« PrethodnaNastavi »
on the mainland due north of Rialto, a basilica with three a poses, of which the ground pl“:n was excavated not long ago."
A conspiracy (A.D. 836) terminated the rule of the Partecimi. The last duke
was relegated to a monastery at Grado, and he was succeeded by l'eter Trandenicus, an illiterate, energetic miin, under whose memorable yovernment Venice made a long leap in her upward progress. For she now
it practically asserted, though she did not ostentatiously proclaim, a virtual independence. There was no revolution ; there was no open renunciation of the authority of the Eastern Empire ; the Venetians still remained for generations nominally linperial subjects. But the bonds were weakened, the reins V or relixeil, and Venice actually conducted herself as a sovrali state, Her independence was promoted loy the duty which fell upon hier of struggling against the Croatian pirates; the fleet of the Empire, occupied with the war in Sicily, could not police the upper waters of the Hadriatic. Hitherto Venice had used the silme craft for war and trade; l'eter Trandenicus built hier first warships-chelandia of the Greek type. Theophilus created him a spathar ; he styled liimself “ Duke iud Spathar," but he did not, like his foreilecessors, describe himself as "submissive" (humilis); presently he assumed the epithet of "glorious." It is significant that in the dates of public documents anni Domini begin to replace the l'eynal years of the Emperor.? But the most important mark of the new era is that Venice lakes upon herself to conclude, on her own account, agrecIncants with foreigri powers. The earliest of these is the contract with the Emperor Lothar (Feb. 22, 840), which among other provisions ensured reciprocal freedom of commerce by land and said, and bound the Venetians to render help in. protecting the eastern coasts of Frankish Italy against the Croatian pirates.' This, the oldest monument, as it has been calleel, of independent Venetian diplomacy, may be said to mark the inauguration of the independence of Venice."
11 Veuice was thus allowed to slide from under the con
Ser l'altaneo, op. cit. 235 317%. (parulurin, 1.233, p. 130 $24. (pl. L21112, ii. 112 77.).
Along with the Pracorpulum of Louilhar, 1.1). 811 Cupitularini, 11. 2:31),
For the change in the position of Venice summarised in this paragraph, ilnic thoilukedom of l'eter, see Lentz, ii. 617.; Kretschmayr, 92 81%.
trolling hand of the Emperors, without scandal or ill-feeling, she retained her supreme importance for Byzantine commerce, and for the next two centuries she was probably as valuable to the Einpire, of which she was still nominally a part, as if she had remained in her earlier state of strict subordination,
The conquest of Istria by the Franks affected not only the history of Venetia, but also that of Dalmatia. The realm of Charles the Great was now adjacent to the province of Dalmatia, which included the Roman cities and islands of the Count, from Tarsutica in Liburnia to Cattaro, and also to the Slivs of the “hinterland” who were in a loose subjection to the government of Constantinople. In the treaty of A.l). 798, the firanks acknowledged the Imperial rights over the Slavs;' but in the following years both the heads or župans of these Slavs, and even the Roman communities of the coast, see to have discerned, like the Venetians, in the rivalry between the two Imperial powers an opportunity for wimming independence, The duke and the bishop of Zara’ went to the court of Charles, along with the duke of Venice, in A.1). 806, and paid him homaye. About the same time some of the more northern Slavonic tribes submitted to him, a submission which was nominal and involved no obligations. But this, like the
" corresponding political change in Venice, was only trinsient. By the treaty of A.1). 812 the old order was formally restored and the Franks undertook not to molestor invade the Dalmatian communities. Some particulier questions concerning the boundaries in the north were settled in the reign of Leo V.,' and no further attempts were made by the Western Empire to seduce Dalmatia from its allegiance. But this allegiance was
I Just after this, in A.1). 799, tho Margrave of Friuli was slain near Tarsatici (Torsittto, Trsat), "insiliis oppilanorum," sinn. r. F. p. 108, and three years Inter there wils it revolt in this region against Nicephorus (on his nccession) leid by one Turris. The Emperor destroyed (?) Tarsiatica (“ talitiummodo solmin Tarsaticum de. struere potuit "); the rebel submitted and was prirodowed. Joann. l'on. 100. on Tissuilo, p. Juchnull, Dalmatia,
torture, i. 152) agrees that it datos fruin hois time, and points out that it Wits “inspirul direcily by San Vitale at Ravenna."
s Especially the Slav's of Liburuin (Einlard, l'it, hur. 15), (p. Tarnach, 18.
· Leo sont an envoy, Nicephorus, to Lewis in A.D. 817, de finibus Dalma
Romanorum et Solavorium Colon.r. 1., 8.11.), and another only in A.1). 818. Seo Simson, Londrine 78 and 110; Harnack, 60. Vicepornis and Cadolalı, the Margrave of Friuli, were sent, to arrange a settlement on
ji. 100 81/1
? The circular church of San Donato ant Zara is it meliorial of this bishop Donatus. Rivoira (loomburilie .lochi.
unstable and wavering. The Slavonic župans acknowledged no lord in the reign of Michael. III. or perhaps at an earlier date! The Roman communities of the coast, which were under their own magistrateś, subject to an Imperial governor or archon, are said to have asserted their autonomy in the time of Michael II.—and this may well have happened when he was engaged in the struggle with Thomas. But the control
? of Constantinople was soon reiniposed, and Dalmatia continued to be it province or Theme, under an archon, though the cities enjoyed, als before, a measure of self-governinent, which resembled that of Cherson.3
The settlement of another question in the reign of Michael II. tended to pacify the relations between the two empires. The Istrian bishops who were subjects of the Western Emperor had been permitted by the Peace of A.1). 812 to remain under the l'atriarch of Grado, who was a subject of the Eastern Emperor: This was an awkward arrangement, which probably would not have been allowed to continue if the Patriarch Fortunatus had not proved himself a good friend of the Franks." But it was satisfactory to both Emperors to transfer the Istrian churches from the See of Grado to that of Aquileia, so that the ecclesiastical jurisdictions were coincident with the boundaries between the two realms. This settlement was eflected in A.D. 827 by a synod held at Mantua."
