Dečansko pitanje:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Beograd
Čigoja Štampa
2007
|
| Ausgabe: | 2., dop. izd. |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Dechani question. - Zugl.: Belgrad, Fil. Fak., Magisterarbeit, 1988 |
| Beschreibung: | 355 S. Ill. |
| ISBN: | 9788675584506 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023101789 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 080128s2007 a||| |||| 00||| srp d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788675584506 |9 978-86-7558-450-6 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)191758236 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023101789 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a srp | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-Re13 | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a DR2084 | |
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Bataković, Dušan T. |d 1957-2017 |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)172743427 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Dečansko pitanje |c Dušan T. Bataković |
| 250 | |a 2., dop. izd. | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Beograd |b Čigoja Štampa |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 355 S. |b Ill. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Dechani question. - Zugl.: Belgrad, Fil. Fak., Magisterarbeit, 1988 | ||
| 610 | 2 | 4 | |a Dečani (Monastery) |x History |
| 610 | 2 | 7 | |a Kloster Dečani |0 (DE-588)5253824-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1875-1911 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Außenpolitik | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Geschichte | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Kirchengeschichte | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Nationalitätenfrage |0 (DE-588)4126113-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Orientalische Frage |0 (DE-588)4172815-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 4 | |a Sowjetunion | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Kosovo (Republic) |x Church history | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Kosovo (Republic) |x History | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Serbia |x Foreign relations |z Soviet Union | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Soviet Union |x Foreign relations |z Serbia | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Kosovo |0 (DE-588)4032571-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Kosovo |0 (DE-588)4032571-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Nationalitätenfrage |0 (DE-588)4126113-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Orientalische Frage |0 (DE-588)4172815-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Kloster Dečani |0 (DE-588)5253824-2 |D b |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Geschichte 1875-1911 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016304505 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 200.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 4971 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 4971 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 200.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09041 |g 4971 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09041 |g 4971 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804137360232808448 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | САДРЖАЈ
ВИСОКИ ДЕЧАНИ
.................................................................. 5
Култ
светога краља
.....................................,......................... 7
У
раздобљу националне
обнове
.......................................... 12
ИЗМЕЂУ
АРБАНАСА,
ПОРТЕ,
СРБИЈЕ
И
АУСТРО-УГАРСКЕ
.................................................................. 23
Арбанашка
лига
.................................................................... 27
Арбанаси
под заштитом султана
......................................... 33
Дипломатска акција Србије
................................................. 41
Превласт утицаја Аустро-Угарске
...................................... 44
Сукоб
интереса Аустро-Угарске и
Србије
......................... 51
КРИЗА У МАНАСТИРУ
.......................................................... 55
Јоаникије...............................................................................
61
Акција
митрополита
Нићифора
.......................................... 74
Опсада Дечана
...................................................................... 83
Руско
посредовање
............................................................... 93
Предаја
управе руским
калуђерима
.................................... 98
Замисао
о
довођењу руских келиота
у Дечане
.................. 102
Преговори и
склапање
уговора
........................................... 109
Почетак
рада руских келиота у Дечанима
......................... 119
ОТВАРАЊЕ
СРПСКО-РУСКОГ СПОРА
................................ 125
Споразум
Грујић-Зиновјев
.................................................. 130
Непосредни преговори
с
руским
калуђерима....................
134
Хиландар
и
питање
скита
.................................................... 138
Званични српско-руски
преговори
...................................... 144
Одјек
у
Србији......................................................................
149
353
Питање одговорности
.......................................................... 152
Дебата у Скупштини
............................................................ 158
Одбрана Светислава
Симића
............................................... 162
Апел
владике
Саве Дечанца
................................................ 164
Метохија
-
тежиште сукоба
................................................. 166
Заоштравање сукоба
............................................................. 176
Став митрополита
Нићифора
.............................................. 178
Проруска агитација
у
Пећкој нахији
.................................. 181
Сукоби
и
насиља
................................................................... 188
Предлози
конзула Тухолке
................................................... 191
Митрополитове иницијативе
............................................... 195
У СКЛОПУ
НОВИХ ОДНОСА НА БАЛКАНУ
..................... 201
Покушај смењивања руског игумана
.................................. 203
ПонудаАрбанаса
..................................................................206
Притисци руске дипломатије
.............................................. 208
Предлог
Стојана
Новаковића
.............................................. 215
Иницијатива
Милана
Ракића...............................................
217
Дечанска комисија
................................................................221
Гледиште српске владе
......................................................... 226
Руски одговор
....................................................................... 232
Сведочење
Гаврила
Дожића
и нова
кампања
.................... 235
Одбрана
Јована
M.
Јовановића
...........................................240
Неспоразуми и несугласице
................................................ 242
Оставка митрополита
Нићифора
........................................ 245
Епилог
................................................................................... 250
ЗАКЉУЧАК
.............................................................................. 255
THE DECANI QUESTION
........................................................ 265
ПРИЛОЗИ
.....................................;............................................ 277
1.
Попие братства
Високих Дечана
.................................... 277
2.
Мемоар Саве Дечанца
о Високим Дечанима
1890.
године.......................................................................
285
3.
Представка жичког епископа
Саве о
Високим
Дечанима
1909.
године.....................................................
313
4.
Дечани
у Великом
рату-један извештај
.......................323
5.
Извештај
Косте
Пећанца
о
ослобађању Метохије
1918.
године.......................................................................
325
354
O OBOJ
КЊИЗИ
........................................................................ 327
СКРАЋЕНИЦЕ
.......................................................................... 333
ИЗВОРИ И ЛИТЕРАТУРА
....................................................... 335
ИМЕНИК
................................................................................... 345
355
THE DECANI QUESTION
Summary
Progressive deterioration in the system of Ottoman administra¬
tion resulted between the middle of the nineteenth century and the
Balkan Wars
(1912-13)
in feudal anarchy in the Empire s European
provinces (vilayets). This state of disorder eventually became their
main political feature, in particular in the region of Old Serbia (Otto¬
man province under the name the Vilayet of Kosovo in
1877-1912),
where Muslim Albanians, though not yet the strongest ethnic group,
relentlessly persecuted Christian Orthodox Serbs in order to seize
their land in the fertile basins of Kosovo and
Metohija.
Belonging to
privileged ruling classes within the ailing Ottoman Empire s theo¬
cratic system, Muslim Albanians
-
from
1690
descending en masse
from the highlands of Albania and settling in Kosovo and
Metohija
-
enjoyed both tribal autonomy and legal impunity. The cumula¬
tive effect of this anarchy, hunger for land and tribal clashes were
outbursts of severe violence against the unarmed and unprotected
Christian Serb population,
The participation of Muslim Albanians in local government
gradually expanded and their impact on political developments in
Old Serbia steadily grew, particularly during the reign of Abdiilha-
mid II
(1876-1909).
Pogroms unleashed upon Christian Serbs by
Albanian outlaws had tacit approval of the Sultan concerned with
maintaining the fragile border with neighbouring Christian states,
especially with Serbia and Montenegro, as both disputed Ottoman
265
rule in the Vilayet of Kosovo. These uncontrolled pogroms, recorded
in Serbian, Russian and other sources, gradually developed into a
long-term political programme of Albanian nationalism. From the
mid-1880s on the interests of the Ottoman Empire coincided with
those of the Albanian feudal elite and the Albanian masses, through
the policy of pan-Islamism, a brainchild of the Sultan himself, pre¬
serving Muslim Albanian political and military domination in the
region. Muslim Albanians managed to maintain a privileged status
through the combined influence of their rising nationalism and pan-
Islamism. After
1908,
during the Young Turk regime, and especially
following the deposition in
1909
of
Abdülhamid
II and the resulting
loss of abundant privileges, Albanian actions coalesced into a na¬
tional movement influenced by the thin layer of intelligentsia.
