Istorijski časopis
Primary tabs
Историјски часопис, званично гласило Историјског института, излази од 1948. године. Објављује оригиналне научне радове на српском и другим језицима. Примењује систем „слепих“ рецензија два рецензента. Тематски оквир часописа обухвата економску, друштвену, политичку и културну историју српског народа, као и његове везе са јужнословенским и осталим балканским народима, и истовремено унапређује све гране историјске науке. Хронолошки оквир је омеђен на период од средњег века до почетка 20. века, односно до 1918. године и стварања Краљевине СХС.
Homepage
CEEOL
ISSN: 0350-0802
Pages
-
- Поход Бугарског цара Cамуила на Далмацију
- From south-Dalmatian sources, primarily Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, Chronicles of Dubrovnik and Kotor legend of St. Tripun, it is known that the emperor Samuel had attacked Dioclea, Dalmatian towns of Kotor, Ulcinj and Dubrovnik, and finally attacked Zadar, to return to Bulgaria through Bosnia and Rascia. According to the previous research this campaign was dated in 986, and later, in the latest research, more precisely in 998/999. Analyzing the chapter of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, where the Hagiography of Diocleian ruler Vladimir has been preserved, it was concluded that this must had been undertaken couple of years before the death of emperor Samuel. Silence of Iohannes Diaconus, who in his Chronicle often wrote about Dalmatia, regarding Samuels campaign against Dalmatia and Zadar, presents clear sign that the campaign was undertaken after 1008, and the death of Iohanned Diaconus (who died in 1009). Another argument that Samuelís campaign was taken at the time when Dyrrachium was under the Byzantine rule and that was in 1005 according to Lupus Protospatarus, also points to the end of the first decade of the XI century as the time of the campaign. Political circumstances, which led to the campaign, were the following: the Venetians strengthened their positions in Dalmatia in 1000, and put on the throne the ruler of Croatia who was loyal to them. In the year of 1004/1005 the Venetian duke by the marital ties, secured the acknowledgement of his possessions in Dalmatia from Byzantium, which also considerably strengthened Byzantine position in the Adriatic. By the fall of Durrachium under the Byzantine rule in 1005, the Byzantines came in the direct contact with the princedom of Diocleia and thus made connection with their possessions in central Dalmatia. Thus, on the western borders of Samuelís state, there was a strong anti-bulgarian block formed by Venetians, Croatians, Diocleia under the direct control of Byzance. This forced Samuel to attack Diocleia, the towns of the thema of Dyrrachium, as well as Byzantine towns in central Dalmatia. Based on the data from the Hagiography of St Vladimir, preserved in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, that ìafter some timeî Bulgarian emperor Samuel had died, the conclusion is that the campaign took place around 1009/1010.
-
- Почеци Ногајеве власти у западној степи на доњем Дунаву (c. 1267-1273)
- Numerous works and historical papers are dedicated to the life and times of Nogai, famous descendant of Genghis-khan. However, many details from his biography either remain unanalyzed, or deserve to be put in the proper historical context. In this article attention is cast to one of these questions – beginnings of Nogai’s rule in the western parts of the Black sea steppes, his establishment in Dniester-Prut interfluve and spread of his sphere of influence to the region of the Lower Danube. Despite frequently repeated opinion Nogai wasn’t present, nor he was a leader of joint Tatar-Bulgarian attack on Byzantine Thrace in 1264/5. He established himself in the West only after the death of Berke and ascendance of his successor Möngke-Temür (1266). The chronological timeframe of this event can be further determined by Nogai’s first recorded activities in the region – it was his embassy sent to the Mamluk sultan Baybars al Bundukhdari in Muharram, 669. A.H. (August/September 1270). According to the analysis of three independent sources: Byzantine historian George Pachymeres, Persian writer Rashid al-Din Hamadani and Mamluk chronicler Baybars al-Mansuri it may be concluded that it ensued as part of the complex transfer policies conducted by Sarai elite under the leadership of Möngke-Temür, aimed at strengthening Tatar presence in the West. Himself a convertite to Islam, and although not its ardent proponent, Nogai enjoyed the support of “pro-islamic” faction among Juchids, whose prominent member was Chichek-khatun, wife of Berke and Möngke-Temür. Probably during the reign of Möngke-Temür, Nogai’s status was further determined by his elevation to the high position of the commander of the right hand, i.e. leader of the western parts of Juchid lands. Early years of Nogai’s rule in the Western steppes were marked by hostile and aggressive moves towards neighboring Hungary (1270–1271) and Byzantium (c.1272). However, new Tatar incursions into the Central and Southeast Europe didn’t ensue as а consequence of Nogai’s independent actions; they were directed from Sarai and they represented the continuation of the policies of Berke. Even his correspondence with Baibars couldn’t beinterpreted as his desire towards independence. The diplomatic move was indeed prompted by Nogai, but also by other influential leaders in the Western steppes – Tok-Buka and Uran-Temur, who were subjected to Möngke Temür. Only after the Tatar attack on Byzantium, Nogai’s role changed. In c. 1273. he made an agreement with the emperor Michael VIII Paleologus and took as his bride the princess Eyphrosyne.
