Beatus (fellow dog)

Beatus († 811 in Zara ) was co-ruler of the Venetian Doge Obelerius until 809 or 810 , as was their brother Valentinus . The three doges got into the overarching conflict between the Frankish Empire and the Byzantine Empire , which lasted from 800 to 812. While Obelerius, the eldest of the brothers, was a proponent of an alliance with the Franconian Empire, the role of his brothers is less clear. In 804 Obelerius had succeeded in overthrowing his Byzantine-friendly predecessor Johannes Galbaius and in causing him to flee into exile. The people's assembly raised his two brothers Beatus and Valentinus to co-regents, so that three doges are mentioned. During this period, Constantinople underlined its claim to the Venice lagoon with three interventions . In the course of the conflict with Byzantium, Pippin , one of Charlemagne's sons , attacked Venice. Obelerius and Beatus possibly committed themselves to pay tribute to King Pippin, who, however, died in 810. Byzantium, which steered its fleet into the lagoon for the last time, gained the upper hand, and Beatus and his brothers were overthrown. Pippin was able to conquer all permanent places, with the exception of Rialto , which as a result of these events in 811 became the seat of the successor to the fallen brothers. Obelerius (“Willeri”) and Beatus denote the closest source in time, the Annales regni Francorum , indiscriminately as duces , so they do not recognize any difference in status between the two doges. In historiography there were considerations as to whether Beatus had not overthrown his brother Obelerius and whether he had not initiated the resettlement to Rialto. Valentinus was allowed to stay in Venice after the fall of the older brothers because of his youth.

Surname

In the next time source, the Frankish realm annals , is the Doge Beatus , in Martino da Canales French Opus Les Estoires de Venise , created after the mid-13th century, Beat .

The later nickname Antenoreo , by which the main dog became known, should probably lead him back to the Trojan king Antenor , the legendary founder of Padua, at the latest since the 14th century . This city in turn was considered the mother city of Venice. In the Cronica di Venexia 1362 it says expressly about the brothers Obelerio and "Biado": "i quali tuti doi funno prenomadi Antenori, in the per quelo che propriamente erano discexi li soi antixi del re Antenor hedifficador de Pathavia", that is to say, the Both of them were called Antenori because they were probably descendants of King Antenor, the builder of Padua '(f. 14 v – 15r). This interpretation prevailed.

Life and co-rule

Frankish conquests between 768 and 816; Venetian territory

The rule of the three doges was closely linked to the large-scale political tensions known as the two emperor problem . With the imperial coronation of Charles I , King of the Franks, in 800, the Roman Empire had a second emperor alongside the ruler in Constantinople. However, the emperors in Constantinople saw themselves as the only legitimate successors to the Roman emperors. Therefore there were disputes that dragged on until the Peace of Aachen . At the local level, the two great powers tried to exert influence in the course of this twelve-year conflict, while in the lagoon corresponding political factions unfolded their activities, which acted pro-Byzantine or pro-Frankish. The former found supporters above all in Eraclea , the old capital of the ducat located on the mainland, while the latter found support from a corresponding group in Malamocco , which was located on the edge of the Venice lagoon and where the rulers there had relocated for a few decades . During these disputes, the Patriarch of Grado was murdered by the son and fellow doge Mauritius (II) on the orders of his father John in 802. Contrary to their hopes, the conflict was by no means over. Instead, the successor of the patriarch, Fortunatus II , received immunities for his church from the Frankish emperor on a day in salt .

There was also a conflict between Eraclea and Iesolo . The opponents of Doge Mauritius , his son Johannes and his grandson Mauritius (II.), Who all co-ruled, gathered their strength in Treviso on Franconian territory. There, after the overthrow of the three doges - father, son and grandson - who went into exile, they made the tribune Obelerius their leader. The new budding Doge from Malamocco went 'boldly' to Venice, as Johannes Diaconus notes around two centuries later. Like the Galbaii, Obelerius raised relatives to co-regents, but not from his descendants. Instead, he had his brother Beatus elected, who in turn was moderately Byzantine-friendly, even if only outwardly. According to a chronicle from the late 14th century that was wrongly assigned to the chronicler Enrico Dandolo - not to be confused with the Doge Enrico Dandolo - Obelerius was hated for his 'tyrannical' manner, while his brother Beatus enjoyed great popularity for his kindness.

The two brothers forced Eraclea into submission, and their chiefs were made permanent hostages in Malamocco, as were those of Iesolo . The Patriarch Fortunatus resumed his official residence in Grado , but despite similar political interests, he had to wait months before he was allowed to enter the lagoon because of the opposition of the Doge Brothers.

Since the lagoon now seemed to be part of the Frankish sphere, Obelerius and Beatus appeared at the end of 805, as did the Patriarch, but also the Bishop of Zara as a representative of the Dalmatians , at the court of Charlemagne in Diedenhofen , around the cities of the lagoon and Representing Dalmatia. Relations between Venice and the Carolingians were now regulated by an ordinatio de ducibus et populis tam Venetiae quam Dalmatiae , as stated in the Annales regni Francorum . However, the details have not been passed down. In short, Stefan Weinfurter says: "Charlemagne occupied the territories [ie Dalmatia and Veneto] in 805/806 ... In 808 Byzantium was again in control of the situation."

In fact, Nikephorus I , emperor since 802, sent a fleet to the northern Adriatic under the command of the patrician Nicetas. Since the Franks had no fleet at their disposal, Niketas initially brought Dalmatia under his control without resistance. In connection with this coastline, later chronicles, such as the said Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo , the oldest chronicle in Volgare , claim that a Venetian fleet launched an attack from Malamocco in order to fight the pirates there, who previously excepted the Eraclea Foundation walls ("fino a le fundamente") burned down. When the Byzantine fleet appeared at the entrance to the lagoon on its way from Dalmatia, Fortunatus fled while Obelerius and Beatus submitted. Obelerius even received the title of Spatharius (sword-bearer), with which he was externally subject to the Byzantine rule. Niketas managed to make an agreement with Pippin , King of Italy and son of Charles. His fleet returned to Constantinople in the summer of 807. Some of the pro-Franconian men were taken along. Beatus, who also sailed to Constantinople, received the title of Hypathus ( Ipato ) in the capital, only to return to Venice.

The deal between Nicetas and Pippin, however, in the absence of a treaty between the empires, did not last long. In 809, Paul, Duca of Kephalonia , led a fleet into Venetian waters. Fights broke out with the Franks of Comacchio , as a result of which the Byzantines who had failed there tried to find a new agreement. The two doges did not make a clear decision, so Pippin prepared an invasion after the withdrawal of Paul's fleet.

Emperor Karl (left) in conversation with his son Pippin of Italy, facsimile of a miniature from the Liber legum des Lupus Ferrariensis , probably made during his stay in Fulda 828 / 29-836 on behalf of Margrave Eberhard von Friuli , Biblioteca Capitolare zu Modena .