The Albanian maximalist religious and national programme,
outlined already in the decisions of the Albanian League
(1878-81),
envisaged an autonomous Albanian province that was to include the
Vilayet of Kosovo (Old Serbia) and another three Ottoman vilayets.
The greatest obstacle to taking full control of what had been the
heart of the medieval Serbian state (the name Old Serbia was given
to the Ottoman-held regions of Serbia after her northern portion ob¬
tained autonomy in
1830,
and eventually independence in
1878)
was
the native Serb population, strong enough to instigate military action
from both Serbia and Montenegro. These two Serb-inhabited states
claimed the whole of Old Serbia, a restless province controlled by
renegade Muslim Albanian chieftains.
A potential war whereby the Vilayet of Kosovo would eventu¬
ally become annexed to two Serbian states was a nightmare for Al¬
banian feudal lords, tribal chieftains and national ideologists (both
the conservative pro-Ottoman faction and the nationalist-oriented,
autonomist wing). Backed by religious leaders, they fanaticised their
Shari tf/z-abiding tribesmen and encouraged their attacks on Chris¬
tian Serbs. This escalation of Muslim oppression against the Chris¬
tians had an economic dimension as well. Using everything from
extortion to murder, Albanian outlaws
(kaçaks)
succeeded in driving
out entire Serbian villages and taking over their productive land and
estates, while many ensured a safe source of income by racketeering
unprotected Christians on a regular basis.
266
A second period of anarchy, in the wake of the Greco-Turkish
war of
1897,
was marked by severe anti-Christian violence perpe¬
trated by Albanian armed soldiers, fresh from the war, and resulted
in mass flights of Christian Serbs to Serbia and, to a lesser extent,
Montenegro. Individuals, families, sometimes whole villages sought
salvation there. Lacking support from the Great Powers, the diplo¬
matic effort of the Serbian government with the Porte aimed at halt¬
ing the waves of violence ended in failure. According to Serbian
data, at least
60,000
Christian Serbs fled the Kosovo Vilayet between
1890
and
1900
alone. The fierceness of pogroms left the remaining
Serbian population of the Kosovo Vilayet on the verge of despair.
They were now cut off by a tight chain of freshly-founded Albanian
settlements along the border with Serbia, in particular in the wake of
the second Serbo-Turkish War of
1877-78,
when more than
30,000
Muslim Albanians had been expelled from the liberated areas of the
Sançak
of
Niš.
Life was relatively safe for urban Serbs concentrated round Ser¬
bian religious centres, mostly great medieval monasteries, in the
Raška-Prizren Metropolitanate
and the Theological Seminary in
Prizren (founded in
1870),
or in the vicinity of the Serbian and Rus¬
sian consulates in
Priština,
Skopje and Prizren, whereas rural Serbs
working in their fields or travelling the roads were often left to the
mercy of the increasing numbers of
kaçah.
The complete absence of legal protection, freedom of movement
and public safety, coupled with recurrent waves of ethnically/reli¬
giously motivated crimes committed by Albanian outlaws and toler¬
ated by the Ottoman authorities, led to an erosion of the Christian
Serbs patriarchal way of life, further worsened their economic po¬
sition, undermined their self-confidence and their hopes pinned on
Serbia as their rescuer from centuries-long Ottoman rule. Their faith
in imminent liberation or at least a greater measure of protection
secured by diplomatic means, soon turned into disappointment due
to the failure of both Belgrade and Cetinje to provide some more
substantial support for their compatriots in Old Serbia. Their pro¬
found discouragement found a way out in placing irrational hopes in
a powerful, Slavic and Orthodox, protector
-
the Russian Empire.
Serbia s national and political actions were directed towards
strengthening religious and educational institutions, the diplomatic
267
struggle for founding new bishoprics (Prizren,
1896;
Skoplje,
1902)
and for opening Serbian consulates in the most vulnerable areas in
Metohija
or in northern Kosovo. The existing Serbian consulates
were unable to ensure adequate protection for Serbs outside the dis¬
tricts of
Priština
and Skoplje, and new ones in the critically endan¬
gered zones
(Peć,
Prizren, Mitrovica) could not be opened due to
protests by Muslim Albanians. Serbia s few official attempts to en¬
sure greater protection for the Serb population of the Kosovo Vilayet
(1898/9, 1902/3)
failed to produce tangible results.
The Serbian Orthodox Church in Old Serbia, mostly encom¬
passed by the Metropolitanate of
Raška-Prizren,
was administered by
Greek bishops between
1830
and
1896,
and subsequently remained
subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. New Serbian metro¬
politans, the short-lived
Dionisije Petrović
(1896-1900)
and his suc¬
cessor
Nićifor Perić
(1900-11),
elected as representatives both of the
Metropolitanate of Belgrade and of the Serbian government, were
unable, amidst all the political chaos, to impose themselves upon
their flock as true spiritual and national leaders. Left to themselves
for too long, the Serbs in the Kosovo Vilayet sought ways to survive
in the dangerous Albanian and Ottoman encirclement. Tensions be¬
tween the Metropolitan and local church-school boroughs in
Metoh¬
ija
(Prizren and
Peć),
or in the
Sançak
of
Novi Pazar,
were more than
a mere disagreement on the Metropolitan s manner of government.
The extent of the Metropolitan s authority in religious matters was
in inverse proportion to his political influence in the diocese. Thus
the Prizren metropolitans strict rulings, even justified ones, often
aroused discontent among national elders, town council members,
priests, monastic communities or school teachers. Like a collective
neurosis, disagreements and misunderstandings, personal rather than
a matter of principle, developed into impassioned conflicts within
the Serbian community.
Toward the close of the nineteenth century, the Serbs in
Me¬
tohija
(flatlands
between
Istok, Peć
and Prizren) were in the most
difficult position. A bastion of the most conservative of Albanian
feudal tribal communities,
Metohija
was also a stronghold for all
their movements and the playground for goriest oppression. Under
the auspices of Serbian consuls or of diplomats of the Great Pow¬
ers, the Christian Serbs were able to gather around their traditional
268
shrines, the glorious monastery of Decani
-
impressive fourteenth-
century endowment of the Serbian King Stefan
Uroš
III
(1321-31)
and his son and heir
Dušan,
at first King, then Emperor Stefan
Dušan
(1331-55) -
and the Patriarchate of
Peć
-
seat of Serbian archbish¬
ops in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and patriarchal
see from
1346
to
1766.
Decani, the richest and most revered Serbian monastery in Old
Serbia, was a focus for the local people gathering for religious festi¬
vals, and for pilgrims coming from other regions to pay their respect
to the cult of the Holy King Stefan
Uroš
III of
Dečani {sveti kralj
Ste¬
fan
Dečanskí).
Church-national assemblies held in monasteries were
the only form of legal gathering of the Serbs in the Ottoman Empire.
The monasteries, however, shared the fate that befell the people. Un¬
protected as they were, they too began to decline. Brotherhoods dis¬
persed, monastic land fell in disuse, novices were almost impossible
to recruit, and monks sent from Serbia, Montenegro or other Serb-
inhabited areas were unable to cope in this vortex of anarchy.
Rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia over spheres of
influence in Turkey-in-Europe, and particularly in Old Serbia and
Slav-inhabited Macedonia, was an additional burden for Christian
Serbs. Notwithstanding their agreement of
1897
on the status quo in
the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Russia s influence
on political developments in these provinces, and thus in Old Ser¬
bia, kept waning with her growing interest in the Far East. Influence
of Roman Catholic missions in Old Serbia, with their tiny congre¬
gations of Albanians in the Prizren area, grew with the increasing
influence of Austria-Hungary upon Muslim Albanians in
Metohija.
