Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage Quaderni 2002

 

 

 

p. 49

The First Venetian on the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

The Representation of Tommaso Morosini

in the Venetian Chronicles

 

ªerban Marin,

Romanian Institute of Humanistic

Culture and Research, Venice,

National Archives, Bucharest

 

        While the contemporary narrative sources of the Fourth Crusade deal to a significant extent with the election of Baldwin of Flanders as emperor in Constantinople[1], they leave somehow aside the election of the Latin patriarch of the new empire. They do not make any distinctive mention to the ecclesiastical respect of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The only referrals (that is, Robert of Clari and Devastatio Constantinopolitana) note merely the Venetian right to select one of them on the patriarchal dignity, as compensation[2]. Actually, the stipulations in

p. 50

the agreement between the Venetian and non-Venetian crusaders on March, 1204[3] were clear in this sense[4], on the principle suggested also by the anonymous Devastatio Constantinopolitana: “[...]. Imperium est vestrum, nos habebimus patriarchatum[5]. Still, they do not regard particularly Tommaso Morosini (1204-1211), being limited to underline the separation between the secular and ecclesiastical powers in the new empire, as it was established in the treaty previous to the second capture of the Byzantine capital.

        Under these circumstances, there are only the opinions outside the crusader camp, Nicetas Choniates[6] and the correspondence of the Pope Innocent III[7] among

p. 51

the contemporary sources to take the person of the Patriarch Tommaso Morosini into account.

        On its turn, the modern historiography, with some notable exceptions, is rather scarce regarding the Venetian patriarch. The scholars have insisted indeed on the clause that the Latin Patriarch had been to be elected among the party that had not achieved the imperial dignity[8]. Some others have followed the path of

p. 52

Villehardouin, who presents an abridged version of the agreement on March, 1204 that makes no explicit mention about the election of a patriarch[9].

        Some historians have presented some few details about the person of the new patriarch, in the moment of his elevation[10], while others have ‘stated’ that he was in his youth[11] or have appreciated his qualities[12]. Some of them have specified that he was in Italy during his election[13], or they have even settled him more precisely: Tommaso Morosini was a monk in the monastery of Porto, near Ravenna[14]. This latter information, together with the one referring to his age are

p. 53

certainly retaken from a later source, that is Paolo Ramusio, who wrote in the second half of the 16th century[15].

        On his turn, a century and a half ago Samuele Romanin offered supplementary data, invoking the list of the 15 Venetian electors of the patriarch. Nevertheless, it also relies on a later source, that is Andrea Morosini[16].

        Actually, there are only few studies dedicated exclusively to the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople, elaborated by A. Belin[17], L. de Mas Latrie[18], Aurelio Palmieri[19], Leo Santifaller[20], Robert Lee Wolff[21] or Giorgio Fedalto[22], while the person of Tommaso Morosini has represented the particular topic for only one study[23]. Beside them, there are some others that simply attach different episodes, like Morosini’s relationship with the Pope Innocent III[24], with the French[25], Greek[26] or even Bulgarian[27] clergy etc., to more general topics.

 

p. 54

Actually, it is natural to ask ourselves: why were the Venetians to be interested in the achievement of the Patriarchal title of Constantinople, while their attitude of "Siamo Venetiani, et poi Christiani" has become a label in time, supposing their self-exclusion from the ecclesiastical matters?[28] Or is this label itself superfluous? The very fact that the mentioning of the Patriarchate’s fate is often and distinctly made in the documents regarding the organization of the new Latin states on the Byzantine territories demonstrates that the Venetians were also preoccupied on the religious respect. It is somehow surprising that none of the scholars that to a more or less significant extent have examined the treaty of March,

p. 55

1204 have underlined or commented this Venetian major intention to achieve such a notable ecclesiastical position. They have confined themselves to notice that the Latin Patriarch was to be elected among the party that had not achieved the imperial dignity. The separation between secular and ecclesiatical powers is strictly delimited by some scholars[29], thus suggesting to a certain extent the Venetian religious appetite. Still, the general opinion about the Venetian pragmatism and their lack of religiosity has been prevalent.

 

I have recently proposed a classification of the Venetian chronicles personally researched, having the non-Venetian crusaders in the Fourth Crusade as criterion[30]. On that occasion, I identified 11 categories, and I have in intention to maintain them when investigate the representation of Tommaso Morosini.

Strangely enough, the problem of the Venetian Patriarchate in Constantinople did not represent an element present in all the Venetian chronicles. It is absent in all the chronicles in the categories 6., 8. and 10. and in the majority of the ones in category 11. It is also to be inserted here the chronicle It. VII. 2555 that omits the entire episode of the Fourth Crusade[31]. There are writings that omit it, demonstrating thus that this achievement was not regarded as glorious as the Venetian superiority in the imperial elections[32] or in the new achieved title of “Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae”.

 

1. The chronicle known as Historia Ducum Veneticorum[33] that I formerly introduced in this category is this time to be excluded, since it deals with the episode of the Fourth Crusade only tangentially, so that the character of the Venetian patriarch in Constantinople is not present at all. Meanwhile, it is somehow natural to substitute it with the chronicle written by Pietro Giustiniani

p. 56

that has many common features with it[34]. Still, analyzing the representation of Tommaso Morosini, this substitution does not seem appropriate, since Pietro Giustiniani rather follows the pattern of categories 2. or 3. The explanation for this dichotomy should be that the two anonymous chronicles that copied more or less Historia Ducum, that is It. VII. 2571[35] and It. VII. 2581[36], are influenced this time by the chronicle of Daniele Barbaro[37] [previously approached to 11.]. In the same style as the chronicle Barbaro does, this category mentions Pantaleone Giustiniani as the first Venetian Patriarch of Constantinople instead of Tommaso Morosini. Actually, it is only a confusion with the last patriarch that was banished during the events in 1261 together with the last Latin emperor. That is why I am to dispose the chronicle Giustiniani as approached to category 2. and to transfer the chronicle Barbaro to category 1.

In addition, Barbaro makes referals to a certain Tommaso Morosini regarded as Patriarch of Grado[38] and offers some additional information about him.

 

It. VII. 2571: 103b

It. VII. 2581: 93a

[...]. Et allo Dose de Veniesia tocha per soa parte della cittade et de tutto lo imperio quarto I° [sic!] e mezo habiando questa prerogativa chel Patriarchado de Constantinopolj fosse sotto dominio et a so far et desfar et c. Ello primo chen de fo miso per Venicianj so lo Reverendissimo pare messer Pantalon Zustignan; [...].

[...]; et alo Dose de Veniesia tocha per la soa parte della cittade è de tutto lo Imperio 4to parte della Cittade è de tutto lo Imperio 4to uno e ½, habiando questa prerogativa, chel Patriarchado Constantinopolj fosse sotto dominio e a so far et desfar et cetera. Ello primo chen de fo messo per Venitiani fo lo Reverendissimo pare messer PANTALON

p. 57

 

ZUSTIGNAN [emphasis in the manuscript].

 

Barbaro: 243b; 246a-246b; 248a

[...]. Fatto però prima, et fermada con scritture publiche tra lui et il Dose predetto questa convention et questo accordo, cioè che la giurisdition et l’auttorità d’ellezer il Patriarca de Constantinopoli si aspettasse solamente al Dose, et che ne esse Imperator ne alcun altro dei altri Principi comparticipi in detto Imperio ghe ne havessino parte, [...].

Era in questo tempo Patriarca de Grado Thomaso Moresini, el qual, non podendo habitar in quella Città per esser deshabità, et esserghe malissimo aiere, impetrò da Papa Inocentio 3° de poder vegnir a far la soa residentia in Venetia. Onde havuta la licentia dal Pontefice, venne, et stette poi del continuo nel pallazzo del suo Patriarcado che era, come si e ditto altre volte, a San Silvestro su il Canal grande [...].

E anche similmente da saverse che il primo che fù elletto Patriarca de Constantinopoli fù Pantalon Zustignan; [...].

 

        Categories 2.[39], 3.[40] and 7.[41] comprise the chronicles that best reflects the reality. They are to be connected to other chronicles that also consider Morosini as the first to be elected Patriarch of Constantinople, although there are different interpretations, that is Giustiniani, Navagero[42] [approached to 2.], It. VII. 71[43]

p. 58

[approached to 4.], Trevisan[44] [approached to 5.], It. VII. 2572[45] and Sansovino[46] [approached to 9.], Erizzo[47] [11.] and Savina[48] [approached to 11.], It. VII. 1833[49] and also Flavio Biondo[50], It. VII. 1999[51] and It. VII. 74[52] (subsequently researched). For their scarcity of information, I am to settle the chronicles Giustiniani, It. VII. 1999 and It. VII. 74 close to the chronicle Sanudo [7.]. On the contrary, the chronicle Biondo seems more approached to category 3.

 

2. In addition, it is to be remarked the detail offered by Lorenzo de Monacis, Flavio Biondo and Andrea Navagero in connection to Baldwin’s coronation by T. Morosini, suggesting thus that the patriarchal election had been previous to the imperial one and, consequently, the Venetian position in the new empire was even stronger.

        Just like in the case of the chronicle Giustiniani, category 3. or Caroldo, the confirmation of Morosini as patriarch by the Pope Innocent III is continued directly by his military campaign against Ragusa.

 

p. 59

A. Dandolo: 280; 281

Monacis: 140; 142

P. Dolfin: 328b; 330b

Electio patriarche.

Clerus postea catolicus Venetorum canonicos in ecclesia sancte Sophie prefecit, qui venerabilem virum Thomam Maurocenio, genere nobilem, et moribus circumspectum, patriarcham constantinopolitanum concorditer elegerunt; electus quoque, elecioni consenciens, cum imperialibus et ducis nunciis, pro optinenda confirmacione, Romam perexit.

[...].

Thomas igitur Mauroceno, ab Innocencio patriarcha effectus, cum literis pape Veneciam rediit, [...].

Clerus Catholicus Venetorum praefecit Canonicos in Ecclesia Sanctae Sophiae, qui Virum Venerabilem Thomam Mauroceno genere nobilem, moribus, & virtute conspicuum Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum concorditer elegerunt, qui electioni consentiens cum Imperialibus, & Ducis nuntiis ad obtinendam confirmationem Romam accessit. [...]. Balduinus postea a praefato Thoma Mauroceno Patriarcha confirmato ab Innocentio Tertio Imperiale Diadema suscepit; [...].

[...].

Thomas Mauroceno Patriarcha confirmatus a Summo Pontifice, ut dixi, [...].

El Chiericato dapuo Catholico prepose i Canonici de Veniexia nella Giesia di Santa Sophia, i quali de commune consenso desseno Patriarcha di Constantinopoli el venerabele homo Tomaso Mauroceno [emphasis in the manuscript] nobel de generatione e di costumi assai circumspecto, electo etiamdio consentimente cum i messi dell'Imperatore, e del Duce andò à Roma per optenir da Papa Innocentio [emphasis in the manuscript] a confirmation della sua dignità.

[...].

Tomaso Morexini electo Patriarcha de Constantinopoli da Innocentio Papa confermato venne à Veniexia cum lo suo bolle Papale.

 

The chronicle Navagero insists on the initial Papal opposition to the Venetian Patriarch in Constantinople. Another original element is the specification of Henry of Hainault's coronation by the Venetian Patriarch in front of the ambassadors sent from Venice by the new Doge Pietro Ziani.

 

Navagero: 985-986

Il Doge in questo mezo in Costantinopoli avea eletto buon numero di Canonici nella Chiesa di Santa Sofia, i quali poi aveano eletto il Patriarca Don Tommaso Morosini. Il quale andato a Roma insieme cogli Ambasciadori dell’Imperadore, del Doge, e d’altri Principi collegati per la confermazione dell’elezion sua, il Papa non la volle confermare; anzi in pubblico Concistoro la rivocò e cassò, dicendo essere fatta contro la canonica regola, perchè a’ Laici niuna libertà è

p. 60

conceduta nelle cose Ecclesiastiche. Di poi à prieghi dell’Imperadore e degli altri Principi, motu proprio l’elesse, & eletto confermollo.

[...].

Al quale furono mandati quattro Ambasciadori che furono Ser Ruggieri Morosini, Ser Ruggieri Premarin, Ser Benedetto Ziani, e Ser Polo Querini, per confermare i patti, che avea fatto il predetto Doge coll’Imperadore Balduino; e avessero poi a restare Consiglieri appresso quel Podestà. I quali giunti a Costantinopoli furono presenti alla coronazione dell’Imperadore fatta da quel Patriarca; [...].

 

        3. The category imposes the idea that the two elections were simultaneous. According to It. VII. 2592, Tommaso Morosini was to be a Venetian citizen, recognizing thus that the character was not yet integrated in the ecclesiastical order.

 

It. VII. 2592: 30a; 30b

Sabellico: 181; 182

Auto che i ebeno la Citade di Costantinopoli, se redusero tuti li Principi Cristiani per elleger de uno inperator, dove deliberorno di elezer 15 quali havesero a far uno inperator et non si acordando, havesero a far uno Patriarca et cosi li Venetiani elesero 5 francesi 5 et li altri 5 furno eleti per li altri Principi con questa conditione che facesero inperator uno Venetiano et non lo facendo chel sia fatto almen el Patriarca della nation Venetiana.

Reduto che furno li sopra nominati 15, fecero inperator de Costantinopoli Baldovino di Fiandra, et Patriarca Tomaso Moresini Citadin Venetiano, dove dapoi andorno a Roma dal Pontifice, che lavesero a confermarli in tal dignitade.

[...].

Tomaso Patriarca di Costantinopoli ritorno da Roma con la confermacion del Pontifice et, esendo alquanto dimorato in Venetia, [...].

[...]. Horum igitur suffragio Balduinus Flandrensis Imperator est declaratus: cui Veneti Thomam Maurocenum privo suffragio Antistitem subjecerunt. Is Romam ad Innocentium Pontificem venit, ut adeptae dignitatis eum faceret auctorem.

[...].

Thomas interea Constantinopolitanus Antistes ab Roma reversus, ubi omnia ex sententia fuerat consecutus, quum aliquandiu Venetiis subsedisset, [...].

 

Biondo: 12-13

          Quiete urbi data proceres in consilio decreverunt quidecim viros ex omni exercitu deligendos, quibus creandi Imperatoris deligendique Patriarchae potestas esset irrefragabilis attributa. Quod cum placuisset, id Veneti petitum impetrarunt, nisi Imperator esset Venetus, Patriarcham ipsi possent ex arbitrio declarare a Romano Pontifice confirmandum. Partitio electorum in hunc maxime modum aequata est, ut quinque viros externi Principes Flandrensis & Sancti Pauli Comites, totidem Montisferatensis Sabaudiensisque, reliquos Veneti deputarent. Balduinusque Flandrensis summa concordia sublimatus, & Thomas Maurocenus in sacris agens in

p. 61

Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum à Venetis declaratus est: qui novo Imperatori ex more inuncto diadema imposuit; & brevi post pro confirmatione obtinenda Romam ad Tertium Innocentium Pontificem se contulit. [...]. Thomas interim Maurocenus Romae fuerat, quem Tertius Innocentius Pontifex libentiore quam petitum fuerat animo in Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum confirmaverat, quod ea ecclesia tunc vero Romano Pontifici subjecta erat. Isque Patriarcha, cum Venetiis parvo fuisset tempore, Constantinopolim ad suam reverti voluit ecclesiam.

