509

Memoria S. Chrysogoni:
Between the Legend on the Transfer of Relics and
Ownership over Monastic Land*1

Trpimir Vedri

A series of randomly selected terms from the titles of various papers presented at
this conference (property, ownership rights, real-estate ownership, and possession) re-
minds us besides the fact that the speakers have adhered to the given subject that,
when speaking of property, we implicitly have in mind the actual, that is, material
property. However, if one resists the almost spontaneous slip into determining the
object of property or ownership as exclusively material, one does not need to be re-
minded that, just as the material capital is by no means the only imaginable form of
capital, thus the ownership over material property is not (necessarily) the only form
of ownership. The same is, as it seems, valid for possession or property. When re-
flecting on the possibility of owning or possessing immaterial goods, I must, however,
consciously avoid the basically conceptual and terminological question of whether
one can actually possess immaterial goods. Therefore, staring from the presumption
that the ownership or possession of things like memory or knowledge is in a way
also possible and I will try to show, on a selected example from the medieval history
of Zadar, an interesting relationship between such symbolic and actual forms of
possession.
With this goal in mind, I have considered it suitable to take as my starting point
the inspiring concept of the French sociologist P. Bourdieu. According to him,
namely, there are various types of capital, one of which is also the social capital,
which he has defined as a sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to
an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
*1
This text is an extended version of my conference paper and has therefore been significantly revised
and expanded with regard to it, yet still remains very far from being a conclusion on the issues
considered. Therefore, aware of its various deficiencies and its inconclusiveness, I offer it to the print
primarily as a modest contribution to the preservation of memory of an exceptionally successful
and motivating scholarly conference as a report on an ongoing research. This, however, does not
diminish my gratitude to Ivan Majnari for having read the text and to Zrinka Peorda Vardi for the
persistence and patience with which she convinced me (eventually) to finish the text and to submit
it for print.
510 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.2 Besides

social capital, Bourdieu has also referred to cultural capital (capital culturel), which
may be defined as [r]esources available to a social actor [and I would add here: or
to a group/community] on the basis of prestige or recognition, which function as
an authoritative embodiment of cultural value.3 Regardless of the original meaning
of these terms (the literal and fundamental understanding of Bourdieus concept
is not crucial here), I propose as a starting point for this brief analysis the (very
general) supposition that in the complex network of social relations within a closed
community, such as the city of the Croatian Middle Ages certainly was it was
the ownership right or the possession of a specific type of social knowledge4
that served as an important factor of self-determination and an instrument of social
affirmation. In accordance with that, such forms of symbolic capital, as I will try
to show, were often inseparably related to a specific material property, be it as an
incentive to acquire it or as an assertion and justification of its possession.
What does it mean in practice and how does it relate to the issue of ownership in
the medieval city? Ownership mentioned in the conference title, as it has been ob-
served and used in most papers here, largely implies ownership over material goods
and is linked to actual property. However, while seeking to draw attention to the
possible meanings of the abovementioned ownership categories, abstract at the first
glance, I would like, above all, to extend the semantic field of research on the given
problem in order to encourage a fresh reflection on the relevance of discussing the
symbolic forms of ownership or immaterial property in the context of creating

2
P. Bourdieu and J.D. Loc, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press, 1992), 119. The term was used in social sciences as early as the late 19th century,
but its theoretical elaboration and to some extent popularization in the late 20th century can be
attributed primarily to P. Bourdieu.
3
Apparently, the term was first used as a coin word by P. Bourdieau, in the wake of Webers research
on social status. Cf. Craig Calhoun (ed.), Dictionary of the Social Sciences (article on Symbolic
Capital) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 474-475.
4
According to O.G. Oexle, social knowledge can be defined as a set of ready-made mental images
and related interpretative schemes with the help of which people know and interpret their world,
and then also act in it, whereby such knowledge is socially reproduced through a prolonged
process of socialization (quoted by Mladen Ani, Ranosrednjovjekovni Neretvani ili Humljani:
Tragom zabune koju je prouzroilo djelo De administrando imperio [Early medieval inhabitants
of the Neretva region and Hum: On the confusion produced by De administrando imperio], in:
Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest: Zbornik radova, vol. 1, ed. Ivica Lui (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za
povijest, 2011), 231, n. 30. For examples of the present-day use of the term in (Croatian) medievalist
research, see Tomislav Popi, Oblikovanje srednjovjekovne stvarnosti sociologija znanja i
povijest [Designing the medieval reality: Sociology of knowledge and history], Povijesni prilozi 33
(2007), 239-248.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 511

the social reality of the medieval city. In the specific context of considering a selected
form of memory as preserved in hagiography as a constitutive element of the saints
cult (considered in the light of the system of symbolic communication), I will espe-
cially focus here on three key elements:
a. The holy relic, i.e. a physical fragment of the saints body and the object in the
focus of the cult, as an example of the material object enveloped in the dense
net of memory;5
b. Social memory (understood as a form of social knowledge), which represents
a part of the semantic mantle around the relics, seen here as a semantic key
for understanding the situation of the preceding and succeeding elements in a
cult within the complex network of social relations;6
c. The locality, i.e. the specific landed property consecrated by the (actual or
imagined) presence of the relics, seen here as a site of memory functioning
as its guardian.
Departing, therefore, from the assumption that even memory or rather control
over a particular segment of social memory can be understood as a form of own-
ership (and moreover, I would argue, quite an essential form of ownership in the
network of social relations), I would like to consider here, in the form of a question, a
possible relationship between the cultural capital such as ownership over memory
on the one side, and ownership over a specific landed property on the other. Despite
this theoretical framework, which may seem a little pretentious, it probably neednt
be emphasized that, at least when speaking of the Croatian Middle Ages, it is far from
easy to find particularly convincing and rich examples that would illustrate the rela-

5
It is therefore an object whose symbolic value is in huge discrepancy with its actual value.
6
The concept of social memory was perhaps first elaborated by Aby Warburg in 1923, in his
Kreuzlinger Lectures (Jan Assmann, Collective Memory and Cultural Identity, New German
Critique 65 (1995), 125). Even though he was not the first to use the term in English, Warburgs use
undoubtedly had a lasting impact on its later use. Today, the term social memory largely prevails
in the British humanities (cf. Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989); Peter Burke, History as Social Memory, in: Memory: History, Culture, and
the Mind, ed. T. Butler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 97-113; James Fentress and Chris
Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Geoffrey Cubitt, History and
Memory (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2007), but just like the related
concept (e.g. collective memory), it has not yet been precisely defined. It is therefore sometimes
used as a synonym of history (e.g. by Burke, History(as above), 99, who has defined history as
social memory and a convenient piece of shorthand which sums up the rather complex process of
selection and interpretation), or similar to Assmanns concept of cultural memory as an expression
of various cultural products on the basis of which a society creates its picture of the reality (Frank
Willaert, Medieval Memory: Image and Text (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), ix). I am using the term here
rather broadly, only loosely relying on the existing tradition.
512 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

tionships in question. Moreover, the foreseen framework and intent of this analysis
particularly in regard to the available sources and the state of their research do
not allow us to make particularly definite conclusions. Thus, the case considered here
will also be presented primarily in the form of open issues and by positing a series of
questions, which may perhaps be answered only after further, more exhaustive and
profound research.

