Bicu slobodan da postujem jedan tekst blizak ovoj tematici. Rad naseg coveka, potpuno nepoznat.
Pope Zachary and the Question of Illyricum (741-752)
During Late Antiquity, Illyricum was the revolving door through which wave after wave of barbarians eviscerated the Roman empire. The restoration of the Sava-Danube line by Heraclius in 626-629 brought a great measure of relief to the Empire (Ostrogorsky …)
In the course of the seventh century, the Empire lost its possession in Syria, Egypt and Africa; the east-west trade which had earlier travelled via Carthage and Marseille now flowed through the Adriatic and Venice (contra Pirenne). The period during which these momentous changes took place is known as the «Dark Ages». The purpose of this article is to examine some problems of ecclesiastical jurisdiction connected with this area and this period and shed some light on those dark ages.
For the best part of Late antiquity, the western half of the Balkans, from Achaia to Pannonia, was subordinated to Rome for ecclesiastical affairs. At some point towards the middle of the 8th century, these dioceses were transferred to Constantinople. So far scholars are in agreement. There is however a debate concerning the date of this transfer. Did it take place in ca 733, in the days of Leo and Gregory II or in 755-756 in the days of Constans and Stephen II? While the evidence is ambivalent, scholars are not: they feel it has to be one or the other.
The purpose of this article is to present a third option: I believe that Illyricum was assigned to Constantinople by Leo, that it returned to Rome in the days of Zachary (under either Constantine V or the usurper Artabasdus), then back to Constantinople in 755 or shortly after. In support of this hypothesis, I submit a letter from Pope Zachary appointing Andrew archbishop of Epitaurus (now Dubrovnik) and all Praevalitana, edited by Smiciklas in 1904.
Zacharias episcopus, seruus seruorum dei. Dilecto in Christo filio Andree, archiepiscopo sancte Pitauritane ecclesie. Constituimus te omnibus uite tue esse pastorem te et successores tuos super istam prouinciam. In primis Zachulmie regno et regno Seruulie Tribunieque regno, ciuitati namque Catarinensi seu Rose atque Buduanensi, Auarorum, Liciniatensi atque Scodrinensi nec non Driuastinensi atque Polatensi cum ecclesiis atque parochiis eorum. […] Palleum autem ex more ad missarum sollemnia celebranda diebus uite tue tantummodo tibi concedimus more predecessorum tuorum consecrationem uero tuorum successorum nobis nostrisque successoribus in perpetuum reseruantes. […] et in die ordinationis tue, uerum etiam in suffraganeorum tuorum ordinatione sicuti a beato Gregorio, […] Scriptum per manum Theodori diaconi, sacri palatii scriniarii. BENE VALETE. Data xvii Kalendas Iunii per manus Theophilacti, archidiaconi sancte apostolice sedis. Anno Zacharie beatissimo II pape indictione xi. (Codex Dipl. I:1; I left out the pastoral bits.)
This letter is not unknown: it is recorded as number 2268 in Jaffé, Regesta but it was branded as a forgery by Pflugk-Harttung in 1882:
743, Mai 16
Zacharias Andrea archiepiscopo Pitauritanae 1) ecclesiae usum pallii concedit. Data XVII. Kl. Jun per manum Theophilacti archidiac. S.A.S. Pont. II Ind. XI Constituimus te omnibus diebus 2).
_________________
1) l. «Pisauritanae». d. h. von Pesaro, dort is Bischof Andreas für das Jahr 743 durch seine Unterschrift auf dem Römischen Conzil, Mansi XII, 367 gesichert. Trotzdem scheint die Fälschung evident. P. E. 2) Gefälscht oder überarbeitet.
The text reads clearly «Pitauritanae»; Pflugk-Harttung emends it to Pisauritanae and on the basis of his own emendation claims that Andrew was archbishop of Pesaro in Italy. The emendation is unjustified: the text of the letter makes it quite clear that Epitaurus, and not Pesaro, is meant since the suffragans listed are those of Ragusa (called Epitaurus until the 8th century, and now Dubrovnik) and Praevalitana (modern Montenegro), and of no Italian see:
In primis Zachulmie regno et regno Seruulie Tribunieque regno, ciuitati namque Catarinensi seu Rose atque Buduanensi, Auarorum, Liciniatensi atque Scodrinensi nec non Driuastinensi atque Polatensi cum ecclesiis atque parochiis eorum.
The sees listed are: Hum (modern Herzegovina), Serbia (that is Old Serbia, Kosovo), Trebinje, Cataro, Budva, Ljes, Skodra, Drivast, Pola. These locations are all in the Balkans. Pesaro could not possibly have been meant.
This document, unfairly branded as a forgery, and edited in a collection rarely consulted by church historians, has not been recognized as a key source for the dispute over Illyricum, or the relations of the See of Rome with Artabasdus and Constantine V, or the Christianization of the Serbs — all of which it undoubtedly is.
For instance, the commentators on Constantine Porphyrogenitus (the DAI) have refused to believe Constantine’s statement that the Serbs were converted to Christianity directly they settled in the Balkans; they have even doubted Porphyrogenitus’ claim that the priests who converted them came from Rome. This letter by Pope Zachary, written barely a century after the settlement of the Serbs, lists without comment three Serbian sees. This long pastoral letter is also noteworthy from what is missing from it: injunctions to do missionary work. This imposes the conclusion that Praevalitana was thoroughly Christian by 743, including the three Serbian dioceses.
In this article, however, I am not concerned with the early history of Christianity amongst the Serbs but with the fate of Illyricum caught between Rome and Constantinople. On the question of Zachary’s relations with Byzantium, Noble finds it «reasonable to assume» that Zachary must have written letters of denunciation against the notorious iconoclast Constantine V (1984:49). In fact, we have no such letter, and in the existing Vita Zach. we can only note that Zachary acknowledged Constantine and was a loyal and obedient subject.
It is curious that Zachary did not denounce Constantine’s iconoclast policies, though Lombard thinks nothing of it (1902:66); but Noble’s «reasonable assumption» that Zachary must have denounced Constantine V is not supported by the evidence which, such as it is, indicates that Zachary did not quarrel with Constantine V. Why did he not? I submit that Zachary’s letter appointing Andrew to a see in Illyricum provides a clue: Artabasdus returned Illyricum to Zachary, and Constantine confirmed this decision when he wrested power from Artabasdus. Therefore it was in Zachary’s interest not to rock the boat with doctrinal disputes which would have cost him Illyricum.
Zachary’s appointment of Andrew to Epitaurus is merely dated to the 17th calend of June, the second year of Zachary, and the eleventh indiction, which adds up to May 16, 743. Unfortunately the name of the emperor and his regnal year are not included in the letter. The text survives in a 12th century copy. The original may have included this information originally, and the copist may have missed it, or there may have been political reasons why the emperor’s name was left out.
Before looking at this letter, we must first deal with a chronological difficulty connected with the revolt of Artabasdus which has generated much scholarship: Ostrogorsky, Speck, Treadgold, etc. Here is my solution, taking up all of one page, after the hundreds which have been written on this. My argument rests on Zachary’s letters (referenced according to both MGH Ep. and PL 89.