 

7. Close to categories 2. and 3., there are still differencies inside of it, since the chronicle Sanudo seems rather expeditious. On the other side, Sanudo underlines the fact that Rainieri Dandolo sent a fleet in order to conquer Zara again, emphasizing the stipulation imposed to the Archbishop of Zara to recognize the supremacy of the Patriarch of Grado[53]. This specification is not without sense, since in this chronicle as well as in other categories (11., for instance) the respective fleet (acting this time against Ragusa) is considered as being led by “Tommaso Moresini Patriarch of Grado”. Consequently, the confusion around the person of T. Morosini could originate in this particular episode.

 

Caroldo: 149-150; 151

Il Clero fece elettione dalli Canonici di Santa Soffia, che furono Venetiani; li quali concordemente elessero Patriarca messer Tomà Morosini huomo nobile, et integerrimo. Subito eletto, fece deliberatione d'andar a Roma per ottener dal Pontefice la confermatione.

[...].

Messer Tomaso Morosini, havuta la confermatione, rittornò a Venetia.

 

Sanudo: 529-530

[...]. E poi i nostri elessero in Patriarca Tommaso Morosini, il quale poi a Roma dal Papa fu confermato.

 

Giustiniani: 141; 143

Veneti vero tunc dominum Tomam Mauroceno in Constantinopoli elegerunt in patriarcham.

[...].

Hoc etiam tempore Tomas Mauroceno patriarcha a papa Inocencio confirmatus Venecias rediit [...].

 

It. VII. 1999: 30a

Fù fatto anco all’ora da chierici Veneti Patriarca di Costantinopoli Tomaso Morosini, che passò à Roma per la confermatione, [...].

 

p. 62

It. VII. 74: 106a

[...], e Tomà Morosini fù fatto Arcivescovo, el qual doppò andè à Roma, et havè la confermation da Papa Innocentio, [...].

 

When investigating the non-Venetian crusaders, I approached the chronicle It. VII. 71 to category 4. This time, it follows categories 2., 3., 7. and all the others that consider Morosini as Patriarch. It also intends to demonstrate the simultaneity between the two elections, as category 3. and Flavio Biondo do:

 

It. VII. 71: 129a

[...], furono fatti quindici elettori per far’un’Imperatore et un Patriarca cattolico, li quali elettori furono prima li cinque Prencipi detti, poi cinque Prelati, cioe: 4 Vescovi (di Betlem, d'Acri et duoi de Francia), uno Abbate, et cinque nobili Venetiani laici, che furono Otton Quirini, Nicolò Nauagioso, Pantaleone Barbo, Vitale Dandolo, et Bertuccio Contarini, da’ quali elettori fù fatto Imperatore Balduino Conte di Fiandra, ch’era d’età di trentadue anni, et Tomaso Morosini Patriarca.

 

        The chronicle Trevisan, formerly approached to category 5., this time follows the pattern of categories 2., 3. and 7. The only connection with categories 4. and 5. is the characteristic of the Patriarch’s secular attributions in the new achieved Venetian possessions.

 

Trevisan: 39b, col. 2

[...]. Prima che la mita de Costantinopoli fosse del dito Doxe per nome del dominio Venitiano; e cussi come el prexe dominar quela parte fosse sua el Doxe fexe Patriarca de Costantinopolj

-        Tomado Morexini,

el qual rezesse in parte de Venitiani fin che dal Senato Venitiano li fosse mandado Podesta el qual Patriarca fu confermado per Inozenzio pontifico Terzo.

 

        There are two chronicles that that I formerly approached to category 9., that is It. VII. 2572 and Sansovino.

Chronicle It. VII. 2572 follows a particular version, retaking the simultaneity between the elections from the category 3., Biondo and It. VII. 71.

 

It. VII. 2572: 14b

[...] fu ancora concluso, che non essendo esaltato alla dignità il Doge Dandolo, che era in gran predicamento, il Patriarcato di quella gran diocesi fosse conferito in uno di quei Vinitiani, che doveano assistere et concorer con i voti nella eletione dell’una, et dell’altra dignità: onde elegandosi imperatore Balbovino Conte di Fiandra, fù all’altra esaltato Tomaso Morosini. Questo, non volendo mostrar di assentire al rito Greco, in quanto alla precedenza delle due chiese, ne i quelle cose, che quella dalla nostra discorda, se n'andò a Roma per la confirmatione, [...]. [...] et ritornando alla sua sede per la via de Venetia, [...].

 

p. 63

        On its turn, Sansovino is rather close to chronicle Sanudo. In addition, he gives a detail about Morosini's father.

 

Sansovino: 561

[...]. Et oltre al Doge vi era il Patriarca Veneto, creato, secondo i patti, da chierici Veneti. Et allora havendo il clero fatto Patriarca, Tomaso Morosino figliuolo di Theofilo, [...].

 

Chronicle Erizzo, formerly belonging to category 11., seems to have something in common with Sanudo.

 

Erizzo: 111b

[...]. In questo mezo, li Venetiani elessero à Veniexia Thomaso Moroxini Patriarcha, el qual andò à Roma, azzò el fosse confermado.

 

Finally, the chronicle Savina is a typical compilation, since it mentions in a first instance the election of T. Morosini as patriarch (like categories 2. and 3.). Then, Savina amplifies the confusion when it follows the chronicle Barbaro, just that T. Morosini’s episode as Patriarch of Grado (as Barbaro does) is transferred to Pantaleone Giusto.

 

Savina: 58b; 59a

[...] e Toma Moresini fu fatto Arcivescovo, el qual dopo andò a Roma et have la confirmation da Papa Innocentio, [...].

In questo tempo, trovandosse esser sta eletto Pantalon Giusto Patriarca de Grado el qual, non volendo far la sua residentia li per esser luogo deshabitado per el cattivo aiere, con consentimento de Papa Innocentio Terzo venne ad habitar in Rivalto, nel suo palazzo in contra de San Silvestro sora el Canal Grando, [...].

 

        On its turn, the chronicle It. VII. 1833 presents the initial Papal opposition against the uncanonical election of Tommaso Morosini, as the chronicle Navagero did.

 

It. VII. 1833: 25b

Fu eletto, secondo il trattato un Patriarca Veneziano; e cadè la elezione in Tommaso Morosini sudiacono della Chiesa Romana. Papa mette in vista non esser canonica la elezione, ma la conferma e l’attribuisce alla sua auttorità. Doge Dandolo lo dissimula per prudenza.

 

 

The categories 4. and 5. could to a certain extent be gathered together, since they in corpore regard “a Doge’s relative” as the new patriarch. The

p. 64

chronicles that I previously approached to them (It. VII. 71 to 4. and Trevisan to 5.) are automatically shifted to categories 2.-3.-7.

 

4. Excepting the chronicle Canal[54] that does not make any specification concerning the person of the Venetian Patriarch, the chronicles[55] in this category commit the originality to consider that the Patriarch was one of the Doge’s relatives, without specifying his particular name. Another particularity is the aliegramente “happily” manner in which the pope rushes to confirm the Patriarch of Constantinople, in contradiction with the chronicles Navagero and It. VII. 1833 that in truth specified the Papal initial reserves.

This group accredits the Patriarch with augmented secular powers, extending this potentiality to the election of a Venetian podestà.

 

Canal: 60; 62

[...]; et ot en sa partie li patriarchat et tot li port et la mer et en seche terre maint biaus leus; et fu apelé sire de sa partie et ensi fu establi de la boche de monseignor l'apostoile. [...].

[...] ; et mesire Henric Dandle, li dus de Venise, estoit en saisine de sa partie ; et ot en sa partie li patriarchat[56] [...].

 

E. Dandolo: 42a

pseudo-Dolfin: 46b

Morosini: 10

[...], et per messer lo Doxe fò fatto algun sò parente chierego Patriarca in quel luogo el qual da può per messer lo Papa alliegramente fò confirmado. [...]. Et cosi la zittade et Imperio fò partidi per questo modo che la parte de mar de Constantinopoli

[...], & per misser lo Doxe fo facto chierigo uno suo parente zoe Patriarcha in quello luogo & quello da puo per misser lo Papa alegramente fo confirmado [...], & cosi la citade & lo Imperio fo partido, per questo modo che mmisser lo Patriarcha la parte

[...], et per misier lo Doxie fo fato algum so parente clerego Patriarcha in quel luogo, el qual da puo’ per misier lo Papa alegra mente fo chonfermado[57], [...], et chusì la citade fo partida, e l’inperio, per

p. 65

sotto el dominio del Patriarca lassado per messer lo Doxe permanesse. [...].

del mar de Constantinopoli soto el dominio del dicto Patriarcha lassado per misser lo Doxe permanisse, [...].

questo muodo, che la parte da mar da Constantinopoli soto el dominio del patriarcha lasado per misier lo doxie permanise, [...].

 

        5. Promoting the Doge’s relative as patriarch, this category follows accurately the E. Dandolo-pseudo Dolfin-Morosini pattern, especially It. VII. 89[58]. They also emphasize the exceptional powers of the Patriarch, regarded as a kind of Doge's representative, but – in the case of the chronicles Donà[59] and Veniera 791[60] – without specifying the Patriarch's jurisdiction on the parte del mar “seaward side” of Constantinople.

 

It. VII. 89: 24b, col. 2

Donà: 31a; 31b

Veniera 791: 69a

[...] poi per misser lo Doxe fo fato un so parente Patriarcha, in quello luogo de Chostantinopoly, el qual puo per misser lo Papa aliegramente fo chonfermado [...], e chussi la zitade fo partida e lo Inperio fo partido per questo modo che la parte da mar de Chostantinopollj fosse soto el dominyo del Patryarcha lasado per misser lo doxe permanesse, [...].

[...] et fece un parente di messer lo Doxe Patriarca e fù confirmado dal Papa, [...][61], e cosi partide le terre, messer lo Doxe lasciò al governo della sua parte il Patriarca [...].

[...] et poi per messer lo Dose fu fatto uno suo parente Patriarcha in quel loco, qual per messer lo Papa fu confermato. [...][62]. Dapoi messer lo Dose, volendosi partir per venir a Venetia, volse lassar al governo della parte li havea tocca messer lo Patriarcha, qual rimase al governo di quella per nome de Venetiani.

 

 

        9. This category has also two different interpretations. Chronicle It. VII. 793[63] totally ignores the episode, while chronicles Tiepolo[64] and Agostini[65]

p. 66

emphasize the tendency of categories 4. and 5. regarding the family relationship between the Doge Enrico Dandolo and the new patriarch. Moreover, they specify that the new patriarch was no less than the Doge’s son, mentioning also his name: Fantin Dandolo. The curiosity is amplified by the fact that it is considered that a certain former Patriarch had been dead during the expedition. I am to adjoin here another codex consulted in the meantime, that is It. VII. 77[66]:

 

Tiepolo: 79a

Agostini: 26b

It. VII. 77: 58

[...], il qual messer lo Dose fece far Patriarca de Constantinopoli, per esser morto (in ditta espedition) il Patriarca, suo fiol messer Fantin [...].

Il Fiol del Dose Patriarca de Constantinopoli

[...], il qual messer lo Dose fece far Patriarca de Constantinopoli, per esser morto in ditta espedition il Patriarca, suo fiol messer Fantia [sic!].

[...] lo qual messer lo Dose fece far Patriarca de Costantinopoli,: per esser morto in detta expedition il Patriarca, suo fiol messer Fantin [...].

 

        As another curiosity, the three chronicles extend the confusion when they narrate the Doge's death and mention his two sons, one of them being messer Vidal the Patriarch of Constantinople”. The abovementioned Fantin suddenly disappears, being substituted by this Vitale. There could be the confusion with the homonymous cousin of Enrico Dandolo, once ambassador to Constantinople to the end of the reign of the Emperor Manuel I (1143-1180).

 

Tiepolo: 79a

Agostini: 27a

It. VII. 77: 60

[...]. Romase alla morte del ditto Dose doi sui fioli, cioė messer Vidal Patriarca de Constantinopoli et messer Renier.

[...]. Romase alla morte del ditto Dose doi sui fioli, cioè messer Vidal Patriarca de Constantinopoli et messer Renier.

[...]. Rimase doppoi la morte del detto Dose due suoi fioli videlicet

          messer Vidal Patriarca. de Costantinopoli;

          messer Renier.

 

It is to be mentioned that they make another referral to the Doge Enrico Dandolo’s sons at the beginning of the Dogal years, this time mentioning messer

p. 67

Fantin, che fu poi Patriarca de Constantinopoli / messer Fantin, che fù poi Patriarca Costantinopolitano “messer Fantin, who would be then Patriarch in Constantinople / Constantinopolitan Patriarch”[67].

 

        11. Generally speaking, this category also neglects the episode, with some notable exceptions. Moreover, the chronicles that mention it seem to have nothing in common among them. Henceforth, I transferred the chronicles Erizzo and Savina to categories 2., 3. and 7. Beside them, some referrals to the patriarchal elections in Constantinople are to be detected in the chronicles It. VII. 1586[68] and Veniera 2580[69].

Despite its general referrals to the patriarchal elections, chronicle It. VII. 1586 insists rather upon the clergy’s condition. It seems that the author simply ignores T. Morosini’s position as patriarch in Constantinople.

 

It. VII. 1586: 39a-39b

Et se è da sappere, che li chierici, li quali saranno da quella parte stati, dalla quale nè sarà stato eletto l’Imperatore hoverà Podestà d’ordinare li chierici di Santa Soffia, et elegger Patriarca, all’honore de Dio et della Santa Romana Chiesa et del detto Imperio, ma li chierici di ciascheduna parte d’ordinar quella chiesa laqual appartenerà overo aspetterà à quella parte. Ma delle possessioni delle chiesie tanto perpetualmente li chierici devono essere proveduti et alle chiese, per le quali honorificenze li possano vivere et sostenere. L’altre veramente possessioni della chiesa da essere partide e divise secondo l’ordine presignado.

 

Chronicle Veniera 2580 could be approached to chronicles Donà and Veniera 791 (category 5.), although, when it refers to the domination of the parte del mar “seaward side” in Constantinople, it does not mention the patriarchal jurisdiction[70].

 

Veniera 2580: 133b

[...], et poi se partì misser lo Doge et lassò el Patriarcha in governo per nome de Venetiani.

 

 

        I am to conclude some ideas relying upon the representations above. Thus, some chronicles suggest the idea of simultaneity between the imperial and

p. 68

patriarchal elections[71]. Moreover, some of them accredit the idea that the electors were the same in both elections[72]. In other cases, the patriarch is appointed by the Venetian canons in St Sophia[73] or simply “by the Venetians”[74] or by “ours[75]. Some others have in intention to emphasize the Doge’s power, so that he personally elects the patriarch[76]. Anyhow, the election is concorditer[77].

