Pope Zachary and Illyricum

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.

MGH #…, PL # 19, Jaffé 2258
to Austrobert, Nones of March, 27th (s/b 22nd) regnal year of Constantine, the first year after his consulate, dated March 7, 742 by Jaffé, with note: «Mittit acta synodi, die 22. Martii Romae habitae.»

MGH # 51, PL # 2, Jaffé 2264
to Boniface, Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11;  dated by editors 1 April 743.

MGH #52, Jaffé 2265
to Witta, Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11;  dated by editors 1 April 743.

MGH # 53, PL # 3, Jaffé 2266
to Burchard,  Kalends of April, 24th regnal year of Constantine, second year after his consulate, indiction 11, dated by editors 1 April 743.

MGH # 57, PL # 5, Jaffé 2270
to Boniface, X Kal Jul., third regnal year of Artabasdus and Nicephorus, third year after Artabasdus’ consulate, indiction 12, dated by editors 22 June 744.

MGH # 58, PL # 6, Jaffé 2271
to Boniface, Nones of November, third regnal year of Artabasdus and Nicephorus, indiction 13, dated by editors 5 November 744.

MGH # .., PL # 7, Jaffé 2273
to Boniface, Kal. Jul. 26th regnal year of Constantine, in the fifth year after his consulate, indiction 14, dated by editors

MGH # 59
Synod at Rome, Oct 25, 745, 26th regnal year of Constantine, 5th year after his consulate, 14th indiction.

MGH # 60, PL # 10, Jaffé 2276
to Boniface, Kal. Nov., 27th (s/b 26) regnal year of Constantine, 5th year after his consulate, 14th indiction, dated October 31, 745 by editors.

MGH # …, PL # 11, 2286
to Burchard, Kal. May, 29th regnal year of Constantine, the seventh year after his consulate, indiction 1.

MGH # …, PL # 14, Jaffé 2291 or 2292
to Boniface,  xi  nones Nov., 32th regnal year of Constantine, the eleventh year after his consulate, indiction 1.

The regnal years and the indictions provide the answer:  both Artabasdus and Constantine dated their reign from the death of Leo II.  But that was an ideal and not a real date.  The real date of Artabasdus’ revolt is two years after the accession of Constantine V;  he back dated his reign for a veneer of legitimacy, which is where Theophanes got confused.  Official documents which had already been issued could not however be back-dated;  they remained as witnesses for the true situation.

The point then is that the regnal years of Artabasdus are ideal and not real.  Whittemore missed this when he sought to date the seal of Artabasdus which he edited in OC (1947).  I don’t think that his miscalculation affects his final result, but it should be kept in mind when consulting this otherwise valuable article.  Hodgkin (1898) also missed this point:  he noted that Zachary dated some letters in the «third» regnal year of Artabasdus and concluded that Artabasdus had ruled at least three years.  But the indictions show that this is impossible.  If Constantine’s second regnal year was the 11th indiction, and Artabasdus’ third regnal year was the 12th indiction, then obviously they were both dating their reign from the same event:  the death of Leo.  As we know that they were not co-emperors, then it follows that Artabasdus back-dated his reign.

Brooks (1898 and 1899) provided good reasons to rely on dated documents rather than upon Theophanes’ reconstructed history:  «The year of Artabazd’s elevation may be fixed in another way.  Pope Zachariah, who was ordained in December 741, sent a letter to Constantine, the bearers of which on their arrival found Artavazd in possession.  Now it is clear that, if his elevation had been in 741, Zachariah would have known the fact before sending the letter» (1899:97).

The passage concerning Artabasdus in the Vita Zachariae is clearly mendacious.  The author states that Zachariah never recognized Artabasdus, and was rewarded by Constantine V for his loyalty.  However, we have Zachary’s letters dated to Artabasdus’s reign.  Therefore we must believe the letters, rather than the Vita.

Conclusion:  there is no missing year in Artabasdus’ revolt.

