CC BY
2УДК 342.5+322
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ СОБОР ПОСЛЕ БИТВЫ НА КОСОВОМ ПОЛЕ В 1389 ГОДУ: СЕРБИЯ НА РАСПУТЬЕ
Кршлянин Нина Владимировна1,
д-р юрид. наук, доцент, e-mail: nina.krsljanin@ius.bg.ac.rs, 1Белградский университет, г. Белград, Сербия
В статье рассматривается заседание государственного собора в 1389 г., после битвы на Косовом поле, гибели князя Лазаря и больших потерь. Собор, во главе с княгиней Милицей, правящей вместо малолетнего князя Стефана, принял решение подчинить государство султану Баязиду и выдать за него замуж княжну Оливеру, сестру Стефана. Автор анализирует малочисленные источники, свидетельствующие об этом соборе, и значение его решений.
Ключевые слова: государственный собор, сербское средневековое право, битва на Косовом поле, деспот Стефан Лазаревич, княгиня Милица, монархия, дипломатия, традиция, обычное право
THE STATE ASSEMBLY AFTER THE BATTLE OF KOSOVO IN 1389:
SERBIA AT THE CROSSROADS
Krsljanin N.V.1,
PhD (Jurisprudence), Assistant Professor,
e-mail: nina.krsljanin@ius.bg.ac.rs, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
The article discusses the session of the State Assembly (Sabor) held in 1389, after the battle of Kosovo, the death of Prince Lazar and great losses. The Assembly, headed by Princess Milica, who ruled in the name of the underage Prince Stefan, decided to subjugate the country to Sultan Bayazid and to let him marry Princess Olivera, Stefan's sister. The author analyzes the few available sources that mention this Assembly, and the significance of its decisions. Keywords: State Assembly, medieval Serbian law, the battle of Kosovo, Despot Stefan Lazarevic, Princess Milica, monarchy, diplomacy, tradition, customary law
DOI 10.21777/2587-9472-2021-4-11-15
The State Assembly is the most important governing body in medieval Serbia after the monarch himself1. It goes back to military assemblies that were known even during the period of the emergence of the first Slavic proto-states (like the princely Duma in Russia) - this secular element was connected with a pre-existing Orthodox church council. Thus, a body was created in which representatives of the most important nobility and dignitaries of the Serbian Orthodox Church sat together under the rule of the monarch himself. Its jurisdiction was not defined in a written form, but was formed in practice, through customs and precedents.
In summary, it can be said that the rulers often consulted with the council about matters on which they could make decisions independently (e.g. foreign policy, granting the charters, judicial proceedings), especially when they needed additional legitimation for some important decision; but at the same time, a custom was formed according to which the monarch could not make major changes, make shifts in the existing legal order and traditions of the country without the consent of the council [1-21]2.
1 The rulers of medieval Serbia bore the titles of prince, Grand Zupan, king, tsar, then prince again and finally despot. In this regard, in all generalizations that do not relate to a specific period, it is better to use the neutral term "monarch" or "ruler".
2 For more information about the history and jurisdiction of the cathedral, see: Тарановски Т. Исторща српског права у немаанЬжу држави. - Београд: Службени лист CPJ, 1996. - С. 225-262; Радо]чиЬН. Српски државни сабори у средаем веку. - Београд: СКА, 1950; НеделковиЬ Б.М. О саборима и законодавжу делатности у Србщи у време владавине цара Стефана Душана, са посебним освртом на доношеае законика цара Стефана Душана // БеговиЬ М. Законик цара Стефана Душана. Ка. 1. Струшки и Атонски
One of the most important crucial moments in the history of medieval Serbia, was certainly the battle on the Kosovo field in 1389. The losses were great, and the death of the monarch, Prince Lazar, led to the fact that for the first time a minor ruler ascended the Serbian throne: depending on the exact date of birth, the young Prince Stefan was between 12 and 18 years old at the time of his father's death3. The state was practically ruled by his mother, Princess Milica, from the Nemanjic dynasty. Vuk Brankovic, married to Stefan's older sister, did not recognize Stefan's authority and ruled a vast territory himself. The invasion of the Ottoman Empire continued, and there was also a threat from the Hungarians in the west. Although the battle itself seemed to be a draw in the eyes of contemporaries, or even a defeat of the Turks, the price of this confrontation was a significant weakening of Serbia, which consequently led to a lost war4.
The role of Princess Milica as regent during the youth of Prince Stefan, including the cathedral of 1389, is undoubtedly great. Konstantin the Philosopher in the Life of Despot Stefan emphasizes her wisdom and courage, but also the fact that she understood secular affairs thanks to the experience of ruling5 - probably during her husband's lifetime, and even more so, due to circumstances, after his death6. Blagojevic believes that this could have been expected, since the wives of Serbian rulers had previously replaced their husbands in the absence, or independently ruled certain areas - the widow Queen Helena (wife of Uros I) even convened regional councils on her territory. In his opinion, Milica simply followed customs in the state administrati7. This can be considered true, but nevertheless it is worth bearing in mind the extremity of the situation - both in the sense of the first minor monarch and the mother regent, and in the sense of the very dangerous situation in which the state as a whole occured.
There is very little news about the Assembly in 1389 in the historical sources, and in many sources of the later period it is not even mentioned, and its decisions are considered to be the decisions of Princess Milica alone8. Such assessments were also given by famous historians9. However, two pieces of news leave no doubt that the council was convened: one in the introduction of Mining Code of 1412, the other in the "Life of Despot Stefan" by Constantine the Philosopher (Constantine of Kostenets) of 1431. Both sources are very reliable, since the author of the first is despot Stefan himself, and the second is his contemporary, a learned writer who was under the patronage of a despot, and to whom the events of the period of his reign should have been well known. The Assembly was convened by the Milica herself, but the assumption that the Assembly "accepted her as ruler"10, of course, should be interpreted only in the sense of regency, and not personal desire for power.
Constantine the Philosopher, after a long description of the consequences of the battle for Kosovo, wrote the following:
Симь оубо сице, посылають се ходатак: оть сьмысла великааго и ть бо рече, якоже Навоуходоносорь вь оумЪ свокмь обимоу вьселкньоую яко и яице роукою мокю. Ходатакмь же сьгласимьшиимь сь госпождею благочьстивою о дьштери ки мьньшои ОливерЪ и сь сьвЪтомь патриярха и вьсЬхь свештеныихь сьбора и вьсею синьклита, вьдакть сию вь женоу АмирЪ великомоу, вь кже сьпасено
рукопис. - Београд: САНУ, 1975. - С. 25-61; ВирковиЬ С.М. Сьборь. Прилог исторщи сталешких скупштина код Jужних Словена // Работници, во]ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 336-340.
3 Благо]'евиЬ М. Српска државност у среднем веку. - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2011. - С. 312; Гилен Н. Две српске султанще. - Београд: Дерета, 2016. - С. 58-59.
4 МихалчиЬ Р. Косовска битка // КалиЬ J. Исторща српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову држа-ве (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 42-46; МихалчиЬ Р. Лазар Хребел>ановиЬ: исторща, култ, предаае. - Београд: Српска школска каига: Knowledge, 2001. - C. 123-132; Благо]'евиЬМ. Српска државност у средаем веку. -Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2011. - С. 310-321.
5 Jагиh В. Константин Философ и аегов живот Стефана ЛазаревиЬа деспота српског // Гласник Српског ученог друштва. -1875. - XLII. - С. 263-264. Перевод на современный сербский язык см.: Константин Филозоф. Повест о словима; Житще деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЬа. - Београд: Просвета: Српска каижевна задруга, 1989. - С. 86.
6 О ее жизни, образовании и роли у власти см.: МишиЬ, С. Кнегиаа Милица и Лазарево наслеге // МишнЬ С., Jечменица, Д. Кнегиаа Милица - монахиаа Jевгениjа и аено доба. - Трстеник: Народни универзитет Трстеник: Народна библиотека '7ефимща": Филозофски факултет. - Београду, 2014. - С. 7-15; Jечменица Д. Извори и манифестанте моЬн и утица]а кнегиае Милице // Ibid. - С. 17-27; Гилен Н. Op. cit. - С. 49-53. Милица продолжала помогать сыну в правлении и позже.
7 Благо]'евиЬМ. Српски сабори. - С. 28-29.
8 См. Гилен Н. Op. cit. - С. 35-38.
9 Например, см.: НоваковиЬ С. Срби и Турци XIV и XV вв. - Београд: ЧупиЬева задужбина, 1893. - С. 225-231.
10 „...док ]е власт при важним одлукама за народ и државу делила са Сабором, куи ]у ]е прихватио као владарку". См.: Гилен Н. Op. cit. - С. 53.
быти стадо христоименитьно оть вьлкь гоубештиихь к. Идеть же тогда и присьнопомьнимыи брать сек кь самодрьжьцоу сь сестрою и оть толЪ порабоштена бысть срьбская страна кже самь Стефань и сь братомь своимь Влькомь и сь благородьныими своими и сь прочиими на вьсако лЪто вь слоуженик кмоу приходити11.
As Radojcic has already noted, although the text separately mentions the "Assembly of all the sacred" and the "synclite", here we are not talking about two bodies. In his opinion, Constantine the Philosopher, as a foreigner, did not quite understand Serbian institutions, and used the old word "synclite" to denote either the secular part of the state council, or the narrow council of the ruler, and the word "Assembly (Sobor)" he used for the assembly of the clergy only12. Radojcic did not consider this Assembly to be regular: he thought that it was an ad hoc solution to an important political issue, and that the regular session took place only after the formal recognition of the princely title of Stefan Lazarevic - in this case, by Bayezid13. Cirkovic also believed that the council was convened only to choose the patriarch (Daniel III, in 1390), and that after the fall of the Tsar-dom, assemblies were not convened on state issues due to the political fragmentation of the Serbian lands14. It is still impossible to agree with this opinion: the assembly is somehow mentioned in two of the most reliable sources that speak about this decision, and fragmentation still existed in 1390.
In the Mining Code, despot Stefan himself states:
.. .и пр!ехъ съв'Ьть wr патр!арха кур Спир!дона, и иг инЪхь арх!ерекх ! и иг маике ми кнегынк Милице наречен но иночьскы монах!а Евгкш'а и wr вьсего сьбора поидох ! на вьсточноую страноу въ ВЪликоую Севастю кь вЪликомоу ам!рЪ Паязитоу...15.
Some authors consider it unclear why in the introduction of the Code despot Stefan speaks about the events of fourteen years ago16. In fact, this is completely logical, since we are talking about the main turning points in his reign. Extensive biographical notes were often found in the charters of Serbian monarchs - the charter of Tsar Stefan Dusan, introducing his Code into force, can be distinguished17. In this charter, the tsar, among other things, tried to present positively those events that could be interpreted negatively: the overthrow of the father, the proclamation of the Serbian patriarchate and the tsardom. Also, the position of the monarch as Bayezid's vassal and the marriage of his sister to him can be viewed very negatively - Stefan, now an experienced ruler, emphasizes the need for this act and the fact that it was not his personal decision or his mother's decision, but the general decision of the council.
The young prince had to become a vassal of the winner - submission to the Muslim ruler, who was also responsible for the death of his father in the Battle of Kosovo, was undoubtedly a heavy blow for him. (Did submission to the Turks seem easier at the background of the Hungarian threat at that moment?) According to the examples of other agreements of the Ottoman rulers with Christian princes, it can be assumed that this subordination implied the payment of tribute and military service of Serbian auxiliary detachments in the campaigns of the Ottoman Kingdom18. However, as Cirkovic correctly noted, although the Serbian rulers entered into vassal relations with the Turks, and then with the Hungarians, "they did not want to withdraw their power from them, but voluntarily chose the Byzantine kings and in this way symbolically showed the great strength of traditional ties"19.
11 Jагиh В. Op. cit. - С. 263; Константин Филозоф. Op. cit. - С. 86.
12 Padojuuh Н. Закон о рудницима деспота Стефана Лазаревича. - Београд: САНУ, 1962. - С. 168.
13 Op. cit. - С. 167-169.
14 ЪирковиЬ С.М. Сьборь. - С. 338-339.
15 PadojuuhН. Закон о рудницима деспота Стефана Лазаревича. - Београд: САНУ, 1962. - С. 37. (Заглавные буквы в некоторых именах от автора). Сравни: fiupmeuh С.М. Латинички препис Рударског законика деспота Стефана Лазаревича. - Београд: САНУ, 2005. - С. 19. Мишич на основе этой формулировки делает вывод, что княгиня Милица созвала собор по совету патриарха. См.: Мишuh С. Op. cit. - С. 8. Нам кажется, что это из текста не следует: церковная часть собора, с патриархом во главе, просто упоминается на первом, почетном месте.
16 EupKoeuh С.М. Латинички препис Рударског законика деспота Стефана Лазаревича. - Београд: САНУ, 2005. - С. 9.
17 HoeaKoeuh С. Законик Стефана Душана, цара српског, 1349 и 1349. - Београд: Задужбина Илще М. Коларца, 1898. - С. 3-5; Бубало Ъ. Душанов законик. - Београд: Завод за уцбенике: Службени гласник, 2010. - С. 71-73 (перевод см.: С. 147-148).
18 Hoвaкoвuh С. Срби и Турци. - С. 228; fiupmeuh С. Године криза и превирааа // КалиЧ J. Исторща српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову државе (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 47-48.
