UDK: 930-05 Toma Arhiakon

ARCHDEACON THOMAS OF SPLIT (12001268)

A source of early Croatian History
Mirjana MATIJEVI SOKOL*
Thomas, the archdeacon of Split, one of the most interesting figures of
medieval Croatia, a participant in many of events in public, political and clerical life in Split from t early to mid-thirteenth century, would have remained
almost entirely unremembered had he not written a work of historiography
that surpassed the customary story-telling of medieval chroniclers, the wellknown Historia Salonitana (History of Salona), as it was called by the father
of Croatian historiography, Ivan Lui Lucius, when first presenting it to the
scholarly public in 1666.
Information about Thomass life has been obtained both directly and
indirectly, from the Historia Salonitana itself and from other documents. His
youth and schooling in Split and Italy are generally the subject of conjecture.
Since the Historia Salonitana, besides describing the history of the Church
in Split up to Thomass time, is nonetheless largely a memoir with emphasis
on events in which the archdeacon himself participated, there are some data
here which can be discerned as autobiographical or biographical notations
by Thomas, since he writes of himself in the third person.
In past historiography, there were differing views of Thomass social origins. Beginning with Daniele Farlati and up to Kerubin egvi, a common
view was that Thomas came from a patrician family. There is no way of
knowing the basis for Farlatis claims, but egvi believes that only a clergyman who was also a member of the nobility could aspire to such high positions within the Church hierarchy and play such a major role in the citys
public life as Thomas did. Franjo Raki, however, strictly adhering to historical sources and basing his assertions only on them, stated that Thomas
was from an unknown family. Izidor Krnjavi very sharply reproached
* Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Ph. D., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy, History
Department, Zagreb

Ioannis Lucii De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex (Amstelaedami MDCLXVI Amsterdam,
1666), pp. 310-370.

Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vol. III, (Venetiis MDCCLXV Venice, 1765), p. 258.

Kerubin egvi, Toma Splianin, dravnik i pisac (1200 1268) (Zagreb, 1927), pp. 42-43.

Franjo Raki, Ocjena starijih izvora za hrvatsku i srbsku poviest srednjega vieka (II),
Knjievnik I (1864) vol. 3: 358-388.

251

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

Thomas for hating both the Croats and Hungarians because he was a diehard Latin, which he proudly emphasized, and that his writing bears the
stamp of his political convictions. Even today, Lujo Margeti, based on
interpretations of the portrayal of the earliest eras of Croatian history in the
Historia Salonitana, considers Thomas explicitly hostile to the Croats, while
Nada Klai recognized that age-old and still present rural-urban antagonism in Thomass political opinions, speculating that he may have even been
a Croat.
Thomas was born in 1200 or 1201, and withdrew from public life in
1266, and based on his tombstone it is known for certain that he died on
May 8, 126810 and that he was interred in the Franciscan church on the Riva
in Split. The entirely undecorated tombstone bears an inscription in Latin in
verse which indicates the affinity of Archdeacon Thomas for the Franciscan
worldview. The composer of the verses believed that the epitaph should
reflect the views of Thomas:
Doctrinam, Christe, docet archidiaconus iste
Thomas, hanc tenuit moribus et docuit:
Mundum sperne, fuge vicium, carnem preme, luge
pro vite fruge, lubrica lucra fuge.
Spalatumque dedit ortum, quo vita recedit.
Dum mors succedit vite, mea gloria cedit.
Hic me vermis edit, sic iuri mortis obedit
corpus quod ledit, animamve qui sibi credit.
A. D. MCCLXVIII, mense Madii, octavo die intrante.
Izidor Krnjavi, Prilozi historiji salonitani Tome arcidjakona Spljetskoga, Vjestnik kr.
hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinskog Zemaljskog arkiva II (1900): 129-169.

Lujo Margeti, Historia Salonitana i Historia Salonitana Maior neka pitanja, Historijski
zbornik XLVII (1994), 1:1-36.

Nada Klai, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb, 1971), p. 23; Ibid., Povijest Hrvata
u razvijenom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb, 1976), p. 208.

Thomas cites 1230 as the year of his appointment as archdeacon and that he was thirty years of age, so it follows that he was born in 1200 or 1201. See: Thomas Archidiaconus,
Historia Salonitana (hereinafter: Thomas), Scriptores, vol. III, digessit Fr. Raki (Zagrabiae 1894
Zagreb, 1984), p. 107; Historia Salonitana: Thomae Archidiaconi, Historia Salonitanorum atque
Spalatinorum pontificum Toma Arhiakon, Povijest salonitanskih i splitskih prvosveenika, (hereinafter: Historia Salonitana, 2003) (bilingual Latin-Croatian edition). Foreword, Latin text, critical
analysis and Croatian translation by Olga Peri. Historical commentary by Mirjana Matijevi
Sokol. The study Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo by Radoslav Katii (Split: Knjievni krug,
2003), p. 172; Thomae Archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (hereinafter: Historia
Salonitana, 2006), Damir Karbi, Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Olga Peri and James Ross Sweeney,
eds. (Budapest: CEU Press, 2006); p. 198.

The Historia Salonitana ends with the events of 1266, so it is assumed that the last two
years of his life were dedicated to writing this text.
10
Kerubin egvi published the text of Thomass tombstone. Op. cit., p. 120.