The closest source in time after the Frankish imperial annals comes from Johannes Diaconus , who, however, paints a highly partisan picture. From a distance of two centuries a relatively solid version of the tradition had already been established in Venice. She put the blame for the outbreak of the conflict entirely on Pippin, who attacked the ducat from land and sea in breach of the agreements. He was able to conquer the coastal centers quickly. Then he penetrated the southern lagoon, where he marched to Albiola near Pellestrina . From there he threatened Malamocco, but was defeated in the fight. The Reichsannals, on the other hand, provide a completely different version. Accordingly, an agreement between Constantinople and Pippin failed because of the machinations of the two doges. Only then did Pippin subdue the Venetians. Only the Greek fleet, which appeared in the upper Adriatic, forced him to withdraw.

In the end the pro-Frankish party was defeated in any case. Obelerius and Beatus tried to secure their precarious rule by taking the side of the victors. At times, but ultimately in vain, the Doge sought Franconian support. Instead, they handed him over to Byzantium in 810. He was sent to Constantinople as a prisoner. Beatus was taken to Zara, where he died the next year.

reception

In the Chronicon Altinate or Chronicon Venetum , Beatus appears as brother and Obelerius as Dux with a joint term of five years “Obelierius dux et Beatus, frater eius, sederunt ann. 5 ". For Martino da Canal it was just as natural in the middle of the 13th century that both brothers ruled as 'Doges'. They were addressed as “knife” or “mesir”, as was customary towards the city nobility: “mesire beat et son frere furent dus”.

For Venice at the time of Doge Andrea Dandolo , the interpretation attached to the rule of the brothers was of great symbolic importance. The focus of the now firmly established political leadership bodies, which also controlled the writing of history, was directed to the development of the constitution, the internal disputes between the possessores , i.e. the increasingly closed group of the haves, who at the same time occupied political power, but also the shifts in power within the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean as well as in Italy. Since Obelerius and Beatus stood for the attempt to navigate between the great powers, their rule received great symbolic power for the failure of the Malamocco faction. The questions about the sovereignty between the overpowering empires, the law from its own roots, the demarcation from the militarily often far superior mainland powers, above all from the Roman-German Empire and the Franconian Empire, and thus the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims, always stood in the centre. The explanation for the move of the Doge's seat from Malamocco to Rialto also received a compelling security logic, because Rialto was more difficult to attack after the experience with Pippin. About the dismissal of the three doge brothers, Andrea Dandolo notes that Obelerius was banished to Constantinople and Beatus to Iadra, but Valentinus remained in Venice because of his youth, “juvenilem habens etatem” (ed. Pastorella, p. 132). As with the Galbaii, who tried to establish a dynasty, the state-controlled historiography also condemned the attempt by the three brothers to bring about such a constitutional change. In his chronicle, the Doge Andrea Dandolo writes: "Hic ex colaudacione populi fratrem suum, Beatum nomine, consocium dignitatis suscepit" (ed. Pastorello, p. 128). Obelerius raised his brother Beatus to a “dignity” with the designation “consocium”, whereas he called the rank of the third brother Valentinus “consors” (ed. Pastorello, p. 132).

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the 14th century, depicts the motifs and events on a largely personal level and establishes connections that ultimately did not prevail in Venetian historiography. In unusual detail, the author also interweaves speeches by the protagonists, he describes the events at the center of which the attack by the Franks under the leadership of Charlemagne on the lagoon cities is. The author focuses on Obelerius' jealousy of his brother "Biado". According to the chronicle, under the common rule of the brothers, Slavs conquered the exposed “cità Eracliana” and destroyed it up to the “fundamenta”. In return, a fleet was sent to Dalmatia, which in turn caused great destruction there. But when Obelerius began to rule “tiranichamente” - the second motive besides jealousy - he made himself hated, in contrast to Beatus; had it not been for the love of the residents for Beatus, the older brother would have been killed long ago. As a result, he and a few men moved secretly ("ocultament [r] e") to the court of Charles. There he offered the Franconian, who was staying in Lombardy, rule over Malamocco, plus "beli gioeli". Obelerius married a (alleged daughter) Karl at court, but her name is not mentioned. The lagoon was betrayed by Obelerius, attacked by Karl with 20,000 riders, but its inhabitants defended their freedom behind its wall, the sea - a metaphor that goes back to the battles of the 12th century. In the following, the author puts an address in Beatus' mouth that he addresses against Karl and “pessimo mio fradelo”, against his' extremely bad 'brother. It was about "nostra salvation et perpetuo honor et fama", about "rescue", " honor " and "fama" (this also corresponds more to ideas of the High Middle Ages). So Beatus called for the defense, whereupon the gathered shouted (“gridar”): “Sia! Sia! ”(P. 24), a representation that suggests knowledge of a crusade call. Then all the residents of Malamocco and their ships moved to Rialto to barricade themselves there. Karl, who had in the meantime reached the lagoon, learned from an extremely old woman who loved her home that the inhabitants were in a place called Rialto. She suggested Karl - her speech is also given here - to cross over to Rialto on rafts and barrels. When the Venetians attacked Charles's army, he admired their courage (“Veramente valorosi homini son costoro”). In a battle outside Lido, which the Franks also lost, the older brother was captured by the Venetians. He was murdered at "Sen Martin dicto de Strada" (San Martino di Strà on the mainland). Beatus, who heard of his brother's death, mourned him, but in view of the betrayal the mourning did not last long. Karl, who had lost the greater part of his army, as the author claims, believed in a divine decision: "Veramente è stata opra divina". After a few days of mourning, the Emperor Beatus even visited the Lido personally and apologized for falling victim to Obelerius' intrigues. Everything that happened should be forgotten as if it had never happened. Then the two rulers drove towards Rialto after the prisoners were released. In addition, Charles recognized the borders of Venice, which had been confirmed by the Longobard king " Lioprando " and the "first Doge Paulutio ", and concluded an eternal peace. The Franconian was festively accompanied on the way back to the Ferrara area . Beatus died after five years of reign and was buried with great honors - the place is not mentioned.

History painting on Pippin's attack on Venice ( King Pippin's army tries to reach Venice ), oil on canvas, Andrea Vicentino (approx. 1542–1618), created at the end of the 16th century, Doge's Palace

In 1502 Pietro Marcello in his work, which was later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , led the Doge and his two brothers in the section “OBELERIO ANTENORIO. DOGE VIII. “This classification as the 8th Doge is due to the fact that Marcello combines the three Galbaii as a single Doge. After Marcello there was the following military intervention by Pippin because this was ordered by his father Charlemagne. Marcello, who gave Obelerius the family name “Anafesto”, and thus with the same name as the first Doge, reports how Beatus was showered with honors in Constantinople, but also that “Valentino” was used by the people alongside the Doges at this time "Per compagno" was collected. There are also some who reported that Beatus had forced his brother into exile, whereupon he went to the court of Charles. There the Franconian gave him one of his daughters as a wife, in the hope that Obelerio would help him conquer the lagoon. When his army found Malamocco abandoned, they advanced to Rialto, but could do nothing. According to Marcello, some attributed the attempt at conquest not to Karl but to his son Pippin, a view that later prevailed. According to the author, Pippin undertook a second attempt at conquest, whereupon the Venetians turned to the eastern emperor. While Beatus and Obelerius were on the run, Valentinus ruled the lagoon. In order to conquer Rialto, Pippin is said to have built a bridge on tightly gathered barrels over which his horses should ride. The Venetians now attacked the Franks with all available boats. In the following battle in the Canal Arco, later called Canal Orfano, some fought mainly for their booty, others for freedom, “la piu cara cosa del mondo”, “the most valuable thing in the world”. Some, according to Marcello, claimed Obelerius and Beatus had withdrawn with the army of Pippin, who made peace with Venice. After the Franconian brought Obelerius back as a doge, he and his Franconian wife were torn to pieces by the people as soon as Pippin had left the lagoon. Still others are said to have written that after Obelerius's death his brother Beatus ruled for some time. Others, however, said that Valentinus had followed him in office. All in all, the three would have ruled for five years. Apparently the distribution of roles between the brothers was not yet historiographically fixed.

The chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , completed in 1532, reports somewhat more extensively. Caroldo, who claims to be based on the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo, believes that Obelerius was elected Doge by the "esuli Venetiani" who were in Treviso, and received by the people of Malamocco 'with honor' (“con honore”) and with “great joy” (“grande allegrezza” or “gran letitia”) (p. 51). This raised his brother Beatus to a fellow doge ("tolse Beato suo fratello consorte nel Ducato"). With Caroldo it was Fortunatus II who turned the Frankish emperor against the Venetians because they supported Byzantium, which occupied Dalmatia and Istria in violation of the treaty. He also reported on the cruel death of his predecessor. Karl promised him that he would wait for a suitable opportunity to take revenge and he issued the patriarch with 'the privilege of immunity' (“il privilegio d'immunità”). During this time the Franconian had united the Lombards with the Franks, according to Caroldo, and he had 'no small difference' (“non picciola differenza”) with Nikephoros, the eastern emperor. Heraclea, the birthplace of the evicted Doges, was also destroyed by the Venetians. 'Some say', the author adds, that King Charles, instigated by Fortunatus, sent his son to Italy to destroy the city where a large part of the Venetian “nobiltà” lived. The tribunes then went to "Malamocho, Rialto, Torcello et altre coadherenti Isole", Fortunatus returned from the Frankish Empire. He was accompanied by "Christoforo" the Bishop of Olivolo, who did not dare to go to Malamocco, but preferred "San Ciprian Chiesa in Murano". Then “Ioanni Diacono”, “inimico et persecutor di quella Chiesa”, was imprisoned. But he managed to escape, whereupon he turned the Doges against Fortunatus by reporting about his suffering. Allegedly the hatred of the Venetians was calmed down ("mitigato"), so that Fortunatus and Christoforus could return to their official seats Aquileia and Olivolo. After that, Nicetas was sent to the Adriatic by the emperor to defend the Byzantine possessions. But his strength was inadequate, so that he had to ask the Venetians for help, which they also gave. As he drove towards the lagoon, Fortunatus fled - “mà Fortunato non lo volse aspettare et sene andò in Francia”, Caroldo puts it ironically. "Ioanni Diacono da Niceta fù subrogato Patriarcha di Grado". Obelerius received the title of "Spatario" in the name of the emperor. "On the advice of the Venetians" ("con il consiglio di Venetiani") Beatus went to Constantinople - Caroldo does not provide an explanation for this. "Christoforo Vescovo Olivolense et Felice Tribuno" should travel with them, as they supported the Franks. Beatus was awarded the "dignità e titolo d'ypato" and returned to Venice. After that, the two brothers wanted their brother Valentino to be elected by the people as “consorte nel Ducato”. Now, on the orders of his father, Pippin attacked Venice in the eighth year of his imperial rule (that would be 808/09) with a large army in order to 'subjugate' it ("subiugare"). The "Brondolesi, Chiozotti et Pelestrinesi, finalmente pervenne in Albiola" fled. He hoped that he could force the Venetians to “deditione” through hunger. But they threw bread and other food at him "con le machine" to show that hunger could not overcome them. So the Franks prepared for a battle and drove through the "Porto di Malamocho". The Venetians could not defend Malamocco and therefore rallied on Rialto. On the advice of a “Vecchiarella” from Malamocco, Pippin had a bridge built out of barrels (“un porto sopra botte, incatenate di uimini [sic!] Et altri legami”). In contrast, the Venetians secretly (“nascosamente”) prepared many “barche”, which attacked the enemy when the water level was high and destroyed “li uimini [sic!] Et legami del ponte”. Of the many who perished, the canal in which this took place was still called "Canal Orfano" (orfano = orphan). Pippin, realizing that he could not conquer Rialto, had all the places on the "Lito" as far as Brondolo burned down. As some believe, Caroldo continues, Pippin left “la provincia di Venetia” to the Nicetas. A little later the king died in Milan. An "Ebarsapio Imperial Secretario" decreed that the doges would be deposed, with Obelerius going to Constantinople and Beatus to Zara. Valentinus was allowed to stay in Venice “per la giovenil età sua” because of his youth. Again some said, according to Caroldo, that Obelerius had gone to Karl because he was married to a noble Franconian (“havendo Obelerio la moglie nobile Francese”), while the Venetians declared him unworthy of the Doge's office and banished him. It was also said that both brothers, not just Obelerius, had been doges for five years. Surprisingly, Caroldo weaves in at one point (p. 54) views that do not agree with Dandolo's. The move to Rialto took place after the “venuta di Pipino”, after King Pippin's attempt in 810 to conquer the lagoon . As one can read in some old chronicles, according to the author, “Beato duce”, the brother of Obelerio, was the first to take his seat in Rialto (and thus by no means Agnello, as the Venetian tradition since Andrea Dandolo wanted it to be) ). It also shows that in a room of the "Palazzo Veneto erano in certa antica pittura descritti li successi delli due fratelli Duci Obelerio et Beato", the successes of the two Doge brothers Obelerius and Beatus were depicted in "a certain old painting" .