19 "...од аих нису хтели да изводе сво]у власт, веЧ су доброволно одабрали византи|ске цареве и на та] начин симболички по-казивали велику снагу традиционалних веза...". См.: fiupmeuh С.М. Средаовековна Србща измену Запада и Истока // Работ-ници, во]ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 384.
The same can be said about the marriage of Princess Olivera: although political marriages, of course, were meant for the daughters of the rulers20, the Muslim husband, the owner of the whole harem, the murderer of the father of the young princess and the conqueror of Serbian lands - all this undoubtedly represented a heavy blow for the whole princely family. For such a marriage, a canonical dispensation was also needed, which was issued extremely rarely21. However, this marriage was very significant: Novakovic even believed that all the successes of Serbia after the Battle of Kosovo were only the results of successful dynastic marriages, starting with the marriage of Olivera22. This assumption may be too extreme, but it is mostly true: Olivera managed to bring her brother and husband closer together and in many cases help her homeland. Constantine the Philosopher compared her to the biblical Esther23.
According to Milos Blagojevic, "really big and difficult political decisions" were undoubtedly made at this Assembly, which "narrowed the sovereignty of the Lazarevic state, but made possible the survival of Serbia for the next few decades"24. Although the severity and significance of these decisions have long been known, it is necessary to emphasize once again their unusual nature, their difference from already established customs and patterns of state policy, since precisely this also confirms that such decisions could not have been taken without a council.
Список литературы
1. Благо]евиИ М. Српски сабори и сабори отачаства НемааиЧа и Лазаревича // Глас Српске академще наука и уметности: Оделеае исторщских наука. - 2008. - Ка. 14. - No. CDX. - С. 1-40.
2. Благо]евиИ М. Српска државност у средаем веку. - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2011.
3. Бубало Ъ. Душанов законик. - Београд: Завод за уцбенике: Службени гласник, 2010.
4. Гилен Н. Две српске султанке. - Београд: Дерета, 2016.
5. Jагиh В. Константин Философ и аегов живот Стефана Лазаревича деспота српског // Гласник Српског ученог друштва. - 1875. - XLII. - С. 223-328.
6. Jечменица Д. Извори и манифестацще моЧи и утицаjа кнегиае Милице // МишиЧ С., Jечменица Д. Кнегиаа Милица - монахиаа Jевгениjа и аено доба. - Трстеник: Народни универзитет Трстеник: Народна библиотека "7ефимща": Филозофски факултет у Београду, 2014. - С. 17-27.
7. Константин Филозоф. Повест о словима; Житще деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: Просвета: Српска каижевна задруга, 1989.
8. МихалчиИ Р. Косовска битка // КалиЧ J. Исторща српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову државе (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 36-46.
9. МихалчиИ Р. Лазар ХребелановиЧ: исторща, култ, предаае. - Београд: Српска школска каига: Knowledge, 2001.
10. МишиИ С. Кнегиаа Милица и Лазарево наслеге // МишиЧ С., Jечменица Д. Кнегиаа Милица -монахиаа Jевгениjа и аено доба. - Трстеник: Народни универзитет Трстеник: Народна библиотека "7ефимща": Филозофски факултет у Београду, 2014. - С. 7-15.
11. НеделковиИ Б.М. О саборима и законодавжу делатности у Србщи у време владавине цара Стефана Душана, са посебним освртом на доношеае законика цара Стефана Душана // БеговиЧ М. Законик цара Стефана Душана. Ка. 1. Струшки и Атонски рукопис. - Београд: САНУ, 1975. - С. 25-61.
12. НоваковиИ С. Срби и Турци XIV и XV вв. - Београд: ЧупиЧева задужбина, 1893.
13. НоваковиИ С. Законик Стефана Душана, цара српског, 1349 и 1349. - Београд: Задужбина Илще М. Коларца, 1898.
14. Радо]чиИ Н. Српски државни сабори у средаем веку. - Београд: СКА, 1950.
15. Радо]чиИН. Закон о рудницима деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: САНУ, 1962.
16. Тарановски Т. Исторща српског права у немааиЧкоj држави. - Београд: Службени лист СРJ, 1996.
20 At the moment, Olivera's older sisters were all already married.
21 Гилен Н. Op. cit. - С. 81-82.
22 НоваковиИ С. Op. cit. - С. 195-196. См. также: Гилен Н. Op. cit. - С. 199-202.
23 ЗагиИ В. Op. cit. - С. 321; Константин Филозоф. Op. cit. - С. 125. См. также: Гиле, Н. Op. cit. - С. 83-99.
