Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage Annuario 2003


p. 185

The Venetian ‘Empire’ in the East.

The Imperial Elections in Constantinople on 1204

in the Venetian Chronicles’ Representation


ªerban Marin,

Romanian Institute of Humanistic

Culture and Research, Venice


“In May 1204 [...] Baldwin [...]

became emperor in Byzantium itself.

Potentially, this was as revolutionary, if indeed not more so,

as the creation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor

in the west on Christmas Day 800,

yet it has attracted much less attention both at the time

and in the pages of subsequent history books.”*


        As Antonio Carile asserted, the number of the Venetian chronicles and codices exceeds one thousand[1], dispersed not only in Venice or Italy, but also throughout Europe and even in the United States.

        A time ago, I advanced the classification of the Venetian chronicles personally consulted, relying upon the representation of the non-Venetian crusaders during the Fourth Crusade and I especially emphasized the first episodes of this particular crusade[2]. In some other subsequent studies, I added some other chronicles consulted in the meantime and, to a significant extent, I preserved the initial classification[3]. Thus, I identified 11 different categories:

p. 186

        1. Hist. Ducum[4], pseudo-Giustinian[5], M 2571[6] and M 2581[7];

        2. A. Dandolo-extensa[8], Monacis[9] and P. Dolfin[10]. Approached to them: M 796[11] and Navagero[12];

        3. M 2592[13] and Sabellico[14]. Approached to them: A. Dandolo-brevis[15], Sanudo 1[16] and Biondo[17];

p. 187

        4. Canal[18], E. Dandolo[19], pseudo-Dolfin[20] and Morosini[21]. Approached to them: M 71[22];

        5. M 89[23], Donà[24] and Veniera 791[25]. Approached to them: Trevisan[26];

        6. M 2544[27], M 2570[28], M 47[29], M 48[30] and M 2028[31];

        7. Caroldo[32] and Sanudo 2[33];

        8. M 2541[34], Barbo[35] and M 67[36];

p. 188

        9. M 793[37], pseudo-Tiepolo[38] and Agostini[39]. Approached to them: M 77[40], M 2572[41], Sansovino[42], M 1999[43] and M 1833[44];

        10. Marco[45]; M 2550[46]; M 2556[47]; M 2559[48]; M 44[49]; Abbiosi[50]; Curato[51], M 2576[52], M 38[53], M 39[54] and M 104[55];

p. 189

        11. For different reasons, I proposed a separation inside of this category:

11a. M 78[56], M 2543[57], M 1577[58], M 1586[59], pseudo-Zancaruolo[60] and pseudo-Erizzo[61], and

11b. M 798[62], M 2560[63], M 2563[64], M 550[65], Z. Dolfin[66], M 46[67], M 80[68], M 628a[69].

Approached to category 11.: Barbaro[70], Veniera 2580[71] and Savina[72].

        In addition, I took also the chronicle M 1833[73] into consideration, although I did not classify it in any of the above categories.


p. 190

        Certainly, the delimitation operated by me does not retake the far-reaching undertaking of A. Carile, when he relies upon the representation of the Partitio Romaniae event[74]. I also limited my investigation to the codices at the Marciana Library in Venice, adding one codex from the Library of the Querini Stampalia Foundation, that is the chronicle Agostini. In comparison, Carile did indeed promoted an impressive exploration of the Venetian codices throughout the world. On my turn, I could add some other codices personally detected to the impressive list offered by Carile.


        Since the very beginning, I am to emphasize the point that the Venetian chronicles were not contemporary to the events taken into account on this occasion, that is the election of the first Latin emperor in Constantinople. They were elaborated along the centuries afterwards. That is why their value for the reconstruction of the events is out of question. Nevertheless, I am to approach here another respect, that is the representation of those events, the manner in which they were regarded in time by the different Venetian authors.


        It was before the second capture of Constantinople when the Venetian and non-Venetian crusaders decided the organization of the conquest. On March 1204, among other stipulations, their agreement required that the new emperor in Constantinople was to be “the most appropriate among them to govern the empire”. The text of the treaty on March clearly mentions it[75]:


          Debent etiam sex homines eligi pro parte nostra, et sex pro parte vestra, qui iuramento astricti eam personam eligere debent de exercitu, quam credent melius scire tenere, et melius posse tenere, et melius scire ordinare terram et Imperium ad honorem Dei et sancte Romae Ecclesie et Imperij. Et si in unum fuerint concordes, illum debemus Imperatorem habere, quem ipsi concorditer elegerint. Si vero sex in unam partem et sex in aliam concordauerint, sors mitti debet; et super quem sors ceciderit, debemus pro Imperatorem habere; et si plures consenserint in una parte, quam in alia, illum

p. 191

Imperatorem habebimus, in quem maior pars consenserit. Si vero plures partes fuerint, quam due, super quem maior pars concordaverit, sit Imperator. [emphasis mine]”


        Among the contemporary narrative sources, there are only Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Robert of Clary and the anonymous Chronicum Gallicum ineditum to mention this preliminary agreement. It is true, the Piccardian knight did not refer in the sense of the election of “the most appropriate” among the participants, just that the electors were to be among “the worthiest men”:


“And finally they decided among them to take ten French of the most worthy men of the host, and ten Venetians likewise of the most worth men known among them, and whatever these twenty should decide, that should be held to; [...].”[76]


Nevertheless, the other two sources mentioned above reiterated the idea of electing “the most appropriate” in the host as emperor, after the projected annihilation of Alexius V ‘Murtzuphlos’. For instance, although he offered only an abbreviated version of the treaty[77], the Marshal of Champagne noticed that:


“[...]. Et se il estoient poesteï de la cité .VI. homes seroient pris des François et .VI. des Venisiens; et cil jureroient sor sains que il esliroient a empereor celui cui il cuideroient que fust plus a profit de la terre.[78]


On its turn, the so-called Chronicum Gallicum ineditum offered the following version, close to Villehardouin:


Apres prenderont on VI. hommes des Venissiens et VI. des pelerins, qui jureroient sur sains, que ils prenderoient la plus proufitable pour l’ost a leu essient et qui meilleur seroit pour gouverner la terre, et celui seroit Empereur [...].”[79]


p. 192

The fact that the other contemporary sources did not make any mention to the agreement on March 1204 has its different explanations. The Byzantine Nicetas Choniates and the author of the “Novgorod Chronicle” belonged to the other camp and thus they were excluded to have any idea about this secret treaty negotiated inside of the crusader camp. The anonymous author of Devastatio Constantinopolitana offered only a brief and concise presentation of the deeds. Gunther of Pairis relied exclusively on the narrations of the Abbot Martin, so that his chronicle represents a second-hand source.


Some Venetian chronicles would retake the text of the agreement in March 1204. Some of them would reiterate it entirely, like pseudo-Giustinian did[80], or would simply translate it in the medieval Venetian[81]. The chronicles Monacis and Caroldo also offered the text, although they utilized the indirect speech[82]. In the case of Caroldo, it is to be noticed that the author intervened in the original text, the one to be elected being expected to be “più atto”, and the election being regarded as “ad onore del Signor Dio, della Santa Chiesa Romana, e benefitio della Cristiana Republica”, instead of the empire. An abridged version of the preliminary treaty between the Venetian and non-Venetian crusaders is offered by the chronicle Navagero. In connection to the passage that we have into account, it only specifies that “Eleggeremo sei per parte, che facciano l’Imperadore con giuramento[83]. Meanwhile, some other chronicles in category 11a. refer to some of the treaty’s stipulations, and also modify the passage that I mentioned above[84]. There are three other chronicles that insert the respective agreement erroneously, meaning before the first siege, so that it could be regarded as being signed

p. 193

at Zara and in the company of the future Alexius IV; however, its presentation in extenso is to be appreciated[85].

        Anyhow, the detail that the “most appropriate” among the crusaders was to be elected as emperor could induce the promotion of the doge on the list of candidates, as we shall see that many chronicles operated.


The event of the Imperial elections in 1204 is present in all the contemporary narrative sources dealing with the Fourth Crusade[86]. Nevertheless, they did not involve in the presentation of the electors. Most of them simply specified once again that there were six Venetians and six non-Venetians that were to elect the ruler of the new empire[87]. The author of Corpus Chronicorum Flandriae seemed to follow a similar pattern, although it forgot to mention the Venetian participation (!)[88]. Meanwhile, the “Chronista Novgorodensis” did not involve in the electors’ number, with the note that the latter held only the clerks as participants[89]. Two sources proposed other viewpoints with

p. 194

regard to the number of electors: Nicetas Choniates refers to ten electors[90], while Robert of Clary mentions 20 electors[91].

Although he persists in the idea that there were no less than 20 electors, Robert of Clari offers an interesting detail concerning the manner of the ten Venetians’ election as members of the Council: “[...], the Doge of Venice went and chose his ten in such a way as I shall tell you. He called four of those whom he thought the worthiest in his land, and he made them swear on relics that they would choose to the best of their knowledge ten of the worthiest of his land who were in the host, and they did so. And when they called one of them, he had to come forward, and he dared not afterwards talk or take counsel with anyone. Instead they placed him straightway in a church, and one after another likewise, until the doge had his ten.” The impression about the Venetians is one of order, in comparison with the discords that characterizes the non-Venetians. This latter came to an agreement only by appointing ten clerks as being their electors[92]. Making a referral to Robert of Clari, Alfred Andrea considers his account of the election of being confused and that “[Clari] strongly implies that Louis of Blois, Hugh of St Pol, and Enrico Dandolo were also serious candidates.”[93] However, the idea that the doge was to candidate should not rely upon this. It seems rather that in his discourse, as presented by Clari, Enrico Dandolo was to be refer as this other possible ‘serious’ candidates only as simple examples that were attached even to the possibility to elect “a poor knight”[94]. Regarding the electors’ names, Clari also refers to the Bishop of Soissons exclusively, in the same circumstance as Villehardouin does[95].

Still, the two authors were far from the crusaders’ council: the Byzantine chronicler took refugee in that moment[96], while the Piccardian knight had an inferior state among the crusaders, so that he did not attend the council. On the contrary, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, due to his particular position of leader among the crusaders, was naturally more informed, although at the same time more subjective.

Consecrated as the official version in the modern historiography, Villehardouin’s account referring to the twelve electors would be retaken by the 14th century “Chronicle of Morea”[97] and also by the two main Venetian writings dedicated exclusively to the episode of the Fourth Crusade. I refer here to the works of Paolo

p. 195

Ramusio[98] and Andrea Morosini[99]. Taking only the Venetian general chronicles dealing with the community’s history since its origins into consideration, the categories that I proposed previously do not include this two latter. That is why the chronicles of Ramusio and Andrea Morosini are to be regarded separately, although I am to refer to them, for they were influenced by the general chronicles of Venice and, on their turn, influenced the modern historiography to a certain extent, especially the one written by Paolo Ramusio.

As for Andrea Morosini and his opinions about the electors’ number, he involved in historiography debates, indicating that:


il Sabellico, et il Biondo, che toccano imperfettamente quest’impresa vogliono che fossero quindeci, cinque Venetiani, cinque Francesi, e cinque Lombardi[100],


and thus, he followed entirely the version of Villehardouin, whom Morosini quoted constantly.


As regards the electors’ names, there are only Villehardouin and Clary  (followed by Andrea Morosini) specifying the presence of the Bishop of Soissons, as the one who announced the final decision[101]. With regard to the other electors, these two sources are completely silent. The only more detailed referral is represented by one of the letters from the new elected Emperor Baldwin I to the Pope Innocent III, mentioning the non-Venetian participants in the council:


“[...]. Ordinatis igitur diligenter, quae disponenda rerum poscebat eventus, ad electionem Imperatoris unanimiter et devote procedimus, et omni ambitione seclusa cum sex baronibus Venetorum, venerabiles viros / episcopos nostros,

p. 196

[videlicet] Suessionensem et Halberstatensem, Trecensem dominumque Bethleemitanum, qui a partibus transmarinis auctoritate apostolica nobis fuerat delegatus, Acconensem electum abbatemque Lucedii, Imperatoris nostri sub Domino constituimus electores. [102]


        In the same manner, the Corpus Chronicorum Flandriae introduces the same electors, but without mentioning “the six Venetian barons”. It seems that there were only non-Venetian electors participating to the event, still I suppose that there is only an omission[103].


Generally, the modern historiography has followed almost one and the same pattern in describing the debates during the elections of the emperor, combining the information offered by the sources with simple speculations[104].

p. 197

The modern works have first inclined to believe that it was the Marquis of Montferrat as the most appropriate to be elected as emperor, and they also have enumerated Boniface’s advantages in this sense: his leadership of the non-Venetian crusaders[105], his family’s connections with the Byzantine emperors[106]; his marriage with Margaret (Mary), the widow of the former Emperor Isaac II Angelus[107]; his sympathy among the Greek citizens, who had claimed him on the Constantinopolitan streets as emperor[108]; his preferential relationship with the German and Italian crusaders[109]; his

p. 198

personal qualities[110]. Thus, Boniface was to be regarded as “the obvious choice”[111] or “the (most) obvious candidate”[112], “entirely indicated to be elevated on the Byzantine throne”[113] or “the most indicated for the supreme power”[114], and so on[115]. A. Carile also considered that “il marchese Bonifacio veniva dato per eletto da tutti coloro che non erano addentro alla mene politiche dei capi della crociata[116].

Other works have not presented these elements of superiority at all, but they have still regarded Boniface as the one who “seemed to be destined to occupy” the Constantinopolitan throne[117].

There are some studies that have presented in parallel Baldwin’s advantages in order to be elected[118], among them also his youth (!)[119] or simply the very fact that he

p. 199

“seemed the natural candidate for the Venetians”[120]. Paolo Ramusio attached, immediately after Baldwin’s election, a mixture of both fantastic and real elements in order to emphasize the elected emperor’s prestige in the Western world[121].

In the presentation of the two main candidates’ qualities, the chronicle of Gunther of Pairis did not seem to incline the balance in favor of one or another. Both of

p. 200

them are regarded as “highly renowned and distinguished men” and “both men were deemed quite worthy”[122].

In the dispute between Boniface and Baldwin, it is interesting that some authors have seen the Oriental reflection of the Western imperial controversy between Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick in the West[123].

Then, the modern historiography has underlined that it was the Venetian intervention that put this controversy to an end and that promoted Baldwin of Flanders. The tendency to emphasize the Venetian absolute influence and prominence in the elections seems to have predilection[124]. Doge Dandolo has been considered as the

p. 201

one “who determined the events of recent years and had inspired the partition treaty”[125], while the Venetian electors have many times been regarded as a united ‘block’ acting together[126].

In addition, I must agree with the regretted Donald Nicol when he noticed, “the crusaders were not in the habit of setting up committees to elect their sovereign lords. Yet this is precisely what they proposed to do among themselves in 1204. The procedure that they adopted for the election of a Latin Emperor was foreign to Frankish tradition. But it was not unlike that for the election of a doge of Venice, as it had been revised in the late twelfth century.”[127]


The scholars have also presented the reasons why Boniface was not to be preferred by the doge, especially mentioning his supposed preferential connections with the Genoese[128]. Although the Marquisate of Montferrat traditionally belonged indeed to the Genoese commercial sphere of influence[129], this optic seems too simplistic. On the

p. 202

contrary, a Venetian sustain for Boniface was to transform the Lombard in an anti-Genoese ally in the Northern Italy, or was also to direct his attention exclusively to the Oriental affairs, thus cutting exactly his connection with the Italian affairs. Thus, Venice was to be even more interested in promoting Boniface on the imperial throne of Constantinople. Jean Longnon offered two examples to illustrate the strong connections between Boniface and the Genoese, the former using the latter when sending the former emperor Alexius III as prisoner in Montferrat and in 1206, when he again was supported by them to accompany his daughter in order to get married to the Emperor Henry I[130]. Nevertheless, both events occurred after 1204, so that they could very well reflect the opposite conclusion than Longnon’s. I suggest that these two events demonstrate not so the tight Genoese-Montferratine connections, but merely a kind of anti-Venetian revenge of Boniface for he had not been elected as emperor.

The Venetian preference for Baldwin’s candidacy to the prejudice of the Marquis’ should be sought somewhere else.

Boniface’s close connections with the unfortunate Alexius [IV] is regarded either as advantage[131], or as disadvantage[132]. From an advantage[133], his family’s traditional connection with the Byzantine politics turns in a serious obstacle, for Antonio Carile[134].

The supposed Boniface’s increasing power seems to be another cause of the Venetian reluctance for Boniface[135]. However, as J. K. Fotheringham underlined, “it is

p. 203

difficult to see how the position of Venice in Italy could have been affected [by Boniface, n. n.]”[136].

Proportionally with the supposed Venetian fear for the Marquis’ increasing power, the modern works have compared the two non-Venetian candidates, and have come directly to the conclusion that Baldwin was to be “weaker”[137], “less controversial”[138], “more tractable”[139], “more malleable”[140], “of less importance”[141], “less powerful”[142], “less prominent figure”[143], “less ambitious”[144], “less relevant politically”[145], “less likely to be a threat to the trading powers of Venice”[146], and so on[147]. An unsigned study on the web even considers that “Baldwin, Count of Flanders who had been one of leaders junior to Boniface in the Crusade.”[148] These attributes seem also to originate in Choniates’ exposure underlining the motivation for Dandolo to prefer Baldwin:


“[...], he [Dandolo, emphasize mine] chose Baldwin, knowing that he came from lower France, and that the borders of France and Venice were as far

p. 204

removed from one another as Venice was distant from the Roman empire. Baldwin, moreover, accorded Dandolo absolute deference and behaved towards him as towards a father. He did not have long experience in affairs of state, for which reason Dandolo distrusted the marquis.”[149]


Some works have come even further and have embraced the option that the Venetians “disliked the idea of one powerful Empire”[150]. In connection to this option, I consider, together with J. K. Fotheringham, that, on the contrary, “Venice had in fact no interest in the weakness of the empire”[151]. We shall see later that this was also the Venetian chronicles’ viewpoint, regarding Baldwin through his military superiority as the most appropriate to be elected as emperor. Practically, the effects of their assistance for Baldwin would be indeed completely different.

A. Carile combined Baldwin’s power and lack of experience, pointing that the doge preferred him “per la sicurezza di carattere militare che forniva il suo contingente e per la relativa inesperienza politica ed estraneità all’ambito romeo[152].


Meanwhile, whether the position of Boniface has been presented in detail, the most historians seems to a priori exclude the possibility for the doge to candidate. Generally, the exclusion of Dandolo’s candidacy is posted in only one phrase[153], as if

p. 205

this possibility was not to have any credibility. However, in other cases, the authors have made attempts to explain this exclusion through the agency of the Venetian state’s constitution[154], of his old age[155], or of personal selfish reasons[156]. Actually, there are few studies taking the possible general exodus of Frankish knights from the empire as the cause for this renunciation[157]. Actually, this latter was the reason invoked by the Venetian later chronicles and I am to emphasize it[158].

Instead of referring to the possibility for the doge or for any other Venetian to candidate, Sir Steven Runciman advanced the version of the candidacy of the excommunicated German Emperor Philip of Swabia[159], still without offering any quotation.

Some scholars have clearly taken particular information from the Venetian chronicles, and I refer here to the French proposal to Dandolo to be emperor and his refusal[160]; still, they have not make any reference.

p. 206

There have been only few works that have referred directly to the Venetian chronicles and thus, have analyzed the proposal for the doge to candidate. The referrals are to Martino da Canal[161], Andrea Dandolo-extensa[162], Nicolò Trevisan[163], Paolo Ramusio[164], and, in the case of Antonio Carile, to the whole Venetian chronicles, from Martino da Canal to the 15th century anonymous chronicles[165].

As regards Andrea Morosini’s chronicle, it indicated that there were “varij ragionamenti” for three main characters in the crusader camp to have consistent reasons to aspire to the imperial dignity: “[...], essendo, e per le proprie conditioni, e per conosciuto valore meritevoli di tant’honore molti de Principi confederati, e particolarmente il Marchese di Monferrato, il Conte Balduino di Fiandra, et il Doge Dandolo[166]. Then, he enumerated the advantages of any of them, Enrico Dandolo being appreciated for “solida prudenza, peritia singolare delle cose maritime, gran merito per esser egli stato il principal promotore dell’impresa, [...]”[167]. This latter consideration comes in direct connection with the general Venetian tradition that promoted the doge in the summit of the events. Anyhow, the three competitors’ advantages are to be regarded as equal[168].

p. 207

Among those modern works that have not specified the source, there are to be regarded those that have mentioned particularly the name of Pantaleone Barbo as the Venetian who intervened to determine the doge the renounce and who proposed the Count of Flanders as emperor[169]. It is a sign that these works have clearly relied either upon Paolo Ramusio or upon the Venetian chronicles in categories 6., 7. or 11., as I shall present below[170]. The others, which have regarded the proposal coming from the French camp and “a noble Venetian” who urged the election of Baldwin, appear to have either Martino da Canal or Andrea Dandolo-extensa (and the other chronicles in category 2.) as basis[171].

It was also a contemporary source, that is Robert of Clari that introduced a doge’s speech in intention to place the Imperial palaces under the common guard of the host. The respective speech, however, put also the question of the doge’s possibility to be elected, and also included Louis of Blois, Hugh of St Pol or any knight in the army as possible candidates. In Clari’s version, the doge was to specify:


“«For if they should elect me emperor, I would go straightway without any gainsaying and take possession of the palaces, and likewise if they elected the count of Flanders, he should have the palaces without any gainsaying, or if they elected the marquis or Count Louis or the count of St. Pol, or even if they should elect a poor knight, whoever is to be emperor should have the palaces without any gainsaying. [...]»“[172].


Clari would reiterate the possibility for Count Louis and count of St Pol to candidate (or, at least, to put their own men among the electors) subsequent to the above doge’s speech[173].

p. 208

Although Alfred Andrea seriously rejected Clari’s viewpoint[174], I consider that it is not to be completely ignored. It could very well express the very fact that, at least in a first instance, the candidacy was not to be a matter exclusively between the count of Flanders and the marquis of Montferrat.

On his turn, Nicetas Choniates introduced a particular episode:


“[...]. At first, according to an ancestral costum, they considered arranging four chalices in a row, one of which would contain the Bloodless Sacrifice; these would then be given to the priests, who, at the calling of each candidate’s name for the throne, would take up one of the cups and bring it to him. He would be selected before the others to whose lot fell the chalice that held the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ.”[175]


This assertion implies that there were to be four electors, at least in a first instance. Choniates’ narration was labeled by A. Carile as a “versione fantastica”, being included in the same category as the chronicle of Ibn El-Athîr[176]. This latter advanced the version of the emperor elected through the casting lots among the doge, the marquis and the count of Flanders and that the final election was to be done after three such a casting lots [177].