Through a dense network of Austrian intelligence agents, strongly
supported by Jesuits, the Albanians, both Muslim and Roman Catho¬
lic, were encouraged to continue their persecution of Christian Or¬
thodox Serbs, seen as the main threat to Albanian domination in the
Kosovo Vilayet. The Albanians from Old Serbia, again both Muslim
and Roman Catholic, were seen in Vienna as a population that would
serve as a pontoon bridge in the long-planned penetration of Austria-
Hungary along the
Vardar
River Valley and to the
Saloniki
Bay. This
strategy of the Dual Monarchy was based on the pattern set by the
Austrian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Allying with Albani-
269
ans,
Vienna planned to extend its domination into other European
provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
In the 1890s, the increasing Austro-Hungarian influence began
to impinge upon the interests of the Serbian Orthodox Church in
Old Serbia. With points of support from Scutari to
Peć,
and from
the
Sançak
of
Novi Pazar
to Mitrovica, Roman Catholic propaganda
spread toward Djakovica and Prizren, thus becoming a serious threat
to Christian Orthodox Serbs, the majority Christian population in
the Vilayet of Kosovo. Austrian Jesuits examined, at first cautious¬
ly then overtly, the possibilities of winning the Christian Orthodox
Serbs of
Metohija
over to the union with the Roman Church. The
Raška-Prizren
metropolitans,
Dionisije Petrović
and his successor
Nićifor Perić,
were aware of the threat.
When, at the turn of the century, the prior of Decani and a confi¬
dant of the Metropolitan Dionisije, Archimandrite Joanikije, was ex¬
posed as an Austrian informer, which threw the diocese into confu¬
sion, most Serbian national elders in the Vilayet of Kosovo became
fearful that Roman Catholic pressures on the impoverished Ortho¬
dox Serbs might soon lead to its religious preponderance. During
difficult negotiations with the
Malissors
—
a Roman Catholic tribe of
northern Albania with its clans settled in
Metohija
-
concerning the
settlement of a debt, the monastery was saved from financial collapse
through public actions organized to raise the money. Even so, the
Monastery of Decani, often besieged and looted by local Albanian
clans, was left profoundly weakened. Its brotherhood dissipated, and
the chance of recruiting new monks prepared to endure the hardships
of living in so dangerous an environment was faint.
Seeking a way to resuscitate the forsaken medieval endowments,
first of all the Monastery of Decani and the Patriarchate of
Peć,
Met¬
ropolitan
Nićifor
worked out a plan to reinforce the endangered Ser¬
bian monastic communities with Russian monks from Mount
Athos.
In addition to restoring order in the monastery, they were to function
as a barrier against the expanding Roman Catholic influence and a
guarantee of greater protection for Christian Serbs. From the Serbian
point of view, the plan appeared on the whole beneficial, politically
wise and fully justified.
Metohija,
densely dotted with medieval Serbian monasteries
and important Serb-inhabited rural areas, was correctly perceived
270
by Belgrade as an area where Christian Serbs lived in constant fear
of their life and property, an area completely inaccessible to the Ser¬
bian consuls at
Pristina
and Skopje, while the Russian consulate at
Prizren was restricted in its actions to the local Serbian population.
The Serbian government, headed by Dr.
Mihailo Vujić
(from the In¬
dependent Radical Party, a younger, dissident wing of Nikola
Pašić s
National Radical Party) gave his in-principle approval for the pro¬
posal of the
Raška-Prizren
Metropolitan to bring Russian monks to
Decani. Prime Minister
Vujić
expected that the presence of Russian
monks would both consolidate the monastery as a religious and na¬
tional stronghold and improve the overall political position of Serbs
in the area, hoping, in addition, that it would boost the interest of
Russian diplomacy and the Russian wider public in the difficult situ¬
ation of their Slavic and Orthodox brethren
—
Christian Orthodox
Serbs in
Metohija.
Metropolitan
Nićifor s
choice, however, was an incompetent
and highly irresponsible group of ambitious Russian monks from the
Athonite Kellion (a small community of monks) of St. John Chrys-
ostom, a dependency of Hilandar, the Serbian monastery founded in
the twelfth century. Seeking a way to free themselves from Hilan¬
dar s jurisdiction, they aspired to obtain the status of an independent
skete
for their kellion. They expected that Serbian diplomacy would,
in return for their services in the Decani Monastery, secure the new
status and future for this Russian monastic community on Mount
Athos.
A string of wrong decisions followed, in particular the contract
between the Metropolitan and the Russian monks concerning the
handover of Decani to Russian monks in
1903.
The contract was
signed without previous consultation with the diplomatic representa¬
tives of Serbia and Russia in Constantinople, despite clear precondi¬
tions set by the Serbian government. The public in Serbia demanded
revision of the contract and in a heated debate the issue of protecting
the Serbian identity of the Monastery of Decani was raised. Ques¬
tions of principle such as the character of the Russian administration
of the monastery and the Metropolitan s jurisdiction aroused a bitter
controversy, which branched into several directions and the conse¬
quences of which were detrimental to the overall policy of Serbia
in Serb-inhabited areas of Turkey-in-Europe and to the progress of
271
Serbian national work in
Metohija
and the neighbouring areas of Old
Serbia.
The Decani Question not only was raised on the eve of a ma¬
jor dynastic change in Serbia (the last ruler of the Austrophile
Obrenović
dynasty, King Alexander I, was assassinated in a military
coup and, in June
1903,
replaced by the Francophile and Russophile
King
Petar I Karadjordjević).
It also coincided with the beginning of
the Great Powers Reform Action in the Macedonian vilayets i. e.
the Ottoman provinces in Europe. The Decani Question revealed all
weaknesses and inconsistencies of Serbia s national and political, re¬
ligious and educational actions in Old Serbia during the reign of the
last
Obrenović.
Poor coordination between the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the consulate at
Priština,
the appointment of ill-equipped
diplomatic, clerical and teaching staff, all this facilitated the transfer
of Decani to the Russian monks. In addition, frequent changes in the
Serbian Cabinet, despite sporadic successes (new bishoprics, devel¬
opment of education), prevented the implementation of a long-term
national policy of protecting and improving the position of Christian
Serbs in Old Serbia.
After the military coup of
1903,
the task of resolving the issue
of Decani was taken over by a Radical Cabinet. At the very outset
of negotiations about closer political ties with Russia, the Cabinet
faced distressing pressures from the church hierarchy and the public
in Serbia. Both the yellow and the opposition
pro-Obrenović
press
sought to exploit the controversy over Decani for harsh criticism
of the pro-Russian foreign policy of Nikola
Pašić s
National Radi¬
cal Party. The heated public debate obstructed the plans of Serbian
diplomacy to settle the issue quietly and to the satisfaction of both
sides. With the internal conflict on the front pages of widely-read
Serbian papers, a negative impact on the situation in
Metohija
was
unavoidable.
After June
1903,
all the successive Serbian cabinets relied on
Russia in pursuing their foreign policy. Support rendered by Russian
diplomacy for all Serb national problems in the Ottoman Empire was
the point of departure in making pro-active political plans. The dis¬
pute over the administration of Decani slowed down freshly-estab¬
lished Russo-Serbian cooperation in more important Serb national
272
affairs, from Old Serbia and Macedonia to Bosnia and Herzegovi¬
na.
The effort put into settling the Decani Question through an indi¬
rect agreement with Russian diplomacy, by altering the contract in
such a way that neither the presence of
kelliotes
in Decani be ques¬
tioned nor Russia s imperial authority offended, failed mostly due to
the Russian monks demand to be granted the status of an independ¬
ent
skete
instead of a dependent kellion. Considering the highly deli¬
cate question of maintaining the Athonite Monastery of Hilandar s
jurisdiction over the Russian kellion, negotiations desisted by tacitly
accepting the existing situation in the Monastery of Decani. Fully
aware of Russia s authority and political influence, Serbian diplo¬
macy cautiously sought to put all the blame on the Russian monks,
and to secure the Metropolitan s supervision at the monastery. For
this reason an amendment to the contract specifying the hierarchy in
decision-making was constantly requested. After the Russian monks
proved to be instigators of growing discord among the local Serb
population (divided into rival groups supporting or contesting the
Russian administration of Decani), Serbian diplomacy was willing to
accept their replacement with another Russian brotherhood of Saint-
Petersburg s choice. This proposal, however, was only intended as a
transitional solution.
