Pietro Centranigo

Later times tried to get an idea of ​​the appearance of the Doges, so "portraits" were created, such as here of the Doge "Petrus Centranicus", Leon Matina: Ducalis regium lararium siue Ser.me Reipu. Veneta [e] principu [m] omniu [m] icones vsque ad serenisimu [m] Ioannem Pisaurum , Jacobus Herzius, Venice 1659, p. 82.

Pietro Centranigo (also Centranico or Barbolano ) was, one follows the so-called tradition, i.e. the historiography of the Republic of Venice , which has been increasingly state-controlled since the 14th century , the 28th Doge . He ruled from 1026 to 1031 or 1032.

Centranigo was elected by the people's assembly after the deposition of his predecessor, who had decided against the inheritance of the Doge's office, as was aimed at by the influential Orseolo . Centranigo's foreign policy was marked by failure.

Emperor Konrad II did not, as usual, confirm the trade privileges of the Venetians. Poppo , the Patriarch of Aquileia , succeeded at a synod in achieving the supremacy of the Patriarchate of Aquileia over that of Grado . As a prince of the empire, he thus gained the preponderance over the dioceses there, which was dangerous for Venice's autonomy. Venice, for its part, had already occupied Grado under the Orseolo, which in the eyes of the emperor was now imperial territory

Byzantium also took in the expelled Doge Ottone . Constantinople also withdrew Venice's trading privileges and Ottones father-in-law, King Stephen of Hungary , also conquered cities in Dalmatia that Venice claimed.

Finally Ottone was recalled from exile, but he died shortly afterwards, probably still in Constantinople. A coup d'état by another Orseolo, Domenico Orseolo, failed after just one day. Domenico Flabanico , who was also in exile and who was the actual leader of the opposition to the Orseolo family, succeeded the overthrown and fled Centranigo in office.

Origin and Doge Office

Centranigo came from one of the tribunician families who came from Heraclea and settled on the Rialto.

He was elected by the people's assembly ( arengo ) after the removal of his predecessor through an agreement between different families against the candidate Domenico Flabanico . It is true that his predecessor had been deposed by the people's assembly, which had thereby spoken out against a hereditary monarchy as the Orseolo was striving for. On the other hand, through their skilful foreign and marriage policy, the Orseolo knew how to forge ties with important ruling families who still supported their party.

His assumption of government was under bad domestic and foreign policy omens. Poppo , the Patriarch of Aquileia, stirred up unrest as he had done under his predecessor. On one of Pope John XIX. At the Synod convened , he had succeeded in gaining the supremacy of the Patriarchate of Aquileia over that of Grado , which was sent from Venice.

The trading privileges that his predecessors had been granted since the Carolingians were not extended by the Roman-German Emperor Konrad II . Byzantium took in the displaced Doge Ottone and withdrew Venice's trading privileges. King Stephen of Hungary , whose daughter was married to Ottone, made claims to Dalmatia and conquered a number of coastal cities that had been annexed temporarily to Venice by Pietro II Orseolo .

The sum of foreign policy failures that severely affected the city's economic life and his inability to win over the Venetians ultimately led to his dismissal.

Ottone was called back from Byzantine exile while his brother Orso , Patriarch of Grado, was regent. In the following year Ottone died in Byzantine exile and Domenico Orseolo tried to occupy the Doge's chair in a coup in 1032. His government lasted extremely short, because the next day the people's assembly elected the exiled and wealthy Domenico Flabanico , who had been the actual leader of the opposition to the Orseolo family in the fall of Ottones, as the new Doge. Domenico Orseolo fled into exile in Ravenna .