252

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

Translation: Oh Christ, Archdeacon Thomas taught the doctrine to which

he himself adhered and he taught (other) tenets: spurn the world, flee from
sin, subdue the body, mourn after the luxuries of life, flee from tempting
gain! He was born in Split, where he bid his life farewell. When death succeeded life, my fame had passed. When death succeeded life, my glory ceded.
Here the worms feed on me and the decomposing body succumbs to the law
of death, and to the soul which relinquishes it. In the year of our Lord 1268
on the eighth day of the month of May.
Taking into account the situation in Split in the first half of the thirteenth
century, where the operation of the school of Master Treguan has been ascertained, it can be supposed with great certainty that Thomas acquired his first
knowledge and received guidance for his future schooling in meetings with
Treguan and Archbishop Bernardo. The era of Split Archbishop Bernardo
(1200-1217) and Treguan, first a teacher of belles-lettres in Split, and then a
clergyman, archdeacon and finally bishop of Trogir, left a mark on the cultural life of Split and Trogir and despite turbulent political events it resulted in international masterpieces of Romanesque artistic and also literary
expression in both cities. A distinguished series of masters and artists such
as Buvina, Otto and Radovan were joined by Archdeacon Thomas, a master of the written word. Thomas himself indirectly testified to the role and
influence of Bernardo and Treguan.11 He spoke of them with great respect
and admiration. They were from the Apennine Peninsula, one from Perugia
and the other from Florence. Bernardo came to the post of Split archbishop after serving as an instructor to the Hungarian king. He spent about thirty years in Bologna, studying doctrine; he possessed a library and wrote
tracts against heretics. Treguan came to Split at the invitation of Archbishop
Bernardo to teach the clergy grammar and writing skills. In 1203, he reworked the Life of St. John, Bishop of Trogir12 himself, and his role in the
construction o the cathedrals portal is recorded in an inscription on that
portal.13 Such an atmosphere obviously suited the young Thomas, arousing
his affinities and prompting him to pursue his education in their homeland,
at one of the most prestigious universities of the time, in Bologna.
Bologna at that time was a European university which was distinguished
by its law school. The selection of such a university would prove significant
to Thomass activities after his return to his native city, reft by all manner
of political and social turmoil. As a gifted and attentive observer, Thomas
learned from the political events and social processes in Italian cities and in
Thomas, pp. 78-82, 85-88, 90; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 120-127, 130-136; Historia
Salonitana, 2006, pp. 137-141, 145, 149-157, 163.
12
ivot Svetoga Ivana Trogirskoga, edited by Milan Ivanievi, in: Legende i kronike (Split,
1977), pp. 59-121.
13
The inscription on the Trogir cathedrals western portal dates to the time of its construction as rendered by Master Radovan: ... ANNO MILLENO DUCENO BISQUE UICENO
PRESULE TUSCANO FLORIS EX URBE TREGUANO... Josip Stoi, Trogirska katedrala i
njezin zapadni portal, Zbornik radova meunarodnog znanstvenog skupa odranog u Trogiru 26-30.
rujna 1990. godine (Trogir, 1994), p. 84.
11

253

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

the northern part of the Apennine Peninsula in general. He witnessed the

struggle of the urban communes for independence from any central authority, the mutual conflicts between cities, the creation of new methods of city
governance influenced by new social and economic trends, and the struggle
between papal and imperial authority. It all began with Pope Innocent III
(1198-1216), who attempted to bring order to many church matters, not hesitating to become involved in secular issues, because he did so with a feeling
of responsibility and conviction that the matters of this world must be subjugated to the order which God had established, and that kings and princes must submit to Gods judgement. The world seemed to him a hierarchy,
or rather a sacred order ... Innocent believed that the papacy could fulfil its
universal duty only when the independence and sovereignty of the clerical
state allowed it full freedom. However, Innocent also had his own ideas on
the development of European states: all states in Europe must join in a single higher order under papal leadership. The Franciscans and Dominicans
were the Churchs mainstay in the exposition of these views, particularly
when, after Innocents death, the inevitable clash arose between the two universal authorities: regnum and sacerdotium i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor and
pope waged a struggle for predominance on Italian soil, and it was precisely at that time that Thomas was studying in Bologna.14 St. Francis preached
in Bologna. Dominic de Guzmn, the founder of the Dominican order in
Bologna, fulfilled the instruction of the Gospel according to Mark: Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (16, 15).15 Thomas would
apply all of these experiences to his political activity, and record them in
his Historia Salonitana, for he could compare the situation in Splitwhere,
on the one had, the Hungarian king attempted to rule the city through his
adherents, very often the archbishop, while on the other hand there was
the Croatian nobility, whose proximity was a great potential and real threat
to the development of urban communal independencewith that in the
Italian communes. This is precisely the reason why Thomas would advocate the Latin model of city management (regimen Latinorum), meaning
application of the podesteria: this entailed bringing in a paid administrator, usually a foreigner, as the best solution to his citys problems. As soon as
the opportunity arose, he exploited the situation and as a very expeditious
import tried and tested in Italy and Provence16 bring a podest to Split
from Ancona. It is worthwhile mentioning the scholars whom Thomas may
have met in Bologna. Besides the already mentioned St. Francis and Dominic
August Franzen, Pregled povijesti crkve (Zagreb, 1988), str. 182-186.
That was in 1221. See: Franjo anjek, Crkva i kranstvo u Hrvata (Zagreb, 1988), p. 280;
John Foster, Crkvena povijest 2 (500-1500) (Novi Sad, s.a.), p. 84.
16
Roberto Lopez, Roenje Evrope (Zagreb, 1978), p. 152.
14

15

254

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

de Guzmn, there was also Petrus de Vineis17, Iohannes de Viterbo18, Paulus

(Ungarus) of Dalmatia,19 and Rolandinus Passagerii.20 They were sufficient
to guarantee that Thomas received what for his time was the finest education in theology and law.
The diplomatic sources in the archives of Split and Trogir show that during the period from 1227 to 1232, Thomas was a notary public in Split, first
as a cleric and then as a subordinate deacon and then archdeacon, which
he became in 1230.21 However, Kerubin egvi believes that Thomass notary service ceased in 1230 upon his appointment to the archdeaconate and
that the document dated 1232if it was in fact drafted by Thomas as stated
thereonhad to be older, i.e. written prior to 1230.22
Thomas did not dedicate any attention to this period of his life in the
Historia Salonitana. Nonetheless, from the sources it is known that he
inherited this post from the Split notary Sabatius and that he held it for a
relatively brief time. Only a single original document written by him has
been preserved, as well as two transcripts. Analysis has shown that he used
the old completion formula (complevi), that he melded elements of charters
and notitia, and under him the signum notarii became a permanent element
of the corroboration formula for documents. It was precisely in the performance of these duties that his education in Bologna came to the fore, as
Roman law at the time was undergoing a Renaissance, and the ars notaria, as
an expression of the needs of a new civil society, became a subject of study
17
Petrus de Vineis, died in 1249, stylist, anti-papist, chief advisor to Friedrich II, studied in Bologna. See: Jakov Stipii, Zagrebaki rukopis epistolara Petra de Vineis, Zbornik
Historijskog instituta JAZU 4 (1961): 405-421.
18
Iohannes de Viterbo wrote the Liber de regimine civitatum at around 1228. Jacques le
Goff, Srednjovjekovna civilizacija zapadne Evrope (Belgrade, 1974), p. 520.
19
Paulus of Dalmatia, until recently known as Ungarus (ca. 1190-1255) was a law professor at the Bologna University at the beginning of the 13th century, who wrote the commentary for a collection of canon law and served as first provincial of the Croatian-Hungarian
Dominicans. See: Stjepan Krasi, Fr. Paulus Hungarus seu ut alii volunt, Dalmata O.P. Jedna
zanimljiva linost iz XIII st., Prilozi za istraivanje hrvatske filozofske batine IV. (1978), no. 7-8:
131-156.
20
Rolandinus Passagerii was the author of one of the best known notary formularies, and
in 1234 he performed notary services in Bologna, while later he headed the notary school.
He died in 1300, and his work bears the title Summa artis notariae. The oldest manuscript held
in the Metropolitan Library in Zagreb (MR 109) was written in 1275. See: Jakov Stipii,
Pomone povijesne znanosti u teoriji i praksi, Zagreb 19913, p. 164.
21
Tadija Smiiklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae (hereinafter: CD),
vol. III., (Zagreb, 1905), pp. 267, 301, 365.
22
K. egvi, op. cit., p. 51. Gunjaa made a similar point, although he believed that the document which is also Thomass own work was dated 1231 and not 1227 as egvi believed,
or 1232 as Smiiklas stated (CD III, 365). Gunjaa concluded he did not know why Thomas
stopped serving as a notary and disagrees with egvis view that the service is incompatible
with performance of the archdeacons duty. Stjepan Gunjaa, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj
historiji I (Zagreb 1973), pp. 9-21.

