Teskeredzic 1

Creating a Bosnian Identity in Medieval Europe

By: Dino Teskeredzic

Advisor: Dr. Florin Curta

Teskeredzic 2

Table of Contents

Creating a Bosnian Identity……………………………………………………………pp. 4-32

Chapter I: An Introduction……………………………………………………...... 4-9

Chapter II: Bosnia in the Greek Sources………………………………………...... 10-13

Chapter III: A Discussion of Papal Policies in the Balkans prior to the Fourth Crusade..14-19

Chapter IV: Hungarian Interests…………………………………………………………20-25

Chapter V: Internal Serbian Politics……………………………………………………...26-29

Chapter VI: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………30-32

Bibliography…………………………………………...………………………………..pp. 33-34

Translations……………………………………………………………………………pp. 35-46

Theobaldo’s 1180 Letter………………………………………………………………...35-36

Vukan’s 1199 Letter to Innocent III…………………………………………………….37-38

Innocent III’s 1200 Letter to King Emeric of Hungary…………………………………39-40

Innocent III’s 1202 Letter to the Archbishop of Split and Johannes………...………….41-42

Bilino Polje Renunciation of 1203………………………………………………………43-46

Teskeredzic 3

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Curta for helping me choose and pursue my topic. He was instrumental to this paper, particularly when I needed help deciphering archaic Church Latin. I could not have finished it without him. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Louthan for helping me structure my paper and ensure that I made the deadlines. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, who helped me translate the Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic documents.

Teskeredzic 4

Chapter I: An Introduction

The Balkans have traditionally been regarded as the powder keg of Europe, a region in which competing national interests and views collide. The area of present-day Bosnia, the home of the medieval kingdom by the same name, found itself in much the same position in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Back then, as much as now, religion played a considerable role in the construction of a Bosnian identity.

Bosnia is first mentioned in an indirect (adjectival) form as an epithet in the imperial title of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180) in his edict of 1166 carved on a large piece of marble now in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.1 However, the first mention of “Bosnian” in reference to

Bosnians appears in a letter sent in 1180 by Theobaldo, a legate of Pope Alexander III. There is no other surviving mention of the term until 1199, the year of a letter sent by Vukan of Duklja to

Pope Innocent III. It is important to note that the term ‘Bosnian’ appears in the context of papal concerns with heresy and in direct association with specific references to ‘heretics’ believed to reside in the area. Can one therefore speak of a Bosnian identity in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century? If so, where and why did that identity take shape?

The purpose of this thesis is to show that Bosnia and Bosnians are names invented and used by outsiders, primarily Pope Innocent III. I will examine the pertinent Greek sources, before moving to Alexander III and Innocent III’s letters, the first sources in Latin to mention

Bosnia. Before that, however, it is important to turn briefly to the political scene in the Balkans

1 Cyril Mango, “The conciliar editct of 1166,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), p. 324: “Manuel, emperor who believes in God, born in the purple, ruler of the Romans, most pious, forever glorious, Augsutus, Isaurian, Cilician, Armenian, Dalmatian, Hungarian, Bosnian, Croatian, Lazian, Iberian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Zychian, Khazer, Gothic…” (emphasis added). Teskeredzic 5 ca. 1200 and to introduce the key historical actors who influenced the Bosnian identity emerging at that time.

In the late twelfth century, the western Balkans were as fragmented politically as they are now. The neighbors of medieval Bosnia were Hum and Raška to the south, Serbia to the east, and Hungary and Croatia to the north and west, respectively. The papacy had both an interest and a great deal of influence in the region, which was at that time on the frontier between

Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

From 1180 to 1204, Bosnia was ruled by a man named Kulin, who took the title of Ban.

Little information exists on him for the years prior to 1199, which is when he was suddenly accused of harboring heretics.2 Judging from the limited sources that we have, it appears that

Kulin came to power during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos, but began to style himself Ban of

Bosnia only after the emperor’s death in 1180. Three years later, he shed the protective cloak of the Byzantines and instead paid homage to the king of Hungary, who was at that time actively involved in the expansion of his kingdom into the northern Balkans.3 During this period, his name is found on several inscriptions and in a few charters. However, it was in 1199 that he was thrust into the greater international arena. This was the year in which Ban Kulin caught the eye

2 Ban Kulin’s name appears in a Cyrillic inscription from Biskupići-Muhašinovići (near Visoko), ca. 1194. A second inscription was also found in Podbrežje near Zenica, which mentions Gradeša, a judge appointed by Kulin. A third Cyrillic inscription in Blagaj cites a contemporary župan, who is supposed to have built a church “in the days of the celebrated Nemanja. All three inscriptions have been published by Branko Fučić, “Croatian Glagolitic and Cyrillic epigraphs,” in Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey, edited by Ivan Supičić (London/Zagreb: Philip Wilson Publishers/AGM, 1999), pp. 277 and 279.

3 Upon King Coloman’s coronation in 1102 in Biograd, Croatia became a part of the medieval Hungarian kingdom. The incorporation of Croatia resulted in a prolonged era of Hungarian hegemony in the Balkans. Under King Béla II and Helena, the daughter of the Serbian župan Uroš the Hungarians invaded Bosnia in 1137. However, in 1150 the Serbs and the Hungarians were defeated by Emperor Manuel I Komnenos at the battle on the Tara River in western Serbia. Following Manuel I’s death, Stephen I Nemanja allotted Hum to his brother, Miroslav, and Duklja to his son, Vukan. With the death of Manuel in 1180, Croatia and the majority of Byzantine Dalmatia came under Hungarian rule. See Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 266, 329, and 347. For the location of the battle at the Tara River, see Miloš Blagojević, "Sečenica (Setzenica), Strymon (Strymon) i Tara (Tara) u delu Jovana Kinama," Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 17 (1974), 65-76. Teskeredzic 6 of Innocent III because of a letter the pope had previously received from Vukan, the ruler of Zeta

(Duklja).

Vukan had first established contact with the pope in the late 1190s in order to obtain religious guidance.4 Innocent III readily obliged and acquiesced to the request of Vukan, whom he called the “illustrious king of Dalmatia and Dioclea.” Two papal legates were dispatched to

Zeta, and Innocent III re-instituted the see of Bar (now in Montenegro) as an archbishopric.5 In

1199, a synod was summoned in Bar to deal with such issues as priestly celibacy and beards, an indication that the goal of the papal policies in the region was to eliminate Orthodox practices.

Vukan added heresy to the papal agenda, when in that same year (1199), he accused Ban Kulin of harboring heretics in Bosnia. He also accused Kulin and his family, including his sister, of embracing the said heresy. Such a personal accusation without evidence suggests that Vukan may have had political motives, such as territorial ambitions and a possible crown from the pope, two issues which will be discussed later. Nonetheless, the accusations were sufficient for attracting papal attention to the region.

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), the most powerful of all medieval popes, was already troubled by the issue of heresy, as is evident from his vexation with the growing strength of the

Cathars in southern France. Vukan’s simple mention of heresy was therefore sufficient to garner the pope’s attention. Furthermore, the steady and slow withdrawal of the Byzantines from

Dalmatia provided Innocent with an opportunity to intervene and strengthen the Catholic faith in the region. It was for this reason, and in order to cement Kulin’s loyalty that in 1203, the pope

4 Vukan of Duklja was the first ruler in the western Balkans to seek papal guidance. However, he was not to be the last. He was followed in 1208 by Demetrius, a local potentate in northern Alabania. See Alain Ducellier, La façade maritime de l'Albanie au Moyen Age. Durazzo et Valona du XI-ème au XVème siècle (Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981), p. 139. 5 In 1089, the bishop of Bar had been elevated to archbishop. However, in the twelfth century he was downgraded to a suffragan of the archbishop of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). See Lothar Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn. Von der Völkerwanderung bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311)(Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zürich, F. Schöningh, 1987), p. 160. Teskeredzic 7 sent a delegation led by his chaplain, Johannes de Casamaris, to investigate the charges laid against the Ban of Bosnia. Meanwhile, Innocent III had exchanged a number of letters with

King Emeric of Hungary, the purpose of which seems to have been not only to gather support, but also to pressure Kulin, whom the pope regarded as Emeric’s subject. It is against the background of this affair that Innocent first referred to the inhabitants of Bosnia, and called

Kulin the “Bosnian Ban” as opposed to Ban of Bosnia.

King Emeric is another key figure in the region. By 1200, Hungary had become a major power in Central Europe, with increasing influence and territory in the Balkans. In the aftermath of the Byzantine withdrawal from Dalmatia, Hungary took advantage of the power void to occupy the entire area. Immediately after Emperor Manuel I’s death in 1180, a Hungarian army under Duke Maurus invaded Dalmatia and seized Zadar. Maurus became Count of Dalmatia and the king appointed a Hungarian as Archbishop of Split. When King Béla III (1172-1196) died, his two sons went to war with one another. Andrew (the future king Andrew II) declared Croatia and Dalmatia an independent principality and granted privileges to the local aristocracy.

Similarly, his brother Emeric (king of Hungary between 1196 and 1204) intervened in the succession conflict in Serbia, which had pitched two of Nemanja’s sons against each other after their father’s death in 1199. Emeric decided to support the younger son Vukan, the ruler of

Duklja, against Stephen (future King Stephen Prvovenčani).6 Since Vukan was in contact with the papacy, the support of the Hungarian king may be regarded as a Catholic intervention against the Orthodox ruler of Serbia, Stephen. Because of his need to have a Catholic foothold in the

Balkans, Pope Innocent III encouraged the militant policies of the Hungarian king and used them

6 The inscription above the door to the Church of St. Luke in Kotor shows that Vukan took the royal title (Grand Župan) while his father (Stephen I Nemanja) was still living (before 1199). See Curta, Southeastern Europe, p. 389. Teskeredzic 8 to advance his own interests in the region. Emeric’s involvement in Bosnia may thus be interpreted as the result of both of his political and territorial aspirations and of papal policies.