reception

The Byzantine Empire in 1025

Venice was in an increasingly difficult relationship to the expansive empires. Conrad II resumed Otto II's anti-Venice policy , the Byzantine Empire was at the height of its expansion policy. The source situation since 1009 is again unfavorable, since the most important source of the time around 1000, the Istoria Veneticorum of Johannes Diaconus breaks off with the year 1009 and the chronicle of the Doge Andrea Dandolo originated only in the middle of the 14th century. For the Venice of this epoch, on whose chronic tradition we are dependent after 1009 - apart from a few documents - the interpretation given to the rule of Pietro Centranico was accordingly of great symbolic importance for external relations, but above all for the internal disputes between the clan-like family associations. In the end, apart from the one-day rule of the last Orseolo, that little-known Domenico, the last attempt to make Venice a hereditary monarchy ended with him. From then on, no doge was allowed to appoint a co-regent. The focus of the Chronicle of Andrea Dandolo represents in perfect form the views of the long-established political leadership bodies that have steered the writing of history especially since this Doge. His work was repeatedly used as a template by later chroniclers and historians. Hence it became immensely dominant in ideas of Venetian history prior to its time. Dandolo's focus was on the law from its own roots, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of its territorial claim. In this context, the recognition and, if possible, the extension of the “old treaties” by the newly appointed emperors (and kings) has always been of enormous importance. The question of the hereditary monarchy , on which the Candiano 976 failed in a catastrophe, and which became virulent again through the Orseolo, in whose overthrow ended, was at the time of Andrea Dandolo in no way related to the strategies of balancing interests between the prevailing at that time Families, but above all no longer bring them into line with the state of constitutional development. 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 goal of the presentation, precisely because Ottone also failed here, whose regiment, like that of his father, had absolutely absolutist traits carried (or had to carry). The failure of the Orseolo was central here, because in a series of stages it was possible to advance the institutional integration of the office comparatively far up to the 14th century. At the same time, on the one hand, the balance between the ambitious and dominant families remained one of the most important goals; on the other hand, the derivation of the prominent position of the 'nobili' in the state was of great importance. The overthrow of Ottones in Venice once again led to murderous battles between the noble families, which, because the church offices played an essential role, offered the Patriarch of Aquileia and the empire behind it, but also the Pope, new opportunities for interference, against which Venice was opposed defended himself. On the other hand, Orso Orseolo, Patriarch of Grado, headed the Doge's office for more than a year, so for a long time it was unclear whether or not he should be included in the traditional list of 120 Doges. Even if Pietro Centranigo may have been an embarrassment candidate, his regiment was nevertheless a first attempt by a barely recognizable party to break the trend towards absolute rule in Venice.

The oldest vernacular chronicle of Venice, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, depicts the events, as does Andrea Dandolo, on a level that has long been familiar at that time and is largely dominated by individuals, especially the Doges. This applies also for "Piero Centranigo". The individual doges even form the temporal framework for the entire chronicle, as was customary in Venice. The chronicle mentions that almost the whole people hated the Doge Ottone Orseolo, and that “Domenego Flabanico” finally robbed him of his dignity, but no reason for the hatred is given. The chronicler mentions that the new doge was elected by a large majority, but he only ruled for a few years. The overthrown doge was - after four years of rule - exiled in the monk's habit to "Grecia". The author relates this fall to Orso, the patriarch of Grado and brother of the fallen Ottone Orseolo, who for his part feared the people and therefore fled Venice when Ottone was banished. But he managed to get the Pope to have his rights recognized in the Grado Patriarchate against Poppo's claims of Aquileia . He then returned to Venice “cum consentimento del povolo” “et in luogo del Duxe obtene el ducado”. So the Patriarch of Grado returned and gained Doge rule. He had "Domenego Flabanico", the driving force behind the uprising against his brother, banished - Flabanico remained in Lombardy throughout the rule of the Patriarch - and sent envoys to Constantinople to bring his brother back from exile. But he had already died, as he could see "per letere del'imperador" from the emperor's letters. After a year and six months, the Patriarch withdrew from the Dogat.

Pietro Marcello meant in 1502 in his work later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , the Doge "Pietro Centranico Doge XXVII." "Fu creato Doge l'anno MXXIIII". Centranigo was used in 1024, not in 1026, for the chronicler, who evidently deliberately omitted the otherwise common formula “con gran consentimento del popolo”. After returning from the fight against the Croats, his predecessor Ottone, “l'ottimo prencipe”, fell victim to a “vituperosa congiura” by Domenico Flabanico this year and was banished to “Grecia” (Greece), where he, like Marcello, was exiled claims died a little later. At Poppo's instigation, Konrad II was 'very hostile' (“molto nimico”) towards the Venetians. In this situation, Centranico was seized by the people after four years and, as it is said, at Orso’s instigation, shorn, dressed as a monk and exiled. After the expulsion, at the instigation of the people (“per commissione del popolo”), Orso was supposed to be doge until his brother had returned. After Orso had learned that his brother had died in exile, he retired from office, whereupon a close relative of Ottones, a Domenico Orseolo, occupied the doge office 'foolhardy' ('temerariamente'). But after a day the people drove him to Ravenna, where he died a little later.