255

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

at universities.23 That Thomas was well-versed in the legal profession and

diplomatics is reflected in his history, where his skill was demonstrated in
his use of diplomatic materials as historical sources.24
He proudly emphasized his election as archdeacon and wrote that it was
made in complete accord (in summa concordia), when he was thirty years old.
Thus commenced Thomass ascent in the church hierarchy and his major
role in everything that occurred in Split.25
Very soon after his appointment as archdeacon, obviously due to his
reformist zeal and loyalty to the pope, he came into conflict with Archbishop
Guncellus (1220-1242). He dedicated several chapters 26 to these turbulent events which signified Thomass first involvement in the citys public life. It would appear that this was the determinant for all later activities which brought Thomas many rises and falls in the social hierarchy, as
well as appreciation and condemnation. Guncellus was appointed archbishop by the Hungarian royal court. He was an ethnic Hungarian, the son of
the nobleman Cornelius and related to Gyula, the Croatian ban or viceroy. He was appointed archbishop in Split due to lay pressure. He proved
incompetent, and came into conflict with the Cathedral Chapter even before
Thomas became archdeacon, and thereafter the antagonism only grew
and Thomas criticized him for exercising the authority of archbishop even
before he received the pallium. An open confrontation between representatives of one or the other side arose in the city. However, Thomas emerged as
the moral victor based on a verdict by Cardinal Otto, the authorized proxy
of Pope Gregory IX, who was approached in Perugia, where he was at the
time, by both sides. Guncellus remained archbishop even after this, while
Thomas became very actively involved in public life. Political circumstances in Split were quite anarchic. A lover of law, order and labour and a follower of the reformers St. Francis of Assisi and Dominic de Guzmn, Thomas
believed only a person from outside could ensure communal stability. It
is in this light that one should view and understand Thomass sometimes
harsh assessments of the representatives of the Croatian magnates, who performed the duty of princes in Split, but who did not actually care about the
city. Taking his words and opinions out of context, historiography judged
Thomas too harshly and characterized him as someone who despised the
Croats. This is a very one-sided view, for Thomas was extravagant in his
praise for those who were capable and deserving of credit. This, for example,
23
Jakov Stipii, Razvoj splitske notarske kancelarije, Zbornik Historijskog instituta JAZU
(1954): 117-119.
24
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Starohrvatski Solin u Kronici Tome Arhiakona, Vjesnik za
arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 85 (1992 published in 1993): 83-90; Mirjana Matijevi Sokol,
Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti (Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap, 2002), passim.
25
Thomas, p. 107; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 172; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 198.
26
Thomas: chapt. XXVI. De promotione Guncellusli, pp. 92-99; XXXI. De scandalo, quod factum
est inter archiepiscopum et archidiaconum, pp. 107-113; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 144-145, 172181; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp.166-181, 198-211.

256

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

was the case with Grgur (Gregory) of Bribir, whom he described with great
appreciation. He wrote that Grgur was very rich and powerful, thoughtful
and adept in governance, and that there was not a more powerful man in
Croatia than he who had vanquished all of his enemies (uir potens et diues,
et in administrandis rebus satis circumspectus et strenuus ... nec erat in tota prouintia
Chroatie, qui tanta potentie prerogatiua polleret; omnes enim inimicos suos superauerat), but when he was elected prince of Split, he did not solely deal with the
city due to his many duties and appointed a regent, and Split, Thomas said,
was like a widow (quia civitas quasi uidua sine rectoris gubernatione).27 Obviously
this was a very understandable assessment of the situation by a Split native
and a sound reason for the application of his own ideas.
To resolve the situation in the city, Thomas believed that it was necessary to bring a foreigner into the city based on the model of the communes
in Italy and Provence a paid chief official and impartial city administrator. To be sure, this new idea would hardly have been feasible without the
support of the moral authorities. At that time, the followers of St. Francis
were already present in Split, and they enjoyed a high reputation due to
their modesty. Apparently sharing Thomass views, they came to his aid at
that time and extolled the populace, torn between the two opposing sides
in the city, to unity and accord, and to have an administrator brought in
from the Apennine Peninsula. Thomas and Miha Madijev received authorization from their fellow citizens and set off for Ancona to find a person
to serve as administrator. In Ancona they sought the advice of the Ancona
podesteria, which directed them to a respected Franciscan. They placed full
confidence in his recommendation and selected Gargano de Arscindis, who
arrived in Split on 15 May 1239. Gargano served three one-year terms as
podest. According to Thomass description, this was an era of order in the
city,28 particularly important to the codification of city ordinances and customs, which were registered in a capitulary. It is not difficult to assume that
all of this was done precisely under the influence of Thomas and probably
his direct participation as an individual well-versed in law, and also in the
citys rules and customs. Legal historians assert that Thomas, in his selection of rules and customs to codify, was a proponent of the noble caste,
and not an interpreter of the popular will, although the claim that he preferred the so-called Latin character of Split does not stand.29 This successful move for Split had far-reaching consequences, as subsequent city statutes
in Dalmatia, including that of Split, contained provisions that the podests
of cities cannot be from the city itself nor its near hinterland.30 In general,
Thomas, p. 113; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 182-183; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 210-213.
Thomas, pp. 117-125; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 194-215; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp.
222-253.
29
Statut grada Splita, edited and translated by Antun Cvitani (Split: Knjievni krug, 1985),
p. XVI.
30
Op. cit., pp. 37-38: Book One, Chapt. XVIII, notes that the podest or administrator of
the city of Split and his officials and entourage shall not be from the Slavic (i.e. Croatian
translators note) lands nor from the province of Dalmatia.
27

