BISHOP NIKODIM BUSOVIĆ AND UNIATISM IN LATE 17TH AND EARLY 18TH CENTURY DALMATIA AND BOKA

This article deals with the role and activities of Bishop of Dalmatia Nikodim Busović at the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century. For Dalmatia and Boka, these were tumultuous times caused by the Morean War (1683–1699), with increased population migrations and increased Uniate pressures on the local Serbian population. During this turmoil, the Uniate archbishop of Philadelphia, Meletius Tipaldi, attempted to expand his influence and bring the Serbian Orthodox population in Dalmatia under his jurisdiction. At the same time, Catholic bishops in Dalmatia and Boka, protégés of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, were pressuring Serbs to embrace Uniatism. Under these circumstances, Bishop Nikodim Busović managed for more than a decade to skillfully maintain the Serbian ecclesiastical organization under Venetian rule. After his suspension, Serbs in the coastal area of Dalmatia and Boka did not have a bishop until late eighteenth century.

Bishop of Stratonicea by the Uniate Archbishop of Philadelphia, Meletius Tipaldi. 2 Other than Meletius Tipaldi, only one other bishop from Corfu attended the ordination. The issue of Busović's ordination was discussed by the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). 3 Although the members of the Congregation were satisfied with Bishop Busović accepting the Uniatism, certain further explanations were requested regarding Archbishop Tipaldi's election procedure and jurisdiction. A question was raised about how Archbishop Tipaldi, without any prior meeting of the clergy and confirmation by corresponding ecclesiastic heads, could perform an ordination that deviated from common canonic ordination. 4 It is clear that, as a Uniate, Archbishop Tipaldi could not have received such approval from the ecumenical patriarch, who was apparently still formally his superior. 5 Therefore, it seems most likely that Tipaldi performed the ordination for the most part in secrecy, without the presence of corresponding heads, and without the Congregation's immediate knowledge. He may have believed that, through Busović, he could more easily obtain jurisdiction over the Serbian Orthodox population in the Dalmatian area with little interference, and would be able to collect duties from them undisturbed. 6 He essentially presented the Congregation with a fait accompli, thereby preventing complications regarding the jurisdiction of Latin bishops over Dalmatian territory, while also substantially diminishing their influence over Orthodox population in the area.
It is interesting to look at Bishop Busović's activities in Dalmatia. 7 On February 1, 1694, the Congregation sent a decree to Bishop Busović that enabled him to use pontifical anywhere in Dalmatia. 8 The ordination of Bishop Busović as a Uniate bishop was verified by both Venice and Rome. Therefore, an assertion that Bishop Busović did not in fact embrace the Roman Catholic faith on June 18, 1693 9 (which was a precondition for officially accepting Uniatism) 10 seems highly unlikely, as is a dispute over Busović's ordination as a Uniate bishop. Although there were certain canonic irregularities regarding 2 Milaš 1899: 118. Stratonicea is one of the 24 dioceses in Asia Minor, which were under jurisdiction of Archbishop of Philadelphia. Archbishop of Philadelphia was the exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, with jurisdiction over Greek Orthodox churches under the Republic of Venice (especially in Dalmatia, Istria, Venice). Directly subordinated to the Ecumenical Patriarch, he was authorized to judge, interrogate and make decisions regarding ecclesiastic matters in Greek churches in the Republic, in accordance with Orthodox Church canons. This status of his was regulated by a special decree, issued by Ecumenical Patriarch Parthenius II in 1644. The seat of Archbishop of Philadelphia was in Venice, with its center established around the Church of St. George (San Giorgio dei Greci) (Milaš 1989: 306-307;Bogović 1982: 23-25). 