APPENDIX, 11 291

tombs in Venice, different in their treatment from all others; their architecture belongs entirely to the first or Byzantine period. Had any other similar ones existed, it might have been better to have undertaken the consideration of them earlier; but as these are the only two examples belonging to this period, I have thought it best to embrace the entire sepulchral architecture of Venice in one view.

In the sketch of the history of St. Mark’s the reader has already been made acquainted¹ with the singular tradition of the recovery of the lost remains of the titular saint by the Doge Vital Faliero. They are the tombs of that doge and of his dogaressa before which we are now standing, but in order that we may regard them with interest it is necessary that we should know something more authentic concerning him than what is reported of the efficacy of his prayers in cleaving alabaster.

Filiasi closes his careful investigation of the history of the Primi e Secondi Veneti at the period of this doge’s death (1096) as being exactly the point at which Venetian history, losing its contradictory and doubtful character, requires his accuracy of research no longer. But assuredly, up to this point the seamist rests obstinately upon the forms of things far away. The Greek and Norman accounts of the war which preceded the reign of Vital Faliero are widely at variance; and the mode in which that doge achieved the throne, as well as the prevailing policy of his reign and character of the man himself, are equally the subjects of contradictory statements and beliefs. But this much is certain, that in the close of the preceding reign of the Doge Selvo the Venetians, allied with the Byzantines, had sustained a terrible defeat from the Norman navy, and that the indignation of the people against their doge rose to such a height as to compel him to abdicate and retire to a monastery. It is said by some that the popular anger was in great part stirred up by the machinations of Vital Faliero, who had hopes of the throne. But the feelings of a mob are not so rational or so connected as to permit any one to trace clearly the sources of their excitement.* The Doge Selvo had not commanded the fleet, and was therefore guiltless of its defeat; and we may hope that Faliero had as little share in the increase, as Selvo in the cause, of the popular clamour.² Be this as it may, Selvo was deposed and Faliero elected, who, quickly fitting out another fleet, larger than that which had been lost, attacked the Normans, under Robert Guiscard, on the coast of Corfu and entirely defeated them.† Robert soon after died in besieging Cephalonia, and the Norman power in the East was entirely broken. I bring these circumstances before the reader, because it is necessary that he should remember what strict friendship there was at this period between the Greeks and Byzantines, as he examines the tomb of Faliero. It is reported by Anna Commena that Guiscard tortured many of his prisoners, but offered immunity to others if they would enter into his service, and that they replied, “Though the Norman duke were to slay

* The accusation against Faliero is brought by Andrea Dandolo-otherwise it would not deserve mention.

† Filiasi, vol. vi. ch. xxix., following the account of Anna Commena.

¹ [See Vol. X. p. 75.]

² [For the history of the Doge Domenico Selvo (reigned 1071-1085) and his campaign against the Normans under Robert Guiscard, see St. Mark’s Rest, §§ 79 seq.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]