Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

: Vizantijski preci nekih članova bosanske vladarske kuće; (nemački) Byzantinische Kaiser als Ahnen zu haben stellt auch heute für einige Leute die Ideal der Vornehmheit vor. In der genealogischen Literatur war bis heute nicht betont, daß einige Mitglieder der bosnischen Dynastie der Kotromaniden und der dortigen Oligarchenfamilie der Kosača auch byzantinische Kaiser als Ahnen gehabt hätten. Dieses Streben war schon in ihrer Zeit doch mehr von Prestige-charakter, als von praktisch-politischer Bedeutung.

: Vladarski kult - znak srpske državnosti - prema poznatim i nepoznatim materijalima Samokovske eparhije; (bugarski) Obožestvjavaneto na legitimnija kral ili car sled sm''rtta mu e specifična emblema za sr''bskata d''ržavnost, v otličie naprimer, ot počti lipsvaštata podobna tradicija v B''lgarija i ne taka razvita v''v Vizantija. V nastojaštata publikacija se prosledjava razprostranenieto na kulta sled XV vek v Jugozapadna B''lgarija i po-specialno v Samokovskata eparhija, na bazata na poznat i nedostat''čno izvesten material, sv''rzan s kulta na sv. Simeon i sv. Sava, na sv. Kral (Stefan II Uroš Milutin) i na sv. Stefan (III Uroš) Dečanski.

: Vorwärts nach Konstantinopel! Die entstehung der idee über die Eroberung der byzantinischen hauptstadt durch die Bulgaren; The Bulgarians acquainted themselves with the Byzantine capital as early as the 6th–8th centuries. Several Bulgarian rulers visited Constantinople in person and met with the Byzantine emperor. During the rule of Khan Krum (796–814) there arose the idea of a Bulgarian conquest of the city.

: Vuk Branković and the meeting of vassals at Serres; After the Kosovo battle in the year of 1389 and the new Ottomans' breach into the Serbian lands, the positions of the Serbian provinces founded on the territory of the disintegrated Serbian empire underwent certain geopolitical changes. Unlike prince Lazar's direct successors, the Serbian regional landlord Vuk Branković, Lazar's son-in-law, continued to resist the Ottomans strongly opposing resuming the vassal deployment towards sultan Bayezid I. Only after his town of Skopje's fall late in the 1391, or early in 1392 did Vuk start losing his strategic control over the territory being in that way exposed to an even greater Ottoman pressure. Such Balkans' situation denouement forced Vuk Branković until the November 1392 to recognize the Ottoman sovereignty that was justified in one charter for monastery Hilandar. By the end of that year, sultan Bayezid I moved from the empire's Anatolian to the European part in order to consolidate his authority and firm the rule. The Byzantine historian Laonikos Chalcocondyles testifies on the measures taken by the sultan regarding subordinating the new Christian vassals and the conquered territories' colonization. These measures might refer to Vuk Branković and his province. There is no direct news considering Vuk Branković's political steps during the period from the end of 1392 to the spring of 1394. A dramatic meeting of sultan Bayezid I with his Christian vassals in the town of Serres in the fall-winter of 1393/1394 remained noted in the Byzantine sources. The remnant sources unequivocally of the Serbian meeting members mention only Stefan Lazarević, the later Byzantine despot and Constantin Dragaš, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus' father-in-law, though by being imprecise they leave an open space for the probable participation of some other renowned persons from Serbian side. The hitherto Serbian historiography predominant opinion was that Vuk Branković did not respond to the invitation addressed to the vassals concerning the Serres meeting. Apart from Vuk, the sources do not name as the meeting participants neither king Marko, nor his brothers Andreaš and Dmitar, who may have been present as well. The sultans' resolution to execute the Christian vassals in Serres, withdrawn at the last moment, caused the split of the vassal relations of some Christian aristocracy to Bayezid I. Vuk's activity from the year 1394, and 1395 connected with gaining Venetian citizenship and moving the treasury in Dubrovnik in accordance with the politics of those Christian vassals who denied their obedience to the sultan after the meeting at Serres. Because of Vuks' conduct from the year of 1394 and the provenance of the preserved Byzantine sources asserting the events at Serres, a possibility of Vuk Branković's presence a the Ottomans's vassal by the side of the king Vukašin's sons, remains in spite of silence evident in relevant sources.

