Tribuno Memmo

The coat of arms of the “Tribun Tribun”, as it was imagined in the 17th century. The coats of arms of the early medieval Doges are mere rear projections of much younger family coats of arms. The Heraldry began only in the third quarter of one of the 12th century. Later coats of arms were also given to the early Doges who never had a coat of arms (“fanta-araldica”); this served to relate the families of this epoch to the earliest possible doges, which gave them prestige as well as political and social influence. So the coats of arms of the much later descendants of these Doges were projected back onto the alleged or actual members of the families that had ruled Venice (allegedly) since 697.

Tribuno Memmo († 991 in Venice ), also called Tribuno Menio , was her 25th doge according to the traditionally described, state-controlled historiography of the Republic of Venice . He ruled from November 979 to 991. In the sources he appears as Tribunus Memus or Menius .

Tribuno Memmo was a compromise candidate on which the two warring camps of the Candiano and the Orseolo, who were oriented towards Byzantium , agreed. The twelve years of his rule were among the most difficult in the lagoon city: exposed from the outside to the threats and desires of annexation of the Roman-German emperor , at whose court the influential Caloprini fled, involved in disputes with the Pope over controversial legal titles, raged bitterly in the city itself Fight between noble families. He was overthrown when he appeared to be partisan in these battles.

family

The Memmo were among the oldest Venetian noble families, the twelve so-called apostolic families . The Doge Tribuno Memmo emerged from the family and the Doge Marcantonio Memmo emerged from a side branch .

Tribuno Memmo was married to Maria, daughter of Doge Pietro IV Candiano, who was murdered in 976 . The couple had a son named Mauritius (Maurizio).

The Doge's Office

When Memmo was elected in November 979, the Doge's Palace , which had been badly damaged by a city fire in 976, was still being rebuilt. The Doge had to stay in his own house until it was completed shortly before the end of his tenure.

One of his most important actions, symptomatic of Venice's relationship to the papal power in Rome, was the declaration of St. Mark's Basilica as the palace chapel of the Doges “libera dall'asservimento alla Santa Madre Chiesa” (“free from bondage to the Holy Mother Church”). A priest was appointed by Venice for sacred services. All attempts by Rome to bring San Marco back under papal sovereignty ( subdita papae ) failed.

Aerial view of today's island of San Giorgio Maggiore, looking north

Bust of the Doge on the facade of San Giorgio Maggiore designed by Andrea Palladio , created by Giulio Angolo del Moro ( f. 1555–1618), 1618 at the latest

In December 982 Giovanni Morosini, who had meanwhile become a Benedictine , who had fled to a monastery in Catalonia with his father-in-law and former Doge Pietro Orseolo in 978 and had now returned, received from the Doge permission to found a monastery on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore . The island belonged to the Markuskirche , which was withdrawn from church sovereignty. The land on which the monastery was to be built belonged to the Doge's Palace .

Negotiations with Emperor Otto II turned out to be extremely difficult, and he showed little inclination to extend Venice's treaties with the Roman-German Empire . It was only after his mother Adelheid intervened that the young emperor reluctantly confirmed Venice's privileges. When tensions between the Caloprini and the Morosini broke out a short time later in Venice and Dominicus, a member of the Morosini, was murdered, the Caloprini family fled to the emperor's court in Verona . Their chief Stefano Caloprini offered the emperor to subordinate Venice to him if he became doge himself. Otto took this as a welcome opportunity to set up a trade blockade against the city, which, it is claimed, lasted two years. To counterbalance the empire, the Doge sent his son Mauritius to Constantinople , but he was unable to obtain the usual titles and awards there. Otto's attempt to starve Venice only ended after the Emperor's death on December 7, 983. The Caloprini, whose head had also died in the meantime, returned to Venice. There three of his sons were attacked by four Morosini on their way home from the Doge's Palace and murdered in revenge.

When Tribuno Memmo fell ill, the People's Assembly took this as an opportunity to remove the Doge, who was suspected of being involved in the factional fighting. He retired as a monk in the monastery of San Zaccaria , where he died a little later. He was buried in San Giorgio Maggiore , where his epitaph is on the far left of the facade. His grave has not been preserved. On his return, his son Mauritius was also forced to go to the monastery. The Doge did not write himself; instead of his signature, documents were signed with his signum manus (= sign of the hand ) and the signature of a notary.

reception

The comparatively long reign of the Tribunus Memmus was of considerable importance for the relationship with the Ottonians, even if the decisive course was only set by his successor. For Venice in the 14th century, the interpretation given to its rule was accordingly of the highest symbolic importance in the continuum of external disputes, but also internal ones, both of which reached a climax at this time. The focus of the Chronicle of Doge Andrea Dandolo represents in perfect form the views of the political leadership bodies that have long been firmly established in the middle of the 14th century and which have steered historiography especially since this Doge. His work was repeatedly used as a template by later chroniclers and historians, so it became extremely dominant in the ideas of Venetian history before its time. In his work, the focus was on the questions of political independence from the Roman-German Empire, as well as of law from its own roots in general, i.e. the derivation and legitimation of its territorial claim. Therefore, the recognition of the "old treaties" by the western emperors (and kings) was important. The question of the hereditary monarchy, which the Candiano tried to enforce at the time, and which soon became virulent again despite the catastrophe of 976, at the time of Andrea Dandolo was no longer in any way with the interests of the ruling families at that time, but above all with the To bring the state of constitutional development in line. At the same time, the balance between the ambitious and dominant families - in this case the Caloprini and Morosini, but also still the Candiano - remained one of the most important goals, the derivation of the prominent position of the 'nobili' in the state of great importance. The stages of political developments that finally led to the disempowerment of the Doge, who was increasingly assigned representative tasks, but no longer allowed independent decisions, was a further objective of the presentation. Its implementation was comparatively far advanced in the 14th century. Incidentally, the name of the dogal chronicler's wife was Francesca Morosini , which may have influenced his attitude towards the civil war-like fighting between the two extended families.