The counterweight to Hungarian ambitions was the Grand Župan of Serbia, Stephen

(Stefan) (1196-1202, 1203-1228). A brother of St. Sava, and therefore Orthodox, Stephen relied on the political and military support of the Bulgarians, whose strength and growing power had by now alarmed the Hungarian kings. Stephen’s other brother, Miroslav, had been the ruler of

Hum. His wife, a widow in 1199, was Ban Kulin’s sister, who is explicitly mentioned as a heretic in Vukan’s incendiary letter to Innocent III.

Bulgaria (or the “Second Bulgarian Empire”) was another significant player and

Hungary’s greatest rival in the region. The ruler of Bulgaria, Ioannitsa (John) Kaloyannis

(1197-1207) – henceforth Kalojan – supported the Serbs against the Hungarians, and offered asylum and protection to the Grand Župan Stephen when the latter was briefly ousted from

Serbia by his brother, Vukan. Kalojan sent an expedition to Serbia in 1203, at the end of which he occupied the city of Niš, in the middle of the region Emeric claimed as part of the dowry to be granted to his sister Margaret, who had married Emperor Isaac II Angelos in 1185. Kalojan’s significance for the history of Bosnia is two-fold. First, he helped divert Hungarian attention and manpower from Bosnia further to the east, in the region of Niš-Braničevo, and thus prevented

Hungarian military intervention against Kulin. Moreover, the Bulgarian involvement sheds a new light on the Bosnian heresy. In the early thirteenth century, Bulgaria was still the hotbed of

Bogomilism, and may thus have been the source of the heresy, of which Vukan accused the inhabitants and Ban of Bosnia.7

7 In 1211, Kalojan’s successor, Boril, summoned a synod in which he condemned “the priest Bogomil, who [had] adopted the Manichean heresy under the Bulgarian king Peter,” and “[had] disseminated it in the Bulgarian land.” See Ivan Bozhilov, A. Totomanova and Ivan Biliarski, Borilov Sinodik. Izdanie I prevod. (Sofia: PAM, 2010), pp. Teskeredzic 9

But what was Bosnia? And where were its borders? In order to answer those questions and elucidate the origin of the term “Bosnia,” one needs to turn to the Greek sources.

121 and 344. In 1221, St. Sava convened a synod at Žiča, where he delievered a sermon concerning heresy, which may have well been directed at Bosnia (Curta, Southeastern Europe, p., 393). Teskeredzic 10

Chapter II: Bosnia in the Greek Sources

History is constantly evolving and changing with the availability of new information – the history of Bosnia is no exception. Therefore, before any discussion can begin, a serious error must be cleared up in the interpretation of the Greek sources. This error arises from the following statement made by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus at the end of Chapter 32 in De

Administrando Imperio (DAI), a work written in the mid-tenth century: “In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeї, Megyretous, Dresneїk, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territory of Bosona, Katera and Desnik.”8

The area of ‘Bosona’ has long been thought to be Bosna, the Serbo-Croatian name for

Bosnia. Such an interpretation relies heavily on the modern notion of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a discrete political entity. However, if Bosnians were indeed a group in that region, why were they never mentioned by Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who has otherwise much to say about Croatia and Serbia? Furthermore, the exact location of Desnik of Katera remains unknown, although some would place the latter to the south of modern-day Sarajevo.9 If so, then at least Katera, if not Desnik as well, were located outside the territory of medieval Bosnia, which is known to have been farther to the north. The territory of “Bosona” mentioned by

Emperor Constantine may not have been Bosnia at all. It is much more probable that the name

8 De administrando Imperio 32, edited by Gyula Moravcsik and transl. by Romilly J. H. Jenkins, (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967), p. 161. 9 Moreover, some now argue that Emperor Constantine was using several sources from different time periods in order to compile his chapters on Serbia and Croatia. This may have resulted in much confusion and the inconsistencies. See Tibor Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ kastra oikoumena in the Southern Slavs principalities” Istorijski Časopis 57 (2008), 9-28. Teskeredzic 11 refers to the river Bosna and its adjacent territories, which have nothing to do with either the

Bosnian nation or people, or with the country known by that name.10

The very first mention of Bosnia in the Greek sources occurs in an inscription from

Istanbul, which contains the full text of a decree issued by Emperor Manuel I Komnenos. The text opens with a long list of titles and epithets attached to the name of the emperor, in the tradition of the Roman emperors of ancient times, whom Manuel sought to emulate: “Manuel, emperor who believes in God, born in the purple, ruler of the Romans, most pious, forever glorious, Augustus, Isaurian, Cilician, Armenian, Dalmatian, Hungarian, Bosnian, Croatian,

Lazian, Iberian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Zychian, Khazar, Gothic.”11 Although the Roman imperial tradition dictated that imperial epiphets derive from names of defeated barbarian tribes, Manuel used this title in reference to the territory of Bosnia. At any rate, much like “Dalmatian” or

“Isaurian,” “Bosnian” did not refer to the people Manuel had presumably defeated, but to the territory in which he had campaigned. It would take a pope and the Catholic Church to develop the identity of those people as Bosnian. Before we tackle that problem, however, our focus will shift to the Byzantine influence in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia.

Understanding the Byzantine position in the Balkans requires looking as far back as the

1150s. The Balkans were an arena for competing claims made by rival powers, e.g. Byzantium and Hungary, looking to dislodge one another from the region. The border between the

Byzantines and Hungarians was in a constant state of flux, and Bosnia was at its forefront. This constant vacillation and lack of direct rule either by the Hungarian kings or by the Byzantine

10 It is important to note that the reading “Bosthna” (instead of Bosona) does not appear in the original manuscript (Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 126), dated to the early sixteenth century, but was instead proposed by Pavel Josef Šafarik in the early nineteenth century. See De administrando Imperio 32, p. 161. 11 Mango, “The conciliar editct,” p. 324. Teskeredzic 12 emperors left the leaders of the region with only nominal loyalty to an ever-changing suzerain.

Therefore, the rulers of Bosnia were largely independent in their self-rule.

In 1154, a poorly-documented and little-known figure came to rule Bosnia as Ban Borić.

Nothing is known about him, except that he came to power with the assistance of the Hungarian king. In turn, Borić provided the Hungarian king with military assistance in 1167 at the battle of

Zemun against the Byzantines.12 Following the Hungarian defeat, Bosnia most likely became a

Byzantine dominion. The next Ban of Bosnia would emerge only thirteen years later.

Ban Kulin came to power in 1180 with Byzantine support; however, Hungary’s renewed penetration into Croatia and Dalmatia forced Kulin to exchange a Hungarian king for a

Byzantine emperor.13 Additionally, the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180 ended a relatively long period of Byzantine influence and rule in Bosnia. Henceforth, the Byzantines were involved in a slow and steady retreat out of the Balkans due to the pressure of the Seljuk Turks in

Asia Minor and of the Hungarians and the Bulgarians from the north. Hungarian monarchs were now virtually free to impose their will upon Bosnia. Such a thrust came in 1192 when the

Hungarians persuaded the pope to transfer “Bosnia from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of

Dubrovnik to that of the Archbishop of Split.”14 Split, unlike Dubrovnik, was under direct

Hungarian rule and more lenient to the imposition of Hungarian will. Clearly, the Catholic

Church was an instrument by which to gain a stronger foothold in Bosnia. This is also true for the circumstances in which Vukan accused Ban Kulin of heresy in 1199.

However, the most important consequence of Byzantine rule and interaction in the area is the use of the word ‘Bosnia.’ As was mentioned above, it is in the Greek sources that Bosnia is

12 John V. A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1987), p.17. 13 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 17. 14 John V. A. Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation (New York, Columbia University Press, 1975), p. 123. Teskeredzic 13 first mentioned. Pope Alexander III would bestow upon Ban Kulin the term “Bosnian,” but it was Innocent III who would use the name for the inhabitants of that country. For this reason, it would be reasonable to suppose that the popes became acquainted with the term ‘Bosnia’ from

Byzantine sources.

Teskeredzic 14

Chapter III:

A Discussion of Papal Policies in the Balkans prior to the Fourth Crusade

Papal policies towards the central Balkans, particularly Bosnia, changed drastically in the years preceding 1204. The first mention of Ban Kulin by the papal chancery is in the 1180 letter from Theobaldo, Pope Alexander III’s legate.15 In this letter, Kulin is named “Bosnian Ban

(bano Bosine)” in the context of a friendly request for a gift of “two slaves and marten pelts

(duos famulos et pelles marturinas).” No mention is made of heresy. Theobaldo had been sent in 1180 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the conflict between Rainier, the

Archbishop of Split, and Miroslav, the Prince of Hum, whom the archbishop had accused of heresy.16 Hoping to find an ally in Kulin, the papal legate may have simply tried to make him show his respect to the pope by means of a symbolic gesture of generosity. On the other hand, in the context of his efforts to diminish the influence of the Byzantine Church in Dalmatia in the aftermath of Emperor Manuel I’s death, the pope was no doubt attempting to expand the influence of the Roman Church in Bosnia.17 Interestingly, after this initial contact with the

Catholic Church, there was no further mention of Kulin in papal sources until 1199, when accusations of heresy were now made against him by Vukan of Duklja.18

In the years following Alexander III’s death (1181), the Cathar heresy became the foremost problem on the papal agenda. With the ascension of Lando di Sezze to the papal throne

15 Ep. 167 (from 1180), in Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, edited by Tadija Smičiklas, vol. 2 (Zagreb: Officina Societatis Typographicae 1904), pp. 168-169. 16 Codex Diplomaticus, vol. 2, pp. 121, 137, and 157-159. Archbishop Rainier and Miroslav of Hum came into conflict when Miroslav did not allow Rainier to ordain a bishop for Ston and confiscated the money that was to be sent to the Archbishop. In turn, Rainier turned to the Pope and accused Miroslav of heresy. 17 For Alexander III and Innocent III’s efforts to eradicate the Orthodox influence from the region, see Curta, Southeastern Europe, p. 340. 18 This is not to say that there is no evidence of Kulin from 1180-1199. Indeed there are Church inscriptions and charters attributed to him and dated to this period. See Fine, The Bosnian Church, 121-122. Teskeredzic 15 as Innocent III, papal policies were implemented to root out and crush any heresy. Therefore, when news reached him of the “heresy” in Bosnia in 1199 by way of Vukan of Duklja, the pope immediately acted upon the information.19 Not only was this the first mention of Bosnia in papal sources in almost two decades, but the language used by Vukan was especially harsh.