I cont. 7%. (Mila busilii), 288; Cone santime, De aum, imp. 128. Note that in the former pissage only the revolt of the Slavs is mentioned, while in the latter the emphasis is on the Damation provincials, who are said 10 have become antonomolls in the reign of Michail II. See next note.
This date is accepted by Hopf (liricchische Geschichtr, 119), and Mur. alt (110); mis defended by Harnack, 70, ilgainst Ilirsch, who (198) argues that in Diam. imp. (and Cont. Th. 81) Michael 11. is confounded with Michael Ill. The pritssage in Cont. Tic. 2, is not really inconsistent with the assertion of autonomy by the Slus before the reign of Michael I11.
? See it bule', p. 223.
+ Furtualus seems to have been a born intriguer. lle was accused of romering secret support to Liudewit,
when that leader raised the Croatians of Pannonia in rebellion against t'e Franks; and when Lewis summoped him to answer the charge, lie thered to Lara and thence to Constantinoplo (A.1). 821). He accompanied Michael's embassy to Lewis in 824, and was sent on to the Pope, but lied on the way. See dui.r. F., 8. 821 and 824 ; Michael, Ep. ad lud. 419; Joann. Ven. 108
- Mansi, xiv. 493 847. Cp. Harnack, 67-69. The question was probably one of the objects of the embassies which passed between Michael II. and Lewis in A.D), 827, 828. The Oekonomos of St. Sophia was the head of the Greek embassy, which presented to the Western Emperor a Greek text of the works of Dionysios the Areopagite. The Frank envoys, who were lionour. ably received, brought back from
The letter which the Emperor, Michael II., addressed to Lewis the Pious has already demanded our attention, in connexion with the iconoclastic controversy. Although his recognition of the Imperial title of Lewis was grudging and ambiguous, Lewis, who consistently pursued the policy of keeping on good terms with Constantinople, did not take offence.' Under Theophilus the relations between the two great powers continued to be friendly. The situation in the Mediterranean demanded an active co-operation against the Saracens, who were a common enemy; Theophilus pressed for the assistance of the Franks; but the Western Empire was distracted by the conflicts between Lewis and his sons.” In the last year of his life, Theophilus proposed it marriage between Lewis, the eldest son of Lothar, and one of his own diughters (perhaps Thecla), and Lothar agreed. But after the Emperor's death the project was allowed to drop, nor can we say whether Theodora had any reilson to feel resentment that the bridegroom designate never came to claim her daughter. There seems to have ensued a complete cessition of diplomnatic intercourse during the reign of Michael III., and it is probable that there may have been some friction in Italy:* . But, ils we have already seen, the struggle between Photius and the l'ope led to an approximation between the Byzantine court and the recreant bridegroom, who was proclaimed Basileus in Constantinople (A.D. 867). During the following years, the co-operation against the Saracens, for which Theophilus had hoped, was tu be brought about ; the Emperor Lewis was to work hand in hand with the generals of Busil in southern Italy.
Constantinopile valuablo rilies, which
? Three con bassies from Theophilus to the Franks are recorded: (1) in ch.1l. 8:33 ; the olject is not stated, but we know that the envoys born gifts for Lothar, which they delivered, and for Lewis, which they could not deliver, its he was his son's captive.
This was the “tragedy" which the envoys witnessed, according to lit. Mulor. (11.li.lt., Ser. ii.) 19, p. 08:36 -a pulssage which Ilirsch (148) has misunderstood ; cp. Harnack, 09. (2) 1.1. 8:39, lun. Berl., s.c. See above', p. 273, and below, p. 418. (3) 1.1. 812, sco next note.
Anib. Beri., s. 812 and 833: “Graeci culitra Ilurlovicum concitantur propter filiam imp. Cplitani ab eo desponsatam sed ad eius nuptias venire differentem" (i.e. Illudovicum); (ien. 71, Cont. Th. 133. Also Ditudu. lus, Chron. 176.
+ Inn, Bert., s. 87, loc. cit.
§ 1. The Bulgarian Kingdom Tue hill-ridge of Shumla, which stretches from north-west to south-east, divides the plain of Aboba from the plain. of Preslav, and these two plains are intimately associated with the early period of Bulgarian history. It inust have been soon after the invaders established their dominion over Moesia, from the Danube to the Balkans, that they transforred their capital and the seat of their princes from it marshy fortress in the Dobrudzha to a more central place. Their choice fell upon Pliska. It is situnted north-east of Shumla,
in the plain of Aboba, and near the modern village of that name, Travellers had long since recognized the site as an ancient settlement, but it was taken for granted that the antiquities which the ground evidently concealed were of Roman origin, and it has only recently been discovered by excavation that here were the great entrenched camp and the royal palace of the early khans of Bulgaria.
The camp or town forned a large irregular quadrilateral, and some idea of its size may be conveyed, if it is said that its greatest length from north to south was four miles, and that its width varied from two miles and a half to about one mile and three-quarters. It was enclosed by a fortification, consisting of a ditch outside a rampart of earth, the crown of which appears to have been surmounted by a woollen fence. Although early destruction and later cultivation have done
I This account of Pliska is based on Constantinople, cited as Abubre (see the publication of the excavations of Bibliography). the Russian Archaeological Institute of