The oldest vernacular chronicle of Venice, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, depicts the processes, as does Andrea Dandolo, on a level that has long been known by individuals, especially the Doges. These even represent the temporal framework for the entire chronicle. She simply reports on “Tribun Memo” that he came to the “dominio del ducado” after the death of “Vidal”. In his time, "gram discordia" arose between "Morexin et Caloprini". After the murder of "Domenego Morexini", the Caloprini could not oppose their opponents and they had to leave the city. They evaded to the imperial court. In “Alemagna da Octo imperador” - that is, with Emperor Otto - they promised him (“proferando a quello”) “el ducado de Venesia”. The emperor then had Venice blocked. The Venetians also feared him, but “passado puoco tempo elo morì” - the emperor died after a short time. The Caloprini, who had failed with their plan, asked Adelheid to let them go back to Venice, but Stefano died at that time. The rest of the Caloprini fell victim to the Morosini's "vendetta" for the murdered Domenico. The doge had to resign, "constrecto dal povolo", that is, "forced by the people", and go to the monastery of San Zaccaria, where he, who had ruled for 14 years, was also buried.

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

Pietro Marcello said in 1502 in his work later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , the doge "Tribuno Memo Doge XXIIII." Was "huomo molto astuto, ma di pochissime parole". The Doge ruled 'not very happy' and died in great difficulty. Under him the fighting between Coloprini and Morosini intensified so much that they did not even spare children. The Morosini had to give in 'because they weren't that strong', yes, they had to live in different houses with friends. When the Coloprini met Domenico Morosini "per aventura" in the "piazza di Castello" and cruelly murdered him, the family feared the punishment of the city and the doge. Stefano, "capo della fattione", went to Emperor Otto II, who because of the death of Pietro IV Candiano anyway "voleva male à i Venetiani" - he had wanted the Venetians evil because of the said Doge murder of 976. The Coloprini, out of hatred of the Doge, and the Morosini promised "l'imperio di Vinegia", the 'rule over Venice'. Otto forbade the trade with Venetians in all of Italy, they were banned from all cities of the empire, whereupon this "intolerable fame" stood in the house, "unbearable hunger". When "Capo d'Argere" rebelled against Venice and Otto offered the land of the "Loretani" to the leaders of the rebellion, he hoped that this would also induce others to revolt. The houses of the Caloprini in Venice were then destroyed by public decree (“pubblico decreto”), women and children were thrown in prison “posti in prigione”, their property went to the “commune”. Otto did not wage an open war, as Marcello notes. When the emperor went to Rome he fell fatally ill with a fever. 'In this way, the city was freed from great danger by his death.' On the intervention of his widow “Atleta” - theophanu is probably meant - the Coloprini were allowed to return, but four Morosini cruelly killed three of Coloprini's sons on the way back from the Doge's Palace. The Doge apologized publicly to get rid of the suspicion of secret conspiracy with the Morosini, but, as some said, because of his unreasonable (“poco ragionevolmente”) behavior in the “discordie civili” in his 14th year of reign, he had to resign. He became a monk and died after a short time. Others said he was seriously ill and died a few days after he retired.

According to the chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , the new doge was only acclaimed, but he was not “dotato di quella prudenza et prattica delle mondane cose”, so he lacked the skills and experience in dealing with worldly affairs, as a prince needs. For that he was very rich. It came to "insidie ​​al Duce". Between “primarij di Venetia” it came to “non picciol odio et rancore”, especially between the great clans of Caloprini and Morosini. "Steffano Caloprino, con li figliuoli et parenti suoi", with his son and other relatives, tried with all his might to "tagliar a pezzi li Moresini", "to tear the Morosini to pieces", which, however, was resolved by God's will and human could have saved, so that “Dominico Moresini solamente” was murdered on the Campo di San Pietro and “con immenso dolore” - with immeasurable pain - was buried in the monastery of San Zaccaria. Whose "consanguinei" decided to take revenge. Stefano Caloprini, who knew that his family, supported by the Doge, could not resist the Morosini, secretly left the city, together with "Dominico et Steffano suoi figliuoli, Orso Badoaro, Dominico Silvio, Pietro Tribuno, Ioanni Bonato et con molti altri suoi complici ". He and his “complici” went to Otto in Verona, promised him a lot of money if he got Stefano on the Doge's chair and that he could win Venice. In a "publico editto" the emperor decreed that all food deliveries to Venice should be prohibited, which was to be ensured by guards; the Venetian traders were also expelled from the empire. The Venetians, who according to the chronicle wanted to defend their freedom, found themselves in “grand'angustie et miserrimo stato”, so they were probably hungry and in a very bad condition. Cavarzere let himself be driven into revolt by the exiles, submitted to the emperor and received "molte concessioni" in return. The Bishop of Cividale occupied many of the Venetian properties. The Doge had the houses of the rebels ("ribelli") destroyed ("rovinare") and prevented their wives and children from escaping under heavy weapons. The emperor, persistent in his hatred of Venice, died, and Venice was freed from danger. Stefano Caloprino was unable to continue his plans on his own. He asked the Empress to intervene with the Doge on behalf of his family in order to obtain her return home; However, Stefano died a little later. The remaining "essuli" were actually taken up again by the Doge. The Morosini now decided to take revenge. They killed Stefan's three sons when they wanted to return to their house from the Doge's Palace, as they were used to, in a “picciola barcha”, that is, in a small boat. Their bodies were pulled out of the water by “un suo domestico”, brought to their mothers and wives to “con infinite lacrime, ch'empivano il cielo di lamentationi”, “under endless tears that filled the sky with lamentations” San Zaccaria to be buried. The doge's reaction is not clear from the unclear text at this point. In the 13th year the Doge sent his son “Mauritio” to the Byzantine emperors “Basilio et Constantino” “per farsi a loro grato”. The doge became a monk, some say, as the chronicler explicitly writes, 'against his will'. The people wanted to elect a new doge. The doge died after six days and was buried in San Zaccaria. The chronicler then mentions that San Giorgio Maggiore was left to the "Gioanni Moresini Monaco". In addition, the Doge decreed with regard to the church that belonged to St. Mark's Church: “Noi volemo che la detta Chiesa, pertante al Dominio della Chiesa di San Marco, la qual'è nostra Capella et libera dalla servitù della Santa Madre Chiesa, perseveri nell'istessa libertà ”, this church should not be subject to any official duties, and the hospitality should not go beyond what was due to the person who performed the service. The Roman Church should therefore not have access to the Georgskirche.