For the Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner , who made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking world, largely following Marcello , Obelerius was also called "Anafestus" in his Chronica that was published in 1574, the actual and brief description of all who lived in Venice . In 804 he was “elected” to the Doge and in turn took “Beatum / his brother as assistant”. Beatus went to Constantinople to “visit the Keyser Nicephorum”, where he was “highly honored and adorned with several imperial coats of arms”. In his absence, according to Kellner, the younger Valentin was assigned to the Doge "Obelerio from the common to the journeyman" in Venice. The author thinks that there are "some" "who say / that Obelerius was chased away by his brother Beatum deß Hertzogthumbs". Emperor Karl, to whom Obelerius had fled, Obelerius "gave his daughter to wife / because he had promised the king / to wire up the fatherland." Karl then conquered all the territory up to Malamocco. Since the city was empty, "and he took a little boat to get to Rialto / but there was a very big thunderstorm / through which he lost the greater part of his army / so / that he had to go uncomfortable." But waiter restricts : "How may a part / that not Carolus / but his Son Pipinus / have done this move". Pippin also attacked the Venetians a second time because the Venetians were in league with the Byzantine emperor, although it had been contractually agreed that they should remain neutral in the Frankish-Byzantine conflict. The author describes Pippin's attack in particular in detail. After Obelerius and Beatus had been overthrown and "Valentin ir brother rules the community", Pippin opened war by taking Malamocco, "Palestina" and Chioggia. Then he attacked the islands close to the mainland to cut off supplies. Valentinus “and what was at Malamocco” moved to Rialto with children and goods. Pippin had a bridge built from Albiola to Rialto - some had claimed on the advice of an old woman. Well, an assertion that runs through the entire chronicle, the Venetians would have decided "either to die for Vatterland / or to defend freedom". They attacked the Franks, who were not used to fighting on the water, who could no longer stand safely, "because the bridge sucks". Some of the attackers were killed by the sword, others were "drowned". The site of the battle, the "Canal Arco", was then renamed "Canal Orphano". As for the end of the three doges, Kellner reveals all the uncertainty of tradition. The author thinks that Obelerius and Beatus left with Pippin, who, however, still visited Venice for a peace treaty. He asked the Venetians to resume the Doges, which they "reluctantly" got involved with. After Pippin's departure they had “chopped up Obelerium into pieces / among whom there were some / who tore his heart with tears / and it is said / that his wife / who was born outside France / was killed with him”. And Kellner continues: “Quite a few others say / that / how Obelerius died / Beatus had the Hertzogthumb for a while / and others argue for / that Valentin / who was then younger / ruled the community. But as in wölle / so all three governments have not resisted for more than five years. "

Francesco Sansovino (1512–1586) also gave the family name "Anafesta" in his work Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia, Libri II , published in Venice in 1587 . According to Sansovino, a conspiracy (“congiura”) led by Obelerio and Fortunatus, the nephew of the murdered Patriarch of Grado, forced “the Doges” to flee in 804. The author also adopts a second brother named Valentinus, but casts doubt on his historicity ('as some say'). Since Obelerius had fought on the Frankish side, the two or three Doges were banished. In the edition of 1606 the anecdote about the wooden barrel bridge is described in detail (p. 103 f.).

Rough sketch of the Venice lagoon

In the translation of the Historia Veneta by Alessandro Maria Vianoli , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Hertzüge Leben / Government, und Die Aussterben / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the doge was called “ Obelerius Antenorius ". According to this account, "this prince / with his unstable and very defiant manner and nature / awoke nothing but war and war screams" (p. 70). The dispute between Eraclea and Iesolo, which was only poorly settled, was called / located "between Livenza and the Ruimondo ditch" through a border dispute over an area. After him, the Eracleans moved to Malamocco, the Jesolans to Rialto. This dispute is discussed by the author as a possible cause of Pippin's intervention, as is the betrayal of the expelled Obelerius, who tried to win the Frankish emperor over to his cause, but "the old scribes were of different opinion" (p. 75). However, the Venetians decided to remain loyal to the Eastern Emperor, so Pippin prepared his invasion. To do this, he put together a fleet in Ravenna . At Brondolo this had penetrated, whereupon "Chiozza, Palestina and Albiola" fell, the population of Malamocco fled to Rialto. An embassy refused to submit, whereupon Pippin threatened complete annihilation. Only now did the Venetians decide to resist, attacked the fleet and held it off until it ran aground at low tide. The place of slaughter, the Canal Orfano, was named after the numerous widows and orphans who were left behind by those who died in large numbers in the battle (p. 81 f.). The author expresses great doubts about the story that Obelerius was torn apart by the people after Pippin's departure, as was his Frankish wife.

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart wrote in his work Kurtze and an enlarged description of the origin / recording / territories / and government of the world-famous republic of Venice also about "Obelerius, one of the first masters / who united against that / who two of his brothers Beatum and Valentinum, accepted into the government next to him ”. For von Sandrart, the expulsion of the predecessors resulted in the Nicetas fleet appearing in front of Venice, whereupon Beatus traveled to Constantinople to “settle the matter”. According to the author, Emperor Nikephoros and Pippin even allied with each other, and yet Pippin, now King of Italy, attacked Venice, "on pretext / the Hertzoge were more inclined to the Greeks than the Francs". When Beatus returned from Constantinople, he disempowered his brothers. The rise of Venice began with the death of Pippin, for an “alliance was established / that the Venetians should be free people / and have free trade in the whole of the Orient; In such a shape, the Republicq Venice got a whole new reputation [...] so that the city grew to its right size. "

In 1769, Johann Friedrich LeBret reported in his state history of the Republic of Venice , more precisely in his fifth chapter, of the "War with the King Pipin, of the Doge Obelerius and his brother Beatus" (p. 124). After Obelerius had been elected duke by the supporters of Fortunatus who fled to Treviso and the anti-dynastic thinking “nobles” who remained in Venice, according to LeBret, “the mere rumor of this proclamation” was enough, “Johannes and Morizen so fearful “To make them determined to flee. While Johannes fled to Mantua, Mauritius tried in vain to be reinstated in the Doge's office with Emperor Charles. When Johannes was still in office, he tried to neutralize the suspicious Pippin by asking the Eastern Emperor Nikephorus I to send a fleet to “keep Pipin in check” (p. 123). According to LeBret, Obelerius only came to Venice after he had learned of the Doge's flight in order to be raised to the rank of Doge by the people themselves. After that, the people willingly accepted his two brothers in the office of Doge. With the appearance of the Byzantine fleet it was also possible to drive the patriarch Fortunatus back into the Frankish empire, who had imprisoned his popularly chosen successor named John to enforce his own candidate "Christoph" as Bishop of Olivolo. Johannes was able to flee, won Obelerius for his cause, and was installed as patriarch (p. 125). On the Franconian side there were now only Christoph and the tribune Felix. Obelerius and Beatus traveled to the Karls Hof in Diedenhofen in order to obtain recognition of their neutrality there, because Venice has always belonged to the Eastern Empire. However, when the Byzantine fleet appeared in the lagoon, the Doges declared themselves openly in favor of the Eastern Emperor. Nicetas and Pipin agreed on a ceasefire until August, while Beatus took the Frankish followers Christoph and Felix with him to Constantinople. In 807 he returned from the capital with the title of Hypatus (Senator). "The pride of these two brothers drove them to join the third brother in the regiment" (p. 127), is how LeBret justifies the raising of Valentine to fellow doge. In revenge, Pippin began his march of conquest by sacking Eraclea, followed by Iesolo, then an attack from the south via Brondolo, Chioggia, Pelestrina and Albiola. In view of this situation, the author assumes that the brothers fell out and that Obelerius may have made a secret pact with the Franconian. As early as 809, however, the fleet of Paulus of Kephalonia attacked the city of Comacchio, but was repulsed by the then well-fortified island city; and in Venice, too, the two Doges resisted his negotiations with Pippin, so that he “went home out of anger at their defiance” (p. 130). Pippin, who, according to the author, was not involved in the defeat against the Venetians himself and had therefore only deposed his commanding officer, advanced again into Dalmatia. But his fleet had to withdraw from Paul's fleet. When Pippin attacked Venice again, the Doges felt compelled to seek a peace treaty. The question raised by LeBret whether they did not consider the lagoon to be adequately protected or whether they feared for their lands on the mainland, he leaves open. Arsaphios, who was called in by the Eastern Emperor's envoy, found Pippin, who died in 810, no longer alive. Negotiations with Karl eventually led to peace, and as a result even Fortunatus was able to return, as the supporters of the pro-Frankish party were restored to their rights. In Venice the Byzantine envoy finally convened the popular assembly. The three brothers were deposed, with Obelerius going to the Franks, Beatus to Zara, but Valentinus was allowed to stay in Venice, since he had the smallest share in the misfortune that the "triumvirate" had caused.