3 Bogović 1982: 42-43. 4 Ibid. 42-43. 5 Archbishop Meletius Tipaldi embraced Uniatism in 1690 (Radonić 1950: 433), however the Ecumenical Patriarch, as we will see, officially excluded him from the Orthodox Church community only in 1712 (Milaš 1899: 90-96). 6 Radonić 1950: 601. 7 Bishop Gerasim Petranović wrote about Bishop Busović in his chronicle "About Orthodox Dalmatian Bishops", but with a certain portion of unconfirmed or incorrect data (Petranović 1859: 154-157). Boško Strika had a similar approach in his exposure about Busović (Strika 1930: 100-101). See further: Kašić 1971: 19-20;Popov 1873: 272-273. Busović's ordination, as already stated, it would be too simple to claim that his profession of the Roman Catholic faith was only "a malevolent lie by Catholic prelates Vićentije Zmajević and Mato Karaman." 11 Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Tipaldi invented Busović's acceptance of the Roman Catholic faith in order to justify himself before Latin bishops in order for them to accept Busović as his legitimate deputy. 12 There are several sources, direct and indirect, which indicate that Busović definitely embraced Uniatism. 13 According to some, Busović had already done so on September 4, 1692. 14 Further support for this theory also comes from a complaint by monks from Krka Monastery addressed to Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević in early 1693. They objected the ordination of Bishop Busović by a Uniate archbishop. Arsenije III replied to their complaint in March 1693. 15 At that time, Busović had still not been formally ordained a Uniate bishop, but had apparently professed his Roman Catholic faith, which is what had provoked the disapproval of the Krka Monastery fraternity. There also exist letters, written by Bishop Busović to the Pope and the nuncio in Venice, before his ordination, in which he recognizes the Pope and commits to Catholic service. 16 He certainly would not have received the decree regarding the use of pontificals if he had not already officially confirmed his stance. However, the issue of canonic protocol, which Archbishop Tipaldi did not adhere to, still remains an issue of dispute and calls into question the credibility of the ordination. This apparently suited Bishop Busović and he obviously intended to retain his independent status and continue acting independently for an extended period of time. In this he appears to have been successful, and the meaning behind that will be discussed later.
During his time in Venice in 1693, Busović strongly opposed the interference in his jurisdiction by Atanasije Ljubojević, the Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia and exarch of the patriarch of Peć for Dalmatia. He also opposed, albeit less strongly, interference by the Latin bishops of Dalmatia. Furthermore, Bishop Busović appealed for the Latin bishops to be deprived of any authority in matters related to the Morlach Orthodox rites. 17 Monks from Krka Monastery, who had occasionally acted as deputies of the Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia in some parts of Dalmatia since 1578, offered up some resistance to Bishop Busović. 18 The Krka monks complained about Busović to Patriarch Arsenije III, who then 11 Milaš 1901: 334-335. 12 Ibid. 335. 13 Milaš 1899: 118;Bogović 1982Bogović : 42, pic. 10-13. 14 Šimrak 1930 (Slijepčević 1991: 310). His successor returned the seat to Banja Monastery, but, due to variable political circumstances in later periods, which we will talk about in the text, the jurisdictions and seats of metropolitans of Dabar-Bosnia will be altered and disputed.
