Giovanni Galbaio

The alleged coat of arms of the Doge, as presented by the Musei Civici of Venice on their website until 2007. Several patrician families were traced back to the Doge or his family, including the Calbo, Querini and Canal.

Giovanni Galbaio (* mid-8th century; † after 803) was according to the Venetian historiographical tradition, as the state-controlled historiography is often called, the 8th Doge of the Republic of Venice . John , as he is called in the contemporary sources, was captured during the battle against the Longobards who tried to conquer Istria under King Desiderius . He was released from this at an unknown time.

Already during the lifetime of his father Mauritius (I.) he was raised to a fellow doge in 785 (also called 778). This made him the first doge not elected by the popular assembly. He ruled alone from 787 to 803 after the death of his father, although recent research suggests that he only became the sole ruling Doge in 797. With Mauritius, Johannes and his son Mauritius (II.) , Whom John raised to be a fellow doge, the Galbaii formed a first, albeit short-lived, Dog dynasty in the years from 764 to 803.

As in the time of his father, the ducat Venice got caught up in the conflict between the Frankish empire under Charlemagne , who had conquered the Lombards in 774 , and the Byzantine empire , to which the Venice lagoon still formally belonged. With Charles' coronation as emperor in 800 and the death of Empress Irene in 802, the dispute between the great powers of her time escalated ( two- emperor problem ).

After the murder of Johannes , the Patriarch of Grado , the doge of the same name had to flee together with his son Mauritius (II.), Who at the behest of his father had the patriarch overthrown from a tower. The whereabouts of the two doges is not known, as well as the time of their death, even if Mantua was mentioned or "Francia". The Venetian tradition never accepted the son of John, who had been appointed as doge by his father, as incumbent, even if there are indications in Venetian historiography that there were divergent views on the legitimacy of the second Mauritius by the 18th century at the latest. Accordingly, Mauritius (II.) Does not appear in the traditional list of the 120 doges known to the late Venetian tradition.

Life and domination

Frankish conquests between 768 and 816; Venetian territory

John had two sisters, Agata and Suria. His father endowed Johannes with influential positions, including military. So he fought on the side of the Byzantines against the Lombards, who tried to conquer Istria from 770 onwards, and in whose captivity John 772/773 came - Heinrich Kretschmayr questioned en passant in 1905 whether this was John . This hostage-taking is only mentioned in the Liber pontificalis , while the Venetian sources (wisely?) Keep silent about this process. The Langobardenfeldzug Charles ended with the conquest of the Lombards under their king Desiderius and the occupation of large parts of his kingdom. At Karl's instigation, Johannes may have been released, perhaps as early as 772 or 773. The Doge Mauritius succeeded in getting his son's confirmation as successor in the Doge's office from the Byzantine Emperor.

Denarius of Charles, 1.27 g, minted in Treviso 771–793 / 4 (reverse: "TARVISO")

With the Franks, an even more aggressive power appeared in northern Italy , which also saw itself in alliance with the Pope. The latter claimed considerable parts of northern Italy. Therefore the Venetian traders were banned from the Pentapolis in 785 - these are the five towns of Rimini , Pesaro , Fano , Senigallia and Ancona in the Marche . In 787/788 the Franks also conquered neighboring Istria, a conquest by a foreign power, against which Johannes had resisted almost two decades earlier in connection with the occupation attempt by the Lombards. No help was to be expected from Byzantium, since the engagement of Karl's daughter Rotrud to the Byzantine prince Constantine had just been arranged between the Franks and Byzantium .

However, the desired alliance between Charles and Byzantium did not develop in the interests of either party. Tensions came to a head when Charles was not invited to the Council of Nicaea convened by Empress Irene in 787 and, as a reaction, Karl convened his own council in Frankfurt in 794 , which dealt with the same problems without Byzantine participation.

John's endeavor was to take revenge on the Patriarch of Grado , Venice's rival for supremacy in the Veneto, who had driven the expulsion of the Venetian merchants from the Pentapolis in 785. His father split off the Diocese of Olivolo from Grado and installed Obeliebato as bishop there in the lagoon of Venice between 774 and 776 ( Johannes Diaconus , p. 98 f.). Grado was again part of the Franconian Empire. This split led to violent disputes with another John , the Patriarch of Grado, who saw his rights violated.