Then, there is the respect of the papal confirmation, which is present in the majoritary of the chronicles, sometimes even alegramente “happily”[78]. Nevertheless, some of them mention the Morosini’s journey to Rome[79] and there are also two cases that underline the initial papal opposition[80]. The name of the Pope Innocent III is also present in some writings in connection to the patriarchal confirmation[81] and even to some other circumstances[82].

        In some few examples, Morosini himself is the one that crowns the Emperor Baldwin[83] and then, this time respecting the reality, Henry of Hainault[84]. In other cases, the patriarch is granted with secular power, dominating “the seaward side”[85] or the Doge’s dominion in the empire[86] or simply “in the sides of the Venetians”[87] or “in the name of the Venetians”[88], even accomplishing for a while the position of podestà[89].

p. 69

        Some of the patriarch’s traits are underlined; thus, he is  considered as “the venerable man Thomas, of noble descent and of very prudent / remarkable customs”[90], “noble and honourable man”[91]; reverendissimo pare “the very respectful father”[92]. On other circumstances, there are some simple information about his person: citadin Venetiano “Venetian citizen”[93]; chierego “clerk”[94]; figliuolo di Theofilo “son of Theophil”[95]; sudiacono della Chiesa Romana “subdeacon of the Roman Church”[96].

However, the most important diversity among the chronicles is connected to the name of the Venetian patriarch. While the majority of them speaks in truth about Tommaso Morosini, there are some exceptions advancing the names of Pantaleone Giustiniani[97], Fantin Dandolo[98] or a not mentioned Doge’s relative[99]. In some cases, his name is not specified at all[100].

In addition, there are some chronicles that present the treaty on March, 1204 in extenso, mentioning thus the stipulation regarding the party that was to provide a patriarch for Constantinople: 1.[101], 2.[102], 3.[103], 7.[104], the chronicle Marco [10.][105], and some chronicles in category 11.[106].

 

p. 70

Despite all these details, one could conclude on the other side that there are many chronicles neglecting the event of the patriarchal elections in Constantinople. Thus, the categories 6.[107], 8.[108], and 10.[109] totally leave it unmentioned. The same occurs in the case of some dispersed chronicles from other categories [Historia

p. 71

Ducum Veneticorum1.; It. VII. 793 – 9.] and the majority of the codices in category 11.[110]

For the Venetian writers and copiers, it seemed more important to notice other episodes connected to the person of T. Morosini, that is the ones that exclusively mention him in the context of acquisition of Ragusa, Durazzo and Corphù on May, 1205[111]. Conclusively, an event describing territorial achievements seems to be more important than the election of a Venetian in such a high ecclesiastical rank. Actually, the Patriarchate of Constantinople under the Latin domination was the second in importance inside of the Catholic hierarchy and the Latin patriarch was called as “frater” by the Pope himself.

        Practically, the reverse relationship between the importance of the two kinds of events, meaning the mentioning of T. Morosini as Patriarch of Constantinople and the omission of his campaign in the Ionian Sea, could be detected only in some cases. I mean here the chronicles Navagero (approached to 2.), It. VII. 71 (approached to 4.), Tiepolo and Agostini (category 9.), Sansovino (approached to 9.), It. VII. 1833.

        Durazzo and Corphù are present in the chronicles that present the Partitio Romaniae document, either entirely[112] or partially (mentioning only the territories

p. 72

that were to be taken by the Venetian Signoria in domination)[113]. Some other chronicles follow an original version in presenting the document, according to which the Byzantine empire was to be divided in four different parts, received respectively by the Latin emperor, the Doge, the Marquis of Montferrat and a certain Veronese “Corsin Sumaripa”. This latter presentation does not include either Durazzo or Corphù[114].

 

        1. As I mentioned above, this category considers Pantaleon Giustiniani as the elected Patriarch of Constantinople. Regarding Tomado Moresini Patriarca, one could conclude that he is regarded as Patriarch of Grado, since he was sent by Renieri Dandolo, so that directly from Venice, without any connection to Constantinople[115]. The second expedition, that is the one against Durazzo and Corphù, led by another member of the Morosini family, is depicted as being initially an expedition in order to defend Constantinople.

 

It. VII. 2571: 105a

It. VII. 2581: 95b-96a

In lo tempo de questo Dose, zoe lano ultimo del suo dogado, la cita de Ragusi rebela a Veniesia, non voiando esser sotto soa fedeltade, per la qual cosa messer ... [missing text; Renier Dandolo], che tegniva luogo del padre, manda nuovo exercito a ricuperar quella, del qual fo Capitanio lo Reverendissimo padre messer Tomado Moresini Patriarcha; lo qual siando zonto a Ragusi ala cittade quella, per sua prodenza, lo raquista in MCCV ponandola, sotto el Dominio de Veniesia. Anchora il ditto milesimo, ensi grande oste de Veniesia con messer Jacomo Moresinj et ande al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli et tolse Durazo et Corfu [...].

In lo tempo di questo Dose, l’anno ultimo del suo dogado, la citta di Ragusi rebela a Veniesia, non voiando esser sotto soa fideltade, per la qual cosa messer RENIER [emphasis in the manuscript], che tegniva luogo del padre, manda nuovo esercito a recuperare quella, del qual fo Capitanio lo Reverendissimo padre messer TOMADO MORESINI PATRIARCA [emphasis in the manuscript], lo qual siando zonto à Ragusi alla cittade de quella, per sua prodenza, lo raquista in 1205, ponandola sotto el Dominio de Veniesia.

          Ancora in ditto milesimo, ensi grande oste de Veniesia con messer Jacomo Moresini et ande al Patriarcha de

p. 73

 

Constantinopolj et tolse Durazo et Corfu, [...].

 

In connection with the chronicle Barbaro, it is to be mentioned that it substitutes a campaign towards Durazzo and Corfù with one against Parenzo.

 

Barbaro: 246b-247a

[...], et essendo fin che il Dose si trovava a Constantinopoli, vegnuda la città di Ragusi quasi in manifesta ribellion, mandò Renier Dandolo Vice Dose Thomà Moresini Patriarca antedetto per quietar quel tumulto et per conservar quella città in la fede del dominio di Venetia; il qual andado, trattò questo negotio con tanta prudentia et con tanta destrezza, che i Ragusei tornorno volontariamente obedientissimi et deditissimi dell’Imperio Dogal; et poi, tornando, renovò et stabili i patti con quei de Parenzo con grandissimo honor et con molte utile de Venetiani; [...].

 

Later, Barbaro would speak indeed about an enterprise led by Giacomo Morosini against Durazzo and Corphù, in an original context: the Genoese peril in the Adriatic, and in an original manner: the presence of the patriarch misses. There is a detailed description of the Venetian fleet’s componence, and of the subsequent organization of the new territorial acquisitions.

 

Barbaro: 251b-253a

[...], vegnudo questo a notitia de Renier Dandolo, che, come si e ditto, in luogo de Rigo Dandolo Dose so padre rezeva il Commun de Venetia, per non permetter che quei luoghi andasseno sotto la potestà de Zenouesi, fece deliberation insieme con li Consiglieri della Città de armar subito 30 Gallie et 18 Naue [...].

[The names of the sopracomiti of the galleys]

[...], ma, seguitando li capitanij sopraditti il suo viazo, in pocco tempo zonseno con l'armada a Durazzo, la qual città, sollevada da alcuni paesani potenti et de seguito non obediva ne a Balduin legitimo Imperator, ne anco a Lascari creado seditiosamente a Salonichi, come s'e ditto ancora che pareva che piu facilmente seriano adheridi a Theodoro, [...].

[...], ma li Corfioti, che erano nell'estessa contumacia con l'Imperator che erano li Durazzani, havendo havudo tempo de provederse et, essendo pregni delle speranze dadeghe da Zenovesi de presto de dover vegnir a soccorerli, feceno molta resistentia a Venetiani, [...]. [...], veneno sotto il Dominio Veneto, onde intrado Giacomo Moresini nella Città, et messoghe per Bailo Pantalon Barbo, [...].

 

        2. and 3. Although there are differences in presentation, there is the same succession of events in both of these categories. This time, the Patriarch Morosini's route is more logical, so that it is clearly expressed that there is one and the same character with the first Venetian patriarch in Constantinople. T. Morosini followed the subsequent journey: Constantinople-Rome-Venice-Ragusa-Durazzo. It is to be

p. 74

noticed that his campaign does not include the island of Corphù and that his relative, Giacomo Morosini does not appear as the Captain of the fleet against Durazzo. Category 3. (and also the chronicle Biondo) presents the particularity that subsequent to the campaign the Patriarch Morosini came back to Constantinople in order to coronate Baldwin as emperor (in the case of the chronicle Monacis, this episode is placed before the Ionian expedition). A separation among these chronicles is made by the fact that the character is named simply as patriarch by the chronicles A. Dandolo and Monacis, while P. Dolfin, category 3. and Biondo are more specific, entitling him as Patriarch of Constantinople.

        As I pointed out above, the chronicle Navagero neglects the episode.

 

A. Dandolo: 281

Monacis: 142

P. Dolfin: 330b

Ordinacio iudicum examinatorem recuperacio Ragusii

Thomas igitur Mauroceno, ab Innocencio patriarcha effectus, cum literis pape Veneciam rediit, et cum parato stolo portum exiit, et Ragusine urbi, que grecorum instinctu iamdiu Venetis rebelaverat, bellum intulit; illique de Grecorum difissi fervore, civitatem Venetis rediderunt.

Capcio Durachii

Patriarcha postea, secedens, Durachium impugnavit, cepit et muniit, et Constantinopolim inde pervenit.

Thomas Mauroceno Patriarcha confirmatus a Summo Pontifice, ut dixi, revertens cum classe armata, virtute bellica recuperavit civitatem Regusii, quae instinctu Graecorum diu Venetis rebellaverat; indeque cepit, munivitque Durachium, & tandem Bizantium applicuit.

Tomaso Morexini electo Patriarcha de Constantinopoli da Innocentio Papa confermato venne à Veniexia cum lo suo bolle Papale. Et, uscito del porto con stuolo ordinato, donò battaglia alla Cità di Ragusi [emphasise in the manuscript]. La qual, à petition e per favor de Greci, longo tempo era stada rebelle à Venitiani. Ma i Ragusei, diffidati del favor di Greci, renderono la Cità à Venitiani.

          El Patriarcha dapuò si parte col stuolo e combatto Durazo e vinse, e garnillo; e dapuo pervenne à Constantinopoli.

 

It. VII. 2592: 30b

Sabellico: 182-183

Tomaso Patriarca di Costantinopoli ritorno da Roma con la confermacion del Pontifice et, esendo alquanto dimorato in Venetia, li fu dato 4 galie armate, le quale fusero consegnate a Erico Dandolo Principe et capitanio del armata; et, andando ala volta de Costantinopoli, riebe Ragusi qual se havevano rebelato al dominio Venetiano; et postovi ancora

Thomas interea Constantinopolitanus Antistes ab Roma reversus, ubi omnia ex sententia fuerat consecutus, quum aliquandiu Venetiis subsedisset, essetque jam in Graeciam navigaturus, quatuor triremos, quae in supplementum classis Byzantium ad Henricum Principem mittebantur, accepit. His fretus Ragusium, quod a Veneto imperio

p. 75

socorso in Durazo fatto che lebeno tal provisione se ne andetero alla volta di Costantinopoli, dove dal Principe fu acetato con gran festa et favore et magiormente che el porto la diadema a Baldovino dello Imperio et lui el poseno del Patriarcado dove in Costantinopoli fu fato de grande feste et trionfi si per Greci come Francesi et Taliani [...].

defecerat, recepit: & Dyrachio, quam urbem Graeciae Imperatores desertam reddiderant, instaurato, praesidium imposuit. Hinc perpetua navigatione Byzantium venit, ubi ingenti plausu & favore exceptus est. Sed nihil aeque illius reditum omnibus exoptatum fecit, quam quod Romano Pontifice auctore diadema Imperii Balduino daturus venit. Fuitque ea dies celeberrimo non magis Graecorum, quam Gallorum & Latinorum conventu laetissima.

 

Biondo: 13

Thomas interim Maurocenus Romae fuerat, quem Tertius Innocentius Pontifex libentiore quam petitum fuerat animo in Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum confirmaverat, quod ea ecclesia tunc vero Romano Pontifici subjecta erat. Isque Patriarcha, cum Venetiis parvo fuisset tempore, Constantinopolim ad suam reverti voluit ecclesiam. Cui navigaturo Senatus Venetus triremes quatuor Duci Dandulo & ejus classi addendas tradidit: Qua fretus armatarum triremium occasione Patriarcha, Ragusium urbem, quae à Venetae Reipublicae foederibus desciverant, recipit, & Dyrachio, quam Graeci Imperatores desertam liquerant, instaurato praesidia imposuit. Exceptus verò est Constantinopoli Patriarcha summo applausu, quod Pontifex Innocentius Balduinum Imperatorem à Patriarcha confirmato jusserat auctoritate Apostolica coronari.

 

        7. The chronicle Caroldo is the same as category 2.

On the contrary, the chronicle Sanudo introduces a clear separation that augments the confusion around the character of Tommaso Morosini. The transfer of his patriarchal see from Grado[116] to Constantinople represents an original element in the Venetian writings that supposes for him the route Grado-Ragusa-Durazzo-Corphù-Constantinople. At the same time, the captain of the fleet is first “the said Patriarch”, but then this dignity is achieved by Giacomo Morosini. In the case of Giustiniani, the two campaigns are strictly delimited: while Tommaso Morosini directs the expeditions in Ragusa and Durazzo, it is his relative acting against the Corphiotes.

 

Caroldo: 151-152

[...]. Messer Tomaso Morosini, havuta la confermatione, rittornò a Venetia. All'ora, messer Renier Dandolo figliolo del Duce fece poner ad ordine buon numero di vele, con le quale ditto Patriarca andò nel porto di Ragusi, havendo quella città per sugestione de Greci ribellato; e tanto vi di morrò, che Ragusei disperati d'haver soccorso si diedero a Venetiani. Dapoi andò a Durazzo, la qual città fece lo stesso e, seguendo il viaggio suo, pervenne a Costantinopoli; [...].

 

p. 76

Sanudo: 534-535

Mentre che’l Doge era a Costantinopoli, la Città di Ragusi ribellò. Onde i Veneziani determinarono, di riaverla. Et essendo stata apparechiata un'armata, per condurre. Don Tommaso Morosini Patriarca di Grado a Costantinopoli, di dove era stato fatto pe' nostri Patriarca, fu accresciuta la detta armata, Capitano il detto Patriarca. Il quale giunto a Ragusi, seppe far tanto col suo sermo, che senza battaglia fece ritornare la detta Città sotto’l dominio Veneto, com'era prima, e tolse quelli tra grazia. E pure con detta armata Capitano Jacopo Moresini presero la Città de Durazzo, e andata a Corfù tolsero detta Terra sotto il dominio della nostra Signoria. E dipoi l'armata andò col detto Patriarca verso Costantinopoli.