Saintly cults as systems of communication, and their elements

In order to outline the proposed model of analysis more clearly, I will take as my
starting point a very suggestive statement of the Dutch medievalist M. Mostert, who
once described the society, while considering the impact of literary production on
its evolution in the early Middle Ages, as a communication system consisting of the
realia or objects, ideas, and social realities.7 I consider this description to be quite
general, yet at the same time very useful when applied to a specific saintly cult. I will
not speak here of the significance of the cult of saints and their complex social roles
in the lives of medieval townships. In any case, a simplified and schematic model,
which results from the consideration of a cult as a communication system, may be
represented as consisting of three major mutually interrelated elements: relics (rel-
iquary-shrine-church), text (legend, contents, book, performance) and venerators
(impresarios and audiences).
Considering it unnecessary to explain this model in detail, I will rely on it in order
to structure this paper around three main points: exploring the historicity and deter-
mining the circumstances under which Zadar acquired the relics of St Chrysogonus;
considering the memory of the site of his tomb as preserved in the legend Translatio
beati Grisogoni (hereafter: TBG); and making an attempt at determining his original
burial site on the basis of donation charters and other relevant sources. Thus, the fi-
nal intent of this analysis, in accordance with the limitations of the preserved sources
and the state of their research, is to identify some of the interrelations between the
segments under consideration and to offer, in the light of my introductory sugges-
tions, some observations as a contribution to their interpretation.

7
I am referring here to Mosterts paper at the 52nd Settimana di studio in Spoleto, held in April 2004 and
published as: Marco Mostert, Communication, Literacy and the Development of Early Medieval
Society, in: Comunicare e significare nell'Alto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio della Fondazione
Centro Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo 52 (Spoleto: Fondazione C.I.S.A.M., 2005), 29-55.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 513

The time and circumstances in which the relics of St Chrysogonus reached

Zadar
In order to avoid retelling what has been told many times, I will only briefly
mention the basic facts related to the beginnings of the presence of St Chrysogonus
relics in early medieval Zadar. In the citys tradition at least judging from older
literature there are as many as four traditions about the arrival or invention of
the relics of St Chrysogonus. The first one, preserved in a lost chronicle recorded in
the likewise lost writing of Bishop imun Koii Benja (1509-1537), tells us that
the relics of St Chrysogonus were transferred to Zadar from Grado in 649, follow-
ing an order of Patriarch Maximus (649-670?).8 The second, obviously far younger
tradition ascribes the acquisition of the relics to Donatus, bishop of Zadar, who
brought them from Diedenhoffen in 806, and has been first recorded, as far as I can
establish, by Daniele Farlati.9 The third tradition, preserved in the recently discov-
ered Codex Filippi, describes the invention of the body of St Chrysogonus in the
surroundings of Zadar, but contains no specific data that would help us establish
the exact time of the alleged discovery. Eventually, there is a fourth tradition, which
does not contradict any of the aforementioned three, which states that the body of
St Chrysogonus, its veneration having subsided in Zadar over time, was rediscov-
ered in 1056 at the monastic church.10 If the document mentioning the discovery
is indeed authentic (which may be doubted with good reasons), the mentioning
of the relics in the monastic church that year is chronologically younger than that
in Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio or in the Zadar dona-
tion from 986, and bears no crucial significance for the dating of the arrival of the
relics of St Chrysogonus to Zadar. Without wishing to enter into a more extensive
discussion on the interrelations between these traditions, I would like to call for a
consideration of the material evidence on the earliest presence of St Chrysogo-
nus relics (and cult) in Zadar.

8
Carlo Federico Bianchi, Zara Christiana (Zara: Tipografia Woditczka, 1877), 297, n. 2.
9
Acknowledging that there were no specific data either on the translation of St Chrysogonus or on
that of St Zoilo, he concluded that the relics of both saints were brought to Zadar by Bishop Donatus
(Donato Episcopo Jadrensi adscribendam censeo), who obtained them from Charlemagne as a gift (!).
Cf. Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vol. V (Venetiis: Apud Sebastianum Coleti, 1775), 37.
10
Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. I, ed. Marko Kostreni et al. (Zagreb:
JAZU, 1967), 82 (hereafter: CD I). The authenticity of this document has often been questioned. It
tells of the obligation of fishermen to donate a part of their catch to the monastery of St Chrysogonus,
which they allegedly promised on the occasion of the invention of his relics.
514 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

St Chrysogonus is first mentioned in Zadar in the testament of prior Andrija in

918,11 in which he is leaving a vineyard and a land plot in Diklo to the saint12 that
is, if the content of the document is authentic, for the testament has been published
more than once with its authenticity questioned. Decades later, Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus reported in Constantinople, on the basis of some information that had
reached him from Zadar, that [I]n the same city lies [] St. Chrysogonus, monk
and martyr, and his holy chain.13 The next data about the cult and the relics of St
Chrysogonus is found in a Zadar donation from 986, which unambiguously states
that the church of St Chrysogonus is situated within the city walls and preserves
his most holy relics.14 Eventually, the donation charter of Ban S., dated between
1042 and 1044, confirms that the remnants of St Chrysogonus are situated within the
city walls.15
If the data preserved in these charters are authentic, at least in their core, in com-
bination with the mention in Porphyrogenitus and the archaeological findings from
the church of St Chrysogonus, they indicate that the cult of the Aquileian martyr
(and in that case most certainly also his relics) must have been present in Zadar at
least from 900. This conclusion leaves more room for dating the arrival of the relics,
which, along with the early phase of the cult, must largely remain a matter of spec-
ulation. In fact, it was only with the flourishing of the Benedictine community of
St Chrysogonus in Zadar during the 10th century that an institution was created in
which it would be possible to formulate the hagiographic tradition preserved within
the TBG and indirectly in other written sources. It is for this reason that the tradition
preserved in this legend must be considered while keeping in mind the need of cul-
tivating a particular form of memory within the Benedictine community of Zadar.
In that sense, the most significant tradition on the origin of St Chrysogonus relics is
certainly that preserved in the Codex Filippi. This uniquely hagiographically articu-
lated medieval tradition must have been related to the monastery and is therefore a
key source of information, if not on the actual origin of the relics, then at least on the

11
CD I, 25-28.
12
CD I, 27: Et in sancto Grisogono dimitto uinea, que emi de Mezulo, et terre a Duculo.
13
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik,
English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, New Revised Edition, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
I (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Centre for Byzantine Studies, 1967), 138-139:
[...] .
14
CD I, 46: idcirco ecclesiam beati Chrysogoni martyris, que sita est infra muros ciuitatis, ubi et
sacratissimum eius corpus requiescit
15
CD I, 76: ... sancti Ghrisogoni cuius sacratissima membra Iadera retinetur (!).
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 515

preserved form of social memory about the origins and beginnings of the cult of the
citys future patron saint. In other words, even if the relics of St Chrysogonus reached
Zadar from Aquileia as a gift of Patriarch Maximus in the 7th century (which the two
Chrysogonus traditions do not actually deny), the legend preserved in the Codex
Filippi, in combination with the other sources, indicates that the citizens of Zadar
believed at least from the early 11th century (if not earlier, perhaps from the late 9th
century) that the relics of their patron saint had been discovered in the vicinity of
Zadar, rather than festively translated from Aquileia.16
Having established that St Chrysogonus was venerated in Zadar at least from the
late 9th century, when there was perhaps a memory of his inventio in the vicinity
of Zadar, we may ask what could be established about the historical origins of his
relics and the date of their arrival. We have already mentioned the tradition of their
transfer from Aquileia, which is preserved in a relatively late form, its origins being
rather vague. The Zadar tradition is preserved in the so-called Anonymous17, based
on the Bonifatius Chronicle preserved within the likewise lost work of Bishop imun
Koii Benja. The relevant passage of the text runs as follows:

Anno circiter 649, extinctis Cypriano et Primogenito, Patriarchis cat-

tolicis Gradensibus, Fortunatus haereticus favore Longobardorum sedem
intrusus occupavit. Ex quo loco [basilica Gradensis] circa haec tempora
datae fuerunt nonnullae sanctorum reliquiae amicis Jadertinis, et inter
caetera, ossa S. Chrysogoni et S. Zoili, scilicet anno 649 tempore Maximi
Patriarchae Gradensis, natione Dalmatae, qui a die 24 Novembris 649
sedit, ut catholicus in patriarchali stallo post intrusum Fortunatum usque
ad diem 14 Decembris 670, cui successit Stephanus de Parentio, quibus
annis et aliae sanctorum reliquiae Jadrae et alibi translatae fuerunt, ut
antiqua monumenta Aquilejensis Ecclesiae ostendunt.18