The reigning Doge Mauritius, whose son had been released from captivity at an unknown point in time, tried from 778/779 - perhaps following the Byzantine model - to enforce his son's co-reign. With the death of his father, Johannes inherited the office of Doge. The new doge avoided - this also a violation of custom - to obtain the consent of the "people".

After the Franks had succeeded in conquering Istria, the Patriarch of Grado increased the pressure on the Venice Ducat, because his sources of income in the conquered territories had been withdrawn from him. He now focused on his new alliance with the Pope and the Franks, whose expansion he supported. When Bishop Obeliebato of Olivolo died in 795, he was to be succeeded by the Greek-born Cristoforo - "nacione grecus" (Andrea Dandolo, p. 124). However, Patriarch John refused to recognize the new bishop.

In modern research, be it the work of Roberto Cessi or Girolamo Arnaldi and Massimiliano Pavan, of Gherardo Ortalli or Andrea Castagnetti, the duration of the reigns, as they go back to the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo , i.e. to the 14th century, does not more accepted. The chronicle of Johannes Diaconus , which was probably written around 1000, is therefore used to justify the fact that the Doge Johannes did not take office until 797, i.e. ten years later than Andrea Dandolo's.

The Placitum vom Risano, named after a river near Capodistria , with 172 witnesses. It mentions Slavs for the first time in the vicinity of Trieste and collects complaints against increased services, attacks and the like. It was also drawn by Fortunatus , at that time still Bishop of Pula.

In turn, according to the procedure that his father Mauritius had already adopted, Johannes elevated his own son Mauritius (II.) To doge. This procedure, based on his own claim to power, without any external legitimation, was never recognized, and so his son does not appear in any of the doge lists. In the chronicle of Johannes Diaconus (p. 99) and in that of Andrea Dandolo (p. 124) a negative assessment of the behavior of Doge Johannes is indicated.

After King Charles I was crowned emperor, the dispute between the two empires, but also between the Doge House and Grado, came to a head from 801. In a document dated May 29, 801, issued not far from Bologna , he claimed the title "Romanum gubernans imperium", a claim to the Roman Empire which initially met with little resistance in Byzantium, especially since Empress Eirene was overthrown in 802. But the new emperor Nikephorus I rejected Karl's claim, so that there was an open conflict. The Doge's policy directed against Karl, and also the opposition to Leo III. escalated, the Pope from 795 to 816. The enmity between the Doge John and the patriarch of the same name reached its peak in 802. That year the Doge instructed his son Mauritius to lead a punitive expedition at the head of a fleet. Grado was destroyed, the captured patriarch was overthrown from a 'very high tower' (“altissima turre”), possibly from one of the towers of the castrum in which the patriarch had resided (Dandolo, p. 126). John of Grado had held this office since 766.

The murder led to a series of counter-actions, but at the same time shows the extreme uncertainty of the borderline relationships. The murdered man was followed a few months later by Fortunatus , a relative, perhaps a nephew. He pursued an even more clearly pro-Frankish policy than his predecessor. He also allied himself with internal Venetian opponents against the Doge and his son. The favor of the Frankish emperor was shown in 803 when this Fortunatus received not only the confirmation of his possessions, but also immunities and privileges. The Doge Johannes finally had to flee, possibly to Mantua , and his son also fled to Franconian territory, to "Francia", as Johannes Diaconus notes imprecisely (p. 101). It is unclear whether they lived in exile as “cittadini privati”, as Roberto Cessi speculated in 1963 (I, p. 136). The traces of father and son are lost in the sources.

The opponents in the lagoon chose Obelerius von Malamocco as his successor, who put his brother Beatus at his side.

reception

In the Chronicon Altinate or Chronicon Venetum the Doge appears with the name and term of office “Iohannes dux ducavit ann. 25 ". However, the edition took over parts of the Chronicle of Andrea Dandolo and thus gave these passages the nimbus of a contemporary source.