In the Chronica published in 1574, this is Warhaffte actual and short description, all the lives of the Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner , who based on Pietro Marcello and made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking area, is “Tribun Memus der 24. Hertzog”. He, so "we said / ... was a clever / swift man / but of few words". He ruled with little luck, and the quarrel between the warring families of the Caloprini and the Morosini culminated in several murders. They “did not spare the little underage children either.” “But the Moresini, when they were the weakest” had to hide in the houses of friends, one of them, Dominicus, was murdered by Caloprini in the “Palace Square”. Since the latter feared “that by admitting the force the town would tighten them severely”, they followed their “captain or colonel / this faction called Stephan Caloprini” to the court of Otto II in Verona, and “out of hatred / so they against They had / promised to bring the Hertzog and the Morisini to the Hertzogthumb in Venice. ”They moved the young emperor to“ initially plague Venice with hunger ”. In addition, Otto forbade trade with Venetians for the "entire Roman Empire". As a result, they got “extremely unhappy and intolerable hunger”. But they did not show this and seemed “as if they could suffer all misfortunes in the world / for the sake of freedom.” When the price of prices rose in Venice, “Capo d'argere” fell away from the city and Otto handed over “the The causes and protectors of this upheaval and apostasy "goods of the" Loredanis (which Venetian families are) ". The Venetians, for their part, had the Caloprini's houses torn down, their wives and children were imprisoned “and all their goods were confiscated from the yard”. Otto, who moved to Rome, “does not wage an open war against the Venediger / did not create peace either.” With his death, “the place of a great danger was done away with.” “Atleta”, the emperor's widow, took part Venice from that the caloprini should be resumed. When three sons of "Stephan Caloprin" wanted to "go home" from the palace, they were hewn to pieces by four Morosini. Tribuno Memmo "was very suspicious / that he knew about such a fatal blow / and acted on it", an accusation which he tried to refute by publicly "apologizing" to the people. Immediately afterwards the author adds that after the return of “Johann Moresini”, “who had moved to Gasconia with Orso” (the predecessor Tribuno Memmos had gone to a monastery there after secretly leaving the city), the “Kirch to S. Georgen (which earlier belonged to the Hertierter Palace) / there he built a beautiful monastery / Benedictine order. ”After that, the Doge fell seriously ill and resigned in the 14th year of his rule, whereby Kellner remarked that he was“ unsuccessful will (or as some want / forced by the people to do so / then he had not almost wanted or unfairly shown himself in the bourgeois revolts and disagreements) ”did. This doge also became a monk and died soon afterwards - but this time Kellner does not name the monastery.

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 Erste Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the Doge becomes different by Pietro Marcello, called "Tribunus Memus, The 25th Hertzog". But “the greatest calamity, civil disagreement, if any principality is most pernicious [...] affected this prince to a greater extent right at the beginning of his government; this was the deadly hostility of two of the most distinguished families in the city / namely the Morosine and Caloprinian ", explains Vianoli right at the beginning of the section on the Doges, who" burst into flames "after the murder of Dominicus Morosini (p. 152 f.). Emperor Otto, who "was already determined to go to war against the state because of a number of demands / if one does not comply / had already decided to go to war with the predecessor of the" Tribunus Memus "for" reconciliation "(p. 150), but now they fled Caloprini to his court in Verona. According to Vianoli, they “recommended the Duke and the whole city so badly / that they could not be described / and besides that they promised him all their help / when he would dare / to attack this still untouched virgin / and to marry her to his kingdom. "The emperor was happy to hear this," but did not want to openly cover it with war / but initially plague it with hunger for a good while ". To this end, nobody in the empire should "handle the Venetians / give them some food". The Venetians suffered after a short time, but they hid this "that it appeared / as if they could / could endure every conceivable hardship in the world / half their freedom." But because of hunger, "Capo d'Argere" surrendered. Otto pardoned the rebels in order to persuade the neighboring cities to "follow suit". Out of “distress and fear” Venice had “by a public edict the Caloprinians ruin and tear down their responsible houses / take their wives and children prisoner / and confiscir all their goods”, “so that others should be reflected on it / and should take an example. “The Divine Protection of Innocence” redeemed Venice from danger because Otto died in Rome. “It was afterwards allowed to enter the city again through the negotiation of the emperor who had left his wife (called Attleta) / the Caloprini sons”, but three of the Caloprini sons were called by the Morosini, who had not forgotten the murder of Domenico, “as they wanted to go home from the Princely Palace / attacked / and cut the same pathetic way to pieces ”. The Doge was suspected of having “known of such a death / and having arranged for it himself”. Since the people were "tired of their government", they forced the Doge to resign "by force" and chased him "by force" into the monastery, where he died six days later "of great pain and grief". Finally, Vianoli reports that “Johannes Morosinus”, “who had previously traveled to Gasconia with Orso” (meaning the escape of the predecessor Doge from Venice to a gas-conical monastery), has joined the Benedictine order. Now he received the island of San Giorgio Maggiore from the Doge to found a monastery.