Following this local tradition, older historiography established that the church
of St Chrysogonus was once dedicated to St Anthony the First Abbot, with Egyptian

16
Vitaliano Brunelli, Storia della citt de Zara, vol. 1 (Venice: Istituto veneto di arti grafiche, 1913
[21974]), 211.
17
Anonymous (following Brunelli), 122-123; Bianchi, Zara Christiana (as in n. 7), 297, n. 2; Brunelli,
Storia (as in n. 15), 219, n. 11.
18
Bianchi, Zara Christiana (as in n. 7), 297, n. 2 (Nella antica cronaca di Bonifacio si legge...).
516 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

monks living around it.19 That there had been hermits in Dalmatia since Late Antiq-
uity is known from a letter by Pope Zosimas and from Jeromes Life of St Hilarion, but
these mentions, often quoted in scholarly literature, do not in fact say anything about
the origins of the monastic community, even though the memory of the older patron
of the church of St Chrysogonus was most probably preserved in the dedication of
the altar to St Anthony, which stood in the church until its demolition in the late 18th
century.20
On the other hand, archaeological excavations at the church have shown that
there were two early layers there the late antique one (church of St Anthony?), dated
between the 5th and the 8th centuries, and the early medieval one (the first church of St
Chrysogonus?), dated to the early 10th century21 or the last quarter of the 9th century.22
The hypothesis of a new church having been built shortly before 900 (or soon after-
wards) is very important when addressing the issue of the second translation of St
Chrysogonus as described in the TBG. For even though it is impossible to prove that
there was a monastic community in Zadar at the church of St Anthony/St Chryso-
gonus during the late antique period, the oldest discovered layer corresponds to the
time of the possible translatio of the relics from Grado. It may therefore be presumed
that the monastic community building the church in the late 9th or the 10th century
inherited the relics of St Chrysogonus together with the older church. The fact that
the early medieval legend on the discovery of St Chrysogonus does not mention the
relics neednt surprise us either. It was a rather common, even regular procedure dur-
ing the 9th and 10th centuries to revive a cult that had fallen into oblivion by means of
inventing and elevating the relics, which was often supported by new legends, which
distorted the actual circumstances of their earlier possession.23

19
This tradition was apparently preserved in the transcripts of the notoriously unreliable local antichi
cronachisti, as labelled by C. F. Bianchi. Cf. Bianchi, Zara Christiana (as in n. 7), 296-297. Besides a
number of other authors, this tradition has recently been referred to by Pavua Vei, Zadar na pragu
kranstva [Zadar on the threshold of Christianity] (Zadar: Arheoloki muzej Zadar, 2006).
20
Bianchi, Zara Christiana (as in n. 7), 297.
21
iril M. Ivekovi, Crkva i samostan sv. Krevana u Zadru. Hrvatska zadubina iz X. stoljea [Church
and monastery of St Chrysogonus in Zadar: A 10th-century Croatian foundation], Djela JAZU 30
(Zagreb: JAZU, 1931), 19.
22
Mladen Ani, Translatio beati Grisogoni martyris kao povijesno vrelo [Translatio beati Grisogoni
martyris as a historical source] Starohrvatska prosvjeta 25 (1998), 132, n. 32, with extensive
bibliography.
23
Cf. Martina Caroli, Bringing Saints to Cities and Monasteries: Translationes in the Making of a
Sacred Geography, in: Towns and Their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,
ed. G. P. Brogiolo, N. Gauthier, and N. Christie (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 260-261, with bibliography.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 517

Briefly, it can be presumed on the basis of the above said that the relics of St
Chrysogonus may have indeed come to Zadar from Grado, that is, from the region
of Aquileia. However, it cannot be established with certainty whether it actually hap-
pened during the so-called dark ages, more precisely after 649 as was recorded in
the lost Bonifatius Chronicle, as there is a possibility, as presumed by Nada Klai,
that this tradition was only invented in the context of the conflict between the two
patron saints of the city after the 12th century.24 It seems perfectly plausible that the
relics reached Zadar in the 7th century, and therefore the opinion of Klai that St
Chrysogonus had no impact on the spiritual or ecclesiastical life of the city before
the late Middle Ages does not sound particularly convincing.25 Nevertheless, what
remains is the fact that the cult of St Chrysogonus is more extensively documented
only after the emergence of the monastic community, with whose destiny it remained
closely connected throughout the medieval period. Thus, all extensive research or
attempts at interpreting various individual elements of this communication system
must be viewed first and foremost in the context of the history of Zadars monastery
of St Chrysogonus.26 Starting here from the modest intent of merely considering the
link between the legend formed in such a context and the property documents of
the monastery, and having outlined the basic chronological framework of the cults
emergence, the next step is to turn to the legend as the second important element of
the cult and also the semantic key for interpreting the interrelation between the rel-
ics, the site of their discovery, and the communities that venerated the martyr.

Legend on the discovery of St Chrysogonus remnants

The inventio story begins at an (undefined) moment during the construction of
the church of St Chrysogonus, on which occasion the body of the Aquileian martyr

24
Nada Klai and Ivo Petricioli, Prolost Zadra [Zadars past], vol. 2 (Zadar: Filozofski fakultet, 1976),
66.
25
Ibidem.
26
From the extensive literature on the evolution and significance of the monastery of St Chrysogonus,
I would especially recommend two crucial titles: Giuseppe Praga, Lo scriptorium dellabbazia
benedettina di San Grisogono in Zara, Archivio Storico per la Dalmazia 7-8 (1929-1930), with
an overview of older literature; Ivan Ostoji, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim naim krajevima
[Benedictines in Croatia and the region], vol. 2: Benediktinci u Dalmaciji [Benedictines in Dalmatia]
(Split-Tkon: Benediktinski samostan, 1964), 39-55; and a number of relevant articles published
in: 1000. godina samostana sv. Krevana [1000th anniversary of the monastery of St Chrysogonus],
proceedings from a conference held in Zadar on December 11-12, 1986, on the occasion of the 1000th
anniversary of the monastery of St Chrysogonus and the 30th anniversary of the Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences, University of Zadar, ed. Ivo Petricioli, Zadarska revija XXXIX/2-3 (1990).
518 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

was discovered in the vicinity of Zadar. Namely, according to this tradition, a woman
from Zadar by the name of Dionita had a vision of St Chrysogonus while she was
collecting herbs at a deserted place near an ancient cemetery. As the saint instructed
her to inform the citizens of the event, she immediately went to see the bishop. Hav-
ing heard what had happened, the bishop visited the indicated site in the company
of citizens and the clergy, where he discovered the martyrs relics. The second part
then describes how the pious procession started for the city, but could not enter it
until the local dignitaries vowed that they would make donations to the church. The
third section describes a theft of the saints arm and the fate of three monks who fled
with it to the land of Marab. After numerous calamities that befell that province, its
inhabitants returned the arm to Zadar. The fourth section continues the subject of the
second, describing the calamities that befell those descendants of Zadars dignitaries
who disregarded the vows of their ancestors. The fifth and sixth sections render an
episode about a banker from Aquileia who invoked St Chrysogonus and was saved
from a storm, after which he made a rich donation to the martyrs church.
Even this brief overview shows that not all parts of the text are of equal impor-
tance for the analysis proposed here. The relevant parts include primarily the first
(the invention narrative), the second (story about the vow made by the local digni-
taries before the relics could enter the city), and the fourth sections (describing the
fate of those descendants of Zadars dignitaries who disregarded the vows of their an-
cestors). The hitherto most exhaustive and most inspiring analysis of these narratives
has been offered by M. Ani, who has identified a series of less evident messages
and intents of the legends author.27 Without wishing to dwell any longer on the issues
discussed elsewhere,28 I will focus my further analysis primarily on the issue of the

