(East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, 69) Wawrzyniec Kowalski - The Kings of the Slavs_ The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja-Brill ( (1)

The Kings of the Slavs
East Central and Eastern Europe

in the Middle Ages, 450–1450
General Editors
Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka
Volume 69
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

The Kings of the Slavs
The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja
By
Wawrzyniec Kowalski
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Translation by Andrzej Wojtasik
Cover illustration: “Saint Jovan Vladimir (Ardenica)”, Kostandin Shpataraku, 1739.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Kowalski, Wawrzyniec, author.

Title: The kings of the Slavs : the image of a ruler in the Latin text of the Chronicle of the priest of
Duklja / by Wawrzyniec Kowalski.
Other titles: Chronicle of the priest of Duklja.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2021] | Series: East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle
Ages, 1450–1450, 1872–8103 ; volume 69 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020050081 (print) | LCCN 2020050082 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004446878
(hardback) | ISBN 9789004447639 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Slavs, Southern—History. | Slavs, Southern—History—Sources. | Slavs,
Southern—Kings and rulers. | Slavs, Southern—Kings and rulers—Sources. | Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja.
Classification: LCC DR25 .K68 2021 (print) | LCC DR25 (ebook) | DDC 949.7/01—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050081
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020050082
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1872-8103
ISBN 978-90-04-44687-8 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-44763-9 (e-book)
Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be
addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Acknowledgments ix
1 Preliminary Chapter 1
1 Introduction 1
2 What Is The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, and What Is It Not? 1
3 The Different Versions of the Text 4
4 Who Was the Priest of Duklja? 5
5 Topoi, Symbols, Structures, and the Way of Imaging in The Chronicle
of the Priest of Duklja 5
6 The Image of a Ruler and the Concept of “the Beginning” in the Work
by the Priest of Duklja 8
7 Studies on the Royal Authority: the Model of an Ideal Ruler 12
8 Connection between Regnum Sclavorum and Local Tradition 16
9 Regnum Sclavorum and Historiography 17
2 The Chronicle of the Priest of Dukjla: Texts, Variants, the Current State
of Research 19
1 Manuscripts and Versions 19
2 The Title of the Work 23
3 The Time and Place of Writing The Chronicle 25
4 The Problem of the Authorship of Regnum Sclavorum 32
5 Regnum Sclavorum as a Forgery Made by Orbini 40
6 Summary 41
3 The Rulers of the Goths, and the Image of the Origins of the Kingdom
of the Slavs 43
1 Introduction 43
2 The Kings of the Goths as Pagan Kings: the List of Gothic Rulers and
Their Characteristics in the Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum 44
3 Totila and Ostroil: Two Chieftains of the Goths, and the Vision of the
Conquest of Dalmatia 48
4 An Image of the Origins of the Kingdom of the Slavs in the Context of
Origines Gentium Legends 53
5 Rules of the Goths and Ethnogenetic Legends of the Slavs 57
6 In Search of Historical Sources of “Gothomania” 64
7 The Narrative about the Goth Chieftains as an Element of
Erudite History 72
vi Contents
8 The Croatian Version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja

about the Arrival of the Goths and Their Rulers 77
9 The Goths and Their Organization of Power in Historia Salonitana by
Thomas the Archdeacon: the Meaning of the Words “Goths”, “Slavs”,
“Croats” and the Way of Organizing Power 84
10 The Goths and Their Rulers in the Dalmatian Tradition 100
11 Summary 106
4 Svetopelek as an Example of a King-Legislator: Decisions of the Synod in

Dalma and the New Foundations of Power 108
1 Introduction 108
2 Svetopelek or Budimir? The Synod in the Croatian Version of
The Chronicle 109
3 Svetopelek or Svatopluk? The Tradition of Cyril and Methodius 121
4 The King and the Saint: Constantine’s Participation in the
Christianization of the Kingdom of the Slavs 133
5 The Model of a King-Founder and the Origins of the Community
during the Synod in Dalma 141
6 Space and Authority: the Centre and Boundaries in the Process of
Creating the Kingdom during the Synod in Dalma 144
7 The Emperor, the Pope and the King: Circumstances and Significance
of Svetopelek’s Coronation 164
8 Summary 176
5 King Pavlimir Bello: the Founder of Ragusa and the Restorer of

the Kingdom 179
1 Introduction 179
2 Prelude: the Conflict between King Radoslav and His Son.
Comparative Analysis of the Latin and Croatian Variants of
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja 180
3 The End of Časlav’s Rule: Interregnum 184
4 Tychomil’s Career: a Trace of the Lost Traditions of Raška Župans or a
Literary Adaptation of the Biblical Topos? 186
5 The Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum and Other Medieval Sources
about the Founding of Ragusa 191
6 Establishing Ragusa without the King: Constantine
Porphyrogennetos, Thomas the Archdeacon, and Miletius 197
7 Return of King Bello: Regnum Sclavorum and Annales Ragusini 215
8 Pavlimir Bello as the Founder of Ragusa and as a Restorer of the
Kingdom of Slavs 225
Contents vii
9 The Model Ruler: Pavlimir Bello as New Alexander 235

10 Summary 248
6 Vladimir as an Example of a Ruler-Martyr: Functions of the Model of a

Holy Ruler in the Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum 251
1 Introduction 251
2 The Development of the Cult of St. Vladimir 252
3 Vladimir or Ashot? Byzantine Accounts of Vladimir and Their
Interpretation 259
4 Elements of the Hagiographical Topics in the Legend of
King Vladimir 266
5 Vladimir as an Example of a King-Martyr: the Context of the
Peripheries 273
6 The Functions of the Legend of Vladimir in the Context of the
Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum 281
7 Summary 286
7 Excursus: the Croatian Text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja on the
Death of King Zvonimir 288
1 Introduction 288
2 Zvonimir or Casimir? Sources of the Legend of the
King’s Violent Death 289
3 King Zvonimir in the Croatian Version of The Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja 298
4 Zvonimir and Vladimir: the King-Martyrs in the Narrative of
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja 302
5 Summary 308
Conclusion 309
Map 313
Family Trees 314
Bibliography 316
Index of Historical Figures and Geographical Names 354
Index of Modern Authors 365
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Przemysław Wiszewski, who

has revised and commented on the preliminary versions of this work, and to
Professors Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Andrzej Pleszczyński, and Lesław Spychała for
their valuable remarks on the draft manuscript.
This work was translated with the financial support of the University of
Wrocław. I owe many thanks to Professor Lucyna Harc and Katarzyna Polak
(Institute of History, Wrocław) and to Alessandra Giliberto (Brill Publishers)
for their executive assistance and guidance.
I am grateful to Leokadia Krzewska for stylistic corrections, Andrzej Wojtasik
for his comments during the translation process, and Sara Elin Roberts for
proofreading and making the text more elegant and approachable.
Special thanks to my parents for their help and for patience they showed
when I was doing the research, to my sister, whose practical approach allowed
me to adopt the right perspective, and to all my friends, colleagues and teach-
ers who helped me with advice, support and enthusiasm at various moments
of work on this project.
Chapter 1
Preliminary Chapter
1 Introduction
This is a book about fictitious rulers of an imaginary realm. In accordance with

historiographical tradition, we will use the term “The Kingdom of the Slavs”.
The history of this kingdom was presented in a text titled The Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja. As the title indicates, the author of the work was a clergyman
from the city of Bar, in Duklja (Dioclea in Latin), a state situated within the
border of today’s Montenegro. This anonymous chronicler details the history
of a powerful dynasty once ruling in the area of Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to some extent also Macedonia and Albania. The
task of the present work is to approximate the meanings hidden behind this
history of the contrived monarchy, by recognizing the tradition in which the
course of the fate of its most important rulers was ascribed. Our reflection will
focus on four representatives of that royal family who could be considered rul-
ers of breakthrough periods. Each of them presented a different pattern of rule
and each of them in his own way established new rules for the functioning of
the Kingdom of the Slavs, presenting grounds for its existence in the future.
Such a task does not at first glance seem to be very difficult. When preparing
for the analysis of the source, it would be prudent to pose some initial ques-
tions, and then move on to a critical analysis of selected fragments. The crucial
issue would be to ascertain the place and time of the creation of the work. For
obvious reasons, the issue of authorship of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja
is also important. Another important goal would be to define this earliest audi-
ence of the text. Unfortunately, it turns out that none of these issues can be
settled satisfactorily unless we let ourselves be misled by the answers provided
by the later tradition surrounding this work. In the case of The Chronicle, the
inability to conduct standard criticism of the source is only the start of the
disappointments.
2 What Is The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, and What Is It Not?
It is usually assumed that The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja was written in
the second half of the twelfth century, and is therefore one of the oldest pre-
served monuments of the historiography of medieval Dalmatia. This view has
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004447639_002

2 Chapter 1
a long tradition, and is still held by the vast majority of Croatian, Serbian and
Montenegrin scholars studying this source. Norbert Kersken also supports this
view in his complex monograph on the direction and different stages of medi-
eval historiography in various parts of Europe, although he does not devote a
great deal of attention to The Chronicle, as he considers it an isolated case that
is difficult to place within the broader framework of local historiographical
tradition.1 Indeed, despite the enormous popularity of The Chronicle among
modern and contemporary historians in later times, it is difficult to find clear
evidence that it was well-known in the Middle Ages. In addition, the circum-
stances of the creation of The Chronicle are unclear. In the introduction to one
of the surviving texts, the chronicler explained the motives that prompted him
to take up the task, while at the same time asserting that he was only a transla-
tor of the older book written in Slavic; his Latin translation was reportedly a
response to an appeal by his brethren and other clergymen of the archbishop-
ric in Bar. He stated that he had been requested to write down the historical
events by older people, but above all by youngsters, who were interested in
hearing about tales of wars as much as in participating in them.2 The Latin text
of The Chronicle, allegedly the translation of the older narrative, is said to have
been created in this way.
The initial situation seems to be essentially clear. The Chronicle was an
attempt to write down a piece of history to meet the needs of the local com-
munity. The circle of recipients is known: the clergy and citizens of the city
of Bar on the shore of the Adriatic Sea. Who was the author of the Latin text?
A monk at one of the local convents. The purpose of writing the history was
also expressed explicitly. The issue of establishing the date of The Chronicle’s
creation appears to be the only remaining problem, yet it seems that it could
be solved quickly, on the basis of the text itself and an analysis of knowledge of
the local history taken from other sources.
1 Norbert Kersken, Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‘nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche

Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter (Cologne/Weimar/Vienna, 1995), pp. 826, 843.
2 “Rogatus a vobis dilectis in Christo fratribus, ac venerabilibus sacerdotibus sanctae sedis
archiepiscopatus Dioclitanae ecclesiae, necnon et a pluribus senioribus maxime a iuvenibus
nostrae civitatis, qui non solum in audiendo seu legendo, sed [etiam] in exercendo bella – ut
iuvenum moris est – delectantur, ut »Libellum Gothorum«, quod latine »Sclavorum« dicitur
»regnum« quo omnia gesta, ac bella eorum scripta sunt, ex sclavonica littera verterem in
latinam, vim inferens meae ipsae senectuti, vestrae postulationi fraterna coactus charitate,
parere studui. Verum tamen nullus legentium credat, alia me scripsisse praeter ea, quae [legi
et] a patribus nostris et antiquis senioribus veridica narratione referre audivi”, Ljetopis popa
Dukljanina, ed. Vladimir Mošin (Zagreb, 1950), p. 39 [Hereafter cited as: Ljetopis. If not other-
wise stated, this edition is the source of the quotations].
Preliminary Chapter 3
Unfortunately, in actual fact, the case of The Chronicle is much more com-
plicated. A reader can quickly come to the conclusion that the narrative leads
through a maze of fictitious characters and unbelievable events – sometimes
even giving the impression of a fairy-tale. For this reason, Slavko Mijušković,
one of the translators of The Chronicle, called the Priest of Duklja the first
author of belles-lettres in the territories that were to become Yugoslavia.3 In
fact, Mijušković was not the first scholar to be disappointed with the infor-
mation provided by the author of The Chronicle; from the nineteenth century,
scholars no longer considered it to be a valuable source. Numerous efforts to
critically review The Chronicle were focused mostly on interpreting the title of
traditions hidden in the text as reflections of real events, and on connecting
the names of fictitious rulers with historical figures known from other sources.
Until recently, however, there had been a consensus on a few of the funda-
mental issues: the information provided in the aforementioned prologue was
usually considered to be credible, although the earliest preserved copy of the
basic longer text is the Italian translation by Mauro Orbini from the start of
the seventeenth century. Also, the hypothetical creation date of The Chronicle
in the mid-twelfth century, as determined by Orbini, was adopted (with some
corrections) in the most important critical edition of The Chronicle by Ferdo
Šišić.4
Today’s historians are deprived even of these foundations. Not only are the
dating and authorship of The Chronicle challenged, but even its originality is
called into question. According to the most extreme concepts, the Latin text
known today could be the work of an early-modern counterfeiter. It is becom-
ing increasingly difficult to consider The Chronicle as a source of information
on “actual” events, even if – from the point of view of a scholar studying “real”
history – some sections of it have greater value than others.5 However, one
can find legendary motifs within, traces of certain traditions, as well as con-
ventions typical to medieval literature, and – above all – to the contemporary
historiography of the Adriatic Sea region.
Deprived of the possibility of standard criticism of The Chronicle, we will
be forced to seek meanings from within its narrative, making use of similar
3 Slavko Mijušković, “Predgovor,” in idem Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Uvod, prijevod i komentar
(Belgrade, 1988), pp. 91–93 [the first edition: Titograd [Podgorica], 1967].
4 Letopis popa Dukljanina, ed. Ferdo Šišić (Belgrade/Zagreb, 1928). [Hereafter cited as Šišić,
Letopis]
5 Terms “real” and “actual” are in inverted commas because a history written down by his-
torians is always their creation, a certain interpretation within the broader frames, thus a
legendary history is a real history at a similar rate. See: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Gall jako his-
toryk poważny, czyli dlaczego dzieje i Bolesława Chrobrego, i Bolesława Krzywoustego są
prawdziwe i niegroteskowe,” Przegląd Historyczny, 99, 3 (2008), pp. 399–410.
4 Chapter 1
texts, and hoping that we will manage to identify certain political or cultural
contexts that motivated the author to present selected issues. We share, with-
out reservation, Danijel Džino’s opinion, who observed that medieval written
sources are first and foremost “products of political and cultural discourses of
their times”.6 Although the plural form of “times” in the previous sentence is
used in a broad sense rather than confined to rhetorical reasons, in this work
we will attempt to identify even the slightest traces of discourses echoed in
The Chronicle.
In this situation, it is worth recalling the words of Czesław Deptuła, who –
in his reflections on the legendary vision of Polish history – noted that “the
distinction between ‘facts’ and ‘fairy tales’ is basically a product of modern
science”.7 It is a side issue whether and to what extent the Priest of Duklja him-
self believed in the tale he presented. Undoubtedly, it was supposed to fulfil cer-
tain persuasive functions and to construct a concrete image of history, above
all in its readers. The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja – regardless of whether
we consider it as an example of a chronicle, genealogy, annals or medieval
gesta – proposes a genetic vision that is, to a certain extent, formalized and
conditioned by a specific literary mode. Despite its Slavic title – Ljetopis popa
Dukljanina – The Chronicle is not really a ljetopis (annals) in the strict sense.
It bears certain features of a chronicle, a genealogy, and “a tale about rulers’
deeds”, but determining the extent of each of these aspects is secondary to
our inquiries. In fact, The Chronicle is a hybrid text. Its particular narratives
and motifs are implemented and displayed in different manners, although the
work as a whole presents a coherent vision of a dynasty shaped by means of
examples of the attitudes of its most famous representatives.
3 The Different Versions of the Text
There are several extant versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. These
are discussed in the next chapter of this work. The discussion in this chapter
will not focus on which of the texts is closest to the original version, and which
of the narratives better corresponds to the hypothetical original plot. From
the surviving material, we can conclude that although the shorter Croatian
version was preserved in the oldest manuscript known today, there are many
6 Danijel Dzino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and
Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden/Boston, 2010), p. 32.
7 Czesław Deptuła, Mit genezy polski Galla Anonima: studium z historiozofii i hermeneutyki sym-
boli dziejopisarstwa średniowiecznego (Lublin, 1990), p. 10.
indications that this variant is based on a lost Latin version. Traditionally, it

has been assumed that two of the Latin manuscripts contain a text that should
be considered the closest to the original. Those manuscripts have raised
many doubts among scholars, some of whom have not hesitated in making
very serious allegations and have sought evidence of forgery in the Latin text.
Nevertheless, in the present work, the Latin version will be treated as the main
source; further it will be referred to as Regnum Sclavorum, the title taken from
its prologue. The other variants discussed in detail in Chapter 2 will not be
forgotten, for they constitute a certain body of texts which we can certainly
say are interrelated. In this case, when we write about phenomena that are
characteristic of all the versions, we will call them collectively: The Chronicle.
4 Who Was the Priest of Duklja?
The Priest of Duklja is an anonymous figure. It is possible that he really lived

and worked in the city of Bar. However, he could equally have written exten-
sive parts of his chronicle elsewhere. The idea that he was only the translator
of an older source, or the compiler of several previously separate texts, cannot
be excluded. Regnum Sclavorum (both the manuscripts known today and the
translation by Orbini) present a certain narrative unity. Differences between
the three known versions of the longer text indicate that further alterations
took place, yet they did not result in a fundamental change in the plot. We will
attribute the work of giving the Latin text the shape in which it is known today
to “the Priest of Duklja”. This conventional name does not suggest in any way
that he actually came from Duklja. We also assume, agreeing with Živković,
that it was in the latter part of the Middle Ages that The Chronicle gained the
shape in which it is found today. It cannot be ruled out that it contains some
earlier material which was only superficially edited, or that comprehensive
parts of the text were appended to it as late as the sixteenth century. The only
things we know for certain about the Priest of Duklja is that he wrote in Latin,
and that he had completed his work before 1601, when the text of the Italian
translation of Regnum Sclavorum was printed.
5 Topoi, Symbols, Structures, and the Way of Imaging in

In order to confront the particular motifs appearing in The Chronicle, first we

must identify them correctly. If we consider the use of certain ready-made and
6 Chapter 1
conventionalized structures to present a desired image of history, or to evoke

appropriate associations in readers, the Priest of Duklja’s historiography can-
not be an exception.
Of these structures, topoi – made famous by the work European Literature
and the Latin Middle Ages by Ernst Robert Curtius – are the smallest ones.
They are strongly conventionalized, and their meanings were determined by
the principles of rhetoric.8 Even Curtius, referring to the Jungian concept of
archetype, allowed the possibility of creating new common places, as well as
influencing the significance of those already existing.9 The cultural and his-
torical context in studies on the meaning of topoi was fully appreciated by Leo
Spitzer.10 His analysis of topoi was compared, by Jarosław Marek Rymkiewicz,
to the iconological method of reading visual art proposed by Erwin Panofsky.11
While analysing selected motifs in Regnum Sclavorum, we will also consider
the proportions between the conventionalized and the mutable in the context
of the broader narrative tradition. We will discuss specific molecules of topoi
or “clusters of ideas”12 that will enable us to interpret particular fragments of
The Chronicle. We will also try to trace the formation of particular motifs which
are based on a common structure, and deviate from these at the level of details.
Recognizing each of the variants as a symbolic tale, we will try to recognize the
particular sets of meanings conditioning its content.
In the Middle Ages, a symbol was not understood to be an arbitrary sign. As
has been shown by Michel Pastoureau, medieval scholars viewed symbols as
being motivated by their etymology as well as by analogy to other phenomena
(and by inversion of such an analogy); they recognized them in relation to a
particular sign in the context of a larger system of metonymic meanings.13 A
symbol, like the world, was purposeful. Its scope, connected with such a pur-
poseful interpretation, was dynamic, though limited within a particular scope
of meanings.
Therefore, detailed elements of a narrative – such as toponyms or the names
of rulers – are as important as the system in which they were placed (because of
8 Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask
(New York 1953), [first German edition 1948].
9 Curtius, European Literature, p. 76.
10 Leo Spitzer, Linguistics and Literary History. Essays in Stylistics (Princeton, 1948).
11 Iconological interpretation referring to “socio-cultural situation”: Jarosław Marek
Rymkiewicz, “Historyczna topika i wieczne topoi,” in idem Myśli różne o ogrodach
(Warsaw, 2010), pp. 18–19 [first edition 1968]; see: Erwin Panofsky, “Introductory,” in idem
Studies in Iconology. Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (Oxford, 1939),
pp. 3–33.
12 Deptuła, Galla Anonima mit genezy Polski, pp. 33–35.
13 Michel Pastoureau, Średniowieczna gra symboli (Warsaw, 2006), pp. 15–28. [originally
published in French as Une histoire symbolique du Moyen Âge occidental (Paris 2004)].
the etymological significance attributed to them in the Middle Ages). Umberto

Eco noticed that a medieval interpreter could read a given narrative account
in many ways, within the frames of a given system of values determined by the
convention of presenting history as part of a purposeful process.14
Perhaps the dynamism of details within certain confined semantic struc-
tures, conventionalized symbols, or set motifs, can enable us to gain insight
into the ideological assumptions of the Priest of Duklja’s work. Although we
know neither the milieu in which he wrote, nor the target group of his readers,
the very awareness of the existence of these categories allows us today to per-
ceive Regnum Sclavorum as a body of text carrying certain meanings.
Clifford Geertz had attributed the role of regulation of social processes to
symbols and signs. According to him, a text would be the transmitter of certain
values and meanings which – depending on the interpretation – would some-
how affect the community in which they were present.15 In this way, we can
move our consideration of symbols from the plane of permanent structures
and unchanging conventions, into the tissue of the social determinants of a
text – a matter much more susceptible to changes. Jan Assmann wrote about
the transmission of “meanings” in the context of the functioning of a com-
munity. He believed that memory of the past helped societies build a vision
of the world in which they functioned. He also reduced the term “space” to
its non-geographical meaning, recognizing that its order may also constitute a
certain thought construct enclosed in “figures of memory” – a category similar
to the earlier Maurice Halbwachs’ “icons of memory”.16 In this sense, a medi-
eval text (such as the one that we deal with in Regnum Sclavorum) would be
able to influence not only the image of the past and the memory of a com-
munity about itself, but would also be able to organize the space, taking into
account historically important places and symbols around which specific con-
tents accumulate.
The composition of Il regno de gli Slavi by Orbini was based on local his-
toriography. The arrangement of the work was strictly subordinated to the
category of space.17 Orbni’s work included an Italian translation of Regnum
Sclavorum, and it is possible that the organization of the content around
14 Umberto Eco, Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington/Indianapolis, 1994), p. 51.

15 Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Towards an Interpretative Theory of Culture,” in
idem, The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays (New York, 1973), pp. 3–30.
16 Jan Assmann, Pamięć kulturowa. Pismo, zapamiętywanie i polityczna tożsamość w cywilizac-
jach starożytnych (Warsaw, 2008), pp. 53–58.
17 Snježana Husić, “Teritorijalna organizacija pripovijedanja u Orbinijevu ‘Kraljevstvu
Slovena’,” Radovi zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 1
(2011), no. 43, pp. 91–95.
8 Chapter 1
clusters of regional motifs had diffused into Il regno de gli Slavi from that
work.18 In our opinion, this feature of the plot of Regnum Sclavorum – the mov-
able nature of the described centre – corresponds with the multitude of pat-
terns of a ruler as presented in Orbini’s work. The kingdom, in the description
by the Priest of Duklja, is subject to constant reinvention, a process of renewal
and demorphization. The anonymous author placed specific markers in his
work; a turn in a plot-related understanding of space, of the role of a ruler, and
of the tasks assigned to him. Elements of a “new beginning” appear in Regnum
Sclavorum at least four times. Each time they modify the meaning and the his-
torical role of the Slavic kings and the community, and emphasize new chal-
lenges, where meeting these challenges was considered the fulfilment of the
ruler’s duties.
6 The Image of a Ruler and the Concept of “the Beginning” in the

Work by the Priest of Duklja
As the Priest of Duklja noted: When Constantine arrived at the court of the
Slavic King Svetopelek, he managed to persuade the king to be baptized.
Immediately after this event, there was a congress in which the legates of Pope
Stephen and deputies of the Emperor Michael participated. During this synod,
Svetopelek was crowned by Archbishop Honorius. At that time, the boundary
of his vast realm was also marked, administrative issues were regulated, and
rights were granted.
This comprehensive image demands a contextual framework. The recog-
nizable names Svetopelek and Constantine, as well as the much more vague
identities of the pope, the emperor and the archbishop, were presented in a
completely fantastic constellation which does not appear in other sources.
With a lack of any basic historical context regarding the circumstances of the
creation of The Chronicle, as well as the almost autonomous character of the
18 According to Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, similarity between the works of Orbini and the
Priest of Duklja resulted from the continuity of Dalmatian historiography, which in the
humanistic period often reworked older chronicle sources. Bercoff noticed a similar pro-
cess in the relationship between Orbini and authors such as Šižgorić (Sizgoreus) and
Pribojević (Priboevius). She also emphasized that “it is probably not a coincidence that
he [Orbini] could incorporate into his work the entire Italian translation of the Diocleates
[the Priest of Duklja] without fear that the reader of Serbian history would notice or feel
the transition from the text of a medieval chronicler to the text of Orbini!”, see: eadem,
“‘Królestwo Słowian’ Maura Orbiniego a europejskie dziejopisarstwo XVI w.,” in eadem,
Królestwo Słowian. Historiografia Renesansu i Baroku w krajach Słowiańskich (Izabelin,
1998), p. 92, footnote 21.
events described in the work, we are forced to seek these references wher-
ever possible. Such tedious studies sometimes resemble guesswork, and they
are often as ineffective as fortune-telling. However, we cannot forget that the
context, although unknown, had to exist – Regnum Sclavorum had its author
and its milieu of readers; it was connected to a particular place (or several
places), and written at a certain time; it passed through the process of devel-
oping its form over a longer period. The Chronicle is a carrier of noticeable
content related to a certain oral or written tradition, to which we have almost
no access today.
The rulers in the work by the Priest of Duklja are not a product of (just) his
imagination. Their images had to correspond to a pattern known to the author,
and needed to have been modelled in a literary manner on such a cultural
pattern. The very structure of the work seems to confirm such a supposition.
Regardless of whether Regnum Sclavorum was written earlier in the Middle
Ages and based on oral tradition, or, as some claim, it is a brilliant forgery
inspired by older sources19 – it was certainly connected to an elaborate system
of references immersed in local tradition. The characterization of the rulers of
the Kingdom of the Slavs was shaped not only by conventional rhetoric, but
also by not-so-strictly formalized symbols and motifs, perhaps even referring
to the vague concept of the archetype. Scraps of older sources or oral legends
can be identified as if crammed between the lines of text.
Each of the narrative schemes discussed in this work refer to the idea of
the “Beginning”.20 In Regnum Sclavorum, it is possible to distinguish several
“starting points”, when the concepts of power, ruler and royalty itself were
revalorized. From these fictional origins we will try to derive the dynamics of
later events. Each of the breakthrough events of this type was associated with
a differently-characterized royal figure.
It should be realized that the changes in the models of an ideal ruler were to
a certain extent conditioned by the material available to the Priest of Duklja.
In this respect, he was limited by his own imagination and by earlier tradi-
tion. Shaping the models of an ideal ruler was also an intentional procedure,
19 This will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

20 The idea of the “beginning” can be considered in the reference to the ideas of Paul Ricœur,
who – citing the research of Krzysztof Pomian – distinguished four categories of histori-
cal time: chronometry, chronology, chronography and chronosophy. He referred them
respectively to the following spheres: “sphere of events”, “sphere of repetitions”, “sphere of
epochs”, and “sphere of structures”. The idea of “Beginning” can be analysed within each
of them, as “event”, “repetition”, “moment of transition”, and an element of presenting
history as a purposive process. See: Paul Ricœur, Pamięć, historia, zapomnienie (Krakow,
2006), pp. 205–206.
10 Chapter 1
recognizable to the milieu of readers. The point of the “Beginning” was to

become a unique moment, a time when the kingdom (though fictitious)
described by the Priest of Duklja gained new features, and its rulers were legiti-
mized in a new way.
There are four distinguishable “points of creation” in Regnum Sclavorum
which are closely related to the specific “code of history” presented by the
author. In the Middle Ages (though not only then), the time the kingdom came
into being was given a special meaning, in being able to affect repetitive ele-
ments of reality. In this context, the heroes of the “Origins” are the permanent
models that the Priest of Duklja had to take into consideration while creating
the ideology of the fictitious realm he was to describe. Another important ele-
ment of the chronicle, providing the leitmotif of the narrative, is the history of
the dynasty. Special significance needed to be given in his work to emphasize
its continuity. By means of specific narrative constructs, the Priest of Duklja
introduced new content into the history of the dynasty and redefined the
image of the Kingdom of the Slavs. The origin of the kingdom was marked by
the invasion of the Goths and the reign of the pagan kings; the second early
phase of its inception – the baptism and the granting of borders and rights to
the realm at the Synod in Dalma during Svetopelek’s reign – was the act of the
proper foundation of the kingdom; the third stage in its creation – the renewal
of the kingdom and the foundation of Ragusa by King Pavlimir Bello – ended
the period of the interregnum; and finally the fourth step – marked by the
death of the king-martyr Vladimir – was the founding sacrifice for the auspi-
cious continuation of the kingdom.
The four abovementioned fragments look particularly important for the
concept of authority and for the image of a ruler in the Priest of Duklja’s work.
Their multi-threaded construction perfectly predestined them for the role of
narrative connectors. Each could be assigned to the role of re-opening – not
only shifting the narrative focus onto new tracks, but above all redefining the
concepts of the king, the kingdom and the community of subjects, providing
models and principles according to which the kingdom described by the Priest
of Duklja was supposed to function. Each of the selected narrative schemes is
the subject of a separate chapter (Chapters 3 to 6).
1. The protagonists of the first chapter are Goth leaders, mainly Totila and
Ostroil. While analysing the origins of the kingdom in Regnum Sclavorum
in the context of legends about the origin and migration of the people, we
will attempt to determine what features the author of the text attributed to
the Goth rulers, and to what extent they refer to perceptible traditions of the
Gothic origins of the Slavs or to the conquest of Dalmatia by the barbarians.
We will also examine the function of starting the entire narrative in such a way.
2. The protagonist of the second chapter is the king Svetopelek, with his
activities during the Synod in Dalma as the main issue under discussion. In
this part we will refer to the image of the second phase and the proper founda-
tion of the kingdom. We will describe those features of Svetopelek’s reign that
allowed him to reform the state. We will look at the extent to which the Priest
of Duklja used written sources known to him to present the Kingdom of the
Slavs; we will also discuss the main foundations of this form of presentation.
Then, we will examine the role played in these processes by the missionary
named Constantine.
3. In the fifth chapter we will discuss the theme of Pavlimir Bello, the foun-
dation of Ragusa and the renewal of the kingdom. We will examine the ori-
gins of the motif of a returning king in the older story about how Ragusa was
founded. We will also discuss the results of the narrative procedure of attach-
ing this figure to the course of events related by the Priest of Duklja. We will
analyse the three stages of Pavlimir’s activity, showing how his actions were
the aftermath of a tradition well-known to the author, and how they reflected
his literary intention.
4. In the sixth chapter the figure of King Vladimir will be discussed. We will
show how, by means of emphasizing the role of the king-martyr, the Priest of
Duklja constructed another founding legend for the fictitious realm described
by him. We will reflect on the sources of this narrative and how it was related
to the cult of Saint Jovan Vladimir in the Balkans. We will also be interested in
using the rhetoric typical of hagiographies by the author of Regnum Sclavorum.
5. The excursus in Chapter 7 is dedicated to the tale of the violent death
of King Zvonimir presented in the Croatian version of The Chronicle. We will
analyse the sources of this legend and will try to show how the ending of the
Croatian version distinguished the overall meaning of this variant from the
Latin version of the work.
For each of the narrative episodes we will also try to answer the following
auxiliary questions:
– From which elements was the story built? What images of the ruler and his
reign emerge from it?
– What was the function of the motif in the narrative concept of Regnum
Sclavorum? (In Chapter 7: in the Croatian version of The Chronicle).
– To what tradition did the author refer (if any)?
– Is it possible to assign particular royal figures to the model of a medieval
ruler?
The five abovementioned chapters will be preceded by a sketch on the histori-
ography of studies on The Chronicle.
12 Chapter 1
7 Studies on the Royal Authority: the Model of an Ideal Ruler
The rulers of the Kingdom of the Slavs were assigned various features in the
Priest of Duklja’s work. Some of them served as a negative example, while oth-
ers were considered by the chronicler as perfect monarchs and models to fol-
low. We will focus primarily on the kings of the latter category. It was these
figures that legitimized the royal dynasty and showed the principles according
to which the Kingdom of the Slavs should be ruled.
There is a long and rich tradition of studies of authority in the Middle
Ages that has already been discussed and recapitulated many times. Gábor
Klaniczay, in the introduction to his work dedicated to the holy monarchs of
Hungary, distinguished two milestones in modern studies on the notion of
medieval royalty. The first was the work by Fritz Kern, published in 1914,21 dis-
tinguishing two sources of authority: God’s favour and the social contract,22
and the second, Marc Bloch’s work, published in 1924,23 introducing the
category of “les rois thaumaturges” – kings-magic-workers or kings-miracle-
workers – and analysed regal ideology for the first time with methods typical
of cultural anthropology and ethnology, which were still to some extent under
the influence of The Golden Bough by James George Frazer.24
Kern’s findings, concerning the symbolism of the medieval state and the
importance of coronation ceremonies, served as inspiration to Percy Ernst
Schramm.25 His “school” of studies on the idea of royal authority and its
ordines was considered by János Bak as the most characteristic for histori-
ography in the mid-twentieth century,26 along with the thoughts by Walter
21 Fritz Kern, Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter. Zur Entwick

lungsgeschichte der Monarchie (Leipzig, 1914) [first English edition: Kingship and Law
(New York 1956)].
22 Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central
Europe (Cambridge 2002), p. 3.
23 Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France, trans.
J. E. Anderson (New York, 2015); see: Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, pp. 4–5.
24 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion, vol. 1–2 (London,
1890).
25 Percy Ernst Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte
vom dritten bis zum sechtzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1–3 (Stuttgart, 19541956); see:
János M. Bak, “Medieval Symbology of the State: Percy E. Schramm’s Contribution,” Viator
4 (1973), pp. 33–63.
26 János M. Bak, “Introduction. Coronation Studies – Past, Present, and Future,” in Coro
nations. Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual, ed. idem (Berkeley/Los Angeles/
Oxford, 1990), p. 4.
Ullmann on the legal conditioning of medieval monarchies,27 and the trend

initiated by the concept of “king’s two bodies” by Ernst Kantorowicz and its
role in changing the way of understanding political theology.28
As was noted by Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić in her essay on royal sanctity,
the attributes of royal authority in the Middle Ages may have three roots:
(1) those related to the ideology of Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors;29
(2) pagan sources of power by barbarian leaders, and (3) elements directly
related to Christianity, referring to the figures of the Old Testament kings and
judges, or the New Testament figure of Christ the King and the cult of saints.
The significance of the pagan factor was emphasized by Karl Hauck, who
combined the idea of the sanctity of the rulers and the supernatural properties
attributed to royal authority, with the heritage of Germanic paganism and the
cult of Wōtan in particular.30 Hauck’s positions were criticized by František
Graus, who stressed, above all, Christian influences in the process of develop-
ment of the medieval institution of kingship.31 Nevertheless, Hauck’s concept,
linking the cultural order of early medieval societies with the sanctity of their
“charismatic” rulers, still finds many followers.32
One of them, and certainly the most interesting, is Jacek Banaszkiewicz,
who derived his reflection on the myth-based structure of Indo-European leg-
ends from Georges Dumézil’s system, while at the same time trying to show
the dynamic impact of legendary accounts on the formation of groups and
27 Walter Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969);
idem, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1975).
28 Ernst Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology
(Princeton, 1957).
29 See: Frank Kolb, Ideał późnoantycznego władcy. Ideologia i autoprezentacja (Poznań,
2008); František Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and
Background, vol. 1–2 (Washington 1966).
30 Karl Hauck, “Geblütsheiligkeit,” in Liber Floridus. Mittellateinische Studien. Paul Lehmann
zum 65. Geburstag am 13. Juli 1949 gewidmet, eds. Bernhard Bischoff, Suso Brechter (Sankt
Ottilien, 1950), pp. 187–240; idem, “Herrschaftszeichen eines wodanischen Königtums,”
Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 14 (1954), pp. 9–66; idem, “Lebensnormen und
Kultmythen in germanischen Stammes- und Herrschergenealogien,” Saeculum 6 (1955),
pp. 186–223.
31 František Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reiche der Merowinger (Prague, 1965).
32 Among others: Herwig Wolfram, “Origo et religio. Etnische Traditionen und Literatur in
frühmittelalterlischen Quellen,” in Mittelalterliche Annäherung an eine fremde Zeit, ed.
Wilfried Hartmann (Regensburg, 1993), pp. 26–39; Hermann Moisl, “Kingship and Orally
Transmitted ‘Stammestradition’ among the Lombards and Franks,” in Die Bayern und ihre
Nachbarn, eds. Herwig Wolfram, Andreas Schwarcz (Vienna 1985), pp. 111–119.
14 Chapter 1
the creation of intra-community relations.33 Banaszkiewicz was particularly

interested in the formation of communities. He associated them with the fig-
ure of a king-founder bearing the features of a cultural hero or a semi-mythical
organizer of the newly emerging ethnos.
However, the pagan elements were certainly not the only influence on the
image of an ideal ruler. Biblical patterns, heritage of antiquity, medieval leg-
ends and moral norms, passed down through romances, chronicles or sapien-
tial literature, gradually formed an increasingly dense network of connections,
creating new models of ideal rulers while adapting the old ones, as well as
conditioning their popularity. The literary image of a medieval ruler often con-
sisted of elements belonging to several patterns: rex iustus – a just king – in
certain situations could also be presented as an ideal warrior, a “good king”
and even a martyr to the faith, which was often conditioned by the narrative
situation and the related choice of the most appropriate model that would
emphasize the noble qualities of a monarch.
Attempts to determine the typology of an ideal ruler and its development
in the period of the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages are very interest-
ing, especially in the areas of “Younger Europe”, the periphery of the medi-
eval Christendom. Robert Antonín recently comprehensively diagnosed these
models, focusing on the territories of medieval Bohemia. He not only dared to
recognize the patterns used to construct the narratives about the kings, but
also described the sources and meaning of particular images of a ruler in the
medieval Czech chronicles.34
The abovementioned works by Klaniczay and Marjanović-Dušanić focused
on the phenomenon of a specific category of rulers – the holy kings – and tried
to link it with the development of dynastic ideologies in medieval Hungary
and Serbia since the Middle Ages almost to contemporary times. Both schol-
ars were inspired by Robert Folz, who had already in the 1980s tried to place
a chronological perspective over somehow static interpretations of models
of holy rulers.35 Folz distinguished three examples of such rulers: (1) a king-
martyr, (2) a king-confessor, and (3) a king-miracle-worker, all three recognized
by him as basic types. According to Folz, the first was the most popular in the
33 It is worth mentioning here, in particular, an article which is part of a large number of

studies initiated by Hauck: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Origo et religio – wersja słowiańska
(o sposobach budowania tożsamości wspólnotowej w społecznościach wcześniejszego
średniowiecza – ‘wzorcotwórcze pamiątki’ i opowieści o nich),” in idem, Trzy po trzy o
dziesiątym wieku (Krakow, 2014), pp. 315–349 [first publication in 1998.].
34 Robert Antonín, Ideální panovník českého středověku. Kulturně-historická skica z dějin
středověkého myšlení (Prague, 2013).
35 Robert Folz, Les saints rois du moyen âge en Occident (VIe–XIIIe siècles) (Brussels, 1984).
early Middle Ages, the second in the period between the eleventh and thir-
teenth centuries, and the third began to dominate in narratives about holy
kings from the second half of the thirteenth century.
Klaniczay, who based his works on the propositions by Folz, slightly modi-
fied this sequence. He distinguished three periods: (1) the one dominated by
the model of a holy and charismatic king strongly inspired by pagan heritage;
(2) the one dominated by the model of a king-martyr, popular primarily in the
British Isles and the peripheries of Christendom; and (3) the one dominated
by the model of a just ruler (rex iustus et bonus) that began in the eleventh
century, and – as a result of the Crusades, and the increasingly popular cult
of Charlemagne – transformed into the model of a modest king, a courteous
knight protecting his homeland (athleta patriae).36 According to Klaniczay,
this evolution of the models of holy kings was also characteristic for central
Europe.
Marjanović-Dušanić proposed a typology of Serbian cults of holy kings dif-
ferent to that presented by Klaniczay. The ideology of the Nemanjić dynasty
developed not only under the influence of the Byzantine symbolism of impe-
rial authority, but – according to Marjanović-Dušanić – was also evidently
affected by the local cults of ancestors which saturated it with specific endemic
features.37 Marjanović-Dušanić distinguished three main models of Serbian
ruler: (1) the sacred founder of the dynasty, Stefan Nemanja, similar to the type
rex renitens38 and the models of Byzantine ruler-monks; (2) the cult of Saint
Sava associated with the project she called “the symphony of the church and
the state”; and (3) the cult of the holy dynasty dating from the turn of the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries in which the Serbian rulers were sanctified by
membership of the Nemanjić family.39
Both typologies will be important for us, as they characterize the develop-
ment of the model of an ideal ruler in regions adjacent to the area described
by the Priest of Duklja (Serbia, known at that time as the Grand Principality of
Raška, was allegedly even a part of the Kingdom of the Slavs). Unfortunately,
without knowledge of the circumstances and the time of creation of Regnum
36 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, pp. 15–18.

37 Recent Polish publications are mainly literary studies, with no references to the histori-
cal background of the development of Serbian dynastic cults. See: Izabela Lis-Wielgosz,
“Władza i rodowód. O wizerunku władcy w staroserbskiej literaturze,” Poznańskie Studia
Slawistyczne 5 (2013), pp. 173–184.
38 About this pattern in the Western historiography see: Björn Weiler, “The Rex renitens and
the Medieval Idea of Kingship, ca. 900–ca. 1250,” Viator 31 (2000), pp. 1–42.
39 Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj. Kult Stefana Dečanskog (Belgrade, 2007), pp. 98–99
and passim.
16 Chapter 1
Sclavorum, the application of a comparative method on a broader scale is

impossible. As we shall see, this Latin work also presents a whole range of
exemplary rulers. However, they can often be reduced to being “universal
examples” and, with the exception of King Vladimir, it is difficult to identify
the exact origin of the models, thus it is only possible to reflect on the ideologi-
cal meaning they carried.
It should be emphasized that neither this short introduction, nor the pres-
ent work as a whole, aspires to be a detailed description of the models of an
ideal ruler existing in the Middle Ages, and neither does it examine their philo-
sophical, literary or ideological foundations in their entire diversity. On the
contrary, the models of rulers will serve as a key to interpret selected images in
the Priest of Duklja’s work, where the selection of typical features may prove
helpful in understanding the underlying narrative content.
8 Connection between Regnum Sclavorum and Local Tradition
Hypotheses regarding the way The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja was com-
posed are discussed in the next chapter. It should be noted that the work was
probably based on earlier texts that did not survive, and the same is true of its
Latin version, Regnum Sclavorum. Such conclusions can be drawn from the
sudden changes in narration, usually filled with short annalistic information
and often without warning turning into much more comprehensive tales. The
texts used by the Priest of Duklja, as well as the very nature of the information
taken by him from other sources, including oral ones, undoubtedly influenced
the shape of the vision of history proposed by him.
To determine which components in the extant narrative were the author’s
own idea, and what was borrowed from older content, we would have to
reconstruct the very process of reforming the tradition related to a particu-
lar motif; however, that is impossible for the lack of sources. Nevertheless, we
will try to use other, usually local, accounts closely associated with the events
described in selected fragments of Regnum Sclavorum. The narratives include:
the Croatian version of The Chronicle (as an exception: early modern transla-
tions of the text), and other local narrative sources from the period of the High
Middle Ages (as an exception: early modern literature, mainly from the area of
Dubrovnik). Besides the narrative sources, we will occasionally use documents
and references to monuments of material culture that seem to be related to the
plot in question.
Only half of the episodes we selected for analysis are mentioned in the
Croatian text of The Chronicle. This version will help us as a reference point in
the tale of the Goths and the Synod in Dalma described in Regnum Sclavorum.
Plots of the Croatian and Latin versions irretrievably split at the point of the
expulsion of King Radoslav, immediately before the motif of Pavlimir Bello was
introduced in Regnum Sclavorum. The tale of Radoslav in the Croatian variant
differs from the one described in the Latin version, thus we used the opportu-
nity to compare both narratives while describing the events that preceded the
introduction of Pavlimir. The Croatian version does not mention the founding
of Ragusa by Pavlimir Bello or the legend of King Vladimir.
Among the narrative sources from the period of the High Middle Ages and
Late Middle Ages or early modern period, the work of Thomas the Archdeacon
(also known as Thomas of Split) is distinguished as a basic example and a
reference point of the phenomenon of “Gothomania” that linked the appear-
ance of the Slavs in Illyricum with the invasion of the Goths. The relation-
ship between Constantine and the King Svetopelek is exhaustively discussed
in the comprehensive hagiography of the Solun Brothers – St. Cyril and
St. Methodius – including several themes repeated in Regnum Sclavorum. The
legend of Pavlimir Bello seems to correspond with the late medieval and mod-
ern literature of Ragusa. Byzantine chronicles mentioned King Vladimir, who
later became an object of worship and a literary hero. King Zvonimir, the pro-
tagonist of the excursus, is mentioned in Croatian, Dalmatian and Hungarian
historiography. These sources determine only the basic scope for compara-
tive studies of particular legendary motifs, and so this study has also included
sources from other parts of Europe wherever it seemed useful, turning in the
first place to sources from adjacent regions.
9 Regnum Sclavorum and Historiography
The Latin version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is a unique work,
considered to be one of the oldest literary sources describing the history of
southern Slavonic countries. It is no wonder that since the first publication in
the mid-seventeenth century (or perhaps even from the times of Tuberon and
Orbini) it has been one of the axes around which the historiographical reflec-
tion of the region was shaped.
Scholars offered numerous and often mutually exclusive hypotheses con-
cerning the work. For some time the authenticity of Regnum Sclavorum had
been questioned, just as had several other pieces of medieval literature of
Slavic countries: it will suffice to mention the claims by Edward Keenan and
other scholars that The Tale of Igor’s Campaign is a forgery,40 or the dispute
40 On the debate concerning The Tale of Igor’s Campaign see: Tomasz Hodana, “Najnowsze
spory o autentyczność ‘Słowa o wyprawie Igora’,” Przegląd Rusycystyczny 3 (2011), pp. 5–32.
18 Chapter 1
among Czech historians over the date of origin of the work known as Legenda
Christiani [Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius].41
Writing about history is a discursive act. Hayden White showed that a work
by historians, from the very nature of the process of constructing a “histori-
cal fact”, is similar to the work of a prose-writer, and its perspective – far from
being objective – is highly personalized.42 Moreover, the history of studies of a
text affects our view and becomes a part of the text itself.
David Kalhous, facing the problem of a similar burden in the case of Legenda
Christiani, postulated the application of game theory terminology into his-
toriography, in order to establish a model interpretation of historiographic
production.43 Indeed, the problem of the prevalence of some views over others,
the temporary success of some hypotheses, and the decline of those which had
previously enjoyed great popularity, is all too visible – as is the case for schol-
arly literature on Regnum Sclavorum. Kalhous, referring to Mark Johnson and
George Lakoff’s concept,44 wrote about “conceptual metaphors” from which
the arguments of historians are constructed. Such concepts are never “inno-
cent”. Quite the contrary: language is the weapon of a historiographic war.45
This war continues, and the present work is a modest participant. Describing
the arguments of the possibly many parties to the conflict will constitute its
essential element.
41 The history of this controversy was discussed in detail by David Kalhous, ‘Legenda
Christiani’ and Modern Historiography (Leiden/Boston, 2015).
42 See: Hayden White, Proza historyczna (Krakow, 2009). Frank Ankersmit is another scholar
who wrote about the relationship between a historical fact, narrative, historiography
and metaphor; See for example his works: Historical representation (Stanford, 2001), and
Political representation (Stanford, 2002).
43 Kalhous, ‘Legenda Christiani’, p. 7.
44 George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, 2003).
45 Kalhous, ‘Legenda Christiani’, p. 4.
Chapter 2
The Chronicle of the Priest of Dukjla: Texts, Variants,

the Current State of Research
1 Manuscripts and Versions
“Despite the careful searching of public and private libraries in Dalmatia (pri-
marily in Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir and Zadar), as well as in Italy (especially
in Venice, Padua, Bologna, Milan, Florence, Naples and Bari), it was impos-
sible to find any manuscript of a Latin version older than that copied by Ivan
Lucije circa 1650 and stored in the Vatican Library in Rome”.1 This was noted by
Ferdinand Šišić at the start of the introduction to his edition of The Chronicle
of the Priest of Duklja. His reference to Lucije is to the seventeenth-century
Trogirian historian Johannes Lucius,2 the editor of the oldest version of The
Chronicle in Latin: Regnum Sclavorum. The copy mentioned by Šiśić, stored in
the Vatican Library, is sometimes referred to as the “V. redaction”.
Scholars also have at their disposal another Latin manuscript, the so-called
Belgrade manuscript (sometimes called the “B. redaction”), discovered as late
as 1962, and only varying slightly from the Vatican version.3 Both manuscripts
are dated to a similar period (1648–1649). The Belgrade manuscript is much
less accurate and includes many errors due to the copyist’s inaccuracy.4
However, Tibor Živković noted that in some places it is more useful than the
Vatican manuscript, which served as the basis for the critical editions of The
Chronicle.5 However, there are no significant narrative variations between
the two Latin versions.
The “V. manuscript” published by Lucius was probably based on the now
lost manuscript belonging to Rafael Levaković, the Archbishop of Ohrid.
1 Šišić, Letopis, pp. 26–27.

2 On the biography and writings of Lucius see: Miroslav Kurelac, Ivan Lučić Lucius. Otac
hrvatske historiogafije (Zagreb, 1994). On the significance of his edition of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja, pp. 138–141.
3 Gesta regum Sclavorum, ed. Tibor Živković, v. 1 (Belgrade, 2009), pp. IV–V.
4 Miroslav Kurelac, “Nepoznati rukopis ‘Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina’,” Historijski zbornik 21–22
(1968–1969), pp. 651–653. A translation of the Belgrade manuscript was included in Slavko
Mijušković’s Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Uvod, prevod i komentar; a comprehensive description
of it is also found in Živković’s critical edition of the Gesta Regum Sclavorum.
5 Gesta regum Sclavorum, vol. 1, pp. II–V.

20 Chapter 2
Levaković presumably found it in Kotor. In one of his letters addressed to

Rome, he noted in 1648 that he had acquired certain documents regarding the
“kings of Dalmatia and Serbia” given to him by “signor Pasquali”, a vicar of the
Bishop of Kotor.6 According to Živković, differences between the Vatican and
Belgrade manuscripts indicate that both were based on the same manuscript,
precisely the one discovered by Levaković.7
Researchers also have access to slightly different version of the text which
is related to the Latin text of Regnum Sclavorum. Unfortunately, the text has
been distorted through translation. In 1601, Mauro Orbini included an Italian
translation of Regnum Sclavorum in the second part of his Il regno de gli Slavi.8
The text, titled La storia de’rè Dalmatia et altri luoghi vicini dell’Illirico,9 differs
slightly from both Latin manuscripts. However, it is the oldest text in which
a narrative has been preserved in the shape known from later Latin versions.
Šišić, complaining about the Vatican manuscript, believed that “Orbini’s
Italian translation published in 1601 proves that at least in some places he had
at his disposal a noticeably better text, which disappeared without a trace or
was lost”.10 The fact that Orbini used a somewhat broader narrative, especially
in the chapter on King Vladimir, was also discussed by Slavko Mijušković,
Nikola Banašević and later by Jan Leśny.11 Živković, however, noticed that the
Italian translation “although sometimes closer to the original”, could be based
on the same manuscript tradition as the copy once owned by Pasquali and later
passed by him to Levaković. Živković also claimed that Orbini, while working
on his own Il Regno de gli Slavi, used three slightly differing manuscripts of
Regnum Sclavorum and at least one Slavic translation of the text.12
Živković assumed that the oldest manuscript of Regnum Sclavorum was
brought to Dalmatia from Hungary.13 The likely presence of the Regnum
Sclavorum in the Ragusa region was mentioned by the Renaissance author
Ludovicus Tuberon (1459–1524). It is accepted that he had a copy of an
unknown work, which he called Docleatis auctoris Annales. In his Commentarii
6 Euzebije Fermendžin, “Listovi o izdanju glagolskih crkvenih knjiga i o drugih književnih

poslovih u Hrvatskoj od god. 1620–1648,” Starine 24 (1891), pp. 38–40; Tibor Živković, Gesta
regum Sclavorum, vol. 2 (Belgrade, 2009), p. 38.
7 Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 38–41.
8 Mauro Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi. Hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni (Pesaro, 1601).
9 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, pp. 204–241.
10 Šišić, Letopis, p. 28.
11 Mijušković, Ljetopis, pp. 42–46; Nikola Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina i narodna pre-
danja (Belgrade, 1971), pp. 138–142, 169–171; Jan Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian czyli
Latopis Popa Dukljanina (Warsaw, 1988), pp. 26–29.
12 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 41.
The Chronicle of the Priest of Dukjla 21
de temporibus suis he described the book as follows: “Quae quidem scripta, licet
essent es uetustissima specie, quum ad manus meas peruenere, non tamen
adeo multorum annorum tabe corrupta erant, ut legi non possent” (These
scriptures, though they looked very old when they fell into my hands, had not
however been destroyed by so many years of rotting to the extent that they
could not be read).14 According to Živković, Tuberon brought the manuscript –
probably on parchment – back from a trip to Kalocsa where he had visited
his friend Gregory (Grgur) Frankopan, Archbishop of Kalocsa and Bačka. It is
not clear who offered him a copy of Regnum Sclavorum; it could have been
Frankopan, to whom Commentarii was dedicated, or Banfi, the Archdeacon of
Bačka, who had asked Tuberon to describe the origins of Ragusa.15 Živković’s
hypothesis of the Hungarian origins of the manuscript seems to be nothing
but a supposition. It is not clear how the Latin translation of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja appeared in the Ragusa region. It is also not known whether
Orbini used the same manuscript as Tuberon used when he was translat-
ing it into Italian. It is probable that he had access to a local manuscript of
Commentarii, possibly the copy from the library of the Benedictine congrega-
tion on the island of Mljet, where Tuberon’s collection of books was stored. In
the same place Orbini could also find a copy of the old record by “Diocleata”
(i.e. the man from Dioclea/Duklja) left by Tuberon.16
It is clear not only from Orbini’s Italian translation of The Chronicle but also
from all his original works that he used a Latin manuscript as his main source.
He was also familiar with the version of the text that survived in the Croatian
variant of The Chronicle; he probably had access to the Latin translation of this
version made by Marko Marulić. This is evidenced by the fragments in which
Orbini incidentally explained differences between the Latin and Croatian ver-
sions of The Chronicle. His remarks are the first evidence that the Croatian text
was known in the Ragusa region. Orbini probably did not consider the Croatian
text to be “just a translation” of Regnum Sclavorum, because he emphasized the
differences in both texts and tried to compare them critically.17
14 Lvdovici Tvberonis Dalmatae abbatis Comentarii de temporibvs svis, ed. Vladimir Rezar
(Zagreb 2001), p. 87; for information about Tuberon, see: Piotr Wróbel, “Dubrownicki bene-
dyktyn Ludwik Tuberon De Crieva (Crijević) i jego zarys dziejów Turcji w pamiętniku pol-
itycznym ‘Commentarii de temporibus suis’,” Balcanica Poznaniensia 21 (2014), pp. 52–53.
16 Vladimir Rezar, “Dubrovački humanistički historiograf Ludovik Crijević Tuberon,” Anali
Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku 37
(1999), p. 60.
22 Chapter 2
The Croatian text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja – the so-called
“H. redaction”, or The Croatian Chronicle – also raises many doubts today. It
survived as the oldest manuscript of The Chronicle dating back to 1546 and is
kept in the Vatican Library. The manuscript was made by Jerolim Kaletić on the
basis of another copy, now missing, but which was found by Dominik Papalić
circa 1500 in the Kačić family’s manor-house. The Croatian version is a fairly
accurate translation of the first twenty-three chapters of Regnum Sclavorum
(according to the division proposed by Črnčić).18 The most important differ-
ence between the two versions is the description of the death of King Zvonimir
at the end of the narrative, which is absent in the Latin text. Nowadays, most
historians accept that the Croatian version is a translation of one of the ver-
sions of Regnum Sclavorum, to which an alternative ending was added. The
translation was probably made between the fourteenth and the fifteenth cen-
turies. However, some historians appreciate this version, and present a much
more complex picture of the mutual diffusion between the two main variants
of The Chronicle.
The manuscript found by Papalić became the basis of a Latin translation,
made at his request by the poet Marko Marulić (Marcus Marulus) in 1510. The
translation was copied several times between the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.19 Differences between the available copy made by Kaletić and
Marulić’s translation are evident. However, it is not clear whether Kaletić made
the copy negligently, or whether Marulić supplemented and corrected the
text while translating it. The version by Marulić is commonly known as the
“M. redaction”. As Jan Leśny noted, it was the only version that appeared
fairly often in manuscripts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.20
Interestingly, the Latin translation by Marulić was included in both volumes
containing the manuscripts of the Latin version of Regnum Sclavorum.
18 Introduced in the edition: Popa Dukljanina Lêtopis po latinsku i toga nekoliko i još nešto po
hrvatsku po prepisu popa Jerolima Kaletića, ed. Ivan Črnčić (Kraljevica, 1874).
19 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 12. Miroslav Kurelac speculated that the Belgrade
manuscript was an introduction to a larger work by Marulić: Inscriptiones latinae anti-
quae Salonis repertae, see: Kurelac, “Nepoznati rukopis”; idem, “An Unknown Manuscript
of the ‘Annals of Presbyter Dukljanin’,” Bulletin Scientifique Conseil des Academies des
Sciences et des Arts de la RSF de Yougoslavie. Section B: Sciences Humaines 4–6 (1970), no. 6
(15), pp. 113–114.
20 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, pp. 7–8; the storage locations of some manuscripts of
the “M. redaction” are given there. For more on the copies of the Marulić’s translation
see: Neven Jovanović, “Manuscripts of the Regvm Dalmatię atqve Croatię gesta,” Colloquia
Maruliana 1 (2009), no. 18, pp. 5–24.
2 The Title of the Work
The title The Chronicle (or The Annals) of the Priest of Duklja (Popa Dukljanina
Lêtopis) appeared for the first time in 1874 in the edition prepared by Ivan
Črnčić. It is rooted so deep in historiographical tradition that it was repeated in
the three most important twentieth-century critical editions prepared by Šišić,
Mošin and Mijušković. Also, the division into chapters as set by Črnčić was
generally accepted by subsequent editors, apart from Mijušković. The word
“ljetopis/letopis”21 [annals] itself was a reference to Tuberon’s words about
Docleatis auctoris Annales. So it was a translation of the first alleged title of
the work.
The term “priest of Duklja”, or more accurately “presbyter from Diocletia”,
also appeared in the Vatican manuscript (Presbyteri Diocleatis Regnum
Sclavorum), as well as in the four editions published by Lucius. Orbini pro-
vided an entirely different subtitle to his Italian translation: La storia de’re di
Dalmatia et altri luoghi vicini dell’Illirico [The history of the kings of Dalmatia
and other places in vicinity of Illyricum]. Šišić believed that the title appear-
ing on the Vatican manuscript was unknown to Orbini and was not previously
widespread,22 and his supposition was later confirmed by the discovery of
the Belgrade manuscript. Renaissance authors from the Ragusa region since
Tuberon’s time knew the traditional story of the origin of The Chronicle. It was
also known to Orbini, who – while mentioning the “kings of Dalmatia” in the
title of his translation – in the text itself referred to “Diocleata” as the author
of the work.23 In 1605, another Ragusa-based historian, Giacomo Luccari
(Croatian name: Jakov Lukarević), who also used Regnum Sclavorum, named
its author il Docleate at one point,24 but in another place in the work he called
him Prete di Doclea.25 This is probably the first time the author of The Chronicle
was called a “presbyter” or a “priest”.26
The title Regnum Sclavorum is a term taken from the Latin prologue. To
describe his own work, Orbini used its Italian equivalent. In the context of
the Latin version of The Chronicle, this title appeared in the edition prepared
21 The Chronicle is generally known as Ljetopis popa Dukljanina in Bosnia, Croatia and
Montenegro, and as Letopis popa Dukljanina in Serbia.
23 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, p. 182.
24 Copioso ristretto degli annali di Ragusa di Giacomo di Pietro Luccari libri quatro (Ragusa,
1790), p. 8.
25 Copioso ristretto degli annali di Ragusa, p. 3.
26 On relationships between The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and the modern Dubrovnik
historiography, see: Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, “‘Królestwo Słowian’ Maura Orbiniego i
‘Obszerny wyciąg’ z ‘Roczników Dubrownickich’ Jakova Lukarevicia (Luccariego),” in
Królestwo Słowian. pp. 78–98.
24 Chapter 2
by Lucius and was later translated by Jovan Subotić, who in 1853 created the
Serbian title of the work: Dukljanskog presvitera kraljevstvo Slavena.27 This
is echoed in the title of the Polish translation of The Chronicle, published by
Leśny as: Historia Królestwa Słowian – The history of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
The Polish editor did not decide to remove the traditional subtitle (Latopis
Popa Dukljanina – The Annals of the Priest of Duklja), though he did not par-
ticularly favour it because it did not use the traditional form of annals listed
by date.28
The problem with the title of the work was often associated with the dif-
ficulty in assigning it to a particular genre. Neither Regnum Sclavorum nor any
versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja bear the distinctive features of
medieval annals. Also, Mijušković – who used this title himself – claimed that
this work certainly bears no features of “ljetopis”,29 although some parts of it
are connected by a series of chronologically ordered notes which bear a resem-
blance to year-books. Nikola Radojčić had a different opinion; he claimed that
the narrative of the work primarily bears the features of a genealogy. In his
commentary on Šišić’s editorial work, he titled the chronicle “Barski rodoslov”;
this proposed title is still used by some historians, although it is not common.30
Živković remarked on the aptness of this choice: “The very title of this work,
which was accepted in historiography – Ljetopis popa Dukljanina – was not
appropriate for a work which does not have the characteristics of ljetopis (the
title Barski rodoslov is even less acceptable). Throughout the entire text there
is not even one annual date, which is the main type of narration in annals and
chronicles. Quite the contrary: according to the declaration of intentions by
the author himself, his work is closely related to the so-called deeds of rul-
ers (Gesta regum)”.31 Živković proposed that the work should be entitled Gesta
regum Sclavorum. He found a reference for this title in the prologue, where
the phrase sclavorum regnum appeared. He regarded it as a spelling mistake,
probably made by Lucius, and proposed replacing regnum with regum, as in
the title of the Belgrade manuscript: Deocleanus in vitis Regum Dalmatiae et
Croatiae. Such a change would also correspond better with the titles of The
Chronicle in the translations by Orbini and Marulić.
27 Dukljanskog presvitera kraljevstvo Slavena, ed. Jovan Subotić, Serbski letopis, vol. 88, 27
(Buda, 1853), pp. 1–86.
28 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 3.
29 Mijušković, Ljetopis, p. 92.
30 Nikola Radojčić, “Šišić F., Letopis Popa Dukljanina,” Slavia 8 (1929), p. 170; idem,
“Društveno i državno uređenje kod Srba u ranom srednjem veku – prema Barskom rodo-
slovu,” Glasnik Skopskog nuačnog društva, 15 (1935), p. 25.
Relatively fewer problems have been generated by the Croatian ver-

sion. Marulić titled his translation The Deeds of the Kings of Dalmatia and
Croatia (Regvm Delmatie atque Croatie gesta). The “H. redaction” prepared by
Kukuljević Sakcinski32 was titled The Croatian Chronicle and it is still some-
times called that way (especially in Croatian historiography).33
3 The Time and Place of Writing The Chronicle
Šišić believed that Regnum Sclavorum was written during the reign of Byzantine
emperor Manuel I Komnenos, and set the terminus ante quem at 1200. He
assumed that the work was written by a clergyman from the vicinity of Bar,
a city on the coast of present-day Montenegro. The author would be a Slav,
or would know the Slavonic language well. Šišić agreed with an older scholar,
Konstantin Josef Jireček,34 who believed that the main purpose of the text was
to consolidate the city of Bar or even the entire region of Duklja by empha-
sizing the past advantages of its rulers. Šišić associated the creation of The
Chronicle with the conflict between the bishopric in Bar and the archbishopric
in Dubrovnik and suggested between 1160 and 1180 as the most probable time
of writing the work.35 Mošin returned to the older concepts of Franjo Rački
and claimed that The Chronicle might have been written a bit earlier. His 1950
edition was prepared as part of the celebration of the alleged eight-hundredth
anniversary of the work. According to him, the text might have been created
for readers outside of Bar,36 for example for representatives of the papacy who
were to decide on the renewal of the local archbishopric after its temporary
liquidation in 114937 or 1167.38
The timeline of the creation of the work as set by Šišić and Mošin is sur-
prisingly consistent with the one proposed by Orbini, who claimed that the
32 Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, “Kronika Hrvatska iz XII věka,” Arkiv za pověstnicu jugoslaven-
sku 1 (Zagreb, 1851), pp. 1–37.
33 Several hybrid titles were given too, see: Mladen Ančić, “Ljetopis Kraljeva Hrvatske i
Dalmacije (Vrijeme nastanka i autorstvo Hrvatske redakcije Ljetopisa popa Dukljaninia),”
in Zvonimir: kralj hrvatski, ed. Ivo Goldstein (Zagreb, 1997), pp. 273–303.
34 Konstantin Jireček, Jovan Radojić, Istorija Srba, v. 1 (Belgrade, 1952), p. 131 [original German
edition was published as Geschichte der Serben in 1911–1912].
36 Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, pp. 24–27. The same opinion was shared by Leśny: Historia
Królestwa Słowian, p. 37.
38 Supported by Eduard Peričić, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina
(Zagreb, 1991), p. 73.
26 Chapter 2
narrative of Regnum Sclavorum stops in 1161.39 Šišić tried to prove that Regnum
Sclavorum originated in the twelfth century, referring to the earliest sources
which contained traces of familiarity with the text or a tradition related to it.
One of these sources was, allegedly, monastery documents from the island
of Lokrum near Dubrovnik.40 According to Šišić, the creation of the docu-
ments was related to the dispute between the Benedictines from the island of
Lokrum and the Benedictines from the island of Mljet. The controversy con-
cerned a piece of land on Mljet, called Babino Polje, together with the church of
St. Pancratius located there. In 1220 the Serbian King Stefan the First-Crowned
(Nemanjić) granted these grounds to the Mljet-based Benedictines from the
monastery of Saint Mary. Then, the monks from Lokrum invoked a number
of documents confirming their right to the disputed land. One of them was
said to have been released by Ljutovit, a prōtospatharios epi to chrusotriclinio,
hypatos and strategos of Serbia and Zachlumia (Hum).41 All documents were
allegedly copies of older concessions from the eleventh century. Jireček consid-
ered the documents from Lokrum to be forgeries. So did Šišić, who performed
paleographic analysis and dated them back to the mid-thirteenth century.42
According to him, the name Ljutovit (Litouiti) was taken by the forger from
Regnum Sclavorum, which mentioned a prince of Zachlumia of this name.43
Šišić considered the title of “protospatharios of the Chrysotriclinos [throne
room], hypatos and strategos” as too sophisticated to be true.44 Exactly the
same title appears in Escorial tactikon from 970, yet Šišić evidently did not
know this text.45
It cannot be ruled out that some of the Lokrum-based documents may be
copies of authentic charters.46 This is the view taken by Rozana Vojvoda, who,
after re-evaluating the problem of Lokrum forgeries and undertaking a
39 See: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 321.

40 See: Šišić, Letopis, pp. 185–201.
41 Josip Vrana, “Isprave zahumskih vladara iz XI i XII. st. o Babinu Polju na otoku Mljetu,”
Historijski Zbornik 13 1960, pp. 155–166; Ivan Kampuš, “Novi prilozi o lokrumskim falsi-
fikatima i Desinoj darovnici pulsanskim benediktincima,” Historijski Zbornik 15 (1962),
pp. 317–324.
43 Ljetopis, pp. 89–90.
45 Nicolas Oikonomidès, Les Listes de Préséance Byzantines des IXe et Xe Siècles (Paris, 1972),
273.17; 271.8; see: Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 248–249.
46 Stjepan Krizin Sakač, “Ljutovid, strateg Srbije i Zahumlja i njegova lokrumska povelja
(g. 1054),” in Mandićev zbornik u čast O. dra Dominika Mandića prigodom njegove
75-godišnjice života, eds. Ivan Vitezić, Bazilije Pandžić, Atanazije Matanić (Rome, 1965),
p. 59.
palaeographic analysis, concluded that the Ljutovit document dates back to

the mid-twelfth century and could be a transcript of the mid-eleventh century
original. She also believed that the rest of the documents may be much ear-
lier and dated back to the twelfth rather than to the thirteenth century, hence
the influence of Regnum Sclavorum on their form is difficult to determine.47
In fact, in Regnum Sclavorum, Ljutovit is not named as prōtospatharios or as
strategos; there are no indications that the prince might somehow be linked
to the Lokrum monastery. It is difficult to state on this basis that the name
was added to the forgeries by someone who had knowledge of the text of the
Priest of Duklja. Another of the documents signed by Chranko (Chranco), the
ruler of Zachlumia, who scholars, as early as the time of Šišić, associated with
the inscription at the St. Peter Church near Trebinje that mentioned “Prince
Sramko”.48 Vladimir Ćorović suggested that he was a ruler of Zachlumia.49
Šišić, however, associated this name with Hranimir, well-known from Regnum
Sclavorum,50 and claimed that it was one more piece of evidence that the
Lokrum monks had known the text by the Priest of Duklja.
Šišić also referred to another set of documents from the collection – in
his opinion very skilfully counterfeited – of charters granting the church of
St. Martin in Šumet to the Lokrum monks. These documents mention figures
well-known from Regnum Sclavorum: King Bodin, Archbishop Peter, and King
Gregory, a son of Bodin. However, as was noted by Živković, these names are
known from other sources, so it is impossible to prove that Regnum Sclavorum
directly influenced the forgers.51 Bodin was mentioned in The Alexiad by Anna
Komnene; the name of Archbishop Peter appears on a certain papal document
from 1089; and Gregory was mentioned on the lead royal seal.52 Šišić found it
suspicious that the document did not give the name of the territories ruled
by King Gregory, although this information is provided by Regnum Sclavorum;
47 Rozana Vojvoda, Dalmatian Illuminated Manuscripts Written in Beneventan Script and

Benedictine Scriptoria in Zadar, Dubrovnik and Trogir, PhD dissertation, Department of
Medieval Studies, Central European University (Budapest, 2011), pp. 149–73. While writ-
ing about Regnum Sclavorum, Vojvoda refrained from making her own hypothesis about
its origins: “I will however leave the question of the date of the Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja open since it goes beyond the goal of this chapter” (p. 159).
48 Stevan Delić, “Petrov manastir kod Trebinja,” Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 25
(1913), pp. 129–130.
49 Vladimir Ćorović, “Hercegovački manastiri,” Starinar 2 (1923), pp. 69–71. See: Źivković,
Gesta regum, p. 328.
51 Źivković, Gesta regum, pp. 329–331.
52 Todor Gerasimov, “Un sceau en plombe de Georges fils du roi Bodine,” Studia Historico-
Philologica Serdicensia 1 (1938), pp. 217–218.
28 Chapter 2
however, this discrepancy may prove that the possible forgers drew on com-
pletely different sources.53
Šišić tried to find evidence that Regnum Sclavorum was known in other thir-
teenth century sources. One of them is a letter dated 24 February 1252, in which
the Archbishop of Dubrovnik, Johannes of Venice, addressed the inhabitants
of the city, recalling the words of the Archbishop of Bar, the famous traveller
Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, who claimed that the entire Dalmatia was tra-
ditionally divided into two archbishoprics: Split and Bar. According to Šišić,
such information was derived from a fragment of Regnum Sclavorum about
the Synod in Dalma.54 Also, in this case, the above claim can be questioned
if we consider the possibility of an oral tradition of the ecclesial division of
Dalmatia. It is enough to recall a similar description of the original diocesan
organization in the work of Thomas of Split.55
The issue of the correlation between the works of Thomas the Archdeacon
and the Priest of Duklja did not until recently raise many doubts among the
publishers of The Chronicle. Šišić accepted the claim that some fragments of
Historia Salonitana were inspired by the Latin version of The Chronicle. Mošin
supported this opinion.56 Mijušković was not convinced by Šišić’s ideas, yet
he did not dare to deny them either.57 Leśny noticed that some of Šišić’s argu-
ments concerning the “early provenance of the work” could be undermined,
and he also claimed that “the use of The Chronicle around the mid-thirteenth
century by Thomas the Archdeacon of Split is quite unquestionable”.58
Two fragments of Historia Salonitana indicate this correlation. The first of
them would be the story of the Goths and their arrival in the Balkans; the sec-
ond, the story of the origins of Ragusa.59 There are no passages where Thomas
the Archdeacon’s chronicle and Regnum Sclavorum show literal similarity.
Šišić attributed this to Thomas’ talent, who did not copy his sources literally.60
The issue of the direct dependence of both narratives has been questioned

55 Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum Atque Spalatinorum Pontificum.
Archdeacon Thomas of Split History of the Bishops of Salona and Split, Latin text: Olga
Perić, eds. and trans. Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević Sokol, James Ross Sweeney
(Budapest/New York, 2006), pp. 66–67 [hereafter cited as: Historia Salonitana]; Živković,
Gesta regum, pp. 332–333.
56 Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, p. 23.
59 Both stories will be discussed in Chapters 3 and 5 of the present work.
recently. The similarity of both texts can be explained by their belonging to

the same textual circle, including the traditions of the inception of Split and of
Ragusa, known in Dalmatia in the period of the High Middle Ages.61
Parallels between the fragment of Regnum Sclavorum and the vision of the
establishment of Ragusa in the work by the poet Miletius – who presented
local legends on the birth of the city rather than copied the work of the Priest
of Duklja – can be interpreted in a similar way. As was noted by Živković, the
account included in Regnum Sclavorum entirely omitted the motifs of the rel-
ics of the saints, which were the essence of the tale in Miletius’ poem. Živković
concluded ironically that “on the basis of the mere similarities of plot in con-
genial fragments one could say that even Constantine Porphyrogennetos was
inspired by the Priest of Duklja’s text”.62
Šišić found another piece of proof for the accuracy of his proposed dat-
ing, in the fourteenth-century inscription in the cartulary listing the posses-
sions of the monastery of St. Peter in Selo near Krilo. The inscription mentions
Croatian bans – i.e. lords, magnates – who had held office since the reign of
King Svetopelek to the time of Zvonimir, the king of the Croats. Even in this
case, however, the interpretation is ambiguous. Svetopelek appears only in the
Latin text of The Chronicle, while Zvonimir is only in the Croatian version. We
do not have a text that includes the names of both kings. The inscription itself
is certainly interesting and it may actually indicate that the tradition contained
in the fragments of Regnum Sclavorum was also alive among people who were
not readers (even potential readers) of The Chronicle.
Both Šišić and Živković agreed, however, that the Latin chronicle of Doge
Andrea Dandolo, written around 1350, bears even more traces of the Latin text
of The Chronicle. It includes the history of the Synod in Dalma and a precise
description of the division of Dalmatia (among others, the division between
“White Croatia” and “Red Croatia”) known only from Regnum Sclavorum.63
Thanks to Dandolo, this image of the geographical partition infiltrated other
Italian chronicles: Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum imperii decades
61 Analysis of the diffusion of particular motifs and the similarity of interdependent reports
on the origins of Ragusa was presented by Radoslav Katičić, “‘Aedificaverunt Ragusium et
habitaverunt in eo’. Tragom najstarijih dubrovačkih zapisa,” in idem, Uz početke hrvatskih
početaka (Split, 1993), pp. 141–160.
63 Andreae Danduli ducis Venetiarum Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello,
Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. Raccolta degli Storici Italiani dal cinquecento al mil-
lecinquecento, ordinata da L. A. Muratori, eds. Giosue Cadrucci, Vittorio Fiorini, Pietro
Fedele, vol. 12, part 1 (Bologna, 1938), p. 156; Andreas Dandolo Chronicon Venetum, MMFH
vol. 4, p. 422.
30 Chapter 2
by Flavius Blondus written in 145064 and Breve cronaca written circa 1480.65
Similarities between the fragments of Dandolo’s chronicle and Regnum
Sclavorum are so significant that in this case it would be difficult to disagree
with Šišić, who saw the Doge’s report as a borrowing from the Priest of Duklja’s
text. Therefore we can set the mid-fourteenth century as the time of the first
evidence of the presence, in the Adriatic Sea region, of the fragments of the
narratives known today from the Regnum Sclavorum.
As has been mentioned, the hypothesis of the origins of The Chronicle in the
early twelfth century was disputed by Mijušković, who – after a philological
analysis – challenged the evidence mentioned by Šišić regarding the linguis-
tic layer of the text.66 As an alternative to the twelfth-century genesis of The
Chronicle, Mijušković presented his own quite concise idea, according to which
the text was much younger: “the approximate time [of creation of the work]
can be set between the mid-fourteenth and the mid-fifteenth century. Placing
the origins of the text in this time period, I would be inclined to assume that
the writing of The Chronicle was related to the period of the greatest power
of the Balšić family, when the ambitions of its members were not limited to
obtaining full control over the area of former Duklja, but were also directed
outside of it”.67
Mijušković, who studied the Vatican manuscript, criticized Šišić’s claim
that the annotation “etc.” was introduced in the first printed edition of Lucius’
work and is not present in the manuscript. According to Mlijušković, although
Šišić spent several years in Rome, he never saw the manuscript with his own
eyes, and his allegation that Regnum Sclavorum was a completed work mis-
led Radojčić68 and Mošin.69 This defect in Šišić’s edition had been noticed by
Dominik Mandić even before Mijušković.70
Radojčić was the first who believed that The Chronicle had probably ended
abruptly, perhaps as a result of the sudden death of the author, and that the
64 Blondi Flavii Forlivensis Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum libri XXXI, decade 2,

book 2 (Basel, 1531), p. 177.
65 Quoted after Šišić, Letopis, pp. 57–58. The chronicle claims that Svetopelek came from
the lineage of the descendants of Otolio/Odrillo, a brother of Totila, the king of Goths.
See: I libri commemoriali della Republica di Venezia. Regesti, vol. 5, ed. Ricardo Predelli
(Cambridge, 2012), pp. 243–244.
66 Mijušković, Ljetopis, pp. 49–69.
68 Radojčić, “Šišić F., Letopis Popa Dukljanina,” p. 172.
69 Mošin, “Uvod,” pp. 23–25.
70 Dominik Mandić, “Kraljestvo Hrvata i Ljetopis popa Dukljanina,” in idem, Raspravi i prilozi
iz stare hrvatske povijesti (Rome, 1963), p. 445; Savić Marković Štedimlija, “Zagonetka popa
Dukljanina,” Crkva u svijetu 1 (1969), no. 4, p. 71.
original concept of the work may have looked different.71 Mijušković shared
these assumptions but went much further. According to him, the absence
of information about the Nemanjić family proves that the author intended
to write another volume devoted to this Serbian dynasty, binding it with the
aforementioned Balšić noble family that ruled Zeta. Mijušković suggested
that Regnum Sclavorum was commissioned by the Balšić family. According to
this concept, the Priest of Duklja was “one of us”, a Slav, and the “Kingdom
of the Slavs” mentioned in the title of The Chronicle referred to the Serbian
state. Mijušković claimed that such an interpretation would be in accordance
with the translated intitulation of Stefan Dušan’s legal documents, in
which the Latin term Sclavonie imperator was replaced by the Slavic phrase
“Tsar of Serbs”.72 The Slavs mentioned in The Chronicle were identified by
Mijušković with the Serbs. This unconvincing hypothesis assumed not only
a broadening of the scope of critical analysis to include of the second part
of the work – purely speculative, not announced by either the introduction or
by the narrative structure of Regnum Sclavorum – but also suggesting anach-
ronistic solutions regarding the ethnic situation in medieval Serbia, Duklja
and Dalmatia.73
Mijušković’s ideas were criticized by the Montenegrin scholar Savić
Marković Štedimlija, who had ridiculed the idea of labelling the dialect
(čakavska ikavica) of the Croatian text of The Chronicle as “the Serbo-Croatian
language”. Štedimlija pointed to the issue of Orthodoxy, which was ignored in
the text, and exposed Mijušković’s lack of imagination: the Priest of Duklja was
allegedly a Catholic priest, yet wanted to present tsar Dušan in a favourable
light, even though under his rule Catholicism was considered heresy. How
ever, Štedimlija in his discourse did not resist the temptation of arguing for
the “Croatness” of the medieval Duklja, that was indeed called “Red Croatia”
in Regnum Sclavorum.74 Leśny responded to the Mijušković hypothesis in an
apt manner.75
Even before Mijušković, another Serbian historian and politician, Ljubomir
Jovanović, had been a proponent of the later dating of Regnum Sclavorum. He
believed that the core of the work was written at the turn of the thirteenth
71 Nikola Radojčić, O najtamnijem odeljku Barskog rodoslova (Cetinje, 1951), p. 76.

73 A more complete list of objections to Mijušković’s ideas can be found in a critical review
by Radoslav Rotković: “Neistorijska paradoksiranja S. Mijuškovića o Dukljaninu,” Kritika 6
(1969), pp. 370–377.
74 Štedimlija, “Zagonetka popa Dukljanina,” pp. 70–76.
75 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, pp. 35–36.
32 Chapter 2
and fourteenth centuries.76 Živković set the time of creation of the work as
more or less the same.77 He claimed that Regnum Sclavorum was created in
two stages. According to him, The Slavonic Book mentioned in the introduc-
tion to The Chronicle was a genealogy of rulers of Duklja. He claimed that
this (allegedly lost) work was cut short or reworked, and incorporated to
Regnum Sclavorum, and its structure still could be distinguished from the body
of the text. Živković suggested that the original Duklja-based genealogy was
written in a Slavic language, and dated it back to the broad period between
1040 and 1150. While discussing Regnum Sclavorum as such, he claimed that
in this case we are dealing with one author who would correct and modify
the content of the piece over the years. The first part was seemingly written in
Split between 1295 and 1298, the second part in the period between 1299 and
1301 in the city of Bar.78 The timeframes proposed by Živković, as we shall soon
see, fitted his multithreaded hypothesis on the identification of the author of
The Chronicle himself.
4 The Problem of the Authorship of Regnum Sclavorum
Even in the nineteenth century, a popular conviction was that the fragments
of Regnum Sclavorum were copies from unknown or lost sources. Konstantin
Nikolajević, a Serbian politician and historian, and a son-in-law of King
Alexander Karađorđević, was among the proponents of this opinion. He
believed that the work could have had many authors and could be a compila-
tion of several unrelated texts. The key questions posed by Nikolajević were:
“Who wrote these older chronicles? Where did he write them? What was writ-
ten in them? What sources were used? What are the relationships between the
parts of the work? How credible is their content?”.79
At the start of the last century, the complex structure of the work was also
noted by Jovanović. In his concept, the structure of Regnum Sclavorum was
dual: one of the parts he distinguished was the so-called Croatian Chronicle,
while the second was the co-called Chronicle of Zeta. The latter, as mentioned
76 Ljubomir Jovanović, “O letopisu popa Dukljanina,” Godišnjak – Srpska kraljevska aka-

demija 15 (1901), pp. 224–225.
77 In several older publications he generally agreed with Šišić’s views on the time of the cre-
ation of the work, but later he changed his opinion; see: Tibor Živković, “O prvim poglav-
ljama Letopisa Popa Dukljanina,” Istorijski časopis 44 (1997), pp. 7–18.
79 Konstantin Nikolajević, “Kritička pokušenja u periodu od prvih pet (sedam) vekova srpske
istorije,” Letopis Matice srpske 110 (1865), p. 5; T. Živković, Gesta regum, p. 26.
above and according to Jovanović, was written at the turn of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries, and the former perhaps not earlier than the fifteenth
century.80 Milorad Medini remained with the concept of the heterogeneous
structure of the work. He undertook a philological analysis of the text, and
its results prompted him to recognize that Regnum Sclavorum is basically
the work of many authors, one of whom may indeed be called “the Priest of
Duklja”. The conclusions presented by Medini can be summarized as follows:
in about 1180, an unknown priest from Bar added stories from the Duklja region
to a chronicle written around 1120, called by him “the chronicle of Travunja”,
which contained the genealogy of the princes of the local dynasty. The work
we know today is a result of supplementing the text of this chronicle with the
history of the establishment of Ragusa and elements of local legends about
Pavlimir Bello; the supplementation took place in the fourteenth century in
Dubrovnik. As a further piece of the jigsaw, Medini also added the hypothetical
hagiography Life of St. Vladimir, separating the “Travunja” and “Zeta” (“Duklja”)
parts. Thus, only the latter would be the proper work of the author of Regnum
Sclavorum. Medini formulated a hypothesis according to which the genealogy
of the rulers of Travunja could originally be written in the Slavic language and
only later translated by the Priest of Duklja.81
Medini developed some of his theses in the article Kako je postao Ljetopis
popa Dukljanina [How “The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja” was created].
He claimed that The Chronicle of Travunja was written by an anonymous
Benedictine monk in the time of Emperor Basil II Boulgaroktonos, and pointed
out that in the entire text of Regnum Sclavorum only two emperors are men-
tioned. The name of the first, Basil, was allegedly included in the text by the
author of the “Travunja” part of the work, while the other, Manuel, presum-
ably referred to Manuel I Komnenos and was added by the proper Priest of
Duklja.82
Medini tried to justify his ideas using the results of a linguistic analysis of
the separate parts: “in the first [‘Travunja’] part there are 375 words that do not
appear in either the second [‘Life of St. Vladimir’] or third [‘Zeta’] parts; in the
second and very short part, there are 194 words that do not appear in either the
first or third parts; in the third part there are 230 words that do not appear in
80 Jovanović, “O letopisu popa Dukljanina,”; Živković, Gesta regum, p. 27.

81 Milorad Medini, Starine Dubrovačke (Dubrovnik, 1935), pp. 28–64.
82 Milorad Medini, “Kako je postao Ljetopis popa Dukljanina,” Rad JAZU, 273 (1942),
pp. 155–156.
34 Chapter 2
either the first or the second parts. Only 359 words appear in all three parts of
the work”.83
Medini’s ideas were repudiated by Stanojević, who accused him of “hyper-
criticism at times”, and “putting forward too bold a thesis”.84 Also, Radojčić
decided that Šišić, who considered The Chronicle one entity, was closer to
the truth than Medini. However, Radojčić claimed that Šišić had not man-
aged to prove that the beginning and ending of the work were written by one
author, and thus suggested a different division of the work than that of Medini.
Radojčić believed that “someone else” could have written the opening part of
the work, Libellus Gothorum, mentioned in the Priest of Duklja’s text.85 On
the other hand, Medini’s concepts were positively evaluated by Mošin and
Muhamad Hadžijahić. The former accepted them with some caution,86 while
the latter shared them without reservation, and even suggested, on the basis of
them, his own hypothesis concerning the stages of the formation of the narra-
tive of Regnum Sclavorum.87
Leśny noted errors in Medini’s arguments,88 referring to the study by Ksenia
Hvostova, who analysed the legal and political terminology in the text of
Regnum Sclavorum. According to Hvostova, it was so homogeneous that the
issue of several authors of the work was out of the question.89
The peculiar concept of a division in Regnum Sclavorum was presented
in 1940 by Borislav Radojković, who distinguished four parts in the work:
1) the first three chapters on the Goths; 2) the Zachlumia-related part –
including a description of Constantine’s activity and information about the
synod summoned by Svetopelek (Radojković identified him as Michael Višević,
the ruler of Zachlumia)90 3) the Travunja-related chapters focused of the hypo-
thetical Beljić dynasty; 4) the final chapters on Duklja. Radojković also claimed
that the text of the chronicle as a whole was reworked several times, hence
the confusion for contemporary researchers attempting to identify historical
83 Medini, “Kako je postao Ljetopis popa Dukljanina,” pp. 115–116.

84 Stanoje Stanojević, “Milorad Medini: ‘Starine Dubrovačke’,” Jugoslovenski Istorijski Ćasopis
314 (1935), pp. 618–619.
85 Radojčić, O najtamnijem odeljku Barskog rodoslova, pp. 13–14.
87 Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Das Regnum Sclavorum als historische Quelle und als territoriales
Substrat,” Südost Forschungen 42 (1983), pp. 11–60.
88 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, pp. 24–25.
89 Ksenija V. Hvostova, “K voprosu terminologii Letopisi Popa Dukljanina,” [K. B. Хвостова,
“К вопросу терминологии Летописи Попа Дуклянина”] Slavjanskij archiv 2 (1959),
pp. 40–45.
90 For comparison, Medini believed that “the king Predimir” mentioned in the work was the
historical Michael Višević: Medini, Starine Dubrovačke, pp. 56–57.
dynasties and territories, which in the Regnum Sclavorum bear invented and
false names.91
Scholars who assumed that the work had one author disputed his ethnicity.
Šišić, Radojčić and Mijušković believed that he was a Slav from the Bar area.
To make this probable, Šišić was inclined to consider that the phrase “quem
lingua sua cagan apellabant, quod in lingua nostra resonat imperator” (whom
in their language they call khagan, which in our language means: emperor)92
was a later insertion.93 However, on the basis of the same expression, other
scholars were inclined to identify him as a Dalmatian of Latin ethnicity.94
We can assume with great certainty that the author of Regnum Sclavorum
was a clergyman. A popular historiographic myth even claimed that he was
the Bishop (or Archbishop) of Bar. Radojković identified him as the Bishop
of Ulcinj, a representative of the Slavic church hierarchy,95 though this con-
viction did not meet with much support. The opening of Regnum Sclavorum
may indicate that the anonymous author held the rank of archbishop, who
addresses “in Christo fratribus ac venerabilibus sacerdotibus sanctae sedis
archiepiscopatus Dioclitanae ecclesiae”.96 Why did he omit the archbishop in
the invocation? “Because the author and the archbishop are the same person”
replied Živković, giving examples of documents in which archbishops repeat
the phrase “in Christo fratribus” while addressing their suffragans.97 Eduard
Peričić, who used similar comparative material, was also convinced that the
Priest of Duklja was a bishop.98 However, in the entire Regnum Sclavorum
there is no indication that its author really knew a lot about the Archbishopric
of Bar. Although it appeared several times on the pages of the work, it never
obscured the main purpose of the narrative, which was to show the fate of the
dynasty of Slavic kings.
Peričić and Živković in their studies made efforts to describe “the Presbyter
from Diocletia” a bit more precisely. Peričić reproached previous scholars
studying Regnum Sclavorum for being too cautious and avoiding the problem
of the authorship of the work. He claimed that the author had certainly been
91 See: Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, pp. 21–22.

92 Ljetopis, p. 45.
94 Mandić, “Kraljestvo Hrvata i Ljetopis popa Dukljanina,” pp. 451–455; N. Banašević, Letopis
popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, p. 34; Jovan Kovačević, Istorija Crne Gore, vol. 1
(Titograd [Podgorica], 1967), p. 242.
95 Boris Radojković, Knjižica o Gotima (Belgrade, 1974), pp. 21–23.
96 Ljetopis, p. 39.
97 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 61, footnote 147.
98 Peričić, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog, pp. 200–208.
36 Chapter 2
someone familiar with the political realities of particular medieval Adriatic

lands – not only of the Bar area, but also of Ragusa, Salona and Croatia proper.
As the most probable author, Peričić suggested Gregory (Grgur), an archbishop
of Bar whose family was based in Zadar. According to Emilij Laszowski a simi-
lar hypothesis had been proposed even earlier by Vjekoslav Klaić. The entry on
Grgur in Laszowski’s dictionary says that Klaić did not exclude that the author
of the work “known as The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is either Gregory or
his protégé Maraldo” and that the work was written around 1195 in Zadar.99
However, as it was observed by Leśny and then by Peričić there are no such
claims in the works of Klaić.100 Another author who proposed – to a limited
extent – a similar hypothesis about the authorship of Regnum Sclavorum was
Štedimlija.101
Peričić pointed to a certain document from Ragusa, dated 1196, in which
Gregory is mentioned as a witness: dei gratia Antibarensis archiepiscopus.102
He combined this figure with the aspirations of the Serbian ruler Vukan to
renew the archbishopric in Bar. According to Peričić, the archbishop was
forced to cede his position to Johannes, his successor, then went to Dubrovnik
and finally to his native Zadar, where he died circa 1198. Elements of traditions
from various areas of Dalmatia that appear in the text could have originated
from this journey. Peričić interpreted Regnum Sclavorum as, in the first place,
the voice of Gregory in the dispute between Bar and Split helping to legitimize
the rights of the former to be archbishopric; these efforts proved to be success-
ful at the end of the twelfth century.
Živković, however, suggested another person as the presumed author of the
chronicle. He sought someone acquainted with the situation of both northern
and southern Dalmatia. Besides, he noticed the convergence of some motifs
included in Regnum Sclavorum with the narratives of “northern Slavonic
lands”, especially the similarity to Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas of Prague.103
99 Emilij Laszowski, Znameniti i zaslužni Hrvati 925–1925 (Zagreb, 1925), p. 95.

100 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 29; Peričić, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog,
pp. 130–132.
101 Štedimlija, “Zagonetka popa Dukljanina,” pp. 67–68.
102 Peričić, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog, p. 232.
103 The similarity between some fragments of Regnum Sclavorum and Chronica Boemorum
by Cosmas of Prague was noted by Banašević, who however confined himself to juxtapos-
ing examples of similar use of Old Testament motifs in both works. He pointed out, for
example, the use of similar war fortunes or the names of musical instruments in both
narratives. He compared King Dobroslav’s plan (who, according to Regnum Sclavorum,
sent one of his knights to the Greeks’ camp with a false warning of the approaching army,
so that later the enemy, overestimating the attackers’ strength, could be frightened simply
Živković also tried to prove that Regnum Sclavorum bears features indicat-
ing its author’s residence in Hungary; one of them might be the usage of the
name “White Croatia” corresponding to information about the Croats in the
bishopric of Prague. According to Živković, “white” means simply “northern”.
He suggested that the author Regnum Sclavorum had learnt about the Croats’
migration through tales popular in Bohemia and Poland.104
The use of the term Alamani in reference to Germans indicated, according
to Živković, that the chronicler belonged neither to the Italic nor the Byzantine
literary circles.105 Živković pointed to the use of this name in Poland by Gallus
Anonymus, called by him “Martin Gallus”, in accordance with the older tradi-
tion. Živković found no contradictions in his argument, although the identity
of “Gallus” is also a subject of dispute, and an Italian origin cannot be ruled
out.106 Also, some geographical references in the part of Regnum Sclavorum
focusing on the Goths may indicate, according to Živković, that its author
by shouts and noises made by the king’s sparse troops) with the action of Oldřich, Duke
of Bohemia (who also ordered his people to use shouts and noises to cause panic among
the Poles who occupied Prague). Banašević believed that “horns” used by partisans of
Dobroslav and Oldřich, as well as the narrative scheme of both stories, were taken from the
Latin translation of the biblical Book of Judges, including the story of Gideon, who man-
aged to defeat the Midianites with only three hundred companions, introducing panic
among the enemies by means of trumpets and noise: Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina
a narodna predanja, pp. 239–241; Ljetopis, pp. 89–90; Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum cum
Continuatoribus, chapter 36, ed. Josef Emler, Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 2 (Prague,
1874), pp. 52–53; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, trans. and ed. Maria Wojciechowska (Warsaw,
1968), p. 37.
106 Paradoxically, according to the concept of Tomasz Jasiński, Gallus Anonymus – identified
by Jasiński as a historian known as Monachus Littorensis (a monk of Lido) – not only
knew Venice, but perhaps was also well-oriented in Dalmatian issues. Jasiński claimed
that the chronicler could have known Old Croatian, and that certain rhetorical phrases or
toponyms used in his work indicate that he belonged to the Adriatic writing milieu. For
example, he used the term “ad urbem regiam et egregiam, Albam nomine” (Galli Anonymi
Cronica et Gesta ducum sive pricipum Polonorum, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH nova series
vol. 4 (Krakow, 1952), p. 89) while referring to Bialogard, and that may prove his associa-
tions with Biograd na Moru – the city where Croatian rulers were enthroned, see: Tomasz
Jasiński, O pochodzeniu Galla Anonima (Krakow, 2008), pp. 83–106. This thesis, however,
was refuted by Banaszkiewicz in his article on the popularity of similar toponyms refer-
ring to symbolic capitals of various Slavic ethnic groups: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Jedność
porządku przestrzennego, społecznego i tradycji początków ludu (uwagi o urządzeniu
wspólnoty plemienno-państwowej u Słowian),” Przegląd Historyczny, 77 (1986), no. 3,
pp. 463–464.
38 Chapter 2
either knew the territorial framework of Sclavonia given by Gallus,107 or relied

on Thomas the Archdeacon of Split.108
As mentioned earlier, Mijušković claimed that Regnum Sclavorum was writ-
ten during the reign of the Balšić family. Živković rejected this idea109 and sug-
gested another patron of the work: Paul (Pavao) I Šubić of Bribir, who had been
a ban of Croatia since 1274 (and the “Lord of all of Bosnia” since the start of the
fourteenth century) until his death in 1312.110 During the competition between
the Árpáds and the Angevins for the Crown of Saint Stephen, Šubić extended
his power to almost the whole of Croatia, but Hungarian influence was still
strong enough to effectively prevent him from becoming Croatian king. In the
context of the borders of the Kingdom of the Slavs known to The Chronicle,
Živković recalled the address by Šubić to the inhabitants of Ragusa during
preparations for the attack on Kotor: he was to say that his goal was to conquer
Duklja (Zeta) first and then all of Raška.111
Although Živković called his method “indirect argumentation”, he was
convinced that Šubić and Charles Robert – future king of Hungary, the first
of the Angevins on this throne – made promises of mutual support in their
secretly exchanged letters: for Šubić abandoning the Árpáds’ case, Charles
Robert pledged himself to back his plans of seizing the throne of the Nemanjić
dynasty. Claims of this type were not without foundation, because Šubić was
the son-in-law of Serbian King Dragutin, having married his daughter, tradi-
tionally called Ursa, or Ursula.112 Taking control over Bosnia and Zachlumia, as
well as the plans for the conquest of Duklja and Raška, would require ideologi-
cal support provided by the narrative about the history of the vast Kingdom of
the Slavs.
Živković took a different approach and suggested that the person asked to
write the chronicle was a foreigner, a Cistercian, and a Slav by origin. Although
works of this kind were usually carried out by Benedictine monks, Živković
ruled out this option, for according to him, the chronicler did not use classical

110 The issue of the circumstances of making The Chronicle was settled in a different way
by Aleksandar Radoman, who recently proposed considering Radoslav of Duklja, mid-
twelfth-century prince, as a source of inspiration for writing the text. The problem
with this hypothesis is that for the life and activities of this ruler, The Chronicle remains
the basic source. See: Aleksandar Radoman, “Ko je naručilac Dukljaninova Kraljestva
Slovena?,” Matica: Časopis za društvena pitanja, science and culture 65 (2016), pp. 163–178.
111 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, p. 395; Živković, Gesta regum, p. 341.
works that “to which the Benedictines referred”.113 Such argumentation would
require supplementation, especially in the context of a very long list of titles,
knowledge of which was, according to Živković, evident in the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum. Živković divided the hypothetical sources into three parts:
(1) texts quoted by the author from memory, (2) works he had at his disposal,
and finally (3) oral transmission messages woven by him into the narrative.
The list of titles is diverse and often surprising. For example: even if Živković
managed to show some narrative similarities between Regnum Sclavorum
and Gesta regum Anglorum, he did it by means of a juxtaposition of motifs
and structure typical to literary studies, rather than by means of actual filial
relationships.114
Among the sources available to the author of Regnum Sclavorum, Živković
lists a range of texts: records of Hungarian kings issued between the eleventh
and thirteenth centuries, charters of Byzantine emperors to the city of Split
from this period, contracts between Split and Serbian rulers, and the life of
St. Benedict. In our opinion, however, there is no textual evidence that any of
the mentioned sources were directly used in Regnum Sclavorum.
Živković identified the author of Regnum Sclavorum very precisely. In his
opinion it was Rudger, Archbishop of Bar between 1298 and 1301, a Cistercian
monk, probably of Czech origin. Živković traced his journey from Osek, Žďár
and Sedlec, through northern Italy, where he allegedly stayed in the 1260s
and 1270s, and finally the chapter of the diocese of Split, where a man named
Rudger was mentioned as procuratoribus capituli in a document from May 24,
1294. Živković even believed that the first letter in the prologue of Regnum
Sclavorum – “R”, at the beginning of the word rogatus – hid the author’s initial.
Živković’s conclusions seem to go too far,115 and he was probably aware of this
when he summarized his hypothesis (and indirectly the state of our knowl-
edge about the author of Regnum Sclavorum) as follows: “in any case, Rudger
would fit much more [to the profile of the chronicler] than Gregory the Bishop
of Bar, indicated so far by the historians”.116

115 One of the reviews in its title uses even the phrase “historical hoax”: Aleksandar Radoman,
“‘Gesta regum Sclavorum’. Nova istorijska mistifikacija,” Matica crnogorska Proleće
[Spring] 2013, pp. 103–124.
116 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 365; Radoman, “‘Gesta regum Sclavorum’. Nova istorijska mis-
tifikacija,” p. 365. See also: Angeliki Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias.
Eisagogí, Metáfrasi, Istorikós Scholiasmós, Prósopa, Chóros [Το Χρονικό του Ιερέα της Διόκλειας,
Εισαγωγή, Μετάφραση, Ιστορικός Σχολιασμός, Πρόσωπα, Χώρος] (Athens, 2012), pp. 12–23.
40 Chapter 2
5 Regnum Sclavorum as a Forgery Made by Orbini
Disputes over the origins of the chronicle inspired Solange Bujan to present
a thesis that Regnum Sclavorum is a forgery created by Orbini.117 She claimed
that it was based on original Latin texts, such as the anonymous Annales
Ragusini, dated by her (after Vinko Foretić) back to the fourteenth century,118
and a genealogy of Croatian and Dalmatian kings, called – erroneously, in her
opinion – the Croatian text of The Chronicle. Orbini, and earlier also Tuberon,
probably knew the Croatian version in the Latin translation by Marulić,119
which, as Bujan argued, had quickly gained popularity, fitting perfectly into
the assumptions of the early Illyrian revival in Dalmatia.120 Information taken
from Annales Ragusini and Marulić’s translation were, according to her, the
foundation of the first part of the forgery.
According to Bujan, the second part of the narrative (following the death
of Pavlimir Bello) and some changes in the first part were the original work of
Orbini, who – using Benedictine literature related to the monastery in Monte
Cassino (Paul the Deacon, Gregory the Great), Byzantine chronicles (includ-
ing Nicephorus Gregoras, Niketas Choniates, Ioannes Skylitzes, Georgios
Kedrenos) and the tradition existing in southern Dalmatia (on the subject of
St. Vladimir) – wrote a work describing the persistence of the idea of a com-
mon Slavonic identity under the authority of Byzantium. As far as the attitude
is concerned, the piece was related to the emerging movement of the Illyrian
revival, and was aimed against the threat presented by Ottoman Turkey.
The concepts presented by Bujan are interesting, yet also radical. Although
her idea is generally consistent with the thesis that The Chronicle was supple-
mented with insertions in Ragusa, Bujan omitted some important issues: she
ignored the origin of the Slavonic genealogy translated by Marulić; she did not
117 Solange Bujan, “La ‘Chronique du prêtre de Dioclée’. Un faux document historique,”
Reveue des études Byzantines vol. 66 (2008), no. 1, pp. 5–38; eadem, “Orbinijevo izdanje
‘Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina’: povijesni falsifikat,” Radovi – Zavod za hrvatsku povijest 43
(2011), pp. 65–80. For the critical review of the hypothesis: Angeliki Papageorgiou, To
Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 15–16.
118 Vinko Foretić, Studije i rasprave o hrvatskoj povijesti (Split, 2001), p. 172, quoted after:
Bujan, “La ‘Chronique du prêtre de Dioclée’,” p. 13, footnote 16.
119 Similarity between the works of Marulić and Tuberon led Rattkay in the mid-seventeenth
century mistakenly to attribute the authorship of Marulić’s translation to Tuberon,
quoted after: Bujan, “La ‘Chronique du prêtre de Dioclée’,” pp. 10–12.
120 For example, the translation of Marulić was copied by one of the “fathers” of Croatian
national history, Dinko Zavorović from Šibenik, as early as in the second half of the six-
teenth century. See: Iva Kurelac, “‘Regum Dalmatiae et Croatiae gesta’ Marka Marulića u
djelu ‘De rebus Dalmaticis’ Dinka Zavorovića,” Colloquia Maruliana 20 (2011), pp. 301–320.
explain the traces of translation in it; she did not mention the excerpts from
the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo which would indicate familiarity with a text
very similar to fragments of the Latin version of The Chronicle; and – last but
not least – she did not respond to the findings of the philologists, who paid
attention to the archaic features of the language of Regnum Sclavorum, espe-
cially the part dedicated to Vladimir.121
The last issue was recently discussed by Stefan Trajković-Filipović. After
analysing the story of King Vladimir, he agreed with Bujan and stated that
although the structure of the narrative bears the features of hagiography, it
is nevertheless very closely related to the whole of Regnum Sclavorum. The
linguistic layer and the use of characteristic motifs of the legends of the holy
kings were attributed to the dexterity of Orbini. Trajković-Filipović shared
Bujan’s conviction that the real author of the text was Orbini.122
The “forgery” hypothesis requires further development. Bujan managed to
show how weak the foundations of the historiographic convictions are con-
cerning the oldest local narrative source. In this way she initiated a new discus-
sion about the origin and the process of formation of Regnum Sclavorum.
6 Summary
Since the publication of the work by Šišić in 1928, many findings about the
place, time of creation and the authorship of the Latin version of The Chronicle
have been questioned; the controversies and ambiguities still prevail over
what is certain in this regard. Šišić usually explained inaccuracies of the text in
regard to the accepted thesis on the basis of numerous subsequent glosses and
insertions. However, even Mošin, who usually agreed with Šišić, considered
such explanations to be of little value.123
Regnum Sclavorum, in the available form, is on the one hand a well-thought-
out piece, composed as a whole and bearing a specific ideological load. On
the other hand, the extension of certain motifs and our knowledge of the tra-
ditions from which they originated often makes us incline to Medini’s claim
of a multi-layered construction, and we may actually encounter this both on
the linguistic layer and through ambiguous references to characters and events
121 Bujan referred to later hagiographies of the saint, but as we will show in Chapter 6 of this
work, they did not have much in common with the story included in Regnum Sclavorum.
122 Stefan Trajković-Filipović, “Inventing the Saint’s Life: Chapter XXXVI of ‘The Annals of
The Priest of Dioclea’,” Reveue des études Byzantines 73 (2013), pp. 259–276.
42 Chapter 2
known from other sources. Alternatively we may even be persuaded by the

concept of mystification, where the text is intentionally misleading readers of
The Chronicle.
Lucius, the first publisher of The Chronicle, did not consider it a work of
high historical value. Vatroslav Jagić also believed that The Chronicle holds “an
important place in the history of our literature, especially in folk song-writing,
yet as a literary monument rather than a historical source”.124 Mijušković
treated The Chronicle as a work of fiction and noticed that even Šišić tended
to write about the author of Regnum Sclavorum in this way.125 Franjo Rački
thought differently; he claimed that, at least in the latter parts, it was a good
supplement to the scant Latin and Byzantine sources concerning the kingdom
of Duklja.126
Whoever the Priest of Duklja was, his work does not show any ties to rich
oral creativity, as was suggested by Radojčić. In the 1960s, Banašević proved
that Regnum Sclavorum was not based on a cycle of epic songs.127 However,
the work participates in a number of traditions popular in various parts of
Dalmatia, and a look at the fictional images of the origins of the state and the
vision of continuity of power, allows us to explain what kind of traditions were
there, and what elements were adopted by the Priest of Duklja to fulfil his own
ideological message.
124 Vatroslav Jagić, Historija književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srpskoga, Knjiga prva: Staro doba
(Zagreb, 1867), p. 113.
126 Franjo Rački, “Ocjena starijih izvora za hrvatsku i srbsku poviest srednjeg vieka,” Književnik
1 (1864), pp. 548–557.
127 Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, pp. 10–12. Unlike Maja Kožić,
who considered The Chronicle (in our opinion exaggeratedly) the source of knowledge on
Croatian folk culture: Maja Kožić, “Ljetopis popa Dukljanina – jedno od temeljnih djela
za izučavanje zametaka etnološkog zamišljanja u Hrvata,” Studia Ethnologica 1 (1989),
pp. 195–199.
Chapter 3
The Rulers of the Goths, and the Image of the

Origins of the Kingdom of the Slavs
1 Introduction
The questions that will be posed in the first substantive chapter of this book
are: who exactly were the Goth chieftains in Regnum Sclavorum, and why did
the anonymous author of this work consider it important to start his narrative
with them? The Goths appear in all surviving versions of The Chronicle. In each
of them they were linked with the starting point of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
The Gothic leaders also apparently became the first rulers of this kingdom
and the founders of the dynasty, which later became a Slavonic dynasty. The
author of Regnum Sclavorum – the Latin version of The Chronicle – at one
point used the name “Slavs” when referring to the Goths – making the already
vague interrelation even more confused.
We will look at the Gothic chieftains in the Latin version of The Chronicle to
interpret the meaning of the text, which mentioned the leaders of the barbar-
ians, the rulers of the earliest days of the Kingdom of the Slavs. We will also
trace in the text the functions that were performed by the first rulers of the
community described by the anonymous author, and discuss which model of
exercising power would be most like their methods. We will strive to solve this
problem in the following way: first, we will present an image of the Gothic
kings and their characteristics in Regnum Sclavorum. Then we will refer to two
additional sources from the High Middle Ages which mention the Goths and
their rulers in Dalmatia and Croatia, namely:
– the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, known as The
Croatian Chronicle;
– the work Historia Salonitana by Thomas the Archdeacon.
On the basis of this comparison we will aim to capture the character of the
power of the Gothic kings as reported in Regnum Sclavorum, and consider
the nature of the state founded by them. This will be examined in the context
of the narrative of the work, as well as within the tradition of the early days
of a new way of organizing the community that might have existed near the
Adriatic coast. The broader background will be provided by a legend of the
origin of the Slavs, found in the Regnum Sclavorum but also shared with several
other sources from the High and Late Middle Ages.

