Domenico Flabanico

Coat of arms of the "Domenego Flabenigo", as it corresponded to the ideas of such coats of arms in the 17th century

Domenico Flabiano , also Flabanico or Flabianico († 1043 ), followed the so-called tradition, i.e. the history of the Republic of Venice , which has been increasingly state-controlled since the 14th century , the 29th Doge of Venice . He ruled from 1032 to 1043.

Before Flabanico took office, things were chaotic in Venice. After the expulsion of his predecessor Pietro Centranigo and his flight to Constantinople , the deposed Orseolo , who persistently pursued their goal of establishing a hereditary monarchy, tried to regain their offices. But they encountered the resistance of Conrad II , who supported the opposition in Venice with the aim of withdrawing Venice from the historically grown influence of Byzantium.

After the aforementioned overthrow of his predecessor, the Dogensitz was orphaned for a year, in 1032 Domenico Flabanico, leader of the opposition party, was elected. With him ended the third and last attempt to establish a hereditary position of the Doge's office and thus a dynasty. In 1040 it was forbidden to appoint a fellow doge or successor, which was a decisive step towards preventing future dynasties from forming. In the same year, a council in St. Mark's Church set a minimum age for clerics; the respective metropolitan first had to give its consent. In the next year the Doge intervened in the investiture right of the Patriarchate of Grado .

Relations with Byzantium cooled down, but Flabanico's rule was a time of external peace. Conrad II, however, supported the Patriarch of Aquileia against his counterpart from Grado, whereas Venice resisted, since such a decision would have made the respective dioceses dependent on an imperial prince. Konrad's successor Heinrich III. In contrast to his predecessor, who had viewed Venice as an enemy of the empire, renewed the traditional privileges of the lagoon city in 1040, the hostile Patriarch of Aquileia died in 1042. In 1044 the said decision was revoked, which strengthened Venice's autonomy.

Origin, social advancement

The later Doge came from a tribunician family. Flabanico was a landowner, but it is not certain whether he was a silk merchant, as some suspect.

It is also unknown whether he was married or had children. Only a few members of his family from the 10th and 11th centuries are known, but the relationship to these traditional people is unclear. A Domenico and Giovanni Flabiano appear in 960, two more Giovanni in 982 and another Domenico between 998 and 1024. Between June 1037 and 1041, a Stefano appears in the Doge's area as a witness in the Doge's documents, who must have died in 1084. There is a reference to a iudex Pietro Flabiano from 1064 . He spoke right in a dispute with the abbot of a monastery in Brondolo on the northern Italian mainland near the Venice lagoon .

In the course of the power struggles between the most influential families in Venice, Flabanico became the spokesman for the opposition to Doge Ottone Orseolo , who had to evacuate Venice for the first time in 1024 to flee to Istria . But he returned to his office after a short time. In 1026 he was deposed and he was sent into exile in Constantinople . In his place, Pietro Centranico was raised to doge, also called Barbolano. This in turn was overthrown four years later by the supporters of Orseolo, and the Doge was recalled. However, the Patriarch of Grado Orso Orseolo initially took his place for a transitional period . Now Flabanico had to flee Venice. When the delegation arrived in Constantinople to bring the exiled doge back, he had already died. In Venice, therefore, the Patriarch resigned from the office of Doge after 14 months. Another Orseolo, Domenico, tried to get the Doge's chair, but was evicted after just one day and one night. He went to Ravenna . In his place, Flabanico was elected Doge while he was still in exile in a place not known to us. It is unclear whether the election took place in the first few months of the year 1031 or, as traditionally passed, in 1032.

The Doge's Office

Under Flabanico, who was supported by the arengho , the general assembly of Venetian citizens, the course was set for Venice's constitution, which ensured rule for a closed group of noble families and Venice itself a stability that is unique in Europe. Two advisers, the consiglieri, were placed at the Doge's side, one of the first indications of the initiation of a process that ultimately ended in the Doge's complete disempowerment when - under the Constitution - he was only a powerless, if glamorous, representative figure . It was formed next to the arengho of the consiglio minore , the nucleus of the later body of the pregadi or the senate.

Under Flabanico's skilful policies - the situation before his rule was characterized as 'chaotic' because the Doge Ottone Orseolo had died in Constantinople, a phantom-like Domenico Orseolo had occupied the Doge's office for a day - the social tensions and power struggles among the parties subsided what earned him the designation as "prudentissimus vir". In terms of foreign policy, the city experienced, apart from the cooling of relations with Byzantium, a time of peace.

Although he is referred to in the Origo as the head of the Venetian people, it is not clear what this meant. In any case, there can be no talk of a change in the balance of power, he was by no means an opponent of the traditionally leading families. However, in 1040 he made a significant step towards curbing the Doge's power by forbidding him to appoint a fellow Doge or a successor during his tenure, nor was anyone allowed to do so in place of the Doge. The chronicler Andrea Dandolo , himself a Doge, calls this a “salutare provvedimento” in the 14th century (p. 209).

The chronicle assigned to Pietro Giustiniani mentions the opening of trials against the Orseolo and the banishment of the entire family under the new Doge, but this is an obvious mistake. The Orseolo continued to hold important positions. In 1036 a Pietro Orseolo, perhaps a son of Doge Domenico, was still in possession of the paternal inheritance on Rialto . Part of it was legally transferred into the possession of the Flabiano family, as evidenced by a document dated May 1084.

In 1040 a council of the bishops of Veneto took place in St. Mark's Church . There it was stipulated that a priest had to be at least 30 years old, a deacon 25. From now on, exceptions were only to be made with the consent of the metropolitan . With this, the assembly reacted to the appointments of Vitale Orseolo and Domenico Gradenigo, who took office at the age of 16 and 18 respectively. In 1041 the Doge intervened in the dispute between the Patriarch Orso and the Bishop of Olivolo over the jurisdiction of the Church of San Trovaso . He granted both the right of investiture .

In terms of foreign policy, the conflicts with the Roman-German Empire continued. Emperor Heinrich II had raised Wolfgang von Treffen in 1019 as Poppo of Aquileia to patriarch. When the Orseolo were expelled for the first time, Poppo took possession of the city of Grado , but the patriarch there managed to restore the status quo to the Pope and condemn Poppo's crimes.