27
Ani Translatio (as in n. 21), passim.
28
On the time, circumstances, and purpose of writing the legend, see among others: Josip Nagy, Sveti
Krevan, njegova crkva i samostan u Zadru [St Chrysogonus, his church and monastery in Zadar],
Croatia Sacra 3 (1932); Stjepan Antoljak, Jo neto o Cruvvatis et Mirmidonibus [More on the
Cruvvatis et Mirmidonibus],
19 (1967); Radoslav Katii, Zadrani i Mirmidonci oko moi sv. Krevana [The Zadrans
and the Mirmidons about the relics of St Chrysogonus], in: Uz poetke hrvatskih poetaka: filoloke
studije o naem najranijem srednjovjekovlju (Split: Knjievni krug, 1993); Mate Sui, Zadarski i
ninski Mirmidonci [The Mirmidons of Zadar and Nin], Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU
u Zadru 38 (1996), 13-33; Ani Translatio (as in n. 21), 127-138; Zvjezdan Strika, Translatio
beati Chrysogoni martyris kao narativno vrelo rane hrvatske prolosti [Translatio beati Chrysogoni
martyris as a narrative source for early Croatian history], Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU
u Zadru 51 (2009), 52; Trpimir Vedri, Gdje ive Mirmidonci?: o znaenju pojmova Mirmidones i
Marab u zadarskoj legendi o prijenosu moi sv. Krevana [Where did the Mirmidons live?: On the
meaning of the terms Mirmidones and Marab in Zadars legend on the translation of the relics of St
Chrysogonus], Povijesni prilozi 41 (2011), 50-54, 80-83.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 519

place of discovery of St Chrysogonus relics, with some observations on the purpose

of the legend and the authors intention.
With regard to this, it is probably useful to recall that the TBG has been very se-
verely criticized by various historians, among others by V. Ponte, D. Farlati, and more
recently M. Grani. Despite the negative opinions of these older auctoritates and their
continuators, the legend has recently attracted considerable attention. Thus, a num-
ber of Croatian scholars evaluated the legend positively during the 1990s, empha-
sizing the relevance of its various aspects and the various possibilities of interpreting
the data preserved there.29 Nevertheless, historians who have recently dealt with the
text, with the exception of M. Ani even if acknowledging the credibility of certain
data presented in it directed their attention primarily to establishing the historicity
of these data. However, from the perspective of this paper, it is important to see that
until recently nobody dealt in detail with the problem of identifying the locality men-
tioned in the text, or its symbolic significance for the legends author.
Coming back briefly to the early critics of the legend, it seems relevant to recall
their main objections to the TBG, which was denounced as a mere invention that
was unworthy of publication, primarily because there was no year or date of the
translation given in it (according to V. Ponte) and because the persons, places, and
dignitaries mentioned in it were not mentioned in any other documents referring
to Zadar. Briefly, V. Ponte concluded that the story should be considered a mere
invention.30 His opinion was followed by D. Farlati, who referred to an older trans-
lation of the relics of St Chrysogonus, known from the books of the monastery of
St Chrysogonus, badly damaged by age (ex tabulis cenobii S. Chrysogoni nimia vetus-
tate attritis), agreeing with his predecessors that the legend was a mere invention
that was unworthy of publication.31 The later fate of the legend was also determined
by the fact that it was not included by F. Raki in his collection of documents, the

29
Cf. Katii, Zadrani (as in n. 27); Sui, Zadarski (as in n. 27); and Ani, Translatio (as in n.
21).
30
Valerius Ponte, Historia ecclesiae Iadrensis, in: Rivista Dalmatica V/I (1909): 224: ...ac proinde
commentitia ac omnino apocrypha est quaedam manuscripta historia eius inventionis [...], sine anno
vel indictione, in qua habetur mentio personarum, locorum et magistratuum prorsus ignotorum, quae
nullatenus cognita sunt nec pubblicis nec privatis vel antiquissimis documentis, quae extant de rebus
Jadrensibus, ac proinde fabulosa censenda est.
31
Farlati, Illyricum sacrum V (as in n. 8), 44: Sed hanc historiam, quae omni nota caret, fictam &
commentitiam declarant futilia quaedam & absurda interjecta, itemque nomina locorum, personarum,
magistratuum, quae neque in publicis, neque in privatis rerum Jadrensium antiquis monumentis
invenientur; ut jure meritoque Joannes Lucius & Valerius a Ponte indignam censuerint, quae publicam
lucem aspiceret.
520 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

consequence of which is that it remained out of the scope of serious historical in-
terest almost until the last decade of the 20th century. From todays perspective, the
severe judgments of the 17th-century humanist, the industrious antiquarian from the
18th century, and the engaged historian-politician from the 19th century seem quite
understandable. However, the epistemological configuration of historiography has
greatly changed since their times, and today we seem to see, far more clearly than
those on whose shoulders we stand whatever giants they may be that the medi-
eval hagiographers did not write in order to cater for the demands and satisfy the cu-
riosity of historians in the ages to come.32 Their concerns and intentions thus remain
largely hidden from us, and their way of expressing them rather obscure. However,
despite a whole series of fantastic episodes and invented data, there are many de-
tails indicating that the compiler of the Zadar legend took into consideration a series
of early medieval realia. Although this circumstance especially in the context of
this paper is certainly not the main value of this text, it can be established that the
TBG does contain an abundance of very interesting and early historical material.33
Regarding this observation, the next section will be dedicated to the link between the
description of the place in which St Chrysogonus was originally buried according to
the TBG and the corresponding data in other written sources.

Where was St Chrysogonus originally buried?34

The place in which the tomb of St Chrysogonus was discovered is called Jadera
Vetula in the TGB, which is reminiscent of the similar name Zara Vecchia later used
for the nearby town of Biograd.35 However, despite the similarities, it seems that it
was a general expression denoting an old town in the ancient Dalmatian Romance

32
Generally speaking the history of the reception of the TBG (especially the recent one) merits a far
more exhaustive treatment. Since that would be out of the scope of this paper, however, it must be
left for another occasion.
33
The historicity of a part of the material preserved in the legend has been emphasized, among the first
after Brunelli, by J. Nagy in his barely noticed article from 1932, where he argued that the legend
contained a historical core and connected it to the construction of the monastic church and the
donation charter of 986. Cf. Nagy, Sveti Krevan (as in n. 27), 16. (Traditions about the way in
which the holy body reached Zadar contain a historical core that allows us to determine what was to
be done in the honour of the saint and what was actually done.)
34
The expression originally buried refers to the words ubi primitus idem martyr sepultus fuerat in
one of the donation charters considered here (cf. CD I, 126).
35
This is the way in which the expression was interpreted by Nagy, Sveti Krevan (as in n. 27), 17.
Nada Klai also wrote that the redaction of the legend claims that the saints body was found in the
nearby Biograd, which is inaccurate. Klai-Petricioli, Prolost Zadra (as in n. 23), 108.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 521

speech, such as the name Civitas Vetula (Veglia) for Krk as presumed by R. Katii.
On the basis of these considerations, the locality mentioned in the legend can hardly
be connected to any particular township. However, the TBG, as we have already men-
tioned, brings some more data that, in combination with those from other sources,
allow us to identify the site. The legend, namely, says that Dionita the woman who
first had the vision of St Chrysogonus was collecting wild herbs in the fields.36
While looking for the herbs, she reached a place called Old Zadar,37 with many
marble tombs in which the bodies of numerous saints were resting.38 It is thus obvi-
ous that the quoted description (or further references in the text) does not indicate
any particular town: the legend simply describes an ancient and neglected cemetery.
Before continuing my attempt at identifying the locality in question, I have con-
sidered it useful to address the following question: How credible it is at all that the
author thought of a specific site rather than using a literary commonplace that is well
known from early medieval hagiography? Without wishing to enter more deeply into
a literary deconstruction of the TBG, I am convinced that, despite the fact that the
legend has been denounced as completely incredible, a comparison of data (howev-
er meagre) from the legend with the (contemporary?) donation charters nevertheless
allows us to suppose an actual situation hidden behind the (probably fictitious?)
inventio story. Namely, several scholars (besides the abovementioned J. Nagy) have
indicated the link between the legend and the donations to Zadars monastery of St
Chrysogonus. V. Brunelli was probably the first to presume that the locality indicated
in the legend might correspond to a specific site in the Zadar surroundings39 and that
there was a local tradition, which emerged at an unknown time, saying that the Aqui-
leian martyr was situated precisely in the small church of St Chrysogonus at Obrovi-
ca.40 Thus, instead of an explicit answer to the question posited above, I suggest a
more careful comparative reading of the data from the legend and those preserved in
the abovementioned charters. It seems, namely, that in both cases the site refers to a
property of the monastery of St Chrysogonus at Obrovica or Obrovac (which should
not be confused with todays Obrovac), which is known from several documents.41