: Waiting for the end; Na nekoliko primera vizantijske epistolografske, retorske i homilitičke literature dočarava se stanje duhova poslednjih pola veka pred definitivan pad vizantijske prestonice 1453 godine. .

: Wall paintings from the late 15th century in the Monastery church of St. Paraskeve - Brajčino; The Monastery of St. Paraskevy is located above the village Brajčino, on the east shore of Lake Prespa in the Republic of Macedonia. In accordance with the incomplete donor’s inscription this one aisle church with a pitched roof was built and decorated at the same time. Reparations came around 1800, when rebuilding was done on the longitudinal walls and the narthex (without fresco decoration). The fresco paintings from the 15th century are preserved on the west facade, and on the east and west wall of the naos. The decorative program in the interior was common for the small type monastery churches without narthex. From the old edifice, on the corner of the outside southwest wall visible are remains of figures, a monk and a man in laymen’s attire facing eastward. The iconographic program of the west facade is interesting for the scenes which encompass the patrons niche: a reduced Last Judgment (Royal Deesis, Hell and Paradise, where the monk Pahomios above the gate is depicted in prayer) and the equestrian figures of St. George and St. Mena. A parallel for the rare iconography of St. Mena with the tamed beasts is found in an unpublished icon, which most probably was painted in the last quarter of the 15th century, and is kept presently on the iconostasis of the church of Panagia tou Apostolaki in Kastoria. In accordance with all the considered characteristics by means of comparative analysis, we assume that the anonymous master could be an individual who belonged to the painting workshops which are credited for painting the church of St. Nicholas of the nun Eupraxia in Kastoria. We suppose the painter worked in Brajčino soon after the year 1486 and before 1493, when the decoration of the church in Kremikovci was completed, in which he most likely took part as a member of another large workshop. Regarding the question about the origins of the style of the 'master from the 1480’s', the paper articulates an opinion that they should be traced not only in the long painting traditions of Kastoria and Ohrid, but also in the collaboration of the masters and the spread of their works in these two important centers of the Ohrid Archbishopric.

: Was lehren die siegel über die verwaltung von Cherson im mittelalter?; In a new monograph N. Alekseyenko has collected the sigillographic material relevant to the administration of Cherson from the 8th through the 11th century. This volume forms the basis for our reevaluation of the problem of Cherson’s administrative history, especially the matter of a more precise dating of these sources. The 128 seals of Archontes of Cherson come probably from the period ca. 740 to ca. 840. We accept the hypothesis that there was always only one Archon, a kind of mayor in charge of the autonomous town – but in close contact with Byzantium. The small number of seals of Kyroi we prefer to date between ca. 840 to ca. 870, id est in the early years of the new thema Klimata/Cherson; he was subordinate to the Strategos. The 137 seals of the Strategoi of Cherson extend from the middle of the 9th century until nearly the middle of the 11th. Most of them were Protospatharioi. Not long ago the first seal of a Katepano of Cherson and Chazaria (1060/1080) came to light. A single seal type mentions an Ek Prosopou of Cherson (first half of the 10th century). The 74 bullae of Kommerkiarioi stem from the second half of the 9th and 10th centuries. Only two fragments of seals mention Protonotarioi of the Mangana and of Cherson (second to third third of the 10th century). On the other hand there are 3 seals of a Pater Poleos, one type of an Ekdikos and some seals of Proteuontes, all from the 10th century and relating to persons who served as municipal agents. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 1777032: Tradicija, inovacija i identitet u vizantijskom svetu]

: Was there a “pre-feudal” crisis?; In the period of long wars on several fronts (7th-9th centuries) a free village commune emerges as a basic source for state taxes and necessary military units; the social differentiation within the village commune should be marked as a background for all political struggles and upheavals, which have guided byzantine society after its “aristocratization” in the 9th century (as Každan argued). The strategoi of themata, who represented village communes in 717 and who „nationalized” church estates under the Isaurians, are being reconciled with the church again after 787 and form, together with it, the core of the new ruling class.

