The Pincius Diploma

This is part 19 in a series on Daniel Farlati’s Illyricum Sacrum.

The Pincius Diploma tells the story of Bulgarian family who fled to Dalmatia and established a church in Salona. The diploma was discovered in an archive in Split and published by Johannes Lucius in the 17th century.

The author claims to be Pincius and dates itself to February 9th, 994 AD. Pincius says that his uncle is the Emperor Stephen, a cruel man who had his own father blinded and eventually killed. Pincius’ father, called “Shishman”, was also blinded by Stephen. Pincius rebukes Stephen for his actions and Stephen banishishes his family from the town of Tarnova. His family seeks refuge in Croatia and are received by King Držislav. After converting to Catholicism, the family gathers money in order to build a church. The church is dedicated to Michael the Archangel, Peter, and the Split bishop Martin. Pincius’ son Plesus is tasked with overseeing the project.

The archives that Lucius found the Pincius diploma also included diplomas From Plesus. The first, dated to the year 1000, states that the King granted him use of the stones from the old Salona ampitheater to build the church. He also confirms the land that he bought from various individuals. The family of Pincius donates two Mills to the church. In a third document, which Farlati calls an appendix to the second, Plesus donates additional lands to the church. A 4th document, purported to be in the 13th century, shows Roger the Archbishop confirming care of the church to a priest who proved himself a descendent of the Pincius family.

Farlati is quick to point out the historical inaccuracies. There was no 10th century ruler of Bulgaria named Stephen, and Bulgarian kings did not take the title “emperor”. This does not disuade him from finding the documents genuine. He provides his own counter examples. First, the ruler of Bulgaria at that time was name Samuel. Farlati says it wasn’t uncommon for Bulgarian kings to go by two names. Second, that the Dalmatian historical tables tended to express first names by just a single letter. The writer may have seen the letter “S” and chose the name Stephen to fill the gap. Finally, he suggests the original document was in Slavonic, and that the latin translator chose “emperor” to describe the king.

Historians after Farlati were accepting of the documents up until about the 20th century. Even the prominent croatian historian Franjo Rački had assigned them to the 10th century, but revised his position later in life.

in 1920, Vasil Zlatarski (Васил Златарски) presented evidence that the documents were likely no earlier than the 14th century. In his paper “The so named “grammes” by Pincius and his Son Pleso” ¹ He makes the following claims:

• Pinscius’ home city of Tarnova does not become prominent in history until 12th century.
• The mixture of dates in the second document. Originally stating to be dated to the year 1000, later mentioning the year 1073.
• Thomas the Archdeacon mentions both Martin and King Držislav in the 13th century work Historia Salonitana, but makes no mention of the church or Pincius.
• Rejection of associating Stephen with the Bulgarian king Samuel. If Samuel had killed his father, The byzantine writers would have written harshly about him, as they had when he killed his brother.
• An inscription² found in 1888 has been linked to the tomb of Samuels parent’s, with Samuel identifying himself as the inscriber. If he had killed his father, it would be a question as to why he would have written the inscription on his tomb.
• Rejection of the two name theory that Farlati presents, If Stephen is to be associated with Samuel, why would only Samuel have 2 names, and not his 4 other brothers?
• “Shishman” is a Cuman name. The Cuman’s did not arrive in the Balkan Peninsula until the late 11th century.
• Why would Stephen banish his relatives, and not have them killed like he did his father?
• Why did Pincius need to convert to Roman Catholicism, when the churches had not yet split apart?

Zlatarski concluded that the work is an anachronism, with the actual events having taken place no earlier than 1330 AD. He associates Stephen with the Serbian king Stefan Dušan. Notably, Some sources say that Dušan’s father, Stefan Dečanski, was blinded by his father, Stefan Milutin. Pincius Father “Shishman” was the Tsar Michael Shishman, who Dušan defeated faced and defeated at the battle of Velbazhd in 1330. The dedication of the church to Michael the Archangel is also a subtle hint that this document is referencing the 14th century Michael³. The Pincius family may have been supporters who fled to Split after his defeat. The true nature of events, Zlatarski says, has been corrupted past the point of restoration.