Pietro II Candiano

Pietro II. Candiano , in the chronologically closest sources Petrus (* 872 , † 939 ), is considered the 19th Doge according to traditional historiography, that is, controlled by the Republic of Venice . He ruled from 931 or 932 to 939. His father Peter I was also a Doge in 887, as was his son of the same name and his grandson (942–959, or 959–976). The Candiano tended to an overall more aggressive foreign policy, starting with Istria and Comacchio the lower reaches of Po .

Perhaps Peter forced his predecessor Ursus II Particiaco to resign. Peter II began a renewed attempt at Venetian expansion policy on the mainland, after this had already been attempted under John II Particiaco (881-887). At an unknown point in time, Venice burned its neighboring city and rival Comacchio for the second time after a minor diplomatic incident, after it had already happened in 883. In the long term, however, the expansion to the east was more effective, as Venice began to make a number of cities on Istria dependent on it. The Particiaco, later equated with the Badoer, did not rule without interruption. The Doge's son, Petrus III., Did not become Doge until 942, after the son of his predecessor Ursus, Pietro Badoer (Petrus Badovarius), had held this office for three years.

Domination

Italy and the Adriatic region around 1000

Peter or Pietro Candiano was the son of Doge Peter I , who died on September 18, 887 after only a few months of ruling the Slavs on the Narenta . At the age of about 60 he became the successor of Ursus II from the Particiaco family (later equated with the Badoer and long known as "Partecipazio"), who had retired to a monastery. The sharp change in politics from a balancing, peaceful to an expansive foreign policy led historiography to speculations about whether Ursus really resigned voluntarily or whether he had not been forced to do so by Peter II. In the Istoria Veneticorum of Johannes Diaconus there is a stark contrast to the peaceful retreat of the sick and old Doge to the monastery of St. Felix on Ammiana with the complete reorientation under Peter, which took no example from the predecessor: "ducatum suscipiens, nihilominus sui decessoris exemplo subditum sibi populum tractare conatus est".

In Istria , a violent conflict whose consequences as a starting point of relaxing in the 930s years Venetian colonial empire apply. The peninsula was not only the first step into the core of the Mediterranean for Venice's trade, because slaves , wood and iron also came via and from the peninsula , as sources for the period between June 960 and July 971 show. The volume of trade increased due to the privilege of the city in the Kingdom of Italy, which went back to the time of Charlemagne . In doing so, the Doges succeeded not only in obtaining a guarantee of unhindered trade with Capodistria, today's Koper , in some cases even being allowed to conduct their own trade without taxes, but also in submitting the Venetian traders active abroad to their own jurisdiction. With this reaching out to Istria, however, there had been conflicts for a long time.

Wintherius , the margrave of Friuli and Istria, had probably already begun attacks against Venetian traders under Ursus II, i.e. sequestrations, expulsions, robbery, but also against possession of the ducat or the bishops. This was especially true around Pula in Istria. The clashes escalated and eventually a break occurred. The Doge forced a promissio , a public oath, on January 14, 932 ( Pactum Justinopolitanum , named after the old name of the city, namely Justinopolis) from Capodistria, probably the most important emporium on the peninsula at that time . The inhabitants of the city should offer all Venetians protection from violence and at the same time legal protection, in short: "salvare et defensare". Then they should renew the homagium every year. In addition, the Doge honoris causa received 100 amphorae of wine as thanks for its protection and for the freedom of trade within the Venetian ducate.

Precisely because of these provisions, the character of this contract remains unclear, because between homagium, friendship and formal obligation, obligation to pay tribute, between vasallite relationship, or from the perspective of Capodistria a seniorate , but also as a place of considerable independence remaining in the Regnum Italicum , there remains a broad one Field of classification and interpretation. This has not been sufficiently taken into account in historiography. In any case, this is seen as the starting point of Venetian rule on Istria, and thus the long-term development of a colonial empire . The margrave was also forced to call the mediation of Marinus, the Patriarch of Grado . A year later, on March 12, 933, the margrave swore the return to the status quo ante in the presence of the bishops and envoys from Pola and Capodistria, but also from Trieste , Muggia , Pirano , Cittanova and Caorle . Venice enshrined the safety of goods and people on Istria, the return of all sequestered goods, the revocation of all unjustly imported loads and finally the protection of shipping. One of the reasons for the confrontation was the weakness of the Regnum Italicum in this area, so that Venice had to enforce its own claims.