44 Chapter 3
2 The Kings of the Goths as Pagan Kings: the List of Gothic Rulers
and Their Characteristics in the Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum
The list of Gothic kings in Regnum Sclavorum starts with King Senulad [Svevlad]
and his three sons: Brus, Totila and Ostroil.1 The latter two will be particularly
important to us: both of them, having left power over their native territories to
Brus, the eldest brother, set off with their people to the south to begin a series
of events that would lead to the formation of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
Who is the last on the list of the Gothic kings? This question can be
answered in three ways. (1) In one interpretation, four anonymous rulers fin-
ish the list. As the author of The Chronicle explained, they were evil kings who
persecuted the Christians. (2) Some consider Svetomir, who finally ended the
persecution of the Christians in the area subordinated to him, to be the last
ruler of the Goths. (3) According to other scholars, the list is seen to be closed
by Svetopelek, who founded the Christian Kingdom of the Slavs and thus,
by the act of a second foundation, finished the Gothic period of its history.2
This second option seems the most accurate. The reign of four anony-
mous rulers did not mean that there would have been any change in the way
power was exercised, whereas Svetopelek was too important a ruler, and his
achievements already belonged to a quite different order within the narrative
of Regnum Sclavorum.3 Svetomir, Svetopelek’s father, the leader said to have
established religious peace – permanently, not just temporarily as did some of
his Gothic predecessors – despite being a pagan himself, was, in our opinion,
the last ruler bearing “Gothic” features, at least, as we shall see below, in the
Latin text of The Chronicle.
A complete list of Gothic kings in Regnum Sclavorum would thus be pre-
sented as follows. Senulad, the progenitor, and his first-born Brus, both situated
beyond the framework of the history of the kingdom; then, Senulad’s other two
sons, Totila and Ostroil; after them, Ostroil’s son, Senulad [II], followed by the
subsequent rulers Selimir, Bladin, Ratomir, and four nameless “evil kings” of
unclear filiation in direct lineage; and the last, already mentioned, Svetomir.
1 The reconstructed form “Svevlad” is most often used, though it differs from the one appear-
ing in the Vatican manuscript: Senulad. The name of the king’s son in the Vatican manuscript
is written as “Ostroyllus”, but we decided to omit the Latin suffix.
2 Martin Homza drew attention to the characteristic anthroponyms of Svetopelek, his father
Svetomir and his son, Svetolik, forming a triad connected by the core “svęt” (holy), distin-
guishing their names from the names of earlier, typically “Gothic”, rulers: Martin Homza,
“Sémantická potencia osobného vlastného (rodného) mena Svätopluk, ako východisko svä-
toplukovskej legendy,” in idem et al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve. Štúdie z dejín sväto-
plukovskej legendy (Bratislava, 2013), pp. 42–46.
3 The model of ruler-founder of the kingdom connected with this figure will be discussed
in the next chapter of the present work. The biographies of all personae described in The
Chronicle: Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 169–242.
Rulers of the Goths, and the Image of the Origins 45
Within this group there is also the possibility of further classification of the
Gothic rulers in accordance with their function in the narrative. Senulad and
Brus are clearly distinguished as being connected solely with the Urheimat of
the Goths. The second group would include Totila and Ostroil, the chieftains
and conquerors leading the people to the new lands. The remaining Gothic rul-
ers belonged to the regular list of monarchs of the Kingdom of the Slavs in The
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, but they were pagans and this fact influenced
the description of their rule.
Information given by the author of The Chronicle is by no means exhaus-
tive. The narrative is mostly limited to two chieftains – Totila and Ostroil –
and their conquests. Much less can be learnt about the other rulers. It would
seem that this scantiness hides a certain mechanism of description which is
worth discussing. Each of the pagan kings ruling after the invasion period had
a special feature, closely related to the relationship between the ruler and the
Christians living in his lands. There is a clear division into two groups of rul-
ers: the good ones – their rule was a period of peace – and the evil ones, who
forced the Christians to seek shelter either in coastal cities or in the mountains
or other guarded places. The author of The Chronicle was well-disposed toward
the pagan rulers he described, provided they were able to ensure a peaceful
existence for the Christians in their country.
A similar two-fold division of Gothic rulers present in Regnum Sclavorum,
however, did not include either Senulad or any of his sons. Totila and Ostroil,
the first chieftains of the Goths who encountered the Christians, treated them
quite violently, but this did not become a determinant of their evaluation.
Noting that the scheme does not include Senulad and his offspring, we can,
following the anonymous author of The Chronicle, divide the pagan kings into
two groups:
Table 1 Rulers and their attitudes to Christians
The rulers hostile to Christians The rulers tolerating Christians
Senulad [II]: Multasque iniquitates et

persecutiones facjendo christianis, qui In
civitatibus maritimis habitant […]a
(Having committed many harms and evils to
the Christians living in the coastal cities, he
died in the twelfth year of his reign)
a Ljetopis, p. 44.
46 Chapter 3
Table 1 Rulers and their attitudes to Christians (cont.)
The rulers hostile to Christians The rulers tolerating Christians
Selimir: qui quamvis paganus et gentili, tamen

cum omnibus pacificus fuit et dilexit omnes
christianos et minime persecutus est eos.b
(who, despite being a pagan and barbarian,
kept peace with everyone and loved all
Christians, without persecuting them)
Bladin: in via patris ambulavit et possedit

regnum patrum quorum cum pace.c
(followed in the footsteps of his father and kept
the kingdom of his ancestors in peace)
Ratomir: qui inimicus nominis Christiani extit

a pueritia, caepitque ultra modum persequi
Christianom voluitque celere de terra et de
regno nomen forum, multas quoque civitates
eorum et loca destruxit et alias In servitutem
redigens reseravitd
(who was the enemy of the Christian name. He
began a fervent persecution of the Christians,
wishing to eradicate their name from the face
of the earth and from his kingdom. He
destroyed lots of their cities and settlements,
and took the opportunity to enslave them)
Four evil kings: quorum temporibus semper In

persecution fuerunt christiani. Et quia inimici
et persecutores christianorum [erant]e
(during their time the Christians were still
oppressed. And they [were] the oppressors and
persecutors of the Christians)
Svetomir: qui accepto regno destitit christianos

persequif
(who, after taking over the kingdom, stopped
persecuting the Christians)
b Ljetopis, p. 44.
c Ljetopis, p. 44.
d Ljetopis, p. 46.
e Ljetopis, p. 47.
f Ljetopis, p. 47.
Such laconic references were usually the only information about the pagan
kings. The Priest of Duklja wove two events important for the further history of
the Kingdom of the Slavs into the description of their reigns:
– The story of Bladin’s reign was supplemented with a digression about the
arrival of the Bulgarians. Making peace with the Bulgarians was, in fact, the
most important decision by Bladin.
– The story of Svetomir was supplemented with information about the apos-
tolic activity of Constantine (St. Cyril) which is bound with the story of the
baptism and introduction of legal order of the kingdom by Svetopelek.
Both of these threads were digressive and they do not enrich our knowledge
of the pagan rulers themselves. The author of Regnum Sclavorum tried to be
as concise as possible in his description of them. He justified his intentions,
when writing about the four evil kings, and summarized their rule with an
explanation: “Et quia inimici et persecutores christianorum [erant], longum
duximus narrare forum iniquos actus et vitam, quoniam ad meliora et delecta-
bilora tendere festinamus”.4 (These rulers were the oppressors and persecutors
of the Christians, and we think that telling stories of their evil deeds and life
would be tiring, especially because we want to move quickly to much more
pleasant events).
Rhetorical formulations of this kind were an inseparable element of medi-
eval writing. We can quote the recapitulation of the history of pagan Poland
in Gesta principum Polonorum (The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles), the work
of the so-called Gallus Anonymus: “But let us pass over the story of the deeds
of men stained by error and idolatry, lost to memory in the oblivion of ages,
and turn to recount those whose memory has been preserved by faithful
memory”.5 The same formula allowed the Priest of Duklja to mention the twi-
light of the Gothic rule, and by introducing the figure of Svetomir and – linked
with him – the digressive description of the activity of Constantine (St. Cyril),
to prepare the ground for events associated with Svetopelek.
The fact that an anonymous author of The Chronicle could include the char-
acterization of the Gothic rulers as another distinctive element can be deduced
from some further information he left about them. Descriptions of two of the
three cases of positively-evaluated pagan rulers also include references to
the Slavs. References to the Slavs are not confined to Svetomir, although this
ruler, as the father of Svetopelek, represents a different model of an (almost)
4 Ljetopis, p. 47.
5 Gesta Prinicipum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, translated. and ed.
Paul W. Knoll, Frank Schaer (Budapest/New York, 2003), p. 25; Latin: “Sed istorum gesta, quo-
rum memoriam oblivio vetustatis abolevit et quos error et ydolatria defedavit, memorare
negligamus et ad ea recitanda, que fidelis recordatio meminit, istos succincte nominando
transeamus”, ibidem, p. 24.
48 Chapter 3
Christian king. It was probably not a coincidence. The two positively-evaluated

non-Christian kings were in one way or another associated with the Slavs, and
thus they had stronger and more direct bonds with the continuing history of
the kingdom than did the other pagan rulers.
The Slavs appeared in the Latin version of The Chronicle for the first time in
a passage devoted to Selimir. The king, although a barbarian and a pagan, did
not enter into conflict with the Christians. This description is accompanied
by information that “replevit [terram] multitudine Sclavorum” (he settled [the
land] with a multitude of Slavs). The mention of the Slavs was therefore some-
what episodic. We do not know whether the anonymous author regarded these
Slavs as Christians or pagans, or what their attitude towards the Goths was. It
is possible, however, that this seemingly passing remark was very important
to complete the image of the king’s reign. The positive assessment of Selimir’s
reign can be attributed to the fact that he settled the Slavs in his realm and his
gentle approach to the Christian inhabitants of the country.
The same applies to his successor, Bladin, another pagan ruler who was
friendly to the Christians. His greatest achievement was to maintain the peace
that his father brought to the kingdom. We also learn that he made a pact with
the Bulgarians, which was – according to the anonymous author of Regnum
Sclavorum – a consequence of some particular predispositions: “Caeperuntue
se utrique populi valde inter se diligere, id est Gothi qui et Sclavi, et Vulgari, et
maxime quod ambo populi gentiles essent et una lingua esset omnibus”6 (Both
nations – that is the Goths, who were the Slavs, and the Bulgarians – began to
love each other because they were pagans and had a common language). The
expression “Gothi qui et Sclavi” continues to cause many interpretative prob-
lems. In this passage the Slavs were called pagans. Their language was close to
Bulgarian. Undoubtedly, the Priest of Duklja had quite detailed knowledge of
the Bulgarians and their customs, but the picture of mutual love of pagans was
an expression of a stereotypical conviction about the similarity of all barbar-
ians outside Christendom.
3 Totila and Ostroil: Two Chieftains of the Goths, and the Vision
of the Conquest of Dalmatia
The two sons of Senulad – Totila and Ostroil – remained outside the scheme
of a pagan ruler. Although unambiguously hostile towards the Christians, they
defied simple categorization. The anonymous author of The Chronicle did not
6 Ljetopis, p. 46.
call them kings. Once only he described them as principes, when he mentioned
that they were sons of King Senulad ( filii regis Senuladi). The Priest of Duklja
saw the brothers as the chieftains of the Goths, and, in a sense, executors of
the divine plan, which included the defeat of the Christians in Dalmatia. When
Totila and Ostroil came to the lands given the enigmatic name “Templana” by
the author of The Chronicle, the narrative pairs them with two local oppo-
nents, the kings of Istria and the Dalmatians. The Goths defeated them in
bloody battle, and they later continued with their conquests. Totila left the
lands that would later become part of the kingdom and led his people to Italy.7
Ostroil then ravaged the cities of Dalmatia and did not stop the conquests until
he was killed by the emperor’s people. Even then, the author of The Chronicle
was reluctant to use words associated with legitimate authority in references
to Ostroil.
In the Priest of Duklja’s narration, the role of the militant brothers was pri-
marily to destroy the existing structure. This enabled change in the political
geography of these lands, and in effect the foundation of the new kingdom.
Totila and Ostroil were first and foremost a model of militant chieftains lead-
ing their people to new territories. The tale preserved in the work of the Priest
of Duklja bears features of the legend of the start of the community. Moreover,
the anonymous author depicted the creation of the kingdom as an element of
historical necessity. We read in The Chronicle:
Regnate in urbe Constantopolitana imperatore Anastasio, quie se et alios

multos Eutychiana haeresi maculaverat, Romae vero praesiente Gelasio
papa, eo tempore praeclaruerunt [multa sanctitate8] in Italia Germanus
episcopus et Sabinus Canusinae sedis episcopus atque venerabilis vir
Benedictus apud Cassinum montem, exit quoque gens septentrionali a
plaga, quae Gothi nominabantur, gens ferox et indomita, cui errant tres
fraters principes, filii regis Senuladi, quorum nomina sunt haec: primus
Brus, secundus Totila, tertius vero Ostroyllus.9
7 It is not clear why the name of Totila – an important, yet not the most famous of historical
chieftains of the Goths – entered the circle of Dalmatian tradition. His political activities,
in the first place “opening” the Goth tribes to external communities, were probably insig-
nificant. On the historical figure of Totila, see: Herwig Wolfram, Historia Gotów (Warsaw /
Gdańsk, 2003), pp. 17, 344, 399–407; J. Strzelczyk, Goci – rzeczywistość i legenda (Warsaw,
1984), pp. 148–153. See also: Thomas S. Burns, A history of the Ostrogoths (Bloomington, 1984),
pp. 210–217; Peter Heather, The Goths (Oxford, 1988), p. 268.
8 Additions in brackets are the reconstructions made by Šišić, and supported by the subse-
quent publishers of the text, in this case on the basis of Mauro Orbini’s translation.
9 Ljetopis, p. 40.
50 Chapter 3
(When Emperor Anastasius, who stained himself and many others with
Eutyches’s heresies, reigned in Constantinople, and Gelasius was the
Roman Pope, and at the same time Bishop Germanus, and Sabinus the
Bishop of Canosa, and the venerable man Benedict of Monte Cassino,
glorified [with great sanctity] in Italy, the nation known as the “Goths”
appeared from the north, a savage and untamed people, whose princes
were three brothers, the sons of a King Senulad and named as follows:
first Brus, second Totila, third Ostroil.)
Attempts to outline the chronological framework of this narrative did not

bring satisfactory results because of the very character of the story. The Priest
of Duklja tried to hide its mythical nature by giving it a certain historical foun-
dation, emphasizing the alleged credibility of the events described. Even a
cursory attempt to confront the information given in the work with our knowl-
edge of that period shows some inaccuracies. Anastasius ruled the Byzantine
Empire between 491 and 518, and Gelasius was the pope in Rome between 492
and 496. The lives of the saints mentioned in the text do not fully correspond
to this chronology: St. German became a bishop of Capua around 519, St. Sabin
a bishop of Canosa in 514, and Benedict settled in Monte Cassino around 529.10
From the very beginning, the Priest of Duklja weaved a motif of heresy into
the tale of the two brothers. In other parts of The Chronicle, heresy was used
to provide reasons for the Gothic invasion. The Goths were a kind of “scourge
of God” in his narrative, and the way he described them seems to confirm
this image. We learn that they were “savage and untamed”. Their chieftains –
Totila and Ostroil – had only one passion: war, yet the Priest of Duklja did not
consider them rulers in the strict sense of the word. According to the story,
they set out for the south at the urging and will of their oldest brother, Brus,
who took power in the northern country after Senulad’s death. The author of
The Chronicle mentioned one more motivation of the younger brothers: “sibi
magnum nomen facerent”11 ([they] wished to make their names famous). He
probably referred to this wish in the passage about Ostroil’s death, defining
the Gothic chieftain as “vir forti animo”12 (a man of strong spirit). Despite
the rapacious forays by Totila and Ostroil and the harm they did to the
Christians, the Priest of Duklja somehow justifies both of the invaders. In his
eyes they were an embodiment of the laws of nature, and the military skill and
strength they personified mitigated their evaluation. The subsequent rulers
10 Šišić, Letopis, p. 421; Živković, Gesta Regum, p. 72.

11 Ljetopis, p. 41.
12 Ljetopis, p. 43.
descended from Ostoril were judged on the basis of their attitude towards
Christians. The first two leaders elude this perception. As executors of God’s
plan, as well as great warriors, they were treated differently in the narrative.
The conflict between the pagans and the Christians – though reduced here
to the fight between the Christian kings and the Gothic chieftains – was not
presented as a clash of two unambiguously nominated elements:
Tunc rex Dalmatinorum qui in civitate magna et admirabili Salona

manebat, misit nuncios et litteras ad regem Istriae provinciae, ut con-
gregaret exercitum, quatenus insimul exirent eis obviam et defenderent
se. Igitur ambo congregantes exercitum gentis suae exierunt obviam
Gothis, venientes itaque castrametati sunt iuxta eos; tunc per spatium
octo dierum quia prope erant castra ad castra, hinc inde armati proce-
dentes per partes graviter se vulnerabant, ac trucidabant. Octavo vero die
omnes hinc inde hristiani, et gentiles, armati exierunt, et commissum est
magnum proelium ab hora diei tertia, usque ad vesperam, et Dei iudicio,
cui nemo audet dicere, cur ita faciat, quia forte aliquod magnum pec-
catum latebat in Christianis, victoriam Gothi crudeles habuerunt, ceci-
ditque pars Christianorum et interfectus est rex Istriae, et multa milia
hominum Christianorum in ore gladii mortua sunt et plurima captiva
ducta sunt. Evasit autem rex. Dalmatinorum cum valde paucis militibus,
et aufugit in civitatem suam Salonam.13
(Then the king of the Dalmatians, who stayed in beautiful and admirable
Salona, sent envoys with letters to the king of the province of Istria to
gather the army and jointly oppose the invader. So both gathered their
troops, and headed against the Goths. After their arrival at that place, they
camped near to them. Then, within eight days, and because the camps
were close to each other, the warriors, coming from everywhere, were
hurting each other and killing each other. On the eighth day all the war-
riors of both sides, the Christians and the pagans, went forth and fought
a great battle, which lasted from mid-morning to before sunset. And by
God’s will, which no one dares to ask why this is so, the cruel Goths won,
perhaps because some great evil was hidden among the Christians. And
the king of Istria was murdered, and many thousands of Christians were
killed by the sword, and many were abducted as prisoners. The king of
the Dalmatians, with a handful of warriors, fled to the city of Salona.)

52 Chapter 3
The Priest of Duklja, describing the defeat of the Christians, seemed to jus-
tify the actions of the Goths. He even writes that “great sin was hidden among
the Christians”.14 In this way he combined two motifs that were present in his
narrative from the beginning: the Gothic conquests, and the thread of sin in
the Christians which led to the fall of their kingdoms. Although the author
does not specify it, we can guess that the “sin” mentioned by him is the heresy
of Eutyches.
The Gothic chieftains did not exercise their power arbitrarily. The three
brothers had consulted with each other earlier, just after their father’s death,
and decided on the expedition to the south. The same happened after the vic-
tory over the two Christian kings. The Priest of Duklja wrote about the coun-
cil attended not only by the brothers, but also by the magnates offering their
advice: “Post haec quia magnus erat exercitus Totillae et Ostroyili fratris eius,
et populus ei[s] accreverat multus, consilio initio cum suis magnatibus divise-
runt exercitum”15 (After this, because the army of Totila and his brother Ostroil
was sizeable and their nation multiplied, following the council with their mag-
nates they split the army). As we can see, the next division among the broth-
ers was preceded by an insightful council, in which others besides Totila and
Ostroil were involved.
Totila’s future and his conquests in Italy are a side thread, yet the Priest of
Duklja finishes it with another reference to St. Benedict of Nursia, predict-
ing the death of the barbarian chieftain. This device made his narrative more
coherent.16
The process of establishment and integration of the kingdom began far
beyond its borders. In the narrative of The Chronicle, Totila and Ostroil were
more like chieftains and conquerors than rulers of subordinate territories. It
was Senulad (Svevlad) [II] – Ostroil’s son – who began proper rule over the
lands conquered by the Goths. The Priest of Duklja noted that after the death
of his father, Senulad [II], “cepit regnum et regnavit in loco patris” (took over
the kingdom and reigned in place of the father). The chronicler for the first
time also defined the boundaries of the land subordinated to the rulers of
the country described: “Fuerunt autem regni eius fines de Valdevino usque ad
14 “magnum peccatum latebat in Christianis”.

15 Ljetopis, p. 42.
16 This prophecy of St. Benedict of Nursia was mentioned for the first time by Gregory the
Great, Dialogi, 2. 14–15, trans. Anna Świderkówna (Krakow, 2000), pp. 157–158. Wolfram
speculated that this tradition could result from a real conversation between Benedict and
the chieftain of the Goths, although he thought that Gregory’s version had been so heavily
modified that the real causes of the possible meeting were hard to determine, see: Herwig
Wolfram, Historia Gotów, pp. 399–407.
Poloniam” (The borders of his kingdom stretched from Valdevino to Polonia),

and these places are interpreted today as Vinodol and Apolonia, although the
possibility is not excluded that they are a trace of some distorted older legend
of another place, such as Templana, to which the Goths came before the inva-
sion, and which was interpreted by Šišić as Teutonia.17
The name of Senulad [II] did not appear in this place by accident. Using
it, the Priest of Duklja could emphasize the continuity of the dynastic tradi-
tions transferred to the south by the two brothers. Senulad [I] and Senulad [II]
would therefore be proper kings, the former as the ruler of a certain country
in the north, and the latter the monarch of the kingdom established as a result
of the conquests of Totila and Ostroil. The two chieftains were supposed to
command rather than to reign, and therefore the description of their actions
went beyond the evaluation schemes applied to other pagan rulers in Regnum
Sclavorum by the anonymous author.
4 An Image of the Origins of the Kingdom of the Slavs in the Context

of Origines Gentium Legends
The problem of the source of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (and also of
the anonymous Croatian version of the same work) is still unresolved. We can
only speculate that an earlier tradition concerning the two most important
chieftains of the Goths – Totila and Ostroil – could have existed in the Adriatic
region before. Without sufficient information about the possible shape of this
tradition and contexts in which it could be created, we have only the text of
Regnum Sclavorum from which to extract as much information about the start
of the Kingdom of the Slavs and its first leaders. It is useful here to go over the
main points of this episode in the narrative.
The Gothic rulers were originators of the Kingdom of the Slavs. The Priest of
Duklja could have omitted from his narrative the story of the pagan kings and
chieftains, as well as that of the Goths in general – the “savage and untamed”
people, as he claimed – yet he decided not to do so. Therefore, we cannot
underestimate the meaning of this passage, which was the introduction to the
further tale. The first part of the work plays a primary role not only because
of the composition of the text and the entire literary intention of the author
of The Chronicle, but also because of the shape of his vision of history. The
17 Šišić, Letopis, pp. 422–423. Among different historical interpretations were also: terra
templorum – part of the diocese of Pécs, between Danube and Sava, or the area around
city of Scodra, see: Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, p. 349.
54 Chapter 3
vicissitudes of the Slavic kings were linked to the history of the conquest and
persecution of the Christians, but at the same time the Priest of Duklja inter-
preted the new political situation as a punishment for sins. Thus we can con-
clude that the change was in accordance with God’s plan.
Although we do not know when Regnum Sclavorum was actually writ-
ten, there is no doubt that in the High Middle Ages the issue of the origins
and sources of power played an important role in the narrative structures of
other historical works in which the start of a given story influenced its further
course. We can refer to Jacek Banaszkiewicz’s findings, who devoted a lot of
space to this problem in his deliberations.18 He claimed that the genesis of
peoples/nations, as well as the foundations of royal power, were determined
by a complex and comprehensive process. In medieval historiography this pro-
cess presented the image and characteristics of the ruler in such a manner
that they would fit into the context of the purpose of the history of the state
or community presented by the chronicler. Banaszkiewicz managed to cap-
ture these relationships most accurately when he analysed gesta of the rulers.
Information about the behaviour of particular heroes was often dependent on
the origin of these characters.
As Banaszkiewicz put it: “Even a cursory look at this concise model of the
development of everything that is earthly and transient shows that the end
heralds doom and decadence to the hero, no matter who he was, therefore it
must be at his birth that he is provided with his characteristic features allow-
ing him to exist for some (longer or shorter) time. In short, it was thought that
our future would be determined by who we were – who we became at the
beginning”.19 This sentence may shed light not only on the violent deaths of
Totila and Ostroil, but also on the vicissitudes of all the kings of the Goths who,
after the founding of the kingdom, remained pagans. The birth of the king-
dom was an unfinished image, therefore the period of the pagan rulers ended
with the baptism and coronation of Svetopelek, who completed the process of
establishing a new state, by simultaneous absorption of the actualized founda-
tions on which it had previously functioned.
The initial period of the kingdom was associated with the conquest by the
barbarian chieftains, and it passed smoothly into the transitional phase of good
and evil rulers. At that time the future fate of the realm was determined, for the
18 See: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Podanie o Piaście i Popielu. Studium porównawcze nad

wczesnośredniowiecznymi podaniami dynastycznymi (Warsaw, 2010); idem, “Jedność
porządku społecznego i początków tradycji ludu (Uwagi o urządzeniu wspólnoty
plemienno-państwowej u Słowian),” Przegląd Historyczny, 4 (1986), no. 77, pp. 445–456.
19 Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Podania o ‘Początku’,” in Dynastie Europy, ed. Antoni Mączak
(Wrocław, 2003), p. 17.
kings of the Goths alternately managed to bring about inner order in the state
or, to the contrary, they pushed it into a chaos of persecutions. The end of the
discrimination connected with Svetomir and the appearance of Constantine
(St. Cyril) determined the fate of the monarchy. The first stage of inception was
completed, and the second one started when the kingdom joined Christendom
and was recognized by the pope and the emperor.
The narrative about the Goths can be classified as one of numerous texts
on the formation of a community. It contains the motif origo gentis, which is
interesting to us because of the image of a ruler we find in it. The source of that
image might be crucial. As Herwig Wolfram noted: “Until the sixth century,
origines gentium were written exclusively from a ‘civilized’ position, referring
to ‘savages’ and ‘barbarians’”,20 and over time, “stories of brave people”21 (as
Wolfram calls them after Jordanes) would be more and more often composed
for the needs of local identification. Their shape was the result of the Christian
world view and an older narrative layer associated with ethnogenetic legend.
The Priest of Duklja claimed that he gained his knowledge from the myste-
rious work entitled Libellus Gothorum. If we really accepted that the passage
of Regnum Sclavorum was a translation of this work ex sclavonica littera, we
would have to look at the alleged translation of the Priest of Duklja as a frag-
ment of an older narrative with a different ideological layer. The identification
of the Goths and the Slavs could have a much more complex background.22
The Priest of Duklja, writing about “‘Libellus Gothorum’ qui latine ‘Sclavorum’
dicitur ‘regnum’”,23 for the first time proposed his own interpretation of both
terms, which were actually synonyms. It is worth noting that such an identifi-
cation appeared in the fragment concerning the Bulgarians. As was mentioned
by Šišić, in old Serbian literature the term “Goth” referred to the Bulgarians,24
but it is likely that the author of The Chronicle did not know this context,
because he consistently distinguished the Bulgarians from the Slavs/Goths,
although he also wrote about the similarities between the two groups.
20 Herwig Wolfram, “Razmatranja o ‘origo gentis’,” in Etnogeneza Hrvata, ed. Neven Budak
(Zagreb, 1995), p. 40.
21 Wolfram, “Razmatranja,” p. 41.
22 An interesting comment was offered in this context by Martin Homza, who drew attention
to the way in which the Hungarians called the Slavs (including Croats, but later mainly
Slovaks). The term theut / teut, and today’s Tóth (Slovak), is associated with the ethnonym
Teutoni (Teutones). According to Homza, the term was borrowed by Hungarians from the
Slavs, and it may be interpreted as a trace of the stay of Goths and Gepids in Pannonia.
Martin Homza, “Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície u Slovákov (čierna a biela
svätoplukovská legenda),” in idem et al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve, p. 83.
23 Ljetopis, p. 39.
56 Chapter 3
No “Book of the Goths” has been identified by the scholars. This has caused
problems with the interpretation of the Priest of Duklja’s statement, as well as
numerous disputes over what exactly was his source and in which language
and script it could have been written. The answer to this question is not with-
out significance for our considerations. If the source were identified, it could
reveal a great deal about the origin of the Gothic tradition in The Chronicle and
about interpretations of this tradition.
Are we able to find traces that could possibly be fragments of Libellus
Gothorum in the versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja we know
today? The chapters that are directly related to the Gothic kings who ruled
until the Synod in Dalma (often including the period of the synod) are usually
considered to be remnants of the “Book of the Goths”. Lubomír Havlík iden-
tified Libellus Gothorum as Liber Sclavorum and thought that the book was
written not only in the Old Slavonic language but also in Glagolitic script. He
regarded the Latin text as a translation of a hypothetical original Slavic version
which did not survive. In addition, he tried to identify the alleged basis of the
Latin translation with the books listed in the Croatian version in the passage
about Svetopelek’s synod as “knjige ke pri Hrvatih ostaše” (books kept by the
Croats).25 Another hypothesis was that Libellus Gothorum is nothing but a vari-
ant of the currently available Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja, sometimes called – particularly to emphasize its distinctive character –
The Croatian Chronicle (Hrvatska kronika).26 Ivan Mužić insisted on the accu-
racy of this interpretation until recently.27
In the medieval Balkans, the narrative linking the Gothic origo gentis with
the arrival of the Slavs had a richer tradition.28 We can find an identical story
in the Croatian version of The Chronicle, although a similar legend was also
25 Lubomir Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda (Podgorica, 2008), p. 76 [Czech

edition: Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská legenda (Praha, 1976), p. 4].
26 Savić Marković Štedimlija claimed that the same opinion was shared by Jelić in his lost
treatise titled Hrvatska Kronika – Libellus Gothorum, see: Štedimlija, Zagonetka popa
Dukljanina, p. 77.
27 Ivan Mužić, “Nastajanje hrvatskog naroda na Balkanu,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 3 (2008),
no. 35, pp. 20–21.
28 Denis Alimov, discussing this phenomenon, referred to the concept of ethnopoiesis,
introduced by Sigbjørn Sønnesyn. Alimov perceived “Adriatic Gothicism” as a form of cre-
ating a new image of ethnos and ideas about it, by adaptation of the existing motives and
addition of the new ones, actualizing the place of community in political and cultural
space. See: Denis E. Alimov, “Gotsko-Slavjanskoe korolestvo: reannesrednevekovyj Ilirik
v diskursivnom prostranstve etnopoezisa,” [Д. Е. Алимов “Готско-славянское королев-
ство: раннесредневековый Иллирик в дискурсивном пространстве этнопоэзиса”]
Vestnik Udmurtskovo Universiteta 4 (2017), no. 27, pp. 516–525.
known to Thomas the Archdeacon. Depending on the assumed date of com-

posing The Chronicle, either Thomas knew it directly, or – as Slavko Mijušković
speculated – the Priest of Duklja read Thomas’ report.29 There is also a third
view, which we have found the most convincing, that there was no direct con-
tact between the two narrations.
Seeing the Slavs as descendants of the Goths was named “Gothomania” by
some historians, and dissemination of this phenomenon may suggest that
such a presentation of the first rulers of the kingdom hides some mystery, and
that the “Gothomania” of the anonymous author of The Chronicle was not his
fantasy, but rather is linked with a certain context which we cannot identify.30
This fragment of the narrative in Regnum Sclavorum played a fairly ambiguous
function. Suggesting that the Slavs had originated from the courageous and val-
iant Goths, the people known from antiquity, enriched the genealogy of Slavic
kings and raised their prestige by referring to an ancient heritage. However,
the Priest of Duklja’s narrative reveals his ecclesial education: he used the for-
mulaic image of barbarians in his description of the Goths and often saw the
pagan kings in a negative light.
5 Rules of the Goths and Ethnogenetic Legends of the Slavs
Statements by medieval authors deriving the Slavs from the Gothic tribe can be
read in several different ways. There are various interpretations of a fragment
of Regnum Sclavorum, devoted to the Goths and their rulers, which depend on
the method adopted. One of the paradigms of this interpretation assumes that
this story was primarily a modified and updated legend of the origin of gens
which functioned among the Slavs even before their hypothetical journey, and
that it survived until the High Middle Ages. In this way it would be a variant
of not so much the narrative of origo gentis shaped in the High Middle Ages,
but rather of a much older myth about the origins of the community – to some
extent dating back to pre-Christian times.31
Such a proposal would assume an interpretation of the Priest of Duklja’s
story as being based on pre-existing narrative structures. His account of the
29 Mijušković, Ljetopis, p. 161, footnote 51.

30 See: Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 82–83, footnote 82.
31 Such proposals seemed to be suggested by Dušan Třeštík, Mytý kmene Čechů (7.–10. století).
Tři studie ke “Starým pověstem českým” (Prague, 2003), pp. 91–92, who noticed similarities
between the legends about Slavonic invasion of the Balkans in works of Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos, Thomas the Archdeacon and in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
Třeštík also found synonymic motifs in plots of ethnogenetic legends of the West Slavs.
58 Chapter 3
origins would be a literary implementation of some older indigenous legends

about the arrival of the Slavs (or one of the tribes: Croats or Serbs). Under the
terms of “literary implementation” we mean a certain change in traditional
threads, so that they fit into the vision chosen by a historian. Czesław Deptuła
called this phenomenon a “chronicle myth”.32 The Priest of Duklja’s work was
undoubtedly the product of Christian elitist culture, but it is possible that
some of its fragments may also contain older narrative layers.
According to this concept, in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative, Senulad and
his three sons would take on the role of older cultural heroes, and the initial
fragments of Regnum Sclavorum would contain remnants of earlier narratives
about the legendary ancestors. Totila and Ostroil would belong to the older
narrative scheme about the chieftains leading their people to new lands, in
which they did not necessarily appear under such names. In fact, the Priest of
Duklja referred to another legend related to the topos of wandering, in what
seems to be a much more primal form, when he wrote about the arrival of the
Bulgarians:
Praeterea regnante Bladino exiit inumerabilis multitudo populorum a

magno flumine Volga, a quo et nomen caeperunt; nam a Volga flumine
Vulgari usque in presentem diem vocantur. Hi cum uxoribus et filiis et
filiabus atque cum omni pecunia ac substantia magna nimis venerunt in
Sylloduxiam provinciam. Praeerat eis quidam nomine Kris, quem lingua
sua »cagan« appellabant, quod in lingua nostra resonat »imperator«, sub
quo erant VIIII principes, qui regnabant et iustificabant populum, quon-
iam multus erat nimis.33
(During the reign of Bladin, countless people came from behind the great
river Volga, from which they also took their name, for – from the Volga
River – they are still called Vulgars. With their wives, sons, daughters
and all their possessions and a large property they came to the province
of Sylloduxia. They were led by a certain Kris, whom they called “kha-
gan” in their language, which stands for “emperor” in our language; nine
princes34 were subordinated to him. They ruled and exercised jurisdic-
tion over the nation, because it was very numerous).
32 See: Deptuła, Galla Anonima mit genezy Polski, pp. 12–17.

33 Ljetopis, pp. 44–45. The Priest of Duklja repeats the popular yet erroneous etymology of
the endonym of Bulgars as originating from the Volga river, repeated also, among others,
by the interpolator of Chronica Poloniae maioris.
34 In the variant present in the Belgrade manuscript: “uarii principes”, or “various princes”.
See: Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 134, footnote 44. In the text printed by Lucius:
“VIII principes”, should be considered a mistake.
From a comparison of this narrative with the story of the Goths, we can con-
clude that the khagan Kris35 and the nine princes accompanying him played a
role similar to that of Senulad’s two sons.
Such narrative threads in relation to the area south of the Danube can be
found in older sources. In the mid-tenth century, Constantine Porphyrogennetos
recorded a similar legend regarding the migration of the Croats. In the thirtieth
chapter of De administando imperio, Porphyrogennetos (or one of the editors
of his work) noted that the Croats had arrived from the north to Dalmatia, con-
quered by the Avars. They were led by five brothers: Kloukas, Lobelos, Kosentzis,
Mouchlo and eponym Chrobatos, and two sisters Touga and Bouga.36 This nar-
rative has a lot of common points with the report by the Priest of Duklja on the
Bulgarians, and with his narrative about the Goths. The motif of wandering is
characteristic of origo gentis stories.37 What is more, with regard to the peoples
35 In the Croatian version: “who is named bare in their language”, translated by Marulić as
“Barris”. This is probably a reference to Boris I, the Bulgarian khan. See Ljetopis, p. 45,
footnote. 29. However Papageorgiou identified him as Asparuh: To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis
Diókeleias, pp. 199–200.
36 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, ch. 30, ed. Gyula Moravcsik,
trans. Romilly James Heald Jenkins (Washington, 1967), pp. 142–145. This chapter of the
work of Constantine Porphyrogennetos is still a subject of controversy, for it includes
information sometimes inconsistent with other fragments of the same work dedicated to
the Slavs (chapters 29–36). Moreover, chapter 30 presents characteristics of a complete
and distinct narrative. According to Živković, this part was written by the emperor him-
self, while other “Slavic” chapters were transcribed from another source which has not
survived: Tibor Živković, De conversione Croatorum et Serborum. A Lost Source (Belgrade,
2012), pp. 30–42. Mladen Ančić, in contrast, described chapters 29–36 of De administ-
rando imperio (according to modern editions of the work) as “a Dalmatian dossier”. He
considered chapters 31–36 to be complete, and the oldest part of the text, chapter 29,
would be its “editorial” commentary, while chapter 30 represents (again) separate and the
youngest fragment about Dalmatia: Mladen Ančić, “Zamišljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okol-
nosti postanka 30. glave djela ‘De administrando imperio’,” Radovi – Zavod za hrvatsku
povijest 42 (2010), pp. 133–151.
37 The topos of a cultural hero leading his people to new lands was described by Jacek
Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajeczne mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka (Wrocław, 2002),
pp. 7–43. Banaszkiewicz compared three figures known from the “legendary” history of
Poland, Bohemia and Ruthenia, trying to find in them a common substrate, specific to
Slavic (or, broader: Indo-European) ethnogenetic legend. Polish Krak, Czech Krok and
Ruthenian Kyi was accompanied by Kloukas, one of the alleged progenitors of Croats,
mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogennetos. Banaszkiewicz, however, considered
Kloukas a figure of “ethnogenetic legend of Serbs” (p. 42), and chose only one of pos-
sible etymologies of his name (cf. Tadeusz Lewicki, Klukas, in Słownik Starożytności
Słowiańskich, vol. 2, p. 426 [later abbreviated as: SSS]). The very structure of the legend
of seven siblings written by Constantine Porphyrogennetos differs from the scheme of
other legends in the Banaszkiewicz’s list. Another valuable analysis of motifs of legendary
Slavic forefathers was made by Třeštík, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 57–78.
60 Chapter 3
living in the medieval Balkans and around the Danube, the motif of wandering
brothers seems to be typical not only of the Slavs but also – as is shown by the
example of the Bulgarians – of societies belonging to another language family
and probably originating from groups of nomads.38
For this reason, narrowing the area of comparison to Slavonic legends seems
risky. However, Dušan Třeštik showed that it can also lead to interesting con-
clusions. Analysing the narratives about the origins of the Slavs – including
those about the arrival of the Southern Slavs to the Balkans – he tried to con-
duct a comparative study referring to the concept of a common cultural sub-
strate of Indo-Europeans. However, he could not ignore controversies related
to Constantine Porphyrogennetos’ record, because in the case of the Croats, we
cannot be sure to which language group they originally belonged.39 Therefore,
we do not know whether the legend of their arrival in such a shape belongs to
the cultural world of the Indo-Europeans, or rather is closer to the imagina-
tions of the Turkic people, as is indicated by the names of the Croatian heroes.
Scholars cannot indisputably classify their etymologies, although there are
many indications that they could have been of Turkic origin.40 If we decided
38 The legend of seven siblings can be compared to the ethnogenetic legend of Turkic
Proto-Bulgars about sons of Kuvrat and their dispersing in search of new seats. Tangents
of both legends were noted by Walter Pohl, Die Awaren: ein Steppenvolk in Mittleuropa
567–822 n. Chr. (Munich, 1988), pp. 265–266. Examples of spread of the motif of quest are
also provided by Hungarian historiography; in older Gesta Hungarorum there is a scheme
similar to the Croatian legend of five brothers and two sisters, and to the Bulgarian leg-
end of the sons of Kuvrat, thus perhaps bearing features of a legend typical to steppe
nomads – the anonymous author mentioned seven chieftains (“septem principales
persone”) called “Hetumoger”, who accompany Álmos in his wandering (see: Anonymi
Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. Anonymus, Notary of King Béla. The Deeds of the
Hungarians, eds. and trans. Martyn Rady, László Veszprémy, Budapest/ New York (2010),
pp. 3, 11, 17; Anonimowego notariusza króla Béli Gesta Hungarorum, trans. Aleksandra
Kulbicka, Krzysztof Pawłowski, Grażyna Wodzinowska-Taklińska, ed. Ryszard Grzesik
(Krakow, 2006), pp. 26–27, 40–43; also: ibidem, p. 26, footnote 7). Further, the anonymous
author also mentioned seven dukes of the Cumans (ibidem, pp. 60–61). In the thirteenth-
century chronicle of Simon of Kéza we can find a narrative structure similar to the legend
of the wandering of the sons of Senulad. Simon of Kéza writes about sons of Ménrót
(Menroth), Hunor and Magor, who travel with their subjects (Simonis de Kéza Gesta
Hungarorum/ Simon of Kéza, The Deeds of the Hungarian, eds. László Veszprémy, Frank
Shaer (Budapest/New York 1999), pp. 14–22).
39 Třeštík, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 78–98.
40 See: Jooseppi Julius Mikkola, “Avarica,” Archiv für slavische Philologie 41 (1927), pp. 158–
160; Osman Karatay, In Search of the Lost Tribe: The origins and Making of the Croatian
Nation (Çorum, 2003), pp. 80–97. Croats were considered to be a Turkic people, close
to the Bulgarians, by Henry H. Howorth, “The spread of the Slavs, IV: The Bulgarians,”
The Journal of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11 (1882), 224n., while
other scholars recognized them as Iranian or Germanic people, thus such ideas should be
treated with much caution.
on such an interpretation, the names Touga and Bouga should be qualified

as male.41 The earlier variant of the legend could talk about seven wandering
brothers. This motif was widespread in the legends of the Bulgarians and the
Hungarians.
According to Třeštik, a similar variant would also not be unusual for the
Germans or Slavs. He proposed a comparative study of other Slavic legends
of the founding of a state and community, starting with the myth of the com-
mon origin of the Slavs – perhaps the most original of them – recorded by
the so-called Bavarian Geographer (Geographus Bavarus) in the mid-ninth
century, where it was written that the Zeriuani tribe (and it is supposed to
be the northern Serbs or Sorbs) “tantum est regnum, ut ex eo cunctae gentes
Sclavorum exortae sint, et originem, sicut affirmant, ducant” (only they have
the kingdom, and, as they claim, all the tribes of the Slavs come from them).42
Al-Masʾudi, who wrote his works a century later, mentioned a similar legend
regarding the tribe of Walinjana (which Třeštik translates as Volhynians43) and
their King Madžak, to whom all other Slavic tribes were subordinated.44 For
Třeštik, both fragments were part of one structure telling about the inception
of the community. He interpreted Madžak as “Mužik”, one of the sons of the
royal forefather Muž [Man], a cultural hero with the features of the first man.45
The name Senulad is sometimes interpreted as “Svevlad” (“the one who rules
everything”), making him a figure close to Muž, and his sons close to Mužik in
the alleged legendary scheme proposed by Třeštik.
The next stage of the mythical complex would be the narrative about
the journey of the brothers. In the High Middle Ages, a legend of this type
was present in the historiography of the Western Slavs, while a variant
involving the migration of siblings from the north to the south known from
De administrando imperio – the work edited (or curated) by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos – appeared in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and
Historia Salonitana. The similarities between the Dalmatian tradition concern-
ing the Goths and Porphyrogennetos’ tradition seem rather superficial. Třeštík,
however, noticed a certain detail which, according to him, proved that the pas-
sage in the work of Thomas the Archdeacon was an update of the Croatian
41 See: Lujo Margetić, Dolazak Hrvata. Ankunft der Kroaten (Split, 2001), p. 32.
42 Quoted after: Gerard Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowiańszczyzny zachodniej, vol. 1
(Poznań, 1960), p. 40.
43 Another possible interpretation: “Wolinians”, after: Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 40–41.
44 Marúdžu d-dahabi wa ma’ ádinu l-džawáhiri li-l-Mas’ údí/ Rýžoviště zlata a doly drahokamů
od al-Masúdího, trans. Ivan Hrbek, Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici [later abbreviated
as: MMFH], v. 3, pp. 404–408.
62 Chapter 3
legend recorded by Porphyrogennetos: the mysterious mention of “septem

vel octa tribus nobilium” [seven or eight noble tribes] – Thomas called them
“Lingons” – arriving from the territories of Germany and Poland (thus from the
north), under Totila’s leadership. Also, Radoslav Katičić noticed the relation-
ship between Thomas’ narrative (but not that of the Priest of Duklja) and the
text De administando imperio. He supposed that the Goths were included in
the older legend, probably in the eleventh century, and that such a device was
inspired by The Life of St. Domnius, written slightly earlier.46
The reference to nine princes, or probably nine tribes, appeared in the text of
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja only in reference to the Bulgarians. Totila’s
name, as the chieftain of the Goths, however, shows that the anonymous
author of The Chronicle and Thomas the Archdeacon used the same source.
It is impossible to determine the relationship between this tradition and the
legend appearing in Porphyrogennetos’ work. As Třeštik sums up: “Both chron-
icles [The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and Historia Salonitana] talk about
their [the Goths] arrival from the north, which does not have to resemble the
version of Croatian history given by Constantine [Porphyrogennetos]. Seven
families of ‘Lingons’, compatible with the seven siblings [in the narrative] of
Constantine, could be a distant echo of this version”.47
It is also unclear how the Priest of Duklja’s narrative is linked to the north-
ern tradition of the brothers’ journey which developed in Bohemia and Poland
(as Třeštik speculates) from the twelfth century, and is known in the expanded
version of the three brothers from fourteenth-century sources.48 This legend
placed the Urheimat of the Czechs and the Poles in the south: in Pannonia,
Dalmatia, Croatia or Hungary. In Poland, the history of the migration of three
brothers – Lech, Czech and Rus – was reported with most detail in Chronica
Poloniae maioris49 (although Wincenty Kadłubek, the author of Chronica
Polonorum, composed at the turn of the twelfth century, used the name
“Lechites” referring to Poles). In Bohemia, the tradition of eponymous Bohemus
was known earlier to Cosmas,50 who could pass it to Chronicon imperatorum
et pontificum Bavaricum from the second half of the thirteenth century,51
46 Radoslav Katičić, “Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae,” Starohrvatska Prosvjeta

17 (1987), pp. 20–21. See also: Bruna Kuntić-Makvić, “Kako je Ivan Lučić prikazao dolazak
Slavena u dijelu ‘De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae’,” Historijski Zbornik 38 (1985), pp. 131–166.
47 Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 91–92.
48 Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 58–62.
49 Chronica Poloniae maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH series nova v. 8 (Warsaw, 1970),
pp. 4–5.
50 Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 2, pp. 4–6; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, pp. 5–6.
51 Chronicon imperatorum et pontificum Bavaricum, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS v. 24 (Hannover,
1879), pp. 221–223. See also comparison of traditions of three brothers in: Edward Skibiński,
Przemiany władzy. Narracyjna koncepcja Anonima tzw. Galla i jej podstawy (Poznań, 2009),
and Dalimil presented it in a confusing version, claiming that a certain “lech”

[man], whose name was “Čech”, came from a land “v srbském jazyku” [in the
Serbian language] called “Charvaty”.52
What was the relationship between this legend and the legend of the Goths?
If we accept the proposal by Třeštik that both of them are variants of a univer-
sal legendary scheme depicting the traditional vision of the world, we would
have to say that the story of the brothers’ journey may indeed have a common
genesis. And in this case, we should also look at Brus, Totila and Ostriol as char-
acters appearing in an update of the older legend.
A problem arises when we try to reverse the process of formation of the
legend, and assume that the narrative about the migration of the brothers is
a bonding tale inspired by some significant historical events and constructed
for the needs of a dynamically changing community. Such a solution is not
impossible in the case of the oldest variant of the narrative known to us,
that is, the legend of the migration of the Croats recorded by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos.
Walter Pohl assumes a similar process in his hypothesis. He returned to the
old concept (partially formulated in the eighteenth century by Franciscan friar
Timon53) associating the legend of the Croats with the person of the Bulgarian
khan Kuvrat (Kubrat) and the Bulgarian chieftain Kuver.54 It is not known
whether they were the same person, but according to Pohl we can see the con-
nection between Kuver, fighting in the seventh century against the Avars, and
khan Kuvrat, the father of five sons who in the Bulgarian ethnogenetic legend
dispersed into new lands. Pohl did not go as far in his conjectures as Henri
Grégoire – who speculated that legendary Chrobatos, Kuvrat and Kuver were
the same person, and regarded the first Croats as the people of Kuver liberated
from Avar rule;55 however, he did attempt to show how the Croatian legend
of Chrobatos or the Bulgarian legend of Kuvrat could have been inspired by a
significant event, in this case Kuver’s uprising against the Avars.
After Pohl, Třeštik listed the most important common features of the nar-
rative on the basis of this event: the division of many families and their exit
pp. 149–169. On mutual filiations between the Czech tradition of Bohemus and the Polish
variant of the legend of three brothers, see: Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, p. 65.
52 Rýmovaná Kronika Česká tak řečeného Dalimila, ed. Josef Jireček (Praha, 1877), pp. 6–8.
53 S. Timon Imago antiquae Hungariae, repraesentans terra, adventus, et res gestas gentis
hunnicae (Vienna, 1754), p. 116; Šišić, Letopis, p. 236, footnote 1.
54 W. Pohl, Die Awaren, pp. 268–282; idem, “Das Awarenreich und die ‘kroatischen’
Ethnogenesen,” in Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn, pp. 293–298.
55 Henri Grégoire, “L’origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes,” Byzantion 17 (1944/45),
pp. 91. Similar concepts – associating Croats with Kuvrat – after Timon yet before Grégoire
were presented by Henry Hoyle Howorth (in 1882) and by Hermann Wirth (in 1905) (also:
Margetić, Dolazak Hrvata, p. 200, footnotes 555–556).
64 Chapter 3
from Urheimat, crossing the river (Danube), settling in new territories, fight-
ing against the Avars, and conquering the local population, often resulting
in establishing new alliances.56 As we can see, the tale of the Goths, in the
shape in which it functioned in Dalmatia in the High Middle Ages, only pos-
sessed some of these features, and today we have no grounds to claim that it
belongs to a hypothetical circle of images related, even loosely, to Kuvrat and
the seventh-century events. In the case of Regnum Sclavorum, it would prob-
ably be closer to the legend of the arrival of the Bulgarians, which seems to
have more in common with the tale of Kubrat’s sons.
6 In Search of Historical Sources of “Gothomania”
Attempts to read the narrative of the Goths literally shows the danger associ-
ated with the search for historical sources of a legend. Efforts to find the roots
of tales from chronicles of the actual historical processes that took place in the
south-eastern Europe from the Early Middle Ages to the tenth and eleventh
centuries may lead to hypotheses containing elements of over-interpretation.
The lack of sources obscures the picture of this period even more, giving rise to
most controversial ideas. Supporters of the “Gothic theory” want to read much
later records (including those known from Regnum Sclavorum) as though they
could tell us something of the actual origin of the Slavs and the processes of
ethnogenesis in the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages, rather than viewing them
as representatives of a tradition, be it scholarly or folk, serving the needs of a
given dynasty or a given community.57 Such an idea has appeared outdated
for a long time. It is no coincidence that in 1937, Stjepan Krizin Sakač (himself
a proponent of the controversial Iranian theory on the origin of the Croats)

57 The course and state of the discussion on the “Gothic” origin of the Croats was summed
up comprehensively by Denis Evgenievič Alimov, “Gotskaja teorija proishoždenija
Horvatov. Pro et contra,” [Д. Е. Алимов, Готская теория происхождения Хорвтов. Pro et
contra] Voprosy istorii slavjan 21 (2013), pp. 55–74; idem, “Goticizm v Horvatii: ot sredneve-
kovja k novomu vrmenii,” [Д. Е. Алимов “Готицизм в Хорватии: от Средневековья к
Новому времени”] Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 4,
Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija 2 (2017), no. 22, pp. 25–34. See also:
Florin Curta, “The Making of the Slavs. Between Ethnogenesis, Invention and Migration,”
Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2008), pp. 155–172; idem, The making of the
Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 (Cambridge, 2001);
John V. A. Fine Jr., When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. A study of Identity in
Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods
(Ann Arbor, 2010), pp. 47, 227, 485.
critically summarized attempts to understand the theory of the Gothic roots

of the Slavs literally – the phenomenon also known as “Gothomania” in local
historiography: “In recent years the long-rejected Gothic hypothesis has come
alive again; according to it, the Croats are Slavicized Goths. This phenom-
enon was the effect of the publication of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja
in the critical edition by Šišić. He, among others, showed that the so-called
‘Gothomania’ in the works of the Priest of Duklja and Thomas the Archdeacon
had no historical foundations and was caused by: 1) the custom of the writers
of that time to give new peoples the names of older peoples who lived in the
same territory before them, 2) the meaning of the word ‘Goth’ in the language
of the medieval Dalmatian Romans – it was an epithet given to heretics, vio-
lent and crude people, and simpletons. That is why they called the Croats in
this way”.58 However, not everybody was convinced by such explanations, yet
in recent years we can again see a return to such an interpretation of the stories
of the Goths, which in fact gives the impression of politically motivated refer-
ences to older historiography.59
A literal understanding of the narrative about the Goths settling in the
Balkan Peninsula raises many problems. Doubts can be raised about the pos-
sible transfer of a tradition as old as the Migration Period and how it would
affect the shape of records such as Regnum Sclavorum and Historia Salonitana,
and whether it is possible today to verify any modification of particular – alleg-
edly historical – threads. The difficulty of this kind even increases, if we take
into account the insufficiently accurate knowledge about the process of set-
tling these areas in general and, above all, settling by the Slavs.60 This may lead
to a vicious circle of erroneous reasoning in which “historical facts” are con-
structed with the help of literal readings of texts without the critical analysis.
58 Stjepan Krizin Sakač, “O kaukasko-iranskom podrijetlu Hrvata,” Obnovljeni život: časopis

za filozofiju i religijske znanosti, 1 (1937),no. 18, p. 1.
59 This issue is discussed below.
60 The issue of ethnogenesis of the Slavs still evokes lively discussion among historians.
Works by Curta and Dzino, undermining the records of Greek historians (including
Constantine Porphyrogennetos), should also be considered revolutionary in the sense
that they reignited the discussion about the origin of the Slavs. As this topic is not directly
related to our argument, let us recommend some of the numerous summaries of this
historiographic discussion: Jędrzej Heyduk, “Źródła do tzw. etnogenezy Chorwatów
dalmatyńskich w świetle nowszej literatury,” Slavia Antiqua 44 (2003), pp. 33–51; Zofia
Kurnatowska, “Słowianie Południowi,” in Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i
w średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon, Jerzy Strzelczyk (Krakow, 2010), pp. 231–250;
M. Parczewski, Współczesne poglądy w sprawie etnogenezy oraz wielkiej wędrówki Słowian,
in Wędrówka i etnogeneza, pp. 221–230.
66 Chapter 3
As we shall see, the process of explaining one hypothesis by means of another

is most often supported by the authority of the predecessors.
The old concept of the Gothic origins of the Croats promoted by Ludwik
Gumplowicz61 had been reconsidered in various ways by pre-war scholars
such as Kerubin Šegvić,62 Ljudmil Hauptmann,63 and two other Slovenians –
Jakob Kelemina64 and Jože Rus.65 All of them focused primarily on the arrival
of the Slavs and the Croats to the Balkans. Some of them used the text in The
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja – both in Latin and the Croatian versions – to
formulate far-reaching and sometimes controversial claims.
Šegvić and Rus were the most radical in their literal interpretations of
“Gothomania”. They both claimed that some “slivers of memory” of the ori-
gin of the Croats from the Germanic Goths and their symbiosis with the
conquered Slavs during the Early Middle Ages were preserved in the work
of Thomas the Archdeacon, as well as in both versions of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja.66 Šegvić’s hypotheses gained political support from the
Ustaše-controlled Independent State of Croatia (NDH), and gradually they had
more in common with contemporary propaganda than with scientific work.67
Rus, who argued that the Priest of Duklja had to rely on Gothic sources,
tried to adjust the text of Regnum Sclavorum by using his own historical knowl-
edge: he identified Senulad [I] with Vandalarius, and Brus, Totila and Ostroil
61 See: Ludwik Gumplowicz, “Die politische Geschichte der Serben und Croaten,” Politisch-
antropologische Revue 1 (1902/1903), pp. 779–789. Gumplowicz saw early Croatian elites
as the remnants of a Gothic-Slavic symbiosis in the period of formation of the Croatian
statehood in the Balkans.
62 Cherubin Segvić [Kerubin Šegvić], “Die gotische Abstammung der Kroaten,” Nordische
Welt 9–12 (1935), pp. 1–56; idem, “Hrvat, Got i Slav u djelu Tome Splićanina,” Nastavni
vjesnik 40 (1931/ 1932), pp. 18–25.
63 Ljudmil Hauptmann, who had a critical attitude to the “Goth” theory, nevertheless
maintained the idea of distinction (significant in this context) between members of the
“Croatian elite” and the Slavs, being their subjects, and reports provided by the Priest of
Duklja were, in his opinion, descriptions of events at the end of the fifth century: “Kroaten,
Goten und Sarmaten. Die gotische Tradition beim Popen Dukljanin,” Germanoslavica 3
(1935), pp. 95–127, 315–353; idem, “Podrijetlo hrvatskoga plemstva,” Rad HAZU 273 (1942),
pp. 88–96; idem, “Dolazak Hrvata,” in Zbornik kralja Tomislava. U spomen tisućugodišnjice
hrvatskoga kraljevstva (Zagreb, 1925), pp. 126–127.
64 Jakob Kelemina, “Goti na Balkanu,” Časopis za zgodovino i narodopisje, 3–4 (1932), no. 27,
pp. 121–136; idem, “Popa Dukljanina ‘Libellus Gothorum’ (I–VII). Studija o starogerman-
skih spominih v naši zemlji,” Etnolog 12 (1939), pp. 15–35.
65 Jože Rus, “Slovanstvo in vislanski Hrvatje 6. do 10. stoletja,” Etnolog 5 (1933), pp. 31–45.
66 See: Šegvić, “Hrvat, Got i Slav,” idem, Toma Arhiđakon, državnik i pisac 1200–1268. Njegov
život i njegovo djelo (Zagreb, 1927).
67 Mario Jareb, “Jesu li Hrvati postali Goti? Odnos ustaša i vlasti Nezavisne Države Hrvatske
prema neslavenskim teorijama o podrijetlu Hrvata,” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 3
(2008), pp. 869–882.
with Valamer, Vidimer and Theodemir, three brothers (although to be precise

Theodimer was in fact the brother-in-law of the first two) known from Jordanes’s
record around the time of the Amal dynasty. As Miho Barada remarked,
expressing his opinion on the ideas of Rus, the recognition of Senulad [II]
as the famous King Theodoric the Great was the most controversial of them.
Identification of these to figures was justified on the basis of the etymology of
the name Senulad. Rus, like many other scholars, regarded it to be a distorted
form of the word “Svevlad”.68 According to him, its etymology is identical with
the meaning of the name “Theodoric” (Thiudareiks): “the one who rules”.69 “No
one who learned about this famous ruler would choose to support such an
identification”, wrote Barada in his critical text.70
Various hypotheses formulated by Ivan Mužić were, to a certain extent, a
return to similar ideas. Mužić advocated the “autochthonous theory of the
origin of the Croats”. Referring to more recent works on the origin of the Slavs
and their “formation” in the course of ethnogenesis, which seemed to be more
dynamic than earlier claimed (Florin Curta,71 Herwig Wolfram, Walter Pohl,
Neven Budak72), he also developed a controversial concept of a Gothic-Slavic
symbiosis.73 At the same time he used a rather archaic and straightforward crit-
icism of the sources available to him, which was characterized by a disturbing
68 Reviewing the work by Rus, Antun Mayer noticed a possible parallel of the name
“Svevlad” in the Russian/Ruthenian name Vsevolod: Antun Mayer, “J. Rus, ‘Kralji dinastije
Svevladičev’,” Nastavni vjesnik 1–3 (1932/33), no. 41, pp. 79–85.
69 Jože Rus, Kralji dinastije Svevladičev – najstarejši skupni vladarji Hrvatov in Srbov 454–614
(Ljubljana, 1931), p. 61nn.
70 Miho Barada, “Dvije publikacije Jože Rusa,” Bogoslovenska smotra 4 (1933), no. 20, p. 499.
A similar opinion about the publication of Rus was also expressed by Niko Županić in his
review, “‘Kralji dinastije Svevladičev – najstarejši skupni vladarji Hrvatov in Srbov 454–
614’,” Etnolog 7 (1934), pp. 198–206.
71 Curta called The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja a “different kind” of historical source – “a
remarkable gauge for the level of literacy and for the political implications of literary pro-
duction twelfth-century Dalmatia”, see: Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle
Ages, 500–1250 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 14–15, 210.
72 Neven Budak, analysing fragments of the works of Constantine Porphyrogennetos,
Thomas the Archdeacon and the Priest of Duklja concerning arrival (as well as baptism)
of the Croats and the Slavs, noticed that none of them offer reliable information on this
subject: Neven Budak, “Tumačenje podrijetla i najstarije povijesti Hrvata u djelima sred-
njovjekovnih pisaca,” in Etnogeneza Hrvata, p. 78.
73 Primarily a series of works corrected by Ivan Mužić during two decades seeking evidence
of Croatian indigenousness, at the same time trying to mark “Gothic” and “Slavic” stages
of their ethnogenesis. These works barely meet the criteria of reliable scientific studies:
Ivan Mužić, Podrijetlo Hrvata (autohtonost u hrvatskoj etnogenezi na tlu rimske provin-
cije Dalmacije) (Zagreb 1989); idem, Slaveni, Goti i Hrvati na teritoriju rimske provincije
Dalmacije (Zagreb, 1997); idem, “Hrvatska kronika od 547. do 1089. Libellus Gothorum
(Kraljevstvo Slavena) kao izvor za staru povijest Hrvata (s posebnim osvrtom na VI., VII.
68 Chapter 3
liberty in the selection of quotes (as was pointed out in a review of his work by
Radoslav Katičić).74 Mužić, like many pre-war historians, confused arguments
of various kinds in his reasoning. His starting point was the assumption that
the proper name “Croat” has Germanic/Gothic roots, and from this premise –
referring to extensive discussions by linguists on this issue (which have still not
been conclusively settled) – he attempted to postulate conclusions regarding
the source texts that had been written long after the arrival of the Slavs (and the
Croats) to south-eastern Europe. Mužić, while discussing the Gothic traditions
from the Middle Ages among phenomena associated with Dalmatian/Croatian
“Gothomania”, also included the issue of the tomb of Bolesław the Brave.75 This
approach, however, seems to have been superficially prepared. Mužić consid-
ered the kings of the Goths as ruling in the Early Middle Ages on the coast of
the Adriatic Sea. He also believed that the term Regnum Sclavorum contained
a distinctive Gothic-Slavic and indigenous-Dalmatian component.76
The “Getian theory”, presented recently by Damjan Pešut, can be regarded
as a specific variation of the “Gothic theory” (also related to the autochthonous
i VIII. stoljeće),” Hrvatska obzorja 2 (1998), part 2, pp. 267–328; idem, Hrvatska kronika u
Ljetopisu popa Dukljanina (Split, 2011).
74 Radoslav Katičić, “Ivan Mužić o podrijetlu Hrvata,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 3 (1989), no. 19,
p. 248. Katičić pointed out the methodological shortcomings of the work of Mužić, blam-
ing him for arbitrary choice of quotation and too often a trusting approach, instead of a
critical one, to sources in his work. The answer of Mužić: U povodu Katičićeve recenzije,
Hrvatska prosvjeta, v. 3, 19 (1989), pp. 271–284.
75 In the tomb of the first king of Poland, Bolesław I the Brave, destroyed in 1790, there
was an epitaph known today from several copies. The territories ruled by the king were
defined as Regnum Sclavorum, Gothorum sive Polonorum. It is not clear when the epitaph
was made and its content is disputable (see: Józef Birkenmajer, “Epitafium Bolesława
Chrobrego (Próba ustalenia tekstu),” in Munera philologica Ludovico Ćwikliński bis sena
lustra professoria claudenti ab amicis collegisdiscipulis oblata (Poznań, 1936), pp. 347–370;
Ryszard Gansiniec, “Nagrobek Bolesława Chrobrego,” Przegląd Zachodni 7 (1951), no. 7/8,
pp. 359–437). Przemysław Wiszewski, summarising the debate, was inclined to accept
the eleventh-century genesis of the epitaph preserving traces of the tradition from the
reign of Mieszko II Lambert [the son and successor of Bolesław I the Brave]: Przemysław
Wiszewski, Domus Bolezlai. Values and social identity in dynastic traditions of medieval
Poland (c. 966–1138) (Leiden/Boston 2010), pp. 55–65. Various interpretative concepts
on the term “Goths” in the text of the epitaph were discussed by Brygida Kürbis, who
considered this fragment as crux interpretum. Referring to the analogy Goths-Gaete, she
reflected whether this name could be related to Old Prussians or Yotvingians. This name
could also apply to Saxons and be a reference to the conquests of Bolesław I the Brave in
the West: “Epitafium Bolesława Chrobrego. Analiza literacka i historyczna,” in eadem, Na
progach historii, v. 2: O świadectwach do dziejow kultury Polski średniowiecznej (Poznań,
2001), pp. 268–269.
76 Mužić, Nastajanje hrvatskog naroda na Balkanu, pp. 21n.
hypothesis). The former was actually a slight modification of the latter.

According to it, both the anonymous author(s) of The Chronicle of the Priest
of Duklja, and Thomas the Archdeacon, following other medieval writers (for
instance Isidore of Seville77), confused the Goths with the Getae. According to
Pešut, the term “Goti qui et Sclavi” should rather be translated as “Geti qui et
Sclavi”. Pešut presented an image (very unconvincing, in our opinion) of the
migration of the Goths, their assimilation with the Danubian Getae, and then
with the Slavs, and at the same time, surprisingly, concluded that “the kings
of the Goths” from The Chronicle of Priest of Duklja were rather the kings of
Getae, the people who – according to Pešut – coexisted peacefully with the
Slavs after the departure of the Goths.78
The ideas of the above-mentioned scholars are characterized by an uncriti-
cal faith in the literal reading of the source. The “Gothomania” understood as
such would in fact refer to knowledge (acquired from the resources of some
collective memory or from unknown written sources) about the migration of
the Slavs, the creation of the Slavic state, and the assimilation of various ethnic
groups previously settled in Dalmatia. Such an approach implicitly suggests
that the methodology and knowledge of the medieval chroniclers were similar
to the methodology and knowledge of contemporary historians. However, the
hypotheses of Rus, Šegvić, and then Mužić and Pešut should be considered
unverifiable, for they failed to show the connection between the chronicles
written in the High Middle Ages and community-building or state-building
processes that took place in the Balkans (at least) five hundred years earlier.
Hauptmann and Kelemina presented more cautious views. Both of them
also associated the Goths with the first stage of the Croatian ethnogenesis and
considered the Croats as an element which was clearly different from the Slavs.
However, they tried to locate the sources of “Gothomania” in a slightly different
way, showing how historical memory of the events from the Early Middle Ages
could be transferred to local traditions, and from there to scriptoria in which
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and Historia Salonitana were written.
Hauptmann suspected that the Priest of Duklja could have known Germanic
songs about wars which the Goths had fought with the Huns, and because of
the similarity of names, he mistook Totila for Attila.79 He was supported by
77 The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, eds. Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, Oliver
Berghof (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 195, 197, 198.
78 Damjan Pešut, “Goti koji su i Slaveni (Goti qui et Sclavi),” Migracijske i etničke teme 4
(1997), vol. 13, pp. 301–334.
79 Hauptmann, Kroaten, Goten und Sarmaten, p. 235. German epic songs mentioning Attila
and their place among European legends of the rulers of Huns are discussed in: Ryszard
Grzesik, “Niezwykła kariera Attyli – od Bicza Bożego do popularnego imienia,” in idem,
70 Chapter 3
Kelemina, who suggested that the chroniclers in Croatia and Dalmatia could
read fragments of hypothetical Gesta Hunnorum and old traditions preserved
in Hungarian chronicles, telling about Attila’s arrival. Thus, the Priest of
Duklja – because of the alleged early chronology of Regnum Sclavorum – could
have encountered not so much a written record as an oral tradition known in
Hungary, which later became a part of the narration of the anonymous Bele
Regis Notarius.80
The idea that Totila could be mistaken for Attila was even older. A Serbian
historian, Stanoje Stanojević, drew attention to the similarity of the two names,
though he believed that its sources should be sought in Western Europe rather
than in Hungary. Stanojević claimed that the names of the great conqueror
Attila and the somewhat lesser-known Gothic King Totila could be erroneously
identified in the chronicles of Northern Italy. He also assumed that chroniclers,
being raised in the Latin tradition, could see Attila as the king of the Vandals,
who were often identified with the Slavs, as we shall see in a moment.81 In his
opinion, this – rather than knowledge of the older legends of the Huns or the
Goths – could possibly explain the mistake by medieval chroniclers.82
The tendency to confuse Attila and Totila can be seen in medieval written
sources from both Italy and Germany, as well as Hungary and Poland.83 Such
a mistake was made by Peter the Deacon in Chronica Monasteri Casinensis
from the twelfth century.84 In the same century, Godfrey of Viterbo in his
Speculum regum not only mistook Attila for Totila and the other way round,
but also called the former “the king of the Vandals” and the latter “the king of
the Huns”.85 Similar information was included in some copies of Chronicon
pontificum et imperatorum by Martin of Opava, which proves the dissemina-
tion of this mistake in the thirteenth century.86
Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis. Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej we

wczesnym średniowieczu (Warsaw, 2014), pp. 82–91.
80 Kelemina, Popa Dukljanina “Libellus Gothorum”, pp. 20–26.
81 On narrative links between Attila and Slavs in medieval historiography see: Ryszard
Grzesik, “Attyla a Słowianie. Przyczynekdowyobrażeń o kontaktach huńsko-słowiańskich
w średniowiecznych źródłach narracyjnych,” Roczniki Historyczne 59 (1993), pp. 33–42.
82 Stanoje Stanojević, “O prvim glavama Dukljanskog Letopisa,” Glas – Srpska kraljevska aka-
demija. Drugi razred 126 (1927), pp. 93–101.
83 Grzesik, “Attyla a Słowianie,” pp. 39–41.
84 Leonis Marsicani et Petri diaconi Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach,
MPH SS vol. 7, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz (Hannover, 1846), p. 740.
85 “Thotila rex Hunnorum, sive Athila rex Wandalorum Belam germanum … peremit”,
Gotifredi Vitebiensis Speculum regum, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS vol. 22, ed. Georg Heinrich
Pertz (Hannover, 1872), p. 85.
86 After: Brygida Kürbis, “Wstęp,” in Kronika Wielkopolska, trans. Kazimierz Abgarowicz
(Warsaw, 1965), p. 53, footnote 25.
Due to Martin of Opava, the association of the two militant chieftains was
known to Paul of Venice (Paulinus Venetus).87 Confusing Attila and Totila also
became an important element of the legends of the foundation of Florence.
Chronica de origine civitatis, written in the first half of the thirteenth century,
named Totila flagellum Dei, “the scourge of God”, an epithet of Attila, and
attributed him with the deeds of the Hunnic chieftain.88 It is probable that
the topos came to Hungary from Italy. A letter by Bela IV to Rome written in
1254 describes Totila’s invasion from the east and the establishment of his base
in Hungary (which, of course, should be associated with Attila).89 The author
of the interpolation in Chronica Poloniae maioris developed these threads
even further, identifying Hungarians as Slavs – specifically with the Vkrians,
one of the Pomeranian tribes. He mentioned “Hungari, qui et ipsi sunt Slavi”,
and claimed, after Martin of Opava, that their king’s name was Attila, or Tila.90
Angelus de Stargardia, a fourteenth-century Pomeranian chronicler, consid-
ered Attila to be the ruler of the Vandals (and then the Pomeranians).91
It can be assumed that the image of Attila, “the scourge of God”, in the Priest
of Duklja’s work was also confused with the image of the chieftain who con-
quered Dalmatia.92 The topos was strong enough that the chronicler could attri-
bute it to a barbarian ruler who punished the Christians for their sins – the role
performed in Regnum Sclavorum by Totila. However, if this really happened,
it is possible that the authors who included this tradition in their chronicles
87 “Attila quem Martinus Totilam vocat belli amator supplicantibus exorabilis propicius
cunctis in fide receptis fultis fortisismarum gentium ostergotorum gepidarum et aliarum
quas sibi subiugaverat presidio ad demoliendum romanum imperium contendit”, quoted
after: Sándor Eckhardt, A pannóniai hún történet keletkezése (Budapest, 1928), pp. 11–12
[I would like to thank Lesław Spychała for his help and valuable suggestions concerning
identification of Attila and Totila in Hungarian historiography].
88 Chronica de origine civitatis, in Quellen und Forschungen zur ältesten Geschichte der Stadt
Florenz, ed. Otto Hartwig, part 1 (Marburg, 1875), p. 57. In the Introduction, Hartwig also
discusses the aforementioned examples of identification of two barbarian chieftains and
its function within the Florence tradition, pp. XVII–XVIII.
89 “Totila in exemplum veniat, qui ex parte Orientis ad Occidentem veniens subiugandam,
in medio regni Hungariae sede suam principaliter collocauit”, after: Codex diplomaticus
Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, ed. György Feyér, vol. 4, part 2 (Buda, 1829), p. 222.
90 Chronica Poloniae maioris, p. 7.
91 Augustyn ze Stargardu zwany niegdyś Angelusem, Protokół. Kamieńska kronika – Rodowód
książąt pomorskich, tzw. Stargardzka genealogia, tranls. Elwira Buszewicz, ed. Edward
Rymar (Stargard, 2008), pp. 44–45.
92 In this context, however, the question of the possible prototype of Ostroil remains unan-
swered. The later tradition of seeing Attila a distant relative of Hasdrubal is probably an
erroneous speculation. Sándor Eckhardt also mentions a figure from Italian folklore, a
man named Ostribardo, re de ongaria, whose daughter gave birth to Attila from her union
with a greyhound (Eckhardt, A pannóniai hún történet keletkezése, p. 27), which for our
considerations is just a curiosity.
72 Chapter 3
might not have been aware of their mistake. Thomas the Archdeacon knew the
connection between Attila and Hungary, and he did not identify the two fig-
ures. Also, The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja mentions King Attila in connec-
tion with the invasion of the Magyars, not the Goths. This coincidence once
again raises the question of mutual links between The Chronicle and Historia
Salonitana, yet the appearance of the names Totila and Attila in both works
does not bring any conclusive answers. We can only assume that the very
source of the Dalmatian tradition of Totila could be a legend using the image
of Attila, a much more famous figure, as an exemplary savage barbarian king,
yet neither the Priest of Duklja nor Thomas the Archdeacon could recognize it.
7 The Narrative about the Goth Chieftains as an Element of

Erudite History
In the narrative of the Goths, elements of erudite history can be recognized,

a “fictional history”, which could, to a large extent, be a product of the chroni-
clers’ imagination. In such a case, we would talk about a specific “cabinet work”,
as the phenomenon of Gothicism of the South Slavic was described by Jerzy
Strzelczyk.93 This type of work made in the comfort of a scriptorium would
have no connection with either the alleged Slavonic-Gothic symbiosis in the
Early Middle Ages or with any ancient legendary tradition of unknown origin
preserved among the Croats in an updated form. Rather, it would reflect the
authors’ erudition and their knowledge (even indirect) of ancient writers who
reported on the journeys of the Goths. It could also represent the borrowing
of an earlier plot about the attack of the Goths on Dalmatia, created in the
High Middle Ages, and probably later than in the tenth century, because it was
unknown to Constantine Porphyrogennetos.
The existence of such a tradition may be confirmed by characteristic simi-
larities between the narrative of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and the
work of Thomas the Archdeacon. As was claimed by Šišić, it is possible that
a particular source, now lost, was the basis for both authors.94 The use of the
Gothic theme in two works with such different overtones and different ideo-
logical messages as The Chronicle (in both version) and Historia Salonitana,
may testify to not only the popularity of the legend of the Goths in Dalmatia
in the High Middle Ages, but also to the fact that the vision of the origins of
the Slavs in connection with this barbarian tribe turned out to be attractive
93 Strzelczyk, Goci – rzeczywistość i legenda, p. 377.

to such different authors, although for different reasons. A detailed analysis

of these motivations will be discussed later. Let us now try to look at possible
elements that could influence the shape of the narrative in the course of such
a “cabinet work”.
From Stanojević’s time, some scholars have attempted to find Italian influ-
ences in the text of Regnum Sclavorum, especially in the fragment on the
Goths. The impression of the accuracy of such an intuition was further rein-
forced by the reference to the figure of St. Benedict of Nursia in the introduc-
tion of the story of the conquests of the Goths. After Stanojević,95 Radojčić96
and Šišić97 also suggested that the Priest of Duklja used some text written in
the monastery at Monte Cassino.98 Katičić similarly believed that the sources
of “Gothomania” were twofold: Thomas the Archdeacon used the local Split
tradition, while the Priest of Duklja used the Monte Cassino tradition.99 For
these theses, the most important point was the introduction to the Gothic
narrative of Regnum Sclavorum which mentioned Emperor Anastasius, Pope
Gelasius and the saints: Sabinus of Canosa, Germanus of Capua and Benedict
of Nursia.
As was demonstrated by Živković, Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis,
which actually contained a description of the conquest of Theodoric, the king
of the Goths, began its narrative somewhat differently to Regnum Sclavorum:
“Temporibus Iustini imperatoris maioris et Iustiniani fuit sanctus Benedictus
sub Iohanne papa. Eodem tempore Theordericus rex in Italia praefuit”100
(In the time of the great Emperor Justin and Justinian, lived Saint Benedict
under Pope John. At that time, King Theodoric entered Italy). In this case,
the chronology only differs slightly from the one in the text by the Priest of
Duklja. It is also more credible, because both Emperor Justin I (518–527) and
Justinian (527–565) provide a slightly better time reference for the activities of
St. Benedict than Anastasius ruling before them. In this case, however, it is dif-
ficult to suppose that the Priest of Duklja himself would decide on this type of
temporal shift if he really used the quoted chronicle.101
Živković also drew attention to another detail – in his opinion, even more
important – namely, the emphasis that the Priest of Duklja put on the corruption
95 Stanojević, “O prvim glavama Dukljanskog Letopisa,” pp. 91–101.

96 Radojčić, O najtamnijem odeljku Barskog rodoslova, p. 14.
98 Katičić, “Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae,” p. 21, footnote 12.
99 Katičić, “Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae,” p. 21.
100 Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, MGH SS rerum Longobardicarum et Italicarum, ed.
Georg Waitz (Hannover, 1878), p. 488.
74 Chapter 3
of Anastasius with the sin of heresy as propagated by Eutyches. Živković,

who regarded the phrase “Regnate in urbe Constantinopolitana” as typical of
chronicles from Northern Italy, found an even closer analogy in the thirteenth-
century text of Albertus Milioli: “Anno Domini CCCCXCII. Anastasius regnavit
apud Constantinopolim anXXVI. Qui Euticianam sapuit heresim […]. Et si vis
aliud invenire his temporibus, require in ystoria pontificis Gelasii pape primi”
(In the year of the Lord 492, Anastasius ruled in Constantinople for 26 years.
He supported the heresy of Eutyches […]. And if you want to find something
in those times, it will be the history of Pope Gelasius I).102 However, the simul-
taneous reference to the heretic Anastasius and Pope Gelasius does not neces-
sarily indicate that the Priest of Duklja knew Milioli’s text. Živković was aware
of this, because he tried to strengthen the significance of this reference with
the example in Chronica Universalis written by Sicard of Cremona at the start
of the thirteenth century. This alleged source used by Milioli contains a refer-
ence to Anastasius (“Qui Euticianam sapuit heresim”), but it did not mention
Gelasius as the pope contemporary to this emperor. Like Regnum Sclavorum,
it also included a reference to St. Germanus of Capua, and then to St. Benedict
of Nursia.103
Živković noted that mentioning those saints, famous in their own time,
was not unusual in Northern Italy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
The most interesting of the texts that included references to the figures men-
tioned above was Translatione sancti Sabini episcopi Canusini from the turn
of the eighth century, which besides St. Sabinus of Canosa, also mentioned
St. Germanus of Capua and St. Benedict of Nursia, known from the introduc-
tion to Regnum Sclavorum.104 Parts of the work did not survive to our times.
Živković speculated that the lost passages included a report on the conquest
of Italy by the Goths under Totila’s command.105 Although this is only a sup-
position, the fact that the name Totila appears later in the work, in the context
of the prophecy about his death formulated by St. Benedict,106 makes it more
probable, which would be another analogy with Regnum Sclavorum.
Although the introduction to the Priest of Duklja’s Gothic narrative could
indeed be somewhat determined by the earlier written tradition, scholars did
102 Alberti Millioli notarii regini Cronica imperatorum, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS
vol. 31 (Hannover, 1903), p. 613.
103 Sicardi episcopi Cremonensis Cronica, MGH SS vol. 31 (Hannover, 1903), p. 137, verse 31,
p. 138, verse 3–4, p. 138, verse 20–22, p. 141, verse 13–14; see: Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 72–75.
104 Ex vita et translatione sancti Sabini episcopi Canusini, MGH SS rerum Longobardicarum et
Italicarum (Hannover, 1878), p. 587, verse 7–9.
106 Ex vita et translatione sancti Sabini, pp. 585–586.
not succeed in discovering the sources of the story of the invasion of the Goths,
the migration of the brothers, and the establishment by one of them of a state
on the Adriatic coast. None of the Latin texts includes the names of Totila’s
brothers, Ostroil and Brus. In this respect, the narrative of The Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja departs significantly from even Thomas the Archdeacon’s nar-
rative, although it also belongs to the circle of Dalmatian Gothicism.
Nikola Banašević, when he commented on the concepts of Rus regarding
the similarity between the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum and the works of
Jordanes (Getica and Romana) – in the first place, the aforementioned analogy
to the three alleged sons of Vandalarius: Valamir, Vidimer and Theodemir –
noted that a much more valid parallel can be found in the Bible, in the his-
tory of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.107 The three sons of Noah were a
constant element of many legends about the scattering of peoples recorded by
medieval chronicles.108 In the case of Regnum Sclavorum, however, this expla-
nation cannot be considered fully satisfactory, at least because of the abun-
dance of motifs and manifestations of the tradition of wandering siblings,
which we mentioned above.
Živković tried to establish a certain textual community with the aforemen-
tioned Slavic tradition of the journey of the brothers Lech, Czech and Rus.
Unlike Třeštik, in the delicate resemblance of this story to the legend of the
sons of Senulad, he did not see a manifestation of a former community, but
rather evidence of newer contacts and cultural exchanges between the areas
on the Adriatic coast and Western Slavdom. Živković, as we know from the
previous chapter, supposed that the anonymous author of The Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja could come from Bohemia, as might be suggested by his alleged
knowledge of Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas and Gesta principum Polonorum
by Gallus Anonymus.109 However, according to Živković, it is impossible that
the anonymous author of The Chronicle (who in this situation it would be
difficult to call “the Priest of Duklja”) could know the narrative about the
107 Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, p. 51.

108 See: Arno Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel: Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und
Vielfalt der Sparachen und Völker (Munich, 1995) [about this topos in Middle Ages: vol. 1,
part 2 and vol. 2, part 1].
109 An interesting comparative analysis of the place of The Chronicle among Slavic
records concerning the origins of the dynasty and possible inspirations by oral tradi-
tion was presented by Sergiej V. Alekseev in his numerous works. See: “Letopis popa
Dukljanina: Drevneslovjanskogo rodoslovnogo predanja,” [C. B. Алексеев, “Летопись
попа Дуклянинa: структура ревнесловянского родословного предания”] Znanie.
Ponimanie. Umenie 3 (2006), pp. 140–148; idem, “Trebin’skaja legenda Dukljanina: popytka
istoričeskoj rekonstrukcii,” [“Требиньская легенда Дуклянина: попытка исторической
реконструкции”] Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie 4 (2013), pp. 183–188.
76 Chapter 3
brothers from Chronica Poloniae maioris, composed later.110 On the other hand,
Živković claimed that Jordanes’ work was the source of the narrative of the
Goths in Regnum Sclavorum: “On the basis of Romana by Jordanes, the Priest
of Duklja could not only introduce the Goths and the narrative on them, but
also settle them in Pannonia. For this reason his work has more convergent
points with Jordanes than with Bogufał, and we can exclude Bogufał from the
circle of written sources [used by the author of Regnum Sclavorum]”.111 We can
agree with this last conclusion, because we also think that Chronica Poloniae
maioris was not even indirectly known to the author of the Gothic fragment
of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. It is impossible, however, to resist the
impression that Živković, formulating this but no other conclusions, was rather
dependent on the chronology of the creation of the work which he himself had
accepted – the end of the thirteenth century – close to the date when Chronica
Poloniae maioris was composed. Such a dating would rule out the possibility of
including it in the set of probable inspirations for stories about the journey of
the brothers.
Nevertheless, we do not think it likely that Jordanes’ works would have had
a direct influence on Regnum Sclavorum. If indeed the first chapters of Regnum
Sclavorum were primarily an erudite construction, which had little in common
with the popular legend and much more with Jordanes’ work, the question
arises: why did the Priest of Duklja decide to camouflage this erudition? As
has already been stated, some elements common to “Gothomania” – such as
Totila’s appearance, and the characteristics of the Goths, the role of the city of
Salona in the narrative, and the motif of the Byzantine emperor – persuade
us to recognize that the entire phenomenon can be derived (although not
directly) from some common narrative core. We can barely find these elements
in Jordanes’s work, which does not mean, however, that the threads present in
his Getica could not be the distant sources of this narrative tradition.
In the case of the narrative of the Goths in the work of Thomas the
Archdeacon and the two editors of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, there
are too many convergences to be accidental, which makes the hypothesis
about some lost text or an oral tradition popular in the Adriatic region known
to the authors of the abovementioned works more credible. Neither Thomas
nor the anonymous author of The Chronicle constructed the Gothic thread
110 Živković suggested that Chronica Poloniae maioris was written by Bogufał (Boguphalus) II,
the Bishop of Poznań – quite an outdated attribution: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 77. On
the subject of Bogufał in the context of the chronicle see: Kürbis, “Wstęp” in Kronika
Wielkopolska, pp. 19–20.
from scratch; they used an outline of the story that we can still recognize in
their very different texts.
8 The Croatian Version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja

about the Arrival of the Goths and Their Rulers
The realization of the story of the migrations of the Goths, as well as the func-
tion assigned to them, were clearly different in the particular narratives from
the circle of Dalmatian “Gothomania”. Even in the two basic variants of The
Chronicle, one can notice diversity affecting the meaning of the text.
Although the legend which we find in the Croatian version of The Chronicle
of the Priest of Duklja does not differ significantly from the text of Regnum
Sclavorum, there were some changes in it that introduced new informa-
tion about the Goths, their arrival, and their characteristics. The Latin and
Old-Croatian texts are mostly similar to each other – as far as the different
characters of the languages allowed them to be – and the differences can often
be considered as the result of corruption in the process of reproduction or
translation; yet some modifications should be considered as the intentional
actions of one of the authors. These are related to four elements of the narra-
tive which are important to us:
1. The chronology of the Gothic invasion is presented slightly differ-
ently in the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
Neither the emperor nor the pope is mentioned by name. The sentence
“Kraljujući cesar u gradi basiliji cesarstva” (Emperor ruled in the city
of the empire’s basileis) was interpreted by Šišić in such a way that it
would refer to the name of Emperor Basil,112 but the more convincing
thesis is from Mošin, that it was a literal translation of the phrase “urbs
Constantopolitana” – through analogy to the Greek βασίλειος πόλις, “city
of emperors”.113 Živković interpreted this expression in a different way. He
believed that in the lost manuscript of the Croatian version (the so-called
Papalić manuscript), the text referred to Emperor Justinian.114 The name
of this emperor is found in the translation of this version into Latin, made
by Marulić in 1510.115 It is not known, however, whether Marulić, who

113 Mošin, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, p. 40, footnote 3.
115 Regvm Dalmatię atque Croatie gesta a Marco Marulo Spalatensi Patritio Latinitate Donata,
ed. Neven Jovanović, Colloquia Maruliana 18 (2009), p. 34.
78 Chapter 3
worked with the Papalić manuscript, actually read Justinian’s name in it,
or whether he put it in the text on his own initiative. The Croatian version
of The Chronicle, just like the Latin one, placed the invasion of Dalmatia
in the time of the Saints Jerman [Germanus], Scilur (rightly corrected by
the publishers to Sabinus), and Benedict.
However, in the text of the Croatian version, the Goths did not come
from the north, as in Regnum Sclavorum, but from the east – this signifi-
cant detail indicates a tendency in the description of the barbarians, and
in this interpretation “the north” and “the east” could well be, as we shall
see, synonymous. The characteristics of the Goths in the Croatian ver-
sion of The Chronicle corresponded to the phrase “gens ferox et indomita”
from Regnum Sclavorum – the author of the Slavic text described them
with the words: “ljudi tvrdi i golemo ljuti prez zakona kako divji” (Tough
and very fierce people, lawless and wild).116
2. Both versions present stages of the Gothic conquest in a slightly different
way. As it is stated in the Croatian version, before the Goths appeared in
Dalmatia: “najprvo pridosta na kraljestvo ugarsko i kralja pobiše i obujaše
kraljestvo. I potom toga pojdoše naprida i pojdoše u Trnovinu” (First they
attacked the Hungarian kingdom, and beat the king, and took over the
kingdom. After that they moved forward and came to Trnovina).117 In
Regnum Sclavorum the author mentions in this fragment, respectively,
Pannonia and Templana. In the first case, the author of the Croatian
version updated the ancient name of the land with the current political
one – “the Hungarian kingdom”. It was an obvious anachronism, incon-
sistent with the further course of the narrative in which the Hungarians
were to appear much later. It is also worth noting that, according to this
version, before the attack on Dalmatia, Totila was somewhat in the posi-
tion of being the ruler of Hungary. The meaning of both “Trnovina” and
“Templana” remains unclear. Šišić attempted, by analogy with Thomas
the Archdeacon’s chronicle, to correct Templana to Teutonia, but such
a supposition seems too wishful. We also do not know whether the dif-
ference between Trnovina and Templana was just a result of a spelling
mistake by a scribe, or whether the change was associated with some
semantic shift.118
116 Ljetopis, p. 38.

118 “Tarnovia” in the translation by Marulic. It is possible that the name Trnovina may be
linked with the shorter redaction of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle, mentioning “aples
tyrancie” on the route of the march of Aquila-Attila. The relations between the Croatian
text of The Chronicle and The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle mentioned above are discussed
In both versions, Salona was an important stage on the route of the

conquest of the Goths.119 In Regnum Sclavorum, the country was ruled
by the king of the Dalmatians, so Salona was the capital of the kingdom
invaded by the Goths. The Croatian version also states “kralj dalmatinski
[…] pribivaše u čudnom i velikom gradu Solinu” (the Dalmatian king …
stayed in the magnificent and great city of Solin).
However, it is worth looking at the future of the city. In Regnum
Sclavorum, the defeated king of the Dalmatians “evasit autem cum valde
paucis militibus et aufugit in civitatem suam Salonam”120 (with a hand-
ful of warriors fled to his city of Salona) – this was the last mention of
the city in the context of the Goth invasion. The narrative of Regnum
Sclavorum says nothing more about the further fate of the wounded king
of Dalmatia, although it would seem to be an important piece of informa-
tion. Otherwise, in the Croatian version, we read that “kralj Dalmacije s
malo vitezi smrtnom ranom ranjen ubiže i bi prenešen u slavni i čudni
grad Solin, u kom gradu bi za veće dan općeni plač i tuga neizrečena” (the
king of Dalmatia, mortally wounded, escaped with a group of knights and
he was taken to the famous and beautiful city of Solin, in which wail-
ing and unspeakable sadness lasted many days).121 The author of the
Croatian text thus concluded the case of the king of Dalmatians, and
also described the fate of the city a bit further, for “i bogati, i lipi Solin”
[beautiful and rich Solin] was captured and destroyed by Stroil,122 as were
Dalma, Narun, Skardon and many other famous cities in Dalmatia.
An interesting piece of information was included in the translation
of the Croatian version made by Marulić in which Bladin was described
as: “Salonarum rex” [the king of Salona]. This could be another example
of the fact that the author of the Croatian version attributed a greater
role to the city. However, we do not have the Papalić manuscript, hence
it is difficult to judge whether the passage was an interpolation by the
translator.123
As far as such details are concerned, the Croatian version is probably
closer to the original shape of the narrative than Regnum Sclavorum. Also,
in the excursus. See also: Wawrzyniec Kowalski, “Wielkie zło i herezje Eutychesa. Wokół
wątku podboju Dalmacji w Latopisie popa Duklanina,” Balcanica Posnaniensia 25 (2018),
pp. 53–67.
119 Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 333–335.
122 The counterpart of Ostroyllus in Regnum Sclavorum.
123 Regvm Dalmatię atque Croatie gesta, p. 38; see: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 106.
80 Chapter 3
the almost formulaic epithet – “i bogati, i lipi” – which always accompa-

nied Salona may raise the suspicion that the author used an oral tradition
in which a “rich and beautiful” city played an important role.
3. As we have seen, even the first mention of the Slavs in the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum arouses controversy. The Slavs were equated with the
Goths, and both words seem – at least in this passage – to mean the same:
barbarian pagans. The general tendency of the Croatian version is to
replace the term “Slav” with the word “Croat”. Also, in the passage devoted
to the Goths, we read about the Croats instead of the Slavs. Interestingly,
the controversial phrase “Gothi qui et Sclavi” did not appear in the
Old-Croatian text. Croats appear in it for the first time when it comes to
the battle between the Goths and the kings of Istria and Dalmatia. The
sentence concerning the losses suffered by the Christian side, which in
Regnum Sclavorum was “ceciditque pars christianorum et interfectus est
rex Istriae et multa milia hominum christianorum in ore gladii mortua
sunt et plurima captiva ducta sunt” (and some Christians were killed and
the king of Istria was killed and many thousands of Christians were killed
by the sword and many were abducted in captivity), in the Croatian nar-
rative would correspond to the sentence: “i prez izma bi pobijena strana
krstjanska i ubijen bi kralj istrinski i mnogo tisuć krstjani po dobitju bi
pod mač obraćeno i vele Hrvat bi pobijeno” (and because of this the
Christian side was beaten and the Istrian king was killed and many thou-
sands of Christians fell under the sword and many Croats were killed).124
With the exception of the ending, both statements are a fairly faithful
translation. The expression: “vele Hrvat” could be used here to empha-
size the losses on the part of the pagans as a replacement for the word
“Goths”, but it seems that the author of this version placed the Croats on
the side of the defeated Christians.
Such a supposition could be confirmed by a passage concerning
King Selimir (Silimir in the H. redaction). In the Latin text, we read that
after reaching agreement with the Christians, Selimir “replevit [terram]
multitudine Sclavorum” (settled [the land] with lots of Slavs).125 In the
Croatian text, Selimir’s activity was described as: “I vele krstjane ljubljaše
i ne dadiše progoniti jih. I naredis njimi, da mu budu davati dohodak.
I tako opet napuni zemlju hrvatsku” (And he loved Christians very
much and did not let them be banished. And he ordered them to pay
him tribute. And thus they filled the Croatian land again).126 In this case

the Slavs from the Latin version would correspond to the Christians. The
narrative of the Croatian version would therefore be more consistent.
The author of the Latin text did not explain the relationship between
the appearance of the Slavs and making the peace agreement with the
Christians. These two successive events seem separate. In the Croatian
version, the repopulation of “zemlja hrvatska” [Croatian land] is the
result of the agreement with the Christians. The author of the Croatian
version did not use the word “Croat” but only the adjective “Croatian”
(here in the geographical sense), but it could indirectly confirm our ear-
lier assumption that in this text the Croats are the Christians, and they
did not become identical with the Goths (although they inhabited the
lands conquered by them) as it happened in the Latin narrative.127
The result of this state of affairs would be the different treatment of
Gothic kings in particular versions. This is evidenced by the moment of
transition of the Gothic dynasty to the lineage of the Slavic (Croatian)
kings, which in both cases happened in the period after the death of the
nameless kings, and before Svetopelek (in the Croatian version: Budimir)
came to the throne. The author of the Latin version emphasized the con-
tinuity of the dynasty from its Gothic origins. This is how he described
the enthronement of four nameless rulers: “Defuncto etiam Ratimiro,
ex eius progenie regnaverunt pos eum quatuor iniqui reges” (After the
death of Ratimir, there were four evil kings from his family), and then,
when Svetimir followed them, the chronicler emphasized that he “natus
est ex eorum progenie”128 (was born from their family). The Croatian text
presented this affinity slightly differently. First we read: “I umre Ratimir
i ne ostavi sina na njegovu misti. I stavi se jedan od njegova kolina. I on
umrše, ne biše veće kralji togaj kolina”129 (And Ratimir died and did not
leave a son for his place. And another man of his family appeared. And
he died and there were no more kings from this family) – the royal lin-
eage was therefore broken, and Satimir (Svetimir in the V. redaction),
Budimir’s father (Svetopelek in the V. redaction), did not belong, in the
Croatian variant, to the family of Stroil (Ostroyllus in the V. redaction).
In this version, the four evil kings were grouped in two pairs: “I po ovih
dviju, jedan za druzim, druga dva kraljevaše, i ne mnogo lit živiše […]
127 Moreover, the Croatian text of the Chronicle also reads that the arriving Bulgarians
maintained a strong faith and so they left the Latins in peace. Then when the similarity
between the Bulgarians and Bladin’s subjects was mentioned, the anonymous author of
this variant wrote that they were of one faith and one language: Ljetopis, pp. 45–46.
129 A little below we read: “Ki obaj nemilostivo krstjane progonjahu” – that is why Mošin adds
here in square brackets: “[a potom drugi]”: Ljetopis, p. 47.
82 Chapter 3
I pomanjkavaše ti rečeni i nepravdeni kralji, osta sin jednoga, ki bi napo-

konji, komu biše ime Satimir” (After these two, one by one, the other two
reigned, and they did not live many years … and these unjust kings, men-
tioned above, died, survived by the son of one of the deceased [kings]
who was called Satimir).130 The author of the Croatian version contin-
ued, clearly highlighting the breakthrough that occurred in the question
of succession in the crisis period of the rule of four unnamed evil kings.
Živković searched for the equivalents of “quatuor iniqui reges” in the
Book of Genesis.131 The context of the appearance of the phrase “qua-
tour reges adversus quinque”132 was, however, completely different, so
this similarity can be with some certainty regarded as accidental. We do
not know, however, to what extent the Croatian version contains pas-
sages carrying a certain corruption of the text (which at times became
quite unclear), and to what extent the author, as we suppose, deliberately
decided to separate the kings of the Goths from successive rulers of the
kingdom described by him.
4. The author of the Croatian version of The Chronicle seems to have a
slightly different attitude to the two Goth chieftains Totila and Stroil. The
author of the Latin version presented both of them as dangerous war-
riors successful in battle, but the Croatian version offered more complete
characteristics of these figures. It should be noted that the very style of
the narrative of the Croatian version was distinguished by an excess of
epithets (as, for example, the abovementioned phrase “lipi/bogati Solin”)
and this probably contributed to describing the fights that Totila led with
the Latins as “čudne i tvrde rvanje” (great and hard struggles). The author
of the Croatian version also writes that Totila passed through Istria and
Aquileia “kao munja”,133 i.e. like a thunderbolt.
In the Latin text, we read that Ostroil, who “vir forti animo erat” [was
a man of strong spirit], did not escape the imperial army but confronted
the emperor and was killed in the battle. As in the case of Totila, the frag-
ment devoted to Stroil was developed by the author of the Croatian ver-
sion: “jere biše slavna srca i tilom jaki i ognjen junak. Ki nere kako srdit lav
noseće se i bi od veće ran obranjen, ke ne hajuće, dà, od krvi ostavljen a
od ran sprežen, pase s konja uteć nemoguće; i dospiše ubiti ga” (He had a
brave heart and strong body and passionate prowess. He behaved like an

132 Genesis 14:9.
angry lion and was hurt many times, but he did not care, and so because of
the loss of blood and wounds he fell from the horse, he could not escape
and they managed to kill him).134 By comparison to the lion, the anony-
mous author clearly wanted to emphasize the bravery of the chieftain,
as well as to give his death a certain dramatic feature associated with a
knight’s attitude (a fall from a horse).135 According to Živković, the Priest
of Duklja abandoned this idea, because he decided to associate the Goths
with the heretic Anastasius.136 Živković speculated that the original text
did not include the motif of heresy, as is indicated by the Croatian ver-
sion (as has already been stated, according to this concept the emperor
mentioned in the text was Justinian). Živković claimed that the author of
both versions was one person. According to him, the Old-Croatian nar-
rative was the older of the two, although it was supposedly a translation
of another (now lost) Latin chronicle written by the same author in his
youth and later expanded by him. The entire hypothesis sounds neither
convincing nor it is confirmed by the available copies of various versions
of The Chronicle. Even if we ignore the complex issue of the chronology
of these versions, changes found in them sometimes indicate different
interpretations of particular fragments by the translator of one of the
texts. The same observations regarding a different image of Ostroyllus/
Stroil in both texts, however, seem to be accurate. In the Croatian ver-
sion the description of the death of the chieftain gained a certain heroic
tinge that was absent in Regnum Sclavorum. However, it did not cause
an altered perception of the next rulers of the Goths. Both texts treated
them in a similar way, and evaluation of their rule was based on their atti-
tude towards the Christian population in the areas under their control.
It is puzzling that in both versions it was emphasized that before mak-
ing the decision to continue their invasion to Italy, the barbarian chief-
tains were advised by their magnates. Regnum Sclavorum states that Totila
and Ostroil “consilio initio cum suis magnatibus diviserunt exercitum”

136 According to Papageorgiou the reference to Anastasius was not accidental, and should be
attributed to hostility between the alleged patron of The Chronicle, Paul (Pavao) Šubić and
the emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos, an ally of King Stefan Milutin of Serbia, the main
opponent of Šubić in the region. See: Angeliki Papageorgiou, “The wake behind the mis-
sion of Cyril and Methodius: Byzantine echoes in the Chronicle of the Priest of Diokleia,”
in Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs, 28–30 November 2013
(Thessaloniki, 2015), p. 722; eadem, “The Byzantine Citizen in ‘Gesta regum Sclavorum’,”
in Niš i Vizantija XIV, ed. Miša Rakocija (Niš, 2016), p. 82.
84 Chapter 3
(following the council with their magnates they split the army),137 which
would correspond to the sentence: [Totila and Stroil] “zazvaše barune i
poglavice, i k tome se dogovoriše i svit vazeše, da bi se imile vojske raz-
diliti” (summoned the barons and commanders, and decided and agreed
that they would split the army).138 A joint council with the magnates and
the chieftains’ desire to get to know their opinions is a motive present in
other parts of The Chronicle. Those who are able to listen to the opinions
of their advisers are presented in the text as prudent rulers.
9 The Goths and Their Organization of Power in Historia Salonitana

by Thomas the Archdeacon: the Meaning of the Words “Goths”,
“Slavs”, “Croats” and the Way of Organizing Power
The Goths appear in Thomas the Archdeacon’s chronicle in a broader context

related to the history of the fall of Salona. Under Totila – the chieftain whose
name is also known from The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja – they “left the
regions of Teutonia [Germany] and Poland”,139 and after arriving in Dalmatia
destroyed the entire region, and partially ruined Salona and parts of the palace
of the Emperor Diocletian.
Thomas the Archdeacon gives a short description of the Goths: they are
ruled by seven or eight noble families from Teutonia and Poland. As men-
tioned above, the chronicler named these noble groups “Lingons”. There is no
agreement among scholars on the meaning and origins of this name. It first
appears in Bellum civile by Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, and it was initially sug-
gested that Thomas used this ancient term in his chronicle primarily under
the influence of the Roman poet. However, the inadequacy of both meanings
is a problem, for Lucan mentioned the Lingons in the area of Gaul.140 Another
hypothesis is that the source of this name might be Gesta Hammaburgensis
ecclesiae pontificum by Adam of Bremen, who mentioned the existence of a
Slav tribe named Lingons living east of the Elbe river, or Chronica Sclavorum
by Helmold, who repeated this information after Adam.141 Mirjana Matijević

139 “de partibus Teutonie et Polonie exierunt”, Historia Salonitana, p. 34.
140 M. Annaeus Lucanus, The Civil War (Pharsalia), 1: 397, ed. Thomas Ethelbert Page et al.
(London/Cambridge, 1962), p. 32.
141 M Adami gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, book 2, chapter 18, ed. Johann
Martin Lappenberg, MGH SS vol. 7 (Hannover, 1848), p. 311; Helmoldi presbyteri chronica
Slavorum, book 1, chapter 37, ed. Johann Martin Lapenberg, MGH SS vol. 21 (Hannover,
1869), p. 40.
Sokol142 saw the source of the information included in Thomas’ chronicle in

Helmold’s work. On the other hand, Lesław Spychała has recently proposed
a return to the interpretation known in the older historiography, associating
the medieval form of the name given to the Poles by Hungarians, lengyen/
lengyel, probably also known in Dalmatia: “The name of Lingons appearing in
the works of ancient poets was, by all accounts, associated with the exonym
for Poles used by Hungarians, or by inhabitants of Dalmatia when it was ruled
by the Árpáds, which is in accordance with what Thomas himself wrote about
the sources of his information, namely that they also included various opin-
ions, views and ideas”.143 A similar hypothesis was expressed even earlier by
Olga Anatolevna Akimova.144 To confirm her idea, she referred to a fragment
of a fourteenth-century work by Michal Madius de Barbasanis (Croatian: Miha
Madijev, a chronicler from Split who certainly knew Historia Salonitana) in
which Totila was called the duke of Poles (dux Polonorum).145
According to Thomas the Archdeacon, the structure of power among the
Goths looks to be as follows: There is a dux, Totila, and they are nobile, called
Lingons. The barbarians appeared in the region of Salona during a less pros-
perous time for the city. As Thomas wrote, even before the invasion, “Salona
urbs propter barbarorum vicinitatem, qui eam cotidianis insultibus impugn-
abant, ad deteriora labi cotidie cogebatur” (The city of Salona was subject to
daily attacks on account of the proximity of the barbarians, and every day its
situation worsened inexorably).146 The city itself was full of sin and debauch-
ery, corruption, thievery and vice. Historia Salonitana described these circum-
stances so in such detail that there is no doubt that they caused the destruction
of Salona, just like the sins of the Christians caused the defeat of the kings of
Istria and Dalmatians in the clash with Totila and Ostroil in the narrative of
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
Thomas, however, was not sure of identity of the barbarians who destroyed
the city. He mentioned that the Goths of Totila partially destroyed Salona,
142 Mirjana Matijević Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo (Split, 2002), p. 235.
143 Lesław Spychała, “‘Lingones’ Tomasza ze Splitu. Węgierska nazwa Polaków (lengyen/
lengyel) czy jej południowosłowiański odpowiednik (Lenđel [Lenđen])?,” in Z badań
nad historią Śląska i Europy w wiekach średnich, ed. Mateusz Goliński, Stanisław Rosik
(Wrocław, 2013), p. 213.
144 See footnote 59 in the edition: Foma Splitskij, Istorija arhiepiskopov Salony i Splita
[Фома Сплитский, История архиепископов Салоны и Сплита], trans. and ed. Olga
Anatolevna Akimova (Moscow, 1997), p. 160.
145 Incipit Historia edita per Micam Madii de Barbazanis de Spaleto de gestis Romanorum
imperatorum et summorum pontificum pars secundae partis de anno Domini MCCXC, ed.
Vitaliano Brunelli, Archivio storico per la Dalmazia 1 (1926), fasc. 4, p. 43.
146 Historia Salonitana, p. 32. [All excerpts of Historia Salonitana translated by Damir Karbić,
Mirjana Matijević Sokol and James Ross Sweeney.]
86 Chapter 3
“antequam arma inferret Ytalie” (before making war in Italy).147 However,

before the author of Historia Salonitana went on to describe the attack on the
city, he introduced a digression into the text which undermines some earlier
findings regarding the origin of the barbarians.
Thomas began his description of the land bordering the north with the
statement: “Chroatia est regio montuosa” (Croatia is a mountainous coun-
try), followed by: “Hec regio atiquitus vocabatur Curetia et populi, qui nunc
dicuntur Chroate, dicebantur Curetes vel Coribantes”148 (In ancient times this
region was called Curetia, and the people who are now called Croats were
called Curetes or Corybantes). In this way, the Croats appeared in his text for
the first time under the name of “Curetes”. The author of Historia Salonitana
described their unusual practices. The first description concerned the belliger-
ence of the Croats; the second their customs, in particular their special rite of
evading demons during the lunar eclipse. Thomas himself even strengthened
the significance of his words when he described in detail the militant spirit
of the Curetes, claiming that they were unafraid of death to such an extent that
they attacked enemies without wearing armour.149 Although the description of
this people was framed by the chronicler with quotes from Lucanus and Virgil,
it is difficult to suppose that he only reproduced stereotypes which were preva-
lent in ancient literature. He could have been referring to the real customs of
the Croats, especially in the case of the ritual and war practices.150
The Curetes were mentioned by Thomas the Archdeacon in earlier parts
of his work. Along with the Dalmatians and the Istrians, they were part of the
army of Basilus and Octavius – two generals loyal to Pompeius during the civil
war against Caesar. In both descriptions, they were an existing element: an old
ethnic substrate on the inland areas, located further from the coast. Therefore,
147 Historia Salonitana, p. 36.

149 A similar figure of unarmed warriors was used earlier by Procopius of Caesarea. The figure
was frequently used as a commonplace, and also appeared e.g. in the works of Paul the
Deacon, Saxo Grammaticus or Gallus Anonymus. On similar descriptions of methods of
fighting of barbarians in medieval chronicles: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “‘Nadzy wojownicy’ –
o średniowiecznych pogłosach dawnego rytu wojskowego (Prokopiusz z Cezarei, Paweł
Diakon, Girald z Walii, Sakso Gramaty i Gall Anonim),” in Człowiek, sacrum, środowisko.
Miejsca kultu we wczesnym średniowieczu. Spotkania Bytomskie IV, ed. Sławomir
Moździoch (Wrocław. 2000), pp. 7–26.
150 On the possible place where Thomas the Archdeacon could observe Croatian cus-
toms related to lunar eclipse: Krešimir Kužić, “Gdje je i kad Toma Arhiđakon doživio
hrvatska vjerovanja vezana za pomrčinu mjeseca – doprinos interdisciplinarnoj metodi
istraživanja,” Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene
znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 22 (2004), pp. 27–33.
it seems strange that at the end of the second extensive passage about the
Curetes, the chronicler summed it up with the following words:
Premixti ergo sunt populi isti et facti sunt gens una, vita moribusque con-
similes, unius loquele. Ceperunt autem habere proprios duces. Et quam-
vis pravi essent et feroces, tamen Christiani erant, sed rudes valde. Ariana
etiam errant tabe respersi. Gothi a pluribus dicebantur et nichilominus
Sclavi, secundum proprietatem nominis eorum, qui Polonia seu Bohemia
venerant.151
(These peoples then intermingled and formed one nation, alike in life
and customs and with one language. They also began to have their own
chiefs. And although they were vicious and ferocious, they were also
Christians, albeit extremely primitive ones. They had also been infected
with the cancer of Arianism. Many called them Goths, but also Slavs,
which was the name of those who had come from Poland or Bohemia).
This short fragment is characterized by some inconsistency. The Curetes – or,

as Thomas the Archdeacon claimed, Croats – suddenly become identified with
the Goths or the Slavs who came from the north. The chronicler linked them to
the Arian heresy. For the author of Historia Salonitana, as we shall soon see, the
bond between the Goths and heresy was very clear. The term Sclavi (the Slavs)
appeared in a rather unclear context as the name of those who came from the
lands of Poland and Bohemia. The Goths and Slavs have their chiefs (or dukes,
duces). It can be assumed that Thomas consistently repeated information
about the decentralization and numerous authority centres of the Goths – the
same that he had already given when writing about the Lingons.
However, describing the siege and capture of the city of Salona by the Goths,
the chronicler claimed they had one ruler. He wrote: “Igitur dux Gothus, qui toti
preerat Sclavonie, coadunato magno exercitu equitum peditumque descendit
de montibus et castra posuit ex orientali parte civitatis”152 (So the Gothic duke
who ruled over Sclavonia collected a great army of cavalry and infantry; then,
descending from the mountains, he pitched camp on the eastern side of the city).
As Spychała noted, the term tota Sclavonia in Thomas’s time had not only geo-
graphic but also political significance – it was used to describe the lands of Croatia
and Dalmatia or all territories south of the Drava.153 We are not convinced

153 Spychała, “‘Lingones’ Tomasza ze Splitu,” p. 201.
88 Chapter 3
whether in this case the author of Historia Salonitana referred to this specific
definition of Sclavonia or rather, drawing on the local tradition of conquests,
he only emphasized the imaginary scope of the rule of the barbarian duke.
When Thomas the Archdeacon, in earlier parts of his work, described the
arrival of the Goths from the north, their appearance in Dalmatia, devastation
of the land, and the partial destruction of Salona, he could simply have devel-
oped one story (as is indirectly indicated by the word igitur in the beginning
of the narrative), and he could also have joined two not completely homoge-
neous yet complementary images, those of the barbarian newcomers led by
Totila, and of the savage inhabitants living nearby Salona. In this new story, the
settled Goths did not come from the north, but came from the mountains, as is
evidenced by the fact that their camp was, according to Thomas, on the inland
eastern side of the city walls.
In the description of the situation inside Salona before the destruction of
the city, the biblical topos of Sodom and Gomorrah was used, yet the invasion
itself was presented with a somewhat different pattern. First, Thomas described
the sin of the citizens of the city, and then he portrayed the Goths as a kind of
plague. After the fall of the city, the inhabitants, like fugitives from the biblical
flood, escaped by ship. The Goths, the Slavs, the Curetes were executors of the
punishment. It would be most convenient to assume that the chronicler used
the recurring theme of Attila as a savage conqueror. The issue of similarity of
the motif of Attila and Totila was also discussed in the context of the Priest of
Duklja’s work. It seems, however, that both the author of Historia Salonitana
and the author of Regnum Sclavorum used some local well-established tradi-
tion without realizing its possible sources.
In Thomas the Archdeacon’s work, Attila performed a completely differ-
ent function to Totila, the duke of the Goths. Historia Salonitana listed him
among the ancestors of the Hungarians. As in the case of the Slavs, the chroni-
cler used several different names to designate Hungarians. First he called them
Massagets.154 Before they came to Pannonia, they lived in a country called
Mageria, and they were also known in the past as the Huns, hence their name
Hungari.155 The name of Mageria probably echoes the identification of the
East with the lands of Gog and Magog common in medieval chronicles. In con-
trast to Isidore of Seville, Thomas did not associate the name of the Massagets
either with the Getae156 or – on the basis of a phonetic similarity – with the
154 More about this identification: Lesław Spychała, “Węgrzy jako Pars aliqua gentis Mas
sagetum. Ślady późnoantycznej i wczesnośredniowiecznej uczoności w dziele Tomasza
Archidiakona Splitu,” SAMAI 5 (2020), pp. 155–195.
156 The Etymologies, p. 195.
Goths. Therefore, Attila, the ruler of the Hungarians-Massagets, and Totila, the
chieftain of the Goths, are separate figures for him.
Although the author of Historia Salonitana used the name “Getia”, situat-
ing it in the area which in his times was known as Raška or Serbia and the
city of Delmis, he did not specify whether in his opinion there was a connec-
tion between the Getae and the Slavs or Goths.157 In fact, in his work Thomas
mentioned Serbia only twice and did not pay much attention to it. However,
elsewhere he pointed out that he considered Delmis to be a part of the region
broadly understood as Sclavonia. It is possible, therefore, that the concept of
the kinship of the Getae and the Goths – although not directly expressed – was
marked here.
Thomas the Archdeacon saw the Goths, the Slavs and the Croats as an alien
and dangerous element. It seems that the author of Historia Salonitana used
these names synonymously. However, some contexts can be found in which
the words “Goth”, “Slav” and “Croat” are narrowed semantically.158 In such situ-
ations, their rulers were also described slightly differently by the chronicler.
“The Slavs” was the name Thomas used most often. They were almost always
described as a menace. They were savage and numerous. Very rarely did the
chronicler describe them in a more specific and detailed manner. Besides the
above-mentioned information that “Slavs” is the name of the Goths who came
from Poland and Bohemia, he referred to the Slavs who, fearing the youth of
Salona, stayed away from the coast.159 The Goths and the Slavs are mentioned
again a bit later as a threat to the partially rebuilt city. Interestingly, we learn
from this passage that the rulers of these Goths and Slavs were subjects of the
emperor in Constantinople. At the request of the inhabitants of Salona, the
emperor even sent his men to forbid the dukes of the Goths and the Slavs from
making further raids on the city: “Iussio etiam ad duces Gothorum et Sclavorum
missa est districte precipens, ut nullam Salonitanis civibus in Spalato degenti-
bus molestiam irrogarent” (And a command was sent to the chiefs [dukes] of
the Goths and the Slavs, strictly forbidding them from troubling the citizens
of Salona who were now living in Split).160 In Thomas’ narrative, the impe-
rial intervention resulted in the establishment of relations between the Slavs
157 As was shown by Matijević Sokol, such identification of Getae and Goths had been
used in Dalmatia since the second half of the fifteenth century. It was also used by
the sixteenth-century humanists. Mirjana Matijević Sokol, “‘Historia Salonitana’ post
Thomam – recepcija ‘Salonitanske povijesti’ od prvotiska,” in Humanitas et litterae ad
honorem Franjo Šanjek, eds. Lovorka Čoralić, Slavko Slišković (Zagreb, 2009), pp. 99–112.
158 Matijević Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo, pp. 235–240.
90 Chapter 3
and Salona.161 These relations usually meant trade, and also even mutual
marriages. The chronicler concluded this topic, ending the broader story of
the attack on Salona with a description of the peaceful relationship between
the inhabitants of the city and the Slavs-Goths.162
Although Thomas the Archdeacon did not make a clear statement on
the nature of political divisions between the Slavs, he did write about duces
Sclavorum, thus suggesting their political pluralism. In the case of the relic
of St. Domnius, the chronicler first mentioned the Slavic menace, and later
wrote that the Slavic leaders held the church of this saint in great veneration.
Immediately afterwards, the dukes of the Goths and the Slavs are smoothly
replaced by duces Gothorum et Chroatorum, when Thomas writes about their
renouncement of the sin of Arian heresy.163
Fear of the Slavic mass, which had to be repeatedly tamed, and which
disturbed the inhabitants of Split, was also evident in further parts of the
work – for example, in an episode about Reles. The chronicler called him dux
Chrovatorum and wrote that he was a powerful and belligerent man whose
ambition was to take over the city.164 At the same time Thomas mentioned
that the inhabitants of Split did not want to accept the rule of the Slav.165 Here
the terms “Croats” and “Slav” were again used synonymously by the author of
Historia Salonitana.
Most often, the Slavs were mentioned in Thomas the Archdeacon’s work as
groups outside the borders of the symbolic ecumene, in the wild mountains.
For example, they attacked Archbishop Rainer traveling in the Mosor moun-
tains and stoned him to death, encouraged by a local leader from the Kačic
family.166
In many cases, Thomas did not mention any duke or local leaders, but treated
the Slavs as a shapeless mass, an element of hostile armies that attempted to
invade the city. He was relieved to mention the temporary cessation of their
161 Historia Salonitana, pp. 52–53.

162 More on the image of inhabitants of Split in the work Thomas the Archdeacon: Tomislav
Raukar, “Splitsko društvo u Salonitanskoj povijesti Tome Arhiđakona,” in idem, Studije o
Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku (Split, 2007), pp. 215–244.
164 Fine Jr., When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, pp. 87–88. Fine observed that in
the case of Reles, the most appropriate translation seems to be “chieftain”, “voivode”. This
work also contains more reflections on the relationship between the terms “Slav” and
“Croat” in the work of Thomas the Archdeacon.
166 “… ecce Nicolaus quidam cum fratribus et parentela sua, quia erant ex tenere Cacitorum …”,
Historia Salonitana, p. 124. The chronicler also describes the misfortune of an unnamed,
“poor and simple priest” who, accused of debts by a certain Slav, was bound and handed
over to him by a nobleman, named Kaceta, ibidem, p. 194.
raids: “Sclavi etiam, qui implacabiliter contra civitatem seviebant assiduis pre-
dationiubus laniantes eam, ad pacis Concordia reducti sunt” (Even the Slavs
who were raging relentlessly against the city, rending it with their incessant
plundering, were brought to concord and peace).167 The Slavic menace was
permanently present in Thomas’ work. He wrote about a large number of
Hungarians and Slavs in the Venetian army attacking the city.168 Another time
he described “the army of the Hungarians, the Slavs and the Dalmatians”,169
and he also noted “certain Slavs” had allied with Trogir against the inhabitants
of Split. He mentioned “the army of the Hungarians, the Slavs and Cumans”170
accompanying Queen Mary in her campaign against the city. The chronicler
likewise referred to the Hungarians and the Slavs in the context of the masses
fleeing the attack of the Tartars.171 The multitude of warriors was replaced in
this case by a multitude of refugees. Earlier, however, Thomas, in reference to
the stereotypical description of the Slavs, reported that they suffered from the
Tartars only to a small extent, because they hid in the forests and mountains.172
Both formulaic motives – the Slavs hiding in the mountains and the Slavs
as militant aggressors, taking every opportunity to attack Split – were often
used by the author of Historia Salonitana. They become particularly interest-
ing when we try to recognize them in the text of Regnum Sclavorum, in which
this type of portrayal of the Slavs is almost absent. We say “almost”, because
one exception is a narrative about the foundation of Ragusa: the Latins, flee-
ing into the mountains, were taken into captivity by the Slavs living there. An
image of the militant barbarians can also be found in the description of the
Goths and invasions of Totila and Ostroil, although it should be noted here
that in the Priest of Duklja’s work, the Slavs become the Goths in situations
where their savagery is not emphasized. Therefore, the anonymous author of
The Chronicle used the topos of the savage Slavs only once when the kingdom
de facto did not exist – during the interregnum period, after Radoslav’s exile
and Časlav’s death. Even if, indeed, as scholars accept, this passage is either a
type of gloss or was taken from some earlier source,173 the use of the topos of
the Slavs who were hostile to the Latins in this particular fragment emphasized
the absence of supreme power and the uncertain political situation at a time
when there was no king.