According to the chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , the Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 , which is usually laconic in reports about Venice before 1280 , "Pepo Patriarcha Aquilegiense" came under the pretext of rushing to the aid of the two Orseolo, to the city of Grado. He destroyed the churches there, raped the nuns and took the treasures of the church and town with him. His envoys in Rome suppressed the truth, and so Grado and the island were also subordinate to him (p. 90). After Grado was regained, there was soon another dispute when “Dominico Gradenigo”, the bishop of Olivolo, died and the doge refused to appoint his successor from the same family in his office. Again there was a 'great discord' and at the instigation of Dominico Flabanico (“per instigatione di Dominico Flabanico”) the Doge was overthrown and banished to Constantinople. His brother Orso, however, went to Grado, from where he operated the return of Ottones. "Pietro Barbolano over Centranigo fù publicato Duce", so he was only 'announced', by no means elected as usual (why the office was not taken over by the insurgent leader remains unclear). On the contrary, according to the chronicler, "non essendo grata a molti la denominatione di costui, furono per ciò suscitati molti rumori". So the Doge was 'not accepted by many and so there was too much unrest'. Incited by Poppo (“per instigatione del detto Patriarcha”), the “Alemano imperatore”, the “German Emperor”, not only revoked the “confederatione con Venetiani”, but even treated them like enemies. At the same time, the King of Hungary subjugated some of the cities of Dalmatia. After four years and four months of Centranigo's rule, the Venetians, under so much pressure from outside, called back the exiled Doge Ottone Orseolo, “come fanno i popoli che, nelle angustie e travagliosi tempi, ricorrono alla provisione di mutar i capi, sperando parimente mutar fortuna ”, as the peoples do in such situations, said Caroldo, who hope that if they only change their heads, Fortuna would bow to them again . Centranigo's beard was shaved and he was exiled to Constantinople. The patriarch Orso Orseolo led the Dogat in the absence of his brother. He sent another brother named Vitale, the Bishop of Torcello, “con molti primarij Venetiani” to the Byzantine capital, while the leader of the rebellion of 1026, “Dominico Flabanico”, fled with his supporters. The chronicler reports that the patriarch was the first to have a silver coin minted under his name. According to Caroldo, the patriarch, who had ruled for a year and two months after him, even if he was not correctly elected, belonged to the list of doges for “the elders” because he had carried out his office in the right way: “ benche non fù eletto Duce canonicamente, nondimeno, havendo retto il Ducato giustamente, gl'antichi Veneti l'hanno voluto porre nel cathalogo de Duci. "

Even Heinrich Kellner said in his 1574 published Chronica is Warhaffte actual vnd kurtze description, all Hertzogen to Venice life where he spread the Venetian history in the German language, "Peter Centranico" had been "gewehlet for Hertzog in the jar 1024". After his return, Ottone was "attacked by a shameful betrayal of Dominico Fabianico / as he was least aware of it / his beard was cut off to shame / and in the fifteenth year of his government in Greece he was chased away / there he died soon after." Centranico Tried "with all seriousness to bring the town and its entire area or landscape to rest", but now Poppo attacked, "completely unchecked Grado" "and entered the castle". "Some say / the castle was won and taken in Orsi name / when the Venetians occupied it". It is certain that Konrad II caused great damage to Venice at Poppo's instigation. After four years, the doge was "out of the yard (as they say) and attacked Orsi / the patriarch of Grado / trapped / his beard cut off / disguised in Munich clothes / and sent into misery." On "command of the community" now received Orso "the regiment". Before his envoys reached his brother in Constantinople, "they / they learned that he had died in Greece". When Orso found out, "he says open the amp". “And in his absence Dominicus Orsoel / who was Ottonis very close and great friend / willingly entered the Hertzogthumb / but luck did not stay long / that the next day / after he had assumed the Hertzogthumb / he is from the common / irish freedom indenck / was chased away. ”He fled to Ravenna, where he soon died.

In the translation of Alessandro Maria Vianoli's Historia Veneta , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Herthaben Leben / Government, und Absterben / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the author counts, deviating by Pietro Marcello, "Petrus Centranicus, The 28th Hertzog". The fall of Ottones was also caused by Vianoli that "Dominico Flabanico", but was "wiewol very hidden way / Petrus Centranicus, who sought the ducal sovereignty most of all / was the head". Ottone was banished. Whether Petrus Centranicus obtained the Doge dignity “by ordinary election” or “whether he seized it by force”, “is not known for sure”. Vianoli describes in detail how Poppo used List to conquer Grado and burn the city down. He received "peculiar privileges" from Pope John, but these were revoked at a council that also stipulated "that the city of Grado should be and remain the true seat of the Patriarch". Like the other chroniclers, Vianoli of Centranigo only has to report that he was overthrown and banished in the manner customary at the time. At the same time Ottone was called back "during such a time / which lasted for a year / bit it came back / Orsus, as Patriarch of Grado, had ruled the community with the greatest diligence". Orso "voluntarily" gave up his office when he heard of his brother's death. He left the office to Domenico Orseolo - "which is a great surprise" because authority and prestige have "risen too high" - who, however, was "somewhat jealous of the people who are" somewhat jealous about the excessive violence of families thought to be "" like the following Tags ”was forced to retreat to Ravenna (“ to retire ”).

1687 noted Jacob von Sandrart laconically in his Opus Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous republic of Venice that "Petrus Centranicus" 1029 had become "(XXVII) Hertzog erkohren". After paying homage to “the country he had conquered”, the cities of Dalmatia, Ottone was attacked in a “rebellious way”, namely by “Dominico Flabenico, who had his beard shaved off in the 50th year of his age / so to these Times was an unspeakably great shame / and he had to wander to Greece in the misery ”. He died there "shortly afterwards". For Sandrart, Orso was the one who incited Konrad II against Venice until Centranigo was overthrown and Orso became a Doge. However, he resigned "by himself" when he heard of the death of his brother. "Dominico Urseolo, who was a close blood friend of the reported Ottonis," took the palace, but he was evicted the next day. He went to Ravenna, "wherever he also gave up with death."