Anyhow, according to Choniates, it would be the doge’s intervention to impose the selection by vote instead of the casting lots[178].

As Kenneth Setton noticed, the Venetian chronicle of Martino da Canal would influence the development of the courtly epic in Morea, “where the descendants of the Fourth Crusade long lived in the declining splendor of late medieval chivalry”[179]. Thus, the “Chronicle of Morea” appeared, which, as regards the episode that I take now into consideration, emphasize the doge’s position in the events of the Fourth Crusade. Under these circumstances, the doge’s candidacy is once again taken for granted and even accomplished with new elements.


Nevertheless, the modern works have insisted in majority upon the doge’s exclusion, more or less fervently and thus, have settled the matter.

The most determined attitude against the dogal candidacy comes from Roberto Cessi. The Italian scholar considered that:


In realtà è lecito presumere che il conferimento della dignità imperiale al Dandolo fosse pregiudizialmente esclusa, almeno in forma implicita, se con esplicita stipulazione si esonerava il doge veneziano

p. 209

dall’obbligo di prestare personalmente [Cessi’s emphasis] fedeltà e omaggio al nuovo imperatore per il godimento delle terre, che a lui fossero assegnate nella divisione dell’impero.[180]


Afterwards, the author referred to the stipulation on March 1204[181]. Actually, one could regard the agreement on March from other viewpoint, that is that the Venetians and their doge simply took also in consideration the possibility that a non-Venetian be elected as emperor. Still, it does not necessarily mean that the other possibility, that is the election of the doge or of any other Venetian, was totally excluded as option. No one could suppose what was discussed on March 1204 and neither after the sack of Constantinople. The fact that another stipulation in the treaty referred to the assurance given to the doge that he would not be sworn in to the future emperor did not exclude him as virtual candidate. It was nothing else than an extra-guarantee in case that he or another Venetian was not to be elected.

Actually, the Venetian chronicles as a whole are rejected by the historians and regarded with suspicion, being considered only as later sources and reflecting merely the Venetian propaganda. Freddy Thiriet himself took the Venetian chronicles into consideration exclusively for their contemporaneity with the 14th-16th centuries, and not for the previous events[182].

Nevertheless, such a statements seem to be too simplistic. As J. K. Fotheringham pointed out a long time ago,


“It is a curious feature of Venetian history that it has to be reconstructed from statements made by authors several centuries after the events they record[183] [...]”.


On his turn, R. L. Wolff completed that


“[...] but even if the later narrative sources are left out of consideration, the contemporary documents as they have hitherto been known lend weight [...]. The later narrative sources thus may well reflect what the contemporary documents suggest [...]”[184].


p. 210

Moreover, Wolff refers distinctly to Daniele Barbaro, specifying that


“[...] Daniele Barbaro, who, though writing in the sixteenth century, appears to have had access to authentic materials now lost”[185].


In the same note, A. Carile mentioned in connection to the 1204 events that


“[...], si può affermare con maggior certezza che la posteriore cronachistica, a partire da Martino da Canal, ha ereditato ed espresso memorie ed atteggiamenti più antichi, di cronisti forse contemporanei ai fatti del 1204.[186]


I am to add that the documents at the Archivio di Stato di Venezia are only in a small proportion studied by now. Thus, the possibility for them to include supplementary documents regarding the Fourth Crusade and its connected events is not to be ignored. It is not also to be denied the possibility for the Venetian chroniclers in the 13th-17th centuries to consult them.

As for the episode of the doge’s candidacy, I agree with David Jacoby when he asserts, “theoretically the doge could also be elected”[187], also later he expresses doubts about the Venetian intention in this sense. Or, as Donald Nicol specified,


“A new emperor must therefore be found. [...]. He might be a Frank or he might be a Venetian.”[188]


To consider ab initio the treaty of March as referring implicitly or explicitly or whatever to a non-Venetian as emperor it means nothing else than to distort it.

It was possible for Enrico Dandolo to do not candidate. But the contrary was also possible, in the same proportion.


*   *   *


As regards the non-Venetian electors’ names, there are only few works mentioning them[189]. The others seem to embrace the opinion expressed by Andrea

p. 211

Morosini (although this latter has not had an impressive circulation neither among the contemporary scholars, nor in the modern historiography), saying that:


mà li nomi particolari de gli elettori non ardirei di registrare, poiche non ne ritrovo sicura memoria.[190]


Some researchers have in exchange insisted on the disputes inside of the non-Venetian crusaders’ camp for the electors’ selection and on the final agreement to select only clergymen, in order to let their impartiality to decide[191]. As Roberto Cessi asserted, “[...], le ambizioni, gli egoismi, le cupidigie si scatenarono senza alcun freno, [...]”[192].

Relying upon the letter sent by the recent crowned emperor Baldwin I to Pope Innocent III, some works have extracted the clerk-electors’ names. Thus, there were three bishops from the West (of Soissons[193], Troyes[194], and Halberstadt[195]), the Papal legate in Bethlehem[196], another bishop nominated in the Latin East (of Acre[197]), and an abbot (of Lucedio[198]). Among them, since the beginning of their narrations, the sources

p. 212

referred to Garnier, bishop of Troyes[199], Névelon, bishop de Soissons[200]; later, the bishop of Halberstadt would join the crusade[201], while the bishop of Acre would appear later in Villehardouin’s description of the events, during the embassy sent to Rome after the capture of Zara[202]. Alfred Andrea, the editor of Gunther of Pairis, considered that there were “the army’s six highest ranking ecclesiastics as their allotted electors”[203].

Maurice Kandel noticed that “de ces six prélats un seul était allemand, l’évêque de Halberstadt, les autres étaient tous français.[204] I am to point out that there were two of them originating in Italy, that is Peter of Bethlehem and the abbot of Lucedio, and not in France at all.

To a more attentive analysis, one could notice that the desired partiality was not complete, since one of them, that is Jean de Noyon, elected bishop of Acre, was at the same time the chancellor of Flanders, that is of Baldwin. Also, there was the abbot of Lucedio, who, being a Lombard and accompanying Boniface in the crusade, was naturally to favor the Marquis of Montferrat[205]. One could also conclude that the bishops of Soissons and of Troyes, being closer to Baldwin of Flanders through their French blood, were to express their sympathy towards him. Thus, it was not quite difficult to make suppositions about the orientation of every elector in favor of one candidate or another. It was Francesco Cognasso to conclude in this sense that there were the abbot of Lucedio and the bishop of Halberstadt to vote in favor of Boniface of Montferrat[206], the German bishop being regarded as closer to Philip of Swabia and thus, to the Marquis. As for Peter, the bishop of Bethlehem, he was to embrace naturally the Pope’s optic that prefered Baldwin[207].

p. 213

The other scholars have only mentioned them, only episodically attaching other details. For instance, P. Daru did not omit to specify that Garnier of Troyes and Névelon of Soissons were the ones whose banners had been the first to be hoisted on the Constantinopolitan tower during the second siege of the city[208]. The abbot of Lucedio is sometimes named as abbot of Loos[209], although later J. Longnon would demonstrate that the abbot of Loos had been already dead since the autumn of 1203[210]. The same character was regarded as the future patriarch of Antioch, according to J. A. Buchon[211].

Making referrals to the Venetian writings, Samuele Romanin specified that the chronicle of Paolo Ramusio had substituted the bishop of Halberstadt and the abbot of Lucedio with two Lombard knights[212]. Indeed, Ramusio partially introduced a particular version. He mentioned four bishops (Novelon di Soissons, Guarnier di Troia, Pietro Betleme, and quello di Acri, overo Tolemaide), in complete accordance to the letter of Baldwin. Nevertheless, the list is completed by two new characters, that is Nicolò Piccolo and Giacomo Malvicino, regarded as Italian knights[213].


As for the Venetian electors, the works provided by H. Gerland, Ed. Faral[214], Fr. Cognasso and J. Longnon, which presented the non-Venetian electors, omitted to mention the Venetian ones. The other five scholars[215] and in addition the article in the Encyclopédie moderne dealing with Venice took the later Venetian tradition (especially Paolo Ramusio) into consideration and thus, there appears the names of Vitale Dandolo (the admiral of the Venetian fleet during the crusade), Ottone Querini, Bertucci Contarini, Nicolò Navigaioso[216], Pantaleone Barbo[217], while the sixth one should be selected between Giovanni Baseglio and Giovanni Michiel[218]. Actually, this list is the

p. 214

one that exactly Ramusio had offered[219], including the oscillation between Giovanni Baseglio and Giovanni Michiel[220]. In his selection, L. Usseglio took Flavio Biondo, Sabellico, Marino Sanudo, Andrea Navagero, and Paolo Ramusio as references for his lists, among other sources outside the Venetian tradition[221]. On his turn, A. Carile mentioned that he relied upon the 16th century Venetian chronicles, specifying: “quindi frutto di ricostruzione erudita, sospetta in quanto manifestamente erronea per quanto riguarda i nomi degli elettori della parte franco-lombarda.[222]

Regarded as a whole, the electors “were highly regarded by everyone for integrity and considered to have good judgement”, as Gunther of Pairis considered[223].


*   *   *


        One of the editors of the chronicle of Villehardouin, that is Edmond Faral, pointed out that there was only the Venetian authors’ testimony certifying what happened in the Council[224]. Still, he did not make the specification that the Venetian testimony was some centuries later than the events, so that it is not able to reconstruct them. It could only express the manner of representation, but not the factual one. Actually, that is why I have no pretention to propose a reconstruction of the events relying upon the later Venetian chronicles. My intention is simply to signal the manner in which the respective events were to be reconsidered over the centuries.



1. This time, the category excludes the chronicle Hist. Ducum, since it does not deal with this particular event. The chronicles M 2571 and M 2581 follow one and the same path in an extremely fugitive manner, with the mentioning that M 2581 makes an unsuccessful attempt to nominate the 12 electors. As regards pseudo-Giustinian, it is a little more detailed.


Pseudo-Giustinian: 141

M 2571: 103b

M 2581: 93a

Hiis gestis VI nobiles ex parte ducis et totidem ex predictorum comitum parte secundum ordinem

[...]. E fatto eletion di esser Imperador per la mazor parte fo criado messer Balduin Conte de Flandes.



p. 215

predictum pro creatione imperatoris electi fuerunt; qui iuramento prestito tactis scripturis per maiorem partem ipsorum inclitum dominum Balduynum Flandrensem comitem elegerunt in Constantinopolitanum imperatorem.





[missing text]

E fatto elettion di esser Imperador, per la mazor parte fo creado messer BALDUIN Conte de Flandes, [...].



        2. The chronicles included in this category advanced the version that “a Venetian nobleman” rejected the French proposal that the doge be elected as emperor and proposes directly the Count of Flanders to be invested. The source for this version seems to be the chronicle da Canal (previously enclosed in category 4.). That is why I am to gather them together, although Canal regarded the doge himself as rejecting the proposal. The originality advanced by this category consists in the promotion of the respective “Venetian nobleman”. In addition, chronicle Monacis offers the arguments invoked by this latter. There could be notice the similarity of Canal with the “Chronicle of Morea” that also specified that some of the electors proposed the doge be emperor and also presented the supposed doge’s speech of withdrawal[225], amplifying thus the part taken by Enrico Dandolo in the events.


p. 216

Canal: 60

A. Dandolo-extensa: 279

Monacis: 140

P. Dolfin: 327b-328a

Quant monseignor Henric Dandle, li dus de Venise, et li barons de France orent departi l’avoir, li barons distrent au dus:

- Sire, prenés l’enpire, que vos l’avés bien deservi. -

Et li dus dist que non feroit,

- mes un de vos en soit enpereor, et je garderai mult bien ma partie avec vos. -

Et lors fu esleüs li cuens de Flandre enpereor de Costantinople. [...].

Elecio imperatoris per Latinos

Habita civitate, XII eligendi pariter electi, dum de ydoneori ad imperium scrutinium agerent, Galorum strenuus, ducis Venetorum gesta conlaudans, illum dignum imperio nominavit; sed cum ceteri id anuere viderentur, quidam Venetorum nobilis et fidelis senex, satis probabili ussus ratione, nominatoris recomendans propositum, comitem Balduinum Flandrie aptiorem fore indicavit, qui, a reliquia conprobatus et exercitui denunciatus, ab omnibus imperator conlaudatus est.

[...]. Quietatibus motibus Civitatis conveniunt sex pro parte pro eligendo Imperatore, quidam Nobilis Gallicus prosequens laudibus gesta Henrici Ducis ipsum nominat Imperatorem, dum reliqui assentire viderentur, unus ex Venetis de illo Collegio, motus rationibus, commendato proposito primi nominatoris, dixit Balduinum Comitem Flandriae esse ad Imperium aptiorem; respiciens enim ad sustentamentum, & ad bene esse Imperii, plus quam ad merita singularium personarum. Considerabat Henrico creato Imperatore, totum pondus, onusque Imperii, sine spe externi auxilii inclinari super humeros Venetorum; sub Ultramontano autem Imperatore in gravibus casibus, & imminentibus periculis posse auxilia ab Ultramontanis Regibus, Ducibus, & Principibus facilius obtineri. Denuntiatus Imperator Balduinus

Avuta la cità di Constantinopoli, li dodici electori si ragunarono insieme à far el scrutinio per elezzer l’Imperador più degno, e pluj idoneo.

Uno homo strenuo di Francezi zo llaudante le geste del Duce nominò lui esser degno de Imperio; ma quando gli altri furono visti affermar questo, uno Nobele Venitiano, e fidel vecchio usante assai probabile raggione, laudante el proposto de colui, el quale havea nominato el Duce, judicò Balduino [emphasize in the manuscript] Conte de Fiandra esser più apto all’Imperio; el quale, comprobato dalli altri et annontiato all’exercito, è collaudato Imperador da tutti.

p. 217



exercitui, collaudatur ab omnibus, confirmat, quae composita fuerunt, antequam Civitas caperetur.



        The brief chronicle of Andrea Dandolo is extremely quick also in the depiction of this event:


A. Dandolo-brevis: 367

[...] cum toto imperio, dividentes, imperatoris titulum Balduino antedicto dederunt, [...].


Below is the version offered by the chronicle Navagero that I had formerly approached to category 2. More detailed regarding the electors, but less concerning the debates, this time it has nothing in common with this category.


Navagero: 984

Di poi quetato il tumulto deliberarono i collegati di provvedere dell’elezione dell’Imperadore. E secondo la forma de’ Capitoli elessero dodici, cioė sei dalla parte de’ Veneziani, e sei dalla parte de’ Principi, come segue. Pe’ Veneziani, Arrigo Dandolo Doge; Ser Vitale Dandolo Rettore Capitano dell’armata, Ser’ Ottone Querini, Ser Bertuccio Contarini, Ser Niccolò Navagero, Ser Pantaleone Barbo. Pe’ Principi collegati, il gran Conte Mariscalco, il Conte di Sassonia, il Mariscalco di Campagna, il Conte Nerul, Don Antonio de’ Picoli, e Don Jacomo Navari. Questi dodici soprascritti, implorata la grazia dello Spirito Santo, per la maggior parte elessero Imperadore Balduino Conte di Fiandra, il quale da tutto l’esercito fu confermato.



        3. This category is original though the agency of the number of 15 electors that it advances. That is why both Sabellico and Biondo would not be taken for granted by Andrea Morosini[226]. Among them, chronicle Biondo is less detailed. As for Sanudo 1, it has nothing in common with this category, especially for the number of electors that it considers.


M 2592: 30a

Sabellico: 181

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

Byzantio recepto, convenit inter proceres, ut Quindecim viri crearentur, quibus Imperatoris eligendi potestas foret: atque illud expressum, ut si Veneti nominis Imperator declaratus non esset, quem ipsi vellent, suae gentis Antistitem urbem crearent. Ita, ut dixi, comparatum erat: Veneti ex electorum numero quintos dedere: Flandrensis & Pauli Comites totidem: Monferratensis & Allobrogum Duces numerum expleverent.

p. 218


Reduto che furno li sopra nominati 15, fecero inperator de Costantinopoli Baldovino di Fiandra.

Horum igitur suffragio Balduinus Flandrensis Imperator est declaratus: [...].


Biondo: 13

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, [...].


Sanudo 1: 529

[...]. E fu diliberato d’eleggere dodici, i quali dovessero eleggere l’Imperatore di Costantinopoli; i quali fossero sei Veneziani, due Lombardi, e quattro Franzesi. E fu determinato che non essendo creato Veneziano Imperadore, senz’altro il Patriarcato di Costantinopoli fosse de’ Veneziani. E questi furono eletti: Messere Arrigo Dandolo Doge, Capitano dell’armata; Ser’ Ottone Quirini; Ser Vitale Dandulo Ammiraglio; Ser Bertuccio Contarini, Ser Niccolò Navigaioso; Ser Pantaleone Barbo, pe’ Veneziani. Don Niccolò de’ Piccioli Cavaliere; Don Jacopo Malavicino Cavaliero, pe’ Lombardi. Il Conte di San Polo in Saxonia; il Maresciallo di Campagna; il Conte Arsuel; e’l Conte Baldovino di Fiandra, per gli Oltramontani. E questi ridotti insieme, alcuni voleano fare Imperadore il Conte Baldovino di Fiandra, & una parte Arrigo Dandolo Doge di Venezia, e altri privati Signori. Et essendo questa differenza, Pantaleone Barbo parlò sapientissimamente a tutti, confortando, che si dovesse fare il Conte di Fiandra. E così il detto Conte fu creato Imperadore. [...].


        The same number of electors (that is, 15), but a more detailed structure is provided by M 71, formerly approached to category 4. Among other original features, the anonymous author regarded that the same electors were to elect also the Patriarch of Constantinople.


M 71: 129a

[...], furono fatti quindici elettori per far’un’Imperatore et un Patriarca cattolico, li quali elettori furono prima li cinque Prencipi detti [Anrigo Dandolo Doge di Venetia, Balduino Conte di Fiandra, Lodovico Conte di Savoia, Arrigo Conte di S. Polo et Bonifacio Marchese di Monferrato, n. n.]; 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 Navagioso, Pantaleone Barbo, Vitale Dandolo et Bertuccio Contarini, da’ quali elettori fù fatto Imperatore Balduino Conte di Fiandra, ch’era d’età di trentadue anni [...].



        4. and 5. After excluding the chronicle Canal, these categories use almost one and the same manner of approaching. The few differences approach M 89 rather to category 4. than to 5.


E. Dandolo: 42a

pseudo-Dolfin: 46b

Morosini: 10

[...], quando à messer lo Doxe parete de tornar à Veniexia con tanto vittoria e felicitì, fò à conseio de far un

[...]. Quando a misser lo Doxe parse de tornar a Venesia cum gran victoria & felicitate, fo aconsezo de far

[...], et quando a misier lo doxie parete de tornar a Veniexia chon tanta vituoria rezevuda et fedelitate, fo a

p. 219

Imperadore, conzosia cosa che à quel tempo algun del sangue imperial se attrovava; et per lo ditto messer lo Doxe et Baroni fo ellevado degnamente Imperador el Conte Balduin de Fiandra.

uno Imperador & conzofosse che a quello tempo algun del sangue Imperiale non se atrovasse, & per el dicto misser lo Doxe & Baroni fo electo degnamente Imperador el Conte Baldoin de Franza.

conseio de far uno imperador, chonziò fose che a quel tenpo algun del sangue inperial non se trovase, et per lo dito misier lo doxie e baroni fo alevado degna mente el chonte Balduin de Fiandra, [...].


M 89: 24b, col. 2

Donà: 31a

Veniera 791: 68b-69a

[...]. Poi, quando a misser lo Doxe parete a tornar a Venyexia chon tanta vitoria e felizitade fo a conseyo de far un Inperador. Chonzofosse che a quel tenpo nesuno del sangue imperial non se trovavano e per lo dito misser lo Doxe e Baroni fo alevado degnamente imperador el Conte Balduin de Fiandra.

Stati più zorni in Costantinopoli, messer lo Dose si risolse di voler andar pien di gloria à Venetia, e perche non vi era nisun del sangue imperial, ellesero messer Balduin Conte di Fiandra [...].

Come l’Imperio de Constantinopoli fu diviso in quattro parte & fu del 1204

Stati piu giorni in Constantinopoli, messer lo Dose et li Baroni et tutti li altrj facendo gran triomphj et festa, quando a messer lo Dose parse tornar a Venetia con tanta vittoria et felicitade, fu a conseglio con tutti li Baroni de far uno Imperator. Et perche niuno del sangue Imperial a quel tempo nisuno se attrovava, fu detto Imperator il Conte Balduin de Fiandra.


        Although more detailed and original, the chronicle Trevisan (approached to category 5.) could also be included in this classification. It follows the version of category 5. (especially Donà and Veniera 791), attaching then more details.


Trevisan: 39b, col. 1

[...]. Siando stadi piu giorni a Constantinopoli, dapoj parse al Doxe e a i Signori Baroni de ritornar nelo sue patrie e furono al conseio fra lor de far uno Imperador. E perche niuno di sangue real in Constantiopoli non se trouaua degno de tal Imperio, i terminono che foseno eleti XII e per queli fossano eleto Inperador che a loro paresse sufiziente e degno de tal Imperio; e furno eleti 6 Oltramontani e 6 Taliani e in questo conseio furono nominati doi che fu Rigo Dandolo Doxe e Balduino Conte ouer Duca di Fiandra. E nel primo scortigno el Doxe e Balduino vene a tante voxe luno come laltro, ma al secondo scortigno Balduino ave 7 voxe el Doxe 5 e questo fu uno deli eletori che fu

-        Otaviano Quirini

che non volsse el Doxe, digando che, sel Doxe rimagnesseno Imperador, subito Imperio seria desfato per che li Oltramontani subito se aveva partido e limperio rimagneria vuodo; ma, esendo Balduino, li Oltramontani rimagneria con luj. Intendando tuti la opinion sua, molto fu laudado.


p. 220

        6. The chronicles that formed this category are almost similar and moreover they are this time in connection with category 11.


M 2544: 43a, col. 1-43a, col. 2

M 2570: 23a

Come per la presa de Constantinopoli fo determinata de fare uno imperadore del 1204

Et dapo presa la citta de Constantinopoli et messa à sachomano, el fo preso de fare uno General Conseglio, azo fosse determinato quello li havesse baffare et la fu determinato de elezere 12, li quali havessero ad elezer uno suo novo Imperatore, deli quali furon sei Veneciani, do Lombardi et quatro Oltramontani; [...] et siando determinato per tutti la sua volonta: Li intorno in lo suo conseglio secreto et prima fecero dir la messa del spirito sancto et la se messeno ad volere elezere lo Imperatore de Constantinopoli. Et subitamente per li quatro Oltramontani volevano elezere li soi Oltramontani; et quelli de Lombardia volevano ellezere lo Marchese de Monfera; di sei Veneziani volevano el Doxe de Venecia. Et audite le ditte disputatione, el se leva uno de quelli de Venecia, che haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, digando: “Signori, vuj doveti ben credere che io voria piu tosto chel fosse el Doxe de Venecia che altri Imperatori de Constantinopoli, ma per lo mio conseglio non si die volere per molte raxone; ma femo el Conte de Fiandra. Et fazandolo, li Franzosi sarano contenti et romagnera et sustenterano lo ditto imperio. Altramente, loro se partirano et sera disfatto lo ditto Imperio”, con altre assaissime rasone, per modo che piacette à tutti et fo elletto per tutti el ditto Conte de Fiandra.

