Felice Cornicola
byzantine magister militum per Venetiae of Venice
Felice Cornicola (Latin: Felix Cornicula), also Felicius, was a Byzantine magister militum per Venetiae of Venice in 739. Following the murder of the doge Orso Ipato in 737, the Exarchate of Ravenna imposed administration by annual magistri militum on Venice, replacing the doge.
Cornicola was the second magister militum. Its first incumbent was Domenico Leoni. Cornicola was succeeded by Teodato Ipato. This period of government by magistri militum lasted until 742, when the fifth and last of such officials was deposed and the dogeship was restored.
Originally a citizen of Malamocco, he was described as being a mild and unassuming man whose tenure as magister militum was marked by justness and moderation. He is said to have become so popular with his subjects that he was able to freely and without challenge rescind the sentence of exile against Teodato Ipato, which had been issued soon after the assassination of his father Orso Ipato. Once his twelve-month term had reached its end, Felicius was succeeded as magister militum by Teodato himself, he having gained the favour of the electors since being recalled from exile.
Notes
References
William Carew Hazlitt, History of the Venetian Republic: Her Rise, Her Greatness, and Her Civilization.
The public source identifies “Felice Cornicola” as byzantine magister militum per Venetiae of Venice. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Felice, Cornicola and byzantine.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Felice Cornicola”, the useful work is to connect “byzantine magister militum per Venetiae of Venice” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2554113. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Felice Cornicola”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Felice Cornicola primary sources, Felice Cornicola archive and Felice research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Felice Cornicola”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Felice Cornicola” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.