Milos Obrenovic Research Articles

Selo Jarušice u Lepenici i njegov manastir

The history of the village of Jarusice in the area of Lepenica, i.e. Raca, is inseparable from the history of the church of St. Archangel Gabriel and the monastery of the same name. The village was mentioned for the first time in the census of 1476, only 17 years after the Turkish conquests, which would mean that it is older and existed before 1459. In the Turkish census from 1528-1530, the village of Jarusice was once again recorded in Lepenica county. In the census from the time of the Turkish sultan Murat III (1574-1595), there was again a mention of the church and monastery of St. Archangel. Apparently, the village, church and monastery were affected by the Austro-Turkish wars, 1688-1690 and 1716-1718 because the village was registered as deserted in the census. It was restored by newly settled inhabitants from Metohija, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between 1737 and 1787. Already in the census from 1740, the village of Jarusice and the monastery of St. Archangel were mentioned again. The church and monastery suffered again in 1813- 1815. At that time, the village was divided into Gornje (Upper) and Donje (Lower) Jarusice. The ruins of the church were discovered by Petar Matijasevic, a farmer from the neighboring village of Guberevac. The church, as a single-nave building without a dome, was rebuilt at his own expense by Prince Milos Obrenovic in 1822. The builder was master Todor Petrovic, and the icons were painted by Janja Moler. The bell tower with the new bell was built in 1856-1860. Near the church are buried Petar Matijasevic (1854), head of Lepenica county Uros Cukic (1854), son of duke Pavle Cukic, as well as priests: Mijailo Bozic (1855) and his son Antonije (1883) and Ljubisav Popovic. Famous persons from Jarušice were: Panta Mihajlović (principal of the high school) and national hero Miloje Pavlovic (principal of the teachers' college). The church was restored by the efforts of priests Aleksije and Milovan Domanovic in 1893, and he dome was added. Malo Krcmare and part of Veliko Krcmare separated from the Jarusice parish in 1930. An addition to the chancel was completed in 1969, and a new church building and parish hall with a large hall were built in 2006. In 2022, the inhabitants of Gornje and Donje Jarusice and the surrounding villages with John, the bishop of Sumadija, celebrated the 200th anniversary of the church of St. Archangel Gabriel and the 550th year of the village's existence.

KONAK IN GORNJA CRNUCA: THE COURT OF PRINCE MILOS OBRENOVIC

The process of founding and shaping a capital proved to be one of the key issues within the representative culture in any era. This was of particular importance when it came to the 19th century societies in the Balkans due to the emergence of national consciousness and the creation of nation-states on what had been Ottoman territory for quite a long time. Despite the lack of independence and extreme political circumstances, the Serbian community was aware of contemporary European phenomena in creating and disseminating the ruler’s image as an important part of enhancing the sense of national identity. The heart of Serbia under the reign of Milos Obrenovic was a princely court in Gornja Crnuca that, in spite of its structural simplicity, was an unmistakable expression of the highest state authorities.

Slobodan Jovanovic and Serbian-Russian relations in the context of international public law

Without a doubt, Slobodan Jovanovic was one of the greatest Serbian jurists, and in the period between the two World Wars, he was probably the most influential Serbian jurist. In this context, his views on the Serbian-Russian relations have exerted an influence on the formation of the dominant discourse, but also on many generations that came after his time (his bust in front of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade symbolically shows how highly he is valued in today?s legal circles, more than 60 years after his death). In his voluminous opus Jovanovic suggests that the Peace of Bucharest, the Akkerman Convention and the Peace of Edirne were bilateral agreements between Russia and Turkey, with provisions that went in favour of the third party (pactum in favorem tretii), i.e. Serbia. He also gave a positive assessment of the Russian diplomacy during the 19th century. In that sense, Jovanovic criticizes the Serbian historians who claimed the opposite, and even Milos Obrenovic himself. Finally, as a jurist, he also rejects the ideological division according to which only reactionary influences came from Russia, and only freedom and enlightenment from the West. In his analysis of the Serbian-Russian relations Jovanovic points out that it was Russia which insisted on the formation of a National Council in Serbia which was to ?limit? the absolute power of Milos Obrenovic. Such an attitude has retained its validity even in the 21st century because the dogma about the so-called Russian reactionary policy is still very much alive. As a jurist, Jovanovic also shows understanding of the conflict of Russian and Serbian interests, or the interests of a small country and those of an empire. He remains midway between the uncritical idealization of Russia and even more intolerant Russophobia. He cites and compares numerous examples. He pointed out that, for instance, a Polish insurrection broke out in 1830, at the very same time when Russia was in negotiations with the Ottoman Porte over the Serbian issue. However, despite these (undeniable) facts, Jovanovic does not draw Russophobic conclusions, which were so prevalent in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He remains midway between the non-critical idealization of Russia and even more intolerant Russophobia. Such opinions of a jurist, who was ideologically an anglophile, are still very important in 2018, when Russophobia present in the West, but also in a part of the Serbian elite, reaches the Cold War level.

BORBA PROTIV HAJDUČIJE U KNEŽEVINI SRBIJI: IZMEĐU ZAKONITOSTI I BEZBEDNOSTI

This article is concerned on social and legal phenomenon of brigandry, and it’s degradation from a form of fight for national liberation during the period of Otoman occupation into a serious criminal problem in restored Prinicipality. Accordingly, the first chapter of the article determines causes that led to massive occurrence of brigandry in Serbs during the Otoman rule. Central part of the work presents criminal and procedural actions that the Principality of Serbia enforced to contain brigandry. The fight against bringandry is analyzed from the point of numerous legal documents dedicated to this criminal act, enacted from the beginning of Milos Obrenovic’s rule to the moment the first Serbian Criminal law (Kaznitelni zakon za Knjazevstvo Srbiju) was adopted. In that respect, exceptional character of specific measures that the state was undertaking against brigands is studied in this article, and in particularly their relation to principles of legality and to specific basic personal rights guaranteed by (so called) Turkish Constitution from 1838.

Contribution to research on Crown Prince Mihailo's palace in Belgrade

The subject of the research of this paper is the history and architecture of the palace that was built for the Serbian Crown Prince Mihailo Obrenovic, and that had been located within the central court complex of the Obrenovic Dynasty, in the immediate vicinity of Terazije Square in Belgrade. The attractive edifice lasted from 1860-1909 and was important marker in urban setting of Belgrade. The aim of the paper was to analyze and reconstruct the original appearance of this capital building on the basis of the scarce existing sources and available evidences. The edifice has been constructed with the idea of creating a royal residence that has been set within the framework of modern understandings of a ruler's space. Even though it didn't become the actual home of Prince Mihailo Obrenovic it was built and equipped according to the functions and needs of the official princely court. The research focus was placed on the background and particular reasons for conceiving and constituting this kind of representative architectural building of engaged rhetoric. Considering the social conditions, sudden and frequent changes within the political scene and changed understandings of the ruler's authority within the framework of the 19th century Serbian state, we have tried to explain and argue reasons and circumstances that led Prince Milos to decide to build this type of ruling residence for his successor. The issue of metropolis wasn't resolved until 1841. However, Serbian ruler was aware of the current European practice. We have reviewed historical backgrounds and strivings of Prince Milos Obrenovic to catch up with the European model when it comes to the ruler's ideology within which the court, it position, architecture and design held an impact of extraordinary importance. At the same time, the attempt was made to point to the essential changes when it comes to the widespread belief in attribution of the architectural design. We have challenged the authorship of Kosta Sreplovic that was set in the past and offered possible directions which would further point to new observations of authors' contributions and interpretations of European influences on the development of court architecture in our midst. The circumstances surrounding the pulling down and complete deletion of this topos from the mental geography of the inhabitants of the Serbian capital were also considered. The architecture of the palace did not fit into ideological shift and desirable shape of the king's court. Still, its initial idea lives through the fact that its place occupies the Presidential Palace, therefore it continues existing as an effective ruler's topos.

The national-dynastic monument in the Kingdom of Serbia the monument to Prince Milos Obrenovic in Pozarevac as a case study

The monument to Prince Milos Obrenovic unveiled in 1898 embodied the concept of national-dynastic monument in the Kingdom of Serbia at the end of the nine?teenth century. The statue in the manner of academic art by Djordje Jovanovic, a prominent Serbian sculptor, may be seen as a creative transfer of European practices in designing majestic monuments to rulers. Set up in downtown Pozarevac, the monument to Prince Milos was intended to act as a place of collective remembrance and a means of legitimation of King Alexander Obrenovic. Forming part of the process of constructing the cult of Prince Milos, the monument may be seen as a visual testimony to the attempt of the shaken dynastic regime to define its own ideological model by using the image of its charismatic founder. The unveiling ceremony, pervaded with a military spirit, confirmed the place of the Pozarevac visual topos on the map of patriotic geography, pointing to the power of the visual work in the system of the representative culture of the state and the nation in the late nineteenth century.

