The Baptismal Font of the Croatian Duke Vysheslav

Vysheslav baptismal font on 23 March 2021. Photo by Ivan Sikavica, Croatian Conservation Institute

The article presents the importance and significance of the baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav (Višeslav in Croatian), for comprehending the Croatian Catholic identity. Its origin and the terminology ​​used in various languages for this mandatory component of parish churches are also presented. A description of the material from which it was made is provided, as well as its displacement and volume, which are published for the first time. An analysis of the inscription is given, previous translations are compared, and a new translation is proposed. The theological meaning of the first two sentences of the inscription is interpreted. Difficulties regarding its date, the absence of other sources on Duke Vysheslav and how the stone came to the Capuchin monastery on the Isle of Giudecca are presented. Descriptions of the baptismal font from the time it was in Nin are provided and examples of its influence on other six-sided baptismal fonts are also shown. Casts and copies of the font are listed, where it has been painted on frescoes, as well as which banknotes it is printed on, and where it is taught in the Croatian educational system are presented.

Importance

The oldest preserved portable receptacle for baptismal/holy water in Croatia is Vysheslav’s baptismal font, which is a basin or stone vessel which contained water for baptizing, engraved with the name of the Croatian Duke Vysheslav, carved around the year 800 A.D., at the end of the 8th century.

It is considered a monument dedicated to the baptism of the Croats – a symbol of the Christianization of the Croatian people and one of the key national symbols.

This baptismal font is also the most ancient heritage of Croatian spirituality, the oldest blessed object of worship and liturgy of the Croatian people, the first and most important Christian monument of the Croats, one of the most important Croatian cultural and epigraphic antiquities and the oldest preserved Croatian example of church relics. With this superbly inscribed monument, this small nation united itself symbolically to Christian civilization.

There exist solid indications that Vysheslav’s baptismal font was located in Nin up until 1746, and that it was then secretly taken to Venice. From 1749 to 1853, it was in the Capuchin monastery of the Holy Redeemer on the island of Giudecca, south of Venice, partly built into the wall, and it served as a water tank for watering the convent garden. From April 1853 to May 1942, it was exhibited in the Correr Museum in Venice. At the instigation of blessed Alojzije Stepinac, an bilateral agreement between the Independent State of Croatia and the Kingdom of Italy was reached in 1942 regarding its repatriation in exchange for two paintings.[1] From 1942 to 1958, it was located in the palace of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb, and since 1958 it has been on display in the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split. Radoslav Katičić, one of the most prominent Croatian scholars in the humanities, concludes: “There is no doubt that this stone baptismal font for adults beautifully illustrates the baptism of Croats.”[2]

First side of the baptismal font under daily under ultraviolet light. Photos by Argo Navis, Wikipedia (2023) and by Pino Gamulin, Croatian Conservation Institute (2021)

This is “one of the most significant cultural and historical monuments of the Croats from the early Middle Ages”.[3]

Towards the end of December 2024, Dražen Kutleša, the Archbishop of Zagreb and President of the Croatian Catholic Bishops’ Conference said: “Vysheslav’s baptismal font is deeply woven into the history of the Croatian faithful’s identity. Through it, our nation was able to recognize a reflection of its baptism and their baptismal covenant with God through many centuries. It is very important to us”.[4]

Nomenclature

The standard Croatian language uses the same term – krstiónica – for both the vessel (baptismal font) and the room in which baptism is performed (baptistry). This is why Vysheslav’s monument is in most cases called Višeslavova krstionica in Croatian. In Slovene, this vessel is masculine, krstílnik, and the chamber is feminine, krstílnica. Some Croatian writers – at least in the period from 1628 to 1962[5] – preserved the use of the masculine krstiònīk for the stone vessel in which baptismal water is kept and in which baptism is administered.[6]

Initially, in the early times, a special baptistery chamber was built just adjacent to cathedral churches (within Croatia: in Poreč, Zadar, Salona, ​​Pula, Dubrovnik, Trogir, Split), and later a fixed or movable vessel was placed in cathedral and parish churches. In the first millennium, this was often a well or a basin for the baptism of adults by immersion (in Croatian ìstočnīk, kladénac, studénac, krstiònīk, zdénac, kúpelj or kȁmenica), and later a stone or metal shell for baptism by pouring.

Language

Part of church apparatus

Symbol of the baptism of Croats

Duke’s name

English

baptismal font

Baptismal Font of Duke Vysheslav

Vysheslav

Croatian

istočnik, kladenac,
krstionica, krstionik,
krsni kamen,
krsni studenac,
krsni zdenac,
kamenica za uranjanje,
kamenica za krštenje

Višeslavova krstionica,
krstionica kneza Višeslava

Višeslav

Slovenian

krstilnik, krstni kamen

krstilnik kneza Višeslava

Višeslav

Slovak

krstiteľnica

krstiteľnica kniežaťa Vyšeslava

Vyšeslav

Czech

křtitelnice

křtitelnice knížete Vyšeslava

Vyšeslav

Polish

chrzcielnica

chrzcielnica Wyszesława

Wyszesław

Romanian

cristelniță

cristelniță a principelui Viseslav

Viseslav

Russian

купель

купель князя Вишеслава

Вишеслав

Ukrainian

купіль хрестильна

купіль князя Вишеслава

Вишеслав

Byelorussian

купель

купель князя Вышаслава

Вышаслаў

Bulgarian

купел

купел на княз Вишеслав

Вишеслав

Latin

fons baptismalis

fons baptismalis ducis Visseslaui

Visseslaus

Hungarian

keresztelőkút

Viseszláv keresztelőkútjának

Viseszláv

German

Taufbecken, Taufstein

Taufbecken des Fürsten Wyscheslaw

Wyscheslaw

Italian

fonte battesimale, vasca battesimale

fonte battesimale del duca Viscesslav

Viscesslav

Castilian/Spanish

pila bautismal, fuente bautismal

fuente bautismal del duque Vischeslav

Vischeslav

French

fonts baptismaux, pierre baptismale, vasque baptismale, cuve baptismale

fonts baptismaux du duc Vichésslav

Vichésslav

Portuguese

pia batismal

pia batismal do duque Viseslava

Viseslava

Description

The baptismal font is made from a single block of Proconnesian marble[7] (Latin marmor Proconnesium). It is a type of white marble with uniform shades, from the island of Proconnesus in the Sea of ​​Marmara (between the Dardanelles and the Bosporus), from a quarry called Νέα Προκόννησος / Néa Prokónnnēsos by the ancient Greeks, Prŏconnēsus nova by the Romans, and Saraylar by the Turks.

The vessel is hollow inside and carved on the outside. It is hexagonal in shape, 2 feet and 10.65 to 11.24 inches (88–89.5 cm) high on the outside, 2 feet and 6.7 inches (78 cm) deep on the inside. The length of the upper part of the sides is 2 feet an 2.38–4.74 inches (67–73 cm). The length of the lower part of the sides is 1 foot 11.43 inches to 1 foot 2.37 inches (59.5–67 cm). It is 4 feet 6.72 to 7.24 inches (139–140.3 cm) wide.

The open upper end of the font has a diameter of 3 feet 11.24 inches (120 cm). The total external circumference of the font is 13 feet 8.96 inches (419 cm). The side walls are 4.33 to 4.6 inches (11–11.7 cm) thick, and the bottom is 3.94 inches (10 cm) thick.[8]

Its displacement (external volume) is 270.51 gallons (US) (1024 liters). Its internal volume is 172.77 gallons (US) (654 liters); that’s how much water it can hold. The font itself has a volume of 97.74 gallons (US) (370 liters) and weighs a total of 2632.32 pounds (1194 kg).

In the past, as evidenced by the metal bars on the crown of the baptismal font, it was covered with a domed lid to protect it from profanation and contamination of the lustral (holy) water. The holy oils were also kept in this dome. Originally, the bars could have been the supports for a curtain to provide privacy for the baptized, because they entered the baptismal bath naked, and after baptism they were dressed in new white baptismal robes.

At the bottom of the font there is a circular hole for the water to drain out. The opening starts at a diameter of 10.24 inches (26 cm) inside and narrows to a diameter of 3.54 inches (9 cm) at the bottom.

Forth side of the baptismal font

On the fourth side surface – opposite the one with the cross – there is a rectangular hole in the marble, 4.09 inches (10.4 cm) high and 1.97 inch (5 cm) wide. A lead pipe passed through it, which introduced water for the rite of lustration or purification. The opening is located slightly above the middle of the baptistmal font, 15.94 inches (40.5 cm) from the bottom. It is assumed that there was a ladder on that side for entering and exiting the bath.

Along the edge of each side is a twisted column with a stylized capital carved in relief. A carved processional cross[9] on a handle is visible in the middle of the front section, filled with a three-bar braid, with coils at the ends of three arms. Above the multiple design of the protrusions, in the middle of which pearl-shaped protrusions (astragals) dominate, is a marginal field with a carved votive inscription in Latin that runs along all six sides and continues in one line on the fifth surface and ends with two lines on the sixth surface.

Origin

The patron, endowment or titleholder of the baptismal font is Duke Vysheslav (Višeslav). In the 8th century, and up until the end of the 10th century, Vysheslav was pronounced Vyshaslaŭ in Croatian,[10] as it is today in Belarusian. Namely, the root viš- contains the Proto-Slavic back vowel yery, which was written as a two-letter symbol in the Glagolitic and Old Cyrillic alphabets, and pronounced as a back or muffled i (the close central unrounded vowel /ɨ/, more rear or upper than i, like the over-pronounced German ü). This is how it was pronounced in the Croatian redaction of the Church Slavonic language. Today, it has been preserved in several Slavic languages, and in most, including Croatian, it has developed into the phoneme /i/. The Latin inscription VV on Vysheslav’s baptismal font indicates the pronunciation of the back i [vü], which is a sign of both the linguistic and material antiquity of the monument itself.

sub tempore Vuissasclavo duci opus… during the reign of Vysheslav, to the Duke

Vysheslav is a common male Slavic dithematic name (constructed with two lexemes), formed as a compound ending in -slav. There are more than 90 such names in the Croatian language (more than 120 with accented variants) and more than 130 in other Slavic languages.[11] The bearers of some of them were elevated to the honor of the altar in the Catholic Church: St. Stanislaus (of Szczepanów; Kazimierczyk; Kostka), St. Wenceslaus (of Bohemia), St. Ladislaus (of Hungary), Zdislava (Berka of Lemberk), Bl. Ceslaus (Odrowąż) and Bl. Miroslav (Bulešić). Among the Croatian national rulers, there were quite a few with names ending in -slav: Vysheslav (Višeslav), Vladislav, Mislav, Zdeslav, Braslav, Tomislav, Miroslav, Držislav, Svetoslav and Gojslav.

The first lexeme of Vysheslav, vyshe- means great, more, large. A similar meaning is found in the Slavic names: Vaclav, Vyacheslav, Wenzel, Vjenceslav, Veleslav, Wielimir, Velimir, Więcerad.

Vysheslav is “a Dalmatian-Croatian duke whose name is carved on the baptismal font that was once located in the baptistery of the cathedral church in Nin. Most historians consider him the first Croatian duke known by name and associate his reign (around 800 A.D.) with the general baptism of Croats. Based on the stylistic features of the braided decoration on the baptismal font and the fact that Nin around 800 A.D., through the activities of Frankish missionaries, developed into an ecclesiastical and political center of the Croats, his reign is dated around the year 800.”[12]

Vysheslav was ruler of the Duchy of Croatia, also called Duchy of the Croats, Dalmatian Croatia and Littoral Croatia, with its seat in Nin.[13]

A continual debate exists regarding whether the Vysheslav baptismal font was in Nin from its creation, at the end of the 8th century, until the 18th century, or more precisely until 1746. This question will be dealt with later.

From the 8th century, when the administration of baptism was no longer exclusively the prerogative of bishops and when baptism was no longer performed only in baptisteries but also in parish churches, baptismal fonts of large diameter, not buried, but laid on the surface, intended for baptism by immersion, were placed on the ground, no longer only in cathedral (bishops’) but also in parish (priests’) churches, deep enough for the catechumen to have water at least up to his knees, and baptism was performed by complete or partial immersion. In the pre-Romanesque period, immersion was performed vertically, and after the baptism of adults, high baptismal fonts became awkward and dangerous for the baptism of children, so from the Romanesque period onward, shallower baptismal fonts prevailed in which immersion was only possible horizontally.

Inscription

The inscription is carved in regular rustic capitals. The letters are 2.36 to 2.56 inches (6 to 6.5 cm) high. The stonemason connected two or more letters with a single written symbol (he used ligatures), and shortened words by contraction (per contractionem) and by dropping some letters (per suspensionem). The votive inscription carved around the crown of the baptismal font reads:

Second side of the baptismal font under ultraviolet light. Photo by Pino Gamulin, Croatian Conservation Institute
Drawing of the inscription published by Mirko Šeper in 1958

+ HEC FONS NE(M)PE SVM(M)IT INFIRMOS VT REDDAT ILLVMINATOS.

HIC EXPIANT SCELERA SVA QV(O)D [DE PRIMO] SVMPSERVNT PARENTE, VT EFFICIANTVR CHR(ISTI)COLE SALVBRITER CONFITENDO TRINV(M) P(ER)HENNE(M).

HOC IOH(ANNES) PR(ES)B(YTER) SVB TEMPORE VVISSASCLAVO DVCI OPVS BENE CO(M)PSIT DEVOTE IN HONORE[M] VIDELICET S(AN)C(T)I IOH(ANN)IS BAPTISTE VT INTERCEDAT P(RO) EO CLIENTVLOQVE SVO.

Drawing of the inscription published by Vedrana Delonga in 1996

Resolving the abbreviations, it should be read:

In Christi nomine. Amen. Haec[14] fons nempe summit infirmos, ut reddat illuminatos.

Hic expiant scelera[15] sua, quod[16] de primo sumpserunt parente, ut efficiantur Christicolae[17] salubriter confitendo Trinum perhennem.

Hoc Iohannes presbyter sub tempore Vuissasclavo duci[18] opus bene compsit,[19] devote, in honorem[20] videlicet sancti Iohannis Baptistae, ut intercedat pro eo clientuloque[21] suo.