From the Vita Zach.:

Hic beatissimus vir [Zacharias], iuxta ritum ecclesiasticum, fidei suae sponsionis orthodoxam ecclesie misit Constantinopolitanae synodicam, simulque et aliam suggestionem dirigens serenissimo Constantino principi.  Et pergentibus apostolicae sedis responsalibus regiam urbem, invenerunt intro palatium regiae potestatis invasorem quendam et rebellem, Artaustum nomine. Dum enim isdem imperaor ad dimicandum Agarenorum properasset gentem, ilico praelatus Artaustus, datis populo qui regia remanserunt urbem praemiis, imperialem arriuit solium.  Et postmodum adgregans Orientalium exercituum multitudinem, antelatus Constantinus princeps pregensque Constantinopolim, eandem viriliter expugnans atque extrinsecus circumvallans conprehendit civitatem, et pristinum regni sui adeptus est fastigium, statimque iam fati Artausti eiusque filiorum eruit oculus et plures ex suis rebellibus exules a propriis fecit habitaculis. Post hec vero requierens missum apostolicae sedis qui ibidem in temporis perturbatione contigerat advenisse, eumque reppertum, ad sedem absolvit apostolicam.  Et iuxta quod beatissimus pontifex postulaverat, donationem in scriptis de duabus massis quae Nimphas et Normias appellantur, iuris existentes publici, eidem sanctissimo ac beatissimo papae sanctaeque Romanae ecclesiae iure perpetuo direxit possidendas.

Cite from Davis’ translation, p. 46:  In view of the Pontiff’s request, he [Constantine] sent a written donation of two estates in public ownership called Ninfa and Norma to the same holy and blessed pope and to the holy Roman church, to be occupied and owned in perpetuity.

Speck has exposed the disingenuousness of this passage.  The word quendam is a poem in its own right:  Artabasdus was a prince of the blood and a valid competitor for Constantine, etc.  His name was well known in the Empire.  Zachary’s letters expose the lie in the Vita:  the legates came to Constantinople, found Artabasdus on the throne and changed their allegiance, and when they returned to Rome, sometime in April or early May (after the sailing season resumed) the see of Rome began to date its letters with the name of Artabasdus.  When Constantine returned to power, then Zachary changed his dating again.  The other doctored part of this passage is that the visit on which the legates found Artabasdus on the throne was not the same as the first one during which Zachary had his synodical letter presented.  We are dealing with conflation here.

We now return to the letter to Andrew of Epitaurus:  it fits chronologically between items 2 and 3 above:  16 May 743.  On April 1, Zachary was still dating by Constantine;  by 22 June, he was dating by Artabasdus.  And it is curious that the biographer should feel the need to insist on Zachary’s non-existent loyalty to Constantine V:  coins were struck in Italy with Artabasdus’ name (Treadgold…);  Artabasdus was widely accepted.

Naymore:  the biographer does not only insist on Zachary’s loyalty but on a gift made in return for that imaginary loyalty:  the estates of Ninfa and Norma.  This leaves us with a tangled web indeed:  Zachary was not loyal to Constantine V.  So who granted him these estates, and why?   Then again, as Davis points out, these two estates were not such an extravagant gift.  The letter dated 16 May appointing Andrew in Ragusa provides the clue to a much more generous gift but one which Zachary would consider no more than his right:  Illyricum.  I have not found direct evidence concerning Illyricum after Constantine V drove out Artabasdus but the indirect evidence would indicate that Constantine confirmed Artabasdus’ grant for the same reason for which Artabasdus made it in the first place.  The clues are:

a)  Zachary’s apparent contentment with Constantine in the latter part of his pontificate.  I.e. no recriminations on the subject of iconoclasm, retroactive denial of Artabasdus (that quendam!).

b)  No mention of disputes on the subject of Illyricum until 756, i.e. after the death of Zachary.

After careful weighing of what indigent evidence we have, I would now find it «reasonable to assume» that Zachary kept Illyricum and provided Constantine much needed support at a time when his power was challenged.

Doctrine and politics

In a terse note Grumel (1953) insisted that the annexation of Illyricum, Sicily and Calabria to the Patriarchate of Constantinople had nothing to do with iconoclasm but everything to do with the growing influence of the Carolingians in Italy — and that therefore the correct date for this transfer was 756.  This is an equation with two unknown:  we do not know for sure the date of the transfer, and we do not really know the reason.