For Venice at the time of Andrea Dandolo, the interpretation attached to the rule of Giovanni Galbaio was of considerable importance. The leading bodies attached great importance to control over historiography. Her focus was on the development of the constitution, the internal disputes between the possessores , but also the shifts in power within the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean as well as in Italy. The Galbai stood for the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to form a dynasty. In addition, the questions about the sovereignty between the empires, the law from its own roots, the demarcation from the militarily often far superior mainland powers, above all from the Roman-German Empire and the Franconian Empire, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims, were always there in the centre. On the one hand, the earliest Doges ignored the influence of the people's assembly, the arengo , which finally lost its influence in the 13th century, and therefore also recognized the epoch-making importance of the founding of a Doge dynasty, a form of rule that the greats in Venice always have sought to prevent. So it was consistent that the elevation of Mauritius (II.), That is, of John's son, to be kept secret.

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo , presents the events that are obviously not (no longer) understandable even for historians on a largely personal level. Johannes, the son of Mauritius, in the words of the chronicler “Iohane, fiolo del dicto Mauricio ”, began to rule as a doge in the year “genzCLVIII” (768) after the death of his father. John, in turn, had a son who was named after his grandfather. He was sent with a "grande armada de navilii ... a la cità de Grado" to avenge the death of the patriarch John, who came from his house ("che era stado dela sua chaxa"). He succeeded with "grande ingano et iniquamente “to enforce the will of his father. In the place of John came "Fortunato" as patriarch, who after a short time, fearing the "aspreça" of the Doge and his son, fled to King Charles I, the son of Pippin, and brought the Doge's "malvagita" to his attention. The Doge's opponents, including Obelerius, gathered in "alcuna cità de Trivixana" - not in Treviso itself, but in a town in Treviso. A large party of the people moved there after a while and raised Obelerius 'to their doge' (“si lo helevò per suo Duxe”). The men swore death and destruction to the two doges. When the two saw that they were hated so much and that they faced such a 'great power' (“gran possa”), “ocultamente si partino, habiando recto il ducado per anni XVIIII”. So they fled 'secretly' after 19 years of rule.

Pietro Marcello , who later translated into the Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in 1502 , noted that “Mauritio Galbaio” had succeeded in achieving “che sino allhora non era più” is entirely in line with Andrea Dandolo's line avenuto à niunuo altro; di potersi eleggere Giovanni suo figliuolo per compagno nel prencipato ”. So he had achieved something that no one had done before, namely to make his son his successor in the Dogat. Marcello rebukes Johannes mainly for his behavior towards the Patriarch Fortunatus and the subsequent military intervention by Pippin , who was ordered to do so by his father Charlemagne. It also states that John ruled alone for nine years and that in his seventh year he elevated his son to the highest office. At the same time Marcello counted the three Galbaii as a single doge and added them up in the section “MAVRITIO GALBAIO. DOGE VII. ”, To which the section“ OBELERIO ANTENORIO. DOGE VIII. ”Follows.

