Domenico Orseolo

Domenico Orseolo († after 1036 in Ravenna ) was Doge of Venice for a single day in 1032 . With the support of a minority, he usurped the Doge's seat after the overthrow of his powerful family, but encountered overwhelming resistance from the popular assembly. He fled to Ravenna, where he died a little later. In the sources closer to the time he appears as Dominicus Ursiolo or Domenego Ursiolo . Domenico belonged to the last of the three families who tried in the course of Venetian history to make the Doge's office hereditary. At the same time he was the last doge from the Orseolo family.

Marriage alliances and the filling of high church positions were hallmarks of the policy of the Orseolo family, which sought a kind of hereditary monarchy . The Western Empire supported the Patriarch of Aquileia Poppo against Venice. This tried to make the Patriarchate Grado his suffragan . This approach threatened both the position of Venice and the position of power of the Orseolo, because Orso Orseolo was the patriarch there and the bishoprics dependent on Grado were on Venetian territory. When the Doge Ottone Orseolo (1009-1026) was overthrown as a result of an uprising that the Flabanico and Gradenigo families had probably fired, his opponents, led by Domenico Flabanico , seized the Doge and banished him from Venice. In his place came as Doge Pietro Centranico , a "creature" of Domenico Flabanico. Ottone went into exile in Constantinople . The Emperor, who had been the father-in-law of Ottone's older brother, Giovanni (Johannes), died there in 1028 , but the Orseolo party remained influential even if this brother had also long since died. Centranicos' inability to find a remedy against unrest in Dalmatia and against the patriarch Poppo of Aquileia, who, with the support of King Conrad II, damaged the trade of the Venetians, led to his overthrow. Again a member of the Orseolo family, the Patriarch Orso Orseolo, took over the Doge's office. He had Ottone called back from Constantinople, but he died in the spring of 1032 without having reached Venice. At the news of his death, Orso stepped back. Domenico Orseolo, who was in an unknown relationship to the Doges, took the opportunity to elevate himself to Doge, but under pressure from the popular assembly he had to give way and go into exile in Ravenna. In the end, Domenico Flabanico took power, who succeeded in 1040 in finally excluding the hereditary monarchy in Venice.

Knowledge of Venetian history is much less at this time than it was until 1008, when the most important historiographer in the city's early history, Johannes Diaconus , had died. So the chronicle of Doge Andrea Dandolo from the 14th century became authoritative.

Family, political background, failed usurpation

The Orseolo dominated Venetian politics to the highest degree, and at the same time they were related to the most powerful dynasts. Domenico Orseolo belonged to an influential tribunician family that had already provided three doges: Pietro II Orseolo , Pietro I and Ottone. The brothers of Doge Ottone, Orso and Vitale, held the highest spiritual offices as Patriarch of Grado and Bishop of Torcello . Ottone was one of nine children of Pietros II and his wife Maria, daughter of Doge Vitale Candiano . As the third-born son, he was the godchild of the Roman-German Emperor Otto III. after which it was named. He was married from 1011 to a daughter of the Hungarian Grand Duke Géza , making him brother-in-law of Stephan I , the Hungarian king.

In 1004 Ottone accompanied his eldest brother Giovanni (Johannes), who was already a fellow dog, to Constantinople. There Johannes married Maria, a daughter from an imperial family. But in 1007 Johannes, Maria and their son Basilios died in Venice, as it is called, of the plague. So Ottone became his father's fellow doge. When he died, he was raised to be a doge himself at the age of 16. Three of Ottones' four sisters went to the monastery, while Hicela (Icella) married Stephan (Stjepan), the son of the Croatian king Krešimir III.

When the Patriarch of Grado, Vitale Candiano , died in 1018 after almost fifty years in office, the family managed to get Ottones brother Orso, who had been Bishop of Torcello up until then, to succeed Candiano in office. This office was taken over by another brother, Vitale, who was barely 20 years old. The highest dignities were thus in the hands of the Orseolo.

Like his father, Ottone Orseolo acted in coordination with Constantinople. In contrast, relations with the western empire cooled off. This supported the ambitions of the Patriarch of Aquileia Poppo . The Patriarchate of Aquileia had been in conflict with the Patriarchate of Grado for centuries , and Poppo tried to restore it to its suffragan bishopric ; but with this he claimed influence on Venetian territory. This also jeopardized the Orseolo's secured position of power. The conflict escalated when Ottone was expelled from Venice.

