In the early stages of imperial rule in Italy Venetia et Istria constituted a
single province but at some stage in the seventh century it was divided
in two. Istria embraced most of the peninsula, but its northern limits are
uncertain, since it came under continual pressure from Lombards, Avars
and especially Slavs. Extremely little is known of it during the imperial
period, and it fell into Lombard hands for brief periods in or soon after 751
and again between 768 and 772. By 774 it was once more in the eastern
emperor’s possession, but at some stage in the late eighth century it was
conquered by the Franks, possibly at the time of Charlemagne’s victory over
the Byzantines in southern Italy in 788.62 It is all the more ironic that the
most informative document on the society of Byzantine Italy survives from
this obscure region and from the period immediately after imperial rule.
In 804 three Frankish missi met at Riˇzana with the patriarch of Grado, the
duke of Istria, the local bishops and 172 representatives of the local towns
to examine the rights and exactions customary in the times of the Greeks.
The resulting report, known as the Plea of Riˇzana (or Risano) reveals the
considerable local power exercised by the landowners and their leaders
(primates); their attachment to their military offices (such as tribune) and
to the titles obtained from the eastern empire (hypatos or consul); and the
relatively low level of taxes paid to the empire.63
Istria’s neighbour to thewest,Venetia, remained under Byzantine authority
and experienced the most dramatic development in our period. The area
also presents serious problems because the evidence is scanty and often late
and unreliable. The islands of the lagoon from Chioggia in the south-west
to Grado in the north-east had received an influx of refugees at the time of
the Lombard invasion of 568 and became the predominant element of the
Byzantine province of Venetia when the mainland city ofOderzo fell to the
Lombards and the residence of the magister militum or governor was transferred
to Eraclea (also known as Cittanova). The area followed the general
pattern of Byzantine Italy, with political and economic power concentrated
in the hands of a local elite drawn from the ranks of the imperial garrison
but increasingly identified with local interests.Within the islands, however,
economic activity must have been based on fishing and local trade as much
as agriculture. It was probably as a result of its growing trading role that the
duchy was able to make an agreement with the Lombard king Liutprand
which defined its boundaries on the mainland.64 The area’s distinctiveness
was fostered by the existence of its ecclesiastical structures separate from
the mainland under the authority of the patriarch of Grado.
According to later tradition, a period of a century and a half of rule by
the indigenous nobility of tribuni was followed by the election of the first
local doge or duke, supposedly in 697 or c. 715.65 In reality this event only
occurred in 727, with the election of the Eraclean leader Ursus, and it was
part of a more general process. As we have seen, many provinces elected
their own duces that year as a result of general discontent with the policies of
Emperor Leo III (see above, p. 441). The step also turned out not to denote
a decisive break with the empire, since Ursus was soon recognised by the
Byzantines as an autonomous dux with the title of hypatos, and the area’s
continued loyalty to the empire was demonstrated by the help given to
the exarch Eutychios in recovering Ravenna in the 730s. As elsewhere, the
decline of imperial authority and mounting pressure from the Lombards
led to an increase in conflict between local factions. The details of these are
obscure, but they appear to have stemmed from rivalries between different
families and islands, as in 742 whenMalamocco revolted against the capital,
Eraclea, and elected as duke Deusdedit, the son of Ursus. These internal
pressures were exacerbated by the powerful presence of the Franks in the
region from the 770s on. Venetia and Istria were not included in the papal
claims to former imperial territories expressed in the ‘donations’ of Pippin
from 754 and 756 (see above, p. 444), but they did figure among the lands
promised to Pope Hadrian I by Charlemagne in 774.
Loyalty to Byzantium nevertheless remained paramount, and was
reflected in the use of imperial titles and customs. For example, the family
of Maurizio Galbaio was probably following imperial practice when
the founder’s son and later his grandson were coopted as dukes. Meanwhile
Frankish power in the region was further enhanced by Charlemagne’s
takeover of Friuli and Istria and defeat of the Avars, and certain factions
found it expedient to side with the newwestern empire. Such a pro-Frankish
group seized power in the person of Obelerius in 802. When Charlemagne
recognised Venice as a Frankish fief under his son, Pippin, king of Italy,
Nikephoros I (802–11) retaliated by sending a fleet under the command
of the patrikios Niketas. A compromise was reached whereby Obelerius’
position as doge was confirmed and he accepted the title of spatharios as
an imperial official. A truce between the two empires was signed in 807.
However, hostilities broke out again whenObelerius showed renewed signs
of disloyalty to the empire and a second Byzantine fleet came into conflict
with the Franks. Pippin intervened and sacked several of the settlements of
Venice shortly before his death in July 810.
In the face of this crisis the Venetians sank their differences and established
a new centre of settlement and administration at Rialto under a
new doge, Agnello Partecipazio (or Particiaco). Local opinion had shifted
decisively in favour of attachment to Byzantium,66 and Venetia was recognised
as Byzantine territory by the treaty agreed between the Frankish
and eastern empires in 812. Venice benefited from its new-found stability
to develop into an important emporium – trading in the luxury items
of the east; exporting western timber, slaves, salt and fish; and serving
as the empire’s listening post in the west. The growth and sophistication
of Venice’s commercial role is reflected in the will of Doge Giustiniano
Partecipazio, who died in 829: in addition to extensive property-holdings,
it lists investments in long-distance trading ventures.67 Venice’s relations
with Byzantium remained cordial, with widespread use of Byzantine titles
and fashions, but in practice the province was increasingly independent.
The doges also wished Venice to enjoy ecclesiastical independence, especially
after the suffragan sees of the patriarchate ofGrado were placed under
the patriarch of Aquileia by the council ofMantua of 827. In the following
year the body of StMark was seized in Alexandria by Venetian seamen and
deposited in a new basilica adjoining the ducal basilica in Rialto. The city’s
new patron rapidly became a symbol of Venetian pride and independence.
The middle years of the ninth century were a period of both danger
and opportunity for Venice. The Byzantine and western missions to the
Slavs helped open up new areas to Venetian enterprise, but also led to new
tensions which complicated Venice’s position as a middleman. Even more
serious was the wave of naval raids launched by the Arabs of North Africa.
Venice’s growing naval strength was called upon by the Byzantines to help
combat these attacks on Sicily in 827 and in theAdriatic in the 830s and 840s.
In 840 a treaty was signed with Lothar I, guaranteeing Venice’s neutrality,
boundaries and right to trade freely. Frankish recognition of Venice’s power
and independence was reflected in confirmations of the agreement in 856
and 880 and by a state visit by Louis II to the city in the former year. At the
same time Venice faced new dangers from Slav disorder and piracy within
its Istrian and Dalmatian spheres of influence and from the reassertion of
Byzantine power in the Adriatic following the reconquest of Dalmatia in
868 and of southern Italy from 876 onwards. Yet Byzantium continued to
recognise the need for Venetian naval assistance, especially when a planned
alliance with the Franks against the Arabs fell through. In 879 an imperial
embassy travelled to Venice to confer upon Doge Ursus I Partecipazio gifts
and the title of pr¯otospatharios. Ursus I’s dogeship also saw the creation
of iudices as magistrates and advisers to curb the doge’s authority and the
establishment of new bishoprics, including Torcello. From the late ninth
century, therefore, many of the characteristic features of medieval Venice
were in place, including some distinctive constitutional arrangements, a
marked independence in outlook and government, and wide-ranging naval
and commercial activities. Yet the city retained its powerful if ambiguous
links with the east.
World History