Translated into English:

In the name of Christ. Amen. This font truly receives the infirm, to restore them radiant.

Here they expiate their wickedness, which they inherited from their first parent, so that they may become worshipers of Christ by salvifically confessing the eternal Trinity.

This work was well accomplished by the priest John during the reign of Vysheslav, with a dedication to the Duke, in honor of Saint John the Baptist, so that he may intercede for him [the Duke] and his poor client [John].

The inscription is not prose, but poetry

The style is solemnly and carefully chosen, which is shown by the fact that each of the sentences begins with a demonstrative pronoun: Hæc, Hic, Hoc, which is reminiscent of the three most important sentences in the Canon of the Mass:

Hoc est enim Corpus meum – For this is my Body.
Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni Testaménti, mystérium fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum. – For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and Eternal covenant, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.
Hæc quotiescúmqe fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis. – As often as you do these things, you shall do them in remembrance of me.

In 2009, Milenko Lončar marked the accents in the text of the inscription, to make it easier to see the rhythm of pronunciation.[22] He determined that the arrangement of accents is identical in the first ten syllables of the first three lines; in the last five syllables of the first three and fifth lines, and in the last six syllables of the fourth and sixth lines. He also discovered that two more syllables in the first and third lines coincide (réddat and confiténdo), and four syllables in the second and third lines (de prímo sumpsérunt and salúbriter). He concluded that this rhythm is intentional on the part of the author John. If the text is written according to the pronunciation, we get six lines, and when they are centered, we get a hexagon, the shape consistent with the ground plan of the baptismal font. This means that the number of syllables in each line is intentionally larger or smaller, in order to create a carmen figuratum, a shaped poem, which has a certain figure composed of its words.

+ Hæc fóns nempe súmmit infírmos, ut réddat ílluminátos.
Hic éxpiant scélera súa, quod de prímo sumpsérunt parénte,
ut éfficiántur Christícolæ salúbriter confiténdo Trínum perhénnem.
Hoc Iohánnes présbyter sub témpore Vuissásclavo dúci ópus béne cómpsit,
devóte, in honórem vidélicet sáncti Iohánnis Baptístæ,
ut intercédat pro éo clientulóque súo.

Comparison of various translations in Croatian

The inscription on the baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav was translated into Croatian by: Ferdo Šišić in 1925,[23] Lovre Katić in 1928,[24] Ljubo Karaman in 1930, 1942 and 1944,[25] Stjepan Ivšić in 1942,[26] Stjepan Krivošić 1943 (just the last sentence),[27] Dominik Mandić in 1957,[28] Josip Lučić in 1969,[29] Nada Klaić in 1972,[30] Aleksa Benigar in 1974,[31] Dušan Jelovina in 1976 and 1989,[32] Vedrana Delonga in 1979 and 1996,[33] Josip Turčinović in 1977 and 1984,[34] Nikola Jakšić 1997,[35] Radoslav Katičić in 1998,[36] Hrvoje Hitrec in 1999,[37] Stjepan Pantelić in 2000,[38] Ratko Perić in 2024[39] and Petar Marija Radelj 2024.[40]

Translations made in the 20th century did not consider the invocation at the beginning of the inscription, marked with a cross, which should be translated: In the name of Christ. (Amen.)

The noun fons is translated as:

  • source (Šišić, Karaman, Ivšić, Jelovina, Delonga, Jakšić, Hitrec, Pantelić, Perić),
  • font (Katić, Radelj),
  • spring (Lučić, Klaić, Turčinović, Katičić) and
  • baptismal font (Mandić, Benigar).

Croatian translations of Latin rite books refer to this liturgical vessel as baptismal font, but with many variations:

  • istočnikь kršćeniê (since 1317),[41]
  • studenac (since 1570),[42] studenac od krštenja,[43] krsni studenac,[44]
  • kladenac (since 1640),[45] kladenac od krštenja,[46] krsni kladenac,[47] kladenac krštenja,[48]
  • krstionica (since 1729),[49]
  • vrutak,[50] vrutak krštenja (since 1775),[51]
  • krsni zdenac (since 1966),[52][53]

The adverb nempe is translated as:

  • namely (Šišić, Karaman 1930 and 1942, Mandić, Lučić, Jelovina, Delonga, Jakšić, Perić),
  • indeed (Katičić),
  • truly (Radelj),

and other translations omit it.

The object infirmos is translated as:

  • weak (Šišić, Karaman, Ivšić, Mandić, Jelovina, Delonga 1979, Jakšić, Hitrec),
  • patients (Katić),
  • powerless (Lučić, Klaić, Delonga 1996),
  • sick (Benigar, Perić),
  • the infirm (Turčinović, Radelj),
  • doddered (Katičić),
  • superstitious (Pantelić).

The consequential sentence ut reddat illuminatos is translated as:

  • to make them enlightened (Šišić, Karaman 1942, Mandić, Jelovina, Delonga 1979, Jakšić, Perić),
  • to enlighten them (Katić, Karaman 1930 and 1944, Ivšić, Lučić, Klaić, Benigar, Delonga 1979),
  • to bring them back enlightened (Turčinović),
  • in order to return them as enlightened ones (Katičić),
  • to fill them with light (Hitrec),
  • to receive the sacrament of faith (Pantelić),
  • to restore them radiant (Radelj).

The verb expiant is translated as:

  • are washed away (Šišić, Karaman 1942)
  • they repent (Katić),
  • are washed (Karaman, Ivšić, Benigar, Jelovina, Jakšić),
  • they clean (Mandić, Pantelić),
  • are cleaned (Lučić, Delonga 1996, Hitrec),
  • souls are purified (Klaić),
  • the repented are cleansed (Turčinović),
  • they atone (Katičić),
  • they are forgiven (Perić),
  • they expiate (Radelj).

The object scelera sua is translated as:

  • of their evil deeds (Šišić, Karaman, Lučić, Jelovina, Delonga),
  • their sin (Katić),
  • from sins (Ivšić, Hitrec),
  • their sins (Mandić, Pantelić),
  • from crime (Klaić),
  • sins (Benigar),
  • from their misdeeds (Turčinović),
  • from their sins (Jakšić),
  • for the sins (Katičić),
  • their iniquities (Perić),
  • their wickedness Radelj).
Third side of the baptismal font under ultraviolet light. Photo by Pino Gamulin, Croatian Conservation Institute

The attributive clause quod de primo sumpserunt parente is translated as:

  • which they received from their first parent (Šišić, Karaman, Mandić),
  • which they inherited from their first antecedent (Katić),
  • which they obtained from their first father (Ivšić),
  • which they assumed from their first forebear (Lučić, Delonga 1996),
  • they took from the first antecessor (Klaić),
  • adopted from the forefather (Benigar),
  • which they got from their first begetter (Jelovina),
  • which they succeed from their progenitor (Delonga 1979),
  • what they pulled from the first parent (Turčinović),
  • which they accepted from their ancestors (Jakšić),
  • passed upon them from the first father (Katičić),
  • acquired from the first parent (Hitrec),
  • which they dragged from their first parent (Pantelić),
  • which they appropriated from their grandparent (Perić),
  • which they inherited from their first parent (Radelj).

The intentional conjunction ut efficiantur Christicolae is translated as:

  • to become Christians (Šišić, Karaman, Ivšić, Mandić, Lučić, Klaić, Benigar, Jelovina, Delonga, Jakšić),
  • to become worshipers of Christ (Katić),
  • to be made worshipers of Christ (Turčinović),
  • so that they become followers of Christ (Katičić),
  • to become Christians (Hitrec, Perić),
  • to become worshipers of Christ (Pantelić),
  • so that they may become worshipers of Christ (Radelj).

The modal participle salubriter confitendo Trinum perhennem is translated as:

  • savingly confessing the eternal Trinity (Šišić, Katić, Karaman, Ivšić, Mandić, Lučić, Klaić, Jelovina, Delonga, Pantelić),
  • who will confess the eternal Trinity for their own salvation (Benigar),
  • soundly confessing the eternal Trinity (Turčinović 1984),
  • healthfully confessing the Holy Trinity (Jakšić, Belošević),
  • salutary testifying to the eternal Trinity (Katičić),
  • for their salvation they confess the eternal Trinity (Hitrec),
  • salutarily confessing the Triune eternal /God/ (Perić),
  • by salvifically confessing the eternal Trinity (Radelj).
Fifth side of the baptismal font under ultraviolet light. Photo by Pino Gamulin, Croatian Conservation Institute

The main sentence Hoc Iohannes presbyter sub tempore Vuissasclavo duci opus bene compsit, devote is translated as:

  • This work was devoutly made by the presbyter Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Šišić, Karaman 1942),
  • This workmanship was performed well and piously during the reign of Duke Vysheslav by the priest Ivan (Katić),
  • This work was piously done by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Karaman),
  • This labor was accomplished by the presbyter Ivan devotedly during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Ivšić),
  • This work was eagerly furnished by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Krivošić),
  • And this work was piously arranged by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Mandić),
  • This work was skillfully (masterfully) established by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav, out of piety (Lučić, Delonga 1996),
  • This work was admirably embellished by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav, out of piety (Klaić),
  • Under the Duke Vysheslav, Ivan the priest had this work beautifully executed (Benigar),
  • This work was piously produced by the priest Ivan during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Jelovina, Delonga 1979),
  • This work was excellently crafted for the Duke by Ivan the Presbyter during the reign of Vysheslav, with all his devotion (Turčinović 1984),
  • Ivan the priest dedicated this beautifully decorated work during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Jakšić),
  • This work was well decorated by the priest Ivan in the time of Duke Vysheslav, out of piety (Katičić),
  • This pious deed was embellished by the priest Ivan, during the time of Duke Vysheslav (Hitrec),
  • This work of piety was beautifully carved by presbyter Ivan, in the time of Vyssan, the general-in-chief of the Slavs (Pantelić),
  • Presbyter Ivan, during the time of Duke Vysheslav, shaped this good deed out of devotion (Perić),
  • This work was well accomplished by the priest John during the reign of Vysheslav, with a dedication to the Duke (Radelj).

The dedication in honorem videlicet sancti Iohannis Baptistae is translated as:

  • namely in honor to Saint John the Baptist (Šišić, Karaman),
  • in honor of Saint John the Baptist (Katić, Hitrec, Lučić, Delonga 1996, Jakšić, Radelj),
  • and in honor to St. John the Baptist (Ivšić),
  • in honor of, namely, St. John the Baptist (Krivošić),
  • in honor of St. John the Baptist (Mandić, Pantelić, Perić),
  • and in honor of St. John the Baptist (Klaić),
  • in honor to Saint John the Baptist (Benigar),
  • and this is in honor of St. John the Baptist (Jelovina, Delonga 1979),
  • namely in honor of Saint John the Baptist (Katičić).
Sixth side of the baptismal font under ultraviolet light. Photo by Pino Gamulin, Croatian Conservation Institute

The intentional conjunction ut intercedat pro eo clientuloque suo is translated as:

  • to intercede for him and his protégé (i.e., the baptized person) (Šišić, Karaman),
  • to vouch for him, his protégé (Katić),
  • to defend him and his protégé (Ivšić),
  • to intercede for him (Duke Vysheslav) and his protégé (priest Ivan, protégé of St. John the Baptist) (Krivošić),
  • to advocate for him (Duke Vysheslav) and his protégé (priest Ivan) (Mandić),
  • to mediate for him and his ward (Lučić, Delonga 1996),
  • to advocate for him and his protégé (Klaić, Jelovina 1989, Katičić, Hitrec),
  • to intercede for his protégé (Benigar),
  • to intercede on behalf of him and his client (Jelovina 1976, Delonga 1979),
  • to advocate for him together with his wards (Jakšić),
  • to intercede for him, his protégé (Pantelić),
  • to intercede for him (the presbyter) as his protégé (Perić),
  • so that he may intercede for him [the Duke] and his poor client [John] (Radelj).

The meaning of the first two sentences of the inscription

Baptism is:

  • a sacrament necessary for salvation,
  • “purify it by bathing it in the water” (Ephesians 5:26),
  • “bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5),
  • a mark “with which you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30),
  • “the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word”,[54]
  • “the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1213).

This approach is described in Hebrews 10:22: “let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.”

The Greek verb βαπτίζεıν / baptízeın means to plunge, to immerse, to dip, to submerge, to cleanse by immersion or submersion, to wash, to cleanse with water, to bathe, to overwhelm, to baptize, to administer the rite of ablution, to receive baptism. From it the noun βάπτισμα / báptisma, Latin baptismus, English baptism, French baptême. The plunge into the water – which is the central rite of baptism – marks the burial of the catechumen into the death of Christ:

“we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were indeed buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life (Romans 6:3–4).

“You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). The baptized person rises from this, after resurrection with Him, as a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17), a “new creation” (Galatians 6:15).

In Croatian and other Slavic languages, the verb baptize (kr̀stiti) and the noun baptism (kȑst and kr̀štēnje) mean to bring into Christ, to make someone Christ’s, Christlike (according to the older form for Christ – Krst, preserved in Ìsukrst).

Since in baptism they receive the Word which is “the true Light, which enlightens every man” (John 1:9), after being thus “enlightened” (Hebrews 10:32), the baptized become “sons of the light and sons of the day” (1 Thessalonians 5:5), “light in the Lord” and “children of light” (Ephesians 5:8). Before that, they were weak, miserable, wretched, sinful, but when they believed, came to know God, decided for Him, and were baptized – they saw, they understood, they received inner strength from faith and grace; they were enlightened, they experienced enlightenment, they were illuminated by inner fervor, they became happy, and all of this is encompassed by the word: radiant.

In the sacrament of baptism, water is used to wash the body, signifying an internal cleansing from sin.

The purpose of the font of baptismal water has been described already by the prophet Isaiah (765 BC – 695 BC):

“Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil; learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow. (…) Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow. Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool. If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land; But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you” (Isaiah 1:16–20).