humbly advised them to disregard what the bishop had done, to stay away from any evil, and to address him regarding ecclesiastic affairs. 19 Naturally, Patriarch Arsenije III objected to Busović's ordination "on the foreign side" and the fact that had not sought ordination from him, but he did not explicitly say that Bishop Busović was an apostate and should therefore be disobeyed. 20 According to some speculations, upon his return to Dalmatia after his ordination, Busović settled at Krka Monastery and managed the Serbian Church in Dalmatia from there. 21 The Singelia (Decree) for the Municipality of Drniš from Krka Monastery, dated February 8, 1694, is referred to as confirmation of such speculations. 22 However, in the first few years following his ordination, Busović did not spend much time in Krka Monastery. The monks at Krka (led by Archimandrite Josif) were explicitly opposed to Uniatism and Busović's ordination by Archbishop Tipaldi. Also, a longer stay in Krka Monastery, immediately after receiving the episcopal rank in Venice, would probably seem suspicious to the Catholic clergy. It was well known that Krka and Krupa monasteries were centers of resistance to Uniatism, and they took a hard line regarding Orthodoxy. As a prelate still unverified and unconfirmed in his Uniate field activities, remaining at the Krka Monastery for an extended period immediately after receiving his ordination would probably have raised the suspicions of the Catholic clergy. At the very least, it would certainly have been unfavorable for him, especially if his real intention was to work undisturbed for the benefit of the Serbian Church in that area, even after formally accepting the rank of bishop in a canonically disputed form (and by a Uniate archbishop, whose actual jurisdiction in Dalmatia covered only four municipalities). 23 Therefore it is more probable that Bishop Busović stayed in Šibenik more often upon his return to Dalmatia, where he had served for years before and where he had relatives. This seems to have been confirmed by a letter written by a Catholic priest named Vidović, in which he mentions meeting Busović in Šibenik in early 1694. 24 He soon received Dragović Monastery with its surrounding land as donation from Venetian authorities, according to the gift certificate dated March 24, 1694, and it is possible that he often stayed there. 25 It seems that only after receiving episcopal consecration from Patriarch Arsenije III (1696), 26 which will be mentioned later, did Bishop Busović clearly position his seat at Krka Monastery. Around this time, he began signing documents as Bishop of Krka. 27 On a number of occasions, Bishop Busović's role became the subject of polemics. There are certain contradictions in things he did that, along with a lack of reliable information, prevent a complete interpretation of his role. There are statements that he possessed "the typical sense of Orientals (Byzantines!) for easily adjusting to current 19 Milaš 1899 circumstances", and thus deceitfully played both sides and even "spied" for Provveditore Generale Alvise Mocenigo. 28 Such an interpretation seems tendentious and simplified. As someone who knew the circumstances of the Orthodox Church in Dalmatia well and had served the Greek Church of St. Elijah in Šibenik for years, Busović was certainly aware that only skillful, smart, and tactful activities could preserve Orthodoxy in such an unfavorable environment. While serving in the Greek church, he could have discerned that, unlike the Latin prelates, Archbishop Tipaldi of Philadelphia did not have considerable influence or power in Dalmatia (except in the four Dalmatian municipalities mentioned previously). Therefore, formally embracing a loose Uniatism in a canonically disputable way, he assumed that he could, in fact, cautiously continue to act for the benefit of Orthodox Serbs. Primarily to preserve Orthodox faith in times of dangerous turmoil, when the nation he belonged to had fallen under synchronized pressure from Catholicism in all its lands. 29 Tipaldi would not have had the power to thwart his intentions, and the Latin prelates would not have a formal basis for doing so.
