Saint Peter of Montenegro

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content saint PETER OF MONTENEGRO
by
Vladimir Milan Mrvichin
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(Religion)
June 1963
UMI Number: EP65294
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissemtion ft/félisMng
UMI EP65294
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GRA DU ATE SCHO OL
U N IV E R S IT Y PARK
LOS A NG ELES 7. C A L IF O R N IA
This thesis, written by
...... Vladimir _ . Mil^. Mj^ichin.....
under the direction of hXSL....Thesis Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of the
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Dean
Date........
THESIS COMMITTEE
■ f /t i- . ff * . \Sa
Chairman
6-61— 2M— HI
PREFACE
A growing interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church
in the English speaking countries has produced a good
number of books and studies on this subject during the
past several decades * These, however, were primarily
concerned with the general history, teaching and polity
of Eastern Orthodoxy, while more specific studies,
especially those dealing with the national churches, are
few and difficult to find*
One of these national churches within Eastern
Orthodoxy which has been neglected by most English and
American scholars is the Serbian Orthodox Church of
Yugoslavia. Except for the books by Matthew Spinka^
and Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich,^ hardly anything of
value concerning this religious group has been written
in English, This is probably due to the many diffi
culties involved in any such examination of the subject,
namely, unfamiliarity with the Serbian and Church
Slavonic languages, scarcity of primary sources and the
^Matthew Spinka, A History of Christianity in the
Balkans (Chicago; The American Society of Church '
History, 1933),
^Bishop Nicholai D, Velimirovich, The Life of Saint
Sava (Libertyville, Illinois: Serbian Eastern Orthodox
Diocese, 1951),
ii
political turbulence of the country itself.
With these considerations in mind, it is hoped that
this thesis may contribute to the study of Montenegrin
theocracy, an almost unknown segment of Serbian church
history. This interesting period reached its summit of
importance during the life and time of Saint Peter of
Montenegro who was born in 1747 and died in 1830.
Known in secular history as Bishop Peter I Petrovich
Nyegosh, he was a colorful figure in the Serbian
Orthodox Church, highly respected not only by his own
generation, but by subsequent ones as well.
As the supreme bishop of Montenegro, Peter was
able to abolish a weak civil government and to establish!
I
a form of theocracy in this primitive state and thus |
take charge of all government functions. The Montenegro;
of his day was a small country having hardly more than
50,000 population, but its size did not stop it from
waging war on the Turks and on Napoleon to maintain its
freedom and sovereignty. In these wars Bishop Peter
was the main strategist and military Commander-in-Chief.
Prior to his coming the country was a barbaric land
having no central government able to control the many
clans and brotherhoods. There were no written laws, and
adjudications were left up to local custom and the
iii
interpretation of tribal councils or chiefs. It is
probably in this field of endeavour that Peter’s greatest
contribution lies for he drafted the first code of law
and started Montenegro on the path of modern statehood*
Although this study mainly considers a provincial
aspect of the Serbian Church during a given period of
some eighty years, it will also point up a very important
thread in the religious life of the Serbian people, the
predominant concern for nationalistic patriotism. This
is ably described by Spinka who writes:
Thereupon, the church became the heart of Serbian
nationalism--a function which it performed till the
recovery of autonomy in the beginning of the nine
teenth century. • • • Orthodoxy became synonymous
with the Serbian nationality so that those Serbs
who had accepted Islam were regarded as lost to the
nation, and as having become Turks. It was this
strong sense of the national character of the
Orthodox church as much as loyalty to the faith of
their fathers which accounts for the fidelity and
heroic steadfastness with which Serbians upheld
their faith despite the horrible and often inhuman
persecution by the Turks.3
For centuries Montenegro and other Serbian
I
provinces which are now a part of Yugoslavia were ravaged;
by war and revolution. Because of this violent past manyj
historic monuments have been destroyed and a few original!
i
written records preserved, thus making the task of the ;
historian extremely difficult# The investigator of any i
*Spinka, op. cit.. pp. 154-155.
iv
epoch of Serbian history is to a great degree forced to
rely upon copies of original material, foreign archives
and secondary literary works.
Because of this basic inadequacy, and far from
the actual terrain, this thesis had to be based on what
ever sources could be procured from Yugoslavia. Fortun
ately, after a long search, an almost complete collection
of the Istoriski Zapisi, a monthly publication of the
Cetinje Historical Society, was procured without which
this study could hardly have been made. The Istoriski
Zapisi devoted most of its space to the publication of
original documents dealing with Montenegrin history |
found in the government archives at Cetinje. A part of
these archives were destroyed during the last World War, ;
1
so that now the Istoriski Zapisi are actually the only |
I
source for some primary historic material. The records |
found in this periodical and the collection of letters
and encyclicals of Peter I Petrovich, the Poslanice
Crnogorcima, Brdjanima i Primorcima, provided the most
important research material for the writing of this
study. The bibliography gives a list of all other works
which were consulted and used.
The two maps were especially prepared from the
data compiled by studying the maps and information
found in the following books: Emile de Lavaleye, The
V
Balkan Peninsula (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1887);
William Miller, The Balkans (New York: G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1896), maps opposite page 1 and on page 463;
Vuk St. Karadzic, Crna Gora i Boka Kotorska (Beograd:
Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga XXIV, 161, 1922), end papers
map; and Dusan D. Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic Njegos i
Njegovo Doha (Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1951), geographic
description on page 18.
Sincere appreciation is expressed to Professor
Geddes MacGregor, Dean of the Graduate School of ReligionJ
for his valuable criticism. Professor Paul Zivkovich’s
work in verifying the sources is also gratefully
acknowledged. The Committee Chairman, Professor D.
Larrimore Holland, was exceptionally generous in devoting
time in guiding and assisting me in this study.
A word of thanks is due to Miss Mileva Mandarich
for typing the original manuscript. To my wife, Bessie
Mrvichin, goes a large share of the credit for making
this work possible^ Her encouragement and attention to
!
many parish duties provided much of the incentive and |
time required to matke these chapters a reality. |
!
I
Vladimir Milan Mrvichin !
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Page
PREFACE............ ii
LIST OF illustrations ix '
Chapter
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND . . # # # # # # # #
The Early Balkan Slavs
Rise of Serbia
Decline of the Empire
Montenegro
II. 1748-1784 ..... ........................ 18
Early Life of Peter Petrovich
Bishops Sava and Vasilie i
Stephen the Pretender '
Relations with Austria !
Consecration of Peter |
III. 1785-1796 ..... ........................ 33
An Unsuccessful Approach towards Russia |
Restoration of Theocracy i
Russian and Austrian Rivalry
War and Territorial Expansion
IV. 1797-1813................................... 59 I
An Outlet to the Sea |
Conflict with Russia !
The Law Code |
The Uniate Movement in Dalmatia |
The Insurrection in Serbia j
1
V. 1814-1830 80 ;
The Great Tragedy
The Metropolitan’s Last Years
The Metropolitan’s Personality
Last Will and Testament
vxi
Chapter Page
VI. THE AFTERMATH................................ 93
The New Ruler of Montenegro
Canonization of Peter I
Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 98
viix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
The Balkan States
(Showing the location of Montenegro). . . * . 17
Montenegro in the Time of Peter I Petrovich • • • 58
r
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Montenegro, today a prbvinee of Yugoslavia, is
located on the Adriatic coast northwest of Albania* Old
Montenegro, which is the setting of this inquiry, was
entirely a land of rocks and mountains, waterless and
barren, full of caves and gorges, where "God threw a
shower of granite from heaven," according to an old
ballad*^ Small patches of earth rarely larger than some
twenty feet square were cultivated, and with limited
provisions imported with great difficulty from Kotor
(Cattaro) the life of the people was one of deprivation
and hardship. Walled in from the rest of the world by
many natural barriers, the country could be reached from
the outside only by hazardous trails and a few bad roads.
These were purposely kept in a state of disrepair as an
added measure of defense against enemies. The capital,
Cetinje, is on a high mountain plateau, the mountainous
range reaching its greatest height with Mount Lovchen,
from which heights the country probably got its name,
Crna Gora, Montenegro, or Black Mountain, since these
iHarold W.V* Temperley. History of Serbia
(London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd., 1919), p. 135.
2 I
■ I
mountains become gloomy with the winter rains and mists. |
Montenegro in the time of Peter I Petrovich was
almost entirely inhabited by Serbs who were of the
Eastern Orthodox faith and who belonged to the Slavic
family of nations. In order to understand the problems
of the times to be considered here, some knowledge of the
people’s past history is required.
The Early Balkan Slavs
The Indo-European Slavic tribes started a slow
migration to the south from their original home during
the first six centuries of the Christian Era. They came
from the Carpathian Mountains, north of the Black Sea, |
where the primary ancient settlements were located near
the Dniester and Bug Rivers. Entering the Danube basin,
they reached the Danube and Sava Rivers (present day site |
of the capital, Belgrade), and were permanently settled
here by the end of the sixth century.^
These early Slavs were freedom-loving herdsmen
and tillers of the soil, yet courageous and formidable
warriors whose penetration of the Empire could not be
halted by the Roman Legions. They were loosely organized
into zadrugas or clans, several of which formed a larger
temperley, op. cit.. pp. 9-11; Spinka, op. cit..
pp. 4-6; and Konstantin Jxrecek, Istorija Srba (Beograd;
Geca Kon, 1922), Vol. I, pp. 48-55.
district known as a zhupa, and ruled over by a chieftain,
zhupan, and his council.
In time several zhupas banded together and became
minor states, headed by a Prince, Veliki Zhupan or Knez
(Archon in Greek), assisted by the landed lords and
clergy. There was a certain amount of democracy in these
early states with the formation of the skupstina or
assembly, made up of clan representatives, which performed
certain judicial and legislative functions.
According to Jirecek,^ the Serbs are first mentioned,
in 822 by Einhard, the biographer of Charlemagne, who
describes them as a mighty people who hold a large part
of Dalmatia. Later historians who wrote between the
ninth and twelfth centuries, such as Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus, George Cedrenus and John Zonaras, also
mention the existence of the Serbian state.
With the coming of the Slavs to the Balkans an end
was made of the Graeco-Roman civilization in this part of
the Empire. The newcomers brought their own mores and
primitive culture, so that a rapid decline took place.
^Jirecek, op. cit., p. 86.
^Ibid.. pp. 86-88. These later historians are
also mentioned in: George Ostrogorsky, trans. Joan Hussey,
History of the Byzantine State (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1956), pp. 188 and 190.
Early Christian churches disappeared and were replaced
by a barbaric form of animism, polytheism and ancestor
worship.^ To be sure, missionaries from Rome did their
best to convert the Slavs, but the use of Latin proved
quite a language barrier. It was not until the seventh
and eighth centuries that fairly good results were
achieved, especially in those areas which were geo
graphically closer to the Roman See.^ The success of
this missionary work was due to the active propagation of
Latin Christianity by the see of Spalaturn and the conquest!
of this territory by Charlemagne in 792, Charlemagne’s
policy was to bring all newly-won lands under the See of '
7
Rome• I
In 731 Emperor Leo III the Isaurian was threatened |
by the Pope with excommunication because of his icono
clastic policy. Defiant, the Emperor withdrew Illyricum
(the Balkans) from Roman jurisdiction and placed it under
the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the years that
followed, the Byzantine government declined to restore
the sequestered patriomony. Pope Leo III retaliated in
the year 800 by refusing to recognize Empress Irene as
c
^Spinka, op. cit.. pp. 7-8.
^Jirecek, op. cit., pp. 125-130.
7spinka, op. cit., p. 19.
5
i
the legitimate ruler, and crowned Charlemagne as "Emperor |
of the Romans." This definite political separation of |
!
East and West, and the creation of two Empires, brought
the greater portion of the Slavs under the influence of
Q
Byzantium.
Up to this time the Slavs resisted the efforts of
the Latin missionaries because these did not bring only
Christianity, but Germanization as well.^ To counteract
these attempts, the Prince of Moravia (central part of
present day Czechoslovakia) requested Patriarch Photius
to send him clergymen who would spread the Christian
faith by preaching in the native tongue. This was
accomplished by the brothers Cyril and Methodius who came
in 863 and by using Slavonic as a liturgical language
were able to convert most of the Slavs to Byzantine
Christianity. Their disciples carried on this work, so
that by the tenth century practically all of the Balkans
10
I were Christian again. We may note here that the con
quests of Charlemagne by 792 in the Balkans brought the
Croatians under permanent Western influence, while the
Serbs, being more to the East, were dominated by Byzantine
^Spinka, op. cit., p. 14| Ostrogorsky, op. cit.,
2-165. pp. 162-165.
%pinka, op. cit., p. 16
lOlbid., p. 17.
culture.
Rise of Serbia
The Serbian state gradually grew and reached the
pinnacle of its greatness and glory under the Nemanjich
Dynasty, founded by Stephen Nemanja (1168-1195), who con
solidated Serbian lands and brought about ecclesiastical
unification by proclaiming Eastern Orthodoxy as the Church
of the State. His son and heir, Rastko, renounced the
royal purple in favor of his brother Stephen (the First-
Crowned), entered the monastic community of Mount Athos,
and dedicated his life to the church. Because of the
I
growing Latin danger, and to curtail the rising power of i
the Archbishopric of Gchrida, the Ecumenical Patriarch, i
Manuel I, consecrated Rastko (who had received the name '
Sava upon entering the monastic order) as the first Arch- j
bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1219, granting
the Serbs at this same time an autocephalous standing and
permission to consecrate their own archbishops in the
future.^^
Archbishop Sava is probably the most famous person
of Serbian history. More books and studies have been
11
Nicifor Ducic, Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve
(Beograd: 1894), pp. 84-88j Djoko Slijepcevic,
Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve (Munich: Iskra, 1962),
p. 83.
7
written about him than any other Serb.^^ Canonized later
by the church. Saint Sava has stood as the ideal of
religious and patriotic aspirations and accomplishments. j
His great contribution to Serbian history was his I
successful creation of a completely nationalistic church, |
void of any external and foreign influences, and where !
1 o I
the name Serb automatically meant Orthodox as well. ‘
Serbian rulers could now be crowned as kings by their own
archbishop, thus eliminating any influence fro# Rome whosej
Popes were willing to give Serbian rulers the symbols of |
kingship in exchange for fealty and allegiance. |
The internal cohesion created by Saint Sava’s
t
policy brought greater strength and expansion to Serbia.
Its neighbor, Bulgaria, with suspicion, envy and resent-
1
ment, declared war and was terribly defeated in 1330.
i
Serbia was now the undisputed master of the Balkans. j
Under Stephen Dushan (1331-1356) Serbia reached j
the summit of its power. Dushan titled himself as "King |
of the Serbians" and desired the title of Emperor which j
j
he could get only from the Patriarch with whom he was i
12
Spinka, op. cit., pp. 79-89; Jovan Vuckovic,
Sveti Sava (Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1902); Jovan Radonic,
Sceti Sava i Njegovo Doba (Srem. Karlovci: Manastriska
Stamparija, Ï935), and St. Stanojevic, Sveti Sava
(Beograd: Drzavna Stamparija, 1935).
l%lijepcevic, op. cit., pp. 78-91.
