to his adversaries. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 49, 52. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 53: ‘Ladestine insulae habitatores agredi conatus est; a quorum rabiae Venetici illa per navigantes loca propriis facultatibus privati, nudi sepissime evaserunt.’ The chronicler uses the term ‘rabies’ only on one other occasion, i.e. when he explains that at the end of the sixth century, the patriarch of Aquileia left his headquarters, because he feared the ‘rabies Langobardorum.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 4: ‘Aquilegensi quoque civitati eiusque populis beatus Paulus patriarcha preerat, qui Langobardorum rabiem metuens, ex Aquilegia ad Gradus insulam confugit (The blessed Patriarch Paul presided over the city of Aquileia and its people. Fearing the fury of the Lombards, he fled from Aquileia to the island of Grado.)’ This episode is nevertheless insignificant, since it was probably taken from the Translatio Sancti Marci (for the relationship between the Istoria Veneticorum and the Translatio Sancti Marci, see pp. 13–15 of the introduction to the edition of the work by John the Deacon). Something similar is also reported in the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon, who however had written ‘Langobardorum barbariem.’ Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, eds. L. Bethmann and G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Italicarum, II, 10. ‘Rabies’ is also used by Liudprand of Cremona for the Hungarians. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 156 (Turnhout, 1998), II, 5, 42, III, 2. In the Cronaca di Novalesa, ed. G. C. Alessio (Turin, 1982), p. 252, it is utilized for the Muslims, while the Chronicon Salernitanum, p. 168 and in Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 28, it is used for Lombard rulers. In reality, the Narentans practiced both piracy and trade, as shown in the example already cited in which Peter II Orseolo ordered to capture the Narentans, who were returning from Apulia, where they had gone for trade. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 49. It is also worth remembering that John the Deacon specifies that, when the Slavic Duke Michael captured the son of the Venetian duke, he deprived him of all his goods. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40. John the Deacon’s use of the term ‘pertinatia’ only for the inhabitants of Lagosta/Lastovo is another indication of the bad opinion the Venetian author had of them. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31: ‘dux a Croatorum Sclavorum oppressione suos potenter liberavit.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 40: ‘Circa haec namque tempora Croatorum iudex propter interdictum sibi censum a duce in Veneticos lesionis molestiam exercere conatus est. Unde domnus dux sex naves praeparatas illuc mittens, quibus Badovarius, cognomento Bragadinus, prefuit. Qui unam illorum civitatem, quae Issa nominabatur, conprehendens utriusque sexus captivos ad Veneciam deportavit. Et ex hoc maioris odii cumulum inter Veneticos et Sclavos pululavit.’

War and violence in early medieval Venice 39 143 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45: ‘eos a Scavorum severitate liberaret.’ 144 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55: ‘ad debellandam Sclavorum duriciam.’ John the Deacon used this phrase to explain to Emperor Otto III the motive for Peter II Orseolo’s expedition in Dalmatia. 145 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 40: ‘licet minime perdurasset.’ 146 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 46. 147 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 26: ‘Imperator autem in tanta severitate et duricia ad Veneticorum districtionem perseverabat, quo nec precibus nec quibuslibet muneribus eum placare valerent.’ The word ‘severitas’ is also utilized to indicate the behavior of the bishop of Belluno, who did not want to return a territory that belonged to the Venetians, and the deeds of the Muslims who besieged Bari in 1002. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 37 and 66. 148 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 24. 149 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘ad Absarensem civitatem usque pertingere non dubitaverunt et in feria secunda Pasce incendio eam devastantes, ad Anconam civitatem transierunt, quam similiter igne concremantes, multos captivos exinde secum detulerunt.’ 150 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘predicti Sarraceni etiam Romam ausi sunt adire ecclesiamque sancti Petri depredare.’ 151 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 7: ‘quasdam Dalmaciarum urbes depopulati sunt pariterque etiam Braciensem eiusdem provincie urbem invaserunt . . . urbibus quas diximus devastatis, cum inestimabili preda ad propriam sunt reverse.’ 152 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 12: ‘Cumaclensem villam depopulati sunt.’ 153 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘finitimarum loca crudeli iure mancipando possidebant.’ 154 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘Caprulensem . . . castrum depredaverunt.’ 155 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘Sclavorum pessime gentes et Dalmacianorum Ystriensem provinciam depredare ceperunt. Quattuor videlicet urbes ibidem devastaverunt.’ 156 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45: ‘quos Croatorum ac Narentanorum principes crebro affligere solebant in tantum ut Narrentani horum quadraginta compraehendentes, secum vinctos deportaverunt.’ 157 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘Interea Ungrorum pagana et crudelissima gens Italiam veniens, incendiis et rapinis cuncta devastans maximamque multitudinem hominum interficiens, nonnullos etiam captivos reservavit . . . et usque ad montem Iob, depopulantes cuncta. Sed ad Venecias introgressi cum aequis adque pelliciis navibus, primo Civitatem novam fugiente populo igne concremaverunt, deinde Equilum, Finem, Cloiam, Caputargelem incenderunt litoraque maris depopulaverunt.’ 158 It suffices to mention the fact that, unlike most of their Italian peers, the members of the Venetian elites were involved in mercantile activities. In general, on these differences, see the considerations of Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 751, and Castagnetti, La società veneziana nel Medioevo, II, p. 99 ff. The exaltation of warrior valor is instead present in historical works similar to John the Deacon’s chronicle, i.e., chronicles whose main thread is the history of secular rulers. For example, see the Historia Langobardorum by Paul the Deacon, the Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium by Erchempert, and the Chronicon Salernitanum.

2

Peter IV Candiano A Duke deposed because he was too virtuous or too authoritarian?

Peter IV Candiano (959–976) was undoubtedly the most controversial of the early medieval Venetian rulers. After becoming duke, he took actions that no other ruler of Venice had ever taken before. He repudiated his wife in order to marry a noble Italian aristocrat, and he also formed a sort of private guard composed of warriors from the Italian mainland.1 Moreover, he forbade the slave trade and the sale of weapons and timber to the Muslims.2 Eventually, the Venetians no longer tolerated his behavior and killed him.3 According to John the Deacon, Peter IV Candiano ‘tante audaciae fuisse fertur quo et subditos virtutis rigore plus solito premeret’4 and ‘illum longo tempore Venetici ob austeritatem sui exosum haberent facultatemque perdendi sedulae machinarent, quadam die facta conspiratione in illum insurgere adorsi sunt.’5 Giorgio Cracco has maintained that these statements indicate that the Venetians revolted against this duke because of Peter IV Candiano’s ‘rigor of virtue’ and because of the austerity that he had imposed. In this scholar’s opinion, the behavior of the duke changed after his marriage to Waldrada, sister of the Marquis of Tuscany, Hugh. Indeed, Cracco argues that Peter IV Candiano decided to imitate his brother-in-law’s model of rulership, which aimed to purify the world of corruption, even through the use of force.6 Peter IV Candiano’s provisions against the slave trade (960)7 and against the sale of weapons and timber to the faithful of Islam (971),8 were the result of this change in mentality. The duke then decided to rule by obeying God’s laws, saving his soul rather than following the profane interests of the merchants that would have brought him to damnation. The fact that in these documents the sale of slaves, weapons, and timber to the Muslims is defined as a ‘gravissimum malum’ (most serious evil) and a ‘peccatum’ (sin),9 which God would have punished harshly, proves his point.10 Cracco rejects the possibility that Peter IV Candiano issued these provisions fearing the retaliation of the Byzantines, who were regaining strength in the eastern Mediterranean in those years11 and, as stated in these documents, threatened to set the ships carrying the forbidden commodities on fire; the reference to divine punishment would have represented an expedient to justify measures that inflicted a harsh blow to Venetian commercial activities.

Peter IV Candiano

41

This is a very complex and well-articulated interpretation, which explains the events through the analysis of Peter IV Candiano’s personality. Cracco’s portrayal of this duke is, however, completely different from those drawn by Gherardo Ortalli and Andrea Castagnetti. According to Ortalli, Peter IV Candiano imported behaviors typical of the Italian kingdom’s aristocracy that were unknown in Venice. The choice of the duke to accentuate his predecessor’s interests towards the Italian mainland clashed with Ottonian politics in that area, and the problems created by the trade prohibitions provoked a strong tension within the Venetian duchy, which exploded with the revolt of 976.12 Moreover, Ortalli believes that John the Deacon attributed the uprising to the harshness with which Peter IV Candiano had treated his subjects, and to his severe ruling methods.13 In his analysis of the signatories to the trade prohibitions, Castagnetti emphasizes that Peter IV Candiano attempted to strengthen the ducal power using methods characteristic of the Italian kingdom, and to adopt a different foreign policy from that of his predecessors; but in his last years of rule he had to seek the support of ‘new’ Venetian families because most of the leading Venetians opposed him. Castagnetti also argues that John the Deacon referred to the authoritarian methods of Peter IV Candiano.14 Noteworthy also is the fact that in his description of the uprising, the biographer of Saint Romuald, Peter Damiani, explains that the Venetians revolted because they could not stand that Peter IV Candiano15 paid a lot of money to his many ‘milites’ (warriors/knights)’ in order to emulate his brother-in-law, Hugh.16 According to Peter Damiani, the uprising had therefore been provoked by financial reasons and by Peter IV Candiano’s behavior; that is, for causes similar to those outlined by Ortalli and Castagnetti. It is logical to argue that, if Peter Damiani, who, as emphasized in the previous chapter, was very critical of the role Peter Orseolo had had in the uprising, knew that Peter IV Candiano had been eliminated because he was too virtuous, he would have certainly mentioned this detail because it would have rendered even more serious the responsibility of Peter Orseolo who succeeded Peter IV Candiano as duke. One can object, however, that Saint Romuald’s biographer wrote his work about 80 years after that episode and did not know all the details of it. It is nevertheless very odd that the ambassador and chaplain of Duke Peter II Orseolo, Peter Orseolo’s son, wrote that the Venetians had rebelled because Peter IV Candiano was too virtuous; the Orseolos and the Candianos were enemies and that statement, after all, represents a sort of praise. The issue is therefore how to translate ‘virtutis rigor,’ because Cracco’s hypothesis is based on only these words. Indeed, John the Deacon does not provide any other information that can support his claim. The Venetian chronicler only recounts how, having repudiated his wife, Peter IV Candiano married Waldrada, whose dowry consisted of many estates and servants, and he hired some ‘milites’ of the Italian kingdom in order to defend these properties. There is no reference either to any change this would have

42 Peter IV Candiano provoked in the Venetian duke, or to any influence Waldrada or her brother Hugh exerted on Peter IV Candiano. Cracco literally translates ‘austeritas’ as ‘austerity,’ and ‘rigor virtutis’ as ‘the rigor of virtue,’ but are these really the meanings the Venetian historian attributed to these terms? ‘Austeritas’ also means harshness/severity, while ‘virtus’ can also be intended in different ways. ‘Austeritas’ is unfortunately a word used only at this one point of the chronicle, and therefore it is not possible to make any comparisons. ‘Virtus’ is, however, utilized several times, so I believe that it is appropriate to examine how John the Deacon employed this term. Following chronological order, the first time he uses it is when a Byzantine legate, ‘Veneticorum consilio et virtute,’ had Duke Obelerio and his brother Beatus deposed and exiled.17 In this case, one cannot certainly argue that this happened by virtue of the Venetians, but, rather, ‘consilio et virtute’ seems to be an expression to indicate their will.18 There is then the episode in which John the Deacon recounts how the Istrian bishops, who were customarily consecrated by the patriarch of Grado, ‘Longobardorum regis virtute coacti,’ submitted to the patriarch of Aquileia.19 This change clearly occurred not because the bishops had been obligated by the ‘virtue’ of the king, but because they had been forced by his will or authority. ‘Virtus’ has the meaning of virtue in a broad sense when the author reports that after being elected duke, Peter Orseolo took care to administer justice fairly towards everybody and ‘omnium virtutum gratia pollere.’20 The ‘divina virtus’ that prevented the success of this duke’s adversaries’ schemes should be read as ‘divine will.’21 The next instance is very relevant, since in a few lines one finds the use of ‘virtus’ with two different meanings. According to John the Deacon, during the dispute between the Coloprini and the Morosini, Stephen Coloprino planned to eliminate all his adversaries ‘ducis consensu et virtute,’ that is, with the consent of Duke Tribunus Menio—this expression is very similar to the already examined ‘consilio et virtute’ with which the Venetians agreed to the depositions of Obelerio and Beatus. ‘Dei virtute,’ in other words, by God’s will, the Morosini managed to avoid this threat.22 ‘Virtus’ can also be translated as ‘force/valor’ in the passage in which the chronicler emphasizes that during the siege of Lagosta, the Venetians held off the enemy ‘virtute qua poterant,’23 while it seems to mean ‘virtue’ when John the Deacon explains that God harshly struck Peter II Orseolo ‘ad sue virtutis provectum,’ by making his son die.24 Finally, it is worth considering the appeal the smith John Sagorninus put forward to Duke Dominic Flabianicus (1032–1042),25 because it proves that different meanings were attributed to ‘virtus’ also in non-narrative sources. This document records the complaints of the smith and his relatives: ‘cepimus nos lamentare de virtute quod gastaldus fabri ferrarii nobis faciebat’ (we start to complain about the ‘virtus’ that the gastald of the smiths did to us).26 It is obvious that John Sagorninus did not protest because the gastald was too virtuous; indeed, shortly after it is stated that ‘neque sub iugo

Peter IV Candiano

43

gastaldioni fabri permanere debeamus (we must not remain under the authority of the smiths’ gastald).’27 This analysis clearly indicates that for John the Deacon the term ‘virtus’ had different meanings, and this circumstance therefore renders Cracco’s hypothesis quite unlikely. In my opinion, by writing ‘virtutis rigor,’ the chronicler refers to the authoritarian methods with which Peter IV Candiano had ruled. They were the product of his violent temper that had characterized him since his youth—see the revolt against his father28 and his retaliation against the Venetians when he was exiled29—and not the product of his excessive zeal in enforcing Christian virtues. In this way it is also possible to explain why the Venetian historian believed that the duke’s behavior had been so bold and that he had oppressed his subjects ‘plus solito.’ Indeed, according to John the Deacon, Peter IV Candiano ventured well beyond the bounds of behavior expected of a good Venetian ruler.

Notes 1 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11. 2 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, pp. 70–4, 86–91. 3 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12–13. For this uprising, see also Chapter 1. 4 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 11. 5 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12. 6 Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici,’ p. 930. 7 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, pp. 70–4. 8 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, pp. 86–91. 9 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 70: ‘Unde omnes pariter statuentes statuimus et firmiter confirmamus, ut nullus maior aut minor mancipia ad vendundandum emere debeant, nec aliquis precium ad suos emptores dare debeat propter mancipia comparanda aut venundanda, quia gravissimum malum est.’ Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 87: ‘Et quia magnum certissime esse peccatum scimus tale adiutorium paganae genti praebere . . . ut a modo in antea nullus audeat arma in Saracenorum terras ad venundandum vel donandum portare aut lignamen ad naves faciendum, quae ad damnitatem possent esse populo christiano.’ 10 Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici,’ pp. 930–1. 11 For example, they drove out the Muslims from Crete in 961. 12 Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 764–8. 13 Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 768. 14 A. Castagnetti, ‘Famiglie e affermazione politica,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 623–6. 15 As I have already emphasized in Chapter 1, Peter Damiani confuses Peter IV Candiano with Vitalis Candiano (978–979), who ruled after Peter Orseolo (976–978). 16 Peter Damiani, Vita beati Romualdi, p. 22: ‘In coniugium namque germanam Ugonis magni illius marchionis acceperat, et emulatione leviri suadente, multos ex Longobardie et Tusciarum partibus milites, profligatis pecuniarum stipendiis, acquirebat. Hoc autem Venetiarum incole non ferentes, clam iniere consilium ut repentino impetu ducis palatium armati irrumperent eumque cum omni domo sua in ore gladii absque ulla retractione necarent.’ Saint Peter Damian’s ‘Vita

44 Peter IV Candiano

17

18

19

20

21

22

beati Romualdi,’ p. 72: ‘For he had taken in marriage the sister of that markgrave [called] Hugh the Great and, in the urge to emulate his brother-in-law, acquired many warriors/knights from the regions of Lombardy and Tuscany by [offering] profligate monetary provisions. Now the inhabitants of Venice would not tolerate this and they secretly conceived a plan to burst violently into the duke’s palace in a surprise attack and ruthlessly slaughter him, with all his house, by the edge of the sword.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 29: ‘Hac quidem tempestate nuntius Constantinopolitanus, nomine Ebersapius, Venetiam adivit et Veneticorum consilio et virtute hoc peregit, ut utrique duces et dignitatem et patriam amitterent; unus, id est Obelierius, Constantinopolim, alter vero Iateram petiit (At this time, a messenger of Constantinople, named Ebersapius, went to Venice and, with the assent and the support of the Venetians, managed to obtain that both dukes lose their office and fatherland; one of them, Obelerio, went to Constantinople, the other to Zara).’ The expression ‘consilio et virtute’ is also used by the chronicler Arnulf of Milan (second half of the eleventh century), who, inverting the order of the two words, narrates that the Milanese factions, ‘totius regni virtute et conscilio,’ made an agreement for a truce. Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, ed. I. Scaravelli, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 1 (Bologna, 1996), II, 19. Worthy of note is also the expression ‘iussu ac virtute,’ which proves that for the Milanese chronicler ‘virtus’ meant will. Arnulf of Milan, Liber Gestorum recentium, IV, 9: ‘Qui iussu ac virtute illius ordinariorum usurpavit officium, venientes inconsulte baptiçans.’ ‘Consilio et virtute’ is also present in the biography of Pope Leo IV (847–855), where it is stated that the pontiff, ‘omnipotentis Domini fretus auxilio atque consilio et virtute munitus,’ had the altar of St. Peter’s repaired; in this case it is obvious that the pope’s biographer means that Leo IV enjoyed God’s favor. Liber Pontificalis, II, p. 113. A similar use can be found in the biography of Pope Gregory IV (828–844) where it is narrated how the pontiff, ‘Dei omnipotentis auxilio simulque virtutem munitus,’ ordered the walls of a city to be built. Liber Pontificalis, II, p. 82 (some manuscripts report the correct form ‘virtute’). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 43: ‘Istrienses episcopi, qui consecracionis donum a Gradensi patriarcha more solito recipiebant, Aquilegensi metropolitano, Longobardorum regis virtute coacti, sese subdiderunt (the bishops of Istria, who traditionally received the gift of consecration from the patriarch of Grado, were forced by the king of the Lombards to submit to the metropolitan of Aquileia).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 14: ‘Ceperat namque isdem dux Veneticorum causas bene et utiliter tractare censuramque legis in omnibus studiosissime observare et omnium virtutum gratia pollere (The duke began to deal with the Venetians’ problems properly and in a useful way, to apply the law very carefully to everyone, and to excel in all virtues).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 17: ‘Tamen tante bonitatis et divinae virtutis gratia vigebat, ut quicquid ipsi de se clanculo iniqua machinatione determinarent, nemine indagante, cognosceret (Nevertheless, thanks to his great goodness, as well as to divine will, he had such great strength that, without investigation, he became aware of whatever they secretly decided among themselves in their unjust machinations).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20: ‘Interea inter Maurecenos et Coloprinos, Venetiae proceres, maximum iurgium exortum est, adeo ut Stefanus Coloprinus cum filiorum et parentum afinitate, praedicti ducis consensu et virtute, quadam die in Maurecenos abolendos insurgeret. Sed Dei virtute huius periculi flagitium providi omnes evadendi facultatem consecuti sunt (Meanwhile, a very great fight broke out

Peter IV Candiano

23

24

25 26 27 28

29

45

between the Morosini and the Coloprini, nobles of Venice, to the point that one day Stephen Coloprini, along with his sons and relatives and acting with the duke’s consent and support, attacked the Morosini to eliminate them. By the grace of God, however, everyone was able to avoid this danger through foresight).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54: ‘verum quia arduus locus difficilem dabat appropinquantibus ingressum, iaculorum ictibus hostes aliquandiu procul, virtute qua poterant, coarcere satagebant (Because the location’s steep terrain made the access difficult to the advancing people, however, the inhabitants tried, with as much valor as they could, to hold off the enemy).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 75: ‘Sed divina providentia, moderamine equo omnia disponens, illum in tante felicitatis fastigio constitutum ad sue virtutis provectum acriter perculit (Yet divine providence, which arranges everything with equity, harshly struck him, who had been at the height of such great happiness, in order to improve his virtue).’ This text can be found in the manuscripts reporting the Istoria Veneticorum and it was probably drawn shortly after the composition of the chronicle. Scritture storiche aggiunte alla cronaca del diacono Giovanni, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, p. 176. Scritture storiche aggiunte alla cronaca del diacono Giovanni, p. 176. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 8: ‘Qui paterna monita flocci pendens, adversus eum insurgere temptavit, adeo ut quadam die utrarumque parcium milites ad pugnam peragendam in Rivoalto foro convenirent. Sed dum infirmo et vetulo patri maior pars populi obtemperaret filiumque perdere vellet, tandem pater misericordia motus, ne illum occideret rogare caepit. Tamen volens populo satisfacere, extra patriam illum exire iussit (Holding his father’s admonitions in no account, his son tried to rise up against him, so that one day the soldiers of both sides went into the square of Rivoalto to fight. Yet while the majority of the people was in favor of the old and infirm father and wanted to kill the son, the father, moved by pity, began asking them not to kill him. Wishing to satisfy the people, however, he ordered that his son leave his fatherland).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 9: ‘Qui rediens, accepta a rege licentia de Veneticis vindicandi, Ravennam adiit, ubi cuiusdam relatione didicit septem Veneticorum naves in porto qui vocatur Primarius fore, quae negotiis honerate Fanensem urbem proficisci disposuerant. Tum sex Ravennatum navibus adeptis, contra easdem hostiliter irruens, eas absque obstaculo comprehendit sicque Ravennam reversus est (When he returned, Peter obtained permission from the king [Berengar II] to take revenge on the Venetians and went to Ravenna, where he learned from someone’s report that seven Venetian ships were in the port called Primaro, full of goods, and bound for the city of Fano. He then equipped six ships of the Ravennati, violently attacked the Venetian ships, captured them without difficulty, and returned to Ravenna).’

3

Under the ‘Romans’ or under the Franks? Venice between two empires

At the beginning of the ninth century, the Venetian duchy ran the risk of losing the autonomy that it had recently obtained from Constantinople. Charlemagne’s conquest of the nearby kingdom of the Lombards in 774 introduced a neighboring power that competed with, and in some ways threatened, its position in the Venetian lagoon. The Frankish ruler, indeed, proved more aggressive towards the Venetians than his predecessors had been. Since the Venetians theoretically remained within Constantinople’s sphere of influence, and the Byzantine emperor accused Charlemagne of having usurped the imperial title in 800, rights to possession of this little area between the two empires became increasingly meaningful for all the parties implicated in the struggle between rival powers. The great significance of the dispute for Venetians, Franks, and Byzantines comes to light in the three sources which focus on how these events transpired. Although scholars can benefit greatly from these sources, certain interpretive challenges persist. Each text provides a different version of similar episodes, and many events included in one source are absent from others. The goal of this chapter is to reconstruct the events surrounding the conflict by clearly setting out what the primary sources relate, and to provide an explanation of some of the motivations that led the authors of these works to describe the events in the way they did. The main sources concerning these events are: a Frankish text, called the Annales regni Francorum (Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks),1 which is the only work contemporary with these events and conveys the Frankish court’s point of view; a Byzantine source, entitled De administrando imperio (On the Administration of the Empire) written by Emperor Constantine VII (913–959);2 and a Venetian chronicle, the Istoria Veneticorum (History of the Venetians), probably composed by John the Deacon, chaplain and ambassador of the Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo (991–1008) at the beginning of the eleventh century.3 Although these are the main sources for the events in question, there are other non-narrative texts that are useful for understanding Frankish actions against the Venetian duchy. A letter written by Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne in 785,4 for example, explains that the pontiff ordered the Venetian merchants to be expelled from Ravenna and

Venice between two empires

47

the Pentapolis and sequestered their goods in those regions in accordance with Charlemagne’s will.5 This detail is very valuable, because the author of the Istoria Veneticorum does not mention Charlemagne’s intentions. Furthermore, the letter opens the chronology of the events examined here. It shows that the first moves of the Frankish king against Venice were of an economic nature and struck at Venetian trade in the Italian mainland, one of the Venetians’ major sources of revenue. The measures mentioned by the pope, moreover, may have been adopted in other regions of Italy controlled by the Franks and may also have caused great internal tension in the Venetian duchy. In the meantime, the ecclesiastical leader of the Venetian duchy, the Patriarch of Grado, John (766–802/803), found his authority jeopardized because of what was happening outside and inside Venice. The annexation of the duchy by the Franks would have led to the disavowal of his rights in favor of his traditional rival, the patriarch of Aquileia.6 The decision of the Venetian Duke Maurice (764–795) to create the bishopric of Olivolo in 775,7 which was located near to the ducal seat in Metamauco (modern-day Malamocco), could be interpreted as a way to subtract power from the patriarch of Grado. It has been supposed that the reason that induced Patriarch John to oppose the Venetian duke and to side with the Franks openly was the election of Christopher as bishop of Olivolo in ca. 795.8 In a letter dated 775, however, Pope Hadrian wrote to Charlemagne that the patriarch of Grado had sent him information about the plans of the enemies of the pontiff and of the Frankish ruler. This suggests that the Venetian churchman had already chosen with whom to side.9 The letter reveals that the order of Duke John (797–805), son of Duke Maurice, to kill Patriarch John—narrated in the Istoria Veneticorum—can be interpreted as reflecting the desire of the Venetian ruler to eliminate one of the most prestigious leaders of the Venetian faction that supported the Franks. That Duke John sent a fleet, led by his son, against the Gradese churchman emphasizes how serious the conflict was and the duke’s wish to give a demonstration of his strength. The above-mentioned John, taking advantage of an opportunity, sent his son Maurice with a fleet of ships to the city of Grado in order to kill his lordship John, the very holy patriarch. As Maurice arrived there, he executed the paternal orders and cruelly killed that very holy man. The death of John left great grief to his fellow citizens, because an innocent had been cut off from life.10 According to Roberto Cessi, who believes that John the Deacon was well informed about that conflict, the use of the definition ‘innocens’ (innocent) for Patriarch John in this passage would indicate the chronicler’s wish to defend what the Venetian churchman had done, that is, scheming against his homeland.11 In my opinion this interpretation is problematic for a few reasons. The formulation of this hypothesis relies only on non-Venetian sources. John the Deacon recounts the event in an annalistic way that

48 Venice between two empires provides no explanation for the murder. Too much weight, moreover, is given to the description of Patriarch John as ‘innocent’; as I already emphasized in Chapter 1, the Venetian chronicler utilizes the word ‘innocens’ in his work to emphasize his condemnation for the way a person was killed. Patriarch John was a churchman and had no possibility of defending himself against the ducal fleet. It is also worth remembering that John the Deacon wrote his work two centuries after this event and his sources are unknown to us. The killing of Patriarch John was probably also a product of the worsening of the relations between Charlemagne, who had been crowned emperor by the pope on Christmas 800, and the Byzantines.12 The planned marriage between the new emperor and the Byzantine Empress Irene, which would have represented a legitimization of Charlemagne’s new title by Constantinople, never took place. Irene was indeed deposed in 802 and the new Byzantine emperor, Niceforus, was not accommodating toward the Franks and accused Charlemagne of having usurped the imperial title.13 John the Deacon never mentions the existence of pro-Frankish and proByzantine Venetian factions.14 This can, however, be determined if one compares his narration with what the Frankish Annals report. According to the Venetian chronicler, Patriarch Fortunatus II, the successor of John, plotted against Duke John and then left Venice. Some Venetian aristocrats followed his example and went to nearby Treviso, where one of them, Obelerio, was elected to lead the duchy. Hearing this, Duke John and his son Maurice abandoned Venice, and Obelerio and his companions returned to Venice without any problem. Patriarch Fortunatus II, on the other hand, went to Francia.15 As the already-mentioned Patriarch Fortunatus grieved over the death of his predecessor and relative very much, he began to plot against Dukes Maurice and John, left his city and seat and went to Italy. Also, a certain tribune of Metamauco named Obelerio, Tribune Felix, Dimitrius, Marianus, Fuscarus Gregorii, and some other Venetian aristocrats followed Fortunatus; of them only the patriarch went to Francia. The others remained in a certain city not far from Venice, named Treviso, where they did not stay for long. Incited by the advice of those who remained in Venice, they elected Tribune Obelerio as duke. When Dukes John and Maurice discovered this, they fled, worn out by fear . . . Then Obelerio boldly entered Venice.16 The Frankish Annals show the close ties existing between Obelerio and the Franks. According to this source, the new duke and his brother Beatus, coregent duke, went with some representatives of the Dalmatians to the Frankish court in late December 805. On that occasion Charlemagne made an ordinatio (provision) about Venice and Dalmatia. The exact meaning of this provision is not very clear, yet it emphasized that those areas were considered under the Frankish sphere of influence.17

Venice between two empires

49

Shortly after Christmas Willeri [Obelerio] and Beatus, dukes of Venice, and also the ambassadors of the Dalmatias, Paul, duke of Zara, and Donatus, bishop of the same city, came before the emperor [Charlemagne] with great gifts. On that occasion the emperor made a provision about the dukes and peoples of both Venice and Dalmatia.18 The anti-Byzantine sentiments of Patriarch Fortunatus II are clearly detectable in the Istoria Veneticorum. The patriarch, narrates John the Deacon, returned to Venice after the flight of Duke John,19 then he left the duchy and went beyond the Alps, as soon as he learned that a Byzantine fleet was arriving in Venice. Because he [Fortunatus II] greatly feared the arrival of Patrician Nicetas, who, sent by the emperor in that period, was going to the regions of Dalmatias and Venices with an army, Fortunatus abandoned his seat and his city and went to Francia again.20 Duke Obelerio had to return to Constantinople’s sphere of influence. The commander of the Byzantine fleet bestowed the honorific title of ‘spatharius’ (sword bearer) upon him.21 Obelerio’s brother, Beatus, went to Constantinople with some hostages, Tribune Felix and Bishop Christopher. The Byzantine emperor exiled the latter two, probably because they had opposed the new orientation of Duke Obelerio.22 Thanks to Patrician Nicetas, Duke Obelerio assumed the title of spatharius. His brother Beatus went with Nicetas to Constantinople and took with him the hostages of the Venetians, Bishop Christopher and Tribune Felix, whom the emperor condemned to exile.23 The Frankish Annals confirm the presence of a Byzantine fleet in the Adriatic in that period. They state that in 806, shortly after Duke Obelerio and his brother, Beatus, had gone to the court of Charlemagne, Emperor Niceforus sent ships under the command of Patrician Nicetas24 with the task of retaking Dalmatia.25 Furthermore, they add that in 807 Nicetas was in Venice with his fleet and that, after having established a truce with Charlemagne’s son, the King of Italy, Pippin (d. 810), returned to Constantinople: ‘Patrician Nicetas, who was staying with the Constantinopolitan fleet in Venice, made peace with Pippin and, having concluded an armistice until August, he weighed anchor and returned to Constantinople.’26 The Frankish source, therefore, is useful for completing what John the Deacon writes. It is necessary, however, to emphasize that what the Frankish annalist recounts about the Venetian duchy depends on the presence of either Charlemagne or his son Pippin in those episodes. Comparing the two sources, it seems that the Frankish author, who was a contemporary of these events, displays some reticence in relating what happened between Pippin and

50 Venice between two empires Nicetas. Indeed, he does not say anything about the return of Venice to the Byzantine sphere of influence and the content of the peace agreement between the Franks and the Byzantines. This might be due to the way Pippin recounted this event to his father, or perhaps to the Frankish author’s desire not to mention a failure of his compatriots. The Frankish Annals highlight the existence of tension between the two empires. According to this source, a Byzantine fleet went to Venice again in 809. A part of that fleet attacked the Franks at Comacchio, but was defeated and put to flight. This account is also important because it clearly indicates that the Frankish Annals are more detailed when they relate a victory of the Franks. The Frankish source continues by recounting that the commander of the Byzantine ships sought to make peace with Pippin. The accord failed because of the ‘insidiae’ (frauds/scheming) by the dukes Obelerio and Beatus against the Byzantines, who therefore preferred to leave the northern Adriatic.27 A fleet, sent from Constantinople, went first to Dalmatia, then to Venice. While it was wintering there, a part of it approached the island of Comacchio and fought with the garrison, that was stationed in Comacchio. As the fleet was defeated and put to flight, it returned to Venice. Almost as if it was ordered to him, the duke, named Paul, who commanded the fleet, tried to make peace between Franks and Greeks with lord Pippin, king of Italy. But he was prevented from all his attempts by the dukes of Venice, Willeri [Obelerio] and Beatus, who also set traps for him. As Paul discovered their frauds, he left.28 It is not clear what the ‘insidiae’ (frauds/scheming) of the Venetian rulers were, but the Frankish Annals’ account clearly indicates that, as soon as the Byzantine fleet showed a sign of weakness, the anti-Byzantine sentiments of Duke Obelerio and his brother Beatus resurfaced, opposing the accords between the Franks and the Greeks, who evidently expected that the Venetian duchy would remain under Constantinople. The Byzantines thus demonstrated themselves incapable of maintaining continuous control over Venice without having powerful Venetian allies.Up to this point, it has been possible to make a detailed reconstruction of the events thanks to the use of different sources, which, however, have the particularity of not recounting the same event.29 This is not true for what should be considered the most important episode for Venice in that period, that is, Pippin’s attack. Indeed, three primary sources mention the offensive of Charlemagne’s son against Venice, and each reports a different version of that event. According to the Frankish Annals, in 810 Pippin, ‘perfidia ducum incitatus’ (aroused by the dukes of the Venetians’ perfidy), ordered an assault on Venice by land and by sea. After having conquered it and having received the dukes’ submission, the son of Charlemagne sent his fleet to sack the Dalmatian coast. Yet the Frankish ships had to go back because of the arrival of a Byzantine fleet.

Venice between two empires

51

Meanwhile, aroused by the dukes of the Venetians’ perfidy, King Pippin ordered Venice to be attacked by land and sea. Having subjected Venice and received the submission of its dukes, he sent the fleet to devastate the shores of Dalmatia. But, as the prefect of Kephalonia, Paul, was arriving with the eastern fleet to bring help to the Dalmatians, the royal fleet returned home.30 According to John the Deacon, Pippin broke the pact that the Venetians once had with the Italian king, and tried to conquer Venice at the head of a great army of Lombards. He managed to reach the port of Albiola.31 However, he was not able to go beyond it, because, thanks to the help of God, the Venetians defeated him. Meanwhile the treaty which the people of the Venetians once had with the Italian king was broken because of King Pippin, who had a large army of Lombards move forward in order to seize the province of the Venetians. After passing with great difficulty the harbors that separate the shoreline of the islands, Pippin eventually arrived in a certain location called Albiola. He was unable to advance in any way, because the dukes, accompanied by a great army of Venetians, bravely attacked the king at that place. The victory over the enemies was assigned to the Venetians by divine will and therefore the king withdrew in disarray.32 In the De administrando imperio, having explained that the Venetians were Franks who had fled from Aquileia and other cities of Francia because of Attila’s raid,33 Emperor Constantine VII narrates how King Pippin attempted to invade Venice, passing through Albiola. The Venetians prevented him from transporting his troops to the island of Metamauco; the son of Charlemagne then besieged the Venetians from the mainland. Being asked to submit to Pippin, because they were Franks, the Venetians replied that they wished to be subjects of the Byzantine emperor. They then agreed to sign a treaty with Pippin and to pay him a tribute. Now when King Pippin came against the Venetians with power and a large army, he blockaded them along the mainland, on the far side of the crossing between it and the islands of Venice, at a place called Aeibolas. When the Venetians saw King Pippin coming against them with his power and preparing to take ship with the horses to the island of Madamaucon (for this is an island near the mainland), they laid down spars and fenced off the whole crossing. The army of King Pippin, being brought to a stand (for it was not possible for them to cross at any other point), blockaded them along the mainland six months, fighting with them daily . . . So then King Pippin, at a loss, said to the Venetians: ‘You are beneath my hand and my providence, since you are of my country and domain.’ But the Venetians answered him: ‘We want to be servants

52 Venice between two empires of the emperor of the Romans, and not of you.’ When, however, they had for long been straitened by the trouble that had come upon them, the Venetians made a treaty of peace with King Pippin, agreeing to pay him a very considerable tribute . . . So ended the war between Franks and Venetians.34 The most noticeable difference among the three accounts is that the Frankish source reports that Pippin was able to take possession of Venice, while the Venetian and the Byzantine ones say that this did not occur. The Frankish Annals provides the most synthetic and the least complete version, since it does not explain what happened after Pippin’s conquest of Venice. However, the reason that induced Charlemagne’s son to act is mentioned: ‘Incitatus perfidia ducum’ (aroused by the dukes’ perfidy). This sentence is not clear, but alludes to evil behavior of the Venetian dukes. The existence of two conflicting versions of this episode renders the reconstruction of what took place difficult. According to Roberto Cessi, both the Frankish Annals and the Istoria Veneticorum tell a part of what happened, and the Franks, invited by Obelerio and Beatus, indeed subjugated the Venetian duchy.35 After describing the defeat of Pippin and his death, John the Deacon narrates how an ecclesiastical council deposed Patriarch John and reinstated Fortunatus II. John had replaced Fortunatus II in 806 when he left Venice at the arrival of the Byzantine fleet. This event, maintains Cessi, proves that the Franks occupied Venice.36 Moreover, Cessi believes that John the Deacon hid the real motive for the deposition of Patriarch John. In his opinion, John was pro-Byzantine, while Fortunatus II was always a supporter of the Franks. In that period, emphasizes Cessi, Grado was a ‘nest of Byzantinism’ and tried to oppose the Franks. The reference in Fortunatus II’s will to the destruction of Grado’s church by the inhabitants of Grado ‘pro timore Franchorum’ (for fear of the Franks) would support this hypothesis.37 The subsequent arrival of the Byzantine ships in Dalmatia forced the Frankish fleet to retreat. The Venetians, led by Obelerio and Beatus, then attacked and defeated the Frankish garrison stationed at Albiola. According to Cessi, John the Deacon willingly omitted many details that would present that event in a different light and only praised the victory of his compatriots.38 Regarding the statement that the Venetian chronicler gave a falsified version of the events, it is worth remembering again that John the Deacon was not contemporary to these events and his sources are unknown to us. Moreover, he does not write that the Franks attacked Venice and that Pippin was Charlemagne’s son. Pippin is only defined as ‘rex’ (king) and is depicted leading an army of Lombards. The pact that the Venetians once had with the Italian king, which was broken by Pippin’s attack, was not necessarily the agreement between Pippin and the Byzantine Patrician Nicetas. In fact, only the Frankish Annals mention it. That pact could be the agreement that the Venetians established with the Lombard King Liudprand (712–744) to which John the Deacon also makes reference.39

Venice between two empires

53

In my opinion, using the information provided by the Frankish source as a tessera to complete the mosaic composed by the Istoria Veneticorum is somewhat problematic. The deposition of Patriarch John and the restitution of that office to Fortunatus II probably took place as John the Deacon described. Indeed, Fortunatus II was the legitimate patriarch. But it is noteworthy that Fortunatus II was not deposed after the defeat of the Franks and that Duke Agnellus, who had friendly relationships with the Byzantines and probably obtained the ducal office thanks to their intervention, replaced Duke Obelerio.40 Assumptions about the clashes between pro-Frankish and pro-Byzantine factions in Venice are therefore not necessarily valid. As for the destruction of the Grado’s church ‘for fear of the Franks,’ this phrase can be interpreted in various ways because the source does not assign a clear motive to the act. It is therefore impossible to establish the nature of the connection between its destruction and the ‘fear of the Franks.’ For example, the inhabitants of Grado could have razed it to the ground because the Franks also tried to attack Grado and the Gradesi did not want the invaders to occupy that religious building. Often modern analysis of the events addressed above does not take into account all three available versions of the narrative.41 Some historians, while clearly familiar with the three texts, give preference to the details mentioned in the Frankish and Byzantine sources. Moreover, modern historians have added episodes that are not recorded by any early medieval source, that is, Pippin’s conquest and sacking of Eraclea and of Metamauco.42 According to David Nicol, the Frankish military operations lasted for six months, the amount of time corresponding to the duration of the siege of Venice, according to Constantine VII. The arrival of the Byzantine fleet in Dalmatia, as told by the Frankish Annals, forced Pippin to retreat; beforehand, Charlemagne’s son imposed on the dukes—who were his prisoners—an annual tribute (information mentioned in De administrando imperio).43 More balanced is Giorgio Ravegnani, who summarizes the three versions of the events, emphasizing that each of them expresses a different point of view.44 Constantine VII’s De administrando imperio is crucial for understanding the relations among the Venetians, the Byzantines, and the Franks in this period of contact and for explaining the versions provided by the Istoria Veneticorum and the Frankish Annals. Unfortunately, the Byzantine emperor’s sources for De administrando imperio are unknown. Yet it is worth noting that, unlike John the Deacon and the Frankish Annals, Constantine VII does not mention the presence of Constantinople’s fleet. The Byzantine author, furthermore, seems to acknowledge Pippin’s right to invade Venice. The Venetians, he claims, were Franks who had fled from Aquileia and from other cities of Francia.45 Moreover, Constantine VII reports Pippin’s speech to the Venetians in which Charlemagne’s son invited them to submit themselves to his authority because they were his subjects.46 The Venetians’ reply to Pippin is also relevant. They affirm that they want to be subjects of the Emperor of the Romans, that is, the Byzantines.