Furthermore, the accusations leveled were of a personal nature and directed at Kulin’s immediate and extended family. One of the family members to bear explicit mention was Kulin’s sister, the widow of Miroslav. Interest should be paid to the relationship between Kulin and Miroslav, the recently deceased ruler of Hum and brother to Vukan, as it gives a possible political motive to naming Kulin as a heretic. Furthermore, Vukan mentions that some 10,000 Christians have converted to the heresy, and that the Hungarian king should “tear him [Kulin] from his kingship, like a weed from wheat.”20 These two aspects of the letter come under further scrutiny below.

Vukan mentions 10,000 followers of the heresy, but fails to describe or even name the supposed heterodox doctrine to which Kulin and many in his realm have adhered. Moreover, looking at the mention of heresy in the context of the letter it becomes evident that it is listed only briefly in the last few sentences. If this were a matter of serious concern, the heresy should have appeared first in the list of issues Vukan tried to bring to the pope’s attention. Additionally, looking at the last two sentences it becomes evident that Vukan is asking for the intervention of the Hungarian king. This brings forth another question: why should a letter concerning heresy and misdeeds focus more on the intervention of a king than of the pope? The answer can only be

19 “Precisely, we do not wish to hide from your fatherhood that a not small heresy can be seen spreading in the land of the Hungarian king, namely Bosnia. In all that land, the heresy was introduced with all the sins brought forward by the same Ban Kulin with his wife and sister, who was the wife of the late Miroslav, and with many relatives, in addition to 10,000 Christians. Whence the Hungarian king has been irritated, he has compelled those to come to your presence to be examined by you. They have forged letters and told you to read them. When we ask that you may suggest to the Hungarian king that he may tear him from his kingship, like a weed from wheat.” See Ep. 176 (from 1199), in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. by J.-P. Migne, volume 214 (Paris: Garnier, 1890), col. 726. 20 Ep. 176, col. 726. Teskeredzic 16 that political motives and interests fueled Vukan’s accusations of heresy, specifically when one looks at the context and material of the three subsequent letters, which is where our attention shall now turn.

Following Vukan’s letter in 1199, Innocent took the advised action of using Emeric of

Hungary to pressure Ban Kulin. In a letter he sent to the king on October 11th, 1200, the Pope called the heresy Patarene and, like Alexander III before him, referred to Kulin as “Banus bossinus” (“Bosnian Ban”).21 One of the very first mentions of “Bosnian” in reference to identity thus comes in conjunction with accusations of heresy. Furthermore, the letter discusses only the action that Emeric and Kulin should take when dealing with heretics in general.22

However, like Vukan’s letter of 1199, the pope’s fails to mention the doctrines and beliefs of the said heretics. If the heresy did indeed exist, which is of course possible, why was the pope’s letter to Emeric so brief and vague? It could therefore safely be assumed that the Pope was as unaware of events in Bosnia as the Hungarian monarch, who also appears to have had no knowledge of a heresy brewing in the lands of Ban Kulin. Finally, Innocent uses the words

“autonomastice christianos” to describe the heretics.23 The word autonomastice is of Greek, not

Latin origin, and it was used by the Orthodox to describe those who had deviated from canon law, but not necessarily from the correct faith. Why was the pope using a Greek word to describe heretics to a Catholic king?

21 “About the extirpation of evil deeds […] we have learned that recently our venerable brother,… the Archbishop of Split, chased not a few Patarenes from the cities of Split and Trogir. The noble man Kulin, the Bosnian Ban, had provided not only asylum for their wrongdoings but also protection, thus by such means opening his country and himself up to their wickedness.” See Ep. 19 (dated to 1200 or 1201), in Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216), ed. by Theodosius Haluščynskyj (Vatican: Pontificia Commissio ad Redigendum 1944), p. 209. 22 “And unless the above-mentioned Ban exiles all the heretics from the land under his authority, confiscates all their goods, you ought to exile him and those heretics not only from his land but also from the entire Kingdom of Hungary.” See ep. 19, p. 209. 23 I have translated the phrase as “undisciplined Christians” (ep. 19, p. 209). Teskeredzic 17

Were the Bosnians then heretics, or were they a group whose Christian beliefs were a variation of the Latin rite? If these men, including Kulin, had indeed been heretics, then would their errors not have immediately come to the attention of the pope and been explicitly stated?

The use of autonomastice points to two possible explanations. First, the pope may have chosen the Greek word to describe people who were true heretics. The alternative is that the “heretics” in question were Christians who had diverged from the Latin rite, possibly blending Orthodox and Catholic practices.24 Such an interpretation is further substantiated by the scant description of the heresy and its contradictory identification, first Patarene, then Cathar.25

It was only at the end of 1202 that Innocent finally gave instructions to his legate,

Johannes de Casamaris, and to Bernard, Archbishop of Split, who were sent to the lands of Ban

Kulin to investigate the claims made by Vukan in 1199. The Pope called the heretics Cathars instead of Patarenes, suggesting that he had no factual knowledge of a heresy, especially since he was sending his personal chaplain to research the matter. Additionally, Innocent speaks in hypothetical statements when instructing the legates on how to deal with heretics, using the word

“if” quite often.26 It appears that the pope himself was unsure as to whether or not there was a heresy in the remote region of Bosnia. Another matter of importance is that the pope asked the legates to interview Ban Kulin and those closest to him, in person.27 This demonstrates that

24 Snezhana Rakova, "Regestes des chartes des souverains bosniaques XIIe-XVe siècles. Quelques remarques sur la terminologie dans les titres de ces souverains," Revue des études sud-est-européennes 42 (2004), 31-36. has noted that there is a Cyrillic charter issued by Kulin on August 29, 1189 for the merchants in Ragusa. Kulin calls himself “Bosnian Ban,” not Ban of Bosnia. Leaving aside the possibility that the titulature used by the papal chancery was therefore a Latin translation of the self-designation employed by Kulin, the use of Slavonic for this and many other inscriptions and charters strongly suggests that the Bosnian Church used the Slavic rite. 25 “Therefore within the land of the noble man, Ban Kulin, some group of people live there, who are suspect of being of the wicked heresy of the Cathars” See ep. 28 (dated 1202), in Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216), p. 224. 26 “If indeed you will find among them those who embraced heretical wickedness and are hostile to the right doctrine, you will bring them back to the path of truth following the rule of the faith” (ep. 28, p. 225).

27 “Being sent with authority given by Apostolic writ and arriving at some point in the land of the said Kulin, you are to seek most diligently the truth about the faith and conduct of Kulin, his wife, and the men in his lands; and following the Catholic faith, you have found the Apostolic doctrine confirmed” (ep. 28, p. 225). Teskeredzic 18

Innocent took the heresy seriously enough to have it investigated. However, his mention of the possibility that “following the Catholic faith, you have found the Apostolic doctrine confirmed” reveals his skepticism about heresy at the court of Kulin. Why else would he have presupposed that the legates would find nothing of a heterodox nature amongst Kulin and his courtiers?

Nonetheless, he sent men to investigate claims of heresy; for one must also consider that Kulin’s knowledge of his own realm beyond his court would have been hindered by the mountainous terrain of Bosnia.

The final papal source to be examined is the Bilino Polje Abjuration of 1203, better known as the Bilino Polje Renunciation.28 The document exists in the form of a letter from April

30th, 1203, which was sent by Johannes de Casamaris, the papal legate and chaplain. It is clear from the letter that Casamaris discovered no heresy. This can be found through the examination of several key aspects of the document.

The letter is concerned only with confirming the Latin rite.29 For example, all Catholic churches in Bosnia were to have crosses and altars; priests were to receive communion from other priests a minimum of seven times a year; and members of the clergy were to be buried in cemeteries that were a part of or adjoined to churches. At most, this would imply that before the papal legate had come to Bosnia, some churches, at least, did not have either crosses or altars; priests rarely took communion from one another; and they were commonly buried in locations other than church graveyards, presumably on family grounds. However, it is much more important to note that the letter makes no reference to heresy, although Casamaris gives specific instructions on how to combat heterodox teachings and their teachers. Clearly, Casamaris found

28 See ep. 36 (dated 1203), in Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216), pp. 235-237. 29 “In the first, we repudiate…and receive with the ancient practices” (ep. 36, pp. 235-236).

