mladen ančić: from carolingian official to croatian ruler

8/13/2019 Mladen Ani: From Carolingian Official to Croatian Ruler

1/7

FROM CAROLINGIAN OFFICIAL TO CROATIAN RULER- THEAND THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIR.E IN THE FIRST HALF OF THECENTIJRYCROATSNINTH

MLADEN949.75"08"scientific paperreceived: 15. 12. 1996.manuscript accepted: 01. 04. 1997.

After more than a century of serious research the pe-of Frankish rule, i.e. the period when the foundationsthe early-medieval Croatian state were laid in the firstof the ninth century, is still one of special scholarly in-This interest is motivated both by internal (the na-of sources) and external (the importance of events)This is the first period for which historians haverst- class sources describing contemporary events. Unlikeother sources used to gain insight into the earliestthese texts are not later reconstructionsrationalizations of authors who lived long after thetheywrote about. Most of them are Frankish narra-texts that were not written in Croatia, in the first placeascribed to Einhard,r biographer of Charlemagne,the autobiography of the contemporary theologistwere not written in the regionmention, there seems to be no doubt that their au-mostly reproduced or interpreted information thatdirectly from Croats. The first half of the ninth cen-was crucial in the formation and development of thesociety. Half a century of participation in the lifethe Carolingian system clearly defined Croatia's placethe evolution of cultural systems and defined the start-position for its overall development in later centuries.After a whole century of research Croatian history in thisis, of course, no longer a tabula rasa. Nl that can betodayis to reinterpretfacts that are alreadywellknovrn,the sources themselves, and in this way perhaps learndetails and acquire a different understanding of someToday it seems hopeless even to approach that taskthe framework laid by Radoslav Katidii in a wholeof works based on philological research. His findingsthe basic categories in what he appropriately calls asociety"a will for a long time still form the skeletoninternal conditions and the functioninginstitutions that maybe viewed as the heritage of the com-Slavic element in Croatian history.In this paper I would like to point to the problem of in-a passage in the text of the Frankish Annals,

M. Andi6Institute of History of the CroatianAcademy of Arts and SciencesZadarCroatia

which is very important for understanding relations be-tween the Frankish authorities and the first knor,tm Croatianrulers, i.e. for understanding the development of the firstforms of state organization among the Croats. The passagein question speaks aboutthe coming of envoys sentbyvari-ous gentile rulers to the court of Emperor Louis the Piousin the winter of B I B. After describing the stay and work doneby envoys of the Beneventan duke, the Annals continue bylisting the other envoys, which in the German reading runsas follows:"Erant ibi et aliarum nationum legati, Abadritorum ui-delicet ac Bornae, ducis Guduscanorum et Timocianorum,qui nuper a Bulgarorum societate desciuerant et ad nostrosfines se contulerant.'5Problems with how to read this passage appeared veryearly, practically among its contemporaries, so that theanonymous writer of Vita Hludowici imperatoris gave hisornm reading of this passage inthe Annals. He left out DuxBorna's name, probably considering him head of all thegentile reigns listed there after his name, which resulted inthe following text:"Prneterea aliarum aderant missi nationum, Abodri-torum uidelicet et Goduscanorum et Timotianorum, quiBulgarum sotietate relicta, nostris se nuper sotiauerunt.'EAt the end of the last century Franjo Radki noticed thatthere was something wrong with the German reading ofthis passage and suggested the insertion of a comma afterthe word Guduscanorum, which would designate Bornaonly as dux of the Guduscan/Gadani. He gave the follow-ing version:"Erant ibi et aliarum nationum legati, Abodritorum ui-delicet ac Bornae ducis Guduscanorum, et Timocianorum,qui nuper a Bulgarorum societate desciuerant et ad nostrosfines se contulerant".THowevet, Borna's name appears several more times inthe further text of thre Annals, always with different titles(in 819 as " dttx Dalmaciae", in 820 without a title, and fi-nally in 821 as " dux Dalmaciae atque Liburniae"), so thisreading did not solve the initial problem, either. The read-