 

Giustiniani: 143

Reaquisitio Raguxii. Hoc etiam tempore Tomas Mauroceno patriarcha a papa Inocencio confirmatus Venecias rediit et cum maritimo exercitu preparato portum exiit Venetorum et Raguxine civitati, que Grecorum instinctu iam diu Venetis rebelaverat, bellum intulit; at illi de Grecorum difisi subsidio, urbem Venetis rediderunt. Captio Duraclii. Qui patriarcha capitaneus postea secedens, Durachium impugnavit et cepit atque omnibus muniit opportunis.

Captio Corfuensis insule. Amplius, dicto millesimo, exercitus galearum, cuius fuit capitaneus dominus Iacobus Mauroceno, de Veneciis eggressus est, et ivit ad patriarcham prememoratum; qui exercitus Corphyense castrum adeptus est, sed infra menses paucos amissum est. Patriarcha vero Constantinopolim inde pervenit.

 

The only connection that still links the chronicle Trevisan with the ones in categories 4. and 5. is the mentioning of the patriarch’s secular attributions in the new achieved Venetian possessions.

 

Trevisan: 40b, col. 1

Come la cita de Raguxi rebelo a Veniziani

Nel tempo del dito Doxe, la cita de Raguxi, non voiando esser soto la fedelta de Venitiani, rebello lano de X° … [missing text]; per il che misser lo Doxe et el comun de Veniexia mando una gran armada della qual fo capettanio el reverendo padre

-        Tomado Morexini Patriarca de Constantinopolli,

la qual cita senza bataia, per sua prudenzia lo aquista, ponendolla soto la dogal Signoria.

[…]

Come fo fato armada [beyond the text: 1205]

El seguente anno dapuo la prexa de Constantinopolli, insi granda armada de Veniexia, capetanio

-        Iacomo Morexini

e comesso lui ando el reverendo padre

-        Tomado Morexini Patriarca de Constantinopolli

e ando a Durazo e quelo prexe; simelmente ando a Corfu et quello et soto el dominio de Constantinopolli el messe, come zitade che a limperio de raxon aspetava.

 

p. 77

        On its turn, the chronicle It. VII. 2572 is full of details about T. Morosini's journeys in the tradition of categories 2. and 3. On the contrary, the chronicle Sansovino do not make any mention about the Ionian campaign.

 

It. VII. 2572: 14b

[...], et ritornando alla sua sede per la via de Venetia, hebbe da senatori quatro galee per condurle in supplimento al Doge, con le quali acquistò Ragusi, che in quel rivolgimento d'Imperio si era tenuto per la parte Greca; et rifece le muraglie à Durazzo, nella istessa occasione rovinate; et in ambidue queste citta posto pressidio, se ne navigo al suo viaggio.

 

The chronicle Erizzo refers to “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch”, suggesting thus that he is the Patriarch of Constantinople, and puts the episode as a continuation of his confirmation in Rome.

 

Erizzo: 112a; 112b

Come la città de Raguxi reuellà à Venetiani

Anchor in tempo de questo Doxe messer Rigo Dandolo che iera à Constantinopoli, la cittade de Raguxi si revellà, non voiando esser sotto fedeltade de Venetiani; per la qual caxon el fo mandado là molto e nobel armada; e fenno capitanio el venerabel padre messer Thomado Morexini Patriarcha, el qual iera sta confermado da messer lo Papa, la qual città senza battaia, per la so prudentia ello requistà el ditto Raguxi sotto la Dogal Signoria; et questi fonno del 1205.

[...].

Come fu prexo Durezzo, e l'Ixola de Corfù

Anchor nel ditto milleximo, inscino grande hoste fuora de Veniexia con Signor Jacomo Morexini et andanno al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli; et in questa sua andada lo i fo commesso la imprexa della città de Durazzo, e dell'ixola de Corfù e cusì lui valoroxamente prexe i ditti lo luoghi.

 

The chronicle Savina is totally original in the Venetian chronicles’ milieu. After it had mentioned Tommaso Morosini's election in Constantinople, it suddenly regards him as Count of Ragusi and explains his action strictly from this quality. The achievement of Durazzo and Corfù is regarded as a Rainieri Dandolo's endeavor and put in the context of the confrontation with the Genoese. Another particularity of this chronicle is that it involves in the fleet's structure, naming the Sopracomiti and the patrons of the navies.

 

Savina: 60a-60b

In questo tempo, Ragusei sudditi al comun de Venetia, volendosse a sua libertà rezer, se solevorno; e questo fu la prima fiada licentiado Tomaso Moresini che giera Conte in quella, el qual non se volse partir, ma con bona parole & eshortation chel fese a tutti de quel populo, dicendoli de molte bone rason talmente, chel redusse quelli da nuovo a fidelta del suo comun e lui romase Conte come da prima. Rinier Dandolo vice Dose insieme col suo conseglio, considerando

p. 78

come Zenovesi con ogni sollicitudine cercava de aquistar qualche citta over isola ne la Grecia, deliberorno de far una armada e sottoponer al suo comun la citta de Durazzo e la isola de Corphu e fese questo azo che per Zenovesi questi luoghi non fusseno ocupadi, perche li seria statto un gran danno per el navegar, la qual armada fu gallie 30 e nave 18 capitanio de le gallie fu Giacomo Moresini e li soracomiti funo.

[...].

Li patroni de le nave

[...].

La qual armada partitosse da Venetia andò à Durazzo, el qual habudo li messe per Bailo Marin Valaresso capitanio de l'armada, zoe de le nave sotto bon governo; e partitosse poi de li andò a Corphu, dove el fese molto sanguinosa battaglia e finalmente con gran pugna la have e pose alhora per Bailo de quel luogo Pantalon Barlo e dopò li patti doi Baili funo per el Mazor Conseglio confirmadi e poi la ditta armada fese retorno a Venetia.

 

        In the case of It. VII. 1833, the episode misses.

 

4. The chronicle da Canal that I previously included in this category does not make any mention about the campaign in the Ionian Sea. On their turn, E. Dandolo, pseudo-Dolfin and Morosini definitely separate the two characters, specifying: “[Having as] Captain messer Tomà Moroxini; and there was the said Patriarch of Constantinople in the aforesaid army”. As I mentioned above, these chronicles consider that it was “a Doge's relative” to be elected as Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

E. Dandolo: 43a

pseudo-Dolfin: 47b

Morosini: 12

[...]. In lo tempo de qual, ancora la cittade de Raguxi, non voiando esser sotto la fedeltà de Veniexia, rebella; per la qual cosa fò mandada una armada granda fuora de Veniexia, della qual fò capitanio messer Tomà Moroxini; et in la ditta armada fò el Patriarca de Constantinopoli ditto, et senza battaia la regovra; et da può andà a Durazzo e Corfù; et quelli prexe, mettandoli sotto el dominio del Patriarca de Constantinopoli deto come cittade che aspettaria all'Imperio de raxon; et questo fù el segguente anno da può la prexa de Constantinopoli.

Anchora in tempo di misser Henrigo Dandolo Doxe, la citade de Ragusa, non voiando esser soto la fidelitade de Venesia, revella; per la qualle cossa fo mandado una grande armada fora de Venesia, de la quale fo capitaneo misser Thomaxo Morosini & in la dicta armada el Patriarcha de Constantinopoli dicto, senza batalia regovra; & da puo anda a Durazo & a Corfu, cum quelle prese, metandolj soto al Duchal dominio, Patriarcha de Constantinopolj dicto, come citade che aspectava al imperador de rasonn; & questo fo el sequente anno dapuo la

In lo tenpo del qual anchora la citade de Raguxi, non voiando eser soto la fedeltade de Veniexia, revelà, per la qual chosa fo mandado de prexente una grande armada fuora de Veniexia, de la qual fo chapetanio el nobel homo misier Tomado Morexini, et in la dita armada fo misier lo patriarcha de Constantinopoli dito, et senza bataia la regovrà, e da puo' andé a Durazo et a Chorfu et queli prexe, metandoli soto el dominio del patriarcha chomo

p. 79

 

pressa de Constantinopoli.

citade che spetava a l'inperio de raxion, et questo fo el seguente ano da puo' la prexa de Chonstantinopoli.

 

        5. The chronicle It. VII. 89 follows the pattern of category 4., while Donà is not constant at all. After it had ‘consecrated’ a Doge’s relative as Patriarch in Constantinople, this time it specifies: “Tomaso Moresini Patriarca di Costantinopoli”.

At a first sight, Veniera 791 seems to be approached to A. Dandolo and Monacis [2.]. The point is that, while A. Dandolo and Monacis had previously presented the episode of Morosini's election as patriarch, so that the simple expression of “Tommaso Morosini  the Patriarch” clearly refers to Constantinople, the chronicle Veniera 791 had considered “a Doge's relative” as Constantinopolitan patriarch. Consequently, it could be concluded that this chronicle regards Tommaso Morosini as Patriarch of Grado[117].

 

It. VII. 89: 25a, col. 2

Donà: 31b-32a

Veniera 791: 69a

[...] nel tempo del qual, anchora la zitade de Raguxi, no voiando esser soto la fedelta de Veniexia, revella; per la qual cossa fo mandado una armada granda fuora de Veniexia, de la qual fo capetanio misser Tomao Morexinj e in la dita armada fo el Patriarcha de Costantinopoli e zenza bataia la rechovra. E dapuo ando a Durazo e a Chorfu e quelli prexe, metandoli soto el domynyo del Patriarcha de Costantinopoly dito, come zitade che aspetava al Inperio de raxon. E questo fo el seguente anno dapuo la prexa de Costantinpoli, [...].

Nel deto tempo, Ragusi si ribellò; nel 1205 fa mandata dal Doxe una potente armada, capitanio il reverendo padre messer Tomaso Moresini Patriarca di Costantinopoli, il qual l'hebbe senza combatere ma solo con le sue bone maniere.

Nel deto tempo ancora, con una potente armata si hebbe Durazo e Corfu, il quale lo mise sotto l'Imperio di Costantinopoli, perche sotto la sua giurisdicione se ghe aspetava, [...].

Come Regusi rebello

Anchora [emphasise in the manuscript] nel tempo del ditto Dose, la Citta de Ragusi rebello, non vogliando esser sotto la fedelta de Venetiani, correndo li anni 1205; per la qual cosa, per messer lo Dose et il commun di Venetia fu mandato una grande armata, della qual fu capitanio il reverendissimo padre messer Thomao Moresini Patriarcha, qual senza bataglia, per sua prudentia l'acquisto nel ditto millesimo, ponendola sotto la Ducal Signoria.

Come fu preso Durazo, et Corphu

          In ditto tempo,

p. 80

 

 

insci grande armada, come fu fatta in Venetia [emphasise in the manuscript] nel sopraditto millesimo, et fu fatto capitanio messer Jacomo Morisini; et con lui ando il reverendissimo padre messer Thomao Morisini Patriarcha de Constantinopoli; et ando a Durazo et quello prese; et similmente andò à Corphu et havelo et sotto il dominio de Constantinopoli lo messe, come cittade che all'Imperio de rason aspettava; et fu il seguente anno doppo la presa de Constantinopoli.

 

6. This category describes Tommaso Morosini only as Captain of the Venetian fleet. His belonging to the ecclesiastical order is only slightly noticed in the chronicle It. VII. 2544, for his naming as “venerable father”. Concerning Giacomo Morosini, he is not mentioned at all. I am to add the manuscript It. VII. 2028, consulted in the meantime[118].

 

It. VII. 2544: 43b, col. 1

It. VII. 2570: 23b

It. VII. 2028: 81a

In questo tempo, la cita de Ragusi rebello alli Veneciani

Siando la soprascritto messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe in Constantinopoli, Ragusi rebella alla Signoria; subitamente apparechiano una notabilissima armata, de la quale armata fo fatto capitanio el venerabile padre messer Thomado Morexini, lo quale tanto lui sepe fare con lo suo senno et industria, che

In questo tenpo del 1205, la Citta de Ragusj revelo a li Venicianj

         Siando lo antteditto messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe in Constanttinnopolj, Ragusi revella ali Venicianj; e, sapiando questo, li Venizianj subittamente li aparechia una nobelissima armada, de la qual armada fo fatto capettanio messer Tomado Morexinj, lo quale tantto

In questo tempo la città di Ragusi rebellò alli Venetiani. Essendo il soprascritto messer Rigo Dandolo dose in Costantinopoli, Ragusi rebellò alli Venetiani; subito apparecchiorono una nobilissima armada, della qual Armada fù capitano el venerabil padre messer Thomado Moresini, il qual tanto seppe far con il suo senno et industria, che senza

p. 81

senza baptaglia lui la redusse sotto la fedelta de la Signoria et robellì à gratia; et questo fu del 1205.

In questo tempo fo preso Durazo et lisola de Corphu

Siando fatta un altra armata per andare al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli, loro conquista Durazo et dapossa li ando à Corphu et quella presono, mettandola sotto fidelta de la Signoria; [...].

sapette far con lo suo seno et industria, che senza batagia luj la redusse ala devozion de la Signoria de Veniexia e tolselj a gracia.

In questo tenpo fo prexo Durazo e lixola de Corfu

Siando fatto una altra armada per andar al Patriarcha de Constanttinnopolj, loro conquisto Durazzo e dapossia li anda a Corfu et quele loro i prexe, mettandola sotto la fidelta dela Signoria de Veniexia.

battaglia lui la ridusse sotto la fedeltà della Signoria e tolseli a gratia; e questo fù del 1205.

In questo tempo fù preso Durazzo, e l’Isola di Corfù.

Essendo fatta un’altra armada per andar al Patriarca di Costantinopoli, loro conquistorno Durazzo; e poi andorno a Corfù e quella presero, mettendola sotto la fedeltà della Signoria.

 

        8. Tommaso Morosini is not present in this category at all, either as patriarch or as captain. The episode of the Ionian campaign does not introduce any character. Actually, the event is placed before the depiction of the situation in Constantinople and seems as being integrally a Doge's action. As another particularity, there is the absence of the capture of Corphù, just like in categories 2., 3. or the chronicles Biondo, Caroldo and It. VII. 2572.

 

It. VII. 2541: 146b

Barbo: 43a

It. VII. 67: 173b

In suo Dogar l’anno 1197 fù reccuperato Ragusi, il qual haveva ribellato al Dominio Veneto, et fù posto soccorso à Durazo, il qual era per avanti stato lassiato deserto dalli Imperatori Grechi.

In suo Dogar’è fù del 1197 fù ricuperato Ragusi, el qual' haveva rebellar al Dominio Veneto; et fù posto soccorso à Durazzo, el qual'iera per avantj stà lassado deserto dalli Imperadori Greci.

In suo Dogar et fu del 1197 fu recuperato Ragusi il qual haveva rebelato al Dominio Veneto; et fu posto socorso a Durazo, il qual erra per avanti stato lasado deserto dalli Imperatori Grechi.

