Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage

Romanian Institute of Humanist

Culture and Research,

Venice

At the first sight, the title above could naturally determine the question: What connection could be established between the translatio imperii and the year 1171? The scholars that have dealt with the translatio theory [1] have focused their referrals upon other events: the transfer of the Empire's residence from Rome to Constantinople in 330, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne in 800, the 1204 moment.

However, the present investigation brings into discussion a new element, that is the Venetian one. It does not intend to sketch out the possible imperial pretensions of the lagoon community [2], but the manner in which the Serenissima interpreted the imperial transfer phenomenon. By the Venetian optic, it will be afterwards observed that the 1171-1172 episode gains unexpected features.

In the historical analysis that researches the 'image of the other', there should be first and foremost underlined the difference between perception and representation. Marc Carrier finds out a proper explanation, when he specifies: "Les concepts «perception» et «représentation» demandent d’être précisés. Pour les limites de cette analyse, la perception se distingue de la représentation du fait qu’elle est davantage physique, c’est-à-dire qu’elle provient directement des sensations, donc qu’elle est à la fois oculaire et consciente. La représentation, en contrepartie, se veut davantage une image mentale ou culturelle, qui se rapporte à une figure, un symbole ou un signe. La représentation n’est donc pas nécessairement oculaire, mais bien une image réelle ou non d’un objet, d’une personne ou d’un événement. En effet, le sens ou l’image mentale provoquée par ces éléments est unique à chaque culture; c’est, en fait, un phénomène sociologique de «représentation collective» [3]. Or, la représentation nous sera utile pour les chroniqueurs qui n’ont pas vu directement le cérémonial; elle nous offre une fenêtre sur les mentalités du monde médiéval occidental, sur ses façons d’organiser la réalité." [4] Consequently, everything depends on the utilized 'raw material', whether the sources available to the historian are contemporary or not with the events taken into consideration.

In my case, I am to analyze the phenomenon of representation. To investigate the Venetian community's point of view, the 'raw materials' at disposal are the chronicles written between one and six centuries after the 1171-1172 events.

The Venetian chronicles have often represented an attractive issue, proposing questions and different versions of debate. Nevertheless, the impressive quantity of the Venetian chronicles determined that this attraction be doubled by helplessness. This has been due especially to the vast number of the codices. Completed by the numerous copies done during the centuries and particularly by the compilations that have always hindered the access to the original, all these factors unavoidably have imposed the diminishing of the research field to the scholar.

Confronted with such a vast work material, the historian or the philologist is suddenly put in the situation to be unable to comprise everything. Thus, he/she could only select a more convenient solution, such as to opt for a few number of codices, considered as being representative for his own research area [5]. A comparative study destined to comprise the all chronicles suddenly becomes an impossibility. The scholar that endeavors to approach globally the Venetian chronicles remains somewhere at the beginning of the research, at the level of classification upon different criteria. This is the Antonio Carile's case [6]. Despite of the inherent critics [7], the situation of the Bolognese historian remains almost singular, at least by the present day [8]. Moreover, it permits new possibilities of investigation.

That is why I attempt a somehow special approach, limiting both the researched work material's quantity (a number of 90 studied codices in manuscript, beside the nine already edited) and the research area (the image of Byzantium). Even under these circumstances, I could not have the pretension to cover more than a small part of the material at hand. Consequently, I propose a more restrained debatable area. Thus, I am going to insist upon the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus' (1143-1180) representation, considering that the respective character represents a complex personality, able to create controversies at least from the Venetian viewpoint. Somehow generalizing, I am to also describe the image that the Venetian chroniclers had upon the Byzantine world, during the centuries and in different context.

Focusing upon his study area, namely the Latin Romania, Freddy Thiriet [9] obstinately insisted upon some particular chronicles, especially emphasizing the ones written by Niccolò Trevisan [10], Gian Giacopo Caroldo [11], Antonio Morosini [12], Gasparo Zancaruolo [13] and Zorzi Dolfin [14]. Simultaneously, other chronicles are labeled by him as presenting no interest [15], for the simple reason that they had not accentuated the French scholar's interest field. Actually, it is natural that each chronicle emphasize a particular period, particular events or particular problems. From my point of view, investigating the second half of the 12^th century and the representation of the Emperor Manuel I, it seems obvious that the priority not always coincide with the Thiriet's one.

For instance, the anonymous chronicles from Biblioteca Marciana having the inventory of It. VII. 798 and It. VII. 1577, catalogued by the French savant as sans aucun intérêt [16], respectively as médiocre [17], are essential from my viewpoint. At the same time, the chronicle of Antonio Morosini, which has such an importance for Thiriet as it is proposed for printing [18], does not offer any utility in my case, for the reason that the pages referring to the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus were lost [19]. The examples to certify the dissociation between Thiriet's and my criteria could continue.

There is another respect be underlined, which definitely separate the present approach from Freddy Thiriet's one. The mentioned author has as priorities the chroniclers' contemporaneousness with the political realities, so that Thiriet seems to be first and foremost attracted by the diary respect [20] and looks for the reconstitution of the commercial reports in the Venetian Romania. On the other side, my investigation deals with images, leaving aside the reconstitution of the events. Consequently, the very fact that the respective chronicles are later sources is not an obstacle. On the contrary, it sustains the endeavor to investigate the images' evolution on a long term [21].

*

* *

Beginning with the 12^th century, the Venetian historiography was the witness of a new historical genre's development, known under the name of chronicles. Dispersed in different European and North-American libraries and archives, the most comprising quantity of them is to be detected in Venice. The codices are to be detected in the manuscript collection of Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana [22], of the Museo Civico Correr [23] and, in less important number, at the State Archives of Venice [24] and the Library of the Querini Stampalia Foundation [25]. Remarkable fonds could also be detected at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [26], Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan [27], Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense in Milan [28], Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona [29], Biblioteca Oliveriana in Pesaro [30], Biblioteca Universitaria in Padua [31], Biblioteca Universitaria in Pavia [32] etc. There is a certitude that, among all these libraries, the most numerous be registered at Marciana, where there are gathered together around 20 codices in Latin and circa 300 codices in Italian [33].

There must be mentioned that the number could be only approximated, since it could not be known what is behind any title suggested by the catalogue. The scholar could often be in the situation to discover a new codex, although it is entitled as L'origine degli famiglie nobile Venete or is simply grouped together with other material inside of the miscellanea category [34]. The reverse phenomenon could also occur, in the sense that under the title of Cronaca di Venetia or of Cronaca Veneta be a totally different material, such as reports of the Venetian ambassadors or theological discourses etc [35]. It is obvious that such a situations could only be regarded as exceptions, but the immensity of the material could often produces errors. However, the greatest part of those Venetian chronicles or histories [36] is entitled Cronaca Venetiana dalla comincia della Città or, more seldom, Storia dei Dogi di Venetia. Strictly concerning the Marciana Library, the Venetian chronicles are especially gathered in the Ital. VII and Lat. X groups.

However, the manuscripts of the Venetian chronicles are not limited to the Italian space [37]. There are numerous other chronicles at Vienna (the so-called Foscarini fond) [38], Dresden (at the Sächsische Landesbibliothek) [39], Paris (at the Bibliothèque Nationale) [40], London (at the British Museum) [41], in other places in Europe (Narodna Univerzitetna Knjižica in Ljubljana [42], Baverische Staatsbibliothek in Munich [43], Bibliothèque in Metz [44], the Széchényi National Library in Budapest [45]) and even in the United States (the Ranke fond inside of the library of the University of Syracuse, New York, at the University of Chicago, Newberry Library in Chicago, University Library of Harvard) [46].

Obviously, the gathering of all these materials in one and the same place could facilitate the study about the Venetian chronicles. Under these circumstances, it should be noticed the endeavor of the Marciana's former chairman, Giorgio Emmanuele Ferrari, who get into possession of an important achievement from the United Kingdom in 1972-1973, more exactly of a part of the impressive Phillipps collection in Cheltenham, Gloucester [47]. Thus, there were achieved 44 codices, to whom other three were added in 1985 [48]. There could be raised the question how this important number of materials, elaborated in Venice, by the Venetians, and dealing strictly with the Venetian history, had been detectable on the British territory. The explanation is given by the fact that Sir Thomas Phillipps, an English millionaire, collector of manuscript and precious rare books, obtained them at the beginning of the 19^th century [49]. A somehow similar explanation could be suggested for the Venetian manuscripts in the property of the Syracuse University, all of them being achieved as a result of the historian Leopold von Ranke's donation in 1887 [50]. As regards the way in which other chronicles has been found out at Vienna or Paris, the explanation is more simple. The fact was due to the successive Austrian and French occupation of Venice between 1797 and 1866.

Generally speaking, the research upon the Venetian chronicles is still at beginning, despite the Vittorio Lazzarini's [51] and Freddy Thiriet's [52] appeals and the Aug. Prost's [53] and A. Carile's [54] efforts. To a significant extent, the reasons should be the drawback mentioned above. Consequently, even their printing has only been partial. Moreover, it may be asserted that the editors of the previous centuries dealt more minutely with them [55]. The 20^th century brought less substantial contribution in this sense [56].

There is necessary an enumeration of the chronicles taken into consideration in the present work. It is to be understood that I neglected the most ancient ones - Cronaca Altinate, Chronicon Gradense [57], the chronicle attributed to Giovanni the Deacon [58]. Previous to the period that is investigated, they could only interest the present topic by their possible stylistic influences upon the other chronicles.

Chronologically, the first chronicles that I took into consideration belong to the 13^th century, namely the anonymous Historia Ducum Veneticorum [59], the one attributed to a certain Marco [60] and the more famous Martino da Canale's Les estoires de Venise [61].

I insisted upon the subsequent evolution of the Venetian chronicles, studying successively the moment of the Doge-chronicler Andrea Dandolo [62] (leaving aside Raffaino de Caresini, who continued A. Dandolo's chronicle, approaching the period after 1280 [63]) and the so-called 'Dandolo model's crisis' stage [64], having the Crete's Venetian chancellor Lorenzo de Monacis [65] as principal representative. Among other authors, more or less under controversy [66], I insisted upon Enrico Dandolo [67] (for the 14^th century), Daniele Barbaro [68], Pietro Dolfin [69], Nicolò Trevisan [70], Camillo Abbiosi da Ravenna [71], Gasparo Zancaruolo [72], Andrea Donà [73], Matteo di Curato [74], Marcantonio Erizzo [75], Andrea Navagero [76] (for the 15^th century) or Gian Giacopo Caroldo [77], Marino Sanudo the Young [78], the Patriarch Giovanni Tiepolo [79] (for the 16^th century) [80], and Girolamo Savina [81] (for the 17^th century) as main exponents.

