Back to Istituto Romeno’s Publications


Back to Geocities


Back to Yahoo


Back to Homepage Quaderni 2004






p. 119

Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae”.

The fourth crusade and the dogal title in the venetian chronicles’ representation



ªerban  Marin,

National Archives of Romania at Bucharest/

Romanian Institute of Culture and Humanistic Research at Venice


For Venice, tthe Fourth Crusade represented the opportunity to impose itself in the ex-Byzantine space as the most significant element, politically and economically. As a result of the events in 1203-1204, the new empire has most often been regarded as a Venetian creation, as puppet state at the Venetian merchants’ disposal. However, this incontestable Venetian domination in the region was not limited to the practical respect, but it came into connection to the theoretical one, demonstrated by the new title adopted by the doges, that is of Dominus quartae partis et dimidie totius Imperii Romaniae, attached to the one of Dux Venetiarum, Dalmatiae Croatiaeque. The Venetian self-pride was once again flattered, also in this sense. Indeed, the new circumstances allowed that “Constantinople est devenue une seconde Venise[1].

The new titlee could very well be inserted aside two other elements demonstrating the Venetian superiority, that is: the creation of the institution of podestà for the Venetian representative in Constantinople[2] and the election of a Venetian clerk as Latin patriarch[3]. Elaborated different centuries subsequent to the events, the Venetian

p. 120

chronicles would attach two other episodes to underline one more time the complete domination and the position of absolute arbiter played by Venice in the new state structure: the supposed candidature of the Doge Enrico Dandolo (1192-1205) for the imperial position and his subsequent resignation[4], and, as ulterior event, the proposal of the Doge Pietro Ziani (1205-1229) to remove the Venetian institutions in Constantinople, also unsuccesful[5].

Among all theese, the most important element to illustrate the new glory achieved by the Venetians consequent to the events is represented by the title of dominus. Its importance urged the Venetian tradition to involve in quantitative analysis with regard to the domination upon Romània, as the commentary of Fortunato Olmo, abbey of San Giorgio Maggiore, did: “Era dunque il Doge di Venezia Imperatore, né può negarsi, et perché Romània nel greco rilieva nel latino Roma Nuova, era dunque il Doge Imperatore romano, perciò che dopo che, da Costantino fu trasferito l’imperio da Roma vecchia a Costantinopoli, fu da lui istesso questa città detta con altro nome Roma nuova […]”[6], in consequence “[…] essendosi assegnata la sola quarta parte all’Imperatore, e al Doge una e mezza, era dunque più imperatore il Doge di Venezia che l’Imperatore Balduino istesso […]”[7].

Absent in thee contemporary narrative sources (the Frankish sources, the history of Nicetas Choniates, the Papal correspondence), it did not represented a case deserving to be studied either for the modern historiography. Generally, the specialized works dealing with the Fourth Crusade or with the history of the Latin empire of Constantinople and also the papers about the general history of Venice or of Byzantium have ignored it. In the more fortunate cases, they have simply recorded it[8], without

p. 121

involving in any debate. At most, they have mentioned the fact that the title appeared only subsequent to the death of Enrico Dandolo, being adopted by the first Venetian podestà in Constantinople – that is, Marino Zeno, and later by the Doge Pietro Ziani[9].

p. 122

The study provided by Vittorio Lazzarini dedicated to the Venetian doges’ titles is still an exception, involving also in a history of the title that we are to examine on this occasion[10]. Also, Roberto Cessi[11] and Silvano Borsari[12] implicated in juridical approaches of this particular title. As for Antonio Carile, he has given complete credit to the opinions expressed by V. Lazzarini[13]. Indeed, the necessity to operate a separation between the titles conceded to the doge Enrico Dandolo and respectively, to Enrico Dandolo as a person is welcome. Also, the situation of the Venetian citizens inside of an empire relying upon feudal structures could directed one to what S. Borsari regarded as “l’ibridità della situazione[14]. However, all these patterns do not represent the purpose for the present paper. This latter investigates the manner in which the new title was represented in the Venetian chronicles elaborated centuries after the events of the Fourth Crusade and of the beginnings of the Latin empire of Constantinople.

It is remarkaable the casual “competition” that the title of dominus was subjected to another one, that is of “despote”, also received by the Doge Enrico Dandolo in the same context. Some modern works have exposed separately the two achievements[15]. It seems that they take into consideration the relationship between this act and the general tendency of the conquerors of Constantinople to adopt Byzantine titles and dignities[16].

p. 123

The source coonsidered for the title of “despote” conferred to the doge is a source later to the event, that is Chronike Syngraphè by Georgios Akropolites, conceived around 1270, while the author had been born 13 years after the setting up of the Latin empire of Constantinople[17]. However, the very same source is the one referring to the “quarter and a half of quarter” (“τό τέταρτον καί του τετάρτου τό ήμισυ”) of Romània that were to be dominated by the doge[18]. Since the reference is made in the same context, it seems more appropriate to be considered the title of “despote” as appearing rather as synonymous with or even as Byzantine version for dominus, so that there is no “competition” between the two terms. The two titles should not be regarded ad litteram, and they seem to have rather one and the same general meaning of “lord”, at least because the term of “despote” in the Byzantine chronicler’s text has an adjectival function: “δεσποτικό αξίωμα[19]. There is an argument to support the assertion that the term of “despote” had already a relative meaning[20], and it is represented by the fact that this denomination was adopted also by the emperor himself, the Count Baldwin I of Flanders, who recommended himself in the first acts of the imperial office as “Βαλδουΐνος δεσπότης[21]. The fact is not singular at all, since the title of “despote” appeared also on previous (during the Emperor Alexius III – 1195-1203) or subsequent (under Henry I – 1206-1216, Robert of Courtenay – 1221-1228, Baldwin II – 1228-1261 and even in the times of Michael VIII Palaeologus – 1261-1282) imperial seals, so that its absolute meaning of Byzantine dignity (created under the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus[22]) came under relativity[23]. Actually, R. Guilland, althoug indirectly, indicated

p. 124

the separation between the noble title of “despote” and its meaning of “lord” designating the emperor[24]. Also, a possible acquisition of the title of “despote” independently to the one of dominus was to represent an opportunity for Enrico Dandolo or for his successors to utilise it on other occasions. Nevertheless, the title of “despote” did occur in none of the subsequent documents of the Venetian doges.

In order to ssupport this relativization of the title of “despote”, we are to make another reference, this time to an element from the Venetian chronicles’ milieu, that is to the chronicle of Martino da Canal, redacted between 1267 and 1275. This one advanced the following version: “Et a monseignor li dus en fu doné la carte part et la moitié de l’autre cartier de trestot l’enpire de Costantinople […][25]. At a first sight, it seems that the author omitted the title as such. Still, the next phrase resumes the event, accompanied by the ensuing explanation: “et fu apelé sire de sa partie […]”[26]. The term that da Canal utilized, that is “sire”, one more time confirms the demonstration that we proposed, having the same generic meaning of “lord, master” as the “despoteV” used by Akropolites.

Conclusively,, the title of “despote” at that moment did not represent a particular dignity anymore, and its synonymy with that of dominus is thus justified[27].

As for some BByzantine titles conferred to Enrico Dandolo, it is to be remarked that of protosevastos, previous to the Fourth Crusade, present many times during the privilege offered by the Emperor Alexius III[28], sometimes occurring even before the title of doge of Venice[29].

Henceforth, oone could conclude that Georgios Akropolites had knowledge about the dogal title of dominus (in the Byzantinized version of “despote”) from the official documents and that he assigned its origin, under the circumstances of the immediately subsequent events to the second fall of Constantinople in 1204. The singularity of Akropolites in the Byzantine historiography milieu as for the use of the

p. 125

new Venetian title could be explained by the fact that he was the only Byzantine author directly contemporary to the period when this particular title was utilised, that is before 1261. Actually, the title of “despote” would be used also by the emperors in Nicaea, this time addressed to the Venetian podestà[30].

Since Akropollites himself named the Doge Enrico Dandolo directly as the lord of “a quarter and a half of quarter” of the empire, one could express the possibility that a part of the Venetian writings were to be inspired for this by Akropolites himself, especially because the Byzantine chronicler influenced the Venetian writings on some other occasions either. The influence of the Byzantine author is visible not only in some writings belonging to the general Venetian chronicles, but also in those that strictly dealt with the Fourth Crusade. We refer here to Paolo Ramusio[31], and especially to Andrea Morosini[32]. Among the Byzantine historiography, this latter nominated exclusively the chronicle of Nicetas Choniates as source. However, to a more attentive analysis of the text, one could infer that he rather utilised the more remade version of the chronicle provided by the author of Chonai, that is the chronicle of Akropolites[33].

The title of dominus is therefore detected in the Venetian official documents in the period. Its first utilisation belongs to Marino Zeno, the new leader of the Venetian community in Constantinople, in a favourable moment for it to proclaim a relative independence faced with the mother country. The precise title is that of “nos Marinus Geno, Dei gratia Venetorum Potestas in Romània ejusdemque Imperii quarte partis et dimidie dominator[34]. However, the successive documents represented a step backward not only in the relationship of autonomy with the new doge, Pietro Ziani (by renouncing to the jurisdiction upon some territory in the favour of the Venetian commune), but also in the title itself, manifested in the disappearance of the expression of Dei gratia[35].

The title wouuld be taken over by the Doge Pietro Ziani, and the first document where this latter would appear under this title was signed by Marino Zeno himself, who

p. 126

recommended as “nos Marinus Geno de mandato et voluntate dom. nostri Petri Ziani, Dei gratia gloriosi Veneciarum, Dalmacie atque Chrovacie Ducis, ac dom. quarte partis et dimidie Imperii Romanie, in Constantinopoli Venetorum Potestas […][36]. Henceforth, Marino Zeno retreated himself beyond the modest title of podestà, while the doge gathered together all the glorious elements.

One some occaasions, different Venetian podestà in Constantinople would resort to the Greek denomination of “despote” or to the one of vicedominator, the case of Giacomo Tiepolo being only one example[37]. We are not to involve in the evolution of the dignity of podestà and of those that occupied it, this representing one of our future purposes of research.

Demonstratingg that Enrico Dandolo himself did not utilise the title of dominus, some scholars have underlined the fact that he used only an indirect speech regarding his domination on “a quarter and a half of quarter” of Romània, that it was actually a matter of fact and not a diplomatic custom, that Enrico Dandolo was dominator only de iure, and not de facto[38]: “Prefactus namque dominus noster Henricus Dandulus, dei gracia Venecie, Dalmacie atque Chroacie Dux, magni conscilii et potentie, dominator extitit super jam dictam quartam partem et dimidiam ejusdem Imperii, quousque vixit[39]. The argument is plausible. For its support, we add the fact that the only document that make such a referring was conceived by Marino Zeno in person, when announcing his election as podestà, so that he had all the interest to promote the new title and even to ascribe it to the conqueror doge of Constantinople.

Indeed, the DDoge Enrico Dandolo entitled himself traditionally just as “Dalmatiae atque Croatiae Dux[40]. Consequently, the documents demonstrate that the title of dominus seems an innovation of Marino Zeno and eventually of his advisers recruited among the Venetians established in Constantinople either on the occasion of the Fourth Crusade, or previously[41].

In his contriibution to the new dogal title, V. Lazzarini strictly relied upon the testimony of the official acts, making permanently reference to the collection of documents edited by G. L. Fr. Tafel and G. M. Thomas. The present study proposes to accomplish somehow this initiative, being concerned to the manner in which the

p. 127

subsequent Venetian chronicles would reflect the achievement of this title. We are to specify that, on the contrary to the official documents, the Venetian chroniclers that mentioned the acquiring of this title unanimously considered that it was the doge E. Dandolo himself to be the one who received the title of dominus, and not the podestà Marino Zeno and neither the Doge Pietro Ziani. Certainly, we agree with the opinions of V. Lazzarini, according to which the title would be imposed de iure once with Marino Zeno. However, the Venetian chronicles regarded the consideration of the conqueror-doge himself as receiving the imposing title as more useful and at hand[42].

In a recent sstudy[43], I proposed the division of the Venetian chronicles in a number of 11 categories, depending on the manner of representation of the non-Venetian crusaders during the Fourth Crusade. On other occasions, I retook this operation and amplified it by attaching every time new chronicles[44]. I am to follow the same scheme on the present investigation, dealing with the representation of the achievement of the title of dominus, specifying once again that all the chronicles that mentioned the episode, placing it exactly in the times of the conqueror-doge Enrico Dandolo.

1. Although it comes to an end when narrating the death of the Doge Pietro Ziani, so that it covers the period that we analyse now, the anonymous Historia Ducum Veneticorum does not comprise the events of the Fourth Crusade. Its first edittor, Henry Simonsfeld, completed this lacuna by retaking the information from the chronicle of Pietro Giustiniani[45]. This latter did not make any reference to the new title achieved by the Doge Enrico Dandolo. Also, another chronicle, attributed to the same Pietro

p. 128

Giustiniani[46], which on other occasions was to be approached to the codices M 2571 and M 2581[47] from this category, this time follows a particular depiction, closer to the writings in category 2. The pseudo-Giustinian chronicle moves off the other two chronicles in category 1. also as regards the order of describing the events, placing the episode of the dogal title immediately after the election of Baldwin as emperor, while M 2571 and M 2581 insert also the election of the Venetian patriarch[48]. Only the passing to the next episode represents the common element, which is the describing of the new heraldic sign of the Dandolos for all the three chronicles.