Teskeredzic 19 no heretics; otherwise, he would have explicitly stated whom he had encountered and what actions and measures he had taken. Furthermore, he may have believed that there were heretics in the area, but they had been hidden from him; hence, he explicitly stated the Latin rite as a precautionary measure. Although there appears to have been no heresy in Bosnia at the time, the letter gives another key insight into the mindset of the clergy and upper Church officials. It shows that any heresy was perceived as a real and potential threat that was to be investigated and dealt with immediately.

The five papal sources that were examined above are essential for our understanding of the role of the popes in shaping a Bosnian identity in the years between 1180 and 1204. While

Alexander III extended his recognition to the Bosnian Ban, Kulin, it was Innocent III who enlarged the role and the realm of the Catholic Church in Bosnia. Indeed, Innocent was so involved in the region from 1199 to 1204, that the argument could easily be made that he helped form a Bosnian identity by considering and investigating the possibility of a heterodox group of renegades residing in the area. The term “Bosnian,” when applied by Innocent, associated the

“Bosnians” with heresy, giving them the material with which to construct an identity.

Teskeredzic 20

Chapter IV: Hungarian Interests

Hungary was a dominant force and presence in the central and eastern Balkans in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Therefore, any discussion of medieval Bosnia must take developments in Hungary into consideration. After all, Emeric was Ban Kulin’s nominal overlord.

The issue of Hungarian interests in the region first appears in the letter sent by Vukan to

Innocent III in 1199. Vukan explicitly lists Bosnia as the domains and territory of the Hungarian king.30 The letter then leads into a discussion of how to deal with Kulin, his family, and his subjects, and about the power of the Hungarian king in the region.31 Vukan knew that when “the

Hungarian king has been irritated, he has compelled those to come to your presence to be examined by you [Innocent III]. They have forged letters and told you to read them.” Vukan asked the pope “to suggest to the Hungarian king that he may tear him [Kulin] from his kingship, like a weed from wheat.”32 Apparently, in Vukan’s eyes King Emeric had the ability to select and depose Bosnian rulers.

Hungary’s dominance in the region is further detailed in Pope Innocent III’s 1200 letter to Emeric. The pope reasserted Emeric’s claim to Bosnia.33 In this case, however, Innocent went further than Vukan, encouraging the king to “confiscate all the goods by whatever means they have arrived in your lands. Do not take your eyes from the above-mentioned Ban [Kulin] to

30 “Precisely, we do not wish to hide from your fatherhood that a not small heresy can be seen spreading in the land of the Hungarian king, namely Bosnia” (Ep. 176, col 726).

31 The Hungarians increasingly maintained a presence in the northern and central Balkans with the slow and steady Byzantine withdrawal, which began in the 1180s. 32 Ep. 176, col. 726.

33 “And unless the above-mentioned Ban exiles all the heretics from the land under his authority, confiscates all their goods, you ought to exile him and those heretics not only from his land but also from the entire Kingdom of Hungary” (Ep. 19, p. 209).

Teskeredzic 21 the point of exercising your temporal authority against him if you cannot bring him back to the straight path.”34 The Hungarian monarch now had papal sanction not only to replace Kulin, but also to “confiscate” the property and goods of any of those accused of heresy, including Kulin himself. This viewpoint is substantiated by the papal bull of Viterbo (1199), which made heresy and treason equivalent in the eyes of the Church; for now, politicians and local potentates could punish heretics along with their Church colleagues.35 Therefore, religious and secular judgment and punishment overlapped. Emeric of Hungary had what amounted to a blank check to deal with Bosnia. His designs for the region were only halted by the growing strength of a resurgent

Bulgaria.

The above-mentioned papal correspondence helps to introduce the complex and intricate relationship that existed in the Balkans at the time. The situation was further complicated by the withdrawal of Byzantium, the reemergence of Bulgaria as a separate state, and the growing power of Hungary and Serbia. The presence of Hungary in the central Balkans dates back to

1102, when Coloman was proclaimed King of Croatia.36 This was followed by a similar annexation in Dalmatia in 1107. From 1107 onward, Bosnia, Hum, Serbia, and Duklja remained part of a shifting sphere of influence, belonging either to Hungary or Byzantium. An example of the constant flux in Bosnia emerges with Ban Borić, a Hungarian subject.

34 Ep. 19, p. 209. 35 E. Vacandard, The Inquisition. A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1915), pp.45-46. Vacandard notes that Innocent issued this bull against the Cathars and the Patarenes of Italy, and that Innocent gave local rulers the right to punish heretical princes and confiscate their lands. It is important to note at this point that Vukan’s first accusations of heresy against Kulin came in that same year (1199).

36 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 17.

Teskeredzic 22

Ban Borić was not only the predecessor to Ban Kulin, but he was a Slavonian. Little is known of him, except that he ruled the region from 1153 to approximately 1167.37 In his final year, he provided troops and assistance to the Hungarian army at Zemun.38 However, following the Hungarian defeat, Ban Kulin came to power with the assistance of Emperor Manuel I

Komnenos. This defeat would prove a serious setback for Hungarian interests in the region for the following thirteen years.

The death of Komnenos in 1180 ended the period of Byzantine dominion. Therefore,

Kulin, like his predecessor, was to return Bosnia to the Hungarian fold. It is after 1180 that the

Bosnian-Hungarian relationship became hotly contested. “Bosnia was mentioned in the title of the King of Hungary, and some of the nobles in the northern parts of Bosnia probably even recognized his suzerainty. There is no evidence, however, that the Hungarians actually occupied any part of Bosnia…Under Kulin in the 1180s and 1190s there is no sign of direct Hungarian influence within Bosnia.”39 Nonetheless, there is good evidence in the papal correspondence that the Hungarians had a free hand to intervene in Bosnia, if necessary.

Sima Ćirković has demonstrated that, in fact, by the late twelfth century Bosnia and

Kulin were controlled from Hungary, not Byzantium.40 His argument is clearly supported by

Innocent III’s correspondence, which shows an established relationship between Kulin and

Emeric.41 Innocent refers to Emeric as Kulin’s lord, and, evidently, he thought of Emeric as capable and powerful enough to handle the supposed heresy, as well as Kulin. The idea of Kulin

37 That date can be disputed since Kulin was brought to prominence in 1163 with Manuel I Komnenos. 38 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 17. 39 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 17. 40 Sima M. Ćirković, “Jedan prilog o banu Kulinu.” Istorijski Časopis 9-10 (1959-1960), 71-78.

41 Ep. 19, p. 209, and ep. 28, p. 225. Teskeredzic 23 as a Hungarian vassal is further substantiated by the Hungarian intervention in Bosnia in the

1230s.

The papal sources and Ćirković’s argument indicate that Hungary could and would eventually spread its influence and territorial hold into Bosnia. Moreover, the rebellion of

Andrew—future King Andrew II—who established himself in the region strongly suggests that

Hungary had a good grip of local politics in the central Balkans. In 1198, Andrew forced his brother, King Emeric, to acknowledge him as Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia and thus as a virtually autonomous Hungarian ruler over the Balkan territories.42 Andrew’s troops later occupied Hum as far as the Neretva River.43 This brought Hungary or at least the rule of a

Hungarian prince to the doorstep of Kulin’s Bosnia. It is therefore likely that Pope Innocent III’s request of a strong-handed intervention in the region have received Andrew’s approval. What seems to have prevented a showdown in Bosnia was the Fourth Crusade, especially the complications resulting for the papal-Hungarian relations from the conquest of Zara. In addition, the war with Serbia and Bulgaria distracted the attention of the Hungarian king away from the

Bosnian problem.

The Second Bulgarian Empire emerged as a counterbalance to Byzantine and Hungarian designs in the Balkans. Under Kalojan (1197-1207), Bulgaria became a formidable bulwark against Hungarian intervention in the Balkans. When attacked by his brother Vukan of Duklja and his Hungarian supporters, Stephen II Nemanja of Serbia fled to Kalojan, who helped him regain his position on the Serbian throne, strengthening Bulgaria in the process. It was also at this time that Ban Kulin attacked the lands of the Hungarian king, which were most likely the

42 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 22. 43 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 45.

Teskeredzic 24 lands of Vukan, his subject.44 From the evidence that we have, it appears that Kulin was acting in cooperation with Nemanja, who was his relative through Kulin’s widowed sister. Whatever the motives, the aftermath is clear. The Pope received word from Emeric of the attack, but instead of acknowledging his complaint, Innocent refocused his attention on the Fourth Crusade.

Innocent’s reaction may have been based on several factors. During this period, Innocent had been attempting to expand his influence not only to the south but also to the east, into

Bulgaria. Consequently, Hungary’s war with Bulgaria and Serbia was viewed as a threat to

Kalojan’s acceptance of papal authority. These tense negotiations between the papacy and

Bulgarians began in 1199 and did not end until 1204.45 The fact that Emeric delayed the passage of a papal legate destined for Bulgaria as late as 1204 demonstrates the strain in the relationship between the papacy, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Therefore, in 1201, when hostilities had only just begun, the situation must have been worse for the Pope, who sought to keep Emeric and Kalojan under the same Catholic banner.

This must have weighed in on the Pope’s reply to Emeric, which diminished the importance of his complaints about Kulin. Furthermore, Kulin’s family ties to Nemanja further complicated the situation, as it could have easily destroyed the already precarious situation of

Catholicism in the eastern and central Balkans. It was only with Emeric’s reaffirmation of his pledge to go on crusade that the Pope’s attention turned once again to Bosnia. After a balance- of-power-like arrangement had been reached, Innocent ordered his legates to travel to the lands of Kulin to find and eradicate the “heresy” growing there.

44 Ćirković, “Jedan prilog,” pp. 71-78.

