Wikipedia

Michael of Zahumlje

(Redirected from Mihajlo Višević)

Michael of Zahumlje (reign usually dated c. 910–935),[2] also known as Michael Višević (Serbo-Croatian: Mihailo Višević, Serbian Cyrillic: Михаило Вишевић) or rarely as Michael Vuševukčić,[5][6] was a semi-independent, or independent Slavic ruler of Zahumlje,[7] in present-day central Herzegovina and southern Croatia, who flourished in the early part of the 10th century. Prince Michael of Zahumlje had a common boundary with the Serbia and probably with the Kingdom of Croatia, but was an ally of Bulgaria. He was nevertheless able to maintain independent rule throughout at least a majority of his reign.[8]

Michael of Zahumlje
Mihajlo Višević
Prince of Zahumlje ("dux Chulmorum")[1]
Reignfloruit c. 910 – 935[2]
FamilyVišević
FatherBusebutze[3]
ReligionChristian[4]

Michael came into territorial conflict with Petar of Serbia, who expand his power to the province of Narenta or Pagania, west from the Neretva River.[9][10] To eliminate the threat, Michael warned his ally, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I, about the alliance between Peter and Symeon's enemy, the Byzantine Empire.[10] Symeon attacked Serbia and captured Peter, who later died in prison.[11]

Michael was mentioned together with Tomislav of Croatia in Pope John X's letter of 925.[8] In that same year, he participated in the first council of Split,[8] which some historians have taken as evidence of Zahumlje being a vassal of Croatia. Regardless, Michael, with grand titles of the Byzantine court as anthypatos and patrician (patrikios), remained ruler of Zahumlje through the 940s, while maintaining good relations with the Pope.[12]

Background

edit
 
Map of the territorial extent of Zahumlje (Chelmia) at its zenith during Michael's reign, between the Kingdom of Croatia and the Bulgarian Empire.

Compiled in c. 950, the historical work De administrando imperio, ascribed to Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, notes that Michael was a son of Busebutze (Greek: Bouseboutzis > Visevitz),[13][14] but does not mention that his family descended from the "unbaptized Serbs" or was of Serbian origin like other Zachlumians,[8][15] although a closer reading of the source suggests that Constantine's consideration on the ethnic identity of the principality's population is based on Serbian political rule or influence and does not indicate ethnic origin.[16][17][18][19][20][21]

According to the emperor, or even Michael himself according to the way the subchapter was structured,[15] his family was not of Serbian origin since they belonged to the Litziki (Λιτζίκη), an unbaptized people on the river Vistula in Lesser Poland.[15][22][23][24] His "own hostility to Serbia suggests that his family was in fact not Serb".[22] According to Tibor Živković, the area of the Vistula where the ancestors of Michael originate was the place where White Croats would be expected and not White Serbs,[25] and it's unclear whether the Zachlumians "in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans",[26] while according to Francis Dvornik the Zachlumians "had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not with the Serbs, but with the Croats".[27] Michael's tribal origin is related to the oral tradition from Historia Salonitana by Thomas the Archdeacon about seven or eight tribes of nobles called Lingones who arrived from Poland and settled in Croatia.[24][28][29][30]

The area controlled by Michael comprised Zahumlje, later known as Hum (what is now western Herzegovina and southern Croatia), as well as Travunia (now eastern Herzegovina and southern Croatia with center at Trebinje) and majority of Duklja (modern Montenegro).[10] His territory therefore formed a block along the southern Dalmatian coast, from the Neretva river to Ragusa (Dubrovnik), latter serving as a tributary region.[4][23]

Bulgaria did not yet border on Zahumlje and a part of Croatia lay between both lands. For instance, the chronicler John the Deacon (d. 1009) says that in 912, a Venetian traveller who had just passed through Bulgaria and Croatia on his way home, next found himself in Zahumlje.[31][32]

"Qui (Petrus) dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus...
[While he (Peter) was returning from Croatian territory he was deceived through fraud by Michael, duke of the Slavs...]"
-Chronicon Venetum, John the Deacon