Interpreting this pericope, Saint Justin wrote in the year 155:

“We have received such a meaning of this matter from the apostles. After we were indeed born of a certain necessity from a moist seed, by the mutual union of our parents, and were brought up in evil conduct and wicked customs, so that we might not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge, and that we might receive from Him the remission of the sins, which we had previously committed, we enter into the water. Over the person who desires to be regenerated, and has done penance for his sins, the name of the parent and Lord God of all is pronounced, and we call Him thus only when we lead him [the convert] into the bath to be baptized. For there is no one who can name the ineffable God, or if anyone dares to say that he has a name for Him, he is desperately mad. And this bath (lavacrum) is called enlightenment (illuminatio), because it enlightens in the mind those who accept this [catechetical] instruction. But he, who is enlightened, baptized, washed and absolved from sins, does so in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets announced all things concerning Jesus”.[55]

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) says:

“Of the two births, that is, the first [from the mother on earth] and the last [for heaven], there is no place now to discuss: but we will speak of the middle one, and at this moment necessary for us, by which the day of light received its name. Baptism is, therefore, the brightening of souls, the changing of life for the better, ‘an appeal to God for a clear conscience’ (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is the aid of our weakness. Baptism is the abjection of the flesh, the seeking of the Spirit, the participation of the Word, the correction of lies, the flood of sins, the communication of light, the oppression of darkness. Baptism is: a vehicle to God, a pilgrimage with Christ, a support for faith, the perfection of the mind, the key to the heavenly kingdom, the change of life, the expulsion of slavery, the release of chains, the conversion of the composition into a better state. What more is there to mention? Baptism is the most illustrious and preeminent of all the benefits of God. For, as some are called the Holy of Holies, and the Song of Songs (that is, that they may be more widely spread and encompass more, and have a special dignity). In the same way, baptism is also called enlightenment, because it surpasses all other enlightenments in holiness.

But just as Christ, the giver of this gift, is called by many and diverse names, so also the gift itself is called by various names. Whether this happens to us because of a certain wonderful joy of the thing (for it usually happens that those who love a thing most intensely, willingly usurp the names themselves); or because the manifold usefulness of this benefit has also given us many appellations. We call it a gift, grace, baptism, anointing, illumination, the garment of incorruption, the bath of regeneration, the seal, and finally we call it by any most excellent name. It is called a gift because it is given to those who have contributed nothing before. It is called a grace, because it is also given even to debtors. It is called a baptism, because sin is buried in water. It is called an anointing, because it is sacred and royal (for these were those who were anointed). It is called an illumination, because it is splendor and brightness. It is called a garment, because it is a veil for our ignominy. It is called a bath, because it washes away. It is called a seal, because it is preservation, and the seal of God’s dominion. The heavens congratulate it. The angels celebrate it because of its kinship with splendor; it bears the image of that blessedness. We would indeed celebrate it with praises and hymns, but we cannot because of the dignity of the thing”.[56]

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) says:

“Christ communicates his goods with all Christians, just as the power of the head is communicated to all the members. This communication takes place through the sacraments of the Church, in which operates the power of the Passion of Christ, which in turn operates for the conferring of grace unto the remission of sins. These sacraments of the Church are seven in number. The first is baptism, which is a certain spiritual regeneration. Just as there can be no physical life, unless man is first born in the flesh, so spiritual life or grace cannot be had, unless man is spiritually reborn. This rebirth is effected through baptism: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). It must be known that, just as a man can be born but once, so only once is he baptized. Hence, the holy fathers[57] added: I confess one baptism. The power of baptism consists in this, that it cleanses someone of all sins as regards both their guilt and their punishment. For this reason, no penance is imposed on those who are baptized, no matter to what extent they had been sinners. Moreover, if they should die immediately after baptism, they would without delay go to heaven. Another result is that, although only priests may baptize ex officio, yet any one may baptize in a case of necessity, provided that the proper form of baptism is used, which is: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This sacrament receives its power from the Passion of Christ: all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death (Rom 6:3). Accordingly, just as Christ was in the sepulcher for three days, so there is a threefold immersion in water.”[58]

In the Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 69, Article 5, St. Thomas asks the question: “Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit – incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness – are unfittingly set down as effects of Baptism?” In relation to enlightenment, he notes a difficulty: “Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to Ephesians 3:8–9: To me the least of all the saints, is given this grace (…) to enlighten all men. But teaching by the catechism precedes Baptism. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism.” He counters this by saying that Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagite (On the Church‘s Hierarchy, Chapter II) ascribes enlightenment to Baptism. Aquinas answers:

“By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life, which is proper to the faithful of Christ. (…) Now, life is only in those members that are united to the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in Christ, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive sense and movement from the material head, so from their spiritual Head, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting in the knowledge of truth, and spiritual movement, which results from the instinct of grace. Hence it is written: We have seen Him (…) full of grace and truth; and of His fulness we all have received (John 1:14-16). And it follows from this that the baptized are enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful by Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace. (…) Reply to Objection 2. The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by catechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing their hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according to John 6:45: It is written in the prophets: They shall all be taught of God (Isaiah 45:13).”[59]

The Roman Catechism (1564) teaches:

“This Sacrament the holy Fathers designate also by other names. (…) [I]t was termed Illumination, because by the faith which we profess in Baptism the heart is illumined; for as the Apostle also says, alluding to the time of Baptism, Call to mind the former days, wherein, being illumined, you endured a great fight of afflictions (Hebrews 10:32)” (part 2, chapter II, paragraph 4).

Interpretation of the Croatian bishops from 1976

In the pastoral letter Thirteen Centuries of Christianity of the Croats of 7 March 1976, the Croatian bishops (bishops from the territory of present-day Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Macedonia) point out:

The Baptismal Font of Duke Vysheslav – The Importance of Personal Faith

14. On the Baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav, that splendid monument and symbol of our Croatian forefathers’ christening, the following words have been engraved: »This font receives the infirm in order to return them enlightened. Here they become purified, in repentance, of their misdeeds, inherited from the first parent, to become worshippers of Christ, salvifically confessing the eternal Trinity«. This inscription might have been inspired by a typologic interpretation of the early Christian theology of the Gospel’s report on how Jesus healed a man blind from his birth (John 9). Its inscription is worth to be considered today as a message for us from our ancient times – a message for the members of the Croatian Christian community in our times.

Presbyter John – mentioned on the inscription – choosing the text to be engraved on the limited space of the baptismal font, had to take something from the vast Christian teaching he considered important, and what in the society of his time was considered the most significant for the sacrament of baptism, so that this teaching would always be, engraved in stone, in front of the eyes of all who were baptized at this baptismal font. Therefore, those lines can serve us as actual testimony of what our forefathers considered baptism to be, and what they considered essential in baptism.

By all means, at baptism one is purfied of sin, namely of the original sin, this is what those lines clearly show. But – to say it in a picturesque way – our monument is crying out that baptism is closely connected with a live personal faith; a faith that gives true knowledge and makes a person enlightened, not to be spiritually inable and blind; a faith that is publicly confessed. Only by confessing the eternal Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, a baptized person becomes a true and genuine Christian, one who »honours Christ« (Christicola), and does not merely bear the name of »Christian« or »Catholic« as a meaningless title, a bare name which is not in accordance with life’s reality. What a great and important topic for Croatian Christians to examine their conscience about during this our jubilee year!

Dear parents, grandfathers and grandmothers, our childern are not baptized just to be forgiven of the original sin and in order to be let into Heaven if they, by chance, die while they are still infants; they are not baptized merely to be outwardly counted to the group of people calling themselves Catholics, or to testify to their traditional affiliation with the Croatian people; but even less a reason for their baptism is the confirmation of a beautiful Croatian traditional custom that had grown to our hearts through history, just to neglect and miss what is the very essence, i. e. that those childern may come to know the true faith, that they may become enlightened followers of Christ Jesus, that they become enabled for a »healthy« and salvatory confession of the eternal Trinity.

We are not faithful, neither to God nor to our forefathers if, although we have seen to it that our childern be taken to be baptized, but later on we do not care whether they receive a true instruction in the learning of the Gospel, so that the light they had received by baptism as a sprout could flash up in their hearts and minds, and so that they could become true and living worshippers of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Faith Should Always Be Understood More Deeply

17. The short inscription on the Vysheslav baptismal font warns us that in accepting Christianity our forefathers primarily saw a higher enlightenment, that is, a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of God and man, of the meaning of life, of the true sublime destiny of man, of the mysterious value of the human person and his existence, which is not limited only to a arduous temporal duration, but is meant to blossom in the exuberant fullness of the life of each person in unfathomable communion with the three Persons of the eternal Trinity. This deeper knowledge of God’s and human realities can be achieved by man only through the gracious gift of baptismal faith; without it we are powerless and blind to true divine reality.

However, man must not be satisfied with merely accepting the minimal in our Christian faith, so much so that he can only consider himself a Christian, but is swayed by every wind and gropes as if in the dark. Our forefathers warn us that our faith must be enlightened, that blind faith alone is not enough: we must walk in our faith joyfully as in the daytime, full of light, capable of shining to others. The grace that enables us to have such a deeper knowledge has been given to our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has taken up residence in us, but it is necessary that we constantly enlighten ourselves with the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, that we joyfully and steadfastly listen to the Word of God that He directs to us through the sacred tekxs and through the interpretation of living Magisterium, that we sift within ourselves the words of God’s message, constantly comparing one with another, constantly arousing in ourselves a desire for pure rational milk without guile – as the Chief Apostle says – so that through it you may grow into salvation, for you have tasted that the Lord is sweet (1 Peter 2:2–3).”[60]

Date

The literature points out that the first difficulty in interpreting the baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav is that it has no date. However, this does not make it inauthentic in the least. Since 1888, most historians, archaeologists, art historians, paleographers and linguists have placed its creation at the end of the 8th century A.D.

Drawing published by Kukuljević Sakcinski in 1857

Here is how the authors dated the Vysheslav baptismal font.
Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1853): “judging by the work and the inscription, from the 9th or 10th century”.[61]
Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1854): “from the 9th or 10th century”.[62]
Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1857): “from the 9th century”.[63]
Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1874): “around 870–900”.[64]
Antal Stöhr (1876): “from the 9th century”.[65]
Franjo Rački (1877): “refers to the 9th century”.[66]
Ivan Mihajlovič Martinov (1879): “from the end of the 9th century or the beginning of the 10th century”.[67]
Raffaele Cattaneo (1888): “from the 8th century, and originates from the mainland”.[68]
Franjo Rački (1893): “in the 9th or at the earliest towards the end of the 8th century”.[69]
Ernst Alfred Stückelberg (1896): “transition from the 8th to the 9th century”.[70]
Luka Jelić (1911): “around the year 800”.[71]
Ferdo Šišić (1914): “Duke Vysheslav, whose… baptismal font… belongs, according to experts, based on the type of individual letters in the inscription, unconditionally to the end of the 8th, or the beginning of the 9th century”.[72]
Ferdo Šišić (1914 and 1925): “around 800”.[73]
Miloje Vasić (1922): “Vysheslav’s baptismal font from Nin… was built… during the reign of the Croatian duke Vysheslav, who ruled at the turn of the 8th to the 9th century”.[74]
Ljubo Karaman (1925): “It is logical to assume that the mass baptism of Croats followed only after the organization of the Church in the neighboring Dalmatian Latin cities; an assumption that finds its best confirmation in the oldest Christian Croatian monument, the baptismal font with the inscription of Duke Vysheslav, which due to its style and decoration must be dated around the year 800”.[75]
Josef Strzygowski (1927 and 1929): “around the year 800”.[76]
Ljubo Karaman (1930, 1939, 1942, 1943 and 1960): “The baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav, once in Nin (around the year 800)”.[77]
Antun Grgin (1933): “around the year 800”.[78]
Oton Knezović (1935): “around the year 800”.[79]
Viktor Živić (1935): “from the end of the 8th century”.[80]
Miho Barada (1938): “from the 8th (eighth) century”.[81]
Emerich Schaffran (1941): “The baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav… once in the cruciform church in Nin, is in the style of Lombard art around 750 in the ornamentation and in the capitals of the columns, and this is even matched by the inscription in the ductus of Lombard descriptions, such as that of the ciborium in San Giorgio di Valpolicella“.[82]
Stjepan Krivošić (1943): “from the time around 800”.[83]
Mirko Šeper (1943): “probably falls into the 8th century”.[84]
Krunoslav Draganović and Josip Buturac (1944): “from the 8th century”.[85]
Bogo Grafenauer (1952): “the main period of Christianization of the Croats falls into the period around 800 and several decades after that. This is what we can conclude, at least based on all the archaeological and written monuments known to date”.[86]
Mirko Šeper (1958): “I am of the opinion that the baptistery of Duke Vysheslav should also be dated to the 11th century”.[87]
Ivan Ostojić (1963): “around 800”.[88]
Vladimir Gvozdanović (1969): “around 800”.[89]
Stjepan Gunjača (1973): “If, as we must, we assume that the Vysheslav baptistery can be dated to three decades before 800 and to three decades after” based on the only indicator, which is the style of its decoration; “so the baptistery was made sometime before the end of the third decade of the 9th century”.[90]
Antun Ivandija and Josip Buturac (1973): “from the 8th or 9th century”.[91]
Mate Suić (1979): “it is certain that the baptistery was made sometime around the year 800”.[92]
Giuseppe Cuscito (1985): “from the beginning of the 9th century”.[93]
Ivo Petricioli (1990): “from the 9th century”.[94]
Nikola Jakšić (1991): “Vysheslav’s baptismal font, 8th/9th century”.[95]
Miljenko Jurković (1992): “8th/9th century”.[96]
Vladimir Posavec (1996): “the baptismal font on which the name of Duke Vysheslav is preserved, with its stylistic characteristics, indicates with great probability that it was made at the beginning of the 9th century.” … the baptismal font and the reign of Duke Vysheslav should be dated to the third decade of the 9th century”.[97]
Nikola Jakšić (1997): “The baptismal font of the priest Ivan from the time of Duke Vysheslav, 9th century”.[98]
Janko Belošević (1997): “from the beginning of the 9th century”.[99]
Tomislav Raukar (1997): “during the reign of Duke Vysheslav around the year 800”.[100]
Ivo Perić (1997): “at the turn of the 8th to the 9th century”.[101]
Radoslav Katičić (1998): “most likely around the year 800″.[102]
Milko Brković (1998): “around 800”.[103]
Vedrana Delonga (2000): “at the very end of the 8th century or around the year 800″.[104]
Nikola Jakšić (2002 and 2015): “in the period from 880 to 882”.[105]
Josip Bratulić and Stjepan Damjanović (2005): „8th/9th century”.[106]
Hrvoje Matković (2006): “at the turn of the 8th and 9th centuries… around the year 800″.[107]
Nikola Jakšić (2015): “should be dated to the last quarter of the 9th century”.[108]
Mirjana Matijević Sokol (2020): “can be placed in the early 9th century”.[109]
Ante Uglešić (2022): “between 876 and 878”.[110]

Drawing published by Eitelberger in 1857

The 8th century is unanimously indicated as the period when the monument was created:

  • by the size of the baptismal font as evidence of its purpose: for the baptism of adults by immersion,
  • by braided ornamentation and other decorative details,
  • by the method of carving letters, ligatures, contraction and omission of letters,
  • by the late antique, not scholastic Latin,
  • by the occurerence of the word for ruler: the duke (dux), and not the king (rex).