-
- Право азила у Византијскосрпској правној компилацији закону цара Константина Јустинијана
- The right of asylum, i.e. of protective refuge, existed for centuries in the European mediaeval law, and it originated as far back as the classical times. In all the Christian states the Church offered refuge to fugitives in order to prevent arbitrary dispensation of punishment and to preserve the public order. The right of asylum was also incorporated in the Serbian mediaeval codices of law and in their later redactions. The Ravanica manuscript of Emperor Stefan Dušan's legislation, dating from the last quarter of the seventeenth century, includes several legal texts – a law of Emperor Constantine Justinian, Emperor Dušan's Code, and the Imperial Code of Emperors Leo and Constantine. The right of asylum is defined in Article 42 of Emperor Constantine Justinian and Articles 19 and 22 of the Imperial Code of Leo and Constantine. Articles 112-113 of Emperor Dušan's Code extend the right of asylum to the imperial and patriarchal courts. The basic source of the right to asylum is Byzantine law. Serbia and the other Balkan countries belonging to the Byzantine cultural sphere (Bulgaria, Romania) adopted this right, but they also introduced certain modifications, especially in the manner of punishing the culprits. Some changes were introduced also in the later codices of law, dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but the right of asylum was preserved.
-
- Право прече куповине према законодавству цара Стефана Душана
- According to the legislation of Tsar Stefan Dušan, the option to buy was regulated only in Justinian’s Law – in the manuscripts of the later and of the earlier redaction, i.e. in all the preserved transcripts ranging from the XVth to the XIXth century. The notion of the option to buy is absent from all the precepts of the Dušan’s Law as well as of the Syntagm of Matija Vlastar. The option to buy and the right of the payoff concerning the already sold goods were not separated one from another in Justinian’s Law, being mutually linked, but representing only two separate rights apart. Instead, they have been consequently regulated as the two segments of the implementation of one and the selfsame right. It has been attested that an important number of the regulations existing in Justinian’s Law has been rooted in the Byzantine legislation. Nevertheless, the option to buy, as it has been formulated in Justinian’s Law, has in all likelihood been preserved in the customs of the Serbian people, but also in other nations’ customs, only in different variations. This right safeguarded the interests of those members of the family and of the enlarged social community who have been related through the common property in the more remote past. The precepts that regulated the option to buy have, through time, been transposed into the written law, while probably only partially taking after the Byzantine law, and were thus incorporated in Justinian’s Law.
-
- Предлози за изградњу железница у Босни и Херцеговини те делу Хрватске до окупације Босне и Херцеговине
- The importance of the proposals and building of the first railway in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia was substantial. Until today, little research was done in it, despite the fact that there are numerous archival and historiographic sources, as well as periodicals, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, as well as in other countries. From the scarce literature, so far these proposals and building of railways in Croatia and Slavonia, and peripherally in Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been studied in the works of Josip Gorničić-Brdovački and Bernard Stulli. A considerable time elapsed between the proposals the realization of the building of railways in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in the second half of the 19th century. The main argument for connecting these lands was the increased industrialization and the sudden exploitation of forest and mineral resources. This could have been sped up only by building fast transport routes, and in these days, those were railways. The Share Society of the so-called Southern Railways, together with the Vienna and Budapest authorities, tried to include Bosnia and Herzegovina to their concept of railways, despite the fact that the country was part of the Ottoman Empire, and despite different political options directed at Dalmatia, Slavonia, Serbia and others. The main direction was building of the railway between the Danube region to the Adriatic Sea (the ports), in order to facilitate export of products; hence, from Belgrade/Zemun to Rijeka and Zadar or Split. There were disagreements, for example, whether to build over the Military Krajina, Zagreb, and Karlovac, or to take a shorter route through Bosnia and Herzegovina to the sea, even though it needed to pass over the Turkish territory. The first projects for building railways in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are dated to the first half of the 19th century, and the more concrete ones, in 1862 and 1863. The idea will be realized in a couple of years, and the increased exploitation of the mineral wealth of Bosnia and Herzegovina will only begin following the Austro-Hungarian occupation, from 1878. First narrow-track, mostly mountain and mining routes, will be built from the occu- Иван Балта pation, as parts from Brod on Sava to Metković and the Adriatic Sea, going through Doboj, Zenica, Sarajevo, and Mostar, as well as their prongs, from Zenica to Travnik and Jajce, and from Doboj to Tuzla. These were very weak railways, which were only after the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina improved for the transport of passengers as well. Hence, most of the proposals for railways, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, will be realized only after the occupation.