Alliance with Simeon I of Bulgaria

edit

The earliest occurrence of Michael in the sources is from 912. Venetian chronicler John the Deacon recorded that at that time Pietro, son of the Venetian doge Ursus Particiacus II (912–932), was treacherously captured on his return from a diplomatic mission to Constantinople by Michael, "a prince of the Slavs" (dux Sclavorum), when he wanted to pass through the lands of the Croats. Before Pietro entered Croatia, on his way home, when he entered Zahumlje, or when he entered province of Narenta or Pagania, Michael dux Sclavorum had him captured and sent as a gift to Simeon I of Bulgaria.[33][34][35] Since 912, Michael was a close ally of Simeon I of Bulgaria, who had been mounting a number of successful campaigns against the Byzantine Empire.[36]

Simeon's march for power posed such a great threat to the Byzantine Empire that it looked for allies in the area. Leo Rhabduchus, the strategos of Dyrrhachium, found one such ally in Serbia, Peter Gojniković, who had been subject to Bulgaria since 897. Peter had been busy extending his power westwards, and appears to have come into territorial conflict with Michael in the process of doing so.[10] Constantine writes that Michael, "his jealousy aroused by this", warned Symeon of the conspiracy. Symeon attacked Serbia and captured Peter, who died in prison.[11] Most scholars prefer to date the war on Serbia to 917, after 20 August, when Simeon had massacred much of the invading Byzantine army at its landing place at Anchialos. In 924, Simeon conquered Serbia and, instead of appointing a vassal to govern on his behalf, placed it under his direct authority. In effect, Simeon became a neighbour of Michael and of Croatia, which was then under King Tomislav and had good relations with Byzantium.[12] It seems probable that Michael remained loyal to Simeon until the latter's death in 927.[12]

Church councils of Split

edit

The sources show Michael involved in important church affairs which were conducted on Croatian territory in the mid-920s. Two councils of Split (Latin: Spalatum), in 925 and 928, which officially established or confirmed the recognition of Split as the archiepiscopal see of all Dalmatia (rather than just the Byzantine cities).[37][38] Another major issue of concern was the language of liturgy: since the conversion of the Slavs[broken anchor] by Cyril and Methodius in the previous century, the Slavic church was accustomed to use Slavonic rather than Latin for its church services.[39][40][41]

The Historia Salonitana, whose composition may have begun in the late 13th century, cites a letter of Pope John X to Tomislav, "king (rex) of the Croats", in which he refers to the first council in some detail. If the letter is authentic, it shows that the council was attended not only by the bishops of Croatian and Byzantine Dalmatia, but also by Tomislav, whose territory also included the Byzantine cities of Dalmatia, and by a number of Michael's representatives.[38] In this letter, John describes Michael as "a most excellent" man (excellentissimus dux Chulmorum).[4] The sources have nothing to say about the nature of the relationship between dux Michael and rex Tomislav. Some historians have taken Michael's participation at the church council as well as the difference between their titles as possible evidence that Michael had switched subordinate allegiance to Croatia.[42] John V. A. Fine, however, disagrees this line of reasoning, saying that the events represented an important ecclesiastical affair for all Dalmatia and stood under papal authority. Moreover, Michael appears to have retained a neutral position when Croatia and Bulgaria were at war in 926 and so it may be that Michael was on good terms with the rulers of both lands at the same time.[12] It is uncertain whether the inscription and depiction of a Slavic ruler in the Church of St. Michael in Ston is a reference to Michael of Zahumlje, the 12th century Mihailo I of Duklja or St. Michael himself.[43]

On 10 July 926, 'Michael, rex Sclavorum' took possession of the port of Siponto, controlled by Byzantium. Therefore, it seems certain that in July 926 Michael did not act as an imperial ally in Apulia, nor that his fleet descended upon the shores of the Apennine peninsula as a rescue force against Arabs, Lombards or any other enemy. The only enemy that threatened Siponto in 926 was Michael, 'rex Sclavorum' as Bulgarian ally.[44] Michael apparently sacked Siponto (Latin: Sipontum), which was a Byzantine town in Apulia on 10 July 926.[1] It remains unknown if he did this by Tomislav's supreme command as suggested by some historians. According to Omrčanin, Tomislav sent the Croatian navy under Michael's leadership to drive the Saracens from that part of southern Italy and free the city.[45] Interestingly, Constantine in his De administrando imperio makes no mention of Michael's raid, nor does he mention Church councils in Split.[46]

