Giustiniano Particiaco

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Influence of the Byzantine Empire and Venice around 840

Giustiniano Particiaco (in the contemporary sources Iustinianus , later also Çustinian ), in the early modern times also Partecipazio or Participazio († 829 ) was the 11th Doge according to the historiographical tradition of Venice , as the state-controlled historiography there was called . He ruled first as co-ruler of his father Agnellus , then from 827 to 829 alone.

At the latest with the beginning of the Dogate of the Particiaco family, Venice's trade relations extended into the eastern Mediterranean as far as Greece, Sicily and Egypt. The bones of St. Mark were transferred from Alexandria to Venice and the Doge decided to build a palace chapel to hold the relics from which St. Mark's Basilica emerged . Venice thus documented its independence from Carolingian and papal claims, an attitude that was just as clearly demonstrated after the Doge's death, namely by his brother and successor John . The son of Justinian, Agnellus (II.) , Ruled as fellow dog during the lifetime of his grandfather Agnellus (I) and his father, but died before his father in Constantinople . In his will, one of the most important documents on the early medieval economic history of Venice , his wife Felicitas was not only appointed as administrator and heir, but she was also supposed to find a suitable place for the relics of St. Markus take care.


The frequently than in the historiography Partecipazio designated family in the timely sources Particiaco appears, was in the early days of the Republic of Venice to the tribunician families of the city. These families held high political or military offices in eastern Veneto , which was part of the Eastern Roman Empire until the beginning of the 9th century , and who had succeeded in making the office of tribune hereditary.

Together with the Candiano and Orseolo, it was the Particiaco family who provided most of Venice's doges from 810 to the constitutional reform of 1172. The first doge of a Venice relatively independent of Byzantium was Agnellus (810–827). He was followed by his sons Justinianus and Iohannes (829-836), who was arrested and deposed in 836 and ended his life in a monastery. After Pietro Tradonico's reign for almost thirty years , the Particiaco returned to the doge chair: Ursus I from 864 to 881 , then his son John II from 881 to 887. Other doges were Ursus II (911-932) and his son Peter (939–942) from a side branch of the family, the Badoer.

Life and domination

Iustinianus or Giustiniano was on the one hand a very wealthy merchant who, as his testament shows in 829, maintained a fleet of trading galleys (cf. economic history of the Republic of Venice ). On the other hand, like the landlords of the mainland, he owned extensive estates on which cattle were raised, crops were grown and horticulture was practiced. According to his will, he had numerous servants and maids available, probably servants .

Justinianus was already at an advanced age when he followed his father Agnellus in the Doge's office after he had already served as co-regent. Under Agnellus' government, the peace treaty of Aachen between Byzantium , as the Eastern Roman Empire was later called, and the Frankish Empire laid down the borders of Venice and designated neighboring areas as privileged sales areas for his trade. Pro forma Venice remained dependent on Byzantium, de facto the process of detachment was intensified with the treaty.

Under Agnellus at the latest, the Doge's seat was relocated in 811 from Malamocco to Rivo Alto (the island of Rialto ), the nucleus of the later city of Venice, and confirmed by Justinian after his inauguration. However, there are no traces of the Dogenkastell from this time on the site of today 's Doge's Palace .

Nevertheless, the demarcation from the Frankish Empire , which had recently attempted to conquer the lagoon cities under Charles' son Pippin , remained unclear, at least with regard to the church provinces . A synod of the bishops of the Regnum Italicum , which met in Mantua in 827 , recognized the supremacy of the Patriarch of Aquileia over the Patriarch of Grado , whose residence was now in the lagoon. The entire ecclesiastical organization in the two lagoons of Venice and Grado was placed under a foreign power. The inferior Grado also practically only owned suffragan dioceses in the area of ​​the Venice Ducat, and became almost identical to him after the dioceses on Istria were again subordinated to Aquileia. Such a fundamental change could open up opportunities for the Franconian Empire to interfere in the conditions in the lagoon.

The mosaic of the Porta Sant'Alipio on St. Mark's Church is the only surviving mosaic from the Middle Ages on the west facade. It shows the transfer of the bones of St. Mark into the church in the presence of the bishop and the doge . The facade of the church in the background is shown with the most important characteristics of its shape from the 2nd half of the 13th century.

