Domenico Monegario

Alleged coat of arms of the sixth doge according to the Venetian tradition and probably the fourth doge according to current knowledge with the inscription "Domenego Menegaro". The coats of arms of the early medieval doges are mere rear projections of family coats of arms, in this case from the 17th century. The Heraldry began only in the third quarter of one of the 12th century, and later Arms were awarded to the early doges in retrospect, who had never led a coat of arms ( "fanta-araldica"); this served to relate the families of this epoch to the earliest possible doges, which gave them prestige as well as political and social influence.

Domenico Monegario (* in Malamocco ; † after 764) was the sixth Doge , following the Venetian tradition, as the state-controlled historiography of the Republic of Venice is often called . He ruled from 756 to 764 in a time of fierce fighting within the Venice lagoon and was overthrown and blinded in the end. In the sources closer to the time he is called Dominicus .

At first Dominicus was supported by the Lombards . It is possible that disputes between the Longobard king Desiderius and the Franks under the younger Pippin played a role in his fall , but it is also possible that fights between large families and cities within the Venetian lagoon played a role. Due to the weakness of the Byzantine Empire , to which the lagoon towns formally still belonged, the latter was unable to interfere. On the other hand, the Pope , who was in conflict with the Lombards, received only limited support from the Franks.

The Doge's local supporters provided Dominicus with two tribunes , each of which held office for a year, similar to the Magistri militum a few years earlier . Their powers are unclear and the meaning of this power structure can hardly be deciphered. With the overthrow of Dominicus, possibly by the tribunes that the Doge tried to get rid of, the most troubled phase of Venetian history ended.

Surname

Domenico or Dominicus, as he is called in the Latin sources, more closely related to the time, was nicknamed "Monegario" or "Monetario". The former can be associated with the term for a budding monk, the latter with the "monetarius", which means that the job title could refer to the mint, the Venetian Zecca . Johannes Diaconus names a Johannes Tornaricus and describes him as "monetarius". He had fled to King Lothar's court . Around 829 to 836 Johannes also published a "Domenicus Monetarius".

classification

Dominicus, who comes from Malamocco , was elected Doge with the support of the Lombard king Desiderius . He was supported by two tribunes that changed each year and that, according to one interpretation, were responsible for relations with the Franks and Byzantium.

When Dominicus came to the Doge's office, Malamocco had only recently become the capital of the Venetian ducat. He succeeded in Galla , who had previously murdered little more than a year of its predecessor. All in all, it was probably the three most troubled decades in Venetian history, during which the ruling families of the lagoon fought ruthless arguments and battles. In the course of this, the Doge Ursus was murdered in 737 , after which five Magistri militum ruled for one year each , then followed, again as Doge, the son of Ursus, Deusdedit . The latter were in turn overthrown and blinded by Galla, who in turn was overthrown and blinded.

In the absence of suitable sources, it is no longer possible to clarify whether Lombard and Byzantine-friendly forces faced each other during these battles, or whether the dispute more likely angered landowners against merchant families. The fighting may also have something to do with the fact that families who still belonged to the administrative system of the Byzantine sphere of power that was dissolving in Italy, whose functionaries found themselves in the office of the tribunate, and who tended to adopt a decentralized view of power, faced families who were the attached to the increasing centralizing power of the Doges, as it was also established in other cities of the Byzantine tradition.

The supporters of Dominicus decided to give him two tribunes, each in office for a year. Thus, conceptions of office were mixed up, as they had already appeared in the previous models, the change between doges and magisters. Even Johannes Diaconus could explain this construction of power, which at his time was already incomprehensible, only through the 'folly' and the 'fickleness' of the Venetian people (p. 98). But it was by no means devoid of logic to use such a peacekeeping instrument in the context of fierce family struggles.