Como per la segonda prexa de Constanttinopolj fo determinado de far uno Inperador. 1204

E deprexa la cittade de Constanttinopolj et messa a sachomano, el fo deliberado de far uno Consegio Zeneral, azio el fosse determinado quelo i avesse a far per suo Inperador ela el fo concluxo de elezer xij li qual havesse alezer uno Inperador, de li qual ne fo 6 Venixianj, do Lonbardj et 4 Oltramontanj.


E siando determina de volonta de ttuttj li inttra nel suo consegio secretto et fexe dir la messa del Spiritto Santto e la i se messe a elezer linperador de Costantinopolj.

Subittamente, per li quatro Oltramontanj voleva elezer li soj Oltramontanj e quelj de Lonbardj voleva el Marchexe de Monfera. Li Venicianj voleva lo Doxe de Veniexia. Et aldide le ditte desputacion, el se leva susso uno de quelj da Veniexia che aveva nome messer Panttalion Barbo, digando: “Signorj, vuj dovetj moltto ben creder che io voria piu tosto che fose Inperador el nostro Doxe de Veniexia cha altrj; ma, segondo el consegio e la openion mia, non se die voler per moltte raxone, che luj la exsposse, ma ben fermo el Contte de Fiandra, e fazandolo, li Franzexi rimagnerano conttenttj et sostegnera el ditto Imperio”, con altre asaissime raxon, per modo chel piaxette attuttj. Et fo eletto per Inperador de Constanttinnopolj el ditto Conte de Fiandra.


M 47: 33a, col. 2-33b, col. 1

M 48: 59a-59b

M 2028: 80b

[E] dapoi presa la cita de Constantinopoli et messa a sacomano fu preso de fare uno grando consilio. Azo fusse determinato quell se havesse affare. Et fu terminato delleze [sic!] 12 li quali havesero ad elezer uno suo nuovo inperatore, deli

Como per la presa de Constantinopoli fuo determinado de far uno imperador. 1204

          E da puo presa la cita de Constantinopoli & messa a sechamano el fo determinado de far uno zeneral conseio, acio el fosse determenado quello che havesse a far. E la fo

Come per la presa di Costantinopoli fù

terminato di fare uno imperatore del 1204.

          Et poi presa la città di Costantinopoli et messa a saccomano, fù preso di fare un general consiglio, acciòche fusse determinato

p. 221

qual furon 6 Veneciani, do Lonbardi et 4 Oltramontani. [...] Et siando terminato per tuti la sua volunta, introrono nel suo consilio secreto. Et prima feceno dti [sic!] la messa del Spirito Sancto. Et la se meseno per volte elezer lo inperatore. Et subitamente per li 4 Oltramontani volevano elezer li loro Oltramontani; et quelli de Lonbardia volevano elezer el marchexe de Monferà et li 6 Veneciani el doxe de Veniexia. Et aldite le dite disputationi, el fo luno uno [repetare în text] de quelli da Venezia che havea nome messer Pantalon Barbo, digando: “Signori, vui dovete ben creder che io voria piu / tosto fuse el doxe de Veniexia che altri iperatori [sic!], ma per el mio consilio non si de voler per molte rasone; ma femo el conte de Fiandra. Et li Franzexi sarano contenti et sustenterano [sic!] lo dito inperio”, cum altre asaisime rasone, per modo che piacete a tuti. Et fu ellecto per tuti el dicto conte de Fiandra.

determenado de elezer XIJ, li quali havesse elezere uno novo imperador. Deli qual ne fo 6 Venitianj, do Lombardi, quatro Oltramontani [...]. E siando determenado de voluntade de tuti, li intra in el so conseio secreto e fese dir la messa del Spirito Sancto ele se meti a voler a lezer / lo imperador de Constantinopoli. E subitamente li quatro Holtramontanj voleva elezere li soy Oltramo^tanj; e quelli do voleva el marches [sic!] de Monfera; li 6 Venitianj voleva el doxe de Vinesia. E aldidelj dite desputation, el se leva uno de quellj de Vinesia che havea nome misser Pantalon Barbo, digando: “Signori, voy dove ben creder che io voria piu tosto chel fosse el dose de Vinesia cha elj imperador de Constantinopolj; ma segondo el mio conseio el se de voler per molte rason che e fasemo el conte de Fiandra. E fazandolo, li Franzoschi sera contenti & romagnira & sostegnira lo dito imperio. Altramente loro se partira & sera desfato lo dito imperio”, cum altre assaissimi rason, per modo chel piasete a tuti; e fuo eleto per imperador el dito conte de Fiandra.

quello si haveva a fare, e fù terminato d’eleggere uno novo Imperatore, de quali furono sei Veneziani, due Lombardi e quattro Oltramontani, [...], essendo determinato per tutti la sua volontà, intorno nel suo segreto consiglio, e feceno dir la messa del Spirito Santo; e là si messeno a voler elegger lo Imperator di Costantinopoli; et subito per li quattro Oltramontani si voleva elegger li soi Oltramontani; e quelli dui Lombardi volevano elegger il Marchese di Monferrà; li sei Venetiani volevano il dose di Venetia. Et aldite le ditte disputationi., el si levò uno di quelli da Venetia che haveva nome messer Panthaleon Barbo, dicendo: “Signori, voi dovete ben credere che io vorria più tosto che fusse il dose di Venetia che altri imperator di Costantinopoli; ma per il mio consiglio non si deve voler per molte cause; ma facciamo il conte di Fiandra. E facendolo, li Francesi saranno contenti et rimaneranno e sustenteranno il ditto impero; altrimente loro si partivanno e sarà disfatto ditto impero”, con altre assaissime rasoni, per modo che piaque a tutti; e fù eletto per tutti el ditto conte di Fiandra.



        7. This category is definitely broken, since Caroldo and Sanudo 2 follow two different approaches, the latter being closer to category 11.


Caroldo: 148-149

[...]. Furono eletti, come s’era convennuto, 6 per li Baroni Francesi, 6 per il Duce Dandolo, alli quali 12 elettori dato sacramento d’ellegger Imperatore il migliore e più virtuoso personaggio

p. 222

dell’essercito frà loro, si stete in qualche poca controversia, perciòche chi voleva ellegger un Principe Francese, altri il Marchese di Monferà e la maggior parte era inclinata et assentiva d’elleggere messer Enrico Dandolo Duce, il quale fù persuaso da uno delli 6 Consiglieri, chiamato, si come alcuni dicono, messer Pantaleon Barbo, di non voler assentire, ma che ellegger si dovesse un Francese, perciòche, essendo eletto Imperatore il Duce Veneto, Francesi et etiamdio Italiani non perseverarebbono nell’Impresa, ma rittornerebbono alle case loro; et a Venetiani sarebbe neccessario diffendere l’Imperio con le proprie forze che porterebbe loro grandissimo dettrimento e forze la Rovina della Republica, e peggio seguirebbe quando s’ellegesse Imperatore il Marchese di Monferà. Ma essendo elletto un Francese Imperatore, tutti assentirebbono continuare e rinforzare l’impresa; adducendo molte altre prudente raggioni, per le quali fù concluso tal consiglio e parere esser ottimo. Onde di commune e concorde volontà delli 12, fù eletto Imperator di Costantinopoli Balduino Conte di Fiandra e da ciascuno parimente laudata questa elettione.


Sanudo 2: 531

E acquistata la Terra e fatto il Consiglio generale, determinarono di far nuovo Imperadore, siccome ho scritto di sopra; [...]. E nota, che i due Lombardi volevano per Imperadore il Marchese di Monferato; e quel Pantaleone Barbo persuase a fare il Conte di Fiandra, perchè facendolo, i Francesci rimariano contenti, e sosterebbono il detto Imperio. Altramente si partirebbono, e sarebbe disfatto l’Impero. E così fu eletto il detto Conte di Fiandra del 1204. a dì 14. di Settembre.



        8., 9. and 10. These three categories unexplainably omit the episode of the deliberations around the election in 1204, for different reasons. While 8. introduces an original version emphasizing the episode of Baldwin’s imprisonment after the battle of Adrianople and the prophecies around the capture of Constantinople, 9. and 10. give the impression that the expedition was exclusively Venetian. Baldwin does not appear as character at all in the case of category 9., while category 10. emphasizes in exchange the doge’s new title of Dominus and his heraldic sign[227]. Nevertheless, the chronicle Abbiosi [category 10.] exceptionally makes a brief reference to the elections:


Abbiosi: 20b

[...] et havendo terminado fra loro de elezer uno Imperator. Fatta dir la messa del Spirito Santo. Li 5 Tramontani volevano un Oltramontan et li 5 Venetiani volevano el Dose et do Lombardi el Marchese de Monferrà. In conclusion feseno el Conte de Fiandra.


        The chronicles M 2572, Sansovino and M 1999 that I previously approached to category 9. make some referrals to the elections, although the first two of them emphasize the election of the Venetian Patriarch. As regards M 1999, it is to be rather connected to category 3. because of the electors’ number advanced by it.


M 2572: 14b

[...], dove trà loro deliberatasi di far eletione di uno Imperador del sangue Latino. Fu ancora

p. 223

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 [sic!] Conte di Fiandra, fù all’altra esaltato Tomase Morisini.


Sansovino: 561

[...]. Et allora havendo il clero fatto Patriarca, Tomaso Morosino [sic!] figliuolo di Theofilo, gli elettori Veneti co Francesi insieme crearono Imperatore, Baldovino Conte di Fiandra.


M 1999: 29b-30a

Caduta cosi in poter de nostri la città famosa, si assembrarono i capitani, cioè il conte di Fiandra, e di San Polo, il duca di Sassonia, quel di Savoia, il Marchese di Monferrato, et alcuni altri con 5 Venetiani, tutti al numero di quindici per l’elettione dell’imperatore; e ricusata quella corona del doge Dandolo fù posta sù la fronte di Baldovino conte di Fiandra, huomo di singolar pietà, passando / cosi da Greci à Latini l’impero con strana peripetia dalle mondane grandezze.



On its turn, the chronicle M 1833 (previously not classified) promotes the following version:


M 1833: 25b

[...]. Secondo il trattato, sei electtori Veneziani e sei Francesi divennero alla elezione dell’Imperator. Inclinavano a preferire il Doge Dandolo, che diede le opportune rimozioni ai suoi, onde ciò non arrivasse, la dignità Imperiale non competendo al Capo della Repubblica Veneta, Baduino [sic!] Conte di Fiandra fu elletto Imperator, d’età d’anni 32. [...].



        11. This consistent category is once again full of information, also as regards the elections.


11a. Since it is more detailed and includes the electors’ names, the chronicle pseudo-Erizzo should be regarded apart.


M 78: 11a, col. 2--11b, col. 1

M 2543: 52a-52b

M 1577: 284-287

Presa la citade de Constantinopoli fu facto uno general consiglio per metere ordine quello se havesse a deliberare del governo del Imperio, in nel qualle furno ellecti XIJ ellectori, gli qualli potessero ellegere uno Imperatore. Furono VJ Veniciani, iiij per gli Signori Oltramontani, IJ del Marchexe de Monsferra. Da V Venitiani fu ellecto el

Et, dapoi presa la citade de Constantinopoli et messa a saccomano, el fu determinado de far uno Conseglio Zeneral, azoche fusse determinado quello li havesse a far: Et nel ditto conseglio fu determinado de far xii ellettori, i quali havesse ellezer uno novo Imperador, dei qual ellettori, sei fusseno Venetiani e iiij Oltramontani et ij Lombardi;

E come presa la città de Costantinopoli, fu ordenado de far un Imperator.

Presa la città de Costantinopoli et messa a saccomano, el fono terminado in primo suo conseio che fono messer lo Dose e quei Signori Baroni de far 12 elettori e quei avesse libertà de elezer l’Imperator de Costantinopoli; fono fatto sie

p. 224

Doxe de Veniesia. Dagli iiij Oltramontani fu ellecto il Conte de Fiandra. E di ij da Monsferra il suo Marchexe. Il sexto de quelli de Veniexia non parlaua alguna cosa, il qualle fu misser Pantalon Barbo, homo prudentissimo, il qualle asigno regione. Per le qualle se dechiariva non essere cossa utille alo Imperio chel dicto suo Doxe fusse ellecto et persuase & conforto che piui presto fusse de tutti ellecto il Conte de Fiandra asignando optime ragione. Et cusi fu determinato de comun consentimento.


E siando determinado de voluntade de tutti, li introno nel suo consiglio secreto et feseno dir la messa del spiritu sancto; eli se messe a voler ellezer lo Imperador de Constantinopoli et subitamente per li iiij Oltramontani fu ellecto el Conte de Fiandra. I do Lombardi ellesseno el Marchese de Monfera. Li vi Venetiani ellesseno el Doxe de Veniexia. Et fatte molte disputation, el se leva uno de quelli da Veniexia, el qual haveva nome messer Panthalon Barbo. Dixe e mostra tal rason: «Signori, nui semo messi qui per far lo Imperador esi haveno zurado. Et anchor nui dove ben creder che io voria piu tosto el Doxe de Veniexia che altri Imperador de Constantinopoli. Ma sigondo el mio conseglio, el non se die voler per molte rason; ma femo el conte de Fiandra. Et fazando, li Francesi sara contenti et romagneva et sostegnera lo ditto Imperio, altramente loro se partirano e sarano disfacto lo ditto Imperio», con altre assaissime rason, per modo chel piasetto a tutti et fu elletto Imperador el ditto Conte de Fiandra e si lincoronado in la Giesia de Sancta Sophia.

Veneziani e i altri sie Oltramontani, che sono 4 Oltramontani e dò Lombardi. [...]. Abiando fato i dodese elettori, da può fu dita la prima messa dello Spirito Santo in una capella picola del palazzo dove stava messer lo Dose e 12 Elettori. I 5 da Venezia voleva che messer lo Dose fosse Imperator; el sesto non diseva niente. I quattro Oltramontani voleva el Conte de Fiandra; e i dò Lombardi voleva el Marchese de Monfera. E i dò Lombardi piuttosto el Dose chel Conte de Fiandra, ma fo el sesto da Venezia che non avea voludo dir niente, el qual avea nome messer Pantalon Barbo, el qual disè el suo parer in questo modo: Signori, nui semo quì per elezer l’Imperator. Come nui avemo zurado e tutti vui dovesse creder che piuttosto voria messer lo Dose da Venezia nostro che nessun altro; se vi fasso quello, la Signoria dell’Imperio saria desfada, perchè subito i Oltramontani se partiria, a non rimaneria alcun. Ma l’è meio de far el Conte de Fiandra per ben dell’Imperio, perchè l’è alto e richo e i Oltramontani rimagneria più volentiera che se messer lo Dose, nè messer lo Marchese.

Ne fu udido quella rason, quei 5 da Venezia e i quattro Oltramontani fono de quel parer tutti questi.


M 1586: 38b-39a

Pseudo-Zancaruolo: clxxxxiiij a- clxxxxiiij b

Doppo presa la cittade de

Come fo hordenado de far uno Imperador


p. 225

Constantinopoli et messa à saccomanno, el fò terminado per lo Doxe et de tutti quelli Signori chel se dovesse far uno Generale Conseglio et là terminar quello s’havesse à fare. Et cosi fu fatto el fo determinado nel ditto Consiglio di fare xij ellettori i quali dovessero eleggere uno nuovo Imperatore de Constantinopoli.

          Et questi 12 ellettori dello Imperio 6 v’erano Venetiani et 6 Oltramontani et Lombardi, che furono 4 Oltramontani et 2 Lombardi [...]; et fatto questo di subito vi furono eletti li xij ellettori che dovevano eleggere l’Imperatore e là vi fù detta la Messa dello Spirito Santo in una picciola capella che v’era in uno piccolo palaggio che stava lo Doxe de Veniexia et furono nel conseglio secreto 5 che volevano el Doxe di Veniesia, el sesto non parlaua. Li 4 Oltramontani volevano el Conte di Fiandra, li due Lombardi volevano el Marchese de Monferrato et, senza fallo, se quelli Oltramontani non havessero havuto sua intentione, avantj havrebbero voluto lo Doge di Venetia chel Marchese di Monferrato, et similmente volevano li due Lombardi.

          Mà el sesto da Veniexia, el qual non parlava, el quale haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, disse et mostra tal ragione che fò.

«Signori, noi siamo messi quì per eleggere l’Imperatore et se havemo giurato, mà dovete voi bene credere che io piu tosto vorria il nostro Doge ch’altri, senza fallo, se lui ne fosse l’Imperio sarebbe disfatto, di subito per amor Oltramontani si parteriano lo maggior parte d’essi et rimanerebbe l’Imperio vuoto et disfatto, mà la meglio dell’Imperio e de far il Conte di Fiandra, el qual è huomo atto et ricco et gl’Oltramontani romagneranno più volontieri, che se il Doxe overo Marchese di facesse. Ancorri (?) questo di la gente Oltramontana s’è la più apprecciata gente che sia al mondo et la più nobile.

Et di subito udito questa ragione, li 5 da Venetia et li 4 elettori Oltramontani la s’accordorono à questo et fù fatta l’elettione del Conte di Fiandra.

Fo hordinato e fato uno Zeneral Conseio cum quellj Signorj Oltramontanj el Doxe, in el qual conseio fuo determenado de far xij electorj, i qualj havesse ellezer limperador. E fono fato sei Oltramontanj e sei Venitianj, i quali fono iiij Oltramontanj e doi Lombardi. [...]. Dapoi fuo dita una messa del Spirito Sancto in una capella dove stevano el Doxe. Dita la messa, li letorj se adunj insieme. Cinque di lectorj Venitianj voleva el Doxe per Imperador, el sexto stete sospeso, non digando la oppinion sua, li iiij Oltramontanj voliando el Conte de Fiandra e ij Lombardi volevano el Marchexe de Monfera. Veramente li Oltramontanj averia piu presto ellecto el Doxe cha el Marchese de Monfera e li do Lombardi piu presto el Doxe cha el Conte de Fiandra. Stagando cossi i lectorj in questa differentia desuniti, el sexto Venitiano che non volse dir la oppinion sua et aveva nome Signor Pantalon Barbo, el qual levo suso e disse: «Signorj, nuj siamo qui per ellezer lo Imperador, come avemo zurado. Doveti credete che piu presto io voria el Doxe cha niuno altro; e se voi quello fessi, la Signoria del Imperio saria desfatta. Perche subito i Oltramontanj se partiriano e non rimagneria niuno deffensore de esso Imperio; ma le nuglio e per piu dignita e ben delimperio e utele de far el Conte de Fiandra. Il perche le homo di sangue real e potente e richo, el qual romagnera piuj volentiera cha el Doxe nel Marchese de Monfera. Inteso e aldido le raxon, quelli V. Venitianj e iiij Oltramontanj tuti vnidi e concordati elesseno el Conte de Fiandra per Imperador.


Pseudo-Erizzo: 110a-111a

p. 226

Come prexo che fo la città de Constantinopoli, fonno ordenà de far uno Imperador de ditta città

Prexa la città de Constantinopoli et messa à saccomano, el fonno termenado per messer lo Doxe e per tutti quelli Signori che se dovesse far un Zeneral Consiglio et là termenar quello che se douesse far. E cusì fu fatto et fu determenado in el ditto conseio de far xij elettori e quei havesse libertà de elezer uno nuovo Imperator de Constantinopoli. E de questi xij. Elettori dell’Imperio, vj ne fosse de Venetiani, vj Oltramontani e Lombardi, che fonno iiij. Oltramontani, et ij Lombardi. Li nomi de i queli sono l’infrascritti et primo.

Li vj elettori per nome della Signoria de Veniexia

• Messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe de Veniexia   

• Signor Otto Quirini sopracomito

• Signor Bertuzzi Contarini sopracomito     

• Signor Nicolo Navagoso sopracomito

• Signor Domenico Barbaro sopracomito   

• Signor Pantalon Barbo sopracomito

Li iiij elettori per nome delli Signori Oltramontani

• El Conte Balduin de Fiandra

• El Conte de Saxonia

• El Gran Maraschalio de Campagna          

• El Conte de Macaruole

Li ij elettori per nome delli Signori Lombardi

• M. Nicolò de i Rozoli Kavallier                

• M. Jacomo de Navaria Kavallier


Essendo fatti li xij elettori, dapuò el fonno ditto la messa del Spirito Santo, in una capella pizzola in el palazzo dove stava messer lo Doxe, de quei xij elettori nel conseio secreto, i cinque de Veniexia voleva messer lo Doxe fosse Imperator, el sesto no dixeva niente. Li iiij Oltramontani voleva el Conte de Fiandra; et i do Lombardi voleva el Marchexe de Monferrà; e senza fallo, se qualli Oltramontani non havesse possudo haver sua intention, piu tosto li haveria voiudo el Doxe de Veniexia cha’l Marchexe de Monferrà; e per el simel voleva li do Lombardi plui tosto el Doxe cha’l Conte de Fiandra. Ma el fo el sesto da Veniexia che era in el conseio che non haveva voiudo dir niente, el qual havea nome messer Pantalon Barbo, el qual disse el suo parer à i altri sui compagni in questo muodo: «Signori, nui semo messi quui per elezer l’Imperator come nui havemo zurado; e tutti nui douessè creder che plui tosto io norra [?] messer lo Doxe nostro da Veniexia cha nissun altro. Ma senza fallo, se nui fassè quello Imperator, de subbito la mazor parte de Oltramontani se partiria et non romagniria algun et l’Imperio saria vuodo e desfatto. Ma l’è meio per ben dell’Imperio de far el Conte de Fiandra, perche l’è un’alto e ricco signor. E li Oltramontani romagneria plui uolentiera, che se messer lo Doxe; ne messer lo Marchexe ne fosse fatto. Ancuo endi [?] le xente Oltramontane s [?] e le plui apprexine zente che sia lal mondo e la plui nobile». Et subbito aldide quelle raxon, quei cinque da Veniexia et i iiij Oltramontani fonno de quel parer; et d’accordo tutti questi elesseno con el nome del Spirito Santo per Imperator el Conte Balduin de Fiandra et fonno fatto Imperator de tutto l’Imperio de Romania e de Constantinopoli; et fu corrando i anni del Signor 1204 alli xiiij Settembro.



