Ursus Particiacus

Influence of the Byzantine Empire and Venice around 840

Ursus Particiacus , in the later sources mostly Orso Participazio or Partecipazio († 853), was about 821 to 853 bishop of Castello , who was still called Olivolo at the time. Since 1451 this has only been a titular bishopric . He is considered the son of Doge Johannes Particiacus . He had the Chiesa di San Pietro enlarged and the relics of Saints Sergius and Bacchus transferred there.

According to the historiographical tradition of the Republic of Venice , he was never a doge , but after the overthrow of the usurper Caroso in 832 he represented for a short time the Doge Johannes Particiacus, who was overthrown and driven out by Caroso shortly before, and who was overthrown three times. As a (possible) member of the Particiaco family, he belonged to one of the three families that tried in the history of the Republic of Venice to establish a kind of hereditary monarchy . He led the government together with two tribunes. Venetian historiography has always presented Ursus' government as a mere interim solution until the return of the legitimate Doge.

In his will of February 853 he left rich legacies to his church and gave his sister Romana ("Romana soror mea", as he explicitly writes), the abbess of San Zaccaria , usufructuary rights. 300 Libra silver should be used for the restoration of his official church. The will mentions pepper for the first time in Venetian history . However, the authenticity of the will, which only survives in a 12th century copy, is questioned.

family

The Particiaco - if Ursus belonged to this family - were among the tribunician families in the early days of the Republic of Venice. These families were wealthy landowners, holders of the highest political and military offices in Eastern Veneto , which was part of the Eastern Roman Empire until the beginning of the 9th century . They had succeeded in making the Eastern Roman-Byzantine office of a tribune hereditary. From the beginning of the 9th to the middle of the 10th century the family tried again and again to convert Venice into a hereditary monarchy.

Life and administration

Copy of the will of 853, Padua State Archives , Demanio, b. 58, fasc. b, n.28

The revolt of the Byzantine tribune Caroso forced the Particiaco doge John I to flee to the Frankish court, where he was received with goodwill by Emperor Lothar . Caroso declared himself a Doge, but three months later, according to other sources , he was blinded by the Particiaco supporters, who knew how to get the many dissatisfied with the rule of the usurper to their side, in the Doge's Palace , blinded him and leaving Venice chased away.

Until the return of John, Ursus, the bishop of Olivolo , whose official seat was in the east of today's central city of Venice, ran the business of government. The doge and chronicler Andrea Dandolo reported in the 14th century that they did not want to elect a new doge until the doge's return; He calls the three trustees "rectores". After about a year of exile, John was received with full honors in Venice to return to his office. However, a little later he was confronted with new resistance due to his rigorous style of government and was overthrown in 836.

In his will of February 853, Ursus left extensive legacies to his church . A women's monastery was also built near San Lorenzo , which he left to his sister Romana ("Romana soror mea", as he explicitly writes), abbess of San Zaccaria , for usufruct. The monastery should be free of taxes and services. The Church of San Severo should forever be subordinate to San Lorenzo (possibly an interpolation ). He left part of his fortune to restore his official church. It was 300 Libra silver. The will mentions pepper for the first time , because the Sant'Ilario monastery received a “sacco de pipere” and another sack of other spices.

