Doge Pietro IV Candiano reenacts a decree forbidding slave trading, originally promulgated by Doge Orso I Participazio, imposing further restrictions on dealings with slavers and regulating postal communication with the Byzantine imperial court.
In nomine Domini et ceteraa.
Imperante domino Romano gloriosissimo imperatore anno autem imperii eius quartodecimo, mense iunio, indictione tertia, Rivoalto in curte pallatiib.
Cum precedentibus temporibus in hac nostra provincia mancipiorum captivitas fieret et nostris ob hoc peccatum multę tribulationes fierent, nobis evenirent domnus Ursus bonus dux unacum Ioannec filio suo hanc malitiam diluerunt et statuerunt ita, ut nullus ex nobis mancipia venderetd.1 Sed [cum]e degravitf ita malignus et invidus hostis, constitutio corrupta est et transgressa.
Tunc quodam die, residente nobisg quidem Petro Deo auxiliante Venetię duce condamh domino Petro duce Candiano unacum domino Bono egregioque patriarchai et cum venerabilibus episcopis et primatibus nostris in publico placito, definivimus atque statuimus hanc optimam constitutionem, quae a prędictis nostris antecessoribus facta est, numquam aliquando corrumpanturj.
Supradictus Bonusk divino munere patriarcha cum cęteris episcopis hoc in conventum nostrum sanctę Gradensis ecclesię per sacrorum canonum auctoritate[m]l reperimus, ut a quicumquem hominemn aut in captivitatem duxerit, ipse in captivitate ire disponatur.
Unde omnes pariter statuentes statuimus et firmiter confirmamus, ut nullus maior aut minor mancipia ad venundandum emere debeant, nec aliquis precium ad suos emptores dare debeat propter mancipia comparanda aut venundanda, quia gravissimum malum est sanctimoniis, quia Deus omnipotens misecordia plenus est, et sio emendaverimus, dimittet nobis peccata nostra.
Itemque promittimus, ut quicumque in navibus nostris nauclerium fuerit nulla tenere debeat in navi sua levare mancipia neque de Venetia, neque de Istria, neque de Dalmatia, neque de nullis aliisp locis per nullum ingenium, nec etiam aliquis homo negotiantem vel iudeum in nave sua levareq debeat.
Itemque statuentes statuimus, ut nullus Veneticus pecuniam suamr/s ad quemlibet Gręccumt hominem dare debeat unde mancipia emant, et nullus Veneticus audeat ultra Pollamu mancipia transportare neque in terra Grecorum, neque in nullis locis eam donare, excepto si acciderit, ut de sua captivitate se redimerev debeat, aut pro tali causa, unde guadagnum accrescatw in patria, aut pro causa pallatii.
Similiter autem statuentes statuimus, ut nullus Veneticus ad quemlibet Grecum hominem vel de nostrax Beneventi aut de aliis locis precium tollere presumat propter mancipia inde illuc portanda.
Aliter autem hoc malum et inusitate vitium in nostra excrevit patria, quia nostri homines accipiebant epistolas de hominibus de infra Regno Italico et de Baiovaria similiter et de Sasonia et de aliis partibus, et eas ad Constantinopolim ad imperatorem deferebant. Unde magna vituperatio erat in nobis et in nostra patria et dishonoremy in nostras cartulas, quas ad imperatorem pro salvatione nostrae patrię consueveramus transmittere ad magnam utilitatem erant recepte, et pro nihilo eas habebant.
Nunc autem omnes pariter hoc malum emendare decrevimus et statuentes statuimus, ut nullus Veneticus epistola[s]z de Longobardia, nec de Boiovaria, neque de Saxonia, nec de nullis aliis locis iam ultra Constantinopolim portare pręsumat, non ad imperatorem, nec ad ullum alium Greccum hominem, nisi tantum illas, quae consuetudo est de nostro pallatio.