Marco Pozza assumes that this construction, threatening Venice, was the trigger for the fact that Venetians stole the relics of one of the most important saints and brought them to Venice, directly in the Doge's house chapel next to the Doge's Palace . On January 31st, 828, the arrival of the bones of Saint Mark in Venice took place with extraordinary consequences . According to tradition, two Venetian merchants or tribunes, Buono di Malamocco and Rustico di Torcello, possibly at the initiative of the Doge, stole the bones in Alexandria , Egypt , smuggled them out of the country, hidden under cured pork, and abducted them by ship to Venice. The Doge decided to build a proper resting place for the evangelist so that the relics could be worshiped there. The alleged vision of the evangelist, who was greeted by an angel with the saying Pax tibi, Marce, Evangelista meus on a trip to Venice , and who had prophesied that he would one day be buried and particularly venerated in Venice, had been with it the arrival of the bones at their final resting place.

From this time on, Venice called itself the Republic of St. Mark . Mark replaced Saint Theodore as patron saint without completely ousting him. The symbol of the evangelist , the Mark's lion with his open book and the quote from the Mark's vision, became the heraldic animal of the republic . At the same time, the Doge had prevailed in the struggle with the Patriarch of Grado for secular and spiritual supremacy with the tomb of the apostles in his Doge's chapel - the Basilica di San Marco - symptomatic of the republic's attitude towards spiritual, especially papal, supremacy efforts and ecclesiastical interference in his Affairs. The same was true for the Patriarch of Aquileia, because at that time the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was by no means enforced. According to legend, Marcus had worked in Aquileia, but now he was physically present in Venice.

Mosaic in the Church of San Zaccaria, 9th century

Other cross-border structures, which made a sharp delimitation of the spheres of influence impossible, concerned the land ownership of the dominant families in Venice, as the testament of Justinianus drawn up in 829 shows. In addition to rich possessions in the Ducat Venice, i.e. on Rialto, in Iesolo , Torcello and in Cittanova , on the Lidi and many islands, the family also owned lands in the Carolingian Treviso and around Pola in Istria. Equally important was the part of the fortune that was invested in trade, but also in ecclesiastical foundations such as those of Sant'Ilario , San Zaccaria and San Marco, which was still under construction.

At the end of his life, the heirless doge tried to restore the understanding with his brother John, whom he called back from Constantinople . After his return he made him co-regent and in this way his successor, according to Pozza. But the transfer of power was downright violent.

No sooner had Justinian died in 829 than Obelerius , the doge who had been driven out by the father of the two brothers around 810 , tried to return to Malamocco after almost two decades of exile , where he was able to reactivate his power base. In return, John had the city destroyed after defeating the rebels. He had the head of his opponent impaled and ostentatiously erected on the border with the Franconian Regnum Italicum . But that was not all, a tribune called Caroso , whose name can be found among the witnesses on the will of Justinianus , rebelled , and Johannes had to flee to the Frankish court. For his part, Caroso was defeated and blinded by the followers of John after a few months, and his followers were driven out. For a while before the exiled Doge's return, a bishop named Ursus (Orso), who may have belonged to the Particiaco clan, ruled together with two tribunes.


In the Chronicon Altinate or Chronicon Venetum , one of the oldest Venetian sources, the doge appears with the name and term of office “Iustinianus Particiacus dux ducavit ann. 2 et mens. 2 ”, so he was in office for two years and two months.

For Venice at the time of Doge Andrea Dandolo , the interpretation given to the rule of Agnellus Particiacus and his two sons Justinianus and John and his grandson Agnellus was of great symbolic importance. The focus of the political leadership bodies, long established in the middle of the 14th century, which at the same time steered historiography, focused on the development of the constitution, the internal disputes between the possessores , i.e. the increasingly closed group of the haves who at the same time occupied political power, but also the shifts in power within the lagoon, the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean as well as in Italy. The focus was always on the questions of sovereignty between the overpowering empires, of law from its own roots, and thus of the derivation and legitimation of their territorial claims. Similar to the Galbaii, the attempt was made to demonstrate the uncertainty of the situation in terms of deficiencies in the balance of power, i.e. in the constitution, which did not yet allow the power of the Doge to be incorporated in such a way that no dynasty could be formed. In the case of Justinianus, there was also the fact that extremely important relics came to Venice during his time , which were assigned to the most important spiritual places, above all San Zaccaria and St. Mark's Basilica. Relics of this kind could be a powerful argument in the struggle for rank and reputation in the hierarchy of the dioceses and patriarchies and, linked to this, the worldly claims. This was particularly true of the clashes with Aquileia and Rome.