Johann Friedrich LeBret , for whom Centranigo was also the 28th Doge, published his four-volume State History of the Republic of Venice from 1769 . In his view, the Orseolo "ruled" "well, they had creative state geniuses: but the more unbearable they became in a republic, the more monarchical their way of thinking" (p. 233). “It was not the most vicious men of the first rank who conspired against Otto Urseolus, but the most vicious men of the first rank”, but qualifies this statement insofar as he concedes that Centranigo “might have been an excellent ruler at other times” had he not been could have been used as a tool against the Orseoli (p. 235). "He defended his people against the wrath of the Emperor Conrads, and against the interventions of the Patriarch of Aquileia", but "the most important offices of the state were in the hands of the friends of the Orseolian house". "So the four years that Centranigo sat on the throne were connected with a lot of unrest until the Orseolian party finally found means to seize him." An "interim government" was set up to bridge the time until Ottones return. "Some of the oldest historians put the patriarch in the ranks of the real rulers, the newer ones, to whom it seems incomprehensible that a patriarch ruled their people, left him out of this list." LeBret puts this decision in a footnote on Lorenzo De Monachis (1351–1428) back (p. 256, note 22), whose chronicle was written between 1421 and his death.

Samuele Romanin , the historian embedded in the broader historical context, who presented this epoch in 1853 in the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia , thinks “dopo lunga e burrascosa assemblea” ('after a long and stormy discussion') is Domenico Centranico up the doge chair has been raised. But calm has by no means returned, and he was also elected by a party in which the Orseolo friends played a large part. Under the leadership of the Flabianici, Ottone was overthrown, shorn and exiled to Constantinople, Orso had fled. For the Venetians now came 'extremely unhappy times', because some of the Dalmatian cities severed ties with Venice, Poppo resumed his attempts to intervene in the lagoon, and Conrad II refused the renewal of privileges that had been customary since the Carolingians. In addition, Robert of France and William of Aquitaine had been offered the crown of Italy - both had refused the offer - while Archbishop Aribert of Milan joined the German king. When Konrad appeared in Milan, most of the cities submitted to him, with the exception of Pavia , whose surrounding area he then devastated before he moved to Rome for the imperial coronation . For Poppo, Konrad obtained recognition of his claims to Grado. However, in 1029 the Pope again recognized Grado's rights in a U-turn. The economic problems that arose from this political opposition with Konrad and Poppo undermined the rule of Centranico as well as the activities of the Orseoli, who found support in Constantinople. There the father-in-law of Ottones eldest brother came to the throne. Indeed, a solemn delegation led by Vitale Orseolo, Bishop of Torcello, reached Constantinople to bring Ottone Orseolo back. Since the fall of Centranico, the administration of the state has been the responsibility of his brother Orso, if only until the expected return of Ottones. A small coin was minted under Orso, which was still in use three centuries later. When it became clear that Ottone was already dead, Orso resigned from office after 14 months. Another Orseolo, Domenico, tried to use the interregnum to bring himself to power, but was chased away by the 'angry' people. He went to Ravenna.

The Evangelist Mark in his office, Byzantine Illuminiation, 27 * 19 cm, around 1025-1050, Walters Art Museum , W.530.A

