Download Procurator Ecclesiae Salonitanae

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Dr. sc. Ante ŠKEGRO, viši znanstveni suradnik
Hrvatski institut za povijest
HR – 10.000 Z A G R E B
Opatička 10
Tel. 4851-721; fax. 4851-725;
e-mail: [email protected]
Procurator Ecclesiae Salonitanae
At the end of the Antiquity, the Salonitan Archbishopric possessed a significant land
property, which was administrated and controlled by a special official titled as procurator
(procurator Ecclesiae Salonitanae). In the Antiquity procurators in the province of
Dalmatia were imperial officials responsible for economic development of the region
where they were appointed (e.g. they governed exploitation of led or iron ore etc.). In
Histria procurators administrated imperial and other major land property. At the end of the
Ancient times procurators in Salona also governed production of wool. The existence of
such officials in the Salonitan Archbishopric is an unique phenomena in the Church of
In the eve of the Antiquity the Salonitan Archbishopric had a special official who
supervised land property, and whose title mostly was procurator (procurator Ecclesiae
Salonitanae). In the Ancient times procurators were highly ranked officials no matter whether
they originated from knights’ or libertine class. They administrated private imperial business
(procuratores: patrimonii, rationis privatae, castrensis, fisci castrensis, thesaurorum,
voluptatum), and supervised certain imperial offices (procuratores: ab epistulis, a studiis, a
cognitionibus, a memoria, a rationibus). Moreover, procurators had in charge some important
functions (procuratores: Miniciae, aquarum, operum publicorum, viarum, ad silices, ludi
magni, ludi matutini, monetae, bibliothecarum), and they supervised incomes in some
imperial (Lugdunensis et Aquitania, Belgica et utraque Germania, Dacia, Britannia,
Lusitania, Hispania Tarraconensis, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia, Syria, Cappadocia, Cilicia,
Armenia, Arabia, Numidia, Bithinai et Pontus, Pamphylia) and some senators’ provinces
(Asia, Africa, Gallia Narbonensis, Sardinia, Sicilia, Achaia, Baetica, Macedonia, Cyprus).
Furthermore, they were governors of certain provinces (Alpes Cottiae et Maritimae, Corsica,
Epirus, Iudaea, Liburnia, Mauretania Caesariensis et Tingitana, Mesopotamia, Maesia et
Treballia, Noricum, Osrhoene, Raetia, Sardinia and sometimes also in provinces of Bitinnia
and Pamphilia). By the same token, they administrated some offices in Rome (procuratores:
hereditatium, portorii, Annonae, portus, alimentorum, metallorum, marmorum, vectigalium,
ad diocesin Alexandriae, iuridicus Aegypti, Neaspoleos et Mausolei, regionis, tractus).1
Existence of procuratores in the eve of the Antiquity and at the beginning of the Middle Ages
is a kind of curiosity. Procurators usually governed other people’s property according to the
some general (or in some cases special) permissions of the property’s owner (procurator est
qui suscipit alienum negotium ministrandum mandato generali vel speciali). Similarly,
procurators of the Church property (procuratores ecclesiae) could supervise Church
possessions according to the will of diocesan bishops.2 However, the major Church
possessions (including the papal property) were usually supervised by governors who had a
title of rector (rectores).3 Thus, for example, papal properties in Dalmatia – under the name
Patrimony of St. Peter – during the sixth century was administrated by a official who had title
of rector (rector patrimonii in Dalmatia). 4
During the archeological excavations of the west wall of the Diocletian palace (1979)
in the baroque pavements of the St. Michael church “on the shore” in Split, among other late
antiquity and early medieval findings, four fragments of a sarcophagus with the inscription of
the rector of the property of the Salonitan Church (Bishopric) – procurator Ecclessiae
Salonitanae – were found.5 This church of St. Michael “on the shore”, contrary to the church
of St. Michael from Bambina glavica on Meje (Kašjuni),6 in the Middle Ages was placed next
to the see, which in this times stretched to the walls of the palace. 7 Church of St. Michael “on
PFLAUM, 1959., 1240-1279.