 

        9. The chronicles Tiepolo, Agostini and It. VII. 1999 do not include the episode of the acquisition of Ragusa, Durazzo and Corphu at all. Concerning the chronicle It. VII. 793 that does not make any mention about the Venetian patriarch in Constantinople, it also does not notice the person of Tommaso Morosini in the context of the expedition in the Ionian Sea, which is described as the Doge’s exclusive endeavor.

 

p. 82

It. VII. 793: 70a-70b

[...] [E. Dandolo] mano a recoverar Ragusi che se haveva revelado; mese Durazo e Chorfu soto il Dominio di Costantinopoli, come citade che al Imperio de rason aspetatta; et questo fo li ani 1205.

 

        10. Since they had not mentioned his election as Patriarch in Constantinople, this category could suppose that “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch” could very well be the Venetian Patriarch of Grado, although it does not make expressly this specification. Although it does not provide any referrals to the Vicedoge Rainieri Dandolo, the category could be approached to category 1. In the case chronicle Marco, the event of Ragusa is absent, while the others are rather quickly treated. It is to be added the manuscript It. VII. 39[119], consulted in the meantime, to this category. There is also the copy mistake in the chronicle It. VII. 2556 that substitues Durazzo with Ducato “the Duchy”.

 

Marco: 43b

It. VII. 2550: 78b-79a

It. VII. 2556: 53

Quomodo dominus Thomasinus Patriarcha cepit Durachium et Corphou.

MCCV. Magnus exercitus exivit de Veneciis cum quo navigavit dominus Thomaxinus Maurocenis Patriarcha et cepit Durachium et Corphoum.

Lo aquistar de Ragusi

Ancora in suo tempo, per la città de Ragusi rebellò, non volendo esser sotto fideltà de Venetiani; per la qual cosa fò mandato la molto nobel armata et fò capetanio el venerando padre messer Thomado Moresini Patriarcha; et qual senza battaglia, per la sua prudentia la requistò, mettando el sitto Ragusi sotto la Dogal Signoria de Venetia del 1205.

Ancor nel ditto millesimo insi grande lotto fuori de Venetia con signor Iacomo Moresini et andò al Patriacha de Constantinopolj et tolse Durazzo et Corfù, [...].

Ancora in so tempo la citade de Raguxi ticurla [?], non vazando esser soto la fedeltade de Venitianj; per la qual cossa el fo mandado la molto nobele armada e fo chapitanio lo reverendo pare misser Tomado Morexinj Patriarcha, la qual senta bataglia, per la sua prudentia ello tic [?] questa, ponandola soto la Dogal Signoria […].

Ancora in lo dito milessimo insi grande oste da Veniexia chom misser Jacomo Morexinj. Et anda al Patriarcha de Costantinopoli e tolsse Ducato [sic!] e Corfu. […].

 

It. VII. 2559: 22, col. 1-22, col. 2

It. VII. 44: 32b-33a

Abbiosi: 20b

Anchora in suo tempo la citade de Raguxi revela, non

Anchora in so tempo, la citade d'Raguxi rebela, non

El qual Dose essendo in Constantinopoli, Ragusi

p. 83

voiando eser soto fedelta de Veniziani; per la qual chosa el fo mandado la una nobele armada e fexe chapetanio el venerabel padre misser Tomado Morexini Patriarcha, loqual senza batalia, per la sua prudenzia lo requista Raguxi soto la Dogal Signoria. E questo fo in el 1205. Anchora in el dito mileximo insi granda oste fuora de Veniexia chon Signor Iachomo Morexini. e siando al Patriarcha de Chostantinopolj e tolse Durazo e Chorfu.

voyando esser sotto la fideltà de Venicianj; per la qual cossa, fo conduta e fe una nobele armada lo capettanio fo lo reverendissimo padre messer Tomado Moresini Patriarca, lo qual senza bataia, per la sua prudentia l'raquista, ponondola soto la Dogal Signoria. Anchora in el dicto milesimo, si insi cosi grand'oste d'Venecia, con messer Iacomo Moresini e anda al Patriarcha de Costantinopoli e tolse Durazo e Chorfu.

rebellò à San Marco; al qual luogho fu manda da Venetia una armada capitanio il reverendissimo messer Tomaso Moresini Patriarcha, el qual senza battagia, con prudentia la raquistò; et e fo nel 1205. Anchora questa armada tolse Durazzo è Corfu, capitanio messer Giacomo Moresini, insieme el Patriarca da Costantinopoli.

 

Curato: 18a

It. VII. 2576: 26b

It. VII. 39: 29a

El qual dose essendo in Constantinopolj, Ragusi rebelle a San marco; al qual luogo fu manda da Venetia una armada da Venetia [sic!], capitanio reverendo messer Thomado Morexini Patriarcha, il qual senza batagia, con prudentia la requisto; et fo nel 1205. Anchora questa armada tolse Durazzo e Corfu, capitanio messer Jacomo Morexini insieme con il Patriarcha da Constantinopolj [...].

Anchor in suo tempo, la cittade de Ragusj rebellò, non volendo esser sotto la fidelta de Venetianj; per la qual cosa, fo mandado armada et fo capitanio el reverendissimo padre messer Thoma Moresinj Patriarcha, la qual senza battaglia, ne mortalitade de alcuna persona, per la sua prudentia luj acquistò, ponendola sotto el Ducal dominio; et questo fo nel 1205. Anchora nel ditto millessimo, uscj una grande hoste fuor de Venetia, con messer Jacomo Moresinj et andò e^t [?] el Patriarcha de Constantinopolj et tolsseno Durazzo et Corphu, [...].

Anchora in suo tempo la cità de Ragusi rebelò; per la qual cosa, fu mandato la molto nobil armata; et fu capitanio el venerabil padre messer Thomaso Moresini Patriarcha, el qual senza bataglia, con la sua prudentia la requistò, metendola soto la Dogal Signoria, che fu del MCCV. Anchora nel dito milesimo, uscite grande hoste de Venetia con sier Jacomo Moresinj, et ando al Patriarcha de Constantinopol, et tolsse Durazzo et Corphu [...].

 

        11. In the case of the chronicles mentioning Tommaso Morosini’s election (It. VII. 1586 and Veniera 2580), the expression of “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch” has no substance, since they refer only tangentially to the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople during the elections. Thus, the expression also could very well be regarded as “Patriarch of Grado”.

p. 84

The same is the case with the other chronicles inside of the category that completely ignored the election of Morosini as Constantinopolitan Patriarch. Moreover, some of them (It. VII. 2560, It. VII. 550, Zancaruolo, Z. Dolfin) refer clearly to Tommaso Morosini as Patriarch of Grado.

The exception is It. VII. 2543 that in the context of the campaign against Durazzo and Corfù clearly mentions “Tommaso Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople”.

 

It. VII. 78: 12a, col. 1

It. VII. 2543: 53b; 54a

It. VII. 1577: 294-295

It. VII. 798: xxiij b-xxiiij a

In quel tempo, rebello la citade de Raguxi. Unde subito li fu mandata una grande armata con exercito. Et fu ellecto capitanio di quella il venerabil padre misser Thomaso Morisini Patriarcha, ilo qualle com sua summa prudentia & elloquentia, scenza bataglia la reccupero. Et questo fu del MCCV.

          In quello millesimo, fu mandato al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli messer Jacomo Moresini cum grande armata Et nelo andare prese Durazo et la insula de Corffu.

Siando el sopraditto messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe in Constantinopoli, Ragusi revello; e sapiando questo, li Venetiani subitamente le aparia una nobel armada, dela qual fu fatto capitanio el venerabel padre messer Thomado Moresini Patriarcha; loqual lui sape tanto far con lo suo sono et industria, che senza batalglia la richesse sotto sua fidelta de la Signoria, tolseli in gratia; et fu nel anno del nostro Signor M. CC. V.

[...].

In questo tempo, messer Thomase Moresini Patriarcha de Constantinopoli prese Durazzo et Corfu, metandoli sotto la fidelta de Venetiani: [...].

Come la Città de Ragusi rebella ai Veneziani.

Nel tempo de messer Rigo Dandolo Dose, essendo quello a Costantinopoli, la città de Ragusi ribella ai Veneziani; per la qual cason, fono fato grande armada a Venezia e capitanio il venerabil messer Thoma Morosini Patriarca; quello cum sua prudenza, senza bataja la reduse a fedeltà de la Signoria nel 1206.

Anchor in quell'anno, ussì grand'armada de Venezia; fu fatto capitanio messer Iacomo Morosini, el qual è andà al Patriarca de Costantinopoli, andando i prese per forza la città de Durazzo, e l'isola de Corfù.

Como la cita de Raguxj rebela in tempo de questo messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe siando in Constantinopoli.

La cita de Raguxi in questo tempo rebela a Veniciani; per la qual caxon, fo mandato uno nobelissimo exercito con grande armada e fo fato capitanio messer Tomaxo Morexinj Patriarcha, el qual siando zonto a Raguxi tanto el sape far con la soa prudencia, che senza darli bataia lui la sotomese ala obediencia de la Signoria de Veniexia e fezeli zurar fedelta; e fo nel 1205.

Como fo prexo Durazo e lixola de Corfu.

In quell tempo siando fata una grosa armada a Veniexia e fo capitanio messer Jacomo Morexinj. El vegniva mandado al

p. 85

 

 

 

Patriarcha de Constantinopoli et in questa sua andada li fo comeso limpresa de la cita de Durazo e de lixola de Corfu e cusi lui valorosamente prexe i diti luogi.

 

It. VII. 2560: 70b

It. VII. 2563: 12b

It. VII. 550: 73b

It. VII. 1586: 41b

La Cita de Ragusi in questo tempo revela a Veniciani e per questo li fo mandado uno notabelissimo exercito de armata, del qual fo capetanio el venerabel padre misser Thomaso Morisini Patriarcha de Grado, el qual zonse a Ragusi con la suo armada. E con la suo prudentia tanto sepe far, che senza darli bataia luy redusse la terra ala prima obedientia de la Signoria de Veniesia. E fexeli zurar fedeltade; e questo fo del 1205.

In quel tempo era sta fato una grossa armada in Veniexia, dela qual fo fato capetanio misser Jacomo Morisini e si vigniva mandado al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli; et in questa suo andada li fo promesso aluy la prexa de la citade de Durazo e de lisola de Corfu e luy valorosamente ando

La Citta de Raguxi in questo tempo rebelò à la Signoria de Venetia; per la qual rebelion fo mandato gran esercito de armada, fo fatto capitanio messer Thomaso Moresinj Patriarca, el qual zonto à Raguxi con l’armada, sape tanto far, che senza darli battagia quella sottomesse à la obedientia della Signoria de Venetia. I quali zurò fedelta; et fo del 1205. In quel tempo siando sta fatto una grossa armada in Venjexia capitanio messer Jacomo Moresinj per mandar al Patriarca de Constantinopoli in questa sua andata; li fo comesso la impressa della citta de Durazzo et de Corfu, à le qual imprese valentemente le aquistono, alla obedientia della Signioria de Veniexia.

[...] sotto de la qual la citta de Ragusi rebellò à Venetiani, dove che messer Rigo Dandolo Principe gli mando gran essercito & fu fatto capitanio messer Thomaso Moresini Patriarca de Grado, il qual giunto à Ragusi seppe far tanto, che senza darli bataglia redusse la terra alla prima obedienza; & questo fu del 1205; nel qual tempo, fu ancora fatto una grandissima armata in Venetia de le qual fu capitano messer Giacomo Moresini, ilo qual fu mandato al Patriarca de Costantinopoli, al qual andando gli fu promessa la presa della citta de Durazzo & dell'isola de Corfù, li quali valorosamente sottomessero alla Signoria [...].

Ancora sendo messer Rigo Dandolo nella cittade de Constantinopoli, la cittàde de Ragusi rebellò à Venetiani; per la qual cosa, fò mandato lo nobile essercito là con grande armata.

Et fò fatto per capitanio della detta armata lo reverendo in Christo padre messer Tomaso Moresini Patriarcha, loquale tanto lui seppe fare, senza battaglia, per la sua prudenza lui la conquistò, sottomettendolo alla fedeltà del commun di Veniexia et fù questo del 1205.

Ancora del detto millesimo, usci grande oste fuora di Veniexia et fo capitanio messer Giacomo Moresini, el quale andò allo Patriarcha di Constantinopoli el prese la cittàde de Durazzo et de Corfù.

p. 86

ali dicti luogi e preseli, sotometandoli ala Signoria de Veniesia.

 

 

 

 

Zancaruolo: clxxxxvj b

Z. Dolfin: passim

Veniera 2580: 134b

Come Ragusi rebello e quel se recupero senza bataglia

La citade de Ragusi in questo tempo revela a Venitianj; e per questo li fuo mandato uno notabelissimo exercito de armata, dela qual fuo capitanio el venerabile padre misser Tomaxo Moroxinj Patriarcha de Grado, el qual zonsi a Ragusi cum la sua armada. Et tanto sape far, che senza darlj bataglia luj reduse la terra ala prima obedientia dela Signoria de Venexia e feceli zurar fideltade. Et questo fuo del MCCV. Apresso pigliono Durazo e quello fortificono [Beyond the text: co l'isola de Corfù.].

Come la cita de Raguxi rebello a la Signoria de Venetiani et fu facta una armada per reconquistarla.

La cita de Raguxi in questo tempo rebello a Venetiani; et per questo li fo mandado uno notabilissimo exercito de armata del qual ne fu capitanio messer Thomaxo Morexini Patriarcha de Grado, el qual zonse a Raguxi con la sua armada et cum la sua prudentia tanto sape far, che senza darli battaglia lui redusse la terra a la prima obedientia de la Signoria di Venetia et feceli zurar fedeltade. Et questo fo del 1205.

Come i acquista Durazo et Corfu.

In quel tempo era stata facta una grossa armada in Venetia de la qual fu facto capitanio messer J[acomo] Morexini et si vigniva mandado al Patriarcha de Constantinopoli et in questa sua armada li fu promesso a lui la prexa de la cita de Durazo et l’ixola de Corfu et lui valoroxamente ando a li ditti luochi et prexeli, sottomettendoli a la Signoria di Venetia.

Anchora in questo tempo del 1204 Rausi rebelò; et fu fatta armata capitanio il reverendo misser Thoma Moressini Patriarcha, qual senza bataglia, per sua prodeza l'acquistò dal 1205; et presè anchor Corfu et Durazo, comme pertinentie dell’Imperio de Constantinopoli.

 

 

        One of the conclusions is that the Venetian expedition in the Ionian Sea is sometimes regarded as a continuation of Patriarch Tommaso Morosini’s voyage

p. 87

to Rome, being thus integrated in his supposed route of Constantinople-Rome-Venice-Ragusa-Durazzo-Constantinople and being also the captain of this campaign. The very same chronicles exclude thus Corphù from the episode[120], while the only chronicle that does not deal with the Ragusan episode is Marco.

