What we know about the early history of Venice comes almost entirely from a dozen or so medieval chronicles, which were copied from each other in ways which are difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle. Moreover, the chronicles come to us as copies of copies of copies, more, but often less complete.
Links
Transcript
Episode 28 — The early sources
The letter by Cassiodorus from 537 — discussed in-depth in the previous episode — is the first written source we have for the people of the lagoons and their lives.
At that time, the Venetians were living in the Ostrogoth Kingdom, which — until the Byzantine invasion in 535 — included all the Italian peninsula and main islands.
This was the very last time Italy was united in a single realm, until the Italian unification was finalised in 1870.
During these many centuries, Italy was — as the Austrian minister Metternich worded it in 1847 — a geographical term, not a political reality.
The Venetian proto-state emerged in the 700s and 800s from this fragmentation of the political realities on the Italian peninsula.
This if reflected in the sources we have for the earliest centuries of Venetian history — and more than anything — in the scarcity of sources we have.
In fact, until around the years 800, we have nothing substantial, and the main text is Lombard, not Venetian.
The first surviving Venetian document — non a chronicle or a narrative, but a single charter — is from 819, and there won’t be a proper Venetian chronicle for another almost two centuries.
In this episode, we go through the most important sources of early Venetian history. In the next episodes, I’ll try to tackle some of the fundamental questions in that early history, such as how, when and why the Venetians moved into the lagoons; how early Venetian society was structured and how it functioned; how the nascent Venetian state interacted with the surrounding powers of the Lombards, the Franks, the Eastern Roman Empire, and the popes in Rome; and finally St Mark, who post-mortem also became a part of the early Venetian history.
Much of all this — shrouded in legend — became central elements of the Venetian national narrative, and therefore the Venetian identity as a people, as a culture and as a community.
The creation of legends around the formative centuries of early Venice started almost immediately, as we shall see.
Paul the Deacon
The oldest chronicle relevant to Venetian history, is the Historia Langobardorum — The History of the Lombards — by Paul the Deacon, written in the 780s or 790s.
Paul the Deacon was, as the name implies, a cleric, at least later in his life.
He was probably born around 720 in the Kingdom of the Lombards in northern Italy.
He might have been of noble birth, and his family can be traced back some five generations to a Leupichis, who arrived in Italy with the first Lombards in the train of Kin Alboin in 567–568. Leupichis was awarded estates in Friuli, near the first Lombard capital of Forum Julii — Cividale del Friuli today.
In any case, his family background — or patronage — earned him the best education available at the time, in the Lombard capital of Pavia in — wait for it — Lombardy. He was there during the reign of King Ratchis, he stayed, and became secretary to King Desiderius, who reigned 756–774.
Now, a secretary to a king was not a lowly clerk or simply a scribe. Being secretary to the king was an important, and a powerful, position.
A secretary is, literally, one who knows all the secrets. He opens and reads the letters, decides what is worthy of his master’s time, responds directly to what isn’t, drafts responses for the kings, and runs the archives. A trusted secretary of a king might know more about the day-to-day business of the kingdom than the king himself, and as a privileged gatekeeper, he influenced what the king would see and hear.
Paul the Deacon was a centrally placed, and therefore a powerful actor at the Lombard court in Pavia.
When a daughter of Desiderius was married to the duke of the southern Lombard duchy of Benevento, Paul moved there with her.
Charlemagne, who had married another daughter of Desiderius, conquered Pavia and the Kingdom of the Lombards in 774, but Paul the Deacon was already in Benevento at that time.
The unfinished Historia Langobardorum, in six books, is an account of the history of the Lombard people from their legendary origins in Scandinavia, to the end of the reign of King Luitprand in 744.
It was probably written in Benevento after the fall of Pavia and the end of the independent Lombard Kingdom, so in the late 700s.
Many of the sources, which Paul the Deacon used for the earlier periods, have since been lost, such as the Annals of Beneventum and the history of the Lombards by Secundus of Trent.
The relations with the powers surrounding the Lombards are especially well covered, maybe thanks to Paul’s high status and central role in late Lombard government. The chronicle therefore provides us much information about the Popes, the Byzantine Empire, the Franks, and to a lesser extent, the Duchy of the Venetians under Byzantine rule.
Regarding Venice, the Historia Langobardorum is the main source for the Lombard invasion, the sacking and later conquest of the mainland cities of Venetia, finally leaving only the Venetia Marittima under Byzantine influence. However, the account of Paul the Deacon ends shortly before the final Lombard conquest of Ravenna and the definitive end of the Exarchate.
Almost all later Venetian chronicles get these parts, one way or the other, from Paul the Deacon.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus
The Eastern Roman emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus nominally ruled the empire for almost half a century.
However, he ascended the throne aged eight, in 913, and most of his reign was completely dominated initially by a regency council and later by several senior co-rulers.
He spent the many years in the imperial palace, when he was kept away from government affairs, studying law, history, geography and court ceremonial.
He only became sole ruling emperor in 945, at the age of 39. Constantine appointed his son Romanos co-emperor, and wrote for him a series of treatises on how to administer the empire. These texts are central sources for this period of Roman history, and they briefly touch on Venetia.
The treatise on the geography of the empire also covers Italy, and the Venetians are mentioned in parts of chapter 27 on the Kingdom of the Lombards, then Frankish, and in chapter 28, which is about Venetia Marittima.
It recounts how the Venetians moved from the mainland to the lagoons after the invasion of Attila the Hun in 452, and decided to remain there. The text also mentions many names of cities and settlements, some of which are easily recognisable, others less so. Finally, it tells a version of the story of the war between the Franks under Pepin, and the Venetians, and that the Venetians appointed their own duke, which was not normal procedure in the Byzantine Empire.
We don’t know where Constantine got his information from. He spent his entire life in Constantinople, and a large part of it confined to the imperial palace.
It is not unlikely, however, that parts of it came from the many Venetians living and trading in Constantinople at the time, as his account is well in line with the myths and stories the early Venetians themselves developed around their origins.
Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias
The Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias is the account of the translation (movement) of the relics of St Mark from Alexandria to Venice in 828.
Besides the hagiographic description of how the relics were moved, and the many miracles which happened along the way, there are many others interesting parts.
The author is unknown, but he was probably Venetian, either from Rivoalto — early Venice wasn’t called Venice yet — or from Grado.
For context, the Translatio starts with an account of why and how the Venetians came to live in the lagoons, fleeing the invading Lombards and abandoning their native cities on the mainland.
The narrative continues up to around 830, with the construction of the first chapel of St Marks besides the Doge’s Palace, on the sites of the current later buildings.
More than a dozen medieval manuscripts reproduce the text. The dating is uncertain, and different scholars have suggested a wide range of dates, from the mid-800s to the late 1000s.
The current consensus seems to be the late 900s, shortly before or contemporary with the chronicle of John the Deacon, which we’ll get to in a minute.
Chronicles of Aquileia and Grado
One of the defining events of early Venetian history was the displacement of the Patriarch of Aquileia to Grado.
Following the first Lombard invasion in 568, the Patriarch of Aquileia moved the seat of the patriarchy, and all its treasure and relics, to the city of Grado in the lagoons.
Grado was under Byzantine jurisdiction, and remained under Venetian control until the end of the Republic of Venice.
In 606, the Lombard rulers on the mainland placed one of their own as Patriarch of Aquileia, and the subsequent schism, with two patriarchs claiming the same territory, would be a source of conflict for centuries to come.
The Doge of the Venetians acquired the right of investiture of the Patriarch of Grado, leading the later Venetian state to have its own church organisation, independent of both Constantinople and Rome.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of such a development. Religion was important, and consequently the church was extremely influential, also in matters which we might not consider directly related to the faith.
Having its own patriarch made Venice a member of a very exclusive club, together with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, just like having the relics of St Mark — the author of one of the gospels and the thirteenth apostle — did.
The Venetians copied and treasured the documents recounting these events because they needed to justify and retain that right of investiture.
The oldest such document appears to be the Cronica de singulis patriarchis nove Aquileie — literally the “Chronicle of the individual patriarchs of New Aquileia” — which is probably from the mid-late 900s. It recounts the story of how the patriarchy moved from Aquileia to Grado, and the subsequent schism.
Referring to Grado as “New Aquileia” represents a claim of continuity, much in the same way as Constantinople was called “New Rome” or the “Second Rome”. The claim of the Patriarch of Grado to be really the Patriarch of Aquileia became the more urgent when the Lombards placed a counter-patriarch on the throne in Old Aquileia.
Derived from the Cronica is the Chronicon Gradense — the Chronicle of Grado — also probably from the late 900s.
There are a few others, similar, chronicles related to the Patriarchy of Aquileia and Grado, exactly because it was an important matter, also politically.
John the Deacon
The chronicle of John the Deacon has many names, the most common being the Chronicon Venetum et Gradense — the Chronicle of Venetia and Grado — or the Istoria Veneticorum — the History of the Venetians.
It is the first Venetian chronicle ,the first History of Venice written by a Venetian, at least as far as we know.
The author, John the Deacon, was, as the name says, a cleric like Paul the Deacon.
They are both referred to by title or function because they either didn’t have a surname or a family name, or their title was the better way to distinguish them from others.
People in the Middle Ages often didn’t have surnames. Even if they appear in history books with surnames, they are often later additions, sometimes even inventions.
John the Deacon appears himself in the chronicle, where he is Iohannes diaconus. His employer, the doge Pietro II Orseolo, appears as Petrus dux.
We know a little more about John, than what can be deduced from the chronicle itself. This is because he appears in some formal documents from the time.
John was probably born in the early 940s, as he appears first in an official role in 967, when he must have been at least in his twenties.
He later appears as secretary to doge Pietro II Orseolo, who served from 991 to 1008. They must have been quite close, maybe even relatives, and John was on several occasions sent as ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor when the emperor was in Italy.
Just like Paul the Deacon, he was a trusted collaborator to the head of the state, and as such centrally placed and with access to plenty of documents, and in John’s case, active participation in high level international diplomacy.
Also, like his Lombard predecessor, he is fairly reliable for the period close to his own time, but much less for the earlier periods.
The last reference we have to John the Deacon, is a document from 1018, when he was in Rome, probably as an ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor, who was there at the time. He must have been at least seventy then, but we do not know where or when he died.
The Chronicon Venetum et Gradense is an account of the history of the Venetian people, chronologically, largely focused on political and military events. It ends in 1008 with the death of Pietro II Orseolo.
Given his vicinity to the people in power, he must have had access to all the documents in the archives, and he certainly knew the treaty with Holy Roman Emperor Lothar of 841.
The chronicle definitely drew on Paul the Deacon, with whom there are many similarities, and there’s an overlap with the Translatio, without it being clear who copied from whom.
As the first Venetian chronicle, it has been hugely influential on just about every later chronicle or history book on the early centuries of Venice. It will be difficult to find a history book on Venice, which doesn’t quote John the Deacon a few times.
Chronicon Altinate
The Chronicon Altinate — the Chronicle of Altino — has been just as influential as John the Deacon, but it is much more complicated.
It is usually called the Chronicon Altinate or the Origo civitatum Italie seu Venetiarum — The origin of the cities of Italy or of the Venetians — but also Chronicon Venetum — the Venetian Chronicle — which causes confusion with John the Deacon.
The Chronicon Altinate is not, despite the name, a chronicle, but rather a collection of various texts, which might — or might not — have the same author.
The earliest manuscript with the Chronicon Altinate is from the 1300s, but most scholars agree that at least parts of some of the included documents are several centuries older, from the 1000s or 1100s.
We don’t know the author — or authors — of the Chronicon Altinate.
There are eight books in the collection, very different in nature.
The first is a list of all the doges of Venice, which must have been extended as the text has been copied, as it finishes in the 1300s.
The second book lists the patriarchs of Grado, the bishops of Torcello, Olivolo and Altino on the mainland. It also recounts how the citizens of Altino decided to move into the lagoon, where they founded Torcello in the early 600s.
The third is a mix of accounts of three noble families, and descriptions of the various settlements in the dogado, their extensions and borders, and their particular conflicts, traditions and customs.
The fourth book is a very short chronicle of the patriarchs of Grado, but not the same as the Chronicon Gradese from the time of John the Deacon. They do share some material, though.
Then comes an account of the lives of eight doges, from the early 1100s to the early 1200s, in the fifth and sixth books. The texts are a bit messy. They are sometimes interrupted, bits are missing, or they lack continuity.
The last two books are different again. The seventh is an account of the events at the end of the Gothic Wars, in the 550s, with the story of general Narsete, who, having lost the favour of the emperor and empress, enticed the Lombards to invade Italy, leading the Venetians to abandon the mainland for the lagoons. It is not a very likely story, but it exists in many versions, and is also recounted in the Translatio.
The last book is about the period of Charlemagne’s rule over the Kingdom of the Lombards, and later his son, Pepin, and the war against the Venetians. The text is full of myths and anachronisms, as when Charlemagne asked to go to Rivoalto to worship the relics of St Mark, except Charlemagne died in 814, and the relics of St Mark arrived in Venice in 828.
As should be clear, the Chronicon Altinate is a very mixed bag, both regarding the content and the periods covered.
The late date of the earliest manuscript, and the way the texts have been mangled during copying make it a very difficult source, but important, nonetheless, as it contains much which doesn’t exist elsewhere.
A common theme in the texts, which constitute the Chronicon Altinate, is that they underline the independence of Venice from the other powers, from the very beginning.
The Chronicon Altinate therefore played a large role in the propagation of the ancient legends and stories around the origins of the Venetians and of Venice. These legends and stories would be told and retold in Venice for centuries, and consequently, they became an central part of the Venetian national narrative, and formative of a Venetian identity.
Popes and bishops
Other important sources for the history of the Venetians in the early Middle Ages are the Liber Pontificalis — biographies of the popes and their deeds, often written shortly after their lives — and similar works describing the tenure of the various bishops of Ravenna and the patriarchs of Aquileia, and later Grado.
The church is the only institution with a continued existence since Antiquity, and, for much of the period, the only place where a person could receive a sufficient education to be able to write a chronicle or a history book, or even just to make a copy of an existing work in a useful fashion.
That is the reason why even chronicles written for secular rulers — such as the history of the Lombards and the history of the Venetians — were written by men of the cloth. Often, they were the only ones capable of writing a longer text.
There is also a multitude of letters and charters, exchanged between the various parts of the church organisation, which have survived, not least because the uninterrupted existence of that organisation has facilitated such a survival.
Charters
Civil authorities also issued charters, for all sorts of grants, donations or privileges.
It should therefore not be a surprise that the Venetian doges issued charters, which are some of the earliest documents we have from Venice.
In fact, the earliest Venetian document existing is such a charter.
From 819, the charter was issued in favour of the abbot of the monastery on the island of San Servolo (which is in front of the Biennale gardens in Venice). In it, the two doges Agnello and Giustiniano Partecipazio, together with Fortunatus (the Patriarch of Grado) and Christopher (the Bishop of Olivolo), granted, in perpetuity, some land of their property between the lagoon and the mainland, for a Benedictine monastery, which should produce food and income for the monks of both monasteries.
Half the text is taken up with nitty-gritty details about the exact confines of the donated land.
The monastery became the Sant’Ilario and San Benedetto at Malcontento, which flourished in the 800s and 900s. The two donors were both buried there, and so were several other later doges. The monastery was destroyed in a war later in the Middle Ages, and lost, only to resurface centuries later from under the fields of a mainland farmer near a village named Dogaletto.
Closing time
So, it’s time to stop, but next time we’ll look into what these sources can tell us about how, why and when the Venetians left the old Venetia on the mainland, and moved to the new Venetia in the lagoons.
This distinction between an old and a new, smaller, Venetia, was already evident in the late 700s, when Paul the Deacon wrote about Venetia before the Lombards arrived:
For Venetia is composed not only of the few islands which we now call Venice, but its boundary stretches from the borders of Pannonia to the river Adda.
Leave a Reply