In contrast, the authenticity of a letter from June 932 is controversial. In this joint letter from Peter, "imperialis consul et senator atque dux Veneticorum", and Marinus, the said Patriarch of Grado, as well as other bishops, to King Henry I as well Hildebert , the archbishop of Mainz, and the bishops present at the synod received an admonition from the doge to force the baptism of the Jews in his kingdom according to the Byzantine model or to enforce their expulsion. In addition, the trade in cult objects or holy metals should be prohibited. Venice may have tried to eliminate the Jews as trade competitors. The starting point of the letter was supposed to be a dispute between Jews and Christians that supposedly took place in Jerusalem . In order to be able to determine the winner of a dispute, the ruling sultan closed a church and a synagogue to wait for a divine sign. This was done so drastically - the church was illuminated without human intervention, Christ himself was hanging on the cross - that many Jews became confused, some converted to Christianity. According to the will of the Jerusalem Patriarch, the East Frankish king was to order the baptism of all Jews in his kingdom. Roberto Cessi , however, questioned the authenticity of this letter. Through the contained therein

Similar to Istria, Venice also cracked down on competitors on the west bank of the Adriatic. Under the pretext that some Venetici had been attacked by "Comaclensis insule homines", the Doge had the Comacchio there attacked. Venice had previously tried to acquire the competitor with the help of the Pope, because Comacchio controlled access to the Po river system , the most important waterway in northern Italy. This attack took place at an unknown point in time, which destroyed the city's castellum . The population living outside was deported until the fortress, which was difficult to conquer, surrendered and the deported men and women, as Andrea Dandolo expressly says, had sworn an oath.

Like most of his predecessors in office, Peter II also sent his son of the same name to Constantinople . As usual, he received numerous gifts, but it is not clear whether he received the title of protospatharius this time as well . It is true that Johannes Diaconus says: "Petrus Candianus dux, suum dilectum equivocum filium Constantinopolim ad Constantinum et Romano imperatores transmisit, a quibus protospatharius effectus, cum maximis donis ad Veneciam rediit" (p. 133) - the Doge has his eponymous, He sent his beloved son to Constantinople to Constantinos and Romanos, from whom he, elevated to Protospatharios, returned to Venice with extremely generous gifts. But some historians apply the title to the father, not the son. This is due to the fact that the third Candiano does not have the aforementioned title in the documents that have survived. If one follows this assumption, one would have to regard the trip to Constantinople as one of the first political acts of Candiano, because in the Promissio of the Capodistrians of January 14, 932 he is already referred to as "protospatarius et gloriosus Veneticorum dux".

In contrast to foreign policy, little is known about the Doge's “domestic policy”. Due to important men in the highest clerical positions, such as the Gradensian Patriarch Marinus, or another Peter, son or nephew of the Doge Peter Tribune , who acted as Bishop of Olivolo , he showed no ambition to change this constellation in favor of his family. He also continued the tradition that had existed since the aforementioned Doge of no longer placing his own son as a fellow Doge. Johannes Diaconus thinks that he ruled his people (“populum”) according to the example of “predecessoris sui”. It cannot be completely dismissed, however, that the usual visit of the son of the Dog to the Byzantine Emperor was connected with the highest honorary title after the Doge, as Carlo Guido Mor assumed. In fact, the tradition of appointing a son as co-regent cannot be substantiated between the first and third Candiano doges. On the other hand, the People's Assembly seems to have regained greater weight on the question of the appointment of a new Doge. Furthermore, the Dogen sons were given the extremely responsible task of maintaining the delicate relationship with the imperial court. But the son of Ursus II Particiaco, Peter, who had also received the title of Protospatharius in Constantinople , was neither raised to be a fellow doge, nor did he immediately follow his father in office. Only the third Candiano took up this tradition again, albeit only formally and in accordance with the will of the people. There was no agreement in the doge election during the entire reign and until his death in 939. Ironically, after Petrus II Candiano, who might have forced his predecessor to abdicate, the son of the fallen man succeeded him in the office of Doge.

reception

For 14th century Venice, the interpretation given to the reign of the second Petrus Candiano was symbolic in several ways. The focus of the Chronicle of Doge Andrea Dandolo perfectly represents the views of the long-established political leadership bodies that have steered historiography especially since this Doge. His work was repeatedly used as a template by later chroniclers and historians. The focus was always on the questions of the political independence between the disintegrating empires, but also of their noticeable resurgence under Peter II, then the law from its own roots, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of their claim to territorial and maritime domination. Because Venice was forced to act very independently in a politically fragmented environment at this time. The legitimation of the beginning colonization of the eastern Adriatic played an essential role, because these areas were claimed by the Carolingians and their successors as well as later by the Ottonians . With this, Venice encroached on imperial territory permanently . At the same time, it became apparent that the dioceses of the Ducat Venice would play an essential role in this.