11b. Formerly, the chronicle Veniera 2580 was only approached to this category. This time, for many similarities that it presents with this category, I am to attach it directly.


p. 227

M 798: xxiij a

M 2560: 69a-69b

M 2563: 12a-12b

Prexa la dita cita de Constantinopoli, fo termena per messer lo Doxe e per tuti queli Signori che se dovese dar un Zeneral Conseio e deliberar quelo se havese a far. E cusi fo fato e fo termena nel dito conseio de far 12 letori e queli havese a elezer uno nuovo Imperador de Constantinopoli, de i qual 6 ne fose Veniciani e 6 Oltramontanj e Lombardi, el ne fo 4 Oltramontani e 2 Lombardi. E fo nel conseio secreto 5 che voleva el Doxe de Veniesia, el sesto non parlava; 4 Oltramontani voleva el Conte de Fiandra e li do Lombardi voleva el Marchexe de Monfera E senza falo, se queli Oltramontani non havese posudo haver sua intencion, avanti li haveva voluto el Doxe de Veniesia chal Marchese de Monfera; e per el simele voleva li do Lombardi. Ma el sesto da Veniesia che non parlava haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, dise ali altri soi compagni: «Signori, nui semo mesi per elezer Imperador; e si dove creder che io deba piu tosto voler el nostro Doxe cha altri. Ma senza falo, se lui fose Imperador, subito lo Imperio saria desfato, perche i Oltramontani se partiria la mazor parte e romagneria lo Imperio vodo e desfato. Ma le meglio far el Conte de Fiandra, el qual e uno gran Signor e li Oltramomontani romagneva piu volentiera cha siando fato altri. Anchuo indj

E prexa la dita zitade, fo deliberado per misser lo Doxe e quelli Signori de far per el suo Zeneral Conseglio XII eletori, i qualli dovesseno elezer uno nuovo Imperador de Constantinopoli; de i qualli eletori fosse VJ. Viniziani. e VJ. Oltramontanj e Lombardi. Alguni voleva el Conte de Fiandra; alguni el Doxe de Veniexia; et alguni el Marchexe de Monfera. E fata gran contexa e parlamento tra essi, dite et allesude molte raxon de queste eletion, finalmente uno misser Pantalon Barbo disse e conforto per ogni bon rispeto e per el meglio delo Imperio chel fosse eleto el Conte de Fiandra, el qual iera uno grandissimo Signor e richo et li Oltramontani seriano piuy contenti de luy che de altro Segnor. E cussi Viniziani con li Oltramontani se acordono insieme tuti questi eletori e con el nome del Spirito Sancto elesseno Imperador de Romania e de Constantinopoli el Conte de Fiandra.

[...]. Da poi, el Dose con quelli Signiori chiamò Consegio Zeneral, per termenar quello se havesse à far; et cosi fo preso de far 12 elettori dello Imperio, 6 Venitianj et 6 Tramontanj, i quali havesse elesser uno nuovo Imperador de Constantinopoli; et fono 4 Oltramontanj et 2 Lombardi. Et fono nel consegio secreto cinque che voleva el Dose de Venetia, el sesto non parlaua; et li do Lombardi voleva el Marchese de Monferra; et, senza fallo, se i Tramontani non n’havesse possudo haver el suo intento, i haveria piuj presto vogiudo el Dose de Venetia, che el Marchese de Monferrra; et per lo simel i Lombardi. Ma el sesto Venitian, che maj parlo, che era nel consegio, haveva nome messer Panthalon Barbo, che disse à i altri soi compagni: «Signiori, nuj semo messi per ellezer lo Imperador de questa Citta. Et si doveti creder ch’io voria ellezer piuj presto el Dose de Venetia cha niun altri. Ma, per assaj rason et per confermation de questo imperio, la mior elletion saria de far el Conte de Fiandra, el qual e un gran Signior, è ricco et con luj volintiera romagneria tutti i Tramontanj. Et se faseno niun altro quellj non romagneria; et la citta scoreria pericolo de perdesse a trouandoss saccomanado ruinada et conssumada dalle battagie li havemo datte la se attrova destrutta. Et se à

p. 228

le zente Oltramontane sono le piu aprexiate zente del mondo e le piu nobile.» E subito aldido queste raxon, queli da Veniesia e li Oltramontani se acordono a questo. E, con el nome del Spirito Santo, fo eleto Imperador de toto limperio de Romania e de Constantinopoli el Conte de Fiandra.


quella non li lassamo pressio seguro la se perdera senza niun dubio.» Inteso Venitianj queste rason, con loro li Tramontanj e i Lombardi introno in opinion. Et tutti insieme con el nome de Dio ellesse Imperador dello imperio della Romania el Conte de Fiandra, [...].


M 550: 73a

Z. Dolfin: passim

M 46: 32b

[...] presa la ditta citta, fu delibera per il Serenissimo è tutti quelli Signori far pore il suo General Consiglio 12 elettori, li quali dovessero da novo ellegger un’Imperator; li qual fussero 6 Venitiani & 6 Oltramontani & Lombardi. Alcuni volevano il Conte di Fiandra, alcuni il Marchese di Monferà et alcuni il Serenissimo Principe. Et cosi fata gran contesa fra loro, messer Pantaleon Barbo disse: «A me par così che per ogni buon rispetto à questo tal imperio sia leto il Conte di Fiandra, per il qual io credo che Oltramontani serano molto piu cotenti [sic!] che de altri», ¹ tal che li Oltramontani con Venetiani se accordorno insieme & ellessero Imperator de Romania & de Costantinopoli il Conte di Fiandra; [...].

Come dapoi la prexa de Constantinopoli fo deliberato per il conseglio de questi baroni XII ellectori che havessero ad ellezer lo imperator de Constantinopoli, de li quali ne furono 6 oltramontani e 6 venetiani.

Prexa la ditta cita fu deliberato per monseignor lo doxe et quelli signori de far per il suo zeneral conseglio XII ellectori i quali dovessero ellezer uno novo imperator de Constantinopoli, de i quali ellectori fussero 6 venetiani et 6 oltramontani et lombardi. Alcuni volevano il conte di Fiandra, alcuni el doxe di Venetia, et alcuni el marchexe di Monfera. Et fatta gran contexa et parlamento tra essi ditte et allegate molte raxon de queste raxon finalmente uno monseignor Panthalon Barbo disse a conforto per ogni bon respecto et per lo meglio de lo imperio che il fosse elletto el Conte de Fiandra el qual era uno grandissimo signor et richo, et li Oltramontani sarimo più contenti de lui che

Dapoj el doxe con tutj quellj signorj chiamo consegio zeneral per terminar quello se havesse a far; e cusj fo prexo de far 12 eletorj delo jnperjo, sie Venezianj e sie Tramontanj, j qualj havesse elezer uno novo inperador de Constantjnopolj, e sono quatro Oltramontanj e do Lonbardj. E fono nel consegio secreto cinque che volevano el doxe de Venetia, el sesto no, parlaua; quatro Oltramontanj voleva el conte de Fiandra; e li Lonbardj voleva el marchexe de Monfera. E senza fallo, se j Oltramontanj non havesse posuto haver el suo intento, j haverja piuj presto vogiudo el doxe de Venetia & che nel marchexe de Monfera; e per lo simel j Lonbardj. Ma el sexto Venetian che maj parlo, che era jn consegio, haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, che disse ali altrj suj conpagnj: “Signorj, nuj semo messj per elezer lo inperador de questa cita; e sj dovete creder che jo vorja elezer piuj tosto el doxe de Venetia cha njun altro; ma per asaj raxon e per conservacion de questo

p. 229


de altro signor et essi Venetiani cum li Oltramontani se accordarono insieme tutti questi ellectori et cum el nome del Spirito Sancto delibererono de ellezer imperator de Romania et de Constantinopoli el Conte de Fiandra.

jnperjo per la mior elecion sarja de far el conte de Fiandra, el quale e uno gran signor e richo e con luj volentjera romagnera tutj j Oltramontanj; e se fasemo niun altro, quellj non romagnera e la cjta schorerja pericolo de perderse atrovandose a sacho manada rujnada et consumada dale batagie li havemo dato; la se trova destruta e sj a quella non li lassesemo presidio seguro la se perdera senza niun fallo”. Intexo Venezianj queste raxon con lo resto di Oltramontanj e Lonbardj jntrano jn opinion; tutj jnsieme con el nome de Dio elesse jnperador delo jnperjo de Romanja el conte de Fiandra [...].


M 80: 104a

M 628a: 91a

Veniera 2580: 133a

Presa la città di Costantinopoli et messa à sacco, fù determinato dal dose et da quelli altri signori baroni che si dovesse far un general conseglio et in quello si dovesse determinar quel che si havesse da far. Et cosi fù fatto et fù determinato nel detto conseglio di far 12 elettori, li quali havessero da elegger un novo imperator, VI de quali ne fossero Venetiani et VI Oltramontani et Lombardi, cioe 4 Oltramontani et doi Lombardi. Et furono nel conseglio secreto cinque che volevano il dose di Venetia, et il sesto non parlava; et quattro Oltramontani volevanno il conte di Fiandra; et li doi Lombardi volevano il marchese di

Presa la citta de Constantinopoli et messo a sachomano, el fo determinado per messer lo Dose et per quelli signori baroni chel se dovesse far un zeneral conseglio et in quello determinar quello che se dovesse fare. Et cosi fo fatto et fo de terminado in nel ditto conseglio de far 12 elettori, quali havesseno da elezer uno novo imperador de Constantinopoli; et de questi 12 elettori 6 ne fosse Venitiani et 6 Oltramontani et Lombardi, cio è 4 Oltramontani et doi Lombardi. Et forono in lo conseglio secretto 5 che volevano el dose de Venezia, et el sesto non parlava; et 4 Oltramontani volevano el conte de Fiandra et li doi

Comme fu fatto conseglio tra quelli Principi et Signori insieme con misser lo Dose, qual fuosse per esser Imperator à Constantinopoli

Presa che fu la ditta citta, fu determina per misser lo Dose et quelli Signori per il suo conseglio de far 12 ellettori dell’Imperio sie Venetiani et sie Oltramontani; et quelli havesseno à ellezer uno novo Imperator de Constantinopoli et cussi(?) furono 4 Oltramontani, 2 Lombardi et feceno il cosegio secreto. 5 furono che voleva el Dose de Venetia, el sexto non parlaua. 4 Oltramontani volevano el Conte de Fiandra et li 2 Lombardi il Marchese de Monfera; senza falo, se

p. 230

Monfera; et senza fallo, se li Oltramontani non havessero potuto haver la sua opinion, lor haveriano voluto avanti il dose di Venetia che il marchese di Monferra; et il simile volevano li Lombardi. Ma il sesto di Venetia che erano nel conseglio che non parlava haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, disse alli altri suoi compagni: “Signori miei, noi siamo messi per eleger imperator et voi dovete veder che io voglio più tosto il nostro dose di Venetia cha altri; ma senza fallo che, se lui fosse imperator, l’imperio saria desfatto, perche Oltramontani si partiriano al maggior parte; et rimaria l’imperio voto et desfatto. Ma è meglio per l’imperio di far il conte di Fiandra, il qual è un gran signor et ricco; et li Oltramontani più volentiero resteriano, cha se fariano altri; ogi dì, le gente Oltramontane sono le più pregiate gente che siano al mondo et le più nobili”. Et subito aldide queste raggion, li Venetiani et li Oltramontani s’accordarono à queesto; et nel nome del Spirito Santo fù eletto imperator di tutto l’imperio di Romania et di Costantinopoli il magnifico conte di Fiandra.

Lombardi volevano el marchese de Monfera; et senza fallo, se li 4 Oltramontani non havesseno possudo haver la sua intentione, lor haveriano vogliudo avanti lo dose de Venesia cha lo marchese de Monfera; et per lo simile volevano li Lombardi. Ma el sesto de Venesia che era in lo conseglio et che non parlava haveva nome messer Pantalon Barbo, disse alli altri soi compagni: “Signori miei, noi semo messi per elezer imperador et voi deveti creder che io voglia piu presto el nostro dose de Venesia cha altri, ma senza fallo, se lui fosse lo imperadore, subbito lo Imperio saria desfatto, perche Oltramontani se parteria la mazor parte; et romagneria lo imperio vodo et desfatto. Ma le meglio per lo imperio de far il conte de Fiandra, el qual e un gran signor et gran richo; et li Oltramontani restara piu volentiera, cha se fonno altri; ozi di le zente Oltramontane sono le piu apresiade zente che siano al mondo et le piu nobile”. Et subbiro aldide queste rasone, li Venitiani et li Oltramontani se ne condorno a questo; et con el nome del Spirito Santto fo eletto Imperador de tutto lo imperio de Romania et de Constantinopoli el magnifico conte de Fiandra.

Oltramontani non havesse possuto haver il suo intento, i haueria piu tosso el Dose de Venetia che il Marchese de Monfera; et perllo simel i Lombardi. Ma il sexto de Venetiani che era nel consegio non parlava, haveva nome Pantalon Barbo, che dissè alli altri suo compagni: «Signori, nui semo messi per ellezer Imperator et, se dovete creder, ch’io voglia piu presto el Dose de Venetia che altri. Ma, senza falo, se lui fosse Imperator, et partiria la maggior parte et l’Imperio rimaneva nudo e desfatto. Ma meglio è che l’Imperio far il Conte di Fiandra, el qual è uno gran Signor et rico et li Oltramontani rimaneva piu volentieri che se fosseno altri. Et subito aldito quelle rason, Venetiani et Oltramontani sè accordò à questo; et con le nome d’Iddio fu ditto Imperator dell’Imperio de Romania à Constantinopoli el Conte de Fiandra. [...].


        There are also the chronicles Barbaro and Savina that had been previously approached to this category.


Barbaro: 236b-237a, 243b

Savina: 58a-58b

p. 231

Hora, havendo li Capitanij delle liga fugado et morto, come s’e ditto, Mauritio et tutto l’Imperio Oriental redutto sotto la sua podestà, se voltorno segondo la convention za fatta, si come ho preditto, a far ellettion d’un nuovo Imperator; et havendo ordenado che 12 ellettori se dovesseno crear, che havesseno poi a ellezer l’Imperator antedetto, de quali 12 ellettori ne fusseno sie per il Dose de Venetia, quatro per il Conte de Fiandra et doi per il Marchese di Monferà. Furono li sei per la parte del Dose questi infrascriti

Ellettori dell Imperio per nome del Commun di Venetia

Messer Rigo Dandolo Dose 

Signor Otto Querini

Signor Panthalon Barbo       

Signor Vidal Dandolo Kavallier

Signor Nicolò Navagoioso

Signor Bertuci Contarini

Elletori per Conte de Fiandra

Signor Balduin Conte de Fiandra

Monsignor di Claramont

Il Marescalco de Ziampagna

El Conte de Sassonia

Ellettori per il Marchese di Monferà

Signor Nicolò Pezuoli Kavallier

Signor Jacomo Navian Kavallier.

          Reduti adunque insieme questi ellettori, comenzorno a tratatar del futuro Imperator et nel principio ghe fù qualche disparer, perche tutti inclinavano alli suoi; che li Venetiani pretendevano de honorar el suo Dose de questa dignità, li Fandresi il suo Conte et quei de Monferà il suo Marchese. Et stando tutti pertinaci alla sua proposta, non se vegniva ad alcuna conclusion. Onde Pantalon Barbo, un dei ellettori de Veneziani, parlò a tutti li altri in questa maniera.

[...][228]. Ditte queste parole da Pantalon Barbo con molto fervor ancora, che

Del mese de Settembro se congregorno insieme li preditti Signori et Zentilhomenj delle parte, si de Oltramontani, come de Venetiani, dove per el Dose fu proposto che ognuno havesse liberamente à dir la opinion sua, se per hora se dovesse elezer uno Imperador over scorer, dove dopo molte dispute e pareri fu termenado che elezer se dovesse uno Imperador de Costantinopolj e della Romania. Eletto poi quello, debbia divider lo anteditto aquisto tra le parte; et apresso de questo, fu termenado de elezer 12 elettori per la mazor parte di quali fusse eletto questo Imperador e quello da tutti fusse accettado, de li quali sie furno Venetiani, zoe Rigo Dandolo Dose, Vidal Dandolo Kavallier, Otto Querini, Nicolo Navigrosso, Pantalon Barbo, Bertuci Conttarini soracomiti de gallie. Ittem quatro per nome del Comun de Fiandra, zoe el Conte Balduin, el Conte de Sansonia, el Marascalco de Zamponies, el Conte de Arsul de Mercuel; li altri do furno eleti per nome del Marchese de Monferrato, e fu Nicolo Pizioli Kavallier e Giacomo Marian Kavallier. Fatta tal eletion e congregati tutti li 12 presenti insieme in la Giesia di Apostoli, fu diversi parlamenti fatti fra de loro, tra i quali li quatro Oltramontani volevano per Imperador el Conte Balduin de Fiandra; e li Venetiani el suo Dose; e li altri dui el suo Marchese; per il che, dopo molte dispute, Pantalon Barbo, uno de li eletori disse: «Signori, tutte le rason voriano ch’io volesse per Imperador piu el nostro Dose che alcuna altra persona; ma, segondo el giudicio mio, ne se die far el Dose nostro; e questo perche li Signori Oltramontani per star lontani abandoriano questo Imperio ogni volta che non fusse eletto qualchuno di loro, il che andaria in sinistro, perche li Greci da tutte le parte se aduneriano e prenderiano l’Imperio;

p. 232

saviamente ghe fusse resposo dal Dose; vegnudi poi alla ellettion quasi de tutti li voti fù elletto il predetto Conte Balduin.

ma ben dirò chel se habbi ad’elezer el Conte Balduin de Fiandra, perzo che tutti li Oltramontanj se poneriano ad habitar di qui e tegneriano sempre li Greci lontani dalla Romania, tutti se faria in noi el contrario.» E con assai altre bone rason e dopo molte bone risposte et altri raggionamenti fu eleto finalmente per Imperador el ditto Conte Balduin de Fiandra de eta de anni 32, homo prudente et giusto, el qual fu condoto in la Giesia de Santa Sophia e li fuli dado solene sagramento.



        In this context, one could notice that some of the chronicles referred to the previous agreement in March 1204. Naturally, they are among those that had previously presented it: pseudo-Giustinian (“secundum ordinem predictum), Navagero (“secondo la forme de’ Capitoli), Caroldo (“come s’era convenuto), but also M 1833 (“secondo il trattato”). In addition, the chronicle Barbaro indicated that it occurred “segondo la convention za fatta, si come ho preditto”, although it had not make any mention to the treaty on March. Others (A. Dandolo-extensa, P. Dolfin, Caroldo, Trevisan) reiterated the clause that it was to be elected “the most appropriate and suitable” among the conquerors. Some other writings (the entire category 3., including Sanudo 1 and Biondo, but also M 2572) insisted on the specification in the preliminary agreement that conferred the patriarchal title to the side not elected in the imperial one[229].


It is to be noticed that some chronicles in category 11a. (M 1577, M 1586, pseudo-Zancaruolo and pseudo-Erizzo) state that the elections were to occur in a chapel of the palace in Constantinople where the doge lived in. They suggest thus that it was the Venetian Doge the one who direct the elections. Actually, the information is to be found in the chronicle of Villehardouin: “[...], assemblerent a un rich palais, ou li dux de Venise ere a ostel, un des plus bials del munde.[230], while Robert of Clari promotes another version, that the elections took place “at the palace of Boukoleon, which belonged to the marquis”[231]. However, since the Marshal of Champagne was closer to the events, his testimony seems closer to the truth. Without mentioning the place of the elections, the chronicle Barbaro involved in depicting the town organization of the

p. 233

Venetian district in Constantinople[232]. On the contrary, the chronicle Savina mentions “la giesia di Apostoli” as the place where the electors were gathered[233].

As for the elections’ date, there are the chronicles Sanudo, pseudo-Erizzo and Savina that erroneously placed the event in September.

In order to give a more spiritual feature to the election, some chronicles (Navagero; category 6.; Abbiosi; category 11a. – excepting M 798) mentioned that the event was to be accompanied by the mass of the Holy Spirit.


With regard to the number of electors, the majority of the chronicles advanced the well-established formula, meaning 12, that is six Venetians and six non-Venetians[234]. A particular distribution is offered by the chronicle Trevisan that mentions “six Oltramontani and six Italians”, but this is a singular case. Beside the even delimitation between the Venetians and non-Venetians, some chronicles analyze the composition inside of the non-Venetian electors. They advance the idea of four Frenchmen (Oltramontani, Francesi etc.[235]) and two Lombards[236]. The conviction that there were two Lombards supporting the Marquis of Montferrat made the chronicle Abbiosi to modify even the number of Venetian electors: five Venetians, five Frenchmen and two Lombards.

There are few others (especially those in category 3.) that regarded the number of 15[237], while all the others (M 2571; M 2581; A. Dandolo-brevis; Canal; categories 4. and 5.; M 2572; Sansovino) did not refer to it.


p. 234

As a conclusion for this episode, it should be noted that there are only few codices that clearly mentioned the electors’ names: Navagero, Sanudo 1, pseudo-Erizzo, Barbaro and Savina[238].

It is to be mentioned that, despite the fact that the order of the electors is not the same, it could be very well re-established the representatives of the Venetian side: Enrico Dandolo the Doge, Vitale Dandolo the admiral of the fleet, Ottone Querini, Nicolò Navigaioso, Bertucci Contarini and Pantaleone Barbo. There is only the case of the chronicle pseudo-Erizzo that substitutes Vitale Dandolo with a certain Domenico Barbaro and of Navagero that regards one of the Venetians as belonging to the family of Navagero (the author’s own family) instead of Navigaioso.

The five Venetian electors (beside Enrico Dandolo himself) are to be found again among the 50 sopracomiti of the Venetian galleys that are presented by four chronicles. Among these four chronicles, there are three of them (pseudo-Erizzo, Barbaro and Savina)[239] that also present the list of electors. The fourth one, that is M 2581[240] does not insert the electors, although its intention had been to do this. A particular case is to be Vitale Dandolo, who could not be detected among the sopracomiti, but either among the patroni delle nave[241] or as armiraglio dell’armada[242]. Actually, on the list itself of electors, pseudo-Erizzo and Savina nominate all the Venetians as sopracomiti. Substituting Vitale Dandolo with Domenico Barbaro from the list of the Venetian electors, the chronicle pseudo-Erizzo operates in the same way on the list of sopracomiti[243], although the other chronicles (M 2581, Barbaro and Savina) do not mention Domenico Barbaro at all. On its turn, the chronicle Barbaro modifies the name of Pantaleone Barbo when it inscribes him on the list of sopracomiti, transforming Barbo in Barbaro[244].