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, depicts the events on a largely personal level. While the later doge "Iustinian" was sent to Constantinople by his father to make successful agreements there to negotiate ("per voler alcuni pati fermar con lui"), his younger son Johannes was raised to a fellow doge in Venice because they trusted the House of Particiaco, as the chronicle explains. When the elder returned, he took over the position of his younger brother, who was exiled to Constantinople for having committed unnamed offenses against some Venetians ("habiando facto alcun despiaser, et grosso, ad alcuni dela Terra"). A connection with the dispute between the two brothers over the question of co-rule is negated here, although the younger one was initially preferred, but it was precisely this two-generation conflict, if one includes Agnellus' grandson, even three-generation conflict, which later became a number contradicting interpretations ignited. Because the old doge was finally unable to fill the office, his son John ruled from then on - in the writings, according to the author of the Cronica , the old doge was no longer mentioned.

Pietro Marcello led 1502 in his work, later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , the Doge in the section "Giustiniano Particiaco Doge XI." This classification as 11th Doge surprised, as he classified his father as 9th Doge. Marcello claims that Agnello made his younger son Giovanni his “compagno”, whereupon Giustiniano, having returned to Venice from Constantinople, ostentatiously refused to return to his father. In the end, he gave in to his son's request. Giovanni resigned his office with the people's declaration of intent (“per commissione del popolo”), whereupon Angelo met the other son Giustiniano and his son Angelo in 827 “si prese per compagno nel Prencipato”. Giovanni was then banished to Constantinople. The author also claims that out of gratitude to the emperor, the new doge sent a fleet to fight the Saracens , who at that time were beginning to conquer Sicily. But they never found the enemy ships (“non trovando mai il nimico”), and they had to return without having achieved anything. Then he only describes in detail the translation of the relics of St. Markus. The two Venetians Buono da Malamocco and Rustico da Torcello were forced by a storm with several ships to anchor in Alexandria. They offered great rewards to the clerics of the local church, who were dissatisfied with the sultan's stealing of marble pieces from their church, if they were allowed to carry the relics with them. Wrapped in pork (“coinvolto in carne di porco”), they passed the guards by saying the word for pork, common in Egypt, “Ganzir” aloud. An apparition of the saint also prevented the ships from falling victim to the storms. The doge, who died soon after, made sure in his will that the church of St. Mark was enlarged; He decreed similar things for Sant'Ilario on the western edge of the Venetian region and for San Zaccaria .

Laconic turn reports the Chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , completed 1532. Caroldo says "Giustiniano Badoaro" had remained alone in the office after the death of his father in "DCCCXXVIJ" ( "rimase solo nel Ducato"). While other chroniclers date the use of the fleet against the Saracens, who began to conquer Sicily, to the time of his brother John, Caroldo places them in the reign of Justinianus. He also briefly reports that although the fleet had gone south, it was unable to find the enemy, whereupon it turned back ("Ditta armata, non potendo ritrovar gl'inimici, ritorno à dietro"). Another fleet could not achieve anything in support against the Saracens, or, as Caroldo put it, “it could not carry out an honorable enterprise” (“nè potendo conseguir alcuna honorevol'impresa”). Instead, she brought - which contradicts the following sentence - the relics of St. Markus to Venice. In the second year of his ducat, according to the next sentence, Venetian traders (“mercanti Venetiani”) “con molta sagacità et industria” brought these relics from Alexandria. Here, too, instructions were given to the “fabrica” of St. Mark's Church to “discard” the “glorioso corpo” “honorevolmente” (“riponer”). Justinianus, heavily burdened by illness and without children, called his brother back from Constantinople and made him his “fellow doge and successor in office” (“consorte et successor del Ducato”). In his will he left the monasteries of “San Illario e di San Zaccaria molte possessioni”, so he left them extensive possessions. He was buried in S. Ilario.