45 R. L. Wolff, “The ‘Second Bulgarian Empire.’ Its origin and history to 1204,” Speculum 24 (1949),190-206; Vasil Giuzelev, Papstvoto i bălgarite prez srednovekovieto (IX-XV v.) (Sofia: Bălgarsko istorichesko nasledstvo, 2009), pp. 45-78. Teskeredzic 25

Therefore, when examining Hungarian interests in the central Balkans, particularly

Bosnia, in the years of Ban Kulin, it becomes evident that the area was a wrought with political problems emerging from competing interests. Although the Hungarian monarch and his younger brother had plans to take over the region, the Fourth Crusade and the war with Serbia and

Bulgaria eventually prevented their intervention in the area. However, this is not to say that the

Hungarian king did not flex his muscle in the region. The Bilino Polje Renunciation shows that

Kulin’s son and the members of his court went before the Hungarian monarch to ratify the proclamation. However, Hungarian ambitions in Bosnia could not be realized until the intervention of the 1230s, when the crown and the papacy began to battle the supposed heresy entrenched in the region.

Teskeredzic 26

Chapter V: Internal Serbian Politics

It would be an understatement to say that the state of Serbian politics in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries had a profound effect upon Bosnia. It was mentioned previously that Ban Kulin himself had marital ties to Stephen II Nemanja, the ruler of Serbia, through his sister, the widow of Miroslav of Hum. Therefore, Bosnia’s involvement in Serbian politics was guaranteed, and the events of 1199 only help to reinforce this notion.

In order to assess the political situation in Serbia at the time, it is essential to discuss the relationship between the various Serbian rulers. Stephen I Nemanja had several brothers, the most important of whom was Miroslav of Hum, who took Ban Kulin’s sister as his wife. After the death of Miroslav and the exile of his heir, Ban Kulin’s sister returned to the court of her brother in Bosnia. Furthermore, Stephen I Nemanja had three sons of his own: the future

Stephen II, Vukan of Duklja, and Rastko (the future St. Sava). Of these three, it was only Sava who managed to evade and downplay any conflict between Vukan, the eldest, and Stephen II, the heir presumptive. Add to this Vukan’s desire to rule the entirety of Serbia and Bosnia, and it becomes apparent that there were serious tensions in the region.

In 1199, Vukan directed accusations of heresy against Ban Kulin to Innocent III. As was noted previously, Kulin is not mentioned in the papal sources between 1180 and 1199. One can therefore wonder why was a charge of heresy leveled against Kulin, his wife, his sister, and his family after 19 years of near indifference by the papacy? To answer this question it is necessary to delve into the sources and determine the state of Serbian politics. Teskeredzic 27

Vukan of Duklja, the elder brother of Stephen II and Miroslav, was styling himself “by the same grace of God king of Duklja and Dalmatia” by 1199.46 In the few years prior to his heresy accusations, he had submitted himself and his domains to the pope, going as far as to request a papal crown.47 Furthermore, he had petitioned and gained papal sanction to restore Bar to the rank of archbishopric. The bishop of Bosnia was to be its suffragan. Ban Kulin chose to ignore Bar and deferred to Dubrovnik in all Church matters. This must have created more animosity, as Vukan had a well-established relationship with Hungary and the papacy. It is quite clear from this political context that Vukan’s motives were of a secular, non-religious nature.

The political nature and consequences of the accusations were significant. For example, why would Vukan mention Kulin’s own sister? This question has a two pronged answer. First and foremost, Miroslav of Hum had harbored the murderers of Archbishop Rainer of Split, refusing to return the money they had stolen and to punish them.48 To frustrate the pope even further, he drove out the bishop of Ston, earning himself an excommunication in the process.

Miroslav then proceeded to transform the province into a bastion of Orthodoxy. Additionally,

Kulin’s sister had given birth to several heirs, who could counter any claims to the throne of

Hum.

As for the charges of heresy that were brought against Kulin by Vukan, the only ecclesiastical reason lies in Kulin’s refusal to acknowledge the bishop of Bosnia as a suffragan of the archbishop of Bar, particularly since the archbishop had been selected by Vukan. Indeed,

Vukan’s elevation of Bar was motivated by his desire to concentrate more power in his hands, especially in spheres where his brother Stephen could not lay claim, e.g. Bosnia.

46 Ep. 176, col 726.

47 Curta, Southeastern Europ, p. 389. 48 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 20. Teskeredzic 28

The political basis of the heresy accusations is further substantiated by an examination of

Vukan’s actions between 1202 and 1203. With Hungarian support, Vukan attacked and seized power from Stephen Nemanja in 1202. Later in that same year, or in the early 1203, Innocent III addressed him as “the Great Župan of Serbia” and sent a legate “to bring the Church of Serbia into union with the Roman Church.”49 The legate in question was no other than the Archbishop of Kalocsa, who was told on that same day that he was in charge of severing the ties of the

Serbian Church with Constantinople and with ensuring its obedience to Rome.50 The papal sources demonstrate that the pope condoned the regime change implemented by Vukan with

Emeric’s support. However, it is important to note that at this point that the ruler Vukan had ousted, Stephan Nemanja, had previously sought a papal crown himself. Why would the pope then support a coup against his protegé? Vukan was Emeric’s man, and Pope Innocent viewed

Emeric as his most important ally in the region. The pope, therefore, may have hoped to control

Vukan by proxy. That was definitely not the case with Stephen Nemanja, who was at war with

Emeric. From a papal point of view, it made sense to sanction and even support Vukan’s personal ambitions for the throne of Serbia.

In November 1202, Emeric’s lands were attacked by Ban Kulin.51 The lands in question were most likely not within Hungary proper, but belonged to Emeric’s ally, Vukan.52 Whether this was in retaliation for the claims made by Vukan or part of a bid by Stephan to regain the throne is unclear. What is clear is that Kulin was now in direct conflict with Vukan, and the

49See Ep. 33 (dated to 1202-1203), in Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216), p. 209. The pope announced that he would send his legate “to the lands of the Great Župan of Serbia for the purpose of implementing the institutions of the Roman Church to bring the Church of Serbia into union with the Roman Church.” The editor noted that these lands had been brought to the Hungarian king by Vukan. 50 See Ep. 35 (dated to March 22 1203), in Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216), pp. 234-235.

51 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, p. 48.

52 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 48, notes that “the Hungarian king added ‘Serbia’ to his title. Hungarian kings were to retain the name ‘Serbia’ in their titles.” Teskeredzic 29 latter’s complaints reached Emeric. From Emeric they were sent to the pope, who seems to have downplayed their importance, as he recommended instead that Emeric return his focus to the

Fourth Crusade. By now, the power configuration in the region had changed again. Stephen

Nemanja’s supporter was Kalojan, the ruler of Bulgaria, who had meanwhile acknowledged papal supremacy. However, Innocent III decided to send a legate, Johannes de Casamaris, to investigate Kulin and his lands for heresy. In the end, Vukan’s earlier accusations seem to have grown legs.

By 1203, Kulin and the abbots of Bosnia signed the Bilino Polje Renunciation, indicating that there was no heresy to boot. Furthermore, in 1204, Stephen regained his throne, and Vukan eventually returned to Duklja to rule his domains.

Looking back at the years between 1199 and 1204, Serbian politics definitely had a great deal of influence on the situation in Bosnia. Vukan of Duklja, in particular, and his political and territorial desires seem likely candidates for motivating the accusations of heresy directed against

Ban Kulin. It is of course possible that there were heretics in Bosnia at that time, but if there were any at Ban Kulin’s court or among the members of his family, then Johannes de Casamaris would not have missed the opportunity to report them. Since no heretics were named and no heresy found, the case for Vukan’s desire to acquire Bosnia, by any means necessary, is made stronger. Therefore, when constructing Bosnia and its identity, credit must be given to the

Nemanjić rulers of Serbia, Duklja, and Hum.

Teskeredzic 30

Chapter VI: Conclusions

The creation of an ethnic or national identity requires years of development and evolution. The Bosnian identity emerging in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century Balkans was no exception. It was the product of the beliefs and preconceptions of foreigners about what it meant to be Bosnian, as is demonstrated by the Greek and papal sources.

The first true reference to Bosnia was in the title of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos.

Interestingly, it was used in the adjectival form; hence its translation as “Bosnian.” The term –

“banus Bos(s)inus” or Bosnian Ban - was not used until 1180, when Theobaldo, Pope Alexander

III’s legate, was addressing Ban Kulin, the ruler of Bosnia. Again, the adjectival form of Bosnia was used. This was to be repeated by Innocent III in his letter of 1200 to Emeric of Hungary, when he referred to Kulin as “Bosnian Ban.” Clearly, both popes, or at the very least their legates and scribes, had familiarized themselves with this name through the Greek sources.

There is no other logical explanation for the term “Bosnian” to exist in both papal and Greek sources. Furthermore, although the term arose with the Byzantine emperors, the credit for the creation of a Bosnian identity ultimately lies with Alexander and Innocent III.

Another intriguing fact lies in the use of the word “Bosnian” in the papal correspondence. The popes called Kulin a “Bosnian Ban.” Kulin then began to use the title

“Bosnian Ban” as his own title in the Church inscriptions and charters that remain from his time.

The kings, lords, and rulers of other Western European dominions never used the adjectival forms when referring to themselves, e.g. “Hungarian King” or “French King.” Why would Kulin then style himself “Bosnian Ban” and not “Ban of Bosnia?” Teskeredzic 31

Kulin’s own understanding of the term was not quite on par with the high Latin used by the Popes and their legates. Therefore, Kulin came to use a term invented by outsiders to define himself and those under his rule. Additionally, it is highly likely that Kulin began to adopt this term increasingly because he wished to create a separate identity for himself and his subjects.