54 Venice between two empires For Constantine VII, Venice therefore only became a part of the dominion of Constantinople from that moment on and thus he did not consider the action of the Frankish sovereign as an aggression against the Byzantine Empire. This important particular makes the numerous details the emperor provides worthy of a careful analysis.47 Given the above-mentioned features of the Byzantine source, I argue that De administrando imperio relates the most accurate version of the events under consideration. The occupation of some areas of the mainland of the Venetian duchy by the Franks, the siege against the Venetians in the lagoons, and the subsequent imposition of a tribute, or what could be seen as a recognition of Frankish superiority, could have been presented with some exaggeration by Pippin to Charlemagne as the achievement of the submission of the Venetian dukes. As has already been seen, the Frankish Annals use the phrase ‘subiectaque Venetia ac ducibus eius in deditionem acceptis’ (having subjected Venice and received the submission of its dukes). Blocking the Frankish advance in Albiola was a success that the Venetian source, which John the Deacon used, transformed into a great victory.48 The Franks probably abandoned their attempt to enter the Venetian lagoons because they understood that a fight in that area would be unfavorable given the features of their army; the news of the arrival of a Byzantine fleet in the northern Adriatic also contributed to that decision. However, the Franks were not likely defeated by the Venetians and were able to control some areas of the southern part of the duchy for many years. According to a clause of the pact, drawn in 840 between the Frankish ruler Lothar and the Venetians, the inhabitants of the Venetian town of Chioggia were allowed to return to their territory, which had probably been occupied by the Franks since 810.49 In whatever way these events unfolded, Venice returned to the Byzantine sphere of influence. An emissary of Constantinople, narrates John the Deacon, deposed and exiled Obelerio and Beatus, who were evidently considered untrustworthy. Their removal, adds the Venetian chronicler, took place with the consensus of the Venetians.50 It is logical to speculate that the presence of the imperial fleet fundamentally impacted that decision. This was the last time that a Byzantine naval contingent came to the northern Adriatic. Having avoided annexation by the Frankish empire—a world with social, political, and economic characteristics that were different from those of Venice51—the Venetian duchy managed to take advantage of its geographical position to become the most western part of the Byzantine koiné (community). In this way, Venice could become a sort of portal of economic activities between the eastern Mediterranean and western Europe and, at the same time, to enjoy a full autonomy from the distant Constantinople, more and more occupied with its enemies in the east. Moreover, Venice proved to be a location that, thanks to the special features of its amphibious world, was very difficult to conquer. This particular allowed the Venetians to become a great Mediterranean power through continuous growth that was never jeopardized by external enemies. It should suffice to remember that although the

Venice between two empires

55

Muslims repeatedly defeated the Venetians’ fleets during the ninth century— and came very close to the Venetian duchy on a couple of occasions—they never dared to enter the Venetian lagoons.52 This preserved the Venetian centers from disastrous sackings, to which several Italian cities were instead subjected in the early Middle Ages.53

Notes 1 Annales regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, VI (Hanover, 1895). The English translation of this text is taken from Carolingian Chronicles, trans. by B. W. Sholz with B. Rogers (Ann Arbor, 1970). I have sometimes made some changes to it. 2 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. 3 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum. 4 According to the donations given to the papacy by Charlemagne, the pope possessed all the Italian territories that once belonged to the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian lagoon included. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 726. 5 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, pp. 55–6. 6 On the conflicts between Grado and Aquileia, see C. Azzara, ‘Venetiae’: Determinazione di un’area regionale fra antichità e alto Medioevo (Treviso, 1994), pp. 101–10, and D. Rando, Una Chiesa di frontiera: Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche veneziane nei secoli VI–XII (Bologna, 1994), pp. 60–70. 7 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 19. 8 According to the Origo, a thirteen-century Venetian text, Christopher was ‘Greek.’ Using this particular, Christopher’s election has been interpreted as a pro-Byzantine choice of the Venetian duke. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 726–7, and Cessi, Venezia ducale, p. 132. Origo Civitatium Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense), ed. R. Cessi, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 73 (Rome, 1933), p. 132. That Bishop Christopher sided with Duke John is suggested by the fact that, when the pro-Frankish Obelerio had been elected duke at Treviso and Duke John fled at that news, the bishop of Olivolo left Venice. Evidently, Christopher feared being punished by the pro-Frankish faction. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 24. 9 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, pp. 53–4. 10 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 22: ‘comperta occasione, suum filium Mauricium navali exercitu ad Gradensem urbem ut domnum Iohannem, sanctissimum patriarcham, interficeret, destinavit. Ubi illuc pervenit, paternis iussionibus optemperare studens, eundem sanctissimum virum crudeliter interfecit. Cuius mors maximum dolorem suis reliquit civibus, quoniam insons fuerat interemptus.’ 11 Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 132–3. 12 This hypothesis was formulated by Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 728. 13 Since John the Deacon was not contemporary with these events, I do not think that he wanted to create a connection among the imperial coronation of Charlemagne, Irene’s deposition, and the killing of Patriarch John, as argued by Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 781, note 14. 14 In all likelihood the main goal of these factions was control over Venice. 15 This particular is confirmed by some diplomata granted to him by Charlemagne in Salz (near Neustadt) in August 803. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 38–9, pp. 58–60. Fortunatus II’s presence on that occasion is also mentioned by Annales Mettenses Priores, ed. B. De Simson, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, X (Hanover – Leipzig, 1905), pp. 89–90.

56 Venice between two empires 16 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 24: ‘Prelibatus siquidem Fortunatus patriarcha acriter dolens interfectionem sui decessoris et parentis, insidias adversus Mauricium et Iohannem duces composuit, et relicta sede et urbe, ad Italiam perexit. Quem etiam secutus est quidam tribunus, Obellierius nomine, Metamaucensis, Felix tribunus, Dimitrius, Marianus seu Fuscarus Gregorii et nonnulli alii Veneticorum maiores, ex quibus solus patriarcha in Franciam ivit. Ceteri vero remanserunt in quadam civitate non procul a Venecia, nomine Tarvisio, ibique non diutius degentes, consilio illorum ammoniti qui in Venetia morabantur, Obellierium tribunum ducem elegerunt. Quo Iohannes et Mauricius duces comperto, adtriti timoratione, fuga lapsi sunt . . . Tunc hisdem Obelierius audacter Veneciam intravit.’ 17 Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 728–9. 18 Annales regni Francorum, pp. 120–1: ‘Statim post Natalem Domini venerunt Willeri et Beatus duces Venetiae necnon et Paulus dux Iaderae atque Donatus eiusdem civitatis episcopus legati Dalmatarum ad praesentiam imperatoris cum magnis donis. Et facta est ibi ordinatio ab imperatore de ducibus et populis tam Venetiae quam Dalmatiae.’ 19 In reality, at the beginning, Duke Obelerio did not allow Fortunatus II to enter Venice. There were probably some disagreements between the duke and the patriarch about the ecclesiastic politics of the duchy. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the fact that Fortunatus II sought by all means to restore the bishopric of Olivolo to Bishop Christopher, who had evidently abandoned his previous positions. The patriarch even imprisoned Deacon John, who had become bishop after Christopher left Venice. Eventually, an agreement was reached; Christopher was reinstated as bishop of Olivolo and Fortunatus II was permitted to return to Venice. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 25. 20 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 25: ‘Et quia valde Nicetae patricii adventum prestolari formidabat, qui tunc missus ab imperatore cum exercitu in partes Dalmaciarum atque Veneciarum veniebat, relicta sede et propria urbe, iterum Franciam petiit.’ The flight of Fortunatus II is confirmed by a 806 letter of Pope Leo III to Charlemagne. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 68. 21 This title was more prestigious of those the Byzantine emperors had granted to the previous Venetian dukes. G. Ravegnani, ‘Insegne del potere e titoli ducali,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, p. 839, and Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 38–9. 22 Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 729–30. 23 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 26: ‘Obellierius siquidem dux per Nicetam patricium spatharii honorem suscepit. Beatus vero, frater eius, cum predicto Niceta Constantinopolim ivit secumque deferens Veneticorum obsides, et Cristoforum episcopum et Felicem tribunum, quos augustus exilio dampnavit.’ Tribune Felix should be identified with one of the Venetian aristocrats who went to Treviso with Obelerio. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24; Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, p. 118. 24 John the Deacon mentions Nicetas as well. 25 Annales regni Francorum, p. 122: ‘Classis a Niciforo imperatore, cui Niceta patricius praeerat, ad recuperandam Dalmatiam mittitur (Emperor Niceforus sent a fleet, which was under the command of Patrician Nicetas, to retake Dalmatia).’ According to Antonio Carile, Obelerio and Beatus went to the Frankish court, because they had known of the arrival of the Byzantine fleet. A. Carile, ‘La formazione del ducato veneziano,’ in A. Carile – G. Fedalto, Le origini di Venezia (Bologna, 1978), p. 234. However, the way in which these events are narrated suggests that Emperor Niceforus sent the Byzantine ships to the Adriatic because the Venetians and the Dalmatians had decided to place themselves in the Frankish sphere of influence.

Venice between two empires

57

26 Annales regni Francorum, p. 124: ‘Niceta patritius qui cum classe Constantinopolitana sedebat in Venetia, pace facta cum Pipino rege et indutiis usque ad mensem Augustum constitutis statione soluta Constantinopolim regressus est.’ For the various hypotheses on this point, see Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 143–5. 27 Cessi believes that the Byzantine fleet went to Venice to discuss the previous accords and that the clash at Comacchio was the result of a misunderstanding between the Franks and the Byzantines which negatively influenced the negotiations between the two empires. Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 148–9. There is no explicit evidence for this in the sources. The attempt of the Byzantine commander to reach an accord with Pippin, moreover, seems to have been the fruit of an order aimed at preventing a frontier conflict from becoming an open war. 28 Annales regni Francorum, p. 127: ‘Classis de Constantinopoli missa primo Dalmatiam, deinde Venetiam appulit: cumque ibi hiemaret, pars eius Comiaclum insulam accessit commissoque proelio contra praesidium, quod in ea dispositum erat, victa atque fugata Venetiam recessit. Dux autem, qui classi preerat, nomine Paulus, cum de pace inter Francos et Grecos constituenda, quasi sibi hoc esset iniunctum, apud domnum Pippinum Italiae regem agere moliretur. Wilhareno et Beato Venetiae ducibus omnes inchoatus eius impedientibus atque ipsi etiam insidias parantibus, cognita illorum fraude discessit.’ 29 The first arrival of the Byzantine fleet in Venice is an exception. 30 Annales regni Francorum, p. 130: ‘Interea Pippinus rex, perfidia ducum Veneticorum incitatus, Venetiam bello terraque marique iussit appetere: subiectaque Venetia ac ducibus eius in deditionem acceptis, eandem classem ad Dalmatiae litora vastanda misit. Sed cum Paulus Cefaloniae praefectus cum orientali classe ad auxilium Dalmatis ferendum adventaret, regia classis ad propria regreditur.’ This source does not indicate that Pippin had been ‘defeated by a Byzantine army’ as argued by F. Borri, ‘L’Adriatico tra Bizantini, Longobardi e Franchi dalla conquista di Ravenna alla pace di Aquisgrana,’ Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio muratoriano 112 (2010), p. 50. 31 Albiola was probably a thin strip of land south of Metamauco. L. Lanfranchi – G. G. Zille, ‘Il territorio del ducato veneziano dall’VIII al XII secolo,’ in Storia di Venezia, II. Dalle origini del ducato alla IV crociata (Venice, 1958), p. 30. 32 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 27: ‘Interea foedus quod Veneticorum populus olym cum Italico rege habebat, illo tempore, Pipino agente rege, disruptum est, et hisdem rex ingentem exercitum Longobardorum ad Veneticorum provinciam capiendam promovit. Qui cum magna dificultate portus, qui dividunt insularum littora, pertransisset, tandem ad quendam locum, qui Albiola vocatur, pervenit. Nulla racione in antea pertendere gressum valuit, ibique duces, stipati magna Veneticorum expedicione, eundem regem audacter aggressi sunt, et divinitus datum est Veneticis de inimicis triumphum, sicque predictus rex confusus recessit.’ Francesco Borri has hypothesized that the Venetian chronicler wanted to create a comparison between that episode and the embargo imposed on Venice by Emperor Otto II with the help of some Venetian traitors in 982–983. Borri, ‘L’Adriatico tra Bizantini, Longobardi e Franchi,’ p. 51, note 175. Such a supposition has no foundation because the two events have completely different characteristics. See John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 24–6. 33 Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, chapter 28, p. 119: ‘Of old, Venice was a desert place, uninhabited and swampy. Those who are now called Venetians were Franks from Aquileia and from the other places in Francia, and they used to dwell on the mainland opposite Venice. But when Attila, the king of the Avars, came and utterly devastated and depopulated all the parts of Francia, all the Franks from Aquileia and from the other cities of Francia began to take to flight, and to go to the uninhabited islands of Venice and to

58 Venice between two empires

34

35 36

37 38 39

40 41

42

43 44

build huts there, out of their dread of king Attila. Now when this King Attila had devastated all the country of the mainland and had advanced as far as Rome and Calabria and had left Venice far behind, those who had fled for refuge to the islands of Venice, having obtained a breathing space and, as it were, shaken off their faintness of heart, took counsel jointly to settle there, which they did, and have been settled there till this day.’ Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, chapter 28, p. 121. Probably confusing the account of John the Deacon with that of Constantine VII, Borri has erroneously maintained that the emperor ‘recounted a mythic victory of the Venetians over the Franks.’ Borri, ‘L’Adriatico tra Bizantini, Longobardi e Franchi,’ p. 53. Cessi believes that perhaps Pippin did not occupy all of Venice. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 28: ‘Iohannes siquidem patriarcha, qui per quattuor annorum spacia Gradensem sedem vivente pastore usurpavit, sinodali censura depositus est (Patriarch John, who had usurped the seat of Grado for four years even though its shepherd was still alive, was deposed by a council’s decision).’ Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 77. Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 149–53. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 2: ‘Cum Liuprando vero rege inconvulse pacis vinculum confirmavit; apud quem pacti statuta, que nunc inter Veneticorum et Longobardorum populum manent, impetravit (He [Duke Paulitio] made a long-lasting peace with King Liudprand and obtained from him the clauses of the pact that still subsist between the Venetians and the people of the Lombards).’ It is worth remembering that, for the Venetian chronicler, Italy corresponded with the kingdom of Italy, that is, the northern and central part of the former kingdom of the Lombards. For the analysis of the terminology used by John the Deacon to indicate the rulers and the inhabitants of the Italian kingdom, see Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 163–6, 224–5. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 734. Antonio Carile and Gherardo Ortalli agree with Cessi’s main conclusions. Carile, ‘La formazione del ducato veneziano,’ p. 235; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 730–32. Usually, the biographers of Charlemagne only utilize the version of the Frankish Annals. See for example, A. Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent, trans. by A. Cameron (Berkeley, 2004), p. 37, and J. L. Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne (Oakland, 2019), p. 458. In Atlas of the Medieval World, ed. R. McKitterick (Oxford, 2004), p. 39, it is said that Venice was ‘under Frankish control 806–12.’ That circumstance is referred to by a chronicle composed in the thirteenth century. Origo, pp. 91–100. Probably influenced by that version of events, Frederic Lane has argued that Pippin conquered Metamauco and that he did not tried to besiege Rivoalto when the duke took refuge there. F. C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973), p. 5. The version of the thirteenth-century text is also used by W. T. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford, 1988), p. 166. Details that are not recorded in any medieval source are mentioned by D. Wilson, Charlemagne (New York, 2006), p. 98. D. M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 16–19. The same methodology is present in T. F. Madden, Venice: A New History (New York, 2012), pp. 36–8. G. Ravegnani, Bisanzio e Venezia (Bologna, 2006), pp. 43–44. George Ostrogorsky has used only the Frankish source and maintained that Venice was restored to the Byzantines only after the peace between Charlemagne and Emperor Michael. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. J. Hussey (New Brunswick,

Venice between two empires

45

46

47

48 49

50

51 52 53

59

1969, revised edition), p. 198. According to Thomas Brown, Pippin sacked several parts of the Venetian duchy. T. Brown, ‘Byzantine Italy (680–876),’ in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. 500–1492, ed. J. Shepard (Cambridge, 2008), p. 455. Stefano Gasparri does not take into account these important details in his analysis of Emperor Constantine VII’s account. S. Gasparri, ‘The formation of an early medieval community: Venice between provincial and urban identity,’ in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, 750–1000, ed. V. West-Harling (Turnhout, 2015), p. 37. According to Paolo Lamma, Pippin’s speech was in tune with basic concepts of Byzantine political thought: the Venetians were Franks, and therefore they could become subjects of the sovereign of their land. P. Lamma, ‘Venezia nel giudizio delle fonti bizantine,’ in P. Lamma, Oriente e Occidente nell’alto Medioevo: Studi storici sulle due civiltà (Padua, 1968), p. 448. Surprisingly, Constantine VII did not know that Italy had been the center of the Roman Empire of which the Byzantines considered themselves to be the heirs, and that until the eighth century, some areas of northern Italy, among which was Venice itself, had been under the direct control of Constantinople. Roberto Cessi has defined the account of Constantine VII as characterized by some legendary details and in line with John the Deacon’s narrative. Cessi, Venezia ducale, p. 150, note. 2. Paolo Lamma agrees with this last point and hypothesizes that the reference to the tribute the Venetians gave to Pippin was an echo of the pacts between the two empires. Lamma, ‘Venezia nel giudizio delle fonti bizantine,’ p. 449. Both Constantine VII and John the Deacon mention this location. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 108, chapter 32. According to Pierandrea Moro, this clause indicates that after Pippin’s attack there were other battles. P. Moro, ‘Venezia e l’Occidente nell’alto Medioevo. Dal confine longobardo al “pactum” lotariano,’ in Venezia. Itinerari per la storia della città, eds. S. Gasparri, G. Levi, and P. Moro (Bologna, 1997), p. 51. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, p. 29: ‘Hac quidem tempestate nuntius Constantinopolitanus, nomine Ebersapius, Venetiam adivit et Veneticorum consilio et virtute hoc peregit, ut utrique duces et dignitatem et patriam amitterent; unus, id est Obelierius, Constantinopolim, alter vero Iateram petiit (At this time, a messenger of Constantinople, named Ebersapius, went to Venice and, with the assent and the support of the Venetians, managed to obtain that both dukes lost their office and fatherland; one of them, Obelerio, went to Constantinople, the other to Zara).’ According to the Frankish Annals, Obelerio took refuge at Charlemagne’s court, but the emperor sent him back to the Byzantines. Annales regni Francorum, annum 811, pp. 133–4: ‘Willeri dux Veneticorum . . . propter perfidiam honore spoliatus Constantinopolim ad dominum suum duci iubetur (He ordered Willeri, who had been deprived of his office because of his perfidy, to be taken to his lord in Constantinople).’ The fact that this source defines the Byzantine emperor as ‘the lord’ of Obelerio indicates that Charlemagne acknowledged that Venice was under the sphere of influence of Constantinople. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 731. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51, III, 12. For example, Genoa, Ancona, Comacchio, Reggio Calabria, Syracuse, and Taormina.

4

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors Circulation of news and ‘stories’ about non-Venetians in early medieval Venice

Venice’s geographic position firmly places it in western Europe, yet its history demonstrates its many ties and interests with the Byzantine empire. Moreover, the economic and other activities of its inhabitants enabled a widespread Venetian presence in the Mediterranean world and some parts of Europe.1 At the same time, foreigners were drawn to this network of lagoons and islands.2 These factors make Venice a unique opportunity for historians to analyze the circulation of news and descriptions of events concerning ‘others’ in the early Middle Ages.3 Unfortunately, a fire destroyed most of Rivoalto—the main center of the Venetian duchy—including the ducal palace and the basilica of St. Mark, during a violent insurrection against Duke Peter IV Candiano in 976,4 which in all likelihood destroyed the ducal and ecclesiastical archives.5 This is why only an early medieval Venetian letter survived.6 However, in spite of this tiny number, this epistle is extremely precious because there are references to Jerusalem, the Byzantine Empire, and Germany, thus confirming the great breadth of the Venetian activities. In a letter to the German King, Henry (919–936), Duke Peter II Candiano (931–942) and the Patriarch of Grado, Marinus, report that there was a disagreement between the Jews and Christians in Jerusalem. The latter won the dispute and many Jews converted. The Byzantine emperor learned of this event and ordered the baptism of all Jews in his territory. The Venetians informed the German sovereign that a Jew from Jerusalem went to Germany, where he was insulting the Christian religion, and invited Henry to follow the example of the Byzantine ruler and to drive all the Jews, who refused to convert to Christianity, out of his kingdom.7 Fortunately, an early medieval Venetian chronicle, the Istoria Veneticorum, has survived. The first striking feature of this text is that it mentions almost all the Byzantine emperors from Justinian (527–565) to Basil II (976–1025),8 while western rulers, including those in the neighboring kingdom of Italy, along with the popes, are rarely referred to. This would indicate that Venice was more concerned with events in distant Constantinople than in nearby Italy. Aside from the first part of the Istoria Veneticorum, containing verbatim passages taken mostly from Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards and

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

61

9

Bede’s Six Ages of the World, it is significant that the Byzantines are not only recorded when one of their emperors either died or ascended to the throne. John the Deacon describes the following episodes: • •

•

The revolt of Turchis against Emperor Niceforus (802–811), which resulted only in the destruction of a city and ended with the surrender of the rebel leader.10 The dishonorable behavior of Emperor Michael (811–813), who abandoned his army and fled in terror to Constantinople after going to fight the Bulgarians. Ashamed of his behavior, Michael then retired into a monastery. The commander of his troops, Leo, was, on the contrary, not afraid to face the enemies and was crowned emperor after his victory over them.11 The description of the Normans’ attack on Constantinople in the 850s. Although they were unable to conquer the city, they killed many people in the suburbs and could thus return home victorious.12

The last episode is an accurate account of the way the Byzantine admiral, Romanus Lecapenus (d. 948), seized power, stopping the flow of supplies to Constantinople until Emperor Constantine VII (913–959) made him his adviser. After achieving this goal, Romanus made the Byzantine ruler marry his daughter. He then consolidated his power by having himself and his sons crowned as emperors (920).13 Romanus’s sons demonstrated their lack of gratitude when their father opposed their plan to murder their brotherin-law. They removed him from power and forced him to become a monk on a remote island.14 The Venetian chronicler also describes how they tried to carry out their conspiracy against Constantine VII, but the latter had them arrested and exiled.15 Except for the first episode, it is important to point out that none of these events had a positive outcome for the Byzantines. Indeed, they describe an emperor who fled from the enemy without fighting, an attack on Constantinople that had adverse effects on the empire, and one of their officials who became emperor by force and was then betrayed by his own sons. In comparison with other sources mentioning the same events, the Istoria Veneticorum’s version always stresses the most negative aspects of these stories. According to the Frankish Annals, Emperor Michael, after a successful campaign against the Bulgarians, gave up his office and became a monk.16 The Frankish annalist, who was contemporary with these events and was perhaps influenced by that period’s atmosphere of detente with the Byzantines, only makes a brief allusion to this and does not report any of the unedifying details John the Deacon mentions. The author of the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops, probably composed around the early-tenth century, only states that Leo rebelled against Emperor Michael, who, being unable to face the revolt, decided to retire to a monastery.17 Leo’s uprising also appears in the work of an anonymous Byzantine chronicler known as the Continuer of Theophanes.

62 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors He narrates that Emperor Michael’s defeat by the Bulgarians was due to Leo’s retreat from the field.18 John the Deacon is, therefore, the only author to depict the emperor’s behavior in front of the enemy in such a manner. Alexander Vasiliev maintains that the attack on Constantinople should not be identified as the Rus assault of 860, but as the raid the Normans made in 861.19 His argument rests on the fact that other sources report that the Rus fleet was destroyed by divine will after trying to conquer the imperial capital.20 This is not the place to discuss Vasiliev’s theory, but I point out that Liudprand of Cremona (d. 972), who wrote 40–50 years before the Venetian chronicler, explains that westerners labelled ‘Nordmanni’ (Northmen) those people whom the Byzantines identified as ‘Rusii.’21 Furthermore, it is important to recall that John the Deacon always reports the most negative version of events. Thus, his failure to mention the destruction of the Norman fleet does not in itself mean that he was not referring to the Rus attack of 860. There are then the episodes about Romanus Lecapenus and his children. Liudprand of Cremona, who went to Constantinople on several occasions as ambassador of the Italian king, Berengar II (950–961), and the German sovereign, Otto (936–973), also related these events.22 This author is known for his invectives against the rulers of the ‘Greeks,’ but, in this part of his work, he does not yet evince any aversion towards the Byzantines. He therefore represents a useful point of reference since, probably in addition to knowing the official imperial version of those episodes, he narrates some details that he perhaps took from oral sources that John the Deacon also appears to have known.23 The bishop of Cremona states that, after the death of Emperor Alexander (d. 913), Romanus went with the fleet to Constantinople. Fearing for his life, he did not dare enter the imperial palace, but declared that, if some members of the court would not go to him and swear that he would be in no danger, he would ally himself with the Muslims. As soon as these officials boarded his ship, he had them arrested,24 went to the imperial palace, imprisoned all his enemies, and married Zoe, the mother of the young Constantine VII who was the legitimate heir to the throne. Romanus was therefore called ‘father of the emperor’ by everybody.25 The Continuer of Theophanes reports a similar version of this episode, but does not mention any use of force.26 Here we have the first difference between John the Deacon’s version and those of the other authors. The Venetian chronicler describes a more serious deed: Romanus in fact imposed an economic blockade on Constantinople. His ascension to the throne is, therefore, portrayed with more than just the characteristics of a palace plot, but more akin to a revolt, in which all the people of Constantinople suffered the consequences. John the Deacon states that Romanus married his daughter to Constantine VII and had his three sons elected emperors27—a detail mentioned by Liudprand as well—and, thereby, highlights the illicit nature of Romanus’s actions.28 The Venetian chronicler, however, regards the situation with irony because he emphasizes that in that period there were simultaneously

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

63

five emperors in one palace: Constantine VII, Romanus Lecapenus, and his three sons. Unlike the Continuer of Theophanes, John the Deacon and Liudprand vividly describe how Romanus’s children tried to kill their brother-in-law Constantine VII, seeking the support of the commander of the palace guard. The project failed because the plot was revealed to Constantine VII, who had them captured during a meal and sent into exile on the same island where Romanus resided.30 Liudprand recounts that the dethroned emperor received his sons by mocking them,31 while in the work of the Venetian author, Romanus’s speech focuses especially on the ingratitude of his sons toward their father, and on his request to Constantine VII not to allow them to be exiled with him since they proved unable to tolerate him in the imperial palace. 29

The father, seeing them arrive, insulted them saying: ‘Whence have such fine and devoted clerics been brought to the solitude of my exile? Yet you, who were not ashamed to exile your own father, will not endure the punishment of exile with me; since you disdained to have me as a partner in the office of emperor, you will not have me as a comforter in your pain.’ Through messengers he immediately addressed his son-inlaw Constantine in this way: ‘I beg you, I do not want you to allow my children to be in exile with me, because those whom a single palace could not contain, let not them stay together in exile either.’32 Moreover, John the Deacon adds that the emperor fulfilled Romanus’s request by sending his ungrateful sons to two other islands and that one of them was subsequently beheaded.33 We do not know the sources to which John the Deacon had access, and we cannot therefore confirm whether he modified them or decided only to mention some of the events he knew about. It should be noted, however, that these episodes from Byzantine history seem to be narrated in the Istoria Veneticorum with a certain logic. Their inclusion corresponds to descriptions of events that were less than exemplary parts of Venice’s history. The Venetian chronicler, thereby, probably wished to show that, although unedifying episodes had sometimes occurred in the duchy of Venice, the situation was certainly no better in the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Michael’s shameful behavior against the Bulgarians immediately follows the deposition of the Venetian Duke Obelerio (805–810) and his coruler and brother Beatus (805–810). This occurred in around the year 810, after the intervention of an envoy of Constantinople who convinced the Venetians to dismiss them.34 John the Deacon provides no reasons for this severe measure,35 but the act in itself made it clear that they had not behaved properly. Venice may have had rulers who were deposed, but the Byzantines had an emperor who fled ignominiously from the enemy. The Normans’ attack on Constantinople follows a description of crushing Venetian defeats against the

64 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors Muslims and Slavs in the 840s.36 Unlike what befell Constantinople, no enemy was ever able to attack the capital of the Venetian duchy. The story about Romanus Lecapenus and his sons immediately precedes an account of the dispute between Duke Peter III Candiano (942–959) and his son Peter, who had been appointed co-ruler. The chronicler does not provide a rationale for this, but it is important to remember that the disagreement between them was so harsh that their followers clashed in the square at Rivoalto.37 The conflict ended with the banishment of the young Peter,38 who then retaliated by assaulting Venetian ships.39 Again, comparing what happened in Venice to what occurred in Constantinople clearly indicates that John the Deacon thought that Byzantine turmoil had always been worse, with revolts of sons against fathers being more serious and more shameful. The Venetian chronicler, therefore, believed that the Venetians were superior to the ‘Greeks’—these being feelings that his compatriots probably shared as well. It is, however, significant that John the Deacon expresses all this only through the features of the episodes he narrates. He in fact reports just one positive comment concerning the ‘Greeks.’ Following the defeat of Emperor Otto II (973–983) by Muslims, the German ruler, disguising himself, took refuge upon a Byzantine ship. The imperials, however, recognized him and John the Deacon praises their intelligence.40 The fact that the Venetian chronicler does not mention a negative episode of Byzantine history during the rule of Duke Tribune Menio (979–991), when the Venetians were beset by a terrible internal crisis—Emperor Otto II tried to conquer Venice41—is probably due to the fact that no negative events—such as disastrous defeats, largescale rebellions, and attempts to depose the emperor—occurred under the government of Emperor Basil II (976–1025). In this period the Byzantines were actually very successful in their wars against the Bulgarians and the Muslims. Moreover, a son of Duke Peter II Orseolo married a relative of Basil II,42 and, therefore, it was not prudent for the Venetian chronicler to express criticism toward such a powerful relation in any way. As already stated, events concerning neighboring Italy are much rarer in the Istoria Veneticorum. Even so, there seems to be a desire to show that, regardless of the misfortune that befell Venice, far worse had befallen its neighbors. After reporting the major defeats that the Venetians suffered against the Muslims in the 840s, John the Deacon adds that the Saracens also went to Rome and sacked St. Peter’s Basilica,43 one of the most important holy places in Western Christendom. This event revealed how powerful the Muslims were in that period. This fact made their victories over the Venetians justifiable and the memory of those defeats less bitter for the chronicler’s compatriots. Similar sentiments are evident in how the Hungarian incursion of the lateninth century, which destroyed several Venetian coastal towns, is described. The chronicler states that, before Venice was hit, many cities in the kingdom of Italy were devastated and the army of the King of Italy, Berengar (d. 924), was defeated. Unlike their neighbors, the Venetians, however, managed to

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

65

prevent the raiders from damaging the heart of their homeland thanks to the heavy defeat their fleet, led by Duke Peter Tribuno (887–911), inflicted on the Hungarians. The Italian ruler, on the contrary, could remove the Hungarians from his kingdom only by giving gifts and hostages to them.44 Turning to events closer to the Venetian author’s time, one finds an episode about Emperor Otto II. This German ruler tried to seize Venice by taking advantage of a serious internal crisis during which the Coloprini and Morosini families fought each other.45 After some Coloprini failed to kill their rivals, they left Venice to seek help from Otto II. With their assistance, the German ruler imposed an economic blockade against the duchy that ended only after his death (983).46 John the Deacon defines the Coloprini as ‘repugnant traitors,’ but does not direct any criticism against the German sovereign.47 In the chapter preceding the one about Otto II’s embargo, the Venetian chronicler, however, reports a lengthy account of the crushing defeat that the Saracens inflicted on the emperor in Calabria on July 982,48 which put an end to his ambitions in southern Italy. John the Deacon implies that Otto II needed an action that would allow him to retrieve his lost prestige. Along with the German chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg (975–1018), the Venetian author provides the most accurate description of the battle.49 Although he admits that the emperor showed ability and courage by fleeing to a Greek ship after his defeat,50 he also emphasizes that this rout was due to Otto’s lack of tactical skill. According to the Istoria Veneticorum, the German ruler ordered his forces to engage the threatening Muslim host without considering the possibility that the Saracens held troops in reserve. His soldiers easily dispersed the overt enemy forces, but a huge Muslim army came down from the hills and overwhelmed the German troops as they were returning to their camp, forcing the emperor into a narrow escape. However, while he was incautiously approaching the nearest places where a multitude of Saracens resided, a dreadful cohort suddenly tried to challenge the Christian army to battle. The emperor, unaware that most of the Saracens were hidden in the mountains, thought he could easily defeat those he saw. He audaciously attacked them in battle, and, with the help of Christ, overcame them with great courage. While the Christian troops were returning to their tents with the glory of triumph, a multitude of pagans came down from the mountains, burst upon them suddenly, and began to massacre them without mercy, so that those, to whom any escape was denied, fell cruelly hit. The emperor then reached the coast passing through the barbarian ranks with great difficulty, and, frightened by the cruelty of the enemy, entered the waving sea. There, two ships of the Greeks, called chelandria in their language, had anchored not far from land. He was picked up by them along with two of his servants.51

66 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors Thietmar, on the other hand, states that Otto II managed to drive the Saracens from one city after defeating them and believed they had been annihilated; the Muslims regrouped, however, and attacked the German army by surprise, completely defeating it. He [Otto II] first surrounded the Saracens in a certain city and then, after defeating them, forced them to flee. Catching up with them in an open field where they had assembled in battle order, he proceeded to kill a large number of them and believed that their total defeat was imminent. Yet, quite unexpectedly, they managed to gather themselves together and launch an attack on our forces, cutting them down with little resistance, alas.52 The Venetian chronicler’s description of Otto II’s death is also noteworthy. The emperor died in Rome from fever, because, as a monk had predicted thanks to an angel’s revelation, he had persecuted the Venetians. Once he [Otto II] established this, he decided to go to Rome, where he did not long remain unscathed; struck by a strong fever, he died and was buried in the atrium of St. Peter’s, not far from the church of St. Mary. There is no doubt that, as a monk blessed with the prophetic spirit had revealed to him on the instructions of an angel, he ran into sudden death because he had persecuted the Venetians.53 This monk was the Abbot of Cluny, Maiolus, who, according to his biography, did prophesy the emperor’s death but made no reference to the Venetians.54 John the Deacon apparently knew about this prophecy and modified it to emphasize the notion that God had protected Venice and punished those who had dared to attack it.55 Venice’s relationship with Otto III was friendly56 and this is reflected in the Istoria Veneticorum. John the Deacon states that, while the German ruler was on his way to Rome to promote a relative’s election as pope and be crowned emperor, he halted at Ravenna and ordered the punishment of the count of Rimini and two other men, who had seized goods meant for the churches and the poor.57 In this way, the Venetian chronicler, who had probably witnessed this episode,58 points out that the German sovereign fulfilled one of the principle expectations of rulers, namely, defending churches and the needy.59 John the Deacon, who perhaps went to Rome with Otto III,60 also dwells on the revolt that drove out the emperor’s relative, Pope Gregory V (996–999), and the harsh punishments inflicted on the emperor’s enemies. He thus emphasizes what happened to those who dared rebel against the German ruler.61 The anti-pope, John Philàgatos, was blinded, ‘lost his ears and tongue’, then was officially deposed and subjected to a ritual humiliation in which he was put backward on a donkey and paraded through Rome.