A few years later (1957), Anastos argued against Grumel that the transfer of these dioceses was due to conflicts between Rome and the Byzantine emperors on the subject of iconoclasm.  He cited as evidence letters by Hadrian I to Charlemagne, and by Nicholas I, in which these pontiffs state that this was the case (23 and note 1).

On one point, Anastos can be proven wrong, and Grumel correct.  That iconoclasm had nothing to do with the transfer is probably correct.  The proof is found in an event which took place on Christmas Day 800:  the coronation at Rome of an emperor who was not only an iconoclast, but had just imposed upon his subjects a revised Creed not authorized by an oecumenical council.  Obviously, the rapprochement pursued for more than a half century by the See of Rome with the Frankish empire was not doctrinal, far from it.  Whatever the reason, however, it could only make the Byzantines suspicious.  Grumel offers a possible reason for the Byzantines’ discomfort:  «La conscience byzantine ne put supporter que des évêques sujets au basileus furent soumis à un chef ecclésiastique étranger, protégé par des rois inférieurs et barbares» (376).

If the Byzantines did withdraw Illyricum, Calabria, etc, from Roman administration on grounds of political disloyalty, then obviously, Hadrian could not say so in a letter to Charlemagne, nor Nicholas.  Some other reason had to be given, and this «other reason» misled Anastos.  And the proof is found in the same letters upon which Anastos relies.  As he himself writes further in the same article:  «Hadrian then goes on to say that, if the Byzantines persist in their refusal to return the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and patrimonies in question, he will condemn them as heretics despite their orthodoxy with regard to the images» (24).  When one matches this statement with the coronation at Rome of a ruler, both confirmed iconoclast, and «Macedonian» in his official pneumatology, it is quite clear that doctrine provided good excuses, but no real motives.

The alienation between Rome and Byzantium was a long drawn process but surely Christmas Day 800 must have been the low water-mark:  the bishop of Rome crowning Roman emperor a man who was a very serious menace for Byzantium.  The restructuration of Illyricum which took place in the early years of the ninth century may have been a form of retaliation as well as self-protection.

Laurent has shown on the basis of a Frankish source that Athens was raised to the rank of metropolis under Tarasius (787-806).  Athens is listed as a metropolitan see in the Notice of Basil, the Armenian monk, who lived in the days of Michael II and Theophilus (i.e. between 820-842).  The exact year is unknown but the general period fits with Rome’s intimacy with Charlemagne.  Laurent attributes the raising of Athens’ status to the favour of Irene who was Athenian.  However, Georgius of Cyprus states that several sees were raised along with Athens and that the reason was because Rome was now subject of the Barbarians.  This points to the date 800 — the coronation of Charlemagne.

Administrative note

Zachary’s letter appointing Andrew may be the earliest source we have on the new diocese of Praevalitana recreated after the wars with the Avars.  It is an any rate the oldest ecclesiastic source;  we do have a reference to Praevalitana in the Synecdemus of Hierocles which is congruent with the appointment letter to Andrew, see below for more detail.  Geographic information available from the letters of Gregory the Great (just before these devastating wars) provide references to Dyrrachium, archdiocese of Epirus nova;  references to Epitaurus without mention of the archdiocese, but Scodra (not Docleia) is the metropolis of Praevalis.  Diocleia was destroyed by the Avars and never rebuilt:  the last mention is 602 over a dispute with Scodra.  Before 600, Epitaurus (Ragusa/Dubrovnik) may have been a suffragan of Salona and all Dalmatia.

The impact of the Avars and their Slavic allies.  I)  The destruction of Salona, the disorganisation of Dalmatia, the emergence of Split as the new metropolis of Dalmatia.  II) The arrival of large numbers of Latin-speaking refugees from inland settling on the coast, noticeable especially in Praevalitana where the number and size of towns increase.  III) The settlement of the Serbs as soldier-farmers after the reconquest of Heraclius (i.e. between 629-61).  IV)  The reorganisation of Praevalitana under Epitaurus with its increased Latin-speaking city-dwellers and its influx of Serbian farmers.