This is supplanted by the notion that the area of Bosnia was at that time being carved out from the mountainous terrain over which Kulin was Ban. Creating an identity in this region was further complicated by the territorial and political desires of the local magnates and rulers surrounding Kulin’s Bosnia.

Vukan of Duklja’s motives for declaring Kulin a heretic were clearly political, as

Johannes de Casamaris found no heresy in the region in 1203. The first accusations of heresy in

1199 preceded Vukan’s power play for the Serbian throne. With the recent death of Stephen I

Nemanja, Vukan most likely did not have the resources or recognition to expand into the Serbian realm held by his brother, Stephen II Nemanja. Thus, expansion into the realm of Bosnia would have been logical, as it was a small fiefdom ruled by a single man, whose allegiance changed with the ebb and flow of Hungarian and Byzantine power. Additionally, the expansion of

Andrew, Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia, into the areas west of the Neretva River, gave Vukan the support he needed. However, no decisive action was ever made against Bosnia and Ban Kulin either by Vukan or the Hungarians.

Hungarian and Dukljan ambitions for Bosnia were thwarted by the ill-fated war with

Serbia. Vukan succeeded in taking the Serbian throne from his brother Stephen in 1202.

However, what neither he nor his suzerain, Emeric of Hungary, had anticipated came to fruition.

Stephen fled to the Bulgarian ruler, Kalojan, for protection and support. The resurgent Second

Bulgarian Empire managed not only to resist Hungary, but also to take precious ground away Teskeredzic 32 from Emeric and Vukan, when Stephen was restored to power in 1207 or 1208. The further complication that Kalojan, Emeric, Vukan, and Ban Kulin were all subjects of the Pope prevented any further action. Emeric and Vukan were actually held in check to a great deal by the Pope’s fear that war with Bulgaria would alienate his most recent convert. These same fears may have prevented Vukan and Emeric from invading Ban Kulin’s lands, especially since Kulin had family ties to Nemanja and, by proxy, to Kalojan.

Whether or not the people residing in Bosnia were heretics is still a matter of scholarly debate, but it is certain that an identity began to take shape and to grow in medieval

Bosnia, particularly in the years after 1199 when Vukan first accused Kulin and his court of heresy. If it were not for the impetus of Vukan’s claims, then the Bosnian identity would not have formed in the manner in which it did. It could be said that the supposed heresy was integral in formulating an identity for the “Bosnians” of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In fact, these previously nameless people became a unit or group through the beliefs, perceptions, and labels of others. Consequently, had there been no heresy, there would have been no Bosnia.

Teskeredzic 33

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198-1216). Edited by Theodosius Haluščynskyj.Vatican: Pontificia Commissio ad Redigendum, 1944. Branko Fučić, “Croatian Glagolitic and Cyrillic epigraphs.” In Croatia in the Early Middle Ages. A Cultural Survey. Edited by Ivan Supičić, pp. 277-279. London/Zagreb: Philip Wilson Publishers/AGM, 1999. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Edited by Tadija Smičiklas. Vol. 2. Zagreb: Officina Societatis Typographicae, 1904.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando Imperio.Edited by Gyula Moravcsik and transl. by Romilly J. H. Jenkins. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967.

Cyril Mango, “The conciliar editct of 1166.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), pp. 324-330.

Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, edited by J.-P. Migne. Volume 214. Paris: Garnier, 1890.

Secondary Sources

Miloš Blagojević, "Sečenica (Setzenica), Strymon (Strymon) i Tara (Tara) u delu Jovana Kinama," Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 17 (1974), pp. 65-76.

Ivan Bozhilov, A. Totomanova and Ivan Biliarski,. Borilov Sinodik. Izdanie i prevod. Sofia: PAM, 2010.

Sima M. Ćirković, “Jedan prilog o banu Kulinu.” Istorijski Časopis 9-10 (1959-1960), pp. 71-78.

Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Alain Ducellier, La façade maritime de l'Albanie au Moyen Age. Durazzo et Valona du XI-ème au XVème siècle. Thessaloniki : Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981.

John V. A. Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. New York, Columbia University Press, 1975. John V. A. Fine. The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1987.

Vasil Giuzelev, Papstvoto i bălgarite prez srednovekovieto (IX-XV v.).Sofia: Bălgarsko istorichesko nasledstvo, 2009. Teskeredzic 34

Snezhana Rakova, "Regestes des chartes des souverains bosniaques XIIe-XVe siècles. Quelques remarques sur la terminologie dans les titres de ces souverains," Revue des études sud-est- européennes 42 (2004), pp. 31-36.

E. Vacandard, The Inquisition. A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1915.

Lothar Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn. Von der Völkerwanderung bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311). Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zürich, F. Schöningh, 1987.

R. L. Wolff, “The ‘Second Bulgarian Empire.’ Its origin and history to 1204,” Speculum 24 (1949), pp. 190-206.

Tibor Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ kastra oikoumena in the Southern Slavs principalities” Istorijski Časopis 57 (2008), pp. 9-28.

Teskeredzic 35

167

1180

Nobili et potenti viro Culin bano Bosine Thebaldus dei gratia sancte romane ecclesie subdianconus apostolice sedis legatus cum benedictione et victoria salutem. Multum desiderauimus personam vestram videre et benedictionem et litteras domini pape vobis representare. Nunc vero quia per nosmetipsos non possumus, per latorem presentium et benedictionem et litteras domini pape mittimus et representamus magnitudienm liberalitatis et glorie vestre rogantes, ut pro reuerentia beati Petri apostolic et domini pape et pro salute anime vestre duos famulos et pelles marturinas nobis mittatis, et si placet prudentie vestre per nos aliquid domino pape significare, sciatis quod libenter et fideliter vos exaudiemus.

Teskeredzic 36

167

1180

To the noble and powerful man, Kulin, Bosnian Ban, I, Theobaldo, by the grace of God subdeacon of the Holy Roman Apostolic See sent as a legate, salute you with praise and victory. Much have we desired to see your person and to show the praise and letters of our lord Pope (Alexander III). Now, truly because we cannot on behalf of ourselves, then enquiring of your fame through the present lawgiver and letters of the lord Pope, we send and represent the bulk generosity, on behalf of the reverence of the apostle, St. Peter, and of the lord Pope. May you send two servants and marten pelts for the health of your soul. And if it pleases your discretion to show us anything on behalf of the lord Pope, you may know that with pleasure and reliance on God we shall listen to you in the future.

Teskeredzic 37

CLXXVI (1199 C.E.)

LITTERAE REGIS WLCANI DIOCLAE ATQUE DALMATIAE AD DOMINUM PAPAM

Sed et regnum suum pontifici commendat, et hortatur ut ad Ungariae regem scribat de expulsion haereticorum.

Beatissimo atque sanctissimo Patri et domino INNOCENTIO Dei gratia sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae summo pontifici et universali papae, WLCANUS eadem gratia Diocliae atque Dalmatiae rex, salutem et devotionis affectum. Venientibus ad nostram praesentiam domino Joanne capellano et domino Simone religiosis et discretis sanctae catholicae et apostolicae sedis legatis, amodo jucundati sumus: quia sicut solis detur illustrare, ita illorum sancta et salubri praelicatione totum regnum nostrum creditur fore illustratum. Un le merito dicimus: Visitavit nos oriens ex alto (Luc I, 78). Illorum itaque probitate et scientia nos informati, Deo et paternitati vestrae innumeras grates rependere curamus, qui tales ad nos misistis, quales in voto semper habuimus suscipiendos, divino munere praeditos, quia omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est. Praesentatis igitur litteris vestris, intelleximus, quia postulationibus nostris apostolatus vestri beatitudo misericorditer acquievit. Unde nos cum magna animi devotione praecepimus ut per totum regnum nostrum omnia quae secundum Deum sunt ordinent ex confirment; quae autem contraria sunt, juxta illud propheticum, evellant et destruant. Accedentes itaque ad locum ubi antiquitus concilium celebrari solitum fuit, sanctum synodum celebrare studuerunt, de vitiis et virtutibus subtiliter disserentes, in communi Deo et beatissimae Mariae perpetuae virgini et beato Petro apostolorum principi nec non et apostolatui vestro laudum praeconia persolventes. Interea noverit paternitas vestra, quia augustali stemmate undique insignimur et, quod gloriosius et beatius est, vestry generosi sanguinis affinitatem habere cognovimus. Igitur innotescimus quia in voto habuimus nunc legatos nostros ad pedes beatitudinis vestrae transmittere. Sed quia terram illam turbatam esse audivimus, facere non potuimus: quia vestris legatis ubique debita reverentia exhibetur; sed nostri, dum illuc ire voluerint, cum magna honoris magnificentia, damna forsitan et exitium patientur. Sed dum opportunum aut congruum tempus affuerit, honorificentius faciemus; qui sanctae exhortationis vestrae verba perferant, quae dulciora nobis sunt super mel et favum. Siquidem sperantes et certum tenentes, quia ex quo vicarius Domini nostri Jesu Christi existis, ipse per te nobis aditum regni caelestis aperire dignetur. Et quia nullo in hoc saeculo indigemus, multum rogamus ut pro nobis peccatoribus preces ad Dominum fundatis. Demum vero paternitatem vestram nolumus latere quia haeresis non modica in terra regis Ungariae, videlicet Bessina pullulare videtur, in tantum quod peccatis exigentibus, ipse Bacilinus cum uxore et cum sorore sua, quae fuit defuncti Mirosclovichemensi, et cum pluribus consanguineis suis seductus, plusquam decem millia Christianorum in eamdem haeresim introduxit. Unde rex Ungariae exacerbatus, illos ad vestram praesentiam compulit venire a vobis examinandos. Illi autem simulatis litteris redierunt, dicentes a vobis concessam sibi legem. Unde rogamus ut regi Ungariae suggeratis ut eos a regno suo evellat, tanquam zizania a tritico.