View of the pillars with the patron saints of Venice, on the left Marcus with the lion, on the right Theodor with the slain dragon, towards San Giorgio Maggiore
The recovery of the corpse of St. Mark , painting by Jacopo Tintoretto , 1562–66, oil on canvas, 398 × 315 cm, Accademia

For the Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner , who made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking area, where he largely followed Marcello, in his Chronica published in 1574, this is Warhaffte actual and short description, all people drawn to Venice live , "Justinan Partitiatius the tens of Hertzog" . According to Kellner, Justinianus took over "the regiment of the community alone at / in jar 827" after the death of his father. "At the beginning of his regiment" he sent "Keyser Micheln von Constantinopel" a fleet for the fight against the "Saracens / which then very narrow the islands of Europe / but they never encounter the enemy". So the fleet soon withdrew "in ir gewarsam" back. Kellner describes in detail the transfer of the relics of St. Markus to Venice. "The king of the place in Alexandria" wanted to build a "pleasure house or palatium", for which he had the marble torn from churches and old buildings. Stauratius, a monk, and Theodorus, a priest, were outraged. At this time a storm drove the Venetians "Bonus from Malamoco / and Rusticus from Torcello" to Alexandria, "against the ban", as Kellner expressly adds. They offered the two Greek guards “great honor and gift”, but they refused to hand over the relics as “Sacrilegium” and “Thief”. But when more marble was torn from the church, they were ready to sell the “holiest corpse”. In order to bring this safely out of the country, it was "placed in a basket / and covered with pork everywhere and wrapped / which is forbidden to the peoples in their law". So that the porters would not be spoken to or hindered, they shouted “Ganzir / das ist / Schwein or Seuw”. So they brought the “delicious thief valley” onto the ships. When they were caught in a storm on their way back to Venice, St. Markus. This had "warned him / they should throw the sails / so that the wind does not knock the ship over". With “great feasts and joys” the corpse came to Venice, where it “is in his church / as a delicious pledge of the Venetian regiment”. It was deposited in a chapel. The Doge Justinian died shortly afterwards "when he ruled alone for two years". His will provided for an expansion of the Markuskirche, for this purpose S. Zaccaria and “S. Kiliani ”“ with a great coming ”.

In the translation of the Historia Veneta by Alessandro Maria Vianoli , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Herthaben Leben / Government, and Die Die / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , the doge was called “ Justinianus Participatius, the Eleventh Hertzog ”. After a fundamental introduction to the question of princely justice and strength, which is derived from the fear of God, Vianoli, standing in stark contrast to Marcello, adds: “[...] he can hardly be exalted to the throne / than he with one strong power / and a good number of warships / go into the Sicilian Sea / to chase away the Saracens / which are very afraid of the same island of all places / so they succeeded so happily / that he succeeded Michael, as the Greek Emperor at that time the same again admitted / whereupon both in Constantinople / and Venice / because of such warm Victori, all kinds of testimonies of joy were seen and held ”(p. 90). The robbery of St. Markus, on the other hand, describes Vianoli with only minor deviations. So you put the remains in a basket and covered them with pork, "which is strictly forbidden to enjoy in this Völcker law". “Ganzir” also means “as much as a pig”. The Doge's will was also known to Vianoli.

The bones of the Evangelist Mark are smuggled out of Alexandria by two Venetians; Mosaic created around 1660 on the west facade of San Marco

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart wrote in his work Kurtze and an increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous republic of Venice also, albeit very laconically, about “Justinianus”, “at his time the corpse of S. Marci of the Evangelist Asia is said to have been brought to Venice ”. In the section on his father, he concludes from the uprising against the two doges: “But it seems / that they also ruled very badly; for the noblemen of Venice also made an alliance against them / although such was discovered / and the conspirators had to pay for it with their lives. "

According to Johann Friedrich LeBret , who published his four-volume State History of the Republic of Venice from 1769 , under "Justinianus" "his people undertook the first warlike ventures against the Saracens". "Justinianus had some warships fitted out, which connected with the Greek ships." "Some Venetian historians," continues LeBret, "express themselves in such a way that a reasonable person cannot refrain from laughing. They couldn't find the enemy, they say, and they sailed back to Venice ”(p. 141). A second "attempt had just such a similar end as the first". Since Justinianus had no heirs, he called his brother John back from Constantinople. He “regained a dignity which his father had deprived him of in order to keep the peace among his sons. Justinian lived barely a year, since by his death he gave his brother sole rule ”(p. 142).