Later years

edit

Constantine remembers Michael as a prince (archon) of the Zachlumi, but also uses such grand titles of the Byzantine court as anthypatos and patrician (patrikios) to describe his political rank and status.[8][47][48] These titles have been interpreted as reflecting a more subordinate position after Simeon's death in 927, when Michael lost the Bulgarian support needed for any higher recognition.[12] Michael does not appear in the sources for events after 925,[4] but historian Fine thinks that his reign lasted into the 940s.[12] Časlav, who became ruler of Serbia after Symeon's death, may have seized some of Michael's territory while securing his conquest of Travunia,[4] but there's no evidence for it and in DAI Zachlumia is clearly stated as a separate polity.[49] 13th century Thomas the Archdeacon claimed that the Croatian kingdom included Zachlumia before and after Stephen Držislav (969–997), but that's also disputable.[49]

References

edit

Footnotes

edit
  1. ^ a b Rački, Odlomci iz državnoga práva hrvatskoga za narodne dynastie:, p. 15
  2. ^ a b Uzelac 2018, p. 236.
  3. ^ Moravcsik & Jenkins 1967, p. 160–161.
  4. ^ a b c d e Vlasto 1970, p. 209.
  5. ^ Mihanovich, The Croatian nation in its struggle for freedom and independence: a symposium, p. 112
  6. ^ Dominik Mandić; Basilius S. Pandžić (1963). Dionis Lasić (ed.). Rasprave i prilozi iz stare Hrvatske povijesti [Discussions and articles on ancient Croatian history] (in Croatian). Hrvatski Povijesni Institut. p. 385. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
  7. ^ Moravcsik & Jenkins 1967, p. 152–155. According to DAI, Michael himself was not of Serbian origin, but DAI described Zahumlje as being one of the Serbians countries in the 10th century.
  8. ^ a b c d e Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250, p. 210.
  9. ^ Uzelac 2018, p. 238.
  10. ^ a b c d Fine, The early medieval Balkans, p. 149.
  11. ^ a b Moravcsik & Jenkins 1967, p. 156–159.
  12. ^ a b c d e f Fine, The early medieval Balkans, p. 160.
  13. ^ Moravcsik & Jenkins 1967, p. 160–163.
  14. ^ Živković 2012, p. 184–185.
  15. ^ a b c Živković 2012, p. 184-185.
  16. ^ Dvornik et al. 1962, pp. 139, 142 "He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day..."
  17. ^ Curta 2006, p. 210: According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast.
  18. ^ Živković 2006, p. 60–61:Data on the family origin of Mihailo Višević indicate that his family did not belong to a Serbian or Croatian tribe, but to another Slavic tribe who lived along the Vistula River and who joined the Serbs during the migration during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The introduction of Mihajlo Višević and his family by Porphyrogenitus suggests that the rulers of Zahumlje until his time belonged to this ruling family, so that, both in Serbia and Croatia, and in Zahumlje, there would be a very early established principle of inheriting power by members of one family. Constantine Porphyrogenitus explicitly calls the inhabitants of Zahumlje Serbs who have settled there since the time of Emperor Heraclius, but we cannot be certain that the Travunians, Zachlumians and Narentines in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans. The emperor-writer says that all these principalities are inhabited by Serbs, but this is a view from his time, when the process of ethnogenesis had already reached such a stage that the Serbian name became widespread and generally accepted throughout the land due to Serbia's political domination. Therefore, it could be concluded that in the middle of the 10th century the process of ethnogenesis in Zahumlje, Travunija and Paganija was probably completed, because the emperor's informant collected data from his surroundings and transferred to Constantinople the tribal sense of belonging of the inhabitants of these archons ... The Byzantine writings on the De Ceremoniis, which were also written under the patronage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, listed the imperial orders to the surrounding