173 See chapter 5 of the present work.
92 Chapter 3
Of equal interest are the circumstances in which Thomas the Archdeacon

mentions the Croats. In several cases the “Croats” are exact equivalents of the
“Slavs”. However, there are some fragments where the meaning of both words is
certainly different. In latter parts of the text, the author of Historia Salonitana
actually described the Croats in contexts similar to the Slavs. He wrote about
the alliance of the Hungarians with the Croats from the city of Knin and their
attack on Salona.174 He also wrote that the inhabitants of the city initially mis-
took the approaching Tartars for Croats – in this way the chronicler intended
to emphasize the barbaric appearance of the latter.175 Some Croats under
the command of Tollen and Vilceta, the sons of Butc, probably local leaders,
attacked Ostrog, and then defended themselves using the natural fortifica-
tions, throwing stones from the mountains at the inhabitants of Salona who
were attacking them.176 The interchangeable use of the names “Croats” and
“Slavs” occurs in those contexts in which they agreed with the vision of barbar-
ians adopted by Thomas – a people with an undefined structures of power,
belonging to groups with ephemeral identification, and ruled by local chief-
tains or leaders. His work often assigns the Curetes, the Croats, the Goths and
the Slavs to this category.
Thomas the Archdeacon, however, abandoned such an image of the Croats
in a certain fragment, while describing their kingdom and presenting how it
was taken by the kings of Hungary. The chronicler attributed the establish-
ment of the kingdom to Držislav (Dirscisclavi) who ruled about 970, when
Martin was the Archbishop of Salona, and Theodosius was the Byzantine
Emperor.177 Thomas noted that: “Ab isto Dirscisclavo ceteri successores eius
reges Dalmatie et Chroatie appellati sunt” (All the successors of Držislav were
called kings of Dalmatia and Croatia).178 He also knew the names of two rul-
ers before Držislav. The first of these was the Duke of Sclavonia, Branimir (this
figure will be discussed below); the second was the duke (dux) Tomislav, who
ruled about 914, mentioned by the author of Historia Salonitana but without
defining the area of his reign. Thomas also claimed that the descendants of
Držislav received the royal crown from Constantinople, and that they called
themselves imperial “eparchs” or “patricians”. He also described the boundar-
ies of the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia, locating in it the aforementioned
city of Delmis in the east, Carinthia in the west, stretching these borders from

177 That is not confirmed by the real course of history. In 970 the Byzantine Empire was ruled
by John (Iōánnēs) I Tzimiskes (969–976). The last emperor of this name Theodosius III
(715–717) ruled over two hundred years earlier.
the banks of the Danube to Dalmatia and referring to the principality of Hum
(Zachlumia) as part of it.
In another part of the chronicle, Thomas presented other Croatian kings –
Trpimir, Muncimir (though his royal title can be guessed only from context),
and shortly afterwards also Krešmir, who was, according to the chronicle, a
“patrician” of the emperor and the king of the Croats.179 Thomas also described
the efforts of the kings of the Croats to appoint a special bishop – “episcopum,
qui Chrovatensis appellabantur” (the bishop who was known as the Bishop of
Croatia).180 Under the date 1060, he placed subsequent rulers, Stefan, Krešimir,
and Zvonimir, whom he recognized as the last king of this family. After the
takeover of Croatia by the king of Hungary, the chronicler only once men-
tioned the ruler of the Croats, Reles – in the case described above – whom he
called the “duke of the Croats”, recognizing him as a Slav. Therefore, it seems
that the special treatment of Croats was mainly due to the existence of their
kings and realm, later inherited by rulers of Hungary, much closer to Thomas.
After describing the fall of the kingdom, Thomas returned to formulaic images
of barbarian savagery of the Croats and their dispersion.
The end of the independent kingdom of the Croats had an impact by
changing the perspective of the chronicler. In the chapter devoted to the take-
over of Croatia and Dalmatia by the Hungarians, the tone of the narrative is
reproachful, as it is in the earlier description of the capture of Salona by the
Goths. Although the Hungarian kings Ladislaus and Coloman, the conqueror
of Croatia, cannot be equated with the barbarian Goths, Thomas described
Coloman using the phrase: “Hic, cum esset vir ferocis animi” ([He] who was
a man of ferocious spirit).181 The Goths also “essent pravi et feroces” (were
vicious and ferocious). In this analogy, the kingdom of Croatia replaced Salona,
fallen under the burden of its own sins. The chronicler, outlining the situation
after the death of the last Croatian king, Zvonimir, indeed presented a similar
vision of the inner fall of the state:
Cepit itaque inter omnes regni proceres magna discordia suboriri. Et cum
divisim modo hic modo ille regnandi ambitione sibi terre dominium ven-
dicaret, innumerabiles rapine, predationes, cedes et omnium facinorum
seminaria emerserunt. Alter enim alterum insequi, invadere, trucidare
cotidie non cessabat.182

181 Historia Salonitana, p. 94 (translation amended).
94 Chapter 3
(And so there came to be great conflict among all the nobles of the king-
dom. And as first this one then that one with ambitions to be a king
separately claimed lordship of the land, there arose countless acts of pil-
lage, robbery and murder, and the breeding grounds of every crime. Day
after day people attacked, hunted down and murdered each other with-
out reprise).
In the fragment of narrative quoted above, the subject of the description by

Thomas the Archdeacon is the Kingdom of Croatia, slightly earlier also called
“The Kingdom of the Croats”. It is significant that the chronicler – who was
as can be seen usually ill-disposed towards the Croats – decided to write this
fragment from the Croatian perspective. Writing about the kingdom, he even
used the term “gentibus Chroatie” and he considered these gentes as a subject
against which Ladislaus conducted his campaign. In other parts of the chroni-
cle, apart from a brief and ambiguous mention of Reles, Thomas did not treat
the Croats as a group possessing any form of organized system of power. He
recognized their kingdom as long as it lasted, but after the death of the last
king of the Croats, he no longer considered them as a political subject; accord-
ing to him they returned to the sphere of barbaric indefiniteness.
Thomas never wrote anything similar about the Slavs, although he used
the name Sclavonia referring to a separate territorial unit. Twice he used this
name in reference to Slavonia, the land to the east of Croatia. This meaning
appeared quite late in his work and only in a geographical context, when he
described the ride of the Hungarian king. In earlier parts of the chronicle, the
author of Historia Salonitana interpreted the name of “Sclavonia” in a much
less unequivocal way, as in the example of the duke of the Goths ruling sim-
ply “the lands inhabited by the Slavs”. Another piece of evidence for the broad
understanding of Sclavonia can be found in the passage in which the chroni-
cler wrote about the establishment of two dioceses in Sclavonia, in Sisak, and
in Delmis, which he had previously situated in Raška.
It is even more difficult to determine the meaning of the term “Sclavonia”
in the description of the collapse of the Kingdom of the Croats. The fall was
reportedly caused when one of the magnates of Sclavonia (“magnatibus
Sclavonie”)183 was in conflict with the others. It is often assumed that this is the
first mention in which Thomas begins to narrow Sclavonia to Slavonia, situated
on the border with Hungary, though there are actually no particular premises
to such assumptions. King Ladislaus, when informing the abbot of the Monte
Cassino monastery about his conquest of Sclavonia, could simply have meant

the lands inhabited by the Slavs.184 There is no need for external analogies, for
such use of the name is evidenced by Thomas the Archdeacon himself.
Considering the issue of the occurrence of the name “Sclauonia” in written
Greek and Latin sources, Tomislav Bali noted a change that took place in this
respect in the thirteenth century.185 Earlier, the term “Sclavonia” most often
meant the various territorial units inhabited by the Slavs. Bali referred to the
Ruthenian sklavinii present in the work by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, as
well as to the separation of the entire Slavdom in the iconography associated
with Otto III and in the description by Gallus Anonymus. He also drew atten-
tion to the functioning of the concept of tota Sclauonia in the work by Adam
of Bremen, in which the locations of six suffragan dioceses of the archbish-
opric in Magdeburg were marked. In the context of references by Thomas the
Archdeacon, a change in understanding of this term can be observed. Referring
to the past, the chronicler seemed to use some older interpretations, perhaps
those in which Sclavonia meant the area between the Adriatic coast and the
Drava, whereas writing about contemporary times, in some cases he used the
name Sclavonia (Slavonia) in a sense closer to the present one.186
The author of Historia Salonitana never mentioned any individual “duke
of the Slavs”, only attributing the title of dukes of Sclavonia to those who
ruled in the area. Using this ambiguous term, he blurred the boundary of the
described area, and – in other cases – obscured the identity of the commu-
nity inhabiting it by referring to the rulers of the Slavs only in plural form. As
we know, it was only exceptionally that he used the name duces Sclavorum
et Gothorum,187 once again pointing to the multiplicity of centres of power
and diversity, avoiding a precise definition, combined with the wide scope
of settlements and large population that Thomas attributed to the Slavs.
There was no gens Sclavorum, and even in this respect Sclavonia was differ-
ent to Croatia when the latter was the kingdom. The chronicler perhaps had
no knowledge of the actual division of power among the Slavs. He mentioned
the rulers of Sclavonia by name only once or twice (twice, if we assume that
the already discussed dux Gothus is probably Totila). In this case, by using the
term toti preerat Sclavonie, Thomas distinguished all of the areas as being part
of this political or geographical territory, and did so quite rarely. He probably
184 Fine Jr., When Ethnicity Did Not Matter, p. 59.

185 Tomislav Bali, Slavonski meandar. Prostor i pojam Slavonije u XIII. stoljeću (Zagreb, 2014),
pp. 29–46.
186 Bali, Slavonski meandar, p. 39; see also: Mladen Ančić, “Dva teksta iz sredine 14. stoleća.
Prilog poznavanju ‘društvenog znanja’ u Hrvatskom Kraljestvu,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta
40 (2013), pp. 173–178.
96 Chapter 3
intended to point out the unity of the consolidated lands and to emphasize
even further Totila’s fame as a chieftain. An interesting phrase could also come
from the tradition (well-known to the chronicler) according to which Totila
had conquered vast territories not only in Croatia proper, but also in Dalmatia
with Primorje.
The other passage in Historia Salonitana is more difficult to interpret. The
duke ruling in Sclavonia is mentioned by name in this fragment. The year 840
is specified as the date of the events by the chronicler, and the name of the
duke – Branimir – is given next to Marinus the Archbishop of Split, and a cer-
tain “King Charles”, assumed to be Charles the Fat, the Carolingian Emperor
and the King of West Francia. Branimir was the first in a list of rulers which
ended with the kings of Dalmatia and Croatia, descendants of Držislav, but he
himself had the title dux Sclavonie. As has already been mentioned, the chroni-
cler listed Tomislav between Branimir and Držislav, also titled dux, but without
specifying the area or community he ruled.
The genealogy given by Thomas the Archdeacon is not confirmed by the
findings of historians. The chronicler probably confused the succession of the
rulers, and hence titles such as dux or rex are assigned to them accidentally. All
the rulers of Croatia listed by him belonged to one dynastic lineage – all except
Branimir, who came to power, it is supposed, as a result of a coup d’état. Some
scholars see him as the heir of the so-called Domagojević dynasty, but this is
just one of many hypotheses.188 There is no indication that Thomas knew these
dependencies, and for that reason he considered Branimir to be the duke of
Sclavonia, not the duke of the Croats.
The author of Historia Salonitana might have copied that title from an older
source which had named Branimir in various ways. In The Gospel of Cividale –
known also as The Codex of Aquileia – we read: Branimiro comiti. Mariosa comi-
tessa. Branimir is also titled “comes” in letters by Pope John VIII. Epigraphic
monuments also give evidence of a degree of liberty as far as the titles of this
ruler are concerned. The inscription in the church in Šopot called Branimir “the
prince of the Croats”, and the inscription at the altar of St. Michael’s church in
Nin called Branimir dux Sclavorum; in addition, this title is repeated in the form
dux Clavitorum on the fragments of the lintel in the St. Bartholomew’s church in
Ždrapanj.189 The possibility cannot be excluded that Thomas the Archdeacon
had seen one of these inscriptions. It is also assumed that he had the use of
the collections in the diocesan archive and documents unknown today which
188 Stjepan Antoljak, Pregled hrvatske povijesti, 2nd edition (Split, 1994), p. 43 [extended edi-
tion of the first version, published in 1942].
189 See: Mirjana Matijević Sokol, Vlaimir Sokol, Hrvatska i Nin u doba kneza Branimira, 2nd
edition (Zagreb, 2005), pp. 35–74.
concerned, among others, Branimir. In Historia Salonitana, Branimir is the

only duke (besides Totila) ruling in Sclavonia known by name. Thomas linked
the reign of Branimir with the origins of the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia.
The chronicler did not call him the ruler of “the whole of Sclavonia”, perhaps
because in his opinion the area of Sclavonia extended far beyond the borders
of Branimir’s state, even reaching the city of Delmis in Raška.190
There is one more semantic field which ought to be discussed, in which
the names of the Slavs, the Croats and the Goths appear in Thomas the
Archdeacon’s chronicle. It is associated with the heresy the chronicles called
“Arianism”. In fact, this name may encompass several different phenomena, all
of them, however, negatively evaluated by the chronicler.
The reference to Arianism appeared in Historia Salonitana in the descrip-
tion of the barbarians who invaded Salona. The Goths – one of the names of
the invaders – were indeed associated with this heresy from late antiquity. It
seems, however, that in the description of the mission of the clergymen from
Salona to the dukes of the Slavs (or to the dukes of the Goths and the Croats, as
Thomas called them elsewhere), the character of Arianism is different: here the
term presumably stands for the Slavic rite. We have already mentioned that in
many places the words “Goth” and “Croat” were used as synonyms. Similarly, as
in the case of the name of the Croats which at a certain moment was reserved
by the chronicler to denote the citizens of the Croatian kingdom, the word
“Goths” also gained a unique character when the chronicler discussed the so-
called Arianism. It can be noted that just as the term “Slavs” appeared above
all in situations related to the menace from the savage inland regions, the term
“Goths” most often occurred in connection with heresy.
The author of Historia Salonitana, describing the Arianism of the conquer-
ors of Salona, used his fairly general knowledge of the Goths. In a further part
of his work, he used the term “Arianism” for the Slavic liturgy. Unlike the Priest
of Duklja, who attributed the major role in the process of founding the Slavic
Kingdom to Constantine (St. Cyril), Thomas was openly hostile to this rite. This
issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. At present, we would like to draw
attention to the fact that the term regnum Sclavonicum191 – resembling “the
Kingdom of the Slavs” in the work by the Priest of Duklja – is used only one
time in Historia Salonitana, precisely in the context of heresy.192
190 Although, as we will see in the next chapter, it does not mean that Thomas the Archdeacon
really had a precise idea of the location of Delmis.
192 This aspect of identifying the Slavs/Croats with the Goths was noticed by Šegvić, “Hrvat,
Got i Slav u djelu Tome Splićanina,” pp. 18–25.
98 Chapter 3
In Thomas the Archdeacon’s narrative, regnum Sclavonicum, beyond super-

ficial similarity, does not have much in common with the vision of history
presented in the Latin version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. Thomas
mentions no king who might reign in this regnum, yet he mentions the Goths.
Thomas, who was against celebrating the liturgy in languages other than Greek
and Latin, wrote about lingua Sclavonica,193 in which Methodius (considered
by him a heretic) began to teach using the Gothic alphabet. When the Slavic
language and the Gothic alphabet were abandoned by the papal order, “omnes
sacerdotes Sclavorum magno sunt merore confecti” (all the priests of the Slavs
were filled with great sadness).194
As we read in Historia Salonitana, Ulfus, a clergyman and a foreigner, appeared
in Croatia at that time. He was sent to Rome together with the Croatian depu-
ties with the mission of restoring the Slavic liturgy. The chronicler described
these efforts in a pejorative way. According to him, Ulfus was a cunning man
who wanted to gain personal profits from the entire case. The pope, after hear-
ing his request, did not consent to the return to the Gothic alphabet, justifying
his decision with the following words: “Scitote, filii, quia hec, que petere Gothi
student, sepenumero audisse me recolo, sed propter Arrianos, inventores lit-
terature huiusmodi, dare eis licentiam in sua lingua tractare divina, sicut pre-
decessores mei, sic et ego nullatenus audio”195 (Understand, my sons, that what
the Goths ardently seek, I recall having heard often, but because the inventors
of such writing were Arians, I, like my predecessors, would not venture to give
them permission to treat a divine thing in their own language). In this pas-
sage, the difference between the contemporary and the old Arians – and thus
between the new and the old Goths – is marked.196 Thomas the Archdeacon,
referring to the words of the pope, stressed at the same time that the follow-
ers of the Slavic rite were the heirs of the famous Arian heresy. This is also
explicitly stated in the description of the death of the Slavic bishop Cededa,
who died when he suddenly experienced acute pain while relieving himself:
“Et sic homo impius Arrianam imitatus perfidiam, iusto Dei iudico ignomini-
osa Arrii morte dampnatus est” (And thus this impious man, the follower of
Arian faithlessness, was condemned by the just God to the same ignominious
death as Arius).197

Thomas tried to ridicule the participants of the mission as much as pos-

sible. The Goths/Croats appointed two companions to travel with Ulfus – the
aforementioned Bishop Cededa, who was an old simpleton, and abbot Potepa.
The chronicler mocked their ignorance of Latin. Both clergymen felt alienated
in Rome for this reason. Ulfus had to speak on their behalf, and at the end he
deceived them by telling them that the pope had agreed that the traditional
liturgy could be continued. In the conversation with the pope, Ulfus named
Cededa nobilissimus Gothorum vir, which was contradicted by the bishop’s
appearance (the pope asked him why he had not shaved his beard according
to the custom of the Catholic Church), and by his inability to speak for himself
in Latin.
It was in this context that the chronicler used the term regnum Sclavonicum,
meaning the area threatened by the Slavic heresy. In another part of the
chronicle, Thomas the Archdeacon also wrote that Cededa, deluded by Ulfus’
assurances, caused a scandal in toto regno, when he began to organize on
his own what he thought to be the papal order. It seems that the chronicler
meant here regnum Dalmatie et Chroatie. Thomas wrote about this kingdom
earlier, in the introduction to the events described above: “Temporibus domni
Laurentii archiepiscopi quedam execrandi scismatis fuit suborta contentio in
Dalmatie et Chroatie regno” (In the time of Archbishop Laurentius there was a
controversy in the kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia arising from an accursed
schism).198 In another place, the chronicler referred to the mission against the
heretics and “partibus Sclavonie”.199 In this case, it can be said that the king-
dom of Dalmatia and Croatia is actually a synonym for Sclavonia, or even for
regnum Sclavonicum; however, we should not ignore the fact that such a juxta-
position appeared in Thomas’ narrative only where he referred to the territo-
ries controlled by heresy or schism.
The meaning of the name “Goths” changes over the course of the narrative.
They can be either savage conquerors led by a duke or dukes, or (at a time
more contemporary to that of the chronicler, when the kingdom of Dalmatia
and Croatia was established) followers of the Slavic rite, thus – as Thomas
believed – the successors of the Arians who had conquered Salona. Their attri-
butes, to some extent, remain the same. As the Goths-warriors were barbar-
ians and opponents of the Latin world, so the Goths-Arians remained, in some
sense, separated from the Latin centres by a linguistic and cultural barrier.

100 Chapter 3
10 The Goths and Their Rulers in the Dalmatian Tradition
A comparison of the narrative by Thomas the Archdeacon in Historia Salo

nitana with the text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, above all with its
Latin version, can demonstrate the process of using the older tradition of
Goths and the fall of Latin Salona in two completely different ways.
Both authors used, to some extent, a stereotypical image to describe the bar-
barians and their rulers. In the context of the Priest of Duklja’s narrative, it is
the image of the victorious Gothic leaders, the motive of “the scourge of God”
with regard to their conquests, and above all the vision of the arrival of “savage
and untamed” barbarians inhabiting a septentrionali plaga.
This way of writing about barbarians was the legacy of the antiquity. The
Goths, from the time of St. Jerome, identified with Getae, were also often
associated with the biblical country Magog and its ruler Gog, with the lands
described in The Book of Ezekiel and usually located in the north.200 Equally
often, medieval authors would give names known from ancient books to peo-
ples from beyond Christendom. Both the Priest of Duklja and Thomas the
Archdeacon identified the Goths with the Slavs. The Priest of Duklja was prob-
ably the source for Andrea Dandolo, who in the first half of the fourteenth
century wrote: “Erant enim Sclavi adhuc Gentiles – quia à Gothis origines
traxerant” (Slavs were, until recently, pagans who were descended from the
Goths).201 Traces of such an identification are absent in the work of Adam
of Bremen, who – according to some hypotheses – might be the source for
Thomas’ chronicle. Adam of Bremen seemed to understand that the Goths,
the Getae and the Scythians were one and the same people, but nowhere
were these names used while referring to the Slavs. It is impossible to find
any similarly strong links between the Slavs and the Goths in the Middle Ages
beyond Dalmatia, except for the enigmatic tombstone of Bolesław the Brave.
In Dalmatia, such a close bond between both ethnonyms could be the result
of ancient records about the journey of the Goths being contaminated by the
local legend of the arrival of the Slavs from the north. According to Jordanes,
the settlements of the Goths were indeed located in the north-east, and this
image of their original location was accepted by literature from the Early
Middle Ages and the High Middle Ages202 and could have been known to both
200 David Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden. Vorstellung und Fremdheitskategorien bei
Ribert, Thietmar von Merseburg, Adam von Bremen und Helmold von Bossau (Berlin, 2005),
pp. 311–317.
201 Andreae Danduli ducis Venetiarum Chronica per extensum descripta, p. 148. See: Živković,
“O prvim poglavljama,” p. 28.
202 Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden, p. 50.
Thomas the Archdeacon and the Priest of Duklja. The former claimed that
the Goths lived in Poland and Teutonia, and the latter mentioned the enig-
matic site called “Templana” (the author of the Croatian version wrote about
Trnovina), which – after Šišić – was identified as Teutonia.203 It is almost cer-
tain that the Priest of Duklja had not read either Isidore of Seville or Jordanes,
as is evidenced by his poor knowledge of the Goths. Historia Salonitana could
be a possible source for the author of The Chronicle. It seems, however, that
the fragment of Regnum Sclavorum devoted to the Goths indicates the use of
knowledge acquired by the author in an education process, and a reference
to general ideas about barbarians prevalent in Dalmatia and Croatia in the
Middle Ages, rather than direct inspiration from another written source.
The Goths were probably included in the legend of the migration of the
Slavs – a tale still vivid in the Middle Ages – itself presumably an updated
variant of the legend of the arrival of the Croats recorded by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos. In Regnum Sclavorum, the image of Gothic chieftains
took on a “cabinet” form, changed on the basis of the concept of savage and
unknown peripheries attacking the Christian centre. This may be confirmed by
the liberty with which the northern direction of the Urheimat of the Goths was
changed into the eastern direction in the Croatian version. According to David
Freasdorff, “the north” and “the east” were in many situations interchangeable
terms, and would simply refer to an unknown area inhabited by the pagans.
The notion of Sclavonia, present in Thomas the Archdeacon’s work, meant
certain Slavic state organisms on the Adriatic coast, but it could also be related
to the broader context of an unspecified Slavic mass and provide further evi-
dence of the aversion of “Thomas the Latin” to the Croats and the Hungarians,
as was formulated by Izidor Kršnjavi.204
According to Fraesdorff, the term Sclavonia was used by German authors
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries to describe the various tribes of Northern
Slavs inhabiting the territory between Bavaria, Hungary and Byzantium.
Fraesdorff emphasized the fact that Hungary was outside the borders of
Sclavonia.205 It seems that the author of Historia Salonitana accepted a simi-
lar view.
203 This identification should only be considered as a hypothetical proposition, and not an
attempt to correct the source text, as Šišić did.
204 Izidor Kršnjavi, “Prilozi Historiji salonitani Tome arcidjakona Spljetskoga,” Vjestnik
kraljevskog hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinskog Zemaljskog arkiva 2 (Zagreb, 1900), p. 147.
205 In the thirteenth-century Polish–Hungarian Chronicle the term “Sclavonia” in several
places probably referred to Pannonia. See: Ryszard Grzesik, Kronika węgiersko-polska.
Z dziejów polsko-węgierskich kontaktów kulturalnych w średniowieczu (Poznań, 1999), p. 49.
102 Chapter 3
It is difficult to suppose that the legend of Attila could be consciously trans-

formed by Thomas the Archdeacon or the Priest of Duklja into the story of
the Gothic-Slavic Totila. The fact that a similar process could have taken place
much earlier seems to be indicated indirectly by the passage in the thirteenth-
century Polish–Hungarian Chronicle concerning the conquest of Slavonia
[Sclavonia] by Attila, named there as the king of Hungarians.206 Carlile Aylmer
Macartney drew attention to the similarities between the description of the
invasion of Attila in that work and the fragment devoted to the raid of the Goths
in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. He even believed that the anonymous
author of The Polish–Hungarian Chronicle could have been inspired by the
same tradition known to Regnum Sclavorum.207 In the last chapter of this book
I will show that the story of the conquest of Dalmatia has much in common
with the story of taking over the Croatian kings’ heritage by Hungary, and even
with the early history of Hungarian-Slavic relations in general. Nevertheless,
if such narrative-creating processes had occurred, they would have happened
so long ago that neither Thomas nor the Priest of Duklja saw any clear similar-
ity between the history of Totila and Attila.
Interestingly, in Fraesdorff’s opinion, Bohemia was also outside the com-
monly accepted borders of Sclavonia.208 However, the perspective of the
author of Historia Salonitana was probably different, as he listed several
northern territories – Teutonia, Poland and Bohemia – as the Urheimat of the
Goths. Thomas’ narrative did not explain the reason behind the wanderings
of Totila and did not state whether he had ruled over the Urheimat before he
set out. In Historia Salonitana, the title of “the duke of Sclavonia” was men-
tioned in the context of (probably) Totila only in relation to his territories situ-
ated on the Adriatic coast. The remarks by the Priest of Duklja concerning the
original seats of the Goths are vague: he wrote about some northern (or, in
the Croatian version, the eastern) kingdom, without specifying further details
about its location.
For Thomas the Archdeacon, the identification of the Slavs and Goths was
strengthened by the recognition of heretics in both groups. Thomas devoted
much of his narrative to the matters of Slavic liturgy, which he regarded as the
continuation of the heresy of Arius. This was a typical attitude in the Catholic
clerical circles of Dalmatia, and the nomenclature which resulted from such
206 Żywot św. Stefana króla Węgier, czyli Kronika węgiersko-polska, trans. and ed. Ryszard
Grzesik (Warsaw, 2003), pp. 59–60.
207 Carlile Aylmer Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian historians. A Critical and Analytical
Guide (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 177–178.
208 Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden, p. 90.
views is found in official documents referring to the presence of the Glagolitic

script and the Slavic rite in the Church.209 The issue of the burdensome heri-
tage is somewhat reminiscent of the discussion in other areas of Europe, where
the tradition associated with Gothic origin was alive. Lucas de Tuy (Lucas
Tudensis), a thirteenth-century Leonese historian, similarly justified the ban
on the use of the gothic script in the Christian part of the Iberian Peninsula –
stating the Gothic origins of this script and arguing that it maintained unnec-
essarily the division among the clergy.210
The Priest of Duklja took a different approach. In his narrative, the Goths
were pagans, but not heretics. The issue of heresy was present in Regnum
Sclavorum, but with the focus shifted to completely different aspects. In the
work by Thomas the Archdeacon, Salona was punished for the misdeeds and
lawlessness that prevailed in the city, and Totila was an embodiment of this
punishment. Also, in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, the Goth chieftains
were a kind of scourge of God, but in this narrative, the sins of the Christians
were not discussed in detail and remained as speculation. Only the reference
to Emperor Anastasius allows us to suppose what the character of the offence
might be, but in this narrative the Christians are stained with apostasy, and the
Goths are free from such accusations.
The theme of Christian guilt was a part of the narrative that formed the basis
of a later tradition of “Gothomania”, and it became closely related to the motif
of the fall of Salona. This motif was known to Constantine Porphyrogennetos,
who – probably using reports from the region of Split211 – prepared two
descriptions of the conquest of the city by the Avars and their Slavic allies.
He emphasized the importance of Salona as the capital of Dalmatia. He also
mentioned the escape of the inhabitants of Salona to the area of the Palace of
Diocletian, which lead to the founding of the city of Split.212

210 Lvcae Tvdensis Chronicon Mvndi, ed. Emma Falque (Turnhout, 2003), pp. 114, 137, 156–157.
When writing about the Arianism of the Goths on two occasions he mentioned the script
as an important element of the heresy: “Sed Athanaricus Fridigenum Valentis auxilio
superat. Hic ex catholico cum tota gente Gotorum Arrianus effectus est. Tunc Gulfila
eorum episcopus Goticas litteras eis repperit et utrumque testamentum in linguam pro-
piam transulit”, p. 114; “Tunc Gulfilas eorum Gotorum episcopus Goticas litteras condidit
et Scripturas Noui et Veteris Testamenti in eadem linguam conuertit. Goti autem, statim
ut litteras et legem habere ceperunt, construxerunt sibi dogmatis sui ecclesias …”, p. 137.
See: Matijević Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo, pp. 155–56.
211 John Bagnell Bury, “The Treatise De administrando imperio,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15
(1906), p. 556.
212 De administrando imperio, chapter 29, pp. 123–125.
104 Chapter 3
The guilt of the Christians was emphasized so heavily in Historia Salonitana

that Nenad Ivić perceived Thomas the Archdeacon’s narrative about the fall
of Salona as a rhetorical device and the manifestation of a composition typi-
cal of medieval chroniclers. Ivić, who linked information about sin among the
inhabitants of the city with the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, consid-
ered the narrative by Thomas as a typical “erudite fairy tale” confirming all the
information and superstitions resulting from the Christian worldview of the
author of the chronicle.213
It is more likely, however, that Thomas used the old local tradition of the
barbarians’ invasion and depopulation of Dalmatian cities.214 Matijević Sokol
noticed that the chronicler used his narrative to support and strengthen
the Split’s claims to the title of heir of the ancient city of Salona. With no
evidence of the continuity of the tradition that would legitimize such a suc-
cession, Thomas supplemented history with the motif of the Gothic invasion
connecting the issue of the fall of the ancient city and the establishment of a
new centre.215
Echoes of the attack on the city can also be found in the plot of The Chronicle
of the Priest of Duklja. In both versions of the work, Salona was the centre of
the kingdom of the Dalmatians. Its importance was particularly emphasized
in the Croatian text. In this version, the character of the guilt of the Christians
was a complete mystery. As has already been mentioned, in the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum, the issue was presented differently. The Priest of Duklja
decided to combine the two threads related to the history of the fall of Salona:
heresy and the sin of the Christians. By mentioning Anastasius, the emperor
who “stained himself and others with heresy”, the Priest of Duklja suggested
what this sin could have been. By blaming the Christian side for the heresy,
the chronicler vindicated the Goths, and thus he cut through the associations
linking Arianism and the Slavic mission of Constantine (St. Cyril) mentioned
by him at the end of the Gothic fragment of his work.
213 Nenad Ivić, Domišljanje prošlosti: kako je trinaestostoljetni splitski arhiđakon Toma napravio
svoju salonitansku historiju (Zagreb, 1992), pp. 99–105.
214 Such was opinion of Katičić, “Vetustiores ecclesiae,” pp. 20–24.
215 Matijević Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo, p. 231. Lovro Kunčević pointed out a
certain detail in a fragment of the work of Thomas the Archdeacon about mediation of
Constantinople in the conflict between Salonitians and the invaders (Historia Salonitana,
pp. 52–53); inhabitants of the city ask the emperor to return the territories “sue civitatis
Salone iure pristino possidere”, which might be a typical demand in the context of seizing
“ancient” Roman heritage by medieval Adriatic cities: Lovro Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku.
Diskursi identiteta renesansnog grada (Zagreb/Dubrovnik, 2015), p. 75. The similar process
is discussed comprehensively in next chapters of the present work.
It is not clear when the Goths appeared in the tale of the fall of Salona, avail-
able today in various forms. Constantine Porphyrogennetos claimed that the
city was captured by Avars. A different tradition probably developed in parallel
to the one written by the emperor. Šišić believed that the first source bind-
ing the Goths to Salona was one of the hagiographies of St. Domnius.216 One
of them, probably written in the tenth century, contained a reference to the
Gothic invasion: “Postea vero Gothorum irruptione diruptis funditusque ever-
sis Salonis …” (Then, in a cruel invasion, the Goths destroyed Salona …).217 One
of hagiographies of this saint was also known to Thomas the Archdeacon. In
The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, the subject of the attacks of the Goths on
Salona was at best ancillary, and it revealed its original meaning only through
comparative analysis.
The only ruler of the Goths mentioned in both The Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja and in Historia Salonitana was Totila. It is not known exactly how this
Gothic ruler had entered the circle of the legend of the fall of Salona. In the
narrative of The Chronicle, Totila was responsible for the death of the king of
the Dalmatians, while Thomas the Archdeacon made him guilty of the partial
ruin of the city. A similar legend linking Totila with Salona was known to the
thirteenth-century chronicler Thomas of Tuscany, whose work, Gesta impera-
torum et pontificum, although written slightly later than Historia Salonitana,
seems to be an independent work. Thomas of Tuscany wrote that Split had
been founded when “civitate Salona destructa per Totilam [est]” (the city of
Salona [was] destroyed by Totila).218 Before writing the Gesta he probably
spent some time in Dalmatia, hence it can be inferred that the link between
Totila and the founding of Split was already established in local tradition in the
thirteenth century.
Interesting information about this Gothic chieftain can be traced in a copy
of Liber pontificalis found in the twelfth-century Korčula codex.219 It reports
on the election of a new ruler of the Goths, who then besieged Rome: “Tunc
Gothi fecerunt sibi regem Tetolam qui fuerat aliis regibus banus et obsedebat
undique Romanis” (Then the Goths chose Tetola, who had previously been the
ban of another king, for their king, and he surrounded the Romans from every

217 Ex vita s. Domnii episcopi, chapters 7–8, Acta Sanctorum (Venice, 1738), quoted after:
Documenta historiae Chroatiae periodum antiquam, 169.3, ed. Franjo Rački, Monumenta
Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium vol. 7 (Zagreb, 1877), p. 288.
218 Thomae Tusci Gesta imperatorum et pontifivum, ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS vol. 22
(Hannover, 1851), p. 491.
219 The same codex also includes the copy of the chronicle of Isidore of Seville.
106 Chapter 3
angle).220 The phrase: “qui fuerat aliis regibus banus” was an interpolation by a
Croatian copyist. In other versions, Totila was named “Badua” and the sentence
was: “Tunc Gothi fecerunt sibi regem Badua, qui Totila nuncupabatur” (Then
the Goths chose for their king Badua,221 whom they called Totila).222 The addi-
tion of the word “banus” is interesting because it may be associated with an
episode in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative, in which Totila gathered his mag-
nates before the invasion of Italy. The author of The Chronicle almost certainly
did not know the text of Korčula Codex directly, because, although he under-
stood the meaning of the word “ban”, in the context of Totila he wrote about his
“magnatibus”. It is possible that the image of the chieftain Totila surrounded
by ban and barones – the result of an error by a twelfth-century copyist –
influenced the later shape of the Dalmatian legend of the Goths and found
such a surprising realization in one of the Priest of Duklja’s descriptions.
11 Summary
The background to the image of the rulers of the Goths in the initial parts of
Regnum Sclavorum was knowledge of the local tradition of the barbarian inva-
sion of the cities of Dalmatia, itself associated with the history of the fall of
Salona and the escape of the Christians to inaccessible places on the coast
and in the mountains. The Priest of Duklja probably took the name of Totila
from this tradition, and in his description of the invasion of the Goths, he
used a formulaic image of barbarians appearing from unknown eastern and
northern lands. Thus, the two brothers Totila and Ostroil were, in the text,
model examples of chieftain-conquerors and courageous warriors, in line with
typical examples of leaders in stories of the barbarian origo gentis.
Both Thomas the Archdeacon and the Priest of Duklja associated the pres-
ence of the Slavs in the Balkans with the arrival of the Goths. Both chroniclers
often used the words “Goths” and “Slavs” synonymously. However, the image
of the Slavs in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative differed significantly from the
vision presented by Thomas. Perhaps the author of Regnum Sclavorum, who
was more interested in the Slavs, knew of a broader ethnogenetic legend of
the Slavic Urheimat and the journey of the brothers, the sons of Senulad (or
Svevlad). This would correspond to the images of eponymous rulers known
220 Quoted after: Vinko Foretić, “Korčulanski kodeks 12. stoleća i vijesti iz doba hrvatskie
narodne dinastije u njemu,” Starine 46 (1956), pp. 29–30.
221 Reference to the name name Baduila.
222 Foretić, “Korčulanski kodeks”.
from Western Slavdom, and would not be in contradiction with Constantine

Porphyrogennetos’ record about the arrival of the Croats.
The Priest of Duklja certainly knew that the Goths were associated with
the Arian heresy. In the High Middle Ages in Dalmatia, this association was
related with the struggle of the Latin clergy and the Slavic rite, as well as the
other heretical trends in the area.223 As we shall see in the next chapter, the
Priest of Duklja, who was well-disposed to Slavic liturgy, described the mis-
sionary activity of Constantine (St. Cyril), and perhaps also Methodius, men-
tioned only in the title of the hypothetical source: Methodius;224 a complete
contrast to Thomas the Archdeacon who was unfavorable to the Slavic clergy.
Unlike the author of Historia Salonitana, the anonymous author of Regnum
Sclavorum did not see the Goths as heretics, but as pagans. In his narrative, the
followers of the heresy of Eutyches are the Christians, hence in the works of
both authors, the motif of the Goths as performers of God’s punishment had a
slightly different connotation: in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja they con-
quer the lands of the Christian kingdoms, while in Historia Salonitana initially
they justly punish the sinful inhabitants of Salona, and later they are portrayed
as dangerous heretics.
This difference should be linked to the various perspectives taken by both
historians. The Priest of Duklja’s narrative is focused on the Kingdom of the
Slavs and its rulers. The establishment of this rule was recognized by the
chronicler as an element of historical necessity. As has been stated, this first
inception was, however, marked by a mistake of paganism. The Priest of Duklja
presented the Gothic period in the history of the kingdom as a time of misery
for the Christians, only occasionally mitigated by the rule of wise kings who
were able to bring peace to their lands. In contrast to the author of the Croatian
version of The Chronicle, the Priest of Duklja did not cut the continuity of the
dynasty and saw Svetomir as a direct descendant of Ostroil. The end of this first
pagan period of the Kingdom was marked by a cessation of persecutions. The
second phase of the creation of the kingdom was to come through Svetopelek.
223 Perhaps the nickname “Kotroman Got” given to the founder of the Bosnian dynasty in the
Ragusa document of May 14th 1432 can be associated with Bosnian Church (“Cotrumano
Gotto del qual a avuto origine e principio li reali di Bosna”, after: Mijušković, Ljetopis,
p. 26). Sakač (“O kavkasko-iranskom podrijetlu Hrvata,” p. 2, footnote. 7) thought that the
nickname referred to Latinized form of the name of the town Kutjevo (Gotho), point-
ing out the example of the local church of Holy Mary (Maria de Goto). This explanation
is unconvincing, taking into consideration that Orbini referred to the abovementioned
tradition writing about Kotroman the German (Cotromanno Tedeſco: Orbini, Il regno degli
Slavi, p. 375).
224 Chapter 4 of the present work.
Chapter 4
Svetopelek as an Example of a King-Legislator:

Decisions of the Synod in Dalma and the New
Foundations of Power
1 Introduction
Svetopelek is the most important ruler in the entire narrative concept of the
Priest of Duklja.1 We have already mentioned several times the changes result-
ing from his reign. This period is associated with the conversion of the king
to the Christian faith. This conversion transformed the internal and external
situation of the Kingdom of the Slavs, and hence enabled its reconstitution
during the Synod in Dalma, where the borders of the state were renewed and
peace between the groups of Latins and the Slavs was established. During the
Synod, Svetopelek was not only baptized but was also crowned. These events
significantly changed the position of the realm, which earlier, during the reign
of the last pagan kings – who were heirs of the Gothic invaders – had fallen
into inner conflict and stagnation.
The next phase of the kingdom was, in a sense, its real inception. The in-
depth changes which took place during Svetopelek’s reign affected the very
essence of the execution of royal power, the foundations of law and the prin-
ciples of governing the community. It can be said that in the narrative by the
Priest of Duklja, the Kingdom of the Slavs after the congress on the plain of
Dalma was a completely different construct to the realm of pagan Goths that
had existed before. The latter was established by conquest and demanded a
symbolic completion.
As we noted in the previous chapter, the ideological layer of the Priest of
Duklja’s narrative should be approached with caution. Its shape was probably
largely based on several older records. In this chapter, by comparing the avail-
able versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, we will trace the mys-
terious threads associated with the figure of Svetopelek. Comparison of the
1 In both of the oldest manuscripts of Regnum Sclavorum, the name Svetopelek appears in
several forms: Sfetopelek, Suetopelek, Suetopelk, Suetoplek etc. In this chapter, in order to
avoid confusion, the form Svatopluk is used to designate the Great Moravian ruler. It is worth
remembering that both forms are variants of the same name, which has various spellings in
the source material.

Svetopelek as an Example of a King-Legislator 109
text of Regnum Sclavorum and the Croatian text of the chronicle will provide
an insight into the history of the formation of these characteristic points of
the narrative, which can tell us a lot about the concept of the structure of the
realm and its organization as the Priest of Duklja saw it.
The Priest of Duklja associated Svetopelek’s baptism with Constantine’s mis-
sion. Traces of the Great Moravian traditions of Cyril and Methodius are clear
in this fragment of Regnum Sclavorum. However, the traces leading to the hagi-
ography of the two monks, and the Moravian ruler – Svatopluk (Suatopluk) –
who appears in it, are also very limited. A similar reference was not, as we have
seen, irrelevant, and in a dispute between the supporters and opponents of
Slavic liturgy, the Priest of Duklja is clearly situated among the former. It seems
justified to enquire about the use of Moravian records and the scope of refer-
ence to previous texts from this circle in the process of creating the image of
an ideal ruler.
The division of the state, which took place in Svetopelek’s time, gave
comprehensive evidence of the rules of the kingdom, as presented by the
author of The Chronicle. Space played a special role in the narrative about the
Synod in Dalma, while the vision of the partition of the state brought con-
sequences for the later narrative choices of the chronicler. The way in which
Svetopelek divided his land was a part of an ideal programme of regulating
the community.2 The Priest of Duklja described the actions of the king, present-
ing both a geographic and political vision of the new order, which remained a
reference model for the actions of successive rulers of the Slavic dynasty in
The Chronicle. Defining this area seems necessary because it forms the founda-
tion for the ideal image of a realm in Regnum Sclavorum, which will be closely
related to the ideal image of a ruler presented in the chronicle. In this chapter
we will describe this relationship between the ruler, the area, and the social
order prevailing in it.
2 Svetopelek or Budimir? The Synod in the Croatian Version

of The Chronicle
The text of the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja differs
from the Latin version in the fragment in which we are interested, mainly in
2 Certain aspects of the research on this issue were presented earlier in the article: Wawrzyniec
Kowalski, “Rupture. Integration. Renewal. The Gathering in Dalma and the Creation of a
Political Community in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea,” Slavia Meridionalis 19 (2019),
pp. 1–28.
110 Chapter 4
two important details: (1) the name of the king in the Croatian version is not
Svetopelek, but Budimir, and (2) the place where the Synod was held is not
Dalma, but Hlivaj.
The difference in king’s name is important because of the tradition to which
the Priest of Duklja referred. A comparison of both versions can also help in
determining their filiation. Disputes by scholars could be resolved by the entry
made by Mauro Orbini in the margin of the Italian translation of Regnum
Sclavorum. Orbini, who knew both variants of the text, noted that the original
name of the king was Budimir, and that it was changed after his baptism to
Svetopelek, in reference to the word sveti – santo.3 Alas, the problem seems to
be a bit more complicated, and the controversy among scholars over the name
of the ruler is still far from being settled.
Šišić gave priority to the name “Budimir” and claimed that it was replaced by
the name Svetopelek in the thirteenth century under the influence of one of the
versions of The Life of Methodius circulating in the Adriatic region. He noticed a
lack of historical records that would confirm the existence of any ruler named
Svetopelek in the areas south of the Danube.4 According to Šišić, the shaping
of the legend known from The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja happened in two
stages. Initially, the report on the social organization of the Serbs and Croats
was associated with the name of the hypothetical local ruler Budimir, and only
later – under the influence of the hagiography of Methodius – did it evolve into
a vision of a less-defined Slavic community with a broader territorial range.
Šišić noticed that in The Life of Methodius, Svetopelek and his uncle Rostislav
are called “the princes of the Slavs”.5
In contrast to Šišić, many scholars thought that the name “Svetopelek” had
appeared earlier in the narrative. This becomes evident when we compare the
very context of the introduction of this name and its impact on the logic of
both available versions. In the Croatian version, the text is not entirely clear,
especially in the part where the name of the king appears in it. We can quote
3 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, pp. 208–209: “Costui si chiamo prima Budimir, ma prechè fù ‘il
primo dé’ rè che se fece christiano, fù chiamato Svetopelek, che à gli Slaui suona ‘fanciullo
santo’”.
4 His theory concerned the very sources of presence of this ruler in The Life of Methodius. The
historical foundation of this figure was, according to Šišić, Kocel, the duke of the Balaton
Principality, encountered by Constantine on his way to Rome. Slavic texts dedicated to activi-
ties of Constantine and Methodius – in the first place The Life of Constantine and The Life of
Methodius, and then Bulgarian literature – informed about duke Kocel. Also other chronicles
confirm information about participation of the duke in the mission of the Brothers.
5 Šišić, Letopis, pp. 135–136, 143–144.
the characteristics of the ruler, who has been described here as “muž dobar
i pravden Budimir kralj Svetog-puka” (good and just man Budimir, the king
of Sveti-puk).6 However, the meaning of the term “Sveti-puk” is not clear.
Presumably it meant “holy people” or “holy regiment”, i.e. troops, or – more
broadly – subjects of King Budimir. However, the other contexts in which a
similar phrase was used by the author of the Croatian text of The Chronicle may
suggest other meanings. We can suspect that the term is probably the result of
contamination of the text, possibly due to an insufficient understanding by a
copyist or the author of the Croatian version.
This problem was also noticed by Havlík. In analysing particular cases of
the presence of the word “Sveti-puk” in the text, he stated that it is untrans-
latable. In the narrative it had three different meanings: “In the text of the
H. redaction, it was mentioned that: 1) Budimir was the ‘kralj Svetog-puka’ (king
of ‘Sveti-puk’), and Constantine converted him to Christianity; Constantine
preached the new religion in his country; the king sent envoys to the pope and
the emperor, he led the Synod, and was crowned at it; 2) ‘Sveti-puk’ appeared
together with the title ‘king’: when it was said that Constantine said goodbye
to the king and ‘Sveti-puk’; when it was described how the envoys of the king
and ‘Sveti-puk’ came to the pope, and then when the papal legates bid farewell
to the king and ‘Sveti-puk’; 3) finally, in the Croatian version of The Chronicle,
Sveti-puk appeared as a separate character (‘Sveti-puk koji je na kraljevskom
prijestolu’ [Sveti-puk, who is on the royal throne]) and on this occasion we
learn that he lived in ‘Kazarika’, and that he was converted by Constantine, and
strengthened in his faith by papal legates”.7
Havlík compared all cases of the use of the term “Sveti-puk” with the name of
Budimir. He hypothesized that both words appear together when The Chronicle
discusses events taking place beyond the boundaries of the kingdom, while in
less significant cases the narrative mentions either only the name of Budimir,
or of “Sveti-puk”.8 Nevertheless – contrary his own hypothesis – Havlík did not
exclude the possibility that such an inconsistency in the meaning of the term
“Sveti-puk” could also result from multiple scribal interventions in the text of
the Croatian variant of The Chronicle.9
6 Ljetopis, p. 50.
7 Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda, p. 91 [Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská leg-
enda, p. 14].
8 Ljetopis, p. 92.
9 Ljetopis, p. 97.
112 Chapter 4
The broken logic of the Croatian version would best explain the mystery of
the parallel presence of Budmir and “Sveti-puk” in the text. It had to be caused
by a translator or a copyist from before the beginning of the seventeenth cen-
tury, when Orbini tried to explain the “two names” paradox. Interestingly,
such an ambiguity is absent in the Latin translation of The Chronicle made
by Marulić in 1510. This may indicate that the translator himself corrected the
text, or – perhaps – that particular manuscripts of the Croatian version dif-
fered significantly.
The comparison of the Latin and Croatian versions of The Chronicle avail-
able today suggests that Svetopelek’s name was present in the older version of
the text and was replaced later. The ineptitude of the translator left peculiar
“marks” of this correction. These remnants – used in various circumstances –
often correspond with particular sentences of the Latin text. This is illustrated
in the following table:
Table 2 The Latin and Croatian text about the deeds of Svetopelek/Budimir
I. Inter heac mortuus est rex Svetimirus et I ta umri kralj Satamir i prija kraljevstvo i
accepit regnum [filius] eius Svetopelek.a poča kraljevati muž dobar i pravden, imenom
(Meanwhile, King Svetimirus died and the king- Budimir, koga biše meju inimi obratil rečeni
dom was taken over by his [son] Svetopelek) božiji sluga i muž.b
(And King Satimir died and the good and
honest man named Budimir took over the
kingdom and began to rule; he, among others,
was converted by the aforementioned man and
servant of God)
II. Dum autem pergeret transiens per regnum I pojde on u Kazariku […] I onde pribiva
regis Svetopelek (…).c kraljujući Sveti-puk, koji Konstanc biše
(When he passed through the kingdom of King obratil (…).d
Svetopelek […]) (And he went to Khazaria […]. And there he
was, reigning, Sveti-puk, whom Constantine
converted)
a Based on: Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda, p. 91 [Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská
legenda, pp. 14–15].
b Ljetopis, p. 48.
c Ljetopis, p. 49.
d Ljetopis, p. 49.
Table 2 The Latin and Croatian text about the deeds of Svetopelek/Budimir (cont.)
III. Ad cuius praedicationem rex Svetopelek I gradejući navrati se na kraljevstvo Svetoga-

credidit Christo et baptizatus est cum omni puka, koga biše na viru obratio, kojih
regno suo (…).e gospodovaše mudri i dobri kralj Budimir (…).f
(After his teachings, King Svetopelek believed (And going back, he turned back to the realm
in Christ and was baptized with his entire of Sveti-puk, whom he converted to faith, ruled
kingdom […]) by the wise and good King Budimir […])
IV. Aliquantis post haec diebus immoratus cum I pribivše blaženi muž s kraljem nikoliko dan,
rege vir beatissimus confirmavit eum in fide koji jure utvrjen u viri i u zakonih Isukrstovih,
atque doctrina Christi et valefaciens omnibus vazam prošćenje od obraza kraljeva i onoga
christicolis, Romam profectus est.g Svetoga-puka, pojde k Rimu.h
(Then the blessed man stayed for a few more (And the blessed man stayed a few days with
days at the king’s place, strengthened him in the king, whom he strengthened in the faith
the faith and teaching of Christ, and having said and laws of Christ, and said goodbye to the
goodbye to all Christians he went to Rome.) face of the king and this Sveti-puk and went to
Rome)
V. Post haec Svetopelek rex iussit (…)i I tako kralj Svetoga-puka zapovidi (…) I tako
(Then King Svetopelek ordered […]) iskaše Budimir kralj Svetog-puka (…)j
(And so the king of Sveti-puk ordered […]. And
so ordered Budimir, the king of
Sveti-puk […])
VI. Dum autem legati regis Romam venissent I kada posli od kralja i Svetoga-puka k papi
[…] quod occasione accepta mitteret Stipanu (…)l
sapietissimos viros, qui novellum ac tenerum (And when envoys from the king and
regem ahuc in fide, et populum eius pascerent Sveti-puk to Pope Stephen […])
ac satiarent panae coelesti ac verbo viate”k
(When the king’s envoys came to Rome […]
in the first place because he would be able to
send wise men who would feed the new king,
who’s faith was weak, and his people with the
heavenly bread and word of life)
e Ljetopis, p. 49.
f Ljetopis, p. 49.
g Ljetopis, pp. 49–50.
h Ljetopis, pp. 49–50.
i Ljetopis, p. 50.
j Ljetopis, p. 50.
k Ljetopis, p. 51.
l Ljetopis, p. 51.
114 Chapter 4
VII. (…) et cum eo alios duos cardinales. I posla drugoga gardinala i s njimi dva biskupa,
Episcopos quoque iussit eum secum assumere, a toj da imiju oni Sveti-puk kripiti u viri i pri-
qui populo adhuc [novello] in fide, episcopos povedati (…)n
sive ecclesias consecrarent et verbum vitae in (And he sent another cardinal and with him
eorum quotidie seminerent.m two bishops, to strengthen Sveti-puk in faith
([…]and he ordered to take with him also two and advise him […])
cardinals, the Bishops, who would ordain
bishops and consecrate churches for the people,
[new] in faith, and to fill it with
words of life every day)
VIII. (…) iussu Honorii apostolici vicarii et I s njima biše kralj Svetoga nauka [puka] i
christianissimi regis Svetopelek, per spatium počeše sa [s]hodom za dva(na)deset dan.p
dierum XII synodum fecerunt.o (And the king of Sveti nauk [puk] was with
([…]as ordered by Honorius, papal legat, and them and then began the twelve-day-long
the most Christian King Svetopelek, and during rally)
the synod they organized a twelve-day rally)
IX. Itaque perfectis omnibus, cardinales et I po tom narejenju gardinali i biskupi i

episcopi ac legati imperatoris, accepta a rege posli cesarovi, videće da su svaka narejena,
licentia et agentes gratia deo et regi, cum od blaženoga kralja i Svetoga-puka vazeše
honore magno et cum pluribus donis a rege prošćenje i odpraviše se s velicim počtenjem i
datis, reversi sunt ad loca sua.q dari.r
(And so, after everything was done, the (And after these decisions, the cardinals and
cardinals and bishops and imperial messengers bishops and imperial envoys, seeing that every-
bid farewell to the king, praising God and the thing was established by the king and Sveti-puk,
king, with glory and honour and a multitude of said goodbye and went away with respect and
gifts from the king returned to their countries) gifts)
m Ljetopis, p. 51.
n Ljetopis, p. 51.
o Ljetopis, p. 52.
p Ljetopis, p. 52.
q Ljetopis, p. 56.
r Ljetopis, p. 56.
X. Per manus Honorii vicarii et cerdinalium I gardinali i biskupi s voljom svega puka
atque episcoporum coronatus est more posvetiše kralja i potvrdiše u kraljevstvo (…)t
Romanorum regum, et facta est laetitia magna (And cardinals and bishops, with the approval
in populo et in universo regno eiuss of all the people, consecrated the king and
(With the hands of Honorius, cardinals and confirmed his right to the kingdom)
bishops, the king was consecrated and crowned
according to the custom of Roman kings, and
great joy prevailed among the people in the
whole kingdom.)
s Ljetopis, p. 52.
t Ljetopis, p. 52.
It is noticeable that in the Latin text the word “rex” or Svetopelek’s name is very
often replaced by the term “Sveti-puk” in the Croatian version. Only once was
the name Svetopelek changed into Budimir without reference to the enigmatic
“Sveti-puk” (example I). In several cases, the term “sveti puk” (holy regiment /
holy people) was used by the author of the Croatian narrative as a substitute
for the word “populus” (VII), which indicates that he was not able to inter-
pret properly the meaning of the word “Svetopelek” and used it sometimes as
a name and sometimes as a common noun. Similarly, in another place he also
translated “populus” as “sav puk” (“all of the people”, X).
It is possible that such confusion about the name of the king indicates a spe-
cific stage in the formation of tradition, in which both Budimir and Svetopelek
replaced the name of a local ruler. There is no extant source that would con-
firm such a process, so we do not know what name could possibly be included
in the primary text. In contrast to the fragment about the invasion of the
Goths in which the narrative of the Croatian version was in many places more
coherent than the Latin text we know, this time the Croatian variant seems
to be retouched in such a way that particular words often lose their semantic
consistency.
Mošin, another publisher of The Chronicle, commenting on Šišić’s obser-
vations, noted that the source material also lacks reports of any ruler named
Budimir.10 Havlík put forward a risky hypothesis that the name “Budimir” was
10 Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, pp. 16–17.

116 Chapter 4
a distorted form of the name “Branimir”, which would refer to the historical
ninth-century duke of the Slavs mentioned in the previous chapter. Branimir,
like Moravian Svatopluk, presumably obtained a special papal guarantee, legit-
imising his political actions.11 Another inspiration for the legendary Budimir
could also be Mutimir (Muncimir), Branimir’s successor.12 However, this
hypothesis does not seem convincing. Besides Branimir’s relationship with the
papacy, there are not many premises linking this historical ruler with the ficti-
tious Budimir known from the Croatian version of The Chronicle.
It can be noted that the name Budimir appeared sporadically in sources
from the territory of Croatia. The first instance is in a document from 892, that
is, from the time of the reign of Mutimir. The document mentions two župans
of this name. One of them was referred to as iupanus palatinus.13 Šišić associ-
ated Budimir’s name with the stone inscription: VDIMER from Knin.14
Some scholars tried to link the circumstances in which Budimir could get
into the circle of the narrative of The Chronicle with the traditions supposedly
taken over by the Kačić family. Traces of these traditions can be found in the
sources on the subject of the enigmatic tribal organization of the Maronians.
Thanks to Miho Barada, the entire later historiography links the Maronians with
the Narentines community mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogennetos15
and John the Deacon16 (in the sources Arentan/Narrentan). Barada believed
that they formed an independent state, which in the eleventh century was
absorbed by the Croatian polity ruled by Peter Krešimir.17 However, deficien-
cies in this hypothesis were pointed out by Mladen Ančić. He even wrote about
“the myth of the Narentines” and suggested that in fact these names referred
to several different phenomena, all of them ephemeral. One of them was the
organization of the Maronians, linked with sea piracy in southern Dalmatia.18
The sources most often refer to their leaders as dux Marianorum, Marianorum
11 See: Matijević Sokol, Sokol, “Hrvatska i Nin u doba kneza Branimira,” pp. 39–44, 53–57.
12 Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda, p. 98 [Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská
legenda, p. 17].
13 Documenta, no. 12, p. 16.
14 Ferdo Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb, 1925), p. 391.
15 “Ἀρεντανοί, όι καί Παγανοί προσαγορυόμενοι”, De administrando imperio, chapter 29, p. 124.
Also: chapter 30, p. 144, chapter 36, p. 164.
16 Johannis diaconi chronicon Venetum, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS vol. 7 (Hannover,
1846), p. 16.
17 Miho Barada, “Dinastičko pitanje u Hrvatskoj XI stoleća,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju
dalmatinsku 50 (1928–29) [1932], pp. 157–199; idem, “Topografija Porfirogenitove Paganije,”
Starohrvatska prosvjeta Nova serija 1–2 (1928), vol. 2, pp. 37–54.
18 Mladen Ančić, “Miho Barada i mit o Neretvanima,” Povijesni prilozi 41 (2011), pp. 17–43;
idem, “Ranosrednjovjekovni Neretvani ili Humljani. Tragom zabune koju je prouzročilo
iudex or iupanus morsticus.19 One of the alleged kings, Slavic (Slauiz), the
brother of župan morsticus Rusin, had in his circle a man called Budimir.
This Budimir had the local court title tepči (tepizi), and he is also attested in a
document dated between 1065 and 1076, written in the monastery of St. Peter
in Selo.20
Both the monastery and the alleged main centre of the Maronians in Omiš
were, from the twelfth century, under the control of the Kačić family. Havlík
even believed that its representatives had previously been the elite of the state
of the Maronians and that Slavic and Rusin came from their family. No sources,
however, confirm such an opinion. A fourteenth-century gloss on the margin
of the twelfth-century Supetar Cartulary which mentions the Kačić family
among the six houses from which Croatian bans had originated, was prob-
ably written in the St. Peter monastery. However, the cartulary did not men-
tion any Budimir. The author of the interpolation knew the tradition of the
king Svetopeleg as the first member of the Croatian dynasty to be known by
name. It is possible that some members of the Kačic family, cooperating with
the monks from the St. Peter monastery, formulated their own family legend,
appropriating the heritage of the Maronians through names known from older
documents. Besides information that the name Budimir was widespread in the
Kačić family in modern times, there is no proof in the form of a narrative that
would link this family directly with the heritage of the legendary king.
The manuscript of the Croatian version of The Chronicle was found by
Papalić in the estate of the Kačić family in 1500. Because the copy made by
Papalić was lost, we do not know if it included Budimir’s name. Havlík doubted
this, and did not reject the possibility that the modification was made in the
sixteenth-century Marulić translation and the copy made by Kaletić in 1546.
Although Havlík overestimated the links between the Kačić family and the
nobleman at the court of the župan of the Maronians, the hypothesis that
Budimir’s name should be linked to the traditions of the magnate family seems
to be the most interesting and the only one, so far, which explains the circum-
stances of the mysterious difference associated with the name of the ruler in
the two versions of The Chronicle.21
djelo ‘De administrando imperio’,” in: Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest, vol. 1, ed. Ivica
Lučić (Zagreb, 2011), pp. 217–278.
19 An attempt to define these terms precisely – critically approaching the settlements of
Barada – can be found in: Samuel Puhiera, “Judex, dux Marianorum,” Prilozi povijesti otoka
Hvara 1 (1959), pp. 5–16.
legenda, p. 19].
118 Chapter 4
The location of the congress convened by the king and called “the Synod of
Dalma” in the historiography, was different in the Croatian variant of the work.
According to Regnum Sclavorum it took place “in planitie Dalmae”, while the
Croatian text stated that the king waited for the papal legates “na planini, ka
se diše Hlivaj” (on the mountain which is called Hlivaj). This is a significant
change – in the Croatian narrative the synod took place not in a field or plain,
but on a mountain. Presumably, the difference was due to the similarity of the
Latin word “planities” [plain], and Slavic “planina” [mountain]. However, we
can ask whether the transformation was the result of an ordinary spelling mis-
take, or another concept introduced by the author of the Croatian text.
This detail changes the image of the synod. In the Latin narrative, the vision
is subordinated to the practical aspect. It refers to real congresses or rallies
that took place in a convenient place: on fields or plains. At the same time, the
image presented by the Croatian version gains a new symbolism. The central
role of mount Hlivaj could be a reference to the biblical topos of proclaiming
the laws from a hilltop. The top as the axis and centre of state is a motif known
from medieval legends, probably borrowed from the folk view of the world.22
It is also worth noting several less significant differences in the text of the
Croatian version of The Chronicle. They can help us better understand the dis-
crepancies between the two descriptions of the coronation of King Svetopelek/
Budimir and between two ways of understanding the space represented by the
authors of the two versions. The Priest of Duklja based his narrative on older
traditions or texts which he changed only slightly while rewriting; fragments
in which the two versions differ may also serve to highlight some details which
perhaps were important for him and which he wanted to preserve. The differ-
ences can be traced mainly in the details, especially in proper names:
– The Croatian text did not give the monastic name of Constantine – Cyril
(Kyrillus) – while in the Latin version it was mentioned.23
– The Croatian version also omits the name of the cardinal sent by Pope
Stephen to help the king. This text mentions another person, also anony-
mous, a cardinal and two bishops.24 In the Latin version the legate was
named Honorius; he was accompanied by two other cardinals and an
unknown number of bishops.
22 See: Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 67–78.

23 Ljetopis, p. 49.
24 Ljetopis, p. 51.
– While the Latin text listed in detail the suffragan dioceses subordinate to the
archdioceses in Salona and Dioclea,25 the Croatian version mentioned only
that “numerous bishops” were subject to the two archbishoprics.26
– The Croatian version does not give the names of the imperial envoys. In the
Latin version, they were named Leo and John.27
– The name of the emperor to whom King Budimir asked “to recall the laws
and borders” is not clear. In one place he is called Constantine,28 while sev-
eral lines below, in a passage mentioning the arrival of the imperial envoys,
the emperor is called Michael, as in the Latin version.29
– The name “Red Croatia” does not appear in the Croatian variant of The
Chronicle, although it refers to the area/community of Hrvate Bile [White
Croats], also known as Lower Dalmatians (Dalmatini Nižnji). In passages of
the Latin text mentioning Red Croatia, the counterpart in the Croatian text
is Donja Dalmacija [Lower Dalmatia], corrected by Šišić, rightly, to Gornja
Dalmacija [Upper Dalmatia].30
– The number of years of the king’s reign may also be similarly distorted by
the author of the Croatian text. Svetopelek from the Latin version ruled for
forty years and four months, while Budimir did so for forty years and three
months.31 There is not much to be said about the “Croatian script” used in
the Papalić manuscript, because the manuscript did not survive. It is not
known if it was written in Glagolitic or rather in Bosančica – the Bosnian
variant of the Cyrillic alphabet. The difference between both versions
regarding this detail may be, as was noted by Havlík, a hint of transliteration
of the text of The Chronicle. The letter glagoli (phonetic /ɡ/), as a Cyrillic
numeral (г) meant 3, but as a Glagolitic numeral (Ⰳ) meant 4.32
– In the Croatian version there are no references to Budimir’s coronation –
this issue will be discussed below. Instead, the text mentions the “consecra-
tion” of the king: “I gardinali i biskupi s voljom svega puka posvetiše kralja i
potvrdiše u kraljevstvo” (And cardinals and bishops, with the will of all the
people, consecrated the king and confirmed his right to the kingdom).33
25 Ljetopis, p. 54.
26 Ljetopis, p. 53.
27 Ljetopis, p. 52.
28 Ljetopis, p. 50.
29 Ljetopis, p. 52.
30 Ljetopis, p. 54.
31 Ljetopis, p. 56.
legenda, p. 44].
33 Ljetopis, p. 52.
120 Chapter 4
Discrepancies between both versions regarding the division of offices and

dignities in the Kingdom were not limited to nomenclature. The Latin version
detailed that the highest in the hierarchy were bans, or dukes (duces), the clos-
est relatives of the king; lower in rank were župans, or comites, subordinate to
the king; centurions were the rank below both bans and župans.
Interestingly, although the Latin narrative introduced local Slavonic nomen-
clature, it was slightly modified in the Croatian text. Besides bans in each of the
main parts of the realm, in several places the king created the office of duž.
As the author of this version points out, everyone holding one of these digni-
ties was to be “od pup[k]orizne plemeniti”, which Šišić, after Jagić, translated
as “noble from birth” – literally from “pup orizne”, i.e. “what was cut from the
navel [i.e. umbilical cord]” (“pupkovina”).34 The author decided to distinguish
the titles ban and duž (translation of Latin dux), which probably corresponded
better to the actual political organization of the Croatian kingdom under the
Árpád rule.
The status of kneze [singular: knez], next in the hierarchy, was also different.
Unlike župans in Regnum Sclavorum, kneze in the Croatian version were not
fully independent of bans and dukes, but they were even chosen by them from
among members of the family (ban and duž “učiniše kneze od svoga kolina”
[established kneze from his family]). The Croatian version claims that the king:
“daše svakomu banu sedam satnikov […] a s duži, aliti hercezi, pet knezov […]
I odluči da svaki knez prozove jednoga satnika” (gave seven centurions to each
ban […] and from duži or hercegs, five kneze […] And he decided that each
knez should establish one centurion), which explains this rather complicated
system of dependencies: just like in the Latin version, centurions were subject
both to bans and to kneze, the counterparts of župans. A ban ruled over seven
centurions, while a knez over only one centurion.
The author of the Croatian version developed the (already introduced) dis-
tinction between a ban and a duke (duž, known also in this verse as herceg). In
the Latin version, ban and dux are synonyms, while the Croatian version con-
siders them two distinct pillars of royal power. Although both bans and dukes
had an influence on appointing kneze, only dukes exercised direct control over
kneze. Each duke (duž, herceg) had five kneze at his disposal. This was to some
extent in line with the scheme: župan (comes) – ban in the Latin text, although
in the Croatian version a knez was not subordinated directly to the king, but
to a duž.35

35 Ljetopis, p. 55.
The terminology of the conventions of the congress at Mount Hlivaj stood

out against the rest of the narrative. Indeed, it could have been inspired by
the situation of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the High Middle Ages.
A member of the Hungarian royal family, the duke-herceg of Croatia and
Dalmatia (dux Dalmatiae et Croatiae), also called dux totius Sclavoniae,36 ruled
in co-operation with a Croatian ban, subordinate to him and chosen from
among local magnates.37 Besides the description of the Synod, the Croatian
version of The Chronicle used the words duž and herceg only in relation to for-
eign rulers. There is a mention of a duž of a certain group of Germans who
attacked the Croatian land from Istria and were defeated by King Cepimir.38
The term herceg appears in the context of the story of King Seislav described
more comprehensively in the next chapter. In this version Seislav fought with
a nameless Hungarian opponent, who is called “knez ali herceg na Ugrih” (knez
or herceg in Hungary) – thus he was not one of hercegs-duže mentioned on the
occasion of the Synod, and subordinate to the king of the Slavs/Croats.
3 Svetopelek or Svatopluk? The Tradition of Cyril and Methodius
At the end of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Thallóczy stated that the name
Svetopelek was “fabricated”39 by the Priest of Duklja; however, he did not rule
out closer links between some of the narrative threads of Regnum Sclavorum
and the Great Moravian tradition.
It is definite that the Moravian Svatopluk was not the exact prototype of the
Adriatic Svetopelek.40 However, both shared the same name, and some of the
activities of the king of the Slavs known from Regnum Sclavorum were inspired
36 About this title see: Ančić, “Dva teksta iz sredine 14. stoleća,” pp. 174–178.
37 Ferdo Šišić, Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda od najstarijih dana do godine 1873 (Zagreb,
1916), pp. 156–158.
38 Ljetopis, p. 61.
39 Precisely ‘caught in the air’ – “aus der Luft gegriffene”: Lajos Thallóczy, “Die ungarische
Beziehungen der Chronik des Presbyter Diocleas,” Archiv für slawische Philologie 20
(1898), pp. 206–220 (here: p. 208).
40 There is another controversial hypothesis according to which Great Moravia was situ-
ated in the south, near the rivers of the Great Morava, the Sava and the Danube. This
historiographic myth was exhaustively expressed in the work by Imre Boba (Moravia’s
History Reconsidered: a Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources (The Hague, 1971), who con-
sidered The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja as one of his most important sources (ibidem,
pp. 106–107). Although the concepts of Boba were not accepted by historians, recently
they have gained some popularity, especially among Hungarian scholars: István Petrovics,
“Imre Boba i pitanje Velike Moravske,” Scrinia Slavonica 1 (2008), vol. 8, pp. 563–576.
122 Chapter 4
by the texts from Cyril and Methodius’ circle which were known in medi-
eval Dalmatia and the part of the Balkans under discussion. The connection
between Svetopelek’s baptism and Constantine’s mission shows the transfer
of some narrative motifs, although its scope and actual degree of relationship
between the two sets of works remains unknown.
Analysis of the legend about Svetopelek in the narration of Regnum Scla
vorum reveals its complex structure. The crucial figure was, in fact, Constantine,
and until he disappeared from the horizon of events described by the Priest of
Duklja, Svetopelek played only a minor role in the narrative. He was mainly a
ruler whom the future saint converted during one of his missions. The situa-
tion changed during the Synod in Dalma, where the king of the Slavs clearly
played the main role. It is also much harder to define the degree of connection
between this part of the motif and the Great Moravian tradition.
The scope of the influence of the earlier tradition on the narrative about the
Synod in Dalma has long been a subject of a dispute. The search for a histori-
cal Svetopelek led scholars to various – yet invariably controversial – results.
Borislav Radojković identified Svetopelek with Michael (Mihajlo) Višević.
According to this concept, his father would be the prince of the Vistulans who
was exiled by the Moravian Svatopluk and took refuge in Dalmatia. According
to documents – or, in fact, their sixteenth-century copies – Michael became
the prince of Hum (Zachlumia) and together with the Croatian King Tomislav
participated in the Synod in Split in 925.41 Interestingly, in some sources from
around eleventh century, Michael indeed was described as rex Sclavorum.42
Rus, supporting his own hypotheses on the Croats and Goths, was also will-
ing to interpret a fragment of The Life of Methodius about the prince “on the
Vistula” as a trace of the journey of the family of Michael, the Prince of Hum,
from the Vistula region43 mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogennetos.44
These conclusions, however, did not withstand criticism.45 Later, Rus found
another historical figure who could have been the ruler convening the synod
(he believed that his name was Budko, a possible diminutive of Budimir): the
41 Borislav M. Radojković, “Država kralja Svetopeleka i njegovih potomaka,” Istorijski zapisi,

19 (1962), pp. 399–435.
42 These were Annales Beneventani, Annales Barenses, and Lupi protospatari annales. See:
Piotr Boroń, Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie … Tytuły i nazwy władców słowiańskich we wcz-
esnym średniowieczu (Katowice, 2010), p. 252.
43 Rus, Slovanstvo in vislanski Hrvatje, pp. 36–37.
45 These concepts are criticised in: Barada, Dvije publikacije, pp. 497–502.
archon Porga,46 mentioned by Porphyrogennetos in the context of the baptism

of the Croats.47
Šišić, as has already been mentioned, claimed that Svetopelek’s name came
to the Adriatic region with The Life of Methodius. At the same time he claimed
that it was not included in Regnum Sclavorum before the thirteenth century.48
Mošin refuted these arguments – in his opinion the name of the king certainly
contained a reference to the Great Moravian ruler.49 However, he believed that
it did not have to mean that the narrative layer also came to the south with
some legend about Constantine’s mission. As Havlík observed, the conclusion
of Mošin’s ideas would be that the name Svętopъlkъ was not adopted before
the end of the tenth century, because it was only then that the nasal vow-
els disappeared from the language spoken by the Southern Slavs.50 Žviković
recently suggested that this could have happened earlier, and the probability
of the spread of the traditions related to Cyril and Methodius to the south is
indicated by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, who wrote that after the fall of
Great Moravia, some of the inhabitants of those lands emigrated to Croatia,
among other places.51 Havlík similarly believed that the name “Svatopluk” was
known in Dalmatia probably from the time of Methodius’ return journey from
Rome, and certainly already from 886, when the disciples of Methodius were
banished by Bishop Wiching.52
However, there are no premises for suggesting that the legend of Svatopluk
was particularly popular in Dalmatia in the ninth century. On the contrary:
Svetopelek probably did not become an important figure for the South Slavic
dynastic traditions before the fourteenth century. Besides the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum, only vague references point to the traces of these stories.
The earliest of them is the aforementioned gloss in the margin of Supetar
Cartulary. This cartulary was probably written in the twelfth century, but the
gloss was added about two centuries later. In fact, there are two distinct glosses:
the former describes the process of electing a king by bans belonging to six
noble families, while the latter is a corrupted list of bans of the Croatian gens.
The first gloss and the tradition of electing Croatian kings will be discussed
later. Here we quote the text of the second gloss:
46 See: Jože Rus, Krst prvih Hrvatov in Srbov. Nova poglavja o zgodovini kraljev Svevladićev
614–654 (Ljubljana, 1932).
49 Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, pp. 16–17.
legenda, p. 17].
legenda. p. 57].
124 Chapter 4
isti fuerunt bani in Croacia de genere Croatorum a tempore regis

Suetopelegi usque ad tempus Suenimiri regis Croatorum: Stephanus
Cucar, Saruba […] Slauaz Cucar fuit iudex regis Presimir Cucar. Tempore
Suenimiri fuit Petrus Sna […] banus. Omnes isti fuerunt bani in Croacia
(These were bans of Croatia from the family of Croats since the time of
King Suetopelegi until the time of Suenimir, a king of Croats: Stephanus
Cucar, Saruba […] Slauaz Cucar was a royal judge Presimir Cucar. In
the time of Suenimir Petrus Sna […] was a ban. They were all bans in
Croatia).53
On the basis of this gloss, scholars have tried to infer when the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum could have been written. Šišić interpreted the gloss as
evidence that the person who wrote it knew the text of the Croatian version,
although Svetopelek’s name does not appear in this version.54 On the other
hand, Živković – in accordance with his hypothesis regarding the chronology
of the formation of The Chronicle – claimed that the author of the interpo-
lation would have had to have read a Latin record containing the names of
Svetopelek and Zvonimir, as the latter is absent in Regnum Sclavorum. This nar-
ration was then used as the basis of the Croatian version.55 Indeed, the record
in the shape in which it is in probably proves the existence of a certain text in
which the figures of Svetopelek and Zvonimir were presented at two poles in
the development of the dynasty. The scheme “from Svetopelek to Zvonimir”
could be an argument in favour of the thesis that the tradition known to the
author of the gloss had some features of both versions of The Chronicle known
to us today: the Latin and the Croatian.
Havlík noticed that the shape of the gloss might be influenced by the afore-
mentioned family of Kačićs – the same person, according to his hypothesis,
who was responsible for adding Budimir’s name56 to the Croatian text of The
Chronicle. Although the gloss does not include this name, the first part of the
interpolation could indeed correspond with the ambitions of the Kačić family,
who are mentioned in the same text as one of the six largest Croatian fami-
lies. Perhaps the impact of the Kačić family on the shape of the text could
have been prolonged and multi-stage, and the original finite list of Croatian
53 Držislav Švob, “Pripis Supetarskog kartulara o izboru starohrvatskog kralja i popis onodob-
nih banova,” Historijski zbornik, 1–4 (1956), vol. 9, pp. 101–117.
56 Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda, pp. 99–100 [Dukljanská kronika a
Dalmatská legenda, pp. 18–19].
kings – from Svetopelek to Zvonimir – was subsequently “updated” by replac-

ing the first ruler with the figure of Budimir.
The Svetopelek’s name was also known in Ragusan literature. Although
Živković thought that the writers from Dubrovnik only knew the legend of
Svetopelek from the work of the Priest of Duklja,57 it must be remembered that
the versions of The Chronicle available today are late copies and the Dubrovnik
records should not be underestimated.
In Annales Ragusini, probably dating back to the fifteenth century, we find
information dated to 972 that states that after five years of rule by the lord
from Albania, the man of the Moravian-Croatian family became the King of
Bosnia. If we take into account that the Kingdom of Bosnia in the Annales is
usually the counterpart of the term “the Kingdom of the Slavs” in The Chronicle
of the Priest of Duklja (as will be discussed later while analysing the legend
of King Bello and the founding of Ragusa), we can find traces of a tradition
similar to the one known from the text of Regnum Sclavorum. An unnamed leg-
endary king from the Moravian-Croatian family can be indirect evidence that
the anonymous author of Annales knew the tradition of Svetopelek not from
The Chronicle but from another source.
Havlík noticed that the Ragusan historiography reproduced some motifs
similar to the text of Regnum Sclavorum, though in a slightly changed
configuration.58 Annales Ragusini stated that in the year 871, Berislav, baron
de Harvatia, ruled in Bosnia after King Stephen.59 This information was
modified by Nicola Ragnina, the Ragusan chronicler and continuator of the
Annales, who was writing in the sixteenth century. Slightly changing the chro-
nology, he added that in 813, a monk named Cyril baptized the Bulgarians
and the Bosnians, that in 815 King Stephen – known in lingua slava as
Svetolić – was replaced by Berislav from Croatia, and that 972 was the first year
of the reign of the king representing the Moravian lineage from Croatia (here,
Ragnina repeated information provided by the anonymous author of Annales
Ragusini).60
57 Tibor Živković, “O Takozvanom saboru na Duvanjskom polju,” Zbornik za Istoriju Bosne i

Hercegovine 4 (2004), p. 54.
58 Lubomir Havlík, “Dubrovnické kroniky a tradice a Svatoplukovi,” Slovanský Přehled 3
(1972), vol. 58 pp. 197–200.
59 Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, ed. Speratus Nodilo [Natko Nodilo],
Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium vol. 14 (Zagreb, 1883),
pp. 20, 22. [hereafter cited as: Annales Ragusini]
60 Annali di Ragusa del magnifico Ms. Nicolo di Ragnina, ed. Speratus Nodilo [Natko Nodilo],
Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium vol. 14 (Zagreb, 1883) pp. 192–
193, 202. [hereafter cited as: Nicolai de Ragnina]
126 Chapter 4
In the later work by Resti, there was information about the Bosnian Bishop
Radagost who in 1189 addressed Bernard, the Archbishop of Ragusa, with a
defence of Slavic liturgy, quoting the charter given by Pope John VIII in 880.61
This is probably a reference to the letter which was actually sent to Svatopluk.62
Resti also stressed that the Bosnian bishop did not know Latin. Much earlier,
Ragnina wrote extensively about Radagost, and although he did not mention
the charter, he claimed that Bernard of Ragusa had consecrated a certain dio-
cese in Bosnia at the time of the rule of ban Kulin. Ragnina also discussed
Radagost’s visit to Rome, where the bishop had presented the issue of the dio-
cese of Bosnia to Pope Celestine.63 This mention gives rise to suspicions that
other Great Moravian traditions – including those related to Slavic liturgy –
had infiltrated the Ragusa area, perhaps independently of The Chronicle of the
Priest of Duklja. On these grounds, Havlík speculated that similar traditions
could also be known in Bosnia.64
It would be interesting to enquire about the place of the figure of King
Svetopelek in the narrative circle of legends connected with Svatopluk.65
Havlík, who interpreted the legend of the Synod in Dalma as part of a formerly
independent plot, the so-called Dalmatian Legend of St. Constantine, believed
that the events described as taking place during this congress referred to one
of the councils convened by Moravian Svatopluk.66 A reference to such an
event was included, for example, in The Life of St. Methodius.67 However, the
way the events of the Synod are presented in Regnum Sclavorum – especially
the description of the coronation of the king – contradict such claims and sug-
gest that this narrative originally belonged to a separate tradition which was
later combined with fragments of stories, well-known in Dalmatia, about the
mission of St. Constantine.
Such an approach may be indirectly confirmed by the fact that sources
contemporary to the Great Moravian ruler did not mention his coronation.
61 Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii (ab origine urbis usque ad annum 1451), ed. Natko Nodilo,
Zagreb 1893, p. 63.
62 Epistolae, no. 90, [in:] MMFH vol. 3, eds. Dagmar Bartonková, Lubomir Havlík, Ivan Hrbek,
Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka, pp. 197–209.
63 Nicolai de Ragnina, p. 219.
64 Havlík, “Dubrovnické kroniky,” p. 198.
65 The motifs of Great Moravian origins in historiography of the neighbouring countries,
Slavdom and Hungary, is discussed in: Ryszard Grzesik, “Wielkomorawscy bohaterowie –
rodzimi czy obcy?,” in idem, Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis, pp. 59–69.
66 Havlík, Dukljanska hronikai i Dalmatinska legenda, pp. 134–135 [Dukljanská kronika a
67 Żywot Metodego, chapter 12, in Żywoty Konstantyna i Metodego (obszerne), ed. Tadeusz
Lehr-Spławiński (Warsaw, 2000), pp. 114–117.
Information provided by Abu Saʿīd Gardēzī can be interpreted in this way,

although it is not clear whether the Persian geographer meant Svatopluk or
someone else. Pope Stephen V used the title rex in reference to Svatopluk in his
letter.68 The same term is used by Regino of Prüm.69 It must be remembered,
however, that those who reigned at the fringes of Christendom might be titled
rex even though they were not crowned rulers.
The literary tradition associated with Moravian Svatopluk retained the
ambiguous image of this ruler, so an analysis of selected texts in terms of his
characteristics can help to identify the possible direction from which some
narrative motifs came to Dalmatia, and the time in which it happened. Havlík
speculated that information about historical Svatopluk might have come to
that region from Bohemia, where the memory of the ruler was an important
element of local historiography from the very beginning. At the same time he
did not rule out the possibility that the legend of Svetopelek and Constantine
was also influenced by the Bulgarian literary centre in Ohrid.
The attitude of medieval Czech literature to the figure of Svatopluk was
characterized by far-reaching ambivalence, probably due to German influ-
ences. The anonymous author of the note included in the Annales Fuldenses,70
and later Thietmar,71 described the conflict between the Moravian ruler
and the emperor Arnulf, emphasizing the infidelity and pride of the former.
Czech chroniclers also highlighted this conflict and the fall of Svatopluk after
the war with the Hungarians;72 these events were mentioned by Cosmas73
and Dalimil.74 Both medieval historians also repeated the legend about the
mysterious disappearance of the prince and his departure to the monastery
on Zobor Mountain.75 According to Dalimil, it was not the first time that a
68 Epistolae, no. 101, [in:] MMFH vol. 3, pp. 215–225; Constantinus et Methodius Thessaloni
censes. Fontes, eds. František Grivec, Franc Tomšič (Zagreb, 1960), pp. 75–77.
69 See: Boroń, Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie, pp. 116–119.
70 See: “Zwentibaldo” in Annales Fuldenses sive Annales regni Francorum orientalis, ed. Georg
Heinrich Pretzli, MGH SS rerum germanorum vol. 7 (Hannover, 1891), pp. 118–119.
71 Kronika Thietmara, trans. and edit. Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (Krakow, 2005), p. 170.
72 For an overview of Svatopluk’s tradition in the Czech medieval historiography see: Marek
Vadrna, Obraz kráľa Svätopluka I. v českých kronikách, in Homza et al., Svätopluk v európ-
skom písomníctve, pp. 230–273.
73 Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 14, p. 27; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, p. 20.
74 Rýmovaná Kronika Česká, chapter 26, pp. 41–43.
75 Grzesik pointed out that the figure of duke of Nitra named Zobor appeared in Gesta
Hungarorum. He was hanged by Hungarians after seizing of the city, and the mountain
on which he died was named after him. Presumably, an anonymous notary reported here
a legend related to Svatopluk: Grzesik, “Węgry a Słowiańszczyzna,” pp. 98.
128 Chapter 4
Moravian ruler had become a monk. The chronicler recalled the story of the
conflict between Svatopluk and Emperor Arnulf. After defeating Svatopluk, the
emperor seized his land and took his wife (Arnulf’s own sister) to his court.
Svatopluk spent seven years in the forest among hermits, then went incognito
to the imperial court, accused Arnulf of wrongfully seizing the lands of his
brother-in-law, and demanded a trial by ordeal. The emperor appointed one
of his knights to stand against the monk, yet Svatopluk, still wearing the habit,
managed to defeat him. When Svatopluk revealed his identity, the emperor
gave him his land back (the chronicle’s Latin translation, made in the time of
Charles IV, mentions the return of his wife as well). In both versions, shortly
after, Svatopluk was forced to give power to Hungarians.76
Some Czech texts linked to the tradition of Cyril and Methodius pre-
sented a negative image of Svatopluk, based on different sources. According
to these sources, he was a perverse ruler and usurper who fell into conflict
with Methodius. As a result, Methodius cursed the prince and his state. Such
an image was presented in several Latin texts: Tempore Michaelis imperato-
ris (Legenda Moravica);77 Vita s. Ludmillae et s. Venceslais,78 authored by the
so-called monk Christian; and the legend Beatus Cyrillus.79 Havlík noticed,
however, that these works were characterized by inconsistencies in the inter-
pretation of Svatopluk’s actions. Initially, the prince was described as a friend
of Methodius, but later, and suddenly, his enemy.80 Some works of Czech litera-
ture from the High Middle Ages, such as Diffundente sole (Legenda Bohemica)81
and Quemadmodum,82 did not reproduce the “black legend” of this ruler, but
rather had a shortened tale of Cyril and Methodius, and some threads – due
to the limitation of space – had to be omitted. As for Diffundente sole, Havlík
speculated that this work could have had older roots than other texts, repeat-
ing the negative characteristics of Svatopluk. Havlík explained the hostile atti-
tude towards the prince as a mistake by Czech chroniclers who confused Great
Moravian Svatopluk with his godson, Zventibold, Arnulf’s son. The image
76 Grzesik, “Węgry a Słowiańszczyzna,” pp. 93–106. There are concepts interpreting this
motive as an adaptation of some oral version of the adventures of Odysseus, known
among the Slavs through Greek missionaries. See: Vadrna, Obraz kráľa Svätopluka,
pp. 252–262 (where there is also a fragment of the Latin translation).
77 Tempore Michaelis imperatoris – Legenda Moravica, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 265–266.
78 Christiani monachi Vita et passio sancti Venceslai et sanctae Ludmile ave eius, MMFH vol. 2,
p. 192.
79 Legenda Beatus Cyrillus, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 302–303.
81 Legenda Diffundente sole, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 276–284.
82 Legenda Quemadmodum, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 289–297.
of Zventibold, the King of Lorraine and Burgundy, in the Western sources

was, according to Havlík, rather negative.83 Regino of Prüm and the Annales
Fuldenses do indeed mention Zvetibold’s conflict with his subjects and the
clergy, culminating in the death of the ruler. Despite this, after the king’s death,
his cult developed, and he was presented in hagiography according to the rex-
confessor model.84 Another interpretation was provided by Martin Homza,
who perceived the significant influence of Hungarian historiography on the
development of the black legend of Svatopluk. In particular, the image of this
ruler in The Great Compilation of Hungarian Chronicles supposedly indicated
an attempt to legitimize the conquest of the Slavs by Magyars and the process
of the formation of one political nation by the Hungarian nobility in the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries.85
In Ohrid literature, the conflict between Svatopluk and Methodius was
present in the Greek Bios Klimentos (ΒίοςΚλήμεντος, Bulgarian legend),86 a work
attributed to the Archbishop of Ohrid, Theophylact, living at the turn of the
eleventh century. The main discrepancy between the Ohrid School and the
Czech chronicles, as far as the “black legend” of Svatopluk is concerned, is that
they explained in different ways the reasons for the sudden transformation of
the ruler. According to Bios Klimentos, Svatopluk was led astray by the Latin
clergy, in the first place by Wiching, who had been cursed by Methodius.87
In the Dalmatian tradition, Svetopelek had no negative features. Havlík
explained that this was due to the early transmission of the tradition, although
it cannot be unequivocally verified whether it came from Ohrid or from
Bohemia. The presence of Slavic liturgy in Dalmatia can probably be confirmed
as early as in the first half of the tenth century. The issue of using the Slavic lan-
guage was discussed at the Synod in Split in 925. It is more difficult, however, to
explain the nature of the process of the transformation of this minor character
from the legends about Constantine and Methodius’ mission into the main
figure of the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum.
The case of Czech dynastic legends shows that the figure of Svatopluk was
able to form his own legendary threads. Cosmas presents the fall of the prince
and his realm as a part of a broader tale of the baptism of the Czechs and

84 Ľubica Štrbáková, Svätopluk Lotrinský ( f 900), krstný syn Svätopluka I., ako postava his-
torická a hagiografická, in Homza et al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve, pp. 177–229.
85 Martin Homza, Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície u Slovákov (čierna a biela sväto-
plukovská legenda), in idem et al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve, pp. 48–57.
86 Bios Klimentos [ΒίοςΚλήμεντος], MMFH vol. 2, 215–219.
87 Bios Klimentos [ΒίοςΚλήμεντος], p. 219.
130 Chapter 4
the liberation of their state from Moravian domination. Hungarian chronicles

can also explain the phenomenon of Svatopluk’s exclusion from the narra-
tive about Constantine and Methodius, and building a new narrative with the
prince as a central figure. In the anonymous Gesta Hungarorum, Svatopluk
was called “Marót”, i.e. Moravian, and his reign was described as extending to
the territories inhabited by the Khazars.88 As was observed by Havlík, if the
passage of the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja about
Sveti-puk ruling in “Kazarika” were not the result of a lack of linguistic skills
in the chronicler, the analogy to a similar detail regarding the ruler’s domain
should be sought in Gesta Hungarorum.89 The anonymous notary also knew
the character called Menumorout (Ménmarót), grandson of Marót, which can
be translated today as “the great Moravian”, although the anonymous author of
Gesta Hungarorum derived its etymology from the Old Hungarian word “mén”
(“stallion”, in this context, having many wives). Menumorout was the ruler of
the region and the castle of Bihar. Out of fear of the Hungarians, he agreed to
the marriage of his daughter to Zolta, Árpád’s son, sealing the Slav-Hungarian
alliance.90
The figure of “Marót” may show traces of Hungarian-Moravian symbiosis,
as well as being an example of the adoption of some motifs from the Great
Moravian tradition by the Hungarian elite.91 Some themes described by the
anonymous author of Gesta Hungarorum were later developed by Simon of
Kéza in his chronicle Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, written in the second
half of the thirteenth century. According to Simon, Svatopluk (Zvataplug) was
the son of Marót, not Marót himself, although the chronicler mentioned that
some people attribute the deeds of Marót to his son. The name “Svatopluk” was
unknown, while Marót “nomine maior erat” (was a famous figure).92 According
to Martin Homza, this discrepancy can be explained by the existence of
two traditions: one related to the battle of the Rákos River near Bánhida, in
which Svatopluk was killed, according to Simon of Kéza; and the other regard-
ing the city of Veszprém as the capital of Marót, who – again according to
88 Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, p. 32; Anonimowego notariusza Gesta
Hungarorum, p. 67; observations of Grzesik: ibidem, p. 67, footnote 98.
legenda, p. 20].
90 See: Grzesik, “Węgry a Słowiańszczyzna,” pp. 98.
91 Interesting studies on relationships between the Hungarians and the Slavs after the fall
of Great Moravia and the appropriation of dynastic traditions by the Slavic invaders were
published by Ryszard Grzesik, “Czy w średniowiecznych kronikach węgierskich istniały
dwa modele przekazu o rodzimych początkach?,” in idem, Hungaria – Slavia – Europa
Centralis, pp. 117–124 (discussion of the issue of Marót: pp. 119–121); idem, “Węgry a
Słowiańszczyzna,” pp. 93–106 (discussion of the issue of Marót: pp. 98–100).
92 Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum, p. 76.
the chronicler – was confused by some with his son.93 According to Simon’s
account, the ruler died in a battle with the Hungarians, and this claim is consis-
tent with the threads of the Czech tradition. Simon of Kéza briefly mentioned
the gifts that the Hungarians offered to Svatopluk. This motif can also be
found in The Great Compilation of Hungarian Chronicles from the fourteenth
century that contains the story of how the Hungarians purchased Pannonia,
its land, grass and water from Svatopluk in exchange for a horse, bridle and
saddle. Then, the deceived ruler, fleeing from the Hungarian army, reportedly
drowned in the Danube. Homza saw in this story traces of transforming infor-
mation of hypothetical gesta of the Nitra princes into a “black legend”, serving
the interests of the Hungarian elite.94
The detail that seems to be the most interesting in the context of the
Hungarian tradition is how Simon imagined the territories subordinate to the
ruler: “Zvataplug filius Morot, princeps quidam in Polonia,95 qui Bracta subi-
ugando Bulgaris Messianisque imperabat, incipiens similiter in Pannonia post
Hunnorum exterminium dominari”96 (Zvataplug, the son of Marót, the prince
in Poland, who subjugated Bracta and reigned as emperor of the Bulgarians
and the Moravians, became the ruler of Pannonia, when the Huns were elimi-
nated). Svatopluk’s domain and his multi-part state resembles somewhat the
complex structure of the Kingdom of the Slavs from The Chronicle of the Priest
of Duklja. The reference that Svatopluk took over part of his empire after the
fall of the Huns could be significant – although Regnum Sclavorum includes no
references to the violent fall of the Dalmatian state of the Goths, the described
situation was somewhat similar, as Svetopelek took over his realm as a legacy
of the barbarian chieftains.
93 Homza, “Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície u Slovákov,” pp. 59–66.

94 Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV., ed. Alexander Domanovszky, Scriptores rerum
Hungaricarum vol. 1 (Budapest, 1937), pp. 288–291; Homza, “Stredoveké korene svätoplu-
kovskej tradície u Slovákov,” pp. 59–89.
95 Svatopluk was also recognized as the prince (princeps) of Poland by the author of The
Great Compilation of Hungarian Chronicles from the fourteenth century, and by Johannes
de Thurocz at the end of the fifteenth century: Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV.,
p. 288; Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, eds. Erzsébet Galántai, Gyula Kristó
(Budapest, 1985), p. 331. See: Martin Homza, “Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície
u Slovákov (čierna a biela svätoplukovská legenda),” in idem et al., Svätopluk v európskom
písomníctve, p. 84.
96 Homza, “Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície,” p. 74. The translator of Havlík’s work
identified Bracta with Brač (Latin: Bractia). However, it is more probable that the chroni-
cler meant Bactria – a region in Central Asia known from the conquests by Alexander the
Great, see: ibidem, p. 74, footnote 2.
132 Chapter 4
The legend retold by the Priest of Duklja seems to share some of motifs with
The Russian Primary Chronicle (known also as The Tale of Bygone Years). The
authorship of this work is conventionally attributed to Nestor the Chronicler,
though it probably contains an older text, titled by historians The Moravian
Chronicle (or The Moravian History of the Slavs). It presented the vision of one
Slavic nation (people), which included the Danubian Slavs, the Moravians,
the Czechs, the Lyakhs [Lendians] and the Polyanians (i.e. inhabitants of
Ruthenia [“who are now called Russes”]). According to another earlier vari-
ant of this legend in The Primary Chronicle, the Slavic people included the
Czechs, the Moravians, the Serbs, the White Croats, Carantanians and a num-
ber of Lyakhan and Ruthenian tribes. Interestingly, The Primary Chronicle is
the only medieval work from outside the Adriatic region using the enigmatic
term “White Croatia”, appearing in Regnum Sclavorum – probably in relation to
some southern (not northern) tribal organization. After early hagiographies of
“Apostles to the Slavs”, The Primary Chronicle repeated information that the rul-
ers of the Slavs, “Rostislav, Kotsel and Svyatopolk”, sent envoys to the emperor
Michael which resulted in Constantine and Methodius’ mission in Moravia.97
While writing about the land of the Moravians, the chronicler adds an interest-
ing statement: “For in that region is Illyricum, whither Paul first repaired and
where the Slavs originally lived”.98
The above examples show that the figure of Svetopelek was able to generate
legendary motifs detached from the legend of Constantine. The first preserved
traces of the worship of the “Apostles to the Slavs” in Croatia date back to the
beginning of the fourteenth century99 and although it had certainly been
developing in this area much earlier, it is perhaps no accident that we can find
Svetopelek’s name in the sources from a similar period. It is difficult to state
without any doubt which texts were used by the Priest of Duklja when he was
writing his narrative about the ruler. The name “Svetopelek”, it seems, origi-
nally belonged to the legend of Constantine, and was soon “overgrown” with
quite a different narrative, one about the founder of the dynasty, and about the
king who actually established the Kingdom of the Slavs. As we shall see later
in the present work, the motif of Svetopelek was related above all with the
Synod in Dalma. It is difficult to find any links between the description of this
event in Regnum Sclavorum and its possible prototypes in any of the legends
97 Nestor, Powieść minionych lat, trans. and ed. Franciszek Sielicki (Wrocław, 1968), pp. 26–30.
The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, trans. and eds. Samuel Hazzard Cross and
Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge Massachusetts, 1953), p. 63.
98 Quoted after: The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, p. 63.
99 Biserka Grabar, “Kult Ćirila i Metodija u Hrvata,” Slovo: časopis Staroslovenskoga instituta
u Zagrebu 36 (1986), pp. 141–145.
about Constantine and Methodius. We will probably never be able to recon-

struct the development of the hypothetical text of The Dalmatian Legend. We
do not know whether a description of a great ordering congress could have
been part of such a narrative. There are many indications that this motif was
independent of the first part of the narrative, i.e. the account of the baptism of
the ruler of the Slavs and Constantine’s mission. While the motif of the synod
might be inspired by reports about ecclesiastical councils in Split in which the
Croatian ruler Tomislav and Michael the prince of Hum participated, the nar-
rative about Constantine’s activities clearly shows the influence of literature
from outside Dalmatia, probably from Bohemia or Ohrid.
4 The King and the Saint: Constantine’s Participation in the

Christianization of the Kingdom of the Slavs
The story of Constantine appeared in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum as

an added motif. The Priest of Duklja approached this issue twice. The first
part of the account of the missionary’s activity started with the sentence
“Temporibus huius floruit, ut rosa, ex civitate Thessalonica qui dam philoso-
phus Constantinus nomine, filius cuiusdam Leonis patricii […]” (In those days,
a philosopher named Constantine of the city of Thessalonica, the son of a
patrician Leon, blossomed like a rose),100 and for the most part this described
Svetomir’s rule. After concise information about the death of the king and
the takeover of power by his son, Svetopelek, the chronicler introduced
Constantine into the direct context of the history of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
In Regnum Sclavorum, the figure of Constantine is primarily linked with the
issue of the baptism of the Slavs. Havlík, as was already mentioned, considered
the entire narrative about Svetopelek as a remnant of The Dalmatian Legend
(the alleged work about the saint preserved only in fragments included in the
text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja). It should be noted, however, that
the thread of Constantine’s mission in Regnum Sclavorum ends before the nar-
ration about the Synod in Dalma begins. The last reference to Constantine in
the Priest of Duklja’s work is information about his resumed journey to Rome.
Starting the narrative with the words “Tempore ipso …” [In this time …]101
could mean that he was moving away from the influence of the tradition of
Cyril and Methodius on the general shape of the story; or at least it would
have done if after this caesura the chronicler had not mentioned a mysterious

134 Chapter 4
volume: “librum Sclavorum qui dicitur Methodius” (the Slavic book which is
called Methodius).102
It is not known what exactly Methodius was. The Croatian version stated that
Methodius was the name of the books which “pri Hrvatih ostaše” (remained
with the Croats).103 According to opinion prevailing in older historiography,
it could have been a set of laws from which the Priest of Duklja got informa-
tion about decisions of the Synod in Dalma. Both Luka Jelić104 and Vjekoslav
Klaić105 were convinced that it was a codex or a set of documents describing
the division and territorial organization of the Croatian territories. In this case,
the title of the book would make no reference to the figure of Methodius, the
brother of Constantine, but rather to the word “method”, i.e. the way of organiz-
ing a state. The hypothesis of the juridical nature of the work mentioned by the
Priest of Duklja was developed by Marko Kostrenčić, who supposed that the
author of Regnum Sclavorum could mean The Nomocanon of John Scholasticus
translated into Slavic, perhaps by Constantine or Methodius.106
The way ecclesiastical organization was presented in the description of the
synod (especially the remark that archbishops and bishops were not entitled
to administer territories other than their own) could indeed refer to certain
regulations of The Nomocanon. It cannot be ruled out that the Priest of Duklja
knew one of the translations of Greek legal texts attributed to Methodius.107
Šišić, as usual, interpreted the remark about the book as a later interpola-
tion. He also associated the title of the work with Methodius and assumed
that the Priest of Duklja was inspired by his Slavic hagiography.108 In fact, it
is difficult to resist the temptation of linking the alleged source of informa-
tion about the Synod with the legend of Constantine presented in a previous
section of Regnum Sclavorum. Radojčić believed that it was impossible to say
whether Methodius was a set of legal documents, hagiography, or some other
type of texts.109 Mošin also did not rule out any of these options.110 Živković
drew attention to the narrative of Sicard of Cremona, an Italian historian from
the turn of the twelfth century, who referred to the enigmatic Chronicle of

104 Luka Jelić, “Duvanjski Sabor,” Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 1 (1909), vol. 10,
pp. 135–136.
105 Vjekoslav Klaić, “Narodni Sabor i krunisanje kralja na Duvanjskom polju,” Zbornik Matice
hrvatske o tisućoj godišnjici Hrvatskog kraljevstva, ed. Filip Lukas (Zagreb, 1925), pp. 3–18.
106 Marko Kostrenčić, Hrvatska pravna povijest (Zagreb, 1923), pp. 294–296.
107 Halvík, Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda, pp. 136–140.
109 Radojčić, “Šišić F., Letopis Popa Dukljanina,” pp. 168–178.
Bishop Methodius, unidentified by scholars.111 Marko Petrak summed up the

discussion. He cautiously assumed that the book mentioned in both versions
of The Chronicle was indeed St. Methodius’ Nomocnanon. Its presence in medi-
eval Croatia seems to be confirmed. The book was supposedly divided into
the part devoted to the canon law and civil law. Both would be translations
of works by John Scholasticus, the sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople,
although not his Nomocanon but Sinagoge L Titulorum and Ecloga (i.e. Zakon
Sudnyj Ljudem).112 Still, on the basis of Regnum Sclavorum itself the problem of
Methodius remains unsolved.
On the other hand, some information about Constantine in Regnum
Sclavorum was typical. Many characteristic details, such as the mention of the
Christianization of the Bulgarians (and its place in the narrative), the knowl-
edge of the name of Constantine’s father (Leo), the name given to Constantine
upon becoming a monk (Cyril), and the honorific title doctor (used by the
Priest of Duklja while referring to him), had analogies in the medieval litera-
ture of the tradition of Cyril and Methodius. On the basis of a comparative
analysis of these types of characteristic elements, Havlík was still unable to
determine whether the hypothetical Dalmatian Legend was influenced only by
early Great Moravian texts, or rather the Ohrid and Czech literature. Accepting
a very early date of formation for Regnum Sclavorum, Havlík even speculated
about the alleged back impact of the Dalmatian tradition on Czech literature,
which seems unlikely.
Ludwig Steindorff attempted to limit the circle of possible sources for
the narrative of The Chronicle to Latin texts. He suggested that the author
of Regnum Sclavorum had access to some lost version of the Latin hagiogra-
phy entitled Vita Constantini, also known as “the Italian legend”. This version,
which refers to Pope Stephen, might combine certain elements of two exist-
ing variants of Vita Constantini: the Prague manuscript (Rostislav replaced by
Savtopluk) and the Vatican manuscript, not mentioning the names of contem-
porary popes (the Prague manuscript mentions Nicholas and Hadrian). On the
basis of information about the Christianization of Bulgarians and several other
111 “… Monachus quidam monasterii Montis S. Disibodi multos locos excerpsit et ad verbum
descripsit ex libro chronicorum Methodii episcopi”: Sicardi episcopi Cremonensis Cronica,
p. 62. See: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 159.
112 Petrak also mentioned that in some areas the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which
was written at the end of the seventh century, was named Liber Methodius. See: Marko
Petrak, “Liber Methodius between the Byzantium and West: Traces of the Oldest Slavonic
Legal Collection in Medieval Croatia,” in Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the
Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino, Ante Milošević,
Trpimir Vedriš (Leiden/Boston, 2018), pp. 213–224.
136 Chapter 4
detailed remarks, Steindorff did not exclude the possibility that the Dalmatian
tradition was also influenced by the Czech tradition of Vita s. Ludmillae et
s. Venceslais by the monk Christian.113 Deficiencies in this hypothesis were
demonstrated by Lujo Margetić. First, he stated that the existence of an
unknown version of Vita Constantinia is pure speculation. Second, the details
mentioned by Steindorff can be found not only in the Latin text by the monk
Christian, but also for example in the Greek Bios Klimentos. Margetić, however,
fell into a similar trap when he attempted to prove that it was the Ohrid centre
that had a formative impact on the Dalmatian tradition about Constantine.114
Neither Steindorff nor Margetić were interested in the figure of Svetopelek
as it was known from The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. Moravian Svatopluk
was depicted quite negatively both in Bios Klimentos and in Vita s. Ludmillae
et s. Venceslais. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Priest of Duklja, knowing
one of the proposed texts, decided to call the main character of his narrative
“Svetopelek”. The negative features of the Moravian prince in both above-
mentioned works were a result of his dispute with Methodius. It is significant
that in the text of Regnum Sclavorum, there is no mention of Constantine’s
brother. This was probably due to the negative image of Methodius in medieval
Dalmatia. The Latin part of the Catholic clergy did not respect Constantine’s
brother, and even considered him a heretic. The “black legend” of Methodius
became part of the propaganda actions related to the dispute over the scope of
the use of the Slavic language and script in ecclesiastical liturgy.
Thomas the Archdeacon had a negative attitude to users of the Glagolitic
script and linked Methodius’ activity with Arian heresy. He wrote: “Dicebant
enim, Goticas litteras a quodam Methodio heretico fuisse repertas, qui multa
contra catholice fidei normam in eadem Sclavonica lingua mentiendo con-
scripsit. Quam ob rem divino iudico repentina dicitur morte fuisse dampna-
tus” (For they said that a certain heretic called Methodius had devised a Gothic
alphabet, and he perniciously wrote a great deal of falsehood against the
teaching of the Catholic faith in the same Slavic language. On account of this,
he is said to have been condemned by divine judgement to a swift end).115 The
circumstances of Methodius’s death presented in Historia Salonitana – and,
according to the author, being a manifestation of God’s justice – were a clear
113 Ludwig Steindorff, “‘Liber Methodius’. Überlegungen zur kyrillomethodianischen

Tradition bei Priester von Dioclea,” Mitteilungen des bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in
Österreich 8 (1986), pp. 157–173.
114 Lujo Margetić, “‘Liber Methodius’ i pitanje vrela devete glave Ljetopisa Popa Dukljanina,”
Časopis Instituta za crkvenu povijest Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu
24 (2000), vol. 46, pp. 1–9.
allusion to the image of the miserable end of Arius himself. Thomas claimed
that Cededa, another supporter of the Glagolitic script, had died in a similarly
infamous way and commented on that fact as follows: “Ec sic homo impius
Arrianam imitatus perfidiam, iusto Dei iudico ignominiosa Arrii morte damp-
natus est” (And thus this impious man, the follower of Arian faithlessness, was
condemned by the just judgement of God to the same ignominious death as
Arius).116 The negative attitude of the Latin clergy in Dalmatia to Methodius is
also confirmed by copies of letters by Pope John X among the documents of the
synod in Split, which probably took place in 925. We can find there the refer-
ence “ad Methodii doctrinam confugiant, quem in nullo uolumine inter sacros
auctores comperimus” (to the doctrine of Methodius, who cannot be found in
any volume among the holy authors we are aware of). Other decisions of this
synod also indicate the active operations of some part of the clergy directed
against the use of Slavic language in ecclesiastical liturgy.117
According to Hrvoje Gračanin and Marko Petrak the very expression
Methodii doctrina may not have had a precise liturgical meaning. It first
appeared in Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum from the 9th century
(doctrina Methodii philosophi). It is most likely that the phrase was coined
by the episcopal centre in Salzburg during the idealogical struggle against
Methiodius. These tensions may have spread to the territory of Dalmatia
quite early on. From the so-called Excerptum de Karentanis, from the turn of
the twelfth century, we learn that the Methodius came to Carinthia precisely
from the territories of Istria and Dalmatia (“… supervenit quidam Sclavus ab
Hystrie et Dalmatie partibus nomine Methodius”118) but he was expelled from
Carinthia and headed to Moravia.119
In this situation, it is quite probable that the Priest of Duklja, in his effort to
avoid controversy, completely removed the figure of Methodius from the nar-
rative about king Svetopelek. Some of his features could be attributed to his
brother, Constantine, who – according to Regnum Sclavorum – translated the
Gospels, the Psalter and the rest of the books of the New and Old Testaments
into the Slavic language. The ambiguous image of the mission to the Slavs could
result in splitting the process of Christianization of the Kingdom of the Slavs

117 Documenta, no. 149 a, p. 188; about the significance of the letters: Radoslav Katičić,
“Methodii doctrina,” Slovo 36 (1986), pp. 11–44.
118 Excerptum de Karentanis, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach. MGH SS 11 (Hannover, 1854), p. 15.
119 Hrvoje Gračanin, Marko Petrak, “The Notion of the Methodii Doctrina in the Context of
the Church Synod of Split (AD 925),” in The Byzantine Missionary Activity and Its Legacy in
Europe. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium “Days of Justinian I”, Skopje 11–12 November, 2016,
ed. Mitko B. Panov (Skopje, 2017), pp. 28–42.
138 Chapter 4
between two figures. Constantine baptized Svetopelek on his way to Rome.

This process, however, required completion. In many medieval texts, organiz-
ing local ecclesiastical structures was credited to Methodius. It is possible that
this thread was symbolically replaced by the description of the activities of the
papal legate, Honorius, whose actions sanctioned Constantine’s mission.
In the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, the Christianization of the kingdom
was strictly related to Constantine’s mission. The reasons for the baptism were
seemingly quite accidental. The Priest of Duklja described Constantine’s mis-
sionary activity among the Bulgarians, the papal summons and the journey
to Rome: “Dum autem pergeret transiens per regnum regis Svetopelek hon-
orifice ab eo susceptus est” (When he passed Svetopelek’s kingdom, he was
accepted by him with respect);120 this is how the chronicler referred to the
issue of Constantine’s appearance in the royal estates. However, in this seem-
ingly accidental arrival of the missionary, one can recognize the same element
of historical necessity that led to the conquest of Dalmatia by the pagan Goths.
Svetopelek, the pagan king, was initially presented as a passive figure. In
accordance with the new approach to the Christians begun by his father, the
ruler accepted Constantine with due respect; he also listened to the Gospel
and the teachings about the Holy Trinity. It should be noted, however, that
Svetopelek did not show the initiative to be converted; his increased activ-
ity could be observed only after the baptism. It led to the convocation of the
Synod in Dalma and to the invitation of the papal legates and imperial envoys.
There are certain typical motifs of medieval historiography in the way the
process of Christianisation of the kingdom is presented in Regnum Sclavorum.
The presence of the four evil rulers before the breakthrough corresponds with
the vision of history presented by Cosmas, in which the legendary pagan dukes
who ruled after Přemysl were slothful and infirm.121
According to Regnum Sclavorum, a similar period of “pagan lethargy” was
finally changed by Constantine, a foreigner who – by a twist of fate, or rather
by divine plan – passed through Svetopelek’s kingdom. In this way, the Priest
of Duklja used a widespread legend linking the baptism of Slavic communities
with Constantine or Methodius’ activities. The tale of the Christianization of
Great Moravia left a mark in the historiography of many neighbouring lands.
These narratives were often only loosely based on historical events. Cosmas,
the Prague-based chronicler, believed that the baptism of Bořivoj, the duke
of Bohemia, was the result of Methodius’ activities.122 In the same context,

121 See: Deptuła, Mit genezy Polski Galla Anonima, pp. 202–203.
122 Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 10, p. 18; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, p. 14.
The Chronicle of Dalimil refers to “Mutudej”, considered to be an archbishop

from Ruthenia.123 The relationship between Constantine’s mission and the
baptism of the Bulgarians was primarily emphasized by the Ohrid tradition.
Another hypothesis, quite controversial, can be mentioned here: its supporters
speculated that the legend of two strangers visiting the court of duke Popiel –
present, among others, in Gallus Anonymus’ chronicle – could be a trace of
Constantine and Methodius’ actual activities in the state of Polans.124 As can
be seen, according to old Ragusian chronicles, in 813, Cyril baptized not only all
the Bulgarians, but also the Bosnians, converting them to the Catholic faith.125
In the legends of the Christianization of Slavonic communities, the fig-
ure of the missionary was brought to the fore. In the narration of Regnum
Sclavorum, however, the role of the ruler was not completely underestimated.
Constantine’s teachings had to meet with the interest and kind acceptance
of the king. The Priest of Duklja tried to give Constantine necessary author-
ity, and therefore he wove into his narration several references to the activi-
ties of the missionary among the Bulgarians and in Khazaria. In this way, the
chronicler made an impression that the man received at Svetopelek’s court
was an extraordinary character who had already made a positive impact on
the Christian world several times. The ruler let him speak and he listened to
his teachings; Constantine’s erudition and the fact that he was “a man of God”
allowed his words to bring the desired effect. In the description provided by the
Priest of Duklja, the roles adopted by both the main figures are clear: “Tunc vir
dei Constantinus, cui nomen postea Kyrillus a papa Stephano impositum est,
quando consecravit eum monacum, caepit praedicare regi evangelium Christi
et fidem sanctae trinitatis. Ad cuius praedicationem rex Svetopelek creditit
Christo et babtizatus est cum omni regno suo et effectus est orthodoxus et
verus sanctae trinitatis cultor” (At the time, Constantine, a man of God – who,
later, when Pope Stephen ordained him to be a monk, was given the name
Cyril – began to preach the Gospel of Christ and the faith in the Holy Trinity
to the king. King Svetopelek listened to his teachings and began to believe in
Christ and was baptized with all his kingdom and becoming an orthodox and
true worshiper of the Holy Trinity).126 The first sign of Svetopelek’s prudence
was the fact that he received Constantine and recognized in him a man worthy
of esteem and honour. The ruler also made the decision about the baptism,
123 Rýmovaná Kronika Česká, chapter 23, pp. 40–41.