Busović enforced his idea very carefully. He certainly first had to strengthen his position and jurisdiction. He thus had the intention to eliminate the influence of Atanasije Ljubojević, the Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia. Bishop Busović strongly criticized Metropolitan Atanasije. His harsh criticism of Atanasije "perversely undermining the consciousness of faithful ones turning them from real faith to dark hell" through his actions and his assertion that Latins were worse than Turks, come from the time of Busović's ordination in Venice. 30 Metropolitan Atanasije did not give up so easily. He personally came to Venice in 1693. He brought a recommendation of Provveditore Daniel Dolfin, dated May 31 of that same year, a letter from Patriarch Arsenije III, and a request from Orthodox Serbs in Ravni Kotari to have him, Atanasije, appointed as bishop. 31 Metropolitan Atanasije asked the Venetian authorities to confirm his jurisdiction in Dalmatia with a written act (ducal), so that he could freely perform his priestly duties "recently usurped by Bishop Busović." He also used the occasion to complain to the Senate that Bishop Busović had been roughly and unreasonably attacking him. 32 He especially emphasized that he had personally brought four hundred families under the auspices of the Republic, and that he only wanted to secure for them public peace and an evangelic path as their shepherd. 33 Despite his efforts, Bishop Atanasije did not succeed in receiving the ducal he sought, and he returned from Venice empty-handed. Bishop Busović had the advantage: he had been put forward by the Pope's nuncio and had embraced Uniatism. 34 28 Bogović 1982: 47. 29 See more about Uniate pressures in other lands with a Serbian population: Gavrilović 1995: 7- All of this clearly demonstrates that Bishop Busović did not want anyone interfering in the jurisdiction had received from the Archbishop of Philadelphia, but that he also most likely had in mind the current circumstances at the time. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia and exarch of the Patriarch of Peć, was unsustainable within Venetian territory, especially after Patriarch Arsenije III himself had moved under the auspices of the Habsburg Monarchy. Interference in the jurisdictions of a foreign metropolitan and, through him, the Serbian Patriarch, who was now under the protection of their rival empire, could in no way be tolerated under the auspices of Serenissima. 35 This is confirmed by a dispatch from the Provveditore Generale of Dalmatia on June 7, 1693, who had discovered that Metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević had come to Dalmatia by imperial decree, and because of that the Venetians did not allow him to travel through their lands and visit Orthodox Serbs. 36 The patriarch's exarch, Bishop Stevan Metohijac, had done something similar earlier in the summer of 1691. As was laid out in Provveditore Dolfin's dispatch of June 1691, the Provveditore Generale had forbidden him from going out among the people and did not recognize his authority over Orthodox Serbs in Dalmatia as the Patriarch's emissary. Besides the Patriarch's epistle, Bishop Stevan, also took with him copies of two Habsburg imperial privileges given to the Serbian nation on September 21 and December 4, 1690, which especially rankled the Venetian authorities. 37 Hence, Bishop Busović, in fact, attempted to gain the trust of the Venetians through his strong position regarding Metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević, to establish his status and jurisdiction, and prevent the Catholic prelates from having control over the Orthodox Serbs in this area. During his time in Venice, Bishop Busović openly requested that none of the Latin bishops interfere in his jurisdiction or create any obstacles for him. 38 It was soon clear that, at the time, Metropolitan Atanasije, could not do much in these lands. Patriarch Arsenije III's rather conciliatory reaction to Archimandrite Josif of Krka's letter, and his recognition of Busović as a legitimate bishop a little over two years later, indicate his awareness of the situation.
When the Serbian Patriarch confirmed his episcopal legitimacy on January 24, 1696, Bishop Busović submitted to Patriarch Arsenije III recommendations and pleas from his elders favoring him as bishop, along with the Singelia of the deceased Patriarch Pajsije for some Dalmatian bishop. 39 Had Bishop Busović not been acting in the interest of Orthodoxy and for the benefit of the people, he most certainly would not have received their support. People of that area, in constant tension due to Uniatism, pressures and oppression, strongly sharpened their ability to recognize someone's ill intentions toward them. Their very 35 The fear of Venetians from the influence of foreign authority in their territory is vividly shown in the report made by Provveditore of Herceg-Novi Francesco Badoar (September 25, 1721) addressed to the Senate, where he recommends that it would be better for the Republic to allow the installation of an Orthodox bishop for Dalmatia and Boka, because: "If the Province (Dalmatia and Boka) does not have an Orthodox bishop, those with aspirations to become priests will move to Ottoman and Imperial (Habsburg) lands to be ordained and receive religious instructions. Besides money offered to those prelates there, they are submitted to foreign authorities…"; [Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Senato -Deliberazion Roma Expulsis, fil. 31, fnc., (hereinafter ASV SDRE)]. 36 Tomić 1906: 151. 37 Ibid. 133-135. 38 Šimrak 1930: 86. 39 Milaš 1899: 72.