peoples. The writings cite orders from the archons of Croats, Serbs, Zahumljani, Kanalites, Travunians, Duklja and Moravia. The above-mentioned orders may have originated at the earliest during the reign of Emperor Theophilus (829 - 842) and represent the earliest evidence of the political fragmentation of the South Slavic principalities, that is, they confirm their very early formation. It is not known when Zahumlje was formed as a separate principality. All the news that Constantine Porphyrogenitus provides about this area agrees that it has always been so - that is, since the seventh-century settlement in the time of Emperor Heraclius. It is most probable that the prefects in the coastal principalities recognized the supreme authority of the Serbian ruler from the very beginning, but that they aspired to become independent, which took place according to the list of orders preserved in the book De Ceremoniis, no later than the first half of the 9th century. A falsified and highly controversial papal charter from 743 also mentions Zahumlje and Travunija as separate areas. If the basic information about these countries were correct, it would mean that they formed as very early principalities that were practically independent of the archon of Serbia.
  19. ^ Budak 1994, pp. 58–61:Pri tome je car dosljedno izostavljao Dukljane iz ove srpske zajednice naroda. Čini se, međutim, očitim da car ne želi govoriti ο stvarnoj etničkoj povezanosti, već da su mu pred očima politički odnosi u trenutku kada je pisao djelo, odnosno iz vremena kada su za nj prikupljani podaci u Dalmaciji.
  20. ^ Gračanin 2008, pp. 71–72:Izneseni nalazi navode na zaključak da se Hrvati nisu uopće naselili u južnoj Panoniji tijekom izvorne seobe sa sjevera na jug, iako je moguće da su pojedine manje skupine zaostale na tom području utopivši se naposljetku u premoćnoj množini ostalih doseljenih slavenskih populacija. Širenje starohrvatskih populacija s juga na sjever pripada vremenu od 10. stoljeća nadalje i povezano je s izmijenjenim političkim prilikama, jačanjem i širenjem rane hrvatske države. Na temelju svega ovoga mnogo je vjerojatnije da etnonim "Hrvati" i doseoba skrivaju činjenicu o prijenosu političke vlasti, što znači da je car političko vrhovništvo poistovjetio s etničkom nazočnošću. Točno takav pristup je primijenio pretvarajući Zahumljane, Travunjane i Neretljane u Srbe (DAI, c. 33, 8-9, 34, 4-7, 36, 5-7).
  21. ^ Budak 2018, pp. 51, 177:Sporovi hrvatske i srpske historiografije oko etničkoga karaktera sklavinija između Cetine i Drača bespredmetni su, jer transponiraju suvremene kategorije etniciteta u rani srednji vijek u kojem se identitet shvaćao drukčije. Osim toga, opstojnost većine sklavinija, a pogotovo Duklje (Zete) govori i u prilog ustrajanju na vlastitom identitetu kojim su se njihove elite razlikovale od onih susjednih ... Međutim, nakon nekog vremena (možda poslije unutarnjih sukoba u Hrvatskoj) promijenio je svoj položaj i prihvatio vrhovništvo srpskog vladara jer Konstantin tvrdi da su Zahumljani (kao i Neretvani i Travunjani) bili Srbi od vremena onog arhonta koji je Srbe, za vrijeme Heraklija, doveo u njihovu novu domovinu. Ta tvrdnja, naravno, nema veze sa stvarnošću 7. st., ali govori o političkim odnosima u Konstantinovo vrijeme.
  22. ^ a b Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 139 "It is true that our text says that the Zachlumi ‘have been Serbs since the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius’ (33/9-10); but it does not say that Michael’s family were Serbs, only that they ‘came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Visla, and are called (reading Litziki) “Poles’”. Michael’s own hostility to Serbia (cf. 32/86-90) suggests that his family was in fact not Serb; and that the Serbs had direct control only over Trebinje (see on 32/30)."
  23. ^ a b Vlasto 1970, pp. 381–382.