The continental conditions were no less unstable than the political conditions within the lagoon. The Venetians apparently did not think it opportune to revise the conquest of Ravenna by the Lombards, which they had reversed in 739/40, when the Lombards conquered the capital of the Byzantine exarchate Ravenna for the second time in 751. But even the Lombards made no move against the inhabitants of the lagoon.

The fighting between Franks and Lombards as well as the death of King Aistulf in 756 also strengthened the papal position. From 757 onwards, the new King Desiderius managed to secure favorable conditions from both Pope Stephan II and King Pippin. The Pope should get back the territory of the Exarchate and the Pentapolis and all of Aistulf's conquests. But Stephan II died in 757, and the cries for help from his successor Paul I were not heard in the Franconian Empire. In 761, Emperor Constantine V succeeded in entering into an alliance with Desiderius. The aim of the emperor was to recapture Ravenna, which had been lost in 751. The subjects of the south, Sicily and probably also the lagoon should provide help. But with the claim of Charlemagne and his conquest of the Lombard Empire in 774, the last imperial attempt to regain the exarchate of Ravenna ended . Since imperial power only occasionally intervened to regulate further north, local families found themselves in the growing power vacuum within the lagoon.

Dominicus, who was blinded, also fell victim to continued power struggles, the nature of which cannot be inferred. The time of his death is just as little known as the place where he died. The extremely troubled phase of early Venetian history only ended with his successor Mauritius .

reception

The chronicler Johannes Diaconus reports that Mauritius, the successor of Dominicus, ruled "sapienter et honorifice" and that he was highly experienced in the things of the world. In doing so, he creates a stark contrast to the barely recognizable administration of Domenico Monegario, which ended with his brutal death. According to the chronicler, it was the Venetians who replaced the murdered Galla with "Dominicum, cognomento Monegarium Metamaucensem, ducem sibi fecerunt". But these Venetians put two tribunes in front of him, and it was these again that overthrew him. After eight years of rule "Venetici, facta conspiratione, eiusdem Dominici ducis oculos evellerunt".

The much younger chronicle of Andrea Dandolo , but received by most of the subsequent historiographers, is similarly sparse . He emphasizes that it was only with the successor of Dominicus, i.e. after a phase of fierce internal battles, that a long period of internal balance came about. In the Chronicon Altinate or Chronicon Venetum the doge appears with the name and term of office “Dominicus dux ducavit ann. 8th".

For Venice, the interpretation that was attached to the rule of Domenico Monegario was of considerable importance, as a counter-image to his successor, but also as a continuation of the chaotic conditions under his likewise blinded predecessor. The leading bodies attached great importance to the control of the historiography with a view to the development of the constitution especially in this murderous time. The question of the internal disputes between the possessores , but also the shifts in power in the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean as well as in Italy, on the other hand, did not yet play a role, as did the questions of sovereignty between the empires, the demarcation from the mainland powers, above all towards the Lombard and Franconian empires, hence the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims from their own roots. The popular assembly (or the populus), which finally lost its influence in the 13th century, was mostly attributed with irrational motives, and the more powerful among the early Doges were seen as overcomers of the rule of the tribunes. Dominicus, on the other hand, was ruled by the two tribunes buried in him, which led to different views on the causes of his fall. The problem of the formation of dynasties, which was so dominant from the 9th to the 12th century, and which the later Venice tried to prevent by all means, was not yet announced here.

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo , presents the events, which are obviously not (no longer) understandable even for historians, on a largely personal level. "Domenego Selvo, vel Monegario" got in the year "genzCXLVII "(747) taken the doge chair. The chronicle thus establishes a connection between the Monegarii and the Selvo. In Domenico Monegario's time it was ordered that there should be two tribunes every year, which should jointly assist each doge in government over the people (“ad reger et governar lo povolo”). This was, so the author expressly, caused because of the great "arogantia" of the Doge, which he showed "contra tuti queli dela patria". After six years, the people no longer wanted him, as it is called succinctly, and he died (“havendo ducado et non ben voiudo dal povolo, morì, havendo ducado per anni VI”).