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

67

The emperor then went to Rome in order to eliminate the arrogance of his enemies. As they learned that Otto was coming to Rome, one of them, namely John Crescentius, took refuge with his men in Castel Sant’Angelo; the other, John the Greek, took refuge in an impregnable tower far from Rome. When the emperor arrived, however, John the Greek could not stay there long. He was captured by the emperor’s soldiers, his eyes were plucked out and his ears cut off; he also lost his nose and his tongue and was brought with a disfigured face to a monastery in Rome. And because this was not enough to avenge such serious impiety, he lost the priestly office after a sacred council upheld a sentence of deposition. Then the Romans placed the disfigured man on the back of a donkey with his face turned toward the tail and he was taken throughout the different parts of Rome by a town crier.62 John Crescentius, who had led the Roman faction that opposed the German ruler, was beheaded in front of the Roman people and was ruthlessly depicted begging for mercy ‘in a moanful voice.’ All the Roman citizens, together with the army of the Teutonics, then began to attack the very well-fortified Castel Sant’Angelo. They conquered it with great difficulty and decapitated John Crescentius, who asked forgiveness in a mournful voice, at the top of the walls so that he could be seen by everyone. After he was thrown to the ground, the others who had been unable to flee suffered a similar punishment through hanging on Mount Gaudio by imperial decree.63 Unfortunately, it is not possible to know how John the Deacon employed the information at his disposal, but the fact that the German sources do not report the shameful parade of the anti-pope and the cowardly behavior of the Roman ringleader64 further emphasizes the impression that the Venetian chronicler wished to shame the adversaries of the German sovereign. The esteem felt for Otto III is also apparent from John the Deacon’s comment that all the peoples mourned his death, a comment significantly different from what the Venetian chronicler reports about his father’s passing. From there the emperor then wanted to return to the strong city of Rome, but, fearing the plots of its citizens, went up in a castle named Paterno, where the poor man did not long retain his health, but in the flower of his years unfortunately lost his earthly life.65 Then peoples everywhere did not at all fail to mourn his death. His body was brought by the archbishop of Cologne and others to the palace of Aachen, so that he could wait there until Judgment Day with Charles,66 his predecessor of pious memory.67

68 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors Relations between Venice and Henry II (1002–1024), Otto III’s successor, were also cordial, and John the Deacon reveals his support for him as well. He describes the Marquis of Ivrea, Arduin (d. 1015), who was crowned king of Italy upon Otto III’s death, as an usurper, and emphasizes that most of the Italian subjects awaited Henry’s arrival.68 The German ruler sent an army that failed to stop Arduin and then intervened personally, seized the crown of the kingdom of Italy, and severely punished the rebel inhabitants of Pavia.69 The absence of information about the rulers of the kingdom of Italy makes the details about Louis II particularly striking. Louis II was Emperor Lothar’s son and king of Italy in 844, co-emperor with his father in 850 and emperor from 855 to 875;70 the episodes about him are as follows: the capture of a Saracen leader in Benevento and Louis II’s coronation in Rome;71 the acquisition of Charles of Provence’s kingdom after his death;72 the conquest of Bari, held by the Muslims for about thirty years;73 the betrayal of the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis (854–878), who is said to have been unable to kill Louis II but who forced him to swear never to return to those lands: on his way back to Benevento, the emperor inflicted a crushing defeat on the Saracens;74 finally, it is reported that Louis II died in Verona.75 Being unaware of the sources that were available to John the Deacon means that it is impossible to say whether he knew of other events concerning Italy and western Europe and thus chose only to report about Louis II, or whether he only mentioned what he knew. The Venetians were particularly well informed about Louis II because they probably fought against the Muslims in Apulia with him. Their fleet in fact defeated the Saracens near Taranto shortly before the emperor took Bari in 871.76 Whatever the case, the presence of these episodes in the Istoria Veneticorum shows that the Venetians observed this ruler, with whom they had friendly relations,77 with interest, and their attention was almost certainly due to the commitment Louis II had demonstrated in his fight against the Muslims. This argument is even more compelling if we consider the fact that the Istoria Veneticorum is the only Italian source to express appreciation for the elimination of the Muslim rule in Bari.78 John the Deacon in fact points out that ‘with the favor of the divine grace, the impiety, that they [the Saracens] had previously brought onto the Christian citizens, was given back to them.’79 It is also worth noting that here Louis II is recorded with the title ‘dominus,’ that literally means ‘lord’ and that in the Istoria Veneticorum is only attributed to those who had acted deservingly.80 Additionally, this ruler is designated as ‘pious,’ an adjective also employed only for Duke Peter II Orseolo, who was, according to John the Deacon, the best duke the Venetians ever had.81 The presence of the Muslims in Bari was undoubtedly a serious threat to the Venetians’ commercial activities, on which most of Venice’s wealth and power were based.82 John the Deacon’s reference to the fact that the Muslim leader of Bari, who had been captured after the fall of the city, was subsequently released by the prince of Benevento and went to Taranto where he continued to harass the Christians,83 confirms the great interest of the Venetians in this area.84

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

69

As for the neighboring Slavs —except for a couple of correct brief references to acquisition of power86—John the Deacon only narrates events in which the Venetians were also involved.87 As for the circulation of news, both the ninth-century events and the episodes concerning the German rulers confirm that the Venetians were well informed about what was happening in the Adriatic area and in Italy. The names of the characters,88 the locations,89 a chronological reference,90 and the details about those episodes91 are in fact either correct or contain only slight errors. Worthy of note is the fact that, for the events close to and contemporary with him, John the Deacon, thanks to his activity as ambassador, is as detailed as other coeval authors and, in the episodes in which the Venetians were also involved or that had occurred throughout Italy, is the only author to mention them.92 In conclusion, although the sources at our disposal are limited, it is possible to state that news travelled together with commodities in early medieval Venice and that this circulation confirms the impression that Venice functioned as a bridge between the east and the west.93 The letter of Duke Peter II Candiano to the German King Henry is certainly the best example of this. Moreover, it is possible to maintain that the stories about non-Venetians in the Istoria Veneticorum do not appear to be only prompted by the need to have a chronological framework.94 Rather, their presence seems to be a way for the Venetians to compare themselves to others and judge them. This was not, however, done in an explicit way, but through allusions—a method that John the Deacon probably learned in his career as an ambassador.95 The employment of this methodology was perhaps also suggested by the fact that, although in the period in which he composed his work Venice emerged as the most important power on the Adriatic area, the Venetian duchy was still between two powerful empires and had to live with them peacefully. In those years the Venetians could not afford to make explicit, bold statements of superiority over the Byzantine and the German empires. Those events, therefore, narrate stories about those powerful neighbors as well as revealing some feelings and attitudes of the Venetian élite during Duke Peter II Orseolo’s rule. It is, nevertheless, difficult to find an explanation for the brief reference to the coronation of Charlemagne (d. 814) as emperor,96 above all if we take into consideration the Frankish ruler’s desire to conquer Venice.97 It can only be said that the fact that John the Deacon mentions this episode makes it all the more likely that he was unaware of Charlemagne’s aims98 and did not know that Pippin (d. 810), whose attempt to conquer Venice he does relate,99 was his son.100 It would otherwise be illogical for such a careful historian as John the Deacon to have wanted to record an event that gave an enemy prestige. 85

Appendix A Non-Venetians characters mentioned in the Istoria Veneticorum as well as in other early medieval primary sources.101

John the Deacon called Abomasalis the Muslim leader Louis II captured in Benevento. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 52. This character is named Massar in Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 8, 10, 14, and Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 18; Amelmasser in Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 15; and Amalmater in Ado Viennensis, Chronicon, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, II (Hanover, 1829), p. 323. Name of the last emir of Bari: Saudan in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 15. Seodan in Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 17, 25, 28, 30, 32, III, 10; Soldanus in Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 18; Saugdan in Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapters 29, 33, 37, 38; Sagdan in Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 107, 108, 109; and Seodan in Cronaca della dinastia di Capua, p. 299. Name and title of the Lombard officer of Bari, who was believed to be responsible for the Muslim conquest of that city: Gastald Bando in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. Gastald Pando in Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2, and Pando in Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 16. The prince of Benevento, who imprisoned Louis II and freed the emir of Bari; Adelchis in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8, 15. The same name, for example, in Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapters 34, 38; and Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 20.102 The ruler of Provence, whose kingdom Louis II inherited: Charles in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 52. The same name in Annales Bertiniani, annum 863; and Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 13. There was some confusion in this episode, since the Venetian chronicler recounts that, beside Charles, his son Lothar died as well, but there is no evidence that he had children. The mistake was probably due to the fact both the father and brother of Charles of Provence, who was Louis II’s brother, were named Lothar. The anti-pope and his Roman supporter, who overthrew Pope Gregory V: the Bishop of Piacenza, John ‘the Greek,’ and John Crescentius in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 41, 44.

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

71

The same names in Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 30; and Annales Quedlinburgensis, p. 74: the German sources defined the antipope as John of Calabria, while the Milanese chronicler Arnulf called him ‘Greek.’ Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, I, 11. Name and title of the person Emperor Otto III sent to crush a revolt of the Romans: Patrician Zazo in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 61. This episode is not recounted in the other sources in this way, but a member of the German ruler’s entourage had the same title and a similar name, Patrician Ziazo. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 44. The Italian aristocrat elected king of Italy after Otto III’s death: Arduin in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 61. The same name in Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 54; and Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, I, 14. The military leader the German King Henry II sent in Italy against Arduin: Duke Otto in John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 69. The same name and similar title (duke of Carinthia and Verona) in Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, V, 24.

Appendix B Comparison of the locations mentioned in the non-Venetian episodes reported in the Istoria Veneticorum with other early medieval sources narrating the same events.

Royal coronation of Louis II in Rome: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 52. Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne (Paris, 1892), II, p. 89; and Annales Bertiniani, annum 844. Louis II’s capture of a Muslim leader at Benevento: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 52. Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapters 18, 19; and Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 14. Louis II’s conquest of Bari and the subsequent siege of Taranto: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 33. According to John the Deacon, Louis II, after being released, returned to southern Italy and defeated the Saracens at Terracina in Campania. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8. It is not clear what the author exactly meant with Campania, but Terracina is located on the coast of the modern region of Latium. The southern Lombard chronicler Erchempert recounts that the army of the emperor beat the Saracens near Capua, which is in the modern region of Campania and is at 85 kilometers south-east from Terracina. Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 35. Louis II’s death at Verona: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8. Andreas of Bergamo, who was present during the transport of the emperor’s coffin through the diocese of Bergamo, states that Louis II passed away ‘in finibus Bresiana (in the Brescian territory).’ The mistake is not too serious since Brescia is near Verona. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. Otto II’s passing away in Rome and burial in the courtyard of the church of St. Peter, near the church of St. Mary: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 26. Cf. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, III, 25, who does not report the latter detail. Hearing of the arrival of Otto III, John the Greek took refuge in a tower near Rome, while John Crescentius went to ‘Castel San Angelo’ in Rome. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 44. This latter particular is also present in Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, I, 12: and Annales Quedlinburgensis, annum 997, p. 74. Thietmar of Merseburg, on the other hand, recounts that the antipope was captured at the fortress of Thiedric,

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

73

while the Roman noble entered the ‘Leonine precincts.’ Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 30. Emperor Otto III’s death at Paterno, near Rome, and the transportation of his body by the archbishop of Cologne to the imperial palace of Aachen so that he could rest along with Charlemagne. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 63. Thietmar of Merseburg narrates the same details saying that the emperor’s remains were taken to Cologne, then to Aachen where they were buried in the church of Saint Mary. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 49, 53. Arduin’s election as king of Italy at Pavia after Otto III’s death: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 61.103 Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, I, 14. John the Deacon narrates that the first battle between the German troops and Arduin took place near the Alps ‘in campo, qui Vitalis nuncupatur (on the plain called Vitalis).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 69. Thietmar of Merseburg, on the other hand, recounts that this occurred ‘ad Ungaricum montem,’ while Arnulf of Milan reports that this happened ‘in Campo Fabrice.’ Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, V, 26; Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, I, 15.104 After the failure of the previous expedition, King Henry II went to Italy the following year and forced Arduin to leave Verona: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 61. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, VI, 4-6. Henry II’s crowning at Pavia, performed by the archbishop of Milan, and subsequent torching of Pavia by the German troops, because of the Pavians’ revolt against the German ruler: John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 61; Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, VI, 6-8.

Notes 1 For the economic activities of the Venetians in the early Middle Ages, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 725–90, and M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD 300–900 (Cambridge, 2001), ad indicem. As for Venetians travelling for other reasons, I will mention some of the most interesting examples. In August 803, the Patriarch of Grado, Fortunatus II, met Charlemagne near modern Neustadt where the Frankish emperor granted the Venetian ecclesiastic the immunity for the properties the Church of Grado owned in the Italian kingdom. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, p. 476. In 821, the priest Tiberius reported to Emperor Louis the Pious that the Patriarch of Grado, Fortunatus II, had incited the Slavic Duke Liudweit to revolt and had helped him construct some castles, while, in 826, the priest George went to the same ruler in Mainz claiming that he could make an organ. The emperor sent him to Aachen and ordered that George receive everything he needed to construct the instrument. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, pp. 128 and 230. Probably in the 820s, John, Duke Agnellus’s son, went to Jerusalem, where he visited the church of the Holy Sepulcher. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, p. 322. In 827/828 two merchants smuggled the relics of Saint Mark from Alexandria to Venice. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias [BHL 5283–5284], in E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘Venetia’

74 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors altomedievale (Trieste, 2012), pp. 52–63. They were so well informed about Muslim customs that they hid the remains of the saint under pig meat. Noteworthy too is the detail that they or the author of Translatio Marci knew the Arabic word for pork. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 14, p. 59. This scene is portrayed in the mosaics of the chapel of St. Clement in the basilica of St. Mark, which also report that Arabic word. In 874, the priest John acted as ambassador of the Moravian Duke Zuentibald to King Louis the German ‘in villa Forahein,’ while in 967 Dominic met the Byzantine Emperor Niceforus II Phocas in Macedonia on behalf of the German ruler Otto I. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, pp. 108 and 146. Moreover, there are several references to Venetians going to Constantinople. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 26, 31, 33, 38, 41, III, 40, 46, IV, 29, 31, 42, 71, 72. One of them, the son of Duke Ursus Particiaco (911–931), was captured by the Croats on his way back from that city and sent in captivity to the land of the Bulgarians. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40. 2 A few Byzantine envoys went to Venice (John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 25, 29, 50, III, 22) as well as Emperor Louis II (in circa 856), the Abbot of Cuxà, Warinus (in 977/978), Otto III (in 1001), the controversial Saxon theologian Godescalc of Orbais (in 846/847), and the evangelizers of the Slavs, Constantine-Cyrill and Methodius (in circa mid-860s). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 57, IV, 16, 18, 57–9; McCormick, Origins, appendix 4, number 479; A. Pertusi, ‘Cultura bizantina a Venezia,’ in Storia della cultura veneta: Dalle origini al Trecento (Vicenza, 1976), pp. 334–5. The presence of Methodius’s disciples in the slave market of Venice is recorded as well. I. Dujčev, ‘Rapporti fra Venezia e la Bulgaria nel Medioevo,’ in Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, volumes I–II (Florence, 1973), I, p. 242; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp.788–9, note 239. In 827/828, one of the ‘Greek’ custodians of the Alexandrian church in which Saint Mark’s relics were held, the monk Stauracius, decided to go to Venice with the Venetian merchants who stole the remains of the saint. A monk from Comacchio, Dominic, who had been on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, boarded the same ship in Alexandria. A year later, another keeper of the same Alexandrian church, the priest Theodorus, went to Venice with his family as well. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapters 14, 16, pp. 59, 63. In 949, on occasion of his first diplomatic mission to Constantinople, Liudprand of Cremona, met a Byzantine envoy, the eunuch Salomon, and the German King Otto I’s ambassador, the rich merchant of Mainz, Liutefred, in Venice, and went to the capital of the Byzantine empire with them. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, VI, 4. Except for Harum Ibn Yahya, about whom we do not know whether he was a Christian from Syria, captured by the Byzantines, or a Muslim (See McCormick, Origins, appendix number 684), there is no evidence of Muslims visiting Venice. In 813 the Muslim envoys, who made a peace treaty with the Byzantine governor of Sicily, travelled on Venetian ships. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 42, p. 70. That the Iraqi geographer and traveler, Ibn Ḥawqal, who was in Palermo in the 970s, defined the Adriatic sea as ‘the Gulf of the Venetians,’ while in the previous century his co-religionists did not make any difference between Byzantine and Venetian fleets, indicates that the Muslims had some information about Venice. M. Nallino, ‘Il mondo arabo e Venezia fino alle crociate,’ p. 163; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 774–5. 3 For some examples on how the others were depicted in early medieval Italy, see P. Lamma, ‘Il mondo bizantino in Paolo Diacono,’ in Id., Oriente e Occidente nell’Alto Medioevo, pp. 197–214; J. Kujawinski, ‘Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo,’ Rivista Storica Italiana 118, 3 (2006), pp. 767–815 (this article was originally published in Quaestiones Medii

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

4 5

6

7

8 9

10

11

75

Aevi Novae 10 (2005), pp. 229–71); L. A. Berto, ‘The Image of the Byzantines in Early Medieval Southern Italy: The Viewpoint of the Chroniclers of the Lombards (Ninth to Tenth Centuries) and Normans (Eleventh Century),’ Mediterranean Studies 22, 1 (2014), pp. 1–37, and Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, chapters 2–4. In general, on circulation of persons and news in the Mediterranean during the Early Middle Ages, see McCormick, Origins, appendices. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12. That Duke Peter Orseolo renewed the pact between Venice and Koper/Capodistria in 977, because it had been destroyed in the Ducal Palace fire, confirms the existence of a ducal archive. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, number 56, pp. 105–9. An important reference to the fact that Venetian ships also transported epistles is in a decree, issued in 960, in which Duke Peter IV Candiano forbade his compatriots to take letters from subjects of the Italian kingdom, Saxony, Bavaria, and other places to Constantinople; the Venetian ruler also added that they could carry only the epistles coming from the Ducal Palace. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, number 41, pp. 71–2. Petri ducis Venetiarum epistula, in Gesta Berengarii imperatoris. Beiträge zur Geschichte Italiens im Anfänge des zehnten Jahrhunderts, ed. E. Dümmler (Halle, 1871), pp. 157–8. Michael McCormick believes that in this way the Venetian ruler wanted to get rid of economic competitors. McCormick, Origins, p. 796, and appendix 4, number 807. The Venetian chronicler does not mention Leo IV (775–780), Theophilus (829– 842), Alexander (912–913), Romanus II (959–963), Niceforus II Phocas (963–969), and John Tzimiskes (969–976). As already emphasized, the first part of the chronicle—until the rule of Duke Dominic Monegario (756–764)—is missing in the oldest manuscript (eleventh century) containing the Istoria Veneticorum. There are some suspicions that this section might not be the original one. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 23: ‘Mortua est namque Herenis augusta, quae rexerat imperium annis VIII et Nicyforus imperiale fastigium adeptus est. Quem quidam tirrannus, Turchis nomine, magna expedicione stipatus, conatus est ad praelium provocare. Sed augustus cum sui imperii pene omnia loca contra tyrrannum tueretur, tantumodo solum Tarsaticum destruere potuit. Postmodum vero predictus tirrannus penitens quod contra imperiale numen aliquod nefas peregisset, devotus et cernuus suam adinvenit gratiam (As Augusta Irene, who had ruled the Empire for eight years, died, Nicephorus obtained the imperial title. A tyrant, named Turchis, gathered a large army and tried to induce Nicephorus to fight. But, because the Augustus protected nearly all the locations of his Empire against that tyrant, Turchis was able to destroy only Trsat. Afterwards, the aforesaid tyrant repented because he had carried out an evil deed against the imperial authority, and, devout and bowing down, obtained the grace of the emperor).’ The chronicler probably refers to the rebellion of the Byzantine general Bardanes Tourkos. On this, see Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, pp. 131–2. He is Emperor Leo V (813–820). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 30: ‘Eodem quidem anno Michahel imperator cum ad expungnandam Bulgarorum gentem aggressus esset, in tantum inimicorum multitudinem perterritus fuit, ut proprio relicto exercitu fugam Constantinopolim arripuit et, quia valde sibi ignominiosum hoc fecisse videbatur, non palacium sed monasterium petiit. Tunc Leo, qui illius exercitus ductor et signifer erat, pugnam patrare minime timuit et Deo favente cum triumpho urbem reversus est; quem imperatorem

76 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

omnes fieri conlaudaverunt. Postmodum vero Constantinum suum filium socium habere in hac dignitate voluit (In that same year, Emperor Michael attacked the people of the Bulgarians to crush it but became so frightened because of the great multitude of their enemies that he abandoned his army and fled to Constantinople. Since he believed to have made a very ignominious action, he went, not to his palace, but to a monastery. Then Leo, who was the commander and the banner-bearer of the army, was not at all afraid to finish the battle and, with God’s help, returned to the city victorious. Everybody agreed to make him emperor. Afterwards, he wanted to have his son Constantine serve as co-ruler).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 58: ‘Eo tempore Normanorum gentes cum trecentis sexaginta navibus Constantinopolitanam urbem adire ausi sunt. Verum quia nulla racione inexpugnabilem ledere valebant urbem, suburbanum fortiter patrantes bellum quamplurimos ibi occidere non pepercerunt et sic predicta gens cum triumpho ad propriam regressa est (At this time, the peoples of the Normans dared to go to the city of Constantinople with three-hundred and sixty ships. Since they were not able to damage that impregnable city at all, they fought bitterly in the suburbs, where they did not restrain themselves from killing very many persons, and so the above-mentioned people returned home with a victory).’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 1. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 3. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 3–5. Annales regni Francorum, p. 139. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 49. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, in Theophanes Continuatus, Joannes Cameniata, Symeon magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. Immanuel Bekker, in Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1838), pp. 15–16. I use ‘Rus’ rather than ‘Russian’ as it has been argued that the latter definition is anachronistic before the thirteenth century. Ch. Raffensperger, Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World, 988–1146 (Cambridge, MA, 2012). I wish to thank Adam Matthews for pointing this out to me. A. A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on Constantinople (Cambridge, MA, 1946), pp. 25 and 59–62. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, I, 11. On this author, his works, and relevant bibliography, see G. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (Rome, 1995), and The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, trans. P. Squatriti (Washington, DC, 2007), pp. 3–37. S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his Reign: A Study of TenthCentury Byzantium (Cambridge, 1988, second edition), p. 4, and Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale, pp. 232–5. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, III, 26. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 26. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, pp. 393–94. Cf. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus, pp. 59–61. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 1. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, III, 30, 37. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 1: ‘Tum sibi tribusque suis filiis, id est Cristoforo, Stefano et Constantino, imperialem coronam imposuit, sicque in uno palacio quinque simul imperatores manebant (Romanus then placed the imperial crown on himself and his three sons, Christopher, Stephen, and Constantine. In this way there were five emperors in one palace at the same time).’

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

77

30 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 3–5. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, V, 21–2. The Venetian chronicler is a little more concise that the bishop of Cremona, but the main difference between these two accounts is that, for John the Deacon, the commander of the guards was called Gallus, while for Liudprand his name was Diavolinus. The Continuer of Theophanes states briefly that Constantine VII, having suspected his brothers-in-law, had them arrested during a meal and then a certain Diavolinus warned the emperor that there was a conspiracy to return his brother-in-law Stephen to power. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, pp. 437–8, 441. 31 Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, V, 23–24. 32 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 5: ‘Quos cum patre venientes cerneret, insultans ait: “Et unde in hac mei exilii solitudine tam devoti et pulchri clerici delati sunt? Sed qui patrem exiliare non puduistis, exilii penam simul non sustinebitis, ut quem contempsistis habere consortem in honore, non habeatis consolatorem in dolore.” Mox vero per nuncios Constantinum suum generum taliter affatus est: “Noli, queso, mecum filios in uno exilio esse permittas, quia quos unum palacium capere nequivit, neque unum exilium capiat.”’ 33 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 5. Liudprand of Cremona, on the other hand, only narrates that Romanus had borne his misfortune with ‘equanimity’ and that his sons had been closely guarded. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, V, 25. 34 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 29: ‘Hac quidem tempestate nuntius Constantinopolitanus, nomine Ebersapius, Venetiam adivit et Veneticorum consilio et virtute hoc peregit, ut utrique duces et dignitatem et patriam amitterent’ (At this time, a messenger of Constantinople, named Ebersapius, went to Venice and, with the assent and the support of the Venetians, managed to obtain that both dukes lose their office and fatherland). 35 This was due to the fact that the two brothers were believed to be untrustworthy, since they had allied themselves at various times both with the Franks and with the Byzantines, depending on the pressures that these two powers exercised over Venice. For more information about these events, see Chapter 3 of this book. 36 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 50, 51. Unlike the Muslims, who defeated the Venetians on the Adriatic Sea three times, the Slavs were able to sack Caorle, which was one of the main Venetian locations. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. This town is located on the coast north of the capital Rivoalto and was, therefore, far from the heart of the Venetian duchy and an easier target for its enemies. 37 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 8: ‘Qui paterna monita flocci pendens, adversus eum insurgere temptavit, adeo ut quadam die utrarumque parcium milites ad pugnam peragendam in Rivoalto foro convenirent (Holding his father’s admonitions in no account, his son tried to rise up against him, so that one day the soldiers of both sides went into the square of Rivoalto to fight).’ For some hypotheses about this episode, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 764. 38 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 8: ‘Sed dum infirmo et vetulo patri maior pars populi obtemperaret, filiumque perdere vellet, tandem pater misericordia motus, ne illum occideret rogare caepit. Tamen volens populo satisfacere, extra patriam illum exire iussit (Yet while the majority of the people was in favor of the old and infirm father and wanted to kill the son, the father, moved by pity, began asking them not to kill him. Wishing to satisfy the people, however, he ordered that his son leave his fatherland).’ 39 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 9. 40 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 23: ‘Fertur namque quod per triduum illum vinctum custodirent, et quamquam ipse imperatorem se fore omnino

78 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52

53

denegaret, tamen Greci, ingenio peritissimi, nescio quibus inditiis, eum agnoscere potuerunt (It is said that they kept him in chains for three days and, although he denied being the emperor, the Greeks, who were very intelligent – I do not know what clues they used to recognize him – were nevertheless able to identify him).’ However, Otto II successfully deceived the Byzantines by saying that he hoped to travel to Constantinople with them; he thus lulled them into relaxing their vigilance over him and managed to flee. John the Deacon does not make any comment about this. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 23. Narrating the same episode, the German chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg was, on the other hand, very sarcastic toward the Byzantines. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, n. s. 9 (Berlin, 1935), III, 22. The English translation of this text can be found in Ottonian Germany: The ‘Chronicon’ of Thietmar of Merseburg, trans. D. A. Warner (Manchester, 2001). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20, 24–8. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 71. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 24–6. For more information about this episode, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 769–71. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 25. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 22–3. In general, for information about this battle, see D. Alvermann, ‘La battaglia di Ottone II contro i Saraceni nel 982,’ Archivio storico della Calabria e della Lucania 62 (1995), pp. 115–30. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 23. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 22–3: ‘Verum dum proxima loca quibus Sarracenorum moltitudo manebat incautus peteret, tetra cohors repente christianorum exercitum ad certamen lacessere temptavit. Imperator quidem ignarus quod montium per anfractus omnes Sarracenorum maiores latitarent, illos, quos cernere valebat, facili certamine debellare autumans, pugnam audacter inchoavit eosque audacissimae, Christo favente, devicit. Cumque christianorum milicia cum triumphali gloria tentoria applicare propria vellent, paganorum moltitudo e montibus exiliens super eosque inopinatae irruens, illos caedere acriter cepit, in tantum ut illi quibus fugiendi aditus negabantur, crudeliter vulnerati caderent. Imperator siquidem, licet ingenti difficultate, per medias barbarorum acies vix ad litus usque pervenit, inimicorumque inportunitate territus fluctivagum mare intravit, ubi duae Grecorum naves, quae lingua illorum zalandriae nuncupantur, non procul a terra anchoris herebant. A quibus ipse cum duobus suis vernaculis susceptus.’ Ottonian Germany, pp. 143–44. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, III, 20: ‘Quos primo infra urbem quandam clausos effugavit devictos, postque eosdem in campo ordinatos fortiter adiens, innumeram ex his multitudinem stravit, prorsusque hos speravit esse superatos. Sed hii ex inproviso collecti ad nostros unanimiter pergunt, et paululum resistentes prosternunt.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 26: ‘His quidem definitis Romam viscere disposuit in qua non diu incolomes manens, valida ingruente febre mortuus est sepultusque in Sancti Petri curte, non procul a sanctae Mariae ecclesia. Unde non dubium est, ut quidam spiritalis monachus, angelo sibi indicante, cognovit, quod ob Veneticorum afflictionem inopinatam incurrisset mortem. Venecia namque, per biennium tali perpessa infortunio, divinitate propitia liberata est.’

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

79

54 Sirus, Vita S. Maioli, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores, IV (Hanover, 1841), p. 655. 55 This is the only part of the Istoria Veneticorum in which John the Deacon uses this type of narrative device. For further information on this point, see Chapter 8 of this book. 56 See Chapter 5 of this book. 57 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 39. 58 As already emphasized in the introduction, this episode is recorded in a charter Otto III issued on May 6, 1996, and in the document the German ruler issued in Ravenna just a few days earlier—May 1, 1996—mention is made of a deacon John whose role was representative of Duke Peter II Orseolo. Ottonis II. et III diplomata, numbers 193 and 192. 59 On this topic, for example, see K. Bosl, ‘Potens und pauper. Begriffsgeschichtliche Studien zur gesellschafftlichen Differenzierung im frühen Mittelalter und zum “Pauperism” des Hochmittelalters,’ in Festschrift für Otto Brünner (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 60–87, and M. Lupoi, The Origins of the European Legal Order (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 264–7. 60 As mentioned in the introduction, in a document dated to the rule of Peter II Orseolo, it is reported that some money was given to a certain deacon John for his expenses in Rome. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 140. He could be the Venetian chronicler. 61 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 41. 62 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 44: ‘Ipse vero Romam, ut inimicorum arroganciam abolere posset, petere curavit. Qui audientes eum Romam venturum, alter illorum, id est Iohannes Crescencius, in sancti Angeli castello se cum suis retrusit; alter quidem, id est Iohannes Grecus, procul a Roma inexpugnabilem turim intravit. In qua non diu, vento imperatore, illum manere licuit, sed ab eius militibus captus, proiectis oculis auribusque praecisis, nares etiam et linguam amisit et capitis deturpatus decoritate, Romam in quodam monasterio delatus est. Et quoniam ad tanti facinus ultionem hoc non suffecaerat, postmodum a sacro concilio depositionis sentenciam sustinens, sacerdotale officium perdidit et a Romanis impositus deformis aselli terga, versa facie ad caudam, sub praeconi voce per Romanas regiones ducebatur.’ 63 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 44: ‘Dehinc munitissimum sancti Angeli castellum omnes Romani cives una cum Teutoniquorum exercitu expugnaret caeperunt. Quod magna cum dificultate conpraehendentes, Iohannem Crescencium veniam miserabili voce adclamantem in sumitate, ut ab omnibus videretur, decollaverunt. Et proiecto tellure, aliis, quibus evadendi facultas defuit, simili poena in monte Gaudio imperiali decreto suspensi sunt.’ 64 Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, IV, 30; Annales Quedlinburgensis, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, III (Hanover, 1839), annum 998, p. 74. The ritual humiliation is, on the other hand, narrated by the late eleventh-century Milanese chronicler Arnulf of Milan, Liber Gestorum recentium, I, 12, and by Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, ed. L. Bethmann, in MGH, Scriptores, VI (Hanover, 1844), annum 1001, p. 354. This latter author, however, made some confusion because he recounts that John Crescentius underwent the ritual humiliation before being executed. A brief reference to the humiliating ‘parade’ of John Philàgatos can be found in The Life of Saint Neilos of Rossano, edited and translated by R. L. Capra, I. A. Murzaku, D. J. Milewski (Harvard, MA, 2018), chapter 90. For an analysis of this episode and the sources mentioning it, see G. Althoff, Otto III, trans. P. G. Jestice (University Park, 2003), pp. 72–81. 65 Otto III died on January 24, 1002 at the age of 22. 66 Charlemagne.

80 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors 67 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 63: ‘Dehinc Romanam dum vellet validam urbem repetere, civium insidias formidans, in quoddam castellum, Paternum nomine, ascendit, ubi infelix non diu sospes manens, inter dulces annos corpoream dure vitam amisit. De cuius funere gentes ubique minime tunc questu silebant. Corpusculum vero eius Coloniensi archiepiscopo cum ceteris defferente in Aquisgrani palacium fuerat delatum, ut cum decessore suo pie memorię Karolo queat iudicialem ibi prestolari diem.’ 68 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 64: ‘Post hunc Henricus regalis dux, prosapia de regia ortus, regnorum rite suscepit diadema, quamquam Ardoinus, commitis Dadonis filius, apud Ticinu quibusdam Longobardorum sibi faventibus regni coronam usurparet; tamen illorum maior pars Henrici regis expectabat adventum.’ (After him [Otto III], the royal duke Henry, who belonged to the royal family, received the crown according to the royal rite, despite the fact that Arduin, son of Count Dado, had usurped the crown of the kingdom at Pavia with the support of some Lombards. Most of them, however, awaited the arrival of King Henry). 69 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 69–70. 70 For more information on Louis II, see G. Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia (Rome, 1997), pp. 43–7. 71 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 52. 72 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 59. 73 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. 74 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8. 75 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 10. 76 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 5. 77 Louis II was godfather to a child of John, co-ruler and son of Duke Peter, in the Venetian monastery of St. Michael of Brondolo. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 57. 78 Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, pp. 13–14. 79 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6: ‘divina favente gratia, reddita est illis impietas quam christianis civibus olim intulerat.’ 80 Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 17–38. 81 Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 46–7. 82 An example of the need to prevent this area from falling into enemy hands can be seen from the intervention of the Venetian fleet at the beginning of the eleventh century when the Muslims besieged Bari. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66–8. On the fights with the Saracens in general, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 739–45, 778–9, and Nallino, ‘Il mondo arabo,’ pp. 161–5. 83 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 15. 84 Except for the clashes between the Venetians and the Muslims and for the defeat the Saracens inflicted on Otto II in Calabria, John the Deacon does not say anything else about the Muslims. For the way the Venetian chronicler describes them, see Chapter 1 of this book. 85 For the definitions John the Deacon used for them, see Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 226–33. 86 John the Deacon narrates that Zdeslav, who belonged to the family of Trpmir, was able to exile the children of Domagoj (ca. 876) and became their leader with the help of the Byzantines, and that Branimir took possession of the power by killing Zdeslav (ca. 879). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 21, 25. Cf. F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages: 500–1250 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 139–40.

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

81

87 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 40, 46, 51, III, 2, 7, 14, 16, 25, 33, 34, 40, IV, 6, 40, 45, 48–54, 77. The names of the Slavic rulers, whom the Venetian chronicler mentions, are correct as well: Mislav, Domagoj, Trpmir, Zdeslav, Branimir, Michael, Surigna, i. e. Krešimir III, and his son Stjepan, who married a daughter of Duke Peter II Orseolo. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 49, III, 2, 16, 21, 25, 40, IV, 51, 77. Cf. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 760; Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 139–40, 201 (Curta does not mention Mislav); and Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat, p. 219. As far as I know John the Deacon is the only author referring to Drosaicus and Diuditus, who were probably local governors and are quoted during two Venetian expeditions that occurred around 839–840. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 49. 88 See Appendix A. 89 See Appendix B. 90 According to John the Deacon, Louis II conquered Bari on the 2nd of February after the Muslims had held the city for thirty years. A ninth-century Cassinese calendar and an eleventh-century Apulian annalist report the 3rd of February, while Andreas of Bergamo recounts that this occurred in February. E. A. Lowe, Die ältesten Kalendarien aus Monte Cassino (Munich, 1908), p. 15; Lupus Protospatarius, Annales, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, V (Hanover, 1844), p. 52; Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 19. John the Deacon is the only Latin source to report the length of the Muslim rule in Bari, but Giosuè Musca believes that it lasted twenty-three years and a few months because a Muslim source maintains that the Saracens took possession of the city in Fall 847 and Louis II conquered it on February 871. G. Musca, L’emirato di Bari: 847–871 (Bari, 1967, second edition), pp. 158–9. 91 The fact that the Gastald of Bari, Pando, had to be blamed for the Muslim conquest of Bari. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6; cf. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. L. A. Berto (Florence, 2006), II, 2, and Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 16. That Louis II was captured while his troops were besieging Taranto. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8; cf. Erchempert, Ystoriola, chapter 33. That the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, obliged Louis II to swear that he would never either go back to southern Italy or send an army there. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8. Among the early medieval Italian chronicles, a brief reference to Louis II’s oath can be found in John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65, and in Cronaca della dinastia di Capua, ed. N. Cilento, in N. Cilento, Italia meridionale longobarda (Milan-Naples, 1971, second edition), p. 300. A very detailed description is however present in Annales Bertiniani, ed. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, and S. Clémencet (Paris, 1964), annum 871, and in Regino of Prüm, Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi, ed. Friedrich Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum (Hanover, 1890), pp. 103–4. That, on his way back to Benevento, Louis II inflicted a crushing defeat on the Saracens killing 11,000 of them. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 8; cf. Erchempert, Ystoriola, p. 35. In this source the number of Muslims killed is 9000. That the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, kept in captivity the Emir of Bari, Sawdān, after the fall of that city, and later freed him. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 15; cf. Erchempert, Ystoriola, 38. Unlike the latter author, who only says that Taranto was still under the Muslims, the Venetian chronicler also narrates that the Saracen leader went to that city from where he continued to harm the Christians.

82 Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors 92 The economic blockade Otto II imposed on the Venetian duchy, the street fights between the inhabitants of Verona and the troops of Otto III, the expedition of Duke Peter II Orseolo to Dalmatia, Otto III’s visit to Venice, and the fact that this German ruler crushed a revolt of Beneventans and sent one of his men, the Patrician Zazo, to suppress an uprising of the Romans. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 24, 26, 36, 45–54, 57–59. 61. A reference to the long dispute between Duke Peter II Orseolo and the Bishop of Belluno, John, about some lands in the territory of Cittanova, that John the Deacon describes and that, according to him, Otto III settled in favor of the Venetians (John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33–5) is only reported in some charters. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, numbers 74, 82, 84, 85, 86. These documents prove that in reality the dispute was not completely settled as John the Deacon claimed. 93 As Gherardo Ortalli has emphasized, this is also symbolically represented by the finding in the Venetian island of Torcello of a denarius of Charlemagne and a dirham, fused by oxidation. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 748. 94 It is believed that in Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum, on the other hand, the information about the Byzantine emperors has this purpose. Lamma, ‘Il mondo bizantino,’ p. 211. 95 For John the Deacon’s careful use of language, see Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary. 96 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 23: ‘domnus Carolus Francorum rex Romam adiit ibique ab apostolico coronatus et unctus est in imperatore.’ (his lordship Charles, King of the Franks, went to Rome and he was there crowned and anointed emperor by the pope). 97 Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 725–32; and Chapter 3 of this book. 98 It did not disappear from the Venetians’ memory entirely; some Venetian historical works from the thirteenth century report that Charlemagne tried to take Venice but was defeated thanks to a Venetian stratagem. Origo, pp. 91–100; Martin da Canal, Les Estoires de Venise: Cronaca Veneziana in Lingua Francese dalle Origini al 1275, ed. A. Limentani (Florence, 1973), pp. 10–17. For an analysis of this imaginative re-elaboration, see G. Ortalli, ‘Venezia, il mito, i sudditi. Due casi di gestione della leggenda tra medio evo ed età moderna,’ in Studi Veneti Offerti a Gaetano Cozzi (Venice, 1992), pp. 88–95. 99 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27. 100 As already emphasized in Chapter 3 of this book, there is no reference to the fact that Pippin was a Frank either, since he is described as the leader of a Lombard army. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27: ‘Interea foedus quod Veneticorum populus olym cum Italico rege habebat, illo tempore, Pipino agente rege, disruptum est et hisdem rex ingentem exercitum Longobardorum ad Veneticorum provinciam capiendam promovit.’ (Meanwhile, the treaty which the people of the Venetians once had with the Italian king was broken because of King Pippin, who had a large army of Lombards move forward in order to seize the province of the Venetians). 101 I am not taking into consideration the names of the Byzantines and of the Slavs mentioned in the episodes previously examined. 102 For all the sources reporting this episode, see Th. Granier, ‘La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (13 août–17 septembre 871) dans les sources des IXe-Xe siècles: l’écriture de l’histoire, de la fausse nouvelle au récit exemplaire,’ in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, eds. C. Carozzi – H. Taviani-Carozzi (Aix-en-Provence, 2007), pp. 13–39.

Rumors of wars and deeds of emperors

83

103 The Venetian author is the only chronicler mentioning the name of Arduin’s father, i. e. Count Dado. Cf. G. Sergi, I confini del potere: Marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Turin, 1995), pp. 194–8. 104 Aldo Settia believes that Thietmar’s chronicle is the only reliable source and that the ‘Ungaricus mons’ is mount Ongar-Longar, situated on the river Brenta’s valley, north east of Asiago (Vicenza). A. Settia, ‘Le frontiere del Regno Italico nei secoli VI–XI: l’organizzazione della difesa,’ Studi storici 1 (1989), p. 166.

5

Emperor Otto III in Venice

Immediately after mentioning Peter II Orseolo’s election as duke, John the Deacon emphasizes that the new ruler was not only able to restore internal peace and to create the conditions for a rich and powerful Venice,1 but was also able to establish peaceful relationships with the major powers in Italy and the Mediterranean.2 The chronicler adds that the duke created special ties with the German ruler Otto III, to the point that he managed to obtain anything he wanted from him.3 Otto III’s visit to Venice in 1001 was further proof of the great esteem in which he held Peter II Orseolo. According to the Istoria Veneticorum, the only source mentioning this episode, while the duke was in Dalmatia with the Venetian fleet, John the Deacon heard that Otto III was coming to Italy and, therefore, decided to meet him in Como in order to pay homage to him.4 The emperor secretly told the Venetian ambassador that because he had a great affection for Peter II Orseolo and wished to enjoy the presence and wisdom of such a great man, he wanted to meet him in Venice.5 Otto III’s wish pleased the Venetian duke who, however, did not believe that such a visit could be kept secret.6 After several exchanges of messages through John the Deacon, plans were made for the emperor’s trip to Venice while he was in Ravenna.7 The German ruler went to the monastery of St. Mary of Pomposa, which was near the mouth of the Po River, telling his men that he wanted to spend a few days there. The Venetian ambassador picked him and the members of his retinue in Pomposa and took them to Rivoalto, where they arrived at night.8 Peter II Orseolo welcomed them in a church near the ducal palace and told Otto III that if he wished to visit the monastery of St. Zachary, he had to do so right away so he could get to the ducal palace before sunrise. The German ruler, who was wearing modest clothing in order not to be recognized, followed this suggestion. While he was staying in a tower of the palace,9 his companions met the duke at St. Mark and told him that Otto III was at Pomposa, making sure that all the persons who were present there could hear this.10 Peter II Orseolo did not stay for too long with the emperor and showed himself in public during the day in order to avoid suspicions.11 At night he visited Otto III in the tower to dine and talk to him.12 During his visit, Otto III also established a spiritual relationship with Peter II

Emperor Otto III in Venice 85 Orseolo (he became the godfather of one of the duke’s daughters),13 thus further emphasizing the friendly bonds between them. As during their first encounter, an atmosphere of great affection characterized the emperor’s departure: the two men, indeed, were in tears and kissed each other. Because they [Duke Peter II Orseolo and Emperor Otto III] could not see each other owing to the darkness of the night, between hugs and the sweetest kisses from their new host . . . after they had kissed one another, they separated, both weeping.14 Several motivations inspired Emperor Otto III’s visit to Venice. Besides friendship between the two rulers and the emperor’s wish to pray at Saint Mark’s tomb,15 it is very likely that the visit also had other goals.16 The Venetian duke emphasized that he did not want anything for himself, but asked the emperor to reconfirm the rights of his subjects and the Venetian ecclesiastical institutions over their properties in the Italian kingdom.17 Otto III agreed and also annulled the tribute the Venetians had to give to the German rulers. With an official act, he also gave his co-father, the duke, the ‘pallium’ (cloak), which the Venetians owed, in addition to the sum of fifty pounds, on account of the treaty between the Empire and Venice.18 Peter II Orseolo did not mention the presence of Otto III while the emperor was in Venice. Nevertheless, the duke revealed this to his subjects during an assembly at the ducal palace immediately after the emperor departed from Venice.19 In this way, Peter II Orseolo took advantage of that visit in order to increase his personal prestige and to emphasize that he deserved the ducal office.20 In a few months, the duke was able to elevate both his status and that of Venice by achieving a military victory in Dalmatia and the subjection of several cities in that area and a remarkable diplomatic success with the German emperor, that is, the most powerful ruler in Europe. By revealing that secret, the duke was also able to send a message to his neighbors of the Italian kingdom. Shortly after his election, Peter II Orseolo had to deal with a serious territorial dispute with the Bishop of Belluno, John. Profiting from the internal instability of Venice in the previous years, the churchman took possession of some territories belonging to the Venetian duchy.21 John the Deacon narrates how Otto III asked Bishop John to return that area to the Venetians and threatened to punish him if he did not obey his order. Nevertheless, the prelate of Belluno took advantage of the German ruler’s absence from Italy and did not comply.22 When Otto III sent his representative, the latter was bribed and issued a sentence in favor of Bishop John. At the Venetian duke’s request, the German ruler again ordered the prelate to comply, but the bishop of Belluno refused to do so.23 Peter II Orseolo then forbade the sale of salt to the territory of his adversary and of the latter’s allies.24 This measure caused so much damage that Venice’s adversaries were forced to ask for peace.25 In spite of John the Deacon’s claim that Peter II Orseolo obtained a decisive victory on that occasion, non-narrative primary sources

86 Emperor Otto III in Venice show how in 999 the territorial dispute was not settled yet.26 The duke therefore certainly wanted to prove to his adversaries that he enjoyed Otto III’s support. It should be remembered that the German sovereign had already emphasized the existence of a very friendly relationship with the Venetian ruler before the secret visit in 1001. Around 996, he, in fact, became the godfather of the second-born of the duke.27 On that occasion, the child’s name was significantly changed from Peter to Otto28—a name unknown in Venetian onomastics—29 which does not leave any doubt about what motivated that choice. The symbolism of this gesture was certainly evident to all. The fact that this event occurred in Verona, the main city of the district in which the bishop of Belluno resided, further emphasized the meaning of that gesture.30 Even though the only source describing Otto III’s visit is Venetian and therefore no other versions of that event are available, scholars have made a few hypotheses about the motivations that led the emperor to meet Peter II Orseolo in Venice. It has been argued that he wished to obtain an ally in the Adriatic area and to prevent Constantinople from conquering Venice and from having too much influence in the Balkans and in Hungary.31 First of all, the Byzantines did not have any intention of conquering Venice. Actually, good relationships between Venice and Constantinople were created during Peter II Orseolo’s rule.32 Furthermore, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, who was too occupied with the Bulgarians, likely let the Venetians become the main power in the Adriatic in exchange for military help in that region.33 It has been also been argued that Otto III wanted Peter II Orseolo to support his Italian politics,34 but it is not stated what kind of help Venice could have provided.35 It is more likely that Otto III simply wished to consolidate the good relations that had already been created in the previous years36 and to benefit from friendship with an emerging power like Venice. At the same time, one should also consider the personality and spirituality of Otto III, who was not new to this kind of action,37 and not rule out the possibility that he wanted to see the relics of Saint Mark as well.38

Notes 1 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 30. 2 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31. 3 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31: ‘Nuncios etiam Saxoniam ad tercium Ottonem regem, praeclare indolis puerulum, destinavit, cum quo tanti amoris ac amiciciae vinculo sese coartavit, quatinus, remota dilatione, deinceps quicquid sibi possibile conpetebat, ad votum consequaeretur.’ (He also sent ambassadors to Saxony to King Otto the third, a child of extraordinary character, with whom he bound himself by a bond of such great love and friendship that, from then on, he managed to obtain whatever he sought from him without any difficulty). 4 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55: ‘Interea Otto imperator ad Italicum regnum tertio repetere disponens per vasti Cumani laci gurgites aditum habere voluit; quem Longobardorum multitudo Cumana in urbe excoeperunt. Inter quos Iohannes diaconus, supradicti Petri ducis nuncius.’ (Meanwhile, Emperor Otto,

Emperor Otto III in Venice 87

5

6

7

8 9

preparing to descend into the Italian kingdom for the third time, chose a way through the currents of the great Lake Como. A multitude of Lombards received him in the city of Como, among whom was Deacon John). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55: ‘Cui imperator ad propriam iam reddire volenti hoc secretum iniungens suo seniori delegavit, ut, si possibile foret, dilectionis gratia in aliquot sue potestatis loco clam vellet venire et tanti viri et compatris presentia et sagacitate potiri.’ (To John, who wanted to return home immediately, the emperor entrusted this secret message for his lord: on account of his affection for the duke he wanted, if possible, to go in secret somewhere under Duke Peter’s power and enjoy the presence and wisdom of so great a man and cofather). In another part of the account of Otto III’s secret visit it is said that the emperor wanted to go to Venice also for Saint Mark. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 59. This type of pilgrimage was not unusual in the early Middle Ages. For example, around 977/978, the Abbot of Cuxà, Warinus, went to Venice for this reason. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 16. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55: ‘Dux namque quamquam avide tale audiret nuntium, tamen numquam hoc fieri posse credebat quo tantorum regnorum princeps suis ignorantibus expedite aliena iura valeret intrare.’ (Although the duke received this message with great pleasure, he thought it would not be possible for a sovereign of so many kingdoms to enter easily a foreign territory without his people knowing of it). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 56: ‘deinde in abstinecia, que pascalem antecedens solemnitatem, Ravennam dexcendere curavit. Cui Petrus dux eundem Iohannem diaconum destinavit; a quo benigne susceptus, importune id ipsum quod antea dixerat reciprocare satagebat. Unde factum est ut inter utrasque partes sepedicto Iohanne diacono crebro discurrendo, tale ventilaretur negocium.’ (From there, in the period of abstinence before the feast of Easter, he went to Ravenna. Duke Peter sent him Deacon John. Otto received him cordially and began to ask him with insistence what he had previously told him. It so happened that, thanks to Deacon John’s frequent trips between both parties, this project was taken into consideration). The author mentions their names and offices. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 56–7. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 57: ‘Qui tota nocte et die nautis inquiete navigantibus iam sequentis noctis in tempestate sancti Servuli ęcclesiam, quę non longe a ducis palacio scita decernitur, applicuerunt, ubi Petrus prepotens dux tanti hominis occulte adventum prestolabatur. Et quia tetre noctis obscuritate minime conspici vicissim sese valebant, inter amplexus et novi ospitis dulcissima obscula dux taliter illum allocutus est:” Si vis sancti Zacharię monasterium previdere, instanter oportet te illuc ire, quo lucis ante crepusculum in palacii mei meniis queas dignissime ospitari.” Deinde navim uterque ascendens alter proprium palacium, alter quidem predictum petiit monasterium. Postquam illius monasterium ingressus ipsi patefactus foret, ecclesiam intravit; haud tamen illic diucius commoratus, sed, ut condictum fuerat, ad palacium advenit et omni dequoritate illius perlustrata, in orientali turre secum duobus suis retrudi et servari voluit. Erat sane vili, ne agnosceretur, habitu indutus.’ (The sailors navigated without rest all day and night, and arrived the following night, during a storm, at the church of St. Servolus, which was not far from the duke’s palace, where the most powerful Duke Peter secretly awaited the arrival of this important man. Because they could not see each other owing to the darkness of the night, between hugs and the sweetest kisses from their new host, the duke spoke thusly to him: “If you first want to see the monastery of St. Zachary, you must go there immediately, so that you can be most worthily hosted between the walls of

88 Emperor Otto III in Venice

10

11

12 13 14

15

my palace before sunrise.” They both boarded the boat; one went to his own palace, the other toward the aforesaid monastery. After the entrance of the monastery was opened, he entered the church. He did not remain there long, but, as had been decided, he went to the palace and, having admired all its beauty, he was housed with two of his men in the eastern tower. To avoid being recognized, he dressed modestly). It has been hypothesized that Otto III reached Venice on the night of April 18, 1001. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ p. 39. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 58: ‘Prefatus vero Hecelinus cum ceteris ducem de matutinali officio veniente ante Sancti Marci limina exceperunt; cui salutaria verba, ne circumstantes hoc secretum sentirent, ex imperiali parte pertulerunt. Quibus dux quomodo imperator vigeret, vel ubi esset inquiens requisivit. At illi apud Pamposiae monasterium eundem sospitem dimisisse responderunt.’ (Hecelinus and the others met the duke at the entrance to St. Mark’s as he was returning from morning mass. They addressed him words of greeting on behalf of the emperor, so that the by-standers would not learn the secret. The duke asked them how the emperor was and where he was. They answered that they had left him in good health near the monastery of Pomposa). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 58: ‘Neque fas duci fuerat cum imperatore per totum diem in predicta turre manere, ne quis Veneticorum huiuscemodi rei capacitate posset sentire; ad prandii refectione cum aliis palam conveniebat. Sero una cum cessare dapibus colloquisque reficiebatur.’ (he then went to the emperor. It was impossible for the duke to stay with the emperor in the aforesaid tower all day so that none of the Venetians would somehow suspect what was going on. At lunch-time, the duke showed himself in public with the others, but in the evening he stopped to dine and speak with the caesar). John the Deacon never says that he attended those encounters. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 59. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 57, 59: ‘quia tetre noctis obscuritate minime conspici vicissim sese valebant, inter amplexus et novi ospitis dulcissima obscula. . .recepit datoque obsculo, lacrimantibus utrisque separati sunt.’ A sort of curse, which is typical of the way the past of Venice has been sometimes interpreted and which led to interpretations based either on no sources or on their total misrepresentation, marked Otto III’s visit in Venice as well. According to Mathilde Uhlirz, the statue placed near the current exit of the ducal palace depicts the encounter between Peter II Orseolo and Otto III and was made shortly after the emperor’s visit. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ pp. 41–2. In reality, that statue portrays the Tetrarchs, that is, the Roman emperor Diocletian (284–305) and his three companions, with whom he ruled the Roman Empire after deciding that the empire could not be governed by only one person. The statue remained in Constantinople for several centuries and was likely moved to Venice following the sack of that city during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. For further information about it, see F. Zevi, ‘Tetrarchi,’ in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 1966). Available online www. treccani.it/enciclopedia/tetrarchi_(Enciclopedia-dell’-Arte-Antica)/, and M. Della Valle, Costantinopoli e il suo impero. Arte, architettura, urbanistica nel millennio bizantino (Milan, 2007), p. 35. The Venetian chronicler recounts how the emperor had been so worried about the fact someone could accuse him of having gone to Venice not for the love he had for Saint Mark and Peter II Orseolo but for material gains, that he initially refused the gifts of the Venetian ruler. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 59: ‘Altero autem die, cum iam redeundi licitum habere volebat, diversarum generum fortunis dux eum munerare voluit; qui nichil orum continere cupiebat dicens: “Illud mihi crimen inducere nolo, ne quis cupiditatis et non sancti Marci

Emperor Otto III in Venice 89

16

17

18

19

20

21

tueque dilectionis causa me huc venisse asserat.” Tamen inportunis coartatus precibus, eburneum sedile cum suo subsellio, nec non argenteum siphum et urceum raro peractum opere dono, licet invitus, recepit.” (The next day, because the emperor already wanted permission to leave, the duke wanted to give him gifts of various kinds. Otto did not desire anything, and said: “I do not want to risk the accusation that I have come here for my own interests and not for St. Mark and for your love.” Induced by his insistent prayers, he nevertheless reluctantly accepted an ivory chair, a silver cup, and a finely chiseled tankard). According to Roberto Cessi, John the Deacon did not have any information about what happened during the meetings between Peter II Orseolo and Otto III and the topics that had been discussed on those occasions. If this was the case, it is unclear how this scholar can maintain that the chronicler novelized the encounters and gave them mysterious characteristics as if John the Deacon wished to conceal something. Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 360–2. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 59: ‘Sed nichil dux ei exigere volens nisi ut ecclesiarum suarum seu omnium Veneticorum predia integre solidatis in statu suis temporibus conservaret.’ (The duke did not ask for anything except the full and perpetual confirmation of the possessions of his churches and of all the Venetians). In my opinion, this ‘exchange of courtesies’ did not hid a ‘conflict of perspectives’ between Peter II Orseolo and Otto III as claimed by Cessi, Venezia ducale, p. 362. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 59: ‘Pallium quidem, quod pro pacti federe a Veneticis supra quinquaginta libras persolvebatur, eidem suo compatri duci perpetua scriptione donabat et omnia quomoda illi firmiter dehinc impertiri pro votis promittebat.’ (With an official act, he also gave his co-father, the duke, the cloak which the Venetians owed, in addition to the sum of fifty pounds, on account of the treaty between the Empire and Venice. And Otto firmly promised to give him, from that moment on, anything, according to his promises). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 60. When he returned to Pomposa, Otto III, too, revealed where he had been. According to Cessi, Otto III was displeased by the outcome of the meetings with Peter II Orseolo, who, according to this scholar, refused the invitation to support imperial politics in Italy. The emperor would have decided to do that because he needed to pour out his disappointment for the bad experience. Cessi, Venezia ducale, pp. 362–3. As one can see, there is nothing proving that the emperor had these feelings. The same evaluations apply to Cessi’s statements that the farewell had been cold and revealed the existence of tension between the two rulers, and that Peter II Orseolo revealed the secret to the Venetians because he wanted to reassure them that the Venetian duchy would not have been involved in Otto III’s politics in Italy. According to John the Deacon, all the Venetians praised both the trust demonstrated by Otto III and the competence displayed by the duke. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 60: ‘Dux itaque omnem Veneticorum populum post triduum in palacio convenire indixit; cui huiuscemodi gestum patefaciens, non minus fidem imperatoris quam pericia sui senioris conlaudabat.’ (Three days later, the duke had all the people of the Venetians gathered at the palace; he revealed to them what had happened, and everybody praised the trust of the emperor no less than the skill of their lord). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33: ‘Interea Iohannes Belonensis episcopus Venetiquorum ducatus praedia in finibus Civitatis novae Tribuni ducis tempore usurpata per vim actenus retinebat.’ (The bishop of Belluno, John, still held the possessions of the duchy of the Venetians in the territory of Cittanova, which he had forcefully usurped in the time of Duke Tribunus).

90 Emperor Otto III in Venice 22 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33: ‘Quem nec regalis iussio, nec quolibet promissum ab ipso infortunium terrere potuit quo iniuste retenta redderet pacemque cum domno Petro duce haberet.’ (Neither the king’s command, nor his promise of punishment could frighten him into returning what he had unjustly taken and making peace with his lordship Duke Peter). 23 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33: ‘Qui dux, quamquam moleste, tamen pacifice interim Heinrici ducis presenciam Veronensis susciperet marchia hoc tollerare disposuit. Pervento vero duce, suis internunciis eundem petere procuravit; qui amicicię foedere simulatus, de Iohanne episcopo seu ceteris sibi adversantibus legem facere ad suum velle spopondit. Tamen, quod ore promisit, citius faciendi voluntatem dicto permutavit. Petrus itaque dux, tante deceptionis providus, suum legatum Ottoni, famosissimo regi, ad Aquisgrani pallacium sine aliqua mora transmisit, qui huiusmodi causas ordine sibi panderet. Hoc denique expertus rex prenotati ducis Heinrici actum omnino redarguens; omnia obmissa praedia Petro duci praeceptali institutione ad habendum concessit. Cui etiam Brunonem, nobilem suum militem, misit, qui hoc negocium legis censura regiaque auctoritate inter se et episcopum definiret. Quem episcopus adeo flocti pendens ut illum nec conloquio adire nec videre voluisset.’ (The duke, though reluctant, decided to tolerate this peacefully so long as Duke Henry did not enter the march of Verona. As soon as the duke arrived, he sent ambassadors to him. Feigning a pact of friendship, Henry promised to make a law according to the duke’s will about Bishop John and his other opponents. Soon thereafter, however, he deviated from his verbal promise. Learning of this great deception, Duke Peter therefore sent a messenger immediately to the palace of Aachen to the most famous King Otto to explain this controversy in detail. When the king learned of this, he completely disapproved of Duke Henry’s actions and granted to Duke Peter the privilege of taking possession of the usurped lands. He also sent Bruno, one of his noble knights, to settle this affair between the duke and the bishop with the sanction of law and royal authority. The bishop paid him no attention, to the point that he did not even want to receive him or converse with him). 24 The bishop of Treviso was one of them. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 35. 25 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 33. 26 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, number 86, pp. 177–8. 27 According to Mathilde Uhlirz, in this way Otto III copied a custom which was often used by the Byzantine emperors. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ p. 33. In reality, this practice was not new to Western Europe at all. For example, Emperor Louis II became godfather of the Venetian co-ruler John’s child in 856. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 57. 28 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 34: ‘Dux itaque audiens Ottonem regem ad Italiam venturum, pacem cum praedictae marchiae populo facere diferabatur. Tunc suos nuncios denuo Teutonicam ‹regionem› mittere disposuit, qui inter Alpium anfractus regem iam ad Ausonia venientem repperierunt. A quo honorifice suscepti, [. . .] suis dux inimicis intulerat libenter audivit. Insuper promisit numquam quolibet modo illum constringere ad pacem faciendam interim ipse vellet. Deinde antequam Italiae planiciem peteret, eundem ducem dulci praece rogando demandavit ut suum natum, adhuc christianae fidei confirmatione carentem, Veronam sine aliqua mitteret mora; quod dux suorum fidelium consilio facere adquievit. Puero quidem Verona pervento, officiose a rege susceptus est. Quem chrismatis unctione propriis amplexibus coartatum fecit munire et, amisso paterno nomine, Otto, id est suus aequivocus, nuncupatus est.’ (As he learned that King Otto was about to arrive in Italy, the duke deferred peace with the people of the aforesaid march. He then decided to send ambassadors once again to the land

Emperor Otto III in Venice 91

29 30

31

32

33 34 35

36

37 38

of the Teutonics; they met the king as he was already approaching Ausonia through the mountain passes of the Alps. The king received them with full honors and heard gladly about. . .that the duke had done to his enemies. Moreover he promised that he would never, as long as the duke wished, in any way oblige him to make peace. Then, before reaching the plain of Italy, he asked the duke with a persuasive entreaty to send his son, who had not yet received the sacrament of confirmation, to Verona without delay; on the suggestion of his advisors the duke agreed to do this. When the child arrived in Verona, he was courteously welcomed by the king. He took him in his arms and had him confirmed; he abandoned his paternal name and was called Otto after his namesake, the emperor). On this, see Berto, In Search of the First Venetians. It is the marchland of Verona. Otto III died in 1002 and Peter II Orseolo succeeded in creating good relationships with the new German ruler, Henry II. He adopted the same strategy with him as well. Indeed, Henry II became godfather of one of the duke’s sons, who was named after the German sovereign. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 70. Henry, too, was a new name for early medieval Venice. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ pp. 32, 34. This scholar maintains that Otto III also wished to strengthen his position in the northern Adriatic to create a basis for this project to conquer Hungary. In her opinion, the Venetian ruler would have replied neither yes nor no in order to keep ‘his political balance between Byzantium and Rome, between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.’ Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ pp. 37–8, 40. As one can see, the primary sources do not support any of these speculations. More cautious is Gerd Althoff, who maintains that ‘the discussions were about the relationship of Venice to the empire, and that of the doge to the emperor. In view of Byzantine claims of overlordship of Venice, such a discussion would be highly sensitive.’ Althoff, Otto III, p. 111. A trade agreement was established between Constantinople and Venice and Peter II Orseolo’s first born son married a noble Byzantine woman. I trattati con Bisanzio 992–1198, eds. M. Pozza – G. Ravegnani (Venice, 1993), pp. 16–34; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 71–2. It is also worth remembering that in 1002, the Venetians liberated Bari, capital of southern Byzantine Italy, from the siege of the Muslims. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66–8. Cessi, Venezia ducale, p. 359; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 777. In the primary sources there is nothing that can support Carlo Guido Mor’s hypotheses either. According to this scholar, Otto III wanted Peter II Orseolo to give him a fleet for a campaign in southern Italy. Mor also argues that the duke kept the German ruler’s visit secret because he was afraid that the official entrance of the emperor into Venice could have been interpreted as ‘recognition of vassalage [of Venice] to the empire.’ C. G. Mor, L’età feudale, 2 vols. (Milan, 1952), I, p. 491. In 992, Otto III renewed the pact existing between Venice and the empire. In the following years, he issued verdicts in favor of the Venetian duchy regarding the dispute with the bishop of Belluno and granted other privileges to the Venetians. On this, see Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, numbers 69, 73–5, 86, pp. 137–9, 143–54, 177–8. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ p. 36. Even though they were secondary, the spiritual motivations are also considered by Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III,’ p. 42, and Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ p. 777. In general on Otto III’s spirituality and his communication style through his ritual behaviors, see Althoff, Otto III, pp. 132–40.

6

All is well on the western front? The image of the early medieval Venetian frontier between the second and the third millennium

And because these peoples complained about the fact that their fatherland had been completely occupied by barbarians, very many conflicts occurred between the two sides to the point that they often fought, causing suffering and destruction to each other.1

In this manner, at the beginning of the eleventh century, after having narrated how in the late sixth century the Lombard invasion of Italy had induced the inhabitants of the Roman province of ‘Venetia,’ who did not want to remain under the rule of the invaders, to move to the islands of the Venetian lagoon and thus to create the new Venice,2 John the Deacon describes the relationships between the Venetians and those barbarians for about 150 years up to the moment peace was established between the first duke of Venice, Paulitio, and the Lombard king, Liudprand (712–744). He made a long-lasting peace with King Liudprand and obtained from him the clauses of the pact that still exist between the Venetians and the people of the Lombards. With the same king he established the boundaries of Civitas Nova’s territory, which has been owned by the Venetians until now, that is, according to what the assigned locations indicate, from the river Piave the greater to the river Piavesella.3 This, however, does not mean that there were no conflicts anymore. The same John the Deacon recounts how, during the rule of the ‘magister militum’ Iubianus (ca. 741), the Venetians not only hosted the exarch of Ravenna, who had been expelled from his city by the Lombards, but drove the Lombards away from Ravenna and restored the exarch to his city. In these clashes the Venetians even killed the Lombard duke of Vicenza and captured a nephew of King Liudprand.4 In the early 770s, the Lombards, on the other hand, took prisoner the son of Maurice, the Duke of Venice, in the course of a Venetian campaign in Istria.5 About 1000 years later, in an essay on the frontiers during the Lombards’ rule in Italy, Stefano Gasparri, professor of medieval history of the University

All is well on the western front?

93

of Ca’ Foscari of Venice, has portrayed the relationships between the Venetians and the Lombards along the northwestern frontier of the Venetian lagoons in a very different manner. According to Gasparri, in that area a well-integrated territory existed that did not correspond to the politicalmilitary boundaries. In his opinion, that situation had remained thus for the entire period after the Lombard conquest. This would be clear evidence for the ‘strong human and economic interpenetration’ of the frontier areas during that epoch.6 The goal of this chapter is to understand the reasons behind descriptions that differ so greatly. In the case of the medieval chronicler, the motives are explicitly stated in the quoted passage. The inhabitants of the first Venice, who had moved to the lagoons, and their descendants created a new wonderful Venice,7 yet they did not forget their previous homeland, now completely occupied by the ‘barbarians.’ This aroused rancor in them and therefore hostility always characterized their relationship with the Lombards. This sometimes led to open conflicts that caused death and destruction on both sides. In an earlier part of his chronicle, there are some references to a few episodes—most of them taken from other works verbatim—that confirm the Venetian author’s statements.8 Indeed, the Patriarch of Aquileia, Paul, abandoned his seat and moved to the neighboring island of Grado for fear of the Lombards’ ‘rabies’ (fury/rage).9 The transfer of the patriarchal seat to Grado was confirmed on the occasion of a council, organized by Patriarch Helias. He justifies it by emphasizing that after the destructions of Aquileia by the Huns and other barbarians that city could not ‘sustain the scourge of the nefarious people of the Lombards.’10 After seventy years, the bishop of Altino followed the example of the patriarch of Aquileia by taking refuge on the island of Torcello, because he could not stand the Lombards’ ‘insania’ (madness/fury).11 Lastly, there is the account of specific war-events. In ca. 662/663 the Lombard Duke of Cividale, Lupus, led his knights to Grado by using an ancient Roman road that connected the island to the mainland, plundered the city, and stole the patriarch’s treasure.12 So, there were written sources13 that confirmed the existence of hostility between the Venetians and the Lombards, and either John the Deacon or someone else probably used these and perhaps other oral sources to describe a state of perpetual enmity between the two peoples. As for Gasparri’s conclusions, they are based on a part of the already mentioned agreement established between the Venetians and the Lombard King Liudprand (712–744). This treaty is no longer extant, but some of its clauses are mentioned in the treaty sanctioned by the Frankish Emperor Lothar with the Venetian duchy in 840.14 By reading this source, however, it becomes clear that his analysis has no foundations. According to this treaty, the borders of the territory of Civitas Nova—one of the main centers of the Venetian lagoon—were to remain the same as those established at the time of King Liudprand by Duke Paulitio and ‘magister militum’ Marcellus, which the Lombard King Aistulf (749–756) later confirmed.15 It also states that the

94 All is well on the western front? inhabitants of that territory were allowed to take their animals into the area established by that accord situated between the Piave Maior and Piave Secco (probably two branches of the Piave River).16 That territory, the pact specifies, belonged to the inhabitants of Civitas Nova17 and so was part of the Venetian duchy. The fact that it was located on the mainland probably means it was an area that the Lombards had tried to occupy. The residents of Caorle—another Venetian center—were allowed ‘capulare’ (to cut wood)18 in a forest located in the Lombard duchy of Forum Iulii19 as they had done ‘before.’20 Another clause of the treaty states that the same activities were permitted in that territory to the inhabitants of Grado,21 and also in this case it is emphasized that this had happened according to an ancient custom.22 By reading the primary sources, it is therefore possible to maintain that there was not a continual state of belligerence between the Venetians and the Lombards, and that the Venetians residing in the areas neighboring the frontier could cross those territories when there were no tensions or conflicts with their neighbors in order to perform simple tasks, such as collecting firewood; perhaps their ancestors had carried out these activities even before the Lombard conquest. These clauses, however, do not indicate the existence of an idyllic frontier in which there was a well-integrated economy and population between Lombard and Venetian territories, as maintained by Gasparri, who 20 years earlier portrayed the frontier areas of the Lombard kingdom in a completely different manner. Indeed, by examining the description of an expedition led by the Lombards against one of those areas at the end of the sixth century, he has outlined that ‘raiding and looting were a stable form of exploitation of the population bordering the Lombard kingdom and that these activities were performed until the end of the Lombard kingdom.’23 It is undoubtedly a remarkable change of opinion about the frontiers during the Lombard period. New sources that can support this different and idyllic interpretation of the relationships in those areas have not been discovered. What has changed in the 1990s and the early 2000s is the fact that several scholars, especially the members of the so-called ‘School of Vienna’24 and their epigones, have challenged the traditional views of how the ‘barbarians’ moved into the Roman Empire and of the relationships created between the ‘invaders’ and the ‘invaded.’25 Rejecting the view of a ‘clash of civilizations,’ they have emphasized the elements of continuity between the Roman and the post-Roman periods and the ease with which the integration between the newcomers and the locals took place.26 Despite some criticisms that emphasize how these new interpretations are affected by these scholars’ political ideas and their opinions about ethnic relationships in the contemporary world,27 these views have enjoyed some popularity, also in Italy, and Gasparri is their best supporter. This new approach claims to be based on sophisticated intellectual tools that allow one to have a better understanding of the few primary sources available for that period, to overcome the shortcomings of the previous historiography, and to minimize the influence of the present on understandings of the past.28

All is well on the western front?

95

The essay on the frontiers by Gasparri follows this approach. Indeed, it begins with a broad historiographical overview, which aims to demonstrate the sophistication of the new historiographical approaches and the crudeness of the previous ones. According to this scholar, the study of the frontiers of the Roman Empire has experienced a breakthrough thanks to a book by Charles Whittaker.29 Gasparri highlights how this work emphasizes the limitations of the previous historiographical methodology established in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century ‘intellectual circles’ of Britain and France, which compared the role of the frontiers of their countries’ colonial empires with those that the Romans had created. In particular, these intellectuals emphasized that the border constituted a defensive barrier intended to keep the barbarians out of the civilized world, and to present a clear division between ‘civilization and barbarian world.’30 These ideas were an elaboration of a previous perception of the border, namely the ‘natural’ borders. This too was a nineteenth-century European intellectual product originating with the French Revolution and further developing during the birth of nationalism in Europe. They were later applied by Europeans in their colonies in Asia and Africa ‘with the result that linear frontiers were drawn . . . These frontiers divided ancient tribal territories, [and] are the basis of many of the ethnic tragedies of the contemporary world.’31 The Italian scholar employs another prestigious authority, Lucien Febvre—the co-founder, among other qualifications, of the prestigious French journal Les Annales—to argue that the concept of ‘military frontier and linear frontier’ was born in the nineteenth century with the formation of nationstates.32 He also remarks that, despite this, ‘modern scholars’ have ‘internalized’ this concept and applied it to the Roman world. This led to a belief that the Rhine River and the Danube River were both the natural and military boundaries of the Roman Empire. These ideas were the product of ‘the Roman ideology, which was very similar to modern European imperialism,’ but this, in his opinion, did not correspond to the reality.33 About this point, it is necessary to note that, in his revisionist fervor, Gasparri forgets the sources that he is examining, thus contradicting himself. As already seen, the pact with Liudprand established that the territory of Civitas Nova had to be delimited by two rivers,34 and, therefore, in that case, they were used as ‘natural boundaries.’ The theme of nineteenth-century iniquities, which shaped the minds of all scholars until the advent of new, more sophisticated methodology, is further emphasized by crossing the Atlantic Ocean. The medievalist at the University of Venice invites us to consider the case of the United States, a ‘young country,’ not affected, in his opinion, by the poisons of European nationalism. He therefore finds enlightening the approach to this topic expressed by the U.S. historian Walter Prescott Webb (1888–1963) in his book The Great Plains, which was published in 1931. According to Webb, the frontier did not constitute ‘a barring line but an area that invites one to enter.’35 Before evaluating how useful these ideas might be for early medieval Italy, I think it is necessary to express some considerations about such

96 All is well on the western front? claims. It is indeed necessary to reflect on how this scholar uses the ingredients of his historiographical mixture. The frontier is undoubtedly one of the most relevant founding myths of the United States of America, but in the definition of this element, Gasparri has not taken into consideration the fundamental notion that the American frontier was deliberately kept in constant motion and was presented as an invitation to enter to the masses of immigrants (most of whom, one should not forget, came from Europe). This happened to the detriment of the indigenous inhabitants with whom the United States’ government established several treaties in order to separate them from the ‘whites.’ These agreements were changed at will and regularly disregarded by the American authorities. Last but certainly not least, the Italian scholar forgets the not negligible detail that the result of that process was the almost total physical and cultural genocide of most of the natives. There is no doubt that, for them, the ‘frontier’ was not ‘a place where a cultural and ethnic mix was created.’ Not surprisingly, Prescott Webb’s book was written at a time when the majority of Americans had not yet understood what had led to the creation of that myth, and it is not surprising that The Great Plains was very successful.36 The ideas expressed in this book, however, are now rightly considered obsolete and politically incorrect. In a recent overview of this work, it has been stated that Prescott Webb ‘was not particularly racist by the measure of his own time,’ but his monograph has been called an ‘ardently nationalistic story of the Anglo-American civilization of the Great Plains.’37 Those ideas are therefore worth studying only to understand the mentality of the time in which the book was produced. Moreover, the notion that a term can have a different meaning in different periods and contexts should be familiar to any professional scholar. The ‘frontier’ examined by Prescott Webb had features that characterized only a specific part of the United States38—the title of his book is The Great Plains. This area had nothing in common with either modern Europe or early medieval Italy, including the border between the Lombard kingdom and Venice. Considering that the goal of this scholar is to examine the frontier during the Lombard rule in Italy (569–774), the ‘new way’ of perceiving the borders of the Roman Empire, namely perceiving them as the relationship between the periphery and the center of that world, is completely out of place. During those centuries the relationship between the Byzantines and the Lombards, who had only invaded a part of the peninsula, bore no resemblance at all to this supposed type of interaction. In conclusion, one can undoubtedly state that the sources about the northwestern frontier of Venice do not indicate that, in those areas, there was a ‘strong human and economic interpenetration.’ As suggested by those who have criticized the new historiographical approach for other similar themes, this is just a contemporary construction influenced by historiographical trends. As for the methodological introduction, it is an attempt to be brilliant and ‘well read’ and to be able to put into practice the ‘new and

All is well on the western front?

97

39

sophisticated approaches.’ Yet, this has produced a historiographical concoction, which, besides being a very bad example of ‘making history,’ is an insult (certainly unconscious, but still disrespectful) to the memory of such a shameful episode as the tragic fate of the Native Americans.

Notes 1 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 1: ‘Et quoniam omnino patrios fines dolebant a barbaris possidere, maxima inter utrasque partes iurgia versabatur ita ut inter se vicissim molestias et depopulationes conferre decertarent.’ 2 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 1–6. 3 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 2: ‘Cum Liuprando vero rege inconvulse pacis vinculum confirmavit; apud quem pacti statuta, que nunc inter Veneticorum et Longobardorum populum manent, impetravit. Fines etiam Civitatis nove, que actenus a Veneticis possidentur, iste cum eodem rege instituit, id est a Plave maiore, secundum quod designata loca discernuntur, usque in Plavisellam.’ 4 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 12. 5 Liber pontificalis, I, p. 491. 6 S. Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ Civiltà bresciana. Studi e ricerche 19, 1 (2010), p. 26. 7 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 5: ‘Populi vero eiusdem provintie penitus recusantes Longobardorum ditioni subesse, proximas insulas petierunt. Sicque Venetie nomen, de qua exierant, eisdem insulis indiderunt, qui et actenus illic degentes Venetici nuncupantur. Heneti vero, licet aput Latinos una littera addatur, Greci laudabiles dicuntur. Verum postquam in his insulis future habitationis sedem optinere decreverint, quedam munitissima castra civitatesque edificantes, novam sibi Venetiam et egregiam provintiam recreaverunt.’ (Since the peoples of that province refused to be subject to the rule of the Lombards, they went to the nearby islands and thus they gave the name Venice, which they had left, to those islands, and those who still live there are called Venetians. Indeed the “Eneti,” although a letter is added among the Latins, are called the “praiseworthy” in Greek. After having decided to establish their future dwellings in those islands, they built very well fortified centers and cities and recreated a new Venice and a wonderful province). 8 As already emphasized in the introduction, the first part of the chronicle up to the rule of Duke Maurice (ca. 756–ca. 764) is missing in the earliest manuscript of the chronicle and one suspects some rewriting of that section. For this reason, one cannot be sure that John the Deacon inserted those excerpts. 9 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 4: ‘Aquilegensi quoque civitati eiusque populis beatus Paulus patriarcha preerat. Qui Langobardorum rabiem metuens, ex Aquilegia ad Gradus insulam confugit.’ (The blessed Patriarch Paul presided over the city of Aquileia and its people. Fearing the fury of the Lombards, he fled from Aquileia to the island of Grado). This passage is present in Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 5. 10 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 11: ‘Karissimi fratres, intervenientibus malis nostris, cottidie hostile perpetimur flagellum. Et iam pridem ab Atila Unorum rege Aquilegia civitas nostra funditus distructa est et postea Gothorum incessu et ceterorum barbarorum cassata, vix aspirans. Sed et nunc Langobardorum infande gentis flagella sustinere non potest; quapropter dignum ducit mansuetudo nostra, si vestre placet sanctitati, in hunc castrum Gradensem nostram confirmare metropolym.’ (Dear brothers, because of our sins, we are suffering a daily hostile scourge. Our city of Aquileia was already in the past razed to the ground by the King of the

98 All is well on the western front?

11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19 20

Huns, Attila, and, after having barely recovered, was later destroyed by the invasion of the Goths and other barbarians. But now, it cannot sustain the scourge of the nefarious people of the Lombards. For this reason our meekness believes that it is a worthy deed, if it pleases your Holiness, to confirm the fortified center of Grado as a metropolitan seat). This passage is also recorded in the proceedings of the council of Grado (579), that were probably rewritten in the following centuries. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, pp. 8–9. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 38: ‘cuius tempore Maurus Altinensis episcopus non ferens Langobardorum insaniam, Severini pape auctoritate ad Torcellensem insulam venit ibique suam sedem corroborare et pro futuro manere decrevit.’ (In this period, the Bishop of Altino, Maurus, not bearing the fury of the Lombards, went to the island of Torcello and decided to establish his seat there). John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 44: ‘Circa hec tempora Lupus dux Foriulanus in Gradus insula cum equistri exercitu per strata que antiquitus per mare facta fuerat introivit, et depredata ipsa civitate, Aquilegensis ecclesie thesauros exinde auferrens reportavit.’ (At about these times Friulan Duke Lupus entered the island of Grado with cavalry over a stone road, which had been made in old times through the sea, and, having plundered that city, he took away the treasures of the Church of Aquileia from there). This passage has been copied from Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, V, 17. Besides these events, one should also consider the brief references to the destructions of the town of Oderzo, which is located on the mainland and had remained under Byzantine control until circa the 660s, by the Lombard kings Rothari (636–652) and Grimoald (662–671). Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 45, V, 28. In general, on this pact, see R. Cessi, ‘Pacta Veneta. I – Pacta Carolina,’ in Id., Le origini del ducato veneziano (Naples, 1951), pp. 175–243; Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 746–8; P. Moro, ‘Venezia e l’Occidente nell’alto Medioevo. Dal confine longobardo al “pactum” lotariano,’ in Venezia. Itinerari per la storia della città, eds. S. Gasparri, G. Levi, and P. Moro (Bologna, 1997), pp. 48–53; and G. West, ‘Communities and Pacta in Early Medieval Italy: Jurisdiction, Regulatory Authority and Dispute Avoidance,’ Early Medieval Europe 18, 4 (2010), pp. 369–70, 374–9. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 107, chapter 26: ‘De finibus autem Civitatis novae statuimus, ut, sicut a tempore Liuthprandi regis terminatio facta est inter Paulitionem ducem et Marcellum magistrum militum, ita permanere debeat, secundum quod Aistulfus ad vos Civitatinos novos largitus est.’ In John the Deacon’s chronicle, one of the boundaries of that territory has a different name. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 2: ‘a Plave maiore . . . usque in Plavisella.’ Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 107, chapter 28: ‘Peculiarumque vestrarum partium greges pascere debeat cum securitate usque in terminum, quem posuit Palitius dux cum Civitatinis novis, sicut in pacto legitur, de Plave maiore usque in Plavem siccam, quod est terminus vel proprietas vestra.’ Cf. Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, conditum a Carolo du Fresne domino Du Cange, auctum a monachis ordinis S. Benedicti cum supplementis integris D. P. Carpenterii, Adelungii, aliorum suisque digessit G. A. L. Henschel; sequuntur Glossarium gallicum, tabulae, indices auctorum et rerum, dissertationes. – Editio nova/aucta pluribus verbis aliorum scriptorum a L. Favre (Niort, 1885), sub voce. It corresponds to modern-day Cividale in Friuli’s region (northeast Italy). Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 107, chapter 29: ‘Caprisani vero in silva, ubi capulaverunt, in fine Foroiuliano semper faciant redditum, et eam capulent, sicut ante capulaverunt.’

All is well on the western front?