Belgrade diplomats endeavoured to reinstate full Serbian admin¬
istration of Decani in order to calm down the public debate in Serbia
which had gone out of control claiming that the Radical cabinets
toleration of the Russian monks had put in danger the entire national
and cultural action among the Serbs in
Metohija.
Belgrade came out
with a plan to turn the land possessions of Decani into an experimen¬
tal agricultural estate in order to economically stimulate the Serbs of
Metohija,
revitalize the monastery s brotherhood and mitigate deep
divisions among the Serbs both in Serbia and in Old Serbia. In con¬
trast, actions of the Russian
kelliotes,
adamantly pursuing their own
goals, widened the division in the Serb community in
Metohija
and
paralyzed Serbia s diplomatic work on national affairs.
It was
Metohija
that suffered the worst consequences of the
Decani issue. The division in the Serbian community into two es¬
tranged camps
—
supporters and adversaries of the Russian
kelliotes
-
was incited by the Russian monks, whose policy of division was
273
backed by the Russian consul at Prizren, S. V. Tuholka. Lavishing
false promises of Russia s ample and official support upon some
bribable Serb town council members, and building up their influence
by belittling the results of Serbia s national action, they raised the
Serbs hopes of receiving Russia s decisive support for all of their
national demands. Basically well-intentioned but politically nar¬
row-minded, Metropolitan
Nićifor
contributed considerably to the
escalation of the Decani Question into a diplomatic dispute between
Serbia and Russia. His way of concluding the contract, autocratic
decisions and inconsistent views impeded the proposed solutions to
the problem and generated further divisions in his own people.
Whereas Russian diplomacy, according to the plans of its dip¬
lomats from the Constantinopolitan embassy and the consulates at
Prizren, Mitrovica and Skopje, saw the presence of Russian
kelliotes
at Decani as a token of Russia s political support to the seriously
imperilled Serb community, the kelliote leaders (priors
Arsen
ije, Ki-
rilo and, subsequently,
Varsonofìje),
pursuing the narrow interests of
their brotherhood, saw Decani as a springboard for obtaining their
independent
skete
and consolidating the position and prestige of
their brotherhood in Russia.
Once the dispute was inflamed, Russian diplomacy chose to
stand firmly by its
kelliotes,
and for the following reason: all Rus¬
sian Christian missions to the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East,
from Mount
Athos
to Jerusalem and Sinai, had a political mission as
well and, as such, were directly or indirectly supported by Russian
diplomacy. The arrival of Russian
kelliotes
in Decani suited Russia s
plans of expanding her influence further into Old Serbia. She opened
a consulate at Mitrovica at the commencement of the Great Powers
Reform Action, and planned an important intelligence stronghold at
Decani.
As one of two Great Powers with strongest interest in political
developments in Old Serbia and Macedonia, Russia intended to over¬
see the implementation of reforms and to contain the still dominant
influence of the Dual Monarchy wherever possible. Russia planned
to use not only the embassy at Constantinople and consulates in the
region, but also the Russian
kelliotes
at Decani. Thus her support
to the Serb community in
Metohija
through the Russian
kelliotes
would have been to some advantage.
274
However, further developments soon showed that the assump¬
tion about the important political role of the
kelliotes
was wrong.
The divisions they triggered in the
sançaks
of
Peć
and Prizren only
further weakened the Christian Serb community s power of resist¬
ance. With both
Metohija
and Kosovo excluded from the Great Pow¬
ers Reform Action on the demand of the Dual Monarchy, the pres¬
ence of Russian monks could no longer have any significant effect
on political developments in the vilayet.
Their role in abating the oppression against Christian Serbs was
also negligible. Russian diplomacy, especially the embassy at Con¬
stantinople and consuls in the Kosovo Vilayet, continued to protect
the
kelliotes
despite ample evidence of their abusive and detrimental
activity among the Serbs, expecting that their presence at Decani
should nevertheless produce some political advantages. At Decani,
any community of Russian monks, not necessarily that of the Kel-
lion of St. John Chrysotom, assumed the role of an observation post
on the lookout for Austria-Hungary. That Russia had no intention of
withdrawing her monks from Decani became clear when the deci¬
sion was made to replace only the prior Kirilo, due to many abuses
and illicit activities.
Preoccupied with the war in the Far East and internal difficul¬
ties, between
1904
and
1908
Russia desisted from further involve¬
ment in the Balkans. In Old Serbia, within the framework of Russia s
Macedonian policy, the tasks of the diplomats of the great Slavic
Orthodox Empire were confined to observing the situation and to
traditional protection of the Christian Orthodox population. Subse¬
quent to the Young Turk Revolution and the Annexation Crisis in
1908,
Russian diplomacy sought to curb further Austro-Hungarian
penetration into the Balkans. To this effect, the Adriatic Railway
project linking Belgrade with the Adriatic Sea was intended as a se¬
rious obstacle to the Dual Monarchy s political aspirations. In that
way Russian diplomacy tied the resolution of the Decani Question to
the completion of the Adriatic Railway, clearly intent on keeping the
Russian monks as a guarantee of its influence on the Christian Serb
population, and a counterbalance to the growing Austro-Hungarian
influence on the Albanian national movement. Both the political and
religious impact of the Russian monks was quite insignificant
-
pro¬
portionate to their influence on the Serbian community
-
while the
275
Decani
Question
gradually lost its previous importance, both for the
Serbs of
Metohija
and for the government in Belgrade.
Russian assurances that the monks of the
Kel
lion of St. John
Chrysostom would leave Decani, but only after the completion of
the Adriatic Railway, prevented Serbian diplomacy from address¬
ing the Decani Question, seen as minor by comparison with the im¬
mense political significance of the ambitious railway project. Having
lost broader political significance at a time of ongoing political talks
about the liberation of the Ottoman provinces in Europe, the Decani
Question was overshadowed by the victorious military campaign of
the Balkan allies subsequent to the Albanian uprisings of
1910-12.
In the autumn of
1912
Kosovo was restored to Serbia, and most of
Metohija
to Montenegro. After Austria-Hungary occupied
Metohija
in
1915,
the Russian monks were sent to prisoners camps. Following
the
1917
revolutionary turmoil in Russia, the Decani Question lost
any potential political significance.
276
|
| adam_txt |
САДРЖАЈ
ВИСОКИ ДЕЧАНИ
. 5
Култ
светога краља
.,. 7
У
раздобљу националне
обнове
. 12
ИЗМЕЂУ
АРБАНАСА,
ПОРТЕ,
СРБИЈЕ
И
АУСТРО-УГАРСКЕ
. 23
Арбанашка
лига
. 27
Арбанаси
под заштитом султана
. 33
Дипломатска акција Србије
. 41
Превласт утицаја Аустро-Угарске
. 44
Сукоб
интереса Аустро-Угарске и
Србије
. 51
КРИЗА У МАНАСТИРУ
. 55
Јоаникије.
61
Акција
митрополита
Нићифора
. 74
Опсада Дечана
. 83
Руско
посредовање
. 93
Предаја
управе руским
калуђерима
. 98
Замисао
о
довођењу руских келиота
у Дечане
. 102
Преговори и
склапање
уговора
. 109
Почетак
рада руских келиота у Дечанима
. 119
ОТВАРАЊЕ
СРПСКО-РУСКОГ СПОРА
. 125
Споразум
Грујић-Зиновјев
. 130
Непосредни преговори
с
руским
калуђерима.
134
Хиландар
и
питање
скита
. 138
Званични српско-руски
преговори
. 144
Одјек
у
Србији.