Lexicon latinitatis Medii aevi, 737.
BERTOLINI, 1952; NOBLE, 1993.
ŠKEGRO, 2000., pass.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 118, Tab. III, 1.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 112.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 112, 121.
the shore” was constructed on the ruins of a previous early-Christian sacral object,8 which was
rebuilt several times: during the Early Middle Ages (the 7th-9th c.),9 in the pre-Romanesque
and Romanesque period (the 10th-14th c.),10 and in the period of Renaissance and Baroque (the
16th-18th c.).11 Some scholars maintain that one should associate this church with the existence
of so called Hrvojev misal (Hrvoje’s missal),12 which was written by scriber Butko and
decorated by an anonymous painter from Toscana according to the order of Hrvoje Vukčić
Hrvatinić Bosnian duke and herceg of Split (1376-1416).13
It seems that these four fragments were part of the central front part of a late antique
sarcophagus, whose dimensions were 80×94×12 cm.14 From the photo of these fragments
(Photo 1) it is clear that in this central part – so called medallion – there is an inscription with
missing one or two lower lines of the text. If one may assume that the medallion was
symmetrically designed, then it is visible that on the right side there are missing: a motif of a
Photo 1: procurator ecclesiae Salonitanae (according to Z. Buljević)
pillar with an opening arch and a figure of dolphin faced towards lower right angle. However,
this is probably not reflecting the content of the inscribed text, which is significantly damaged
and thus hardly readable. The part of the text that is readable, together with the ornaments
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 117, 121, Pl. II.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 121-122, Pl. II.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 122.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 123.
MIKULIĆ, 2000, 171.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 122-123.
MARASOVIĆ – ZEKAN, 1982, 118, Tab. III, 1.
around it, reveal a typical late Antiquity sarcophagus. However, the original location of the
sarcophagus is still unclear because it was, together with other early medieval findings,
composed into baroque pavement of the St. Michael church. It is possible that the
sarcophagus was brought to this location from Salona, since there is evidence that such things
happened with some other findings. On the other hand, since the church was constructed on
the foundations of some other late antique object, it is also possible that sarcophagus
originates from the Diocletian palace.
On the four fragments of the extant inscribed plate one can identify nine lines of the
text written in the capital letters of rustically majuscule (letters are not of the same
proportions). Besides scratches caused by the weather and time, the inscription suffered major
damages during its transportation to the church of St. Michael “on the shore”. The greatest
damages can be seen in the fourth line where the plate is broken is such a manner that the
right side of the text is damaged in both upper and lower part. The biggest letters are, of
course, in the first line of the text. According to the given photo the condition of the text could
be described as it follows:
The first line contains only one word: DE[PO]SITIO, in which the letters E and P
suffered some damages during the breaking of the plate. Speaking generally, under the term
depositio early Christians understood the burial place of their deceased. This term is
characteristic for the time after the emperor Diocletian (284-305),15 and one can find it on
almost all tomb inscriptions of the (arch)bishops of Salona.16
The second line begins with the name of the first deceased person who was buried in
the sarcophagus. Everything points that in this line one should read cognomen Felix in dative
without the last letter I, which probably disappeared during the transportation of the
sarcophagus since the whole object was decomposed in order to be more easily moved. In
Salona this name was rather often, especially during the late Principate. However, it occurred
in this city also in the time of the Dominate.17 The second word in this line is the title of the
ALFÖLDY, 1969, 30.
BULIĆ – BERVALDI, 1913, pass.
ALFÖLDY, 1969, 202.
afore mentioned person, also in dative. Unfortunately, because of the breaking of the
inscribed plate, the first and the eight letters are quite damaged. Still, it is possible to read the
In the third line, which is also in dative, there is a name of the institution in which the
deceased person worked. Because of the mechanical damages the first word is missing two
letters: I and A, while in the second word letters T and A are scratched. However, it is quite
possible to read the text: EC(C)LES[IA]E SALONI[TA]NAE. The fact that letter C is missing
in the first word only shows that the scriber who inscribed the text on the sarcophagus was not
well educated one.