124 See: Deptuła, Mit genezy Polski Galla Anonima, p. 227.
125 “di santo Kirillo monaco, qual battizó tutti li Bulgari et Bosnensi alla cattolica fede”, see:
Havlík, Dubrovnické kroniky, p. 198.
140 Chapter 4
although it was the result of persuasion by the missionary, who explained the
church creed to Svetopelek and then strengthened his faith. The first decision
by Svetopelek – about the access of his kingdom to the group of Christian
realms – let him be an active political player.
In the passage quoted above, the name of Pope Stephen, mentioned seem-
ingly without connection, perhaps did not appear by accident. We do not know
exactly who the Priest of Duklja was, but – contrary to Thomas the Archdeacon
and the part of the Latin clergy of Dalmatian cities represented by him – he
certainly did not harbour strong resentment toward the Slavs and their liturgy.
The reference to direct relations between Constantine and the pope could be
used by the author of Regnum Sclavorum to legitimize the missionary activities
in Svetopelek’s state, and this effect was even strengthened by emphasizing the
orthodox attitude of the converted ruler.
The circumstances in which Svetopelek was baptized could have raised
many doubts in medieval Dalmatia. The Priest of Duklja, linking the fortunes
of the Kingdom of the Slavs with Constantine’s activity, represented a spe-
cific vision of the Christianization of these areas. In this vision, the impact of
Rome on the developments was marginalized, and the role of coastal ecclesi-
astical centres – above all Split – was completely omitted from the narrative.
The claim by the Priest of Duklja that Christianity reached Svetopelek’s state
through Constantine was at least controversial for a part of the Latin clergy.
Thomas the Archdeacon – who can be considered a representative of the views
of the Latins inhabiting Dalmatian cities – presented the Christianization of
the Slavs in completely different manner. In his work, the Slavic liturgy is a
synonym of heresy, and Methodius is clearly a negative figure.
The Priest of Duklja, aware of the controversial aspects of such a message,
decided to take the wind out of the sails of his potential critics. He not only
mentioned the relationship between Constantine and the pope twice, but
also presented some specific consequences of his missionary activity. The con-
version of the ruler brought joy to Svetopelek’s entire kingdom, and the first
beneficiaries of the new order were – quite obviously – the Christians. The
chronicler, who identified them with the Latin population of the kingdom,
described in this passage their descent from the mountains and their abandon-
ment of the thicket: “Post haec Svetopelek rex iussit christianis, qui latina ute-
bantur lingua, ut reverterentur unusquisque in locum suum et reaedificarent
civitates et loca, quae olim a paganis destructa fuerunt” (Then King Svetopelek
commanded those Christians who used Latin to return to their country and
rebuild the cities and places once destroyed by the pagans).127 Such an image

could have had a polemical character. By demonstrating that the Latins were
the first beneficiaries of Constantine’s mission, the Priest of Duklja could
show the ingratitude and myopia of those of them who attacked the direction
of these changes, and even associated the activities of Slavic clergy with heresy.
On the other hand, the style of his narrative does not suggest strong polemical
tendencies – contrary to, for example, Thomas the Archdeacon, who firmly
expressed his opinions and positions even at the level of rhetoric.
The theme of “encouragement” in faith could have appeared in the descrip-
tion of the Synod in Dalma for a similar purpose. The publicized reason for
convening a general congress was the desire to organize the state and restore
its former privileges; however, the efforts to legitimize it in the religious aspect
as well seem to be no less important in the narrative. Asked for antiqua privi-
legia, Pope Stephen turned out to be pleased that he was given the opportu-
nity to encourage the young king in his faith by sending him advisers. Most
of the twelve days of the synod were dedicated to religious themes: “in qua
diebus octo de lege divina et sacra scriptura ac de statu ecclesiae tractatum
est” (for eight days God’s commandments, the Holy Scripture and the eccle-
siastical issues were discussed).128 In this way the Priest of Duklja, describing
the two-step course of the start of the process of Christianization of the king-
dom, finally neutralized any doubts on the part of the readers who might try to
undermine the validity of Svetopelek’s baptism by Constantine.
5 The Model of a King-Founder and the Origins of the Community

during the Synod in Dalma
Totila and Ostroil’s conquests led to the formation of a new structure built on
the ruins of the previous Christian polities. The new kingdom was ruled by
pagans, therefore in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum its beginning is marked
with constant clashes between the Christians and their frequent persecutors:
barbarian kings of Gothic origin. The Priest of Duklja seemed to emphasize
this conflict. Although the dynasty of pagan rulers consolidated its power in
the area that was conquered, there was still a long way to go to regulate the
relations between the subjects and to achieve the social consensus needed for
the harmonious existence of the community.
The situation was changed only as a result of Constantine’s actions and his
impact on the king’s policy. Svetopelek’s baptism resulted in joining his state
to the circle of civilized countries. The Synod in Dalma, convened soon after,

142 Chapter 4
completed the reforms of the kingdom. The Priest of Duklja presented the
synod and its decisions in great detail, and there is no doubt that this event was
of crucial importance for the state described by him. The events of the synod
and the activities of the king can be seen as a bonding vision of the origins of
the community, and not only – as in the case of the narrative about the arrival
of the Goths – as a report about the beginning of a new power.
It is easy to see in the figure of Svetopelek the features characteristic of the
model of a king-founder. This model is used particularly often in the process
of structural analysis of source narratives. The concept itself was developed
on the basis of the theory of the threefold division of Indo-European societ-
ies suggested by Georges Dumézil. The image of a ruler-founder integrated all
three aspects, partially bearing the features assigned to particular models: rex
orator, rex bellator or rex arator,129 linked with (1) the function of priest and
sovereign, (2) warfare and (3) wealth and fertility. The record about the forma-
tion of the community in Svetopelek’s state, however, does not have any dis-
tinctive myth-imitating features that would lead to the assumption that it was
deeply rooted in pre-Christian legends about the origins of the community,
legends that probably existed among inhabitants of Dalmatia.
Jacek Banaszkiewicz, however, showed the way in which certain uncon-
scious archetypal structures could be used in the creation of completely new
messages, bearing features of an erudite tale about a legendary past. The leg-
end of Svetopelek was one such annalistic narrative. Therefore, we will limit
the context related to the model of a ruler-founder and omit many features
of his possible cult or formative character which do not apply to this record.
However, the process of founding the state will not be understood literally, as
in building temples and castles. The model of rex fundator should rather be
linked with Svetopelek’s legislative activity and his efforts to create a new order
that would permanently change the character of the kingdom.
Gábor Klaniczay showed that the model of a king-founder – rooted in the
threefold division theory proposed by Dumézil – shared some characteristic
features with the model of rex iustus. As an example of such a ruler, Klaniczay
indicated the Hungarian King Stephen, and located the emergence of the liter-
ary ideal of a “righteous king” at the turn of the eleventh century. He identified
the concept of rex iustus with a certain model of a ruler associated with the
specific aspect of sanctity. Its basis was the piety of a ruler and his apostolic
activities aimed at propagating Christian values. This educational context was
complemented by special care for ecclesiastical institutions.130
129 See: Banaszkiewicz, Podanie o Piaście i Popielu.

The scope of reforms implemented by Svetopelek was also particularly

related to the Church. The order, being a foundation cementing the religion,
the king and the subjects, would be consolidated during his reign. Through his
baptism, Svetopelek not only changed the situation in the state by establishing
a proper relationship with the Christians living on the coast, but also restored
the old law, re-delineated the state borders and introduced the administra-
tive and ecclesiastical division of his lands. As a result of his activities, royal
authority gained a new dimension: it was no longer based on the violence and
conquest imposed by the will of the Gothic conquerors, but was closely linked
with the law. From the time of the Synod in Dalma, the authority of the kings
of the Slavs had well-ordered and strictly delimited foundations, which – as
it can be guessed from the text of Regnum Sclavorum – resulted also from the
social consensus and consent of the participants of the synod. Svetopelek, in
contrast to his predecessors, was able to offer his subjects a state-building pro-
gramme, thanks to which he managed to unite the groups inhabiting these
areas, groups which up to then had only been loosely related.
Svetopelek’s realm gained its symbolic centres: one on the plain of Dalma,
and the other in the church of St. Mary in Dioclea, where the tomb of the king
was later located. The text emphasized the change in the community from
being a savage one, living sine lege et rege [without law and king], to becom-
ing a new kind of community with the subjects of the king living in cities. The
Priest of Duklja wrote that after Svetopelek’s baptism, the Latins “descenden-
tes de montanis et locis abditis, quo dispersi errant, caeperunt nomen domini
laudare et benedicere, qui salvos facit sperantes in se” (descended from the
mountains and hiding places in which they sought shelter, and began to praise
and worship the name of the Lord who saves those who are faithful to him).131
In one of the next chapters of Regnum Sclavorum, the Slavs were again pre-
sented as savage barbarians living in the mountains and persecuting the Latins
who had escaped there. However – as has already been mentioned – this par-
ticular passage was probably strongly inspired by an older (perhaps textual)
tradition. Moreover, it was an exception, because it concerned the time of the
fall of the kingdom. In the fragment devoted to Svetopelek, we can recognize
the actual renewal of the community by uniting two groups, the Slavs and the
Latins, that used to be separated from each other.
Such an action also had a symbolic and even sacred dimension. It is linked
both to the myth-generating properties of legends about the beginnings of a
community, and to merging the order of power and the norms in the institu-
tion of the king. In his description of the synod, the chronicler presented the

144 Chapter 4
king as a legislator using – probably unintentionally – numerous topoi which

were characteristic of narratives about cult heroes or legendary rulers creating
new orders. As a result, the structure of this fragment of narrative may bring
associations with “updated” and “erudite” implementation of the common pat-
tern typical of stories about the origins of communities.
6 Space and Authority: the Centre and Boundaries in the Process of

Creating the Kingdom during the Synod in Dalma
Svetopelek’s role as the king-legislator became the most visible of the acts of
the Synod in Dalma. The participants of the synod, according to the Priest
of Duklja, for most of the meeting were involved in religious disputes and
deliberations. Only the last four days were devoted to strictly political issues,
and at that time the king could present himself as a ruler creating a new order
in the state.
The pursuit of reform was at the root of the synod. After the introduction of
the Kingdom of the Slavs to Christendom, the delineation of proper state bor-
ders became the most pressing problem for Svetopelek. This issue of measur-
able space was at the same time linked with the symbolic range of the ruler’s
authority. A king could bestow the laws to the land subordinated to him only
if he knew its geographical limits. Therefore, the ceremony of coronation and
the symbolic inauguration of the king which took place on the plain of Dalma
were completed by delineation of the area subjected to the new authority
together with its administrative division and binding principles.
In fact, Svetopelek’s reforms should be seen as a restitution of the old foun-
dations of power. The king’s actions were supported by the prestige of ancient
charters. Thanks to this agency the kingdom itself gained more noble sources,
supported by the authority of the pope and the emperor, and, last but not least,
the authority of the script. From the Priest of Duklja’s description, it can be
deduced that the script turned out to be necessary for the renewal of boundar-
ies and the delineation of particular parts of the state:
Placuit etiam regi, ut temporibus suis rememorarentur ac recordarentur

seu scriberentur termini ac fines omnium provinciarum ac regionum
regni sui, quatenus unaquaeque sciret atque cognosceret fines et termi-
nos provinciarum et regionum suarum. Congregans igitur omnes sapien-
tes regni sui, locutus est eis de verbo hoc, sed nullus eo tempore inventus
est, qui certam responsionem daret regi de hac re132

(The king also decided that during his reign the estates and borders of all
the provinces and districts of his kingdom should again be reminded and
described, so that all the people of each province and each district would
know and distinguish their estates and borders. Therefore he gathered all
the wise men of his kingdom, informing them of this decision, but there
was no one who could give the king a clear answer).
We know that the king began the process of delineation of estates by gather-
ing the omnes sapientes – the term meaning old and sagacious men respected
by the community, probably synonymous to the antiqui seniores mentioned in
the introduction.133 The Priest of Duklja claimed that they were his source of
information. This hypothesis is confirmed indirectly by the text of the Croatian
version of The Chronicle, where the phrase “omnes sapientes regni sui” was
replaced by “sve starce i mudarce gospodarstva svoga” (all the elders and wise
men of his realm).134
The memory of older people stores facts from the distant past. In the Middle
Ages, when written documents were scarce, the memory of the elders could be
conclusive in cases of dispute. Thus, old people were, in a sense, guardians of
the collective memory. Their assistance was a typical element of the activities
of establishing and renewing borders,135 and their role in delineation of the
boundaries, finding boundary mounds or stones, is widely attested through-
out Europe at that time.136 In the area of Croatia and Dalmatia, in the Middle
Ages and the early modern era, the role of the elderly in the establishment and
execution of law can be noted in the comments of codes and legislative col-
lections on the subject of the institution of starac (elder). As Franjo Smiljanić
mentioned: “Verpinski, Moščenički, Kastarski and Trsatski zakonik, as well as
the text of Istarski razvod, and some judgements of the courts in Verpin and
Trsat, mentioned people called stareji, starii, starejeh, stareh or stariih (as in the
preface of Vinodolski zakonik), which is a comparative form of the noun ‘elder’
and means more than one, perhaps even an advisory council of elders”.137 This
type of advisory body probably also worked at the ban court in Knin. One of

135 Stanisław Bylina, Drogi – granice – most. Studia (Warsaw 2012), pp. 43–89.
136 Jacques Le Goff, Historia i pamięć (Warsaw, 2007), pp. 128–129; Grzegorz Myśliwski,
“Pamiętnicy. Ludzie sędziwi jako źródła wiedzy o przeszłości na ziemiach polskich (do
XVI w.),” in Europa barbarica, Europa christiana. Studia mediaevalia Carolo Modzelewski
dedicata, ed. Roman Michałowski (Warsaw, 2008), pp. 113–126.
137 Franjo Smiljanić, Studije o srednjovjekovnim slavenskim/hrvatskim institucijama (Zadar,
2010), p. 98.
146 Chapter 4
its judgements issued in 1367 referred to the “homines antiquos Crohacie” who
took part in the judicial process.138
The case of resolving the dispute between the inhabitants of the two cities
of Bakar and Grobnik in 1677 shows what the process of “recalling and describ-
ing the lands or borders” could look like in practice. In order to delineate the
balk, two representatives of the mentioned cities were called: older people
who were supposed to read the old charters and “confirm” the boundaries
established in 1455.139 Of course, it was impossible in this case that anyone
would remember those lines demarcated almost two centuries before. To the
local community, however, it was clear that the elderly people, thanks to their
experience and memory, were best suited to describe and recreate the perma-
nent, commonly accepted elements of legal space.
Nevertheless, despite the hopes of King Svetopelek, the sapientes of his land
were not able to give him the desired answers. The fact that there was no one
in the entire kingdom who could describe the borders of the country to the
ruler testified to the collapse of the realm during the reign of the pagan kings.
In this situation, defining the shape of the kingdom demanded an external
completion – just like in the case of the baptism.
As was mentioned above, the most important reason for convening the
synod was simply the necessity to seek information about the state borders
in the old registers and charters. The Priest of Duklja left no doubt as to the
motives of convening the council:
Tunc rex dei sapientia plenus, sano utens consilio, misit sapientes ac
nobiles viros legatos ad venerabilem et apostolicum virum, papam
Stephanum, et ad imperatorem Constantinopolitanae urbis Michaelem,
rogans et petens, quatenus antique privilegia, quibus termini et fines pro-
vinciarum ac regionum seu terrarum scripti continebantur, mittere cum
viris sapientissimis dignarentur.140
(The king, inspired by God’s wisdom and sound reason, sent wise and
illustrious men as envoys to the venerable man and apostle, Pope
Stephen, and to Michael, the emperor of the city of Constantinople, with
a plea and a request to send him – through wise men – old documents
containing descriptions of the estates and borders of the provinces, dis-
tricts and lands).
138 Josip Kolanović, “Hrvatsko običajno pravo prema ispravama XIV. i XV. stoljeća,” Arhivski
vjesnik 36 (1993), pp. 95–97.
139 Smiljanić, Studije o srednjovjekovnim slavenskim/hrvatskim institucijama, p. 105.
The participation of imperial envoys and papal legates in the act of

re-measuring the boundaries of the Kingdom of the Slavs could not be over-
estimated. Using their advice and old charters brought by them, Svetopelek
reorganized the state on the model of civilized Christian kingdoms. Moreover,
the Priest of Duklja presented the division into secular and ecclesiastical prov-
inces in a way that suggested a return to ancient times. The new territorial
regulation also led to a symbolic restoration of the legal mechanisms from the
period before the invasion of the Goths.
Although the Priest of Duklja did not write this directly, the very location
of the archdioceses in Svetopelek’s kingdom indicated the willingness to rec-
reate the model situation from the period of the beginnings of Christianity
in this area. New archiepiscopal sees were established in Salona and Dioclea.
Presumably, both these cities had been previously destroyed by the Goths.141
The chronicler wrote that “et ecclesiae, quae destructae erant et violatae
manebant, reaedeficatae et consecratae sunt” (and the churches that had been
destroyed and remained in ruins, were rebuilt and consecrated again).142 The
episcopal sees were thus re-established in the places that had been affected
during the invasion. Reconstructing church buildings and their subsequent
consecrations were at the same time an action for the renewal of the former
ecclesiastical organization. The king, completing his covenant with the new
religion, became its special protector: any infringement against the Church
would be an insult to the royal crown.143
Therefore, Svetopelek completed the process of consolidation of both previ-
ously divided communities of his state: the Latins (who were the Christians)
and the Slavs (although it is unknown whether all of them were pagans, they
certainly constituted the background of pagan rulers of the Goths). At the
same time he restored primary peaceful relations between the inhabitants –
and both groups benefited from this situation. Immediately after his baptism,
the king ordered the Latins to return to the cities on the coast. Although the
Priest of Duklja did not specifically emphasize this fact, the old Adriatic cities
became the main centres of ecclesiastical administration.
The chronicler listed them in another place, noting that the decisions were
made “consensu domini papae Stephani et legatorum eius” (in agreement
with the venerable Pope Stephen and his legates).144 The archiepiscopal see
in Salona was subject to “Spalatum, Tragurium, Scardonam, Arausonam, quod
nunc est castellum Jadrae, Enonam, Arbum, Absarum, Veglam et Epitaurum,
141 Although only the Croatian version informed explicitly about the destruction of Salona.
148 Chapter 4
quod nunc dicitur Ragusum”,145 on similar principles – “pro iure antique” (in
accordance with the ancient law) – Dioclea was made the centre of the other
Dalmatian archdiocese with the following bishoprics: “Antibarum, Buduam,
Ecatarum, Dulcignum, Suacium, Scodram, Drivastum, Poletum, Sorbium,
Bosonium, Tribunium, Zaculmium”.146
The borders of the Dioclean archdiocese are still the subject of dispute.
Most of the centres listed in Regnum Sclavorum as subject to its jurisdiction for
a substantial part of the twelfth century in fact belonged to the Archbishopric
of Ragusa, and these can be confirmed by the evidence of papal bulls and cor-
respondence with bishops of the Adriatic dioceses,147 including, among others,
two bulls of Callixtus II, both from September 28, 1120 (previously dated 1121).
In the first, the borders of the archbishopric in Ragusa were specified, and in
the second the Bishop of Dioclea (sometimes referred to as “Bishop of Upper
Dalmatia” in the same document) was commanded to recognize the author-
ity of the Archbishop of Ragusa.148 Despite suspicions that both documents
might be counterfeits, their authenticity is often accepted.
Another bull attributed to Callixtus II and addressed to the Archbishop
of Dioclea or Bar – which in similar manner (specifying the same lands and
episcopal sees) described the borders of not of the Ragusian but the Dioclean
archdiocese – was certainly a forgery. The document listed among the cen-
tres belonging to the archbishopric: “ecclesiam Dioclitanam, Antibarensem,
Buduensem, Ecatarensem, Dulchinensem, Svacinensem, Scodrensem, Driv
astinensem, Polatinensem, Serbiensem, Bosoniensem, Tribensem cum omni-
bus suis pertinentiis ac monasteriis tam Latinorum quam Grecorum seu
Sclavorum […]”.149 Šišić thought that the forgery was made in the middle of
the twelfth century. He also noted that its style is surprisingly similar to the
corresponding fragments of Regnum Sclavorum.
145 “Split, Trogir, Scardona [Skradin], Arausona, which is now the castle Jadra [Zadar], Enona
[Nin], Arba [Rab], Absar [Osor], Vegla [Krk] and Epitaurum, which is now called Ragusa
[Dubrovnik]”.
146 “Antibarum [Bar], Budva, Ecatarum [Kotor], Dulchinum [Ulcinj], Svacium [Šas/Svač],
Scodrum [Shkodër], Drivastum [Drisht], Polat, Serbia, Bosonia [Bosnia], Tribunja,
Zachlumia”, Ljetopis, p. 54.
147 See: Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 57–59.
148 Codex diplomaticus regni Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae vol. 2, ed. Tadija Smičiklas
(Zagreb, 1904), no. 34, pp. 3–35, no. 35, pp. 36–37 [hereafter cited as: Codex diplomaticus].
149 “Church of Dioclea, Antibarum [Bar], Budva, Ecatarum [Kotor], Dulchinum [Ulcinj],
Svacinum [Šas/Svač], Scodrum [Shkodër], Drivastum [Drisht], Polat, Serbia, Bosonia
[Bosnia], Tribunja with all of their properties and monasteries as well the Latin ones as
the Greek and the Slavic”. The text of the bull after: Šišić, Letopis, p. 138.
However, he could not establish whether the Priest of Duklja had used the
forged bull directly, or whether he had rewritten the list of bishoprics subor-
dinate to the Archbishop of Dioclea from some other source. Forms such as
Ecaterensem, Sorbiensem, Bosoniensem present in Regnum Sclavorum corre-
sponded with Ecaterum, Sorbium, Bosonium present in the bull,150 which could
indicate a rather direct connection between both pieces of the text.
The very form Ecaterum in reference to the city Kotor is particularly inter-
esting. It was an archaic form, and the Priest of Duklja used it in the text
only once; in other places we encounter newer variants of the name: Deca
terum and Catarum. Some other names of dioceses belonging to Salonitan
archbishoprics – such as Enona, instead of Nona (contemporary city of Nin) –
also seem anachronistic for the High Middle Ages. The tendency to replace
names of medieval centres by their supposed ancient counterpart – as in cases
of Arausona (Zadar) and Epitaurum (Ragusa) – is also peculiar.151
Steindorff claimed that the narrative had preserved in this passage a trace
of the report on the escape of the Latins and the relocation of ancient cities,
reduced to one sentence. Information about the roots of Ragusa was repeated
by the Priest of Duklja several times, but primarily in a long narrative legend
about the reign of Pavlimir Bello. We can read about the ancient heritage of
Jadra (Zadar) in the only verse (Arausonam, quod nunc est castellum Jadrae) –
in fact the city is mentioned in The Chronicle only once, under this old name.152
Using archaic nomenclature, the chronicler strengthened the vision of restor-
ing rather than establishing the ecclesiastical organization in the Kingdom of
Svetopelek. The king’s task was restitution of a certain perfect state that had
existed in a period of an unspecified beginning, and the measure of his wis-
dom was the fact that he sought counsel from the pope, who was the only one
able to present the division of the church in the period before the pagan rule.
The fragment concerning the ecclesiastical organization in Svetopelek’s
realm is often analysed in the context of the dispute between the archdio-
cese of Ragusa and the episcopal (or archiepiscopal) see in Bar. In the pro-
logue to Regnum Sclavorum the Priest of Duklja stated that he wrote his
work at the request of the clergy from the see of the archdiocese of Dioclea
(or, if we use the terminology of ecclesiastical documents, the archdiocese
of Bar). If the chronicle was written there, it could have impacted the way

151 Ludwig Steindorff, “Die Synode auf der Planities Dalmae. Reichsteilung und Kirchen
organisation im Bild der Chronik des Priesters von Dioclea,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für
österreichische Geschichtsforschung 93 (1985), p. 297.
150 Chapter 4
the Salona–Dioclea dichotomy was presented, and could explain listing the
rival centre in Epitaurum/Ragusa among suffragan dioceses subordinate to
Salona. This view, however, seems to be erroneous for several reasons. First,
the Croatian version is not prefaced with a similar text, and it does not con-
tain a list of subordinate bishoprics, which suggests that this fragment could
have been added later, while the division itself was part of a tradition not nec-
essarily related to Bar. Secondly, the entire narrative of Regnum Sclavorum
does not confirm such a hypothesis, because the Church in Bar was not com-
prehensively discussed in the work.
To show the ancient roots of Zadar and Ragusa, the author used the Latin
construction quod nunc est (which now is) or quod nunc dicitur (which now
is called). With this expression, he summarized a more extensive plot about
the establishment of new cities by the Latins who had survived the barbaric
invasions.
The relationship between Arausona and Jadra may be regarded as an
early version of the popular legend about the refugees from Biograd (Latin:
Belgradum, ancient: Alba Maris, Italian: Zaravecchia) who founded Zadar.
According to Steindorff, this legend should be placed among similar stories
recorded by the Priest of Duklja: about refugees from Epidaurus and Ragusa,
or about the links between Salona and Split.153 However, in the entire text of
Regnum Sclavorum, there is no explicit confirmation that its author – who
knew the narrative about the fall of Salona – had accepted the legend of the
ancient roots of Split154 in the form in which the origins of the city were pre-
sented, for example, by Historia Salonitana.
In 1252, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, the Bishop of Bar, was credited with
the words of the old division of Dalmatia into two archbishoprics – Split
and Bar – both being successors of ancient centres, respectively: Salona and
Dioclea.155 However, the Priest of Duklja did not emphasize such a connection,
which is surprising, since he knew the less popular traditions of this type and
had to be aware of the links between Salona and Split. Apart from the list of
suffragan dioceses, the name “Spalatum” appeared in Regnum Sclavorum only
once, and in a minor function.156
153 Steindorff, “Die Synode,” p. 297. The Priest of Duklja used the name: Epidaurum. Both
names were known to medieval authors.
154 It was considered as a certainty by Leśny, who in his translation of the text into Polish, did
not put Split but Salona as the first on the list of cities belonging to Salonitan archdiocese.
Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 71.
155 Codex diplomaticus vol. 4, no. 419, pp. 481–483.
In the narrative by the Priest of Duklja, no mention can be found about Bar
as the successor to the ancient city of Dioclea. Both cities were consistently
separated in his work. In one of the later episodes the chronicler describes
the place of one of the battles: “Dioclia, supra fluvium, qui Moracia dicitur”
(Dioclea, on the river, which is called Morača),157 and does not reminisce about
Bar, which is not located upon the Morača. Links between Dioclea and Bar, and
between Salona and Split can only be deduced from the analogy suggested by
the sequence of suffragan dioceses mentioned in the text: in the case of the
archiepiscopal see in Salona, the first of them was Split, while in the case of
the archiepiscopal see in Dioclea, the first of them was Bar. In fact, the city of
Bar appeared only a few times in The Chronicle, and the only representative
of the Bar clergy it mentioned was Peter, referred to as “Antibarensis sedis archi-
episcopus” (The archbishop of the see of Antibarum). This fragment is associ-
ated with the Duklja part of the work and does not appear in the Croatian
version. Actually, this title contradicts the previously-used nomenclature, in
which Dioclea was the seat of the metropolis.158 Why did the author not men-
tion such a connection clearly if he wanted to emphasize it – and why did he
do it many times when referring to the nearby city of Ragusa? Although choos-
ing Salona as an archiepiscopal see was, to a certain extent, justified in the
previous parts of the text (where the city was considered to be the seat of the
king of Dalmatians), there is no similar motif in relation to Dioclea. Perhaps
the Priest of Duklja thought that the subject was so well known that he did not
have to discuss in detail the history of the two most important ecclesiastical
centres mentioned in his work. However, brief information about the history
of Bar – and, as a result, passing over in silence the possible ambitions of the
city – raises suspicions about the interpretation of this passage as a story that
was primarily intended to represent the aspirations of the archbishopric of
Bar, though such an approach is adopted in the historiography.
The ecclesiastical division of Svetopelek’s state was not primarily motivated
by the actual dispute between Bar and Ragusa. It was explicitly explained in
the narrative that the diocesan division overlapped to some extent with the
political one, which was designated according to the axis which was the place
where the Synod was assembled – that is, according to the location of the plain
of Dalma.

152 Chapter 4
However, locating the plain of Dalma faces serious problems. In the histo-
riography, Dalma was identified with the village of Duvno near Tomislavgrad.
This view was quite firmly established and shared by, among others, Kukuljević
Sakcinski159 and Klaić.160 Thanks to them, in the works on Regnum Sclavorum,
the term Duvanjsko polje actually became a substitute for planities Dalmae
used by the Priest of Duklja.
In this interpretation, Dalma would be identical with the Roman city of
Delminium, the alleged place of an episcopal see in the early Middle Ages.161
The tradition of the existence of this diocese was reproduced in the documents
of the second Synod in Split which took place in 928, although we know them
only from quotations in Historia Salonitana maior written in the early modern
period,162 and in information about the old episcopal see in Delminium pre-
served in the register known as Provinciale vetus. The date that this document
was written is difficult to establish; according to it, civitas Delmenia belonged
to the episcopal sees of Croatia and Dalmatia.163 Thomas the Archdeacon
mentioned the city of Delmis situated in the east, and wrote about the division
of Sclavonia into two bishoprics. One of them was located in Sisak in the west,
and the other in Delmis: “uidelicet ab oriente fuit episcopus delmitanus, unde
Dalmatia dicta est; ab occidente fuit episcopus sciscianus, ubi beatus Quirinus
martir quondam extit presul” (in the east the Bishop of Delmis, the town from
which Dalmatia takes its name, and in the west the Bishop of Sisak, where
Saint Quirinus the martyr had once been bishop).164
The memory of the ancient heritage of Delminium was revived in the Late
Middle Ages. In Bosnia, in the first half of the fourteenth century, a titular bish-
opric was established, which until 1392 was described as ecclesia Delmitensis.
Later sources also called it Dulmnensis (or in Croatian: Duvanjska).165 Prior
159 Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, “Tomislav prvi kralj hrvatski,” Rad JAZU 58 (1879), pp. 1–52.
160 Klaić, “Narodni sabor i krunisanje kralja,” pp. 1–18.
161 Ante Škergo, “Tobožnja Delminijska biskupija. The Alleged Diocese of Delminium,”
Opvscvla archaeologica 1 (2008), vol. 31, pp. 283–302.
162 Historia Salonitana maior, eds. Nada Klaić, Jorjo Tadić (Belgrade, 1967), p. 104. Certain
bishop of Delminium (episcopus delminense) is also mentioned in the alleged document
of the Split synod in 533, which is also preserved in this Early Modern work: ibidem, p. 83.
163 Carolini scriptores qui in ecclesia latina floruere, B. Caroli Magni Imperatoris, opera omnia
[Patrologia Latina] vol. 98, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris, 1862), column 466. Ante Škergo
who doubted the existence of a bishopric see in Duvno identified civitas Delmenia as the
city of Omiš: Stari pokrajinski katalog ili Katalog provincije Opće crkve. Provinciale vetus
sive Ecclesiae Universae Provinciarum Notitia (Zagreb, 2005), pp. 15, 19.
165 Dominik Mandić, “Duvanjska biskupija od XIV.–XVII. stoleća,” Croatia sacra 5 (1935),
pp. 1–98; Marijan Žugaj, “Hrvatska biskupija od 1352 do 1578. godine,” Croatica Christiana
periodica 10 (1986), no. 17, pp. 96–100.
to this period, the name “Delminium” was rather associated with a symbolic
place, and the town of Duvno did not seem to play any role, either secular or
ecclesiastical. The similar identification of Delminium with the plain of Dalma
may be contradicted by the lack of information about establishing an episco-
pal see in this place in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum.
The source of the historiographical axiom linking Dalma and Delminium
(Duvno) was probably the amendments that Marulić introduced to his trans-
lation of the Croatian version of The Chronicle. The Croatian variant contains
the first mention of Dalma, listed among the coastal cities destroyed by the
Goths. The author of this version mentioned, in this context, Dalma, Narun,
and Salona – conventionally described as “rich and beautiful” – as well as the
city of Skardon (Skradin). However, this line is missing in Marulić’s transla-
tion. Another confusing term in the Croatian version is, as has already been
mentioned, the name “Hlivaj”. In fact, the anonymous author of this version
wrote about “mount Hlivaj” only when describing the opening of the synod.
In the part referring to the division of the kingdom, the Croatian text – just
like the Latin one – mentions the city of Dalma, destroyed by pagans. Marulić
may have had a slightly different manuscript of the Croatian version – or per-
haps he just speculated – and he changed “mount Hlivaj” into “campo qui
Clivna nuncapantur” (the field which is called Clivna),166 identifying it with
the village of Livno, which is 25 km away from Duvno. The passage mentioning
Dalma in the Croatian text was translated by him as “Delmini ruinae”, meaning
the ruins of the ancient city of Delminium, situated near Duvno, it is supposed
today.167 Steindorff noticed, however, that “we do not know the answer to the
question of whether the author of the translation had Duvno in mind – which
in his time was a place without meaning – or, as seems more probable, whether
he gave an erudite explanation influenced by ancient authors”.168
The narrative inaccuracies after this allow us to guess that the author of the
Croatian text did not have a clue as to where exactly Dalma was located. This
variant referred to “Hlivansko polje” once more in the passage corresponding to
that in the Latin text which mentioned “planum Chelmo”.169 Steindorff, using
examples of numerous fragments of Regnum Sclavorum,170 showed that in this
166 Šišić, Letopis, p. 396. Both names were known to Orbini, who, when describing the synod,
noted in the margins of his translation of the Latin text: “Pianure di Dalma, hora chia-
mano Hlievno” (The plain of Dalma, now known as Hlievno): Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi,
p. 220.
167 Regvm Dalmatię atque Croatie gesta, pp. 44; Šišić, Letopis, pp. 398–399.
168 Ludwig Steindorff, “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’ u srednjovjekovnoj historiografiji.
Istovremeno o saboru na ‘Planities Dalmae’,” in Etnogeneza Hrvata, p. 155.
170 Ljetopis, pp. 75, 77, 8889, 94, 99, 102; see: Steindorff, “Die Synode,” p. 301, footnote 103.
154 Chapter 4
work the name Chelmania was used to describe Hum.171 Perhaps Hlivaj in the
passage concerning the synod was a mistake by the author of the Croatian ver-
sion, who misread “Dalma” as “Chelmia” in his sources. Actually, this problem
with the location of the place arose as a result of a comparison of the two main
variants of The Chronicle available today. However, it is absent when our focus
is solely on the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, situating Dalma without this
type of discrepancies.
The hypothesis that identifies Dalma as Bosnian Duvno is clearly inconsis-
tent with the way the Priest of Duklja describes the division of the kingdom
into archbishoprics and provinces. Miho Barada’s idea, who – based on a hypo-
thetical Illyrian toponym *Delmis – suggested the location of Dalma near the
city of Omiš172 and not far from Split (in Latin sources called Almissium or
Olmissium),173 seems even less convincing today. Such a location, and Barada
did not realize this, would be quite attractive due to the aforementioned con-
nections of Omiš with the Kačić family and their possible influence on the
narrative of The Chronicle. However, Barada’s conclusions, founded mainly on
etymology, were almost immediately discredited as “dilettante”.174 Regardless
of this criticism, it should be noted that, above all, they are not coherent with
the character of the text written by the Priest of Duklja.
In the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, the plain of Dalma was a place with
a special position. This time the Priest of Duklja emphasized that the secu-
lar division of Svetopelek’s realm had been made on the basis of old charters:
“Post haec secundum continentiam privilegiorum, quae lecta coram populo
fuerant, scripsit privilegia, divisit provincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos
et fines earum […]” (Then, according to the documents that were read before
the people, [the king] wrote down privileges, divided provinces and regions
of his kingdom and its boundaries and possessions). According to their guide-
lines, the king divided the Kingdom of the Slavs into two basic parts: Maritima
and Surbia, also called Transmontana. The rivers that have their source in the
mountains flow to the south or to the north and this difference was the basis of
the division:175 “secundum cursum aquarum, quae a montanis fluunt et intrant
171 Steindorff, “Die Synode,” p. 301.

172 Barada, “Topografija Porfirogennetove Paganije,” pp. 47–50.
173 As was observed by Steindorff, linguistic premises may equally point to Duvno as well
as to Omiš, as the possible location of Dalma mentioned by the Priest of Duklja: “Die
Synode,” p. 302.
174 Petar Skok, “Ortsnamenstudien zu De administrando imperio des Kaisers Constantin
Porphyrogennetos,” Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung 4 (1928), p. 229, footnote 2.
175 The function of natural borders – such as mountains and rivers – in the Priest of Duklja’s
narrative was comprehensively discussed by Nikola Radojčić, “Društveno i državno
in mare contra meridianam plagam, Maritima vocavit; aquas vero, quae a mon-
tanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant flumen Donavi, vocavit
Surbia” (the territory in the basin of rivers that flow from the mountains and
enter the sea in the south he called Primorje, and the territory in the basin of
rivers that flow from the mountains on the north side and join the great river
Danube, he called Surbia).176 Both main parts were divided into two smaller
provinces: Maritima (or Primorje) consisted of Lower and Upper Dalmatia
(White and Red Croatia respectively), while Surbia consisted of Bosnia and
Raška. Svetopelek delineated the borders of the four provinces using specific
landmarks: in Surbia, the border ran on the river Drina, while Dalma was the
centre of Maritima (or, we can guess, of Dalmatia).
Such a location in the very centre of both coastal provinces probably cor-
responds with the literary legend of the city of Delmis – the eponymous centre
of entire Dalmatia – which was popular in the Middle Ages.177 In this case,
the information came from ancient sources: the great centre of Delmion had
already been mentioned by Strabo, and then by Appian, who modified the
name to Delminion. In both cases, as was noted by Steindorff, we can assume
actual knowledge of both authors of the particular city in Roman Dalmatia.178
It was Isidore of Seville who turned Delmis into a literary topos. On the
basis of information taken from ancient writers, he wrote about a great city;
the entire province was named after it.179 It seems, however, that Isidore
did not know much about the location of the city. Many Western authors –
Rabanus Maurus Magnentius, Honorius Augustodunensis, Gervase of Tilbury,
Vincentius of Beauvais, Bartholomeus Anglicus and, above all, Thomas the
Archdeacon – repeated this information about Delmis after him.180
uređenje kod Srba u ranom srednjem veku – prema Barskom rodoslovu,” Glasnik Skopskog
nuačnog društva 15 (1935), p. 8.
177 Steindorff, who investigated definitions of the word “Dalmatia” in medieval historiog-
raphy, found the prologue of Chronica Poloniae maioris interesting in this context. It
depicted a peculiar spatial arrangement related to the Slavic states: Pannonia was the
centre of it, and was considered the “mother” of all Slavic nations. Four main Slavic king-
doms were listed in the text: the three founded by Lech, Czech and Rus – and Pannonia.
Dalmatia – mentioned as established later, and probably less significant – also had strong
bonds with Pannonia; according to the author of the chronicle, the name of Dalmatia
meant “dala macz, quasi dedit mater” [‘given by a mother’], which was to commemorate
the fact that the lands had been detached by the queen of Pannonia from her own king-
dom and given over to her son (Chronica Poloniae maioris, p. 5).
178 Steindorff, “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’,” p. 149.
179 The Etymologies, p. 290.
180 Under slightly modified names: Dalmis, Delum, or Doima (in the work of Gervase of
Tilbury), the closest to the variant of the Priest of Duklja.
156 Chapter 4
Thomas the Archdeacon mentioned the city of Delmis three times. At the
start of his work, referring to information given by Isidore, he derived the
name of Dalmatia from the name of the city: “Dalmatia secundum Ysidorum
est prima pars Grecie et dicitur a Delmi civitate antiqua, que ibi fuit, sed ubi
hec civitates Delmis in Dalmatie partibus fuerit, non satis patet. Verum tamen
Dalmatia icebatur olim largius, censebatur enim cum Chrovatia una provintia”
(Dalmatia, according to Isidore, is the first part of Greece, and is named after
the ancient city of Delmis that was there; but it is not entirely clear in what part
of Dalmatia this city of Delmis was. However, the name Dalmatia was formerly
used in a broader sense, for it was considered as one province with Croatia).
And although he admitted explicitly that he was not sure of the location of this
eponymous place, he decided to pass on the traditional tale about it known to
him: “Est enim region quedam in superioribus partibus, que dicitur Delmina,
ubi antique menia astenduntur, ibi fuisse Delmis civitas memoratur”181 (Now
there is a certain area in the upper regions called Delmina, where the city walls
are to be seen; it was there, according to the tradition, where Delmis stood). It
is still a contentious issue whether “in superioribus partibus” should be trans-
lated as “in upper regions” as opposed to “lower” coastal regions, or whether
instead we should seek a connection between this term and the distinction
between Dalmatiae superior and Dalmatiae inferior, known to Thomas (and
also confirmed in other sources, including Regnum Sclavorum).182 Regardless,
information that the Delmina region and the ruins of the ancient city lie
somewhere in Upper Dalmatia are more likely to have been a rumour heard
by the chronicler.
The next references to the city, located by Thomas the Archdeacon in the
east, may be somewhat surprising. First, as has already been mentioned, he
situated one of the two new bishoprics in Sclavonia, and then claimed that
the city of Delmis was located at the fringe of the Kingdom of Dalmatia and
Croatia: “ab oriente Delmina, ubi fuit civitas Delmis, in qua est quedam eccle-
sia, quam beatus Germanus Capuanus episcopus consecravit, sicut scriptum
reperitur in ea”183 (To the east: Delmina. Here the city of Delmis stood, and
it is a church consecrated by Saint Germanus, Bishop of Capua, as we read in
the inscription of the church). It is significant that the formula ab oriente was
used twice by Thomas when writing about Delmis. Such an introduction indi-
cates that he might have copied it from an earlier source. The certainty of this

information – contradictory to what the chronicler had written about Delmis

earlier – is surprising. Moreover, his previous mention of Delmis referred to
the ruins of the city, rather than a possible episcopal see. These two references
to the diocese support the hypothesis that the text by Thomas includes two
separate traditions. Eponymous Delmis in the “upper regions” was not identi-
cal with eastern Delmis, or Delmina – which was mentioned above.
It also seems that Thomas the Archdeacon used some customary clichés
when writing about the actual geographical position of (both) Delmis. As
he admitted at the beginning, he did not have much idea of where the city
could be situated. According to his narrative, Dalmatia spread from the city of
Dyrrachium (Durrës), on the border with Epirus, to the Kvarner Gulf, while its
inland area reached the unidentified town of Stridon – according to the chron-
icler, the birthplace of St. Jerome – on the border with Pannonia.184 Describing
the territory of the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia, Thomas claimed that
Stridon was located in its western part, bordering with Carinthia, marking the
confines of Dalmatia and Istria. According to him the Danube was the north-
ern boundary of the kingdom, whereas it spread southward to “the Dalmatian
Sea” including Maronia and Hum. Thomas was probably much better oriented
in coastal geography, yet as far as the inland cities of Delmis and Stridon are
concerned, his knowledge was poor. It should be assumed that either he was
writing about two different Delmis, or he did not know where the centre was
located and he used the literary tradition in which Delmis had a function for
a long time as a literary topos rather than being an actual place on the map of
medieval Dalmatia.
This phenomenon is well illustrated by the anonymous Desctriptio Europae
Orientalis from the early fourteenth century, in which eponymous Delmis was
associated with Salona.185 According to the anonymous author, both of them
had been uninhabited for a long time: “Est et octaua prouincia ipsius Grecie
secundum rei ueritatem Dalmatia, a Delmi, maxima ciuitate eiusdem regionis,
sic dicta – licet eadem ciuitas postmodum uocata fuerit Salona que nunc est

185 As the editors of the work noticed, this passage consists mainly of excerpts from the works
of Bartholomeus Anglicus and Vincent of Beauvais, rewritten by the Anonymous; the leg-
end of Salona seems to be independent of them. However, the editors of Descriptio … drew
attention to the fifteenth-century French variant of the work of Bartholomeus Anglicus,
in which the chapter De Dalmacie contains the words: “le cite ke est chef de ceste prov-
ince si ad a nun Acelune”. Perhaps the Anonymous author had some previous copy with
similar additions. See: Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis, compiled by Tibor Živković,
Vladeta Petrović, Alaksandar Uzelac, trans. Dragana Kunčer, ed. Srđan Rudić (Belgrade,
2013), p. 157, reference XCVII.
158 Chapter 4
destructa”186 (and the eighth province of this Greece, as we know, is Dalmatia,

which takes its name from Delmis, the largest city in this region, and this city
was later called Salona and it is now destroyed).
Thomas the Archdeacon associated the history of Delmis with the mission
of German of Capua (who was also mentioned by the Priest of Duklja at the
beginning of his work) which would actually indicate the lands of southern
Dalmatia. In 519, German probably stayed in the area of the future Duklja.
Steindorff, comparing this detail with information provided by the Priest
of Duklja, was ready to acknowledge that “Delmis” in Historia Salonitana
and “Dalma” in Regnum Sclavorum actually meant the area around Dioclea;
the ancient ruins of this city are situated close to modern Podgorica.187 The
Priest of Duklja wrote that Dalma was located at the centre of both Dalmatias,
which, as Steindorff noted, corresponded to the division of the seaside lands
according to Muhammad al-Idrisi, who claimed that the territory of Croatia
spread southward as far as Ragusa. More importantly, the division into two
Dalmatias coincided, according to Steindorff, with the Roman border between
Praevalitana and upper Dalmatia, while the division between Raška and
Bosnia on the Drina river also could be the old boundary between the Roman
provinces.188
The central location of Dalma enabled the Priest of Duklja to conceptualize
the territory of the Kingdom of the Slavs. In this case, the plain of Dalma would
play the role not only of the centre of Dalmatia, but also as the symbolic centre
of Svetopelek’s entire realm. His lands would be divided according to the axis
designated by the place of the synod. The two main parts would represent the
area of the country inhabited by the Latins and by the Slavs. Both groups par-
ticipated in the sessions of the synod, and – as was noted by Steindorff – this
fact enabled the Priest of Duklja to present the vision of a universal society, a
harmonious communitas of the kingdom. The location of Dalma in the vicin-
ity of Dioclea could also justify the subsequent narrowing of the geographical
field of the narration of Regnum Sclavorum to the areas of Duklja.
186 Anonymo Descriptio Europae Orientalis, p. 109; see: Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 366–368.
The anonymous author in his description of the Balkan lands could base his work, just
like the Priest of Duklja, on customary image. He divided the territory of the Raška-
Kingdom into Serbia and Raška proper (Anonymi Descriptio, pp. 120nn.) – like the Priest
of Duklja, who in Regnum Sclavorum divided Serbia into Raška and Bosnia. Such an image
in the description of the anonymous author could be influenced by the actual division
of the Kingdom of Serbia during the times of the conflict between Stefan Dragutin and
Stefan Milutin.
187 Steindorff, “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’,” pp. 154–155.
188 Steindorff, “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’,” pp. 156–8.
Steindorff claimed that the Priest of Duklja in his description of the division
of Svetopelek’s state had referred to the definition of the ideal empire “founded
in accordance with Christian cosmological concepts on the number four”.189
Many conventional elements can be distinguished if this legend is considered
as a schematic fictional construct. It is possible that Dalma in the Priest of
Duklja’s interpretation was nothing more than a literary motif justifying his
image of the division of Dalmatia. Banašević noted that both the plain of
Dalma and the division of the kingdom in Regnum Sclavorum presented more
features of a conventional picture of a perfect realm than of political boundar-
ies known to the chronicler. In this interpretation, Dalma would be a symbol
of Dalmatia itself – the epitome used by the chronicler to depict the vision of
Svetopelek’s state.190
The vision of the kingdom oriented to the axis in Dalma agrees with the
ideal image of medieval realm. The Priest of Duklja, probably due to the diverse
material from which he drew, was forced to mark by himself the characteris-
tic centre of Svetopelek’s reign. Such centres were an important element of
creating real dynastic ideologies,191 and the Priest of Duklja was familiar with
this phenomenon. Dalma, as a certain idea – a legendary place embodying the
concept of Dalmatia itself – was a suitable location for being the central point
of the state.
The events preceding the synod are important in this context. They are a
link between the narrative passages about the baptism and those about the
new state order. Svetopelek ordered the Christians to rebuild cities destroyed
by the invasion, to begin the process of restoration of the state. He also re-
established relationships between its inhabitants. The Priest of Duklja empha-
sized this fact when, in another part of the chronicle, he described that on
the plain of Dalma: “Igitur omnes congregati, tam latinam quam et sclavonica
lingua qui loquebantur” (So everyone gathered, those who spoke Latin and
Slavic language).192 The legend about the synod, as was already mentioned, has
the features of a founding tale, in which two groups that used to be separated
by history accept the law and the rules given to them by one ruler to create
a new community. The reference to the Latin tradition was the main theme
of the narrative about the synod, although it was enriched with additional

190 Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, pp. 58–60.
191 Zbigniew Dalewski, Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława
Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem (Warsaw, 2005), pp. 15–23.
160 Chapter 4
motifs, which emphasized continuity of the kingdom since the time of the
Gothic conquest.
The borders delineated by Svetopelek were in fact identical to those inher-
ited by Senulad [II] from his father Ostroil, the Gothic conqueror: “Fuerant
autem regni eius fines de Valdevino usque ad Poloniam, [includentes] tam
maritimas, quam transmontanas regions” (The borders of his kingdom
extended from Valdevino to Polonia, [including] coastal areas as well as lands
behind the mountains).193 During the synod, the division into two main
regions: Maritima (Primorje) and Transmontana (Zagorje) was confirmed, and
Valdevino, the border point on the northern boundaries of Lower Dalmatia,
was also mentioned.
However, it is not easy to identify places marking the first boundaries of the
kingdom. The geographical positions of Dalma and the Templana,194 already
mentioned several times, are unknown; also Valdevino and Polonia are diffi-
cult to identify today. The name “Valdevino” could refer to Vinodol,195 a valley
near Kvarner Gulf, although Marulić interpreted it as “Valachia” (Wallachia).196
Šišić identified Polonia as the city of Apolonia197 (Ἀπολλονία) in Albania, close
to the present-day Vlorë.198 It is also possible that the mysterious “Polonia” is
the trace of a legend about the advance of the Goths from the territories of
Poland, which – in a way that is difficult to reconstruct – was used by the Priest
of Duklja to describe Senulad’s state.
In his description of the synod, instead of Polonia, at the southern fringe of
Svetopelek’s state, the Priest of Duklja mentioned the city of Bambalona, add-
ing that it was also known as Dyrrachium. The phrase: “usque Bambalonam civi-
tatem, quae nunc dicitur Dirachium” (to the city of Bambalona, which is now
called Dyrrachium) again points to the remnants of an archaized legend link-
ing ancient Valona with Dyrrachium, the centre contemporary to the author –
just like Ragusa was linked with Epidaurus, and Jadra (Zadar) with Arausona.
It is possible, however, that the Priest of Duklja, while trying to clarify his vision
of the boundaries of the kingdom, confused Bambalona and Dyrrachium, or
felt that the distance between them was insignificant. It can only be men-
tioned that Dyrrachium as a border location would match much more closely
to what Thomas the Archdeacon and Constantine Porphyrogennetos wrote

194 In Croatian text: Trnovina.
195 Šišić, Letopis, p. 424. As was noted by Živković, Valdevino was identified with Vinodol as
early as by Ivan Črnčić: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 16, footnote 3.
196 Marulić translation: Regvm Dalmatię atqve Croatię gesta, p. 37; Šišić, Letopis, p. 388.
197 In the Middle Ages known as Polin, today: Pojani.
about the Dalmatian area. Both of them consider the region of modern Durrës
as the fringe of this land.199
The approximate area in which, according to the Priest of Duklja, the
Kingdom of the Slavs was located is quite surprising: Dalma, Valdevino and
Polonia/Bambalona are very odd, as if the chronicler intended to present a
blurred image of its shape. The borders of the kingdom were highly symbolic
and allegedly had ancient origins. Similarly, enigmatic toponyms were used
far more often by the Priest of Duklja. The division of Croatia into White
and Red seems to be the most controversial part of the description of the
synod. Sometimes the author uses the terms Inferior Dalmatia and Superior
Dalmatia. Such a division is also found in the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo,
the fourteenth-century Venetian Doge,200 although there are many indications
that the presence of the terms Croatia Alba and Croatia Rubea in this work is a
sign of the familiarity of the author with the Latin version of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja.201
In the Croatian version of The Chronicle, Dalmatia is divided into Upper and
Lower, and the borders of both regions were similarly described, but as was
already mentioned, there is no reference to Red Croatia in this version.202 The
author of the Croatian version mentioned the White Croats when discussing
the territorial divisions of the state of Budimir. This is the only case where such
a term appears in the Croatian version of the text, whereas in the Latin ver-
sion, it was used several times. In the Croatian variant, it referred to a com-
munity rather than to a territory.203 In literature from the Dalmatian areas, the
White Croats are also mentioned in a fragment of the Anonymous Chronicle
from Split about Zvonimir’s death. In this case also, the name referred to an
unidentified group.204
White Croatia was fairly well (and very vaguely) described in sources from
the Earlier Middle Ages. However, the texts consistently located it north of the
Danube.205 There is probably a link between the name of Dalmatian White
199 Historia Salonitana, pp. 2–3; De administrando imperio, chapter 30, verses 8–10, pp. 140–141.
200 Andreae Danduli Venetorum ducis Chronicon Venetum, p. 182; Andreas Dandolo Chronicon
Venetum, MMFH, v. 4, p. 422.
202 Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 263–266.
203 “Hrvate Bile, što su Dalmatini Nižnji”: Ljetopis, p. 54.
204 Miroslav Kurelac, “Povijesni zapis nazvan ‘Anonimna Kronika’ u rukopisu Naučne bib-
lioteke u Zadru,” Historijski Zbornik 23–24 (197071), p. 372; Hrvoje Morović, “Novi izvori o
nasilnoj smrti kralja Dimitrija Zvonimira,” Mogućnosti 10 (1960), p. 835.
205 Except for, perhaps, The Primary Chronicle (Tale of Bygone Years), as Třeštík thought,
although the interpretation of the term in this work is disputed: Třeštík, Mytý kmene
Čechů, pp. 86–87, 96–97.
162 Chapter 4
Croatia and the name of this enigmatic northern territory. In turn, Red Croatia
does not appear in any medieval source unrelated to Regnum Sclavorum. Niko
Županić and later also Herbert Ludat tried to derive this terminology from
steppe customs of assigning specific colours to the cardinal directions. Beliefs
of this type are well-confirmed among the steppe peoples, especially the
Turks.206 The case of Russia indicates the possibility that the Slavs had taken
a similar terminology.207 Although the very name of the White Croats, even in
the Dalmatian context, was mentioned several times in various sources, the
division into White and Red Croatia seems to have been the Priest of Duklja’s
own idea, invented by him and consistently implemented. In this approach,
however, Red Croatia would be a late construct created by analogy to the White
Croats, a term that even the Priest of Duklja could not interpret correctly.
The incompatibility of toponyms to the actual situation of the Illyricum of
the High Middle Ages did not mean that the territorial system in the narrative
of Regnum Sclavorum was arranged in random constellations. Geographical
terminology was used consistently throughout the entire work. The Priest of
Duklja referred to some places with the Latin word terra, while to others with
the word regio. In the context of the division of the state by Svetopelek, it is
worth focusing on four provinciae: Lower and Upper Dalmatia (White and Red
Croatia), Bosnia and Raška.
As it was demonstrated by Hvostova, the word provincia was used by the
Priest of Duklja following quite rigid rules.208 Initially, the chronicler used
it when he wrote about ancient Roman provinces, such as Istria, Illyria, and
Pannonia. In the context of the Latins he even used the expression provincia
Latinorum. He also occasionally used the term provincia referring to the lands
outside the Kingdom of the Slavs; “Bulgarian province” and “Khazar provice”
can be encountered in the text. In other cases, the term appeared in the narra-
tive only to indicate the four main territories of Svetopelek’s realm.
According to the decisions of the synod, the provinces were governed
by the bans appointed by the king, while the župans mentioned in the text
were mainly regional rulers. The word provincia was used often in reference
to Raška, although – as was rightly noted by Hvostova – “the ban of Raška”
is mentioned only once; “the župan of Raška” appears much more often
206 Niko Županić, “Značenje barvnega atributa v imenu ‘Crvena Hrvatska’. Predavanje na
IV. kongresu slovanskih geografov in etnografov v Sofiji, dne 18. avgusta 1936.,” Etnolog
10–11 (1937–1939), pp. 355–376; Herbert Ludat, “Farbenbezeichnungen in Völkernamen.
Ein Beitrag zu asiatischosteuropäischen Kulturbeziehungen,” Saeculum 4 (1953),
pp. 138–155.
207 Oleg Łatyszonek, Od Rusinów Białych do Białorusinów. U źródeł białoruskiej idei narodowej
(Białystok, 2006), pp. 17–43.
208 Hvostova, “K voprosu terminologii Letopisi Popa Dukljanina,” pp. 44–45.
in the text.209 However, this should not be considered an exception; it is not

the case that Raška, according to the Priest of Duklja, ceased to be one of the
four main provinces of the kingdom. The change was related to Tychomil’s
career, a secondary hero from the period of the reign of King Časlav. Tychomil
married a daughter of the ban of Raška, but he was only a (drinski) župan.
Later, during the interregnum, he became independent and took the title of
the great župan of Raška.210 The Priest of Duklja, writing about this change,
consistently uses the term “župan” with reference to Tychomil’s descendants,
and subtly indicates that they do not deserve the inherited dignity of the
ban. However, this did not change the status of the land itself as one of the
basic provinces.
The chronicler made indirect references to this fourfold division when
describing the conquests of Pavlimir Bello. After the interregnum, this ruler
managed to subordinate an area similar to the one approved during the synod.
The geographical focus of the narrative was limited after the part describing
the reign of King Predimir, yet the fourfold division was maintained. Predimir
divided his lands between his four sons: Hvalimir received Zenta (Zeta); Boleslav,
Tribunja; Dragislav, Chelmania (Hum); and Spelanchus (in edited versions:
Senulad (Svevlad) [III]), Podgoria, also known as Submontana. These lands
constituted the entity known in The Chronicle as the Tetrarchy.211 In describ-
ing the reign of one of the later rulers, Sylvester, the Priest of Duklja stated that
this ruler: “gubernavit totam Tetrarchiam” (governed all of Tetrarchy).212 The
concept of Tetrarchy allowed the author to preserve the appearance of the ter-
ritorial continuity of the Kingdom of the Slavs, although the actual area of the
realm was very limited.
The presentation of the Church of St. Mary in Dioclea as the coronation cen-
tre was a remnant of such a positioning of Svetopelek’s vast kingdom. Regnum
Sclavorum claims that the king was buried there, and then his son, Svetolik,
was enthroned by the archbishop and bishops in the same place. The patron
saint of the church was probably no accident. King Vladimir, another great
ruler of the Priest of Duklja’s narrative was associated with St. Mary. When he
was martyred, his body was transferred to the church of St. Mary in Krajina.
Although Svetopelek did not represent holiness in the way that Vladimir did,
the chronicler called him rex sanctissimus. Of the rulers of the kingdom, only
Svetopelek and Vladimir are described as sancti, and analogies regarding the
burial sites of the two rulers do not seem to be accidental in this context.
209 Hvostova, “K voprosu terminologii Letopisi Popa Dukljanina,” p. 45.

210 Ljetopis, p. 69. In this particular context the Priest of Duklja used the term terra Rassa.
164 Chapter 4
The Marian cult seems to be particularly linked with the local implemen-
tation of the model of rex iustus, righteous king. Gábor Klaniczay empha-
sized the importance of the cult of Hungarian Stephen in the development
of various forms of Marian devotion. Legends about St. Stephen listed numer-
ous churches dedicated to St. Mary founded during his reign. The king was
also buried in the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in
Székesfehérvár (Stolni Biograd in Croatian).213 Perhaps the Priest of Duklja
referred to this vision, writing about Svetopelek’s grave and the place of his
successors’ enthronement in the abovementioned church in Dioclea.
Characteristically, in the subsequent parts of the text, Dioclea was never
presented in a similar role. Moreover, the narrative mentions other centres of
the state, such as Ragusa and Tribunja, associated with King Pavlimir Bello –
which is in clear contradiction with the alleged special role of the Church of
St. Mary in Dioclea emphasized by the Priest of Duklja: “Ex illa denique die
mos adolevit, ut in eadem ecclesia eligerentur et ordinarentur omnes reges
huius terrae” (From that day the custom was established that in this church all
the kings of this land were appointed and ordained). On the other hand, such
appreciation of Dioclea was natural in the context of the diocesan division
of the state. Dioclea was one of the two archiepiscopal sees, and the Priest
of Duklja had to locate the coronation place in one of them if he wanted to
maintain the coherence of his own vision. Although the choice of Dioclea
could have resulted from the interest of the Church in Bar, primarily it bet-
ter served the narrative concept of the author, who consistently shifted the
centre of the Kingdom of the Slavs to the south. Such a decision could also
arise from the Priest of Duklja’s intention to show Svetopelek as a representa-
tive of the dynasty that emerged during the Gothic conquest. The chronicler
referred to the ancient traditions, at the same time trying to promote a vision
quite inconsistent with the one present in them. Therefore, forced to choose
between Salona, the old capital of the Dalmatian king defeated by the Goths,
and Dioclea, he decided on the latter.
7 The Emperor, the Pope and the King: Circumstances and

Significance of Svetopelek’s Coronation
The rallies on the plain of Dalma were opened by Honorius, the papal legate,
and King Svetopelek. The order in which both figures were mentioned in the

narrative indicated the important role played by the advisers sent to the king
in establishing the new state order. According to the Priest of Duklja, the king’s
authority came from three sources; he owed his position to his ancestors, yet he
sought legitimacy for his activities above all from Rome and Constantinople.
The main role of the synod, which ended with the coronation of the king,
was to confirm the new legal and administrative status of the state. The
entire text of Regnum Sclavorum includes only three descriptions of events
of this type. The very title rex, as was showed by Hvostova, was not used in a
strict sense and usually referred to a figure holding supreme authority in the
kingdom.214 Therefore, although the work mentions many “kings”, there are
not many references to ceremonies of enthronement.
It is not known whether the chronicler could make use of historical mod-
els known to him in the description of Svetopelek’s coronation.215 Many his-
torians have speculated about this issue and have offered various hypotheses.
There were unsuccessful attempts to link Svetopelek (or Budimir) with a cer-
tain actual crowned ruler of the region. Jelić believed that the congress could
have taken place during the reign of the Croatian King Peter Krešimir IV in the
second half of the eleventh century, and more precisely in August 1057, when
at the same time Stephen IX was the Roman Pope (1057–1058) and Michael VI
Bringas was the Byzantine Emperor (1056–1057).216 That hypothesis was far-
fetched because Krešimir only began to rule around 1058, which would have
been after the abdication of Emperor Michael.
According to Kukuljević Sakcinski, the base for describing the Synod in
Dalma was the alleged coronation of King Tomislav at the Synod in Split in
925.217 In the synodal documents there is a letter of Pope John X in which
Tomislav was called “the king of the Croats”. In local nineteenth-century histo-
riography, the Priest of Duklja’s information about Tomislav, who defeated the
Hungarian King Attila, was linked with the legend of Svetopelek’s coronation
to create a vision of the powerful Croatian state. This politically convenient
identification was strong enough that in 1925, one thousand years after the

215 This issue was discussed by Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Pitanje vjerodostojnosti sabora na
Duvanjskom polju,” Godišnjak – Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar
za balkanološka ispitivanja 6 (1970), pp. 201–261 – who claimed unambiguously that the
narration had to be founded on historical events.
216 Jelić, “Duvanjski sabor,” pp. 135–45.
217 Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, “Prvovjenčani vladaoci Bugara, Hrvata i Srba i njihove krune,”
Rad JAZU 58 (1881), pp. 135–140.
166 Chapter 4
supposed events, the name of the city of Županjac, near Duvno, was changed
to Tomislavgrad.218
Thallóczy supposed that a similar meeting could have taken place in the
ninth century, during the reign of Borna or Branimir.219 Vladimir Košćak also
linked Svetopelek with the latter and believed that during Branimir’s reign
there was a great congress at which the envoys of Pope Stephen V (885–891)
and Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886–912) gave Branimir power over the Adriatic
coast (Maritima, mentioned in the narrative).220 Šišić also presumed that the
description of Svetopelek’s baptism and coronation could originally refer to
Branimir.221 Radojković sought the alleged model even further and speculated
that the fragment of the work of the Priest of Duklja under discussion could
refer to some hypothetical convention related to the baptism of the Croats.
Svetopelek’s role would be equal to the one of archon Porga (Ποργα) mentioned
by Constantine Porphyrogennetos.222 The described events have recently been
linked to the baptism of the Slavs by Stevo Vučinić who claimed that the Synod
took place in 867.223
On the other hand, the assumptions by Dominik Mandić that a vast
Croatian state existed in the area described by the Priest of Duklja in the
eighth century – more precisely, in the time of Pope Stephen II (752–757) and
Emperor Constantine V (741–775) – are absolutely improbable. Likewise, the
belief by Muhamed Hadžijahić that King Budimir, described in the Croatian
version of The Chronicle, was a representative of an unknown dynasty that ruled
Bosnia in the second half of the ninth century, seems equally extravagant.224
Even those scholars who questioned that any synod or congress of a char-
acter similar to the one described in Regnum Sclavorum had taken place at
all, tried to match the Priest of Duklja’s fictitious vision with historical knowl-
edge of the medieval Balkans. Steindorff supposed that the chronicler could
218 See: Boroń, Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie, pp. 120–125. It can be mentioned that similar
processes of creating local collective memory took place in the village of Dajbabe near
Podgorica. According to regional legend, king Budimir was to be buried in the village. In
1934, the village council decided to change its name to Budimir. See: Stevo Vučinić, Prilozi
proučavanju Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina and ranosrednjovjekovne Duklje (Cetinje, 2017),
pp. 80–81.
219 Thallóczy, “Die ungarische Beziehungen,” p. 207.
220 Vladimir Košćak, “Pripadnost istočne obale Jadrana do splitskih sabora 925–928,”
Historijski zbornik 33–34 (1980–1981), pp. 291–355.
221 Šišić, Letopis, p. 432, footnote 37.
222 Radojković, “Država kralja Svetopeleka,” pp. 399–435.
223 Vučinić, Prilozi proučavanju Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina, pp. 70–82.
224 Hadžijahić, “Das Regnum Sclavorum als historische Quelle und als territoriales Substrat,”
pp. 20–22, 35–36.
have known some local records about the sending of the royal crown to
Michael (Mihailo) I of Duklja by Pope Gregory VII and about the establish-
ment of the archiepiscopal see in Bar by King Bodin in 1089.225
As was already mentioned, Havlík thought it possible that a similar congress
had taken place during the reign of Moravian Svatopluk, and Šišić speculated
that the character of Budimir (Svetopelek) in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative
might be based on Kocel,226 duke of the Balaton Principality. Also, some of
the more recent historians represent the view that the political situation in the
discussed passage of Regnum Sclavorum reflected the actual relations in the
state of the Croatian King Zvonimir.227
Historians have attempted to decipher the hidden identities of other charac-
ters in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative. Pope Stephen mentioned in the text was
identified by Živković as Stephen V (885–891), who in 885 sent Bishop Dominik
and two presbyters, John and Stephen,228 to the territory of Great Moravia.
Unfortunately, the papal name is inconsistent with the one from the narrative
tradition of Cyril and Methodius. Among the texts that mentioned the sum-
moning of Constantine (or both brothers) to Rome, Vita Constantini,229 The
Life of Methodius230 and Legenda Moravica231 in this context gave the name of
the pope as Nicholas, not Stephen.232
The identification of Emperor Michael is also doubtful. In the Croatian ver-
sion, he was replaced (though inconsistently) by Emperor Constantine. Ivan
Črnčič noticed that it could be a mistake by the translator, who changed the
expression ad imperatorem Constantinopolitanae urbis Michaelem into ka ces-
aru Konstantinu.233
Živković counted seven emperors named Michael who ruled in Con
stantinople between 811 and 1078, though only in the case of Michael II the
Amorian (820–829) was the imperial activity in the Balkans certified in the
sources. Indeed, the reign of the aforementioned Michael VI Bringas (1056–
1057) overlapped with the pontificate of the pope named Stephen (Stephen IX,
225 Steindorff, “Die Synode,” p. 303; idem, “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’,” p. 155.
227 Andriana Steta, I Pacta Conventa nella storia e nella tradizione giuridica e politica croato-
ungherese, doctoral thesis, Università di Macerata (Macerata, 2013), p. 75.
228 The letter of Pope Stephen V to Svatopluk: MMFH vol. 3, ep. no. 102, p. 215; Živković,
“O takozvanom saboru na Duvanjskom polju,” p. 58.
229 Vita Constantini Cyrylli cum translationes. Clementi, MMFH vol. 2, p. 129.
230 Žitije Mefodija arhijepiskopa Moravьska, MMFH vol. 2, p. 146.
231 Tempore Michaelis imperatoris, p. 262.
legenda, p. 16].
233 Črnčić, Popa Dukljanina Lêtopis, p. 14, footnote 2.
168 Chapter 4
1057–1058), and the period when both of them held their offices was limited
to thirty days.234
Emperor Michael is mentioned in texts from the tradition of Cyril and
Methodius. The Slavic Life of Constantine, the possible source of information
about Michael, refers to the envoys sent to the emperor by prince Rostislav.235
Michael, through the missionary, granted Moravia the privilege of using the
Slavic language in the liturgy. The circumstances in which this happened in
some ways resemble events known from Regnum Sclavorum. According to
the author of the hagiography, the prince, inspired by God, sent his envoys
after consulting with the magnates and the Moravians as to the soundness of
his actions. The name of the emperor in the context of a similar event was
also noted in The Russian Primary Chronicle (also known as The Tale of Bygone
Years), and the legend Uspenije Kirilla, representing a closer geographical cir-
cle. The author of the latter wrote about envoys from Khazaria who came to
the court of emperor Michael to ask for baptism, and later he added infor-
mation about Rostislav’s envoys coming to the emperor – without giving his
name – with a similar request.236 It is very probable that the Priest of Duklja
found the mention about Michael in the Slavic hagiography of Constantine or
some shorter text from the Ohrid tradition.
The names of the papal legate and the imperial envoys are another “twin”
riddle for scholars. The idea that the names of Leo and John could get to the
narrative from the documents of the first Synod in Split (925) seems convinc-
ing. Summaries of this congress’ decisions mentioned John, the Bishop of
Ancona, and Leo, the Bishop of Palestrina, who came to Dalmatia to combat
the erroneous “doctrine of Methodius” and to help in spreading Latin language
in the ecclesiastical circles of the “Slavic land”.237
234 Živković, “O takozvanom saboru na Duvanjskom polju,” pp. 54–55.

235 Žitije Konstantina Filosofa, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 98–101; see: Havlík, Dukljanska hronika i
Dalmatinska legenda, p. 123 [Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská legenda, p. 42].
236 Uspenije Kirilla, MMFH vol. 2, pp. 247, 249.
237 “Unde hortamur uos, dilectissimi, ut cum nostri episcopis, Johanne scilicet sanc-
tae anconitanae et Leone sanctae palestinae ecclesiarum dei, iuncti cunctaque per
Sclauinicam terram audacter corrigere satagatis”, Documenta, no. 149.1 a, p. 189; “Unde
iterum atque iterum uos monemus, dilectissimi filii, ut in nostra conuersatione manea-
tis, et linguam et praecepta reuerendissimorum episcoporum, Johannis scilicet sanctae
anchonitanae ecclesiae et Leonis sanctae palestrinae ecclesiae, (qui sunt) nostri famil-
iarissimi, a nostro latere uobis transmissi, atque perspicaci industria suffulti, in omnibus
nobis creduli audiatis”, Documenta, no. 149 b, p. 190.
The search for Leo and John among the imperial officials in Dalmatia did
not bring convincing results. Although there are several representatives of the
Byzantine administration with these names in tenth and eleventh-century
documents, it is impossible to find any links between them in the source
material.238 Havlík suggested that two imperial envoys and a papal legate can
be associated with three clergymen sent from Rome to Svatopluk in Moravia
in 886 and 889 (in both cases, one of them was named John), yet such ideas
should be treated with caution.239
The figure of Cardinal Honorius is another mystery. Besides the king, he was
the second most important participant of the synod. In the narrative, Honorius
is titled sanctae Romanae ecclesiae presbyter cardinalis. The Priest of Duklja
mentioned him three times, particularly on the occasion of the royal corona-
tion. The name of the cardinal and the names of imperial envoys are absent
in the Croatian version of The Chronicle, which led Šišić to believe that they
were added to the Latin text later. According to Šišić, the figure of Honorius
in Regnum Sclavorum comes from Historia Salonitana which mentions Pope
Honorius (Honorius III, 1216–1227) on the occasion of the coronation of the
Serbian King Stefan the First-Crowned (Stefan Nemanjić). The corresponding
passages in Thomas the Archdeacon’s chronicle and in the work of the Priest
of Duklja show some superficial similarity. Thomas noted:
Eodem tempore Staphanus dominus Servie sive Rasie, qui mega iupa-
nus appelabatur, missis apochrisariis ad Romanam sedem, impetravit
ab Honorio summo pontifice coronam regni. Direxit namque legatum
a letere suo, qui veniens coronavit eum primumque regem constituit
terre sue.240
(At that time Stephen, the lord of Serbia or Rascia, who was called the
great župan, sent high-ranking envoys to the Holy See to ask for a royal
crown from Pope Honorius. The supreme pontiff dispatched his legate
a latere who upon arrival crowned Stephen and instituted him as first
king of his land).
238 Živković, “O takozvanom saboru na Duvanjskom polju,” pp. 56–57.

170 Chapter 4
According to Šišić, the corresponding fragment in Regnum Sclavorum is:
Finita synodo XIIa die, per manus Honorii vicarii et cardinalium

atque episcopum coronatus est rex atque coronatus more romanorum
regum.241
(At the end of the rally of the twelfth day, the king was consecrated with
the hands of vicar Honorius, cardinals and bishops, and crowned in
accordance with the custom of Roman kings).
The early dating of Regnum Sclavorum, accepted by Šišić, precluded the use
of Thomas the Archdeacon’s chronicle by the Priest of Duklja. However,
Honorius’ name was already known to Andrea Dandolo, who in his Chronicon
Venetum from the first half of the fourteenth century, summarized information
provided by Regnum Sclavorum:
Huius etiam beati Cyrilli predicatione Svethopolisa rex Dalmacie, aui ab

Ostroylo germano Totile, regis Gothorum, originem duxerat, cum toto suo
populo catholicam fidem suscepit et ab Honorio, cardinali legato apo-
stolice sedis, assistentibus orthodoxis episcopis et apocrisariis Michaelis
imperatoris Constantinopolitani, a quo regnum suum recognoscebat, in
plano Dalme coronatus est […].242
(Influenced by the teaching of blessed Cyril, Svetopolis, the king of

Dalmatia, who was a descendant of Ostroyl, the brother of Totila, the
king of the Goths, with all his people accepted the Catholic faith and was
crowned by Honorius, the cardinal and legate of the Holy See, assisted by
the orthodox bishops and envoys of Michael, the Emperor of Constanti
nople, who granted him his kingdom on the plain of Dalma […]).
The phrase per manus, which neither appears in the text by Dandolo nor from
Thomas, is typical of the Priest of Duklja’s narrative: King Vladimir [II] wanted
to get a wooden cross per manus religiosum hominum,243 while another King
Vladimir [IV] was poisoned per manus ministrorum eius.244 According to
241 Ljetopis, p. 52. According to Šišić, this fragment was a later addition, see: Letopis, pp.
429–430.
242 Andreae Danduli Chronicon Venetum, p. 182; the same fragment also in: Andreas Dandolo
Chronicon Venetum, MMFH, v. 4, p. 422.
Havlík, a similar phrase in the description of Svetopelek’s coronation could

have been taken from the description of the coronation of the Croatian King
Demetrius Zvonimir,245 who, in a letter to the papal legate, Gebizo wrote
about the kingdom received per manus tuam.246 With papal nuncios in mind,
Zvonimir also used the phrase honorifice suscipiam, associated by Havlík with
the verse “legati nobiles […] qui a rege et cardinalibus honorifice suscepti
sunt”247 in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.248
In the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, more important functions were
assigned to papal legates than to imperial envoys. While receiving the legates
from Constantinople, the king was already being assisted by priests sent from
Rome. Honorius, as was already mentioned, first opened the session of the
synod with the king, and later he closed it himself, after crowning the ruler. The
formula more Romanorum regum, used by the Priest of Duklja when describing
Svetopelek’s coronation, seems interesting in this context. Šišić believed that
this phrase referred to the Latin coronation rites, because in the context of
the Byzantine Greeks (self-identifying as Rhōmaîoi – i.e. Romans), the Priest
of Duklja would certainly not write about “kings”.249 It was probably a refer-
ence to the title of the rulers of Germany, who, from the eleventh century, were
titled “the kings of the Romans”250 during the coronation in Aachen or Mainz,
before the possible imperial coronation.
Besides this fragment, in the entire Regnum Sclavorum there are only a few
descriptions of enthronement, and they are not particularly extensive. For
example, the Priest of Duklja wrote about Svetolik, Svetopelek’s son, stating
that he was consecrated and crowned by the archbishop and bishops at the
request of the people.251 The example of King Bodin shows, however, that the
Priest of Duklja was somewhat familiar with the symbolism surrounding
the coronation ceremony. Bodin, to emphasize his imperial aspirations, “impo-
suit diadema capiti suo et iussit se vocari imperatorem” (he decorated his head
245 “Demetrius, qui et Suinimiri nuncupor”.

246 “Regnum autem, quod mihi per manus tuam, domne Gebizo, traditur, fideliter retinebo
et illud summumque ius apostolice sedi aliquo ingenio aliquando non subtraham.
Domnum meum papam Gregorium et suos successores atque legatos, si in meam potes-
tatem uenerint, honorifice suscipiam et honeste tractabo et remittam; (…)”: Documenta,
no. 87, p. 104.
legenda, p. 38].
249 Šišić, Letopis, p. 430, footnote 27.
250 Helmut Beumann, “Rex Romanorum,” in Lexikon des Mittelalters vol. 7 (Munich, 1995),
pp. 777–778.
251 Ljetopis, p. 57. Even less is known about the coronation of the King Predimir, about whom
the chronicler wrote only: “coronatus est rex” (p. 73).
172 Chapter 4
with a diadem and ordered that he was to be called emperor).252 In this case,
the gesture of self-coronation emphasized the usurpation of the imperial title
and pride of the ruler. Emphasising the assistance of Cardinal Honorius in this
respect significantly differentiated Svetopelek’s coronation from other cer-
emonies of this kind described in Regnum Sclavorum.
In the description of enthronement of Pavlimir Bello, there is no informa-
tion about the act of coronation. It also seems that the role of the clergy in the
events was negligible. It is not the archbishop, but bans, župans and centuri-
ons who gathered in Tribunja and elected King Pavlimir (“susceperunt illum
honorifice […] constituerent illum regem”).253 It can be seen that the Priest
of Duklja once again repeated the already known formula of “receiving with
honours”, which in the description of Svetopelek’s coronation referred to the
imperial legates. Differences in participation of lay people and clergy can be
explained by the changed situation of the state. Pavlimir ruled after the period
of interregnum and he came to power due to acceptance of the magnates.
Svetopelek, in turn, simply issued resolutions on the rights of bans, župans
and centurions, hence Cardinal Honorius was the most important person at the
synod next to the ruler. The coronation “with his hand” legitimized the newly
baptized ruler, and in this respect it emphasized the papal protection of the
state. Interestingly, Svetopelek’s son, as we may suppose, became king by the
will of the people mourning his deceased father (“populi lamentaverunt […]
elevaverunt filium eius Svetolicum” [people lamented […] [and] enthroned his
son Svetolik]254). It seems that Honorius’ participation made the coronation in
Dalma quite exceptional.
The differences between the description of the enthronement of Pavlimir
and Svetopelek might be also influenced by decisions that were made during
the synod. In each of the four provinces the king appointed a ban “ex suis con-
saguineis fratribus” (from his brothers of blood) and župans (comites) from the
local magnates. Each ban had seven centurions dependent on him, while each
comes, or župan, had one subordinate centurion. This system and differences
in its structure according to individual variants of the text have already been
discussed. It should be noted, however, that the order of Svetopelek’s realm
was probably linked with the tradition of a fixed number of magnate families
who elected Croatian kings, something which had been known since the four-
teenth century. The blood ties connecting the king and bans, emphasized by

the Priest of Duklja, indicate that the process of election of a ruler by his bans
had been an integral element of this system.
The first part of the gloss on the margin of Supetar Cartulary – partially
quoted earlier – concerned the procedure in the case of a king who died with-
out progeny:
Tempore transacto erat consuetudo in regno Croatorum: erant septem

bani, qui eligerant regem in Croacia, quando rex sine liberis morieba-
tur, silicet banus Croacie primus, banus bosniensis secundus, banus
Sclauonie tercius, banus Posige quartus, banus Podrauoe quintus, banus
Albanie sestus, banus Sremi septimus. Et sex generibus Croatorum erant
bani in Croacie, quos eligebant duodecim tribus Croatorum. Et de aliis
sex generacionibus erant comites in comitatibus croacie. Kacigi, Cucari,
Snasci, Cudomirigi, Mogorouigi, Subigi: isti sunt principales, quibus per-
tinent banatunt et mitunt, sortes cui eorum sors dederit.
(In the past there was a custom in the kingdom of the Croats: there were
seven bans who elected a new king in Croatia, when an old king dies with-
out progeny, and so, the first was a ban of Croatia, the second a ban of
Bosnia, the third was a ban of Slavonia, the fourth was a ban of Požegi, the
fifth was a ban of Podravina, the sixth was a ban of Albania, the seventh
was a ban of Srem. And bans in Croatia would come from six Croatian
families, elected by twelve Croatian tribes. And of the remaining six fami-
lies were župans (comites) in Croatia. Kačici, Kukari, Snačici, Čudomirici,
Mogorovici, Šubici: these are the mighty, to whom the dignity of a ban
belonged, and those of them appointed by fate were to become bans).
The text of the so-called Pacta conventa,255 an alleged agreement between

Croatian families and the Hungarian King Coloman – and according to con-
temporary historians, a forgery made in the fourteenth century256 – pres-
ents this issue in a slightly different way. It mentions twelve noble families:
“Chroates audita legacione domini regis, inito conscilio omnes insimul accep-
tauerunt et miserunt XII nobiles sapienciores de XII tribubus Chroacie” (The
Croats, having heard the legates of the king, began the council, and they all
255 Incipit: Qualiter et cum quo pacto dederun se Croates regi Hungarie. This document was
added to the fourteenth-century manuscript of the chronicle of Thomas the Archdeacon.
Interestingly, it was first published by Lucius with the printed version of Regnum
Sclavorum.
256 See Nada Klaić, “Plemstvo dvanaestero plemena kraljevine Hrvatske (Nobiles duodecim
generationum regni Croatie),” Historijski zbornik 9 (1956), pp. 83–100.
174 Chapter 4
agreed and sent 12 wise magnates from the 12 tribes of Croatia).257 The refer-
ence to close ties between the king and provincial bans, and especially the way
in which Pavlimir Bello was elected king after the interregnum period, indicate
that the Priest of Duklja might have known this tradition.258
It is worth noting that the Croatian version did not inform about Budimir’s
coronation. We only learn that “gardinali i biskupi s voljom svega puka posvetiše
kralja i potvrdiše u kraljevstvo”.259 The “consecration” mentioned in this verse
could be a clue as to the possible earlier form of the Latin text and the way the
Priest of Duklja understood the phrase more Romanorum regem.
The character of ceremonies of enthronement in the Western world – since
the mid-eighth century, modelled after enthronements of the first Carolingians –
was sacramental to a large extent.260 Besides the coronation itself, an act of
anointing a king was an important element of the rite. It can be presumed that
such a ceremony was described by the author of the Croatian version of The
Chronicle. According to him, anointment was more important than putting a
crown or diadem on the king’s head. It is assumed that this custom only spread
in Byzantium in the thirteenth century, after the Fourth Crusade, under the
influence of the coronation ritual of the Latin emperors.261 On the other hand,
anointing was known in Serbia from at least the second half of the thirteenth
century, when Domentijan mentioned it, describing the ceremonies of the
257 The entire text of the document: Hrvoje Jurčić, “Die sogenannten ‘Pacta Conventa’ in
kroatischer Sicht,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 1 (1969), pp. 16–17.
258 The place of these fragments of Pacta Conventa and their relationship with the “discursive
literacy” of fourteenth century Croatia were discussed by Mladen Ančić. He compared
Pacta Conventa with the so-called Fragment of Chronology attributed to Archdeacon
John of Gorička. In both texts we find a certain vision of Croatia’s political order before
it was taken over by Hungary. The author of Fragment of Chronology, written in the mid-
fourteenth century, might have known some version of The Chronicle, as it is evidenced
by the mention of the Croatian king “Stephen Volosclavus” and his raiding expedition
against the Tribals and the Serbs, as well as the description of the kingdom of Croatia
spreading east of the Cetina River. Ančić also located in this context remarks from
Supetar Cartulary; he believed that the name Albania appearing in the list was inspired
by the author’s knowledge of The Chronicle. See: Ančić, Dva teksta iz sredine 14. stoleća,
p. 165; 190, ref. 148.
259 Ljetopis, p. 52. “And cardinals and bishops, with the will of all the people, consecrated the
king and confirmed his right to the kingdom”.
260 Although it was not considered a sacrament, see: Boris Uspienski, “Car i patriarcha.
Charyzmat władzy w Rosji,” (Katowice, 1999), pp. 19–22.
261 As Georgije Ostrogorski believed. However, Donald M. Nicol modified this claim, distin-
guishing between unction with oil, which may have been an earlier feature of Byzantine
imperial coronations, and anointing with chrism (μύρον), which probably became wide-
spread under the influence of Latin ceremonies. See: Donald M. Nicol, “Kaisersalbung.
The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual,” Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies 2 (1976), pp. 37–52.
coronation of Stefan the First-Crowned. A similar two-part ritual was also

known to the author of the Croatian text of The Chronicle who wrote about
Svetolik, Budimir’s son: “I krunjen bi i pomazan od archibiskupov”.262 It is pos-
sible that the Priest of Duklja, who did not mention anointment, simply con-
sidered it as a distinctive feature of the Latin rite, and he understood the term
“custom of Roman kings” as the combination of crowning and anointing a king
by an assisting cardinal.
The formula more Romanorum regem and Honorius’ role are consistent
with the Priest of Duklja’s concept, who presented the synod as a complement
to Constantine’s mission on the one hand, and the consolidation of the Slavs
and the Latins on the other. In this way he refuted the allegation of the king’s
unorthodoxy. While maintaining the vision of the dynasty’s origin from the
barbarian Goths, the chronicler managed to present the vision of the kingdom
as a place not only for renewing ancient traditions, but also for organizing
them in such a way that they were adjusted to the circumstances of the foun-
dation of the new state.
The Priest of Duklja, who was most probably a clergyman, emphasized the
special protection the king had given to the Church and its representatives:
“statuit etiam rex, ut nullus perturbaret in aliquo aliquam ecclesiamaut habe-
ret aliquam potestatem seu dominationem in aliqua ecclesia, nisi solus archi-
episcopus vel episcopus, cuius sub iure esset eadem ecclesia, qui vero aliter
faceret, regiam coronam offenderet” (the king also ordered that no one should
dare to offend the Church in any way or to claim any authority or power over
any church except the archbishop or bishop to whom the church is legally sub-
ordinate. And those who would act differently, they would commit an offence
against the royal crown).263 The position concerning usurpation of power in
a diocese under the care of a proper bishop could originally refer to the con-
flict between the centres in Bar and Ragusa. On the other hand, it remains so
detached from the outlined context that any conflict between the two episco-
pal centres could be its source. The emphasis placed by the Priest of Duklja on
the special protection of the Church by Svetopelek was compatible with the
features of a model king-legislator.
The chronicler did not mention any royal insignia. The existence of the crown
can be guessed from the phrase coronatus est. The noun “crown” appeared only
once, in the phrase corona regia referring to royal protection over the Church
of his land. The metonymic use was probably a trace of the Hungarian nomen-
clature and it prompted Šišić to think it must have been added to the text after

176 Chapter 4
the turn of the thirteenth century.264 However, the corresponding point in

the Croatian text also mentions the offence “suprotiva kralju i kruni, ča jest
suprotiva svemu kraljestvu” (against the king and the crown, i.e. against the
entire kingdom).265 It can therefore be assumed that this fragment is not a
late interpolation.
The protection of ecclesiastical goods was a distinguishing feature of a
righteous and pious ruler. In this case, the Priest of Duklja’s remark contained
an even deeper idea. By combining Svetopelek with the concept of the royal
Crown, the chronicler closely linked his authority not only to the land, but
also to the community inhabiting it. Until the twelfth century, crimes against
the royal majesty were treated first of all as an attack on God’s laws, or a real
violation of the corporeality of the ruler. However, the Priest of Duklja – fol-
lowing the concepts established in the thirteenth century by academic studies
of Roman law266 – linked the crime of lèse-majesté with constituted law, thus
reserving its great significance not only for the Church, but also for the entire
community of inhabitants in Svetopelek’s realm. Such an identification of the
king with an abstract concept of the Crown gave the Kingdom of the Slavs a
new quality, and the king, space, law and community were presented in the
narrative as the four most important aspects of an ideal realm.
8 Summary
The reign of King Svetopelek was the most fateful moment in the history of the
fictitious state described by the Priest of Duklja. The ruler not only joined his
kingdom to Christendom, but also, during the course of the congress on the
plain of Dalma, created a new order by granting rights and establishing eccle-
siastical and administrative governance.
The sources of the narrative of Svetopelek used by the Priest of Duklja are
unknown. In the Croatian version the king is called Budimir, which was prob-
ably a later intervention in the text of the legend, perhaps motivated by the
ambitions of the Kačić family. The details present in the text allow us, to some
extent, to connect the figure of the Dalmatian king with the Great Moravian
prince Svatopluk. Traces of the negative characteristics of the Moravian ruler
known in the tradition of Cyril and Methodius are absent in The Chronicle of

266 Jolanta Komornicka, “Contra Signum Nostrum: The Symbolism of Lése-majesté under
Philip VI Valois,” in Crime and Punishment in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age, eds.
Albrecht Classen, Connie Scarborough (Berlin/Boston, 2012), pp. 189–225.
the Priest of Duklja. On the other hand, there is no description of an event simi-
lar to the Synod in Dalma in literature on the “Apostles to the Slavs”. Fragments
of Czech, Hungarian or Ruthenian chronicles show that the figure of Svatopluk
could create its own legendary structures, and the possibility is not excluded
that initially the report about the synod was another example of one of these
independent structures.
The circumstances of the baptism of Dalmatian Svetopelek support the
hypothesis linking this figure with the particular current of the tradition. In the
Priest of Duklja’s narrative, Constantine played a leading role in these events.
Such a vision of the connection between the king and the missionary corre-
sponds with similar legends about the Christianization of other Slavic states.
The absence of the figure of Methodius in Regnum Sclavorum can be explained
by the “black legend” of Constantine’s brother circulated among Latin clergy
in Dalmatia.
Both the image of the baptism and the decisions of the Synod in Dalma
are subordinated to the main vision of solidifying the new community pre-
sented by the Priest of Duklja. In this vision Svetopelek plays the role of a
king-founder and a legislator, leading to the reconciliation of the previously
conflicted groups of the Latins and Slavs. New principles of ordering the state
and the community have been presented as a return to ancient times. The geo-
graphical division is based, to a certain extent, on the concept of a universal
empire, and also refers to the idea of renewing the Roman provinces, as is indi-
cated by consistent nomenclature of toponyms throughout The Chronicle.
Dalma, an eponymous place of legendary character, was the symbolic cen-
tre of the Svetopelek’s state. Dioclea, the archiepiscopal see – the place of the
king’s burial and coronation – became another. Salona, the most important
city of the region, was somewhat marginalized, despite the fact that it became
the see of the other archbishopric.
Although Svetopelek’s baptism was rooted in Slavic tradition, it was com-
pleted in the events of the synod. During this event, Svetopelek rehabilitated
coastal cities, granting them the most important place in the ecclesiastical
organization of his state. The presence of Honorius, the papal legate, was to
emphasize the pope’s special protection over the converted king. The Roman
legates played a much more important role in Dalma than the imperial envoys.
It was Cardinal Honorius who crowned Svetopelek, and the Priest of Duklja
marked the joining of the Kingdom of the Slavs to the Latin community by
using the formula more Romanorum regum in the text.
Knowledge of the tradition of Svetopelek in Croatia and Dalmatia is con-
firmed by a fourteenth-century gloss in the margin of Supetar Cartulary. The
text also includes information about the custom of electing Croatian kings. A
similar vision was also presented by the so-called Pacta conventa. The Priest
178 Chapter 4
of Duklja probably referred to this custom, emphasizing the special bonds

between the king and provincial bans. Also, the very concept of identifying a
ruler and law with the concept of the Crown suggests the thirteenth century as
the earliest possible period for the formation of the legend.
As far as the narrative plane is concerned, the reign of Svetopelek was the
period of the second phase of the Kingdom of the Slavs. The Priest of Duklja
presented the ruler as united with the communities of particular lands repre-
sented by the magnates, and defined both: the borders of the kingdom and its
ideal shape for a long time.
chapter 5
King Pavlimir Bello: the Founder of Ragusa

and the Restorer of the Kingdom
1 Introduction
The fragment about Pavlimir Bello contains one of the most colourful descrip-
tions of a ruler in the whole of Regnum Sclavorum. One of these threads dis-
cusses King Bello, who was connected above all with the process of founding
Ragusa. The ruler with this nickname is mentioned not only in the work by the
Priest of Duklja, but also in the parallel tradition about the founding of the city.
As we shall see, the author of the Latin version of The Chronicle also used this
figure under the pretext of presenting a vision of the renewal of the Kingdom
of the Slavs. In the text, Pavlimir functions both as the founder of the city, and
as the restorer of the kingdom. His very nickname, Bello, suggests a further
image: in line with the model of rex bellicosus, he also embodies a victorious
ruler, whose life is marked by numerous successful campaigns.
In this chapter, we will look at the figure of Pavlimir Bello in the context of
the three aforementioned functions of this ruler. We will begin our analysis
with a description of the situation of the kingdom before his accession to the
throne. This situation determined many later threads, hence examining it in
detail may reveal a wider narrative perspective into which the figure of the
king was placed.
To grasp the Priest of Duklja’s concept fully, let us compare his text with
several other available sources. The Croatian text of The Chronicle will help us
with an initial description of the conflict between King Radoslav and his son,
Časlav. The narrative however becomes inconsistent with the Latin variant, at
exactly the moment when Pavlimir’s father, and then also his son, are supposed
to appear. Therefore, in further analysis we will have to abandon the Croatian
version, from which nothing can be learnt regarding either the foundation
of Dubrovnik, or of King Bello. Besides the Latin version of The Chronicle, we
have several other texts that may constitute a source corpus regarding the ori-
gins of Ragusa, in particular, texts written before the sixteenth century. As we
shall see, even though they share many elements with the story contained in
Regnum Sclavorum, they also help us to notice those parts that are characteris-
tic only for the Priest of Duklja’s narrative.

180 chapter 5
2 Prelude: the Conflict between King Radoslav and His Son.

Comparative Analysis of the Latin and Croatian Variants of
To understand the initial situation that led to Pavlimir’s appearance in our

story, we have to go back to the time of his grandfather, King Radoslav. The
end of the reign of this ruler, according to the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum,
was marked with the actual collapse of the Slavic dynasty. The series of unfor-
tunate events in Regnum Sclavorum began with a rebellion instigated by the
ban of White Croatia, who rose up against the king. Radoslav divided the army
between himself and his son Časlav and defeated the rebels; however, as it
turned out, it did not complete his struggle to stay in power. Časlav – described
by the Priest of Duklja as disobedient to his father in his youth1 – passed the cap-
tives to his people so that they could benefit from the ransom, while Radoslav
magnanimously liberated the rebels. In this situation, the royal troops, jealous
of the unequal distribution of the booties, turned against the king. Časlav, “ele-
vatus in superbiam” (elevated by pride),2 used the situation to attack his father.
Radoslav managed to flee and the Latin text provides a detailed description
of his escape. First, the king went to a place called Lasta, but when he saw the
approaching pursuers, stepped into the sea with his loyal team and reached
a rock near the shore. Fortunately, he was taken by a ship sailing to Apulia.3
Then, Radoslav went from the city of Sipont to Rome. Meanwhile, power over
the Kingdom of the Slavs was taken by Časlav, “maledictus a patre” (cursed by
his father).4 The narrative about Radoslav in the Latin version is split in two
by the description of the rule of his treacherous son. It is worth noting that in
the variant known from Regnum Sclavorum, King Radoslav never returned to
his kingdom.
In the Croatian version of the text, the description of the conflict between
the father and the son is slightly different. In this, the name of the son was
not Časlav, but Seislav. As in the Latin text, the Croatian version emphasized
primarily his lack of humility, referring to him with the stigmatizing nickname
“odmetnik”: pariah, outlaw. This epithet is further explained: Seislav often
opposed his father and planned to deprive him of power. In the Croatian text
(at least in the extant variant) the mishaps were instigated not by the rebellion
1 “iuvenis effectus caepit esse inobediens patri suo”, Ljetopis, p. 62.

2 Ljetopis, p. 62.
3 In L redaction, M: Apulia; H: Pulja; O: Puglia, Ljetopis, p. 63, note 112.
4 Ljetopis, p. 63.
King Pavlimir Bello 181
of the ban which led to the mutiny of the royal troops against the ruler, but was
on the initiative of Seislav himself.
The events could have been presented in a different way in the lost manu-
script of the Croatian version, the so-called Papalić manuscript, which was
possessed by Marulić and which he translated into Latin. It all began with the
rebellion of a certain ban, named Bilić. In both texts – the fragment of the
Croatian version and the translation made by Marulić – there is no toponym
“White Croatia”. The Marulić translation may, in this case, provide insight
into the history of the distortions in particular variants of the text. The way in
which the name of the ban, Bilić, was invented, is probably related to a mistake
(or a deliberate interpolation) made by one of the copyists. He made it up in
relation to the colour white (bijeli, bili), vaguely suggesting the origin of the
rebel dignitary: White Croatia, as mentioned in the Latin text.5
However, the copyist’s omission of the motif of the rebellion in the Croatian
text may not have been a mistake. By omitting information about other rea-
sons for the conflict, the opposition between the father, Radoslav, and the son,
“odmetnik” Seislav, becomes more evident. The Croatian version describes
Radoslav as “the good king” several times. In this narrative, good King Radoslav,
seeing the evil nature of his son, decided to banish him from his country. In
the next sentence, we read about Radoslav gathering the army and intend-
ing to attack the rebels, which suggests that there had previously been some
conspiracy involving Seislav. Radoslav managed to suppress the threat; as the
chronicler states, the land did not want to oppose its old ruler. The king was
merciful to the defeated. Surprisingly, it was exactly that royal mercy that made
Seislav angry. It seems that there are some losses in this fragment of the text,
which becomes rather illogical: why did royal mercy provoke Seislav and his
companions? Perhaps, however, this awkwardness on the part of the editor of
the text is in fact another attempt to show Seislav’s ruthlessness and hardness,
and to contrast these qualities with the mercy and goodness of the old king.
The son stopped “showing respect” to his father and “took” his ban, numerous
kneze, centurions and knights. They all abandoned Radoslav “out of fear” of
his offspring.6 As a result of these events, Radoslav was forced to flee from his
country. The description of his journey to Rome in the Croatian version was
similar to that in the Latin one. In both versions, after giving the account of the
route of the expelled Radoslav to Rome, the narrative is interrupted; however,
5 It could be a transformation similar to the turning of Svetopelek in the Latin version into
Budimir, the king of “sveti puk” [Genetive: “svetogo puka”] in the Croatian version.
6 “Seislav za to na oca svoga razgnjiva i vaze mu vas posluh i poče mu činiti malo počtenja”,
Ljetopis, p. 62.
182 chapter 5
the author of the Croatian version continues the story of the king in a different
way to that in the Latin text: after many years Radoslav returned to his king-
dom with a papal blessing.7
Unlike in Regnum Sclavorum, the Croatian author bitterly criticizes
Radoslav’s subjects, emphasizes his own views on the character of royal power,
and contrasts the father and son in this context. According to the chronicler,
Seislav “expelled his father with the unfaithful Croatians, who feel better while
ruled by fear and force than by good kindness”.8 Šišić considered this sentence
to be a later interpolation.9 It seems, however, that it consistently presents the
same view of the essence of power, which was then repeated by the anonymous
author of this text in the passage concerning the murder of King Zvonimir in
the very finalization of the Croatian version. The subjects can also be blamed
for the situation in the state, for they were not able to recognize accurately the
features of a dynasty predestined to exercise power, yielding to strength and
fear.
The basic difference between the description of the conflict in Regnum
Sclavorum and the Croatian version of The Chronicle is connected with the
evaluation of the figure of Radoslav. The author of the Latin text condemns
Časlav for the intention to kill his father. It seems, however, that he also dis-
approves of Radoslav’s weakness, the king who escaped from his own king-
dom. In the Latin narrative there is no return for the ruler. In the Croatian text,
Radoslav, after the death of his son, and thanking God’s justice, returned from
exile, and the consistency of his character is emphasized by the fact that he
once again forgave his opponents.
Both anonymous authors assess the king’s attitude differently. This diver-
gence of opinions is evident in the way they describe Radoslav’s escape. Both
agree that the king and his men rushed to the sea and managed to reach the
rock, in both narrations called “Radoslav’s boulder”.10 However, according to
the Croatian text, the king decided on this desperate act because of his faithful
people, and escaped, “worrying more about them than about himself”.11 The
Latin text omitted this responsible motivation. Instead, the Priest of Duklja
7 Ljetopis, p. 66.
8 “I progna dobrog kralja oca svoga s nevirnimi Hrvati, koji su bolji bili prid strahom i pito-
miji pod silom, nere vladani dobrotom dobrimi”, Ljetopis, p. 62.
10 In the Latin text: “Radoslavi camich sive petra”, while in the H. redaction: “Radosalj kami”,
Ljetopis, p. 63.
11 “s njima pobigoše tja, i veće se brinjaše njimi, nego sam sobom”, Ljetopis, p. 63.
claims that Radoslav, after hearing about his pursuit by Časlav, fled into the sea
“overcome with fear”.12
The text of the Croatian version, although probably distorted in several
places, portrayed the strife between Radoslav and Seislav as a conflict of the
values represented by either figure. The author emphasized the “evil” choice of
the subjects who opposed the “good” king. In the Latin text, such a valuation
was pushed to the background, and the episode is simply another description
of a clash between members of the dynasty. The deeds of Časlav/Seislav are
stigmatized in both texts, but it was only in the Croatian version that his sin is
considered to be more than just raising his hand against his father. Radoslav
acquired the features of a biblical victim, and his conflict with his son was
presented in terms of a struggle between mercy and force.
Nikola Banašević interpreted the conflict between Radoslav and Časlav as
the implementation of a plan modelled after the story of David and Absalom.13
He not only pointed to Časlav’s later violent end as similar to Absalom’s fate,
but also observed that “David’s successor was his son, yet not born from the
same mother as Absalom”. He referred to Radoslav’s second marriage, which
was contracted in Rome, and to the career of his grandson, Pavlimir. Such a
juxtaposition is somewhat exaggerated, although it cannot be ruled out that
the anonymous author referred in this place to the topoi associated with the
biblical story. In fact, Radoslav as presented in Regnum Sclavorum – the king
who banished himself, showing that he was not worthy of ruling – is further
from David than the figure of the good King Radoslav from the Croatian ver-
sion of The Chronicle. In the latter, justice is done with the help of God, and
when Radoslav learns about the death of his son, he thanks God for avenging
the mischiefs and goes, with a papal blessing, to regain the throne.14 Perhaps
this is also the reason for differences in the way the early part of the usurper’s
rule is characterized in both versions. In the Latin text, we read: “Ciaslavus,
praeterea maledictus a patre, caepit regnare” (Časlav, although cursed by his
father, began his reign),15 while the Croatian text clearly states that when
Seislav began to reign, he was cursed not by his father, but by God.16
12 “timore percussi”, ibidem, p. 63. This is a correction of “tempore” in the edition of Lucius
made by Šišić. See: F. Šišić, Letopis, p. 314, note 27.
14 “Po tom učinjenju slisavše dobri kralj Radoslav gore [rečenu] dostojnu smrt sina svoga
Seislava i nalidnikov njegovih, zafali Bogu, koji pravedeno sudi. I vrati se kralj k mistu
svomu z blagoslovom svetog oca pape”, Ljetopis, p. 66.
15 Ljetopis, p. 63.
16 Ljetopis, p. 64.
184 chapter 5
3 The End of Časlav’s Rule: Interregnum
Časlav is perhaps one of the few rulers in this part of Regnum Sclavorum whose
existence could be confirmed in other independent sources. When discussing
this form, scholars often mentioned the name of Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος), a
Serbian archon known from De administando imperio, a son of Klonimir and
an unnamed Bulgarian woman. Constantine Porphyrogennetos suggested
that Tzeeslav’s rise to power was preceded by a period of internal struggle.
The Bulgarians who seemed to support Tzeeslav, however, draw the Serbian
župans into an ambush and kidnapped them, and then plundered and depop-
ulated their lands. Porphyrogennetos also noted a legend about Tzeeslav, who,
when he finally escaped from Bulgarian captivity, found only “fifty men with-
out women and children” in the entire country “who subsisted on hunting”.17
Tzeeslav, with the help of the emperor, managed to strengthen his rule as an
archon and raise the country from destruction, but after his death the family
became extinct.
Porphyrogennetos undoubtedly noted here the local tradition associated
with archon Tzeeslav. The motif of a depopulated land suggests semi-legendary
tradition. Moreover, some similarities to the stories known from The Chronicle
can be traced in the narrative itself. It is possible that the presence of the
figure of Časlav in the Latin version of The Chronicle was an echo of a nar-
rative shaped around the events described by Porphyrogennetos. The entire
tale of Časlav’s rule, however, differs significantly from the one known from
De administando imperio and, above all, it was integrated into the overall struc-
ture of the Priest of Duklja’s work. That is how we should see the description
of the interregnum after the death of the king-usurper; however, we should
not suspect here any apparent connection to Tzeeslav’s death and the end
of the alleged Vlastimirović dynasty, as some historians have interpreted
this information.18
In Regnum Sclavorum, the fate of King Časlav is first and foremost the result
of his offenses against his father, and it is this sin that ultimately leads to his
downfall. This time, the author of the Latin text does not refer to divine jus-
tice (divinum iudicum), which seems to confirm our recent conclusions from
an analysis of the differences between the Croatian and Latin versions. The
Priest of Duklja does not see divine intervention in Časlav’s defeat, although
he repeatedly described its manifestations in other places. Divine justice was
manifested, for example, in the circumstances of the death of the treacherous

18 On identification of Časlav i Tzeeslav: Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 133, notes 113–
115; Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, pp. 177–178.
Vladislav;19 divine intervention led to the fall of King Legec and his seven sons,
punished by God with the plague;20 and also to the defeat of the brothers of
King Bodin who were killed in battle because God did not like the sins of their
father.21 It is enough to mention once again the fragment of the Croatian text
in which Radoslav gives thanks to God when he learns that his son has died, to
see that in Regnum Sclavorum Časlav’s death is presented in a slightly different
tone: it did not lead to a betterment of the situation in the country. In the Latin
variant, Radoslav did not return from Rome, and the end of Časlav’s rule was
followed by the period of interregnum.
According to all available versions of The Chronicle, the death of the sin-
ful Časlav was violent and shameful. Although he achieved some temporary
war successes defeating the troops of Hungarian princeps Kys in the battle of
Civelino (the chronicler explains the etymology of the place claiming that the
“Hungarians wailed like [slaughtered] pigs”), yet soon afterwards he shared
their fate.
Časlav’s military victories could be attributed to the merit of Tychomil, a
hero who helped him. Good fortune deserted the ruler shortly after the battle,
when Tychomil (it seems) was no longer with him. Information that Časlav
was defeated by the widow of the princeps Kys could have emphasized his
military awkwardness: his defeat was caused by an army commanded by a
woman. According to the Latin text, Časlav was surprised in his camp and
taken prisoner, then bound and thrown into the Sava River. Other versions
offer even more shameful details. In the Croatian version King Seislav, before
his death, was shown tethered in public for an entire day.22 Orbini and Marulić,
in their translations of manuscripts that have not survived, state that his nose
and ears were cut off.23 His degrading execution was appropriate to a sinner –
and undeserved to a king.
In Regnum Sclavorum, along with Časlav, “his whole house”24 is also killed.
And, although the Croatian version of The Chronicle also emphasizes that
“pojde po zlu Seislav i vas dom njegov” (Seislav and his family were ended
19 Ljetopis, p. 59.
20 “Sed deus omnipotens, cui cuncta bona placent et displicent omnia mala atque peccata,
brevi in tempore percussit patrem, claudum corpore et anima, et filios eius pestilentia et
clade, quemadmodum percusserunt ipsi fraters et nepotes suos”, Ljetopis, pp. 76–77.
21 “Caeteri autem fratres Bodini, quia displicuit deo peccatum patris eorum propter peri-
urium, […] omnes in bello mortui sunt vivente patre oerum”, Ljetopis, p. 95.
22 Ljetopis, p. 66.
23 Ljetopis, p. 66, note 127; Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, p. 215; M. redaction: Regvm Delmatię
atqve Croatię gesta, p. 54; Šišić, Letopis, p. 410.
24 Ljetopis, p. 66: “Conversus est dolor eius in peccatum, quo exercuit circa patrem suum
super caput eius et periit ipse et domus eius tota”.
186 chapter 5
violently),25 the consequence of the death of the ruler was not an interrup-
tion of succession, because power was taken back by the returning Radoslav.
In the Latin text, to the contrary, Časlav’s death resulted in an interregnum
and the actual break-up and disintegration of the state. The Priest of Duklja
writes: “[…] Remansit terra sine rege et bani caeperunt dominari terram suam
unusquique super provincias et regiones subiugaveruntque sibi iupanos et
ab eis tributa accipiebant, sicut rex solebant accipere”.26 (The country was
left without a king, and the bans began to administer their own land, each of
them their own province and area, and they subordinated the župans, charg-
ing them with tribute, as the king used to do. However, not one of them had
the courage to call himself a king). Despite the seizure of royal prerogatives,
none of the župans and bans proclaimed themselves king. Even Tychomil, the
hero and confidant of the killed usurper, who at that time had already seized
Raška and proclaimed himself a great župan, did not go as far as to proclaim
himself king.
The figure of Tychomil within the narrative is important for several reasons:
firstly, he is one of the most important elements connecting the narrative of
the rule of Časlav to the rule of Pavlimir. Secondly, the fate of Tychomil and his
successors, mentioned by the Priest of Duklja in a later part of the work, would
have an impact on the decisions of successive Slavonic kings. For these reasons
we should focus further on Tychomil.
4 Tychomil’s Career: a Trace of the Lost Traditions of Raška Župans

or a Literary Adaptation of the Biblical Topos?
There are many indications that the motif of Tychomil is an independent inclu-
sion in the narrative structure. Tychomil, the son of a priest from the village of
Rabika, was a shepherd in the country of Sraga, and an excellent runner and
hunter. He grazed the herds of prince Budislav and often accompanied him in
hunting, until he accidentally killed Paluša, a favourite bitch of the prince, by
whipping her to death. Fearing revenge from Budislav, he escaped and found
protection with Časlav.27 This rather enigmatic fragment is highly likely to have
some hidden meaning which is obscure to today’s readers. We can intuitively
sense the traces of a separate narrative in the shepherd topos, in the charac-
teristic origin of Tychomil, in his intimacy with the prince, and in the killing of
25 Ljetopis, p. 66.
26 Ljetopis, p. 68.
27 Ljetopis, p. 64.
Paluša – the most enigmatic motif. The story includes loci communes known
from legends and romances.28 We will return to them later in our analysis.
The figure of Tychomil appears once again in a description of the invasion
by princeps Kys. During the abovementioned battle at Civelino, Tychomil con-
tributed greatly to Časlav’s victory and showed great courage. It also seems that
he had a conflict with Kys, because he hunted him down on the battlefield, and
killed him. Then he cut off the head of the Magyar leader and placed it before
Časlav. The king repaid Tychomil by appointing him a župan of Drina and giv-
ing him the daughter of a ban of Raška, which is important, because we know
that after the death of his father-in-law, Tychomil was indeed titled a župan
of Raška. After the fall of Časlav and that of the kingdom, Tychomil – prob-
ably the greatest of magnates – adopted the title of “the great župan”, although
even he did not dare to call himself a king or a ban, as was emphasized by the
Priest of Duklja.29 Tychomil is mentioned for the last time on the occasion of
problems caused to Pavlimir by his descendant Ljutomir, a župan of Raška. We
know that although Ljutomir was defeated after the death of King Pavilimir
Bello, the heirs of Tychomil regained independence and ruled Raška autono-
mously as its great župans.30
The story of Tychomil, on the one hand, has a structure similar to that of
a heroic legend, while on the other hand it is closely related to the history of
Raška and the local lineage of župans. It may be justified to suppose that in
fact it is some dynastic legend incorporated into the text of The Chronicle.
Unfortunately, as in the case of the historical character of the figure of Časlav,
the lack of more reliable information does not allow anything more than ask-
ing many questions and formulating hypotheses.31
Even Banašević, who generally showed a critical attitude towards seek-
ing the influence of oral epics or folk legends in Regnum Sclavorum, found it
28 The legendary motif of a hunting dog in ancient literature is so common that it is

impossible to discuss it here. In most legends, however, a dog kills a hunter, not the
other way around. Paweł Żmudzki mentioned in this context the extremely well-known
story of Actaeon, but also Biblical stories about Ahab and Jezebel: Paweł Żmudzki, “Psy
Jaćwingów. Dlaczego Marcin Kromer zinterpretował rocznikarską zapiskę o zwycięstwie
Leszka Czarnego inaczej niż Jan Długosz,” in Historia narrat. Studia mediewistyczne ofiar-
owane profesorowi Jackowi Banaszkiewiczowi, eds. Andrzej Pleszczyński, Joanna Sobiesiak,
Michał Tomaszek (Lublin, 2012), pp. 76–95.
29 “Tyc[h]omil etiam, defuncto socero, dominabatur terram Rassam, sed nec regem nec
banum ausus est se vocare, sed tantum iupanum maiorem ideo”, Ljetopis, p. 69.
31 One example of such presumptions would be the recurring hypothesis about historicity
of Tychomil: Muhaemd Hadžijahić, “Tihomir iz ‘Kronike popa Dukljanina’ – historijska
ličnost?,” Godišnjak Društva istoričara BiH 17 (1966–1967), pp. 397–418.
188 chapter 5
legitimate to associate certain threads in the narrative about Tychomil with a

heroic tale, and admitted that in the case of Tychomil such a source of inspira-
tion cannot be excluded.32 However, in the later South Slavic folk epic known
to us, there are no tales that would resemble stories similar to that of Tychomil,
prince Budislav or their hunting together. In the duel between Tychomil and
princeps Kys, Banašević saw traces of the Biblical story of David.33 Tychomil,
the shepherd decapitating sinister Kys and bringing his head to Časlav, was
similar to David, who cut off Goliath’s head and gave it as homage to Saul.
Banašević even quoted the words said by Goliath to David, according to The
Book of Samuel (1Sm 17:43) – “numquid ego canis sum, quod tu venis ad me
cum baculo?” (Am I a dog, that you come to me with a stick?) – noticing here
a similarity to the motif of the killing of Budislav’s dog Paluša, who he hit with
a whip,34 although in our opinion this interpretation is rather strained. In
another place, fairly guardedly, he hypothesized on the name of princeps Kys –
in Hungarian, kis means small – in which he wanted to see an inverted image
of the giant champion of the Philistines.35 There are many more similar coin-
cidences; for example, Kish was the name of the father of Saul, mentioned in
the Bible in the passages describing the duel of David and Goliath. The attempt
to link the two stories, of Tychomil and of David, was repeated by Živković,36
and is still an uncertain but reasonable way of interpreting the motif of the
mysterious hero. However, such an interpretation is rather superficial, for the
indicated analogies are often based on comparisons of the physiognomy of
the characters and the course of their struggles, which may be considered an
over-interpretation; in these circumstances, some common features could be
derived from the requirements of the narrative structure of the description
of the duel itself, repeating a specific kind of image. The correspondence of
the details does not have to result from the fact that the story of Tychomil was
intentionally made up to imitate the biblical story of David and Goliath. It
could simply have resulted from a limited set of writing means to illustrate this
type of battle-related theme.
The sources of the story can also be traced somewhere else. For example,
Šišić interpreted the name Kys differently. He found in it another confirma-
tion of the hypothesis that the descriptions of the fights between Časlav
and the Magyars was an echo of historical struggles between the Byzantine
Empire and Hungary. Šišić, who traced the name “Tzeeslav” in the work by

33 Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, p. 64, note 121.
35 Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, p. 88, note 40.
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, also noticed a character called Chyz, Chiz or