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861), who sees a decisive phase in the development of the Venetian constitution between 1000 and 1030, assumes in his history of Venice from its founding to 1084 , which appeared only eleven years after his death , that the government of Centranigo was initially "an attempt to mediate, to reconcile the parties". "Barbolano wanted to please everyone and thereby spoiled it with one and the other." In Grado, Vitalis , the son of Doge Pietro IV. Candiano , who was overthrown in 976 , became the 21-year-old Bishop of Torcello after more than fifty years in office. that Orso. But soon enormous difficulties piled up for the Orseoli, who were apparently so firmly seated in the saddle, because with the death of the Patriarch of Aquileia, Heinrich II used the opportunity to raise a German to the chair there, his Chancellor Wolfgang-Poppo , who "Not without prior knowledge of the Emperor Heinrich II.", Turned against Grado. After the aforementioned U-turn, the Pope finally confirmed Orso's rights. Gfrörer assumes that he could do this from 1022, when he was no longer so dependent on the emperor. In order to force reparations, the emperor began, according to Gfrörer, between 1020 and 1024, when he ruled all of northern Italy, by starting a moderate trade blockade against Venice. However, when the Pope confirmed Grado's rights, Heinrich gave in. In 1024, when the Pope and Emperor died, Ottone and Orso had to flee to Istria, an opportunity that Poppo used to appear as Grado's savior. There he took the treasure of the cathedral that had been kidnapped earlier and brought it to Aquileia. Gfrörer also concluded that it was Ottone and Orso who had requested Grado be handed over to Poppo and the emperor, respectively. Therefore, on suspicion of high treason, they fled to Istria, which belonged to the empire that was meanwhile ruled by Conrad II , a Salian . This would explain why Poppo was actually able to act as the patron of the Orseoli in Grado - in no way pretended to be cunning. Poppo's actions there were “not criminal, but contractual actions” (p. 440). Pope John XIX. confirmed Aquileia's rights, but subject to canonical evidence. He did not revoke this confirmation until 1029. Gfrörer suspects that the whole thing was based on a secret treaty in which the Orseoli actually left the patriarch Poppo Grado. However, this would have been considered high treason and was therefore not usable as an official reason for recognizing Aquileia's rights (p. 443). Only after this determination did Grado return to the Orseoli - the German occupation offered no resistance. But in 1026 the protracted dispute about the replacement of the core Venetian bishopric by Olivolo, which ultimately led to the overthrow of Ottones and his brother Orso, ignited. The sharpest opponents were the Gradonico, who claimed the bishopric of Torcello. Gfrörer believes: “Otto acted this way because he wanted to move the patriarchal chair from Grado to the capital Venice, but wanted to leave his brother Orso there. So it was impossible for him to approve of the Gradonico's choice ”(p. 446). The Orseoli, who had already been expelled (to Istria) because of the same plans, were now overthrown and banished again. If the plan that Ottone had devised had succeeded, Venice would have become a different city, says Gfrörer: “Unrestricted doges would have trampled the laws there, degraded the citizens, the chairs with all relatives, sons, cousins, brothers, blind tools of the people The arbitrariness of the head of the family, occupied and instead of a glorious republic ruling the sea, would sprout a wretched principality, shattered by suspicion on all sides ”(p. 450). "We have more precise information about the feud between Veneto and the Salic court than is what the historian of Zealand gives" (Andrea Dandolo is meant). For example, Gfrörer reports on Conrad's march to Italy, of the imperial coronation in Rome on March 26, 1027, and he also assumes that Conrad had Pope John XIX urged Orso to call for a synod to which, on April 6th in the Lateran, only one deacon had come. Poppo, on the other hand, threw himself to the ground in front of the emperor and the pope and both transferred him the rights over Grado, which was to be the "episcopal district of the metropolis Aquileja". The same Pope had already decided this in 1024, albeit under clauses. Gfrörer sees this as an “imperative imperial influence”. But shortly afterwards the same Pope reinstated Grado in all rights (p. 452). Gfrörer remains undecided as to whether Poppo began the military battle for Grado, reported by Andrea Dandolo, before or after this decision. He did not manage to take Grado by surprise until 1042, but “he must have severely damaged the mainland places”, which Gfrörer concludes from Dandolo's statement that Poppo “decomposed” the Venetian area. In addition to Konrad and Poppo, according to Dandolo, King Andreas of Hungary was besetting the small kingdom of Venice, because he incessantly troubled Dalmatia and forced some of the cities there to surrender to him. However, the chronicler confuses King Andrew with Stephan, who was king from 997 to 1038. Stephan had given the Venice-born son Ottones, known as Peter Orseolo , command of the Hungarian armed forces, in order to even recommend him as his successor. Gfrörer assumes that Peter went to Hungary in 1026 when his father had to go into exile. He believes that Peter, like all Orseoli, regarded Dalmatia as a kind of "heirloom of his house" (p. 454). Gfrörer suggests that the Hungarian attacks on Dalmatia represented a kind of revenge for Peter for the overthrow of his father. “Driven into a corner” by two wars and internal conflicts, “Doge Peter Barbolano must have tied in with the overthrown Orseoli.” In any case, the exiled Orso returned to the Gradensian patriarchal chair, which should have happened no later than 1029, and what without Centranigo-Barbolano's consent should have been impossible. The author believes that Grado's inalienability to the Salian Empire and Aquileia was the prerequisite for this return. According to the Pope's bull of 1029, after the first transfer of rights to Poppo in 1024, Orsos envoys appeared in Rome to report on his atrocities in Grado. Poppo was then summoned to Rome, but refused and filed a lawsuit himself that Grado had been taken away from him. While Poppo only sent a monk, Orso appeared in Rome himself - probably after his exile. According to Gfrörer, the Pope regarded the resolutions that were made in the presence of Conrad II as enforced and therefore invalid (Konrad did not return to Italy until 1036). So he could easily revoke it. In addition, the author believes that Grado was not only subordinated to the Venetian dioceses, but also to those of Istria (p. 457). This should also protect them from Poppo's ambitions. Poppo, on the other hand, consecrated a church in Cittanuova a few years later, and Gfrörer cites a book of the Gospels kept in Aquileia , which records the “oath of canonical obedience which the bishop of Pola, John, his metropolitan, the patriarch Poppo of Aquileia, took” (p . 459). Between 1030 and 1040, possibly even earlier, Grado had lost its suffragan dioceses in Istria to Aquileia. With the return of Orso and the restoration of Grado, Centranigo got so on the defensive that, as Gfrörer assumes, he established contacts with Conrad II, which ultimately cost him the Doge Chair. In 1030 he was overthrown, shorn and exiled to Constantinople. Ottone should now be brought back, Orso was his deputy for so long. The supporters of the rebels of 1026 fled from the overwhelming forces of the Orseoli. But, the author suspects, they undermined the Byzantine emperor's trust by claiming that Ottones "restoration would expose the island nation to grave danger." As evidence, Gfrörer regards the extremely long waiting period of 14 months during which Orso was in charge of the Doge's office while waiting for Ottone, but above all the fact that “Flavanico, immediately after his elevation to the Doge, from the basileus with the title of an upper sword bearer adorned ”(p. 464). After Dandolo, however, Domenico Orseolo initially assumed the Doge's office. "But the great majority did not approve of this, but rose up against the intruder." This Orseolo was also banished. Gfrörer believes that Andrea Dandolo “neglected the extremely important section of the history of his hometown, which ran from the death of Peter Orseolo II to the fall of Domenico Orseolo.” According to Gfrörer, Dandolo would otherwise have had to admit that “Veneto had no worse enemies at that time , as his doges, Peter Orseolo II., the ancestor, Otto, the son, and Domenico, the tribe, or perhaps grandchildren. ”As a doge, such a judgment about his own predecessors was“ inadmissible ”for him. For the extremely quick fall of Domenico Orsini, Dandolo states in Gfrörer's translation: "Veneto's citizens rose up against Domenico because they claimed the free constitution under which they were born, but did not want to become the slaves of a tyrant." This harsh judgment could hardly refer to Domenico, because he was only in office for one day and nothing of his political ideas could have been known, but more likely to the entire clan. He was in league with the Salians, so it was not by chance that Domenico fled to Ravenna, into the Reich. Ottone, on the other hand, had been banished to Constantinople, this time to be sure that he would not return, because the emperor there was not well disposed to the Doge, because he was looking for support for his imperial opponent. According to Gfrörer, the exile of the Centranico to Constantinople points in the same direction. He also sought support from the Salier. Gfrörer interprets the Byzantine party in Venice as the one which supported the constitution against the Orseoli. “Even if the Venetians hadn't taken their revenge, the dynasty they founded would first have become a toy, then a victim of Salic malice.” Their opponents, who defended the constitution, therefore joined Byzantium.