The fourth line begins in the third person of singular perfect of the verb to give. So, it
is written: dedit. It continues with the breaking line of the plate, in which only the left
beginning of the letter M has suffered damage, and continues with the letters E and M.
Therefore, I assume that the word should be in accusative and that should be read as the usual
Roman abbreviation: MEM(ORIAM).18 The following letter is D, after which there are two
letters but harshly damaged by the weather and time. It is rather possible that these letters
should be read as N and A, although there are some other possibilities. Then follows a
mechanical damage of the scripture that divides central and right parts of the plate, together
with horizontal braking line on the right part that comes right through this line. At the end of
this line, on the lower side of the upper right part of the plate, one can notice at least four
letters. The last two maybe could be read as P and R or R and B. But there might be also other
The fifth line of the scripture is more readable than the previous one. It begins in
nominative of the relative adjective qui, after which one can read the beginning of the letter V.
Then follows breaking line between left and central part of the plate; due to this damage two
letters – I and T – are scratched. The next letters are A, N, N, I, which points that in this line
scriber wrote the age of the deceased person. Unfortunately, the breaking line between central
and left part of the plate damaged the numbers that showed the age of this deceased church
official. This line ends up with the letter M inscribed on the top of the lower fragment of the
right plate. After this one can notice a mark of punctuation in the shape of a little triangle,
MEYER, 1973, 119.
followed by another symbol. This could be: L, I or E, but also a number L=50. In this line it is
clear that it is written three words: QVI V[IX]IT ANNI[S --], and after the breaking line there
is letter M and perhaps symbol L.
The sixth line begins with the letters V and T, followed by the mechanical damage that
damaged two or three letters. After this scratch comes letter P, followed by five vertical lines
that could be interpreted as five separate letters. On the first glance, it seems that here should
be read genitive form of adjective PIVS. On the other hand, this supposition can hardly be
supported if we look into the sense of the entire text on the plate. Then comes, quite clearly
visible letter M, followed by a left orientated vertical line, after which there is a mechanical
scratch. After this damage comes a right half of the letter O, and then S, I, M and I.
The seventh line begins with three vertical lines, and some of them could be letters.
Then comes letter C, followed by the most probably letter I, and then a semi-diagonal line –
possibly of the letter M, A or N etc. Further comes a mechanical scratch, followed by two
horizontal lines – the latter one could be the letter E or F. Then comes cognomen
DOMNIC[AE] in dative without last two letters because they are damaged. On the lower right
part of the plate it is clear to read word: VXORI. Therefore, from the seventh line one can read
that also someone’s wife was buried in this sarcophagus– maybe even procurator’s wife –
who had name Domnica. Generally speaking, the cognomen Domnica was present in Salona
in the time of late Principate and in the period of Dominate.19 The persons who had it could
also be of the oriental origin.20
The eight line begins with the letters M, E and A, followed by the breaking line
between the left and the central parts of the plate. Probably, this should be considered as an
possessive adjective in dative that relates to the wife Domnica. Thus, it should be read as
MEA[E] but the last letter (E) is damaged due to the breaking the plate. After the breaking
line one can see a right side of the letter M, followed by the letters E, C, V and M. Therefore
all together should be read as: MEA[E] MECVM. Three letters that are following are not clear
and could be interpreted as: P, O, L (or I) or B, O, L (or I). Then comes a mechanical scratch,
ALFÖLDY, 1969, 190.
KAJANTO, 1965, 362.
followed by a vertical line of some letter. It is possible that this letter is I. After one can notice
marks of some more quite badly damaged letters.
The last – ninth – line of the text begins with letters Q, V, I. Then comes a breaking
line that ruined one or two letters. After this gap follow letters O (or Q) and I, and then letters:
V, E, R, I, T and after that letters N and O. The braking line, between the central and right part
of the inscribed plate that follows might ruined one or two letters. And in the lower part of the
lower fragment of the right part of the inscribed plate one can notice traces of two more
According to the above analysis the text from the late Antiquity sarcophagus should be read
as follows:
1: De[ep]ositio
2: Felic[i p]rocura[t]ori
3: Ec(c)les[ia]e Saloni[ta]nae
4: Dedit mem(orimam) d(omini) n(ostri)?A?[------]
5: qvi v[ix]it anni[s --]M. L?