Ciz in Chronicon pictum Vindobonense.37 According to the chronicle, Chyz, a
comes, was killed fighting against the Byzantines in 1128.
Medini interpreted the character of Kys in quite a different way. He specu-
lated that the name “Kys” could simply be derived from the noun “kiskanje”.
Vuk Karadžić translated it as “mournful crying”, while Joakim Stulić explained
it as an exclamation phrase of chasing something away (compare Polish “a
kysz!”, ‘out, begone, pish’), related to the verb skukahu [wail] used in the text.
According to Medini, the latter word has an etymological connection with
Civelino, the location of the battle described by the Priest of Duklja.38
Interestingly, neither the Croatian text nor its Latin translation made
by Marulić contain the name of Kys;39 in the former text, the opponent of
Tychomil is described as a nameless herceg na Ugrih [duke of Hungary]. In
those redactions, both themes, Tychomil’s pastoral adventure and the killing of
the pointer Paluša,40 as well as the motive of the Hungarians attack on Časlav’s
kingdom, are related as a cause-and-effect series. For the commander of the
Hungarian troops is the same vengeful prince who caused Tychomil to seek
refuge with Seislav.41 In such a narrative system, the reason for the invasion of
the Hungarians is explained as their desire to take revenge on Tychomil. It also
justifies the rather exhaustive description of the duel, in which Tychomil cuts
off the head of the Hungarian duke. The tale is undoubtedly more dramatic
and coherent – and that cannot be said about the text of Regnum Sclavorum.
It is difficult to decide, however, whether it is an older version of some legend
primarily focused on the conflict between the hero (Tychomil) and herceg, or
rather the author of the Croatian variant decided to relate Tychomil’s adven-
tures even more in the convention of a heroic legend.
Linking the figure of Tychomil with the tradition formed in connection
with the lineage of the rulers of Raška, and later associated with the Nemanjić
37 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, chapter 58, Historiae Hungaricae Fontes Domestici

vol. 2, ed. Mátyás Florianus (Leipzig, 1883), p. 211 [in this edition: “Ciz”].
38 Milorad Medini, Starine dubrovačke (Dubrovnik, 1935), p. 47.
39 Črnčić, noting the translation by Marulić, believed that manuscript of the Croatian text
possessed by Marulić included the name “Kys”, later distorted in translation as “Hic”, see:
Ljetopis, p. 64, note 121.
40 The motif of killing the dog was omitted in all early editions of the translation by Marulić,
but – as it was proved by Branimir Glavičić, who analysed early manuscripts of the text –
it was probably the fault of Lucius, who omitted this passage in the first printed edition:
Branimir Glavičić, “Je li Marulić izostavio epizod s Palušom?,” Colloquia Maruliana 6
(1997), pp. 87–91.
41 “(…) kneza ali hercega na Ugrih”, Ljetopis, p. 64; “(…) principis Vdislaui inter Pannones
nobilissimi (…)”; Regvm Delmatię atqve Croatię gesta, p. 52; Šišić, Letopis, p. 409.
190 chapter 5
dynasty, is also rather uncertain. The name of Tychomil was associated with the
Nemanjić family in various ways by late Serbian annals. Živković paid particu-
lar attention to those of them which, while listing the ancestors of Nemanja,
called Tychomil the uncle of Čudomir,42 i.e. which presented both figures in
a relationship similar to the one between a certain Tišemir, son of Pavlimir
Bello, and his father-in-law, a Croatian ban called Čudomir (as described by the
anonymous author of Regnum Sclavorum). However, it does not seem possible
to state on this basis (as Živković suggests) that this is a thirteenth-century leg-
end about the origins of the great župan Raška which is a point of reference of
all the later annals mentioning Tychomil as a member of the Nemanjić family
tree. Also, in Orbini’s Il regno degli Slavi, there is a reference to Tychomil and
Simeon being sons of Stefan Nemanja.43 However, as Nikola Radojčić noted,
Orbini simply repeated the mistake included in Imperia Graeci historia, the
Latin translation of the work by Byzantine chronicler Niketas Choniates. The
anonymous translator of Imperia … wrote about Simeon, the son of Nemanja.44
In fact, “Simeon” was not the name of an alleged successor of the Serbian ruler,
but the monastic name of Nemanja himself. Hence also the figure of Tychomil
in the work by Orbini might have been inspired by the erroneous placement of
Tihomir, the real brother of Stefan Nemanja, on the ancestral tree.
Later Serbian genealogies and annals provide a wide range of possibili-
ties for historians’ imaginations. Ljubomir Kovačević once suggested that
Pavlimir Bello is identical to Beli Uroš, the ancestor of Nemanja mentioned
in genealogies,45 although there are no premises for this assertion apart from
some phonetic similarity. The origin of the Nemanjić dynasty is a mystery to
this day, which only encourages historians to propose the next hypotheses
on this subject. Our knowledge on the genealogy of Stefan Nemanja is sur-
prisingly limited. We also do not know much about the dynastic traditions of
Raška župans preceding the narrative about the sacred branch (sveta loza) of
the Nemanjić family.46 The political program of Rastko Nemanjić (St. Sava)
was connected with the monastery in Žiča, the centre of autocephaly. It
42 Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, ed. Ljubomir Stojanović (Belgrade/Sremski Karlovci, 1927),
p. 184; Živković, Gesta regum, p. 200.
43 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, p. 243, 249.
44 See: Nikola Radojčić, Srpska istorija Mavra Orbinija (Belgrade, 1950), p. 27.
45 Ljubomir Kovačević, “Nekoliko pitanja o Stefanu Nemanji: prilog kritici izvora za srpsku
istoriju XII veka,” Glas – Srpska kralijevska akademija 58 (1900), pp. 43–45.
46 See: Jan Leśny, Studia nad początkami serbskiej dynastii Nemaniczów (połowa XI–koniec
XII wieku) (Wrocław, 1989), including also extensive literature. See also: Angeliki
Papageorgiou, “The Earliest Mention of Stefan Nemanja in Byzantine Sources,” in Niš i
Vizantija XII, ed. Miša Rakocija (Niš, 2015), pp. 39–47.
effectively ruled out any side issues within the official ideology of Serbian kings.47
The double coronation of Stefan Nemanjić (even if it was only an invention of
the chronicler) clearly indicates the two sources of power of the great župans.
As shown by Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, the rulers of Raška and Serbia, in their
efforts for papal support and a crown from Rome, also had to put themselves
in the role of the heirs of the rulers of Duklja.48 In the wake of the inclusion
of Duklja and the coastal areas under direct Serbian authority, and after estab-
lishing the uniform dynastic narrative related to the figures of Stefan Nemanja
and his two sons, this part of the ideological heritage of the Nemanjić dynasty,
loosely connected with the mainstream, quickly ceased to play a greater role.
It is inconclusive whether Tychomil’s story could be such a non-program leg-
end of the origin of Raška župans (over time deprived of pragmatic meaning),
or whether its possible connections could be interpreted only as evidence
that later authors of Serbian annals and genealogies knew the motifs of
Regnum Sclavorum.
5 The Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum and Other Medieval Sources

about the Founding of Ragusa
The actual narrative of Pavlimir, known as Bello, starts after the description of
the interregnum, when the Priest of Duklja changed the plan of events by mov-
ing the action of the work to Rome. However, the deeds of Pavlimir cannot be
separated from the history of founding another city – Ragusa. In the Latin text
of Regnum Sclavorum, the later king of the Slavs is described as the founder
of this important centre. In the Croatian text there is no such story. The men-
tion of the death of Časlav is the last passage in which the plot of both texts
basically overlaps, and we can speak of quite considerable accord between the
two variants. As for the events which took place after the death of Časlav, the
Croatian and Latin authors began to present them in a completely different
way, so references to the old-Croatian text can no longer help us in interpreting
the events related to the figure of Pavlimir.
The last event appearing in both versions is the reception by Radoslav,
based in Rome, of the news about the death of his son, the usurper. We have
47 See: Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, Vladarska ideologija Nemanjića. Diplomatička studija

(Belgrade, 1997), pp. 100–117. On Žiča: Błażej Szefliński, Trzy oblicza Sawy Nemanjicia.
Postać historyczna, autokreacja, postać literacka (Łódź, 2016), pp. 113–126.
48 Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, “Istorijskopolitički kontekst scene miropomazanja u
đakonikonu crkve Uspenja Bogorodice u monastiru Morači,” in Monastir Morača, eds.
Branislav Todić, Danica Popović (Belgrade, 2006), pp. 45–55.
192 chapter 5
already mentioned this event in the context of the curse imposed on Časlav. In
the Croatian text, the exiled king returned with a papal blessing “to his place”.49
The Priest of Duklja, on the other hand, gave a description of “the land without
the king”, and after outlining the situation in the kingdom, he presented the
events taking place in Rome at that time: “Praeterea parentes regis Radaslavi
et milites, qui cum ipso erant Romae, audientes quo accidit, rogaverunt regem,
ut uxorem acciperet”50 (When the relatives of King Radoslav and the soldiers
who stayed with him in Rome heard what had happened, they urged the king
to marry). Such a development of the motif of the exiled monarch may con-
firm our supposition that in the eyes of the author of Regnum Sclavorum, the
ruler, who had previously escaped in fear from the state, was not the best can-
didate to bring order to the lands already divided by magnates. On the other
hand – according to the Priest of Duklja – a king able to unify the Kingdom of
the Slavs again should come from Radoslav’s family.
Radoslav married a Roman aristocrat and became the father of Petrislav.
When the old king died, he was buried in the church of St. John Lateran.51 The
reference to this particular church may be linked somehow to the verse on
the “papal blessing” preserved in the Croatian text. In addition, the fifteenth-
century Annales Ragusisni reported that King Radoslav enjoyed papal pro-
tection in Rome and was elevated there to the rank of capitanio.52 The text
limits the role of Petrislav to marrying another noble Roman girl and fathering
Pavlimir. After the death of Petrislav, a conflict broke out between his family
49 “I vrati se kralj k mistu svomu z blagoslavom svetog oca pape”, Ljetopis, pp. 66.
50 Ljetopis, p. 69.
51 “Qui coactus eorum precibus accepit uxorem Romanam, valde nobilibus ortam natalibus,
de qua genuit filium, quem Petrislavum vocavit. Post haec in senectute bona mortuus est
et sepultus in ecclesia sancti Ioannis Lateranensis cum magna honorificentia”, Ljetopis,
p. 69. Both Šišić and Mošin emphasize the significance of this very church, which until
1305 was one of the most important Roman temples. It burned down in 1308 and – accord-
ing to scholars – did not manage to regain its previous position: Ljetopis, p. 69, note 132.
52 Annales Ragusini, p. 3; Živković associates this vague function with the Byzantine title
“katepano”, although, as he emphasized, he referred to the meaning from before 1100:
Tibor Živković, “The Legend of Pavlimir Bello,” in idem, Forging Unity. The south Slavs
between east and west 550–1150 (Belgrade, 2008), pp. 210–211. Kunčević thought that infor-
mation about the cordial relationship between the pope and the ancestors of Pavlimir
had been invented by Dubrovnik-based chroniclers, an element of ideology of the urban
patriciate and “enhancement” of Regnum Sclavorum, which was laconic as far as this sub-
ject is concerned. This makes the fact that the papal blessing was mentioned only in the
Croatian text of The Chronicle (not connecting the motif of the king’s return with founda-
tion of the city) even more surprising: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 70–71.
and the “other Romans”.53 This conflict caused Pavlimir, his faithful people and
their families to decide to leave the city.54
This is where the motif of Ragusa was introduced. The very story of the
foundation of the city is much older and was probably composed of several
previously separate motifs.55 The Priest of Duklja presented it in a rather
digressive manner, and the narrative of this fragment is somewhat inconsistent
This time, the usually enigmatic author decided to describe the background
of Pavlimir’s return in detail, abandoning Rome and discussing events taking
place in Dalmatia. Šišić noticed that the way this fragment is presented differs
from the rest of the text, and disrupts its structure. The part describing the
conflict in Rome and Pavlimir’s youth is interrupted by a detailed discussion of
the Saracen invasion of Dalmatian cities, and a description of the tensions that
soon developed between the Latins, fleeing from the invaders, and the Slavs.
This digression suggests to us that the Priest of Duklja had access to a source
describing these events. For Šišić the case was clear. He was convinced that
the discontinuity in the text was caused by later glosses. He also managed to
locate the background of the history of the invasion. In his opinion, it refers to
the events of 841, when, on the second day of Easter, the Muslim pirates com-
manded by Kalfun attacked and sacked Ancona, Osor, Budva, Rosa and Kotor:
“(…) this information bears all the features of an old record, prepared just after
841”56 stated Šiśić.
Even if he was right and correctly identified the echoes of the real events in
the Priest of Duklja’s narrative, it is quite improbable that the abovementioned
fragment was a late gloss (in fact Šišić often proposed such an explanation),
as the passage seems to fit too well into the Priest of Duklja’s narrative to be
an addition. The issue of the consolidation of the Latins and the Slavs under
53 “Post mortem vero eius, parentes eius caeperunt habere inimicitias cum caeteris
Romanis …”: Ljetopis, p. 69.
54 Ljetopis , p. 70.
55 Irena Benyovsky Latin recently published excellent studies examining the process of con-
structing the urban identity of Dalmatian cities in narrative sources from the late medi-
eval and early modern periods. She interpreted the story about the beginnings of Ragusa,
known from Regnum Sclavorum, in the broader context of a social and ethnic shift in
the population of the city, which had to absorb the Slavic elements of its identity. Irena
Benyovsky Latin, “Grad i zaleđe u narativnim vrelima: konstruiranje tradicije o ranosred-
njovjekovnim doseljenjima u Dubrovnik iz slavenskog zaleđa,” Acta Historiae 25 (2017),
pp. 473–510; eadem, “Introduction. Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages. Image
of the Town in the Narrative Sources Reality and/ or Fiction?,” in: Towns and Cities of the
Croatian Middle Ages. Image of the Town in the Narrative Sources Reality and/or Fiction?,
eds. Irena Benyovsky Latin, Zrinka Pešorda Vardić (Zagreb, 2017), pp. 13–60.
194 chapter 5
the joint leadership of the Slavic monarch is also close to the general message
of the work. In addition, the description of the destruction of Dalmatian cit-
ies and the consequences of this appears in the narrative for a specific pur-
pose, and fulfils an important function in the general story of the founding of
Ragusa. Traces of the numerous loci communes that often appear in legends
about the foundation of capitals or states are noticeable, too.57 Moreover, it
can be assumed that King Pavlimir was included in a multi-threaded tale in
which older stories about the beginnings of Ragusa were collected. Let us try
to distinguish the particular motifs that build a global narrative:
1. The city of Epidaurus is sacked.
2. Its inhabitants flee and establish Ragusa.
3. Newcomers arrive from outside. They also establish a city and ultimately
merge with the former inhabitants of Epidaurus.
4. The militant king of the Slavs rules in the vicinities of Dubrovnik.
Only the fourth point of story is connected directly with Pavlimir Bello. The
process of linking him with the tale of the origins of the city can be traced
through other medieval records about the founding of Ragusa. Besides Regnum
Sclavorum, these records include: relevant fragments of De administando
imperio of Constantine Porphyrogennetos; Historia Salonitana of Thomas
the Archdeacon; the Latin poem by Miletius; and the anonymous Annales
Ragusini, presumably from the end of the fifteenth century.58 The latter are
preserved in several slightly distinct early modern manuscripts, some of which
were published together with the text of Annali di Ragusa by Nicola Ragnina in
the sixteenth century.59
57 See: Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajeczne, pp. 7–44 – above all, the legend on the arrival
of Grakchus/Krak; Třeštik, Mytý kmene Čechů, pp. 99–126 – about foundation of Prague in
the context of cosmogonic myth of the Slavs.
58 Natko Nodilo, the nineteenth-century editor, believed that the beginnings of Annales
Ragusini should be sought even as early as the fourteenth century. He based his edi-
tion on three of the eight manuscripts known to him. Fragments of several others were
published by Vikentij Makušev: Izsledovanija ob hisioričeskih pamjatrtikah i bitopisatel-
jah Dubrovnika [Викентий Макушев, Исследования об исторических памятниках и
бытописателях Дубровника] (Sankt Petersburg, 1867).
59 Medieval narrative sources mentioning the beginnings of the city should also be sup-
plemented with the work Historia Ragusii, authored by the Italian writer Johannes
Conversini of Ravenna (Ivan Revenjanin) who visited the city in the second half of the
fourteenth century. Brogi Bercoff claimed however that Conversini – because of his style
and technique – must be treated rather as a representative of Italian humanism: Brogi
Bercoff, “Humanistyczne dziejopisarstwo w Dalmacji i Chorwacji: wzory włoskie i mity
narodowe,” in eadem, Królestwo Słowian, p. 30. On specifics of medieval records about the
foundation of Ragusa in comparison with modern works about the origins of the city, see:
Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 26–32 passim.
As far as the issue of the interdependence of the abovementioned texts is

concerned, regardless of the controversy surrounding the adopted dating of
The Chronicle, it seems unlikely that Thomas the Archdeacon knew the con-
tent of this work. Since Šišić’s time, many scholars, pointing to the similari-
ties of some motifs described by Thomas, claimed the impact of the Priest
of Duklja’s text on them. These suppositions concerned, among others, the
Gothic theme and the motif of the founding of Ragusa, which are present in
both works. Thus, what should be a rather cautious assumption was actually
presented as strong evidence in literature on the subject.60 Even Mijušković,
who proposed a theory of a much later genesis for The Chronicle, could not
address this issue in a convincing manner.61 Živković, however, noticed that in
many places where the narratives of Thomas the Archdeacon and the anony-
mous author of The Chronicle are similar, the Thomas’ version is broader and
more comprehensive, which may suggest that the information flowed in the
opposite direction.62 Nevertheless, analysis of the story of the origins of Ragusa
in both works indicates that the vision of the course of events related to the
founding of the city was quite coherent and widespread during the time of the
chroniclers; it could have been incorporated into each work independently,
and the impact of one work on the other was not necessary.
Also, De administando imperio, the oldest of the abovementioned works,
could not have affected the content of the other narratives in any way. In
fact, the work of Constantine Porphyrogennetos was virtually unknown until
the beginning of the seventeenth century: its first Latin version by Johannes
Meursius was published in 1611.63 There may have been a copy of Constantine’s
work in the library of St. Andrew’s Monastery near Ragusa, and Živković spec-
ulated that Orbini, and possibly Ludovicus Tuberon (1459–1527), might have
used it. However, he believed that the manuscript was brought there only by
Tuberon, who could have come into possession of it – or simply read the con-
tent of the work – during his studies in Paris. There is no indication, however,
that De administando imperio was known in Dalmatia before the fifteenth
century.64
60 Šišić, Letopis, p. 50n.; Mošin, “Uvod,” in Ljetopis, p. 23. While Mijušković was not convinced
by Šišić (Mijušković, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, p. 49), Leśny thought that “it cannot be
doubted” that Thomas the Archdeacon made used of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja:
Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 26.
61 Mijušković, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, p. 49.
63 Tibor Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors before 1611,” in
idem, Forging Unity, pp. 157–173.
64 Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors,” pp. 166–173.
196 chapter 5
Regarding the other abovementioned texts, the poem by Miletius and the
interesting fragment of anonymous Annales Ragusini are closely linked to the
tradition of local Dubrovnik-based chroniclers. It is not inconceivable that
the author of Annales knew Miletius’ verses, although the narration about the
foundation of the city does not indicate this conclusively. The relationship
between both the abovementioned texts and Regnum Sclavorum is not clear.
Primarily, did the author of the Ragusa annals know – at least indirectly – any
narrative motifs recognizable in the text of The Chronicle? There are many
indications that he did, though in the case of the episode in which we are inter-
ested, he probably gained additional information from local sources. There is
also the possibility of a back influence in connection with the hypothesis that
the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum was elaborated and completed in Ragusa.
The work was probably brought to the city only by Tuberon, who owned a copy
and entitled it Docleatis authoris annales (The Author Docleata’s Annals).65
The textual dependence between Regnum Sclavorum and Annales Ragusini
is uncertain, though many fragments of the latter were undoubtedly supple-
mented with information also known from The Chronicle. Besides this, direct
borrowings among other early accounts describing the beginning of Ragusa
can probably be excluded. In this context, however, the similarity of these nar-
ratives is even more striking. Not only the broader plot structures, but even
the characteristic details reappear in various configurations. Reading them, we
may have an impression similar to listening to several people who each try to
summarize or repeat a text they have heard or read.
The repetitiveness of the motifs in all the stories about the birth of Ragusa
was noticed by Radoslav Katičić, who suggested that all accounts were based
on a single source, now lost. In this hypothetical text, King Bello was not men-
tioned. He appeared only in Regnum Sclavorum – where this nickname is
given to Pavlimir – and later in Annales Ragusini, in which the deeds of King
Radoslav Bello who came from Rome were an important element of the nar-
rative. However, traces of older traditions in Regnum Sclavorum are often only
a pretext to tell stories of the renewal of the kingdom. In the next part we will
analyse Katičić’s hypothesis and the many records which mention the events
related to the origins of Ragusa, but which are silent about the king.
65 Lvdovici Tvberonis Comentarii de temporibvs svis, p. 90. Kunčević’s opinion was different.
Referring to the findings of Šišić, he considered that The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja
had been known in Dubrovnik since the thirteenth century and made this assumption
analysing the development of local historiography about the origins of the city: Kunčević,
Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 34n.
6 Establishing Ragusa without the King: Constantine

Porphyrogennetos, Thomas the Archdeacon, and Miletius
Let us start with the oldest source which describes the foundation of
Ragusa – De administrando imperio, a political manual edited by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos in the tenth century. The emperor in the relevant passage of
Chapter 29 mentioned the problem of the etymology of the name of the city,
describing the circumstances in which it was founded:
… The city of Ragusa is not called Ragusa in the tongue of the Romans
but, because it stands on cliffs, it is called in Roman speech ‘the cliff, lau’;
whence they are called ‘Lausaioi’, i.e. ‘those who have their seat on the
cliff’. But vulgar usage, which frequently corrupts names by altering their
letters, has changed the denomination and called them Rausaioi. These
same Rausaioi of old used to possess the city that is called Pitaura; and
since, when the other cities were captured by the Slavs, who were in the
province, this city too was captured, and some were slaughtered and oth-
ers taken prisoner, and those who were able to escape and reach safety
settled in the almost precipitous spot where the city now is; they built it
small to begin with, and afterwards enlarged it, and later still extended its
wall until the city reached its present size, owing to their gradual spread-
ing out and increase in population. Among those who migrated to Ragusa
are: Gregory, Arsaphius, Victorinus, Vitalius, Valentine the archdeacon,
Valentine the father of Stephen the protospatharius. From their migra-
tion from Salona to Ragusa, it is 500 years till this day, which is the 7th
indiction, the year 6457. In this same city lies St. Pancratius, in the church
of St. Stephen, which is in the middle of this same city.66
66 De administrando imperio, chapter 29, p. 134 [translated by Romilly J. H. Jenkins]: “Ὅτι

τὸ κάστρον τοῦ Ῥαουσίου οὐ καλεῖται Ῥαούσι τῇ Ῥωμαίων διαλέκτῳ, ἀλλ´ ἐπεὶ ἐπάνω τῶν κρη-
μνῶν ἵσταται, λέγεται ῥωμαϊστὶ ‘ὁ κρημνὸς λαῦ’· ἐκλήθησαν δὲ ἐκ τούτου Λαυσαῖοι, ἤγουν ‘οἱ
καθεζόμενοι εἰς τὸν κρημνόν’. Ἡ δὲ κοινὴ συνήθεια, ἡ πολλάκις μεταφθείρουσα τὰ ὀνόματα τῇ
ἐναλλαγῇ τῶν γραμμάτων, μεταβαλοῦσα τὴν κλῆσιν Ῥαουσαίους τούτους ἐκάλεσεν. Οἱ δὲ αὐτοὶ
Ῥαουσαῖοι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκράτουν τὸ κάστρον τὸ ἐπιλεγόμενον Πίταυρα, καὶἐπειδή, ἡνίκα τὰ λοιπὰ
ἐκρατήθησαν κάστρα παρὰ τῶν Σκλάβων τῶν ὄντων ἐν τῷ θέματι, ἐκρατήθη καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον
κάστρον, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐσφάγησαν, οἱ δὲ ᾐχμαλωτίσθησαν, οἱ δὲ δυνηθέντες ἐκφυγεῖν καὶ διασωθῆνα
ιεἰς τοὺς ὑποκρήμνους τόπους κατῴκησαν, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀρτίως τὸ κάστρον, οἰκοδομήσαντες αὐτὸ
πρότερον μικρόν, καὶ πάλιν μετὰ ταῦτα μεῖζον, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτοῦ αὐξήσα-
ντες μέχρι † δʹἔχειν † τὸ κάστρον διὰ τὸ πλατύνεσθαι αὐτοὺς κατ´ ὀλίγον καὶ πληθύνεσθαι. Ἐκ
δὲ τῶν μετοικησάντων εἰς τὸ Ῥαούσιον εἰσὶν οὗτοι· Γρηγόριος, Ἀρσάφιος, Βικτωρῖνος, Βιτάλιος,
Βαλεντῖνος, ὁ ἀρχιδιάκων, Βαλεντῖνος, ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ πρωτοσπαθαρίου Στεφάνου. Ἀφ´ οὗ δὲ ἀπὸ
Σαλῶνα μετῴκησαν εἰς τὸ Ῥαούσιον, εἰσ ὶνἔτη φʹ μέχρι τῆς σήμερον, ἥτις ἰνδικτιὼν ζʹ ἔτους,
198 chapter 5
The story passed by Porphyrogennetos contains several particularly inter-

esting motifs. As in the Priest of Duklja’s account, the prelude to the story in
De administrando imperio was the sacking of old Dalmatian cities. Instead of
the destructive Saracens mentioned in Regnum Sclavorum, Porphyrogennetos
reports about Slavs. In this fragment Pitaura (Epidaurus) gained a special posi-
tion among the destroyed cities. Refugees from this city first built a small for-
tress (τὸ κάστρον), then also another one, larger, forced by circumstances.
Katičić claimed that “no other source includes a legend of the extension of
Dubrovnik and surrounding of the city with new walls”. He also believed that
this is information that “can easily become the fruit of guesses and free actions
in a legend about the beginnings of the city. It would be more important if this
suggestion were confirmed by archaeological discoveries. The development of
the fortress, as it is described by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, should have
left some material remains”.67 Katičić had the strong conviction that some ele-
ment of the legend corresponded to historical events, yet his belief cannot be
confirmed by archaeological findings.68 Not only do excavations not validate
the narration of Constantine Porphyrogennetos, but they also prove that in
the area of today’s Dubrovnik, settlement was already developing in the late
antiquity,69 long before the Slavs arrived in these lands.
The traces of the legend of a gradual expansion of the city also seem to
be preserved in Regnum Sclavorum. In the story of Pavlimir’s arrival to the
Dalmatian coast, the Romans erected a fortress (castellum) just after reaching
the shore, “ad portum qui Gravosa dicitur et Umbla” (to the port called Gravosa
and Umbla).70 Only after spreading the news about this event did the inhabit-
ants of Epidaurus – who until then “per silvas et monatanas menebant” (stayed
in forests and mountains) – came to join them and founded the city (urbs).71
ϛυνζʹ. Ἐν δὲ τῷ αὐτῷ κάστρῳ κεῖται ὁ ἅγιος Παγκράτιος ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ ἁγίου Στεφάνου, τῷ ὄντι
μέσον τοῦ αὐτοῦ κάστρου”.
67 Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” p. 134.
68 Vinko Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808. vol. 1 (Zagreb, 1980), p. 17; Josip Lučić, Povijest
Dubrovnika od VII stoljeća do godine 1205. (Zagreb, 1973), pp. 10–20.
69 Ivica Žile, “Naselje prije grada,” Dubrovnik. Časopis za književnost i znanost 4 (1997),
pp. 97–119; Vedrana Jović Gazić, “Razvoj grada od kasne antike prema srednjem vijeku:
Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar – stanje istraženosti (Urban Development from Late
Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar – the State of Research),”
Archaeologia Adriatica 5 (2012), no. 1, pp. 151–196; Tibor Živković, “On the foundation
of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts,” Historical Review 54 (2007), p. 11 [reprint: [in:] idem,
Forging Unity, pp. 176–177].
70 Ljetopis, p. 70.
71 Ljetopis, p. 70.
Katičić noticed (and Živković repeated after him, later) the distinction
between castellum and urbs/civitas. It was also present in the poem by Miletius
and then appeared in all early Latin sources discussing this event. Katičić sug-
gested that it was possible that it could get lost in the translation made by
Porphyrogennetos, who – assuming that he used a text unknown to us – could
replace both words with the Greek word “κάστρον” (kastron) to describe a
city or a fortress that was gradually expanding as its walls widened. On the
example of Michael Choniates’ work, Angeliki Papageorgiou showed that the
word “καστρηνοὶ” (“kastrenoi”) could be used to describe the citizens of the
city, living within the walls, and it did not necessarily have to have military
overtones.72 According to Katičić, it was then possible that Prophyrogennetos
could replace two Latin words, castellum and urbs (or civitas), known from
other accounts about the origins of Ragusa, with one Greek term “κάστρον”.73
In the account of De administrando imperio, the second part of the story,
about the visitors from Salona, seems equally interesting. The emperor was
familiar with the names of their leaders, and he also knew exactly when the
event took place. The date given by him, 6457 years after the creation of the
world, corresponds with 949 AD. It was indeed the year of the seventh indic-
tion. Thus, the inhabitants of Salona would have come to Ragusa in 449, which
makes us consider the credibility of Constantine’s record.
Scholars continue to argue about the value of this account: rich in details,
yet awkward in this place. They have attempted to explain the doubtful date as
an error in the record. The Greek letter Tau (τ), meaning three hundred, might
be replaced by the letter Phi (φ), meaning five hundred. As Katičić noticed, it
is only wishful thinking to believe that this crux interpretum can be solved.74
It was believed that the very title of protospatharios, which appeared in the
text, is anachronistic.75 Katičić had a different opinion and assumed that both
names and titles correspond to those who “could be expected in this place”.76
He presumed that, in the case of this information, Porphyrogennetos had to
use an older list, rather than the source from which he took the information
72 Angeliki Papageorgiou, “To Ypomnistikón tou Michail Choniáti kai oi ‘Kastrenoí’” [“Το
Υπομνηστικόν του Μιχαήλ Χωνιάτη και οι Καστρηνοί”], Bizantina Sýmmeikta [Βυζαντινά
Σύμμεικτα]18 (2009), pp. 159–169.
73 Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” pp. 145–148; Živković, “The
Legend of Pavlimir Bello,” p. 214.
75 See the chronology set out by Rodolphe Guilland, “Études sur l’histoire administrative de
l’Empire byzantin. Les titres auliques des eunuques. Le protosphataire,” Byzantion 25–27
(1955–1957), pp. 649–695.
200 chapter 5
about the sacking of Epidaurus.77 This opinion was repeated not long ago by
Lovro Kunčević, who suggested that the memory of settlers from Salona in late
antiquity could have reached Porphyrogennetos in the form of a list of names
and dates, which – although it may seem incredible at first glance – as it turns
out, is consistent with the findings of archaeologists.78
Katičić also focused on the verses explaining the etymology of the city’s
name. Porphyrogennetos wrote: “That the city of Rausium in the language of
the Romans is not called Rausium, but because it is situated on a steep coast
and that a steep coast in the language of Romans is called Lau, hence they are
called Lausaioi (Λαυσαῑοι): ‘those who sit on a steep coast’ as one could say.
However, the general habit, often spoiling names by changing letters, led to
transformation of this name and now they are called Rausaioi”. This explana-
tion is given in quite an unexpected manner, and the very beginning of the
sentence – “ὅτι”, i.e. “that” – led Katičić to suggest that it was an attempt to
supplement the hypothetical original text which, according to him, could start
with “we have learned that”, or “you need to know that”.79
It is also interesting to compare the explanations given by Porphyrogennetos
with those of the Priest of Duklja. The latter described how the inhabitants of
Epidaurus together with the Romans had built the city “supra Mare in ripis
marinis, quas Epidaurii lingua sua ‘laus’ dicunt. Unde ea civitas ‘Lausium’
vocata est, quae postea r pro l posita, Ragusium appelata est” (by the sea and
the sea coast, which the inhabitants of Epidaurus called ‘laus’ in their language.
Thus the city was named Lausium, which after the change of ‘l’ into ‘r’ received
the name Ragusa).80 It is not difficult to notice that Regnum Sclavorum and
De administando imperio offered an almost identical explanation of the gene-
sis of the city’s name. Suggestions of a later distortion of the toponym is not the
only similarity. Porphyrogennetos also wrote about steep banks and – regard-
less of whether he meant a Latin word (for example labes81) or the Greek word
Λαυs82 – the Latin text of the Priest of Duklja seems to replace it with the word
“ripa” meaning a steep bank or a cliff which, as the author of Regnum Sclavorum
adds: “Epidaurii lingua sua ‘laus’ dicunt” (the inhabitants of Epidaurus called

78 Lovro Kunčević, “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa: The Epidaurian Tradition,”
Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 10 (2004), pp. 21–31.
79 Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” pp. 132–133.
80 Ljetopis, p. 70.
82 Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors,” p. 149.
‘laus’ in their language).83 The striking similarity of both texts would therefore
be in favour of Katičić’s hypothesis, who suggested that both Porphyrogennetos
and the Priest of Duklja had used an older record, unknown to us. Šišić noted
this similarity even before Katičić did, and claimed that in the fragment con-
cerning the etymology of Ragusa, the author of Regnum Sclavorum had used
“an old record originating from Dubrovnik”.84
It is all the more strange that Šišić did not use a similar explanation when
discussing the third text, presenting the beginnings of the city in a very similar
way – namely, the preserved fragment of the poem by Miletius (in Croatian:
Milecije) written in hexameter and partially preserved in the work by Nicola
Ragnina (in Croatian: Nikša Ranjina), a Ragusa-based sixteenth-century writer,
and two other slightly different versions.
Deducing from the sentence mentioning tsar Stefan Dušan as a living ruler
in 1333, it is usually assumed that the poem by Miletius was written in the first
half of the fourteenth century,85 although for example Natko Nodilo – who
published the work of Ragnina – speculated that some fragments might even
have been written in the twelfth century.86 The following verses depict the
foundation of Ragusa according to the poet:
Urbi Epidauro nomen donavit et esse

Temporibus Moyssis fugiens Epidaurus Aegypto
Quam signis visis perituram noverat urbem …
Quidam Romani destructa sic Epidauro
Bellum civile fugientes forte subintrant
Portum dalmatiae qui Gravosius vocatur.
Hic pariter inopes fugientes ex Epidauro
In magnis ripis, ubi nunc est urbs Rhagusana
Castellum statuunt monitis actuque Joannis
Qui jam fuit praedictae archiepiscopus urbis.
Atque arcem vivi tutam munimine saxi
83 The mysterious name “Epidaurii lingua” may refer to the local dialect of Latin used in
Dubrovnik and known as lingua ragusea. In the fourteenth century it began to be replaced
by the language of the Slavs, though it survived until the fifteenth century. On the situa-
tion of the Ragusan language: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 34.
85 Živković, “The Earliest Cults of Saints in Ragusa,” p. 150; “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et hab-
itaverunt in eo,” p. 139.
86 Natko Nodilo, “Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografia dubrovačka,” Radovi JAZU 65 (1883),
p. 121. 8; Vinko Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808., p. 11, considered Miletius as the
eleventh-century author.
202 chapter 5
Aspectuque horrendo, praecelso in vertice montis

Hoc castrum vocitat Epidaurica lingua Labusa;
Namque ripa sonat hoc idiomate Labus.
A magnis ripis nomen traxere priores;
Nunc L in R, G pro B mutando moderni,
Rhagusam dicunt, quae Sclavonice Dubrovnik
Dicitur a Sylva, quia sylva fuit locus ille,
In quo nunc urbs est, et Dubrava sylva vocatur.
Ad decus et laudem Stephani Protomartyris extat
Castellum, et templum fundant, et corpora condunt
Sanctorum, quorum sunt nomina scripta, subaudi:
Nerei, Achillei, Domitillae, Petronillaeque,
Quae secum [furtim] tulerant Roma fugientes
(The city of Epidaurus was named

By Epidaurus who escaped from Egypt in the days of Moses
Recognizing the visible signs that the city would fall […]
One day some Romans, fleeing from the civil war
To the already destroyed Epidaurus,
Came to the Dalmatian port known as Gravosius.
Together with the unhappy refugees from Epidaurus,
On the high bank, where today the city of Ragusa is situated,
They erect a castle at the instigation and cause of Johannes,
Who was the archbishop of the city at that time.
And so it stands, a safe haven protected by the rock
Looking terrible, towering on top of the hill.
This fortress is called Labusa in Epidauric language,
The word Labus means “a bank” in this language
And from the great bank (cliff) the ancestors passed it [to the fortress],
And now, the contemporaries, after changing L to R, and B to G,
Call it Ragusa, or Dubrovnik in the Slavic language,
After the forest, because there used to be a forest
Where the city is today and their [Slavic] word for forest is Dubrava.
The fortress stands to the glory and honour of Stephen the Protomartyr,
They founded the temple, and took the bodies
Of the saints, whose written names sound like:
Nereus, Achilles, Domitilla and Petronilla,
Whom the Roman refugees [furtively] brought with themselves)87
87 Ante Konstantin Matas, Miletii versus, Biblioteca storica della Dalmazia 1 (Dubrovnik,
1882), pp. 9–12; Nicolai de Ragnina, p. 174. The critical reedition in: idem, Povijest
Among the other discussed texts, the fragment of the poem by Miletius is
distinguished by the story of Epidaurus, a refugee from Egypt, and a contem-
porary of Moses. Both figures – the prophet and the legendary eponym – are
also mentioned in the context of the founding of the city in the second half of
the fourteenth century by Johannes Conversini, the author of Historia Ragusii,
who wrote: “Epidaurum dicunt ab Epidauro qui Moisi temporibus Egyptum
signi perituram intelligens fugit hisque adhesit scopulis, nunc deserta”88
(Epidaurum is named after Epidaurus, who fled from Egypt in the days of
Moses, recognizing the signs of a fall, and he came on this rock, now aban-
doned), probably repeating a fragment of a local tradition (or even echoing the
poem quoted above).
It is even more puzzling that Miletius, in addition to information on the
change of letters, gives an explanation of the Slavic name of the city. The Priest
of Duklja also had similar knowledge, and after mentioning how the name
of Ragusa was created, he added that the city: “(…) Sclavi vero Dubrovnich
appellaverunt, id est ‘silvester’ sive ‘silvestris’, quoniam, quando eam aedifi-
caverunt, de silva venerunt”89 (The Slavs called it Dubrovnik, which means ‘a
forest’ or ‘located in a forest’, because when it was built, they came from the
forest). Despite the close similarity of both texts, there are no sentences with
the same wording, which would be expected in the case of direct influence.
However, the problem of interdependence between the poem by Miletius and
Regnum Sclavorum is much more difficult to resolve, because we must take
into account the specifics of the poetic text in which the words are subordi-
nated to specific rules of the versification. The fragment of the work edited by
Porphyrogennetos – written in Greek, and (if based on a Dalmatian source)
probably paraphrased or translated – cannot be helpful in tracing the filia-
tion of the text. However, the construction of the poetic tale of the founding
does not support the hypothesis of a direct link between the poem by Miletius
and the corresponding paragraph of Regnum Sclavorum. The motif of refu-
gees is present in it, but King Bello – the central figure in the Priest of Duklja’s
narrative – is absent, although it is possible that the phrase “Bellum civile” (civil
war) in some careless reading could become the basis for the king’s nickname.
Miletius, like Porphyrogennetos, but unlike the Priest of Duklja, knew about
the cult of St. Stefan in Ragusa, and he also knew the importance of trans-
ferring the relics of St. Nereus, Achilles, Domitilia and Petronilla; this event
Dubrovnika do 13. stoleća, eds. Nedjeljko Marinov, Mate Matas, Duje Šilović (Zagreb, 2016),
pp. 7–21.
88 Quoted after: Relja Seferović, “Razočarani notar: iz kasnog dubrovačkog prijepisa djela
“Historia Ragusii” Giovannija Conversinija,” Anali Dubrovnik 55/1 (2017), p. 150, note 99.
204 chapter 5
had to be an important element of the local tradition. In the later Annales

Ragusini, this translatio was connected with King Bello (in this text: Radoslav
Bello), but the copies of Regnum Sclavorum available to us do not mention
any relics.
The example of Archbishop Johannes, known to Miletius, shows that the
manuscripts of Regnum Sclavorum preserved today are late and, as a result,
unsuitable for analysis. Tuberon, as was already mentioned, probably had
some copy of this work. As he wrote: “Quae quidem scripta, licet essent uetu-
stissima specie, quum ad manus meas peruenere, non tamen adeo multorum
annorum tabe corrupta erant, ut legi non possent”90 (Although these scripts,
very old in appearance when they fell into my hands, nevertheless after so
many years they were not rotten to such a degree that they could not be deci-
phered). Tuberon managed to read the text partially so he noticed the name of
Bishop Johannes. In a smaller work devoted to the history of Ragusa, Tuberon
emphasized the role of this bishop, or, actually, two bishops of this name, one
of whom welcomed the arriving King Bello (here: Polimirus), while the other
moved his centre from Epidaurus to a new residence.91 In the work Comentarii
de temporibus suiis Tuberon unambiguously revealed the source of his infor-
mation about this issue when wrote: “Et ne quid nouae ciuitati deesset, pontifi-
cem Epidaurium, quem Docleatis authoris annales Ioannem nominant, amissa
priori sede, Burni agentem praesulem Rhacusanum, Romano pontifice annu-
ente, designat, atque a ditione Salonitani antistitis eximi curat, licet eodem
fere tempore Salonae quoque ab Vcris euersae sint”92 (And for he [Polimir] did
not want the new city to lack anything, with the consent of the pope Bishop of
Epidaurus was made Bishop of Ragusa; in the annals of the historian Docleata
he was called Johannes, and after losing his former seat he resided in Burnum.
He [Polimir] also took care to exclude him from dependence of the Archbishop
of Salona, especially as Salona was destroyed by the Ugrs [Avars]). If Tuberon
had not made a mistake in referring to the text as his source of information
about Johannes, and if he had not found it in the local annals or in the poem by
Miletius, we must assume that the Priest of Duklja’s account known to us may
differ from other older copies of the text which have not survived.
90 Lvdovici Tvberonis Commentarii, p. 87.

91 The first of them was described as John of Tribunja: Vladimir Rezar, “‘De origine et
incremento urbis Rhacusanae’ Ludovika Crijevića Tuberona (kritičko izdanje, prijevod i
komentar),” Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku 51 (2013), pp. 98, 102.
92 Lvdovici Tvberonis Commentarii, p. 90; Katičić used an older edition: Comentariolus
Ludovici Cervarii Tuberonis de origine et incremento urbis Rhacusanae, Rhacusii 1790 – the
scholar’s comment: Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” p. 142.
An interesting although rather bold interpretation of similarities in the

described accounts was proposed by Katičić; as has already been mentioned,
he tried to reconstruct the hypothetical record – the source of later accounts
of the origins of the city. In fact, Katičić himself treated the results of his inves-
tigations cautiously, considering the proposed reconstruction as “abstract” and
comparing it to a police identikit. He also emphasized that his aim was only to
highlight similarities between the texts, and to create a “structural framework”
useful for a critical approach to the sources.93 The hypothetical text would cor-
respond to the local Ragusian tradition. It could be a passage in some lost Latin
catalogue of bishops or in a pontifical book that has not been preserved to our
time. Porphyrogennetos could have obtained it through some Byzantine offi-
cials. This enigmatic text had supposedly survived at least two centuries before
Miletius had read it and (or) before it was found by the anonymous author
of Regnum Sclavorum. According to Katičić, this note can be (re)constructed
as follows:
Joannes, Primus archiepiscopus Ra(g)usitanus

/in Ragusio. Hic fuit archiepiscopus
Pitauritanus. Hac civitate capta et destructa
(a Slavis) eius [monitis actuque] homines
qui fugientis et montana manebant et quidam
Romani, qui (eo tempore) urbe/civitate
depulsi Dalmatiam venerant, in portum qui
Gravosa dicitur, aedificaverunt castellum
et habitaverunt ibi/ in eo, ubi nunc est civitas
in ripis, quas Pitauritani lingui sua laus
dicunt, unde Lausium, postea r pro l posita
Ra(g)usium appellata est. In eadem civitate
iacet beatius Pancratius (etc.) in eccleasia
beati Stephani (Protomartyris) (qua est)
in medio eodem castello.
(Joannes, the First Archbishop of Ragusa /

In Ragusa. He was Archbishop of
Pitaura. This city was conquered and destroyed
(by the Slavs). Its inhabitants [who survived],
fled and stayed in the mountains, and some
Romans, who (at that time) left the city

206 chapter 5
and arrived in Dalmatia, to the port

called Gravosa, built a fortress
and moved there / in it, where now is the city
on the shore, which the Pitauritans call laus
in their language, hence Lausium, then changing l to r,
it is called Ragusa. In this city
the blessed Pancratius (etc.) lies in the church
of St. Stephen the Protomartyr (which is)
in the middle of this fortress)94
Reading this text, we can see even more clearly the similarity between the
three records discussed above. We can distinguish in it all the main themes
of the Priest of Duklja’s story, apart from the royal one: the sacking of the city,
the escape of the inhabitants of Epidaurus, and the appearance of strange
newcomers who reach the place of the future location of Ragusa. In addi-
tion, the details devoted to the holy relics in the city and the name of the
first Bishop of Ragusa seem to be important elements. According to Katičić,
both Porphyrogennetos and the Priest of Duklja could have attempted to
hide the bishop’s name. However, if we look at the second part of the narra-
tive of Porphyrogennetos, in which he refers to the newcomers from Salona,
the existence of a record in this form is doubtful. Katičić interpreted it as
a trace of another missing source of the emperor; this point of view was shared
by Žvivković, who believed that Porphyrogennetos relied on two traditions:
those of Ragusa and of Salona.95 When we analyse the very structure of the
story, we notice that in the imperial narrative, the refugees from Salona take
the role attributed to the Romans in the two more recent texts. Both groups –
the newcomers from Salona and the Romans – were an alien element, and they
arrived to build a city together with the inhabitants of Epidaurus.
The inclusion of Thomas the Archdeacon’s narrative in the sphere of influ-
ence of this hypothetical source seems to be Katičić’s most controversial idea.
Historia Salonitana differs significantly from the three other texts. Although
the motifs of Epidaurus and Romans appeared in it, the way they are imple-
mented is completely different. Moreover, Thomas the Archdeacon’s narra-
tive lacks any characteristic nomina priopria, which would primarily suggest
a common source for the stories by Porphyrogennetos, Miletius and the Priest
of Duklja.
94 Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” p. 157, following the analysis of

particular verses which were to be included in the record: pp. 154–157.
95 Živković, “On the Foundation of Ragusa,” p. 10 [Forging Unity: pp. 175–176].
It is worth noting that Historia Salonitana, written in the middle of the

thirteenth century, contained two stories related to Epidaurus, which later
became Ragusa. In the initial fragment of the chronicle, in which Thomas
described Dalmatia, we can read about “Epitaurus, que est iuxta Ragusium”
(Epitaurus, which is close to Ragusa). The city was known in the text as the for-
tress of Cadmus, the mythical founder of Thebes, who reputedly transformed
into a serpent in the place where the city of Epidaurus was to be founded.96
This legend is probably based on an older tradition from ancient times, as Grga
Novak believed.97
In a later part of the chronicle, Thomas the Archdeacon told a more detailed
story about the transformation of Epidaurus into Ragusa:
Per idem fere tempus quidam advene, ut ferunt, Romana urbe depulsi,
non longe ab Epitauro ratibus applicuerunt. Erat autem Epitauros epi-
scopalis civitas, Salonitane ecclesie suffraganea. Quod ex epistola beati
Gregorii pape conicimus, quam misit Natali archiepiscopo Salonitano,
arguens ipsum, quia absque auctoritate synodali quendam Florentium
Epitauritane ecclesie episcopum pro quibusdam iniectis criminibus,
sed non probatis, deposuerat. Cuius causam comisit predictus papa suo
subdiacono Antonio, quem in Salonam fuisse missum superius memo-
ravimus. Prenotati ergo advene sedem sibi in illis partibus collocantes
civitatem Epitaurum sepius impugnantes nimium atriverunt, atritamque
ceperunt et captam in solitudinem redegerunt. Homines autem cum eis
permixti sunt et facti sunt populus unus. Edificaverunt Ragusianum et
habitaverunt in eo. Ex eo tempore conari ceperunt pallium suo episcopo
optinere.98
(It was at about this time some strangers – driven from the city of Rome,
as they say – landed in their boats not far from Epidaurus. Epidaurus was
an episcopal city, a suffragan of the church of Salona, as we infer from a
letter from Pope Gregory to Natalis, the Archbishop of Salona; for in the
letter Gregory accuses Natalis of having deposed Florentius, the Bishop
of Epidaurus, without synodal authority, for certain crimes that had been
alleged against him but not proven; the pope entrusted the case to his
subdeacon Antony, whom he had sent to Salona, as we have recounted

97 Grga Novak, “Questiones epidauritanae,” Rad JAZU 339 (1965), p. 116; Kunčević shares this
opinion, “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa,” pp. 28–29.
208 chapter 5
earlier. The aforementioned foreigners established themselves in that

region and wore down the city of Epidaurus greatly by repeated attacks.
When it had been worn down they took it, and after taking it they laid
waste to it utterly. However, the newcomers intermixed with the popu-
lace, and became one people. They built Ragusa and settled there. From
that time they sought to obtain the pallium for their own bishop).
Contrary to what was claimed by Katičić, the different construction of this

fragment of Thomas’ chronicle cannot be explained solely by the chronicler’s
intention to demonstrate the old dependence of Epidaurus on the metropolis
of Split.99 Even if Thomas indeed got into a debate here with some unknown
adversary, as Katičić claimed, and half of his accounts should be treated as a
comment clearly subordinated to political goals, it is difficult to confirm this
hypothesis without knowing the exact course of this debate which Thomas
might be answering here.100 The fragment of Historia Salonitana should rather
be regarded as a separate realization of two motifs repeated on the occasion
of the story of the foundation of Ragusa. According to Thomas – a different
stance than that in the oldest account by Porphyrogennetos, and also differ-
ent to Regnum Sclavorum – the destruction of Epidaurus was carried out by
the Romans themselves. They also participated in the construction of Ragusa.
Thomas tried to strengthen the position of the Archbishop of Split by men-
tioning the letter of Pope Gregory,101 thus weakening the position of Ragusa as
the alleged heir of the ancient rights of Epidaurus.
The perception of Ragusa in the context of the legacy of the ancient city of
Epidaurus was probably the oldest element of the narrative about the birth of
the city.102 Traces of it can be found in the work of the so-called Cosmographer
of Ravenna, writing anonymously at the turn of the seventh century, who
stated: “Epidaurum id est Ragusium” (Epidaurum, that is Ragusa).103 This
99 Matijević Sokol drew attention to the opening of the story: “Per idem fere tempus quidam
advene, ut ferunt, Romana urbe depulsi … Edificaverunt Ragusianum et habitaverunt
in eo” and compared it with the following lines of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja:
“per idem tempus…. construxerunt castellum et habitaverunt ibi” (Ljetopis, p. 70): Toma
Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo, p. 244.
102 Kunčević, “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa,” pp. 21–24.
103 Quoted after: Ferdo Šišić, O hrvatskoj kraljici Margareti (Dubrovnik 1930), p. 5. Also:
Slobodan Čače, “‘Kozmografija’ Anonima Ravenjanina i počeci Dubrovnika, Dubrovnik.
Časopis za književnost i znanost,” 4 (1997), pp. 84–97; source edition: Ravennatis Anonymi
Cosmographia et Guidonis Geographica, ed. Moritz Pinder, Gustav Parthey (Berlin, 1860),
208.10.
connection between the two cities was known to all the oldest authors writing
about the origins of Ragusa: Constantine Porphyrogennetos, the anonymous
author of Regnum Sclavorum, Miletius, Johannes Conversini and Thomas the
Archdeacon, as well as the author of Annales Ragusini.
Ragusa took on the legacy of the ancient city of Epidaurus in the tenth (or
even eleventh) century, possibly as a result of the key events that occurred dur-
ing the synods in Split in 925 and 928. The main task of these conventions
was to establish a church hierarchy in Dalmatia and Croatia, including the
arrangement of diocesan borders.104 Borders that had existed in Roman times
were often the point of reference for the synodal decision-makers. Referring
to an ancient legacy was very important in forming ecclesiastical hierarchy,
as is shown in the example of the episcopate in Nin, which – probably due to
the lack of ancient legacy and related prestige – eventually had to accept the
authority of the archbishopric in Split, recognized as the heir of the ancient
archdiocese in Salona.
During these synods the delegates of Ragusa could realize the significance
of such symbolic connections and develop a coherent ideology in which the
identity of Epidaurus and Ragusa were emphasized. The legend as such was
not new, as is shown in the already-quoted verse from the Cosmographer of
Ravenna. It was also known in Rome, where Pope Zachary in a letter of 743
named Andrew, Bishop of Ragusa “archiepiscopo sancta Pitauritana ecclesie”
(Archbishop of the Holy Diocese of Pitaura).105 It seems, however, that the per-
ception of the bishopric in Ragusa as the heir of ancient traditions was not
particularly popular in Dalmatia. This is evidenced by the preserved files of the
abovementioned synods in which the name “Epidaurus” is never used in the
context of Ragusa and its bishops.106 The synod records contain traces of a dis-
pute over the property of the former diocese of Epidaurus between Ragusa and
Kotor. The eighth article of the provisions of the first synod requires that each
of the pretending dioceses should be given half of the territory in question.107
Perhaps soon after the synods in Split, members of the Ragusa-based elite made
a decision about the conscious use of tradition emphasizing the ancient rights
104 Documenta, no. 149, 150, pp. 187–197.

105 Codex diplomaticus vol. 1, ed. Marko Kostrenčić (Zagreb, 1967), no. 1, pp. 1–3.
106 Kunčević, “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa,” p. 25.
107 Ivica Puljić, “Uspostava duborvačke metroplije,” in Tisuću godina dubrovačke (nad)biskupije.
Zbornik radova u povodu tisuću godina uspostave dubrovačke (nad)biskupije (998–1998), ed.
Nediljko Ante Ančić (Dubrovnik, 2001), p. 18; See: Živković, “On the Foundation of Ragusa,”
p. 12. His opinion about the subsequent formation of that tradition refers to the works of
the anonymous author from Ragusa, Nicola Ragnina, Ludovico Tuberon and Junije (Giunio)
Resti, also: Živković, “Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors,” pp. 151–160.
210 chapter 5
and legacy of the city. The rivalry between Kotor and Ragusa for the legacy of
Epidaurus ended only with the establishment of the archbishopric in Ragusa
during the expansion of Tsar Samuel around 998. In the papal bull issued in
1022 Benedict VIII again addressed the Archbishop of Ragusa: “Uitali, archi-
episcopo sancte Pitabritane sedis a ciuitate Labusedi” (Vitali, Archbishop of
the holy throne of Pitabra in the city of Labusa),108 which proves that Ragusa’s
aspirations were recognized, fixed and accepted by Rome.109 This interpreta-
tion is confirmed by another papal letter, in which Gregory VII refers to Peter,
Archbishop of Ragusa, as “archiepiscopo sancte Pitauritane sedis”.110
At the end of the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, the legend of
Epidaurus was, it seems, well known, and was an important element of local
historiography. Although Epidaurus is mentioned in Annales Ragusini, this
topic is pushed to the background,111 but it is important for Tuberon or Ragnina,
whose ideas about the birth of the city were probably shaped additionally by
De administando impierio and Regnum Sclavorum,112 as well as the conscious
policy of the authorities of the Dubrovnik Republic. From the end of the Middle
Ages the context of spreading the legend of Epidaurus changed. As Zdenka
Janeković observed: “(…) Dubrovnik chronicles from the fifteenth century,
and also official documents, wholeheartedly accepted such claims [regarding
the legendary origins of Ragusa], adding to them some mythological details.
Enriched in this way, the story [of the origins] became a beneficial tool of
political propaganda. It was the period of formation of the Dubrovnik commu-
nity, relatively independent, despite its formal subordination to the Hungarian
king”.113 The identification of Ragusa and Epidaurus was already so strong that
even before 1440 Philip de Diversis, who came from Italy, had no problem in
learning about this connection. He recalled: “Sed ad rem iam veniamus et
dicamus, quod cum urbs Ragusina, quae Epidaurum seu Lavusium antiquitus
dicebatur …” (However, let us get to the point and explain that because the
city of Ragusa, which in ancient times was called Epidaurum or Lausium …).114
Georgius Sizgoreus, the historian from Šibenik, wrote that Ragusa lies in the
place of the ancient city of Lagusium, the colony of Epidaurus (“Ragusium
imprimis, ut ab ortu incipiam, quod, ut legi, antiquitus Lagusium docebatur,
108 Codex diplomaticus vol. 1, no. 44, pp. 41–42.

109 Kunčević, “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa,” p. 26.
110 Codex diplomaticus, vol. 1, no. 112, pp. 143–145.
111 Annales Ragusini, p. 7.
112 Živković, “Constantine Poprhyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors,” p. 149.
113 Zdenka Janeković, “Stjecanje Konavla. Antička tradicija i mit u službi diplomacije,” in
Konavle u prošlosti sadašnjosti i budućnosti. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog
u Cavtatu od 25. do 27. studenog 1996. godine, vol. 1, ed. Vladimir Stipetić (Dubrovnik, 1998),
p. 35.
114 Filip de Diversis, Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika, ed. Zdenka Janeković-Römer (Zagreb,
2004), p. 139.
colonia Epidauria …”).115 Also, Felix Fabri, a Swiss Dominican who travelled
the Adriatic coast in the 1480s, knew about this identification,116 and Palladius
Fuscus, the Italian humanist, questioned it.117 Architectural concepts in the
Republic also have a prominent place in the plan of marking the space in refer-
ence to the legend of Epidaurus.118 The Renaissance interest in this narrative
resulted in elaborating the story of the ancient city of Epidaurus, “aging the
birth certificate” of Ragusa, and inventing the figure of Epidaurus – its legend-
ary eponym. As we know, both Miletius and Conversini were familiar with this
character, propagated later by Ragnina, and then by Luccari.119 Beginning in
the fifteenth century, attempts were even made to appropriate the tradition of
the Greek city of Epidauros in Argolis, by presenting Dubrovnik as the birth-
place of the god Aesculapius.120 In the sixteenth century, when the work of
Porphyrogennetos became popular, references to the Salona-related roots of
the city began to appear in the local historiography.121 Renaissance historians,
unlike medieval chroniclers, disregarded the role of the bishop in the events
that led to the foundation of the new settlement.122 They were interested in
the ancient Roman legacy of the city, rather than in the legacy of the ancient
diocese. According to Lovro Kunčević, the works of Aelius Lampridus Cervinus
(Ilija Crijević) constituted the last stage of transforming the myth of Epidaurus
in fifteenth-century Dubrovnik. Cervinus, a poet and orator, was an ideologi-
cal exponent of the aspirations of local patriciate. He authored, among other
things, a song titled De Epidauro, probably unfinished. Kunčević remarked
that “later historians, busy with other questions, basically repeated Cervinus’
interpretations. It became a habit to emphasize that Epidaurus was a Roman
colony, and this fact explained the fortitude of the patricians and love of free-
dom, typical of the inhabitants of Dubrovnik”.123
115 Juraj Šižgorić, O smještaju Ilirije i o gradu Šibeniku, ed. Slavo Grubišić (Šibenik, 1981), p. 28.
116 After: Stjepan Krasić, “Opis hrvatske jadranske obale u putopisima švicarskog domini-
kanca Feliksa Fabrija (Schmida) iz 1480. i 1483/1484 godine,” Anali Dubrovnik 39 (2001),
p. 162, 185. See: See; Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 39–42.
117 “Ergo corrigendus est error in hoc loco multorum, qui Ragusium nunc vocari tradunt, quod
antea Epidaurum, quum inter hoc et illud intersint stadia, ut dictum est, Quadraginta” (At
this point, we can correct the error made by many who use “Ragusa” to refer to the place
that was Epidaurum in the past; in fact, as has been mentioned, there is a distance of
forty stades between them). De situ orae illyrici Palladii Fuscii, ed. Bruna Kuntić-Makvić
(Zagreb, 1990), pp. 104–107. Vide: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 39, note 56–57.
118 Nada Grujić, Ladanjska arhitektura dubrovačkog područja (Zagreb, 1991), p. 173.
119 Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 173–179. See: Seferović, Razočarani notar, p. 150, note 99.
120 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 41–44.
121 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 50, note 93.
122 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 36.
212 chapter 5
Regarding the threads linked with the foundation of Ragusa, the motif of
the arrival of the Romans appeared a bit later than the one related to the city
of Epidaurus. It seems that it was unknown to Porphyrogennetos. Although
the emperor had reasons to conceal this Roman episode, it is much more
likely that at this time the founding legend of Ragusa was still taking shape,
and there was as yet no trace of Romans in it. Therefore, the story of the new-
comers from Salona should be seen as an equivalent of the motif of the Romans
in the classical structure of the legend about the beginnings of the community.
Originally, the legend could have been based on the double founding of the
city, which became Ragusa only after a fusion of the two societies representing
different cultural patterns.
It could have been the desire to raise the profile of the city that decided
the appointment of the Romans as one of these groups. Examples from all
over Europe show numerous attempts to refer to the Roman heritage through
stories about the ancient founders of castles and monasteries. Lux Romana –
illuminating an object brought into prominence by such a measure – would
quickly become an element of local history, and references to legends about
founders would appear in literary texts and would be used as an element of
promotion as well as an argument in political struggle.124
Dating the origin of cities or communities back to Roman times was a uni-
versal practice in medieval historiography. The figure of Julius Caesar, who was
considered to be the founder of many centres in various parts of Europe, was
particularly popular.125 Implementation of this specific variety of legend about
the Romans as well as backgrounds of their creation did differ in particular
cases. The common denominator of these legends was the need to prove an
ancient ennobling genesis of the cities, communities or dynasties, and, above
all, demonstrate a historical continuity (preferably associated with the person
of a great leader) dating back to Roman times. Tales about Caesar were wide-
spread in western Europe. Geoffrey of Monmouth, referring to the rich British
tradition, reported on the founding of cities by the Romans under the leader-
ship of Caesar.126 In Germany, motifs of wars between the Germanic tribes and
124 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 60–67. In reference to Italian cities: pp. 77–80.
125 Although Regnum Sclavorum does not mention Julius Caesar, the attempts to link the
Dubrovnik patriciate with the great ancient leader (by means of the legend of king
Pavlimir and the Romans who accompanied him) were made since the sixteenth century;
the works of Didacus Pyrrhus (Didak Pir) is one example of such attempts: Kunčević, Mit
o Dubrovniku, p. 58.
126 It is interesting in the context of the hypothesis promoted by Živković, who claimed that
the Priest of Duklja had known the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The review of British
traditions demonstrates that the tradition of Romans was very popular not only in the
Julius Caesar and their later alliance were known since the eleventh century.
Annolied – rhyming couplets composed around 1100 – listed numerous privi-
leges given to the German peoples by the grateful Caesar for their merits, while
Kaiserchronik from the middle of the twelfth century developed these themes,
emphasizing the identification of German and Roman emperors.127 It was
claimed that many cities in Germany were founded by Caesar (among them
such large centres as Mainz, Worms, Merseburg and Magdeburg).128
The etiologies related to the subject of the Romans were popular until the
end of the Middle Ages, becoming a part of the origo gentis129 and they out-
shone local German national stories.130 Stories using the topos of newcomers
from an ancient empire were also known in more peripheral areas, for exam-
ple Pomerania on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea. Helmold of Bosau, a
Saxon historian from the twelfth century, reported that the city of Wolgast/
Wołogoszcz was named after Julia Augusta, the founder’s sister.131 The Life of
Otto of Bamberg by Ebo, active in the same century, contained a legend about
the founding of the city of Wolin (Julin) by Caesar.132 This foundation legend
was repeated, among others, by Chronica Poloniae maioris133 in the thirteenth
century, and by Angelus de Stargardia in the fourteenth century.134 In the
chronicle of Wincenty Kadłubek from the turn of the twelfth century we can
British Isles but in the West in general. See: Homer Nearing Jr., “Local Caesar Traditions in
Britain,” Speculum 2 (1949), no. 24, pp. 218–227.
127 See: Paul Hess, Li Roumanz de Julius César. Ein Beitrag zur Cäsargeschichte im Mittelalter
(Winterthur, 1956); Heinz Thomas, “Julius Caesar und die Deutschen. Zu Ursprung und
Gehalt eines deutschen Geshihtsbewußtseins in der Zeit Gregors VII. und Heinrichs IV.,”
in Die Salier und das Reich: Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der
Salier, v. 3, eds. Stefan Weinfurter, Hubertus Seibert (Sigmaringen, 1991), pp. 245–277; Dieter
Mertens, “Caesar, Arminius und die Deutschen. Meistererzählungen und Aitiologien,”
in Antike im Mittelalter. Fortleben, Nachwirken, Wahrnehmung, eds. Sebastian Brather,
Hans U. Nuber, Heiko Steuer, Thomas Zotz (Ostfildern, 2014), pp. 383–442; Len Scales, The
Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis 1245–1414 (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 309–315;
Alexander Rubel, “Caesar und Karl der Große in der Kaiserchronik. Typologischestruktur
und die ‘transaltio imperii ad Francos’,” Antike und Abendland 47 (2001), pp. 146–163.
128 Mertens, “Caesar, Arminius und die Deutschen,” pp. 401–403; Tim Reuter, “Past, Present
and No Future in the Twelfth Century ‘Regnum Teutonicum’,” in The Perception of the Past
in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Paul Magdalino (London/Rio Grande, 1992), p. 30.
129 Scales, The Shaping of German Identity, pp. 315–316.
130 Alheydis Plassmann, Origo gentis. Identitäts und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh- und hochmit-
telalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen (Berlin, 2006), p. 30.
131 Helmoldi presbyteri chronica Slavorum, book 1, chapter 38, p. 40.
132 Ebbonis vita Ottonis episcopi Bambergensis, book 3, chapter 1, MPH vol. 2, ed. August
Bielowski (Lviv, 1872), p. 49.
133 Chronica Poloniae maioris, pp. 10–11.
134 Protokół. Kamieńska kronika, pp. 44–45, note 186.
214 chapter 5
find information about three battles in which King Lestek III defeated Caesar.
As a result, the ruler of Rome decided to arrange a marriage between his sis-
ter, Julia, and King Lestek. She allegedly founded two cities in Poland: Julius
(Lubusz), named after her brother, and Julia, reputedly the original name of
Lublin.135 Similar legends about founding cities were also known in the four-
teenth century in Silesia.136 In the same century, a legend about the Roman
origin of Lithuanians began to take shape.137
Perhaps the trace of the stages of development of a similar “Roman” story
was a sharp contradiction in Thomas the Archdeacon’s text, in which the
Romans built Ragusa, and at another time they sacked it – the contamination
of the invaders and the invaded, quite common in the morphology of this type
of stories. As in the case of the motif connected with Epidaurus, a Roman story
was also known in the historiography of the Ragusa area in the late Middle
Ages as well as in the modern era.138
Živković sought the sources of the legend about the Roman refugees in
Chronicon Salernitanum (Salerno Chronicle) written around 974, but based
on information from the end of the preceding century.139 This work tells the
story of the birth of the city of Amalfi, which can explain the origin of the
motif of the Roman newcomers. According to the chronicle, at the time when
Constantine the Great moved the capital of the empire to the Bosphorus area
and embarked across the sea on a journey with the court, his fleet was caught
135 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronicon Polonorum. Mistrza Wincentego zwanego
Kadłubkiem Kronika polska, book 1, chapter 17, MPH series nova vol. 11, ed. Marian Plezia
(Krakow, 1994), pp. 22–23.
136 Information that Julius Caesar founded Lubiąż was given by Kronika książąt polskich.
See: Marek Cetwiński, “Juliusz Cezar w Lubiążu. Wokół pewnej wizji dziejopisarstwa
śląskiego,” in Lux Romana w Europie Środkowej ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Śląska, ed.
Antoni Barciak (Katowice, 2001), pp. 29–36.
137 Jan Jurkiewicz, “Legenda o rzymskim pochodzeniu Litwinów w świetle historiografii.
Czas powstania i tendencje polityczne,” in Europa ŚrodkowoWschodnia: ideologia, histo-
ria a społeczeństwo. Księga poświęcona pamięci Profesora Wojciecha Peltza, eds. Jarosław
Dudek, Daria Janiszewska, Urszula Świderska-Włodarczyk (Zielona Góra, 2005), pp. 335–
350; Elżbieta Kulicka, “Legenda o rzymskim pochodzeniu Litwinów i jej stosunek do mitu
sarmackiego,” Przegląd Historyczny 1 (1980), n. 71, pp. 1–20.
138 Annales Ragusini, p. 7; Nicolai de Ragnina, p. 179; Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii, p. 15. See:
Živković, “On the Foundation of Ragusa,” p. 12; Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 60–67n.
139 Chronicon Salernitanum. A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources
on Language, ed. Ulla Westerbergh, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia vol. 3 (Stockholm/
Lund. 1956), pp. 88–89; Živković, “On the foundation of Ragusa,” pp. 19–20; Walter Pohl,
“History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of Memory,” Early Medieval Europe 3
(2001), no. 10, pp. 354–355.
in a storm and two ships were wrecked near Ragusa.140 The castaways lived for
some time among the inhabitants of the city, but relations between them and
the natives did not go well. So they decided to return to Italy, and in the place
where they settled they founded Amalfi.141
According to Živković, the story had been passed to southern Dalmatia
from Italy. He believed that it happened fairly early. He also noticed that even
Porphyrogennetos wrote about ships from Ragusa carrying the imperial army
to Italy.142 Živković interpreted it as evidence that a similar sea route also
existed in times of peace. As a result of commercial relations, merchants from
Ragusa could have become acquainted with the legend about the origins of
Amalfi. According to Živkovic, who at the time of writing his article did not
have a firm opinion regarding the date of writing Regnum Sclavorum (he speci-
fied it in subsequent works), the founding had to have happened: “at the latest
from the fourteenth century (Miletius), if not one or two centuries earlier (the
Priest of Duklja)”.143
7 Return of King Bello: Regnum Sclavorum and Annales Ragusini
All the sources about the beginnings of Ragusa discussed above are consistent
on several important issues.144 The starting point for the described events was
140 “Vocaturque nomen loci illius nimirum Ragusi” – quoted after: Živković, “On the
Foundation of Ragusa,” p. 19. Parallels between Chronicon Salernitanum and the story of
the Priest of Duklja were previously briefly discussed by Rački: Documenta, p. 281. See:
Matijević Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo, p. 244.
141 Chronicon Salernitanum, pp. 88–89.
142 De administrando imperio, chapter 29, p. 129.
143 Živković, “On the Foundation of Ragusa,” pp. 21–22.
144 A completely different vision of the origins of the city was presented around 1470 by the
Italian humanist Giovanni Mario Filelfo in his poem La Raguseide and the prosaic work
about the history of Ragusa. In his interpretation, the city was founded by the king of
Scythians, Triphone (he was later described as the prince of Sarmatia). Triphone arrived
with his people on the Adriatic Sea. He founded the city of Triphonia. His son, named
Rago, after the death of his father and the victory over the duke of Pannonia, a certain
“Sargonettide Bosno”, founded the city of Ragusa. The connection between the name of
the Rago and Ragusa is obvious. Riccardo Picchio pointed out that the name Triphonia
was a reference to the city of Tribunja (“Povijest Dubrovnika prema interpretaciji human-
iste Giovana Maria Filelfa (1426–1480),” Zbornik Zagrebačke slavističke škole 1 (1973),
pp. 18). According to Neven Jovanović, Filelfo constructed his story freely using themes
known from the works of Mieltius and the Priest of Duklja. Therefore, it would be the
oldest trace of the presence of Regnum Sclavorum in Ragusa. Unfortunately, analysis of
Filelfo’s work does not fully confirm this assumption: Neven Jovanović, “Dubrovnik in the
Corpus of Eastern Adriatic Humanist ‘Laudationes Urbium’,” Dubrovnik Annals 16 (2012),
216 chapter 5
the sacking of the ancient city of Epidaurus. Then the narrative continued in
two ways, and the foundation of the new city was associated with two groups:
the refugees from the sacked city, and the newcomers. In all the texts dated
later than the account of Constantine Porphyrogennetos, the Romans were
the newcomers.
Versions of the story are found in two anonymous sources: the older Regnum
Sclavorum, and Annales Ragusini, supposedly written in the Late Middle Ages.
These sources extend the image of the origins of the city with one very impor-
tant motif, namely, the story of King Bello. According to Regnum Sclavorum, as
well as Annales Ragusini, King Bello, a descendant of the old dynasty, returned
as the leader of the Romans and was the main proponent of the founding
of Ragusa. Both sources clearly appreciate the role of the Slavs in the story.
The king was the heir of the Slavic dynasty, and his rule over Ragusa was then
supplemented with the return to the throne of the “regnum patrum suorum”
(kingdom of his fathers), as the Priest of Duklja put it145 – i.e. uniting Ragusa
and the Slavs under one reign.
In both Annales Ragusini and in Regnum Sclavorum, as far as the legend of
the origins of Ragusa is concerned, the motif of the Romans was bound with
a Slavic element. The anonymous author of the annals noted the presence of
the “ambassadors” from Bosnia. Later, when King Bello sailed the sea with his
500 men (described as “Persone Romane”), he was expected by 5000 people
from Bosnia. Together they set up a tower or a castle called Lave. In unpub-
lished versions of Annales Ragusini there were other justifications for the
presence of the Slavs in Ragusa. They were supposed to be a guarantee of obe-
dience, or providing military assistance. As Kunčević noted, in the historio
graphy of Raguza in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the tension between
the Roman origin and the Slavic present was solved with an image of Ragusa’s
nobility, which was both Roman and Slavic from the outset.146
pp. 29. However, it can be stated that the history presented by Filelfo may be a trace of the
formation of the Slavic legend about the foundation of Ragusa. This is indicated by the
role of Tribunja in that story and the mention of the Scythians or Sarmatians, who in the
Late Middle Ages were often portrayed as the ancestors of the Slavs. The edition of both
works of Filelfo: Nestore Pelicelli, “Due opere inedite di G. M. Filelfo: La Raguseide e La
Storia di Ragusa,” Rivista Dalmatica 5 (1902–1903), pp. 5–33, 139–176.
146 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 66. As Kunčević pointed out, one of the unpublished
manuscripts of Annales Ragusini even derived the name of the city from the verb radu-
nare (to gather), because the city gathered both people from Bosnia and the Romans
(“Ragusi per esser radunate gente tanto bosnese como anchora delli Romani”). See: Mit o
Dubrovniku, p. 66, note 33.
Despite the striking similarity between both narrations, the story told in
Regnum Sclavorum differs from that of Annales Ragusini in some important
details. Discussing these differences may sharpen our view of certain features
specific only to the story told by the Priest of Duklja, who combined the tradi-
tion of the state of the Slavs and its dynasty with the previously-shaped tale of
the birth of the city.
The different forms of proper names seems to be a less important factor,
although it must be remembered that in Annales Ragusini, Pavlimir is called
Radoslav and the name of the defiant son who rebelled against his father
is not Časlav but Berislav. In this story, the exiled King Radoslav of Bosnia
fled to Rome with his six barons. In Rome, as it was mentioned, he received
the title of Capitanio from the pope for his bravery. He had there three sons
with a certain Signora Romana, two of whom died of plague, and the third,
Stefano Bello, was the father of Radoslav Bello, the future founder of Ragusa.
After the death of Berislav, his two sons and his entire family, ambassadors
were sent from Bosnia to Rome, and Radoslav Bello crossed the sea at their
instigation.147 The text might be based on oral sources, which would explain
such inconsistencies.148 As for the narrative layer of the story, neither of these
changes is significant anyway. The names of Pavlimir and his father Petrislav
in Regnum Sclavorum, as Šišić noted, may simply be “hybrids of the names
Peter and Paul, which would symbolize Romans”.149 This would emphasize the
Roman roots of both protagonists, and, in a more general interpretation, would
be a substitute for “Romanism” and the prestige associated with it.
Both Radoslav Bello and Pavlimir Bello performed similar functions in both
of the abovementioned narratives. They assumed the role previously attrib-
uted to Archbishop Johannes, the leader of the inhabitants of Epidaurus, thus
shifting the burden of managing the foundation of Ragusa from the refugees
147 Annales Ragusini, pp. 3–4. According to Annales Ragusini, Berislav died in 524, Radoslav
came in 525, and the city was founded in 457 or 458 (in other manuscripts even later,
in the sixth century), while the fugitives from Epidaurus arrived afterwards, in 691. See:
Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 35.
148 In the Croatian version of The Chronicle (in which there is no trace of Pavlimir), it was
king Radoslav who returned from Rome and took over the kingdom after the fall of
Seislav. In Annales Ragusini, on the other hand, there are two Radoslavs – the king of
Bosna and his grandson, Radoslav Bello. This can indicate the complicated transmission
of the thread about the returning ruler. It is difficult to say anything about the oral tradi-
tion about Pavlimir or Radoslav in the late Middle Ages but this exchangeability of proper
names could indirectly indicate its existence, as in the process of oral transmission the
names often change and are subjected to the requirements of the plot.
218 chapter 5
of the ancient city and placing it in the hands of the Roman newcomers.150
The Slavic origin of the two rulers probably reflected the new social structure
within the city itself: more frequent cooperation and symbiosis with the Slavic
inhabitants of its surroundings.151
This is clearly seen in the passages in which both sources mention the rea-
sons for the destruction of Epidaurus. Constantine Porphyrogennetos attri-
butes this act to the Slavs. Miletius leaves the question unresolved, while
Thomas the Archdeacon blurs the transparency of his own narrative and claims
that the city was destroyed by its builders, the Romans. According to Regnum
Sclavorum and Annales Ragusini, the destroyers of the ancient Epidaurus were
Saracens. While Annales only briefly mentions “Epidauro, ruinato per Saracini”
(Epidaurus, ruined by Saracens),152 the account in Regnum Sclavorum is much
broader. When the anonymous Priest of Duklja describes the Saracen fleet,
he even shows his knowledge of Greek, translating “miria armenii” as “decem
milia vela” (ten thousand sails).153 This makes the aforementioned hypothe-
sis proposed by Šišić more probable, claiming that this record is based on a
document mentioning the Arab attack on Boka Kotorska in 841. It is possible
that this information was found by the Priest of Duklja in one of the south-
ern Dalmatian centres, such as Bar or Kotor.154 The description which, prob-
ably contrary to the Priest of Duklja’s intentions, presented a negative image
of the Slavs can perhaps be attributed to meticulousness in the transcription
of the record. In the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, the Latins fleeing from
Epidaurus to the mountains were initially captured by Slavs who made them
their slaves. As was reported by the Priest of Duklja, this situation was solved
only by the promise of paying a ransom: “Post haec plurimi Latinos dimiserunt
150 Tendency to depreciate the role of the Bishop of Epidaurus in the legend about the
beginnings of Ragusa has been continued in the modern historiography, Kunčević, Mit o
Dubrovniku, p. 36.
151 Kunčević also noticed the two mixed variants of the story about foundation of Ragusa;
motifs related to the figure of Pavlimir were explicitly called by him the “Slavic” version of
the beginnings of the city: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 34–35n.
154 Živković, “The Legend of Pavlimir Bello,” p. 209; information about the raid of Saracens
appears also in works of Renaissance writers from Dubrovnik. However, Živković claimed
that they had based it mainly on the text De administrando imperio already known at that
time: “Saracens appearing in works of the sixteenth-century authors from Ragusa were
included in stories of the beginnings of the city because these authors used DAI (and
Hagiographies of St. Basil) by Constantine Porphyrogennetos who had mentioned the
raid of Saracens in 866. The humanist scholars copied the traditional narration of DAI
and other written sources known from somewhere else to create the image of the begin-
nings of Ragusa”: Živković, “On the Foundation of Ragusa,” p. 14.
tali pacto, ut omni tempore tributa eis redderent et servitia exercerent” (Later,
however, many Latins were released, as long as they would always serve them
and pay them tribute).155 The explanation for this passage may be simple: the
Priest of Duklja referred to information on the earlier relations between the
Slavs and Latins, describing how the cities were dependent on the Slavs living
in the vicinity. The author combined this information with accounts of the
Slavic king as a founder and protector of Ragusa. Such an adaptation of the text
seems obvious due to the overall image of the figure of Pavlimir. Banašević was
correct when he wrote that “the Priest of Duklja could not attribute the sack-
ing of the cities to the Slavs, because he brought them to this land much earlier
and he wanted one of the kings of the Slavic dynasty to be the founder of one
of them [Dubrovnik]”.156 It seems that the aforementioned “serving and paying
tribute” could have been more than simply a formulation inspired by the vision
of the Latins harassed by the Slavic barbarians. It is possible that the reference
to the tribute was an attempt to explain the political situation of Ragusa in the
High Middle Ages and, above all, the relations between the city and the Slavic
polities surrounding it. The Priest of Duklja certainly had some idea of them.
In the fragment of Annales Ragusini that is the equivalent of the story of the
Saracen attack in Regnum Sclavorum, the counterpart of the Slavs forcing the
Latins to obedience is the Kingdom of Bosnia. The author of Annales empha-
sized that the exiled inhabitants of Epidaurus had always been obedient to
the kings of Bosnia,157 which may be associated with the obligation to “serve
and pay tribute” to the Slavs in the text of the Priest of Duklja – expected to
be fulfilled by the Latins “ut omni tempore”. The reference to the Kingdom of
Bosnia, ruled by the royal lineage to which (according to Annales) Radoslav
Bello belonged,158 is one of the most important differences between Annales
Ragusini and Regnum Sclavorum. It was probably a fragment of the local
Ragusa tradition, which the Priest of Duklja either did not know, or decided
not to use. Information similar to that known from Annales Ragusini was also
later provided by Tuberon. He knew the text of Regnum Sclavorum and wrote
about King Polimirus (not Radoslav), but nevertheless he identified him as a
grandson of Bosnian King Ratislav and a descendant of the family of Gothislav,
which can be translated as “fame of the Goths”.159

159 Tuberon also derived the name of Ragusa from Radagajs (Radacaso), a chieftain of the
Goths: Lvdovici Tvberonis Commentari, pp. 88–90; see: Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina
a narodna predanja, pp. 105–108.
220 chapter 5
An analogy can be found between this subordination of Ragusa to the kings

de stirpe Bosnense and the vision of the Slavic-Latin symbiosis under the reign
of the Slavic ruler presented by the Priest of Duklja. The two-stage nature of the
transfer of power is clearly visible in his text. The account of the foundation of
the city began and ended with a description of the Slavs sending out the depu-
ties and calling on Pavlimir to take over the throne of the kingdom. Immediately
after Pavlimir’s landing in Gravosa and Umbla, “Miserunt enim Sclavi Bello, qui
et Pavlimirus, nuncios, ut veniret accipere regnum patrum suorum” (the Slavs
sent a messenger to Bello, or Pavlimir, to come and receive the kingdom of his
fathers).160 However, the Priest of Duklja resumed the story only after finishing
the motif of the foundation of Ragusa, and he started it as if from the beginning
again: “Inter haec audientes bani et iupani terrae advenisse Bellum, nepotem
Radaslavi regis, laetati sunt, et maxime populus terrae Sclavorum; caeperunt
undique ad eum confluere, inprimis habitatores regionis Tribuniae, venientes
cum magno honore, duxerunt illum in Tribuniam” (When the bans and župans
learned about the arrival of Bello, the grandson of King Radoslav to the coun-
try, they were glad, particularly the people of the Slavic land; they began to
gather together from all over the land, especially the inhabitants of the land
of Tribunja [Travunja] who arrived and brought him, with great reverence, to
Tribunja).161 The very composition of the text reveals two sources for Pavlimir’s
authority. The inhabitants of the Kingdom escorted him to Tribunja, where he
was ceremonially proclaimed the king. Although the Priest of Duklja consis-
tently refers to the idea of the broad Slavic community, his description of the
royal ceremony of Pavlimir is presented mainly in reference to the older gene-
alogy of the rulers of Travunja, to which Pavlimir probably belonged. In the
Ragusa tradition, known from Annales Ragusini and the work by Tuberon, the
functions of Travunja were taken over by the Kingdom of Bosnia.
It is possible that these are the traces left in the Dubrovnik historiography of
the processes of settling relations between Ragusa and the kingdom of Bosnia
in the fourteenth century. The main matter of dispute then was the status of
the Konavle region, to which Ragusa claimed the rights. A certain document
issued by two Hum magnates – župan Bjeljak Sanković and voivode Radič
Sanković, his brother – written in Cyrillic and dated 1391, can be interpreted
as testimony of normalizing the relations between Ragusa and Bosnia. The
magnates offered the port of Cavtat and the land of Konavle to Dubrovnik in
return for “services” paid by the city to the rulers of Raška, Bosnia and Hum.
The Sanković brothers mentioned that, according to old documents and the

161 Ljetopis, p. 71. The Priest of Duklja used the name Tribunia to describe both the region and
its main city. In the translation, the name Travunja was used in reference to the region.
memory of people “transferred from generation to generation”, in the place

where Cavtat is located by the sea in Konavle župa, there was once an old for-
tress: Old Dubrovnik, later abandoned.162
This may be the case with the interpretatio slavica of the legend of Epidaurus.
It linked the Slavic land of Konavle with the origins of Ragusa, and mentioned
“services” for the Slavic rulers. Raška, Bosnia and Hum were treated here as
one political entity. The significance attributed by that tradition to the port of
Cavtat was analysed extensively at the beginning of the twentieth century by
Milorad Medini, who really believed that the city was located in the place of
an “Old Dubrovnik” built after the fall of Epidaurus, and then destroyed by a
Saracen raid in the ninth century. Medini referred to the Italian name of the
city: Ragusavecchia.163 Although he did not refer to the Sanković brothers in
this context, their relationship with the tradition that identifies Cavtat with
older Dubrovnik seems obvious.
The document by the Sanković brothers has always been considered
controversial. Released immediately after the death of King Tvrtko I, in the
period when royal power in Bosnia was weakened, it unambiguously situated
its authors as partisans of Dubrovnik in a dispute with the rulers of Bosnia,
the Kotromanić family.164 Offering Konavle to the city was perceived by the
Bosnian magnates as a betrayal of royal interests and in the same year led to
the fall of both Sanković brothers. The disputed land was taken over by voivode
Vlatko Vuković and prince Pavle Radenović who remained loyal to King Stefan
Dabiša. The Sanković brothers were captured and imprisoned by them.165
It is not difficult to guess that besides the propaganda claiming Ragusa’s to
Konavle, there was also another interpretation of the legend: according to it,
the city had to be obedient to the kings of Bosnia.
Since the legend of Old Dubrovnik could be used by the inhabitants of
city and their allies in political actions, the legend of the king of Bosnia as
162 Monumenta Serbica spectantia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, ed. Franz Miklosich
(Vienna, 1858), no. 204, pp. 217–219; Stare srpske povelje i pisma, ed. Ljubomir Stojanović
(Beograd/Sremski Karlovci, 1929), book 1, part 1, no. 129, pp. 123–126; see: Siniša Mišić,
“Povelja Bjeljaka i Radiča Stankovicia Dubrovniku,” Stari srpski arhiv 7 (2008), pp. 113–127;
Katičić, “Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo,” pp. 159–160.
163 Medini, Starine dubrovačke, pp. 159–174; Junije Resti, a Dubrovnik-based historian from
the turn of the eighteenth century explained the name Cavtat as Civitas Vetus: Chronica
Ragusina Junii Restii, p. 166.
164 According to Kunčević, the document repeated the version of the Dubrovnik diplomats;
perhaps it was even composed by them and only given to Sankovićs to be confirmed:
Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 56.
165 See: John V. A. Fine Jr., Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth
Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor, 1994), pp. 455–471.
222 chapter 5
the founder and protector of Ragusa could be an equally powerful ideo-

logical weapon for their opponents. The question might arise of why the
Dubrovnik-based authors voluntarily referred to this tradition. This issue
deserves to be examined further.
The anonymous author of Annales Ragusini was the first who claimed that
the inhabitants of Epidaurus were obedient to the kings of Bosnia, and that
the founder of Ragusa, King Bello, came from a Bosnian family. The Annales
were probably written at the end of the fifteenth century, after the fall of
the Kotromanić dynasty in 1463, when the Turks captured and beheaded
Stefan Tomašević, the last Bosnian king. It seems that when the anonymous
Ragusa-based author was working on his Annales, old conflicts between the
city and Bosnia were no longer significant. The reference to the legendary lin-
eage of Bosnian kings as the founders of Ragusa could have been added for the
sake of the grandness of the city.
The same intention was reflected in the retouched genealogies of local
patrician families. Annales Ragusini mentioned several families claiming their
origin to be d’Epidauro. One of them, deriving its genealogy “from Bosnia”, is
described in Annali di Ragusa, a later work by Nicola Ragnina, as those who “da
Roma venuti con Radoslav Bello, re di Bosna” (came from Rome with Radoslav
Bello, the king of Bosnia).166
However, according to Annales Ragusini, Radoslav Bello was a ruler of the
city rather than of the Kingdom of Bosnia. He belonged to the old royal lin-
eage, but he also played a nonfunctional role, in which he became somewhat
similar to the figure of Epidaurus, who had arrived from Egypt in the days of
Moses to found the city on the Adriatic coast.167 Relations within the Bosnian
dynasty are of little interest to the anonymous author of Annales Ragusini. He
summarized the takeover of the inheritance of exiled Radoslav by his grand-
son, also Radoslav, with only one paragraph: “Fo sotomeso tuto Regniame in
uno ano, pazificante Re Radosav Bello de Bosna, perchè fo della stirpe reale, e
lo paese sucjedeva a lui, perchè altro non era ezeto lui, et per tal cagione tuto
paese lo azetava per suo Signore pacificante” (The entire kingdom surrendered
within one year, united by King Radoslav Bello of Bosnia, because he was of the
166 Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 52–60; Annales Ragusini, pp. 161; Nicolai de Ragnina,
pp. 186. Symbolic completion of the process of integration of citizens of the city and the
rise of the elite of free burghers ruling the Republic was then expressed in the litera-
ture. Pavlimir, a drama written in the seventeenth century by Junije Palmotić, described
the wedding of the ruler and a girl from Epidaurus; Pavlimir asks the inhabitants of
Dubrovnik to accept him, after his return, “as a citizen, not as a king” (Junije Palmotić,
Pavlimir, Zagreb 1995, p. 134; see: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, pp. 67–70).
167 Nicolai de Ragnina, pp. 168–174, 187.
royal family, and the country was his heritage, because there was noboty else
except him, and therefore the country accepted him, as its reigning Lord).168
This fact distinguishes Radoslav Bello from Pavlimir as described in the work
by the Priest of Duklja, who was far more deserving of the title of the king of
the Slavs and also of his “martial” nickname Bello.
It is not difficult to find features typical of king-founders in both rulers.
They both organized their communities at very critical moments. As we have
already emphasized, both Pavlimir and, above all, Radoslav Bello took over the
role which according to older accounts was probably performed by Archbishop
Johannes. The anonymous author of Annales Ragusini, contrary to the Priest of
Duklja, referred to the tradition previously passed down by Miletius. It was
Radoslav Bello who, according to the Annales, brought relics of the saints
Petronillla, Domitilla, Nereus, Achilles and Pancratius from Rome.169 Živković
noted that, apart from Domitilla, whose feast is on May 31, all of these saints
are commemorated on the same day, May 12.170 Besides them, the anonymous
author of Annales Ragusini also mentioned the church of St. Stephen the
Protomartyr, introduced in the context of the origins of the city by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos, and later by Miletius. As we have already seen, Katičić
proposed that the names of all the abovementioned saints should be placed
within the reconstructed text about the origins of the city.
The Priest of Duklja did not mention any sacred relics in reference to
Pavlimir. In our opinion, he could have omitted this motif consciously, because
it did not match his image of the ruler and the basic functions attributed to
Pavlimir within the broader narrative of Regnum Sclavorum. The Annales
Ragusini however brought the issue of the relics to the fore in its narrative.
Bringing them to the city was considered the greatest merit of King Radoslav
Bello. Besides, they were also the cause of his death. In this narrative, the king
drowned while going to the place where the relics were placed in order to be
taken away from the city.171
The connection of the ruler with the relics brought by him (in this version
they were not stolen, although Miletius wrote about the relics “quae secum fur-
tim tulerant Roma fugientes” [Whom the Roman refugees [furtively] brought
with themselves]) would reflect his connection with city he founded. In the
context of this connection, we can see Radoslav as bearing the features of a leg-
endary cultural hero: a stranger of noble origin who consolidates a community

170 Živković, “The Legend of Pavlimir Bello,” p. 212.
224 chapter 5
mired in chaos, builds a city, and takes responsibility for its prosperity.172
Živković believed that the Priest of Duklja had a copy of Historia Regum
Britanniae. If he were correct, one could say that the story of Radoslav Bello,
who arrived with the Romans to found Ragusa, corresponds with the narrative
about Brutus of Troy, a grandson of Latinus, who was exiled from Italy and
founded New Troy in the place where London is situated today.173 However,
this does not necessarily mean that the two texts are linked. The entire – almost
archetypal – complex behind the stories of the legendary rulers-founders may
also lead us to the Slavic founding legends studied by Třeštik, Banaszkiewicz
or Skibinski, or to the oldest legend related to the history of Epidaurus-Ragusa
and the figure of Cadmus, one of the most famous founders in Greek mythol-
ogy, who (besides the city on the Adriatic coast) was primarily credited with
founding the Greek city of Thebes.
The founding ethos in the story of King Bello, however, gains a clearer shape
when we look once more at the function of the relics brought by him: their
presence supported the royal activities related to the foundation of the city.
Thus, the bringing of the relics by the Romans and Radoslav should be consid-
ered in terms of the symbolism of the very act of transferring sacred remains
and the stories about such events. Annales Ragusini described the process of
bringing the relics in some detail, whereas Miletius, as we saw, knew they had
been brought in secret, and thus were probably stolen. The translatio of rel-
ics in the Middle Ages was often taken literally, as the transfer of the bodies
of saints. Moreover, even the thieves of holy remains were treated as heroes
and even saints themselves.174 Bringing relics also meant obtaining the inter-
cession and help of a particular patron saint.175 It was considered to be the
best attempt to overcome crises affecting communities. It would have been no
wonder, then, that Radoslav, who came to solve the difficult situation faced by
172 On this function of an organizer of the community: Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajec-
zne, pp. 7–43.
173 Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia regum Britanniae, ed. Albert Schulz (Halle, 1854),
chapter 17, p. 19; based of similarities of names and situations, Živković tried to compare
the chronicle of Geoffrey from Monmouth and Regnum Sclavorum (chapter I): Živković,
Gesta regum, pp. 63–64, 77; he did not notice Belinus – a warlike descendant of Brutus –
who had participated in the civil war in Rome and had founded many cities: Historia
regum Britanniae, pp. 31–44.
174 Patrick J. Geary, Furta sacra. Thefts of Relics in Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1990),
p. 126.
175 Maria Starnawska – admittedly providing examples from Poland – discussed the rite
of translation of saints and its typical features in much broader context in her work:
Starnawska, Świetych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach polskich w
średniowieczu (Warsaw, 2008), pp. 257–315.
both his people and the exiles from Epidaurus, had decided to bring the sign of
the blessing of the saints in a physical tangible form.176
Stories of obtaining relics and their transfer to a new place – in this case
to the church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr in Pusterna – became part of
the local collective memory; they were also a source of pride for the local
community.177 It is this element that distinguishes the narrative of Annales,
presented from the perspective of an inhabitant of Ragusa, from the way in
which the origins of the city are described by the Priest of Duklja, for whom
the foundation motif is just one of many elements of the tale about the return
of the king and restoration of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
8 Pavlimir Bello as the Founder of Ragusa and as a Restorer of the

Kingdom of Slavs
It is possible that the author of Regnum Sclavorum deliberately omitted the

theme of the relics in his narrative. For the inhabitants of Ragusa, it was per-
haps the most important part of the local myth about King Bello, but for the
Priest of Duklja, the motif of founding the city was subordinated to the broader
perspective of restoration of the Kingdom of the Slavs. The very act of found-
ing Ragusa was to bring glory to the later king, but the Priest of Duklja perhaps
found the story about the relics irrelevant from the point of view of further
actions attributed to Pavlimir.
Roman Michałowski, who analysed the significance of the royal foundations,
stated that they fulfilled the functions of “pressure on people” and “pressure on
the sacrum”. He also mentioned the third function: the desire of a monarch “to
present himself as a king or a prince worthy of the name”. Michałowski went
on to say that “the self-confidence that the monarch could obtain on this path
probably had an impact on the manner in which he exercised his power”.178
We must remember, of course, that in the case of the discussed fragment of
Regnum Sclavorum, both the ruler and the foundation are fictitious. The Priest
of Duklja, however, could start Pavlimir’s story just from the description of his
founding a powerful city, to emphasize his readiness to exercise power and the
right to regain the crown.
176 On the phenomenon and its meaning: Geary, Furta sacra, pp. XIII, 19n.
177 Geary, Furta sacra, pp. 126–129.
178 Roman Michałowski, Princeps Fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce
X–XII w. (Warsaw, 1993), pp. 7–8.
226 chapter 5
In fact, Ragusa was not the only foundation of Pavlimir mentioned in the
chronicle. The Priest of Duklja describes that after the victorious war against
Ljutomir, župan of Raška: “Romani qui cum rege erant, aedificaverunt eccle-
siam in Rassia ad honorem beati Petri apostoli in loco propinquo Caldanae.
Et non multum longe ab eadem ecclesia, in uno monticulo, constuxit rex cas-
tellum vocavitque illud suo nomie Bello. Ecclesiam autem supradictam sta-
tuit episcopatum fieri ordinavitque ibi episcopum et episcopatum uqsue in
praesentem diem.” (The Romans, who were with the king, erected a church in
Rassia to honour St. Peter the Apostle, in a place near Kaldane. Not far from
this church, the king built a fortress on one of the hills and called it by his
name: Bello. This church was raised [by the king] to the rank of bishopric, and
he has appointed a bishop and a bishopric there to this day).179
It should be noted, however, that the fragment about the founding of Ragusa
and the description of the bishopric and fortress near Kaldane had slightly dif-
ferent roles to play within the narrative. Building the fortress immediately after
the war uniting the old lands of the dynasty was a visible sign of exercising
military control over rebellious Raška by King Pavlimir. In this context, the very
process of regaining the frontiers of the old state of the ancestors also changed
the place of Ragusa in this story. Two centres, Ragusa in the west and the Bello
fortress in the east, were symbolic signs of the boundaries of the royal estates.
It is possible that the bishopric in Ras – just like Ragusa – was associated with
an older legend attributing the foundation of the diocese to the Romans or
to other eminent newcomers. This would explain the chronicler’s emphasis
on their involvement in the act of foundation – after all, the bishopric was
founded by “Romani qui cum rege erant”.180 On the other hand, the fortress
was founded by the king himself and called by his own name to mark the geo-
graphic scope of his reign.
The difference between Ras and Ragusa became clearer during the events
that followed the king’s death. Descendants of Tychomil181 – against whom
Pavlimir had previously fought victorious battles – began to rule again in
Raška. On the other hand, Ragusa allegedly remained loyal to the widow
and the young heir to the throne, Tišemir. As the Priest of Duklja says: “Sola
Tribunia obediebat reginae, eo quo parentes eius erant in Tribunia et Lausio,

180 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 262 – he was convinced that the bishopric in Ras was some-
how compared to Rome, yet it was probably rather a form of emphasizing its connection
with the Roman founders than crediting Ras with such important attributes within the
Kingdom of the Slavs by the Priest of Duklja.
181 “Defuncto rege, ii qui de progenie Tyc[h]omil erant, caeperunt dominare Rassam”,
Ljetopis, p. 72.
et non audebant rebellare ei” (Only Tribunja remained loyal to the queen, for
her relatives lived in Tribunja and Lausio),182 which also emphasized the dis-
tinctness of Ragusa within the Kingdom of the Slavs created by the chronicler.
It was often a backup for the royal power, a subject separate from the proper
lands of the dynasty.183
This distinctness of Ragusa within the Kingdom of the Slavs could be con-
firmed by later events. When the sons of King Predimir were dethroned by
their cousin Legec and his seven descendants, the only one delivered from
the slaughter was Sylvester, the son of Boleslav and the grandson of Predimir.
Sylvester and his mother Castreca found refuge in Ragusa. The Priest of Duklja
mentioned that the family of Castreca came from this city. In this case, Ragusa
became not only a refuge, but also the point of a new beginning for the only
surviving representative of the dynasty.184
The very name of Sylvester echoes the name of Dubrovnik – “id est ‘silvester’
sive ‘silvestris’” (that is, “forest” or “in the forest”), as the anonymous author of
Regnum Sclavorum explained on another occasion.185 This is probably another
trace of a fabulous story, perhaps a reference to some legends about the ori-
gins of the city. It is interesting that Banašević, and recently also Živković,
referred to the story of the Czech princess Dobrava (Dubravka) while discuss-
ing this narrative. The link between these two legends could be indicated by
the name of Boleslav appearing in both of them: in the former, prince Boleslav
had a son called Sylvester; in the latter he had a daughter, Dubrava. According
to Banašević, this could be a trace of some Slavic heroic legend (“[the name
of] Sylvester could be presented as Dubravko”186). Živković used this exam-
ple to show the author of Regnum Sclavorum’s connections with Bohemia or
Poland,187 making use of the chronicle by Gallus Anonymus. Živković believed
that the Priest of Duklja may have known Gesta principum Polonorum, or
the legend itself, even if indirectly. In both cases, however, these hypotheses
should be considered as erroneous and based only on a similarity between the
anthroponyms, which seems accidental.188 Nevertheless, the fragment devoted

183 Kunčević, while noticing that in Annales Ragusini king Radoslav died without progeny,
claimed that the Priest of Duklja wanted to emphasize domination of the Slavic dynasty
over the city (Kunčević, Mit od Dubrovniku, pp. 68–69); however, it is not confirmed by the
analysis of Ragusian motifs in Regnum Sclavorum.
188 The similar convergence of the styles of Cosmas and the author of Regnum Sclavorum was
noticed and analysed by Jovan Kovačević, “O uvodu Barskog rodoslova,” Zbornik Matice
228 chapter 5
to Sylvester highlights the extraordinary role played by Dubrovnik in the work

by the Priest of Duklja.
Besides Ragusa, one other city occupied an important place in Pavlimir’s
spatial system of power: Tribunja, mentioned several times. Tribunja was the
Slavic capital of Pavlimir Bello,189 where he was raised to the dignity of the king
of the Slavs. After his death, as we learn from Regnum Sclavorum, it was “sola
Tribunia obediebat reginae” (only Tribunja which surrendered to the queen)
and the juvenile heir, Tišemir.
Such a perspective of the spatial arrangement of the central points of
power could have been imposed on the Priest of Duklja by the genealogy
of the Travunian rulers, which he probably used when working on Regnum
Sclavorum. Tribunja was mentioned as an important centre in the text of the
chronicle immediately after the description of the foundation of Ragusa. We
have already pointed out this specific course of the Priest of Duklja’s story, who
presented the establishment of the city in a digressive manner, placing this
motif between the first arrival of the Slavic envoys, just after the landing of
the Romans, and the events that raised Pavlimir to the Slavic throne. Let us
repeat what the Priest of Duklja knew about this: “Inter haec audientes bani et
iupani terrae advenisse Bellum, nepotem Radaslavi regis, laetati sunt, et max-
ime populus terrae Sclavorum; caeperunt undique ad eum confluere, inprimis
habitatores regionis Tribuniae, venientes cum magno honore, duxerunt illum
in Tribuniam. Postea bani venientes in Tribuniam, cum iupanis et setnicis sus-
ceperunt illum honorifice et in die Ascensionis Domini constituerunt illum
regem” (When bans and župans learned about the arrival of Bello, the grand-
son of King Radoslav, to the country, they were glad, particularly the people
of the Slavic land; they began to gather from all over the land, especially the
srpske 13 14 (1956), pp. 67–70. Banašević, referring to the observations of Kovačević regard-
ing the eponymous names of cities in the work by Cosmas (Vlastislav was used as an exam-
ple), even suggested the possibility of a direct influence on the text of Regnum Sclavorum,
and pointed out that the place where Vlastislav was built “between the two mountains
of Medvez and Pripek, i.e. on the border between two provinces, Bilina and Litoměřice
[Belina and Lutomerici]” (Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 10, p. 19; Kosmasa
Kronika Czechów, p. 14) – as this area was described by Cosmas. Banašević noticed the sur-
prising convergence of these toponyms with names mentioned by the anonymous author
of Regnum Sclavorum: Bellina plain, where Pavlimir Bello won over the inhabitants of
Syrmia and the Hungarians and the name of his former opponent, Ljutomir, a župan of
Raška. Banašević also discussed Boleslav, a grandson of Pavlimir Bello – mentioned only
in Regnum Sclavorum – suggesting that the name could be derived from the history of
Bohemia or even Poland known to the Priest of Duklja, albeit fragmentarily.
189 Possibly the town of Trebinje in Herzegovina. On the symbolic meaning of cities arrang-
ing imaginary space: Banaszkiewicz, “Jedność porządku przestrzennego, społecznego i
tradycji początków ludu,” pp. 448–449.
inhabitants of the land of Tribunja who arrived and brought him with great rev-
erence to Tribunja. Then, after his arrival in Tribunja, the bans, who, together
with župans and centurions received him with honour, made him their king on
the day of the Feast of Ascension of the Lord).190
The indicated excerpt of the text can tell us a great deal about how the
chronicler imagined the election of the ruler and inauguration of his reign. The
central event of the entire ceremony seems to have been the solemn adventus
regis, during which the nation of the Slavic land, especially the inhabitants of
the Tribunja region, respectfully brought the future ruler to the main centre of
his future kingdom.191 The description provided by the anonymous author
of Regnum Sclavorum is not very detailed, but it is known that the initiative of
bringing the king was taken by the people (populus) as well as by the bans
and župans of the old realm. The narrative scheme of this type of event might
include both a joyful greeting of a future king and chanting the laudes regiae,
which often accompanied ceremonial introductions.192
Numerous descriptions of adventus regis in other sources from the period of
the High Middle Ages can provide an idea of how Pavlimir’s entry to Tribunja
might have looked. The Priest of Duklja gave a rather laconic account of the
king’s journey, and everything we may add would only be a supposition sup-
ported by descriptions of analogous events. A comparison of the standard
course of a royal entry with the description contained in Regnum Sclavorum

191 Several depictions of the adventus regis may be found in the work of Thomas the
Archdeacon. The chronicler describes, among others, the entry of King Coloman into
Split in 1105: “Then the king entered the city and was received with all honor by the clergy
and people” (Tunc rex civitatem ingressus, valde honorifice a clero et populo susceptus
est, Historia Salonitana, p. 96). Dušan Zupka drew attention to the laudes regiae which,
according to Thomas, accompanied the royal welcome of Andrew II in Split in 1217 (“All
the burghers, foreigners and an enormous number of his soldiers formed a procession
and went to meet the Lord King, to welcome him singing his praises in loud voices …
singing together in a manner worthy of his royal majesty”, Historia Salonitana, p. 161).
Zupka believed that the chants were an element of the local Dalmatian tradition (a
trace of Byzantine influence) which was later adopted in Hungary: Dušan Zupka, Ritual
and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty (1000–1301)
(Leiden/Boston, 2016), pp. 45–49. See also: Ernst H. Kantorowicz, “The King’s Advent
and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina,” The Art Bulletin 4 (1944), no. 27,
pp. 212n; Andreas Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche
(Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 88n; Dalewski, Władza, przestrzeń, ceremoniał. Miejsce i uroczystość
inauguracji władcy w Polsce średniowiecznej do XIV wieku, p. 121.
192 Zupka, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary, pp. 45–49, 117–138;
Janet L. Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986), p. 396;
Andrzej Pleszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego
średniowiecza. Przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu (Lublin, 2000), pp. 231–237.
230 chapter 5
will help us, however, to extract information that does not come to the fore in
the Priest of Duklja’s narrative.
Accounts of this type of ceremony included biblical references, and even
messianic elements, allowing us to see the analogies between an entry of a king
and the triumphal entry of Jesus to Jerusalem celebrated on Palm Sunday.193
In this way, the road travelled from the outskirts to the city sanctified the
ruler. Bans, župans and centurions – the kingdom’s elite and its sole rulers so
far – also went to the place of the exaltation of the future monarch. The Priest
of Duklja mentioned councils of magnates convoked after they had learnt
about the arrival of Radoslav’s exiled heir. Only after the departure of the king
from Ragusa did the most important magnates of the state go to Tribunja. It
seems, therefore, that they postponed their decision until Pavlimir accepted
the proposal presented to him by the envoys. Such a description also sug-
gests that only after the acclamation of the people did the magnates decide to
accept Pavlimir.
Another interpretation of this passage is also conceivable. The Priest of
Duklja could have had more information about the organization of a typical
adventus regis than would be indicated by his brief description of this event.
It is possible that his account of the course of the ceremony is quite accurate.
Although this does not directly concern the story of Pavlimir, we can make
some general observations here about the symbolism accompanying the royal
entry. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, analysing the arrival of Bolesław the Brave to Kiev
in 1017, emphasized information passed on by Thietmar that the archbishop
had come out in front of the gates of the city to welcome the duke of Poland.
Perhaps this scene represents a kind of negotiation, during which the ceremony
related to the entrance of the Polish duke and the further conduct of the politi-
cal actors of the event were discussed.194 The appearance of Bolesław the Brave
in Kiev was associated with the special situation of a conquest, but neverthe-
less Thietmar mentioned the ceremonial greeting of the ruler in his account.
This element of going outside the city walls also appeared in the description
included in Regnum Sclavorum.195 Therefore, the image of the entry of the
future king to Tribunja given by the Priest of Duklja corresponds in a way to
real practices. It is significant that in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, bans,
župans and centurions welcome the king at the outskirts of the city. We can
193 On symbolism of royal entries see: Dalewski, Władza, przestrzeń, ceremoniał; Kantorowicz,
“The King’s Advent”; Sabine MacCormack, “Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The
Ceremony of Adventus,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 21 (1972), pp. 721n.
194 Banaszkiewicz, “Bolesław i Peredsława. Uwagi o uroczystości stanowienia władcy w
związku z wejściem Chrobrego do Kijowa,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 3–4 (1990), vol. 97, p. 8.
195 Banaszkiewicz, “Bolesław i Peredsława,” p. 9.
only guess whether the Priest of Duklja imagined any kind of negotiations
with the sceptical elite of the old kingdom; one thing is clear, however: he kept
silent on this issue.
In this context, Banaszkiewicz’s observations regarding Cosmas’ narration
about the entry of Bretislav II, the duke of Bohemia, to Prague in 1092 are also
interesting.196 This fragment clearly shows complicated relations between
secular people and the clergy during such ceremonies. As Banaszkiewicz
described it: “First, the duke approaching the city ( ‘advenientem in urbem
Pragam’ is welcomed by hosts of dancing boys and girls (…); inhabitants, gath-
ering at the churches, express their joy at the arrival of a new master accom-
panied by ringing bells. The second part of the ceremony begins at the gates
of the capital, ‘in porta civitatis’ – precisely at the church of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Cosmas, the Bishop of Prague awaits Bretislav there with clergy and a
magnificent procession. (…) The Czech chronicler attributed to the bishop an
important task at the ceremony of raising Bretislav to the dignity of a ruler.
Thus Cosmas ‘deducit [ducem] ad solium’ as the main celebrant of the ritual
of the ruler’s inauguration. This is important because half a century before a
head of the local clergy had not been responsible for such an act: the enthrone-
ment of a duke had been a matter for lay people, representatives of great mag-
nate families. The main figure at the enthronement of Bretislav I in 1037 was
his uncle Jaromir, who ‘ducit ad sedem principalem’ and addressed the people
with the words: here is your master”.197
Although the information provided in Regnum Sclavorum does not allow
us to obtain a complete picture of the events, the role of the magnates seems
to correspond with the tasks of Jaromir, described above. What is striking in
the motif of Pavlimir’s enthronement is the complete lack of information
about the participation of clergymen in the ceremony. This fact seems signifi-
cant when we take into account the claim of scholars that the work of the
Priest of Duklja was written primarily for the needs of the clergy of the Bar
diocese. On the basis of this detail (even though it is an important one) it is dif-
ficult to determine when this fragment of Regnum Sclavorum was composed.
Banaszkiewicz believed that the older rite of the coronation ceremony was
characterized by limited participation by the clergy, and a greater role by mag-
nate families. However, in the analysed account of Pavlimir’s enthronement,
196 Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 50, pp. 132–133; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów,
pp. 89–90.
197 Cosmae Chronicon Boemorum, chapter 42, p. 66; Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, p. 46;
Banaszkiewicz, “Bolesław i Peredsława,” p. 10; see: A. Pleszczyński, Przestrzeń i polityka,
pp. 219–222.
232 chapter 5
we should remember not only when it was composed, but also the context and
purpose of the description.
Pavlimir’s ceremonial entry to Tribunja began his reign in the Kingdom of
the Slavs and was associated with the process of restoring the realm. The end
of this process was marked by the defeat of Ljutomir, the rebellious župan of
Raška. As we know, Pavlimir built a fortress (and named it after himself) in
Raška, probably near the centre of Ljutomir’s great župania. “Post haec caepit
rex perambulare per terram et per regnum suum” (Then the king made a tour
of the lands and his kingdom), according to the Priest of Duklja. This line could
refer to the manner of exercising power by the king, who travelled with his
team and court, visiting particular centres of his land.198 However, making such
a remark immediately after the description of Pavlimir’s victory over Ljutomir
suggests a rather symbolic dimension to the words used. This is not only about
the interpretation of such a lapidary mention in the category of “marking the
land” – a magical procedure, during which cultural heroes extended their
authority over the area they delineated.199 It seems that here the vision is dif-
ferent. It is associated with emphasizing the power of the victorious ruler, the
image of the king who finally managed to regain his lands within the limits set
by his ancestors and approved in Svetopelek’s time.
Pavlimir’s journey around his state after the victorious war – just like stick-
ing frontier poles in the Saale river by Bolesław the Brave200 mentioned by
Gallus Anonymus201 – was a kind of demonstration of the power of the ruler.
Similar events happened after the next war, fought by Pavlimir against the
Hungarians. In this case, the Priest of Duklja gave a detailed description of
the agreement concluded after the battle in the field later called Bellina. The
defeated Hungarians asked Pavlimir for peace: “Rex praeterea fecit pactum
198 The origins of such an image can be probably traced to the practice of exercising power
in the Middle Ages. It was the so-called king-in-motion, rex ambulans, moving with his
court between the main centres of his state, see: Antoni Gąsiorowski, ““Rex ambulans,”
Quaestiones Medii Aevi 1 (1977), pp. 139–162.
199 On this type of universal symbolism associated with the localisation of cities within his
realm with a precisely distinguished centre, the capital; and on the mythical aspect of
the very concept of a border and border guards: Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajeczne,
pp. 340–440.
200 On the symbolism of this event: Gotthold Rhode, “Die ehernen Grenzsäulen Boleslaws
des Tapferen von Polen,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 8 (1960), pp. 331–353;
Banaszkiewicz, “Jedność porządku przestrzennego, społecznego i tradycji początków
ludu,” pp. 464–465.
201 Galli Anonymi Cronica, book 1, chapter 6, pp. 16–17; Kronika polska, p. 19.
cum eis hoc modo, ut ab illo die in antea non auderant transire flumen Sava
et a loco unde surgit et sicut currit usque quo intrat in magno flumine Donavi,
neque homines regis transirent in illam partem, neque ili in istam; et placuit
eis et fecerunt pacem” (So the king made a pact with them, ordering that from
that memorable day they would not dare to cross the Sava river from the place
where it springs, up to the place it flows to the great river Danube, that is,
that the people of the king would not go to their [the Hungarian’s] bank, or
they [the Hungarians] would not go on the other side. They [the Hungarians]
accepted this and the peace treaty was made).202 It is no coincidence that
the Priest of Duklja described two wars fought by Pavlimir – against župan
Ljutomir and against the Hungarians – and both accounts ended with descrip-
tions emphasizing the restoration of the unity of the kingdom and making its
borders safe. Pavlimir, returning to the throne, revived in his realm the status
quo from before Radoslav’s exile. The ruler, who was originally the founder of
Ragusa, was later presented primarily as a restorer of the Kingdom of Slavs.
What particular qualities of Pavlimir’s restoration-oriented activity deserve
further attention? The hypothesis by Živković, who speculated that the story
of Pavlimir told in Regnum Sclavorum is based to some extent on some cer-
tain tradition of Tzeeslav’s deeds – a possible historical ruler mentioned by
Constantine Porphyrogennetos who probably fought against the Magyars203 –
seems interesting. In previous parts of the present text it was claimed that
Tzeeslav was also identified with Časlav, another hero of the chronicle authored
by the Priest of Duklja. Živković did not comment in any way on his loosely
proposed idea. It would be difficult to prove because of the fragmentary char-
acter of the sources.
Nevertheless, there is a certain (albeit fairly ambiguous) link between the
fictitious figures of Časlav and Pavlimir as far as the inner logic of the text itself
is concerned. If we look at the achievements of both rulers, we will capture a
certain repetition of the situation that could have been intended by the Priest
of Duklja. In both narratives several characteristic elements were repeated.
They were connected on the one hand with the family of Raška župans, and
on the other hand with the attacks of the Hungarians on the lands of the king-
dom, especially Syrmia. Let us compare these episodes in the narratives about
both rulers:

203 Živković, “The Legend of Pavlimir Bello,” p. 218.
234 chapter 5
– The invasion of Kys on Bosnia started Časlav’s war with the Magyars. The
usurper, backed by Tychomil, won the battle of Civelino, where “rugiebant
ibi Ungari ut porci” (Hungarians wailed like [slaughtered] pigs). The place
of the battle was later called Kiskovo, because princeps Kys was killed there.
Tychomil was raised to the dignity of župan. Then, already in Syrmia, Časlav,
taken by surprise by the Hungarians, was thrown into the Sava river.204
– Initially Pavlimir’s opponent was Ljutomir, a descendant of Tychomil, raised
to the high ranks by Časlav. Ljutomir was thrown into the Ibar river and
drowned. Pavlimir’s next opponents were the Hungarians, who invaded
Syrmia. Pavlimir defeated them in a bloody battle, in which multitudes of
invaders and residents of Syrmia, their allies, were killed. After the victori-
ous king, the battlefield was named Bellina. Pavlimir set the boundaries on
the Sava river.205
It seems that the Priest of Duklja composed both stories from one set of ele-
ments. Both seem to be fragments of one narrative. Some specific details are
repeated: the naming of the battlefield, death by throwing into the river, the
attack of the Hungarians on Syrmia.
It is possible that the author of this record deliberately presented stories of
both rulers in this way. Proclaiming Pavlimir a king in Tribunja could be a kind
of rite of passage.206 It was the moment which ended the proper interregnum,
but not the process of restoration of the Kingdom of the Slavs, which would
be completed only after correcting Časlav’s political errors and regaining the
old borders existing before the fall of his grandfather Radoslav. By presenting
the actions of Pavlimir and Časlav almost in a twin manner, the chronicler
emphasized the different effects of the deeds of both rulers and their different
effectiveness. Pavlimir’s actions would be a metaphorical nullification of the
results of the deeds of rebellious Časalav, who by defiance of his father, let the
kingdom fall. Pavlimir was forced to fight against the descendants of Tychomil,
who had been raised to the dignity of župan, and regain Raška seized by them.
Then he had to normalize relations with the Hungarians, defeating them and
making peace by securing a border on the Sava river.
This was Pavlimir’s task as a restorer of the monarchy – by reversing Časlav’s
deeds, he led to the symbolic unification of the land of exiled Radoslav, and
thus symbolically restored the realm of the Slavs.