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. To attribute the inner-city struggles to mere foreign policy and the Orseoli striving for "Byzantinism" claimed by Gfrörer does not go far enough for Pinton, for whom the internal Venetian conflicts dominated in this case. But Gfrörer ignores this in practically every political maneuver in Venice. With regard to Poppo's and Heinrich's activities in Istria, Pinton assumes that the emperor succeeded in re-enforcing imperial rights there, which was made easier by Poppo's fight against Grado, to which the Istrian bishoprics were also subject. Only when he realized that the fighting was causing damage to Istria did the emperor moderate the fight against the Orseolo patriarch. The flight of the two Orseoli to Istria, which Gfrörer interprets as a protected position under the emperor, as high treason, is rejected by Pinton, who sees the personal enmities within Venice as the cause. This also does not go with the recapture of Grado to the detriment of the emperor and the patriarch of Aquileia, nor with the fact that the majority of the people's assembly brought the doge back twice. Pinton regards Gfrörer's thesis that the Orseoli wanted to give up the insecure Grado in order to establish a patriarchy on Rialto as extremely bold - even this without sources, which Gfrörer explains - not for the first time - with a secret agreement. Pinton agrees that the Orseoli overthrew the attempt to establish a kind of monarchy, but he does not consider the underlying assumptions, including high treason, to be tenable. According to Pinton, Gfrörer rightly considers Centranico to be a 'creatura' of the rebels. But Dandolo, who is the only source of Venice's internal affairs, thinks that the new Doge was “a molti inviso”, from which many “torbolenze” have developed. Gfrörer interpreted this as an indication of a weak regiment, but hatred and envy, according to Pinton, would have filled the entire four years of the Dogat. For the author, it is not a sign of opposition to Byzantium if politically unpleasant people were sent into exile there, but a custom that has been practiced for centuries. This also contradicts the fact that Orso was intended by the majority in the people only for the deputy role until his brother Ottone could take up his doge office again. In contrast to his predecessors, Romanos III stood. less close to the Orseolo, and so Pinton, in view of the fact that at that time a journey from Constantinople to Venice could take 23 days, agrees that Ottone was detained in the capital by the emperor (p. 361). Incidentally, there can be no general hatred of the Orseoli in Venice, because Orso remained in the Doge's office for 14 months, even if only as a substitute, and he was even included in the Doge's list. Gfrörer overlooks the weighty word "usurpatore" for Domenico Orseolo, and he wrongly believes that the Venetians only had one day in office to recognize the tyrant in him. Therefore, the defense had to relate to the whole family. Pinton contradicts this, because the way in which Domenico forcibly usurped power while the other Orseolo had been elected with a large majority, led to the rejection of the one-day doge.