28

257

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

the time Gargano spent as podest in Split was successful. Circumstances in

the city stabilized, he introduced taxes, resolved many vital urban problems,
and set the foundations for future utilities.31 To be sure, Thomass vision
and education deserve credit for this and they were incorporated into these
developments.32
Thomas did not achieve the success he had desired in his rise in the
Church hierarchy. The departure of Gargano de Arscindis and the death of
Guncellus in 1242 opened up new antagonisms. This was the time of Tartar
invasions and a conflict between Split and King Bela IV and Queen Maria,
which actually made the entire situation even more difficult. Thomas once
more participated in events in the Church at this time. He came out of these
events a disheartened man, his pride hurt. These were certainly sound reasons for his decision to put his education to the service of defending himself and, as some historians maintain, to write an apology for himself and
aware of the potential of such interpretations characterize himself as a
lover of justice and a detester of iniquity (amator iustitie et nequitie detestator).33
Many of Thomass assessment of events and persons must be viewed critically and placed in the context of his general opinions, but also his personal failures. Thomas was a fierce opponent of everything that came from the
Hungarian royal court, but this was not straightforward opposition simply
because it was Hungarian, but rather because it conflicted with the interests
of communal independence. Where the Church is concerned, he was a fierce
opponent of the interference of secular with Church authority. Thus in the
case of the attempt by laymen to impose Ugrin as the archbishop of Split,
he asserted that no election made by secular tumult could be implemented,
but rather only an election conducted by means of the mature deliberations
of monks and Church officials (electio non est celebranda precipitanter et cum
secularium tumultu, sed matura deliberatione fratrum et relligiosorum uirorum).34
Laymen did not accept him, Thomas, the archdeacon of Split, as archbishop,35 nor was his candidate for abbot of the Monastery of St. Stephen accepted. These were bitter moments for a misunderstood man. It should be noted
that the Franciscans and Dominicans always supported him, including in the
election of the archbishop. Although he did not manage to secure the highest career within the Church and albeit somewhat disheartened, he nonetheless remained involved in many activities that required his legal expertise.
He served as a judge in disputes. Together with the reputable Franciscans
31
See: Ludwig Steindorf, Stari svijet i novo doba. O formiranju komune na istonoj obali
Jadrana, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. (1986 published in 1987), vol. 16:141-152.
32
For more see: Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske
povijesti, pp. 307-327.
33
Thomas, p. 107; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 172; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 198.
34
Thomas, p. 196; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 290-291 Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 342.
35
The election of the Split archbishop, when Thomas was elected but not accepted, occurred
at the beginning of 1244, on 7 January. Thomas wrote about these events in Chapt. XLIV. De
seditione, que facta est per laycos in processu electionis archiepiscopi. Thomas, pp. 187-190; Historia
Salonitana, 2003, pp. 276-281; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 322-331.

258

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

from Italy, Gerard of Modena, Paul and Andrew, he served as witness to the
peace agreement between Split and Trogir, and he also performed delicate
missions for Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261).36 This speaks sufficiently of
the reputation of this trustworthy and scholarly individual. After the death
of Archbishop Rogerius (1250-1266), whom he esteemed more than others,
he retired from public life, and, it would appear, dedicated himself to writing his lifes work.
If not for Thomass chronicle, all that would be known of him based on
other historical sources was that he was an educated medieval priest and
nothing more. However, the need of Archdeacon Thomas to write, regardless of whether this partially entailed his need to for self-justification or
apology, enriched medieval Croatia with a work that far exceeded the confines of its time and place. The Historia Salonitana is a monument more
durable than brass.
Kerubin egvi characterized Thomass work as literary in external form,
historical in content, and didactic in purpose and intention.37 Namely,
Thomas intended to write a history of the Church in Split as the successor
to the metropolitan rights of Salona, and thus the title Historia Salonitana.
But he also wanted to justify his own successes and failures. Just as other
historical events intertwined around the main theme, Church history since
Apostolic times, so too is it a significant work for Croatian history as it
encompasses some matters from its earliest periods. Here it has historiographic importance, while for the period of Thomass active involvement
in public affairs it bears the features of a memoir. Thomas himself wrote
that it was written on the basis of original sources, traditions and differing views (partim scripta, partim relata, partim opinionem sequentes)38 and this is
precisely why it is classified as unique not only in Croatia but in the broader European context. On this occasion, attention shall be accorded to three
historiographic themes that Thomas covered. These are the overview of the
history of the Split, and also Salona, Archdiocese, those sections which deal
with individual episodes in Croatian history and some aspects and reflections on European history.
Overview of Church history: The basic theme of the Historia Salonitana is
to present the history of the Church in Split which, as the successor to the
Church in Salona, inherited the archdiocesan and metropolitan authority
over most of the Croatian state territory in the Middle Ages. Because of this,
Nenad Ivi placed it in the genre of so-called gesta episcoporum, meaning a
chronicle which tells of events from the past of individual Church organizations as a specific literary medieval form.39 The recounting of events associCD IV, Zagreb 1906, p. 197; CD V, Zagreb 1907, p. 162.
K. egvi, op. cit., p. 143.
38
Thomas, p. 34; Historia Salonitana, 2003 , p. 30; Historia Salonitana, 2006, 34.
39
Ivi states that the so-called gesta episcoporum is a type of history popular from the ninth
to the end of the eighteenth centuries, which in their lists and catalogues in uninterrupted
sequences emphasize the inheritance of a certain service, creating something of a diocesan
36
37

259

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

ated with a dominant individual, such as a bishop or archbishop, constitute

the foundation of such works. According to the custom of medieval historians and chroniclers, the introduction to the work forms the title and definition of its basic content. In the Historia Salonitana it is: Incipit historia
Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum. Isidore of Seville, a writer also
cited by Thomas, began his work in the same fashion, i.e.: Incipit historia
Gotorum. In portraying history from the establishment of the Church in
Salona to 1266, Thomas described three different periods. The first period
covers the existence of the Church in Salona, the metropolis of the Roman
province of Dalmatia, the second covers the transfer and establishment of
continuity in Split, and the third covers a period that is not history for
Thomas, but rather a memoirist account of events in which he participated,
often as the chief protagonist. It is essential to point out these three periods,
because the methodological approaches of the writer are adapted to the
period in question, so the statement that he wrote the work partially using
written sources pertains to the first two thematic sections. In them, Thomas
discussed two key points in the sequence of events: first the establishment of
the Salona Diocese, i.e. the metropolitan see, and then the transfer of these
privileges to the Church in Split, embodied in two figures, St. Domnio and
the so-called John of Ravenna. Based on the depiction of these two turning
points, Thomas can be assessed as a Church historian. Analyzing the Early
Christian, Salona sequence of the so-called gesta episcoporum, historians
have concluded that Thomas, with certain qualifications, was reliable because
he used written sources. A more careful analysis indicates that Thomas often
even concealed certain sources, or passed over events that perhaps disrupted his established sequence. Thomas made a representative selection of
bishops/archbishops from the past of the Church in Salona, about whom he
wrote and who fit into his glorious past of Salona,40 but he could not avoid
the weakness of all Church chroniclers who sought Apostolic roots. He dedicated special attention to St. Domnio, the founder of the Church in Salona.
Even though, as an educated priest, he could and should have known that
the Church in Salona was established only in the third/fourth century and
that Domnio was a martyr at the time of Roman Emperor Diocletian, he
was unable to avoid the snare imposed by Church tradition in Split, burdened by the legends which it had created with the objective of justifying
that which Thomas was completing in his text, claiming that the Church in
Split had inherited that which Salona had since the distant past (quod Salona
pseudo-genus for the purpose of demonstrating its regularity and legitimacy. Nenad Ivi,
Domiljanje prolosti (Zagreb, 1992), p. 74. See also: Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i
njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 43-45.
40
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i crkvena organizacija u Saloni, Zbornik
Zavoda za povijesne znanosti IC JAZU 15 (1988): 11-26; Ivo Babi, Splitske uspomene na salonitanske kranske starine, Vjesnik za arheologiju u historiju dalmatinsku (1992 published in
1993), no. 85: 21-26; Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 54-75.