36
TBG: quedam mulier honesta, nomine Dionita iret ad colligenda herbarum olera per loca campestria.
37
TBG: pervenit ad locum, ubi Jadera vetula vocabatur.
38
TBG: Ibi namque erant infinite tumbe marmoree, in quibus recondita erant multa sanctorum corpora.
39
Brunelli, Storia (as in n. 15), 211.
40
Klai-Petricioli, Prolost Zadra (as in n. 23), 107.
41
The locality of Obrovac appears in six donation charters dated between 918 and 1090, in the following
forms: Abrauicium (918) 27; Brauizum (1072) 126, (ca. 1072?) 130; Brauizium 131; Obrouizo (1028)
522 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

While considering these donation charters as particularly precious and worthy of

consideration, I here consciously avoid the question of their authenticity. For even
though none of them is either a diplomatic or a palaeographic original42 (as indicat-
ed by N. Klai43 and L. Margeti44), the data that are of interest here do not lose from
the perspective of our discussion their relevance. Admittedly, the acknowledged
time of their composition changes the chronology of their relation to the legend, but
the intent to investigate primarily the history of reception of the tradition according
to which St Chrysogonus was buried in the vicinity of Zadar, moreover at a specific
locality, does not lose its meaning by questioning the authenticity of these donation
charters or the veracity of their content. These are the documents in question:

1. The earliest mention of the land in Obrovac is found in the so-called testament
of prior Andrija from 918.45
2. Jelenica, sister of Ban Godemir, donates (late in 1028, in Obrovac) some land in
Obrovac to the monastery of St Chrysogonus and confirms that she has built a
church dedicated to the saint in the vicinity of the pre-existing church of St Peter.46
3. Brethren Zovina, Desimir, Petar Gromela, and Slavic donate (in Nin, in 1072)
a landed property in Obrovac to the monastery of St Chrysogonus in Zadar.
The donation charter includes a whole set of valuable data, which deserve a
more detailed analysis.47

66, (1066-75) 143. The index of CD I lists it as a locus in 8 documents, but the one with the number
153 (ca. 1090), 192 mentions a person rather than a place under that name. For more details on the
locality, see Viktor Novak, Zadarski kartular samostana svete Marije [The Zadar cartulary of the
monastery of St Mary] (Zagreb: JAZU, 1959), 225.
42
Klai-Petricioli, Prolost Zadra (as in n. 23), 110.
43
For the opinions of N. Klai regarding the documents from the cartulary of the monastery of St
Chrysogonus, see especially: Nada Klai, Diplomatika analiza isprava iz doba hrvatskih narodnih
vladara (I dio) [Diplomatic analysis of documents from the times of Croatian national rulers (Part
I)], Historijski zbornik 18 (1965), 141-188; eadem, Diplomatika analiza isprava iz doba hrvatskih
narodnih vladara (II dio) [Diplomatic analysis of documents from the times of Croatian national
rulers (Part I)], Historijski zbornik 19/20 (1966/1967), 225-263. Eventually, she summarized her
arguments in: eadem, Neki problemi srednjovjekovne povijesti Zadra [Some issues related to the
medieval history of Zadar], in: Zbornik Zadar (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1964), passim; eadem,
Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1971), passim; Klai-Petricioli,
Prolost Zadra (as in n. 23), passim.
44
See especially: Lujo Margeti O kartularu samostana sv. Krevana u Zadru [On the cartulary of
the monastery of St Chrysogonus in Zadar], Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 37
(1995), 147-181.
45
CD I, 27.
46
CD I, 66-67.
47
CD I, 126.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 523

4. Petar, upan of Sidraga, and his brother Slavic donate (in Zadar, in 1072 or
1069) a landed property in Obrovac to the monastery of St Chrysogonus in
Zadar.48
5. Petar, son of Semivit, donates the church of St Peter and St Paul in Obrovac to
the monastery of St Mary in Zadar (probably in 1072 and certainly after the
aforementioned donation), where he mentions a small church of St Chrysogo-
nus in the vicinity of St Peters church.49
6. Deacon Ivan sells (in Zadar, ca. 1066-1075) a landed property in Obrovac to
the monastery of St Chrysogonus in Zadar.50

What can be concluded about the monastic land in Obrovac from a comparison
of these donation charters, and what links can be established between these data
and the translatio legend? First of all, it is important to observe that the church of
St Chrysogonus in Obrovac was built, according to a charter from 1028, by Jeleni-
ca, sister of Ban Godemir, in the vicinity of St Peters church, as attested by the
document.51 Furthermore, the donation charter dated to 1072, in which a property
at the same locality is confirmed as being in possession of the monastery, testifies
of the fact that, at the time when the charter was composed (whenever it may have
actually been) there must have been a tradition according to which the martyr
was originally buried on the land that belonged to the monastery at the time of
donation.52 Moreover, the description of the property tells us that there were an-
cient drywalls (septam antiquis maceriis) and ancient tombs (antiqua sepulchra)
there.53 The same document goes on to confirm the existence of a church of St
Chrysogonus in the immediate vicinity.54 The mention of the two churches (St Pe-
ters and St Chrysogonus) standing close to each other in both documents allows
us to infer that they speak of the same locality.

48
CD I, 130.
49
CD I, 131.
50
CD I, 142-143. Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 19, emphasizes that in 1090 there was a legal
process between Petar Crni and Ludina, son of Miroslav, because of some landed properties, among
others that in Obrovac (cf. CD I, 192, n. 152).
51
CD I, 66: ubi et construxi ecclesiam ad honorem supradicti beati [Christi martiris] Chrisogoni, iuxta
ecclesiam, qu ibidem sita est in honore beati Petri [apostoli].
52
CD I, 126-127: Et inde ducitur funiculus usque ad terrulam ecclesi sancti Chrysogoni, ubi primitus
idem martyr sepultus fuerat.
53
CD I, 126.
54
CD I, 127: usque ad ecclesiam iam dicti martyris.
524 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

Having established the possibility of reconstructing the situation of the small

church of St Chrysogonus in the fields, it is now possible to posit the question of the
interrelations among the group of donation charters on the one hand, and the legend
on the other. The most significant mutual references in these texts can be represented
in the following way:

1028 (CD I, 66) 1072 (CD I, 126-127) Translatio Beati

in loco, qui dicitur
Obrouizo, ubi et
construxi ecclesiam ad
honorem supradicti beati
Chrisogoni,
() iuxta ecclesiam, qu
ibidem sita est in honore
beati Petri
Grisogoni
possessio in Brauizo
qu a nostris possessa mulier honesta, iret
est, () septam antiquis ad colligenda herbarum
maceriis () usque olera per loca campestria
ad aliam aquam, qu () peruenit ad locum,
subterraneo meatu uidetur Jadera uetula vocabatur.
habere originem a fonte
Ibi namque erant infinite
() qui fons in eadem
tumbe marmoree, in
possessione est () et
quibus recondita erant
peruenitur ad antiqua
multa sanctorum corpora,
sepulchra () Et inde
ex quibus una erat domus
ducitur funiculus usque
corporis beati Grisogoni.
ad terrulam ecclesi sancti
Chrisogoni, ubi primitus
idem martyr sepuitus
fuerat,
et ab ipsa tenditur usque
ad ecclesiam iam dicti
martyris, qu adheret
cclesi sancti Petri sit