At first the attempts at interpretation concentrated on the bad character of the Doge. Pietro Marcello noted in 1502 in his work, later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , that "Domenico Monegario", the sixth Doge according to his count, "per rispetto della terribil natura" "in compagnia" two tribunes were added, yes, he even adds that one feared damage to 'the city' because of the Doge's “bestialità”. So it was the terrible character of the new Doge that led the Venetians to take this action. But because of his “insolente natura”, he could hardly be stopped by this, so that he performed every “ribalderia”, every “villainy”. So the city could no longer bear this character and its “quasi tirannide” and after five years of rule first took away his eyesight (“trattogli prima gli occhi”), then his office (“lo privò del magistrato”). In the Latin edition the character of the Doge was "ferocissimus" (cruel, wild), otherwise the representation between this version from 1502 and the Italian translation from 1558 had not changed.

Gian Giacomo Caroldo reports even more briefly in his chronicle , which he wrote between 1520 and 1532. Caroldo, who, in his own words, relies on the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo (p. 54), notes that “Dominico Menegacio” from Malamocco are unstable because of the “volgo, ch'è semper”, that is, because of the always fickle people, two Tribunes have been provided. Laconically he reports, the Doge, "per conspiratione fatta contro lui da Venetiani, fù privo del Ducato", ie he was overthrown by a conspiracy of the Venetians.

The Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner also thinks in his Chronica published in 1574 that this is Warhaffte actual and short description that all people living in Venice lived , "Dominicus Monegareus" became "the sixth Hertzog" in 756. In a similar twist to Marcello, Kellner believes that the doge “in view of his cruel tyrannical efforts” “was given the aid master or tribunal / who fought a jar / with whose yard the regiment was led”, so that the community “through immodesty "" Not harmed ". But even through this, his “arrogant spirit could not be tamed and subdued”. The “Statt” no longer wanted to endure his pride and tyranny. So "you first let your eyes go out / and then stop / in the fifth year of your Hertzogthumbs."

Francesco Sansovino (1512–1586) gave in his work Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia, Libri II , published in Venice in 1587, the name of the Doge with “Domenico Monegario, ouero Menegazzo” in a section of a few lines. After him, the Doge, to whom he rhetorically opposed the “bontà” of his successor, was buried two tribunes “per assistenti” because of his character. But “tumultuando il Doge” he was overthrown and blinded after five years.

In the translation of the Historia Veneta by Alessandro Maria Vianoli , which appeared in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Hertzüge Leben / Government, und Die Die / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis auf die Marcum Antonium Justiniani , who was in power at the time , in Nuremberg, the doge was called "Dominicus Monegareus, the Sixth Hertzog". He was given, alternating annually, "in consideration of his cruel, tyrannical disposition / two auxiliary masters / or tribunals / as assistants", "with whose good advice the regiment should be led". In spite of the "great rash of the chief" damage should be avoided. However, “his haughty spirit could neither be tamed nor subdued”. According to Vianoli, the Doge tried to get rid of the two tribunes, although he did not shrink from "cunning and deceit". But "the people", "can still be fully reflected from the previous example", had hardly noticed this attempt by the Doge, seized Dominicus and his eyes were "torn out" and he was "even robbed of the Hertduchy". "And although many of those scribes agree with one another / that his government only existed in five years / it is the most certain to believe / that it will extend to seven years," adds the author.