260

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

antiquitus habuit, optineret ecclesia Spalatensium).41 Thomas attempted to square

the knowledge he had acquired during this studies with the Split tradition,
so he even invented two Domnios, one in Apostolic times, an alleged pupil
of St. Peter, and the other from the time of Emperor Diocletian. This is precisely why the chapter of the Historia Salonitana on St. Domnio and St.
Donnino cannot be considered successful, because he not only failed to contribute to the clarification of contrived stories, he also added to them.42
Probably aware of these shortcomings, but also unable to eliminate them, he
justified himself by explaining that he wrote about Church officials (bishops
and archbishops) about whom he knew something (de aliquibus, prout scire
potuimus).43 Besides Domnio, Thomas also wrote about Glycerius, Natalis
and Maximus. Generally his knowledge is trustworthy, and based on Jordan,
the correspondence of Pope Gregory the Great.44 The choice of persons
about whom he wrote is questionable, as there are indications in the Salona
chronicle that Thomas concealed or passed over certain events. Although
Thomass bias in his aspiration to secure the most glorious foundations for
his Split archdiocese cannot be overlooked nor entirely set aside, the time in
which Thomas lived and worked must nonetheless be taken into consideration. Ivo Babi believes that Thomas as much data as he could given the
scope of his general knowledge and as much as epoch allowed, citing the
example of Iacobus de Voragine, who was Thomass contemporary (12301298) and who only covered four bishops in his history of Genoa, acknowledging that he could not find anything on the earliest history.45 Medieval
practices were certainly an unavoidable component in the manner in which
such works were compiled. Nenad Ivi stressed the anthology as one of the
fundamental figures of literary composition, which played a role in the
determination and selection of individual themes. 46 The conclusion that
Thomas exploited such a possibility is inescapable, particularly in his
description of the conflict between the Salona Bishop Natalis and Archdeacon
Honoratus, where he could have sided with the archdeacon without hesitation, particularly given his extensive knowledge of written documents and
keeping in mind his conflict with Archbishop Guncellus, for in the presentation of events in which he was a participant many centuries later he had to
be much more cautious and restrained. The very delicate question of the
transfer of the privileges of the Church in Salona to that of Split was resolved
simply by Thomas through the person of John of Ravenna. This chapter in
Thomas, p. 33; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 48; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 54.
Frane Buli Josip Bervaldi, Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa, uz dodatak Kronotaksa spljetskih
nadbiskupa (od razorenja Solina do polovice XI. v.) (Zagreb, 1912); F. Buli, Muenici solinski. Broj i
stali, godina i dan smrti muenika solinskih (Zagreb, 1919); Istorija svetoga Dujma i Staa, edited
by Hrvoje Morovi, in: Legende i kronike (Split, 1977), pp. 13-57; I. Babi, op. cit.
43
Thomas, p. 12; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 20; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p.22.
44
F. Buli, S. Gregorio Magno papa nelle sue relazioni colla Dalmazia (a. 590604) (Spalato - Split,
1904).
45
I. Babi, op. cit., p. 26.
46
N. Ivi, op. cit., p. 40.
41

42

261

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

Croatian historiography has been the subject of the most debate, for it is
closely tied to the fundamental questions of coexistence between several
Dalmatian cities and the Croatian state in the territory up to the Drava River
in Pannonia. Historiographic views vary. Thomas here certainly demonstrated all of the weaknesses of a biased individual who did not wish to clarify the most important moment in the succession of the privileges of one
church organization by another, for this right was exercised under ambiguous circumstances. Thomas studied at the most prestigious law school of his
time and was familiar with canon law, which was obvious based on many
examples. He knew that Zadar, as the metropolis of the Byzantine province,
should have assumed metropolitan authority. The struggle of the Church in
Split to ensure its legitimacy, which rested on the relics of St. Domnio, influenced Thomas, so the chapter on John of Ravenna, like the one on St.
Domnio, was among the least founded and most biased with the objective of
obfuscation and maintaining the unquestioned privileges of the Split
Archdiocese.47 For that period of Church history in Split after the appearance of John of Ravenna to the his own time, Thomas provided data on
those archbishops of whom there are memories (de quibus extat memoria).48
He then dedicated one chapter to the exemption of the bishop of Upper
Dalmatia and a particularly long chapter to the reformist Split Archbishop
Lawrence, whose service was marked by three Croatian kings. Furthermore,
he wrote about the establishment of the Hvar Diocese, Archbishop Manas,
the exemption of the Zadar Diocese and the famed Split Archbishop
Raynerius, who is honoured as a martyr in the legends of the Church in
Split. The conclusion of this sequence is a chapter on two archbishops named
Peter. Thomas wrote about the archbishops who succeeded John of Ravenna
by transcribing the catalogue notations which are held by the Split
Archdiocese. These notations are particularly important to Croatian history,
because the archbishops are dated according to Croatian, Frankish and
Byzantine rulers, so this chapter was especially used in the establishment of
a chronology for the earliest Croatian history.49 Thomas covered the archbishops of his time based on the principles of memoirist literature, and since
there are other preserved historical sources, it is not difficult to ascertain
which are historical facts and which are Thomass subjective viewpoints. To
be sure, Thomass political convictions and views come to the fore precisely
in the descriptions of those persons he knew and events in which he participated. It has already been noted that he wrote positively of Archbishop
Bernardo, while he conflicted with both Guncellus and Hugrin. He also
touched upon the attempt to unify the Split Archdiocese with the Zagreb
N. Klai, Ivan Ravenjanin i osnutak splitske metropolije, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju
dalmatinsku LXVLXVII (19631965 published in 1971): 209-249; L. Margeti, op. cit., pp.
20-23; Neven Budak, Prva stoljea Hrvatske (Zagreb, 1994), pp. 83-86; Ivo Goldstein, Hrvatski
rani srednji vijek (Zagreb, 1995), pp. 135-138. All views and my elaborated position: Mirjana
Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 75-114.
48
Thomas, p. 35; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 52; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 58.
49
L. Margeti, op. cit., 13-20.
47