In 1861, Francesco Zanotto, who in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia granted the popular assembly greater influence, believed the people, always 'gullible because ignorant' ('credulo perchè ignorante') and 'fickle as the sea', wanted to overthrow Ottone however, together with his brother Orso fled to Istria. Poppo von Aquileia also intrigued against Orso, occupied Grado, pretending that he only wanted to take care of an abandoned herd. As soon as he was allowed to enter the city, he had it plundered and had spared no crime in the process. Whether the Venetians recognized the injustice or whether friends of the Orseoli made it known, the Venetians regretted the expulsion and brought the Orseoli back from Istria. These took on the task of punishing Poppo and recapturing Grado. The crew withdrew and the city was fortified. But hatred, envy, the bad spirit of the families hostile to the Orseoli had produced a 'new revolt' two years later. In return, the dispute over the bishopric of Torcello provided the pretext, as Zanotto explains after Dandolo. “Stimolati” from the Flabanici under their leader Domenico, “a man ready for any offense”, the people under the leadership of the Gradenighi let themselves be persuaded to overthrow the Doge. Ottone was the author's example of the fact that a state leader with good qualities could be overthrown by unjust revolts of the people if they, against the evangelical dictate, rise up to judge their rulers. With Zanotto, too, Poppo used the support of Konrad II to usurp Grado and to obtain a bull from the Pope for it. But Orso's modest intervention managed to restore the old rights. At the same time, the followers of Ottones acted, who received support from his brother's father-in-law, who had taken the imperial throne in 1028. According to Zanotto, his interest was in the cities of Dalmatia, which could only be kept away from rubbish by bringing the doge back. Orso now led the representative regiment so well that the ancients considered him a doge, yes, his portrait was among the other Doges in the hall of the Great Council in the Doge's Palace . Zanotto also believes that the coin minted by Orso lasted until the time of Enrico Dandolo .

For Heinrich Kretschmayr , the events presented themselves differently. He admits that "during the reign of Doge Otto a strong opposition to the Orseol must have developed, of course nothing is said of their growth and development." They forced Ottone and Orso to 1024 first escape. The brothers, “recalled or not”, recaptured 1024 Grado in October / November, and in December the Pope revoked the recognition of Aquileia's rights. - But in March 1026 Conrad II appeared in Italy and was crowned emperor at Easter 1027. "To him the Venetians were rebels who illegally occupied Grado against the emperor and the empire". “You had to submit them,” says Kretschmayr laconically. Konrad was willing to repeat Otto II's attempt and to put an end to Venetian independence (p. 146). Already in the spring of 1026 Konrad had refused to confirm the Venetian privileges. "Expelled or fleeing of his own accord, Otto hurried to the court of Romanos III. to Constantinople. ”A“ colorless and harmless embarrassing candidate ”, namely“ Pietro or Domenico Centranico or Barbolano ”was elected Doge instead of the leader of the opposition, Domenico Flabanico. Kretschmayr dated the election to fall 1026, the fall of the Doge to “Spring? 1031 ". The fall of Ottones changed nothing in the basic conflict, because: "The cause of Aquileja was the cause of the empire, the interests of Grado ran counter to it" (p. 147). “Under the pressure of the imperial will and the German arms” Grado was placed under the authority of the Patriarch of Aquileia by the Pope. However, Poppo was unable to conquer Grado, which is now better fortified, "'tore up' - as Dandolo puts it in a picturesque way - trusting the imperial help of the Venetian borderlands." On March 8, 1034, the emperor awarded Poppo the area between Piave and Livenza, Cittanuova and Caorle. The "embarrassed candidate" was able to assert himself for half a decade, but many did not like him, "ordering the craftsmen to have unreasonable labor obligations for the palatium". After he was exiled to Constantinople, Ottone was called back. Vitale traveled to Constantinople for this purpose, Orso led the regiment in Venice. Kretschmayr speculates that Ottone is in “late spring? 1032 "died. "Orso's custody died out of its own accord, and the attempt by Domenico Orseolo, perhaps a grandson of the great Pietro, to take the Dogat by force, furthered the cause of the opponents." Perhaps in the summer of 1032 "Domenico Flabiano" returned from exile back while Domenico Orseolo fled to Ravenna. “The decree that was immediately issued, which forbade the Doge to be elected by election, from the election of a co-regent”, was supposed to prevent the usual succession regulation through which the co-regent had become his successor after the doge's death. "The time of hereditary monarchy was over for Venice". Three families had tried to establish such a hereditary monarchy, and the last attempts, which were made until the 12th century, were to fail, summarizes Kretschmayr.