Introduction and content of Forest Regulation (1861)

The article sheds light on introduction and content of Forest Regulation (1861). The idea of producing new Forest Regulation which would replace the existing act regulating same matter, introduced in 1857, came out as a result of people's discontent with limited opportunities for wood-cutting. The Committee for requests and proposals of so-called Saint Andrew's Day Assembly (1858), on which prince Alexander Karađorđevic (1842-1858) had been dethroned and ex-prince Milos Obrenovic (1815-1839) reinstated to the throne, designed directives on which new forest legislation should have been based. Relying on these directives, in 1859 an unknown author made a Draft Forest Regulation consisting of 43 articles. In January 1861, the Draft was revised and supplemented by a three-membered committee formed by the State Council in the very end of 1860. The Council slightly altered the revised draft. Prince Mihailo Obrenovic approved the text and it was enacted as Forest Regulation in 1861. In comparison with previous Forest Regulation, the act passed in 1861 was more liberal towards wood-cutting. Taxes on wood-cutting for economic purpose were lowered. Instead of Ministry of finances, district office was now competent to approve cutting wood for fodder. As a local authority, much more familiar with its fellow-inhabitants, district office was more likely to fulfill their exaggered wishes to destroy woods for above-mentioned purpose. The scope of population having right to be awarded piece of land with forest in order to broaden their insuficient landed property was widened. The reason for this step-back in forest protection in Serbia was obvious. New dinasty had to present itself as better than precedent government. At that moment nobody was aware of high toll to be payed for extensive destruction of forests.

Forms of corruption in Serbia in the nineteenth century

The paper is a continuation of the story on corruption in Serbia and its goal is to give an overview of the forms of corruption in the history of Serbia as an independent state (1804-1918). The process of developing modern state institutions in the nineteenth-century Serbia did not always run smoothly for the simple reason that the path of modernization of Serbia was hindered by fossilised patterns of patriarchal Serbian society, reluctant to give way to new socio-economic relations. The situation was additionally burdened by two greatest evils inherited from the Ottoman rule - bribery and corruption, which were readily accepted both in the newly established state after the First Serbian Uprising and at the time of the foundation of the Principality of Serbia. Milos Obrenovic gained absolute power during his first and second rule and corruption inevitably followed as a consequence. In theory, there is almost universal agreement that Prince Milos managed to achieve more by bribery than by wars. However, later rules of Serbia were no strangers to abuse of power either. Thus there is a record of Prince Aleksandar Karađorđevic having been described as 'the greatest patron of serious abuse' at St. Andrew's Day Assembly in 1858.

Tradition and transition/cultural controversy case study: Portraits of Knez Milos Obrenovic

What underlies the controversy of the cultural identity of Serbia which has been in transition for over two centuries? I have looked for answers in the unstable, hybrid and dynamic concept of the Balkan identity. The Balkans, as a specific ethnic and culturological mix, as a place where noble barbarogeniuses meet with barbarianism, the European Orient, the melting pot of traditions and global trends, is a specific platform from which we have observed construction of presentation and mixing of our attitude to the national identity with the attitude to the culture in general. Analogy between the 19th century process of modernization and Serbia today is obvious, both in the steps for building cultural and national identity and in the latest consequences of the poor social transformations. The transition from a traditional to a modern society, modeled after West European paragons, has always neglected at least one of the key integrating factors. Hence the uncoordinated social and cultural policies and poorly directed social emancipation in general have led to ignorance of or misinterpretation of own culture, tradition and models, causing long term incompetence for preservation of cultural (as well as political) independence in these regions. This text poses some questions related to the deficit of modernity and the cultural imperialism that has remained in the Balkans as a consequence of colonial dominance. The marriage of the politics and the esthetics is analyzed on the example of visual representation of national identity, through portraits of the ruler - Knez Miloš Obrenović - a clear indication of the attempt at developing a cultural strategy and defining a unique national cultural model. Equating the notion of national identity with political mentality has shown that passive traditional mentality (static and non-communicative) is an obstacle to forming a modern cultural identity which is innovative and capable of forming its own perception of politics. The political transformation of the system, which legged behind overall social transformation, has brought about an unsustainable cultural policy (which should be a foundation for the modernization of state) as well as maintenance of the status quo attitude to the dominant centre. This is why mere erasure of the colonist identity models and acceptance of new models were not sufficient to establish own national and cultural identity. The never-ending process of modernization has caused permanent indefiniteness of the modern cultural policy, since in the unstable period of transition we still choose between traditionalism and global culture, all the while additionally emphasizing the differences and controversies without creating a field of free cultural fluctuation. Returning to the Balkans as a cultural paradigm of Serbia, the cultural policy of today should communicate with the visible wealth of diversity without contradicting either tradition or transition, in order to avoid the inferiority in recognition of or indifference for production, presentation and preservation of its own cultural riches.

The possible reconstruction of a sharp injury to a skull

Surprisingly, the founder of forensic pathology in Serbia was actually a Czech: born in 1864, in Rychlov of the Bohemian district of Kroměřiž, Dr Eduard Michel studied medicine in Prague and Vienna from 1882 to 1889. Upon completion of his studies, he joined his mother and father in Belgrade, who had been invited in 1858 by the Prince of Serbia Milos Obrenovic to establish a residency in the city. For the next 6 years, Dr Eduard Michel worked as a clinical physician in Belgrade. In order for him to specialize in forensic pathology under the famous Professor Eduard von Hofmann, he was sent to Vienna in 1895 for 3 years. This is one of the first forensic cases of Dr Eduard Michel, where the skull under review is interesting from both an anthropologic and forensic point of view.