206 Nelson, Politics and Ritual, p. 271.
9 The Model Ruler: Pavlimir Bello as New Alexander207
Pavlimir’s role as the founder of Ragusa, as well as the later vision of the ruler
who led to the restoration of the kingdom, did not cover all the royal tasks pres-
ent in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum. An important feature of Pavlimir
was reflected by his nickname – Bello – which emphasized his belligerent
nature. In the work by the Priest of Duklja, Pavlimir embodied the ideal of rex
bellicosus, a warlike king. In fact, it was suggested by the very first description
of Pavlimir as a young man in Rome:
Pavlimirus iam iuvenis effectus, caepit esse valde robustus et fortis bel-
lator, ita ut in civitate Romana nullus ei esset similis. Unde parentes eius
nec non alii Romani caeperunt illum valde diligere immutaveruntque
nomen eius et imposuerunt ei nomen Bello, eo quo bellum facere valde
delectabantur.
(When Pavlimir was a youngster, he became a very strong and brave

warrior, so he was unrivalled in the city of Rome. His relatives and other
Romans liked him very much, and because he enjoyed soldiering very
much, they changed his name and nicknamed him Bello.)208
Some historians interpreted Pavlimir’s nickname as a trace of the name

of the Travunian ruler Belaës (Βελάης),209 mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos. Ćorović went even further and noticed that a similar
sounding name was used by the Illyrians. He linked the tradition of “White
Pavel” with the distorted name of the Bjelopavlici clan.210
We will use, however, the explanation offered by the Priest of Duklja,
because – as we have already pointed out in reference to similar conjec-
tures concerning Časlav – even if the chronicler indeed added the name of
a local prince, or a fragment of oral tradition to his narrative, he composed a
completely different story on the basis of them. In both cases, Pavlimir and
Časlav, the subject of our analysis, are “histories” of fictional characters. The
narrative about Pavlimir is made up of a particularly interesting set of refer-
ences and hints.
207 Some of the results of the research on this issue was presented in the article: Wawrzyniec
Kowalski, “Król Pavlimir Bello i Aleksander Wielki. Wzór wojowniczego władcy w
‘Regnum Sclavorum’,” in Poszukiwanie przeszłości. Szkice z historii i metody badań history-
cznych, eds. Przemysław Wiszewski, Joanna Wojtkowiak (Wrocław, 2014), pp. 35–49.
209 De administrando imperio, chapter 34, p. 162; see: Ljetopis, p. 69, note 134.
210 Ćorović, Historija Bosne, p. 146.
236 chapter 5
We already know that when Pavlimir became king of the Slavs and bans,
župans and centurions surrendered to him as their protector, only Ljutomir,
the great župan of Raška, was unwilling to recognize the new ruler. A war was
fought for regaining the state borders from the time of the reign of the king’s
ancestors. Pavlimir defeated Ljutomir in the battle of the Lim river. The army
of the great župan was scattered and Ljutomir fled and was soon killed. Only
then, after the annexation of Raška, did triumphant Pavlimir really seize the
kingdom. The Priest of Duklja concluded: “Rex autem accepit regnum patrum
suorum. Et siluit terra in conspectu eius” (The king, therefore, took over the
kingdom of his fathers, and the land was quietened under his gaze).211
Živković rightly recognized the second part of the sentence as being taken
from the First Book of Maccabees.212 It was not an accidental reference. In the
High Middle Ages, Christian heroes were often presented as contemporary
Maccabees – insurgents fighting to regain state integrity, the “Reconquest” of
the lands of Israel.213 The Maccabees were initially recognized as a prototype
of Christian martyrs, but the perception of them had changed since the time
of Rabanus Maurus Magnentius, a Frankish encyclopaedist and military writer,
who emphasized the military deeds of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers in his
commentary on The Book of Maccabees.214 In the tenth and eleventh centu-
ries, Judas Maccabeus, along with David and Joshua, was referred to as an Old
Testament example of bravery and courage, and in the early fourteenth cen-
tury the three were included in the canonical group of “Nine Worthies” – the
model figures in speculum literature read by medieval princes, and frequent
heroes of chivalric romances.215 Besides David, Judas Maccabeus and Joshua,
the set of heroes included three ancient warriors: Hector, Alexander the Great,
and Julius Caesar; and three rulers praised in Western European legends, King
Arthur, Charlemagne, and Godfrey of Bouillon.
In this context, the fact that the verse “Et siluit terra in conspectu eius” in the
Book of Maccabees referred to one of the abovementioned heroes seems even
more fascinating. However, contrary to expectation, it is not used to describe

213 John Halbrooks, “Ælfric, the Maccabees, and the Problem of Christian Heroism,” Studies in
Philology, 3 (2009), no. 106, pp. 268–269; Jean Dunbabin, “The ‘Maccabees’ as Exemplars
in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in The Bible in the Medieval World. Essays in Memory
of Beryl Smalley, eds. Katherine Walsh, Diana Wood (Oxford/New York, 1985), pp. 31–42;
On knowledge of this topos on the fringe of the Christendom: Wiszewski, Domus Bolezlai,
p. 295.
214 Halbrooks, “Ælfric, the Maccabees,” p. 269; Dunbabin, “The ‘Maccabees’,” pp. 31–35.
215 See: Horst Schroeder, Der Topos der Nine Worhies in Literatur und bildener Kunst
(Göttingen, 1971).
the deeds of Judas Maccabeus. In fact, the expression appears in this book three
times, twice in relation to King Demetrius II Nicator: “Et videns Demetrius rex
quod siluit terra in conspectu suo, et nihil ei resistit, dimisit totum exercitum
suum, unumquemque in locum suum, excepto peregrino exercitu, quem con-
traxit ab insulis gentium: et inimici erant ei omnes exercitus patrum ejus”
(After this, when King Demetrius saw that the land was quiet before him, and
that no resistance was made against him, he sent away all his forces, every man
to his own place, except for a certain bands of strangers whom he had gath-
ered from the isles of the heathen: wherefore all the forces of his fathers hated
him) (I Mch 11:38); and “Et sedit Demetrius rex in sede regni sui: et siluit terra
in conspectu ejus” (So King Demetrius sat on the throne of his kingdom, and
the land was quiet before him) (I Mch 11:52). The second excerpt is the clos-
est to the words of the Priest of Duklja, as it also shows similarity to the first
part of the quoted sentence, mentioning Pavlimir taking over “the kingdom
of his fathers”. The author of Regnum Sclavorum, however, must have noticed
that the discussed verse appears for the first time much earlier in the Book of
Maccabees, namely in the first chapter “Et pertransiit usque ad fines terrae:
et accepit spolia multitudinis gentium, et siluit terra in conspectu ejus” (And
went through to the ends of the earth, and took spoils of many nations, inso-
much that the earth was quiet before him; whereupon he was exalted and his
heart was lifted up) (I Mch 1:3).216 Here the phrase in which we are interested
appeared in reference to Alexander the Great, who, although described with
reserve by the biblical author, was for him an example of a king-conqueror.
So far scholars have overlooked the fact that the Priest of Duklja could
describe the life and deeds of Pavlimir with reference to the life of Alexander
the Great. Živković, who noticed the excerpt from the Book of Maccabees
in the passage quoted above, analysed several other sentences in Regnum
Sclavorum referring to Pavlimir. He tried to find not only biblical paraphrases
but also traces of the influences of Historia regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of
Monmouth on the work of the Priest of Duklja – and identified some of them
although his work was not based on full consideration.217 However, except for
the fragment quoted above, Živković did not find other accurate quotes in the
narrative about Pavlimir, hence our conclusion that the Priest of Duklja used
the reference while being fully aware of its significance.
Živković, who seemed to underestimate the significance of such an action
by the chronicler, wrote: “There is no doubt that the whole story about Bello is
coined of motifs and has its inner order and sequence of events. One of them is
216 English translation after King James Bible.

238 chapter 5
the motif of a war with the Hungarians and fixing the borders of the kingdom.
When his actions are completed, the king travels over his lands to see if every-
thing is in order. While many motifs fuse into one story, the historical traces
in this story are to be discovered”.218 This was also Živković’s aim with regard
to many other parts of the work of the Priest of Duklja. He tried to recognize
topoi and motifs taken from other works, at the same time treating the narra-
tive of Regnum Sclavorum – including Pavlimir’s story – as being based (at least
to some extent) on unspecified historical events still echoing, in his opinion,
in the text.
Živković did not notice, however, that the mere use of a particular topos by a
chronicler as a literary device may distort such weak echoes, and even prevent
them from being recognised. If the author decided to present the situation
according to a specific pattern, then the narration may be almost completely
subordinated to this assumption.
Pavlimir’s story is also dependent on the Priest of Duklja’s narrative goals.
The chronicler wanted to portray the ruler-founder, who later became the
restorer of the Kingdom of the Slavs, and then he decided to present the figure
of the ruler using the model of a warrior-king. There are many indications that
this prototype was Alexander the Great. Such a hypothesis could explain some
of the mysteries associated with the passage in Regnum Sclavorum in which
we are interested, and although only presumptive evidence speaks in favour of
such an interpretation, there are too many of them to be ignored.
The similarity of creating the figures of Pavlimir Bello and Alexander the
Great was manifested mainly in the convergence of the very structure of motifs.
We cannot assume that one of the versions of the story of Alexander was well-
known to the Priest of Duklja, or that the author of Regnum Sclavorum had
direct access to literature about the ancient leader. Rather, it seems that he
used the well-established archetype of the great ruler which was popular in the
place where he worked on his chronicle. We do not want to refer to the theories
of Jung or to Jungian depth philosophy, but rather to use different set of find-
ings concerning wandering topoi, as well as a limited set of means of imaging
specific ideological content.
The parallel between the activities of Alexander and Pavlimir is suggested
by the very way the name-based toponyms are created. Pavlimir built a fortress
named “Bello” in Raška; also the battlefield where the bloody combat with the
Hungarians took place was called “after the name of the king – Bellina”.219 If
we wish to compare images of both bellatores, the first analogy that comes to

mind are the numerous “Alexandrias” scattered throughout every corner of the
Macedonian empire. Of course, if such a detail was isolated, it would not allow
us to achieve any far-reaching conclusions. In itself, it only signals a certain
literary model regarding the approach of famous conquerors, actually rooted
in historical facts.
However, there were more traces of Alexander the Great on the map of
Pavlimir’s deeds. One of them is connected with the circumstances of the
death of Ljutomir, a župan of Raška. When during the battle of the Lim river
the troops of the župan dispersed and Ljutomir tried to flee, “some who were
with him and wanted to gain royal grace chopped him with swords and threw
his body from the bridge to the river, and that is how he died”.220 The Priest
of Duklja summed up this account with the biblical excerpt from the Book
of Maccabees quoted above. Ljutomir’s end, killed by his own people, is simi-
lar to the death of Darius III, the Persian ruler fighting against Alexander the
Great. Darius was murdered by his bodyguards who wished to gain the favours
of the victorious Macedonian invader.221 We can be skeptical about the pos-
sible intended compatibility of the motifs. However, the presented picture of
Ljutomir’s end was an element of the chronicler’s intention which is otherwise
hard to interpret.
The most important element supporting the interpretation of the text we
have proposed were the circumstances of the death of Pavlimir himself. In con-
trast to other great rulers to whom the author of Regnum Sclavorum devoted
much attention, Pavlimir’s death was quite unusual in the context of the above-
mentioned examples. In the case of other important rulers, the Priest of Duklja
most often used the Old Testament pattern. For example, in the description of
the death of Svetopelek, lawmaker and founder of the state, the king ruled for
a long time and died calmly: “(…) he ruled for forty years and four months and
begat sons and daughters, and died at dawn on March 17th”.222 Another one,
“the famous King Dobroslav” expired lying on a bed in his court, and his sons,
gathered by his deathbed, mourned his death. The last moments of particu-
lar rulers were most often described by the Priest of Duklja according to the
model of a good and decent death, which is the sum of the righteous acts of the
dying man. Of course, Regnum Sclavorum includes examples of royal deaths
according to a different pattern. In fact, the Priest of Duklja frequently omitted
the circumstances of the deaths of particular rulers, limiting his description
220 “quidam qui cum eo erant, volentes habere benevolentiam regis, percutientes eum gladio,
per pontem iactaverunt eum in flumen et mortuus est”, Ljetopis, p. 71.
221 See: Krzysztof Nawotka, Aleksander Wielki (Wrocław, 2004), pp. 357–358.
240 chapter 5
to neutral information from chronicles, even in the case of stories of impor-

tant figures such as King Bodin, about whom we learn only that he “died after
twenty-six years and five months of his rule”.223 On the other hand, the death of
holy king and martyr Vladimir deserved a special description, but for the sake
of our brief categorization, this exception, which is discussed in more detail
below, can be omitted at this time. In contrast to Vladimir, the end of Časlav,
the usurper, was shameful: he was killed on the orders of a woman. Pavlimir’s
death stood out from the others described in Regnum Sclavorum: although his
life and deeds are described in detail by the chronicler, he died quite suddenly
and in unclear circumstances.
This is not incompatible with the model of a king-warrior. Sudden death
could be the natural result of a violent life. On the other hand, the greatness of
the battle deeds of the victorious ruler was associated with the prosperity of
the country, hence in a general implementation of the model, an aging rex bel-
licosus often took the role of a just king who died accompanied by his relatives
and reconciled with God.
In this context, the succinct mention of Pavlimir’s death in the work by
the Priest of Duklja is quite surprising: “Quadam autem die, dum intraret in
unum oppidum Tribuniae, subitanea morte defunctus est” (One day when he
came to one of the cities of Travunja, he died suddenly).224 This brief note
was, however, far from a dry chronicle formula, because it stressed the fact that
the death was unexpected. This kind of death was unusual in the context of
the presented image of a great ruler. In the Middle Ages, mors repentina usu-
ally had negative connotations. A person who died suddenly could not prepare
for it and reconcile himself with God. It was to be presumed that this type of
death was marked by sin and – as a consequence – it was the opposite of both
a peaceful death surrounded by family, and a glorious death on a battlefield.
Annales Ragusini also mentioned the violent circumstances of the death of
Radoslav Bello, giving quite a negative image of the king, because his death
was associated with an attempt to deprive Ragusa of the holy relics donated
to the city some time before.225 The narrative of Regnum Sclavorum does not
mention any aggravating events linked with Pavlimir Bello that could explain
his sudden death. It can be noted that here Pavlimir’s story resembles that of
Alexander the Great. The ruler of the Kingdom of the Slavs died in his capital,
Tribunja, just like the Macedonian conqueror who died in Babylon, which he

had prepared to be the capital of his empire. Both deaths were described as
unexpected and violent.
Our assumption that the Priest of Duklja used here some widespread legend
about the ancient ruler can also be confirmed by information about Pavlimir’s
succession. King Radoslav Bello of Annales Ragusini died without issue, leav-
ing the kingdom on the verge of interregnum chaos, whereas Pavlimir’s wife
gave birth to his son, Tišemir, a week after the king’s death. The birth of the
posthumous child weakened the force of the sudden death and was a clear
sign of God’s blessing on the dynasty. The chronicler described the heir by the
term consolator populi. But although it may appear as if Pavlimir had created
a firm foundation for the political unity of his lands, soon after his death, as
the Priest of Duklja wrote, Tychomil’s descendants regained Raška, “et omnes
bani, similiter tempore ut prius, dominari super et nolebantque ullam face
rationem reginae nec eius filii” (and all bans, as before, ruled independently,
not accepting the sovereignty of the queen or her sons).226 Only Tribunja, the
centre of Pavlimir’s state, remained loyal to his descendant. Once again, we can
see an analogy between Pavlimir’s fate and that of Alexander the Great, who
also fathered a child but did not live to see him. The fate of his posthumous
son, Alexander IV, and of the whole empire after the death of Alexander the
Great, somewhat resembles the situation associated with the fall of the vast
kingdom of Pavlimir.
It is also difficult to determine precisely what source the Priest of Duklja
could have been using. The history of Alexander was one of the most impor-
tant literary themes in the Middle Ages.227 Medieval authors were particu-
larly interested in romances and adventures related to the legend of the
Macedonian leader. The sources of Alexander’s popularity should be sought
in the Greek romance by the author known as Pseudo-Callisthenes. His work
gained popularity thanks to numerous local adaptations and translations.
The most famous of the Latin texts based on the Greek original was Res ges-
tae Alexandri Macedonis by the fourth-century author Julius Valerius, and
Historia de preliis by presbyter Leon who was active in the mid-tenth century.
Other frequently used sources on the figure of the ancient ruler were Historiae
Alexandri by Quintus Curtius Rufus; the works of Justin, a second-century
Latin writer and those of Paulus Orosius, both critical sources on Alexander;
226 Ljetopis, p. 72. In both Latin manuscripts plural form for “sons” is used, although – as
observed in Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 161, note 167, The Chronicle mentioned
only the posthumous one.
227 The basic monograph on this issue is still George Cary, The Medieval Alexander, ed.
David J. A. Ross (Cambridge, 1956).
242 chapter 5
as well as apocryphal letters from Alexander to Aristotle. However, there are

no indications that the author of Regnum Sclavorum knew any of these texts.
The Priest of Duklja certainly had some other sources of information about the
history of Alexander besides the Vulgate, yet Pavlimir’s story lacks any refer-
ence to travel or fantasy motifs that are typical of the already-shaped medieval
literary tradition.228
Depictions of the fate of many legendary rulers could be modeled after
Alexander the Great. According to Martin Homza, the life of Svatopluk, as
presented in the chronicle of Simon of Kéza, his war advantages and the bor-
ders of his kingdom (especially the enigmatic Bracta mentioned there) testify
to the chronicler’s attempt to refer to the ancient ruler. Homza even claimed
that there had to have been a written heroic version of Svatopluk’s legend in
the thirteenth century. The presence of Alexander in the Hungarian tradition
can be testified by fragments of Gesta Hungarorum and The Polish-Hungarian
Chronicle, in which the history of Alexander, probably taken from the local
version of the Alexandreida, probably inspired the description of Attila’s
war deeds.229
There are many hints that the Priest of Duklja could also have, even
unknowingly, used popular topoi, naturally associated with the ethics of a
knightly king during the time of the chronicler’s activity. In the Late Middle
Ages, the figure of Alexander the Great was well known in the Balkans.230 In
the first half of the fourteenth century, the Serbian author Danilo, the future
Archbishop of the Serbs, compared the Serbian King Milutin (Stefan Uroš II
Milutin) to Alexander, while the anonymous continuator of Danilo referred to
the ancient ruler in the life of Stefan Dečanski (Stefan Uroš III Nemanjić).231 The
local versions of the Alexander Romance were also widespread in the Balkans.
Perhaps one of them was the Glagolitic text about Alexander mentioned
in Zadar in 1389, which has not survived. The oldest preserved manuscripts
228 On early sources on Alexander: Richard Stoneman, “Primary Sources from the Classical
and Early Medieval Periods,” in A companion to Alexander Literature in Middle Ages, ed.
Z. David Zuwiyya (Leiden/Boston, 2011), pp. 1–21.
229 Homza, Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície u Slovákov, pp. 62–63.
230 See: Christian Hannick, “Historismus und Aktualisierungstendenzen im Alexander-Roman
in den slavischen Literaturen,” in Kontinuität und Transformation der Antike im Mittelalter.
Veröffentlichtung der Kongreßakten zum Freiburger Symposion des Mediävistenverbandes,
ed. Willi Erzgräber (Sigmaringen, 1989), pp. 121–127.
231 Jelka Ređep, “Aleksandar Veliki i kralj Milutin. Srpska Aleksandrida i Danilov zbornik –
paralela,” Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i jezik 1 (1999), no. 47, pp. 19–34.
representing Alexandrine literature are sixteenth-century translations, written

in Cyrillic and Latin, based on the romance of Pseudo-Callisthenes.232
From our perspective, the most interesting references to the motifs asso-
ciated with the figure of Alexander the Great can be found in Dalmatian lit-
erature of the early modern period. Vincentus Priboevius (Vinko Pribojević), a
writer considered to be the father of Pan-Slavism, certainly knew the Croatian
text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (though probably only through the
translation by Marulić), when in 1525, on the island of Hvar, he made a lauda-
tory speech about the origin and glory of the Slavs.233 His speech, published
in Venice in 1532, included not only footnotes from Marulić’s work, but also an
extensive passage about Alexander the Great. Priboevius perceived Alexander
the Great as a Slav which is clearly evidenced by his commentary: “Alexander
Magnus fuit Slaus” (Alexander the Great was a Slav), included in his work in
the episode devoted to the ancient ruler. The description of his heroic deeds
began with the words: “Quid demum dicam de Alexandro magno Philippi filio,
qui (ut primi Macabæorum primo dicit), pertransiit usqæ ad fines terræ &
accepit fpolia multitudinis gentiũ, & siluit terra in conspectu eius” (What, then,
shall I say about Alexander, the son of Philip, who – as the first chapter of the
Book of Maccabees says – reached the edge of the earth and took many nations
into captivity, and the land was quieted under his gaze).234
The quotation from the Book of Maccabees is important to our analysis.
Priboevius, who carefully listed his sources, did not know anything about King
Pavlimir, nor had he read Regnum Sclavorum. Priboevius’ work was known
232 Miloš Živković, “The Legendary Ruler in Medieval Guise: Few Observations on the
Iconography of Belgrade Alexandride,” International Conference Of Young Specialists
“Actual Problems in Theory and History of Arts,” Saint Petersburg 2010, http://www
.actual-art.org/en/k2010-2/st2010/94-vh/192-the-legendary-ruler.html 2013, where the
author emphasizes the importance of texts about Alexander in shaping Serbian literature
of Late Middle Ages and their popularity measured by the number of preserved manu-
scripts from Late Middle Ages/early modernity. The source study: Vatroslav Jagić, “Ogledi
stare hrvatske proze IV. Život Aleksandra Velikog,” Starine 3 (1878), pp. 208–336; Stojan
Novaković, Pripovetka o Aleksandru velikom u staroj srpskoj književnoti (Belgrade, 1878).
233 On Pribojević and his work, see: Zrinka Blažević, Ilirizam prije ilirizma (Zagreb, 2008),
pp. 113–137; Anita Peti, “Vinko Pribojević: De origine successibusque Slavorum,” Dani
Hrvatskog kazališta: Građa i rasprave o hrvatskoj kniževnosti i kazalištu, 1 (1991), no. 17,
pp. 251–259; Fine Jr., Late Medieval Balkans, pp. 223–229; Domagoj Madunić, Vinko
Pribojević and the Glory of the Slavs (Budapest, 2003) (MA thesis, History Department of
Central European University).
234 Oratio fratris Vincentii Priboevii sacrae theologiae professoris ordinis praedicatorum De
Origine svccessibvsqve Slavorvm (Venice, 1532), [p. 16 – no pagination]; Critical edition
(original text and Croatian translation): Vinko Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena,
trans. Veljko Gortan, Pavao Knezović, ed. Mirolsav Kurelac (Zagreb, 1997), p. 67.
244 chapter 5
to Orbini, who (from other sources) was familiar with the story of the ruler-
founder of Ragusa and included it in his Il regno degli Slavi, as he also did with
the translation of the Priest of Duklja’s work with the fragment containing the
reference to the Book of Maccabees. Certainly, such a sequence may indirectly
support the hypothesis proposed by Solange Bujan, who argued that Orbini to
a large extent forged the Latin version of The Chronicle, but it is still only a trace
which requires further confirmation.
Since the sixteenth century, consecutive versions of the speech by
Priboevius have been supplemented with text by Sigismundus Philochristus
de Gorgiata addressed to Philip Trivulzio, the Archbishop of Ragusa. De
Gorgiata was informed in it that a special document had been discovered in
Constantinople.235 The document, signed by the ruler of the world, Alexander
the Great, was supposedly outstanding proof of grace for the “Slavic people”
and his admiration of their war merits. The letter was annexed with the Latin
translation of the allegedly ancient document, originally written in Greek.
According to it, Alexander gave to the Slavs the lands from Aquilona to the
borders of southern Italy.236 This document is one of the many extant versions
of the forgery known in the historiography as Privilegium Slavicum (The Slavic
Privilege), or Alexander’s Donation.
Scholars still argue where the sources of the tradition of the special recogni-
tion of the Slavs by Alexander the Great should be sought. The first traces of
the narrative about the fight between them can be found in the Chronicles of
the Kings and Princes of Poland by Wincenty Kadłubek. However, the oldest
known mention of Privilegium Slavicum itself was much later and came from
Bohemia. In 1396, abbot Petr Šmolka was to enter the text of the charter in
the register of the Emmaus Monastery (called “Na Slovanech”).237 The docu-
ment was part of an earlier tradition connected with Alexander dating back
to the thirteenth century. The figure of an ancient leader served various inter-
ests: the identification policy of the royal dynasties – the House of Přemyslid
and the House of Luxembourg – and, a bit later, the ideology of the Hussites.238
235 Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena, pp. 50–51. Sigismundus Philochristus de Gorgiata
was a pen name of Sigismund Đurđević, a Dubrovnik-based humanist, who (despite his
own suggestions) was not the one responsible for discovering the text, but nevertheless
Priboevius probably adapted the form of Privilegium Slavicum from him: Hrvoje Morović,
“Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog u korist Slovena,” in idem, Sa stranica starih knjiga
(Split, 1968), pp. 116–117.
236 Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena, pp. 52–53.
237 Albert Pražak, Staročeska báseň o Alexandru Velikém (Prague, 1945), p. 263.
238 The text of Privilegium Slavicum appeared in the work by Laurentius from Brösau
(Vavřinec z Březové) circa 1435. About the Czech tradition: Pražak, Staročeska báseň;
Anežka Vidmanová, “K privilegiu Alexandra Velikého Slovanům,” in Husitství – reformace –
renesance: sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, ed. Jaroslav Pánek (Prague,
As a result of Polish-Hussite contacts, the knowledge of Privilegium Slavicum

leaked to Poland, where, it seems, it was quite widespread in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries.239
However, the roots of the legend of Privilegium Slavicum are often sought
outside Western Slavdom, in the Balkans. This direction is certainly influenced
by the place where the charter was mentioned for the first time. The Emmaus
Monastery “Na Slovanech” in Prague was linked with the Croatian centres of
Glagolitic literature and the Slavic tradition in general. Hrvoje Morović pointed
to the old hypothesis of Jozef Dobrovský, who believed that information about
the alleged charter was transmitted to Bohemia by Croatian monks.240 This was
indicated by some notions related to Illyria appearing in the text of the charter,
as well as the probable context of making the forgery an ideological weapon
to fight against the Turks.241 As Paweł Madejski showed, the sixteenth-century
Polish historians were aware of the existence of some South Slavic version of
the document. Madejski quotes Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka i wszystkiej
Rusi (Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all of Ruthenia) written in
the second half of the sixteenth century by Maciej Stryjkowski: “Karvats and
Bulgars claim that the charter [priwilej] on parchment, given by Alexander
to the Slavs, and written with golden letters in Alexandria, is today in the
Turkish treasury, which the emperor Machomet [sic] took when he captured
Constantinople”.242 The priwilej mentioned by the chronicler was perhaps
identical with the appendix to Priboevius’ work. This is probably the oldest
printed text of the document243 and the oldest known copy of Privilegium
1994), pp. 105–115; eadem, “Ještě jednou k privilegiu Alexandra Velikého pro Slovany,” in
Pulchritudo et sapientia: ad honorem Pavel Spunar, eds. Zuzana Silagiová, Hana Šedinová,
Petr Kitzler (Prague, 2008), pp. 179–187.
239 Tomasz Ślęczka, Aleksander Macedoński w literaturze staropolskiej (Wrocław, 2003); Paweł
Madejski, “An Unknown Version of ‘Privilegium Slavicum’,” in Studia Lesco Mrozewicz
ab amicis et discipulis dedicata, eds. Sebastian Ruciński, Katarzyna Balbuza, Krzysztof
Królczyk (Poznań, 2011), pp. 239–254.
240 Morović, “Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog,” pp. 117–118.
241 Lilla Moroz-Grzelak, Aleksander Wielki a macedońska idea narodowa: słowiańskie losy
postaci antycznej (Warsaw, 2004), pp. 40–41.
242 Maciej Stryjkowski, Kronika Polska Litewska, Żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rus, ed. Mikołaj
Malinowski (Warsaw, 1846), p. 107; Madejski, “An Unknown Version,” p. 243. Another
Polish historian of the period, Stanislaw Sarnicki, wrote later about two privileges: one for
the Slavs in the north and the second one for the Bulgarians and Croatians in the south:
Stanislai Sarnicii Annales, sive De origine et rebvs gestis Polonorvm et Litvanorvm (Krakow,
1587), pp. 43–46.
243 The next printed editions appear in the chronicle of Václav Hájek of Libočan in 1541
(Czech translation), and in the work by Dominik Cyllenius in 1549: Morović, “Legenda o
povelji Aleksandra Velikog,” p. 115.
246 chapter 5
Slavicum from Southern Slavdom.244 Although the legend itself was most likely
much older, Priboevius presumably knew some version of the charter from
Poland, where he stayed for several years before 1525.
Privilegium Slavicum soon gained fame outside Bohemia and Poland. The
text was quoted in his works by Adam Bohorič, a Slovenian preacher, and by
the authors from the Ragusa region, among others Orbini and Juraj Rattkay.245
Orbini, the most important in this context, considered – after Priboevius –
Alexander and the Macedonians as Slavs, not Greeks. He also mentioned a copy,
stored in Constantinople, of the charter issued by Alexander and addressed to
the Illyrians, among them “the noble family of Slavs”.246 He also referred to
an Italian translation of Privilegium Slavicum, discovered by a certain Giulio
Baldasar, named by him “Secretario Imperiale”.247 Orbini presumably used
as his source one of the copies based on a printed version from the work by
Priboevius. In a further part of Il regno de gli Slavi, he mentioned that Emperor
Charles IV ordered the writing of the text of Privilegium Slavicum with golden
letters in the Monastery “Na Slovanech” in Prague. He learned about this from
the Krakow-based canon Krzysztof Warszewicki and “other Poles”. Orbini
stressed that he did not know it before printing a part of the works contain-
ing the text of the charter.248 He also informed about fights between the Bessi
and Tribulani, Illyrian tribes, with Philip II of Macedon, and their participa-
tion in the campaigns of his son. He identified these tribes with the Bosnians.
The words of the poet Ivan Gundulić, who in the first half of the seventeenth
century mentioned “Lehsandar Srbljanin” [Alexander the Serb] in his epic
poem Osman,249 confirms that the tradition of “Slavic Alexander” was strong
in Ragusa. If our interpretation of the fragment about Pavlimir is proved to
be correct, it could be another piece of evidence on the popularity of simi-
lar motifs on the Adriatic coast, and perhaps the earliest trace of forming the
Slavic-Alexandrine tradition.
244 The work was translated into Croatian in the first half of the seventeenth century by a
Franciscan monk Franje Glavinić (text in: Morović, Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog,
pp. 119–120). Priboevius’ text inspired numerous copies in manuscripts; one of which
was at the disposal of Peter, the father of Johannes Lucius (Morović, “Legenda o povelji
Aleksandra Velikog,” p. 118).
245 Morović, “Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog,” p. 114, 119.
248 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, pp. 377–378. Contrary to the claims of Morović, it was not
Warszewicki who was the source of Orbini’s information on the translated text of
Privilegium Slavicum itself (Morović, “Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog,” p. 119).
249 Ivan Gundulić, Osman, Pievanje tretje (Zagreb, 1844), p. 30. Then also other poets from the
Adriatic region, see: Morović, “Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog,” pp. 120–121.
The motifs that we could consider to be related to the indicated reference

appeared in the second part of the story about Pavlimir. The figure of King
Bello does not appear in the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest
of Duklja. This could support the proposition advanced by Medini, that the
Latin variant was supplemented in Ragusa in the Late Middle Ages. The story
of Bello in the narrative of Annales Ragusini was completed in a different way.
The possible compiler (the Priest of Duklja) had to adapt these motifs to the
entire plot of Regnum Sclavorum, and their details would be rather the result of
his inventiveness based on general knowledge about the famous king-warriors.
The chronicler might hide the source of his knowledge about Alexander
because the figure of the ancient conqueror was sometimes treated with
reserve, especially in ecclesiastical circles. Although Alexander was undoubt-
edly one of the models of an ideal ruler, his image was marred by the fact that
he was a pagan and sometimes caused ambivalent feelings among medieval
commentators.250 Another feature that often appeared on the occasion of a
negative description of Alexander was the pride (superbia) which was attrib-
uted to him.251 Thus, if the author of Regnum Sclavorum knew similarly nega-
tive characteristics in the Macedonian ruler, he might have wanted to avoid
direct comparisons, especially in the context of contrasting in the narrative the
figure of Pavlimir with the figure of Časlav, who, elevatus in superbia, commit-
ted a fateful sin against his father.
There is also an alternative explanation for the vague similarity between
some of the motifs in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum: it was written by
Orbini himself. Orbini, a publisher and attentive reader, would have certainly
noticed correspondence between the description of the story of Alexander the
Great written by Priboevius and the rhetoric used in the quoted fragments of
the Latin variant of The Chronicle (even if it does not refer directly to the life of
Alexander). If Orbini himself decided to supplement some existing text, would
he want to hide his inspiration? Again, this is a problem for future scholars.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that if there were a part of the Priest
of Duklja’s work which showed some features of later retouching, it would be
precisely the narrative about Pavlimir Bello.
250 Cary, The Medieval Alexander, pp. 185n; Roberta Morosini, “The Alexander Romance in
Italy,” in A companion to Alexander Literature in Middle Ages, pp. 339–340.
251 Danielle Buschinger, “German Alexander Romances,” in A companion to Alexander
Literature in Middle Ages, p. 293n.
248 chapter 5
10 Summary
The story of Pavlimir Bello in Regnum Sclavorum was three-pronged, and the
image of the ruler was shaped according to the selected narrative scheme. In
the first part, probably based on the local Ragusa tradition, Pavlimir was pre-
sented as a ruler-founder, leading the Romans and uniting his people – both
the refugees from Epidaurus and the Slavs – in the joint task of constructing
the city. The combination of these three groups constituted a formulaic ele-
ment of legends about the foundation of Ragusa. The story of Epidaurus seems
to be older; the motif of the newcomers from Rome appeared later, but even as
early as the mid-thirteenth century it was more widely known (it was included
in Thomas the Archdeacon’s account). In the early modern historiography of
Dubrovnik, both motifs were intertwined, and to some extent they also com-
peted with each other.252
The figure of Pavlimir Bello was also added to the narrative. It is not com-
pletely clear when and where this happened. Lovro Kunčević believed that the
Slavic king was introduced to the legend by the Priest of Duklja, who lived in
the twelfth century. Therefore, it would be an external version of the story. Its
purpose could be “to justify the claims of the rulers of Duklja and the Church
subordinate to them”.253 Kunčević mentioned the attempts to subordinate the
city by King Constantine Bodin at the end of the eleventh century and the
conflict between the bishoprics in Bar and Ragusa. The goals of the anony-
mous author of Regnum Sclavorum could be described as follows: “the story
of the foundation told by the Priest of Duklja supported the claims of the
Duklja rulers, because it constituted them as the rightful heirs of the founder
of Dubrovnik”.254 According to Kunčević, The Chronicle was known in the city
as early as the thirteenth century, but it was only since the fifteenth century
that the history began to be used and processed by local writers in accordance
with the propaganda requirements of the emerging Republic; this could be
252 Kunčević, in his study of the pragmatic functions of stories about the beginnings of
the city, noted that in the accounts of some chroniclers and historians (e.g. in Annales
Ragusini or in the work by Tuberon), the incomers from Rome arrive first, while according
to others (e.g. Orbini and Cervinus) the inhabitants of Epidaurus built the city before the
arrival of the Romans: Kunčević, Mit o Dubrovniku, p. 35.
indicated by the death of Radoslav Bello without progeny in Annales Ragusini,

or in the recognition of the king as the founder of the Senate by Tuberon.255
Even then it is difficult to tell when and in what form The Chronicle reached
Ragusa. There are many indications that it happened much later than in the
thirteenth century. Tuberon was familiar with it, though his comments suggest
that in the manuscript available to him, the Priest of Duklja mentioned Bishop
Johannes, which would rather undermine the claim of a polemical character
in the description in the aforementioned dispute between the two bishoprics.
Similarly, the figure of Bodin was presented quite negatively. The claims of the
rulers of Duklja in the twelfth century could not be strengthened by sketch-
ing the image of an usurper seizing the city. Katičić showed, however, that the
Priest of Duklja was familiar with local legends about the foundation of the
city. The very shape of his narrative, due to numerous inclusions, would rather
show the use of local motifs in the process of forming a more complex story
about King Pavlimir. Moreover, by referring to the Romans and to the city of
Epidaurus, the ancient identification of Dubrovnik was highlighted, despite
the inclusion of Slavic dynasties into the plot. The Priest of Duklja’s unfavour-
able attitude to the local tradition was not noticed by modern historians who
translated and quoted The Chronicle. There is also the problem of Radoslav
in the Croatian text. This figure was connected with Rome, but not with the
foundation of Ragusa. Such a form of the king’s name was also preserved by
Annales Ragusini; according to this text, the main merit of the ruler was the
act of bringing the relics back to the city. This distinguished Radoslav from
Pavlimir, who, according to Regnum Sclavorum, was detached from such a
close relationship with the fate of the city.
The Priest of Duklja’s perspective was subordinated to the main concept of
the work, that is, the presentation of the history of the legendary Kingdom of
Slavs and its rulers. Thus, Pavlimir was also a restorer of the kingdom, which he
inherited from the exiled Radoslav. The Priest of Duklja deliberately omitted
some motifs – important from the perspective of the inhabitants of Ragusa
(such as bringing the relics by the king), while emphasizing those connected
with the role of the Slavic subjects, preparing the figure of the king for taking
over power in their state. The change of roles is symbolized by Pavlimir’s adven-
tus to Tribunja, and the bans and župans raising him to royal dignity. From that
255 An excellent analysis of the modern fate of the figure of Pavlimir: Kunčević, Mit o
Dubrovniku, pp. 69n; Lvdovici Tvberonis Commentarii, p. 90.
250 chapter 5
time, the fate of the ruler was presented on the basis of a symbolic opposi-
tion to the deeds of his rebellious uncle Časlav. The Priest of Duklja focused
on the description of Pavlimir regaining the entire territory of his ancestors
and securing the integrity of its borders. The king, by carrying out the task of
joining the borders, symbolically washed away Časlav’s guilt and removed the
curse threatening the country.
Parallel to the vision of Pavlimir as a restorer of the kingdom, the chronicler
also shows him as an ideal king-warrior. This feature was already symbolized
by his nickname, Bello. In the process of creating the image of the king, the
Priest of Duklja, quoting the Book of Maccabees, seemed to refer to the figure
of Alexander the Great. It is very likely that several narrative motifs related to
the story of Pavlimir can be explained with this interpretative key.
chapter 6
Vladimir as an Example of a Ruler-Martyr:

Functions of the Model of a Holy Ruler in the
Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum
1 Introduction
The legend of King Vladimir is a clear turning point in the narrative of Regnum
Sclavorum. In fact, it is so distinct that some scholars speculated that the Priest
of Duklja was the author of only one part of The Chronicle, the one that follows
the description of the martyrdom of the ruler. As for the geography, after this
point, the plot of the work clearly moves to the southern areas of Dalmatia,
while royal names and some of the events described in it are often more simi-
lar to the history of the medieval state of Duklja and its rulers from the elev-
enth and twelfth centuries than was the previous part.
In principle, scholars studying the Latin text of The Chronicle agree that
the fragment devoted to Vladimir’s fate shows the features of an independent
work. It could be that it was taken from the lost Life of St. Vladimir, which, it
is assumed, was composed shortly after the death of the protagonist in 1015
or 1016. If these assumptions are true, it would be the oldest part of the text
included in Regnum Sclavorum. One of the first verses introducing the narra-
tive about Vladimir, “Tempore itaque eodem …” (“So in this time …”) looks as if
it might mark the start of the hypothetical hagiography,1 that was previously an
independent literary piece, although it cannot be ruled out that the prologue
of this work is the story of King Petrislav, Vladimir’s father.
The very fact that this story has been included in Regnum Sclavorum sig-
nificantly changes the possible ways in which it may be interpreted. The fig-
ure of Vladimir should be associated with the new model of a ruler. He was
a king-martyr, a theme which was especially popular in the peripheral areas
of Christian Europe in the eleventh century. The symbolism associated with
stories of king-martyrs was used effectively in the establishment of dynastic
cults strengthening the ideological message of the ruling houses.2 In addition,
1 Leśny, Żywot Jana Włodzimierza, SSS vol. 7, part 1, pp. 301–302.

2 In reference to Central Europe, the following texts can be mentioned here: Norman W. Ingham,
“The Sovereign as Martyr. East and West,” The Slavic and East European Journal, 17 (1973),
no. 1, pp. 1–17; idem, “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir of Dioclea,” International Journal

252 chapter 6
the Priest of Duklja found this model suitable for describing the ruler in the
changed situation of the Kingdom of the Slavs.
The legend of Vladimir was the implementation of a narrative scheme typical
of hagiographical works, although some of its motifs were based on a local tradi-
tion and were not necessarily related to the ruler of Duklja originally. In order
to comprehend the complexity of the legend of Vladimir and form hypotheses
about its significance within Regnum Sclavorum, first we have to trace the possible
path of development of the royal cult and locate the earliest motifs surrounding
the ruler. Next, we have to analyse the information on Vladimir in the Byzantine
sources, while showing that from the very beginning, the narrative about the king
was built by means of literary topoi, linked to its special legend-creating char-
acter. In this context, we should also identify in Vladimir’s story topoi typical of
medieval hagiographic works, especially the eleventh century works about king-
martyrs. Analysis of these aspects of the narrative will allow us to comprehend
the significance of the model of power represented by the figure of this ruler, one
which is fairly unusual within the frame of the Priest of Duklja’s story.
2 The Development of the Cult of St. Vladimir
On the basis of available sources, we can outline the stages of formation of

the cult of St. Vladimir. Saying that, there are many gaps between the particu-
lar discernible elements of the formation of the saint’s cult, and the means of
transition and mutual connections between its main currents are unclear. The
situation is further complicated by the possible penetration by elements of
epic oral poetry, in which the figure of Vladimir played a significant role, cer-
tainly from the eighteenth century, and probably much earlier.
Texts related to St. Vladimir can be classified as belonging to one of two
main traditions.
The first was linked to The Life of St. Vladimir, the hypothetical hagio-
graphical text which, in a complete or an abbreviated form, was incorpo-
rated into Regnum Sclavorum (it is only known from the Latin version of The
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja). In the historiography it was also known as
The Tale of Vladimir and Kosara.
The existence of some kind of hagiographic text was confirmed by the
Priest of Duklja himself, who stated that readers “librum gestorum eius relegat”
(… should read the book about his deeds), although any reference to Vladimir’s
of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 3536 (1987), pp. 199–216; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed
Princesses, pp. 1–19n.
Vladimir as an Example of a Ruler-Martyr 253
gesta is controversial, because this mention is not included in Orbini’s Italian

translation of The Chronicle, even though the translation is older than the
extant manuscripts of the Latin text.3 Moreover, no trace of the hypotheti-
cal hagiography has survived, and the distinct construction of the episode –
which stands out in comparison to the rest of the work – is the only premise for
believing the chronicler. Šišić doubted whether the biography ever existed in a
written form, and believed that the text of Regnum Sclavorum was based solely
on an oral tradition.4 This view is not supported by modern scholars. Norman
Ingham was also sceptical that the alleged biography had functioned indepen-
dently before The Chronicle was written. Although he considered the Priest of
Duklja’s narrative as a typical example of the Slavic traditions of king-saints of
the tenth and eleventh centuries, he suggested that the legend was an integral
part of Regnum Sclavorum, and that the religious motifs were secondary to the
dominant historical argument, and not vice versa.5
Stefan Trajković-Filipović, like Ingham, critically evaluated the hypoth-
esis that the independent biography existed before The Chronicle. According
to him, the discussed fragment in Regnum Sclavorum was a skilful counter-
feit by Orbini, who, with his knowledge of medieval hagiographies and using
Byzantine sources, managed to make up a large part of the work of the so-
called Priest of Duklja, including Vladimir’s story.6 Trajković-Filipović noted
that Vladimir’s name appeared in liturgical books from the early fourteenth
century, yet before the seventeenth century there had hardly been any other
manifestations of the cult of this saint.7
If, however, Regnum Sclavorum was not a counterfeit, and St. Vladimir’s
hypothetical hagiography had functioned independently before it, the latter
would probably be the most archaic part of the narrative arranged by the Priest
of Duklja. Some details, confirmed by the account of the Byzantine historian
John Skylitzes, suggest that the core of the text might have been formed in
the eleventh century. Such a text would probably have been written in Latin,

5 Ingham, “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir of Dioclea,” p. 211.
6 Trajković-Filipović, “Inventing the Saint’s Life: Chapter XXXVI of ‘The Annals of the Priest
of Dioclea’,” pp. 259–276. Trajković-Filipović revised his view on the issue of the origin of
the discussed passage about St. Vladimir in relation to his previous arrangements, in which
he opted for the early origin of the monument: Trajković-Filipović, Saint Vladimir of Zeta.
Between Historiography and Hagiography, MA thesis, Department of Medieval Studies,
Central European University (Budapest, 2012).
7 Trajković-Filipović, “Inventing the Saint’s Life,” p. 276.
254 chapter 6
although in the past there were also hypotheses that its original version
was Slavic.8
The fragment about Vladimir and his wife Kosara is one of the most popular
motifs of The Chronicle. The story was repeated in Orbini’s translation, in a
slightly changed form.9 Much later, both versions were adjusted and propa-
gated by the Croatian Franciscan Andrija Kačić Miošić, who included Pisma od
kralja Vladimira in his once extremely popular work Razgovor ugodni naroda
slovinskoga.10 According to Nenad Ljubinković, this work inspired numerous
reports by anonymous authors, circulated orally, in which one can find refer-
ences to this written tradition based on Regnum Sclavorum.11
The second group of the two main traditions consists of literary pieces from
the circle of the so-called Elbasan legend of St. Vladimir (in this variant the
protagonist has the additional name Jovan). It was probably composed in
the monastery Shën Gjon (Saint John) in central Albania, near the place where
Turkish army erected the castle of Elbasan in the fifteenth century. The church
was founded by the Albanian magnate Karl Topia in 1381. We know this from an
inscription in Greek, Latin and Slavic which dates back to the end of the four-
teenth century and states that Jovan Vladimir’s temple had been constructed
on the site of a church that had been destroyed to its foundations during an
earthquake that affected Albania during Topia’s reign.12
The oldest preserved written piece belonging to the tradition related to the
cult of Jovan Vladimir in Elbasan dates to the end of the seventeenth century.
In Venice in 1690, Ioannis Papas of Elbasan financed the publication in two
versions (shorter and more extensive) of the account of Vladimir’s life and ser-
mon; this is in Greek and is known as Akolouthia. The work is attributed to
Kosma, who at that time was a deputy (epitropos) of the Ohrid Archbishop, and
in 1694 became a bishop of Dyrrachium (Gr. Δυρράχιον, Sr. Drač, now: Durrës).13
8 Stojan Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti među Slovenima. Legenda o Vladimiru
i Kosari, vol. 1 (Beograd, 1893), p. 203; see: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 264.
10 O. Andrije Kačića-Miošića Razgovor Ugodni Naroda Slovinskoga (Zagreb, 1862) [1st edition
1756], pp. 45–49.
11 Nenad Ljubinković, “Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari – između pisane i usmene književnosti,”
in idem, Traganja i odgovori. Studije iz narodne književnosti i folklora, vol. 1 (Belgrade,
2010), p. 156.
12 Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti, pp. 226–27.
13 Ακολουθία του αγίου ενδόξου βασιλέως και μεγαλομάρτυρος Ιωάννου του Βλαδιμήρου και θαυμα-
τουργού τυπωθείσα μεν πρώτον δαπάνη του τιμιωτάτου Κυρίου Ιωάννου Παπά του εκ της πόλεως
Νεοκάστρου [Akolouthia tou agiou endoxu basileos kai megalomartyros Ioannou tou
Bladimerou kai thaumatourgou. Tympotheisa men proton dapane tou timiotatou Kyriou
Ioannou Papa tou ek tes poleos Neokastrou] (Venice, 1858) [reprint of 1774 edition].
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Kosma’s narrative, reprinted and

modified,14 became the foundation for the Orthodox cult of St. Jovan Vladimir.
More or less from the mid-eighteenth century, initially with the migration of
the Albanians to the lands of Kosovo, and from the nineteenth century, prob-
ably under the influence of the official cult in the Serbian Orthodox Church,15
the motifs related to Jovan Vladimir began to penetrate epic songs. Within the
Kosovo cycle, there is a tendency to merge the motifs associated with the figure
of the saint with those that were usually associated with the greatest hero of
boj na Kosovu [the battle of Kosovo]: the semi-legendary Miloš Obilić.16
Kosma’s narrative had little to do with the story known from Regnum
Sclavorum. In fact, only the main axis of the plot – the description of the rela-
tionship between Jovan Vladimir and Vladislav which ended with the death
of the former – constituted a permanent motif in both groups of texts. Other
similarities may be the result of literary convention. Among the themes shared
by the Latin tradition preserved in Regnum Sclavorum and the cycle of Greek
texts, perhaps one can mention the motif of Vladimir’s cross, although in the
text by Kosma the related plotline was entirely different.17
The Greek narrative attributed numerous dynastic links to Jovan Vladimir.
His father was said to be “Neman”, described as “the Triballian king” (in
Byzantine literature “Triballian” was synonym of “Serbian”), while his mother
was Anna,18 obviously referring to Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Serbian
Nemanjić dynasty, and his wife. The text also suggested that Jovan Vladimir’s
grandfather was called Simeon, and the memorial (μνήμη) of the saint attached
to the main text specified that he was the first Bulgarian king.19 In this case,
however, the inspiration might have come from Stefan Nemanja’s monastic
Critical edition of the source text can be found in: Vasilka Tâpkova-Zaimova, “Un manu-
scrit inconnu de la vie de S. Jean-Vladimir,” in eadem, Byzance et les Balkans à partir du
VIe siècle: les mouvements ethniques et les États (London, 1979), pp. 179–188; and (fragmen-
tary) in the already quoted article of Novaković (pp. 238–284) – below I use the latter of
the two mentioned editions.
14 On the history of editions of the text: Giakoumis Konstantinos, “Glimpses from the
Politics and Pragmatics of st. John Vladimir’s Veneration and Pilgrimage in the Longue
Dureé,” in International Scientific Conference Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the
World of Slavs, Thessaloniki 2015 [Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος. Το Βυζάντιο και ο κόσμος των Σλάβων,
Ξεσσαλονίκη 2015], ed. Antonios Emilios N. Tachiaos, pp. 133–134; Novaković, Prvi osnovi
slovenske književnosti, pp. 251–252.
15 Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti, pp. 238–84.
16 Ljubinković, “Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari,” p. 159.
17 Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti, p. 260.
256 chapter 6
name, Symeon, which he adopted after his abdication; Kosma then associ-
ated this with the Tsar of Bulgaria, Simeon the Great. Such a family arrange-
ment, although it was not mentioned by Kosma, was probably motivated by
the desire to make Jovan Vladimir similar to Rastko Nemanjić (St. Sava), and
the motif of forcing Jovan Vladimir to marry may even have been taken directly
from biographies of Serbian saints.20
The motif of Vladimir’s wife in the Greek biography was solved in a com-
pletely different way. The love story, one of the most important elements of
the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, was replaced in the Greek text by the story
of betrayal. The very name of Jovan Vladimir’s wife, Dalida,21 was an allusion
to Delilah, the biblical Samson’s love interest, and was intended to reveal the
negative features of her character. Kosma wrote that Dalida was a daughter
of Samuel22 and a sister of Vladislav. Jealous of her husband, who showed no
interest in her, she convinced his brother that he should get rid of him. The
circumstances of the saint’s death resemble to some extent an episode from
Regnum Sclavorum which describes Vladislav’s murder of his cousin Radomir
during the hunt. According to the Greek hagiography, Vladislav, while travelling
with Jovan Vladimir, attempted to kill him with his sword, but when that failed,
he finally cut off his head with a weapon given to him by his brother-in-law.23
Kosma emphasized that both Vladislav and Dalida were supporters of her-
esies: the Bogomils and Messalians (Euchites).24 The motif of Vladimir’s fight
with the Bogomils was completely omitted from the Latin legend of the saint.
The shorter Greek hagiography of Vladimir written by Kosma publicized the
actions of Jovan Vladimir against the apostates even more. It includes a rather
enigmatic mention of the death of a saint who was beheaded when he was
attacked by heretics and relatives.25
20 Although the motif of “resisting king” (rex renitens) is certainly common in such kind of
stories (see: Weiler, The Rex renitens), and it can be referred to much broader scheme of a
heroic story in general.
22 Interestingly, the names of Samuel’s brothers – David and Moses – are aptly given by
Kosma (Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti, p. 261), which may prove that his
narrative was based on some Ohrid sources.
24 Dragoljub Dragojlović, “Dukljanski knez Vladimir i albanski Novatiani,” Istorijski zapisi 1
(1975), vol. 32, pp. 93–104 – the author presents a controversial thesis that the motif of her-
esy and the death of Vladimir fighting against heretics could be based on actual events.
A clearly-outlined cephalophoric motif appeared for the first time in The

Elbasan Legend.26 After his death, Jovan Vladimir carried his own head to Shën
Gjon, the place that later became the centre of the saint’s cult. Posthumous
peregrination with his own severed head is a topos which is widespread in
hagiographies, the most famous example of which is St. Dionysius’ posthu-
mous journey in the legend of founding the Abbey of Saint Denis. This type of
image clearly referred to the history of St. John the Baptist and his beheading
as a result of Herodias’ plot.
According to Jaroslaw Dudek, it was the narrative’s connotations that might
have led to Vladimir being given a second name, which, thanks to a group of
Greek texts, became popular in the saint’s cult and historiography: “Probably
due to this similarity to the fate of John the Baptist, The Elbasan Legend popu-
larized the second name of the prince-martyr which is emphasized by the con-
sistent use of the form ‘John Vladimir’ in various variants of the narrative”.27
Another view was expressed by Ljubinković, who believed that the church in
Shën Gjon was originally dedicated to John the Baptist, and this fact could have
influence Vladimir’s cult and led to the saint being given an additional name.28
The link between Jovan Vladimir and John the Baptist probably represented
a whole network of interactions and semantic feedbacks. It is even possible
that Vladimir’s additional name was initially the result of contamination by
legendary motifs, and that its origins should be associated with Jovan Vladislav,
Vladimir’s opponent and killer. It is important that the name “Jovan” in refer-
ence to Vladimir was not used in the text of Regnum Sclavorum, hence it can
be concluded that the Priest of Duklja was not aware of those elements of the
saint’s cult that could clearly be associated with John the Baptist’s fate.
It is quite likely that the text of The Elbasan Legend was based on an older
text, but – as in the case of the Latin legend included in Regnum Sclavorum –
we can only speculate about this, and our conjectures are fed by Kosma, who
mentioned that his text was only a shortened extract of the information con-
tained in some great book which he stated was already lost. He also informed
26 As was shown by Leśny, this motif was quite typical and could be taken from leg-
ends of Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria, Władysław III of Poland (Władysław of Varna) or
Balaban Bey: Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 27, note 31; Jan Grzegorzewski, “Grób
Warneńczyka,” Kraków 1911, pp. 223–276. See: Izabela, “Motyw ‘odciętej głowy’ w liter-
aturze cerkiewnosłowiańskiej,” in: Święci w kulturze i duchowości dawnej i współczesnej
Europy, eds. Wanda Stepniak-Minczewa, Zdzisław J. Kijas (Krakow, 1999), pp. 55–62.
27 Jarosław Dudek, “Święty Jan Włodzimierz (?–1016) w życiu i w religii. Niefortunny polityk
i patron Serbów i Albańczyków,” in Gdzie jesteś człowieku? Funeralia lednickie – spotkanie
13, eds. Wojciech Dzieduszycki, Jacek Wrzesiński (Poznań, 2011), p. 226.
28 Ljubinković, “Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari,” p. 158.
258 chapter 6
the readers that a better account of the life and miracles of the saint could be
found in Serbian books.29 In the very narrative of the hagiography there is a
passage from which we can learn that the Greek text is only a translation from
Bulgarian, and that some Bulgarian synaksarion would tell the whole story
much more efficiently.30 On this basis, Paisius of Hilendar believed that the
Greek text “either was written later, after a long period of time, or some Serbian
or Greek [copyist] distorted this biography”.31
There is no reason to suppose that the old Slavic text mentioned by Kosma
was identical to the description of the ruler’s deeds contained in the work
by the Priest of Duklja. Guessing from Vladimir’s genealogy preserved in the
Greek narrative, it can be presumed that the alleged Serbian or Bulgarian biog-
raphy mentioned by Paisius of Hilendar was written in Ohrid, the centre with
which Kosma was associated.
Jaroslaw Dudek presented another vision of the development of the bio-
graphical tradition. He linked the consecutive modifications to the written tra-
dition of Vladimir with the hypothetical translatio of the saint’s remains. Dudek
referred to Konstantin Jireček’s old concept, who claimed that Vladimir’s body
was transferred from Krajina, the burial place of Vladimir, as is mentioned
in the Latin legend, to Dyrrachium, on the initiative of Theodore Komnenos
Doukas, the ruler of Epirus. Jireček speculated that this happened after 1215.32
According to Dudek, Vladimir’s hypothetical hagiography – helpful in reviving
the cult of the saint – was written soon after this event by one of the metropoli-
tan bishops of Dyrrachium: Dokianos or Constantine Kabasilas.33
There are several arguments to support the assumption that the saint’s grave
was located for some time in Dyrrachium. The special bond between Vladimir

31 Paisij Chilendarski. Słowianobułgarska historia, ed. and trans. Franciszek Korwin-
Szymanowski (Warsaw, 1981), p. 28; see: Dudek, “Święty Jan Włodzimierz,” p. 227.
32 It is worth mentioning that the suggestions of Jireček were based on the work of Stojan
Novaković, who in fact did not claim definitely that the corpse was taken from Krajina
before 1215. In the nineteenth century Ivan Stepanovič Jastrebov – a Russian consul and
amateur historian – informed that the remains of Vladimir were still in Krajina. He noted
a legend supporting information provided by Regnum Sclavorum about the original place
of burial of Vladimir in the St. Mary Church. Jastrebov claimed that at the beginning of
the nineteenth century that the cross given by King Vladislav to Vladimir as a safety guar-
antee was still kept in the abovementioned church in the vicinity of Scodra. The Mrković
family reportedly took the cross to the St. Trinity Church at Mt. Rumija. The credibility of
this information was questioned by Mijušković: “it is actually too much translation to be
believed, even if knowledge of these events was based on older and more reliable founda-
tions” (Mijušković, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, p. 61).
33 Dudek, “Święty Jan Włodzimierz,” p. 230.
and this city is confirmed by the legend known from Regnum Sclavorum, while
the fragment of the liturgical text attached to The Elbasan Legend contained
a formula which is quite clear on this situation: “Today, the Triballian city of
Dyrrachion, where your [i.e. Vladimir’s] holy body rests, rejoices in faith”.34
This leads us to question when the remains of Vladimir were transferred
to Shën Gjon. There are many arguments that the tradition of the relics of
Jovan Vladimir in Shën Gjon was known before 1381, although it is worth not-
ing that the trilingual inscription of Karl Topia did not mention them. If the
translatio really happened, the transfer of the saint’s body from Dyrrachium
to Shën Gjon seems much more probable than its previous translation from
Krajina. Dudek believed that it could have taken place after the earthquake
that affected Dyrrachium in 1271. He speculated that “the next versions of the
saint’s biography, the ‘Serbian books’ mentioned in Kosma’ edition, could have
been composed after this event”.35
There are many indications, however, that Jovan Vladimir’s body rested in
Shën Gjon from the very beginning, or, to be precise, from the start of the estab-
lishment (renewal?) of Vladimir’s cult. Although as claimed by Mijušković the
name Craini or Gazeni from the Latin variant had to mean some place near
the modern Elbasan, there are many indications that the reference to the mys-
terious Krajina was added to the text at a later date, perhaps at the same time
that it was linked with Regnum Sclavorum.36 The meaning of the toponym
Craini in the Priest of Duklja’s work is vague, and the localization of this place
generally accepted in contemporary historiography was primarily influenced
by local eighteenth-century legends, and secondarily inspired by the Priest of
Duklja’s text.
3 Vladimir or Ashot? Byzantine Accounts of Vladimir and Their

Interpretation
The legend of Vladimir stands out from the other narratives of Regnum
Sclavorum. It would be difficult to find another fragment in this work whose
content would correspond so precisely to other independent accounts. This

36 It is most commonly identified as Skadarska Krajina, although Ljubinka Basotova believed
that the place could be located in Krani near Prespa: “Letopisot na popot Dukljanin kako
izvor za makedonskata srednovekovna istorija,” Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata
istorija na Makedonija vol. 5 (Prilep, 1988), pp. 133–149. See: Popa Dukljanina Sclavorum
Regnum. Kritičko izdanje, ed. Danilo Radojević (Cetinje, 2016), p. 18, note 33.
260 chapter 6
does not mean, however, that Vladimir’s story can be regarded without reser-
vation as a source for the history of the rulers of Duklja, Travunja or northern
Albania in the eleventh century – the plot seems to be too distorted by hagio-
graphic convention and the Priest of Duklja’s own concepts. Nevertheless, a
comparison of some of the permanent elements of the legend of Vladimir with
the accounts of Byzantine historians, particularly John Skylitzes, brings inter-
esting results, and sheds some light on the process of forming certain motifs
in the legend.
In his Synopsis Historion (Σύνοψις Ἱστοριῶν), Skylitzes mentioned Vladimir
twice.37 The first reference was related to the planned military intervention
of Emperor Basil II Boulgaroktonos against Jovan Vladislav in 1015. The Greek
chronicler wrote that while Triballia and the nearby parts of Serbia38 were ruled
by Vladimir, a son-in-law of Samuel39 and a righteous, peaceful and virtuous
man,40 peace prevailed in Dyrrachium. The situation around the city changed
when Vladimir gave himself up to Ioannes/Jovan (also called “Vladislav” in the
same text). He believed the promises sent through David, the Archbishop of
Bulgaria, and was soon killed by Jovan.41
Skylitzes mentioned Vladimir for the second time when he described how
Jovan Vladislav’s42 wife was taken to Emperor Basil II, along with her six
daughters and three sons, and accompanied by one illegitimate son of Samuel,
and two daughters and five sons of Radomir, Samuel’s son. According to the
chronicle, one of Radomir’s sons was blinded when Jovan killed Radomir, his
wife and Vladimir, who was then presumably described as Samuel’s son-in-law
(γαμβρός).43
Skylitzes twice stressed the bond of affinity between Vladimir and Samuel
(the first time using the ambiguous term κηδεστής44). Also, the course of events
37 On the image of the Southern Slavs in the work by John Skylitzes: Jan Bonarek, Romajowie
i obcy w kronice Jana Skylitzesa. Identyfikacja etniczna Bizantyńczyków i ich stosunek do
obcych w świetle kroniki Jana Skylitzesa (Toruń, 2003), pp. 165–171.
38 “Τρυβαλιας καί των άγχοτάτω Σερβίας μερών”.
39 “Βλαδίμηρος ό επί θυγατρί του Σαμουήλ κηδεστής”.
40 “ἀνήρ ἐπιεικής καί είρηνικòς καί ἀρετῆς ἀντεχόμενος”.
41 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Hans Thurn, chapter 38, verses 59–74, Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae vol. 5 (Berlin, 1973), pp. 353–354; the Serbian transla-
tion: Vizantijski Izvori za Istoriju Naroda Jugoslavije, vol. 3, eds. Jadran Ferluga, Georgije
Ostrogorski et al. (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 117–118 [further abbreviated as: VINJ].
42 This time in the double-barrelled form: “Ἰωάννου τοῦ καί Βλαδισθλάβου”.
43 Synopsis Historiarum, chapter 41, verses 19–36, p. 359; VINJ, vol. 3, p. 129.
44 See: Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 179, note 266 (error in printing Greek terms).
Contrary to the opinion of Leśny both κηδεστής, and γαμβρός could refer to various forms
of kinship – son-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law.
concluding with Vladimir’s violent death shows considerable resemblance to

information about the murder of the king provided in Regnum Sclavorum. In
both cases Vladislav was the murderer, and in both cases Vladimir gave himself
up voluntarily to his slayer. Skylitzes also confirmed, to a certain extent, infor-
mation about the guarantees given by Vladislav, and even the detail regarding
the participation of the Bulgarian archbishop in the negotiations. This last fig-
ure can perhaps be considered as the narrative equivalent of two bishops and
a hermit who, according to the text in Regnum Sclavorum, brought Vladimir a
wooden cross. Moreover, even the brief characteristics of Vladimir as a rightful
and peaceful man, according to the work of Skylitzes, is surprisingly similar to
the description given by the Priest of Duklja.
Jovan Vladislav’s character in the Synopsis Historion also corresponds
roughly to the description of Tsar Vladislav in Regnum Sclavorum. It is con-
firmed that Vladislav seized power in Prespa as a result of his relative’s mur-
der, which occurred during hunting.45 Although in the text of the Latin legend
Samuel’s son was known only by his Slavic name, Radomir, and Skylitzes called
him Gabriel Roman, this is probably the same figure.46 The motif of murder
while hunting and revenge taken by the saint against the cruel ruler entered –
in various combinations – into the narrative circle of legends about Vladimir.47
Its roots can also be found in Byzantine sources.
An interesting example of modifying similar legendary motifs, which were
probably originally connected with the figure of Vladislav, appeared in The
Miracles of Saint Demetrius48 by John Staurakios from the twelfth or thirteenth
century. The work presents Radomir (Ραδομίρος) as a wicked ruler and a cruel
man. In other variants of the legend, he died during a hunt, but in Staurakios’
version, the ruler was put to a deserved death by St. Demetrius, who appeared
suddenly in the forest, on horseback and with a sword.49 Thus, the figure of
Radomir is similar to the two protagonists of Regnum Sclavorum: both to
Vladislav, and to his uncle Radomir (according to the Priest of Duklja and John
Skylitzes, Radomir was murdered by Vladislav).
45 Synopsis Historiarum, p. 353, verses 38–41; VINJ, v. 3, pp. 108–109.

46 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 181, notes 271, 272; Wincenty Swoboda, Gabriel
Radomir, SSS, vol. 2, p. 77. See: Papageorgiou, To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias, p. 242.
47 On popularity of the motif of death during hunting and the possible impact if this epi-
sode of the legend of Vladimir on later Serbian epic poetry: Danijela Popović, “Ubistvo u
lovu, na vodi, u starijoj srpskoj književnoj tradiciji,” Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i
jezik 55 (2007), 3, pp. 469–477.
48 Ιωάννου Σταυρακίου λόγος εις τα θαύματα του αγίου Δημητρίου.
49 Jovan Stavrakije, Čuda sv. Dimitrija Solunskog, ed. Božidar Ferjančić, [in:] VIJN, v. 3,
pp. 47–48.
262 chapter 6
The motif of a knight-avenger was also present in the Latin narrative about
King Vladimir, and it is possible that in this case the two formerly separate nar-
rative collections merged: one on the assassination of Radomir by Vladislav,
and the other on the death of Vladislav who was killed by the angel Vladimir at
Dyrrachium. Orbini does not mention the latter motif, which suggests that it
could have been added later to the text. In fact, Vladimir’s posthumous revenge
has features which are typical of texts written later than in the eleventh cen-
tury, and it is possible that the episode of Vladislav’s death referred to some
wandering legend, perhaps popular in the area of Dyrrachium.
The text by Skylitzes is even more difficult to interpret because of glosses
added to it in the twelfth century by Michael of Devol. According to his inter-
polation, Jovan Vladislav died at the walls of Dyrrachium in unclear circum-
stances, when, during a skirmish with Niketas Pegonites, he was attacked by
unidentified infantrymen.50
Scholars have also found a seemingly innocent word, Θεοδωρίτου (Theo
doritou), to be very confusing. Michael of Devol put it in the middle of the
phrase “Samuel’s daughter”.51 Božidar Prokić, the chronicle’s publisher, iden-
tified the nominative form of the interpolated word as “Theodora”. Skylitzes
did not give the name of Vladimir’s wife, and since Kosara – known only from
the legend – did not appear in any other medieval source, historians accepted
Prokić’s hypothesis, that Theodora is a Greek equivalent of the name of
Kosara.52
By analogy to the method of creating two-part names for Bulgarian rul-
ers, it should be assumed in this case that the name Kosara was of Slavic ori-
gin, perhaps derived from the word kosa (hair), or was a variant of the name
“Kosana” noted by eighteenth-century ethnographers.53 On the other hand,
there were hypotheses about the Roman etymology of this name.54 On the
similar premise, Nicolas Adontz associated the name of Kosara with the char-
acter of Cursilius, described in Regnum Sclavorum a bit later as the toparch of
Dyrrachium. Adontz linked Vladimir’s wife in the legend with the Chryselios, a
family of local magnates, and more specifically – based on the aforementioned
interpolation – with Theodor Chryselios, who according to him could have
been the father of Kosara, whose name would then be the distorted version
50 Synopsis Historiarum, p. 357; VIJN vol. 3, p. 123.

51 “θυγατρίτου Σαμουήλ”.
52 See: Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, pp. 145–147.
54 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, p. 179, note 264.
of the name Corsala (Chrysileia).55 Adontz also claimed that in the passages
discussing the death of the king and his conflict with Vladislav, the legend was
based on information about real events, while the previous part, on the con-
flict with Samuel, was included in order to make Vladimir’s connection with
the city of Dyrrachium more probable.
The way in which the legend of Vladimir was shaped and filled with com-
pletely new content, can be illustrated with an example of the love motif. This
was undoubtedly the most attractive theme in all of Regnum Sclavorum. Its
implementation, at least in the fragments regarding Kosara’s visit to the dun-
geon, demonstrates the evident attributes of a medieval romance.
A nearly identical story must have been in circulation in the Byzantine area
in the eleventh century. As was noted by Prokić, and then repeated by Adontz,
it can be found in a slightly modified form in the work by John Skylitzes, who
passed on the narrative of another daughter of Tsar Samuel. The interpolation
made by Michael of Devol suggest that her name was Miroslava. According to
Skylitzes, she fell in love with Ashot, a son of Gregory Taronites, a Byzantine
magnate of Armenian descent. Ashot was captured during one of the Tsar’s
campaigns. Miroslava’s love for him was so strong that she threatened to kill
herself if her father did not release her beloved and if he did not allow the
couple to marry. Interestingly, her words as quoted by Skylitzes match Kosara’s
words, and are used in a similarly emotional tone while convincing Samuel to
release Vladimir from prison: “Mi pater et domine, scio quia daturus es mihi
virum sicuti moris est. Nunc ergo, si tuae placet magnitudini, aut des mihi
virum Vladimirum regem, quem tenes in vinculis, aut scias, me prius mori-
turam, quam alium accipiam virum” (“O, my father and my lord, I know that
you are going to marry me off, in line with the custom. Now, therefore, accord-
ing to the will of your majesty [say:] would you let me marry King Vladimir,
who you keep in chains, for you should know that I would rather die than
have another man for a husband”).56 In the work by Skylitzes, the story ends
in quite a different way than it does in the work by the Priest of Duklja. After
the wedding, Samuel sent Miroslava and Ashot to Dyrrachium, where his son-
in-law was supposed to rule the city on behalf of the Tsar. However, Ashot
55 Nicolas Adontz, “Samuel l’Arménien roi des Bulgares,” in idem, Etudes Armeno-Byzantines
(Lisbon, 1965) [the first edition: Brussels, 1938], pp. 404–407. See also: Srđan Pirivatrić,
“Emperor’s Daughter in Love with Prisoner: Comparing the Stories of Scylitzes and
Anonymus Presbyter Diocleae,” in Byzanz und das Abendland: Begegnungen zwischen Ost
und West, ed. Erika Juhász (Budapest, 2013), pp. 278–283.
264 chapter 6
betrayed his father-in-law, and persuaded his wife to flee with him to the side
of the Byzantine Greeks.57
Jadran Ferluga presented another hypothesis concerning Vladimir and
Kosara. He attempted to identify the historical roots of the love motif in a
certain episode of 1072 noted by an anonymous continuator of Skylitzes.
The struggle between the self-proclaimed Tsar Constantine Bodin and the
Byzantine army was ended by the wedding of the Byzantine commander
Longibardopoulos with Bodin’s unnamed sister. As a result, peace was made,
and the newlywed commander switched allegiance to his brother-in-law.58 It
seems, however, that this hypothesis requires a large dose of imagination, and
that the similarity between the motifs found in the work by Skylitzes’ continu-
ator and in Regnum Sclavorum is too superficial to find any closer connection
between these two stories.
It may be impossible to identify the historical sources for the love motif,
because it is likely that from the beginning it was a narrative splice, in which
fragments of other stories can be recognized. The case of Ashot and Miroslava,
as well as that of Vladimir and Kosara, should be treated as variants of one
narrative scheme. There is little evidence that the Priest of Duklja was famil-
iar with Skylitzes’ work (and even less can be said about the use of this work
by the author of Vladimir’s hypothetical hagiography). It is not surprising that
Regnum Sclavorum and Synopsis Historion presented the development of the
romantic relationships in different ways, for the author of each work adopted
totally diverse narrative conventions. It seems valid, however, that the similar-
ity between these two accounts is, to a certain degree, the effect of a historical
foundation for the described events, and of a similar cultural milieu – textual,
or related to oral transmission – in which a specific pattern of implementation
of these types of stories was widespread.
The subsequent popularity of this pattern in the Latin world indirectly
confirms its enormous semantic capacity. Some literary scholars were even
inclined to see the story of Vladmir and Kosara as an indirect inspiration for
some motifs in The Tempest by William Shakespeare.59
57 Synopsis Historiarum, pp. 342–343; VINJ, pp. 91–92.

58 Jadran Ferluga, “Die Chronik des Priesters von Diokleia als Quelle für byzantinische
Geschichte,” Byzantina 10 (1980), pp. 429–460.
59 Through the work of Antonio de Eslava, see: Henri Grégoire, “The Bulgarian Origins of ‘The
Tempest’ of Shakespeare,” Studies in Philology 2 (1940), vol. 37, pp. 236–256. Some scholars
claim that the trace of the legend of Vladimir and Kosara can already be found in the
adventures of Florimont, the protagonist of the French romance by Aimon de Varennes.
It tells a story about love of Florimont, a son of Mataquas, the duke (duc) of Albania,
and princess Romadanaple, a daughter of the hostile Hungarian King Candiobras (or
The very scheme of a legend of a prisoner and a female aristocrat who fall in
love seems to be a modification of the biblical motif of Joseph and Potiphar’s
wife (anonymous in the Old Testament, called Zuleikha in the Talmudic tradi-
tion). The motif of the Egyptian woman’s love for Joseph, her husband’s slave,
was popular and often used in Greek literature from the eleventh century. At the
same time, the local tradition associated with the figure of Joseph developed in
the literature of neighbouring countries.60 It was preserved independently in
texts from the territories of Croatia61 and Serbia;62 the oldest surviving works
are dated back to the end of the fourteenth century. The number of references
to this Old Testament figure may suggest that the motif appeared in this area
much earlier.
A special focus on the love motif was a typical feature of a large group of
medieval texts devoted to Joseph. The affection of Potiphar’s wife often resem-
bled the longing known from romances, with Joseph symbolizing an inacces-
sible man.63 His pursuit of purity harmonized with the topics characteristic of
medieval hagiographies – The Life of Moses the Hungarian64 is an example of a
hybrid of both tendencies in Slavic literature. The features of a literary portrait
of Joseph were well reflected in the formulaic phrase prekrasni Josip (beautiful
Joseph), preserved in early-modern Croatian literature.
Traces of a similar method of imaging can be found in Regnum Sclavorum.
The best example is the description of Vladimir when Kosara first saw him
in prison: “Inter haec cernens Vladimirum et videns quod esset pulcher in
aspectu, humilis, mansuetus atque modestus et quod esset repletus sapi-
entia et prudentia domini, morata locuta est cum illo. Videbatur namque
ei loquella illius dulcis super mel et favum. Igitur non causa libidinis, sed
Philip of Macedonia). Nevertheless, ideas explaining the name Florimont (“flower of the
world”) in reference to the figure of Vladimir (“mir” – world, “flurit” – blessed) can be cat-
egorized as curiosities. See: Petar Ušković, “Kralj Vladimir kao književni motiv u hrvatskoj
latinističkoj tradiciji,” in Pavao Ritter Vitezović i njegovo doba (1652–1713), Alojz Jembrih,
Ivana Jukić (Zagreb, 2016), pp. 166; Hristo Melovski, “Prološko žitije Sv. Jovana Vladimira,”
in Dukljanski knez Sveti Vladimir (970–1016). 1000 godina crnogorske državotvornosti, ed.
Sreten Perović (Podgorica, 2016), p. 72.
60 Kamila Lucerna, “Građa za studiju o apokrifu: ‘Život i ispovijedanje Asenete, kćeri
Pentefrijeve, koju je uzeo prekrasni Josip za ženu’,” Rad JAZU 224 (1921), p. 169; Josip
Bratulić, “Apokrif o Prekrasnom Josipu u hrvatskoj srednjovjekovnoj kniževnosti,” Radovi
Staroslovenskog instituta 7 (1972), pp. 34–39.
61 Bratulić, “Apokrif o Prekrasnom Josipu,” pp. 39–40.
62 Stojan Novaković, “Srpskoslovenski zbornik iz vremena despota Stefana Lazarevića,”
Starine 9 (1877), pp. 1–47.
63 See: Bratulić, “Apokrif o Prekrasnom Josipu,” p. 45.
64 Polikarpa mnicha kijowskich pieczar Żywot Mojżesza Węgrzyna, ed. Emil Kałużniacki, MPH
vol. 4 (Lviv, 1884), pp. 797–817.
266 chapter 6
quia condoluit iuventuti et pulchritudini illius et quoniam audiret eum esse

regem et ex regali prosapia ortum, dilexit eum et salutato eo recessit” (Noticing
Vladimir and seeing that he is beautiful in appearance, humble, gentle and
modest, as well as full of Divine wisdom and knowledge, she got into conver-
sation with him. His speech seemed to her more pleasing and sweeter than
honey. Therefore, not because of lustful passion, but because she felt sorry for
him [because of] his youth and beauty, and because she heard that he was a
king and came from a royal family, she fell in love with him, and then she said
goodbye and left).65
The motif of Potiphar’s wife as such would not be the most adequate point
of reference for Vladimir and Kosara’s story. Some recurrent narrative elements
are mixed up in both stories, and the scheme would require additions, so that
their similarities cannot be considered to be accidental. There is one more
biblical motif related to Joseph which runs parallel to the motif of Potiphar’s
wife: that of his relationship with Asenath, his future wife. According to The
Book of Genesis,66 she was the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of the town
of On. Because of the striking similarity between the names “Potipherah” and
“Potiphar” (Joseph’s owner when he was a slave), many medieval and early
modern texts mention them as if they referred to one and the same charac-
ter. In such accounts, Joseph married his master’s daughter immediately after
being liberated from the dungeon. Certain Old-Croatian texts claimed that the
wedding was ordered by Pharaoh and Joseph was brought straight from prison
to marry Potipherah’s daughter.67 In this way, the motif of slavery, impulsive
love for a beautiful young man, sudden release, and marriage to the daughter
of a former oppressor, was permanently in the semantic circle of narratives
related to the figure of Joseph, and as a result it could have developed into a
new narrative variant representing the stories of Ashot and Miroslava and the
legend of Vladimir and Kosara.
4 Elements of the Hagiographical Topics in the Legend of

King Vladimir
The motif of King Vladimir stands out from the overall narrative of Regnum
Sclavorum so distinctly that we can treat it as a separate unit, whether we try
to see it as the original form of the hypothetical hagiography of St. Vladimir,
65 Ljetopis, p. 80.
66 Gen 41:45.
67 Bratulić, “Apokrif o Prekrasnom Josipu,” p. 45.
or whether we accept the possibility of significant interference by the Priest

of Duklja in the earlier text. The broader narrative context brings out motifs
which are relevant to the overall image of the dynasty and its power but mean-
while, narrowing the view, we should distinguish those features of vita or
passio Vladimiri which belonged to the characteristic topoi associated with the
hagiographies and stories of saints in the Middle Ages.
For Christians, Jesus was the first and foremost model. The life of the future
saint had to relate strictly to the life and deeds of Christ. The element of imita-
tio was also an important component in legends of martyrs, with the descrip-
tion of the Christ’s Passion as the basic model. In the narrative construction
itself, in the literary layer of the text available to us, and in the details of the
description of King Vladimir’s behaviour, one can easily see elements of such
an imitation.68
They clearly marked Vladimir’s attitude towards foreign aggression. The
value of the royal sacrifice was emphasized in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative.69
Vladimir did not organize armed resistance to external interventions. However,
he was always ready to care for the kingdom and save his subjects, or sua gens
(his people), as they were called in the text. Vladimir behaved in this way when
his land was invaded by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel. The Priest of Duklja justi-
fied the royal behaviour with the desire to save the lives of his subjects from an
unnecessary battle: “Rex vero, qui vir sanctus erat et nolebat aliquem de suis
perire in bello, secessit humiliter et ascendit in montem, qui Obliquus dicitur,
cum omni gente sua” (The king, being a saintly man, did not want any of his
entourage to perish in the war, and humbly retreated with all his army to the
mountain called Obliquus).70 In this bloodless way, Vladimir managed to save
his people, and when the fiery serpents (“igniti serpentes”) started to threaten
them on the mountain, the king prayed to God to save those who had assem-
bled with him: “(…) rex Vladimirus orationem fudit ad dominum cum lacrimis,
ut deus omnipotens liberaret populum suum ab illa pestifera morte” (King
Vladimir, in tears, addressed a prayer to the Lord that the almighty God would
deliver his people from such an abominable death). The legend combines the
motif of the ruler’s humilitas with the topos of a good shepherd. Also, the con-
flict with Vladislav was solved when the ruler sacrificed himself, drawing the
invaders’ attention away from his subjects.
68 Trajković-Filipović, Saint Vladimir of Zeta, pp. 27–35.

69 A “victimologist” analysis of the legend was presented by: Jelka Ređep, “O ubistvu duk-
ljanskog kneza Vladimira,” in eadem, Ubistvo vladara. Studije i ogledi (Novi Sad, 1998),
pp. 311–319.
268 chapter 6
Ingham divided the Vladimir-related narrative of the Priest of Duklja into

five main parts: (1) the siege of Mt. Oblik (Obliquus)71 and Vladimir’s exile; (2)
Vladimir’s imprisonment by Samuel and his marriage to Kosara; (3) the ruler’s
invitation to Prespa; (4) Vladimir’s assassination followed by the transfer of his
body; and (5) revenge on the king’s murderer. Ingham noted that the doubled
motif of the king’s trial (Vladimir is tried twice: by Samuel and by Vladislav)
was intended to bring associations with the Passion of Christ.72
Another reference to the Passion was the motif of Vladimir’s betrayal by a
local župan, who offered to give the king away to the Bulgarian Tsar. The author
of the text compared this infidelity to the treacherous deed of Judas (“Iudae
traditori similis effectus”). Like Jesus in the Gospel, Vladimir, learning of this
betrayal, gathered the people and voluntarily offered himself to Samuel: “Tunc
rex congregatis omnibus qui cum eo erant, taliter eis locutus est: ‘Oportet me,
fratres carissimi, ut video adimplere illud evangelii versiculum, ubi dicitur:
Bonus pastor animan suam ponit pro ovibus suis. Melius est ergo, fratres, ut ego
ponam animan meam pro omnibus vobis et tradam corpus meum sponte ad
trucidandum seu occidendum, quam ut vos periclitemini fame sive gladio’”
(The king, having gathered all those who were with him, said to them: “As I see,
my beloved brothers, I should follow this passage of the Gospel, which says:
A good shepherd gives his soul for his sheep. Therefore, it will be better if I give
up my soul for you and willingly give my body to torment and death, than let
me expose you to suffering and the sword”).73
Some details of the narrative about Vladimir’s reaction to the threat posed
by Vladislav also referred to the symbolism of the Passion. The cross – given
to the king by the perfidious ruler of the Bulgarians as a guarantee of safety at
his court – was an item imbued with profound symbolism. Vladislav first sent
Vladimir a gold cross. However, the object was too luxurious and suggested
that Vladislav had impure intentions. His envoy was sent away and Vladimir’s
parting words were as follows: “Scimus, quod dominus noster Jesus Christus,
qui pro nobis passus est, non in aurea vel argentea cruce suspensus est, sed
in lignea; ergo, si vera est fides tua et verba tua vera sunt, per manus religio-
sorum hominum crucem ligneam mitte mihi, et fide et virtute domini nostri
Jesu Christi spem habendo in vivificam crucem ac pretiosum lignum, veniam”
(We know that our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered for us, was not crucified
on a gold or silver cross, but on a wooden one. So if your faith is sincere and
if your words are true, send me a wooden cross by the hands of pious people,
so that I can come, trusting the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and relying on
71 Šišić identified Obliquus as the mountain Tarabosh: Letopis, pp. 455–456.

72 Ingham, “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir of Dioclea,” p. 205.
73 Ljetopis, p. 79.
this life-giving cross and the precious tree).74 A wooden cross, delivered by two
bishops and a hermit, was placed by Vladimir on his chest, further multiplying
the already clear motifs of the Passion. Through this analogy, Vladimir’s jour-
ney to Vladislav’s court in Prespa resembled the Stations of the Cross.
The description of the king’s death was also modelled after the Passion of
Christ in the narrative. Upon arriving in Prespa, Vladimir began to pray and did
not stop, even when he saw the soldiers approaching. Once he was surrounded,
he turned to the bishops and the hermits who unwittingly offered him empty
promises, and said: “Quid est domini mei? Quid egistis? Quare me sic dece-
pistis? Cur verbis et iuramentis vestris credens sine culpa morior?” (What is
going on, my lords? What have you done? Why have you betrayed me? Why
am I dying, innocent and trusting your word?).75 However, Vladimir managed
to forgive his involuntary traitors before he died and asked them to pray. In his
last words he emphasized his innocence: “absque culpa morior” (I am dying
without guilt).
Characteristically, despite the sudden turn of events, Vladimir managed to
prepare himself for death: “Tunc rex facta oratione et confessione, accepto
corpore et sanguine domini (…)” (Then the king after prayer and confession,
accepted the body and blood of the Lord). This mention of communion sub
utraque specie was omitted in Orbini’s translation, who probably recognized
this type of Eucharist as incompatible with the code of the Catholic Church.
Although Leśny saw the description as evidence of an everyday practice at the
time of the author of the legend,76 it was rather an attempt of the Priest of
Duklja to strengthen the analogy between Vladimir and Christ by referring to
the Last Supper.
In medieval hagiographic works, as in the biblical description of the
Passion, the tragic circumstances of death, its violence and the motif of unex-
pected betrayal were combined with the commonly accepted belief in the irre-
versibility of destiny.77 The conviction that martyrdom is inevitable was also
present in the narrative about Vladimir. The king learned of his destiny via a
supernatural vision during the prayer in Emperor Samuel’s dungeon: “Apparuit
ei in visione angelus domini confortans eum et nuncians ei ea, quae ventura
erunt, quomodo eum deus liberaret de ipso carcere et quomodo per martirium
perveniret ad regna coelorum et acciperet immarcescibilem coronam et prae-
mia vitae aeternae” (The angels of the Lord appeared to him, comforting and
74 Ljetopis, p. 82.
75 Ljetopis, p. 83.
76 Leśny, Historia Królestwa Słowian, pp. 181–182, note 279.
77 Trajković-Filipović, Saint Vladimir of Zeta, pp. 28–29.
270 chapter 6
preaching what was about to happen: that God would free him from prison
and that by martyrdom he would be taken to the kingdom of heaven, crowned
with a crown that never withers, and [given] the reward of eternal life).78
Supernatural elements, so unusual for the style of the Priest of Duklja,
appeared in the passage devoted to Vladimir several times, which speaks in
favour of the thesis about the separate character of this narrative. Descriptions
of miracles and the extraordinary achievements of a saint belong rather to the
hagiographic topoi than to the set of images used in other parts of Regnum
Sclavorum. Miraculous events that marked Vladimir’s life were to prove his spe-
cial relationship with God. Providence watched over him on the way to Prespa
as he passed the ambush which had been set by robbers hired by Vladislav. In
the narrative, the angels appeared again and scared the people who were lying
in wait for the king. As the author of the text stated: “Deus autem omnipotens,
qui ab infantia custodivit famulum suum, noluit extra homines dormitation
accipere” (But God Almighty, who watches over his servant from childhood,
did not want to leave him in need),79 emphasizing the special place of Vladimir
in the divine plan, an expression that Mošin associated with the verse of
Psalm 121: “ecce non dormitabit neque dormiet qui custodit Israhel” (Behold,
he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep).80
Repelling fiery serpents, which began to harass the people gathered next
to the King on Mt. Obliquus was the greatest of Vladimir’s miraculous deeds
mentioned in Regnum Sclavorum. The act of chasing vipers away was a fairly
frequent hagiographic motif,81 mainly related to fragments of the Gospel of
St. Mark (16:18) and St. Luke (10:19), in which the apostles were prophesied
to gain the power of treading on serpents and scorpions, and have resis-
tance to their venom.82 In Dalmatia, elements of local legends could also be
involved, as is evidenced by the presence of a similar motifs in the legend of
the arrival of St. Paul to the island of Mljet, noted in the nineteenth century by
Vuk Karadžić.83
The saint’s struggle with serpents can be seen as an implementation of the
scheme of the mythical fight of good and evil, symbolized here by the rep-
tile or dragon; hence the story of defeating fiery serpents on the Mt. Obliquus
78 Ljetopis, p. 80.
80 Ps 121:4.
81 Jovan Kovačević, Istorija Crne Gore, p. 422.
82 Banašević, Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja, pp. 178–179, note 126.
(“Slanting”) could be a narrative motif which was much older than the account
of King Vladimir’s struggle with Tsar Samuel.84
Descriptions of miracles performed posthumously by the hero was a fairly
frequent motif in medieval hagiographies. At night, after Vladimir’s death,
Vladislav was so scared by the appearance of a divine light that he let Kosara
transfer her husband’s body to the place she had chosen. In this way, the author
of the legend “located” the centre of the martyr’s cult in St. Mary’s Church in
Krajina, where, it was emphasized, Vladimir’s court (curia) had been previously
situated. The same church, according to the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum,
was the burial place of Vladimir’s father, Petrislav [II].85 This may indicate that,
as was already mentioned, the fragment referring to Vladimir’s father was the
prologue in the hypothetical older source used by the Priest of Duklja. It is also
probable that the later compiler attempted to heighten Krajina’s role. There
is no precise information about the location of this church in the text, so it is
difficult to say where, according to the author (or the authors) of the text, the
most important centre of Vladimir’s cult was really situated.86
In accordance with the topoi known from other hagiographies, St. Mary’s
Church in Krajina gained a special significance in the narrative. On the day of
Vladimir’s feast – that is, probably, on May 22, which was the date of his death
recorded in the legend – a crowd of worshippers would gather in the temple. It
was said that the saint’s remains, kept in the church, did not rot, and even had
a pleasant odour, which is typical of hagiographies. As the author described in
detail: “Iacet corpus eius integrum et redolet quasi pluribus conditum aroma-
tibus et crucem illam, quam ab imperatore accepit, manu tenet” (his body rests
there intact, secreting a smell as if anointed with various scents and fragrances,
and holding a cross in his hand).87
84 On the hypothetic ur-myth of the hero-thunderer and the snake – the legend being a
probable foundation of Slavic mythology – and on its appropriation by Christian hagiog-
raphies and folk tales about saints, see: Czesław Deptuła, Archanioł i Smok. Z zagadnień
legendy miejsca i mitu początku w Polsce średniowiecznej (Lublin, 2003); Boris Uspieński,
Kult św. Mikołaja na Rusi (Lublin, 1985), pp. 57–74.
85 Although in this case of location of the St. Mary Church, the used name is Gazeni, instead
of Craini.
86 In Montenegrin historiography it is believed that the place could be identified as Ostros
near the city of Bar. On local account functioning in the modern times and probably
inspired by the literary tradition, see: Leśny, “Bogorodica Krajinska,” SSS vol. 7, part 2,
pp. 499–500.
87 Ljetopis, p. 84. As has already been mentioned, the cross is associated with Montenegrin
legends. Its replica has been preserved since the early modern period, yet it seems that
continuity of this tradition from older times cannot be confirmed.
272 chapter 6
When the king was alive, the unique bond between Vladimir and Kosara
was expressed primarily by her willingness to sacrifice and by the pursuit of
holiness shared by both spouses. After Vladimir’s death, it was manifested by
Kosara’s special role, who became the guardian of her deceased husband’s cult.
She became a nun (sanctimonialis effecta), which may suggest the establish-
ment (or previous presence) of a convent in Krajina. After her death, she was
buried in the same church, yet not at the side but at the feet of her spouse.
This configuration emphasized that it was the burial of a disciple of the saint88
rather than that of a royal consort.
The last of Vladimir’s acts described in Regnum Sclavorum was his posthu-
mous revenge on his murderer, Vladislav. According to the Priest of Duklja’s
narrative, an armed figure with the face of the murdered king suddenly
appeared at Dyrrachium where the Tsar feasted.89 The avenger was probably
an emanation of the saint, although another part of the text claims that the
one who dealt Vladislav the fatal blow was an angel.90 The evil Tsar himself
turned into an evil angel (angelus satanae). The episode of vengeance was not
included in Orbini’s translation, and there are many indications to supporting
the hypothesis of the later formation of this motif.
The episode in which Vladimir took his revenge on Vladislav did not match
the rest of the story. The king-martyr, who avoided fighting throughout his life,
changed into an armoured king-avenger and executor of God’s justice after his
death. Here, St. Vladimir would resemble St. Demetrius, the evil king Radomir’s
assassin, from the work by John Staurakios. We do not know, however, whether
the original motive for the armed figure’s deed was revenge, or care for his own
subjects. The latter would be in accordance with the message of the entire
story of Vladimir’s life. The circumstances in which the supernatural interven-
tion took place were, after all, special. Vladislav was killed during the siege of
Dyrrachium, the city that was guarded by King Vladimir during his lifetime.
Perhaps the saint’s actions should be explained by his desire to protect the
residents of the city, rather than by the need to do justice to the Bulgarian Tsar.
88 The topoi of female disciples of the saint known from medieval hagiographies originate
from the Gospels mentioning numerous female supporters and companions of Jesus
(among them, the special position is held by Mary and Mary Magdalene). The motif
of matrimonial “purity” of the saint could give rise to the model of a “temperate” king
along with the popularity of Cluny-related ideas in the eleventh century, see: Dyan Elliott,
Spiritual Marriage. Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock (Princeton, 1993,) pp. 94–131.
89 “Manens itaque ante Durachium, quadam die dum coenaret et epularetur, subito appa-
ruit ei miles armatus in effigie sancti Vladimiri”, Ljetopis, p. 84.
90 “Statimque percussus ab angelo corruit in terram et mortuus est corpore et anima”,
Ljetopis, p. 84.
Analysing this fragment of the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum, Marjanović-

Dušanić noted that it could illustrate the transformation of the model of a holy
ruler and be a trace of modification of the traditions of the saint: “Comparative
analysis of similar cults of martyrs shows that the transformation of the cult
of ruler-martyrs into the cult of ruler-avengers took place in the twelfth cen-
tury (…)”. She suggested the possibility that “the figure of Vladimir as a saint in
this period was modified to adjust to the new tendencies of the development
of the cults of holy kings”.91
5 Vladimir as an Example of a King-Martyr: the Context of the

Peripheries
The legend of King Vladimir belonged to a specific category of hagiographic

tales. The story of the saint was inseparable from the story of the ruler. In the
Latin text included in the narration of Regnum Sclavorum, the vita convention
merged with the secular tale of the king’s deeds, and this type of characteristic
was fairly typical in the Middle Ages.
Some scholars were inclined to link the figure of Vladimir with the dynastic
cycle of the Serbian Nemanjić family. In this view, the fragment of Regnum
Sclavorum would be the first example of presenting the ideal of the martyr-
dom of a ruler in the literature of the region, closely related to the images of
Lazar Hrebeljanović or Stefan Dečanski.92 However, analysis of the phenom-
ena related to the cult of the Nemanjić dynasty shows that examples of ruler-
martyrs are found in that circle much later, and that they were conditioned by
a different political and social situation.
The image of Serbian ruler-martyrs was formed only in the Late Middle
Ages, probably in the circumstances of a direct threat of a Turkish invasion.
The image of Stefan Dečanski as a martyr was not known before 1402 when his
hagiography was composed by Gregory Tsamblak.93 In the same period, the
first motifs regarding the martyrdom of Prince Lazar were also formed within
the circle of themes related to the battle of Kosovo. Marjanović-Dušanić proved
that the latter phenomenon was deeply embedded in the chivalric ethos,
and the motif of defending Christianity against the Turkish threat played a
major role in it. New elements of the dynastic program of the Serbian rulers
in the Late Middle Ages were also associated with a specific type of genealogy
91 Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, p. 96.

92 Izabela Lis, Śmierć w literaturze staroserbskiej (XIIXIV wiek) (Poznań, 2003), p. 61.
93 Dimitrije Bogdanović, Istorija stare srpske književnosti (Belgrade, 1980), pp. 205–207.
274 chapter 6
and annals that appeared in the Balkans. From the second half of the four-
teenth century, they gave a new direction to the Serbian dynastic program.94
Indeed, The Elbasan Legend (and after that traces of it in the Serbian clergy’s
scriptures) evidently identified the figure of Jovan Vladimir with the sveta loza
(holy branch) of the Nemanjić family, but this happened relatively late. On
the basis of information provided by the Latin legend, we can conclude that
the early cult of King Vladimir had little in common with the late-medieval
phenomenon of the Serbian ruler-martyrs.95
Đorđe Sp. Radojičić analysed the legend of Vladimir and Kosara in the con-
text of eleventh-century Latin literature. He believed that the author of the
legend was well-acquainted with both the tradition of Western European hagi-
ographies, and heroic poems popularizing the seeds of chivalric culture. The
Priest of Duklja’s erudition was reflected in the peculiar dissection of Vladimir’s
story in which hagiographic and romance motifs were merged.96 The work, as
was already mentioned, used topoi known from the Latin vitae. Similarly, the
motif of a king dying pro patria et gente propria was an integral part of the
image of a medieval ruler in the Western world. However, there were numer-
ous associated phenomena with different chronologies and origins, and some
focus should be placed upon these.97
The type of ruler-martyr should be placed in the broader context of the
holy kings of the Christian Middle Ages. There were probably three sources
of the belief that rulers belonged to sacred spheres: (1) charismatic leaders
of barbarian pagan communities;98 (2) worship of Roman emperors in antiq-
uity; and (3) patterns of behaviour spread by the cult of Christian saints.99
94 Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, “Patterns of Martyrial Sanctity in the Royal Ideology of

Medieval Serbia. Continuity and Change,” Balcanica 37 (2007), p. 78.
95 Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, p. 94.
96 Đorđe Spiridon Radojičić, “Un Poeme epique yougoslave du XIe siecle: Les Gesta ou
exploits de Vladimir, prince de Dioclée,” Byzantion 35 (1965), pp. 528–35; idem, “Legenda
o Vladimiru i Kosari – njeni vidovi od IX do XIX veka,” Bagdala, 96–97 (1967). On the
other hand, the idea of Đorđe Đekić, who claimed that he found traces of the legend
of Vladimir in French romances, seems completely erroneous. Đekić referred to his own
work, which – as far as we know – has not yet been published: Đorđe Đekić, “Geste or
Jovan Vladimir’s Biography,” Facta Universitatis. Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and
History 2 (2013), v. 12, p. 188.
97 Ernst Kantorowicz, “Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought,” The American
Historical Review, 3 (1951), vol. 56, pp. 472–492.
98 See: Hauck, Herrschaftszeichen eines Wodanischen Königtums.
99 Gábor Klaniczay, “The Paradoxes of Royal Sainthood as Illustrated by Central European
Example,” in Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (London, 1993),
pp. 251–274; idem, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, p. 63; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti
kralj, pp. 22–23; Trajković-Filipović, Saint Vladimir of Zeta, pp. 8–16.
The earliest examples of holy rulers in the Western world can be found in the
Merovingian dynasty. The phenomenon of charismatic king-miracle-workers
was probably much more closely connected to the old traditional conviction
shared by the Germanic peoples of the chieftains’ supernatural powers, rather
than with the impact of the Christian cult of saints. Nevertheless, according to
František Graus, the holiness and martyr-features of particular rulers from the
Merovingian dynasty were very personalized and more closely related to the
circumstances of their death or relinquishing monarchical authority than to
their royal rank.100
The legend of King Vladimir corresponded to a special modification of the
image of a holy ruler: that of rex martyr (king-martyr), that dominated in some
areas of the Latin world in the eleventh century. In this variant, the image of
an ideal leader was closely related to imitation of the Passion of Christ, hence
the martyrdom or violent circumstances of a king’s death were primarily
seen through a sacrificial perspective. In this way, king-martyrs represented a
vision of power in which a ruler was ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit
of the subjects. His sacrifice would be significant for his community by rede-
fining it, just like the death of Christ was crucial for the preservation of the
New Covenant.
The first example of the new type of king was presumably Edmund, the King
of East Anglia.101 The image of this ruler as a martyr was established by Abbo
of Fleury, who in his Passio sancti Edmundi regis et martyris written between
985 and 987 stylized the death of the king on the likeness of the martyrdom
of St. Sebastian, at the same time emphasizing the motif of the voluntary imi-
tation of Christ. Edmund made a conscious choice and gave up fighting the
Danes, accepting the necessity of his sacrifice. In this presentation, the trans-
formation of the meaning of some motifs is noticeable: the violent death of the
ruler was no longer a personal tragedy, and it gained more aspects than simply
the heroic dedication of one’s life in combat against pagans. It became part of
a conscious choice, including the program of the king’s holiness.
According to Norman Ingham, who compared literary representations of
medieval reges martyres, the example of King Edmund was not yet fully rep-
resentative. Ingham observed that “a certain ambivalence remains about
Edmund’s motives. He knows that militarily his position is hopeless; if he
100 Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reiche der Merowingen, pp. 313–432; Marjanović-
Dušanić, Sveti kralj, pp. 23–24.
101 On the formation of royal cults in Anglo-Saxon communities on the British Isles: Susan J.
Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England. A study of West Saxon and East Anglian
Cults (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 18n, on the cult of Edmund: pp. 211–233; Michael Evans, The
Death of Kings. Royal Deaths in Medieval England (London/New York, 2003), pp. 175–206.
276 chapter 6
had the men he obviously would prefer to fight”.102 Ingham believed that the
model of a king-martyr developed only later, on the peripheries of Christian
Europe, first in Scandinavia and then in Slavdom.103 He decided not to present
possible routes of transmission for the pattern, and chose not to hypothesize
about its origin in particular areas, but did not explicitly reject the possibility
that the model emerging in the British Isles could have been adopted locally in
Scandinavia and then in the Slavic lands.
The legend of King Vladimir may be another indication that this model
had spread to the peripheries of the Latin world. Although Ingham saw this
figure as a manifestation of an “isolated branch”, or rather as a “separate
phenomenon”104 among the accounts of kings-martyrs, he found the narra-
tive similarity of these legends interesting. Due to the analogies in the narra-
tive, the legend of Vladimir can be juxtaposed with the narratives shaped in
Bohemia and Ruthenia, although examples of the cults of Olaf Haraldsson,
Canute IV and Magnus Erlendsson105 clearly show that the possible Slavic cul-
tural substrate was a much smaller formative factor than the influence of a
specific political and cultural ferment in these newly Christianized lands. The
cults of reges martyres on the peripheries of Latin ecumene were inseparably
connected with the process of the formation of new dynasties. In Poland and
Hungary, cults did not develop around murdered members of ruling families,
yet even there, martyrdom-related motifs did penetrate official dynastic nar-
ratives due to St. Adalbert of Prague and St. Gerard of Csanád (also known
as St. Gellért).
The first hagiographies of St. Wenceslaus (Václav) probably had a direct
impact on the development of South Slavic literature.106 Joanna Nastalska-
Wiśnicka suggested that The First Slavic Legend of St. Wenceslaus, possibly
written in the Glagolitic script, was known in this part of the Balkans in the
tenth or eleventh century. Several Glagolitic copies of this work have survived
102 Ingham, “The Sovereign as Martyr, East and West,” p. 5. Ingham also referred to the
Anglo-Saxon narration of Ælfric based on the text of Abbo of Fleury, although he thought
it was written a hundred years later.
103 See: Ingham, “The Martyred Prince and the Question of Slavic Cultural Continuity,” in
Medieval Russian Culture, ed. Henrik Birnbaum (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1984), pp. 31–53.
104 Ingham, “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir,” p. 214.
105 Ingham, “Sovereign as Martyr,” pp. 6–7.
106 Třeštík in one of his early works accepted the Southern Slavic origins of The First Slavic
legend of St. Wenceslaus and claimed that its author had to know documents of the Synod
in Split of 925 – and one of these same documents could be a presumed source of the
Dalmatian legend of Svetopelek: Dušan Třeštík, “Miscellanea k I. staroslovanské legendě
o sv. Václavu: ‘Každý, kdo povstává proti pánu svému, podoben jest Jidáší’,” Československý
časopis historický 15 (1967), pp. 337–343.
to today, but they only date back to the turn of the fourteenth century.
Nastalska-Wiśnicka did not specify which Southern Slavic lands might have
been influenced by the Czech narrative. Although the hypothetical legend
of King Vladimir could have originally been written in the Slavic language, in
this case Cyrillic script would probably have been used. Duklja was also far
from the Glagolitic centres, so it is doubtful whether in this situation any vari-
ant of the legend of St. Wenceslaus could have influenced the legend of King
Vladimir, even indirectly.
In the narrative aspect, the legends of kings Wenceslaus and Vladimir (and
to a certain extent also the legends about the Ruthenian strastoterpetsi, “pas-
sion bearers”, Boris and Gleb) have many common elements.107 Hagiography
played a special role in these narratives, and the use of a set of topoi drawn
from the repertoire of hagiographies at the same time served to build a specific
image of the community leader.108
The motif of puer senex had already been used in the first depiction of
Vladimir given in Regnum Sclavorum:109 “Puer autem Vladimirus, accepto
regno, crescebat decoratus omni sapientia et sanctitate” (The boy named
Vladimir took over the kingdom, and became blessed with all wisdom and
piety).110 Similar features were attributed to Wenceslaus in some of his hagi-
ographies: The First Slavic legend from the mid-tenth century described him
learning to read in Slavic and Latin from an early age.111 In addition, other texts
dating back to the tenth and eleventh centuries, and forming part of the leg-
end of the duke, mention his learning to read Latin as a remarkable detail of
Wenceslaus’ youth.112
107 Norman W. Ingham, “Genre Characteristics of the Kievan Lives of Princes in the Slavic
and East European Perspective,” in American Contributions to the Ninth International
Congress of Slavists vol. 2, ed. Paul Debreczeny (Columbus, 1983), pp. 223–239.
108 On Wenceslaus as an ideal Christian ruler: Agnieszka Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Święty i his-
toria. Dynastia Przemyślidów w dziele mnicha Krystiana (Krakow, 2007), pp. 161–208.
109 Although Stanislaus Hafner considered such an introduction as typical to medieval hagi-
ographies (Hafner, Studien zur altserbischen dynastischen Historiographie (Munich, 1964),
s. 84), yet the motif of puer senex was also an important element of secular narrations
in the Middle Ages, see: Teresa C. Carp, “‘Puer senex’ in Roman and Medieval Thought,”
Latomus. Société d’Études Latines de Bruxelles 39 (1980), pp. 736–739.
111 Život sv. Václava [The First Slavic Legend], ed. Josef Kolář, Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum
vol. 1 [Hereafter: FRB], ed. Josef Emler (Prague, 1873), p. 128.
112 These texts include: The First Slavic Legend, the first Latin text on Wenceslaus – Crescente
fide, the Latin biography by Gumpold, the legend by the so-called monk Christian,
Dominus et redemptor noster by Laurentius of Amalfi (written in Monte Cassino), The
Second Slavic Legend – an adaptation of the text by Gumpold and the Latin text from Italy
278 chapter 6
On the other hand, the motif of marriage appeared much less frequently in
the hagiography of the Czech ruler. It was present in two texts: Vita et passio
sancti Wenceslai et sanctae Ludmile, authored by the so-called monk Christian,
and most often dated to the end of the tenth century;113 and in The Second
Slavic Legend from the middle of eleventh century.114 The so-called monk
Christian described a marriage similar to that of Vladimir and Kosara, based
on the principle of marital purity. On the other hand, in the text of the Slavic
hagiography, Wenceslaus, forced into marriage by the magnates, left his wife
shortly after begetting a descendant.115
A similar scheme was also used in the accounts of the circumstances of the
death of both rulers. The motive of an insincere invitation played an impor-
tant role in the legend of St. Vladimir; an invitation to a feast was equally sig-
nificant in all the tenth- and eleventh-century texts belonging to the circle of
the legend of St. Wenceslaus (except for The Second Slavic Legend). The stories
about Vladimir and Wenceslaus also emphasized that the ruler agreed on his
death (except for The First Slavic Legend).116 Both legends described numerous
attempts to kill the pious ruler by his opponents.
A church as the place of murder appeared not only in the legend of Vladimir,
but also in the oldest First Slavic Legend of Wenceslaus.117 On the other hand,
“the cup of martyrdom” – which may be associated with the communion of
both kinds received by Vladimir – was a much younger element in Wenceslaus’
legend, and was not mentioned in the texts until the thirteenth century.118
In the early legends of ruler-martyrs formed in Slavdom, conflicts were
related to the rivalry within the broadly understood dynasty. The responsibility
for the death of Wenceslaus fell upon his younger brother, Boleslav. According
Oportet nos fratres: Joanna Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr. Studium źródłoznawcze nad
legendą hagiograficzną św. Wacława (XXIV w.) (Lublin, 2010), p. 204.
113 There were also other hypotheses, situating the narration of the so-called monk Christian
even in the fourteenth century. On the historiographic debate about dating this work:
Kalhous, ‘Legenda Christiani’; Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Święty i historia, pp. 11–42.
114 On this episode: Dušan Třeštik, “Manželstvi knižete Vaclava podle II. staroslověnske leg-
endy,” in Husitství – reformace – renesance, pp. 39–46.
115 Křišťanův život sv. Ludmily a sv. Vacláva, FRB vol. 1 (Prague, 1873), p. 215; Legenda
Mantuanskago episkopa Gumol’da o sv. Vjačeslave češskom v slavjanorusskom preloženii
[Легенда мантуанского епископа Гумпольда о св. Вячеславе Чешском в славяно-
русском переложении], ed. Nikolaj K. Nikol’skij ([Sankt Peterburg], 1909,) p. 44; Nastalska-
Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 214–17.
116 Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, p. 249.
117 Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 254–255; Život sv. Václava, pp. 131–132.
118 Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 254–255: in legends Ut Annuncietur and Oriente iam
sole.
to the legend, Boris and Gleb were killed on the orders of their half-brother,
Sviatopolk. Tsar Vladislav, the initiator of the murder of King Vladimir, was a
kinsman of the victim. In each of these cases, however, the motif of the struggle
for power was completely transformed in accordance with the Passion model,
and the murdered rulers sacrificed themselves for the sake of the continuation
of their kingdoms.
In such a dynastic scheme, the motif of betrayal, present in all the tales
of king-martyrs, gained a special meaning in the construction of a legend.
Ingham also distinguished here the motif of an “evil adviser”, with probable
modification in the form of “killer’s regret”. It can be found, to some extent,
in the legend of King Vladimir. Seeing the miraculous light, Vladislav gave the
body of the late king back to Kosara and let her choose his place of burial.119
Thus, in a way, the Tsar made it possible to develop the cult of the saint. If the
passage about Vladislav’s death was a later addition, it could be guessed that
the original text hinted at an inner transformation of the murderer. Among the
eleventh-century variants of the legend of Wenceslaus, only The First Slavic
Legend120 and the narrative of Laurentius of Amalfi121 noted similar remorse
in Boleslav and his role in the saint’s burial. The Second Slavic Legend, however,
refers to the fact that Boleslav, tormented by devils, blamed his advisors for the
wrong decisions he had made.122
All the texts about Wenceslaus – apart from the aforementioned The First
Slavic Legend and the work of Laurentius of Amalfi – include the motif of pun-
ishing the perpetrators. It seems that within hagiographies associated with the
legend of St. Wenceslaus, it was mutually exclusive with the motif of the killer’s
regret. In the legend of King Vladimir, however, both motifs are present, which
clearly distinguishes the tale of the ruler of Duklja from the narratives related
to the Bohemian duke.
Let us return to the analysis of the passage about the punishment of the
Tsar at the walls of Dyrrachium. The attributes of the posthumous emanation
of Vladimir – especially his knightly armour – may refer to a different model of
the ruler: miles christi. This model, shaped under the influence of the Crusades
and the canonization of Charlemagne in 1165, penetrated the narratives of
ruler-martyrs in the twelfth century, and the circle of legends of St. Wenceslaus
119 “Videns autem imperator mirabilia, quae ibi deus operaretur, poenitentia ductus,
satis timuit concessitque consobrinae suae tollere corpus eius et sepelire honorifice
quocumque vellet”, Ljetopis, p. 84.
120 Život sv. Václava, p. 134; Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 236–237.
121 Vavřince, mnicha sv. Benedikta, utrpení sv. Václava, trans. Josef Truhlář, FRB vol. 1, p. 179.
122 Legenda Mantuanskago episkopa Gumol’da o sv. Vjačeslave češskom, p. 56; Nastalska-
Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 318–319.
280 chapter 6
even later. Initially, it appeared in historical works, which since Cosmas’ time
had attributed to Wenceslaus a special role as a helper on the battlefield.123
This role was then also developed in hagiographic texts, as a result of the leg-
end Oriente iam sole from the mid-thirteenth century.124
The sources for the image of Vladimir as an armed knight can be also found
in the east. Within the Byzantine culture, at around the same time as in the
West there were changes in the image of saint-warriors and the patrons of
cities. Dudek listed Demetrius, George, Mercurius, Theodore of Amasea and
Theodore Stratylates, as examples of saints who all enjoyed the reputation of
knight-defenders. Georgi Minczew, however, emphasized the popularity of
legends about St. Demetrius and St. George among the Balkan Slavs. He also
observed transformations in the iconography of both saints that occurred
between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries; the oldest representations
of St. George and St. Demetrius – standing figures, with a cross, and wearing
chlamys – were gradually replaced by images of armed men sitting on the
throne. In the Late Middle Ages the most typical variant presented those saints
as equestrians in armour.125
Marjanović-Dušanić also noticed Byzantine influences in the Latin legend
about Vladimir. She speculated that the cults of king-martyrs in the Slavic
world had to be associated with the growing popularity of the ideal of martyr-
dom (and monasticism) in the Byzantine Empire.126 The process of strength-
ening the bonds between sanctity, social position, and authority can be
observed in the Eastern Empire from the eleventh century. In this model, peo-
ple recognized as saints were often representatives of secular or ecclesiastical
authorities.127 Similar phenomena in this cultural circle can also be observed
in later centuries, with the particular intensity of the cult of martyrs during the
time of the Palaiologos.128

124 Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, pp. 274–5.
125 Dudek, “Święty Jan Włodzimierz,” p. 227; Georgi Minczew, Święta księga – ikona – obrzęd.
Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanoniczne a ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze
prawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach (Łódź, 2003), p. 150.
126 Marjanović-Dušanić, “Patterns of Martyrial Sanctity,” p. 72.
127 Marjanović-Dušanić, “Patterns of Martyrial Sanctity,” p. 71; Rosemary Morris, “The Political
Saint of Bzantium in the Tenth and Eleventh Century,” in Politik und Heiligenverehrung
im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn (Sigmaringen, 1994), pp. 385–402; eadem, “The
Political Saint of the Eleventh Century,” in The Byzantine Saint, ed. Sergei Hackel (London,
1981) pp. 43–50.
128 Paul Magdalino, “The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century,” in The Byzantine Saint,
pp. 51–60; Ruth Macrides, Saints and Sainthood in the early Palaiologan Period, in The
Byzantine Saint, pp. 67–87.
According to Marjanović-Dušanić, the shape of the Slavic model of ruler-

martyrs might be influenced by the example of Nikephoros II Phokas. The legend
of this emperor originated in the eleventh century and contained many motifs
characteristic of the type discussed in king-martyr stories: Phokas became the
victim of a conspiracy undertaken by his wife, his murder was the result of a
political struggle, but the popular narrative presented him as a holy man, lean-
ing towards monastic ideals. Finally, the repentance of John I Tzimiskes and
his regret for the act he had committed became part of the legend, and helped
to establish the cult of Phokas (and as a result, Tzimiskes himself became
a saint).129
6 The Functions of the Legend of Vladimir in the Context of the

Narrative of Regnum Sclavorum
There are many indications that before it was included in Regnum Sclavorum,
the narrative about King Vladimir had functioned as an independent text,
unrelated to the plot of the chronicle. It is worth considering why this frag-
ment was incorporated in the work by the Priest of Duklja. For Banašević,
Vladimir’s legend had no important functions in the dynastic program con-
tained in the Priest of Duklja’s text, but this judgment must be considered as
too harsh. As he stated: “In contrast to the biographies of Nemanja, the entire
life of Vladimir, as shown in The Chronicle, is presented like the lives of saints
in hagiographies, and in no way resembles the tales of founders or representa-
tives of ruling dynasties. The figure of Vladimir was included in the geneal-
ogy of the old Duklja dynasty, but chapter XXXVI, which constitutes a separate
entity, neither mentioned his ancestors and successors, nor the authority given
to him by God”.130 However, the very presence of the legend in a larger plot
contradicts such a view; the Priest of Duklja, for some reason, found the motif
of Vladimir so important that he decided to present it within his own vision
of history, and the process of adaptation of the legend gave it a new meaning.
This secondary context could be based, to some extent, on the original
meaning of the legend. Its presence within the frame of Regnum Sclavorum
liberated the symbols which already existed in the analysed text. There is
not much to say about the environment in which the work could originally
have been composed, or about the people who were initially responsible for
the development of Vladimir’s cult. More can be deduced about the modified
129 Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, pp. 91–92.