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo, from the late 14th century, presents the processes, as does Andrea Dandolo, on a level that has long been common at this time and is dominated by individuals, which once again gave the Doges greater power. However, the actual decision-making processes remain in the dark. According to this chronicle, which reports only laconically about the Doge, his father obtained "Piero, fiolo de meser Domenego Tribun" - the rule "a clamor di tuto il povolo", while Piero II. Became "per lo povolo promovesto". The chronicle describes the conflict over Capodistria as one of the two events mentioned in it during his reign. The second is the return of his son of the same name from Constantinople - there he negotiated contracts - who was able to present rich gifts in Venice. Piero II died after four years and was buried with great honor.

Pietro Marcello also reports rather briefly . In 1502, in his work later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , he led the Doge in the section “Pietro Candiano, Doge XVIII.” He ruled “doppo la casciata d'Orso”, i.e. after the 'expulsion of Ursus' . Marcello writes, 'It is said' that many women who went to San Pietro di Castello to marry were robbed by Capodistrians. The Doge succeeded in capturing many of the men in the swamps near Caorle, where they were 'cut to pieces' (“tagliati a pezzi”) and thrown into the sea. Until the Chioggia War , the author says, games known as "delle Marie" were celebrated in memory of this victory, and the Doge led a procession to Santa Maria Formosa . However, according to the author, some claim that the battle took place during the times of the "Badoero". Marcello reports only laconically about the fight for Comacchio: "hebbesi vittoria contra gli huomini di Comachio, & Comachio fu preso", meaning that a victory over the Comacchians was achieved and the city was taken.

The work of Gian Giacomo Caroldo, completed in 1532 (the Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 ) reports on the Doge "Pietro Candiano 2 °, Duce 19", the son of "Pietro Candiano Duce, morto da Schiavoni". In Constantinople, the son of the new Doge received the title of “prothospatario” and confirmation of the privileges, as well as rich gifts with which he returned to Venice. Capodistria had to "con promissione d'esser ubidienti alli mandati Ducali" - under oath - to fit in with the rulership of Venice. "Aldeberto et Ioanni Scavino Faragario" offered 100 amphorae of wine in the name of the city, in addition the city wanted to be "perpetuamente non solo confederata, mà tributaria al Veneto Ducato", so not only allies, but "tribute-payers". However, "Imiterio Marchese" wanted to impose additional taxes and burdens on the Venetians, whereupon the Doge blocked access to Venice for the Istrians and forbade the Venetians to trade there. With the mediation of the Patriarch "Marin Contarini" the Doge could be persuaded to withdraw this provision. The margrave wanted to pick up the burdens again and defend the Venetian traders in the future. During this time, according to the chronicler, the Doge's son brought "i corpi di San Saturniano et di Nicodemo et il capo di San Romano, all'hora portati a Venetia, nella Chiesa di Santa Maria Formosa ". So he brought the relics of St. Saturninus and Nicodemus and the head of St. Romanus to Venice in the said church. The Doge died in the seventh year of his reign.

In the Chronica published in 1574, this is Warhaffte actual and short description, all the lives of the Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner in Venice , who based on Pietro Marcello made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking area, is "Peter Candian the Eighteenth Hertzog". Kellner mentions the year 920 as the point in time at which "Peter Candianus Hertzog was pebbled", whereby he, like Marcello, classifies it in time: "After Orsus was chased away". This Orsus or Ursus was not "chased away" at all, but resigned and went to the monastery - whether voluntarily is however controversial. Kellner also mentions that the new doge was a son of the doge " Peter Candian ", who "died on the sea in Dalmatia". “They say”, Kellner leads on to the said robbery of a wedding party “to S.Petro di Castello”, which “should have been committed by the Jstrians or Jllyricans”. Pietro II Candiano captured the robbers at the “Caorler See”, “and they are all hewn into pieces and thrown into the sea”. As a reminder of this, “games were held annually / they are called our Frauwen game.” However, these were discontinued after the “Genoese War” - which is probably the Chioggia War . “However, this hour is kept bit by bit / that on Liechtmeß / or Purificationis Marie day / the Hertzog with the whole Raht / or the whole rulership of Venice / the church / to the beautiful dear Frauwen called / visit / or usually visit. “After this insertion, the author mentions that“ some write ”that the battle did not take place in Candiano's time, but in“ Badoer's time ”. “They also want to say that around the time Illyria will come under the Duchy of Venice”, adding 100 barrels of wine “as tribute or treasure” had to be paid. In addition, Comacchio was conquered. The doge also died here in the 7th year of his reign.

