Da li su kralj Stefan Prvovenčani i njegov sin Radoslav bili savladari?

Abstract

U radu se podvrgava kritici tvrdnja, uglavnom prihvaćena u srpskoj istoriografiji, da su kralj Stefan Prvovenčani i njegov sin Radoslav bili savladari od 1220. godine. Analizirani su svi izvori, čijim se tumačenjem dokazivao savladarski status Radoslava, relativizovana je njihova vrednost i pokazano je da nijedan od njih ne pruža nedvosmislenu potvrdu o savladarstvu kralja Stefana Prvovenčanog i Radoslava.

The Serbian historiography considers the issue of the co-ruling of King Stefan the First-Crowned and his son Radoslav as the one finally resolved. The suggested solution on the co-rule of Stefan and Radoslav may be most succinctly expressed as following: as early as in the year of 1220, due to the frail health of Stefan the First-Crowned and Radoslav's marriage to Anne the Epirus princess, Radoslav was crowned to be the king and positioned to co-rule with his father after the Byzantine model of governing. Nevertheless this point of view has some loose ends. The notion of co-ruling and the very term of 'co-ruler' are quite freely used in the scholarly works. A general consensus on the precise meaning has not been reached yet. At the point where one author perceives a co-rule, the other categorically denies it. Basically the approach equalizing the heir to the throne and the co-ruler is wrong. Although the co-rulers in most cases were the throne heirs, they cannot be called the co-rulers because of the right to inherit the throne, but for the ruling attributes that formally established that right. The conviction of the co-rule of King Stefan and his son Radoslav is founded on the interpretation of the facts coming from the following sources: entitling charters for the monastery of Žiča, produced by Stefan and Radoslav around 1220; some segments from St. Sava's biographies by Domentian and Theodosius describing the circumstances of Stefan's death-bed leaving the throne to Radoslav; the three acts of the town of Kotor from 1221 and 1227 dated by the rule of king Radoslav, the portraits of Stefan and Radoslav next to the entrance to the Church of the Ascension in the monastery of Žiča and in the nartex of the Mileševa monastery church. In the first Žiča charter, Stefan calls Radoslav his heir, while in the second Žiča charter Stefan points out Radoslav as his first-born son blessed by him to be the king of the whole state. (jegože i blagoslovismo biti emou kralju v'se sije dr'žave). Though differently in manner, Radoslav's hereditary right has been emphasized in both of these charters. In my opinion, the formulation of the second charter does not refer to the coronation of a co-ruler, but a ceremonious act of proclaiming the successor. That may have been one of the results of Radoslav's marrying Anne the daughter of the Epirus ruler Theodore I Angelos in 1219/1220. St. Sava's biography by Domentian tells us about Stefan's appointing Radoslav for his heir immediately before his death. That was followed by arch-bishop Sava's crowning him the king to be s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego. The expression s'prestol'nik' was supposed to be the proof of Radoslav being his father's co-ruler. However, Domentian uses the term s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego in the metaphysical sense to cast the stress on the Nemanjić dynastic permanent right to the Serbian throne, not to describe the relations in the real time. The Nemanjić hereditary authority was regarded equal to the throne, so every ruler stepping onto it, according to Domentian, shares the same throne with his predecessors and the future rulers from the same family. Domentian calls both Stefan the First-Crowned and Vladislav, Radoslav's brother s'prestol'nik' ot'č'stva svoego, and the two of them have been firmly confirmed not to be their fathers' co-rulers. Besides, Domentian speaks of Radoslav as of s'prestol'nik' at the moments immediately preceding Stefan's death, thus not even for the chronological reasons can this fact be used as an evidence for the co-rule of Stefan and Radoslav. Theodosius similarly depicts the shift on the throne using the word s'prestol'nik' in the same context. The two acts of the town of Kotor from 1221 and the one from 1227 were dated sub tempore domini regis Radoslavi. The mentioning of king Radoslav at the time when his father was the Serbian king was considered a valid proof of Radoslav's co-rule with his father with the title of a king. Anyway, this is not about the mere mentioning of king Radoslav in some document, but about the official Kotor town documents being dated after the rule of king Radoslav as the master of Kotor (dominus rex). The Kotor town resolutions were dated in the same fashion at the time when Stefan Nemanja's son Vukan had the rule over Duklja while his father and afterwards his brother held the Serbian throne. Therefore, the mentioning of king Radoslav as the master of Kotor means that he got Duklja to rule probably as an heir to the throne and, like Vukan, he took over the old royal title of Duklja. To the left and to the right from the entrance to the Žiča monastery Church of the Ascension, the portraits of King Stefan the First-Crowned and king Radoslav were painted. The portraits were believed to have been made at the time of Stefan and Radoslav's producing the charter to the monastery of Žiča (circa 1220), so Radoslav's royal title in the inscription next to the portrait was taken as evidence that he had already been appointed as his father's co-ruler and the king. Nonetheless, the Žiča exonartex with the tower was built most likely during the rule of king Radoslav (circa 1229-1234); hence the portrait itself could have been painted only then implying that the title in the inscription next to the character of Radoslav might have referred to his independent status as a ruler. In addition to this, there is an iconographic motif after which, when the son is to carry on the father's building project, the younger, i.e. the other founder is always portrayed on the left side of the entrance, just like in the case of Žiča. A donors' composition, including the portraits of Stefan the First-Crowned and Radoslav, was painted in the Mileševa church nartex during the twenties of the 13th century. Both Stefan and Radoslav bear the wreaths on their heads and Stefan holds a scepter in his left hand. The wreath on Radoslav's head is regarded as a symbol of his keeping the position of a co-ruler. Still without the support of the written sources, for which this article has showed that they do not prove Radoslav's co-rule, the portraits in Mileševa do not have an independent source value. We do not have at our disposal a representative sample from an earlier period or the one contemporary with the Mileševa fresco paintings to serve as the basis for establishing the iconographic patterns of presenting the co-ruling position. Certain examples of the later paintings (Sopoćani, Bogorodica Ljeviška) indicate that the images of the heirs with the ruling signs do not mean that their actual coronation and raising to the rank of a co-ruler had already taken place. Not even the portraits of the younger king Uroš, i.e. king Uroš at the time of Dušan's imperial rule mark the co-ruler, but the heir to the throne. Since painting is the ultimate expression of the monarchic ideology, the painters of the donors' compositions, similarly to the biographers, have no need to convey every particularity from the real life. Instead of that, they primarily use symbols. Therefore, the crown on the head of the ruler's son doesn't necessarily have to imply him being crowned and set to be a co-ruler. The wreath on Radoslav's head only symbolized his position of the throne heir. From my point of view, no source analyzed here provides an unequivocal confirmation of Radoslav's co-rule. If his participation in the governing may be spoken of, it has been achieved only over the position of the king of Duklja. Considering the fact that the sources of the co-ruling matter are scarce and subject to various interpretations, this piece of work has been intentionally titled with a question mark. Its purpose is not to offer the final and consistently opposite solutions from those generally accepted by scholars, but to provoke a further scientific dispute on this sensitive issue.