As for the dispute inside of the Venetian tradition invoked by Paolo Ramusio, that is whether the sixth Venetian elector was to be Giovanni Michiel or Giovanni Baseglio, I did not detect these names. As for Giovanni Baseglio, he would be mentioned by Ramusio later, as receiving different honors from the Emperor Baldwin[245].

It is also to be remarked that from the electors’ lists, beside the doge himself, it is only Vitale Dandolo appearing during the entire campaign against Constantinople, in

p. 235

connection to another context, during the first siege of the city. The referal is made by the chronicle Savina and it is singular. Actually, it is a general tendency of the Venetian chronicles to underestimate any other Venetian in the events, perhaps in order to proportionally emphasize the doge’s position[246].


There could be also reconstituted the French and the Lombard electors, from the Venetian chronicles’ viewpoint. The four representatives of Baldwin of Flanders are considered by the Venetian tradition as being Baldwin himself (although the chronicle Navagero omitted him and instead, mentioned twice the Marshal of Champagne), the Marshal of Champagne (that is, Geoffrey of Villehardouin), the “Count of Saxony” (this should be the Bishop of Soissons, the confusion between Soissons and Saxonia, Sassonia or Sansonia being quite obvious[247]) and Alard Maquereau (he is substituted by the chronicle Barbaro with the Monsignor di Claramont, that is Louis of Blois; the other chronicles present him in different utterances: Arsuel, Macaruole, Nerul and Arsul de Mercuel).

Placed subsequent to the French participants (excepting chronicle Sanudo 1 that settled them previously), the two representatives of the Marquis of Montferrat were to be Nicolò de Piccioli (although the chronicle Navagero changes his first name to Antonio) and a certain Giacomo, whose family name differs from one chronicle to another (Navari, Malavicino, Navian, de Navaria and Marian), the tendency to attribute a Navarrese origin to him being slightly observed.

Anyway, the presence of the two Lombard knights among the electors would be retaken by the chronicle of Ramusio. The names utilized by it, that is Nicolò Piccolo and Giacomo Malvicino[248] seem to be closer to the chronicle Sanudo than to the others.


It is to be added the particular version offered by the chronicle M 71 that includes “the five aforesaid Principles” (that is, Enrico Dandolo, Baldwin of Flanders, “Louis Count of Savoy”[249], Henry[250] Count of St Pol, Boniface Marquis of Montferrat), “then five prelates, that is the Bishops of Bethlehem, of Accre and two from France, and an abbot”, and “five noble Venetian laymen, which were Ottone Querini, Nicolò Navigaioso, Pantaleone Barbo, Vitale Dandolo and Bertucci Contarini”. It accomplishes

p. 236

thus category 3.’ assertion that there were to be 15 electors. Moreover, it is the only one that follows to a certain extent the consecrated version imposed by the Emperor Baldwin’s letter, so that it represents an original element inside of the Venetian chronicles’ milieu.

To a certain extent, M 1999 promotes the same tendency of 15 participants, this time the five clerks being excluded. Therefore, the list includes “the five Captains” (Baldwin of Flanders, Hugh of St Pol, il Duca di Sassonia – probably the Bishop of Soissons, quel di Savoia – possibly Louis of Blois, and Boniface of Montferrat), “some others” and “five Venetians”, so that the final number reaches again 15. Strange enough, the chronicle does not involve in the Venetian side’s names.


Compared with Villehardouin or Clari that mentioned only one elector, that is Névelon, the Bishop of Soissons[251], the Venetian chronicles are more ample in information and also original as regards the elections, especially because of the electors’ name. Meanwhile, the Venetian authors (excepting the author of M 71) present a totally different list of the non-Venetian electors than the one already consecrated.


        The doge’s candidacy is sometimes not considered in the Venetian chronicles. Category 1., Navagero, category 3., A. Dandolo-brevis, categories 4., 5. and 10., M 2572, Sansovino come directly to the election of Baldwin without any supplementary commentary, except for the invoked lack of “the Imperial blood” among the crusaders[252], as regarded by categories 4. and 5.

In other cases (Abbiosi), the doge candidates indeed, although he is surpassed by the Count of Flanders. Meanwhile, M 1999 and M 1833 underlined that the doge withdrew, invoking constitutional incompatibilities between the dogal and imperial institutions (the case of M 1833).


On the other side, as some the other chronicles assert, Pantaleone Barbo was an important character during the imperial elections. His resolute intervention was to determine the final decision of Baldwin’s election. While P. Barbo’s presence could only be supposed in the case of category 2., in other cases (categories 1., 3., 4., 5., 8., 9. and 10., and also in the chronicle of Andrea Navagero) he is completely absent. A particular version is given by Nicolò Trevisan [approached to 5.], who simply substitutes P. Barbo with Ottaviano Querini[253].


        As I supposed above, the source for the version promoted by category 2. should be the chronicle da Canal. Anyhow, whether this latter narrates that it was the doge

p. 237

himself the one who proposed that a non-Venetian (“un de vos”) be emperor, the chronicles A. Dandolo-extensa and P. Dolfin talk about a “noble and old faithful Venetian”, or simply – as Monacis did – “one among the Venetians in that Council”[254]. The milieu of the elections seems to be rather cordial, without any debate and discrepancy.

        In addition, the chronicle Monacis inserts the arguments invoked by this Venetian elector, referring to the difficulty for the Venetians to sustain alone the empire; on the other side, a non-Venetian was to mobilize more effortlessly and more efficiently the other “Oltramontan kings, dukes and princes”.

        The chronicle Navagero that I previously approached to this category makes a farther step and specifies the names of the all-12 electors, including certainly Pantaleone Barbo. Nevertheless, this chronicle simply mentions him, without referring to any intervention.


        The chronicles that present the speech delivered by Pantaleone Barbo in favor of Baldwin and its decisive influence on the elections’ result are those grouped in categories 6., 7., and 11. Presented in either direct or indirect speech, his intervention was to have one and the same result: the election of a non-Venetian crusader as emperor in Constantinople.

        Barbo’s arguments referred mainly to the peril of the Frenchmen’s departure in case if one of them was not to be elected in the highest dignity of the empire. This peril was to be materialized through a supposed French exodus from the new acquired territories, so that the empire or the Signoria of Constantinople would remain “disfatto, desfatta[255] or “vuoto et disfatto[256]. The same possible tragedy is a little different depicted by two other chronicles in category 11b. (M 2563 and M 46), which mention the deplorable state of the city of Constantinople after the crusader siege: “saccomanada, ruinada et consumada dalle battagie li havemo datte la se attrova destrutta”. More predictive, the chronicle Savina adds also the concrete peril of a possible Greek revenge.

In some cases from categories 6. (M 2570 and M 47) and 11b. (M 2560, M 550 and Z. Dolfin), this dangerous alternative is not clearly mentioned, just that the solution of a non-Venetian emperor was to “satisfy” the Frenchmen (“i Francesi saranno / rimagnerano contenti”) and that they would stay. As for one chronicle in category 11a. (M 78), it does not make any presentation of the speech, just that the reasons presented by this “homo prudentissimo” were “optime”, while Sanudo 1 only specifies that Barbo “parlò sapientissimo a tutti”.

p. 238

Anyhow, Barbo’s proposal was directed concretely to Baldwin, regarded as “appropriate” and “rich”, according to some chronicles in categories 11a. (M 1577 , M 1586 and pseudo-Erizzo) and 11b. (M 2560, M 2563, Z. Dolfin, M 46, M 80, M 628a) and also to Veniera 2580. The chronicle pseudo-Zancaruolo inserts some more positive attributes, mentioning that Baldwin was: “man of Royal blood and powerful and rich”. In other cases, he is regarded only as “uno gran Signor” (in category 11b. – M 798, M 46, M 80, M 628a and also Veniera 2580) or as “uno grandissimo Signor” (according to M 2560 and Z. Dolfin – both of them in 11b.), while the “gente Oltramontana” was considered by some writings in categories 11a. (M 1586, pseudo-Erizzo), and 11b. (M 798, M 80, M 628a) as “the most appreciated one in the world and the most noble”.

Although the chronicle Caroldo expresses its doubts about the existence of Pantaleone Barbo (it utilizes the expression that “come alcuni dicono”), it invokes the same arguments, but stated in a manner somehow different than the pattern imposed by the chronicles in categories 6. and 11. and by Sanudo. In addition to the other chronicles, the author previews that the imperial election of the Doge of Venice was to put the Republic’s stability in an imminent danger. While the other chronicles speak about the new empire’s ruin, Caroldo’s chronicle advances the unfortunate perspective of the  disaster for the Venetian Republic itself.

There are the chronicles Caroldo, M 1577, M 1586, pseudo-Zancaruolo and pseudo-Erizzo that insert in Barbo’s speech the specification that also the election of Boniface of Montferrat was not appropriate[257]. This considerations would be retaken by Ramusio (in a first instance)[258].

Pantaleone Barbo’s arguments (including the extremely pessimistic view of Caroldo) would be developed by the chronicle Barbaro, which would reproduce Barbo’s speech in a more extensive form[259]. I personally published the discourse on another occasion, as a preparatory moment for another Venetian “imperial” myth, that is the proposal of the Doge Pietro Ziani (1205-1229) to transfer the capital to Constantinople[260].

The speech version offered by Paolo Ramusio sounds somehow different, and the arguments invoked by Pantaleone Barbo seem to summarize the chronicle Barbaro’s impressively extensive version[261]. One could notice that, on the contrary to Caroldo

p. 239

(that is concerned rather about the future of the Venetian Republic) and to the majority of the chronicles in categories 6. and 11. (that foresee the Empire’s ruin), the versions promoted by Barbaro and by Ramusio are rather concerned with the destiny of the crusade and of Christianity in general.


        The Venetian innovation regarding the involvement of Pantaleone Barbo in the evolution of the elections and its consequences have their clear reasons. It was to emphasize the possibility for the Venetian Doge to be elected as emperor, while the Venetian final refusal of this title was to demonstrate that they simple intended to do a favor to the non-Venetian crusaders and thus, the Venetian superiority among the participants to the crusade. It was this optic that allowed the originality of the Venetian writers. The position of referee between the other two candidates seemed more comfortable and especially more profitable. In the respective chronicles, the dispute between Baldwin and Boniface is casted into the shade of the Dogal participation in elections. Remarkable enough, Paolo Ramusio, as far as he relies upon “gli annali Venetiani”, neglects completely the disputes between the two non-Venetian candidates and does not adopt any pro-Baldwin or anti-Boniface position. Thus, he suggests that the Venetians were not determined at all in sustaining one or another[262]. This concern is once again subdued to the demonstration against Dandolo’s candidacy.

Chronologically, the chronicle Canal had been the first to advance doge’s possibility to candidate. A. Dandolo-extensa and Monacis then promoted this viewpoint[263]. The later chroniclers, touched by the Venetian glory’s feeling, would emphasize it, so that to prove the Venetian superiority upon all the others. This superiority is also demonstrated by the assertion that the doge’s election was to be

p. 240

preferred by the Frenchmen than  Boniface’s one, and by the Lombards than Baldwin’s, as some codices in categories 11a. (M 1586, pseudo-Zancaruolo and pseudo-Erizzo) and 11b. (M 798, M 2563, M 46, M 80, M 628a) and also Veniera 2580 specify: “[...] and, without any doubt, whether those Oltramontani were not able to accomplish their intention, they were to desire first the Doge of Venice than the Marquis of Montferrat; and the same was available for the two Lombards”[264].


It could also be remarked that, beside the chronicles belonging to category 2. (“a certain Venetian noble and old faithful” for Andrea Dandolo-extensa and Pietro Dolfin), there is only one chronicle, that is M 78 that attributes to P. Barbo a quality, considering him as “an extremely cautious man”. It could be added the chronicle Sanudo that specifies that P. Barbo “spoke extremely cautiously to anyone”. Actually, his main quality is suggested by the simple fact that the electors finally embraced his opinion and arguments. Some chronicles in category 11. and closed to them emphasize that before his intervention there was an atmosphere full of debates, that there were “qualche poca controversia” (Caroldo), “differenza” (Sanudo 1), “molte disputation” (M 2543), “gran contexa e parlamento tra essi” (M 2560 and Z. Dolfin), “gran contesa fra loro” (M 550), “qualche disparer” (Barbaro), “diversi parlamenti fatti fra de loro” and molte dispute” (Savina), that the electors were “in questa differentia desuniti” (pseudo-Zancaruolo) and that “non se vegniva ad alcuna conclusion.” (Barbaro). Also, the chronicles in category 6. deal with “the aforesaid disputes”.

At last, P. Barbo’s speech put them to an end, so that it “pleased everybody”[265] and “was very praised”[266] and his arguments were “the best”[267].

Consequently, the election of Baldwin of Flanders as Emperor of Constantinople was “a reliquia comprobatus et exercitui denunciatus, ab omnibus imperator conlaudatus est.” (A. Dandolo-extensa)[268], “comprobato dalli altri et annontiato all’exercito, è collaudato Imperador da tutti.” (P. Dolfin), “summa concordia sublimatus” (Biondo), “elleto per tutti[269], “di commune e concorda volontà delli 12.” (Caroldo), “determinato de comun consentimento” (M 78), or at least elected “per maiorem partem / per la mazor parte” (category 1. and Navagero). Thus, “this election was equally praised by anyone”, according to Caroldo. Also, the chronicle Navagero mentions: “These 12 above-mentioned, having the grace of the Holy Spirit invoked, in their greatest part elected Baldwin Count of Flanders, who was confirmed by the entire army.” The supposed unanimity of this election is specified by two chronicles in category 11b. (M 2563 and M 46), which introduce also the Lombards as supporters of Baldwin (!): “Inteso Venitianj queste rason, con loro li Tramontanj e i

p. 241

Lombardi introno in opinion. Et tutti insieme con el nome de Dio ellesse Imperador dello Imperio della Romania el Conte de Fiandra, [...].”[270]. As for category 4. and the chronicle M 89, Baldwin is elected “worthily”, without any additional detail.

Nevertheless, other chronicles in categories 11a. (M 1577, M 1586, pseudo-Zancaruolo and pseudo-Erizzo) and 11b. (M 798, M 2560, M 550, Z. Dolfin, M 80 and M 628a), together with Sansovino and Veniera 2580 imply that this was not a unanimous result, but only accepted that the Venetians and the Oltramontani came to an agreement in this sense. The chronicle Savina considers that there were other “many proper replies and other arguments” even after this intervention, while Barbaro specifies that there were “almost all the votes [emphasis mine]” in favor of Baldwin of Flanders.

Finally, Baldwin is regarded as being elected as “emperor of Constantinople”[271], “emperor of the Empire of Romania”[272], “emperor of all the Empire of Romania and of Constantinople”[273], or simply as “emperor”[274]. In addition, his election was to occur “in the name of the Holy Spirit / God”[275]. Anyhow, in some cases, Baldwin is gratulated in this occasion with some positive attributes, such as a “man of singular piety” (M 1999), “cautious and fair man” (Savina), or his age is presented (M 71, M 1833, Savina)[276].


Later, when describing Baldwin’s crowning, some chronicles in category 11. would underline the particular relationship between the new emperor in Constantinople and the Doge of Venice, in the context immediately subsequent to the elections and connected to the imperial coronation. Baldwin and Enrico Dandolo ride together on the Constantinopolitan streets from St. Sophia and the Imperial palace, wearing the “baghetta” in their hands and the swords in front of them in a way that is expressive: “per egual dignità[277]. It could be a development of the clause in the treaty on March

p. 242

that stipulated that it was only the doge to be excluded from the feudal vassalage towards the one to be elected as emperor[278].

The exceptional position of the Venetians in the new empire is sometimes directly underlined, in the sense that they were to be exempted of every possible taxes and duties. Sometimes, this condition is emphasized. I am to present the ideas suggested by Sanudo that specifies that “l’Imperio di Costantinopoli, il quale era parte nostro, [...]”[279] or by Sansovino. According to the latter, “Et il Doge habitava in Costantinopoli con Maestà quasi uguale all’Imperatore. Percioche era vestito con habito Imperiale. Et era creato Despoto dell’Imperio. Et havea il suo Consiglio di Stato, cioè Consiglieri, Avogadori, Camarlinghi, & altri ministri come a Venetia.[280] These latter considerations would be retaken to a certain extent by the chronicle M 1833 that describing the death of the Doge Enrico Dandolo, mentions that “Mori a Costantinopoli, dove rappresentava con lo stesso splendore dell’Imperatore, avendo il suo Conseglio, i suoi Ministri ed i suoi scudieri e tutto il suo Corteggi, come a Venezia.[281] Maturely composed, the chronicle M 1833 would make some other considerations such as “[...], la dignita Imperiale non competendo al Capo della Republica Veneta” (during the elections)[282] or “Dandolo non ebbe in vista che il possesso delle coste per estendere sempre più la navigazione ed il traffico e di tener in soggezzione l’Imperatore, avendo egual potestà nella sua Capitale, e mettendolo in istato di aver bisogno dei soccorso de’ Veneziani. [emphasis mine]” (during the partitio)[283]. On its turn, Sansovino would mention in the context of the fights against the Assenides that “Ora il Principe [= Dandolo], governando l’essercito universale de Christiani, mentre che l’Imper. Baldovino guerregiava co i Valacchi, & co i Bulgari, [...]. [emphasis mine]”[284].

Somehow intrigued, the expression of “l’Imperator de Venetiani” is to be remarked in the chronicle M 550[285]. Still, it should be a copier’s mistake that substituted “&” with “de”, so that it was to be “l’Imperator & Venetiani” participating to the partitio.

p. 243

The superior position that the Venetians imposed to the Latin emperors of Constantinople culminates with a commentary outside of the chronicles’ level. The Abbot of San Giorgio Maggiore, Fortunato Olmo, wrote: “Era dunque il Doge di Venezia Imperatore, né può negarsi, et perché Romania nel greco rilieva nel latino Roma Nuova, era dunque il Doge Imperatore romano, [...]”[286]. Consequently, “[...] essendosi assegnata la sola quarta parte all’Imperatore, e al Doge una e mezza, era dunque più imperatore il Doge di Venezia che l’Imperatore Balduino istesso [emphasis mine] [...]”[287].


However, the moment that the best symbolized the Venetian new achieved glory was the acquisition by the doge of the title of “Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae[288]. Its representation in the Venetian chronicles’ tradition, together with the supposed candidacy of Enrico Dandolo, the election of Tommaso Morosini as Patriarch of Constantinople[289] and the dignity of the Venetian podestà[290], all represented the moments embraced by the Venetian tradition in order to demonstrate the Venetian superiority during the events of the Fourth Crusade and subsequent to them.


See Appendix. The electors on April 1204, according to 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 Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 5 (2003), edited by ªerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu, Ion Bulei and Cristian Luca, Bucharest, 2004

No permission is granted for commercial use.


© ªerban Marin, March 2004, Bucharest, Romania


Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage Annuario 2003

Go to Annuario 2000

Go to Annuario 2001

Go to Annuario 2002

Go to Quaderni 2001

Go to Quaderni 2002


* 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 (edited by Paul Magdalino), Aldershot, Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1994: 295-304 (295).

[1] Antonio Carile, “Note di cronachistica veneziana: Piero Giustinian e Nicolò Trevisan”, Studi Veneziani 9 (1967): 103-125 (104: “Nessuno ha calcolato il numero dei codici, [...], ma non sarà arrischiato fissare attorno a 1000 la consistenza dei codici di cronache, anonime o d’autore.”)

[2] ªerban Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade, According to the Venetian Chronicles’ Tradition”, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica di Venezia 4 (2002): 111-171 [=].

[3] Idem, “The First Venetian on the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople. The Representation of Tommaso Morosini in the Venetian Chronicles”, Quaderni della Casa Romena 2 (2003): 49-90 [=]; Idem, “Veneþia ºi cãderea unui imperiu. Reprezentarea momentului 1261 în cronistica veneþianã”, Revista istoricã, serie nouã, 14 (2003) [forthcoming]; Idem, “Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae. Cruciada a patra ºi noua titulaturã a dogilor în reprezentarea cronisticii veneþiene”, Analele Universitãþii Bucureºti. Istorie 52 (2003) [forthcoming]; partially, see also Idem, “Un transilvãnean la Veneþia. Cazul voievodului ªtefan Lackfi II, în contextul  conflictului veneto-padovano-maghiar de la 1372-1374”, Revista Arhivelor 79 (2002), 1-2: 73-100 [Italian version, in Idem, “Un transilvano a Venezia. Il caso del vaivoda Steffano Lackfi II durante il conflitto veneziano-padovano-ungherese del 1372-1373 secondo la cronaca di Giovanni Giacomo Caroldo”, in L’Italia e l’Europa Centro-Orientale attraverso i secoli. Miscellanea di studi di storia politico-diplomatica, economica e culturale (edited by Cristian Luca, Gianluca Masi and Andrea Piccardi), Galaþi-Florence, 2004 – forthcoming].

[4] Historia Ducum Veneticorum was first edited by Henry Simonsfeld, in Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores, vol. 14, Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883: 72-97. Luigi Andrea Berto offered recently a bilingual edition, in Testi storici veneziani (XI-XIII secolo). Historia Ducum Venetorum. Annales Venetici breves. Domenico Tino, Relatione de electione Dominici Silvi Venetorum ducis, Padova: Università di Padova, 2000 [1999]: 1-83; as it is to be noticed, the editor also proposed the partial modification of the chronicle’s title, from Veneticorum to Venetorum.

[5] Historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata (edited by Roberto Cessi and Fanny Bennato), Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, 1964.

[6] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1457, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2571 [= 12463].

[7] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1570, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2581 [= 12473].

[8] Andreae Danduli Duci Veneticorum Chronica per extensium descripta aa. 46-1280 d.C., în Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 12 (new edition by Ester Pastorello), Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1923: 5-327.

[9] Laurentii de Monacis Cretae Cancellari Chronica de rebus venetis Ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV, sive ad conjurationem ducis Faledro (edited by Flaminio Corner), Venice: Typographia Remondiniana, 1758.

[10] Pietro Dolfin. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2557 [= 12449].

[11] Anon., Cronaca Veneta da S. Marco Evang. fino al 1457, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 796 [= 7613].

[12] Storia della Repubblica Veneziana scritta da Andrea Navagero patrizio veneto, în Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (edited by L. A. Muratori), vol. 23, Milan: Ex Typographia Societatis Palatinae in Regia Curia, 1733: 923-1216.

[13] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1247, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2592 [= 12484]: 3a-36a.

[14] M. Antonii Sabellici, 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 [1487].

[15] Andreae Danduli. Chronica brevis, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (new edition by Ester Pastorello), vol. 12, part I, Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1938: 351-373.