The idea of Mirko Šeper, from 1958, that the baptismal font dates from the 11th century was refuted by Ljubo Karaman in 1960.[111] Claims repeated by Nada Klaić were refuted by Hrvoje Šošić and Radoslav Katičić.[112] Later claims by Nikola Jakšić and Ante Uglešić, that it dates from the era after Trpimir I (who was the Duke of the Croats from 845 to 864) were shown to be absurd by Tomislav Raukar (1933–2020):

“Doubts about the dating of this monument are not so well-founded as to deny its role in the Christianization of Croats after the year 800. The baptismal font is a testimony to the main wave of Christianization of Croats. The basic message of its inscription: ‘This font receives the weak to enlighten them’ would be incomprehensible if we were to date the baptismal font to a time when there could no longer be any widespread Christianization. For the question must be asked: how could we explain the content of the inscription on the Vysheslav baptistery after the time of Trpimir or Branimir?”[113]

Advocates of the thesis of a later origin of the baptismal font, assume that the priest John (who carried out missions for Svatopluk, the duke of Great Moravia, and Branimir, the Duke of the Littoral Croatia), and the priest John (who built the baptismal font) are the same person. However, John is too common a name for such an invention to be plausible. In addition, they unnecessarily link the construction of the baptismal font to the bishop’s church; if priests have been administering baptism since the 8th century, it was not necessary to wait for the establishment of the diocese in Nin to have a baptismal font installed there. Finally, the postponement of the construction of the baptismal font to the eighth or ninth decade of the 9th century, means that it clashes with the mission of the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius. So, it makes no sense for the inscription to be in Latin script and in Latin language, when they wrote in Glagolitic script and Church Slavonic language.

Drawing published by Cattaneo in 1888.

The literature points out that the next difficulty in interpreting the Vysheslav baptismal font is that Duke Vysheslav is not mentioned anywhere else in written monuments, manuscripts, or stone inscriptions. However, as early as the last century, Raukar answered this. He said: “The fact that a duke by that name is not mentioned in any other source could be a reason to put him, and therefore to date the baptismal font to the earliest possible period, the beginning of the 9th century, about which the surviving written sources generally speak sparingly, rather than evidence of his later dating”.[114]

Descriptions of the baptismal font in Nin

Finally, the third difficulty regarding the Vysheslav baptismal font is that it is not known for certain from where it arrived to the Capuchin convent on Giudecca in 1749. The claims of some authors that it had been on Giudecca “forever” or “from time immemorial” until 1853 are unfounded prima facie, because the Capuchin Order was founded only in 1525 (Pope Clement VII recognized it in 1528), and the Capuchin convent on the island of Giudecca began to be built in 1576. The Capuchins on Giudecca had no continuity because the monasteries in Venice were abolished in 1810, including this one, and the friars resettled there in 1822.

The first evidence that the Vysheslav baptismal font was located on Giudecca dates back to 1749. On the other hand, the records of the visitations of the Nin diocese from 1499, 1536, 1579, 1603, 1625, 1654, 1668, 1678, 1710 and 1727; as well as a record from 1793 and a historian of Zadar Christianity from 1880, prove that the marble baptismal font was in Nin until 1746.[115] These testimonies emphasize:

“To this cathedral church (of St. Anselm in Nin), from the outside is attached the chapel of Saint Ambrose, and to the same chapel is attached another chapel of Saint John, in which there is a baptismal font. – Cui ecclesia cathedralis ab extra adheret capela Sancti Ambrosii, eiusdem Capella alia adheret Sancti Johannis, in qua est fons baptismalis” (Archpriest Marko Antun Rajmund, 21 January 1499).

“The baptistery located in the ancient sacristy of the (cathedral) church (in Nin) was visited, and it is a large stone vessel covered with a lid. – Visum est baptisterium quod est in antiqua sacristia ecclesiae et est vas magnum lapideum coopertum” (Bishop Agostino Valier, 21 May 1579).

“He visited the baptistery in a chapel to the left of the main altar, which he found to be indecent as if it were a cistern [water tank] – Visitavit baptisterium in quadam capella a parte sinistra altaris maioris, quod reperit indecens in modum cisternae” (Bishop Michele Priuli, 20 May 1603).

“Then he visited the baptismal font, which is properly maintained, as well as the holy oils – Deinde visitavit fontem baptismalem, decenter servatum, prout et sancta olea” (Archbishop Ottaviano Garzadori, 22 March 1625).

“The baptismal font is located in the sacristy of the cathedral – fons baptismalis in Sacristia cathedralis” (Bishop Franjo de Grassi, 15 May 1670).

“In the middle was a stone basin into which one descended by five steps. It was intended to administer baptismal waters by immersion, as represented by its figure which in part survived many subversions. This remnant of antiquity, because it was falling down and to make way for the square, was capriciously altered and demolished in the year 1746; for the site of which the Representative granted space to erect a new sacristy behind the high altar, in place of the old one, was itself restricted. Let those who love Nin’s homeland therefore mourn the total destruction of even the last ecclesiastical remnant (…) and much more, the loss of the basin with inscriptions and coats of arms dug up, and elsewhere of human greed with other tombstones removed with that private method and profound silence, which is usual to be observed in similar arbitrary provisions” (the Filippi Manuscript, 1793).[116]

  • “As the distinguished historian of Nin, Dr. Giovanni Cassio [1620–1692], narrates… Adjacent to the cathedral (in Nin), on the north side, there was the very ancient Baptistery of round shape, which was the only one in the whole city. Four small chapels adorned its interior; in the center, it had a marble baptismal font decorated with religious emblems in bas-relief, into which one descended by five steps, an undoubted indication of its antiquity which dated back to the time of baptism by immersion, that is, before the tenth century. This precious building was totally and barbarously destroyed in 1746, and was replaced by a stone basin, supported by a pedestal also of stone, located in the left internal corner of the church.” (Fr. Carlo Federico Bianchi, 1880).[117]

The baptismal font disappeared from Nin during the time when Toma Nekić (1690–1754) was the bishop of Nin. He was born in the hamlet of Nekići in Jasenica below the hill of Bobija (Podbobija) in the diocese of Nin. He studied philosophy and theology in Fermo (Italy). He was ordained as a subdeacon, deacon and priest in July 1714. He was the vicar general of the bishop of Nin, Andrija Balbi, since 1719, archdeacon from 1720 and since September 1742, the capitular vicar of the Church of Nin. He was consecrated as the bishop of Nin on 10 February 1743. In order to expand the sacristy of the cathedral church in Nin, he had the chapel/baptistery of St. John the Baptist demolished, from which the stone of Duke Vysheslav disappeared at that time. It was probably taken to Venice on that occasion. In his old age he became blind and lived in Zadar.[118]

Description of the baptismal font in Venice

The Church of the Most Holy Redeemer is located on the shore of the Giudecca Island.[119] Next to it, there is the Capuchin convent, and behind it is the convent garden, which has preserved its original size (about one hectare); olive trees and vines, fruit trees, vegetables and medicinal herbs are still grown there today. The Vysheslav baptismal font, placed into the wall of the convent as a water tank, was described by the Friulian scholar Federico Altan (1714–1767) in Italian in 1749, and then in Latin in 1753. He also published most of its inscription. This is how he describes it in the book published in 1749:

“a certain inscription, which can be read on an ancient baptismal font existing in Venice in the convent owned by your venerable Capucin Order… I will begin with the inscription of the aforementioned ancient baptismal font, which is of hexagonal shape, or better said, is composed of six parallelograms around, and of two bases, which have as many sides as the pallalegrams themselves. It is regrettable that the aforementioned inscription cannot be entirely read because part of the stone on which it is carved is embedded in the wall” (1749).[120]

Furthermore, this is his description in the book published in 1753:

“A certain inscription which is read in Venice in an ancient baptismal font, which exists in the convent of your venerable Order… I will begin with the said inscription of the ancient baptismal font, which it is certainly regrettable that it cannot be read in its entirety, because part of the marble on which it is engraved is compacted and hidden within a certain mass of wall”.[121]

Proponents of the idea that Vysheslav baptismal font was never in Nin, but that it had been in Venice “always”, did not pay attention to the fact that the convent on Giudecca was founded only in 1576, and that the island served as a vegetable garden and a landfill for nearby Venice. In the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era, the most famous thing on it was Monte dei corni – a hill of horns made of animal waste. If it is not certain that Vysheslav’s font was in Nin until 1746, it is also certain that there is no evidence that it was on Giudecca before 1749 and it is certain that it could not have reached the convent on Giudecca before 1576.

Even without these arguments, Tomislav Raukar concluded:

“I think that it is reasonable to assume, cautiously but also well-foundedly, that the baptismal font with the name of Duke Vysheslav could have been transferred to Venice only from the area ruled by Venice from the 15th to the 18th centuries. That is, primarily from the area between the Zrmanja and Cetina rivers, which means from the area where the core of the Croatian duchy was located in the early Middle Ages. This further points to the very likely assumption that Vysheslav could only have been a Croatian duke… As much as the interpretation of the Vysheslav baptismal font necessarily relies on more or less convincing assumptions, the conclusion that the baptismal font dates from the time of the main wave of Christianization of Croats, that is, from the beginning of the 9th century, may still be considered a guiding chronological basis in the analysis of this monument. This in itself excludes dating the baptismal font to the 11th century, as suggested in historiography, especially since in that century even Croatian rulers did not bear the title dux, with the exception of the specific distinction of the title duxrex in Zvonimir’s oath from the year 1075. Therefore, in the range of opposing theses on Vysheslav’s baptismal, I lean towards the views of older Croatian historiography… I consider the most acceptable conclusion that the main wave of Christianization of Croats ‘fell during the reign of Prince Vysheslav’ around the year 800 and that ‘the baptistery is a memorial to that important event’ (Ferdo Šišić, Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije, Zagreb, 1914, p. 120)“.[122]

Vysheslav‘s baptismal font as a model for others

The hexagonal baptismal font from the parish church of St. Michael in Giornico (canton of Ticino, Switzerland), now located in the church of St. Nicholas in Giornico, has a procession cross on the front. It is as if the baptismal font of Duke Vysheslav inspired a self-taught stonemason to make one like it in the 12th century. After the cessation of adult baptisms, this baptismal font also served for a long time as a fountain and flowerpot until it was moved to the church of St. Nicholas.

The six-sided baptismal font in the cathedral church of St. Justus in Trieste from 13th century.

Casts and copies

A mold of the Vysheslav baptismal font was made in 1944 in Zagreb. The cast from that mold was casted in plaster in July 1948, and reinforced with hemp and wood, and kept in the Glyptotheque of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. Later casts were made and are located in the Museum of Nin’s Antiquities in Nin (1958), in the Basilica of St. Anastasia in Zadar (2003), and in the Church of the Croatian Martyrs in Udbina (2010). Copies of the Vysheslav baptistery are placed: in the southwestern part of the Cathedral of St. Stephen I in Hvar (gift of Ivan Zvonimir Čičak, 1984), in the Croatian National Shrine of Our Lady of Bistrica in Marija Bistrica (made for the National Eucharistic Congress in 1984, it was also used on the eve of the National Eucharistic Congress in the Cathedral of Zagreb, and later it was used as the base of the altar at the Hippodrome in Zagreb where Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass with a million faithfull on 11 September 1994, and then loaned to the Oratorium of Blessed Alojzije Stepinac on the Kaptol in Zagreb for the Jubilee of 2025), also in front of the parish church of Sts. Simon and Jude Thaddeus in Markuševac (northeastern part of Zagreb) in 1985 (installed by parish priest Krešimir Ivšić /1955–1989/ as a living spring in the park in front of the church), in the park on the Republic of Croatia Square (Plaza República de Croacia) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1997, in the Queen of Peace parish church in Norval (Halton, Ontario, Canada) in 2008, in the parish grounds in Kruševo near Mostar in 2011, and in the Croatian Cultural Garden in Cleveland (Ohio, United States of America) in 2014.

On a fresco

In 1940, the painter Jozo Kljaković (1889–1969) painted the fresco “The Baptism of the Croats during the times of Duke Vysheslav” in the chapel of Sts. Fabian and Sebastian of the parish church of St. Mark in the Upper Town in Zagreb, at the votive site of Gradec in Zagreb. In Duke Vysheslav, who humbly kneels before his baptismal font to receive baptism, Kljaković depicted himself. The priest-baptist is in ceremonial attire, as is the Duchess on the right, and the eight men, two women and three children in the scene are dressed in Croatian folk costumes. For the sake of chastity, the painter depicted the distribution of the first sacrament as baptism by affusion, in front of the baptismal font, although it was made for baptism in it, by immersion, so that the baptized person, stripped of his old clothes, is baptized, cleansed of original sin and all his personal sins, and rises again from the water and then dressed in new clothes.

On banknotes

The Vysheslav baptismal font appears on the right side of the 5,000 Croatian kuna banknote, which was in circulation from 1 September 1943 to 9 July 1945, and was designed by Vladimir Kirin (1894–1963).