The share of Valentinus in the opaque intrigues of the three Doge brothers saw Johann Heinrich Zedler's Great Complete Universal Lexicon of All Sciences and Arts , Which up to now have been improved by human understanding and wit in the 46th volume, published in 1745, quite differently. There it says in the article Valentinus : "He took refuge in France with another expelled Hertzoge Obelerius, and both of them drove the king in Italy Pipinus to seize the Venetian islands". The encyclopedia also presented the roles of the other two brothers completely differently. In volume 25, Obelerius came from Trieste and joined forces with Fortunatus - who becomes Obelerio's brother here - to take revenge on the Galbaii for the murder of their cousin and patriarch Johannes . Obelerio had the homeland of the overthrown Galbaio doge Eraclea "completely destroyed" and took his brothers "as colleagues in the government". Soon, when Beatus realized that Obelerio was hated because of his alliance with Charlemagne, Beatus “helped” his brother “had to flee and leave the government to him alone”. "Obolerius" took refuge with the emperor, married one of his daughters, and Pippin finally went to Venice. According to this, Obelerius did not return to office as doge, but "was miserably executed by the mob in 823 [...]" because he had striven for power again; possibly he was also killed by the grandson of the Doge who was ruling at the time. According to this view, Beatus died in 809 as the last doge to reside in Malamocco.

Girolamo Francesco Zanetti still provided the usual interpretations in 1765. With him it is said that the former deacon John, Bishop of Olivolo, “ordinatus est patriarcha”; at the same time Obelierius was given the dignity of a spatarius of Nicetas. The aforementioned Christophorus remained Bishop of Olivolo for twelve years, the other descriptions largely agree with those of his predecessors. Eraclea was therefore burned down.

Title page of August Daniel von Binzer's Venice in 1844

In popular representations, the central aspect of dynasty formation was repeatedly emphasized and interpreted as a failure that almost inevitably led to the overthrow. The Galbaii, but also the three brothers Obelerio, Beato and Valentino, proved this. Tersely says August Daniel of Binzer 1845: "Obelario took two of his brothers to co-regent; but all three were banished ”.

Samuele Romanin gave the three brothers a lot of space in his ten-volume opus Storia documentata di Venezia in 1853. The classification of Obelerius as the 9th Doge was now generally accepted, while Beatus was no longer one of the Doges. Obelerio made his brother Beato a co-doge shortly after his own proclamation, if the author even wrote of “poco stette ad associarsi il fratello Beato” (p. 137). Romanin, who knew the manuscripts of the Biblioteca Marciana very well, also found a reference to the motif of Obelerius, leaving Venice to the Franks, this time in the "Codex DLI della Marc.", As he briefly states. It says about the doge, "alii scripserunt quo tum gallicam quidem nobilem haberet uxorem, promissionibus allectus ad regem perexit offerens dominium sibi contradere" (p. 140). This notion that the Doge's Frankish wife had caused him to betray him later repeatedly stimulated the historical imagination. That an offer had actually been made to accept the Veneto ducat as part of an 'investiture' is evident from Einhard . The Venetian traders based in Constantinople had turned to Emperor Nikephorus against this plan. Strangely enough, Romanin sees no contradiction between the doges' pro-Frankish course and the award of Obelerius with a high title by the Byzantine naval commander (p. 142). In the year 809, under the command of the aforementioned "Paolo", another fleet appeared, which wintered and undertook an attack against Comacchio, which Romanin also occupied with Einhard. Pippin, “più che mai eccitato dai dogi”, who had been more upset about the Doges than ever before, had now been determined to use force to take the Greek party, which he claimed to have supported in the attack on Comacchio. According to the author, some historians saw the trigger in an offer of an alliance between Pippin and Venice with the aim of conquering the Byzantine islands of Dalmatia. Venice would have stood in the conflict between the destruction of old ties, the insecurity of trade and the endangerment of its merchants in Byzantium on the one hand, and the fear of an attack by the all too powerful king and the isolation of his empire for Venetian merchants (p. 143 f. ). Now the Greek party has proven to be the stronger, it has summoned an envoy to justify Pippin. Johannes Diaconus, "che visse più vicino al fatto", who lived closer to the events, only wrote briefly that the contract that had been concluded with the king had been broken by him ("illo tempore Pipino agente rege, disruptum est ") (p. 144). Venice asked for help in Constantinople - here the author relies on Carlo Antonio Marin , Similar to the previous generations of historians who decorated the siege of Pippin with ever new details, these also fill three pages for Romanin, although almost four pages up to Pippin's death he himself objects that this process is "tanto alterato dalle cronache veneziane, non meno che dalle francesi" (p. 147 f.), that he can only present a probable version. For Romanin, Venice was partially conquered, but never completely subjugated, as the Franconian sources report. Accordingly, there is no trace of Frankish rule, no change in the government. Without anyone asking for permission ("senza domandare licenza") Rialto was declared the capital ("capitale"). The tribute, whether ever paid or not, they paid not for the continued existence of their state, but only for the territories they owned on the mainland ("le terre possedute nel continente") and for the trade privileges. Pippin then turned against Dalmatia, but his fleet was reversed when he became aware of the approach of the Byzantine fleet under the command of "Paolo prefetto di Cefalonia". Romanin again quotes from Einhard: “Sed cum Paulo Cefalenie praefectus cum orientali classe ad auxilium Dalmatis ferendum adventaret, regia classis ad propria regreditur” (p. 149, note 1). Pippin died that same year, on July 8, 810, in Milan. When an envoy from Constantinople called 'Arsacio or Ebersapio' wanted to travel there to negotiate a peace, he had to travel to the court of Charles in Aachen, where a treaty between Karl and Nikephorus was negotiated in October 810. As Romanin explains in a footnote, this came about only in the year 812 because the envoy had too few competencies and the Eastern Emperor had died (p. 149, note 4). The Franks gave the Venetian territory back in 810 and renewed the old trading privileges. "Ebersapio" sacrificed the two doges Obelerius and Beatus for it ("sacrificato"). Beatus should Zara be banished (which the author in turn assumes after the chronicle of Johannes Diaconus, which at that time was still called "Sagornina"). According to other chroniclers, according to Romanin, Obelerius, who was at Karl's court, was handed over by Karl the ambassador and brought by him to the capital, while Beatus remained in office for another year until his death. The author supports the former with Einhard, the latter with the additional statement by Nicolò Zen ( Dell'origine di Venezia ) that Beatus was always on the side of Constantinople. Valentinus, because he was harmless, was ousted, or as Romanin puts it: "come uomo innocuo, tornò alla condizione privata" (p. 150). Altogether the Doge lasted six years because he did not attract the hatred of the Venetians for tyrants, and the powerful families, fired by ambition and envy, did not fight each other, as so often in the past, but because the two parties, who now favored the two empires with reasons, followed principles, no longer special interests. Only after Pippin's withdrawal were the Doges deposed. The choice of the main town fell on Rialto because it offered more security.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) believed in his History of Venice, which was published posthumously in 1872, from its founding to 1084 , that in view of the marriage plans between the empires, "Sea Venetia would have been the debut of the trousseau". But these marriage plans failed when Empress Irene was overthrown in 802. Her successor had his ambassadors stretch out peace feelers at Karl's court, which is why the predecessors of Obelerio made no move to seek help in Constantinople. Gfrörer assumes that Obelerio had Malamocco destroyed as "the fire army and center of the Byzantine party". The attack on Byzantine Dalmatia was also carried out by the Doge on Karl's order, according to Gfrörer, and according to him it was even one of the conditions under which the Doge had received the “ducal chair”. That he kept the pro-Franconian Fortunatus away, Gfrörer can only explain with a still influential Byzantine party (p. 104); that he prevailed speaks for the author for an alliance on reciprocity between Fortunatus and the Greek "Christoph". At the request of the people - so Gfrörer - his brother Beatus was placed at the doge's side - "The measure will therefore have been enforced by the Greek-minded, at least by enemies of Frankish supremacy over Veneto" (p. 105). This also enforced the third doge to keep Obelerius and Beatus in check. Pippin's attack, which in the Frankish sources is only mentioned as a disguised defeat and which ends there with Pippin's death, according to Gfrörer, was probably preceded by a defeat in Dalmatia. The final defeat of Pippin's troops against the Venetians under the new Doge Agnellus is accordingly only mentioned in the Venetian sources.