Pseudo-Giustinian, p. 141

M 2571, cc. 103v-104r

M 2581, cc. 93r-93v

Dux vero suo addidit titulo: “Dominus quarte partis et dimidie et totius imperii Romanie”, et hec pars sibi civitatis Constantinopolitane et imperii advenit propter pactum superius denotatum.

[…] lo qual Dose molto agumenta lo honor è stado de Veniexia per le bele vittorie che’l fese con li suo’ Venitianj; et per lo acquistar delo Imperio lo fe questa adicion al titolo del so Dogado, chorando MCCiiij del mese de Marzo (Dominus partae [sic !] partis et dimidie totius Imperij Romanie), zoè dela quarta parte et metà de tutto lo Imperio de Romània.

[…], lo qual Dose molto augmenta lo honor è stado de Veniesia per le bele vittorie che’l fese con li suoi Venitianj; et per lo acquistar delo Imperio, lo fe questa adicion al titolo del so Dogado, chorando 1204 del mese de Marzo: DOMINUS QUARTE PARTIS ET DIMIDIE TOCIUS IMPERII ROMANIE[49], zoè Signor della quarta parte et mezza de tutto lo Imperio de Romània.


2. While the chronicles included in this category (the long chronicle of the Doge Andrea Dandolo, the ones written by Lorenzo de Monacis and by Pietro Dolfin[50]) follow as a whole the same type of depiction, the chronicle of Andrea Navagero[51], previously approached to this category, uses a particular path, extremely concise. Although the episode in discussion succeeds to the partition of the Constantinopolitan

p. 129

treasure among the conquerors in all the four cases, the three previous chronicles introduce afterwards the depiction of the new arma Dandula, while the chronicle Navagero commences to narrate the campaign in Thracia enterprised by Boniface of Montferrat and Henry of Hainault.

As for the brrief chronicle of Andrea Dandolo[52], it dispatches the new title between the imperial election of Baldwin and the doge’s decease.


A. Dandolo-extensa, pp. 279-280

Monacis, p. 140

P. Dolfin, c. 328r

Addicio titulis ducalis. Venecie dux, ut tanti triumphi memoria recolatur, et posteris prodeat ad exemplum, procerum asistencium conscilio, ducali titulo addidit: Quarte parte et dimidio tocius imperii Romanie dominator […].

[…] Dux Venetiarum Henricus in perpetuum tantae victoriae monumentum, & ut cedat posteris in exemplum, assentiente Balduino Imperatore, procerumque consilio Ducali addidit titolo: Dominator Quartae Partis, & dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae […]

[…] El Duce de Veniexia, azioché la memoria de’ posteri s’arrecordo de tanto inclito triumpho e sia proficuo a’ successori et a exemplo, per consiglio di Signori, li prexenti agiese al titolo del Duce. Signor della quarta parte e mezza di tutto l’Imperio di Romània[53].


Navagero, p. 984

E s’aggiunse al titolo del Doge: Dominus quartae partis cum dimidia totius Imperii Romaniae.


A. Dandolo-brevis, p. 367

[…] unde, ob hoc, suo titulo ducali primitus addidit: Quarte partis et dimidie tocius imperij Romanie. Ex cuius ducis mirifica operatione Venetorum status vehementer auctus fuit.


3. The two writings previously included in this category (M 2592 and Sabellico[54]) do not comprise the episode of the new dogal title. The chronicle of Flavio Biondo[55] does not offer more than a reference to the dimension of the Venetian domination, which, also erroneous (speaking about a quarter of the empire), could be a clue to the title of “lord of a part of the whole empire of Romània”. Biondo presents this particular between the extension of the Western domination in the Andrinople area (without detailing the confrontation with Johannitza Caloyan) and the Venetian acquirements in the Aegean archipelago.

p. 130


Biondo, p. 13

Manserat apud Imperatorem Constantinopoli Henricus Dandulus vester Dux, quo partem quartam Imperii se tangentem certioribus discretam terminis, ac locorum nominationibus innotesceret.


4. and 5. At large, these two categories follow the same manner of presentation the event. It is to be remarked the exclusion of the chronicle da Canal, which advances a particular version[56]. As for the chronicles E. Dandolo, pseudo-Dolfin, Antonio Morosini [all three in category 4.][57] and M 89 [category 5.][58], the episode that we are interested in is inserted in a more ample depiction of the new titles obtained by the Crusader leaders, being preceded by the acquiring of the imperial title by Baldwin and of the Kingdom of Thessalonic by Boniface of Montferrat. It is succeeded in all these cases by the new sign of the Dandolos. On the other side, the chronicles Donà and Veniera 791[59] insert it in the middle of the presentation of the different relics and treasures acquired in the Byzantine capital. Like the chronicle Trevisan[60], they anticipate the events in 1261, passing then to the acquisition of Crete by the Venetians.

In addition, connected to this event, the chronicles Donà, Veniera 791 and Trevisan (from or approached to category 5.), any in its manner, present also the period of the Venetian domination in Constantinople. While the first two of them underline this domination through the agency of the Venetian podestà’s presence, the chronicle Trevisan does not make such an explanation.

The chroniclee M 71[61], which I previously approached to category 4., this time omits to present the new dogal title.


E. Dandolo, c. 42v

pseudo-Dolfin, c. 47r

Morosini, p. 12

[…] Adonca el ditto messer Enrigo Dandolo Doxe de Veniexia azonse al so titolo dogal Dominus quartae partis totius Imperij Romaniae; onde li doxi dapuo de lui un gran tempo su le so lettere se dava quel

[…] Aduncha, misser Henrigo Dandolo Doxe de Venesia azonse al suo titulo duchale Dominus quarte partis & dimidij totius Imperij Romani. Unde li Doxi dapuo lui uno gran tempo su le sue letter se dover quel titulo.

[…] Adoncha al ditto missier Endrizo Dandolo doxie de Veniexia azionse al so titolo dogal dux Veneciarum et quarte partis et dimidii tocius imperii Romanie, honde tutti i doxi dapuo de lui fim al prexente tenpo azunto suxo

p. 131



suo’ pistole e mandade, e da puo’ à fato scriver per cotal maniera.


M 89, c. 25r, col. 1

Donà, c. 31v

Veniera 791, p. 69r

Trevisan, p. 40r, col. 1

[…] Adoncha, misser Erigo Dandollo Doxe de Venyexia azonsse al so titolo dogal Domynus quartam partis et dimydij tozius inperatorem romanye, unde i Doxj dapuo de luj, in le soe lettre se lueva per un gran tenpo questo titolo.

[…] Il qual messer lo Doxe azonse al suo titolo Dominus quarte partes et dimidie totius Imperii Romanie, e tutti li Doxi dopo lui nelle sue lettere scritte questo titolo. Et dominò l’Imperio di Romània per anni 14 [sic!], mesi 9, zorni 13 […].

[…] Il qual messer lo Dose aggiunse al suo titolo Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae; et tutti li Dosi dopo de lui in le sue lettere scrisse per un’gran tempo questo titolo. Et per questo modo la città de Venetia fu molto esaltata di honor et di fama, con ciò fusse che il dominasse l’Imperio de Romagnia per anni 54, mesi 9, giorni 13 […].

[…] Ancora el ditto misser Rigo azonsse al suo titolo dugal Dominus quartam partis et dimidij tocius Imperatorie Romanie. Onde tutti i Doxi dapuo de lui in le sue lettere scrisse per uno gran tempo questo titolo, e per questo modo la città de Veniexia fo molto exaltada de onor e fama, con zio fosse che i dominasse lo Imperio de Romània anni 54, mese con dì 13 […].


6. The episode is absent in the codices that form this category[62].

7. The chronicle of Giovanni Giacopo Caroldo[63] introduces the originality to specify that the new dogal title was to result from the decision adopter by the same council that had elected Baldwin as emperor. Thus, it inserts the episode in the context of the new titles achieved by the crusaders and places it before the changing of the Dandolos’sign, just like other chronicles do.

As a compilattion, Marino Sanudo the Young’s Le Vite dei Dogi[64] retakes the same episode in two different descriptions of the Fourth Crusade’s events. While in the

p. 132

first version the author introduces the episode inside of the Byzantine empire’s partition, the second one is more expeditious and the respective moment represents the stage of the sudden passing from the Bosporus capital’s conquest to the Doge Dandolo’s decease. Because of the differences, we operated a separation inside of this chronicle, that is Sanudo 1 and Sanudo 2.


Caroldo, c. 149

[…] Per consiglio delli Capitani e Consiglieri dell’inclito Duce Dandolo, fu statuito ch’egli e successori si facessero dare il titolo di Duce di Venetia, Dalmatia e Croatia e Signor della 4ta parte e mezza dell’Imperio di Romània.


Sanudo 1, p. 530

[…] E il nostro Doge acquistò il titolo appresso quello, che usava di Venetiarum, Dalmatiae & Croatiae, di Dominus quartae partis cum dimidio totius Imperii Romaniae. Il qual titolo si usò fino al Doge Giovanni Dolfino.


Sanudo 2, p. 531

Iste Dux cum stolo cepit Constantinopoli, & Francigenae & Veneti titulum acquisiverunt Constantinopolis. Et primitus addidit suo titulo Dux quartae partis & dimidii totius Imperii Romaniae […].


In the case oof the chronicle Sanudo, it is to be noticed the observation offered by the author subsequently, when referring to Enrico Dandolo’s reign as a whole, synthesizing it in the phrase: “Henrico Duci est titulus Quartae partis & dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae Dominatoris[65].

8. This category[66] places the episode of the new title as being the last presented during the dogeship of Enrico Dandolo, even subsequent to his decease.


M 2541, c. 147v

Barbo 1, c. 43v

M 67, c. 174v

[…] et però si dice nel suo titolo di Henricho et del suo Ducato Dux quartae partis et dimidie totius Imperijs Romaniae.

[…] e però si dice in il suo titolo de Enrico et del suo Ducato Dux quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae.

[…] et però se dice nel suo titolo di Henricho et del suo Ducato Dux quartae partis et dimidie totius Imperijs Romanie.


9. Regarding M 793[67] as an exception that analyses the Fourth Crusade in an extremely expeditious manner, the other two chronicles comprised in this category

p. 133

(attributed to the Patriarch Giovanni Tiepolo[68], respectively to Agostino degli Agostini[69]), together with the chronicle M 77 (approached to this category)[70] do not omit to mention the episode, locating it between the reinstallation of the legal emperors on the throne in Constantinople and the assignment of the Venetian patriarch[71].


Tiepolo, cc. 78v-79r

Agostini, c. 26v

M 77, c. 58

[…] et havuta messer lo Dose la sua parte per nome de’ Venetiani, fu azonto al titulo de messer lo Dose Dominus dimidie quarte partis totius Imperij Romani […].

Quando il Dose prese il titolo de Dominus dimidie quarte partis totius Imperij Romaniæ[72]

Et havendo messer lo Dose la sua parte per nome de’ Venetiani, fu azonto al titolo de messer lo Dose, Dominus dimidiae quartae partis totis [sic!] Imperij Romaniae […].

[…] si che detto messer lo Dose hebbe la sua parte per nome de’ Venetiani, et habbuda detta parte, fù azonto al titolo de messer lo Dose Dominus di midia quartae partis totius Imperij Romaniae.


Among the wriitings that we previously approached to this category, the chronicle Sansovino only specifies that the doge “era creato Despoto dell’Imperio[73] (taken from the chronicle of Akropolites), while the chronicles M 2572, M 1999 and M 1833[74] do not involve themselves in matters connected to the title.

10. One should specify that the work attributed to a certain Marco[75] only anticipates the new dogal title, and that the author only mentions the territorial acquisition of Venice of “four parts and a half from the empire of Romània”, detail that he locates between the second conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders and the acquisition of Thessalonic [sic!], Negropont and the islands in the Aegean archipelago by the Venetians.

p. 134

As for the otther codices included in this category[76], the episode that we are concerned in is generally placed subsequent to the division of the empire and the city and prior to the depiction of the new heraldry of the Dandolos. As an exception, the chronicle Abbiosi[77] also inserts two other episodes (the capturing of Alexius V Murtzuphlos and the election of Baldwin I) after the new dogal title.


Marco, c. 43r

Ducante Henricho Dandulo capta fuit quarta pars & dimidie imperij Romanie.

Curente anno Domini M CC IIJ, Venetij Constantinopolim invasserunt civitatem eorum Dominio subiugantes & cum eodem domino Henrico Dandulo Duce obtinuerunt quartam partem & dimidiam tocius imperij Romanie. […] et cum eodem domino Henrico Dandulo duce obtinuerunt quartam partem et dimidiam totius imperii Romanie. De eodem.