A watermark with the motif of the Vysheslav baptismal font is embedded in the white surface of the banknotes designed by Zlatko Jakuš (born in 1945): of 500 (purple-red) and 1,000 Croatian dinars (purple-blue), which have been in circulation since 23 December 1991; of 2,000 Croatian dinars, which has been in circulation since 1 October 1992; of 5,000 Croatian dinars, which has been in circulation since 1 August 1992; of 10,000 Croatian dinars, which has been in circulation since 10 May 1993; of 50,000 Croatian dinars, which was in circulation since 18 June 1993 and of 100,000 Croatian dinars, which has been in circulation since 22 November 1993 and which were all in circulation until 30 May 1994.

In the educational system

The Vysheslav baptismal font has been part of Catholic religious education in primary schools since 1991. It is mentioned in the fourth grade of primary school in Croatia, and until 2019 it was also taught in the eighth grade of primary school. In secondary school, the Vysheslav baptistmal font was taught in religious education in the second year from 2004 to 2019. Although according to the current 2019 curriculum (Official gazette, br. 10/19), students should explore and evaluate the importance of Vysheslav’s baptismal font in the second-year, Duke Vysheslav, his font and baptism of the Croatian people are not mentioned in the second-year textbook for secondary level education.

Thought instead of conclusion

“We Christians, in the name of our homeland, love not only the land, not only the blood that is our common heritage, not only the national genius; in the name of our homeland, we love also the peace of the Gospel and the baptismal font… past memories, future hope…”.[123]

For those interested in more on this topic: Bibliography on the Vysheslav Baptismal Font.[124]


Text in Croatian


[1] Cf. Aleksa Benigar, Alojzije Stepinac hrvatski kardinal, Rim: Ziral, 1974, pp. 251–252; Juraj Batelja, Čemu osporavanje ninskog podrijetla Višeslavove krstionice: »Iz kojeg li si izvora, narode hrvatski?«, Blaženi Alojzije Stepinac (Zagreb), 23/2016 / 7. December 2016, pp. 73–79; Vlaho Raić, Krstionica Višeslava. Netočan prikaz milanske „Letture“, Obzor (Zagreb), 76/1936, nr. 39 / Monday 17 February 1936, p. 2; Liturgos, Nekoliko sugestija za proslavu 1300 godišnjice krštenja Hrvata, Život s Crkvom (Hvar), 6/1939–1940, nr. 12, pp. 326–329; Liturgos, Višeslavova krstionica treba da dođe u Hrvatsku. Zanimljivi prijedlozi Liturgosa u časopisu „Život s Crkvom“, Hrvatska straža (Zagreb), 12/1940, nr. 244 / 25 October 1940, p. 4; Zakonska odredba o zamjeni dviju slika Vittoria Carpaccia iz Galerije Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zagrebu za krstionicu hrvatskog kneza Višeslava iz Museo Civico Correr u Mletcima, Narodne novine, nr. 114 of 22 May 1942; Krstionica kneza Višeslava predana predstavniku Hrvatske Akademije u zamjenu za dvije slike Vittora Carpaccia, Nova Hrvatska (Zagreb), 2/1942, nr. 121 / 27 May 1942, p. 4; Krstionica hrvatskog kneza Visešlava vraćena je iz Mletaka Hrvatskoj akademiji znanosti i umjetnosti u Zagrebu u zamjenu za dvije slike Vittoria Carpaccia, Hrvatski narod (Zagreb), 4/1942, nr. 434 / Wednesday, 27 May 1942, p. 4; Značajna svečanost u Mletcima u duhu hrvatsko-talijanskog prijateljstva, Hrvatski narod (Zagreb), 4/1942, nr. 434 / Wednesday, 27 May 1942, p. 4; Zakoni, zakonske odredbe i naredbe, knjiga XVII.: proglašene od 13. svibnja do 1. lipnja 1942, ed. Adam Mataić, Zagreb: Kugli, 1942, pp. 158–159; Ivan Bach, Značenje krstionice kneza Višeslava za povijest hrvatske uljudbe, Hrvatski narod (Zagreb), 4/1942, nr. 444 / Sunday, 7 June 1942, p. 6; Ljerka Dulibić – Iva Pasini Tržec, Dokumenti o zamjeni dviju slika Vittorea Carpaccia iz Strossmayerove galerije za Višeslavovu, odnosno Krstionicu svećenika Ivana iz Muzeja Correr, Ars Adriatica, 7/2017, pp. 269–280.

[2] Radoslav Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1998, p. 218.

[3] Janko Belošević, Počeci kršćanstva kod Hrvata u svjetlu arheološke građe, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti (Zadar), 1997, volume 36, nr. 23, p. 132.

[4] Glas Koncila, 6 January 2025

[5] Franjo Glavinić, Czvit szvetih to yeszt sivot szvetih od kih Rimsska czrikua cini sspominak prenesen i sslosen na haruatsski yezik catholicansskim obicayem, Venetiis 1628, p. 257a; Jeronim Kavanjin, Bogatstvo i ubožtvo, Zagreb, 1861, p. 306; Mate Jurinović, Klesarska radionica, Naša sloga (Trieste), 29/1898, nr. 42 / 17 November 1898, p. 3; nr. 43 / 24 November 1898, p. 3; nr. 44 / 1 December 1898, p. 5; nr. 45 / 8 December 1898, p. 5; nr. 47 / 22 December 1898, p. 4; nr. 48 / 29 December 1898, p. 4; Sv. mjesta i kuća Marijina, Ružičnjak svetoga Franje Serafskoga (Trsat), 4/1899, nr. 4, p. 57; Talijani opisani od jednoga svojega, Naša sloga (Pula), 32/1901, nr. 82 / 18 October 1901, p. 1; Iz Novevasi, Naša sloga (Pula), 33/1902, nr. 47 / 20. VI. 1902, p. 3; Andrew C. Jankovich, Croatian-English Dialogue And Dictionary, Chicago, Illionis, 1901, p. 89: “Krstionik baptismal font“; Skok po Dalmaciji g. 1901., Naša sloga (Pula), 39/1906, nr. 42 / 18 October 1906, p. 1; Voloski kotar: Kastavske vijesti, Naša sloga (Pula), 41/1908, nr. 48 / 24 September 1908, p. 2; Kako je negda bilo u Istri, Hrvatski list (Pula) 1/1915, nr. 14 / 16 July 1915, p. 1; Francis Aloysius Bogadek, Standard Croatian-English and English-Croatian Dictionary, Pittsburgh, Pa., Croatian Bookstore Joseph Marohnich, 1917, p. 56: “Krstionik baptismal font“; Josef Strzygowski, O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1927, p. 49, 50, 161, 170, 191, 226, 228; Josip Frančišković, Posveta stolne crkve u Senju, Bogoslovska smotra (Zagreb), 19/1931, nr. 3, p. 342; Branko Fučić, Glagoljski natpis iz Šterne, Slovo (Zagreb), 11-12/1962, p. 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 and 179.

[6] The suffix -onik denotes a thing. The following nouns have the same formation: goriònīk, hladiònīk, kadiònīk, praònīk, pržiònīk, smrzavaònīk, svjetiònīk, točiònīk and umivaònīk.

[7] On the request of the Croatian Institute for Conservation, Fabrizio Antonelli, professor of applied petrography and archaeometry at the University of Iuav in Venice, determined the mineralogical-petrographic and isotopic characteristics of a sample of the Vysheslav baptismal font on 28 October 2022, and concluded that it originated from Saraylar.

[8][8] In 2021, the Department of Stone Sculptures in Split of the Croatian Institute for Conservation photographed the Vysheslav baptismal font under ultraviolet light. It also conducted a laboratory analysis of the discovered pigment, plaster and stone (Godišnji izvještaj Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda za 2021. godinu, Zagreb, 2021, p. 137), and in 2022, it determined that the Vysheslav baptismal font contained deposits of calcite, dolomite and gypsum, as well as traces of quartz. A 3D laser scan of the current condition of the Vysheslav baptismal font was also conducted (Godišnji izvještaj Hrvatskog restauratorskog zavoda za 2022. godinu, Zagreb, 2022, p. 122).

[9] English processional cross, French croix de procession, Spanish cruz procesional (ophodni križ), German Vortragekreuz (leading cross), Italian croce astile (cross on a pole). In the Roman rite it is held with the Crucifix facing forward, and in the Ambrosian rite it is faced backwards, towards the priest. The Vysheslav baptismal font has a carved processional cross, as carried in the procession in which the catechumens went to the baptistery. Following it, they could only see the reverse side of the processional cross, which confirms that it is a baptistery for the Roman rite. The figure of Christ on the cross would be superfluous in the scene of baptism when God is acting in the person of the baptizer, as the one who absolves, forgives and adopts.

[10] Stjepan Ivšić, Grafija imena kneza Višeslava na njegovoj krstionici, Nastavni vjesnik (Zagreb), 50 (1941–1942), nr. 6 / July-August 1942, p. 411: “The phoneme i in our name Vysheslav reflects the old phoneme y (jery). This phoneme, originates from the Indo-European long u, once pronounced as a high middle lingual delabialized u, as it is still pronounced in Russian today. In Polish, the former phoneme y moved forward, and is now usually pronounced as a somewhat retracted closed e, and in Croatian and Czech languages, where it is written y and pronounced like any other i, without palatalizing a consonant in front of it, it moved even further forward and became completely equal to the vowel i. The phoneme y in the Croatian language began of course not everywhere at the same time and equally, to change to i somewhere towards the end of the 10th century. That is why in the oldest Croatian Glagolitic monuments, namely Mihanović’s “Apostle” and “Vienna Leaflets” from the 12th century, we find only i in place of the former y. … In the inscription on the edge of the fifth and sixth side of the hexagon it is read exactly Vuissasclavo. From this we see that our former Vysheslav was transferred with these Latin letters: v as v, y as ui, sh as ss, e as a due to assimilation to the following vowel a and the group sl as scl, as it was otherwise transferred (cf. Sclavus for Slavus)”. Cf. Radoslav Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1998, p. 218; Ana Mihaljević, Onomastička analiza imena na latinskim epigrafskim spomenicima prvih stoljeća hrvatske pismenosti, Zagreb, 2011, pp. 21–22.

[11] Male names ending in -slav in Croatian: Bèrislav, Bjèloslav, Bògoslav, Bȍgoslav, Bòjislav, Bòrislav, Brànislav, Brȁslav, Bràtislav, Brȁtoslav, Bùdislav, Cvètislav, Čȁslav, Čàstislav, Čȅslav, Dàroslav, Dȁroslav, Dòbrislav, Dòbroslav, Dȍbroslav, Dràgislav, Dràgoslav, Drȁgoslav, Dràžeslav, Drȁžeslav, Dȑžislav, Gòjislav, Gòjslav, Gòrislav, Gràdislav, Hrànislav, Hr̀voslav, Ìnoslav, Ȉnoslav, Jȁroslav, Krànislav, Kr̀stislav, Krùnislav, Krùnoslav, Krȕnoslav, Kȕzmoslav, Làdislav, Lȁvoslav, Ljùbislav, Ljùboslav, Ljȕboslav, Màrislav, Mìlislav, Milòslav, Mìloslav, Mȉloslav, Mìoslav, Mȉoslav, Mìroslav, Mȉroslav, Mȉslav, Mȏjslav, Nìnoslav, Nȉnoslav, Njègoslav, Njȅgoslav, Ògnjeslav, Ȍgnjeslav, Pèrislav, Pȍlislav, Prèdislav, Prèvislav, Prìbislav, Prìmislav, Pr̀vislav, Pȑvoslav, Ràdislav, Rȁdoslav, Rànislav, Ràstislav, Ràtoslav, Rȁtoslav, Sȅbeslav, Sèbislav, Seìslav, Slàvislav, Slàvoslav, Slȁvoslav, Sòbjeslav, Srètislav, Stànislav, Stòjislav, Svètislav, Svètoslav, Svȅtoslav, Tìhoslav, Tȉhoslav, Tìoslav, Tȉoslav, Tòmislav, Tvȓdislav, Vȁtroslav, Vàzmoslav, Vèćeslav, Vèlislav, Vidòslav, Vìdoslav, Vȉdoslav, Vìšeslav, Vȉšeslav, Vjèčeslav, Vjèkoslav, Vjȅkoslav, Vjènceslav, Vjèroslav, Vjȅroslav, Vlàdislav, Vlàjislav, Vòjislav, Vùkoslav, Vȕkoslav, Zdȅslav, Zlàtislav, Zlatòslav, Zlàtoslav, Zlȁtoslav, Zrȉnoslav, Zòrislav, Žèlislav, Žìvislav, Živòslav, Žìvoslav and Žȉvoslav.

In other Slavic languages, including grapheme variants, there are at least 133 more masculine names ending in -slav: Beloslav, Blahoslav, Boguslav, Bogusław, Bohuslav, Boleslav, Boleslaw, Boronislav, Boryslav, Borzysław, Bretislav, Břetislav, Brjačislav, Bronislav, Bronisław, Bronyslav, Chwalisław, Ciechosław, Ctislav, Czesław, Denislav, Desislav, Dobiesław, Dobrosław, Domasław, Drogosław, Dzierżysław, Garnoslav, Gatuslav, Godzisław, Gorislav, Gorzysław, Gościsław, Hodislav, Hostislav, Hviezdoslav, Iziaslav, Izyaslav, Jarosław, Jugoslav, Kvetoslav, Květoslav, Lechosław, Lesław, Lubosław, Ľudoslav, Lutosław, Lyuboslav, Mechyslav, Mecislav, Mieczysław, Miłosław, Mirosław, Mścisław, Mstislav, Mstyslav, Myloslav, Myroslav, Niegosław, Přemyslav, Preslav, Přibyslav, Przemysław, Przybysław, Putislav, Racisław, Radosław, Rościsław, Rasław, Rodislav, Rościsław, Rościsław, Rostislav, Rostislaw, Rostyslav, Siemisław, Siemysław, Sobeslav, Soběslav, Sobiesław, Spycisław, Srboslav, Stanislaw, Stanisław, Stanoslav, Stanyslav, Subisłôw, Sulësław, Sulisław, Svatoslav, Svätoslav, Sviatoslav, Svojslav, Svyatoslav Świętosław, Techoslav, Uniesław, Vácslav, Vekoslav, Veleslav, Venceslav, Ventseslav, Ventsislav, Vernislav, Věroslav, Viacheslav, Viroslav, Vítězslav, Vitislav, Vjačeslav, Vladyslav, Vlastimir, Vlastislav, Volodyslav, Vorotislav, Vratislav, Vseslav, Vyacheslav, Vysheslav, Wiesław, Wińczysław, Witosław, Władysław, Włodzisław, Wojsław, Wolisław, Yaroslav, Zbyslav, Zdislav, Zdzisław, Żelisław, Żyrosław and Žiroslav.