149
353
Питање одговорности
. 152
Дебата у Скупштини
. 158
Одбрана Светислава
Симића
. 162
Апел
владике
Саве Дечанца
. 164
Метохија
-
тежиште сукоба
. 166
Заоштравање сукоба
. 176
Став митрополита
Нићифора
. 178
Проруска агитација
у
Пећкој нахији
. 181
Сукоби
и
насиља
. 188
Предлози
конзула Тухолке
. 191
Митрополитове иницијативе
. 195
У СКЛОПУ
НОВИХ ОДНОСА НА БАЛКАНУ
. 201
Покушај смењивања руског игумана
. 203
ПонудаАрбанаса
.206
Притисци руске дипломатије
. 208
Предлог
Стојана
Новаковића
. 215
Иницијатива
Милана
Ракића.
217
Дечанска комисија
.221
Гледиште српске владе
. 226
Руски одговор
. 232
Сведочење
Гаврила
Дожића
и нова
кампања
. 235
Одбрана
Јована
M.
Јовановића
.240
Неспоразуми и несугласице
. 242
Оставка митрополита
Нићифора
. 245
Епилог
. 250
ЗАКЉУЧАК
. 255
THE DECANI QUESTION
. 265
ПРИЛОЗИ
.;. 277
1.
Попие братства
Високих Дечана
. 277
2.
Мемоар Саве Дечанца
о Високим Дечанима
1890.
године.
285
3.
Представка жичког епископа
Саве о
Високим
Дечанима
1909.
године.
313
4.
Дечани
у Великом
рату-један извештај
.323
5.
Извештај
Косте
Пећанца
о
ослобађању Метохије
1918.
године.
325
354
O OBOJ
КЊИЗИ
. 327
СКРАЋЕНИЦЕ
. 333
ИЗВОРИ И ЛИТЕРАТУРА
. 335
ИМЕНИК
. 345
355
THE DECANI QUESTION
Summary
Progressive deterioration in the system of Ottoman administra¬
tion resulted between the middle of the nineteenth century and the
Balkan Wars
(1912-13)
in feudal anarchy in the Empire's European
provinces (vilayets). This state of disorder eventually became their
main political feature, in particular in the region of Old Serbia (Otto¬
man province under the name the Vilayet of Kosovo in
1877-1912),
where Muslim Albanians, though not yet the strongest ethnic group,
relentlessly persecuted Christian Orthodox Serbs in order to seize
their land in the fertile basins of Kosovo and
Metohija.
Belonging to
privileged ruling classes within the ailing Ottoman Empire's theo¬
cratic system, Muslim Albanians
-
from
1690
descending en masse
from the highlands of Albania and settling in Kosovo and
Metohija
-
enjoyed both tribal autonomy and legal impunity. The cumula¬
tive effect of this anarchy, hunger for land and tribal clashes were
outbursts of severe violence against the unarmed and unprotected
Christian Serb population,
The participation of Muslim Albanians in local government
gradually expanded and their impact on political developments in
Old Serbia steadily grew, particularly during the reign of Abdiilha-
mid II
(1876-1909).
Pogroms unleashed upon Christian Serbs by
Albanian outlaws had tacit approval of the Sultan concerned with
maintaining the fragile border with neighbouring Christian states,
especially with Serbia and Montenegro, as both disputed Ottoman
265
rule in the Vilayet of Kosovo. These uncontrolled pogroms, recorded
in Serbian, Russian and other sources, gradually developed into a
long-term political programme of Albanian nationalism. From the
mid-1880s on the interests of the Ottoman Empire coincided with
those of the Albanian feudal elite and the Albanian masses, through
the policy of pan-Islamism, a brainchild of the Sultan himself, pre¬
serving Muslim Albanian political and military domination in the
region. Muslim Albanians managed to maintain a privileged status
through the combined influence of their rising nationalism and pan-
Islamism. After
1908,
during the Young Turk regime, and especially
following the deposition in
1909
of
Abdülhamid
II and the resulting
loss of abundant privileges, Albanian actions coalesced into a na¬
tional movement influenced by the thin layer of intelligentsia.
The Albanian maximalist religious and national programme,
outlined already in the decisions of the Albanian League
(1878-81),
envisaged an autonomous Albanian province that was to include the
Vilayet of Kosovo (Old Serbia) and another three Ottoman vilayets.
The greatest obstacle to taking full control of what had been the
heart of the medieval Serbian state (the name Old Serbia was given
to the Ottoman-held regions of Serbia after her northern portion ob¬
tained autonomy in
1830,
and eventually independence in
1878)
was
the native Serb population, strong enough to instigate military action
from both Serbia and Montenegro. These two Serb-inhabited states
claimed the whole of Old Serbia, a restless province controlled by
renegade Muslim Albanian chieftains.
A potential war whereby the Vilayet of Kosovo would eventu¬
ally become annexed to two Serbian states was a nightmare for Al¬
banian feudal lords, tribal chieftains and national ideologists (both
the conservative pro-Ottoman faction and the nationalist-oriented,
autonomist wing). Backed by religious leaders, they fanaticised their
Shari 'tf/z-abiding tribesmen and encouraged their attacks on Chris¬
tian Serbs. This escalation of Muslim oppression against the Chris¬
tians had an economic dimension as well. Using everything from
extortion to murder, Albanian outlaws
(kaçaks)
succeeded in driving
out entire Serbian villages and taking over their productive land and
estates, while many ensured a safe source of income by racketeering
unprotected Christians on a regular basis.
266
A second period of anarchy, in the wake of the Greco-Turkish
war of
1897,
was marked by severe anti-Christian violence perpe¬
trated by Albanian armed soldiers, fresh from the war, and resulted
in mass flights of Christian Serbs to Serbia and, to a lesser extent,
Montenegro. Individuals, families, sometimes whole villages sought
salvation there. Lacking support from the Great Powers, the diplo¬
matic effort of the Serbian government with the Porte aimed at halt¬
ing the waves of violence ended in failure. According to Serbian
data, at least
60,000
Christian Serbs fled the Kosovo Vilayet between
1890
and
1900
alone. The fierceness of pogroms left the remaining
Serbian population of the Kosovo Vilayet on the verge of despair.
They were now cut off by a tight chain of freshly-founded Albanian
settlements along the border with Serbia, in particular in the wake of
the second Serbo-Turkish War of
1877-78,
when more than
30,000
Muslim Albanians had been expelled from the liberated areas of the
Sançak
of
Niš.
Life was relatively safe for urban Serbs concentrated round Ser¬
bian religious centres, mostly great medieval monasteries, in the
Raška-Prizren Metropolitanate
and the Theological Seminary in
Prizren (founded in
1870),
or in the vicinity of the Serbian and Rus¬
sian consulates in
Priština,
Skopje and Prizren, whereas rural Serbs
working in their fields or travelling the roads were often left to the
mercy of the increasing numbers of
kaçah.
The complete absence of legal protection, freedom of movement
and public safety, coupled with recurrent waves of ethnically/reli¬
giously motivated crimes committed by Albanian outlaws and toler¬
ated by the Ottoman authorities, led to an erosion of the Christian
Serbs' patriarchal way of life, further worsened their economic po¬
sition, undermined their self-confidence and their hopes pinned on
Serbia as their rescuer from centuries-long Ottoman rule. Their faith
in imminent liberation or at least a greater measure of protection
secured by diplomatic means, soon turned into disappointment due
to the failure of both Belgrade and Cetinje to provide some more
substantial support for their compatriots in Old Serbia. Their pro¬
found discouragement found a way out in placing irrational hopes in
a powerful, Slavic and Orthodox, protector
-
the Russian Empire.