Si quis autem hanc nostram constitutionem corrumpere voluerit, aut in talibus supradictis factis se implicare presumpserit, super quem culpa declarata fuerit, componat in pallatio nostro auri obrizia' libras quinque. Et qui non habuerit quę componat, amittat vitam aut membra et omnia sua in publico redigantur.
Et insuper nos Bonus patriarcha cum nostris confratribusb' et episcopisc' ita statuimus, quia homo ille, qui hoc fecerit aut consensum faciendo prębuerit, excepta pallatii causa, erit anatematizatus et alienus a corpore et sanguine Domini et ab ingressu Ecclesię separatus, necnon et cum impiissimo Iuda traditore domini nostri Iesu Christi aeternum incendium concremetur et suam numquam sit meritus adimplere voluntatem.
Ego Petrus dux manu mea subscripsi.
Ego Bonus inmeritus sancte Gradensis ecclesię patriarcha.
Ego Petrus indignus episcopus sancte Olivolensis ecclesię.
Ego Ioannes Torcelensis ecclesię episcopus.
Ego Petrus gratia Dei episcopus.2
Ego Laurentius Calpinus.
Signum manus Stephani filii boni domini Petri Candiani ducis.
Signum manus Ioannis Scutarii.
Signum manus Ioannis Longo.
Signum manus Leonis Petrilongi.
Ego Ursus Bragadino.
Ego Stephanus Candianus.
Ego Ioannes Gradonicus.
Signum manus Valentini Sgaudario.
Ego Ioannes Mauroceno.
Ego Aurius.
Ego Petrus Mauroceno.
Signum manus Dominici Carimani.
Ego Bonus Sgaudario.
Ego Dominicus Mauroceno.
Ego Petrus Atticani.
Ego Petrus Bragadinus.
Ego Dominicus Bragadino.
Ego Dominicus Calpinomo.
Ego Laurentius.
Ego Ioannes Albani.
Ego Martinus Theodorus.
Signum manus Stephani Mauroceni.
Ego Ursus.
Ego Stephanus Coloprino.
Ego Vitalis Candiano.
Signum manus Dominici Flabiani.
Ego Petrus Ursiolo.
Ego Ioannes Flabi[ano]d'.
Ego Petrus Memo.
Signum manus Frincii.
Ego Albinus.
Ego Dominicus Petrolongo.
Ego Petrus Badovario.
Ego Ioannes Contareno.
Signum manus Martini Rapedello et Ioannes de Dulcio, Leonis Bonoaldo et Dominici Taralesso, Leonis de Succogullo et Lei Sgaudarii et Ioannis Longo, Dominici Codico, Petri Gaussoni, Ioannis Calbi, Fuschari Bonaldo, Dominici Trusduli et Marini Cosparii, Vitalis Capello, Truno Pigianico, Ioannis Bassani, Bono Dausdatoe', Georgii de Saccogullo, Ioannaceni Heliadi, Ioannis de Mollino, Ioannis de Dulcio, Dominici Taralessi, Leonis Gaudario, Ioannis Antolini, Petri Baffoni qui hoc fieri rogaverunt.
Ego Dominicus Casiolo.
Ego Dominicus Gradonico.
Ego Dominicus Zapulo.
Ego Marinus Barbadico.
Ego Stephanus Zopolo.
Ego Dominicus presbiter et cancellarius ex iussione domini Petri ducis senioris nostri complevi et roboravi.