This in turn was the result of a popular uprising, which the Flabanici and the Gradenigo had probably fired. Ottone, followed by his brother Orso, appeared in Istria on Gradenser territory, while Poppo took the opportunity to plunder Grado . Venice then called back the Doge, who succeeded in retaking Grado. But his return was short-lived. Under the leadership of Domenico Flabanico, a group of rebels seized the Doge, had his beard shaved and chased him out of Venice. In his place came 1026 as Doge Pietro Centranico , a "creature" of Domenico Flabianico. Ottone went to Constantinople, his son Pietro fled to Hungary to the court there.

Centranico's inability to find a remedy for the unrest in Dalmatia and the hostilities of Patriarch Poppo, who, with the backing of Conrad II, damaged the trade of the Venetians, led to another upheaval. The new Doge was overthrown by Orseolo's followers as early as 1031. His beard was shaved off too and he had to follow his predecessor into exile in Constantinople. Orso Orseolo, the patriarch, took over the reign for 14 months. He had Ottone called back from Constantinople, but he died on the return journey from Constantinople in the spring of 1032.

Now the otherwise unknown Domenico Orseolo tried, probably with the support of his still influential family, to get on the doge's chair. The Arengo , the popular assembly that at that time still elected the Doge, forced him, however, to leave Venice after only one day as Doge and go into exile in Ravenna. He died there a little later.

reception

While the early Orseolo period has been relatively well researched up to 1008, the completely different sources for the time thereafter, and thus also for the brief reign of Domenico, do not permit this. The chronicle of Johannes Diaconus , the Istoria Veneticorum , reports only up to 1008 , and that in an unusual width for the epoch. As much can be seen, Venice was in a relationship to the far superior, extremely expansive empires that was becoming more difficult, with Conrad II resuming Otto II's anti-Venice policy . The unusually friendly relationship with Otto III. , Ottones' godfather and namesake, had already ended in 1002 with the death of the emperor. For the Venice of the 14th century, on the chronical tradition of which we depend according to Johannes Diaconus - apart from a few documents - the interpretation given to the rule of the Orseolo and thus also of the last ruler of this house was of considerable importance symbolic meaning in the continuum of external relationships, but above all internal disputes between the clan-like family associations. A few years after the fall of Domenico, the hereditary monarchy was finally abolished in Venice, and the actual Republic of Venice came into being .

The focus of the Chronicle of Doge Andrea Dandolo represents in perfect form the views of the long-established political leadership bodies, which have steered the writing of history 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. For both chroniclers, the focus was on the law from their own roots, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims. In this context, the recognition and, if possible, the extension of the "old treaties" by the new emperors (and kings) who came into office has always been of enormous importance, because since 992 Venice had a privilege in the east that gave its merchants there an enormous, ultimately irreversible dominance, which was to be further strengthened by the decline after the Macedonian dynasty . The question of the hereditary monarchy , on which the Candiano 976 failed in a catastrophe, and which became virulent again through the Orseolo, at the time of Andrea Dandolo was no longer in any way with the interests of the families ruling at that time, but especially no longer with it to bring the state of constitutional development in line. The stages of political developments, which ultimately led to the Doge being largely deprived of power, to whom only representative tasks were assigned, but no longer allowed to make independent decisions, was a further objective of the presentation. This was particularly true of Pietro II Orseolo , who, on the contrary, embodied this type of ruler, because in him one saw downright absolutist traits. The failure of the Orseolo was thus central, because in a series of stages it was possible to advance the institutional integration of the office comparatively far up to the 14th century. At the same time, on the one hand, the balance between the ambitious and dominant families remained one of the most important goals, because they had not only caused civil war-like conditions in the city on several occasions, but also induced external powers to interfere and reduced considerable parts of the city to rubble. The derivation of the prominent position of the 'nobili' in the state also required explanation. This balance did not succeed under the Orseolo, which once again led to murderous fights between the noble families. At the same time, because the church offices played an essential role, these struggles offered the Patriarch of Aquileia and the Roman-German Empire behind it, as well as the Pope, new opportunities for interference.

The first edition of the Origo civitatum Italie seu Venetiarum mentions, in contrast to Andrea Dandolo, that Domenico was elected by the people's "non modica quantitate", while the third edition made him a usurper who only spent one night in the Doge's Palace. With Andrea Dandolo, the 'not small amount' of the people became just a 'modica quantitate'.

