Tibor Živković DE CONVERSIONE CROATORUM ET SERBORUM A Lost Source INSTITUTE OF HISTORY Monographs Volume 62 TIBOR ŽIVKOVIĆ DE CONVERSIONE CROATORUM ET SERBORUM A Lost Source Editor-in-chief Srđan Rudić, Ph.D. Director of the Institute of History Belgrade 2012 Consulting editors: Academician Jovanka Kalić Prof. Dr. Vlada Stanković This book has been published with the financial support of THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA (project No III47025) CONTENTS PREFACE 9 ABBREVIATIONS 13 INTRODUCTORY NOTE The Workshop of Constantine Porphyrogenitus 19 THE STORY OF THE CROATS 43 THE STORY OF DALMATIA 91 THE STORY OF THE SERBS 149 THE DISPLACED SECTIONS OF CONSTANTINE’S PRIMARY SOURCE ON THE CROATS AND THE SERBS 181 CONCLUSIONS 197 SOURCES 225 REFERENCES 229 INDEXES 241 Nec plus ultra To the memories of the finest gentleman Božidar Ferjančić (1929 – 1998) PREFACE This book is the result of 20 years of research on the so-called Slavic chapters of Constantine Pophyrogenitus’ De administrando imperio, the last stage of which took place in Athens 2009/2010, where I was completing my postdoctoral research on the supposed main source Constantine Porhyrogenitus had used for the earliest history of the Croats and the Serbs. The research took place at the Centre for Byzantine Research in Athens (IVE) with the financial support of the Ministry of Science and Technology of Serbian Government and the Serbian Orthodox Metropoly of Montenegro. The first preliminary results on the supposed, now lost source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, were published in an article in Byzantina Symmeikta (2010) and the results I presented at that time allowed me to try to make a more profound analysis of that source and eventually to reveal the most significant number of its fragments preserved in the Croat and Serb chapters of De administrando imperio – its original purpose – as well as the possible background of its composition. However, a lack of corroborative sources that would enable me to support some of my thoughts about this issue prevented me from having the last word on this. Since the whole study was made on the basis of a completely new discovery – that the earliest history of the Croats and the Serbs was mostly extracted from a now lost Latin source – I kept myself from making any further analysis about the value of the historical data contained in the source. This was something which had to be done once when the complete and profound philological analysis of these chapters had been completed. Another important issue was that I did not want to introduce the title of the supposed Latin source in the early stages of my study, I revealed the possible title of this source only when my analysis allowed me to do so safely; until then, I referred to this source only as Constantine’s primary source on the Croats and the Serbs, or Constantine’s major source, or something along these lines, as all these expressions have a 10 PREFACE technical meaning. In this way, I felt that the reader and the author would come to this conclusion together, namely that Constantine’s primary source on the Serbs and Croats was eventually entitled De conversione Croatorum et Serborum. Furthermore, there is an issue in the methodology used. The usual approach to the historical sources introduced in the second half of the 19th century was: 1) It was vital to find the name of the author; 2) place his work chronologically; 3) find the place where his work was written; and 4) search for the author’s sources. I have rejected this methodology – since over the centuries it has yet to bring us closer to the answers that arise from Slavic chapters of the De administrando imperio. The order of research must be exactly the reverse: 1) the sources of the author; 2) the place of writing; 3) the time of writing; and 4) the actual author. It appears then that the methodology which was originally set up in the 19th century was essentially correct – but its steps were placed in the wrong order. Any research about a document based on the presumption or even empirical truth that its author is known, contains a dose of imposed subjectivity which burdens the further research of the scholar. The supposed name of the author enforces the scholar to place the author’s work in a limited timeframe and place, and consequently restricts the range of the possible sources that author used. The researchers/historians try to maintain their objectivity while they are examining a particular source, but since they are only human, they are in permanent danger of adjusting their further research and conclusions based on the main premises they have already come to for the document (e. g. the name of the author, time and place). Due to this, it is better to commence research from the sources of a particular document without imposing such restrictions as the name of its author, as well as the time and place of its composition. This gives more freedom to scholars, enabling them to see things which they would usually not notice if they had restricted themselves at the very beginning of their work, such as the supposed author of a particular document. Finally, a thorough