Giovanni Orseolo

Giovanni Orseolo , in the contemporary sources Johannes Urseolus (* 984 in Venice ; † 1007 there), was co-dog of his father Pietro II Orseolo from 1002 until his death . Since we are not so well informed about any other doge of the early Middle Ages , there is a similarly favorable source situation with regard to his son. This is because Johannes Diaconus , the author of the Istoria Veneticorum , one of the oldest Venetian historical works, was not only a contemporary, but was personally in the service of the Doge and acted at the highest diplomatic level. Both friendly relations with the emperors of the two great empires of their time and marriage projects of his two sons Giovanni (Johannes) and Ottone (Otto), who became co-doges one after the other, contributed to the political successes . The elder son, Johannes, died of an epidemic with his Byzantine wife Maria and their son Basilios, named after their uncle, the emperor Basilios II . The younger son, whose name is based on Emperor Otto III. who was his godfather , followed his father instead of his older brother in 1009 in the Doge Office. The extremely influential Benedictine Petrus Damiani condemned Mary's lifestyle in one of his letters.

Classification, family, co-rule and dynastic marriage project

Pietro Orseolo, Giovanni's father, came from two of the most influential families in Venice. His father of the same name was Doge from 976 to 978 - he was canonized in 1731 - his mother was Felicita Malipiero (or Badoer), daughter of Doge Vitale Candiano . With her, Pietro had five sons and four daughters. The four brothers of John were Orso (988-1049), Bishop of Torcello and Patriarch of Grado and briefly successor of his brother Ottone, then Vitale (* around 998, † after 1040), also Bishop of Torcello in the succession of his brother, said Ottone , who succeeded his father Pietro II in office, and finally Enrico, of whom only the name is known. His four sisters were Hicela (Icella), Stephan (Stjepan), the son of the Croatian king Krešimir III. married, as well as the three daughters Felicita, who had been given the name of her grandmother and who became the abbess of the monastery of San Giovanni Evangelista di Torcello . In addition to these two, two other daughters appear in the sources, but their names are not known.

The framework that co-determined the politics of the Doge and his son and fellow Doge Johannes was formed above all by the great powers of their time. On July 19, 992, Venice received an extensive gold bull that gave its merchants in the Byzantine Empire enormous advantages. Venice achieved something similar against the King of the Roman-German Empire and Emperor Otto III. who also granted the Venetians extensive immunities. Decisive for the emerging, initially economic superpower position of Venice, in addition to the immense commercial advantages of the two privileges, was the reference to Otto III, who came to Italy in 996. While taking up residence in Verona , he agreed to become a godfather ('padrino') of one of Pietro's sons on the occasion of his confirmation . The Doge, for his part, changed the name of this son to “Otho” (analogously, he named another of his sons “Enrico”, this time in honor of the new ruler of the Roman-German Empire Enrico II , as Henry II is called in Italian).

Emperor Basil II. In the Emperor's Psalter, 11th century, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana , Ms. gr. 17, f. 3r

The Doge also succeeded in skillfully interfering in the expansion policy of both empires. While in the west the Byzantine mother emperor Theophanu exercised considerable influence on the politics of the young western emperor, and in the east Emperor Basil II extended the northern borders of his empire back to the Danube , Venice succeeded in laying the foundations for a maritime empire between these powers.

Venetian possessions around the year 1000

In order to develop this position of power, the Adriatic had to be secured as the main trade route. In contrast to earlier campaigns, the Doge attacked the hard-to-conquer bases of the Narentans , who were pirates in the Adriatic, with a considerably larger fleet . The victory over the Narentans did not make Venice the master of Dalmatia, as later chroniclers claimed, because Byzantium initially enforced this claim.

The expedition had taken place in consultation with the Byzantine court, but it in no way led to an exclusive orientation of Venetian policy towards the east. Pietro also maintained excellent relations with the West Emperor to compensate. So did Otto III. in April 1001 in Pomposa , where, as agreed, he met Johannes Diaconus , the chancellor and chronicler, who describes these events in great detail. According to his portrayal, the two men drove secretly in a boat to Venice, where the emperor first met the Doge in the monastery on the island of San Servolo and then made further agreements in the monastery of San Zaccaria in the vicinity of the Doge's Palace .