8
not on good terms. To get around this difficulty, Dushan
convened the Great Council of Skoplje in 1346 which pro
claimed the Serbian Archbishop Yoanikie as the first
Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church with Peck (Ipek)
as the Patriarchal See, The new Patriarch in turn
crowned Dushan as the Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs
14
and Greeks,
The Great Council of Skoplje was attended by the
Patriarch of Trnovo, the autocephalous Archbishop of
Ochrida and by representatives of the most venerated
center of Greek orthodoxy. Mount Athos, They evidently
approved the proceedings which had created the new inde
pendent Patriarchate of Serbia,Serbian scholars
justify Dushan’s action by referring to Canon II of the
Second Ecumenical Council; Canon XVII of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council; and Canon XXXVIII of the Council of
Trullo, by which the rank and jurisdiction of a territor
ial church should conform to the size and importance of
the territory or stateThe Patriarch of Constantinople
i^Kirecek, op, cit., p. 285, |
^^Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 467,
^^Ducic, op, cit#, pp, 142-144; St. M. Domitrijevic^
"Kratak pregled istorije Pecske Patrijarsije,"
Ustolicenje Nj. Svetosti Patrijarha Dimitrija u Peci
(Beograd: Drzavna Stanparija, 1924), p. 8,
9
had no such views* Seven years later he condemned the
decrees of the Skoplje Council and anathematized the
17
Serbian church,
Dushan*s greatest contribution was his Code of
Laws which provided for a jury system of trial as well as
by customary ordeal. According to the Code, even the
Emperor could be sued, a strange concept indeed for these
times. It was forbidden to convert anyone to Roman
Catholicism, the "Latin heresy,"
Decline of the Empire
The vast Serbian Empire built by Dushan and
stretching to the very gates of Constantinople fell apart
upon his death, Dushan*s successors lacked the strength
to keep the provincial lords in fealty and obedience, and
these, sensing the weakness of the central government,
lost no time in setting themselves up as independent local
governors. Because of this internal disintegration, the
Serbian state could not stop the march of Islam into
Europe and suffered its first great defeat at the hands
of the Turks at the battle of the Maritsa in 1371, The
Serbian king, Vukashin, was killed and his forces
^^Spinka, op, cit,, p, 143,
i®Stojan Novakovic (ed,), Zakonik Stefana Dusana
(Beograd: Drzavna Stamparija, 1898), p, 153,
10
practically annihilated* After this battle the Turks
became undisputed masters of all lands south of the Shar
Mountain, southern Serbia,
To the north, one of the strongest princes of
Serbia was Lazar HrebelJanovich (1371-1389), who ruled
a large territory around the Morava River* Lazar was
successful in healing the schism with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate created by Dushan*s arbitrary elevation of
the Serbian church. With the removal of the imposed
anathema, Constantinople recognized the independence of
the Serbian church and its Patriarchal rank in 1375,^®
Apprehensive of the coming conflict with the
I Ottoman Turks, Lazar tried to form an alliance with other
I
princes. Envy and suspicion made this a difficult task,
j
^ however, with certain allies Lazar met the Turkish army
i under Sultan Murad I on the field of Kossovo, June 15,
I 1389, and after a terrible battle was defeated* The
I Battle of Kossovo was the death knell of the Serbian
I state* By 1459 almost all of the former Serbian Empire
!
was under Turkish occupation* ■
I I
i
Montenegro
I
I One of the Serbian provinces which was a part of ,
I -------------: ------------------------------------------------ :
' l^Jirecek, op, cit*, pp. 149-150*
j ^^Ibid., p, 87; Spinka, op, cit., pp* 150-151.
11 I
Dushan*s Empire was Zeta, the ancient name of Montenegro* j
In size it was about the same as it is today, stretching
from Herzegovina on the northwest to Valona in Albania
and included the seaport of Kotor (Cattaro). The province
was first ruled by the Balsha family which perished in the
Turkish wars in 1385* Their successors were; George
Stracimirovich (1385-1403), the Djurasevich Brothers
(1403-1431), and the Crnojevich Dynasty (1431-1496)* The
most famous of this line was Ivan Crnojevich who bravely
fought the Turks, but faced with overwhelming odds was
forced to retreat from the Skader (Scutari) Lake and its
fortresses up into the mountains and establish his new
capital at Cetinje*^^ This town also became the See of
the Metropolitan of Zeta who resided in the monastery of
Cetinje, built in 1485*^^ The Metropolitans of Zeta were
under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch at Pech up to
1766 when this Patriarchate was abolished by Turkish
order* With the end of the Patriarchate, the Metropolitan
of Zeta, who was second in rank to the Patriarch, became
oo
independent•
^^emperley, op* cit*, p* 137.
^^Jirecek, op# cit* * Vol. II, p* 191# ;
23pucic, op* cit*, p* 197# Jevsevije Popovic, Opca
Crkvena Istorija. trans* Mojsije Stojkov (Sremski i
Karlovci: Srpska Manastirska Stamparija, 1912), I, p* 637*
12
Little is known of Montenegrin history between the |
years 1478 and 1696* Conflicting narratives are found
concerning the last of the Crnojevich family, George
(1490-1496) who retired to Venice transferring his royal
authority to the Metropolitan*^^ Peter I Petrovich, in
his Short History of Montenegrop^ writes that this same
George had a brother Stephen or Stanisha, who left
Montenegro and went to the Turks requesting that they
recognize him as their vassal and ruler of Zeta* His
request was granted after he and his followers had
accepted Islam* Some time later, torn by remorse, he
came back to Cetinje, repented and became an Orthodox
monk* Those who returned with him, however, persisted
in remaining converts of Mohammed, which explains how
"Turks" came to take up residence in Montenegro. The
obvious conclusion here is that all Serbs, to be regarded
as such, must belong to the Eastern Orthodox faith.
In 1493 a printing press was set up at Obod, the
importance of which cannot be overlooked. At a time when
Slavonic books were being destroyed by the Turks and
^^Temperley, op* cit*, p* 143; William Miller, |
The Balkans, Roumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro |
(New York: G.P* Putnam’s Sons, 1896), p. 380; Petar !
I Petrovic Njegos, "Kratka Istorija Crne Gore," Istoriski
Zapisi, XIII, 3 (1935), pp. 143-145.
25
Petar I Petrovic Njegos, op. cit*, p. 143*
13 j
zealous Phanariot Greeks, Obod distributed books and I
helped preserve a part of the Slavonic liturgies and j
literature and thus also of the national tongue and
ideas at a moment of sorest need*
As already noted, all authority in the land was
now vested in the Metropolitan who was both secular and
religious ruler* There was no family in Montenegro at
this time with enough prestige or strength to set itself
up as the ruling house, so this delegation of secular
authority to the church was natural and the only solution
to the problem. However, at certain times there was
another secular authority in Montenegro whose role was
not always the same and whose jurisdiction varied from
that of a judge to a military leader * This was the
Guvernadur who in later times received his powers from
the Metropolitan, yet there were some Guvernadurs who
sought to subjugate the Metropolitan. The office came
into being some time around 1688, when Venice had sent a
contingent of fighting men to Montenegro to help stem the
Turkish onslaught* The troop was under the command of
Zana Grbicich, Governatore del Monte Negro, the repre
sentative of Venice at Cetinje* In all probability,
then, the title Guvernadur referred later to the supreme
military commander, appointed by the Metropolitan or
14
26
elected by the people’s assembly*
Two important events took place in Montenegro
during the reign of the Metropolitan Danilo Petrovich
(1696-1737). The number and influence of renegade
Montenegrins and their descendants who had accepted Islam
was rapidly increasing* Orthodox Montenegrins were
alarmed, for they felt this Mohammedan group could not be
trusted, was more Turkish than the Turks themselves, and
represented a Trojan Horse with all its consequences*
When they became so powerful as to erect a mosque right
in the capital of Cetinje, Metropolitan Danilo decided
that matters had gone far enough and that drastic measures
had to be taken in order to preserve Orthodoxy* Conse
quently, in 1709, all Mohammedans in the country were
forced to accept Christianity* Those who refused were
exiled, and those who offered armed resistance lost their
lives*^^ It must be remembered that the connection
between Church and State in Montenegro was extremely
close, and although we would not condone such measures
today, in the eyes of Danilo this was perhaps the only way
to attain internal security*
^^Risto J. Dragicevich, "Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori,"
Istoriski Zapisi. XXIII, 1, (1940), pp* 14-27*
^^Leopold Ranke, A History of Serbia, trans* Mrs*
Alexander Kerr (London: John Murray, 1847), p. 35*
15
The other event was the establishment of relations
with Russia for the first time which would be of great
consequence in the shaping of future Montenegrin history#
When the Turco-Rmssian war of 1711 broke out, the
Russian Tsar Peter the Great, realizing that the hardy
and fearless warriors of Montenegro could be of great |
help as allies, asked them to join him in the war against
Turkey in a letter dated March 3, 1711, and sent to the
Metropolitan. The Montenegrins were more than glad to
I
join their Orthodox brothers and attacked neighboring j
Turkish towns in which campaign they were quite successful|
Russia had to sue for peace in June of the same year. It
I
I is interesting to note that no mention is made of ;
i I
! Montenegro in the Pruth Treaty of peace which temporarily ,
i ended the conflict*^® The Russians later sent money and
provisions to Montenegro and in this way showed their {
appreciation for the help received. The Montenegrins from
this time on looked upon Russia as their "Mother” and
protector.
In this period the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan of Montenegro was expanded to include the
seaport of Boka, a recognition given to Danilo by Venice
in gratitude for invaluable aid rendered to them in their
2&Dusan Lekic, Spoljna Politika Petra I Petrovica
Njegosa (Cetinjes Narodna Knjiga, 1950J, p. 23.
16
war with the Turks from 1714 to 1718. These events were
of decisive import in many problems to be faced by Peter I
Fetrovich^^ which will be considered later in this thesis.
29lbid.. p. 24.
17
T O ^
9
CHAPTER II
1748-1784
Early Life of Peter Petrovich
Very little reliable information can be found
concerning the youth and early life of Peter I Petrovich.
He was born September 8, 1748 at Nyegushi of the parents
Marko Damyanov Petrovich and Angelia Martinovich. His
baptismal name is not known; the name Peter was given to
him at the time he entered the monastic order in 1760,
the usual custom and practice of the Orthodox church.
At the age of seventeen he was ordained a deacon. Since
there were no public schools in Montenegro he probably
got his education in the Monastery of Cetinje. In 1765
Bishop Vasilie went to Russia and took Peter with him
with the intention of having him stay there and study,
but with Vasilie*s death a year later, Peter was called
back to Montenegro to help the Metropolitan Sava with his
duties of ecclesiastical administration.^
Bishops Sava and Vasilie
Metropolitan Danilo»s successor was Bishop Sava
Petrovich, Danilo*s cousin, who was elected to succeed
^Dusan D. Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic Njegos i
Njegovo Doba (Cetinje: Istoriski Institut, 1951), p. 5.
L
19
him according to the established custom that the principal
bishop was to be chosen from the eligible members of the
Petrovich family. The new Metropolitan was a quiet man
of a monastic disposition with little interest in politics
or secular affairs. Consequently, Guvernadur Yovan
Radonich would later have his chance to assume the reigns
of government and Stephen the Pretender would also appear
on the scene.
Leaving for a visit to Russia, Sava placed his
coadjutor, Bishop Vasilie in charge. Some interesting 1
I
information concerning this time is given in a letter j
written in 1751 by Vasilie to the Empress of Austria,
Maria Theresa. The letter states that Montenegro is a
republic, governed by the Metropolitan who is the Vicar of|
the Patriarch of Pech, and who is the supreme leader of
his people in all matters, in peace and in war. Vasilie I
also writes that he is actually the present ruler since !
1
he heads the state for and in place of the Metropolitan j
o !
Sava, "who is my own b r o t h e r |
Bishop Vasilie * s concern for his people, especially !
his military ability which strengthened the border '
I
defenses against the Turks, won him respect and popularityJ
In 1752 he went to Russia to seek aid and protection and
^Zapisi, XXIII, 3 (1940), p. 177.
20
proposed that Montenegro be made a Russian protectorate
or principality* Russia did not want this responsibility
and Vasilie returned, a disappointed man, but still loyal
to Russia, Six years later Vasilie again went to
Petrograd taking twelve young men with him for schooling
in Russia, He returned with Colonel Puchkov whose duty
was to compile a complete report on conditions in Monte
negro which would then be considered by the Empress
Elizabeth* Puchkov’s report was completely negative and
Russia lost interest* On his third trip to Russia, under
taken by Bishop Vasilie in 1765 in order to reestablish
I
disrupted relations, he was successful in pleading his case
before the new Empress Catherine II, but his plans were
cut short by his death in Petrograd on March 10, 1766*®
Peter Petrovich, who had accompanied Bishop Vasilie
on this last trip and who had enrolled in a Russian semi
nary, was now asked to return to Montenegro and carry the
news of Vasilie’s death home* Peter accomplished this
task and upon his return was retained by Metropolitan Sava
as his aid and secretary* Peter was ordained a priest
and attended to many duties which Sava, who was already
old and weak, could not take care ofAccording to
®Zapisi, II, 3,4 (1948), pp. 139-160*
"^Petar I Petrovic Njegos, Poslanice> ed, Dusan D*
Vuksan (Cetinje: Obod, 1935), p. 8*
21
established practice, Peter should have been consecrated
a bishop and made coadjutor, but he was only eighteen
years of age and because of his youth could not be raised
to the bishopric* He was to spend the next eighteen years
as a Vicar-General in the office of the Metropolitan*®
Since the Metropolitan Sava was in need of a bishop-
coadjutor, he and the Patriarch Vasilie Brkich consecrated
Arsenie Plamenac a bishop and then appointed him to this
post* Patriarch Vasilie Brkich was the last of the
Serbian Patriarchs of Pech who was seeking refuge in
Montenegro at this time*^
A note of explanation is necessary here in order
to understand the canonical position of the Serbian
church* After the Turkish occupation of Serbia, the
Serbs in Austria and Montenegro beyond the reach of
Constantinople, organized independent churches headed by
Metropolitans. This again was in accord with the
established practice that the functions of a church are
independent within the borders of the country in which it
is located, (Canons of the II, IV and VI Ecumenical
Councils). Thus, ipso facto, these two churches were
®lekic, op. cit., p. 50*
Vuksan, op. cit*. p. 6.
7
Supra, p. 8.
22 :
autonomous. Without any dependence whatsoever on the |
I
Russian Holy Synod or the other Patriarchs, they could 1
elect and consecrate their own Metropolitans and Bishops
and perform all other functions of ecclesiastical adminis
tration.®
The rule of Sava and Arsenie was weak and enabled
Stephen the Pretender to appear and take matters into
his own hands* Sava died in 1781 and Arsenie was pro
claimed the new Metropolitan. His role in Montenegrin
history was of little importance, except for his secret
pro-Austrian tendency and desire to subject his country
to the Austrian crown.^ He died in 1784. After his
death Peter I Petrovich was elected to the Metropolitan
See.
Stephen the Pretender
Stephen the Pretender (Schepan Mali) arrived in
Montenegro on September 10, 1767. Conflicting records
indicate that this man at first presented himself as the
missing and deposed Russian Emperor Peter III, and then
as a descendant of the ancient Balsha rulers of |
M o n t e n e g r o . |
Q '
St. M. Dimitrijevic, op. cit., p. 8; Jevsevije
Popovic, op. cit., II, pp. 544-548; 637-642,
Vuksan, op. cit., pp. 14-15.
^^Lekic, op# cit., pp. 26-28; and Bosko Strika, Dal-!
^^ii^ki. Manastiri {2taarebi Merkontile, 1930), pp. 176-77.
23
Securing documents which portended his Balsha
lineage, this Stephen made his way to Montenegro where he
first introduced himself as a healer, but someone
"recognized" him as the missing Peter III, about whom
there was a great deal of gossip at this time, and the
Montenegrins were beside themselves with joy to have the
Russian Emperor in their midst. This manifestation of
joy on the part of the common people is not so strange
after all. When one remembers that the country was on
the verge of anarchy and chaos due to a weak and indif
ferent Metropolitan and a scheming Guvernadur who thought
only of his own pocket, the coming of an "Emperor" who
i would now take charge was like an answer to a prayer.
i
; Stephen set himself up in the Capital of Cetinje and
started his rule with much needed reforms.
Metropolitan Sava was also deceived and even asked
Stephen for permission to consecrate Arsenie. It is said
that the granting of this permission was the first of
ficial act of the new ruler. Sava, who had no interest in
ruling the country himself, was probably glad that a
seemingly strong governor had been found who could lead
the people in these trying days. The Metropolitan’s
belief in the hoax further strengthened Stephen’s
position, for, "if anyone knows who Stephen really is,
the Bishop should know," was the often repeated saying of
24 I
the peopleLater, when Sava learned that Stephen |
was an impostor, the latter*s popularity made it too late
to do anything. In his attempt to undermine Stephen’s
power the Metropolitan gave up his prerogatives at a
meeting of some clan leaders on August 20, 1770, when the
Guvernadur Yovan Radonich received supreme spiritual and
secular authority in the land.^^ This did not change
matters much; most of the people regarded Stephen as
their rightful ruler.
