International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Kyrill Pavlikianov
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”,
Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology, Sofia, Bulgaria; 
[e-mail]
False Chrysobull Attributed to Tsar Stephen Dušan 
in the Archives of the Athonite Monastery of Zographou 
(Date in the Text April 1346, actually Falsified between 1366 and 1378)
Based on this false charter, Zographou was the legal possessor of the village of Chandax near 
the Strymon, and its estates in and around Chandax enjoyed all the privileges which had been 
granted to their previous owner, an unnamed grand 
konostaulos
. After the region was annexed by 
Stephen Dušan, Chandax
 
was taken from the Bulgarian monastery and was given to another user. 
Soon afterwards Dusan was requested by the Bulgarian Tsar, John Alexander, to restore Chandax 
to Zographou and to corroborate this restoration with a chrysobull. Dušan satisfied this request 
and restored Chandax to Zographou, confirming the monastery’s right to exploit the water mills 
around the village and to collect fees from all the boats calling at its wharf. Dušan also exempted 
Zographou estates at Chandax from the 
sitarkia
tax which amounted to 50 
hyperpyra 
(10 
hyperpyra 
of this sum are said to have been previously delivered to the fiscal authorities of Thessalonica, while 
the remaining 40 to the tax authorities of Serrhai). Dušan declared Chandax and all the villages and 
zeugelateia
of Zographou exempt from the taxes 
phonos
, 
parthenophthoria
, 
aerikon
, 
sitarkia
, 
orike
, 
kastroktisia
, 
charagma, ennomion
for sheep and swine, 
melissoennomion
, 
choirodekatia
, 
mitaton
, 
xylachyron
, 
angareia
, 
psomozemia
, as well as from
 
the fee due for importing salt from elsewhere 
(
allotrion halas
).

---

331
In 1936 A. Solovjev and V. Mošin expressed reasonable doubts that Zographou act was an 
original signed by Stephen Dušan. Their most important argument was that Dušan’s signature 
differed significantly from the normal pattern of his Slavic signatures preserved in the Athonite 
archives and elsewhere. Nevertheless, in 1982 L. Mavrommatis supported the view that Zographou 
chrysobull was not a copy but an original. He explained the specific peculiarities of Dušan’s Slavic 
signature with the absence of Serbian literary tradition comparable to that of Byzantium, and 
pointed out that Dušan’s golden seal attached to the false 
Svodna Gramota 
or “Composite Charter” 
of Zographou might have been taken from Dušan’s act of April 1346. However, if we examine some 
of Dušan’s Slavic signatures available in other documents, it becomes clear that Mavrommatis’s 
conclusion about the act’s authenticity is, in fact, unsubstantiated.
What do we know of Stephen Dušan’s original Slavic signatures?
1. In 1331 Dušan granted to the city of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) a charter guaranteeing the right of its 
merchants to trade freely all over the territory of his kingdom. The original document is kept 
in the State Archives of Dubrovnik. The act and the royal signature are written in Serbian.
2. In 1334 Stephen Dušan subordinated the church of St. Nicholas at Dobrušta near Prizren to 
Chilandar. The donative charter is preserved in Chilandar, but it is uncertain if it is an original 
or a early copy. The act and the signature are written in Serbian.
3. In 1339 the Serbian king promulgated a chrysobull donating to Chilandar the monastery 
of St. Nicholas in the district of Mraka. The document is kept in Chilandar. It is of dubious 
authenticity and its editors underscore that in this act Dušan’s signature differs significantly 
from its normal type. The act and the signature are written in Serbian.
4. In 1340, Dušan donated to Chilandar the church of St. George and the village of Pološko. The 
donative charter is preserved in Chilandar, but is not clear if it is an original or a coeval copy. 
The act and the signature are written in Serbian.
5. In 1343 Dušan allowed the governor of the city of Strumitsa, a certain Rudl, to convey all his 
property to Chilandar. An ancient copy of this charter was once kept in Chilandar, but it is 
presently lost. The act and the signature were written in Serbian.
6. In April 1348 the Serbian tsar promulgated for Vatopedi a special confirmative chrysobull. In 
this charter the situation is exactly the same as in Zographou chrysobull “of April 1346” – the 
main text is in Greek, but Dušan’s signature is in Serbian.
7. In 1349 Stephen Dušan granted to the city of Ragusa a chrysobull which intended to normalize 
Serbia’s relations with Dubrovnik and its protector, the Republic of Venice. The act and the 
signature are written in Serbian.
8. In 1355 Dušan issued a chrysobull pertaining to the property of St. Peter Koriški which was 
claimed by Chilandar. Two coeval copies of this charter are kept in Chilandar, but their 
authenticity is dubious. The texts and the royal signatures are written in Serbian.
In the acts of 1331, 1334, 1339, 1340, 1343 and 1346 Dušan’s signatures are quite different 
from those in the acts of 1348 and 1349. This is must be due to the fact that the royal signatures in 
the documents of 1348 and 1349 seem to be the only authentic. The signatures of 1334, 1339, 1340, 
and 1343 are written in a decorative manner by a specialized scribe and not by the Serbian king in 

---

332
person. On the other hand, Dušan’s signatures in the chrysobulls of Vatopedi (1348) and Zographou 
(1346) contain some evident similarities that indicate that Zographou signature probably imitates 
the genuine signature of the Serbian ruler available in the Vatopedan charter. Analayzing Dušan’s 
signatures, one can easily figure out that they are always written with uncial letters of equal height 
which are positioned between two parallel horizontal lines. In Zographou chrysobull the letters are 
not of equal height and this detail additionally questions the authenticity of the document.
The principal argument proving that that Dušan’s chrysobull “of April 1346” is false is purely 
paleographical: this charter is written by the same hand which had copied an undoubtedly false Greek 
chrysobull, supposedly granted to Zographou by the Emperor John V in 1342. Consequently, Dusan’s 
chrysobull for Zographou could not be but a forgery. This conclusion is also supported by the content 
of Dusan’s act. Its second part copies verbatim the text of John V’s false document of 1342.