-
- Преокрет у политици лорда Палмерстона према Русији и Османском царству (1827-1833)
- During his stay in the office of British Minister of Foreign Affairs in the fourh decade of nineteenth century, Palmerston directed British foreign policy towards the defense of the Ottoman Empire from those who threatened his existence. It was a vital British interest, because the Ottoman Empire was an obstacle to further advance of Russia to the south, to the eastern Mediterranean. Eastern Mediterranean was very important for Britain, since that way led beeline for India, which was the most important factor in supplying the British with raw materials. It is interesting that Palmerston did not share these sentiments all the time. When the Greeks rebelled against Ottoman rule, Palmerston supported them since he saw that conflict as a struggle of free men against tyranny. In that time he called the Sultan oriental despot. He perceived Russian emperor as the only person who was able to support the brave Hellenes in meeting their goal. Upon arrival at the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs he changed his opinion, although he needed two years to do so. The Sultan clashed with Egypt Pasha Mehmet Ali and the Russian emperor took advantage of that by imposing himself as a factor of peace and increasing the influence of Russia on the Ottoman empire in signing the agreement in Unkjar-Iskelesi in the year of 1833. This event led Palmerston in the situation that he must be confronted with yesterday’s ally and to direct his country’s foreign policy towards saving the Ottoman Empire from the Russian foreign policy, as well as from any other that could jeopardize the survival of the Ottoman state.
-
- Претње казном изопштења у Котору (XIII–XV век)
- Contempt for canonical laws and theological dogmas resulted firstly in rebuke and subsequently in the pronouncing of sentences, which were hierarchically classified according to the severity of the committed sins. The causes and consequences of punishing by excommunication and interdict in late medieval Kotor have undergone some analysis, based on written sources. Also under review were different causes for the appliance of these penalties – religious, political, economic, as well as those which pertained to the sins of individuals. Prior to the well-known conflict between the city of Kotor and the Pope regarding the appointment of Bishop Sergije II de Bolica, which started in 1328 and gave rise to the imposing of an interdict on Kotor in 1330, the city encountered another instance of interdict imposition, theretofore unknown in the study of this subject matter. This was corroborated by the testament of a denizen of Kotor, Basilius Mathei, registered on October 22, 1327. Basilius had accentuated in this document that he took exception to offering gifts to the priests of Kotor until they were released from excommunication and addressed the Franciscans to lay him to rest and to hold vigilias and pro remedio animae mass. This mendicant religious order, moreover, had the license to perform all church rituals for the duration of the interdict period. The punishing of the citizens of Kotor with an interdict twice during a short period of time speaks of the dynamics of the conflict between the Pope and the city of Kotor and leads to deliberation regarding the existing of the profound underlying reasons for the conflict. Judging by the preserved sources, the citizens of Kotor encountered the threats of excommunication repeatedly: in cases when the last will of the testator was unobserved, when monks indulged in marriage or bigamy, in trading during church holidays, as well as due to physical assaults upon priests and neglect of the monastery by an abbot, and lapses in the holding of church services and neglect of the host. A longer listing of sins which demanded excommunicating from Christian society also brought about a frequent application of this penalty, as well as effecting a strong and efficient clerical, social, political and economic weapon against unfit individuals.
-
- Прилог Настанку Нахије Пива
- The early history of the district (nahija) of Piva is specific in many respects. It is listed together with another district (the nahija of Banjani) in the Herzegovina cadastral land census (defter) for 1475/1477, and in this respect it is unique in the Herzegovina sanjak These two districts were linked by common winter and summer abodes. The Vlakhs (Mavrovlakians) from Banjani had their summer abodes in the district of Piva. This is indicated by the present toponym Banjski Katun (katun - highland pasture with stone cottages) in the district of Piva. The district of Piva, unlike the other Vlakh districts (the nahija of Komarice), was caught up in the process of Islamization at a later date, for no Islamized names appear in the 1475/1477 census of its inhabitants. Besides, no clergyman appears in this census, whereas a priest and his son are listed among the inhabitants of the adjacent district of Komarice. All this seems to indicate that at that time the Vlachs of the district of Piva had not yet adopted settled life in villages, and that therefore they were not involved in the process of Islamization.