[12] Enciklopedija Leksikografskog zavoda, volume 7, edd. Marko Kostrenčić and Miljenko Protega, Zagreb, 1954, p. 669–670; cf. Enciklopedija Leksikografskog zavoda, 2nd edition, volume 6, Zagreb, 1969, p. 631; Opća enciklopedija, volume 8, ed. Josip Šentija, Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod, 1982, p. 538; Veliki školski leksikon, ed. Josip Šentija, Zagreb: Školska knjiga; Naklada Leksikon, 2003, p. 1045.

[13] Modern Croatian: Kneževina Hrvatska, Kneževina Hrvata, Dalmatinska Hrvatska or Primorska Hrvatska; Latin: Ducatus Chroatorum, Ducatus Croatiae; Greek: Χρωβατία / Khrōbatía; Czech: Chorvatské knížectví, Knížectví Chorvatů, Dalmatské Chorvatsko or Přímořské Chorvatsko; French: Principauté de Croatie, Principauté des Croates, Duché des Croates, Duché de Croatie, Croatie dalmate or Croatie littorale; German: Herzogtum Kroatien, Fürstentum Kroatien, Herzogtum der Kroaten, Dalmatinisches Kroatien or Küstenländisches Kroatien; Italian: Principato croato, Ducato croato, Ducato dei croati, Principato della Croazia Dalmatica, Principato della Croazia Litorale; Polish: Księstwo Chorwacji, Księstwo Chorwatów, Chorwacja Dalmatyńska, Chorwacja Nadmorska; Portuguese: Ducado da Croácia, Ducado dos Croatas, Principado da Croácia Dálmata, Croácia Litoral; Slovac: Chorvátske kniežatstvo, Kniežatstvo Chorvátov, Dalmátske Chorvátsko or Prímorské Chorvátsko; Slovene: Hrvaška dežela, Kneževina Hrvaška, Kneževina Hrvatov, Dalmatinska Hrvaška or Primorska Hrvaška; Spanish: Ducado croata, Ducado de los croatas, Croacia Dálmata or Croacia Litoral.

[14] It is engraved with the medieval Latin HEC instead of the classical haec (this), but since the following noun fons is masculine in Latin, it should be written correctly as hic (this). However, Albert Blaise (Dictionnaire latin français des auteurs chrétiens, Turnhout: Brepols, 1954, p. 358) states that some Christian writers also use fons as a feminine noun, with the example haec fons. Alfred Ernout and Alfred Meillet (Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots, Paris: Klincksieck, 2001, p. 244) say that fons is feminine in late ancient Latin (en bas latin), after the classical and before the scholastic periods. In Italian, fonte is also officially masculine, at least in the expression fonte battismale, but the use of the feminine in that expression is documented continuously from the 14th century to the present day.

[15] “[B]aptism frees a person from all taint, but in the inscription of the Vysheslav baptismal font, instead of the expression sin (peccatum), a much harsher expression is used: crime (scelus). In fact, in medieval Latin, these two concepts are equated: scelus is both sin and crime. We find the same spiritual horizon and the same expression on Radovan’s portal, five centuries later. The inscription on the lunette, under the bed of the Virgin, emphasizes that the Virgin is swaddling ‘the one who absolves crimes’ (qui crimina solvit); another emphasizes that Jesus ‘washes away all evil deeds’ (diluit scelera cuncta). And these crimes (crimina, scelera) on Radovan’s portal are iconographically symbolized by the naked figures of Adam and Eve. The original sin of humans is visually contrasted with the life of Jesus, from birth to sacrifice and resurrection…. From the Vysheslav baptismal font to Romanesque sculpture, the spiritual horizon is the same: from original sin to salvation” (Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997, p. 335).

[16] Since in Latin scelus (wickedness, an evil deed; misdeed; a wicked, heinous, or impious action; a crime; sin, enormity) is neuter, and here it occurs in the plural scelera sua, it is unusual that the relative pronoun qui is then inflected as quod (accusative singular neuter); one would expect quae (which wickednesses of his), accusative plural neuter: scelera sua quae. However, since today’s Croatian also uses what (što), not which (koje), in that place, this mistake could be a confirmation that the author of the inscription, the priest Ivan, was neither Venetian nor Latin, but a Croat who did not think in Latin.

[17] Baptism makes one a Christian (Latin: Christĭānus), a believer in Christ (Latin: Christĭfĭdēlis), but the author of the inscription here emphasizes more than the fact that someone is baptized, which is recorded in the baptismal register; through baptism, one receives grace to strengthen faith in Christ and to become His worshiper.

Common nouns compounded with -cola in Latin are: agrĭcŏla, a cultivator of land, farmer; caelĭcŏla, a worshipper of the heavens, dwelling in heaven; montĭcŏla, a dweller in the mountains, a mountaineer; noctĭcŏla, fond of the night, night-lover, night-watchman; plēbĭcŏla, one who courts the favor of the common people, a friend of the people; rūrĭcŏla, a tiller of the ground, a husbandman, countryman, farmer, peasant; să̄crĭcŏla, one who conducted the sacrificial rite, a sacrificer; silvĭcŏla, forest dweller; terrĭcŏla, earth dweller, a terrestrial, earthling; umbrātĭcŏla, shade-worshipper, a lazy person.

Proper nouns formed from -cola in Latin are: daemŏnĭcŏla, devil worshipper, pagan; Iūnōnĭcŏla, worshipper of Juno; Christĭcŏla, worshipper of Christ.

[18] The noun dux (a leader, conductor, guide, commander, general-in-chief, prince, duke, chief, head, chieftain ealdorman, eorl, great prefect) is inflected according to the third consonant declension and in the ablative case it should be duce, not ducī. Duci is the dative. The -i ending in the ablative case of the third declension is only found in neuter nouns, and dux is masculine. There are two possible explanations. First, which is unlikely, that the writer did not know that the ablative should be duce, so he inflected it like the word maris (sea), which, in the ablative case of the third declension, has the -i ending: mari. Second, that he assumed that everyone knew that Vysheslav was the Duke (prince) at the time, so he only gave the date in a casual way: sub tempore Vuissasclavo (in Vysheslav’s time), not emphasizing that he was the Duke at the time, and only after that did he emphasize with the dative that (to that) Duke (John the priest) adorned this work well. This is how it is translated into Croatian by Turčinović and Radelj.

[19] From the verb cōmo 3, compsi, comptum to adorn, deck, ornament. Instead of the previous reading composuit, such a reading of COPSIT was proposed by Mate Suić, Prilog tumačenju latinskih srednjovjekovnih natpisa: composuit ili compsit?, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja, 9-10, Beograd, 1979, pp. 197–202.

[20] The preposition in can be used with the ablative case and then means: in, on, over, upon, or with the accusative case and then means: into, unto, to, toward. Since there is no abbreviation sign, it seems to be written in honore, i.e. that it is an ablative case: in honor. However, the verb adorn requires the accusative case, in honor of…. Therefore, it should have been written in honorem. The stonemason carved the word HONOR, then he carved an E under the R and he had no more room to carve the letter M.

[21] The suffix (enclitic) -que, a copulative particle affixed to the word it annexes, can in Latin be either a conjunction (and) or an intensifier of meaning (adding a detail or explanation: and that, namely, that is, also, in short). Accordingly, four meanings are possible for the final part of the inscription on the baptismal font.

If we take -que to be a conjunction, then pro eo (for him) can refer to the priest Ivan or to Duke Višeslav, and the subsequent sequence clientuloque suo conversely refers in one case to Duke Višeslav, and in the other to the priest Ivan. If pro eo refers to the priest Ivan, then this means that Duke Višeslav is a clientulus (in the sense of: protégé, defender, devotee) of St. John the Baptist (who is his patron in the classical Roman and liturgical sense) because Vysheslav is a baptized person, and St. John the Baptist is the patron of baptized people. This is how Ferdo Šišić and Ljubo Karaman understood it.

If the pro eo refers to Duke Vysheslav, then two meanings of the further enumeration are possible. First, that the priest Ivan is a clientulus (in the sense of: subject, defender, humble attendant, protégé) of St. John the Baptist because, like him, he is the dispenser of the sacrament of baptism, and the Forerunner of Christ is his protector in this work (this is how Stjepan Krivošić, Dominik Mandić and I understood it). Second is that John is a clientulus (in the sense of: obedient, small client, insignificant subject, vassal) of Duke Višeslav (no one has yet opted for such an interpretation).

If we take -que not to be a conjunction, but rather to add detail or explanation, then the entire complex refers only to the priest John and means a votive prayer that St. John the Baptist “intercede for him, his protégé”. This is how Lovre Katić, Aleksa Benigar, Stjepan Pantelić, and Ratko Perić understood it.

[22] Pavuša Vežić – Milenko Lončar, Hoc tigmen: Ciboriji ranoga srednjeg vijeka na tlu Istre i Dalmacije, Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2009, pp. 240–242.

[23] Ferdo Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb, 1925, pp. 308–309.

[24] Frano Bulić – Lovre Katić, Stopama hrvatskih narodnih vladara, Zagreb: Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Jeronima, 1928, pp. 11–12 and Lovro Katić, Borba Hrvata za državnu samostalnost u IX. stoljeću, Znanje i radost: enciklopedijski zbornik, knjiga prva, ed. Ivo Horvat, Zagreb, 1942, p. 181.

[25] Ljubo Karaman, Iz kolijevke hrvatske prošlosti, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1930, p. 79; Ljubo Karaman, Živi kamen povjesti. Krstionica hrvatskih knezova u glavnom gradu Hrvatske države, Spremnost (Zagreb), 1/1942, nr. 16 / 14 June 1942, p. 9; Ljubo Karaman, Živi kamen povjesti, krstionica hrvatskih knezova u glavnom gradu hrvatske države, Prosvjetni život (Zagreb), 1/1942, nr. 3 / September 1942, p. 112; Stanko Gašparović, Svečana predaja krstionice kneza Višeslava Hrvatskoj akademiji znanosti i umjetnosti, Prosvjetni život (Zagreb), 1/1942, nr. 3 / September 1942, p. 142; Ljubo Karaman, Baština djedova, Zagreb: Hrvatski izdavalački bibliografski zavod, 1944, p. [9].

[26] Stjepan Ivšić, Grafija imena kneza Višeslava na njegovoj krstionici, Nastavni vjesnik (Zagreb), 50 (1941.–1942), nr. 6 / July-August 1942, p. 410.

[27] Stjepan Krivošić, Dalekim tragovima. Ima li krstionica kneza Višeslava veze s pokrštenjem Hrvata?, Spremnost (Zagreb), 2/1943, nr. 89 / 7 November 1943, p. 9.

[28] Dominik Mandić, Crvena Hrvatska u svjetlu povijesnih izvora, Chicago: The Croatian Historical Institute, 1957, p. 256; Chicago-Rim: Ziral, 21972, 31973, p. 273.

[29] Josip Lučić, Nin u IX. stoljeću, Radovi Instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, 16–17 (Povijest grada Nina), Zadar, 1969, p. 378. The translation is being taken over by: Šime Batović – Mate Suić – Janko Belošević, Nin: povijesni i umjetnički spomenici, Zadar: Arheološki muzej, 11979, 21986, pp. 105–107; Janko Belošević, Mramorna krstionica iz vremena kneza Višeslava, Grad Nin (Nin), 1/1997, nr. 1, pp. 20–21; Janko Belošević, Počeci kršćanstva kod Hrvata u svjetlu arheološke građe, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti (Zadar), 1997, volume 36, nr. 23, p. 134.

[30] Nada Klaić, Izvori za hrvatsku povijest do 1526. godine, Zagreb, 1972, p. 15.

[31] Aleksa Benigar, Alojzije Stepinac hrvatski kardinal, Rim: Ziral, 1974, p. 252.

[32] Dušan Jelovina, Starohrvatska baština, Zagreb: Grafički zavod Hrvatske, 1976, p. 93; Dušan Jelovina, Starohrvatsko kulturno blago, Zagreb: Mladost, 1989, p. 20.

[33] Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika: Vodič, Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika u Splitu, 1979, p. 8; Vedrana Delonga, Latinski epigrafički spomenici u ranosrednjovjekovnoj Hrvatskoj, Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 1996, p. 205.

[34] Snagom Duha: uvođenje u vjeru i život kršćanske zajednice: priprava za sakramenat potvrde (krizmu), ed. Josip Baričević, Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 11977, 21978, 31979, 41980, 51982, 61983, 71984, 81985, 91986, 101987, 111988, 121989, 131990, 141991, 151992, 161993, 171994, 181995, 191996, 201997, 211998, 221999, 232000, 242001, 252002, 262003, 272004, p. 87; Josip Turčinović, Skazanje – spomen trinaest stoljeća kršćanstva u Hrvata, Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1984, p. 5; Trinaest stoljeća kršćanstva u Hrvata, ed. Eduard Peričić and Antun Škvorčević, Zagreb, 1986, pp. 139–140. A translation of the last six words is missing.

[35] Nikola Jakšić, Predromaničko kiparstvo, u: Tisuću godina hrvatskog kiparstva, ed. Igor Fisković, Zagreb: Muzejski galerijski centar, 1997, p. 28.

[36] Radoslav Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1998, p. 321.

[37] Hrvoje Hitrec, Hrvatska povjesnica, Zagreb: Mosta, 1999, p. 17.

[38] Stjepan Pantelić, Hrvatska krstionica, Split: Laus; Mainz: Croatia antiqua, 2000, p. 40.