That this reorganisation of Praevalitana was permanent (and lasted beyond Zachary’s pontificate) can be noted from subsequent papal epistles.  Letters similar to that of Zachary are known from later popes, and edited by Smiciklas.

Benedict VIII grants to Ragusa the sees of Labused in Hum and Serbia, Trebinje, Catarinensis, Antibari (Bar) and Ulcinj in 1022 (Codex Dipl. I:44).  This is confirmed in 1076 by Gregory VII (I:112), which adds the sees of Drivast, Pola and Scodra.  Some of these cities are flagged as «Romani» in the DAI while Hum and Trebinje were Serbian (DAI…).

Here is an exemple from II:35, a letter from Callixtus II dated 1120 confirming these sees under Ragusa:

videlicet in regno Zacholmie, et regno Servilie, Tribunieque regno, civitate quoque Catharinensi seu Rose, Buduanensi Auarorum, Liciniatensi, Scodrinensi, Driuastensi et Polatensi.

In this last letter, Zachary’s letter of 743 is mentioned.  As the copy we have of Zachary’s letter was removed from Dubrovnik to the Archives at Vienna, this indicates two copies in existence in the 12th century:  one at Ragusa, the other at Rome mentioned by Callixtus II.

Bibliography:

Collectio Avellana.  Otto Guenther, ed.  Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum inde ab A. CCCLXVII usque ad A. DLIII datae:  Avellana quae dicitur collectio.  (CSEL,35).  Vienna, 1885.

Koptische Akten zum Ephesinischen Konzil.  PIMS BQ25 T3 U26.

Liber Pontificalis, L. Duchesne.  2 vols.  Paris, 1884-1892. (BEFAR, 3).  PIMS

Mansi, .  Conciliorum collectio.  XII, 367 for a mention of a Bishop Andrew of Pesaro (or Pitaura) at the Council of 743 at Rome. PIMS

MGH Legum.  Sectio III.  Concilia.  2.  Concilia aevi Karolini.

MGH Epistulae.

Ahrweiler, Hélène.  «Les problèmes de la géographie historique byzantine.»   Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies.  Oxford:  5-10 Sept. 1966.  Ed:  J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky and S. Runciman.  London:  Oxford University Press, 1967.  465-473.  DF 501 C6

Anastos, Milton V.  «The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-733.»  Studi Bizantini e neoellenici.  9 (1957) 14-31.  This issue of Studi Bizantini was published as a Festschrift in honour of Mercati:  Silloge Byzantina in onore di Silvio Giuseppe Mercati and is occasionally referenced as such by scholars, causing confusion since naturally librarians catalogue it with the rest of the journal.  DF 501 S8.

Bautier, Robert-Henri.  «Le poids de la Neustrie ou de la France du Nord-ouest dans la monarchie carolingienne unitaire d’après les diplômes de la chancellerie royale (751-840).»  La Neustrie:  Les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850.  Colloque historique international.  Ed. Harmut Atsma.  Francia. Beiheft 2.  535-563. Sigmaringen:  Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1989.  Reprinted in:  R.-H. Bautier.   Recherches sur l’histoire de la France médiévale:  Des Mérovingiens aux premiers Capétiens.  London:  Variorum, 1991.  DC 61 B 38 Roba.

Bertolini, Ottorino.  «I rapporti di Zaccaria con Costantino V et con Artavasdo nel racconto del biografo del Papa et nella probabile realtà storica.»  Archivio della società romana di storia patria.  78 (1955) 1-21.  DG 402 S6

Bethmann, L and O. Holder-Egger.  «Langobardische Regesten.»  Neues Archiv.  3 (1878) 265.  For Rachis in 744.  Check chronology.

Bierbrauer, V.  «Zur ostgotischen Geschichte in Italien.»  Studi medievali.  14 (1973) 1-37.  Clusurae;  territories, includes Dalmatia.