In this conflict between Stephen and Radonich,
1 ^ 1
Peter Petrovich was on the side of the Guvernadur. This'
I
was quite natural since the Metropolitan had indicated
that Radonich was the rightful governor. Peter regarded |
Stephen as an impostor and blamed him for the evils of
the time. This is evidenced in an encyclical of '
Febriiary 22, 1819, written by Peter (who was the Metro
politan of Montenegro at this later date) regarding
another impostor, the monk Avakum. Among other things,
Peter says :
Observe carefully and open your eyes, because worse
things can happen to you than that which happened
Jagos Jovanovic, "Veze Crne Gore sa Rusijom od
druge polovine XVI bijeka do danas," Zapisi II, 3,4
(1948), pp. 157-58.
12
Risto J. Dragicevic, "Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori,"
Zapisi XXIII, 2 (1940), p. 78. i
^®Lekic, op. cit., p. 35. ,
25
to your parents because of Stephen the Pretender,
whom they made a tsar, just like some are trying
to make this deceiver a saint,14
Catherine IX was not pleased at the news that
someone was impersonating her dead husband in Montenegro,
This was adding impetus to gossip about a painful incident
best left alone, so she waited for a good opportunity to
have the whole matter investigated. When Turkey declared
war in 1768 Catherine remembered the brave Montenegrins
as former allies and dispatched Prince Dolgoruki to enlist
their aid in the conflict with Turkey and also to expose
the false Peter III
Dolgoruki arrived at Cetinje and had a general
assembly summoned in August, 1769, at which he publicly
read the letter from the Empress calling the Montenegrins
to arms against the Turk, The royal summons was greeted
with enthusiasm and the Montenegrins pledged their mili
tary support to the Russian cause. The Prince then asked
Stephen why he was pretending to be Peter III and so
deceiving these good people, to which Stephen replied that
he personally had never claimed to be the missing Tsar,
and that he certainly could not be held responsible for
the rumor others had spread. He showed Dolgoruki his
^^Poslanice, p, 130,
^®Lekic, op, cit., p. 28
26
documents proving that he was a descendant of the Balsha
Dynasty and said that he was ruling Montenegro by
hereditary right and not by hoax and pretention.
The Russian envoy was convinced that Stephen was
within his rights, gave him a colonel’s commission in the
Russian army, presented him with his personal wardrobe
and declared Stephen as the Ruler of Montenegro. After
leaving some money and military supplies, Dolgoruki left
and returned to Russia.The Montenegrins engaged the
Ottoman forces in Albania and Hercegovina and so kept
these armies from going to the Russian front. In these
battles Montenegro had great losses and Russia was
victorious, and yet, in the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji of
July 21, 1774, no mention of Montenegro was made. The
little ally was quickly forgotten and left to bear the
campaigns of Turkish revenge without any aid or support
from "Mother" Russia.
In these conflicts with the Turks Stephen showed
courage and military leadership. In times of peace he
improved internal affairs, built roads, and established
a court of twelve judges. In May of 1774 according to
directives from the Pasha of Skader, Stephen was
16Ibid.. p. 31.
op. cit., p. 32; and Vuksan, op. cit.,
pp. 6-7.
27
assassinated*
Relations with Austria
Stephen’s death left Guvernadur Yovan Radonich as
the supreme ruler of Montenegro. His task was far from
easy for that same year all the resources of the country
had to be used to repulse the attack led by the Vizier of
Skadar, Mahmud Pasha Bushatlia. In sore need of support
and aid, the Montenegrins decided to send a delegation to
Russia to heal the existing breach between the two former
allies. It was decided that the delegation be made up of
Guvernadur Radonich, Peter Petrovich (now an Archiman
drite) and Serdar Ivan Petrovich.The delegation left
in 1777 and stopped on its way in Vienna, where they met
with several members of the Austrian Cabinet. Prince von
Kaunitz, the Austrian chancellor informed the Grand Duke
after this meeting that the Montenegrin delegation had
stated that they were on their way to Russia to break all
relations since the Russians refused to help them, and
that on their way back they hoped to place their country
under Austrian protection.
Such a statement could have been made by the pro-
Austrian Guvernadur, but it could have been a bit of
^®Vuksan, op. cit., p. 8.
^^Lekic, op. cit., p. 37.
28
Austrian intrigue also, because when the delegation
arrived in Russia it was coldly received, was not per
mitted to appear before the Empress, and after six months
of waiting left Russia without accomplishing anything.
Perhaps Potemkin, Catherine’s premier, had been advised of
the meeting in Vienna,
Returning from Russia, the delegation again stopped
in Vienna, openly expressed its hostile animosity toward
the Russians because of the treatment received, and made
plans to seek the support of Austria, More than a year
was spent in gaining the necessary interest and relations
with influential persons* At the suggestion of Kaunitz,
the Montenegrin delegation submitted a written proposal
in April of 1799 outlining the agreements and obligations
which would bind Austria and Montenegro, This document
was prepared by the three delegates, Radonich, Ivan
Petrovich and Archimandrite Peter Petrovich and then
signed by them in the name of the Montenegrin people,
Although the proposal places Montenegro under Austrian
protection, it still maintains the country’s sovereignty
and independence. After submitting the proposal and being
assured that a mission would be sent to Montenegro to
continue the conferences, the delegation returned to
Cetinje.
2®Lekic, op. cit., gives the full text of this
; proposal on pages 45-^50._______ i
29
Three years later, in 1782, the Austrian mission
under Colonel Paulich finally came to Montenegro. Its
chief interest was in compiling a report on existing
conditions and how the Montenegrin proposal could be put
into effect. To keep the mission’s true intention secret,
it was said that this group came as printing experts to
set up a printing press at Cetinje. They did bring a
printing press with them, and after completing their
mission gave the press to Yovan Radonich "who sold it to
someone in Boka."®^
Peter Petrovich worked very closely with the
members of the Austrian mission. He supplied them with
needed information and looked after their safety. This
was needed in view of the fact that the Turks and
Venetians soon found out the true reason for Paulich’s
visit and tried to poison the Austrians. Paulich advised
the Montenegrins in military affairs and helped them in
making preparations for the inevitable conflict with the
Turks which would soon come. During these preparations
for war Archimandrite Peter was placed in charge of
22
military requisitions and procurement of munitions.
21
Risto J. Dragicevic, "Crnogorske Stamparije
(1493-1918)," Zapisi, XII, 1-2 (1956), pp. 26-27.
®®Petar I. Popovic, Crna Gora u Doba Petra I i
Petra II (Beograd: Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga, 1951), p. 12.
30
Paulich’s report, which indicated that costly
investments would first have to be made if Montenegro
was to serve the best interests of Austria, and fear that
further connections with Montenegro might bring war with
Turkey, influenced the Austrian Emperor temporarily to
drop the whole matter which as yet "was not ripe for a
definite decision*"^®
Joseph II was not inclined to make a hasty judgment
in respect to Montenegro. There was no need of rash
action since the Austro-Russian Treaty of 1781, which j
featured Catherine’s Greek Scheme to drive the Turks out j
of Europe, gave Montenegro to Austria. Thus, Montenegro, '
an Orthodox Slavic state was given by "Mother" Russia to
Austria, a foreign Roman Catholic power. There was only j
one flaw in the plan: Montenegro had not been consulted. |
Abandoned by Russia and Austria, hated by Venice
and the Ottoman Empire, Montenegro was left to stand or
fall alone. The future looked gloomy indeed.
Consecration of Peter
During the last feeble days of Metropolitan
Arsenie, Archimadrite Peter Petrovich acted as Vicar-
General and was in actual charge of ecclesiastical
^®General Paulich’s letter to Guvernadur Radonich
in Zapisi, XXIV, 3 (1940), pp. 43-44.
31
affairs. His grammata, or certificate of ordination,®^
indicates that he was elected to succeed Arsenie on
June 29, 1783, that this election was certified by the
Guvernadur on October 29, 1783, and that he was conse
crated Bishop of Montenegro, Albania and the Coastlands
on October 14, 1784# Peter was consecrated in Sremski
Karlovtsi (Carlstadt) by the titular Serbian Patriarch
Mojsije Putnik and Bishops Vikentie Popovich of Vrshats,
Joseph Yovanovich Shakobent of Bachka and Yovan
Yovanovich of Carlstadt.
Peter would probably have gone to Russia to receive
the mitre, but knowing he was not welcome there, he
requested permission from Joseph II to go to Karlovtsi in
Srem and obtain his ordination* The permission was
granted, but on the way Peter broke his leg and was forced
to spend some six months in Vienna.
It may be interesting to note that Peter was
elected during the lifetime of Arsenie, who died on
May 15, 1784, and that the Guvernadur*s certification was
issued four months after the election. Perhaps he antici
pated the loss of complete authority once Peter occupied
the Metropolitan cathedra, for he undoubtedly knew the
24zapisi XIX, 1 (1938), pp. 43-44.
32 I
I
character and will power of the future prelate. |
Montenegro was now to receive one of its most
gifted Prince-Bishops. Peter knew his country’s situation
well. He had been a meniber of delegations to Russia and
Austria, had been almost constantly beside the ruling
bishop of the land, and was already, at the age of thirty-
six, highly respected by his people. Under his guidance
Montenegro was to come out of primitive chaos and set its
course toward achieving modern statehood.
CHAPTER III
1785-1796
An Unsuccessful Approach toward Russia
The new primate of Montenegro could not accept the
fact that Russia had surrendered her interests in the
Balkans in favor of the Austrian Empire. The reason was
not difficult to find. This was a policy of appeasement
in the face of Austria’s growing concern and fear brought
about by Russia’s military success and expansion.^
Negotiations to gain Austrian support, entered |
into by the Montenegrins after being rebuffed by Russia,® I
(
had failed. Even Paulich’s mission, from which much had !
been expected, had ended in empty promises. It must be
remembered that Bishop Peter had taken an active part in
all these attempts to establish relations with Austria.
Consequently, his conclusion that nothing further could be
expected from the Austrians was based on his personal
o I
knowledge of the facts. I
Perhaps the Metropolitan mistrusted Austria on |
religious grounds as well. He was probably aware of the |
^Lekic, op. cit., p. 76.
®Supra, p. 30.
®Vuksan, op. cit., p. 35.
34 j
active proselytizing and pressures exerted on the Orthodoxj
in Austria in the attempt to establish the Unia, and thus |
place the Orthodox church in Austria under Roiae.^ These
apprehensions would be substantiated later in the con-
5
flicts over Dalmatia. Be this as it may, the new
Metropolitan decided to try to close the existing breach
with Russia which was closer to his own people both
ethnically and religiously.®
A month after his consecration Peter wrote to
Potemkin requesting an audience with the Empress.
Receiving no answer he next wrote to a friend. General
Zorich, telling him of his need and intentions and asking |
for the general’s help in arranging a meeting with |
Catherine II. Zorich answered and invited the Metropoli- |
tan to come to Russia and to visit him at his estate in |
i
Shklov. Arriving at the estate early in August, 1785,
and not finding his host, the Metropolitan proceeded to
Petrograd, where Zorich had gone, asking the general if it
were possible "to receive the distinguished honor of
seeing the Empress.” The answer came in the form of a
^Slijepcevic, op. cit., pp. 423-429.
®Infra, pp. 71-77.
®Petar I. Popovic, op. cit., p. 14.
^Lekic, op. cit., pp. 63-67.
35
police order, signed by Potemkin, commanding the Bishop
to leave the country within twelve hours. Since Peter
did not comply within the allotted time and requested a
hearing regarding his "crimes," he was forcefully removed
from Russian territory under police escort. The Metro
politan’s guilt, which brought about his deportation, was
his friendship with General Simeon Zorich, the political
enemy of Potemkin,®
Indignant and enraged, the Metropolitan swore never
again to set foot on Russian soil. He was deeply hurt,
not so much because of the personal insult, but because
the life interests of Montenegro, which had rendered
invaluable services to Russia, could be so arrogantly
dismissed because of an insignificant private feud. When
Catherine heard of the discourtesy, she sent her apology
and asked Peter to return,^ He refused, but sent a
respectful letter mentioning the friendly past relations i
between the two Slavic countries and expressing his hope !
that these relationships would be continued in the future.|
In spite of this disappointment, and more to come, Peter I|
Petrovich remained loyal to Russia throughout his life,^^
®Milorad Medakovic, Povjesnica Crnegore (Zemun:
1850), p, 70,
^Petar I, Popovic, op, cit,, p, 15,
Jagos Jovanovic, "Veze Crne Gore sa Rusijom od
druge polovine XVI vijeka do danas," Zapisi II, 5-6
36
Restoration of Theocracy
Living in the glory of the past, which was kept
alive by heroic tales and ballads, the Montenegrins
believed that the only governmental form worthy of the
Serbian people was a monarchical empire, which once
existed under the Emperor Stephen Dushan in the fourteenth
century. This concept was further influenced by their
observation of the administrative structure of neighboring
states, primarily the Ottoman Empire and the Venetian
Republic,
The Ottoman Empire was an autocratic satrapy, its
Sultan "ruleth all the Earth," and is "The Ruler of all
rulers," whose subjects are "the Sultan’s sons,"12 The
monarch of this Empire is also a theocrat, "wielding two
1 3
swords and crowned with two crowns," the ancient symbols
of spiritual and temporal authority, 1"^
(1948), pp. 249-251; Radovan Lalic, "O tradicionalnim
vezama izmedju Crne Gore i Rusije," Zapisi VII, 7-9 (1951)
pp. 279-281; and Lekic, op. cit., pp. 63-67. |
llbazo M. Kostic, Pravni Instituti u Njegosevim 1
Pesmama (Melbourne: Srpska Misao. 1958), pp. 14-20, |
12
P, P. Nyegosh, The Mountain Wreath, trans, James
W, Wiles (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd,, 1930), |
pp. 108 and 128.
. p. 65.