survival, in spite of everything, is a proof of that. Patriarch Pajsije's Singelia was apparently supposed to represent a paradigm. As Patriarch Pajsije once gave Episcopal consecration to some Dalmatian bishop, Patriarch Arsenije III should give Episcopal consecration to him, Busović. It seems pretty justified that some recognize Epifanije Stefanović (1640-1648) as that unnamed bishop. 40 It is believed that Bishop Epifanije also embraced Uniatism under suspicious circumstances (1648), 41 but it is known that he never went to the Pope to get his blessing. 42 As stated, there is data confirming that Bishop Epifanije gave a letter or a document from Patriarch Pajsije to the delegates he sent to the Pope. Some authors believe that it was a letter of support and acceptance of Uniatism by Patriarch Pajsije, although the contents of the letter are still unknown. 43 However, if the mentioned Uniatism of Bishop Epifanije really had a deeper meaning or brought real results and fruit, the Catholic Church would not miss to provide detailed documentation about it. Uniatism was not a spontaneous process or internal spirit of the Orthodox Serbian population. It was conditioned by current external events. 44 We discover a similar moment, somewhat later, in relation to Bishop Busović's Uniatism. Allegedly, the Pope's nuncio in Venice sent a letter from Patriarch Arsenije III, with unknown contents, together with the report on Busović's embracing Uniatism, to the secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. 45 Having in mind all mentioned above, we see an unusually striking similarity of these two cases, without anything regarding Uniatism being realized in either case in real life.
Bishop Busović never refrained from doing certain favors to the Republic's officers, or reporting about events or situation on the Venetian-Turkish border. 46 One of the proofs of this is the letter from Provveditore Generale Alvise Mocenigo dated September 6, 1702. It clearly shows that Bishop Busović, upon the order of Provveditore, visited Krupa Monastery and, as stated, spent nine days in Lika to investigate the situation there and monitor the risky events in that area. 47 It was clear to Busović, as it was to others after him, how important it was to have the support of the Provveditore, whose influence and jurisdiction in lands they managed were almost undisputed. Only in such a way he could protect his church from Catholic bishops to a certain extent. Bishop Busović managed to avoid conflicts with bishops for an entire decade and slowly strengthen his position as protector of the Orthodox Church and Serbian ethnic community, receiving thereby recognitions both from state authorities and the Uniates. yields from 50 camps of land in the village of Međupuće , 48 and on October 12, 1699 granted them the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bribir with surrounding lands, because the Turks had forced the fraternity was to leave Dragović Monastery. 49 The first hint of objections appeared during the mentioned Busović's visits to Greek churches, approved by Archbishop of Philadelphia Tipaldi. Such visits apparently did not suit some prelates. Parson of the Greek Church of St. Elijah in Šibenik, where Busović had spent many years before receiving Episcopal consecration, interpreted it as alleged breaking of jurisdiction and reported Busović to Tipaldi. Archbishop Tipaldi replied to the parson on October 10, 1699, stating that he had given an authorization to Bishop Busović to visit Greek churches only once, not forever, in order to submit necessary reports about the situation on the Adriatic coast. 50 Despite such oppositions, Bishop Busović succeeded in maintaining his service uninterrupted until 1702/1703. This overlaps with the departure of Provveditore Generale Alvise Mocenigo, who worked exclusively as state civil servant of the Republic and prevented any interference from the outside. After losing his support (1702), Bishop Busović was left to the mercy of Latin prelates. A letter from Exceptional Provveditore Iseppo Zuccato sent to Provveditore Generale, dated July26, 1702, confirms that Busović was under surveillance, and Zuccato suggested that an experienced and reliable person be appointed to him, who will skillfully reveal the real intentions of Patriarch Arsenije III through Busović. 51 Busović certainly didn't want to make the situation more difficult and further ignite the animosity of Catholic Dalmatian bishops towards himself and the Orthodox Church. Therefore his contacts with the Patriarch become rare, as can be seen in the Patriarch's concerned letters in the spring of 1702. 