262

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

Diocese under Zagreb Bishop Stjepan, which did not succeed. Nada Klai
judged that Archdeacon Thomas was not a good historian in his presentation of the Salona and Split Churches. 50 It is true that his bias actually
obscured some key events even more, although on the other hand one cannot overlook the fact that Thomass historiographic approach surpassed that
of many contemporaries. Even though the text was composed in the thirteenth-century literary tradition as a gesta episcoporum, it touched upon
many events important to Croatian and European history and when he
digressed from these main themes he returned to them with the words sed
iam ad propositum redeamus (but let us return to the main subject)51, his ergo
breuiter prelibatis, nunc ad materiam redeamus (since we have briefly presented
this, let us return to the subject)52 and he wrote about many events precisely on the basis of written testimony. The method whereby he employed
them and the fact that he used them placed Thomas above his contemporaries and many writers of later centuries as well.53
Episodes in Croatian history: All historians who dealt with the earliest periods of Croatian history could not bypass the Historia Salonitana. It was not
always simple to resolve the problems raised by Thomas due to a shortage of
reliable written sources, but everything he recorded helped despite the shortcomings entailed by their use. The description of the arrival of the Croats
merits attention. The so-called Goth theory, i.e. Thomass identification of
the Croats as Goths, served many as the principal argument that Thomas
hated the Croats.54 Since the Priest of Dioclea resolved this matter similarly, it is believed that both had used the same source.55 The most important
information which Thomas provides in the catalogue of the Split bishops
(archbishops) is the dating by Frankish and Byzantine, but also Croatian
rulers. He mentioned Branimir, Trpimir, Muncimir, Tomislav, Drislav and
Kreimir. The note accompanying Drislav, that since his rule Byzantium
accorded the royal designation to Croatian rulers, has been the subject of
much debate.56 Lujo Margeti believes that Thomas did not obtain the data
on the titles of Croatian rulers, beginning with Drislav, from a catalogue, but
rather that it was the result of his own assessment and conclusions based on
some other historical sources.57 Based on historical sources, Thomas wrote
N. Klai, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, p. 23.
Propositum is a term for a rhetorical thesis or main theme.
52
Thomas, p. 92, 99, 171, 185; Historia Salonitana, 2003, p. 142, 145, 242, 268; Historia Salonitana,
2006, p. 164, 178, 286, 318.
53
See: Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp.
114-233.
54
L. Margeti, op. cit., pp. 11-13, 33.
55
Ferdo ii, Letopis Popa Dukljanina (BelgradeZagreb, 1928); Radoslav Katii, Vetustiores
ecclesiae spalatensis memoriae, Starohrvatska prosvjeta, ser. III. (1988), no. 17: 17-51; Eduard
Perii, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina (Zagreb, 1991).
56
F. ii, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb, 1925); N. Klai, Povijest Hrvata u
ranom srednjem vijeku.
57
L. Margeti, op. cit., p. 18.
50
51

263

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

about Archbishop Lawrence, the great reformer who stood in line with Pope
Gregory VII (1073-1085). About him, he writes that the Croatian rulers (and
Thomas dates him to the time of Stjepan, Kreimir and Zvonimir) issued
many deeds on old and new donations of property to the Split Church.58
Thomas also mentions a council held in Nin at which Zvonimir, the Croatian
king, confirmed the donation of the Church of St. Stephen and St. Mary at
Otok in Solin to the Church in Split and that the tombs of the Croatian King
Kreimir and many other Croatian kings and queens are in this church.
Archaeological research has confirmed Thomass assertion and uncovered
an epitaph to Queen Jelena, which Thomas probably could have seen during
his lifetime.59 The weak points of the Historia Salonitana include the interpretation of the arrival of the Croats and the establishment of the cities of
Split, Dubrovnik, and Zadar, while the Aryanism of the Goths, i.e. according
to him, the Croats, proved opportune for Thomas to attack the heresy of his
time, and also the use of the Slavic language and script. In Chapter XVII he
writes about the end of the Croatian national dynasty and the assumption
of authority by the Arpads, and their entry into the Dalmatian cities of Split,
Trogir and Zadar. Of his own time, Thomas wrote very evocatively about
events such as Splits conflicts with Trogir, with the natives of the Cetina
region, and with the Croatian magnates who threatened the city, and about
the siege and destruction of Zadar in the Fourth Crusade in 1202. Thomass
descriptions are also very lively when he revels in the misfortune of this rival
city. Thomas, as a Church official in Split, never forgot that Zadar aspired to
the metropolitanate and archdiocesan privileges, which it in fact managed
to do. This event surpasses the framework of Croatian history60 and enters
the sphere of the next section.
Episodes in European history: It is precisely based on individual episodes that do not pertain specifically to Croatian history or the history of
the Church in Split, about which Thomas wrote by interpolating them into
the main theme, that this work surpassed similar chronicles or histories.
Thomas describes the arrival of the Hungarians on the European historical scene, portraying them as pagans who later converted to Christianity. He
dedicated an entire chapter to a description of the occupation of Zadar in
the Fourth Crusade.61 This event was shocking to the world of the time, for
the crusaders, led by the Venetians, destroyed a lovely and wealthy Christian
city. This event was described by some other European chroniclers besides
Thomas, including some of the participants themselves.62 Thomas sought
the reasons for the downfall of Zadar in its alleged heresy, and describes
Thomas, p. 47-56; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 68-83; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 72-91.
M. Matijevi Sokol, Starohrvatski Solin...
60
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 233327.
61
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 286290.
62
Stjepan Antoljak, Pad i razaranje Zadra u IV. kriarskom ratu, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta
u Zadru, Razdio drutvenih znanosti 5 (1973/1974 published in 1974): 57-88.
58
59