Gian Giacomo Caroldo reports similarly in his chronicle , which he wrote between 1520 and 1532. Caroldo, who in his own words relies on the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo (p. 54), notes that the Venetians "constituirono Iovanni [sic!] Suo figliuolo consorte della Ducal dignità". This “appointment” as co-doge (“consorte”) of his father happened in the year “DCCLXXVIJ”, that is 777 (p. 50). The author considers the fact that the Venetians had two doges to be a “pernicioso essempio a successori”, a “harmful” or “sinister” example for the successors. When Johannes' father Mauritius died, his son succeeded him in 787. But he was 'very dissimilar' to his father because he had not had his care for the benefit of the 'patria', his 'hometown'. In 792, in agreement with the Venetians, John made his son Mauritius a fellow doge. During this time, the water rose to such an extent, as Caroldo implies, that many islands were flooded - Caroldo writes of "tanta escrescenza", a term used to describe growths in the medical field today. These floods can now be proven archaeologically. In 801 John sent his son with his army and fleet to destroy the patriarch ("rovinare"). Mauritius (II.) Attacked Grado 'cruelly', the wounded patriarch was thrown to death from the highest tower of his own palace (“gettato a terra et morto”). In his place "Fortunato Tergestino" ( Fortunatus II. ) Was chosen , a relative of the deceased, who for his part feared that fate might affect him. Therefore he initiated a conspiracy against the two doges "con alcuni primarij Venetiani". However, this was discovered, and so Fortunatus decided to leave Venice (“deliberò partir da Venetia”). He was joined by "Obelerio Tribuno Mathemaucense, Felice Tribuno, Demetrio Mariniano et molti altri". Fortunatus went to the Franconian Empire, while the other conspirators stayed in Treviso. At the instigation of those who had stayed in Venice (that is probably Malamocco, the capital of the lagoon, from which Obelerio also came), they chose “Obelerio Tribuno” as doge. From this the now 'lost' Doges fled, as Caroldo writes: "per il che Ioanni et Mauritio, smariti, abbandonorono il Ducato et la Patria". John went to Mantua, his son Mauritius to the Frankish Empire, and they never managed to return, so that they had to die outside Venice (p. 51). In total, John Galbaius ruled for 25 years, nine years with his father and seven with his son.

Title page by Francesco Sansovinos Venetia città nobilissima , Venice 1581

Francesco Sansovino (1512–1586) gave in his opus Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia, Libri II , published in Venice in 1587 , the name of the son of the Dog with “Giovanni” in a brief section. According to Sansovino, it was the “bontà” of the “Maoritio” that was so highly valued that he was able to enforce his son as a fellow doge (“ottenne per compagno nel Principato vn suo figlio”). Giovanni followed in 796 in office. This had "a somiglianza del padre" in turn raised his son to doge. By a conspiracy (“congiura”) led by Obelerio and Fortunatus, the nephew of the murdered Patriarch of Grado, “the Doges” were forced to flee in 804.

The Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner , who knew Northern Italy from his own experience and who made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking area by largely following Marcello, counts in his Chronica , published in 1574, that is true and short description of all people living in Venice , " Johann ”not as a doge, but as an“ assistant ”. This also applies to his son "Moritz the Younger". Instead, he subsumes the two under Johannes' father "Mauritius Galbaius", who appears as "Sibende [r] Hertzog". Mauritius was the first doge to be allowed to call his son “an assistant in Hertzogthumb”. According to Kellner, Fortunatus united against the Doges at this time, but had to flee to Emperor Karl's court when the conspiracy was uncovered. There he talked badly about the Venetians until Karl “ordered his son Pippin to go to war against the Venetians”. Pippin moved "with his war people to the place / the Venediger area / since Eraclia and Equilio were close to the country". Its inhabitants fled "to Malamocco and Rialto". Without further reporting on Mauritius Galbaius, Kellner added: "But Hertzog Johann ... send his Son Moritzen with a large armada against Johannem / Ertzbischoffen to Grado". "And so that God-Castle Son fulfills his ungodly father's sake / when he caught the Ertzbischoff / he threw him down from a very high door". Thereupon, according to the author, "Fortunatus of Trieste" allied with the "princes of Venice" to overthrow the Doges in order to avenge the death of his "ancestor" (this is more likely to mean the predecessor in office). But this also became known, so that he and his associates had to flee to “Tervis”, ie to Treviso. Again Fortunatus went to Karl's court in “France”, again Pippin went to war with Venice, with which the author deviates from the usual presentation. Finally he mentions: “Moritz / the old / (as Onitendus writes) Hertzog stayed three and twenty years / and his son rules the community nine years / and as much as that / that is still nine after his father. After that / when he took Moritzen to an assistant / his son / in the sibenden jar he moved into misery with the son. "In a marginal note, Kellner notes:" That is to be understood / as that he was chased away. " The sequence of events in Kellner's work differs greatly from the descriptions that were customary up to that point.