Beside them, a determined contribution was brought by the anonymous and the partially anonymous chronicles [82]. Actually, the unsigned works allow to the author a larger autonomy, meaning that they permit to his fantasy a larger freedom of expression. The anonymous chronicles offer a broader affinity to the legendary backgrounds, to the myths regarding a community's origins and evolution. This feature is rather in connection to my intention to operate with the images, with their building and development, and not necessarily with the re-establishing of the events. Therefore, my investigation focuses to a certain extent upon these anonymous chronicles.

To analyze the representation of the 1171-1172 events, it is necessary an initial investigation of the Byzantine world's image as a whole. In his impressive approach on the Venetian chronicles, Antonio Carile mentions in a certain moment a particular phenomenon - the one of the chronicles' historical content [83], insisting upon the idea of justification. Certainly, the author regards the justification of the Venetians for the 1204 episode. This idea is to be acceptable whether the respective justification, consisting of invectives against the Greeks, was to be exclusively utilized by the Venetian chroniclers in the narration of the Fourth Crusade and of this events' corollary moments. Nevertheless, there are also invectives against the Greeks - and even abundantly - on other occasions. For instance, the Greeks' feebleness and cowardice are underlined in connection to the moment of the fight against the Saracens [84] or against Roger I, the Norman king of Sicily [85]. Or to the siege against the Genoese in Pera in 1350 [86]. Or to their relationship with the Ottoman Turks in the first half of the 15^th century [87], and so on. It is to be demanded: in all these situations, is it also a justification for the 1204 moment? Confronting with a clear negative answer, the conclusion is that the respect of a permanent justification for an anti-Byzantine act utilizing the blaming of the same Byzantines becomes suddenly exclusive. A. Carile restrains himself to the 1204 events and generalize it, commencing to consider that every chronicle gravitates entirely around this episode.

The idea promoted by Carile, regarding the Venetian authors' permanent justification would be consistent only under the circumstances that would be registered a constancy in the image that the Venetian chronicles offer regarding the Byzantines. It is not the case for it. The Venetian authors' image is exclusively created in function of each event apart. The Venetian chroniclers criticize the Greeks for well-determined reasons, and not to justify their own 1204 'sins'. Actually, they did never consider the events during the Doge Enrico Dandolo as a 'sin', but as one of the most glorious Serenissima's moments!

The scheme projected by A. Carile would be functional in only one case - just as to confirm the rule. It is about the translatio operated by Manuel I Comnenus, as I shall attempt to demonstrate below.

Generally, Byzantium was seen as a distinctive entity, regarded with respect by the Venetians, especially during the first centuries of common history. The Venetians made often referrals to Constantinople, and the foundation of the 'New Rome' is almost always mentioned as event. It was also insisted upon the Constantine the Great's conversion and upon the transfer of the secular Christendom's center from Rome to the Bosporus shores. The brief enumeration that one of the chronicles presents in the very beginning regarding the foundation of some cities, there are emphasized five of them, namely Troy, Carthage, Rome, Constantinople and Venice [88], suggesting somehow the idea of the center in time.

The political legitimization comes from Constantinople, which is the real Empire's expression. The situation occurs especially before 800. In many cases, it goes also afterwards, with the specification that it presents different shades.

In this sense, it should be insisted upon the 800 episode, which represented for the entire Christian political world an apart meaning. The previous scenery for the 800 moment is simple:

1. the Lombard attacks against the Papacy;
2. the Pope's appeal addressed to its legitimate protector by then, that is the Emperor from Constantinople;
3. the Byzantine refusal;
4. the Pope's resorting to the Frankish kings' assistance;
5. the more or less tacit sustaining of the Lombards by the Byzantines;
6. the Lombards' defeat by the Franks (with or without Venetian aid);
7. the Frankish-Byzantine tensions (with or without Venetian arbitration).

Among these, the Venetian chronicles contributed with its originality in connection to the privileged relationship between the Lombard kings and the imperial authority in Constantinople [89], to the young Venetian state's contribution to the elimination of the Lombards from Italy [90], and to the mediation of the strain between the two empires [91]. These data are not to be detected neither in Paul the Deacon, nor in Eginhard.

Under the circumstances that the camps are already delimited and the breaking between East and West is ready to occur, the lagoon community has to settle its option. Extremely important, the 800 moment was not received properly. Some chronicles kept it into silence. It is to be supposed that it is not because of the ignorance, but deliberately, since it was to be a final option that would suppose perplexity in the centuries when the respective chronicles would be elaborated. Actually, during the 14^th and 15^th centuries, a too firm relationship with Byzantium would not represent a proud alternative, since the Greek empire would be regarded as a mixture of arrogance and political weakness, while during the 16^th and 17^th centuries it would represent nothing more than a memory.

At the same time, the confusion of the Venetian authors was doubled by the image given to Charles the Great. For them, Charlemagne symbolized the ideal of heroism, but he was also the invader that had brutally attacked the lagoon community. Thus, he oscillated between these two positions: hero and aggressor.

Just like in the general Western Christian image, the Venetians regarded Charles as the pre-eminently hero, the one who saved Rome and the Papacy by the Lombard 'evilness', liberating Italy and consequently the Christendom. The Enrico Dandolo's chronicle even inserts the detail that the Pope, confronted with the Constantinople's refusal, was to declare that the one who would liberate Italy was to be the real Christianity's emperor [92]. To prove the devotion to Charles, other chronicles even invoked some Venetian boats' participation to the anti-Lombard campaign, together with the Franks [93]. It is not a novelty this presupposed anti-Lombard intervention of the lagoon community. The anti-Lombard policy had already become a constant. It is to be added that the part taken by the Venetians in the liberation of Ravenna from the King Liutprandus' siege originates this time in a well established source, that is Paul the Deacon [94]. The novelty brought by some Venetian chronicles consists in the invocation and even the exposure of a supposed letter emitted by the Pope Gregory II to the Doge Orso I Partecipazio respecting the Ravenna's aid [95]. Actually, the Venetian fleet was to also take part to other events considered as crucial, such as the facilitation of the Totila's depart from Italy [96], the Emperor Heraclius' campaign against Chosroes [97] etc.

In his position of hero and Christendom's champion, the same Charles is sometimes 'transferred' in the Holy Land, in order to liberate Jerusalem from the 'infidels'. Largely spread in the Western Middle Ages [98] and destined to impose the idea that could be a hero merely the one who had participated to a crusade, this legend was retaken by some Venetian chronicles. Sometimes, they added new elements. Thus, the Andrea Navagero's chronicle "transfers" Charles the Great not only geographically (to Jerusalem), but also temporally (during the Doge Pietro Tradomenico, whose succession to the Dogal throne is wrongly dated: 811). Having as starting point a still real event, that is a Saracens' incursion in the Adriatic, this chronicle presents the originality to add the detail that Charles had been passed to the Holy Land by the Venetian fleet [99]. Anyhow, the respective chronicle offers colossal dimensions to the entire event. It has the Papacy, the 'infidel' Moors, Charles, the Emperor of Constantinople, and a mixed Venetian, Genoese and Pisan fleet as actors.

Once established the image of Charles as a hero, there appears also the reverse, in front of the reality that Charles had been the one that had brutally attacked the Venetian lagoon community. It is exactly in this point where the controversy on Charles as character consists in.

Generalizing, this is also the focusing point around which the Venetian chronicles are to determine their final option.

Spiritually, the legitimization respect is clear: it comes from Rome [100]. The Eastern emperors' 'heresy' is not overlooked. This optic regarding Byzantium is to be inserted in the chronicles' general viewpoint, according to which Venice should be an indispensable element of the true faith. Any times, the relationship with Rome is emphasized. It is clear yet from the beginning of every chronicle, where there are accentuated the Gospel preaching in the lagoon region by St Mark and his fidelity towards St Peter. The analogy with the Venice's allegiance towards Rome should not be ignored. I do not insist on the chronicles' feature regarding the religious element. I only signalize the fact that the Venetian authors were conscious of the religious separation occurred inside of the Christian church. They underlined the schism between the Greeks and the Latins, and sometimes they resorted to fantasies, such as a presumed Papal convocation for an ecumenical synod even in l'isola de Venetia [101].

Temporally however, the Venetians are in an acute dilemma. Strictly from the Venetian viewpoint, the destruction provoked in the lagoons by Charles the Great and by his son Pippin are more important than the rejection of the Lombards from Italy. Than Charles' coronation as emperor. Than Charles' particular relationship with the Papacy. Even than Charles' supposed activity 'beyond the seas'. All of these happen having the more and more obvious estrangement between Constantinople and Rome as background.

In this context, the image of Byzantium also oscillates. In order to demonstrate their devotion to Rome, the Venetians seem to recognize translatio imperii and blame Byzantium because of its iconoclast 'heresy' [102]. Nevertheless, they reject at the same time any dependence to Charles and to the Western empire in general. Everything relies upon the same idea, of the independence [103]. Moreover, it is to be noticed that, under some circumstances, the Venetian chroniclers provoke a reverse of the attitude. For example, they explain the relationship between the Doge Angelo Partecipazio (811-827) and the Emperor Leo V (813-820) by the 'zeal' regarding the Catholic faith [104]. Obviously, the very fact that Leo was an iconoclast emperor is neglected. The same situation happens when the same Leo is alluded as donator of the St Zachary's relics to the Venetians [105]. Therefore, the recognition of the translatio in 800 by the Venetians is nothing more than groundless supposition. They continued to be settled in the relative orbit of Byzantium. An explanation would be that " la souveraineté byzantine était peu contestée de la part de Venise, mais également peu effective ou effective par intermittences; l'autonomie vénitienne se dissimulait sous le couvert d'une soumission qui favorisait la vie économique des habitants des lagunes, [...]." [106]

Constantinople seemed a more favorable option, at least for its geographical position. Grosso modo condemned for 'heresy', it still remained the one that accorded different titles and dignities (such as imperial ipatoi or protospatarioi [107]) to the Venetian doges or doges' sons. The same Constantinople donates saints' relics, precious stones, materials, experts and especially financial means for the church construction in Venice. The desire and even the mania to achieve more and more titles [108] and also saints' relics would be a constant in all the Venetian chronicles, which present all the necessary details. All these real gains in prestige eclipses to a certain extent the fact that they, the Venetians, were regarded as simple douloi by the Byzantines [109].