In 1853, Samuele Romanin gave “Giustiniano” a few pages in the first volume of his eloquent, ten-volume opus' Storia documentata di Venezia . "Giustiniano", who returned from Constantinople after negotiations, refused to see his father when he saw his younger brother as a fellow doge. He and his wife retired to a house near the Church of San Severo. The then banished "Giovanni" fled from Zara to "Ischiavonia" and from there to Bergamo to see Emperor Ludwig. Romanin suggests that Patriarch Fortunatus 'had a hand in the rebellion against the Doge under the leadership of Giovanni Tornarico and Bono Bradanesso'. He had to flee and died in the Franconian Empire. Leon the Armenian , 'although an iconoclast' ('sebbene iconoclasta'), tried to maintain good relations with Venice by means of gifts, especially relics. In view of the increasing danger from the Saracens, Venice has become more and more important. Nothing unusual was to be seen in it, because the Venetians also prayed for the emperor in reverse, without this being an indication that the Venetians were Byzantine subjects ("senz'esserne sudditi", p. 163). When Leos fell, the grandson of Agnellus, who was also called "Agnello", was present to pay homage to the new emperor in 820. When the Saracens attacked Sicily in 827, the new emperor sought the naval help of the Venetians ("rinforzandola ancora di navi veneziane da lui domandate in questa occasione" (p. 166)). Romanin notes that the Byzantine sources are silent only out of arrogance ("orgoglio") about the two subsequent naval operations of Venice, which were admittedly unsuccessful. In contrast to his historiographical predecessors, Romanin emphasizes the dispute between the Patriarch of Aquileia, who was supported by Emperor Lothar, and the Patriarch of Grado. It was not only about questions of canon law, because Aquileia claimed supremacy, but about issues of political independence. Later Aquileia tried to enforce those rights by force of arms that were given to him at the Synod of Mantua on June 6th. June 827 'were awarded. To translate the relics of St. Markus writes to Romanin that, contrary to the ban that had existed since Agnellus, the Venetian traders also went to Syria and Egypt because of the high profits. It was not enough for Romanin that marble was torn out of the church in which the remains were located, but with him the sultan was already thinking about demolishing the church. Romanin tells of the storm in which the ship got on its return, but the legend of the intervention of the saint is missing. 'Because of the merit of the pious deed, they were forgiven for violating the prohibition' (“in merito del pio atto, fu loro perdonata l'infrazione del divieto”). Romanin inserts the construction of St. Mark's Church , which Justinianus began, into a picture of the brolio , St. Mark's Square , which can still be presented as a garden. In his will, Justinianus notes his wife "Felicia" and his daughter-in-law Romana, where Romanin quotes from "Pacta I, 39" and "Dandolo".