“ VergHius Perm (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion
(Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1959), p. 798.
r~ 37
Thus the seeds for the establishment of a
Montenegrin theocracy were found not only in the tradi
tions of their own church, which was an offspring of
Byzantine Orthodoxy where the emperor was regarded as the
supreme ecclesiastical head, but also in their contacts
with Islam where theocracy is "intrinsic in the Moham
medan religion,"15
Freedom loving Montenegrins, however, could never
accept the tyrannical despotism of the Turkish Empire,
Historical tradition told them that even though their
ancient land, Zeta, was subject to the Serbian Imperial
Crown, the regional Balsha and Crnojevich rulers exercised
a great deal of freedom in local government. In their
basic acceptance of a theocratic monarchy, the Montene
grins had to add their own modification. In this they
were probably influenced by the Venetian Republic,^®
Regarding the Venetian Republic as a democratic
state, since its officials were elected by the people,
the Montenegrins here found an expression of their own
idea of statecraft. The Republic had its Doge who, like
a monarch, represented the state, made decisions and had
1®F, L, Cross (ed,), The Oxford Dictionary of the ■
Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1961),
p. 1338, I
l®Kostic, op. cit,, pp. 14-15,
____ I
38 I
his subjects, and yet was elected by his people. They
did not see that the Venetian Republic had become an
oligarchy whose outmoded governmental stratification
would bring about its entire ruin and end its power on
the Adriatic,
Being exposed to these various ideas of government,
Montenegro evolved its own particular state organization,
which being headed by a prince of the Church may be called
a theocracy. This theocracy, however, was unique. It was
not based on the concept of church supremacy which led the
Papacy to regard itself "as the apex of all powers on
earth,but rather it came about in a natural way, to ,
fill a need and to close a gap. Expediency, and not ,
principle, was the basis of its formation. Left without a
ruling house, it was normal to delegate governmental power;
to the only other authority in the land, the bishop of the
church, who was regarded as the guardian of the old
monarchy until the time when it would be restored again,
The Montenegrin form of theocracy fulfilled popular
concepts and expectations. The monarch of the land was
^^Luigi Sturzo, Church and State (New York:
Longmans, Green and Co,, 1939), pp, 81-82,
^®Tomica Nikcevic, Politicke Struje u Crnoj Gori u
Procesu Stvaranja Drzave u XIX Vijeku (Cetinje: Narodna
Knjiga, 1958), p, 78,
39
the Prince-Bishop, the Metropolitan, who hereditarily
came from the Petrovich family and who was elected to his
Throne (See) by the people, represented by their clan
leaders* He had "both swords,” being vested with both
spiritual and secular authority and was the official
representative of Montenegro before all foreign states,
alone empowered to carry on diplomatic relations*
This theocratic arrangement had its failings also*
These primarily came from two sources, the weakness of
the Bishop himself, and the possibility of a strong lay
leader arising to take the throne away from the guardian
ship of the church* An excellent example of this
occurred in the days of Stephen the Pretender who was
able to usurp governmental powers due to the indifference
of Metropolitan Sava,
Another disturbing phase of theocratic government
in Montenegro was the rivalry of the Petrovich and
Radonich families, which were probably the most prosperous
and influential in the land,The Petrovich brotherhood j
gave the country its Bishops and Metropolitans, while the |
Radonichs gave it its governors, I
Guvernadur Yovan Radonich was a man of high |
I
ambition. He seriously accepted the mandate of supreme '
^^Nikcevic, op, cit*, pp, 78-79,
40
20
authority given to him in 1770 and actually strived to
rule the land* He issued proclamations and summons to
the clans calling upon them to send their contingents of
fighting men in the war against the TurksHe also
established diplomatic relations with Austria and Russia
primarily for obtaining military aid* The archenemy of
Montenegro, Mahmud Pasha of Skadar (Scutari), was aware
of the Guvernadur * s activities and wrote him a letter in
April, 1782, sayings ". . * I want you to know that I
know and have heard all about your activities, and how
you went to Moscow to receive recognition so that you
22
could be the king in Montenegro*” Three years later
Mahmud led an expedition into Montenegro which defeated
Radonich's forces and compelled the Guvernadur to flee
and take refuge in Trieste* The defeat was the direct
result of the Guvernadur*s inability to unite the clans,
the majority of which refused to acknowledge him as their
leader
Many of the clan leaders regarded Radonich as a
selfish, unscrupulous man whose chief interest was his
^^Supra, p. 24*
21zapisi, XIX, 1-6 (1938), pp. 104-103*
^^Zapisi, XXIII, 5 (1940), p* 309.
^%uksan, op* cit*, p* 39*
41 I
own prosperity and aspiration for power# He was also |
I
suspected of being a foreign agent, first in the employ |
I
of Venice, and when the Republic declined, he shifted his '
affiliation to Austria from which country, since 1783, he
was receiving an annual stipend of one thousand ducats
In his bid for absolute control of the country
Radonich sought to weaken the prestige of the Petrovich
family and bring a non-Petrovich to the Episcopal See#
The result of this intrigue was the consecration of
Arsenie Plamenac,^^ who was not of the Petrovich family
and who would have worked out very well as far as the
Guvernadur*s plans for supremacy were concerned, had he
not died before the Guvernadur could consolidate his
position#^^
In the ensuing Austro-Russian struggle for
dominance in Montenegro, Radonich was pro-Austrian and
was thus in direct opposition to Metropolitan Peter
Petrovich's policy# Without any compunction whatsoever,
Radonich set about to undermine the Metropolitan's
influence and defame his character at both the Austrian
^^Risto J# Dragicevic, ”Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori,”
Zapisi* XXIII, 2 (1940), p# 85#
^%upra, p. 21.
^^Nikcevic, op# cit#, p# 79#
L
42
and Russian courtsThis slanderous and fraudulent
enterprise was soon discovered and brought the ire of the
clans upon the Guvernadur*s head, who had to flee to
Trieste to save his life# Several months later in 1790,
assured of the Metropolitan's pardon, Radonich returned
to assume a post of military command under the Metro
politan who was in effect Montenegro's Commander in Chief#
From this time on, the Guvernadur was to be of
little political influence# In addition to military
duties delegated to him by the Metropolitan, he could also
represent the clan leaders on occasions when these leaders
so desired* Yovan Radonich died in 1802 and the
Guvernadur's office was almost terminated, but after two
years of deliberation the title was given to his son,
Vukolai# Because of the constant agitation, plotting,
and treasonable conspiracies engaged in by the Guvernadur
in an effort to regain lost prerogatives, one of the
first official acts of Metropolitan Peter's successor.
Metropolitan Peter II Petrovich Nyegosh in 1830, was to
end the Guvernadur's office permanently#^®
Returning to his country in 1786, after his
ordination and visit to Russia, Metropolitan Peter I
Petrovich found the land laid waste by the murderous
^^Lekic, op# cit#, p# 94; Nikcevic, op# cit* * p.80*
^®Dragicevic, op# cit#, pp# 92-95; 144-155*
43
29
campaign of Mahmud Pasha, Vizier of Skadar. The
punitive expedition was undertaken by order of the Otto
man Sublime Porte in order to punish the Montenegrins for
their disloyalty (the Turks considered Montenegro a part
of the Empire) and to make sure they would not aid
Turkey's enemies again. The severity and brutality of
Mahmud's action exceeded by far the instructions of the
Sultan's Divan* The border clans, unable to withstand
the onslaught, joined Mahmud's forces and helped in the
pillage, which, after Mahmud left the country, resulted
in clan warfare and revenge against those who had co
operated with the invader* To make matters even worse,
the Turkish spoliation brought famine which increased
acts of plundering and brigandage. The country was in a
state of almost complete anarchy.®^
With determination and perseverance the Metro
politan set about rebuilding the ruins and bringing order
to the nation. He visited almost every town and village,
calling upon his people to unite, forget clanish interests
and cooperate in the creation of a strong state
^%upra, p. 40.
^^Lekic, op. cit., pp. 67-74; Vuksan, Petar I
Petrovic, pp* 39-40; and Petar I* Popovic, Crna Gora u
Doba Petra I i Petra II (Beograd: Srpska Knjizevna
Zadruga, Kolo XLVI, Knj* 316, 1951), pp* 16-19*
21
Lekic, op. cit., p. 74.
L _ . _ .
44 I
The Metropolitan's personal life was without j
reproach. Living the frugal life of a dedicated monk his |
needs were few in number. The meager resources from |
church lands, as well as the profits from his share of the
Petrovich estates, were distributed among the clans to
op
help the poor and destitute. Quite often the Metro
politan pawned costly vestments and jeweled crosses,
received as presents from royal friends, to purchase food
for his starving people. The reputation which Bishop
Peter enjoyed among his people is evident from the letters
written to General Ivelich in 1804. These letters were
signed by the Montenegrin Pravitelstvo, Council of Clan
Leaders, and are full of such encomiums as:
, He is well known to us since his youth as a man
of honor and good conscience who would never sell
his country at any price • • • • Who rescued us
from our great misery? Almighty God through our
good pastor. . . . The holy fathers of Russia
think that our bishop has the same honors which they
have, that he rides in a golden carriage in glory
and luxury. • • • Here it is not so, where he must
go on foot and in bloody sweat travel over the most
difficult roads, which is constantly required of
him to teach us and keep our people in peace.
With the strength of his personality, ecclesiasti
cal authority and sincere concern and love for his people,
32
Poslanlce, pp. 9-16.
®®Vuksan, op. cit., p. 301.
^^Zapisi XXII (1939), pp. 236-237; also p. 298.
45 î
the Primate of Montenegro gradually succeeded in bringing |
!
harmony and a fair semblance of national unity and |
orderliness among his countrymen.®^ These results were
achieved initially through the use of his great powers of
persuasion, and in dealing with especially stubborn
leaders, the imposing of the anathema, which had the
desired effects since many believed that he was already a
saint.®®
There are a few cases on record where these methods
failed to bring some groups to obedience, and severe
military measures were taken. Of these the Metropolitan
wrote: ”... these people are willful and disobedient.
I Without using the sword and rope they cannot be persuaded
I O'T
I to follow the good way which would be proper.” In such
cases the Metropolitan sent judges and clan leaders to
show the dissidents the error of their ways, first peace
fully, and when that failed, armed force was used to
. _ 38
insure conformity.
Jagos Jovanovic, Stvaranje Crnogorske Drzave i
Razvoj Crnogorske Nacionalnosti (Cetinje : Narodna Knjiga,
1947), pp. 155-157.
®®Vuksan, op. cit.. pp. 40-41; Kostic, op. cit.,
p. 145.
^^Nikcevic, op. cit., p. 67, quotes from one of
Peter's letters found in the State Archives of Zadar.
38pQslanice, p. 40.
46
Metropolitan Peter employed every possible means
which would further the prosperity and well being of his
country. His investigation of the limited agricultural
potential of the land led to the introduction of the
potato which the Metropolitan had brought with him from
39
Trieste in 1786. This plant lent itself very well to
the basic need of the people and soon became one of the
main dietary staples. In the popular mind this was more
evidence of the Bishop's fatherly concern and sincere
love.
From the ruin, devastation, and chaos which he
found in 1786, the Metropolitan practically formed and |
j
rebuilt a new nation, welding its people into a firm |
national entity and forged its military strength into a ,
formidable power which was completely to annihilate the i
old adversary, Mahmud Pasha, ten years later. In addition|
he increased his own prestige and popularity so that he I
I
was regarded by all as the undisputed ruler and only |
sovereign of Montenegro. :
j
Russian and Austrian Rivalry
In accordance with the Greek Scheme of the Austro-
Russian treaty of 1781 which placed Montenegro within the
®^Risto J. Dragicevic, "Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori,”
Zapisi, XXIII, 2 (1940), p. 87.
47
Austrian sphere of influence, the Austrian government
decided to send a delegation to Cetinje to establish
necessary relations and to win the Montenegrins over to
the Austrian cause# This delegation, headed by Major
Philip Vukasovich, arrived in Montenegro in 1788 bringing
with it large quantities of arms and munitions which the
Montenegrins had requested in 1785, as a sign of their
good will#^^
In their plan to vanquish once and for all the
Ottoman Empire, Austria and Russia had decided to court
all Turkish enemies, especially in the Balkans, and
thus create a strong force of allies# With this in mind
they turned their attention to Mahmud Pasha Bushatlia of
Skadar, who was in disfavor with the Sultan and had been
proclaimed a renegade by the Sublime Porte. The Austrians
I
resolved to send an envoy to Mahmud and present their |
terms, hoping the Pasha would agree and join the alii- j
ance. To accomplish this task, officer Bronnar, who was !
I
in Montenegro as a member of Vukasovich's mission, was |
ordered to go to Skadar and establish the desired contact.|
Metropolitan Peter advised the delegation against ap
proaching the Vizier of Skadar because the Pasha was a man'
!
without honor and not to be trusted. Disregarding the
40petar I. Popovic, op. cit., pp. 19-20.
48
Metropolitan's counsel, Bronnar went to Skadar, was
royally received, and after delivering costly presents to
Mahmud, was treacherously murdered on June 21, 1788.^^
Russia declared war on Turkey in 1787 and now
remembered that Montenegro was still in existence and
could be useful in the conflict* Accordingly, a special
representative of the Empress, Major Sava Mirkovich who
was a Serb in the Russian military service, was dispatched
to Montenegro bearing Catherine's'letter of March 14, 1788,
assuring the Montenegrins of her esteem, protection, and
all kinds of aid, and asking them to come to her assistanc^
in the war for the "defense of the Orthodox Church."^® I
! !
j The arrival of Mirkovich at Cetinje precipitated a |
I conflict between the Austrian and Russian representatives* |
Metropolitan Peter, always pro-Russian and suspicious of
the Austrians especially after their attempted overtures
to the Pasha of Skadar, wholeheartedly supported the
Russian cause and made preparations to render military
support by attacking the Turkish border. Vukasovich, with
Guvernadur Radonich's help, opposed this plan. Even
^^Zarko Muljacic, "Dubrovnik i Prva Faza Austriske
Akcije u Crnoj Gori 1788 Godine," Zapisi, XIV (1958),
p. 111. See also: Lekic, op. cit., pp. 76-81; and Zapisi
XX (1938), pp. 109-111.
Letter of Catherine II to Peter I and the
Montenegrins in Zapisi, XX (1938), pp. 110-111.
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
49 1
though Austria was at war with Turkey as of 1788, j
I
Vukasovich was interested in a long range project by which j
I
the army of Montenegro would be an auxiliary Austrian
force, to be used on any front and against any enemy, and
not only the Turks. That the Austrian Major failed in
his assignment is best illustrated in Metropolitan Peter's
letter to the Russian Ambassador Zaborovski in which he
says :
All of the assurances and promises of the Austrian
officers who are now in Montenegro, large sums of
money, some regular troops and all kinds of war
material, could not bring these people to undertake
even the slightest action against the Turks which
would be to the benefit of the Emperor. . . . Our
people place their hope and their faith only in
Russia . . . our people are loyal only to
Russia. . . .43
Unsuccessful in his mission, Vukasovich left
Montenegro blaming the Metropolitan for all his mis
fortunes and claiming that the Primate was Austria's
enemy. In his letter to General Paulich of the Austrian
Military Staff, Metropolitan Peter answers these charges
by saying that Vukasovich's failure was due to the
Major's lack of courage and military ability. This
deficiency caused the Montenegrins to lose their respect
for him. "The words of Philip Vukasovich are full of
4^Letter of Peter I to Ivan Aleksandrovich
Zaborovski in Zapisi XX (1938), pp. 111-113.
50
guile and deceit and his reports should not be believed.”^
Under Vukasovich several attempts to storm Turkish
fortresses on the Montenegrin border were ineffective.
But the main cause of his failure to win the Montenegrins
over to his plan was the intrigue carried on by the
Russian delegation, Mirkovich and Ivelich, who lost no
opportunity in frustrating every move the Major made.^®
The attempt on the part of Guvernadur Radonich
and Major Vukasovich to organize large corps of Monte
negrin volunteers who would be sent to other Austrian
fronts met with energetic opposition from the Metropolitan.
He knew that the enemies of Montenegro would attack the
country as soon as it was left without its full complement
of fighting men. He thwarted this undertaking by writing
to the clans, beseeching them to turn a deaf ear to all
such proposals. His letter to the Gluhodoljani Clan is
typical:
I understand and see that some men are going
around deceiving and luring the people in order
to take them somewhere overseas; these men cannot
be trusted, they are looking after their own
interests and are not interested in your benefit.
Your way is not in that direction . . . where you
will be killed for someone else's profit, who
would make a commodity of you so they could fill
44Letter of Peter I to General Paulich. Zapisi XX
(1938), pp. 176-177.
45jLekic, op. cit., pp. 82-84.
51
their own pockets. And he who goes there may God
grant that his way be evil . . . may he shamefully
lose his life, and may the anathema be upon him
as it was on Judas the Betrayer and on cursed Vuk
Brankovich.46
After receiving such letters few Montenegrins had
the courage to leave as volunteers for Austria. The
Metropolitan kept his warriors at home, prevented their
useless death on foreign battlefields, and with Austrian
aid built up the country's reserves of military supplies.
Through all these intrigues and machinations in
the conflict of Austrian and Russian interests, the Metro
politan was able to steer a course to the best advantage
of his people * The success of this policy was due to the
I
Metropolitan's personal **intelligence service,” made up ofi
!
sincere friends who held responsible positions in neigh-
!
boring governments. One of these who proved of the utmosti
I
value was the Abbot Dolchi, a Roman Catholic priest in I
Vienna, who kept the Metropolitan informed of all that j
went on at the Austrian Court. The two met in Russia in |
1785 and became fast friends. Because of his association !
with Bishop Peter at that time Dolchi was also deported |
I
. . . . . . . i
46Gluhodoljanima, June 10, 1789. Letter in Zapisi j
XXV, 2 (1941), p. 109. j
Vuk Brankovich was a Serbian noble who, according
to tradition, was a traitor in the Battle of Kossovo in
1389. Because of his betrayal the battle and the Serbian ;
Empire were lost. In Serbian epic poetry he is the
embodiment of treachery.