In the translation by Alessandro Maria Vianolis Historia Veneta , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Herthaben Leben / Government, und Die Die / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the doge “Petrus II. Candianus, called the Nineteen Hertzog ”. He was elected in 932 and intended from the start to "take over" Capodistrias. In addition, during the reign of the Doge, he only reports on the robbery of women: "From ancient times it was a practice / to make the people happy and to cheer them up / that annually / from the general cassa, twelve maidens were married", whereby each of them, richly decorated, was solemnly "entrusted to their loved one" in Castello. When men kidnapped the women on January 31, this time from Trieste, a fleet led by the Doge followed them, which brought them to Caorle and won. The return of the abductees was celebrated in the form of “our women's games” until the Chioggia war.

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart wrote laconically in his work Kurtze and an enlarged description of the origin / reception / areas / and government of the world-famous republic of Venice : “In the year 920. (XVIII.) Hertzog Petrus Candianus became the other / of the previous Petri Candiani son; this was the first / so the Venetian rule in Liburnia and Dalmatia was extended / and the Venetians now began / to become even powerful on the sea; because the city of Genoa in particular was plundered by the Saracens / and vastly destroyed. ”One of the main reasons for the rise of Venice was the destruction of Genoa by the Saracens. According to the author, the Venetians only went to sea "because they had little or almost nothing to say on the western land". But then they no longer only bought goods for their own needs, but others began to buy in Venice as well. The Venetians increasingly turned to war, as they “took over a lot of seaports” in Greece and Syria and “became very powerful on water and land”.

According to Johann Friedrich LeBret , whose four-volume state history of the Republic of Venice appeared from 1769, “the people chose Peter Candiano”. "Immediately after his ascension to the throne" he sent his son to Constantinople, who, richly gifted and endowed with the title of "Protospatarius", "went back to Venice with great pleasure". The author stated that "the more the Greek Empire lost its inner strength, the more wasteful it had become to share imperial titles with foreign princes". Whereas in the past they only honored ruling princes with such titles, their sons now also received such awards. “The first reason to take up arms were the cunning pirates of Narenta”, when, according to the author, it was these who stole the fiancé: “The Corsairs, some of whom claimed to be Istrians, came up with this one Opportunity to serve and to catch a rich catch. ”“ The Doge considered this the greatest disgrace that could have met his people ”. An act of revenge followed, because he attacked them “in the canals of Caorle”, and “he had them all cut down, their bodies thrown into the sea, triumphed in Venice, and brought back all treasures and prisoners with him. "Since then, as the author claims," ​​until our times "(then again only until the Chioggia War), the" Festival of the Married "has been celebrated. The most zealous among the liberators were "mostly artists and craftsmen from the parish of St. Mary the Beautiful" who, when asked what wages they wanted, hoped the Doge and his council would visit their church every year. Then the author turns to the war with Comacchio, whose inhabitants committed “some violence” against the Venetians. Since an earlier attempt to acquire Comacchio, the Comacchians hated the Venetians. When they captured some of them, and the Doge unsuccessfully requested their extradition, Venice attacked Comacchio. The fortress was destroyed and the inhabitants were held captive in Venice until they swore the Doge to recognize him as the "overlord". "The negligence of the oldest historians has not given us as much light on this matter as it was necessary to put beyond doubt the rule of the Pope and the transfer of it to the Venetians." Similarly, Venice filled the power vacuum in Istria that was created by the Byzantine weakness had arisen. The Capodistrier in Venice could import and export goods duty-free. The Doge had given them preferential treatment, and “they asked this prince for the honor of being permanent allies of the Venetian people.” However: “The Margrave of Istria, Winter, had imposed intolerable duties on the Venetian merchants”, and also theirs He awarded goods in Istria with "the toughest taxes". The subsequent first trade blockade, which Venice carried out, forced the margrave to give in. The Doge died after a "glorious reign of seven years". The author cites the contract with Capodistria for the first time in full in a footnote; he himself “saw it after Count Carli Rubi informed us of the same” (p. 193 f., Note 3).