However, the historical value of the will is disputed. The 12th century copy, which was created during a protracted dispute between San Lorenzo and San Severo, contains interpolations if it is not altogether a forgery. Even Roberto Cessi believed 1940 that the signature of the Patriarch Helias is an interpolation under the witness the act; Franco Gaeta mistrusted the appointment of the heir to San Severo, which was all too precisely in line with the interests of the sister and, above all, of her legal successor. Silvia Carraro confirmed these assumptions and added that the title of Doge Pietro was probably added later. The original by the scribe Costantino has not survived; only two important copies exist. One is a non-Venetian copy of a document, which in turn was dated to the 10th or first half of the 11th century. It is in Padua . A second copy was made after 1214, when the dispute between the monasteries broke out again. It contains similar gaps, but also slight linguistic revisions. The later copies of the 14th and 15th centuries go back to these two models. Marco Pozza added further arguments against an exact copy of the original will. The double initial formula ( invocatio ) already speaks for acquisitions from older privileges and the original will of Doge Giustiniano Particiaco from 829, as well as from the privilege for San Servolo from 819: “In nomine domini Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi” and “In nomine domini Dei eterni ”. A similar formulation was used in the Doge's office. It was also extremely unusual to date twice, namely once according to the Christian era, then according to the years of rule of the Byzantine emperors. Dating according to the Pisan style (Calculus Pisanus) also seems clearly premature. Apart from two early cases in the 1st decade of the 10th century, this date does not appear regularly until the end of the century, to be replaced by the Venetian style in 1037/38. Christian dating did not become common in Padua until the time of Henry IV . On the basis of this, Pozza suspects that the copy of the bishop's will that has been handed down to us dates back to this era at the earliest. Another indication speaks for a falsification , namely the listed ten witnesses, seven of which were necessary for a valid will. But several of the testimonies are problematic, such as that of Doge Pietro Tradonico , who appears as a 'consul' although he did not have the Greek title of hypatos (ipato), which is also synonymous , but that of spatarius , a sword-bearer , since 840/41 . However, this error could also go back to the original writer. However, as far as is known from a papal letter, the signing Patriarch would not have to be Helias but Victor, apart from the fact that Helias lived in the 6th century. The following formula also indicates a lack of understanding when it says "cum successoribus meis commune consensu". The exaggeratedly awkward, as it were recognizable handwritten signature, which deviates strongly from the usual style, indicates in this case too an intention to manipulate. While the signature of the Tribune Deusdedit is unproblematic, the priest Vitaliano cannot be classified. Two of the ten witnesses are missing from the notitia testium . All of these flaws were carried over to the second copy. Even the 12th century copyist saw no reason to change anything in the document, perhaps because he viewed it as a precise copy of the original. This, although its execution indicates in-depth knowledge of the law firm and the common script there. In the end, the very early pepper could also be seen as a rear projection of the 11th / 12th. Century to the middle of the 9th century.

reception

For Venice at the time of Doge Andrea Dandolo , the interpretation attached to the brief reign of Ursus had a certain symbolic meaning in several respects. The focus of the political leadership bodies, long established in the middle of the 14th century, which have steered historiography especially since Andrea Dandolo, focused on the development of the constitution (in this case the question of the continuity and clarity of the Dogates of Dogate John) and the internal conflicts between the possessores (represented in the family name and the consequent extermination of Caroso's followers), i.e. the increasingly closed group of property owners who at the same time occupied political power, but also the shifts in power within the lagoon (the increasing importance of Rialto , the dwindling of Malamocco and Eraclea ), the Adriatic Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean as well as 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, attempts were made to reduce the uncertainty of the situation to deficiencies in the balance of power, i.e. in the constitution, which would not have allowed the power of the Doge and his descendants to be incorporated in such a way that dynasties could no longer be formed. With Iohannes it became clear again that a failure of the institutions and attitudes of the decision-makers had to lead to the resurgence of the usual violence within the city. At the same time, a cleric ruled the city for the first time , even if only briefly and as a representative, a fact that was later no longer conceivable.

The island of San Pietro di Castello on the Venice map by Jacopo de 'Barbari around 1500

The oldest vernacular chronicle, the Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo from the late 14th century, depicts the events on a very personal level that has long been customary at this time, which once again gave the Doges greater individual power. Accordingly, the author makes no mention of the bishop.

Quite different to Pietro Marcello , who by no means withholds Ursus. In 1502, in his work, later translated into Volgare under the title Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia , he led the Doge in the section "Giovanni Particiaco Doge XII." Marcello claims that under the guidance of "a certain Carosio" ("di un certo Carosio") they had themselves some nobles conspired against the Doge. The Doge had to flee, and Carosio “usurpo il Prencipato” (p. 21) - this is how Marcello declares Caroso to be a usurper and thus an illegitimate holder of the Doge's office. Against “Carosio”, some “gentil'huomini” under the leadership of Basilio Transimondo, Giovanni Mauritio and Domenico Ortiano, as well as thirty other nobles who could no longer bear the tyranny (“non potendo comportare la tirannide di Carosio”) rose up against “Carosio”. . They attacked the usurper, tore his eyes out ("gli trassero gli occhi") and sent him into exile. Many confidants were also killed. John the Doge was recalled from the Frankish Empire when Basilio Transimondo, Giovanni Mauritio and “Orso Vescovo di Castello” ruled the 'Republic'. Neither a usurper nor a bishop could violate the legitimacy of the dogat as ruler.

The cathedra of St. Peter in San Pietro di Castello

Notwithstanding turn reports the Chronicle of Gian Giacomo Caroldo , completed 1532. Caroldo says "Ioannes Badoaro" have begun to reign in "DCCCXXIX". The Emperor wanted to show his inclination to the Doge, who had supported him against the Saracens of Sicily, and sent him the “Cadrega di San Pietro”, which was housed in San Pietro di Castello . On this, according to Caroldo, sat in “Anthiochia” “Saint Peter and his successors” (“San Pietro Apostolo et Successori”). At that time, the doge was driven out by "Caroso Tribuno", a "huomo scelestissimo" by a conspiracy. The Doge went "to Francia" to get support from Lothar's son Karl. Meanwhile, Caroso became a doge. This displeased "Basilio Transmondo, Ioanni Mauritio, Dominico Orcianico" and others, a total of thirty men. They left Venice and went to “San Martin di Strà”, where many men joined them. Under “Dominico Orcianico” they moved to Rialto, attacked the Doge's Palace and captured Caroso. His eyesight was stolen from him and he was expelled from Venice after having been a doge for six months (p. 57). His “complici”, namely “Diodato Gruro, Marino Patricio, Dominico Monetario et Tribuno Gradense” were hewn to pieces. Until the Doge's return, the Venetians wanted “Orso Vescovo Olivense” to rule the Ducat, together with “Basilio Transmondo et Ioanni Marcurio”. To everyone's satisfaction, the doge had been reinstated in his office.

The Frankfurt lawyer Heinrich Kellner , who made the Venetian chronicle known in the German-speaking area, where he largely followed Marcello, reports in his Chronica published in 1574 that is true and short description of all people drawn to Venice , such as “a number of nobles swore together One head was called / Carosius. ”The doge fled. But against the "Tyranney" "several of the noble and Fürnemesten opposed themselves in / including the most prestigious / Basilius Trasimundus / Joann Mauritius / and Dominicus Ortianus / and with thirty of the Fürnemesten in their place". They imprisoned Carosius, "stabbed his eyes" and chased him away. In addition, the author states that there were many “if they kept it up with him / were killed.” After “Orsus / Bischoff zu Castello / Basilius Trasimundus / and Johann Mauritius ruled the community”, John returned from “France”.

In the translation of the Historia Veneta by Alessandro Maria Vianoli , which appeared in Nuremberg in 1686 under the title Der Venetianischen Hertzüge Leben / Government, und Die Aussterben / Von dem Ersten Paulutio Anafesto an / bis on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , “Rebellion and Gathering together of a number of distinguished noblemen / who confessed to him after their life / whose head and originator was named Carosius ”, the“ whole state ”. The “prince” saw himself “compelled” to “flee after France / and to leave the duchy to Carosio”. Among the three “noblest and noblemen” already listed by Marcello, there was again an uprising against Carosio, so that these three men and thirty others who “cannot endure his tyranny / have accidentally attacked / caught / gouged out their eyes / and finally / with many other his ringleaders / even chased into misery ”. John was "called to come back to Venice again", but he brought "from a foreign country also foreign customs and traditions" with him, "which were not right for him" and which the Venetians were "completely repugnant to". In the meantime, "Orsus, the bishop in Castell / Basilius Trasimundus and Johannes Mauritius had ruled the congregation" (p. 97).

In 1687 Jacob von Sandrart had in his work Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / territories / and government of the world famous republic of Venice the doge Johannes return immediately after the fall of Caroso, without mentioning Ursus and the two tribunes.

Johann Friedrich LeBret believes in the state history of the Republic of Venice , which appeared in four volumes from 1769, "Carosus" was a tribune, a son of Bonicus. “As little as the noble houses could bear that the dignity of the duke should become hereditary, just as little could they admit that they and the people were deprived of the right to vote, whereby they believed that they were still receiving a prince with a certain respect for them can ”(p. 163). Carosus was overthrown. At this point, the author sees a possible turning point in the development of the constitution, even if it has not actually been implemented: “The nobles who overthrew Carosus were on the point of fixing the aristocracy forever, and no longer allowed a duke choose. They ruled together, and transferred the Urso, Bishop of Olivolo, and Basil and John, as the interim government because of members of the nobility. ”LeBret explains the brief co-rule of Ursus in his own way:“ They drew the bishop of the people to it, which the Was supposed to defend the rights of the clergy and the people: in the main, however, it came down to the arbitrariness of the two tribunes ”. With the return of the Doge, this form of government disappeared without the author offering an explanation.

Alessandro Orsoni's work Cronologica storia dei vescovi Olivolensi Caroso , published in 1828, was elected Doge by the popular assembly. After his overthrow, it was agreed that the government should be taken over temporarily ("interinalmente") by Orso and the said tribunes. The returning Doge was greeted with "sommo applauso". The author calls the three interim regents "Triumviri".

Bust of Samuele Romanin in the Panteon Veneto of the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti , marble, a work by Augusto Benvenuti , created in 1896

Samuele Romanin, on the other hand, gave "Ursus" little space in the first volume of his ten-volume opus' Storia documentata di Venezia in 1853 , especially since he stuck to the now firmly established number of 120 Doges - ignoring a number of fellow Doges and not including those today more accepted first doges. According to Romanin, the inhabitants of the burned cities, especially Malamocco, were looking for revenge, and therefore “Pietro Caroso” - whom he mentions as signing the will of Doge Giustiniano Particiaco from 829 - was able to prevail (p. 171). Against Caroso, after barely six months, his enemies gathered in Campalto, with the author adding Domenico Orcianico as the fourth to the known three leaders (in a footnote he only cites the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo as evidence). Caroso's main allies, namely "Domenico Monetario, Tritolo di Grado, Marino Patrizio e Diodato Gruro", were put down ("trucidato"). Then it was decided to put the government in the hands of the "Urso vescovo di Olivolo e dei tribuni Basilio Trasmondo e Giovanni Marturio" until the Doge's return (p. 171). The Doge John returned solemnly at San Demetrio.

August Friedrich Gfrörer († 1861) believed in his history of Venice from its foundation to the year 1084 , which appeared eleven years after his death , from the fact that Doge's sons had stayed in Constantinople again and again since 810, that he could conclude an otherwise unknown contract . Accordingly, these sons acted as hostages , and the honors, such as the titles that the 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.” According to Gfrörer, “such facts which, in a way that does not grossly offend the sense of honor, show Veneto's dependence on Byzantium are shared by Dandolo with, and only clumsily does he keep 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. The author speculates that the subsequent rapprochement between the Doge and the Franks in turn caused the Byzantine party under Caroso to revolt. He deduces this from the positive reception the refugee found among the Franks. Other refugees moved to Mestre "(ie on Franconian territory)" to overthrow Caroso. “Before hand, the victorious party set up a provisional government made up of three people, Bishop Orso of Olivolo and two lay people. But when Johann returned from France, they made him doge again ”(p. 175 f.).

Francesco Zanotto, in his work Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , published in 1861, also believes that 'until the return of Doge John' (“fino al ritorno di doge Giovanni”), who had been recalled, the government of Orso, Bishop of Olivolo, and should be 'entrusted' (“affidato”) to the two tribunes Basilio Trasmondo and Giovanni Marturio.

Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna, 1846

Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna summarized the events even more briefly in the first volume of his Storia dei Dogi di Venezia in 1867 . After the fall of Caroso, it says succinctly: "Alle redini del governo posero frattanto Ursone, vescovo di Olivolo, e due tribuni". So Ursus and two tribunes were given the 'reins of government' until the real Doge returned.

Heinrich Kretschmayr believed that Caroso had been overthrown with Byzantine help: “The party of order, which was undoubtedly supported by Byzantium, was the stronger; the usurper was attacked, blinded and banished only a few months later in his palace. A delegation headed by Bishop Orso of Olivolo, the son of the expelled John, caught up with him again; without having to suffer sacrifices to his powers, "integraliter", he returned to the city on October 26, 835 (?). The intact maintenance of Greek rule is clearly expressed in this report. "

swell

• 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. 112 (following the fall of Caroso : "Dehinc neminem ducem constituere maluerunt, sed eo carente, from Ursone Olivolensi episcopo et Basilio et Iohanne tribuno unius anni spacio diiudicabantur. Tunc domnus Iohannes dux de Frantia in sancti Dimitrii festivitate reversus est; and p. 115 f .: "is diebus Ursus Olivolensis ecclesie presul, qui pontificalem sedem annis gubernavit triginta et duobus, hominem exivit, cui successit Maurus episcopus."). ( 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, Liber II, 44. (on Berto-based text edition in the Archivio della Latinità Italiana del Medioevo (ALIM) of the University of Siena)
• Ester Pastorello (Ed.): Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta aa. 460-1280 dC , (= Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XII, 1), Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna 1938, SS 149 (“Hiis autem gestis, Veneti Iohanis ducis redictum prestolantes, Ursonem olivolensem episcopum, Basilium Transmondo et Iohanem Marturio sibi rectoruntes esse post Iohani duci reverso cum laudibus ducatum integraliter restituerunt. "). ( Digital copy, p. 148 f. )
• Roberto Cessi (ed.): Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille , Padua 1942, Vol. I, n. 60, pp. 114-118 (Testament of February 853). ( Digitized version )
• Documenti Veneziani: Venezia 5 , Testament of Ursus with Regest and critical comments

literature

• Marco Pozza: Il testamento del vescovo Orso (853 febbraio): un documento genuino o falsificato? , in: Claudio Azzara, Ermanno Orlando, Marco Pozza, Alessandra Rizzi (eds.): Historiae. Scritti per Gherardo Ortalli , Venice 2013, pp. 49–59.
• Luigi Andrea Berto: In Search of the First Venetians. Prosopography of Early Medieval Venice , Turnhout 2014, p. 451.
• Marco Pozza:  Particiaco, Agnello. In: Raffaele Romanelli (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 81:  Pansini – Pazienza. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2014, ("Il ducato fu retto provvisoriamente dal vescovo cittadino Orso (identificato senza sicurezza come un Particiaco) e da due tribuni.").

Web links

• Elenco cronologico dei Vescovi di Castello e dei Patriarchi di Venezia , Conoscere Venezia

Remarks

1. ↑ Marco Pozza: Il testamento del vescovo Orso (853 febbraio): un documento genuino o falsificato? , in: Claudio Azzara, Ermanno Orlando, Marco Pozza, Alessandra Rizzi (eds.): Historiae. Scritti per Gherardo Ortalli , Venice 2013, pp. 49–59, here: p. 59.
2. ↑ Marco Pozza: Il testamento del vescovo Orso (853 febbraio): un documento genuino o falsificato? , in: Claudio Azzara, Ermanno Orlando, Marco Pozza, Alessandra Rizzi (eds.): Historiae. Scritti per Gherardo Ortalli , Venice 2013, pp. 49–59.
3. ^ Roberto Pesce (Ed.): Cronica di Venexia detta di Enrico Dandolo. Origini - 1362 , Centro di Studi Medievali e Rinascimentali "Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna", Venice 2010.
4. ↑ Pietro Marcello : Vite de'prencipi di Vinegia in the translation by Lodovico Domenichi, Marcolini, 1558, pp. 20 f., Cf. in addition the passages that relate to his time before his Dogat, as listed in the section on his brother and predecessor Giustiniano ( digitized version ).
5. ↑ 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. 56-58 ( online ).
6. ↑ Heinrich Kellner : Chronica that is Warhaffte actual and short description, all life in Venice , Frankfurt 1574, p. 8r – 8v ( digitized, p. 8r ).
7. ↑ Alessandro Maria Vianoli : Der Venetianischen Hertehmen Leben / Government, und die Nachsterben / Von dem First Paulutio Anafesto an / bit on the now-ruling Marcum Antonium Justiniani , Nuremberg 1686, p. 96 f., Translation ( digitized ).
8. ↑ Jacob von Sandrart : Kurtze and increased description of the origin / recording / areas / and government of the world famous Republick Venice , Nuremberg 1687, p. 19 ( digitized, p. 19 ).
9. ↑ 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 ).
10. ↑ Alessandro Orsoni: Cronologica storia dei vescovi Olivolensi, detti dappoi Castellani, e successivi patriarchi di Venezia, corredata di annotazioni illustranti l'ecclesiastico-civile Veneta storia , Gaspari S. Felice, Venice 1828, p. 42 f.
11. ^ Samuele Romanin : Storia documentata di Venezia , 10 vol., 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. 170–172 ( digitized version ).
12. ↑ 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 ).
13. ↑ Francesco Zanotto: Il Palazzo ducale di Venezia , Vol. 4, Venice 1861, p. 29 ( digitized version ).
14. ^ Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna : Storia dei Dogi di Venezia , Vol. 1, Venice 1867, o. P.
15. ^ Heinrich Kretschmayr : History of Venice , 3 vol., Vol. 1, Gotha 1905, p. 62.