a) et cetera] sic T; Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi primus ed. Kandler secundum M et sic ed. Tafel et Thomas et postmodum Cessi. b) sic et undique sic T. c) seq. et canc. T. d) ex venderent corr. T. e) om. T; em. Banić. f) subsignavit et sic T: pro degravavit seu degravaverit; om. et puncta posuit Ughelli; ita gravis primus em. Romanin; de gravitate primus ed. Kandler secundum M et sic ed. Tafel et Thomas et postmodum Cessi; gravi ita leg. Gasparri et al., seu perperam. g) ex nos corr. T. h) lect. dub. T; sic primus leg. et ed. Cessi. i) Bono egregioque patriarcha] subsignavit T. j) sic T: pro corrumpatur, sicut primus em. Romanin; corrumpendam em. Ughelli. k) subsignavit T. l) sic per–auctoritate T; per–auctoritatem primus ed. Kandler secundum M et sic ed. Tafel et Thomas; pro–auctoritate em. Ughelli. m) a quicumque] ex a quocumque corr. et sic T: pro quicumque–duxerit, sicut primus em. Ughelli; a quocumque ed. Romanin. n) ex homo corr. T. o) seq. em canc. T. p) seq. a canc. T. q) subsignavit T. r) pecuniam suam] add. in marg. sin. cum sign. insertionis T. s) nullus Veneticus pecuniam suam] ex nullum Veneticum cum suam pecuniam corr. in marg. sin. T. t) sic et saepe sic T. u) sic T. v) seq. et canc. T. w) guadagnum accrescat] subsignavit T. x) sic T: fort. pro terra, sicut primus ed. Kandler secundum M et sic ed. Tafel et Tomas et postmodum Cessi et Gasparri et al. y) subsignavit T. z) epistola T; epistolas em. Banić; epistolam primus ed. Kandler secundum M et sic ed. Tafel et Thomas et postmodum Cessi et Gasparri et al. a') subsignavit T. b') nostris confratribus] subsignavit T. c') subsignavit T. d') lac. T; Flabiano primus ed. Ughelli; Flabianus primus ed. Romanin. e') ex gaudausdato corr. T.
1) These would be Orso I Participazio and his son Giovanni II.
2) The bishop of Malamocco. See the editor's comments section for more details.
“Anno XIIIIo Romani imperatoris, indicione IIIa, iste dux cum Bono patriarcha, Petro episcopo Olivolensi, Iohane episcopo Torcelano et ceteris episcopis, clero et populo Venecie, decretum ab Ursone duce condictum renovantes, sanxerunt inhibentes commercium de mancipiis christianis et delationem epistolarum que ab Ytalicis seu Alemanis micterentur Grecis vel eorum imperatori, infligentes contrafacientibus penas spirituales et temporales.” – Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS, ser. 2, 12/1 (Bologna 1958), p. 175.
The dating elements do not concord with each other: the third indiction points to the year 960, but the 14th year of Emperor Romanos II can only be counted if one counts the years of his co-emperorship as well (from 945 onwards), and even then the 14th year concords with 958/959; the correct regnal year would be the 16th, concording with June of 960, so it is possible that the originally written XVI was erroneously transcribed as XIIII and then copied as “quartodecimo”. The emendation proposed by Samuele Romanin (cited above), to read the dating line as “Imperante domino Romano gloriosissimo imperatore anno autem imperii eius [primo], quartodecimo mense iunio, indictione tertia” ought to be abandoned as it does not conform to the style of dating of the 10th century Venetian public documents.
The oldest copy of the document remains the one in Codex Trevisaneus, composed in the late 15th or early 16th century, commonly dated to c. 1500. The 18th-century copy in ms. hereby dubbed M is most certainly derived from T, either directly or indirectly, and features many erroneous readings and attempts at emending the text. The fact that this 18th-century copy was preferred by Tafel and Thomas and later even by Cessi led to the publication of many highly flawed editions.