After the posthumous editor Dr. Johann Baptist von Weiß had forbidden the Italian translator Pietro Pinton to annotate Gfrörer's statements in the translation, Pinton's Italian version appeared in the Archivio Veneto in the annual volumes XII to XVI. After all, Pinton had managed to get his own account published in the aforementioned Archivio Veneto, which did not appear until 1883. Although Pinton often came to completely different, less speculative results than Gfrörer, Pinton believes that by claiming that by the end of the rule of Obelerio's predecessors, almost all of the land that the two Doges ruled from the Franconia was threatened. In doing so, he held against Gfrörer that he had come to incorrect conclusions about the motivations of those involved through a wrong chronology. This is evident from the fact that although he had written that Andrea Dandolo had copied from Paulus Diaconus, after that he only followed the Doge's work without Gfrörer noticing the differences between the two authors (pp. 40-42) . Neither does Pinton believe that there was a conspiracy under the aegis of the Franks with the subsequent flight of Fortunatus, because after Obelerius came to power, he was hardly denied return without a reason (p. 53). Above all, however, Obelerius, one of the heads of the Fortunatus-Franconian conspiracy according to Gfrörer, was supported with a fleet for the reconquest of Dalmatia, and his brother Beatus was given the title of Ipato , a consul (p. 55). The Byzantine fleet anchored below him in the lagoon. Overall, Pinton recognized Fortunatus' ties with the Franks, but in his opinion Gfrörer misinterpreted the composition of the subversives of 804, more precisely their respective roles in the dispute between the empires.

In 1867, Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna, in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia, expressed the view that it was Obelerio that induced the Franks to extend their sphere of power to Venice. Accordingly, it was not the Doge who led the fleet against Pippin, but Vittore d'Eraclea. According to him, the Venetians had to promise the Franconia a high annual tribute after the war ended. But after the withdrawal, they reduced the amount. After the fall and banishment of the doge and traitor (traditori) Obelerio and his brother Beato, their younger brother Valentino was only due to his youth after Cicogna. This happened in the year in which Pippin died in Milan, namely 810.

Simone Dellagiacoma sees the Doge's situation very differently. He looks at the political situation from the perspective of Fortunatus. In view of the uncertain political situation, he initially stayed on the mainland outside the lagoon - possibly, the author speculates, even on the advice of the Doge - to ensure that his henchman "Cristoforo" becomes Bishop of Olivolo. Dellagiacoma leaves open whether Obelerius either did not want to reveal his pro-Frankish stance too openly, or whether he secretly sought his emancipation from Fortunatus' influence in order to pursue the traditional Venetian maneuvering between the great powers again, with the aim of commercial interests to secure. Certainly the doge was forced to be extremely careful in order to remain in office at all. The author expressed doubts about Gfrörer's assumption that Obelerio's first measure, who had just come into office, was “that he devastated the city of Heraclea, the fire station and center of the Byzantine party and at the same time the home of the overthrown Doges Johannes and Mauritius . "

Dellagiacoma also sees the situation of historiography and in particular the role of the Beatus as completely contradictory, but only in a footnote. On the one hand, the "sources are uncertain and the historians disagree to determine the year of the expulsion of the Obelerio, the choice of Agnello and the end of the two doges". There were some who saw them overthrown in 809, others after the war with Pippin, so that the choice of Agnello did not take place until 811. After others, Obelerio was overthrown, but Beato remained in office until next year. Some saw Obelerio murdered, according to others he died in exile in Constantinople, Beato in Zara. He quotes Johannes Diaconus: "Unus, id est Obelerius, Constantinopolim, alter verum Iatera petiit". After others, Obelerius's wife was sent back to Emperor Karl, her father. The doge himself - despite requests from his brother Beato - was killed. Martino da Canal described the process in a similar way.

Heinrich Kretschmayr believed that "both Duces" - after him Beatus had been appointed "co-ruling Dux" by his brother - had already decided in 805 to "strictly submit to the Frankish Empire". Kretschmayr mentions another indicator for this development, because “in the law of partitioning the empire of February 6, 806 , Veneto, Istria and Dalmatia were assigned to King Pippin's shares” (p. 56). In 807, however, Byzantium lured Obelierius "by conferring the imperial title of Spatharius, the Greeks were clever enough to take the Beatus as a hostage" (p. 56). Beatus was “trained in Constantinople in the Greek interest and appointed Hypatos”. Pippin, bound by his agreement with Byzantium until August 808, now attempted the well-known military counter-attack. According to Kretschmayr, the attitude of the two doge brothers changed again: "But probably in the belief that in the dispute between the two great powers they could give up the joyful third party and establish an independent state on the borders of the Greek-Germanic sphere of power [...] they thwarted the negotiations". But Pippin largely subjugated the islands within six months in order to "repay the Venetians for the apostasy of 807 and the malevolent hiccups of 809". The doges became Pippin's prisoners. In the end it failed only because of the resistance of Rialto (p. 57 f.).