In the translation of the Historia Veneta by Alessandro Maria Vianoli , 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 , the doge was called “ John Galbaius. Eighth Duke in Venice ”. According to the extensive account, he had “completely and completely shown the opposite of the“ laudable government ”of his father (p. 65). Vianoli mentions “injustice, cruelty, foulness and unseemly desires of his mind” as characteristics of John. In contrast, for Vianoli, Patriarch John of Grado, who was overthrown from a tower, was “a very sincere and honest man”, whose murder resulted in the Venetians beginning to treat the two exponents Fortunatus and Obelerio, “the then master of Malamocco”, "To incite against them". But the conspiracy was exposed and the rioters had to flee. After inserting a report about a huge flood during which many Venetians wanted to leave the islands, Vianoli suddenly continues that it had finally come to this after the Doges had "made much more hateful and annoying day by day" that "most of Malamocco" had agreed on the "removal" of the Doge. According to Vianoli, the Doge ruled alone for nine years and together with his son for another eight years up to the year 804 (p. 69 f.).

The dates of the rule were apparently still controversial in the late 17th century, which was even more true of the earlier Doges. So wrote in 1687 Jacob von Sandrart in his work Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous republic of Venice that the overthrow of the two Doges was an event "which some put in the 800th year". Although Johannes had ruled "very badly", "he knew how to get the people there / that he received the most votes from them / to also take his son Mauritium into the government next to him". Since he had now reigned “sharper and worse” and “caused a lot of unrest”, the “Zunfftmeister / including the most distinguished” joined forces. But "this trade was discovered" so that they all had to flee. For von Sandrart, the rebels, who finally succeeded in the overthrow, only took up arms because "Pipinus, Caroli Martelli's son, came with Volck in Italy". According to von Sandrart, Johannes first looked in vain “with Carolo Martello, and then also with the Greek Kayser Nicephoro Hülffe”, which finally confuses the chronology.

According to Johann Friedrich LeBret , who published his state history of the Republic of Venice from 1769 , Johannes “had previously known how to disguise himself in such a way that he had not betrayed his vicious inclinations by anything. After the bonds of awe were gone, so was his compulsion ”(p. 116). The same was true for his son "Moriz". "Father and son were two arbitrary rulers who surrendered themselves to lust and from whom the modesty of the female sex was no longer secured." (P. 120). The Venetians viewed an enormous flood as a warning to the princes: "As much as one is used to this phenomenon in Venice, it was judged superstitiously at that time." After Obelerius was told by the followers of Fortunatus who fled to Treviso and those who remained in Venice, anti- dynastically thinking “nobles” had been elected “dukes”, according to LeBret, “the mere rumor of this proclamation”, “Johannes and Morizen so scared”, was enough to make them decide to flee. While Johannes fled to Mantua, Mauritius tried in vain to get reinstalled in the Doge's office with Emperor Charles. The bishop "Christoph" appointed by the two doges also fled to "France", but was never allowed to return either. When Johannes was still in office, he tried to neutralize the suspicious Pippin by saying that "Nicephorus", the Eastern Emperor Nikephorus I , should send a fleet to "keep Pipin in check" (p. 123). According to LeBret, Obelerius only came to Venice after learning of the Doge's flight.

Girolamo Francesco Zanetti still provided the usual interpretations in 1765. However, he broke through the usual notion of legitimacy, because he recognized “Mauritius II” in his Chronicon Venetum the status of a “Dux”, a status that his father had granted him in the 18th year of his rule.

Depiction of "Giovanni Galbajo", Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna: Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , vol. 1, Venice 1867, no p.

In popular representations, the central aspect of dynasty formation was repeatedly emphasized and interpreted as a failure that almost inevitably led to an overthrow, but only if it could be associated with the poor character of the Doge. So August Daniel von Binzer assumed in 1845 that Mauritius (I.), who ruled from 764 to 787, "although he had made his son co-regent in 778, impairing freedom of choice", and after he in turn made his son Maurizio co-regent in 796 the first requirement was met. In addition, both ruled "so tyrannically and selfishly that after repeated unsuccessful attempts they were both finally deposed and banished".

