Istorijski časopis

Primary tabs

View(active tab)

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

: Видин и Србија почетком 19. века; The time of great turmoil in the Ottoman Empire – the late 18th and early 19th century, was also the period of intensive political changes in the area between Belgrade and Vidin. These two towns on the very periphery of the Empire became the centres for gathering of many of those who were dissatisfied with and opposed the programme of reforms of Sultan Selim III. The temporary strengthening of the influence of janissary leaders and selfproclaimed military commanders in Belgrade and Vidin had far reaching consequences. Mutual acrimonies and hostilities among the Turks themselves laid the ground for the later outbreak of the mass rebellion of the Serbs led by Karađorđe, while the area between Belgrade and Vidin remained a war zone during the decades following the Austro¬Turkish War. With the creation of the rebellious state, the janissary element in Serbia was systematically destroyed, while Vidin remained the janissaries’ toughest stronghold on the Danube, although almost surrounded by Serbian and Russian troops. Negotinska and Timočka krajina which belonged to the Vidin pashalik were joined to Serbia, while the Timok river became the border between Serbia and Turkey, which was formally confirmed during the rule of Miloš Obrenović.

: Видинска митрополија 1739-1834.; The Archbishopry of Vidin, one of the oldest bishoprics in the Balkans, changed its borders during the time, adjusting geo-political reality. After the treaty of Belgrade in 1739, by which he Ottoman Empire succeeded to regain the region south the Sava and the Danube from the Habsburg monarchy, the regions of Krajina and Ključ were returned to this archbishopry, which, had belonged to the Archbishopry of Beograd and Karlovci, under the Austrian administration. Since the Peace of Belgrade in 1834, the territory of Archbishopry of Vidin remained the same. In the time of Pazvanogluís usurpation in Vidin, the parts of this Archbishopry were ruled by the metropolitans of Vrace and Belgrade, while in the town itself the archbishop was Kalinik Samozvanac, posted illegally. Regular situation was regained after the death of Pazvanoglu in 1807. From 1810 to 1813, a part of the bishopry of Vidin which was a part of Serbian state, the Belgrade metropolitan ruled again, but it was not confirmed officially. After the break of the First Serbian Uprising in 1813, spiritual authorities of the Vidin archpriests was introduced on the entire territory of the arhcbishopry. It was to remain so until 1834, when six nahiyes were added to Serbia The Bishopry of Timok of the autonomous Serbian archibishopry was made from the part west of Timok, with the seat in Zaječar.

: Викарни епископи Дабробосанске митрополије (1766-1878); From the time of abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć in 1766 up to the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, the Dabro-Bosnian metropolis was the largest diocese with the predominantly Serbian congregants within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to perform their duties more efficiently, the Dabro-Bosnian metropolitans often appointed vicary bishops with the title of metropolitans of Kratovo. During the above-mentioned period, thirteen DabroBosnian and at least ten metropolitans of Kratovo were recorded. Among them were no less than four Serbs, three of which were certainly born in Bosnia. In normal circumstances, they assisted Dabro-Bosnian metropolitans in their diocesan duties. During the absence of metropolitans, vicars gained the full spiritual power. When it comes to their appointment, a council of bishops of neighboring dioceses would perform it after the Patriarchate’s evaluation of the necessity for their service. They also received the decree of approval from the Sultan, for which they had to pay a certain sum of money. The most famous vicary bishops of the Dabro-Bosnian metropolis were Venedikt Kraljević, who became a Dalmatian bishop in 1810, and Joseph, who became a Metropolitan of Herzegovina in 1816. The fragmentary data that are preserved for other vicary bishops still allow their identification and determining the time of service, area of origin and previously unknown biographical details.

: Владарска и чиновничка заклетва у Србији у 19. веку; The rulers of Modern Serbia took an oath at the very beginning of their reign, and few of them did it several times. The form of the royal oath was prescribed by the Constitutions of the Principality of Serbia as well as by the Constituitions of Kingdom of Serbia (1835, 1838, 1869, 1888, 1901 and 1903). Serbian sovereigns mainly took their oath to the constitution, to preservation of national integrity and to respect of „people’s rights.“ Besides the ruler, the members of the regency as well took an oath. State`s officials oath in the 19th century Serbia is directly related to the constitutional and administrative organization of the country, which was systematically regulated since 1838. The principle of the tripartite division of power, which is represented in the constitutions (the legislative, judicial and executive), reflected itself in the form of an oath, which was taken by representatives of these branches of government. During the 19th century, several different oaths were customized for „administrative officials“, i.e. civil servants, for judges and for the representatives of legislative authorities such as counselors, MPs and senators. In the second half of the 19th century, Serbian kings, ministers, MPs, judges, senior and junior civil servants of the central and local government`s, military officers, elementary school teachers, high school teachers as well as proffesors at the University (Velika Škola), have been taking the oath. This fact represents an apparent indication that the cult of the state was cultivated by the form of an oath.

: Властела Павловића на повељама босанских краљева; The Pavlović nobility is mentioned as witnesses in seven royal charters. Tvrtko Borovinić is mentioned four times (1417, 1419, 1433, 1436), Radič Mozolić three times (1446, 1451, 1459) and Radoslav Vladimirić once (1419). All of them were relatives of the Pavlović family since they belonged to the same clan. Only in two of these seven charters the witnesses are members of the Pavlović family (1417, 1446). In several charters witnessed by the Pavlovićs their nobility rose as dignitaries (1426, 1446, 1461). In any case, the mutual interests of the Pavlovićs and their nobility as well as those of the Pavlovićs and Bosnian kings are not opposed. As rusaška gospoda, the Pavlovićs were dedicated to the idea of a Bosnian state as an indivisible whole and considered themselves its integral part. Therefore, it was possible for the nobility subordinated to them, the members of their own clan, to dwell at the king’s court, where they performed various services. After all, the Pavlović family could only take advantage of the presence of their relatives in the King’s vicinity. We assume that this further strengthened their position and influence at court. What inevitably arises is the comparison with the Kosača clan. While the relatives of the Pavlović family actively participated in the political life of the Bosnian kingdom, there are no members of the side branches of the Kosača clan neither in the royal charters nor in the royal service. This may lead to the conclusion that the side Kosača branch within the clan was in a more subordinated position than it was the case with relatives of the Pavlovićs within their clan. But it could also be concluded that the power and authority of Sandalj Hranić and Stefan Vukčić within the Kosača clan, as well as towards the Bosnian king, was stronger in comparison with the Pavlović family.The involvement of members of Borovinić, Vladimirić and Mozolić families among the witnesses to the royal charters, and their duties of court officials are linked to their kinship relations with the Pavlović family. Without them it would be difficult for members of these small and local aristocratic families to thrive in the social hierarchy of the medieval Bosnian state.

: Врањина и Св. Арханђели у Јерусалиму – Још један осврт на традицију даровне повеље цара Стефана Душана; The paper discusses three surviving copies of emperor Stefan Dušan’s 1350 charter for the monastery of the Holy Archangels in Jerusalem, which transfers the right to the so¬called Ston tribute to its brotherhood and grants them the monastery of Vranjina on Lake Scutari: 1) a plain copy dated 1348, preserved in Dubrovnik; 2) a copy in a Dubrovnik cartulary from the mid¬15th century (Codex ragusinus), and 3) a copy made no earlier than about 1500, preserved in the monastery of Hilandar. Among the three documents, special focus is placed on the latest. In addition to providing a new edition of its disposition and concluding formulas, the paper presents the hypothesis that this copy was created from an excerpt (perhaps contained in a cartulary) of the now lost original charter in the possession of the Jerusalem monastery. The purpose was to complete the set of documents proving the claims to the Ston tribute and the monastery of Vranjina put forth by the monastery of Hilandar after the monastery of the Holy Archangels was temporarily deserted. The same text appeared in the Dubrovnik original which is also lost, transcribed by the author of Copy 2 – Dubrovnik’s Slavic scribe Nikša Zvijezdić. Copy 1 would be a transcription of a draft submitted by the Jerusalemites to Dušan intended to specify their rights over the monastery of Vranjina, which arrived in Dubrovnik only later as a supplement to the original document. All three surviving documents were of relevance to contemporaries in terms of content and legal effect, and scholars should take them as being historical sources of equal importance. They are also clear proof that emperor Stefan Dušan did indeed grant Vranjina to the Holy Archangels even though this act of donation apparently remained without a lasting legal effect.

: Време настанка Ајнхардовог дела Vita Caroli imperatoris; On the basis of a section of Einhard’s Preface, stating that the author composed his work rather hastily, one can assume that it was ordered. Dynastic connotation, present in the first four chapters, as well as the mention of the issues regarding the dynastic legitimity could only signify that the actual ruler, Louis the Pious, instructed Einhard to compose this work. Chronological data that were examined in the previous section of the work indicate that it should not be dated prior to December 817, i.e. before Bernard’s rebellion. The mention of Arabian devastation of Italy, that had occurred only “recently” (in 813) – point to the conclusion that this could most probably encompass the period of two or three years and thus be dated to 815 or 816. The author’s allusion to the malevolent omen, relevant to the final years of Charles’ reign (demonstrated in collapse of the wooden construction that connected the court and basilica in Aachen) - could certainly not have been written if Einhard had already had the knowledge of the similar event that occurred in spring 817, when the emperor himself got injured, since that would have represented the malevolent omen for Louis. Failing to mention the second Louis’ coronation by the pope Stephen IV in Reims would probably suggest that the VC originated before October 816. Therefore, the wider context in which the work was composed should be dated to the period ranging from February 814 to September 816. Yet another important event stays intrinsically related to the proposed chronology – the special attention that the emperor has shown towards Einhard and his spouse Emma. As it has already been stated in the text, Louis the Pious donated two villages to Einhard on 11th January 815 – Michelstadt and Millinheim. It was in Millinheim that Einhard would later build his church and bring the relics of St. Marcellinus and St. Peter. Einhard was appointed secular abbot of St. Peter in Ghent as well as in the Bavo abbey the same year (815), whereas he received the Fontenel abbey the following year. These gifts that Einhard received between January 815 and the end of 816 might primarily be interpreted as a reward for certain deeds he has done in emperor’s favour. VC might be a reason – the literary work Louis the Pious ordered Einhard to compose. For instance, Einhard received the two abbeys from the emperor on 11th January 815 – upon the completion of the VC. The date is equally important. In other words, the work was finalized almost exactly on the anniversary of death of Charles the Great – in early 815 (Charles died on 28th January 814). At that very time, Gervard also sojourned in Ghent and thus received a copy of VC containing Einhard’s preface as a gift, immediately after the work was completed, i.e. in 815.

: Вршац у средњем веку II део; The castle of Ér(d)somlyó (Vršac) has gained on importance from the end of the 14th century, when started first Ottoman raids in the Danubian basin area. Hungarian king Sigismund (1387-1437) had donated Érsomlyó with his estate to Serbian despot before 1431, but king Wladislas I (1440-1444) temporary deprived despot Đurađ Branković (1427-1456) of Vršac in 1440. Despot Đurađ mortgaged Érsomlyó and some other estates in Hungary to János Hunyadi in 1444, as compensation for military help in the so–called „long campaign“ against the Ottomans (1443-1444). During the next decade, Vršac was an object of dispute between the Serbian ruler and János Hunyadi, changing its owner for several times. After the Ottoman occupation of Serbia in 1459, the Branković family lost all its estates in Hungary. Vršac became the property of king’s uncle Michael Szilágyi, who was executed in Constantinople in 1461. King Matthias Corvinus (1458-1490) donated Érsomlyó to Peter Dóci, the count of Temes, in 1472, and at the beginning of the 16th century the castle was again a part of the royal domain. The second half of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century was a period of intensive Serbian migrations in Banat and other parts of southern Hungary. By the end of that period, Serbs constituted the majority of the population in southern Banat. Nevertheless, there is a very limited amount of information оn the urban and economic development and population of the Érsomlyó settlement, lying underneath the identically named fortification. The settlement was mentioned as a market place in 1330, and a status of town had gained at the end of the 14th or at the begining of the 15th century (it was mentioned as civitas in 1416). The archaeological findings from the castle on the hill Vršački breg suggest a certain level of trade and craftsman activity. The Ottomans captured Vršac in 1552.

: Вршац у средњем веку. I део; The territory of Vršac, town situated in the Southern Banat, were inhabited since prehistory. Traces of early medieval settlements have been discovered on numerous archaeological localities on the wider area of the town. The earliest written mention of Vršac, under its Hungarian name of Ér(d)somlyó, dates from 1227, from the times when the archbishop of Kalocsa exchanged his land property with Hungarian King Andrew II for the town of Požega in Slavonija. Dominican monastery has existed in Vršac since the first half of 13th century. The first information on the royal fortress of Vršac, considered to be built in the decades that followed the Mongolian invasion (1241-1242) was recorded in 1323. The fortress, or a castle of Vršac was situated on a hill rising above the plain of Banat, and was of small proportions (with length of 58, аnd width of 21 m), with elongated foundations, corresponding to the relief, a massive donjon tower on the Eastern, and a semi-spherical tower on the Western side. This fortification has gained on importance from the end of 14th century, with first Ottoman incursions in the Danube basin area. However, there is a limited amount of information on the development of the Érsomlyó settlement, lying underneath the identically named fortification. We can conclude, on the basis of archaeological findings, that the settlement was lying on the elevated surface, stretching from the North-Western and Western slopes of the hill Vršački breg to the edge of the marsh Mali Vršački rit. Ér(d)somlyó was mentioned as a market place in 1330, and as a parish in the year of 1334.

