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
-
- Битка код Никопоља у делу Константина Филозофа
- It has been a long time since Житије деспота Стефана Лазаревића (The Hagiography of Despot Stefan Lazarević) has been established in historiography as the paramount historic source regarding the period between the end of the 14th century and the first half of the 15th century. The abundance of data provided by it, not only on the life of prince and despot Stefan, but about the other persons, phenomena and events, exceeds the chronological and biographic frame of an only locally significant person’s hagiography. The manner in which Constantine the Philosopher in his work depicted one of the most dramatic events from the end of the 14th century, i.e. the Christian victimisation at the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, differs from his detailed descriptions of the other events that Stefan Lazarević took part in. A comparative display observation of the event within the very source, as well as by comparing it with the other relevant sources of the western provenience, the issue of the hagiography author’s aim projections has arisen. The fact that Constantine the Philosopher described the battle in a reduced way, omitting Stefan Lazarević’s crucial role in the Christian defeat against the Ottomans, brought along the question of self-censorship. Certain potentially compromising facts regarding Stefan Lazarević in Constantine’s work are certain to have been left out. Those facts could have cast some doubt on the creation of his Christian cult. Having taken into consideration all the relevant factors, the time of its origin (the fourth decade of the 15th century) as well as the endangered position of the Christian states by the Ottomans, the inner analysis of the hagiographic contents and the comparison with the other available sources, we have derived the conclusion that Constantine the Philosopher, most likely led by the higher, Christian ideal, purposefully omitted Stefan’s key role in the Battle of Nicopolis in which the conflict was resolved in favour of the ‘infidels’ and after which the persecution of the Christian captives took place. The other presumption according to which Constantine, although being very well-informed even on the events preceding the rule of Stefan such as the Kosovo Battle, had no clue of Stefan’s role at the Battle of Nicopolis, remains almost not plausible at all.
-
- Битка на Легету (код Чеврнтије) као подстицај визуелног уобличавања једног места сећања у међуратном периоду
- During the 20th century, the defeat of the Serbian army at the Leget Field (Čevrntija) in a battle that took place in 1915 on the bank of the Sava river near Sremska Mitrovica was not a subject of a detailed critical and historiographical analysis. The significant losses of the Serbian army in fighting the Austro-Hungarian forces could not fit into the official memory of the role of the victorious Serbian army in the Great War. The process of storing the Battle of Čevrntija in the collective memory of the Serbian/Yugoslav nation was initiated during the interwar period. In 1922 an idea was launched to transform the Leget field in an artificial memory topos. The initiative came from the local community and eventually grew into the general national patriotic effort that involved the homogenization of the nation. According to the propaganda effect of cultural and political elites, the narrative of the battle at the Leget Field highlighted via visual means the required unity of the new composite nation. The culmination of the process of inauguration of the new place of remembrance was reached through formal and ideological creation of a monumental cenotaph labeled by patriotic emblems, reliefs and written accompaniments. Therefore, the abstract and purified artefact with its minimalist form expressed a powerful message about the glorious fallen at the sacred altar of the homeland. This typical visual mark confirmed the general practice of raising simplified monumental cenotaphs to commemorate the heroes of the Great War. The local traditions related to the place of battle (Srem District) and to the fallen martyrs of the nation (members of the Timok Division) were integrated into the general course of creating the single Yugoslav nation which incorporated the dual Serbian/Yugoslav identity. The afforestation of the Leget Field in 1926 marked its transformation into a well-regulated political landscape. It was in 1933 that the transformation of the Leget Field into a fabricated place of collective memory was accomplished. Thus this topos was integrated in the official memory of the subjects of the Yugoslav state in the interwar period in reference to the actual political and cultural narrative.
-
- Богдан Раденковић и Милан Ракић
- Bogdan Radenković had an extraordinary role in the Serbian revolutionary organization in Ottoman Empire, as one of the leading organizers of the chetnik movement. Milan Rakić took active part in Serbian national action within Ottoman Empire, through his diplomatic contacts and relations with Serbian population as well as with his secret connections and arming of chetniks. Most probably, Radenković and Rakić became close in Skopje in November 1905. Nine letters of Bogdan Radenković to Milan Rakić are kept in the Archive of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which could be organized in several groups. Four letters dated from 1907 and 1908 refer to conflicts within Serbian organization in Skopje. In one letter dated in 1909, Radenković described his impressions on current situation in Skopje. In his letter dated in 1910, Radenković adviced Rakić how to provide legal help to Serbian population in the Old Serbia. In the letter dated in March 1912, Radenković has informed Rakić on participation of Serbs in the elections in Ottoman Empire and on the work of Serbian opposition. Two last letters are dated in September 1912, and were written at the same day. They refer to details of forthcoming secret scout mission in the Old Serbia in the eve of the Balkan War.
-
- Борба за Далматинско-бокељску епископију у XVIII веку
- The text deals with the attempts of Orthodox Christian Serbs in Dalmatia and Boka to obtain the right to have a bishop for these areas in the XVIII century, under Venetian rule. The Savina Monastery was an important stronghold of the fight, as well as a religious, political and spiritual center of Orthodox Serbs in the XVIIIcentury Boka, at the time when there was neither a state nor church organization there. Bishops Savatije and Stefan Ljubibratić were active within the Monastery and persistently attempted to solve the issue of the Bishop of Dalmatia and Boka. Entrepreneurial priors of Savina, above all Archimandrite Leontije Rajović and Prior Arsenije Milutinović, would later continue to fight for the same cause. A large repository of unpublished Venetian XVIII-century archive material, most of it stored in the Archive of Herceg-Novi and Archive of the Savina Monastery, enabled us to complete the answers to many questions about this subject, to shed light on the roles of the mentioned persons, as well as to eliminate certain doubts and inaccuracies.
-
- Босански "лутајући витезови" Паштровићи
- Having been involved into the fierce conflict between Sandalj Hranić, Bosnian duke, and Đurađ II Balšić, rouler of Zeta, the five sons of Radoslav Paštrović (Andrija, Nikolica, Aleksa, Ostoja and Radič), moved from the region Paštrović family possessed into Kotor and became citizens of the forementioned town. They have probably been incited to act consequently, after Kosača left the battle field, by fear of Balšić' revenge. Some time later, Aleksa, Ostoja and Radič moved from Kotor into the region of Trebinje where they acquired some land properties, due to the support Sandalj offered to them. The inhabitants of Dubrovnik „honored“ them as close and dignified neighbors by having issued citizenships to them; they also donated to them certain sums of money on a number of occasions, but, nevertheless, the „ungreatful“ newcomers often stole the cattle from the peasants of Astarea of Dubrovnik and robbed merchants’ goods in the hinterland. However, the members of the Paštrović family became, above all, widely known as diplomats staying at the courts of the most prominent Bosnian lords (Kosača and Pavlović), and of the kings Tvrtko II Tvrtković and Stefan Ostojić. Duke Radosav Pavlović used, most likely, to pay the largest sums of money for the obtained favours; due to this, Aleksa moved to Pavlović’ court, having left Sandalj and Tvrtko II, and became the main „expert“ for resolving the issues concerning his part of Konavle with Dubrovnik. Upon coming to Pavlović' court, he found his younger brother Ostoja there, who has already built up the image of an unordinary and controversial diplomat, through his senseless efforts employed to prove to the sultan and to his viziers by means of lies, bribe and corruption that his master did not sell, but only put under hypothecation Konavle to the inhabitants of Dubrovnik, who refused to give the region back to him, after having effectuated the payoff of their debts. The youngest brother Radič has also been active in the diplomacy field, but not as much as his older brothers (Aleksa and Ostoja). He stayed at Pavlović' court until the duke lost the region of Trebinje in 1439, and was afterwards „nominated“ nobleman and diplomat of the Duke and Herceg Stefan Vukčić Kosača. After approximately a decade spent in Kosača's service, he got into the prison of Dubrovnik under unknown circumstances in the middle of the 1450's, and thus anticipated the disappearence of Paštrović family, the „wandering knights“ from the historical stage.
-
- Брата, удовица Пашка Бугонова (Бугона)
- This paper covers the life and work of Brata Bugon, the widow of Paško Bugon on the basis of historical sources (the Cadastral Book of Grbalj, the Statute of Kotor, published documents from the Kotor Archives and unpublished from the Dubrovnik-Ragusa Archives) and literature. It deals with Brata’s commercial and credit business activities with her countrymen and nearest neighbours (above all, the Ragusans and merchants from Venice), as well as her family life and financial status. Brata’s good standing and high status is confirmed by the fact that she was given land in Grbalj, although she was a widow. Brata owned real estate (houses and land) not only in Kotor, but also in Serbia. Her case was used to depict the position of widows (their rights and obligations) in medieval Kotor, which was regulated by the Statute of Kotor. The example of Brata Bugon as a business woman, although an isolated instance, shows us that women were not absolutely excluded from economic flows in the middle ages.
-
- Брачна политика у Кнежевини Србији. Између традиционализма и модернизма
- Establishment of control of social organization and directing its development in the renewed Serb state was not possible without first establishing control of basic social institutions, like marriage and family. Thus, marital policy in Serbia represented one of the most important segments of internal politics in the Princedom of Serbia. The essence of the marital policy were legal regulations of the institution of marriage and rooting out the anachronistic marriage customs. The state tried to adjust its marital policy with the one of developed European countries. The number of legal regulations related to marriage witnesses serious attempts on the side of authorities to lead an efficient policy on the one side, but, on the other, shows strong resistance to this policy on the side of the society. The force of the law was not enough for rooting out marital customs that the state considered backward, but also the change in social and economic conditions. Considering that the socio-economic development of the Princedom was lagging behind its legal activities, marital policy of the state was only partially successful.
-
- Британска дипломатија о стању у Косовском вилајету после Берлинског конгреса
- Interest of British diplomacy for Kossovo Vilayet grew up after Berlin Congress because it was still a part of Turkish Empire. Foreign Office and its diplomats on the Balkan Peninsula permanent watching what was going there especially due to continual persecutions of Albanians against Serbs. They were sending huge reports with news about crimes toward Christians committed by Albanians bands. Unfortunately most of them had tacit support of Turkish authorities. Besides those British diplomats often reported about problem of Albanians refugees between 1878 and 1881. This problem emerged during war between Serbia and Turkey 1877/1878, due to facts that large number of the Albanians from Serbia fought on the Turkish army, and they couldn’t stay and wait arriving of the Serbian troops. It is estimated that between 30000 and 49000 Albanians left their homes, crossed border and settled down in Kossovo vilayet. They throw out Serbs which were obliged to move out and arrived in Serbia.
-
- Британски краљ Едвард VII и дипломатски бојкот Србије 1903-1906
- Both domestic and foreign historiography has had different views on the role of King Edward VII in the break and renewal of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Serbia. Whilst some argue that the British king was the key figure in bringing about the three-year isolation of Serbia and the one who most insisted on punishing the conspirators and their dismissal from active service, the others are of the opinion that he was a weak person, and that the key to the problem was in the hands of Lord Henry Fitzmaurice, head of the Foreign Office. The intention of this paper is to show, based on diplomatic reports and other archival materials, as well as the available literature, that neither group was absolutely right, i.e. that the crucial role in the break and renewal of the relations with Serbia belonged to the British political and state interests. King Edward and secretaries of the Foreign Office were only instruments in their achievement.
-
- Велика Британија према српским акцијама у Македонији 1903-1907.
- British politics turns to the Balkans during 1903, when there was considerable unrest in Macedonia, where the Christian population expressed its dissatisfaction with the increasing terror against them, as well as because of the activities of both irregular Turkish troops, and the official authorities. As protectors of Turkey, British politicians did everything they could in order to preserve the existing state of affairs, that is to say, the Turkish rule in the Balkans, for even with all of its shortcomings, the Turkish Empire was the safest obstacle to Russian aspirations in the region. Especially between 1905 and 1907, Foreign Office carefully observed activities of various revolutionary committees and units, trained and supplied with weapons and money by all Balkan countries interested in the area, and then sent into Macedonia. The British government especially pointed to the dangers from the Serbian paramilitary units, and warned Serbian government to cease all activities of their units crossing into this region. On its side, Serbian government in the beginning organized and helped the activities of the Serbian Defense, but, following serious warnings from London, asked for the cessation of its activities. At the same time, the British remained unmoved by argumented reports from Belgrade, about the continuation of unhindered and unpunished activities of Bulgarian swuadrons. The great influence of the Balkan Committee on the British government largely caused that official London ignored obvious proofs about terrorist activities of Bulgarian units on the territory of Macedonia until the end of 1907.