: Wer waren die Leser und Hörer der Chronographia des Michael Psellos?; The article deals with the position Michael Psellos has taken with regard to the readers/listeners of his Chronographia. The intended readers are, in addition to Constantine Leichoudes and Emperor Michael VII which he addresses directly, the educated people at and around the imperial court. Psellos deals with his story in full command as a sovereign author and by many remarks which guide the readers. It is set out how the six provable real readers of the Chronographia (Michael Attaleiates, Skylitzes Continuatus, Nikephoros Bryennios, Anna Komnene, Ioannes Zonaras and Michael Choniates) have made use of the text.

: Were Byzantine monks of the 13th-15th centuries holders of imperial grants?; A small number of imperial grants to monks appear in the Byzantine sources from the late 13th to the 15th centuries, and mainly in the 14th, before the Serbian expansion in Macedonia. Especially privileged with the right of bequeathal and dedication, they were given later to the monastery to which each of the monks belonged, mostly to the Serbian monastery of Chilandar in Athos. Due to characteristic differences they represent a special category between the pronoiai of laymen and the oikonomiai of monasteries.

: Were king Stefan the First-Crowned and his son Radoslav co-rulers?; The Serbian historiography considers the issue of the co-ruling of King Stefan the First-Crowned and his son Radoslav as the one finally resolved. The suggested solution on the co-rule of Stefan and Radoslav may be most succinctly expressed as following: as early as in the year of 1220, due to the frail health of Stefan the First-Crowned and Radoslav's marriage to Anne the Epirus princess, Radoslav was crowned to be the king and positioned to co-rule with his father after the Byzantine model of governing. Nevertheless this point of view has some loose ends. The notion of co-ruling and the very term of 'co-ruler' are quite freely used in the scholarly works. A general consensus on the precise meaning has not been reached yet. At the point where one author perceives a co-rule, the other categorically denies it. Basically the approach equalizing the heir to the throne and the co-ruler is wrong. Although the co-rulers in most cases were the throne heirs, they cannot be called the co-rulers because of the right to inherit the throne, but for the ruling attributes that formally established that right. The conviction of the co-rule of King Stefan and his son Radoslav is founded on the interpretation of the facts coming from the following sources: entitling charters for the monastery of Žiča, produced by Stefan and Radoslav around 1220; some segments from St. Sava's biographies by Domentian and Theodosius describing the circumstances of Stefan's death-bed leaving the throne to Radoslav; the three acts of the town of Kotor from 1221 and 1227 dated by the rule of king Radoslav, the portraits of Stefan and Radoslav next to the entrance to the Church of the Ascension in the monastery of Žiča and in the nartex of the Mileševa monastery church. In the first Žiča charter, Stefan calls Radoslav his heir, while in the second Žiča charter Stefan points out Radoslav as his first-born son blessed by him to be the king of the whole state. (jegože i blagoslovismo biti emou kralju v'se sije dr'žave). Though differently in manner, Radoslav's hereditary right has been emphasized in both of these charters. In my opinion, the formulation of the second charter does not refer to the coronation of a co-ruler, but a ceremonious act of proclaiming the successor. That may have been one of the results of Radoslav's marrying Anne the daughter of the Epirus ruler Theodore I Angelos in 1219/1220. St. Sava's biography by Domentian tells us about Stefan's appointing Radoslav for his heir immediately before his death. That was followed by arch-bishop Sava's crowning him the king to be s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego. The expression s'prestol'nik' was supposed to be the proof of Radoslav being his father's co-ruler. However, Domentian uses the term s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego in the metaphysical sense to cast the stress on the Nemanjić dynastic permanent right to the Serbian throne, not to describe the relations in the real time. The Nemanjić hereditary authority was regarded equal to the throne, so every ruler stepping onto it, according to Domentian, shares the same throne with his predecessors and the future rulers from the same family. Domentian calls both Stefan the First-Crowned and Vladislav, Radoslav's brother s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego, and the two of them have been firmly confirmed not to be their fathers' co-rulers. Besides, Domentian speaks of Radoslav as of s'prestol'nik' at the moments immediately preceding Stefan's death, thus not even for the chronological reasons can this fact be used as an evidence for the co-rule of Stefan and Radoslav. Theodosius similarly depicts the shift on the throne using the word s'prestol'nik' in the same context. The two