52  ASASA LJT, no. 8711/VIII-f/8 ("...Inconveniente studiarete prove di divertir con destesità la mossa del Vescovo Bussovich stesso nel riflesso alle conseguenze, che potrebbero derivarne dalla medesima pur stando voi più tosto somministrare al vescovo stesso qualche persona d'esperienza, e di fede che s'avanzi a nome e quella parte per penetrare con destra maniera le vere intentioni, et affetti del patriarca mon con quel di più che troverete con relatione a pubblici interessi per renderne ogni più distinto ragguaglio a dovuto pubblico lume..."). Ibid. 84-86. 59 Jačov 1981: 70. There is an inscription from 1704 on the so-called "Busović's doors", holy doors formerly in the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in the parish in Bukovica, now in Krka Monastery. It mentions Busović already as a former bishop, indicating that he has already left Dalmatia at that time [Stojanović 1903[Stojanović : 9 (no. 2131Petranović 1863:169]. 60 Milaš 1901: 343. It is stated that he left a kind of a will in Vrlica in August 1707, leaving his belongings to Dragović Monastery (Zorica 2011: 21-22). Philadelphia. 65 However, it is also stated that the Patriarch of Peć also had jurisdiction over a part of Dalmatia under Ottoman rule until the late seventeenth century, directly managed by Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia as his exarch. 66 However, it seems that it was not consistently implemented, as shown by the jurisdiction of Bishop of Dabar-Bosnia and Dalmatia Epifanije Stefanović, for whom Farlati himself states that he had jurisdiction over Orthodox Serbs both in the Ottoman and in the Venetian territory. 67 Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia often referred to himself, in addition to other titles, Bishop of Klis and Lika, 68 and his seat was moved from Banja of Dabar to Rmanj Monastery (città d' Onza) 69 on the Bosnia, Lika and Dalmatia tripoint. Some sources state that it was from there that Bishop Epifanije moved to Venetian territory. 70 An even bigger confusion happened after Venetian possessions had expanded at the expense of the Ottoman Empire in the late seventeenth century, after the end of the Morean War (1699) and planned migrations of new Serbian inhabitants. The question of jurisdiction over new territories and newly settled population became disputable, because everyone was interested in it. The importance of this issue for the Serbian Church is proven by the fact that during the last decade of the seventeenth century, the Serbian Patriarch appointed as many as seven bishops in the area of Dalmatia. 71 During this great turmoil, the Ecumenical Patriarch, through Archbishop of Philadelphia Meletius Tipaldi, attempted to expand his influence and put all Orthodox people in Dalmatia, including newly-arrived Serbs, under his jurisdiction. 72 However, on September 13, 1690,Tipaldi renounced the Orthodox faith and embraced Uniatism. 73 Archbishop Tipaldi realized that it would be best to attract the famous Serbian priest, recognized in those lands, and include him in his endeavor to expand and strengthen his Uniate jurisdiction in Dalmatia. Nikodim Busović, Hieromonk from Krka Monastery, seemed to be an excellent solution for it, especially after proving loyalty during his service in the Greek Church of St. Elijah in Šibenik. 74 Furthermore, Archbishop Tipaldi believed that Busović, very respected by his compatriots, knew well the situation in the field and the best way to introduce Uniatism in those lands. As exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Tipaldi's jurisdiction in the Adriatic coast was accepted only over Orthodox people in Venice and several Orthodox Greek churches in Istria and Dalmatia, but not over Serbs. 75 It is assumed that, led by his interest to collect taxes, Archbishop Tipaldi intended to expand his jurisdiction over Orthodox Serbs in Dalmatia through Bishop Busović, still as formal exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Tipaldi tried to exercise such politics in Dalmatia, but the Ecumenical Patriarch officially excluded him from the Orthodox ecclesiastical community in 1712, declaring him second Judas. 76 Latin bishops did not have any official right of jurisdiction in the newly-conquered areas in Dalmatia, confirmed by the fact that Busović's pastoral activities encompassed Serbs of the Orthodox rite mainly in areas Venice had gained in the recent wars (Candian and Morean). Those areas were clearly defined by Provveditore Generale Alvise Sebastiano Mocenigo in his letter from 1720, stating that Busović's jurisdiction was limited to the surroundings of Zadar and territories around Knin and Sinj. 77 Therefore, the Archbishop of Philadelphia -direct primate only in three Greek municipalities in Dalmatia and one in Istria (Šibenik, Zadar, Hvar and Pula) 78 and not the entire territory of Dalmatia as often believedwanted to expand his jurisdiction to the newly-conquered areas through Bishop Busović.