[16] Marini Sanuti Leonardi filii Patricii Veneti De Origine Urbis Venetae et vita omnium Ducum feliciter incipit, în Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (edited by L. A. Muratori), vol. 22, Milan: Ex Typographia Societatis Palatinae in Regia Curia, 1733: Vitae Ducum Venetorum Italicè Scriptae ab origine Urbis, sive ab anno CCCC XXI. usque ad annum MCCCCXCIII.: 399-1252.

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

[18] Les estoires de Venise. Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275 (edited by Alberto Limentani), Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1972.

[19] Enrico Dandolo. Cronaca Veneta dall’origine della Città fino al 1373, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 102 [= 8142], microfilm Pos. Marc. 127.

[20] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia, detta di Pietro Dolfino, dall’origine della Città sino all’anno 1418, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 559 [= 7888].

[21] The Morosini Codex (edited by Michele Pietro Ghezzo, John R. Melville-Jones and Andrea Rizzi), 2 volumes, Padua: Archivio del Litorale Adriatico, 1999-2000.

[22] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino al 1600, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 71 [= 7866].

[23] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino al 1410, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 89 [= 8391].

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

[25] Anon., Cronaca di tutte le Casade della Nobil Città di Venetia, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 791 [= 7589].

[26] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1444, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2567 [= 12459).

[27] Anon., Cronica di Venezia fino al 1382, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2544 [= 12436].

[28] Gasparo Zancaruol. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2570 [= 12462].

[29] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dall’origine della Città fino all’anno 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 47 [= 8139].

[30] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dall’origine della Città fino al 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 48 [= 7143].

[31] Anon., Cronica Veneta, dal 703 al 1420, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2028 [= 8559].

[32] Gianiacopo Caroldo. Cronaca Veneziana, sino all’anno 1382, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 128b [= 7443].

[33] See supra, note 16. In the narration of the Fourth Crusade’s events, the chronicle Sanudo compiles from different other sources, so that it commences many times the narration of the same events. This tendency is visible especially in the case of the Fourth Crusade. That is why I make a distinction inside of this particular chronicle, regarding Sanudo 1 and Sanudo 2.

[34] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1310, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2541 [= 12433].

[35] Anon., Cronaca Veneta detta Barba dal principio della Città fino al 1545, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 66 [= 7766].

[36] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città fino all’anno 1549, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 67 [= 9132].

[37] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della città al 1478, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 793 [= 8477].

[38] Giovanni Tiepolo Patriarca di Venezia. Cronaca Veneta ad esso attribuita dall’anno 421 al 1524, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 129 [= 8323].

[39] Agostino Agostini. Storia veneziana di Agostino Agiostini dal principio della fondazione di Venezia (421) fino all’anno 1570, Biblioteca della Fondazione Querini Stampalia, manuscript IV. 16 [= 770].

[40] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dall’anno 421 fino al 1379, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 77 [= 7420].

[41] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1471, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2572 [= 12464].

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

[43] Anon., Epitome della Storia della Republica di Venezia, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1999 [= 7918].

[44] Anon., Storia Veneta dalla fondazione della Republica sino all’anno 1750, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1833 [= 8376].

[45] Marci Chronica universalis..., Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. XI. 124 [= 6802].

[46] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1410, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2550 [= 12442].

[47] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2556 [= 12448].

[48] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1427, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2559 [= 12451].

[49] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino al 1433, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 44 [= 7865].

[50] Camilo Abbiosi detto il Seniore di Ravenna. Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della Città fino all’anno 1443, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2052 [= 8981].

[51] Antonio di Matteo di Curato. Cronaca Veneta, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 162 [= 8037].

[52] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1501, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2576 [= 12468].

[53] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino al 1388, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 38 [= 8748].

[54] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino all’anno 1405, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 39 [= 8609].

[55] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dal principio della Città fino al 1443, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 104 [= 8611].

[56] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dall’anno 1190 all’anno 1332, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 78 [= 9135].

[57] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1356, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2543 [= 12435].

[58] Anon., Cronaca della Città di Venezia dalla sua fondazione fino all’anno 1400, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1577 [= 7973].

[59] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dal principio della città fino al 1450, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1586 [= 9611].

[60] Cronaca Veneta supposta di Gasparo Zancaruolo, dall’origine della Città fino al 1446, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1274 [= 9274].

[61] Anon., Cronaca Veneta attribuita a Marcantonio Erizzo, fino all’anno 1495, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 56 [= 8636].

[62] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dall’origine della città sino all’anno 1478, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 798 [= 7486].

[63] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1432, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2560 [= 12452].

[64] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1441, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2563 [= 12455].

[65] Anon., Cronaca dall’origine di Venezia sino all’anno 1442, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 550 [= 8496].

[66] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della Città sino all’anno 1458, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 794 [= 8503]. Personally, I consulted the microfilm Pos. Marc. 143, the only available at Marciana for the chronicle of Zorzi Dolfin. Unfortunately, the microfilm comes to an end during the Doge Giovanni Badoer, in 892. For the referrals to the Fourth Crusade, I relied upon the notes delivered by Anne-Laure Keiser from Paris, whom I am to express my gratitude. These notes only specify the pages 185-190 as a whole for the entire episode of the Fourth Crusade, that is why I am not able to mention the precised page for a quotation or another.

[67] Anon., Cronaca Veneziana dalla fondazione della Città fino al 1444, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 46 [= 7603].

[68] Anon., Cronaca Veneta dall’anno 1400 fino al 1684, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 80 [= 8026].

[69] Anon., Cronaca breve Veneziana dalla origine di Venezia sino all’anno 1465 [in miscellanea], Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 628a  [= 8049].

[70] Daniele Barbaro. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1275, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2554 [= 12446].

[71] Anon., Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1556, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 2580 [= 12472].

[72] Girolamo Savina. Cronaca Veneta dal principio della Città sino al 1616, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 134 [= 8035].

[73] Anon., Atoria Veneta dalla fondazione della Republica sino all’anno 1750, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. VII. 1833 [= 8376].

[74] Carile, La cronachistica veneziana (secoli XIII-XVI) di fronte alla spartizione della Romania nel 1204, Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1969.

[75] Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante (edited by G. L. Fr. Tafel and G. M. Thomas) [hereafter, Tafel-Thomas], vol. I: 814-1205, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964, documents CXIX: “Pacta inita inter dominum Henricum Ducem Venetie, et Bonifacium marchionem Montisferrati, et Balduinum comitem Flandriensem, et Ludovicum comitem Blesensem, in captione urbis Constantinopolitane”: 444-449 (446-447) and CXX: “Pactum inter Henricum Dandulo Ducem Venetie, et Bonifacium marchionem Montisferrati, ac Balduinum comitem Flandrie, et Ludovicum comitem Blesensem pro captione urbis Constantinopolitane”: 449-451 (450).

[76] Robert of Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople (translated from the old French by Edgar Holmes McNeal), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969 [hereafter, Clari]: 91.

[77] According to Edmond Faral, in [Geoffrey of] Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople (edited and translated by Faral), 2 vols., Paris: Les belles lettres, 1938-1939 [hereafter, Villehardouin]: II, 35, note 1; 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 (144).

[78] Villehardouin: II, 35.

[79] Chronicum Gallicum ineditum, in Tafel-Thomas, I: 328-358 [hereafter, Chronicum Gallicum] (354).

[80] Pseudo-Giustinian: 138-141 (139, for the particular passage).

[81] M 2581: 91a-92b (91b): “[...], et senza strepito di esse etiamdio 6 homini esser ellettj per parte nostra et 6 per la vostra: li qual astrettj de sagramento quello le die ellezer dello exercito lo qual li creda meio saver tegnir et megio poder tegnir et mecon saver ordinar la terra et lo Imperio allo honor de diio et della Santa Romana gliesia et delo Imperio; et se in uno li sera concordevollj quelle nuj devemo aver in imperador el qual queli concordevolmente avera elleto ma se 6 in una parte et 6 in una altra parte se havera concordado de esse metera la sorte, et sovra quello che la sorte chazera dovemo haver per imperador. E se plu sera de prima parte che de laltra, quello averemo imperador in lo qual la mazor parte avera consentido; se veramente plui parte sera cha do, sovra quello el qual la mazor parte se avera concordado sia imperador. [...] [emphasis mine]”. The other chronicle in category 1., that is M 2571: 103b mentions only that “tal patto fese lo Doxe con li contj entro dessi come la trovero in fin de questa cronicha scripto, [...]”; nevertheless, the text is not to be detected at the end of this manuscript, although it provides some other documents at the end of the manuscript: 465a-489a.

[82] Monacis: 138-139 (138); Caroldo: 145-146 (145).

[83] Navagero: 983-984 (983).

[84] A. Dandolo-extensa: 279: “[...], et postea sex pro parte eligi debeant, qui illum per maiorem partem eorum imperatorem eligant, quem suficienciorem cognoverint, [...]”, P. Dolfin: 326b-327a (translating A. Dandolo-extensa word by word): “E dapoi debbiamo esser selecti sei per parte, i qual per la maggior parte de loro elezano imperadore colui, el qual cognoseranno esser più sufficiente, [...].

[85] M 1577: 262-268 (264); pseudo-Zancaruolo: clxxxxj b-clxxxxij b (clxxxxij a); pseudo-Erizzo: 107b.

[86] Villehardouin: II, 61-67; Clari: 113-115; The Capture of Constantinople. The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis (edited and translated by Alfred J. Andrea), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997 [hereafter, Gunther]: 114; “Devastatio Constantinopolitana”, in Chroniques Gréco-Romanes inédites ou peu connues (edited by Charles Hopf), Berlin: Weidmann, 1873: 86-92 [hereafter, Devastatio] (92); Chronicum Gallicum: 357; Corpus Chronicorum Flandriae, in Tafel-Thomas, I: 293-304 [hereafter, Corpus Flandriae] (300); O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates (translated by Harry J. Magoulias), Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984 [hereafter, Choniates]: 327-328; “Chronista Novgorodensis”, in Chroniques Gréco-Romanes, cit.: 93-98 [hereafter, Novgorod] (98); Ibn El-Athîr, Histoire des Atabes de Mosul (translated by Car. Joh. Tornberg), in Tafel-Thomas, III: 459-462 [hereafter, Ibn El-Athîr].

[87] Villehardouin: II, 61 (“[...]; et a cel jor seroient eslit li .XII. sus qui seroit l’eslection.), II, 65 (“[...]; et furent eslit li doze, .VI. d’une part et .VI. d’autre.”; Devastatio: 92 (“Constituti sunt sex ex parte nostra, et sex ex parte Venetorum, quibus data est potestas eligendi imperatorem.”); Chronicum Gallicum: 357 (“Quant le gaaing fu departis, les barons s’assamblerent et nomeement les XII. qui devoient eslire l’Empereur.”). Gunther: 114 only mentioned the whole number (“[...], it occurred to everyone to transfer the burden and power of election to twelve men who were highly regarded by everyone for integrity and considered to have good judgement.”)

[88] Corpus Flandriae: 300 (“Ordinatis ergo diligenter, quae disponenda erant, ut poscebat rerum eventus, nostri ad electionem Imperatoris unanimiter et deuote procedunt. Et omni ambitione seclusa, venerabiles episcopos Suessioniensem, Trecensem, Halusdatensem [sic!] dominumque Bethleemitanum, qui a partibus transmarinis auctoritate apostolica ibi fuerat delegatus, Aconensem electum abbatemque Lucedii, Imperatoris sub Domino constituunt electores.”)

[89] Gunther: 114 (“they began to discuss the issue of establishing a king”); Novgorod: 98 (“Die vero nono Maii clerici creaverunt imperatorem Latinum comitem Flandriae [...]”).

[90] Choniates: 328 (“The five noblest candidates from among the French and Lombard nations were chosen, and likewise five from among the Venetians.”)

[91] Clari: 113 (“Afterwards it came about that all the counts and the high men [...] said to one another that they ought to decide on an emperor and ought to choose their ten electors, and they told the doge of Venice to choose his ten.”)

[92] Clari: 114.

[93] Andrea, in Gunther: 174, note 260.

[94] Clari: 113.

[95] Clari: 115.

[96] Choniates: 323-326.

[97] Chronique de la conquête de Constantinople et de l’établissement des Français en Morée (translated by J. A. Buchon), Paris: Verdière, 1825 [hereafter, Morea]: 69 (“Ils choisirent douze chefs, tous très-habiles et très-sages; [...]”. Still, this later source eliminated the Venetians amongst the electors: “[...] six étaient prélats [arciereiV, in the original Greek], et six autres étaient chevaliers [flampouriaroi, in original].

[98] Paolo Rannusio Venetiano, Della guerra di Costantinopoli per la restitutione de gl’imperatori Comneni fatta da’ signori Venetiani et Francesi l’anno MCCIV. Libri sei (translated from Latin by Girolamo Rannusio), Venice: Domenico Nicolini, 1604 [hereafter, Ramusio]: 99. The work would be also published in its original Latin form twice, in 1609 and 1634. For Paolo Ramusio, see 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 di Venezia 2 (2000): 51-120 (especially 63-81).

[99] Andrea Moresini [sic!], L’Imprese et espeditioni di Terra Santa, et l’Acquisto fatto dell’Imperio di Constantinopoli dalla Serenissima Republica di Venetia, Venice: Antonio Pinelli, 1627: 89-279 [hereafter, Andrea Morosini] (208). For Andrea Morosini, see Marin, op. cit.: 79-80. Unfortunately, another original Venetian chronicle dealing exclusively with the Fourth Crusade, unpublished, came abruptly to an end, suggesting thus that the pages narrating the events subsequent to the preparations for the second siege of Constantinople were lost, see Anon., Storia della Conquista di Constantinopoli e fatta da’ Venetiani e da’ Francesi, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, manuscript It. XI. 152 [= 6253] (in miscellanea): 1-203.

[100] Andrea Morosini: 208.

[101] Villehardouin: II, 67; Clari: 115; Andrea Morosini: 214.

[102] Tafel-Thomas, I, document CXXII: “Literae Balduini Imperatoris ad Papam.”: 501-511 [hereafter, Baldwin] (507-508); the text, also in Patrologia Latina (ed. by J. P. J. Migne), Paris, 1855, vol. 215, document CLII: 447-454 (451).

[103] Corpus Flandriae: 300 (see supra, note 87).

[104] I do not consider here the works presenting the election of Baldwin in different wider contexts, so that they simply mention it, without any additional detail, see M. S. de Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan, I, Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1861: 165; Camillo Manfroni, Storia della marina italiana dalle invasioni barbariche al trattato di Ninfeo (anni di C. 400-1261), Livorno: R. Accademia Navale, 1899: 338; W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-âge (édition française par Furcy Raynaud), I, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1983 [1885-1886]: 269; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems, 1997 [1907] [=]; Achille Luchaire, Innocent III. La Question d’Orient (second edition), Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1911: 130; Jean Longnon, Les Français d’outre-mer au moyen-age. Essai sur l’expansion française dans le bassin de la Méditerranée, Paria: Perrin et Cie, 1929: 203; Paul Lemerle, Philippe et la Macédoine Orientale à l’époque chrétienne et byzantine. Recherches d’histoire et d’archéologie, Paris: E. de Boccard, 1945: 177; Robert Lee Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 226-303 (227); Paul Alphandéry, La Chrétienté et l’Idée de Croisade, II: Recommencements nécessaires (XIIe-XIIIe siècles) (ed. by Alphonse Dupront), Paris: Albin Michel, 1959: 76; Aziz S. Atiya, Crusade, Commerce and Culture, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962: 83; Giorgio Fedalto, Il patriarcato latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261), Studia Patavina. Rivista di scienze religiose 18 (1971), 2: 391-457 (409); Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204-1261): le pouvoir impérial (L’empereur, les régents, l’impératrice)”, Byzantina 6 (1974): 89-154 (93); Nicolas Oikonomides, “La décomposition de l’empire byzantin a la veille de 1204 et les origines de l’empire de Nicée: a propos de la Partitio Romaniae”, in XVe Congrès International d’Etudes Byzantines, Rapports et co-rapports. I/1, Athènes, 1976, reprinted in Idem, Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade. Studies, Texts, Monuments, Hampshire, Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1992: XX: 3-28 (5-6); Fedalto, Le chiese d’Oriente da Giustiniano alla caduta di Costantinopoli, Milan: Jaca Book, 1991 [1983]: 162; Penny J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of America, 1991: 99; Jane Sayers, Innocent III. Leader of Europe 1198-1216, New York: Longman, 1994: 175; Mario Gallina, Potere e società a Bisanzio. Dalla fondazione di Costantinopoli al 1204, Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1995: 322; Nicholas A. Cooke, The Sack of Constantinople, 2000 [=]; Sanderson Beck, Crusaders, Greeks, and Muslims, 2001 [=]; Michele Ducas Puglia, Veneziani intraprendenti. Il business della prima e quarta crociata [=].

[105] P. Daru, Histoire de la République de Venise, vol. I, Paris: Firmin Didot, Père et Fils, 1821: 332; Louis Bréhier, L’Eglise et l’Orient au moyen age. Les Croisades, sixième edition, Paris: Lecoffre, 1928: 167; Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée, Paris: Payot, 1949: 49; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (translated from German by Joan Hussey, with a foreword by Peter Charanis, revised edition), New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969 [1952]: 423; Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204-1261”, in A History of the Crusades (ed. by Kenneth M. Setton), vol. II: The Later Crusades 1189-1311 (ed. by Wolff and Henry W. Hazard), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962: 187-233 (188-189); Francesco Cognasso, Storia delle crociate, [Milan]: dall’Oglio, 1967: 741; Donald E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople. 1201-1204, [Leicester]: Leicester University Press, 1978: 150. This position had been adopted also by Andrea Morosini: 209 (“l’esser stato capo dell’essercito terrestre, et haver principalmente guidato l’impresa.”)

[106] Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; N. Iorga, France de Constantinople et de Morée, Bucarest: [n. ed.], 1935: 33; Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 423; Carile, “Partitio Terrarum Imperii Romanie”, Studi Veneziani 7 (1965): 125-183 (138); Idem, Per una storia dell’impero latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261) (second edition), Bologna: Pàtron, 1978: 184; John Godfrey, 1204: The Unholy Crusade, Oxford: [Oxford University Press], 1980: 134; Donald M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations, [Cambridge]: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 144-145; Jonathan Riley-Smith, Breve storia delle crociate, [Milan]: Arnaldo Mondadori, 1994 [original edition, The Crusades – A Short History, 1987]: 183. See also Andrea Morosini: 209 (“la congiuntione, che teneva col sangue Imperiale”). Among the contemporary sources, it was Clari: 59-66 that presented in detail Conrad of Montferrat’s relationship with Byzantium.

[107] Schaff, op. cit.: note 456; Charles Diehl and Lysimaque Oeconomos, in Histoire du Moyen Age, vol. IX, part 1: L’Europe Orientale de 1081 à 1453 (par Diehl, Oeconomos, Rodolphe Guilland, René Grousset), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1945: 136; Lemerle, op. cit.: 178; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189; Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 139; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades, Cambridge: [Cambridge] University Press, 1966: 124; Queller, op. cit.: 150; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 185; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145. The event is noticed by Villehardouin: II, 69; Clari: 119; Chronicum Gallicum: 357; Choniates: 329. These sources placed the respective matrimonial affair subsequent to the elections, so that it could not be a reason to promote Boniface as a more convenient candidate than Baldwin.

[108] Iorga, op. cit.: 33-34; Faral, loc. cit.: 63, note 2; Longnon, op. cit.: 49; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189; Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 135; Queller, op. cit.: 150; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 176; Godfrey, op. cit.: 134; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145. This detail is according to the testimony offered by Gunther: 107-108. It is also Devastatio: 92 informing that, after Murtzuphlos’ fled from Constantinople, “Sequente die Greci omnes ceciderunt ante pedes marchionis, et se et sua omnia in manus eius reddiderunt”.

[109] Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Diehl and Oeconomos, op. cit.: 135-136. Beside that it was attested by none of the contemporary sources, this argument is not quite valid. The same criterion of being Italian could very well provoke also dislike among the other Italian crusaders.

[110] Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 423. See also Ramusio: 100 (“[Boniface, n.n.] non era inferiore ad alcuno de’ Baroni in virtu, et in consiglio.”); Andrea Morosini: 209 (“Nel Marchese Bonifatio concorrevano la molt’auttorità, la peritia dell’arte militare, [...].”)

[111] Godfrey, op. cit.: 134; Anon., The Sack of Constantinople. The Conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in AD 1203/1204 [=].

[112] Runciman, op. cit.: 121; Queller, op. cit.: 150. See also Faral, loc. cit.: II, 63, note 2: “Boniface, chef élu de l’armée, pouvait passer pour le candidat désigné; [...].”

[113] Diehl and Oeconomos, op. cit.: 135.

[114] Bréhier, op. cit.: 167.

[115] See also Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145 (“For the future of the Latin Empire which was about to be created the appointment of Boniface might have been the more promising.”).

[116] Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 135.

[117] For instance, A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire. 324-1453, vol. II, Madison, Milwaukee, London: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1952 [1917-1925]: 462.