Fig. 1: The mention and description of the situation of the tomb of St Chrysogonus in the
Zadar donation charters and in the TBG

Complementing this comparison with the data known from other donation char-
ters, and taking into account further contextual arguments, it seems evident that,
regardless of their precise chronological relations, all these documents presume the
existence of some sort of social knowledge or memory of the tomb of St Chryso-
gonus in Zadars surroundings. But is it possible to make any further conclusions on
the actual situation of the tomb of St Chrysogonus? In other words, what additional
circumstances may help us illuminate this problem?
As for the identification of the locality itself, several hypotheses on the situation of
Obrovac have been made on the basis of the aforesaid donation charters, which will
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 525

not be repeated here, primarily for reasons of space limitation.55 Recently, Z. Strika has
thoroughly reconsidered this question, taking for granted that the relics of St Chryso-
gonus indeed originally rested on the land of Abravitium (Obrovica),56 and thus it
seems adequate to focus for a while on his observations.57 First and foremost, his con-
clusion that owing to spatial distance, it certainly could not have been todays town of
Obrovac on River Zrmanja, but another locality, somewhere near the Adriatic coast, in
the vicinity of Zadar, seems plausible.58 Moreover, he has rightfully emphasized the im-
portant fact that such a place name is not known today in the close vicinity of Zadar.59
Therefore, any attempt at identifying the site must take into account the concordance
between the data preserved in the donation charter of 1072, which say that the land
in Obrovica immediately next to the sea (...) is surrounded by ancient drywalls, with
ancient tombs on it and especially that the property is located next to the land plot
with the church of St Chrysogonus, where the martyr was originally buried.60 Having
concluded that the locality was a necropolis in the close vicinity of Zadar, at the sea,
next to some church that may have even been a cemeterial basilica,61 Strika has indi-
cated that there are two possibilities of interpreting the cemetery motif : it may refer
to a Roman necropolis (ancient tombs from the donation charter) or to a Christian
cemetery (the mention of the many bodies of saints in the TBG). Without excluding
either possibility, Z. Strika has emphasized that an especially interesting piece of infor-
mation is the second mention of the translatio, namely that the saints body rested in a
cemetery next to the sea, along with many other bodies of saints.62

55
For a brief overview of some older opinions, see among others: Novak, Zadarski kartular (as in n.
40), 225-226.
56
Having linked this series of mentions with the TBG, Strika has concluded that the locality of
Obrovica must have been the same site where pious Dionita collected herbs in the fields and then
heard the saints voice from one of the tombs. (Strika, Translatio [as in n. 27], 19-20).
57
Ibid., 19-22.
58
Ibid., 19.
59
Ibidem.
60
Despite these reservations, this consideration must also take into account the opinion of L. Margeti
that it is precisely the data about the original burial site of St Chrysogonus were subsequently
inserted into the text (Margeti, O kartularu [as in n. 43], 161-162). In this context, one should also
remind of the fact that the donation charter, along with a few later transcripts, has been preserved in
its earliest form in a copy from the late 12th or early 13th centuries. In any case, this observation should
be seriously taken into account and analyzed in more detail in the future. Z. Strika is, however, right
when saying that regardless of whether Margetis observations are accepted as plausible, it is quite
clear that the tradition on the discovery of relics of St Chrysogonus outside of Zadar had already
been established by the second half of the 11th century (Strika, Translatio [as in n. 27], 19).
61
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 20.
62
Ibidem.
526 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

Considering the former allegation, if one accepts the supposition that St Chryso-
gonus was indeed buried in an ancient necropolis, this may imply several different
localities in the wider surroundings of Zadar. The most significant ancient necropolis
that has been researched so far is located at Relja, next to the church of St John the
Baptist fuori le mura.63 According to our present knowledge, the church was probably
built in the 5th century, in the western part of a pre-existing necropolis, which may
indicate that it was a cemeterial church.64 Relatively close to this early Christian
basilica, a large number of Roman tombs with different types of sarcophagi have
been discovered.65 However, despite all these circumstances, Strika has rejected the
hypothesis that the locality could be the site of St Chrysogonus tomb.66
Regarding the second criterion, which primarily emphasizes the importance of
data concerning the closeness of the sea and the church of St Chrysogonus (in the
donation charter from 1072), another locality in the surroundings of Zadar may be
taken into consideration. Namely, several scholars have noticed that the combination
of closeness to the sea, a source of drinking water, a church of St Chrysogonus, and
stone tombs (interpreted as an ancient necropolis), mentioned in the document from
1072, implies that the site where the remnants of St Chrysogonus were discovered
may be located east of Zadar, in the area of todays Kolovare and the former Borge
Erizzo. In this locality next to the sea, an ancient necropolis has been discovered,
there is a source of drinking water,67 and a small church dedicated to St Chrysogonus
is mentioned in various written sources.68 The so-called church of St Chrysogonus ad

63
Ibidem. For additional details about the church, see: Pavua Vei, Crkva Sv. Ivana ispred grada u
Zadru [Church of St John fuori le mura in Zadar], Diadora, 18-19 (1997), 275-295; Ante Uglei,
Ranokranska arhitektura na podruju dananje Zadarske nadbiskupije [Early Christian architecture
in the present-day archdiocese of Zadar] (Zadar: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zadar
Zadar Archbishopric, 2002), 29.
64
On the large proportions of the church (it is a three-nave basilica 42 m in length and 18 m in width,
with the eastern apse spanning 7 m), see: Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 20; Vei, Crkva sv.
Ivana (as in n. 62), 275ff.
65
For more details on the research results, see: Smiljan Gluevi, Rimska nekropola u Kaljskoj ulici
[The Roman necropolis in Kaljska Street], Diadora 12 (1990), 107-162.
66
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 21: all this indicates that the church of St John could not have
been the church next to which the tomb with the saints body was located.
67
Cf. CD I, 126. An imperial fountain was later built on the same spot.
68
Ivo Petricioli, Neki predromaniki spomenici Zadra i okolice u svjetlu najnovijih istraivanja
[Some pre-Romanesque monuments in Zadar and its surrounding in the light of recent research],
Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke Zadar 2 (1957): 63-64; idem, Crkve sv. Krevana i sv. Marka
ad fontem kod Zadra [Churches of St Chrysogonus and St Mark ad fontem near Zadar], Radovi
Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru (1995), 237-248. Besides the church of St Chrysogonus,
there was a church of St Mark in the same locality, which was, according to Petricioli, built by the
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 527

fontem, east of Zadar, is mentioned in the 13th and 14th-century documents and also
depicted in early modern maps.69 Even though only remnants of the entrance wall
and a segment of a pre-Romanesque relief have been uncovered, the situation of the
church of St Chrysogonus has been established and is well known today. 70 Apparent-
ly, it was an early medieval six-foil church, which was in the 16th century transformed
into quarantine for the Ottoman merchants and demolished soon afterwards. For
our purposes, it is also important to point out the fact that the church was apparently
built in the vicinity of a late antique necropolis.
According to Z. Strika, the Zadar historian Giuseppe Ferarri Cupilli (1809-1865)
had already written that Roman coins, urns, vases, and even tombs covered with
tegulae have been discovered on several occasions next to the fountain.71 Later on,
V. Brunelli also concluded that the church must have been built on top of an ancient
cemetery, which is why he connected it to the legend.72 Following Brunelli, I. Petrici-
oli has concluded that the early medieval church was built precisely on top of that late
antique cemetery. Moreover, a comparison with that locality, where ancient tombs
were uncovered in the mid-20th century, has led Z. Strika to the conclusion, following
the argumentation of I. Petricioli, that the Roman necropolis was more modest in
terms of size than the one in Relja, and it is even possible that it was a cemetery for
the poorer population of Zadar, which became an original Christian cemetery in the
citys surroundings, serving for Christian burials. It may have actually been the place
called Obrovica, since there was a land near the sea that Zadars prior Andrija donat-
ed to the monastery of St Chrysogonus.73
Eventually, regarding the drywalls in the legend, one should mention the opin-
ion of S. Gluevi, which is interesting yet difficult to prove, and which has been
accepted by Z. Strika, namely that the mention of some old drywalls towards the