52
from Russia as an "enemy agent." In his letter of
March 22, 1788, Dolchi advised the Metropolitan to regard
Russia as the true friend of Montenegro and to send the
Austrian delegation away, "which you would do if you knew
what I know."^^ The Metropolitan was of the same mind,
but because of the need for Austrian support, could not
afford to antagonize Emperor Joseph II.
Concerned over the French Revolution and its
threatening consequences to his own throne, the Austrian
Emperor concluded a separate peace with Turkey. In this
Treaty of Sistova there was a general amnesty clause
designed to protect the Montenegrins and other Serbs |
within the Ottoman reach from Turkish measures of reprisals
I I
' This proved to.be an empty promise, but it did indicate
I I
I Austria's concern and effort to protect her allies. The j
Austrians themselves, through bitter experiences with the
Turk, put little faith in this clause of the Treaty, and
as a precaution supplied Montenegro with heavy armament
and large quantities of war material. Thus prepared,
Montenegro was ready for the coming decisive conflict with
the Pasha of Skadar.
The Russian envoy, Ivelich, unable to parallel
Austria's benevolence, and seeing that his empty promises
of further aid from Russia were no longer believed, left
L
47i^kic, op. cit., p. 78.
531
I
Montenegro in an angry mood. Vuksan comments: j
I
Since Austria, with her donation of munitions I
to the Montenegrins was regarded as their protector,
Russia, as though she could hardly wait for the
opportunity, turned her back on Montenegro. . . .
The war of Russia and Austria with Turkey, started
in 1787 and 1788, approached its end. On July 24,
1791, Austria concluded peace in Sistova, and Russia
on December 29 in Jassy. In the Russian treaty of
peace, as usual, not a word was said concerning
Montenegro.48
War and Territorial Expansion
Metropolitan Peter in the beginning of 1796 was
aware of the military preparations being made by Mahmud
Pasha of Skadar. The Montenegrin Bishop sent Mahmud a
letter, asking the Vizier whom he intended to attack and
advising him to keep the peace. The evasive reply from
the Master of Skadar,as well as other evidence, con
vinced the Bishop that Montenegro was the intended victim.
He accordingly set about preparing the country's defense.
Mahmud Pasha Bushatlia was a man gifted in the
arts of war and diplomacy. In a short time he succeeded
in subjecting other Turkish provinces in his neighborhood, |
and by 1786 was in complete control of northwestern |
Albania. His enemies at the Porte accused him of treason.i
* I
and stated that his ambition was to become the Sultan of '
I
I
4®Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic. p. 62.
^^Lekic, op. cit., pp. 103-104; gives a summary of
this correspondence.
54
the Ottoman Empire* The Sultan proclaimed him a renegade
and instructed the Pashas of Bosnia and Rumelia in 1787 to
occupy Skadar and depose its governor#®^ In the battles
which followed, Bushatlia was almost defeated, but the war
with the Russians saved him. The troops sent against
him had to be withdrawn and sent to the Russian front.
During the next nine years Bushatlia was able to
get back into the good graces of the Sultan again and was
even offered the dignity of a "pasha of three tails
He accomplished this reconciliation with the murder of
53
Bronnar, committed as an indication that Mahmud had no
desire of an alliance with Austria, and by sending his
own troops to aid the Sultan in the war with Austria and
I Russia.
j The French plans for the conquest of Europe
included Montenegro. The little ally of Austria and
®^Lekic, op. cit., p. 74.
®^Bogoljub Petkovic, "Mahmud Pasa Busatlija,"
Zapisi X, 1-2 (1957), pp. 211-212.
Ibid., p. 214. The rank of a Turkish pasha was
indicated by the number of horsetails on the standard
which was carried before him. The highest rank was a
pasha of three horsetails who was a Vizier and one of
seven permanent members of the Sultan's council. See :
"Turkey," Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago: 1942),
Vol. XXII.
^%upra, p. 48. .
55
Russia could not be left alone since it represented a
potential nuisance if not an actual enemy# In order to
take care of this problem, French agents unofficially
encouraged Mahmud to attack Montenegro and subject it to
his control#®^
In July, 1796, Mahmud crossed the Montenegrin
border with an army of 35,000 men# The Montenegrin
forces, numbering less than a third of the invaders, met
the enemy at the village of Martinich near Spuz, on the
eleventh of July# The Metropolitan, who was in command
of the defense, laid a strategic trap which practically
annihilated the Turks# Mahmud was badly wounded and
barely escaped alive.
After the battle the Metropolitan informed the
Austrian Emperor and Catherine II of the great victory
and requested more aid since he was sure that Mahmud
would be back again. In his letter to Catherine,®® the
Metropolitan outlines the enemy's plan by which the
forces of Bushatlia, after conquering Montenegro, are to
join the French army from Italy and then converge toward
^^vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, p. 65.
Ibid., p. 68| Lekic, op. cit., p. 107.
®®«Petar I carici Katerini II," Zapisi XXI, 2
(1939), p. 111.
56' ^
!
the former borders of Poland. Prince Platon Zubov j
answered in behalf of the Russian Empress. In his letter
he sings praises to the Montenegrins, invokes the wrath
of God upon the "godless French," and, according to
established practice, makes no mention of any military
axd/^
The prognosis of Bishop Peter proved to be correct.
Mahmud Pasha was back in Montenegro at the head of 23,000
Turkish horse and infantry seeking revenge. The Metro
politan girded his sword and with cross in hand, ordered
7,000 warriors to meet the Turk. In a series of tactical
actions the Bishop outgeneraled the Pasha and in the
pitched Battle of Krus on September 22, 1796, the Turks
experienced a crushing defeat. Mahmud and thirty-five
hundred of his men were slain. The remainder of his
army beat a hasty retreat back to Skadar.®®
As a result of this second victory over the Pasha
of Skadar, the Montenegrins took the Brda, the Highlands
on the border of Albania which were inhabited by Serbs j
I
and had belonged to Mahmud's province. This expansion |
I
of Montenegrin territory, as well as the independence and
57zapisi, XXI, 2 (1939), p. 109.
^®Lekic, op. cit., pp. 108-109; and Vuksan, op.
cit., pp. 69-70.
57 !
sovereignty of the Montenegrin state, were now formally
recognized by the European powers, and, what is even more
important, by the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as well*^^
I ^^Andrija Lainovic, "Francuska stanza o Mahmudpasi
1 i Crnoj Gori s kraja XVIII veka," Zapisi VIII, 1-2
(1955), p. 344,
58
g S ,
CHAPTER IV
1797-1813
An Outlet to the Sea
While the Montenegrins fought the Pasha of Skadar,
important developments were going on in the rest of
Europe# Napoleon Bonaparte was successful in his war
against Austria and her allies in Italy (1796-1797) and
had occupied Venice# With the fall of the Venetian
Republic on May 12, 1797, the whole Dalmatian coast was
in a state of apprehension and confusion, including the
seaport of Boka Kotorska (Bocche di Cattaro)#
This beautiful fiord with its settlements had an
ancient history# In 1184 it had been a part of the
Serbian Empire, and when that collapsed it became an inde
pendent city-state which voluntarily Joined the Venetian
Republic in 1420# ^ The Montenegrins wanted Boka as their
natural outlet to the sea; Turkey and Austria wanted it
for the same reason#
Afraid of French occupation, the citizens of Boka
asked their nearest neighbor, Montenegro, for protection#
The Metropolitan gladly came to their aid with troops to
preserve peace and order#
^Jovanovic, op# cit#, p# 172#
60
The Metropolitan’s hope that Boka may now become
a part of his country was short-lived# An Austrian array,
taking advantage of the general confusion, marched on Boka
and claimed it for the Austrian Crown. The Metropolitan,
not wishing to break relations with Austria, turned the
port over to the Austrian general, explaining that he was
there only to execute a police action and preserve lives
and property#^
Menaced by Napoleon, Russia again established
relations with Montenegro# Tsar Paul I assured Bishop
Peter that Russia was always ready to help, that at
present it could not place Montenegro under its official
protection because of Austrian interests, but in case of
need, the Bishop could always be confident of Russia’s
support#^ On the other hand, the French also wanted to
win Montenegro over to their side.^ They promised to
render military aid if Montenegro should again go to war
against the Turk? as well as certain concessions in using
the seaport of Boka once it was in French hands#
During the ensuing Napoleonic wars Boka changed
hands several times# In 1805 the French were to receive
it by treaty, but the Montenegrins took it by force from
^Lekic, op# cit#, pp. 114-118#
Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic. p# 78#
^Jovanovic, op# cit., p. 177#
61
the Austrians. The Tsar ordered the Montenegrins to give
Boka back to the Austrians who would then turn it over to
the French. The French finally took possession of Boka
with the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807.^
Napoleon seriously considered the conquest of
Montenegro at this time and had even ordered his generals
to prepare a plan for the campaign. The difficulties
involved and other problems changed the French Emperor’s
mind and this idea was abandoned.^ In 1808 the French
informed Bishop Peter that they wished to establish their
Consulate in Montenegro ’ ’for better and nicer neighborly
relations.” The Metropolitan wanted no spies in his
country so the request was refused.
The French invasion of Russia in 1812 gave Bishop
Peter the chance he was waiting for. In order to help
Russia, and at the same time include Boka in the
Montenegrin state, he ordered an attack on all French
strongholds in the area. The military action was a
success and the Bishop’s troops occupied the seaport. A
few days later, on November 10, 1813, at the Congress of
Vuksan, op. cit., p. 163.
le, op. cit., p. 259, and Petar I.
op. cit., p. 83.
^Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, pp. 166-172; ’ ’Glavari
Petru I,” Zapisi XXIII. 2 (1940). pp. 109-110.
62
Dobrota, the Montenegrin and Boka delegates proclaimed
8
the unification of Boka with Montenegro.
Conflict with Russia
The French courtship of Montenegro and the serious
consideration the Metropolitan was .giving to French offers
and promises were noticed by the Russians. Metropolitan
Peter’s intense desire to acquire Boka and Russia’s
failure to support him in these plans, prompted the Bishop
to turn a sympathetic ear to Napoleon’s proposals.
Russian agents and a few of the Bishop’s local enemies
regarded this as a fait accompli and reported to Petrograd
that ’ ’Metropolitan Peter is no longer faithful to us but
to the French.’ *^
On the basis of this meager information, the
Russian government decided to get rid of the Metropolitan
and replace him with a more ’ ’trustworthy” person. The
execution of this plan was entrusted to Marko Ivelich, a
Russian officer who had been in Montenegro in 1788, and
had participated in frustrating the Austrian mission in
the conflict of Austro-Russian interests.Ivelich was
®Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic. pp. 200-211; Dusan D.
Vuksan, ”Crna Gora u 1813 godini,” Zapisi XX, 3 (1938),
pp, 131-133; and Petar I. Popovic, op. cit., pp. 90-93.
^Lekic, op. cit., p. 146.
IQSupra, p. 50.
63
a Serb by birth and had the secret ambition of becoming
the ruling prince of Montenegro.He found a willing
aid in this scheme in the person of the priest Sava
Vucetich. This Sava was also a man of high ambition. In
order to advance his position in the church he got rid
of his wife and entered the monastic order. Now he was
ready to become a bishop, and when he and Ivelich
succeeded in deposing the Metropolitan, they would divide
the functions of authority in Montenegro.Ivelich
would become the ruling Prince of the land, and Sava
(who had now taken the monastic name of Stephen), would
be the Metropolitan. The Russians gave their full sup
port to these two adventurers in their desire to get rid
of the supposed French influence in Montenegro.
To help in the plot and to serve Russian interests
better, the Russian Holy Synod drew up a long list of
charges against Bishop Peter, requesting him to appear
before them in Petrograd and present evidence that all
these charges are not true. The ending of this letter ^
i
shows that the Synod was not interested in Peter’s |
defense or in the due process of canon law, his deposition!
was a foregone conclusion:
I
^^Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, p. 101.
^^Ibid.
^%bid., pp. 95-102.
64
And so you as a bishop, who has blundered in
his thoughts in collusion with the enemy of your
fatherland, and because of all that is above stated
which is being said about you, are not worthy of
your rank, and so as a son of the holy church and a
traitor to your fatherland, the Holy Synod shall be
forced to excommunicate you from the church, and to
call upon the people of Montenegro and the Highlands
to elect for themselves a more worthy shepherd and
to send him to Petrograd that we may consecrate
him.14
A short time before this Tsar Alexander had written
”to the people of Montenegro and the Highlands” telling
them that he was greatly concerned over the ”evil in
tentions of your local enemies,” and that he was sending
lieutenant general Duke Ivelich as his personal repre
sentative to investigate matters. The Tsar was doing this
because he was following the example of former tsars and
had taken Montenegro under his protection and mighty
defense.
Marko Ivelich arrived in Kotor (Boka) and started
his mission by writing to the various clan leaders,
sending them copies of the Tsar’s instructions which he
had received, and requesting them to meet with him in
Kotor. Only two clans sent delegates to Ivelich to see
what he wanted. All the others answered that if Ivelich
^4pxiski Sinod Mitropolitu Petru I, 16 oktobra 1803*
Zapisi XXII, 2 (1939), pp. 170-172.
15car Aleksander narodu crnogorskom i brdskom, 2
oktobra 1803. Zapisi XXII, 2 (1939), p. 170.
65
had any business with them he could come and see them in i
Montenegro# The tsar's general did not have this courage,I
but sent his subordinate, Vucetich, to carry on the
intrigue against the Metropolitan#^^
Bishop Peter and his Pravitelstvo (council of clan
leaders) wanted to get to the bottom of this disagreeable
situation and invited Ivelich to come to Cetinje and
present his case# Ivelich failed to do this, and the
17
Metropolitan and his council went into action#
The bishop's consistory reviewed the case of the
priest Vucetich and unfrocked him, after which the
Metropolitan informed the clans that Vucetich was deposed
and that ^all are to avoid him as one would stay away from
a perjurer and evil meddler who thinks only of making a
fortune with lies at the expense of the people and to
their shame, which is evident for all to see#”^®
Several long letters were also written by the
Pravitelstvo to Ivelich informing him that the people of
Montenegro were aware of his true intentions and selfish
interests, that Montenegro did not need a new prince, and
that the entire country recognized only one ruler. His
^^Vuksan, op# cit#. p. 116#
l^Tbid#
l&Poslanice, pp# 44-46.
66
Eminence the Metropolitan of Montenegro Peter I
19
Petrovich*
The master stroke was delivered by letter from the
Pravitelstvo on May 1, 1804, to His Imperial Majesty
Alexander I, which said :
We and our ancestors have always been under the
rule of the Metropolitan and under the protection
of God. • • • For three hundred years we have been
able to guard our freedom with our own arms and have
even helped other Christian countries, as all of
Europe knows. . . . All matters regarding future
relations between our two countries must come to us
through our beloved Metropolitan . . . who alone can
make binding agreements in our behalf. . . . The
unfrocked priest Vucetich and general Ivelich are
men without honor. . . . Ivelich is well known to
us for his misrepresentations and selfish interests.
. . . Our Metropolitan was never under the juris
diction of the Russian Holy Synod, but only under the
moral protection of Your Imperial Majesty. Instead
of being protected we are now being persecuted. The
Holy Synod has no authority over Bishops outside the
Russian borders, and consequently, the Synod has no
business with our Metropolitan. We request Your
Majesty to send a Russian-born delegate in our midst
who may honestly report his findings in these
matters to you.20
An answer to the letter of the Holy Synod^^ was
never sent. The Montenegrins probably considered it
below their dignity to have anything to do with a Synod
whose action was uncanonical and clearly biased.