-
- Прилог биографији деспота Лазара Бранковића
- Der deutsche Historiker, Alois Schulte hatte noch im Jahre 1900, in seinem Buch „Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Handels und Verkehrs zwischen Westdeutschland und Italien mit Ausschlusz von Venedig“, I-II, Leipzig, als erster, den von Kaufmann Konrad Messner aus Konstanz, am Francesco Sforza, Herzog von Milano gerichteten von 16. April 1457 aus Mailand datierten Brief im originellen italienischen ausgegeben. In dem Brief Messner den Herzog über den Ladislaus von Hunyad ausgesprochenes Blutgericht berichtet hatte. In dem Gericht auch der „sosero del signore Cilli“, „el signore despot“ teilgenommen hatte. Der ungarische Historiker Ludwig Kropf, hatte diesen Brief, von Schulte übergenommen und in der ungarischen historischen Zeitschrift Századok, noch im nächsten Jahr, am zweiten mal publiziert. Neben den originellen Text, er hatte Messners Brief auch am ungarisch übersetzt. Er hatte aber das italienische Wort „sosero“, irrtümlich als Schwiegervater übersetzt, obwohl hier um Schwäger, Hunyadis, also um serbischen Despot Lazar Brankovic handelt. Die bisherige Historiker wußten von diesem wichtigen Moment aus Leben Lazar Brankovics gar nichts.
-
- Прилог за биографију Антонија Тодоровића (1880-1971)
- Antonije Todorović (Prizren, 1880 - Belgrade, 1971) was an important national worker in the territory of Macedonia and Old Serbia, and one of the people whose work was intentionally suppressed and neglected following the Second World War. Todorović spent all of his life dedicated to the idea of the unity of Serbdom. His name does not appear in the literature, but archival sources allowed for a compilation of his biography. Antonije Todorović left the memoirs, Revolutionary Action of the Serb People in Turkey, between 1904 and 1912, a valuable source, which allows one insight into the organizational processes of the revolutionary action of the Serb people, in contrast to the memoirs known so far, which allowed insight only in the concrete battles. The place and the role of Antonije Todorović in the Organization of Serb People in Turkey, as well as his activity in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, as well as in the later Yugoslavia, could be seen from three aspects: revolutionary, educational, and political.
-
- Прилог историји виноградарства и винарства у Србији
- In the fourth decade of the 18th century, nine vineyards situated in the vicinity of Belgrade were the most important part of the land owned by the Eparchy of Belgrade. Church official paraikonom and employee known as vincilir supervised all seasonal work and workers. From grapes grown in the Eparchy’s vineyards several wines were made including bermet and šiler. The wine was stored in the main cellar of the metropolitan’s residence in Belgrade. In the spring of 1733, there were some 30.000 liters of wine of different kinds in the palace.
-
- Прилог о деловању кнеза и војводе Петра Павловића у босанско-угарско-турским сукобима почетком XV века
- On the basis of new sources from the Hungarian State Archives it was determined that knez and, later, voivode Petar Pavlović, son of knez Pavle Radinović, had a significant role in the wars that Bosnia led with Hungary at the beginning of the 15th century, sometimes in cooperation with the Turks. Petar, whose name is explicitly mentioned in the sources, most likely acted as a close associate of Hrvoje Vukčić and participated in conflicts around the Una River, while after the Battle of Lašva (1415) he captured a prominent nobleman from Slavonia – Bartholomew Fáncsy of Gordova (Bartol Fanči Grđevački), the eldest son of Ladislav, the former ban of Croatia and Dalmatia. Bartholomew was ransomed for 8,000 ducats and his family had to cede a part of their estates to the persons who lent them money. It is not known when the payment occurred, but it seems Bartholomew was free by the spring of 1416. The fact that Petar was involved in the Battle of Lašva and that he actively cooperated with the Turks, sheds new light on the incident in Parena poljana i.e. the murder of Petar’s father knez Pavle Radinović organised by the Bosnian king Ostoja and his leading supporter – grand voivode Sandalj Hranić. It becomes clear that the “accord of the Bosnian nobility” in the summer of 1415 was in fact only an episode, if not an illusion, and that the Pavlovićs were justifiably considered collaborators of Hrvoje Vukčić and the Ottomans, and it is quite likely that knez Pavle, as the leader of his family, received capital punishment for his son’s sins. However, the reasons why Petar’s life was spared and the circumstances of his liberation after temporary detention in the Bobovac castle remain unexplained.