Serbia's national and political actions were directed towards
strengthening religious and educational institutions, the diplomatic
267
struggle for founding new bishoprics (Prizren,
1896;
Skoplje,
1902)
and for opening Serbian consulates in the most vulnerable areas in
Metohija
or in northern Kosovo. The existing Serbian consulates
were unable to ensure adequate protection for Serbs outside the dis¬
tricts of
Priština
and Skoplje, and new ones in the critically endan¬
gered zones
(Peć,
Prizren, Mitrovica) could not be opened due to
protests by Muslim Albanians. Serbia's few official attempts to en¬
sure greater protection for the Serb population of the Kosovo Vilayet
(1898/9, 1902/3)
failed to produce tangible results.
The Serbian Orthodox Church in Old Serbia, mostly encom¬
passed by the Metropolitanate of
Raška-Prizren,
was administered by
Greek bishops between
1830
and
1896,
and subsequently remained
subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. New Serbian metro¬
politans, the short-lived
Dionisije Petrović
(1896-1900)
and his suc¬
cessor
Nićifor Perić
(1900-11),
elected as representatives both of the
Metropolitanate of Belgrade and of the Serbian government, were
unable, amidst all the political chaos, to impose themselves upon
their flock as true spiritual and national leaders. Left to themselves
for too long, the Serbs in the Kosovo Vilayet sought ways to survive
in the dangerous Albanian and Ottoman encirclement. Tensions be¬
tween the Metropolitan and local church-school boroughs in
Metoh¬
ija
(Prizren and
Peć),
or in the
Sançak
of
Novi Pazar,
were more than
a mere disagreement on the Metropolitan's manner of government.
The extent of the Metropolitan's authority in religious matters was
in inverse proportion to his political influence in the diocese. Thus
the Prizren metropolitans' strict rulings, even justified ones, often
aroused discontent among national elders, town council members,
priests, monastic communities or school teachers. Like a collective
neurosis, disagreements and misunderstandings, personal rather than
a matter of principle, developed into impassioned conflicts within
the Serbian community.
Toward the close of the nineteenth century, the Serbs in
Me¬
tohija
(flatlands
between
Istok, Peć
and Prizren) were in the most
difficult position. A bastion of the most conservative of Albanian
feudal tribal communities,
Metohija
was also a stronghold for all
their movements and the playground for goriest oppression. Under
the auspices of Serbian consuls or of diplomats of the Great Pow¬
ers, the Christian Serbs were able to gather around their traditional
268
shrines, the glorious monastery of Decani
-
impressive fourteenth-
century endowment of the Serbian King Stefan
Uroš
III
(1321-31)
and his son and heir
Dušan,
at first King, then Emperor Stefan
Dušan
(1331-55) -
and the Patriarchate of
Peć
-
seat of Serbian archbish¬
ops in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and patriarchal
see from
1346
to
1766.
Decani, the richest and most revered Serbian monastery in Old
Serbia, was a focus for the local people gathering for religious festi¬
vals, and for pilgrims coming from other regions to pay their respect
to the cult of the Holy King Stefan
Uroš
III of
Dečani {sveti kralj
Ste¬
fan
Dečanskí).
Church-national assemblies held in monasteries were
the only form of legal gathering of the Serbs in the Ottoman Empire.
The monasteries, however, shared the fate that befell the people. Un¬
protected as they were, they too began to decline. Brotherhoods dis¬
persed, monastic land fell in disuse, novices were almost impossible
to recruit, and monks sent from Serbia, Montenegro or other Serb-
inhabited areas were unable to cope in this vortex of anarchy.
Rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia over spheres of
influence in Turkey-in-Europe, and particularly in Old Serbia and
Slav-inhabited Macedonia, was an additional burden for Christian
Serbs. Notwithstanding their agreement of
1897
on the status quo in
the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Russia's influence
on political developments in these provinces, and thus in Old Ser¬
bia, kept waning with her growing interest in the Far East. Influence
of Roman Catholic missions in Old Serbia, with their tiny congre¬
gations of Albanians in the Prizren area, grew with the increasing
influence of Austria-Hungary upon Muslim Albanians in
Metohija.
Through a dense network of Austrian intelligence agents, strongly
supported by Jesuits, the Albanians, both Muslim and Roman Catho¬
lic, were encouraged to continue their persecution of Christian Or¬
thodox Serbs, seen as the main threat to Albanian domination in the
Kosovo Vilayet. The Albanians from Old Serbia, again both Muslim
and Roman Catholic, were seen in Vienna as a population that would
serve as a pontoon bridge in the long-planned penetration of Austria-
Hungary along the
Vardar
River Valley and to the
Saloniki
Bay. This
strategy of the Dual Monarchy was based on the pattern set by the
Austrian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Allying with Albani-
269
ans,
Vienna planned to extend its domination into other European
provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
In the 1890s, the increasing Austro-Hungarian influence began
to impinge upon the interests of the Serbian Orthodox Church in
Old Serbia. With points of support from Scutari to
Peć,
and from
the
Sançak
of
Novi Pazar
to Mitrovica, Roman Catholic propaganda
spread toward Djakovica and Prizren, thus becoming a serious threat
to Christian Orthodox Serbs, the majority Christian population in
the Vilayet of Kosovo. Austrian Jesuits examined, at first cautious¬
ly then overtly, the possibilities of winning the Christian Orthodox
Serbs of
Metohija
over to the union with the Roman Church. The
Raška-Prizren
metropolitans,
Dionisije Petrović
and his successor
Nićifor Perić,
were aware of the threat.
When, at the turn of the century, the prior of Decani and a confi¬
dant of the Metropolitan Dionisije, Archimandrite Joanikije, was ex¬
posed as an Austrian informer, which threw the diocese into confu¬
sion, most Serbian national elders in the Vilayet of Kosovo became
fearful that Roman Catholic pressures on the impoverished Ortho¬
dox Serbs might soon lead to its religious preponderance. During
difficult negotiations with the
Malissors
—
a Roman Catholic tribe of
northern Albania with its clans settled in
Metohija
-
concerning the
settlement of a debt, the monastery was saved from financial collapse
through public actions organized to raise the money. Even so, the
Monastery of Decani, often besieged and looted by local Albanian
clans, was left profoundly weakened. Its brotherhood dissipated, and
the chance of recruiting new monks prepared to endure the hardships
of living in so dangerous an environment was faint.
Seeking a way to resuscitate the forsaken medieval endowments,
first of all the Monastery of Decani and the Patriarchate of
Peć,
Met¬
ropolitan
Nićifor
worked out a plan to reinforce the endangered Ser¬
bian monastic communities with Russian monks from Mount
Athos.
In addition to restoring order in the monastery, they were to function
as a barrier against the expanding Roman Catholic influence and a
guarantee of greater protection for Christian Serbs. From the Serbian
point of view, the plan appeared on the whole beneficial, politically
wise and fully justified.
Metohija,
densely dotted with medieval Serbian monasteries
and important Serb-inhabited rural areas, was correctly perceived
270
by Belgrade as an area where Christian Serbs lived in constant fear
of their life and property, an area completely inaccessible to the Ser¬
bian consuls at
Pristina
and Skopje, while the Russian consulate at
Prizren was restricted in its actions to the local Serbian population.
The Serbian government, headed by Dr.
Mihailo Vujić
(from the In¬
dependent Radical Party, a younger, dissident wing of Nikola
Pašić's
National Radical Party) gave his in-principle approval for the pro¬
posal of the
Raška-Prizren
Metropolitan to bring Russian monks to
Decani. Prime Minister
Vujić
expected that the presence of Russian
monks would both consolidate the monastery as a religious and na¬
tional stronghold and improve the overall political position of Serbs
in the area, hoping, in addition, that it would boost the interest of
Russian diplomacy and the Russian wider public in the difficult situ¬
ation of their Slavic and Orthodox brethren
—
Christian Orthodox
Serbs in
Metohija.
Metropolitan
Nićifor's
choice, however, was an incompetent
and highly irresponsible group of ambitious Russian monks from the
Athonite Kellion (a small community of monks) of St. John Chrys-
ostom, a dependency of Hilandar, the Serbian monastery founded in
the twelfth century. Seeking a way to free themselves from Hilan¬
dar's jurisdiction, they aspired to obtain the status of an independent
skete
for their kellion. They expected that Serbian diplomacy would,
in return for their services in the Decani Monastery, secure the new
status and future for this Russian monastic community on Mount
Athos.