282 chapter 6
meaning of the motif from its place in the composition of Regnum Sclavorum.
It is reasonable to divide the motif’s dual function, primary and secondary,
between two different dynastic ideologies.
The phenomenon of holy rulers in the newly Christianized part of Europe
played a special role in the process of shaping the ideological program of new
dynasties. Gábor Klaniczay, who studied the functions of the cult of rulers in
the context of Christianitas, (which he perceived as being divided into the
old centre and new peripheries),131 noted that such cults constituted a spe-
cific manifestation of the positioning of ruling families and an important ele-
ment of communication between them and their subjects. Klaniczay observed
that the dominant image of the ideal ruler in the areas of “younger Europe”
often differed from the models prevailing in the centre; certain types of rulers,
such as rex martyr discussed above, gained local features in the peripheries
and, with various intensities, contributed to establishing coherent dynastic
doctrines.132 Klaniczay’s findings are useful because they give a general pat-
tern of ordering individual, often diversified, manifestations of the model of an
ideal ruler, among others in medieval Central and Eastern Europe (including
Slavdom). Using the example of the Árpád dynasty, he also showed how the
dynastic cult was developed, supported and controlled by the representatives
of the ruling family and state elites, by revising legendary motifs and adapting
them to the changing socio-political situation.
Ingham observed that in the discussed fragment of Regnum Sclavorum,
political motifs prevail over religious ones. He noted that thanks to a clear ref-
erence to the life of Christ, Vladimir embodies the features of an ideal ruler. His
modesty, justice and tendency to sacrifice are part of the model of a medieval
ruler known as rex iustus or pastor bonus. According to Ingham, in the work by
the Priest of Duklja, the functions of this character go beyond those which are
usually attributed to king-martyrs.133
We may suspect that the legend of King Vladimir initially served to build
the dynastic ideology of the rulers of Duklja. Dudek interpreted the Latin
131 On the division: Patrick J. Geary, “Reflections on Historiography and the Holy: Center
and Periphery,” in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christiendom
(c. 1000–1300), ed. Lars Boje Mortensen (Copenhagen, 2006), pp. 323–330.
132 On the basis of Czech, Ruthenian and Hungarian accounts, Klaniczay considered a spe-
cific type of king-martyr, the new type of rex iustus, and the chivalry type of athleta patriae
as dominating respectively since the end of the tenth century, since the end of the elev-
enth century, and since the end of the twelfth century. As for the Árpáds, he related the
two latter types with the canonisation of St. Stephen, St. Emeric and the martyr Gellért
(Gerard of Csanád) (1083 r.) and the canonisation of St. Ladislaus (1192): Klaniczay, Holy
Rulers and Blessed Princesses, pp. 114–173.
133 Ingham, “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir,” p. 212.
legend in this way, as “a work glorifying the memory of the Duklja ruler”, and
observed that the “historical kings of Zeta considered themselves his legiti-
mate heirs”. According to him, it was “significant evidence of the authority of
the new monarchy”.134 However, Dudek did not state precisely which of the
Zeta rulers should be linked to the cult of St. Vladimir. Živković speculated
that Constantine Bodin, who ruled in Duklja at the end of the eleventh cen-
tury, could have propagated Vladimir’s legend. It could have taken place at
the time when the archbishopric at Bar was being renewed. Michael of Duklja
(Mihailo Vojislavljević), Bodin’s predecessor, was, according to Živković, heav-
ily involved in the propagation of the cult of his father and the founder of the
dynasty, Stefan Vojislav.135
As it has already been mentioned, some of the names of the rulers of Duklja
also appeared in Regnum Sclavorum. Hvostova analysed the term rex within
this narrative, and suggested that in the first part of the work, it referred to
each of the rulers of the Kingdom of the Slavs, but there is a significant change
in this respect in Vladimir’s legend. According to Hvostova, the Priest of Duklja,
starting from this point, used the term rex to refer to the actual heritage of the
kings of Duklja.136
Information about the royal status of the rulers of Duklja is confirmed by
sources which are independent of Regnum Sclavorum. Indeed, in his letter,
Pope Gregory VII referred to Mihailo Vojislavljević as rex Sclavorum,137 and
the list of rulers in the work by the Priest of Duklja coincides on some points
with information about Mihailo’s successors in Byzantine sources and pre-
served documents issued by Constantine Bodin, George I of Duklja, or Desa
Vukanović. If we treat the rulers mentioned in the work by the Priest of Duklja
as historical figures, we can identify Petrislav, Vladimir’s father, with Petar,
titled “archon of Duklja” on his leaden seal, which has not survived and is only
known from a nineteenth-century reproduction.138 Nevertheless, such simi-
larities and convergences can also be found in reference to other rulers of the
fictitious “dynasty” described by the Priest of Duklja in Regnum Sclavorum
(Tomislav, Časlav) and it seems that it is still not enough to trust uncondition-
ally all information about the kings of Duklja provided by this work.
Medini believed that only the part of the text about the rulers of Zeta was the
work of the Priest of Duklja himself. There were hypotheses that the chronicler

135 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 270, note 1297.
137 Documenta, no. 158, pp. 211–212; see: Boroń, Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie, pp. 131–133.
138 Gustave L. Schlumberg, Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1884), pp. 433–434.
284 chapter 6
used some lost genealogy,139 and the structure of Regnum Sclavorum does not
confirm it unambiguously. Even if such a text did exist, it would obtain new
meaning by being placed in a more complex structure of Regnum Sclavorum –
just as in the case of the legend of King Vladimir.
The legend of Vladimir is particularly important in this context, because
at a purely narrative level it enables a certain transformation which resulted
from the updated vision of the Kingdom of the Slavs. Vladimir is an example of
a new type of king. After the Gothic conquerors, Svetopelek the lawmaker and
the victorious Pavlimir Bello, the kingdom entered a period of fragmentation
and its ideal image was reduced to a part of the former area. Therefore, it was
necessary to re-evaluate the ideal of a ruler. Vladimir was a king who did not
fight, but at the same time he was ready to sacrifice himself to save his subjects
during an invasion.
In all likelihood, the work by the Priest of Duklja, at least in the form that
is known today, was not formed before the end of the thirteenth century.
This view is supported by the fact that Regnum Sclavorum presented a differ-
ent vision of the origins and development of the royal family than the actual
dynastic programs that Klaniczay tried to systematize. In fact, the ruler-martyr
appeared at the end of the narrative which is available to us, so his activity was
not directly related to the first period of Christianization of the new state –
unlike the case of Wenceslaus, or of Boris and Gleb. Vladimir was rather the
ruler of the Kingdom of the Slavs at the time of its decline.
Signs of the disintegration of the territorial vision of the kingdom appeared
at this stage in the Priest of Duklja’s narrative. Admittedly, the signs can be
noticed in earlier parts of the narrative, when the great state of Pavlimir col-
lapsed after his death. The conflict between the heirs of the kingdom and the
župans of Raška reappeared several times. Reconciliation took place during
the reign of Predimir, who married Prehvala, the župan’s daughter. Together
with his father-in-law, he managed to drive the Greek troops out of his lands.
However, after Predimir’s death, the kingdom was divided between his sons.
Raška, Bosnia and White Croatia no longer belonged. The latter country was
ruled by the deceased king’s brother and his descendants. The aforementioned
Tetrarchy consisted of Zeta, Travunja, Hum and Submontana (also known as
Podgoria). This period of the simultaneous reign of four kings was the time
of the crisis in the state. As the Priest of Duklja wrote: “Filii Predimiri regis
[autem], relinquentes vestiga patris sui, caeperunt dure et superbe se agere
contra populum, quem regebant” ([Meanwhile] the sons of King Predimir
abandoned their father’s path, and began to treat the people they ruled in an
139 Živković thought that it was a Slavic source: Gesta regum, pp. 284–285.
inhuman and arrogant manner).140 The rulers and their descendants were
murdered by the seven sons of their cousin Legec, who, in turn – as the chroni-
cler claimed – were punished by pestilence and plague (“pestilentia et clade”).
As a result, the state was left without a king. Then, Sylvester, saved from the
slaughter, ascended to the throne. Vladimir was a descendant of his lineage.
The crisis of the monarchy and the division of the territorial entity defined
by the Priest of Duklja at the beginning of the chronicle demanded a new
founding legend. The legend of King Vladimir illustrated the reign without the
imperial element which used to be so important. It was a good example by the
Priest of Duklja of redefining his opinions of an ideal ruler, as the narrative
moved from the sphere of fantasy to a time closer to that of the chronicler.
The figure of Vladimir’s successor, King Dragimir, seems interesting in this
respect. The narrative about this ruler repeats many previously known motifs
and to some extent reveals the “stitches” used by the Priest of Duklja to link
the legend of Vladimir with the rest of the story. Like his predecessor, Dragimir
was murdered. He perished while trying to hide in the church to escape the
trap that had been prepared for him by the burghers of Kotor on the Island
of St. Gabriel, now the Island of St. Mark. His wife was the daughter of the
late župan of Raška, Ljutomir, whose name brings associations with Pavlimir
Bello’s opponent. Although, according to the text, there is a gap of several gen-
erations between both Ljutomirs, one gets the impression that they could be
the same figure. Interestingly, the continuation of the dynasty was secured one
more time by a posthumous child, just as in the description of Pavlimir. This
time it was the son of Dragimir, later King Dobroslav.141 These characteristic
details were therefore mentioned in the narrative of Regnum Sclavorum when
it referred to moments of crisis and the re-establishment of the status of the
Slavic realm.
Its decline is evidenced by the story of Radoslav the last ruler of the king-
dom mentioned in the text. The chronicler claimed that Radoslav had received
confirmation of his authority from Emperor Manuel,142 and repeated the for-
mula used for the other rulers: “caepit tenere et dominare terram cum fratribus
suis” (he began to rule and manage the country with his brothers). However,
as was observed by Hvostova, Radoslav was the only legal suzerain of the state
whom the Priest of Duklja did not call rex, but used knesius instead.143 The
latter term appears only in the fragment of the work devoted to the rulers of

142 Perhaps: Manuel Komnen.
286 chapter 6
Duklja (which is also called “Zeta” in this part of the text). A knesius [prince]
was lower in rank than a king, as was expressed by the chronicler, who wrote
that after Dobroslav’s death, among the sons: “Nullus autem (…) vocitatus
est rex, donec vixit regina mater eorum, sed tantummodo knesii vacabantur”
(“None of them (…) called himself a king, as long as the queen-mother was
alive, but they only called themselves knesii”).144
We may have some doubts concerning the date the Priest of Duklja’s work
was completed. The text available to us, however, revealed the tendency of
the historian who, as the story progressed, would narrow the geographic and
symbolic areas of the power of the rulers described by him. The model of a
king-martyr – but also a representative example of a just king and a good
shepherd – could be helpful to justify a shift that promoted a new model of
government, more accurate in relation to the changed balance of power in
the kingdom. Under different political conditions, the ideal reference for the
Priest of Duklja was no longer militant rulers, such as Pavlimir Bello, but kings
ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their community, like Vladimir.
The Kingdom of the Slavs changed from a local empire into a state torn apart
by foreign invasions. The most important ruler of this phase became the righ-
teous and humble king, taking the utmost care of the wellbeing of his subjects.
7 Summary
Although the legend of King Vladimir was probably a separate hagiographical

text, it functioned on a slightly different basis within Regnum Sclavorum. The
Priest of Duklja used the example of Vladimir when he was creating the new
model of an ideal ruler, one who was ready for sacrifices and who bore the char-
acteristics of holy-martyrs. The role of the chronicler was limited to placing the
legend fully centrally in his work and arranging the plot so that Vladimir would
find his place within the fictitious dynasty created by the chronicler.
On the basis of the narrative known to us, it can be stated that the hypo-
thetical hagiography of St. Vladimir, which dated back to the eleventh century,
was only loosely associated with the cult of St Jovan Vladimir, which developed
much later and was expressed by the Greek The Elbasan Legend, and later oral
tradition and religious writings of the clerics of the Serbian Church.

The Latin legend about Vladimir has many motifs in common with the
Byzantine history of John Skylitzes. Compared to other stories in the work
by the Priest of Duklja, the legend stands in a clearer relationship to his-
torical events. However, some important motifs were migratory: the story of
Vladimir and Kosara probably referred to two traditions combined with the
Old Testament figure of Joseph, while the story of Vladislav’s death referred to
changes that began to take place in the cult of holy-kings and patrons of the
cities from the twelfth century, both in the Latin and the Byzantine worlds.
The purpose of the hypothetical hagiography copied or paraphrased by
the author of Regnum Sclavorum is unknown. Besides standard hagiographic
motifs, features typical of the cult of king-martyrs can be distinguished in
this narrative. The rex martyr model was particularly popular in the Christian
peripheries of Europe and served to conceptualize the newly-shaped dynas-
ties in an ideological way. It is not impossible, therefore, that the legend of
Vladimir was originally used by the kings of Duklja to strengthen the identifi-
cation of their state.
The Priest of Duklja, using the already established structure, placed the fig-
ure of Vladimir in an even broader context, making him the ideal of a ruler
from the time of the decline of the fictitious kingdom, at the threshold of a
new branch of the dynasty he described. In this way he completed the process
of transformation of the Kingdom of the Slavs initiated by its particular rul-
ers from barbarian Gothic chieftains, through the imperial policy of the kings-
founders, Svetopelek and (to some extent) Pavlimir Bello, to Vladimir, whose
greatest advantage was renunciation and the ability to sacrifice in the name of
the good of the subjects.
chapter 7
Excursus: the Croatian Text of The Chronicle of the

Priest of Duklja on the Death of King Zvonimir
1 Introduction
So far we have discussed the text of the Croatian version of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja, known as The Croatian Chronicle, mainly as a reference
for the more obscure parts of Regnum Sclavorum. The Croatian text, written
in čakavica (the Chakavian dialect),1 was, as far as we could see, a fairly faith-
ful translation of the Latin version. However, there were some distinctive dif-
ferences which sometimes influenced the meaning of the narrative. The first
twenty-three chapters of the Latin text (according to the broadly accepted
division proposed by Črnčić) were presented faithfully by the author of the
Croatian variant, but the story changed at the end, where Zvonimir’s reign and
his violent death were discussed.
The killing of a king is not an unusual subject in the historiography of
“younger Europe”, but the interesting factor is that the motif of regicide takes
an important place in both the Croatian and Latin versions of The Chronicle.
In the former, the motif of killing Zvonimir finished the narrative and justified
the end of the described Kingdom of the Croats; in the latter, as we saw in the
previous chapter, the martyrdom of Vladimir had a different role and allowed
the Priest of Duklja to focus the narrative more on Duklja, and it also justified
the disintegration of the Kingdom of the Slavs in the shape in which it was
presented at the start of the work.
Although both chroniclers considered it appropriate to include a similar
motif in the framework of their stories, its tone and place in the narrative
structure of the two main versions of The Chronicle is different. In this chapter,
we will trace the sources of the tradition of Zvonimir, and define its place in
the narrative construction of the Croatian variant of the work. The tale of the
murdered ruler is connected with the issue of collective sin, and is therefore an
important topic for understanding both the story of the Goths and the fall of
1 Although with many influences from the Shtokavian dialect. Analysis of dialectological
and historical features of the language of the Croatian text has been made recently by Amir
Kapetanović, “‘Staro’ i ‘novo’ u jeziku Kaletićeva prijepisa hrvatske redakcjije Ljetopisa popa
Dukljanina,” Ricerche Slavistische 57 (2013), no. 11, pp. 21–37.

Excursus 289
King Radoslav. As we will demonstrate, the differences in the method of imag-

ing in both versions may not be accidental. The author of the Croatian text
prepared a description of the final guilt of the Croats toward their own ruler,
which was the culmination of events leading to the interruption of the golden
age of the realm described in the work. The Priest pf Duklja perceived the his-
tory of his kingdom in a slightly different perspective: the tale of Vladimir’s
death, especially when confronted with the finale of the Croatian text, allows
us to extract these details and at the same time understand more fully the ideo-
logical assumptions that led to the specific ways of depicting the past events
chosen by each of the chroniclers.
2 Zvonimir or Casimir? Sources of the Legend of the

King’s Violent Death
Although the development of the tradition of the violent death of Zvonimir

has already been thoroughly discussed in the Croatian historiography,2 the
roots of this motif are still unclear.3 The reign of King Zvonimir is confirmed by
numerous sources, but the early accounts do not mention the circumstances
of the ruler’s death. It is known that the historical Zvonimir, also known as
Demetrius, was crowned in 1076 in St. Peter’s Church in Salona4 in the pres-
ence of Gebizo, a papal legate.5 We can also guess that the ruler died between
October 1087 and September 1089. The earlier date is associated with the last
known document signed by the king: the confirmation of the charter for the
St. Mary convent of Benedictine nuns in Zadar,6 while the later date is linked
with the charter issued in Šibenik by his successor, Stefan II, with the reference
2 Overview of literature of the subject: Dražen Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – prob-
lem, izvori i tumačenja,” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta
u Zagrebu 38 (2006), pp. 73–92. Besides the literature quoted in the further part of the chap-
ter, there are also other works discussing general problem related to “historical Zvonimir”
and “literary Zvonimir”: Marjan Drmač, “Legenda o Zvonimirovoj smrti,” Motrišta. Časopis za
kulturu, znanost i društvena pitanja 64–65 (2012), pp. 124–138; Nikola Maslać, “Hrvatski kralj
Zvonimir plemeniti (1076–1089),” Obnovljeni život: časopis za filozofiju i religijske znanosti
(1941), no. 2, pp. 172–179; Joja Ricov, “Zvonimir – dobri kralj Hrvata,” Obnovljeni život: časopis
za filozofiju i religijske znanosti 45 (1990), no. 1–2, pp. 78–89; “Kralj Zvonimir. Dokumenti i
spomenici,” Muzej arheoloških spomenika – Split i arheološki muzej – Zagreb, 1990.
3 Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – problem, izvori i tumačenja,” pp. 73–74.
4 The so-called Šuplja crkva (hollow church), in the vicinity of the ruins of Salona – today’s Solin –
near Split. Mentioning Split as a site of the coronation seems unprecise in this context.
5 Documenta, no. 87, pp. 103–105. This issue is discussed in details in Chapter 4.
290 chapter 7
to “a nuper rege defuncto Suinimiro”.7 On this basis, Šišić speculated that the
ruler died in the first half of 1089.8 Although the document issued by Stefan II
is considered to be a counterfeit, its creation is dated back to the time of the
alleged end of Zvonimir’s reign. The charter mentions the king’s death, but not
its circumstances. The very presence of a successor indicates that the coun-
terfeiter did not know the legend of the ruler’s murder – in the legends of the
murder, Zvonimir is presented as the last of the lineage of Croatian monarchs.9
In addition, the famous Glagolitic inscription on the island of Krk, known
as the Baška tablet (Baščanska ploča), dating back to 1100,10 referred to the
donation that Zvonimir had given to the Benedictine monastery near Baška
in “his days”, without suggesting in any way that his rule had been cut short by
any incident.11 Similarly, information about the king’s murder is not found in
documents issued in the twelfth century during the Hungarian rule in Croatia,
although, as Dražen Nemet shows, Zvonimir’s name appeared in various doc-
uments a further six more.12 In addition, the charter of Louis I of Hungary
concerning the town of Karin, from 1360, in which Zvonimir was described
using the term “dominus rex”, and which also mentioned Claudia, the royal
daughter,13 did not contain any information about suspicious events at the end
of the ruler’s life.
Finally, there is no mention of the king’s murder in narrative works from
the thirteenth century. Thomas the Archdeacon wrote about Zvonimir’s death
without issue and called him the last in the lineage of the Croatian rulers.14
This way of describing the event, especially the phrase “mortis debitum sol-
vit” (pays debts to death, i.e. dies), taken from the Bible, indicates that the
chronicler was not suggesting any unnatural circumstances around the final
departure of the ruler.15 The motif of Zvonimir’s death without progeny seems
interesting. Three documents from the second half of the eleventh century,
known to us from the preserved Italian translations, show that Zvonimir not
only had a daughter but that he also had a son, Radovan, who did not outlive his

8 Ferdo Šišić, “O smrti hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira,” Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 8
(1905), p. 5.
9 Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – problem, izvori i tumačenja,” p. 75.
10 Inscription and its Polish translation: Boroń, Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie, pp. 129–131.
11 Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb, 1975), pp. 404–405.
12 Codex diplomaticus vol. 2, no. 100, p. 106, no. 201, p. 211, no. 208, p. 221, no. 210, pp. 225–
226, no. 277, pp. 293–294, no. 331, p. 358; see: Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira –
problem, izvori i tumačenja,” p. 76.
13 Nada Klaić, “O Legendarnoj smrti kralja Zvonimira,” Istorijski zapisi 16 (1963), p. 240.
15 Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – problem, izvori i tumačenja,” p. 76.
Excursus 291
father.16 Thomas the Archdeacon’s chronicle did not include this information,
and the king is described in it as the last representative of the native dynasty.
The chronicler emphasized this fact by describing Zvonimir with the words
“ultimus rex Croatorum”.17 This information was repeated by Chronicon pictum
Vindobonense, written in the mid-fourteenth century, which claimed that King
Ladislaus I took over rule in Croatia and Dalmatia after the issueless death
of Zvonimir. The chronicle justifies Hungary’s rights to this land through the
Árpáds’ kinship with the deceased king’s wife, who was a sister of Ladislaus,18
and mentions that the widow was under threat from some hostile magnates
who were lying in wait for her. It was at her request that Ladislaus entered
Croatia.19 The legend in this form was later repeated by the Hungarian chron-
icles of the fifteenth century: The Buda Chronicle, Chronica Hungarorum by
Johannes de Thurocz and Rerum Ungaricum decades by Antonio Bonfini.20
In this period, the legend of the king’s murder was probably taking shape.
After Dražen Nemet, we can list the main medieval and early-modern narra-
tives presenting this motif:
– The oldest implementation of motif of the murder of the Croatian ruler
surviving today is the story preserved by The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle
(Chronicon Hungarico-Polonurum).21 Ryszard Grzesik believed the work was
created in the 1220s or 1230s at the Slavonian court of Coloman, a titular
king of Halych,22 although some scholars claimed that it was much older
and could have been composed even at the end of the eleventh century.23
16 Codex diplomaticus vol. 1, no. 127, pp. 164–165, no. 139, pp. 180–181, no. 140, pp. 181–182.
18 Here unnamed, but historically speaking it was Helena, daughter of Béla I.
19 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, chapter 62, p. 193.
20 After: Jelka Ređep, “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru,” (Novi Sad, 1987), p. 86.
21 The discussion if this is actually the same legend was reported by Grzesik, who recog-
nized a similar structure in the content of the chronicle and the sources from Croatia:
Ryszard Grzesika, “Sources of a Story About the Murdered Croatian King in the Polish-
Hungarian Chronicle,” Povijesni prilozi 24 (2003), pp. 97–104.
22 Ryszard Grzesik, “Książę węgierski żonaty z córką Mścisława Halickiego. Przyczynek do
problemu czasu i miejsca powstania Kroniki węgiersko-polskiej,” Kwartalnik Historyczny
3–4 (1995), pp. 23–35; idem, “Wstęp,” in Żywot św. Stefana króla Węgier, czyli Kronika
węgierskopolska, p. 19.
23 There are two known versions of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle: longer and shorter,
and their mutual relation is not fully settled: Grzesik, Żywot św. Stefana, pp. 37–38,
idem, Kronika węgiersko-polska, pp. 21–26. Wojciech Kętrzyński, O Kronice węgiersko-
polskiej (Vita sancti Stephani Ungaro-Polona) (Krakow, 1897), pp. 365–392; See: Grzesik,
Kronika węgiersko-polska, p. 519, presenting the summary of the discussion and extensive
bibliography.
292 chapter 7
One of the fragments of the chronicle tells that the ruler of the Hungarians,
King Attila-Aquila, had the following vision. On the way to Rome, an angel
appeared to him to pass a divine command of vengeance on the Croatians
and Slavs who had treacherously killed their king (in this particular narra-
tive called “Casimir”). Attila defeated the princes of Croatia and Slavonia
(Sclavonia) in the battle between the rivers Sava and Drava and, after exe-
cuting God’s command, he decided to stay in the area of Slavonia. He mar-
ried a daughter of the prince of the Slavs and ordered his warriors to take
Slavic and Croatian wives.24
Most scholars who have studied the chronicle agree that Casimir’s name
probably echoes that of the Croatian King Peter Krešimir IV.25 Brygida Kürbis
thought that the change in the narrative of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle
was influenced by the Polish tradition of Casimir I the Restorer.26 A pecu-
liar form in the shorter version of the chronicle – where the name trezimir
may be identified with Krešimir27 – could be a trace of this process. Gerard
Labuda regarded the tales of the author of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle
as a cicer cum caule,28 which may be accepted at face value, because – as will
be shown in a moment – it is not the only similarity to the plot of the narra-
tive in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
– The Croatian text (The Croatian Chronicle) contained the second record
of the tragic death of the king. It was the first narrative in which the mur-
dered ruler was called Zvonimir. As was mentioned in the introduction, the
24 Żywot św. Stefana, pp. 56–60.

25 Grzesik, Kronika węgiersko-polska, pp. 83–84.
26 Brygida Kürbis, Studia nad ‘Kroniką wielkopolską’ (Poznań, 1952), pp. 140–141.
27 Kürbis, Studia nad ‘Kroniką wielkopolską’, pp. 140–141; Grzesik, Kronika węgiersko-polska, p.
83. Kürbis argued that traces of this shift are also visible in the Chronica Poloniae maioris.
She referred to the information about Casimir the Restorer. According to this chronicle
the Carantanians (the author derives the name from the word koryto, i.e. “river trough or
channel”) were subordinate to the Lechites (Poles) but in the time of Casimir they broke
their dependence and refused to pay tribute (“His omnibus autem Slaworum nacioni-
bus, Pannonia dumtaxat excepta sed iuncta Corinthia cuius inhabitatores Ceruchane
vocantur a coritha quod canalia interpretantur semper Lechitarum imperio subiecti
tributa reddebant usque ad tempora regis Kazimiri monachi. Cuius tempore [...] plures
naciones obediencie Lechitarum recedentes tributa Lechitis consueta dare denegarunt”,
Chronica Poloniae maioris, p. 6). The tale comes in the text just before the description of
the Hungarians and the deeds of their leader – Attila. According to Kürbis, the author of
this fragment associated the traditions about Krešimir with the Polish ruler. In another
passage we read that Casimir the Restorer (Casimir the Monk) ruled over the Polish and
certain Slavic people (“Huic Kazimiro licet tota gens Polonica ac quedam Sclawonica”,
ibidem, p. 19).
28 Gerard Labuda, Mieszko II król polski (1025–1034). Czasy przełomu w dziejach państwa pol-
skiego (Krakow, 1992), p. 179, after: Grzesik, “Wstęp,” in Żywot św. Stefana, p. 20.
Excursus 293
manuscript of this version was found at the start of the sixteenth century
by Papalić; Marulić translated it in 1510, and the oldest manuscript we have
today is the copy made by Kaletić in 1546. It is most commonly assumed
that this variant of the text was written in the fifteenth century,29 although it
was also dated back to the fourteenth century,30 and some scholars thought
it was even older and was composed in the twelfth century,31 which seems
doubtful in the light of the material we can examine today. It is believed that
the Croatian text carries traces of a translator’s work and that it is a trans-
lation of a part of Regnum Sclavorum from Latin into one of the Croatian
dialects.32 In this view, the legend of Zvonimir would be an addition, or a
change to the original narrative. Živković presented a complicated hypoth-
esis about the formation of the work. He suggested that the basis of the
translation was an unknown Latin text containing a narrative similar to that
known from the Croatian version; according to him, this hypothetical work
was the first variant of Regnum Sclavorum.33 On the other hand, Mladen
Ančić distinguished two sources of the Croatian text: the Latin text of the
first part of The Chronicle and some account of regicide which did not sur-
vive. Ančić thought that the translation or compilation was made at the
turn of the fourteenth century and even suggested that its author was Nikola
of Krajina, a clergyman active in Trogir.34
The story contained in the Croatian version, besides information about
the king, was distinguished by several characteristic elements: a) the author
placed Zvonimir among the legendary rulers and recognized him as a
descendant of Krišimir; b) the ruler was given the epithet “the good king”;
the chronicler described the period of his reign as the golden the age of the
Croatian kingdom; c) the reason for the murder of the king by his subjects
was that he had called for a crusade and they were reluctant to take part in
29 Nikola Radojčić, “Legenda o smrti hrvatskog kralja Dimitrije Zvonimira,” Glas – Srpska
Kraljevska akademija 171 (1936), p. 57; Ančić, “Ljetopis kraljeva Hrvatske i Dalmacije,”
p. 297n.
30 Šišić, Letopis, p. 162; Petar Grgec, “Svjedočanstvo Zvonimirove nadgrobnice,” Kalendar
“Napredak” za g. 1942 (Sarajevo, 1941), pp. 41–49.
31 Mužić, Hrvatska kronika u Ljetopisu popa Dukljanina, pp. 17–38; Peričić, Sclavorum regnum
Grgura Barskog, pp. 270–271.
32 Ančić, “Ljetopis kraljeva Hrvatske i Dalmacije,” p. 275; Kapetanović (“‘Staro’ i ‘novo’ u
jeziku Kaletićeva prijepisa hrvatske redakcjije Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina,” pp. 21–37)
did not confirm such a distinct separation of the final fragment, and concluded that in
the text of the Croatian version old and new elements are scattered and mixed with
archaic language which proves that a core part of the account was composed before the
fifteenth century.
33 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 21n.
34 Ančić, “Ljetopis kraljeva Hrvatske i Dalmacije,” pp. 273–304.
294 chapter 7
the expedition; d) “five churches” in Kosovo were considered to be the place

of murder; e) the chronicle also mentioned that before the Croats murdered
Zvonimir, he cursed them for their sin: they were to be ruled by monarchs
speaking a foreign language; f) instead of the mythical Attila, the author
referred to the appointed Hungarian King Béla I as Zvonimir’s successor,
and gave the exact date of death of the Croatian ruler: 1079.35
– The third narrative about the tragic fate of Zvonimir is the work known as
Historia Salonitana maior,36 an altered and supplemented version of the
chronicle authored by Thomas the Archdeacon, probably written at the
start of the sixteenth century. In the fourth chapter of our work, we dis-
cussed the documents of the Synods in Split which were included in this
work, but may have been much older. Contemporary Croatian historiogra-
phy generally rejects the view formulated by Stjepan Gunjača, who claimed
that the chronicle had been written in the first half of the thirteenth cen-
tury by Thomas himself, and was later modified after his stay in Bologna,37
although this idea was recently supported by Živković.38
The account of Historia Salonitana maior is similar to the one we know
from the Croatian version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. According
to the chronicler, the king’s name is Svonimir, while the Hungarians call him
Zolomer. The work contains the motif of the crusade to the tomb of Christ.
The place where the crusade is announced is, as in the Croatian version of
The Chronicle, Kosovo, also called quinque ecclesiae (identified as Biskupija
near Knin39 ). However, Historia Salonitana maior also contained elements
which are absent in the Croatian variant of The Chronicle, such as the motif
35 Some scholars tried to explain the ten-year difference between this date and the accepted
date of the death of historical Zvonimir speculating on the script in which a source of
the legend – which has not survived to our times – was written. Aleksandar Radoman
thought it could be the Glagolitic script (Aleksandar Radoman, “O pismu izvorniku hron-
ike Kraljestvo Slovena Popa Dukljanina,” Lingua Montenegrina 2 (2008), p. 106). Bratulić
explained the discrepancy pointing to differences between numerical systems of the
Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts: Josip Bratulić, “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru,” in Zvonimir –
kralj hrvastki, p. 239.
36 Historia Salonitana maior, ed. Nada Klaić, Jorjo Tadić (Belgrade, 1967), pp. 110–112.
37 Stjepan Gunjača, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji, vol. 1 (Zagreb, 1973),
pp. 25–34.
38 Živković, Gesta regum, pp. 132–133, note 568.
39 That is how this site was identified by Stjepan Gunjača, “Kako i gdje je završio hrvatski
kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir, s dodatkom: O grobu kralja Zvonimira na Kapitolu kod Knina,”
Rad JAZU 288 (1952), pp. 286–297. On the other hand, Smiljanić thought that it was sim-
ply the famous Kosovo polje. According to him, the legend was created in the beginning
of the sixteenth century, during the reign of Louis II of Hungary, and has explicit anti-
Turkish overtones: Franjo Smiljanić, “Neke topografske dileme vezane uz vijesti o smrti
kralja Zvonimira,” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvatski, pp. 229–234.
Excursus 295
of Zvonimir’s widow known also from the Chronicon pictum Vindobonense.

The chronicler describes her as a daughter of Béla I (which would be the
same as Ladislaus’ sister from the aforementioned Hungarian tradition). It
was at her request that Ladislaus entered Croatia. Scholars were intrigued
by the reference to the “alpes, que dicuntur feree” (mountains called “iron”)
he encountered on his route, which may be associated with the moun-
tain Gvozd (“Nail”), the site of the historical King Peter’s battle with the
Hungarians.40
The story ends with the text of Zvonimir’s epitaph. It accuses the Croats of
committing the sin which caused the kingdom to fall. According to Bratulić,
the style of the verse showed elements of goliardic poetry and characteristic
features of epitaphs composed in Croatia in the mid-fourteenth century.41
– The Latin Anonymous Chronicle from Split – known in the manuscript
from the turn of the sixteenth century, and after philological analysis dated
back to the period before the fourteenth century42 – contained this story
in a slightly changed form. It mentions 1092 as the year of the war with the
Saracens and the king’s death. According to it, Zvonimir was murdered at
Petrovo Polje and buried in St. Mary’s Church in Bribir. Unlike in the vari-
ants discussed so far, the king was called to the war neither by the emperor
nor by the pope, but by the king of France and the Hungarian King Andrew.
The Anonymous Chronicle did not repeat information about the childless-
ness of the ruler; according to it, Zvonimir had two daughters who were
given into the care of the magnates in his last will and testament. The king,
seriously wounded, managed to bequeath his kingdom to Hungary before
his death.43
The Anonymous Chronicle also included the only medieval account
coming from the southern Slavic region and concerning the White Croats
(Croates albi), other than the two versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja.44 The text mentions a pair of ethnonyms known from The Polish-
Hungarian Chronicle: “Croats” and “Slavs”, presumably as synonyms. The
slight difference between them was probably unintentional in the source:
40 Rački noted the modern annotation on the margin of the Zagreb Codex of the chronicle of
Thomas the Archdeacon: “Alpes ferreae dictae Gwozd” (Thomas Archidiaconus, Historia
Salonitana, ed. Franjo Rački, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium
vol. 26, Scriptores vol. 3 (Zagreb, 1894), p. 57, note a).
41 Bratulić, “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru,” p. 239.
42 Stjepan Gunjača, “Uz novi izvor o smrti kralja Zvonimira,” Mogućnosti 2 (1961), p. 161;
Morović, “Novi izvori o nasiljnoj smrti kralja Dimitrija Zvonimira,” pp. 830–831.
43 Text: Morović, “Novi izvori o nasiljnoj smrti kralja Dimitrija Zvonimira,” p. 835.
44 Kurelac, “Povijesni zapis nazvan ‘Anonimna Kronika’,” p. 372.
296 chapter 7
the Croats were called by the king, and he was killed by “a certain Slav”,
but the author does not seem to draw any narrative consequences from it.45
– This linguistic confusion was probably used by the Croatian Franciscan Ivan
Tomašić, when he wrote his Chronicon breve regni Croatie before 1561. The
most important change introduced in the narrative of this work was a clear
division of roles between the Croatians and the Dalmatians on one side, and
the inhabitants of Slavonia on the other.
In this account the ruler’s name was Zorobel46 and he was titled the last
king of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia. On his own initiative, he gathered
his subjects at Petrove Polje to announce to them his plan of a crusade to
the tomb of Christ. The inhabitants of Slavonia, apprehensive for the safety
of their children and wives, conspired against the ruler, and convinced the
royal marshal and the cup-bearer (the name of the former is unknown, but
the latter was Tadija Slovinec) to murder him. Before his death, the ruler
managed to wipe out the guilt of the Croats and Dalmatians, whom he
called “faithful servants”, and to express regret that they would be subject to
foreign kings due to the fault of the inhabitants of Slavonia. In the work by
Tomašić, Zorobel died childless, he was buried in St. Bartholomew’s Church
in Knin, and his kingdom was taken over by Ladislaus, his wife’s brother.47
– Another piece also sometimes mentioned among the sources bearing fea-
tures of the original implementation of the legend of Zvonimir’s death is
Catalogus ducem et regum Dalmatie et Croatie. This text is a compilation in
which an attempt was made to accord the legendary matter with the find-
ings of early-modern historians about the crusades and the circumstances
of King Zvonimir receiving the crown.48 Šišić believed that the catalogue
was made around 1720.49 The narrative contained in it refers to two kings,
both named “Zvonimir”: the first, also known as Dmitar (i.e. Demetrius),
received a crown from Pope Gregory VII and vowed loyalty to the Holy See;
the other, also called Stefan, was killed by the Croats while preparing for the
crusade, after already sending some of his troops.50
45 Text: Kurelac, “Povijesni zapis nazvan ‘Anonimna Kronika’,” pp. 369–374. (It may be mentioned
that Morović’s edition was based on a manuscript from Trogir, while Kurelac used another
manuscript containing that fragment which he found in the Research Library in Zadar).
46 This suggests knowledge of Hungarian sources, Šišić, “O smrti hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira,”
pp. 24–25.
47 Text: Izvori za hrvatsku povijest do 1526. godine, ed. Nada Klaić (Zagreb, 1972), p. 75.
48 Nada Klaić, “Problem Zvonimirove smrti u novijoj literaturi,” Historijski zbornik 15 (1962),
pp. 271–288.
49 Ferdo Šišić, Priručnik ivora hrvatske historije, vol. 1, part 1 (Zagreb, 1914), p. 128.
50 Text of Catalogus: Ferdo Šišić, “Genealoški prilozi o hrvatskoj narodnoj dinastiji,” Vjesnik
arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 13 (1914), pp. 90–93.
Excursus 297
It can be added that Renaissance historiography, including the rich literature

of Ragusa and Split, was already influenced by knowledge of the Croatian ver-
sion of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja with its characteristic description
of events.51
An overview of the sources known today allows us to state that up to the
fourteenth century, there is no information about the unnatural causes of
Zvonimir’s death.52 The historical roots of this legend were seen in events dat-
ing as far back as the ninth century, when the leader of the uprising against
the Franks, Prince Ljudevit, lost his life;53 other scholars suggested that the
source of the legend could be the murder of Zdeslav by Branimir,54 or the
murder of prince Miroslav by ban Pribina,55 mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogennetos;56 while according to others, the legend, analysed in terms
of the motifs used, had many common elements with the Serbian tradition
of king-martyrs.57 The best candidate for the historical inspiration of the
described events, however, seems to be the last native king of Croatia: Peter,
who fought against the Hungarians and died in the battle on the aforemen-
tioned mountain Gvozd.58
Damir Karbić suggested that the Šubić family was responsible for formu-
lation and propagation of the tragic legend of Zvonimir in Dalmatia and
Croatia.59 In fact, he repeated slightly older speculations by Bratulić.60 Such
a hypothesis will seem more convincing if we remember that Živković linked
51 Miroslav Kurelac, “Kralj Zvonimir u starijoj hrvatskoj historiografiji,” in Zvonimir – kralj

hrvastki, pp. 305–310.
52 Vladimir Košćak, “O smrti hrvatskog kralja Dmitra Zvonimira,” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki,
pp. 223–224. There is also The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle, but it does not mention the
name of Zvonimir.
53 Ignacy Rosner, Kronika węgiersko-polska. Studyum krytyczne z historiografii średniowiecznej
(Krakow, 1886), p. 17.
54 See: Nemet, “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – problem, izvori i tumačenja,” p. 85 –
presenting various hypotheses on possible historical background of the legend.
55 Ante Jadrijević, “Smrt hrvatskih kraljeva Miroslava i Zvonimira,” Crkva u svijetu 2 (1967),
pp. 45–59; the hypothesis was formulated even earlier by Raimund F. Kaindl, Studien zu
den ungarischen Geschichtsquellen, vol. 34 (Vienna, 1895), p. 37, note 3 – after: Grzesik,
Kronika węgiersko-polska, p. 83.
57 Jelka Ređep, “Ubistvo vladara kao problem žrtve,” in Ubistvo vladara, pp. 299–302.
58 Ernest Świeżawski, Zarysy badań krytycznych nad dziejami, historyjografiją i mitologiją do
wieku XV, part 1 (Warsaw, 1871), pp. 33–38.
59 Damir Karbić, “Šubici i dobri kralj Zvonimir. Prilog proučavanju legendi u politici
hrvatskih velikaških obitelji,” 900 godina Bašćanske ploče. Krčki zbornik 42 (2000),
pp. 271–280.
298 chapter 7
the creation of Regnum Sclavorum with Pavao Šubić’s initiative. Karbić and
Bratulić’s concept, however, had different foundations to Živković’s ideas.
Karbić and Bratulić pointed to the alleged burial place of the king in Bribir,
a property belonging to the Šubić family, and to the similarity of the royal
epitaph to the inscription on the grave of the prince Mladen III Šubić, called
“Croatorum clipeus fortis” [Strong shield of the Croats], who died of plague
about 1348. Bratulić believed that both inscriptions could have been created in
one studio.61 Mladen’s violent death, which interrupted the plan of returning
the title of bans to the Bribir-based branch of the Šubić family, could be the
reason for the bitter tone of the narrative about Zvonimir and the reference to
the curse cast by him on the country.
3 King Zvonimir in the Croatian Version of The Chronicle of the

Priest of Duklja
Analysing the historical background against which the legend of the murder
of the king might be shaped, Ivo Goldstein distinguished three stages of its for-
mation. According to him, the core of the narrative was the story of regicide; in
the second stage, the tale was enriched with historical details; and in the third
phase, individual historians added further points.62
The circumstances of the creation of the legend are not clear. Perhaps
the first stage of its formation was influenced by accounts of some historical
events that, as we have shown, were variously identified by historians. The
second stage could include the motif of the call for the crusade, present in
most variants of the legend, as the indirect cause of the king’s death.63 Peter
Rokay showed that the motif of the ruler’s “uncompleted” crusade occurred
in various contexts in records from all over Europe in the High Middle Ages.
Interestingly, from the mid-fourteenth century, the motif of an intended and

62 Ivo Goldstein, “Kako, kada i zašto je nastala legenda o nasilnoj smrti kralja Zvonimira?
(Prinos proučavanju mehanizma nastajanja legendi u hrvatskom sredjovjekovnom
društvu),” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu
17 (1984), no. 1, pp. 35–54.
63 Thomas the Archdeacon did not know such a motif related to the figure of any Croatian
ruler although he was an advocate of crusades, and the idea of such expeditions was pop-
ular in Dalmatia since the First Crusade: Hrvoje Gračanin, Igor Razum, “Toma Arhiđakon
i križarstvo,” Povijest u nastavi 10 (2014), no. 19, pp. 45–64.
Excursus 299
uncompleted expedition to the Holy Land appeared in Croatia and Hungary in

connection with the figure of the Hungarian King Ladislaus I.64
It is possible that certain details of the account known from the Croatian
text could have been inspired by The First Slavic Legend of St. Wenceslaus.
Although in the case of King Vladimir’s story, the direct influence of the hagi-
ography of Wenceslaus should be considered problematic,65 but in the con-
text of Zvonimir’s story the probability of such a filiation seems much greater.
The cult of St. Wenceslaus was widespread in the circles of Slavic literature in
Croatia from the beginning of the eleventh century.66 Copies of The First Slavic
Legend were preserved there in Glagolitic breviaries.67 If we assume that the
basis for the legend of Zvonimir in the Croatian version came from this circle,
it would help to clarify some textual similarities between the two narratives.
Edward Hercigonja noticed that that Zvonimir’s story and the Slavic text
about Wenceslaus share not only superficial convergences of the description,
but also certain details in the way they are written. The general similarities
were manifested in the fact that the authors of both narratives praised the rul-
ers for their contribution to the Church. In both cases the kings were killed on
the stairs of the temple. And more importantly, rhetorical comparisons of the
killers to Jews appeared in both texts.68 Hercigonja juxtaposed the character-
istics of the Czechs from the Glagolitic account of the death of Wenceslaus:
“Razgrdĕvše se češci muži, i djavlu juže vložšu v srce jih, jakože drĕvlje v srce
Judi prĕdatelja Gospodinja, vstaše že na gospoda svojego Većeslava jakože
Judeji na Hrsta Gospoda” (The Czechs became angry and the devil penetrated
their hearts, as he had penetrated the heart of Judas, the betrayer of the Lord,
so they rose against their lord Wenceslaus, like the Jews had risen against Christ
the Lord), or “Jakože drĕvlje snidoše se Židove misleće na Hrsta tako i si zali
psi …” (As the Jews in the past [had attacked] Christ, they did so in the same
way, like dogs …),69 with the description of the Croats in the Croatian version
64 Petar Rokay, “Motiv neostvarenog križarskog rata u biografijama srednjovjekovnih evrop-

skih vladara,” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki, pp. 241–247.
65 There is little knowledge of possible political and cultural relations of the Principality of
Duklja with its northern neighbours; its alleged links with Croatia in the second half of
the eleventh century were discussed by Ivan Kampuš, “Duklja u Zvonimirovo vrijeme –
utjecaj i veze,” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki, pp. 255–260.
66 Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Rex martyr, p. 28.
67 Bratulić, “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru,” pp. 235–236.
68 Eduard Hercigonja, Srednjovjekovna književnost, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, vol. 2
(Zagreb, 1975), p. 410; also: Nikica Kolumbić, “Hrvatska književnost romaničkog razdoblja
i lik kralja Zvonimira,” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki. Zbornik radova, pp. 221–222.
69 Quotation after the Croatian-Glagolitic version included in: Vatroslav Jagić, “Analecta
Romana III,” Archiv für slavische Philologie 25 (1903), pp. 13, 15.
300 chapter 7
of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja: “da oni Bogom kleti počeše kričati i
vikati na svetoga kralja, tužeći se i vapijuti jednim glasom, kako na Isukrsta
Židove” (and they, the God-damned [Croats], began to shout and cry out to the
holy king, complaining and howling with one voice, as the Jews did to Jesus
Christ) and “I tako počeše vapiti kakono Židove vapiše na Isukrsta” (And they
began to yell, just as the Jews yelled at Christ).70 The similarity of these verses
is so striking that it can actually prove the influence of the legend of the Czech
duke on the details of the relevant parts of the legend of Zvonimir’s death.
The connection between this narrative and Glagolitic literature could also
be indicated by the date of the fall of the last Croatian monarch mentioned
in it: 1079, ten years earlier than could be expected in this place. The scholars
tried to explain this difference by blaming the error of a copyist, who inter-
preted the letter “Ⱁ” (expressing the sound “o”), denoting 80 in the Glagolitic
numerical system, as Cyrillic “o”, denoting 70.71
Unlike some narratives with clearer features of hagiography, such as the
aforementioned legend of King Vladimir, in which the piety of the martyr-to-
be was often emphasized, a fragment of the Croatian version proposes a differ-
ent vision of the time of the reign of the last Croatian ruler. The author claimed
that this period was a golden age: the land was fertile, people had plenty of
gold and silver, and there was justice in social relations. The richness of the
land radiated from the goodness of the ruler. According to the chronicler:
I osta kraljem Zvonimir, koji počteni kralj, sin dobroga spomenutja, poče
crkve veoma čtovati i ljubiti. I poče dobre pomagati, a progoniti zale. I bi
od svih dobrih poljubljen, a od zalih nenavijen, jer ne mogaše zla viditi. I
tako ne biše on za Hrvate, zašto oni ne će biti dobrotom dobiti, da, bolji
su pod strahom. I za dobroga kralja Zvonimira biše vesela sva zemlja, jere
biše sva puna i urešena svakoga dobra, i gradovi puni srebra i zlata. I ne
bojaše se ubogi, da ga izji bogati, i nejaki da mu vazme jaki, ni sluga da mu
učini nepravo gospodin. Jere kralj svih branjaše, zašto ni samo prezprave-
dno ne posi[do]vaše, tako ni inim ne dadiše. I tako veliko bogactvo biše,
tako u Zagorje, kako u Primorje, za pravednoga kralja Zvonimira. I biše
puna zemlja svakoga blaga, i biše veće vridna ureha na ženah i mladih
ljudih, i na konjih, ner i nada sve imanje. I zemlja Zvonimirova biše obilna
svakom razkošom, ni se nikogar bojaše, ni jim nitkore mogaše nauditi,
70 Ljetopis, p. 67.
71 Bratulić, “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru,” p. 239. Scholars tried to find similar phenomena
in the context of the difference between periods of rule of Svetopelek and Budimir (see:
Chapter 4).
Excursus 301
razmi gnjiv gospodina boga, koji dojde svrhu ostatka njih, kako pismo
govori: Oci zobaše kiselo groždje, a sinovom zubi utrnuše.72
(And Zvonimir became the king, worthy of respect, a son of the well-
remembered [king], who loved and respected the Church. And he began
to help the good ones and chased the evil ones away. And he was loved
by all the good [people], and hated by the evil [people], because he could
not bear seeing iniquity. That is why he was not for the Croats, because
they are not be tamed by kindness, but are better [when they are ruled]
by fear. And at the time of the good King Zvonimir, the land rejoiced
because it was abundant and full of all good, and cities [were] full of
silver and gold. And the poor were not afraid that they would be gor-
mandized by the rich, and the weak [were not afraid] that they would
be looted by the mighty, and servants [were not afraid] that their mas-
ters would do them iniquity. Because the king defended everyone, he did
not make injustices and did not let others do so. And there was a great
wealth in Zagorje and in Primorje during the time of the righteous King
Zvonimir. And the land was full of treasures, and the women were more
adorned, as were young people, horses and all kinds of property. And the
land of Zvonimir was calm, no one was afraid of anything, no one could
harm it, except for the wrath of God who would come after them all, as
the Scriptures say: ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s
teeth are set on edge’ [Jer 31:29]).
The fact that the golden age of the kingdom did not happen at a time closer
to its origin is rather peculiar. This is an indirect argument in favour of the
assumption that Zvonimir’s story had first functioned as an independent text
and was then added to the Croatian version. If that was the case, then this
type of independent narrative was edited in such a way as to fit the general
concept of the author of the Croatian variant of The Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja – the chronicler preceded the end of the state with the description of
the paradisiac period to make the fall seem even more acute. Applying such a
stylistic device, he clearly presented those who were guilty of the catastrophe.
To emphasize the continuity of historical processes, the author of the
Croatian text used the topos of the “good king”. It fits perfectly with the previ-
ous fragments of this story. We have already mentioned a significant difference
between the Croatian and Latin texts as far as the assessment of Radoslav’s
reign is concerned. In the Croatian version of the narrative, the king had the

302 chapter 7
features of a good ruler, and this epithet was even given to him directly. On the
other hand, in Regnum Sclavorum, the author’s opinion of the king – deprived
of his reign – was not so unequivocally favourable.
In the Croatian text, the circumstances in which Radoslav was exiled are
commented upon in a way which – especially in the context of subsequent
events – becomes even more important. The king is dethroned by his son:
“s nevirnimi Hrvati, koji vazda bolji su bili prid strahom i potomiji pod silom,
nere vladani dobrotom dobrimi” (with the unfaithful Croats, who are always
better and more humble when governed by fear and force than by kindness).73
Importantly, the anonymous author later recalled these incidents when
he reported the attack of “the unfaithful Croats” on Zvonimir: “I toj čuvše
bogom prokleti i nevirni Hrvati, ki ne mnogo prija daše pomoć hudobnom
sinu dobroga njih gospodina kralja Radoslava iz kraljestva njegova izgnati i s
oružnom rukom s nemilostivim sinom njegovim iz zemlje prognati …” ([and]
hearing this, the God-cursed and unfaithful Croats, who not so long before had
helped the mean son to chase their good King Radoslav away from the king-
dom, and who, with armed forces, together with his ruthless son, banished him
from his own land …).74 Thus, the narrative repeats the story of the exile of a
“good” ruler by his subjects who were unaware of the consequences of such an
act. Therefore, the Croats’ guilt was replicated cyclically in this story. However,
in order to find the sources of the sin, we must return not only to the beginning
of the story in the Croatian text, but also to the beginning of the narrative of
Regnum Sclavorum: to the well-known description of the attack of the Goths
on Dalmatia.
4 Zvonimir and Vladimir: the King-Martyrs in the Narrative of

The motif of sin is deeply rooted in the structure of The Chronicle of the Priest
of Duklja, but only the Croatian text used it with all consistency.75 During the
invasion of the Goths, it was the hidden guilt of the Christians that determined
their defeat. As we may remember, in both versions, the king of Dalmatians and
ruler of Istria opposed the Goths. The author of the Latin version later identi-
fied the invaders with the Slavs. For the author of the Croatian text, the role
73 Ljetopis, p. 62.
74 Ljetopis, p. 67.
75 About the place the sin in Croatian version of The Chronicle, see: W. Kowalski, “Wielkie
zło i herezje Eutychesa,” pp. 53–67.
Excursus 303
of the Croats in this episode was probably not clear. We learn that they took
part in the struggle, but it is possible that they were the allies of the defeated
Christians ( “i mnogo tisuć krstjani po dobitju bi pod mač obraćeno i vele Hrvat
bi pobijeno”76 (and many thousands of Christians went under the blade of the
sword, and many Croats were killed). In such an interpretation, the Croats par-
ticipated in Christian sin at the beginning of the work, which would be a logi-
cal continuation at the end of the story, where – in two episodes, Radoslav’s
exile and Zvonimir’s murder – the Croats were depicted as villains.
Traces of a similar interpretation of history are barely visible in Regnum
Sclavorum. It does not include Zvonimir’s story, which would have made the
Slavs responsible for the ruin of the kingdom. The Priest of Duklja did not
blame them collectively for exiling Radoslav; from the point of view of the
chronicler, without this event Pavlimir Bello would not later be able to renew
and improve the Kingdom of the Slavs. The author of Regnum Sclavorum also
wrote about the Christian sin at the time of Totila and Ostroil’s invasion, yet
in the introduction he mentioned the heresy of Eutyches, thus he directed the
suspicions regarding the nature of the sin elsewhere.
The motif of regicide and the punishment of the Croatians by a barbarian
ruler appeared, as we have seen, in The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle, a work
which must be considered distant when it comes to its origins. The legend it
includes is very coherent: the murder of the king was avenged by Attila-Aquila,
who acted as “the scourge of God” and, as the narrative suggested, as the execu-
tor of divine justice. The narrative structure of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle
was similar to the one we know from the Croatian text, although it should be
considered much more coherent when observing the chronological sequence
of events. The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle maintains the casual construction of
the narrative, while the Croatian text first mentions the undefined sin of the
Croats at the beginning of the story, and then repeats it at the end; here we also
learn about the nature of their guilt. Each time, however, the sin brought tragic
results: first, the invasion of the Goths, then, the decline of the state and, as a
consequence, the seizure of power by the Hungarians.
Besides the narrative convergence, some details of The Polish-Hungarian
Chronicle regarding the motif of the barbaric invasion are confusingly similar
to the details of the Goth attack known from both versions of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja. The circumstances in which the battle takes place appear to
be strikingly close. As we may remember, Regnum Sclavorum and the Croatian
text agreed that the Goths were confronted by two subjects: the Dalmatians
and the inhabitants of Istria. Both accounts mentioned that the battle lasted
76 Ljetopis, p. 42.
304 chapter 7
precisely eight days,77 and that its outcome, expressed explicitly, was decided
by God as a form of punishment for the hidden sin of the Christians. These
three characteristic elements are also present in the account of Aquila’s inva-
sion provided by the author of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle:
… et venit [Aquila] in terminos Chrvatiae et Sclavoniae inter fluvios Savam

et Dravam: ibique occurrerunt ei principes Chrvatiae et Sclavoniae, et
direxerunt acies, et refulsit sol in clypeos aureos, et replenduerunt mon-
tes ab eis et fecerunt conflictum magnum octo diebus: traddit autem eos
Deus in manum aquillae regis propter regnum eorum Casimirum, quem
tradiderunt, et turpiter occiderunt: caesi sunt autem Sclavi et Chrvati, alii
fugerunt, alii in captivitatem ducti sunt.78
(… and [Aquila] reached the borders of Croatia and Slavonia (Sclavonia),

between the rivers Sava and Drava: there the princes of Croatia and
Slavonia stood against him, and sent the troops; sunlight reflected on the
shields of gold, and the mountains became bright, and they began the
great battle, that lasted eight days. Therein God gave them into the hands
of King Aquila because of their King Casimir, whom they betrayed and
shamefully killed. The Slavs and Croats were killed, others fled, others
were taken prisoner.)
It would correspond with the following fragment in Regnum Sclavorum:
Octavo vero die omnes hinc inde hristiani, et gentiles, armati exierunt, et
commissum est magnum proelium ab hora diei tertia, usque ad vespe-
ram, et Dei iudicio, cui nemo audet dicere, cur ita faciat, quia forte ali-
quod magnum peccatum latebat in Christianis, victoriam Gothi crudeles
habuerunt, ceciditque pars Christianorum et interfectus est rex Istriae,
et multa milia hominum Christianorum in ore gladii mortua sunt et plu-
rima captiva ducta sunt.79
77 As it was noticed by C. A. Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian historians, pp. 177–178.

78 Kronika węgierskopolska, ed. Stanisław Pilat, MPH vol. 1, pub. August Bielowski (Lviv,
1864), p. 497.
79 Ljetopis, pp. 42–43. The Croatian text is longer and reads as follows: “I tako osmi dan krst-
jane i rečeni pogane oružase se i opraviše na rečenu rvanju i počeše boj osmi dan meju
sobom pokli ne staše s jutra prija tri deri po večernjoj biše se tvrdom i nemilostivom rvan-
jom jednakim bojem meju sobom s mnoštvom mrtac jedne i druge strane, ne znajući se
do togaj vrimena, komu bi se mogajo veće bojati, zašto nijedna od stran ne ustupaše, i
biše viditi, da su boj počeli, zašto jednih i druzih živi dohojahu na misto ubijenih. Dali
u jedan čas, tomu nitko ne sumnjeće, nere po volji onogaj, komu nitkor ne more reći,
zašto takoj učini, oni Goti nemilostivi dobiše, je da si kroz niki grih, koji tada u krstjaneh
Excursus 305
(Then, within eight days, and because the camps were close to each
other, the warriors, coming from everywhere, were injuring each other
and killing each other. On the eighth day all the warriors of both sides,
the Christians and the pagans, went forth and fought a great battle, which
lasted from mid-morning to before sunset. And by God’s will, which no
one dares to ask why this is so, the cruel Goths won, perhaps because
some great evil was hidden among the Christians. And the king of Istria
was killed, and many thousands of Christians died by the sword, and
many were abducted as prisoners.)
There are also narrative similarities between the three discussed plots as far as
highlighting the role of Salona is concerned. Both variants of The Chronicle of
the Priest of Duklja mention Salona as the seat of the king of the Dalmatians,
who escaped there (fatally wounded according to the Croatian version) after he
lost the battle. On the other hand, The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle emphasized
the significance of the nearby city of Split: “rex vero Sclavoniae et Chrvatiae
circa mare delectabatur in civitate quae Sipleth dicitur” (the king of Sclavonia
and the seaside [region of] Croatia took a liking to the city, which is called
Split).80 Gunjača saw this as a reflection of the real role played in the elev-
enth century by Salona and Split, its successor, situated near the site of the
coronation of historical Zvonimir.81 Even if the author of The Polish-Hungarian
Chronicle had no knowledge of Dalmatian realities, this detail was probably
an important element of some original narrative on which he based his text.
Although Radojčić supposed that the anonymous chronicler’s source were
legends of Attila’s conquests popular in Hungary,82 the amazing persistence
pribivaše; i prez izma bi pobijena strana krstjanska i ubijen bi kralj istrinski i mnogo tisuć
krstjani po dobitju bi pod mač obraćeno i vele Hrvat bi pobijeno”. (And so for eight days
the Christians and the said pagans fought and were engaged in the said struggle, and
began the battle on the eighth day between them, from the morning, before the third
hour, until the evening, they fought hard and without mercy, in an even combat between
them with the multitude of the fallen on one side and the other, not knowing at that time
who could win, therefore neither side gave way, and it was seen that the [true] battle
had begun, and on both sides the living were replacing those who were killed. But at one
point, no doubt in that, in accordance with the will of the one, about whom no one can
say why he did so, these ruthless Goths have overcome, because of some sin which was
then on the side of the Christians. And because of this the Christian side was beaten and
the Istrian king was killed and many thousands of Christians fell under the sword and
many Croats were killed).
80 Kronika węgierskopolska, p. 498 (In the shorter version of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle
this fragment does not occur).
81 Gunjača, “Kako i gdje je završio hrvatski kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir,” p. 270.
82 Radojčić, “Legenda o smrti hrvatskog kralja Dimitrije Zvonimira,” pp. 51–55.
306 chapter 7
of the discussed details allows us to presume the existence of a certain old

document that came to the Árpáds’ court from Croatia or Dalmatia.
Assuming the presence of the literary tradition that made it possible to
transmit the legend into The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle as well as into The
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja entails a huge interpretive mystery. First, in
what shape did the information reach Hungary? It is difficult to suppose that it
was a Glagolitic text; it was rather written in Latin. Second, what was the rela-
tionship between this tradition and the story of the fall of Salona? The motif
of Aquila seems typically Hungarian, but it appears that the form in which it
entered the different versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja did not
allow their authors to identify the invader’s commander as Attila the Hun or
as Hungarian, but as Totila, the Goth’s chieftain. Finally, in the Croatian text,
the description of Zvonimir’s murder seems to be a later addition. Why is it
so, since the legend of the invasion as the divine punishment was intrinsically
linked to the motif of the king’s death?
The problem of the Croatian tradition of regicide is also important for
our understanding of the vision of history presented by Regnum Sclavorum,
and above all for understanding the place of Vladimir, another king-martyr.
Admittedly, there are some hints in the Latin variant of the text suggesting that
a certain narrative linking the barbarian invasion with the murder of the ruler
was known to the author. However, the Priest of Duklja changed the meaning
of the narrative and adapted it to the general interpretation of the kingdom’s
history. Above all, the divine plan of punishing the inhabitants of Dalmatia
was executed by the Goths-Slavs, but there is no mention of any Slavs fighting
on the Christian side, and hence inheriting the enigmatic sin. Consequently,
the figure of Vladimir, a king-martyr, appearing in the second part of Regnum
Sclavorum, as was previously mentioned, served different purposes: it was a
foreign ruler (Vladislav of Bulgaria) who was to be blamed for the king’s death,
and not his own subjects burdened with some old guilt. The legend justified
the Priest of Duklja’s decision to “transfer” the centre of the kingdom to the
south and to describe its territorial decrease, but not the definite end of the
realm. The chronicler, who counted the subjects of the kingdom among the
victims, not the slayers, presented the image of the community which stands
by the monarch. The political crisis was, according to him, caused by foreign
intervention.
The existence of the account of The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle, combining
the motifs of the invasion and regicide, allows us to see differently the process
of the formation of the structure of the text and the differences in the narra-
tive layer of both versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. We already
Excursus 307
know from the note in the margin of Supetar Cartulary that an account situat-
ing the figures of Svetopelek and Zvonimir on opposite ends of the Croatian
royal lineage was known in the Adriatic region. The Croatian text, to some
extent, invokes both elements of this tradition: the motif of Zvonimir might
have been added later, but it was a reasonable completion of the narrative,
while Svetopelek appeared in the Croatian variant only in the obscure term
“kralj Svetog-puka” and was replaced by the figure of Budimir. The form of the
Croatian text, in the version known to us today, shows some features of a trans-
lation, but in the case of the story of sin, it is more coherent as a narrative. If we
consider the legend of Zvonimir as an integral part of this story, the question
arises of why it is absent in the Latin text. The link between the fragment and
the Glagolitic script is also unclear. Perhaps the author of the Croatian text,
translating his text from Latin, decided to change the motif of regicide, model-
ling it after a more extensive pattern known to him from the Slavic literature.
This would explain some distinct features of the Zvonimir episode in connec-
tion with its simultaneous adaptation to the earlier parts of this version of The
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
On the other hand, Regnum Sclavorum has no linking element such as the
legend of regicide which indirectly explains the invasion of the Goths. The
Priest of Duklja did not present the history of the described realm in the frame
of the reign of Svetopelek and Zvonimir. This would support a hypothesis of
a long period of formation for the Latin text known today; in the narrative
moment of Radoslav’s exile, the Priest of Duklja abandoned the Croatian leg-
end and introduced to his tale fragments of tradition from the southern parts
of the region – from the vicinity of Ragusa, and then from Duklja. This would
explain the change in the sense of the story of the sin of the Christians. The leg-
end of Vladimir in Regnum Sclavorum is to some extent equivalent to the motif
of Zvonimir; it is possible that the appearance of this type of legend in this
place was inspired by knowledge of the Croatian variant of the text. Vladimir’s
story woven into Regnum Sclavorum could then fill the gap which would result
from omitting some of the Croatian traditions. However, the legend of regicide
passed on the Priest of Duklja had quite different functions: it did not explain
the reasons for the fall of the state, but rather showed how Vladimir’s attitude
helped the kingdom to survive in changed geopolitical conditions. The theme
of sin and guilt, so important in the Croatian text, was marginalized in Regnum
Sclavorum; it was the Bulgarian Tsar who was responsible for the tragedy of
Vladimir and led to the ruler’s revenge, whereas Zvonimir’s curse was targeted
at his own subjects, and his death ended the rule of Croatian kings and enabled
the “foreign” dynasty to take over the kingdom.
308 chapter 7
5 Summary
In both basic versions of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (Latin and
Croatian), the legend of regicide plays an important part. At the end of the
Croatian text, we find information about Zvonimir’s murder by his own sub-
jects. Rhetorical devices used in this passage allow to suppose that the author
of this narrative knew the Slavic legend of St. Wenceslaus, and the error in the
date suggests that the text could belong to Glagolitic literature. Also, the lan-
guage layer of the indicated motif suggests that it was added later to this text.
On the other hand, the legend in the shape known from The Polish-Hungarian
Chronicle indicates the existence of a tradition that links the murder of the
king with the punishment in the form of an invasion into Dalmatia by the bar-
barians.83 The Croatian text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja may contain
a trace of this narrative. The text itself, in the shape known to us today, has
some features of translation; it is possible that the original story of regicide was
enriched in the translation with elements of Slavic narrative, hence the differ-
ences demonstrated by the philological analysis of the passage.
Did the author of the Latin version replace some narrative motifs with the
legend of St. Vladimir? It is possible. Regnum Sclavorum begins with the refer-
ence to the guilt of the Christians and the punishment in the form of a barbaric
invasion. The Priest of Duklja tried to explain the historical purpose of the
events, mentioning the flaw of Eutychian heresy. In this respect, the two ver-
sions of the text are fundamentally different. The author of Regnum Sclavorum
interpreted the legend of the destruction of Dalmatian cities by means of
polemic references to the motifs of heresy or the sin of the inhabitants of the
coast (known to Thomas the Archdeacon), which would be the reason for the
barbarians’ assault. The author of the Croatian text interpreted it differently:
in his work, from the beginning, attempts were made to emphasize the Croats’
responsibility for the fall of the kingdom. On this basis we can conclude that
the narrative structure of Regnum Sclavorum is – in relation to the above-men-
tioned elements – more heterogeneous, and the way in which particular layers
of the work were combined indicates an intentional action by the author who
sought to modify the overall meaning.
83 The narrative in the form used in the chronicle would represent the Hungarian point of
view of the conquest of Croatia and Dalmatia. Interestingly, perhaps it could also be asso-
ciated with another protagonist of this book, known from previous chapters: Svatopluk.
The motif of the marriage of Aquila-Attila with the daughter of the Slav prince (princeps
Sclauorum) and his people with Slavic and Croatian women, reminded the story of the
marriage of the daughter of Menumorout, the “Great Moravian”, with Zolta, the son of
Árpád. So the variant of this legend could also be a story about the interconnection of two
peoples. See: Grzesik, “Węgry a Słowiańszczyzna,” p. 98.
Conclusion
More than thirty years ago, Jan Leśny described The Chronicle of the Priest of
Duklja as “controversial”, but also added that “historians from Yugoslavia (and
not only them) consider this work to be equally important to Gesta principum
Polonorum by Gallus Anonymus in Poland, Chronica Boemorum by Cosmas in
Czechia, and The Tale of Bygone Years for East Slavic academic circles”.1
Many things have changed since this publication. Yugoslavia ceased to exist,
and the tragic events that affected the Balkans also had an impact on the devel-
opment of local historical research, sometimes completely altering interpreta-
tions of the past. In the case of Regnum Sclavorum, however, several things did
not change: the work is still controversial and still occupies an important place
in the collective memory of the Bosnians, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs.
Presenting the vast amount of literature on the subject, we attempted to bear
in mind its narrative character; to be aware of the presence of fiction in this
non-fictional discourse, because, as White claimed “everyone who writes a nar-
ration fictionizes”.2
The belief that “once an image has been brought into existence, it is public
property”3 was present too often in the polemics on Regnum Sclavorum, hence
the accumulation of ideas, symbols and hypotheses about this work resembles
some of the fantastic palimpsests described by the author of the above quota-
tion, Jorge Luis Borges. If we are allowed to make a small, though illustrative,
digression, it is possible that Borges described the process of devising the past
most cleverly when he looked at the following fragment of the classic work
of Edward Gibbon: “After the departure of the Goths, and the separation of
the allied army, Attila was surprised at the vast silence that reigned over the
plains of Chalons”. This seemingly general style, as Borges argued, in fact pro-
poses an entire set of symbols (“After the departure of the Goths”) and barely
perceptible metaphors (“Attila was surprised at the vast silence”).4 The reader
of the present work should also remember that the text presented in it is not
an exception in this matter, and that it presents a certain interpretative key
ordered in accordance with the academic requirements of historical prose.

2 Ewa Domańska, “Biała Tropologia: Hayden White i teoria pisarstwa historycznego,” Teksty
Drugie: teoria literatury, krytyka, interpretacja 2 (1994), vol. 26, p. 163.
3 Jorge L. Borges, “The Postulation of Reality,” in idem, Selected Non-fictions, ed. Eliot Weinberg,
trans, Esther Allen, Suzanne Jill Levine, Eliot Weinberger (New York, 1999), p. 61.
4 Borges, “The Postulation of Reality,” p. 59.

310 Conclusion
The new interpretation of Regnum Sclavorum we propose here is based

on the recognition of characteristic fragments of the text associated with the
figures of model rulers. Although hundreds of pages have already been writ-
ten about each of them, this approach is, as far as we know, original. In this
work we were primarily concerned with the origin of images of fictitious rul-
ers in the work by the Priest of Duklja, and the issues of provenance of The
Chronicle itself and its authorship – so prevalent in literature on the subject –
were pushed to the background. Each chapter was concluded with a separate
summary; on the final pages let us repeat what we consider to be the most
important of the findings in our work.
The first chapter is devoted to the account of the chieftains of the Goths
given by the Priest of Duklja, especially the first two: Totila and Ostroil. The
first part of this chronicle preserves a complex image in which one can find
traces of older ethnogenetic legends (three brothers), as well as the legends
of Attila, the leader of the Huns (although changed beyond all recognition).
The description of the period after the arrival of the Goths in the work by the
Priest of Duklja apparently corresponds with Thomas the Archdeacon’s nar-
ration. Both chroniclers knew the tradition of the sin of the Christians (who
were punished for it by an invasion of barbarians) and of the fall of Salona.
Both were repeating information about the heresy, but in Regnum Sclavorum
its essence was not connected with Slavic liturgy. The Priest of Duklja linked
the Goths with the birth of the Kingdom of the Slavs, although he did not
use the term “king” in reference to the first two rulers. The positive image
of Totila and Ostroil resulted from the power that allowed the barbarian
chieftains to conquer Dalmatia, and thus to fulfil a part of the divine plan.
Nevertheless, in his description of the next rulers of the Gothic dynasty, the
chronicler pointed to their pagan religion, which prevented the sustainable
development of the state.
Baptism was necessary to make this development happen. The impact of
the Great Moravian tradition is evident in the motifs concerning Svetopelek’s
conversion. Constantine, the missionary, is initially the main figure, though
in the second part of the discussed passage, the plot focuses on the king,
who completed the function of the actual founder of the community who
reconciled the Slavs and the Latins during the synod in Dalma, the symbolic
centre of the state. This motif might be a part of the broader Dalmatian tra-
dition of a dynasty founder (which is probably evidenced by the expression
“from Svetopelek to Zvonimir” in the margin of Supetar Cartulary); it also
included elements of the legends of coastal cities as the heirs of the ancient
Dalmatian centres.
Conclusion 311
The next ruler described in Regnum Sclavorum, Pavlimir Bello, performed

three significant functions within the narration of the chronicle. Within the
frames of interpretation of the dynasty’s history proposed by the Priest of
Duklja, Pavlimir is above all a restorer of the Slavic Kingdom. His actions cor-
respond to those taken by Časlav, the usurper, as their reverse – in this way
Pavlimir removes the curse from his realm. Another narrative task for this
character is revealed during the construction of Ragusa. This motif is a frag-
ment of the local tradition of the birth of the city, but it was creatively arranged
by the Priest of Duklja to emphasize the role of a king. In this passage Pavlimir
is a representative of the Romans, a hero returning from overseas, moving the
community in a new direction, and finally, he is the one who consolidates the
Latins and the Slavs. A later part of the narrative implements the description
of Pavlimir’s deeds realized in reference to the model of rex bellicosus and a
special set of topoi associated with the story of Alexander the Great. There are
many indications that this part was composed later than the rest of the work
and was added to Regnum Sclavorum as a result of the impact of local tradi-
tions from Dubrovnik near the end of the Middle Ages, or possibly even later.
King Vladimir can be considered to be the last ruler of the breakthrough
period. It is not clear whether this part of the narrative was previously an inde-
pendent work. Even if that were the case, it was integrated into the matter of
Regnum Sclavorum to subordinate the text to the vision of history proposed
by the Priest of Duklja. In this concept, King Vladimir represented the rulers
of the state of a different centre of gravity and changed political ambition.
Such a presentation was a break with the hitherto image of the Kingdom of the
Slavs in its ideal, broader boundaries. However, the links between the story of
Vladimir and the later hagiography of St. Jovan Vladimir are not entirely clear.
References to the motifs known from the Priest of Duklja’s narrative (above all:
Vladimir and Kosara) can also be sought in the works of Byzantine historians,
but first and foremost, they should be seen in the popularity of some topoi of
the Old Testament story of Joseph. The model of a king-martyr itself shows
some similarities to the notions about the deaths of rulers known from the
periphery of Christian Europe.
This study ends with the excursus, in which we analyse whether the ending
of the Croatian text of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (the story of King
Zvonimir’s murder) may indicate differences in understanding the purpose-
fulness of the history of the described kingdom in both basic versions of the
work. While at the start of his narrative, the Priest of Duklja referred rather to
the Dalmatian tradition of the destruction of coastal cities in response to the
sin of heresy, the author of the Croatian text situated the invasion of the Goths
312 Conclusion
within a more complex narrative of regicide. We also know a similar story

from the Polish-Hungarian Chronicle and a number of subsequent sources.
Such differences in the approach of the two discussed authors have evident
consequences for understanding the concept of community; in Regnum
Sclavorum there is no recurrent motif of the Slavs’ guilt, unlike in the Croatian
version, in which the Croats themselves become responsible for the fall of the
native dynasty.
In the nineteenth century, Kukuljević Sakcinski gave the scholars studying
The Chronicle of the Priest of Dukja the task of separating the (non-historical)
chaff from the (historical) wheat. Sakcinski was puzzled and asked: “how
could anyone make such an effort to describe so many untrue and confused
stories?”.5 Even more astonishing is the fact that for centuries, scholars have
been struggling to extract new content from these narratives. In this book, we
acknowledged that fiction is the seed of Regnum Sclavorum, yet it does not
have to diminish the value of the chronicle. So we discussed the imaginary
history, a fabulous tale, and attempted to show the topoi hidden behind it, the
narrative concepts, the flow of tradition, and the possible consequences result-
ing from its directions. Within the framework of this work, we gave meaning to
the events that, in common understanding, never really happened.
5 After: Šišić, Letopis, p. 31.
Map
V
Danube
IN
ISTRIA
O
PA NNONIA
LO
Sav
a Srem
DO
Krk
L
nube
WE
Sav Da
a
Osor Rab Bellina (?)
RD
ALM
AT
I A
TRA Dr
Mo
ina
Nin (C NS
Zadar
MO
Knin
rava
ro NT
at We
M BOSN AN st M
Skradin
ia A A r orav
a
DALMA (?) Iba
A
Al (S
ba
Civelino (?)
d
Duvno
Salona ) ur
bi
Trogir
r Split
a)
A Omiš HU R
i M( Prv A Bello (?) Petrova Crkva
Š
UP a
ZA
a CH Dri K Ras
Kaldane
PE
na
LU
R R MI A
t A) r
Iba
DA
Lim
i
Ston
L MT r a v u n j a
c I Umbla A
Gruž TI
Drin
S Dubrovnik (Ragusa) Kona A Dioclea Lipljan

v
Bial
Lokrum
y
e T lje ( C DUKLJA
Kotor
ro Drin
a (ZETA)
ar
at
I Lake i a SkadScodra
Bar R
Ulcinj
M
AC
Drin
M ube
ED
O
a
Cza
)
NI
rny
A
0 100 km
A
Ohrid ↓
Durrës Prespa ↓
The Adriatic coast according to the Priest of Duklja

Family Trees
Senulad
Brus Totila Ostroil
Senulad [II]
Silimir
Bladin
Ratomir
4 evil kings
Svetomir
Svetopelek
Svetolik
Vladislav Tomislav
Sebeslav
Vladimir
Hranimir (Chranimirus)
Tvardoslav unknown son
Ostrivoj
Tolimir
Pribislav
Krepimir
Svetozar
Radoslav
Časlav Petrislav
Pavlimir Bello
Tišemir
Predimir (Prelimirus) Krešmir
Stefan Leget
unknown seven sons
Boleslav
Hvalimir (Chvalimirus) [I] Dragislav Senulad [III]
Silvester
Tugemir
Hvalimir [II]
Petrislav [II] Dragimir Miroslav
Vladimir [II] ‒ Kosara Dobroslav
The genealogy of the legendary rulers in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, part 1
Dragimir
Dobroslav ‒ unknown queen

Family Trees
Goyslav 1° unknown wife ‒ Michala ‒ 2° wife (uxor Graeca) Saganek Radoslav [ii] Predimir
1° Vladimir [iii] 1° Priaslav 1° Sergius 1° Deria 1° Gabriel 1° Miroslav [ii] 1° Bodin ‒ Iaquinta
Vukan’s daughter ‒ Vladimir [iv] 2° Dobroslav [ii] 2° Petrislav [iii] 2° Nikefor 2° Teodor
unknown child
Michala [ii]
Michala [iii] Georgius Archiriz Tomas
Branislav Gradislav Chvalimir [iii] Stanichna Kočapar Goyslav [ii] Dobroslav [iii] Pribinech 4 unknown daughters
Predika Petrislav [iv] Gradichna Tvardislav Dragil Dragichna Grubeša
Radoslav [iii] Joannes Vladimir [V] Prevos Grubeša [ii] Nemana Sirak
The genealogy of the legendary rulers in The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, part 2
315
Bibliography
1 The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja
(Quoted editions and commentary in chronological order.)

Ioannis Lucii De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex. Amsterdam: apud Ioannem
Blaeu, 1666.
Kronika hrvatska iz XII. vĕka, ed. Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Arkiv za povĕstnicu jugo-
slavensku 1 (Zagreb, 1851): 1–37.
Dukljanskog presvitera kraljevstvo Slavena, ed. Jovan Subotić. Serbskij letopis vol. 88, 27
(Buda, 1853): 1–86.
Popa Dukljanina Lêtopis po latinsku i toga nekoliko i još nešto po hrvatsku po prepisu
popa Jerolima Kaletića, ed. Ivan Črnčić. Kraljevica: Primorska tiskara, 1874.
Letopis popa Dukljanina, ed. Ferdo Šišić. Belgrade/Zagreb: Srpska kraljevska akademija,
1928.
Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, ed. Vladimir Mošin. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1950.
Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Uvod, prevod i komentar, ed. Slavko Mijušković. Belgrade:
Prosveta. Srpska književna zadruga, 1988.
Historia Królestwa Słowian czyli Latopis Popa Dukljanina, trans. and ed. Jan Leśny.
Warsaw: PWN, 1988.
Gesta regum Sclavorum, ed. Tibor Živković, vol. 1. Belgrade: Istorijski Institut. Manastir
Ostrog, 2009.
“Regvm Dalmatię atque Croatię Gesta a Marco Marulo Spalatensi Patritio Latinitate
Donata.” ed. Neven Jovanović, Colloquia Maruliana 18 (2009): 30–61.
Popa Dukljanina Sclavorum Regnum. Kritičko izdanje, ed. Danilo Radojević. Cetinje:
Fakultet za crnogorski jezik i književnost, 2016.
2 Sources
Adam of Bremen M Adami gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae

pontificum, ed. Johann Martin Lappenberg.
MGH SS vol. 7, 267–389. Hannover: Impensis
Bibliopolii Avlicii Hahniani, 1848.
Albert Milioli Alberti Millioli notarii regini Cronica imperato-
rum, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger. MGH SS vol. 31,
580–667. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii
Hahniani, 1903.
Bibliography 317
Aleksandreida Vatroslav Jagić, “Ogledi stare hrvatske proze IV.

[Serbian Alexander Romance] Život Aleksandra Velikog.” Starine 3 (1878):
208–336.
Stojan Novaković, Pripovetka o Aleksandru
velikom u staroj srpskoj književnoti. Glasnik srp-
skog učenog društva 9. Belgrade: U Državnoj
štampariji, 1878.
Andrea Dandolo Andreae Danduli ducis Venetiarum Chronica per
extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello. Rerum
Italicarum Scriptores. Raccolta degli Storici
Italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquecento,
ordinata da L. A. Muratori, vol. 12, part 1, eds.
Giosue Cadrucci, Vittorio Fiorini, Pietro Fedele,
1–327. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1938.
Andreas Dandolo Chronicon Venetum, eds.
Dagmar Bartonková, Lubomir Havlík, Ivan
Hrbek, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka.
MMFH vol. 4, 421–422. Brno: Univerzita J. E.
Purkyně, 1971.
Annales Fuldenses Annales Fuldenses sive Annales regni Francorum
orientalis, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS
rerum germanicarum vol. 7. Hannover: Impensis
Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1891.
Annales Ragusini Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de
Ragnina, ed. Speratus Nodilo [Natko Nodilo].
Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum
Meridionalium vol. 14. Zagreb: Ex officina
Sociatatis Typographicae, 1883.
Makušev Vikentij, Izsledovanija ob hisioričeskih
pamjatrtikah i bitopisateljah Dubrovnika [Маку
шев Викентий, Исследования об исторических
памятниках и бытописателях Дубровника].
Sankt Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija
Nauk, 1867.
Anonymo Descriptio Europae Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis, compiled
Orientalis by Tibor Živković, Vladeta Petrović, Alaksandar
Uzelac, trans. Dragana Kunčer, ed. Srđan Rudić.
Belgrade: Istorijski institut, 2013.
318 Bibliography
Augustine Angelus de Stargardia Augustyn ze Stargardu zwany niegdyś

Angelusem, Protokół. Kamieńska kronika –
Rodowód książąt pomorskich, tzw. Stargardzka
genealogia, trans. Elwira Buszewicz, ed.
Edward Rymar. Stargard: Muzeum w
Stargardzie, 2008.
Legenda Beatus Cyrillus Legenda Beatus Cyrillus, eds. Dagmar
Bartonková, Lubomir Havlík, Ivan Hrbek,
Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka. MMFH
vol. 2, 299–304. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně,
1967.
Flavius Blondus Blondi Flavii Forlivensis Historiarum ab
inclinatione Romanorum libri XXXI. Basel:
Hieronymus Frobenius, Joannes Hervagius,
Nicolaus Episcopius, 1531.
Christian, monk Christiani monachi Vita et passio sancti
Venceslai et sanctae Ludmile ave eius, eds.
Dagmar Bartonková, Lubomir Havlík, Ivan
Hrbek, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka.
MMFH vol. 2, 186–200. Brno: Univerzita
J. E. Purkyně, 1967.
Křišťanův život sv. Ludmily a sv. Vacláva, trans.
Josef Truhlář, ed. Josef Emler. Fontes Rerum
Bohemicarum vol. 1, 199–227. Prague: nákla-
dem Musea Království českého, 1873.
Chronica de origine civitatis Chronica de origine civitatis, ed. Otto
Hartwig. Quellen und Forschungen zur
ältesten Geschichte der Stadt Florenz
vol. 1, 35–69. Marburg: N. G. Elwert’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1875.
Chronica Poloniae maioris Chronica Poloniae maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis.
[The Chronicle of Greater Poland] MPH series nova vol. 8. Warsaw: PWN, 1970.
Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. Georg
Waitz. MGH SS rerum Longobardicarum et
Italicarum vol. 1, 467–489. Hannover: Impensis
Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1878.
Chronici Hungarici compositio Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV., ed.
saeculi XIV Alexander Domanovszky. Scriptores rerum
Hungaricarum vol. 1, 219–505. Budapest:
Academia Litterarum Hungarica, 1937.
Bibliography 319
Chronicon imperatorum et Chronicon imperatorum et pontificum Bavaricum,

pontificum Bavaricum ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SS vol. 24, 221–223.
Hannover: Impensis Biblipolii Hahniani, 1879.
Chronicon pictum Vindobonense Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, ed. Mátyás
Florianus. Historiae Hungaricae Fontes
Domestici 1. Scriptores vol. 2, 100–245. Leipzig:
typis M. Taizs, 1883.
Chronicon Salernitanum Chronicon Salernitanum, A Critical Edition with
Studies on Literary and Historical Sources on
Language, ed. Ulla Westerbergh. Acta Universitatis
Stockholmiensis, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia
vol. 3. Stockholm/Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1956.
Constantine Porphyrogennetos Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De administrando
imperio, ed. Gyula Moravcsik, trans. Romilly
James Heald Jenkins. Washington: Dumbarton
Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967.
Cosmas of Prague Kosmůw letopis český (Cosmae Chronicon
Boemorum cum Conti nuatoribus), trans.
Václav Vladivoj Tomek, ed. Josef Emler. Fontes
Rerum Bohemicarum vol. 2, 1–198. Prague:
Nákladem Musea Království českého, 1874.
Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, trans. and ed. Maria
Wojciechowska. Warsaw: PWN, 1968.
Cosmographer of Ravenna Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia et Guidonis
Geographica, ed. Moritz Pinder, Gustav Parthey.
Berlin: in aedibvs Friderici Nicolai, 1860.
Dalimil Rýmovaná Kronika Česká tak řečeného Dalimila,
ed. Josef Jireček. Prague: nákladem Matice české,
1877.
Filip de Diversis Filip de Diversis, Opis slavnoga grada Dubrovnika.
Hrvatski/ latinski, ed. Zdenka Janeković-Römer.
Zagreb: Dom i svijet, 2004.
Ebo Ebbonis vita Ottonis episcopi Bambergensis,
ed. August Bielowski. MPH vol. 2, 23–144. Lviv:
nakładem własnym, 1872.
Excerptum de Karentanis Excerptum de Karentanis, ed. Wilhelm
Wattenbach. MGH SS 11, pub. Georg Pertz, 14–15.
Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlici Hahniani,
1854.
320 Bibliography
Giovanni Mario Filelfo Nestore Pelicelli. “Due opere inedite di G. M.

Filelfo: La Raguseide e La Storia di Ragusa,” Rivista
Dalmatica 5 (1902–1903): 5–33, 139–176.
Gallus [Gallus Annonymus] Galli Anonymi Cronica et Gesta ducum sive
pricipum Polonorum, ed. Karol Maleczyński.
MPH nova series vol. 4. Krakow: Polska Akademia
Umiejętności, 1952.
Gesta Hungarorum Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum.
Anonymus, Notary of King Béla. The Deeds of
the Hungarians, eds. and trans. Martyn Rady,
László Veszprémy, Budapest/ New York: Central
European University Press, 2010.
Anonimowego notariusza króla Béli Gesta
Hungarorum, trans. Aleksandra Kulbicka,
Krzysztof Pawłowski, Grażyna Wodzinowska-
Taklińska, ed. Ryszard Grzesik. Krakow: Societas
Vistulana, 2006.
Godfrey of Viterbo Gotifredi Vitebiensis Speculum regum, ed. Georg
Waitz. MGH SS vol. 22, 21–93. Hannover: Impensis
Bibliopolii Avlicii Hahniani, 1872.
Goeffrey of Monmouth Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia regum
Britanniae, ed. San-Marte [Albert Schulz]. Halle:
Eduard Anton, 1854.
Gregory the Great, pope Grzegorz Wielki, Dialogi. Krakow: Tyniec.
Wydawnictwo Benedyktynów, 2000.
Ivan Gundulić Ivan Gundulić, Osman. Zagreb: Matica ilirska,
1844.
Helmold of Bosau Helmoldi presbyteri chronica Slavorum, ed.
Johann Martin Lapenberg. MGH SS vol. 21,
1–99. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlicii
Hahniani, 1869.
Historia Salonitana Maior Historia Salonitana maior, eds. Nada Klaić, Jorjo
Tadić. Belgrade: Naučno delo, 1967.
Johannes Skylitzes Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Hans
Thurn. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
vol. 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.
Jovan Skilica. ed. Jadran Ferluga. Vizantijski
Izvori za Istoriju Naroda Jugoslavije vol. 3, eds.
Jadran Ferluga, Georgije Ostrogorski et al., 51–172.
Belgrade: Vizantološki institut, 1966.
Bibliography 321
Johannes Staurakios Jovan Stavrakije, Čuda sv. Dimitrija Solunskog, ed.

Božidar Ferjančić. Vizantijski Izvori za Istoriju
Naroda Jugoslavije vol. 3, eds. Jadran Ferluga,
Georgije Ostrogorski et al., 45–48. Belgrade:
Vizantološki institut, 1966.
John the Deacon Johannis diaconi chronicon Venetum, ed. Georg
Heinrich Pertz. MGH SS vol. 7, 4–38. Hannover:
Impensis Bibliopolii Avlicii Hahniani, 1846.
John de Thurocz Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum,
eds. Erzsébet Galántai, Gyula Kristó. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985.
Andrija Kačić-Miošić O. Andrije Kačića-Miošića Razgovor Ugodni
Naroda Slovinskoga. Zagreb: razpošilja Knjižara
A. Jakić, 1862.
Kosma of Ohrid Ακολουθία του αγίου ενδόξου βασιλέως και μεγα
[The Elbasan Legend] λομάρτυρος Ιωάννου του Βλαδιμήρου και θαυματουργού
τυπωθείσα μεν πρώτον δαπάνη του τιμιωτάτου Κυρίου
Ιωάννου Παπά του εκ της πόλεως Νεοκάστρου
[Akolouthia tou agiou endoxu basileos kai mega-
lomartyros Ioannou tou Bladimerou kai thau-
matourgou. Tympotheisa men proton dapane
tou timiotatou Kyriou Ioannou Papa tou ek tes
poleos Neokastrou]. Venice: ek tou Ellinikou
Typografeiou tou Agiou Georgiou, 1858. [reprint
of the edition from 1774]
Tâpkova-Zaimova Vasilka. “Un manuscrit inconnu
de la vie de S. Jean-Vladimir.” in Byzance et les
Balkans à partir du VIe siècle: les mouvements
ethniques et les États, 179–188. London: Variorum
Reprints, 1979.
Novaković Stojan, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti
među Slovenima 1. Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari,
238–284. Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija,
1893.
Laurentius of Amalfi Vavřince, mnicha sv. Benedikta, utrpení sv. Václava,
[The Life of St. Venceslaus] trans. Josef Truhlář, ed. Josef Emler. Fontes Rerum
Bohemicarum vol. 1, 167–182. Prague: nákladem
Musea Království českého, 1873.
322 Bibliography
The Life of St. Clement Βίος Κλήμεντος, eds. Dagmar Bartonková,

[Bios Klimentos/ The Bulgarian Legend] Lubomir Havlík, Ivan Hrbek, Jaroslav
Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka. MMFH vol. 2,
200–235. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, 1967.
The Life of St. Constantine (Latin) Vita Constantini-Cyrylli cum translatione
[The Italian Legend] pp. Clementi, eds. Dagmar Bartonková,
Lubomir Havlík, Ivan Hrbek, Jaroslav
The Life of St. Constantine (Slavic) Žitije Konstantina Filosofa, eds. Dagmar
Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka.
The Life of St. Domnius Ex vita s. Domnii episcopi, chapters 7–8, Acta
Sanctorum vol. 2, 8. Venice, 1738. quoted
after: Documenta historiae Chroatiae perio-
dum antiquam, 169.3, ed. Franjo Rački,
Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum
Meridionalium vol. 7, 288. Zagreb: sumptibus
Academiae Scientiarum et Artium, 1877.
The Life of St. Ludmila Život sv. Lidmily, trans. Josef Truhlář, ed.
[Diffundente sole/ The Czech Legend] Josef Emler. Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum
vol. 1, 191–198. Prague: Nákladem Musea
Království českého, 1873.
Legenda Diffundente sole, eds. Dagmar
Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav Večerka.
The Life of St. Methodius Žitije Mefodija, archijepiskopa Moravьska,
[The Pannonian Legend] eds. Dagmar Bartonková, Lubomir Havlík,
Ivan Hrbek, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Radoslav
Večerka. MMFH vol. 2, 134–164. Brno:
Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, 1967.
Żywot Metodego, Żywoty Konstantyna i
Metodego (obszerne), ed. Tadeusz Lehr-
Spławiński. Warsaw: Alfa, 2000.
Bibliography 323
The Life of St. Sabin of Canossa Ex vita et translatione sancti Sabini episcopi
Canusini, ed. Georg Waitz. MGH SS rerum
Longobardicarum et Italicarum, 586–588.
Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1878.
Lucan M. Annaeus Lucanus, The Civil War
[Marcus Annaeus Lucanus] (Pharsalia), eds. Thomas Ethelbert Page et al.,
London/Cambridge: William Heinemann Ltd.,
Harvard University Press, 1962.
Lucas Tudensis Lvcae Tvdensis Chronicon Mvndi, ed. Emma
[Lucas de Tuy] Falque. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003.
Giacomo Luccari Copioso ristretto degli annali di Ragusa di
[Jakov Lukarević] Giacomo di Pietro Luccari libri quatro. Ragusa:
Presso Andrea Trevisan, 1790.
Al-Masʾudi Marúdžu d-dahabi wa ma’ ádinu l-džawáhiri li-
l-Mas’ údí/ Rýžoviště zlata a doly drahokamů od
al-Masúdího, trans. Ivan Hrbek, eds. Dagmar
1969.
Micha Madius de Barbazanis Incipit Historia edita per Micam Madii de
Barbazanis de Spaleto de gestis Romanorum
imperatorum et summorum pontificum pars
secundae partis de anno Domini MCCXC,
ed. Vitaliano Brunelli, Archivio storico per la
Dalmazia 1 (1926): fasc. 1, 33–36, fasc. 2, 33–36,
fasc. 3, 45–48, fasc. 4, 41–48, fasc. 5, 45–48, fasc. 6,
45–48. [reprint of the edition from 1878]
Miletius Matas Ante Konstantin. “Miletii versus.”
Biblioteca storica della Dalmazia 1. Dubrovnik:
tiskom J. Flori, 1882.
Matas Ante Konstantin. Povijest Dubrovnika do
13. stoleća, eds. Nedjeljko Marinov, Mate Matas,
Duje Šilović. Zagreb: Kulturni sabor Zagore, 2016.
Nestor of Kiev Powieść minionych lat, trans. and ed. F. Sielicki.
Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich,
Państwowa Akademia Nauk, 1968.
The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text,
eds. and trans. Samuel Hazzard Cross, Olgerd
P. Sherbotiz-Wetzor. Cambridge, MA: Crimson
Printing Company, 1953.
324 Bibliography
Mauro Orbini Mauro Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi. Hoggi cor-

rottamente detti Schiavoni. Pesaro: Girolamo
Concordia, 1601.
Paisius of Hilandar Paisij Chilandarski. Słowianobułgarska historia,
ed. and trans. Franciszek Korwin-Szymanowski.
Warsaw: Czytelnik, 1981.
Palmotić Junije Pavlimir. Zagreb: Zagrebačka stvarnost, 1995.
Peter the Deacon Leonis Marsicani et Petri diaconi Chronica
Monasterii Casinensis, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach.
MGH SS vol. 7, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, 551–884.
Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlicii Hahniani,
1846.
Polikarp, monk Polikarpa mnicha kijowskich pieczar Żywot
Mojżesza Węgrzyna, ed. Emil Kałużniacki.
MPH vol. 4, 797–817. Lviv: w Komisie Księgarni
Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1884.
The Polish-Hungarian Chronicle Kronika węgierskopolska, ed. Stanisław Pilat.
MPH vol. 1, pub. August Bielowski, 485–515. Lviv:
nakładem własnym, 1864.
Żywot św. Stefana króla Węgier, czyli Kronika
węgiersko-polska, trans. and ed. Ryszard Grzesik.
Warsaw: DiG, 2003.
Vinko Pribojević Oratio fratris Vincentii Priboevii sacrae
[Vincentus Priboevius] theologiae professoris ordinis praedicatorum
De Origine svccessibvsqve Slavorvm. Venice: Per
Ioannem Antonium & fratres de Sabio, 1532.
Vinko Pribojević, O podrijetlu i slavi Slavena,
trans. Veljko Gortan, Pavao Knezović, ed.
Mirolsav Kurelac. Zagreb: Golden marketing,
Narodne novine, 1997.
Provinciale vetus Carolini scriptores qui in ecclesia latina floruere,
B. Caroli Magni Imperatoris, opera omnia, ed.
Jacques Paul Migne. Patrologia Latina, vol. 98,
columns: 457–476. Paris: Excudebatur et venit
apud J.-P. Migne editorem, 1862.
Legenda Quemadmodum Legenda Quemadmodum, eds. Dagmar
1967.
Bibliography 325
Nicola Ragnina Annali di Ragusa del magnifico Mpp. Nicolo

[Nicolai de Ragnina] di Annali di Ragusa del magnifico Ms.
Nicolo di Ragnina, ed. Speratus Nodilo
[Natko Nodilo]. Monumenta Spectantia
Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium
vol. 14, 165–301. Zagreb: Ex officina
Sociatatis Typographicae, 1883.
Junije Resti Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii (ab origine
urbis usque ad annum 1451) item Joannis
Gundulae (1451–1484), ed. Speratus [Natko]
Nodilo. Monumenta Spectantia Historiam
Slavorum Meridionalium vol. 25.
Scriptores 2. Zagreb: In taberna libraria
eiusdem societatis typographicae, 1893.
Stanisław Sarnicki Stanislai Sarnicii Annales, sive De origine
et rebvs gestis Polonorvm et Litvanorvm,
Cracow: [M. Szarffenberger], 1587.
Sicard of Cremona Sicardi episcopi Cremonensis Cronica, ed.
Oswald Holder-Egger. MGH SS vol. 31,
22–181. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii
Hahniani, 1903.
The I Slavic Legend of St. Venceslaus Život sv. Václava [The First Slavic
Legend], ed. Josef Kolář. Fontes Rerum
Bohemicarum vol. 1, ed. Josef Emler, 127–
134. Prague: nákladem Musea Království
českého, 1873.
The I Slavic Legend of St. Venceslaus, Vatroslav Jagić. “Analecta Romana III.”
[The Croatian Edition] Archiv für slavische Philologie 25 (1903):
1–45.
The II Slavic Legend of St. Venceslaus Legenda Mantuanskago episkopa Gumol’da
o sv. Vjačeslave češskom v slavjanorusskom
preloženii, ed. Nikolaj K. Nikol’skij [Легенда
мантуанского епископа Гумпольда о св.
Вячеславе Чешском в славяно-русском
переложении. Н. К. Никольский]. Sankt
Peterburg: Obščestvo ljubitelej drevnej
pismennosti, 1909.
The Old Serbian rodoslovi and letopisi Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, ed.
[collection] Ljubomir Stojanović. Belgrade/Sremski
Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska akademija.
Štampano u Srpskoj manastirskoj
štampariji, 1927.
326 Bibliography
Simon of Kéza Simonis de Kéza Gesta Hungarorum/ Simon of

Kéza, The Deeds of the Hungarian, eds. and trans.
László Veszprémy, Frank Shaer. Budapest/New
York: Central European University Press, 1999.
Georgius Sizgoreus O smještaju Ilirije i o gradu Šibeniku, ed. Slavo
[Juraj Šižgorić] Grubišić. Šibenik: Muzej grada Šibenika, 1981.
Maciej Stryjkowski Kronika Polska Litewska, Żmódzka i wszyst-
kiéj Rusi Macieja Stryj kowskiego, ed. Mikołaj
Malinowski. Warsaw: Nakład Gustawa Leona
Glücksberga, Księgarza, 1846.
Tempore Michaelis imperatoris Tempore Michaelis imperatoris – Legenda
[Legenda Moravica] Moravica, eds. Dagmar Bartonková, Lubomir
Havlík, Ivan Hrbek, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský,
Radoslav Večerka. MMFH vol. 2, 255–269. Brno:
Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, 1967.
Thietmar of Merseburg Kronika Thietmara, trans. and edit. Marian
Zygmunt Jedlicki. Krakow: Universitas, 2005.
Thomas of Tuscany Thomae Tusci Gesta imperatorum et pontifi-
vum, ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter. MGH SS vol. 22,
483–528. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Avlicii
Hahniani, 1851.
Thomas of Split (Archideacon) Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia
Salonitanorum Atque Spalatinorum Pontificum.
Archdeacon Thomas of Split History of the Bishops
of Salona and Split, Latin text: Olga Perić, eds.
Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević Sokol, James
Ross Sweeney. Budapest/New York: Central
European University Press, 2006.
Foma Splitskij, Istorija arhiepiskopov Salony i
Splita [Фома Сплитский, История архиепи-
скопов Салоны и Сплита], trans. and ed. Olga
Anatolevna Akimova. Moscow: Indrik, 1997.
Thomas Archidiaconus, Historia Salonitana, ed.
Franjo Rački. Monumenta spectantia historiam
Slavorum Meridionalium vol. 26, Scriptores 3.
Zagreb: In taberna libraria eiusdem societatis
typographicae, 1894.
Samuel Timon S. Timon Imago antiquae Hungariae, repraesen-
tans terra, adventus, et res gestas gentis hunnicae.
Vienna: Typis Joannis Thomae Trattner, 1754.
Bibliography 327
Ivan Tomašić Chronicon breve regni Croatiae [excerpts], in

Izvori za hrvatsku povijest do 1526. godine, ed.
Nada Klaić, 75. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1972.
Ludovicus Tuberon Lvdovici Tvberonis Dalmatae abbatis Comentarii
de temporibvs svis, ed. Vladimir Rezar. Zagreb:
Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2001.
Rezar Vladimir. “‘De origine et incremento
urbis Rhacusanae’ Ludovika Crijevića Tuberona
(kritičko izdanje, prijevod i komentar).” Anali
Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije
znanosti i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku 51 (2013):
75–153.
Uspenije Kirilla Uspenije Kirilla, eds. Dagmar Bartonková,
Lubomir Havlík, Ivan Hrbek, Jaroslav
Wincenty Kadłubek Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronicon
[Magister Vincentius] Polonorum. Mistrza Wincentego zwanego
Kadłubkiem Kronika polska. ed. Marian Plezia.
MPH series nova vol. 11. Krakow: Secesja, 1994.
* Documents, epistolae Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus
ac civilis, vol. 4. part 2, ed. György Feyér, 218–
223. Buda: Typis Typogr. Regiae Vniversitatis
Vngaricae, 1829.
Codex diplomaticus regni Croatie, Dalmatie et
Sclavonie, vol. 1 ed. Marko Kostrenčić, no. 127,
pp. 164–165, no. 139, pp. 180–181, no. 140, pp. 181–
182. Zagreb: Izdavački zavod Jugoslovenske aka-
demije znanosti i umjetnosti, 1967.
Codex diplomaticus regni Dalmatiae, Croatiae
et Slavoniae, vol. 2, ed. Tadija Smičiklas,
no. 34, pp. 33–35, no. 35, pp. 36–37, no. 100, p. 106,
no. 201, p. 211, no. 208, p. 221, no. 210, pp. 225–226,
no. 277, pp. 293–294, no. 331, p. 358. Zagreb: Tisak
Dioničke tiskare, 1904.
Codex diplomaticus regni Croatie, Dalmatie et
Slavonie, vol. 4, ed. Tadija Smičiklas, no. 419,
pp. 481–483. Zagreb: Tisak Dioničke tiskare,
1906.
328 Bibliography
Documenta historiae Chroatiae periodum

antiquam, ed. Franjo Rački, Monumenta
Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridio-
nalium 7, no. 12, pp. 14–17; no. 81, p. 98;
no. 87, p. 104; no. 119, p. 145, no. 149a, p. 188,
no. 149.1a, p. 189; 149b, p. 190; no. 158, p. 211–
212; no. 169.3, p. 288. Zagreb: Ex officina
Societatis Typographicae, 1877.
I libri commemoriali della Republica di
Venezia. Regesti, vol. 5, ed. Ricardo Predelli.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2012.
Monumenta Serbica spectantia histo-
riam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, ed. Franz
Miklosich, no. 204, pp. 217–219. Vienna:
apud Guilelmum Braumüller, 1858.
Stare srpske povelje i pisma, vol. 1, part 1, ed.
Ljubomir Stojanović, no. 129, pp. 123–126.
Beograd/Sremski Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska
akademija. Štampano u Srpskoj manastir-
skoj štampariji, 1929.
* The Collection of sources about Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses.
the Tradition of Cyril and Methodius Fontes, eds. František Grivec, Franc Tomšič.
Zagreb: Staroslavenski institut, 1960.
3 References
“Kralj Zvonimir. Dokumenti i spomenici.” Zagreb: Muzej arheoloških spomenika –

Split i arheološki muzej, 1990.
Adontz, Nicolas. “Samuel l’Arménien roi des Bulgares.” in Etudes Armeno-Byzantines.
Lisbon, 1965, pp. 347–409.
Alekseev, Sergej Viktorovič. “Letopis popa Dukljanina: Struktura drevneslovjanskogo
rodoslovnogo predanja.” [Алексеев, С. В. “Летопись попа Дуклянинa: структура
ревнесловянского родословного предания”] Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie 3
(2006): 140–148.
Alekseev, Sergej Viktorovič. “Trebin’skaja legenda Dukljanina: popytka istoričeskoj
rekonstrukcii.” [Алексеев, С. В. “Требиньская легенда Дуклянина: попытка
исторической реконструкции”] Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie 4 (2013): 183–188.
Alföldi, Andreas. Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970.
Bibliography 329
Alimov, Denis Evgenievič. “Gotitcizm v Horvatii: ot Srednevekov’ia k Novomu vre-

meni.” [Алимов, Д. Е. “Готицизм в Хорватии: от Средневековья к Новому
времени”] Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 4. Istoriia.
Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia 2 (2017), no. 22, pp. 25–34.
Alimov, Denis Evgenievič. “Gotskaja teorija proishoždenija Horvatov. Pro et contra.”
[Алимов, Д. Е. “Готская теория происхождения Хорвтов. Pro et contra”] Voprosy
istorii slavjan 21 (2013): 55–74.
Alimov, Denis Evgenievič. “Gotsko-Slavjanskoe korolestvo: reannesrednevekovyj Ilirik
v diskursivnom prostranstve etnopoezisa.” [Алимов, Д. Е. “Готско-славянское
королевство: раннесредневековый Иллирик в дискурсивном пространстве
этнопоэзиса”] Vestnik Udmurtskovo Universiteta 27, 4 (2017), s. 516–525.
Ančić, Mladen. “Dva teksta iz sredine 14. stoleća. Prilog poznavanju ‘društvenog znanja’
u Hrvatskom Kraljestvu.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 40 (2013): 155–199.
Ančić, Mladen. “Ljetopis Kraljeva Hrvatske i Dalmacije (Vrijeme nastanka i autorstvo
Hrvatske redakcije Ljetopisa popa Dukljaninia).” in Zvonimir: kralj hrvatski, ed. Ivo
Goldstein. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1997. pp. 273–303.
Ančić, Mladen. “Miho Barada i mit o Neretvanima.” Povijesni prilozi 41 (2011): 17–43.
Ančić, Mladen. “Ranosrednjovjekovni Neretvani ili Humljani. Tragom zabune koju je
prouzročilo djelo ‘De administrando imperio’.” in Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest,
vol. 1, ed. Ivica Lučić. Zagreb, 2011, pp. 217–278.
Ančić, Mladen. “Zamišljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okolnosti postanka 30. glave djela
‘De administrando imperio’.” Radovi – Zavod za hrvatsku povijest 42 (2010):
133–151.
Ankersmit, Frank. Narracja, reprezentacja, doświadczenie. Studia z teorii historiografii,
ed. Ewa Domańska. Kraków: Universitas, 2004.
Antoljak, Stjepan. Pregled hrvatske povijesti. Split: Laus/Orbis, 1994.
Antonín, Robert. Ideální panovník českého středověku. Kulturně-historická skica z dějin
středověkého myšlení. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2013.
Assmann, Jan. Pamięć kulturowa. Pismo, zapamiętywanie i polityczna tożsamość w
cywilizacjach starożytnych. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego,
2008.
Bak, János M. “Coronations – Past, Present, and Future.” in Coronation. Medieval and
Early Modern Monarchic Ritual, ed. J. M. Bak, 1–15. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford:
University of California Press, 1990.
Bak, János M. “Medieval Symbology of the State: Percy E. Schramm’s Contribution.”
Viator 4 (1973): 33–63.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Bolesław i Peredsława. Uwagi o uroczystości stanowienia
władcy w związku z wejściem Chrobrego do Kijowa.” Kwartalnik Historyczny 3–4
(1990), vol. 97, pp. 3–35.
330 Bibliography
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Gall jako historyk poważny, czyli dlaczego dzieje i Bolesława
Chrobrego, i Bolesława Krzywoustego są prawdziwe i niegroteskowe.” Przegląd
Historyczny 99, 3 (2008): 399–410.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Jedność porządku przestrzennego, społecznego i trady-
cji początków ludu (uwagi o urządzeniu wspólnoty plemienno-państwowej u
Słowian).” Przegląd Historyczny 77, 3 (1986): 445–466.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “‘Nadzy wojownicy’ – o średniowiecznych pogłosach dawnego
rytu wojskowego.” in Człowiek, sacrum, środowisko. Miejsca kultu we wczesnym
średniowieczu. Spotkania Bytomskie IV, ed. S. Moździoch, 7–26. Wrocław: Instytut
Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2000.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Origo et religio – wersja słowiańska (o sposobach budowania
tożsamości wspólnotowej w społecznościach wcześniejszego średniowiecza –
‘wzorcotwórcze pamiątki’ i opowieści o nich).” in Trzy po trzy o dziesiątym wieku,
315–349. Krakow: Avalon, 2014.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. “Podania o ‘Początku’.” in Dynastie Europy, ed. Antoni Mączak,
16–40. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 2003.
Banaszkiewicz, Jacek. Podanie o Piaście i Popielu. Studium porównawcze nad wczesnoś
redniowiecznymi podaniami dynastycznymi. Warsaw: PWN, 2010.
Banaszkiewicza, Jacek. Polskie dzieje bajeczne mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka. Wrocław:
Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 2002.
Banašević, Nikola. Letopis popa Dukljanina a narodna predanja. Belgrade: Srpska
književna zadruga, 1971.
Barada, Miho. “Dinastičko pitanje u Hrvatskoj XI stoleća.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i histo-
riju dalmatinsku 50 (1928–29) [1932], pp. 157–199.
Barada, Miho. “Dvije publikacije Jože Rusa.” Bogoslovenska smotra 20, 4 (1933): 497–502.
Barada, Miho. “Topografija Porfirogenitove Paganije.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta Nova serija
1–2 (1928), vol. 2, pp. 37–54.
Basotova, Ljubinka. “Letopisot na popot Dukljanin kako izvor za makedonskata sred-
novekovna istorija” [Басотова Љубинка. “Летописот на попот Дукљанинкако
извор за македонската средновековна историја”], Spomenici za srednovekovnata
i ponovata istorija na Makedonija vol. 5. Prilep, 1988, pp. 133–149.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Grad i zaleđe u narativnim vrelima: konstruiranje tradicije
o ranosrednjovjekovnim doseljenjima u Dubrovnik iz slavenskog zaleđa.” Acta
Historiae 25 (2017): 473–510.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Introduction. Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages.
Image of the Town in the Narrative Sources Reality and/ or Fiction?.” in: Towns and
Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages. Image of the Town in the Narrative Sources Reality
and/or Fiction?, eds. Irena Benyovsky Latin, Zrinka Pešorda Vardić, 13–60. Zagreb:
Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2017.
Beumann, Helmut. “Rex Romanorum.” in Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 7, 777–778.
Munich: LexMA-Verlag, 1995.
Bibliography 331
Birkenmajer, Józef. “Epitafium Bolesława Chrobrego (Próba ustalenia tekstu).” in

Munera philologica Ludovico Ćwikliński bis sena lustra professoria claudenti ab amicis
collegisdiscipulis oblata, 347–370. Poznań: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego,
1936.
Blažević, Zrinka. Ilirizam prije Ilirizma. Zagreb: Golden marketing – Tehnička knjiga,
2008.
Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France,
trans. J. E. Anderson. New York: Routledge Revivals, 2015.
Boba, Imre. Moravia’s History Reconsidered: a Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources. The
Hague: Nijhoff, 1971.
Bogdanović, Dimitrije. Istorija stare srpske književnosti. Belgrade: Srpska književna
zadruga, 1980.
Bonarek, Jacek. Romajowie i obcy w kronice Jana Skylitzesa. Identyfikacja etniczna
Bizantyńczyków i ich stosunek do obcych w świetle kroniki Jana Skylitzesa. Toruń:
Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2003.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Postulowanie rzeczywistości, in Polemiki. Warsaw: Prószyński i S-ka,
1995.
Boroń, Piotr. Kniaziowie, królowie, carowie … Tytuły i nazwy władców słowiańskich we
wczesnym średniowieczu. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2010.
Borst, Arno. Der Turmbau von Babel: Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und
Vielfalt der Sparachen und Völker. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1995.
Bratulić, Josip. “Apokrif o Prekrasnom Josipu u hrvatskoj srednjovjekovnoj kniževnosti.”
Radovi Staroslovenskog instituta 7 (1972): 31–122.
Bratulić, Josip. “Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru.” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki. Zbornik
radova, ed. Ivo Goldstein, 235–241. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjet-
nosti, 1997.
Brogi, Bercoff Giovanna. “Humanistyczne dziejopisarstwo w Dalmacji i Chorwacji:
wzory włoskie i mity narodowe.” in Królestwo Słowian. Historiografia Renesansu i
Baroku w krajach Słowiańskich, 29–42. Izabelin: Świat Literacki, 1998.
Brogi, Bercoff Giovanna. “‘Królestwo Słowian’ Maura Orbiniego a europejskie dziejo-
pisarstwo XVI w.” in Królestwo Słowian. Historiografia Renesansu i Baroku w krajach
Słowiańskich, 43–77. Izabelin: Świat Literacki, 1998.
Brogi, Bercoff Giovanna. “‘Królestwo Słowian’ Maura Orbiniego i ‘Obszerny wyciąg’ z
‘Roczników Dubrownickich’ Jakova Lukarevicia (Luccariego).” in Królestwo Słowian.
Historiografia Renesansu i Baroku w krajach Słowiańskich, 78–98. Izabelin: Świat
Literacki, 1998.
Budak, Neven. “Tumačenje podrijetla i najstarije povijesti Hrvata u djelima srednjo-
vjekovnih pisaca.” in Etnogeneza Hrvata. Ethnogeny of the Croats, ed. Neven Budak,
73–78. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, 1995.
Bujan, Solange. “La ‘Chronique du prêtre de Dioclée’. Un faux document historique.”
Reveue des études Byzantines 66, 1 (2008): 5–38.
332 Bibliography
Bujan, Solange. “Orbinijevo izdanje ‘Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina’: povijesni falsifikat.”

Radovi – Zavod za hrvatsku povijest 43 (2011): 65–80.
Burns, Thomas. A history of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1984.
Bury, John Bagnell. “The treatise De administrando imperio.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift
15 (1906): 517–577.
Buschinger, Danielle. “German Alexander Romances.” in A companion to Alexander.
Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Z. David Zuwiyya, 291–315. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2011.
Bylina, Stanisław. Drogi – granice – most. Studia. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2012.
Carp, Teresa C. “‘Puer senex’ in Roman and Medieval Thought.” Latomus. Société
d’Études Latines de Bruxelles 39 (1980): 736–739.
Cary, George. The Medieval Alexander, ed. David J. A. Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1956.
Cetwiński, Marek. “Juliusz Cezar w Lubiążu: wokół pewnej wizji dziejopisarstwa
śląskiego.” in Lux Romana w Europie środkowej ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem
Śląska, ed. Antoni Barciak, 29–36. Katowice: Instytut Górnośląski, 2001.
Curta, Florin. “The Making of the Slavs. Between Ethnogenesis, Invention and
Migration.” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2008): 155–172.
Curta, Florin. The making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube
Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge
Curtius, Ernst Robert. Literatura europejska i łacińskie średniowiecze. Krakow:
Universitas, 2009.
Čače, Slobodan. “‘Kozmografija’ Anonima Ravenjanina i počeci Dubrovnika.” Dub
rovnik. Časopis za književnost i znanost 4 (1997): 84–97.
Ćorović, Vladimir. “Hercegovački manastiri.” Starinar 2 (1923): 69–71.
Ćorović, Vladimir. Historija Bosne. Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1940.
Dalewski, Zbigniew. Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima o konflikcie Bolesława
Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2005.
Dalewski, Zbigniew. Władza, przestrzeń, ceremoniał. Miejsce i uroczystość inauguracji
władcy w Polsce średniowiecznej do XIV wieku. Warsaw: Neriton, 1996.
Delić, Stevan. “Petrov manastir kod Trebinja.” Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 25
(1913): 129–130.
Deptuła, Czesław. Archanioł i Smok. Z zagadnień legendy miejsca i mitu początku w
Polsce średniowiecznej. Lublin: Instytut Historii KUL, 2003.
Deptuła, Czesław. Galla Anonima mit genezy Polski. Studium z historiozofii i herme-
neutyki symboli dziejopisarstwa średniowiecznego. Lublin: Instytut Historii Europy
Środkowo-Wschodniej, 1990.
Bibliography 333
Domańska, Ewa. “Biała Tropologia: Hayden White i teoria pisarstwa historycznego.”