The oldest vernacular chronicle of Venice, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, depicts the events, as does Andrea Dandolo, on a level that has long been known by individuals, especially the Doges, albeit in in this case the people's assembly took on the decisive role. After the reconquest of Grado, which the Patriarch of Aquileia had conquered, the Doge had the city "murar fortemente et afossar", strengthening the walls and building trenches. The chronicle mentions that almost all of the people hated the Doge and that "Domenego Flabanico" ultimately robbed him of his dignity, but no reason for the hatred is given. The chronicler, on the other hand, mentions cutting off the beard and says that the fallen doge was banished to Grado in the monk's habit. Orso, the Patriarch of Grado, feared the people and fled Venice. The chronicler devotes a few lines to the role of Domenico: “Domenego Ursiolo, sença voler del popolo, intrado nel ducado per obtegnir quello cum volluntade de pochi, ne dimorò un dì; l'altro seguente sentendo lo povolo conturbado contra de lui si tolse di quelo, per la qual cosa bandigiado fu de Venesia, fuggido a Ravena, lì morì et fu sepelido. ”Another hand notes the year“ MXXXI ”as a marginal note. So Domenico had usurped Doge rule with the support of a few without the consent of the people, but only remained in office for one day. The angry people tore his dignity away and forced him to go into exile in Ravenna, where he died and was buried.

In 1502 Pietro Marcello said in his work, later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , that the doge was “Otone Orseolo”, like his famous father, “con gran consentimento del popolo, fu creato doge”. He was "veramente simile al padre", "truly like the father", as well as the uncle. But he fell victim to a “vituperosa congiura” by Domenico Flabanico, was stripped of his beard and exiled to “Grecia”, where, as Marcello claims, he died a little later. “Domenico Orseolo, il quale era strettissimo parente di Otone”, who was therefore a “very close relative of Ottones”, “temerariamente occupò il Prencipato”, he “recklessly occupied the rule”. But he only stayed in 'this happiness' for a short time, because he had to flee the next day. He had 'voluntarily taken his exile in Ravenna', where he died a little later. Under Flabanico they went so far that "per publico decreto fosse ordinato, ch'ella non potesse havere ne il Principato, ne Magistrati, ne dignità alcuna", the family should not receive the Doge's office, nor any office or dignity (P. 51 f.).

According to the Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 by Gian Giacomo Caroldo , which he completed in 1532, the Venetians raised "Otho" to a fellow doge to comfort their father. In the year “MJX”, “Otho Orsiolo” began to rule the “Ducato”. When the Dalmatian cities asked him for help against “Cresimir, presidente nel Regno di Croatia” in the 9th year, Ottone came to their aid with a “potent armata”, with which he secured that “Provincia”. His brother Orso was brought into distress by the Patriarch of Aquileia, behind whom "Imperatore Henrico Bavaro" stood. The causes of the “grandissima discordia” which divided the Venetians and which forced the Doge and his brother to flee are also apparently unknown to Caroldo. After him, the brothers fled to Istria. "Pepo Patriarcha Aquilegiense" reached the city of Grado on the pretext of rushing to the aid of the two refugees, where he read "rovinò le chiese, violò le Monache, asporto via li thesori delle Chiese et della Città". So he destroyed the churches, raped the nuns and took the treasures of the church and town with him. The Venetians, who had experienced the “perfidia del barbaro et inquissimo patriarcha”, called their doge and his brother back. After the recovery of Grado, there was another dispute when “Dominico Gradenigo”, the bishop of Olivolo , died, and the doge's successor from the same family did not want to invest. Again there was a 'great discord' and at the instigation of Dominico Flabanico (“per instigatione di Dominico Flabanico”) the doge was robbed of his beard. According to this chronicle, he was not exiled to Grado, but to Constantinople. According to Caroldo “Dominico Orsiolo occupò il Ducato l'anno MXXXIJ. Costui era della famiglia d'Otho Orsiolo et in favor suo havea quasi la metà del popolo, chel'eccitava ad usurpare il Ducato, mà tutti gli altri, che desideravano viver in libertà, havendo in odio la tirannide, gli furono contrarij et lo fecero fuggire a Ravenna, ove mancò di questa vita; et fù ivi sepolto, sendo stà un giorno solo ”, Domenico thus occupied the dignity of the Doge in 1032, with about half of the people standing behind him. But the rest, who wanted to live in freedom and hated tyranny, turned against him. He had to flee to Ravenna, where he died and was buried after being doge for only one day.

Heinrich Kellner thinks in his Chronica published in 1574 that is Warhaffte actual and short description that everyone who moved to Venice lives , Ottone was "chosen with great goodwill from Volck to his father instead of Hertzog / in jar 1009". Kellner was not the first to claim about Dalmatia at the time of Ottones father that "all towns in the country had been occupied by new officers or governors". Accordingly, Ottone demanded the renewal of the oath from his "Underthanes". After his return he was "attacked by a shameful betrayal of Dominico Fabianico / as he was least aware of it / his beard was cut off to shame / and in the fifteenth year of his government in Greece he was chased away / there he died soon after." "Orsus his brother / when he found out about his brother's death / he says open the ampt. And in his absence, Dominicus Orsoel urged / who was Ottonis very close and great friend / himself must willingly the Hertzogthumb / but luck did not stay long / then the next day / after he had assumed the Dukethumb / he is from the community / Irer Freyheit indenck was / chased away. And he fled from it / and moved willingly to the wretched / towards Rauenna / where soon afterwards he died with Todt ”(p. 20).