But the situation in Italy changed abruptly, because Otto III died in 1002. completely surprising at the age of 21. Three weeks later, on February 15, 1002, Arduin was crowned king by Ivrea in Pavia . Otto's successor across the Alps, Heinrich II , was only able to assert himself much later. But even Arduin did not succeed in exercising royal rule over north-western Italy for years. Upper Italy, especially the northeast, was left to its own devices until 1014.

This situation played into the hands of the Doge, who increasingly turned to his eastern sphere of influence. He was able to negotiate a potentially momentous marriage project there. As early as 1002, Pietro had co-opted Johannes, now 18, as a fellow doge. In 1003 the Doge personally led a fleet against the Saracens in Apulia , who had succeeded for the last time in driving the Byzantines from Bari . This expedition was also discussed with the Eastern Emperor, as was the one against the Narentans. The doge returned the city to the emperor.

To seal the alliance, John married the Byzantine princess Maria, niece of Emperor Basil II. Her child, conceived a year later in Constantinople and born in Venice, was also named in honor of an emperor, namely "Basilio" or "Vasilio" (" Vassilium ob avunculi sui imperatoris nomen imposuit “it says in the Istoria Veneticorum). This marriage would have opened up entirely new possibilities for the Doge's wide-ranging policy, especially since Henry II left Italy without having achieved anything. But an epidemic (“plague” or “pestilentia”) in 1007 fell victim to both his son and his Byzantine daughter-in-law, as did their son. Pietro now raised his second-born Ottone to be a fellow doge.

The doge died just two years later. He was buried next to his firstborn son John in the atrium of San Zaccaria.

reception

High Middle Ages until the end of the republic

This phase was of decisive importance for the relationship with both the Ottonians and the Macedonian dynasty , because Venice was able to maintain friendly relations with the far superior, extremely expansive empires, and to restore them to the Roman-German Empire. After the conflict with Otto II, these efforts resulted in a sharply contrasting, friendly relationship with his son and successor Otto III. For 14th century Venice, the interpretation given to Orseolo's rule was of paramount importance in the continuum of external relations. 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, so it became extremely dominant in the ideas of Venetian history before its time. More important than this source, however, is the chronicle of John the deacon, who was apparently personally involved in the events. For both chroniclers, the focus was on law from their own roots, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims. Therefore, the recognition and, if possible, the expansion of the “old treaties” by the newly appointed emperors (and kings) has always been of enormous importance. In 992 there was a breakthrough in the east with a privilege that gave Venice's traders there an enormous, irreversible dominance. The question of the hereditary monarchy , which the Candiano tried to enforce in their time, and which soon became virulent again despite the catastrophe of 976, at the time of Andrea Dandolo was no longer in any way with the interests of the families ruling at that time, but above all no longer to bring it in line with the state of constitutional development. At the same time, the balance between the ambitious and dominant families remained one of the most important goals, and the derivation of the prominent position of the 'nobili' in the state was of great importance. The stages of political developments that ultimately led to the disempowerment of the Doge, who was increasingly assigned representative tasks but no longer allowed to make independent decisions, was a further objective of the presentation, even if Pietro II Orseolo embodied the opposite of this type of ruler, because in him one could almost see absolutist traits. The elevation of his son Johannes to almost imperial dignity was a high point, but it came to an abrupt end with the epidemic in question.

The oldest vernacular chronicle of Venice, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century describes the paternal conquest of "Dalmatia et Croatia", and also that "Octo Orsiolo", the doge's son, elsewhere as well Called "Otto Ursiollo" when the rector went to Ragusa. The visit of Otto III. he describes briefly, but does not mention John at all.

Page from an edition of Pietro Marcello's Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia, depicting the (alleged) first Doge.

Pietro Marcello said in 1502 in his work, which was later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , that the Doge had been allowed "per publico consentimento" to raise his son "Giouanni" to "compagno" because of his services. He returned from Constantinople with his wife and brother "Otone" as well as many gifts and died. After Pietro had reigned happily for 18 years, the author adds that the Doge died immediately after the tragic death of his son, daughter-in-law (and grandson, whom Marcello does not mention).