The other chronicles that had considered him as the Patriarch of Constantinople follow different paths. The same Morosini is present in the chronicles Trevisan and Erizzo both as the Patriarch of Constantinople and as the captain of the expedition, but this latter attribution is limited to the action against the Ragusans[121]. The campaign in Durazzo and Corfù belongs to another action, led by another member of the Morosini family, that is Giacomo. Still, Tommaso is present in this new army in the description given by Trevisan, while Erizzo only makes the specification that the fleet was to go to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Caroldo simply makes a dissociation between him and the chief of the army, specifying that the army (whose captain’s name is not mentioned) was to accompany the Patriarca, this time the mission is clearly to reach Constantinople and, as the author narrates, it is achieved.

On his turn, Sanudo is completely original, suggesting that it was “Tommaso Morosini Patriarch of Grado” to be transferred to Constantinople, where he was elected, and that he was appointed as captain of the expedition against Ragusa; still the capture of Durazzo and Corphù is commanded by Giacomo Morosini; the action succeeds and finally the Patriarch “of Grado” reaches Constantinople.

Another originality is suggested by the chronicle Savina. Previously considered as the elected Patriarch of Constantinople, the same Tommaso Morosini (or his namesake) is suddenly regarded as the Count of Ragusa who convinces the Ragusans to return to the Venetian obedience. As for the rest of the expedition, it is Giacomo Morosini who leads the Venetian fleet against Durazzo and Corphù. In addition, Savina follows the path of the chronicle Barbaro, and there are offered details about the subsequent organization of these two possessions, the name of the bails settled there (Marino Valaresso and Pantaleone Barbo), making thus confusion with another Venetian campaign in the area, this time under Doge Pietro Ziani.

p. 88

Since they had previously regarded another character as being elected on the Patriarchal throne in Constantinople (Pantaleone Giustiniani, Fantin Dandolo or “a Doge’s relative”) or they had neglected the episode, the other chronicles do not hesitate to consider Tommaso Morosini simply as the captain of the expedition in the Ionian Sea. Some of them specify that “in the said army, there was the mentioned Patriarch of Constantinople”, making thus clear the separation between this Tommaso Morosini and the patriarch[122].

While for these ones the Ionian expedition is seen as continual[123], some others induce the idea that there were two different campaigns: one against Ragusa led by Tommaso Morosini[124], and a different one against Durazzo and Corfù, commanded by Giacomo Morosini[125].

Concerning the expression that involves the idea that the army of Giacomo Morosini was to go to the Patriarch of Constantinople (“andé al Patriarcha di Costantinopoli”), I consider that there was a copy confusion, coming from siando el Patriarcha di Costantinopoli “the Patriarch of Constantinople being [aboard]”.

Respecting the initiative of this campaign, there are also different options. There are specified Ranieri Dandolo[126], Enrico Dandolo[127], “the Venetians”[128], “the

p. 89

[Venetian] senators”[129], while the others only mention the Ragusan revolt. Some of them note in addition that the Ragusans rebelled while the Doge was still in Constantinople[130], suggesting thus their cowardice.

Some chronicles underline that the Ragusans had been rebelled at the suggestion of the Greeks[131]. The same chronicles[132] suppose that the people in Ragusa recognized again the Venetian supremacy because of their lack of trust in the Greek emperors. Sometimes, the explanation of the Greek emperors’ policy does not refer to Ragusa, but to Durazzo[133].

Anyhow, the representation of Tommaso Morosini in the Venetian chronicles is strongly emphasized when it is described the episode of his eloquence, able to bring again the Ragusans under the Venetian rule. Thus, there are underlined his prodenza “prudence”[134], bon maniere “good manners”[135], senno “wisdom”[136], industria “industry”[137], elloguentia “eloquence”[138], destrezza “dexterity”[139], bone parole et eshortation, ... molte bone rason “appropriate words and expressions, ... many good reasons”[140] or utilizing his sermo “sermon”[141]. Consequently, Ragusa was subjected peacefully, “without any battle”[142] and “volontariamente[143]. As a clerk, he also took the Ragusans into his grace[144].

Regarding Durazzo, it is estimated as a simple passing point in the patriarch’s route to Constantinople, but this opinion is shared exclusively by those

p. 90

chronicles that follow the entire voyage of Morosini and in addition exclude Corphù from this course[145].

On other occasions, the campaign against Durazzo is enterprised only in order to provide this city with equipments[146].

        In addition, it is to be noticed that the chronicle Trevisan and the ones in categories 4. (E. Dandolo, pseudo-Dolfin, Morosini) and 5. (It. VII. 89, Donà, Veniera 791) makes the specification that the city of Durazzo and the island of Corphù were to belong de iure to the Empire of Constantinople. Therefore, these chronicles regard that the Venetian campaign in the Ionian Sea was nothing more than an action in order to sustain the new constituted empire. The specification is also present in It. VII. 793 [9.] and Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.] and could also be supposed in the case of the chronicle Barbaro[147]. Some other chronicles clearly specify that the two new acquisitions were to be subdued to the Signoria di Veniexia (category 6., Sanudo - 7., some codices in category 11. and especially Barbaro and Savina that offers more details about the Venetian organization of the two new acquisitions[148]), while the chronicle pseudo-Dolfin offers a combination between the two tendencies[149]. Actually, the documents allow us to conclude that there was a theoretical debate around the jurisdiction on these two territories, ending with the renunciation of the Venetian podestà in Constantinople in favor of the Commune of Venice[150].

       

        Although during the Fourth Crusade’s events, the achievement of the patriarchal title by a Venetian could be perceived as a glorious moment, later the Venetian chronicles’ tradition would marginalize it to a certain extent. This is not a singular case, since the same fate would occur in the case of the achieving of the title of Podestà. These results were not to achieve the same career as the supposed Doge’s participation in the imperial elections or the achievement of the title of Dominus quartae partis et dimidie totius imperii Romaniae, constantly mentioned by almost all the Venetian chronicles.

 

 

For this material, permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Quaderni della Casa Romena 2 (2002): Occidente-Oriente. Contatti, influenze, l’image de l’autre (a cura di Ion Bulei, ªerban Marin e Rudolf Dinu), Bucarest: Casa Editrice Enciclopedica, 2003

No permission is granted for commercial use.

 

© ªerban Marin, June 2003, Bucharest, Romania

serban_marin@rdslink.ro

 

Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage Quaderni 2002

 

 



[1] [Geoffroy de] Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople (ed. by Edmond Faral), Paris: Les belles lettres, 1938-1939: II, 61-69; Robert of Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople (ed. by Edgar Holmes McNeal), New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1969: 115 ; Gunther of Pairis, The Capture of Constantinople. The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis (ed. by Alfred J. Andrea), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997: 114; Devastatio Constantinopolitana, in Chroniques Greco-Romanes inedites ou peu connues (ed. by Charles Hopf), Berlin: Weidmann, 1873 [hereafter, Devastatio]: 86-92 (92); Chronista Novgorodensis, in Chroniques Greco-Romanes inedites ou peu connues (ed. by Charles Hopf), Berlin: Weidmann, 1873: 93-98 (98); Corpus Chronicorum Flandriae, in Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante (ed. by G. L. Fr. Tafel and G. M. Thomas), vol. I (814-1205), Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964 [1856] [hereafter, Tafel-Thomas]: 293-304 (300); Croisade de Constantinople, in Tafel-Thomas: I, 322-328 (327-328); Chronicum Gallicum ineditum, in Tafel-Thomas: 328-358 (349, 357).

[2] Clari, cit.: 91; Devastatio, cit.: 92.

[3] Regarded as “the foundation stone of the new state” by Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades (transl. by John Gillingham), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 [1965]: 203.

[4] Tafel-Thomas: I, 444-449 (447) and 449-452 (450-451) (documents CXIX: Pacta inter dominum Henricum Ducem Venetie, et Bonifacium marchionem Montisferrati, et Balduinum comitem Flandriensem, et Ludovicum comitem Blesensem, in captione urbis Constantinopolitane and CXX: Pactum inter Henricum Dandulo Ducem Venetie, et Bonifacium marchionem Montisferrati, ac Balduinum comitem Flandrie, et Ludovicum comitem Blesensem pro captione urbis Constantinopolitane): “Sciendum est etiam, quod clerici, qui de parte illa fuerint, de qua non fuerit Imperator electus, potestatem habebunt ecclesiam sancte Sophie ordinandi et patriarcham eligendi (et) ad honorem Dei et sancte Romane Ecclesie et Imperij.

[5] Devastatio, cit.: 92.

[6] Niketas Choniates, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates (ed. by Harry J. Magoulias), Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984: 341-342 makes a brief and negative description on him in the context of Henry of Hainault’s actions against the Vlachs and the Bulgarians during the Summer of 1205: “[...] and Thomas, patriarch of Constantinople, who had but recently arrived from Venice. The latter wore his native dress: it was embroidered and woven so as to fit tightly about the body but slack at the chest and wrists; his beard was shaved smoother than if removed by a depilatory, so that the surface of his cheeks gave no indication whatsoever of the first appearance of hair but looked like a field stripped of crops.” It will be only later when Choniates: 357 would describe the patriarch’s arrival to Constantinople: “Soon after our empire had fallen to the lot of the French and the high priesthood had similarly been allotted to the Venetians because of the judgements known to the Lord, the maker and pilot of this terrestrial ship, there arrived from Venice as patriarch of Constantinople a certain Thomas by name. He was a middle age and fatter than a hog raised in a pit; his face was clean-shaven, as is the case with the rest of his race, and his chest was plucked smoother than pitchplaster; he wore a ring on his hand, and sometimes he wore leather coverings which were fitted to his fingers. His clerical assistanta and attendants at the holy altar were seen to be identical in everything with their primate, in dress and regimen and in the cropping of the beard.”

[7] The first letter of the Pope Innocent III that refers to Tommaso Morosini is dated in January 21, 1205, see Tafel-Thomas: I, 524-528 (527) (document CXXIX: Innocentius III Episcopis et Abbatibus ceterisque Clericis, apud Constantinopolim existentibus), mentioning that: “[...], et dilectum filium T[homam], subdiaconum nostrum, in Patriarcham unanimiter elegerunt, [...].”, in the letter of Morosini’s confirmation as Patriarch. Still, it would be only on March 30, 1205 when the pope would regard the new patriarch as “frater noster, see Tafel-Thomas: I, 538-539 (539) (document CXXXV: Littera Innocentii III Papae Raynerio Dandulo missa, recommendans eundem Patriarcham electum) and when he would begin to write directly to Morosini in order to consecrate him, see Tafel-Thomas: I, 539-541 (documents CXXXVI: Innocentius III Thomae, Patriarchae Constantinopolitano, dated March 30, 1205; the same datation for the documents CXXXVII-CXLII: 541-546).

[8] P. Daru, Histoire de la République de Venise, vol. I, Paris: Firmin Didot, Père et Fils, 1821: 315; S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, 2nd edition, vol. II, Venice: Giusto Fuga, 1912 [1853-1861]: 176; Camillo Manfroni, Storia della marina italiana dalle invasioni barbariche al trattato di Ninfeo (anni di C. 400-1261), Livorno: R. Accademia Navale, 1899: 330; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire. 324-1453, vol. II, Madison, Milwaukee, London: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1952 [1917-1925]: 460; Leopoldo Usseglio, I marchesi di Monferrato in Italia ed in Oriente durante i secoli XII e XIII (ed. by Carlo Patrucco), vol. II, Turin: Miglietta, 1926: 235; Louis Bréhier, L'Eglise et l'Orient au moyen age. Les Croisades, 6th edition, Paris: Lecoffre, 1928: 164; R. Janin, “Au lendemain de la conqête de Constantinople. Les tentatives d'union des Eglises (1204-1208)”, Echos d'Orient 36 (January-March, 1933), 169: 5-21, 195-202 (9); Idem, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine (1204-1261)”, Études byzantines 2 (1944): 134-184 (136); Charles Diehl, Lysimaque Oeconomos, Rodolphe Guilland, René Grousset, Histoire du Moyen Age, vol. IX, 1st part: L'Europe Orientale de 1081 à 1453, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1945: 133; Jean Longnon, L'empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée, Paris: Payot, 1949: 55; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (transl. by Joan Hussey), New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969 [1952]: 423; Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen age. Le développement de l'exploitation du domaine colonial vénitien (XIIe-XVe siècles), Paris: E. de Broccard, 1959: 73; Roberto Cessi, “L'eredità di Enrico Dandolo”, Archivio Veneto, V series, 67 (1960): 1-25 (9); Edgar H. McNeal and Robert Lee Wolff, “The Fourth Crusade”, in A History of the Crusades (ed. by Kenneth M. Setton), vol. II: The Later Crusades 1189-1311 (ed. by Robert Lee Wolff and Henry W. Hazard), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962: 182-183; Denis A. Zakythinos, “La conquête de Constantinople en 1204, Venise et le partage de l'Empire byzantin”, in Venezia dalla Prima crociata alla Conquista di Costantinopoli del 1204, Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1965: 139-155 (145); Mayer, The Crusades, cit.: 206; Donald M. Nicol, “The Fourth Crusade and the Greek and Latin Empires, 1204-61”, in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV: The Byzantine Empire, part 1: Byzantium and its Neighbours (ed. by J. M. Hussey with the editorial assistance of D. M. Nicol and C. Gowan), Cambridge: [Cambridge] University Press, 1966: 275-330 (285); Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades, Cambridge: [Cambridge] University Press, 1966: 121; Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976: 12; Donald E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople. 1201-1204, [Leicester]: Leicester University Press, 1978: 139; Antonio Carile, Per una storia dell'impero latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261), 2nd edition, Bologna: Pàtron, 1978: 156, 218; John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice, [London]: Penguin Books, 1982: 137; J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990 [1986]: 184; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations, [Cambridge]: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 141; Idem, “La quarta Crociata” (transl. by Patrizia Colombani), in Storia di Venezia. Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. II: L’età del comune (ed. by Giorgio Cracco and Ghepardo Ortalli), Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1995: 155-181 (173). See also A. Belin, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople, 2nd edition, Paris, 1894; Louis de Mas Latrie, “Les Patriarches Latins de Constantinople”, Revue de l’Orient Latin 3 (1895): 433-456; Walter Norden, Deas Papsttum und Byzanz, Berlin, 1903; William Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient, Cambridge, 1921.

[9] Villehardouin, cit.: II, 35-37. See Achille Luchaire, Innocent III. La Question d'Orient, 2nd ed., Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1911: 129; Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, Archivio Veneto, V serie, 48 (1951): 1-52 (45); Idem, "Politica, economia, religione", in Idem, Storia di Venezia, vol. II: Dalle origini del ducato alla IV crociata, Venice: Centro Internazionale delle arti e del costume, [1958]: 461-462; James A. Brundage, The Crusades. A Documentary Survey, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Marquette University Press, 1976 (1962): 202; Charles M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West 1180-1204, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968: 253-254; Peter Lock, "The Latin emperors as heirs to Byzantium", in New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. Andrew, March 1992 (ed. by Paul Magdalino), Aldershot, Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1994: 295-304 (296).

