Dr. Etleva LALA
EötvösLorándTudományegyetem (Universiteti ELTE)
ProgramiiAlbanologjisë, Budapest, Hungari
Hormisda papa Caesario episcopo Arelatensi nunciat “episcopos tam Dardanos quam Illyricos pene omnes, nec non Scythas” ad sedis apostolicae communionem rediisse seque legatos in Orientem misisse.[1]/Pope Hormisdas announces to Caesarius, bishop of Arles, that “nearly all bishops, both the Dardanians and the Illyrians, but not the Scythians,” had returned to communion with the Apostolic See, and had sent their legates to the East./
This document dates back toSeptember 515, a time, which was not easy at all for Christianity in general. It was even more difficult for the bishops of Dardania and Illyricum, who happened to be at the crossroads of the various clashes of the time, clashes of various natures: political and organizational, ecclesiastical andspiritual. It was a time, when by trying to be as precise as possible and as right as possible, it was easy to fall into one heresy or another one, without even realizing it. Hence, the difficultyfor the religious and political leaders of the time to figure out who was the real authority and whom to follow, as this paper will try to highlight.
Before we go into the document itself, let us clarify, what Dardanosand Illyricosrepresent in the time when this document was written.The period from the conversion to Christianity of Emperor Constantine the Great in 313 and making it the official religion of the Roman Empire to the year 515as this document is dating can still be called a peaceful time for the inhabitants of the Eastern Adriatic, as Slavs and Huns have not arrived yet.Although according to Florin Curta,[2] a small number of Slavs (Sclaveni and Antes) migrated to the Balkans already in the 6th century, that did not happen before the earthquake of 518.[3]That is why, starting with the document that dates in 515 in order to have a view on the religion of the Illyrians and Dardanians until that period is still a pure history of the local people, that were living in this part of the world, among others also Dardanians and Illyrians as they are called in that time.
Dardania was one of 11 provinces that made the Diocese of Moesia, established by Emperor Diocletian (284-305). During[4] or after[5]Constantine I (306-337), out of parts of Dardania and Thrace, Dacia Mediterranea was also created. The two new dioceses, Moesia and Dacia fell into the prefecture of Illyricum in the second half of the fourth century.[6] The main centers of Dardania were Scupi, Naissus, Ulpiana[7]and alsoTherranda, Vicianum, Vindenis, Velanis, Dardapara, Quemedava and Damastion during the time of Moesia Superior.
After the death of Constantine in 337,[8] the Roman Empire was divided between his three sons, since the Jewish law of the first-born son was certainly not yet introduced in Europe. This division is what later established the permanent pretorian prefectures: 1. Gaul (Dioceses: Gaul, Viennensis, Hispania and Britain), 2. the central prefectureof Italy, Illyricum and Africa(Dioceses: Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Dacia and Macedonia) and 3. the prefecture of the East (Dioceses: Thrace, Asia, Pontus, Oriens). The prefecture of Illyricum included the dioceses of Pannonia, Dacia and Macedonia in 347-361.
The central Prefecture of Italy, Illyricum and Africa was divided into two prefectures 1. Italy-Africa and 2. Illyricum, when the sons of Constantine the Great were struggling against each-other. One of them, Constans, joined the dioceses of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia in 347 into the prefecture of Illyricum.[9]In 375-379, the Diocese of Pannonia was added to Italy, and often is also known as the Diocese of Western Illyricum (Illyricum occidentale). Macedonia and Dacia, which as mentioned above also contained parts of Dardania, made Eastern Illyricum (Illyricum orientale). Eastern Illyricumseparatedfinally from the rest after the death of Theodosius in 395 with Thessaloniki as it capital.
Since in our document, both Dardanos and Illyricos are mentioned, in a time when theoretically Dardanians were already divided between Thrace and Mediterranean Dacia. Since Dacia belonged to Eastern Illyricum, theoreticallythey were already included into Eastern Illyricum, hence the term Illyrians would have administratively applied also to them. Pope Hormisdas, however, is addressing them separately, probably because the Dardanians have a distinguished unity among themselves.