: Вудро Вилсон и Лондонски пакт 1915. године; The author re-examins one of the thorniest problems of the First World War diplomacy – the secret pacts concluded between various states. One of the greatest debates was over the secret pact of London concluded between G. Britain, France and Russia on one and Italy on the other side. The pact secured Italy’s entry into the war in May of 1915. Woodrow Wilson, the president of the USA, was the most formidable opponent of the secret afreements and diplomacy. The entry of the USA in the war in the spring of 1917 initiated sharp polemics within the Allied block, especially between the USA and Italy. Wilson was a protagonist of the principle of national self-determination, while the European Allies defended the applicatin, when necessary, of the strategic reasons. The problem came to surface during the Paris Peace conference 1919, when Wilson contested the Italian teritorial gains in the Adriatic and the Tyroll. Wilson claimed that he did not know that the pact of London existed. The careful analysis of the exsiting documentation, official and private, had confirmed that Wilson was familiar with the existence of the pact. However, he neglected it believing that the Allies will accept his arguments as instrumental for future peace and stability, and disregard the secret arrangements and strategic arguments. The European Allies refused his reasoning and insisted upon the realiyation of the mutual obligations entered into during the war.

: Генеалогије између историје и идеологије; Medieval genealogies were written with the intention to present а specific family’s or person’s origin. They illustrate the need to legitimize their hold on power or the aim to acquire it, and to demonstrate that the achieved or desired authority is legal. This paper explores the use of genealogies in the political life of late medieval Serbian lands. The case in question is that of the wife of prince Lazar, Milica, who is presented as a descendant of prince Vukan, the eldest son of the Serbian ruler-saint, Stefan Nemanja. The analysis is conducted by comparing all of the sources that refer to Milica’s ancestry. There search shows that the available information can be divided into two groups: one where unspecified kinship with the Nemanjić dynasty is mentioned and the other where the Vukan-Milica lineage is clearly stated. Various sources, ranging from stemma-chronicles, liturgical texts and one charter issued by Milica’s son, despot Stefan Lazarević, belong to the first group. Moreover, all of them were written during the life of the princess, or very shortly after her death. The first genealogy that notes the Vukan-Milica lineage is found in the Life of despot Stefan Lazarević, written by Constantine of Kostenets at the time of despot Stefan’s nephew and successor Đurađ Branković. This political and unconventional hagiography is marked by rewriting and reinterpretation of certain parts of the despot’s life. With this questionable approach to the past, the author presents a genealogy of despot Stefan. Emperor Constantine the Great becomes an ancestor of the Nemanjić dynasty and, through the Vukan-Milica lineage, of the despot himself. This falsified genealogy belongs to the type of lay genealogies, characterized by ideological attitudes and loose attachment to the historical truth. Even though the main branch of the Nemanjićs is presented correctly, it is not possible to accept the lineage in question without confirmation from other sources. Yet, the other sources do not repeat it. Afterward, the lineage is often distorted and the aim to unite all the prominent figures of medieval times in a single family tree is quite noticeable. Consequently, genealogies become filled with further fabrications. Later on, they are interpolated in other historiographical genres, one stemma-chronicle from the 16th and chronicles from the 16th and 17th century. In the end, although the Vukan-Milica lineage cannot be accepted from the methodological point of view, with the current state of the sources it is not possible to offer an alternative version of family relations between the princess and the Nemanjić dynasty. It could be argued that the success of the one we find in the Life of despot Stefan lies in the absence of living protagonists of the genealogy, an appropriate number of inserted personalities and the convenience of its narrative for despot Đurađ Branković and his successors.

: Герасим Домнин, Ужичко-Ваљевски Митрополит (1816-1831); The Metropolitan Gerasim Domnin, by origin a Greek from Trapesunt, came to the head of the Užice-Valjevo Archdiocese in 1816, following the murder of Melentije Nikšić. Although he had several clashes with Prince Miloš over the amount and the ways of collecting the church revenue, Gerasim had good relations with him. Complaints of priests against him were not always founded, and they were motivated by secular reasons. At the time of the Greek uprising in 1821, as well as while it lasted, the Metropolitan sent epistles, calling the believers to peace. He was well educated, and besides Greek, also spoke Turkish and Serbian. Understanding the importance of education, Gerasim Domnin suggested the establishment of a theological school, and supported opening of the schools throughout his archdiocese. He was dedicated to bringing order into the priesthood, punished transgressors, and prevented abuses in getting parishes, forced marriages, and non-canonical fourth marriages. When the Princedom of Serbia was formed in 1830, Gerasim Domnin was not in his eparchy, and already in 1831, he became the Metropolitan of Mirlichia and member of the Ecumenical Patriarchy. Gerasim Domnin was the last Metropolitan of Valjevo-Užice, as the archdiocese was after his departure divided into two smaller eparchies, Užice and Šabac. He died in Istanbul in 1836, under unclear circumstances. His mandate was characterized by a great rebuilding of the church life, which is partly a result of the changed situation after the Second Serbian Uprising, but partly a result of his actions.

You are here

Istorijski časopis

Primary tabs

Pages

Pages

User login