[39] https://www.vjeraidjela.com/viseslavova-krstionica/#_ftn37 (23 November 2024)

[40] https://www.vjeraidjela.com/viseslavova-krstionica/#_ftnref19 (13 December 2024)

[41] Vatikanski misal Illirico 4 (14. century): dai prosim’ da paki poroženim’ istočnikom’ kr’ĉeniê (according to Latin: da ut renatis fonte baptismatis) (114c); Misal kneza Novaka (1368): istočnikь kršĉeniê raždaetь; Missale Hervoiae ducis Spalatensis croatico-glagoliticum [1404]: Transcriptio et commentarium, ed. Vjekoslav Štefanić, Graz, 1973: paki poroĵьše se istočnikomь kršĉeniê (p. 172c), istočnikь kršĉeniê raĵaet’ (p. 473b); Baromićev brevijar (1493): da vsi ka istočniku krĉeniê prišli bi (according to Latin: ut omnes ad baptismum convolarent) (418d); Akademijin krnji ritual (15th century): ke tebê istočnikь krĉeniê raĵaetь se (5v); Klimantovićev obrednik (1502): i paki otvrzaeši istočnikь kr’ĉeniê v’semu okrišlju zemalskomu (150v); Senjski ritual (1508): eže tebê istočnikь krĉeniê raêetь se (36v); Misal hruacki Šimuna Kožičića Benje, Rijeka, 1531.: da prêporoeni istočnikomь kršĉeniê (list 81b), da prêporoenimь kršĉeniê istočnikomь (list 107b), očisitilь esi svetim kršĉêniê istočnikomь (list 161b). Data provided courtesy of Miss Ana Mihaljević, PhD, from the Old Church Slavonic Institute, Zagreb.

[42] Ivan Drkoličić Ričić, Misal po običaju Rimskoga dvora (1570), p. 203; Ciro Giannelli – Sante Graciotti, Il Messale Croato-Raguseo (Neofiti 55) della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2003, p. 173; Rimski obrednik izdan po naredbi pape Pavla V. i pregledan brižljivošću drugih papa, a oblašću g. n. pape Pija XI. udešen prema Zborniku kanonskoga prava, Zagreb, 1929, p. 10, and 45; Josip Tinodi, Liturgika prvi dio: Sveti čini, Mostar, 1932, p. 202; Dragutin Kniewald, Liturgika, Zagreb, 1937, p. 196; Rimski obrednik: Red pristupa odraslih u kršćanstvo, Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1974, p. 113 and 169; Biskupski ceremonijal… proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987, p. 102, nr. 369; p. 104, nr. 371.

[43] Ivan Drkoličić Ričić, Misal po običaju Rimskoga dvora (1570), p. 185; Ciro Giannelli – Sante Graciotti, Il Messale Croato-Raguseo (Neofiti 55) della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2003, p. 152.

[44] Rimski misal za privatnu upotrebu, ed. Dragutin Kniewald, Zagreb, 21930, p. 382; Dragutin Kniewald, Liturgika, Zagreb, 1937, p. 157, 167, 191, 196 and 338; Rimski misal za privatnu upotrebu, ed. Dragutin Kniewald, Zagreb, 41942, p. 291; Obnovljeni obred Svete sedmice, ed. Petar Vlašić, Dubrovnik, 1957, p. 105, 144, 146, 147, 151, 152, 153; Nedjeljni i blagdanski misal za narod, Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 11976, 21992, 32000, 42002, 52004, 62012, 72015, 82017, 92024, p. 129, 132 and 804; Biskupski ceremonijal… proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987, p. 123, nr. 441, p. 232, nr. 998, and p. 234, nr. 1005; Vjerujem: Mali katolički katekizam, Königstein im Taunus: Kirche in not, 2005, p. 124.

[45] Ritval rimski istomaccen slovinski po Bartolomeu Kassichiu Popu Bogoslovçu, V Riimu, Iz Vtieſteniçæ Sfet: Skuppa od Razplodyenya S. Vierræ, 1640, pp. 5, 6, 7, 46, 48 and 411; Bartol Kašić, Vanghielia i pistule, Romae 1641, pp. 122, 143, 144 and 146; Vandjelja i kgnighe apostolske, Ragusa, 1784, pp. 143, 144, 145, 146 and 149; Ritual rimski utiʃten po naredbi s. otca pape Pavla petoga a sada umnoxan i ispravljen po prisvetomu gospodinu naʃemu Benediktu XIV., U Mletcim 1827, pp. 13, 14, 17, 26, 43, 47, 52, 53, 54 and 228; Evangeglja i kgnighe apostolske, Dubrovnik, 1841, pp. 113, 115, 116;, 133, 134 and 135; Obredi Velike sedmice po novom misalu i brevijaru, ed. Petar Vlašić, Dubrovnik, 1921, pp. 227, 228, 230, 232 and 233.

[46] Ritval rimski istomaccen slovinski po Bartolomeu Kassichiu Popu Bogoslovçu, V Riimu, Iz Vtieſteniçæ Sfet: Skuppa od Razplodyenya S. Vierræ, 1640, pp. 46 and 47; Bartol Kašić, Vanghielia i pistule, Romae 1641, pp. 122, 123 and 133; Vandjelja i kgnighe apostolske, Ragusa, 1784, pp. 144 and 157; Ritual rimski utiʃten po naredbi s. otca pape Pavla petoga a sada umnoxan i ispravljen po prisvetomu gospodinu naʃemu Benediktu XIV., U Mletcim 1827, pp. 17, 38, 53 and 368.

[47] Ritual rimski utiʃten po naredbi s. otca pape Pavla petoga a sada umnoxan i ispravljen po prisvetomu gospodinu naʃemu Benediktu XIV., U Mletcim 1827, p. 17; Rimski obrednik izdan po naredbi pape Pavla V. i pregledan brižljivošću drugih papa, a oblašću g. n. pape Pija XI. udešen prema Zborniku kanonskoga prava, Zagreb, 1929, p. 10 and 74.

[48] Vandjelja i kgnighe apostolske, Ragusa, 1784, p. 169; Ritual rimski utiʃten po naredbi s. otca pape Pavla petoga a sada umnoxan i ispravljen po prisvetomu gospodinu naʃemu Benediktu XIV., U Mletcim 1827, p. 23; Evangeglja i kgnighe apostolske, Dubrovnik, 1841, p. 113, 114 and 134.

[49] Anton Kadčić, Boggoslovje dilloredno, Bononiae 1729, p. 121; Jerolim Filipović, Pripovidagnie nauka karstjanskoga kgnighe trecchie, Venice, 1765, p. 20a; Katekism rimski, translated by Josip Matović, Venice, 1775, p. 144; Anđeo dalla Costa, Zakon czarkovni, knjiga I, Venice, 1778, p. 175; François-Aimé Pouget, Uputjenja katolicsanska u razgovore sloxena, part III, translated by Ivan Velikanović, Osijek, 1788, p. 25; Anselmo Ricker, Obredoslovnica ili obredi i običaji katoličke cèrkve, Zagreb, 1865, p. 12; Rimski ritual (obrednik)izdan po zapoviedi sv. otca pape Pavla V a pomnožan i poizpravljen Benediktom XIV čestite uspomene, Rome, Tisak Sv. Sbora “de Propaganda Fide” 1893, pp. 4, 5, 8, 15, 16, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 53; Cvjetko Rubetić, Katolička liturgika ili obredoslovlje za srednja učilišta, Zagreb, 1901, pp. 9, 35, 94 and 116; Fran Barac, Liturgika ili nauka o bogoštovnim obredima Katoličke Crkve, Zagreb, 1908, p. 52; Ignaz Schüch – Amand Polz, Pastirsko bogoslovlje, translated by Stjepan Gjanić and Bogoljub Strižić, Zagreb 1917, pp. 284, 285, 496 and 497; Stjepan Gjanić, Priručnik za vršenje službe Božje po propisima rimskoga obreda, Zagreb, 1919, pp. 172, 173, 174 and 175; Josip Tinodi, Liturgika prvi dio: Sveti čini, Mostar, 1932, pp. 42, 43 and 200; Dragutin Peček, Liturgika ili nauka o bogoštovnim obredima katoličke Crkve, Zagreb, 1939, p. 13; Matija Markov, Katolička liturgika, Zagreb, 1944, pp. 13 and 68; Ante Crnica, Priručnik kanonskoga prava Katoličke Crkve, Zagreb, 1945, pp. 157, 158 and 273; Biskupski ceremonijal… proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987, p. 232, nr. 995; Kodeks kanonskog prava uređen po odredbi sv. oca pape Pija X. proglašen po nalogu pape Benedikta XV., translated by Franjo Herman, Zagreb: Glas Koncila, 2007, canon 774 § 1. and 2. and canon 775; Zakonik crkvenog prava: uređen po odredbi pape Pija X., proglašen po nalogu pape Benedikta XV. (1917), translated by Josip Pazman, Zagreb: Tkalčić, 2014, canon 774 § 1. and 2. and canon 775.

[50] François-Aimé Pouget, Uputjenja katolicsanska u razgovore sloxena, dio trechi, translated by Ivan Velikanović, U Ossiku 1788, p. 25.

[51] Katekism rimski, translated by Josip Matović, U Mlezieh 1775, pp. 154, 156, 171 and 173.

[52] Nedjeljni i blagdanski Misal, ed. Fabijan Veraja, Rim: Hrvatska iseljenička dušobrižnička služba, 1966, p. 246; Obnovljeni obred svete sedmice, ed. Petar Čule, Vatikanska tiskara Polyglotta, 1967, p. 104 and 133; Misal za sve dane u godini, ed. Jure Radić, Makarska, 1967, p. 231; Biskupski ceremonijal… proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987, p. 101, nr. 356 and 360; p. 202, nr. 864; p. 233, nr. 1002; Zakonik kanonskoga prava proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Glas Koncila, 1996, canon 530 point 6 and canon 858 § 1. and 2.

[53] Biskupski ceremonijal… proglašen vlašću pape Ivana Pavla II., Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1987, p. 232, nr. 997.

[54] Katekism rimski, translated by Josip Matović, U Mlezieh 1775, p. 144 (part 2, chapter II, paragraph 5).

[55] St. Justin, First Apology, 1, 61 (Patrologia Graeca, volume 6, column 421).

[56] St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40, 3–4 (Patrologia Graeca, volume 36, columns 361–364).

[57] Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in 374, and First Council of Constantinople (Council of 150 Fathers) on 30 July 381 (Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions and Declarations of the Catholic Church, nr. 42 and nr. 150).

[58] St. Thomas of Aquin, Exposition on the Apostles’ Creed (Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum), article 10. Similar: St. Thomas of Aquin, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book IV, Chapter 59. Systematically on baptism: Summa Theologiae, Part III, questions 6671.

[59] St. Thomas of Aquin, Summa Theologiae, Part III, Question 69, Article 5, Answer.

[60] Biskupska poslanica Trinaest stoljeća kršćanstva u Hrvata (Thirteen Centuries of Christianity of the Croats: episcopal pastoral letter), Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1976, nr. 14, pp. 18–19; nr. 17, pp. 22–23.

[61] Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, in: Narodne novine (Zagreb), 19/1853, nr. 217 / 23 September, p. 605.

[62] Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Izviestje načelnika družtva g. Ivana Kukuljevića Sakcinskog o svom putovanju u Mletke i Beč god. 1853., Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku, knjiga III, Zagreb, 1854, p. 336.

[63] Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Izvjestje o putovanju kroz Dalmaciju u Napulj i Rim, Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku, knjiga IV, Zagreb, 1857, p. 390.

[64] Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae = Diplomatički zbornik kraljevine Hrvatske s Dalmacijom i Slavonijom, dio I, izdaje Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Zagreb, 1874, p. 217.

[65] Antal Stöhr, A Felső-magyarországi Muzeum-egylet második évkönyve, Kassa, 1876, p. 6: “egy IX-dik századbeli, hat oldalú, fehér márványból készült keresztelő kút”.

[66] Franjo Rački, Documenta historiae Chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia, Zagrabriae 1877, p. 376: „una eum sculpturae stylo et ornamentis monumentum hoc aeque ad saeculum IX referunt.”

[67] Ivan Mikhailovich Martinov, Notice sur un monument illyrien, Revue de l’art chrétien (Arras – Paris), 27/1879, p. 434: “daterait de la fin du IXe siècle ou du commencement du Xe“.

[68] Raffaele Cattaneo, L’architecture en Italia dal sec. VI al mille circa, Venezia, 1888, p. 100: “del secolo VIII proveniente da terra ferma”.

[69] Franjo Rački, Nutarnje stanje Hrvatske prije XII. stoljeća, Rad JAZU, 116, Zagreb, 1893, p. 210.

[70] Ernst Alfred Stückelberg, Langobardische Plastik, Zurich, 1896, p. 96: “als Datum mag die Wende des VIII. und IX. Jahrhunderts gelten”.

[71] Luka Jelić, Najznamenitije starohrvatsko otkriće, Vienac (Zagreb), 2/1911, nr. 1 / January 1911, p. 20; Luka Jelić, Dvorska kapela sv. Križa u Ninu, Zagreb, 1911, p. 5 and Appendix VIII.

[72] Ferdo Šišić, Genealoški prilozi о hrvatskoj narodnoj dinastiji, Vjesnik Hrvatskoga arheološkoga društva (Zagreb), nova serija, 13/1914, p. 46.

[73] Ferdo Šišić, Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije, Zagreb, 1914, p. 120; Ferdo Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb, 1925, p. 308.

[74] Miloje M. Vasić, Arhitektura i skulptura u Dalmaciji, Beograd, 1922, p. 154: “Вишеслављева крстионица из Нина… рађена је… за време хрватског кнеза Вишеслава који је владао на прелазу из VIII у IX век.”

[75] Ljubo Karaman, Sarkofag Ivana Ravenjanina u Splitu i ranosrednjovjekovna pleterna ornamentika u Dalmaciji, Starinar (Beograd), 3. serija, knjiga III, 1925, p. 55.

[76] Josef Strzygowski, O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1927, p. 49; Joseph Strzygowski, Die altslavische Kunst. Ein Versuch ihres Nachweises, Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1929, p. 92.