264

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

it as Gods punishment which struck the city on the feast day of its patron
saint, Chrysogonus. Thomass description is, it would appear, rather accurate, and it generally corresponds with that of other chroniclers and the
memoirs of participants. He states that after sacking Zadar, the crusaders set
off for Constantinople and seized it with the force of their navy.63 Thomas
also describes the departure of the Hungarian King Andrew for the Crusade
in 1217, as he led the navy from Venice, Ancona and Zadar through Split,
fought against the Saracens, stayed in Antioch, Greece and Bulgaria, and
then returned to Hungary.64 The description of the Tartar invasion belongs
in any anthology of medieval European literature. Thomas dedicated several
chapters to this event, which alarmed all of Europe, and which directly influenced events in Split as well.65 Thomas demonstrated his loyalty to the pope
and the papacy, which entirely marked his political stance and public actions,
upon the arrival in Split of King Conrad, who had been excommunicated by
the pope, by leaving the city with Archbishop Rogerius so that they would
not have to demonstrate fealty to the king, whose Italian subject Rogerius
was, and ordering all churches closed.66 He also very precisely described two
solar eclipses that occurred on 3 June 1239 and 6 October.67 When he was in
Bologna, Northern Italy, or as he called it, Liguria, Emilia and the province
of Venice were hit by an earthquake. Thomas interpreted this and previous
phenomena as punishments for heresy. At this time he also met St. Francis
of Assisi and described him in the warmest terms, as a person whom he
respected and admired.68 In that same year (i.e. 1222.), on the Feast of the
Assumption of the Madonna, when I was attending my studies in Bologna,
I saw St. Francis, who was preaching on the square in front of the city palace where almost the entire city had gathered. And the basis of his sermons
were: angels, people demons. Namely, he explained these three orders of reason-endowed spirits so well and so rationally that many well-schooled people who heard the speech of this unlearned man were awestruck: he nonetheless did not hold an assembly, instead he preached. Truly the entire content of his words pertained to overcoming hostility and renewing the alliance of peace. His garments were simple, his personage aroused loathing, his
face nondescript. But God imparted so much effect to his words that many
of nobles among whom the fierce rage of old hostilities had led to much
bloodshed, were thinking of peace. There was so much reverence and love
63

157.
64

165.

Thomas, pp. 82-88; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 128-137; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 144Thomas, pp. 88-92; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 138-143 ; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 158-

65
Thomas, chapt. XXXVI. De peste Tartarorum, pp. 132-168; XXXVII. De natura Tartarorum,
pp. 168-172; XXXIX. De sevitia Tartarorum, pp. 174-178; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 216-243,
248-255; Historia Salonitana, 2006, pp. 252-288, 294-304.
66
Thomas, pp. 205-206; Historia Salonitana, 2003, 306-307; Historia Salonitana, 2006, 362-364.
67
Thomas, pp. 121, 139; Historia Salonitana, 2003, pp. 196-197, 216-217; Historia Salonitana,
2006, pp. 230-231.
68
Thomas, p. 98; Historia Salonitana, 2003, 152-153; Historia Salonitana, 2006, p. 178-179.

265

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

for this man, that the men and women crowded around him in a throng,
attempting to touch the hem of his garment or to tear a piece off.
The fact that Thomas was able to examine the Archdiocesan and Cathedral
Chapter Archives in Split and use them, i.e. what he himself referred to as
scripts, gives the Historia Salonitana incontestable authenticity. In more
recent years, historians and linguists have concentrated greater efforts in
attempts to identify these written sources which had the value of historical sources for Thomas. Lovre Kati had already ascertained Thomass
credibility and discovered some of his sources.69 Radoslav Katii studied
Splits historical tradition and indisputably confirmed that Thomas made
use of these oldest notations.70 Mirjana Matijevi Sokol studied the diplomatic sources in the Historia Salonitana and noted a new dimension and
depth to Thomass knowledge of diplomatics and treatment of diplomatic documents, and she also found a trace of a deed issued by King Zvonimir
unknown in its original form.71 Additionally, after an analysis of the entire
Historia Salonitana, Matijevi Sokol identified a series of diplomatic historical sources and works by writers used by Thomas to compile his text.72 Nada
Klai, while stressing the weakness of Thomass historiographic approach
and assessing him as very biased in his descriptions of Splits clerical history, nonetheless held that Thomass Historia Salonitana is the best historical
source produced on the eastern Adriatic coast in the High Middle Ages.73
The Historia Salonitana also stands out in terms of the beauty of its literary
expression. The description of the Tartar invasion is unparalleled. As to the
form of Latin in which it was written, this was a cultivated, lovely medieval Latin based on Antiquity, clerical and medieval writers and on the Bible.
It is far above the quality of medieval Latin in use in the coastal communes
of the time. Olga Peri also dealt with Thomass language, emphasizing its
high quality.74 Nenad Ivi approached the Historia Salonitana as a literary
work, and based on a modern literary analysis, he ascertained that Thomas
composed his text based on the principles of European medieval writers,
observing the rules of rhetoric.75
Lovre Kati, Vjerodostojnost Tome Arcidjakona i posljednji dani Solina, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku LIII (19501951 published in 1952): 99-120.
70
Radoslav Katii, Vetustiores ecclesiae spalatensis memoriae, pp. 17-51.
71
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Starohrvatski Solin.
72
Mirjana Matijevi Sokol, Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, str. passim, a osobito poglavlje V. V Povijesni izvori kao temelj Salonitanske povijesti, pp. 335-339.
73
Nada Klai, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, p. 212.
74
Olga Peri, Sloeni pasivni oblici u djelu Historia Salonitana, iva antika XXX (1980):
113-118; Ibid., O morfosintaksi srednjovjekovnog latinskog u djelu Tome Arhiakona splitskog, Suvremena lingvistika (19801981), no. 21-22: 3-18; Ibid., Neke jezine osobitosti djela
Historia Salonitana, iva antika 32 (1982): 93-103.
75
The author stresses that his objective is, based on his (Thomass) explanations, to reconstruct the personality of the Split archdeacon and historian Thomas as a more or less typical
thirteenth-century Western clerical mental landscape. N. Ivi, op. cit., p. 15.
69

