Mauritius (fellow dog)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mauritius (II.) († after 803 in the Franconian Empire ) was raised to the Doge's chair by his father, the Doge Johannes Galbaius , and thus to his co-ruler or co-Doge (797-803). The Doge, in turn, was raised to co-ruler by his father Mauritius (I.) , so that the Galbaii became the first Venetian ruling dynasty (764-803). It ended in 803 with the expulsion of Johannes and his son Mauritius, after the latter had murdered the Patriarch of Grado . Mauritius had overthrown the patriarch John from a tower at the behest of his father . The whereabouts of the Doges who fled to the Franconian Empire are unknown, as is the time of their death. The Venetian historiographical tradition never accepted Mauritius, who had been appointed as doge by his father, as doge, although there are indications 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 list of 120 doges that the late Venetian tradition knew, but that is increasingly being questioned by modern historiography.

Life and co-rule, embedding

Frankish conquests between 768 and 816; Venetian territory

After the conquest of the Longobard Empire in 774 at the latest, a great power emerged in northern Italy with the Franks , which had been in alliance with the Pope for decades. The latter claimed considerable parts of northern Italy and so the Venetian traders were banned from the Pentapolis in 785 - that is, the five towns of Rimini , Pesaro , Fano , Senigallia and Ancona in the Marche .

John's endeavor was to take revenge on the Patriarch of Grado , Venice's rival for supremacy in Veneto and Friuli , who had driven the said expulsion of the merchants. His father had split off the Diocese of Olivolo from Grado and installed Obeliebato ( Johannes Diaconus , p. 98 f.) As bishop there in the lagoon of Venice between 774 and 776 . Grado was again part of the Frankish Empire, with which Venice threatened to come into conflict. This split also led to violent arguments with another John , the Patriarch of Grado, who saw his rights violated.

After the Franks succeeded in conquering Istria in 787/788 , the Patriarch of Grado increased the pressure on the Venice Ducat, because his sources of income in the conquered areas had been withdrawn from him.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 by the grace of Venice.

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 reigning Doge Mauritius (I.) had tried from 778/779 - perhaps based on the Byzantine model - to be the first to enforce a co-reign of his son. With the death of his father, this son, John, inherited the office of Doge - therefore he is recognized as the sole ruler, in contrast to his son. Johannes, in turn, raised his own son Mauritius (II.) To doge according to the procedure that his father had followed. This procedure, based on its own claim to power, without any external legitimation, was never accepted and rejected by Venetian historiography.

This regional conflict soon got into an all-out struggle with the dispute between the Franks and the "Greeks", the Byzantine Empire. After the Frankish king Charles I was crowned emperor, the dispute between the two empires, but also between the Doge House and Grado, intensified from 801 onwards. The emperor Nikephoros I , who ruled from 802, rejected Karl's claims to title and power, so that there was an open conflict. The Doge's anti-Frankish policy, and also the opposition to Pope Leo III. escalated. The enmity between the Doge Johannes and the patriarch of the same name therefore 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 attacked and 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 resided (Dandolo, p. 126), who held this office had filled out since 766.

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 Mauritius. The favor of the Frankish emperor proved itself in the year 803, when this Fortunatus not only received the confirmation of his possessions, 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.

reception

For Venice at the time of Andrea Dandolo, the interpretation attached to the co-rule of Mauritius was of some 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 attempt to form a first dynasty, which ultimately could not be permanently enforced in Venice despite several attempts, and which had long been rejected within the ruling patriciate in the 14th century. 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. The superimposition of secular territory with spiritual claims to power could undermine the clarity of the legitimacy and offer foreign powers the possibility of interference. In addition, one of the earliest Doges ignored the influence of the popular assembly, the arengo , which finally lost its influence in the 13th century, and therefore also recognized the epochal importance of the establishment of a Doge dynasty, a form of rule that the greats in Venice always tried to prevent. So it was consistent that the elevation of Mauritius (II.) To co-doge was kept secret.

