But Venice was preparing to re-occupy the whole of Dalmatia, and the Fourth Crusade of 1202 provided her with the desired opportunity. The Crusaders began their expedition to the Holy Land by storming and sacking Zara, where they wintered. In 1204 they captured Constantinople, subverted the Greek Empire, and set up the ephemeral Latin Empire of the East in its place, with Baldwin of Flanders as Emperor. The Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, the prime mover and leader of the expedition, became “lord of a quarter and a half of Romania.” In 1205 the Venetians, at the height of their power, demanded the submission of Ragusa, which was at once tendered. Dandolo (the historian) thus describes this fourth surrender:—
“Tommaso Morosini, who had been nominated Patriarch (of Constantinople) by Innocent III., returned to Venice, carrying the Pope’s letters; he set sail with a fleet of four triremes and made war against the city of Ragusa, who, at the suggestion of the Greeks, had rebelled against Venice. The citizens, no longer trusting in the strength of the Greeks, surrendered their city to the Venetians.”
Two other chronicles[83] give similar accounts of the event. The indefatigable “Esadastes” of course tries to prove that Ragusa did not surrender, because the people who had held out so bravely and successfully against the Saracens 340 years previously would not have tamely submitted to a squadron of four ships commanded by a priest. The Ragusan apologist, however, forgets the enormous prestige acquired by the Venetians as a consequence of their exploits in subverting the Eastern Empire, after which event Ragusa could not hope to oppose the greatest Power in the Adriatic with any chance of success.[84]
With this act of submission ends the first period of Ragusan history, during which the possession, or rather suzerainty over the city was a matter of dispute between the Venetians and the Greeks, with intervals of absolute independence, and four years of Norman rule. As, however, Byzantine influence, not necessarily political, predominates even in Venice itself, we may call this the Byzantine period. For the next hundred and fifty years, save for one short interruption, Ragusa remains under Venetian supremacy.
An important question in connection with the growth of Ragusa is its ecclesiastical history. Native historians have attempted to prove that the city was an archiepiscopal see from the earliest times, and that it succeeded to Salona, whence some of its first settlers had come, as the metropolis of all Dalmatia. This latter contention proving quite untenable (the Archbishop of Salona, together with the majority of the surviving inhabitants, took refuge at Spalato, which became an archiepiscopal see in consequence), they declare that the Ragusan archbishops had succeeded to those of Doclea. That city, they assert, had been destroyed by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, and its archbishop fled to Ragusa, which became ipso facto an archiepiscopal see. A more accurate account is that contained in the Illyricum Sacrum of Farlati. Doclea was destroyed, not by Samuel, who became Tsar of the Bulgarians in 976, but by Simeon. In fact Porphyrogenitus, who wrote in 949, mentions the event as having occurred during his own lifetime. According to the Illyricum Sacrum the exact date was 926. John (the archbishop) actually did take refuge at Ragusa, where, on the death of the local bishop, he succeeded to the see, retaining his superior title by courtesy. His successors wished to continue in the dignity, and even began to assume metropolitan authority, refusing to obey the archbishop of Spalato. The dispute lasted many years, and the bishops of the newly-created see of Antivari[85] claimed that they were the true successors to the archbishops of Doclea. Pope Gregory VII. apparently refers to these contentions in his Epistle to Michael, King of the Slaves.[86] The Roman Pontiff hereby summons “Peter, bishop of Antivari, the bishop of Ragusa, and other suitable witnesses, by means of whom the contention between the archbishop of Spalato and Ragusa[87] may be judicially examined and canonically defined,” to repair to the Holy See. What Gregory’s decision was we are not informed, but in the end the see of Ragusa was separated from that of Spalato and erected into an archbishopric with metropolitan authority. The same thing was done in the case of Antivari. Thus by the thirteenth century we find that Dalmatia was divided into three ecclesiastical provinces. The reasons why the Ragusans were so anxious to have an archbishopric of their own were political not less than religious. We have seen how important a personage the Ragusan bishop was in the constitution, and if he were to owe obedience to a prelate in a foreign and possibly hostile State, he might be induced to act in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. The existence of a separate province, which lasted down to our own times, also constituted a further assertion of Ragusan independence.
The importance of the Ragusan Church was further enhanced by the conversion of the neighbouring Slaves, to whom Ragusa was the nearest religious centre. Ragusan missionaries went among them to preach the Gospel, and ecclesiastics from Constantinople made the city their headquarters and starting-point. The part which Ragusa played in these conversions explains the gifts which the Servian princes and nobles made to its churches.[88] In later times religious controversies arose between the citizens and their neighbours, in consequence of the heretical and schismatic sects which were spreading throughout the Balkan lands. Ragusa was nothing if not orthodox, and used all her influence to second the Papacy in trying to suppress these movements, which were often countenanced by the kings and princes of Servia and Bosnia. Bernard, archbishop of Ragusa at the end of the twelfth century, wished to bring the bishops of Bosnia under his authority, and the Banus Čulin, who at that time professed himself a Catholic, consented. But while Bernard was in Rome, Čulin abjured Catholicism for Bogomilism,[89] and set up Bogomil bishops in opposition to those consecrated by Bernard. Vulkan, Grand Župan of Chelmo (Zachulmia), did likewise, and convoked a synod at Antivari.[90]
In 1023 the Benedictine Order came to Ragusa from the Tremiti Islands under one Peter, and established itself on the island of Lacroma. Various Serb princes and Ragusan citizens made gifts of land to the monastery.
The Ragusans were essentially a commercial people, and trade, both inland and sea-borne, formed the chief source of their wealth. In the Byzantine period, however, we only find the germs of their future commercial development. We have already alluded to the part played by Ragusan shipping, first in the Greek expedition to Apulia in 848, and then at the battle of Durazzo. But the vessels were small, and the sea-borne trade of a very limited character. Navigation was of three kinds—coastwise traffic, navigation intra Culfum, and navigation extra Culfum.[91] Coastwise traffic was comprised between the peninsula of Molonta (a little to the north-west of the Bay of Cattaro) and the Canale di Stagno, a distance of about 70 kilometres in all, with ten harbours. Navigation intra Culfum, which extended from the Capo Cumano to Apulia and Durazzo, was of considerable importance even during the Byzantine epoch. Fine Milan cloths, skins, tan, and canvas for sails were brought on Ragusan ships from the ports of the Marche and Apulia, and forwarded to all parts of the Eastern Empire and the Slavonic lands. All trade to places situated beyond these limits came under the heading of navigation extra Culfum, but we shall defer a detailed account of its conditions to a later chapter, as it did not grow to important proportions until the thirteenth century. There was, however, apparently a Ragusan colony at Constantinople.