But with Heinrich's successor Konrad II , the foreign policy situation in northeastern Italy changed. The king refused to renew the long-standing treaties with Venice in early 1026. A church assembly convened by Konrad in Rome the following year recognized Poppo's claims to Grado, while the city was to be degraded to a simple parish. Probably with the support of the Byzantine emperor, the Venetians defended themselves against this attack on their rights, because enforced in this form this resolution resulted in the destruction of the independence of the Church of Venice, because the dioceses there were subordinate to the Patriarch of Grado. This in turn would have been at the expense of the city's political autonomy, which had long worked to ensure that its dioceses were not subject to any non-Venetian patriarchs. Konrad did not even enter into negotiations with Venice. Years later he still considered them to be enemies of the Reich and rebels. In 1034, Conrad granted the Patriarch of Aquileia the territory between the Piave and Livenza rivers in a document . Only with the death of the emperor in 1039 did the massive pressure on Venice ease.

His successor Heinrich III. already in 1040 renewed the privileges of the important monastery of San Zaccaria , where he had stayed as a pilgrim before his accession to the throne. This also ended the hostile politics of Poppo, who found no support from the new king. The patriarch died at the end of September 1042. In addition, in 1044 that decision was revoked.

Nothing is known about the relationship with the Eastern Empire. The tradition that the doge was bestowed the title of protospatharius is uncertain.

The doge died of advanced age in the first half of 1041, as evidenced by a document dated June of that year relating to events under the doge. According to Marino Sanudo , he was buried in the Santa Croce monastery. Other chronicles mention San Giorgio Maggiore or San Zaccaria, while others claim that the place of the burial is unknown, including Marino Sanudo in his De origine, situ et magistratibus urbis Venetae ovvero La Città di Venezia .

reception

Venice's relationship to the two empires under Conrad II and Romanus III. had deteriorated for various reasons. The interpretation that Venetian historiography gave the life of Domenico Flabanico was, on the one hand, aimed at the internal disputes between the clan-like family associations; on the other hand, the possibility of the Doges, a fellow Doge and thus, based on experience, a successor (usually a son) ended with him To heave Doge's chair. In addition, through the activities of the party behind him, apart from the one-day rule of the last Orseolo, that little-known Domenico, the last attempt to make Venice a hereditary monarchy ended. The focus of the most important and most frequently cited chronicle of Venice, that of Doge Andrea Dandolo , represents in perfect form the views of the political leadership bodies that were already firmly established at that time and which have steered historiography especially since this Doge. His work was repeatedly used as a template by later chroniclers and historians. Hence it became immensely dominant in ideas of Venetian history prior to its time. Dandolo's focus was on the derivation and legitimation of the territorial claim of his hometown, because only this eluded Roman-German rule in northern Italy. In this context, the recognition and, if possible, the extension of the “old treaties” by the newly appointed emperors (and kings) has always been of enormous importance. The question of the hereditary monarchy , on which the Candiano 976 failed in a catastrophe, and the Orseolo 1026/32 failed, at the time of Andrea Dandolo was in no way related to the strategies of balancing interests between the families prevailing at that time, but above all no longer to bring it in line with the state of constitutional development. The Doge, from 912 onwards only to be determined by election, then partially controlled by tribunes, now restricted in its power by blocking the succession, was now surrounded by a small council. The stages of political developments that finally led to the disempowerment of the Doge, who was increasingly assigned representative tasks but no longer allowed to make independent decisions, was a further goal of representation, precisely because the Particiaco, Candiano and Orseolo had failed here, with the latter regiment almost absolutist features wore. The failure of the Orseolo was central here, because in a series of stages it was possible to advance the institutional integration of the office comparatively far up to the 14th century - in addition, the methods of the overthrow became less brutal, because now the majority were sent into exile, where In the past, blinding and murder were the most common means. At the same time, on the one hand, the balance between the ambitious and dominant families remained one of the most important goals; on the other hand, the derivation of the prominent position of the 'nobili' in the state was of great importance, partially contradicting the above goal. Because church offices played an essential role in the struggles, the Patriarch of Aquileia and the empire behind it, but also the Pope, opened up new possibilities for interference, against which Venice in turn defended itself. Even if Pietro Centranigo may only have been a candidate for embarrassment, his regiment was nevertheless a first attempt by a barely recognizable party led by Domenico Flabanico to break the trend towards absolute rule in Venice.

The Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, the oldest vernacular chronicle of Venice, depicts the events, as does Andrea Dandolo, on a level that has long been familiar at that time and largely dominated by individuals, especially the Doges. This applies also for “Domenego Flabanigo”. The individual doges even form the temporal framework for the entire chronicle, as was customary in Venice. The chronicle mentions that almost the whole people hated the Doge Ottone Orseolo, and that “Domenego Flabanico” finally robbed him of his dignity, but no reason for the hatred is given. The chronicle is also silent about the motives for the election of the new Doge by a large majority. The Doge Centranigo, who was overthrown, was - after four years of reign - exiled to "Grecia" in a monk's habit. He connects this fall with Orso, the Patriarch of Grado and brother of the fallen Ottone Orseolo, who for his part feared the people and therefore fled Venice when Ottone was banished. His brother Orso, the Patriarch of Grado, soon returned and gained Doge rule. He had "Domenego Flabanico", the driving force behind the uprising against his brother, banished - Flabanico remained in Lombardy throughout the rule of the Patriarch - and sent envoys to Constantinople to bring his brother back from exile. But he had already died, as he learned from letters from the Byzantine emperor. After a year and six months, the Patriarch withdrew from the Dogat. Now “Domenego Ursiolo” tried “without the will of the people” and “according to the will of a few” to become a doge, but after just one day he “sentendo lo povolo conturbado contra de lui si tolse di quelo”, so he fled from one against the crowd before him, namely to Ravenna, where he, exiled, soon died. In contrast to this last Orseolo, "Domenego Flabanigo" was raised to the rank of doge by the entire people. They sent for him to Lombardy and he was received 'with the greatest honor' (“cum grandissimo honor”) and confirmed as a doge. He conducted "grandissimi processi" against the Orseolo hated by everyone, banned many of them and forbade the Orseolo ever to assume an office again - which was observed until the time of the chronicler, as he writes. The city of Zara rebelled for the first time, and it was only won back for the Venetians by the succeeding Doge. "Flabanigo" died after ten years and four months of rule.