In 1502, in his work, which was later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , Pietro Marcello criticized the Doge John mainly for his behavior towards the Patriarch Fortunatus and the subsequent military intervention of Pippin , who was ordered to do so by his father Charlemagne has been. 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 hardly less succinctly 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 for a "pernicioso essempio a successori", a 'harmful' or 'sinister' example for the successors. When Johannes' father Mauritius died, his son succeeded him in 787. 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". Mauritius went to the Franconian Empire, father and son never managed to return, they had to die outside of 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" 804 were forced to flee. So he implicitly recognized Mauritius as a Doge.

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". 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 themselves with the "princes of Venice" to overthrow the Doges - also here implicit recognition - in order to avenge the death of his "ancestor" (this is more likely to mean 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 Hertzüge Leben / Government, und Die Aussterben / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Vianoli names for Johannes the qualities of “injustice, cruelty, gittiness and undecided desires of his mind”. 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 exponents 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".

From 1769, Johann Friedrich LeBret knew how to entertain his readership in his state history of the Republic of Venice with his lively formulated rear projections, which in many cases had to bridge the silence of the sources. According to him, 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 disappeared, so did his compulsion. ”(P. 116) The same was true of 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 “duke”, according to LeBret, “the mere rumor of this proclamation”, “Johannes and Morizen so fearful”, was enough to make them decide to flee. While the father fled to Mantua, Mauritius tried in vain to be reinstated in the Doge's office with Emperor Karl. 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.

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.

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. 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, and after Gfrörer again by the Eastern Emperor. The author suspects that the appointment of the Greek bishop of Olivolo was possibly 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. Although Pinton often came to completely different, less speculative results than Gfrörer, he largely agreed with the author in connection with the first Doge dynasty. Pinton believes that Gfrörer, with the assertion that at the time of the assassination of the bishop, almost all of the land ruled by the two Doges was threatened by the Franks. In addition, 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) .

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 .

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

  • Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, p. 123 f. ( Digital copy, p. 124 ), 126 f. ( Digitized, p. 126 )
  • Wilhelm Gundlach (ed.): Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi , I (= Monumenta Germaniae Historica , Epistulae, III, 1), Berlin 1892, n. 19, p. 713.
  • Andrea Gloria (Ed.): Codice diplomatico padovano dal secolo sesto a tutto l'undicesimo , Padua 1877, n.7 , p. 12.
  • 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.
  • Roberto Cessi (ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chron. Altinate et Chron. Gradense) , Rome 1933, pp. 100, 132, 192.
  • Paul Fridolin Kehr : Italia pontificia , Vol. VII, 2, Berlin 1925, p. 127.
  • Louis Duchesne (Ed.): Le Liber pontificalis , I, Paris 1955, p. 491.

literature

Remarks

  1. ↑ See Andrea Da Mosto : I Dogi di Venezia , Venice 1939, reprint: Milan 2003, pp. 90–92.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ↑ Pietro Marcello: Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 8-10 ( digital copy ).
  6. ↑ 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 ).
  7. ↑ "Ioanne andò a Mantova et Mauritio in Francia, ove, non potendo ottenner il ritorno nella Patria, fini li suoi giorni".
  8. ↑ 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 ).
  9. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 4r – 4v ( digitized, p. 4r ).
  10. ↑ 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 ).
  11. ↑ 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 ).
  12. ↑ Johann Friedrich LeBret: State history of the Republic of Venice, from its origins to our times, in which the text of the abbot L'Augier is the basis, but its errors are corrected, the incidents are presented in certain and from real sources, and after a Ordered in the correct time order, at the same time new additions, from the spirit of the Venetian laws, and secular and ecclesiastical affairs, from 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, 1769.
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ August Daniel von Binzer: Venice in 1844 , Gustav Heckenast, Leipzig 1845, p. 405 ( digitized version ).
  15. ↑ 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.
  16. ^ Samuele Romanin: Storia documentata di Venezia , vol. 1, Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853, p. 133.
  17. ↑ August Friedrich Gfrörer: History of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084. Edited from his estate, supplemented and continued by Dr. JB Weiß , Graz 1872, p. 77 ( digitized version ).
  18. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto (1883) 23–63, here: p. 52 ( digitized version ).
  19. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, pp. 13–15 ( digitized version ).
  20. ↑ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 51–53.
personal data
SURNAME Mauritius
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Mauritius II (full name)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Fellow dog of Venice
DATE OF BIRTH 8th century
DATE OF DEATH after 803
Place of death Franconian Empire