by Jusuf Buxhovi

Abstract

The so-called Zakonik of Stefan Dušan, long cited as a medieval Serbian legal code, is largely a 19th-century fabrication serving nationalist and hegemonist aims. Scholars, including Novaković himself, acknowledge that the original medieval text did not survive; instead, it was reconstructed from disparate 18th- and 19th-century sources, church manuscripts, and reinterpretations, often in Vienna, Odessa, and Prizren. This artificial construct falsely projected the image of a cohesive Serbian medieval state, linking it to the Nemanjic dynasty and supposed church autocephaly. Its uncritical acceptance in historiography has perpetuated myths, misrepresenting historical realities and supporting ideological agendas rather than empirical scholarship.

THE “CODE” OF DUŠAN – THE FOUNDATION OF LIES IN SERBIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

• S. Novaković: “The Code of Stefan Dušan, Serbian Emperor 1349–1354,” Belgrade, 1870 (Kanuni of Stefan Dušan, Serbian Emperor 1349–1354)
• Jusuf Buxhovi

Hagiography (church literature) forms the foundation of Serbian historiography, upon which two of its greatest deceptions are based: the medieval Serbian state, supposedly from the Middle Ages, linked to the Raška and Nemanjic dynasties, and the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church from the 13th century, even though it is known that it was only a temporary autonomy from the Archbishopric of Ohrid (1204–1257), while the Serbian Orthodox Church would not gain full autocephaly until eight centuries later, in 1922.

Within these publications, rewritten and supplemented in the 18th–19th centuries, the following stand out: “Sveti Sava – Sabrana Dela” published by T. Jovanović, Belgrade 1998; “Stevan Prvovenčani – Sabrana Dela” by Georgievski-Jovanović; “Živopis Svetog Save” by Teodosije Hilandarski; and Konstantin the Philosopher’s work “Povest Slovina – Žitije despota Stefana Larevića”, Belgrade 1989. Not only historians such as I. Ruvarac but others also acknowledge that these were fabricated in Odessa in the 18th century based on the narratives of local priests.

Similarly, this occurs with S. Novaković’s “emblematic” work “Zakonik Stefana Dušana, cara srpskog 1349–1354” – (Kanuni of Stefan Dušan, Serbian Emperor 1349–1354), Belgrade 1870. In the preface, the author admits that the medieval code does not exist but was assembled from 19th-century accounts in Prizren and surrounding areas, as well as from certain texts from churches in Wallachia and Russia (St. Petersburg), which Šafárik linked together in Vienna in 1859.

The way this work was elevated to the level of a “state and legal testament” of the “Serbian Empire” of Stefan Dušan, in service of creating the ideological and political platform of the medieval Serbian state for 19th-century political purposes—preceding its recognition in the European political map at the Berlin Congress of 1878, translated into several languages, and distributed across major European centers—demonstrates the interplay of multiple internal and external factors in its construction, using documents of questionable credibility.

This method of fabricating “documents,” scattered across churches and libraries, is most clearly reflected in Novaković’s work. The author, however, wishing to demonstrate the “antiquity” of this work—which he knew was absent—relied on layers of fabrications and textual reconstructions intended to “reveal authentic documents” by reconstructing “missing parts.”

As noted earlier, the basis for this work included the archives of various churches, primarily Hilandar, and others in Russia (Odessa), to distribute processed and retouched documents in Vienna to the well-known school of Slavists, from where these “meritorious documents” were handled by various scholars to create collections such as Monumenta Slavica, which then fed histories of Serbs, Bulgarians, and Russians with “authentic documents.”

In the preface, the author of the Zakonik reveals the technology and infrastructure of document processing and forgery when dealing with the “history” of the Code, necessarily linked to Vienna and its scholars, primarily Slavic or Serbian.

Thus, the starting point of the Zakonik begins with J. Rajić in 1859, with his publication “Istorie slovenskoh narodie”, passed to Miklosich, who presented it in German as “Lex Stepani Dušani”, Vienna 1856, and then to P.J. Šafárik, who included it in “Pomatky drevnioh pismenietvi Jihostovanie”, Prague 1860. Šafárik did not present the text integrally, as it did not exist, but offered it in nine different manuscripts, claiming they were fragments discovered in various monasteries (Ravanica, Rudnik, Kazan, etc.), supposedly from 1350 to 1700, with important portions from St. Petersburg via N. Nadezhnev, known from the Bistrica Monastery in Wallachia.

Novaković, in his publication, combined Šafárik’s fragments with two “authentic” 19th-century texts: one from Struga, collected by a Russian priest, and another from Prizren, also collected by a priest named Sime. The Prizren text, allegedly from the 15th century, was brought to Belgrade by a teacher from Smederevo, Nikola Maslin, processed in Vienna, and handed to Novaković for publication.

Novaković attempted to reflect the “documentary credibility” of the work by presenting Šafárik’s texts in Old Church Slavonic and Serbian. In the preface, he explains the origin of the texts and their collection by hand, which, according to him, completes the Code and its spirit.

The 165 pages come from sixteen different collectors, most of whom remain unnamed, though it is said that a large portion was recopied by six clerics and two deacons in Prizren.

Since the first 1870 edition contained many inconsistencies and did not meet basic scholarly criteria, Novaković, after being appointed president of the Serbian Royal Academy in 1886, presented a “completed” second version of the Code, including some fragments “rediscovered” from the Struga version of the 14th century and Prizren from the 15th century.

It included 106 articles, which were essentially direct copies of Byzantine church legal acts (Homocanon), themselves derived from Roman-Byzantine law in accordance with Justinian’s Code, regulating property relations between the Church and the Empire, in which the Church participated administratively.

Additional sections modified relations with Catholic rites and included decrees regulating church conduct, as well as demographic registers listing “Serb” majorities alongside “Albanian” (Arbanasi) and “Vlach” (Vlasi) minority settlements.

It is unsurprising that the “demographic picture” of Dušan’s Empire included no national identities but only religious rites: Orthodox (with liturgical languages of Old Church Slavonic and Greek) and Latin (with Latin liturgy).

What is surprising, however, is that this anti-historical, unscientific construct, fabricated by the Serbian Orthodox Church and 19th-century Serbian historiography for hegemonist purposes, was accepted “as scientific truth,” informing maps of the supposed medieval Serbian state and noting the presence of some “Albanian” (Catholic) and Vlach settlements.

This falsified dictate of the so-called “medieval Serbian state,” verified by scholars, was accepted by a large part of global historiography, even by later historians such as N. Malkomi and O.J. Schmitt. For example, in Kosova – A Short History, Malkomi largely accepts Stefan Dušan as “Serbian Emperor” and the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church from the Middle Ages (13th century), while also incorporating the thesis of “Arnauts” (Islamicized Serbs in the 16th century and Albanized in the 18th century).

Thus, scientific and academic institutions in Albania and Kosovo bear the responsibility to conduct organized scholarly research to free history from the dictates of Serbian hegemonist falsifications, especially since such works are still treated as unavoidable references by many historians without critical analysis. While this task is difficult, given hundreds of works produced by the Serbian Academy of Sciences over the past century, creating a clear platform for revising history according to scientific truth is essential.