Venice and Constantinople in 1171 and 1172: Enrico Dandolo's Attitudes towards Byzantium Thomas F. Madden Few Venetian doges had as much impact on the Republic of St. Mark as Enrico Dandolo. Elected to the ducal throne in 1192 at a very advanced age, Dandolo steered his state through difficult waters until 1202 when he left to join the Fourth Crusade. In 1204 he and the other Venetian crusaders helped to conquer Byzantium, thus tran sforming Venice from a merchant state into a maritime empire . Despite Dandolo's achievements and the long shadow he casts on subsequent Venetian and Byzantine histories, the fact remains that we know surprisingly little about him. Before the early thirteenth century, document storage was a haphazard affair in Venice: the state preserved some treaties and decrees, but not all. Leading families kept private archives in their palazzi, but very few of these have survived. Although a number of Venetian monastic archives are still intact, not surprisingly they primarily hold monastic documents. As a result, what we can learn about Enrico Dandolo before the Fourth Crusade must be gleaned from later Venetian chroniclers and a collection of odds and ends preserved in a number of different archives. It is only during the heavily documented Fourth Crusade that a picture of the old doge begins to emerge, and even then it is far from crystal clear. The archival research for Ihis projeci was funded by a granl from Ihe Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundalion. VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 167 Lack of solid information about Dandolo has not deterred historians from attributing to him a fairly complete and defined personality. He is generally described as shrewd, intelligent, crafty, and wil y; a man of sturdy patriotism and pr agmatic sense. Given the descriptions of Dandolo from sources for the Fourth Crusade, these are fair c harac terizations. However, many go further. In an atte mpt to explain the conquest of Cons tantinople in 1204, Dandolo is often described in much darker terms. Edwin Pears wrote that, 'What is certain is thal he [Dandolo] bore against the [Byzantine] empire an inextinguishable hatred. which made him willing to embrace any project directed against its capital city'.' These strong words are still echoed today. George Ostrogorsky states that Dandolo was ' entirely unmoved by the genuine crusading spirit', and that his ' aim . . . was to direct the forces of the West against Byzantium,.2 According to A.A. Vasiliev, ' in the mind of the keenly discerning and cl ever Dandolo a plan was ripening to conquer Byzantium .. .' 3 Edgar McNeal and Robert Lee Wolff report that ' the doge may have Jost his eyesight through action by Byzantines, and in any case hated Greeks ' .4 Although Charles Brand di scounts Byzantine complicity in Dandolo 's blindness, he none the less concludes that 'the reasons for his malice against Byzantium cannot be perceived '.5 In a more recent book on the Fourth Crusade, John Godfrey sta tes , ' that Dandolo had a personal animosity towards Byzantium is clear' .6 Joh n V.A. F in e, Jr. wri tes simply, 'He [Dandolo] hated the Byzantines . . .'7 We hear the most about this defect in Dandolo's character from DonaJd Nicol. In his most recent book, Byzantium and Venice, Nicol blames Dandolo bitterly for the hatred of Greeks that led him to I. E. Pears, The Fall of Conslan1inople (New York, 1886), pp . 239­40. 2. G. Ostrogorsky , HislOry of Ihe Byzanline Slale, revd. edn ., tran s . J. H usse y 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (New BrunSWick, NJ, 1969), p. 41 3. A.A. Vas ilie v, Hislory of Ih e Byzanline Empire (Madis o n and Milwa ukee , 1964), Vol. lI, p. 45 3. E.H. McNeal and R .L. Wolff, ' The Fourth C rusade ', in K. Senon ( cd .), A HiSlory of Ihe Crusades, Vol. n (Madi son, 1969), p. 169. C.M. Brand , Byzanlium Confronls Ihe Wesl, 1180-1204 (Cam bridge, MA t 1968), p. 203. J. Godfrey. 1204: The Unholy Crusade (Oxfo rd, 1980), p. 64. J.V.A. Fine, Jr., The Lale Medieva l Balkans: A Crilical Survey from Ihe Lat Twelfth CeTllury 10 Ihe a t/oman Conquest (An n Arbor, 1987), p. 6 1. 168 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW conquer Constantinople. Nicol reports that 'the Greeks at the time were right in suspecting that it was Enrico Dandolo who led the crusaders to Constantinople and then arranged things in such a way that they had a moral pretext for conquering it'.8 In Nicol's view, the Greeks perceived what Dandolo's friends and comrades did not: 'Dandolo ... hid his purpose under a c loak of p iet y. But Constantinople was in his mind from the outset' .9 Like many others, Nicol believes Dandolo held' a personal grudge' ag ainst Byzantium for the loss of his eyesight. 'As his eyesight faded so his wits sharpened and his hatred of the Greeks became obsess ive ' . 10 It is the purpose of this study to examine the basis for this facet of Dandolo 's character: his obsessive hatred for Greeks. This is a problem of enormous importance. Many explanations for the development of Veneto­Byzantine relations in the late twelfth century as well as during the Fourth Crusade rest squarely on the deep animosity that Doge Dandolo allegedly felt for the Byzantine state and people. Historians so often describe this hatred that, along with great age, blindness, and intelligence, antipathy for Greeks has become one of the defining features of Enrico Dandolo. But unlike age , blindne ss, and intelligence, which are evident and visible, Dandolo 's hatred, we are told, was kept hidden deep in his soul where it festered and ultimately spawned the calamity of 1204. What, then, is the basis for this intimate knowledge of a man who is otherwise so mysterious? Assertions that the doge hated Byzantium ultimately rest on two related fou ndations. The first holds that the seizure of Venetians and their property in the Byzantine Empire in 1171 so enraged Dandolo that he joined the ill­fated retaliatory mission led by Doge Vitale II Michiel. There he watched with horro r as plag ue decimated the Venetian fleet ­ an affliction widely blamed on Byzantine poisoning of wells. After two failed embassies to Constantinople, Michiel sent Da ndolo to Byzantium to discus s peac e. W hen M ichiel returned to Venice an enraged mob avenged his humiliation with assassination. This profound calamity taug ht D andolo to loathe 8. D.M. N icol , Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic a nd Cu ltural Relations (Cambridge, 1988), p. 41 2. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., pp . I 19­20. VENICE AND CONST ANTINOPLE 169 Byzantines and swear vengeance against them. The second foundation for the alleged hatred is that on that embassy to Constantinople in 1 172 Dandolo was blinded, either at the order of Manuel Comnenus or as a result of a street brawl. Subsequently, Dandolo swore vengeance against Byzantium for his injury. Authors who support their assertion of Dandolo 's hatred for Byzantium do so on the basis of one or both of these scenarios. While it is common to point out trouble­spots in Veneto­Byzantine relations after 1172, particularly the reparation money which Constantinople continued to owe Venice, these are just further irritations for Dandolo. His particular personal animosity was born due to his personal experience with Byzantium in 11 7 1 and 1172. The Byzantine senator and historian, Nicetas Choniates, is the ultimate source for Dandolo's hatred of Byzantium based on events beginning in 1171. He wri tes that Dandol o considered it 'nothing less than a death sentence not to exact vengeance from the Romans for their violence to his people'. In the dark recesses of his heart, Nicetas contends, Dandol0 calculated the many injuries inflicted on Venice by the Byzantines. As doge, he laboured over 'secret designs' to all y with other Europeans and conquer Constantinople. I I Although Nicetas Choniates was one of the great historians of his day, we must sti ll question how a Byzantine aristocrat gained knowledge of what was in the heart of the doge of Venice. How did he discover what Dandolo concealed even from his friends, family, and people? How did Nicetas gain access to Dandolo's 'secret designs' against Byzantium? This is aU the more remarkable when we consider that Nicetas Choniates never spoke to Enrico Dandolo, indeed probably never met him. Enrico Dandolo was not an impressionable youth when Manuel Comnenus ordered the mass arrest of Venetians in I 171 . He was a mature man in his sixties with a lifetime of experience under his belt. Longevity was a staple of the Dandolo family: Enrico's paternal grandfather lived into his late seventies or early eighties and his II . Nicelas Choniates, His/oria , ed. J.­L. van Dieten, Corp us Fonliurn Historiae Byzanlinae, 11 (Berlin and New York, 1975) ( hereafter Nicetas), p. 538. 170 MEDITERR ANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW 12 uncle, the patriarch of Grado, made it into his nineties. It is not surprising, then, that Dandolo 's fat her, Vitale, was still alive and quite active in 1171. Vitale Dandolo was one of Doge Michiel 's most trusted advisors and their two families seem to have been quite close. 13 Enrico Dandolo, like his brothers, rem ained out of politics until his father's final years, when he was gradually introduced into the ducal court. 14 Politics in Venice was a family affair. In the years just before the Byzantine seizure, Enrico Dandolo was probably busy with the construction and furnishing of the new family paiaZ20 on the Grand Canal near Ri alto. The previous building, itself quite 15 new, was destroyed by fire on 15 December 1167. There is no evi- 12. T.F. Madden, ' Enrico Dandolo: His Life. his Family. and his Venice before the Fourth Crusade', Ph.D. diss., University of I11inois at Urban a-Champa ig n, 1993, pp . 17 - 18 ,22- 3; G. Cracco . s.v. 'Dandol0, Enrico (patriarca) ', Diziorwrio biograflco degli Italiani, Vol. 32 (Rome, 1986). 13. No other ducal judge, not even the future doges Sebastiano Ziani an d Orio Mastropiero, appears as often in Miehiel's court as Vitale Dandolo, Vitale also had reputati on for judicial fairness in Venice. Arehivio di Stato di Venezia (hereafter ASV), Codice Diplomatico Lanfra nchi (hereafter CDL), 2335 (Aug. 1158); ibid., 2356 (April 1159); Barraechi , ' Le carte del mille de l millecento . . .', p. 136 ( 1161); ASV, CDL, 2438 (July 1161); ibid. , 2497 (A ug. 1163); Marino Sanudo, Le vite dei dogi , ed. G. Monticolo, in Rerum Italicarum Scripto res (Castello, 1900), Vol. 22, PI. 4, p. 278 (June I 164); T .L.F. Tafel and G .M. Thoma s, Urkunden zur iiI/eren Hand els- und Staatsgeschichle der Republik Venedig mit besonderen Beziehungen auf Byzam und die Levante , in Fontes rerum austriacarum, PI. 2, Diplomatica , J2- 14 (V ien na. 1856-57 ) (hereafter TTh.) , Vol. I, pp. 140-44, No. 59 (= ASV, CDL. 2521) (Aug. 1164); ASV, CDL. 2526 (Aug. 1164); ibid., 2599 (June 1166); ibid .. 2676 (April 1168); ASV, S. Zaccaria, B. 7 (Aug . 1170). On the familiarity between the Dandolos and Michieli , see Madden. ' Enrico Dandolo' , pp. 72-6,9 1-2. 14. The first reference to Enrico Dandolo in any state business does not occur until June 1164; San ud o, Le vite dei dogi , Vol. 22. Pt. 4, pp. 277-81, esp. p. 280. 15 . Annales ve neti ci brev is. Monum c nta Germaniae His tori ea, Scrip torum (Hanover, 1883) (hereafter MGH , SS ), Vol. 14, p. 11 ; Andrea Dandolo , Chronica per extensum descripta , ed . E. Pas torello, in Rerum /talicarum Scriptores (Bologna, 1938), Vol. 12, Pt. I, p. 249. Based on the churches listed as des troyed in this fire, which included San Luca, it seems certain that th e adjacent Dandol0 pal azzo was destro yed as we ll. Indeed, both sou rces note the large number of adjacent private homes which were destroyed. A good map of the probable area of devastation can be found in W. Dori go, Venezia orig ini: Fondamenti , ipotesi, melOdi (Milan, 1983), Vol. 11, p. 478. New ev ide nce on the Dand olo com pound is presented in J. Schu lz. 'The Houses or Dandolo: A Famil y Compound in Me dieval Ven ice', Journa l of th e Society of Architectural Historians , 52 (1993), 391-415 . VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 17J dence to suggest that he had much personal interest in Byzantium up to this point. On 12 March J 171 the blow fell. Within a matter of days, thousands o f Venetians in the Byzantine Empire were stripped of their goods and thrown into prison. When the news reached the lagoon it prompted bolh anger and confusion. Venice and Constantinople had only just patched up an earlier di sagreement concerning Genoese an d Pisan privileges in the empire. It now seemed th at Manuel Comnenus' recen t assurance of safety was simply a ruse to lure Venetians back inlo his trap.1 6 At court, Michiel consulted with his advisers. While membership of the council of ducal judges, or sapienti, fluctuated on any given day, there were three members who were regularly there: Sebastiano Ziani, Orio Mastropiero, and Vitale Dandolo. 17 Z iani and Mastropiero had only just returned from Constantinople where they had met with the emperor and seen to the smooth rehabilitation of the Venetian Quarter. They could not understand the sudden reversal. The council advised Michiel to send another legation to ascertain the extent of the damage to Venice and 16. Historia du cum veneticorum, MGH, SS, Vol. 14, p. 79; Dandolo , Chronica, p. 250. This, at least was the view in Venice, which is o ur concern here. For the much wider debate on Manuel' s reasoning, cf. J. Dan stru p, 'Manuel I's Coup Against Genoa and Ve ni ce in the Light of Byzantine Comme rciaLPolicy', Classica et MediaevaUa, 10 (1948), 195-219, esp. 208-1 0; W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Age (Amsterdam, 1959). Vol. I, pp. 2 11-1 9; F. Thiriet. La Romanie vemtienne au Moyen Age (Paris. L959). pp. 51-2; R.-J. Lilie, Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den ita lienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen and der Angeloi (1081-1204) (A msterdam , 1984), pp. 489-93; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, p. 91. 17. ASV, S. Andrea di Lido, B. 40, pcrg. (=ASV, CDL , 2335); ASV, Cane.lnf, B. I . Nota i pili a nti ch i dive rsi (= AS V, CDL, 2438 , 2439); R. Cess i (ed. ), Deliberazioni del Maggior Consig lio di Venezia (Bo logna.. 1950), pp. 241 -3, No.7 (-ASV, CDL, 2497); ibid., p. 24ti, No. 10; Sanudo, Le vile dei dogi, p. 278; Tfh., Vol. I, pp. 140-44, No . 59 (-ASV, CDL, 2527); ASV, CDL. 2526; B. Cecchetti, 'La vita dei vencziani fino a1 secolo XIII', Archivio veneto, 2 (1 811 ), 108; Cessi (ed.), Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio, pp. 245-7, No. 10 (-ASV, CDL, 2562). The judges are convenientl y listed in G. Rosch, De venezianische Ade/ bis zur Schlie{3ung des Gro{3en Rats: zur Genese eiller Fuhrungsschicht (Sigmaringen, 1989), p. 92; however, Ros ch includes any men tion of a person as a judge, whether they ap pear in that instance in the ducal court or not. 172 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW IS Manuel's reasons for inflicting it. Doge Michiel's response to his court's advice has been funda mentally misunderstood by even the best historians of the republic. 19 A rash and autocratic man, Michiel is believed to have ignored his court's caution and ordered the construction of a large retaliato ry fleet which he himself would command. But this scenario does not square with the evidence. His previous actions show Michiel to have been a prudent man and a cautious doge. He had worked hard to build good relations with foreign leaders, and foster lasting bonds with Venetian fami lies like the Dandolos who had been excluded under Doge Pietro Pol ani (1129­48). Michie1 appea rs to have always accepted the advice of his ducal council, a group of handpicked men who appear at the doge's side with a regularity amazing for Venice. The doge and his council were like­minded aristocrats, some with important financial interests in Constanti nople, who were loath to launch an attack against Byzantium until every other option had been exhausted?O 18. Historia ducum veneticorum, p. 79; Dandolo, Chronica . p. 251. adds that the embassy should seek remuneration as well. 19. For example: R . Cessi , ' Venice to the Eve of the Fourth Crusade ', in the Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge, 1966), Vol. IV, PI. I , p. 273 ; O . Cracco, Societa e stato nel medioevo veneziano (secoli X/I . XN ) (Florence. 1967), p. 6; F.e. Lalle, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore and London, 1973), p. 92. 20. Venice had considerable investments in Constantinople in 1171. See L.B . Robbert, 'Venice and the Crusades', in K. M . Setton (ed.), A History oj th e Crusades, Vol. V (Madison, 1985), p. 408. It is, however, ve ry difficult to discern how much financial interest the Dandolo or Michiel famil y had in the city in 117 1. Gratone Dandolo had done busin e ss a decade e arli e r i n Constantinople: L. Lanfranchi ('ed.), Famiglia Zusto (Ven ice, 1955), pp . 52­65 , Nos. 23­4;id. (ed.), S. Giorgio Maggiore (Venice, 1968), Vo l. II , pp. 463­70. Nos. 231­3. Giovanni Dandolo also appeared in Constantinople in 11 62: R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, Documenti del commercio venezia no nei secoli X/-X!II (Rome, 1940) , Vo l. I, p. 153, No. ISS ; pp. 340­41 , No. 344. Enrico's brother, Giovanni, later ac ted as a representative for the sizable interests in the city of his u.ncle, the patriarch of Orado, but these lands were owned by the church, not the fami ly; ASV, Mensa Patriarca Ie, B. 9, Nos. 5­10 (No. 10 is publishcd by S. Borsari in Ve nezia e Bisanzio nell XII secolo: / rapporti economici [Venice, 1988], Appendix C, pp. 154­6). The Michiel fa mily conducted business in Constantinople from I 154 to 1158, but there is no evidence for any involvement there in the years prior to 1171 , Morozza della Rocca, VENlCE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 173 B ut events were swept out of their grasp. A convoy of Venetian sh ips suddenl y arrived from Halmyros where they had narrowl y escaped the clutches of the imperial government. Their fiery passion and heartrendi ng stories spread qu ickly thro ugh the lagoon and ignited a fierc e popular demand for violent revenge. As a res ult , Michie] and h is ad visors were overrule d ei ther by an informal plebiscite, the Great Co unci l, or both. Legislation was immediately passed thaL ordered the construction of a fleet of 100 galleys and 20 transports. Doge Michiel was o rdered to take command of the fleet , leaving his son Leonardo as vice­doge during his absence. The fleet se t sail in September 1171.21 The nearly contemporary Historia d ucum veneticorum makes it clear that the decision to construct and launch the fleet was made by 'eve ryone yel ling and say ing, " The emperor impiously moved agaj ns t us; we sho uld move against him with a great force and avenge this injury, which was inflicted on us through no fault of our own.'" It was the ambiguous comuni consilio that ordered the fleet's c o ns truction, not the doge. 22 Andrea Dandolo, who used the His foria ducum veneticorum as well as state archives, makes a disti nction between the ducal order to send a legation (,decretum fuit') and the popular overruling of this order ('statutum fuerat'). He further makes it clear that the people statuunf that the warships should be constructed 'with which the doge must personally take revenge fo r the offence ' Y Like it or not, the doge was bound by law to lead the attack on Byzantium. 24 DoclAmenri, Vol. I, pp. 1 18­19, No. 118, p. 122, No. 122; A. Lombardo and R. 21. 22. 23. 24. Mo rozzo de lla Rocca (eds.) , Nuo vi do cumenti del commercio ven eto dei sec. XI -XIIJ (Venice., 1953), pp. 16­18 , nn . 14·15 . His/or ia dllcllm veneticorum , p. 79; Dandolo, Chronica , p. 251; Annales venetici breves, p. 72; Ma rl ino da Can ale , Les ESlOires de Vellise. ed. A. L imen tani (Florence , 1972), pp. 39·40; 'Cronaea di Marco' , Archivio s/orico italiano, 8 ( 1845), 260­6 1. His/oria ducunr veneticorum, p. 79. Dandolo, Chronica, p. 251. Unfortunatel y, it is not possible [0 be more precise conce rn ing the organ o f state which ordered the retaliation. This may be d ue to the im precision in the Veneti an constitution of the time. or to the sources whic h report the event. See the djscussion in n. 24 below. The sources are careful, however, to di sti ng ui sh between the actions o f the ducal court and the nebulous ' people'. T he theory that ducal power before 1172 am ounted to an e lected despotism is 174 MEDITERRA NEA N HlSTORlCAL REVIEW Michiel did not like it. The fact is that the convoy of refugees fro m Halmyros brought to the ducal court no information that it did not already possess . Instead, their stories onl y served to put a human face on the terrible tragedy and make plain the extent of the injury to the common citizens , who now demanded more from their leaders than patient diplomacy. But although Venetians could constru ct a fl ee t and order their doge to ex act revenge aga inst Byzantium, they could not keep him from pursuing his origi nal policy once he ente red Byzantine territory. After taking Chalk is, 25 Michiel sent an embassy to Manuel Comnenus. It consisted of the new archbishop of Aqui,Jeia who could speak Greek, and Manasso Badoer, a kinsman of a new member of the ducal court , Giovann i Badoer. 26 At this point the Venetian mission was goi ng very well . Michiel's desire to open negotiations with Constantinople so soon after reaching the empire. then. further underscores his hope that a peaceful settlement could still be reached. In Constantinople, how ever. Manuel Comnenus ignored the embassy. Fru strated, the ambassadors sailed to Chios where the Venetian fleet was wintered. tlawed. Ducal power was constantly evolving. Between 1143 and lIn the doge did nothing without his council of judges, or sapientes. Thcoretically, as is evidenced in the mcthod of ducal elections, power in Venice rcsided with the people. They could overrule or eject a doge. See E. Besta, ' 11 diritto e Ie leggi civili di Venezia fina al dogado di Enrico Dandolo' . Ateneo veneto, 2212 (1889),232­7; G. Maranini, La Costituzione di Venezia da/le origini alia serrata del Maggior Consiglio (Florence, 1927; repr. 1974). pp. 76­7,113­31; G. Cassandro, ' Concetto e struttura dello stato venez.ian o ' , B ergomum, 38/2 (1964),37­40. There are a number of examples of the people of Venice acting unilaterally to legislate state policy or constitutional reforms. The mcthods of thcse actions arc Icss clear. See, for example, Dandolo, Chronica, pp . 121 , 174. 209; see also the popular definition of ducal power as evidenced in the mythology of the first doge, ibid ., p. 106. Much more work needs to be done on thc naturc of political power in Vcnice before 1172. 25. For fuller accounts of thc war betwcen Venice and Byzan tum , see E. Bcs ta, ' La cattura dei Ve neziani in oriente per ordine dell'im pe ratore Emanuele Comneno e Ie sue consequenzc nclla politica intema ed esterna del commune di Venezia', AnlOlogia veneta , I. \ ­2 (1900) , 35­46,111­23; H. Kretsch ma yr, Gesch ichte von Venedig (Gotha. 1905), Vol. 1, pp . 256­7; Nico l, By::.alllium and Ven ice, pp. 98­100. 26. Historia du cum veneticorum. p. 79; Dandolo, Chronica , p. 252; R. Cessi and F. Renn alo (eds.). Venetia m in histaria vu/go Petra Justiniano Justiniani jilia adiudicata (Venice, 1964), p. 120. Archbishop Pasqualo had only take n offi ce one month earlier; ASV, Mensa Patriarca/e, No. 30A (= ASV, CDL, 2842). VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 175 From Chios, Michiel sent the ambassadors back to Constantinople 27 LO try again, and added Filippo Greco to their number. The second Venetian embassy was just as earnestly ignored as the first Meanwhile, plague had descended on Chios. Over 1,000 Vene tians died in the flfSt days of the outbreak. In March l in Doge Micltiel left Chios. but could not shake off the horrible disease. It was rumoured that Byzantine agents had poisoned the wells. W hen the second delegation to the emperor returned at the end of March it brought no better news than the first. A Byzantine official who accompanied the neglected envoys urged Michiel to send yet another embassy. Desperate, Michiel agreed. He sent Filippo Greco and Enrico Dandolo. 28 There is no reason to believe that when Enrico Dandolo sailed for Constanti nople in March 1172 he felt any differently about the Venetian retal iatory mission than did his fath er or the doge. His presence in the fleet says nothing about his assessment of the wisdom of sending it. Rather, as Vitale Dandolo's son , his purpose was Lo represent his family and advise the doge in his father 's absence. Dandolo must surely have shared his countrymen's anger towards Byzan tiu m , particularl y after the initially successful miss ion became such a human tragedy for Venice. But like his father and Doge Micltiel, Dandolo also surely blamed the rash decision of the Venetian people for launching this attack despite the court 's desire to pursue diplomacy from home. The third em bassy Lo Constantinople was Doge Mich iel 's las t hope. His fleet 's strength was severely cut and he still faced a pow- 27. Histaria ducl/tIl veneticorl/m, p. 79; Da ndolo, ChrOllica, p. 252; Vellelia rum historia, pp. 120­2 1. N ico l, Byzalllium and Venice , pp. 98­9, states that F ilip po Greco was selected because he 'presumably knew G reek' . W hile 'grec o ' w as somet im es use d to de note a G re ek , as in 'Marc o gree o Indriomeni' (ASV, S. Zaccaria, B. 7 [Nov. 1153], Greco was also a surname . F ilippo Greco and h is fa mily are identifiable in the documen tary record as Venetians. not Greeks . For Filip po, see Sanudo. Le vile dei dogi. p. 279 (J une, 1164 ); TIh., Vo l. I, p . 144, No. L1X Ｈｾ ａ ｓ ｖＬ＠ CDL, 2 527) (A ug . 1164); ASV .CDL. 296 3 (J une . 1 17 4); TTh . , Vol. t, p . 17 0 , No . LXllI (=ASV.CDL.2963) (June 1174); Tfh ., Vol. I. p. 170, No. LXm (­ASV. CDL, 3027) (J une 11 75). 28. Histaria ducllfn venl!ticorunt, p. 80; Dandolo. Chronica , p. 252; Veneriarum his/oria , p. 12 1. 176 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVlEW erful Byzantine navy. He desperately needed peace from the emperor. That he chose Enrico Dandolo at this dire moment speaks volumes about Dandolo's outlook on the situation. A Byzantine­hating zealot would hardly advance the cause of peace in Manuel's court. As the son of the doge's most trusted adviser, Enrico Dandolo would add weight to the embassy and further emphasize how seri ous Michiel was about negotiating. By the time Enrico Dan dol o arr ived in Constantinople the Venetian mission of vengeance was already over, or nearly so. In early April the afflicted Vene tian s demanded to be taken home. Doge Michiel had neither the wi ll nor the right to refuse?9 With no threatening armada to lend urgency to their mission, Dandolo and Greco's embassy was of even less interest to Manuel Comnenus than the previous two. The remnants of the fleet made it back to Venice by late May. Rather than revenge, Michiel brought home defeat, death, and plague. Again the people took matters into their own hands. A general council of some kind was schedu led to meet in the ducal palace on 27 May. The doge and his court were there. The meeting quickly degenerated into tears for loved ones and accusations for the crushing failure. There was a strong fe eling among many of the survivors that the doge never had his heart in the effort, which was probably true. Michiel's repeated attempts to open negotiations with Manuel while he was supposed to be dealing out harsh vengeance only added to this perception. FinaUy some proclaimed: 'We were poorly led, and if we had not been betrayed by the doge dragging out matters with legates, then all of these troubles would not have overtaken us! , 30 Stones and knives were brandished and the mood of the people turned foul. While Michiel attempted to reason with the angry mob his advisers began slipping away one by one. Finding himself alone , the doge ran towards the convent of S. Zaccaria but was stabbed and killed before he was half­way there. 31 29. Both as doge and as admiral of the fle et, Michiel was req uired to enact the wi ll of the majority. This was particul arl y true concern ing the desti nation of the fl eet. See Lane, Venice. pp . 50­5 1, and the accompanying bibliography. 30. Histaria dll clIm veneticarllm , p. 80, n. 6 (fragment ). 31. Ibid., p. 80; ibid ., pp . 80­8 1, n. 6 (fragme nt). VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 177 The popular act of regicide became bitterly unpopular after Michiel lay dead. The rash policies wruch had been forced on Vitale Michiel were now widely condemned . The doge's assassin, Marco Casolo, became the scapegoat of the people's folly. But his execution did not wash away their guilt. Filled with grief at Michiel's funeral in San Marco, the people gave over their traditional right to select a doge to an eleven­man commission. 32 The members of this committee were not conservative aristocrats who had tried to stop the headstrong Michiel from attacking Byzantium, as is usually maintained. Rather, they were his closest associates and comrades who had agreed with and helped to further Michiel's diplomatic initiatives. 33 Among them, Vitale Dandolo, Orio Mastropiero, and Domenico Morosini had all served in Michiel 's court. 34 Leonardo Michie! was the late doge's son and close friend to Enrico Dandolo. JS Filippo Greco, Ranieri Zane, and Manasso Badoer had accompanied Michiel on the ill ­fated mission. These men had a mandate to choose a doge who would carry out the Michiel agenda that the fury of the people had prevented. This mandate is made especially clear in our oldest and best so urce. According to the Historia ducum veneticorum, after the commission had chosen the new doge, 'not one of the populace contradicted the choice, but acclaimed it in agreement, saying: "Long live the doge, and may we be able to obtain peace through him! "'36 32. Ibid.. p. 80; Dandolo, Chranica, p. 259; Venetiarum iristoria . p. 12 1­2. 33. T he commiss ion members were: Vit ale Dandolo. Vit ale F alier, Enr ico Nav igaioso. Leonardo Michiel. Filippo Greco, Ranieri Zane, Orio Mastropiero, Domenico Morosi ni, Mannaso Badoer, Enrico Polani. and Candiano Sanudo; Venetiarum his/oria, p. 122. Cf. ｒｾｳ｣ ｨ Ｎ＠ Der venezianisclre Adel, p. 107; 1. Fees, Reicillum und Macht 1m miltelalterliclren Venedig: Die Familie Ziani (Til bingen. 1988), pp. 240­44. 34. See n. 17 above. 35, Leonardo Michiel brought his kinsman. Marino Michiel, and Enrico Dandolo with him to witness his marriage to Adelasina of Lendinara in Verona on I Dec. 1172; ASV. S. Zaccaria, B. 2, Perg. ( ...ASV, CDL, 2888). This was only tho latest expression of friendshi p between the Dando lo and Mich iel fam il ies. See Madden, •Enrico Dandolo ·. pp. 25­6, 38, 72­6, and passim.. 36. His/oria dllClI1II veneticarum, p. 80. 178 MEDITERRANEAN HlSTORICAL REVIEW It is impossible to adequately comprehend Veneto­Byzantine relations between 11 72 and 1203 without understanding the lessons learned by the Venetians in their failed mission of vengeance. The next three doges were marked by their experiences with Michie!. Sebas tiano Ziani (1172­78) and Orio Mastropiero ( 1178­92) had both served in Michiel's court and were the first proponents of negotiations over warfare with Byzantiu m. Had Vitale Dandolo been alive in 1192 the dogesh ip would likely have fallen to him. Since he was not, it went instead to his son, Enrico Dandolo, who had travelled with Michiel and worked diligently for peace with Byzantium ever since 1172.37 After his trip to Constantinople, Enrico Dandolo went twice to negotiate with William II of Sicily in an attempt to prod the Byzantine emperor LO make peace w ith Venice. 38 In 1183 he returned to Constantinople as a ducal legate to meet with the regent Andronicus and oversee the Venetians ' return to their quarter in Constantinople ..l 9 During his own dogeshi p, Dandolo was relentless in his attempts to negotiate treaties with 40 Constantinople despite the Byzantines ' willingness to break them. When a Venetian fleet charged with protecti ng Venetian shipping from Pisan pirates moved provocatively close to Constantinople in 37. Ven eriarum hisroria, p. 131 (=Hisloria dl/Cllm venericorum. Slipplemenlum , p. 90); Dandolo, ChrQnica, p. 272; Marino Sanudo, Vitae du culII I'enetorum, in Rerum iralicarum scriprores (Milan, 1733) , Vol. 22, col. 526; Ro sch, Der venezianische Adel, p. 107. 38. The first embassy was sent in Spring 1174; Da ndolo ' s coll eag ue in the embassy was Giovanni Badoer. Dandolo, Ch"onica, p. 260; D. Abulafia, Th e Two ltalies: Econ omic Relations between the Nonnan Kingdo m of Sicily and rhe Northern Communes (Cambridge, 1977), p. 142; Nicol , Byzantium and Venice, p. 100. The embassy was aborted, however, when in Dalmatia Enrico Dandolo met his fathe r, who w as re turning fro m ConSlantin ople w ith a Byzantine envoy promising peace. The second embassy was sent in July 1174. Here the problem is more complex si nce th is embassy was not directl y recorded by any chronicler and must be pieced together from a variety of sources. See Madden, 'Enrico Dandolo' , pp. 94­9. 39. Dandolo probably left Venice in September 11 83 and spen t the winter in Constantinople. He began holding court the re in March 11 84; Madden , ' Enrico Dandolo ', p. 127. n. 23. On Enrico Dandolo's duties in Constantino ple, see ibid ., pp . 131 ­3 ; Borsari, Venezia e Bisanuo, pp. 57­8. 40. On the complex negotiations leadin g to the chrysobull of 1198, sec Heyd , Commerce du Levant, Vol. 1. pp . 227­8; Brand, Byzantium Conjro/lls ril e Wesl, pp . 200­203; Lilie, Handel ulld Politik, pp . 41­9; the chrysobull itself can be found in TTh., Vol. I, pp. 246­80, No. 75 . 179 vENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE J J96, Doge Dandolo swiftly ordered its recall to Venice. 41 These are not the actions of a man harbouring a festering hatred for Greeks. Instead. they suggest a worldly man who knew at first hand that, when it came to Byzantium. patient negotiation could achieve what bellicosity could not. Dandolo had a great personal as well as political stake in a peaceful and profitable re lationship wit h Constantinople. His father had given the last years of his life to peace negotiations with Manuel Comnenus, and Enrico himself had continued that tradition. 42 Like his two predecessors, Dandolo came to power because he had worked for peace and stability between Venice and Constantinople. As a resu lt, he never engaged in sabre rauJing when Byzantium broke its promises. Nicetas Choniates' assessment of Dandolo, then, makes very little sense. The learned historian knew noth ing about Venetian government or politics, nor did he understand the profound changes that the events of 11 72 brought to the Republic of St. Mark. Nicetas was also completely ignorant o f any of Vita le Dandolo's or Enrico Dandolo's efforts to make peace with an aloof Byzantiu m.4J For Nicetas, Enrico Dandolo was mere ly the Vene tian leader on the Fourth Crusade. He was like all Venetians, who 'are vagabonds ... and cunning of mind ' as well as 'arrogant and impudent,.44 With no information about Enrico Dandolo except his role in the conquest of Byzantium, Nicetas gave full vent to his bigotry, turning the aged doge into a shallow stereotype. It is unfortunate that his ignorant assessment is given so much credence today. The second foundation for theories that Enrico Dandolo bore an implacable hatred toward Byzantium is related to the firs t. It is maintained that when the future doge was in Constantinople in I 172 he somehow lost his sight and swore to avenge this injury on the 41. TIn., Vol. \, pp. 216­25, No. 78 . The captai ns refused to obey the order. 42 . The approxi mate ly n inety­yea r­old Vi t ale Da ndolo was se nt twicc to Constantinople in 1174; Dandolo, Chron ica, p. 260; Historia dl/cum venelicorum, pp. 80­8 1; Sanudo, Le vite de; dogi , p. 286; Kretschmayr, Geschicllfe von Venedig, Vo l. I, p. 465 . He died on the second miss ion. 43. It is particul arly remarkab le th at Nicetas says noth ing about the laborio us ly negotiated a nd mi nute ly deta il ed trea ty wh ich Dandolo negoti ated w ith Byzantium in 1198. 44. Nicetas Choniales, Historia, p. 171 . 180 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW empire. T he earliest so urc e for th is story is the Chronicle of Novgorod, written shortly after 1204. It states that: Manuel blinded this doge; for many philosophers had begged the emperor: 'if you let this doge [sic] go whole, then he will do much harm to your empire ' . And the emperor not wishing to kill him, he ordered his eyes to be blinded with glass; and his eyes were as if uninjured, but he saw nothing. This doge had planned many attacks on the town and all used to obey him. 45 There is som e debate o ver the so urce f o r the Ch ro nicle of N ov go ro d's informat ion c o nce rnin g th e F our th Crus ade. Traditional ly it is thought to have come from a Russian pilgrim in Constanti nople in 1203 and 1204, but more recently some have argued that a German cleric was the source. 46 The Chronicle ofNovgorod is very accurate with dates and topograph ical info rmation on Constant inople, bu t not w ith actual events. 47 It often attempts to provide behind­the­scenes dialog ue between powerful men, thereby explaining their underlying motives. For example, the author contends that Innocent III granted a request by Philip of Swabia that the crusaders be allowed to put the young Alexi us Angelus on the throne provi ded they do no injury to Cons tantinople . He also reports that Alexius ill re leased Isaac II from prison and restored his imperial power. Alexius IV is also supposed to have refused to accept his father 's legi timacy as co­emperor because the latter was blind. After Mo urtzouphlu s had impris- 45 . The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016-1471, trans . R. Michell and N . Fo rbe s . Camden Third Series, No. 25 (London, 19 14), p. 48. Latin translat ion: K. Hopf (cd.), Chroniques Greco·romanes inedites ou peu connues (Paris. 1873; repr. Brussels, 1966), p. 98. Nicol reads this as 'Dandolo appeared to be able to see although his eyes had been gouged out on the orders of the Emperor Manuel': Nicol, Byzantium and Venice , p. 120, n. I. 46. Hepf, Chroniqlles Greco-romanes, pp. xiv­xv; D. Freydank, ' Die altrussiche ahlung uber die E roberung Konsta ntinopels, 1204' , Byzantinos/allica, 29 (1968). 334­9; J. Gordon , 'The Novgorod Account of the Fo urth C rusade ' , Byzantion, 42 (1973), 304­5. 47. T .F. Madden, 'The Fires of the Fourth Cru sade in Constantinopl e. 1203­1204: A Damages Assessment' , Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 84185 (1 993),78. VENICE AND CONSTA NTINOPLE 181 oned Alexius IV, the Chronicle states that the crusaders told the new emperor, 'Give us Alexius, so that we can go back to Philip of Swabia, who sent us here; and if you do this you may have his throne' .48 A II of these statements are demonstrably untrue, and some absurd. Nevertheless, they do represent what was undoubtedly the scuttlebutt in Constantinople after the fa ll of the city. As such, the Chronicle of Nov go rod prov ides an important window on the popular view of the catacl ysmic events of 1204. There can be no doubt that in the streets of Constantinople the story that Man uel Comnen us blinded Dandol o spread rapidly in some circles. It was sensational and he lped explain the conquest. Is there any basis for it? It is true that Dandolo was blind in 1204. Geo ffrey de Vi ll ehard oui n , who knew E nr ico Dando lo we ll , remarked often on the old man 's blindness. Dandolo told him that it was the result of a blow on the head. 49 Here is good information, straight fro m the doge himself. Dandolo had no reason to hide the cause of his blindness from his fri end, and Villehardouin bad no reason not to honestly report it. Nicetas Choniates accurately states that Dandolo was blind, but says nothing about Manuel Comnenus ordering the injury or any Greek comp licity whatsoever:1o Since it was Nicetas' con tent jon that Dandolo ' calcu lated the injuries' done to Venice, the historian would surely have men tioned the drastic mutilation had it occurred. There is hard evidence proving that Dandolo could still see when he returned to Venice in June J 172. Accordin g to the I/isforia duclim veneticorum, Doge Sebastiano Ziani di d not send another legation to Constantinople in I j 72 until he had inspected Enrico Dandolo and Filippo Greco and ensured that they were sound in body.51 Even more compelling are Enrico Dandolo's surviving signatures. In Venice, as elsewhere, those who could not read could not sign or mark a document signifying their agreement, since it could reasonably be argued that the person was not properly informed 48. Chronicle ofNov go rod, pp. 44­6. 49. Geoffrey de Villchardouin, La Conquete de Constantinople, cd. E. Faral (Paris. 1938­39), sec t. 67, Vol. I. p. 68; cf. sec t. 173, Vol. I, p. 174; sect. 35 I , Vol. II, p. 160; sec t. 364, Vo l. n. p. 172. 50. Nicelas Chon iates, Historia, p. 538. 51 . Historia cillcllm \'eneticorum, p. 8 I . l82 MEDITERRANEAN H1STOR ICAL REVIEW about what they were signing. Instead, Venetian notaries would read the document to the person and, after their assent. write ' Signum N. qui hec fieri rogavit' . )2 This rule extended from the lowest classes up to the doge himself. Enrico Dandolo never personally signed a ducal act during his tenure as doge since his blindness made his signature invalid. But Enrico Dandolo di d sign documents 20 years earlier, after his return from his e mbassy of 11 72 . In September 1 174, Dandolo was in Alexandria where he colJected money owed 53 to his bro ther Andrea. He signed the qui ttance document. In October 1176, shortly after the death of his fat her, Dandolo took his 54 positi on at the ducal court and signed a judicial ruling. The fi rst doc ument that a notary signed for Dandolo does not appear until 1183, and there is reason to doubt even then that it was due to blindness.'s In short, while it is imposs ible to know precisely when Enrico Dandolo lost his sight. it could not have occurred before 1176 when Dandolo personally signed a state document. Apart from the Chrollicle of No vgorod , no other source contempo ra ry wi th the fall o f C onstanti nop le mention s th e tale o f Dandolo's blinding. This suggests that the runlour had a fairly li mited audience or a short life. Robert de Clari enthusiasticall y reported pop ular legends in Constantinople that he had heard. but said noth ing about the doge's personal vendetta against Constantinople . This is particularly striking when we remember that Clari, a great lover of conspiracy theories, took delight in relating at length why 56 Boniface of Montferrat wanted to conquer Byzantium. Had he heard that Enrico Dandolo had sim ilar devious designs, it is hard to believe that he would have omitted them from his history. It does not surface in any later Byzantine works, many of which are fi lled 52. Cracco, ' Dandolo', p. 45 1. 53. Morono della Rocca. Documenti, Vol. I, pp. 252­3, No. 257; a pholOgTaph of the docu me nt can be found in A . Lombard o, '\1 doge di Venezia Enrieo Dandolo e la prima pro missione ducalc ', Archi vi e Cll llU ra , 10 (1 976): Fig. 1; rcpr. in id ., Studi e ricerche dal/e jonti medievali \'eneziane (Rome, 1982) , p. 93 . 54. ASV. S. Nicol di Lido. proc. 77 (=ASV, CD L, 3 109) . 55. Morol zo della Rocca, Documenti , Vol. I, pp . 338­9, No. 342; cf. Maudcn, ' Enrico Dandolo' , pp . 85­6. 56 . Robert de Clari , La cOllquete de Cons tantinople, ed. Ph. Lauer (Paris . 1924), sects . 33­9, pp. 32­9. VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE l83 with ample quantities of amazi ng prophecies, nor in any descriplions or discussions of the Fourth Crusade in the West until the mid­fourteenth century. It also does not appear in any of the numerous pilgrims ' accounts of Constantinople, ｷｾｩ｣ｨ＠ naively report as fact copious rumours and legends in tbe city.)7 Since Dandolo died so soon after the conquest of Constantinople, the popular story probably died with him. Interestingly. Doge Andrea Dandolo ( 1343­54) included a related story in his history of Ven ice. He wrote that in 11 72 Manuel Comnenus had blinded Enrico Dandolo because the latter had defended Venice against the fonner's insults. Andrea Dandolo says nothing about any prophecies or subsequent grudges against Byzantium. It is intriguing to specu late where the historian­doge m ined this information . The Chronicle of Novgorod was certainly no t avai lable to him, and the story does not appear in any of the other sources on which Dandolo regularly depended. It seems likely that Andrea Dandolo was relying here on family tradition concerning his famou s ancestor. Although the popular story quickly evaporated in Constantinople, it is not surprising that it would have had more staying power with the doge's clan: most families harbour distorted tales of progenitors ' valour. In the cen tury and a half that separated Andrea Dandolo from Enrico Dandolo, though, the legend had mutated, los ing its soothsayer and gaining the patriotic righteousness of the future doge. None the less, it is no more accurate in the mid­fourteenth century than it was in the early thirteenth. In an apparent attempt to reconcile the Chronicle of Novgorod with Villehardouin, Steven Runc iman stated that En rico Dandolo was blinded by a blow he suffered in a brawl during his stay in Constantinople in 11 72.58 The imagined brawl continues to be 57. The literatu re is vasl. T hc mos t usefu l introduclio ns are; J. Ebe rsol t, Constantinople byzantine er les voyage/lrs dll Levanl (Paris. 19 19); l.P.A. Va n de r Vin. Tra vellers 10 Greece and Constantinople: Ancielu Monuments and Old Tradirions in Mediel'al Tra vellers' Tales (Leiden, 1980); G.P. Majeska, Rllssian Tra velers to Constantinople ill the FOllrteenth and Fifte enth Centuries (Was hi ngton, DC, 1984). 58. S. RUnCiman, A History of rhe Crusades (Cambridge. 195 1), Vol. III . pp. I 14IS . 184 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW VENICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE 59 reported. There is, however, no reason to reconcile a sober and informed source like Villehardouin with the fanciful account of the Chronicle of No vgorod. The Chronicle's attempt to explain the con q uest of Constantinople was not unique: the city was awash with other fan tas tic legends relating to the Fourth Crusade. None are taken seriously now. No one, for example, would argue that the colossal bronze Athena was really beckoning the crusaders into the city, or that the Column of Theodosius really did foretell the crusader conquest, although both of these were widely believed at the time. 60 The bl inding of Enrico Dandolo at the suggestion of an imperial fortune­teller belongs to the same genre of urban myths. It is not the purpose of this study to extol the virtues of Enrico Dandolo, but it is important to point out that those who actually knew the doge had great praise for him. 61 Although Enrico Dandolo was surely no phil hellene, there is also no good ev idence of the opposite. The widespread modem belief that he held a secret hatred for Greeks is not based on the testimony of anyone who knew the doge we ll enou gh (0 have acqu ired such intimate know le dge. Indeed, the sources for Dandolo's hatred of Byzantium are distinguished no t onl y by the ir lack of even casual acquaintance with Enrico Dandolo, but also by their abysmally poor understanding of Ve nice in genera1. Accepting Nicetas Choniates' and the Chronicle of Novgorod's assessmen ts of the Venetian doge's inner thoughts and clandestine designs is a1tin to learning about the secret plans of an American president by reading the Tehran Times. In both cases the sources are uninformed and have onerous axes to grind. In conclusion, Enrico Dandolo learned neither love nor hatred for Byzantiu m in 117 1 and 1172. Instead, he learned the foolishness of choosi ng military action against mighty Constantinople when diplomacy was less expensive and more successful. Far from instilling in him a smouldering rage, the Venetian retaliatory strike con- 59. Nicol , Byzantium and Venice, p. 84. 60. Nicetas Choniates, Historia. pp. 558­9; Vi llehardou in, sect. 308, Vol. n, p. 11 6; Robert de Clari, LA conquele, sect. 92. pp. 89­90. 61. Quellcr, Fourth Crusade. p. 9; id. and LB . Kalelc . . Atti tu des tow ards the Vene tians in the Fourth Crusade: The Western So urces', The In/ erna/ional His/ory Review , 4 ( 1982), 1­36. 185 finned Dandolo's belief (a belief he naturally shared with his family and class) that although negotiations with Constantinople could be tedious, they always worked . In all of his later dealings with Byzantjum he painstakingly followed this simple principle. Dandolo was sent to Constantinople on behalf of his state and , as doge, kept lines of communication open between the two powers not because he hated Byzantines, but because he understood them. The problem of understanding Dando)o's role in the Fourth Crusade is far too complex to be explained by simplistic attributions of Si nister hidden motives.