acts of the town of Kotor from 1221 and the one from 1227 were dated sub tempore domini regis Radoslavi. The mentioning of king Radoslav at the time when his father was the Serbian king was considered a valid proof of Radoslav's co-rule with his father with the title of a king. Anyway, this is not about the mere mentioning of king Radoslav in some document, but about the official Kotor town documents being dated after the rule of king Radoslav as the master of Kotor (dominus rex). The Kotor town resolutions were dated in the same fashion at the time when Stefan Nemanja's son Vukan had the rule over Duklja while his father and afterwards his brother held the Serbian throne. Therefore, the mentioning of king Radoslav as the master of Kotor means that he got Duklja to rule probably as an heir to the throne and, like Vukan, he took over the old royal title of Duklja. To the left and to the right from the entrance to the Žiča monastery Church of the Ascension, the portraits of King Stefan the First-Crowned and king Radoslav were painted. The portraits were believed to have been made at the time of Stefan and Radoslav's producing the charter to the monastery of Žiča (circa 1220), so Radoslav's royal title in the inscription next to the portrait was taken as evidence that he had already been appointed as his father's co-ruler and the king. Nonetheless, the Žiča exonartex with the tower was built most likely during the rule of king Radoslav (circa 1229-1234); hence the portrait itself could have been painted only then implying that the title in the inscription next to the character of Radoslav might have referred to his independent status as a ruler. In addition to this, there is an iconographic motif after which, when the son is to carry on the father's building project, the younger, i.e. the other founder is always portrayed on the left side of the entrance, just like in the case of Žiča. A donors' composition, including the portraits of Stefan the First-Crowned and Radoslav, was painted in the Mileševa church nartex during the twenties of the 13th century. Both Stefan and Radoslav bear the wreaths on their heads and Stefan holds a scepter in his left hand. The wreath on Radoslav's head is regarded as a symbol of his keeping the position of a co-ruler. Still without the support of the written sources, for which this article has showed that they do not prove Radoslav's co-rule, the portraits in Mileševa do not have an independent source value. We do not have at our disposal a representative sample from an earlier period or the one contemporary with the Mileševa fresco paintings to serve as the basis for establishing the iconographic patterns of presenting the co-ruling position. Certain examples of the later paintings (Sopoćani, Bogorodica Ljeviška) indicate that the images of the heirs with the ruling signs do not mean that their actual coronation and raising to the rank of a co-ruler had already taken place. Not even the portraits of the younger king Uroš, i.e. king Uroš at the time of Dušan's imperial rule mark the co-ruler, but the heir to the throne. Since painting is the ultimate expression of the monarchic ideology, the painters of the donors' compositions, similarly to the biographers, have no need to convey every particularity from the real life. Instead of that, they primarily use symbols. Therefore, the crown on the head of the ruler's son doesn't necessarily have to imply him being crowned and set to be a co-ruler. The wreath on Radoslav's head only symbolized his position of the throne heir. From my point of view, no source analyzed here provides an unequivocal confirmation of Radoslav's co-rule. If his participation in the governing may be spoken of, it has been achieved only over the position of the king of Duklja. Considering the fact that the sources of the co-ruling matter are scarce and subject to various interpretations, this piece of work has been intentionally titled with a question mark. Its purpose is not to offer the final and consistently opposite solutions from those generally accepted by scholars, but to provoke a further scientific dispute on this sensitive issue.

: Western armament and tactics in the writings of Anna Komnene; In this work, first we reconstructed and commented the western horseman's armament witch Anna Komnene had known (long spear, cross-bow, chain mail "Norman" shield, solarets). Afterwards, we established that Anne knew four types of western horseman's attack (attack in full gallop, attack from back slow march, attack from flank) and three types of their battle formation (strewn formation, congested formation, formation of two columns). Also, we commented Anna's knowledge of western siege engines (battering-ram, tortoise catapult, siege tower); we established that Anne knew five types of western siege tower. In the end, we commented several fragments witch show Anna Komnene's knowledge of the western siege tactics.

Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

Primary tabs

Pages

Pages

You are here

Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

Primary tabs

Pages

Pages

User login