The Byzantine attractivity remained unavoidable, but it was also based upon other reasons, beside the flattering of the Venetian pride with titles and distinctions. The Venetians also needed commercial privileges. The Byzantine market seemed to be profitable and the Venetians, as merchants par excellence, judged the reality also under this perspective. Constantinople offered them any privilege, asking for military support in exchange. Since a market is to be conserved in peace, Venice promptly responded to all those solicitations.

It has many times been rightfully considered that Venice did not adhere to the translatio in 800, that it remained politically attached to Constantinople [110]. At a first sight, it looks natural, because of the economical and geographical reasons exposed above. However, the opinion of a total rejection of translatio, obviously embraced by the Byzantinists, seems too settled. It should be shaded, since the Venetian chronicles do not hesitate to criticize Byzantium and its 'heresy' and even to eulogize Charles the Great and the Western emperors in some circumstances. Somehow clarifying the ambiguity of the situation and the oscillation between East and West, Gian Giacopo Caroldo makes a synthesis, refering to the period of the Doge Domenico Flabanico (1032-1042): Venetiani come chiaramente si uede hebbero buona occasione di far nuouo acquisto, et accrescere lo stato come loro successe nella Dalmatia percioche tendeuano a grattificare gl'Imp^ri de Greci, con li quali cercauano distringersi e di affinità, e di beneuolentia per diuersi mezzi; […]. Si vede anco, che Venetiani non meno studiosi erano di tenere beneuoli gl'Imp^ri Occidentali, e massimamente gl'Ottoni Sassoni, li quali così come non hauerebbono uolontieri consentito, che Venetiani hauessero allongato il Do^minio nelle terre all'Imperio loro sottoposte, così grandemente loro piaceua dì acquisto, che faceuano delle marritime terre, e lochi al Greco Impero soggetti, essendo pur rimasta qualche parte dell'antico odio frà l'Occidentale, e Costantinopolitano Imperio; et oltre l'altre cause, ui era la diffidentia frà la Romana, e la Greca Chiesa; che se bene Venetiani conuenissero aderire all'Imperio Orientale per il necessario co^mercio alla loro Città; non di meno non uolsero giàmai consentire all'Eresie della Greca Chiesa [emphasis mine]; anzi furono sempre costantissimi di seguire la Romana, ne da quello punto deuuiare; […]" [111].

Therefore, despite the rejection of the Byzantine 'heresy', the Venetian world did not repudiate the devotion towards Constantinople, for the reasons precisely exposed by Caroldo.

In a previous study, I made an attempt to classify the Venetian chronicles having the Charles' coronation as criterion [112]. The classification does not elucidate all the respects. It proves one more time that it could not be concluded that the recognition/non-recognition of the Imperial title for the King of the Franks was to be in direct proportion with the rejection/embracement of the Byzantine cause. Such a conclusion would be too simplistic and it would eliminate since the very beginning one of the typical element of the equation, that is the idea of the Venetian independence.

Under these circumstances, certainly that a chronicle composed in the 'Dandolian' style could would not be grouped together with Lorenzo de Monacis' one. Actually, I appreciate that the transition from the Doge-chronicler's opus to the one written by the Venetian high chancellor of Crete represents the central point in the entire Venetian chronicles' evolution. Lorenzo de Monacis permits the commencement of the rightly called "the crisis of the Dandolian pattern". Although the author of this expression [113] did not insist upon this phenomenon, it should be accentuated.

At once with the transition to a 'nationalist' feature in the interpretation of the Venice's past, the Byzantine part would accordingly be marginalized. Actually, Byzantium had become its political agony in the period when Lorenzo de Monacis conceived his work. As natio, the Greeks were more and more despised. In such a condition, to declare one's legitimization from Constantinople did not represent a virtue anymore. Of course, Andrea Dandolo had also lived and worked in the 14^th century. Nevertheless, his chronicle did represent a simple inertia of the previous chronicles (Origo, Giovanni the Deacon especially). Lorenzo de Monacis was the one who officialized the new political realities by writing. In comparison with de Monacis, the Doge Dandolo remained a traditionalist, if not a nostalgic.

Still, consulting the subsequent Venetian chronicles' evolution, it should not be surprising that the de Monacis' new pattern was not impose definitely. The reason could consist in the manner in which de Monacis conceived his work, relying upon problems and not upon chronology, manner which did not seem to be at everybody's hand. Andrea Dandolo's style looked more accessible.

The Giovanni the Deacon's and Andrea Dandolo's loyalty towards Constantinople is explained by the fact that, beside the Venetian history's events, the background is full of referrals to the Byzantine elements. Every ascending to the throne, every decease and even military action of the emperors in Constantinople are noticed. The entire chronology has as starting point the Byzantine emperors' rulership.

The presentation of the 812 treaty has a particularity in the Venetian optic. In reality, the pact between the Carolingians and the Byzantines represented an agreement that excluded all the other possible intruders [114]. The Byzantine sovereign had demonstrated his interest for the Adriatic area, including here not only Dalmatia, Istria and Liburnia, but also the lagoon region. This interest was better illustrated by a Byzantine fleet's campaign in the region. To preserve their influence in this area, the Byzantines were ready to recognize the imperial title for Charles. On their turn, the Venetian chronicles rather kept the episode into silence. When some chronicles mentioned it, they did it shadely, narrating about a global partitio, in the sense that Nikephoros I was to possess the Eastern Empire, and Charles to be the sovereign of the Western Empire [115].

Thus, the Venetian dilemma concerning the political legitimization was solved, even through the 'compromise' of the Venetian independence.

In time, the Venetian participation together with the Byzantines in different military campaigns becomes usual. It was regarded as natural in the struggles against the Saracens [116] and especially against the Normans in the Southern Italy [117]. The Venetians were proud to be called as "deffensori della Romania" [118]. The intrinsic reason was the same: the commercial interests' conservation [119], but this explanation is not transposed in the Venetian chronicles, as it does not appear any comment about the protection of the 'heretic' Byzantines against the Catholic Normans. While the previous common actions against the Saracens had had their justification in the religion, the cause of the same spontaneous Venetian participation is not discussed in the new circumstances. It is explainable that there is no chronicle to invoke the religious zeal when the Doge Ordelaffo Falier (1102-1118) sustained the Emperor Alexios I (1081-1118) against the crusader Bohemund of Tarent, Prince of Antiochia (1099-1111).

On the other hand, the chronicles present a kind of sympathy regarding the Normans, especially when they participate in the crusades and the Constantinople emperor becomes an obstacle in front of them. The sympathy permits even some mistifications, such as the proposal made to the Doge Domenico Michiel (1118-1129) by the barons and people of Sicily to become their king [120].

Mutatis mutandis, the Venetian-Byzantine co-operation seemed to be fruitful for the both parties, especially during the Comnenus dynasty in Constantinople. The first part of the Manuel I's rule is inscribed in this already usual evolution. Practically, there are no differences between the anti-Norman policy during Alexios I and during his grandson. The same scenery occurs:

1. Robert I Guiscard's, respectively Roger II's (1101-1154) assaults against Romania;
2. the aid solicited by Alexius I, respectively Manuel I to Ordelaffo Falier, respectively Pietro Polani (1130-1148);
3. the Venetian participation to the conflict, together with the Byzantines;
4. the Norman defeat.

There are indeed differencies in the geographical details, the names of the galley's commanders or others, but these do not affect the usual scenery. The Doge Pietro Polani's malady at the beginning of the anti-Norman campaign, his retreat at Caorle and then his death do not modify the usual evolution, since the very next Doge, Domenico Morosini (1148-1156) would follow the same course. Also, the ephemeral defeat in front of Robert Guiscard is not mentioned, for the explainable reasons [121]. The Doge Domenico Selvo's (1070-1084) condemnation by the Signoria, for the reason that he assisted more than necessary the Emperor Alexios I, does not interrupt the Venetian-Byzantine good relationship. The latter episode just demonstrates that the respective relations did not express the Doge's personal desire, but the community's one [122]. Actually, Alexios himself is many times regarded as "intimate friend of the Venetians" or "intrinsic friend" [123], when he recognizes the title of Dux Veneticorum, Dalmatiae atque Croatiae to the Doge Vitale Falier (1084-1096). The same when the Byzantine emperor sustains the Doge Ordelaffo Falier in the campaign of reconquering the Dalmatian seaside against the Hungarians [124].

The tense moment between the Doge Domenico Michiel (1118-1129) and the Emperor John II Comnenus (1118-1143) represents nothing more than an exception, concluded with the robbery of numerous islands in the Aegean arcipelago by the Venetian fleet returning from the Holy Land. Actually, after brief negotiations, the emperor would recognize the Venetian commercial privileges and everything would return to normality. Despite the mutual mental and structural animosities, the normal state between Venice and Constantinople seems to be based on a tight co-operation that allows to the both parties to be in profit.

Excepting Caroldo's chronicle, very detailed in the crusades' description [125], or the one written by Lorenzo de Monacis, which adopted a particular working method [126], all the other Venetian works [127] did not establish any connection between the crusades and the Venetian-Byzantine relationship. Actually, they do not have such an approaching as a purpose. That is why the inherent obstacles that Byzantium put in front of the different crusaders are not emphasized by the Venetian authors. Consequently, the Venetian relations with Constantinople did not seem to be affected by the crusades phenomenon. The partnership with Byzantium was preserved, moreover intensified.

Thus, this was the background before the 1171 episode. The Byzantine sources [128] impose the sensation that the Manuel's anti-Venetian act in 1171 was to rely upon some antecedents, that the arresting of the Venetian merchants was to be prepared by the previous events. This impression has proved to impose to the modern historiography [129].

Obviously, it is necessary to analyze the historical events on a long term, and to permanently follow the cause-effect relation. Nevertheless, it is not to automatically lead to the conclusion that the Venetians were to foresee the emperor's decision [130]. Otherwise, it could not be explained such a great number of Venetian prisoners [131]. Anyway, it is to be concluded that Manuel's act was received as an unexpected blow by the Venetian authorities [132]. At least, the Venetian tradition described it as a shock. The chroniclers did not come to any final common explanation for this event [133], so that they resorted to different interpretations.

Thus, some authors consider the emperor's envy against the Venetian merchants as the reason [134] and perhaps they are the closest to the reality. Others yet looked for specific, well delimited reasons, appreciating that the Signoria's refusal to participate together with Manuel in campaign against the King William II of Sicily (1166-1189) was to provoke the coldness in the Venetian-Byzantine relationship [135]. Still, other versions opted for motives residing in the legendary sphere. They invoke the Sybyll's prophecies or make referrals to the so called Vasilographos, the book of prophecies read by Manuel and that was to indicate the Venetians as the origin for the fall of Constantinople. According to this last point of view, the Manuel's action was determined by fear. Thus, the motive oscillates among envy, political calculation (doubled by the punitive action) and fear.

Since the last explanation was to a lesser degree analyzed [136], it is to be paid attention to the prophecies' respect, at least the prophecies spread in the Venetian milieu [137]. A first step in this sense had been done by the Marco's chronicle [138]. Its author seems indeed to be extremely involved in the prophecies [139], but concrete explanations for them would be delivered only by Lorenzo de Monacis, in his intention to demonstrate the inevitability of the fall of Constantinople in 1204 [140]:

"Quod profetata fuerit captio Constantinopolis, & ruina domus Hemanuelis Imperatoris, a parte indicat quantum Deo eorum scelera displicuerint. Sibilla enim hujus ruinae trahit initium a dicto Hemanuele, quem vocat leonem: nam imetu quodam violento, ac bestiali prorupit in scelerata facinora. Dicit ergo: Eneadum gloria in Bizantium deducetur. Eruntque Danai in robore delicato usque ad Leonem LX. pedum, donec catulos ejus. Ursus devoret. Idest Imperium a Romanis in Bizantium transferetur, & in pace propter virtutem Imperii usque ad Hemanuelem, qui vixit annis LX., & regnavit XL. donec filiod dicti Hemanuelis Andronicus devoret: dum enim post mortem Hemanuelis Imperium fuisset translatum ad Alexium puerum, Andronicus saepe seditionem in populo excitans, & ideo carceratus, tandem ne pacem turbaret, mititur ad regendum provinciam Ponti. Sed cum alter Alexius de genere Hemanuelis superbe regeret Imperium, Andronicus revocatus ad aemulis perempto dicto Alexio usurpat Imperium. Et Alexium puerum, cujus se agebat tutorem, jussit mergi in Pelago, Sequitur Sibilla de Andronico: Hunc Aquila despecta Ursum devoret. Idest Isach de genere Hemanuelis; qui ab/jectus videbatur. Hunc Andronicum, quem superius Ursum nominavit, interficiet. Isach enim inita conjuratione Imperium sumpsit. Cepitque locum, qui dicitur Os-Leonis ubi erant thesauri regii; deinde Andronicum in Ulacherna obsessum, captumque ignominiose mori fecit: Ex ipso Isacho natus est ille puer Alexius introductus a Francis, & Venetis in Imperium, quem Murtillus, ut tetigi late superius, proditorie suffocavit. Sequitur Sibilla: Aquilam Hircus ibumbret, pullum voret Aquila. Hic Sibilla nominaty Hircum Alexium fratrem Isachi. Isachium autem Aquilam, & Alexium parvulum Isachi filium nominat Pullum. Idest Alexius fratrem suum exulabit, & Alexium filium ejus parvulum carcerabit. Sequitur iterum Sibilla: Fietque potentium in aquis Adriaticis, congregatio, ceco Duce. Hircum abigent, Bizantium profanabunt. Idest potentia Gallicorum in Culfo mari Venetorum congregabitur sub Henrico Dandulo, quem fugentem officio legationis Hemanuel feccerat abacinari; ipse enim Dux fuit tantae congregationis & ductor, & rector: & abigent Hircum, idest Alexium fratrem Isachi fugabunt, & capient, & profanabunt Bizantium propter praedas, & sacra inde ablata; sequitur Sibila: Hircus non balabit: Gallus non cantabit, usque dum LXIII. pedes, & pollices novem discurrant. Idest Imperator Graecus non imperabit, nec Patriarcha Graecus donec discurrant anni LXIII. & menses novem; tanto enim tempore Latini Constantinopolim tenuerunt. […]".

The legend imposes a direct relationship between the Manuel's anti-Venetian attitude and the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, being thus anticipative. Nevertheless, it presents a special importance. It was thereafter retaken entirely by some chronicles [141], with some particularities. The Sybyl's prophecies were put into connection with what had been called as Vasilographos by Marco, thus appearing new legends and myths concerning Constantinople. Present especially in the anonymous chronicles, the respective adjustments intend to demonstrate that the Sybyl's prophecies were to be consulted by Manuel and later by the Emperor Andronicos I (1183-1185). In the latter case, the Andronicos' appetite for prophecies is certainly due to the influence of Nicetas Choniates' text [142]. The Venetian chroniclers artificially transferred the episode described by the Byzantine author towards the Manuel's period. The same chronicles that mentioned the Vasilograhos episode went even farther, relating a legend, which, upon my knowledge, has never been studied before [143]. That is why I am to introduce it, utilizing 13 codices from Marciana library:

It. VII. 2592: 25a-25b

Morto che fu Alesio inperator romase la sua Dona Vedoa et dona disonesta la qual uiuendo el marito jera inamorata in uno giouene de uil Condⁿ che era di nation de uilani doue li baroni li erano dietro alla d^a dona che la douese prender marito acio linperio non andase in ruina et douese tuor quel a lei parese doue d^a disonesta dona dice a questo suo bertone che era zouene et galgiardo che hauea nome Grifone chel douese far uenir tuti li amici et parenti suoi nella terra ocultamente che tutti ella li faria sconder nel suo Palagio et questo p^che li baroni uoglino che la debi prender marito a chi lei piacera pensando eli che sui debi tuore uno di loro doue io li faro redur tutti tali baroni nel Palagio et li diro che io non uoglio altri che la persona tua et cusi te faro impera^re di Costantinopoli et quando loro non uolese a consentire a questo farai che tutti saluati fora del Palazo doue sarati scosi et talgiateli tutte a pezi et fati etiam che nela tera ne sia gran numero de uoi altri acio se la tera et el populo uolese far molesta alcuna ue posiate mantenir nel stato et cusi come lei haueua ordinato fu fatto.

El d° Grifone parlo con certi suiparenti et amici intrinsichi quali erano de uno Casalle propinquo a Costantinopoli doue in breuissimo tempo haueuano asunato una gran moltitudine de uilani et queli alla zornata li faceuano redurli nella tera sparpagnati in diuersi locci et poi queli li pareuano piu forti li fecero ocultarli nel Palazo secondo lordene della donna.

Fornito che ese el tutto la dona fece redur tutti li principali deli baroni nel suo Palazo con dirli che li uol contentarli di maritarsi et cosi reduti che i furno li dise che lei uoleua satisfarli di prender marito ma uoler quelo a lei piacera doue loro si contentorno et lei dise di uoler Grifone et lo fece uenir alla presencia di loro doue d^ti baroni disero che p^ nisun modo niente non conportariano che uno di uil sangue et di natione uilana fuse suo inperator doue inmediate tutti queli che erano scosi nel / palazo saltorno fuora et amazorno tutti queli baroni de sangue reale et cusi mancorno in quel tempo el sangue reale di Costantino p^ la malegnita de una tanta donna peruersa.

Dapoi fatto questo la d^a donna tolse p^ marito d° Grifone et fecelo inperatore et li mudo el nome et fecello chiamar Emanuel […].

It. VII. 2543: 33b-34b

Et fu una Dona: la qual hauea p^ hereditade lo Imperio d^ Costantinopoli: et tutti li baronj delo Imperio ge diseuano tutto el zorno da [?] la si douesse maridar: p^che si alto Imperio come era quallo non era ben che Dona douesse signorizar: si che telli p^ mando uno d^ nui Baroni chi piace piase [repetition in the text] che quello n^ro signor maturale: et la Dona ge daua boni parole et niente feua: p^che la dita Dona solamente amaua uno buffo zoe uillan ch^ la tegniua in sua corte p^ famegio et tanto chel dito villan buffon giaque co^ la cuta [?] vorma [?] et tere sua uolontade. In quello te^po staua i buffoni zoe i uillani a lauorar defuora ai lanni [= latini]: e de citadini ne era ancora assai: ma tuta fiada era grande numero d^ populo molto molestaua, et erano contenti i latini che la Dona si maridasse: et ella diceua Sig^ri Baroni ch^ non saria uista cosa che io deuisse tuor p^ marido adorno che non gufir massendo in questo Imperio: et pero ui / dico di farlo il zorno che statuiro et fe che tutti li Baroni uegnano al consegio: come de rasone se apartiendi ellezero uno Imperadore: molto sono contenti i Baroni, ch^ cusi farte parole: et la Don p^ le preduti Paro [?], le deno grande speranza a tutti quelli che che prete^deuano de tuorla p^ muier: et conuocati tutti i Baroni in lo palazzo: e si chiama boccalione e fece bon serarele porte e guarnir ben de i grifoni zoe de i villani: et poi fi ni la ditta sala uegnire li Baroni e diseli Sig^ri Baroni et caualieri che tante deba maridar: ma prima uoglio che uui mi debiati zurare ch^ quello io ellezero p^ mio marito nui el regneresi p^ nostro Imperadore lui et la sua heredita: e senza flao lui e nasudo et nudrigado in questo Imperio e sie in questo palazo: et tutti li Baroni se zurono: como ella ha ue ditto: e zaschadun era seguo d^ la sua bona speranza: et la Dona disse in alta voce: Io ui comando sopra il sagramento che uui haueti zurato che de qui in auanti nui tene p^ mio marido e p^ Imperador costui che e qui ali p^nte: e mosta apertamente el suo famelglio ueteno questo I romaseno moltosbigotidi: et uolseno amazarlo con la Dona insieme: e subito fono auerte i porte e intrano gran zente dentro de Grifoni zoe uillani: p^che la dona li hauea messi destramente de^tro et erano ben armadi: et comenzono amazar tuti i baroni e latini che se trouano nela dita sala; e, / fu una gran misiada fra luna e laltra parte: ma i Baroni ch^ non haueuano arme tutti furno morti: et in tale maniera fu morti et destrutta tutta la Baroni de i lanni [=latini] de lo imperio et subito fatto questo i ditto inscino fuora con una ba^diera leuada: et Andorno p^ la terra: et tutti i latini che i trouono ulcigeno: Apresso brantorno questo malidicto Bufon zoe uillano: e partolo nela giesia d^ S. Sophia et fu incoronado Imperador: et tenne lo imperio quietamente in questa maniera se parti lo imperio d^la posanza d^i latini: et uene ion la Sig^a d^ Greti zoè uillani: longo tempo steti lo Imperio a uno grifone Imperador: el qual haueua nome emanuel: e questo bon caualier largo et cortese e di grande ualore: […].

It. VII. 1586: 24a-24b

In tempo di questo Doxe gl'intrauenne una grandissima guerra trà l'Imp^re di omania, et gli Venetiani et fò per questo modo e haueua nome Emmanuel.

L'era rimasto una Donna Vedoua à Constantinopoli della Casada ch^ era dello Rè Constantino, et non haueua alguno heriede due delli suoi baroni molto la infestauano, la si douesse maritare impero non staua bene ne era conueneuole che i fossero retti per femina. et la donna gli daua buone parole, et niente lui faceua. Et questo perche la donna amaua follemente vno Grisone cioè uno Villano, loquale lui teneua in la sua Corte per famiglio, et tanto la fece, che la'i giacque con lo detto fameglio, et hebbe la sua voluntade.

In quello tempo l'auano li grisoni cioè li villani a lauorar di fuora, et gli Cittadini e li baroni stauano dentro della Cittade, che gl'erano assai, uno giorno la d^a Donna sendo pure stimolada molte et assai fiate di douerse maritare.

Vno giorno le disse à questi suoi Baroni, et Cittadini voi mi hauesse tanto stimolada à douermi / maritare et secondo il mio parere à me e giusta cosa parie dapuo che voi volete che io mi mariti Io non deuo tuorre marito saluo de questo che siano nasciudo in questo Imperio. Et però io son contenta di compiacerui et maritarmi, io ui dico, che cotal giorno fate che tutti li Baroni dell'Imperio siano qui in questo mio Palazzo, et io ui dico che uoglio sia mio marido, et uostro Imperatore. Et dette queste parole, molto bene furono contenti li Baroni.

Et uenuto il giorno ordinado et siando tutti li Baroni addunadi nello Palazzo. La Donna hebbe fatto occultamente nascondere nello d^o Pallazzo lo d^o Grisone con molti, et assai Grisoni cioè Villani, cioè molto ben armadi et stauano molto ben attenti assentendo lo commandam^to della Donna; Et fatto questo siando congregati tutti li Baroni in lo Palazzo lo quale si chiama bochalion et fatto ben serrar le porte del ditto Palazzo.

La Donna si leuò in piedi, et ad alta uoce la cominciò a dire, ò Signori voi siete tutti quà p^ sappere quello io uoglio eleggere p^ mio marito et vostro Sig^re però io uoglio, che tutti voi mi giuriate de mantenire et obbedire colui che io eleggerò per uostro marito et gli giurate lealtade et fedeltade. Et quando la Donna hebbe complido lo suo parlamento tutti giurorno come a Donna haueua detto tutta fiata cadauno di q^lli baroni si pensaua esser loro di suoi perche a molti gli haueuo dato la gran speranza.

Et da puo tutti hebbero giurato ella grida con vna gran voce, et dice sopra el sagramento voi mi hauete fatto, che da qui auanti voi teniato p^ mio marido et costui che e qui al p^nte. Et mostrali apertamente quello suo fameglio Grison cioe Villano, el qual era appresso di lei.

Quando li baroni uiddero questo li rimasero molto sbigottiti, et lo uolse ammazzare con la donna di brigada. Et di subito furono aperte le porte, et entrò di gran gente de gran grisoni li quali la donna destramente haueua messo dentro li quali erano molto ben armadi, et cominciorno ammazzar tutti li baroni et Cittadⁱ che si trouarono in la d^a salla et fò una grande contesa trà luna parte, et l'altra alla fine li Baroni che ne haueu^o arme tutti furono morti a mala morte. Et in tal maniera fu morta, et destrutta tutta la Baronia delli Latini dell'Imp^o de Constant^li.

Et subito fatto questo l'usci fuora con la bandiera leuada, et andò p^ la terra, e tutti li latini che elli trouauano gli uccideuano. Et dapuò lo tranchò questo maleditto grison cioè villano et portollo in la Chiesa di S^ta Soffia, lui fò incoronato Imp^re et dapoi lui tenne l'Imperio quietamente. Et per questo modo li fù tolto l'Imperio dalli latini di sua mano et uenne in la possanza delli grisoni cioè delli villanj.

Et lungo tempo stette l'Imperio nelle sue mani, mà alla fine l'Imperio uenne alle mani d'uno grison che haueua nome Emmannuel et certamente costui fù buono, et largo, cortese di gran valore, [...].

It. VII. 1577: 177-182

Et qui Letor, tu dei alle volte notare sol per voler sapere per qual via l'Impero Grego si è pervenuto dal Latin Grego, et perché modo sia., dirò l'effetto, come io l'ho sentito. Saper dovete, che l'Imperatore di Terre Greche sempre fò lassato, et era in tutto vero Esecutore pperchéera scielto dal gran Costantino, alto de sangue, e de gentil lasata, et soccedendo sempre bon camino Catolico, zentil, et tanto / ornato, che non avea pari in sua zentilezza, ma può fò bastardata, et amalata. Però se di udir non ti aggrava, adirai, e saprai il modo, e come l'è revoltato in Greco per tristezza.

In quel tempo el venne gran discordia tra Veneziani, e l'Imperio de Romania, el remase una donna Vedoa della Casa del Re Costantin, e non avea Eredi, per muodo, che i suoi baroni molto la infestava, chela se maridasse, perché l'Imperio non stava ben, ne era convenevole, che el fosse governà per man de femene, dicendo, Madonna volete tuor per marido uno de noi, qual ve piase, che nui l'obbediremo, come Signor nostro …….. [gap in the text]. La donna i dava bone parole, perché sua intenzion era de tuor altri. Quela era innamorada, e portaua grande amor a uno grifon, cioè Villan, che ella teniva nella / sua Corte, el qual stette con lei per fameio, e seuiga sua volontà. Quei Grifoni, over vilani stava fuora a lavorari, e i Cittadini Latini, che jera assai, stava dentro della Città, onde la ditta dona siando stimolada assai fiade per quei suoi, che la se dovesse maridar, un zorno l'avè a dir a suoi baroni, et Cittadini; voi m'avete tante volte stimolada, che io mi debia maridar, sicchè me par avea a mi, che se io me marido, non debia tuor, se non da quei sia nassado in questo Imperio. Io son contenta de compiacerve, me voio maridar. El tal zorno fe, che vui ne sia tutti i baroni dell'Imperio in questo mio Palazzo; e in quel zorno mi vè dirò qual che voio, che sia mio marido, e vostro Imperator. Intese i baroni quelle parole, i rimase contenti, e de bona voia. / Essendo venudo il zorno deputado, tutti quei baroni venne al palazzo. Quella donna avea fato nasconder nel dito palazzo quel grifon, era assaissimi altri grifoni, cioè vilani erano ben appunto armadi. Stando attenti al comandamento de Madona, furono serade le porte, la dona si leva in pè digando alta vose. Signori vui sé tutti qui per voler saver qualo io vojo elezer per mio marido, e vostro Signor, sichè voio, che tutti vui me debiè zurar, che colui, che mi elezerò, vui el tignare a obedir per vostro Signor, e zurarè fedeltà. Tutti quei zurano, pensando tra lor alcuni d'esser quello, perché quella avea da gran speranza a certi di quei.

Quella con gran vose gridò, e disse, io vi comando per el sagramento voi avè / fato, che da qui auvanti voi debie tegnir per mio marido costui, che è qui al presente, mostrandoli avertamente quel grifon staria jera età [?] suo fameio, e che quello staria appresso di lei, che se chiamava Bochalion. Quando i baroni vede quello, tutti rimasero sbigotidi, uoiando ammazar quello in compagnia con la dona. Subito furono averte le porte, et uscì fuora quei grifoni che erano ascosi, e ammazano assaissimi de quei baroni, e cittadini, che erano in la Sala. Et questo p^erché essi non avevano arme, furono morti a quel muodo, e destrutto la baronia d'italiani dell'Imperio de Costantinopoli. Quei grifoni uscirono fuora a bandiera spiegada, andando per la terra, e tutti i Latini i trovano tutti / ammazzavano.

E dapoi i tolse quel grifon villan, e compagnolo in la Glesia de Santa Sofia, e li el fò incoronado Imperator, governando quietamente, et a quel modo fono tolto l'Imperio ai Latini, e quello venne entro i grifoni, cioè vilani.

E longo tempo stette l'Imperio in lo sue man, e ala fin quello venne in un grifon, che se chiamava Emanuel, el qual fono prudente, e cortese; […].