266

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

It is in fact the style of the Historia Salonitana which indicates a work

that emerged fully within the framework of the Latin literary tradition of
the thirteenth century, which is grounded in both a fine medieval Latin and
adopted methods of structuring literary works on the basis of rhetorical
rules and customs. This means employing the customary rhetorical instruments (flores, colores rhetorici) which prescribed the ars dictaminis through
the manuals of the time. One of the most important rhetorical figures is
repetition. Words, parts of sentences, individual syllables and so forth are
repeated.76 This is why the Historia Salonitana is imbued with the so-called
Isidorian style (stilus Ysidorianus), i.e. that style which emerged precisely during Thomass time under another classification as the fourth style (genus
mixtum sive compositum).77 Given all of this, the structure, language and style
of the Historia Salonitana place it entirely within contemporary European
Latinist literary trends, and its quality elevates it among the finest historiographic texts of its time.
A number of manuscripts of the Historia Salonitana have been preserved.78 The oldest was written in the Beneventan script and is today held
in the Cathedral Archives in Split (Codex Spalatensis). It is divided into 49
chapters, and based on it, Franjo Raki prepared an edition which was published after his death. Today this text is believed to be either Thomass own
manuscript or his own copy on which some of the authors interventions
can be recognized.79 The next oldest codex which was held in historiographic circles to be the oldest transcript is the so-called Codex Traguriensis. From
the Split Archdiocesan Archives and Library, this copy came into the possession of the Garagnin family in Trogir, hence its name. Lui and Farlati
were familiar with it. The Codex Vaticanus is close to the Split codex and it
was probably written in the fourteenth century, even though Lui and
Raki initially believed it to be the oldest. These are the three most important and oldest copies of the Historia Salonitana.80 Some other manuscripts
are known, but they do not have the same value as they emerged later; these
are held in archives and libraries in Split and Zagreb. Several transcripts
which are associated with the Historia Salonitana can be found in archives
and libraries in Rome, Split and Vienna. The oldest is held in the archives of
the De propaganda fide Congregation in Rome. Farlati referred to this manuscript as Historia Salonitana maior and described it in detail. It corresponds
to the text of the Historia Salonitana (HS) up to the year 1185. Its existence
has provoked some doubt. Most historians believe that it emerged later, in
the sixteenth century. It is important because of the insertion of transcripts
of original materials which are of great importance to the earliest periods of
76
Olga Peri, Jezik i stilske osobitosti u djelu Tome Arhiakona (Zagreb, 1989 - dissertation, manuscript).
77
Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Princeton, 1973), pp. 148154.
78
Historia Salonitana, 2003- V-XXI.
79
Historia Salonitana, 2003, VII, XVII-XIX.
80
I. Krnjavi, op. cit., 129-135.

267

M. Matijevi Sokol, Archdeacon Thomas of Split (12001268) - A source of early Croatian History

Croatian history. Stjepan Gunjaa generated some confusion, as he thought

this manuscript was Thomass original draft.81 This view has been entirely
rejected by historiography,82 although the inserted transcripts of the Salona
and Split synods are differently assessed. Most consider them credible. Ivan
Lui83 and, most recently, Ivo Babi84, reject them and consider them contrived and inserted spuriously. Franjo Raki,85 as a genuine expert and diplomatics specialist, evaluated them using scholarly methods and considered
some of them authentic, which can even today be deemed a correct assessment.
The first edition (editio princeps) of the Historia Salonitana was prepared by Ivan Lui. It was published together with his own work De regno
Dalmatiae et Croatiae. It was further reprinted by Schwandtner, 86 and an
Italian abstract was also made.87 Until recently, the most used was the edition
by Raki,88 who revised his earlier view on the age of the codex and turned
to the Split manuscript. In recent years, however, a number of new editions
have been published. A new edition was published by the publishing concern Knjievni krug of Split, with a critically prepared Latin text, a Croatian
translation and a facsimile of the original Split codex.89 The Latin text from
this Split edition of 2003 was assumed, and together with an English translation it was published as the History of the Bishops of Salona and Split in 2006
by the CEU Press. Thus, this work by Splits medieval chronicler has become
available to researchers outside of Croatia as well.90
In conclusion, it should be noted that in 2000 an international scholarly seminar was held in Split, at which researchers from a diversity of fields
delivered papers that dealt with every aspect of the Historia Salonitana.91
The aforementioned publishing and scholarly projects of recent years
have not exhausted every possibility. Rather, by means of new approaches, they opened new avenues to further research into the life and work of
Archdeacon Thomas of Split and Croatian medieval studies in general, and
also secured a place for the latter within the general framework of European
medieval studies.
Stjepan Gunjaa, Historia Salonitana Maior, Rad JAZU, 283, Zagreb 1951, pp. 175-243.
Nada Klai, Historia Salonitana Maior (Belgrade: SANU, 1967); Ibid., Nain na koji je nastajalo djelo Historia Salonitana Maior, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku LXXII
LXXIII (1979):171-198; L. Margeti, op. cit.
83
Ioannis Lucii Inscriptiones Dalmaticae (Venetiis MDCLXXIII Venice, 1673), p. 73.
84
Ivo Babi, op. cit., p. 15, 35-36.
85
Franjo Raki, Documenta historiae Chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia (Zagreb, 1877),
p. 197.
86
I. G. Schwandtner, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, vol. III., Lipsiae 1746, pp. 532-635.
87
Tommaso arcidiacono della chiesa di Spalato (Venice, 1843). See: Mirjana Matijevi Sokol,
Toma Arhiakon i njegovo djelo. Rano doba hrvatske povijesti, pp. 50-52.
88
This is the edition cited in this paper as Thomas.
89
This is the edition cited in this paper as Historia Salonitana, 2003.
90
This is the edition cited in this paper as Historia Salonitana, 2006.
91
Toma Arhiakon i njegovo doba. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa odranog 25-27. rujna 2000.
godine u Splitu, edited by M. Matijevi Sokol and O. Peri (Split, 2004).
81
82

268

Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 251 - 270

Toma Archidiakon von Split (1200-1268) als Quelle fr frhe

Geschichte Kroatiens
Zusammenfassung
Toma Archidiakon (1200 1268), Chroniker aus Split, studierte in Split und
Bologna, an einer sehr angesehenen mittelalterlichen Universitt, die insbesondere
fr das Studium der Rechtswissenschaften bekannt war. Toma schloss das Studium
der Theologie und der Rechtswissenschaften ab und bekleidete nach der Rckkehr
nach Split das Notariatsamt. Im Jahr 1230 wurde er zum Spliter Archidiakon
gewhlt und damit beginnt dein Aufstieg in der kirchlichen Hierarchie. Er hat sich
um die Einfhrung des Potestatdienstes in Split verdienstlich gemacht (regimen
Latinorum), nach dem Vorbild der Stdte in Italien und Provenca, wobei er sich
um die Entwicklung der kommunalen Selbstverwaltung eingesetzt hat. Er brachte
Gargan de Arscindis aus Ancona, der im Potestatdienst drei Jahre war (1239 1242)
und alle stdtischen Gesetze und Bruche niederschrieb. Tomas Auswahl zum
Spliter Erzbischof am 7. Januar 1244 fand keine Untersttzung. Aus dem ffentlichen Leben zog er sich 1266 zurck. Er stand den Franziskanern sehr nah, in deren
Kirche er in Split an der Riva auch nach seinem Tod am 8. Mai 1268 begraben
wurde. Er schrieb ein Werk, das Ivan Lui Lucius zum ersten Mal verffentlicht
und ihm den Titel Historia Salonitana verlieh.

269