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.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