analysis of the Croat and Serb chapters of the De administrando imperio, unveils many details about its author and his workshop. It appears that the marginal notes, which appear in the oldest manuscript, deserve much more attention, since they reflect DE CONVERSIONE CROATORUM ET SERBORUM 11 the gradualness of the composition of the work itself. The differences in style between some of the chapters of the De administrando imperio also deserve special examination, since they are not a consequence of the work of different authors, but rather the traces of the various sources Constantine Porphyrogenitus used. They are also evidence that the De administrando imperio is merely an unfinished work. The alleged ideological message as seen by many scholars in particular chapters of the De admnistrando imperio also cannot be detected on such a large scale once it is understood that Constantine Porphyrogenitus too often transcribed his sources verbatim. It also became plainly clear that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was a man of the Archives, not of oral tradition. He was also extremely methodological in the process of his work. During my work in Athens, I enjoyed great support from Greek scholars to whom I owe my gratitude. Dr. Ilias Anagnostakis read the whole manuscript and provided me with invaluable suggestions, in addition to the fact that he supervised my work from the early stages. Dr Gerasimos Mereinos, and Nikos Livanos also helped me in many ways, either through conversations with them on specific topics or about the specific philological dilemma I encountered. I would like to express my gratitude to all of them, since the writing of this book would be more difficult without their support. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr Taxciarchis Kolias, the director of the IVE who made my stay in Greece and at the IVE possible, and made me feel at home. Belgrade, November 20th, 2010 Author ABBREVIATIONS Alexander, Ideology S. S. Alexander, Heraclius, Byzantine Imperial Ideology, and the David Plates, Speculum 52 (1977) 217 – 237. Ann. Bert. Annales Bertiniani, MGH SRG in usum scholarum, ed. G. Waitz, Hannoverae 1883. Ann. Fuld. Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SRG in usum scholarum, Hannoverae 1891. ARF Annales regni Francorum inde ab a. 741. usque ad a. 829 qui dicitur Annales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi, rec. F. Kurze, MGH SRG in usum scholarum, Hannoverae 1895. Barford, Slavs P. M. Barford, The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, London 2001. Bekkerus Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De thematibus et De administrando imperio, I – II, ed. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1840. Belke – Soustal, K. Belke – P. Soustal, Die Byzantiner und ihre Byzantiner Nachbarn, Die De administrando imperio genannte Lehrschrift des Kaisers Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos für seinen Sohn Romanos, Wien 1995. Budak, Prva N. Budak, Prva stoljeća Hrvatske, Zagreb 1994. Bury, Book J. B. Bury, The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos, EHR 22 (1907) 209 – 227. Bury, Treatise J. B. Bury, The Treatise De administrando imperio, BZ 15 (1906) 517 – 577. BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift CD I Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Sclavoniae I, ed. M. Kostrenčić, Zagreb 1967. Chadwick, H. Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in East and West the Church, from Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence, Oxford 2003. Chron. Salern. Chronicon Salernitanum, MGH SS III, ed. G. Pertz, Hannoverae 1839, 467 – 561. CMT Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses, ed. F. Grivec – F. Tomšić, Radovi Staroslovenskog instituta 4, Zagreb 1960. 14 ABBREVIATIONS Ćirković, S. Ćirković, “Naseljeni gradovi” Konstantina “Naseljeni gradovi” Porfirogenita i najstarija teritorijalna organizacija, ZRVI 37 (1998) 9 – 32. DAI I Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio I, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins – Gy. Moravcsik, Washington D. C. 1967. DAI II Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio II - Commentary, ed. F. Dvornik – R. J. H. Jenkins – B. Lewis – Gy. Moravcsik – D. Obolensky – S. Runciman, London 1962. Davis, Lives The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber pontificalis), ed. R. Davis, Liverpool 1995. De conversione De conversione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum libellus, ed. D. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS XI, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1854, 1 – 15. De them. Constantino Porfirogenito De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi, Vatican 1952. Denniston, Particles J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 1954. Diac. Giovanni Diacono Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto, Bologna 1999. Documenta Documenta historiae Chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia, ed. F. Rački, Zagrabiae 1877. DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers Dzino, Croat D. Dzino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia, Leiden 2010.