6: ut [---] pii? --- M- [--]osimi
7: ---CIA?[--?]-E Domnic[ae] uxori
8: mea[e] mecum --[--?]I-9: qvi[--?]OI verit(a--?) NO[--?]-As it is clear the text mentions at least two persons. The first one is rector of the
property of the Salonitan Church (Archbishopric) whose name was probably Felix and who
was buried in this sarcophagus with the aforementioned text. The second person was
someone’s wife and her name was Domnica. It is possible that this second person was a wife
of the aforementioned rector. The name of this lady suggests her probable oriental origin.21
The formula Depositio, as it was previously mentioned, suggests that the inscription
and the person of the mentioned rector must be placed in the time after emperor Diocletian.
The fact that the Salonitan Church (Ecclesia Salonitana) is mentioned witnesses that in the
KAJANTO, 1965, 362.
time of this text the Christian community in Salona was already institutionalized and that the
property of the Church was huge enough that it needed a special official (rector) to take care
of it. The assumption that the Salonitan Church in this time had significant possessions,
including land property (ecclesiastica praedia) can be supported by the fact that in the time of
the Honorius II (527-547) the Salonitan archbishop on the first provincial Church council in
Salona (530) there was discussion about this about it.22 Between 552 and 564 there were also
some disputes about the property of the Salonitan Church in which notary Laurentius
(Laurentius, notarius sanctae ecclesiae Salonitanae) was involved.23 During the sixth century
some church and imperial officials, even highly positioned ones, sometimes misused this
property. Thus, even Natalis archbishop of Salona (circa 580-592) was involved in some land
theft and there was even an investigation conducted against him.24 Even the rector of the St.
Peter’s patrimony in Dalmatia, controversial bishop Malchus (+594), was involved in some
manipulation with this church property.25 The same can be said for Marcelinus, Byzantine
ŠIŠIĆ, 1914, 158; КЛАИЋ, 1967, 78; GUNJAČA, 1973, 51; IVANIŠEVIĆ, 1994, 160: “Statuimus quoque
secundum patrum curam ecclesiastica predia donandum atque venendum nullatenus esse licentiam;
comutandum quoque similiter damnantes arbitrium nisi pro ecclesie compendiis fieri apud eas personas et eo
ordine, quod in mutuanda pecunia memoravimus fuerit conprobatum, ut, omni utilitatis ratione perpensa,
episcopi presbiteris suis tribuant facultatem. Ipsis vero utilitate cognita, ab archiepiscopo concedendum, ne
aliter factum obtinet firmitatem et presumptum, personas abdicare cogatur ecclesia”.
IVANIŠEVIĆ, 1994, 170: “[------------------------------][---------------------------]p[--][------------]rum [-]strorum su[---][---]ntur p[--] ecclesiae Salonitanae in[---][---] oportet n[os a]lteras adhuc largiri in[---][--]quam[--]etis nostris pro parte ecc[l---] aestima[--] in eorum repperiuntur s[---] Laurentius, notar(ius)
s(an)c(t)e eccl(esiae) S[al---] [---]ri si qua pro partibus vestri[s ---] [---]pisse ob repetitione r[---][---]m
promissis chartulis g[---][---]enter quidem et ut arbi[---][---]lo potestati ut fides eor[---]”.
CCSL, CXL, II, 19 pag. 106: “Quem Honoratum archidiaconem arbitramur antistiti suo aliunde displicere non
potuisse, nisi quod eum vasa sacra suis dare parentibus prohibebat. Quam causam subtili voluimus et tunc
sanctae memoriae decessor meus et nunc ego indagatione discutere. Sed is ipse suorum sibi actuum conscius
personam ad iudicium postposuit destinare”.