After the chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , the Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 , which was rather laconic for earlier Venetian history before 1280 and completed in 1532 , there follows a comparatively detailed report on Pietro II Orseolo. Pietro sent ambassadors to Constantinople, who received an immunity privilege from the two emperors that allowed the Venetians free navigation and trade in goods in all places in their empire. Also to Otto III. he dispatched two men who received not only the 'usual' privileges, as the author emphasizes, but also new prerogatives that were honorable for the republic, so that no rebel would find a place in the empire. As Otto III. came to Italy, a peace treaty was signed, the personal ties were made through the children of the Doge. If you follow Caroldo, the doge sent his son Pietro to Verona, where the emperor became his godfather. The son was now called "Otho" and he returned with rich gifts. When the emperor was in Ravenna - also in contrast to other chronicles - the Doge sent his "Oratori" Pietro Gradenigo and "Gioanni Diacono", who received a new privilege. The author thinks that the emperors "Basilio et Constantino" asked the Doge to send his son to Constantinople, who returned "honorato" and with "no small gifts" (p. 79). The doge also tried to resolve the conflict with the Narentans through marriage plans. "Serigna", who had been expelled by his brother, allied himself with Venice and left his son "Steffano" hostage to the Doge. The Doge married this to his daughter "Nicela". As an envoy, according to the author, the Doge again sent "Gioanni Diacono" to Emperor Otto to report a victory to him. As agreed, Otto went to the Pomposa Abbey, boarded a boat with six servants and confidants as well as Johannes Diaconus and came to San Servolo undetected . From there, the two rulers visited San Zaccaria and St. Markus, then the Doge's Palace. After all, the emperor kept a daughter of the Doge at the baptism. After Otto had left Venice, the doge called the people together to report on the secret visit of the emperor. Because of the great merits of the Doge, the people asked him to raise his son to be a fellow Doge. The two doges, as it is expressly stated, sent Johannes Diaconus to succeed the late emperor, Henry II. He received the usual privileges for Venice, the emperor appointed ("nominò") the second Pietro Orseolo not only as doge of Venice, but also from Dalmatia. A fleet led by his fellow doge and son supplied the Saracen besieged Bari with food. Together with the fleet under the leadership of the imperial "Gregorio capitano" he defeated the besiegers in a sea battle, whereupon the siege was blown up. The two sons of Doge, Johannes and Otto, were received with great honors by the two emperors in Constantinople. John was given - a central element of the marriage policy - the said Maria as his wife. When he wanted to return to Venice with her, the Emperor Basil asked him to wait until he had defeated the Bulgarians. Upon his return, Johannes received the title of Patricius. With the relics of St. Barbara and "Otho" returned the couple, who shortly after their return had a son who was named "Basilio". But in the 15th year of the Doge there was a death like "almost" everywhere in the world. No cure was found (“remedio”), because what helped one, harmed the other. The sick became lethargic and allowed the "pestilenza" to overwhelm them. On the 16th day, Johannes and Maria also died. To comfort the Doge, the Venetians made Otho on Torcello a fellow doge. There Felicita was ordained abbess of San Giovanni Evangelista. The Doge died in the 17th year of his reign at the age of 48 and was buried in San Zaccaria.

In his Chronica, which appeared in 1574, Heinrich Kellner begins the actual and brief description of all life in Venice, likewise with a very positive assessment of the external and internal situation, but first emphasizes the Byzantine privilege of 992. To King Otto, on the way to Rome, Peter sent his son to Verona “and Otto was called”. “Afterwards Otto came to Venice / but unknown / then he had praised God” - this is Kellner's only reason for the secret visit to Venice. “For the sake of his merit / against the common good”, the Doge was finally allowed “to neme his Son Johannem as an assistant or Coadiutum.” But he died after he had returned “with his wife / and his brother Otone” from Constantinople was.

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 Die Die / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the author reports how "Kayser Otto the IV." "Wholly unknown wisdom / came to Venice / wherever he was in the monastery of St. Servol, only accompanied / returned by five of his servants". "But when he was recognized by the clairvoyant lynx eyes of political caution / even balden / he moved from the heart / but in silence / even received visits often". “By general approval”, the Doge “was allowed to take his son Johannem as an assistant”. But he and his wife died "of the plague that was rampant at the time" after returning from Greece. Only a few days later, since many Venetians were also dying of the disease, the Doge gave up his spirit in great "sorrow" and followed his son.

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart passed over both the baptisms and the marriage projects in his Opus Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / territories / and government of the world-famous republic of Venice .