The dates of the rule were apparently still controversial in the late 17th century, which was even more true of the earlier Doges. So wrote in 1687 Jacob von Sandrart in his work Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world-famous republic of Venice : “In the year 756. or as others set around the 700th year / was found to be good / no addition Hertzog to choose more alone / but to arrange certain masters with him from year to year. And so was received (VI.) Dominicus Monegarius. "Sandrart provides a brief explanation for the failure of this constitutional construct:" But the annual councilors were never one with him / and because he was no better than the previous one / he became also deposed from the people / and deprived of face / in the 5th year of his reign / as others only add one year to him. "

For Johann Friedrich LeBret , "Dominicus Monegarius" was the sixth Doge. He was elected "by the estates in the lawful manner in the assembly of the people". The tribunes, until then only influential in the election, had succeeded in placing two of them at the side of the new Doge. “These were the first preludes of their ever more evolving aristocracy”. To prevent the tribunes from allying themselves with the Doge, they were exchanged every year. But Monegarius “wanted to rule as a prince; he joked about the law that was prescribed for him ”. Also, the tribunes tried to appropriate so much violence that “nothing could result from this constitution but disruption.” Monegarius did not want to consult his “side councils” every time. On the contrary, he mocked their ideas. Monegarius listened neither to the people nor to the tribunes: “This was his crime.” “Some Venetian historians describe him with the most hated pictures for no reason. But how should they uncover the stains inherent in the establishment of their aristocracy? Monegarius, a sublime spirit ", as LeBret believes, was the fifth victim of" this exuberant people "," who tore out his eyes and drove him away after he had reigned into the eighth year. "

In popular works, the representation established itself as a blatantly wrong decision in the election including the rulership dates. So took August Daniel of Binzer 1845 that after the glare of his predecessor, the decision was: "Finally you give the lifetime to be chosen Doge two tribunes of the side agreement was all confusion,". However, Domenico Monegario was also "blinded and banned like his predecessors".

In 1853, Samuele Romanin gave the Doge just under ten lines in his ten-volume opus Storia documentata di Venezia . He believes that the “dignità ducale” was transferred to Monegario (“conferita”), in Malamocco, with two annually changing tribunes. The incessant struggle between the Doge and the tribunes, from which the Doge wanted to free himself, but which in turn sought to control the Doge, ended, according to Romanin, with Monegario's blindness and expulsion, as with his predecessors. Romanin expressly deduces from Muazzo's Governo della Repubblica (p. 123, note 1) that there was no new election of the “tribuni moderatori”.

In 1861, Francesco Zanotto dedicated less than one page to the Doge in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , starting with Galla's expulsion and then reporting that the character of the new Doge was almost the same as that of his predecessor. To his “fianco posero i Veneziani due tribuni annuali” to limit his power. According to Zanotto, some chroniclers report that the first two tribunes were Candian Candiano and Agnello or Angelo Partecipazio. After Sanudo, according to the author, the latter belonged to the Giustiniani family. Monegario has only increased the disorder and the confusion. In doing so, the doge finally submitted the tribunes to his authority. For him it was the tribunes themselves who initiated the conspiracy against the Doge, who suffered the dazzling and the "ostracismo".

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) believed in his History of Venice, published posthumously in 1872, from its foundation to 1084 , that Byzantium had suffered a defeat with the installation of Monegario, but it was “not as complete as it was 14 years ago Deusdedit restored the duchy. ”Gfrörer justified this assessment by adding that“ two tribunes were set at the side of the doge. ”This was done by the emperor and“ his tool, the Greek-minded party. The tribunes were supposed to prevent the Doge from breaking completely with the Greeks and doing mean business with the Lombards, ”as Gfrörer calls the Lombards. Gfrörer admits that they "also hindered him", but at the same time he is certain: "In his heart Monegario was a mortal enemy of Basileus". From a letter from Pope Paul I to King Pippin, the author not only takes Paul's warning against “attacks by the Greeks on the exarchate that has become Roman and on Ravenna”, but also concludes: “Who will believe that the Doge was alien to these warnings ! ”(P. 64). The emperor, in turn, responded to his plans for a dynastic marriage with the Franks, of which he had already felt safe, in 764 by overthrowing the Doge.

Heinrich Kretschmayr emphasized the centralism and, in his opinion, the growth in size of Malamocco, which "can no longer hold the inflowing masses and has to give more than before to the islands of Rialto" (p. 52). He believes that the Doge's attempt to get rid of the “Greek tribunes” (p. 61) cost him his office. This was to explain who could have forced such a supervisory authority on the so powerful Doge.