[77] Ljubo Karaman, Iz kolijevke hrvatske prošlosti, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1930, picture 50; Ljubo Karaman, Eseji i članci, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1939, p. 10 and picture 1; Ljubo Karaman, O spomenicima VII i VIII stoljeća u Dalmaciji i o pokrštenju Hrvata, Viestnik hrvatskoga arheoložkoga družtva (Zagreb), nova serija, XXII-XXIII/1941.–1942, nr. 1, p. 104; Ljubo Karaman, Živi kamen povjesti. Krstionica hrvatskih knezova u glavnom gradu Hrvatske države, Spremnost (Zagreb), 1/1942, nr. 16 / 14 June 1942, p. 9; Ljubo Karaman, Živi kamen povjesti, krstionica hrvatskih knezova u glavnom gradu hrvatske države, Prosvjetni život (Zagreb), 1/1942, nr. 3 / September 1942, p. 113; Ljubo Karaman, Živa starina: petdeset slika iz vremena hrvatskih narodnih vladara, Zagreb: Hrvatski izdavački bibliografski zavod, 1943, p. 40–44; Ljubo Karaman, Starohrvatski spomenici, Naša Domovina: zbornik, knjiga I, ed. Filip Lukas, Zagreb, 1943, p. 240/241; Ljubo Karaman, O vremenu krstionice kneza Višeslava, Peristil, 3, 1960, p. 107, 108 and 109.

[78] Antun Grgin, Istraživanje starohrvatskih spomenika po splitskoj okolici, Narodna starina (Zagreb), 12/1933, nr. 31, p. 113.

[79] Oton Knezović, Hrvatska povijest od najstarijeg doba do godine 1918., Zagreb: Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Jeronima, 1935, p. 38

[80] Viktor Živić, Stare slave djedovina: Duhovni vodič kroz Muzej hrvatskih spomenika u Kninu, Zagreb: Hrvatski radiša, 1935, p. 25.

[81] Miho Barada, Bašćanska ploča, Zlatno klasje (Zagreb), 1/1938, nr. 1, p. 4.

[82] Emerich Schaffran, Die Kunst der Langobarden in Italien, Jena: Diederichs, 1941, p. 168 – 169: “das Taufbecken des Fürsten Viceslav, heute in Venedig, Museum Correr (Tafel 25/d), einst in der Kreuzkirche in Nin, ist im Ornament und in den Säulenkapitellen auf der Stilstufe der langobardischen Kunst um 750, und hier entspricht sogar die Inschrift (Hoc Johannes presbyter sub tempore Wissasclavo duci opus bene composuit devote) dem Duktus langobardischer Beschriftungen, so jener des Ziboriums in S. Giorgio di Valpolicella.”

[83] Stjepan Krivošić, Dalekim tragovima. Ima li krstionica kneza Višeslava veze s pokrštenjem Hrvata?, Spremnost (Zagreb), 2/1943, nr. 89 / 7 November 1943, p. 9.

[84] Mirko Šeper, Relief iz Zadra s prikazom Kristova rođenja, Hrvatska smotra (Zagreb), 11/1943, nr. 11–12, p. 649.

[85] Krunoslav Draganović – Josip Buturac, Poviest Crkve u Hrvatskoj: Priegled od najstarijih vremena do danas, Zagreb: Hrvatsko književno družtvo sv. Jeronima, 1944, p. 148.

[86] Bogo Grafenauer, Prilog kritici izvještaja Konstantina Porfirogeneta o doseljenju Hrvata, Historijski zbornik (Zagreb), 5/1952, nr. 1–2, p. 27.

[87] Mirko Šeper, Der Taufstein des Kroatischen Fürsten Višeslav aus dem Frühen Mittelalter, Erlangen, 1958. (Nachrichten des Deutschen Instituts für merowingisch-karolingische Kunstforschung (Archiv Paulus), Heft 14–16), p. 21: “bin ich der Meinung, daß auch der Taufstein des Fürsten Višeslav in das XI. Jahrdt. zu datieren sei.”

[88] Ivan Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj, vol. I, Split, 1963, p. 82.

[89] Vladimir Gvozdanović, Starohrvatska arhitektura, Zagreb: Izdavačka djelatnost Saveza arhitekata Hrvatske, 1969, p. 18 and 86.

[90] Stjepan Gunjača, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji, knjiga II, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1973, p. 139 and 140.

[91] Antun Ivandija – Josip Buturac, Povijest Katoličke Crkve među Hrvatima, Zagreb: Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Ćirila i Metoda, 1973, p. 36.

[92] Mate Suić, Prilog tumačenju latinskih srednjovjekovnih natpisa: composuit ili compsit?, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja, 9-10, Beograd, 1979, p. 200.

[93] Slavko Kovačić, Kronika. Drugi međunarodni simpozij o crkvenoj povijesti Hrvata, Croatica Christiana periodica (Zagreb), 10/1986, nr. 17, p. 177.

[94] Ivo Petricioli, Od Donata do Radovana: pregled umjetnosti u Dalmaciji od 9. do 13. stoljeća, Split, 1990, p. 54.

[95] Nikola Jakšić, Predromaničko kiparstvo, u: Tisuću godina hrvatske skulpture, ed. Igor Fisković, Zagreb: Muzejsko-galerijski centar, 1991, p. 15.

[96] Miljenko Jurković, Od Nina do Knina: iz hrvatske spomeničke baštine od 9. do 11. stoljeća, Zagreb: Muzej Mimara: Gliptoteka HAZU, 1992, p. 26.

[97] Vladimir Posavec, Krstionica kneza Višeslava i njegovo mjesto u kronologiji hrvatskih vladara, Historijski zbornik (Zagreb), 49/1996, p. 32.

[98] Nikola Jakšić, Predromaničko kiparstvo, in: Tisuću godina hrvatskog kiparstva, ed. Igor Fisković, Zagreb: Muzejski galerijski centar, 1997, p. 27.

[99] Janko Belošević, Počeci kršćanstva kod Hrvata u svjetlu arheološke građe, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti (Zadar), 1997, volume 36, nr. 23, p. 135.

[100] Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997, p. 26.

[101] Ivo Perić, Povijest Hrvata, Zagreb: Centar za transfer tehnologije, 1997, p. 21.

[102] Radoslav Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1998, p. 219.

[103] Milko Brković, Isprave hrvatskih narodnih vladara i latinske sprave bosansko-humskih vladara i velmoža, Zadar – Mostar, 1998, p. 41 and 351.

[104] Vedrana Delonga, krsni zdenac, kraj 8. ili početak 9. stoljeća, in: Hrvati i Karolinzi: Katalog, Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 2000, p. 311.

[105] Nikola Jakšić, On the Origin of the Baptismal Font with the Name of Prince Višeslav, Hortus Artium Medievalum (Zagreb), 8/2002, p. 243; Nikola Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije: studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu, Split, 2015, p. 385.

[106] Josip Bratulić – Stjepan Damjanović, Hrvatska pisana kultura: Izbor djela pisanih latinicom, glagoljicom i ćirilicom od VIII. do XXI. stoljeća, Križevci: Veda, 2005, p. 15.

[107] Hrvoje Matković, Na vratima hrvatske povijesti, Zagreb: Golden marketing; Tehnička knjiga, 2006, p. 32–33.

[108] Nikola Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije: studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu, Split, 2015, p. 394.

[109] Mirjana Matijević Sokol, Studia mediaevalia selecta: Rasprave i prinosi iz hrvatske srednjovjekovne povijesti, Zagreb: FF-press, 2020, p. 15.

[110] Ante Uglešić, U potrazi za Višeslavovom krstionicom, Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 12022, 22024, p. 97 and 119.

[111] Ljubo Karaman, O vremenu krstionice kneza Višeslava, Peristil, 3, 1960, pp. 107­–109.

[112] Hrvoje Šošić, Hrvatski politički leksikon, drugi dio, Rijeka: Tiskara Rijeka, 1993, pp. 1051–1054; Radoslav Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1998, p. 218.

[113] Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997, p. 291.

[114] Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, Zagreb, 1997, p. 26.

[115] Hrvoje Morović, Jedan nestali izvor za kulturnu povijest grada Zadra, Zadarska revija (Zadar), 1/1952, nr. 4, pp. 36–43; Josip Kolanović, Zbornik ninskih isprava od XIII do XVII stoljeća, Radovi Instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, 16–17 (Povijest grada Nina), Zadar, 1969, pp. 507–526; Filip Amos-Rube, Ninske crkve u dokumentima iz godine 1579. i 1603., Radovi Instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru (Zadar), vol. 16–17/1969, p. 559; Acta visitationum apostolicarum dioecesis Nonensis ex annis 1579., 1603. et 1625., Zadar: Državni arhiv u Zadru; Društvo za povjesnicu Zadarske nadbiskupije Zmajević; Rim: Hrvatski povijesni institut u Rimu, 2022, p. 50 (Bishop Valier), 85 (Bishop Priuli) and 172 (Archbishop Garzadori); Ante Uglešić, U potrazi za Višeslavovom krstionicom = In search of Višeslav’s baptistery, Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 22024, pp. 56–66.

[116] Giuseppe Ferrari-Cupilli, Su d’un antica vasca battesimale nel Museo Correr, La Voce Dalmatica (Zara), I (1860), nr. 22 / 27 October 1860, p. 178; La Domenica (Zara), III/1890, nr. 23 / 8 June 1890, p. 174: “una vasca di pietra a cui si discendeva per cinque gradini, ed era destinata per amministrare le acque battesimali per modo d’immersione… Questo rimasuglio di antichità, perche cadente e per dar luogo alla piazza, fù capricciosamente alterato e atterrato l’anno 1746; per il sito del quale fu accordato dal Rappresentante lo spazio per erigere dietro l’altar maggiore una nuova sagrestia, in luogo alla vecchia, ch’era assai ristretta. Piangasi dunque dagli amatori della patria nonense la distruzione totale anche dell’ultimo ecclesiastico rimasuglio… e molto più la perdita della vasca con isrizioni e stemmi dissoterrata, ad altrove dell’umana avidità con altre lapidi asportata con quel privato metodo e profondo silenzio, che è solito d’essere osservato in simili arbitrarie disposizioni.”

[117] Carlo Federico Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 2, Zara: Woditzka, 1880, p. 244 and 247–248: “Come narra l’egregio storico di Nona dottor Giovanni Cassio… Adiacente alla cattedrale dal lato di norra esisteva l’antichissimo Battistero di forma rotonda il quale era l’unico in tutta la città. Quattro cappelette lo adornavano internamente; nel centro aveva una vasca marmorea ornata di religiosi emblemi in bassorilievo, nella quale discendevasi mediante cinque gradini, indizio questo non dubbio della sua antichità che risalir doveva all’epoca del battesimo per immersione, inanzi cioè al decimo secolo. Questo prezioso edificio fu totalmente e barbaramente distrutto nel 1746, e fu sostituito da una vasca di pietra, sorreta da un piedistallo pure di pietra, situata nell’ angolo sinistro interno della chiesa.”

[118] Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, IV, Venetiis 1769, pp. 237–238; Bishop Thomas Nechich, catholic-hierarchy.org (4 December 2024); Zvjezdan Strika, Catalogus episcoporum Ecclesiae Nonensis zadarskog kanonika Ivana A. Gurata, Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru (Zadar), 49/2007, p. 146; Tomislav Šarlija, Jasenice pod vlašću Osmanlija i Mlečana od XVI. do konca XVIII. stoljeća, Povijesni prilozi (Zagreb), 31/2012, nr. 43, p. 166; Zdenko Dundović, Ninski biskup Toma Nekić (1743.–1754.), Croatica Christiana periodica (Zagreb), 40/2016, nr. 77, p. 129–142; Acta visitationum apostolicarum dioecesis Nonensis ex annis 1579., 1603. et 1625., Zadar: Državni arhiv u Zadru, 2022, p. 205 and 208.

[119] O prošlosti Giudecce: Michele Battagia, Cenni storici e statistici sopra l’isola della Giudecca, Venezia, 1832.; Pompeo Molmenti – Dino Mantovani, Le isole della Laguna Veneta, Venezia 1895, p. 21–28; Giulio Lorenzetti, Venezia e il suo estuario. Guida storico-artistica, Venezia, 1926.; Trieste, 1974, p. 773–778; Sicinio Bonfanti, La Giudecca: nella storia, nell’arte, nella vita, Venezia, 1930.; Francesco Basaldella, Giudecca, storia e testimonianze, Venezia, 1983. O kapucinima na Guidecci: Davide Maria da Portogruaro, Storia dei cappuccini veneti, vol. 2: Primi sviluppi, 1560–1580, Venezia, 1957.; Arturo Maria da Carmignano di Brenta, Storia dei cappuccini veneti, vol. 3: Conventi fondati dal 1582 al 1585 e loro vicende fino alla soppressione, Venezia-Mestre, 1979.

[120] Federigo Altan, Lettera del sig. abate conte Federigo Altan De’ Conti di Salvarolo al molto rev. padre Filippo da Verona cappucino, contenente la spiegazione di un celebre battesimale geroglifico, ed alcuni inediti documenti sopra le ceremonie del Battesimo, In Padova, Nella Stamperia del Seminario appresso Giovanni Manfrè, 1749, p. XVIII–XIX: “certa iscrizione, che leggasi in antico Battistero esistente a Venezia nel convento appunto posseduto dalla venerabile vostra Religione Capucina… Comincerò dalla iscrizione del sopramenzionato antico battisterio, che è di figura essagona, o a meglio dire, è composto di sei parallellogrami intorno, e di due basi, che hanno tanti lati, quanti sono i pallallelogrami medesimi. È da dolersi, che la suddeta iscrizione non si possa interamente legere a motivo, che parte della pietra su cui sta scolpita, è incastrata nel muro…”

[121] Fridericus Althanus, Baptismale hieroglyphicum: Epistolica dissertatione explanatum, cui accedunt nonnula vetusta documenta ad baptismum quoque spectantia, S. Viti ad Tilamentum, IV. Kal. Aprilis 1749, [Padova, 1753], pp. 17–18: “inscriptio quaedam, quae Venetiis in vetusto quodam Baptisterio legitur, quod in venerandi tui Ordinis caenobio existit… Ab antiqui Baptisterii praedicti inscriptione incipiam, quam dolendum profecto est, totam legi non posse, quod pars marmoris, cui insculpta est, intra parietis cujusdam molem compacta est, et abscondita.”

[122] Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1997, p. 26.

[123] Agostino da Montefeltro [1839.–1921.], Domovina, List Dubrovačke biskupije (Dubrovnik), 7/1907, nr. 9 / 1 September 1907, p. 77.

[124] Bibliography on the Vysheslav Baptismal Font (7 December 2024)