Venetians after 1346 in the spot where they had a large camp during the siege of Zadar (Petricioli,
Crkve sv. Krevana i sv. Marka [as above], 241-242).
69
Petricioli, Crkve sv. Krevana i sv. Marka (as in n. 67), 237.
70
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 21; Petricioli, Crkve sv. Krevana i sv. Marka (as in n. 67), 237-238.
71
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 21-22.
72
Brunelli, Storia (as in n. 15), 457 and 476, n. 67.
73
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 22, with references to other scholars who expressed this opinion
before him; Vitaliano Brunelli, Il comune di Zara in sul finire dei tempi di mezzo, Archivio Storico
per la Dalmazia 9 (1934): 56; Petricioli, Crkve sv. Krevana i sv. Marka (as in n. 67), 241. The opinion
according to which it is possible to conclude, following the tradition of the site of cult, that originally
the relics of St Chrysogonus were located there and were only subsequently transferred to the church
of St Rufinus, presupposes trust into the authenticity of the information given in the TBG that the
relics were indeed discovered in the vicinity of Zadar, which is nevertheless difficult to prove.
528 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

fountain in the area of St Chrysogonus outside of Zadar, in the vicinity of the churches
of St Mark and St Chrysogonus, refers to the remnants of an aqueduct supporting
structure, since one of its arms stretches towards Arbanasi, where it used to provide
the local villas with water.74 According to this hypothesis, the donation of 1072 does
not speak of some accidentally built drywalls, but describes the remnants of the
supporting structure of an aqueduct supplying water to Zadar and the surrounding
area.75
Regarding all this, there are good reasons to presume that the landed property de-
scribed in the donation charters considered above could be linked to the necropolis
in Kolovare. However, notwithstanding the credibility of conclusions reached by the
aforementioned scholars, one may add that, for some of the questions posited here,
the actual situation of the locality is hardly crucial. In the context of this discussion,
it is far more significant to see the relationship between the hagiographic legend and
the documents confirming the monastic property, whereby the historicity of events
(and, to a minor extent, also of the site of discovery) is secondary in importance.
However, since a more detailed analysis of this problem is seen as potentially rele-
vant, one should take into consideration the issue of the chronological relationship
between the two sources, without aiming at reaching any final conclusions.

The relationship between the legend and the donation charters

Zadars legend on the inventio and translatio of St Chrysogonus, through its for-
mulation and appropriation of the tradition concerning the burial site, basically tells
how the martyr has come to us by combining an interpretation of the origins of
his relics and some practical concerns of the monastic community and the wider
urban community of his venerators. The group of documents considered above con-
firms, again, in a far more accurate way, the existence of (the same) tradition on his
invention locality as a site of memory. On the other hand, one may ask whether it
perhaps also testifies of a continued interest of the monastery of St Chrysogonus to
accumulate land around its lieu de mmoire in order to create a larger landed proper-
ty. Namely, if one trusts the donation transcripts preserved in the monastic cartulary,

74
Smiljan Gluevi, Zadarske nekropole od 1. do 4. stoljea. Organizacija groblja, pogrebni obredi,
podrijetlo, kultura, status i standard pokojnika [Zadar necropolises from the 1st to the 4th century:
Organization of the cemetery, funerary rites, and the origin, culture, status, and standard of the
deceased] (PhD dissertation, University of Zadar, 2005), 89 (according to: Strika, Translatio [as in
n. 27], 22).
75
Strika, Translatio (as in n. 27), 22.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 529

the monastery managed through a sequence of pious donations, mostly by Croa-

tian dignitaries from Zadars hinterland, to enlarge its possessions significantly in
the period from the early 10th to the late 11th century. This supposition also opens up
a serious of questions, from the obvious ones on the authenticity of individual char-
ters to those about the time of composition of the legend, and further to the difficult
question about the actual reasons for, and circumstances of accumulating the landed
property.76
The first question should be discussed separately and its answer depends primari-
ly on whether one accepts or rejects the arguments of those who deny the authentic-
ity of the charters. The third question seems rather impossible to answer. However,
setting aside these two very important riddles, we arrive to the crucial question of our
present discussion: what was the relationship between the hagiographic tradition and
the specific donation contracts? Regarding a series of problems that are hard to solve,
this question may appear as pointless as the dilemma of the hen and the egg. How-
ever, even if impossible to answer in a satisfactory way, it may be useful to indicate
the existence of the relationship in question and to suggest a few possible directions
for further research.

Chronological relationship
I would therefore, before making these suggestions, like to recall briefly a serious
methodological problem that of the TBGs dating.77 Namely, even though it has often
been proposed in the recent times that it was a (basically) early medieval text, schol-
ars have not been able to establish to which extent this text has retained its allegedly
original form.78 The oldest manuscript of the TBG dates from the late 13th century at
best.79 Therefore, until its early medieval origins are ascertained, it will essentially re-
main a possibility that the legend, in its preserved form, dates from the 13th (if not 14th)

76
I am thereby primarily referring to the possibility, intriguing from the perspective of this research,
that the monks of St Chrysogonus may have been interested, among other things, in controlling
the locus precisely as a site of memory consecrated by the martyrs presence.
77
The following paragraph is based on observations presented in: Vedri, Gdje ive Mirmidonci? (as
in n. 27), 54.
78
R. Katii has indicated this clearly, concluding that in the form in which the translation legend has
reached us in manuscript form [...], it is a younger version of an older and simpler text, which was
apparently written in the 9th century. Katii, Zadrani (as in n. 27), 193.
79
On the problem of dating, see: Brunelli, Storia (as in n. 15), 169; Katii, Zadrani (as in n. 27), 191;
Ani, Translatio (as in n. 21), 127; Ivanka Petrovi, Latinska i glagoljska tradicija sv. Krizogona
(Krevana) i sv. Anastazije u hrvatskoj hagiografiji srednjega vijeka [Latin and Glagolitic tradition
of St Chrysogonus and St Anasthasia in Croatian medieval hagiography], Slovo 56/57 (2008), 459.
530 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

century. One may therefore ask to which extent it is justifiable to approach the events
or terms given in the legend as early medieval realia. Moreover, if these are merely, as
it has been suggested, anachronous gleans of social memory that some late medieval
author was playing with while weaving the text of the legend,80 some of the presupposi-
tions presented here should be discarded. However, regarding the primary purpose and
goal of this research, even such an interpretation should not render the question of the
relationship between the considered documents obsolete in terms of the context and
the referential intertextual space between the donation charters and the legend. I will
therefore offer several possible interpretations of their possible interrelations.
Starting from the first premise, namely that the documents are essentially au-
thentic and that the tradition preserved in the TBG is older than them, it may be
presumed that, in 1072 at the latest and rather probably even before 1028, there was
a tradition according to which St Chrysogonus had originally been buried at the lo-
cality of Obrovica/Obrovac. This premise allows us to presume that the church which
Jelenica commissioned in the honour of St Chrysogonus was some sort of memo-
rial marking of the martyrs original resting place. Moreover, observations on the
church of St Chrysogonus ad fontem and its immediate surroundings allow us to
presume that the locality may be linked with considerable probability to the ancient
cemetery where, according to the legend, the burial site of St Chrysogonus was dis-
covered. This argumentation would allow for the supposition that the basic content
of the legend (the discovery of St Chrysogonus body in the vicinity of Zadar) must
have been a part of social memory in Zadar at the time when Jelenica (that is, before
1028) commissioned a church there, or around 1072 at the latest, when it was first
mentioned that St Chrysogonus was indeed buried there.81
A somewhat different conclusion may be reached if one starts from the suppo-
sition that the documents are essentially authentic, but that the TBG is of a later
date (namely compiled after the mid-11th century or later). The link between them
would then be a case of constructing a hagiographic tradition relying on that which
everyone knows, that is, by referring to the accepted social knowledge and using the
reality effect (that is, using the data that are known to the readership or audience of
the legend) in order to conceal the lack of authentic data.82

