Domenico Selvo
Domenico Selvo | |
---|---|
Doge of Venice | |
Theodora Dukaina | |
Issue | by his first wife Domenico Selvo |
Domenico Selvo
Within the city itself, he supervised a longer period of the construction of the modern St Mark's Basilica than any other Doge. The basilica's complex architecture and expensive decorations stand as a testament to the prosperity of Venetian traders during this period. The essentially democratic way in which he not only was elected but also removed from power was part of an important transition of Venetian political philosophy. The overthrow of his rule in 1084 was one of many forced abdications in the early history of the republic that further blurred the lines between the powers of the Doge, the common electorate, and the nobility.
Background
Beginning with the reign of Pietro II Candiano in 932, Venice saw a string of inept leaders such as Pietro III Candiano, Pietro IV Candiano, and Tribuno Memmo. The reputed arrogance and ambition of these Doges caused the deterioration of the relationship with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, the stagnancy of the relationship with the Byzantine Empire in the east, and discord at home in the Republic.[2]
However, in 991,
As the power and reputation of Pietro II grew, the Venetian people began to wonder if he was secretly planning to establish a hereditary monarchy.[6] Their fears were confirmed when his son, Otto Orseolo (named after Otto III), assumed the title of Doge upon Pietro II's death in 1009, thereby becoming the youngest Doge in Venetian history at the age of 16.[7] Scandal marked much of Otto's reign as he showed a clear inclination toward nepotism by elevating several relatives to positions of power. In 1026, he was deposed by his enemies and exiled to Constantinople, but his successor, Pietro Barbolano, had such difficulty in attempting to unite the city that it seemed infighting would once again seize Venice.[6]
In 1032, Barbolano himself was deposed by those who wished to restore power to Otto Orseolo, but the former Doge lay dying in Constantinople and was unable to return from exile. Domenico Orseolo, a younger brother of Otto and a rather unpopular figure in Venice, attempted to seize the throne without waiting for the formality of an election, but as soon as he tried this, his many enemies, including those who pushed for the reinstatement of Otto, grew outraged that an Orseolo would assume the throne simply because he was the son of Pietro II. The power of the Doge was severely checked, and Domenico Flabanico, a successful merchant, was called by the people to the position of Doge. During his 11-year reign Flabanico enacted several key reforms that would restrict the power of future Doges, including a law forbidding the election of a son of a Doge.[8]
Doge
Biography
Life before Dogeship
What little is known of Selvo's past is based mostly on accounts of his reputation when he entered his Dogeship. Details of his family origins and even the year of his birth are unknown, but it can be assumed that he was a Venetian noble because, with the rare exception of Domenico Flabanico, only members of this class were elected to the position of Doge at this point in the Republic's history. Selvo supposedly belonged to a family in the patrician class from the sestiere of Dorsoduro who were allegedly of ancient Roman origin, possibly from one of the tribunes.[9] He had also apparently been an ambassador to Holy Roman Emperor Henry III and he was certainly ducal counselor to Domenico Contarini prior to his election as Doge.[10] Being connected to the relatively popular Doge might have been one of the causes for his own apparent initial popularity.[9]
Election as Doge
Selvo is notable for being the first Doge in the history of Venice whose election was recorded by an eyewitness, a parish priest of the church of San Michele Archangelo by the name of Domenico Tino.[11] The account gives historians a valuable glimpse of the power of the popular will of the Venetian people. Over the previous two centuries, the rule of quasi-tyrannies had plagued the popular belief that Venetians held democratic control over their leaders.[12] The events of Selvo's election occurred in the spring of 1071, when the nearly thirty-year reign of Doge Domenico Contarini came to an end upon his death.[13]
According to Tino's account, on the day of the election, Selvo was attending mass for the funeral of the late Doge at the new monastery church of San Nicolò built under Domenico Contarini on