[10] Some of them have underlined his patrician descent, some other involved in his clerical former activity, mentioning that he was nothing more than a subdeacon.

[11] Bréhier, L'Eglise et l'Orient, cit.: 175; Louis Halphen, L'essor de l'Europe (XIe-XIIIe siècles), 2nd edition Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1941 [1932]: 285.

[12] Longnon, L'empire latin, cit.: 55 (“moine d’origine patricienne, connu pour l’honnêté de ses moeurs, sa prudence et ses connaissances”); Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne, cit.: 78 (“moine vénitien Thomas Morosini, patricien honnête et fort instruit”).

[13] Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, cit.: 14 ; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 146; Nicol, “La quarta crociata”, cit.: 176.

[14] Longnon, L'empire latin, cit.: 55; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 220; Giorgio Ravegnani, “La Romània veneziana”, in Storia di Venezia, cit.: II, 183-231 (184). On other occasions, he has been placed in Venice, see Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, Florence: Giunti Martello, 1981: 197; Hussey, The Orthodox Church, cit.: 184, or in Rome, see Daru, Histoire de la République, cit.: 343.

[15] Paulus Rhamnusius, De Alexii Isaaci filii Reductione, et Bello Constantinopolitano, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, manuscript Lat. X. 79 (= 3077): III, 133a-133b; the most recent edition of Ramusio is P. Rhamnusius, De bello Constantinopolitano et imperatoribus Comnenis per Gallos et Venetos restitutis historia, Venice: Marc. Ant. Brogiolum, 1634: 471-472. For Paolo Ramusio, see ªerban 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 [= http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/ramusioindex.html].

[16] Romanin, Storia documentata, cit.: 181. The referal is in Andrea Moresini, L’Imprese, et espeditioni di Terra Santa, et l’Acquisto fatto dell’Imperio di Constantinopoli dalla Serenissima Republica di Venetia, Venice: Antonio Pinelli, 1627: 217-218. For Andrea Morosini, see Marin, op. cit.: 79-80.

[17] Belin, Histoire de la Latinité, cit. (according to Wolff, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constanitnople, 1204-1261”, Traditio 6 (1948): 33-60 (33, note), reprinted in Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London: Variorum, 1976: VIII, the Belin’s work “commits a series of glaring errors”).

[18] Mas Latrie, “Les Patriarches Latins”, cit.

[19] Aurelio Palmieri, “I vicari patriarcali di Costantinopoli”, Il Bessarione, II series, 7 (1904): 41-48.

[20] Leo Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (1204-1261) nach den venezianischen Urkunden, Weimar, 1938.

[21] Wolff, “The Organization”, cit.; Idem, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 227-303.

[22] G. Fedalto, “Il patriarcato latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261)”, excerpt from Studia Patavina. Rivista di scienze religiose 18 (1971), 2: 390-457.

[23] A. Rigon., “«Si ad scolas iverit». Il canonico di Padova Tommaso Morosini, primo patriarca latino d’Oriente, in un inedito documento del 1196”, Quaderni per la storia dell’università di Padova 33 (2000): 1-8 (still unconsulted by me).

[24] Daru, Histoire de la République, cit.: 343; Romanin, Storia documentata, cit.: 181-182; Ernst Gerland, Geschichte des Lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel (1204-1216), Homburg v. d. Höhe, 1905: 14-16; Luchaire, Innocent III, cit.: 145; 151 ff.; Usseglio, I marchesi di Monferrato, cit.: 246; Bréhier, L'Eglise et l'Orient, cit.: 175; Janin, “Au lendemain de la conqête de Constantinople”, cit.: 9; Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte, cit.: 23-25, 110-116; Janin, “Les sanctuaires”, cit.: 139; Wolff, “The Organization”, cit.: 33-34; Longnon, L'empire latin, cit.: 55; Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, cit.: 52; Wolff, “Politics”, cit.: 228-229; 232 ff.; Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne, cit.: 78; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit : 196-199; Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, cit.: 14; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 222; Nicol, “The Fourth Crusade”, cit.: 301-302 ; Fedalto, “Il patriarcato latino”, cit.: 416 ff.; John Godfrey, 1204: The Unholy Crusade, Oxford: [Oxford University Press], 1980: 136; Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, cit.: 197-198; Nicol, “The Papal Scandal”, in Studies in Church History 13: The Orthodox Churches in the West (ed. by Derek Baker), Oxford, 1976: 141-168 (148), reprinted in Idem, Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography, London: Variorum, 1986: II; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 146; Jean Richard, “The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople (1204-1227)”, in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (ed. by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton and David Jacoby), London: Frank Cass, 1989: 45-62; Nicol, “La quarta Crociata”, cit.: 176-178; Ravegnani, “La Romània veneziana”, cit.: 210-212.

[25] Luchaire, Innocent III, cit.: 154 ; Bréhier, L'Eglise et l'Orient, cit.: 175; Janin, «Les sanctuaires», cit.: 136; Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte, cit.: 25-28; Longnon, L'empire latin, cit.: 55; Wolff, “Politics”, cit.: 242 ff.; Mayer, The Crusades, cit.: 206; Fedalto, “Il patriarcato latino”, cit.: 435 ff.

[26] Janin, “Au lendemain de la conqête de Constantinople”, cit.: 9; Wolff, “The Organization”, cit.: 34 ff.; François Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1964: 143; Fedalto, “Il patriarcato latino”: 421 ff..; Joseph Gill, “Innocent III and the Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?”, in Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages (edited by Derek Baker), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973: 93-109 (99); Nicol, “The Papal Scandal”, cit.: 149-151; Richard, “The Establishment”, cit.: passim.

[27] D. Rattinger, “Die Patriarchat unde Metropolitansprengel von Constantinopel und die bulgarische Kirche zur Zeit der Lateinerherrschaft in Byzanz”, Historisches Jahrbuch 2 (1881): 20-21.

[28] For the formula of “Siamo Venetiani, et poi Christiani”, see Ovidiu Cristea, “«Siamo Veneziani e poi Christiani»: Some Remarks concerning the Venetian Attitude towards the Crusade“, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 3 (2001): 105-116. For the Venetian crusading zeal, see also Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade, according to the Venetian Chronicles’ Tradition”, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002) : 111-171 (116-119) [= http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/marin2002.html]

[29] Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance“, cit.: 136 (“Le sort accorda la couronne aux Français et la mitre aux Vénitiens”); Cessi, “L'eredità di Enrico Dandolo”, cit.: 9 (“Così era previsto che all’una [parte] spettasse il governo civile, all’altra il governo religioso”).

[30] Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian”, cit.: 123-136.

[31] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1414, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2555 [= 12447].

[32] For the Venetian position in the imperial elections in Constantinople, see Marin, “The Venetian ‘Empire’. The Imperial Elections in Constantinople on 1204 in the Representation of the Venetian Chronicles”, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 5 (2003) [forthcoming].

[33] Historia Ducum Veneticorum (ed. by H. Simonsfeld), in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. 14, Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883: 72-97. A new edition, bilingual (Latin-Italian), in Testi storici veneziani (XI-XIII secolo) (ed. by Luigi Andrea Berto), Padua : Università di Padova, 2000 (1999): 1-83.

[34] Piero Giustiniani, see Venetiarum Historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano filio adiudicata (ed. by Roberto Cessi and Fanny Bennato), Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, 1964 [hereafter, Giustiniani]. This similarity between the two was underlined by H. Simonsfeld, the first who edited Historia Ducum Veneticorum, who on some circumstances replaced the missing passages from it with the ones present in Pietro Giustiniani.

[35] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1457, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2571 [= 12464] (the title in the manuscript is: Venetia miracolosa Citta dal Grande Iddio preservata]: 1-465 [hereafter, It. VII. 2571].

[36] Cronaca di Venezia finoal 1570, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2581 [= 12473] (Chronica di Venetia con molte cosse degne di memoria quii ciuso fin lanno del MDLXX chi Dio il domi a C[ondita] V[rbe]): 1-359 [hereafter, It. VII. 2581].

[37] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1275, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2554 [= 12446] (Cronica di Venetia. Parte Prima): 1-376 [hereafter, Barbaro].

[38] The documents attest that it was Benedetto Falier as Patriarch of Grado at that time, see Tafel-Thomas: I, 551-553 (552) (document CXLVI : Thomas Maurocenus, Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, Ecclesias Venetorum, Constantinopoli positas et Patriarchae Gradensi seu aliis Praelatis Venetis subjectas, ad omni Patriarchae Constantinopolitani subjectione exemptas esse declarat, dated May 15, 1205).

[39] Andreae Danduli Duci Venetorum. Chronica per extensium descripta aa. 46-1280 d. C. (ed. by Ester Pastorello), in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 12, new edition, Bologna : Nicola Zanichelli, 1923: 5-327 [hereafter, A. Dandolo]; Laurentii de Monacis Veneti Cretae Cancellari Chronica de rebus venetis Ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV, sive ad conjurationem ducis Faledro (ed. by Flaminio Corner), Venice: Remondiniana, 1758 [hereafter, Monacis]; Pietro Dolfin. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2557 [= 12449] (La cronica della Nobele Citade de Veniesia acopiada dal trasunto de quella de messer Andrea Dandolo fò Dose de Veniexia, scontrada con molte altre Croniche, et libri annuali della Cancellaria Ducal de Veniexia di Pietro Dolfin quondam Giorgio di San Cancian): 1-399 [hereafter, P. Dolfin].

[40] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1247, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2592 [= 12484] : 3-36 [hereafter, It. VII. 2592]; M. Antonii Sabellico, rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita, ad Marcum Barbadicum, Sereniss. Venetiarum Principem & Senatum, Decadis Primae, in Degl’Istorici delle Cose Veneziane, I quali hanno scritto per Pubblico Decreto, Venice: Lovissa, 1718 [1489] [hereafter, Sabellico].

[41] Gianiacopo Caroldo. Cronaca Veneziana, sino all’anno 1382, Biblitoeca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 128-b [= 7443] [hereafter, Caroldo]; Marini Sanuti Leonardi filii Patricii Veneti De Origine Urbis Venetae et vita omnium Ducum feliciter incipit (ed. by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 22, Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae in Regia Curia, 1733: Vitae Ducum Venetorum Italicae Scriptae ad originis Urbis, sive ab anno CCCCXXI, usque ad annum MCCCXCIII : 399-1252 [hereafter, Sanudo].

[42] Storia della Repubblica Veneziana scritta da Andrea Navagero patrizio Veneto (ed. by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 23, Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae in Regia Curia, 1733: 923-1216 [hereafter, Navagero].

[43] Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino al 1600, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 71 [= 7866] (Libro della fondatione et ampliatione della Città di Venetia) [hereafter, It. VII. 71].

[44] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1444, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2567 [= 12459]: 1-232 [hereafter, Trevisan].

[45] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1471, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2572 [= 12464] (Cronica Veneziana fino il 1471): 2-155 [hereafter, It. VII. 2572].

[46] Francesco Sansovino, Venetia Città nobilissima et singolare (ed. by Giustiniano Martinioni), vol. 2, Venice : Filippi, 1968 [1663] [hereafter, Sansovino].

[47] Cronaca Veneta attribuita a Marcantonio Erizzo, fino all’anno 1495, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VUU. 56 [= 8636]: 1-611 [hereafter, Erizzo].

[48] Girolamo Savina. Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città sino al 1616, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 134 [= 8035] (Cronaca Veneta di Girolamo Savina sino al MDCXV): 1-378 [hereafter, Savina].

[49] Storia Veneta dalla fondazione della Republica sino all’anno 1750, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1833 [= 8376]: 1-377 [hereafter, It. VII. 1833].

[50] Blondi Flavii Forliviensis, De Origine et Gestis Venetorum Liber, in Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae (ed. by Johann Georg Graevius), vol. V, part 1, new edition, Leyden: Petrus Vander, 1722: 1-26 [hereafter, Biondo].

[51] Epitome della Storia della Republica di Venezia, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1999 [= 7918]: 1-171 [hereafter, It. VII. 1999].

[52] Cronaca Veneta dall'anno 420 fino al 1732, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 74 [= 7703] (Cronaca Veneta dal CCCCXX continuata al MDCCXXXII): 1-653 [hereafter, It. VII. 74].

[53] Sanudo: 529. The Archbishop of Zara as subject to the Patriarch of Grado, also in A. Dandolo [2.]: 278; P. Dolfin [2.]: 325a; It. VII. 2592 [3.]: 29a; Sabellico [3.]: 176; It. VII. 2572: 14b.

[54] Martino da Canale, Les estoires de Venise. Cronaca Veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini alle 1275 (ed. by Alberto Limentani), Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1972 [hereafter, Canal]. The chronicle was first published in Archivio storico italiano 8 (1845): 231-707.

[55] Enrico Dandolo. Cronaca Veneta dall’origine della Città fino al 1373, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 102 [= 8142], microfilm Pos. Marc. 127 (Cronaca Veneta di Enrico Dandolo di Giovanni sino al MCCCLXXX): 1-100 [hereafter, E. Dandolo]; Cronaca di Venezia, detta di Pietro Dolfino, dall’origine della Città sino all’anno 1418, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 559 [= 7888]: 1-143 [hereafter, pseudo-Dolfin]; The Morosini Codex (ed. by Michele Pietro Ghezzo, John Melville-Jones and Andrea Rizzi), 2 vols., Padua: Archivio del Litorale Adriatico, 1999-2000 [hereafter, Morosini].

[56] In this last phrase, the editor Limentani translated only : “[...]; e messere Enrico Dandolo, il doge di Venezia, venne in possesso della sua parte ; ed ebbe nella sua parte [...].”, ignoring thus exactly the referral to the Venetian patriarchate.

[57] The emphasised passage was ommitted to be translated in the Melville-Jones edition.

[58] Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino al 1410, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 89 [= 8391]: 1-73 [hereafter It. VII. 89].

[59] Antonio Donà. Cronaca Veneta dall’anno 687 al 1479, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 10 [= 8607] [hereafter, Donà].

[60] Cronaca Veniera, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 791 [= 7589] (Cronica dell’inclita città de Venetia) : 48-201 [hereafter, Veniera 791].

[61] Here is a brief version of the partitio.

[62] Here is a brief version of the partitio.

[63] Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della città al 1478, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 793 [= 8477]: 1-26, 40-196 [hereafter, It. VII. 793].

[64] Giovanni Tiepolo Patriarca di Venezia. Cronaca Veneta ad esso attribuita dall’anno 421 al 1524, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 129 [= 8323] (Cronaca Veneta attribuita al Patriarca Giovanni Tiepolo Ab V[urbe] C[ondita] sino MDXXXVIII): 63-242 [hereafter, Tiepolo].

[65] Agostino Agostini. Storia veneziana di Agostino Agostini dal principio della fondazione di Venezia (421) fino all’anno 1570, Biblioteca della Fondazione Querini Stampalia, manuscript IV. 16 [= 770] (Istoria Veneziana di Agostino Agostini): 1-308 [hereafter, Agostini].

[66] Cronaca Veneziana dall'anno 421 fino al 1379, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 77 [= 7420]: 1-273 [hereafter, It. VII. 77].