In the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia in 1853 , Samuele Romanin describes the reign of Pietros II Candiano in the first of the ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia , but without considering the history of the constitution, with less detail, but deeper embedded in the historical context of the neighboring territories . According to Romanin, in the first year of his reign the Doge had the opportunity to sign 'an honorable and advantageous contract with the inhabitants of Capodistria'. This relationship between the lagoon and the peninsula dates back to Roman times when the two areas were part of a single province. They came together under the supremacy of the Diocese of Grado in 732 and Orso I. Particiaco had defended them against the attacks of the Slavic pirates. Now they asked for a contractual agreement, which the Doge granted. But “Wintkero marchese” ruling in the name of King Hugo of Provence , this agreement was displeasing. He had the goods of Venice confiscated in his area, as well as those of the Patriarch of Grado and other churches. Finally he had some Venetian ships arrested and their crew killed. Thereupon Venice began a 'sea blockade' (“blocco maritimo”), which forced the margrave to give in. He had to find himself willing to make humiliating agreements, as the author thinks, but the main aim was to restore the status quo and make amends. A payment of 100 libra "purest gold" was set as a fine (the document reads "auri fulvi"). Venice acted similarly humiliating towards Comacchio, which had been destroyed fifty years earlier. King Hugo was too busy with other disputes to be able to intervene on behalf of his subjects. The author sees one of the main causes in central and northern Italy in the work of three women who used their beauty to have a political effect, namely "Ermenegarda, daughter of Margrave Adalbert" and "Teodora and Mariuccia" in Rome, who created their own popes ( especially Adalbert II. , Theodora and Marozia ). Romanin sees the deepest moral decline and the resulting political chaos at this time. In the south of the peninsula, Muslims and Christians, Byzantines and Lombards fought each other. King Hugo tried to consolidate his rule through contacts with Heinrich I , who, however, had enough tasks himself in Eastern Franconia , and Byzantium, where Romanos I seized power until Constantine was finally able to rule independently from 945 to 959. At the beginning of the reign the Doge had sent his son to this emperor, who had returned with privileges and the title of Protospatharios.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) proceeded quite differently . In his history of Venice from its founding to 1084 , which only appeared eleven years after his death, he assumes that Byzantium still exercised the greatest influence in the lagoon, which is reflected in many details. Gfrörer is certain that the stays of the Dogensons, including Pietros, were only used to "serve as a scourge of the loyalty of their fathers and to be taken to school". Since the Doge's father had died 45 years earlier, Gfrörer suspects that Pietro II Candiano “was at least 50 years old” at the time of his election. According to Gfrörer, the embassy of his son proves that “the Byzantine court approved the election of Peter II Candiano”. In his opinion, the son of a Dog stayed in the Byzantine capital for two years. Quoting Andrea Dandolo, who also regarded violent subjugation, the appointment of consuls, and forced alliances as a means by which the Doge "extended the rule of the Venetians over the neighboring peoples", are the starting point of his presentation for Gfrörer. After Dandolo, the Comacchier had captured some Venetians, whereupon the Doge burned the city down and killed most of the inhabitants. He had the rest of them swear the said oath before releasing them again. According to Gfrörer, the Comacchians had fallen away from their oath of subjects of around 882. Gfrörer then quotes the document with which Capodistria allied itself in translation (p. 232 f.). According to her, he dates the document, issued in the name of King Hugo, to January 14, 932, but emphasizes by blocking that the agreements only referred to the doge's lifetime. The 58 signatories and the 20 named in the text belonged, according to Gfrörer, to the Great Council of Justinopolis / Capodistria. By this kind of voluntary agreement and by issuing the document in the name of the king, Capodistria and Venice avoided the impression that Venice had occupied imperial territory. Conversely, so Gfrörer speculates, the Doge tried to create a means of pressure inwardly by linking his lifetime with which his family could be seen as a decisive factor in keeping the contract, and thus a means of convincing the Venetians to leave the Doge title with the Candiano . From the fact that the Doge already held the title of Protospatarius at this point in time, Gfrörer concluded that there was a strong influence on the choice of the Doge and that the Emperor confirmed the Dogate. The author regards the margrave's struggle with Venice as a kind of unsuccessful resistance. The blockade showed that Istria “could no longer exist” without the Venetian trade. Gfrörer also quotes the content of the corresponding document of March 12, 933 in translation (p. 237 f.). It stipulated, among other things, that the Venetians were allowed to have their property in Istria administered by their own officials, plus judicial help with debt collection, which the Istrian courts subordinated to those of Venice in such cases, the repeal of the most recent taxes and that peace should now reign with Venice and, if the king should do anything about Venice, the Venetians there should be warned so that they can return to the lagoon. Gfrörer regards this as high treason. Gfrörer interprets the goods partly as a kind of "chamber goods" that apparently belonged to the Doge's palace, the "palatium ducis", as it is called in the document. A connection to the Doge's lifetime no longer appears here, as Gfrörer suspects, against the Doge's resistance. Even if, as Gfrörer believes, he deserves Andrea Dandolo's praise, "Peter Candiano's effectiveness is cut off, although he lived until 939 and remained Doge". Since Gfrörer insists that the son of the Doge had returned only after two years from Konstantin Opel (s. Pinton), and this coincides in time with the inaction of the Father, this is all again a proof that Venice Transfer from the Golden Horn have received . Byzantium was a doge “who spread so boldly”, by no means right. The expression in Dandolo that 939 "Petrus Badoario dux decernitur", that is, it was a resolution, also indicates the strong influence of Constantinople for Gfrörer.

