Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:34:44.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Aspects of Serbian Religious Development in the Eighteenth Century1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Charles Jelavich
Charles Jelavich
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The eighteenth century was an era of conflict and radical change within the Serbian church. After the establishment of Ottoman control in the Balkan peninsula, the Serbian nation remained united solely by the bonds of the church. It was the center of life and the unchallenged leader of the community. However, in the eighteenth century new ideals and new loyalties emerged which threatened the position of predominance previously enjoyed by the church. Religious nationalism gradually gave way before secular nationalism as the ideas of the enlightenment took root among the Serbs living within the Habsburg empire, until by the end of the century the church as an instrument of national unification had been relegated to a position of secondary importance. Moreover, the change was the result not only of the absorption of western thought by the Serbian intellectuals, but also of the rivalries of the Christian churches in the Balkans, a conflict whose roots are to be found in this century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1954 , pp. 144 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. The most recent general survey of the Serbian church under the Turks is by Hadrovics, Ladislas, L'église serbe sous la domination turque (Paris, 1947).Google Scholar See also the review of this book by Radonié, Jovan in Istoriski časopis (Organ istoriskog instituta srbske akademije nauka), 1:1–2; (1948), pp. 273–277.Google ScholarGrujić, R., “Pećska patrijarška,” Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenačka, (Zagreb, 1928), III, 389–399Google Scholar, is an excellent historical survey of the patriarchate of Peć. Radonić, Jovan, Rimska kurija i južnoslovenske zemlje od XVI do XIX veka (Belgrade, 1950), 746Google Scholar pp. is valuable for the period in general. In addition, the two articles by K. S. Draganović are of great interest, “Massenübertritte von Katholiken zur ‘Orthodoxie’ im kroatisehen Spraehengebiet zur Zeit der Türkenherrschaft’ and ‘Über die Gründe der Massenübertritte von Katholiken zur ‘Orthodoxie’ im kroatisehen Spraehgebiet,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, III: i-ii, iii-iv (1937), pp. 181–232, 550–599.

3. Grujić, Ibid., pp. 395–396; Hadrovics, op. cit., pp. 106–121; Popović, Mihailo I., Istoriska uloga srpske crkve u čuvanju narodnosti i stvaranje države (Belgrade, 1933).Google Scholar

4. Veselinović, Rajko L., Arsenije III Crnojević u istoriji i književnosti (Belgrade, 1949), pp. 5–43Google Scholar; Ivić, Aleksa, Istoriju Srba u Vojvodini (Novi Sad, 1929), pp. 285–298Google Scholar; ćorović, Vladimir, Istorija Jugoslavije (Belgrade, 1933), p. 356Google Scholar; and, Gruji^, Rad. M., “Prilozi za istoriju Srba u Austro-Ugarskoj u doba patrijarha pećskog Arsenija III Crnojevića,” Srpska kraljevska akademija: Spomenik (Belgrade, 1913), LI, 16–42.Google Scholar For the role of Branković in this period see Radonić, Jovan, Grof Djordje Branković i njegovo reme (Belgrade, 1911).Google Scholar

5. Ivić, op. cit., pp. 299–306, and Corović, op. cit., pp. 360–361.

6. Stanojević, St., Istorija srpskoga naroda (Belgrade, 1910), pp. 228–229; 237–242Google Scholar, and Ćorović, op. cit., pp. 374–375. See also the articles by Grujić, Radoslav M., “Prilozi za istoriju srpskih škola u prvoj polovini XVIII veka” and “Prilozi za istoriju srpskih štamparija u Ugnrskoj u polovini XVIII veka,” Srpska kraljevska akademija: Spomenik (Belgrade, 1910), XLIX, 99–143, 144–152Google Scholar; “Pisma pećskih patrijaraha iz drugog i trećeg decenija XVIII veka”, Ibid., (1913), LI, 105–144; “Prilozi za istoriju Srbije u doba austrijske okupateije (1718–1739),” Ibid., (1914), LII, 84–208.