Samuele Romanin gave the three doges space in 1853 with great attention to detail in his ten-volume opus Storia documentata di Venezia . In doing so, he repeatedly made statements that do not match the sources, such as the one that the Patriarch of Grado, who was now injured in a battle, was overthrown from the tower of his own palace. In interpreting the negotiations between Karl and Nikephoros, Romanin followed Andrea Dandolo's statements, according to which all of Northern Italy should go to the Franconian Empire, while Venice and the cities of Dalmatia, because they were loyal to Byzantium ("costanti nella sincera devozione all'imperio orientale") ), should remain with the Eastern Empire as well as its southern Italian areas.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) believed in his History of Venice, which was published posthumously in 1872, from its foundation to 1084 , that it was a "sham election" through which Johannes had been accepted by the Venetians as a fellow dog. After him, John ruled for a total of 25 years, nine with his father, nine alone, and another seven years with his son. Gfrörer, who always regarded Byzantium as one of the masterminds of the earlier Doges, and saw the opposite side first in the Lombards, then the Franks in league with the Pope, believed he recognized the work of the Eastern Emperor in this as well. If Constantinople had refused permission, according to Gfrörer, Mauritius I would have turned to the Frankish king, “who would hardly have refused it” (p. 78). After Johannes' father, “old and full of life”, died in 787, Andrea Dandolo's chronicle immediately reports that Johannes, for his part, has now been confirmed by Mauritius II as his successor - after Gfrörer also again by the Eastern Emperor. The author assumes that the appointment of the Greek bishop of Olivolo may have been a condition for recognition. Otherwise, Gfrörer follows Dandolo's representation.

After the posthumous editor Dr. Johann Baptist von Weiß had forbidden the Italian translator Pietro Pinton to annotate Gfrörer's statements in the translation, Pinton's Italian version appeared in the Archivio Veneto in the annual volumes XII to XVI. However, Pinton had achieved that he was allowed to publish his own account in the aforementioned Archivio Veneto, which did not appear until 1883. In his investigation, Pinton often came to completely different, less speculative results than Gfrörer, but he largely agreed with the author in connection with the first Doge dynasty, but Pinton believes that Gfrörer's assertion that at the time of the bishop's assassination almost all of the land ruled over by the two Doges was threatened by the Franks. In doing so, he held against Gfrörer that he had come to incorrect conclusions about the motivations of those involved through a wrong chronology. This is evident from the fact that although he had written that Andrea Dandolo had copied from Paulus Diaconus, after that he only followed the Doge's work without Gfrörer noticing the differences between the two authors (pp. 40-42) . Pinton also does not believe that there was a conspiracy under the aegis of the Franks with the subsequent flight of Fortunatus, because after Obelerius came to power, he was hardly denied return for nothing (p. 53), and above all, Obelerius was , according to Gfrörer one of the heads of the Fortunatus Franconian conspiracy, supported with a fleet for the reconquest of Dalmatia, and his brother Beatus was given the title of Ipato, a consul (p. 55). The Byzantine fleet anchored below him in the lagoon. Overall, Pinton recognized Fortunatus' ties with the Franks, but Gfrörer misinterpreted the composition of the revolutionaries of 804, or, more precisely, their respective roles in the dispute between the empires.

In 1861, Francesco Zanotto dedicated a good two pages to the Doge in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia . Like all historians, as Zanotto himself thinks, he also attributes the most evil qualities to the Doges: Father John and son Mauritius are "una coppia di tiranni", a 'tyrant couple' who were indifferent to the law and property of the Venetians. In addition, Zanotto considered the elevation of his son to be a co-doge as the most important act of John, which the inhabitants of the lagoon did not, as with his father, accept in recognition of his achievements, but out of fear. The rumor, as Zanotto himself calls it, that Pippin was having a fleet built in Ravenna, and that the Franks were thereby threatening Venice's freedom, was tried on the part of the Doges to take action against Grado with a fleet. Their opponents feared that the Doge's goal was to become “absolute masters” (“assoluti signori”). Fortunatus led, according to Zanotto, a "vendetta" against the Galbaii, a blood revenge that was ultimately crowned with success. At the behest of Charlemagne, this act led both doges into exile - to Zanotto in Mantua .