Pietro Pinton, who translated and annotated Gfrörer's work in the Archivio Veneto in the annual volumes XII to XVI, corrected his idea of ​​an overly strong influence of Byzantium. His own account was published in 1883, also in the Archivio Veneto. She came to very different results. On the basis of a document dated January 14, 932, Pinton refutes Gfrörer's assumption of a longer interregnum according to Pietro Tribuno, from which the Austrian had derived hard conflicts, since this would be reduced to a few months by recalculating the years of rule. For Pinton, the Sons of the Doge did not travel to the court in Constantinople, primarily to pay homage to the Emperor and to receive great gifts and titles, or, as Gfrörer claims, to find themselves there as hostages with whom Byzantium controlled the Doges, but mainly to renew trade privileges. The two-year stay of the son of Doge Pietro II Candiano at court, cited by Gfrörer as evidence, appears in the older chronicler Johannes Diaconus after the expedition against Comacchio and after the death of Bishop Domenico Orciano von Olivolo, i.e. around 934. This also marks this long stay reduced to a few weeks or months. This error is due to Andrea Dandolo, who did not know the Capodistria document and its date, and therefore when he took office, he came to the year 932, not 931, as the treaty with the Istrians shows. Accordingly, the Doge ruled eight years, not as Dandolo claims, only seven. The “consules” cited by Gfrörer also turn out to be a mistake in the Muratori edition, which Gfrörer also overinterprets, where it says “censuales” in the code (p. 304). In Pinton's opinion, the Austrians interpreted the rule of Venice as the conquest of imperial territory, which, however, did not fit in with the five-year contracts with the rulers there, such as that of 950. In addition, half of the fines for infringement went to King Hugo, which was considered to be king chief judge pass. The only new thing compared to previous agreements was that the Venetians should be warned in the event of hostilities by the King of Italy. For Pinton, however, this was more an act of loyalty to the landlords on the peninsula, including ecclesiastical and political caution - at least no betrayal of secrets. In Dandolo's “Petrus Badoario dux decernitur” Gfrörer also interpreted too much “Sibylline” into it.

In 1861 Francesco Zanotto had reported in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , in which he granted the popular assembly considerably more influence, that the Doge had come into office by unanimous vote. While “tempi calamitosi” prevailed all around, Venice lived in peace. So the Doge just had to continue the politics of his predecessors. Istria wanted to join Venice of its own accord, but "Wintkero", Margrave in the name of King Hugo, wanted revenge as a barbarian, even forbade the Istrians from all trade, attacked ships and murdered their crew. Such an injustice would have deserved to take up arms, according to Zanotto, but the wise doge preferred the blockade. This resulted in a humiliating negotiation, and showed the power Venice had risen to. However, this policy did not affect Comacchio. When there was no response to a request for reparation for damage caused, Venice subjugated the city with a fleet of light ships. The chronicle of Johannes Diaconus (at that time still called “la Sagornina”) notes that the son of the Dog went to Constantinople to negotiate the renewal of privileges. Some report, as Zanotto says, the abduction of the said fiancé for the time afterwards. Otherwise there was nothing more to report; The chroniclers Johannes Diaconus, Andrea Dandolo and Martino da Canal would have ignored or forgotten other important facts . On the question of whether the kidnappers were men from Trieste or Narentans, the historians disagree. The Porta delle Donzelle on the Lidi of Caorle reminds of the kidnapping . The kidnappers were killed, their ships burned and the booty brought back. A celebration had been celebrated that was repeated every year and became more and more elaborate - until it was banned in the Chioggia War in 1379.