99

21 It was another center of the Venetian region. 22 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, p. 107, chapter 30: ‘Et stetit, ut de Gradensis civitate secundum antiquam consuetudinem debeat dare [reditum] et capulas facere, ubi ante fecerunt in fines Foroiulianos, sicut antiquitus fecistis.’ 23 S. Gasparri, ‘Il regno longobardo in Italia. Struttura e funzionamento di uno stato altomedievale,’ in Langobardia, eds. P. Cammarosano – S. Gasparri (Udine, 1990), p. 266. Republished in Il regno dei Longobardi in Italia. Archeologia, società, istituzioni, ed. S. Gasparri (Spoleto, 2004). Gasparri mentions this work in his 2010 essay about the frontiers, yet he does not explain why he has completely changed his views on this topic. 24 The most important is Walter Pohl. For his CV, see www.oeaw.ac.at/imafo/mitar beiterinnen-imafo/walter-pohl/. 25 The supporters of this new approach prefer to use a more neutral terminology such as migration, settlement, etc. 26 On these new approaches, for example, see P. J. Geary, The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton, 2003); B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005); S. Gasparri – C. La Rocca, Tempi barbarici. L’Europa occidentale tra antichità e Medioevo (300–900) (Rome, 2012); S. Gasparri, Italia longobarda. Il regno, i franchi, il papato (Rome – Bari, 2012); and I. Wood, The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages (Oxford, 2013), chapters 15–16. 27 P. Delogu, ‘L’Editto di Rotari e la società del VII secolo,’ in Visigoti e Longobardi, eds. J. Arce – P. Delogu (Florence, 2001), p. 331; P. Delogu, ‘Le mutazioni dell’alto Medioevo,’ in Percorsi recenti degli studi medievali: contributi per una riflessione, ed. A. Zorzi (Florence, 2008), pp. 11–12. 28 S. Gasparri, ‘I Germani immaginari e la realtà del regno. Cinquant’anni di studi sui Longobardi,’ in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (Spoleto, 2003), p. 6, and W. Pohl, ‘Il V secolo e le trasformazioni del mondo romano,’ in Le trasformazioni del V secolo. L’Italia, i barbari e l’Occidente romano, eds. P. Delogu – S. Gasparri (Turnhout, 2010), p. 742. 29 Gasparri refers to C. Whittaker, Les frontières de l’Empire romain (Paris, 1989). An English version of this book is also available. C. R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, MD, 1994). In his opinion, the ‘School of Vienna’ has used Whittaker’s approach for the Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Gasparri quotes the following volume: The Transformation of Frontiers: From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians, eds. W. Pohl, I. Wood – H. Reimitz (Leiden, 2000). 30 Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ p. 13. Gasparri does not quote any specific part of this book. It is not possible to examine Whittaker’s work in this chapter. It seems, however, that it is has been interpreted in different manners. For example, Peter Heather has mentioned it as ‘an excellent survey, bringing out the strategic differences between the various frontiers’ and as an introduction to ‘the dynamics of Roman imperial expansion.’ P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Oxford, 2006), p. 500, notes 4 and 11. 31 Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ p. 14. 32 Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ p. 14. In this case the Italian medievalist does not even mention the title of the work in which the French historian expressed this idea. 33 Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ p. 14. 34 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 107, chapter 28: ‘sicut in pacto legitur de Plave maiore usque in Plave siccam.’

100 All is well on the western front? 35 Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda,’ p. 14; Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Plains (Waltham, MA, 1931). The Italian medievalist does not mention the page from which he has taken that sentence. 36 Thanks to this book, Prescott Webb was granted a PhD from the University of Texas; he later became president of the American Historical Association. 37 G. O’Har, ‘Where the Buffalo Roam: Walter Prescott Webb’s “The Great Plains”,’ Technology and Culture 47, 1 (January 2006). Available in www.histor yoftechnology.org. 38 It is worth remembering that in the Southwest, the United States fought a war against Mexico in 1846–1848, whose consequence was the moving of the border between those two countries to the Rio Grande River, i.e., a ‘natural border.’ 39 For an analysis of other new and sophisticated approaches’ outcomes, see L. A. Berto, I raffinati metodi d’indagine e il mestiere dello storico. L’alto medioevo italiano all’inizio del terzo millennio (Mantua, 2016).

7

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? The Latin and Greek onomastics of eighth-century Lombard Treviso and its relationship with early medieval Venice

In a study about early medieval Treviso (northeast Italy),1 it has been argued that there were strong ties between the Lombard duchy in that area2 and neighboring Venice, which was never conquered by the Lombards and remained a part of the Byzantine Empire until the early eighth century.3 In particular, it has been claimed that the presence of a notable amount of individuals bearing Latin and Greek names in eighth-century charters written in Treviso4 would indicate that the population of this frontier area of the Lombard kingdom maintained a strong ethnic and cultural affinity with Venice.5 Besides being based on a small number of primary sources, which are not available for the entire Lombard rule in Italy (569–774), the author of this study took for granted that the presence of those persons in the duchy of Treviso proved his conclusions, but he did not make a comparison with early medieval Venetian onomastics. The goal of this chapter is to conduct this comparison and to ascertain if those conclusions are valid. Before examining the Trevisan and the Venetian data, it is necessary to describe the group of Trevisans bearing Latin and Greek names.6 The individuals will be arranged in alphabetical order and divided into the following categories: lay males, male ecclesiastics, lay females, and female ecclesiastics. Their names will be mentioned in their nominative forms. Persons with the same name are listed in chronological ascending order. Chronological information about each person is placed in parentheses. For those who were only referenced indirectly in the document, the abbreviation ‘ref ’ will be placed before the date. The elements of qualification of an individual (office, ecclesiastical rank, occupation, etc.), and kin relationships are located under the name. The elements of qualification and kin relationships are followed by a brief summary of the facts that can be inferred from the sources. Only people residing in the duchy of Treviso7 and only those having anthroponyms of either Latin or Greek origin have been examined.8 Even though the names Danaelis/Danihel, and Orsus/Ursus9 do not belong to the Latin-Greek tradition, I have taken them into consideration because they were employed in the late-antique Roman world. Danaelis indeed is found in the Bible, while Ursus (bear) could be considered the Latinization of

102 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? a name that was often used by the Romans from the fourth and fifth centuries onward.10

Lay males Agrestius (727). In 727 Candiana, Felix’s widow, sold a part of her land that was located in front of Agrestius’s house in Treviso. This land bordered the properties of Predicernus and of Ticiana, the latter’s niece (or granddaughter), and of the heirs of Dondus.11 Albinus (772). He is among the subscribers of the charter concerning the sale of the land of the brothers Danaelis and Ursus to Gastald Ermuald. Albinus states that Danaelis and Ursus asked him to do that.12 Danaelis/Danihel (772). Son of Durodus and brother of Orsus/Ursus. In 772 Danaelis/Danihel and his brother sold the land that they owned near their house in Vato to Gastald Ermuald, who owned a neighboring property. The owner of another bordering land was Senatur.13 Eraclius (ref 727). Son-in-law of Felix and Candiana.14 Iraclius (727). ‘Vir clarissimus.’15 He is among the subscribers of the charter describing the sale of Ticiana’s land to Agrestius. Iraclius states that Ticiana asked him to do that.16 Eraclius (ref 768). He owned some land in Fontanelle17 bordering the property that Badussio, Iulianus’s son, sold to his neighbor Gastald Ermuald in 768. The owners of the other bordering lands were the sons of Lopunus Marinus, Sambolus, and Sabbatinus.18 Felix (d. 727). Husband of Candiana and father-in-law of Eraclius. Felix was already dead in 727.19 Florentinus (710). ‘Gasindius.’20 He is among the subscribers of a charter drawn up in 710.21 Florentinus (768). He was probably a notary. In 768 he drew up a charter describing the sale of the land of Iulianus’s son, Badussio, to Gastald Ermuald. Florentinus states that Badussio asked him to do that.22

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 103 Galus (773/774). He is among the subscribers of a charter describing the exchange of land between Senator and Gastald Ermoald in 773/774. Galus states that Senator asked him to do that.23 Grigorius (768). He is among the subscribers of the charter about the sale of the land of Iulianus’s son, Badussio, to Gastald Ermuald in 768.24 Iuhannes (772). He is among the subscribers of the charter concerning the sale of the land of the brothers Danaelis and Ursus to Gastald Ermuald. Iuhannes states that Danaelis and Ursus asked him to do that.25 Iulianus (d. 768). He was the father of Badussio who sold some land in Fontanelle to Gastald Ermuald in 768. At this date Iulianus was already dead.26 Iuvenalis (727). Nephew of Lithorix. He was probably a notary. In 727 he drew up the charter describing the sale of Candiana’s land to Agrestius. Iuvenalis states that his maternal uncle, who was among the subscribers of the charter, dictated the document to him.27 Lithorix (727). ‘Vir clarissimus’; maternal uncle of Iuvenalis. He is among the subscribers of the charter for the sale of Candiana’s land to Agrestius. Iuvenalis states that Lithorix dictated the document to him.28 Lopunus Marinus (ref 768). The son of Lopunus Marinus owned some land in Fontanelle bordering the property that Badussio, Iulianus’s son, sold to his neighbor Gastald Ermuald in 768. The owners of the other bordering lands were Sambolus, Eraclius, and Sabbatinus.29 Predicernus (ref 727). Predicernus was either grandfather or uncle of Ticiana with whom he owned some land in Treviso bordering with the property that Candiana sold to her neighbor Agrestius in 727.30 Sabbatinus (ref 768). Sabbatinus owned some land in Fontanelle bordering the property that Badussio, son of Iulianus, sold to his neighbor Gastald Ermuald in 768. The owners of the other bordering lands were Lopunus Marinus, Sambolus, and Eraclius.31 Sambolus (ref 768). Sambolus owned some land in Fontanelle bordering the property that Badussio, Iulianus’s son, sold to his neighbor Gastald Ermuald in 768. The

104 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? owners of the other bordering lands were Lopunus Marinus, Sabbatinus, and Eraclius.32 Senatur/Senator (772, 774). Senatur owned some land adjacent to the property in Vato that in 772 the brothers Danaelis and Ursus sold to Gastald Ermuald, who also owned a neighboring property.33 In 774 Ermuald traded the land he bought from Danaelis and Ursus with Senator.34 Ticianus (710). Notary. He drew up the charter about the donations of some monks of Sts. Peter, Paul, and Theonistus to their monastery in 710.35 Ursus (772). Son of Durodus and brother of Danaelis/Danihel. In 772 Ursus and his brother Danaelis/Danihel sold the land that they owned near their house in Vato to Gastald Ermuald, who owned a neighboring property. Another part of the land adjacent to the property, which Danaelis and Ursus sold, belonged to Senatur.36

Lay females Candiana (727). Widow of Felix; mother-in-law of Eraclius. In 727 Candiana sold a part of her land, which was located in front of Agrestius’s house in Treviso, to Agrestius.37 This land bordered the properties of Predicernus and of Ticiana, the latter’s niece (or granddaughter), and of the heirs of Dondus. Ticiana (ref 727).38 She was either the niece or the granddaughter of Predicernus with whom she owned some land in Treviso that bordered the properties of Candiana, Agrestius, and of the heirs of Dondus. As one can see, the onomastics are quite diversified. For the males there are 19 different names for 22 individuals, while the two women have different names. Because of the lack of archival primary sources for eighth-century Venice, the number of anthroponyms of the eighth-century Venetians known to us is very low. To make a comparison that makes sense, it is therefore necessary to consider all the anthroponyms, not only those mentioned in the period in which the above-mentioned Trevisans are recorded (710–764). There are 33 eighth-century Venetians,39 of whom 31 are males (18 laymen40 and 13 ecclesiastics) and two females (one is a laywoman and one is a nun).41 In this case, too, there is a high variety of names. For the males, there are 25 names for 31 individuals (15 names for 18 persons for the laymen and 13 names for 13 individuals for the ecclesiastics).42 For the females, there are two names for two individuals. Although the sample of names is small, the number of Venetians and of Trevisans is similar, and so it is possible to do a comparative analysis. The

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 105 great difference between the two onomastic sets is immediately evident. Of the 23 names present among the Trevisans, only three anthroponyms are also present among the Venetians—the very common Iohannes, Felix, and Ursus, which were used in both Lombard and Byzantine areas. Broadening the comparison with the Venetians, who lived in the first part of the ninth century, the result changes very little.43 Beside the already mentioned Felix, Iohannes, and Ursus, one may add Gregorius, since one of those Venetians was named ‘Fuscarus Gregorii.’44 The similarities are even scarcer prior to the eighth century. Among the anthroponyms of the persons who lived in Venice in the period between the invasion of Italy by the Lombards (569) and 700,45 only Albinus, Iohannes, Iulianus, Marinus, Sambo (a name similar to the Trevisan ‘Sambolus,’ which is probably the diminutive of that name), and Ursus appear.46 Few similarities emerge even if one extends the comparison to all the Venetians living between 830 and the beginning of the eleventh century, a period for which the names of about one thousand people are available.47 Among them, one finds a Senator (d. 875/876)48 and a Sabatinus (ref 888).49 No Venetian female in the early Middle Ages was named Candiana, but this name is reminiscent of the Venetian family of the Candianos. Therefore, the majority of those Trevisan names were not used in early medieval Venice: Agrestius, Danaelis/Danihel, Eraclius/Iraclius, Florentinus, Galus, Iuvenalis, Lithorix, Predicernus, Ticianus, Candiana, and Ticiana. The same is also true for Stabilinus (diminutive of Stabilis), who was probably duke of Treviso50 and was the only duke of that area with a Latin name.51 In conclusion, this examination shows that the anthroponimic data indicate that there was not a strong ‘ethnic and cultural affinity’ between the Lombard duchy of Treviso and Venice. These data suggest that in the eighth-century duchy of Treviso there were traces of a Roman legacy52 that had developed independently from that of nearby Venice. In a few cases it seems that, from the Latin onomastic point of view, Treviso’s region had some special features. Some of those Latin names are indeed either very rare or not used at all in the rest of Italy during the Lombard period and in the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. For example, the anthroponyms Candiana, Predicernus,53 and Sambolus do not appear in the prosopographical studies for those periods and areas.54 The name Agrestius was never utilized in either the Lombard Kingdom or Byzantine Italy and was very rare during the late Roman Empire. During this period it appeared only twice; for one man with the name Agrestius it is not possible to ascertain exactly when he lived, while the other Agrestius was the proconsul of Palestine in 384.55 In alphabetical order, the other rare anthroponyms are: Daniel;56 Eraclius/Heraclius;57 Florentinus;58 Galus;59 Iuvenalis;60 Lithorx (=Lithor/Littorius);61 Sabbatinus;62 Senator;63 Stabilis;64 Ticiana;65 and Ticianus/Titianus.66 As already emphasized, the evidence is quite scanty and only pertains to the eighth century. Yet the fact that all these Trevisans seemed to have a quite good social level;67 that some of them were related to each other;68

106 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? that some of them had neighboring properties;69 that all the persons with that type of name, who subscribed a charter, were asked to do so by people with that kind of anthroponym; that there was a Lombard duke of Treviso with a Latin name;70 and that Candiana acted without male legal guardianship, which was allowed by the Roman law but not by the Lombard legal system,71 perhaps—and it is necessary to repeat perhaps twice—could indicate a particular feature of that region. Even though it is only a single episode that took place at the beginning of the Lombard invasion, the agreement between the bishop of Treviso and the Lombard King, Alboin, which prevented the Trevisan region from being sacked by the Lombards,72 could indicate that in the following years, the settlement of the Lombards in that area did not have a dramatic impact on the local population. Consequently, the Roman elites and the landowners of that region were probably not hit too harshly by the invaders, unlike in other parts of Italy,73 and were able to maintain some of their characteristics. I do not want to claim that Romans and Lombards lived separately in the duchy of Treviso74 and that all people having either a Latin or Latinized Greek name were ‘pure’ descendants of the pre-conquest Italian population. At the same time, one cannot ignore the possibility that some Romans preferred not to marry any Lombards and that, if this was the case, the quite high social status of those Romans meant that they chose to preserve that part of the Roman cultural identity, which is evidenced by the Latin and Greek onomastics. The small number of Trevisans bearing Latin and Greek names and the very little information available about them must invite us to be cautious and to avoid generalizations. In my opinion, however, it is very unlikely that the descendants of the Lombards who had settled in that area would choose to give their own children names like Predicernus, Agrestius, and Eraclius. The Trevisan case clearly underlines how complex and varied the Italian situation was, and how misleading it is therefore to make generalizations that are not based on primary sources.75

Appendix A (eighth-century Venetians)

Males Lay males Barbola (eighth century).76 Constantius (770/772).77 Deusdedi (739–740, 742–755).78 Dominicus Monegarius (756–764).79 Dominicus (eighth century).80 Felix Cornicula (738–739).81 Galla (755–756).82 Iohannes Fabriacus (741–742).83 Iubianus (740–741).84 Leo (737–738).85 Mauricius (764–797).86 Mauricius (797–805).87 Paulos (first half of the eighth century).88 Petrus (eighth century/ninth century).89 Théophane (eighth century).90 Ursus (726–737).91 Ursus (eighth century).92 Vitales (eighth century/ninth century).93

Male Ecclesiastics Antoninus (720s–740s).94 Christophorus (685–717).95 Deusdedi (690s–710s).96 Donatus (717–720s).97 Emilianus (720s–740s).98 Honoratus (710s).99 Iohannaci (end of the eighth century/beginning of the ninth century).100 Iohannes (766–802/803).101 Magnus (770/772).102 Obeliebatus (775–798).103 Severinus (720s/730s).104 Vitalianus (757–766).105 Vitalis (720s).106 Females Lay females Tancia (seventh/ninth century).107 Female Ecclesiastics Costancia (eighth century/beginning of ninth century).108

Appendix B (Venetians who lived in the period 800–829)109

Males Lay males Agnellus Clentusius (819).110 Agnellus (early 820s).111 Agnellus (810/811–827/828).112 Andrea (ref 829).113 Badoarius (ref 824).114 Barbalata (ref 829).115 Basilius cata Trazamundo (829).116 Beatus (805–810/811).117 Beteganus (ref 829).118 Boniçus (ref 829).119 Bonus Clentusius (819).120 Bonus Bradanissus (d. 820s). Bonus (827/828).121 Carosus (829).122 Dimitrius (beginning of the ninth century).123 Dimittrius (819).124 Dominicus (ref 825/826).125 Dominicus (ref 829).126 Dominicus, nephew or grandson of Andreas, son of Iohanacenus Cigullus (ref 829).127 Dominicus cata Marcianico (ref 829).128 Donatus cato Barbalata (ref 829).129 Dulciolus Pascalicus (ref 829).130 Felix (beginning of the ninth century).131

Fuscarus Gregorius (Gregorii) (beginning of the ninth century).132 Gatulus (Gatulo) (ref 829).133 Gieorgius Catuni (819).134 Georgius (826).135 Grauso cata Barbalata (ref 829).136 Iohanacenus Cigullus (ref 829).137 Iohannaci (819).138 Iohanaci (829).139 Iohannes (797–805). Iohannes (beginning of the ninth century).140 Iohannes Marcianico (ref 829).141 Iohannes Primollus (ref 829).142 Iohannes Monetarius (820s).143 Iohannes Tornaricus (820s).144 Iustinianus (810s – 820s).145 Laurencius Primollus (ref 829).146 Leonianus Talonicus (819).147 Marcianico (ref 829).148 Marconus Primollus (ref 829).149 Marianus (beginning of the ninth century).150 Maurianus (ref 824).151 Obelerio (805–810, ca. 829).152 Orsecenus Sartaricus (ref 829).153 Petrus (825/826).154 Petrus (ref 829).155 Rosaly (ref 829).156 Rusticus (827/828).157

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 109 158

Savinus Talonicus (819). Stephanus Talonicus (819).159 Theophilatus (ref 829).160 Trazamundus (ref 829).161 Valentinus (805/810).162 Valentinus (819).163 Vitalis Pascalicus (ref 829).164 Male Ecclesiastics Boysus (ref 829).165 Christoforus (798–806).166 Christoforus (806, 819).167 Dominicus (800).168 Dominicus (829).169 Deusdedi (829).170 Deusdedit (829).171 Fortunatus (802/803–820s).172 Georgius (826).173 Iohannes (806–810).174 Iohannes (819, 820s).175 Iustus (825/826).176 Iustus (829).177 Mauricius (ref 824).178 Petrus (804).179

Petrus (819).180 Tiberius (821).181 Tiberius (825/826).182 Ursus (820s–850s).183 Venerius (ref 824).184 Venerius (820s–840s).185 Females Lay females Cezaria Sartaricus (ref 829).186 Felicitas (829).187 Lobana Cenibis Cogitanis (ref 829).188 Passibo (ref 824).189 Romana (829).190 Suria (ref 829).191 Female Ecclesiastics Agatha (ref 829).192 Agatha (ref 829).193 Iohannia (ref 829).194 Maria (ref 829).195 Romana cata Betegani (ref 829).196 Steffana (ref 829).197

Appendix C (seventh–century Venetians)

Males Lay males Ἀναστάσιος (= Anastasius) (seventh century).198 Dalmatios (sixth century/seventh century).199 Gregorius (seventh century).200 Iohannes (683/685).201 Ioannikios ? – Nicolas ? (650/750?). (seventh century).202 Marianos (seventh century).203 Marianus (627, 642/647).204 Maurentius? (sixth century/eighth century).205 Mauricius (639).206 Maurikios (seventh century).207 Mousèlios (seventh century).208 Stephanus? (ref 627).209 Stephanus (683/685).210 Θωμᾶς/Thomas (sixth century/eighth century).211 Timoteos (second half of the sixth century/first half of the seventh century).212

Male Ecclesiastics Agathon (670s–680s).213 Benenatus? (680).214 Candidianus (beginning of the seventh century).215 Christophorus (685–717). Cyprianus (610s–620s).216 Custansius (seventh century).217 Epyphanius (beginning of the seventh century).218 Fortunatus (627).219 Iulianus (640s–690s).220 Marcianus (beginning of the seventh century).221 Maurus (640s).222 Maximus (648–668).223 Paulus ? (680).224 Primogenius (628–648).225 Stephanus (668–672).226 Ursianus/Ursinianus? (680).227 Females Agnella (sixth century/seventh century).228

Appendix D (Venetians who lived in the period 568/569–599)

Males Lay males Amara (fifth century/sixth century).229 Amara (571/579).230 Antoninus (571/579).231 Antoninus (sixth/seventh century).232 Antonius (588/589).233 Bonellus (second half of the sixth century).234 Concordius (571/579).235 Domnicus (571/579).236 Dominicus1 (571/579).237 Dominicus2 (571/579).238 [Dom]nus (ref 571/579).239 [Euph]imius or [Eut]imius (sixth century).240 Felex (fifth century/sixth century).241 [Firmi]nus (571/579).242 Georgius (sixth century).243 Guderit (571/579).244 Haelia (571/579).245 Honoratus (fifth century/sixth century).246 Honoratus1 (571/579).247 Honoratus2 (571/579).248 Iohannes (571/579).249 Iohannis (571/579).250

Iohannis (571/579).251 ‘Ιωάννης (= Iohannis) (571/579).’252 Iohannis (571/579).253 Iohannes (second half of the sixth century).254 Iohannis (end of the sixth century).255 Iohannes (fifth century/sixth century).256 Iohannes1 (sixth century).257 Iohannes2 (sixth century).258 Irenianus (571/579).259 Iustinus (571/579).260 Iustinus (ref 571/586).261 Laurentius (571/579).262 Laurentius (571/579).263 Laurentius (second half of the sixth century).264 Lautus (571/579).265 Lautus (571/579).266 Lucianus (571/579).267 Lucinus (571/579).268 Malchus (fifth century/sixth century).269 Marcus Bibulus (571/579).270 Martinianus (571/579).271 Martinus (571/579).272 [Mart]urius (sixth century).273 Maximus (571/579).274

112 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? Murgio (571/579).275 Niceforus (second half of the sixth century).276 Nonnus (571/579).277 Paulus (571/579).278 Paulus (sixth century).279 Petrus (571/579).280 Petrus (571/579).281 Petrus (571/579).282 Petrus (571/579).283 Probus (571/579).284 Reparatus (end of the sixth century).285 Sambo (fifth century/sixth century).286 Seco[laris] or Seco[nius] (571/579).287 Serges (fifth century/sixth century).288 Sesinius (sixth century).289 Stefanus (571/579).290 Stefanus (end of the sixth century).291 Στέφανος (= Stephanus) (sixth century/beginning of the seventh century).292 Tala[ssius] (571/579).293 Tertius (571/579).294 Theodorus (fifth century/sixth century).295 Thomas (571/579).296 Ursus (571/579).297 Valentinianus (fifth century/sixth century).298 Valerianus (571/579).299 Valerianus (571/579).300 Victorinus (571/579).301 [Vi]ctur[us] or [Vi]ctur[inus] (sixth century).302 Vigilius (571/579).303 Vitales (571/579).304 Male Ecclesiastics Albinus (579).305 Antonius (588/589).306 Castus (579).307

Dorotheus (579).308 Emerius (579).309 Gazeus (571/579).310 Helya/Helias (570s–580s).311 Laurentius (571/579).312 Laurentius (571/579).313 Laurentius (579).314 Laurentius (579).315 Leo (579).316 Lucillus (579).317 Marcianus (579).318 Marinus (579).319 Paulus (568/569).320 Probinus (570s).321 Provincialis (579).322 Sergius (579).323 Sevancinus (579).324 Severus (late 580s–beginning of the seventh century). Zimarcus (end of the sixth century).325 Females Lay females Afrodites (fifth century/sixth century).326 Agneta (571/579).327 Anastasia (fifth century/sixth century).328 Antonina (571/579).329 Aureliana (571/579).330 Bona (571/579).331 Bona (571/579).332 Decentiana (571/579).333 Diugenia (571/579).334 Eufimia (fifth century/sixth century).335 Eugenia (571/579).336 Eusebia (571/579).337 Iohanna (571/579).338 Luciana (571/579).339 Mellita (571/579).340 Nitiana (571/579).341 Probina (571/579).342

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 113 343

Romana (571/579). Severa (571/579).344 Severina (571/579).345 Simplicia (571/579).346

Thecla (fifth century/sixth century).347 Valeria (571/579).348 Valeriana (571/579).349

Notes 1 Treviso is located a few miles north of modern-day Venice. 2 The Lombards invaded northern Italy in 569, and Treviso became the seat of the Lombard duke who governed the district around that city. 3 After that period Venice became an independent duchy. 4 There are six charters that were composed between 710 and 774. They were preserved in the monastery of Sts. Peter, Paul, and Theonistus, which was located at Casier, a few miles southeast of Treviso. The documents are edited in C. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti del monastero dei Santi Pietro e Teonisto,’ Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo 22 (1901), pp. 38–48. They have also been edited in Codice diplomatico longobardo (sec. VIII), ed. L. Schiaparelli, 2 vols., Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 62–63 (Rome, 1929–1933) – from now on indicated as CDL. Since Cipolla’s edition has been used by Gasparri, it will be utilized in this chapter to facilitate comparisons; however, I will also mention where one may find the documents in the CDL. For information on this monastery in the early Middle Ages, see Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ p. 35, and P. A. Passolonghi, ‘Presenza benedettina nella Venezia orientale tra i secoli VIII e X,’ Benedectina, 29 (1982), p. 33. 5 S. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda al secolo X,’ in Storia di Treviso, II, eds. D. Rando – G. M. Varanini (Venice, 1991), p. 19 and p. 37, note 41. 6 Gasparri, who does not report any bibliographical reference, mentions individuals who are not in those charters: Maurinus, Peter, Stabilis, the clerics Agnellus and Laurentius, and Petronia. Moreover, this scholar omits some individuals who are present in those charters: Albinus, Iuhannes, and Sambolus. Cf. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda,’ p. 37, note 41. Among the subscribers of the charter written in 773/774, there is a ‘Galo,’ whom I have considered because it is very similar to the name Gallus. Cipolla only provided a brief summary of this document (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 7, p. 48), but it is edited in CDL, II, number 289, pp. 422–4. 7 I have not therefore taken into consideration Vector, Ioannes, and Marinus, because they lived in Piniano, a village in the Lombard duchy of Cividale. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 1, p. 39; CDL, I, number 14, p. 37. 8 I have not considered a few dubious cases. For example, Dondus (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41; CDL, I, number 37, p. 129), because this name does not appear in the prosopographical studies about the late Roman empire, late-antique Italy, or Byzantine Italy. It is, on the contrary, mentioned in the prosopography of Lombard Italy. J. Jarnut, Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Studien zum Langobardenreich in Italien (568–774) (Bonn, 1972), p. 103 (six people had this name). According to Nicoletta Francovich Onesti, Dondus is a diminutive and is a Lombard anthroponym. N. Francovich Onesti, Vestigia longobarde in Italia (568–774). Lessico e antroponimia (Rome, 2000, second revised edition), pp. 189 and 252. Gasparri, on the other hand, mentions Dondus among those bearing Latin names. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda,’ p. 37, note 41. No Venetian in the early Middle Ages was thus named, yet there is a Petrus Dondi (991/1008), whose last name or patronymic is the same as that name. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori, II, number 70, p. 142.

114 Remaining Roman on the Frontier?

9 10 11

12

13

14

15 16

Other examples are: Badussio (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45; CDL, II, number 216, p. 245); it is believed to be similar to the Saxon and Bavarian anthroponym Baducho, which means warrior. W. Haubrichs, ‘Langobardic Personal Names: Given Names and Name-Giving among the Langobards,’ in The Langobards before the Frankish Conquest: An Ethnographic Perspective, eds. G. Ausenda – P. Delogu (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 205; Cecco (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, p. 47; Ceto in CDL, II, number 277, p. 394); Durodo (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, p. 46; CDL, II, number 277, p. 393); Gonolo (Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 46; CDL, II, number 216, p. 246); Bonto (CDL, II, number 289, p. 423). A similar name to Cecco, or Ciccu, is included together with Durodo and Gonolo among cases of uncertain origin by Francovich Onesti, Vestigia longobarde in Italia, p. 243. As for the Trevisan Lopunus Marinus, I have taken into consideration only the anthroponym Marinus. Lopunus and the five names that I have just mentioned are not attested in Venice during the early Middle Ages. Cf. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, pp. 46–8; CDL, II, number 277. Gasparri only considers Danaelis, without giving any explanation. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda,’ p. 37, note 41. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘Candiana, relecta quondam Felici . . . .. habendum vendedessem . . . tibi Agrestio [mecietate] de ariale meo, intra civitate, ante casa vestram . . . pussedente vero de uno capite ipso Agrestio, et de alio capite tenente Predicerno, cum nepte sua Ticiana. Ex uno latere pussedente heredes Dondi.’ (Candiana, widow of the late Felix . . . having sold . . . half of my land, which is in the city in front of your house, to you, Agrestius . . . the land at one side of this property is owned by the same Agrestius, the land at another side of this property is held by Predicernus with his niece [or granddaughter] Ticiana. The heirs of Dondus own the land at the other side of this land). CDL, I, number 37, p. 129. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, p. 47: ‘Ego Albini rogadus ad Danaele et Orso germanis in hanc vinditione testis suscribsi.’ (Being asked by the brothers Danaelis and Orsus, I, Albinus, subscribed this sale as witness.) CDL, II, number 277, p. 394. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, pp. 46–8: ‘Danaele et Urso germanis filiis quondam Durodo . . . vindedimus . . . vobis Ermuald gastaldio . . . alquantola terra ad Vato, ad prope casa nostra . . . ab alio latere tenente suprascripto emtore. Ab uno capite possedente Senature . . . † Ego Danihel . . .’ (Danaelis and Ursus, brothers and sons of the late Durodus . . . sell some land in Vato, near our house, to you Gastald Ermuald . . . the land at one side of this land is held by the above-mentioned buyer . . . The land at another side of this land is owned by Senatur . . . † I, Danihel . . . ). CDL, II, number 277, pp. 393–4. Vato is probably Vado, which is located near Portogruaro (ca. forty miles north of modern Venice). Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘Candiana, relecta quondam Felici . . . quod per mea volomtate vobis anteam venondavet Eraclius gener meus meciactate de predicto ariale.’ (Candiana, widow of the late Felix . . . that my son-in-law Eraclius sold you before on my will.) CDL, I, number 37, p. 129. ‘Vir clarissimus’ was a Roman honorific title, which was still used during the Lombard period. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 42: ‘† Ego Iraclius vir clarissimus rogatus ad suprascripta Candiana in hanc pagina vindicionis testis suscripsi.’ († Being asked by the above-mentioned Candiana, I, Iraclius, subscribed as witness in this sale document). CDL, I, number 37, p. 130. Since for this

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 115

17 18

19

20

21 22

23 24

25

26 27

28

Iraclius the relationship with Candiana is not indicated, one may not determine if he was the previous Eraclius, Candiana’s son-in-law. Gasparri only mentions two individuals with this name. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda,’ p. 37, note 41. Fontanelle could be a village near either Oderzo or Porto Buffolé. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘de alio latere tenente filio Lopuni Marino, ab uno capite possedentes Sambolo, et Eraclio, seo Sabbatino.’ (the son of Lopunus Marinus holds the land on the other side of the property; Sambolus, Eraclius, and Sabbatinus own the land on the other side of the property.) CDL, II, number 216, p. 245. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘constat me Candiana, relecta quondam Felici . . . .. habendum vendedessem et vendedit adque tradedessem et tradedit tibi Agrestio [mecietate] de ariale meo, intra civitate, ante casa vestram, . . . quod per mea volomtate vobis anteam venondavet Eraclius gener meus meciactate de predicto ariale.’ CDL, I, number 37, p. 129. In the Lombard kingdom, the ‘gasindius’ was a collaborator of the king and sometimes of the royal officials; for his services, he received gifts and legal privileges. A. Barbero – C. Frugoni, Dizionario del Medioevo (Rome – Bari, 1994), p. 133. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 1, p. 40: ‘Ego Florentinus gasindio in hanc cartola rogatus subscripsi.’ (Having been asked to do this, I, Florentinus, gasindius, subscribed this charter). CDL, I, number 14, p. 38. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 46: ‘† Ego Florentinus rogatus ab suprascriptu Badussione hanc pagina vindicioni scripsi.’ (Having been asked to do this by the above-mentioned Badussio, I, Florentinus, wrote this sale document). CDL, II, number 216, p. 246. CDL, II, number 289, p. 424: ‘† Ego Galo rogatus ab suprascripto Senadore . . . subscripsi.’ (being asked by Senador, I, Galus, subscribed . . . ). Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘† Grigorius rogatus ad suprascripto Badussone in hanc vinditione testis suscripsi.’ (Having been asked to do this by the above-mentioned Badussio, I, Grigorius, subscribed this sale document as witness). CDL, II, number 216, p. 246. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, p. 48: ‘† Ego Iuhannes rogatus ab suprascriptis Danaele et Ursu germanis in hanc vindicionem suscribsi.’ (Being asked by the above-mentioned brothers Danaelis and Ursus, I, Iuhannes, subscribed this sale). CDL, II, number 277, p. 394. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘Badussione filio quondam Iuliano.’ (Badussio, son of the late Iulianus). CDL, II, number 216, p. 245. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 42: ‘Ego Iuvenalis rogatus ab suprascripta Candiana hanc pagina vindicionis ex dectato barbani mei Lithorx scripsi.’ (Having been asked by the above-mentioned Candiana to do this and under dictation of my maternal uncle Lithorx, I, Iuvenalis, wrote this sale document). CDL, I, number 37, p. 130. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 42: ‘Ego Lithorx vir clarissimus rogatus ab suprascripta Candiana in hanc vindicione mano meam testis suscripsi . . . † Ego Iuvenalis rogatus ab suprascripta Candiana hanc pagina vindicionis ex dectato barbani mei Lithorx scripsi.’ (Having been asked by the above-mentioned Candiana to do this, I, Lithorx, “vir clarissimus,” subscribed this document by my hand as witness . . . Having been asked by the abovementioned Candiana to do this and under dictation of my maternal uncle Lithorx, I, Iuvenalis, wrote this sale document). CDL, I, number 37, p. 130. The correct name is probably Littor or Littorius.

116 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 29 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘de alio latere tenente filio Lopuni Marino, ab uno capite possedentes Sambolo, et Eraclio, seo Sabbatino.’ (the son of Lopunus Marinus holds the land on the other side of the property; Sambolus, Eraclius, and Sabbatinus own the land on the other side of the property.’ CDL, II, number 216, p. 245. 30 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘de alio capite tenente Predicerno cum nepte sua Ticiana . . . ex alia vero parte procurrente via comune com iam decto Predicerno.’ (the other side of the land is owned by Predicernus with his niece (or granddaughter) Ticiana . . . on the other side there is a road which is held with the already mentioned Predicernus). CDL, I, number 37, p. 129. 31 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘de alio latere tenente filio Lopuni Marino, ab uno capite possedentes Sambolo, et Eraclio, seo Sabbatino.’ (the son of Lopunus Marinus holds the land on the other side of the property; Sambolus, Eraclius, and Sabbatinus own the land on the other side of the property). CDL, II, number 216, p. 245. 32 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 4, p. 45: ‘de alio latere tenente filio Lopuni Marino, ab uno capite possedentes Sambolo, et Eraclio, seo Sabbatino.’ (the son of Lopunus Marinus holds the land on the other side of the property; Sambolus, Eraclius, and Sabbatinus own the land on the other side of the property). CDL, II, number 216, p. 245. 33 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, pp. 46–8: ‘Danaele et Urso germanis filiis quondam Durodo . . . vindedimus . . . vobis Ermuald gastaldio . . . alquantola terra ad Vato, ad prope casa nostra . . . ab alio latere tenente suprascripto emtore. Ab uno capite possedente Senature . . . † Ego Danihel . . .’ (Danaelis and Ursus, brothers and sons of the late Durodus . . . sell some land in Vato, near our house, to you Gastald Ermuald . . . the land at one side of this land is held by the above-mentioned buyer . . . The land at another side of this land is owned by Senatur . . . † I, Danihel . . . ). CDL, II, number 277, pp. 393–4. 34 CDL, II, number 289, pp. 422–3: ‘inter se aliqua comudationem facere deberit . . . dans qui supra Ermoald ipsi Senaturi ariales ad Vado, que mihi obuenit ex comparationem de filiis quondam Durodo.’ (It has been decided to do an exchange between them . . . the above-mentioned Ermoald gives the lands, that he bought from Durodus’s sons, to Senatur). Cipolla did not make the edition of this charter. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 7, p. 48. 35 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 1, p. 40: ‘Ego Ticianus notarius rogatus ad Alfredi, Auuarde, Garone in hanc cartola scripsi.’ (Having been asked to do this by Alfred, Awardis, and Garo, I, Ticianus, notary, wrote this charter). CDL, I, number 14, p. 38. 36 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 5, pp. 46–8: ‘Danaele et Urso germanis filiis quondam Durodo . . . vindedimus . . . vobis Ermuald gastaldio . . . alquantola terra ad Vato, ad prope casa nostra . . . ab alio latere tenente suprascripto emtore. Ab uno capite possedente Senature . . . † Ego Ursus . . .’ (Danaelis and Ursus, brothers and sons of the late Durodus . . . sell some land in Vato, near our house, to you Gastald Ermuald . . . the land at one side of this land is held by the above-mentioned buyer . . . The land at another side of this land is owned by Senatur . . . † I Ursus . . . ). CDL, II, number 277, pp. 393–4. 37 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘constat me Candiana, relecta quondam Felici . . . habendum vendedessem et vendedit adque tradedessem et tradedit tibi Agrestio [mecietate] de ariale meo, intra civitate, ante casa vestram, . . . quod per mea volomtate vobis anteam venondavet Eraclius gener meus meciactate de predicto ariale.’ CDL, I, number 37, p. 129. 38 Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti,’ number 2, p. 41: ‘de alio capite tenente Predicerno cum nepte sua Ticiana.’ CDL, I, number 37, p. 129.