^^Zapisi. XXII, 4 (1939), pp. 235-240.
Milorad Medakovic, Povjesnica Crnegore (Zemun,
1850), pp. 151-155.
^^Supra. p. 63.
L .
67 I
!
I
In the face of growing European tension. Tsar
Alexander decided to drop the whole matter and instructed
consul Mazurevski in Kotor to find a way to close the
affair, save the good name of Russia, and establish
friendly relations with the Montenegrins again.
Mazurevski found a scapegoat in the person of Abbot
Dolchi, accused him of being a French spy and had the
abbot arrested.Dolchi had been in Montenegro now for
several years as one of the Metropolitan's most trusted
secretaries. The man who had once advised the Metro
politan that his only true friends were the Russians^^
was now to suffer at Russian hands. The trial of Dolchi
on November 27, 1804,^^ failed to produce any real evi
dence of espionage, yet he was found guilty and sentenced
to death. The Metropolitan's intervention succeeded only
in commuting the sentence to life imprisonment. The
Bishop wrote Tsar Alexander requesting that the charges be
dropped and Dolchi pardoned, but before any answer came
25
from the Tsar, the abbot died in prison#
^^uksan, Fetar I Petrovic, pp. 135-140; and
Lekic, op. cit.. pp. 78-79.
^%upra. p. 52.
^"^"Presuda Aba tu Dolci," Zapisi XVIII, 1 (1937),
pp. 53-60.
^^Petar I. Popovic, op. cit., p. 63.
68
After Mazurevski reported that he had completed
his mission, Alexander informed Metropolitan Peter by a
special grammata that the Bishop was again in his favor,
and sent him three thousand ducats which aid had been
O A
approved earlier by Tsar Paul I. Dolchi died at the
age of 62, the only real victim of the conspiracy per
petrated by Ivelich and Vucetich who, for all their
pains, were claimed by oblivion.
The Law Code
Jurisprudence in Montenegro up to this time was a
I
very primitive concept. Justice often meant the will of |
the stronger party. Stephen the Pretender had established
a court of twelve judges, but there were no codes of law
and the judges of the land judged in accordance with |
custom and the moral concepts of the church. A judicial j
system with a written code of laws came into being as a j
result of Metropolitan Peter's desire to make Montenegro I
into a modern European state. His Code of Law was to be
used in Montenegro until 1855, not because his successors j
I
could not formulate a better one, but because it was |
regarded as a part of sacred tradition and because many
Serbs of that time had the idea that an old country does j
^^Ibid.. p. 64.
69
f
2 7 I
not need new laws. i
i
When the Metropolitan began preparing the defense I
of his country in anticipation of the war with Mahmud ^
Pasha in 1796, one of the evils which had to be dealt with
was the temptation of some Montenegrins to become in
formers.^® For some, worldly goods and prosperity still
meant more than love of country. Patriotism and national
ism was just emerging in a state where men's obligations
rarely went beyond the tribal boundary. When the clans
did unite for defense of the country, they did so for
self protection and not for national solidarity.
Metropolitan Peter called a counsil of clan
leaders on June 20, 1796, to prepare the country's plan
of defense. At this same meeting the first written law
of the land was composed, the Zakona Stega or Law
Concerning Allegiance. Actually, this was only the
beginning of later work on the law code and may be re
garded as a first project in unifying the judicial
practice of the country.
The Zakona Stega had a preamble and six paragraphs
which can be summarized as follows:
^^Radmila S. Petrovic, "Zakonik Petra I Vladike
Crnogorskog," Zapisi IV, 6 (1929), pp. 351-358.
28nQ3-innicanima," Poslanice, pp. 36-37.
70 i
Preamble: For mutual protection against the '
common foe, the Turk, we the leaders of the
Montenegrin Commonwealth in council, prescribe
as follows :
First: We swear under God that we will not
betray each other.
Second: Regardless of what place the enemy
attacks, we shall all defend it together.
Third: Any person or group who may commit
treachery may he or they be cursed and may our
blood be upon their heads.
Fourth: Such a traitor is never to be permitted
to sit with us in council nor any of his descendents
forever.
Fifth: All of the above we collectively attest
to and swear to uphold.
Sixth: Each province is to have a copy of this
Code.29
Continuing this work on the Code of Laws, the first
concept was enlarged. It contained sixteen articles and
was ratified at the people's assembly held on October 18,
1798. Five years later at another assembly held on
August 17, 1803, seventeen more articles were added.
Vuksan gives this summary of the thirty-three articles:
Art. 1 contains the penalty for traitors ; 2-10
penalties for murder, killing and wounding ; in 11 the
kidnapping of women; 12 concerns priests who would
perform wedding ceremonies for the guilty ones
mentioned in 11; Art. 13, 14 and 17 give penalties
for theft; Art. 15 deals with the priority of
purchase; Art. 16 is concerned with debts; Art. 18
is about revenge; Art. 19 is about maintaining
peace at market places; Art. 20 regulates taxes;
Art. 21 forbids duels; Art. 22-31 deals with judges
and jurisprudence; Art. 32 orders priests and clan
leaders to proclaim and explain the laws to the
^^Medakovic, op. cit.. Appendix, pp. 39-42,
gives the complete text.
L . _ .
71
people; and Art. 33 gives the duties and obligations
of a citizen toward his country.30
As an initial attempt to give the country a uniform
legislative and judicial structure the Code was a work of
skill and thorough understanding of existing conditions.
The clans, self-willed and used to independence, took a
long time in accepting the Code. Article 20, regarding
the collection of taxes was never really enforced during
the Metropolitan's lifetime. To the clans this was
tribute money which no self-respecting Montenegrin would
pay. In time, the Code was accepted, and during the time
of Peter II Petrovich, became the undisputed law of the
land.^^
The Uniate Movement in Dalmatia
Prior to the Napoleonic Wars Dalmatia was a part
of the Venetian Republic. This area, with its important
seaport of Boka, was under the jurisdiction of the
Montenegrin Archdiocese. After the fall of the Republic,
the province changed hands several times between the
French, Austrians, Russians and Montenegrins.
In 1797 the Austrian military commander of Boka,
General Brady, suggested to his government that a new
®^7uksan, Petar I Petrovic, p. 83. Medakovic,
op. cit., gives this entire Code of Laws in an appendix.
3lDragicevic, "Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori,” Zapisi
XXIII (1940), p. 93; Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, p. 197.
72
Orthodox bishop be appointed for this area in order to
diminish Montenegrin influence. On his own initiative,
the General notified Metropolitan Peter that his usual
canonical visits to the territory were now prohibited.
The Metropolitan protested, and Vienna sent General
Rukavina to investigate the controversy. On Rukavina's
recommendation, the Austrian Emperor in 1880 recognized
the Metropolitan of Montenegro as being the head of the
Orthodox church in Boka, having full freedom and authority
in the administration of his duties.®^
Conflicts between Austrian and Montenegrin
political authority in Boka continued, and on the con
stant advice of Austrian governors in Dalmatia, the
Emperor decided to end Montenegrin interests in the area.
The best solution to the problem would be to effect the
union of the Orthodox in Dalmatia with the Roman Catholic
Church. This decision of the Austrian government to
inaugurate a uniate movement was made in 1804.®® The
occupation of Dalmatia by the French temporarily suspended
Austrian activities regarding this new policy.
The French, having occupied Dalmatia, regarded the
32Dragicevic, "Guvernaduri u Crnoj Gori," Zapisi
XXIII (1940), pp. 91-92.
33gosko Strika, Dalmatinski Manastiri (Zagreb:
Merkontile, 1930), p. 55.
73
Bishop of Montenegro as a serious threat to their efforts
of consolidation* Consequently, they created the new
Diocese of Dalmatia, and on March 26, 1810, Napoleon
appointed Venedikt Kraljevich as the first bishop*®^
Kraljevich had a shady past* Consecrated in 1806
by the Phanar®^ as the Bishop of Bosnia, Kraljevich later
had to seek French protection to avoid arrest by both the
Turks and the Austrians who were seeking him for com
mitting some unlawful deeds. Assuming the jurisdiction
of his new post as Bishop of Dalmatia, Kraljevich placed
himself under the spiritual authority of the Serbian
Metropolitan Stracimirovic of Karlovci. In the organi
zation of his Diocese Bishop Venedict started off well.
He set up his headquarters in Sibenik, appointed Archi
mandrite Gerasim Zelich as his Vicar-General, and made a
tour of his ecclesiastical domain. The people were glad
to receive him as their Bishop since they had hoped to
have a diocese of their own for some time. This desire
was due to the fact that the Metropolitan of Montenegro
did not have the time or the means to visit this part of
the former Archdiocese as often as the communicants would
34ibid.^ pp. 52-54; Venedikt Kraljevich,
"Poslanica," Srpski Sion XV, 25 (Karlovci: 1904),
pp. 715-716.
®®Greek bishops collaborating with the Turks.
74
have liked him to do.^^
In 1813 Dalmatia changed hands again and the
Austrians were again in charge. In order to court favor
with the new masters and forestall his imminent depo
sition, since the Austrians regarded him as pro-French,
Kraljevich did everything in his power to cooperate with
the Austrian government. He issued proclamations and
sent letters on all sides of the Diocese asking the
people to accept and cooperate with the new authority.
He became an informer, notifying Austria of every move
made by Metropolitan Peter in his striving to bring Boka
within Montenegrin borders and under the protection of
Russia.®^
Vienna decided to continue the policy of unifying
the Orthodox with Roman Catholicism and approached Bishop
Venedikt on this subject. Kraljevich, again afraid of
arrest and deposition, secretly signed an agreement on
November 29, 1818, that he would do all in his power to
bring the Orthodox people of his diocese into union with
Rome, but keeping the external forms of Byzantine
worship.®®
36$trika, op. cit., pp. 52-54.
®^Ibid., p. 55; Vuksan, op. cit., p. 213*
^®Ljubo Vlacic, "Odluka Cara Franca I o Unijacenju
Pravoslavnih u Dalmaciji," Bogoslovlje XI, 1 (Beograd;
1937), pp. 73-75.
73 1
Kraljevich started his new action by opening up a
new theological seminary whose professors came from the
Uniate church of Galicia, and by another tour of his
diocese in order to gain new friends and confidants. But
the secret came out. Vicar-General Zelich publicly
denounced Kraljevich as incompetent, without regular
theological training, as a simonist who was a disgrace to
the church. Zelich also tried to portray Bishop Venedikt
as a secret enemy of Austria who should be deposed, and
when that would be accomplished, Zelich hoped that the
Austrian throne would remember his own valuable ser- |
v i c e s . ;
I
Bishop Venedikt's secretary. Deacon Andria Licinic,^
seized all of Venedikt's secret archives relative to the
uniate policy and took them to Metropolitan Peter. The
Metropolitan, who had ordained 120 priests serving in the
Dalmatian diocese,could exert influence through these
clergymen which made Kraljevich's position unbearable.
Taking a hand in the matter, the Metropolitan brought
pressure to bear so that the people refused to attend
3^Ljubo Vlacic, "Konfiniranje Arhimandrita Zelica
u Becu," Bogoslovlje X, 1 (Beograd: 1935), pp. 64-72.
^^Petar Rafajlovic, "Crtice iz Istorije Pravoslavne
Crkve u Boki Kotorskoj iz prve polovine XIX veka," i
Vesnik Srpske Crkve XXXIII (Septembar-Oktobar, 1928),
p. 605.
L _
76
church services when Bishop Kraljevich was present.
Finally, in 1828, Metropolitan Stracimirovic pensioned
Venedikt and his career came to an end. Just before his
death in 1862 he wrote a long statement of retraction
saying that he had never intended to leave the Orthodox
church, but documents from the Vienna archives prove
otherwise.
Bishop Peter's active anti-Kraljevich campaign
brought new difficulties from the Austrians with respect
to Montenegro. New regulations were issued on the part
of Dalmatian governors prohibiting all correspondence withj
Montenegro, forbidding marriages between residents of j
Montenegro and Dalmatia, and closing the border to all ^
travel and commerce. The governor also tried to confis-
I
cate the properties of the Monastery Maine and Stanjevic, .
located on Dalmatian land, but given to the Metropolitans '
of Montenegro more than a century ago by the Venetian j
Republic.In all these efforts Austria ultimately ■
failed. Due to the active interest of Metropolitan Peter !
and the unshakable devotion of the 70,000 Orthodox people |
in Dalmatia, the uniate movement failed miserably. ■
I
Bishop Venedikt Kraljevich, however, will live in Serbian I
church history as the only bishop of the Serbian church !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : --------------------- i
^^Vlacic, "Odluka Cara Franca , . ." p. 73.
^2vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, pp. 261-263.
77
to seek the jurisdiction of Rome after the Great Schism
of 1054.
The Insurrection in Serbia
The Serbian insurrection under Kara George Petro
vich broke out in 1804. Fighting for national liberation
from the Turks, the Serbian rebellion had its times of
victory and defeat, but at last succeeded in establishing
a free state under the Obrenovich dynasty in 1817. During
this entire period. Metropolitan Peter was in constant
contact with the leaders in Serbia.^®
Several years before the revolt actually broke out,
contacts were established between the Serbs living in
Serbia, under the Turkish yoke, and those in Austria and
Montenegro.The Serbs of these last two countries,
living in freedom, contributed the necessary supplies,
money and volunteer detachments. A letter from Metro
politan Peter to the Abbot of Dechani Monastery advises
him to guard the valuable monastic property since: "the
Montenegrins and Serbs from the Belgrade side intend to
43jagos Jovanovic, "Crnogorsko-srpski odnosi za
vrijeme Prvog srpskog ustanka," Zapisi IX, 2 (1953),
pp. 325—340.
^^Ibid.. p. 324.
78 i
rise in arms against our enemies the Turks." I
When the rebellion in Serbia broke out, Metro- j
politan Peter could not send military aid. His troops |
were occupied in the war with the French and Austrians |
in the campaign to acquire the seaport of Boka. Contact
between the two leaders, the Bishop of Montenegro and
Kara George of Serbia, however, was constantly main
tained.^^ The Russians also complicated matters in their
efforts to forestall an alliance between France and the
Ottoman Empire. They refused to aid the insurrection at
first, advising the Serbs to keep the peace. At this
time Metropolitan Peter proposed a plan for the creation
of a Slavic-Serbian Empire composed of Montenegro,
Hercegovina and Dalmatia under the crown of Russia* The
actual governor of this new state would be a president
appointed by the Tsar, aided by a vice-president who
would be the Metropolitan. The Tsar rejected the proposal
on the grounds that Russia had more important problems and
could not take this action at the timeWhen the war
between Russia and the allied forces of France and Turkey
45ibid.. pp. 326-327.
Lekic, op. cit.. pp. 199-200; Konstantin N.
Nenadovic, Zivot x Dela Velikog Djordja Petrovica Kara
Djordja (Beograd: Savic i Komp., 1883), p. 286.
^^Lekic, op. cit., p. 214.
79 1
broke out, Russia sent troops into Serbia and Montenegro* j
The Metropolitan then issued a call to arms, and a
joint plan of attack, converging on Hercegovina, was put
into operation* The Montenegrins and Russians moved
north, while Kara George with Russian reinforcements
moved south. The plan to liberate Hercegovina failed
because of strong resistance offered by the French and
Turkish armies in the area.
Russia concluded peace with the Turks in Bucharest
on May 16, 1812, and withdrew her forces from Serbia.
The Turks then attacked Kara George with great force and
completely defeated the insurgent Serbs. Kara George
took refuge in Austria, having lost all the gains made in
the terrible struggle against overwhelming Turkish odds.49
During the last years of his life, 1827-1830, the
Metropolitan kept up an active contact with Prince Milos
Obrenovich of Serbia, hoping for an opportunity when the
Serbs and Montenegrins could join forces again and liber
ate all of the Serbs still in Turkish bondage in Bosnia
and Hercegovina.®^
^^Poslanice, pp. 81-82.
^^Nenadovic, op. cit., p. 317.