In the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , published in 1867, Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna recorded the son of the 19th Doge of the same name, "Pietro Candiano II". Sent 'immediately' (“immedamente”) to Constantinople. Here, too, the Istrians voluntarily submitted to Venice, but the margrave in his anger resisted it, albeit in vain. So he had to accept humiliating terms in the negotiations on Rialto . Comacchio, where Venetians were imprisoned, was burned down by the Doge. He brought some of its inhabitants to Venice and kept them there until the said oath - Venice demanded him “fedeltà” “al veneto imperio”. When the fiancé was kidnapped, the historians disagreed as to where the perpetrators came from. Triestines, Narentans, Istrians were named; in any case, they fled to Caorle. The Venetians, shaken by their rapid success, 'tore them to pieces'. Here, too, the subsequent festivity is assigned by historians to different doges, such as the Tribuni, Pietro Tradonico , Orso II. Particiaco, or the two subsequent doges. The Candiano died, 'loved by his own, honored and feared by strangers' (“amato da'suoi, onorato e temuto da'forestieri”).

For Heinrich Kretschmayr , “Petrus Candianus II” was “without a doubt already a man in advanced years when he was elected; but his regiment reveals a youthful, energetic manner. After the consolidation of the last years of calm, Venice is beginning to take hold. ”Kretschmayr sees the capture of“ a Venetian ”by Comacchio as a mere pretext for destroying the city's fortifications and for kidnapping many residents and to force the city to recognize its supremacy. The author recognizes, however, that the supremacy could not have lasted, because in the Pactum Otto I of 967 the "Comachenses" are listed as loyal to the regnum. But the city's economic importance was broken. Venice is also firmly established in Istria, where many Venetians were wealthy. "The official affiliation to the Regnum Italiae since Charlemagne did not care much for the Venetians." According to Kretschmayr, the aforementioned provisions on Capodistria were fixed and expanded in October 977, and they still existed in 1074. "It was a barely veiled submission . ”“ On March 12, 933, Margrave Günter of Istria, Bishop Johann von Pola and other Istrian bishops confessed that they and their people had wrongly violated Venetian property in Istria, and that their compatriots were illegally withheld from paying their compatriots to Venice, and that the Venetians living in Istria were through illegal taxes pressed and violence exercised against them, their own, against Venetian ships ... "Kretschmayr sums up:" Istria seems so dependent on Venice that the rulers there are buying the lifting of a trade ban at the price of a humiliation touching treason are willing. ”Venice transformed economic dependence into ecclesiastical and political around. The author considers the attack on the fiancée and the massacre of the kidnappers near Caorle to be "invented". In contrast to Roberto Cessi, Kretschmayr considers the letter to King Heinrich, which dealt with the question of the compulsory baptism of Jews, to be genuine and at the same time to be extremely foresighted with regard to the future role of the Liudolfinger: “a peculiar testimony to the great Venice's mediating position between the far east and the most distant west ”. In addition, Kretschmayr asks the question whether “a forced baptism of the Jews took place in Venice”.

In his History of Venice , for John Julius Norwich, the Candiani dominate over 44 years of Venice's history. All four doges in this family were called "confusingly" Pietro, they had more energy than their contemporaries, they were more aggressive, more self-confident, and arrogant. The second of them, Pietro II to be treated here, began, barely on the throne, a blockade war against Istria, and after an insignificant diplomatic incident, had Comacchio burned to the ground. Norwich does not seem to be newsworthy any more.

swell

Narrative sources

• 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) of the University of Siena), p. 152, [44.] (“quidam nobilissimus Petrus, cognomento Candianus, ducatum suscipiens, nihilominus sui decessoris exemplo subditum sibi populum tractare conatus est”).
• 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. 132 f., 178 (“Catalogo dei dogi ") ( 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. 170-172 ( digitized, pp. 170 f. )

Legislative sources, letters

• Roberto Cessi (Ed.): Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille , 2 vol., Vol. II, Padua 1942, n. 35, pp. 52-55 ( Promissio dei Capodistriani ) and n. 36, p. 55 -59 ( Promissio Wintherii de rebus Istriensibus ).
• Promissio Wintherii de rebus Istriensibus of March 12, 933 ( Regest (Italian) and transcription , Centro interuniversitario per la storia e l'archeologia dell'alto medioevo).
• Petri ducis Venetiarum Epistola , in: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Constitutiones et Acta publica Imperatorum et Regum , I, Ed. L. Weiland, Hannover 1893, p. 6 f.
• Fritz Weigle (ed.): The letters of Bishop Rather of Verona , Monumenta Germaniae Historica, The letters of the German Empire , I, Weimar 1949, n. 3, pp. 21-27 ("Rather to (the Dogen) Petrus (II .) from Venice: speaks to him who wants to go to the monastery about the monastic duties ”). ( Digitized version of the edition )
• Gottlieb Lukas Friedrich Tafel , Georg Martin Thomas (ed.): Documents on the earlier commercial and state history of the Republic of Venice , Vienna 1856, in: Fontes Rerum Austriacarum , Dept. II. Diplomataria et Acta , 3 vol., Vol. 1: 814 -1205 , Vienna 1856, n. XV, pp. 31-35 ( Pactum Justinopolitanum ). ( Digital copy, p. 30 f. )