Bréhier, Louis.  «La querelle des images jusqu’au concile iconoclaste de 754.»  In Grégoire le Grand, les Etats barbares et la conquête arabe (590-757).  Ed. Louis Bréhier and René Aigrain.  Volume 5 of Histoire de l’Eglise depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours.  General editors A. Fliche and V. Martin.  Paris:  Bloud et Gay, 1947.  431-470.  BX 944 H57

Brooks, E. W., editor and translator.  «A Syriac Chronicle of the year 846.»  Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.  51 (1897) 569-588.  Brit. Museum Add ms 14, 642.

Brooks, E. W.  «Indiction at Rome, 726-775.»  EHR 13 (1898) 503-4.

Brooks, E. W.  «The Chronology of Theophanes 607-775.»  BZ 8 (1899) 82-97.

Bury, J. B.  «The Chronology of Theophylaktos Simokatta.»  EHR 3 (1888) 310-315.  «The conclusion is that the division of events from 592 to 597 given by Theophanes is quite arbitrary, and if we compare it in detail with his source we shall hardly consider it very plausible.» (313)

Bury, J. B.  History of the Later Roman Empire.  1889.  2:25 for Leo’s extra indiction.  Check Cambridge.

Bury, John Bagnell.  History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395-800).  London, 1889.  DF 581 B8 and DG 311 B99.  Check also Cambridge.

Bury, J. B. Kletorologion. JC 91 P5 B7

Carlton, Charles Merritt.  A linguistic analysis of a collection of late Latin documents composed in Ravenna.  The Hague:  Mouton, 1973.  PA 2111 C3.

Coebergh, C.  «Le pape Zacharie et la bénédiction des rameaux.»  Studia Patristica.  10 (1970) 328-332.  See Morin.

Chomatenos, Demetrios.  Analecta Sacra et Classica.  Ed. J. B. Pitra.  Vol. 6.  BR 160 A1 P57

Chrysos, Evangelos.  Die bischoflisten des V. oekumenischen Konzils (553).  Bonn, 1960.  For JP 130f, etc.  BR 230 C57.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus.  De Administrando Imperio.  Edited G. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins.  1949.  Dumbarton Oaks, DC:  Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967.

Dagron, Gilbert, ed.  Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum proto-byzantin.  Collection de l’école française de Rome, 77.  1984.  DF 628 I4 V55

Darrouzès, Jean, editor.  Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae.  Paris:  Institut français des études byzantines, 1981.

Davis, Raymond, translator.  The Lives of the Eighth Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis.  Liverpool University Press, 1992. BX 950 E6 L6.

Diehl, Charles.  Etudes sur l’administration byzantine de l’exarchat de Ravenne (568-751).  (BEFAR, 53) Paris, 1888.  D5 B4

Diekamp, Franz, editor. Doctrina patrum de incarnationem verbi.  1907.  Reprint Münster:  Aschendorf, 1981.  BT 220 D6.  Florilegium compiled just before iconoclast controversy.

Dölger, Franz.  Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453.  1924-1937.  Reprint Hildesheim:  Gerstenberg, 1976.  3 vols in 1.  II:301 for Illyricum.  DF 503 D66.  Photocopy page 36 and trace citations.

Duchesne, L.  «Le Liber diurnus et les élections pontificales au VIIe siècle.»  BEC 52 (1891) 1-30.

Duchesne, Louis.  «Les anciens évêchés de la Grèce.»  MAH 15 (1905) 375-385.

Duchesne, L.  «L’Illyricum ecclésiastique.»  BZ 1 (1892) 531-550.  For follow-up see Pietri 1984.

Duchesne, Louis.  «Les premiers temps de l’état pontifical.»  RHLR 1 (1896) 105-146;  238-286; 297-334; 453-483.

Dyggve, Ejnar.  History of Salonitan Christianity.  Cambridge, 1951.  BR 133 Y82 S3

Ehrhard, Albert.  Ueberlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur.  3 vols.  Leipzig:  Hinrich, 1939.  BX 380 E47

Engels, Odilo.  «Zum päpstlich-fränkischen Bündnis im 8. Jahrhundert.»  Ecclesia et regnum:  FS F. J. Schmale.  Bochum:  Winkler, 1981. 21-38.  D119 E33

Estey, F. N.  «Charlemagne’s Silver Celestial Table.»  Speculum 18 (1943) 112-117.