In the 16th century, in the hall of the Great Council, an ideal portrait of Domenico Orseolo, subtitled “rexi una luce ducatum”, was placed among the doge paintings that were renovated after a fire .

In the translation of Alessandro Maria Vianoli's Historia Veneta , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Herthaben Leben / Government, and Die Die / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , that " Dominico Flabanico "the overthrow of Ottones, but was" like a completely hidden way / Petrus Centranicus, who most of all sought after the ducal sovereignty / was the head ". Ottone was attacked, stripped of his hair, he was "put on a monk's robe by force / and expelled from Greece". Whether Petrus Centranicus achieved the dignity of the Doge “by ordinary election” or “whether he seized it by force”, “is not known for sure” (p. 167). “Orsus, as Patriarch of Grado” “ruled the community with the greatest diligence”, but when he understood “his brother's death in Greece [he] voluntarily gave up the government / and about which they are extremely astonished / because they are Authority and the great prestige of the Orseolian family had risen too high / left to Domenico Orseolo / but did not stay long like that / then the next day he / from the people / who are a little jealous / chased away from the excessive violence of families thought to be too great / and from the same to retire after Ravenna / was forced / by so far it is prevented from the effort / to call him a Hertzog / with unanimity / in the year a thousand and two and thirty “his successor was chosen.

Portrait of Jacob von Sandrart (1630–1708), painter was Johann Leonhard Hirschmann , engraver Bernhard Vogel

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart in his Opus Kurtze and the increased description of the origin / recording / territories / and government of the world famous republic of Venice did not notice Domenico Orseolo at all, after Vianoli had already had doubts whether it would be considered worth the effort at all to call a "Hertzog".

Johann Friedrich LeBret , who published his four-volume State History of the Republic of Venice from 1769 , believed that the Orseolo “ruled” “well, they had creative national geniuses: but the more monarchical their way of thinking, the more unbearable they became for a republic” (p. 233). Ottone “followed completely in his father's footsteps”, the Orseolo were not “denied imperial or royal princesses”. In Croatia and Dalmatia the doge was given the opportunity "to defend the rights of his people" (p. 252). After the victory over the Croatians, the cities oathed allegiance. But “this was the end of the most beautiful days of the Urseolians”, LeBret concludes. “The vague concept of Venetian freedom has made many of their princes state martyrs.” “As long as there were no laws in place that encompass the power of princes and gave noble citizens the right to oppose the princes, so long were they Activities of these houses outrages ”. “It was not virtuous men who conspired against Otto Urseolus, but the most vicious men of the first rank”, LeBret diagnoses (p. 254). "This whole gang [...] took possession of the doge, shaved off his beard and chased him out of the country." After the death of Patriarch Orso, "there was still one left from the Orseol family to collect the ruins of this party sought. ”He“ seized the government in the most hateful way, without the consent of the people, but without having the spirit of his ancestors ”, believes the author (p. 156). “He saw the ducal crown as a property of his house ... he ignored the voice of the people; he went much more into the palace with his minor appendage, seized it, and established himself on the throne. "" He was attacked in the palace, where he made a mine, as if he wanted to defend himself; but it was precisely this resistance that embittered the people even more ”. LeBret continues pathetically: “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 full speed to Ravenna, where he did not last long afterwards died of frustration ”(p. 157). “The last Orseol obscured all the fame of this well-deserved and famous house,” concludes the author.