In our document that dates from 515, the Roman pontiff, Hormisdaswas so glad to see that the bishops of Dardania and Illyricum had decided in his favor, rejoining the Apostolic See, after a long battle with many facets. Hesharedthis happiness also with the bishop of Vienna (Viennensis in the prefecture of Gaul): Idem papa Avitum, episcopumViennensem per conversionemprovinciarum id estDardaniae, Illyrici vel Scythiae (al. Thraciae) adcommunionemgaudiiprovocat.[10](The same pope,challenges of sharing the joy withAvitus, the bishop of Vienna, about the conversion of the provinces of Dardania, Illyricum, or Scythia (alias Thracia).
It seems to be self-evident that the Pope, as the good shepherd, should rejoice over every single sheep, that is over everysuccess story, but this is not one of those cases. In order to understand the real reason for the pontifical joy of gaining back the bishoprics of Dardania and Illyricum, in the following I will have to start back to what had happened in these parts of the world, since Christianity was acceptedby Emperor Constantine the Great in 313.
The first document registered in the ActaAlbaniae[11] is the one registered in 344,[12] and which was written in Philippi,[13] nowadays known as Provdiv, in Bulgaria. It is about the half-Aryan bishops who thought of establishing a “real Synod of Sardinia.” Among these half-Arian bishops is also Eulalius, the bishop ofAmantia, who also put his signature on the letter written to the churches of the East and the West.
The second document of the Acta Albaniaedates back to 370-371.[14]Pope Damasus I has condemned the bishop of Milan as heretic, and he informed about this the bishops of Illyricum. In the document of the year 375, in whichthe synod of the bishops of Illyricum sanctioned the divinity of the Holy Spirit, against Macedonians,[15]we may raise our questions, who these Macedonians were, how were they different from Illyrians, and what views they presented about the Holy Spirit.
In three other documents dating back to 385, 386 and 392, Anysius, the bishop of Thessaloniki is getting more and more power since Pope Siriacuscontinuously gives him the power over irregularities in the nomination of bishops in Illyricum. He orders that no bishop should be ordained without Anysius’permission,[16]since there were cases, when three bishops were ordained in one church.[17]
Starting from the year 412, Rufus, the bishop of Thessaloniki appears to be the main protagonist especially in the correspondence with Pope Innocent I and Boniface I. He seems to be in charge of the all the churches of Illyricum and Macedonia, including Dardania. In order to understand what these terms meant in this letter, here is the list of these churches: Achaia, Thessalia, Ancient Epirus, New Epirus, Crete, Mediterranean Dacia, Ripenian Dacia, Moesia, Dardania and Praevalis.[18] This list seems slightly different from that ofthe year 422 where “Macedonia, Achaia, Thessalia, Epirus Veterus, Epirus Novus, Praevalitan at Dacia” are the only ones mentioned.Macedonia is new in this list. Dacia is only one general and Moesia and Dardaniado not appear again.[19]Do these discrepancies indicate a real change of borders ora different participation of the mentioned or not-mentioned bishops in the correspondence with the pope?
Rufus, the bishop of Thessaloniki, seems to have been claiming too much power over these churches, as Pope Boniface I. warns all the bishops appointed throughout Thessaly to not “strive to separate themselves from the communion and power of the Apostolic See.”He also orders bishop Rufus to respect the rights established by the Fathers and forbade anyone “to presume to ordain bishops through Illyricum on the Rufus’ conscience.”[20]
Pope Boniface I. also forbids Rufus and the other bishops, established in Macedonia, Achaia, Thessaly, the Old Epirus, the New Epirus, and Praevalis, and Dacia, to convoke a synod in order to examine the status of Perigenis, bishop of Corinth, appointed by the Apostolic See. For he writes “it is not lawful to revise the judgment” of the Apostolic See and that
“the greatest churches of the Eastern Churches have always consulted the Roman seat in important matters.” Whether Dardania and Moesia do not appear in this list, because they did not intend to obey Rufus in this point, is difficult to estimate at this point. Here other questions also need attention, like the process of nomination itself. If Rufus, the bishop of Thessaloniki, was nominating and ordaining bishops earlier, why is Pope Boniface now taking that matter in his hands, by nominating the bishop of Corinth?
In the year 424, Pope Celestine I, wrote to nine bishops named Perigenus, Dynatus, Basilius, Sapius, Paul, Aeternalus, Sabatius, Julian and Senecio, naming them “bishops established throughout Illyricum.”Duchesne[21] has identified five of them through their signatures at the Council of Ephesus, as bishops of Corinth, Nicopolis, Larissa, Shkodra, and Sardika. The four others, he suggested should be the bishops of Crete, Moesia, Dardania and Dacia Ripensis.Thisshould have been Illyricum as it was understood at the time of Pope Celestine.