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) believed in his History of Venice, which was published posthumously in 1872, from its founding to 1084 , that Justinianus was not only "in anger" after his return to Venice about the preference of his younger brother, but that he was from Constantinople returned to Venice. According to Gfrörer, he preferred to take "inn in the monastery of St. Severus". Agnellus then banished his younger son to Zara and raised Justinianus and his son " Angelo II " to be fellow doges. In the fact that Dogens' sons have been staying in Constantinople since 810, Gfrörer sees evidence of an otherwise unknown contract, according to which they are to be interpreted as hostages. Accordingly, the honors, such as the titles that the Byzantine emperors awarded these hostages, only kept appearances. The emperors had used the time "to get them used to the Greek court air or to instill in them the Byzantine official spirit." Accordingly, the raising of the younger son to be a fellow doge was a breach of the "secret treaty of 809". According to Gfrörer, the emperor had the older son sent to Venice, who behaved “like an avenger”. According to Gfrörer, the father only gave in because "Justinian had all the power of the Eastern Empire to hold back" (p. 144). John had to "wander to the port city of Zara, which has been subject to Greek sovereignty since 810". In doing so, Gfrörer believes that Johannes, as Johannes Diaconus writes, first fled to the Slavs - according to Gfrörer, he could only negotiate with the Frankish emperor from there, because the Slavs recognized the Franconian sovereignty formally - and only then to the Franconian court while Andrea Dandolo lets him flee directly to the court. However, Gfrörer doubts that the man who had fled met with Emperor Ludwig the Pious, because he was only in Italy in 817. After being extradited to Agnellus and Justinianus, the younger brother was sent back to Constantinople as a hostage. Gfrörer argues that the father was ousted by Justinianus, his evidence is the founding document of S. Zaccaria, in which only Justinianus appears as doge, but not Agnellus. As he can see from the document, the foundation was also initiated by the Byzantine emperor. The ban on trading with the Muslims of Syria and Egypt also came from the emperor and was only taken over by the doges. In Gfrörer's picture it fits that Angelo II had to pay homage to the new emperor after the murder of Emperor Leo and that he died in the capital. According to Gfrörers: "Dandolo shares such facts which, in a way that does not grossly offend the sense of honor, reveal Veneto's dependence on Byzantium, and only clumsily keeps silent" (p. 149). For Gfrörer, not only was the dispute between the patriarchs a constant means of the Franks to rule into the lagoon, but also the uprising of the tribunes and of Monetarius, the “mint master”, was initiated by the Franks. This is indicated by the refuge of the mint master who also went to the Frankenhof. The same applies to the fact that the Istrian bishoprics were withdrawn from the Patriarch of Grado and Aquileia was added, and also the Synod of Mantua, which the pro-Frankish Pope Eugene II convened in July 827. There Grado was again demoted to the suffragan diocese of Aquileias, which could have offered the Franks far-reaching opportunities to intervene. The successor to the Gradens bishopric, Venerius , lodged a complaint in vain with Eugen's successor, who had died in 827. Venice benefited from the not entirely accidental capture of the Markus relics. Gfrörer regards the alleged storm that brought the robbers to Alexandria as a mere excuse for breaking the trade ban with the Muslims. There, too, they shouted “Ganzir, Ganzir” accompanied by the pork and the relics, but Gfrörer translates here as “abomination”, not as earlier historians with “pig” or “sow”. The Doge's will, which provided for placement in an enlarged church that was built with his funds, has been preserved and edited to this day. Gfrörer takes from the Dandolo Chronicle, which the author notes that he had the relevant document in his hands and read it with his own eyes. Gfrörer expressly does not rule out that Justinianus wanted to rise to the status of “guardian and keeper of the city saint” in this way (p. 162), but prefers the “milder” variant, according to which the presence of the saint tends to the patriarchate of Venice, i.e. the Relocation of Grado in the lagoon should serve. With this, the "resettled patriarch entered into the same relationship with the doge there ... as the patriarch with the basileus in Constantinople". For Gfrörer, the robbery of human remains becomes a “weapon of defense” against the possible consequences of the Mantuan Synod. From the reward that the two tribunes offered the Alexandrian clergy for the religions, the author concludes that they acted on behalf of the Doge, and that only because of this could they make a corresponding offer to the clergy in Alexandria. In addition, as early as 819, at that time Agnellus and Iustinianus still together, had decreed that the monks of S. Ilario should be expressly exempt from being invited to a council by the bishops of Rivoalto-Olivolo or Grado. Men who were banished by the abbot were not allowed to be granted protection by the same bishops (p. 165) - this, too, is an indication of the suzerainty relationship with the Lagoon Church. Finally, according to Gfrörer, the younger brother returned from the Byzantine capital on the orders of the emperor, who at the same time demanded naval aid against the Saracens. The apparently independent policy of Justinianus was therefore met with distrust in Byzantium, so that Justinianus had to accept the return of his brother, whom he did not even consider in his will. Andrea Dandolo suggests this, according to Gfrörer, only as far as possible, but "Anyone who has a real job in running Clio's pen does not write for fools, but for those who know how to read necessary cases between the lines." P. 171).

Pietro Pinton translated and annotated Gfrörer's work in the Archivio Veneto in annual volumes XII to XVI. Pinton's own account, which only appeared in 1883, came to completely different, less speculative results than Gfrörer. He doubts that Justinianus was sent to Constantinople as a hostage (just as little as John later), which the sources do not speak of, but that the older son of the Dog was sent there for negotiations (the younger as an exile). In doing so, he reproached Gfrörer for overlooking the fact that the alleged hostage was returning to Venice to oppose the younger brother's preference - even when the younger John finally went to the Byzantine capital, Gfrörer claimed to be a hostage again. In Pinton's view, there was no connection between the naval aid and the Emperor's recognition of the new Doge (p. 60). Gfrörer also interprets the terms “ecclesia” and “cappella” anachronistically, because Andrea Dandolo himself uses the two terms without distinction for the St. Mark's Church. To infer from this that the relics had been kept in a side chapel of the Doge's Palace, he considered a misinterpretation. Gfrörer's assertion that Pope Gregory IV and Emperor Michael had forbidden the misuse of the relics, that one of them had ordered the hiding of the saint, the other, for fear of Venetian efforts to become independent, intended the younger brother to replace Justinianus, Pinton refuted with the statement, Justinianus was terminally ill and no other connection could be established between the events (pp. 58–61).

In 1861 Francesco Zanotto speculated in his Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , who gave the popular assembly considerably more influence, that it was only when his younger son was raised to be a fellow Doge that there had been a "bitter" dispute in the Doge family. Together with his wife "Felicia o Felicita", Iustinianus had withdrawn, but had now in turn been raised to co-doge "due to renewed weakness" of the old Doge at the expense of his brother. “As some say,” the fleet against the Saracens was led by John, who had already been released from exile in Constantinople. Concerned that the kidnappers of St. Mark's relics could be punished for disregarding the ban with Egypt and Syria, the traders, claims Zanotto, sent the Doge a letter of announcement. Some claimed, according to Zanotto, that Justinianus only felt guilty on his deathbed and that he called his brother back. But the author doubts this, because given the length of the journey from Constantinople to Venice, John had no prospect of arriving in time.

In 1867, Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna, in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia, expressed the view that it was only the ambition to keep the Doge's office in the family that blinded the otherwise righteous and benevolent Doge Agnellus. In addition, the change between the sons was the beginning of a rebellion that was put down towards the end of Agnello's reign. The disappointed Justinianus, ousted by his younger brother, prevailed against the "overly indulgent and erratic" father. The pain of the unsuccessful fight against the Saracens was offset by the arrival of the St. Mark's relics. The 'sultan' wanted to demolish the church for him too, so that the local clergy could easily be 'convinced'. Cicogna also interprets the chapel as a building next to the Doge's Palace. And he, too, was convinced that Justinianus brought his younger brother back out of a guilty conscience shortly before his death, and even made him a doge while he was still alive, before he died in 829.

Heinrich Kretschmayr believed that Agnellus had "sent his son Justinian to the change of the throne in 814 and his grandson Agnellus with his Greek wife Romana in 820 to pay homage to Constantinople". He believes that the overthrow of John, the son of a Dog, who later fled and was ultimately exiled to Constantinople, makes it clear that this overthrow of Byzantium began. On the other hand, in the opposite direction, the older brother Justinianus was not only endowed with the honorary title Hypathos , but his son was even made a co-doge. In addition, Justinianus called himself "Imperialis hypatus et humilis dux Venetiae". Contrary to a Byzantine ban, Venetian traders sought out Egyptian waters in 828. Kretschmayr sees the naval operations in southern Italy and Sicily as an “army duty” for Venice, but this is expressly not verifiable for the eastern Mediterranean. Kretschmayr even claims that "the fleet was defeated".


Narrative sources

  • La cronaca veneziana del diacono Giovanni , in: Giovanni Monticolo (ed.): Cronache veneziane antichissime (= Fonti per la storia d'Italia [Medio Evo], IX), Rome 1890, pp. 59–171, here: p. 106 , 109 ( digitized version ).
  • 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).
  • Roberto Cessi (ed.): Origo civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chron. Altinate et Chron. Gradense) , Rome 1933, pp. 29, 117, 129.
  • Roberto Cessi, Fanny Bennato (eds.): Venetiarum historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata , Venice 1964, pp. 1, 32-37.
  • Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, pp. 142–146, sole rule pp. 146–148. ( Digital copy, p. 142 f. )
  • Alberto Limentani (ed.): Martin da Canal , Les estoires de Venise , Olschki, Florenz 1972, p. 16 f. ( Text , edited by Francesca Gambino in the Repertorio Informatizzato Antica Letteratura Franco-Italiana ).
  • 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, pp. 54–56 (cf. Historie venete dal principio della città fino all'anno 1382 ).

Legislative sources

  • Roberto Cessi (ed.): Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille , Padua 1942, Vol. I, n. 44, pp. 71-75 (“819. Donazione di Agnello e Giustiniano Particiaco all'abbate di S. Servolo , tramutato a S. Ilario “) ( digitized version ), here: pp. 71, 72, 74 and n. 53, pp. 93–99 ( Testament of the Doge ), Vol. II, p. 197.
  • Luigi Lanfranchi, Bianca Strina (Ed.): Ss. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Gregorio , Venice 1965, pp. 8, 10, 21 f.


  • Marco Pozza:  Particiaco, Agnello. In: Raffaele Romanelli (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 81:  Pansini – Pazienza. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2014, (forms the basis of the presentation part).
  • Şerban Marin: Giustiniano Partecipazio and the Representation of the First Venetian Embassy to Constantinople in the Chronicles of the Serenissima , in: Historical Yearbook 2 (2005) 75-92 (Stay of Iustinianus in Constantinople, representation in the Venetian Chronicles). ( )


  1. Volker Herzner : The building history of San Marco and the rise of Venice to a great power , in: Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 38 (1985) 1–58, here: p. 1 f. ( Digitized version ).
  2. The presentation largely follows Marco Pozza:  Particiaco, Agnello. In: Raffaele Romanelli (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 81:  Pansini – Pazienza. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2014., which in this article offers a description of all four Particiaco, i.e. Agnellus, his two sons and his grandson of the same name.
  3. Claudio Azzara: Patriarchi contro. Aquileia, Grado e il concilio di Mantova dell'827 , in: Bruno Figliuolo, Rosalba Di Meglio, Antonella Ambrosio (eds.) Ingenita curiositas. Studi sull'Italia medievale per Giovanni Vitolo , Vol. 1, Battipaglia 2018, pp. 287–297.
  4. ^ MGH, Scriptores XIV, Hannover 1883, p. 60, Chronicon Venetum (vulgo Altinate) .
  5. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010, p. 33.
  6. Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation of Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp 17-20 ( digitized ).
  7. 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. 56 ( online ).
  8. Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 7r – 7v ( digitized, p. 7r ).
  9. Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Hertsehen Leben / Government, und die Nachsterben / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the itzt-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, pp. 84-88, translation ( digitized ).
  10. Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 18 ( digitized, p. 18 ).
  11. Johann Friedrich LeBret : State history of the Republic of Venice, from its origin to our times, in which the text of the abbot L'Augier is the basis, but its errors are corrected, the incidents are presented in a certain and from real sources, and after a Ordered the correct time order, at the same time adding new additions to the spirit of the Venetian laws and secular and ecclesiastical affairs, to 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 ( digitized version ).
  12. Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vols., Pietro Naratovich, Venice 1853-1861 (2nd edition 1912-1921, reprint Venice 1972), Vol. 1, Venice 1853, pp. 158-166 in connection with his father , sole governing body on pp. 166–170 ( digitized version ).
  13. There his wife is called "Felicitas" or "Felicita", not "Felicia": "Vos non Felicitate uxore mea et Romana nure mea heredes mihi instituo ..." and "Dux itaque Justinianus imminente sibi morte, testamentum condidit et Felicitatem conjugem suam et Romanam nuram fidescommissarias ordinavit ”, as he himself quotes.
  14. 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. 143 ( digitized version ).
  15. ^ Pietro Pinton: La storia di Venezia di AF Gfrörer , in: Archivio Veneto (1883) 23–63, here: p. 58 ( digitized version ).
  16. Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, pp. 26–28 ( digitized version ).
  17. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
  18. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, p. 60 f.
predecessor Office successor
Agnello Particiaco Doge of Venice
Giovanni I. Particiaco