Samuele Romanin , the historian who depicts in great detail and is embedded in the historical context, who portrays this epoch in 1853 in the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia , says succinctly that Orso resigned after Ottones death, after only 14 months in office had been. For Romanin, it was the accumulation of too many of the highest offices that had formed the basis for the later rebellion against Ottone. Although he succeeded in restoring the 'national honor' and recapturing Grado, the dispute over the succession to the bishopric of Olivolo, in which Ottone did not want to confirm the 18-year-old candidate of the Gradenigo, led to new conflicts. Under the leadership of the Flabianici, Ottone was overthrown, shorn and banished to Constantinople. His brother Orso fled and was also banished. After a long and stormy consultation, Domenico Centranico was elected Doge. Romanin refers to Andrea Dandolo (“Hic de stirpe Ottonis”) in the usurpation by Domenico mentioned above and adds laconically that he was driven out by the angry people. This multiple change in the question of power was only ended by this expulsion and as a result of the election of Domenico Flabianico. Romanin also mentions a document from 1049 that names a Pietro Orseolo, a son of Domenico Orseolo. According to this, this son of the usurper came into conflict with the inhabitants of the two Chioggias (p. 305, note 3). According to the author, Domenico is explicitly named in the document mentioned as the son of the Doge "Pietro"; this son had been baptized by Heinrich II and had adopted the name of his godfather, similar to Ottone, whose original name was Pietro, of Otto III. and whose name he was given. Domenico's son, Pietro, appears again in a document in 1065. It is about a dispute over land with an abbot Giovanni and a nephew of the Doge Tribuno Memmo named Maurizio Memo before the iudices . Pietro was granted the conceded land again with a document (p. 339 f.).

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) assumes in his History of Venice from its founding to 1084 , which appeared eleven years after his death , that the tradition is “incomplete”, “in my opinion because the chroniclers do a lot out of state considerations have kept quiet. ”On this basic assumption, he builds his own interpretation model, because Gfrörer tries again and again to identify the foreign policy constellation for the events in Venice as the main culprit. For Venice's traders, who were mainly active in the west, after him there was a “natural” tendency to support the Ottonians and for those of them who traded in the east, more of a side to Byzantium. Johannes Diaconus, the central source, only lasts until 1008, after which we have to rely on Andrea Dandolo, who, according to Gfrörer, withholds a lot about the 11th century. Gfrörer sees a role for little Ottone, whose godfather was the emperor, in the long-drawn-out plan to acquire "sovereignty" on the mainland. His father only manipulated this (p. 372). An important lever in his perfidious plan is the verbal support of Otto III. was involved in realizing his plans for a world empire, but the emperor died in 1002. Ottone, barely following his father, married a Hungarian princess, which proves that the Doge “believed in the permanent rule of his house over Veneto”. This is also shown by a document issued in March 1010 in which the residents of Heracliana had been promised land by the deceased Doge, but which they only received after they, according to the author, submitted to the election of Ottones as Doge had proven (p. 426). It was only after the fall of Arduin that Ottones fleet hit the seas and rushed to the aid of the cities. Dandolo describes the replacement of the patriarchal chair of Grado, where Vitalis , the son of Doge Pietro IV. Candiano , who was overthrown in 976 , was succeeded after more than fifty years in office by Ottones' brother, Orso, who has been in office since 1009, at the most 21 years of age, Bishop of Torcello . Ottone's fourth brother, Vitalis, became Bishop of Torcello. But now enormous difficulties piled up for the Orseoli, who were apparently so firmly seated in the saddle, because with the death of Patriarch John of Aquileia, the emperor used the opportunity to raise a German to the chair there, his Chancellor Wolfgang-Poppo, who "Not without prior knowledge of the Emperor Heinrich II.", Turned against Grado. Eventually the Pope confirmed Orso's rights, with Gfrörer assuming that he could do so from 1022 when he was no longer so dependent on the emperor. Heinrich in turn demanded reparation from Ottone for the misdeeds against Otto III. - an interpretation that only followed Gfrörer, who believed that Ottone's father had the enthusiastic Otto III. just taken advantage of. To this end, according to Gfrörer, between 1020 and 1024, when he ruled all of Northern Italy, the emperor began a moderate trade blockade against Venice. However, when the Pope confirmed Grado's rights, the emperor gave in. Pope and Emperor died in 1024. In the same year Ottone and Orso had to flee to Istria. Poppo took the opportunity to appear as Grado's savior. The author also concluded that it was Ottone and Orso who had requested Grado's extradition to Poppo and the emperor, respectively. Therefore, on suspicion of high treason , they fled to Istria, which belonged to the empire that was now ruled by the Salian Conrad II . This would explain why Poppo was actually able to act as patron of the Orseoli in Grado. Poppo's actions there were “not criminal, but contractual actions” (p. 440). Pope John XIX. confirmed Aquileia's rights, he did not revoke them until 1029. Gfrörer suspects that the whole thing was based on a secret treaty in which the Orseoli 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). Only after this determination did Grado return to Orseoli. But in 1026 the aforementioned dispute about the replacement of the core Venetian bishopric by Olivolo, which ultimately led to the overthrow of Ottones and his brother Orso, 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, who had already been expelled (to Istria) because of the same plans, were now overthrown and banished again. If the plan that Ottone had devised had worked out, Venice would have become a different city, says Gfrörer: “Unrestricted doges would have trampled the laws there, degraded the citizens, the chairs with 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). "The Venetian people", quoted Gfrörer Dandolo, "took the decision to reinstate Otto, who had been overthrown four years ago." But, the author continues, Orso, his brother, has been "appointed deputy" for the time being. In the meantime, their opponents left the city to be on the safe side. After 14 months "news came in from Constantinople that Otto Orseolo had died there" (p. 463 f.). After Dandolo again, the patriarch was “only the representative of his absent brother”, but “the old Venetians nevertheless had his name entered in the register of the Doges because he ruled justly” (p. 464). Gfrörer considers these to be "officially created registers" that must have been available to the historian. Gfrörer explains the long period between the appeal and the news of his death by the resistance of the Orseolo's enemies in Constantinople. He deduces this from the fact that “Flavanico, immediately after his elevation to the Doge, was adorned by the basileus with the title of a sword-bearer.” Again quoting Dandolo, Domenico Orseolo assumed the Dogat in this situation: “Only the great majority approved such not ”,“ but they rose up against the intruder ”(p. 464 f.). Domenico fled in horror "over to the Italian empire". Gfrörer attributes Andrea Dandolo's lack of words to the fact that otherwise he would have had to admit that “Veneto had no worse enemies than its doges, Peter Orseolo II, the ancestor, Otto, the son, and Domenico, the clans, or maybe Grandchildren ”(p. 465). According to Dandolo, Gfrörer sees the reason for defending against Domenico's claims that they wanted to prevent his tyranny and protect the free constitution. Since Domenico was Doge only for one day, nobody could have known that he would be a tyrant, so Gfrörer concluded that this claim must have been directed against the Orseoli as a whole. In his view, the Orseoli relied on the Salians in their attempt to turn Venice into a “despotism”.