The work of Edgcumbe Staley The Dogaressas of Venice (The Wives of the Doges) , which appeared in London in 1910 , proves to be completely uncritical of the contradictory “Venetian tradition”, as the state-controlled tradition of history, including the rampant additions, is often referred to . It simply lists everything that appears in any source. Staley claims that Beatus intrigued against his brother Obelerius and tried to get the Byzantine emperor married to a princess named Cassandra in order to oust Obelerio and Carola. For her part, Carola has now brought the youngest brother Valentinus together with the princess. But she has now also fallen in love with Valentinus herself. When a Byzantine fleet appeared in front of Venice, Obelerius saw in it a support for his brother Beatus, so that he asked for help from the Franks. The Byzantines would have viewed this as a hostile act, so they should have destroyed several port cities. The two brothers with their wives Carola and Cassandra were then captured and taken to Constantinople, where all four died.

In contrast to the earliest doges, modern research accepts the events surrounding Obelerius on the basis of sources that are closer to the time and largely ignores the interpretive patterns of the 14th century. But she has made little progress in interpreting the motifs in connection with the West-East contrast. Luigi Andrea Berto suspects that Tribune Felix and Bishop Christoph were sent into exile because they opposed Obelerius' new, now pro-Byzantine orientation. In order to prevent Dalmatia and Venice from fitting into the Frankish sphere of power, Constantinople raised a fleet. Thanks to the fleet commander Nicetas, the Doge was given the title of Spatharius . In fact, the Annales regni Francorum confirm the presence of a Byzantine fleet under the command of Patricius Niketas, which had the task of retaking Dalmatia ("ad recuperandam Dalmatiam"; Annales regni Francorum , ed. Kurz, 122). The author of this part of the annals may have preferred to keep quiet about the defeat of his compatriot and king, or this went back to Pippin's report to his father. The agreement with Pippin and the subsequent return to Constantinople are also noted there, again without going into the content. The annals, whose defeat at Comacchio also mention the second fleet - this is an indication that Franconian victories were described in more detail, while defeats were probably ignored. The agreement between the Byzantine naval commander Paulus and Pippin had been thwarted by "insidiae" of the two doges. Berto assumes that as soon as the Byzantine power showed weakness, as it did before Comacchio, its anti-Byzantine stance would have reappeared. The Eastern power had not succeeded in exercising permanent power in the lagoon.

Pippin's attack on the islands of the lagoon led to a number of mutually exclusive claims in the history of research. This is due to the fact that the three sources that are closest in time, the Annales regni Francorum , the Byzantine source De administrando imperio and the Venetian Chronicle of John the Deacon provide three different versions, and the historiography, to different degrees, focuses on the one or the other another of the three main sources based. The most serious difference between the oldest, the Frankish spring on the one hand, and the two much more recent sources on the other, is that the former claims that Pippin succeeded in conquering the lagoon locations, while the latter argue that Pippin did not succeed in this. yes, he was even defeated. Roberto Cessi assumed that the Franconian annals and Johannes Diaconus only reported part of the process, but he did not believe that Pippin had conquered the entire lagoon. The fact that John, who was deposed in favor of Fortunatus, was for him, since he considered him to be pro-Byzantine, an indicator that John the deacon only wanted to hide the conquest, so that the annals were right. Incidentally, Pippin's conquest of Malamocco and Eraclea does not appear in any of the three sources. Only a source from the 13th century mentions this process, which is nevertheless often incorporated into the historical representation. The contributions from the Byzantine source are in Donald M. Nicols Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations from 1988 is also listed as further facts, as in Thomas F. Madden's work Venice , published in 2012 . A New History . This relates, for example, to the duration of the siege, which Constantine VII gave in the 10th century, the sources of which we do not know, to be half a year. In contrast, Georg Ostrogorsky only accepted the oldest, the Frankish source, in 1940 and 1963, which only accepted the "restitution" of the occupied territories to Byzantium with the contract between the emperors Karl and Michael, in which the eastern emperor declared himself ready, Charles' empire to acknowledge.

In his History of Venice , John Julius Norwich , who largely ignores the history of reception, emphasizes that the opposition gathered in Treviso under the alleged leadership of Obelerius. But after the fall of the Galbaii, fighting broke out within the lagoon, especially between Heraclea and Malamocco. The new regiment found itself in a similar situation as the Galbaii before. But now Fortunatus appeared, "fresh from the court of Charlemagne with an offer". His offer, in addition to the reinstatement of himself, was the recognition of Franconian sovereignty over the lagoon. In return, the two doges remained safely in office under Franconian protection. After Norwich, neither Obelerius nor his brother Beatus had any sympathy for the Franks, but the two brothers now had little choice. Therefore, at Christmas 805, they allegedly paid homage to the emperor in Aachen . Obelerius even went so far as to look for a wife for himself from the women of the court, who for Norwich was the “first Dogaressa known to history”.

swell

• Annales regni Francorum , ed. Friedrich Kurz , Monumenta Germaniae Historica , Scriptores rerum Germanicarum ad usum scholarum , Vol. VI, Hanover 1895, p. 120 f. ( Digitized version ), 127 ( digitized version ), 130, 133 f. ( Digitized version ).
• La cronaca veneziana del diacono Giovanni , in: Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia [Medio Evo], IX), Rome 1890, pp. 59–171, here: p. 24 , 40, 56, 101 f. (“Suum fratrem, videlicet Beatum nomine, dignitate sibi fecit socium… predicti duces”), 103-105 (p. 104: “deinde Obelierius et Beatus duces Valentinum, tercium illorum fratrem, in dignitate sui ducatus habere consortem voluerunt”) ( digitized , PDF).
• Roberto Cessi (ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chron. Altinate et Chron. Gradense) , Rome 1933, p. 29 f. ( Digital ), 37 ( digital ), 57 ( digital ), 69 ( digital ), 97–99 ( digital ), 116 ( digital ), 132 ( digital ), 155 ( digital ), 159 ( digital ), 166–173 ( Digitized ).
• Alberto Limentani (ed.): Martin da Canal , Les estoires de Venise , Olschki, Florenz 1972, pp. 10 f., 14-17 (“mesire Beat et son frere furent dus”) ( text , ed. By Francesca Gambino in the Repertorio Informatizzato Antica Letteratura Franco-Italiana ).
• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, pp. 128, 131-133, 148 f., 355-357. ( Digital copy, p. 128 f. )
• Roberto Cessi, Fanny Bennato (eds.): Venetiarum historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata , Venice 1964, pp. 26 f., 29–31, 265.
• Șerban V. Marin (Ed.): Gian Giacomo Caroldo. Istorii Veneţiene , Vol. I: De la originile Cetăţii la moartea dogelui Giacopo Tiepolo (1249) , Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Bucharest 2008, pp. 51–54, 57 (cf. Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 ) .

literature

• Marco Pozza:  Obelerio. In: Raffaele Romanelli (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 79:  Nursio – Ottolini Visconti. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2013, (forms the basis of the presentation part).
• Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , Vol. I, Gotha 1905, pp. 55–59, pp. 421–423.
• Roberto Cessi : Politica, economia, religione , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. II: Dalle origini del ducato alla IV crociata , Venice 1958, pp. 31, 98, 103 f., 107, 110 f., 115–117, 121 f.
• Gherardo Ortalli : Venezia dalle origini a Pietro II Orseolo , in: Storia d'Italia , Vol. I: Longobardi e bizantini , ed. Paolo Delogu, Andre Guillou, Gherardo Ortalli, Turin 1980, pp. 378-382, 385 f.