In 1867, Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna, in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia, expressed the view that John hid his negative qualities until the beginning of his autocracy, but then greed and violence emerged and a tyranny began beyond the border regulation did nothing good with the Lombards.

Heinrich Kretschmayr also believed that the year 778 was the year in which "Dux Mauritius" "stood by his son Johannes as co-acting Dux". He was therefore alone in office from 787 and in turn took his son "Mauritius (II.)" Into office in 795. According to Kretschmayr, this “co-government system” was “with the cause of the eventual expulsion of this first Dog dynasty”. Kretschmayr also assumes that the “provincial attitude” was “thoroughly loyal” to Byzantium, and that is why Constantinople “understood to abolish the control tribunes attached to Monegarius” (p. 52).

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, pp. 123 f., 126 f. ( Digital copy, p. 122 f. )
• La cronaca veneziana del diacono Giovanni , in: Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia [Medio Evo], IX), Rome 1890, pp. 59–171, here: p. 98 -101. ( Digitized version )
• Roberto Cessi (ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chron. Altinate et Chron. Gradense) , Rome 1933, pp. 100, 132, 192.

Legislative sources, letters

• Wilhelm Gundlach (ed.): Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi , I (= Monumenta Germaniae Historica , Epistulae, III, 1), Berlin 1892, n. 19, p. 712 f. ( Digitized version of the edition )
• Andrea Gloria (Ed.): Codice diplomatico padovano dal secolo sesto a tutto l'undicesimo , Padua 1877, n.7 , p. 12.
• Paul Fridolin Kehr : Italia pontificia , Vol. VII, 2, Berlin 1925, p. 127.
• Louis Duchesne (Ed.): Le Liber pontificalis , I, Paris 1955, p. 491.
• Roberto Cessi (ed.): Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille , Vol. I: Secoli V-IX , Padua 1991, n. 37 ("803, 21 March. Leone III concede il pallio al patriarca Fortunato"), Pp. 56-58; n. 38 ("803, 13 agosto. Carlo Magno conferma al patriarca Fortunato l'immunità per le sue proprietà nel regno"), p. 58 f .; n. 53 (Testament of Doge Giustiniano Particiaco ), pp. 93-98, here: p. 95 ( digital copy , p . 95 ).

literature

• Andrea Bedina:  Giovanni Galbaio. In: Mario Caravale (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 56:  Giovanni di Crescenzio – Giulietti. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2001.
• Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale , Vol. I: Duca e popolo , Venice 1963, pp. 119, 131-133, 136.
• Francesco Manacorda: Ricerche sugli inizi della dominazione dei Carolingi in Italia , Rome 1968, p. 84.
• Antonio Carile , Giorgio Fedalto , Roberta Budriesi: Le origini di Venezia , Pàtron, Bologna 1978, pp. 231, 233, 345.
• Andrea Castagnetti : Famiglie e affermazione politica , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. I: Origini-Età ducale , Rome 1992, pp. 613–644, here: pp. 614 f.
• Giorgio Fedalto : Aquileia. Una chiesa due patriarcati , Città Nuova, Rome 1999, pp. 195–197.

Web links

Commons : Giovanni Galbaio  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Remarks