FARLATI, 1753, 230-231; MANSI, 1960, vol. IX, 1126; MIGNE, 1849, lib. III, epist. XXII (640); BULIĆ,
1904, 26-27; CCSL, CXL, III., 22, pag. 168: “Talem ergo, te imminente debent, personam eligere, quae nullius
incongruae voluntati deserviat, sed vita et moribus decorata tanto ordini digna valeat inveniri. De rebus vero vel
ornamento eiusdem ecclesiae fideliter rerum inventarium facito te praesente conscribi. Et ne de rebus ipsis
possit aliquid deperire, Respectum diaconem atque Stephanum primicerium notariorum ut ipsarum rerum
omnino gerant custodiam admoneto, interminans eis de propria eos satisfacturos esse substantia, si quicquam
exinde eorum neglegentia fuerit imminutum. Malchum autem fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum contestari te
volumus ut se penitus in hac causa non misceat. Nam si per eum aliquid contra voluntatem nostram factum vel
temptatum potuerimus addiscere, non modicam ad se culpam et periculum pertinere cognoscat. Sed et hoc eum
admonere curato ut ad ponendas explendasque rationes patrimonii nostri quod gessit debeat esse sollicitus, pro
quibus etiam faciendis ex Siciliae partibus ad nos, postpoposita excusatione, venire festinet. In rebus igitur
Salonitanae ecclesiae nullomodo se miscere praesumat, ne amplius ei aut obnoxius aut possit esse culpabilis.
Nam multa habere de rebus praedictae fertur ecclesiae, eumque opinio pene auctorem exstitisse in venditione
rerum eius vel aliis illicitis asseverat. Quod si ita esse sicut dicitur manifesta veritate patuerit, certus sit inultum
hoc nullatenus remanere”.
proconsul of Dalmatia (proconsul Dalmatiae) who manipulated with this property in 598.26
By the same token, some of the Salonitan archbishops did not act responsibly even towards
other people’s property. Thus, the bishop of Salona - Januarius (circa 507-511) did not want
to pay olive oil that he ordered of John, and this case also engaged also an intervention of
Ostrogothic king Theodoric (471-526).27 On the basis of the all above mentioned, I think that
there should not be any dispute that the sarcophagus together with the inscription on the plate
on should be dated in the sixth century, i.e. in its second half.
Procurators in the late Antiquity in the regions of Pannonia and Dalmatia were
officials who conducted exploitation of the sliver from the led and iron ore.28 In the region of
Histria they administrated imperial and other major land property.29 During the fourth and
fifth centuries procurators can be found also on Salona as supervisors of wool and textile
production. Some of these workshops came to Salona after barbarian invasion in Pannonia,
and some of them were placed right in the Diocletian palace in present-day Split.30 If one can
judge by the evidences and traces of vine and olive oil production workshops found near early
Christian basilicas, e.g. on Kapljuč or in Manastirine or near Episcopal basilica in Salona etc.,
I think that it is possible to conclude that the Archbishopric of Salona in the late Antiquity
possessed a great and huge land property that included vineyards and olive tree fields. Some
researchers estimate that income of these fields was much more than it was needed for
CCSL, CXL A, IX,159, pag. 718: “Vos enim tanti mali de causa Maximi omnes astruunt auctores existere, per
quos spoliatio illius ecclesiae vel tantarum animarum perditio atque inauditae praesumptionis audacia sumpsit
CCSL, XCVI, Variarum lib. VII, pag. 103; IVANIŠEVIĆ, 1994, 157-158: “Omnes quidem iustitiam colere et
observare praecipimus, sed eos maxime qui divinis honoribus eriguntur, ut supernae gratiae fiant proximi, dum
a terrena fuerint cupiditate longinqui. Iohannes itaque flebili nos allegatione pulsavit sanctitatem vestram a se
sexaginta orcas olei ad implenda luminaria suscepisse, quarum pretium sibi postulat oportere restitui. Bonum
quidem votum, si tamen non ibi aliquid misceatur adversum. Nam licet ubique deceat iustitiam custodiri, in illis
rebus maxime necessaria est, quae divinis obtutibus offeruntur, ne putemus ignorare deum, unde accipiat, si
fraudatis oblationibus acquiescat. Et ideo, si veram querimoniam cognoscitis supplicantis, consideratione
iustitiae, quam sancta lege praedicatis, facite quae iure debentur sine tarditate restitui: quatinus nullus
ingemiscat illata sibi per vos fuisse dispendia, quos decet potius praestare iuuamina. Quatpropter studete, ut,
qui non soletis, pro rebus magnis excedere, nunc non videamini, quod absit, in parvitate peccare”.