Under the penalty of excommunication, Pope Celestine orders the bishops of Illyricum to obey Rufus, his vicar, bishop of Thessaloniki. Felix, the bishop of the province of Durrës, is also mentioned in this document, as being released from the works of his insidious enemies.Who were the enemies of the bishop of Durrës?Why did not he order the bishop of the province of Durrësto do the same, namely obey the bishop of Thessaloniki?
During this period, we have to keep in mind that Byzantium is not created yet, that is why it’s not possible to speak about Byzantine Empire as some scholars continue to do. Byzantium was officially created in 476 when Rome handed over to Constantinople the imperial insignia after the last Roman Emperor was deposed and replaced by a king of Germanic descent, who formally acknowledged the overlordship of the Augustus ruling from Constantinople.[22]
The Council of Ephesus and Nestorianism
In the Council of Ephesus, in the following document, Philip is not any more bishop of Durrës: he is the bishop of Apollonia, whereas Eucharius appears to be the bishop of Durrës:
SententiamconciliiEphesini in Nestoriumlatamaliquae acta suochirographoapprobaverunt (inter alios): EuchariusepsicopusDyrrachini (έπίσκoπος Δυρραχίον), DyrrachiniEpiri novae (Δωρακίον ‘Ηπείροννέας), Felix episcopuscivitatisApolloniae[23]) et Bellidis[24] (έπίσκοπος πόλεωυ ‘Απολλωυίας και Βελίδος, Βελλιάδος), Senecio civitatisScodrorum.[25] /The sentence of the council of Ephesus with regard to Nestorius and some acts in his own handwriting were approved (among others) by Eucharius bishop of Dyrrachini (έπίσκίπος Δυρραχιον), Dyrrachini New Epirus (Δωρακιον ‘ Ηπειροννέαζ), Felix bishop of the city of Apollonia) and Bellidis (έπίσκοπος πόλεωυ ‘Απολλωυίας και Βελίδος, Βελλιάδος), Senecius of the city of Scodra./
This document leads us also to the Council of Ephesus and the heresies of this period, which more than out of political claims is in my opinion originating out of an excessive zeal and desire to be as righteous as possible. This was used politically by the Holy See to confirm its rights over the East Illyricum as Duchesne states.[26] In the following, I will present a short overview of the Council of Ephesus and the heresies that were shaping not only the spiritual map of the Eastern Roman Empire after the reception of Christianity as an official religion, but also its political map, which continued to be influential for the centuries to come.
Needless to state, that the Council of Ephesus, held from 22 June to 31 July 431, was a very influential one, not only because it was the Third Ecumenical Council, but because it started to clearly shape the division between East and West. The Roman emperor Theodosius II summoned it on the initiative of Nestor himself, who wanted to prove the truth of his teachings. He certainly never expected it to be condemned by the Council, he was so much looking forward to. As seen in the document above, bishops of the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland were also present in it: the bishops of Durrës, Apollonia and Bylis, Shkodra, New Epirus, condemningNestor’s teachings and confirmed the original creed of Nicaea.
Nestor, the Patriarch of Constantinople in 428-431 was obviously unaware of what movement he was creating, when he initiated the summoning of the Council of Ephesus. Nestor’s idea was to correct a wide-spread form of prayer, concerning Virgin Mary. He thought that the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos, “Christ-bearer,” but not Theodokos “God-bearer,” because she gave birth only to Christ man and not to Christ God. He considered this matter important, after seeing that Christians used expressions such as “mother of God” when praying.
To Nestor, just like to his contemporaries, accuracyof expression,especially in prayers, which was the supreme form of communication, was very important, and bothered by mistakes he found widespread, he tried to convince not only the common people but also the members of the Council of Ephesus, that they should produce exact forms and expressions of prayer so that people would not err out of their ignorance. Hence, he insisted to make clear that Christ should be seen as composed of two natures: one human and the other divine, and both these natures must be treated separately.