For John Julius Norwich in his simplistic History of Venice, which largely ignores the historiographical discourse, “Centranico - could, at the time of his accession, boast one distinction only: that of having filched, some thirty years before, the relics of St Sabas from Constantinople and deposited them in the church of St Antonino ”. An opposition had formed against Ottone Orseolo's and his brothers' plans to make the Doge's office hereditary and washed him, who until then had only 'stolen' relics, onto the doge's chair. The first dark clouds over the Orseolo, according to Norwich, had appeared as early as 1019 with Poppo's appointment. If you follow the author, Orso and Ottone fled to Istria in 1022–23. After him, however, Poppo began to go overboard when he "systematically" robbed churches and monasteries. The returning brothers expelled "Poppo and his followers with surprisingly little feet", a synod rejected 1024 Poppos claims. If the Doge had only shown "a modicum of sensitivity to popular opinion", the Orseoli might have remained in power. As he briefly notes, "a further scandal over Church appointments" led to the doge's well-known overthrow. Ottone spent the rest of his life in Constantinople. His successor Centranico "struggled to reunite the city, but his efforts were in vain". According to the author, the Orseolo dynastic marriages were now beginning to pay off. The relatives in Constantinople terminated the trade treaties, while those in Hungary went over to attacking Dalmatia. While the problems of the new Doge and his party worsened, "nostalgia for the old days grew". "The crisis came in 1032", when Centranico was overthrown, and Vitale "hurried off to Constantinople with an invitation to his brother to resume the throne". "All seemed set for a restoration", but now Ottone died. As a result, Orso resigned, and a last attempt by Domenico Orseolo, "some obscure offshoot of the family", was downright a "miserabile parodia", as Norwich Roberto Cessi quotes.

swell

• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, p. 207. ( digitized, p. 206 f. )

literature

• Claudio Rendina: I Dogi. Storia e segreti , Newton Compton, 1984, 2nd edition, Rome 2003, p. 89 f. ISBN 88-8289-656-0

Remarks

1. ↑ digitized version .
2. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 49 f.
3. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp. 49–51 on the Dogat ( digitized version ).
4. ↑ Șerban V. Marin (Ed.): Gian Giacomo Caroldo. Istorii Veneţiene , Vol. I: De la originile Cetăţii la moartea dogelui Giacopo Tiepolo (1249) , Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Bucharest 2008, p. 91 on Dogat ( online ).
5. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 19v – 20r ( digitized, p. 19v ).
6. ↑ 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. 167-171 ( digitized version ).
7. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 29 f. ( Digitized, p. 29 ).
8. ↑ Johann Friedrich LeBret : State history of the Republic of Venice, from its origin to our times, in which the text of the abbot L'Augier is the basis, but its errors are corrected, the incidents are presented in a certain and from real sources, and after a Ordered the correct time order, at the same time adding new additions to the spirit of the Venetian laws and secular and ecclesiastical affairs, to the internal state constitution, its systematic changes and the development of the aristocratic government from one century to another , 4 vols., Johann Friedrich Hartknoch , Riga and Leipzig 1769–1777, Vol. 1, Leipzig and Riga 1769, pp. 255–257 ( digitized version ).
9. ↑ Giorgio Ravegnani: Monacis, Lorenzo , in: Dictionnaire Biografico degli Italiani , Volume 38 (1990) 660-662..
10. ↑ This refers to the Chronicle of Laurentius de Monachis edited by Muratori, the Chronicon de rebus Venetis from UC ad annum MCCCLIV , Venice 1758, Book IV, p. 77 ( digitized version ).
11. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vol., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853–1861 (2nd edition 1912–1921, reprint Venice 1972), vol. 1, Venice 1853, pp. 293–297, on Centranico p. 298-300 ( digitized version ).
12. ↑ August Friedrich Gfrörer : History of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084. Edited from his estate, supplemented and continued by Dr. JB Weiß , Graz 1872, on Ottone pp. 425–450, on Centranigo and the end of Orseoli pp. 450–470 ( digitized version ).
13. ↑ Gfrörer provides on p. 466 in a footnote the text Dandolos after Muratori XII, 240: "Ceteri (Veneti), innatam libertatem et non tyrannidem cupientes, in eum (Dominicum Ursiolum) insurgunt."
14. ↑ 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. 353–359, or 362 ( digitized ).
15. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , vol. 4, Venice 1861, p. 67 f. ( Digitized version ).
16. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 146-148.
17. ^ John Julius Norwich : A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.

predecessor	Office	successor
Ottone Orseolo	Doge of Venice 1026-1032	Domenico Flabanico