For example, the bishop that signed underneath the bishop of Torcello identified himself only as “Petrus gratia Dei episcopus” and it was already Coleti (cited above) who identified him as the eponymous bishop of Malamocco, the one who appeared as such on the Synod of Ravenna in April of 967, signing one of the acts as “Petrus Metaumaucensis ecclesie episcopus” (best edition: Harald Zimmermann (ed.), Papsturkunden 896–1046, vol. 1 (Vienna 1984), doc. 179, pp. 351–353). However, the copyist of M “improved” the subscription by changing the “gratia Dei” into “Eracliensis”, as in the bishop of Cittanova–Eraclea, which makes no sense at all as the bishop of this see would be referred to as “episcopus Civitatis Nove” in the 10th century. However, since Tafel and Tomas and Cessi all misread the originally written “gratia Dei” in T as “Gradi”, as in Grado, which was illogical as the bishop of Grado, Bonus, also signed the deed, they all preferred the reading in M and thus invented a bishop of Eraclea. The same error was even repeated in the newest edition prepared by Stefano Gasparri and his team. All of this must be abandoned and the correct reading in T, “gratia Dei episcopus” must be rehabilitated, including the correct identification of this prelate as the eponymous bishop of Malamocco, as edited by Coleti back in 1720.
Regarding the content of the charter, the prohibition to buy or sell slaves, be it through negotiators or in person, was prohibited already by the doge’s predecessor, Orso I Participazio in the late 9th century, but the ban was not adhered to. Now, the prohibition of this sinful activity is enacted once again, hoping that the permanent ban would bring God’s forgiveness of Venetian sins.
As was already inferred in previous scholarship (see Hoffmann, cited above), the prohibition of slave trading most probably came following the fiat of the Byzantine emperor whose forces were preparing the reconquest of the Arab-controlled Crete, the Saracens being the main Venetian customers in slave trading. This would explain why the decree insisted on banning any sort of slaving ventures with “the Greeks” and exportation in the “Greek” lands.
The same decree also prohibits the Venetians from forwarding all post coming from the Kingdom of Italy and German lands (explicitly mentioned are Bavaria and Saxony) to the Byzantine court. The only letters to be brought to the imperial court in Constantinople would henceforth be those coming from the Venetian government (de nostro pallatio). While this decree has nothing to do with slavery, it does concern Venetian relations with the Byzantine imperial court, the common thread between both prohibitions (as argued by Ortalli, cited above).
The decree to ban slavery was perhaps also advocated by the Venetian clergy. According to Hoffmann, during the election of Pietro IV Candiano as the new doge, the clergy “probably expressed the wish to enact an effective law against trafficking in Christian people as the price for their consent” (cited above, p. 174). Whether the prohibition of slave trading encompassed all slaves or only Christians is open to debate as the text of the decree never makes this detail explicitly clear, perhaps even purposefully.
The ban on slave trading was, however, allowed in three scenarios: if the slave would be purchased solely to be immediately freed; but also if the Duchy of Venice would suffer by not participating in the slave trade (which could be read as the mandatory completion of deals that had been struck before the promulgation of this act); and if the slave trade is done in the service of the government (pro causa pallatii). These two exemptions pretty much re-legalized slave trading activities, since “pro causa pallatii” and “lest no harm come to the fatherland” are so broadly defined that every Venetian trading activity could be conceptualized as being for the welfare of the duchy, the doge, and his palace. Still, the last exemption could be interpreted as referring only to those slaves that would be used to supplement the Venetian armada (as per Hoffmann’s reading).
From the point of view of Istrian history, it is very notable that Istria and Dalmatia are singled out as the regions where the Venetians are forbidden to practice the slave trade, and that the city of Pula is then singled out as the place from where the slaves must not be exported eastwards towards “Greece”. Because of these explicit mentions, historians have dubbed these two regions as hotspots of Venetian slave trading and especially the city of Pula as one of the main Venetian hubs for this activity (see Hoffmann, cited above, pp. 175–176).
The publication of the facsimile of T (Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Pacta e aggregati, Codex Trevisaneus, fol. 98r–v) is granted free of charge by Archivio di Stato di Venezia by way of the “simplified procedure” of publishing archival facsimiles (La circolare della Direzione generale archivi n. 39 del 29 settembre 2017: procedura semplificata: pubblicazioni online che perseguano finalità scientifiche o pedagogiche, non beneficino di inserzioni pubblicitarie o commerciali e non siano soggette ad accesso a pagamento).
The digital facsimile remains under the exclusive copyright of Archivio di Stato di Venezia.