Although the issues of jurisdiction of Dalmatian Serbs could not be solved in their favor even after the Morean Wars, they never gave up on demanding their rights. They were persistent in their intention to protect their faith, spirituality and identity from Catholic programs of Uniatism supported by Venetian authorities. 79 Although there are claims that the role of Catholic bishops in Dalmatia was only within the limits set by the state and not in activities of forcing religious unity under the Catholic Church, 80 many presented sources and those that follow clearly indicate the tendentiousness of such positions. 81 It is known that Serenissima did not look at members of other religions mainly through the prism of faith, as the Holy See and its Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith did, but as 75 Radonić 1950: 601. 76 Milaš 1899: 90-96. 77 Ibid. 118. Together with Busović's administration in Dalmatia, Bishop of Herzegovina Savatije Ljubibratić had jurisdiction over Orthodox Serbs in the area of Boka. After Busović's departure from Dalmatia, he tried to expand his jurisdiction to areas administered by Busović, often adding to his title of Bishop of Herzegovina the Bishop of Dalmatia or Coastal Areas title. He did not succeed, since Venetian authorities did not give their approval. The stands of Catholic Dalmatian bishops had a significant role in that decision (Matić 2016b: 159-164). Bishops of Cetinje also had unsubstantiated jurisdictional aspirations over Boka. They considered Boka their zone of jurisdiction, referring to a very unclear and ambiguous document issued by Dodge Giovanni Corner to Bishop of Cetinje Danilo on June 4, 1718 (Montenegro 1998: 145-146). The document literally states: "Subjects of the Greek-Serbian rite, located in the diocese of the Bishop of Cetinje, both within the old and the new state borders, are allowed to recognize him as their bishop and shepherd." Bishop of Cetinje was not allowed to visit those areas, and it was not clearly stated what areas he refers to. However, bishops of Cetinje persistently referred to that document, rightfully considering Boka their office. They neglected the fact that the so-called Dračevica parish with Herceg-Novi and Risan were historically never under the jurisdiction of Montenegrin, but of Herzegovina bishops (Stanojević 1955: 93). ethnically colored communities. 82 However, as faith was most often deeply related to tradition and ethnic characteristics, it indirectly had a significant contribution in determining the political course of the Republic, whose basis was Ragione di Stato. 83 Therefore, granting jurisdiction over the area of Dalmatia and Boka to Archbishop of Philadelphia was most convenient for Venetian authorities. Orthodox Serbs would thus remain beyond the jurisdiction of Orthodox Serbian bishops on the other side of Venetian borders, as well as beyond the jurisdiction of Latin bishops within the borders, most of whom were subjected directly to the Roman Congregation. It was believed that the higher interest of the state was to establish the "Greek-Uniate" hierarchy, with its center in Venice, rather than to allow excessive interference of Roman nuncios in areas under Venetian state authority. For Venice, Rome was both the Holy See and the capital of the monarch. 84 Knowing it, the Congregation and its protégés insisted on religious homogeneity being crucial for the stability of the state, stirring up the fear of confessional heterogeneity among Venetian authorities. 85 In order to give a more vivid review of thecurrent reality at the Dalmatia and Boka coast and Uniate pressures on Orthodox Serbs, mostly by Catholic prelates, we will present several examples from Venetian archives.