Compare: ŠKEGRO, 1999, 39-138; Idem, 2000, 69-176.
STARAC, 1994, 133-145; MATIJAŠIĆ, 1998, 15-22; Idem, 1996, 171-188.
Notitiae dignitatum, Occidentalis: XI 46: procurator gynaecii Bassianensis, Pannoniae Secundae translati
Salonis; Notitiae dignitatum, Occidentalis: XI 48: procurator gynaecii Savensis, Dalmatiae Aspalato; Notitiae
dignitatum, Occidentalis: XI 66: procurator bafii Salonitani, Dalmatiae; NOVAK, 1957, 36-37; ŠKEGRO,
1999, 202.
liturgical and existential needs of the Archbishopric.31 Correspondence of the pope Gregory I
the Great
(590-604) and some other sources witness the richness of the Salonitan
Archbishopric. If we bare in mind these facts, it is not surprising that the Salonitan
Archbishopric in that time had a need to engage a special official to supervise these vast land
properties, and who had the same title as an imperial administrator of the most important
economic recourses in the regions of Pannonia and Dalmatia.
Lexicon latinitatis
medii aevi
Géza ALFÖLDY, Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz
Dalmatia. Beiträge zur Namenforschung. Neue Folge. Beiheft 4. In
Verbindung mit Ernst Dickenmann und Jürgen Untermann
Universitätsverlag”, Heidelberg 1969.
Ottorino BERTOLINI, Patrimonio di san Pietro. Enciclopedia cattolica
IX. Città del Vaticano 1952., 957-960.
Frane BULIĆ, S. Gregorio Magno papa nelle sue relazioni colla
Dalmazia (a. 590.-604.). Supplemento al: Bulletino di archeologia e
storia dalm. 27 (1904.) 17-47.
Don Fr(ane) BULIĆ – dr. J(osip) BERVALDI, Kronotaksa solinskih
biskupa. [Chronotaxis of the Salonitan Bishops]. Zagreb 1912.-1913.
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, Volume CXL-A. S. Gregorii Magni
Rergistrum epistularum, Libri VIII-XIV, Apendix. (ed. Dag Norberg),
Turnholti (Belgien), MCMLXXXII.
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, Volume XCVI. Magni Aurelii
Cassiodori Variarum libri XII. (cura et sudio Å. J. Fridh.) De anima
(cura et studio J. W. Halporn). Turnholti, MCMLXXIII.
Ejnar DYGGVE, History of Salonitian Christianity. “Instituttet for
Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Oslo 1951.
Ejnar DYGGVE, Povijest salonitanskog kršćanstva. [History of
Salonitian Christianity]. “Književni krug”, Split 1996.
Illyrici sacri tomus secundus. Ecclesia Salonitana. A quarto saeculo aere
christianae usque ad exidium Salonae. Accessere Vita Diocletiani
Imperatoris, Acta Sanctorum ex ejus genere, Marmora Salonitana.
Auctore Daniele FARLATO presbytero Societatis Jesu. Venetiis
Dr. Stjepan GUNJAČA, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji.
Knjiga I. Izvori (analiza i kritika). [Corrections and the Supplements to
the Croatian Older History] “Školska knjiga” – “Centar za kulturnu
djelatnost omladine”, Zagreb 1973.
Milan IVANIŠEVIĆ, Povijesni izvori. (Zusammenfassung: Die
Geschichtsquellen, 189-195). Salona christiana, “Arheološki muzej”,
Split, 1994., 105-195.