Teskeredzic 38

CLXXVI (1199)

Letter of King Vukan of Duklja and Dalmatia to the Lord Pope

But and he commits his kingship to the Pontiff, and he is urged that he may write to the Hungarian king of the expulsion of the heretics.

Most blessed and sacred Father and lord Innocent most sacred pontiff of the Roman Church and universal pope by the grace of God, Vukan by the same grace of God king of Duklja and Dalmatia sends his greetings and the expression of his devotion. As John, the chaplain, and Simon, a monk and special legate of the sacred Holy Catholic and Apostolic See, came to our presence we were delighted to learn the following: because just as the splendor of the sun in its virtue, radiating across the whole world, demonstrates in the same way their holy and proper sermon is supposed to have shown publicly in our entire realm. On which account we say: because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven (Luke I: 78). As we learned from their competence and knowledge, we give innumerable thanks to your fatherhood and to God that those whom you have always promised to us are the same as those who were sent to us, rich in God’s grace because all the best giving and the all the perfect gifts are from above. After they have shown us your letters, we understand the pontificate of your holiness mercifully rejoiced in our petition. Consequently, we order with great devotion of the soul so that through our entire realm those who live according to God be ordained and confirmed; however, all those who are against it, as has been said in the prophecies, are to be eradicated and destroyed. And arriving in that place where the old council used to be celebrated, they were eager to summon the holy synod to discuss in detail the vice and virtues and they rendered public praises in communion with God, the holy and perpetual Virgin Mary, and St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, as well as your apostolate. In the meantime, your fatherhood will learn that we are distinguished through a venerable pedigree on all sides and, which is blessed and glorified, we know have affinity to your noble blood. Therefore, we proclaim that we promise to now send our envoys to the feet of your holiness. But because we have heard that land to be disturbed, we have not been able to do much. In addition your legates were due the appropriate honor while ours who wanted to go there, carrying great and magnificent gifts were about to suffer harm and perhaps destruction. But when the opportune and good time will appear, we will keep our promise. We will take the words of your holy exhortation, words that are sweeter to us than honey and honeycomb. Therefore, we hope and are certain that through you as the vicar of Jesus Christ our Lord the Kingdom of Heaven will open to us. And because we demand nothing in this generation, we ask much in prayers to God for our sins. Precisely, we do not wish to hide from your fatherhood that a not small heresy can be seen spreading in the land of the Hungarian king, namely Bosnia. In all that land, the heresy was introduced with all the sins brought forward by the same Ban Kulin with his wife and sister, who was the wife of the late Miroslav, and with many relatives, in addition to 10,000 Christians. Whence the Hungarian king has been irritated, he has compelled those to come to your presence to be examined by you. They have forged letters and told you to read them. When we ask that you may suggest to the Hungarian king that he may tear him from his kingship, like a weed from wheat.

Teskeredzic 39

Pontificatus Annus III 22 febr. 1200 – 21 febr. 1201 (Anno 1200 die 11oct.)

Rex Hungariae, ut contra haereticos Patarenos Bosnae strenue procedat, admonetur.

Karissimo in Christo filio H. Regi Hungarorum Illustri. Cum ad vindictam maleficiorum […] Accepimus autem, quod nuper ven[erabilis] f[rater] n[oster],…Spalaten[sis] Archiepiscopus, Patarenos non paucos de Spalaten[si] et Tragurien[si] civitatibus effugasset, nobilis vir Culinus, Banus bossinus, iniquitati eorum non solum tutum latibulum sed et praesidium contulit manifestum, et perversati eorumdem terram suam et se ipsum exponens, ipsos pro catholicis, immo ultra catholicos honoravit, vocans eos autonomastice christianos. Ne igitur huiusmodi morbus, si eius non obsistatur principiis, vicina corrumpat, et in Regnum, quod absit, Ungariae defluat labes eius, serenitatem regiam rogamus, monemus et exhortamur in Domino, in remissionem tibi peccaminum iniungentes, quatinus ad vindicandam tantam Christi et christianorum iniuriam potenter et regaliter accingaris, et nisi Banus praedictus universes haereticos de terra suae potestati subiecta proscripserit, bonis eorum omnibus confiscatis, tu eum et haereticos ipsos non solum de terra eius sed de toto Ungariae regno proscribas, et bona talium, ubicunque per terram tuam potuerunt inveniri, confisces, nec parcat oculus tuus Bano praedicto, quin contra eum iurisdictionem exerceas temporalem, si alias ad viam rectitudinis non poterit revocari. […] Datum Laterani V id[us] octobris.

Teskeredzic 40

Year III of the Pontificate 22 February 1200 – 21 February 1201 (11 October 1200)

The King of Hungary is reminded so that he may actively proceed against the Patarenes of Bosnia.

To the dearest son in Christ the noble Hungarian king. About the extirpation of evil deeds […] we have learned that recently our venerable brother,… the Archbishop of Split, chased not a few Patarenes from the cities of Split and Trogir. The noble man Kulin, the Bosnian Ban, had provided not only asylum for their wrongdoings but also protection, thus by such means opening his country and himself up to their wickedness. He honored them as Catholics, even as more than Catholics, calling them undisciplined Christians. Thus in this way the disease corrupts the neighbors, lest it is resisted by the princes, and it flows into the neighboring Kingdom of Hungary. We bring the Lord’s name to mind and are encouraged in Him to beseech you for the remission of sins to the point of preparing for the punishment of all the injustice perpetrated on Christ and the Christians. And unless the above-mentioned Ban exiles all the heretics from the land under his authority, confiscates all their goods, you ought to exile him and those heretics not only from his land but also from the entire Kingdom of Hungary. And you ought to confiscate all the goods by whatever means they have arrived in your lands. Do not take your eyes from the above- mentioned Ban to the point of exercising your temporal authority against him if you cannot bring him back to the straight path. […]

Issued on Lateran 5 Ides of October.

Teskeredzic 41

De haeresi Patarenorum in Bosna (Anno 1202 die 21 nov.)

B. Spalatensi Archiepiscopo, et I. Capellano nostro. Illam gerimus de discretione vestra fiduciam […] Cum igitur in terra nobilis viri, Culini Bani, quorundam hominum multitudo moretur, qui de dampnata Catharorum haeresi sunt vehementer suspecti et graviter infamati; nos carrisimo in Christo filio nostro Henrico, Regi Ungarorum illustri, apostolica scripta direximus contra illos, qui praefatum Culinum super hoc arguens et obiurgans praecepit, ut huiusmodi homines de tota terra sibi subiecta proscriberet, bonis eorum omnibus confiscatis. […] Nuper ergo praefatus Culinus, Ven[erabilem] f[ratrem] n[ostrum]…Archiepiscopum, et dilectum fi[lium]…Archidiaconum Ragusanum, et cum eis quosdam ex praefatis hominibus ad nostram praesentiam destinavit, petens humiliter, ut aliquem virum idoneum de latere nostro in terram suam mittere dignaremur, qui tam ipsum quam homines susos de fide ac conversatione diligenter examinet, evellens et plantans, quae secundum Deum evellenda cognoverit et plantada. Nos igitur, qui licet indigni, vicem eius exercemus in terries, qui non vult mortem peccatorum sed ut convertantur et vivant, petitionem huiusmodi decrevimus admittendam, cum correctionem eorum paterno desideramus affectu. Quocirca de communi fratrum nostrum consilio, te fili Iohannes ad huius executionem negotii duximus destinandum, quod ut perfectius executioni mandetur, te frater Archiepiscope, qui tum vicinitate locorum quam rerum experientia super hoc notitiam obtines pleniorem, duximus adiungendum. Discretioni vestrae per a[postolica] s[cripta] praecipiendo mandantes, quatinus ad terram praefati Culini pariter accedentes, de fide ac conversatione tam ipsius quam uxoris, et hominum terrae suae inquiratis diligentissime veritatem; et quae secundum fidem catholicam, apostolicamque doctrinam inveneritis confirmanda, nostra freti auctoritate secundum ritum ecclesiasticum confirmetis. Si quae vero inveneritis inter eos, quae sapiant haereticam pravitatem, et sanae adversentur doctrinae, ad viam veritatis secundum fidei regulam reducatis. Quod si forsan monitis et mandatis vestris noluerint acquiescere, vos in eos ap[pellatione] remota secundum constitutionem, quam edidimus adversus haereticos, procedatis, attentius provisuri, ut, Deum habentes prae oculis, mandatum nostrum cum omni puritate ac sollicitudine studiatis implere. Nos enim sententiam, quam canonice protuleritis, ratam habebimus et faciemus auctore Deo inviolabiliter observari. Datum Laterani XI kal[endas] decembris.

Teskeredzic 42

Concerning the Patarene Heresy in Bosnia (21 November 1202)

To Bernard, the Archbishop of Split, and our chaplain Johannes.