80
The following paragraph is based on observations presented in: Vedri, Gdje ive Mirmidonci? (as
in n. 27), 54.
81
The first document, namely, does not yet mention the martyr having been buried at the site.
82
Cf. Roland Barthes, The Reality Effect, in: The Rustle of Language, trans. Richard Howard (Berkeley:
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 531

Eventually, given the lack of firm points regarding the dating of, and the interre-
lation between the two groups of sources, and supposing an opposite relationship
by presuming that the data from the donation charters are not authentic, but rather
invented on the basis of the legend as a model, one may also make a series of different
suggestions. However, since that would lead us too far concerning the scope of this
paper, and taking into account the analyzed testimonies and the offered hypotheses,
I am for the moment inclined to accept the following interpretation:
The beginnings of the tradition on the discovery of the body of the Aquileian
martyr in the vicinity of Zadar, as preserved in the TBG, are linked to the restoration
of St Chrysogonus church in the late 9th or early 10th century. On that occasion, the
legend may have been written at least in its basic form with a particular purpose
and intent, as indicated by M. Ani. Moreover, it seems that, related to the forma-
tion of the inventio tradition, and certainly before documenting the echoes of that
tradition in the donation charter or the legend in its preserved form, the site in which
the body of St Chrysogonus was discovered was linked to a specific locality. Unfortu-
nately, it is impossible to say how or when it happened. Nevertheless, if one accepts
the hypothesis on the early medieval origins of the legend, it may be quite possi-
ble to presume that, at some unknown point in time, the relics of St Chrysogonus
were transferred from a yet unidentified locality to Zadar. Couldnt the martys body,
following the model of many similar events documented in medieval hagiography,
indeed be miraculously discovered while building the church dedicated to him? Or
does the substrate of that story contain the mytheme on the discovery site that was
then subsequently brought into connection with a specific locality? These questions
will unfortunately have to remain unanswered.
Nevertheless, in the context of this investigation, it seems important to remind of
the unquestionable fact that at some moment (at least by the 11th century, as it seems)
there was a core of the tradition noted down in Zadar, saying that St Chrysogonus first
reached the Zadar region by his own will (which is exceptionally important for un-
derstanding his cult in Zadar), was buried there, and then made the local people find
him and bring him to their city. Both the donation charters and the legend give clear
indications that there is an evasive yet extremely significant social memory behind
these brief textual references, formed perhaps first and foremost by an oral tradition.
Even though a reconstruction of such memory especially in a narrow diachronic

University of California Press, 1989), 141-148.

532 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

perspective is impossible, even the scarce preserved fragments indicate the exist-
ence of several important tropes, basic motifs that are crucial for understanding the
way St Chrysogonus was perceived in medieval Zadar. This understanding, as well as
its reception in a wider and very complex context of Zadars history can most cer-
tainly play a significant role in reconstructing that which is in present-day scholarly
literature sometimes called the discourse of collective self-representation.83 These
observations, again, lead us back to our introductory remarks and the issue of the
relations of ownership over memory and land possession in medieval Zadar.

The purpose of establishing the connection between the relics, the burial site,
the legend, and the donation charters
The still indefinable nature and chronology of relations between the considered
sources trigger a whole series of questions that are highly relevant for our present re-
search. For example, one may ask about the role of relic possession, that is, of the site
of their discovery, in the formation of the tradition noted down in the hagiographic
legend. But then again, what was the role of that tradition, be it in the form of social
memory or as the social knowledge fixed through liturgy and canonized by means
of the hagiographic text, in defining the right over a particular property?
In order to perpetuate itself, social memory must be fixed in objects, representa-
tions, rituals, or texts. Without the specific forms and mechanisms of this fixation,
such memory (regardless of whether we call it collective, social, or cultural) is always
on the verge of oblivion. With regard to this, the considered case also seems to testify
of the efforts invested by the monastery of St Chrysogonus to confirm the veracity
of the basic story telling how the martyr had come to Zadar in illo tempore. In these
efforts, the monastic hagiography and the monastic property books complemented
each other, both serving in their specific ways to preserve that particular fragment of
social memory.84
Establishing the reasons and interests of the monastery for the land plots in
question would require a far more extensive research (it may have been a particularly
fertile piece of land or a strategic means of linking various parts of a larger estate,

83
For an excellent example (and also critique) of these terms, see: Lovro Kunevi, The Myth of
Ragusa: Discourses on Identity in an Adriatic City-State (1350-1600) (PhD dissertation, Central
European University, 2012), 7, passim.
84
Although I by no means wish to claim that hagiography served exclusively or even primarily such
purposes.
Trpimir Vedri, Memoria S. Chrysogoni 533

for example) and must until then remain a matter of speculation. What is crucial for
our purpose is that the preserved donation charters testify of an intertextual link with
the hagiographic grand narrative on St Chrysogonus. Information on the landed
property with the grave of the martyr, fixed in documents preserved in the monastic
cartulary, may have served at any given moment as a proof of the authenticity of
such tradition.
It would also be interesting to consider the relationship between social knowledge
referring to the past, that is, ownership over memory, in the context of other landed
properties of the monastery, such as Kokiane (or, in a somewhat further analogy, the
Rogovo lands described in the Libellus Policorion). It may be possible to use the ex-
ample of Kokiane to observe how the monastery monopolized its knowledge of the
past/social knowledge in the 14th century in order to obtain the confirmation of their
use of Kokiane from King Louis, whereby the monks of St Chrysogonus referred to
the older documents in the process.85
Regarding hagiography, and what is known of the context in which the legend in
question was used, it was primarily through liturgical practice that the sacred tradi-
tion of the discovery of St Chrysogonus may have become a part of social knowledge
for the medieval population of Zadar. So far it has not been established whether there
was a ritual procession linked to the extraurban church of St Chrysogonus (which
seems perfectly possible and even probable) that would have corroborated the his-
toricity of the tradition for its participants. However, if it were possible to establish
(perhaps on the basis of later testimonies?) that such a ritual act was indeed taking
place, then it could also be confirmed that, by taking part in the ritual, the liturgical
information from the legend was inscribed into, and reasserted in the social memo-
ry in the form of performative memory, as indicated by P. Connerton.
Eventually, going back to the issue of how relevant it is to discuss the symbolic
forms of ownership, or immaterial possession, I would conclude that the observa-
tions presented here also point to the fact that it was precisely legal ownership or ac-
tual possession that played a crucial role in preserving memory (and thus controlling
it). As memory tends to evaporate when it has no anchorage in the material world,
thus the ownership (taken very broadly) over the past mostly implies some actu-
al possessions: objects such as reliquaries of codices, buildings, or even land plots.

85
I am grateful to my colleague Ivan Majnari for these observations. Preserving memory in such
a context is, of course, nothing particularly new, but investigating the documents that retain the
memory of the oldest families, later kindreds, could also be enriched by the insights of this kind.
534 Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property

But apparently this logic is also valid vice versa. Gaining possession over a property
has often been related to the possibility of controlling memory, that is, of owning a
fragment of social knowledge. These very general observations may clarify to some
extent the relevance of taking into account the social realities of the saints medieval
cult seen through the lens of an analytical model presented at the beginning of this
paper.
It is difficult to establish the true meaning of preserving the memory of the dis-
covery of the saints body for the people of Zadar (in other words, what meanings
were inscribed into the tradition) during the medieval period. Some of the roles that
this local tradition had throughout the history in construing the identity of the citys
patron on the one hand, and Zadars own communal identity as that of a community
of venerators on the other, become far clearer only when incorporating the modest
fragment of common memory considered here into the larger mosaic of Zadars cult
of St Chrysogonus as a historical phenomenon.