After the funeral, a large crowd assembled in their gondolas and armed galleys.[9] Domenico Tino says "an innumerable multitude of people, virtually all Venice" was there to voice their opinion on the selection of a new Doge.[15] After the bishop of Venice asked "who would be worthy of his nation," the crowds chanted, "Domenicum Silvium volumus et laudamus" (We want Domenico Selvo and we praise him).[16] The people, according to the account, had clearly spoken, and with these cries, the election was over. A group of more distinguished citizens then lifted the Doge-elect above the roaring crowd, and he was transported as such back to the city.[15][17] Barefoot, in accordance with tradition, Selvo was led into St Mark's Basilica where, amidst the construction materials and scaffolding, he prayed to God, received his staff of office, heard the oaths of fidelity from his subjects, and was legally sworn in as the 31st Doge of Venice.[14][18]
Peace and prosperity (1071–1080)
During the first decade of his rule, Selvo's policies were largely a continuation of those of
In the east, Selvo not only maintained good trade relations with the Byzantine Empire, but also married into their royal family to consolidate the alliance that had existed for many years between the two nations. In 1075, Selvo married
Victory (1081–1083)
Despite the relative peace of the early years of Selvo's reign, the forces that would eventually lead to his deposition had already swung into action. In southern
When Selvo approached the city, Guiscard's ships had already anchored in the harbor at Durazzo. Though the battle was fierce, superior tactics by the skilled Venetian fleet overpowered the inexperienced Normans who were mostly used to land battles. The battered fleet led by Guiscard retreated into the harbor after losing many ships. Victorious at sea, Selvo left the fleet under the command of his son and returned to Venice a hero.[9] Because of the help given to the Byzantine Empire, in 1082 the Republic of Venice was awarded a Golden Bull: a decree by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos granting Venice many privileges, including a tax exemption for Venetian merchants, that would be crucial for the future economic and political expansion of Venice in the eastern Mediterranean.[25]
The defeat off the coast of Durazzo, though devastating to Guiscard's fleet, had inflicted little damage to his army as the majority of it had disembarked before the battle in preparation of the
Defeat and deposition (1084)
In 1084, Guiscard returned to the Balkans and planned a new offensive against Corfu, where a combined Greek-Venetian fleet, commanded by Selvo, awaited his arrival.[27] When the Normans approached the island, the combined fleets dealt Guiscard an even greater defeat than he had received in the naval battle at Durazzo. Guiscard ordered another attack three days later, but the results were still more disastrous for the Normans.[26] Selvo was completely convinced of his fleet's victory and sent all damaged ships north to Venice for repairs, to free them for other uses, and to report of their victory. The Doge then retired with the remaining ships to the Albanian coast to await the departure of the Normans. Acting on the Doge's belief that a third attack would be unlikely and that the presence of a slightly depleted Venetian fleet meant greater odds for victory, Guiscard summoned every floating vessel he could find and led the Normans into a surprise attack. His strategy, though perhaps risky, was ultimately well-calculated as it caused mass confusion among the Venetians, who were overwhelmed on all flanks, while the Greeks fled what they assumed to be a losing battle. Selvo barely managed to retreat with the remainder of his fleet, but not before 3,000 Venetians died and another 2,500 were taken prisoner.[9][28] The Venetians also lost 9 great galleys, the largest and most heavily armed ships in their war fleet.[29]
When the battered fleet returned to Venice, news of the defeat spread throughout the city to mixed reactions. Though some were willing to forgive the defeat considering the circumstances, many others needed someone to blame for the loss that was considerable not only in human and material terms, but also symbolically. The people of Venice had been humiliated by an upstart nation with practically no naval experience. Though Guiscard would die the next year and the Norman threat would quickly disappear, a scapegoat was needed at that moment.[30] A faction of influential Venetians, possibly led by Vitale Faliero based on later writings, led a popular revolt to depose Selvo, and in December 1084 they succeeded.[26] Selvo apparently did not make a great effort to defend himself and was sent off to a monastery.[9] He died three years later in 1087, and was buried in the loggiato of St. Mark's Basilica.[31]