We have placed that trust to your discretion […] Therefore within the land of the noble man, Ban Kulin, some group of people live there, who are suspect of being of the wicked heresy of the Cathars, and their reputation is seriously in doubt; we have sent the Apostolic writ to our beloved son in Christ Henry, the noble King of Hungary, against them, and asked him to put the above-mentioned Kulin in charge of the matter, to denounce and chastise, so that in this way those people be banished from all the lands under his rule and all their goods be confiscated. […] Therefore, the above-mentioned Kulin, has sent to us our venerable brother…the Archbishop, and beloved son,… the Archdeacon of Dubrovnik, and with them some of those men mentioned above, asking humbly, so that we send in our magnanimity from our parts a few suitable to his land, to whom he is going to look for instruction about faith and debate. They will tear out [the heresy] and plant [the true faith] that which he will know through God to eradicate and to plant. Therefore we, who are undeserving, exercise the authority of Him, Who “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” We declare in this way his request granted, and we wish with paternal love for their correction. Wherefore from the common advice of our brothers and for the completion of this matter, we delegate our son Johannes to you to be the one in charge. To him we add you, brother Archbishop, because of the knowledge you have on the matter as a result of your proximity to those places and your experience in such things. Being sent with authority given by Apostolic writ and arriving at some point in the land of the said Kulin, you are to seek most diligently the truth about the faith and conduct of Kulin, his wife, and the men in his lands; and following the Catholic faith, you have found the Apostolic doctrine confirmed. You will confirm the ecclesiastical right by our trusting authority. If indeed you will find among them those who embraced heretical wickedness and are hostile to the right doctrine, you will bring them back to the path of truth following the rule of the faith. If by any chance they shall not submit to your advice and recommendations, you will take action against them according to the edict, which we issued against heretics. Noting with God in your eyes, you will observe the execution of our recommendation with all strictness and concern. We shall have made this judgment, which is to be carried forth canonically, and we shall make it heeded without any alteration, inviolable by the authority of God.

Issued on Lateran 11 Calends of December.

Teskeredzic 43

Instrumentum, quo Bosnae monachi constitutiones Ecclesiae Romanae servare promittunt. (Anno 1203 die 30 apr.)

In nomine Dei aeterni, Creatoris omnium, et humani generis Redemptoris, anno ab ipsius Incarnationis MCCIII, domini vero Innocentii papae III anno VI. Nos priores illorum hominum, qui hactenus singulariter Christiani nominis praerogativa vocati sumus in territorio Bosnae, omnium vice constituti pro omnibus, qui supra de nostra societate fraternitatis, in praesentia domini J…de Casam[aris], capellani summi pontificis et Romanae Ecclesiae in Bosna propter hoc delegati, praesente patrono Bano Culino, domino Bosnae, promittimus coram Deo et sanctis eius stare ordinationibus et mandatis sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, tam de vita et conversatione nostra, quam ipsius obsecundare oboedientiae et vivere institutis obligantis nos pro omnibus, qui sunt de nostra societate, et loca nostra cum possessionibus et rebus omnibus, si aliquo tempore deinceps sectati fuerimus haereticam pravitatem. In primis abrenuntiamus schismati, quo ducimur infamati, et Romanam Ecclesiam matrem nostram et caput totius ecclesiasticae unitatis recognoscimus, et in omnibus locis nostris, ubi fratrum conventus commoratur oratoria habebimus, in quibus fraters de nocte ad matutinas et diebus ad horas cantandas publice simul conveniemus. In omnibus autem ecclesiis habebimus altaria et cruces; libros vero tam novi quam veteris testamenti, sicut facit Ecclesia Romana, legemus. Per singular loca nostra habebimus sacerdotes, qui dominicis et festivis diebus ad minus missas secundum ordinem ecclesiasticum debeant celebrare, confessiones audire et poenitentias tribuere. Cimiteria habebimus iuxta oratoria, in quibus fratrets sepeliantur et adventantes, si casu ibi obierint. Septies in anno ad minus corpus Domini de manu sacerdotis accepimus, scilicet in Natali Domini, Pascha, Pentecoste, Natali apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Assumptione Virginis M[ariae], Natavitate eiusdem et Omnium Sanctorum commemoratione, quae celebratur in kal[endis] novembris. Ieiunia constituta ab ecclesia observabimus, et ea, quae maiores nostril provide praeceperunt, custodiemus. Feminae vero, quae de nostra erunt religione, a viris separatae erunt tam in dormitoriis quam refectoriis, et nullus fratrum solus cum sola confabulabitur, unde possit sinistra suspitio suboriri. Neque de cetero recipiemus aliquem vel aliquam coniugatam, nisi mutuo consensu continentia promissa ambo pariter convertantur. Festivitates autem sanctorum a sanctis patribus ordinatas celebrabimus, et nullum deinceps ex certa scientia Manichaeum, vel alium haereticum ad habitandum nobiscum recipiemus. Et sicut separamur ab aliis saecularibus vita et conversatione, ita etiam habitu secernamur vestimentorum, quae vestimenta erunt clausa non colorata, usque ad talos mensurata. Nos autem de caetero non Christianos, sicut hactenus, sed fraters nos nominabimus, ne singularitate nominis aliis christianis iniuria inferatur. Mortuo vero Magistro, de hinc usque in perpetuum priores cum consilio fratrum Deum timentium eligent praelatum a Romano tantum pontifice confirmandum. Et si quid aliud Ecclesia Romana addere vel minuere voluerit, cum devotione recipiemus et observabimus. Quod ut in perpetuum robur obtineat, nostra subscriptione firmamus. Actum apud Bosnam, iuxta flumen, loco qui vocatur Bolino Poili VI Idus aprilis. Dragite, Lubin, Drageta, Pribis, Luben, Rados, Bladosius, Banus Culinus, Marinus archidiaconus Ragusii subscripsimus. Idem nos Lubin et Tregeta ex voluntate omnium fratrum nostrum in Bosna et ipsius Bani Culini, cum eodem Domino I. Capellano, ad H. illustrem Ungariae et christianissimum euntes, in praesentia ipsius regis, et venerabilis…Colocensis archiepiscopi, et Quinqueecclesiensis episcopi et aliorum multorum, in persona omnium iuravimus haec statuta Teskeredzic 44 servare, et si quae alia Ecclesia Romana super nos ordinare voluerit, et secundum fidem catholicam constituere. Factum in Insula Regia, II. kal. Amii.

Teskeredzic 45

The document, by which the monks of Bosnia promise to protect the decrees of the Roman Church. (30 April 1203)

In the name of God eternal, Creator of all, and redeemer of the human race, the year of this Incarnation 1203, year six of the true lord Pope Innocent III. To our abbots among those men (heretics), who thus far alone we can call Christian by name in the territory of Bosnia and in all the villages established all throughout (which are apart from our society of brotherhood). In the presence of our lord Johannes de Casamaris, the chaplain of the highest pontiff and Holy See in Bosnia on behalf of this delegation, by the present patron Ban Kulin, lord of Bosnia, whom we charge before God to remain by His sacred regulations and mandates of the Holy Roman See, to our way of life and devotion, which themselves comply with obedience, and to live according to our mandatory laws in all things, which are of our society, and our dignity and territories and in all affairs, lest we root out perverse heresies in later times. In the first, we repudiate those who do not submit to Rome, by whom we (the Christian community) are led to sin, and we recognize the Holy Roman See as our mother and the head of the entire Universal Church. And in all our places, we shall have speakers, assembled from our brothers, where it (heresy) lingers. We shall simultaneously convene and brothers shall sing in public by night, morning, and throughout the hours of the day. Furthermore, in every church we shall have altars and crosses. Indeed we shall read the books of the New and Old Testaments just as is done in the Roman Church. For each place we shall have our priests, whose duty it will be to celebrate Holy Mass and feast days for the lesser masses of secondary ecclesiastical importance, hear confessions, and exact penitence. We shall have cemeteries placed near the churches in which the brothers may be buried and visited, if by some cause they may die there (Bosnia). Seven times a year we shall accept a small portion of the body of Christ from the hand of a priest, indeed on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the birth of the apostles Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and in commemoration of all the Saints and their birthdays [All Saints’ Eve], which may be celebrated on the Calends of November. We shall observe the fasting instituted by the Church. And these we shall observe, which our elders of old taught us. Indeed, women who observe our religion shall remain separate from the men with the result that the former shall remain in dormitories and the latter in refectories, and none of the brothers shall be able to speak with a woman alone; so that the fear of sin may come into being. Neither shall we accept anyone or any type of other marriage, unless it is composed by mutual consent sent equally from both parties. Moreover, we shall celebrate the feasts of saints set down by the Holy Church fathers, and henceforth neither any of the teachings of Manichaeus, or any other heresy shall we accept to remain among us. And just as we of the monastic life are separated from others of the secular life, may we also be separated by our habits and vestments, which are closed and not colored, and hang to the ankles. Moreover, in respect to others who are non- Christians, we shall call them our brothers just as has been done to this day, so that injuries will not be inflicted specifically upon those called Christians. Indeed by the counsel of the Dead Teacher (Christ), the abbots, chosen from the brothers in God, shall fear the prelates (laws) confirmed by the Roman Pope, just as has been done in perpetuity. Indeed, if someone should wish to add or take anything to or from the Roman Church, we shall yet observe and receive with the ancient practices. So that all the above may be held in eternal strength, we affix our signatures. Teskeredzic 46

Done in Bosnia, bordering rivers, which are called in that place Bilino Polje on the 13th/15th day of April Year 6 (of Innocent III). We Dragite, Lubin, Drageta, Luben, Rados, Bladosius, Ban Kulin, and Marinus Archdeacon of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) all sign this. Our same Lubin and Tregeta (Drageta) by the wish of all of our brothers in Bosnia and Ban Kulin, himself, along with the lord chaplain, Johannes, to the illustrious who is going to the illustrious and most Christian Emeric of Hungary, in the presence of the king (Emeric) himself, and his elders (advisors)…Archbishop Colocensis (Kalocsa), and the five churches of the bishops and the other congregations, we swear to abide by these statutes in the names of all these people, in order to prevent anyone wishing to place himself above our Holy Roman Church and to create a second Catholic faith. Signed in the palace of the Kingdom on the second kalends of May.