[67] Tiepolo: 78b; Agostini: 26a; It. VII. 77: 58.

[68] Cronaca Veneta dal principio della città fino al 1450, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1586 [= 9611]: 8-229 [hereafter, It. VII. 1586].

[69] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1556, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2580 [= 12472]: 1-325 [hereafter, Veniera 2580].

[70] Veniera 2580: 133a.

[71] Category 3., Biondo, It. VII. 71, It. VII. 2572.

[72] It. VII. 2592 [3.]; Biondo; It. VII. 71.

[73] Category 2., Navagero, Caroldo [7.], It. VII. 1999, Sansovino, It. VII. 1586 [11.].

[74] Category 1., Sabellico [2.]; Giustiniani; Erizzo [11.].

[75] Sanudo [7.].

[76] Barbaro, categories 4., 5., Trevisan,category 9.

[77] A. Dandolo [2.], Monacis [2.], translated as de commune consenso (P. Dolfin 2.) or concordemente (Caroldo7.).

[78] Category 4. and the chronicle It. VII. 89 [5.].

[79] Categories 2., 3., Navagero, Giustiniani, Biondo, It. VII. 74, Caroldo [7.], It. VII. 2572, Erizzo [11.], Savina [11.].

[80] Navagero, It. VII. 1833.

[81] Category 2., Sabellico [3.], Giustiniani, Biondo, Trevisan, It. VII. 74, Savina [11.].

[82] For the Papal presence in the Fourth Crusade according to the Venetian chronicles, see Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian”, cit.: 141-142. For the Papal attitude, see especially Helmut Roscher, Papst Innocenz III. und die Kreuzzügge, Göttingen, 1969; Marin, Pope Innocent III and the Fourth Crusade, MA thesis, Central European University, Budapest, June 1998.

[83] Monacis [2.], Navagero, Biondo, Sansovino.

[84] Navagero.

[85] Category 4. (including Canal), It. VII. 89 [5.].

[86] Donà [5.], Veniera 791 [5.].

[87] Trevisan. For the title of podestà, see Wolff, “A New Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople: The Oath of the Venetian Podestà”, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 12 (1953) [= Mélanges Grégoire, IV]: 539-573, reprinted in Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London: Variorum, 1976: X.

[88] Veniera 791 [5.], Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.].

[89] Trevisan.

[90] Category 2.

[91] Caroldo [7.].

[92] Category 1.

[93] It. VII. 2592 [3.].

[94] Category 4.

[95] Sansovino.

[96] It. VII. 1833.

[97] Category 1., Barbaro. Some chronicles mention Pantaleone Giustiniani in the context of the 1261 events, as the last Latin Patriarch of Constantinople: A. Dandolo [2.]: 311; Monacis [2.]: 148; Sabellico [3.]: 225; Biondo: 19; Caroldo [7.]: 244; Sanudo [7.]: 560; Giustiniani: 171; It. VII. 1999: 38b; Trevisan: 51a, col. 1; It. VII. 1833: 31b. They are chronicles that regards Tommaso Morosini as the first patriarch, so that they respect the historical reality. It is surprising that Pantaleone Giustiniani is also present in this position in the chronicle Barbaro: 346b-347a, demonstrating thus inconsistency concerning the person of Pantaleone Giustiniani as patriarch.

[98] Category 9.

[99] Categories 4., 5.

[100] Canal [4.], Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.], It. VII. 1586 [11.].

[101] It. VII. 2581: 91a-92b (91b-92a). Chronicle It. VII. 2571: 103b mentions in connection with the pact between the non-Venetian and Venetian crusaders: “tal patto fese lo Dose con li Contj entro dessi come la trovera in fin de questa cronicha scripto.” Nevertheless, the pages 465a-489a that represent copies on different documents do not provide the pact of partitio, exclusively referring to Venetian internal matters. On its turn, when it deals with the election of Baldwin I, the chronicle Barbaro: 243a only refers to “the previous public instruments between him [emphasis mine: Baldwin] and the aforesaid Doge” concerning the Dogal authority to elect the patriarch.

[102] A. Dandolo: 279; Monacis: 138-139; P. Dolfin: 327a. See also the chronicle Navagero: 983-984 presenting the entire document.

[103] It. VII. 2592: 30a; Sabellico: 181. See also Biondo: 12-13.

[104] Caroldo: 145-146; Sanudo: 529.

[105] Marco: 76 ff., providing the entire text.

[106] It. VII. 1577: 262-268 (265) (the pact is placed even before the first siege of Constantinople); It. VII. 1586: 39a-40a (39a-39b) (on the contrary, this time it is placed even after the election of Baldwin as emperor); Erizzo: 107b-108a (107b) (before the first siege of Constantinople); Zancaruolo: clxxxxj b-clxxxxij b (once again, before the first siege). Chronicle It. VII. 78: 9b, col. 2-10a, col. 1 also presents a partial version of the March, 1204 agreement before the first siege that does not refer to the patriarchal election, but exclusively to the imperial one and then specifies: “There were many agreeements done, that would be too long to be narrated”. The very same copier expresses his doubts about this pact previous to the installment of Alexius IV on the throne, since it is written beyond the text: “This part and the pacts to elect an emperor among the best of them [emphasis mine, of the crusaders] do not seem to be truth to me, being in contradiction with their determination de install the young Alexius again in the empire, as it appears as conclusion of this subsequent chapter.”

[107] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1382, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2544 [= 12436]: 28-80 [hereafter, It. VII. 2544]; Gasparo Zancaruol. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2570 [= 12462]: 1-179 [hereafter, It. VII. 2570].

[108] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1310, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2541 [= 12433] (Principio et Origine della creation delli Dosi): 93-175 [hereafter, It. VII. 2541]; Cronaca Veneta detta Barba dal principio della Città fino al 1545, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 66 [= 7766] (Cronica antiquissima, transcritta da diverse et antique): 1-73 [hereafter, Barbo]; Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino all’anno 1549, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 67 [= 9132]: 123-215 [hereafter, It. VII. 67].

[109] Marci Chronica universalis..., Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. XI. 124 [= 6802] (Zibaldone di cose storiche in gran parte riguardanti Venezia): passim [hereafter, Marco]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1410, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2550 [= 12442] (Cronica di Venezia): 26-130 [hereafter, It. VII. 2550]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2556 [= 12448]: 1-215 [hereafter, It. VII. 2556]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1427, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2559 [= 12451]: 1-100 [hereafter, It. VII. 2559]; Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino al 1433, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 44 [= 7865]: 1-267 [hereafter, It. VII. 44]; Camilo Abbiosi detto il Seniore da Ravenna. Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della Città fino all’anno 1443, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2052 [= 8981] (Cronica di Venezia scritta da Camillo Abbiosi Ravenate): 1-149 [hereafter, Abbiosi]; Antonio di Matteo di Curato. Cronaca Veneta, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 162 [= 8037]: 1-176 [hereafter, Curato]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1501, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2576 [= 12468]: 1-93 [hereafter, It. VII. 2576].

[110] Cronaca Veneziana dall’anno 1190 all’anno 1332, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 78 [= 9135] [hereafter, It. VII. 78]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1356, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2543 [= 12435]: 1-101 [hereafter, It. VII. 2543]; Cronaca della Città di Venezia dalla sua fondazione fino all’anno 1400, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1577 [= 7973]: 1-390 [hereafter, It. VII. 1577]; Cronaca Veneta supposta di Gasparo Zancaruolo, dall’origine della Città fino al 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1274 [= 9274] (Chronica de la nobel Cita de Venexia): lxi-cclxxxi [hereafter, Zancaruolo]; Cronaca Veneta dall’origine della città sino all’anno 1478, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 798 [= 7486] : i-lxviiii [hereafter, It. VII. 798]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1432, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2560 [= 12452]: 1-189 [hereafter, It. VII. 2560]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1441, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2563 [= 12455] [hereafter, It. VII. 2563]; Cronaca dall’origine di Venezia sino all’anno 1442, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 550 [= 8496]: 1-172 [hereafter, It. VII. 550]; Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della Città sino all’anno 1458, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 794 [= 8503]: 112 ff. [hereafter, Z. Dolfin].

[111] For this campaign, see also Silvano Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane in Romania nel XIII secolo, Naples, 1966: 100 ff. See also Luchaire, Innocent III, cit. : 154 that indeed considers that it was the patriarch himself who commanded the expedition, specifying that “[...], lui avait imposé une mission qui s’accordait peu avec son ministère spirituel.

[112] Canal [4.]: 62-66 (62-64 for the Venetian acquisitions; 64 : for “la provinse de Dirachi” and for “Coripho”); Zancaruolo [11.]: clxxxxv a-clxxxxv b (clxxxxv a for “Provintia de Durazo” and for “Coriffo”). For the document, see also Tafel-Thomas: 452-501 (472-473 and 491 for “Provintia DirachiiProvincia Dyrrhachii and “Coripho / Corcyra”).

[113] Sanudo [7.]: 532-533 (532 for “Provincia Dyrachii” and for “Caupho”; the author makes refferals to Libro Albo Cancellarie); Giustiniani: 141-142 (142 for “Provincia Dirachii” and for “Coripho”); It. VII. 71: 129a-129b: “Hebbero Venetiani Galipoli, Modone, Coron’ e Durazzo città con li suoi territorij et molte isole, trà quali Corfù” (a very brief presentation). Another brief version, in Sansovino : 560 that do not present these two territories.

[114] Trevisan: 39b, col. 2-40a, col. 1; Donà [5.]: 31a-31b; Veniera 791 [5.]: 69a; Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.]: 133a.

[115] This view is somehow closer to the one provided by Choniates, cit.: 341, who inserts that “Thomas [Morosini], patriarch of Constantinople, who had but recently arrived from Venice.”, suggesting thus that the Patriarch was not to participate to the crusade's events.

[116] T. Morosini regarded as Patriarch of Grado, also in chronicle Barbaro.

[117] See below, some other chronicles that follow the same pattern (in category 11.).

[118] Cronica Veneta, dal 703 al 1420, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2028 [= 8559] (Cronica Veneta): 1-187 [hereafter, It. VII. 2028].

[119] Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino all'anno 1405, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 39 [= 8609]: 1-85 [hereafter, It. VII. 39].

[120] Categories 2. and 3., chronicles Biondo, It. VII. 2572 (while Giustiniani and Sanudo [7.] still mentions the Corphiote campaign). Beside these, Corphù is absent in Caroldo [7.], the chronicles in category 8. and Zancaruolo [11.] (in this latter case, Corphù is added beyond the text of the manuscript, suggesting thus a later adjustment).

[121] Trevisan (“the respectful father Tommaso Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople”); Erizzo [11.] (“Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch, who had been confirmed by messer the Pope”).

[122] Category 4.; It. VII. 89 [5.].

[123] As in category 8. (which does not introduce any character in the expedition). The same version, in some chronicles in category 11. (It. VII. 2543, Zancaruolo, Veniera 2580), still the character has different interpretations: “Patriarch of Grado” (Zancaruolo); “Patriarch” (Veniera 2580), while It. VII. 2543 is not constant, speaking about “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch” pacifying Raguso and then about “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch of Constantinople” that occupied Durazzo and Corphù. There are two chronicles in category 10. (Abbiosi, Curato) that also takes the entire expedition in the Ionian area as a whole, although the Venetian fleet is commanded by “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch” when Ragusa is retaken, and then by “Giacomo Morosini together with the Patriarch of Constantinople” when they perform against Durazzo and Corphù.

[124] Regarded as “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch” (category 1.; Barbaro; Veniera 791 [5.]; category 10.; some chronicles in category 11.: It. VII. 78, It. VII. 1577, It. VII. 798, It. VII. 2563, It. VII. 1586), “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch of Costantinople” (Donà [5.]; when describing the elections in Constantinople, this chronicle regarded a Doge’s relative as patriarch there; thus, it is far of being consistent), “Tommaso Morosini the Patriarch of Grado (from category 11.: It. VII. 2560, It. VII. 550, Z. Dolfin).

[125] Campaign who was destined “to go to the Patriarch of Constantinople” [category 1. ; Veniera 791 [5.]; category 10. (excepting Abbiosi and Curato); the majority of category 11.: It. VII. 78, It. VII. 1577, It. VII. 798, It. VII. 2560, It. VII. 2563, It. VII. 550, It. VII. 1586, Z. Dolfin], or whose captain is not specified (Donà5.; category 6.).

[126] Category 1.; Barbaro; Caroldo [7.].

[127] Trevisan and Veniera 791 [5.] (in both cases, being specified “misier the Doge and the Commune of Venice”); Donà [5.]; It. VII. 793 [9.]; It. VII. 550 [11.].

[128] Sanudo [7.]; It. VII. 2570 [6.]; It. VII. 2543 [11.].

[129] Biondo; It. VII. 2572.

[130] Barbaro; category 6. and some chronicles in categories 10. (Abbiosi and Curato) and 11. (It. VII. 2543, It. VII. 1577, It. VII. 798, It. VII. 1586, Erizzo).

[131] Category 2.; Caroldo [7.]; It. VII. 2572.

[132] Excepting Monacis [2.].

[133] Sabellico [3.]; Biondo; category 8. See also Barbaro that speaks about “some powerful peasants”, who determined the Ragusans to revolt against the Venetians.

[134] Category 1.; Barbaro; Trevisan; Veniera 791 [5.]; category 10.; some of the chronicles in category 11.: It. VII. 78 (« summa prudentia »), It. VII. 1577, It. VII. 798, It. VII. 2560, It. VII. 1586, Z. Dolfin, Erizzo, Veniera 2580.

[135] Donà [5.].

[136] Category 6.; It. VII. 2543 [11.].

[137] Category 6.; It. VII. 2543 [11.].

[138] It. VII. 78 [11.]

[139] Barbaro.

[140] Savina [11.].

[141] Sanudo [7.].

[142] Sanudo [7.]; Trevisan; categories 4., 5., 6., 10., 11.

[143] Barbaro.

[144] Category 6.; Sanudo [7.]; It. VII. 2543 [11.].

[145] Categories 2. and 3.; Biondo; Caroldo [7.]; Sanudo [7.]; It. VII. 2572.

[146] Categories 2. and 3.; Giustiniani; It. VII. 2572; category 8.; Zancaruolo [11.].

[147] Barbaro: “[...] Durazzo, which city was rebelled by some powerful peasants and consequently it was not obedient either to Baldwin, the legitimate emperor, or to Laskaros, elevated by rebellion in Thessalonic, [...]. [emphasis mine]”.

[148] Barbaro; Savina, mentioning Marino Valaresso and Pantaleone Barbo as baili in Durazzo and Corphù.

[149] Pseudo-Dolfin [4.] (“under the Dogal dominion, the said Patriarch of Constantinople, as city that de iure belonged to the emperor ”).

[150] Tafel-Thomas, I, 569-571 (document CLIX: Refutatio eiusdem Marini [Geno], facta comuni Venecie de Chorphu et Durachio et alijs locis Imperij, dated October, 1205).

1