Legacy
The Emperor flung open to them the gates of the Orient. On that day, Venetian world trade began.[32]
— Charles Diehl, French Byzantinist
After Selvo was deposed, it took several years for Venice to recover from the defeat at Corfu and for the Venetians to fully realize the immediate impact of his actions as Doge. When Venice provided military aid to the Byzantine Empire, they were awarded a Golden Bull by Emperor Alexios I that would provide the Venetians a great economic and strategic advantage throughout the eastern empire for centuries. According to the terms of the decree, annual grants were awarded to all the churches in Venice (including a special gift to the coffers of St Mark's), the Republic was granted whole sections of the Golden Horn in Constantinople, and Venetian merchants were given a full exemption from all taxes and duties throughout the territories of the Byzantine Empire.[26] Not only did this aid the rapid economic growth of Venice in the next few centuries by giving Venetian goods a significant price advantage over other foreign goods, but it initiated a long period of artistic, cultural, and military relationships between Venice and Byzantium. This combination of eastern and western cultural influences made Venice a symbolic gateway between the east and the west in Southern Europe.[25]
At the beginning of Selvo's rule, he took over responsibility for the third construction of St. Mark's Basilica.[33] This final and most famous version of the church, whose construction was begun by Domenico Contarini and finished by Vitale Faliero in 1094, remains an important symbol of the long periods of medieval Venetian wealth and power. The church is also a monument to the great Byzantine influence on Venetian art and culture throughout its history, but particularly in the 11th century. Though Selvo did not oversee the beginning or completion of St Mark's Basilica, his rule covered a longer period of its construction than the other two Doges who oversaw the project.[21] The Doge decreed that all Venetian merchants returning from the east had to bring back marbles or fine carvings to decorate St Mark's.[26] The first mosaics were started in the basilica under the supervision of Selvo.[34]
By gaining power through a vote of confidence from the people and then willingly surrendering power, Selvo, like many other Doges who underwent similar transitions, left a long-term impact on the succession process that would eventually become a model for peaceful, anti-nepotistic transitions of power in a
Notes
- ^ The correct modern spelling of many of the early Doges is difficult to pinpoint. In some older texts, one might encounter Domenigo Selvo (Hazlitt) or Domenicum Silvium (Sansovino) among a whole host of other spellings, but the most common spelling tends to be Domenico Selvo as can be seen in most of the references for this article, including Norwich and the official website for St Mark's Basilica.
- ^ Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 39–48.
- ^ Wolff, Venice and the Slavs of Dalmatia, pp. 428–455
- ^ Molmenti. Venice, p. 117.
- ^ Nicol. Byzantium and Venice, pp. 43–44.
- ^ a b c d Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 49–64.
- ^ a b Hazlitt. The Venetian Republic, pp. 115–133.
- ^ McClellan. The Oligarchy of Venice, pp. 39–43.
- ^ a b c d e f g Hazlitt. The Venetian Republic, pp. 134–143.
- ^ Rendina. I dogi: Storia e segreti, pp. 16–18.
- ^ Gallicciolli. Delle memorie venete antiche, pp. 124–126.
- ^ a b Grubb. When Myths Lose Power, pp. 43–94
- ^ Norwich. A History of Venice, p. 641.
- ^ a b Wiel. Venice, pp. 76–79.
- ^ a b c d e Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 67–70.
- ^ Sansovino. Venetia, p. 477.
- ^ Molmenti. Venice, p. 209.
- ^ Though Venetian legends consider Selvo to be the 31st Doge, the first two Doges, Paolo Lucio Anafesto and Marcello Tegalliano, are hard to verify historically. Norwich calls Selvo the 29th Doge, but others (e.g., Hazlitt, Rendina) either call him solely the 31st Doge or provide some distinction to clarify the issue.
- ^ Jacobs, Andrew S. "Christian History Maps, Part Two: Middle Ages Archived February 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine". University of California, Riverside. Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
- ^ Muir. Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, pp. 78–84.
- ^ a b Nicol. Byzantium and Venice, pp. 51–52.
- ^ a b c Staley. The Dogaressas of Venice, pp. 55–60.