1. ↑ Andrea Da Mosto : I Dogi di Venezia , Venice 1939, reprint: Milan 2003, p. 5. The coat of arms of early medieval doges are mere rear projections of modern family coats of arms. The Heraldry began only in the third quarter of one of the 12th century. Later coats of arms were also given to the early Doges who never had a coat of arms (“fanta-araldica”); this served to relate the families of this epoch to the earliest possible doges, which gave them prestige as well as political and social influence. So the coats of arms of the much later descendants of these Doges, especially since the 17th century, were projected back onto the alleged or actual members of the families (allegedly) ruling Venice since 697: “Il presupposto di continuità genealogica su cui si basava la trasmissione del potere in area veneziana ha portato come conseguenza la già accennata attribuzione ai dogi più antichi di stemmi coerenti con quelli realmente usati dai loro discendenti ”(Maurizio Carlo Alberto Gorra: Sugli stemmi di alcune famiglie di Dogi prearaldociazell , nobiliare regional veneta. Rivista di studi storici, ns 8 (2016) 35–68, here: p. 41).
2. ^ Antonio Carile , Giorgio Fedalto , Roberta Budriesi : Le origini di Venezia , Bologna 1978, p. 345.
3. ↑ See Andrea Da Mosto : I Dogi di Venezia , Venice 1939, reprint: Milan 2003, pp. 90–92.
4. ↑ It is also conceivable that these two were not daughters of the first but of the second Mauritius, i.e. granddaughters of Johannes (Andrea Castagnetti: Famiglie e affermazione politica , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. I: Origini-Età ducale , Rom 1992, pp. 613-644, here: p. 615).
5. ↑ “The son of Dux Mauritius - Johannes? - was the king's prisoner in the years 772/3 ”( Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vols., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, p. 53).
6. ↑ Massimiliano Pavan, Girolamo Arnaldi : Le origini dell'identità lagunare , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. I: Origini-Età ducale , Rome 1992, pp. 441-443, 446, 450.
7. ^ Gherardo Ortalli : Il Ducato e la "civitas Rivoalti": tra Carolingi, Bizantini e Sassoni , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. I: Origini-Età ducale , Rome 1992, pp. 725-729, 737.
8. ^ Andrea Castagnetti: La società veneziana nel Medioevo , vol. I: Dai tribuni ai giudici , Verona 1992, pp. 61 f .; Ders .: Famiglie e affermazione politica , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. I: Origini-Età ducale , Rome 1992, pp. 613–644, here: p. 614.
9. ^ MGH, Scriptores XIV, Hannover 1883, p. 60, Chronicon Venetum (vulgo Altinate) .
10. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 19 f.
11. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 8-10 ( digital copy ).
12. ↑ 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. 50 f. ( online ).
13. ↑ "Ioanne andò a Mantova et Mauritio in Francia, ove, non potendo ottenner il ritorno nella Patria, fini li suoi giorni".
14. ↑ Francesco Sansovino : Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia , Felice Valgrisio, Venice 1587, p. 86 f. ( Digitized version ), then again printed at Salicato at the request of Girolamo Bardi , Venice 1606, p. 58 ( digitized version ).
15. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 4r – 4v ( digitized, p. 4r ).
16. ↑ 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, translation ( digitized ).
17. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart: Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 15 ( digitized, p. 15 ).
18. ↑ 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 the next , 4 vols., Johann Friedrich Hartknoch , Riga and Leipzig 1769–1777, Vol. 1, 1769.
19. ↑ Girolamo Francesco Zanetti : Chronicon Venetum omnium quae circum feruntur vetustissimum, et Johanni Sagornino vulgo tributum e mss. codice Apostoli Zeno v. cl. , Venice 1765, p. 17.
20. ↑ August Daniel von Binzer : Venice in 1844 , Gustav Heckenast, Leipzig 1845, p. 405 ( digitized version ).
21. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853–1861, 2nd edition 1912–1921, reprint Venice 1972 ( digitized volume 1 , Venice 1853). The enormous historical work has a volume of about 4000 pages.
22. ^ Samuele Romanin: Storia documentata di Venezia , vol. 1, Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853, p. 133.
23. ^ Samuele Romanin: Storia documentata di Venezia , vol. 1, Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853, p. 135; he quotes Andrea Dandolo in the footnote there: “In hoc foedere, seu decreto, nominatim firmatum est, quod Venetiae urbes et maritimae cevitates Dalmatiae, quae in devotione imperii illibate persisterant, ab imperio occidentali nequaquam debeant molestari, invadi velet minorari et quod possessionibus , libertatibus et immunitatibus, quas soliti sunt habere in italico regno pacifice perfruantur. Dand. p. 151 ".
24. ↑ 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, pp. 77-80 ( digitized version ).
25. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto (1883) 23–63, here: p. 52 ( digitized version ).
26. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, pp. 13–15 ( digitized version ).
27. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
28. ↑ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 51–53.

predecessor	Office	successor
Maurizio Galbaio	Doge of Venice 797–803	Obelerio