[118] Daru, op. cit.: 332 (“le second [Baudouin, n.n.], [...] était le plus puissant des princes de l’armée.”); S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia (second edition), vol. II, Venice: Giusto Fuga, 1912 [1853-1861]: 180 (“per le proprie terre popolate di armigera gente e per le sue relazioni in Germania ed in Francia”); Faral, loc. cit.: II, 63, note 2 (“[...]; mais Baudouin qui avait beaucoup fait pour la croisade, se recommandait aussi bien par ses moeurs que par sa puissance, [...]”), 67, note 1 (“[...] et les aurait décidés en faveur de Baudouin, comme étant le plus riche en troupes.”; Longnon, op. cit.: 49 (“Baudouin s’était acquis des sympathies par sa bravoure, sa piété, sa charité”); Runciman, op. cit.: 124 (“Baldwin IX, Count of Flanders and Hainault, a man of high lineage and great wealth”); Queller, op. cit.: 150 (“Baldwin was the more powerful and had a larger body of troops; he had won the respect of all for his valor and his piety.”); Godfrey, op. cit.: 134 (“But Baldwin had behind him the Flemings and the French, who together constituted the bulk of the army, and as a less-hearted supporter of the diversion project he was probably favoured by the more ‘idealistic’ elements amongst the Crusaders.”). Baldwin’s moral qualities were also underlined by Choniates: 328: “He [Baldwin, n.n.] was, furthermore, devout in his duties to God, and was reported to be temperate in his personal conduct; for as long as he was separated from his dear wife, he never so much as cast a glance at another woman. In singing the praises of God and in the face of every distress, he was unwavering. Most important, twice a week in the evening he had a herald proclaim that no one who slept within the palace was to have sexual intercourse with any woman who was not his legal wife.” When exposing the speech delivered by the Bishop of Soissons announcing the result, Clari: 115 considered that he mentioned that “We have chosen one whom we ourselves knew to be a good man for it, one in whom rule is well placed and who is right well able to maintain the law, a man of gentle birth and a high man. We will name him to you. He is Baldwin, count of Flanders.” However, when presenting the same speech, Villehardouin: II, 67 is different than Clari and also the respective eulogistic attributes given to Baldwin are missing, gap regarded by Albert Pauphilet, “Sur Robert de Clari”, Romania 57 (1931): 289-311 (301) in these words: “Mais il était naturel aussi que l’évêque [de Soissons, n.n.] justifiât le choix de Baudouin par quelques éloges (Robert de Clari); il est piquant que Villehardouin ait supprimé ce passage: il n’était pas de ce clan-là”. Certainly, it was Corpus Flandriae that regarded Baldwin as the main character in the events (see for instance 296, where Baldwin is named “Balduinus vero Comes Flandrensium ac ammiralis Francorum crucesignatorum”), while Boniface appeared only episodically, along with all the other crusaders. See also Andrea Morosini: 209, when presenting the three candidates’ advantages (“Di Balduino Conte di Fiandra, si stimavano particolari conditioni una somma bontà, e religione, la modestia, la placideza, e benignità de’ costumi.”), and ibidem: 212-213 (“[...], ove nel Balduino di Fiandrea non solo non cadevano rispetti tali, mà molte conditioni per beneficio così della Republica, come della Christianità tutta concorrevano: li suoi stati erano lontani dall’Italia, non havevano communione alcuna con la Republica, la natione Francese per molt’anno auuezza à passar’ oltra mare, / per quantità, e qualità di militie atta à sostenere, e mantiner l’Imperio, e si poteva anco prometter li aiuti delli Rè di Francia, li quali più volte con immortal gloria de nomi loro si erano nell’imprese dell’Oriente impiegati, à che si aggiungeva la qualità della natura, e li costumi del Conte, [...]”; then, Andrea Morosini: 213 followed the description offered by Choniates, adding only that “[Balduino] amava, e portava somma osservanza al Doge andolo, e grande stima ne faceva, così per l’età, come per la molta sua prudenza, honorandolo come so padre stato gli fosse.

[119] Daru, op. cit.: 332; Leopoldo Usseglio, I marchesi di Monferrato in Italia ed in Oriente durante i secoli XII e XIII (edited by Carlo Patrucco), vol. II, Turin: Miglietta, 1926: 243; Longnon, op. cit.: 50; Cognasso, op. cit.: 742. It was Choniates: 328 to specify Baldwin’s age at the moment of his election: “Baldwin was not yet thirty-two years old.”

[120] Roberto Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, Florence: Giunti Martello, 1981: 193.

[121] Ramusio: 101-102 (“Ogn’uno finalmente, da una speranza incerta, rivolto ad una certa allegrezza, faceva festa maravigliosa, per haver da Dio ottenuto per Imperatore vn Prencipe di famiglia antichissima, nobilissimo sopra tutte l’altre, et discendente da Carlo Magno (dal quale ha origine la casa di Hainault), oltre di ciò chiarissimo non meno / per il parentado di Filippo Rè di Francia, che per la giustizia, et per la sapienza sua.”)

[122] Gunther: 114. This optic would be retaken in a certain moment by Ramusio: 99 (“perche ogn’uno di loro sopra tutti gli altri era giudicato degno dell’Imperio.”), who, in a first instance, seems to reduce all the debates to these two candidates, following the pattern imposed by Villehardouin.

[123] Eduard Winkelmann, Philip von Schwaben und Otto IV von Braunschweig, vol. I, Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1873: 524-528; Longnon, op. cit.: 49; Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, cit.: 48, note 1; Cognasso, op. cit.: 741.

[124] E. Gerland, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel, Homburg von der Höhe, 1905: 4; J. K. Fotheringham, “Genoa and the Fourth Crusade”, The English Historical Review 25 (1910): 26-57 (35); Diehl, Un république patricienne. Venise, Paris: Ernest Flammarion, 1915: 52; Vasiliev, op. cit.: 462; Longnon, op. cit.: 50; Usseglio, op. cit.: 243 (“[...], e la scelta può dirsi restava in mano a Dandolo”); Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Louis Halphen, L’essor de l’Europe (XIe-XIIIe siècles) (second edition), Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1941 [1932]: 284; Diehl and Oeconomos, op. cit.: 136; Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, Archivio Veneto, 5th series, 48 (1951): 1-52 (48); Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 423; 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 [= Mélanges Grégoire], IV, Brussels, 1953, reprinted in Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London: Variorum, 1976: X: 539-573 (542); 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: 75; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189; Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 135 (the disputes “offrirono un favorevole terreno di manovra alla diplomazia veneziana.”); Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades (second edition, translated by John Gillingham), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 [1965]: 204; Cognasso, op. cit.: 742; Queller, op. cit.: 150; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 179 (the situation “offrì alla diplomazia veneziana un ideale terreno di manovra”), 183 (about the “posizione arbitrale dei veneziani”);.John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice, [London]: Penguin Books, 1983 [1977-1981]: 140 (underlining that “the new Emperor owed his elevation to the Venetian Republic”); Runciman, op. cit.: 124; Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976: 13; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145; Anon., “The effects of the Fourth Crusade” [=]. (“[...], Venice was the dominating power determined to direct affairs in her own interests. Thus the doge contrived to get a non­-Venetian Emperor, Baldwin of Flanders and of Hainault, elected”); Steven Lowe, The Fourth Crusade and the Fall of Constantinople [=]; Anon., The Sack of Constantinople, cit. (“In the following weeks a curious election took place in which the conquerors finally decided upon a new emperor. an election it might have been, but it was self-evident that it was the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, who actually made the decision as to who should rule.”); Anon., Venice Republic: The Middle Ages [=]. This optic could originate in Choniates: 328, who underlined that, once Baldwin elected, “it was common knowledge that Dandolo had manipulated the outcome through fraud and deceit.” This position comes to disclaim one more time the Venetian Doge, regarded by the Byzantine historian as the main reason for the calamities of Byzantium. However, the modern historians’ viewpoint could also come from the simple calculation of the electors’ number, relying upon the equal number of the Venetian and non-Venetian electors, allowing thus to the Venetian side to determine the final decision. It seems that it was Choniates’ text that influenced Andrea Morosini: 210, when he declared that “Questa elettione per commun consenso principalmente dependè dal Doge Dandolo.”, but naturally eliminating the expression “through fraud and deceit” from the Byzantine chronicler; on the contrary, Morosini accomplished the depiction by emphasizing Dandolo’s patriotic qualities (ibidem: 210-211).

[125] Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 422.

[126] Ibidem: 423 (“a united bloc”); Mayer, op. cit: 204 (“the united Venetian front”); Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189 (“the Venetian, all laymen, unanimously, opposed him [Boniface, n.n.]”), 189 (“To a man the six Venetians therefore favored count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainault”); Thiriet, op. cit.: 75 (“les six Vénitiens, naturellement très unis”); Cognasso, op. cit.: 741 (“blocco veneziano”); Frederic C. Lane, Storia di Venezia, Turin: Einaudi, 1991 [original English edition, Venice. A Maritime Republic, [Baltimore]: The John Hopkins University Press, 1973]: 52 (“i Veneziani votarono tutti per Baldovino, [...]”); Queller, op. cit.: 150 (“the six Venetians formed a solid front”).

[127] Nicol, Byzantium, Venice and the Fourth Crusade [=].

[128] Edwin Pears, The Fall of Constantinople being the Story of the Fourth Crusade, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1885: 368; Fotheringham, op. cit.: 36; Usseglio, op. cit.: 243; Longnon, op. cit.: 50; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189; Idem, “A New Document”, cit.: 542; Thiriet, op. cit.: 75; Runciman, op. cit.: 121; Jean Dufournet, “Villehardouin et Clari – Juges de Boniface de Montferrat”, Revue des langues romanes 78 (1969), 1: 29-58 (44); Setton, op. cit.: 13; Lane, op. cit.: 52; Queller, op. cit.: 150; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 184; Anon., Venice Republic: The Middle Ages, cit.

[129] See Fotheringham, op. cit.: 36-37.

[130] Longnon, op. cit.: 50, note 5.

[131] Ibidem: 49; Cognasso, op. cit.: 741.

[132] Queller, op. cit.: 150.

[133] See supra, note 101.

[134] Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 138-139; Idem, Per una storia, cit.: 184.

[135] Daru, op. cit.: 334 (“[...] qu’ils [les Vénitiens, n.n.] craignaient un si grand accroisement de puissance, donné à un prince déjà établi dans le nord de l’Italie.”); Gerland, op. cit.: 2-3; Vasiliev, op. cit.: 462; (“[...]; he [Dandolo, n.n.] judged Boniface too powerful and his possessions situated too near Venice.”); Usseglio, op. cit.: 243 (that Boniface or one of his successors could very well “dal troppo vicino Monferrato colpir la Repubblica al cuore attaccandola direttamente per terra”); Bréhier, op. cit.: 167 (“trop puissant”); Faral, loc. cit.: II, 67, note 1 (“[...], les Vénitiens auaraient écarté la candidature de Boniface par crainte de rendre trop puissant leur voisin italien.”); Diehl and Oeconomos, op. cit.: 136 (“trop puissant”); Longnon, op. cit.: 50 (“il [le doge, n.n.] craignait de voir grandir la puissance du marquis, dont les terres en Lombardie étaient proches de celles de Venise”); Runciman, op. cit.: 121 (“too ambitious”); Cognasso, op. cit.: 742 (“Parve al doge Dandolo ed ai suoi colleghi troppo pericoloso il marchese di Monferrato per i suoi domini nella valle del Po ?”); Dufournet, op. cit.: 44 (“le doge Dandolo [...] craignit que l’importance du marquis ne s’accrût en Italie, s’il devenait empereur”); Queller, op. cit.: 150; Setton, op. cit.: 13 (“the power and prowess of Boniface of Montferrat”); Lowe, op. cit. (“two dangerous”); Anon., The Sack of Constantinople, cit. (“But Boniface was a mighty warrior knight with powerful allies in Europe.”). On the contrary, Romanin, op. cit.: 180 considered Boniface as a “principe di breve terra”, and thus without the material means to sustain the empire as emperor, and also Iorga, op. cit.: 34 remarked that “le marquis ne disposait que d’une très faible partie de l’armée”). Anyhow, Dandolo’s fear for the supposed Boniface’s increasing power and ambition relies especially upon the description offered by Choniates: 328, who is full of details with regard to this interpretation of the Italian political affairs: “His [Dandolo’s, n.n.] greatest concern was that the future emperor’s allotted lands be extremely remote from the borders of Venice, so that should emperor and Venetians ever have a falling out, the emperor would not be able to summon his greater forces from nearby and easily penetrate Venice’s borders, overrunning and plundering these with impunity; he [Dandolo, n.n.] knew that Marquis Boniface, who came from Lombardy, had the power to do all these things. Lombardy lies on the seaboard, and one can easily sail thence to the Roman empire. Since Lombardy borders on Venice, it could easily inflict grievous injuries on the Venetians.” A similar demonstration, in Andrea Morosini: 212 that once again simply translated from Choniates’ text.

[136] Fotheringham, op. cit.: 35, note 36.

[137] Lodovico Streit, “Venezia e la quarta crociata” (translation by R. Fulin, according to Venedig und die Wendung des vierten Kreuzzuges gegen Konstantinopel, Anklam: Krüger, 1877), Archivio Veneto 8 (1878), 1: 46-94 and 239-271 (265); Gerland, op. cit.: 2-3; Mayer, op. cit.: 204; Runciman, op. cit.: 124.

[138] Runciman, op. cit.: 124.

[139] Ibidem: 124.

[140] Thiriet, op. cit.: 75.

[141] Diehl and Oeconomos, op. cit.: 136.

[142] Diehl, Une république patricienne, cit.: 52; Vasiliev, op. cit.: 462; Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Hans Wolter and Hans-Georg Beck, Storia della chiesa, vol. V, part 1: Civitas medievale, Milan: Jaca Book, 1976 [original German edition, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. V: Die mittelalterliche Kirche. Vom kirchlichen Hochmittelalter bis zum Vorabend der Reformation, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1968]: 218.

[143] Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 423

[144] Longnon, op. cit.: 50; Dufournet, op. cit.: 44.

[145] Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 139.

[146] Anon., The Sack of Constantinople, cit.

[147] These works come in direct contradiction with those that, on the contrary, regard Baldwin’s power as being one of his advantages in order to be elevated on the throne (!), see supra, note 113.

[148] Anon., The Sack of Constantinople, cit.

[149] Choniates: 328.

[150] Runciman, op. cit.: 121. See also Diehl, Une république patricienne, cit.: 51 (“Et il voulut enfin que cet empire, féodalement organisé, fut assez faible pour ne point gêner Venise.”).

[151] Fotheringham, op. cit.: 35; reiterated in Idem, Marco Sanudo conqueror of the Archipelago, 1205-1211, Oxford, 1915: 22-24 (for the whole demonstration). The same opinion, in Setton, op. cit.: 13.

[152] Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 184.

[153] “Crusades”, from “The Catholic Encyclopedia”, 1913 (transcribed by Douglas J. Potter) [=] (see also and (“Dandolo, Doge of Venice, refused the honour”); Vasiliev, op. cit.: 462; Eugenio Musatti, Storia di Venezia (third edition), vol. I, Milan: Fratelli Treves, 1936: 107 (“il Doge, il cui pareva propendessero i voti, sarebbesi dimostrato per varie ragioni contrario alla sua nomina”); Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, cit.: 48 (“Eliminata la persona del vechhio Enrico Dandolo, messa in discussione solo da testimonianze tardive, restava in lizza le candidature di” Baldwin and Boniface); Wolff, “A New Document”, cit.: 542 (“Dandolo was not interested in obtaining for Venice the imperial title”); Cessi, “L’eredità di Enrico Dandolo”, Archivio Veneto, 5th series, 67 (1960): 1-25 (9: “Non è il caso di insistere sopra una presunta rinuncia da parte del Dandolo alla dignità imperiale, attestata da tarde testimonianze, che hanno deformato più legitiima tradizione.”); Andrea Da Mosto, I dogi di Venezia nella vita publica e privata, Milan: Aldo Martello, [1960]: 73 (“Fu eletto Imperatore Baldovino, conte di Fiandra, per non aver voluto i veneziani che l’eletto fosse il Dandolo, come avrebbero desiderato i crociati francesi”); Edgar H. McNeal (†) and Wolff, “The Fourth Crusade”, in A History of the Crusades (ed. by Setton), vol. II, cit.: 153-185 (184: “[...], the treaty of March 1204 indicates that Dandolo had little interest in the tile of emperor”); Godfrey: 134 (“Dandolo himself had no wish to be emperor”); Giorgio Cracco, Un “altro mondo”. Venezia nel medioevo. Dal secolo XI al secolo XIV, Torino: UTET, 1986: 61 (“Enrico Dandolo – che secondo certe fonti rifiutò il titolo di imperator”); Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145 (“The Doge was prepared to forgo the honour of becoming a feudal monarch on the throne of Constantinople”).

[154] Noel des Vergers, “Venise”, in Encyclopédie moderne. Dictionnaire abrégé des sciences, des lettres, des arts, vol. 27, Paris: Firmin Didot frères, 1851: 281-319 (291, proposing a reason of Venetian pride, “que le titre de doge d’une république comme Venise était supérieur à tous les autres titres”); Diehl, Une république patricienne, cit.: 52; Usseglio, op. cit.: 242; Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Iorga, op. cit.: 28; Norwich, op. cit.: 141; Nicol, Byzantium, Venice and the Fourth Crusade, cit. See also Morea: 71 (in the speech of Dandolo, see infra, note 221) and especially Andrea Morosini: 210-212.

[155] Daru, op. cit.: 332. This opinion should be put into connection with the one offered by Choniates: 328: “[...] he himself [Dandolo, n.n.] was maimed of sight and for this reason was excluded from the list of imperial candidates, [...].” These arguments would be reiterated by Andrea Morosini: 210, which would attach, in exchange, some others, in order to emphasize the doge’s positive features, see supra, note 149.

[156] Luchaire, op. cit.: 211: “La vraie raison, c’est que Henri Dandolo ne se souciait pas d’endosser les charges et les responsabilités du pouvoir suprême: il aimait bien mieux n’en avoir que les profits.

[157] Daru, op. cit.: 332-333; Romanin, op. cit.: 180; Longnon, op. cit.: 50; Usseglio, op. cit.: 242, 243; Godfrey, op. cit.: 134.

[158] This option would be developed by Ramusio: 100 (“quando fossero stati tralasciati i Francesi, soldati vecchi, famigliari, vassalli, debitori, et amici di Teobaldo Conte di Campagna, non restaua sotto la sua [del Marchese, n.n.] condotta altra gente, che quella del Monferato, della Lombardia, et del Piemonte; nè meno poteva nel suo Marchesato farne dell’altra. All’incontro Baldovino n’haueua gran copia, et poteva cavarne molta altra dalla Fiandra in particolare, et d’Hainault, [...]; la qual cosa non poteva esser se non di grande utile, et di salute ancora all’Imperio dell’Oriente.”).

[159] Runciman, op. cit.: 121.

[160] des Vergers, “Venise”: 291; Diehl, Une république patricienne, cit.: 52; Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Da Mosto, op. cit.: 73. Faral, loc. cit.: II, 67, note 1 and Longnon, op. cit.: 50 considered that the proposal had come from Névelon of Soissons and Garnier of Troyes, information retaken certainly from Paolo Ramusio. Indeed, this latter, in his reference to the “annali Venetiani” described the episode in this manner: “Le cose descritte [da gli annali Venetiani, n.n.] sono queste. Si legge, che i Vescoui di Soissons, et di Troia, misurando l’elettione dell’Imperatore più con l’utilità della Christiana Republica, che con le qualità ò di Baldovino, ò di Bonifacio, hebbero in animo di promover col voto loro all’Imperio il Dandolo, Prencipe di approvata virtù, et di bontà essemplare, poiche à tale effetto valevano molto i sei voti de’ Venetiani. Ma Pantaleon Barbo, che era gentilhuomo savissimo, libero nel parlare, schietto nel consigliare, amatore del diritto, et del vero, et zelante della patria, et della Christiana religione più di quello, che altri si possa persuadere, solo frà tutti contradicendo, disse: [...]” (Ramusio: 100), and the speech follows, see infra, note 264. However, Ramusio did not nominate the respective “Venetian annals”. Personally, I have not been able to detect the invoked intervention of the two non-Venetian bishops anywhere in the Venetian tradition.

[161] Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, cit.: 193, with the supplementary explanation that “Può essere che l’offerta sia stata fatta”. Previously, R. Cessi, excluding ab initio the doge’s candidacy, had excluded at the same time the “later testimonies” attesting it, see Idem, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”: 48; Idem, “L’eredità”, cit.: 9, note 1. Nicol, Byzantium, Venice and the Fourth Crusade, cit., Setton, op. cit.: 9-10 and Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 125 referred to the chronicle of Martino da Canal in different contexts, still they did not omit to regard it as “a falsification of the facts” (Setton, op. cit.: 10) or “a blatant rewriting of history” (Nicol, op. cit.: 125).

[162] Luchaire, op. cit.: 211; Iorga, op. cit.: 28, who did not exclude that this proposal has been real; McNeal, in Clari: 114, note 122; Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 138.

[163] Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189, note 2, specifying that “Though very interesting, this account of events [Trevisan’s, n.n.] cannot be accepted unconfirmed, in the face of the general agreement among other sources that the doge never wanted the office of emperor for himself or any other Venetian. But in the reasoning attributed to Octavian Querini [Pantaleone Barbo, n.n.] by Nicholas Trevisano we may perhaps catch an echo of the doge’s own thinking.”

[164] Longnon, op. cit.: 50, note 3; Cessi, “L’eredità”: 9, note 1.

[165] Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 183.

[166] Andrea Morosini: 209.

[167] Ibidem: 209.

[168] Ibidem: 210 (“questa egualità di meriti”).

[169] Daru, op. cit.: 333 (since he made, on another occasion, that is the Doge Pietro Ziani’s proposal to settle the Venetian state structure to Constantinople, clear references to the chronicle of Daniele Barbaro, see ibidem: 380-394, one could very well suppose that P. Daru referred to it also in this particular case); des Vergers, “Venise”: 291; Romanin, op. cit.: 179-180; Usseglio, op. cit.: 243-244 (considering Pantaleone Barbo as “il portavoce di Dandolo”); Faral, loc. cit.: II, 67, note 1.

[170] Ramusio: 100 considered that “Per quanto fù creduto, i sei Elettori Venetiani inclinarono più facilmente alla persona di Baldovino, massimamente indotti dall’auttorità, et persuasi dalle ragioni di Pantaleone Barbo, collega loro, [...].” The expression of “As far as it was believed” at the beginning of the assertion demonstrates that the author had some doubts about this version. However, immediately in the next phrase, Ramusio would refer directly to “gli annali Venetiani, che non habbiamo tradotti fedelmente, [...]” and afterwards would depict the version launched by the traditional Venetian chronicles, see infra. On the other side, A. Morosini’s chronicle did not mention Pantaleone Barbo (although, it retook the almost same arguments, in order to demonstrate the reasons for the doge’s withdrawal, Andrea Morosini: 211-212).

[171] Diehl, op. cit.: 52; Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Da Mosto, op. cit.: 73; Cracco, op. cit.: 61 (“secondo certi fonti”).

[172] Clari: 113.

[173] Ibidem: 114.

[174] Andrea, in Gunther: 174, note 260.

[175] Choniates: 327. See also the critiques of Andrea Morosini: 208 with regard to this version.

[176] Carile, “Partitio, cit.: 138, note 76.

[177] Ibn El-Athîr: 461.

[178] Choniates: 327-328.

[179] Setton, op. cit.: 10.

[180] Cessi, “L’eredità”, cit.: 9.

[181] Ibidem: 9, note 1, adding that “Questa circostanza .è sufficiente a contraddire la vecchia leggenda della rinuncia del Dandolo alla dignità imperiale suffragata da tarde testimonianze prive di attendibilità; nè vale far appello, [...], al racconto del Ramusio, che ha contaminato tradizioni ormai corrotte dal tempo, per convalidare una versione, che non trova credito in nessuna fonte contemporanea.

[182] Thiriet, “Les chroniques vénitiennes de la Marcienne et leur importance pour l’histoire de la Romanie gréco-vénitienne”, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, publiés par l’École Française de Rome, 1954: 241-292.

[183] Fotheringham, Marco Sanudo: 41.

[184] Wolff, “A New Document”, cit.: 546.