7. Ćorović, op. cit., pp. 376–379, 393–398; Stanojević, op. cit., pp. 229–230, 248. For the general background of RussoSerbian relations see Dimitrijević, S. M., Gradja za srpsku istoriju iz ruskih arhiva i biblioteka in Srpska kraljevska akademija: Spomenik (Sarajevo, 1922), LIII, 329Google Scholar pp; Bogoiavlenskii, S., “Iz russko-serbskikh otnoshenii pri Petre pervom,” Voprosi istorii, no. 8–9, (1946), pp. 19–41Google Scholar; Grujić, Rad. M., “Prilozi za istoriju seobe Srba a Rusiji,” Srpska kraljevska akademija: Spomenik (Belgrade, 1913), LI, 70–79Google Scholar; Sumner, B. H., Peter the Great and the Ottoman Empire (Oxford, 1949), pp. 26–36, 45–49Google Scholar; Skerlić, Jovan, Istorija nove srpske književnosti (Belgrade, 1921), pp. 37–42Google Scholar; and, Kostić, Mita, Dositej Obradović u istoriskoj perskeptivi XVIII i XIX veka (Belgrade, 1952), pp. 223–227.Google Scholar

8. Arnakis, G. Georgiades, “The Greek church of Constantinople and the Ottoman empire,” Journal of Modern History, XXIV:3 (09, 1952), pp. 247–248.Google Scholar

9. The complete list of the Serbian patriarchs is to be found in Grujić, “Pećska patrijaršija,” pp. 398–399. It is interesting to note that between 1623 and 1700, a period of seventy-seven years, the patriarchate of Constantinople changed hands approximately fifty times. Arnakis, op. cit., pp. 247–248.

10. The exact steps which led to the abolition of the patriarchate are a matter of dispute. One point of view is that the last patriarch of Pcć, Kalinik II (1765–1766), who was a Greek, in collaboration with the Constantinople patriarch, Samuel, urged the sultan to abolish the patriarchate of Peć. The arguments advanced are, in general, those stated above. For this interpretation see Grujić, “Pećska patnijaršija,” pp. 396–397; Radonić, Rimska kurija, pp. 664–668; Ćorović, op. cit., p. 395, Mousset, Jean, La serbie et son église, 1880–1904 (Paris, 1938), pp. 35–42Google Scholar and, especially, Djordević, Nikola, Die Selbständigkeiten der serbischen Kirche (Sremski Karlovci, 1922), p. 2–17.Google Scholar The other point of view is found in Papadopoullos, Theodore H.. Studies and documents relating to the history of the Greek church and people under Turkish domination (Brussels, 1952), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar Basing his arguments on contemporary sources, he states that “the authorities of that see [Peć] unanimously demanded, by ‘application and supplication’ and protection and association of the Oecuumenical Patriarchate, acknowledging their subjection to it; … that the Patriarch Samuel was viewing reluctantly the abolition of the autonomy of a see which enjoyed independence from old, and it was only at the instance of the Authorities of that see that he decided the question in conformity with their demand.” The differences between the two views are that Papadopoullos merely states that “the nuthorities” at Peć asked for the abolition, whereas the other group emphasizes that “the authorities” were Kalinik II, the Greek patriarch of Peć and his Greek hierarchy. Thus the Greeks, not the Serbs, made the request. Papadopoullos emphasizes the financial bankruptcy of the Pcć patriarchate; the others blame the condition on the rapid changes from 1737 to 1766, the time when the Greek influence became allimportant. Papadopoullos exonerates Patriarch Samuel of any desire to abolish the see; the others implicate him directly. For further information on the Serbs and the Greeks in the eighteenth century see Novaković, Stojan, Balkanska pitanja (Belgrade, 1906), pp. 411–455Google Scholar; Popović, Dužan J.. Srbija i Beograd od Požarevačkog do Beogradskog mira (1718–1739), (Belgrade, 1950), pp. 118–159, 329–354Google Scholar; and, Panteić, Dušan, Beogradski pašalukpred prvi srpski ustanak, 1794–1804 (Belgrade, 1949), pp. 104–113.Google Scholar

11. The best discussion of the anti-clerical trend is to be found in the two latest works on Dositej Obradović, Kostić, op. cit., pp. 140–166, and Noyes, George Rapall, The life and adventures of Dimitrije Obradović (Berkeley, Calif., 1953), pp. 98–100.Google Scholar See also Skerlić, op. cit., pp. 10–18, 67–102.

12. Stanojević, op. cit., pp. 246–247, 251.

13. Dela Dositeja Obradovića (Belgrade, 1911), p. 102.Google Scholar

14. Noyes, op. cit., p. 136.