- ^ Skinner. Family Power in Southern Italy, pp. 3–5.
- ^ Nicol. Byzantium and Venice, pp. 57–59.
- ^ a b Nicol. Byzantium and Venice, pp. 59–63.
- ^ a b c d e Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 71–75.
- ^ Although, according to Norwich, there is some doubt as to whether the Doge was in command of the fleet this time.
- ^ Hazlitt and Norwich list different numbers of casualties, but it is more probable that Norwich, who says 13,000 Venetians died, is mistaken as the only source he cites The Alexiad by Anna Komnene and Hazlitt cites several sources that state that only 13,000 Venetians were present at the battle at all. The entirety of the Venetian fleet was not destroyed, so Hazlitt's numbers seem to be more believable. The entirety of Anna Komnene's account can be found in Book VI of The Alexiad which is referenced below.
- ^ J. Norwich, A History of Venice, 72
- ^ It is difficult to tell if Selvo truly was at fault for the defeat in the third battle with the Norman fleet near Corfu, but according to Hazlitt and Norwich, almost all accounts name Selvo as an heroic figure who nearly overcame an unlikely counterattack. This claim is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and it clearly did not weigh heavily enough on the minds of the Venetians who overthrew Selvo based on the outcome of the battle.
- ^ Gonzato, Franco. Biografia dei 120 Dogi di Venezia Archived 2007-02-07 at the Wayback Machine. Cronologia.leonardo.it. (in Italian) Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
- ^ Cited in Norwich. A History of Venice, p. 73.
- ^ Munk. Venice hologram, pp. 415–442.
- ^ St Mark's Basilica. I Dogi e la Basilica Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. Basilicasanmarco.it. (in Italian) Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
- ^ Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 164–167.
- ^ Several centuries later, in order to diminish the power of the most influential families of Venice, a complicated process to elect a Doge was set up. Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected forty-five. Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge. Norwich. A History of Venice, pp. 164–167.
References
- Gallicciolli, Giovanni Battista. (1795). Delle memorie venete antiche, Venezia: D. Fracasso, Vol. VI. LCC DG676.3 .G3 Pre-1801 Coll. (in Italian)
- Grubb, James S. (1986). "When Myths Lose Power: Four Decades of Venetian Historiography". S2CID 143436340.
- Hazlitt, W. Carew. (1915). The Venetian Republic: Its Rise, its Growth, and its Fall. A.D. 409–1797, London: Adam and Charles Black. LCC DG676 .H43 1915.
- ISBN 0-14-044958-2.
- McClellan, George B. (1904). The Oligarchy of Venice, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. LCC DG677 .M13.
- Molmenti, Pompeo. (1906). Venice: its Individual Growth from the Earliest Beginnings to the Fall of the Republic. The Middle Ages: Part I. Translated by Horatio F. Brown. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, W. LCCDG676 .M7.
- Muir, Edward. (1986). Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice, Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-10200-7.
- Munk, Judith; Munk, Walter. "Venice hologram". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 116, No. 5. (October 13, 1972).
- ISBN 0-521-34157-4..
- ISBN 0-679-72197-5.
- Rendina, Claudio. (2003). I dogi: Storia e segreti, Rome: Newton Compton. ISBN 88-8289-656-0. (in Italian)
- Sansovino, Francesco. (1581) Venetia, citta nobilissima et singolare, descritta..., lib. xii, Bergamo: Leading. ISBN 88-86996-24-1. (in Italian)
- Skinner, Patricia. (2003). Family Power in Southern Italy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-52205-6.
- Staley, Edgcumbe. (1910). The Dogaressas of Venice (the wives of the Doges), New York: C. Scribner's sons. LCC DG671.5 .S7.
- Wiel, Alethea. (1894). Venice, New York: G.P. Putnam's sons. ISBN 1-4179-3411-5.
- Wolff, Larry (1997). "Venice and the Slavs of Dalmatia: The Drama of the Adriatic Empire in the Venetian Enlightenment". S2CID 163956975.