[185] Ibidem: 543, note 5.

[186] Carile, La cronachistica, cit.: 177, note 1.

[187] David Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261): the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 43 (1993): 141-201 (142).

[188] Nicol, Byzantium, Venice and the Fourth Crusade, cit.

[189] Daru, op. cit.: 331; Buchon, in Morea: 68-69, note 1; Romanin, op. cit.: 179; Gerland, op. cit.: 5; Usseglio, op. cit.: 242; McNeal, in Clari: 114, note 122; Faral, “Geoffroy de Villehardouin. La question de sa sincerité”, Revue historique 177 (1936): 530-582 (575); Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 65, note 3; Longnon, op. cit.: 49-50; Cognasso, op. cit.: 741-742; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 182; Godfrey, op. cit.: 134.

[190] Andrea Morosini: 208.

[191] Daru, op. cit.: 331; Usseglio, op. cit.: 242; Bréhier, op. cit.: 167; Longnon, op. cit.: 49; Ostrogorsky, op. cit.: 423; Wolff, “The Latin Empire”, cit.: 189; Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 135-137; Cognasso, op. cit.: 741; Oikonomides, op. cit.: 5-6; Queller, op. cit.: 150; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 178-181; Godfrey, op. cit.: 134; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: 145. The contemporary sources insisted upon this disputes. While Villehardouin: II, 63 (“la grant discorde / the grand discord”), Chronicum Gallicum: 357 (“grant discort eut a celle election / there was a great discord at that election”) and Gunther: 114 (“after a good deal of deliberation”) were more reserved, Clari: 113-114 was full of details in this respect, while Morea: 69 indicated that “Cette déliberation fut des plus orageuses. Long-temps ils se débattirent de paroles, car ils ne s’entendaient par sur celui qu’ils devaient élever à la dignité d’empereur.” and that it was necessary for the Doge of Venice to intercede in order to calm down the spirits (ibidem: 73-75). On the contrary, Baldwin: 508 and Corpus Flandriae: 300 were naturally silent as regards the respective debates, considering that the election of Baldwin was “unanimiter et solemniter”.

[192] Cessi, “Venezia e la quarta crociata”, cit.: 47.

[193] Névelon de Chérisy, according to Carile, Per una storia, cit.

[194] Garnier de Traînel, according to ibidem: 182, note 28, quoting E. Gams, Series episcoporum: 281.

[195] Conrad von Krosigk, according to Carile, op. cit.: 182, note 29, quoting Gams, op. cit.: 516.

[196] Peter, according to Buchon, loc. cit.: 68, note 1; Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 65, note 3; Carile, op. cit.; Peter Capuano, according to Godfrey, op. cit.

[197] Jacques de Vitry, according to Daru, op. cit.; Jean Faicete de Noyon, according to Carile, op. cit.

[198] Peter, according to Buchon, loc. cit.: 69, note 1; Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 65, note 3; Carile, op. cit.; Godfrey, op. cit.

[199] Villehardouin : I, 6 (Garniers li evesques de Troies); Chronicum Gallicum: 328 (Garnier l’evesque de Troyes); Clari: 32; Corpus Flandriae: 295 (episcopus Suessionensis).

[200] Villehardouin: I, 10 (Nevelons li evesques de Soisons); Chronicum Gallicum: 329 (Nievles, l’evesques de Soissons); Clari: 32; Corpus Flandriae: 295 (episcopus Trecensis).

[201] Villehardouin: I, 75 (li evesques de Havestat); Chronicum Gallicum: 337 (l’evesque de Havestat). According to Clari: 32, the bishop of Halberstadt appeared since the very beginning.

[202] Villehardouin: I, 107 (Johans de Noion, qui era canceliers le conte Baudouin de Flandres); Chronicum Gallicum: 340 (maistre Jehan de Noyon, le chancelier le conte de Flandres). According to Clari: 32, “Master John of Noyon, who was elected to be the bishop of Acre” took the Cross since the very beginning.

[203] Andrea, in Gunther: 174, note 261.

[204] M. Kandel, “Quelques observations sur la Devastatio Constantinopolitana”, Byzantion 4 (1927-1928): 179-188 (184-185).

[205] Cf. Usseglio, op. cit.: 242. For the relationship between the two, see Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “The Cistercians in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and Greece, 1204-1276”, Traditio 14 (1958): 68.

[206] Cognasso, op. cit.: 742.

[207] On the contrary, A. Carile expressed the legate’s possible devotion to the Marquis, see Carile, “Partitio”, cit.: 137, note 71 (“tra questi elettori, [...], erano devoti al marchese Pietro di Locedio, Corrado di Halberstadt e forse il legato papale.”). On another occasion, the same author renounced to accredit the Papal legate as Boniface’s supporter, see Idem, Per una storia, cit.: 183 (Boniface was favored only by two electors, “dei quali uno fu l’abate di Lucedio e l’altro non il legato papale, a cause della milizia ghibellina del marchese, ma il vescovo di Halberstadt, sostenitore, come Bonifacio di Monferrato, di Filippo di Svevia.”). Riley-Smith, op. cit.: 183 considered that there were three of the electors to support Boniface of Montferrat.

[208] Daru, op. cit.: 331. This information was to be found out in Baldwin: 506.

[209] Daru, op. cit.; Romanin, op. cit. It is about a confusion with “the abbot of Loos in Flanders”, mentioned by Clari: 32.

[210] Longnon, op. cit.: 49, note 3.

[211] Buchon, loc. cit.: 69, note 1.

[212] Romanin, op. cit.: 179.

[213] Ramusio: 99. The two characters are not to be found in the initial lists of crusaders offered by Villehardouin or Clari.

[214] Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 65, note 3, still noticed that “La liste des six électeurs a été donnée différement par divers auteurs.

[215] Daru, op. cit.: 331; Romanin, op. cit.: 179; Usseglio, op. cit.: 242; Carile, Per una storia, cit.: 182 and Godfrey, op. cit.: 134.

[216] Navagero, in Daru, op. cit. and Godfrey, op. cit. Des Vergers, op. cit.: 291 omitted him, presenting only the other five names.

[217] Bartolomeo instead of Pantaleone, in Usseglio, op. cit. As for Carile, op. cit., it is mentioned that some of the Venetian chronicles substituted P. Barbo with a certain Domenico Barbaro. Personally, I detected this Domenico Barbaro in only one case, that is pseudo-Erizzo; moreover, it does not substitute Pantaleone Barbo, but Vitale Dandolo (!), see infra.

[218] Only Giovanni Baseglio, in des Vergers, op. cit. and Godfrey, op. cit. According to Carile, op. cit.: 182, note 27, the two were to be substituted by Enrico Dandolo in some chronicles.

[219] Ramusio: 99. The author made also the specification of his own sources: “Ne gli annali et nelle memorie Venetiane, che sono assai copiose et autentiche, vien notato questo particolare, [...]”. In addition, he attributed to Vitale Dandolo also his honorary title of cavalier.

[220] Ibidem: 99 (“Ma perche nel nome del sesto, i medesimi annali sono frà se alquanto discordi, [...]”). Then, he comes to the conclusion that “noi intorno à ciò non addurremo alcuna cosa di certo.

[221] Usseglio, op. cit.: 242, note 3, where it is also remarked that Sanudo was wrong nominating the non-Venetian electors, while Biondo or Sabellico, among others, were erroneous with regard to the number of the electors.

[222] Carile, op. cit.: 182, note 26.

[223] Gunther: 114.

[224] Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 67, note 1.

[225] Morea: 69 (“Quelques-uns proposaient le duc de Venise et le vantaient comme un homme sage et habile et tout-à-fait digne de l’empire.”). Afterwards, the chronicle introduced a supposed speech delivered by Dandolo: “Seigneurs, je vous prie, écoutez-moi. On vient de m’annoncer que quelques-uns d’entre vous, entrainés par leurs sentiments généraux, m’avaient, au sein de ce conseil convoqué pour un objet aussi important que le choix d’un empereur, désigné / comme digne de régner. Je les remercie beaucoup en ce qui me concerne, et me trouve heureux d’avoir trouvé en eux des frères et de véritables amis, et Dieu les récompensera d’avoir parlé en faveur d’un frère. Mais j’avoue que je ne trouve pas en ma personne cette grace glorieuse de Dieu qui eût pu m’en rendre digne, et je ne suis pas assez aveugle pour ne pas le reconnaître. Il est bien vrai que nous avons eu dans notre communauté de Venise plusieurs hommes d’un grand génie et d’un talent militaire aussi illustre que tous ceux des autres pays; mais aucun d’eux n’a jamais obtenu la faveur d’orner sa tête de la couronne impériale. C’est pourquoi je vous prie, comme frères et amis, de faire cesser cette nouvelle scandaleuse pour moi et de mettre fin aux discours et aux débats relatifs à ma nomination à l’empire. S’il est vrai que mes amis me donnent leurs voix et leurs suffrages, je leur demande de réunir ma voix à la leur. Ainsi réunis avec les autres membres du conseil, accomplisons la mission qui vous est confiée, et, pour terminer promptement l’élection, proclamons empereur le comte Baudouin souverain naturel de la Flandre. C’est un homme noble et estimé de tous, et que toute l’armée juge digne de l’empire.” (ibidem: 69-71).

[226] See supra, note 95.

[227] For the representation of these two elements in the Venetian chronicles, see Marin, “Dominus quartae partis”, cit.

[228] The text of the speech, in Marin, “Comunitatea veneþianã între civitas ºi imperium. Un proiect de transfer al capitalei de la Veneþia la Constantinopol, în conformitate cu cronica lui Daniele Barbaro”, Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie 20 (2002): 139-159 (156-159) [English version, in Idem, “The Venetian Community – Between Civitas and Imperium. A Project of the Capital’s Transfer from Venice to Constantinople, According to the Chronicle of Daniele Barbaro”, European Review of History. Revue européenne d’histoire 10 (2003), 1: 81-102 (93-96); it also includes a partial English translation: 87-89].

[229] For this, see Marin, “The First Venetian”, cit.: especially 49-50.

[230] Villehardouin: II, 64/65. Faral, in Villehardouin: II, 65, note 6 settles this palace: “Ce palais, selon la tradition vénitienne, se trouvait sur l’Augustaion, juste au sud de Sainte-Sophie.” This supplementary detail was to be taken from Ramusio: 99.

[231] Clari: 113.

[232] Barbaro: 244a-244b: “[...] fece il Dose agrandir et honorar il suo palazzo et introrno quello far una piazza bellissima, intitolà la piazza de Venetiani et ghe fece anche edificar un tempio in honor de San Marco Evangelista.

[233] The detail was probably taken from Choniates: 327. Anyway, Choniates’ statement was criticized by both Ramusio: 99 (who still justified the error, 99-100) and Andrea Morosini: 207-208.

[234] Psuedo-Giustinian (“six nobles from the part of the doge, and the same from the aforesaid counts’ side”); Monacis (“six for each side”); Navagero (“six from the part of the Venetians and six from the part of the princes”); Caroldo (“six for the French barons and six for the Doge Dandolo”); M 1833 (“six Venetian electors and six Frenchmen”); M 2560 (“six Venetians and six Oltramontani and Lombards”); M 550 (“six Venetians and six Oltramontani and Lombards”); Z. Dolfin (“six Venetians and six Oltramontani and Lombards”). Some chronicles (A. Dandolo-extensa, P. Dolfin) only indicate the whole number.

[235] For the denominations given to the non-Venetian crusaders in the Venetian chronicles, see Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaers”, cit.: 162-171 (appendix).

[236] Sanudo 1 and category 6. indicate “six Venetians, two Lombards and six Oltramontani / Frenchmen”. The most of the chronicles in category 11. (including Barbaro, Veniera 2580 and Savina) invert the order between the two categories of non-Venetians: “six Venetians, four Oltramontani and two Lombards”.

[237] M 2592 (“and thus, the Venetians selected five, the Frenchmen five and the other five were selected by the princes”); Sabellico (“the Venetians offered the number of five as electors, the counts of Flanders and of Pol – the same, the Dukes of Montferrat and of Blois accomplished the number”); Biondo (“so that [there were] five men out of the princes [representing] the counts of Flanders and of St Pol, the same for the one of Montferrat and the one of Savoy, the rest being sent by the Venetians”). It seems that it was Biondo that inspired Sabellico, just that the order is reversed, the Venetians being promoted at the beginning by the latter). For M 71 and M 1999, see infra.

[238] See infra, Appendix.

[239] Barbaro: 225a-226b; pseudo-Erizzo: 106a; Savina: 56a.

[240] M 2581: 86b-87a.

[241] Barbaro: 225b; Savina: 56a. There are only these two chronicles that, beside the list of sopracomiti, also present the one of patroni delle nave.

[242] M 2581: 86b; pseudo-Erizzo: 106a. The dignity of armiraglio dell’armada was considered the second in the entire fleet’s hierarchy, immediately after the one of Capitanio General dell’armada that belonged to the doge himself and before the one of Capitanio delle nave, nauilij e palandarie (belonging to Gabriel Soranzo).

[243] Pseudo-Erizzo: 106a.

[244] Barbaro: 225b.

[245] Ramusio: 104-105.

[246] For the Venetians present in different context of the event (Rainieri Dandolo, Francesco Maistropietro, Vitale Dandolo, Pietro Alberti, and the first Venetian patriarch that is Pantaleone Giustiniano / Fantino Dandolo / Tommaso Morosini), see Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders”, cit.: 149-150.

[247] For the representation of the Bishop of Soissons in the Venetian chronicles, see Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian”, cit.: 134, note 93. In the particular case of the election, the chronicle Sanudo 1 combined the character with the Count of St Pol:  “the Count of St Pol in Saxony”.

[248] Ramusio: 99.

[249] For the identification between Louis of Blois and “the Count of Savoy”, see Marin, “Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders”, cit.: 138.

[250] For the alternance between Hugh and Henry as regards the Count of St Pol in the Venetian chronicles, see ibidem: 137-138.

[251] See supra, note 101.

[252] Actually, the “lack of Imperial blood” could refer not necessarily to the crusaders, but also to the absence of any Byzantine acceptable candidate in Constantinople; this interpretation could result from the text of Trevisan, which indicates that “there was no one of Royal [sic!] blood in Constantinople.”

[253] The chronicles that mention the Venetian electors name it as Otto (and even Ottone, in the case of Navagero and Sanudo) instead of Ottaviano.

[254] This simple expression in Monacis seems to have been taken by Barbaro, “one of the Venetians’ electors” and Savina, “one of the electors”.

[255] See some chronicles in categories 6. (M 2544, M 48, M 2028) and 11a. (M 2543, M 1577, pseudo-Zancaruolo), and also Sanudo 2 (It is to be noticed that the intervention is made by Sanudo 2 as a counterpart for the Marquis’ candidacy, and not the doge’s).

[256] See some chronicles in categories 11a. (M 1586, pseudo-Erizzo) and 11b. (M 798, M 80, M 628a) and also Veniera 2580.

[257] Caroldo (“[...] and there would be worse whether the Marquis of Montferrat would be elected as emperor.”); the others (M 1577, M 1586, pseudo-Zancaruolo, pseudo-Erizzo – all four in category 11a.) offer a more or less similar presentation: “[...] and the Oltramontani would remain more content than if missier the doge [would be elected] or if the Marquis”).

[258] Ramusio: 100 (“Pantaleone Barbo, collega loro, che mostrò essere più ispediente all’Imperio l’elettione di Baldovino, che quella di Bonifacio.”)

[259] Barbaro: 237a-243b.

[260] See supra, note 224.

[261] Here is what Pantaleone Barbo speaks about, according to the version suggested by Ramusio: 100-101: “Signori collegati, io stimo, che ogni altro più posto, che’l nostro Dandolo si debba eleggere Imperatore. Percioche se bene l’Imperio dell’Oriente starebbe meglio nelle mani de’ Venetiani, che de’ Francesi, i quali, patroni del mare (ciò sia detto senza giattanza) et ben forniti di vasselli, potrebbono difender molto meglio l’Imperio, et la Città da gli assalti, et dalle scorrerie de’ circonvicini, che non potranno nè il Marchese, nè il Conte; anzi con armata per il mare Ionio, et per l’Arcipelago, più commodamente soccorerla, che se ò da Paesi bassi lontanissimi, ò dalle parti mediterranee della Lombardia, si mandasse grossissimo numero di gente d’armi. L’armata, et le forze maritime de’ Venetiani quanto siano state potenti, da questo chiaramente si vede, che la Città di Costantinopoli, dentro el termine di questi otto mesi, fù principalmente da quella, due volte espugnata. Non si potrà mai con qual si voglia grosso numero di cavalli senza una buona armata difender talmente questo Imperio da’ Greci circonvicini, che in breve ribellandosi, non ne privino i nostri; oltre che essendo i Venetiani accresciuti di tanta potenza, et d’Imperio sì grande, et per ciò esposti sopra tutti i Principi dell’Europa à grandissima invidia, poiche gli animi de’ mortali dall’ambitia facilmente si lasciano trasportare, sarebbono sommamente odiati da tutti; onde immediate i baroni Francesi, Baldovino, et Bonifacio sdegnati per la repulsa, et per l’offesa, si partirebnono [sic!] co’ loro seguaci da gli stendardi, et dall’amicitia del nuovo Imperatore; di maniera che si lascierebbe l’impresa di Gierusalemme. Si che per ovviare ad un danno così evidente della Cristianità, vi essorto, à nominare per Imperatore, ò il Conte, ò il Marchese, qual di due più vi piacerà, non vi dovendo maravigliare della novità di tal mio parere; poiche, creandosi il Prencipe Dandolo, è necessario, che si perdi Gierusalemme, che s’indebolisca l’essercito, et quel, che più importa, si dia un crollo alla religion Christiana sottraendosi i Greci dall’auttorità del Pontefice Romano.

[262] Idem: 100 (who considers both of them as “due soli” and that they were “amati ugualmente da tutti”).

[263] Caroldo still maintains that it was the doge, and not the entire assembly of electors that was directly persuaded by P. Barbo to renounce to the candidature.

[264] A partly similar version, in M 1577: “And the two Lombards rather [wanted] the doge than the Count of Flanders.”

[265] Category 6.; M 2543 [11a.].

[266] Trevisan (although the referral is made to Ottaviano Querini).

[267] Caroldo; M 78 [11a.]

[268] The version of Monacis is: “Denuntiatus Imperator Balduinus exercitui, collaudatur ab omnibus, confirmat, quae composita fuerunt, [...].”

[269] M 2544 [6.]; M 47 [6.]; M 2028 [6.]; M 2543 [11a.].

[270] The unanimity had been also accepted by Clari: 115.

[271] Pseudo-Giustinian; M 2592 [3.]; Canal; M 2570 [6.]; Caroldo.

[272] Two chronicles in category 11b. (M 2563 and M 46).

[273] One chronicle in 11a. (pseudo-Erizzo) and three from 11b. (M 798, M 80 and M 628a). A more succinct form, that is “Emperor of Romania and Constantinople” in three chronicles from 11b. (M 2560, M 550 and Z. Dolfin) and in Veniera 2580 (for the latter, “Emperor of the Empire of Romania at Constantinople”).

[274] Two chronicles in category 1. (M 2571 and M 2581); category 2. (including Navagero); Sabellico; Sanudo 1; M 71; category 4.; two chronicles in category 5. (M 89 and Veniera 791); M 2572; Sansovino; M 1833; M 48 from category 6.; two chronicles from category 11a. (M 2543 and pseudo-Zancaruolo); Savina. In other cases, he is considered only as being “elected”, without any title (Biondo; Donà5.; Sanudo 2; Abbiosi; M 1999; M 25446.; M 476.; M 20286.; M 158611a.). As for A. Dandolo-brevis, Trevisan, M 1577 [11a.] and Barbaro, they did not make any such a specification.

[275] Pseudo-Erizzo [11a.]; category 11b. [excepting M 550]; Veniera 2580.

[276] This detail is probably taken from Choniates: 328.

[277] Pseudo-Erizzo [11a.]: 111a; M 798 [11b.]: xxiij b; M 2560 [11b.]: 69b; M 550 [11b.]: 73a; Veniera 2580: 133a. Although they also present the episode, pseudo-Zancaruolo [11a.]: clxxxxiiij b; M 2563 [11b.]: 12b; M 46 [11b.]: 33a; M 80 [11b.]: 104b; M 628a [11b.]: 91b do not specify specifying exactly the expression of “per egual dignità”. In the case of pseudo-Zancaruolo, Baldwin was accompanied not only by Dandolo, but also by the marquis.

[278] See Tafel-Thomas, documents CXIX, cit.: 448 and CXX, cit.: 452 (“Sciendum est etiam, quod vos, prefate domine Dux, non debetis Imperatori, qui fuerit electus in Imperio, ad aliqua servitia facienda juramentum prestare propter aliquod datum vel feudum sive honorificentiam, que vobis debeat assignari; tamen illi vel ille, quem vel quos loco vestro statueritis super his, que vobis fuerint assignata, debeant juramento teneri ad omne servitium Imperatori et Imperio faciendum, juxta ordinem superius declaratum.”) and also the chronicles that introduce it (see supra, notes 80-85).

[279] Sanudo: 549.

[280] Sansovino: 560-561.

[281] M 1833: 26a. This domination in the Venetian jurisdiction had been also mentioned more fugitively by Canal: 60 (“[...]; et [Henric Dandle] fu apelé sire de sa partie [...]”).

[282] M 1833: 25b.

[283] M 1833: 25b.

[284] Sansovino: 561.

[285] M 550 [11b.]: 73a

[286] Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Miscellanea di carte non appartenenti a nessun archivio, b. 9: 12, cf. Carile, “La Partitio terrarum Imperii Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica dei veneziani”, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, new series, 2-3 (1965-1966): 167-179 (177).

[287] Ibidem.

[288] See especially Vittorio Lazzarini, “I titoli dei dogi di Venezia”, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, new series, 2 (1903): 271-311 (294-300); Cessi, “L’eredità”, cit.: 14-22; Marin, “Dominus quartae partis”, cit.

[289] For this episode, see Mas Latrie, “Les Patriarches Latins de Constantinople”, Revue de l’Orient Latin 3 (1895): 433-456; Aurelio Palmieri, “I vicari patriarcali di Costantinopoli”, Il Bessarione, second series, 7 (1904): 41-48; Leo Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (1204-1261) nach den venezianischen Urkunden, Weimar, 1938; Wolff, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261”, Traditio 6 (1948): 33-60; Idem, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate”, cit.; Fedalto, “Il patriarcato latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261)”, Studia Patavina. Rivista di scienze religiose 18 (1971), 2: 390-457; Marin, “The First Venetian”, cit.

[290] See Cessi, “L’eredità”, cit.: 14-22; Wolff, “A New Document”, cit.; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, cit.: passim.