This was contradicted by Pietro Pinton, who translated and annotated Gfrörer's work in the Archivio Veneto in annual volumes XII to XVI. He corrected numerous assumptions by Gfrörer, especially when it came to those for which the evidence from the sources was missing or contradicting them. However, his own critical examination of Gfrörer's work did not appear until 1883, also in the Archivio Veneto. To attribute the inner-city struggles to mere foreign policy and the Orseoli striving for "Byzantinism" claimed by Gfrörer falls short of the mark for Pinton, for whom in this case the internal Venetian disputes were of greater importance. But Gfrörer ignores this in practically every political maneuver in Venice. Pinton also sees the interpretation of marriage policy as a mere manifestation of dynastic claims too one-sided - even if he accepts that the Candiano and Particiaco already strived for the hereditary character of their office - because these marriages also served as a means of protection against hostility on the part of external rulers. This also applied to Slavs and Hungarians. Pinton also rejects Gfrörer's interpretation of the document for Heraclea as unlikely, because apparently Ottone was accepted without resistance as the new co-dog and successor of his father instead of his brother who had died of the plague. In addition, the doge election was probably carried out by members of the people's assembly, and the small town hardly played a role in it. Most, if not all, of those gathered were probably resident in the “città di Rialto”. Also, the Bishop of Adria could hardly have expected Arduin's support from Ivrea, because that Arduin himself had been in a desperate position in the fight against Henry II since 1014/15. Pinton also criticized the lack of preconditions with which Gfrörer caused a decline in the Venetian power in Dalmatia after 1000, while Pinton is more likely to assume that the Croatian activities did not begin until 1016. 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. That the Venetians had confidence in the Orseoli, at least in the case of the Patriarch and Doge Ursus, was shown by the fact that he was entered on the Doge's list, as Andrea Dandolo had noted, and that Ursus had resigned out of love for the fatherland ( P. 361). The resistance of the Venetians was not directed against the family as a whole, but against Domenico, whom Dandolo calls a "usurper". While violence and support from a few constituted a usurper for Dandolo, and the family was therefore by no means evicted - contrary to Gfrörer's claim - the Venetians primarily defended the security and the advantages of the republic against “quello stolto, che vien subito rovesciato dal trono ”, against that 'fool' who was immediately overthrown (p. 362).