M 2550, c. 78r

M 2556, c. 53

M 2559, c. 22, col. 1

[…] et per quella magnifica vittoria, et honor gionseno al suo titolo Dogal. D … […] quartae partis dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae.

[…] E per questa magnificha huoura chom honor el so titolo asonsser Dogal Dominus quarte partis dimidie totius Imperij Romanie. Onde per questo titolo et sopra nom fata per lo doxe sovra ditto molto fo acressudo lo stado deli Venitianj.

[…] E per questa magnificha chosa hover hopra chon honor el zionse al so titolo dogal Dux, Domino quarte parti cioè de dimidie tozius Imperij Romanie. Onde per questo titolo et hoperazion fato per lo Doxie sopra ditto, mo[l]to fo chresudo el stado de’ Veniziani.


M 44, c. 32v

Abbiosi, cc. 20r-20v

Curato, c. 18r

[…] E per questa magnifica ovra cum honor al suo titolo Dominus, Dominus quartae partis dimidiae è totius Imperij Romanie. Onde per questo titolo e operation facta per ‘l Doxe antedicto molto el stado delli Venetinj fu argumentado [=aumentando]

[…] E da quello vene che fo zonto al titolo quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperij Romani. E per questo fo molto esaltado l’honor Venetiana. E dal’hora in qua fù ditto Duchal Signoria.

[…] et da questo vene che’l fu zonto il titolo quarte partis et dimidie totius Romanie; et per questo fu molto exaltado l’honor Vinitiana e dal’hora in qua fu ditto Ducal Signoria.

p. 135

e cresudo in ben.




M 2576, c. 26v

M 38, c. 23r, col. 1-col. 2

M 39, c. 29r

M 104, c. 77v

[…] Et per questa magnifica opera agionse con honor azonse al suo titolo del Ducal Dominio Dux quartae partis et dimidiae totiusque Imperij Romaniae. Onde, per questo titolo et operation fatta per el ditto Dose, el stado de’ Venetjani fo molto aggrandito.

[…] E per questa magnificha hovra chon honor al so titolo lo azonse dogal dominio quarte partes dimidie tocius Imperij Romanie. Onde per questo titolo e opperacion facto per lo doxe ante dic/to molto lo stado delli Veneciani si fu argumetado [=aumentato].

[…] et el titolo tochò de raso in parte al Dose, anchora li tocchò una parte et mezza della Città et de tutto lo Imperio de Romània. Et per tal cosa molto crescete el stato et la reputatione de’ Venitianj.

& da questo vene che’l fo zonto el titolo, quarte partis & dimidie totius Imperij Romanj, et per questo fo molto exaltado l’honor Venetian; et dal’hora in qua fo dicto Ducal Signoria […].


11a. and 11b. These two subcategories invariably put the episode in connection to that of arma Dandula that it precedes. This is available also for the codex Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.][78], which still reverses the respective order. However, the differences occur in connection to the previous event: while in most cases (M 78, M 798, M 2560, M 2563, M 550, M 1586, Zancaruolo, Z. Dolfin, M 46, M 80, M 628a[79]) it is preceded by the purchasing of Crete from Boniface of Montferrat, in some other situations there are some other events to be placed initially, such as the campaign against Ragusa (M 2543[80]) or the partition of the Byzantine territories among the conquerors (M

p. 136

1577, Erizzo[81]). As a particular note for the codex M 1586, it does not mention the title itself, probably because of the copier’s error, while the codex Barbo 2[82] completely excludes the episode.


M 78, c. 11v, col. 2

M 2543, c. 53v

M 1577, cc. 288-289

[…] Et nota che per questo augumento al stado de Veniesia fu adiuncto agli titoli del Doxe de quella Dominus quarte partis tocius Imperij Romanie.

In questo tempo, messer lo Doge feze azonzer al suo titulo Dominus quarte partis et dimidie totius Imperij Romanie; unde per lo ditto Doxe fu magnifita lo stado de’ Venetiani; unde i Doxi dapuo lui fin al tempo de messer Zuan Dolphin usono questo titolo […].

[…] E non [=nota] che per magnificenza dell’acquistar fecce Veneziani della città de Costantinopoli e l’Imperio de Romània, el fono azonto al titolo del Dogado Dux quartae partis, dimidiae totius Imperj Romanie[83].


M 1586, c. 41v

Zancaruolo, c. clxxxxvjr

Erizzo, c. 111r

[…] Et nota per questa magnificenza che conquista li Venetiani l’Imperio de Romània, el fo aggiunto al titolo del Dogado.

Titolo che se feze dar el Doxe[84]

Al ditto Doxe stando in Constantinopolj se feze azonzer per titolo questo Dux Venetiarum et dominus quarte partis in dimedie totius Imperii Romanie.

[…] Nota che per questa magnifica uovra dell’acquistar fexe Venetiani della città de Constantinopoli e l’Imperio de Romània, con honor el si zonseno al so titolo dogal Dux quarte partis & dimidie totius Imperij Romaniae. Onde, per questo titolo et operation fatto per lo Doxe sopraditto, molto fo cressudo el stado de Venetiani […].


M 798, c. xxiijv

M 2560, c. 70r

M 2563, c. 12v

[…] Messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe, avanti che’l morisse in Constantinopoli, per zonzer per titulo del dogado Dominus quarte partis dimidie totius Imperalis [sic!] Romanie.

[…] Missier Dandolo illustrissimo Doxe de Veniexia, avanti la so morte in Constantinopoli, feze azonzere per titolo al dogado queste parole: Dux Venetiarum et Dominus quarte partis dimidie

[…] Messer Rigo Dandolo Doxe avanti che’l morisse, a Constantinopoli fexe azonzer per titulo Domino quarte partis dimidie totius Imperij Romaniae.

p. 137


totius Imperij Romanie.



M 550, cc. 73r-73v

Z. Dolfin

[…] e tor[n]iamo al Serenissimo Dandolo, il qual inanci a la sua morte fece giunger un titolo al suo principato in Costantinopoli di sorte tale Dux Venetiarum et Dux quarte partis Dimidie totius Imperii Romanie.

Come fu azonto a Venetiani questo titolo: Dux Venetiarum et dominus quarte partis dimidie totius imperii Romanie[85]

Missier Rigo Dandolo doxe illustrissimo de Venetia avanti la sua morte in Constantinopoli fece azonzer per titolo al dogado queste parole: Dux Venetiarum et dux quarte partis et dimidie totius imperii Romanie […].


M 46, c. 33r

M 80, c. 105r

M 628a, c. 92r

[…] e a messer Rigo Dandolo avantj che’l morisse a Constantinopolj fexe azonzer per titulo Dominus quarte partis dimidie totius Inperij Romanje.

Missier Rigo Dandolo avanti che morisse in Costantinopoli, fece gionger al titolo del dogado Dominus quartae partis et dimidie totius Imperij Romaniae.

Messer Rigo Dandolo Dose avanti che’l moresse in Constantinopoli li fecce zonzer al titolo del dogado Domino quarte partis et dimidie totius Imperij Romanie […].


The chroniclees that I approached to this category follow other succession in the distribution of the events. Thus, the chronicle Barbaro[86] locates the event of the new title in the middle of describing the organisation of the part taken from Constantinople by the Venetians, the chronicle Savina[87] places it between the acquisition of the Kingdom of Thessalonica by the Marquis Boniface and the juridical organisation of the conquests, and Veniera 2580 – between the episode of arma Dandula and the presentation of different treasures captured in Constantinople and brought to Venice.


Barbaro, c. 244r

[…] et fu concesso al Dose che podesse azonser nei suoi tituli Signor della 4ta parte et mezza dell’Impero et della Romània, come poi sempre nelle sottoscrittion dei Dosi s’e costumado de far.


Savina, c. 58v

[…] E fu ancora concesso al ditto Dose e sui successori dal ditto Imperator che’l se havesse a intitolar Dominus quartae partis dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae.


Veniera 2580, c. 133v

[…] et anchora messe al titolo Dominij quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae; et per

p. 138

un tempo tutti li Dosi scrivevano cussì […].


The codex M 11800[88] represents rather a collection of documents of Venetian history than a proper chronicle. Nevertheless, it mentions the episode of the new title’s achievement, placing it between the description of the Venetian merchants’ exemptions in the new empire and the juridical organisation of the conquest, following to a certain extent the chronicle Savina’s pattern:


It. VII. 1800, cc. 59-60

[…] e fu ancora concesso al detto Dose, e sui successori, da esso Impero, che il s’avesse a intitolar Dominus quartae partis / dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae.


As a first coonclusion as regards the title, it is to be remarked that in majority it is represented in its original Latin form. The exceptions are the chronicles P. Dolfin [2.], Caroldo [7.] and Barbaro [approached to 11.], all of which translating dominus (or dominator, for A. Dandolo-extensa – 2. and Monacis – 2.) in signor. The particular case of Sansovino opts for the version of despoto, without mentioning the dimension of the dominion. In other cases, resorting to abridged versions, it is automatically passed to the version in the Venetian dialect[89]. An intermediate solution is offered by the two chronicles in category 1., which, through the term of “zoe”, ensure the passing to the version in vulgar language. Among them, there is only M 2581 that translates the title itself, opting for the version of signor. However, the most common option is the Latin version of the title.

There are alsso cases that omit the title of dominus, they only mentioning the proportion of the dominion, with[90] or without precision[91]. The idea advanced by M 1586 is even that the whole of the empire was to be added to the dogal title. The accuracy is also a problem even when dominus is present (category 9., where the Venetian domination is restraint to “a half of quarter”; M 2559 – 10. that proposes a strange version, “lord of four parts, that is of a half of the whole of the empire of Romània”).

Some writingss also reiterate the Venetian dogal title, speaking about “Dux Venetiarum et dominus … ”[92] or even about “Duce di Venetia, Dalmatia e Croatia e Signor … ”[93]. This option also attracts the risk to leave aside even the title of dominus[94], to retake the title of dux also in the case of the domination in Romània[95] or even to

p. 139

substitute definitely dominus by dux[96]. Here is the case of M 2550 [10.] to hesitate between these two titles, noting only the first letter that could suggest either dux, or dominus.

Less grave, ssome lacunae in the title are to be remarked, some terms being absent (either “totius / tutto[97], or “imperii[98]) or the conjunction et being added (“dell’Impero et della Romània”), thus a division inside of the dominated object being operated[99].

Among the aboove-mentioned chronicles, one could notice that the achievement of this glorious title is sometimes accompanied by different epithets that are to underline the new Venetian status, thus conferring it an aura of superiority. As one could conclude from the texts above, such epithets are present in two of the chronicles belonging to category 1. (M 2571 and M 2581), category 2. (except for the chronicle Navagero, but including A. Dandolo-brevis in exchange), category 10. (except for the chronicle Marco) and category 11a. (except for the chronicle Zancaruolo). As a supplementary detail, there are three of the chronicles in category 10. (Abbiosi, Curato and M 104) that add a somehow intrigued element in connection to this episode, that is “and from that moment onwards, it was called as the dogal Signoria”.

This associattion inside the description of the events proves one more time the fact that the title of dominus is the one that clearest illustrates the satisfaction of the Venetian pride. Other writings do not operate necessarily in this manner, although they also resort to a eulogistic tone as regards the Doge Enrico Dandolo’s period, but on other circumstances, that means that they are not to be put in direct connection to the episode of the dogal title, but to the event of the Fourth Crusade on the whole.

For instance,, there are to be mentioned the supplementary conclusions offered by the chronicle Monacis [2.]. The fact that these considerations are placed only subsequent to the acquisition of the Kingdom of Thessaly by Boniface of Montferrat and previous to the confrontation with Johannitza Kalojan (therefore, towards the finish of the Fourth Crusade’s presentation) is not relevant.


Monacis, pp. 140-141

[…] Et ut summarum sequar fastigia rerum, Veneti per mare, Imperator per terram maximis rebus gestis intra annum acquisiverunt fere omnes terras Imperii Romaniae, & quod mirabile fuit, & memorabile semper erit, in tanta diversarum gentium multitudine, diversitate morum, in tanta gerendarum rerum expeditione idem velle, idemque nolle continuo fuit, nulla contentione tot animorum unitatem interrumpente adeo, ut felix fama hujus fidelis societatis illibatae concordiae, & pacificae con/versationis per totum orbem diffunderetur cum ingenti gloria Venetorum. Et cum de generali passagio illis temporibus ageretur, quesitumque esset, quaenam potentia maritima ducatu tantae rei dignior videretur, quasi omnes recalescente memoria Constantinopolitanae expeditionis palmam Venetis deferebant.


p. 140

There are alsso to be remarked the three chronicles in category 4., the chronicles M 89 and Veniera 791 [both in category 5.] and the chronicle Trevisan [approached to 5.], when they refer to a hypothetical temporary turning of Enrico Dandolo to Venice and specify that it occurred in a great triumph. All these cases place the referrals to the glory achieved by Venice between the changing of the Dandolos’ sign and the presentation of different relics and treasures deposited in the basilica of St. Mark. It is to be remarked also that the chronicle Trevisan also inserts the sending of the first podestà in Constantinople by the doge.

In addition, these chronicles anticipate the events in 1261, although with a lack of accuracy in dating. This time, one could attach also the other chronicle in category 5. (Donà), which had omitted to describe the triumphal returning of the doge to Venice, either because of the accuracy of the events, or because of a simple error in copying. We feel inclined towards this second hypothesis, since the respective writing often commits confusions, including the one referring to the period of Venetian domination in Constantinople.

On the whole, these two categories mention openly the superior position of Venice on the new empire:


E. Dandolo, c. 42v

pseudo-Dolfin, c. 47r

Morosini, p. 12

[…] Et con quella venne a Veniexia con gran trionfo et con quella reverentia et letitia fò degno, fò rezevudo con tutta l’armada, et per questo muodo la città de Veniexia fò molto exaltada de honor et fama et gran valor. Conzo sia che i dominasse l’Imperio de Romània [marginally note: An. 54 m. 9], el qual anni in quanta quattro mexi noue, mandando continuo in quello Capitanio, e Podestà sotto l’Imperador detto, benché della parte de’ Viniziani de niente l’Imperador se impazava, se non tanto quanto piaxeva a messer lo Doxe et Veniziani. Compledo el ditto tempo, come peradredo trattaremo, fù prexo Constantinopoli cortesemente per Ongari infideli.

[…] & cum quella [arma] vene a Venesia. & cum gran triumpho & cum quella reverentia & letitia fo degno; fo recevudo cum tutta l’armada & in questo modo la città de Venesia fo molto exaltada da honor, fama & gran valor, conzo fosse li dominassero lo Imperio de Romagna [sic!], el qual anni Liiij° & mexi Viiij°. mandando de continuo in quel luogo Podestà di & Capitanij sotto lo Imperador dicto, benché de le parte de’ Venetiani de merite lo Imperador se impazaua senon tanto quanto piaseva a misser lo Doxe & a Venetiani. Compido el dicto tempo come per a dredo tractarenmo fo preso Constantinopoli cortesemente per Ungari infidelj.

[…] et chon quella [arma] vene a Veniexia chom gran trionfo, et chon quella reverentia e leticia ch’el fo degno fo rezevudo chon tuta l’armada soa, et per questo muodo la Città de Veniexia fo molto exaltada e de onor et fama et gran valor, et per ziò fosse chi dominasse l’Inperio de Romània, el qual per ani LIIII mexi VIIII, mandado per chontinio in quella chapetanio et podestà de sotto l’inperador ditto, benché da la parte di Veniciani aveva de niente l’inperador se ne inpazava, se no intanto quanto piaxeva a missier lo doxie e i Veniciani, et chonplido el tenpo, chomo per adriedo tratteremo, fo prexo Constantinopoli chortezemente per i Ongari infedeli.

p. 141

M 89, c. 25r, col. 1

Veniera 791, c. 69r

Trevisan, c. 40r, colls. 1-2

[…] e chon quella vene a Venexia chon gran tryonfo e chon quella reverenzia e delizion; fo degno e fo rezeudo chon tuta l’armada, e per questo modo la zità [=città] de Veniexia fo molto exaltada de honor e fama e gran valor. Chon zo fosse che i domynasse l’inperio de Romanya el qual anny 54 e mexi 9 lo tene, mandando chontinuo Capetanio e Podestà de sotto l’inperio ditto, ben che della parte de Venyzianj de nente l’inperador se inpazaua. Se non tanto quanto piaxeva a misser lo Doxe e a Venyziany chonpido el duito tenpo como per adriedo tratteremo, fo prexo Costantinopolj cortexemente per Ongarj infidellj.

Partito el ditto messer lo Dose da Constantinopoli con la ditta armada, vene a Venetia con gran triompo et festa. […] Et per questo modo la città de Venetia fu molto esaltata di honor et di fama, con ciò fusse che il dominasse l’Imperio de Romagnia per anni 54, mesi 9, giorni 13, mandanando [sic!] Podestà et Capitanio sotto il ditto Imperio, benché della parte de’ Venetiani niente l’Imperator se impazava, senon tanto quanto piaceva a messer lo Dose et al Commun de Venetia. Compito el ditto tempo, fu preso Constantinopoli per Ongari, come se dirà.

E partido el ditto misser lo Doxe da Constantinopoli con la ditta arma, venne a Veniexia con gran trionfo e festa […]. La città de Veniexia fo molto exaltada de onor e fama, con zio [=ciò] fosse che i dominasse lo Imperio de Romània anni 54, mese con di 13; e per el primo podestà el Doxe mandò Marim Zem, el quale aveva el governo solo della parte che hera de’ Veniziani, e l’imperador de quella niente se inpazava nome tanto quanto piaxeva al Doxe e al Comun di Veniexia. E compido el ditto tempo, fo prexo la ditta città per Ongari infedeli nel tempo de messer Renier Zem Doxe de Venetia, l’anno ottavo del suo Dogado, siando podestà de Marco Gradenico.


Donà, c. 31r

[…] Et dominò l’Imperio di Romània per anni 14 [sic!], mesi 9, zorni 13, mandando Podestà e Capitanio sotto il detto Imperio ottenuto piaceva al Comun di Venetia.


Approached too category 4., the chronicle M 71 makes also some reference to the period of Venetian domination in Constantinople (with the respective dating error). The detail is placed immediately after the mentioning of the acquired treasures and relics and it also brings the narration of the Enrico Dandolo’s dogeship to an end.


M 71, c. 129v

La città di Costantinopoli restò indivisa et li Signori Venetiani mandavano magistrato per governare il loro terzo, così durò la Signoria in tal possesso fino al 1258.


The triumphall supposed returning of the doge to Venice is also advanced by category 9. (Tiepolo, Agostini and M 77), which places it between two fanciful events: the installment of Fantino Dandolo (regarded as the doge’s son[100]) as patriarch of

p. 142

Constantinople and the fancied recovery of Jerusalem by the Venetians, under the commandment of the other doge’s son, that is Rainieri[101].


Tiepolo, c. 79r

Agostini, c. 26v

M 77, c. 58

[…] Poi se parti et con grandissimo trionfo tornò a Venetia.

[…] Poi se partì et con grandissimo trionfo tornò a Venetia.

Poi lui se parti et con grandissimo trionfo tornò à Veniesia […].


As for the chhronicle M 793, which does not mention anything about the dogal title of dominus, it still refers to the period of the Venetian domination in Constantinople in the same manner as categories 4. and 5., in a context that briefly describes the Fourth Crusade and that assigns less than one page to the entire dogeship of Enrico Dandolo.


M 793, c. 70r

[…] questo Doxe andò con armada in compagnia de altri Principi et prese Costantinopoli et hebbe la sua quarta parte e mandò Podestà et altri rezimenti per ani 54, mesi 9, zorni 13, fino che Costantinopoli fu preso per Ongari infedeli […].


Approached too category 9., the chronicle M 1999 brings a laudatio to the Doge Enrico Dandolo, but only on the occasion of his decease.


M 1999, cc. 30v-31r

Venne pur anche a morte dopo 97 anni di vita / e 13 di principato Henrico Dandolo, felice per la gloria di tante imprese, e per il merito di sì ampio dominio guadagnato co’ suoi pericoli alla patria, ristando tra suoi trionfi nella Chiesa di Santa Sofia sepolto.


On his turn, the chronicle Barbaro [approached to 11.] makes also some eulogistic considerations, but places them between the depiction of the patriarchal election of Pantaleone Giustiniani [sic!][102] and the unfruitful involvement of the Genoese in the negotiations for Crete with the Marquis Boniface.


Barbaro, c. 248r

p. 143

Essendo adonque, per tanti acquisti fatti nella Grecia, et nell’Imperio Oriental, molto acresciudi de nome i Venetiani de reputation, et de ricchezze, mossi li Zenovesi da invidia de tanta prosperità […].


Some works meention the period of utilisation for this new title. It is about “a long space of time”[103]. Other versions indicate the fact that “all the doges subsequent [to Enrico Dandolo]” would take advantage of this title[104] or that it was preserved “up to the present day” [105]. Thus, they demonstrate that either their conceiving occurred previous to the renunciation to this title (in 1358), or they had no knowledge about the loss of it. The chronicle Trevisan [approached to 5.] combines the versions above, mentioning “all the doges subsequent to him […] for a long period of time”. The chronicle Barbaro [approached to 11.] is more concise: “and then always”, while Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.] is more reserved, indicating just that the title was utilised “for a while”. On the contrary, the chronicles Sanudo 1 [7.] and M 2543 [11a.] are more precise: “until the time of the Doge Giovanni Dolfin”.

As one could notice in this context, some chronicles makes referral to the period of the Venetian domination in Constantinople. We refer here to the chronicles in categories 4. (M 71 included) and 5. and to the chronicle M 793 [9.]. Some of them would reiterate the specification once with the narration of the episode in 1261[106]; some others would not[107].

On the whole,, there are still some chronicles that completely ignore the achievement of the new title of dominus: categories 3. and 6., one of the chronicles in category 9. (M 793), the chronicles M 71, M 2572, M 1999, Barbo 2 and M 1833.

However, it iis strange enough that the dogal title seems to be many times on an equal footing with a detail referring to the new heraldry of the doge’s family, so that with a personal detail of him. The episode of the new arma Dandula is also present in the majority of the chronicles and is usually located immediately after the episode of the title of dominus. Practically, the chronicles that neglect the former are broadly speaking those that also omit to mention the latter. In addition, it is absent in the chronicles Marco, Navagero, A. Dandolo-brevis, category 8. (M 2541, Barbo 1, M 67), category 9. (beside M 793, there are the chronicles Tiepolo and Agostini that do not mention it), chronicle

p. 144

M 1800. On the contrary, there is the case of the chronicle Barbo 2, which presents with profusion of details the episode of the new Dandolos’ sign[108], while the new dogal title is absent.

Generally speeaking, the two episodes are put into connection, and the order of presentation is: first, dominus; secondly, arma Dandula. This order is reversed in the case of the chronicles Trevisan [approached to 5.] (which also inserts the relics and treasures acquired by the Venetians from Constantinople between the two episodes), Donà [5.], Veniera 791 [5.] and Veniera 2580 [approached to 11.] (these three works separate the two moments by the relics settled in the basilica of San Marco). Thus, in these cases there is the changing of the Dandolos’ heraldry to be regarded as more important than the new title of dominus.

The number off the chronicles that insert different other events between these two episodes (the adoption of the title of dominus and the modification of the arma Dandula) is reduced. It is about Barbaro [11.] (such as the organization of the Venetian colony in Constantinople, the legal matters concerning the new empire, the appearance of the Byzantine state of the Lascarides in Nicea, the crusaders’ decision to renounce to the expedition towards Jerusalem for one year, the relics and treasures detected and spoiled from Constantinople, the confirmation of the Venetian patriarch, the Venetian campaign against Ragusa[109], the internal decisions taken by Rainieri Dandolo), Abbiosi [10.] (where the acquisition of the title of Dominus is a result of the first siege of Constantinople, so that it is followed by the ascending of Alexius V Murtzuphlos on the throne, the second siege, the elections, and only afterwards it is mentioned the changing of the Dandolo sign), Sanudo (7.) (the episodes of partitio Romaniae, the legal matters, the election of Baldwin, the achievement of Crete, Ragusa, Durazzo and Corfù[110], the relics and treasures taken from Constantinople) and Savina [11.] (the organization of the Venetian colony in the new empire, the Lascarides, the renunciation to the expedition to Jerusalem, the achieved relics and treasures, the Venetian Patriarch[111], the acquisition of Crete).

The works of Paolo Ramusio and Andrea Morosini would strictly have the Fourth Crusade as approaching topic, so that they would be deeply involved in the matter of the dogal title.

At least in aa first turn, Paolo Ramusio seems to insist upon the title of “despote” as being conferred by Baldwin I to the doge: “Per honorare il Dandolo Doge di Venetia in un modo particolare, lo creò Despoto, che vuol dire Prencipe dell’Imperio, che è il primo grado dopo quello dell’Imperatore, & soleva già da gl’Imperatori di Costantinopoli darsi a’ figliuoli loro col feudo del Peloponesso, che hora si chiama la Morea […]”[112]. Thus, the author inclines without hesitation to regard the title of

p. 145

“despote” strictly as dignity, and not as a general term meaning “lord”. He would refer again to the title of “despote”[113], and afterwards would offer an original explanation about the origins of the denomination of Romània as the territory possessed by the Venetians: “usò egli [n. n. Enrico Dandolo] infino alla morte, dando il nome di Romània alla parte d’un quarto & mezzo dell’Imperio, che gli era toccata, il quale honore non solamente fu dato a’ Dogi di Venetia, ma ancora a’ Podestà Venitiani, mandati dalla Repubblica a Costantinopoli […]”[114]. Even later, P. Ramusio would be involved in the matter of the title of the podestà Marino Zeno, offering supplementary details about his person, inclusively about the fact that “[Marino Zeno] ritenne parimente il titolo di Despoto dell’Imperio, & di Signor della Romània[115], without specifying the initial possession of “the three eights” of the empire of Romània. Previously, he makes some other considerations about this possession, but as a prerogative belonging strictly to the rulers in the mother country: “Questa prerogativa, & questo titolo di Dominio di quella parte, usarono senza alcuna controversia tutti i Dogi dal Dandolo [n. n. Enrico Dandolo] infino al Delfino [n. n. Giovanni Dolfin], che furono sedici, nel corso di cento, & undeci anni [sic!]”[116].

Andrea Morosiini approaches the matter in another manner. After he had shown that three quarters of the conquest were to be equally divided between Venetians and Frenchmen, the author would specify: “Henrico Dandolo assunse il titolo per se, e successori suoi, oltre il solito, che diceva Dux Venetiarum, Dalmatiae, & Croatiae, Dominus quartae partis, & dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae, come si vede in molti autentici instrumenti, e nelli Statuti della Repubblica, benché per decreto pubblico hora non si dica se non, Dux Venetiarum: essendo stato per deliberatione espressa vietato, che non debba sottoscriversi il suo nome in altra maniera[117], and then he would mention the division of the conquered territories (Partitio Romaniae). He refers thus to the instruments of the dogal office (instrumenti, e […] statuti della Repubblica), which he certainly had at hand and consulted. Like Paolo Ramusio, A. Morosini would not omit to refer to the taking over of the title by Marino Zeno: “Et quelli che si ritrovavano in Constantinopoli elessero per loro capo, in luoco del Dandolo, Marin Zeno, e lo nominarono Venetorum Potestas, & quartae partis, & dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae Dominator & c.”[118], and then to insert (with some insignificant alterations) the documents according to which the Venetian podestà and the Emperor Henry I confirmed the division of the conquest, and respectively to which the Venetian possessions in Romània are confirmed[119].

p. 146

Henceforth, tthe both works refer to Marino Zeno as the one that was to have the title of lord of “a quarter and a half [of quarter] of the entire empire of Romània”, either they do it directly (A. Morosini), or indirectly (P. Ramusio). However, to the same extent, they consider once with the general Venetian chronicles that the title was to be retaken from the deceased doge. One more time, the discrepancy between the narrative writings (that regards Enrico Dandolo himself as receiving the title) and the official documents (that accredit Marino Zeno as ‘inventor’ of the title) is to be noticed.

As regards thhe recognition of the new titles of the Venetian doges by the external political factors, the often quoted study of Vittorio Lazzarini offers two examples, referring to two of the greatest enemies of the Republic of San Marco, that is the Genoese community (act dated in 1212) and the Emperor Frederick II (document from 1220), indicating afterwards that the examples are in abundance, at least for the period of Pietro Ziani’s dogeship[120].

The period beetween 1206 and 1358 represents a constant as concerns the utilisation of the new title by the doges, according to the official documents issued in Venice, where every doge is entitled as “Dei gratia dux Venecie [Venetiarum] Dalmatie atque Chroatie, dominus quarte partis et dimidie tocius imperii Romanie”.

However, thiss evolution is confronted by a syncope, originating in the episode in 1261, when the Latin empire of Constantinople ceases to exist, and the Venetian domination upon three eights of Romània empties its contents. Anyhow, the consequence upon the Venetian dogal title does not represent a general modification. The title of dominus continues its career, not embarrassed by the new political reality. The domination upon “a quarter and a half [of quarter] of the entire empire of Romània” is still reflected in the dogal title, with only one exception, that is in the correspondence with the Byzantine emperor returned on the Constantinopolitan throne, beginning with Michael VIII Palaeologus. The treaty in July 1265 between the two parties names the Doge Rainieri Zeno (1253-1268) with a new title, that is “illustris dux Venetiarum et dominator Chroatiae et Dalmatiae et omnium aliarum terrarum et insularum sue dominationi summissarum, dominus Raynerius Geno[121]. In the same note, the text of the chrysobull in 1277 nominates the Doge Giacomo Contarini (1275-1280) as “Nos Jacobus Contarenus, Dei gracia Venecie, Dalmatie et Croacie Dux, dominus terrarum et insularum, suo Ducatui subiectarum[122]. It is only an exceptional case, this latter title being in function exclusively in the relationship with the Byzantine emperors. Beside this, in the exchange of letters with other decisional factors, the domination on “a quarter

p. 147

and a half of the empire of Romània” would continue to be bluntly affirmed in the dogal title[123].

The Venetian chronicles generally avoid the syncope in 1261. The result of the negotiations with Michael Palaeologus is expelled in one single idea, that is the preservation of the dogal title and especially of the idea of domination, marked through the term of dominus / dominator. Nevertheless, the changing of the dominated subject is sometimes remarked in some of the chronicles. We exemplify first by the chronicle pseudo-Giustiniani: “Verum dux Veneciarum imperatori predicto vel suis successoribus non debet scribere: «dominus quarte partis et dimidie totius imperii Romanie», sicut primitus rescribebat, sed loco dicti tituli imperatori solummodo valeat et debeat scribere: «Dominus terrarum et insularum suo ducatui subiectarum», et sic imperator duci scribit[124] Further, the edited version of this chronicle has a lacuna in the text. Since the idea is retaken by the chronicle Barbaro, even quoting Pietro Giustiniani, we are to operate the respective completion relying on it: “ne scrivendo all’Imperator Greco se dava al Dose più titolo como prima «Dominus quarto partis et dimidiae totius Imperij Romaniae», ma diseva solamente, «et aliarum terrarum et insularum Dominus»; et cusì scrivendo l’Imperator al Dose ghe dava il medesimo titolo; ditte ben Piero de Thomasin Zustignan nelle so croniche, che scrivendo il Dose ei altri Prencipi eccetto che all’Imperator Greco usava il suo antigo titulo, come l’era solito de far avanti[125]. A similar description is brought into discussion by the chronicles M 2571 and M 2581 [both in category 1.]: “et etiam dio che muodo se tien a scriver allo Imperador predicto per che lo Dose non li scrive «Domino quarte partis et dimidie tocj Imperij Romanie». Ma a tuti li altri principi et baroni et ab sudditi lo Dose usa lo ditto titolo[126], with the specification that the new title of “dominus terrarum et insularum” is omitted. There is also to be mentioned the chronicle Navagero, which reproduces integrally the text of the treaty in 1265 (the version translated in the vulgar language) and unavoidably specifies the dogal title in the form of “Illustre uomo Rinieri Zeno Doge di Venezia, Dalmazia e Croazia, Signore delle Terre e Isole del suo Ducato soggetto[127].

As a matter oof fact, the title was to represent the single element of the Venetian domination in area that was to persist even after 1261. All the others (the Venetian podestà in Constantinople, the Latin patriarchy, etc.) ceased to exist, also formally.

p. 148

 Therefore, the concession accorded to the Palaeologues was nothing more than an exception. Another kind of exception and in the relationship with another political factor, that is the Hungarian royalty, would gradually be imposed. The Venetian doges’ title tends to be deprived by another element, that is the one to express the domination on Dalmatia and Croatia, an example being offered by the letter in August 1322 of King Charles I Robert of Hungary (1308-1342) addressed to Doge Giovanni Soranzo (1312-1328). The latter is named as “dei gratia Veneciarum duci, domino quarte partis et dimidie totius imperii Romanie[128]. The subsequent disputes between Venice and Hungarian King Louis I (1342-1382) would not represent exclusively military confrontations, but to the same extent confrontations around the title. This latter kind of dispute is also interesting to be had in view, from the angle of the importance given to the titles by the two political factors, both of them having in intention to impose the renunciation to the title of domination on Dalmatia and Croatia to the other. Sometimes they resort to compromise formulae (much like “si in contractu seu scripturis fiendis de predictis dominus Rex poneret in titulo suo Dalmaciam et Chroaciam, noster siniliter titulus totus ponatur: si vero illud taceret, sicult facit in licteris suis nobis missis, dicendo solum Rex Hungarie [n. n.], nostri etiam taceant, dicendo solum Dux Venetiarum et cetera. De non 1, non sinceri 2[129]), inherently followed by subterfuges and violations. Either Doge Andrea Dandolo (1343-1354), or the King Louis infringes the previous stipulation and proclaims himself also as duke / king of the two provinces[130]. The Serenissima’s compromising position is so surprising as Venice just succeeded to reject the troops sent by the king on the Dalmatian coast (1346), gaining a decisive victory in the neighbourhood of Zara. It represents actually a new proof of the hesitant policy of the doge-chronicler. Although victorious, the Republic made sometimes the attempt to satisfy the dreaded vanquished king.

Although occaasionally, some acts issued by the Serenissima’s office resort gradually to the simple title of “Dux Venetiarum et cetera[131]. Anyhow, this formula would be definitely imposed only under Doge Giovanni Dolfin (1356-1361), under the circumstances of the war in 1356-1358 against the same Louis I, through the

p. 149

Venetian-Hungarian peace treaty, where one of the first stipulations refers to the title[132]. Having his revenge on the military level on this occasion, Louis I now dictates the doges’ new title, which, once with the loss de facto of the Dalmatian coast, consecrates also the loss de iure of the domination over “a quarter and a half of quarter of the entire empire of Romània”. On that particular moment, Venice was in an unfavourable position not only in the context of the conflict with Louis of Anjou, but also on the front of the naval disputes. The Venetian fleet had been destroyed on November 1354 by the Genoese in the confrontation of Portolongo, which defeat had been to affect the Venetian position at the Constantinopolitan court in favour of their rivals from Liguria. Consequently, the loss of the title of dominus came to confirm a state de facto also in the context of the loss of prestige in a Byzantium that had just came from a civil war, once with the resignation of Emperor John VI Cantacuzene, occurred a few days after the battle of Portolongo.

Previewed by two chronicles (Sanudo – 7. and M 2543 – 11.) when narrating the Fourth Crusade’s events, the loss of the title under Doge Giovanni Dolfin is also mentioned by a number of Venetian chronicles while describing his dogeship[133].

As for the tiitle, it would never be modified, not even when, after some decades, Dalmatia would be conquered again as a result of the expedition enterprised by Pietro Loredano in 1420 (under Doge Tommaso Mocenigo – 1414-1423) and neither when King Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437) would recognise the new factual state, in the treaty in August, 1435 (under Doge Francesco Foscari – 1423-1457)[134]. Once

p. 150

again, the discrepancy between the de iure element (including the title) and the de facto one (meaning the effective domination) was verified. This time, it was in a reverse sense than in the changes occurred under the circumstances of the preceding episodes in 1261 and 1358.



Other articles published in our periodicals by ªerban Marin:


A Humanist Vision regarding the Fourth Crusade and the State of the Assenides. The Chronicle of Paul Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius)


A Precedent to the Fourth Crusade. The anti-Byzantine Campaign of Doge Domenico Michiel in 1122-1126 according to the Venetian Chronicles


Nicolae Iorga e la cronachistica veneziana


The First Venetian on the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople. The Representation of Tommaso Morosini in the Venetian Chronicles


The Venetian ‘Empire’ in the East. The Imperial Elections in Constantinople on 1204 in the Venetian Chronicles’ Representation


Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade, according to the Venetian Chronicles’ Tradition


Venice and translatio imperii. The Relevance of the 1171 Event in the Venetian Chronicles’ Tradition



For this material, permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Quaderni della Casa Romena 3 (2004) (a cura di Ioan-Aurel Pop e Cristian Luca), Bucarest: Casa Editrice dell’Istituto Culturale Romeno, 2004

No permission is granted for commercial use.


© ªerban Marin, June 2005, Bucharest, Romania


Last updated: July 2006



Back to Geocities


Back to Yahoo


Back to Homepage Quaderni 2004


Go to Annuario 2000


Go to Annuario 2001


Go to Annuario 2002


Go to Annuario 2003


Go to Annuario 2004-2005


Go to Quaderni 2001


Go to Quaderni 2002


Back to Istituto Romeno’s Publications



[1] Freddy Thiriet, Histoire de Venise, Paris 1952, p. 45. For Constantinople regarded as “une autre Venise” or “la Nuova Venezia”, see also Nicolae Iorga, France de Constantinople et de Morée, Bucharest 1935, p. 23 or Donald M. Nicol, La quarta Crociata, translated by Patrizia Colombani, in Storia di Venezia. Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. II, L’età del Comune, edited by Giorgio Cracco and Gherardo Ortalli, Rome 1995, pp. 155-181 (180), while Denis A. Zakythinos, La conquête de Constantinople en 1204, Venise et le partage de l’Empire byzantin, in Venezia dalla Prima crociata alla Conquista di Costantinopoli del 1204, Florence 1965, pp. 139-155 (152) brought the idea even further, talking about “une «Grande idée» vénitienne” in connection to this respect.

[2] See Roberto Cessi, L’eredità di Enrico Dandolo, in “Archivio Veneto”, 5th series, 67, 1960, pp. 1-25 (14-25); Robert Lee Wolff, A New Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople: The Oath of the Venetian Podestà, in “Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientale et Slave”, 12 [=Mélanges Grégoire], 4, 1953, pp. 539-573 [=Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London 1976, study VI].

[3] See Louis de Mas Latrie, Les Patriarches Latins de Constantinople, in “Revue de l’Orient Latin”, 3, 1895, pp. 433-456; Aurelio Palmieri, I vicari patriarcali di Costantinopoli, in “Bessarione”, 2nd series, 7, 1904, pp. 41-48; Leo Santifaller, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (1204-1261) nach den venezianischen Urkunden, Weimar 1938; R. L. Wolff, The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261, in “Traditio”, 6, 1948, pp. 33-60; Idem, Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 8, 1954, pp. 227-303; Giorgio Fedalto, Il patriarcato latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261), in “Studia Patavina. Rivista di scienze religiose”, 18, 1971, 2, pp. 390-457; ªerban Marin, The First Venetian on the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople. The Representation of Tommaso Morosini in the Venetian Chronicles, in “Quaderni della Casa Romena di Venezia”, 2, 2002, pp. 49-90 [=].

[4] See Idem, The Venetian ‘Empire’ in the East. The Imperial Elections in Constantinople on 1204 in the Representation of the Venetian Chronicles, in “Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, 5, 2003, pp. 185-245 [= /marin2003. html].

[5] See Idem, The Venetian Community – between civitas and imperium. A Project of the Capital’s Transfer from Venice to Constantinople, according to the Chronicle of Daniele Barbaro, in “European Review of History”, 10, 2003, 1, pp. 81-102 [Romanian version, Comunitatea veneþianã – între civitas ºi imperium. Un proiect de transfer al capitalei de la Veneþia la Constantinopol, în conformitate cu cronica lui Daniele Barbaro, in “Studii ºi materiale de istorie medie”, XX, 2002, pp. 139-159].

[6] Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Miscellanea di carte non appartenenti ad alcun archivio, b. 9, p. 12, apud Antonio Carile, La Partitio terrarum Imperii Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica dei veneziani, in “Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici”, new series, 2-3, 1965-1966, pp. 125-183 (177).

[7] Ibidem.

[8] Some examples: S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, 2nd edition, vol. II, Venice 1912 [1853-1861], pp. 184-185; Ludwig Streit, Venezia e la quarta crociata, in “Archivio Veneto”, 16, 1878, 1, pp. 46-94 ºi 16, 1878, 2, pp. 239-271 (265) [the original title of the article, Venedig und die Wendung des vierten Kreuzzuges gegen Konstantinopel, Anklam 1877]; H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, vol. I, Gotha 1905, p. 489; William Miller, The Latins in the Levant. A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566), London 1908, p. 30; Charles Diehl, Une république patricienne: Venise, Paris 1915, p. 52; John Knight Fotheringham, Marco Sanudo, Oxford 1915, p. 52, 55; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire. 324-1453, vol. II, Madison–Milwaukee–London 1952 [1917-1925], p. 463; N. Iorga, op. cit., p. 23; Eugenio Musatti, Storia di Venezia, 3rd edition, vol. I, Milan 1936, pp. 108-109; Ch. Diehl and Lysimaque Oeconomos, in Histoire du Moyen Age, vol. IX, part 1, L’Europe Orientale de 1081 à 1453 (authors Ch. Diehl, L. Oeconomos, Rodolphe Guilland, René Grousset), Paris 1945, pp. 136-137; R. L. Wolff, Romània: the Latin Empire of Constantinople, in “Speculum”, 23, 1948, pp. 1-34 (1, note 3 and p. 8), reprinted in Idem, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople cit., London 1976, study II; Jean Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée, Paris 1949, p. 63; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, translated by Joan Hussey, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1969 [1952], p. 424; Andrea da Mosto, I Dogi di Venezia nella vita pubblica e privata, Milan 1960, p. 74; Venice, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 23, Chicago–London–Toronto–Geneva–Sydney 1964, s. v., p. 65; Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, translated by John Gillingham, Oxford 1988 [1965], p. 204; D. A. Zakythinos, op. cit., p. 148; A. Carile, La partitio terrarum imperii Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica dei veneziani cit., p. 179; Francesco Cognasso, Storia delle crociate, [Milan] 1967, p. 744; Giorgio Cracco, Società e Stato nel medioevo veneziano (secoli XII-XIV), Florence 1967, p. 57; Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vol. 1, The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia 1976, p. 19; Donald E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople. 1201-1204, [Leicester] 1978, p. 150; A. Carile, La cancelleria sovrana dell’impero latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261), in “Studi Veneziani”, n. s., 2, 1978, pp. 37-73 (42); G. Cracco, Un “altro mondo”. Venezia nel Medioevo, dal secolo XI al secolo XIV, Turin 1986, pp. 61-62; Mario Gallina, Potere e società a Bisanzio. Dalla fondazione di Costantinopoli al 1204, Turin 1995, p. 322; Nicholas A. Cooke, The Sack of Constantinople [=htt://], 2000 (only mentioning that “Dandolo demanded for Venice «one half and one quarter of the Roman Empire» as its share of conquered lands”, without specifying that it was about an apart title); Innocenzo III –4a crociata– Il piccolo Federico II [= htm]; I dogi di Venezia (3) [= biografie/dogi03.htm]; Michele Ducas Puglia, Venezia e le Crociate (parte seconda) [= CorpoCroc1.html].

[9] It is about the scholars strictly relying upon the official documents, see W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen-Âge, French edition by Furcy Raynaud, vol. I, Amsterdam 1983 [1885-1886], p. 287; Camillo Manfroni, Storia della marina italiana dalle invasioni barbariche al trattato di Ninfeo (anni di C. 400-1261), Livorno 1899, p. 341 (who erroneously named this latter as “Ranieri Zeno”); J. K. Fotheringham, Genoa and the Fourth Crusade, in “The English Historical Review”, 25, 1910, pp. 26-57 (48); Louis Halphen, L’essor de l’Europe (XIe-XIIIe siècles), 2nd edition, Paris 1941 [1932], p. 288; R. L. Wolff, A New Document cit., p. 544; Fr. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen age. Le développement de l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénitien (XIIe-XVe siècles), Paris 1959, pp. 79-81; R. L. Wolff, The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204-1261, in A History of the Crusades, edited by K. M. Setton, vol. II, The Later Crusades 1189-1311, edited by R. L. Wolff and Henry W. Hazard, Philadelphia 1962, pp. 187-233 (193); A. Carile, Partitio Terrarum Imperii Romanie, in “Studi Veneziani”, 7, 1965, pp. 125-305 (166-167); D. A. Zakythinos, op. cit., p. 150; D. M. Nicol, The Fourth Crusade and the Greek and Latin Empires, 1204-1261, in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV, The Byzantine Empire, part 1: Byzantium and its Neighbours, edited by J. M. Hussey, Cambridge 1966, pp. 275-330 (293-294); A. Carile, Per una storia dell’impero latino di Costantinopoli (1204-1261), 2nd edition, Bologna 1978, p. 228; Idem, La cancelleria sovrana dell’impero latino di Costantinopoli cit., p. 42; John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice, London 1982, p. 147; D. M. Nicol, Venezia e Bisanzio, translated by Lidia Perria, Milan 1990 [1988], p. 204; David Jacoby, The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261): the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance, in “Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik”, 43, 1993, pp. 141-201 (147-148); Giorgio Ravegnani, La Romània veneziana, in Storia di Venezia. Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima cit., vol. II, pp. 183-231 (203-204); D. M. Nicol, Byzantium, Venice and the Fourth Crusade [=] (“and he [n. n. Marino Zeno] adopted the title of Podestà and Dominator or Lord of one quarter and one eighth of the whole Empire of Romània”).

[10] Vittorio Lazzarini, I titoli dei dogi di Venezia, in “Nuovo Archivio Veneto”, new series, 2, 1903, pp. 271-311 (see especially pp. 295-308).

[11] R. Cessi, Storia di Venezia, vol. II, Dalle origini del ducato alla IV crociata, Venice [1958], pp. 465-467; Idem, L’eredità di Enrico Dandolo cit., pp. 14-25; Idem, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, Florence 1981, pp. 194-195, 199-201.

[12] Silvano Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane in Romània nel XIII secolo, Naples 1966, pp. 17-21.

[13] A. Carile, Partitio Terrarum Imperii Romanie cit., p. 167; Idem, La Partitio terrarum Imperii Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica dei Veneziani cit., p. 179.

[14] S. Borsari, op. cit., p. 20.

[15] Ch. Diehl, op. cit., p. 52; Ch. Diehl and L. Oeconomos, op. cit., p. 136, respectively pp. 136-137; J. Longnon, op. cit., p. 63; R. L. Wolff, A New Document cit., p. 543, respectively p. 544; F. Thiriet, op. cit., p. 76, respectively p. 78; D. A. Zakythinos, op. cit., p. 152, respectively p. 148; A. Carile, Partitio terrarum Imperii Romanie cit., p. 166, respectively pp. 166-167; K. M. Setton, op. cit., pp. 18-19, respectively p. 19; G. Ravegnani, op. cit., p. 203, respectively pp. 203-204. On the other side, there are some works that have exclusively referred to the adoption of the title of “despote”, see Louis Bréhier, L’Eglise et l’Orient au moyen age. Les Croisades, 6th edition, Paris 1928, p. 169 (“très probablement”); D. M. Nicol, La Quarta Crociata cit., p. 179.

[16] For the Byzantine titles adopted by the non-Venetian crusaders, see A. Carile, Per una storia dell’Impero latino cit., p. 217 (table VIII); Peter Lock, The Latin emperors as heirs to Byzantium, in New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. Andrew, March 1992, edited by Paul Magdalino, Aldershot–Brookfield–Vermont 1994, pp. 295-304 (298-299). As for J. Longnon, op. cit., p. 63, he has only referred to the title of protovestiarios adopted by Conon of Béthune, regarding the other dignities conferred by Baldwin I as “plus conformes aux usages d’Occident”.

[17] Georgii Acropolitae Annales, edited by Immanuel Bekker, Bonn 1836, p. 15.

[18] Ibidem.

[19] The same Akropolites use the verb “despozein see Ibidem, p. 75.

[20] For the title of “despote” as representing the highest rank in the Byzantine hierarchy, see Louis Bréhier, Les Institutions de l’Empire byzantin, Paris 1949, passim; G. Ostrogorsky, Urum-Despotes. Die Anfänge der Despoteswürde in Byzanz, in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, 44, 1951, pp. 448-460; R. Guilland, Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantine. Le despote, o despotes, in “Revue des études byzantines”, 17, 1959, pp. 52-89; B. Ferjanèiæ, Despoti u Vinzatiji i juznoslovenskim zemljana, Belgrade 1960; Stelian Brezeanu, Din nou asupra începuturilor instituþiei de despot, in “Analele Universitãþii Bucureºti. Istorie”, 21, 1972, 1, pp. 21-32 (abstract in Russian and French); A. Failler, Les insignes et la signature du despote, in “Revue des études byzantines”, 40, 1982, pp. 171-186; Despotes, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edited by A. P. Kazhdan et alii, Oxford 1991, s. v.

[21] N. Iorga, op. cit., p. 35; J. Longnon, op. cit., p. 52; A. Carile, La cancelleria sovrana dell’impero latino cit., p. 56; F. Cognasso, op. cit., p. 742 and especially Benjamin Hendrickx, Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204-1261): le pouvoir impérial (l’empereur, les régents, l’impératrice), in “Byzantina”, 6, 1974, pp. 87-154 (130-131).

[22] R. Guilland, op. cit., pp. 53-54; S. Brezeanu, op. cit., pp. 21-22. See also Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis Gestarum, edited by Augustus Meineke, Bonn 1836, p. 215, referring to the attribution of the title of despote to the Hungarian prince Bela (the future king Bela IV, 1172-1196) by Manuel I.

[23] See G. Schlumberger, F. Chalandon and A. Blanchet, Sigillographie de l’Orient latin, Paris 1943, pp. 165-169, nos. 1-8; pp. 170-172, nos. 11-16; G. Zacos ºi A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. I, part 1, Basel 1972, pp. 98-100, nos. 109-110; pp. 111-113, nos. 120-121 bis.

[24] R. Guilland, op. cit., p. 54.

[25] Martin da Canal, Les estoires de Venise. Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275, edited by Alberto Limentani, Florence 1972 [hereafter, Canal], p. 60.

[26] Ibidem.

[27] N. Iorga, op. cit., p. 45 went even further, opting for the synonymy between the titles of “despote” and of “emperor”.

[28] Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante, vol. I, edited by G. L. Fr. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Amsterdam, 1964 [hereafter, Tafel-Thomas], document LXXXV (“Privilegium Alexii III Imperatoris Constantinopolitani, concessum inclito domino Henrico Dandulo Duci”), dated November 1199, pp. 246-280 (249, 250, 256).

[29] Ibidem, pp. 255-256, 256, 274. The title of protosevastos conferred by the Byzantine emperors to the Venetian doges had already become a habitude, being detectable in the cases of all the doges prior to Enrico Dandolo, beginning with Vitale Falier (1084-1096). For the evolution of the title of protosevastos given to the doges, see V. Lazzarini, op. cit., pp. 283-292; G. Ravegnani, Dignità bizantine dei dogi di Venezia, in Studi veneti offerti a Gaetano Cozzi, [Vicenza] 1992, pp. 19-29 (28-29).

[30] See infra, note 37.

[31] See Paolo Rannusio, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli per la restitutione degl’imperatori Comneni fatta da’ signori Venetiani et Francesi, l’anno MCCIV. Libri sei, Venice 1604. For this chronicle, see ª. Marin, A Humanist Vision regrading the Fourth Crusade and the State of the Assenides. The Chronicle of Paul Ramusio (Paulus Rhamnusius), in “Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, 2, 2000, pp. 51-120 [=].

[32] See Andrea Moresini, L’Imprese ed espeditioni di Terra Santa, et l’acquisto fatto dell’Imperio di Constantinopoli, dalla Serenissima Republica di Venetia, Venice 1627. See ª. Marin, op. cit., pp. 79-80.

[33] The exclussive utilisation of the terms of “Bulgarians” regarding the Assenides in prejudice of that of “Vlachs” is just an example. For some other similarities between Akropolites and Andrea Morosini, see ª. Marin, The Venetian ‘Empire’ in the East” cit., passim.

[34] Tafel-Thomas, document CLIV (“Confirmatio Pheudorum institutorum per Marinum Geno, Potestatem Constantinopolitanum”), dated June 2, 1205 (erroneous dated, according to V. Lazzarini, op. cit., p. 295, note 2), vol. I, pp. 558-561 (559).

[35] Tafel-Thomas, document CLIX (“Refutatio eiusdem Marini, facta comuni Venecie de Chorphu et Durachio et alijs locis Imperij”), dated October 1205, vol. I, pp. 569-571 (570); Ibidem, document CLX (“Confirmatio partitionis per dominum Henricum, fratrem Imperatoris Constantinopolitani, et Marinum”), dated October 1205, vol. I, pp. 571-574 (571).

[36] Tafel-Thomas, vol. II, document CLXIV (“Marinus Geno, Potestas Constantinopoli, concedit de mandato Petri Ziani, Ducis Veneti, multas proprietates terrarum positas in Constantinopoli, de ratione dominii Venet. Benedicto Faletro, Patriarchae Gradensi”), dated February 1206, pp. 4-11 (4).

[37] Tafel-Thomas, vol. II, document CCLII (“Pactum factum inter Lascarum, Imperatorem Grecorum, et Jacobum Teupulo, Potestatem Constantinopolitanum”), dated August 1219, pp. 205-208 (205-206).

[38] V. Lazzarini, op. cit., p. 294; R. Cessi, L’eredità di Enrico Dandolo cit., p. 20; Idem, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia cit., pp. 194, 199-200.

[39] Tafel-Thomas, vol. I, document CLVII (“Electio Marini Geno in Potestatem Constantinopolitanum post obitum domini Henrici Dandulo”), dated September 2, 1205, pp. 566-569 (567).

[40] Tafel-Thomas, vol. I, document CXXVIII (“Henrici Danduli Ducis Venetorum ad Papam epistola”), dated 1205 (?), pp. 521-523 (522).

[41] For the list of these counsellors, see Tafel-Thomas, vol. I, document CLIV, mentioned above, pp. 559-560.

[42] This tendency is not exclusive for the chronicles. For instance, the decoration of the portrait of Enrico Dandolo in the Sala del Maggior Consiglio in Venice makes the specification: “Henrico duci est titulus: Quartae partis et dimidiae totius imperii Romaniae dominatoris”. This detail was noticed by A. da Mosto, I Dogi di Venezia cit., p. 74.

[43] ª. Marin, Venetian and non-Venetian Crusaders in the Fourth Crusade, According to the Venetian Chronicles’ Tradition, in “Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia”, 4, 2002, pp. 111-171 [=].

[44] Idem, The First Venetian on the Patriarchal Throne cit.; Idem, The Venetian ‘Empire’ cit.; Idem, Veneþia ºi cãderea unui imperiu. Reprezentarea momentului 1261 în cronistica veneþianã, in “Revista Istoricã”, new series, 14, 2003, 3-4, pp. 211-254; to a certain extent, see also Idem, Un transilvano a Venezia: il voivoda Stefano Lackfi II e la guerra del 1372-1373 tra Venezia, Padova e Ungheria nella Cronaca di Giovanni Giacopo Caroldo, in L’Italia e l’Europa Centro–Orientale attraverso i secoli. Miscellanea di studi di storia politico-diplomatica, economica e dei rapporti culturali, edited by Cristian Luca, Gianluca Masi and Andrea Piccardi, Brãila–Venice 2004, pp. 61-80 [Romanian version, Idem, Un transilvãnean la Veneþia. Cazul voievodului ªtefan Lackfi II, în contextul conflictului veneto-padovano-maghiar de la 1372-1374, in “Revista Arhivelor”, 79, 2002, 1-2, pp. 73-100].

[45] For the edition of H. Simonsfeld, see Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores, vol. 14, Hannover 1883, pp. 72-97 [hereafter, Hist. Ducum]. The recent version of Historia Ducum Venetorum, for describing the events in the first stage of the Fourth Crusade, resorts to a simple summary; see Testi storici veneziani (XI-XII secolo). Historia ducum Venetorum. Annales Venetici breves. Domenico Tino, Relatione de electione Dominici Silvi Venetorum ducis, edited by Luigi Andrea Berto, Padua 2000 [1999], pp. 2-83 (68-69). The chronicle of Pietro Giustiniani could be consulted in the manuscripts Lat. X. 36a [=3326] and Lat. X. 237 [=3659] from the Marciana National Library at Venice.

[46] Historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata, edited by R. Cessi and Fanny Bennato, Venice 1964 [hereafter, pseudo-Giustinian].

[47] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1457, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia [hereafter, BNM], mss. It. VII. 2571 [=12463] [hereafter, M 2571]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1570, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2581 [=12473] [hereafter, M 2581].

[48] For the election of the Venetian patriarch in this version, see ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., pp. 56-57.

[49] Capital letters in the manuscript.

[50] Andreae Danduli Duci Veneticorum Chronica per extensium descripta aa. 46-1280 d.C., in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 12, new edition by Ester Pastorello, Bologna 1923, pp. 5-327 [hereafter, A. Dandolo-extensa]; Laurentii de Monacis Cretae Cancellari Chronica de rebus venetis Ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV, sive ad conjurationem ducis Faledro, edited by Flaminio Corner, Venice 1758 [hereafter, Monacis]; Pietro Dolfin. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2557 [=12449] [hereafter, P. Dolfin].

[51] Storia della Repubblica Veneziana scritta da Andrea Navagero patrizio veneto, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 23, edited by L. A. Muratori, Milan 1733, pp. 923-1216 [hereafter, Navagero].

[52] Andreae Danduli. Chronica brevis, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, new edition, vol. 12, part I, edited by E. Pastorello, Bologna 1938, pp. 351-373 [hereafter, A. Dandolo-brevis].

[53] Underlined in the manuscript.

[54] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1247, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2592 [=12484] [hereafter, M 2592]; M. Antonii Sabellici, rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita, ad Marcum Barbadicum, Sereniss. Venetiarum Principem & Senatum, Decadis Primae, in Degl’Istorici delle Cose Veneziane, i quali hanno scritto per Pubblico Decreto, Venice 1718 [1487] [hereafter, Sabellico].

[55] Blondi Flavii Forliviensis, De Origine et Gestis Venetorum Liber, in Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae, new edition, vol. V, part 1, edited by Johann Georg Graevius, Leyden 1722, pp. 1-26 [hereafter, Biondo].

[56] See supra, note 25.

[57] Enrico Dandolo. Cronaca veneta dall’origine della città fino al 1373, BNM, mss. It. VII. 102 [=8142], microfilm Pos. Marc. 127 [hereafter, E. Dandolo]; Cronaca di Venezia, detta di Pietro Dolfino, dall’origine della città sino all’anno 1418, BNM, mss. It. VII. 559 [=7888] [hereafter, pseudo-Dolfin]; The Morosini Codex, vol. I, edited by Michele Pietro Ghezzo, John R. Melville–Jones and Andrea Rizzi, Padua, 1999 [hereafter, Morosini].

[58] Cronaca veneta dal principio della città fino al 1410, BNM, mss. It. VII. 89 [=8391] [hereafter, M 89].

[59] Antonio Donà. Cronaca veneta dall’anno 687 al 1479, BNM, mss. It. VII. 10 [=8607] [hereafter, Donà]; Cronaca Veniera, BNM, mss. It. VII. 791 [=7589] [hereafter, Veniera 791].

[60] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1444, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2567 [=12459) [hereafter, Trevisan].

[61] Cronaca veneta dal principio della città fino al 1600, BNM, mss. It. VII. 71 [=7866] [hereafter, M 71].

[62] Cronica di Venezia fino al 1382, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2544 [=12436] [hereafter, M 2544]; Gasparo Zancaruol. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1446, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2570 [=12462] [hereafter, M 2570]; Cronaca veneziana dall’origine della città fino all’anno 1446, BNM, mss. It. VII. 47 [=8139] [hereafter, M 47]; Cronaca veneta dall’origine della città fino al 1446, BNM, mss. It. VII. 48 [=7143] [hereafter, M 48]; Cronica veneta, dal 703 al 1420, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2028 [=8559] [hereafter, M 2028].

[63] Gianiacopo Caroldo. Cronaca veneziana, sino all’anno 1382, BNM, mss. It. VII. 128b [=7443] [hereafter, Caroldo].

[64] Marini Sanuti Leonardi filii Patricii Veneti De Origine Urbis Venetae et vita omnium Ducum feliciter incipit, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 22, edited by L. A. Muratori, Milan 1733: Vitae Ducum Venetorum Italice Scriptae ab origine Urbis, sive ab anno CCCC XXI. usque ad annum MCCCCXCIII., pp. 399-1252 [hereafter, Sanudo].

[65] Sanudo, p. 535.

[66] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1310, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2541 [=12433] [hereafter, M 2541]; Cronaca veneta detta Barba dal principio della città fino al 1545, BNM, mss. It. VII. 66 [=7766], cc. 1r-73v [hereafter, Barbo 1]; Cronaca veneta dal principio della città fino all’anno 1549, BNM, mss. It. VII. 67 [=9132] [hereafter, M 67].

[67] Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della città al 1478, BNM, mss. It. VII. 793 [=8477] [hereafter, M 793].

[68] Giovanni Tiepolo Patriarca di Venezia. Cronaca veneta ad esso attribuita dall’anno 421 al 1524, BNM, mss. It. VII. 129 [=8323] [hereafter, Tiepolo].

[69] Agostino Agostini. Storia veneziana di Agostino Agiostini dal principio della fondazione di Venezia (421) fino all’anno 1570, Biblioteca della Fondazione Querini Stampalia di Venezia, mss. IV. 16 [=770] [hereafter, Agostini].

[70] Cronaca veneziana dall’anno 421 fino al 1379, BNM, mss. It. VII. 77 [=7420] [hereafter, M 77].

[71] For this latter episode, see ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., pp. 65-66.

[72] Underlined in the manuscript.

[73] Francesco Sansovino, Venetia città nobilissima et singolare, vol. 2, edited by Giustiniano Martinioni, Venice 1968 [1663] [hereafter, Sansovino], p. 561.

[74] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1471, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2572 [=12464] [hereafter, M 2572]; Epitome della Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1999 [=7918] [hereafter, M 1999]; Storia veneta dalla fondazione della Repubblica sino all’anno 1750, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1833 [=8376] [hereafter, M 1833].

[75] Marci Chronica universalis, BNM, mss. It. XI. 124 [=6802] [hereafter, Marco].

[76] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1410, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2550 [=12442] [hereafter, M 2550]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1422, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2556 [=12448] [hereafter, M 2556]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1427, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2559 [=12451] [hereafter, M 2559]; Cronaca veneziana dal principio della città fino al 1433, BNM, mss. It. VII. 44 [=7865] [hereafter, M 44]; Antonio di Matteo di Curato. Cronaca veneta, BNM, mss. It. VII. 162 [=8037] [hereafter, Curato]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1501, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2576 [=12468] [hereafter, M 2576]; Cronaca veneziana dal principio della città fino al 1388, BNM, mss. It. VII. 38 [=8748] [hereafter, M 38]; Cronaca veneziana dal principio della città fino all’anno 1405, BNM, mss. It. VII. 39 [=8609] [hereafter, M 39]; Cronaca veneziana dal principio della città fino al 1443, BNM, mss. It. VII. 104 [=8611] [hereafter, M 104].

[77] Camilo Abbiosi detto il Seniore di Ravenna. Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della città fino all’anno 1443, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2052 [=8981] [hereafter, Abbiosi].

[78] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1556, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2580 [=12472] [hereafter, Veniera 2580].

[79] Cronaca veneziana dall’anno 1190 all’anno 1332, BNM, mss. It. VII. 78 [=9135] [hereafter, M 78]; Cronaca veneta dall’origine della città sino all’anno 1478, BNM, mss. It. VII. 798 [=7486] [hereafter, M 798]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1432, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2560 [=12452] [hereafter, M 2560]; Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1441, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2563 [=12455] [hereafter, M 2563]; Cronaca dall’origine di Venezia sino all’anno 1442, BNM, mss. It. VII. 550 [=8496] [hereafter, M 550]; Cronaca veneta dal principio della città fino al 1450, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1586 [=9611] [hereafter, M 1586]; Cronaca veneta supposta di Gasparo Zancaruolo, dall’origine della città fino al 1446, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1274 [=9274] [hereafter, Zancaruolo]; Cronaca di Venezia dall’origine della città sino all’anno 1458, BNM, mss. It. VII. 794 [=8503] [hereafter, Z. Dolfin] (for the referrals to the Fourth Crusade made by this chronicle, I took advantage of the notes placed at my disposal by Anne–Laure Keiser from Paris, to whom I am to express my gratitude. Those notes only specify the pages 185-190 for the entire episode of the Fourth Crusade, so that I am note able to be precised as regards the page for one quotation or another); Cronaca veneziana dalla fondazione della città fino al 1444, BNM, mss. It. VII. 46 [=7603] [hereafter, M 46]; Cronaca veneta dall’anno 1400 fino al 1684, BNM, mss. It. VII. 80 [=8026] [hereafter, M 80]; Cronaca breve veneziana dall’origine di Venezia sino all’anno 1465 [in miscellanea], BNM, mss. It. VII. 628a [=8049] [hereafter, M 628a].

[80] Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1356, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2543 [=12435] [hereafter, M 2543].

[81] Cronaca della città di Venezia dalla sua fondazione fino all’anno 1400, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1577 [=7973] [hereafter, M 1577]; Cronaca veneta attribuita a Marcantonio Erizzo, fino all’anno 1495, BNM, mss. It. VII. 56 [=8636] [hereafter, Erizzo].

[82] Cronaca veneta detta Barba dal principio della città fino al 1545, BNM, mss. It. VII. 66 [=7766], cc. 74a-390a [hereafter, Barbo 2].

[83] Underlined in the manuscript.

[84] Underlined in the manuscript.

[85] Underlined in the manuscript.

[86] Daniele Barbaro. Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1275, BNM, mss. It. VII. 2554 [=12446] [hereafter, Barbaro].

[87] Girolamo Savina. Cronaca veneta dal principio della città sino al 1616, BNM, mss. It. VII. 134 [=8035] [hereafter, Savina].

[88] Estratti da una Cronaca anonima dal principo della città fino all’anno 1616, BNM, mss. It. VII. 1800 [=7682] [hereafter, M 1800].

[89] M 2559 and M 39 – both in category 10.

[90] Marco, Abbiosi, Curato, M 38, M 104 – all of them in category 10.

[91] A. Dandolo-brevis, Biondo, M 39 [10.], M 1586 [11.].

[92] Zancaruolo, M 2560 – both in category 11.

[93] Caroldo [7.]

[94] Morosini [4.]: “dux Veneciarum et quarte []”.

[95] M 550 and Z. Dolfin – both in category 11.

[96] Sanudo 2 [7.]; category 8.; M 2576 [10.]; M 1577 [11.], Erizzo [11.].

[97] Biondo [3.]; Caroldo [7.].

[98] Curato [10.].

[99] Barbaro [approached to 11.].

[100] For this episode, see ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., pp. 65-66.

[101] For Enrico Dandolo’s descendants, see A. da Mosto, op. cit., pp. 74-75, who made referings to the chronicle Barbaro, when he mentioned four sons: Rainieri, Vitale, Marino and Fantino (considering the latter as being the second Venetian patriarch of Constantinople, which detail is not to be detected on the list of the Latin patriarchs of Constantinople, see R. L. Wolff, Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople cit., p. 229) and a daughter. The genealogical tree offered by L. Streit, op. cit., p. 266 regarded E. Dandolo only one son, namely Rainieri (the one who had the function of vicedoge during his father’s absence from Venice). The supposed possession of the patriarchal function by this Fantino Dandolo was taken over also by Paolo Rannusio, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli, p. 159. For the options of category 9. regarding the patriarchal title obtained by this Fantino Dandolo, see ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., pp. 65-67; see also categories 4. and 5., which both regard a doge’s relative as receiving the patriarchal dignity, Ibidem, pp. 64-65. Unfortunately, I had no opportunity in consulting the Ph.D. dissertation of Thomas F. Madden, Enrico Dandolo: His Life, his Family, and his Venice before the Fourth Crusade, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign, 1993. Still, I wait with vivid interest the publication of the monography of Enrico Dandolo, promissed by the same Th. Madden.

[102] See ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., p. 57.

[103] E. Dandolo [4.]; pseudo-Dolfin [4.]; M 89 [5.]; Veniera 791 [5.].

[104] Donà [5.].

[105] Morosini [4.].

[106] E. Dandolo, c. 53v; pseudo-Dolfin, c. 59r; Morosini, p. 56; Trevisan, c. 51r, col. 1; Veniera 791, c. 72v. In addition, the matter of the Venetian domination’s period is present in other chronicles in the context in 1204, with different suggestions: M 2581 [1.], c. 119v; P. Dolfin [2.], c. 383r; Monacis [2.], p. 149; Navagero [approached to 2.], p. 999; Sabellico [3.], p. 225; Biondo [3.], p. 19-20; category 7. (Caroldo, c. 192; Sanudo, p. 560); Sansovino [approached to 9.], p. 563; M 1999 [approached to 9.], c. 38v; a part of category 10. (Abbiosi, c. 25r, Curato, c. 22r, M 104, c. 81r); two chronicles in category 11. (Erizzo, c. 132r; M 2560, c. 83v); the three chronicles approached to 11. (Barbaro, c. 348r, Savina, c. 84v, Veniera 2580, c. 145v); M 1833, c. 31v. For the representation of the period of Venetian domination in Constantinople in the Venetian chronicles, see ª. Marin, Veneþia ºi cãderea unui imperiu cit., pp. 234-236.

[107] M 89; Donà; M 793.

[108] Barbo 2, c. 90v.

[109] For this campaign, see ª. Marin, The First Venetian cit., p. 73.

[110] See Ibidem, p. 76.

[111] See Ibidem, p. 63.

[112] Paolo Rannusio, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli cit, p. 104.

[113] Ibidem, p. 158.

[114] Ibidem, p. 158.

[115] Ibidem, p. 159.

[116] Ibidem, p. 159.

[117] Andrea Moresini, L’Imprese ed espeditioni di Terra Santa cit., p. 215.

[118] Ibidem, p. 270.

[119] It is about the documents quoted above, Cfr. Tafel-Thomas, documents CLX, respectively CLIV. See Andrea Moresini, op. cit., pp. 273-275, respectively pp. 276-277.

[120] V. Lazzarini, op. cit., p. 298 and notes 2 and 3.

[121] Tafel-Thomas, vol. III, document CCCLV (“Treuga Michaelis Palaeologi Imperatoris cum Raynerio Geno, Duce Venetiarum”), dated June 8, 1265, pp. 62-88 (77-78); the version in Greek is “o eugenestatos douks Benetias kai eksousiastes Kroatias, Dalmatias kai ton upo ten eksousian autou loipon choron te kai nesion, kyris Rainerios Ntzenos”, Ibidem, p. 66.

[122] Tafel-Thomas, vol. III, document CCCLXVIII (“Chrysobullium Michaelis Palaleologi, Graecorum Imperatoris”), dated March 19, 1277, pp. 133-149 (135).

[123] For instance, in the relationship with the titular Latin emperors of Constantiniople, see Tafel-Thomas, vol. III, document CCCLXXIII (“Confirmatio pactorum et conventionum, factorum inter Phylippum, Imperatorem Constantinopolitanum, et Karolum, Regem Yerusalem et Sicilie, et nuncios domini Johannis Dandulo, incliti Ducis Veneciarum”), dated July 3, 1281, pp. 287-295 (289, 293); Ibidem, document CCCLXXIV (“Aliud pactum confirmationis societatis inter praedictos dominos”), dated July 3, 1281, vol. III, pp. 296-298 (296); Ibidem, document CCCLXXXV (“Aliud pactum confirmationis conuentionum, factarum et habitarum inter supradictos Barones”), dated August 2, 1281, pp. 298-308 (298, 299, 303), and so on.

[124] Giustinian, p. 175.

[125] Barbaro, c. 348r.

[126] M 2571, c. 127v; M 2581, c. 119v.

[127] Navagero, p. 1000.

[128] Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium [=Listine o odnošajih ismedju južnoga Slavenstva i mletaèke republike], vol. I, edited by Sime Ljubiæ [hereafter, Monumenta], Zagreb 1868, document DXVII, dated August 1322, pp. 341-342 (341). V. Lazzarini, op. cit., pp. 301-302 mentioned this document, but he omitted to add that the Hungarian king had also recommended himself in a suspiciously simple, that is rex Hungariae, see Monumenta, p. 342.

[129] Monumenta, vol. III, Zagreb 1872, document LII, dated November 20, 1347, pp. 38-39 (39). Similar formulae for this compromise, in Ibidem, document CXIV [=XCIV], dated March 10, 1348, pp. 62-63 (62-63); Ibidem, document CXLII, dated August 1, 1348, pp. 93-94 (94); Ibidem, document CCVIII, dated July 5, 1349, pp. 138-141 (141). On other occasions, the doge takes the initiative and resorts to force, the ambition to dominate the two provinces bluring even the domination on the three eighths of Romània, such as when the dogal title comprises Dalmatia and Croatia, omitting in exchange even the title of dominus, see Ibidem, document CLXI, dated 1348, pp. 106-107 (107).

[130] See Ibidem, passim.

[131] Ibidem, passim.

[132] See the text of the treaty in Ibidem, document DXLI, dated February 18, 1358, pp. 368-371 (369). This aspect was regarded by V. Lazzarini, op. cit., p. 305 unilaterally, since he analysed exclusively the dogal title of “dux Veneciarum etc. [s. n.]”. Nevertheless, the vague term of etc. is also present in the Hungarian king’s title. The latter constantly appears as “Rex Hungarie etc. [s. n.]” in the acts immediately subsequent to the signed treaty, see for instance Monumenta, vol. III, documents DXLVII, pp. 371-373 (371), DLV, pp. 375-376 (375), DLVII, pp. 379-381 (379).

[133] Some examples: pseudo-Giustinian [1.], p. 253; M 2581 [1.], cc. 191v-192r; P. Dolfin [2.], cc. 64r-64v; Sabellico [3.], p. 329; E. Dandolo [4.], c. 88v; pseudo-Dolfin [4.], c. 93v; Morosini [4.], vol. II, Padova 2000, p. 18; M 2544 [6.], c. 62v, col. 1; M 2570 [6.], c. 48v; M 47 [6.], c. 53r, col. 2; M 48 [6.], c. 82v; Caroldo [7.], c. 635; M 38 [10.], p. 43r, col. 2; Zancaruolo [11.] (BNM, manuscrisul It. VII. 1275 [=9275]), c. ccc xiiijv; M 798 [11.], c. xxxijr; M 46 [11.], c. 48r; M 80 [11.], c. 120r; M 628a [11.], c. 109v. Other chronicles mention only the territorial loss, without being involved in matters of title. It is remarkable the manner of understanding of the event, which varies from lamentations (pseudo-Giustinian, pp. 253-254) and referrals to the glorious past, with footnotes about the doges most involved in the setting up and the conservation of the Venetian domination over the Dalmatian coast (Pietro II Orseolo – 991-1008, Ordelaffo Falier – 1102-1118, Enrico Dandolo) (M 2581, cc. 192r-192v) to disparaging considerations about the domination over Dalmatia, indicating that its loss was to be profitable for the Serenissima (Morosini, vol. II, pp. 18, 20)! In some cases, there are referings to the term of “etc.”, in the sense that “la qual cetera importa pluj sententie” (P. Dolfin, c. 64v; E. Dandolo, c. 88v; pseudo-Dolfin, c. 93v; Morosini, vol. II, p. 18).

[134] As an exception, the Doge Tommaso Mocenigo (1414-1423) would utilise the title of Doxe de Venetiani, Crohatie Dalmatie et Romanie, or of Dose de Veniesia, e de Dalmatia, e de Croatia e de Romània in two letters addressed to the sultans in Egypt, one previously (November 1415), and the other subsequent (April 1422) to the recovery of Dalmatia by the Serenissima, see Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, sive Acta et Diplomata res Venetas, Graecas atque Levantis illustrantia a. 1351-1454, vol. II, edited by G. M. Thomas and R. Predelli, Venice 1899, documents 167, pp. 306-308 (306), respectively 175, pp. 328-331 (328).