Portrait of Jacob von Sandrart (1630–1708), painter was Johann Leonhard Hirschmann , engraver Bernhard Vogel

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart noted in his Opus Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / territories / and government of the world famous republic of Venice that “In the year 979 (XXIV.) Received the cautious Tribunus Memus, who by his cleverness did not could prevent / that the two noblest generations in Venice / namely the Morosini and Caloprini got into a major enemy. ”According to the author, the Morosini feared that the Doge was“ more favorable to the Caloprini than to them; so they got into arms against each other / and the Caloprini had decided / to kill all the Morosini ”. Because they could only kill one of them, they had to flee the city “and their goods were all confiscated; which happened around the year 900 ”. These "brought so much from the Emperor Otto II. That the Venetians lost all trade; what unrest humiliated them so much that they put the Caloprini back into their previous position by means of a comparison. "When the Morosini murdered three Caloprini," so the common people / who lost a lot / took very badly in the previous unrest / because they imagined / Such would have happened with the Duke's well-being; Then they deposed the same in the 14th year of his government / how others only dedicate him to him for 12 years. "

In the first of the four volumes that Johann Friedrich LeBret published under the title State History of the Republic of Venice , he described the Doge as “a man of the most mediocre character, whom nothing but his great fortune had recommended to his people.” His government was “ one of the most restless because of the internal division of certain sexes ”. LeBret explains how dangerous, at this early time, when the constitution was barely able to tame such conflicts, such disputes could become, especially in a republic. Why the Morosini and the Caloprini hated each other so much is unknown. “The Doge was too weak to settle this argument. He might have declared himself too obviously in favor of one of these houses, so that one of them conspired against the Doge himself. ”“ The matter was discovered ”,“ but it was precisely this that enabled him to step over to the side of the Caloprines, which is why he seemed to justify the law of the fist even among the noble houses ”(p. 227). "Stephanus Caloprinus [...] publicly took up arms. The more confidently he knew that the Doge would protect him, the bolder he grew. His ungodly intention was to kill and exterminate all Morozines in one day. ”Although they got wind of it“ in good time ”, one of them, Dominicus, stopped the Caloprini,“ tortured ”him“ in the most pathetic way ”. "If a landlord in Holland was pitifully hacked up and fleshed to pieces, so did the mob: in Venice nobles did it," the author adds sarcastically. Dominicus passed away "in the hands" of the whole family. “As angry as the enemies of this house were, it has survived to our times; however, since the Coloprinian is no longer thought of. ”Otto II, who after LeBret wanted to subjugate all of Italy, first rushed to Venice. "The Doge Tribunus Memus made every effort to calm the storm that seemed to be gathering against him and his fatherland." He tried to appease the emperor with gifts. At that time he "testified very kindly towards Venice because he needed the help of the Italian estates against the Greeks and Saracens." When he arrived in Rome, the emperor heard that the Saracens and the Greeks had allied themselves, who had ruled Apulia and Wanted to expand Calabria. Otto succeeded in conquering Taranto , but was defeated in an ambush and got back to Verona with great difficulty. About the "author of the Sagornine Chronicle" ( Johannes Diaconus ) "who was closest to these times, and with the Emperor Otto the second, and his son Otto the third, as well as with the Empress Adelheid was in close acquaintance, and at that time to agree State affairs have been used, describes the matter with a natural simplicity, so that I have less hesitation in following his news. "Just after his return the Caloprini appeared in Verona, together with" Ursus Badoer, the Dominicus Silvus, the Peter Tribune, and Johann Lovat ”. Stephanus Caloprini described the Morosini's thirst for vengeance, and “the weakness of the regent, who now declared himself on this side, now on that side, and seemed to justify the special feuds.” He promised that he would “the city of Venice, after its supremacy so far as many emperors had testified to an extraordinary desire, could submit to his bothness ”. As a reward for establishing himself as a doge, he promised the emperor 100 pounds of the finest gold. “Fate seemed to play into the hands of Otto the second that Pipin had taken so much trouble to” (p. 229) - here the son of Charlemagne is meant, Pippin of Italy . Otto ordered a blockade, no one was allowed to enter Venice, no Venetian into the empire, any supply of food was cut off. “This was the most angry attack that an emperor ever had against Venice.” Stephanus Coloprini and his son Dominicus settled in Padua and blocked the Brenta , Ursus Badoer the Adige , Dominicus Silvo and Peter Tribunus guarded the paths and canals around Campalto , "Johannes Banatus, whom de Monachis calls Lovat, prowled everywhere". "In Ravenna itself and at the mouths of the Po, Stephen Coloprinus the younger kept watch". Only the way to Capodistria remained open. “The emperor was happy” when Capo d'Argine surrendered from hunger. "The Bishop of Belluno reached out to the other side and took most of Heraclea or the new city from the Venetians" - here the author probably did not understand the place name Civitas nova as such. “In the center of Venice, however, there was the greatest steadfastness, and the Doge followed the general bitterness of the people”. He declared the Caloprini "enemies of the fatherland", had their wives arrested in order to have a "pledge" in hand, then "destroy the houses and property of the enemy". Otto, for his part, wanted to destroy Venice. "You bathed, you pleaded, but he didn't give a hearing." Even gifts had no effect. LeBret, however, doubted the length of the hunger blockade: “If it is true that Venice endured such a famine for two years, either the Empress Adelheid must have acted with the same severity after the death of Otto the Second, or the emperor's treaty of Junius of the year 983 must be advanced further. ”Even before the emperor traveled to Rome, he ordered not to spare any Venetians in the empire, but to treat them with“ extreme severity ”if one of them was found. Otto's death occupied the historiography: "The historians of this nation, who claim to fathom the mysteries of Providence, say without hesitation that God has shortened his life because of the displacement of Venice", which LeBret refers to in a footnote to the chronicle of John the deacon (P. 230 note 6). In Pavia Adelheid sought to “settle the Coloprini's affair; but they only exposed those they wanted to protect to the anger of their countrymen. ”“ They were nothing more than traitors and enemies of their fatherland. ”After Stephanus Caloprini died, Margrave Hugo mediated the return of the sons at Adelheid's. May the Doge forgive them “if they had transgressed their fatherland out of obedience to their father.” “A more powerful thinking prince” than the Doge would not have given in to the still powerful Empress, and so one was content with an oath Morosini. However, they used the next opportunity to seek revenge.