Foretic, Vinko.  «Ugovor Dubrovnika sa srpskim velikim zupanom Stefanom Nemanjom i stara dubrovacka djedina.»  Rad JAZU.  283 (1951) 51-118.  59-62.  Offprint DB 879 R2 F684 PIMS

Foretic, Zbornik.  DR 1532.5 F67 Z38 Roba

Freeman, Ann.  «Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini.»  Speculum.  32 (1957) 663-705.

Freeman, E.  The Historical Geography of Europe.  H F8553hi.2

Gay, Jules.  «Les diocèses de la Calabre à l’époque byzantine d’après un livre récent.»  Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses.  5 (1900) 233-260.

Gelzer, H.  Georgii Cyprii Descriptio Orbis Romani.  Leipzig, 1890. Includes the Notitia Basilii, 1-27.  DF 503 G36

Gelzer, H.  «Ungedrückte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche.»  Byzantinische Zeitschrift.  1 (1892) 245-282.  2 (1893) 22-72.  l:257 and 2:50 for Kanina.

Georgius Pisida.  Poemi.  PA 5317 G4 A17.  BMED???

Granic, B.  «Die Gründung des autokephalen Erzbistum von Justiniana Prima.»  Byzantion 21 (1925) 123-132.

Granic, B.  «Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileus II dem Autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien.»  Byzantion 12 (1937) 395-415.

Grégoire, Réginald.  «La collection homilétique du ms Wolfenbuttel 4096.»  Studi medievali.  14 (1973) 259-286.  Carolingian, of African origin.  PN 661 S8.

Gregory the Great, Pope.  Gregorii I papae registrum epistolarum.  MGH Ep.  I and II.  Registrum epistularum.  Ed. Dag Norberg, 2 vols.  CCSL, 140-140a.  1982.

Gruber, D.  «O dukljansko-barskoj i dubrovackoj nadbiskupiji do polovice xiii stoljeca.»  Vjesnik zemaljskog arhiva. 14 (1912) 24-26.

Grumel, Venance.  «L’année du monde dans la chronologie de Théophane.»  Echos d’Orient.  37 (1934) 396-408.  PIMS

Grumel, Venance.  «L’annexion de l’Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople.  Le témoignage de Théophane le chronographe.»  Recherches de science religieuse.  40 (1951-52) 191-200.  Also:  Mélanges Jules Lebreton.  PIMS

Grumel, Venance. «Cause et date de l’annexion de l’Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre au patriarcat byzanin.»  Studi bizantini et neoellenici.  7 (1953) 376.

Guillou, André.  Régionalisme et indépendance dans l’empire byzantin au VIIe siècle:  l’exemple de l’exarchat et de la Pentapole d’Italie.  Rome:  ISI, 1964.  DG 504 G8.  Important bibliography.

Hardouin III:1127 (Council of 680).  III:1932 (council under Zachary and Artavasdus);  IV:345B for Constantine V.  PIMS BQV 11 H3

Hefele BX 825 C38.  Roba has:  German original, English translation, updated French version with Leclerq.

Hodgkin, Thomas.  «The chronology of Theophanes in the eighth century.»  EHR 13 (1898) 283-289.  Re Leo.

Honigmann, E.  Le Synecdèmos de Hieroclès et l’opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre.  Brussels, 1939.  Reviews:  Isis 32 (1940) 349f.  AnBoll (192) 235f.

Honigmann, E.  Trois mémoires.  PIMS BQX 5422 H6

Honigmann, E.  Byzance et les Arabes.  PIMS DF 552 V33

Hubert, Henri.  «Etude sur la formation des états de l’Eglise.  Les papes Grégoire II, Grégoire II, Zacharie, Etienne II et leurs relations avec les empereurs iconoclastes (726-757).  Revue historique.  69 (1899) 1-40; 241-272.

Hubert, Henri.  «Observations sur la chronologie de Théophane et de quelques lettres des papes (726-774).»  BZ 6 (….) 491-505.

Ivanov, Jordan.  Bulgarski starini iz Makedoniia.  Sofia: Bulgarian Academy, 1931.  Check 550-562 for Kanina.  Also 564-9 for Episc. notice.