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 117 39 I have not considered Paulitio and Marcellus, who, according to the chronicle of John the Deacon, were the first two dukes of Venice, because scholars have raised numerous doubts about their existence. Regarding this issue and relevant bibliography, see John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 2, 10, Berto, In Search of the Venetians, pp. 309–10, and G. Ravegnani, ‘Paoluccio, Anafesto,’ in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 81 (Rome, 2014). (available online at www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/anafesto-paoluccio_(Dizionario-Biografico)/) 40 Some of the laymen were probably Byzantine officers. 41 See Appendix A. 42 When one considers these last two pieces of information, one must remember that a few names of the laymen are the same as those of the churchmen. These are: Deusdedi, Iohannes, and Vitalis. 43 See Appendix B. 44 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24. 45 For the seventh century, very few names are available, almost all belonging to ecclesiastics, because of the very few sources at our disposal. The situation is better and more varied at the end of the sixth century thanks to a few inscriptions appearing in those years. 46 See Appendix C and Appendix D. 47 This is made possible by the increase of available sources. These data can be found in Berto, In Search of the First Venetians. 48 He was the bishop of Torcello. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 11. A document appearing in 1001/1005 makes a reference to a Vitalis Senator. Codex Publicorum (Codice del Piovego), ed. B. Lanfranchi Strina, 2 vols. (Venice, 1983, 2006), II, number 43, p. 299. 49 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, number 19, p. 27. 50 A name similar to Stabilis (i.e., Stavilo), however, appears in a document written in the period between 979 and 991. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, number 59, p. 112: ‘Dominicus, filius Stavilo.’ (Dominic son of Stavilo). 51 For more information on Stabilinus, whom the sources do not define as the duke of Treviso and who lived at the end of the Lombard rule in Italy, see S. Gasparri, I duchi longobardi (Rome, 1978), pp. 61–2. Gasparri hypothesizes that he is the same person cited in Liber pontificalis, I, p. 492: ‘Dirigens saepius suos missos isdem Desiderius ad antefatum pontificem, id est Andream referendarium et Stabilem ducem’ (Desiderius often sent his legates, that is “referendarius” Andreas and Duke Stabilis, to the above-mentioned pontiff) and in Annales Petaviani, ed. G. H. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, I (Hanover, 1826), p. 16, annum 776: ‘Perrexit domnus Karolun in Italiam, et occiso Hrotgaudo, qui illi rebello extiterat, obsederuntque Stabilinium socerum suum Taraviso civitate.’ (Lord Charles went to Italy, and, having killed Hrotgaudus, who rebelled against Charles, then besieged his father-in-law Stabilinius in the city of Treviso). 52 The presence of individuals with the name Eraclius suggests rather a GreekByzantine influence. 53 Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I (A.D. 260–395), II (A. D. 395–527), eds. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris (Cambridge, 1971–1980), Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, p. 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne 313–604, eds. Ch. Pietri and L. Pietri, 2 vols. (Rome, 1999–2000), and S. Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina (493–804), 2 vols. (Bologna, 1996, 2000). Predicernus is not mentioned in the prosopographical study on Lombard Italy by Jarnut, Prosopographische. 54 As for Predicernus and Sambolus, however, it is not possible to determine if they were used in Byzantine Italy, since the prosopographical study of that area

118 Remaining Roman on the Frontier?

55 56

57

58

59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69

has not been done for the people whose name begins with the letter ‘p.’ Salvatore Cosentino, who is preparing a third volume of that work, has kindly told to me that he has not found anyone with this name. A Sambo appears in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, p. 1964. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I, p. 30. Two in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 97, four in Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, I, pp. 345–6, two in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, p. 531, one in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I, p. 242, and six in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, pp. 345–6. Besides those recorded in the Trevisan charters, there is no other Eraclius in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 106, five in Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, II, p. 94 (one Heracleanus, one Heracleides, one Heraclianus, three Herculanus, one Hercules: Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, II, pp. 92–5), six in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, pp. 657–8, 977–8, and ten in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I, pp. 419–20 (six Heraclianus in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, p. 417), and six in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, pp. 541–3 (four Heraclianus in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, pp. 539–40). There is another Florentinus in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 115 (who also records the presence of a Florentianus), seven in Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, I, pp. 465–6 (one Florentianus and ten Florentius: Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, I, pp. 465–8, II, p. 19) and six in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, pp. 835–7. Two Gallus in Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, I, p. 23, and two in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I, p. 384, and four in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, pp. 884–5. There are two other Iuvenalis in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 152, two in Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina, II, p. 249, and one in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, p. 1224. The Trevisan Lithorx is not recorded in Jarnut’s work; one in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, pp. 1307–8. Another Sabatinus in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 213, and one in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, p. 1964. Two other Senator in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 216, two in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, pp. 2023–4, and four in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, pp. 989–90. One Stabilis in Jarnut, Prosopographische, p. 274, and one in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, 1027 (He is a tribune mentioned in either the year 399 or 505); no one has this name in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, and in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I. Two Ticiana in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, pp. 2206–7, of which one is also mentioned in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, p. 917. Three Ticianus in Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, II, pp. 2200 and 2207, and three in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, p. 1122. There were neither slaves nor peasants among them. Eraclius was the son-in-law of Felix and Candiana, Iuvenalis was the nephew of Lithorx, while Ticiana was either the niece or the granddaughter of Predicernus. For example, Candiana and Agrestius. There are obviously also cases of people with Lombard names whose neighbors have Latin anthroponyms. The land of Badussio, son of Iulianus, borders that of Ermuald, the son of Lopunus Marinus, and that of Sambolus, that of Eraclius, and that of Sabbatinus.

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 119 70 Among the Lombard dukes, Stabilinus is the only one who has a clearly Latin name that is not the name of a saint. The list of these public officials may be found in Gasparri, I duchi longobardi. 71 This detail has been also emphasized by P. Delogu, ‘Ritorno ai longobardi,’ in Desiderio. Il progetto politico dell’ultimo re longobardo, ed. G. Archetti (Spoleto, 2015), p. 24, note 17. 72 In reality, the Lombard king, who met the bishop near the river Piave (that is, north of Treviso), confirmed his possession of all the goods of his church. Given that the Lombards proceeded along the Postumia road westwards and Treviso was not included among the cities of their conquests in that period, it is probable that they did not attack the Trevisan area. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 12, 14. The name of the bishop was Felix like one of those eighth-century Trevisans. 73 The Lombard historian Paul the Deacon narrates that the Lombards killed many Roman aristocrats during the reign of Cleph (572–574) and the successive ducal interregnum (574–584). Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 31–2. 74 One of those Trevisans was a ‘gasindius,’ i.e., a collaborator of the king and sometimes of the royal officials, and he sold some land to a person with a Lombard name. 75 For example, see the works by Gasparri, who in the meantime has abandoned his positions on the cultural and ethnic significance of the names emphasized in his essay on early medieval Treviso, and by Walter Pohl. Without doing any analysis, the Italian historian has claimed that the Lombards also gave their children the names of saints and the names taken from the ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions. S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Rome, 1997), p. 149. Examining only one case, the Austrian scholar has instead maintained that during the Lombard period, names only indicated social status. W. Pohl, ‘Invasions and ethnic identity,’ in Italy in the Early Middle Ages 476–1000, ed. C. La Rocca (Oxford, 2002), p. 24. The importance of the publishing house from which this study has appeared and the fact that it was written in English have ensured the wide diffusion of this idea. A few examples of the Italian complexity may be found in N. Francovich Onesti, ‘L’antroponimia longobarda della Toscana: caratteri e diffusione,’ Rivista Italiana di Onomastica VI, 2 (2000), pp. 357–74, and Haubrichs, ‘Langobardic Personal Names,’ pp. 195–250. 76 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, p. 200. 77 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 30, p. 49. 78 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11, 17. 79 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 18. 80 Agazzi, ‘Sarcofagi altomedievali,’ p. 574, number 30: ‘† IN ISTO TV//MOLO RE/ QUIESCIT//COSTANCIA/DEI ANCILLA//RELECTA/QUONDAM DOMINI// CO BNMTRET.’ A different text is present in Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII esistenti in Italia, number 30: ‘INISTOTU MOLORE/QUIESCIT CONSTANTIA/D(omin)I ANCILLA BELECTAM/qd DOMINI DOBNMTRET..’ 81 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11. 82 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 17. 83 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 14. 84 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11, 12. 85 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11. 86 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 18, 19. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, p. 49. 87 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 19, 22, 24.

120 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 88 M. Asolati, ‘Nuove attestazioni di età bizantina dalla laguna di Venezia (VI– XII secc.),’ in Id., Praestantia nummorum. Temi e note di numismatica tardo antica e alto medievale (Padua, 2012), p. 336. 89 Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 11. 90 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ p. 419. 91 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 11, 17. 92 Manuscript Cicogna, number 3349 (3636), f. 11b (Library of Correr Museum, Venice). Quoted by Dorigo, Venezia. Origini, p. 666, number 435. 93 Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 11. 94 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 18, pp. 29–30; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 13, 15; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, pp. 13–14. 95 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 3; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 11. 96 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 51, II, 3. 97 Cronica de singulis patriarchis Nove Aquileie, pp. 12–13; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 17–19, pp. 27–30; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 10. 98 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 16; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 14. 99 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 3, 7. 100 Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 13. 101 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 19, 22, 24; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 30–4, pp. 46–54; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 14. 102 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 30, p. 49. 103 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 19, 21. 104 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 16. 105 Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 14. 106 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 16. 107 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, II, V, B, p. 198. It has been hypothesized that the name was Costancia. Agazzi, ‘Sarcofagi altomedievali,’ p. 566. 108 Agazzi, ‘Sarcofagi altomedievali,’ p. 574, number 30: ‘† IN ISTO TV//MOLO RE/ QUIESCIT//COSTANCIA/DEI ANCILLA//RELECTA/QUONDAM DOMINI// CO BNMTRET.’ The text is slightly different in Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 30: ‘INISTOTU MOLORE/QUIESCIT CONSTANTIA/D(omin) IANCILLA BELECTAM/qd DOMINI DOBNMTRET.’ 109 I have examined the period 800–829, because on the latter year the will of Duke Justinian was drawn. Several individuals are mentioned in this document and some of them had probably lived at the end of the eighth century. For the way, the word ‘cata’ has been considered, see Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, pp. 23–4. 110 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. 111 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 33. 112 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37; Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1. 113 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 114 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 45, p. 77. 115 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 116 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 24. 117 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24, 26, 27, 29; Annales regni Francorum, pp. 120–1.

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 121 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 24. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Translatio Marci, chapters 9-10, pp. 53–4. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 24. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 10. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 47, p. 82. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 24. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 21. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, p. 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24, 26. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Einhard, Translatio et miracula Sanctorum Marcellini et Petri, pp. 258, 260, chapters 8, 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 24. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 40. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 35. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 35. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, numbers 1, 2; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 31, 33, 35, 37–9; Translatio Marci, chapters 8, 16. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 45, p. 76. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24–7, 29, 41; Annales regni Francorum, pp. 120–1. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 46, p. 80. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. Translatio Marci, chapter 9. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 23. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 24. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 26. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 11. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 21, 24–6.

122 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 167 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 26; Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, pp. 9, 10. 168 Ss. Trinità e S. Michele Arcangelo di Brondolo, II, number 1, p. 13. 169 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 23. 170 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, pp. 19, 24. 171 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, pp. 21–3. 172 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24–5, 28, 33–4; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, pp. 37–41, 43, 45, 47; Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, pp. 8–10; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, pp. 14–15; Annales regni Francorum, pp. 155–6, 165; Annales Mettenses Priores, pp. 89–90; Liber de Sancti Hildulfi, p. 88, chapter 3; Concilia, II, pars II, p. 478. 173 Annales regni Francorum, annum 826, p. 170; Einhard, Translatio et miracula Sanctorum Marcellini et Petri, pp. 258, 260, chapters 8, 11. 174 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 24–5, 28. 175 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 33; Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, p. 8 176 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 46, p. 80. 177 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, pp. 21, 23, 24. 178 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 45, p. 78. 179 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 40, p. 67. 180 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 1, pp. 10–11. 181 Annales regni Francorum, annum 821, p. 155. 182 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 48, p. 82. 183 SS. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 24; S. Lorenzo (853–1199), number 1, pp. 7–11. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 44, 56. 184 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, number 45, p. 78. 185 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 36, 54; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 15; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 49–51 186 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 187 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 19. 188 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. The correct name is probably Iubiana. 189 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, no. 45, p. 75. The passage is not clear and it is possible that the copyist made a mistake. 190 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 33; Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 19. 191 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, pp. 20–1. 192 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 21. 193 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, pp. 20–1. 194 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 195 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 196 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 197 Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, number 2, p. 20. 198 Dorigo, ‘Bolle plumbee bizantine,’ p. 226. 199 B. Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ Revue Numismatique 157 (1997), pp. 413–14. 200 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ p. 414. 201 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 15, pp. 25–6. It has been hypothesized that this document has been forged. Conte, Chiesa e primato, p. 441, number 129. 202 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ pp. 415–16.

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 123 203 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ p. 420. 204 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 15, p. 25. 205 Maurentius is mentioned in a seal which is unpublished. G. Ravegnani, Bisanzio e Venezia (Bologna, 2006), p. 31. Giorgio Ravegnani has told me that the late Ennio Concina showed it to him. 206 Pertusi, ‘L’iscrizione torcellana,’ p. 18. 207 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ pp. 416–17. 208 Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise,’ p. 415. 209 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 14, p. 25. 210 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 15, pp. 25–6. 211 Dorigo, ‘Bolle plumbee bizantine nella Venezia esarcale,’ p. 231. 212 Asolati, ‘Nuove attestazioni di età bizantina dalla laguna di Venezia (VI–XII secc.),’ p. 336. 213 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, II/1. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, pp. 154–5; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 15, pp. 25–6; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 51 214 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, II/1. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, p. 155. 215 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 30, pp. 85–6; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 24 216 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 29; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 10. 217 Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 37. 218 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 33; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 24, 27; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 10. 219 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 13, 15, pp. 24, 25; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 10. 220 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 38, 51. 221 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 20, 22; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 9. 222 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 38. Pertusi, ‘L’iscrizione torcellana dei tempi di Eraclio,’ p. 18. 223 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, I. Concilium Lateranense, pp. 2–3, 26–9, 31, 50–1, 94–5, 111, 177, 234–45, 247, 344–53, 390–1; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 43; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 11. 224 It is not certain that Paul was a Venetian. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, II/1. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, pp. 154–5. 225 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 13, 15, pp. 24, 25; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 29, 38; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, pp. 10–11. 226 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 46; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 11. 227 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, II/1. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, p. 155. 228 F. Sartori, ‘Antoninus tribunus in una epigrafe inedita di Iesolo (Venezia),’ in Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua: Miscellanea G. Novak dicata (Zagreb, 1970), p. 593. 229 Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 205, number 4. 230 Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 224, number 4.

124 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 241, number 29. Sartori, ‘Antoninus tribunus in una epigrafe inedita,’ p. 593. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, III, 26. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII, number 36. It is not certain that Bonellus resided in Venice. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 242, number 31. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 243, number 33. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 223, number 2. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 250, number 46. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 244, number 34. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 111, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 203, number 1. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 247, number 39. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 109, number 6. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, pp. 233–4, number 14. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 224, number 4. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 206, number 5. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 236, number 18. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 247, number 40. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 224, number 5. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 242, number 30. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 240, number 28. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 230, number 10, p. 230, and photo number 167. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 239, number 25. Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol (Paris, 1925), VI, 2, column 1450. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 209, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 204, number 3. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 106, number 1. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 111, number 8. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 246, number 38. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 250, number 47. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, pp. 209–10, number 10. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 244, number 34. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 228, number 8. Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne, VI, 2, col. 1450. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 229, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 249, number 43. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 229, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 229, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 206, number 6. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 237, number 20. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 236, number 19. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 253, number 54. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 110, number 7. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 252, number 51. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 234, number 15. Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie, VI, 2, col. 1450. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 224, number 5. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 238, number 23. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 107, number 3. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 224, number 5.

Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 125 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311

312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327

Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 223, number 3. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, pp. 249–50, number 45. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 252, number 52. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 248, number 41. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 209, number 9. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 204, number 2. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 254, number 55. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 207, number 8. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 216. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, pp. 238–9, number 24. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 209, number 10. B. Forlati Tamaro, ‘Un cimelio di Lison di Portogruaro,’ Aquileia nostra 48 (1978), column 163. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 254, number 56. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 238, number 22. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 207, number 8. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 240, number 26. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 233, number 12. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 205, number 4. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 237, number 21. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 251, number 49. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 241, number 29. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 108, number 4. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 235, number 17. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 237, number 21. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, III, 26. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 11; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 253, number 53. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, number 11, p. 231; Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, numbers 5, 8, pp. 7–13, 15–16; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, pp. 5–9; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 4, 11, 14, 17; Gregory the Great, Registrum epistularum, pp. 442–67; Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, III, 20, 26. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 225, number 6. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 249, number 44. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 11. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 10, 25. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 25, III, 14. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia, I, number 5, p. 13. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 209, number 11. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, number 3, p. 204. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie, p. 242, number 30.

126 Remaining Roman on the Frontier? 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349

Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet, Caillet,

L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme L’évergétisme

monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental monumental

chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien chrétien

en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en

Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie, Italie,

p. 207, number 8. p. 224, number 4. p. 233, number 12. p. 253, number 53. p. 234, number 15. p. 251, number 49. p. 238, number 23. p. 206, number 6. p. 252, number 50. p. 224, number 5. pp. 234–5, number 16. p. 229, number 9. p. 224, number 4. p. 242, number 31. p. 240, number 26. p. 229, number 9. p. 243, number 33. p. 240, number 28. p. 236, number 19. p. 207, number 8. p. 251, number 49. p. 252, number 50.

8

‘As an angel revealed to her’ Miracles, visions, predictions, and supernatural phenomena and the politics of memory in early medieval Venice

Miracles, visions, and predictions were a common characteristic of medieval Christian life and culture. Through them the Christian faithful were reminded of God’s power. Furthermore, the saints had the special role of making manifest divine intervention in the world. During the last forty years, scholars have overcome their positivistic attitude toward these phenomena, an attitude that considered them as an expression of superstition and therefore not worthy of examination. Medievalists have consequently begun to acknowledge the relevance of these phenomena for understanding the Middle Ages and to analyze them from several points of view. Besides being used for studying religious practices and popular religion, for example, miracle stories have been used to examine the kinds of behavioral models those accounts present, as well as communities’ identity, social cohesion, relationships between religious institutions and lay communities, and strategies for promoting a political power.1 The absence of local martyrs and saints and the scant hagiographical production2 in Venice during the early Middle Ages might give the impression that these phenomena had little relevance for persons living in that area and that Venetian society was therefore different from the rest of Italy. This chapter aims to challenge this perception,3 emphasizing both the unique aspects of the Venetian texts4 and their similarities with early medieval sources from the rest of Italy.5 In particular, this chapter will focus on the different ways in which Venetian authors employed supernatural phenomena and direct divine interventions in order to shape the past so that it could be utilized for their present.6 The ideas and mentalities expressed in these Venetian works were principally those of the writers and we do not know the reaction of the readers. However, considering their propagandistic nature, the texts, in all likelihood, reflected the values and the attitudes of their audiences as well.7 As already emphasized, the Istoria Veneticorum, attributed to John the Deacon, chaplain and ambassador of Duke Peter II Orseolo (991–1008), is the main early medieval Venetian narrative source. Before examining this text, it is worth noting that John the Deacon presented his lord’s rule as a golden period for Venetian history. After several years of internal clashes between Venetian factions in 970s and 980s, harmony was, in fact, restored

128 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ in Venice. Moreover, the Venetian Duchy emerged as the most important power on the Adriatic area at the beginning of the eleventh century.8 Medieval chroniclers often interpreted extraordinary events, such as eclipses, appearances of comets, blood falling from the sky and unexpected changes in climate, as the result of divine punishment and the forewarning of evils.9 John the Deacon is no exception. In his chronicle, a solar eclipse10 was followed by the arrival in Venice of a Byzantine ambassador who obtained from Duke Peter (836–864) a fleet to fight the Muslims in southern Italy (ca. 841). Soon thereafter the Venetians suffered a devastating defeat (probably the worst ever against the Saracens), and John the Deacon specifies that the Muslims killed or captured almost all of his fellow countrymen. Then, in the month of May, at the sixth hour of the day, the sun darkened, and an eclipse occurred. In this period Patrician Theodosius came to Venice from Constantinople . . . He remained in Venice for an entire year and insistently asked the duke on behalf of the emperor not to refuse to give him an army in order to defeat the Saracens, which the duke with pleasure did not refuse to do. He then had sixty war-ships prepared quickly and sent them to Taranto where the Prince of the Saracens, Saba, stayed with a very large army. But almost all the Venetians were captured and killed by a multitude of Saracens.11 This episode was indeed the beginning of a tough period for the Venetians, marked by numerous defeats. According to John the Deacon, the Muslims, encouraged by their success, raided along the Adriatic as far as the borders of the Duchy of Venice and, as they returned to their base, captured Venetian ships coming from Sicily and other places.12 The Muslims struck the Adriatic again the following year, inflicting another harsh defeat on the Venetian fleet.13 Finally, the Slavs attacked the Venetian Duchy (this was the only time the Slavs were able to raid Venice during the early Middle Ages)14 and pillaged Caorle, one of the main locations of Venice.15 The Venetian chronicler does not connect these defeats to the eclipse, but it is significant that such an ominous sign appears directly before the account of one of the most difficult periods in early medieval Venetian history. The same logic seems to be present in the account of blood falling from the sky and also in the description of a torch-shaped star, which preceded the deaths of the Bishop of Olivolo, John (d. 870s),16 and the Patriarch of Grado, Victor (d. 890s), respectively.17 While mentioning the appearance of a comet at the beginning of the eleventh century, John the Deacon clearly points out that similar phenomena always usher in adversity for humankind.18 A terrible pestilence came in the wake of the star that claimed numerous victims, among whom were John―the firstborn child and co-regent of Duke Peter II Orseolo―as well as his wife, Mary.19

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 129 So, at that time, a comet, which is always a sign foretelling disaster for men, appeared in the southern sky. It was followed by a great plague in all regions of Italy and Venice. A great number of persons of both sexes suddenly died, among whom, within sixteen days, were both her ladyship the duchess, Mary the Greek, and her dear husband, John.20 The author mentions that this was God’s will, yet it was not a punishment. The chronicler explains that the Lord thus meant to put the moral strength of Peter II Orseolo to the test; however, he also adds that the Venetians proved their affection for the duke by naming another of his sons, Otto, who was only fourteen years old, as co-regent.21 The ominous sign and the mournful event therefore provided the author with an opportunity to glorify his lord and to emphasize Venice’s internal harmony. On the other hand, John the Deacon attributes a positive connotation to another celestial phenomenon that took place within his own lifetime. After describing the manner in which a Venetian fleet under the command of Peter II Orseolo liberated Bari from a Muslim siege, the Venetian chronicler comments on an omen that appeared to a Muslim in a monastery not far from Bari.22 The Saracen saw a star rapidly cross the sky from the west and fall into the port of the besieged city on the day in which the assumption of the Virgin Mary is celebrated. The event was reported to the abbot of the monastery, who interpreted it as a hint that Mary, also known as the ‘Star of the sea,’ would soon aid the Baresi. John the Deacon explains that this foretelling was fulfilled with the coming of the Venetian duke, who arrived in Bari from the west on the day of the Virgin Mary’s birth and to whom the mother of Christ gave victory over the Muslims. I do not think the miracle should be omitted, whereby God’s will was shown to a Saracen on the day that the Christians celebrated the Assumption of the Mother of God. While he was in a very strong tower in the monastery of St. Benedict, not far from the city, he saw a bright star quickly cross the sky from the west, falling in the port of that same city. When this was reported to Jerome, the spiritual father of the aforesaid monastery, he knew immediately that the help of Saint Mary, who is considered the star of the sea, would come to help the citizens. And thus, without a doubt, the Virgin Mother brought about the arrival of the duke of the Venetians, Peter, who had come from the west on the Feast of her Nativity, and she granted him triumph over the enemy.23 These occurrences—a sign appearing in the sky on one of the most important Christian holy days announcing the arrival of the rescuers, the fact that these rescuers came on another day significant to Christianity, and the triumph obtained thanks to the Virgin Mary over a non-Christian adversary24—underlined the providential role of the Venetian expedition

130 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ led by Peter II Orseolo and conferred upon that undertaking some of the elements that characterized holy war.25 This was the only clash between the Venetians and the Muslims after the ninth century, therefore making it impossible to determine with certainty whether John the Deacon always perceived confrontations with the Saracens as a holy war. Nevertheless it is worth noting that he reported such occurrences only with regard to these adversaries of the Venetians.26 Moreover, it is also possible that the chronicler may have been influenced by the fact that during his lifetime Christians in the Mediterranean region started to recover territory that had been lost to the Muslims in preceding centuries and that such military dynamism was beginning to be interpreted by European authors as a struggle against the enemies of God.27 Whatever the case may be, it is important to note that no early medieval Italian chronicler described wartime events with the kind of details that John the Deacon reports.28 Given the close relationship between Venice and the Byzantine empire, the Venetian chronicler could have been influenced by the fact that among the Byzantines it was not unusual to invoke Mary’s help in battle and that some Byzantine texts report that the mother of God protected cities and holy shrines against enemies’ attacks,29 yet, as far as I know, these works do not report accounts of the Virgin Mary’s omens as does John the Deacon. The most original part of the Istoria Veneticorum concerning the chronicler’s lord is contained in the section in which Felicia, the wife of Peter Orseolo, learns from an angel that she is pregnant with Peter II Orseolo. His wife Felicia was happy both by her name and by her merits, and the mother of one son, who was the namesake of his father and no different from him in his deeds. After his conception, of which it is said that his holy mother learned through an angelic revelation, she, obeying her husband, in turn vowed to God to keep the marital bed inviolate from that moment on.30 Here the author employs a classic hagiographical topos based on the Archangel Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary.31 What is unique about this case is that the prediction did not involve an ecclesiastic, but instead a lay ruler to whom a miracle had never, neither in life nor in death, been attributed. The text of John the Deacon is, to my knowledge, the only early medieval Italian source to report information of this type.32 The chronicler accomplishes two goals by relating this event to the reader. First, he underscores the predestined role of Peter II Orseolo, who was described in the Istoria Veneticorum as the best duke ever to rule the Venetians, and whose reign was depicted as the brightest in Venetian history. Second, he provides another nuance to the aura of sanctity surrounding Peter Orseolo and thus puts to rest all suspicions concerning the events which had brought him to the ducal office. Peter Orseolo assumed the rule of Venice after

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 131 Duke Peter IV Candiano had been killed during a dramatic revolt of the Venetians (976) which destroyed the majority of the ducal capital, Rivoalto.33 As is explicitly reported in a non-Venetian source, Peter Orseolo had an important role in the uprising.34 The chronicler makes no mention of this and emphasizes that the Venetians elected the new duke unanimously. In fact, John the Deacon relates that Peter considered refusing the offer at first, fearing that his election would not fulfill his desire to please God—a desire that he had carried with him since childhood.35 John the Deacon stresses that, in the end, Peter accepted the position not for his own benefit, but for the general good.36 Peter Orseolo is also the only duke about whom the chronicler explains that God foiled the conspiracies against him.37 These accounts about the two Orseolos probably did not simply aim to celebrate the past, but also hinted at the fact that the members of that family had the right to continue ruling Venice. It is worth remembering that at this time, there were no specific rules for the ducal succession,38 and that Otto, the son of Peter II Orseolo, became duke in 1008/1009 at the age of ca. sixteen, and did not distinguish himself for any remarkable deed.39 Indeed, the fact that Otto Orseolo was briefly overthrown in 102440 and again in 1026 suggests the existence of a strong opposition against him. In view of these events, it was probably necessary for John the Deacon to emphasize the right of the Orseolo family to rule Venice in every possible way (including the special divine favor that Peter Orseolo and Peter II Orseolo had enjoyed).41 One feature that John the Deacon shares with other early medieval authors is the acknowledgement that God made a victory possible.42 The majority of Venetian military achievements are described in this way,43 such as the victories of the Venetians over Charlemagne’s son Pippin in 810,44 that of Duke Ursus II (864–881) over the Slavs,45 the victory of Duke Peter Tribuno (887–911) against the Hungarians,46 and Duke Peter II Orseolo’s success in Dalmatia.47 It is noteworthy, however, that God is mentioned only on the occasion of a victory. Indeed the figure of a God who punishes a community that has sinned with defeat is absent in the work of John the Deacon. This point is particularly relevant because, in the construction of Venetian memory, John the Deacon implies, even if indirectly, that in the course of all its history the Venetian people had never been tarnished by any serious sin.48 The special relationship between Venice and God becomes clearer in an account concerning the German Emperor Otto II. According to the Venetian chronicler, a monk relying on information provided to him by an angel foretold that Otto II (d. 983) would die because the sovereign had caused the Venetians distress. In order to outline the point more emphatically, John the Deacon adds that Venice was saved from this dangerous adversary thanks to God. Meanwhile, the emperor persevered in his siege of the Venetians with such harshness and hardness that they could not placate him either

132 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ with pleas or any kind of gift. And he again ordered, moreover, that none of his subjects dare allow any Venetian to come to any part of his empire. Once he established this, he decided to go to Rome, where he did not long remain unscathed; struck by a strong fever, he died and was buried in the atrium of St. Peter’s, not far from the church of St. Mary. There is no doubt that, as a monk blessed with the prophetic spirit had revealed to him on the instructions of an angel, he ran into sudden death because he had persecuted the Venetians. Venice, afflicted by such calamity for two years, was indeed freed by divine intervention.49 Otto II had attempted to take advantage of Venice’s time of grave crisis during the reign of Duke Tribunus Menio (979–91), a ruler of little authority who had been weakened by power struggles between some Venetian families (one of whom, the Coloprini, had tried to seize the ducal office). In ca. 982/983 the emperor imposed an economic embargo on Venice, after having made an alliance with several members of the Coloprini who had moved to the mainland.50 It was therefore an extremely difficult period for Venice, and John the Deacon, who probably witnessed these events, underscores in this manner the divine protection his homeland enjoyed. Although not explicitly stated, the message imbedded in his writings is that troubles will come to those who dare to attack us, because God is with us and will punish them.51 It is particularly interesting that, in this case, an entire state enjoys such a unique privilege, whereas in early medieval Italian narrative texts it is ordinarily mentioned only in connection with religious buildings and monastic communities.52 Worth noting is that Sirus, the author of the Life of Saint Maiolus (954–994), who was the Abbot of Cluny, records a similar event.53 During a quarrel, reports the biographer, Maiolus foretold Otto II’s death. Yet, there is no mention of Venice in this text.54 John the Deacon probably heard of this prediction during his missions as ambassador to Otto III, Otto II’s son. Since the story did not originate in Venice, the Venetian chronicler could not be accused of partisanship. Indeed, John the Deacon only interprets the prediction, inferring that the reason for the German sovereign’s death could be attributed to his behavior toward the Venetian duchy. John the Deacon notes that God punished some Venetians as well, yet these sinners were merely individuals who committed a particularly serious crime. According to the Venetian chronicler, God did not permit the assassination of Duke Peter (836–864) by several Venetians to remain unpunished for long: ‘Divine clemency however did not want to leave this evil deed unavenged for a long time.’55 Some of the conspirators were killed, while others were exiled and never allowed to return to their native land; one of the murderers, who remained in Venice, died as a consequence of being ‘tormented by a demon.’56 This is not the only occasion that we hear of a divine punishment being inflicted on those who had plotted against a duke, but it is, in my opinion, unique,

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 133 due to the location in which the murder took place: Duke Peter was killed while exiting the monastery of Saint Zachary, after having participated in Mass on that saint’s feast day. The assassination therefore occurred in a sacred location and during a religious festivity.57 The chronicler probably added that comment about the Lord because that deed was against both religion and the Venetian dukes, which John the Deacon, as an ecclesiastic and a member of the ducal chancery, considered the two most important things. The same logic appears when the chronicler mentions the devil. The latter inspired some members of the Mastallici family to capture Duke John II (829–36) in front of Saint Peter’s church on Peter’s feast day, and to force him to become a cleric. Thereafter, some Venetians of the Mastallici family, being deceived by diabolical suggestion, seized John, who was coming from the church of St. Peter in the festivity of this saint. They cut his hair and beard, and had him consecrated as a cleric in the city of Grado.58 Significantly, right before this episode, John the Deacon did not express any opinion when the same duke was driven out of Venice by Tribune Carosus; he merely stated that Carosus had usurped the ducal office.59 This difference is not coincidental. John the Deacon probably considered the conspiracy of the Mastallici to be a work of the devil because it had taken place in a sacred location and on a holy day. This distinction allows us to deepen our understanding of John the Deacon’s mentality; for him, the devil was able to be both an inspirer of particularly wicked acts, and an instrument of divine vendetta as well.60 The special protection the Venetians enjoyed is also emphasized in the Inventio (finding) of Saint Hermachoras and Saint Fortunatus, where the presence of miracles and divine intervention have a greater significance than simply glorifying those saints. This text was probably composed shortly after another chapter in the centuries-long struggle between Grado and Aquileia: the violent occupation of Grado in 1023–1024 by the troops of Poppo, the Patriarch of Aquileia.61 The anonymous author describes the Venetian reconquest of Grado and the retrieval of the bodies of the two saints. According to his account, God stripped the enemies of their strength, thus allowing the Venetians to retake possession of the city; moreover, he also stresses that Poppo’s troops were initially successful only because the Lord was ‘sleeping.’ All the [Venetian] army loudly invoked the Trinity of God three times. Protected by the three invocations, the army began the war and became animated. Even though the Lord was sleeping, almost like a powerful man inebriated by wine, he immediately weakened the enemies through fear.62 The joy brought about by the victory was considerably heightened for the Venetians when they learned that Saint Hermachoras’s relics, which, they

134 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ feared, had been carried off by the patriarch of Aquileia, had in fact been hidden away some years before, and were still in Grado.63 Of course this saint was not as important as Saint Mark. Yet, he had been a disciple of the Evangelist and was considered to be the first bishop of Aquileia.64 The relics of Saint Hermachoras, moreover, had been brought to Grado some centuries before.65 This was a particularly significant event because it constituted one of the arguments on which Grado based its right to be considered a patriarchal see. It was, therefore, necessary to stress that the discovered remains really were those of this saint. According to the hagiographer, the crate, in which the relics of Hermachoras and Fortunatus were preserved, bore an inscription certifying that these were the remains of the saints,66 but the author also resorts to supernatural elements. The relics of Hermachoras and Fortunatus became first very heavy and then very light during their transport.67 The saints’ remains were supposed to have been deposited in a crypt, but a bishop and Saint Hermachoras appeared in a dream to the patriarch of Grado, as well as to a monk and an inhabitant of Grado, asking them to place and display the saints’ remains in an appropriate venue.68 The people of Grado complied and, while the transfer was occurring, a sweet fragrance spread throughout the entire church and into the surrounding religious buildings, thus proving that the remains were indeed those of Saint Hermachoras and Saint Fortunatus.69 These are topoi that are often employed in this kind of text. What is more original, on the other hand, is the last part of the Inventio. The wound to the Venetians’ pride, stemming from the patriarch of Aquileia’s incursion, required still more healing. According to the author, one night, while Poppo and his army were again trying to take possession of Grado, a light left the city and positioned itself on the spear of one of the besiegers. Immediately after a sentinel had tried to grab hold of the light, the phenomenon repeated itself, but this time the light returned to Grado. Making reference to a biblical psalm praising the Lord for giving victory to the Jews,70 the writer explains that this episode showed that the God saved the city. After seeing the omen, because he now realized that the Lord was protecting Grado, Poppo lifted the siege. At night time, while the bishop of Aquileia [Poppo] was besieging the walls [of Grado] he had abandoned, a light flew from the city and stood on a spear fixed in the ground. As the hand of a sentinel attempted to catch it, another light placed itself on the spear, then, by returning to the city, it indicated that the illumination of God would save the city. In the writings of the ancient fathers David glorifies it thus: ‘Their arm did not save them, but, oh God, your right hand and the illumination of your face did that.’ The besieger [Poppo] understood that the city was defended by the protection of the saints: he then left exhausted and in dejection after thirty days of siege.71 In this way, the anonymous hagiographer clearly expresses the divine favor Venice enjoyed just as John the Deacon pointed out in the case of Otto II.

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 135 The Venetians could be defeated initially, but would emerge victorious in the end. The reference to the biblical text, implicitly comparing the Venetians to the Jews, the chosen people par excellence, further emphasizes such an idea.72 In the Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias (Transfer of Mark the Evangelist to the Venices), which recounts the transfer of Saint Mark’s remains from the Egyptian city of Alexandria to Venice by some Venetian merchants in ca. 827,73 the author gives a perfunctory account of the miracles that subsequently occurred at the Evangelist’s tomb in Venice. He reports only that Christ performed many miracles at the grave for those who had faith and that possessed people were healed.74 This brevity is quite anomalous for this kind of text.75 On the other hand, at the beginning of the work, the author stresses that the body of Saint Mark had been brought to Venice through divine will.76 The inclusion of this information was probably meant to remove any doubts about an undertaking that had the appearance more of a theft than of a transfer. This providential explanation also appears later in the text during the description of the Venetian ships’ arrival at Alexandria: ‘by divine will, it happened that, as a favorable wind was blowing. . .the Venetians were led to Alexandria.’77 In this way, they were also able to justify their presence in a Muslim-ruled city78 in which they had been prohibited from practicing commerce.79 Considering the great importance of the saint, as well as the fact that his relics had remained in a distant land for several centuries, the majority of the miracles mentioned in the work above all attest to the fact that the purloined body really was that of the Evangelist. Employing a classic topos of hagiographical texts, the author narrates that soon after the removal of the saint’s relics from the sepulcher in which they were kept, a wonderful perfume filled the air: ‘then. . .a so intense perfume spread out that it did not only fill the church and its surroundings, but also the whole city of Alexandria.’80 Several miracles occurred during the return trip to Venice. Two of them have characteristics that must have been especially appreciated by a population of sailors such as the Venetians. First, it is reported that those who were transporting the saint’s body revealed to the crew of another ship what they had on board. One of the sailors from that vessel did not believe them and mocked them by saying that they had probably been given the remains of an ordinary Egyptian. Then, the ship containing the relics of Saint Mark suddenly changed course with a movement so fast that no sailor could have ever executed it. The ship then struck the other vessel, carrying the unbeliever, and did not leave until every member of the crew acknowledged that the remains of the Evangelist were present. The ship, in which the blessed body was, changed direction with such a speed that no man could have done it. The ship then rose up against the ship, in which that man was, and hit it on its side. Nor did it go away until everybody acknowledged that the blessed Mark was there.81

136 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ Second, the author narrates that one night, while a storm was approaching, the saint appeared in a dream to a monk who was on board and told him to order the sailors to draw in the sails right away, or otherwise they would run aground on the nearby coast.82 After their arrival in Venice, the Venetians transported the relics inside the ducal palace and the body suddenly began to change weight from very heavy to very light,83 a sign that the saint wished that his remains be placed on that location. The uncertainty about the author’s identity and the date of composition do not permit the formulation of a solid hypothesis, but the features of the account seem to indicate that the main concern of the author was to underscore that the relics really were those of Saint Mark and that the Venetians had the right to relocate them to Venice. Once this was made clear, the number of miracles performed at the Evangelist’s tomb, and their typology, was not so relevant for the writer and this was probably also the case for his audience. The possession of remains as prestigious as those of Saint Mark would have allowed for the creation of a Venetian Church independent from external influences. It is no accident that the Evangelist’s relics were brought to Venice the year after the council held at Mantua (827), in the kingdom of Italy, where the jurisdictional rights of the patriarch of Aquileia over the dioceses of the Venetian lagoon were acknowledged (the Venetians, however, did not agree with this decision). If it had been put into effect, this measure could have threatened the independence of the Venetian duchy.84 Another relevant text for this investigation is the most complex of all the medieval Venetian narrative sources. It has no title, but it is currently known as Origo Civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (The Origin of the Cities of Italy and of the Venices) and it is composed of two different parts, the Chronicon Altinate (The Chronicle of Altino) and the Chronicon Gradense (The Chronicle of Grado).85 Roberto Cessi, its most recent editor, believes it to be a single text that was the subject of three different redactions between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries.86 In this chapter, I will examine the first redaction and, more specifically, the sections that describe the events concerning the people who fled from the city of Altino to the islands of the neighboring lagoon following the destruction of their city by unspecified pagans. Tribune Aurius, who had been granted the right to rule over some of the islands of the neighboring lagoon, is one of the main figures of this account. Having arrived on the most important of the islands, he met a fellow citizen, a priest named Maurus. The churchman told the tribune that God had led him to discover a hermitage in which Saint Hermes and Saint Herasmus had ordered him to build a church in honor of God and had promised him a reward in return.87 The continuation of Maurus’s account is much more interesting and original. The priest explains that he moved from island to island following a cloud of the most brilliant white, from which emanated two extremely luminous rays.88 Coming closer to it,

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 137 Maurus heard a voice telling him: ‘I am the Lord God, Savior and Master of the entire world. Take the land, where you are standing, so that you can build a basilica in my name in the place that I will show you.’89 The same phenomenon occurred on other islands as well, and the priest was ordered to build a church by, and in honor of, the following figures: the Mother of God,90 Saint Peter,91 Saint Antoninus,92 Saint Justina,93 and Saint John the Baptist.94 The latter ordered Maurus to pray and remain alert for the entire day and following night, and gave him a ring and a document. At the end of the dream, the priest woke up on the roof of the church of Saint Mary and found in his hands a ring and a manuscript. Maurus showed these objects to Aurius and other nobles, who then believed the priest’s account. He [John the Baptist] ordered him to pray and to do a night watch on that day and night and also invested him [with the episcopal office] through a ring and a document. After all these things had been accomplished, he found himself on the church of Saint Mary . . . and discovered a ring and a manuscript in his hands.95 Afterwards, the tribune went, together with Maurus, to all the places where the latter had heard the voices from the cloud, ordered a church to be built in each of these locations according to the instructions received by the priest, and decided to name some of the islands.96 A great quantity of gold was found at the location on which the church honoring Saint Hermes and Saint Herasmus was built, thus the reward promised by the two saints was fulfilled.97 The anonymous author continues the account by pointing out that Aurius and the other noblemen of that area decided that all of the abovementioned islands should be placed under the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Torcello. They also established numerous farmers on that area on the condition that no one would be allowed to have vineyards or farm a plot of land without the bishop’s permission. The above-mentioned Aurius along with the other leaders of that bishopric put all the islands, that we mentioned above, under their rule and under the jurisdiction of that episcopate. They also established many peasants and settlers on those islands on the condition that nobody would be allowed either to have vineyards or to cultivate other produce on those islands without the bishop’s permission.98 The amount of tribute they should pay to the prelate was established as well and it was stressed that all of the fishponds and wetlands were subject to that bishopric.99 The account then ends with the clarification that the incomes of all these properties were to be drawn by Maurus as long as he was bishop: ‘they granted to priest Maurus all the incomes of the abovementioned properties as long as he held the office of bishop.’100

138 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ Uncertainty regarding the author, date of composition and the small number of early medieval Venetian documents hampers the formulation of a solid hypothesis explaining the reasons that led to the compilation of this text. The last part of the account nevertheless proves that its aim was to claim the rights of Torcello’s bishopric on the above-mentioned islands. The manner in which this claim is carried out is remarkable. The main figure of the account is in fact Maurus—traditionally believed to be the first bishop of Torcello101—who would have fled from Altino to the uninhabited islands of the Venetian Lagoon and therefore to an area over which no one would previously have had any rights. The author does not limit himself to establishing Maurus’s rights, however, but, utilizing an evocative account strongly characterized by supernatural elements, further stresses the jurisdiction of the Church of Torcello over those places. Maurus, who would become the first bishop of this Church, had in fact constructed churches on those islands following a direct request from God and His most eminent saints. The document that ratified the Church of Torcello’s rights in that area and the ring that probably signified the investiture of Maurus as bishop were also of divine origins.102 Unfortunately, the size of the Venetian dioceses in the early Middle Ages cannot be determined. Yet, it is revealing that some of the places mentioned in the text are situated far to the south of Torcello, in an area quite close to Olivolo and Metamauco (modern day Castello and Malamocco, respectively), whose bishoprics were created after Torcello’s. This work could have therefore been created as a result of a dispute over that area.103 In conclusion, it is possible to state that, despite the absence of saints’ biographies, the supernatural dimension held a relevant role in early medieval Venice and therefore that the Venetian duchy, at least in this aspect, cannot be considered ‘another world’104 with respect to the rest of Italy. On the other hand, the emphasis on the protection God granted to Venice against her enemies, is original. According to the Istoria Veneticorum, one of the Venetians’ adversaries was even punished with death for daring to threaten the duchy. In the early medieval texts of the rest of Italy this privilege is never mentioned for an entire state, but only in connection with religious buildings and monastic communities. Also noteworthy is the point that John the Deacon never states that the Lord punished the Venetian rulers for committing serious sins. In a period in which Venice emerged as one of the major powers in the Adriatic region, these details indicate the existence among many Venetians of a particular pride toward their homeland and of strong feelings of self-confidence. The fact that early medieval Venetian authors employed the supernatural sphere to support some relevant worldly matters more forcefully is also original. In order to highlight the providential role of Peter II Orseolo, the author of the Istoria Veneticorum employed a narrative strategy that was ordinarily used only for ecclesiastics. The emphasis on the divine favor that the Orseolos enjoyed was probably meant to support the right of Otto

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 139 Orseolo to rule. In the account concerning the rights of the Church of Torcello over its properties, the writer similarly points out that those rights had divine origins, thus implying that nobody could challenge them. In the Translatio Marci the author gives more relevance to the miracles that occurred during the transfer of Mark’s relics to Venice than to the miraculous healings that those remains brought about after their arrival in the duchy. This indicates that the author’s main concern was not the benefits that individual Venetians could enjoy thanks the presence of those relics, but rather to stress that their removal was an event that God had supported. From a Venetian perspective, having the Evangelist’s remains under the Venetian duke’s control was a way to put an end to any external claims over Venice.