Samuele Romanin , who is very detailed and embedded in the historical context , presented this epoch in 1853 in the first of ten volumes of his Storia documentata di Venezia , briefly outlined why Tribuno Memmo was elected: He was rich, he had many followers, he was related to the most important family, the Candiano, since he had married a daughter of Doge Pietro IV Candiano, who had been murdered only three years earlier . Otherwise he was a man of little experience, but most of all he lacked the agility and sobriety that were necessary to run a state. In terms of foreign policy, a continuation of the conflict with the Ottonian emperor began. The widow of the Doge who had been murdered three years earlier, Waldrada, had fled to the court of Emperor Otto II. The son of the murdered man, the Gradensian patriarch Vitale , who had also fled to the imperial court, joined her requests for reparation (p. 251). After the man who was accused of being the driving force behind the overthrow of 976, namely the brief Doge Pietro Orseolo , had fled, the Candiano ("congiurati") conspired against him were able to enforce their candidate Vitale Candiano . Despite the appointment of a Candiano, the emperor remained reserved, as Romanin notes. Only because of the influence of his mother Adelheid and his Byzantine wife Theophanu , but also because of the requests of the ambassadors (“preghiere di quella povera gente”), the emperor wrote, did he allow himself to make peace and draw up treaties. For the new Doge Tribuno Memmo, however, a completely different family rivalry was fatal, namely that between the Caloprini and the Morosini. Romanin describes the momentous murder of Domenico Morosini, then Otto's march to southern Italy, where Byzantium allied with the Saracens against him. For him, it was the imperial troops' greed for prey that led to the catastrophe of 982 , when Otto II was able to make his way to northern Italy only under adventurous circumstances after a lost battle. Romanin cites a document from the Codex Trevisanus dated 991, which proves that the Venetians supported the Byzantines with their fleet (p. 259, note 1). The Venetian ambassadors were therefore treated with condescension. Their privileges, which they had had since Emperor Lothar I , were renewed, but only for an annual payment of 50 lire. In this tense situation the Caloprini fled to the imperial court, as Romanin maintains, for fear of the consequences of the murder of that Morosini - not because the doge would have been partisan. Stefano Caloprino, Romanin continues conventionally, not only offered the emperor an increase in the annual tribute to 100 pounds of gold if he became doge himself, but also the subordination of Venice to the imperial suzerainty. The city was sealed off, but this was ended by the death of the emperor and an uprising in Rome. The Caloprini were allowed to return, but now the murder of three of the sons of Stefano, who has since died, followed. The people who suspected the Doge of being involved also sent this Doge to the monastery. He died there a few days later. His son Maurizio, who was an envoy in Constantinople, withdrew into private life when he heard of his father's death after his return. He left extensive goods in Fogolana, Conche and Cesso di Canne near Fusina and S. Ilario to the monastery of San Michele di Brondolo.