Iiro KAJANTO, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965.
Нада КЛАИЋ [Nada KLAIĆ] Historia Salonitana maior. Посебна
изданја Српске академије наука и уметности, књ. CCCXCIX,
Оделење друштвених наука, књ. 55, Београд 1967.
Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaeualis. Lexicon latinitatis
Medii aevi praesertim ad res ecclesiasticas investigandas pertinens.
Albert BLAISE, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs du moyen-age.
Turnholti, “Typographi Brepols editores pontificii”, MCMLXXV.
DYGGVE, 1951, 30; Idem, 1996, 37-38; NIKOLAJEVIĆ, 1979, 167-168.
Notitiae dignitatum,
23 (1959.)
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio cujus Joannes
Dominicus Mansi et post ipsius mortem Florentinus et Venetianus
editores ab anno 1758 ad annum 1798, priores triginta unum tomos
eddiderunt nunc autem continuata, et Deo favente absoluta. Vol. 9, 10,
(ed. secunda), Graz 1960.
Tomislav MARASOVIĆ – Mate ZEKAN, Istraživanje srednjovjekovne
crkve Sv. Mihovila “Na obali” u Splitu. (Summary: Excavations of early
mediaeval church of Sv. Mihovil (Michael) “in ripa maris” in Split, 125126). Starohrvatska prosvjeta. Ser. III. – Sv. 12 (1982.) 111-126.
Dr. sci. Jozo MAREVIĆ, Latinsko-hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik, II.
svezak M-Z. [Lexicon Latino-Chroaticum encyclopaedicum, II. Tomus
M-Z]. “Marka” Velika Gorica – “Matica hrvatska” Zagreb 2000.
Robert MATIJAŠIĆ, Nomenclatura oeconimica antičke istre. Nazivi
poljodjelskih zanimanja i dužnosti u antičkoj Istri. (Summary: Economic
nomenclature of roman Istria. The terms for the agricultural professions
and duties in Roman Istria, 188). Arheološki radovi i rasprave / Acta et
dissertationes archaeologicae 12 (1996.) 171-188.
Robert MATIJAŠIĆ, La presenza imperiale nell’economia dell’Istria
romana e nel contesto Adriatico. Histria antiqua 4 (1998.) 15-22.
Ernst MEYER, Einführung in die lateinische Epigraphik.
“Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft”, Darmstadt 1973.
Patrologiae cursus completus sive bibliotheca universalis, integra,
uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium ss. Patrum, doctorum
scriptorumque ecclestiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad Inocentii III
tempora floruerunt. Tomus 77: Sancti Gregorii Papae I cognomenta
Magni, Opera omnia. Accurante Jacques Paul MIGNE. Tomus tertius.
Parisii 1849.
Planinka MIKULIĆ, Bosanski i humski iluminirani rukopisi. (Summary:
Bosnian-Hum illuminated manuscripts, 176). BF VIII/13 (2000.) 134–
Ivanka NIKOLAJEVIĆ, “Salona christiana” u VI i VII veku. Vjesnik za
arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 72-73 (1979.) 151-169.
T. F. X. NOBLE, Patrimonium Sancti Petri. Lexikon des Mittelalters VI.
Artemis&Winkler Verlag, München und Zürich 1993., 1792-1793.
Notitia dignitatum et administrationum omnium tam civilium quam
militarium in partibus occidentis, (ed. E. BÖCKING) Bonnae 1853.
Grga NOVAK, Povijest Splita, I. Od prethistorijskih vremena do
definitivnog gubitka pune autonomije 1420. god. [History of Split, I.
From the prehistory to the definitive loss of his full authonomy]. Split
Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue
Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa fortgeführt von Wilchelm
Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen.
Herausgegeben von Konrat Ziegler. Dreiundzwanzigster Band, Priscilla
bis Pyramiden. “Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag”, Stuttgart 1959.