A string of wrong decisions followed, in particular the contract
between the Metropolitan and the Russian monks concerning the
handover of Decani to Russian monks in
1903.
The contract was
signed without previous consultation with the diplomatic representa¬
tives of Serbia and Russia in Constantinople, despite clear precondi¬
tions set by the Serbian government. The public in Serbia demanded
revision of the contract and in a heated debate the issue of protecting
the Serbian identity of the Monastery of Decani was raised. Ques¬
tions of principle such as the character of the Russian administration
of the monastery and the Metropolitan's jurisdiction aroused a bitter
controversy, which branched into several directions and the conse¬
quences of which were detrimental to the overall policy of Serbia
in Serb-inhabited areas of Turkey-in-Europe and to the progress of
271
Serbian national work in
Metohija
and the neighbouring areas of Old
Serbia.
The Decani Question not only was raised on the eve of a ma¬
jor dynastic change in Serbia (the last ruler of the Austrophile
Obrenović
dynasty, King Alexander I, was assassinated in a military
coup and, in June
1903,
replaced by the Francophile and Russophile
King
Petar I Karadjordjević).
It also coincided with the beginning of
the Great Powers' Reform Action in the 'Macedonian vilayets' i. e.
the Ottoman provinces in Europe. The Decani Question revealed all
weaknesses and inconsistencies of Serbia's national and political, re¬
ligious and educational actions in Old Serbia during the reign of the
last
Obrenović.
Poor coordination between the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the consulate at
Priština,
the appointment of ill-equipped
diplomatic, clerical and teaching staff, all this facilitated the transfer
of Decani to the Russian monks. In addition, frequent changes in the
Serbian Cabinet, despite sporadic successes (new bishoprics, devel¬
opment of education), prevented the implementation of a long-term
national policy of protecting and improving the position of Christian
Serbs in Old Serbia.
After the military coup of
1903,
the task of resolving the issue
of Decani was taken over by a Radical Cabinet. At the very outset
of negotiations about closer political ties with Russia, the Cabinet
faced distressing pressures from the church hierarchy and the public
in Serbia. Both the 'yellow' and the opposition
pro-Obrenović
press
sought to exploit the controversy over Decani for harsh criticism
of the pro-Russian foreign policy of Nikola
Pašić's
National Radi¬
cal Party. The heated public debate obstructed the plans of Serbian
diplomacy to settle the issue quietly and to the satisfaction of both
sides. With the internal conflict on the front pages of widely-read
Serbian papers, a negative impact on the situation in
Metohija
was
unavoidable.
After June
1903,
all the successive Serbian cabinets relied on
Russia in pursuing their foreign policy. Support rendered by Russian
diplomacy for all Serb national problems in the Ottoman Empire was
the point of departure in making pro-active political plans. The dis¬
pute over the administration of Decani slowed down freshly-estab¬
lished Russo-Serbian cooperation in more important Serb national
272
affairs, from Old Serbia and Macedonia to Bosnia and Herzegovi¬
na.
The effort put into settling the Decani Question through an indi¬
rect agreement with Russian diplomacy, by altering the contract in
such a way that neither the presence of
kelliotes
in Decani be ques¬
tioned nor Russia's imperial authority offended, failed mostly due to
the Russian monks' demand to be granted the status of an independ¬
ent
skete
instead of a dependent kellion. Considering the highly deli¬
cate question of maintaining the Athonite Monastery of Hilandar's
jurisdiction over the Russian kellion, negotiations desisted by tacitly
accepting the existing situation in the Monastery of Decani. Fully
aware of Russia's authority and political influence, Serbian diplo¬
macy cautiously sought to put all the blame on the Russian monks,
and to secure the Metropolitan's supervision at the monastery. For
this reason an amendment to the contract specifying the hierarchy in
decision-making was constantly requested. After the Russian monks
proved to be instigators of growing discord among the local Serb
population (divided into rival groups supporting or contesting the
Russian administration of Decani), Serbian diplomacy was willing to
accept their replacement with another Russian brotherhood of Saint-
Petersburg's choice. This proposal, however, was only intended as a
transitional solution.
Belgrade diplomats endeavoured to reinstate full Serbian admin¬
istration of Decani in order to calm down the public debate in Serbia
which had gone out of control claiming that the Radical cabinets'
toleration of the Russian monks had put in danger the entire national
and cultural action among the Serbs in
Metohija.
Belgrade came out
with a plan to turn the land possessions of Decani into an experimen¬
tal agricultural estate in order to economically stimulate the Serbs of
Metohija,
revitalize the monastery's brotherhood and mitigate deep
divisions among the Serbs both in Serbia and in Old Serbia. In con¬
trast, actions of the Russian
kelliotes,
adamantly pursuing their own
goals, widened the division in the Serb community in
Metohija
and
paralyzed Serbia's diplomatic work on national affairs.
It was
Metohija
that suffered the worst consequences of the
Decani issue. The division in the Serbian community into two es¬
tranged camps
—
supporters and adversaries of the Russian
kelliotes
-
was incited by the Russian monks, whose policy of division was
273
backed by the Russian consul at Prizren, S. V. Tuholka. Lavishing
false promises of Russia's ample and official support upon some
bribable Serb town council members, and building up their influence
by belittling the results of Serbia's national action, they raised the
Serbs' hopes of receiving Russia's decisive support for all of their
national demands. Basically well-intentioned but politically nar¬
row-minded, Metropolitan
Nićifor
contributed considerably to the
escalation of the Decani Question into a diplomatic dispute between
Serbia and Russia. His way of concluding the contract, autocratic
decisions and inconsistent views impeded the proposed solutions to
the problem and generated further divisions in his own people.
Whereas Russian diplomacy, according to the plans of its dip¬
lomats from the Constantinopolitan embassy and the consulates at
Prizren, Mitrovica and Skopje, saw the presence of Russian
kelliotes
at Decani as a token of Russia's political support to the seriously
imperilled Serb community, the kelliote leaders (priors
Arsen
ije, Ki-
rilo and, subsequently,
Varsonofìje),
pursuing the narrow interests of
their brotherhood, saw Decani as a springboard for obtaining their
independent
skete
and consolidating the position and prestige of
their brotherhood in Russia.
Once the dispute was inflamed, Russian diplomacy chose to
stand firmly by its
kelliotes,
and for the following reason: all Rus¬
sian Christian missions to the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East,
from Mount
Athos
to Jerusalem and Sinai, had a political mission as
well and, as such, were directly or indirectly supported by Russian
diplomacy. The arrival of Russian
kelliotes
in Decani suited Russia's
plans of expanding her influence further into Old Serbia. She opened
a consulate at Mitrovica at the commencement of the Great Powers'
Reform Action, and planned an important intelligence stronghold at
Decani.
As one of two Great Powers with strongest interest in political
developments in Old Serbia and Macedonia, Russia intended to over¬
see the implementation of reforms and to contain the still dominant
influence of the Dual Monarchy wherever possible. Russia planned
to use not only the embassy at Constantinople and consulates in the
region, but also the Russian
kelliotes
at Decani. Thus her support
to the Serb community in
Metohija
through the Russian
kelliotes
would have been to some advantage.
274
However, further developments soon showed that the assump¬
tion about the important political role of the
kelliotes
was wrong.
The divisions they triggered in the
sançaks
of
Peć
and Prizren only
further weakened the Christian Serb community's power of resist¬
ance. With both
Metohija
and Kosovo excluded from the Great Pow¬
ers Reform Action on the demand of the Dual Monarchy, the pres¬
ence of Russian monks could no longer have any significant effect
on political developments in the vilayet.