24 ".. .заиста крупне и тешке политичке одлуке...", ".. .сузиле су суверенитет државе ЛазаревиЧа, али су омогуЬиле опстанак Србще у неколико наредних деценща". См.: Благо]'евиИМ. Op. cit. - С. 30.
17. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Сьборь. Прилог истории сталешких скупштина код 1ужних Словена // Работници, во_)ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 336-340.
18. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Средаовековна Срби|а измену Запада и Истока // Работници, во_)ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 377-384.
19. fiupmeuh, С. Године криза и превирааа // КалиЧ J. Истори|а српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову државе (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 47-63.
20. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Латинички препис Рударског законика деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: САНУ, 2005.
21. Krsljanin N. Interrupted evolution: the Serbian medieval assembly (Sabor) // Parliaments, Estates & Representation. - 2017. - Vol. 37, no. 1. - P. 1-16.
References
1. Благо]'евuh М. Српски сабори и сабори отачаства НемааиЧа и ЛазаревиЧа // Глас Српске академи|е наука и уметности: Оделеае истори|ских наука. - 2008. - Ка. 14. - No. CDX. - С. 1-40.
2. Блaгojевuh М. Српска државност у средаем веку. - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2011.
3. Бубало Ъ. Душанов законик. - Београд: Завод за уцбенике: Службени гласник, 2010.
4. ru^eu H. Две српске султанке. - Београд: Дерета, 2016.
5. Jaгuh В. Константин Философ и аегов живот Стефана ЛазаревиЧа деспота српског // Гласник Српског ученог друштва. - 1875. - XLII. - С. 223-328.
6. Jeчмeнuцa Д. Извори и манифестаци|е моЧи и утицаjа кнегиае Милице // МишиЧ С., 1ечменица Д. Кнегиаа Милица - монахиаа 1евгени)а и аено доба. - Трстеник: Народни универзитет Трстеник: Народна библиотека '7ефими)а": Филозофски факултет у Београду, 2014. - С. 17-27.
7. Константш Фшозоф. Повест о словима; Жити|е деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: Просвета: Српска каижевна задруга, 1989.
8. Muxa^uuh Р. Косовска битка // КалиЧ J. Истори|а српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову државе (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 36-46.
9. Muxa^uuh Р. Лазар ХребелановиЧ: истори|а, култ, предаае. - Београд: Српска школска каига: Knowledge, 2001.
10. Mumuh С. Кнегиаа Милица и Лазарево наслеге // МишиЧ С., 1ечменица Д. Кнегиаа Милица -монахиаа 1евгени)а и аено доба. - Трстеник: Народни универзитет Трстеник: Народна библиотека '7ефими)а": Филозофски факултет у Београду, 2014. - С. 7-15.
11. Heдeл>кoвuh Б.М. О саборима и законодавжу делатности у Срби|и у време владавине цара Стефана Душана, са посебним освртом на доношеае законика цара Стефана Душана // БеговиЧ М. Законик цара Стефана Душана. Ка. 1. Струшки и Атонски рукопис. - Београд: САНУ, 1975. - С. 25-61.
12. Новаковuh С. Срби и Турци XIV и XV вв. - Београд: ЧупиЧева задужбина, 1893.
13. Новаковuh С. Законик Стефана Душана, цара српског, 1349 и 1349. - Београд: Задужбина Или|е М. Коларца, 1898.
14. Paдojчuh Н. Српски државни сабори у средаем веку. - Београд: СКА, 1950.
15. PaдojчuhН. Закон о рудницима деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: САНУ, 1962.
16. Тарановст Т. Истори|а српског права у немааиЧкоj држави. - Београд: Службени лист СР1, 1996.
17. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Сьборь. Прилог истории сталешких скупштина код 1ужних Словена // Работници, во_)ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 336-340.
18. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Средаовековна Срби|а измену Запада и Истока // Работници, во_)ници, духовници: Друштва средаовековног Балкана. - Београд: Equilibrium, 1997. - С. 377-384.
19. Ъuркoвuh С. Године криза и превирааа // КалиЧ J. Истори|а српског народа, друга каига: Доба борби за очуваае и обнову државе (1371-1537). - Београд: Српска каижевна задруга, 2000. - С. 47-63.
20. Ъuркoвuh С.М. Латинички препис Рударског законика деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЧа. - Београд: САНУ, 2005.
21. Krsljanin N. Interrupted evolution: the Serbian medieval assembly (Sabor) // Parliaments, Estates & Representation. - 2017. - Vol. 37, no. 1. - P. 1-16.