Teksty Drugie: teoria literatury, krytyka, interpretacja 26, 2 (1994): 159–168.
Dragojlović, Dragoljub. “Dukljanski knez Vladimir i albanski Novatiani.” Istorijski zapisi
1 (1975), vol. 32, pp. 93–104.
Drmač, Marjan. “Legenda o Zvonimirovoj smrti.” Motrišta. Časopis za kulturu, znanost i
društvena pitanja 64–65 (2012): 124–138.
Dudek, Jarosław. “Święty Jan Włodzimierz (?–1016) w życiu i w religii. Niefortunny
polityk i patron Serbów i Albańczyków.” in Gdzie jesteś człowieku? Funeralia
lednickie – spotkanie 13, eds. Wojciech Dzieduszycki, Jacek Wrzesiński, 223–230.
Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2011.
Dunbabin, Jean. “The ‘Maccabees’ as Exemplars in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.”
in The Bible in the Medieval World. Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, eds. Katherine
Walsh, Diana Wood, 31–42. Oxford/New York: Ecclesiastical History Society,
1985, pp. 31–41.
Dvornik, František. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and
Background, vol. 1–2. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies,
1966.
Dzino, Danijel. Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. Identity Transformations in Post-Roman
and Early Medieval Dalmatia. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.
Đekić, Đorđe. “Geste or Jovan Vladimir’s Biography.” Facta Universitatis. Philosophy,
Sociology, Psychology and History 12, 2 (2013): 183–189.
Eco, Umberto. Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 1994.
Elliott, Dyan. Spiritual Marriage. Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1993.
Evans, Michael. The Death of Kings. Royal Deaths in Medieval England. London/New
York: Hambledon Continuum, 2003.
Ferluga, Jadran. “Die Chronik des Priesters von Diokleia als Quelle für byzantinische
Geschichte.” Byzantina 10 (1980): 429–460.
Fermendžin, Euzebije, “Listovi o izdanju glagolskih crkvenih knjiga i o drugih
književnih poslovih u Hrvatskoj od god. 1620–1648,” Starine 24 (1891): 1–40.
Fine, Jr. John V. A. Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century
to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
Fine, Jr. John V. A. When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkan. A Study of Identity in
Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern
Periods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010.
Folz, Robert. Les saints rois du moyen âge en Occident (VIe–XIIIe siècles). Brussels:
Société des Bollandistes, 1984.
Foretić, Vinko. “Korčulanski kodeks 12. stoleća i vijesti iz doba hrvatskie narodne dinas-
tije u njemu.” Starine 46 (1956): 23–45.
334 Bibliography
Foretić, Vinko. Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808. Knjiga prva. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod MH,
1980.
Foretić, Vinko. Studije i rasprave o hrvatskoj povijesti. Split: Književni krug Split i Matica
hrvatska Dubrovnik, 2001.
Fraesdorff, David. Der barbarische Norden. Vorstellung und Fremdheitskategorien bei
Ribert, Thietmar von Merseburg, Adam von Bremen und Helmold von Bossau. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 2005.
Frazer, James George. Złota gałąź. Studia z magii i religii. Warsaw: PIW, 1962.
Gansiniec, Ryszard. “Nagrobek Bolesława Chrobrego.” Przegląd Zachodni 7/8 (1951):
359–437.
Gąsiorowski, Antoni. “Rex ambulans.” Quaestiones Medii Aevi 1 (1977): 139–162.
Geary, Patrick J. Furta Sacra. Thefts of Relics in Central Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton
Geary, Patrick J. “Reflections on Historiography and the Holy: Center and Periphery.” in
The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300),
ed. Lars Boje Mortensen, 323–330. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006.
Geertz, Clifford. “Opis gęsty: w poszukiwaniu interpretatywnej teorii kultury.” In
Interpretacja kultur. Wybrane eseje, 17–47. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego, 2005.
Gerasimov, Todor. “Un sceau en plombe de Georges, fils du roi Bodine.” Studia
Historico-Philologica Serdicensia 1 (1938): 217–218.
Giakoumis, Konstantinos. “Glimpses from the Politics and Pragmatics of st. John
Vladimir’s Veneration and Pilgrimage in the Longue Dureé.” in International Scientific
Conference Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of Slavs, Thessaloniki 2015
[Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος. Το Βυζάντιο και ο κόσμος των Σλάβων, Ξεσσαλονίκη 2015], ed.
Antonios Emilios N. Tachiaos, 133–144.
Glavičić, Branimir. “Je li Marulić izostavio epizod s Palušom?” Colloquia Maruliana 6
(1997): 87–91.
Goldstein, Ivo. “Kako, kada i zašto je nastala legenda o nasilnoj smrti kralja Zvonimira?
(Prinos proučavanju mehanizma nastajanja legendi u hrvatskom sredjovjekovnom
društvu).” Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u
Zagrebu 17, 1 (1984): 35–54.
Grabar, Biserka. “Kult Ćirila i Metodija u Hrvata.” Slovo: časopis Staroslovenskoga insti-
tuta u Zagrebu 36 (1986): 141–145.
Gračanin, Hrvoje, Petrak Marko. “The Notion of the Methodii Doctrina in the Context
of the Church Synod of Split (AD 925).” in The Byzantine Missionary Activity and
Its Legacy in Europe. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium “Days of Justinian I”, Skopje
11–12 November, 2016, ed. Mitko B. Panov, 28–42. Skopje, 2017.
Gračanin, Hrvoje, Razum Igor. “Toma Arhiđakon i križarstvo.” Povijest u nastavi, vol. 10,
19 (2014): 45–64.
Bibliography 335
Graus, František. Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reiche der Merowingen. Prague:
Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenské akademie ved, 1965.
Grégoire, Henri. “L’origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes.” Byzantion 17 (1944/45):
88–118.
Grégoire, Henri. “The Bulgarian Origins of ‘The Tempest’ of Shakespeare.” Studies in
Philology, vol. 37, 2 (1940): 236–256.
Grgec, Petar. Svjedočanstvo Zvonimirove nadgrobnice. Sarajevo: Nova tiskara Vrček i dr.,
1941.
Grujić, Nada. Ladanjska arhitektura dubrovačkog područja. Zagreb: Institut za povijest
umjetnosti, 1991.
Grzegorzewski, Jan. Grób Warneńczyka, 223–276. Krakow: Akademia Umiejętności,
1911.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Attyla a Słowianie. Przyczynek do wyobrażeń o kontaktach huńsko-
słowiańskich w średniowiecznych źródłach narracyjnych.” Roczniki Historyczne 59
(1993): 33–42.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Czy w średniowiecznych kronikach węgierskich istniały dwa mod-
ele przekazu o rodzimych początkach?.” in Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis.
Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej we wczesnym średniowieczu, 117–124.
Warsaw: Instytut Slawistyki PAN, 2014.
Grzesik, Ryszard. Kronika węgiersko-polska. Poznań: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Książę węgierski żonaty z córką Mścisława Halickiego. Przyczynek
do problemu czasu i miejsca powstania Kroniki węgiersko-polskiej.” Kwartalnik
Historyczny 3–4 (1995): 23–35.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Niezwykła kariera Attyli – od Bicza Bożego do popularnego imienia.”
in Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis. Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej
we wczesnym średniowieczu, 82–91. Warsaw: Instytu Slawistyki PAN, 2014.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Sources of a Story About the Murdered Croatian King in the
Hungarian-Polish Chronicle.” Povijesni prilozi 24 (2003): 97–104.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Węgry a Słowiańszczyzna w najwcześniejszym etapie dziejów w
świetle słowiańskich i węgierskich źródeł narracyjnych epoki średniowiecza.” in
Hungaria – Slavia – Europa Centralis. Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej
we wczesnym średniowieczu, 93–106. Warsaw: Instytu Slawistyki PAN, 2014.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Wielkomorawscy bohaterowie – rodzimi czy obcy?” in Hungaria –
Slavia – Europa Centralis. Studia z dziejów kultury środkowoeuropejskiej we wczesnym
średniowieczu, 59–69. Warsaw: Instytu Slawistyki PAN, 2014.
Grzesik, Ryszard. “Wstęp.” in Żywot św. Stefana króla Węgier, czyli Kronika węgiersko-
polska, trans. and ed. Ryszard Grzesik, 7–48. Warsaw: DiG, 2003.
Guilland, Rodolphe. “Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. Les
titres auliques des eunuques. Le protosphataire.” Byzantion 25–27 (1955–1957):
649–711.
336 Bibliography
Gumplowicz, Ludwig. “Die politische Geschichte der Serben und Croaten.” Politisch-
antropologische Revue 1 (1902/1903): 779–789.
Gunjača, Stjepan. Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji, vol. 1. Zagreb: Školska
knjiga, 1973.
Gunjača, Stjepan. “Kako i gdje je završio hrvatski kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir, s dodatkom:
O grobu kralja Zvonimira na Kapitolu kod Knina.” Rad JAZU 288 (1952): 205–324.
Gunjača, Stjepan. “Uz novi izvor o smrti kralja Zvonimira.” Mogućnosti 2 (1961): 158–165.
Hadžijahić, Muhamed. “Das Regnum Sclavorum als historische Quelle und als territo-
riales Substrat.” Südost-Forschungen 42 (1983): 11–60.
Hadžijahić, Muhamed. “Pitanje vjerodostojnosti sabora na Duvanjskom polju.”
Godišnjak – Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka
ispitivanja 6 (1970): 201–261.
Hadžijahić, Muhamed. “Tihomir iz ‘Kronike popa Dukljanina’ – historijska ličnost?.”
Godišnjak Društva istoričara BiH 17 (1966–1967): 397–418.
Hafner, Stanislaus. Studien zur altserbischen dynastischen Historiographie. Munich:
Verlag R. Oldenbourg, 1964.
Halbrooks, John. “Ælfric, the Maccabees, and the Problem of Christian Heroism.”
Studies in Philology, vol. 106, 3 (2009): 263–284.
Hannick, Christian. “Historismus und Aktualisierungstendenzen im Alexander-Roman
in den slavischen Literaturen.” in Kontinuität und Transformation der Antike im
Mittelalter. Veröffentlichtung der Kongreßakten zum Freiburger Symposion des
Mediävistenverbandes, ed. Willi Erzgräber, 121–127. Sigmaringen: Veröffentlichung
der Kongressakten zum Freiburger Symposion des Mediävistenverbandes, 1989.
Hauck, Karl. “Geblütsheiligkeit.” in Liber Floridus. Mittellateinische Studien. Paul
Lehmann zum 65. Geburstag am 13. Juli 1949 gewidmet, eds. Bernhard Bischoff, Suso
Brechter. Sankt Ottilien, 1950: 187–240.
Hauck, Karl. “Herrschaftszeichen eines wodanischen Königtums.” Jahrbuch für frän-
kische Landesforschung 14 (1954): 9–66.
Hauck, Karl. “Lebensnormen und Kultmythen in germanischen Stammes- und
Herrschergenealogien.” Seaculum 6 (1955): 186–223.
Hauptmann, Ljudmil. “Dolazak Hrvata.” in Zbornik kralja Tomislava. U spomen
tisućugodišnjice hrvatskoga kraljevstva, 96–127. Zagreb, 1925.
Hauptmann, Ljudmil. “Kroaten, Goten und Sarmaten. Die gotische Tradition beim
Popen Dukljanin.” Germanoslavica 3 (1935): 95–127: 315–353.
Hauptmann, Ljudmil. “Podrijetlo hrvatskoga plemstva.” Rad HAZU 273 (1942): 79–112.
Havlík, Lubomir. “Dubrovnické kroniky a tradice a Svatoplukovi.” Slovanský Přehled
vol. 3, 58 (1972): 197–200.
Havlík, Lubomir. Dukljanska hronika i Dalmatinska legenda. Podgorica: Grafo, 2008.
Havlík, Lubomir. Dukljanská kronika a Dalmatská legenda. Prague: Academia, 1976.
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1988.
Bibliography 337
Hercigonja, Eduard. Srednjovjekovna književnost, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, vol. 2.

Zagreb: Liber, 1975.
Hess, Paul. Li Roumanz de Julius César. Ein Beitrag zur Cäsargeschichte im Mittelalter.
Winterthur: Verlag P. G. Keller, 1956.
Heyduk, Jędrzej. “Źródła do tzw. etnogenezy Chorwatów dalmatyńskich w świetle
nowszej literatury.” Slavia Antiqua 44 (2003): 33–51.
Hodana, Tomasz. “Najnowsze spory o autentyczność ‘Słowa o wyprawie Igora’.” Przegląd
Rusycystyczny 3 (2011): 5–32.
Homza, Martin. “Sémantická potencia osobného vlastného (rodného) mena Svätopluk,
ako východisko svätoplukovskej legendy.” in: Martin Homza et al., Svätopluk v európ-
skom písomníctve. Štúdie z dejín svätoplukovskej legendy, 37–47. Bratislava: Post
Scriptum, 2013.
Homza, Martin. “Stredoveké korene svätoplukovskej tradície u Slovákov (čierna a biela
svätoplukovská legenda).” in: Martin Homza et al., Svätopluk v európskom písom-
níctve. Štúdie z dejín svätoplukovskej legendy, 48–141. Bratislava: Post Scriptum, 2013.
Howorth, Henry H. “The spread of the Slavs, IV: The Bulgarians.” The Journal of
Anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11 (1882): 219–268.
Husić, Snježana. “Teritorijalna organizacija pripovijedanja u Orbinijevu ‘Kraljevstvu
Slovena’.” Radovi zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u
Zagrebu 43, 1 (2011): 91–95.
Hvostova, Ksenija Vladimirovna. “K voprosu terminologii Letopisi Popa Dukljanina.”
[Хвостова, Ксения Владимировна. “К вопросу терминологии Летописи Попа
Дуклянина”] Slavjanskij archiv 2 (1959): 30–45.
Ingham, Norman W. “Genre Characteristics of the Kievan Lives of Princes in the Slavic
and East European Perspective.” in American Contributions to the Ninth International
Congress of Slavists vol. 2, ed. Paul Debreczeny, 223–239. Columbus: Slavica, 1983.
Ingham, Norman W. “The Martyrdom of Saint John Vladimir of Dioclea.” International
Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35–36 (1987): 199–216.
Ingham, Norman W. “The Martyred Prince and the Question of Slavic Cultural
Continuity.” in Medieval Russian Culture, ed. Henrik Birnbaum, Michael S. Flier,
31–53. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.
Ingham, Norman W. “The Sovereign as Martyr, East and West.” The Slavic and East
European Journal, vol. 17, 1 (1973): 1–17.
Ivić, Nenad. Domišljanje prošlosti: kako je trinaestostoljetni splitski arhiđakon Toma
napravio svoju salonitansku historiju. Zagreb: Zavod za znanost o književnosti
Filozofskoga fakulteta, 1992.
Jadrijević, Ante. “Smrt hrvatskih kraljeva Miroslava i Zvonimira.” Crkva u svijetu, vol. 2,
1 (1967): 45–59.
Jagić, Vatroslav. Historija književnosti naroda hrvatskoga i srpskoga, Knjiga prva: Staro
doba. Zagreb: Štamparija Dragutina Albrechta, 1867.
338 Bibliography
Janeković, Zdenka. “Stjecanje Konavla. Antička tradicija i mit u službi diplomacije.” in

Konavle u prošlosti sadašnjosti i budućnosti. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa
održanog u Cavtatu od 25. do 27. studenog 1996. godine, vol. 1, ed. Vladimir Stipetić,
31–45. Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU, 1998.
Jareb, Mario. “Jesu li Hrvati postali Goti? Odnos ustaša i vlasti Nezavisne Države
Hrvatske prema neslavenskim teorijama o podrijetlu Hrvata.” Časopis za suvremenu
povijest, vol. 40, 3 (2008): 869–882.
Jasiński, Tomasz. O pochodzeniu Galla Anonima. Kraków: Avalon, 2008.
Jelić, Luka. “Duvanjski Sabor.” Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, vol. 10, 1 (1909):
135–145.
Jireček, Konstantin, Istorija Srba, vol. 1. Belgrade: Naučna kniga, 1952.
Jovanović, Ljubomir. “O letopisu popa Dukljanina.” Godišnjak – Srpska kraljevska aka-
demija 15 (1901): 220–226.
Jovanović, Neven. “Dubrovnik in the Corpus of Eastern Adriatic Humanist ‘Laudationes
Urbium’.” Dubrovnik Annals 16 (2012): 23–36.
Jovanović, Neven. “Manuscripts of the Regvm Dalmatię atqve Croatię gesta.” Colloquia
Maruliana, vol. 18, 1 (2009): 5–24.
Jović, Gazić Vedrana. “Razvoj grada od kasne antike prema srednjem vijeku: Dubrovnik,
Split, Trogir, Zadar – stanje istraženosti. Urban Development from Late Antiquity
to the Middle Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar – the State of Research.”
Archaeologia Adriatica, vol. 5, 1 (2012): 151–196.
Jurčić, Hrvoje. “Die sogenannten ‘Pacta Conventa’ in kroatischer Sicht.” Ungarn-Jahrbuch
1 (1969): 11–22.
Jurkiewicz, Jan. “Legenda o rzymskim pochodzeniu Litwinów w świetle historiografii.
Czas powstania i tendencje polityczne.” in Europa ŚrodkowoWschodnia: ideologia,
historia a społeczeństwo. Księga poświęcona pamięci Profesora Wojciecha Peltza,
eds. Jarosław Dudek, Daria Janiszewska, Urszula Świderska-Włodarczyk, 335–350.
Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, 2005.
Kaindl, Raimund Friedrich. Studien zu den ungarischen Geschichtsquellen, vol. 3–4.
Vienna: in comission bei Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1895.
Kalhous, David. ‘Legenda Christiani’ and Modern Historiography. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2015.
Kampuš, Ivan. “Duklja u Zvonimirovo vrijeme – utjecaj i veze.” in Zvonimir – kralj
hrvastki. Zbornik radova, ed. Ivo Goldstein, 255–260. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija
znanosti i umjetnosti, 1997.
Kampuš, Ivan. “Novi prilozi o lokrumskim falsifikatima i Desinoj darovnici pulsanskim
benediktincima.” Historijski zbornik 15 (1962): 317–324.
Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. Dwa ciała króla. Studium ze średniowiecznej teologii poli-
tycznej. Warsaw: PWN, 2007.
Bibliography 339
Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. “Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought.” The
American Historical Review, vol. 56, 3 (1951): 472–492.
Kantorowicz, Ernst Hartwig. “The King’s Advent and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors
Of Santa Sabina.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 27, 4 (1944): 207–231.
Kapetanović, Amir. “‘Staro’ i ‘novo’ u jeziku Kaletićeva prijepisa hrvatske redakcjije
Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina.” Ricerche Slavistische, vol. 11, 57 (2013): 21–37.
Karatay, Osman. In Search of the Lost Tribe: The Origins and Making of the Croatian
Nation. Çorum: KaraM, 2003.
Karbić, Damir, “Šubici i dobri kralj Zvonimir. Prilog proučavanju legendi u politici
hrvatskih velikaških obitelji.” 900 godina Bašćanske ploče. Krčki zbornik 42 (2000):
271–280.
Katičić, Radoslav. “‘Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo’. Tragom najstarijih
dubrovačkih zapisa.” in Uz početke hrvatskih početaka, 141–160. Split: Književni krug,
1993.
Katičić, Radoslav. “Ivan Mužić o podrijetlu Hrvata.” Hrvatska prosvjeta, vol. 3, no. 19
(1989): 243–270.
Katičić, Radoslav. “Methodii doctrina.” Slovo 36 (1986): 11–44.
Katičić, Radoslav. “Vetustiores Ecclesiae Spalatensis Memoriae.” Starohrvatska
Prosvjeta 17 (1987): 17–51.
Kelemina, Jakob. “Goti na Balkanu.” Časopis za zgodovino i narodopisje part 3–4, 27
(1932): 121–136.
Kelemina, Jakob. “Popa Dukljanina ‘Libellus Gothorum’ (I–VII). Studija o staroger-
manskih spominih v naši zemlji.” Etnolog 12 (1939): 15–35.
Kern, Fritz. Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter. Zur
Entwicklungsgeschichte der Monarchie. Leipzig: Koehler, 1914.
Kersken, Norbert. Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‘nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche
Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau, 1995.
Kętrzyński, Wojciech. O Kronice węgiersko-polskiej (Vita sancti Stephani Ungaro-Polona).
Krakow: Akademia Umiejętności, 1897.
Klaić, Nada. “O Legendarnoj smrti kralja Zvonimira.” Istorijski zapisi 16 (1963): 229–271.
Klaić, Nada. “Plemstvo dvanaestero plemena kraljevine Hrvatske (Nobiles duodecim
generationum regni Croatie).” Historijski zbornik 9 (1956): 83–100.
Klaić, Nada. “Problem Zvonimirove smrti u novijoj literaturi.” Historijski zbornik 15
(1962): 271–288.
Klaić, Vjekoslav. “Narodni sabor i krunisanje kralja na Duvanjskom polju.” in Zbornik
Matice hrvatske o tisućoj godišnjici Hrvatskog kraljevstva, ed. Filip Lukas. Zagreb,
1925, pp. 3–18.
Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
340 Bibliography
Klaniczay, Gábor. “The Paradoxes of Royal Sainthood as Illustrated by Central European

Example.” in Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan, 251–274.
London: King’s College London, 1993.
Kolanović, Josip. “Hrvatsko običajno pravo prema ispravama XIV. i XV. stoljeća.”
Arhivski vjesnik 36 (1993): 85–98.
Kolb, Frank. Ideał późnoantycznego władcy. Ideologia i autoprezentacja. Poznan:
Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2008.
Kolumbić, Nikica. “Hrvatska književnost romaničkog razdoblja i lik kralja Zvonimira.”
in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki. Zbornik radova, ed. Ivo Goldstein, 213–222. Zagreb:
Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1997.
Komornicka, Jolanta N. “Contra Signum Nostrum: The Symbolism of Lése-majesté
under Philip VI Valois.” in Crime and Punishment in the Middle Ages and Early
Modern Age. eds. Albrecht Classen, Connie Scarborough, 189–225. Berlin/Boston:
De Gruyter, 2012.
Košćak, Vladimir. “O smrti hrvatskog kralja Dmitra Zvonimira.” in Zvonimir – kralj
Košćak, Vladimir. “Pripadnost istočne obale Jadrana do splitskih sabora 925–928.”
Historijski Zbornik 33–34 (1980–1981): 291–355.
Kovačević, Jovan. Istorija Crne Gore, vol. 1. Podgorica [Titograd]: Redakcija za istoriju
Crne Gore, 1967.
Kovačević, Jovan. “O uvodu Barskog rodoslova.” Zbornik Matice Srpske 13–14 (1956):
61–70.
Kovačević, Ljubomir. “Nekoliko pitanja o Stefanu Nemanji: prilog kritici izvora za srp-
sku istoriju XII veka.” Glas – Srpska kralijevska akademija 58 (1900): 1–108.
Kowalski, Wawrzyniec. “Król Pavlimir Bello i Aleksander Wielki. Wzór wojowniczego
władcy w ‘Regnum Sclavorum’.” in Poszukiwanie przeszłości. Szkice z historii i metody
badań historycznych, ed. Przemysław Wiszewski, Joanna Wojtkowiak, 35–49.
Wrocław: eBooki, 2014.
Kowalski, Wawrzyniec. “Rupture. Integration. Renewal. The Gathering in Dalma and
the Creation of a Political Community in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea.”
Slavia Meridionalis 19 (2019): 1–28.
Kowalski, Wawrzyniec. “Wielkie zło i herezje Eutychesa. Wokół wątku podboju
Dalmacji w ‘Latopisie popa Duklanina’.” Balcanica Posnaniensia 25 (2018): 53–67.
Kožić, Maja. “Ljetopis popa Dukljanina – jedno od temeljnih djela za izučavanje zam-
etaka etnološkog zamišljanja u Hrvata.” Studia Ethnologica 1 (1989): 195–199.
Krasić, Stjepan, “Opis hrvatske jadranske obale u putopisima švicarskog dominikanca
Feliksa Fabrija (Schmida) iz 1480. i 1483/1484 godine,” Anali Dubrovnik 39 (2001):
133–216.
Bibliography 341
Kršnjavi, Izidor. “Prilozi historiji salonitani Tome arcidjakona Spljetskoga.” Vjestnik

kraljevskog hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinskog Zemaljskog arkiva 2 (Zagreb, 1900):
129–169.
Kukuljević Sakcinski, Ivan. “Prvovjenčani vladaoci Bugara, Hrvata i Srba i njihove
krune.” Rad JAZU 59 (1881): 103–158.
Kukuljević Sakcinski, Ivan. “Tomislav prvi kralj hrvatski.” Rad JAZU 58 (1879): 1–52.
Kulicka, Elżbieta. “Legenda o rzymskim pochodzeniu Litwinów i jej stosunek do mitu
sarmackiego.” Przegląd Historyczny, vol. 71, 1 (1980): 1–20.
Kunčević, Lovro. Mit o Dubrovniku. Diskursi identiteta renesansnog grada. Zagreb/
Dubrovnik: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 2015.
Kunčević, Lovro. “The Oldest Foundation Myth of Ragusa: The Epidaurian Tradition.”
Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 10 (2004): 21–31.
Kuntić-Makvić, Bruna. “Kako je Ivan Lučić prikazao dolazak Slavena u dijelu ‘De regno
Dalmatiae et Croatiae’.” Historijski zbornik 38 (1985): 131–166.
Kurelac, Iva. “‘Regum Dalmatiae et Croatiae’ gesta Marka Marulića u djelu ‘De rebus
Dalmaticis’ Dinka Zavorovića.” Colloquia Maruliana 20 (2011): 301–320.
Kurelac, Miroslav. Ivan Lučić Lucius. Otac hrvatske historiogafije. Zagreb: Školska knjiga,
1994.
Kurelac, Miroslav. “Kralj Zvonimir u starijoj hrvatskoj historiografiji.” in Zvonimir – kralj
Kurelac, Miroslav. “Nepoznati rukopis ‘Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina’.” Historijski zbornik
21–22, 1968–1969: 562. [Kurelac, Miroslav. “An Unknown Manuscript of the ‘Annals
of Presbyter Dukljanin’.” Bulletin Scientifique Conseil des Academies des Sciences
et des Arts de la RSF de Yougoslavie. Section B: Sciences Humaines, vol. 6 (15), 4–6
(1970): 113–114.]
Kurelac, Miroslav. “Povijesni zapis nazvan ‘Anonimna Kronika’ u rękopisu Naučne bib-
lioteke u Zadru.” Hisotorijski zbornik 23–24 (1970–71): 363–374.
Kurnatowska, Zofia. “Słowianie Południowi.” in Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności
i w średniowieczu, eds. Maciej Salamon, Jerzy Strzelczyk, 231–250. Krakow: Historia
Iagiellonica, 2010.
Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska, Agnieszka. Święty i historia. Dynastia Przemyślidów w dziele
mnicha Krystiana. Krakow: Avalon, 2007.
Kužić, Krešimir. “Gdje je i kad Toma Arhiđakon doživio hrvatska vjerovanja vezana
za pomrčinu mjeseca – doprinos interdisciplinarnoj metodi istraživanja.” Zbornik
Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske aka-
demije znanosti i umjetnosti 22 (2004): 27–33.
Kürbis, Brygida. “Epitafium Bolesława Chrobrego. Analiza literacka i historyczna.” in
Na progach historii 2: O świadectwach do dziejow kultury Polski średniowiecznej, 243–
282. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2001.
342 Bibliography
Kürbis, Brygida. Studia nad ‘Kroniką wielkopolską’. Poznan: Poznańskie Towarzystwo

Przyjaciół Nauk, 1952.
Kürbis, Brygida. “Wstęp.” in Kronika Wielkopolska. Warsaw: PWN, 1965.
Labuda, Gerard. Fragmenty dziejów Słowiańszczyzny zachodniej, vol. 1. Poznan:
Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 1960.
Labuda, Gerard. Mieszko II król polski (1025–1034). Czasy przełomu w dziejach państwa
polskiego. Krakow: Secesja, 1992.
Lakoff, George. Johnson Mark. Metafory w naszym życiu. Warsaw: Altheia, 2011.
Laszowski, Emilij. Znameniti i zaslužnii Hrvati 925–1925. Zagreb: Odbor za izdavanje
knjige ‘Zaslužni i znameniti hrvati 925–1925.’, 1925.
Le Goff, Jacques. Historia i pamięć. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego,
2007.
Leśny, Jan. “Bogorodica Krajinska.” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, vol. 7,
part 2, eds. Gerard Labuda, Antoni Gasiorowski, 499–500. Wrocław/Warsaw/
Krakow: Ossolineum, 1982.
Leśny, Jan. Studia nad początkami serbskiej dynastii Nemaniczów (połowa XI–koniec XII
wieku). Wrocław/Warsaw/Krakow: Ossolineum, 1989.
Leśny, Jan. “Żywot Jana Włodzimierza.” Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, vol. 7,
part 1, eds. Gerard Labuda, Zdzisław Stieber, 301–302. Wrocław/Warsaw/Krakow:
Ossolineum, 1982.
Lewicki, Tadeusz. “Klukas.” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, vol. 2, eds. Władysław
Kowalenko, Gerard Labuda, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, 246. Wrocław/Warsaw/
Krakow: Ossolineum, 1964.
Lis, Izabela. “Motyw ‘odciętej głowy’ w literaturze cerkiewnosłowiańskiej.” in Święci w
kulturze i duchowości dawnej i współczesnej Europy, eds. Wanda Stepniak-Minczewa,
Zdzisław J. Kijas, 55–62. Krakow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna, 1999.
Lis, Izabela. Śmierć w literaturze staroserbskiej (XII–XIV wiek). Poznan: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe UAM, 2003.
Lis-Wielgosz, Izabela. “Władza i rodowód. O wizerunku władcy w staroserbskiej liter-
aturze.” Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne 5 (2013): 173–184.
Ljubinković, Nenad. “Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari – između pisane i usmene
književnosti.” in Traganja i odgovori. Studije iz narodne književnosti i folklora, vol. 1,
153–162. Belgrade: Institut za književnost i umetnost, 2010.
Lucerna, Kamila. “Građa za studiju o apokrifu: ‘Život i ispovijedanje Asenete, kćeri
Pentefrijeve, koju je uzeo prekrasni Josip za ženu’.” Rad JAZU 224 (1921): 168–188.
Lučić, Josip. Povijest Dubrovnika od VII stoljeća do godine 1205. Zagreb: Izdavački Zavod
JAZU, 1973.
Ludat, Herbert. “Farbenbezeichnungen in Völkernamen. Ein Beitrag zu asiatisch-
osteuropäischen Kulturbeziehungen.” Saeculum 4 (1953): 138–55.
Bibliography 343
Łatyszonek, Oleg. Od Rusinów Białych do Białorusinów. U źródeł białoruskiej idei nar-

odowej. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2006.
Macartney, Carlile Aylmer. The Medieval Hungarian historians. A Critical and Analytical
Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
MacCormack, Sabine G. “Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of
Adventus.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 21 (1972): 721–752.
Macrides, Ruth. “Saints and Sainthood in the early Palaiologan Period.” in The Byzantine
Saint, ed. Sergei Hackel, 67–87. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981.
Madejski, Paweł. “An Unknown Version of ‘Privilegium Slavicum’.” in Studia Lesco
Mrozewicz ab amicis et discipulis dedicata, eds. Sebastian Ruciński, Katarzyna
Balbuza, Krzysztof Królczyk, 239–254. Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2011.
Madunić, Domagoj. Vinko Pribojević and the Glory of the Slavs. Budapest, 2003. (MA
thesis, History Department of Central European University).
Magdalino, Paul. “The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century.” in The Byzantine
Saint, ed. Sergiei Hackel, 51–66. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius,
1981.
Mandić, Dominik. “Duvanjska biskupija od XIV.–XVII. stoleća.” Croatia sacra: arhiv za
crkvenu povijest Hrvata 5 (1935): 1–98.
Mandić, Dominik. “Kraljevstvo Hrvata i Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina.” Rasprave i prilozi iz
stare hrvatske povijesti, 443–469. Rome: Hrvatski Povijesni Institut, 1963.
Margetić, Lujo. Dolazak Hrvata. Ankunft der Kroaten. Split: Književni krug, 2001.
Margetić, Lujo. “‘Liber Methodius’ i pitanje vrela devete glave ‘Ljetopisa Popa Dukljanina’.”
Časopis Instituta za crkvenu povijest Katoličkog bogoslovnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u
Zagrebu vol. 24, 46 (200): 1–9.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja. “Istorijskopolitički kontekst scene miropomazanja u
đakonikonu crkve Uspenja Bogorodice u monastiru Morači.” in Monastir Morača,
eds. Branislav Todić, Danica Popović, 45–55. Belgrade: Balkanološki institut SANU,
2006.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja. “Patterns of Martyrial Sanctityin the Royal Ideology of
Medieval Serbia. Continuity and Change.” Balcanica 37 (2007): 69–81.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja. Sveti kralj. Kult Stefana Dečanskog. Belgrade: Clio, 2007.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja. Vladarska ideologija Nemanjića. Diplomatička studija. Bel
grade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1997.
Maslać, Nikola. “Hrvatski kralj Zvonimir plemeniti (1076–1089).” Obnovljeni život:
časopis za filozofiju i religijske znanosti, vol. 22, 2 (1941): 172–179.
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. “‘Historia Salonitana’ post Thomam – recepcija ‘Salonitanske
povijesti’ od prvotiska.” in Humanitas et litterae ad honorem Franjo Šanjek, eds.
Lovorka Čoralić, Slavko Slišković, 99–112. Zagreb: Dominikanska naklada Istina,
Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009.
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo. Split: Slap, 2002.
344 Bibliography
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. Sokol, Vladimir. Hrvatska i Nin u doba kneza Branimira, 2nd
edition. Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 2005.
Mayer, Antun. “J. Rus, ‘Kralji dinastije Svevladičev’.” Nastavni vjesnik, vol. 41, 1–3
(1932/33): 79–85.
Medini, Milorad. “Kako je postao Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina.” Rad JAZU 173 (1942):
113–157.
Medini, Milorad. Starine dubrovačke. Dubrovnik: Jadran, 1935.
Melovski, Hristo. “Prološko žitije Sv. Jovana Vladimira.” in Dukljanski knez Sveti
Vladimir (970–1016). 1000 godina crnogorske državotvornosti, ed. Sreten Perović,
59–64. Podgorica: Fondacija ‘Sveti Petar Cetinjski’; Narodni muzej Crne Gore, 2016.
Mertens, Dieter. “Caesar, Arminius und die Deutschen. Meistererzählungen und
Aitiologien,” in Antike im Mittelalter. Fortleben, Nachwirken, Wahrnehmung, eds.
Sebastian Brather, Hans U. Nuber, Heiko Steuer, Thomas Zotz, 383–442. Ostfildern:
Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2014.
Michałowski, Roman. Princeps Fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce
X–XII w. Warsaw: Ośrodek Wydawniczy Zamku Królewskiego w Warszawie, 1993.
Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius. “Avarica.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 41 (1927): 158–160.
Minczew, Georgi. Święta księga – ikona – obrzęd. Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanonic-
zne a ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze prawosławnych Słowian na
Bałkanach. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2003.
Mišić, Siniša. “Povelja Bjeljaka i Radiča Stankovicia Dubrovniku.” Stari srpski arhiv 7
(2008): 113–127.
Moisl, Hermann. “Kingship and Orally Transmitted ‘Stammestradition’ among the
Lombards and Franks.” in Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn I. Berichte des Symposions der
Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 25.–28.10.1982, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich,
eds. Herwig Wolfram, Andreas Schwarcz, 111–119. Vienna: Denkschriften der Öster
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für
Frühmittelalterforschung, 1985.
Morosini, Roberta. “The Alexander Romance in Italy.” in A companion to Alexander
Literature in Middle Ages, ed. Z. David Zuwiyya, 329–365. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011.
Morović, Hrvoje. “Legenda o povelji Aleksandra Velikog u korist Slovena.” in Sa stranica
starih knjiga, 109–124. Split: Matica hrvatska, 1968.
Morović, Hrvoje. “Novi izvori o nasilnoj smrti kralja Dimitrija Zvonimira.” Mogućnosti
10 (1960): 830–838.
Moroz-Grzelak, Lilla. Aleksander Wielki a macedońska idea narodowa: słowiańskie losy
postaci antycznej. Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, 2004.
Morris, Rosemary. “The Political Saint of Byzantium in the Tenth and Eleventh
Century.” in Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, ed. Jürgen Petersohn,
385–402. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1994.
Bibliography 345
Morris, Rosemary. “The Political Saint of the Eleventh Century.” in The Byzantine Saint,
ed. Sergei Hackel, 43–50. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981.
Mužić, Ivan. “Hrvatska kronika od 547. do 1089. Libellus Gothorum (Kraljestvo Slavena)
kao izvor za staru povijest Hrvata (s posebnim osvrtom na VI., VII. i VIII. stoljeće).”
Hrvatska obzorja 6 (1998): 267–328.
Mužić, Ivan. Hrvatska kronika u Ljetopisu popa Dukljanina. Split: Muzej hrvatskih
arheoloških spomenika, 2011.
Mužić, Ivan. “Nastajanje hrvatskog naroda na Balkanu.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta, vol. 3,
35 (2008): 19–41.
Mužić, Ivan. Podrijetlo Hrvata (autohtonost u hrvatskoj etnogenezi na tlu rimske provin-
cije Dalmacije). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, 1989.
Mužić, Ivan. Slaveni, Goti i Hrvati na teritoriju rimske provincije Dalmacije. Zagreb:
Naklada Nediljko Dominovic, 1997.
Mužić, Ivan. “U povodu Katičićeve recenzije.” Hrvatska prosvjeta, vol. 3, 19 (1989):
271–284.
Myśliwski, Grzegorz. “Pamiętnicy. Ludzie sędziwi jako źródła wiedzy o przeszłości na
ziemiach polskich (do XVI w.).” in Europa barbarica, Europa christiana. Studia medi-
aevalia Carolo Modzelewski dedicata, ed. Roman Michałowski, 113–126. Warsaw:
DiG, 2008.
Nastalska-Wiśnicka, Joanna. Rex martyr. Studium źródłoznawcze nad legendą hagio
graficzną św. Wacława (X–XIV w.). Lublin: Werset, 2010.
Nawotka, Krzysztof. Aleksander Wielki. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Wrocławskiego, 2004.
Nearing Jr., Homer. “Local Caesar Traditions in Britain.” Speculum, vol. 24, 2 (1949):
218–227.
Nelson, Janet L. Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe. London: Hambledon Press,
1986.
Nemet, Dražen. “Smrt hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira – problem, izvori i tumačenja.”
Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu 38
(2006): 73–92.
Nicol, Donald M., “Kaisersalbung. The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine
Coronation Ritual,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2 (1976): 37–52.
Nodilo, Natko. “Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografija dubrovačka.” Rad JAZU 65 (1883):
92–128.
Novak, Grga. “Questiones epidauritanae.” Rad JAZU 339 (1965): 97–140.
Novaković, Stojan. Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti među Slovenima 1. Legenda o
Vladimiru i Kosari. Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1893.
Novaković, Stojan. “Srpsko-slovenski zbornik iz vremena despota Stefana Lazarevića.”
Starine 9 (1877): 1–47.
346 Bibliography
Oikonomidès, Nikolaos. Les Listes de Préséance Byzantines des IXe et Xe Siècles. Paris:
Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1972.
Panofsky, Erwin. “Introductory.” in Studies in Iconology. Humanistic Themes in the Art of
the Renaissance, 3–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939.
Papageorgiou, Angeliki. “The Byzantine Citizen in ‘Gesta regum Sclavorum’.” in Niš i
Vizantija XIV, ed. Miša Rakocija, 79–88. Niš: Grad Niš, 2016.
Papageorgiou, Angeliki. To Chronikó tou Ieréa tis Diókeleias. Eisagogí, Metafrasí,
Istorikós Scholiasmos, Prósopa, Chóros [Το Χρονικό του Ιερέα της Διόκλειας, Εισαγωγή,
Μετάφραση, Ιστορικός Σχολιασμός, Πρόσωπα, Χώρος]. Athens: Ekdóseis Armós, 2012.
Papageorgiou, Angeliki. “The Earliest Mention of Stefan Nemanja in Byzantine
Sources.” Niš i Vizantija XII ed. Miša Rakocija. Niš, 2015, pp. 39–47.
Papageorgiou, Angeliki. “The wake behind the mission of Cyril and Methodius:
Byzantine echoes in the Chronicle of the Priest of Diokleia.” in Cyril and Methodius:
Byzantium and the World of the Slavs, 28–30 November 2013, 785–794. Thessaloniki:
Dímos Thessaloníkis, 2015.
Papageorgiou, Angeliki. “To Ypomnistikón tou Michaíl Choniáti kai oi ‘Kastronoí’”
[“Το Υπομνηστικόν του Μιχαήλ Χωνιάτη και οι Καστρηνοί”], Bizantina Sýmmeikta
[Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα] 18 (2009): 159–169.
Parczewski, Michał. Współczesne poglądy w sprawie etnogenezy oraz wielkiej wędrówki
Słowian, in Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i w średniowieczu, eds. M. Salamon,
J. Strzelczyk, 221–230. Kraków: Historia Iagiellonica, 2010.
Pastoureau, Michel. Średniowieczna gra symboli. Warsaw: Oficyna Naukowa, 2006.
Peričić, Eduard. Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Zagreb:
Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 1991.
Pešut, Damjan. “Goti koji su i Slaveni (Goti qui et Sclavi).” Migracijske i etničke teme,
vol. 13, 4 (1997): 301–334.
Peti, Anita. “Vinko Pribojević: De origine successibusque Slavorum.” Dani Hrvatskog
Kazališta: Građa i rasprave o hrvatskoj kniževnosti i kazalištu, vol. 17, 1 (1991): 251–259.
Petrak, Marko. “Liber Methodius between the Byzantium and West: Traces of the
Oldest Slavonic Legal Collection in Medieval Croatia.” in Migration, Integration
and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire. eds. Danijel
Dzino, Ante Milošević., Trpimir Vedriš, 213–224. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018.
Petrovics, István. “Imre Boba i pitanje Velike Moravske.” Scrinia Slavonica, vol. 8, 1
(2008): 563–576.
Picchio, Riccardo. “Povijest Dubrovnika prema interpretaciji humaniste Giovana Maria
Filelfa (1426–1480).” Zbornik Zagrebačke slavističke škole 1 (1973): 15–22.
Pirivatrić, Srđan. “Emperor’s Daughter in Love with Prisoner: Comparing the Stories
of Scylitzes and Anonymus Presbyter Diocleae.” in Byzanz und das Abendland:
Begegnungen zwischen Ost und West, ed. Erika Juhász, 278–283. Budapest: Eötvös-
József-Collegium, 2013.
Bibliography 347
Plassmann, Alheydis. Origo gentis. Identitäts und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh und hoch-
mittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.
Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Przestrzeń i polityka. Studium rezydencji władcy wcześniejszego
średniowiecza. Przykład czeskiego Wyszehradu. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-
Skłodowskiej, 2000.
Pohl, Walter. “Das Awarenreich und die ‘kroatischen’ Ethnogenesen.” in Die Bayern
und ihre Nachbarn I. Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterfor
schung 25.–28.10.1982, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich, eds. Herwig Wolfram, Andreas
Schwarcz, 293–298. Vienna: Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung,
1985.
Pohl, Walter. Die Awaren: ein Steppenvolk in Mittleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. Munich: Beck,
1988.
Pohl, Walter. “History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of Memory.” Early Medieval
Europe, vol. 10, 3 (2001): 343–474.
Popović, Danijela. “Ubistvo u lovu, na vodi, u starijoj srpskoj književnoj tradiciji.”
Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i jezik, part 3, 55 (2007): 469–477.
Pražak, Albert. Staročeska báseń o Alexandru Velikém. Prague: Melantrich, 1945.
Puhiera, Samuel. “Judex, dux Marianorum.” Prilozi povijesti otoka Hvara, vol. 1, 1 (1959):
5–16.
Puljić, Ivica. “Uspostava duborvačke metroplije.” in Tisuću godina dubrovačke (nad)
biskupije. Zbornik radova u povodu tisuću godina uspostave dubrovačke (nad)bisku-
pije (998–1998), ed. Nediljko Ante Ančić, 15–56. Dubrovnik: Biskupski ordinarijat
Dubrovnik, 2001.
Rački, Franjo. “Ocjena starijih izvora za hrvatsku i srbsku poviest srednjeg vieka.”
Književnik 1 (1864): 548–557.
Radojčić, Nikola. “Društveno i državno uređenje kod Srba u ranom srednjem veku –
prema Barskom rodoslovu.” Glasnik Skopskog nuačnog društva, vol. 9, 15 (1935): 1–28.
Radojčić, Nikola. “Legenda o smrti hrvatskog kralja Dimitrije Zvonimira.” Glas – Srpska
Kraljevska akademija 171 (1936): 1–85.
Radojčić, Nikola. O najtamnijem odeljku Barskog rodoslova. Cetinje: Narodna knjiga,
1951.
Radojčić, Nikola. “‘Šišić F., Letopis Popa Dukljanina’.” Slavia 8 (1929): 168–178.
Radojčić, Nikola. Srpska istorija Mavra Orbinija. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka,
1950.
Radojičić, Đorđe Sp. “Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari – njeni vidovi od IX do XIX veka.”
Bagdala 96–97 (1967).
Radojičić, Đorđe Sp. “Un Poème épique yougoslave du XIe siècle: Les Gesta ou exploits
de Vladimir, prince de Dioclée.” Byzantion 35 (1965): 528–35.
348 Bibliography
Radojković, Borislav M. “Država kralja Svetopeleka i njegovih potomaka.” Istorijski

zapisi 19 (1962): 399–435.
Radojković, Borislav M. Knjižica o Gotima. Belgrade: Grafika, 1974.
Radoman, Aleksandar. “‘Gesta regum Sclavorum’. Nova istorijska mistifikacija.” Matica
crnogorska proleće (2013): 103–124.
Radoman, Aleksandar. “Ko je naručilac Dukljaninova Kraljestva Slovena?.” Matica:
Časopis za društvena pitanja, nauku i kulturu 65 (2016): 163–178.
Radoman, Aleksandar. “O pismu izvornika hronike Kraljevstvo Slovena Popa
Dukljanina.” Lingua Montenegrina 2 (2008): 103–107.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Splitsko društvo u Salonitanskoj povijesti Tome Arhiđakona.” in
Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku, 215–244. Split: Književni krug, 2007.
Ređep, Jelka. “Aleksandar Veliki i kralj Milutin. Srpska Aleksandrida i Danilov zbornik –
paralela.” Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i jezik, vol. 47, 1 (1999): 19–34.
Ređep, Jelka. Legenda o kralju Zvonimiru. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1987.
Ređep, Jelka. “O ubistvu dukljanskog kneza Vladimira.” in Ubistvo vladara. Studije i
ogledi, 311–319. Novi Sad: Prometej, 1998.
Ređep, Jelka. “Ubistvo vladara kao problem žrtve.” in Ubistvo vladara. Studije i ogledi,
299–302. Novi Sad: Prometej, 1998.
Reuter, Timothy. “Past, Present and No Future in the Twelfth Century ‘Regnum
Teutonicum’,” in The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Paul
Magdalino, 15–37. London/Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1992.
Rezar, Vladimir. “Dubrovački humanistički historiograf Ludovik Crijević Tuberon.” Anali
Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku
37 (1999): 47–94.
Rhode, Gotthold. “Die ehernen Grenzsäulen Boleslaws des Tapferen von Polen.”
Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 8 (1960): 331–353.
Ricoeur, Paul, Pamięć, historia, zapomnienie. Krakow: Universitas, 2006.
Ricov, Joja. “Zvonimir – dobri kralj Hrvata.” Obnovljeni život: časopis za filozofiju i religi-
jske znanosti, vol. 45, 1–2 (1990.): 78–89.
Ridyard, J. Susan. The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England. A study of West Saxon and
East Anglian Cults. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Rokay, Peter. “Motiv neostvarenog križarskog rata u biografijama srednjovjekovnih
evropskih vladara.” in Zvonimir – kralj hrvastki. Zbornik radova, ed. Ivo Goldstein,
241–247. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1997.
Rosner, Ignacy. Kronika węgiersko-polska. Studyum krytyczne z historiografii
średniowiecznej. Krakow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1886.
Rotković, Radoslav. “Neistoriska paradoksiranja S. Mijuškovića o Dukljaninu.” Kritika
6 (1969): 370–377.
Rubel, Alexander. “Caesar und Karl dr Große in der Kaiserchronik. Typologischestruktur
und die ‘transaltio imperii ad Francos’.” Antike und Abendland 47 (2001): 146–163.
Bibliography 349
Rus, Jože. Kralji dinastije Svevladičev – najstarejši skupni vladarji Hrvatov in Srbov 454–
614. Ljubliana: Univerzitetna tiskarna J. Blasnika nasl., 1931.
Rus, Jože. Krst prvih Hrvatov in Srbov. Nova poglavja o zgodovini kraljev Svevladićev 614–
654. Ljubljana: Univerzitetna tiskarna J. Blasnika nasl., 1932.
Rus, Jože. “Slovanstvo in vislanski Hrvatje 6. do 10. stoletja.” Etnolog 5 (1933): 31–45.
Rymkiewicz, Jarosław Marek. “Historyczna topika i wieczne topoi.” in Myśli różne o
ogrodach, 9–28. Warsaw: Sic!, 2010.
Sakač, Stjepan Krizin. “Ljutovid, strateg Srbije i Zahumlja i njegova lokrumska povelja
(g. 1054).” in Mandićev zbornik u čast O. dra Dominika Mandića prigodom njegove
75-godišnjice života, ed. Ivan Vitezić, Bazilije Pandžić, Atanazije Matanić, 40–79.
Rome: Hrvatski povijesni institut, 1965.
Sakač, Stjepan Krizin. “O kavkasko-iranskom podrijetlu Hrvata.” Obnovljeni život:
časopis za filozofiju i religijske znanosti, vol. 18, 1 (1937): 1–25.
Scales, Len. The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis 1245–1414. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Schlumberg, Gustave Léon. Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin. Paris: E. Leroux, 1884.
Schramm, Percy Ernst. Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer
Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechtzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1–3. Stuttgart:
Hiersemann Verlag, 1954–1956.
Schroeder, Horst. Der Topos der Nine Worhies in Literatur und bildener Kunst. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1971.
Seferović, Relja. “Razočarani notar: iz kasnog dubrovačkog prijepisa djela ‘Historia
Ragusii’ Giovannija Conversinija.” Anali Dubrovnik 55/1 (2017): 131–170.
Skibiński, Edward. Przemiany władzy. Narracyjne koncepcja Anonima tzw. Galla i jej
podstawy. Poznan: Instytut Historii UAM, 2009.
Skok, Petar. “Ortsnamenstudien zu De administrando Imperio des Kaisers Constantin
Porphyrogennetos.” Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung 4 (1928): 213–244.
Smiljanić, Franjo. “Neke topografske dileme vezane uz vijesti o smrti kralja Zvonimira,”
in Zvonimir – kralj hrvatski. Zbornik radova. ed. Ivo Goldstein, 229–234. Zagreb:
Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1997.
Smiljanić, Franjo. Studije o srednjovjekovnim slavenskim/hrvatskim institucijama. Zadar:
Sveučilište u Zadru, 2010.
Spitzer, Leo. Linguistics and Literary History. Essays in Stylistics. Princeton: Princeton
Spychała, Lesław. “‘Lingones’ Tomasza ze Splitu. Węgierska nazwa Polaków (lengyen/
lengyel) czy jej południowosłowiański odpowiednik (Lenđel [Lenđen])?” in Zbadań
nad historią Śląska i Europy w wiekach średnich, eds. Mateusz Goliński, Stanisław
Rosik, 173–215. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2013.
Spychała, Lesław. “Węgrzy jako Pars aliqua gentis Massagetum. Ślady późnoantycznej i
wczesnośredniowiecznej uczoności w dziele Tomasza Archidiakona Splitu,” SAMAI
5 (2020): 155–195.
350 Bibliography
Stanojević, Stanoje. “Milorad Medini: Starine Dubrovačke.” Jugoslovenski Istorijski

Ćasopis, vol. 314, 1 (1935): 618–619.
Stanojević, Stanoje. “O prvim glavama Dukljanskog Letopisa.” Glas – Srpska kraljevska
akademija. Drugi razred 126 (1927): 93–101.
Starnawska, Maria. Świetych życie po życiu. Relikwie w kulturze religijnej na ziemiach
polskich w średniowieczu. Warsaw: DiG, 2008.
Steindorff, Ludwig. “Die Synode auf der Planities Dalmae. Reichsteilung und
Kirchenorganisation im Bild der Chronik des Priesters von Dioclea.” Mitteilungen
des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 93 (1985): 279–324.
Steindorff, Ludwig. “‘Liber Methodius’. Überlegungen zur kyrillomethodianischen
Tradition bei Priester von Dioclea.” Mitteilungen des bulgarischen Forschungs
institutes in Österreich 8 (1986): 157–173.
Steindorff, Ludwig. “Tumačenje riječi ‘Dalmatia’ u srednjovjekovnoj historiografiji.
Istovremeno o saboru na ‘Planities Dalmae’.” in Etnogeneza Hrvata. Ethnogeny of the
Croats, ed. Neven Budak, 148–159. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Zavod
za hrvatsku povijest, 1995.
Steta, Andriana. I Pacta Conventa nella storia e nella tradizione giuridica e politica
croato-ungherese (Doctoral thesis, Università di Macerata. Macerata, 2013).
Stoneman, Richard. “Primary Sources from the Classical and Early Medieval Periods.”
in A companion to Alexander Literature in Middle Ages, ed. Z. David Zuwiyya, 1–21.
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011.
Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Goci – rzeczywistość i legenda. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut
Wydawniczy, 1984.
Swoboda, Wincenty. “Gabriel Radomir.” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, vol. 2,
eds. Władysław Kowalenko, Gerard Labuda, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, 77. Wrocław/
Warsaw/Krakow: Ossolineum, 1964.
Szefliński, Błażej. Trzy oblicza Sawy Nemanjicia. Postać historyczna, autokreacja, postać
literacka. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2016.
Ślęczka, Tomasz. Aleksander Macedoński w literaturze staropolskiej. Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2003.
Świeżawski, Ernest. Zarysy badań krytycznych nad dziejami, historyografiją i mitologiją
do wieku XV, part 1. Warsaw: nakładem autora, 1871.
Segvić, Cherubin [Šegvić, Kerubin]. “Die gotische Abstammung der Kroaten.” Nordische
Welt 9–12 (1935): 1–56.
Šegvić, Kerubin. “Hrvat, Got i Slav u djelu Tome Splićanina.” Nastavni vjesnik 40 (1931–
1932): 18–25.
Šegvić, Kerubin. Toma Arhiđakon, državnik i pisac 1200–1268. Njegov život i njegovo djelo.
Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1927.
Šišić, Ferdo. “Genealoški prilozi o hrvatskoj narodnoj dinastiji.” Vjesnik arheološkog
muzeja u Zagrebu, vol. 13, 1 (1914): 1–93.
Šišić, Ferdo. O hrvatskoj kraljici Margareti. Dubrovnik: Jadran, 1930.
Bibliography 351
Šišić, Ferdo. “O smrti hrvatskog kralja Zvonimira.” Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog

društva 8 (1905): 1–29.
Šišić, Ferdo. Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara. Zagreb: Tisak zaklade tiskare
‘narodnih novina’, 1925.
Šišić, Ferdo. Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda od najstarijih dana do godine 1873.
Zagreb: Izdanje Matice hrvatske, 1916.
Šišić, Ferdo. Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije, vol. 1, part 1. Zagreb: Kraljevska hrvatsko-
slavonsko-dalmatinska zemaljska vlada, 1914.
Škergo, Ante. Stari pokrajinski katalog ili Katalog provincije Opće crkve. Provinciale vetus sive
Ecclesiae Universae Provinciarum Notitia. Zagreb: Hrvatski intitut za povijest, 2005.
Škergo, Ante. “Tobožnja Delminijska biskupija. The Alleged Diocese of Delminium.”
Opvscvla archaeologica vol. 31, 1 (2008): 283–302.
Štedimlija, Savić Marković. “Zagonetka popa Dukljanina.” Crkva u svijetu, vol. 4, 1
(1969): 67–89.
Štrbáková, Ľubica. “Svätopluk Lotrinský († 900), krstný syn Svätopluka I., ako postava
historická a hagiografická.” in: M. Homza et al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve.
Štúdie z dejín svätoplukovskej legendy, 177–229. Bratislava: Post Scriptum, 2013.
Švob, Držislav. “Pripis Supetarskog kartulara o izboru starohrvatskog kralja i popis
onodobnih banova.” Historijski zbornik, vol. 9, 1–4 (1956): 101–117.
Thallóczy, Ludwig. “Die ungarische Beziehungen der Chronik des Presbyter Diocleas.”
Archiv für slawische Philologie 20 (1898): 206–220.
Thomas, Heinz. “Julius Caesar und die Deutschen. Zu Ursprung und Gehalt eines
deutschen Geshihtsbewußtseins in der Zeit Gregors VII. und Heinrichs IV.” in Die
Salier und das Reich: Gesellschaftlicher und Ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der
Salier, vol. 3, eds. Stefan Weinfurter, Hubertus Seibert, 245–277. Sigmaringen: Jan
Thorbecke Verlag, 1991.
Trajković-Filipović, Stefan. “Inventing the Saint’s Life: Chapter XXXVI of ‘The Annals
of the Priest of Dioclea’.” Reveue des études Byzantines 73 (2013): 259–276.
Trajković-Filipović, Stefan. Saint Vladimir of Zeta. Between Historiography and
Hagiography (MA thesis, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European
University. Budapest, 2012).
Třeštik, Dušan. “Manželstvi knižete Vaclava podle II. staroslověnske legendy.” in
Husitství – reformace – renesance: sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, ed.
Jaroslav Pánek, 39–46. Prague: Historický Ústav AV ČR, 1994.
Třeštík, Dušan. “Miscellanea k I. staroslovanské legendě o sv. Václavu: ‘Každý, kdo povs-
tává proti pánu svému, podoben jest Jidáší’.” Československý časopis historický 15
(1967): 337–343.
Třeštík, Dušan. Mytý kmene Čechů (7.–10. století) Tři studie ke ‘Starým pověstem českým’.
Prague: Nakladatelství lidové noviny, 2003.
Ullmann, Walter. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1975.
352 Bibliography
Ullmann, Walter. The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship. London:
Methuen, 1969.
Uspienski, Borys. Car i patriarcha. Charyzmat władzy w Rosji. Katowice: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe ‘Śląsk’, 1999.
Uspieński, Borys. Kult św. Mikołaja na Rusi. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego
uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1985.
Ušković, Petar. “Kralj Vladimir kao književni motiv u hrvatskoj latinističkoj tradiciji.”
in Pavao Ritter Vitezović i njegovo doba (1652–1713), eds. Alojz Jembrih, Ivana Jukić,
165–179. Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta, 2016.
Vadrna, Marek. “Obraz kráľa Svätopluka I. v českých kronikách.” in: Martin Homza et
al., Svätopluk v európskom písomníctve. Štúdie z dejín svätoplukovskej legendy, 230–
273. Bratislava: Post Scriptum, 2013.
Vidmanová, Anežka. “Ještě jednou k privilegiu Alexandra Velikého pro Slovany.” in
Pulchritudo et sapientia: ad honorem Pavel Spunar, eds. Zuzana Silagiová, Hana
Šedinová, Petr Kitzler, 179–187. Prague: Filozofický ústav AV ČR, 2008.
Vidmanová, Anežka. “K privilegiu Alexandra Velikého Slovanům.” in Husitství –
reformace – renesance: sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, ed. Jaroslav
Pánek, 105–115. Prague: Historický Ústav AV ČR, 1994.
Vojvoda, Rozana. Dalmatian Illuminated Manuscripts Written in Beneventan Script and
Benedictine Scriptoria in Zadar, Dubrovnik and Trogir (Doctoral thesis, Department
of Medieval Studies, Central European University. Budapest, 2011).
Vrana, Josip. “Isprave zahumskih vladara iz XI i XII. st. o Babinu Polju na otoku Mljetu.”
Historijski zbornik 13 (1960): 155–166.
Vučinić, Stevo. Prilozi proučavanju Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina i ranosrednjovjekovne
Duklje. Cetinje: Fakultet za crnogorski jezik i književnost, 2017.
Weiler, Björn. “The Rex renitens and the Medieval Idea of Kingship, ca. 900–ca. 1250.”
Viator 31 (2000): 1–42.
White, Hayden. Proza historyczna. Krakow: Universitas, 2009.
Wiszewski, Przemysław. Domus Bolezlai. Values and Social Identity in Dynastic
Traditions of Medieval Poland (c. 966–1138). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.
Wolfram, Herwig. Historia Gotów. Warsaw/Gdańsk: Bellona, 2003.
Wolfram, Herwig. “Origo et religio. Etnische Traditionen und Literatur in frühmittelal-
terlischen Quellen.” in Mittelalterliche Annäherung an eine fremde Zeit, ed. Wilfried
Hartmann, 26–39. Regensburg: Universitätsverlag Regensburg, 1993.
Wolfram, Herwig. “Razmatranja o ‘origo gentis’.” in Etnogeneza Hrvata. Ethnogeny of the
Croats, ed. Neven Budak, 40–53. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Zavod za
hrvatsku povijest, 1995.
Wróbel, Piotr. “Dubrownicki benedyktyn Ludwik Tuberon De Crieva (Crijević) i jego
zarys dziejów Turcji w pamiętniku politycznym ‘Commentarii de temporibus suis’.”
Balcanica Poznaniensia 21 (2014): 51–61.
Bibliography 353
Zupka, Dušan. Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the
Árpád Dynasty (1000–1301). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016.
Żmudzki, Paweł. “Psy Jaćwingów. Dlaczego Marcin Kromer zinterpretował rocznikarską
zapiskę o zwycięstwie Leszka Czarnego inaczej niż Jan Długosz.” in Historia nar-
rat. Studia mediewistyczne ofiarowane profesorowi Jackowi Banaszkiewiczowi,
eds. Andrzej Pleszczyński, Joanna Sobiesiak, Michał Tomaszek, 76–95. Lublin:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2012.
Žile, Ivica. “Naselje prije grada.” Dubrovnik. Časopis za književnost i znanost 4 (1997):
97–119.
Živković, Miloš. “The Legendary Ruler in Medieval Guise: Few Observations on the
Iconography of Belgrade Alexandride.” International Conference of Young Specialists
‘Actual Problems in Theory and History of Arts’. Saint-Petersburg, 2010. http://www
.actual-art.org/en/k2010-2/st2010/94-vh/192-the-legendary-ruler.html, accessed
2020 September 17.
Živković, Tibor. “Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors before 1611.”
In Forging Unity, The south Slavs between east and west 550–1150, 157–173. Belgrade:
Institute of History, 2008.
Živković, Tibor. De conversione Croatorum et Serborum. A Lost Source. Belgrade:
Institute of History, 2012.
Živković, Tibor. “Dva pitanja iz vremena vladavine kralja Bodina.” Zbornik radova
Vizantijskog instituta 42 (2005): 45–59.
Živković, Tibor, Gesta regum Sclavorum 2. Komentar. Belgrade: Istorijski Institut.
Manastir Ostrog, 2009.
Živković, Tibor. “O prvim poglavljama Letopisa Popa Dukljanina.” Istorijski časopis 44
(1997): 11–34.
Živković, Tibor. “O takozvanom saboru na Duvanjskom polju.” Zbornik za istoriju Bosne
i Hercegovine 4 (2004): 45–65.
Živković, Tibor. “On the Foundation of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts.” Historical
Review 14 (2007): 9–25. [Also in Forging Unity. The south Slavs between east and west
550–1150, 171–192. Belgrade: Institute of History, 2008.]
Živković, Tibor. “The Legend of Pavlimir Bello.” in T. Živković, Forging Unity. The south
Slavs between east and west 550–1150, 205–225. Belgrade: Institute of History, 2008.
Žugaj, Marijan. “Hrvatska biskupija od 1352 do 1578. godine.” Croatica Christiana peri-
odica, vol. 10, 18 (1986): 92–112.
Županić, Niko. “‘Kralji dinastije Svevladičev – najstarejši skupni vladarji Hrvatov in
Srbov 454–614’.” Etnolog 7 (1934): 198–206.
Županić, Niko. “Značenje barvnega atributa v imenu ‘Crvena Hrvatska’. Predavanje
na IV. kongresu slovanskih geografov in etnografov v Sofiji, dne 18. avgusta 1936.”
Etnolog 10–11 (1937–1939): 355–376.
Index of Historical Figures and
Geographical Names
Aachen, city 171 Argolis, region 211

Abbo of Fleury, abbot and scholar 275 Árpád, Hungarian leader 308n
Absalom, biblical figure 183 Arsaphius, citizen of Salona 197
Abu Saʿīd Gardēzī, Persian historian 127 Arausona, city 148–150, 160. See: Zadar
Achilles, saint 202–203, 223 Aristotle, philosopher 242
Actaeon, hero 187n Arius, presbyter 98, 102, 137
Adalbert (Vojtěch, Wojciech), saint 276 Arnulf of Carinthia, emperor 127–128
Adam of Bremen, chronicler 84, 95, 100 Arthur, legendary king 236
Adriatic Sea 2, 3, 30, 36, 37n, 43, 53, 56, 68, Asenath, biblical figure 266
75–76, 95, 101–102, 104, 110, 121, 123, 132, Ashot, Byzantine aristocrat 359, 263–264,
147–148, 166, 211, 215, 222, 224, 246, 306 266
Ælfric, abbot and Old English writer 276n Asparuh, Bulgarian leader 59n
Aesculapius, mythical figure 211 Attila, the Hun 69, 70–72, 88–89, 102, 165,
Ahab, biblical figure 187n 292–293, 303, 306, 309–310
Aimon de Varennes, French writer 264n
Al-Idrisi, Muhammad, Arab geographer 158 Babino Polje, village 27
Al-Masʾudi, Arab historian 61 Babylon, city 240
Albania 1, 125, 160, 173, 174n, 254, 260, 264n Bactria, land 131n
Albertus Milioli, chronicler 74 Bačka, city 21
Alexander IV, son of Alexander the Great Bakar, village 146
241 Balaban Bey, Ottoman officer 257n
Alexander the Great 131n, 236–247, 250, 311 Baldasar, Giulio, secretary 246
Álmos, Hungarian leader 60n Bambalona, city 160, 161
Amalfi, city 214–215, 249 Bánhida, battlefield 131
Anastasius I, emperor 49–50, 73, 74, 83, Bar (Antibarum), city 1, 2, 5, 25, 28, 32, 33,
103, 104 35, 36, 39, 148, 149, 150, 151, 164, 167, 175,
Ancona, city 168, 193 218, 231, 248, 271, 283
Andrea Dandolo, doge of Venice 29–30, 40, Bari, city 19
100, 161, 170 Bartholomeus Anglicus, scholastic 155, 157n
Andrew II, king of Hungary 229n, 295 Basil, saint 217n
Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor 83n Basil II Bulgaroktonos, Byzantine emperor
Angelus of Stargardia, Pomeranian 33, 260
chronicler 70, 71n, 213 Basilus, Roman general 86
Anna, wife of Stefan Nemanja 255 Baška, village 290
Anna Komnene, Byzantine writer 27 Bavaria, region 103
Antonio de Eslava, Spanish writer 264n Bavarian Geographer (Geographus Bavarus),
Antony, subdeacon 207 anonymous author 61
Apolonia, city 53, 160, 161 Béla I, king of Hungary 291n, 293
Appian, historian 155 Belaës, župan 235
Apulia, city 180 Bele Regis Notarius, anonymous Hungarian
Aquila, legendary Hungarian leader 78n, chronicler 70, 127n, 130
292–293, 304, 306, 308n. See: Attila Beli Uroš, ruler of Zachlumia 190
Aquilona, legendary region 244 Belinus, legendary king of the Britons 224n
Bellina, battlefield 228n, 232, 234, 238 Budislav, prince 186, 188
Bello, fortress 226, 238 Budko, king 122
Benedict, saint 39, 49–50, 52, 73–74, 78 Budva, city 147–148, 193
Benedict VIII, pope 210 Burgundy, region 129
Berislav, legendary Bosnian king 217 Burnum, town 204
Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa 126–127
Bialogard, town 37 Cadmus, mythical figure 207, 224
Bilić, ban 181 Candiobras, romance figure 264n–265n
Bilina, village 228n Canute IV, king of Denmark 276
Biograd na Moru, city 37, 164 Carinthia, region 92, 137, 157
Bladin (Vladin), king 44, 46–48, 58, 79 Casimir, king 292, 304
Bonfini Antonio, Hungarian historian 291 Casimir the Restorer, duke of Poland
Bogufal, bishop of Poznań 76 Castreca, queen 227
Bohorič, Adam, Slovene writer 246 Cavtat, town 220–221
Boleslav, king 163, 227, 228n Charlemagne, king of Franks and Lombards,
Boleslav I the Cruel, duke of Bohemia emperor 15, 236, 279
278–279 Charles I Robert, king of Hungary 38
Bolesław I the Brave, king of Poland 68, Charles IV, emperor 128, 246
100, 230–232 Charles the Fat, emperor 96
Bologna, city 19, 294 Chranko, ruler of Zachlumia 25
Bohemia 14, 37, 59n, 62, 75, 87, 89, 102, 127, Christian, monk 128, 136, 277n, 278
129, 133, 138, 227, 228n, 231, 244–246, Chrobatos, legendary Croat leader 59
276, 279 Callixtus II, pope 148
Bohemus, legendary figure 62, 63n. See: Cededa, bishop 98–99, 137
Czech Celestine (possibly Celestine III), pope 126
Boris, prince and martyr 277, 279, 284 Cepimir, king 121
Boris I, ruler of Bulgaria 65n Cervinus, Aelius Lampridus (Ilija Crijević),
Borna, duke of Croatia 166 Croatian poet 211
Bořivoj, duke of Bohemia 138 Civelino, battlefield 185, 187, 189, 234
Bosnia 1, 23, 38, 125, 126, 148, 152, 155, 158, Claudia, daughter of King Zvonimir 290
162, 166, 173, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, Cluny 272n
234, 284 Coloman the Learned, king of Hungary and
Bosphorus, strait 214 king of Croatia 93, 229n
Bouga, legendary Croat leader 59, 61 Coloman, titular king of Halych 291
Brač, island 131n Constantine, fictitious emperor 119
Bretislav I, duke of Bohemia 231 Constantine (Cyril), saint 8, 11, 17, 47, 55, 97,
Bretislav II, duke of Bohemia 231 104, 107, 110–112, 118–119, 122, 126–127,
Bracta, legendary land 131 129–130, 132–141, 167, 168, 177, 310
Branimir, duke of Croatia 92, 96–97, 116, Constantine I the Great, Roman emperor
165, 297 214
Bribir, town 38, 295, 297–298 Constantine V, Byzantine emperor 166
British Isles 15, 213n, 275n, 276 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos,
Brus, alleged Gothic leader 44–45, 49–50, Byzantine emperor 29, 57n, 59–63, 65,
63, 66, 75 67, 72, 95, 101, 103, 105, 107, 116, 122–123,
Brutus of Troy, legendary king of Britain 160, 166, 184, 189, 194–195, 197–203,
224 205–206, 208–209, 211–212, 215–216,
Budimir, king 81, 109–119, 122, 124, 125, 161, 218, 223, 233, 235, 297
165–167, 174, 176, 181, 300n, 307. See: Constantine Bodin, ruler of Duklja 27, 167,
Svetopelek 171, 185, 240, 248–249, 264, 283
356 Index of Historical Figures and Geographical Names
Constantine Kabasilas, archbishop of Demetrius, saint 261, 272, 280

Dyrrachium 258 Demetrius II Nicator 236
Cosmas, bishop of Prague 231 Desa Vukanović 283
Cosmas of Prague, chronicler 36, 62, 75, 127, Didacus Pyrrhus (Didak Pir), Ragusan
129, 138, 227n, 228n, 231, 280, 309 humanist 212n
Cosmographer of Ravenna (Anonymus Dioclea, city 119, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,
Ravennas), anonymous author 208–209 158, 163, 164, 177
Croatia 1, 23, 25, 36, 38, 43, 62, 64, 66, 70, Diocletian, emperor 84, 103
86–87, 92–99, 101, 116, 121, 123–125, 132, Dionysius, saint 257
135, 145, 152, 156–158, 161, 173–174, 177, Dobrava, queen 227
209, 290–292, 294–299, 304–305, 308 Dobroslav [I], king 36–37n, 239, 285–286
White Croatia 29, 37, 119, 132, 155, 161, Dokianos, bishop of Dyrrachium 258
180, 181, 284 Domentijan, Serbian hagiographer 174
Red Croatia 29, 31, 119, 155, 161–162 Domitilla, saint 202–203, 223
Cyllenius, Dominik, writer 245n Domnius, saint 62, 90, 105
Czech, legendary leader 62–63, 75, 155n. Dragimir, king 285
See: Bohemus Dragislav, king 163
Drina, river 155, 158
Časlav, king 91, 163, 179–189, 191, 192, 217, Drina, region 187
233–235, 240, 247, 250, 283, 311 Drisht (Drivastum), village, bishopric 148
Čudomir, king 190 Držislav, king of Croatia 92, 96
Dubrovnik 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 36, 125,
Dajbabe (Budimir), village 166n 148, 179, 192, 194, 196, 198, 201, 203, 210,
Dalida, wife of Jovan Vladimir 256 211, 218, 219, 220, 221–222, 227–228, 244,
Dalimil, Czech chronicler 63, 127–128, 139 248–249, 311. See: Ragusa
Dalma, plain 10–11, 16, 28–29, 56, 79, Duklja (Dioclea), region 1, 5, 21, 25, 30, 31,
108–110, 118, 122, 126, 132–134, 138, 141, 32, 33, 34, 38, 42, 158, 167, 248, 249, 251,
143–144, 154–161, 164–165, 170, 172, 260, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 286, 288,
176–177, 310 299, 307
Dalmatia 1, 10, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28–29, 31, 36, Duvanjsko polje, plain 152
40, 42–43, 48–49, 59, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70– Duvno, village 152–154, 166
72, 78–80, 84–85, 87, 89, 92–93, 96–97, Dyrrachium (Durrës), city 157, 160, 254,
99–107, 116, 119, 121–123, 126–127, 129, 258–260, 262–263, 272, 279
133, 136–138, 140, 142, 145, 148, 150, 152,
155–162, 168–170, 177, 193, 195, 206–207, Ebbo, historian and writer 213
209, 215, 251, 270, 291, 296–298, 302, Edmund, king of East Anglia 275
305, 306, 308, 310 Elbasan, town 254, 257, 259, 274, 286
Danilo, Serbian archbishop and Elbe, river 84
hagiographer 242 Emeric, saint 282n
Danube, river 53n, 59, 60, 64, 93, 110, 121n, Epidaurus, city in Dalmatia 160, 194, 198,
131, 155, 157, 161, 233 200–204, 206–212, 215–219, 221–222,
Darius III, Persian king 239 224–225, 248–249
David, biblical figure 183, 188, 236 Epidauros, city in Greece 211
David, bishop 260 Epidaurus, legendary hero 201–203, 211
David, brother of Samuel 256 Epirus, region 157, 258
Delilah, biblical figure 256 Eutyches, presbyter 49–50, 52, 74, 107, 303,
Delminium, ancient city 152–153, 155–157 308
Felix Fabri, theologian and traveler 211 Gregory VII, pope 167, 210, 283, 296
Filelfo, Giovanni Mario, writer 214n Gregory Taronites, Byzantine governor 263
Flavius Blondus, chronicler 30 Gregory Tsamblak, Bulgarian writer 273
Florence, city 19, 71 Grobnik, village 146
Florentius, bishop 207 Gumpold (of Mantua), bishop and
Florimont, romance character 264n–265n hagiographer 277n
Frankopan, Gregory, archbishop of Gundulić, Ivan, Ragusan humanist 246
Kalocsa 21
Fuscus, Palladius, humanist writer 211 Hadrian, pope 135
Ham, biblical figure 75
Gallus Anonymus, anonymous chronicler Hasdrubal (Barca), Carthaginian general
37n, 38, 47, 75, 86n, 95, 139, 227, 232, 71n
309 Hector, mythical figure 236
Gaul, region 84 Helmold of Bosau, chronicler 84, 213
Gebizo, legate 171, 289 Helena, queen of Croatia 291n
Gelasius I, pope 49–50, 73, 74 Herodias, biblical figure 257
Geoffrey of Monmouth 212, 224n, 237 Herzegovina 1
George, saint 280 Hlivaj, mountain 110, 118, 121, 153–154
George I, king of Duklja 283 Honorius, archbishop 8, 114–115, 118, 138,
Georgios Kedrenos, Byzantine historian and 155, 164, 169–172, 175, 177
chronicler 40 Honorius, pope 169
Gerard of Csanád (Gellért), saint 276, 282n Honorius Augustodunensis (of Autun),
Germanus of Capua, saint 49–50, 73, 74, theologian 155
78, 156 Hranimir (Chranimirus), king 27
Germany 62, 70, 84, 171, 212–213 Hungary (Hungarian Kingdom) 12, 14, 20,
Gervase of Tilbury, writer and statesman 37, 38, 62, 70–72, 78, 92–94, 101–102, 121,
155 126, 174n, 188, 189, 229n, 276, 290, 294n,
Gregory Taronites, Byzantine nobleman 295, 298, 305–306
263 Hunor, legendary Hungarian leader 60n
Gideon, biblical figure 37n Hvalimir, king 163
Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Italian
diplomat and traveler, archbishop Illyria, region 245
28, 150 Illyricum, region 17, 132, 162
Glavinić, Franje, historian 245n Isidore of Seville, archbishop, scholar 69,
Gleb, prince and martyr 277, 279, 284 88, 101, 105n, 155–156
Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine Israel 236, 270
and ruler of Jerusalem 236 Istria 49, 51, 80, 82, 85, 121, 137, 162, 302, 303,
Godfrey of Viterbo, chronicler 70 305
Goliath, biblical figure 188 Italy 19, 39, 49, 50, 52, 70, 71, 73, 74, 83, 86,
Gommorah, city 88, 104 106, 210, 215, 224, 244, 277n
Gothislav, legendary ruler 219 Ivan Shishman, tsar of Bulgaria 257n
Gravosa, town 198, 201–202, 205–206, 220
Great Morava, river 121n Japhet, biblical figure 75
Greece 156, 158 Jaromir, duke of Bohemia 231
Gregory, from Salona 197 Jerome, saint 99, 157
Gregory, ruler of Duklja 27 Jerusalem 230
Gregory (Grgur), archbishop of Bar 36, 39 Jesus 230, 267–268, 272n, 299
Gregory I the Great, pope 40, 52n, 207–208 Jezebel 187n
Johannes, archbishop of Bar 36 Kiy, legendary founder of Kiev 59n

Johannes, archbishop of Ragusa 200–201, Klonimir, Serbian ruler 184
204–205 Kloukas, legendary Croat leader 59
Johannes Conversini, historian 194n, 203, Knin, city 92, 116, 145, 294, 296
209, 211 Kocel 110n, 132, 167
Johannes de Thurocz, Hungarian Konavle, region 220–221
chronicler 131n, 291 Kosara, wife of King Vladimir 252, 254,
Johannes Lucius, Dalmatian humanist 19, 262–266, 268, 271–272, 274, 278–279,
23, 24, 30, 42, 58n, 173n, 183n, 189n, 287, 311
246n Kosentzis, legendary Croat leader 59
Johannes of Venice, archbishop 28 Kosovo (Biskupija), region 293–294
John, envoy 119, 168–169 Kosovo 255, 273, 294n
John I, pope 73 Kotor (Ecatarum), city 20, 38, 148n, 149, 193,
John I Tzimiskes, Byzantine emperor 102n, 209, 210, 218, 285
281 Kotroman, Bosnian ruler 107
John VIII, pope 96, 126 Krajina (Kraini, Gazeni) 163, 258–259,
John X, pope 137 271–272
John of Gorička, archdeacon 174n Krak, legendary founder of Krakow 59n,
John the Baptist, saint 257 194n
John the Deacon, Venetian chronicler 116 Krani, village near Prespa 259n
John Scholasticus, theologian 135 Krešimir. See: Peter Krešimir IV
John (Ioannes) Skylitzes, Byzantine Krilo 29
historian 40, 253, 260–264, 287 Kris, Bulgarian khagan 58–59
John Staurakios, hagiographer 261, 272 Krk, island 148n, 290
Jordanes, Roman and Gothic historian 55, Krok 59n
67, 75–76, 100, 101 Kulin, ban 126
Joseph, biblical figure 265–266, 287, 311 Kutjevo, town 107
Joshua, biblical figure 236 Kuver, Bulgarian leader 63
Judas 268, 299 Kuvrat (Kubrat), Bulgarian khan 60n,
Judas Maccabeus, biblical figure 236–237 63–64
Julia Augusta, legendary sister of Julius Kvarner Gulf 157, 160
Caesar 213–214 Kys, fictitious Hungarian prince 185,
Julius Caesar 86, 212–214, 236 187–189, 234
Julius Valerius, Roman translator and
author 241 Ladislaus, king of Hungary, saint 93–94,
Justin I, emperor 73 282n, 291, 295–296, 299
Justinian I the Great, emperor 73, 77, 83 Lasta, legendary place 180
Latinus, mythical figure 224
Kaldane (Kaldana), fictitious place near Laurentius, archbishop of Split 99
Rassia 226 Laurentius of Amalfi (Monte Cassino),
Kaletić Jerolim, antiquarian 21, 22, 117, 292 hagiographer 277n, 279
Kalfun, Arab pirate 193 Laurentius of Brösau (Vavřinec z Březové),
Kalocsa, city 21 Bohemian chronicler 244n
Karin, town 290 Lave, castle 216
Karl Topia, Albanian nobleman 254, 259 Lazar Hrebeljanović, ruler of Serbia 273
Khazaria, region 113, 139, 168 Lech, legendary Polish ruler 62–63, 75, 155n
Kiev 230 Legec, king 185, 227, 285
Kish, biblical figure 188 Leo, envoy 119, 168–169
Leo, father of Constantine 135 Mary, saint 26, 107n, 143, 163–164, 231, 258n,
Leo VI the Wise, Byzantine emperor 166 271n, 272n, 289
Leo, bishop of Palestrina 168 Mary Magdalene, saint 272n
Leon, presbyter 241 Mary (Maria Laskarina), queen of
Lestek III, legendary Polish ruler 214 Hungary 91
Levaković, Rafael, Franciscan friar and Marulić, Marko (Marcus Marulus), Dalmatian
catholic archbishop of Ohrid 19–20 humanist and poet 21–22,
Lim, river 236, 239 24–25, 40, 59n, 77, 78n, 79, 112, 117, 153,
Lithuania 245 160, 181, 185, 189, 243, 292
Livno, village 153 Mataquas, romance character 264n
Litomežice, Czech village 228n Medvez, mountain 228
Lobelos, legendary Croat leader 59 Mehmed the Conqueror (Machomet),
Lokrum, island 26–27 sultan 245
Longibardopoulos, Byzantine general 264 Ménrót, legendary Slavic ruler 60n
London 224 Menumourot, legendary Slavic ruler 130,
Lorraine, region 129 308n
Louis I the Great, king of Hungary and king Mercurius, saint and martyr 280
of Poland 290 Merseburg, city 213
Louis II, king of Hungary 294n Methodius, saint 17, 83n, 98, 107, 109–110,
Lucanus, Mark Annaeus, Roman poet 84, 121–123, 126, 128–130, 132–140, 167, 168,
86 176, 177
Luccari Giacomo (Jakov Lukarević), Ragusan Pseudo-Methodius, anonymous author of the
historian 23, 211 apocalypse 135n
Luke, saint 270 Michael, emperor 8, 119, 132, 146, 167–168,
Ljudevit, ruler of Lower Pannonia 297 170
Ljutomir, župan of Raška 187, 226, 228n, Michael Choniates, Byzantine writer and
232, 234, 236, 239, 285 cleric 199
Ljutovit, protospatharios and prince of Michael II Amorian, Byzantine emperor
Zachlumia 26–27 167
Lubiąż, village 214n Michael VI Bringas, Byzantine emperor 165,
Lublin, city 214 167
Lubusz, town 214 Michael I, king of Duklja 167, 283
Lucas de Tuy (Lucas Tudensis), Leonese Michael of Devol, bishop 262–263
historian 103 Michael Višević, duke of Zachlumia 34,
122, 133
Macedonia 1, 265 Michal Madius de Barbasanis (Miha
Magdeburg, city 95, 213 Madijev), chronicler 85
Mageria, legendary land 88 Mieszko II Lambert, king of Poland 68n
Magnus Erlendsson, earl of Orkney, saint 276 Milan, city 19
Magor, legendary Hungarian leader 60n Miletius (Miecije), Ragusan poet 29, 194,
Madžak, legendary Slavic chieftain 61 196, 197, 199, 201, 203–206, 209, 211, 215,
Mainz 171, 213 218, 223–224
Manuel I Komnenos, Byzantine emperor Miloš Obilić, Serbian hero 255
25, 33, 285n Miroslav, ruler of Croatia 297
Maraldo, clergyman form Bar 36 Miroslava, alleged daughter of Tsar Samuel
Mark, saint 270 263
Martin of Opava, bishop and chronicler Mladen III Šubić, Croatian nobleman
70–71 297–298
Mljet, island 21, 26, 270 Padua, city 19

Monachus Littorensis, hagiographer 37n Paisius of Hilendar, Bulgarian historian and
Monte Cassino 40, 49–50, 73, 94, 277n clergyman 258
Montenegro 1, 23, 25 Palmotić, Junije, poet 222n
Morót, legendary ruler 130–131 Pancratius, saint 197, 205–206, 223
Moses, biblical figure 201–203, 222 Pannonia 55n, 62, 76, 78, 88, 101n, 131, 155n,
Moses, brother of Tsar Samuel 256n 157, 162, 215n
Moses the Hungarian, saint 265 Papalić Dmine (Dominik), Croatian
Mouchlo, legendary Croat leader 59 nobleman 22, 77, 78, 79, 117, 119, 181, 292
Muncimir, king of Croatia 93, 116 Papas, Ioannis, editor 254
Pasquali, vicar 20
Naples 19 Paul, saint 270
Narun, bishopric 79, 153 Paul (Pavao) I Šubić, ban of Croatia 38,
Natalis, archbishop of Salona 207 83n, 298
Nereus, saint 202–203, 223 Paul the Deacon, chronicler 40, 86n
Nestor the Chronicler, Kievan monk and Paulus Orosius, historian and theologian
author 132 241
Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantine historian Pavle Radenović, Bosnian nobleman 221
40 Pavlimir Bello, king 10, 11, 17, 33, 40, 149,
Nicholas, pope 135 163–164, 172, 174, 179–250, 284–287,
Nikephoros II Phokas, Byzantine emperor 303, 311
281 Pécs, city 53n
Niketas Choniates, historian 40, 190 Petar of Duklja, ruler of Duklja 283
Niketas Pegonites, Byzantine nobleman from Peter, archbishop 27, 151
Dyrrachium 262 Peter, father of Johannes Lucius 246n
Nikola of Krajina, clergyman from Trogir 293 Peter Krešimir IV, king of Croatia 93, 116,
Nin (Enona), city 96, 148, 149, 209 165, 292, 293
Noah, biblical figure 75 Peter Svačić, king of Croatia 297
Peter the Deacon, librarian from Monte
Obliquus (Oblik), mountain 267–268, 270 Cassino 70
Octavius, Roman general 86 Peter the Apostle, saint 226, 295
Odysseus, mythical figure 128n Petr Šmolka, abbot 244
Ohrid 19, 127, 129, 133, 135, 136, 139, 168, 254, Petrislav [I], son of King Radoslav 192, 217
256n, 258 Petrislav [II], king 251, 271, 283
Olaf Haraldsson, king of Norway, saint 276 Petronilla, saint 202–203, 223
Oldřich, duke of Bohemia 37n Petrovo Polje, plain 295
On, biblical city 266 Philip II the Macedon, ancient ruler 243,
Orbini Mauro, Ragusan historian 3, 5, 7, 246, 265
8, 17, 20–21, 23–25, 38, 40, 41, 49n, Philip VI Valois, king of France 176n
107n, 110, 112, 153n, 185, 190, 195, 244, Philip de Diversis, Italian humanist 210
246–247, 248n, 253–254, 262, 269, 272 Philip Trivulzio, archbishop of Ragusa 244
Osek, town 39 Podgorica 158, 166n
Osor (Absar), town 147–148, 193 Poland 37, 47, 59n, 62, 68n, 70, 84, 87, 89,
Ostroil (Ostroyllus/ Stroil), fictitious Gothic 101, 102, 131, 160, 214, 224n, 227, 228n,
leader 10, 44–45, 48–50, 52–53, 58, 66, 230 244, 245, 246, 157n, 276, 309
71n, 75, 79, 81–85, 91, 106–107, 160, 170, Polat, region and bishopric 148
310 Polikarp, monk and hagiographer 265n
Otolio (Odrillo) 30n. See: Ostroil Polimirus, king 204, 219
Pompeius (Pompey the Great), Roman 230, 233, 235, 240, 244, 246–249, 296,
statesman 86 307, 311. See: Dubrovnik
Popiel, legendary Polish ruler 139 Rákos, river 131
Porga, ruler of the Croats 122, 166 Ras (Rassia), town 226
Potepa, abbot 99 Raška 15, 38, 89, 94, 97, 155, 158, 162–163,
Potiphar, biblical figure 265–266 186, 187, 190–191, 220, 221, 226, 228n,
Potipherah, biblical figure 266 232–234, 236, 238, 239, 241, 284, 285
Praevalitana, region 158 Ratomir, king 44, 46
Prague 37, 138, 194n, 231, 245, 246, 276 Rattkay, Juraj, historian 40n, 246
Predimir, king 34n, 163, 227, 284 Regino of Prüm, abbot and chronicler 127,
Prehvala, queen 284 129
Prespa, city 259n, 261, 268–270 Resti, Junije ( Giunio), Ragusan
Pribina, ban of Croatia 297 historian 126, 209n, 221n
Priboevius Vincentus (Pribojević Vinko) Romadanaple, romance character 264n
8n, 243–247 Rome 19, 20, 30, 50, 71, 98, 99, 105, 110n, 113,
Primorje, region 96, 155, 160, 300–301 123, 126, 133, 138, 140, 157, 165, 167, 169,
Pripek, mountain 228n 171, 180, 181, 183, 185, 191–193, 196, 207,
Procopius of Caesarea, Byzantine 209, 210, 214, 217, 222, 223, 224n, 226n,
historian 86 235, 248, 249, 292
Pseudo-Callisthenes, author of the Alexander Rosa, town 193
Romance 241, 243 Rostislav, ruler of Great Moravia 110, 132,
135, 168
Quintus Curtius Rufus, Roman historian Rudger, archbishop of Bar 39
241 Rumija, mountain 258n
Quirinus, saint 152 Rus, legendary hero 62, 75, 155n
Rusin, župan 117
Rab (Arba), island 147–148 Ruthenia, region 59n, 132, 139, 245, 276
Rabika, village 186
Rabanus Maurus, Frankish author and Saale, river 232
compiler 155, 236 Sabinus of Canosa, saint 49–50, 73–74, 78
Radagajs (Radacaso), alleged Gothic Saint Denis, abbey 257
chieftain 219 Salona, city 36, 51, 76, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87–93,
Radagost, Bosnian bishop 126 97, 99–100, 103–107, 119, 147, 150, 151,
Radomir (Gabriel Radomir, Gabriel Roman), 153, 157–158, 164, 177, 197, 199–200, 204,
tsar of Bulgaria 256, 260–262, 272 206–207, 209, 211–212, 289, 305–306,
Radoslav Bello, king 196, 204, 217, 219, 310
222–224, 227, 240–241, 249 Samogitia, region 244
Radoslav, king 17, 179, 180–183, 185–186, Samson, biblical figure 256
191–192, 217, 220, 222, 228, 234, 249, 289, Samuel, tsar of Bulgaria 210, 260, 263, 267,
301–303 268, 271
Radoslav, knez 285 Sanković, Bjeljak, Bosnian nobleman
Radovan, son of King Zvonimir 290 220–221
Ragnina, Nicola, Ragusan historian 125–126, Sanković, Radič, Bosnian nobleman
194, 201–202, 209n, 210–211, 222 220–221
Rago, fictitious Scythian ruler 214n Sarnicki, Stanisław, historian 245n
Ragusa, city 10, 11, 16, 17, 19–21, 23, 26, 28–29, Saul, biblical figure 188
33, 36, 38, 40, 91, 107, 125–126, 148–151, Sava, river 53, 121n, 185, 233, 234, 292, 304
158, 160, 164, 175, 179, 191–212, 214–229, Sava (Rastko Nemanjić), saint 15, 190, 256
Saxo Grammaticus, chronicler 86 Stefan Tomašević, king of Bosnia 222

Scodra (Shkodër), city 53n, 148, 158n, 258n Stefan Vojislav, prince of Duklja 283
Sebastian, saint 275 Stefano Bela, king 217
Sedlec, town 39 Stephen, martyr and saint 197, 202–203,
Seislav, king 121, 18–183, 185 205–206, 223, 226
Selimir, king 44, 46, 48, 80 Stephen, protospatharius 197
Selo 29, 117 Stephen, pope 8, 113, 118, 135, 139–142,
Senulad [I] (Svevlad), king 44–45, 48–50, 146–147, 167
53, 58, 60–61, 66–67, 75, 106 Stephen, presbyter 167
Senulad [II], king 44, 52–53, 67, 160 Stephen (Svetolić), legendary ruler 125
Senulad [III], king 163 Stephen Volosclavus, Croatian king 174n
Serbia 1, 14, 15, 20, 23, 26, 31, 83, 89, 148, 158, Stephen I, king of Hungary and saint 38,
169, 174, 191, 265, 274 142, 164, 282n
Shakespeare, William 264 Stephen II, pope 166
Shem, biblical figure 75 Stephen V, pope 127, 166, 167
Sën Gjon, village 254, 257, 259 Stephen IX, pope 165, 167
Sicard of Cremona, Italian historian 74, Stephen, king from Annales Ragusini 125
134–135 Strabo, Greek geographer 155
Sigismundus Philochristus de Gorgiata Stridon, town 157
(Sigismund Đurđević), Ragusan Stryjkowski, Maciej, Polish historian 245
humanist 244 Submontana (Podgoria), region 163, 284
Simeon the Great, tsar of Bulgaria 256 Svač (Svacium), town 148
Sylvester, king 163, 227, 285 Svatopluk, ruler of Great Moravia 108, 109,
Sipont, city 180 116, 121–123, 126–132, 136, 167, 169, 176,
Sisak, city 94, 152 242, 308n
Sizgoreus, Georigus (Juraj Šižgorić), poet and Svetomir, king 44, 46, 47, 55, 107, 133
humanist 210–211 Svetopelek, king 8, 11, 17, 29, 30n, 34, 44, 47,
Skardon (Scardona, Skradin), town 79, 153 54, 81, 107, 108–178, 181, 239, 276, 284,
Slavic (Slauiz), Maronian king 117 287, 300n, 306–307, 310
Sodom, city 88, 104 Svetolik, king 163
Spelanchus (Senulad/Svevlad [III]), ruler Sviatopolk, grand prince of Kiev 279
163 Sylloduxia, region 58
Split 19, 28, 29, 32, 36, 39, 73, 85, 89–91, Syrmia, region 228n, 233–234
96, 103–105, 122, 129, 133, 137, 140, 148, Székesféhervár, city 164
150–152, 154, 161, 166, 168, 198, 208, 209,
229n, 276, 289, 294–296, 305 Šibenik, city 40n, 210–211, 289
Sraga, legendary land 186 Sizgoreus, Georgius (Juraj Šižgorić),
St. Gabriel (St. Mark), island 285 Dalmatian humanist 8n, 210,
Stefan I, king of Croatia 93 211n
Stefan II, king of Croatia 289–290 Šopot, village 96
Stefan Dabiša, king of Bosnia 221 Šumet, village 27
Stefan Dečanski, king of Serbia 242, 273
Stefan Dragutin, king of Serbia 38, 158n Tadija Slovinec, fictitious murder of King
Stefan Dušan, tsar of Serbia 31, 201 Zvonimir 296
Stefan Milutin, king of Serbia 83n, 158n, 242 Templana, legendary region 49, 53, 78, 101,
Stefan Nemanja, great župan of Raška 15, 160
190, 191, 255, 281 Teutonia, land 53, 78, 84, 101–102
Stefan Nemanjić, king of Serbia 26, 169, Tebes, Greek city 207, 224
175, 191 Theodemir, Ostrogothic ruler 67
Theodor Chryselios, Byzantine nobleman Tzeeslav, Serbian ruler 184, 188, 233
262
Theodore Komnenos Doukas, ruler of Epirus Ulcinj (Dulchinum), city 35, 148
and Thessaly 258 Ulfus, clergyman 98–99
Theodore of Amasea, saint 280 Umbla, river 198, 220
Theodore Stratylates, martyr and saint 280 Ursa (Ursula), daughter of Stefan Dragutin
Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths 67, 73 38
Theophylact, archbishop of Ohrid 129
Thessaloniki (Thessalonica) 133 Václav Hájek of Libočan, Czech
Thietmar of Merseburg, historian and chronicler 245n
statesman 127, 230 Valachia, region 160
Thomas of Tuscany, chronicler 105 Valdevino, region 52–53, 160, 161
Thomas the Archdeacon, chronicler 17, Valentine, archdeacon 197
28, 38, 43, 57, 61–62, 65–67, 69, 72–73, Valentine, of Salona 197
75–76, 78, 84–107, 136–137, 140–141, 152, Valona (Bambalona), city 160
155–158, 160, 169–170, 173, 194–195, 197, Valamer, Ostrogothic ruler 67
206–209, 214, 218, 229, 248, 290–291, Vandalarius, Ostrogothic ruler 67
294, 295, 298, 308, 310 Vegla (Krk), bishopric 147–148
Tihomir, Nemanja’s brother 190 Venice 19, 28, 37n, 243, 254
Timon (Samuel Timon), Jesuit, historian 63 Veszprém, city 131
Tišemir, king 190, 226, 228, 241 Victorinus, of Salona 197
Tomašić, Ivan, Franciscan friar, chronicler Vidimer, Gothic ruler 67
295 Vincentius of Beauvais, medieval author and
Tomislav, ruler of Croatia 92, 96, 122, 133, compiler 155, 157n
165–166 Vinodol (Valdevino), region 53, 160
Tomislav, king 283 Virgil, Roman poet 86
Tomislavgrad, town 152, 166 Vitalius, of Salona 197
Totila, Gothic leader 10, 30n, 44–45, 48–50, Vladimir [II] (St. Jovan Vladimir), king and
52–54, 58, 63, 66, 69–72, 74, 78, 82–85, martyr 10, 11, 16–17, 20, 33, 40–41, 163, 170,
88–89, 91, 95–96, 102–103, 105–106, 141, 240, 251–287, 288, 300, 302, 306–308, 311
170, 303, 306, 310 Vladislav 185, 255–257, 258n, 260–263,
Touga, legendary Croat leader 59, 61 267–272, 279, 287, 306
Transmontana, region 154, 160 Vlastislav, town 228n
Travunja, region 33, 220, 240, 260, 284 Vlatko Vuković, duke of Hum and grand duke
Tribunja (Trebinje), town 27, 148n, 163–164, of Bosnia 221
172, 204, 215n–216n, 220, 227–230, 232, Vlorë, city 160
234, 240–241, 249 Volga, river 58
Triphone, legendary ruler 214n Vsevolod I, grand prince of Kiev 67
Triphonia, fictitious city 214n Vukan, Serbian ruler 36
Trnovina, legendary place 78, 101, 160
Trogir, city 19, 91, 148, 293 Warszewicki, Krzysztof, Polish nobleman and
Troy, ancient city 224 diplomat 246
Trpimir, duke of Croatia 93 Wenceslaus (Václav), duke of Bohemia and
Tuberon, Ludovicus, Ragusan historian 17, saint 276–280, 284, 298–299, 308
20–21, 40, 195, 196, 204, 209n, 210, 219, Wiching, bishop of Nitra 123, 129
220, 248n, 249 Wincenty Kadłubek, chronicler and bishop
Tvrko I Kotromanić, king of Bosnia 221 of Krakow 62, 213, 214n, 244
Tychomil, župan 163, 185, 186–191, 226, 234, Władysław III of Varna, king of Poland and
241 king of Hungary 257n
Wolin, town 213 Zolta, son of Árpád 308n

Worms, city 213 Zuleikha, Talmudic figure 265
Zventibold, king of Lotharingia 127–128
Zachlumia (Hum), region and principality Zvonimir (Demetrius Zvonimir), king of
26–27, 34, 38, 93, 122, 148 Croatia 11, 17, 22, 29, 93, 124–125, 167, 171,
Zadar (Jadra), city 19, 26, 148–150, 242, 289 182, 288–308, 310
Zagorje, region 300–301
Zavorović, Dinko, historian 40n Žďar, town 39
Zdeslav, duke of Croatia 297 Ždrapanj, village 96
Zeta (Duklja) 31, 32, 33, 38, 163, 283–284, Žiča, monastery 190
286. See: Duklja
Index of Modern Authors
Adontz Nicolas 262–263 Dalewski Zbigniew 159n, 229n, 230n

Alekseev Sergej Viktorovič 75n Delić Stevan 27n
Alföldi Andreas 229n Deptuła Czesław 58, 138n, 139n, 271n
Alimov Denis Evgenievič 56n, 64n Domańska Ewa 309n
Ančić Mladen 116, 174n, 293 Dragojlović Dragoljub 256n
Ankersmit Frank 18n Drmač Marjan 289n
Antoljak Stjepan 96n Dudek Jarosław 257–259, 280, 282–283
Antonín Robert 14 Dunbabin Jean 236n
Assmann Jan 7 Dvornik František 13n
Dzino Danijel 4, 65n, 135n
Bak János 12
Banaszkiewicz Jacek 13–14, 37n, 54, 59n, Đekić Đorđe 274n
142, 224, 230–231
Banašević Nikola 20, 36–37n, 42, 75, 183, Eco Umberto 7
187–188, 219, 227, 228n, 281 Elliott Dyan 272n
Barada Miho 67, 116, 117n, 154 Evans Michael 275n
Basotova Ljubinka 259n
Benyovsky Latin Irena 193n Ferluga Jadran 264
Beumann Helmut 171n Fine Jr. John V. A. 64n, 90n, 95n, 221n, 243n
Birkenmajer Józef 68n Folz Robert 14–15
Blažević Zrinka 243n Foretić Vinko 40, 106n, 198n, 201n
Bloch Marc 12 Fraesdorff David 100n–101
Boba Imre 121n Frazer James George 12
Bogdanović Dimitrije 273n
Bonarek Jacek 260n Gansiniec Ryszard 68n
Borges Jorge Luis 309 Gąsiorowski Antoni 232n
Bratulić Josip 294n, 295, 297–298 Geary Patrick J. 224n–225n, 282n
Brogi Bercoff Giovanna 8n, 194n Geertz Clifford 7
Budak Neven 67 Gerasimov Todor 27n
Bujan Solange 40–41, 244 Giakoumis Konstantinos 255n
Burns Thomas 49n Glavičić Branimir 189n
Bury John Bagnell 103n Goldstein Ivo 298
Buschinger Danielle 247n Grabar Biserka 132n
Bylina Stanisław 145n Gračanin Hrvoje 137, 298n
Graus František 13, 275
Carp Teresa 277n Grégoire Henri 63, 264n
Cary George 241n, 247n Grgec Petar 293n
Cetwiński Marek 214n Grujić Nada 211n
Curta Florin 65n, 67 Grzegorzewski Jan 257n
Curtius Ernst Robert 6 Grzesik Ryszard 60n, 69n, 70n, 101n,
126n–128n, 130n, 291–292n, 308n
Čače Slobodan 208n Guilland Rodolphe 199n
Črnčić Ivan 22–23, 167, 189n, 288 Gunjača Stjepan 294–295n, 305
Ćorović Vladimir 27, 235 Gumplowicz Ludwig 66
366 Index of Modern Authors
Hadžijahić Muhamed 34, 165n–166, 187n Kelemina Jakob 66n, 69–70

Hafner Stanislaus 277n Kern Fritz 12
Halbrooks John 236n Kersken Norbert 2
Hannick Christian 242n Kętrzyński Wojciech 291n
Hauck Karl 13–14n Klaić Nada 173n, 290n, 296n
Hauptmann Ljudmil 66n, 69 Klaić Vjekoslav 36, 134, 152
Havlík Lubomir 56, 111, 115–117, 119, 123–130, Klaniczay Gábor 7, 12n, 14–15, 142, 164, 274n,
133, 135, 139n, 167–169, 171 282, 284
Heather Peter 49n Kolanović Josip 136n
Hercigonja Eduard 299 Kolb Frank 13n
Hess Paul 213n Kolumbić Nikica 299n
Heyduk Jędrzej 65n Komornicka Jolanta 176n
Hodana Tomasz 17n Košćak Vladimir 166, 297n
Homza Martin 44n, 55n, 129–131, 242 Kovačević Jovan 227n–228n, 270n
Howorth Henry 60n, 63n Kovačević Ljubomir 190
Husić Snježana 7n Kožić Maja 42n
Hvostova Ksenija Vladimirovna 34, Kršnjavi Izidor 101
162–163n, 165, 283, 285 Kukuljević Sakcinski Ivan 25, 152, 165, 312
Kulicka Elżbieta 214n
Ingham Norman 251n, 253, 268, 275–277n, Kunčević Lovro 104n, 192n, 194n, 196n,
282 200–201n, 207n, 211–212n, 216–218n,
Ivić Nenad 104 221n–222n, 227n, 248–249n
Kurelac Iva 40n
Jadrijević Ante 297n Kurelac Miroslav 19n, 22n, 161n, 295n–296n
Jagić Vatroslav 42, 120, 243n, 299n Kurnatowska Zofia 65n
Janeković Zdenka 210 Kuźmiuk-Ciekanowska Agnieszka 277n
Jareb Mario 66n Kužić Krešimir 86n
Jasiński Tomasz 37n Kürbis Brygida 68n, 76n, 292
Jelić Luka 56n, 134, 165
Jireček Konstantin 25–26, 258 Labuda Gerard 61n, 292
Johnson Mark 18 Lakoff George 18
Jovanović Ljubomir 31–33 Laszowski Emilij 36
Jovanović Neven 22n, 215n Le Goff Jacques 145n
Jović Gazić Vedrana 198n Leśny Jan 20, 22, 24–25n, 28, 31, 34, 36, 58n,
Jurčić Hrvoje 174n 150n, 184n, 190n, 195n, 241n, 251n, 257n,
Jurkiewicz Jan 214n 261n, 269, 271n, 309
Lewicki Tadeusz 59
Kaindl Raimund Friedrich 297n Lis-Wielgosz Izabela 15n, 273n
Kalhous David 18, 278n Ljubinković Nenad 254, 257
Kampuš Ivan 26n, 299n Lucerna Kamila 265n
Kantorowicz Ernst Hartwig 13, 229n–230n, Lučić Josip 198n
274n Ludat Herbert 162
Kapetanović Amir 288n, 293n
Karatay Osman 60n Łatyszonek Oleg 162n
Karbić Damir 297–298
Katičić Radoslav 29n, 62, 68, 73, 104n, 137n, Macartney Carlile Aylmer 102, 304n
196, 198–200, 204n–206, 208, 221n, MacCormack Sabine 230n
223, 249 Macrides Ruth 280n
Index of Modern Authors 367
Madejski Paweł 245 Petrak Marko 135, 137

Madunić Domagoj 243n Petrovics István 121n
Magdalino Paul 280n Picchio Riccardo 215n
Mandić Dominik 30, 35n, 166 Plassmann Alheydis 213n
Margetić Lujo 61n, 63n, 136 Pleszczyński Andrzej 229n, 231n
Marjanović-Dušanić Smilja 13–15, 191, 273, Pohl Walter 60n, 63, 67, 214n
274n, 280–281 Popović Danijela 261n
Mertens Dieter 213n Pražak Albert 244n
Maslać Nikola 289n Pirivatrić Srđan 263n
Matijević Sokol Mirjana 84–85n, 89, 96n, Puhiera Samuel 117n
103n–104, 116, 208n, 215n Puljić Ivica 209n
Mayer Antun 67n
Medini, Milorad 33–34, 41, 189, 221, 247, 283 Rački Franjo 25, 42, 215n, 295n
Melovski Hristo 265n Radojčić Nikola 24, 30–31n, 34–35, 42, 73,
Michałowski Roman 225 134, 154n, 190, 293n, 305
Mikkola Jooseppi Julius 60n Radojičić Đorđe Sp. 274
Minczew Georgi 280 Radojković Borislav 34–35, 122, 166
Mišić Siniša 221n Radoman Aleksandar 38n–39n, 294n
Moisl Hermann 13n Raukar Tomislav 90n
Morosini Roberta 247n Ređep Jelka 242n, 267n, 291n, 297n
Morović Hrvoje 161n, 244n, 245, 246n Reuter Timothy 213n
Moroz-Grzelak Lilla 245n Rezar Vladimir 21n, 204n
Morris Rosemary 280n Rhode Gotthold 232n
Mošin Vladimir 23, 25, 28, 30, 34–35n, 41, Ricoeur Paul 9n
77, 81n, 115, 123, 134, 188, 192n, 195n, 270 Ricov Joja 289n
Mužić Ivan 56, 67–69, 293n Ridyard J. Susan 275n
Myśliwski Grzegorz 145n Rokay Peter 298–299n
Rosner Ignacy 297n
Nastalska-Wiśnicka Joanna 276 Rotković Radoslav 31n
Nawotka Krzysztof 239n Rubel Alexander 213n
Nearing Jr. Homer 213n Rus Jože 66–67, 69, 75, 122
Nelson Janet L. 229n Rymkiewicz Jarosław Marek 6
Nemet Dražen 289n, 290–291, 297n
Nodilo Natko 125n, 194n, 201 Sakač Stjepan Krizin 64–65n, 107n
Novak Grga 207 Scales Len 213n
Novaković Stojan 243n, 254n–256n, 258n, Schlumberg Gustave Léon 283n
265n Schramm Percy Ernst 12
Schroeder Horst 236n
Oikonomidès Nikolaos 26n Seferović Relja 203n, 211n
Skibiński Edward 62n, 224
Papageorgiou Angeliki 39n–40, 44n, 53n, Skok Petar 154n
57n, 59n, 83n, 161n, 190n, 199, 261n Smiljanić Franjo 145, 146n, 294n
Panofsky Erwin 6 Sigbjørn Sønnesyn 56n
Parczewski Michał 65n Spitzer Leo 6
Pastoureau Michel 6 Spychała Lesław 85, 87
Peričić Eduard 25n, 35–36, 293n Stanojević Stanoje 34, 70, 73
Pešut Damjan 68–69 Starnawska Maria 224n
Peti Anita 243n
368 Index of Modern Authors
Steindorff Ludwig 135–136, 149–150, Ullmann Walter 13

153–155, 158–159, 166–167n Uspienski Borys 174n, 271n
Steta Andriana 167n Ušković Petar 265n
Stoneman Richard 242n
Strzelczyk Jerzy 49n, 72 Vadrna Marek 127n, 128n
Subotić Jovan 24 Vidmanová Anežka 244n
Swoboda Wincenty 261n Vojvoda Rozana 26–27
Szefliński Błażej 191n Vrana Josip 26n
Vučinić Stevo 166
Ślęczka Tomasz 245n
Świeżawski Ernest 297n Weiler Björn 15n, 256n
White Hayden 18, 309
Šegvić Kerubin [Segvić Cherubin] 66, 69, Wiszewski Przemysław 68n
97n Wolfram Herwig 52n, 55, 67
Šišić Ferdo 3, 19–20, 23–30, 34–35, 41–42, Wróbel Piotr 21n
49n, 53, 55, 65, 72–73, 77–78, 101, 105,
110, 115–116, 119–120, 123–124, 134, 148, Zupka Dušan 229n
149n, 153n, 160, 166–167, 169–171, 175,
182–183n, 188, 192n, 193, 195–196n, 201, Żmudzki Paweł 187n
217–218, 253, 268n, 290, 296, 312
Škergo Ante 152n Žile Ivica 198n
Štedimlija Savić Marković 30n, 31, 36, 56n Živković Miloš 243n
Štrbáková Ľubica 129n Živković Tibor 5, 19–21, 24, 27, 29, 32,
Švob Držislav 124n 35–39, 59n, 73–77, 82–83, 124–125,
134, 160n, 167, 188, 190, 192n, 195, 199,
Thallóczy Ludwig 121, 166 212n, 214–215, 218n, 223–224, 226n,
Thomas Heinz 213n 227, 233, 236–238, 283, 284n, 293–294,
Trajković-Filipović Stefan 41, 253 297–298
Třeštik Dušan 57n, 59n, 60–63, 75, 161n, 224, Žugaj Marijan 152n
276n, 278n Županić Niko 67n, 162

(East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, 69) Wawrzyniec Kowalski - The Kings of the Slavs_ The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja-Brill ( (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, 69) Wawrzyniec Kowalski - The Kings of the Slavs_ The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja-Brill ( (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, 69) Wawrzyniec Kowalski - The Kings of the Slavs_ The Image of a Ruler in the Latin Text of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja-Brill ( (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Kings of the Slavs

East Central and Eastern Europe

Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Cover illustration: “Saint Jovan Vladimir (Ardenica)”, Kostandin Shpataraku, 1739.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Kowalski, Wawrzyniec, author.

Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

8 The Croatian Version of The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja

4 Svetopelek as an Example of a King-Legislator: Decisions of the Synod in

5 King Pavlimir Bello: the Founder of Ragusa and the Restorer of

9 The Model Ruler: Pavlimir Bello as New Alexander 235

6 Vladimir as an Example of a Ruler-Martyr: Functions of the Model of a

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Przemysław Wiszewski, who

This is a book about fictitious rulers of an imaginary realm. In accordance with

2 What Is The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, and What Is It Not?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004447639_002

1 Norbert Kersken, Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‘nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche

3 The Different Versions of the Text

indications that this variant is based on a lost Latin version. Traditionally, it

4 Who Was the Priest of Duklja?

The Priest of Duklja is an anonymous figure. It is possible that he really lived

5 Topoi, Symbols, Structures, and the Way of Imaging in

In order to confront the particular motifs appearing in The Chronicle, first we

conventionalized structures to present a desired image of history, or to evoke

the etymological significance attributed to them in the Middle Ages). Umberto

14 Umberto Eco, Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington/Indianapolis, 1994), p. 51.

6 The Image of a Ruler and the Concept of “the Beginning” in the

19 This will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

recognizable to the milieu of readers. The point of the “Beginning” was to

7 Studies on the Royal Authority: the Model of an Ideal Ruler

21 Fritz Kern, Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter. Zur Entwick­

Ullmann on the legal conditioning of medieval monarchies,27 and the trend

the creation of intra-community relations.33 Banaszkiewicz was particularly

33 It is worth mentioning here, in particular, an article which is part of a large number of

36 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, pp. 15–18.

Sclavorum, the application of a comparative method on a broader scale is

8 Connection between Regnum Sclavorum and Local Tradition

9 Regnum Sclavorum and Historiography

The Chronicle of the Priest of Dukjla: Texts, Variants,

1 Manuscripts and Versions

1 Šišić, Letopis, pp. 26–27.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004447639_003

Levaković presumably found it in Kotor. In one of his letters addressed to

6 Euzebije Fermendžin, “Listovi o izdanju glagolskih crkvenih knjiga i o drugih književnih

2 The Title of the Work

Relatively fewer problems have been generated by the Croatian ver-

3 The Time and Place of Writing The Chronicle

39 See: Živković, Gesta regum, p. 321.

palaeographic analysis, concluded that the Ljutovit document dates back to

47 Rozana Vojvoda, Dalmatian Illuminated Manuscripts Written in Beneventan Script and

53 Živković, Gesta regum, p. 330.

recently. The similarity of both texts can be explained by their belonging to

64 Blondi Flavii Forlivensis Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum libri XXXI, decade 2,

71 Nikola Radojčić, O najtamnijem odeljku Barskog rodoslova (Cetinje, 1951), p. 76.

4 The Problem of the Authorship of Regnum Sclavorum

76 Ljubomir Jovanović, “O letopisu popa Dukljanina,” Godišnjak – Srpska kraljevska aka-

80 Jovanović, “O letopisu popa Dukljanina,”; Živković, Gesta regum, p. 27.

21 Fritz Kern, Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter. Zur Entwick