Jaffé, Philippe.  Regesta Pontificum Romanorum.  Graz:  Ak, 1956.  2 vols.  BX 850 A6

Justinian.  See Chess.bib.

Laurent, V.  «L’érection de la métropole d’Athènes et le statut ecclésiastique de l’Illyricum au VIIIe siècle.»  [Revue des] Etudes byzantines.  1 (1943) 58-72.  DF 501 R3

Lavrov, P. A.  Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnejsej slavjanskoj pisjmennosti.  1930.  Reprint The Hague:  Mouton, 1966. PA 756…

Leo the Great, Pope. PL 54. Letters.

Lombard, A.  Constantin V empereur des Romains (740-775).  Université de Paris.  Bibliothèque de la faculté des lettres, 16.  1902.  AS 162 P54

Ljubinkovic, Radivoje.  Studije iz srednjovekovne umetnosti i kulturne istorije.  Belgrade:  Arheoloski Institut, 1982.  N 72 S4 L54.

Ljubinkovic, Radivoje.  «Sur la tradition de la Prima Justiniana dans le titre des archevêques d’Ochride.»  Starinar  17 (1966) 61-76.  In Serbian with French summary.  DR 311 A157

Macdonald, J.  «Who instituted the Papal vicariate of Thessalonica?»  Studia patristica. 4 (1961) 478-82.  Check Texte und Untersuchungen 78-81 at PIMS BQ25 T3

Mandic, Dominic.  «Dalmatia in the Exarchate of Ravenna from the middle of the VI until the middle of the VIII century.»   Byzantion 32 (1964) 347-374.

Marcellinus Comes.  MGH AA 11.

Martroye, F.  L’occident à l’époque byzantine:  Goths et Vandales.  Paris:  Hachette, 1904.  DG 506 M38.

Marusic, Br.  Istrien im Frühmittelalter.  1960.

Mayer, Ernst. «Die dalmatisch-istrische Munizipalverfassung.»  Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Germanistische Abteilung).  24 (1903) 211-308.  Hopeless chronology.  K S2673 Z45.

Morin, G.  «Une formule de la bénédiction des rameaux dans une lettre du pape Zacharie à Boniface.»  Revue bénédictine.  27 (1910) 1101-2. PIMS  See Coebergh.

Musca, D. A.  Apuliae et Calabriae Lat. Inscript. Lexicon.  CN 532 A6 M87.

Newell, Edward T.  The Byzantine Hoard of Lagbe.  Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 105.  1945.  CJ 3499 C46.  Iconoclast period.

Neyron, Gustave.  «Charlemagne, les Papes et l’orient.»  Orientalia Christiana Periodica.  13 (1947) 251-265.  Whitewashes Rome and Aachen but does present a chronological framework for the estrangement between East and West.

Noble, T. F. X.  The Republic of St. Peter:  The Birth of the papal state 680-825.  1984.  DG 797 .1 N62.  39 and note 124 and 49 and note 170 for Illyricum.

Ostrogorsky, George.  History of the Byzantine State. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968.  165-66 for Illyricum

Ostrogorsky, George.  «Die Chronologie des Theophanes im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert.»  Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher.  7 (1928-29) 1-56.

Petit, Louis.  «Les évêques de Thessalonique.»  Echos d’orient.  4 (1900-01) 135-145. PIMS

Pétrin, Nicole.  «Caranthani Marahenses:  Philological Notes on the Early History of the Hungarians and the Slavs.»  Eurasian Studies Yearbook.  70 (1998) 39-63.

Pétrin, Nicole.  «Further Philological Notes on the Early History of the Hungarians and the Slavs.»  Eurasian Studies Yearbook.  72 (2000) 6-88.

Pflugk-Harttung, Jul. v.  «Beiträge zu Jaffé’s Regestensammlung.»  Neues Archiv.  7 (1882) 83-120.  P. 85 for Pope Zachary.

Pietri, Charles.  «La géographie de l’Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l’Eglise de Rome (Ve-VIe siècles).»  Villes 21-62.