Their role in abating the oppression against Christian Serbs was
also negligible. Russian diplomacy, especially the embassy at Con¬
stantinople and consuls in the Kosovo Vilayet, continued to protect
the
kelliotes
despite ample evidence of their abusive and detrimental
activity among the Serbs, expecting that their presence at Decani
should nevertheless produce some political advantages. At Decani,
any community of Russian monks, not necessarily that of the Kel-
lion of St. John Chrysotom, assumed the role of an observation post
on the lookout for Austria-Hungary. That Russia had no intention of
withdrawing her monks from Decani became clear when the deci¬
sion was made to replace only the prior Kirilo, due to many abuses
and illicit activities.
Preoccupied with the war in the Far East and internal difficul¬
ties, between
1904
and
1908
Russia desisted from further involve¬
ment in the Balkans. In Old Serbia, within the framework of Russia's
Macedonian policy, the tasks of the diplomats of the great Slavic
Orthodox Empire were confined to observing the situation and to
traditional protection of the Christian Orthodox population. Subse¬
quent to the Young Turk Revolution and the Annexation Crisis in
1908,
Russian diplomacy sought to curb further Austro-Hungarian
penetration into the Balkans. To this effect, the Adriatic Railway
project linking Belgrade with the Adriatic Sea was intended as a se¬
rious obstacle to the Dual Monarchy's political aspirations. In that
way Russian diplomacy tied the resolution of the Decani Question to
the completion of the Adriatic Railway, clearly intent on keeping the
Russian monks as a guarantee of its influence on the Christian Serb
population, and a counterbalance to the growing Austro-Hungarian
influence on the Albanian national movement. Both the political and
religious impact of the Russian monks was quite insignificant
-
pro¬
portionate to their influence on the Serbian community
-
while the
275
Decani
Question
gradually lost its previous importance, both for the
Serbs of
Metohija
and for the government in Belgrade.
Russian assurances that the monks of the
Kel
lion of St. John
Chrysostom would leave Decani, but only after the completion of
the Adriatic Railway, prevented Serbian diplomacy from address¬
ing the Decani Question, seen as minor by comparison with the im¬
mense political significance of the ambitious railway project. Having
lost broader political significance at a time of ongoing political talks
about the liberation of the Ottoman provinces in Europe, the Decani
Question was overshadowed by the victorious military campaign of
the Balkan allies subsequent to the Albanian uprisings of
1910-12.
In the autumn of
1912
Kosovo was restored to Serbia, and most of
Metohija
to Montenegro. After Austria-Hungary occupied
Metohija
in
1915,
the Russian monks were sent to prisoners camps. Following
the
1917
revolutionary turmoil in Russia, the Decani Question lost
any potential political significance.
276 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Bataković, Dušan T. 1957-2017 |
| author_GND | (DE-588)172743427 |
| author_facet | Bataković, Dušan T. 1957-2017 |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Bataković, Dušan T. 1957-2017 |
| author_variant | d t b dt dtb |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023101789 |
| callnumber-first | D - World History |
| callnumber-label | DR2084 |
| callnumber-raw | DR2084 |
| callnumber-search | DR2084 |
| callnumber-sort | DR 42084 |
| callnumber-subject | DR - Balkan Peninsula |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)191758236 (DE-599)BVBBV023101789 |
| edition | 2., dop. izd. |
| era | Geschichte 1875-1911 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1875-1911 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02611nam a2200625 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023101789</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080128s2007 a||| |||| 00||| srp d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788675584506</subfield><subfield code="9">978-86-7558-450-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)191758236</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023101789</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">DR2084</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bataković, Dušan T.</subfield><subfield code="d">1957-2017</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)172743427</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dečansko pitanje</subfield><subfield code="c">Dušan T. Bataković</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2., dop. izd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Beograd</subfield><subfield code="b">Čigoja Štampa</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">355 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Dechani question. - Zugl.: Belgrad, Fil. Fak., Magisterarbeit, 1988</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dečani (Monastery)</subfield><subfield code="x">History</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kloster Dečani</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)5253824-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1875-1911</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Außenpolitik</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Kirchengeschichte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Nationalitätenfrage</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4126113-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Orientalische Frage</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4172815-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sowjetunion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Kosovo (Republic)</subfield><subfield code="x">Church history</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Kosovo (Republic)</subfield><subfield code="x">History</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Serbia</subfield><subfield code="x">Foreign relations</subfield><subfield code="z">Soviet Union</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Soviet Union</subfield><subfield code="x">Foreign relations</subfield><subfield code="z">Serbia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kosovo</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4032571-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kosovo</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4032571-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Nationalitätenfrage</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4126113-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Orientalische Frage</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4172815-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Kloster Dečani</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)5253824-2</subfield><subfield code="D">b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1875-1911</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016304505</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">200.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">200.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09041</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09041</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Sowjetunion Kosovo (Republic) Church history Kosovo (Republic) History Serbia Foreign relations Soviet Union Soviet Union Foreign relations Serbia Kosovo (DE-588)4032571-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Sowjetunion Kosovo (Republic) Church history Kosovo (Republic) History Serbia Foreign relations Soviet Union Soviet Union Foreign relations Serbia Kosovo |
| id | DE-604.BV023101789 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T19:44:57Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:11:03Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788675584506 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016304505 |
| oclc_num | 191758236 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| physical | 355 S. Ill. |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | Čigoja Štampa |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Bataković, Dušan T. 1957-2017 Verfasser (DE-588)172743427 aut Dečansko pitanje Dušan T. Bataković 2., dop. izd. Beograd Čigoja Štampa 2007 355 S. Ill. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier In kyrill. Schr., serb. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Dechani question. - Zugl.: Belgrad, Fil. Fak., Magisterarbeit, 1988 Dečani (Monastery) History Kloster Dečani (DE-588)5253824-2 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte 1875-1911 gnd rswk-swf Außenpolitik Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Nationalitätenfrage (DE-588)4126113-6 gnd rswk-swf Orientalische Frage (DE-588)4172815-4 gnd rswk-swf Sowjetunion Kosovo (Republic) Church history Kosovo (Republic) History Serbia Foreign relations Soviet Union Soviet Union Foreign relations Serbia Kosovo (DE-588)4032571-4 gnd rswk-swf Kosovo (DE-588)4032571-4 g Nationalitätenfrage (DE-588)4126113-6 s Orientalische Frage (DE-588)4172815-4 s Kloster Dečani (DE-588)5253824-2 b Geschichte 1875-1911 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Bataković, Dušan T. 1957-2017 Dečansko pitanje Dečani (Monastery) History Kloster Dečani (DE-588)5253824-2 gnd Außenpolitik Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Nationalitätenfrage (DE-588)4126113-6 gnd Orientalische Frage (DE-588)4172815-4 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)5253824-2 (DE-588)4126113-6 (DE-588)4172815-4 (DE-588)4032571-4 |
| title | Dečansko pitanje |
| title_auth | Dečansko pitanje |
| title_exact_search | Dečansko pitanje |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Dečansko pitanje |
| title_full | Dečansko pitanje Dušan T. Bataković |
| title_fullStr | Dečansko pitanje Dušan T. Bataković |
| title_full_unstemmed | Dečansko pitanje Dušan T. Bataković |
| title_short | Dečansko pitanje |
| title_sort | decansko pitanje |
| topic | Dečani (Monastery) History Kloster Dečani (DE-588)5253824-2 gnd Außenpolitik Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Nationalitätenfrage (DE-588)4126113-6 gnd Orientalische Frage (DE-588)4172815-4 gnd |
| topic_facet | Dečani (Monastery) History Kloster Dečani Außenpolitik Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Nationalitätenfrage Orientalische Frage Sowjetunion Kosovo (Republic) Church history Kosovo (Republic) History Serbia Foreign relations Soviet Union Soviet Union Foreign relations Serbia Kosovo |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016304505&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT batakovicdusant decanskopitanje |