'The Music Herald' 1922: A esthetical and ideological aspects

The Music Herald was the first music magazine to appear in Belgrade after WWI. It was published monthly, for a year (January - December 1922). Its editor-in-chief was Petar Krstic, a composer. Other members of the editorial staff were Bozidar Joksimovic, Stevan Hristic, Kosta Manojlovic (composers) Vladimir R. Djordjevic (an ethnomusicologist) and Jovan Zorko (a violinist). Over 200 articles were published in the magazine. It dealt with different genres of music writings, such as articles, treatises, documents on the history of Serbian / Yugoslav music, music criticism, polemics, necrologies and bibliographies. Twenty-four compositions by native composers were published in the musical supplement of The Music Herald, among them the works of its editors as well as those of other Yugoslav musicians. The Music Herald dealt with three fields of interest: music historiography, ethnomusicology and the current topics of its epoch. When the magazine started, Serbian musicology was in its initial stage so the editors were trying to foster its development. They published numerous biographies of Serbian 19th century musicians, as well as documents on Serbian music culture during the reign of Prince Milos Obrenovic. Music folklore was also very often the subject of interest in the magazine. The Music Herald was interested in current topics and covered the Yugoslav music school system, opera houses, military music music associations, etc. It was especially interested in choral societies which in the course of the 19th century took up not only an artistic, but also a political and patriotic role in the liberation movement. After WWI choral societies entered a period of crisis. Their political raison d'?tre was lost, so they were faced with the challenge of achieving higher professional standards. This study deals with two aspects of 'The Music Herald': aesthetic and ideological aspects. In terms of ideology, the magazine was strongly in favor of the Yugoslav idea. Its correspondents (more then 40 of them) came from all parts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, as well as from abroad (Poland). The music culture of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was treated with equal enthusiasm. The articles were published in both Cyrillic and Latin script, and in two languages (Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian). The editors of The Music Herald were also Slavophiles. They wrote about Czechoslovakian and Polish music, and also covered the works of Russian musicians who had emigrated to Yugoslavia after the October Revolution in 1917. The so-called 'national style' was fostered in The Music Herald, because it was believed by the editors to be the future of Serbian and Yugoslav music. Avant-garde music was treated with suspicion although on one occasion a defense of contemporary music by Stanislav Vinaver, a writer and a music critic, was published. On the other hand fostering the 'national style' did not mean that moderate means of expression sufficed for the positive evaluation of a certain music piece. That is why the compositions of Petar Stojanovic were judged as 'drawing-room music'. Although it lasted for just one year, The Music Herald has an important place in the history of Serbian music periodicals. Its orientation towards music historiography is, in this respect, especially important. It blazed the trail for the Serbian musicology in its dealings with unknown music data in the past.

Yunan İsyanı Sırasında Sırp-Yunan İlişkileri

The Ottoman Empire at the first half of the 19th century struggled with an important uprising which came into existence as a result of the influences of nationalism and eventuated in independence, that is to say the uprising of Greeks lead up to Sovereignity of Greece. At the time of preparatory period of the aforementioned revolt, the rebel leaders tried to make contacts with other nations in the search of support for their cause especially they tried hard to get Serbians backing. At this stage the negotiations and bilateral commitments between the Serbs and Greeks took place. In this paper, one of the such kind of attempts, i.e Alexander Ipsilanti’s engagement in confederation with Milos Obrenovic will be examined

Miloš Obrenović and the deposition of a Constantinopolitan Patriarch

In my limited study of the Greek and Serbian Churches in the nineteenth century, I had found numerous cases of Greek meddling in Serbian affairs, but never a reverse case. Then I came across a passing reference in Gavrilović’s fine biography of Prince MiloS Obrenovic of Serbia (who ruled from 1815 to 1839) to Miloš’ playing a major part in ousting a Patriarch of Constantinople. Following up Gavrilović’s citation led me to the following letter written by Prince Miloš during his triumphal visit to Constantinople in 1835. It was written (and it should be noted this means dictated since MiloS was illiterate) to his wife Ljubica on 28 September 1835. Since I have never come across any reference to the events Miloš describes in any work I have made use of on the patriarchate in the 19th century, I have taken the liberty of translating the letter from Miloš’ Serbian both to call attention to it and to make the text available to a wider range of scholars. The original text is to be found in Mita Petrović, Financije i Ustanove obnovljene Srbije do 1842, Beograd, 1901, pp. 336–37.