literature

• Margherita Giuliana Bertolini: Candiano, Pietro , in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Vol. 17, 1974, 757–761 (forms the basis of the presentation part)
• Adolf Fanta: The contracts of the emperors with Venice up to the year 983 , in: Communications of the Institute for Austrian Historical Research, supplementary volume 1 (1885) 51–128, p. 115 digitized
• Ludo Moritz Hartmann : Comacchio and the Po trade , in: Ders .: On the economic history of Italy in the early Middle Ages , Analekton, Gotha 1904, pp. 74–90.

Web links

• Petrus Candianus in the repertory "Historical Sources of the German Middle Ages"

Remarks

1. ↑ Even if Roberto Cessi questioned this relationship in some of his publications, an agreement with Capodistria of January 14, 932 is sufficient evidence.
2. ↑ "Ursus dux, dum ducatum annis gereret XX, iam senex effectus, terrena penitus parvi pendens coenobitalemque habitum in sancti Felicis monasterio submissive suscipiens, ibi vitam finivit".
3. ↑ Both quotations from La cronaca veneziana del diacono Giovanni , in: Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia [Medio Evo], IX), Rome 1890, p. 132 f.
4. ↑ The conflict was already portrayed in 1906 by Adolf Schaube : Trade history of the Romanesque peoples of the Mediterranean area up to the end of the Crusades , published in Munich on p. 8 ( digitized version , p. 8 ); Italian: Storia del commercio dei popoli latini del Mediterraneo sino alla fine delle crociate , Turin 1915.
5. ^ Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale , vol. I: Duca e popolo , Venice 1963, p. 311; Suzanne Mariko Miller: Venice in the East Adriatic. Experiences and Experiments in Colonial Rule in Dalmatia and Istria (c. 1150-1358) , Stanford University, 2007, p. 53.
6. ↑ Promissio Wintherii de rebus Istriensibus of March 12, 933 ( Regest (ital.) And transcription , Centro interuniversitario per la storia e l'archeologia dell'alto medioevo).
7. ^ Bernhard Blumenkranz : Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental 430-1096 , Paris-La Haye 1960, reprint 2006, pp. 102, 284 f.
8. ^ Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale , vol. I, p. 314 f.
9. ↑ For example in the Carta promissionis of Patriarch Lupus II of Aquileia of March 13, 944, as Monticolo already noted in a footnote to the edition; Roberto Cessi: Politica, economia e religione , in: Storia di Venezia , Vol. II, Venice 1958, p. 200 and Ders .: Venezia ducale , Vol. I, n. 4, p. 314. By contrast, Carlo Guido Mor : L 'età feudale , 2 vols., Milan 1952, vol. I, n.3, p. 282 ff.
10. ^ Carlo Guido Mor: Aspetti della vita costituzionale veneziana fino alla fine del X secolo , in: Le origini di Venezia , Florence 1964, p. 129.
11. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 41 f.
12. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation by Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp. 31-33 ( digitized ).
13. ↑ 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. 68 f. ( online ).
14. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 12r – v ( digitized, p. 12r ).
15. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Hertsehen Leben / Government, und die Nachsterben / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, pp. 123-128, translation ( digitized ).
16. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 22 f. ( Digital copy, p. 22 ).
17. ↑ 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 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, Leipzig and Riga 1769, pp. 191–194 ( digitized version ).
18. ^ 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. 228–232 ( digitized version ).
19. ↑ August Friedrich Gfrörer : History of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084. Edited from his estate, supplemented and continued by Dr. JB Weiß , Graz 1872, pp. 230–248 ( digitized version ).
20. ↑ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto 25.2 (1883) 288-313, here: pp. 303-308 (part 2) ( digitized version ).
21. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo Ducale di Venezia , Vol 4, Venice 1861, pp 44-46 (. Digitalisat ).
22. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
23. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 105-108.
24. ^ John Julius Norwich : A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.

predecessor	Office	successor
Orso II. Particiaco	Doge of Venice 932-939	Pietro Badoer