An unpublished charter of the Croatian king Krešimir (Creshimir) I.

Abstract

The study of this charter and its background has lead the author to the following conclusions: 1. This unpublished charter of King Krešimir I. given out in 950. has survived in two copies, one in parchemant dating from 29. VI 1397. and one in the Lucius’collecitions; both, are now in the Chapter Archives in Split. 2. With three other charters this charter was copied in 1397. from a very old chartulary dating possibly from the 13th century, lost later, as Bertani’s the year 1333. containing a transcript of it, was lost. 3. No copy of this charter exist either in the numerous chartularies catastices, nor in Ponzoni’s collections preserved in the Chapter and Bishop’s Archives in Split. 4. This Krešimir’s grant is a royal charter and its text is published in this paper for the first time such as it is in the 1397. transcript. Compared to the text in Lucius’collectian only insignificant differences appear. 5. The proof that this is an autentic copy of the charter is based on the critical examination of internal and external evidences. 6. From the charter it emerges that Krešimir I. was an indipendent ruler, i. e. »by the grace of God King of Croats ind Dalmatians«, who had in 950. occupied the throne for 24 yeans. 7. It follows that he came to the throne in the year 926. when he suoceded his father Trpimir II. 8. Thus the reign of King Tomislav for whom it has not been proved that he was Muncimir’s son, we are placing in the year cca 920. and thus we are limiting the range of his activities and those events that have so far been attributed to the time of his rule over the Croatian state (cca 910-cca 930). 9. Also the first Synod of Split, for which the accepted date has been 926. could not have taken place then, but could have been before 920., and even after 915. 10. We change the dating of the reign of Trpimir II., whose family relationship to Tomislav can not be defined, and are placing his reign in the period from oca 920. to somewhere before 925. and attribute to him all that took place in Croatia in that period.
11. Analysing in details and critically later sources (mostly those from the begimiing of the 18th cen turu), that speak about Krešimir I. we take as possible only the date of his death in cca 954. and the name of his, wife Jelena. 12. The list »Pontifices Salonitani et Spalatenses« first quoted by Farlati, probably dates from the first half of the 18th cent. This catalogue was not compiled either by Farlati or by Riceputi but by an anonimous author in Dalmatia, whom Farlati could not identify though he writes about him. 13. We give here the family tree of Krešimir I, the greatest Croatian r uler of the l 0th cent, presenting the historical development in Croatia and Dalmatia and abroad from cca 926 to oca 954. i. e. during his rule. 14. We point out to the following: a) The accepted dating of the second Synod of Split is questionable. Analysing the list of papal nuncii travelling to Bulgaria and back we have come to the conclusion that this Synod could not have taken place before 929. b) Krešimir I the eider had besides Miroslav a younger son Stjepan Držislav which can be proved from the stone monument from 975. as well as from the charter of Petar Krešimir from 1067., who come to the throne as late as 960. 115. We bring also a new genealogy of Croatian, Kings Trpimir II. to Petar Krešimir and propose most acceptable the supposition that Krešimir I the elder (colled Mihailo) was the first King to be burried in the Salo- nican bazilic of St. Stjepan, built by his wife Jelena, the mother of Stjepan Držislav. 16. The term »fideles« and »minister« mean »courtiers« in the charter. 17. Knin as royal stronghold (castrum) was also one of the royal seats already in the 10th cent. 18. The first mentioned »ban« in Croatian history was not Pribina but Ozrinja. 19. The term »r iccar« which appears in Krešimir charter for the first time in this form, and later slightly changed twice in the 11th cent, does not mean either »restless« or »tax collector« (not as suggested court clerk) but »Knight«, here royal knight the memeber of the royal suite and courtier, and the term is of Slav origin. 20. The monastery and the church of St. Bartolomiew on Kapitul by Knin, where, according to Tomašić, King Zvonimir was hurried, were foundete at the latest in the first half of the 10th cent. 21. In our charter »podžup« is mentioned for the first time and his function as »introduktor« stated. 22. Besides the bishop of Biograd Prestancije, so far known from the sources from the second half of the 11th cent., we meet now for the first
time in our charter the older bishop Prestancije of Biograd, as a man irt the Kings confidence and the writer of the charter, so we call him Pires- tancije »I«. 23. It follows that this bishopric was not founded in the middle of 11th cent, as it was accepted, but in the 10th cent. 24. The passage in the 31. chapter of Porfirogenet D A I is conected with this charter. 25. We draw attention to the passage on »arhonts« Krešimir I and Miroslav discussing the origin of various chapters of this wonk, particu- lary 30 and 31, and chapter 31 in connection with ban Pribina as a help, in dating the composition of D A I. 26. We contest the assertion the chapter 30 was written by an unknown author and not Porfirogenet, and draw attention to the forced, dating for this Chapter suggested by various authors. 27. We also draw attention to that passage in the 31. chapter, where- Porfirogenet describes the quarells and conflicts after the death of Miroslav. But as he does not state who was his successor, it is a proof that, unsettled conditions lasted so long that author did not live long enough to see the end of them and died in novemb er 969. in the middle of them. 23. This is at the same time one of the proofs that D A I as a whole is the work of Constantin VII. Porfirogenet, left unfinished because the- work was interrupted by his death.