®^ikola Skerovic, "Iz Odnosa Crne Gore i Srbije
1827-1830," Zapisi X (1957), pp. 31-46.
CHAPTER V
1814-1830
The Great Tragedy
On Jauiuary 12, 1814, the French garrison of Boka
Kotorska capitulated. The concerted attacks of the
Montenegrin army from the land, and British naval units
under the command of Captain Hoste from the sea, brought
about the French defeat. After the Montenegrins occupied
the area, and the French maxch&d out under the terms of
surrender, the British sailed away. The Congress of
Dobrota, composed of Montenegrin and Boka delegates,
proclaimed the unification of the two territories. A
conflict soon arose between the Orthodox and Roman
Catholic inhabitants of Boka. The Orthodox, who numbered
about two-thirds of the population wanted unification
with Montenegro. The Roman Catholics, led by Abbot
Brunaci, desired Austrian citizenship. Metropolitan
Peter wrote to Tsar Alexander I, informing him of the
successful enterprise and placing himself at the disposal
of the Russian government. The Bishop was sure that the
Russians would sanction the unification of Boka and
Montenegro.^
Jagos Jovanovic, Stvar^je Crnogorske Drzave i
Razvoj Crnogorske Nacionalnosti^(Cetinje; Obod. 1947),
pp. 189-195; Lekic, op. cit., pp. 281-284.
81
Austria, however, had other plans, and sent
General Milutinovic at the head of an army to occupy
Boka. The Metropolitan informed Milutinovic that he
had already occupied the seaport and was keeping the
peace, suggesting that before the Austrians go any
further, they await the decision of the allies. However,
Milutinovic paid no attention to the Bishop's plea. His
troops pressed forward and entered the area by force,
killing some two hundred Montenegrins in the action.
The ^k)ntenegrin forces vastly outnumbered the Austrians
and could have defeated them with ease, but Bishop Peter,
to avoid further bloodshed, withdrew across the border.
He was confident that Russia would confirm Boka's desire
for unification with Montenegro.
The reply from the Russian Tsar was received in
September. The letter was written in Paris on May 20,
1814, and said:
Since my allies and I have established the
peace with God's help, I did not forget to think
of the people in Boka, and so we are in agreement
to place the Boka province under the wing of the
Austrian palace which is her nearest neighbor. We
know that you, with your courageous Montenegrins,
have helped to force the enemy out of Boka, and so
we are informing you, for the common good of the
people there, not only to permit the Austrian army
2
Jovanovic, op. cit.» p. 194.
82
to enter the towns, but to advise the people of
Boka to be obedient to us and for their own
benefit not to defy the Austrian crown.®
Tsar Alexander had given in to the demands of
Prince Metternich by giving Boka to Austria, The
Montenegrins received nothing, not even a polite expres
sion of gratitude. After the battle of Kossovo in 1389,
the loss of Boka was regarded as the greatest national
tragedy of Montenegrin history.^
Alexander had the opportunity to give this seaport
to Montenegro, which was her life-line to commerce, with
a stroke of the pen, and to repay the small nation for
all the blood and tears spilled in Russia's service for
a century. Instead, he sacrificed a loyal comrade for
the false friendship of a nation which would contribute
to the fall of his dynasty a hundred years later.
The disappointment of the Metropolitan reached to
the lowest depths of pathos. In the hope that Alexander
might change his mind. Bishop Peter wrote him several
letters. He also wrote to the Tsar's advisers, pointing
out the dangers of this decision and reminding them of
Montenegro's vital needs. Only one of the advisers.
®Dusan Vuksan, "Drugi ulazek Austrijanaca u Boku
i posledice," Zapisi XXIV, 3 (1940), p. 130.
^ladan Djordjevic, Crna G or a i Austri ja 1814-
1894 (Beograd: Srpska Kraljevska Akademija Nauka i
üraetnosti, Knjiga XLIX, 1924), pp. 3-4,
L .
83 I
Stakelberg, answered and said that the Bishop should be j
1
careful not to upset the important unity between the |
c
imperial houses because of "minor matters." The Tsar,
of course, never did answer, but ordered the suspension
of the small annual stipend which was being sent to the
Metropolitans of Montenegro since the days of Peter the
Great as an aid to needy churches.
After the Napoleonic Wars Europe suffered from
famine. Montenegro, with her borders closed by Austria,
was on the verge of annihilation by hunger. Disorder
and chaos reigned on all sides. The nation was contem
plating mass migration. Some families went to Russia, a
greater number moved into Serbia where they were warmly
welcomed and given every aid in making a new life.^ Many,
especially the Guvernadur's pro-Austrian party, blamed
the Metropolitan for all their misfortunes. In order to
restore discipline and control, the Council of Clan
Leaders deposed the Guvernadur in 1818 and issued a
statement re-affirming the Metropolitan's supreme
o
authority in the land* This action brought the people
®Vuksan, "Drugi ulazak Austrijanaca . . ."
pp. 130-133; Lekic, op. cit., p. 284*
^Vuksan, "Drugi ulazak Austrijanaca . . ." p. 133.
^Nikola Skerovic, "Iz Odnosa Crne Gore i Srbije,"
Zapisi IX, 1-2 (1956), pp. 296-298.
Q
Vuksan, Petar I Petrovic, pp. 289-290.
84
to their senses, the clans now helped each other, the
rich shared with the poor, and peace and order were again
restored.
This period was probably one of greatest trial for
Montenegro. But the untiring work and teaching of the
good Bishop had taken root. The spirit of nationalism
and unselfish cooperation now saved the Montenegrin state
from complete ruin.^
The Metropolitan's Last Years
The Metropolitan suffered deep disappointment at
the hands of Russia whose attitude toward him and his
people had always been one of unscrupulous opportunism.
Yet Peter did not falter in his loyalty to the Russiam
crown. He kept writing to Petrograd up to his last
days, hoping that the Tsar would sincerely look upon the
suffering Montenegrins and help them in their hour of
need. At every opportunity the Bishop told his people
that Russian aid was not far off, that soon the Tsar
would send his official representative, and that Russian
protection would be assured. This, of course, did not
ID
take place.
%uksan, Petar I Petrovic, pp. 252-290.
^^Lekic, op. cit., pp. 299-300.
85
The last years of the Metropolitan's life were
spent on further internal organization and alleviation of
deplorable conditions. Infirm with age, the Bishop was
no longer able to visit the villages himself, but he kept
up a close contact with all of them through his corres
pondence and messengers. The Foslanice, epistles, are
full of his fatherly advice on many matters of vital con
cern to the various clans. Since there were no state
funds, he approved the replacement of the courts by the
kuluk, whereby clan leaders dispensed justice.^^
An adventurer and outlaw from Serbia appeared in
Montenegro in 1819 representing himself as the monk
! Avakum. He went from clan to clan inciting the people
I against the Turks and preaching a crusade against Islam.
! The Bishop wrote to the clans regarding this imposter and
said:
I am sending you this letter in respect to that
monk, Avakum • • « who is being respected by some
single folk as a saint and miracle-worker . . . if
he were a saint he would not be asking for war since
saints pray God for peace . * ♦ None of the saints
were ever venerated during their life time. . . .
It is strange that a man who talks so much of his
own courage has others go and kill Veli-aga. . .
If he really wants to fight, let him go to Turkey,
but he must not make war on the Turks from our
land. • . • Even if the Turks are not baptised, they
are people from Adam and Eve, and just like we and
others, were created by God. God commands that we
^^Foslanice, p. 177.
86
kill no one, and especially when they do us no
harm and when there is no war* • • • I tell you,
put this man to flight so that he may leave our
country.
. . . I am also warning you that the plague
has appeared in Stitare. I beseech you by Almighty
God to take the necessary precautions.12
Clergymen in the days of Metropolitan Peter were
the natural leaders of their people in peace and in war.
In times of war they recruited men, trained them, and
held posts of military command. Forbidden to kill with
their own hands upon the penalty of unfrocking, they
planned military operations, encouraged their fighters,
succored the wounded, and gave burial services for the
dead. Under such conditions the clergymen dressed and
: 13
! carried arms just like all the other warriors. Due to
I the perilous conditions the Metropolitan did not question
these practices in times of national emergency, but in
times of peace he insisted that the ministers of Christ
look and live like priests of the church. He ordered
them to grow beards, wear cassocks, and behave like true
pastors*^^
^^Poslanice, pp. 128-130.
^®Weapons were considered a part of every-day dress
and were carried by all men. Priests wore secular cloth- !
ing in order not to attract the special attention of the
enemy who would try to kill the leaders first.
^^oslanice. pp. 72-75.
L .
87
Perhaps one of the finest and shortest directives
ever issued by a bishop to his clergy was accomplished in
these words of the Metropolitan:
Monks are to attend to their church and monastic
duties and are not to interfere in the work of
parish priests, . • • and priests of the secular
order are to administer to the needs of their flocks
for which they will answer to God Himself at the
terrible court of judgment in the day of Christ's
second coming . • • Priests should be a mirror and
a light to the people, shepherds and teachers,
leaders and guides of the human flock of Christ,
who lead and guid Christians on the road to
salvation, giving them an example in this with
their own good life and work which is pleasing unto
God.15
In Kotor the Serbs had acquired a former Roman
Catholic church which was converted into the Cathedral of
Saint Nicholas. The Metropolitan had learned that some
time prior to this some noblemen had fought a duel in the
church and that blood had been spilled. When asked to
consecrate the Cathedral, the Metropolitan refused,
saying: "only fire can consecrate that church." The
dedication service was conducted then by the Vicar-General
of Dalmatia, Zelich. Long after the Metropolitan's death,
on a Christmas Day, the Cathedral burned down to the
ground.No doubt some people thought this was due to
Saint Peter's curse.
With his neighbors, the Metropolitan tried to
15Ibid.
l^ibid.. p. 75.
88
maintain peace at all costs* The Turks were amiable and
gave hardly any trouble. Most of the difficulties came
from the Austrians who were constantly inventing new
regulations which caused border clashes. The Metropolitan
was aware that his people were the victims of the power-
politics of his day, so he cautioned them to keep the
peace and wait for the day of reckoning. In order to
keep the peace. Bishop Peter gave in to many Austrian
demands, including the loss of some territory in disputes
over territorial boundaries. But in matters which
involved the sovereignty of the state. Bishop Peter and
his Council were adamant. Montenegro would never be a i
servile province. !
i
A few years before his death Austria tried to I
I I
compromise the aging Montenegrin Prelate. Knowing of his
financial difficulties. General Tomasich, governor of j
Kotor, offered the Bishop money from the Austrian treasury^
The Bishop was to sign a receipt for all such funds j
received. The plan of the Austrians was to publish these |
receipts later on and expose the Bishop as an Austrian I
agent. This plan would have probably worked, except that j
the Metropolitan did not rise to the bait. He refused |
I
this "benevolence" from the Austrian crown with a polite
i
^^Vuksan, op. cit., pp. 268-274. ,
89
expression of gratitude for their "kind" thoughts.^® j
An important meeting of clan leaders was called by |
the Metropolitan in 1823 to decide who was to be his I
successor. On his recommendation the Bishop's nephew, |
!
George Savov Petrovich, was elected. George took monastic
vows, was ordained a deacon, and sent to Russia to study
theology. After some time George decided that he would
not be happy in the church. With his uncle's permission
he entered a military school. The Metropolitan was
convinced that George was not the right Petrovich to take
19
over the reins of the church and state. Rade Tomov
Petrovich was later elected as Metropolitan Peter's suc
cessor.®^
The Metropolitan's Personality
The high regard and esteem in which the Metro
politan was held by most Montenegrins is already evident.
A few foreigners who came in contact with him have left
their izcpressions of the Montenegrin Bishop in their j
memoirs. Among these were two Frenchmen, General j
i
____________________________________________________: ________ i
p. 319. I
I
^^ladan Djordjevic, op. cit., p. 29. I
®^Infra, p. 93.
r 90
i
o 1 2 2
j Marmont and Colonel Vialla*
I General Marmont found the Metropolitan a man of
firm character who was mannerly, noble smd dignified#
Vialla wrote that the Bishop of Montenegro was polite,
educated and very hospitable and enjoyed a very fine
reputation# From the memoirs of a Russian naval officer,
23
Vladimir Bronevski^ the Metropolitan appears as a man
well versed in military tactics and strategy. T. G.
Jackson, who visited Montenegro in 1880 and spent some
time there studying the country, wrote the following
with regard to Bishop Peter: **It is probable that few
saints have deserved so well of their country as this
martial bishop. . . ."^4
There can be little doubt that Metropolitan Peter
had tremendous strength of character, wisdom and will
power# The fact that he could impose his will on a
21poslanice, p# 27, quotes Serbian translation
taken from: Marmont, Les Mémoires du Duc de Raguse
(Paris: 1857), Vol. II, p. 376, and Vol. III, p# 58.
^^Zapisi XIII, 5 (1935), p. 282, quotes Serbian
translation taken from L.C. Vialla de Sommiers, Voyage
historique et politique au Montenegro (Paris: 1820),
Vol. I , Chap, 28, ^ Le wladika, du Eveque du Montenegro#**
23
Lekic, op. cit., p# 216, quotes from: Bronevski,
Memoari pomorskog oficira^ T. I., p. 263#
^^T.G. Jacks on, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1887), Vol. III, p. 62.
91
I
stubborn people who refused to bow to the greatest powers j
of Europe, should be ample evidence of his talents and |
genius*
i
Last Will and Testament
On October 31, 1830, the Metropolitan of Montenegro,
Peter I, died quietly of old age. His last will and
testament, written the day before his death, was read at
the funeral service.
This last document of Bishop Peter first requests
all, the great and the small, to forgive him for any
harms or injuries inflicted upon any of them, just as he
forgives all those who worked against him. He implores
the clan leaders to swear upon his dead body to keep the
peace and do away with private feuds and vengeance for
ever. As his successor the Bishop recommends for the
people's consideration his nephew. Rade Tomov Petrovich,
whom he believes to be the best suited for this position.
He states that not one penny of the money received from
Russia in by-gone days was ever spent for his personal
needs. All funds are accounted for and were used for the
purposes designated by the donor. A heavy anathema is
laid upon all those who would try to alienate Montenegro
from Russia. He closes with a general episcopal blessing
upon all good and loyal Montenegrins and their descendents
92 ■
who abide by his last wishes
Djordjevic, op. cit., pp. 31-33.
CHAPTER VI
THE AFTERMATH
The Hew Ruler of Montenegro
Immediately after the funeral of Peter I Petrovich,
the clan leaders and the clergy proclaimed Rade Tomov
Petrovich as the new ruler of Montenegro. He was taken
into the church where the young man made his monastic
vow, after which a document was drawn up and signed by
all the leaders, giving testimony that Rade Tomov was
legally elected as the sovereign of the land. Guvernadur
Vuko Radonich was the last to sign* The new master of
Montenegro was about nineteen years of age and started
his reign as a simple monk. Later he became an Archi
mandrite, and in 1833 was the first Montenegrin to be
consecrated a bishop in Russia* At the time of his entry
into the monastic order, he took the name of Peter. He
is known in history as Metropolitan Peter II Petrovich
Canonization of Peter I
It is theoretically assumed in the Eastern
Orthodox Church that every bishop has the right to
canonize worthy persons who have departed this life* This
teaching is different from that of the Roman Catholic
Church, where:
94
The promulgation of saints, canonization, formerly
the right of all bishops, was now, after 1171, ^
reserved as an exclusive prerogative of the pope*
In actual practice, however, most of the canonization
proceedings in the Eastern Church were carried out by
Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Synods. The action in this
resect of any one of these is binding only upon the area
over which such a Bishop or Synod holds jurisdiction*
Thus each one of the national Orthodox churches, in
addition to venerating the saints from early church
history which they all commonly recognize, has its own
particular cultus or catalogue of national saints.
I
There is no prescribed ritual of canonization in |
the Orthodox church * This is an administrative action j
whereby the worthy person is canonized by proclamation, ^
after which a liturgy in honor of the new saint is j
3 I
composed. Canonization in the Eastern church is effected
by the ’ 'including or numbering of the name of the departed
person, known for his exemplary religious life, into the
catalogue or canon of saints. Before this can take
place an investigation must be made which would consider
^Jevsevije Popovic, op. cit.* I, p. 185.