Historical-critical representations (from the 18th century)

From 1769 Johann Friedrich LeBret published his four-volume State History of the Republic of Venice , in the first volume of which he reports that, in his view, the Orseolo "probably, they had creative state geniuses: but the more unbearable they became in a republic, the more monarchical their way of thinking" (p. 233). In contrast to Sandrart, he describes in detail the connections between the ruling families. The son of a dog, Piero, came to Verona so that the emperor could act as godfather on the occasion of his confirmation. On this occasion the son of the Dog was given the name Otto. On the return journey from Rome, Otto III. to Ravenna, where he confirmed her property to the "abbess Petronia, of the monastery of St. Zacharias in Venice". Even before the campaign against the Narentans, the Doge had sent his son John to Constantinople, where he had received the emperor's consent. The author also carried out the marriage project with one of the Croatian kings, while Spalato, “the capital of Dalmatia”, submitted to him. “Orseolo therefore returned to Venice in triumph”, but “the oldest historians still do not report anything about the authorities that the Venetians put down in Dalmatia. This is a mere invention of Sabellicus, which is nowhere established but in his brain ”(pp. 244 f.), He notes critically. At LeBret's, Johannes Diaconus meets Otto III in Como, where he learned of the Doge's triumph late. At LeBret the initiative for a meeting in Venice came from the emperor. Finally, the author describes the expulsion of the Saracens from Bari. The Byzantine emperors initiated a marriage project through which Maria "a daughter of Patricius Argyropulos" married Johannes, the oldest son of the Doge. Because of its length, LeBret suspects that Johannes Diaconus traveled with the son of the Dog. “As soon as the bridegroom arrived at court, he and his most illustrious bride met in the chapel, where they were blessed by the patriarch. The two emperors laid hands on them and crowned them with golden crowns. Thereupon, three days in a row, the Beylager celebrations were celebrated at court in the greatest splendor and a waste which was peculiar to the Greek emperors. Presents were given to everyone who had come to court, and the newly betrothed went to the palace which Princess Maria had received as a morning present. Basil made a campaign against the Bulgarians, and bathed John to stay at his court until his return. After the emperor returned, he raised Duke Johannes with all the solemnity to the dignity of a patrician, and treated him in all respects as a prince of the blood. He made handsome presents to his younger brother Otto, gave the very rich morning gift to the newly engaged couple, and dismissed them. This farewell cost the most tender tears of Mary's parents and the whole court; wherever she went on her journey the princess was shown the honors due to her position, and in Venice the doge awaited his son with the greatest longing. The princess and her husband were sent ships to meet them, and they were received at the princely palace with the greatest pomp. The merrymaking and the demonstrations of joy continued for a while, and a truly royal state was noticed everywhere. The Doge's joy was perfected when Mary was delivered from a prince, whom the Doge gave for baptism, and had Basil named after his maternal uncle. This princess seems to have spread the opulence in Venice and throughout Italy. Peter von Damiano describes their way of life as almost sybaritic. She had no common water, but let her servants collect Thau from the field, in which she bathed to preserve her beauty. She introduced blunders to her court, who had to pre-cut their dishes. Her room was filled with fragrant smells. But who will not laugh at St. Damiani when he counted the golden knife and the two-pointed fork among the luxuries of the princess? How crude must the customs of this century have been, and how much attention must the Greek gallantries have caused? ”(P. 249 f.). But after all the successes, the spirit of the Doge was, as the author thinks, tested by "adversities". Mary was the first to die “attacked by this poisonous plague; and scarcely was she a corpse than after sixteen days her husband Johannes followed her in death. ”The two were buried in San Zaccaria. "The parents and the people lamented the loss of a regent who had ruled with his father in the most glorious way for six years." As a consolation, the people asked him to "accept his 14-year-old son Otto as co-regent".