Pietri, Charles.  Roma Christiana.  BEFAR, 224.  2 vols.  Rome, 1976.  D5 P4 Chapter 14: «Rome, Thessalonique et l’Illyricum.»  1069-1147.  «Au début du cinquième siècle, sous les coups répétés des incursions et des invasions barbares, l’Illyricum latin, le Norique, la Pannonie, la Dalmatie deviennent une Eglise du silence.»  (1083).

Posedel, Josip.  «Pitanje dalmatinskog temata u prvoj polovici ix stoljeca.»  Historijski Zbornik.  3 (1950) 217-220.  DR 301 H5.  Confuses military and administrative structures.

Sansterre, Jean-Marie.  Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIe s. fin du IXe x.).  2 vols.  Brussels:  Académie royale de Belgique, 1980.  BX 2450 S25.

Schwartz, E.  Acta Conciliorum oecumenicorum.  BX 825 A382 Roba.  Tenin, Senj.  council of 641 for Maximus Confessor. Council of Ehesus in 432:  check Illyrian bishops.

Schwartz, E.  «Die sog. Sammlung der Kirche von Thessalonich.» FS R. Reitzenstein.  Leipzig, 1931.  137-159.  PA 3003F4

Scipioni, Luigi.  Mestorio e il concilio di Efeso.  BR 65 N384 S35.  Bibliography.

Seeck, . «Notitia Dignitatum.»  Hermes 11 (1876) 75.

Silva-Tarouca, C. «Lettere di papi.»  Gregorianum.  12 (1931) PIMS PER

Silva-Tarouca, C.  Epistularum Romanorum pontificum ad vicarios per Illyricum aliosque episcopos.  Collectio Thessalonicensis.  Textus et documenta, series Theologica.  Rome, 1937.  PIMS BR 1050 I4C3

Smiciklas, Tade, editor.  Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae.  15 volumes.  1904.  Zagreb:  Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1904.

Snegarof, Ivan.  «La fondation de l’Eglise orthodoxe bulgare.»  Eis mnemen Spyridonos Lamprou.  1935.  278-292.  DF 503 E56.

Speck, Paul.  Artabasdos, the rechtgläugiber Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren.  (Poikila Byzantina, 2) Berlin, 1981.  DF 581.32 A77 S66

Tangl, Michael.  «Studien zur Neuausgabe der Bonifatius-Briefe.»  Neues Archiv.  40 (1916) 776-782.

Theophanes.  Chronographia.  Bonn Corpus 46-48.

Theophanes.  Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, transl.  The Chronicles of Theophanes Confessor.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.  DF 581 T4813.

Tomovic, Miodrag.  Roman sculpture in upper Moesia.  Belgrade:  Arheoloski Institut, 1993.  NB 118 Y8 T65.

Treadgold, Warren.  «The missing year in the revolt of Artabasdus.»  JOeB  42 (1992) 87-93.

Vailhé, S.  «Annexion de l’Illyricum au patriarcat oecuménique.»  Echos d’Orient.  14 (1911) 29-36.  PIMS

Vasiliev, A.  «The iconoclastic decree of 726.»  Speculum 32 (1957) NOT Check.

Vasiliev, A.  «An Edict of the Emperor Justinian, September 688.»  Speculum 18 (1943) 1-13.  Re Slavs.

White, Jr., Lynn.  «The Byzantinization of Sicily.»  American Historical Review.  42 (1936) 1-21.

Whittemore, Th.  «An unpublished Byzantine seal.»  Orientalia Christiana.  13 (1947) 376-383.  Seal of Artavasdus.

Wilkes, Dalmatia.

Wozniak, Frank E.  «East Rome, Ravenna and Western Illyricum: 454-536.»  Historia 30 (1981) 351-382.  D 51 H5

Zachary, Pope.  Letters in PL 89.

Zeiller, Jacques.  Les origines chrétiennes dans la province romaine de Dalmatie.  (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 155) Paris: 1906.  AS 162 B6.

Zeiller, Jacques.  Danubiennes….

Zlatarski, B. «Prima Justiniana im Titel des Bulgarischen Erzbischofs von Achrida.»  BZ 30 (1929) 484-89.