In 1861 Francesco Zanotto, who gave the people's assembly considerable influence in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , reported that Ottone simply remained in office after the death of his father. The brothers Johannes and Otto were received with him in Constantinople with a “splendidezza veramente orientale” (p. 63), but Johannes and his small family fell victim to the plague. As a consolation, the people allowed the Doge to raise his third-born son Otto to be a fellow Doge, even though he was only 14 years old. But he was endowed with those qualities, in which Zanotto follows 'the chroniclers', especially Sanudo , who were needed to govern the state: "Saggio, prudente, giusto, pio, bello del corpo e dovizioso". Zanotto claims that Ottone regulated the decime that the citizens paid for public tasks and that had been misappropriated by the predecessors and the Gastalden ("alterati"). Then he went against the "Slavi-Croati" who had already seized Zaras. After the victory, the Doge was confronted with the envy of some families who incited a large part of the people against the overwhelming Orseoli. The people, always 'gullible because ignorant' ('credulo perchè ignorante'), and 'fickle as the sea' wanted to overthrow the Doge, who fled to Istria with his brother Orso. Poppo von Aquileia also intrigued against Orso, occupied Grado, pretending that he only wanted to take care of an abandoned herd. As soon as he was allowed to enter the city, he had it plundered and had spared no crime in the process. Whether the Venetians recognized the injustice or whether friends of the Orseoli made it known, the Venetians regretted the expulsion and brought the brothers back from Istria. These took on the task of punishing Poppo and recapturing Grado. But hatred, envy, the bad spirit of the families hostile to the Orseoli had produced a 'new revolt' two years later. The dispute over the bishopric of Torcello provided the pretext for this, as Zanotto claims. “Stimolati” by the Flabanici under their head Domenico, “a man ready for any offense”, let the people, led by the Gradenighi, be persuaded to overthrow the Doge. Ottone was shorn and banished to Constantinople, Orso fled. The author saw the doge as an example that a state leader with good qualities could be overthrown by unjust revolts of the people if they, against the evangelical dictates, rise to judge their rulers. Orso, on the other hand, says Zanotto, had entered the ancients in the Doge's list, under him even a new, small coin was minted, which was even circulated four centuries later, under Andrea Dandolo (p. 68). Finally, Domenico Orseolo tried to usurp the Doge's office, but “appena fu consapevole la nazione dell'atto violento, riprovando la temerità di lui, die mano alle armi, e furiosamente lo cacciò, obbligandolo, per lo spavento, a fuggire, e ripararsi a Ravenna, ove, secondo il Sanudo, dopo otto soli giorni, morì ”(p. 69). If you follow Sanudo, he died just eight days after his fall.

Heinrich Kretschmayr thinks that while the first and third son, Johannes and Otto, were raised to be co-doges, namely 1002 and 1008, the second and fourth son, Orso and Vitale, became patriarchs of Grado. The family thus dominated the two most important levels of Venetian politics. In terms of foreign policy, the marriages of the brothers Johannes and Otto - with the Byzantine Maria and the sister of King Stephen of Hungary, who was also the sister-in-law of Emperor Henry II - testify that Venice acted for a short time on the same level as the two empires. King Otto, who was on his way to Rome for the imperial coronation, raised Pietro-Ottone from the baptism. Finally, the emperor wanted to get to know the doge personally, which led to the emperor's secret stay in Venice, which began on April 13, 1001. Again he raised a child of the Doge from the baptism, this time a daughter - for Kretschmayr a pure “bliss of mood” from “love of friends and St. Mark” (p. 134). For Kretschmayr, it was Poppo's ambition to submit to the entire Patriarchate of Grado, including its suffragan bishoprics, that sparked the extensive conflict that followed. But neither with the Pope nor with his overlord did he find “support or even understanding”. “During the reign of Doge Otto, a strong opposition to the Orseolians must have developed, of course nothing has been said about their growth and development,” as the author admits. She forced Ottone and Orso to flee, which, according to Kretschmayr, was only an echo of the change of the throne in 1024 in the empire and in Rome. In autumn 1024 Poppo cunningly took possession of Grado “and lived terribly in the defenseless city” (p. 145). The new Pope, "came up simonistically," recognized Poppo's rights, albeit with reservations. The "revolutionary party recognized with horror whose interest had fostered their uprising against the glorious ruling house." The brothers, "recalled or not", recaptured 1024 Grado in October / November. 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,” says Kretschmayr laconically. 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“ Pietro or Domenico Centranico or Barbolano ”was elected Doge instead of the leader of the opposition. “Orso's custody died out of its own accord,” believes Kretschmayr, “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 even more. Domenico had to flee to Ravenna the next day, and Domenico Flabiano, who had been overtaken from exile, was elected Doge (summer? 1032) ”(p. 148).

Neither the debate between Gfrörer and Pinton nor the more cautious interpretation of Kretschmayr prevailed in more general representations. The opposition to the Orseolo was directed primarily against the power and wealth of the family, as the editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1911 and 1926 claimed: "the growing wealth and influence soon filled the Venetians with alarm".