Mirkovic, «üverstenje despota Stevana
Lazarevica u red svetitelja,** Bogoslovlje II, 3 (1927),
p. 165.
^Ibid.. p. 163.
^Ibid.
the following points:
1* Martyrdom. Martyrs are eo ipso saints by
virtue of their suffering and death for Christ.
2. Miracle. Miracles performed by the worthy
person himself, or those occurring in correlation
with his grave, or some article formerly in his
possession.
3. Preservation. The miraculous and super
natural preservation of the earthly remains which
must be whole and completely intact.
4. Orthodoxy. Life long confession of, and
adherence to, the Orthodox faith.
5. Virtue. A life spent in moral excellence and
in the practice of Christian virtues
The investigating Bishop or Synod, being satisfied
that all of the above have been fulfilled, will then
place the worthy departed member in its catalogue of
sanctified persons.^
Metropolitan Peter I was buried in the ground
under the Monastery Church of Cetinje. No protective
measures were taken according to later written testi
mony.^ Several years later repairs on the church were
started. Since the church was small it was decided to
move the bones of the late Metropolitan to another place,
and so exactly four years after the burial, Peter's
grave was opened. His body, clothed in bishop's vest
ments and "odorous with sweet smelling holy oil"
^Ibid.. p. 167.
^Ibid.
'D. Vuksan, "Izjava prota Joka Spadiera o Sv.
Petru Cetinjskom," Zapisi XVII, 1-6 (1937), pp. 58-60.
96 ^
reportedly was found to be wholly intact.^ The people, j
who still remembered the good life of the Metropolitan, I
I I
were now sure that he was a saint. The new Metropolitan,!
after satisfying himself as to the other qualifications
for sanctification, proclaimed Peter I Petrovich a saint
of the Serbian church in Montenegro.^
The new saint was recognized by the entire
Serbian Church. The 1861 Belgrade edition of the
Srbljak, the book of liturgical services used in cele
brating the holidays of the Serbian Saints, on the other
side of the title page, notes that the service for Saint
Peter, Metropolitan of Montenegro, is not included
because his liturgy was not yet composed. This service
was written later and separately published in Moscow in
1895. The Saint's earthly remains repose today in a
sepulcher in the Monastery of Cetinje, which has become
a popular shrine for many pilgrims.
Conclusion
Saint Peter of Montenegro was one of the great
leaders of his people whose life and work has been
recorded on the golden pages of Serbian history. At a
^Ibid., p. 59.
^Vuk. St. Karadzic, Crna Gora i Boka Kotorska
(Beograd: Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga XXIV, l61, 19^2),
p. 52.
97
time when the greater portion of the Serbian people were
under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire, Peter's Montenegro
was the only free province which kept the hope for free
dom alive. As the head of a theocratic state, he enjoyed
the love and respect of the vast majority of his subjects,
which in itself is an exception rather than the rule of
theocratic government.
Under his guidance unorganized barbaric clans were
gradually transformed into a national unit having its
central government and ultimately conforming to law and
order. Here is another example of the Christian church,
working through one of its bishops, bringing a people to
a higher cultural level and closer to Occidental civili-
j
zation. Considering the time and place in which Saint j
Peter labored, it may be concluded that he accomplished
his task well, having left Montenegro a better place
than he had found it.
B I B L I O GR A PH Y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
1, Documents•
Vuksan, Dusan D. (ed.). Petar I Petrovic Njegos-
Poslamice Crnogorcima, Brdjanima i Mimorcima.
Ce tinje: Obod, 1^55.
The episcoal epistles of Peter I Petrovich to the
Montenegrins, Highlanders and People on the Coast.
These documents were taken from the government
archives at Cetinje, Montenegro, and published.
, Jagos Jovanovic, Mirceta Djurovic, et al. (eds.).
Istoriski Zapisi. Cetinje: 1929, 1935-1941, 1948-
l- g- gy— K--
These monthly publications of the Cetinje Histori
cal Society contain about 1,100 pages of documents,
letters, narratives and studies relative to Peter I
Petrovich.
2. Biographies, Studies and Articles*
D j or d j evic, VI adain . Crna Gora i Austrija 1814-1894.
Beograd: Srpska Kraljevska Akademxja Nauka i
Umetnosti, Knjiga XLIX, 1924.
A study of Austro-Montenegrin relations especial
ly regarding the claims of both to Boka Kotorska.
Dobricanin, Sekula. "Petar I Sveti Petrovic," in Glasnik
Srpske Prayoslavne Crkve, Beograd: September, 1950.
A good biographical sketch of Saint Peter I
Petrovich.
Kraijevic, Venedikt. "Poslanica," in Srpski Sion, Godina
XV, Broj 25. Karlovci: 1904, pp. 715-716:#
The general epistle of Bishop Benedict Kraijevich
informing the people of Dalmatia that he is now their
first Bishop, thus, they are no longer under the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Montenegro.
Lekic, Dusan. Spoljna Politika Petra I Petrovic Njegosa,
(1784-1830). Cetinje; Biblioteka Istorijskog
Instituta N. R. Crne Gore, 1950.
An important work on the foreign policy of Peter
I Petrovich. The study is supported by documentary
references to Austrian and French archives.
100
Lipovac, Jovan. "Prilog poznavanju odoosaja austrisko-
crnogorskih za vlade mitropolita Petra II Petrovica
Njegosa," in Bogoslovlje, Godina IV, Sveska 4,
Beograd: 1929, pp. 298-302.
Contains information on the canonization of Peter
I Petrovich and how Austria tried to stop its
subjects from visiting the shrine of the newly pro
claimed saint.
Medakovich, Milorad. Povjestnica Crnegore od najstarijeg
vremena do 1830. Zemun: 1850.
One of the oldest histories of Montenegro, from
its earliest times up to 1830. Appendix contains the
full text of the Code of Laws as formulated by
Peter I Petrovich.
Mihailo, Metropolitan of Serbia. Sluzba ize vo svjatih
ocu nasemu Mitropolitu Bogomudromu Gospodaru Cerno-
gori Petru Pervomu Cudotvorcu Cetinjskomu. Moskva:
1895.
A liturgy in Church-Slavonic for celebrating the
holiday of St. Peter I, Master and Metropolitan of
Montenegro, with an interesting hagiography.
Popovic, Petar I. Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II.
Beograd: Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga Kolo XLVI, Knjiga
316, 1951.
A study of conditions in Montenegro during the
reign of the two Metropolitans Peter I and Peter II.
Rafajlovic, Petar. "Crtice iz Istorije Pravoslavne
Crkve u Boki Kotorskoj iz prve polovine XIX veka,"
Vesnik Srpske Crkve, XXXIII (September-October)
1928, pp. 602-611.
Historic sketches concerning the clergy of the
Serbian Orthodox Church and the Uniate movement in |
Boka during the first half of the nineteenth '
century.
Strika, Bosko. DaImatinski Manastiri. Zagreb: j
Merkontile, 1930.
A study of Dalmatian Monasteries containing refer - I
ences to Peter I Petrovich and his time.
Vlacic, Ljubo, "Konfiniranje Àrhimandrita Zelica u Becu,^^
in Bogoslovlje, Godina X, Svezak 1, Beograd: 1935,
pp. 64-72.
An article on the arrest of the priest. Archi
mandrite Zelich, Vicar-General of Dalmatia. Contains ;
correspondence and documents relative to the Uniate
movement.
101
Vlacic, Ljubo. "Odluka Cara Franca I o Unijacenju
Pravoslavnih u Dalmaciji," Bogoslovlje, Godina XI,
Svezak 1, Beograd: 1937, pp. 64-82,
A study based on the decree of the Austrian
emperor Francis I which sought to bring the Orthodox
Church of Dalmatia under the Papacy.
"Petrovic Petar II Njegos," Bogoslovlje,
Godina XI, Svezak 2, Beograd: 1937, pp. 173-188.
An article containing some information on how it
became possible to establish a theocracy in Monten
egro, especially in the time of Peter I Petrovich.
Vuksan, Dusan D. Petar I Petrovic Njegos i Njegovo Doba.
Cetinje; Istoriski Institut, 1951.
The most complete and detailed biography published
up to now on Peter I Petrovich.
Secondary Sources
1. Books and Articles on Montenegro. !
Devine, Alex. Montenegro in History, Politics, and War. |
New York: n.d.
Gladstone, W. E. "Montenegro, or Tsernagora, A Sketch," '
in The Nineteenth Century, (May, 1877). Re-printed
by Palandech's Publishing House of Chicago in a ;
separate brochure, n.d.
Gopcevic, Spiridon. Geschichte von Montenegro und |
Albanion. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes A, G.,
1914.
A good historical study by a German scholar who
knew his subject well.
Jovanovic, Jagos. Styaranje Crnogorske Drzave i Razvoj
Crnogorske Nacionalnosti. Cetinje: Obod, 1947.
A history of Montenegro from the beginning of the
eighth century of 1918, written from a Communistic
point of view.
Karadzic, Vuk Stefanovic. Crna Gora i Boka Kotorska.
Beograd: Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga, 1922.
A Serbian translation of his earlier work:
Montenegro und die Montenegriner, ein Beitrag zur
Kenntniss der europaischen Turkei und des serbischen
Volkes. Stuttgart: 1837.
102
Kostic, Lazo M. Fravni Institut! u Njegosevim Pesmama.
Melbourne: Srpska Misao, 1958.
An interesting study on Montenegrin legal ideas
and institutions as revealed in Njegosh's poetry*
Miller, William* The Balkans, Roumania, Bulgaria,
Servia and Montenegro. New York: G* P. Putnam's Sons,
1896.
The section on Montenegro deals with the general
history of this Serbian province.
Nike evic, Tomica. Politicke Struje u Crnoj Gori u
Procesu Stvaranja Drzave u XIX Vijeku* Cetinje:
Narodna Knjiga, 19587
A study of negative political influences in
Montenegro which kept that country from becoming a
unified state.
Nyegosh, P. P. The Mountain Wreath. Trans. James W.
Wiles. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1930*
Translation of Peter II Petrovich's classic ballad.
Introductory section and appendix contains valuable
material on the history and customs of Montenegro.
Radosavovic, Ilija. Medjunarodni Polozaj Crne Gore u XIX
Vijeku. ' Beograd: 1960.
The international position of Montenegro in the
nineteenth century is discussed by a modern scholar.
Stevenson, Francis Seymour. A History of Montenegro.
London, n.d.
A history touching on the highlights of the past
in Montenegro written in all probability during the
first World War.
Vesovic, R. "Teokratizam i Njegovi Odjeci u Istoriji
Crne Gore," in Cetinje i Crna Gora, Beograd: Izdanje
Profesorskog Drustva, 1927. j
A study on the rise of theocracy in Montenegro. I
Wyon, Reginald, and Gerald Prance. The Land of the Black
Mountain. London: Methuen & Company, 1905. I
A travelogue through Montenegro written by two
! English newspaper men.
2. General Works.
Brodhead, J. Milliken Napier. Slav and Moslem. Aiken,
I S. C.: Aiken Publishing Company, 1894.
I i
103
Background material on how the Turco-Russian wars
affected the Serbian people and their history.
Byron, Robert. The Byzantine Achievement. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1929.
De Laveleye, Emile. The Balkan Peninsula. Trans. Mrs.
Thorpe. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1887.
Dimitrijevic, St. M. "Kratak pregled istorije Pecske
Patrijarsije," Ustolicenje Nj. Svetosti Patrijarha
Dimitrija u Peci. Beograd: Drzavna Stamparija, 1924.
A short history of the Serbian Patriarchate of
Pech.
Djurkovic, Vukadin S. Odnosi izmedju Srpstva i Rusije
1185-1903. Beograd: A.M. Stojanovxc, 1903.
Relations between Serbia and Russia between
1185 and 1903.
Ducic, Nicifor. Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve.
Beograd: 1894.
A history of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Every, George. The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204.
London: S P C K, 1947.
Grujic, Radosav M. Istorija Hriscanske Crkve. Beograd:
Geca Kon, 1920. À history of the Christian church,
with a section on Serbian church history.
Hussey, J.M. Church and Learning in the Byzantine
Empire 867-1185. London: Oxford University Press,
1937.
Jackson, T.G. Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria. 3 vols.!
Oxford; The Clarendon Press, 1887*
Jirecek, Konstantin. Istorija Srba. 4 vols. Beograd:
Geca Kon, 1922.
A history of the Serbian people.
Latimer, Elizabeth W. Russia and Turkey in the Nine
teenth Century. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co., 1894.
Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich. Prince, The Servian People#
Their Past Glory and their Destiny. 2 vols.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910.
Marjanovic, Ceda. Istorija Srpske Crkve. Beograd:
104
Biblioteka Savremenih Religiozno-Moralnih Fitanja,
1929.
A history of the Serbian church.
Nenadovic, Konstantin N. Zivot i Dela Velikog Djordja
Petrovica-Kara Djordja. Beograd: Savic i Komp.,
1883.
The life and work of Kara George Petrovich,
leader of the Serbian insurrection, 1804-1813.
Novakovic, Stojan (ed.). Zakonik Stefana Dusana.
Beograd: Drzavna Stamparija, 1898*
The law code of Eixperor Stephen Dushan.
Obolensky, Dmitri. The Bogomils. Cambridge : The Univer
sity Press, 1948.
Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State.
Trans. Joan HusseyT Oxford; Basil Blackwell, 1956.
Petrovich, Woislav M. Serbia, Her People. History, and
Aspirations. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co.,
1915.
Popovic, Jevsevije. Opca Crkvena Istorija. Trans*
Mojsije Stojkov. 2 vols. Sremski Karlovci:
Manastirska Stamparija, 1912.
A general history of the Christian church with a
large section on the church in Serbian provinces.
Radonic, Jovan. Sveti Sava i Njegovo Doba. Sremski
Karlovci: Manastirska Stamparija, 1935.
The life and times of Saint Sava.
Ranke, Leopold. A History of Servia. Trans. Mrs.
Alexander Kerr. London: John Murray, 1847.
Rankin, Reginald. The Inner History of the Balkan War.
London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1914.
t
Slijepcevic, Djoko. Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve.
Munich: Iskra, 1962.
A history of the Serbian church covering the
period from the conversion of the Serbs to the end
of the eighteenth century.
Spinka, Matthew. A History of Christianity in the
j Balkans. Chicago: The American Society of Church
I History, 1933.
I
Stanojevic, St. Istorija Srpskoq Naroda. Beograd:______
105
Stamparija "Dositej Obradovic," 1908*
A history of the Serbian people*
Stanojevic, St* Sveti Sava# Beograd: Drzavna Stamparija,
1935.
A biography of Saint Sava.
_______ • Vizantija i Srbi* 2 vols. Novi Sad: Matica
Srpska, 1906.
A study of relations between the Serbs and the
Byzantine Empire*
Stead, Alfred (ed.). Servia by the Servians. London:
William Heinemann, 1909.
Stefanovic, Teofilo. Poznavanje Crkve ili Obredoslovlje.
Beograd: Prosveta, 1895.
An explanation of the rituals in the Orthodox
church.
Temperley, Harold W.V. History of Serbia. London:
G. Bell and Sons Ltd., 1919.
Velimirovich. Bishop Nicholai. The Life of Saint Sava.
Libertyvilie, Illinois: TheSerbian Eastern
Orthodox Diocese, 1951.
Vuckovic* Jovan. Sveti Sava. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska,
1902.
A biography of Saint Sava.
(InlTerelty of Southern California

Asset Metadata

Creator Mrvichin, Vladimir Milan (author)

Core Title Saint Peter of Montenegro

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Arts

Publisher University of Southern California (original)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-370530

Unique identifier UC11313353

Identifier EP65294.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-370530 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP65294.pdf

Dmrecord 370530

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mrvichin, Vladimir Milan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA