1150_FV

The series of oaths of fealty that the Istrian communities pledged to Doge Domenico Morosini as they were confronted by the Venetian fleet has sparked much debate in historiography.

The biggest problem is the fact that the entire document – which consists of the records of five oaths pledged by the citizens of Pula, Rovinj, Poreč, Novigrad and Umag, respectively – is originally not dated. By looking solely at the document and comparing it to other surviving charter evidence, Walter Lenel reached a relative dating of “after 1148 and before 1152”, the terminus post quem being the election of Doge Domenico Morosini, the terminus ante quem the appearance of Bishop “R.” in Pula in April of 1153 (doc. 1153_PV), that is, Bishop Wernhard’s successor (Lenel, cited above). Rösch went a step further and narrowed the relative dating further to “between 1150 and 1152”, leaving Lenel’s terminus ante quem, but moving the terminus post quem to 1150 because, in May of 1149, an Anfredus is recorded as a bishop of Pula in a charter issued by King Conrad III (MGH DD K III, doc. 198), Wernhard’s predecessor. Thus, Bishop Wernhard of Pula, whose oath is recorded in the document, becomes the key to dating the document.

This relative dating surmised by Rösch is not in dissonance with the dating ascribed to these events by Doge-chronicler Andrea Dandolo, who dates the pledging of these five oaths to the third year of Domenico Morosini’s reign, which would give 1149/1150. It is not known on which sources and information Andrea Dandolo based this dating, but it is clear that he had (a version of) the document in front of him as he narrated these events. For these reasons, the entire expedition and the pledging of these five oaths are traditionally dated to 1150, a dating which is taken over here as well, although the readers should be aware that, if Dandolo’s account is ignored, the methodologically most sound dating remains the one proposed by Rösch.

Another topic of debate is the presumed military nature of the expedition. The document itself does not contain any evidence of military confrontations or even of any prior hostilities between Venice and the coastal communities of Istria visited by the Venetian fleet. It is only Andrea Dandolo who narrates the story of Istrian “sea piracy” against the Venetians which provoked the “triumphant” retaliation of the mighty Venetian fleet, comprised of fifty ships, that ultimately defeated Pula and, as spoils of war, received the five oaths of fealty (see “Medieval Recollections” above).

This Dandolo’s narrative fueled the interpretations of Benussi, De Vergottini, Schaube, and pretty much everyone else writing on these events (cited above). Benussi went by far the furthest in his extremely creative interpretations, seeing two opposing parties in Pula, the pro-imperial lead by Bishop Wernhard leading the uprising against Venice only to be utterly destroyed by the victorious Venetian fleet with dire consequences for the entire city (2002, cited above).

These interpretations rest mainly on Dandolo’s mid-14^th-century account, a narrative that purposefully glorifies Venetian history. More importantly, however, in narrating this episode from 1150 and the pledging of oaths of fealty of five Istrian communities, Dandolo mixes and homogenizes two separate documents: this one, undated, and featuring Bishop Werhnard; and the second one, issued in Pula in 1153 and featuring Bishop Rudolph, Wernher’s successor (edited here as doc. 1153_PP).

This second document from 1153 indeed narrates the story of a violent conflict between Venice and Pula, of a fleet fifty ships strong that crushed the resistance in the city, took hostages, seized goods, and forced the citizens to pledge anew their oath of fealty to the doge and the people of Venice.

Based on these two documents alone (the five oaths hereby edited and doc. 1153_PP) Darko Darovec (cited above) proposed a novel interpretation: the 1150 journey of the Venetian fleet helmed by Domenico Morosini, the doge's son, and Marino Gradenigo from Pula to Umag was not motivated by any previous hostilities; this was not a military expedition, and no battles were fought during this voyage. Instead, argues Darovec, the expedition was of an entirely different nature and motivated by something else. Namely, King Conrad III was personally present in Pula in April of 1149 and traveled across the peninsula all the way to Aquileia during this month (see doc. 1149_CP). These events surely bolstered the pro-imperial sentiments in the region which might have clashed with Venetian interests. The Venetian fleet was thus dispatched to Istrian communities as a “reminder” that they owe fealty and allegiance to the doge and the people of Venice as well, and not only to the Empire. The war and the siege of Pula took place only later, in 1153, and the battle ended with Venetian victory, as per the new pact signed between Pula and Venice in 1153. There are problems with this bold interpretation.

Namely, the 1153 document was edited only partially by Kandler, and until the FIM edition no in extenso version of the charter has been published. This led to many wrong interpretations of the 1153 charter which is in fact a document of settlement: with that charter, the people and the clergy of Pula ended all their disputes with Venice, acknowledged that they alone were to blame for the military operations undertaken against them, and promised not to ask for any further recompense or institutions for the damage they had suffered at the hands of the Venetian armada (see doc. 1153_PP). Does this document, as Darovec and many others read it, refer to a war waged after the five communities of western Istria had already pledged their oaths of fealty, or does it refer to the military operations undertaken by the very fleet dispatched in 1150 and helmed by Domenico Morosini, the doge’s son, and Marino Gradenigo, the same fleet that received the oaths of fealty from five Istrian cities?

Benussi and De Vergottini (cited above) argued that Venice waged war against Pula on two different occasions: in 1150 and in 1153. Darovec argued that the only war that was waged was the one in 1153, as per the 1153 charter. However, the most logical interpretation and the one most in tune with all the surviving primary sources and Dandolo’s narrative account as well, is the one argued by Lenel and Schaube (cited above), who concluded that the events described in the 1153 document refer to the war waged by the fleet commandeered by Morosini and Gradenigo, the same fleet that triumphantly returned to Venice with five oaths of fealty as its main spoils of war. This is judged as the best interpretation of these crucial events.

Thus, the entire undertaking that resulted in the pledging of these five oaths of fealty to Venice by Pula, Rovinj, Poreč, Novigrad and Umag was, in fact, a military expedition, the mighty armada of fifty ships being dispatched by Doge Domenico Morosini to bring the coastal communities of Istria back in line and remind them that they owe their fealties not only to the Empire but to the doge and the Commune of Venice as well. The anti-Venetian sentiment that was brewing in Istria was surely a consequence of King Conrad III's visit, who travelled from Pula to Aquileia across Istria (by land) in the summer of 1149 (see doc. 1149_CP).

Regarding the contents of the document, all five oaths have markedly similar articles. All communities swore to be faithful to Venice and to pledge their oaths of allegiance to all the future doges to come. All communities also promised the security of the Venetians in their territories and the complete exemption from all the dues. For Pula, this meant that even the portaticus, the only duty that the Venetians had to pay as per the 1145 treaty (doc. 1145_PP), was now abolished as well.

Moreover, all the communities but Rovinj promised some sort of military aid for Venetian campaigns in the Adriatic: Pula swore to protect the coast from Medulin to Rovinj and to deliver the captured pirates and bandits to Venice; in addition, the city renewed the promise of arming a galley for any sort of Venetian military campaign requiring fifteen or more galleys (identical to article 2 of doc. 1145_PP); finally, Pula promised to personally assist any Venetian military campaign in the northern Adriatic basin, this time somewhat reduced to a territory between Venice, Ancona and Zadar (the 1145 treaty defines it as Venice, Ancona, Dubrovnik, article 2 of doc. 1145_PP); Poreč, Novigrad, and Umag only promised the military aid in the triangle Venice–Ancona–Zadar.

Lastly, all the Istrian communities promised a symbolic tribute for St. Mark, the patron saint of Venice. Again, Pula promised the most: two thousandweights of oil a year, one for the construction and the other for the illumination of St. Mark’s basilica; Rovinj promised five romanati and Umag two romanati a year (romanatus is a term for the gold coin of Emperor Romanus III (1028–1034), but it is later used as unit of account, which is probably its meaning here, thus, they promised five and two solidi (shillings) of gold coins, respectively); Poreč promised fifteen pounds of oil for the illumination of St. Mark’s basilica and an additional tribute of twenty rams to the doge; Novigrad promised forty pounds of oil for the illumination of St. Mark’s basilica.

The bishop of Pula is the only high ecclesiastic to swear the oath, probably because the bishops of Poreč and Novigrad were not in their cities at the time (an archpriest is the first signee in Poreč). The fact that the bishop of Pula swore the oath does not ipso facto mean, as Benussi interpreted it, that he was also the secular count of Poreč.

Following Bishop Wernher’s oath, there is a list of fifteen villages forming Pula’s comitatus, that is, its district. These toponyms survive in contaminated forms, making them difficult to ubicate. To the best of my ability, and with the kind and generous help of prof. Ivan Jurković, the fifteen villages mentioned in the document would be the following:

Medolinum = present-day Medulin,
Pompinianum = Pumpinjan between Medulin and Ližnjan,
Lisinianum = present-day Ližnjan,
Quornianum = present-day Vrnjani,
Sisanum = present-day Šišan,
Barbolanum = Barbolan by Medulin,
Tortilanum = present-day Turtijan,
Orines = most probably a contaminated form for Ovinanum, which would be Ovinjan by Šišan,
Areanum = Aran by Pomer,
Pomarium = present-day Pomer,
Açanum = Azan north of Pomer,
Tavian = Tajban between Šišan and Turtijan,
Urcinianum = Vrčevan between Ližnjan and Medulin.
Nornianum could be a contaminated form of Mormianum, as recorded in P4, which would then be equated with Mimijan, present-day Štancija Lodeš.
Regarding the ubication of the toponym Cipiclirione / Cimelinione / Cimelimone, I was forced to declare it a loss.

These fifteen villages of Pula's district should not be confused with the so-called villae regaliae centered around Vodnjan (see doc. 1280_IURA for their ubication).

Finally, regarding the title that the citizens of Poreč gave to the doge – totius Histrie inclitus dominator – this did not modify the standard title of Venetian doges in any way, as per the so-called Justinian’s chronicle (quoted above). Instead, this was only ever used by the citizens of Poreč and on two occasions only, this one and in 1205 when the entire oath of 1150 was verbatim repeated (doc. 1205_PV).

As was the case with the 1145 treaties with Koper and Pula, this batch of oaths of fealties opened wide the door for Venice’s further growth of power and influence in the region, a process that Pula would try to resist (see doc. 1177_PP).