Vittorio Lazzarini dedicated his own, albeit brief, account to the alleged usurper and the last members of his family in 1954. In it he first stated that “Domenico” was a name that was very common in the 11th century, which gave rise to a number of confusions. Nevertheless, it turns out that Domenico Orseolo by no means, as Andrea Dandolo and Marino Sanudo claim, died after a short time in Ravenna. On the contrary, it appears in a document from 1036. The document mentioned above, which Pietro, Domenico's son names, also names his father, twice without the addition “bonus” typical for a deceased Doge (p. 52 ). According to Lazzarini, he was still alive at that time. Incidentally, it is one of the last documents used to date a Byzantine emperor. Since Emperor Michael IV is named, the certificate cannot have been issued before 1034; The exhibitor, however, explicitly dates the previous year to the year 1036 ("Anno ab incarnacione eiusdem redemptoris nostri milesimo et trigesimo sexto, imperante domno nostro Michael"). Members of the Orseolo still appear in Ravenna documents in the 13th century, so that Lazzarini assumes that a branch of the Orseolo, possibly the Domenicos family, has moved to Ravenna. However, it is unclear whether there were other surviving sons besides Pietro. But even in Venice, although it had been rumored for centuries that the Orseolo would never have been allowed to exercise an office again, members of the family appear in various high offices, including the highest after the Doge. A Pietro Orseolo appears as iudex in 1072 and 1074 , and an Enrico in the same office between 1087 and 1094. However, the economic decline of the extremely wealthy family began in the early 12th century. So the goods around Conche were lost, and the houses in the city followed later. At the beginning of the 12th century, a branch of the Orseolo lived in the parish of Santi Apostoli . From this branch a Foscari Orseolo was elected last in the Grand Council (1261). In the first half of the 14th century, Orseolo only appeared as popular people who no longer had access to the Grand Council and who appear as traders in various documents.

swell

• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, p. 208 (“Dominicus Ursiolo dux sedem invasit, anno Domini millesiom XXXII. Hic, de stirpe Octonis, modica parte populi consenciente, ducatum usurpat : ceteri, innatam libertatem et non tyrannidem cupientes, in eum insurgunt; illegal perorescens, dum prefuisset uno die, fugam arripiens Ravenam ivit, ubi denique moritur et sepelitur. "). ( Digital copy , p. 208 f.)
• Vittorio Lazzarini : Doge di un giorno. Gli ultimi Orseolo , in: Atti dell'istituto veneto die lettere, scienze ed arti. Classe di scienze morali e lettere CXII (1953-1954) 52-61, Docc. 1, document from 1036 (p. 59 f., Petrus "filius Dominici Ursoyolo").

literature

• Vittorio Lazzarini : Doge di un giorno. Gli ultimi Orseolo , in: Atti dell'istituto veneto die lettere, scienze ed arti. Classe di scienze morali e lettere CXII (1953-1954) 52-61.
• Giuseppe Gullino: Orseolo, Ottone , in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Vol. 79, 2013 (forms the basis for the representative part of family policy).
• Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale , Vol. I, Venice 1963, pp. 377-380, 383 f., 389; Vol. II, Venice 1965, pp. 4 f., 8, 12, 27, 29 f., 49, 126 f., 168.
• Stefano Gasparri: Dagli Orseolo al comune , in: Lellia Cracco Ruggini , Massimiliano Pavan, Giorgio Cracco , Gherardo Ortalli (eds.): Storia di Venezia dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima , vol. I: Origini - Età ducale , Rome 1992, p 792-794.

Remarks

1. ↑ Flabànico, Domenico, doge di Venezia , Enciclopedie on line, Treccani.
2. ↑ Lazzarini, p. 51.
3. ^ 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.
4. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, p 48 ( digitized ).
5. ↑ 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, p. 91 on the Dogat of Domenico Orseolo ( online ).
6. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 19r – 19v ( digitized, p. 19r ).
7. ^ Vittorio Lazzarini : Doge di un giorno. Gli ultimi Orseolo , in: Atti dell'istituto veneto die lettere, scienze ed arti. Classe di scienze morali e lettere CXII (1953–1954) 52–61, here: p. 51.
8. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Herthaben life / government, and withering / from the first Paulutio Anafesto to / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, p. 171 ( digitized ).
9. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 30 ( digitized, p. 30 ).
10. ↑ 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 ).
11. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853–1861 (2nd edition 1912–1921, reprint Venice 1972), vol. 1, Venice 1853, p. 300 ( digitized version ).
12. ↑ 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 Domenico pp. 464-466 ( digitized version ).
13. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto 25.2 (1883) 288-313 ( digitized, p. 288 f. ) And 26 (1883) 330-365, here: p. 353-359 ( Digitized version ).
14. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, pp. 65–69 ( digitized version ).
15. ↑ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 142–146.
16. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica , 1911 and 1926, each p. 330.