In 1502, in his work, later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , Pietro Marcello meant the Doge “Domenico Fiabanico Doge XXVIII.” “Fù creato Doge à voce di popolo” (he became a doge through the voice of the people ). After returning from the fight against the Croats, his predecessor Ottone, "l'ottimo prencipe", fell victim to a "vituperosa congiura" of Domenico Flabanico and was banished to "Grecia". At Poppo's instigation, Konrad II was very hostile towards the Venetians (“molto nimico”). In this situation the Doge Centranico was seized by the people after four years and, as it is said, at Orso’s instigation, shorn, dressed as a monk and exiled. After the expulsion, at the instigation of the people (“per commissione del popolo”), Orso was supposed to be doge until his brother had returned. But after Orso had learned that his brother had died in exile, he withdrew from office, whereupon a close relative of Ottones, a Domenico Orseolo, occupied the doge office 'foolhardy' ('temerariamente'). But after a day the people drove him to Ravenna, where he died a little later. For the chronicler, Flabanico also had to leave the city at the time when Orso Orseolo was acting as a doge. After Orseolo's resignation, the people demanded the return of Flabanico. The Orseolo family should be expelled “come scandalosa, & contraria alla quiete della città”. Also, their relatives should no longer be able to become doges, but neither should they be given a magistrate or dignity. The people, who had forgotten the merits of the Orseolo, as Marcello notes, agreed. The new Doge also prohibited the custom of choosing a “compagno nel principato”. Consumed with age, the doge died after ten years in office.

According to the chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , the occupation of the Diocese of Olivolo led to 'great dissension' and at the instigation of Dominico Flabanico (“per instigatione di Dominico Flabanico”) the Doge Ottone Orseolo was overthrown and banished to Constantinople. His brother Orso, however, went to Grado, from where he managed Ottones return. "Pietro Barbolano over Centranigo fù publicato Duce", so he was only announced, by no means elected as usual (why the office was not taken over by the insurgent leader remains unclear). On the contrary, according to the chronicler, "non essendo grata a molti la denominatione di costui, furono per ciò suscitati molti rumori". The doge was therefore not accepted by many and unrest ensued. Incited by Poppo, the “Alemano imperatore” not only revoked the “confederatione con Venetiani”, but even treated them like enemies. At the same time, the King of Hungary subjugated some of the cities of Dalmatia. The Venetians, under such pressure from the outside, called back the exiled Doge Ottone Orseolo, the Patriarch Orso Orseolo led the Dogat in the absence of his brother. He sent another brother named Vitale, the Bishop of Torcello, “con molit primarij Venetiani” to the Byzantine capital to bring Ottone back, while the leader of the rebellion of 1026, “Dominico Flabanico”, fled with his followers. "Dominico Orsiolo" - "in favor suo havea quasi la metà del popolo" ('he had almost half of the people on his side') - stood opposite all the others, "che desideravano viver in libertà, havendo in odio la tirannide" ( P. 91). His opponents were therefore those who wanted to live in freedom and hated tyranny. After only a day, the last Orseolo fled on the Doge's chair. He was followed as the 30th Doge "Dominico Flabanico" in office. In addition to regulations that were significant for the clergy, the Doge was forbidden from ever choosing a “consorte” during his lifetime, just as little as a successor. This regulation was still observed in his time, as the author expressly notes. In the following time the Byzantine emperor was increasingly busy with his northern and eastern neighbors, namely with "Bulgari et Valachi et in Levante dalla maladetta Setta Mahumetana", who attacked the empire. But also the submissive peoples of the "Hungari, Slavi, Croati et contermini popoli" slipped from his control. The Venetians withstood the Muslim attacks ('the cursed Mohammedan sect', as Caroldo put it), which oppressed the emperor in southern Italy and Cilicia with considerable power. Part of the “antico odio frà l'Occidental et Constantinopolitano Imperio” was still there, then the “dissidentia frà la Romana et Greca Chiesa” - meaning the emerging schism of 1054 ; but the Venetians did not want to join the eastern “heresie” in order to protect their trade (“per il necessariocommercio alla loro Città”). Since Pietro II Orseolo , Venetian power had increased and feared. In order to survive in the turmoil after the Orseolo, the Venetians prevented the attempt to build a "monarchia".

Even Heinrich Kellner said in his 1574 published Chronica is Warhaffte actual vnd kurtze description, all Hertzogen to Venice lives , "Dominicus Fiabanico" was 1034 "been common voice of the multitudes Hertzog". After his return, Ottone was eight years earlier "attacked by a shameful betrayal of Dominico Fabianico / as he least saw it / the beard was cut off to shame / and in the fifteenth year of his government in Greece chased / there he died soon afterwards . “It is certain that Konrad II caused great damage to Venice at Poppo's instigation. The new Doge was also overthrown after four years and on “command of the common” Orso received “the regiment”, the brother of Ottone, who was overthrown in 1026. Before his envoys reached his brother in Constantinople, "they / they learned that he had died in Greece". When Orso found out, "he says open the amp". “And in his absence Dominicus Orsoel / who was Ottonis very close and great friend / willingly entered the Hertzogthumb / but luck did not stay long / that the next day / after he had assumed the Hertzogthumb / he is from the community / irer Freyheit indenck was / was chased away. ”The new Doge“ was a cause / that Hertzog Otto was chased away ”. Now he “begs the community / that one should chase the Orseolo family out of the city of Venice as angry / contrary to common peace and hurricane / and by means of a public ban / that no one else should be given to Hertzogthumb / or some other honor / should be left or taken. ”He was able to enforce this with the“ indignant common mob ”, who no longer thought of the great merits of the family. The Doge also made sure that the custom of taking “an assistant or coadiutorn” was ended.

In the translation of Alessandro Maria Vianoli's Historia Veneta , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Herthaben Leben / Government, und Absterben / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the author counts, deviating by Pietro Marcello, "Dominicum Flabanicum, Den 29. Hertzog". The fall of Ottones was also caused by Vianoli that "Dominico Flabanico", but was "wiewol very hidden way / Petrus Centranicus, who sought the ducal sovereignty most of all / was the head". Whether Petrus Centranicus obtained the Doge dignity “by ordinary election” or “whether he seized it by force”, “is not known for sure”. Orso "voluntarily" gave up his office when he heard of his brother's death. He left the office to Domenico Orseolo - "which is a great surprise" because authority and prestige have "risen too high" - who, however, was "somewhat jealous of the people who are" somewhat jealous about the excessive violence of families thought to be "" like the following Tags “was forced to withdraw to Ravenna. For Vianoli, Flabanico was the driving force behind the overthrow of the Orseolo, who wished "that this whole and so well-merited race should be exterminated and chased away as pernicious / contrary to the general peace and hateful / and the whole Vatterlande most harmful." Vianoli it was the “ungrateful and mean Pövel” who had forgotten the merits of the Orseolo. He was also forbidden to take “helpers”, but also, so Vianoli adds, “that from that moment on, one would like to choose two citizens / with the title of the Raths / who would be permanent helpers in all his attacks and actions The first to exercise this office were therefore "Dominicus Selvus and Vitalis Valerius". The “Pregadi or the Requested” emerged from this body. After ten years and four months in the Doge's office, Flabanico died in 1043.

1687 noted Jacob von Sandrart laconically in his Opus Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous republic of Venice that “Dominicus Flabanicus” 1030 had been elected “(XXVIII.) Hertzog”. After the homage to “the land he had conquered”, the cities of Dalmatia, the Doge Ottone was attacked in a “rebellious way”, namely by “Dominico Flabanico, who had his beard shaved off in the 50th year of his age / so at these times there was an inexpressibly great shame / and he had to wander into misery in Greece ”(p. 29). For Sandrart, Orso was the one who incited Konrad II against Venice until Centranigo was overthrown and Orso became a Doge. However, he resigned "by himself" when he heard of the death of his brother Ottone. "Dominico Urseolo, who was a close blood friend of the reported Ottonis," took the palace, but he was evicted the next day. Flabanicus saw to it that "two basic laws were made in Venice." The Orseolo were excluded from the government, which "then caused the downfall of this sex." In addition, no doge was allowed to have a "secondary regent." Doge died at von Sandrart's reign in 1041 after eleven years.

From 1769 Johann Friedrich LeBret published his four-volume State History of the Republic of Venice , in which, in his opinion, the Orseolo ruled “they had creative state geniuses: but the more monarchical their way of thinking, the more unbearable they became for a republic” (p. 233). “It was not virtuous men who conspired against Otto Urseolus, but the most vicious men of the first rank”, LeBret states (p. 235). After the fall of Centranigos, the Orseolo set up an "interim government" to bridge the time until Ottones return. "Some of the oldest historians put the patriarch in the ranks of the real rulers, the newer ones, to whom it seems incomprehensible that a patriarch ruled their people, left him out of this list." LeBret puts this decision in a footnote on Lorenzo De Monachis (1351–1428) back (p. 256, note 22), whose chronicle was written between 1421 and his death. When Orso, after 14 months of reign, resigned from office in view of the death of his brother Ottone, “the idol of the people” - he “felt the most intense pains over this, renounced all public affairs and went to his patriarchal palace, where he tenderly met his brother weeping ”- a last Orseolo named Domenico tried to usurp power by force. Flabanico and his supporters had fled before Ottone was to be recalled. Domenico "seized the government in the most hated way, without the consent of the people, but without having the spirit of his ancestors" (p. 256). LeBret believes, "As little as one can accuse the Orseolians of having ruled despotically, Dominicus directed all his eyes to this subject." "Therefore his violence lasted no longer than a day." But he wanted to resist: "When he finally saw that so many hands were already outstretched to bathe in his blood: so he slipped away through the hidden door of the palace and fled at great speed to Ravenna, where he died of frustration not long after" (P. 257). "Flabenigo" was recalled - "who had been the soul of the party that had chased Otto out" (p. 266) - and encountered a situation in which Byzantium was increasingly on the defensive, while Conrad II Venice had been under massive pressure and was busy with more pressing tasks. According to LeBret, the new doge convinced the people of the need to destroy the Orseolo by denouncing their regiment as tyranny, and above all by accusing them of revenge for “personal insults”. For LeBret the people were ungrateful and allowed themselves to be “stunned” with “oratory make-up”. But not all Orseolians were affected, because even the Patriarch Orso and Vitale, the Bishop of Torcello, still appear at a meeting called by the Doge in 1040. “We must,” said LeBret about Flabanico, whom he otherwise despises, “credit him with the fact that from his time on the noble houses more than before saw themselves as equal citizens who had the same rights through the election to be taken to the throne ”(p. 268). The most important law, however, was "the Venetian constitution that no doge should declare his son co-regent [...] or name his successor". His "ten years, four months and sixteen days" period of government was filled exclusively with domestic politics.

The blessed “Ghirardvs Sagredo”, oil on canvas, Madonna dell'Orto , around 1622

Samuele Romanin argues differently , the historian embedded in the wider historical context, who presented this epoch in 1853 in the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia . He thinks “dopo lunga e burrascosa assemblea” (“after a long and stormy discussion”) Domenico Centranico was raised to the doge chair. But calm has by no means returned, and he was also elected by a party in which the Orseolo friends played a large part. There was another behind the party: under the leadership of the Flabianici, Ottone was overthrown, shorn and exiled to Constantinople, Orso had fled. For the Venetians now came 'extremely unhappy times', because some of the Dalmatian cities cut ties with Venice, the Patriarch of Aquileia, Poppo, resumed his attempts to intervene in the lagoon, Conrad II has since rejected them Renewal of privileges customary for Carolingians. In addition, Robert of France and William of Aquitaine had been offered the crown of Italy - both had refused the offer - while Archbishop Aribert of Milan joined the German king. For Poppo, Konrad obtained recognition of his claims to Grado. However, in 1029 the Pope again recognized Grado's rights in a U-turn. The economic problems that arose from this political opposition with Konrad and Poppo undermined the rule of Centranico as well as the activities of the Orseoli, who found support in Constantinople. There the father-in-law of Ottones eldest brother came to the throne. In fact, an embassy led by Vitale Orseolo, Bishop of Torcello, reached Constantinople to bring back his brother Ottone, the Doge. Since the fall of Centranico, the administration of the state has been the responsibility of his brother Orso, if only until the expected return of Ottones. Flabanico had fled from this. When it became clear that Ottone was already dead, Orso resigned from office after 14 months. Another Orseolo, Domenico, tried to use the interregnum to bring himself to power, but he was chased away by the 'angry' people. He went to Ravenna. On the other hand, "Domenico Flabianico" returned from exile, who was "nimicissimo", "extremely hostile" to the Orseolo. Romanin attributes the decree 'perhaps' to the 'democratic movement', according to which the Orseolo were banished and excluded from any official dignity. It was of the greatest importance, however, that after almost all of the Doges had tried for almost three centuries to appoint their sons or brothers as successors in office by making them fellow Doges, this practice was generally prohibited. In many cases the people were no longer even asked, many of their successors were deposed, banished or murdered. This law was observed until the end of the republic. In addition, the two tribunes, which had long been attached to the Doge, but which had not had any moderating effect, were given a new name and a new framework. The first members of this institution, from which the Senate later emerged, were Domenico Selvo and Vital Faliero. Other cities, like Milan, also experienced analogous upheavals. There Konrad besieged Milan in vain. Konrad moved on to Rome, but soon had to quickly retreat to Germany before the usual epidemics (“fu costretto dalle solite epidemie a precipitosamente tornarsene in Germania”) (p. 302). At the same time, according to Romanin, we do not even have any news about relations with the 'Emperor of the Orient'. This in turn was busy with the activities of his general Georgios Maniakes in Sicily, as well as with the progressive expansion of the Normans in southern Italy, who had appeared in Apulia since 1027 . With Melfi they established their first permanent base. In this precarious situation for Venice, Poppo of Aquileia continued his foreign policy directed against Venice, where he was soon followed by Henry III. was supported. Finally, Romanin mentions St. Gerardo Sagredo , who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and stayed in Hungary on the return journey, where he advised King Stephen I. When the son of the Orseolo doge Ottone, Peter Orseolo , became King of Hungary, the later saint, who soon enjoyed great veneration in Venice, was murdered.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) emphasized the constitutional U-turn under Flabanico in his History of Venice from its founding to 1084, which was only published eleven years after his death . For him, the Centranigos government, brought into office by Flabanico, was initially “an attempt to mediate, to reconcile the parties”. Gfrörer believed it was Ottone and Orso who had asked for Grado to be handed over to Poppo and the Kaiser, respectively. Therefore, on suspicion of high treason, they fled to Istria, which belonged to the empire that was meanwhile ruled by Conrad II , a Salian . This would explain why Poppo was actually able to act as the patron of the Orseoli in Grado - in no way pretended to be cunning. Poppo's actions there were “not criminal, but contractual actions” (p. 440). Gfrörer suspects that the whole thing was based on a secret treaty in which the Orseolo actually left the Patriarch Poppo Grado. However, this would have been considered high treason and was therefore not usable as an official reason for recognizing Aquileia's rights (p. 443). In 1026 the protracted dispute over the replacement of the core Venetian bishopric by Olivolo, which ultimately led to the overthrow of Ottones, ignited. The sharpest opponents were the Gradonico, who claimed the bishopric of Torcello. Gfrörer believes: “Otto acted this way because he wanted to move the patriarchal chair from Grado to the capital Venice, but wanted to leave his brother Orso there. So it was impossible for him to approve of the Gradonico's choice ”(p. 446). The Orseoli have now been overthrown and banished again. If the plan that Ottone had devised had succeeded, Venice would have become a different city, says Gfrörer: “Unrestricted doges would have trampled the laws there, degraded the citizens, the chairs with all relatives, sons, cousins, brothers, blind tools of the people The arbitrariness of the head of the family, occupied and instead of a glorious republic ruling the sea, would sprout a wretched principality, shattered by suspicion on all sides ”(p. 450). In addition to Konrad and Poppo, according to Dandolo, King Andreas of Hungary was besetting the small kingdom of Venice, because he incessantly troubled Dalmatia and forced some of the cities there to surrender to him. However, the chronicler confuses King Andrew with Stephan, who was king from 997 to 1038. Stephan had given the Venice-born son Ottones, known as Peter Orseolo , command of the Hungarian armed forces, in order to even recommend him as his successor. Gfrörer assumes that Peter went to Hungary in 1026 when his father Ottone had to go into exile. He believes that Peter, like all Orseoli, regarded Dalmatia as a kind of "heirloom of his house" (p. 454). Gfrörer suggests that the Hungarian attacks on Dalmatia represented a kind of revenge for Peter for the overthrow of his father. “Driven into a corner” by two wars and internal conflicts, “Doge Peter Barbolano must have tied in with the overthrown Orseoli.” In any case, the exiled Orso returned to the Gradensian patriarchal chair, which should have happened no later than 1029, and what without Centranigo-Barbolano's consent should have been impossible. The author believes that Grado's inalienability to the Salian Empire and Aquileia was the prerequisite for this return. In addition, the author believes that Grado was not only subordinated to the Venetian dioceses, but also to those of Istria (p. 457). This should also protect them from Poppo's ambitions. Poppo, on the other hand, consecrated a church in Cittanuova a few years later, and Gfrörer cites a book of the Gospels kept in Aquileia , which records the “oath of canonical obedience which the bishop of Pola, John, his metropolitan, the patriarch Poppo of Aquileia, took” (p . 459). Between 1030 and 1040, possibly even earlier, Grado had lost its suffragan dioceses in Istria to Aquileia. With the return of Orso and the restoration of Grado, Centranigo got so on the defensive that, as Gfrörer assumes, he established contacts with Conrad II, which ultimately cost him the Doge Chair. He was overthrown and banished in 1030. Ottone should now be brought back, Orso was his deputy for so long. The supporters of the rebels of 1026 fled from the overwhelming forces of the Orseoli, also Flanbanico. But, the author suspects, they undermined the Byzantine emperor's trust by claiming that Ottones "restoration would expose the island nation to grave danger." As evidence, Gfrörer regards the extremely long waiting period of 14 months during which Orso was in charge of the Doge's office while waiting for Ottone, but above all the fact that “Flavanico, immediately after his elevation to the Doge, from the basileus with the title of an upper sword bearer adorned ”(p. 464). After Dandolo, however, Domenico Orseolo initially assumed the Doge's office. This Orseolo was also banned. Gfrörer believes that Andrea Dandolo “neglected the extremely important section of the history of his hometown, which ran from the death of Peter Orseolo II to the fall of Domenico Orseolo.” According to Gfrörer, Dandolo would otherwise have had to admit that “Veneto had no worse enemies at that time , as his doges, Peter Orseolo II., the ancestor, Otto, the son, and Domenico, the tribe, or perhaps grandchildren. ”As a doge, such a judgment about his own predecessors was“ inadmissible ”for him. For the extremely quick fall of Domenico Orsini, Dandolo states in Gfrörer's translation: "Veneto's citizens rose up against Domenico because they claimed the free constitution under which they were born, but did not want to become the slaves of a tyrant." This harsh judgment could hardly refer to Domenico, because he was only in office for one day and nothing of his political ideas could have been known, but more likely to the entire clan. He was in league with the Salians, so it was not by chance that Domenico fled to Ravenna, into the Reich. Ottone, on the other hand, had been banished to Constantinople, this time to be sure that he would not return, because the emperor there was not well disposed to the Doge, because he was looking for support for his imperial opponent. According to Gfrörer, the exile of the Centranico to Constantinople points in the same direction. He also sought support from the Salier. Gfrörer interprets the Byzantine party in Venice as the one which supported the constitution against the Orseoli. “Even if the Venetians hadn't taken their revenge, the dynasty they founded would first have become a toy, then a victim of Salic malice.” Their opponents, who defended the constitution, therefore joined Byzantium. From there came the title of "chief bearer" (p. 470) for the doge. "The old friendly relationship with Byzantium, interrupted by the ambitious plans of the Orseoli for the last 20 years, was restored." His supporters were the merchants, he himself shows no foreign policy ambition. Gfrörer also names his essential constitutional amendment, the ban on co-doges and the ban on appointing his successor, thus the end of attempts to establish a hereditary monarchy that ends "with the suppression of freedom". Only this law made Venice again a "republic with monarchical head, which, however, had to be renewed after the death of each Doge by a special and completely free act" (p. 471). The alleged provision that another hand inserted, that an Orseolo should never become a doge again (which was impossible in the case of permanent banishment, as well as permanent removal from all offices), Gfrörer regards as a mere proposal for a law, because Orso and Vitale remained yes in Venice. The word “consortium” that Andrea Dandolo used could also mean “the political appendix of the house”. On this occasion, Gfrörer takes up his thesis that although there had been a “great council” far earlier, he was now given a powerful organization that could, if necessary, prevail against the Doge. From a certificate that was issued to the blacksmith Johann Sagornin, Gfrörer concludes that there were Gastalden who were obedient to the Orseolo, and which led the Doges to take in and supervise the crafts. Flabanico ended this state of affairs, "the Schulzen regiment of the Orseoli", which Gfrörer is trying to prove with other examples. The resolution of a synod of 1040 to introduce a minimum age for bishops (30 years) and patriarchs, because the Orseoli had launched minors several times, points in the same anti-Orseolic direction. However, such a law, with this thrust, needs a spiritual turn in the mind of the person who initiated the law, namely Orso Orseolo. As a former deputy doge and patriarch, “he will certainly blush himself later”. But now "in adult manhood he no longer acts like an Orseoli, but like a faithful servant of God and like a good citizen of his country" (p. 486).

Pietro Pinton, who translated and annotated Gfrörer's work in the Archivio Veneto in volumes XII to XVI , also recognizes these contradictions . He corrected numerous assumptions by Gfrörer, especially when it came to those for which the evidence from the sources was missing or contradicting them. His own critical examination of Gfrörer's work did not appear until 1883, also in the Archivio Veneto. With regard to Poppo's and Heinrich's activities in Istria, Pinton assumes that the emperor succeeded in re-enforcing imperial rights there, which was made easier by Poppo's fight against Grado, to which the Istrian bishoprics were also subject. Only when he realized that the fighting was causing damage to Istria did the emperor moderate the fight against the Orseolo patriarch. The flight of the two Orseoli to Istria, which Gfrörer interprets as a protected position under the emperor, as high treason, is rejected by Pinton, who sees the personal enmities within Venice as the cause. This also does not go with the recapture of Grado to the detriment of the emperor and the patriarch of Aquileia, nor with the fact that the majority of the people's assembly brought the doge back twice. Pinton regards Gfrörer's thesis that the Orseoli wanted to give up the insecure Grado in order to establish a patriarchy on Rialto as extremely bold - even this without sources, which Gfrörer explains - not for the first time - with a secret agreement. Pinton agrees that the Orseoli overthrew the attempt to establish a kind of monarchy, but he does not consider the underlying assumptions, including high treason, to be tenable. According to Pinton, Gfrörer rightly considers Centranico to be a 'creatura' of the rebels, especially Flabanicos. But Dandolo, who is the only source of Venice's internal affairs, thinks that the new Doge was “a molti inviso”, from which many “torbolenze” have developed. Gfrörer interpreted this as an indication of a weak regiment, but hatred and envy, according to Pinton, would have filled the entire four years of the Dogat. Incidentally, for the author it is not a sign of opposition to Byzantium if politically unpleasant people were sent into exile there, but a custom that has been practiced for centuries. This also contradicts the fact that Orso was intended by the majority in the people only for the deputy role until his brother Ottone could take up his doge office again. In contrast to his predecessors, Romanos III stood. less close to the Orseolo, and so Pinton, in view of the fact that at that time a journey from Constantinople to Venice could take 23 days, agrees that Ottone was detained in the capital by the emperor (p. 361). Incidentally, there can be no general hatred of the Orseoli in Venice, because Orso remained in the Doge's office for 14 months, even if only as a substitute, and he was even included in the Doge's list. Gfrörer overlooks the weighty word "usurpatore" for Domenico Orseolo, and he wrongly believes that the Venetians only had one day in office to recognize the tyrant in him. Therefore, the defense had to relate to the whole family. Pinton contradicts this, because the way in which Domenico forcibly usurped power while the other Orseolo had been elected with a large majority, led to the rejection of Domenico Orseolo. The following policy of Flabanico was directed against this branch of the family with the well-known laws to curb the doge power and hereditary monarchy. Pinton by no means sees an emerging Grand Council, like Gfrörer, but a strongly fluctuating number of participants in the general assembly of the people - hence the different number of signatures when documents were issued. This is how Placiti grandi and minori came about . This does not prevent the assumption that the “majores”, “mediocres” and “minores” explicitly named there are not gradually and more or less reduced to the “majores” and thus represent the people.

In his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia from 1861, Francesco Zanotto grants greater influence to the popular assembly. But the people, always 'gullible because ignorant' ('credulo perchè ignorante') and 'fickle as the sea' wanted to overthrow Ottone, who fled to Istria with his brother Orso. Poppo of Aquileia also intrigued against Orso, occupied Grado, pretending that he only wanted to take care of an abandoned herd in order to then plunder the city and commit serious crimes. The Venetians brought the Orseoli back from Istria, they took on the task of punishing Poppo and recapturing Grado. But hatred, envy, the bad spirit of the families hostile to the Orseoli had, according to the author, produced a 'new revolt' in 1026. In return, the dispute over the bishopric of Torcello provided the pretext, as Zanotto explains after Dandolo. “Stimolati” from the Flabanici under their leader Domenico, “a man ready for any offense”, the people under the leadership of the Gradenighi let themselves be persuaded to overthrow the Doge. Orso now led the representative regiment for his brother Ottone so well from 1026 that he was considered a doge by the ancients, yes, his portrait was among the other Doges in the hall of the Great Council in the Doge's Palace , as Zanotto notes. But after his brother died in Constantinople, whom Orso had wanted to bring back, he resigned from his position. The subsequent one-day government of Domenico Orseolo ended the people from whom the usurper fled to Ravenna. There he died, according to Zanotto, after Sanudo, 'after only eight days' (p. 69). The anti-Orseolian party now elected the exiled Flabanico as doge. In the following, Zanotto also focuses on the two important laws with which the succession was regulated and the control of the Doge was established by two “consiglieri”. A consulta , which should include the most experienced and respected citizens, should be consulted on important issues . According to Zanotto, this institution formed the core of the Pregadi , i.e. the later Senate, which was stabilized under Jacopo Tiepolo . The Doge had been praised by all historians for his politics. But he was unable to renew the old privileges in the Roman-German Empire of Conrad II, and in Byzantium the man who overthrew the Orseolo was probably distrusted. Perhaps the cities of Dalmatia joined Byzantium again, possibly even the cities of Istria. At Zanotto, Flabanico received the title of "protospatario" either from Emperor Michael IV (1034-1041) or, as Andrea Dandolo wanted ("come vuole il Dandolo"), from Constantine VIII (1025-1028). Zanotto apparently sees no contradiction here.

For Heinrich Kretschmayr , the events presented themselves differently again. He admits that “during the reign of Doge Otto, a strong opposition to the Orseol must have developed, of course nothing is said about their growth and development.” This opposition forced Ottone and Orso 1024 for the first escape. The brothers returned, however, and in October / November 1024 conquered Grado, which had previously been occupied by Poppo, and in December the Pope revoked the recognition of Aquileia's rights. - But in March 1026, Conrad II appeared in Italy and was crowned emperor at Easter 1027. "To him the Venetians were rebels who illegally occupied Grado against the emperor and the empire". “You had to submit them,” Kretschmayr concludes. Konrad was willing to repeat Otto II's attempt and to put an end to Venetian independence (p. 146). Already in the spring of 1026 Konrad had refused to confirm the Venetian privileges. "Expelled or fleeing of his own accord, Otto hurried to the court of Romanos III. to Constantinople. ”A“ colorless and harmless embarrassing candidate ”, namely Domenico Centranigo, was elected Doge instead of the leader of the opposition, Domenico Flabanico. The fall of Ottones changed nothing in the basic conflict, because: "The cause of Aquileja was the cause of the empire, the interests of Grado ran counter to it" (p. 147). “Under the pressure of the imperial will and the German arms” Grado was placed under the authority of the Patriarch of Aquileia by the Pope. However, Poppo was not able to conquer Grado, which is now better fortified, "'tore up' - as Dandolo painterly puts it - the Venetian borderlands, trusting the imperial help." The "embarrassed candidate" was able to assert himself for half a decade, but many did not like him , “The craftsmen were ordered to have unreasonable labor obligations for the palatium”. After he was exiled to Constantinople, Ottone was called back. Kretschmayr speculates that Ottone is in “late spring? 1032 "died. "Orso's custody died out of its own accord, and the attempt by Domenico Orseolo, perhaps a grandson of the great Pietro, to take the Dogat by force, furthered the cause of the opponents." Perhaps in the summer of 1032 "Domenico Flabiano" returned from exile back while Domenico Orseolo fled to Ravenna. “The decree that was immediately issued, which forbade the Doge to be elected by election, from the election of a co-regent”, was supposed to prevent the usual succession regulation through which the co-regent had become his successor after the doge's death. "The time of hereditary monarchy was over for Venice". Three families had tried to establish such a hereditary monarchy, and the last attempts, which were made until the 12th century, were to fail, summarizes Kretschmayr. Kretschmayr sees the resolution of 1040, which stipulated a minimum age for the prelates, in connection with the "Age of Gregory VII", whose church reform tendencies "found a focus on the borders of Zealand in the famous Pomposa Abbey". The ordination of priests should therefore no longer take place before the age of 30, that of the deacon should not take place before the 25th (p. 151). The number of relics increased, the church buildings became more complex, but Venice “firmly held on to the sovereignty inherited from Byzantium over the clergy.” Overall, according to the author, given the unfavorable sources, “our knowledge of history is particularly from the year 1032 –1080 shadowy enough ”(p. 155). Flabanico, "whom the Chronicon Justiniani of the 14th century calls an astute and righteous man", ruled according to Kretschmayr from 1032 to 1042/43.

For John Julius Norwich in his simplistic History of Venice , which largely ignores the historiographical discourse , the Venetians reacted in shock to the Orseolo's belief that the supreme authority was a mere “perquisite of the Orseolo clan”. "The Venetians [...] showed their disgust in the clearest way possible - by conferring the dogeship on Domenico Flabanico, a wealthy silk-merchant who had led the insurrection six years before". An opposition had formed against Ottone Orseolo's and his brothers' plans to make the Doge's office hereditary and washed him, who until then had only 'stolen' relics, onto the doge's chair. The first dark clouds over the Orseolo, according to Norwich, had appeared as early as 1019 with Poppo's appointment. If you follow the author, Orso and Ottone fled to Istria in 1022–23. After him, however, Poppo began to go overboard when he "systematically" robbed churches and monasteries. The returning brothers expelled "Poppo and his followers with surprisingly little feet", a synod rejected 1024 Poppos claims. If the Doge had only shown "a modicum of sensitivity to popular opinion", the Orseoli might have remained in power. As he briefly notes, "a further scandal over Church appointments" led to the well-known overthrow of Ottones. He spent the rest of his life in Constantinople. His successor Centranico "struggled to reunite the city, but his efforts were in vain". According to the author, the Orseolo dynastic marriages initially began to pay off. The relatives in Constantinople terminated the trade treaties, while those in Hungary went over to attacking Dalmatia. While the problems of the new Doge and his party worsened, "nostalgia for the old days grew". "The crisis came in 1032", when Centranico was overthrown, and Vitale "hurried off to Constantinople with an invitation to his brother to resume the throne". "All seemed set for a restoration", but now Ottone died. As a result, Orso resigned, and a last attempt by Domenico Orseolo, "some obscure offshoot of the family", was downright a "miserabile parodia", as Norwich Roberto Cessi quotes. After that, the way was clear for Flabanico to forbid the use of co-doges, and thus the succession. Norwich notes that by the end of the Republic there were only two cases of the same family name immediately following one another on the Doge's list. In both cases a brother followed the brother, and there was no doubt as to the correctness of the choice. There was not even an attempt to raise a fellow doge. This made the eleven years of the Flabanico a "milestone" in the history of Venice. Only after his death did the Venetians have to deal with other things than 'the two things they did best': making money, and enlarging and beautifying their city. "

swell

Narrative sources

• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, p. 208 f. ( Digital copy , p. 208 f.)
• Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia, IX), Rome 1890, p. 175 f. ( Vol. 1, digitized version , PDF)
• Roberto Cessi (Ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense) , Rome 1933, pp. 29, 120, 139ff.
• Roberto Cessi, Fanny Bennato (eds.): Venetiarum historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata , Venice 1964, pp. 74-77.
• Marino Sanudo : Le vite dei dogi , ed. By Giovanni Monticolo (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XXII, 4), p. 149 ff.

Legislative sources

• Harry Bresslau (Ed.): Conradi II diplomata (= Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata reg. Et imp. Germ., IV), Hannover / Leipzig 1909, p. 277 f.

literature

• Giorgio Ravegnani:  Flabiano, Domenico. In: Fiorella Bartoccini (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 48:  Filoni-Forghieri. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 1997. (forms the basis for the performing part).
• Bartolomeo Cecchetti : Degli archivi veneti antichi , in: Archivio veneto I (1871) 65–83, here: p. 69. ( digitized version )
• Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale , Vol. I: Duca e popolo , Venice 1963, pp. 384, 389, 393; Vol. II, 1: Commune Venetiarum , Venice 1965, pp. 3-33, 36 f., 50, 127, 137, 155.
• Andrea Da Mosto I dogi di Venezia nella vita pubblica e privata , Florence 1977, pp. 45-48, 51 f.
• Frederic Chapin Lane : Storia di Venezia , Turin 1978, p. 106.
• Roberto Cessi: Storia della Repubblica di Venezia , Florence 1981, pp. 102-107.
• Gerhard Rösch : Trade and Transport Policy Relations in the German Empire (= Library of the German Historical Institute in Rome, 53) Tübingen 1982 (Italian: Venezia e l'Impero, 962-1250 , Rome 1985), p. 37.
• Giorgio Cracco : Un "altro mondo". Venezia nel Medioevo dal sec. XI al sec. XIV , Turin 1986, pp. 22, 30.
• Donald M. Nicol : Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations , Cambridge 1988, pp. 48-50, 425.

Web links

Commons : Domenico Flabanico  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Remarks

1. ^ Claudio Rendina: I Dogi. Storia e segreti , Newton Compton, 1984, p. 91.
2. ^ Roberto Cessi (ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense) , Rome 1933, p. 140.
3. ↑ Herwig Wolfram : Konrad II. 990-1039. Kaiser dreier Reiche , Munich 2000, p. 127.
4. ↑ Angela Aracciolo Aricò (ed.): De origine, situ et magistratibus urbis Venetae ovvero La Città di Venezia , Milan 1980, p. 237.
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. 50 f.
6. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation by Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, p. 51 f. to the Dogat ( digitized version ).
7. ↑ 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. 91-93 on Dogat ( online ).
8. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 20v ( digitized, p. 20v ).
9. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Herthaben life / government, and dying / from the first Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, pp. 172-174 ( digitized version ).
10. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 30 f. ( Digitized, p. 30 ).
11. ↑ Johann Friedrich LeBret : State history of the Republic of Venice, from its origins to our times, in which the text of the abbot L'Augier is the basis, but its mistakes are corrected, the incidents are presented from specific and genuine 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 the next , 4 vols., Johann Friedrich Hartknoch , Riga and Leipzig 1769–1777, Vol. 1, Leipzig and Riga 1769, on Doge's rule: pp. 266–268 ( digitized version ).
12. ↑ Giorgio Ravegnani: DE Monacis, Lorenzo , in: Dictionnaire Biografico degli Italiani ., Vol 38 (1990).
13. ↑ This refers to the Chronicle of Laurentius de Monachis edited by Muratori, the Chronicon de rebus Venetis from UC ad annum MCCCLIV , Venice 1758, Book IV, p. 77 ( digitized version ).
14. ↑ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853–1861 (2nd edition 1912–1921, reprint Venice 1972), vol. 1, Venice 1853, pp. 293–297, on Centranico p. 298-300, on Flabanico pp. 300-304 ( digitized version ).
15. ↑ 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, on Ottone pp. 425-450, on Centranigo and the end of Orseoli pp. 450-470, on Flabanico pp. 470-486 ( digitized version ).
16. ↑ Gfrörer provides on p. 466 in a footnote the text Dandolos after Muratori XII, 240: "Ceteri (Veneti), innatam libertatem et non tyrannidem cupientes, in eum (Dominicum Ursiolum) insurgunt."
17. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto 25.2 (1883) 288-313 ( digitized ) and 26 (1883) 330-365, here: p. 362-365 ( digitized ).
18. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , vol. 4, Venice 1861, p. 69 f. (on the events up to the Doge's election from 1032, p. 67 f.) ( digitized version ).
19. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 146-148, on the Dogat "Flabianos", pp. 155 f.
20. ^ John Julius Norwich : A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.

predecessor	Office	successor
Pietro Centranigo	Doge of Venice 1032-1043	Domenico I. Contarini