being that here the acquisition of the dicio was effected by the local powers themselves and not through the interference of a foreign ruler, and that the formal suzerainty of the Empire was maintained for a longer time. In Venice, which about the end of the seventh century had been detached from Istria as a special ducatus, circumstances were particularly favourable to the development of the seigniorial local powers as represented by the tribunes, though it is true that after the suppression of the Italian revolt it fell back under the imperial dicio, and was again ruled by duces or magistri militum nominated by the emperor, not by elected chiefs. In the second half of the eighth century, however, after the fall of the exarchate, the bonds of subordination relaxed here as elsewhere, and the nomination of the Doge became more and more an act of mere formality. The Doge was placed in power by that fraction of the tribunicial aristocracy which was for the moment in the ascendancy; by them he was elected and to them he looked for support. He succeeded in making his office lifelong, and sought to legalise his position by soliciting and receiving a court title, as a form of recognition by the emperor at Constantinople. In agreement with the emperor, some Doges even tried to make the power hereditary in their families, chiefly we may suppose in virtue of their extensive landed property and their wealth. Nevertheless, from the time when in his final treaty of peace with Byzantium (812) Charles the Great definitely renounced the conquest of Venice, the suzerainty of the Greek emperor was permanently recognised. This was shewn by the sending of ceremonial embassies whenever a change of sovereign took place at Constantinople, by the appeal for recognition of every new Doge, who probably had to buy his Byzantine title with a high suffragium, and by the fact that the Venetian fleet was obliged to lend support to the Byzantines, at least in the West. We also hear otherwise of occasional interference on the part of the Byzantine emperor, though Venice naturally grew more and more independent.
In the south, the dux of Naples considered himself the successor of the imperial governor of Campania, and a right of control over him was in fact claimed by the patricius of Sicily. The actual holder of the dicio, however, was the dux, who, while professing adherence to the Greek Empire, often acted in political matters with complete independence, making his office first lifelong and afterwards hereditary. In the first quarter of the ninth century the Byzantine Empire succeeded temporarily in re-establishing a magister militum as the real functionary, but in the course of time here as elsewhere the local powers, and at times the bishop, remained victorious, so that the position of Naples resembled in every way that of Venice. It is however true that some other local seigniories, in particular Amalfi and Gaëta, detached themselves from the ducatus of Naples and, after a gradual secession from the supreme rule of the dux of Naples, exercised the dicio independently