The fact that the Doge was under the control of two tribunes contradicted the self-image of the later important noble families so drastically that the historiography they controlled later largely ignored this. This concealment is probably related to the fact that tribunician power emanated from the people, the popolo , which on the one hand was more than the nobility, on the other hand did not include all residents in the modern sense. The attempt to control the Doge's office in this way and prevent the formation of a dynasty was ultimately unsuccessful. According to Constantin Zuckerman, it is to be seen against the background that in 751 the imperial power in Italy suffered a severe blow when the Lombards succeeded in (re) conquering Ravenna . Since there were no longer any imperial officials above them, the tribunes achieved an even higher degree of independence - this in contrast to Kretschmayr's “Greek control tribunes” - especially since the places in the lagoon made no move to recapture Ravenna (like them did it 739/740).

swell

The little knowledge that can be taken from the sources comes from Johannes Diaconus , who did not write until around 1000. The sparse sentences in his chronicle were taken literally from later historiography, but also reinterpreted in many ways. The chronicler and doge Andrea Dandolo shaped the tradition to a large extent, so that his two works almost completely overlaid the chronicle that existed before him.

• Luigi Andrea Berto (ed.): Giovanni Diacono, Istoria Veneticorum (= Fonti per la Storia dell'Italia medievale. Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2), Zanichelli, Bologna 1999 ( text edition based on Berto in the Archivio della Latinità Italiana del Medioevo (ALIM) from the University of Siena).
• La cronaca veneziana del diacono Giovanni , in: Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia [Medio Evo], IX), Rome 1890, p. 98 ( digitized version ).
• Roberto Cessi (Ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum ( Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense ) (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia, LXXIII), Rome 1933, pp. 29, 116.
• Roberto Cessi, Fanny Bennato (eds.): Venetiarum historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata , Venice 1964, p. 24.
• Alberto Limentani (ed.): Martin da Canal, Les estoires de Venise: cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275 , Olschki, Florenz 1972, p. 11 ( Fondazione Giorgio Cini . Civiltà veneziana. Fonti e testi. Series III. 3 ).
• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, p. 118 f. ( Digital copy, p. 118 f. )
• Șerban V. Marin (Ed.): Gian Giacomo Caroldo. Istorii Veneţiene , Vol. I: De la originile Cetăţii la moartea dogelui Giacopo Tiepolo (1249) , Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Bucharest 2008, p. 49. ( online ).
• Marino Sanudo : Le vite dei dogi , ed. By Giovanni Monticolo , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XXII, 4), 2nd edition, XXII, 4, Città di Castello 1900, p. 105.

literature

• Marco Pozza: Monegario, Domenico , in: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 75 (2011); forms the basis for the descriptive part of the article
• Claudio Azzara:  Maurizio Galbaio. In: Mario Caravale (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 72:  Massimino-Mechetti. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2009, p. 377.
• Remy Simonetti: Since Padova a Venezia nel medioevo. Terre mobili, confini, conflitti , Rome 2009, p. 48
• Antonio Carile , Giorgio Fedalto : Le origini di Venezia , Bologna 1978, pp. 230 f., 236, 382.
• Roberto Cessi : Venezia ducale, vol. I: Duca e popolo , Venice 1963, pp. 110, 112.
• Andrea Da Mosto : I dogi di Venezia con particolare riguardo alle loro tombe , Venice 1939, p. 34.