Italy and the Adriatic region around 1000. Gfrörer interprets the division of Bavaria into the Marches of Carinthia and Verona as the embrace of Venice in the context of Otto II's world politics.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) assumes in his History of Venice from its founding to 1084 , which appeared eleven years after his death , that the tradition is “incomplete”, “in my opinion because the chroniclers do a lot out of state considerations have kept quiet. ”Gfrörer states that even the Doge Pietro Orseolo was only able to flee from the influence of the Ottonian. Now in 979 Tribuno Memmo came into office, which was by no means incompetent, “only less able than its predecessors” (p. 336). He was nevertheless elected because the powerful Candiano and Orseolo would have agreed in this way on an "armistice". Johannes Diaconus, as he is quoted by Gfrörer, saw the Caloprini murder plan of the Morosini "with the secret cooperation of the Doge". When Otto came to Italy with his Greek wife Theophanu , he pressed for the punishment of those who had murdered the Candiano doge Pietro IV in 976 . According to the chroniclers Johannes and Andrea Dandolo, the ambassadors of the Tribuno Memmo, who “tried to prevent”, managed to renew the old treaties. It is possible that this contract was never accepted by the Grand Council, which Gfrörer believes he can prove at this time, because it contained new clauses, which in turn led to the war. He also considers the claim that there was two years of war to be a mistake, because Otto died in 983. On the contrary, Otto “six months before his death, at the Verona Diet, reconciled with the Venetians” (p. 338). But he sees a growing influence of the Orseolo in the composition of the three-person embassy, ​​which also included a Morosini. They had already won a victory in the Grand Council, which made the expulsion of the Caloprini possible in the first place. Now the Caloprini submitted their plans to the emperor, who then blocked Venice. According to Gfrörer on the instructions of the emperor, the Caloprini took over the blocking of the neuralgic points personally. Capo d'Argere and the Bishop of Belluno turned against Venice, which, according to the chronicler, had been starving for two years. According to Gfrörer, starvation was not possible as long as the city could supply itself from the east. Otto II tried to prevent this since the catastrophe of 976, the year of the Doge's murder, by resigning from the huge Duchy of Bavaria - on the one hand to reduce its power, on the other hand to "put a close guard on the neck of Venetian ambition and drive for independence" -, the Duchy of Carinthia separated. For this purpose the Mark Verona was created, of which Johannes Diaconus first reported in 978, which was supposed to control Venice. According to Gfrörer, this mark in turn also spread to Istria. Since, according to the author, Carinthia, Verona and Istria were in one hand in 989, he wonders why this should not have been the case eight years earlier. When the contract with Capodistria was renewed on October 12, 977 , Gfrörer added as a further argument, "They had to make themselves so binding that they would not do anything against the Venetians even in spite of imperial orders" (p. 345). This explains why Venice from 981 to 983 could only feed itself from “Greece”, which had to lead to price increases, because Istria was now inaccessible as well. In the refugees who sided with Otto, Gfrörer sees the continued existence of the pro-Frankish party that he believes he can lead back to the time of Charlemagne . Your opponent, the once Byzantine party, has changed in the meantime, because it now stood for Venetian independence and the constitution. This was in turn related to the fact that Byzantium no longer represented a threat to Venice, in contrast to the Ottonians , but that it could be very useful as an adversary against these Ottonians. In addition, Venice's foreign trade depended on this good understanding. "The Caloprini and their cronies" drove the doge, who had initially supported the pro-Franconian, to the opposite side. Not only did he have the Caloprini's houses demolished, as Dandolo writes, but also arrested their wives so that they could not follow them and relay messages to them. "The same chronicler Johann, however, indicates at the same time that this order was extorted from the Doge by public opinion." As an expression of this phrase, Gfrörer also applies the otherwise unthinkable return of the son-in-law of the Orseolo Doge, Johannes Mauroceno, who fled from the Dogat Tribuno Memmos (Giovanni Morosini), who received permission to found a monastery on San Giorgio Maggiore with a deed dated December 20, 982. He had separated from his wife and became a monk, now even becoming the abbot of the new monastery. The document was signed by 130 Venetians whom Gfrörer considered to be members of the Grand Council. The supervision of the monastery was no longer the responsibility of the original landowner, i.e. the private chapel of the Doge, St. Mark's Church , but the Bishop of Olivolo, the city bishop of Venice. Thus a party became visible, according to Gfrörer, which turned against the dominance of the secular rulers over ecclesiastical property, inspired by the refuge of the Orseolo doge, the monastery “Cussan” and “Clugny”. According to the author, they already behaved like “Guelphs and Ghibellines: the Byzantine-minded people championed the independence of the country, free political institutions, the power of a senate, then the rights of the church, while the Frankish party represented the claims of the Imperial central power. ”For Venice's merchants, who were mainly active in the West, there was a“ natural ”tendency to support the Ottonians, and for those of them who acted in the East, more support for Byzantium. Both great powers "threatened, as soon as they believed that the Venetian government was not doing their will as much as they demanded", "with trade bans, confiscation of Venetian property, or with other drudgery" (p. 351). However, it was precisely this split that was beneficial to Venice as a whole, because the complexity of politics on the one hand prevented “the rule of incompetent people” and, on the other hand, forced Venice to build up an unassailable position and, if necessary, threaten itself. According to Gfrörer, Venice reached this stage in the 11th century. Otto, who needed allies after the defeat against the Byzantines and Saracens in 982, made peace with Memmo by treaty of June 7, 983. The emperor died six months later. With this, Gfrörer interprets the sequence of events and their background in a completely new way. Since everyone now “loathed the Caloprini as a traitor”, they no longer felt safe in Northern Italy , and they asked the Emperor's mother Adelheid for permission to return to Venice. Memmo gave security guarantees, but the Morosini took the opportunity for revenge, which Gfrörer settled in 984 or 985. The last act of the Doge was to send his son Mauritius to Constantinople in the 13th year of his Dogate in order to gain a high position there. However, upon his return, Mauritius found that his father had been forced into the monastery and had died there after six days. And he himself went there, probably involuntarily, as the author assumes. Gfrörer, who explains throughout his work that the Doge sons sent to Constantinople returned from there as fellow Doges and successors of their fathers, believes that the people turned against this new future Doge, and now, like his father, also this returnee sent to the monastery. Memmo, who was initially pro-Franconian, finally threw himself "into the arms of the Basileus". The party behind it still leaned towards Byzantium, but the appointment of a new Doge was now up to the Grand Council, not the Eastern Emperor. This party, which came to power with Pietro II Orseolo , overthrew itself when it tried, according to old tradition, to enforce the inheritance of the Doge's office, but now against the Grand Council.

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. As elsewhere, Pinton criticizes the way in which Gfrörer assigns the opponents to the parties behind it. He also rejects his assumption that Memmo was initially for the Ottonians, then for Byzantium, which is to be found in the marriage with a Candiano. Because, according to Pinton, Gfrörer comes into contradiction. After a second peace agreement with Otto II and the intervention of Adelheid, the Caloprini were allowed to return. It is therefore illogical that the Morosini, who destroyed them in the end, were pro-Byzantine, but then overthrew the Doge of all people who, according to old tradition, only sent his son to Constantinople, and thus, according to Gfrörer, to join the Doge wanted to do. The sources, however, and Pinton agrees with them, report that Memmo was simply old and seriously ill.

In 1861 Francesco Zanotto, who gave the people's assembly considerably more influence in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , reported that “Tribuno Memmo. Doge XXV. ”, Be it because of his wealth, be it because of the numerous followers, or perhaps more because of the relationship with the Candiano, was elected Doge. In his view, the Venetians soon had reason to regret the choice of the 'unsuitable' man. The 'idiot' (“imbecille”) initially sided with the Caloprini just because they made pacts with the Candiani. The Morosini were able to get to safety from their attack, even if one of them was murdered. The 'foolish' (“stolto”) doge agreed to this instead of punishing the perpetrators. Since Venice had supported the Byzantines and Saracens against Otto in Calabria , the city was only able to renew its old treaties through the influence of Adelheid. Zanotto saw the trigger for the suspected change of party Memmos in a completely different process. He claims that there was a dispute between the Doge and the Patriarch Vitale of Grado over the 976 confiscated Candiano property. Memmo had married Maria, the sister of the patriarch, who was also the daughter of Candiano, who was murdered in 976. As a result, the Doge dropped the caloprini and turned to the Morosini. Stefano Caloprini then fled to Verona, where he made the said promises to the emperor, whereupon Otto subjected the lagoon to a hunger blockade. The emperor also managed to trigger the said rebellions. Memmo tried every possible way to calm the emperor down. The starving people ran blind to the houses of the Caloprini, plundered and destroyed them, and took women and children into captivity. The Venetians prepared the defense, they 'wanted to die rather than give way' (“morir piuttosto che cedere”). 'What the people might not have achieved, Heaven did', because Otto died after two years in Rome on the way to southern Italy. The caloprini, though hated, returned. In 991, five years later, three sons of Stefano Caloprini were murdered in revenge by four Morosini on their way from the Doge's Palace and thrown into the canal, where a servant found them. The people who suspected the Doge of complicity rose and overthrew him. In San Zaccaria, Tribuno Memmo died six days after becoming a monk. 'The only deed that historians did not deserve criticism in his not short Doge career' was memmos “donazione” of the island of San Giorgio Maggiore to Giovanni Morosini, who had a monastery built there.

For Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna , too , in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , published in 1867, the rule of the “Tribuno Memmo, ventesimoquinto doge di Venezia” begins with the battle between the Caloprini, on whose side the Doge stood, and the Morosini. After him envoys succeeded in renewing the old treaties, but when they tried to dissuade him from his vengeance for 976, they received no response from the emperor. When the internal struggles continued - again for another reason - the Doge switched sides and now supported the Morosini. His enemies, the Caloprini, made the offer to Otto II, whereupon he ordered a blockade, which mainly monitored the Caloprini at the most important points. According to Cicogna, Otto had already prepared the attack with a fleet. The blockade lasted two years and Venice would have perished had it not been for the death of the emperor. In vain did the Caloprini, who wanted to return, hope that their betrayal would be 'forgotten'. But then four Morosini attacked and murdered the sons of Stefano Caloprini, who had already died in Verona. After the murder of the three sons, the doge remained inactive, whereupon the people overthrew him in 991. After all, 'It spared its life and its eyes' - a reference to the earlier methods of overthrowing Doges.

Heinrich Kretschmayr said “Tribunus Menius gets off badly with Johannes [ie Johannes Diaconus]. He appears to him as a man who has only risen through his fortune, insensitive, clumsy, without judgment: a man of money and an idiot ”. But the author contradicts: “It is not clear with what rights.” In any case, he found himself in “no enviable position” because Emperor Otto appeared in Italy a year after taking office. Above all, the "deadly enmity between the houses of the Caloprini and Morosini" came to a head. Allegedly with the knowledge and will of the Doge, all Morosini were supposed to be killed. Only Domenico, who “unsuspectingly passed the market in S. Piero di Castello”, was tortured and died two hours later in San Zaccaria. The Morosini waited for a favorable opportunity to revenge. Pietro Morosini informed Emperor Otto, who was in Ravenna, about the conditions in Venice, and perhaps, according to Kretschmayr, Otto already decided to blockade the city, which he still resented the murders of 976 (p. 120). In order to be able to fight the Saracens in southern Italy, Venice was to fall under the Empire, "one of the first consequences of Ottonian imperialism." The imperial pact of 983 shows that access for traders from the empire who were never allowed to enter Venice is now open should be. But “the Germans succumbed to the unbelievers at Colonne on July 15, 982 in a loss-making defeat; hardly that the emperor himself escaped in an adventurous flight. ”Perhaps under the impression of this defeat Otto II granted Venice new privileges, which in turn left the impression that the dealers from the empire were not allowed to go about their business beyond Venice - a passage which Venice could only enforce against Henry IV. (p. 123). However, when the Coloprini, who had fled Venice, appeared at court, whose leader Stefano Coloprini promised his hometown to the emperor as the new overlord, plus 100 pounds of gold annually, Otto, according to the author, could not resist. “A narrow ring of containment posts surrounded Venice. In Mestre and Padua, on the Adige and in Ravenna, where food came in from the countryside for the city, the conspirators kept watch under Stefano's command. The bishops of Belluno, and certainly also of Ceneda and Treviso, eagerly seized the newly presented opportunity to usurp Venetian territory in the area of ​​Cittanuova. "" What use was it if the Doge in Venice break down the houses of the traitors, their wives "The days of Venetian freedom seemed numbered." But then the emperor died surprisingly. "The sad news of death became news to be redeemed for Venice [...] The emperor's death was taken for a divine judgment." Kretschmayr suspects that Venice had to buy the recognition of the old trade treaties through an increased tribute. Hugo von Tuszien, brother of Waldrada, widow of the fourth Pietro Candiano , murdered in 976 , advocated the Caloprini. Despite a guarantee for their safety, Stefano Caloprini's three sons - he himself had died - were stabbed to death by four Morosini. The Doge was believed to be complicit in the murder. "A popular uprising sent him to the monastery of S. Zaccaria, where he decided to live a few days later."