Nestorius was blamed with diophysicism (dual nature) for his thoughts and condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. No need to say that he was immediately removed from the post of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nevertheless, he continued to share his philosophy with people and his teachings spread in the Sassanid Empire, in Persia, Iran, Mesopotamia and even China. It can be assumed that Nestor was in those lands in exiled during this time, since his success is more notable there. The school of Edessa embraced these teachings of Nestor and became a strong intellectual and religious center of all the churches where Nestor’s ideas were taught and spread, thus eventually breaking away from the Christian Church.
Monophysicism
The Council of Ephesus became the starting point of many other heretic movements, one of which was also monophysicims or Eutychianism, which was born as an opposition to Nestorianism. Monophysicism (gr. monos = one and physis = nature) is nowadays a Christological doctrine, which declares that Christ is composed of only one nature, which is divine and human united in one. This worldview spread widely during the fifth and sixth centuries in the Eastern Roman Empire, especially in Syria, the Middle East, Egypt and Anatolia, while the Western Church and the Papacy condemned it as heretic at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.
Eutyches (380-456), the archimandrite of one of the most influential monasteries near Constantinople, first appeared as a powerful personality at the Council of Ephesus in 431, where he was noted for his open warfare against Nestor’s teachings, a war which he did not stop even when Nestor was convicted at the Council of Ephesus in 431. He continued fighting against Nestor even after he returned to Constantinople and did not spare Nestor’s former supporters either, including even some who had already made a turn in the Council of Ephesus, such as Cyril of Alexandria. This excessive devotion of him led to excessof zeal and made him a target of accusation for heresy.
To handle the case of Eutyches, a local synod was summoned in Constantinople in 448, but instead of solving the case, it made it even more complicated. The new patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscuri, became a supporter of Eutyches, and Pope Leo I wrote to him explaining that he had erred in insisting on a “single nature” of Christ. A Second Council of Ephesus was summoned again under Dioscuri in 449, in order to fix the issue, and the latter accused both of them: Eutyches and Dioscurifor not being harsh enough against Eutyches.
The Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Alexandria accused each other of heresy, which led to a schism between the Churches of the East and the West, until the Council of Chalcedon was convened in 451, to finally condemn Eutyches and alsoDioscuri I, also known as Dioscuri the Great. In this Council of Chalcedon, the last word of Christology was proclaimed, what is still valid nowadays, namely: Christ is composed of two natures inseparable from one another.
The Council of Chalcedon, October 8 to November 1, 451, was certainly one of the most important ecumenical councils of the Church. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon were signed (among others) also by Luke, bishop of the city of Durrës, by the metropolitan of the province of New Epirus, bishop of the metropolis of Durrës, by Evandrus, bishop of the city of Dioclia, and by Eusebius, bishop of the city of Apollonia, in southern Albania as the following document is suggesting:
ActisconciliiChalcedonensissubscripserunt (inter alios) “Lucas episcopusDyrrhachenaecivitatis,” “metropolitanusprovinciae novae Epiri,” “episcopusDyrrhachii metropolis,”[27] “Evandrus[28]episcopuscivitatisDiocliae,” “Eusebius episcopuscivitatisApolloniadis.”[29]
Obviously, the Illyrian bishops were keeping themselves out of the ongoing discussions and supporting the central authority of the Roman popes in all these religious maters. Whether the distance played a role in their approach is difficult to state. Geographically the distance from Durrës to Rome was more or less the same as the distance to Constantinople, if we consider, the good Via Egnatia as a main route to Constantinople. Was it perhaps the glorious reputation of the Roman Empire, which intimidated them and made them decide pro Rome rather than anything local? Probably these bishops did not consider these local heresies seriously as it was typical for them even in later periods.
But the story did not end so simply. In a letter from Pope Leo I, written on April 15, 454, we find complaints that Eutyches was continuing to spread his heresy even in exile. The letter, pope Leo I asks Marcian to transfer Eutyches to an even further remote and lonely place. This is the last time we meet the abandoned old man, but his disciples seem to have followed him, wherever he went. They created a movement, which continued to grow and spread especially in Syria, Egypt and even Constantinople. Many emperors tried to impose the Chalcedonian formula on them, but without success. In the sixth century, the monk and bishop Jakob Baradaeus united all the Eutychians or Monophysites into a single Church, which continues to this day under the name of the Syrian Orthodox Church.
Dioscuri on the other hand, the Patriarch of Alexandria who had condemned Eutychians, but continued to reject also the Council of Chalcedon as a legitime one, initiated a different branch from Eutyches, known today as Oriental Orthodoxy, where Dioscurithe Great is the main patriarch and saint of the Coptic church. This Church recognizes only the first four Ecumenical Councils and rejects the Council of Chalcedon. It is known as the Old Oriental Churches and is more widespread in Armenia and Ethiopia, but is also to be found in Eritrea, Egypt, Sudan, Syria and Kerala and India.
The following document, whichdates back toSept. 1, 457, shows that Eutychians were quite active even after the Council of Chalcedon and the Holy See had time and again to address this issue in their letters, instigating bishops of the Eastern Illyricum to support him in condemning and fighting this heresy.
Leo I. EuxitheumThessalonicensem, JuvenalemHierosolymitanum, PetrumCorinthium, LucamDyrrachenum “a pari” concitatadversusEutychianos, qui interfectoProterio, episcopoAlexandrino, id contendant, ut ad abolendastatutaChalcedoniacogaturconcilium. Sperat fore, ut imperator et patricius (Aspar), si sacerdotum intellexerint concordiam, ecclesiam perturbari ab haereticis non patiantur.[30]/Leo I. incites Euxitheus of Thessalonica, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Peter of Corinth, and Luke of Durrës“a peer” against Eutychians, who, after having killed Proterius, bishop of Alexandria, strive that the council of Chalcedonia should be compelled to abolish the statutes. He hopes that the Emperor and the patrician (Aspar), if the priests understand the concord, will not allow the Church to be disturbed by heretics./
Thessaloniki, Jerusalem, Corinth and Durrës are the destinations of this letter, and their bishops are considered as the important partners to settle down the problems that the Eutychians have caused. The Eutychians were already condemned in the Council of Chalcedon some years earlier in 451, but obviously that condemnation did not stop them from their activity and even aggressivity. Bishops in that period, were certainly not only religious rulers but also powerful political ones, because after the Edict of Thessalonica on 27 February 380, very citizen of the Roman Empire had to belong to a church and to an ecclesiastical community, otherwise he or she would be officially considered as an outlaw and expelled.[31]
If considering the map we may figure out one of thethe reasons why pope Damascus is addressing these bishops. Durrës was located at the head of the Via Egnatia, the Roman street, which was a continuation of Via Apia, connecting Rome with Constantinople. In that geographical position, Durrës was the most important port of the popes for their terrestrial itineraries to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul). Corinth, a very important city and port, was also a key station, when the popes were travelling by ship. Both ways, the terrestrialone through Durrës and the naval one through Corinth, led to Thessaloniki, which was the pre-last station to Constantinople, and further on to Alexandria and Jerusalem.
Thessaloniki was favored with special privileges and responsibilities since the time of popes Damascus, Syriac and Anastasius. Nevertheless,de jure Thessaloniki was raised into a papal vicariate on January 12, 444 by Pope Leon I. In this formal status,Thessaloniki continued to enjoy the same privileges that given earlier by other popes. The bishop of Thessaloniki had the power to ordain both the metropolitans of Illyricum and convene synods, by which the bishops could resolve their disputes. The only legallimitation given to the bishop of Thessaloniki in this formal declaration of the vicariate regarded greater issues, which he (the Roman pope) would be the only authority to solve, keeping thus the sovereignty to Roman popes.
There are certainly also other reasons why the bishop of Durrës is mentioned next to the most important religious personalities of the Eastern Roman Empire in this period, although he was supposed to be under the authority of Vicariate of Thessaloniki.Nevertheless, explaining the details, will be the task of another paper. For the moment, I would like to focus on heresies mentioned in the document above, in order tobetter highlight the worldview of the locals in those days and to keep the political and administrative organization of the region into its most important minimum to understand the context.
To sum up, Pope Hormisdaswho in 515 announced to Caesarius, bishop of Arles, that “nearly all bishops, both the Dardanians and the Illyrians, but not the Scythians,” had returned to communion with the Apostolic See, was aware of what a success story this was. Through some examples, I only gave a taste of what was going on in terms of spiritual movements that influenced political decisions of that time. It was a very dynamic time when freedom of thought and political actions were hand in hand shaping the future of Europe and Middle East, and Illyrian and Dardanian bishops who were dressed also with a lot of authority and responsibility for the people they represented, had difficult decisions to make. Nevertheless, their western views were often dominating, although Constantinople was more and more becoming a stronger political and religious center.
[1]Ludovicus Thallóczy, Constantinus Jireček, and Emilianus Šufflay, Acta et diplomata res albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia, vol. I (Vienna: Typis Adolphi Holzhausen, 1913). (hence: AAlb.I, 27.)
[2] Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs: History of Archeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 75-92.
[3]DejanBulić, „The Fortifications of the Late Antiquity and the Early Byzantine Period on the Later Territory of the South-Slavic Principalities and their Re-Occupation.“The World of the Slavs: Studies of the East, West and South Slavs: Civitas Oppidas, Villas and Archeological Evidence (7th to the 11thcenturies AD). (Belgrade: The Institute of History, 2013): 137-234.
[4]András Mócsy. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 2014), 69.
[5] Joseph Roisman and Jan Worthington, A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (John Wilsey and Sons: 2010), 547.
[6]Roisman and Worthington, 547-8.
[7]FanulaPapazoglu, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times: Tribali, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1978).
[8] Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Harvard University Press, 1982), 139.
[9]Timothy D. Barnes, Constantin: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire (Willey Blackwell, 2011), 160.
[10] AAlb I, 27; Jaffè, Reg. 778. Cf. Jaffè, Reg. 781.
[11]Ludovicus Thallóczy, Constantinus Jireček, and Emilianus Šufflay, Acta et diplomata res albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia, vol. I (Vienna: Typis Adolphi Holzhausen, 1913).
[12] AAlb.I, 1.
[13]For a recent study on Philippi, see Steven J Friesen, Michalis Lychounas and Daniel N. Schowalter, eds., Philippi, From Colonia Augusta to Communitas Christiana, Religion and Society in Transition. Novum Testamentum Supplements 186 (Brill, 2021)
[14] AAlb.I, 2.
[15] AAlb.I, 3.
[16] AAlb.I, 4.
[17] AAlb.I, 5.
[18] AAlb.I, 7.
[19] AAlb. I, 12.
[20]AAlb.I, 11.
[21]Duchesne, “L’Illyricumecclésiastique,” ByzantinischeZeitschrift 1 (1892): 531-550, esp. 543: “Sur cesneufévêques cinq sout identifies par les signatures du concild’Éphèse (a. 431) avec les métropolitanis de Corinthe, Nicopolis, Larisse, Scodra (Senecio) et Sardique. Il y a bien lieu de croire que les quatre restants sont les métropolitanis de quatre autres provinces Crète, Mesie, Dardanie et Dacie ripuaire.”
[22] For a recent study on this field, see Thomas J. MacMaster and Nicholas S.M. Matheou, eds., Italy and the East Roman World in the Medieval Mediterranean. Empire, Cities and Elites 476-1204 (Routledge, 2021).
[23] In Epiro nova inter Dyrrhachiumadseptemtrionem et Aulonem ad meridiem. See Pauli-Wissowa, Lexikon s. h. v. ‘Αλεξούδης, ΣύντομοςίστοριχήπεριγραφήτήςΑπολλωνίας, Constantipoli, 1896, 108 s.
[24]ΒουλίςΒυλλίς (ager Bullinus, Βυλλιαχή). Γραδίτζιος, Градецеmediiaevi. SeeTomaschek in Pauli-Wissowa, Encycl. II, 1105.
[25]AAlb.I, 14.
[26]Duchesne, “L’Illyricum ecclésiastique,” 539.
[27] Ab ultima sessione abfuisse videtur. Farlati, VII, 344 B.
[28] Cf. Migne. PG, 40, 814, 822; Marković, Dukljansko-barska metropolija, 9.
[29]AAlb.I, 21. Harduin, II, 53, 365, 627. Mansi, VI, 565, 1080 et VII, 420. – V. Farlati, Ill. Sacr. VII, 2, 344, 396. Hefele, II, 423 ss.Leonis M. Opp. I, 1311. (Migne, 54, 1120). Mansi, VI, 315. Bull. Rom. Tomasseti, App. I, 150. – Jaffè, Reg. 525 (302)
[30] AAlb.I, 22: 1 September 457.
[31]Sidney ZdeneckEhler, John B Morrall.Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. (Biblo and Tannen, 1967), 6-7.