Web links

Commons : Domenico Monegario  - Collection of Images

Remarks

1. ↑ So the coats of arms of the much later descendants of these doges, especially since the 17th century, were projected back onto the alleged or actual members of the families (allegedly) ruling Venice since 697: "Il presupposto di continuità genealogica su cui si basava la trasmissione del potere in area veneziana ha portato come conseguenza la già accennata attribuzione ai dogi più antichi di stemmi coerenti con quelli realmente usati dai loro discendenti "(Maurizio Carlo Alberto Gorra: Sugli stemmi di alcune famiglie di Dogi prearaldici , associazione nobiliare regional veneta. Rivista di studi storici, ns 8 (2016) 35–68, here: p. 41).
2. ^ Alan M. Stahl : Zecca. The Mint of Venice in the Middle Ages , Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London 2000, p. 4 f.
3. ^ Nicola Bergamo: Costantino V , Il Cerchio, Rimini 2007, p. 98.
4. ↑ Passage in the Chronicle of Johannes Diaconus.
5. ^ MGH, Scriptores XIV, Hannover 1883, p. 60, Chronicon Venetum (vulgo Altinate) .
6. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 18 f.
7. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, p.7 f. ( Digitized version ).
8. ↑ Petri marcelli De uitis principum et gestis Venetorum compendium , Venice 1502, o. S. ( digitized version ).
9. ↑ Șerban V. Marin (Ed.): Gian Giacomo Caroldo. Istorii Veneţiene , Vol. I: De la originile Cetăţii la moartea dogelui Giacopo Tiepolo (1249) , Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Bucharest 2008, p. 49 ( online ).
10. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 3v – 4r ( digitized, p. 3v ).
11. ↑ Francesco Sansovino: Delle cose notabili della città di Venetia , Felice Valgrisio, Venice 1587, p. 86 f. ( Digitized version ), then again printed by Salicato at the help of Girolamo Bardi , Venice 1606, p. 57 f. ( Digitized version ).
12. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Herthaben life / government, and dying / from the first Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, translation, pp. 52-54 ( digitized version ).
13. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 14 ( digitized, p. 14 ).
14. ↑ Johann Friedrich Lebret : State History of Republic of Venice, yet laid from its origin down to our times, in which, although the text of the Lord Abbot L'Augier at the foundation, but his error improved, the events of specific and carried forward from real sources, and after a Ordered in the correct time order, at the same time new additions, from the spirit of the Venetian laws, and secular and ecclesiastical affairs, from the internal state constitution, its systematic changes and the development of the aristocratic government from one century to another , 4 vols., Johann Friedrich Hartknoch , Riga and Leipzig 1769–1777, vol. 1, Leipzig and Riga 1769, p. 111 f. ( Digitized version ).
15. ↑ August Daniel von Binzer : Venice in 1844 , Gustav Heckenast, Leipzig 1845, p. 405.
16. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853–1861, 2nd edition 1912–1921, reprint Venice 1972 ( digitized from vol. 1 , Venice 1853, p. 123). The enormous historical work has a volume of about 4000 pages.
17. ↑ Giovanni Antonio Muazzo. Historia del governo antico e presente della Repubblica di Venetia , ed. Giorgio Pilidis.
18. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, p. 12 f. ( Digitized version ).
19. ↑ August Friedrich Gfrörer : History of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084. Edited from his estate, supplemented and continued by Dr. JB Weiß , Graz 1872, p. 63 f., Here: p. 63 ( digitized version ).
20. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, p. 51 f.
21. ↑ This is how Gherardo Ortalli sees it : Il travaglio d'una definizione. Sviluppi medievali del dogado , in: Gino Benzoni (ed.): I dogi , Milano 1982, p. 24 and Pierangelo Catalano: Tribunato e resistenza , Turin 1971, p. 40.
22. ↑ Constantin Zuckerman: Learning from the Enemy and More: Studies in “Dark Centuries” Byzantium , in: Millennium 2 (2005) 79–135, especially pp. 85–94.
23. ↑ Angela Caracciolo Aricò , Chiara Frison (ed.): Marin Sanudo il Giovane: Le vite dei Dogi 1423–1474 , 2 vols., Venezia La Malcontenta, Venice 1999–2004 (critical edition).

predecessor	Office	successor
Galla	Doge of Venice 756–764	Maurizio Galbaio