It. VII. 798: xvj b-xvij a

De una grandissima uera che i^trauene tra el doxe e la signoria e limp^io de romania. I q^sto te^po era romaxo una dona uedoa i^ constantinopoli de la caxada ch^ fo del re Constanti^ e no^ aueua algu^ Vnde li sui baronj la standaua che la douese elezer p^ marido uno de loro baroni p^ch^ lo Imp^io staua mal i^ ma^ de una dona e questa do^na amaua forteme^te uno grifon zoe uno uila^ el qual jera i^ la sua corte p^ suo fameio i^ tanto la fexe chel zuxe(?) con lei Eli grifoni uilani gregi i^ q^l tempo lauoraua fora de la cita e li latini habitaua tuti i^ la cita de constantinopoli Vnde la deta dona u^ zorno fece asco^der lo dito grifo^ uila^ co asaissimi uilani i^ el suo palazo adunadi et mando tuti la soi baroni ch^ jera taliani diga^do ch^ la uoleua prender marido et adunati nel suo palazo la fexe serar le porte E molti ne jera de q^li p^ baroni ch^ se credeua ess^ suo marido, finalm^te la dita dona uoleua che tuti li zurase nela ma^ che colui ch^ la tocca p^ marido I la hobediua et aurelo p^ suo signor et cusi feceno onde la fece / insier duora el dito grifon digando ch^ questo la uoleua p^ suo marido che I lo douese hobeder et q^sti uedando q^sto grifon uila^ Il uolse perder p^ la qual cosa la fece insir fuora li altri grifoni uilani armadi e fece taiar a peci tuti li suo baroni et al dito grifo^ romaxe lo Imp^io et a q^sto modo fi priuado li latini de lo imp^io. Morto costui lo imp^io uene a le ma^ de uno altro grifo^ che haueua nome manuel. E fo homo de bo^ rezime^to. […].

It. VII. 2560: 59b-60a

In quello tempo era rimasa una dona uedoa in Constantinopoli dela Casa che fo del Re Constantin, e non hauea algum. Onde li suo baroni la stimolaua che la douesse elezer p^ marido uno de lor baroni. p^ che limperio staua mal in mane de dona. E questa dona amaua fortmente uno grifon zoe uno villan el qual era nela suo Corte p^ so fameglio, e tanto lo fexe che lo zaxete con ley. Eli grifoni villani griesi in quel tempo lauoraua fuora de la cita, Eli latini tuti habitaua in la cita de constantinopoli de che la dona uno zorno fexe asconder lo ditto grifon uillan con altri assaisimi uilani nel so palazo armadi, e mando p^ tuti suo baroni che erano taliano digando a quelli che la uoleua prender marito / et adunali nel suo palazo la feze ferar le porte, e molti ne jera de quelli baroni che se credeua esser so marido. finalmente la d^ca ch^ uoleua che tuti li zurasse ne la man, che colui che la tora p^ marido elli lo obediratio. et hauerano p^ suo signor e cussi fexeno, de ch^ fato questo. la d^ca feze usir fuora el dito grifon digando uoler q^llo grifon uillan il uolse uador, et ella subito feze usir fuora quelli altri grifoni uillani armadi. e feze taiar a peze tuti I suo baroni et al dito grifon rimase lo Imperio. Morto Costui lo Imperio come ale man de uno altro grifon chiamato emanuel. e fo homo de bon rezimento. […]

It. VII. 550: 67a-67b

[...]. In questo tempo era ancora rimasta una Donna Vedoua in Costantinopoli della Casà che fù del Re Costantino non haueua più parente alc^o doue che li suoi Baroni la stimulauano de continuo ch'ella pigliar, douesse per marito, uno d'essi Baroni, et q^to perche l'Imperio staua molto male nelle mani d'una Donna, et sapiate che q^ta damma ciioè l'Imperatrice amaua molto sinsceratamente [sau sui ?], un Griffone, cioè un Villa^no il quale haueua lei per Famiglio il quale uuita(?) lei dalli ardentissimi strali di Cupido dormì con esso lui doue che un giorno questa Imp^ce fece ascender molti Villanni suoi Parenti, et eran armati et mandò per tutti li suoi Baroni ch'erano Italiani, Dicendo fratelli mei, et figlioli, et padri, io uedendo come piu fiate me hauete ancor detto che l'Imperio era senza Il gouerno, hò elletto per mio legittimo Consorte qui nel Palazzo, onde ui prego ancor uoi che lo accettate perche cosi uoglio per uostro Imp^re. Onde li Baroni che si pensaua ciascun d'esser esso, quelli ueduto Griffone appresso / l'Imperatrice corsero per uolerlo uccidere, doue che li Griffoni ch'erano ascosi uedendo ciò uscirno fuora, et occissero tutti quelli Baroni, morto custui l'Imp^io uenne alle mani d'un'altro Griffone chiamato Emanuel, [...].

It. VII. 2563: 8a

In quel tempo era romaxo una dona uedoa in Constantinopoli, della casa del Re constantin ch^ no^ n'haueua eriedi, onde li soi baroni la stimolaua ch^ la douesse elezer p^ marido uno de loro baronj. Per ch^ l'Imperio staua mal in man de do^ne, questa do^na amaua forte un griffon, zoe un uilla^, el qual era so famegio, in la so corte, el qual tanto fexe, ch^ luj uxo co^ lej, et i griffono uillanj greci, in quel tempo lauoraua fuora della Cittade, et i Latinj habitaua in la Cittade de Constantinopoli, onde un zorno la ditta do^na fexe sconder el dito uillan, ci^ assaissimi uillanj armadi in nel suo Pallazo, et mando à chiamar tutti i so baronj, che erano Italianj, digando che la se uoleua maridar fassando serar le porte del suo Pallazo, i qual baronj uedando questo bon principio, molti de loro credeua esser suo marito la qual donna hauendo fatto questo, uolse che i prediti baroni li zurasse sagramento, ch^ coluj ch^ la uolesse tuor p^ suo marido, fosse da loro obedido, et acetado per suo signior, è cusi i ditti baroni fexeno, al'hora le fexe insir el ditto griffon, digando ch^ ella el uoleua p^ suo marido, et ch^ i lo douesse obedir. Vedando i ditti baroni sto griffon uilla^ saltono suxo per amazzar p^ honor della Reame, uedando questo la ditta Rezina fexe insir i ditti uillanj, che era armadi, et scosi digandoli amazza, amazza, et cusi quelli fexeno, tagiando à pezzi i prediti baroni. All'hora morti ch^ i fono, el ditto griffon romaxe à lo Imperio, et a q^sto modo i latini fono priuadi dallo Imperio, nel qual el uiuete certo tempo, et poi morite, et in luogo suo uene unaltro griffon chiamado manuel, el qual fo homo de bon gouerno, […].

Zancaruolo: clxx a-clxx b

Essendo morti tuti dela descende^tia del re costanti^o e rimasa sola e vnicha vna dona de essa desce^ntia. Et no^ hauendo alcuna desce^dentia ouero heredita. Onde li baronj del Imperio dubitando ch^ essa descende^tia no^ pre^desseno fine. consegliati i^sieme determino de p^suader e p^gar essa dona azo no^ finissa i^ essa la descendentia de costantino. Onde essi p^suasse essa ch^ alezesseno vno di loro p^ suo marito et Imperatore. P^ch^ e limperio no^ doueuano esser i^ gouerno de dona. Onde essa dona rispose ai p^dictj baronj. Che la era contenta de ap^hender marito. Onde li dicti no^ ostante che laidaua al secu^do voto. Sapie^tissimamem^te disimulo. Questa era azesa de amor passionadam^te a vno suo famegliko ch^ erano dei Grifoni zoe Vilanj. El quale piusor volte lei cognosete carnalmente In modo ch^ lamor co^uense q^lla da ogni rason e dignita ch^ in lei doueua^ esser. No^ risguardando a q^lle fino antiponerle passionalme^te essa dete opera e congrego moltitudine de essi grifonj Vilanj cu^ arme: I quali nel suo palazo ascose cu^ comandam^ti a essi che come fosse reduti I suj baronj li douese taiar a piezi. E far p^ suo Imp^ador / quel ch^ lei diria. Onde lei ma^do p^ tuti li soi baronj e congregati i^sieme: li e disse ch^ la voleuano prender marito. E presedenti essi nel palazo lei fece ferar le porte del palazo. Molti de q^li baronj crede^do ch^ lei li douesse tuor p^ suo marito. Finalm^te la dita dona co^strense ch^ tutti li zurasse nele mano sue proprie. Ch^ voluj ch^ la troua p^ suo marito et suo Imperadore dessi. Ch^ loro li obediscano e honora Come suo Imperatore e tuti zurono de ess^ obedie^tissimj. Et acceptar q^llo p^ suo Imperatore: lei fece Insir fuora al ditto Grifone digandolj a loro voler q^sto p^ suo marito. E che essi douesseno obedir. E quellj vedendo tal discu^fornita(?). Che vno Grifon ouer vilano succedesse al imperio. E sdegnati el volse amazar lei vede^do el sdegno homicidiale: subito le face vscir fora q^lli Grifonj Vilanj armati cu^ furioso Impito taglio a pezi essi baronj. el dito Grifon rimase Imp^ator et fo portado p^ la terra. E poi Inela giesia de s^ca sophia eli fo Incoronato p^ Imp^ator.

Do puo la morte di Costuj. Successe alo Imperio vno altro Grifon chiamato p^ nome emanuel et fuo homo di bon rezime^to. (…)

Donà: 29a

Dapoi Taliani Zoe del sangue di Costantin Imp° intro in le man de gregi il primo fo Ms. Trifon imperator il qual fo Villano et fece tagliar a pezi tutti li caualieri christiani di nation Italiani, et questo fi per comissione dell'Imperatrice. doppo costui fò un Emanuel [...].

Erizzo: 38b-39b

In questo tempo el romaxe una donna Vedoa in Constantinopoli della caxada d^le so d^l Re Constantin, e non haueua algun heriede, per muodo, che i suo Baroni molto la infestaua, et stimolaua, che la se douesse maridar, perche l'Imperio non staua ben, ne conuegneuole, che'l fosse gouernà per femene, digando Madonna uoiè tuor per marido uno de noi, qual à uoi piaxe, ch noi l'obbeiremo, come no^ S^or natural. La donna i daua bone parole, perche suo intention iera de turo altro, quella iera innamorà, e portaua grande amor à uno Griffon, zoè Villan, che lie tegniua in la suo corte per fameio, el qual stette con lie, e seguì suo uolontà, enei(?) Griffoni grieghi, ouer Villani staua d^ fuora à lauorar, e i cittadini Latini, che ierano assai, stauano dentro della città, onde la ditta donna si^ndo / stimolada assai fiada per quei sio la se douesse maridar, uno zorno l'haue à dir à suo Baroni, et Cittadini, uui m'hauè tante fiade stimolada, che io ma diebba maridar, che se io ma marido non contanta de compiaxerue, ma uoio maridar, el tal zorno fe, che uni ne siè tutti Baroni dell'Imperio in questo mio palazzo, e à quel zorno io ue dirò quello uoio sia mio marido, et uero Imperator. Intexi i Baroni quelle parole i romaxe contanti, e de bone uoia siando uegnudo el zorno deputado, tutti quei Baroni uenne al palazzo, quella donna hauea fatto asconder in el ditto palazzo q^l Griffon, con assaiss^i altri griffoni zoè Villani, et ierano ben à po^to armadi, stagando attenti al commandanto de Madonna. Siando redutti tutti quei Baroni nel palazzo, el sonno sarrado la porte, la Donna se leuà in pè, digando ad alta uoxe S^ri uui sete tutti qui per uoler sauer quello io uoio elezer per mio marido, et uero S^or si che uoio, che tutti uoi me dobbiè zurar nelle man, che colui, che elezerò uni el tegnirà, et obbedirè per uero S^or et zuroli fedelta nelle man, tutti quei Baroni Italiani i zurono, pensando tra lor algion de esser quello, perche quella hauea dai gran speranza à certi de quei. Quella con gran uoxe cridò, e disse io ne commando per el sagramento uoi hauè fatto, che da q^ auanti uoi ne dobbiè tegnir per mio marido costui, che è qui al p^nte, mostrandoli auertp^te quel griffon, zoè Villan iera sta suo fameio, e quello staua appresso da lie, e nome un Boccalion, quando i Baroni uette quello, tutti romaxeno sbiegottidi, uoiando occidar quello da compagnia con la Donna, subbito el fonno auerte le porte, e l'inscinno fuora quai Griffoni, zoè Villani iera ascoxi tutti armadi, e a^mazzanno assaiss^i de quei Baroni, et Cittadini, che iera in la sala, et questo perche i non haueriano arme, fonno morti à quel muodo, et destrutto la Baronia d'Italiani dello Imperio de Constantinopoli quai griffoni inscinno fuora con bandiera spiegada, andando per la terra, e tutti i Latini i trouano i a^mazzauano. E dapuò i tolse quel griffon, zoè uillan, et accompagnollo in la gliexia da S^ta Sophia, e li el fo incoronado Imperator gouernando quietamente, et à quel muodo fonno tolto l'Imperio à i Latini, et quello uanne intro i Griffoni, zoè uillani.

Longo tempo stette l'Imperio nelle suo man, et alle fin quello uenne in n° / Griffon che nomeua Emanuel, el qual fonno prudenta, e cortexa, e fo homo de bon rezimento. […].

Veniera (2580): 121a-121b

In q^ll tempo era romasta una do^na ueduua in co^sta^tinopoli della casada de Re co^sta^tin, ch^ no^ haueua heredi no^i^nata erinj, ond^ li sui baroni li stimulauano lei douesse ellezer p^ marido uno dilloro baroni, p^ch^ l'imp^io starà in ma^ de do^na, et q^sta do^na amaua forte uno grifon, zoe vn vila^; el qual era suo fameglio in la sua corte, et tanto fece, ch^ lui dormite co^ lei, et li grissoni uilani greci i^ quell'tempo lauoraua de fora della citta, et li latini tutti ha^itaua nella Citta de Co^sta^tinopoli, Onde un zorno la ditta do^na fece sco^der el ditto vila^ co^ assai uilani nel suo palazo armadi, et poi ma^do p^ tutti li sui baroni, ch'erano, dicendo, ch^ uoleua p^ueder p^ marido, et adunarli nel suo palazo et fece serar le porte, et molti erano de q^lli baroni, ch^ credeuano ess^ suo marido, I ta^to la dissè, ch^ la uleua, ch^ tutti li zurassè, ch^ cu lui, ch^ ella elessè p^ marido, tutti li obediria, et hauerlo p^ suo Sig^re, et cossi fecè, Onde fe uscir fora el ditto grifo^, dicendo, ch^ leo lo uoleua p^ suo marido, et à q^llo douessono obedir, Questi vedendo q^sto vila^, lo uolsseno obedir, p^lla qual cossa fece uscir fora li altri grifoni, Vilani, ch^ tenero ascosi, armadi, et fece tagliar à pezi tutti li sui baroni, et al ditto grifo^ romase l'imp^io, et à q^sto modo fu priua li baroni d^ll'Imp^io. / morto costui l'imp^io vene in vno altro grifo^ chiamato hemanuel, ch^ fu ho^ de bo^ intelette et degno, […].

Veniera (791): 68a

Dapoi Taliani cioè del sangue de san Constanti^ l'Imperio intro in le mani de Grieci, et in prima fu grifon Imperator, El ditto era villano, et fece tagliar a peci tutti li Caualieri, et Sig^ri Taliani esendo Inuidati tutti in Pallazo, et questo interuene per amor della Imperatricer che la Non uolse p^ marido alcun talian, anci uolse Grifon, che era uillano, et lei co^mando che tutti li taliani fusseno morti, et cusi fu fato, et da poi questo fu Hemanuel: (…).

A remarkable element is the discussion about the so-called grifoni or vilani, in the sense of the low condition persons [144]. I am not to approach the terminology respect [145], confining to its signing. I only specify that there is only one case that Grifone appear as a propper noun [146]. In all the other examples it is common noun, meaning an entire community, both ethnical and social.

There are differences among the chronicles regarding the possible parentage between the 'usurper' and Manuel. In some cases, Manuel himself was to be the author of the act, in others he was only the son or a simple descendent [147].

It is to be noticed that one of the chronicles (respectively, It. VII. 2580) specifies also the name of the 'treacherous' empress, that is erinj, hence referring obviously to the Charlemagne's period, namely to the Empress Irene (790, 797-802) in Constantinople. In some other cases, there is directly mentioned Alexius I as the last emperor belonging to 'the house of Constantine" [148].

The nomination of the Byzantines as grifoni would be also utilized in other circumstances, especially regarding the John III Vatatzes' (1222-1254) [149] and Michael VIII Paleologue's (1259-1282) reigns [150]. It is to be specified that this extension of the denomination appears also in some chronicles that do not retake the respective legend. Without mentioning the legend, some other chronicles do not hesitate to underline the Manuel's unnoble origins [151]. In connection with the lack of legitimity of the different dinasties on the throne in Constantinople, there is to be remarked some chronicles' intention to promote the supposes pretentions of the Venetian noble family of Giustiniani, which was reliable to claim the Justinian I's ancestry [152].

It is also interesting that the respective legend had a quite large development in the Venetian milieu. It is demonstrated by its narration by Marcantonio Sabellico, the official authority in the Venetian historiography [153], nominated by the authorities to write the Venice's history [154].

"Sordida haec hominis perfidia, & quae degenerem omnino in tanto Principe arguit animum, efficit ut credem illus, quod apud quosdam rerum Venetarum scriptores reperio, humili loco Emanuelim natum affirmantes, ac viduae mulieris immoderata libidine, omni per occasionem nobilitate caesa, ad fastigium tanti Imperii pervenisse. Fuerat haec Alexii, credo (quia illi Emanuel successit) uxor: quo defuncto, quia foeminae auspiciis tantum imperium administrari non posse apparebat, eam Principes & alii ad novum hortabantur connubium: ut ex omni procerum nobilitate sibi quem vellet, in maritum legeret. Tenebatur haec interim consuetudine domestici cujusdam exoleti, Grifonis nomine (post occupatum imperium Emanuel dici voluit) huic clam ad se vocati nefarium aperit consiliu. Est, inquit, mihi in animo, ne novo matrimonio locata fructu nostrae consuetudinis caream, te, si vir veresis, ad imperii fastigium promovere: sed intellige tu, qua id ratione confici possit. Audio te multos tuae familiae viros habere, in agris omnino agentes: hos omnes tectis armis in urbem diversis itineribus diversoque tempore inducas volo: inde, quum tempus aderit, in parte aedicum ad coedem paratos esse oportebit. Tum proceribus Imperii vocatis, stipulari ab eis incipiam, velint jubeantque me nubere, cui velim: sint ne cui nnupsero, pro Graeciae Imperatore habituri. Si se id facturos (quod non dubito) dicerint, tum ego te & meum jurare omnes. Quod si facere recusabunt, tum hominibus tuae factionis ad unum trucidandos objiciam. Probat ferox & amans juvenis mulieris consilium: atque omnibus, ut inter eos convenerat, comparatis, aversati Principes tam sordidas nuptias, ad unum ferro caesi sunt: atque ita eo die ab iis qui ex Constantino procreati erant, de situm est in Graecia imperitari. Occupato un hunc modum Imperio, ferunt Emanuelem in divinorum carminum libellum incidisse: quem quum forte evolveret, exhorruit vehementer fatidicum carmen, quo significabatur, fore quandoque, et ex Hadria venirent, qui Byzantium occuparent."

It is more surprising as Sabellico himself becomes confused, regarding Manuel I as immediate successor of Alexius I!

The main idea resulted from the above texts is that the Venetian vision promoted a new version for the translatio imperii idea. The innovation is that the classical sense of translatio was perceived by the Venetian chronicles not only in an original transfer of imperial power - from the Taliani to the Grifoni, but also in the period of time - in the shadow of the 1171 event. Thus, it was only the necessity of Manuel's attitude to determine the Venetians to break with Byzantium and to embrace the translatio theory.

Another problem to be raised up from the legend is into direct correlation with the previous events. One could assist to 'two Manuels', totally different one of the other. There isn abrupt change of his image, from the Manuel during the doges Pietro Polani and Domenico Morosini, inscribed and legalized in the already known algorhytm of the Venetian-Byzantine relationship fighting against Roger II, to this grifone, usurper and infidel, during the Doge Vitale Michiel. This respect should not be definitely settled since, despite his origin and condition, Manuel is ultimately appreciated as 'gallant', 'courteous', 'intelligent' or 'good leader' [155]. The situation tends to be more complicated, when the same chronicles appreciate the casa di Emanuel imperator as the legitimized family to govern Constantinople [156].

Some other more influent chronicles understood the evolution on the whole. The most typical example is suggested by Lorenzo de Monacis, who underlines that the Comnens had been initially Venetians' friend, then becoming their enemy, depiction followed by all the invectives attributed to any 'traitor' [157].

Still, the other chronicles do not operate with such a long term analyses. For instance, the chronicle attributed to Marcantonio Erizzo simply affirms that Manuel was amigo intimo de' Venetiani, in the usual tradition launched especially by his grandfather, Alexios I. After a few pages, the same chronicle relates about Manuel as inimigo, without any supplementary explanation [158]. On the same page, another chronicle describes Manuel as Alexius' legal descendant, and then it presents the legend about the grifoni [159].

Thus, the impression of two different characters could be imposed. When the anonymous authors have a global perspective, there is a veritable transfer of Manuel, in order to be demonstrated his participation to more and more anti-Venetian actions. Thus, the anti-Byzantine campaign that succeded to the Venetian crusade in Palestine and that occured in the Aegean arcipelago had the same Manuel as opponent [160], although the reality illustrates, together with all the other chronicles, that the Venetian act was aimed against his father, John II (1118-1143).

The above legend's virulence against the Greek emperors is not by chance placed even during the last period of Manuel Comnen's rule [161]. It decisively demonstrates that the blow given by the Constantinople emperor to the Venetian commerce represented one on the most difficult moments for Venice. The events' immediately subsequent evolution proved that the Venice's existence itself was seriously put to the test. It is not an exaggeration, and the emperor's declaration that "he wants to reduce the Venetian power to nill" [162] represented more than a simple rhetorical statement.

The lagoon community's reaction was to immediately retort with the army [163]. All the chronicles mention the Doge Vitale Michiel's measure to construct and enarm a hundred galleys in a record time: a hundred days. The events are well known, so that I am not to insist upon them. It is only to be specified that, despite a promising beginning [164], the result was totally unfavorable for the Venetians. Although they vary in some details, the Venetian chronicles generally express a state of mind typical for a turning-point [165]. This could be concluded merely from the enumeration of some immediate consequences: the spread throughout Venice of a plague epidemy caught by the Venetian army in the Aegean Sea, the people's reaction against the Doge Vitale Michiel - accused of being the principal guilty, his dismissal and assassination and moreover the modification of the entire system of Doge's election. Also, a brief time afterwards, during V. Michiel's successor, the Doge Sebastiani Ziani (1172-1178), after some unsuccessful attempts to complete an agreement with Manuel Comnen, the entire Venice's commercial system would change, being directed to the territories of the 'infidels' [166]. The atmosphere created around the new doge would be illustrative for the Republic's situation after the anti-Manuel campaign. In the new context, it was to be scanned: "Vivat talis dux, et utinam per eum possimus pacem obtinere" [167], thus the peace became the most precious thing for the Venetians in those moments.

It is certain that the phenomenon of Manuel's culpability becomes huger and huger. It is not surprising at all that the Byzantine emperor is accused to be the one who had poisoned the drinking waters in the island of Chios, thus determining the so high mortality around the Venetian army. The case of the Pietro Dolfin's chronicle, which expresses its doubts by adding the expression "it is said that" to the depiction of the episode, remains almost singular [168].

The Vitale Michiel's punitive action came to a lamentable end. Nevertheless, the chroniclers would attempt to reduce the catastrophe's proportions [169]. They would present that Venice still had the potential to mobilize a new army, so that Manuel was obbliged to begin the negotiations [170]. Some other chronicles would indicate that the remnants of the Venetian fleet on their returning from the Aegean Sea were not exactly remnants, being capable to re-occupy Trogir, Split and Dubrovnik in Dalmatia [171]. In this latter case, there is an inversion of the events, since the respective Dalmatian cities had been already re-conquered by Vitale Michiel's army in the preamble of the campaign in the Aegean Sea [172]. Moreover, some chronicles attempt to impose the idea that Vitale Michiel's rulership would continue, offering different events and facts to this hypithetical period [173].

All of these details only hush up the explosive situation from the lagoon community. It should only be underlined that there is only on the occasion of the 1171-1172 events that Byzantium is definitely condemned and settled in the 'infidel' camp, and the Greek emperors are regarded as usurpers. At the same time, the capture of Constantinople by the Venetians would offer legitimization to the 1204 action, which result is thereafter seen as the coming back of the Eastern empire to the right faith.

A part of the Venetian chronicles continues to describe the relationship with Manuel in the period subsequent to Vitale Michiel. The negotiations between the ambassadors sent by Sebastiani Ziani to Constantinople and the Manuel's ones would prolong, and the Venetian chronicles emphasize them. The Venetians would utilize a kind of diplomatic stratagem, they often menacing with an offensive and defensive alliance with the Norman king of Sicily William II (1166-1189) against Byzantium [174]. On their turn, the Byzantine envoys' diplomatic rhetoric would many times put the Venetian patience to the test. Despite some chronicles' assertions that Manuel was to liberate the Venetian hostages captured in 1171, others contradict this ending. The reality demonstrates that in 1175 the treaty of peace would be concluded and the commercial privileges be renewed, although only partially [175]. Still, the chronicles relate the episode when the Doge Sebastiani Ziani repudiated the Byzantine ambassadors [176] and even renounced to the commerce in the Byzantine regions [177].

Explorations and negotiations would continue after Manuel I's death [178]. Still, it would be only on the occasion of the Fourth Crusade's events when the Venetians would entirely receive again their ancient commercial rights.

As a supplementary specification, the shock received by the Venetians in 1171 would be also reflected much later, after the 1204 episode. Although unconditioned rulers of the Latin empire of Constantinople, the Venetians would expressly stipulate the periodical renewal of the commercial privileges in their relationship with the emperors from the Flandres and Hainault dynasties or with the co-emperor John of Brienne [179].

*

* *

The Western world regarded the iconoclasm as the moment when the Greeks had been to abandon the right faith, and thus the 800 act seemed to be justified as the returning to the legitimacy. Nevertheless, the Venetian community introduced another vision, original and according to their own interests. That is that the Greeks had deviated from the Christ faith only once with the anti-Venetian settlements taken by Manuel I, and the returning to normality would occur only at 1204.

See Appendix. Codices that utilize the terms of grifoni or vilani, as invectives against the Greeks

[21] For the attempts to delimitate between legend and political reality, see Gina FASOLI, "Nascita di un mito", in Studi storici in onore di Gioacchino Volpe per il suo 80^o compleanno, Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1958: I, 447-479; Roberto CESSI, Venezia ducale, Venice: a spese della Deputazione di Storia patria per le Venezie, 1963: I, 8-18, 27-30; Silvio TRAMONTIN, "Realtà e leggenda nei racconti marciani veneti", Studi veneziani 12 (1970): 35-58; Antonio CARILE, "Le origini di Venezia nelle più antiche cronache veneziane", in In memoria di Sofia Antoniadis, Venice: Biblioteca dell'Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 1974: 27-40; IDEM, "Le origini di Venezia nella tradizione storiografica", in Storia della cultura veneta dalle origini al Trecento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza editor, 1976: 135-166 (reply of the previous article, with some additions); Mario De BIASI, "Leggenda e storia nelle origini di Venezia", Ateneo Veneto, 172 (1985): 77-101. All these works focuse their attention on the respect of the Venetian origins or of the Saint Mark's myth. The Venetian history is yet full of legends also in other contexts, see T. S. BROWN, "History and Myth: medieval Perceptions of Venice's Roman and Byzantine Past", in The Making of Byzantine History. Studies dedicated to Donald M. Nicol (ed. by Roderick BEATON and Charlotte ROUECHÉ), Aldershot: Variorum, 1993; Şerban MARIN, "Veneţia - între Carol cel Mare şi Bzanţ. Reprezentarea momentului 800 în tradiţia cronicistică veneţiană [Venice - between Charles the Great and Byzantium. The 800 Episode's Reprezentation in the Venetian Chronicles' Tradition]", Analele Universităţii Bucureşti. Istorie 49 (1999) [forthcoming]; IDEM, "Imaginea împăratului Manuel I Comnen în cronicistica veneţiană [The Image of the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus in the Venetian Chronicles]", Revista istorică 1-2 (2001) [in print].

[36] It is not my intention to clarify the debate around the difference between chronicles and histories, as I consider the so-called 'transition' from chronicle to history as being relative. See James CONDAMIN, La composition française, Lyon: Emmanuel Vitte-Paris: Croville-Morant, 1898: 107-108; Bernard GUENÉE, Histoire et Culture historique dans l'Occident médiéval, Paris: Editions Aubier-Montage, 1980: especially 203-207. I regard A. CARILE's assertion that, for instance, Paolo Ramusio Jr.'s opus would represent the translation from chronicle to history [A. Carile, La cronachistica ...: 203] as being rather metaphorical. For the importance of Paolo Ramusio's chronicle, see Şerban MARIN, "A Humanist Vision regarding the Fourth Crusade and the State of the Assenides. The Chronicle of Paul Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius)", Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 2 (2000): 51-120 (63-81) [= http://www.oocities.org/serban_marin/ramusioindex.html]

[109] See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, edited by Gy. MORAVCSIK and R. J. H. JENKINS, Budapest: Pázmány Péter tudományegyetemi görög filológiai intézet, 1949: 120-121 (chapter 29: "DihghsiV pwV katwkisqh h nun kaloumenh Benetia / Story of the settlement of what is now called Venice"). Confronted with Pippin's pretentions, the sieged Venetians themselves would response that "HmeiV douloi qelomen einai tou basilewV Rwmaiwn kai ouci sou. / We want to be servants of the emperor of the Romans, and not of you." For the Byzantine vision regarding the Venetians, see especially Paolo LAMMA, "Venezia nel giudizio delle fonti bizantine dal X al XII secolo", Rivista Storica Italiana 74 (1962): 457-479; H. ANTONIADIS-BIBICOU, "Note sur les relations de Byzance avec Venice...", cit.

[112] Şerban MARIN, "Veneţia - între Carol cel Mare şi Bizanţ", cit.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 3 (2001), edited by Şerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2001

smarin@dnt.ro

Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage