Talk:Giustiniano Participazio

Untitled

I figure that if he were claimed as their the progenitor by the Giustiniani, this would have been mentioned. --Wetman 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Norwich mentions the Venetian families and their claims of descent quite often. If he didn't mention this (and I never came across it), I would assume its because the Giustiniani claim descent from somebody else. Srnec 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Consul

I rolled back the latest addition of the Imperial Consul title to the article. Based on the source provided by Dojarca, which can be found here, it appears Participazio simply self-titled himself, and in any event was using the title outside what we would historically consider to fall within the definition of an Imperial Consul. This debate on the application of the consul/hypatos title has been going on for months across a broad range of articles related to medieval nobility in various modern day Italian cities. Refining what he is called to an "honorary consul" or simply calling him a "hypatos" begins to bring us in line with the historical reality, although just leaving it at "hypatos" is probably the smarter way to go. Either way, "Imperial Consul" does not belong in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the footnote:

For the Venetian doges' titles, see V. LAZZARINI, "I titoli dei dogi di Venezia", Nuovo Archivio Veneto, n.s., 2 (1903): 271-311; Roberto CESSI, "Provincia, ducato, regnum nella Venezia bizantina", Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, lettere et arti 123 (1964-1965): 405-419; A. PERTUSI, "Quedam regalia insignia. Ricerche sulle insegne del potere ducale a Venezia durante il Medioevo", Studi Veneziani 7 (1965): 3-123; Roberto CESSI, "L'investitura ducale", Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 126 (1967-1968): 251-294. See TAFEL-THOMAS: 2 (document I, years 814-820, the Doge Giustiniano Partecipazio as imperialis Hypatus), 3 (document II, year 819 [?], the Doge Giustiniano Partecipazio as Hypatus seu imperialis Consul), 4 (document V, year 828, the Doge Giustiniano Partecipazio as imperialis Consul), 4 (document VI, year 840, the Doge Pietro Tradonico as Spatarium imperii), 5 (document VIII, year 912, the Doge Orso III Partecipazio as Protospatarius), 5 (document IX, year 932, the Doge Pietro II Candiano as Protospatarius), 54-55 (document XXIV, year 1084, the Doge Vitale Falier as Protosevastos), 206 (document LXXIV, year 1189, the Doge Orio Mastropiero as Protoseuastos). See also above, note 107.

There are three documents (from 814-820, 819 and 828) that say Giustiniano was imperial consul. And nowhere it said that Giustiniano styled such himself.

This source: [1] says emperor Leo the Armenian gave him title of imperial consul in 819.

L'an 819 il envoya l'aine a la cour de Constantinople, ou l'empereur Leon l'Armenien le fit hypate ou consul imperial.

--Dojarca (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking specifically at foot note 107 in that text:

[107] The pride to achieve such a dignities made that they be prioritary in the order of some doges' title, for example the case of Giustiniano Partecipazio, who self-entitled as "Ivstinian Participatio Imperial Ipato Dose de Veniesia", cf. It. VII. 2581: 15a. The title given by the emperors in Constantinople is not omitted also when there are privileges offered by the Western emperors (for instance, during the doges Pietro Trasdomenico, Orso Partecipazio), see It. VII. 2581: 18b, 22a. It is certitude that this practice would be preserved by the 12th century, cfr. TAFEL-THOMAS, cit.: 249 (the document LXXXV: Privilegium Alexii III Imperatoris Constantinopolitani, concessum inclito domino Henrico Dandulo Duci, dated November 1199: 246-278), where the title of nobilissimus Dux Venetie et protoseuastos, Henricus Dandolus is mentioned.

This is well inside the period of time that we use the term Byzantine, and make an historical break from the ancient Roman titles, even though there is a continuity between the two. Just reference him as someone given the title of hypatos by the Byzantine emperor. The Imperial Consul label, and category, places him in a group of people with whom he does not belong. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the second source: both sources call him imperial consul. Note also that Byzantine empire was still an empire, so "imperial consul" is completely applicable. Since the sources (including contemporary sources!) use this term, it would be incorrect to exclude it. Three of four sources use the word 'consul' and the other one uses term 'imperial hypatus'.--Dojarca (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also according the hypatus article, this word has two different meanings. So we should clarify here that he was hypatus in the meaning of consul. In all sources and instances an adjective 'imperial' used, I suppose to avoid confusion with the other meaning. Contemporaries were very strong in using 'imperial' adjective.--Dojarca (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed Hypatus back in the article. I left the category out for now, but simply "imperial consul" is too general, and Roman consul is misleading. How about "Category:Byzantine hypatus"? If we differentiate further, it should be along the lines of "Byzantine...". So, for example, "Category:Byzantine imperial hypatus". Hiberniantears (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why 'hypatus' if the most sources, including those from 9th century, use word 'consul', some along with 'hypatus'? Anyway, I think this should be clarified in the article - that he was hypatus used in the meaning of consul (not in the other meaning).--Dojarca (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One more source:

The part which Venice took in the restoration of the Exarch to his government was most honourable to the growing State. In the case of Narses, one hundred and twenty-five years earlier, the lagoon-dwellers had assisted the Imperial forces in a desultory and guerrilla fashion. But now the Venetians single-handed, with an armament all their own, under their own leaders, appear as the sole combatants in the support of the mighty Roman Empire, attacked in the person of one of its highest officials. And the assistance rendered to the Empire procured for Venice substantial advantages. The Venetians obtained special commercial rights in the city of Ravenna, and the Doge was honoured by the Byzantine title of Hypatos or Consul.

[2]--Dojarca (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. In contemporary English we would refer to this person as the holder of the Byzantine honorific title of Hypatus. He, or at least his line, received the title as a reward for loyalty to what we now describe as the Byzantine Empire, but he did not hold the title in a capacity of executing consular powers in the sense of the Roman Republican title. The article on Hypatus explains that it is derived from the word consul, so there is no real need to expand on it in the article since we link to the Hypatus article, although I see no problem with describing him as "Hypatus (consul)" That said, I did just notice that the Hypatus article doesn't cite any sources. It may behoove us to bolster that article by pinging editors over at the Greek and Roman project page to add some better background. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding hypatos article I agree it can be improved.--Dojarca (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 'doge -hypatos consul' gives 37400 hits [3] while search for 'doge hypatos -consul' only gives 181 hit [4]. This may show that the term 'consul' is much more popular than 'hypatos' in pages related to Byzantine doges.--Dojarca (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something here, which is why I am hoping to get the hypatus article reviewed more thoroughly. It is conceivable that it may not be necessary to have an article on the Greek word of the title consul, but rather we could have the use of the word hypatus detailed in the consul article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good suggestion. I'll support it. --Dojarca (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Category

Can I restore the category?--Dojarca (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new category, but I'm a little stumped on what it should be, pending any changes that may happen over on the Hypatus article. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giustiniano Participazio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405162849/http://www.basilicasanmarco.it/eng/storia_societa/dogi.bsm?cat=2&subcat=5 to http://www.basilicasanmarco.it/eng/storia_societa/dogi.bsm?cat=2&subcat=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)