ANCIC

author uses contemporary Frankish sources and the results of archaeological research to illustrate the political cur-of the first half of the ninth century that framed the deuelopment of the Croatian dukedom (kneLevina). He proposesnert) reacling for a passage from the Annales regni Francorum referring to Borna, Croatian duke (knez) and FrankishThis neu reading allou,s the reinterpretation of the first stctges ctf deuelopment of the dukedom in the sense thatBorna expanded his territory by making use of thefighting thatfollowed. the insurrection of his neighbour Ljudeuit,of Pannonia Inferictr. The author also surueys the typologJl and charqcteristics of societies that deueloped along theof the Carolingian Empire, and places in this context the further deuelopment and internal processes of integration inCroatian dukedom..


2/7

ing suggested by Radki, which is still generally accepted,indicates that Borna was the ge4tile dux (knez) of theGuduscanoruml Ga(anifirst, and that he subsequently gotthe Dalmatian ducatus (knei,euina) thanks to merit ac-quired in battles against Ljudevit, as Drinovexplained longago and as Suid partially accepted more recently.B Otherhistorians sought for an explanation in the fact that Bornaruled the Gadani among others, and that their tribal en-voys at the Frankish court were simply identified with theduke's, i.e. that Borna was called dux of the Gadani "be-cause his ducal power spread to that Zupanija, as well, andhe was its ruler". More recently, after analyzing the Annalsand after briefly presenting various opinions, Katidi6 triedto solve this apparent confusion concerning Borna's titlesby saying that the reference in 820 (dux Dalmaciae) was infact "only an abbreviation for the complete and real titledux Dalmaciae atque Liburniae", whereas rule over theGadani was actually the only one that "gave Borna's rulegentile legitimacy".eContinuing this presentation, however, Katidid facedinsoluable difficulties. He first claimed that "Borna's realtitle was dux Sclauorum Dalmatinorum atque Liburno-ntm" , andalittle later concluded that "Borna as dux Gudus-canorum was only one of the Croatian dukes". Finally,Katidi6 had to return to Drinov's original idea (" Borna duxGudusconorum... as one of lhe duces Croatorum or Scla-uorum Dalmatinorum... rose to power over all the Croatiangentile rulers, and subjected the olher duces... Borna couldhave gained this position most easily with Frankish sup-port for good and loyal service, by bringing order into theirDalmatia for them"), which he rejected with the explana-tion that sources do not give enough material for this con-

struct.r0 Ivo Goldstein approached the diversity of Borna'stitles in an interesting although not completely new way.He does not consider it important to address this diversitybut simply lists all the titles, concluding without any fur-ther explanation: "It seems that the centre of the region(Borna) ruled was in Lika, and that it was not until afterBorna's death, i.e. during the reigns of Mislav and Trpimir,that Croatian rulers moved into the immediate hinterlandof the Dalmatian cities."rr**t

It seems, after all, that a new reading of this passagemight help clarify most of the controversy concerningBorna's titles, and provide better understanding of the en-tire context of Croato-Frankish relations and Croatian his-tory in the first half of the ninth century. That new readingshould be as follows:

" Erant ibi et aliarum nationum legati, Abodritorum ui-delicet ac Bornae ducis, Guduscanorum et TimocianorLtm,qui nuper a Bulgarorum societate desciuerant et ad nostrosfines se contulerant."This new reading of the passage in the Frankish Annalsleaves the title duxaccorded to Borna undefined in the ter-ritorial, i,e. gentile sense. It places Borna's reign on the samelevel as that of theAbodriti, Gadani and Timodani, and theterritorial or gentile content of his title is defined only inretrospect from what can be made out about it in the fur-ther text of the same source.There are several factors to support this proposed read-ing of the given passage in the Annals. First, if we acceptKatidii's view that the Annals recorded contemporaryevents and were not written later as a complete text "tocover a longer period of time",12 then full attention must

be paid to the different titles in the continuation. On theother hand, however, we must also take into account thatnot all the events were recorded immediately but only inretrospect (though not after a "longer period" - to use Ka-tidii's terminology), when further events gave them spe-cial importance. The fact that the chronicler found it nec-essary to describe the visit of the aforementioned envoysto Louis's court in BIB should be viewed from this context.This completely routine coming of envoys to the imperialcourt became important only after Ljudevit's insurrectionbegan in the following year, because Ljudevit's conductannounced the insurrection.13 Since Borna played a veryprominent role in events connected to the insurrection, itis not difficult to understand how and why his name wasfirst mentioned in the Annalswith a title, but without anymore precise designation. Besides, Borna's title is madeclear (Borna uero, dux Dalmacie) in the further text, whichagain refers to the insurrection and is a continuation of therecord under BlB, so it is even possible that it was all writ-ten as awhole after the first stage of putting dornm Ljudevit'sinsurrection.The Annals'chronicler was extremely well informedabout circumstances in the region under Borna's rule andin the immediate neighbourhood, all in connection withLjudevit's insurrection. This primarily comes to expressionin the rather detailed description of the insurrection andof the subjugation of the GuduscanilGa(ani, i.e. of thewayin which Borna extricated himself from a crisis situationafter the Gadani left the battlefield. It is also confirmed bydetails about Ljudevit's campaign in Dalmatia, which givethe number of the enemy killed, and mares captured and,finaliy, in the description of how it was decided who shouldbe Borna's heir. Such familiarity can only be explained bylively communication between Borna and his heir on oneside, and Emperor Louis's court on the other, or to be moreprecise, by the constant reports sent to the imperial courtfrom Borna's "land". That these existed is clearly confirmedby the account in the Annals about Borna's participationin 820 in planning further action against Ljudevit firstthrough envoys, and then in person.la Finally, I must addthat the proposed reading completely clarifies the courseof events in the region of our interest in the first decades ofthe ninth century.Before I undertake to analyze those events, however, Imust add a word of caution about the way in which ninthcenturyFrankish sources use geographical concepts, boththose from late antiquity and those that were later used inthe high Middle Ages. Recently Katidid rightly noticed thatlate-classical terms are used to denote patriawhichwere a"framework for establishing and legalizing clan authority",later adding that those patriae al the same time "continuethe tradition of late-Roman administrative areas".1t How-ever, those terms hardly ever coincide with what they de-noted in older sources. The dux Dalmaciae we will talkabout here did not rule the entire province of Dalmatia.Analysis clearly shows that three Dalmatias existed forFrankish sources - one held by the tribal dux of the Slavs/Croats, another Dalmatia as a narrow belt around citiesconquered in 804 and returned to Byzantine rule in 809 or810,16 and a third held by the Serbs.'7 In each case therewas a process that took pars pro toto, and further analysiswould confirm the same for other geographical conceptsof antiquity. In the case of Liburnia things are even stranger,because every interpretation links it with the trans-Velebit(Gadani) and the Kvarner area (Trsat) , and not with the area


3/7

that classical writers originally meant by that term.rs Wemust therefore conclude that the "continuation of the tra-dition of late-Roman administrative areas" is very doubt-ful - at best it can refer to parts of former "administrativeareas", and as time passed the meaning of geographicalterms even changed.This can probably best be seen from the example of theFrankish geographical term regnum inter Sauum et Dra-uttm,which has caused not a little confusion among histo-rians from Radki onward. After the twelfth centuryit appe-ared in documents to mark the area of medieval Slavonia.For the ninth-century Franks, however, that term onlymarked part of Pannoniae Inferioris, one of the vassal statesthat developed at the beginning of the ninth century onthe limes of Charlemagne's empire. The east boundary ofthe region called regnum inter Sauum et Drauum, ruled inthe 8B0s and early B90s by Duke (knez) Bratislav, re can clear-lr. be determined from the description of the journey King,\rnulf's envoys took in 892 on their way to the ruler of Bul-

gariaMadimir. Because of ambushes laid byKingSvetopulkrvho was at war with Arnulf, on that occasion they went aroundabout way from the regnum of Duke Bratislav to theOdra (de regno Brazlauonis per fluuium Odagra), then tothe Kupa and finally to the Sava, dornm which they sailedby boat. The description of that trip in the Anales Fulden-se.f 0 clearly shows that they reached the Odra and the Kupaafter leaving Bratislav's regnum, which means that theFrankish lerm inter Sauum et Drauum did not cover thearea of what is today Slavonia. However, it is not quite clearexactly where Bratislav's regnum ended and another reg-rtttmbegan, aregnumto which the Odra and the Kupa andthe Sava all belonged and through which Arnulf's envoyscould freely travel, unless the boundary on the Kupa, andthen from Metlika to Samobor and on to the Sava, had bythen been established and secured. As for who ruled thearea through which the envoys to Bulgaria travelled afterleaving Bratislav's regnum, one need only recall who PopeJohn MII wrote to about ten years earlier (879) recommend-ing and even demanding protection for his ovrn envoy toBulgaria.2l ,'**

With this proposed new reading of the passage in theAnnals and remarks concerning geographical terms inFrankish sources in general, I will begin my analysis ofevents in the first half of the ninth century from what theFrankish royal Annals recorded in the year 805. At the endof that year, after successful Frankish campaigns in thesouth-east had ended with the conquest of their lands, theDoges ofVenice, andZadar's duxPavao and Bishop Donatcame before Charlemagne, the two latter as envoys of theDalmatarum. The purpose of their arrival was obviouslyto organize life in the newly-conquered lands, which theemperor himself accepted (as can be seen from the sen-tence: "facta est ibi ordinatio ab imTteratore et d.ucibus etpopulis tam Venetiae quam Dalmatiae').22 It seems veryprobable that the area under the jurisdiction of the duxDalmaciae, as perceived at the time of Ljudevit's insurrec-tion, andheld in 818 and 819 byBorna, was defined on thatoccasion. Internally this title meant gentile rule over theCroats in a way that first came more clearly to expressionhalf a century later, under Trpimir, and was recentiy so viv-idly reconstructed by Katidii.The region over which this dux Dalmatiae ruled wassurrounded by other similar reigns created after Charle-

magne's successful campaigns: in the south was the newly-- e stablishe d j uris dictio n of the Zadar dux, which was afterseveral years returned under Byzantine supreme author-ity; in the west the Dalmatian ducatus bordered with thearea under the gentile rule of the Guduscanoruml Ga(ani,who retained autonomyuntil819;inthe north layrhe duca-tus of Pannonia Inferior, in 817 under Ljudevit, which wo-uld fu nction discontinuously throughout the ninth century.AII these reigns were autonomous, semi-independent regi-ons on the borders of a great empire, and their basic develop-mental characteristics can briefly be defined as follows:a. in the process of being constituted as states, theseentities did not have direct contact with the classical herit-age, as the Merovingian Empire had, for instance, enjoyed;b. during the implantation of political power a system ofcastradeveloped here rather early, so that the first local rul-ers governed people and land directly to a much greater ex-tent than their neighbours on the western side of the /lmes;c. the feudalization process on the middle levels of thesocial pyramid developed much later in that whole area,so hereditary offices did not appear and the institution ofthe royal "escort" retained importance for a long time, andwas in time transformed into the "great" or "state escort".Despite this, societies east of the Frankish /lmesshoweda relatively high level of ethnic cohesion coupled with anabsence of political formations like the tribal or class prin-cipatumthat had earlier existed among the Bavarians, A1e-manni and Burgundians, and which were later drornned inthe Carolingian Empire. All that we have said allows us inretrospect to single out two basic types of organizalion -n one hand the Frankish t1pe, in which the Franks cameas conquerors and imposed their political might on peo-ple they found in the region, and on the other hand thePolish-Bohemian type, in which primitive tribal structureswere transformed into state structures.23 For this occasionit is enough to say that the Croats, and later also the Hun-garians, did not belong to either of these two models.Borna's and all the neighbouring dukedoms, exceptPannonia Inferiorwhich had a special position, were sub-ject to the Margrave of Friuli.2a How the system functionedwas clearly shoum in 817 when Byzantium sent envoys tothe Frankish emperor demanding clear delimitation be-tween the two great neighbouring empires - Frankish andByzantine. After considering their demands, Emperor Louisthe First summoned the Margrave of Friuli who had a spe-cial interest in the matter and insight into conditions, andhe and the Byzantine envoy investigated the situation. Sincethey Lroth established that it directly affected the Slavs andthe Romans, as they called them, they decided to go to theregion in dispute in person. As this was a matter that alsodirectly concerned the emperor (delimitation with anothergreat power), they were joined by the emperor's personalmisu*s who was obviously there to protect the emperor'simmediate interests. In otherwords, unlike other state for-mations that had by then developed along the Carolingianlimes and which took care of their eastern borders them-selves, here, where the territories of the western and east-ern empires directly touched, the superwision of supremeFrankish authoritywas much stronger. This primarily meantdirect imperial competence in the question of externalborders, although specific activities were to a great measureimplementedbyhigh officials and thosewho were the mostdirectly interested parties, in this case the Croats.Knowledge gained from the study of rich archaeologi-cal material26 supplements this image, and clearly shows


4/7


5/7


6/7

' R. K\TIeIe, o.c.,p.775.ta lbid.,p.175-6.LrLGOLDSTEIN,o.c.,p. 167; F.KOS, o.c.,p.48,notel,treatsBorna'stitlesinasimilarway("BornawasdukeofDalmatiaandLiburnia.Hewasalsocalled Duke of the Guduscans.")u R. KATICIC, o.c.,p.I71.13F.RACKI, o.c.,p.320:"Erantibi...legati...Liudeviti,ducisPannoniaeinferioris,quiresnovasmolines,CadolaumcomitemetmarcaeForoiuliensispraefectum, crudelitatis atque insolentiae accusare conabatur". This is the continuation of the text whose new reading is proposed here.14F.RAdKI, o.c.,p.324 "Bornaquoqueprimoperlegatos,deindeipseveniens,quidsibifactoopusessevideretur,suggessit".L5 R. KATICIC, o.c.,p.4I andI74.16 Thus, for example, lhe Zadar dux and bishop came as "legati Dalmatarum" and decisions were made in their presence "de ducibus et popuiis ...Dalmatiae" (F. RACKI, o.c., p.310).r? F. RACKI, o.c.,p.327: "ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur". Compare the interpretation R. KATIdIC, o.c., p. 173 givesin this connection.rs For classical Liburnia cfr. M. SUId, o.c.rc F. RAdKI, o.c.,p.37g,where the area of Bratislav's rule is determined as follows: "in id tempus regnum inter Drauum et Sauumflumine tenuit".r F. RACKI, o.c., p. 380: "Missi autem propter insidias Zuetinbaldi ducis teffestre iter non valentes habere, de regno Brazlavonis per Jluuium Odagrattsque ad Gul1tam, dein per fluente Saue flumlnls navigio in Bulgaria perducti".'?] Pope John\4II's letters in p. MdKI, o.c.,p.7-9.2 R. CESSI, La Dalmazia e Bisanzio nel sec. XI, rn Istituto Veneto di scienze, Iettere ed arti, Atti C)CW, 1967, p. 90, gave interesting obsewations ofconditions and events in littoral Dalmatia in the early ninth century. See also the relevant text of the Frankish Annals in F. RACKI, o.c., p. 3i0.23 For the origin, functioning, characteristics and typology of such state formations compare Stanislaw RUSSOCKI, le lime s carolingien - confins dessystdmes du pouuoir et de la domination, in Questiones Medii AeuiIIIll9B4, Editions de l'Universit6 de Varsovie 1986, with a reliable list of the existingreferences. L. LECIEJEWiCZ also makes important observations, Le limes carolingien - frontiDre de deux zones culturelles, Ibid." Pannonia Inferior had a special position because it spanned the boundary oftwo Frankish political and churchjurisdictions - the Fliulian and EasternMargravates, i.e. the Archbishoprics of Aquileia and Salzburg, which were separated by the river Drava (for the demarcation of political and churchjurisdictionscfr.F.KOS, o.c.,p.37,note6; p.51,note3).TheFriulianmargrave'sjurisdictionoverpartofPannonialnferiorisdirectyconfirmedbythecomplaints made in BIB by Duke Ljudevit of Pannonia Inferior to the emperor against Margrave Kadolah (Ljudevit, as "dr.x Pannoniae inferioris", toEmperorLouis"CadolaumcomitemetmarcaeForoiuliensispraefectumcrudelitatisatqueinsolentiaeaccusareconabatur."Cfr.F.RAeKl, o.c.,p.320).2s Relevant text in F. RACKI, o.c., p.3I7 .'?6 Archaeological material was published on various occasions and in different places. For a concise survey with the necessary references see: J.BELOSEVIC, MaterijalnakulturaHruata(=MaterialCultureoftheCroats),Zagreb1980; Z.MNSKI ,OnalazimakarolinikihmateuauJugoslauiji(=OnFinds of Carolingian Swords in Yugoslavia), rn Starohruatslca prosujeta III/11, 198l; D. IELO\TNA, Mateui i ostruge karolinikog obiljeija u Muzejuhruatskih arheoloikih spomenilca (= Swords and Spurs of Carolingian Characteristics in the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments) , Split1986; M. ZEKAN, Karoliniki i Ttoslijekaroliniki nalazi iz Bosne i Hercegouine (Carolingian and Post-Carolingian Finds in Bosnia and Herzegovina), inLiuanjski kraj u pouijesti, Split-Li\,no 1994. The problem of dating Carolingian finds must be solved in connection with eve4rthing that has been saidhere, which means that the oldest Carolingian finds on Croatian territory, those that undoubtedly originate from compact graveyards where they wereplaced as part of the burial ritual, should not be dated before the beglnning of the ninth century. But the latest time iimit of these finds is not so easy todetermine, however, because it depends on the speed and success of the Christianization processr which was tightly linked with burial rituals and thecustom of laying material objects and military equipment in graves.27 For the broader social importance of imported military technology, cfr. L. MAKKAI, Les caractdres originaux de I'histoire dconomique et sociale deI'Europe orientale pendant le Moyen Age, rn Acta Historica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricaefr\lS-4,1970, p. 268-9.28 The area under the direct rule of Croatian dukes in the first half of the ninth century can be quite precisely determined on the basis of archaeologicalfinds with pronounced Carolingian characteristics. Cfr. M. ZEKAN, o.c." The story ofLjudevit's flight to the Serbs in 822 says: "uno ex ducibus eorum (sc. Soraborum) a quo receptus est per doium interfecto, civitatem eiusin suam redegit dicionem" (F. RACKI, o.c.,p.327).3a Einhard / Ziuot Karla Velikog, p.7 4.rr Each of the following authors shows the insurrection in his own way: F. KOS, o.c., )oOO{I-)ofiIX; F. SISIC , fouryesr Hruata u urijeme narodnih uladara(=TheHktoryoftheCroatsintheTimeofMedieualCroatianRulers),p.310-316; N.KI"\IC, PouijestHruatauranomsrednjemuijeku(=HistoryoftheCroatsintheEarlyMiddleAges),Zagreb1971,p.208-212;N.BUDAK, o.c.,p.17-lB;I.GOLDSTEIN,o.c,,p.166-172.3'zThedescriptionofthefirstyearoffightingagainstLjudevit'srebelsinF.neeru, o.c.,p.321-323, lncludestheexpression"Bornavero,duxDalmaciae,cum magnis copiis ad Colapium ... occurens".r R. KATICIC, o.c.,p.I7B3aForBorna's"escort" (druZina),whrchtheauthorof Annalscalls"pretorians",cfr.R.KATIeIC ,o.c.,p.l86ff.Forthe"escort" (drui,ina)inEastCentralEurope, besides the works listed here in note 23, also cfr. L. MAKKAI, o.c.,p.270-1.s Cfr. F. SrSre , o.c., p. 449-450; I. GOLDSTEIN , o.c., p.157 .$ F. RACKI, o.c., p.322, who says that, after Ljudevit's attack on Dalmatia, "Borna se paenitus inparem conspiceret, omnia sua castellis inclusit".3? M. GOJDA, The Ancient Slaus, Settlement and Society, Edinburgh University Press 1990, p. 56-57.3s F. RACKI, o.c., p. 325.: "Interea Borna, drx Dalmatiae atque Liburniae, defunctus est, et petente po1tulo atqre imperatore consentiente nepos illius,nomine Ladasclar,.us, successor ei constitutus est" (italics M.A.).3s Besides choosing Borna's nepos as the new duke, the existence and importance of the ruling dynasty is also evidenced by the role of Borna's kinsman(auunculus) Ljudemisl, who received Ljudevit in 823 and then executed him (cfr F. RACKI, o.c.,p.328).a0 The reconstruction ofthe m1'th about the arrival ofthe Croats would go far beyond the needs ofthis text, and it is enough to indicate here the courseofresearchthatN.BUDAK, o.c.,p.62-64,openedupblihisdiscussionofthisquestion.Fortheimportanceoforallytransmittedtraditioninotherearly-medieval societies, cfr. H. MOISL, Kingship andOrally TransmittedStammestradition amongtheLombards andFranlcs,rnDie Bayernundihre Nachbarn,Teil I (ed. H. WOLFMM and A. SCHWARCZ), Wien 1989.


7/7

_1r Cfr. note 39.12 Cfr. F. KOS, o.c., p.77 , 84-85.I Cfr. G. BARR {CLOUGH, The Crucible of Europe. The ninth and tenth centuries in European Hlsrory, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1976, p. 56 ff.u F. KOS, o.c., p. 93: "cum Baioariis ... et Sclavis quos ad se uocare poterat' (italics M.A.).' Clr. F. RACKl, o.c., p. 271.16 Gottschalk's stay in Croatia in 846/7 was rectly presented in detail, with a review of older literature,by Z, RApANIC, o.c.': Z. MPANIC, o.c., p. 99: "Tripemirus rex Sclavorum".= Z. R{PANIC, o.c., p. 100: "per totam Dalmatiam, Iongissimam revera regionem".

oD KARotINSKocA DUZN0SNIKA Do HRvATSKocA VLADARA. HRYATT r KAROTTNSKO cARsTvo u pRvoJPOrOVrfl rX. STOTJECASAZETAK

Ukazuju6i na posebno znaaenje suvremenih franadkih\re1a prye polovice IX. st., autor op5irno razglaba ulomakteksta Annales regni Francorumkojise odnosi na boravakk-neza Borne na dvoru Ludovika PoboZnoga 818. PredlaZenoi,rr lekciju, a samim tim i tumadenje ulomka, susljednokojemu je u to vrijeme Borna joS samo knez gentilne vla-davine Hrvata i franadki dux Dalmacle, odnosno pod svo-j o m vla5iu j o 5 ne drZi plemensku vladavi nu Gudus c ano r um- Gadana. Razglabaju6i pri tomu nadin na koji se u suvre-menim franadkim welima koriste kako antidki tako i su-\Temeni zemljopisni pojmovi, autor poku5ava preciznijeodrediti sadri,al franadkoga zemljopisnog i adminis-trati\,no-politidkog pojma regnum inter Sauum et Drauumiz druge polovice IX. st. Pri tome dolazi do zakljudka kakose ta odrednica u franadkim vrelima odnosi na onaj diomedurjedja koji je pod izravnom carskom vla56u, dakle naKarantaniju, odnosno dana5nje slovensko podrudje.Zakijuduju6i uvodna razglabanja autor zatim poku5avareinterpretirati zbivanja vezana uz sudjelovanje knezaBorne u gu5enju ustanka njegova susjeda, donjopanon-skoga kneza Ljudevita. Susljedno predloZenoj lekciji ulom-ka franadkih Anala i tumadenju koje iz te lekcije prorzlazi,autor smatra kako je odlazak Gadana s bojnog polja kodKupe 819. pri susretu s Ljudevitovim snagamaprotumadenkao pobuna protiv carskog autoriteta. Podvrgavaju6i usljede6oj fazi Gadane svojoj vlasti, Borna istodobno restau-rira i carski autoritet, akroz no'v-u titulu ducis Dalmaciaeatque Liburniae dobiva i pravno pokriie pro5irenja svojekneZevske vlasti. Borna sve do smrti 82l. ostaje vjerni carskivazal, sudjeluju6i aktir,no u gu5enju Ljudevitova ustanka istvarajuii na taj nadin povoljnu poziciju za nasljednikenjegove kneZevske dasti. Ta se povoljna pozicija jasno zrcaliu nadinu na koji se njegov ne6ak i nasljednik, Ladislav,penje na kneZevsko prijestolje - bira ga, iz okvira vladaju6edinastije, (politidki) narod s podrudja njegove vladavine, acar Ludovik potwduje taj izbor prenose6i na njega Borninulitulu duxa.Razglabaju6i mehanizme vladanja i odnosa na relacijifranadki car - hrvatski gentilni vladar i uklapaju6i dobijenespoznaje u poznatu tipologifu i znadajke administratirmo-

-politidkih tvorbi koje u IX. st. nastaju na karolinSkome /i-mesu, autor zakljuduje kako se hrvatski razvoj pone5to razli-kuje od onoga Sto se zbiva na drugim dijelovima istodnogalimesa unutar okvira definiranih kao poljslco-ieilci model.Ta je razlika ponajprije posljedica blizine Bizanta s kojimkarolin5ki dvor od 812. nema otvorenih prijepora, ali postojilatentni strah od jedine stvarno organizirane drZarme sileu franadkom okruZenju. Drugo bitno obiljeLjerazvojaod-nosa spram whorme franadke vlasti jest pojava Bugara naDunar,rr i Savi u drugoj detwtini lX. st. koja carski dvor prisi-ljavanalrai.enje job dw5ie potpore i pomoii hrvatskog gen-tilnoga vladara u odbijanju bugarskih navala.U takvoj dakle situaciji jadaju, na podrudju hrvatskegentilne vladavine koja se teritorijalno zaokruiuje tijekomi neposredno nakon gu5enja Ljudevitova ustanka, a stojipod zadtitom koju pruZa franadko vrhormi5tvo, nutarnji in-tegracijski procesi. Dva bitna elementa kojima autor pripi-suje istaknuto znadenje u tome procesu jesu stalnavanjskaopasnost (Ljudevitov ustanak, borbe s Bugarima) i posto-janje mita o zajednidkom podrijetlu (mit registriraju Kon-stantnin Porfirogenet u X. i Toma arcidakon u XIIL st.). Re-zultate toga procesa, koji se ne moZe detaljnije pratiti zbognedostatkavrela, autorvidi u dvama izrl(.ajima5to ih je os-tavio teolog Gottschalk, koji je sredinom IX. st. boravio nadvoru hrvatskoga kneza Trpimira. Naime, s jedne straneGottschalk Trpimira naziva rexomito autor tumadi kao ka-rakterizaciju vladarskih postupaka proiza5lu iz dugotrajnaboravka na kneZevu dvoru i iskustva ste (ena zatogaboravka.S druge je strane saksonski teologzapisao kako je TrpimirovaHrvatska uistinu duga prouincija, ito posebno zna(,en1edobiva zna li se kako je prije ili poslije boravka na Trpimi-rovu dvoru Gottschali

mladen ančić: from carolingian official to croatian ruler

Documents