John Julius Norwich sarcastically says in his History of Venice that the Doge “was distinguished for his knowledge of horticulture, but for very little else”, so he would have understood hardly anything other than horticulture. Although he was a descendant of the Doge who was murdered in 976, this did not prevent him from declaring an amnesty. But this by no means brought peace, rather the rival families with their supporters polarized the internal struggle “looking respectively to the Eastern and Western Empires for support.” In Norwich, the Morosini were considered “champions of the old link with Byzantium”, while the Coloprini “put their trust in the Empire of the West and its energetic young Emperor ". He suffered the aforementioned defeat in southern Italy, but without giving up his plans. A group of Venetians appeared at his court, led by Stefano Coloprini, who had killed a Morosini in the square in front of S. Pietro di Castello. The Coloprini made him the proposal to cut Venice from its supply and trade lines in order to bring him to the dog's seat. In this case he would again recognize the Roman-German supremacy over Venice. Above all, Otto would have the entire Venetian fleet available for the fight against the Saracens. Otto let himself be seduced by it, as Norwich thinks, and let the lagoon be blocked. In contrast to earlier sieges, such as by Pippin , the son of Charlemagne, or by the Hungarians in 900, the current besiegers knew the perils of the lagoon very well. The houses of the Coloprini who remained in the city were torn down and their family members were taken hostage, but that was all the Venetians could do. The city was surprisingly liberated from this situation in the course of 983, because Coloprini died first, then, in December, the young emperor too. The Empress mother Adelheid would have liked to continue the blockade, but the influence of the Byzantine daughter-in-law Theophanu was too strong. Only an amnesty for the Coloprini could be enforced. In 991 the Morosini took the opportunity to take revenge and murdered three Coloprini in front of the newly restored Doge's Palace. When Giovanni Morosini - to whom the Doge was related - returned from Catalonia, where his father-in-law had fled as a monk, in 982, Tribuno Memmo gave him the small 'cypress island' opposite the Doge's Palace, which was later called San Giorgio Maggiore . The Morosini, now a monk himself, founded a Benedictine monastery there. The Morosini were certainly closer to the Doge, but he wanted to prevent the city from being torn apart by the civil war again. In the end, however, the pressure was so high that, like his two predecessors, he became a monk. He went to the monastery of San Zaccaria, "there to end his days in the obscurity he should never have left."

swell

• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, pp. 185–187 ( digitized, pp. 184 f. )

literature

• Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 119–125.
• Art. Memmo (Tribuno) , in: Biographie universelle, ancienne et morderne , Vol. 28, Paris 1821, p. 244.

Remarks

1. ↑ "Il presupposto di continuità genealogica su cui si basava la trasmissione del potere in area veneziana ha portato come conseguenza la già accennata attribuzione ai dogi più antichi di stemmi coerenti con quelli realmente usati dai loro stemmi." (Maurizio Carlo Alberto stemmra di alcune famiglie di Dogi prearaldici , in: Notiario dell'associazione nobiliare regional veneta. Rivista di studi storici, ns 8 (2016) 35–68, here: p. 41).
2. ↑ Quoted from Claudio Rendina: I Dogi. Storia e segreti , Rome 2003, p. 77.
3. ↑ Andrea Galante: Per la storia giuridica della Basilica di S. Marco , in: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History : Canonical Department 2.1 (1912) 283-298.
4. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 46.
5. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 42-44 ( digitized ).
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, pp. 76-78, but only a few lines on the Dogat ( online ).
7. ↑ "che niuno havesse ardire di mandar overo portare vittovaglie a Venetia, ponendo alli passed diligente custodia; et fece anco prohibitione che Venetiani non potessero venire ò pratticare nelle terre dell'Imperio ”.
8. ↑ "Gioanni Vescovo di di Cividal Bellun, nelli confini d'Heraclea occupò molte Possessioni di Venetiani".
9. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 17r – v ( digitized, p. 17r ).
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, pp. 152–157 ( 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. 26 f. ( Digital copy, p. 26 ).
12. ↑ 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. 226–232. ( Digitized version ).
13. ↑ 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. 258–264, here: p. 258 ( digitized version ).
14. ↑ 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. 335-357 ( digitized version ).
15. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto 25.2 (1883) 288-313 ( digitized version ) and 26 (1883) 330-365, here: pp. 339-341 ( digitized version ).
16. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo Ducale di Venezia , Vol 4, Venice 1861, pp 57-60, here: p. 57 ( digitized ).
17. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
18. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, pp. 119–125.
19. ^ John Julius Norwich : A History of Venice , Penguin, London 2003.

predecessor	Office	successor
Vitale Candiano	Doge of Venice 979–991	Pietro II Orseolo