Notes 1 For some examples of studies and relevant bibliography, see P.-A. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe-XIIe siècle) (Paris, 1985); B. Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000–1215 (Philadelphia, 1987); and S. Yarrow, Saints and their Communities: Miracle Stories in Twelfth Century England (Oxford, 2006). For the Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, see S. Boesch-Gajano, ‘Uso e abuso del miracolo nella cultura altomedievale,’ in Les fonctions des saints dans le monde occidental (IIIe – XIIIe siécle) (Rome, 1991), pp. 109–22; R. Van Dam, Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton, 1993); W. D. McCready, Miracles and the Venerable Bede (Toronto, 1994); A. Dierkens, ‘Réflexions sur le miracle au haut Moyen Age,’ in Miracles, prodiges et merveilles au Moyen Age. XXVe Congrès de la Societé des Historiens Médiévistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur Public (Paris, 1995), pp. 9–30; P. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln, NE, 1994); and G. De Nie, Poetics of Wonder: Testimonies of the New Christian Miracles in the Late Antique Latin World (Turnhout, 2011). 2 In reality, it seems that a Passio (account of a martyrdom) was written in Venice as well. It is the Passio of Fosca and Maura whose date of composition is indeterminable and of which there is only an incomplete edition; cf. A. Gattucci, Codici agiografici riminesi. Studi, testi, documenti (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 255–7, and P. Tomea, ‘L’agiografia dell’Italia Settentrionale, 950–1130,’ in Hagiographies: histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en occident des origines à 1550, ed. G. Philippart, vol. 3 (Turnhout, 2001), p. 125, note 58. I will not examine the Venetians who became saints outside Venice. On the most famous of them, Duke Peter Orseolo, see Ortalli, Petrus I. Orseolo und seine Zeit. In general on the cult of the saints in early medieval Venice, see S. Tramontin, ‘Problemi agiografici e profili di santi,’ in La Chiesa di Venezia nei secoli XI–XIII, ed. F. Tonon (Venice, 1988), pp. 153–60, and S. Tramontin, ‘Culto e liturgia,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 893–905. 3 I also want to challenge the claim of Fasoli, ‘I fondamenti della storiografia veneziana,’ p. 16, who argues that John the Deacon’s chronicle expresses a secular conception of history and does not leave room for supernatural interventions. 4 Two chronicles and two hagiographical texts are available for this type of analysis. For further information about them, see below. 5 In this chapter I will examine the Venetian sources up to the end of eleventh century, i.e. the period scholars describe as the early Middle Ages. Another reason for focusing only on this period is that Venetian narrative sources

140 ‘As an angel revealed to her’

6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16

17

seem to shift after the end of the eleventh century. For this reason, I will not analyze the Translatio sancti Nicolai, composed at the beginning of the twelfth century. The finding of Saint Mark’s relics in 1094 will not be taken into consideration either, as the original text about this episode is missing. This event is recorded in a work written in the thirteenth century and in late-medieval chronicles. In general on the use of the past in the early Middle Ages, see The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen – M. Innes (Cambridge, 2000). On this aspect, see the considerations of P. Geary, Furta sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1990, second edition), p. 9. For Venice under Peter II Orseolo, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 774–80. For the way John the Deacon portrays this duke, see Berto The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. 15–16, 35–7, 49–59. In general on this, see V. Fumagalli, Landscapes of Fear: Perceptions of Nature and the City in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 5–8; G. Ortalli, Lupi genti culture. Uomo e ambiente nel Medioevo (Turin, 1997), pp. 155–9; J. Berlioz, Catastrophes naturelles et calamités au Moyen Age (Florence, 1998); J. Smith, Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History, 500–1000 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 77–8. For some examples of eclipses and passing of comets associated with tragic events in early medieval Italian chronicles, see Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 10, V, 31, VI, 5, 9; Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. D. Mauskopf Deliyannis, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 199 (Turnhout, 2006), chapter 172; Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapters 12, 21–2; Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, V, 2; Cronaca di Novalesa, p. 316; and Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, II, 9–11, III, 15–17. The chronicler does not report the date of this event, but it is probably the eclipse that occurred in 840. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 50: ‘Tunc in mense madii sexta hora diei sol obscuratus est, et factus est eclipsis. Hac denique tempestate Theodosius patricius Constantinopoli ad Veneciam veniens . . . integroque anno ibi commoratus est, ex inperatoris parte eundem ducem efflagitans, ut expedicionem Sarracenos ad expugnandos sibi adtribuere non recusaret; quod libenter dux facere non denegavit. Tunc praeparare sexaginta bellicosas naves omni sub festinatione studuit et usque ad Tarantum, ubi Saba Saracenorum princeps cum maximo exercitu manebat, easdem destinavit. Sed a Saracenorum multitudine pene omnes Venetici capti et interfecti sunt.’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. For the clashes between the Slavs and the Venetians in the early Middle Ages, see Ortalli, ‘Il ducato,’ pp. 740–5, 758, 777–8, and Chapter 1 of this book. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51. According to Andreas of Bergamo, on Easter 874, it seemed as if ‘terra (earth)’ fell from the sky. Historia, chapter 21. Since it still happens that winds bring ‘red earth’ to Italy from Africa, it is likely that these two early medieval Italian authors described the same phenomenon, and that in Venice, the ‘red earth’ was believed to be blood. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 24, 29. Blood falling from the sky is recorded only on this occasion. For the other account of a comet in the Istoria Veneticorum, see the following paragraph. Besides mentioning the star, the chronicler also added the interesting detail that on that particular occasion people heard a noise from the sky similar to the sound of doors opening and closing and for that reason they stated that the sky had opened and then closed.

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 141 18 John the Deacon is the only early medieval Italian chronicler to underline this connection explicitly. 19 They were both young, had recently gotten married and had just had a son. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 71–3. 20 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 75: ‘Eodem itaque tempore stella cometis, cuius indicium humanum semper pronunciat flagicium, in meridiano climate apparens, quam maxima per omnes Italiae seu Veneciae fines pestilentia subsecuta est. In qua utriusque sexus humane conditionis nonnulli inopinata morte ceciderunt, inter quos domna Maria greca ductrix nec non Iohannes egregius vir suus.’ 21 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 75–6. 22 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66–7. 23 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 68: ‘Non puto pretermittendum fore prodigium quod cuidam Sarracenorum die quo festiva Dei genetricis assumtio a fidelibus celebratur divinitus ostensum est. Nam dum in sancti Benedicti monasterii, haud procul ab urbe, quadam munitissima turre ipse maneret, emicantem stellam ex occiduo climate prepete cursu venire eiusdemque civitatis in portu cadere conspexit. Hoc, ut Ieronimo spirituali et prenotati monasterii patri patefactum esset, statim futurum sanctę Mariae auxilium, que stella maris interpretatur, civibus advenire intellexit. Quod intemerata puerpera in Petri Veneticorum ducis adventu procul dubio complevit, quem de occiduis partibus venire permittens in suae nativitatis festo, de oste illi concessit triumphum.’ 24 There is a similar example in Herodotus (VIII, 65) of an omen that foretells defeat for the Persians before the Battle of Salamis, and it is seen (and reported) by a Persian ally. I wish to thank Susan Shapiro for pointing this out to me. 25 For the similarity to the Crusades, consider the following examples: a Pisan source reports that the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders was foretold by a rain of stars and a comet. Gesta triumphalia per Pisanos facta, ed G. Scalia (Florence, 2010), chapter 4. An Apulian text narrates that, before the departure of the crusaders, little flames were seen falling from the sky that looked like stars Lupus Protospatarius, Annales, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, V (Hanover, 1844), p. 62, year 1095. What is particularly original in John the Deacon’s account is that, beside the details of the Venetian arrival at Bari on the day of Mary’s birth, the omen foretelling the arrival of the rescuers was seen by the enemy. This may have been a rhetorical device aimed at giving veracity to the account. 26 For the way John the Deacon depicts the enemies of the Venetians, see Chapter 1 of this book. 27 See, for example, G. Petti Balbi, ‘Lotte antisaracene e “militia Christi” in ambito iberico,’ in ‘Militia Christi’ e Crociata nei secoli XI–XIII (Milan, 1992), pp. 519–45, and Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, pp. 35–8. 28 In the Chronicon Salernitanum the Mother of God is also mentioned on the occasion of a battle. However, a more conventional pattern was followed in this text. The author reports that, on the night preceding a battle between Salernitans and Byzantines, Mary appeared in a dream to the prince of Salerno and foretold the victory. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 158. 29 For some examples, see N. Baynes, ‘The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople,’ Analecta Bollandiana 66 (1949), pp. 165–77; S. Barnay, Les apparitions de la Vierge (Paris, 1992), pp. 45–60; N. Oikonomides, ‘The Concept of “Holy War” and Two Tenth-century Byzantine Ivories,’ in Peace and War in Byzantium. Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, eds. T. S. Miller – J. Nesbitt (Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 67–8; Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, pp. 83–4.

142 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ 30 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 14: ‘Erat siquidem sibi coniux Felicia nomine et merito, unius nati tantumodo mater, qui patris equivocus nomine, non dissimilis extitit opere. Post cuius vero conceptionem, quam angelico inditio diva mater fertur cognovisse, maritalem torum viro sibi optemperante inviolatum vicissim Deo conservare deinceps devovere.’ 31 In general on this theme, see F. Lanzoni, ‘Il sogno presago della madre incinta nella letteratura medioevale,’ Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), pp. 225–61. 32 Raymond Van Dam and Alan Thacker have informed me that there are no similar reports in either Late Antique or Anglo-Saxon sources, either. 33 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 12–13. For the different ways in which scholars have described this duke, see Chapter 2 of this book. 34 Peter Damiani, Vita beati Romualdi, chapter 5. For an analysis of the different versions, see Chapters 1 and 2. 35 The author further emphasizes Peter Orseolo’s aura of sanctity by adding that, after his son’s birth, Peter Orseolo decided to live in chastity with his wife. 36 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 14. After two years of rule (976– 978), Peter Orseolo decided to abandon his office, to leave Venice, and to become a monk of the monastery of St. Michael of Cuxà. Cf. Ortalli, Petrus I. Orseolo und seine Zeit, and chapter 1 of this book. Patricia Skinner has argued that John the Deacon portrays Felicia in this way to contrast her with Waldrada, who had become the second wife of Duke Peter IV Candiano. The latter had repudiated his first wife and forced her to become a nun. P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Society 500–1200 (Harlow, 2001), p. 131. First of all, we must consider that Skinner has confused Peter Orseolo with his son, Duke Peter II Orseolo. The name of Peter Orseolo’s wife was Felicia, while Peter II Orseolo’s spouse was named Mary. On this, see Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, sub vocibus. As for the hypothesis, it is interesting, but considering the fact that John the Deacon was in the service of Peter II Orseolo, I maintain that the principal reasons leading the chronicler to relate the event concerning Felicia are those which I have just mentioned. 37 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 17. The Venetian author also recounts that the Lord foiled the plot of Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lecapenus’s sons against their brother-in-law, Constantine VII (John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 4), as well as the attempt of the Venetian Coloprini family to eliminate their rivals, the Morosini family. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20. Similar divine interventions can be found in the works of the other early medieval Italian chroniclers. For example, see Erchempert, Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento/Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 7. 38 Elaborate rules for the ducal elections were created in the second half of the twelfth century. 39 On this, see Berto, In Search of the First Venetians, sub voce. 40 Otto Orseolo was reinstated shortly after. 41 It is also worthy of note that Otto was the last Venetian duke to succeed his own father after the latter’s death. 42 For example, see Erchempert, Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento/Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 61, and Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935), I, 5, II, 14. 43 Divine will is also mentioned in connection with the seizure of Bari in 871 by Emperor Louis II, who ended Muslim dominion over that city. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. 44 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27.

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 143 45 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14. 46 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37. 47 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 53. An important exception is the victory of Duke Ursus II against the Muslims at Taranto. This absence is made more noteworthy by the fact that this success was the first victory of the Venetians against the Saracens. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 5. 48 A punishing God is, on the other hand, present in some early medieval chronicles. See, for example Erchempert, Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento/ Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12; John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61; and Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, II, 16. For other examples in non-Italian sources and in other periods, see K. DeVries, ‘God and Defeat in Medieval Warfare: Some Preliminary Thoughts,’ in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages, eds. D. J. Kagay – L. J. Andrew Villalon (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 87–97. 49 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 26: ‘Imperator autem in tanta severitate et duricia ad Veneticorum districtionem perseverabat, quo nec precibus nec quibuslibet muneribus eum placare valerent, sed omnibus suis iterum preceptum imposuit ut nulli in aliqua sui imperii parte pervento Venetico parcere auderet. His quidem definitis Romam viscere disposuit in qua non diu incolomes manens, valida ingruente febre mortuus est sepultusque in Sancti Petri curte, non procul a sanctae Mariae ecclesia. Unde non dubium est, ut quidam spiritalis monachus, angelo sibi indicante, cognovit, quod ob Veneticorum afflictionem inopinatam incurrisset mortem. Venecia namque, per biennium tali perpessa infortunio, divinitate propitia liberata est.’ 50 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 20, 24–6. 51 That the chronicler expresses this notion only on this occasion highlights how strongly the conflict with this frightful adversary impacted John the Deacon and probably his compatriots as well. In general, on the way the Venetian chronicler describes the enemies of the Venetians, see Chapter 1 of this book. 52 See, for example, Liber pontificalis, II, p. 107, and Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti auctore Desiderio, eds. G. Schwartz – A. Hofmeister, in MGH, Scriptores, XXX/2 (Hanover, 1934), I, 2. John the Deacon’s account shares some similarities with Saint Benedict’s prediction of the King of the Ostrogoths Totila’s passing away. However, the saint only reproaches the sovereign for his violent deeds, predicting that he would die ten years later. Gregory the Great, Storie di santi e di diavoli (Dialoghi), eds. S. Pricoco and M. Simonetti (Milan, 2005), II, 15. 53 This text was probably written shortly after Maiolus’s death. For further information on this work, see D. Iogna-Prat, ‘Agni immaculati.’ Recherches sur les sources hagiographiques relatives à saint Maieul de Cluny (954–994) (Paris, 1988), pp. 18 and 104–6. 54 Sirus, Vita S. Maioli, p. 655. This prediction can be also read in Vita Sancti Maioli B.H.L. 1579, in Iogna-Prat, ‘Agni immaculati,’ III, 14. 55 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 1: ‘divina clemencia diu noluit inultum hoc pretermittere scelus.’ 56 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 1: ‘a demonio conquasatus.’ 57 For the manner in which John the Deacon describes the killings of the Venetian dukes, see Chapter 1 of this book. 58 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 48: ‘Preterea quidam Veneticorum, cognomento Mastallici, diabolica sugestione decepti, eundem Iohannem sancti Petri de ecclesia in eiusdem festivitate venientem comprehendentes, detonsa barba cum capillis, clericum apud Gradensem urbem consecrare fecerunt.’ 59 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 44.

144 ‘As an angel revealed to her’ 60 The Venetian chronicler seems to have been typical in this respect, since this viewpoint is also present in the works of other early medieval chroniclers. For example, Paul the Deacon records that a demon punished the Byzantine Patrician Smaragdus for arresting the patriarch of Aquileia and forcing him to change his position on a religious controversy. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, III, 26. According to Liudprand of Cremona, Pope John XII, who had opposed Emperor Otto and committed numerous deeds unworthy of the papal office, died following a blow delivered by the devil. Liudprand of Cremona, Historia Ottonis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. 156 (Turnhout, 1998), chapter 20. 61 For hypothesis on its composition, see G. Monticolo, ‘L’Inventio e la Translatio dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37,’ Nuovo Archivio Veneto 3 (1892), pp. 124–7. For further information on this episode, see Rando, Una Chiesa di frontiera, pp. 75–80; H. Dopsch, ‘Il patriarca Poppone di Aquileia, 1019–1042. L’origine, la famiglia e la posizione di principe della Chiesa,’ in Poppone: L’Età d’oro del Patriarcato di Aquileia (Rome, 1997), pp. 32–4; and G. Fedalto, Aquileia. Una Chiesa due patriarcati (Rome, 1999), pp. 228–9. 62 La ‘Inventio’ dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37, in Monticolo, ‘L’Inventio e la Translatio dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37,’ p. 135: ‘Cunctus simul exercitus ter Trinitatem Dei clamosus invocat; trina invocatione munitus bellum inchoat, et excitatus est, tamquam dormiens, Dominus, quasi potens crapulatus a vino, nam hostes statim enervavit formido.’ 63 Inventio, pp. 135–6. 64 G. Cuscito, ‘La Chiesa, aquileiese,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 367–8; Fedalto, Aquileia. Una Chiesa due patriarcati, pp. 45–7. 65 There are two different versions on the date of this event. According to the Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias and the Istoria Veneticorum (which copies verbatim from the Translatio Marci), the relics were carried to Grado by the Patriarch of Aquileia, Paul, who left the mainland because of the Lombard invasion in 568/569. Translatio Marci, chapter 6; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 4. The Translatio dei santi Ermagora e Fortunato and the Cronica de singulis patriachis Nove Aquileie, on the other hand, explains that the remains of Hermachoras and Fortunatus were hidden a few miles from Grado and moved to this town by the Patriarch of Grado Primogenius (628–647). La ‘Translatio’ dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37,’ in G. Monticolo, ‘L’Inventio e la Translatio dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37,’ p. 146; Cronica de singulis patriarchis, p. 10. 66 Inventio, p. 136. 67 Inventio, p. 137. 68 Inventio, pp. 137–8. 69 Inventio, p. 138. 70 Ps 43.4: ‘neque brachium eorum salvavit eos sed dextera tua et brachium tuum et lux vultus tui (their arm did not save them, but your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face did that).’ 71 Inventio, p. 138: ‘Nocturno tempore cum idem aquilegiensis antistes amissa menia obsideret, lumen ab urbe volans super fixam humi lanceam sedet; quod cuiusdam vigiliis manu properante sumere, alia se posuit in cuspide. Inde ad urbem rediens illa Dei illuminatione salvari eam indicat, quam in antiques patribus David ita magnificat: “brachium eorum non salvavit eos, sed dextera tua et illuminatio vultus tui, Deus.” Quem obsessor sanctorum patrociniis, illam tueri persensit, quando trigesimo obsessionis die frustra fatigatus discessit.’

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 145 72 The account describing the transfer of Hermachoras’s and Fortunatus’s remains to Grado under the Patriarch of Grado Primogenius’s rule (628–647) was also written during the early eleventh century. However, it evinces a lack of originality and extreme conciseness. This is probably because the presence of the relics at Grado was mentioned in other texts, and it was therefore more important to emphasize that these saints’ bodies had not been stolen during Poppo’s raid. The author limits himself to narrating that, in a dream, the Patriarch of Grado, Primogenius, was shown the place where the relics were located and that he was charged with transferring them to Grado. ‘Translatio’ dei santi Ermacora e Fortunato, p. 146. The hagiographer reports neither miracles nor healing on the occasion of the recovery and transport of the saints’ bodies; he only mentions that the relics could not be moved until a shoe of Saint Hermachoras, that had been removed, was placed between the two saints. ‘Translatio’ dei santi Ermacora e Fortunato, p. 146. 73 At the present time, there is no agreement among scholars regarding the date of composition of this work. R. Dennig Zettler maintains that it was written soon after the transfer, perhaps by an eyewitness, while G. Cracco thinks that the text was composed between 971 and 976 as a polemic against Duke Peter IV Candiano; E. Colombi shares the latter’s opinion. R. Dennig Zettler – A. Zettler, ‘La traslazione di san Marco a Venezia e a Reichenau,’ in San Marco, aspetti storici e agiografici, ed. A. Niero (Venice, 1996), pp. 692–3; Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici,’ pp. 939–40; Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie, p. 78. For the weak foundations of Cracco’s hypothesis, see L. A. Berto, ‘I musulmani nell’agiografia altomedievale della Toscana e dell’Italia settentrionale,’ Hagiographica XXV (2018), pp. 106–9. Paolo Tomea has expressed doubts about both hypotheses. Tomea, ‘L’agiografia dell’Italia Settentrionale, 950–1130,’ p. 126, note 61. 74 Translatio Marci, chapter 16. Although the account is structured in a completely different manner, it is worth noting the fact that the number of miraculous healings in the work describing the presence of some of Mark’s relics in Reichenau is much greater than in the Translatio Sancti Marci; De miraculis et virtutibus S. Marci evangelistae, in Th. Klüppel, Reichenauer Hagiographie zwischen Walahfrid und Berno (Sigmaringen, 1980), pp. 146–51. 75 As for the Translationes’ genre, strictu sensu, there is, for example, an important difference between the Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias and the translatio of the Neapolitan Bishop Athanasius’s body, which also occurred in the ninth century (877). In the case of Athanasius, the number of miracles performed by the saint’s relics increases after their arrival in Naples. Translatio s. Athanasii, in Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A. Vuolo, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia Medievale. Antiquitates, 16 (Rome, 2001), pp. 150–60. In another Venetian translatio, the Translatio sancti Nicholai, after the account of Saint Nicholas’s transfer to Venice, there is a section dedicated exclusively to the miracles performed by his relics. Anonymus monk of Lido, Historia de translatione sanctorum magni Nicolai, terra marique miraculis gloriosi, ejusdem avunculi, alterius Nicolai, Theodorique, martyris pretiosi, de civitate Mirea in monasterium s. Nicolai de Littore Venetiarum, in Recueils des historiens des Croisades. Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 5 (Paris, 1895), pp. 282–92. In general, on the way in which Translationes texts are structured, see M. Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes (Turnhout, 1979). 76 Translatio Marci, chapter 1. He also reports that the Venetians had every reason to bring the saint’s relics back to Venice, since, before moving to Alexandria, Mark had preached in Aquileia, located in the ancient Roman province

146 ‘As an angel revealed to her’

77 78 79

80

81

82

83 84 85 86

87 88 89 90 91 92

of Venetia, from where the Venetians had migrated. Translatio Marci, chapters 10–11. Translatio Marci, chapter 8: ‘divino factum est nutu ut, flante congruo vento, . . . ad Alexandriam ducerentur.’ The Muslims conquered Alexandria in ca. 641. Translatio Marci, chapter 8. According to the Venetian writer, Byzantine Emperor Leo V (813–820) forbade his subjects from trading in Egypt, and Justinian, the Duke of Venice, gave the same order to the Venetians. The author also reports that the two guardians of the Alexandrian church in which the relics were located acquiesced to the removal of the body thanks to divine inspiration. Translatio Marci, chapter 12. Translatio Marci, chapter 13: ‘tanta igitur . . . odoris fragrantia emanavit ut non solum ecclesia vel circuitus eius, sed etiam tota civitas Alexandria repleretur.’ For some examples of perfume spreading from relics, see Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, chapter 26; Translatio s. Athanasii, chapter 5; Cronaca di Novalesa, V, 13; Andreas of Strumi, Vita Sancti Arialdi, ed. F. Baethgen, in MGH, Scriptores, XXX, 2 (Hanover, 1934), chapter 24; and Anonymus monk of Lido, Historia de translatione sanctorum magni Nicolai, chapter 16. Translatio Marci, chapter 14: ‘protinus navis illa in qua beatum corpus iacebat, tanta celeritate conversa quanta nullus hominum vertere potest, insurrexit adversus eam in qua vir ille erat, partemque lateris eius confregit, nec prius ab illa recessit quamdiu omnes confiterentur beatum ibidem Marcum iacere.’ Translatio Marci, chapter 15. The other miraculous events described in the Translatio Marci are less original. In the course of the voyage, the Venetians opted not to reveal to any stranger what they were carrying fearing that someone would want to take the relics by force. God, however, made their secret known to everyone so that every time the Venetian ships arrived at a port, a great number of people gathered around to venerate Saint Mark’s body. Translatio Marci, chapter 15. A Venetian sailor, who still did not believe that the relics were those of the Evangelist, was possessed by a demon through divine will and released from its clutches only when he was brought before the saint’s body and admitted that he was wrong. Translatio Marci, chapter 15. Translatio Marci, chapter 16. A similar phenomenon occurred to the ‘pallium’ (cloak/cloth) covering the relics. In general, on this event see Geary, Furta sacra, pp. 88–111; Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici,’ pp. 925–8; and Rando, Una Chiesa di frontiera, pp. 60–5. This title was chosen by Roberto Cessi, the most recent editor of this work. The previous editors, on the other hand, maintain that it was made up of different works. In general, on the debate concerning these texts and the criticism aimed at the edition of Roberto Cessi, see R. Cessi, ‘Studi sulla composizione del cosiddetto “Chronicon altinate,”’ Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo 49 (1933), pp. 1–116; Fasoli, ‘I fondamenti della storiografia veneziana,’ pp. 12–15, 32–5; Ortalli, ‘I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città,’ p. 763; and Fedalto, Aquileia. Una Chiesa due patriarcati, p. 178. Origo, p. 32. Origo, p. 32. Origo, p. 32: ‘Ego sum dominus Deus Salvator et tocius orbis dominator terra autem, in qua stas, cave ut in ipso loco, quem mostravero, in nomine meo basilicam construas.’ Origo, p. 32. Origo, pp. 32–3. Origo, p. 33.

‘As an angel revealed to her’ 147 93 Origo, p. 33. 94 Origo, p. 33. 95 Origo, pp. 33–4: ‘In qua die noctuque orationibus ac vigiliis sibi vacare iniunxit, nec non per anulum ac scripture paginam investicionem tradidit. His omnibus expletis, supra ecclesie Sancte Marie tectum astitisse sibi visum fuit . . . volumen et anulum in suis repperit manibus.’ 96 Origo, pp. 34–5. The names were given on the basis of either a feature characterizing those places or a special event that occurred on them. The toponyms are: ‘littus Boum (oxen island/lido),’ ‘littus Album (white island/lido),’ and ‘littus Mercedis (reward island/lido).’ Aurius did not name the island on which Saint Justina had appeared. Origo, pp. 34–5. It is probably the island currently known as ‘Le Vignole’ because the author recounts that in the island there were some vineyards. Origo, p. 33; in Italian ‘vigne’ means ‘vineyards.’ For further information about these locations, see Lanfranchi – Zille, ‘Il territorio del ducato veneziano dall’VIII al XII secolo,’ pp. 9–10, and Castagnetti, ‘Insediamenti e “populi,”’ p. 577. 97 Origo, p. 35. 98 Origo, p. 35: ‘Hec omnia, que supra memoravimus, littora prefatus Aurius cum ceteris eiusdem episcopii principibus in iure proprie dominationis sub eodem episcopatu susceperunt, in quibus etiam multos agricolas seu colonos constituerunt, hoc itaque modo, ut nullus in eisdem littoribus vineas vel alcuius culture opus agere presumeret sine episcopi concessione.’ 99 Origo, p. 35. 100 Origo, p. 35: ‘omnium autem supradictorum cunctos redditus prefato Mauro presbitero, usque quo episcopali fungeretur honore, comiserunt.’ 101 John the Deacon reports that Maurus was bishop of Altino and that, fearing the Lombards, he moved to Torcello with the permission of the pope. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 38. For a general overview of the flight of Altino’s inhabitants to the Venetian lagoon, see Pavan – Arnaldi, ‘Le origini dell’identità lagunare,’ pp. 421–4. As for Tribune Aurius, there are no other extant sources about him. However, the detail that the Aurii were a quite important family and that at the beginning of the thirteenth century some of its members still lived in Torcello is notable; see A. Castagnetti, ‘Famiglie e affermazione politica,’ in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 631 and 636, and A. Castagnetti, ‘Insediamenti e “populi,”’ in Storia di Venezia, I, p. 604. 102 According to E. Crouzet-Pavan, this work emphasizes the central role played by Torcello in initiating the settlement of the Venetian lagoon. E. CrouzetPavan, La mort lente de Torcello. Histoire d’une cité disparue (Paris, 1995), pp. 55–60. 103 Giorgio Fedalto has hypothesized that this account could have been composed to legitimize the properties of the Church of Torcello after the creation of Olivolo’s bishopric in 775. G. Fedalto, ‘Organizzazione ecclesiastica e vita religiosa nella “Venetia maritima,”’ in A. Carile – G. Fedalto, Le origini di Venezia (Bologna, 1978). p. 398. 104 I borrow this expression from G. Cracco, Un ‘altro mondo.’ Venezia nel Medioevo. Dal secolo XI al secolo XIV (Turin, 1986).

Bibliography

Primary sources Unpublished sources Manuscript Cicogna, number 3349 (3636) (Library of Correr Museum, Venice).

Edited sources Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, I. Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ed. R. Riedinger (Berlin, 1984). Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series secunda, II/1. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, concilii actiones I-XI, ed. R. Riedinger (Berlin, 1990). Ado Viennensis, Chronicon, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, II (Hanover, 1829), pp. 315–23. M. Agazzi, ‘Sarcofagi altomedievali nel territorio del dogado veneziano’, in Medioevo: Immagini e ideologie, ed. A. C. Quintavalle (Milan, 2005), pp. 574–5. Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. D. Mauskopf Deliyannis, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 199 (Turnhout, 2006). Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. V. de Bartholomeis, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 76 (Rome, 1935). Another edition in Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. M. Guéret-Laferté (Paris, 2011). Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (Pisa, 2016), pp. 66–95. Andreas of Strumi, Vita Sancti Arialdi, ed. F. Baethgen, in MGH, Scriptores, XXX, 2 (Hanover, 1934), pp. 1047–65. Annales Fuldenses, eds. G. H. Pertz – F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum (Hanover, 1891). Annales Mettenses Priores, ed. B. De Simson, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, X (Hanover – Leipzig, 1905). Annales Petaviani, ed. G. H. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, I (Hanover, 1826), pp. 7–19. Annales Quedlinburgensis, ed. Georg Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, III (Hanover, 1839), pp. 22–90. Annales regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, VI (Hanover, 1895). Les Annales de Saint Bertin, eds. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, S. Clémencet (Paris, 1964).

152 Bibliography Anonymus monk of Lido, Historia de translatione sanctorum magni Nicolai, terra marique miraculis gloriosi, ejusdem avunculi, alterius Nicolai, Theodorique, martyris pretiosi, de civitate Mirea in monasterium s. Nicolai de Littore Venetiarum, in Recueils des historiens des Croisades. Historiens Occidentaux, vol. 5 (Paris, 1895), pp. 253–92. Arnulf of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, ed. I. Scaravelli, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 1 (Bologna, 1996). M. Asolati, ‘Nuove attestazioni di età bizantina dalla laguna di Venezia (VI–XII secc.)’, in Id., Praestantia nummorum. Temi e note di numismatica tardo antica e alto medievale (Padua, 2012), pp. 312–37. J. P. Caillet, L’évergétisme monumental chrétien en Italie et à ses marges: d’après l’épigraphie des pavements de mosaïque (IVe–VIIe siècle) (Rome, 1993). B. Callegher, ‘Sceaux byzantins et vénitiens découverts aux environs de Venise’, Revue Numismatique 157 (1997), pp. 409–20. Carolingian Chronicles, trans. by B. W. Sholz with B. Rogers (Ann Arbor, 1970). Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stockholm, 1956). Chronicon Venetum, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, VII (Hanover, 1846), pp. 4–38. C. Cipolla, ‘Antichi documenti del monastero dei Santi Pietro e Teonisto’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 22 (1901), pp. 35–73. Codex Publicorum (Codice del Piovego), ed. B. Lanfranchi Strina, 2 vols. (Venice, 1983, 2006). Codice diplomatico longobardo (sec. VIII), ed. L. Schiaparelli, 2 vols, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 62-63 (Rome, 1929–1933). Codice diplomatico padovano dal sec. VI a tutto l’XI, ed. A. Gloria (Venice, 1877). The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, trans. P. Squatriti (Washington, DC, 2007). Concilia, vol. II, pars II, ed. A. Werminghoff (Hanover – Leipzig, 1908). Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, eds. G. Moravcsik – J. H. Jenkins (Washington, DC, 1967). Cronaca della dinastia di Capua, ed. N. Cilento, in N. Cilento, Italia meridionale longobarda (Milan-Naples, 1971, second edition), pp. 297–346. Cronaca di Novalesa, ed. G. C. Alessio (Turin, 1982). La cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, pp. 59–171. Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 9 (Rome, 1890). Cronica de singulis patriarchis Nove Aquileie, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, pp. 7–16. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. L. A. Berto (Florence, 2006). Martin da Canal, Les Estoires de Venise: Cronaca Veneziana in Lingua Francese dalle Origini al 1275, ed. A. Limentani (Florence, 1973). Peter Damiani, Vita beati Romualdi, ed. G. Tabacco, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 94 (Rome, 1957). Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti auctore Desiderio, eds. G. Schwartz – A. Hofmeister, in MGH, Scriptores, XXX, 2 (Hanover, 1934), pp. 1111–51. Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol (Paris, 1925), VI, 2, column 1450.

Bibliography 153 Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille, ed. R. Cessi, 2 vols. (Padua, 1942–1943). W. Dorigo, ‘Bolle plumbee bizantine nella Venezia esarcale’, in Studi in memoria di Giuseppe Bovini, 2 vols. (Ravenna, 1989), vol. 1, pp. 223–35. Einhard, Translatio et miracula Sanctorum Marcellini et Petri, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores, XV (Hanover, 1887), pp. 238–64. Erchempert, Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento / Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ed. L. A. Berto (Naples, 2013). B. Forlati Tamaro, ‘Un cimelio di Lison di Portogruaro’, Aquileia nostra 48 (1978), column 163. Gesta triumphalia per Pisanos facta, ed. G. Scalia (Florence, 2010). Gregory the Great, Registrum epistularum, eds. P. Ewald – L. Hartmann, in MGH, Epistolae, II (Berlin, 1957, second edition). Gregory the Great, Storie di santi e di diavoli (Dialoghi), eds. S. Pricoco – M. Simonetti (Milan, 2005). Heinrici II. et Arduini diplomata, in MGH, Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae, III (Hanover, 1900–1903). Historia ducum Venetorum, in Testi storici veneziani (XI–XIII secolo), ed. L. A. Berto (Padua, 1999), pp. 1–83. La ‘Inventio’ dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37, in G. Monticolo, ‘L’Inventio e la Translatio dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto 3 (1892), pp. 132–9. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia medievale, Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2 (Bologna, 1999). John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, in Storia dei vescovi napoletani (I secolo – 876) / Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, ed. L. A. Berto (Pisa, 2018), pp. 72–111. Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886, 1892). Liber de Sancti Hildulfi successoribus in Mediano monasterio, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores, IV (Hanover, 1841), pp. 86–92. The Life of Saint Neilos of Rossano, edited and translated by R. L. Capra, I. A. Murzaku, D. J. Milewski (Harvard, MA, 2018). Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 156 (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 3–150. Liudprand of Cremona, Historia Ottonis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 156 (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 169–83. E. A. Lowe, Die ältesten Kalendarien aus Monte Cassino (Munich, 1908). Lupus Protospatarius, Annales, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, V (Hanover, 1844), pp. 52–63. De miraculis et virtutibus S. Marci evangelistae, in Th. Klüppel, Reichenauer Hagiographie zwischen Walahfrid und Berno (Sigmaringen, 1980), pp. 146–51. Origo Civitatium Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense), ed. R. Cessi, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 73 (Rome, 1933). Ottonian Germany: The ‘Chronicon’ of Thietmar of Merseburg, trans. D. A. Warner (Manchester, 2001). Ottonis II. et III diplomata, ed. Th. von Sickel, in MGH, Diplomatum regum et imperatorum Germaniae, II (Hanover, 1893).