  24. ^ a b Uzelac 2018, p. 237:...the enigmatic Litziki were associated with the archaic names of Poles(Lendizi, Liakhy),7 or with the Slavic tribe of Lingones mentioned by chronicler Adam of Bremen.8 Be that as it may, it is certain that, although his subjects were perceived as Serbs, the family of Prince Michael of Zahumlje did not descend from Serbs or Croats, and was not related to their dynasties.
  25. ^ Živković 2001, p. 11:Plemena u Zahumlju, Paganiji, Travuniji i Konavlima Porfirogenit naziva Srbima,28 razdvajajuči pritom njihovo političko od etničkog bića.29 Ovakvo tumačenje verovatno nije najsrećnije jer za Mihaila Viševića, kneza Zahumljana, kaže da je poreklom sa Visle od roda Licika,30 a ta je reka isuviše daleko od oblasti Belih Srba i gde bi pre trebalo očekivati Bele Hrvate. To je prva indicija koja ukazuje da je srpsko pleme možda bilo na čelu većeg saveza slovenskih plemena koja su sa njim i pod vrhovnim vodstvom srpskog arhonta došla na Balkansko poluostrvo.
  26. ^ Živković 2006, p. 60.
  27. ^ Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 139 "Even if we reject Gruber's theory, supported by Manojlović (ibid., XLIX), that Zachlumje actually became a part of Croatia, it should be emphasized that the Zachlumians had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not, as C. says (33/8-9), with the Serbs, but with the Croats; see below, on 33/18-19 ... If this is so, we must regard the dynasty of Zachlumje and at any rate part of its people as neither Croat nor Serb, It seems more probable that Michael’s ancestor, together with his tribe, joined the Croats when they moved south; and settled on the Adriatic coast and the Narenta, leaving the Croats to push on into Dalmatia proper."
  28. ^ Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 139.
  29. ^ Živković 2006, p. 75.
  30. ^ Lončar, Milenko; Jurić, Teuta Serreqi (2018). "Tamno more u spisu De administrando imperio: Baltičko ili Crno?" [The Dark Sea in De administrando imperio: The Baltic or the Black Sea?]. Povijesni prilozi (in Croatian). 37 (54): 14. Kao potporna analogija može poslužiti i podrijetlo Mihaela Viševića, vladara Zahumljana s područja Visle.21 Teško da je netko drugi (osim njega samoga i njegova roda) iznosio takvu obavijest. Ista hrvatska tradicija, ponešto izmijenjena, zadržala se u Dalmaciji sve do 13. stoljeća kada ju spominje Toma Arhiđakon: "Iz krajeva Poljske došlo je s Totilom sedam ili osam uglednih plemena, koji se zovu Lingoni."2
  31. ^ John the Deacon, Chronicon Venetum, ed. Pertz, pp. 22–3.
  32. ^ Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, p. 63 note 103.
  33. ^ Diacono Giovanni 1890, p. 131–132. 'qui dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus, omnibusque bonis privatus, atque Vulgarico regi, Simeoni nomine, exilii pena transmissus est'.
  34. ^ Uzelac 2018, p. 237, 239.
  35. ^ Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign:, p. 223
  36. ^ Katsikas, Stefanos (2011). Bulgaria and Europe: Shifting Identities. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-0-85728-419-8.
  37. ^ Fine, The early medieval Balkans, p. 260
  38. ^ a b Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, p. 55.
  39. ^ Goldstein, Ivo, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb, 1995.
  40. ^ ISBN 953-175-043-2, p. 278.-279.
  41. ^ Curta, Florin; Curta, Professor of Medieval History Florin; Stephenson, Paul (31 August 2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81539-0.
  42. ^ Budak 2018, pp. 177, 240.
  43. ^ Dzino 2023, p. 168–169.
  44. ^ Uzelac 2018, p. 242-244.
  45. ^ Omrčanin, Military history of Croatia:, p. 24
  46. ^ Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign:, p. 210
  47. ^ Moravcsik & Jenkins 1967, p. 160–163. "The family of the proconsul and patrician Michael, ....
  48. ^ Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine state, p. 268.
  49. ^ a b Dzino 2023, p. 169.

Bibliography

edit

Further reading

edit
  • Archdeacon, Thomas of Split (2006). History of the Bishops of Salona and Split – Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum (in Latin and English). Budapest: Central European University Press. ISBN 9789637326592.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_of_Zahumlje&oldid=1259579660"