-
- Велико краљевство од прва
- Stephen Nemanjić was crowned King of all Serbian and Maritime Lands by the legate sent by Pope Honorius III, in the church of St. Peter and Paul in Ras. We know these details thanks to the sources of Latin provenance: the History of Thomas the Archdeacon and the Chronicle of Andrew Dandolo. Regarding the place of coronation, a later papal act from the 16th century reveals that it was the church of St. Peter and Paul in Novi Pazar. However, in the Serbian hagiographies dedicated to St. Sava, as well as in somewhat later genealogies and annals, a different tradition was recorded. The hagiographers of St. Sava, Domentijan and Teodosije, stated that Sava crowned Stephen king in the Žiča Monastery, and according to them this occurred after the establishment of the Serbian Archbishopric in 1218/1219. Although these statements were rejected by scholars long ago, what awakens the attention of researchers is that Domentijan, unlike Teodosije, did not conceal that the royal crown was brought from Rome and that, according to him, Sava sent an epistle to the then Pope. As Stephen repeatedly sought royal crown from the Pope since 1199 (first of the three missions), the paper raises the question as to what mission and letter of Stephen could be the source for Domentijan when writing about the mentioned epistle in the Life of St. Sava. Presumably, it was the second mission of Stephen and the letter sent on that occasion in 1217 that could serve Domentijan as a source for the story about the epistle, but unfortunately it was not preserved, or the whole paragraph about the epistle in the Life of St. Sava is just Domentijan’s construction. It is interesting that when speaking about the mission to Rome sent to acquire the royal crown, Domentijan denotes bishop Methodius as the bearer of the epistle, the more so because Methodius was mentioned as the bearer in another letter, which Stephen sent to the Pope in 1220 (his third known mission to the Pope). However, the content of the letter from 1220 is completely different from what Domentijan presents as a content of the epistle, and above all in it Stephen titles himself as already a rex coronatus. Domentijan was probably remembering the embassy to Rome in 1220, but as the coronation in his text happened only after the creation of the Serbian Archbishopric, in order to exalt his teacher Sava as the one who awarded the crown to Stephen, he attributed the role of the previous (second) mission of 1217 to the later one (third mission) of 1220. Domentijan among other things notes that Sava wanted to crown his brother king “after the first fatherland of their kingdom…, the place called Dioclea”, which is called “the great kingdom from the beginning”. The statement “the great kingdom from the beginning” is in scholarly works most commonly identified with the „Kingdom of Dioclea“. In this way, the coronation of Stephen would rely upon the tradition of the “Kingdom of Dioclea” of the Serbian rulers Michael and Bodin from the eleventh century. However, following the sources from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which typically reflect the title of the Serbian rulers of the time, it becomes clear that the “Kingdom of Dioclea“ did not exist, but it was the Serbian kingdom. After all, neither Domentijan determined it in that way, either geographically or ethnically. However, the Kingdom of Dioclea was created in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, and its creator, as the sources testify, was Vukan Nemanjić, who carried the title of rex Dioclie et Dalmatiae. Nevertheless, this title was restricted to Dioclea and was not related to other Serbian lands. Vukan himself wanted, with the help of King Emeric, to obtain the royal crown from the Pope and become the King of Serbia. When Stephen finally got the royal crown from Rome in 1217, he always emphasized that he was the first, the crowned one, the first-crowned king, and Vukan’s descendants were deprived of any possibility to revive the tradition of his Kingdom of Dioclea. Therefore, there is no doubt that the independent activity of Vukan in Dioclea could have prompted Stephen to present himself before the Pope as the true successor to the old royal tradition. On the other hand, Domentijan himself, who wrote the Life of St. Sava during the reign of King Stephen Uroš Ι, and was instructed by him, could also have intended, or even been obliged, to emphasize the legitimacy of the Rascian rulers (who ruled from Rasa, not from Dioclea) in this part of the Life, and even in the whole work, to mark him as the sole sovereign Serbian king, and to make an ideological link between the Kingdom of Stephen and “the great kingdom from the beginning” of Michael and Bodin.