154 Bibliography Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, eds. L. Bethmann – G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX (Hanover, 1878), pp. 12–187. A. Pertusi, ‘L’iscrizione torcellana dei tempi di Eraclio’, Bollettino dell’Istituto di storia della società e dello stato veneziano 4 (1962), pp. 9–38. Petri ducis Venetiarum epistula, in Gesta Berengarii imperatoris. Beiträge zur Geschichte Italiens im Anfänge des zehnten Jahrhunderts, ed. E. Dümmler (Halle, 1871), pp. 157–8. Regino of Prüm, Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum (Hanover, 1890). P. Rugo, Le iscrizioni dei sec VI, VII, VIII esistenti in Italia, vol. II. Venezia e Istria (Cittadella, 1975). S. Lorenzo (853–1199), ed. F. Gaeta (Venice, 1959). Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio, eds. L. Lanfranchi – B. Strina (Venice, 1965). Ss. Trinità e S. Michele Arcangelo di Brondolo, vol. 2. Documenti: 800 – 1199, ed. B. Lanfranchi Strina (Venice, 1981). Saint Peter Damian's 'Vita beati Romualdi': introduction, translation and analysis by C. R. Phips, Doctoral dissertation, King’s College (London, 1988). F. Sartori, ‘Antoninus tribunus in una epigrafe inedita di Iesolo (Venezia)’, in Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua: Miscellanea G. Novak dicata (Zagreb, 1970), pp. 587–600. Scritture storiche aggiunte alla cronaca del diacono Giovanni, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, p. 176. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, ed. L. Bethmann, in MGH, Scriptores, VI (Hanover, 1844), pp. 300–74. Sirus, Vita S. Maioli, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores, IV (Hanover, 1841), pp. 650–5. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, in Theophanes Continuatus, Joannes Cameniata, Symeon magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. J. Bekker, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1838). Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, ed. R. Holtzmann, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, n. s. 9 (Berlin, 1935). Translatio s. Athanasii, in Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A. Vuolo, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, Fonti per la storia dell’Italia Medievale. Antiquitates, 16 (Rome, 2001), pp. 145–62. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias [BHL 5283–5284], in E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘Venetia’ altomedievale (Trieste, 2012), pp. 17–63. La ‘Translatio’ dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37’, in G. Monticolo, ‘L’Inventio e la Translatio dei Santi Ermagora e Fortunato nel cod. Marciano Lat. X, 37’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, 3 (1892), pp. 140–8. I trattati con Bisanzio 992–1198, eds. M. Pozza – G. Ravegnani (Venice, 1993). Vita Sancti Maioli B.H.L. 1579, in D. Iogna-Prat, ‘Agni immaculati’. Recherches sur les sources hagiographiques relatives à saint Maieul de Cluny (954–994) (Paris, 1988), pp. 163–285.

Secondary sources G. Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia (Rome, 1997). G. Althoff, Otto III, trans. P. G. Jestice (University Park, 2003). D. Alvermann, ‘La battaglia di Ottone II contro i Saraceni nel 982’, Archivio storico della Calabria e della Lucania 62 (1995), pp. 115–30.

Bibliography 155 Atlas of the Medieval World, ed. R. McKitterick (Oxford, 2004). C. Azzara, ‘Venetiae’: Determinazione di un’area regionale fra antichità e alto Medioevo (Treviso, 1994). A. Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent, trans. by A. Cameron (Berkeley, 2004). A. Barbero – C. Frugoni, Dizionario del Medioevo (Rome – Bari, 1994). S. Barnay, Les apparitions de la Vierge (Paris, 1992). N. Baynes, ‘The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople’, Analecta Bollandiana 66 (1949), pp. 165–77. J. Berlioz, Catastrophes naturelles et calamités au Moyen Age (Florence, 1998). L. A. Berto, ‘Giovanni Diacono, veneziano’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 56 (Rome, 2001), pp. 8–10. L. A. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary of John the Deacon’s ‘Istoria Veneticorum’ (Turnhout, 2013). L. A. Berto, ‘The Image of the Byzantines in Early Medieval Southern Italy: The Viewpoint of the Chroniclers of the Lombards (Ninth to Tenth Centuries) and Normans (Eleventh Century)’, Mediterranean Studies 22, 1 (2014), pp. 1–37. L. A. Berto, In Search of the First Venetians: Prosopography of Early Medieval Venice (Turnhout, 2014). L. A. Berto, I raffinati metodi d’indagine e il mestiere dello storico. L’alto medioevo italiano all’inizio del terzo millennio (Mantua, 2016). L. A. Berto, ‘I musulmani nell’agiografia altomedievale della Toscana e dell’Italia settentrionale’, Hagiographica XXV (2018), pp. 99–112. L. A. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes (London – New York, 2020). E. Besta, ‘Sulla composizione della cronaca veneziana attribuita al diacono Giovanni’, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti LXXIII (1914), pp. 775–802. S. Boesch-Gajano, ‘Uso e abuso del miracolo nella cultura altomedievale’, in Les fonctions des saints dans le monde occidental (IIIe—XIIIe siécle) (Rome, 1991), pp. 109–22. F. Borri, ‘L’Adriatico tra Bizantini, Longobardi e Franchi dalla conquista di Ravenna alla pace di Aquisgrana’, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio muratoriano 112 (2010), pp. 1–56. K. Bosl, ‘Potens und pauper. Begriffsgeschichtliche Studien zur gesellschafftlichen Differenzierung im frühen Mittelalter und zum “Pauperism” des Hochmittelalters’, in Festschrift für Otto Brünner (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 60–87. T. Brown, ‘Byzantine Italy (680–876)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. 500–1492, ed. J. Shepard (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 433–64. W. C. Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe (Harlow, 2011). R. Capasso, ‘Vitale Candiano (patriarca)’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 17 (Rome, 1974), pp. 771–3. F. Cardini, Alle radici della cavalleria medievale (Florence, 1981). A. Carile, ‘La coscienza civica di Venezia nella sua prima storiografia’, in La coscienza civica cittadina nei comuni italiani del Duecento (Todi, 1972), pp. 95–136. A. Carile, ‘La formazione del ducato veneziano’, in A. Carile – G. Fedalto, Le origini di Venezia (Bologna, 1978), pp. 11–237. A. Castagnetti, ‘Famiglie e affermazione politica’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 613–44. A. Castagnetti, ‘Insediamenti e “populi”’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 577–612.

156 Bibliography A. Castagnetti, La società veneziana nel Medioevo, II. Le famiglie ducali dei Candiano, Orseolo e Menio e la famiglia comitale vicentino-padovana di Vitale Ugo Candiano (secoli X-XI) (Verona, 1993). R. Cessi, ‘Studi sulla composizione del cosiddetto “Chronicon altinate”’, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo 49 (1933), pp. 1–116. R. Cessi, ‘Venezia e i Croati’, in Italia e Croazia (Rome, 1942), pp. 313–76. R. Cessi, ‘Pacta Veneta. I – Pacta Carolina’, in Id., Le origini del ducato veneziano (Naples, 1951), pp. 175–243. R. Cessi, Venezia ducale, I: Duca e popolo (Venice, 1963). E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘Venetia’ altomedievale, Antichità Altoadriatiche, Monografie, 6 (Trieste, 2012). P. Conte, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII. Con appendice critica (Milan, 1971). S. Cosentino, Prosopografia dell’Italia bizantina (493–804), 2 vols. (Bologna, 1996, 2000). G. Cracco, Un ‘altro mondo’. Venezia nel Medioevo. Dal secolo XI al secolo XIV (Turin, 1986). G. Cracco, ‘I testi agiografici: religione e politica nella Venezia del Mille’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 923–61. E. Crouzet-Pavan, La mort lente de Torcello. Histoire d’une cité disparue (Paris, 1995). The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images, eds. L. Brubaker and M. B. Cunningham (Farnham, 2012). F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages: 500–1250 (Cambridge, 2006). G. Cuscito, ‘La Chiesa aquileiese’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 367–407. M. Della Valle, Costantinopoli e il suo impero. Arte, architettura, urbanistica nel millennio bizantino (Milan, 2007). P. Delogu, ‘L’Editto di Rotari e la società del VII secolo’, in Visigoti e Longobardi, eds. J. Arce – P. Delogu (Florence, 2001), pp. 329–56. P. Delogu, ‘Le mutazioni dell’alto Medioevo’, in Percorsi recenti degli studi medievali: contributi per una riflessione, ed. A. Zorzi (Florence, 2008), pp. 1–22. P. Delogu, ‘Ritorno ai longobardi’, in Desiderio. Il progetto politico dell’ultimo re longobardo, ed. G. Archetti (Spoleto, 2015), pp. 19–50. G. De Nie, Poetics of Wonder: Testimonies of the New Christian Miracles in the Late Antique Latin World (Turnhout, 2011). R. Dennig Zettler – A. Zettler, ‘La traslazione di san Marco a Venezia e a Reichenau’, in San Marco, aspetti storici e agiografici, ed. A. Niero (Venice, 1996), pp. 689–709. K. DeVries, ‘God and Defeat in Medieval Warfare: Some Preliminary Thoughts’, in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages, eds. D. J. Kagay – L. J. Andrew Villalon (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 87–97. A. Dierkens, ‘Réflexions sur le miracle au haut Moyen Age’, in Miracles, prodiges et merveilles au Moyen Age. XXVe Congrès de la Societé des Historiens Médiévistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur Public (Paris, 1995), pp. 9–30. H. Dopsch, ‘Il patriarca Poppone di Aquileia, 1019–1042. L’origine, la famiglia e la posizione di principe della Chiesa’, in Poppone: L’Età d’oro del Patriarcato di Aquileia (Rome, 1997), pp. 15–40. W. Dorigo, Venezia. Origini: Fondamenti, ipotesi, metodi (Milan, 1983). I. Dujč ev, ‘Rapporti fra Venezia e la Bulgaria nel Medioevo’, in Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, volumes I–II (Florence, 1973), I, pp. 237–59. P. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln, NE, 1994).

Bibliography 157 D. Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden, 2010). G. Fasoli, ‘I fondamenti della storiografia veneziana’, in La storiografia veneziana fino al secolo XVI. Aspetti e problemi, ed. A. Pertusi (Florence, 1970), pp. 11–44. G. Fedalto, ‘Organizzazione ecclesiastica e vita religiosa nella “Venetia maritima”’, in A. Carile – G. Fedalto, Le origini di Venezia (Bologna, 1978), pp. 251–415. G. Fedalto, Aquileia. Una Chiesa due patriarcati (Rome, 1999). N. Francovich Onesti, ‘L'antroponimia longobarda della Toscana: caratteri e diffusione’, Rivista Italiana di Onomastica VI, 2 (2000), pp. 357–74. N. Francovich Onesti, Vestigia longobarde in Italia (568–774). Lessico e antroponimia (Rome, 2000). V. Fumagalli, Landscapes of Fear: Perceptions of Nature and the City in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA, 1994). G. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (Rome, 1995). S. Gasparri, I duchi longobardi (Rome, 1978). S. Gasparri, ‘Il regno longobardo in Italia. Struttura e funzionamento di uno stato altomedievale’, in Langobardia, eds. P. Cammarosano – S. Gasparri (Udine, 1990), pp. 237–305. Republished in Il regno dei Longobardi in Italia. Archeologia, società, istituzioni, ed. S. Gasparri (Spoleto, 2004). S. Gasparri, ‘Dall’età longobarda al secolo X’, in Storia di Treviso, II, eds. D. Rando – G. M. Varanini (Venice, 1991), pp. 3–39. S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Rome, 1997). S. Gasparri, ‘I Germani immaginari e la realtà del regno. Cinquant’anni di studi sui Longobardi’, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (Spoleto, 2003), pp. 3–28. S. Gasparri, ‘La frontiera in età longobarda’, Civiltà bresciana. Studi e ricerche 19, 1 (2010), pp. 13–26. S. Gasparri, Italia longobarda. Il regno, i franchi, il papato (Rome – Bari, 2012). S. Gasparri, ‘The formation of an early medieval community: Venice between provincial and urban identity’, in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, 750–1000, ed. V. West-Harling (Turnhout, 2015), pp. 35–50. S. Gasparri – C. La Rocca, Tempi barbarici. L'Europa occidentale tra antichità e Medioevo (300–900) (Rome, 2012). A. Gattucci, Codici agiografici riminesi. Studi, testi, documenti (Spoleto, 1973). P. Geary, Furta sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ, 1990, second edition). P. J. Geary, The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton, NJ, 2003). Th. Granier, ‘La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (13 août–17 septembre 871) dans les sources des IXe-Xe siècles: l’écriture de l’histoire, de la fausse nouvelle au récit exemplaire’, in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, eds. C. Carozzi – H. Taviani-Carozzi (Aix-en-Provence, 2007), pp. 13–39. La guerre, la violence et les gens au Moyen Age, eds. P. Contamine – O. Guyot Jeannin (Paris, 1996). W. Haubrichs, ‘Langobardic Personal Names: Given Names and Name-Giving among the Langobards’, in The Langobards before the Frankish Conquest: An Ethnographic Perspective, eds. G. Ausenda – P. Delogu (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 195–250.

158 Bibliography P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Oxford, 2006). M. Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes (Turnhout, 1979). J. Hoffmann, ‘Venedig und die Narentaner’, Studi Veneziani 11 (1969), pp. 3–41. D. Iogna-Prat, ‘Agni immaculati’. Recherches sur les sources hagiographiques relatives à saint Maieul de Cluny (954–994) (Paris, 1988). J. Jarnut, Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Studien zum Langobardenreich in Italien (568–774) (Bonn, 1972). R. W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1999). J. Kujawinski, ‘Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’, Rivista Storica Italiana 118, 3 (2006), pp. 767–815 (this article was originally published in Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 10 (2005), pp. 229–71). P. Lamma, ‘Il mondo bizantino in Paolo Diacono’, in Id., Oriente e Occidente nell’alto Medioevo. Studi storici sulle due civiltà (Padua, 1968), pp. 197–214. P. Lamma, ‘Venezia nel giudizio delle fonti bizantine’, in Id., Oriente e Occidente nell’alto Medioevo: Studi storici sulle due civiltà (Padua, 1968), pp. 439–63. F. C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore, 1973). L. Lanfranchi – G. G. Zille, ‘Il territorio del ducato veneziano dall’VIII al XII secolo’, in Storia di Venezia, II. Dalle origini del ducato alla IV crociata (Venice, 1958), pp. 1–65. F. Lanzoni, ‘Il sogno presago della madre incinta nella letteratura medioevale’, Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), pp. 225–61. M. Lupoi, The Origins of the European Legal Order (Cambridge, 2000). T. F. Madden, Venice: A New History (New York, 2012). M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD 300–900 (Cambridge, MA, 2001). W. D. McCready, Miracles and the Venerable Bede (Toronto, 1994). G. B. Monticolo, ‘Intorno al significato del nome Venecia nella Cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto 3 (1892), pp. 379–86. C. G. Mor, L’età feudale, 2 vols. (Milan, 1952). P. Moro, ‘Quam horrida pugna’. Elementi per uno studio della guerra nell’alto Medioevo italiano (secoli VI–X) (Venice, 1994). P. Moro, ‘Venezia e l'Occidente nell'alto Medioevo. Dal confine longobardo al “pactum” lotariano’, in Venezia. Itinerari per la storia della città, eds. S. Gasparri, G. Levi – P. Moro (Bologna, 1997), pp. 41–57. G. Musca, L’emirato di Bari: 847–871 (Bari, 1967, second edition). M. Nallino, ‘Il mondo arabo e Venezia fino alle crociate’, in La Venezia del Mille (Florence, 1965), pp. 161–81. J. L. Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne (Oakland, 2019). D. M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge, 1988). G. O’Har, ‘Where the Buffalo Roam: Walter Prescott Webb’s “The Great Plains”’, Technology and Culture 47, 1 (January 2006) (available online at www.historyoftech nology.org.). N. Oikonomides, ‘The Concept of “Holy War” and Two Tenth-Century Byzantine Ivories’, in Peace and War in Byzantium. Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, eds. T. S. Miller – J. Nesbitt (Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 62–86. G. Ortalli, Petrus I. Orseolo und seine Zeit. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Venedig und dem ottonischen Reich (Venice – Sigmaringen, 1990).

Bibliography 159 G. Ortalli, ‘Il ducato e la ‘civitas Rivoalti’: tra carolingi, bizantini e sassoni’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 725–90. G. Ortalli, ‘Venezia, il mito, i sudditi. Due casi di gestione della leggenda tra medio evo ed età moderna’, in Studi Veneti offerti a Gaetano Cozzi (Venice, 1992), pp. 81– 95. G. Ortalli, ‘I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città’, in Storia di Venezia, II: L’età del comune, eds. G. Cracco, G. Ortalli (Rome, 1995), pp. 761–82. G. Ortalli, Lupi genti culture. Uomo e ambiente nel Medioevo (Turin, 1997). G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. J. Hussey (New Brunswick, 1969, revised edition). P. A. Passolonghi, ‘Presenza benedettina nella Venezia orientale tra i secoli VIII e X’, Benedectina 29 (1982), pp. 29–46. M. Pavan – G. Arnaldi, ‘Le origini dell’identità lagunare’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 409–56. A. Pertusi, ‘Cultura bizantina a Venezia’, in Storia della cultura veneta: Dalle origini al Trecento (Vicenza, 1976), pp. 326–49. G. Petti Balbi, ‘Lotte antisaracene e “militia Christi” in ambito iberico’, in ‘Militia Christi’ e Crociata nei secoli XI-XIII (Milan, 1992), pp. 519–45. Ch. Pietri – L. Pietri, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne 313–604, 2 vols. (Rome, 1999–2000). W. Pohl, ‘Invasions and ethnic identity, in Italy in the Early Middle Ages 476–1000, ed. C. La Rocca (Oxford, 2002), pp. 11–33. W. Pohl, ‘Il V secolo e le trasformazioni del mondo romano’, in Le trasformazioni del V secolo. L’Italia, i barbari e l’Occidente romano, eds. P. Delogu – S. Gasparri (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 741–62. W. Prescott Webb, The Great Plains (Waltham, 1931). Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I (A.D. 260–395), vol. II (A. D. 395– 527), eds. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris (Cambridge, 1971, 1980). Ch. Raffensperger, Reimagining Europe: Kievan Rus’ in the Medieval World, 988–1146 (Cambridge, MA, 2012). D. Rando, Una Chiesa di frontiera: Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche veneziane nei secoli VI– XII (Bologna, 1994). G. Ravegnani, ‘Insegne del potere e titoli ducali’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 838–46. G. Ravegnani, Bisanzio e Venezia (Bologna, 2006). G. Ravegnani, ‘Paoluccio, Anafesto’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 81 (Rome, 2014). (available online at www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/anafesto-paoluccio_ (Dizionario-Biografico)/). B. Rosada, ‘Il “Chronicon Venetum” di Giovanni Diacono’, Ateneo Veneto 178 (1990), pp. 79–94. S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign: A Study of Tenth-Century Byzantium (Cambridge, 1988, first edition 1929). G. Sergi, I confini del potere: Marche e signorie fra due regni medievali (Turin, 1995). A. Settia, ‘Le frontiere del Regno Italico nei secoli VI–XI: l’organizzazione della difesa’, Studi storici 1 (1989), pp. 155–69. P.-A. Sigal, L’homme et le miracle dans la France médiévale (XIe–XIIe siècle) (Paris, 1985). P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Society 500–1200 (Harlow, 2001). J. Smith, Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History, 500–1000 (Oxford, 2005).

160 Bibliography Storia di Venezia, I: Origini-Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco – G. Ortalli (Rome, 1992). M. Strickland, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066–1217 (Cambridge, 1996). P. Tomea, ‘L’agiografia dell’Italia Settentrionale, 950–1130’, in Hagiographies: histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en occident des origines à 1550, ed. G. Philippart, vol. 3 (Turnhout, 2001), pp. 99–177. S. Tramontin, ‘Culto e liturgia’, in Storia di Venezia, I, pp. 893–905. S. Tramontin, ‘Problemi agiografici e profili di santi’, in La Chiesa di Venezia nei secoli XI-XIII, ed. F. Tonon (Venice, 1988), pp. 153–77. The Transformation of Frontiers: From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians, eds. W. Pohl, I. Wood – H. Reimitz (Leiden, 2000). W. T. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford, 1988). M. Uhlirz, ‘Venezia nella politica di Ottone III’, in La Venezia del Mille (Florence, 1965), pp. 29–43. The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen – M. Innes (Cambridge, 2000). R. Van Dam, Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton, NJ, 1993). A. A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, MA, 1946). B. Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000–1215 (Philadelphia, PA, 1987). B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005). Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages. Essays Presented to Karl Leyser, ed. T. Reuter (London – Rio Grande, 1992). G. West, ‘Communities and Pacta in Early Medieval Italy: Jurisdiction, Regulatory Authority and Dispute Avoidance’, Early Medieval Europe 18, 4 (2010), pp. 367–93. V. West-Harling, ‘Introduction’, in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, 750–1000, ed. V. West-Harling (Turnhout, 2015), pp. 13–31. C. Whittaker, Les fròntieres de l’Empire romain (Paris, 1989). C. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, MD, 1994). D. Wilson, Charlemagne (New York, 2006). I. Wood, The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages (Oxford 2013). S. Yarrow, Saints and their Communities: Miracle Stories in Twelfth Century England (Oxford, 2006). F. Zevi, ‘Tetrarchi’, in Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica (Rome 1966) (available online at www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/tetrarchi_(Enciclopedia-dell'-Arte-Antica/).

Dictionaries Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, conditum a Carolo du Fresne domino Du Cange, auctum a monachis ordinis S. Benedicti cum supplementis integris D. P. Carpenterii, Adelungii, aliorum suisque digessit G. A. L. Henschel; sequuntur Glossarium gallicum, tabulae, indices auctorum et rerum, dissertationes. – Editio nova/ aucta pluribus verbis aliorum scriptorum a L. Favre (Niort, 1885).

Index

Aachen 73 Adelaide, empress, Emperor Otto II’s mother 18 Adelchis, prince of Benevento 68, 81 Adriatic 1, 14, 25–27, 33, 49, 50, 54, 56, 69, 74, 77, 86, 91, 128, 138 Africa 95, 140 Agnellus, Venetian duke 20, 21, 34, 53, 73 Agrestius, Trevisan 102–4 Aistulf, Lombard king 93 Albertoni G. 80 Albinus, Trevisan 102 Albiola 51, 52, 54, 57 Alboin, Lombard king 106 Alexander, Byzantine emperor 62, 75 Alexandria 73, 74, 135, 145, 146 Althoff G. 79, 91 Altino 93, 136, 138, 147 Alvermann D. 78 Ancona 26, 59 Antoninus, saint 137 Apulia 38, 68 Aquileia 38, 42, 47, 51, 53, 55, 93, 133, 134, 136, 144, 145 Arduin, margrave of Ivrea, king of Italy 68, 83 Arnaldi G. 34, 147 Asia 95 Athanasius, bishop of Naples 145 Athanasius II, bishop of Naples 37 Attila, ruler of the Huns 51 Aurii, Venetian family 147 Aurius, Venetian tribune 136, 137, 147 Azzara C. 55

Bando/Pando, Lombard gastald of Bari 70, 81 Barbero A. 58, 115 Bardanes Tourkos, see Turchis Bari 7–9, 14, 15, 24, 26, 29, 30, 37, 39, 68, 80, 81, 91, 129, 141, 142 Barnay S. 141 Basil, Byzantine emperor 33 Basil II, Byzantine emperor 60, 64, 86 Bavaria 75 Baynes S. 141 Beatus, brother of the Venetian Duke Obelerio, Venetian co-ruler 34, 42, 48–50, 52, 54, 56, 63 Benedict, saint 143 Beneventans 82 Benevento 37, 68, 81 Berengar, king of Italy 16, 62, 64 Berlioz J. 140 Berto L. A. 3, 4, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 56, 58, 73, 75, 80–2, 91, 100, 114, 117, 140–2, 145 Besta E. 4 Boesh-Gajano S. 139 Borri F. 57, 58 Bosl K. 79 Brač 26 Branimir, Slavic ruler 80, 81 Britain 95 Brown T. 28 Brown W. C. 59 Bulgarians 61, 63, 64, 74, 86 Byzantines 9, 14, 33, 40, 46, 48, 50, 53, 57–9, 61–4, 74, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 96, 130

Badoer, brother of the Venetian Duke John III 9 Badussio, Trevisan 102, 103

Calabria 14, 24, 65, 80 Candiana, Trevisan woman 102–4 Caorle 14, 26, 77, 94, 128

162 Index Capasso R. 4 Capuans 37 Cardini F. 27 Carile A. 35, 56, 58 Carosus, Venetian tribune, Venetian duke 19, 35, 133 Casier 113 Castagnetti A. 28, 39, 41, 43, 147 Cessi R. 33, 36, 47, 52, 55, 57–9, 89, 91, 98, 136, 146 Charlemagne, Frankish king, emperor 36, 37, 46–56, 58, 59, 69, 73, 79, 82, 131 Chioggia 54 Christopher, bishop of Olivolo 47, 49, 55, 56 Cittanova/Civitas Nova, Eraclea 31, 53, 82, 93, 95 Cividale/Forum Iulii 93, 94, 98, 113 Cleph, Lombard king 119 Cluny 66, 132 Colombi E. 74, 145 Coloprini, Venetian family, see also Stephen Coloprini 19–21, 23, 35, 42, 65, 132, 142 Comacchio 8, 9, 26, 50, 57, 59, 74 Como 29, 84 Constantine, see Cyrill Constantine VII, Byzantine emperor 46, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 61–3, 77, 142 Constantinople 16, 25, 46, 48–50, 53, 54, 59–64, 74, 75, 78, 86, 88, 91 Cosentino S. 117, 118 Cracco G. 32, 40–43, 145–147 Crete 43 Croats 9, 15, 25, 26, 30, 37, 74 Crouzet-Pavan E. 147 Curta F. 80, 81 Cuscito G. 144 Cuxà 87, 142 Cyrill/Constantine, evangelizer of the Slavs 74 Dado, count, father of the Margrave of Ivrea Arduin 83 Dalmatia 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 25, 26, 30–32, 37, 39, 48, 49, 52, 53, 82, 84, 85, 131 Danaelis, Trevisan 101–4 Danube, river 95 Della Valle, M. 88 Delogu P. 99, 119 De Nie G. 139 Dennig Zettler R. 145

Deodatus, bishop of Torcello 35 Deusdedit, Venetian duke 17, 21 DeVries K. 143 Diavolinus, chief of the Byzantine imperial guards 77 Dierkens A. 139 Diocletian, Roman emperor 88 Domagoj, Slavic ruler 25, 80 Dominic, monk from Comacchio 74 Dominic, Venetian ambassador of the German ruler Otto 74 Dominic Flabianicus, Venetian duke 42 Dominic Monegario, Venetian duke 17, 75 Dominic Morosini 21, 23 Dopsch H. 144 Dujč ev I 74 Durodus, Trevisan 102, 104 Dutton P. 139 Džino D. 37, 81 Eraclea, see Cittanova Eraclius, Trevisan, son-in-law of Felix and Candiana 102–4 Eraclius, Trevisan 102–4 Ermuald, Lombard gastald 102–4, 118 Fasoli G. 4, 139, 146, 148 Febvre L. 95 Fedalto G. 56, 144, 146, 147 Felicia 130, 142 Felix, Venetian tribune 49, 56 Felix, Trevisan 102, 104 Felix, bishop of Treviso 119 Florentinus, Trevisan 102 Florentinus, Trevisan gasindius 102 Fontanelle, perhaps a village near either Oderzo or Porto Buffolé 102, 103 Fortunatus, saint 133, 134, 144, 145 Fortunatus II, patriarch of Grado 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 73 Forum Iulii, see Cividale Fosca, martyr 139 France 95 Francia 48, 51, 53 Francovich Onesti N. 113, 114, 119 Franks 36, 46–8, 50–4, 57–9, 77, 82 Frederick, German emperor 33 Frugoni C. 115 Fumagalli V. 140 Gabriel, archangel 130 Galla, Venetian duke 17, 21

Index Gallus, chief of the Byzantine imperial guards 77 Galus, Trevisan 103 Gandino G. 76 Gasparri S. 59, 92–7, 99, 100, 113–15, 117, 119 Gattucci A. 139 Geary P. 99, 140, 146 Genoa 59 George, Venetian priest 73 Germany 60, 78 Godescalc of Orbais, Saxon theologian 74 Gonolo, Trevisan 114 Grado 4, 9, 10, 21, 42, 47, 52, 53, 55, 58, 60, 73, 93, 94, 128, 133, 134, 144, 145 Granier Th. 82 Gregory IV, pope 44 Gregory V, pope 1, 66 Grigorius, Trevisan 103 Grimoald, Lombard king 98 Hadrian, pope 15, 46, 47 Harum Ibn Yahya, Muslim? writer 74 Haubrichs W. 114, 119 Heather P. 99 Heinzelmann M. 145 Helias, patriarch of Grado 93 Huns 93 Henry, king of Germany 60, 69 Henry II, king of Germany 68, 71, 73, 91 Henry Orseolo, son of the Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo 91 Herasmus, saint 136, 137 Hermachoras, saint 133, 144, 145 Hermes, saint 136, 137 Herodotus, Greek historian 141 Hoffmann J. 28 Hugh, margrave of Tuscany 31, 40–2 Hungarians 5, 14, 16, 24, 27, 38, 65, 131 Ibn Ḥawqal, Muslim geographer 74 Iogna-Prat D. 143 Iraclius, Trevisan 102 Irene, Byzantine empress 48, 55 Istria 9, 15, 16, 25, 26, 33, 92 Iubianus, Venetian magister militum 92 Iulianus, Trevisan 102, 103 Iuvenalis, Trevisan 103 Jarnut J. 113, 117, 118 Jerusalem 60, 73, 74

163

Jews 60, 134, 135 John, bishop of Belluno 39, 82, 85, 86, 91 John, bishop of Olivolo 128 John, deacon, bishop of Olivolo, patriarch of Grado 52, 53, 56 John, patriarch of Grado 36, 47, 48, 55, 58 John, son the Venetian Duke Peter, co-ruler 80, 90 John, Venetian duke 21, 47–9, 55 John II, son of the Venetian Duke Agnellus, Venetian duke 18, 33, 73, 133 John III, Venetian duke 8, 9 John, Venetian priest, ambassador of a Slavic ruler 74 John the Baptist 137 John Crescentius, Roman aristocrat 67, 79 John Monetarius, Venetian 30 John Orseolo, son the Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo, co-ruler 16, 128 John Philàgatos, John the Greek, anti-pope 66, 67 John Sagorninus, Venetian smith 42 John Tzimiskes, Byzantine emperor 75 John XII, pope 144 Jones A. H. M., J. R. Martindale, J. Morris 117–18 Justina, saint 137, 147 Justinian, Byzantine emperor 60 Justinian, Venetian duke 33, 120, 146 Kaeuper R. W. 28 Koper/Capodistria 75 Krešimir III, Croat King 81 Kujawinski J. 74 La Rocca C. 99 Lagosta/Lastovo 6, 8, 25, 26, 42 Lamma P. 59, 74, 82 Lane F. 58 Lanfranchi F. 57 Lanzoni F. 142 Le Vignole, Venetian island 147 Leo III, pope 56 Leo IV, pope 44 Leo IV, Byzantine emperor 75 Leo V, Byzantine general, Byzantine emperor 61, 62, 75, 146 Lithorix, Trevisan 103 Littus Album, Venetian location 147 Littus Boum, Venetian location 147 Littus Mercedis, Venetian location 147

164 Index Liudprand, Lombard king 38, 52, 77, 92, 93, 95, 144 Liudprand of Cremona, ambassador, chronicler 61–3, 74, 77, 144 Liudweit, Slavic ruler 73 Liutefred, ambassador of the German King Otto 74 Lombards 8, 15, 24, 46, 51, 52, 92–4, 96, 101, 105, 106, 113, 119, 147 Lopunus Marinus, Trevisan 102–4, 118 Lothar, Frankish emperor 54, 68, 70, 93 Louis the Pious, Frankish emperor 73 Louis II, emperor 37, 68, 74, 80, 81, 90, 142 Louis the German, king of the eastern Franks 74 Lupoi M. 79 Lupus, Lombard duke of Cividale 93 Madden T. 58 Maiolus, abbot of Cluny 66, 132, 143 Mantua 136 Marcellus, magister militum, Venetian duke 93, 117 Marinus, patriarch of Grado 60 Mark, saint 73, 74, 85–8, 134–6, 139, 140, 145, 146 Mark, basilica of Saint, Venice 74, 84 Martindale J. R., see Jones A. H. M. Mary, mother of Christ 129, 130, 141 Mary, Byzantine princess, wife of John Orseolo 16, 128 Mary, wife of the Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo 142 Mary, church of Saint, Torcello 137 Mastallici, Venetian family 18, 19, 21, 133 Maura, martyr 139 Maurice, Venetian duke 2, 15, 47, 92, 97 Maurice, son of the Venetian Duke John 48 Maurus, priest, bishop of Torcello 136–8, 147 McCormick M. 73–5 McCready W. D. 139 Metamauco 18, 21, 47, 51, 53, 57, 58, 138 Methodius, evangelizer of the Slavs 74 Mexico 100 Michael, Byzantine emperor 58, 61–3, 76 Michael, Slavic ruler 25, 37, 38, 81 Michael, monastery of Saint, Brondolo 80 Mislav, Slavic ruler 33, 81 Monticolo G. 3, 144

Mor G. 91 Moro P. 28, 59, 98 Morosini, Venetian family 19, 21, 23, 36, 65, 142 Morris J., see Jones A. H. M. Muslims, Saracens 5, 7–9, 13–5, 23–4, 26, 30–1, 37–40, 43, 55, 62, 64–6, 68, 74–5, 77, 80–1, 91, 128–30, 143, 146 Nallino M. 74, 80 Naples 37, 145 Narenta/Neretva, river 28 Narentans 5, 6, 9, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 38 Nelson J. L. 58 Niceforus, Byzantine emperor 48, 49, 61 Niceforus II Phocas, Byzantine emperor 74, 75 Nicetas, Byzantine officer 49–50, 52, 56 Nicholas, saint 145 Nicol D. M. 53, 58 Normans 61–3 O’Har G. 100 Obelerio, Venetian duke 8, 18, 21, 31, 34, 42, 48–50, 52–56, 63 Oderzo 8, 98, 115 Oikonomides N. 141 Olivolo 47, 55, 56, 128, 138, 147 Ortalli G. 3, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41, 43, 55, 56, 58, 59, 74, 78, 80–82, 91, 98, 139, 140, 142, 146 Orsus/Ursus, Trevisan 102–4 Ossero 26 Ostrogorsky G. 58 Otto, king of Germany, Emperor 62, 74, 144 Otto II, emperor 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 36, 57, 64–6, 72, 80, 82, 131, 132, 134 Otto III, emperor 1, 28, 39, 66–68, 74, 79, 82, 84–91, 132, 144 Otto Orseolo, son of Duke Peter II Orseolo, Venetian duke 27, 86, 129, 131, 138, 142 Palermo 74 Palestine 105 Pando, see Bando Passolonghi P. A. 113 Paterno, Latium 73 Paul, see Peter, Paul, and Theonistus, monastery of Sts., Casier (Treviso) Paul, the patriarch of Aquileia who moved to Grado 38, 93, 144

Index Paulitio, Venetian duke? 92, 93, 117 Pavan M. 34, 147 Pavia 68 Pentapolis 47 Persians 141 Pertusi A. 74 Peter, saint 131, 137 Peter, basilica of saint, Rome 64 Peter, church of Saint, Venice 18, 131 Peter, see Peter, Paul, and Theonistus, monastery of Sts., Casier (Treviso) Peter, Venetian duke 5, 14, 19, 21, 28, 30, 33, 35, 128, 132 Peter Badoer, son of the Venetian Duke Ursus Particiaco 15, 25, 74 Peter Candiano, Venetian duke 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 28, 30 Peter II Candiano, Venetian duke 8, 60, 69 Peter III Candiano Venetian duke 10, 64 Peter IV Candiano, Venetian duke 2, 8–12, 17, 22, 28, 32, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 60, 64, 75, 131, 142, 145 Peter Damiani, biographer of Saint Romuald 12, 13, 32, 41, 43, 142 Peter Orseolo, Venetian duke 9, 12, 13, 32, 41–3, 75, 130, 131, 139, 142 Peter Orseolo, son of Duke Peter II Orseolo, his name was changed into Otto, see Otto Orseolo Peter II Orseolo, Venetian duke 1, 2, 6–10, 12, 14–6, 24–7, 30–3, 37–9, 41, 42, 46, 64, 68, 69, 79, 81, 82, 84–6, 88, 89, 91, 127–31, 138, 140, 142 Peter Tribuno, Venetian duke 5, 65, 131 Peter, Paul, and Theonistus, monastery of Sts., Casier (Treviso) 113 Petti Balbi G. 141 Piave River 94, 119 Pietri Ch.– L. Pietri 117–18 Pippin, king of Italy, son of Charlemagne 16, 37, 49–54, 57–9, 69, 82, 131 Po River 84 Pohl W. 99, 119 Pomposa 84, 89 Poppo, patriarch of Aquileia 133, 134, 145 Postumia road 119 Predicernus, Trevisan 102–4 Prescott Webb W. 95, 96, 100 Primogenius, patriarch of Grado 144, 145

165

Raffensperger Ch. 76 Rando D. 55, 113, 144, 146 Ravegnani G. 53, 56, 58, 117 Ravenna 1, 46, 66, 79, 84, 92 Reggio Calabria 59 Reichenau 145 Rhine, river 95 Rio Grande, river 100 Rivoalto 3, 5, 10, 12, 34, 58, 60, 64, 78, 84, 131 Rodulf, count of Rimini 1 Romanus Lecapenus, Byzantine emperor 61–4, 142 Romanus II, Byzantine emperor 75 Rome 1, 26, 64, 66, 68, 79, 82, 91 Rosada B. 4 Rothari, Lombard king 98 Runciman S. 76, 77 Rus/Rusii 62 Sabbatinus, Trevisan 102–4 Salamis, battle of 141 Salomon, Byzantine envoy 74 Sambolus, Trevisan 102, 103 Saracens, see Muslims Saxony 75 Senatur/Senator, Trevisan 102–4 Sergi G. 83 Settia A. 83 Sicily 30, 33, 74, 128 Sigal P.-A. 139 Sirus, biographer of the Abbot of Cluny Maiolus 132 Skinner P. 142 Slavs 5, 8–10, 13–6, 25, 26, 30, 33, 37, 64, 69, 74, 77, 82, 128, 131, 140 Smaragdus, Byzantine officer 144 Smith J. 140 Stabilinus, probably the Lombard duke of Treviso 105, 117, 119 Stauracius, Egyptian monk 74 Stephen Coloprini 23, 36, 42 Stjepan, son of Surigna, i.e. the Croat King Krešimir III 81 Strickland M. 28 Surigna, i.e. the Croat King Krešimir III 81 Syracuse 59 Taormina 59 Taranto 14, 26, 31, 68, 81, 143 Teupernus, Emperor Otto III’s companion 28

166 Index Theodorus, Egyptian priest 74 Theonistus, see Peter, Paul, and Theonistus, monastery of Sts., Casier (Treviso) Theophilus, Byzantine emperor 75 Thietmar of Merseburg, German chronicler 65, 78 Tiberius, Venetian priest 73 Ticiana, Trevisan woman 102–4 Ticianus, Trevisan 104 Tomea P. 139, 145 Torcello 2, 35, 82, 93, 137–9, 147 Totila, king of the Ostrogoths 143 Tramontin S. 139 Treadgold W. T. 58, 75 Treviso 48, 55, 56, 90, 101–6, 113, 117, 119 Tribunus Menio, Venetian duke 2, 19–23, 42, 132 Trpmir, Slavic ruler 80, 81 Turchis, Byzantine rebel 61 Uhlirz M. 88, 90, 91 United States of America 95, 96, 100 Ursus, Venetian duke 17, 28 Ursus II, Venetian duke 8, 13, 15, 16, 30, 131 Ursus Particiaco, Venetian duke 15, 25, 74

Van Dam R. 139 Vasiliev A. A. 62, 76 Verona 31, 68, 82, 86, 91 Vicenza 92 Victor, patriarch of Grado 128 Vitalis Candiano, Venetian duke 4, 32, 43 Waldrada, second wife of the Venetian Duke Peter IV Candiano 10, 40–2, 142 Ward B. 139 Ward-Perkins B. 99 Warinus, abbot of St. Michael of Cuxà 87, 74 West G. 98 West-Harling V. 3 Whittaker C. 95, 99 Wilson D. 58 Wood I. 99 Yarrow S. 139 Zachary, monastery of St., Venice 9, 84, 133 Zarans 9, 26 Zdeslav, Slavic ruler 80, 81 Zettler A. 145 Zevi F. 88 Zille G. G. 57 Zoe, Byzantine empress 62 Zuentibald, Moravian duke 74