Samuele Romanin , the historian who depicts in great detail and embedded it in the historical context, who portrayed this epoch in 1853 in the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia , believes that the Doge's first act was the sending of negotiators to the emperors of the West and the East passed. Romanin takes the view that the privilege of 992 turned the “Protetti” (“Protected”) into “Protettori” (“Protector”). In addition, diplomatic contacts extended to the Saracens. This alone indicates that the political concept of Venice has changed. Romanin also sees an increased dependence of the neighboring areas on Venetian trade. Within Venice, the Doge, together with the people's assembly, the Concio, caused everyone to behave appropriately in the presence of the Doge, with respect and deference, to prohibit riots or arms in the Doge's Palace - in times when even slaves carried weapons , an extremely important step to return to the “santità della parola” (“holiness of the word”) and to public calm and to end violence and the brutal exercise of power, as Romanin adds. Then the author describes the procedure against the Narentans (pp. 274–281). In his opinion, the Byzantine emperors would have preferred to see fallen cities in the hands of their friendly Venice rather than in those of the pirates. For him, the cities and islands accepted a kind of vassalage because they sought the protection of Venice. The Concio unanimously granted the Doge the title “Duca di Dalmazia”. Finally, Romanin, following Johannes Diaconus, reports on the secret visit of Emperor Otto III. Otto's successor Heinrich II confirmed Venice's privileges. Two years after the imperial visit, Johannes was "gli fu dato volentieri a collega il figlio Giovanni", "his son Johannes was gladly added to him as a colleague". According to Romanin, the basis was the admiration for the Doge and at the same time that the young son was already promising (“bene di sè prometeva”, p. 286). Good relations continued with the Eastern emperors as well. Venice returned Bari after the reconquest and helped to drive out the Saracens after a three-day battle. According to Romanin, the son of a dog was invited to the court in Constantinople out of gratitude for the return of Bari. Giovanni and Ottone traveled to the court, the elder married Maria, a daughter of the imperial sister and of Patrizius "Argiro". The marriage and granting of the patrician title in the Romanin Hippodrome are described in detail. But the couple fell victim, in all likelihood (“a quanto pare”), together with their son Basilio, to the plague that raged for the first time in Venice, which was followed by hunger. Despite the hardship, the people suffering with the Doge allowed the younger son Ottone to be appointed as fellow dog.

Italy and the Adriatic region around 1000. Gfrörer interprets the division of Bavaria into the Marches of Carinthia and Verona as the embracing of Venice in the context of Otto II's world politics, while with his son Otto III. a much more favorable epoch for Venice began. The marriage of the son of a dog to an imperial niece thus acquired a new status.

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”, “and indeed,” as he thinks, “in my opinion therefore because the chroniclers have withheld a lot out of state considerations. "The opponents of the Orseolo, the supporters of the" Byzantine party "in the city, which Gfrörer saw at work over the entire previous history of Venice, and who faced a pro-Western party, would have changed in the meantime: They no longer stood for the Byzantine side, but for Venetian independence and the constitution. This was in turn related to the fact that Byzantium no longer represented a threat to Venice, in contrast to the Ottonians , but that it could be very useful as an adversary against these Ottonians. The appointment of a new doge was now with the Great Council (whose early existence Gfrörer suspects as early as 959 (p. 390)), no longer with the Eastern Emperor. This party came to power with Pietro II Orseolo in 992 (p. 357 f.). The circumstances were favorable, because "on the German throne sat a spoiled boy", from whom no danger had emerged, and Basil II found "so much to do in the Orient against the Bulgarians and Saracens" that he hardly intervened in the Adriatic could. Pietro made promises to both great powers for trade privileges, some of which contradicted each other, he "cheated the one and the other". Then the author lists the details of the trade privilege that he believes can be read from the bad copy of the gold bull of 992 (pp. 360–367). The certificate, which was issued on July 19, 992 - Gfrörer believes in Mühlhausen - not only confirmed Venice's old privileges. It allowed and protected his property, and she arranged for the return of all goods that had been snatched from the Venetians in the last 30 years, as Andrea Dandolo explains. Venetians were not allowed to be summoned to court in the imperial territory, nor were they required to pay taxes on their goods, unless in the presence of Venetian judges (“co-jurisdiction”). Whoever fled from the Doge should be forced to “appeal to the Doge's grace”, so the “extradition of all political refugees” was agreed (p. 369, 372). Gfrörer sees this as the long-drawn-out plan to acquire "sovereignty" on the mainland, and this also goes well with the agreement with Byzantium to occupy Lombardy if necessary. All of this, according to the author, shows: “The weakling, who at that time sat on the throne of Germania, gave it away carelessly” (p. 372). According to Gfrörer, however, this weak youth ordered that the son of the Dog, Peter, should now bear his name Otto (p. 384). In contrast, the two Eastern emperors Constantine and Basilius asked the Doge to send his son to Constantinople. From the sequence of descriptions, Gfrörer concludes that the Dalmatian campaign took place with the permission of the emperors. According to Dandolo, who Gfrörer translates below, the Doge sent his sons Otto and Johann to Constantinople after the aid operation for Bari. "Yes, fellow dog Johann received a niece of the two rulers, Maria, the daughter of her biological sister and the illustrious Mr. Argyropolus, as wife" (p. 416). Gfrörer also describes the wedding ceremony and "Constantin and Basil put their hands on their heads to bless them, and the newlyweds were decorated with crowns". After returning from the Bulgarian campaign, Basilios raised the Dogenson to Patricius. Maria “he gave the relics of h. Barbara ”(p. 417). After returning to Venice, these relics were deposited in the "Doge's Chapel". Gfrörer regards the detailed description by Johannes Diaconus as a kind of court report. Maria was "a biological granddaughter of the most blessed Basileus Romanus II.", She was a niece of the two emperors mentioned and a niece of "the deceased German Empress Theophano of sad memory" (p. 418 f.). The Doge seemed to have reached the goal of his dynastic plans. For Gfrörer, what Johannes Diaconus claims, namely that the Doge only sent his son to Constantinople under massive pressure from the emperors, is “insolence”. The Doge only feared the wrath of the Empire, so he reassured the Venetians, while in reality he was pursuing his dynastic plans. Because LeBret mocks Damiani's judgment of Maria, Gfrörer counters: “Lebret, the author of the history of Venice, a person of extremely limited understanding who, however, considered himself wise and enlightened, mocks the alleged stupidity of Peter Damiani, who uses a Gfrörer, however, believed that Damiani had drawn this aversion from the Venetian sources, which had condemned an aversion to the Byzantine women, their violation of simple customs and thrift (p. 422). Gfrörer even suggests that Maria and Theophanu were part of a Byzantine system to prevent the rise of the Western powers: “Had many Venetians ... imitated the example given by Maria, the Zealand would never have risen to the height of power that it really achieved. ”“ At least ”, so the author,“ it is certain that luxury is one of the stimulants with which despotism tends to lure free and unspoiled peoples ”(p. 422). Finally, Gfrörer describes the comet that shone for three months, followed by “famine and epidemics”, “which also struck the ducal house of Venice: within 16 days the Duchess Maria and her young husband sank into the grave. If both had lived longer, the upheaval of 1026 would have broken out several years earlier ”.

Pietro Pinton, who translated and annotated Gfrörer's work in the Archivio Veneto in the annual volumes XII to XVI, corrected numerous assumptions by Gfrörer, especially when it came to those for which the evidence was missing from the sources or contradicted them. His own critical examination of Gfrörer's work did not appear until 1883, also in the Archivio Veneto. Pinton praises the astute thoughts on the Chrysobullon of 992, but does not believe in the strong legal privileges of the Venetians, which only began in the days of the Comnenes . The back-projected notion of the credit system that can be found at Gfrörer, according to Pinton, cannot be derived from the source either. There is also no evidence of the obligation to help the navy, only to transport imperial troops. In addition, it was only an old and spontaneous promise, by no means a permanent one. By accepting that the sources no longer refer to the Venetians as 'subjects' but as 'strangers', Gfrörer also opposes his own concept of the Byzantine emperor's continued supremacy over Venice (p. 345). Pinton regards the expansion of Venice into imperial territory as assumed by Gfrörer - beyond what has long been recognized - as a predominantly economic, but not political expansion. All in all, Pinton sees a continuity of the contractual relationships much more than a perfidious plan by the Doge to outsmart the inexperienced young emperor. Pinton also rejects Gfrörer's assumption that there was a connection between the marriage plan between the son of the Doge Johannes and the Byzantine princess Maria, the co-reign of this son and the conquest of Bari. Both the plans with Heinrich II., Which Johannes Diaconus describes immediately before the marriage project, and those with the Eastern Emperors, mainly for economic security, and the long-distance traders of Venice therefore viewed the marriage plans more benevolently than negatively, as Gfrörer believes. The sequence - first the western, then the eastern rulers - also point in this direction of compensation. In Pinton's eyes, marriages of this kind served above all to avoid attacks from the respective states, and less so to pursue dynastic and absolutist plans against the alleged resistance of the Venetians.

In his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , published in 1861, Francesco Zanotto was certain that it was sheer gratitude on the part of the Eastern emperors for the salvation of Bari that prompted them to give the son of the dog a princess as wife. Pietro had already, in agreement with the 'Greek court', allowed 35 warships to sail under his personal leadership. The victory over the Narentans made the conquest of the 'Slavic continent' easy. In Spalato all cities on the coast between Istria and Ragusa submitted to him. The assembly of the people confirmed him on his return as Doge of Venice and Dalmatia . Otto III. wanted to get to know the Doge personally. Three days after the emperor's departure, the doge reported to the people's assembly about the visit and its consequences. The great affection of the people led to the fact that two years later he was granted the right to raise his son Johannes as a fellow doge, who, although so young, was very promising. In 1004 the Byzantine emperor asked the Venetians for help for Bari, which had been besieged for three months. After Zanotto, the Doge took command; he ordered a failure after 40 days. After three days the Saracens were defeated. To show their gratitude, the Byzantine emperors asked the Doge to send his son John to Constantinople to marry Mary, daughter of the Patricius "Romano Argiropulo" and sister of the Emperor Basilius. The brothers Johannes and Otto were received with a “splendidezza veramente orientale” (p. 63). The emperors themselves were not only present during the ceremony, but they crowned the newlyweds with golden crowns, with which they presented the two to the court and the people - Zanotto implicitly refers to an intended succession in Byzantium. Shortly after their return to Venice, their son was born, and to celebrate this event, the Doge issued “lire piccole” in 1250 for the benefit of the people. Finally, the Doge equipped the Markuskirche , including, as Johannes Diaconus writes, and as the author notes in a footnote, a “dedalico instrumento”, which since Filiasi has been interpreted as a “rare organ” (“organo raro”). But now the city was attacked by the plague, to which the son, daughter-in-law and grandson of the Doge also fell victim. 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. Pietro found his final resting place in San Zaccaria with his relatives who had fallen victim to the plague.

Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna noted in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , published in 1867, "Pietro Orseolo II, ventesimosesto doge di Venezia" was perhaps 30 years old when he was elected. "Highly famous" ("celeberrimo") is his name in the history of Venice. Around 998 he freed Dalmatia from the 'violence of the Slavs'. After the conquest of Dalmatia and the visit of Otto III. Around 1001 the Venetians wanted the Doge to raise his son Johannes to be a fellow doge. Pietro won the day before Bari, where the Byzantines and Venetians jointly expelled the Saracens. After the marriage of John and Mary, their solemn return, they fell victim to the plague along with their grandson Basilio, with Cicogna giving the age of John at 24, that of his brother Ottone at 14. Shortly after Otto was raised to be a fellow doge, who the Volk had prevailed to comfort his father, the chronically ill doge died at the age of 48. He was buried in San Zaccaria in 1008 with his eldest, daughter-in-law and grandson.

Heinrich Kretschmayr saw in Otto III. and Peter similar natures, "the same interest in education, the same inclination for the fantastic", but with the Doge "tamed by careful consideration and clear will". He saw in the Doge a personality who "rises above all of their Italian contemporaries in solitary size". "He became the actual founder of the city of Venice." But Kretschmayr admits that initially there were "riots and tumults even in the Doge's Palace", and that these conditions were only changed by a "guarantee decree of Venetian nobles" of February 998, through which 90 Signatures feud and riot were ended. While the first and third sons, Johannes and Otto, became fellow doges, namely 1002 and 1008, respectively, the second and fourth sons, Orso and Vitale, became patriarchs of Grado. In terms of foreign policy, the marriages of his sons Johannes and Otto - with the Byzantine Maria and the eponymous sister of King Stephen of Hungary, who was also the sister-in-law of Emperor Henry II - testify that Venice for a short time acted on the same level as the two empires. The "Pactum of Mühlhausen" of July 19, 992 even allowed self-help against the neighboring imperial powers, and again subject the Venetians - which Otto I and Otto II had ignored, although the earlier treaties had provided for this - to dogal jurisdiction. In return, Venice accepted the empire's “claim to sovereignty” and then ignored it. In 996, King Otto gave birth to the Doge's third-born, Ottone. On his second journey to Rome, the young emperor was welcomed by his godchild in January 998, under the protection of a fleet, in Ferrara. At the end of June 1000 Otto III. Instruct Johannes Diaconus on the progress of the Dalmatian campaign, which led to the emperor's secret stay in Venice. Again the emperor gave birth to a child of the Doge, this time a daughter, almost nothing political was decided - for Kretschmayr a pure “mood” from “love for friends and for St. Mark” (p. 134). The naval enterprise of Peter for the conquest of Dalmatia, the enforcement of unencumbered, free trade in the Adriatic is described by Kretschmayr (pp. 136-138), but qualifies: “Almost none of the conquests won were permanently acquired. The appointment of Venetian governors in the capital cities of Dalmatia, which was first reported in the 14th century for this period, is to be rejected, as eagerly as it was written down by the later chroniclers. "After the" fleet walk ", Venice remained entitled to the area, new opportunities and collateral for trade, and it had successfully used the phase of weakness of Byzantium and Hungary, which had not yet reached its reach, to secure trading posts. The fleet that set out on August 10th forced access to the city on September 6th and together the Byzantines and Venetians defeated the Saracens from October 16th to 18th, 1002 (p. 129). According to Kretschmayr, it was self-evident that “he raised his eldest son Johannes, who had once matured into a youth, to become his co-regent (1002)” (p. 127). According to the author, the marriage took place around July 1004 (p. 142). Around March 1005, Basilios ended his Bulgarian campaign. But "Johannes, Maria and their little son succumbed to a plague-like epidemic in quick succession". And even if Otto now became the co-ruler of Peter, “he had lost his lust for the world since the house of his firstborn was deserted” (p. 143).

John Julius Norwich says in his History of Venice , “Pietro Orseolo II towers above the other Doges of his day like a giant among pygnies; and from the outset his subjects seem to have recognized his greatness. ”For Venice, so the author, fame was synonymous with trade, but, he claims, Venice had to keep its fleet ready at all times for the transport of imperial troops. With the enthusiast Otto III. he succeeded in a similarly favorable arrangement, the starting point of which was personal admiration and friendship. In contrast to Kretschmayr, Norwich counts practically all Muslim states around the Mediterranean to Venice's new trading partners, for which he would like to show vividly how overloaded ships transported Venetian goods, how trade successes were always more important to the Venetians than belief or "bloodshed" . Even after 1002 the Doge stood on the side of the empire, and he supported Henry II against Arduin of Ivrea . Nevertheless, the Doge's relationship with Byzantium was more important, for which he saved his eldest son, who, however, fell victim to an epidemic along with his family. This was the first time in over sixty years that he had made him a fellow doge, like his younger son Otto after his early death. All of this happened within the framework of a broad-based marriage policy.

swell

• Luigi Andrea Berto (ed.): Giovanni Diacono, Istoria Veneticorum (= Fonti per la Storia dell'Italia medievale. Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2), Zanichelli, Bologna 1999 ( text edition based on Berto in the Archivio della Latinità Italiana del Medioevo (ALIM) from the University of Siena).
• 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. 168–170 ( digitized version ).
• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, pp. 193-203, 206, 361.
• Kurt Reindel (ed.): Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani , Part 2, Munich 1988 (= MGH Die Briefe der Deutschen Kaiserzeit , Volume 4.2), n. 66, pp. 247–279, here: p. 270 (letter to Countess Blanca, who had entered a Milan convent, late 1059 - October 1060, therein his condemnation of the lifestyle of Mary, the wife of John Urseolus). ( Digitized version of the edition as part of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica )

literature

• Giuseppe Gullino: Orseolo, Pietro II , in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Vol. 79, 2013, pp. 588-590.

Remarks

1. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 47 f.
2. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 45-47 ( digitized ).
3. ↑ 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. 78-88, but only a few lines on the Dogat ( online ).
4. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 18r – 19r ( digitized, p. 18r ).
5. ↑ 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, pp. 157-163 ( digitized version ).
6. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, pp. 27-29 ( digitized , p. 27).
7. ↑ 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, Leipzig and Riga 1769, pp. 232–251, on Johannes especially pp. 249–251. ( Digitized version ).
8. ↑ 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. 267–292, here: p. 267 ( digitized version ).
9. ↑ 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 Pietro II. Orseolo: pp. 357-425 ( digitized version ).
10. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto 25,2 (1883) 288-313 ( digitized ) and 26 (1883) 330–365, here: pp. 351-353 ( digitized ).
11. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo Ducale di Venezia , Vol 4, Venice 1861, pp 60-65, here: p. 63 ( digitized ).
12. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
13. ↑ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 126–142.
14. ^ John Julius Norwich: A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.