Remarks

1. ↑ Alberto Limentani (ed.): Martin da Canal, Les estoires de Venise, cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275 , LS Olschki, Florence 1972 ( digitized , ed. By Francesca Gambino in the Repertorio Informatizzato Antica Letteratura Franco-Italiana ) .
2. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 20.
3. ↑ The presentation follows that of Marco Pozza in Dizionario biografico , vol. 79 ( online ).
4. ↑ “Tunc hisdem Obelierius audacter Veneciam intravit” (Johannes Diaconus, ed. Berto, ii, 24).
5. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 20 f.
6. ^ Annales regni Francorum, 1895, p. 121.
7. ^ Stefan Weinfurter : Charlemagne. The holy barbarian , Piper, 2015, p. 239.
8. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 20.
9. ↑ Giovanni Monticolo (Ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime , Vol. 1, Rome 1890, p. 104 f.
10. ^ MGH, Scriptores XIV, Hannover 1883, p. 60, Chronicon Venetum (vulgo Altinate) .
11. ↑ Alberto Limentani (ed.): Martin da Canal , Les estoires de Venise , Olschki, Florenz 1972, p. 10 [VII].
12. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali “Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna”, Venice 2010, pp. 20–29 / 30.
13. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 10-14 ( digitized ).
14. ↑ There it says: “et questo si legge etiandio in alcune Chroniche antiche; tutta volta, io voglio quella seguire del Duce Dandolo ”(p. 51).
15. ↑ Șerban V. Marin (Ed.): Gian Giacomo Caroldo. Istorii Veneţiene , Vol. I: De la originile Cetăţii la moartea dogelui Giacopo Tiepolo (1249) , Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Bucharest 2008, pp. 51-53 ( online ).
16. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 4v – 5r ( digitized, p. 4v ).
17. ↑ Francesco Sansovino : Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia , Felice Valgrisio, Venice 1587, p. 87 ( digitized version ), then again printed at Salicato at the request of Girolamo Bardi , Venice 1606, p. 58 ( digitized version ).
18. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Hertehmen Leben / Government, und dieback / From the First Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, pp. 70-83, translation ( digitized ).
19. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 15-17 ( digitized, p. 15 ).
20. ↑ Johann Friedrich LeBret : State history of the Republic of Venice, from its origin to our times, in which the text of the abbot L'Augier is the basis, but its errors are corrected, the incidents are presented in a certain and from real sources, and after a Ordered the correct time order, at the same time adding new additions to the spirit of the Venetian laws and secular and ecclesiastical affairs, to the internal state constitution, its systematic changes and the development of the aristocratic government from one century to another , 4 vols., Johann Friedrich Hartknoch , Riga and Leipzig 1769–1777, Vol. 1, Leipzig and Riga 1769 ( digitized version ).
21. ↑ Art. Valentinus , in: Large complete universal lexicon of all sciences and arts, which so far have been improved by human understanding and wit , vol. 46, Johann Heinrich Zedler , Leipzig and Halle 1745, col. 258 ( digitized ).
22. ↑ Art. Obolerio Antenoro, Obelerius, and Obelingerius Antenoreus , in: Great complete universal lexicon of all sciences and arts, which so far have been improved by human understanding and wit , Vol. 25, Johann Heinrich Zedler, Leipzig and Halle 1740, Sp. 232 f. ( Digitized version ).
23. ↑ Girolamo Francesco Zanetti : Chronicon Venetum omnium quae circum feruntur vetustissimum, et Johanni Sagornino vulgo tributum e mss. codice Apostoli Zeno v. cl. , Venice 1765, p. 25 ( digitized version ).
24. ↑ August Daniel von Binzer: Venice in 1844 , Gustav Heckenast, Leipzig 1845, p. 406 ( digitized version ).
25. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853-1861, 2nd edition 1912-1921, reprint Venice 1972 ( digitized from vol. 1 , Venice 1853). The enormous historical work has a volume of about 4000 pages, the remarks on Obelerio alone range from pp. 137–150.
26. ^ Samuele Romanin: Storia documentata di Venezia , vol. 1, Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853, p. 137.
27. ↑ In footnote 3 on page 144 Romanin states: “ Marin : St [oria] civ [ile] e pol [itica] del comm [ercio] de 'Venez [iani] , I, p. 259. "( digitized version, p. 259 ). Byzantium is not mentioned there, but on p. 249 ( digital copy, p. 249 ).
28. ↑ August Friedrich Gfrörer : History of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084. Edited from his estate, supplemented and continued by Dr. JB Weiß , Graz 1872, p. 99 ( digitized version ).
29. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto (1883) 23–63, here: p. 52 ( digitized version ).
30. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
31. ↑ Simone Dellagiacoma: Fortunato da Trieste, Patriarca di Grado (803-825). Frammento della Storia dei Carolingi in Italia , in: Società del Gabinetto di Minerva (ed.): L'Archeografo Triestino, Nuova Serie, III, Triest 1872–1875, pp. 317–397, here: p. 356, the quotation from Gfrörer in note 3 ( digitized version ).
32. ↑ Simone Dellagiacoma: Fortunato da Trieste, Patriarca di Grado (803-825). Frammento della Storia dei Carolingi in Italia , in: Società del Gabinetto di Minerva (ed.): L'Archeografo Triestino, Nuova Serie, III, Triest 1872–1875, pp. 317–397, here: pp. 379 f., Note 2 ( digitized version ).
33. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, p. 56.
34. ↑ Kretschmayr consistently calls the Doge that.
35. ^ Edgcumbe Staley: The Dogaressas of Venice (The Wives of the Doges) , T. Werner Laurie, London 1910, pp. 315-317 ( digitized version ).
36. ↑ Luigi Andrea Berto: Under the 'Romans' or under the 'Franks' , in: Haskins Society Journal 28 (2016) 1-14, here: p. 6.
37. ↑ Luigi Andrea Berto: Under the 'Romans' or under the 'Franks' , in: Haskins Society Journal 28 (2016) 1-14, here: pp. 7-14.
38. ↑ Donald M. Nicols Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations , Cambridge 1988, pp. 16-19.
39. ^ Thomas F. Madden: Venice. A New History , New York 2012, pp. 36-38.
40. ↑ Georg Ostrogorsky : History of the Byzantine State , 3rd edition, Munich 1963, p. 166.
41. ^ John Julius Norwich : A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.