In his report to the Senate from Kotor dated May 1, 1692, Provveditore Nicolo Erizzo supports imposing Catholicity to Orthodox people, since it would contribute to easier control of the state over them, and interests of the state (Ragione di Stato), as we have already mentioned, were above everything for Serenissima: "Their faith (of the Orthodox people) is susceptible to bribery and depends on who offers more. They are more under influence of Barbarian than Christian laws, due to the narrowed truthfulness of ecclesiastic dogmas, as well as of Greek priests, who do not have any control and rule among savages and Ottomans. It would be of much more use to you if they followed only the Latin faith, which would force them to abide to this holy authority…" 86 The Bishop of Kotor Marin Drago, in his letter dated July 15, 1697, sent to Cardinal Leandro Colloredo in Rome, literally reveals the real intentions of Catholic prelates, protégés of the Congregation: "Since all my efforts have failed to convince bishops of Serbian faith, located in the vicinity of Herceg-Novi, to sincerely unite under the supreme pontiff of the universal church and free themselves from misconceptions about the Catholic faith, I addressed the people of Paštrovići." 87 Bishop Drago, as we see in the letter, attempts to talk the Paštrović clan into separating from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Cetinje, "who has always been a Turkish vassal, born and raised in the mountain among savages, therefore the source of all evils for his Christians", 88 : Stella 1964: 80-83. 85 In that sense, the Archbishop of Bar and later of Zadar Vićentije Zmajević had a particularly remarkable role. About his activities see : Jačov 1984: 42-65. 86 Tomić 1914 ASASA LJT,no. 8711-XXIX/123 ("Riuscitemi tutte le applicazioni vane nel persuadere li vescovi che esistono nelle vicinanze di Castel novo del rito serviano, acciò sinceramente si unissero al capo santo dell'universale Chiesa e lasciassero gli errori che tengono contro la verità cattolica, mi rivolsi ai popoli de pastrovich"). 88 ASASA LJT, no. 8711-XXIX/123 ("...instinuati alli datti popoli Pastrovich che sono numerosi e di qualche of Philadelphia, Uniate Meletius Tipaldi ["...since the requested bishop (of Cetinje) would have to fall under the administration of Archbishop of Philadelphia and recognize the holy Pope as the supreme pontiff, therefore his attempts to inflict damage on our faith, as today those who are not subjects (of the Republic) are doing, would not be tolerated, whilst the influence of the real monarch and the staying in his country would limit him…"]. 89 Uniate priest Josephus Stremezchi from Poland also had a clear mission to this end. During his several-years long business trip in Byzantium during the first decade of the eighteenth century, he disembarked in Budva and then traveled to Herceg-Novi. Although the Bishop of Herzegovina Savatije Ljubibratić received him cordially, Stremezchi, having failed in his Uniate mission, ruthlessly attacked his host for exceeding his authority and complained about the hatred and intolerance of Orthodox people towards Catholics. 90 For the sake of objectivity, as a response to such a claim, we will quote, without any comments, part of a report created by Catholic vicar Luka Bolica, who was sent instructions on May 4, 1676 about the Catholic mission determined at the main council of the Congregation. Vicar Bolica states: "The only Christian church in Risan, Church of St. Peter, has two altars, an Orthodox and a Catholic one, although there are 40 Orthodox families living in the hinterland and only one Catholic." 91 The most explicit proof of the Catholic pressure on Serbian clergy (to accept Uniatism and Dalmatian Catholic bishops as their visitators) is the Venetian list of Orthodox Serbian priests, who refused the pressures of Latin bishops from Dalmatia and were therefore maltreated and arrested (pic. 1, 2). 92 considerazione al confin del Cettigne verso l'Albania nelle nostre parti, acciò almeno procurassero di sottrarsi dalla potestà del suddetto vescovo di Cettigne che sempre è stato suddito del Tourco,nato et allevato nelle montagne tra gente barbara, e perciò causa di ogni male nelli suri"). 89 The excerpts set out above once again confirm that the Catholic prelates' activities promoting Uniatism were clearly and systematically carried out in the area of Dalmatia and Boka, but the resistance of Orthodox Serbs continued. Upon the departure of Bishop of Dalmatia Nikodim Busović and until the end of Venetian rule (1797), the Serbian population in this area did not have their bishop, who would work in the interest of Orthodox Serbs and represent the ecclesiastical authority. The role of leaders of Orthodox people and preserving their identity was taken over by Serbian Orthodox monasteries and their capable archimandrites. In that sense, especially significant are the monasteries of Krka and Krupa for the area of Dalmatia, and Savina Monastery for Boka. 93 .