Alka STARAC, Carski posjedi u Histriji. (Summary: Imperial lands in
Histria, 145). Opuscula archaeologica 18 (1994.) 133-145.
Ferdo ŠIŠIĆ, Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije, dio I. čest 1 (do god.
1107.). [Textbook of the Sources of the Croatian History, Part I. Book 1
(Until to year 1107)]. Zagreb 1914.
Ante ŠKEGRO, Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije.
(Zusammenfassung: Die Wirtschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien,
329-346). “Sveučilište u Zagrebu – Hrvatski studiji”, Zagreb 1999.
Ante ŠKEGRO, Bergbau der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Godišnjak
Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i
Hercegovine XXXI/29 (2000.) 53-176.
Na izmaku antike Salonitanska nadbiskupija je raspolagala značajnim posjedima što
među inim potvrđuje i pojava dužnosnika s titulom prokuratora (procurator ecclesiae
Salonitanae). Radi se o muškoj osobi koja se pojavljuje na četiri ulomka natpisa s prednje
strane kasnoantičkog sarkofaga. Ti su fragmenti pronađeni 1979. g. u renesansno-baroknom
pločniku crkve Sv. Mihovila “na obali” u Splitu. Ta se crkva tijekom srednjeg vijeka nalazila
uz more, otkuda joj i naziv, koje je tada na tom mjestu dopiralo gotovo do samih zidina
Dioklecijanove palače. Natpis je dosta oštećen što zbog preloma što zbog atmosferalija.
Najteža oštećenja su na završetku četvrtog retka teksta na mjestu gdje je prelomljena gornja i
donja strana desnog ulomka natpisne ploče. Od natpisa se očuvalo devet redaka teksta
urezanog u natpisno polje oblikovano u vidu medaljona. Prvih pet redaka teksta relativno je
dobro čitljivo, dok se na ostala četiri razaznaju tek pojedine riječi. Na natpisu se spominju
dvije osobe – muškarac koji je bio upraviteljem dobara Salonitanske crkve (procurator
Ecclesiae Salonitanae) te nečija supruga koja se zvala Domnika (Domnica). Opće
karakteristike samog natpisa, ornamentalni motivi i te drugi elementi upućuju na zaključak da
se radi o natpisu iz sredine odnosno druge polovice 6. st. Tekst natpisa glasi:
1: De[ep]ositio
2: Felic[i p]rocura[t]ori
3: Ec(c)les[ia]e Saloni[ta]nae
4: Dedit mem(orimam) d(omini) n(ostri)?A?[------]
5: qvi v[ix]it anni[s --]M. L?
6: ut [---] pii? --- M- [--]osimi
7: ---CIA?[--?]-E Domnic[ae] uxori
8: mea[e] mecum --[--?]I-9: qvi[--?]OI verit(a--?) NO[--?]-Prokuratori su inače na dalmatinskim prostorima u antičko doba u ime carske vlasti
rukovodili vodećim gospodarskim granama poput primjerice eksploatacijom srebronosnog
olova, željeza i dr., dok su na području Istre bili na čelu carskih i drugih većih zemljišnih
posjeda. U osvit srednjeg vijeka na salonitanskom području rukovodili su pojedinim obrtima
poput primjerice prerade vune. Pojava prokuratora u Salonitanskoj crkvi u suton antike
odnosno praskozorje srednjeg vijeka svjedoči o značajnim posjedima kojima je raspolagala.
Da je Salonitanska nadbiskupija u to vrijeme dobro stajala svjedoče i druga vrela iz tog
vremena, posebice prepiska pape Grgura I. Velikog (590.-604.), arheološka istraživanja i dr.
U isto vrijeme pojedine crkve u unutrašnjosti nekadašnje provincije Dalmacije, poput
primjerice Bestoenske biskupije, bile su u oskudici na koju je ukazivano i na salonitanskim
provincijalnim koncilima održanim 530. i 533. g. pod predsjedanjem salonitanskog
nadbiskupa Honorija II. (527-547).
Church, State and Lay Piety Florence and Venice in the
Church, State and Lay Piety Florence and Venice in the